>!£¦ Divinity Library QH3 C82JL lEfiism YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL MODERN CRITICISM CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. PRINTED BV MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND GO DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT. NEW YORK. SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. MODERN CRITICISM CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS (FIKST PRINTED 1752) THEIR GREEK VERSIQN NEWLY DISCOVERED IN ANTIOCHUS PALAESTINENSIS fflffttfr SppettBte CONTAINING NEWLY FOUND VERSIONS OF FRAGMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MELITO J. M. COTTEEILL AUTHOR OF l P15REGK1KUS PKOTKUS ' EDINBURGH T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 1884 [All Bights reserved.] Ifale Divinity Library PREFACE. The charge now brought against modern criticism, in its relation to Clement's Epistles to Virgins and certain Frag ments attributed to Melito, is simply that its exponents, though amply provided with the gifts and graces of scholarship and learning, have neglected to search for all possible evidence bearing upon the genuineness, authorship and antiquity of documents before proceeding to appeal to and expound them. If the author should be driven, in the interests of truth, to publish the remainder of his reply to the criticisms of the learned world upon Peregrinus Proteus} — or rather upon the author's denial therein of the antiquity of Clement's Epistles J to the Corinthians, — it will be necessary for him to repeat this ¦yi accusation and to produce his proofs. Modem Criticism and *\\ Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians, when written, must neces- ^ sarily have very much in common with Modern Criticism and Clement's Epistles to Virgins. The writer entertains a hope — a vain one, no doubt, if the past3 is any guide as to the future — that this reply may now be unnecessary, and that critics may be induced by the following pages to consider for themselves whether the commonly received opinions concerning Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians can be upheld in the face of facts which they will have no difficulty in discovering if they will trouble themselves to look for them. Poktobello, January 1884. 1 Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1879. 2 In this connection an interesting article, with the title "Literary Forgeries," in Oontemp. Rev., December 1883, is very suggestive. CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION, . . . 1 CHAPTER I.— External Testimony, . . 3 CHAPTER IL— Modern Criticism, . 58 CHAPTER III.— Conclusion, . . 93 APPENDIX A, . . 107 APPENDIX B, . 115 APPENDIX C, 127 INTRODUCTION. The answers of learned criticism to Peregrinus Proteus, pub lished in 1879, may be summed up under two heads. The volume, it was said, needs no real reply, because the position taken up by the writer requires that the almost universal opinion concerning Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians should be abandoned in favour of the theory that they are comparatively speaking late frauds, — a theory that cannot be maintained in the face of the fact that there are three MSS. of these Epistles of date prior to that of the alleged fraud which have been diligently examined and compared by a very sufficient scholar, who pronounces them to be everything that can be desired. In the next place, it was urged — modestly, of course, hinted rather than spoken out deliberately — that the way through the fields of early ecclesiastical literature is worn bare with the diligent feet of patient and laborious critics, and that it is therefore out of the question to suppose that anything new can have been discovered by the author of Peregrinus Proteus to damage in the least the credit of writings so highly esteemed as Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians, still less to prove that the learned world has fallen into an error so lamentable as to mistake somewhat modern frauds for veritable relics of antiquity. The great stumbling-block in the volume in question, was the fact that the author laid his rash hands on Clement's Epistles. It has happened to us, while preparing a rejoinder covering the whole ground taken up by critics so far as these Epistles are concerned, to make a discovery which has a rather im portant bearing upon the value of the objections urged against Peregrinus Proteus under the second head. As this discovery could not be made known, with convenience to ourselves, in the more elaborate rejoinder of which mention has been made, it is put forth now. A 2 INTRODUCTION. The discovery was made in this wise. In Dr. Lightfoot s edition of Clement's Epistles (1869, Appendix 1877) there will be found on p. 9 sq. — and wherever in the following pages this learned editor's remarks are quoted without mention of the volume in which they may be found, the reference will be to this work on Clement — a long list of witnesses to the esteem in which the First Epistle to the Corinthians was held in various ages of the Church from the earliest times to the twelfth century. We have been engaged in the work of cross-questioning these several witnesses. On p. 10 Dr. Lightfoot says, " Three false Clements also, who wrote during the second century, seem to have been acquainted with the genuine Epistle. The so-called Second Epistle to the Corinthians offers more than one parallel to this letter (see the notes on § 11 of the Second Epistle). The Epistles to Virgins also (see below, p. 14) seem to aim at reproducing the style of the true Clement by repeating his favourite words and expressions (see the parallels collected by Beelen, p. lx. sq.). And lastly, the Epistle of Clement to James, prefixed to the Clementine Homilies," etc. Farther on (p. 11) Dr. Lightfoot marks out the name of an author in an equally conspicuous manner. In this instance, however, the author is thus emphasized, in order that attention may be called to the fact that, in Dr. Lightfoot's opinion, Hilgenfeld was in error in supposing that the author named made use of Clement's Epistle, leaving the necessary inference to be drawn that the greatest possible care has been exercised both in the reception and in the exclusion of witnesses. It became our duty to examine these matters for ourselves. While doing so we discovered the oddest possible connection between the Epistles to Virgins above named and the author now referred to. It is this strange connection that we have to point out. In doing so we shall take leave to examine with care, and with more or less of completeness, the position at present assigned to these Epistles among the remains of ecclesiastical antiquity by the learned world. At the same time, a great many matters will be passed by which would need discussion if the present volume was intended to be, as it is not, a new edition of the Epistles to Virgins. CHAPTER I. External Testimony. The Epistles to Virgins are found in one MS. only, which is thus described by Dr. Lightfoot (p. 1 5) : — " It forms the second volume of a copy of the Syriac New Testa ment, bears the date 1781 (i.e. a.d. 1470), and was brought to Europe from Aleppo in the last century. It was written in Syiiac and Carshunic, and includes other books of the [New Testament besides those which have a place in the Peshito Canon. After the books comprised in this Canon, of which the Epistle to the Hebrews stands last, the scribe has added a doxology, and a long account of himself and the circumstances under which the MS. was written. Then follow in the same handwriting 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, from the Philoxenian version, and immediately after these in succession, ' The First Epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the Apostle,' and ' The Second Epistle of the same Clement: Thus the two Epistles on Virginity hold the same position in this late Syrian copy which is held by the two Epistles to the Corinthians in the ancient Greek MS." (Codex Alexandrinus). From the quasi-canonical position which these Epistles here occupy, it must be intended that we should infer that they were read in the churches, as Eusebius tells us was the case with the first of the two Epistles to the Corinthians. In the Syriac MS. known as S (a.d. 1170, exactly 300 years before that just described), the last-named Epistles are found in a position of " absolute equality with the canonical writ ings " (Light, p. 237). Out of this late MS. (a.d. 1470) the Epistles to Virgins were printed by Wetstein in 1752 as the genuine works of Clement of Rome. " They have found champions also," Dr. Lightfoot says (p. 1 5), " in their two latest editors, Villecourt (Paris 1853), whose preface and translation are reprinted 4 MODERN CRITICISM. with the text in Migne's Patrologia, i. p. 350 sq., and Beelen (Louvain 1856), whose edition is in all respects the most complete : and other Roman Catholic divines have in like manner held them to be genuine." Since Dr. Lightfoot wrote they have been edited by Funk, Op. Patr. Apost. vol. ii. (Tubingse 1881), in an improved translation, but without the text. This last edition tells all that is known concern ing them, but adds almost nothing to previous information. Indeed, all that has been discovered during the 130 years that they have been in print is the fact, accidentally ascer tained by Cureton (Corp. Ignat. pp. 212, 244, 354), that a Syriac MS. contains a passage quoted by Timotheus of Alex andria as from The First Epistle on Virginity by Clement bishop of Rome. This passage has one answering to it pretty nearly in Ep. i. 6. Epiphanius and Jerome say that Clement wrote letters in which he taught virginity. It has therefore been assumed that the Epistles to Virgins are those Letters with which Epiphanius and Jerome were acquainted. This assumption is supposed to be confirmed by the quotation which Cureton discovered in 1849. With the exception of this quotation, the evidence has been the very same for all critics from the earliest to the latest. They are, however, divided in opinion as to the authorship and date of the Epistles. Prejudice has had a good deal to do with this conflict of opinion, for while the teaching of these letters on virginity has been a stumbling-block to some critics, it has been that which has specially commended them to the favour able opinion of others. In dealing with these Epistles it will be convenient, in the first instance, to examine the external testimony, then to review the internal features on which critics have relied to prove the author, date, and country to which they ought to be assigned, and, finally, to make such further observations as occasion may require. The external testimony will be now discussed. Funk, as the latest editor, ought to be credited with having sifted to the bottom every shred of evidence advanced under this head. He gives, however, in his Prolegomena (p. ii.) a piece of information which is little short of astounding. He says " Denique notandum est, epistulas in ecclesia syriaca etiam CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 5 medio sevo lectas fuisse.. Ign. Ant. Samhiri, patriarcha Antiochise, anno 1855 I. Theodoro Beelen literis communi- cavit, eas omnibus scriptoribus Syris tarn antiquioribus quam recentioribus notas esse, veluti Gregorio Bar-Hebrseo, Moysi Bar-Cepha, Georgio, Dionysio Bar-Salibi et ceteris." So then the Epistles were known to all Syrian writers, both ancient and modern, and there must be, one would suppose, in those regions a perfect wealth of MSS. of all ages ; and yet Funk in 1881, twenty-six years after this fact was ascertained, is not able to produce one new MS., one new quotation, one new description by which the Epistles now in our hands can be identified, or one new fact. We are wrong ; there is possibly one. In a note to " ceteris " he writes " Cf. Beelen, I.e. p. liv. sqq. Dionysius Bar-Salibi (saec. xii.) inprimis mentionem facit epistulse Clementis Rom. adversus eos, qui matrimonium rejiciunt. Cf. Assemani, Bill. Orient, ii. p. 158." This quotation is not a new discovery, but the appli cation of it may possibly be. We are troubled to know the reason for the note. Does the editor mean the quotation to be in some sort an identification of our Epistles with that named by Bar-Salibi? If so, the following is the highest praise of marriage to be found in the Epistles. In Ep. i. 4, the writer says that they who decline the command to " increase and multiply," and set their desires on the hope promised and laid up in heaven by God, shall have a place in His house more excellent than those " qui in casto vixerint connubio et quorum torus fuerit immaculatus." Language of this kind hardly seems to satisfy the terms of the quotation produced by Funk, if he intends it as a mark of identification of our Epistles with those known to Bar-Salibi. But if this is not the object of the note, why is it given without any comment \ The quotation obviously suggests that Bar-Salibi had no knowledge of our Epistles, and that the other writers named by Funk had no more knowledge than Bar-Salibi. This is confirmed by the fact that the " communication " of which Funk makes so much has led to no new MSS., to nothing, in short, that can throw light upon the Epistles. On Bar-Salibi's statement, however, Dr. Lightfoot (writing in 1869) casts a certain light. Speaking of the various letters under the name of Clement, some still extant and some b MODERN CRITICISM. lost, he says (p. 22) "The Epistle of Clement, to which Dionysius Barsalibi alludes as written against those who reject matrimony (so he is reported by Assemani, Bibl. Orient. ii. p. 1 5 8), may have been one of these (lost letters) ; but as the First Epistle to James urges very strongly the importance of early marriages (§ 7), I am disposed to think that he referred to this." The testimony of all Syrian writers, both ancient and modern, seemingly amounts to nothing. The matter would indeed not have been worth noticing at all if Funk's action were not in some sort typical of the rash and hasty way in which external testimony to documents is too commonly provided. Here is an A.D. 1470 MS. — like the' celebrated phoenix, " sole of its kind " — which contains Epistles of Clement. It is in Syriac. It is reported that Syrian writers speak of Epistles of Clement. It is at once assumed that the Epistles are the same. The testimony is transferred: to the Prolegomena, and duly marshalled along with whatever else can be scraped together. It was an important addition, doubtless, a whole armful of writers of all ages added to the three (only) other testimonies. Testimonies should be weighed, not counted, as the manner of some is. The foregoing remarks apply with hardly less force to other testimonies which have to be examined, namely, those of Epiphanius and Jerome. In 1752 Wetstein printed the Epistles of Virgins, concluding them to be the genuine works of Clement bishop of Rome. Let us think calmly for a moment as to the real meaning of that which he did. There are found in Migne's edition of the works of Clement — -JEpistolse ad Corinthios 2, Epistolae Decretales 5, Consti- tutiones Apostolicse 8, (a considerable volume), Recognitiones 10 (do.), Epistola Clementis ad Jacobum, Homiliae 24 (again a considerable volume), Epitome de gestis S. Petri, Liturgia. Of this vast mass of documents under the name of Clement one only, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, is commonly counted genuine. While in the full knowledge of these circumstances, some fresh claimants to Clementine honours came into Wetstein's hands in the shape of two Epistles. The MS. containing them was dated as late as a.d. 1470. The Epistles were on virginity. He turned to Eusebius, the first authority in such matters, and found no mention of them. CLEMENT S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 7 He turned next to Jerome, and found that this the second great authority speaks, like Philip of old, with an uncertain voice. When Jerome soberly discusses Clement and his writings, he is as silent as Eusebius as to these new Epistles ; but in a certain work against Jovinianus, he mentions two Epistles under the name of Clement, nearly the whole teaching of which is, he says, upon virginity. Wetstein cast about for further information, and found that Epiphanius mentions two Epistles in which, he says, Clement teaches virginity, and speaks of prophets, — a description which applies to the Epistles to Virgins. But Wetstein found also that Epiphanius describes the Epistles as read in the churches, — a curious fact, since the only Clementine Letter elsewhere so described is the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Wetstein's A.D. 1470 MS., how ever, from the position assigned in it to the Epistles to Virgins, leaves it to be inferred that at that time, that is to say, one thousand years and more after the times of Epiphanius, they were so read. Having possessed himself of this evidence, which told just as much against the Epistles to Virgins as in their favour, Wetstein then and there, without taking any trouble to examine the matter more completely, printed the Epistles as the genuine writings of Clement of Rome, citing Epiphanius and Jerome as witnesses to their authenticity. If lawyers and bank-clerks acted in this reckless way, forgery would be the very best of trades. From Wetstein the Epistles passed into the hands of the learned world. Editors and critics commented upon them ; they followed in his wake, and duly cited Epiphanius and Jerome; they pressed the Epistles into the service of the Church, and pointed to quotations in them as the earliest instances of the use of certain Epistles of the New Testament ; they used them to illustrate church life in the second century. And all alike were studious in their imitation of Wetstein's want of diligence and recklessness of belief. No one of them all, from first to last, for whatever purpose he wanted to use these Epistles, ever attempted to find out anything more about them than he could gather by the cheap and easy process of reading them through, and comparing comments made upon them by preceding critics as little diligent as himself. We are simply describing facts. There is not the smallest diffi- 8 MODERN CRITICISM. culty in finding what may be fairly called a Greek version of the greater part of these Epistles to Virgins. Dr. Lightfoot, it will be remembered, claims the author of these Epistles as a witness in the second century to Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians. He thinks that this writer imitated the genuine Clement's expressions. In other words, Dr. Lightfoot concludes that the genuine Epistle left a reliable mark of use upon the literature of the second century. The principle is a reasonable one, and one upon which we put a high value. Any writing which has a great currency will leave its mark upon succeeding literature. A little caution, however, is necessary, lest the hand of the copyist should be mistaken for the original author, for a late author must of necessity be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the authors who precede him. In the same place as the writer of the Epistles to Virgins is claimed by Dr. Lightfoot as a witness to Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, this editor says " Early in the third century Peter of Alexandria in his account of the Apostles Peter and Paul treads closely in the footsteps of Clement (§ 5)." The same principle as before is here applied. This application reminds us that, if further light is desired upon a document which is in great measure unknown, it is an excellent plan to take, as a starting-point, any noteworthy statement that that document may contain respecting persons such as the Apostles Peter and Paul and others. If we do this with the Epistles to Virgins a great light upon them may immediately be found. In Ep. i. 6 are noticeable statements concerning John Baptist, John the be loved disciple, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Elias, and Elisha. These statements are prefaced by the quotation which Cureton found in his Syriac MS. Taking this as a starting-point, we may reach all we want to find in several different ways. Since Funk's edition has been in our hands, which we obtained when we wanted to know whether he had made the same discovery as ourselves, we have observed a very interesting sequence of references which will take our readers to the Greek original of Ep. i. 6. On the statements respecting John Baptist, etc., Funk refers us to " pseudo-Ignat. ad Philad. 4." Turning, still in this editor's volume, to Philad. 4, we find some statements (e.g. as to Timothy) corresponding to those in CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 9 the Epistle, and one concerning S. Paul which is contradictory. On this Funk quotes a note of Cotelier's. Turning to Cotelier (Pair. Apost. ii. Philad. 4) we find this note upon S. Paul, and, a little above it, another on Timothy, which refers the reader to Antiochus Horn. 112, and yet another note on Elias (also named in Ep. i. 6), which refers to Antiochus Horn. 21. In these two homilies Ep. i. 6 will be found. So then if Funk had expended a little diligence upon the authorities to which he refers his readers, he would have saved himself the trouble of entirely rewriting his edition of the Epistles to Virgins, which he must do if it is to be of the smallest value. Antiochus Palsestinensis is, however, the author referred to above (p. 2), as placed in Dr. Lightfoot's Veterum Testi- monia to Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, along ¦with the author of the Epistles to Virgins, the one because he is not, and the other because he is a reliable witness. Yet the one is the alter ego of the other. A more delightful example of incuriousness could not easily be found. The question whether Antiochus copied from the Greek version of our Epistles, or the author of these Epistles from Antiochus, does not affect this fact. In either case the incuriousness is the same. The external testimony, therefore, must be enriched by the addition of the name of Antiochus Palsestinensis. These things have been pointed out plainly, perhaps sharply, because it is necessary to make it evident at the outset that the Epistles to Virgins have been admitted t'o their place in the ranks of antiquity, and diligently discussed, without any pains whatever having been taken to find the evidence by which that position can be ascertained with any certainty. In proceeding to examine the statements of Epiphanius and Jerome — to cross-question these witnesses, so to say — attention must be directed to a point which apparently has been overlooked. If the Epistles to Virgins were in the style of the Apostolic Constitutions or of the Clementine Homilies, there would be at once a reason for supposing that they belonged to the same family, and so an a priori argument for concluding that Epiphanius and Jerome, when they mention Epistles of Clement that teach virginity, refer to those in our hands. If, again, these Epistles were in the style of the Forged Decretals, an a priori argument would lie that they 10 MODERN CRITICISM. can be no earlier than the times of these later forgeries. But the author of these Epistles is separated by a yawning gulf from the authors of the earlier and later forgeries alike. His letters are nearer, far nearer, to the First Epistle to the Corinthians than to any other of the Clementine writings. His Epistles resemble that to the Corinthians in the absence of the characteristic " Ego Clemens ; " in the impartiality shown in dealings with SS. Peter and Paul ; in the, generally speaking, moderation of statement ; for if there are one or two- extravagances in the one, so also are there in the other. But the general resemblance is certainly not so close as to suggest a common authorship. What should a critic do in such a case ? Certainly he will not content himself with reading' the Epistles through once or twice, and with trying to deter mine the date out of the contents, for this would be only to- deliver himself into the power of the author who, if not Clement, is a forger who will probably have laid traps for the feet of the unwary. A critic who is worthy of the name will,. in our opinion, in a case like this suspend his judgment until he knows somewhat more. He will examine the language of Epiphanius and Jerome without prejudice or favour, and while he carefully notes the way in which the language of these Fathers, in their descriptions of the Epistles known to them,. corresponds with our Epistles, he will consider also whether there is anything which these witnesses might, under the circumstances, be fairly expected to have said, but have not said. He will consider, in short, whether there is, or is not, anything to give rise to a surmise that the writer of the Epistles had his eyes on Epiphanius and Jerome. Knowing that he has to do with one of a host of writings under Clement's name, all but one of which are allowed on almost all hands to be spurious, he will, in the case of these Epistles,. assume neither truth nor falsehood, but simply carry into his- investigations those principles of common caution which prevail in courts of law, and indeed in all transactions between man and man in common life. Some of our readers may perhaps ask here whether there is any proved instance in which a falsarius has deliberately taken words from an ancient author which, when found in his own writing, might lead the unwary reader to ascribe a false Clement's epistles to virgins. 1 1 date to that writing. We might answer that Dr. Lightfoot's contention that the author of these very Epistles to Virgins imitated the expressions of the genuine Clement concedes the whole question. But we have a sufficient illustration at hand, one well known in the learned world, though at present but little heeded. In Corp. Ignat. p. 340 Cureton points out that pseudo- Ignatius begins his Letter to the Antiochians in the words of another Letter, also to the Antiochians, but by Alexander of Jerusalem. The words of Alexander are pre served by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 11). An attentive reader will see proofs in Eusebius' context that pseudo-Ignatius suffered his eyes to rest too long upon the neighbourhood in which he found Alexander's opening words. It is needless to produce these, for it is allowed on all hands that the contents of the Letter prove that its writer was the copyist. But if he had only made the rest of the Letter answerable to the beginning, the coincidence of language with Alexander would be quoted to-day by critics as an unanswerable proof of genuineness. Alexander, it would be said, as was natural, addressed the Church at Antioch in the language of its own dearly beloved Ignatius, while the genuineness of the Letter of Alexander, it would be added, is guaranteed by the authority of Eusebius. But the Letter in question would be none the less a forgery. Will any one be so simple as to believe that that kind of forger's device began and ended with pseudo-Ignatius, or as not to see that the quotations and allusions scattered up and down the pages of Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and other authors may be like fingerposts to the literary forger, directing him perhaps to a title to his work, or else to ways and means of giving verisimilitude to that work. A falsarius cannot otherwise be met than by the exercise of that reasonable suspicion by which frauds in common life are detected. The Epistles to Virgins may have been written by a falsarius, consequently a critic is bound, that is, if he would be safe, to scrutinize the, supposed testimonies to them in the pages of Epiphanius and Jerome with as much care as if he was quite sure that the writer of the Epistles was of that stamp. Wetstein did not take this course, which common sense suggests, and though one hundred and thirty years have passed by since he printed them, the work has still to be done. 12 MODERN CRITICISM. The language of Epiphanius is as follows : — "Sunt et alii libri quibus utuntur, velut Petri Circuitus a Cle- mente conscripti (t/ua£et) ; Ebionitae detestantur. Quare in Circuitibus istis suum ad institutum accommodarunt omnia, ac de Petro plurima mendacia confinxerunt. Cujusmodi est inter caetera, quotidie ilium castimonise causa lavisse, quod isti facere consueverunt. Turn ab animatis omnibus et carnibus, reliquoque omni, quod came constet abstinuisse," etc. — Host. xxx. 15, p. 139. The words of Jerome are these : — "Simulque tractanda sententia: Qui se, inquit, castraverunt propter regna coslorum. . . . Qui potest, inquit, capere, capiat. Grandis fidei est, grandisque virtutes, Dei templum esse purissimum, totum se holocaustum offerre Domino ; et juxta eumdem Apostolum, esse sanctum et corpore et spiritu. Hi sunt eunuchi, qui se lignum aridum ob sterilitatem putantes, audiunt per Isaiam (lvi. 4, 5), quod pro filiis et filiabus locum in coelis habeant paratum. Horum typus est . . . et spado ille reginee Candacis in Actis Apostolorum, qui ob robur fidei, viri nomen obtirmit. Ad hos et Clemens successor Apostoli Petri, eujus Paulus Apostolus meminit, scribit Epistolas, omnemque pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexit." — Adv. Jovin. i. 12, p. 258. The Epistles to Virgins as they stand in the MS. answer exactly to the statements of Epiphanius and Jerome. The First Epistle is headed " Epistula Prior Beati dementis Discipuli Petri (Jerome) Apostoli." It begins thus : — " Omnibus (Epiphanius' encyclical letters) . . . [fratribus] virgini- bus beatis, qui dedunt se servandee virginitati propter regnum cmlorum (Jerome), et [sororibus] virginibus sacris ea quae in Deo est pax. Unicuique virginum [fratrum aut sororum], qui vere statue- runt servare virginitatem propter regnum cmlorum (Jerome) necessarium est ccelorum regno usquequaque dignum esse. Neque enim aut eloquentia aut fama, aut conditione et prosapia, aut formo^ sitate aut robore aut diuturno tempore regnum ccelorum obtinetur • verum obtinetur illud fidei (see Jerome) efficacia, ubi quis opera fidei ostendit. Scilicet qui revera pius est, ejus opera de fide ipsius testan- tur, quod verus sit fidelis, fide magna, fide perfecta, fide in Deo fide quae luceat in bonis operibus, ut omnium pater per Christum glorificetur." CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 13 Isa. lvi. 4, 5 is used in i. 4, as Funk points out, followed immediately by the use of 1 Cor. vii. 34 sollicita est, quomodo pqssit Domino suo placere easto corpore et spiritu which in Jerome precedes Isa. lvi. 4, 5. With Epiphanius the author speaks of Elias in i. 6, of David in ii. 10, of Samson in ii. 9, and lumps together (Micham) omnesque prophetas in ii. 14; he tells no lies about S. Peter, for he does not mention the apostle's name in the body of the Epistles ; he speaks of washing, but, save of the feet, makes no point of it ; he mentions as food, bread and water, but adds " aut id, quod Deus prseparaverit." The Epistles are found in the Syriac MS. of 1470 in the same quasi-canonical position as Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians in the Codex Alexandrinus (vid. sup. p. 3). The inference is that they were at one time read in the holy churches, as Epiphanius declares. The one subject from beginning to the extreme end is on virginity, as Jerome informs us. They close with " Quod superest, valete in Domino et gaudete in Domino omnes sancti," etc., showing that from first to last they are ency clical letters, according to the statement of Epiphanius. Last of all, the eye of the reader rests on " Explicit epistula secunda Clementis discipuli Petri" (Jerome). Nor should it be forgotten that the text which Jerome glances at when he says " Cujus Paulus Apostolus meminit " is used in Ep. i. 6 " Paulus . . . cum reliquis aliis quorum nomina scripta sunt in libro vitce," where the apostle's compliment is gracefully returned (vid. inf. p. 30). There can be no question here as to the fact that the language of Epiphanius and Jerome, taken together, very accurately describes the contents of these Epistles to Virgins. It might be called a succinct summary of their contents. The exceeding accuracy of it is quite surprising. Can any thing be more curious than to find that the praise which Epiphanius says that Clement bestowed upon "all the prophets," amounts to no more than the repetition of the phrase " omnesque prophetas " ? We are aware that an attempt is made sometimes to water down the meaning of iy/ewfjudZei,, but the attempt shows a difficulty, and that the word has to be explained by the contents of the Epistles, not 14 MODERN CRITICISM. by its customary usage. As one reads the language and con text of both Fathers, and compares them with the Epistles as they stand in the MS., it is difficult to escape from the feeling that these documents, so to speak, protest too loudly their authenticity. 1. The language of Epiphanius must, however, be examined more closely. There is a difficulty in the way of accepting our Epistles as those known to this Father, which, so far as we have observed, has never been pointed out, however much it may have been felt, and from which we see no way of escape. The persons against whom Epiphanius, in the passage quoted above, was contending were the Ebionites. They did not admit virginity, and they abominated the prophets, and they used books under the name of Clement to support their errors. Epiphanius turned against them their own chosen authority. Clement, he said, in acknowledged books taught virginity and praised all the prophets. So far well; but if there was one thing for which, above all, the Ebionites were notorious it was their hatred of S. Paul and his Epistles. How then does it come to pass that Epiphanius does not here throw in at least the name of S. Paul along with the prophets even if he added nothing more ? The commenda tion bestowed upon S. Paul by our writer in Ep. i. 6 is greater than that upon all the prophets. Besides, as Dr. Westcott points out (Canon p. 183 sq), our writer quotes all or nearly all the Epistles of S. Paul. It would have been easy for Epiphanius to have added " Paul and all his Epistles." It cannot be urged that Epiphanius had not this hatred of the Ebionites in his mind at the time of writing, because he had. He could not speak of more than one thing at a time, but as soon as ever he had finished the special point in hand, at the bottom of the very same column in Migne (§ 16, p. 140), he begins upon the scurrilous animosity entertained by the Ebionites against the Apostle Paul. We cannot suppose that Epiphanius thought it to be less a fault to reject S. Paul and half the books of the New Testa ment, than to reject virginity and the prophets of the Old Testament. Yet if he was acquainted with our Epistles he quoted their authority against the lesser error but not against CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 15 the greater, though at the moment of writing the one error was as much in his mind as the other. We suppose every one must admit that the natural inference to be drawn from this fact is that Epiphanius had no knowledge of our Epistles, and that the resemblance which is seen between his language and our Epistles must have some other explanation than that he knew them. It may be urged, indeed, that Epiphanius does not quote Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians against the Ebionites. This is true of course, but then the reason for his not doing so is clear and sufficient, and the same which we have suggested as his reason for not quoting •our Epistles against them in the case of S. Paul. He had no first-hand knowledge of the Epistles to the Corinthians. In Hmr. xxvii. 6 (p. 107) he quotes indeed a few words which he says could be found in one of Clement's Epistles (ev fiia tcov &Tua-To\cXio<;, Epiphanius would remind the Ebionites that the Epistles had become iy/cv/cXiot, by common usage, and therefore it was that he added t£>v ev tos?? d^t'at? e/etfA^crtat? avayt,vcocricop.4va>v by way of explanation. In the words just quoted — " read in the holy churches " — there lies an objection to the supposition that Epiphanius in his language refers to our Epistles, that no critic has been able to explain away.1 Eusebius and after him Jerome inform us that the First Epistle to the Corinthians was so read ; but there is no other Clementine Letter of which this is said. We can understand that Epiphanius, if he had no personal knowledge of the Epistles to the Corinthians, and if they were associated together at that time in the same volume and in men's mouths, might speak of the two as read in the 1 Dr. Lightfoot feels the difficulty, but sees in it only the fitting opportunity for the exercise of an. expositor's skill. "The reading would probably he con fined to a few congregations in Syria and Palestine. But it is possible that he carelessly repeats a notice which he had read elsewhere, and which in his original authority referred not to these, but to the two Epistles to the Corinth ians."— P. 17. B 18 MODERN CRITICISM. churches, or that it might be even strictly true that the two Epistles had become so closely connected together that they were even so read. But it seems impossible to believe that his statement should be true of any other Epistles, while still no mention of such a practice can be found. It must be observed that no appeal lies here to the 1470 MS., although, as has been pointed out above, in this MS. the position of the Epistles suggests that a thousand years after Epiphanius' time they were so read. There is no appeal, for a reason that the most of our readers will accept : the Syriac MS. known as S, dated a.d. 11 70, and therefore earlier by 300 years, shows that both the Epistles to the Corinthians were read in church, and even supplies the Iectionary that was used. Then in Cod. Alex, (fifth century, or 900 years earlier) the Epistles to the Corinthians hold exactly the same position as the Epistles to Virgins .in the a.d. 1470 MS. The theory, there fore, that the Epistles to the Corinthians were both of them read in church in Epiphanius' day has evidence in support of it which is absolutely , overwhelming as compared with anything that can be urged in favour of the Epistles to Virgins. The expression, therefore, "read in the churches," must be held to describe the Epistles to the Corinthians. We do not, however, think that the words " read in the churches " need' be pressed so rigorously as to apply to the one Epistle as much as to the other. The two Epistles to the Corinthians were associated together, they were both called by the name of Clement ; and in course of time this association produced its natural result, and they were both alike con cluded to be from his pen. Epiphanius might well speak of the two as men usually spoke, without meaning to pledge his credit that what was exactly true of one was equally true of the other. The examination of the language of Epiphanius (H~cer. xxx. 15) thus leads us to conclude that this Father had no know ledge of the Epistles to Virgins now in our hands, but refers to the Epistles to the Corinthians, to which he also refers elsewhere. This conclusion is supported by the fact that he describes these Epistles as eyxv/cXioi, which again he explains by the further description that they were " read in the holy churches." CLEMENTS EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 19 2. The language of Jerome has now to be considered (vid. sup. p. 12). This will be sufficiently recalled to memory by the following words : — " To Jerome also these Epistles were known. He must be referring to them when he writes (adv. Jovin. i. 12, ii. p. 257), 'Ad hos (i.e. eunuchos) et Clemens successor Apostoli Petri, cujus Paulus Apostolus meminit, scribit epistolas, omnemque fere sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexit'" (Light, p. 16). The italics show that Dr. Light foot was caught by the accuracy of the description. Why Jerome did not give the title for the information of his readers and of posterity, and which would have made the description unnecessary, Dr. Lightfoot does not say. Of course, if Jerome was referring to the well-known (at least by reputation) Epistles to the Corinthians, the reason for omitting the title and giving the description is self-evident. Dr. Lightfoot proceeds — and, in view of the fact that he is assuming the antiquity of our Epistles in simple reliance upon the remarks of Epiphanius and Jerome concerning untitled Clementine Letters, in singularly euphemistic language — thus : — On the other hand, it is strange that in his Catalogue of Christian Writers (§ 15) he mentions only the two Epistles to the Corinthians. Here, indeed, as in other parts of this treatise, he copies Eusebius implicitly ; but as he proffers his own opinion (" quae mihi videtur ") of the resemblance between the First Epistle of Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews (though even this opinion exactly coincides with the statement of Eusebius), and as moreover in several other passages he quotes from the genuine letter (in Is. Iii. 13, iv. p. 612; ad Ephes. ii. 2, vii. p. 571 ; ad Ephes. iv. 1, vii. p. 606), it is most probable that he had himself read it. The quotations, if they had stood alone, he might possibly have borrowed from earlier commen tators. Epiphanius was intimately connected with Syria and Palestine, and Jerome spent some time there. Both these fathers therefore would have means of acquainting themselves with books circulated in these Churches. As regards the latter, we must suppose that he first became acquainted with the Epistles to Virgins in the not very long interval between the publication of the Catalogue and of the work against Jovinianus ; and, as this interval was spent at Beth lehem, the supposition is reasonable. The alternative is, that in writing against Jovinianus he for polemical purposes assumed the genuineness of these Clementine letters, which he had silently ignored a year or two before. — P. 16 sq. A falsarius would desire nothing so much for the success of his flctum pro antiquo as that it should pass 20 MODERN CRITICISM. into the hands of a learned man possessed of a belief in its antiquity. The fact that his learning can supply an answer to a difficulty will the more persuade him that the work is ancient. If his eyes are not blinded by the falsarius, he will effectually blind them for himself. A man of less learning would in this case say that the difficulty pointed out is one to be fairly met and examined, and not to be jauntily dismissed with a solution which, if true, admits of the easiest verification. But to the school of criticism to which this critic belongs a difficulty of this kind only means something for learning to explain away. No objection can be fairly taken to these remarks, inasmuch as the silence of Jerome in his Catalogue, so far from being the only circumstance which tells against the Epistles to Virgins, is only of a piece with the difficulties with which the whole external testimony bristles. Eusebius, who, if any one, should have known some thing of these Epistles, is quite silent. Epiphanius, if in one part of his remarks he seems to describe them, in another part, when he says that they were read in the churches, seems rather to have the Epistles to the Corinthians in view. The MS. in which alone the Epistles are found is as late as a.d. 1470. The difficulty, therefore, which is caused by the silence of Jerome in his Catalogue is substantial. Under these circumstances one would have expected that Dr. Light foot, in giving his proposed solution, would have added at least one short sentence to say that he had carefully examined the writings of Jerome with a view to the verification of his conjecture, and that his readers might rely upon it that nothing could be found in these writings, and specially in those written prior to the Catalogue, to militate against his proposed solution of the difficulty. But Dr. Lightfoot does not venture on any such assurance. Now, if Dr. Lightfoot had examined Jerome's work against Jovinianus he would have found that, whilst Jerome is supposed in § 1 2 to mention the Epistles to Virgins, in § 2 6 (vid. inf. p. 30) he refers Jovinianus expressly to the Catalogue (§ 9) which, as Dr. Lightfoot points out, discusses the Epistles of Clement in § 15, without mention of the Epistles to Viro-ins. This fact effectually disposes of Dr. Lightfoot's solution. For even if we suppose Jerome to have been a knave, as we must CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 21 if we adopt Dr. Lightfoot's alternative, no one will believe that he was such a downright simpleton as to refer Jovinianus and all other readers to the very book, and to the very part of that book, which would at once expose his duplicity. It must be further observed that in the very section in which Jerome refers to the Catalogue he quotes (vid. inf. p. 29 sq.) the JJepioSoi, the book mentioned by Epiphanius (vid. sup. p. 12). Thus, then, while in the act of referring to the Catalogue, he had in his mind writings current in the Church under the name of Clement. Under such circumstances it was impossible for him to forget that he had shortly before appealed to certain Epistles of Clement as of authority against the teaching of Jovinianus. It seems therefore incredible that the Clementine Letters appealed to were the Epistles to Virgins, unless a further charge of thorough-going literary rascality be brought against Jerome, which no one is justified in making against such a conspicuous Father in the Church, unless he can at the same time give the plainest evidence of its truth. There is no description of the contents of the Clementine Letters mentioned by Jerome in his Catalogue. One of them was addressed, he says, to the Church at Corinth, and the language bore some resemblance to the Epistle to the Hebrews. But what the subject of this Epistle was he does not say. He says further that there was a second Epistle, but that it was rejected by the ancients. It has been pointed out above (p. 16), and what was said there need not be repeated, that these two Epistles were commonly known in the Church as Clement's Epistles. They were associated together, and spoken of together, while still one only was reckoned as genuine. Just as Dr. Lightfoot has " the Epistles of S. Clement " both inside and outside his edition, or as Dr. Jacobson has " S. Clementis Romani, S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi Patrum Apostolicorum Quse Supersunt," and even " S. Clementis Epistola II," while still both these editors deny that the Second Epistle was written by Clement. It is doubtful, as Dr. Lightfoot allows, whether Jerome had any personal knowledge of these Epistles, and it is highly improbable that the readers of his work against Jovinianus had as much knowledge of them even as Jerome. What 22 MODERN CRITICISM. other conclusion then could they draw from his appeal in that work to Epistles of Clement followed presently by a reference (without explanation) to the Catalogue in which the Epistles of Clement are described, than that the Epistles were the same ? It is no objection to this that in the Catalogue the Second Epistle is rejected. The IlepioBot, was spoken of by Epiphanius as " written by Clement," and though Jerome does not in adv. Jovin. 26 give Clement's name, yet in adv. Galat. i. 18 (p. 394), speaking of S. Peter, he says, "an (ut Clemens in Periodis ejus refert) calvitiem haberet in capite." He does not thereby recognise the book as Clement's genuine work. He gives the statement for what it was worth, using the name of Clement as every one else did. The book itself would seem to be the same as the " Disputatio Petri et Appionis longo sermone conscripta," which Jerome, taking the title from Eusebius, expressly rejects from among Clement's genuine works. The readers of Jerome's work against Jovinianus, unless far better informed than we have any reason for supposing, could not fail to conclude that the Epistles named in that work were the Epistles described in the Catalogue. Now it may be said that this was exactly what Jerome desired ; that he first of all appealed, to the Epistles to Virgins as Clement's well knowing them to be spurious, and then deliberately referred his readers to the Catalogue, that they might conclude, if their eyes chanced to turn in that direction as they could hardly fail to do, from § 15 that the Epistles referred to were the Epistles well known by reputa tion — the Epistles to the Corinthians. Jovinianus would hear with dismay, and the supporters of Jerome with joy, that these Clementine Letters had a great deal to say upon the question of virginity. This view of the question, no doubt, saves the reputation of Jerome as a polemical controversialist. He was not so foolish as first to use documents " polemically," and then to refer his opponents to a book of his own which would put it into their power to describe the transaction in less euphemistic language. But the gain to his controversial reputation is at the expense of his character as an honest man. If Jerome did this — and if Dr. Lightfoot's alternative is adopted he did do it — it was, as we have said, a piece of CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 23 thorough-going literary rascality, which would justify any amount of strong language. But we have no right to say or believe this concerning Jerome so long as the saying it, or believing it, is required for one purpose only, viz. to support the theory that he was acquainted with the Epistles to Virgins now in our hands. Dr. Lightfoot's " alternative, that in writing against Jovinianus, Jerome for polemical purposes assumed the genuineness of these Clementine Letters which he had silently ignored a year or two before," may be dismissed once for all, and ought never to have been suggested, because five minutes' study of Jerome's work against Jovinianus suffices to show its unreasonableness. It must be further observed, however, that the situation is not very materially altered, if we suppose that Jerome in adv. Jovin. 12 refers in all honesty of purpose to the Epistles to Virgins. The fact remains that in § 26, where he has writings under the name of Clement distinctly in his mind, he refers his readers to the Catalogue, and to the neighbour hood of that section of it in which the writings of Clement are discussed, and in which only the so-called Epistles to the Corinthians are mentioned. He could not forget what he had written in § 12, nor yet his silence in the Catalogue. The thought must have crossed his mind, What will Jovinianus and my other readers think ? A single sentence in § 26 would have sufficed to explain that these inestimable Letters had come into his hands quite lately, during his visit to Bethlehem. But he is silent. Let us suppose Dr. Lightfoot to spend a summer holiday at Bethlehem, and to bring back with him two Epistles explain ing in the clearest manner, and exactly in accordance with his own views, the method of church government instituted by Christ and His apostles, Epistles fully believed by him to be the genuine work of Clement of Rome. Would he, in a note to 7rpeo-/3vTepmv in Ignat. Magn. 6, say simply, " to these (the presbyters) S. Clement, the celebrated bishop of Rome, wrote letters in which he fully expounded all things concern ing them " ? Would he a page or two farther on, while still writing controversially upon church government, without a word of explanation refer his readers to the Prolegomena to his edition of Clement, from which they would learn that at 24 MODERN CRITICISM. the time of writing those Prolegomena he had no knowledge whatever of any Epistles on church government from the pen of Clement ? And the explanation which he did not give at that particular point would he withhold to the day of his death ? Would he, while dealing again and again with the question of church government in published writings, never again refer to an authority which he believed to be absolutely conclusive in such a matter ? Would he, when instructing young men as to what books on church government it would be well for them to read, pass these inestimable Letters by in silence ? Would he keep so tight a hold upon these precious documents as to make it impossible for future generations to find in one of his contemporaries or in any later writer any mention of these Epistles ? Only one answer is possible to these questions. No reason can be given why Jerome should act less like a reasonable being. We may be quite sure that if Dr. Lightfoot's solution — the visit to Bethlehem — is the true explanation of Jerome's silence as to the Epistles to Virgins in his Catalogue § 15, that he would have given that explanation in adv. Jovin. 26, and not have exposed himself either to the cavils of Jovinianus or the questionings of his own adherents. Dr. Lightfoot may say, perhaps, that he never observed the reference to the Catalogue in adv. Jovin. 26. We can well believe it. This is the very thing of which we complain. He starts the difficulty which Jerome's silence as to our Epistles in his Catalogue raises, and propounds a solution which apparently he does not take the smallest trouble to verify. If he had read the work against Jovinianus, and other writings of Jerome, with a view to verification, he would have found not a few things besides the reference to the Catalogue which make his proposed solution of the difficulty quite impossible. There is one explanation of Jerome's mention of Epistles of Clement in his work against Jovinianus, and again his silence in his Catalogue as to any other Epistles than those known as the Epistles to the Corinthians, and one only which will stand examination, and which will at the same time preserve Jerome's character for honesty and good sense. Neither Jerome nor Jovinianus, nor any other reader of Jerome's works, knew of any other Epistles under the name of Clement CLEMENTS EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 25 than those to the Corinthians. Jerome knew nothing of the Epistles to Virgins. Of this plenty of proof will be ad vanced directly. He had no first - hand knowledge of the Epistles to the Corinthians. This is not the fitting oppor tunity for the full discussion of this point, but one or two remarks may perhaps be allowed, and which possibly may prove sufficient. Dr. Lightfoot's only reason for supposing that Jerome had a, personal knowledge of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, is the presence in his description of it of the words " Quse mihi videtur" (vid. sup. p. 19). What a sermon might be preached on this text ! One wonders how often one has heard the words from the lips of men who never in their lives read one line in the original pages of the Fathers, who, as they say, " seem to them " to support their views ; and not one line out ¦of these pages which, if read, would tend to modify those views. " Quse mihi videtur " is a phrase largely discounted in common life. It represents not uncommonly a second-hand ^opinion, and indicates that a man has read the morning paper, Liberal or Tory, as the case may be. " Quse mihi videtur " has been said again and again by learned critics concerning these same Epistles to Virgins, and Dr. Lightfoot says it of his solution of Jerome's silence ; but it does not even in the least bear witness to independent knowledge and research on the part of those who so say. And the phrase means as much or as little in the mouth of Jerome. When, as in the case before us, it is combined with " implicit copying " of the statements of Eusebius, it means that it seems so to Jerome, because it first of all seemed so to Eusebius. When there is no such copying, then it expresses either Jerome's independent opinion, or else that of some other person than Eusebius. Thus in § 25 Jerome gives an account of Theophilus and his writings. In the first part of his account he leans on Eusebius, in the latter part he speaks of writings of which Eusebius says nothing ; and he has the phrase, " Qui mihi non videntur," but he prefaces the remark with "Legi sub nomine ejus," etc. In § 2 he has a " mihi videtur," but it is the expression only -of a pious opinion as to a matter on which no amount of research could throw any light. The value of Jerome's " mihi," or of the editorial " nos," 26 MODERN CRITICISM. may be tested out of § 45 concerning Polycrates. Jerome quotes a long passage, which he prefaces with " hsec pauca excerpsimus." At the close he adds " Haec propterea posui, ut ingenium et auctoritatem viri ex parvo opusculo demon- strarem." If Jerome's language here is to be strictly pressed, it means that he knew the work, and copied the extract out of it. He nevertheless took it from Eusebius, as he did all his quotations. The comparison of this book of Jerome's with Eusebius brings to light some curious and even amusing things. Thus when Eusebius thought it proper to say that a certain work had survived to his own time, Jerome evidently thought that this was an excellent reason for supposing that it had survived a little longer, for he repeats the remark. But there is an interesting exception. In § 29 Jerome speaks- of Tatian. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 29) describes the Diatessaron, and says that it was in the hands of some even in his day. Jerome omits all mention of it. The reason would appear- to be found in the fact (if a note in Heinichen may be- trusted) that Rufinus referred the whole passage to Irenseus,. quoted by Eusebius immediately above. It does not follow that Jerome used Rufinus' translation, for the little word that caused Rufinus to err may in like manner have misled Jerome, who would think that survival of a work in the days- of Irenseus would not necessarily argue a survival in his own. In § 38 Jerome gives an account of Clement of Alexandria,. borrowed from Eusebius (LT. E. vi. 13). He says " Meminit autem in Stromatibus suis, voluminis Tatiani adversus Gentes, de quo supra diximus, et Casiani cujusdam %povoy patylas." So- far he agrees with Eusebius, but he adds " Quod opusculum invenire non potui." This remark would convey to the unwary reader the idea that Jerome had exercised a vast amount of time and labour over the books of which he speaks. It,, however, is nothing more than Jerome's polite way of correct ing a slip which Eusebius had made. The works of Eusebius were, we very well know, in the hands of Jerome, and from Prazp. Evang. x. 12 (if not from Clement himself) he would know that Clem. Alex, quoted the words of Cassianus ev to> irpa>T(£> twv 'E^rjyrjTiiccov. The book mentioned by Eusebius- was the book mentioned by Clement. No one would be so- absurd as to throw away his time in looking for a book which,. Clement's epistles to virgins. 27 as he knew quite well, was at least not the book which Clement and Eusebius meant. It was a polite or perhaps sarcastic way of rectifying Eusebius' slip. A modern critic would have put the rectification into a learned footnote. Now no one need wonder that these things are so. In his preface Jerome to a certain extent apologizes for deficiencies by pointing to the fact that he was writing in " hoc terrarum angulo (Bethleemi)." It is not to be supposed that he had at his back the resources of Eusebius. He plainly says that Eusebius was of the greatest service to him. It was indeed by his assistance alone that Jerome was carried bravely through the greater part of his task. To suppose that he had read all, or even any very large number of the works of which he speaks, would be absurd. If he had read them, it would have been far easier for him to have given the few words he cares to say concerning them out of his knowledge, than to have transcribed and remodeled the statements of Euse bius. Thus, for example, if he had had any real knowledge of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, he could have written a descriptive sentence in one minute. It must have been the work of very many minutes to have brought together the scattered statements of Eusebius, and adjusted them for his own purpose. As it is, while he implicitly copies Eusebius, he omits the pith and marrow of Eusebius' remarks by omitting all the historian's inferences, leaving the borrowed language, when transferred to his own page, empty of all point and force. If he had no real knowledge of the Epistle, Jerome of course could write, as he actually does write, only what Eusebius taught him. His want of knowledge is evident from the fact that in § 5, where he speaks of the various theories afloat con cerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, even mentioning Clement's name, he nevertheless makes no allusion to the Epistle to the Corinthians, notwithstanding his declaration in § 15 as to the close resemblance of this Epistle to that to the Hebrews. It is quite unreasonable to lay stress upon " quse mihi videtur." Jerome therefore, it is fair to conclude, had no knowledge of the contents of the Epistle to the Corinthians except such as he might gain from quotations out of them, or descriptions of them by earlier writers. He might perhaps occasionally come across some one who had read them. Since then 28 MODERN CRITICISM. Jerome mentions Epistles of Clement in adv. Jovin. 12, and refers to the Catalogue in § 26, and in that Catalogue is silent as to any other Epistles than the Epistles to the Corinthians, it is proper to infer that in adv. Jovin. 12 the Epistles mentioned by him are those to the Corinthians. It will now be proved that whatever the Epistles were which are mentioned by Jerome in adv. Jovin. 1 2, at least they were not the Epistles to Virgins. For what purpose does Jerome appeal to Epistles of Clement at all ? Since he quotes nothing whatever, but magnifies the author, describing him as Clement the successor of S. Peter and the person spoken of by S. Paul as his fellow-worker, it is beyond contradiction that Jerome appealed to the Epistles not for the sake of their contents, but on account of the celebrated name of their author. Jovinianus had sought to prove that the apostles had neither by precept nor by practice encouraged celibacy. Jerome desired to meet him with a name of great authority in the Church. He named Clement, whose authority was second only to that of the apostles themselves. He had in his hand Epistles by this Clement, so runs the theory, which taught exactly that doctrine concerning virginity which was confessedly dearer to Jerome's heart than anything on earth. On this question he was wont to wax vehement, not to say fierce. How then comes it to pass that only once in the whole course of his life he appeals to this high authority ? Scores and scores of passages might be produced where the language of Clement upon virginity, if Jerome knew it, would be very telling. Occasionally Jerome tells his readers what books it was worth their while -to read. If there was any book in the wide world besides the Bible which Jerome thought to be good wholesome reading for all alike, it must have been Clement on Virginity. He is as dumb as if he had never heard of such a book. But if he himself had no knowledge of such a book, his silence is explained. But though this is so, it is nevertheless certain that, if the Epistles to Virgins were in existence in Jerome's day, he knew them thoroughly and used them, but, with a self- repression which has no parallel in the annals of controversy, never appealed to Clement's authority save on this one occa- Clement's epistles to virgins. 29 sion only, early in his work against Jovinianus. In corrobora tion of this let this work be examined, and it will be seen that though sometimes he wants a good authority, and for the lack of it has to support his point with doubtful arguments, and so seems never to have read our Epistles, yet at other times quite manifestly he has his eyes on these Epistles if they were in existence, and borrows from them, yet without naming the authority which would have given tenfold weight to his own words. In § 5 Jerome gives a compendious statement of some of Jovinianus' arguments. The first -of these is connected with Gen. i. 2 8 " Increase and multiply," etc. Jerome's answer is in § 16, p. 266, but our Epistles are not cited, though in Ep. i. §§ 3, 4 Gen. i. 28 is discussed. Farther on in the same section Jerome says : — Ac repente transcendit (Jovinianus) ad Eliam et Elisaeum et narrat quasi grande mysterium, quod requieverit spiritus Eliae in Elisaeo ; et cur hoc dixerit, tacet ; nisi f rate Eliam quoque et Elisaeum habuisse arbitretur uxores. In § 25, p. 275, Jerome replies : Eliam et Elisaeum quam stulte in catalogo posuerit maritorum, me tacente, manifestum est. Si enim Joannes Baptista venit in spiritu et virtute Eliae, et Joannes virgo est : utique non solum in spiritu ejus venit, sed etiam in corporis castitate. Why does he not quote ? — Joannes legatus . . . sanctus Domini nostri nuntius, virgo fuit . . . Sed et Eliam et Elisaeum aliosque multos viros sanctos in- venimus vitam egisse caelibem atque immaculatam. — Ep. i. 6. Again, and still in the same section (5), Jerome writes : — Et ad Evangelium repente transcendens, Zachariam, et Elisabeth, Petrum ponit, et socrum ejus, cseterosque Apostolos. In § 26, p. 278, Jerome replies, saying :- Quamquam, excepto Apostolo Petro, non sit manifeste relatum de aliis Apostolis, quod uxores habuerint ; et cum de uno scriptum sit, ac de caeteris taciturn, intelligere debemus sine uxoribus eos fuisse, de quibus nihil tale Scriptura significet. Et tamen ille qui nobis objecit Zachariam et Elisabeth, Petrum et socrum ejus, sciat, de Zacharia et Elisabeth Joannem fuisse generatum, id est, de nuptiis virginem, _ de Lege Evangelium, de matrimonio castitatem, ut a Piopheta virgme, virgo Dominus et annuntiaretur, et baptizaretur. Possumus autem de Petro dicere, quod habuerit socrum eo tempore quo credidit, et uxorem jam non habuerit, quamquam legator in 7repw8oi<; et uxor 30 modern criticism. ejus, et filia. Sed nunc nobis de canone omne certamen est. Et quia- ad Apostolos provocavit, quod principes disciplinae nostrae, et Christiani dogmatis duces, ut eos interim virgines concedamus non fuisse (neque enim hoc praeter Petrum probari potest) noverit hos esse Apostolos. . . . Et tamen Joannes unus ex discipulis, qui minimus traditur fuisse inter Apostolos, et quern fides Christi vir- ginem repererat, virgo permansit, et ideo plus amatur a Domino, et recumbit super pectus Jesu. ... si autem obnixe contenderit, Joannem virginem non fuisse, et nos amoris prsecipui causam virgini tatem diximus, exponat ille, si virgo non fuit, cur caeteris Apostolis plus amatus sit ? . . . quod et nos in libro de Illustribus Viris breviter perstrinximus. Here, while Jerome appeals only to the silence of Scrip ture as to the wives of the apostles, he actually refers to and therefore has in his mind writings under the name of Clement. How then could he forbear to quote Ep. i. 6 ? — Deinde Joannes, qui super pectus Domini nostri recubuit, quern valde diligebat, is quoque virgo fuit; neque enim sine causa (obs. close of Jerome's remarks) Dominus noster ilium diligebat. Paulus quoque et Barnabas et Timotheus cum reliquis aliis, quorum nomina scripta sunt in libro vitas, hi, inquam, omnes castimoniam dilexerunt atque amarunt, etc., vid. sup. p. 13. If Jerome knew the Epistles to Virgins now in our hands, and referred to them in § 12, he here, while apparently looking at the language of the Epistle, deliberately suppressed a piece of evidence which he must have believed to be abso lutely conclusive. The suppression of facts which make for an opponent is common in controversy. It would be hard indeed to find a parallel suppression to this. The suppression of the name of the Roman bishop is, however, even more remarkable in the passage just preceding that last quoted. The opinion which Jerome there expresses is a well-known one, constantly cited by editors of the New Testament. Jerome says : — Si autem nobis illud opposuerit ad probandum, quod omnes Apos toli uxores ^ habuerint, Numquid non habemus potesiatem mulieres vel uxores circumducendi (quia ywf) apud Greecos utrumque significat) sicut cxeteri Apostoli, et Cephas, et fratres Domini, jungat et illud quod in Graeeis codicibus est : Numquid non habemus potesiatem sorores mulieres vel uxores circumducendi? Ex quo apparet eum de aliis Sanctis dixisse mulieribus, quae' juxta morem Judaicum magistris de sua substantia ministrabant, sicut legimus ipsi quoque Domino factitatum. Nam, et ordo verborum hoc significat : Num- CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 31 quid non habemus potesiatem manducandi, et bibendi, aut sorores mulieres circumducendi ? (1 Cor. ix. 4, 5). TJbi de comedendo et bibendo, ac de administratione sumptuum prasmittitur, et de muli- eribus sororibus infertur, perspicuum est, non uxores debere intelligi, sed eas, ut diximus, quae de sua substantia ministrabant. Quod et in veteri Lege de Sunamitide ilia scribitur, quae solita sit Elisaeum recipere, et ponere ei mensam et panem et candelabrum et caetera. Compare Ep. ii. 1 5 : — Multae quidem sanctas mulieres Sanctis ministrarunt de bonis suis, veluti Sulamita ilia ministravit Elisaeo ; sed haec cum eo non habitabat, verum habitabat propheta seorsum in domo ; (and after three or four lines speaking of the death of her son) Ex his igitur intellegere debemus (obs. Jerome's debere intelligi) illorum vivendi rationem. Jesu Christo Domino nostro mulieres de bonis suis mini strabant, sed non habitabant cum illo. Apostolis quoque et Paulo mulieres ministrasse invemmus, sed hi cum illis non habitabant, verum pudice et caste et immaculate coram Deo conversati sunt. Now it is quite plain that this passage of Jerome cannot be independent of our Epistle. It is but one of a number of points of contact between the two writers which begin in Jerome at § 12 with the mention of the Epistles supposed to be our Epistles, and where there are coincidences of language enough in themselves alone to prove Jerome's actual know ledge of the Epistles to Virgins if such a thing was possible. Then how is his silence as to Clement's name to be explained ? Why, when the personal history of the apostles is in question, does Jerome neither use the language nor quote the authority of one whose word on a question of that kind was not less weighty than that of Holy Scripture itself ? He is at grips with his adversary, and has it in his power to give him an effectual fall, but deliberately lets the opportunity escape him. What can be the meaning of this ? It is difficult to under stand how any one can fail to see that the necessary inference is that Jerome knew nothing about, the Epistles, and that it is their author who was the copyist. So far our investigations have been confined to Jerome's work against Jovinianus. We must now pass to Ep. xxii. written to Eustochium specially upon the subject of vir ginity. This Letter was written before the Catalogue, and is referred to in it in § 1 3 5. If it be found that — if the Epistles were in existence — Jerome used them in this Letter, Dr. Lightfoot's theory that he had no knowledge of them 32 MODERN CRITICISM. until after writing the Catalogue will be effectually disposed of. A single passage will amply suffice, not only because it is an exceedingly forcible one, but also because it has to be added to those which have been already pointed out, and which are not to be forgotten. The passage in question is in Ep. xxii. §§ 11, 12 (p. 95), and is to be compared with Ep. ii. 7 sq., which will be placed alongside. It must be observed that in adv. Jovin. i. 7 (p. 247) the continency of Joseph is described and extolled,. while in § 25 the History of Susannah is referred to and approved. This notice of Susannah comes just at the close of a list of examples taken from the Old Testament, and Jerome adds, " Hue usque de Lege," proceeding at once to the Gospel. Investigemus atque inquiramus indb a lege usque ad novum testamentum. Pulcrum quoque est atque utile, ut sciamus, quam multi viri et quinam perierint per mulieres, item quam multae feminae et quaenam perierint per viros, ex adsiduitate, qua adsidui erant apud invicem. Porro etiam hoc indicabo, scilicet quam multi et quinam viri cum viris com- morati sint toto vitae suae tempore et ad finem usque una perman- serint in operationibus castis, im- maculati. VIII. Atque hoc ita esse manifestum notumque est. In Ep. xxii. 11 sq. Jerome Job Deo carus, et testimonio ipsius immaculatus et simplex,. audi quid de diabolo suspicetur : "Virtus ejus in lumbis et potestas ejus in umbilico" (Job xl. 11). Ad Joseph quod attinet "Et ad Job dicit Deus : Hoc enim uequaquam prodest illis, Accinge sicut vir lumbos tuos qui lumbos suos volunt succingere veraciter. Sorores diligamus oportet in omni castitate et pudi- citia et cum omni mentis contin- entia, in timore Dei, non assiduo cum ijlis commorantes nee quovis momento ad illas ingredientes. IX. Nonne audivisti de Samson Naziraso, quoaum erat spiritus Dei, de viro illo robusto 1 . . . X. Nonne erudit te id, quod accidit David, quern Deus invene- 7'at virum secundum cor suum, hominem fldelem, perfectum, sanc tum, firmum. Pulchritudrnem in- spectavit hie mulieris cujuspiam, Bethsabas dico, cum videret earn (Job xxxviii. 5) : Et Joannes zona pellicea cingitur et Apostoli jubentur accinctis lumbis, Evan- gelii tenere lucernas. . . . Omnis igitur adversus viros diaboli virtus in lumbis est : omnis in um bilico contra feminas fortitudo. 12. Vis scire ita esse, ut dicimus? Accipe exempla : Samson leone fortior et saxo durior, qui et unus et nudus mille persecutus est armatos, in Dalilae mollescit amplexibus. David secundum cor Domini electus, et qui ventu- rum Christum sanctum saepe ore cantaverat, postquam deambulans super tectum domus suae, Beth- CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 33 mundantem sese et lavantem sabee captus est nuditate, adulterio- nudam. Vidit hanc mulierem junxit homicidium. Ubi, et illud vir sanctus, et reapse captus est breviter attende, quod nullus sit, per voluptatem ex ejus conspectu. etiam in domo, tutus aspectus. Ammadveitite nunc . . . homi- Quapropter ad Dominum pcenitens- cidium patravit David, qui unctus loquitur : " Tibi soli peccavi (o-ol Domini vocatus est. Admonitus fx,6vw r)jj.aprov, LXX.), et malum esto, o homo. . . . XI. Nonne coram te feci" (Psa. 1. 4). Rex legisti de Amnon et Thamar, enim erat, alium non timebat. liberis David 1 Amnon iste soro- Salomon, per quern se cecinit ipsa rem suarn appetebat . . . Qua- Sapientia, qui disputavit a cedro> propter non convenit nobis nee Libani usque ad hyssopum, quae decetnosconversaricumsororibus. exit per parietem, recessit a Do- . . . XII. Nonne legisti de rebus mino, quia amator mulierum fuit.. gestis Salomon, filii David, cui Et ne quis sibi de sanguinis Deus dederat sapientiam. . . . propinquitate confideret, llHcito Atqui etiam ipse ille per mulieres Thamar sororis Amnon frater ex- periit et a Domino recessit. arsit incendio. 13. Pudet (al. XIII. Nonne legisti et nosti de piget) dicere, quot quotidie Vir- senioribus illis in diebus Susannas, gines ruant, quantas de suo gremio- etc. mater perdat Ecclesia. . , . Videas- (For complete text of these sections, plerasque viduas, etc.— Ep. xxii.. vid. inf. p. 39 sq.) 11 sq. No other examples are given either by Jerome or by our writer. In both cases the list is prefaced by the direction "to gird up the loins," and, if exposition is worth anything, in both cases " succingere veraciter." In both cases there is the remark, how many — of the female sex in Jerome, where Eustochium is addressed ; of both sexes in our Epistle, which is addressed to both — have perished in the one case through men, and in the other through women and men. It should be observed how carefully this is done in our Epistle. We cannot, of course, forget the mention of Epistles of Clement in adv. Jovin. 12, and the very close connection between that work and our Epistles. It is impossible to forget it, for we- find it again only a few lines farther on ia Ep. ii. 1 4.1 1 Our writer says "Ecce de Moyse et Aaron Scriptum invenimus, quod agerent et viverent cum viris, qui talem, qualem ipsi, vitse rationem sequerentur. Atque- ita quoque Josue, films Nun,. Mulier aliqua cum ipsis non erat, verum soli, viri cum viris," etc. In adv. Jovin. i. 22, to weaken the force of the argument that Moses had a wife, Jerome writes " Sicut ergo legimus quod Moyses, id est, Lex habuerit uxorem, ostende mihi, Jesum Nave vel uxorem habuisse, vel filios : et si potueris monstrare, victum me esse fateor." The writer of our Epistles- goes on immediately to say that the Israelites journeyed, the men by themselves- and the women by themselves ; that after they had crossed the Red Sea (Mare C 34 MODERN CRITICISM. Even if the passage just quoted stood absolutely alone in the writings of Jerome, the connection between it and our Epistle could not have accidentally arisen. On the strength of a far less remarkable, though strictly parallel set of circum stances, Dr. Lightfoot considers both Cyprian and Basil to have made use of Clem, ad Corinth, i. 4 sq, and places (p. 10) them both in his list of witnesses to this Epistle. If indeed it were possible to find in any author earlier than Jerome the same list of examples, prefaced as this is here, it would then be a question how the relations subsisting among them should be adjusted. We have not succeeded in finding any such author, and it is necessary to conclude, as it was necessary before when adv. Jovinianum was in hand, that if the Epistles to Virgins were in existence in Jerome's day that he made use of them in Ep. xxii., that is to say, years before he wrote his Catalogue. Dr. Lightfoot's theory therefore, that Jerome gained his knowledge of our Epistles after writing the Cata logue, must be dismissed, not however without the expression of surprise that so simple a method of testing its value as consulting Jerome's earlier writings was not adopted. This theory being now effectually disposed of, the difficulty which it was intended to meet comes back with full force. If Jerome knew the Epistles at all, he knew them all through his life. If Ep. Iii. (ad Nepotianum) is carefully examined it will be found that he used them there also. Yet nowhere, Suph), Moses sang praises (quoting Ex. xv. 1) ; then that Miriam sang (quoting Ex. xv. 20) ; then, after a very few lines, in § 15, that Christ sent out His twelve apostles two and two. Villecourt in his Dissertatio Prcevia, replying to objections, points to the fact that occasionally the "filii Israel" are spoken of, and says : " Hie soli viri, quasi emphatice, designantur. " It happens that Jerome in Ep. 77 comments one by one very briefly on the forty-two " Mansiones " of Israel in the desert. Each "Mansio" is prefaced by a text. In these texts sometimes "filii Israel" appear, and any one using Ep. 77 would have this fact before his eyes. In his remarks on "Mansio" 5 Ex. xv. 1 is quoted, and the action of Miriam is described. In " Mansio " 6, expounding the twelve fountains and the seventy palms, he writes " Duodecim fuisse Apostolos, et septuaginta discipulos minoris gradus, quos et binos ante se Dominus prsemittebat, " while "Mansio " 7 begins with "Mare Rubrum quod Hebraioe dicitur Jam Suph." Here our ¦writer might have all his ideas and quotations ready to his hand. It seems impossible to suppose that he did not use them. We cannot reverse the sup position and say that Jerome was the copyist. As our Epistles were evidently written in Greek {vid. inf. pp. 62, 88), one would not expect to find " Mare Suph." Clement's epistles to virgins. 35 even when describing Clement's writings, does he speak of these Epistles unless it be in adv. Jovin. 12. All that was said before concerning that work might be repeated concerning Ep. xxii. and Ep. Iii. It has been proved already that it is incredible that Jerome should have used our Epistles " polemi cally." The only possible conclusion that common sense can accept is that Jerome knew nothing whatever about the Epistles to Virgins now in our hands, but that our writer, not Jerome, was the copyist. This conclusion is borne out by the comparison of the two passages quoted above. The line which Jerome takes as to " girding up the loins " is strictly his own. We find it else where (cf. in Jerem.i. 17, p. 842; in Ephes., vi. 14, p. 678). We see the application of the idea growing up in Ep. xxii. some way before the examples which follow it are given. Our writer's " succingere veraciter " suggests that he is the copyist. Our writer's examples are in strict chronological order. They are displaced in Jerome, and why they should be displaced by a copyist is not easy to see. Two examples are tacked on by our writer. They are found in adv. Jovinianum. But they are examples of chastity in the leading personages, not of the sin of uncleanness. To make them tell, the narra tives have to be, as it were, turned round. These are not given together, but tacked on, the one at the beginning, the other at the end of Jerome's list, for chronological reasons. All these things suggest that the conclusion which on other grounds seems to be required is a sound one, viz. that whether the Epistles named by him in adv. Jovin. 12 were, or were not, Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians, at any rate they were not the Epistles to Virgins now in our hands. This conclusion carries us, however, a little farther. The Epistles to Virgins could not have been in existence in Jerome's day, because if they were Jerome used them — which is incredible. 3. The examination of the excerpt out of the First Epistle on Virginity by Clement, bishop of Rome, found by Cureton in a Syriac MS., must be deferred until further light has been cast upon our Epistles through the comparison of them with the Homilies of Antiochus. Nothing as yet, it will be observed, has been produced which forbids the notion that Timotheus 36 MODERN CRITICISM. of Alexandria (f a.d. 535) extracted the passage from an Epistle on Virginity written after Jerome's time. The next witness to be examined therefore must be An tiochus Palsestinensis, an author unknown, in this capacity at least, to the numerous editors and critics of the Epistles to Virgins. In introducing a witness so important, it will be proper to give some account of him and his writings. Antiochus was a monk of St. Saba, near Jerusalem, and is described as follows in Smith and Wace, Diet. Christ. Biog. p. 122 : — " He flourished in the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, and witnessed the capture and sack of Jerusalem by Chosroes a.d. 614, when the true Cross was carried away into Persia as the noblest trophy of conquest (Hon. cvii. ; Exomolog. sub Jin.). There is still extant, ' if what no one reads may be said to be extant (Gibbon, c. xlvi.),' a voluminous work of his entitled iravSe/cTT}<; t?}? ay'ias ypa emiroQ-rjo-e quod attinet fidelem, prudentem, crapKos tt66u>, toC 6Vtos o-epvora. sapientem, justum, usquequaque tov kcu tovtov pi] iirivevo-avTos, timoratum, nonne casti sanctique eis OXiif/eis kcu o-Tevo^coptas 8ta illius pulcritudinem mulier libidi- r>}s i/reucfyyopias tov eJcreySi} irepU- nose concupivit? Cumque ille irtipev ecus da.va.Tov. "Opas, on 6 libidinosam ejus voluntatem per- eVreAexioyxos o-apKos Ttjs At-yinmas ficere recusaret, haec falso testi- icoaipr Ka.Ttipya.a-a.To tov SiKalov monio virum justum ilium in BXtyiv ; Atcl to3to ovv ttolo-i rpoirot? summam afflictionem et miseriam o-vp.patou, pe8' ov to Hvevpa tov Kvpiov iiropevero ; koX tov toiovtov dywv ¦>) yvvrj dircoAecre Stct ti}s poj/6-i)pas crapKos, Kat dOepiTOv iirtlOvpUas. Ala. tovto ovS' oAais eirtTpe;rop,e6'a, pera ywatKos Ka6Y- dine. Tune forte talis es, qualis erat, r) e^etv crwruxias, to o-vvoXov. erat ille 1 Nosce te ipsum et nosce modum tuum. Mulier 2 maritata animas pretiosas prmdatur. Quapropter nemini prprsus permittimus, ut commoretur apud maritatam, multi minus, ut quis cum sacrata Deo virgine cohabitet aut dormiat, ubi assiduus sit cum ilia. Hoc enim aversandum et detestandum est ab iis, qui Deum timent. X. Nonne erudit te id, quod 'O/xomos Kat -n-ept tov AavtS ov accidit David, quern Deus invene- rat virum secundum cor suum, hominem fidelem, perfectum, sanc tum, firmum. Pulcritudinem in- spectavit hie mulieris cujuspiam, Bethsabas dico, cum videret earn mundautem sese et lavantem nu- dam. Vidit hanc mulierem vir sanctus, et reapse captus est per voluptatem ex ejus conspectu. Animadvertite nunc, quanta mala f ecerit illius mulieris causa : et peccavit Justus ille vir et manda- tum dedit, ut maritus illius inter- flceretur in praelio. Vidistis, quot dolos malos struxerit et adhibuerit ; et cupidine istius mulieris homicidium patravit 7re7rat8eucrai, ov Kat eSpey 6 ©eos aVSpa KaTct Ttjv KapStav auTOv; IISs poprj ywaiKos, Aeyw Se t»}s BepcraySee, eVtcfyiiycras, ttoctois Ka- kois irepteTrecre ; TavTY/v yap tStov 6 aytos aXr]8(as Xovopivqv, iv eirtfu- pia. t?)s popfpyjs avTrjs yevopevos, ttoo-^v KaKtav 6 Tra.p.p&yio'TO'S avijp KaTetpyacraTO ; Kat rjpaprev eis ©eov ov povov T-fj poL^la. ireptTre- o-wv, ctAAa Kat tov avSpa avrijs avaipeOfjvai KeAeiJcras- opas irooffv SpapaTovpytav KaKtas eTeXecrtovp- y?70-e Sta ttjv kiriBvpiav 6 xpicn-os Kvpiov Aaut'S; iraiStvdwpev tov pr] hnOvpiiv. Et yap TrjXiKovroi. avSpes Stct yvvaiKoiv idXiao-av, ttSs r]p.eis ol aviaxyes pera. t>}s eauTuiv 1 " Verbotenus : usque ad mortem." — Funk. Cf. Antiochus. 2 Prov. vi. 26, which (preceded by v. 21) Antiochus joins with Prov. vii. 21, and in this homily, just before his remarks upon Joseph, quotes thus : on yvin iiSfuv Tipim (ripim, LXX.) ,^k;£«S ayplill. liXxtS. yxp ni Mpuirov «a\\y l/ux4a. Cf. our writer's context. Anton. Mel. (I. Serm. 15, p. 27) quotes the text with mplm, and precedes it with Prov. v. 21 as Antiochus does. Clement's epistles to virgins. 41 David, qui unctus Domini vocatus Trewews BiaTropevopevoi, Kat «V est. Admonitus esto, o homo, /Aecrcp wayt'Sos Sta/JatVovTes ttvpev- Nam si tales tantique viri per |?s et Thamar, liberis David 1 Amnon dSeAc/>»)s airov ®dpap avypiOr] iste sororem suam appetebat earn- KaAws. (? kokms.) que oppressit nee eidem pepercit, propterea quod turpi libidine earn concupivisset. Et improbus scelestusque evasit ob assiduam ejus cum ilia conversationem, quae non erat in timore Dei; et fcedam rem operatus est in Israel. Quapropter non convenit nobis nee decet nos conversari cum sororibus inter risus et petulantiam, sed cum omni verecundia ac castit'ate et in timore Dei. XII. Nonne legisti de rebus 'Qo-airrcos Kat 6 ~%oXophv exmv gestis Salomon, filii David, cui o-ocplav kcu tj>p6vrjo-iv, ko.1 xv/xa Deus dederat sapientiam et scien- icapSias, Kat ttXovtov, koI So'fav tiara et amplitudinem animi et ' ttoXA^v virip itdvra- de senioribus illis in diebus Su- a-dwav Kpiral Sta. to eVSeAext'^etv sannae, qui propterea, quod assidui Kat KarapavOdvuv koXXos dXAo- erant cum mulieribus et alienam Tptov, eis to weAayos rf?s eiriOvpias inspectabant pulcritudinem, in ep^re'croi'Tes, iira.veo-rr]o-av rfj paica- barathrum ceciderunt concupi^ piq. ^ovo-dwy. — Horn. 17. scentiae ; nee potuerunt in casta mente retinere sese, verum superati sunt a pravo suo animo, et adorti sunt beatam Susannam, ut earn 1 Eccles. vii. 27, quoted in Horn. 18. Antiochus uses the LXX., which he alters — Ttixporspov vit\p Omarov aul^rttiit ymaiixa, %rts Mpzuftiz, xa.) o-aywvi xapdia jlvtyiv o*tffp.os iis xfipttS avrvis' kya.6as , 9po\a.$£iv yiafa owr'ov ascribed to Clement (obs.) followed immediately by u Svnros sT, piXntm, rr)V irpoo-fioXrjv del dvarpiiTuv, koI e£oXo- Opevetv tous d/iapToAoiis Aoytcrp;ovs eK rrjs y^s, tJtis ecrrtv ¦i) KapSta. rjpGiv Kara, tov Xoyov tov Kvpiov (obs. zizania). ko.1 i£uv tovtovs Kat o"WTpty8etv wpos ttjv irerpav, ^Tts cot-iv 6 XptcrTOS Horn. 81. When these passages are compared, it must be evident that Antiochus, out of the very pages which are closely copied both in the Homilies and the Epistles, borrows. language and ideas of Jerome independently of our writer (if he was a different person), for the passage now quoted from Horn. 81 has nothing answering to it in the Epistles. If it should be urged that Antiochus might have borrowed from Eusebius (Comment, in Ps. 136), as Jerome no doubt did, or from Origen (Select, in Ps. 136), the reply will be that Eusebius speaks of " seeds of evil " not of thoughts, and that Origen, though he speaks of " thoughts," does not quote 1 Cor. x. 4. Jerome's language alone covers that of Antiochus. The close connection between these same pages of Jerome and Horn. 17, whatever be the true meaning of it, must not be. forgotten. It is thus plain that both Antiochus and our writer, if they were really different persons, use the same pages of Jerome. They meet in the use of the selfsame passage, but they also use Jerome independently of one another. We have before us, therefore, three versions of the same passage — Jerome's (vid. sup. p. 3 2 sq.) the shortest, Antiochus1, and our writer's, which is by far the most diffuse. The im pression which the careful comparison of them seems to leave upon the mind is that Jerome's was the earliest written, and our writer's the last. If Antiochus' was the last written, one cannot fail to ask, without receiving any sufficient answer, why he trimmed down the language of our writer, taking out of it almost the whole of its distinctive character, while, nevertheless, if that language had been left unaltered, the entire sections would have admirably suited Antiochus' (Horn. 44 MODERN CRITICISM. 18) irepl tov pi} evSeXex^eiv i|ra\Xovo-ats ywai%Lv (vid. sup. p. 39). " _ A few passages will now be given out of Ep. 1. and com pared with Antiochus. Ep. i. 2, with the beginning of § 3, is found almost completely in four different homilies (130, 1, 98, 111). There is no repetition. On the supposition that Antiochus was the copyist, this could hardly have happened with a work so extensive and so varied in subject as these 130 homilies, unless he deliberately marked through with his pen the passages already used. If, on the other hand, our writer made excerpts and then worked them up into one writing, his work would necessarily stand in that relation to the Homilies which appears upon examination. The passage from Ep. i. 2, found in Horn. 130, presents no special feature of interest, and we pass it by. It is followed in that homily immediately by the greater part of Ep. i. 8, concerning which something will be said in the next ohapter (vid. inf. p. 76). The next passage, following the first without pause, stands as under : — irpmrov Set 7rto-Teveiv eis " ®eoV, oti eoriv, Kat rots eK^ToJcrtv avTov /Atcrc'airoSoT'ijs ytveTat." in'oris yap ets tov alS>va o~Tt]0-erav Kat " 'O Socatos Ik , irtoretos ^o-eTat." 'O Se 6Vto>s StKatos Ik moTeiis Scilicet qui re.vera pius est, 71-to-Tiv e^et evepyij, ttlo-tiv av£dv- ejus opera de fide ipsius testantur, oucrav, irto-Ttv weTrXripofpopripevrjv, quod verus sit fidelis, fide magna, Trto-Ttv tpurifrvo-av ev tois koAoTs fide perf ecta, fide in Deo, fide epyots, tva Sof ao-0jj v 6 tu>v oktov quae luceat in bonis operibus, ut ®eds. in'oris apxri KoAAijo-eos ®eoC. omnium pater per Christum glori- 'O TeAetos ttio-tos "At0os vaoB ®eot! ficetur. — Ep. i. 2. virdpyei fjroi.pacrpevo's ets oocoSo/^i' ®eoC ITaTpds, dva$epdp,evos ets Ta v\j/rj, Sta. tj}s p7jXavV's I^coC Xplo"TO^)• o eo-Tt aTaupds o-^otvu ^poo/otecos T(3 tlvevpan " k.t.A. (Ignat. Ephes. 9.) Horn. i. (irept Trtoreoos). The passage from the Epistle is the same as that which stands in the middle of Antiochus' words, and it is self- evident that it is borrowed from it: For while the object in taking the words of Ignatius is manifest, inasmuch as he gets some ideas perhaps nowhere else to be found together, Antiochus gets nothing from the Epistle which is not equally found in the familiar text " Let your light so shine before CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 45 men that they may see your good -works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." The passage from Ignatius is accurately taken, except that Antiochus has altered the \idot of Ignatius into the singular, as he was obliged to do, and the vaov irarpoi of Ignatius into vaov Oeov, an alteration which suits his subject. On the principle according to which this alteration is made, it may be said that the " omnium pater " of our writer is altered into the 6 twv oXeov @eo? of Antiochus. If there were nothing else to be observed one might well believe it. But there is a good deal more. The important clause in our writer's language is certainly "fide in Deo." In the passage as it stands in Antiochus the clause has disappeared (vid. sup. p. 39). Why should he omit it ? It is easy to see how the clause might have been taken in by our writer, for above is irio-Teveiv eh Oeov. Then again our writer has "omnium pater per Christum." Antiochus does not have "per Christum." Why should he omit this 1 The words IIaTpb<; . . . Sia ttj? p.v\yavr\iAoVtota>s c/>a>Ti Xapvovo-Lv. TrpoTropevovTai. xal 0'r) v] yjptpa.' — Horn. 98. These texts are almost exactly taken from the LXX. It would be impossible probably to find any third example of the combination of these three verses. The point of our writer's prefatory remark lies in the word " obey." Here again, as so often (vid. sup. p. 39), a weaker word, aKovet, is used by Antiochus. Our writer's alteration of the language of the second text suggests that he was the copyist. The alteration is made to suit his following remarks, for he adds " Etenim radii lucis illorum etiam nunc illustrant," etc. " Virgines propter regnum cselorum," again, would be the regular expression, not " propter Deum." If our writer, fol lowing the lead of Antiochus, had inserted the texts quoted above in their proper place, they would have followed " ut fratres atque peregrinos diligamus propter Deum et propter eos, qui credunt in Deum, sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a Domino nostro," etc. (Ep. i. 12 ; vid. inf. p. 70). Our writer's " propter Deum" is thus accounted for, while the " qui credunt in Deum," an alien thought in § 12, is found in the passage last considered, which has " fide in Deo " (vid. sup. p. 44). The fourth of the passages mentioned above (p. 44) is found in Horn. Ill (irepl rjyovp,evcov). It includes the last sentence of Ep. i. 2 and the first part of § 3, and runs into a passage which occurs in Horn. 21 (irepl irapdevlai). The passages tell their own tale as to which was first written, and may be left to speak for themselves when placed side by side. Nam hominem Dei oportet in omnibus verbis factisque suis perf ectum esse adomatomque in sua ratione agendi omnimoda honestate atque ordine et recte facere opera sua Xprj ovv tov tov ®eov avBpunrov omnia. III. Sunt enim utriusque Iv ttovtI 2py dya6<3 koX Xoyiy sexus virgines pulcrum quoddam i^rjpTvo-8at Kat Ko/j.eio-6at, ko! ev- , exemplar, fidelibuset iis, qui futuri a-^povw? Kat Kara Ta£tv irdvra sunt fideles. Nomen autem solum irpaTTtw, irpos virorvTroicnvTiov avra sine operibusnou introducet in reg- TruOopivwv. 'O yap riyovpevos, dm numcaelorum; si quis autem fuerit toO eV to epyu irporry&o-6ai, KaXti- fidelis in veritate, is salvari poterit. Tat rjyovpevos. "Ovopa yap i/aAov Nam quod quis nomine tautum vo- ovk eto-dyet ets /JacriAetW tZv ov- caturfidelis,operibusautemnonest, pavZv, oiSe 6 Aoyos HrrpaKTOS non ideo illi contingit, ut sit revera eAet tov aKovovra- aXXa 7rpa^ts fidelis. Igitur ne quisquam deci- eV8tWp.os dXvdivbv iroipiva. diro- piat vos vanis sermonibus erroris. SaKwo-w. — Horn. 111. Clement's epistles to virgins. 47 Nam eo, quod nomen virginis 'O i/eavto-Kos roCvw, tovtco-tlv 6 cuipiam fuerit, si desunt illi opera eauTcV evvovxtvas Sta. ttjv jSao-i- praecellentia et pulcra et virginali AetW, Kat rj irapOivoi, lav pr) Kara statui convenientia, salvari non po- Trdvra toioSj-oi wo-iv, &o-n-ep ol dX-q- terit. Etenim Dominus noster is- Bivol pip-oral tov Xpio-rov, ov Bv- tiusmodo virginitatem stultam vo- vavTai o-co^vat. To yap Xiyeo-0ai cavit,proutdixitinevangelio;quae irapOevov, Kat ras dperas g-rj e^etv quidem propterea, quod nee oleum dvaXoyovs, Kat otKet'ous Kat appo- habebat neque lumen, relicta fuit £oixras rfj irapdivta, pupav ttjv extra regnum caelorum et prohib- Toiavrrfv irapOivov ^ijo-lv 6 Kvptos. ita a gaudio sponsi et cum sponsi 'A<£eyyijs yap o5o-a Kat dveAatos, adversariis computata. Nimirum e£v ovpavZv apud eos, qui tales sunt, solum- eyKAeterat, vvptov Xoyio-Qrjo-eTai. Aoku yap existimant se esse aliquid, cum etvat Tt r\ dVpaKTos pTjSlv ovo-a, ko.1 nihil sint, et errant. Unusquis- cppeva.TraT$ iavrqv. AoKip,a£eTa> Se que ergo exploret opera sua seque eKacrros to epyov avroC, Kat eaurov ipse noscat ; nam vanum cut- eViyivwcnceYa), oti 6pr]o-Kela io-rlv turn exhibet, quicumque virgini- p,dVatos, irapOevlav Kat eyKpdretav tatem et sanctimouiam profitetur, oyaoAoyoiWes e^en/, ttjv Se 8wap.iv virtutem autem ejus abnegat. aurijs rjpvrjpivoi. — Horn. 21. These passages tell their own tale. It is plain that our writer has expanded the idea of the " mere name," and imported into the first passage the thought " salvari poterit," which Antiochus could not have omitted had he been the copyist, and which both he and our writer have afterwards. The text again (Ephes. v. 6) is an obvious interpolation. The passages, however, speak for themselves, and need no comment. At the end of § 3 and in § 4 our writer has a good deal to say in connection with Gen. i. 28 (increase and multiply, etc.). The corresponding passage in Antiochus is found at the begin ning of Horn. 127 (irepl 's Kat sui assiduus ; neque discedit ab eo alior- ein-apeSpoos ra Kvptu AaT- sum, sed quovis tempore famulatar in pevovo-a ev IIvevp-aTt ®eowr puritate et sanctitate in spiritu Dei, sol- KaOaplas Kal dp,idVros dpi- licitus, quomodo placeat Domino suo, est- crKovcra to Kvptu>, Kat del pe- que sollicitus, ut quavis in re illi placeat. pipvS>o-a 7rSs dpecrei a-urw, Talis a Domino nostro non recedit, 'verum Kat ev Hvevpd ecrav irpos spiritu cum Domino suo est, sicut scrip- Kvpiov, Ka0tbs yeypa7rraf turn est : Estote sancti, sicut ego sanctus "'Aytot ?o-eo-0e, on eyu dytos sum, dicit Dominus. VIII. Neque enim elpi," Aeyet Kvptos. Ov yap si quis nomine tantum sanctimonialis ovopan povov ij/lXQ 6 aytos, vacatur, jam sanctimonialis est : verum aytds eartv, dAA' ev iravTt 6 omnino sanctimonialis esse debet et cor- aytos, t<3 artapan Kat t<3 7rveu'- pore et spiritu, etc. p,aTi. — Horn. 21. Now our writer, taking up Horn. 21 and purposing to take into his work the passage quoted, would see before him the passage last quoted (p. 47) out of this homily. He would see, therefore, this : — 0 veavlo-Ko<} rolvvv, Tovreo-nv 6 eavTov evvovx,i'o-a<; 8ui ttjv fiacriXelav, ical fj irapdevo<;, eav p-rj kaTCt, CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 49 iravra toiovtoi &o~iv, wairep ot a\t}divoi piprjral tov Xoio-tov, ov SvvavTai (rcodfjvat,. Compare our writer's opening words in the passage just quoted. The same words were copied before by our writer in § 3 (vid. sup. p. 47). He would see also on Bprjo-Keia earlv p,draio<; (copied above, p. 47). Compare our writer's " in cultura Domini," which has nothing answer ing to it in the language of Antiochus placed alongside (see above). These things again tell their own tale. They show that our writer, when returning to Horn. 2 1 and copying from it, filled in out of the context. Then, moreover, while it is quite conceivable that our writer might have treated as he has done Antiochus' direpi,airdcrra)<; ical e&irapeSpais, which is taken from 1 Cor. vii. 35 (e&irdpeSpov to> Kvpia airepio-irao-Tco';), it is impossible that our writer's language should have sug gested the use of the text to Antiochus. Having used ver. 34, Antiochus proceeds to use ver. 35, which is natural enough; and with these verses he joins part of 1 Cor. vi. 17 6 Se KoXXa>p,evo<; to icvpicp ev irvevpd ecm. This combination should be specially observed, because its source will be pointed out directly. Following the passage just quoted from Horn. 21 are a few lines which are not represented in our Epistles. Antiochus- then says : — 'Ayoovtcrat vopipws aOXfjo'ai, tva tov arecpavov, ov iJpeTtcroj, aTroXavrj's, Kat o-TecpavrjKpopos TropTrevo-ys (so also Tilman, v.l. dTreXOys) irpos ty\v avtu 'lepovo-aXtfp. He uses Wisd. iv. 2 Trapovo-dv Te pipovvrai air-rpr, KaX woOovaw aTreXOovo-av (obs. V.l. above), Kal ev ra atfivt aTecpavrjcpo- povo-a. iropTrevei, tov twv dpiavroiv aOXmv dywva vtK^cracra. Cf. " Nostin " sicut vir in hunc agonem legitime descendere atque certare, cum hoc in virtute spiritus eligis, ut coroneris corona lucis teque (triumphantem, Funk), circumducant per Jerusalem supernam t — Ep. i. 5. The passages are plainly the same. We are fortunately able to give quite decisive proof that Antiochus did not derive bis use of Wisd. iv. 2 from our Epistles. We can produce the source from which he got not only that text, but the combination of 1 Cor. vii. 34 with chap. vi. 17 pointed out above. We shall make some extracts from Horn. 21, and place opposite to them parallel passages out of Antonius Melissa, Loci Communes, pars I, Sermo 14. The order of the passages as they stand in the D MODERN CRITICISM. homily will be observed, while those from Anton. Mel. will be numbered : — Antiochus. peya. ovv • TOIQVTI) 7T?S TTap- 0evtas v) apery . Antonius Melissa. (16) 7rap65evetas Ijvybv piqBevt. «rt- TtSer e7rto-v -^Sovats. . . . (21) . . . etos ecru crot Svvapxs KpdYei rijs dpapTtas, tovto yap eoTtv dpei-iy. iav yap dSvvapla ere Travo-g tjJs dp> apTtas, tijs do-^evet'as 'q J^apts. 'Eir- atvovpev Se tovs Kara 7rpoatpecriv dyaflovs ... (13) 1 Cor. vii. 33, 34 : . . . 6p,oto)S Kat fj dyap.os pepipva. to. tov Kvpiov, ircos dpecret to Kvpioi • . . (14) 1 Cor. vi. 15, 17 : . ."6 Se koA- Acipevos tu Kvpta) ev irvevpd eortv. ... (2) S'. Matt' xix. 12 : eto-tv ev- vov^ot k.t.A. .... (23) Set ovv tov vovv coenrep Ttvct KvBepvqnjv ..... KaTairaTetv pev yev- vauos to. Kvpara, . . . (32) o tSv Trac'Sv ijvto^os. . . . (19) Kat ev tu atGvt o-Teavr]7 Ta p.ev rijs iratSoTrottas opyava Trjpelv irapOeva., ttjv Se yX&crcrav prj Trjpeiv • r) rrjv yAficrcrav pev Tqpeiv TrapOevov, rrjv Se opao-iv rj TrjV aKO-qv 7) Tas X£'Pas p.?) TTjpeiv • 77 Tavra, pev e\eiv Kat r-qpeiv TrapSeva, rrjv Se KapStav p,^ Trjpeiv, dXX eTatpt^ecrfat Tvcpos Kat cfyuw. ...... . . . (33) 6 Ttjv eavTOv tfepairevW yaorepa, Kat irvevp,a 7ropvetas vtK^crat tVAoiv, opioids cart T

s BXeirovrts ffuxppovws re «at crepvvSs ev Kvpta), tcis eav- 1 Prov. iv. 23 W«i ipvKuxn ripu o-fo xocpiim. . . . ver. 25 ei IftaXpo! tov oplk fikixsTuo-Kt. . . . ver. 27 pm ixxXhys e/5 tiS: St^a x.t.X. Of. Antiochus' oftf»( ^x-i«>Ti« and r«s S4'«f below. Por parallel in Ep. ii. 2, vid. inf. p. 75. Clement's epistles to virgins. 51 tcov Sepias irepiKeKaXvppevas (39) TpdVe^av TroAvreA-iJ pev Tv^rj I^ovTes to eavTaiv Iparia), &tto- 7rapaTi8rjo-iv, avrdpKij Se craxppo- ^wptcrc'cocrtv. IIpo Se ttoVtov ^py avvrj. T-qv irapOevov to eAat'co Tijs ev7rottas KOraKoa'pyjo-ai ttjv eav-rijs AapyjraSa k.t.A. It would require a strong belief in accidental coincidences to argue that the coincidences here are due to accident. It is out of the question to suppose that Anton. Mel. borrowed from Antiochus. There are only 129 lines in Horn. 21 (Migne's edition). There are 46 excerpts in the Sermo (Migne's edition), and they average about 3^ lines each. If allowance is made for broken lines, there is less Greek in the Sermo than in the homily. Excerpts 11, 12 include fifteen verses from 1 Cor. vii. that are in no way touched in Horn. 21. Of the twelve excerpts in col. 809, eight (13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23) seem to be used. Of these 13, 14 (1 Cor. vii. 34 and c. vi. 17) are used by Antiochus in the same sentence ; 15 is an excerpt from Ignatius, which Antiochus brings in with his own ptiya ovv; 16 is apparently attributed to Ignatius, though not found in his Epistles, and is introduced also with pukya olv; 19 is Wisd. iv. 1, 2 ; 20 is Ecclus. xix. 5, not quoted by Antiochus, who however uses &vTo? rwv s dyvdv. pectus Domini nostri recubuit, quern IlavAos, Kat BapvdBas, Kat valde diligebat, is quoque virgo fuit ; Ttpdfleos, t6v Spopov rijs dyvetas, neque enim sine causa1 Dominus Kat tov dycova, aWtAov ere'- noster ilium diligebat. Paulus quo- Aecrav, cos dXr)03>lov e/eXrj&r], aXXd Kal axnbv Karrj^KoOrj1 f3airno-at tov Kvpiov. If Antiochus knew the Epistles, he had them before his eyes in both Homilies. This is beyond contradiction. In Horn. 21, then, he very lightly touched the passage from Ep. i. 6, quoted above. In Horn. 1 12 he borrowed more extensively, but he omitted just those points which he had touched before. He could not have done it so exactly without trying to do it, which is perfectly incredible. To all appearance the author of our Epistles was the copyist, and carefully combined Antiochus' two passages on John Baptist, and wrote in the words " Whose names are in the book of life" with express intent to deceive. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that our writer's " tamquam filii Dei vivi," though there is nothing answering to it in the parallel 1 Cf. Jer. adv. Jovin. i. 26, p. 278 Sciat . . . ut a Propheta virgine, virgo Dominus et annuntiaretur, et baptizaretur {vid. sup. p. 64, note). CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 67 language of Antiochus, yet might have been filled in from his viol Oeov £<3i>to? earlier in Horn. 112. §4. In his reasons for rejecting the authorship of Clement, quoted above (p. 61), Dr. Lightfoot points to the manner and frequency of the quotations from the New Testament as being inconsistent with the genuine Epistle, and pointing to a later age. The language is too vague for us to deal with. Dr. Westcott fortunately is more precise in his state ments. He (p. 184) says that " whole paragraphs of these Epistles are a mosaic of apostolic phrases," and that " some of the references to the Christian Scriptures are more explicit, though no book of the New Testament, nor yet of the Old, is mentioned by name," e.g. " the divine apostle," " words of the apostle," " sayings of Paul," " it is written," " we read." Dr. Westcott sees in this anonymous form of quotation a stamp of antiquity. It is one thing to say that very definite descriptions of books quoted is the mark of a late date, — which is not the argument here, — and quite another to urge that the anonymous form is the mark of antiquity. Of all tests that can be applied to ecclesiastical writings there is not one more fallacious. Funk (p. iii.), taking the line of Dr. Lightfoot, writes " Auctor epistulis multos S. Scripturse locos tacite inserit, cum Clemens in epistula ad Corinthios, si orationem illam prsestantissimam (c. 59-61) exceperis, fere semper indicat, ubi aliquid e S. Scriptura desumpsit." So then these discriminating critics reject the Epistles to Virgins as the work of Clement, because Clement does not quote anonymously ; they place them a few years later, because their author does, this form, they suppose, having come into use; they place him no later, because, says Dr. Westcott, the anonymous form belongs to that period. What then is to be done with the treatise on Virginity, ascribed to Athanasius, where will be found "the divine Paul," "the holy Paul," "the apostle," "the Lord says," etc., and once " God says through Jeremiah," or with the Oratio de S. Synaxi of Anastasius, where the quotations are anonymous, for though the Book of Psalms is mentioned, it is not in immediate 68 MODERN CRITICISM. connection with any text? What is to be done with the writings of Chrysostom, where one may be found with all the quotations anonymous, another with the mention of nearly all the books referred to, another with a very occasional mention 1 What is to be done with the chapters of Basil's De Spiritu Sancto, or the Homilies of John of Damascus, where some have the quotations altogether anonymous, others with the occasional mention of a book ? If the anonymous form of quotation is a mark of antiquity, it has been in all ages very successfully imitated. Now it happens that in the Homilies of Antiochus the anonymous form is the rule, and the mention of a book the exception. Long strings of texts will be found without any mention of a book. There is no such mention in Horn. 21, where no small part of the language of these Epistles is found. Mostly when books are named, e.g. James, it is not that Antiochus names the book, but the writer whom he can no otherwise describe. The anonymous form of quotation is not a mark of antiquity. If, however, it is insisted upon, Antiochus, who wrote not earlier than a.d. 614, shares it with the Epistles to Virgins. Dr. Westcott adds : — One indication of the early date of the Epistles may be noticed in addition to the anonymous form of the quotations. The enumera tion of the primary authorities binding on the Christian is given in the form " the Law and the Prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ " (Ep. i. 12), just as it was given by Hegesippus, as we shall see after wards. But while the formula witnesses to the antiquity of the record, the usage of the writer shows convincingly that it did not exclude the fullest recognition of the authority of St. Paul said of the Three.-— P. 185. Dr. Westcott here ventures to point to a sure mark of antiquity of a very definite kind. He finds in Ep. i. 12 the Holy Scriptures described by the formula " the Law and the Prophets and the Lord Jesus." He finds the same formula in a passage from Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22), and therefore concludes that our Epistles were of very early date. It is evident, however, that Dr. Westcott proves too much. How does he account for the coincidence ? If he says it is accidental, inasmuch as the formula may be supposed to have been common in the times of Hegesippus CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 69 and therefore not unlikely to turn up at least once in the few remains of this writer's works which have come down to us, then the coincidence is of no value at all. For the formula must have taken some time to become common, and have afterwards remained in at least occasional use for a long period. It could not have come in and gone out again by the stroke of the clock (though critics do sometimes argue as though they supposed that there was of old some "Big Ben," the sound of which, throughout the Church, called on writers everywhere to change their methods of quotation, their picture of church life, and possibly their handwriting). Thus this particular formula never could have been common; for while all Christian writings speak more or less of Scripture, no other examples of it, we believe, than the two before us can be found. The coincidence in language is therefore exceedingly remarkable. If the formula had been found in an Epistle of St. Paul, no one who has studied the coincidences on which Dr. Westcott is w'ont to rely will deny that he would have duly placed Hegesippus as a witness to that Epistle in his Synopsis of Historical Evidence (p. 582 sq.). It is not in any of St. Paul's Epistles. Now it happens that Eusebius shows that Hegesippus had, shortly before using the formula, been discussing Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, and also that he had about that time been brought much in contact with persons and places under the influence of Clement's teaching. There can be little question but that Dr. Westcott, if he believed that Clement was the author of our Epistles, would point to these things and say that Hegesippus borrowed the formula from Clement. He would be false to the principles on which his Synopsis is built up if he did not. We find our Epistles placed in this Synopsis as the first witness to 1 John on the strength of a coincidence of language between 1 John iv. 6 and Ep. ii. 16, which is certainly not more remarkable than the coincidence in the use of the formula in question. The Epistles, however, were not written by Clement in Dr. Westcott's judgment. He wants to place them about the times of Hegesippus, or, at any rate, long before the times of Eusebius. As the author of Super natural Religion evades the force of the coincidences which are urged in proof of the authenticity of books of the New 70 MODERN CRITICISM. Testament, — this is the charge which is brought against him, ¦—-so Dr. Westcott evades the force of the coincidence to which he appeals. The coincidence which under other circumstances would have proved dependence in this case is purely accidental, and a conspicuous mark of the high anti quity of the Epistles. But has Dr. Westcott never heard of that famous use of Eusebius (to which attention was called on p. 10 sq.), whereby pseudo-Ignatius sought, by the use of the language of Alexander of Jerusalem (as quoted by Eusebius) in his letter to the Church at Antioch, to impose his own letter to the Antiochians upon credulous readers as the veri table work of Ignatius ? That noteworthy instance proves that the greatest possible caution is needed in dealing with striking coincidences between the remains of ancient authors preserved by Eusebius and writings the date of which is unknown. We have already seen the trap which our author, by his use of Phil. iv. 3, set for the steps of credulous souls, such as Cardinal Villecourt. Is there not something more than a possibility that the remarkable coincidence in language between our Epistle and the words of Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, may be nothing else than a similar device, a device to catch the hasty verdict that the Epistles bear the stamp of high antiquity ? The Homilies of Antiochus turn this possibility into an actual certainty. The formula in question, with its context, stands thus in Ep. i. 12 sq.: — Etenim pulcrum hoc est coram Horn. 97. KaXq eovtv f/ iXo£- Deo et coram hominibus, ut sci- evict ko.1 tol, dyairwcroopev (opoirio-Tovi fipfov), and compare the " 0 fratres nostri dilecti " of our Epistle. It will be observed that Antiochus makes a mistake, and attributes Jude 21 to S. Peter. This verse forms one sentence with ver. 20 v/u.ets c?e, dyairr]Tol, rj} dyicoTaTrj vp&v irlo-Tei eiroiKoSopovvTes eavTov?, iv irvevpaTi dyiq> irpoo~ev)(p- pevoi. Cf. our writer's " 0 fratres nostri dilecti. Etiam, quod quis ozdificare debeat et confirmare fratres in fide" etc. 1 A mistake for Jude 21. 72 MODERN CRITICISM. It will be seen from the note to the beginning of Hom. 96 that Antiochus seems to borrow the language, ideas, and use of Jude 21 from Polycarp. Compare the words last quoted from our Epistle. Antiochus seems to have the confusion between SS. Peter and Jude fixed in his mind. In Hom. 1 (de Fide), after naming S. Peter and misquoting 2 Pet. i. 5, he says Kal avdus, " 'EiroiKoSopovvTet iv Ty irlo-Tet,, vfj^are, ypr)yopr)o-aTe," and the rest of 1 Pet. v. 8 and part of ver. 9. If our readers will turn back to p. 44 sq., they will see that our writer in § 2 uses Hom. 1 and also a quotation from the beginning of Hom. 98, which is here again used in the passage now in hand. There is nothing, it must be noticed, in Antiochus' language here answering to our writer's " in fide unius Dei." In § 2, in the parallel place, is " fide in Deo," taken, as was there shown, from Hom. 1. All this proves that our writer pieced together his work out of the Homilies of Antiochus, and confirms the conjecture that in the passage now before us he used Jude 2 1 (vid. sup. p. 6 2, Dr. Westcott's remarks). As our writer proceeds the redundancy of language mentioned above is continued and even increased. After three or four lines there will be found a piece of what Dr. Westcott calls " mosaic," which curiously confirms the line we have been taking. Our writer says still in Ep. i. 1 3 : — Quod messis multa sit, operarii "On Se, " 6 Beptxrpos 7rdAvs, Kat autem pauci, etiam hoc notum est ot epydrai dAtyot," SrjXov 6Vt ev atque manifestum. Itaque prece- tois Katpois ¦qpuiv Atp-ds 1 ecrriv tov mur Dominum messis, ut emittat aKovo-ai Adyov Kvpiov. Sid SeijtfSy operarios in messem suam, opera- pev tov Kvptov tov Oepio-pov, oirios rios tales, qui recte tractent verbum eKBdXXg epyaras ets tov Bepio-pJov veritatis, operarios inconfusibiles, avrov- dXX' epydras toiovtovs, operarios fideles ; operarios, qui dp6?oTop,ovvTas tov Adyov i-ijs sint lux mundi, operarios, qui dAiyc'etas, dveTraio-xyvrovs, dve7rt- operentur non hunc cibum, qui Aiprovs, epydYas jticttovs, cpaxrri/- periturus sit, verum cibum ilium, pas oiKovp.evq7jv operarios qui imitentur patrem et almviov epyaTas toiovtovs, a>s ot filium et spiritum sanctum, de d7rdo-ToAoi, Kat opoioi avrots, ots hominum salute sollicitos ; non eAeyev 6 IlavAos- " Ov to epyov operarios, (nine times more). p;ov vp.ets eWe ev Kvptco ; " Swep- yovs t<3 2 Kvptco ets to EvayyeAtov, epya£op.€vovs T-qv crun-qpiav Tt3v 1 Cf. Amos viii. 11. 2 The teaching of Antiochus all along is founded on that of Dionysius the CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 73 dvOpdiiruiv " Ov yap 6eXei 6 ®eos tov Bdvarov tov dp,apTtoAov, y *l TlXsiaMs." iTifiUwe-xt Tis V tuv Upap^uv rsksiojns, xai vats ®s«w un n/vipyot xztx tov H7ov ' K.vinrro7.ov. "Tijy 61'ia.v ivlpyuav. Tovtso-ti to. tov Qsov tpya xai avrov lpya.Xopi.ivov, ffoQt^ovra, Ttkuovvra, xai to. optoia, us tovs vaiaayiuyov- pt'svovs xaroc. tvvttptiv ipya^opttvov. tc 'EvttSri Ta%is.'' l7ip.Uhitrxt tvv toQiv xai to t«s lipapxfias axoriXlapta, xai oTt tovs vpanovTas Ss? VpuTov xadatpisiai Ty dtdao-xa^ta toov ttatpiTtxoZv TVS aptapnas ffvpjo^vptriuv' ura Qoin^zo-tlau Tr yvatru tuv ho-xviutrreov Vpatbuv rec vipi Sioyvoitri'xs ooypcara x.t.X. 1 Part of an accurate quotation from Dion. Areop. Call. Hier. iii. 2. This quotation is used by our writer again along with the words of Antiochus which stand on either side of it in Ep. i. 9. Vid. inf. p. 77 sq. s> 74 MODERN CRITICISM. We shall now be quite safe in concluding that while Dr. Westcott is perfectly right in supposing that the coincidence in language between the Epistle and Hegesippus (or rather Eusebius) has great significance, he has nevertheless fallen into the trap which was carefully set by the writer of our Epistles. And no doubt this writer would feel himself amply rewarded if he could only peruse Dr. Westcott's remarks. We imagine, however, that he would feel some of the surprise which the rustic trap-setter feels when he finds that he has secured his victim, not fairly by the leg, but in some unexpected fashion. The writer beyond a doubt intended that his reader should infer that Hegesippus had derived the formula " the Law and the Prophets and the Lord " from the veritable Clement. Dr. Westcott escaped the trap so far. But then instead of drawing the inference that our writer had got the formula from Eusebius, he must needs go into the trap and conclude that he had found a genuine stamp of antiquity. This is a monumental illustra tion of the caution which is necessary in dealing with striking coincidences when they are found to exist between the scraps- of ancient authors preserved by Eusebius and writings the date of which are in doubt, or at least have never been investigated. This instance may be added to the other which has been already pointed out (vid. sup. p. 10 sq.). §5. On the passage quoted above from Ep. i. 13, Cardinal Villecourt has a note the tenor of which may be sufficiently gathered from the following remarks : — Their (Epistles to Virgins) editor, Cardinal Clement Villecourt, maintaining them to be the genuine work of his patron saint, argued that the clergy are all included in the class addressed, because they are exhorted to duties that may be regarded as clerical. But more probably the inference is the other way. Virgins (of either sex) were so honoured in the Church that they were admitted to teach and judge in it, though not ordained. , We know that martyrs came to- hold such a position, and that their claims came into unpleasant conflict with the disciplinary jurisdiction of the clergy ; and we have a hint, as early as St. Ignatius (ad Polyc. 5, already quoted), that the same was the case with the claims of virgins. — Simcox, Beginnings of the Christian Church, p. 389 (Rivingtons, 1881). CLEMENT'S -EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 75 If this writer had examined the Epistles to Virgins before using them, he would have been saved from citing a docu ment not earlier than the seventh century in illustration of the times of Melito. Perhaps he has examined the Ignatian Letters with as little care as these Epistles. At any rate a portion of Ignat. ad Polyc. 5 is quoted by Antiochus in Hom. 21, and a little below it will be found the original of a passage which Mr. Simcox no doubt has read with interest in Ep. ii. 2. Cardinal Villecourt laid hold on it as a mark of primitive times, and Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott no doubt find a place for it in their picture of the church life of the second century. Post heec preces fundimus et nobis damus osculum pacis, viri viris. Mulieres autem et virgines manus suas vestimentis suis involvere ¦ debent; atque ibi etiam nos mo- Uprj ovv -wdo-y vXaKrj r-qpelv deste et in omni verecundia, oculis ttjv eavTov KapStav, Kat pyS' dAws in altum sublatis, verecunde et crvvSvd£etv 7rap6evov pera veavtcr- cum omni decentia dexteram kov to irapdirav • el Se Kat evpe0a>- manum vestimentis nostris in- crtv 7rpecr/3vTiSes tepoTrpeirets, elXrj- volvimus ; et tunc accedere pos- o-at tois eWnuv xE'P a* T(? eavrwy sunt et dare nobis osculum pacis ipanu). 'Opotcos 8e Kat ot dvSpes in dexteram nostram vestimentis p-eTo. at'SoSs 6p$m /ffAen-ovres crco- nostris involutam. Post quae 7rois habitabit spiritus meus in homini- tovtois, ets rbv atfiva, Sta, to etvat bus in perpetuum, quia caro sunt, avrovs o-dpKas." " Et tis toivvv Omnis ergo, in quo spiritus Christi Ilvevpa ©eov ovk e^et, ovtos ovk non est, is non est ejus, sicut eariv avTov." 'O yap ITvevp,a scriptum est : Recessit Spiritus Oeov ex^v, IIvevp,aTi Oeov orotxet, Dei a Saul, et vexavit eum spiritus Kat IIvevp.aTt ©eov tois 7rpd£eis tov nequam, qui super eum omissus o-aparos 6WaTot, Kat £17 tc3 ©e tov ©eov, est, desiderium carnis omne abest, ovk ecrriv cppovypa crapKiKov. 'AAAct inprimis autem ab utriusque irdvTes ot Kapirol tov -rrvevparos, ot. sexus virginibus ; sed fructus o-coTiJptot, iv oh otKet 6 ©eos Kal eorum omnes sunt fructus spiritus epirepnraTei. 'Ev oTs u>o-Trjpe<; iv Koo-pw, Adyov £0775 Dei et habitacula et templa, in e^ovTes pev ovv to Kptp.a twv imminet doctoribus. Grave enim- StSacrKaXcov. Trepio-aorepov yap vero judicium subituri sunt doc- eon tSv AeydvTcov, Kat pi] ttoiovv- tores illi, qui docent et nonfaciunt; tcov, to Kplpa- ij/evSiivvpov yvScrtv et illi, qui Christi nomen menda- StSao-KovTtov, ko.1 epBarevovTwv citer assumunt dicuntquesedocere eiK?5 Kat Aovs 6S77- temere vagantwr seque exaltant yovvTtov, Kat dpcpoTepwv ets fi66v- 1 Ignat. Ephes. 15. The words in brackets show Zahn's readings. CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 79 atque gloriantur in sententia car- vov irnrrovTW. eK yap ef o'Sov nis SUOB. Isti sunt sicut, emeus, Adyov avToo yvcocrc377creTat dvTyp. qui cmco ducatum preestat et in foveam cadunt ambo. At condem- nabuntur, propterea quod garrulitate sua, etc. This passage has been given, partly because it shows the substantial accuracy with which Antiochus quotes Ignatius, and which no less marks his quotations from Dionysius the Areopagite, and partly because it was necessary for the study of the passage which is to follow to show the provision which our writer made beforehand for the use of "prophetis." which is found in it, but which has nothing answering to it in the parallel passage from Antiochus. Now it happens that in making this provision by writing " Ne multi inter vos sint doctores, fratres, neque omnes sitis prophetas " (joining parts of Jas. iii. 1 and 1 Cor. xii. 29 together), our writer thought lessly cut off from Jas. iii. 1 the latter part, " Knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation," which is the peg on which his own argument in the passage before us ought to hang. Thus his words " Timeamus ergo judicium, quod im- minet doctoribus," look back to that part of Jas. iii. 1 which our writer has struck out. In Antiochus, on the contrary, all is plain. His to Kptpa t&v BiBao-KaXeov looks back to the Jas. iii. 1 quoted by him in its entirety. His t&v Xeyoviasv koX p.rj itoiovvtwv no less refer to Ignatius' iav 6 Xeyenv iroiy, while his ix yap itjoSov Xoyov avr& yvmo-dycreTat, dvyp as plainly takes up Ignatius' Kal Si &v o-iya yivmo-KrjTai. These last words of Antiochus appear to be also a glance at S. Matt. xii. 33 eK yap tov Kapirov to SevSpov yivmaKerai, and ver. 37 eK yap t&v Aoyo)" crov SiKaiwdycrr), Kal eK t&v Xoyeov a-ov KaTaBiKao-dijar). This our writer sees, for at the exact spot where there should be words answering to those of Antiochus we find " at condemnabuntur propterea quod gar rulitate," etc. But this reference Antiochus would naturally make, for the yivmo-K^rab and indeed the underlying thought of Ignat. Ephes. § 15 come from S. Matt. xii. 33 sq. For the close of § 14 stands thus: — OvSets irto-Tiv «rayyeAAdp.evos dpaprdvet, ovSe dydwqv KeKTTjpe'vos p.tcret. " "Savepov to Se'vSpov dirb tov Kapirov avTov- " ovtcos ot eVayyeA- Adp.evot Xpto-Tov etvat, 8t' S>v rrpdo-o-ovo-tv 6yreias, y dot nee opprobrat. Illo igitur StaKovtas, euXoygTos 6 ©eos 6> charismate, quod a Domino ac- 7rdp,7rAovTos, " 6 ©eds,, o StSovs cepisti, illo inservi fratribus 7rao-tv dv6panroi% koX py 6Vet8i£cov."' pneumaticis, pTophetis, qui dig- %v ovv — tovs toiovtovs. Xdpto-p,a. noscant Dei esse verba ea, quae «xets ?rapa Kvpiov, StaKovycrov tois loqueris; et enarra quod accepisti -irvevpariKdi's, tois ytvcoo-Kovcrtv, on. charisma in ecclesiastico conventu a Aeyets, Kvpiov eo-riv, ets oiKoSop/ijv ad sedificationem fratrum tuorum t^s ev Xptcn-c3 d8eAov iv dcp6?aAp.ots Kvptov Sta. Tct^ovs efaTrtva ¦jrAovrtcrat irevyra, ver. 21 ; TTpo TeAevriJs py paKapifce pyMva K.T.X., ver. 28. The last is the oft-quoted saying known to everybody. With this and the language of Antiochus compare the following : — 3. Sope6a, .cos ev irvevpan TaTretvciJo-ecas- KaAov ovv to o~vyK07riav rots Kapvovo-iv dSeAcjbots, cos eipTjrai, St' dypvTrvtcov, Kat vijcrracov, Kat ev^cov dStaAetVrcov- *Eppe6y yap viro tov Kvpiov, " Aatp,dvta eK- BdXXere," pera. Kat tcov dAAcsv tdo-ecov " Awpeav eXdBere, Sto- peav bore. aut sororem segrotantes, eosque invisamus eo modo, quo hoc fieri CLEMENTS EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 8u decet : sine dolo et sine pecuniae amore et sine tumultu et sine garrulitate et sine agendi ratione, quae sit a pietate aliena et sine superbia, sed cum animo demisso et humili Christi. Itaque jejunio et oratione exorcizent illos, non vero verbis elegantibus sciteque compositis atque digestis, sed sicut- homines, qui a Deo acceperunt charisma sanandi, gratis accepistis, gratis date, confidenter, ad laudem Dei. Jejuniis vestris et precationibus ac continuis vigiliis ceterisque bonis vestris operibus opera carnis mortificate per virtu tem spiritus sancti. Qui sic agit, templum is spiritits sancti Dei est; hie daemonia ejiciat, et adjuvabit ilium Deus. Nam pulcrum est opitulari aegrotantibus. Praecepit Dominus : Dmmonia ejicite, aliasque multas sanationes facere jussit, et : gratis accepistis, gratis date. It will be observed that our writer uses S. Matt. x. 8 " Freely ye have received, freely give," twice. Beelen omitted the first use of this text because it seemed to him to be a gloss. He was no doubt right. Antiochus uses the text but once. Our writer may be at once convicted of being the copyist. It is interesting to observe how here as elsewhere he has manipulated the language of Antiochus so as to suit, as he supposed, the times of Clement. Thus " it was said by the Lord " is altered into " the Lord commanded," the simple mention of the other cures is changed into the command to perform many other cures, and the same stress is laid upon that as upon the injunction " Freely ye have received, freely give," while the stress which Antiochus lays upon the text is gained by using the text earlier. Antiochus' crvyKoiriav comes from Ignat. Polyc. 6, which he uses at the beginning of Hom. 92. There is another circumstance which plainly points out our writer as the copyist. Antiochus' hUnv avXov t^owtcx? suggest 1 Cor. xiii. 1 >yeyova y/aXKus r)~^&v r/ KvpfiaXov aXaXd^ov, and our writer uses that text. Antiochus, however, is not looking directly at that text, but at 1 Cor. xiv. 7 o/mos ra atyvya qbwvrjv SiBovra, e'lre avXos k.t.X., where the apostle's argument is not concerning the necessity of love as an accessory to all gifts, as in c. xiii., but as here in the homily, of the use of gifts for the edification of the Church. If Antiochus had had the words of our Epistle before him it is not to be supposed that he would have made so considerable an alteration. The two ¦ passages, however, when placed side by side speak for themselves. 86 MODERN CRITICISM. The language of Antiochus has been amplified and altered to suit our writer's purposes. § 9. There is one more picture of church life which cannot be passed by, for it deeply impressed Cardinal Villecourt, and no doubt greatly governed Dr. Lightfoot and others in ascribing our Epistles to the middle of the second century, no earlier and no later — unless indeed it be thought that these writings emanated from Syria, in which case it might be well for safety sake to relax the possible limit of date to the begin ning of the third century. Our writer lays great stress upon the washing of the feet. That this custom prevailed in the Church for some time is well known. But our writer joins with this the anointing of the person. Unction connected with baptism and other religious rites and ceremonies is of course familiar to students of the Apostolic Constitutions for example. But the everyday anointing of the person coupled with the washing of the feet is a less familiar custom, and must be very primitive. Our writer is very precise upon this point. He speaks but once of the kiss of peace, but once of the careful covering of the hands, but of the washing and anointing he speaks four times : — " neque lavant pedes nostros mulieres neque ungunt nos," Ep. ii. 1 ; " ille (frater) pedes nobis lavat, ille unguento nos ungit, ii. 2 ; nee lavant nobis pedes mulieres neque ungunt nos, ii. 3 ; et lavant tibi pedes et ungunt te mulieres," ii. 15. An extra washing is thrown in in ii. 4 by the citation of 1 Tim. v. 10. The few words quoted sufficiently indicate the tenor of the thrice uttered counsels which concern not the washing and anointing only, but the eating and drinking and sleeping arrangements. It is difficult, indeed impossible, to suppose that the writer was quite serious while writing down these repetitions. The three passages are founded upon one which occurs in Antiochus, Hom. 18 (irepl tov p,y ivSeXe^l^eiv yjraXXovo-ai<; yvvai^lv, vid. sup. p. 43 sq.), as will appear from the following comparison :• — ¦ III. Quod si incidimus in aliquem locum, ubi nullus sit frater sacratus, sed omnes sint conjunct!, omnes, qui ibi sunt, fratrem ad eos venientem suscipere debent et ministrare illi curamque de- CLEMENT S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 87 illo habere in omnibus, studiose, cum propensa voluntate. Igitur frater ille, ut oportet, ministrandus est ab illis, sicuti convenit ; debet autem ille frater junctis, qui sunt in eo loco, dicere : Nos Deo sacri cum mulieribus neque manducamus neque bibimus, neque inserviunt nobis mulieres aut vir gines, nee lavant nobis pedes "OXcos yap dvapp.d8tdv io-nv dv- mulieres neque ungunt nos, nee Bpa>iru> do-Kycrai (3ovXopevv, dXX' tva Sicut homines ergo, qui cognosci- copev ttoo-iv dirpoo-Koiroi. " EiSotcs mus timorem Domini, hominibus ydp, (pyo-iv, tov <$>6Bov tov Kvpiov, suademus, Deo autem manifesti dvBpdnrovs ireWop-ev, ®e<3 Se pev Totvvv, cos elpyrai, tov crKavSaXtd-ai Ttvas, aKOvovres Quod si incurramus aliquo, tov Kvpiov AeyovTos, oti "o-v/x- ubi inveniamus mulierem Chris- cpepet, tva At'0os p/vAucos Kpepao-8fj tianam unam solam, nee quis- irept rbv TpdxyXov avrov, ko1 quam alius ibi adsit nisi sola pitpfrj ets ryv 6dXao-o-av, y tva haec, non subsistimus in eo loco o-Kav8aXio-y eva tS>v piKpmv tov- neque precationes ibi peragimus tcov" (S. Matt, xviii. 6). Xpy neque Scripturas ibi legimus, sed ovv cos " d7ro irpoo-u>Trov otpecos Kat aufugimus inde veluti a conspectu dp,apTt'as p.eydA77s cpevyetv dx- serpentis aut sicut a conspectu avTtov, Sta to Bavarytpopov etvat peccati. Non autem, quod Chris- tois /?ovAop.evois do-Ketv, ov povov tianam hanc mulierem spernamus ttjv avrSiv opiXiav, dXXa koX ryv — absit a nobis, ut tali animo ivBvpyo-iv. He then quotes Prov. affecti simus erga fratres nostros xxxi. 3, and then Ecclus. ix. 4 in Christo — sed quia sola est, p.eTct tj/aXXovo-ys py evSeAex^e ideo timemus, etc. — Ep. ii. 5. k.t.A. — Hom. 18. The sentence in italics is clearly intended to be Antiochus' version of Ecclus. xxi. 2 w? diro irpocrcoirov otpea)?, qbevye dirb dp.apTla<;. But our writer has given emphasis to the departure from the original beyond the intention of Antiochus. The consideration displayed for the good Christian woman 88 MODERN CRITICISM. evidently arises from S. Matt, xviii. 6 quoted, as we see, by Antiochus (from memory, and so confused with S. Luke xvii. 2) in connection with Ecclus. xxi. 2. Our writer desires not "to offend" or, as S. Matt, has it in ver. 10, "to despise one of these little ones." Ep. ii. 13 is the counterpart of one of Antiochus' Homilies, in that it concludes, as almost every Homily does, with a block or string of texts connected together with " aut illius," " et rursus dixit," " et alibi," etc., and among them " et : Cum muliere, quae pulchre canit, noli esse assiduus," that is to say, Ecclus. ix. 4, quoted above by Antiochus. Our writer quotes it in connection with the history of Susannah, to which it does not seem to have any very obvious application. But though it is quite plain that our writer made use of Antiochus in working up his picture of primitive church life, it does not yet appear why he should be so zealous about the anointing. Of course the washing of the feet was a custom founded upon our Lord's action on the first Maundy Thursday. In like manner it is natural to connect the anointing here spoken of with that anointing which was done to our Lord Himself. But our writer makes this to be a matter of everyday hospitality. In the earlier sections of the Second Epistle he supposes himself to be wandering about the country, and reaching a place where there may be only women, or both men and women, leading celibate lives, or a place where all are married, and he prescribes what is to be done and said. In all these the anointing has its place. In § 2 he supposes himself to be overtaken by night, and to be urged by the brethren, " per iXa8eXiXofjev£a. There is such a word, it will be remembered, as ? ot op6vyo-iv tov dcpecos, sapientes in omni disciplina pie- Kat to aKe'patov ttjs Trepicrrepas, tatis, ut Deus per Dominum tva ctvvitj ev -rravri, rC to BeXy- nostrum Jes,um Christum omni pa tov ©eov, to dyaBov, Kal in re glorificetur per vitae nostrae evdpeorov, Kat TeXetov tva 8of- rationem castam sanctamque. do-By 6 ©eos ev 7racriv, 8ta tt)s Sive manducamus . . . ad Dei BeocreBovs ypwv rd^ews, Kat gloriam faciamus. Omnes, qui eiXiKpivovs woXiTelas- tva ot opcov- vident nos, semen benedictum sane- Tes 7;pas eTTtyvcocriv, oti o-ireppa tumque nos esse et filios Dei vivi evXoyypevov dywv io-pev, vtot ©eov- ... in exemplum scilicet tarn £covtos k.t.A. — Hom. 111. ovtco eorum, qui crediderunt, quam et toi'vov Kat ijyoijpevos twos ytve'o-flu. illorum, qui deinceps credituri tov iroipviov iv wdo-y SiKaioavvy sunt. Ex Christi grege simus Kat dvao-Tpoy dyia- 6o-tcos Kat omnimoda justitia moribusque Swatcos 7roAiTevdp.cvos, TypZv oo-a sanctissimis integerrimis, conver- eo-Ttv dyvd, oo-a o-epvd, et Tts 1 There was possibly some ancient yvupvi setting forth the profit of labour, for like thoughts are found in very many writers. Cf. Pind. N. 7. 109 t! vivos h, to npnov vxiov tniipx'rm. The connection of the idea with virginity seems plainly due to Jerome (Ep. xxii. 38 [p. 123] Grandis labor, sed grande praimwm, esse quod Martyres, esse quod Apostoli, esse quod Ohristus est), who probably got it from Wisd. iii. 14, 15 M spado . . . dabitur enim illi fidei donum electum, et sors in templo Dei acceptissima. Bonorum enim laborum gloriosus- est fructus. Clement's epistles to virgins. 91 sautes in rectitudine et sanctitate, dpenj, Kat et tis eiratvos, el tis evc^Tj- ut decet fideles, et sectantes ea, p,os. co quae laudibilia sunt et quae pudica imp' avTov, " ckSikciv . . . oVov et sancta et quae gloriosa et honori- yap TrXeiW kottos, ttoXv Kat to fica ; et quaecumque usui sunt, KepSos. . . . eoTco s ot 6 the want of diligence among editors and critics. It seems scarcely credible, and it is not creditable, but it is nevertheless. the fact, that no editor has ever thought it worth his while to find the right page, though it may be found in one minute by so simple an expedient as consulting the index of Scripture texts in Potter's edition of Clem. Alex. It is charm ing to listen to Potter's remarks upon the passage,1 which consists of a quotation (Ps. xxxii. 1, 2) accurately taken from the LXX. followed by two or three lines which he considers- to have been suggested by S. Paul, who quotes the text in Bom. iv. 7, 8. It is equally charming to listen to Dr. Lightfoot's remarks upon the same lines as they stand in Clement's Epistle, for he makes the same obvious suggestion (and not less charming to listen to Harnack). Neither of them knows that the two Clements have the passage in common. He will be a clever man, and one fertile in excuses, who will give a common-sense reason why Clement of Alexandria, who in the same place quotes Bom. vi., should copy a passage out of Clement's Epistle when he could get- all he wanted out of the language of S. Paul in Bom. iv. Even if a critic be found able to rise to the occasion and explain this, he will not be able to explain away the want of diligence among editors and critics, which is revealed by the fact that it has remained for this year of grace 1884 to supply the true page (p. 389) in Bernhard's reference. The passage in question will be found in Strom, ii. 15, p. 463 (Potter). The remark was made above (p. 3 6) that printing has in no small measure killed independent research. The remark is a just one, and abundantly illustrated by the 1 TiypaVTai yap, "Muxupioi, eov a$iiviffav at avo/ilai xai Zv lviKa\v$6viffav at apiapriai' f&axdptos avvtp, Z oh f&b KoyiffvtTai xvpto; apiupnav, oiTi 'Io-tiv Iv tw ffTopicoTt avrov SaXof. " euros o ptaxapiffpiis lyivivo \vl tovs \x\iXtyptivovs avl tov Btov, oia. iHffov "KpiffTov tov xvpiov fiptuv. ctK.aXvTTit fit.lv yap dydvti vXsjtles aptupnav." — Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 15, p. 463. CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 101 editions of Clement's Epistles. Editors have industriously copied their predecessors' numerous references to Clement of Alexandria sometimes even when the references were false, but no editor and no critic has ever attempted a comparison between the writings of Clement of Alexandria and the Epistle to the Corinthians such as would explain the supposed fondness of the Alexandrian father for his Boman namesake. If such a comparison had ever been attempted the passage which has been spoken of must necessarily have been found and discussed. Though Dr. Lightfoot in no place whatever in his edition of Clement's Epistle shows any knowledge of the passage found by Bernhard and lost by succeeding critics, he neverthe less in his appendix volume quotes from that passage as it stands in Clem. Alex. In a note on Ep. ad Cor. ii. 16 (p. 3 3 3), speaking of the interpretation of 1 Pet. iv. 8 (charity covereth a multitude of sins), he says " Clement of Alex andria is hardly consistent with himself. In Strom, ii. 15 (p. 463) he explains it of God's love in Christ which forgives the sins of men; whereas in" etc. 1 Pet. iv. 8 is not separated by so much as one word from the passage in ques tion. In using the word " Christ " (see note to last page), Dr. Lightfoot actually quotes from it. He is nevertheless silent as to the fact which has been pointed out. How is this silence to be explained ? It would be an . insult to suggest that he did not consult the page of Clem. Alex, to which he refers his readers. We cannot suppose that if he had observed this fresh proof, as he would think it, of the Alex andrian father's fondness for his Boman namesake, he would not have mentioned it, not perhaps on p. 333, but in the Addenda, p. 441, where he gives the various readings of the passage in question, and where the readings of Clem. Alex, are wanted, or at least in the Appendix to the Addenda, where omissions are supplied. We can only suppose that he did not observe the passage, that he read it as doubtless he and others had often before read it, without recognising it (vid. sup. p. 37). Let it not be supposed that we have brought to light the circumstances, curious from first to last, which surround this said passage simply for the sake of wounding the feelings of 102 MODERN , CRITICISM. one for whom in his high position as bishop in the Church of Christ we ought to and indeed have every respect. It is unfortunately the necessity of our case to be compelled to show that modern criticism, even in the person of its most illustrious exponent, is not infallible, that it is liable to mistakes, that it does not always see what is quite plain to be seen, and that it is not careful to find all the evidence that concerns the documents which it upholds and expounds with so much learning, scholarship, and earnestness. We need hardly say that it is not in these last respects that we call modern criticism in question. Great gifts of learning and scholarship may, however, exist without other gifts which are no less necessary. Certainly during our study of Clement's Epistles no references have been found so fruitful as those which Dr. Lightfoot's edition supplies. This will be abun dantly proved before we have done with Clement's Epistles. Beturning to the thread of our argument, our contention is that the genuineness of Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians has never been seriously examined, and that, consequently, it is no answer at all to the inference drawn from the coincidence between this Epistle and Stobaeus to urge that there may have been some earlier commonplace writer to whom both Clement and Stobaeus were indebted. On behalf of Stobaeus we claim certain property which is found in the Epistle. Stobaeus is the sole owner of the fragment from AUolus. It is for those who uphold the Epistle to prove its innocence of the theft. This digression grew up out of our supposition that perhaps critics may suggest that the coincidences between Antiochus and Antonius Melissa are to be explained by postulating an unknown earlier commonplace writer. We now reply that the suggestion is inadmissible, that it is at best " a cheque upon the bank of the unknown," which is not recognised by modern criticism when it contends against the author of Supernatural Religion. If the argument is inadmissible in the one case it is inadmissible in the other. The existence of these coincidences, it will be remembered, was mentioned by us as one of our reasons for not carrying the investigations into the Epistles to Virgins farther than has been already done. We desire above all things that the CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 103 question of the true value to be placed upon verbal coinci dences should be fairly faced. It cannot be left where it is. If we proceed farther, there is less chance of this being done. Coincidences would multiply, difficult questions might arise, and we might be told once more that " life is short and art is long, and that a plain man has no time to spare " for such investigations. We decide, therefore, to leave the questions concerning the Epistles to Virgins as they stand at present. We are content to wait and watch what critics will do with them. We have, however, another reason for breaking off the inquiry at this point. The Epistles to Virgins have amply served our purpose. They have enabled us to give an effectual reply to the boast of the most prominent school of ecclesiastical criticism in this country, that its illustrious members have so thoroughly explored the fields of ancient ecclesiastical literature that nothing now remains to be done but for all — the greater luminaries and the lesser lights alike — to rest and be thankful, to compare notes one with another, and to expound with a reverent spirit those thoughts and opinions of the ancient Fathers which a kind Providence has happily preserved. No one will now venture to deny that these great critics have expounded the Syriac Epistles to Virgins in happy ignorance that what may fairly be called their Greek version could without difficulty be found in a book commonly referred to by themselves. No one can deny that Dr. Lightfoot in his Veterum Testimonia to Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians has directed his readers both to the Epistles to Virgins and to the Homilies of Antiochus in blissful unconsciousness that the one is the alter ego of the other. No one can deny that for 130 years critics great and small have been content to look no farther than the contents of the Epistles themselves for their explanation. No one will venture to assert that there has at any time been any difficulty whatever in finding the evidence (or any part of it) concerning them that has been produced in this volume. Critics great and small have been content — this is beyond dispute — to play the part of the immortal " Antiquary." x It requires learning and scholar- 1 If any one desires to see the " Antiquary " in his glory, he should read the article upon the " Epistle to Diognetus " in Smith and Wace's Diet. Chr. Biog. He will find some eleven columns of closely printed matter, the whole of which, 104 MODERN CRITICISM. ship to play this part satisfactorily, and no one will question their great gifts in these respects. The part requires, too, no small measure of unsuspiciousness, and they have claimed this for themselves as though it were one of Heaven's best gifts, while still suspicion of possible danger is an instinct common to man and beast alike. They have boasted them selves to be wiser than S. Paul, for they have forgotten the wise caution which is to be inferred from S. Paul's words to the Thessalonians : — " The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle : so I write." And Antiochus, whose Homilies are extant "if that which no one reads can be said to be extant," has been the " Edie Ochiltree," with his " I mind the bigging o't," to confound the picture of church life and development which these critics have first read into and then read out of these Epistles, and to prove the futility of their " infallible touchstones of supposed anti quity." It is a pleasant and a primitive picture truly — that ancient father of the Church with eyes uplifted, while loving hands anoint his sacred body, his own hands outstretched, the one grasping the book with the device, " The Law, The Prophets, and The Lord," the other veiled, to receive the kiss of rapturous men and maidens. The hand that painted it was a falsarius of the seventh century or later. He might be placed later, but the picture would gain nothing. The lesson to be learned, if painful, is at least salutary. It can be best deduced from a criticism upon Peregrinus Proteus. The author of this volume was instructed that " students of certain subjects" may know their special subject thoroughly, but " know nothing about it." Such a student need not be this, that, or the other, " but it' is necessary that he shall "know what is known on the subject of ancient literature; in default of such knowledge he runs the risk of making himself ridiculous in the eyes of men whose special knowledge may be far less than his, but who know how far their knowledge will carry them, and what facts it has to reckon with beyond its province." We have exchanged more than one amicable letter with this writer, and we are sure that in the strife of controversy he can take as well as give, and that he will except one sentence and a list of authorities, of which no use is made, proceeds from the writer's "inner consciousness. " CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO VIRGINS. 105 pardon us if we turn the tables upon himself by suggesting that the words which he has placed in italics might be altered with advantage into what may he known. It is well to know what may be known " about " ancient, or what seem ancient, documents before proceeding to expound them, especially when such knowledge may be without difficulty obtained. It is well too for those persons who have the comfortable assurance that as they walk abroad in the fields of ancient literature they know all that is known about the various objects that meet their eye, not to forget that there may be some humble student, who lays no claim to universal know ledge, to whom it may be given to light upon a treasure which their feet have trodden indeed, but which their eyes have not seen, not so much because the treasure was hidden as that their eyes were holden. No one, we suppose, will now venture to deny that if for 130 years chapter after chapter and chapter after chapter of Clement's Epistles to Virgins have remained undiscovered in a Greek book not at all uncommonly referred to by the very persons who have pronounced judgment upon these Epistles, there may possibly be facts which Greek books can disclose as to another Epistle of Clement which, if they were known, would as certainly condemn it as the Homilies of Antiochus condemn the Epistles to Virgins. To the criticism on Peregrinus Proteus under the second head, described on p. 1, this volume is the answer. Those readers to whom this answer may appear too sharp are invited to remember that if the warning to critics, that they were expounding late literary frauds as ancient writings, uttered in 1879 had been heeded, there would have been no occasion for this volume. Critics could, if they had been so minded, have found out for themselves all that has been told in the foregoing pages and much more besides, and might have made known their discoveries in such manner as best pleased them. They at any rate would be listened to. It is not yet too late for them to ascertain the fact that the main positions taken up by the writer of Peregrinus Proteus in that work are absolutely true. APPENDIX. A. It has been pointed out on p. 59 that the MS. in which Cureton found the excerpt from " The First Epistle on Virginity, by Clement, bishop of Borne," contains also some fragments attri buted to Melito. On p. 61 it is asserted that there is as much to be learned about these fragments as there is about the Epistles to Virgins. This assertion, which has now to be made good, applies primarily to the two to which Dr. Lightfoot's remarks, quoted on p. 59, apply. In Contemporary Review, Feb. 1876, Dr. Lightfoot has an article on Supernatural Religion, in which he discusses the treatment of Melito in that volume. On p. 482 he quotes the whole of one fragment (No. xv., Otto,1 i. p. 420), " not only because the author (of Supernatural Religion) has made it the subject of some criticisms, but because it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical history and doctrine." After quoting it he says " the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into a focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of Melito rested." He goes on to argue that these facts were derived from our four canonical Gospels. Everything clearly depends upon the authenticity of the fragment. If the fragment was written by Melito, the four Gospels were in his hands, and he becomes a very important witness to the existence of our Gospels in the second century. Dr. Westcott (Canon p. 221) says that this fragment is " a very striking expansion of the early historic Creed of the Church, and deserves on every account to be quoted in full." Having quoted it he says " No writer could state the funda mental truths of Christianity more unhesitatingly or refer to the contents of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments with more perfect confidence." The same fragment is quoted in full by Mr. Simcox in Begin nings of the Christian Church (p. 390), and he adds " This is not only orthodox theology — it is second century theology " (p. 392). 1 The various remains of the writings of Melito can be most conveniently studied in Otto, Corp. Apol. Christ, vol. ix. (Jense 1872) p. 410 sq. Otto's numbering of the fragments is adopted in our remarks. 108 MODERN CRITICISM. It is thus plain that a great deal depends upon the authen ticity of this fragment. This question is easily disposed of by Mr. Simcox, who says that the fragment " is one of those only preserved in Syriac, but one where there is no reason to doubt (as there is with some) that the translator meant to ascribe it to the Bishop of Sardis of the second century " (p. 390). Mr. Simcox refers to one MS. only, — as if the fragment (No. xv.) were found in one only, which is not the case, — and even so hardly states the facts correctly. There are in different places of the MS. four excerpts. Of these the first (No. xiii.) is ascribed to "Melito, bishop of Sardis ; " the second (No. xiv.) to " the same ; " the third (No. xv.) simply to " Melito the bishop ; " the fourth (No. xvi.) to " Melito, bishop of the city of Attica." Which Melito does the scribe mean by "Melito the bishop," for he plainly has two in his mind? Attica cannot be Sardis.' A small portion of the fourth fragment is given by Cureton (Spic. Syr. p. 56) out of another Syriac MS., where it is ascribed to " Melito, bishop of Ittica." Attica and Ittica are the same in Cureton's opinion. More cannot be said than that the scribe probably means by " Melito the bishop," the Melito whom he has previously mentioned. But if so, the value of the ascrip tion of No. xv. to Melito will depend upon the correctness of the ascription of No. xiii. to Melito. Of No. xv. there is in existence a shorter Syriac version, and also an Armenian version, in both of which it is ascribed to Irenaeus. This fact ought to have been mentioned, even if it had been very summarily dismissed. It is mentioned by Dr. Westcott (p. 221), but he seems to think that it is sufficiently disposed of when he says that the " general tone " of the " few fragments that remain in the original Greek " " is so decided in its theological character as to go far to estab lish the genuineness of those which are preserved in the Syriac translation " (see also below, p. 113, note). Otto, as we shall see presently, speaks of yet another version (Arabic) of No. xv., where the ascription is to Hierotheus. Now it is beyond measure strange that no one of these critics, to whom — one for this reason, and another for that — the question of authenticity was of such great importance, should have been at the trouble to make a thorough search for evidence affecting these fragments of Melito before dealing with them. Long before these critics wrote, part of No. xiii. (which alone of the Syriac fragments is expressly ascribed to Melito, bishop of Sardis) had been printed by Mai as itself part of an excerpt not from Melito, while the whole of it as part of a much longer passage, ascribed to the same author as the excerpt just named, had been printed by Mai and by Migne but of Mai. On p. 409 sq. Otto speaks of fragment No. xv., and says that it APPENDIX A. 109 is ascribed to Irenaeus in a Syriac and Armenian version, and adds " Idem fragmentum ex Arabica versione, quae textum exhibit nostro simillimum, in lucem Ang. Maius in Spicilegio romano, t. iii. p. 704 s., praeposito Hierothei (" apostolorum diseipuli et Athenarum [sic] episcopi") nomine: Sub quo, ut jam Benanus (ap. Pitr. t. ii. p. lix.) vidit; depravatum latet Irenaei nomen ; nam similes sunt literarum ductus, quibus arabice scribuntur Hierotheus et Irenaeus." If Otto had looked back in Mai to p. 699 he might have found a clue which would, if he had followed it up, have given him fresh and very valuable evidence concerning these fragments. For in Mai's Spic. Rom. iii. p. 699 he would have found, if the figures used in the various references may be trusted, an Arabic version of part of fragment No. xiii. This fragment consists of two portions, the first short, the second of some length. Otto would have found half of the second or larger portion. But he would have found it expressly ascribed to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. If he had been disposed to carry the investigation further, he would have found among the writings of Alexander in Migne's Patrol. Grose, vol. xviii. (p. 585 sq.) a Sermo de Anima et Corpore, in Syriac, with an Additamentum. In this last he would have found both parts of No. xiii., and, between them, the whole of the excerpt just mentioned as given by Mai. He would have found also that the conclusion of No. xv. closely resembles the conclusion of the Sermo and Additamentum. Or Otto might have read these in Mai's Bill. Nov. Patr. ii. p. 529, out of which they were printed by Migne. Migne's volume was published in 1857. Critics, therefore, have had ample time to find important evi dence affecting the authenticity of these fragments. They have preferred (the author of Supernatural Religion as well as the rest) to commit themselves to definite opinions upon the question, without looking for evidence that was quite accessible. Mai's Monitum to the Sermo is given by Migne. He points out that the excerpt given by him in Spic. Rom. iii. p. 699 is found in the Additamentum and less exactly in the Sermo, and that a small fragment, given in Asseman. Bibl. Or. iii. p. 543 "ex Mocaffaei chronico Arabico," is found in Serm. 5. Mocaffesus ascribes this to Alexander, whom he calls "Eomanus Batriarcha." - Mai explains away the word "Eomanus," and supposes Alexander of Alexandria to be intended. He accounts for the Additamentum, and explains his reasons for printing it, as follows : — Quin adeo sermonis hujus duaa videntur exstitisse apud Alexandrinos, sive apud Orientales, editiones; quandoquidem in codice Syr. Vat., post integrum sermonem, aliud attexitur ejusdem fragmentum, non sine paucis variis lectionibus. Ut 110 MODERN CRITICISM. vero existimem, interpretationem Arabicam ex secunda Syriaca esse derivatam, utor hoc indicio, quOd Arabicum codicis 101 fragmentum cum illo posteriore Syriaco magis congruit quam cum priore. Itaque etiamsi decreveram additamentum illud omittere, quia valde similis sermoni integro videbatur, attamen quia postea comperi partem Arabicam cum hac potius parte Syriaca conspirare, ne mei argumenti vim ullatenus infirmarem, hanc quoque Syriacam repetitionem minoribus saltern formis imprimendam curavi. In Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 17,192 is found "A Sermon by the blessed Alexander on the Incarnation of our Lord and on Soul and Body." (See Cureton, Corp. Ignat. Introd. p. xxxiii.) This is the same Sermo 1 as the one printed by Mai, but it is not followed as in his MS. by the Additamentum. We shall now give in Cureton's translation fragment No. xiii. followed by the whole of the Additamentum in parallel columns with those portions of the Sermo to which it relates. By Mbliton, Bishop op Sardis. From the Discourse on the Soul and Body. For this reason the Father sent His Son from heaven incorporeal, that when He was become incarnate through the womb of the Virgin, and was born man, He might save man, and collect those members of His which death had scattered when He divided man. And further on. The earth quaked, and its foundations were shaken ; the sun fled, and the elements turned back, aud the day was changed; for they endured not that their Lord should hang upon a tree ; and the whole creation was wonderstruck, marvelling, and saying, "What new mystery, then, is this? The Judge is judged, and holds His peace; the invisible is seen, and is not ashamed ; the incomprehensible is seized, and is not indignant ; the immeasurable is measured, and doth not resist ; the impassible suffereth, and doth not avenge; the immortal dieth, and answereth not a word; the celestial is interred, and endureth! What new mystery is this 1 " The whole creation was astonished. But when our Lord arose from the dead, and trode death under foot, and bound the strong one, and loosed man, — then the whole creation perceived, that for man's sake the Judge was condemned, and the invisible was seen, and the immeasurable was measured, and the impassible suffered, and the immortal died, and the celestial was interred; for our Lord, when He was born man, was condemned in order that He might show mercy ; was bound in order that He might loose; was seized upon in order that He might let go; 1 For these facts we are indebted to the Rev. J. Dowden, D.D. (Pantonian Professor, Edinburgh), who very kindly inspected the MS. on our behalf. A description of it is given in Dr. Wright's Syriac Catalogue, pp. 778-780. APPENDIX A. Ill suffered in order that He might have compassion; died that He might save ; was buried that He might raise up. — Spic. Syr. p. 52. Additamentum. Igitur formam suam Deus visi- tare volens, quam ad imaginem ac similitudinem suam finxerat, postremis temporibus Filium suum incorporeum unicumque in orbem terrarum misit, qui in virgineo sinu incarnatus, homo perfectus nasceretur, ut perdi- tum hominem erigeret, dispersa ¦ejus membra recoUigens. Secus enim, cur Christo moriendum fuit? Num ipse reus mortis erat? Cumque Deus esset, cur f actus est homo ? Cur ad terram descendit, qui in coelo regnabat ? x Quis Deum coegit in terram ' se demittere, de sancta Virgine carnem sumere, fasciis in prae- ' sepi involvi, lacte nutriri, in ' Jordane baptizari, a populo ' illudi, hgno configi, in terras ' sinu sepeliri, tertioque die ex ' mortuis resurgere, redemptionis ' causa animam dando pro ' anima, pro sanguine sanguinem, ' mortem pro morte obeundo ? ' Nam Christus moriens mortis ' debitum, cui homo erat ob- ' noxius, dissolvit. 0 novum ' mysterium atque iueffabile ! 'judex judicatus est: is qui a ' peccatis absolvit, hgatus fuit : ' illusum ei fuit, qui mundum • formaverat : extensus (in cruce) ' est, qui caelum extenderat : ' felle pastus ille est, qui manna cibi loco suppeditavit ; mor- tuus est qui vivificat ; sepul- 1 "Tbtus hoc, quern virgulis distinguimus, locus exstat, ut in Monito dixi mus ex ejusdem Alexandri nominatim sermone in Arabicam linguam translate, apud nos Spicil. Bom. t. III. p. 699."— Mai. 8 " Sequentia, qu?e uncis inclusimus, edita jam a nobis fuerant sub ejusdem Alexandri nomine in Spicil. Bom. tomo III. p. 699, inter excerpta Patrum •ex codice Arabico Vaticano 101, quo continetur opus celebre monophysiticum, cui est titulus Fides patrum."— Mai. Sermo. 5. Age vero post hoc omne mortis servitium, et hominis cor- ruptelam, visitavit Deus crea- turam suam, quam ad imaginem sim i 1 itudinemque propriam for maverat; idque egit, ne haec perpetuum mortis ludibrium f oret. Misit ergo Deus de coelo in corporeum Filium suum, ut in virgineo sinu carnem sumeret; atque ita aeque ac tu, homo factus est, ut hominem salvificaret, ejus- que omnia sparsa membra colli- geret. Etenim Christus, dum hominem personae suae copulavit, id adunavit quod separatione corporis mors disperserat. Passus est Christus, ut nos seternum vivamus.2 "Secus enim cur " Christo moriendum erat ? Num- " quid morte dignurn commi- " serat ? Cur carnem sibi induit, " qui gloria convestiebatur? Cum- " que Deus esset, cur homo " factus est ? Et cum is in " cselo regnaret, cur in terram se " demisit, et in Virginis utero " incarnatus est ? Quaenam, oro, " necessitas Deum coegit in " terram descendere, carnem " assumere, panniculis in prae- " sepi involvi, lactante sinu ali, " baptismum a famulo suscipere, " in crucem tolli, terreno sepulcro " infodi, a mortuis tertia die " resurgere ? " Quaenam eum, inquam, necessitas compellebat? Satis exploratum est, opprobria 112 MODERN CRITICISM. " cro traditus, qui mortuos " resuscitat. Obstupuere vir- " tutes, mirati sunt angeli, " trepidarunt elementa, res creata " universa concussa est, terra " tremuit, ejusque fundamenta " nutarunt ; sol fugit, elementa " subversa sunt, lux diurna re- " cessit ; quia Dominum suum " crucifixum cernere non susti- " nuerunt. Creatura attonita " dixit : quae est hsse mysterii " novitas ? Judex judicatur, et " tacet ; invisibilis cernitur, nee " confunditur : capitur incom- " prehensibilis, nee indignatur : " immensus mensura continetur, " nee repugnat : impassibilis " patitur neque suam injuriam " ulciscitur : moritur immortalis, " neque conqueritur : coelestis " sepehtur, idque aequo animo " fert. Quale hoc, inquam, " mysterium est ? Certe crea- " tura stupore defigitur." Cum autem Dominus noster de morte surrexit eamque conculcavit, cum fortem alligavit, hominemque liberavit, tunc omnis creatura propter Adamum mirata est judi- catum judicem, visum invisibilem, passum impassibilem, mortuum immortalem, ccelestem terra sepul- tum. Nam Dominus noster factus homo ; damnatus est, ut misericordiam impertiretur ; liga- tus, ut solveret ; comprehensus, ut liberaret ; passus, ut passiones nostras sanaret ; mortuus, ut vitam nobis redderet ; sepultus,' ut nos suscitaret. Etenim pa- tiente Domino, nostro passa est ejus humanitas, quam similem homini habebat; atque ilhus passiones, qui ei similis erat, dissolvit; et moriens, mortem peremit. Idcirco in terram ilium hominis gratia esse per- pessum, ut eum morte expediret. ... Be sane vera pertuht pro nobis dolores, ignominiam, cruci- atus, necemque ipsam ac sepul- turam. . . . Aspicite, o homines, aspicite omnes populi, prodigia nova ! Ligno eum suspenderunt, qui terram expandit : 1 clavis eum confixerunt, qui mundi funda menta stabilivit : circumscrip- serunt eum qui ccelum circum- scripsit : vinxerunt ilium, qui peccatores absolvit : aceto pota- verunt ilium, qui justitiae potum praebuit ; f elle eum paverunt, qui vitae cibum obtulit : manus pe- desque ejus corruperunt, qui illorum manibus pedibusque medelam fecit : illius oculos vi clandendos curarunt, qui visum ipsis restituerat : sepulchro eum tradiderunt, qui mortuos turn ante suam passionem turn etiam in ligno pendens suscitavit. 6. . . . quo tempore Dominus noster mortem calcavit . . . fortes alligavit . . . Tunc cceles- tes virtutes miratae sunt, angeli obstiipuerunt, tremuere elementa, creatura omnis concussa est, dum mysterium novum spectaculum- que terrificum in orbe editiun cerneret . . . quanquam terra nutaret ... sol fugit, luna dis- paruit, sidera lumen suum sub- traxerunt, dies cessavit. . . . 7. . . . siquidem neque crea tura occasum ejus aequo animo tulit, neque ejusdem passionem elementa . . . Cuncta in Christi passione turbata fuerunt atque convulsa . . . Quale demum hoc est mirum mysterium . . . TJnus judicium subiit, millia plurima absoluta fuerunt. Hie autem homini quern salvaverat 1 "Hue pertinet fragmentum quod Mocaffeeus, ut in Monito dixi, ex Alex- andri hoc sermone excerpsit."- — Mai. APPENDIX A. 113 descendit, ut mortem persequens, similis factus, in cceli culmen rebellem hominum interfectricem conscendit, Patri haud aurum occideret. TJnus quippe judicium argentumve aut pretiosos lapides, subiit, myriades hberatae fuerunt : sed hominem oblaturus quern ad unus sepultus est, myriades imaginem similitudinemque suam resuriexerunt. Hie est inter formaverat ; atque hune Pater Deum et homines Mediator : hie sua dextera extollens, sublimi est omnium resurrectio et salus : soho collocavit, et populorum hie est errantium dux, pastor judicem fecit, angelicorum exer- hominum Uberatorum, vita mor- cituum ducem, cherubinorum tuorum, cherubinorum auriga, aurigam, verae Hierusalem filium, angelorum antesignanus, et rex virginis sponsum, et regem, per regum ; cui gloria in saacula omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen. saeculoruia. Amen. With the two conclusions here given compare No. xv. From Meliton the Bishop, on Faith. We have made collections1 from the Law and the Prophets relative to those things which have been declared respecting our Lord Jesus Christ . . . who rose from the dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended to heaven, who sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those that are departed, the recoverer of those who were lost, the light of those who are in dark ness, the deliverer of those who are captives, the guide of those who have gone astray, the refuge of the afflicted, the bridegroom of the Church, the charioteer of the Cherubim, the Captain of the angels, God who is of God, the Son who is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen. — Spid Syr. p. 53. The closing clauses here coincide partly with the Addita mentum and partly with the Sermo. So the opening words of No. xiii. are in some respects nearer to the Sermo than to the Additamentum, e.g. "that He might save man," where the Sermo has " ut hominem salvificaret." It appears then from the above that Melito's fragment No. xiii. is contained in its entirety in the Additamentum. The second part of this fragment begins in the Additamentum 1 "The remarkable coincidence of these words with the fragment quoted by Eusebius (H.E. iv. 26) is a strong proof of the genuineness of the fragment: itiuirxi . . ytvUSai o-oi Ixloyas U rs tov vipiov xai tZv vpoQnruv vtpl ttio-tiv ai£dv- ejus opera de fide ipsius testantur, owav, ttio-tiv ireirXypo^opypivyv, quod verus sit fidelis, fide magna, 7rto-Tiv (fxan^ovo-av iv tois koXoIs fide perfecta, fide in Deo, fide epyots, iva 8o£acrBfj 6 t5>v oAojv quae luceat in bonis operibus, ut ®e6s. mo-Tis dpxy KoXXyo-eus ®eov. omnium pater per Christum glori- 'O TeAetos ttio-tos "XlBos vaov Oeov ficetur. — Ep. i. 2. wapiti yToipao-pevos ets otKoSop/>)v ®eov Jlarpos, dva(f>epopevos ets Ta v\j/y, 8ia T-qs pyxavys 'lyo~ov Xptoroi!- o eo-Tt crrcuipos o-^otVa) xpc6p,evos tco Tlvevpan " k.t.X. (Ignat. Ephes. 9.) Hom. i. (irepi irioTecus). Ii ergo, qui in veritate virgines sunt propter Deum, obcediunt ,, p. 45. illi, qui dixit : Justitia et fides ne tibi deficiant ; alliga illas collo tuo, et invenies animm turn misericordiam ; et meditare bona coram Deo et coram hominibus. Semitm justorum ergo veluti lux lucent, crescitque illarum lux, donee firma stet dies.—Ep. i. 2. Cf. 6 yap oirui (piX6irT(i>xos aKOvet tov Xeyovros' " HJXeypocrvvai /ecu tticttis py iKXeiTreTwcrdv ere' ds KaTopButcry y ypepa," — Horn. 98. Ep. i. 2 sq. Nam hominem Dei oportet in omnibus verbis f actisque suis perfectum „ p. 46. esse adornatumque in sua ratione agendi omnimoda honestate atque ordine et recte facere opera sua Xp-i) ovv tov tov ®eov avBpiaTrov omnia. III. Sunt enim utriusque iv ttovti epyco dyaBiS koX X6ya> sexus virgines pulcrum quoddam i£yprvo-Bai koX Kopeio-Bai, ko\ ev- exemplar, fidelibus et iis, qui futuri o-xyp-ovms koX koto. teXei tov aKovovra- dXXa wpaf is fidelis. Igitur ne quisquam deci- evSvvapos dXyBivbv iroi/Aeva cwro-, piat vos vanis sermonibus err oris. SeiKvvcnv. — Hom. 111. 116 MODERN CRITICISM. Nam eo, quod nomen virginis cuipiam f uerit, si desunt illi opera praecellentia et pulcra et virginali statui convenientia, salvari non po terit. Etenim Dominus noster is- tiusmodo virginitatem stultam vo- cavit, prout dixit in evangelio ; quae quidem propterea, quod nee oleum habebat neque lumen, relicta fuit extra regnum caelorum et prohib- ita a gaudio sponsi et cum sponsi adversariis computata. Nimirum apud eos, qui tales sunt, solum- modo est species pietatis ; virtutem autem ejus abnegant. Apud se existimant se esse aliquid, cum nihil sint, et errant. Unusquis- que ergo exploret opera sua seque ipse noscat ; nam vanum out turn exhibet, quicumque virgini tatem et sanctimoniam profitetur, virtutem autem ejus abnegat. 'O veavtencos toivvv, TovTeortv o eavTov ewov^tcras Sta. ryv y3acrt- Xetav, /cat y irapBtvos, iav py Kara. Trdvra toiovtoi 3>o~w, coo-n-ep ot 0X17- Bivol pip-qral tov Xpicrrov, ov 8v- vavrat croiBfjvat. To yap XeyearOat TrapBevov, Kal ras dpeTas py exeiv dvaXoyovs, /cat oikciovs /cat appo- £ovcras Ty TrapBevv), pwpav ryv roiavryv TrapBevov epyo-iv 6 Kvpios. 'Acpeyyys yap ovo~a /cat dveXaws, e$u> rijs Bao~iXeias tcov ovpaviiiv ey/cXeteTai, vvp.v pio-ovvrwv tov vvptfiiov Xoyio-Byo-erai. Ao/cet yop etvat ti y dirpa/CTOS pySev ovcra, Kal cf>pevaTraTa. eavryv. Ao/ap,a£eYco Se e/caoros to epyov avrov, /cat etivrdv e7riytvcoo-KeYcD, otc Bpyo-Keia eo-Tiv p-draios, irapBeviav /cat ey/cpdVetav opoXoyovvTes ?X£tv> TVV 8e 8vvap.iv avrys ypvyp.evoi. — Horn. 21. Vid. sup. Nostin' sicut vir in hunc agonem legitime descendere atque certare, p- 49- cum hoc in virtute spiritus eligis, ut coroneris corona lucis teque (triumphantem, Funk), circumducant per Jerusalem supernam 1 — Ep. i. 5. 'Ayconcrai vop.tp.cos dBXyo-ai, tva tov orecpavov, ov yperio-ui, aTroXavys, ko.1 o-re6pos iropTrevo-ys (so also Tilman, v.l. direXBys) irpbs ryv dvco 'Iepovo-aXijp,. On § 4 vid. sup. p. 47 and Hom. 127. On § 5 vid. sup. p. 89 sq. and Hom. 112. Ep. i. 5 sq. p. 53. Num intellegis et nosti, quam sit res honorabilis castimonia 1 Num intellegis, quam magna, quam excellens sit gloria virginitatis 1 VI. Uterus sanctae virginis gestavit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Dei filium, et corpus, quod Dominus noster gessit et quo certamen suum fecit in hoc mundo, ex sancta virgine induerat. Hinc ergo intellege praestantiam et claritatem virginitatis. Vin' tu esse Christi- anus 1 Christum ergo imitare in omnibus. — Ep. i. 5 sq. p. 54, Meya ovv eo-Tiv ev dyveta. fxeveiv ets t^v npyv rijs crapKos tov Kvpiov iv aKavxyo-la. iav yap Kav^yaryTai, dTTioXero (Ignat. ad Polyc. 5) ypij Se /cat Tas Xot7ras dpeTas, /ca#cos etpijTat, dvaXdycos exeiv T^ Trap&eviq.. Sti y TrapBevia dvcoTepa iravTcov eo-Tiv. JlapBevos yap pyrpa iKvyo-e tov Oeov Aoyov. e/c tovtov yv&Bi T-qv 86£av rys irapfjevtas. Ot yap depte- povpevoi tco ©e<3, pipyrai rov Xpicrrov yivovrai- s xdyla Xpicrrov." 'Ev yap tois toiqvtols cppovypacriv, s dpecrei avrtp, p. 48. 118 MODERN CRITICISM. Talis a Domino nosfiro non recedit, verum spiritu cum Domino suo est, sicut scrip- turn est : Estate sancti, sicut ego sanctUs sum, dicit Dominus. VIII. Neque enim si quis nomine tantum sanctimonialis vocatur, jam sanctimonialis est : verum omnino sanctimonialis esse debet et cor- pore et spiritu, etc. Kal iv Hvevpd errrw irpos Kvpiov, KaBlas yiypairrai- Ayioi ecrecrue, oti eyco ayios elpi," Xeyei Kvptos. Ov yap ovopan povov i/rtXcp 6 ayios, ayios icrnv, dXX iv Travn b ayios, tco crdipan Kai tco 7rvev- paTi. — Horn. 21. On § 8 vid. sup. p. 76 and Horn. 130. Ep. i. 8 sq. Vid. sup. Hanc ob causam merito dicit in p. 76. generationem istiusmodi : Non habitabit spiritus meus in homini bus in perpetuum, quia caro sunt. Omnis ergo, in quo spiritus Christi non est, is non est ejus, sicut scriptum est : Recessit Spiritus Dei a Saul, et vexavit eum spiritus nequam, qui super eum emissus fuar at a Deo. IX. Voluntati Spiritus Dei consentit quisquis, in quo est Spiritus Dei ; et quia consentit Spiritui Dei, ideo carnis opera mortiiicat vivitque Deo, subigens " Ov py yap Karapeivy, cpycriv, to ITvevp,d pov iv to7,s dvBpdrirois tovtois, ets t6v atcova, Sta, to etvai avrovs crapKas." " Et tis toivvv IJLVeupa ©eov ovk l^ei, ovtqs ovk ecrnv avrov." 'O yap ITvevpa ©eov e^cov, ITvevpaTt ©eov oroi^ei, Kat ITvevpaTt Oeov ras irpd£ ets tov crcopaTOS Bavarol, Kat £,y too ©eui vrroTTid^iov Kal SovXayooyfiv T-qv crdpKa, tva evoiK-qcry iv avrco to dytov llvevp,a to elpyviKov. Kal cppovpovpevos vir' avTov, Troiycrei KapTrbv TTio-rews, dperys, crocptas, dyvet'as k.t.X. — Horn. 130. et in servituiem redigens corpus suum affligensque illud, ut aliis prm- dicans pulcrum sit exemplum et imago fidelibus ac versetur in operi bus Spiritu sancto dignis, ut ne reprobus fiat, sed probatus sit coram Deo et coram hominibus. Ab eo, inquam, homine, qui Dei est, desiderium carnis omne abest, inprimis autem ab utriusque sexus virginibus ; sed fructus eorum omnes sunt fructus spiritus et vitas, ac veraciter sunt civitas Dei et habitacula et templa, in quibus commoratur et habitat Deus versaturque sicut in sancta civitate cselesti. Ideo autem mundo apparetis sicut luminaria, quia ad v&rbum vitm attenditis; atque ita estis revera laus et gloria ac laetitiae corona et gaudium bonorum servorum in Domino nostro Jesu Christo. Omnes enim, qui videbunt nos, agnoscent vos esse semen, cui benedixit Dominus, ¦esse veraciter semen inclitum Ev yap tco dvBpwTTO) tov ©eov, ovk iariv cppovypa. crapKiKov. 'AXXa 7ravTes ot Kapiroi tov irvevparos, ol crio-rypioi, iv dts oiKei b ©eos Kai ip.Trepnra.Tei. 'Ev ois cpaivovrai s cjxocrTypes iv Kocrpco, Xdyov fanjs e^ovTes cos dXyB&s, Kat Kavxypa, Kal Sofa rijs evcreBeias virdpxovres. "'H yap lepapxia . . ¦. Kat TeXe- o-iovpyetv," tva Tras 6 opcov vpas, eTriyvwcryTai on cnreppa eiXoyy- pevov icrre vrrb Kvpiov, dXyBSis cnreppa evrlpov, " Bao-tXeiov tepd- Tevpa, iBvos dyiov, Xaos eis 7repi- iroiycriv ©eov," KXypovopoi dcpBdp- tcov Kat d/xapdvTiov eirayyeXicov, "TI2v oipBaXpbs ovk tSev, Kat oSs ovk yKovo-ev, Kal iirl KapStav dv- BpuiTrcrv ovk dveBy) a yrolpacrev 6 APPENDIX B. 119 sanctumque et regnum sacer- ®ebs ro'is dyarrcW avrov," ml af)talp gentem sanctam, gentem pev ovv to Kpipa tS>v imminet doctoribus. Grave enim- SiSao-KaXcov. Trepuro-orepov ydp vero judicium subituri sunt doc- e'ori tcov XeyoVrcov, Kal py iroiovv- tores illi, quicf ocent etnonfaciunt; tcov, to Kpipa- ij/ev8u>wpov yvcocriv et illi, qui Christi nomen menda- SiSao-Kovrcov, Kal ipBarevovnov citer assumunt dicuntquesedocere e'lKy ko.1 cSvo-iovpevcov d™ tov vobs veritatem, at circumcursant et rys crap/cos, TvcpXfiv TvcpXovs 58y- temere vagantur seque exaltant yovWcov, Kal dpcpoTepcov ets BoBv- atque gloriantur in sententia car- vov ttitttovtwv. ck yap e£o8ov nis sum. Isti sunt sicut, emeus, Xoyov avrco yvooo-D^creTai dvyp. qui cmco ducatum prmstat et in foveam cadunt ambo. At condem- nabuntur, propterea quod garrulitate sua, etc. Ep. i. 11 sq. At condemnabuntur, propterea quod garruhtate sua et vana » P- 81. doctrina animalem docent sapientiam atque inanem fallaciam verbo- rum persuasionis sapientia? humanm^ secundum voluntatem principis potestatis aeris et spiritus illius, qui vim suam exserit in immorigeris ; secundum institutionem hujus smculi et non secundum doctrinam Christi. Verumtamen si accepisti sermonem scientim aut sermonem doctrinm aut prophetim aut minis- irXyv, eleiXytfco.sxdpio'p.aTrvevp.a- terii, laudetur Deus, qui largiter tlkov, kuI Xoyov crotj>ias, y yvwo-ews, opitulatur omnibus, qui omnibus y SiSao-KaXids, y Trpoq^yreias, y dot nee opprdbrat. Illo igitur StaKovias, evXoyijTos 6 ®eos 6 charismate, quod a Domino ac- 7rdpirXovTos, " 6 ©eos, 6 StSovs cepisti, illo inservi fratribus irdcriv dvBpu>Trois, ko.1 pi) dvet8t£cov." 120 MODERN CRITICISM. pneumaticis, prophetis, qui dig- noscant Dei esse verba ea, quae loqueris ; et enarra quod accepisti charisma in ecclesiastico conventu ad aedificationem fratrum tuorum in Christo. Nam bona sunt et ex- imia ea, quae utilitatem hominibus Dei affenmt, si apud te revera sunt. XII. Pulcrum quoque atque utile est visitare pupillos et viduas, inprimis pauperes, qui multos habent liberos, ante omnia autem domesticos fidei. Sunt haec sine controversia officium servorum Dei, eaque prasstare pulcrum ipsis atque decorum est. Porro etiam hoc convenit fratribus in Christo et justum atque decorum ipsis est, bus vexantur. %v ovv — tovs toiovtovs. Xapio-pa e^eis Trapa Kvptov, SiaKoVijo-ov tois TrvevpaTiKoTs, tois ytvcocrKovo-tv, oti a Xeyeis, Kvpiov icrnv, els olKo8op.yv t?)s ev Xpio"Tc3 dSeXtpoTirros, ev Trdo-yraTreivopocrvvrj Kai Trpaoryn- brrep iarl KaXbv Kal mcpeXipov tois dvBpilrirois. — Hom. 47. oti Se koXov to i-ma-KeTrTecrBai dpcpavovs Kal xVPa^ *" "Hi BXiij/et. avrcov, Kat TroXvreKvovs Trevyras, paXiora Se wpcoYov Kat tovs o'lKei- ovs -rijs 7ri'o-Teoos, Trao-iv irp68yXa Kal dvavnppyrd icrnv Oti Se Kat tovto KaXbv ko.1 utcj>eXipov ry iv XptoTco dSeXcpoTijTi tovs Saipovi- fivTas imo-KeTTTecrBai. — Horn. 99. ut visitent eos, qui a malis spiriti- Ep. i. 12. Vid. sup. Porro etiam hoc convenit frat- p. 84. ribus in Christo et justum atque decorum ipsis est, ut visitent eos, qui a malis spiritibus vex antur, atque orent et adjurationes super eos faciant utiliter, precibus, quse acceptae sint coram Deo, non vero verbis splendidis multis- que, compositis atque praeparatis, ut hominibus appareant elo- quentes ac felicis memoriae. Sunt autem similes tibim sonanti aut tympano tinnienti garrulitatem eorum, et nihil juvant eos, super quos adjurationes faciunt, sed proferunt verba terribilia, quibus homines terrificant, non vero agunt ibi cum vera fide secundum doctrinam Domini, qui dixit : Hoc genus non exit nisi in jejunio ac precibus firmis et continuis atque intenta mente. Itaque sancte orent petantque a Deo cum alacritate omnique sobrietate et castitate, sine odio et sine malitia. Sic adeamus fratrem Hom. 99. OTI Se Kat TOVTO KaXov Kal OifyeXipov t»j ev Xpto-Tco dSeXcpoT^Ti tovs Saipoviuyvras iirio-KeTTTecrBai, Kal evxecrBai eVdvco avruiv ev^v tco ©ecp dpecrKOvcrav, 7tiotcos, Kat pi) eK crvv^e'crecos Xoycov iroXXcov, y p.eXfTas i£opKicrp<£v irpbs ori- 8ei£iv dvBpunrapecrKeias, irpbs rb avyvai evXdXovs, y pvypovas ypas, Sikijv avXov ^ovVTas 7rpos tovs ivepyovpevovs, cpXvapias Kal BaTToXoyias, Kal ovk iv irtcrrei dXyBeias, KaBias eSt'Safev 6 Kvpios- tovto yap xpycriv " To yevos ev Trpocrevxy eKTevet, Kal TTicrTei p.eTa v^trretas, e^ep^erai." N-ijcpoVrtos ovv tov Kapvovra eVicrKet^cop.et'a, cos ev Trvevp.an Taireivcoo-eios- KaXov ovv to crvyKOTTiav tois Kapvovcriv a8eXois, cos eipyrai, Si' dypv7rvtcov, Kal v^crreicov, Kai ev^cov dSiaXeiWtov. TZppeBy yap vrrb tov Kvpiov, " Aatpovta eK- BdXXere," pera ko.1 toov dXXcov ido-ecov " Acopeav IXdBere, Sco- peav SoVe." aut sororem aegrotantes, eosque invisamus eo modo, quo hoc fieri decet : sine dolo et sine pecuniae amore et sine tumultu et sine APPENDIX B. 121 garrulitate et sine agendi ratione, quae sit a pietate aliena et sine superbia, sed cum animo demisso et humili Christi. Itaque jejunio et oratione exorcizent illos, non vero verbis elegantibus sciteque compositis atque digestis, sed sicut homines, qui a Deo acceperunt charisma sanandi, gratis accepistis, gratis date, confidenter, ad laudem Dei. Jejuniis vestris et precationibus ac continuis vigiliis ceterisque bonis vestris operibus opera carnis mortificate per virtu tem spiritus sancti. Qui sic agit, tmnplum is spiritus sancti Dei est ; hie daemonia ejiciat, et adjuvabit ilium Deus. Nam pulcrum est opitulari aegrotantibus. Praecepit Dominus : Dmmonia ejicite, aliasque multas sanationes facere jussit, et : gratis accepistis, gratis date. Ep. i. 12 sq. Etenim pulcrum hoc est coram Deo et coram hominibus, ut sci licet recordemur pauperum et ut fratres atque peregrinos diligamus propter Deum et propter eos, qui credunt in Deum, sicut ex lege AC PHOPHETIS ET A DOMINO NOSTEO Jesu Christo didicimus de cari- tate erga fratres et peregrinos, propterea quod ipsum hoc jucun- dum est atque acceptum vobis ; propterea quod omnes vos edocti estis a Deo. Nostis enim ea quae dicta sunt verba de caritate erga fratres et peregrinos ; potenter namque dicta sunt verba ilia Hom. 97. KaXy icrnv y t£iXo£- Vid. sup. evta Kat tco OecS dpecrKovcra, pdX«rra P' ' Se irpos Toiis otKetovs Trjs moreta?. Horn. 98. 'H cpiXoTrnoxia Kal y iXoievia Svo kXoSoi eicrlv . . . " Upovoov KaXa evcoirtov Kvptov Kat > dvBpu>TT(ov." Horn. 96. 'O dyairoiv tov Tr\yo~iov, paKpav ecrnv airo Trdcrys dp.aprias. Ildcra yap Vpacpy TraXatd Te Kal yea tovto yplv Trapa- KeXeveTat, to "'Ayarrav tov irXy- criov cbs eavTov." Aevrepav yap avryv pera ryv Trpbs ©eov dya^v 6 Kvptos ivroXyv direSei^ev eK tov vop.ov etvat . . . Kat o IleTpos. "'EavToiiS ev dyd-rry Typycrwp.ev, omnibus, qui ea faciunt. XIII. 7rpoo-8exopevoi to IXeos tov k. 17. I. 0 fratres nostri dilecti. Etiam, X.". . . "'OSeKvptosn-Xeovdo-aiKal quod quis aedificare debeat et irepto-o-evo-at ^p.as ry dydiry, ry ets confirmare fratres in fide unius dXXijXovs, Kat eis 7rdvTas."^ Qycrlv Dei, manifestum est et notum. Se Kal dXXots, " ITepl Se rijs ^>iXa- SeXcpias awol vp,eis Beo8i8aKTOi ecrre els to dyaTrdv dXX^Xovs." Kat ypeis ovv, dSeXcpoi, dya7T7;crcop.ev tovs bpoiricrTOVS ypSv k.t.X. Ep. i. 13. Quod messis multa sit, operarii autem pauci, etiam hoc notum est atque manifestum. Itaque prece- mur Dominum messis, ut emittat operarios in messem suam, opera rios tales, qui rede tractent verbum veritatis, operarios inconfusibiles, operarios fideles; operarios, qui sint lux mundi, operarios, qui operentur non hunc cibum, qui "Oti Se', " 6 Bepicrpbs iroXvs, Kal 01 ipydrai dXiyot," SrpYov on iv tois Kaipots ^p-cov Xip,os 1 eoriv tov dKoicrai Xoyov Kvpiov. Sto 8eyBSy pev tov Kvptov tov Cepicr/iov, oircos eKBdXXy ipydras els tov Bepurpbv avrov- dXX' ipydras toiovtovs, opBoropovvras tov Xoyov tijs dXyBeias, dveiraicr^vvTovs, dveirt- XyrrTOVs, epydVas ttuttovs, epeocrri}- p.72. 122 MODERN CRITICISM. periturus sit, verum cibum ilium, pas diKovp.evys, efryalppevovs py qui permaneat in vitam ceternam; ryv /Jpcocriv ryv diroXXvpevyv, operarios tales, quales apostoli ; dXXb. ryv pevovcrav ets £cojjv operarios qui imitentur patrem et atcoviov epydVas toiovtovs, cos 01 fihum et spiritum sanctum, de dirdcrroXoi, Kal bpoioi avrdis, ots homhium salute sollicitqs ; non eXeyev 6 IlavXos- " Ov to epyov operarios, (nine times more). pov vp-ets eo-re ev Kvpta) ; " Svvep- yovs tco 2 Kvptco ets to EvayyeXtov, e'pya£op.evovs ryv crcoTTjpiav tcov dvBpanrutv " Ov yap #eXei 6 ©eos tov SctvaTov tov dpapTcoXov, cbs to en-i- crTpei/fat, ko.1 fjjv avTov." • • • ""Eotiv yap rys iepapj(ias y TeXeicocris, to kot oocet'av dvaXoyt'av em to Beopipyrov dvaxByvai, Kai ©eov crvvepyov yevecrBai, Kal Setfai ryv Belay evepyeiav KaTa. to SvvaTOV ev eavTcp (patvopevijv, Kal do-mjo-ai BovXopevia, p.eTct sternunt nobis muheres, nee som- yvvatKos icrBieiv Kal irtveiv, y viro num capimus ibi, ubi dormiunt yvvatKos virypereicrBai, y irpo- mulieres, ut irreprehensibiles voetv yvvaiKuv, y oXcos per' avrcov simus in omnibus, ut nemo exeiv yvcocriv. 'Opottos 8e xat Kavo- APPENDIX B. 123 offendatur aut scandalizetur in nobis ; et quando omnia haec agimus, nemini sumus offendiculo. Sicut homines ergo, qui cognosci- mus timorem Domini, hominibus suademus, Deo autem manifesti sumus. <&oByBu>pev Totvvv, cos elpyrai, Quod si incurramus aliquo, ubi Inveniamus mulierem Chris- tianam unam solam, nee quis- quam alius ibi adsit nisi sola haec, non subsistimus in eo loco neque precationes ibi peragimus neque Scripturas ibi legimus, sed aufugimus inde veluti a conspectu serpentis aut sicut a conspectu peccati. Non autem, quod Chris- tianam hanc mulierem spernamus — absit a nobis, ut tali animo affecti simus erga fratres nostras in Christo — sed quia sola est, ideo timemus, etc. — Ep. ii. 5. Ep. ii. 6. Si vero contingat ut eamus in locum, ubi non sint Christian^ et necessarium nobis sit ibidem per aliquot dies consistere, sapientes simus sicut serpentes et simplices sicut columbm ; et ne simus quasi insipientes, sed ut sapientes in omni disciplina pie- tatis, ut Deus per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum omni in re glorificetur per vitae nostrae rationem castam sanctamque. Sive manducamus . . . ad Dei gloriam faciamus. Omnes, qui vident nos, semen benedictum sanc- tumque nos esse etfilios Dei vivi ... in exemplum scilicet tarn eorum, qui crediderunt, quam et illorum, qui deinceps credituri sunt. Ex Christi grege simus omnimoda justitia moribusque sanctissimis integerrimis, conver- santes in rectitudine et sanctitate, viKats dvdppoo-Tov eori (rvvSvd£eiv peTa dvSpcov, irpbs to p.y8eva o-Kav8aXi£ecrBa.i Si' ^pcov, dXX' tva top-ev Trao-iv d-irpocrKOTroi. " EtSbVes yap, cpycriv, tov 6Bov tov Kvpiov, dvBpunrovs ireiBopev, Oeco Se cpave- povpeBa." — Horn. 18. tov crKavSaXicrai Ttvds, aKovovTes Vid. sup. tov Kvpiov Xeyovros, oti " 0"vp- P-oi. epei, tva XiBos p.vXwcos KpepacrBy irepi tov rpdxyXov avrov, ko.1 pid>By els ryv BdXacrcrav, y tva 0"KavSaX«r»7 eva tcov p.iKpSsv tov- tcov" (S. Matt, xviii. 6). Xpy ovv cos " d-7rb Trpocrcoirov ocpecos Kal dp.apnas peydXys cpevyeiv " air avTcov, Sta, to Bavarycpopov etvat Tots /3ovXop.evois acrKeiv, ov pdvov T-qv avrcov bpiXiav, dXXd Kal ryv ivBvpycriv. He then quotes Prov. xxxi. 3, and then Ecclus. ix. 4 peTa ij/aXXovcrys py evSeXexi^e k.t.X. — Horn. 18. Hom. 112. oi yap crapKiKol to. TrvevpariKa „ p. 90. TTpdcrcreiv ov SvvavTat, ovSe ot irvevpaTiKol to, crapKiKa (Ephes. 8). Xpy ovv tov BovXopevov ryv dyyeXiKyv ravryv tov povypovs Biov dcrKycrai 7roXireiav, Kry- cracrBai ryv eXeias 8i6pBwo-is yivecrBia Trap' avrov, " ikBiKelv . . * ottov yap irXeicov kottos, ttoXv Kai to KepSos. . . . ecrrco povipos iv rrdo-iv cos ot 6'cpets, ko.1 aKepaios cbs ai irepio-Tepai k.t.X." (Ignat. Polyc. §§ 1, 2.) Vid. sup. VII. Consideremus nunc, fra- 'AKovo-cop.ev ovv n irepl ovtcov p. 39. tres, et videamus, quomodo gesse- Kal y Beta Tpay Siayopevei. . . . rint sese omnes patres justi toto tempore incolatus vitae suae ; inves- tigemus atque inquiramus inde a lege usque ad novum testamentum. Pulcrum quoque est atque utde, ut sciamus, quam multi viri et quinam perierint per mulieres, item quam multae feminae et quaenam perierint per viros, ex adsiduitate, qua adsidui erant apud invicem. Porro etiam hoc indicabo, scilicet quam multi et quinam viri cum viris commorati sint toto vitae suae tempore et ad finem usque una permanserint in operationibus castis, immaculati. VIII. Atque hoc ita esse mani- 7rcos Se ko.1 y AZyv7TTta ; y ryv f estum notumque est. Ad Joseph quod attinet fidelem, prudentem, sapientem, justum, usquequaque timoratum, nonne casti sanctique illius pulcritudinem mulier libidi- nose concupiviU Cumque ille libidinosam ejus voluntatem per- ficere recusaret, haec falso testi- monio virum justum ilium in summam afflictionem et miseriam projecit, immo et in vitae discri- men. Deus autem eripuit eum ex omnibus malis, quae per infelicem illam mulierem illi supervenerant. p.opcf>yv tov 'Icocrfjip' iiTeiroByo-e crapKos TroBto, tov ovtos crepvord tov Kal tovtov p.y iTTivevcravTOs, ets BXtyeis ko.1 orevoxcopias Stct rijs ij/evByyopias tov evcreBy rrepie- ireipev 2cos Bavdrov. 'Opcts, oti 6 evTeXextcrp-os crapKos rijs AtyvirTtas TTOcrqv KaTeipydcraro tov SiKatov BXiij/iv ; Ata. tovto ovv Trdcri Tpoirois arvp.cpepov yu.iv icrnv direxeo-Bai d-TT avTcov. Ov yap t^ovcri Xvo-l- reXeiav ai avTcov crvvTv^tai Tots 6e'Xovo-iv ev dXyBeia ryv ocrcpvv iTepi£y yvvatKos, Xeyco Se rijs turn, firmum. Pulcritudinem in- Bepo-aBee, eTriBvpyo-as, ttoo-ois Ka- spectavit hlC mulieris cujuspiam, koTs TrepieTreo-e ; Tavnyv yap tScbv 6 Bethsabae dico, cum videret earn ayios dXyBCs Xovop.evyv, iv iiriBv- mundantem sese et lavantem nu- piq. ri/s p-opepiys avrijs yevdp.evos, dam. Vidit hanc mulierem vir Trocryv KaKiav 6 7rap,pe'yio-Tos dvyp sanctus, et reapse captus est per KaTeipydcraro ; koX ypaprev els voluptatem ex ejus conspectu. ©e6v ov p.6vov ry poixio, Trepiwe- Animadyertite nunc, quanta mala o-cov, dXXd Kal Vdv dvSpa avrijs fecerit^ illius mulieris causa: et dvaipe0j}vai KeXev'cras- opas irbcryv peccavit Justus ille vir et manda- 8pap,aTovpyiav KaKias ereXeo-iovp- tmn dedit, ut maritus illius inter- y^cre Sid r>)v iiriBvg.iav b xp'otos ficeretur in praelio. Vidistis, Kvptov AavtS; 7ratSevt5cop.ev tov quot dolos malos struxerit et pi) imBvpelv. Et ydp ryXiKovroi adhibuerit ; et cupidine istius dvSpes Sid yvvaiKuv edXcocrav, ttws mulieris homicidium patravit ^pets ot dvio-xves pera rys eavrcov David, qui unctus Domini vocatus irrtoo-etas StaTropevdpevot, Kal ev est. Admonitus esto, o homo. p.e'o-co 7rayt'Sos SiaBaivovres eKcpev- Nam si tales tantique viri per fcopefla,- mulieres perierunt, quaenam tandem tua virtus est aut quisnam tu inter sanctos, ut cum mulieribus aut cum adulescentulis conver3eris diu noctuque, cum multa joculatione, absque timore Dei. Non ita, fratres, non ita agamus secundum lapsum illorum, verum memores simus effati illius de muliere, quo dictum est : Manus ejus laqueos tendunt et cor ejus retia pandit ; Justus evadet ab ilia, improbus autem in manus ejus cadet. Itaque nos sancti devitemus cohabitare cum feminis Deo sacratis. Neque enim decora est hujusmodi agendi ratio nee convenit servis Dei. XI. Nonne legisti de Amnon 'Opotcos Kal 'Ap,p,cov Kal Sid rijs et Thamar, liberis David ? Amnon dSeXcpys airov ®dpap dvypeBy iste sororem suam appetebat earn- KaXfis. (1 kokcos.) que oppressit nee eidem pepercit, propterea quod turpi libidine earn concupivisset. Et improbus scelestusque evasit ob assiduam ejus cum ilia conversationem, quae non erat in timore Dei; et fmdam rem operatus est in Israel. Quapropter non convenit nobis nee decet nos conversari cum sororibus inter risus et petulantiam, sed cum omni verecundia ac castitate et in timore Dei. XII. Nonne legisti de rebus 'flo-avVcos Kal 6 SoXop,cov e^cov gestis Salomon, filii David, cui crocpiav Kal eBy vp.lv ' iXeyByre ' dcptere, tva ddteBy vp.1v ' cos TroietTe, ovtco iroiyB-qcreTai vpiv' cos 7roteiTe, ovtcos TroiyByo-erai vp.1v cos SiSoTe, ovtcos Sot^o-eTai vpiv ' cos St'SoTe, ovtcos BoByo-erai ip.iv ' cos Kpivere, ovtcos KpiByo-ecrBe vp.iv' cos Kpivere, ovtcos KpiBycrecrBe' cos cos xpijcrTeveo-^e, ovtcos xPV,rTev^V' x/"? XP,?a"reu^,?0"£Tat 0"eTat vp.iv' co perpio perpelre, iv vpiv' co p.erpio pierpelre, dvnper- avTco peTpyBycrerai vpiv." — Cle- pyBycrerai vp.1v." — Clement of ment of Rome, Ep. i. 13. Alexandria, Strom, ii. 18, p. 476 (Potter). " Evang. sec. Matth. vii. 2, p. 476." Potter's Index, p. 1068. Dr. Lightfoot's note: "The same saying which is recorded in Matt. vii. 1, 2, Luke vi. 36-38, to which should be added Matt. V. 7 /xaxdpioi oi sksrgiom or/ avrol sXiri^aotirai, vi. 14 iav yap dtpriri Teig av8puiroig x.r.X., Luke vi. 31 xaDAig 6i\sn ha iroiwsiv x.t.X. As Clement's quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the canonical Gospels for the source of this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above § 12. The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral tradition or from some lost Gospel is not needed." p. 67. Potter's note: "Hsec prsecepta, quoad sensum, occurrunt Matth. v. vi. vii., Luc. vi." On another quotation, which follows almost immediately, Potter says " Haec e variis Scripturae locis concinnavit Auctor : ut Prov. xix. 11 ; ... xiv. 23 . . . xvii. 12." Similar fusions of text are very frequent in Clem. Alex. Since 1633 critics have been professing to compare the writings of the two Clements. MOBRISOS AND GIBE, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. WORK BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Peregrinus Proteus: An Investigation into certain Belations subsisting between De Morte Peregrini, The Two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, The Epistle to Diognetus, The Bibliotluca of Photius, and other Writings. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. Athenxurn. There are many other curious phenomena of a like nature which Mr. Cotterill has brought to light, and he deserves the greatest praise for the diligence, honesty and thorough scholarship with which he has investi gated the subject. Perhaps it is premature to pronounce an opinion as to the conclusion to which they point. . . . But whatever may be the inferences that are to be drawn, Mr. CotteriU's work deserves to be studied earnestly, and the problems which he presents for solution are at once exceedingly interesting and exceedingly important. The Literary Churchman. That he has made out a strong case against many of the impugned writings ... we willingly allow ; that the question of the genuineness of S. Clement's Epistles is herein decided in the negative, we cannot conclude. Competent scholars will, we trust, pursue the examination which Mr. Cotterill has begun with such skill and perseverance. Scotsman. It must be sufficient to say in general that a pretty strong ease is made out against all the writings assailed. . . . And if he does not conclusively establish his theory, he has at least enough to say in its defence to make his book well worthy of the attention of all interested in the writings whose character he discusses. Tablet. We shall only say that Mr. Cotterill shows immense learning, and writes in a style remarkably lucid. His volume will be of great value to all students of ecclesiastical history and of the reprints and republica tions in general of the Eenaissance. The Presbyterian, Philadelphia and New York. Mr. Cotterill has a fixed conviction that a great literary fraud was practised at the time of the revival of learning, and that all the patristic books named above are spurious. He believes that Henry Stephens, who belonged to the celebrated family of printers in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was at least accessory after the fact, but that other persons were the principals. He examines the Epistles with great minuteness, and with great ingenuity in the comparison of their weak and halting parts, and certainly brings out facts which abundantly favour his theory. It is a learned book, such as was wont to be seen two centuries ago. Preparing for Publication. MODERN CRITICISM AND THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS AND MODERN CRITICISM AND CLEMENT'S EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. PUBLICATIONS OF T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s. Alexander (Dr. -J. A.) — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. New and Revised Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 17s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library— A Collection of all the Works of the Fathers op the Christian Church prior to the Council of Nicea. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Auberlen (C. A.)— The Divine Bevelation. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Augustine's Works— Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. Bannerman (Professor) — The Church of Christ : A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History ; Being an Account of the Development of the Early Church in the form of a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Three vols. 8vo, 27s. Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s. Pastoral Theology. Shortly. Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d. Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s. Bessef (Dr. Rudolph)— Biblical Studies on St. John's Gospel. Two vols, crown 8vo, 12s. Binnie (Wm., D.D.) — The Church. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Bleek (Professor)— An Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Bowman (T., M.A.)— Easy and Complete Hebrew Course : Con taining Hebrew Grammar, Exercises, and Lexicon. 8vo. Part I., 7s. 6d. ; Part II., 10s. 6d. . .. , Briggs (Prof. C.A., D.D.)— Biblical Study : Its Principles, Methods, ° and History. With a Preface by Rev. Prof. Bruce, D.D., Glasgow. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Brown (David, D.D.)— Christ's Second Coming: Wdl it be Pre- Millennial ? Seventh Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. The Epistle to the Romans. Bible Class Handbooks. Price 2s. Bruce (A. B., D.D.)— The Training of the Twelve ; or, Exposition of Passages in the Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under Discipline for the Apostleship. Third Edition, 8vo, 10s._ 6d The Humiliation of Christ, in its Physical, Mhical, and Official Aspects. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. . rw Buchanan (Professor)— The Doctrine of Justification : An Out line of its History in the Church, and of its Exposition from Scripture with special reference to recent attacks on the Theology of the Reformation. (Second Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. T. and T. Clark's Pttblications. Bungener (Felix) — Bome and the Council in the Nineteenth Century. Crown 8vo, 5s. Calvin — His Life, Labours, and Writings. By Felix Bungener. 8vo, 8s. 6d. Institutes of the Christian Beligion. Translated by Henry Bevkridoe. Two vols. 8vo, 14s. Calvini Institutio Christianse Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck. Two vols, 8vo, Subscription price, 14s. Candlish (Rev. Professor) — The Christian Sacraments. " Bible Class Handbooks, Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc tion to the Life of Christ. 8vo, 9s. Gaspers (A.)— The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. Cave (Professor) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice. Demy 8vo, 12s. Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. Fourth Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. Cotterill (J. M.)— Peregrinus Proteus : An Investigation into certain Relations between De Morte Peregrini, the Two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, etc. 8vo, 12s. Cousin (Victor) — Lectures on the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d. Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa ment Greek. Third Edition, demy 4to, 25s. Crippen (Rev. T. G-.) — A Popular Introduction to the History of Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s. Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. A Beview of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age. Second Edition, Two vols, 8vo, 21s. Reformers and Theology of the Beformation. 8vo,10s.6d. ¦ Discussions on Church Principles. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. A Contribution to the Criticism of the Pentateuch. Crown 8vo, 5s. Dabney (R. L., D.D.) — The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered. Crown 8vo, 6s. Lectures on Systematic and Polemic Theology. Second , Edition, imperial 8vo, 16s. Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. With Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. Sixth Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Delitzsch (Professor)— A System of Biblical Psychology. Second Edition, 8vo, 12s. Commentary on Job. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Psalms. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. On the Proverbs of Solomon. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Old Testament History of Redemption. Lectures Translated from the Ms. by Professor S. I. Curtiss. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d, T. and T. Clark's Publications. Delitzsch (Prof.)— Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Dods (Marcus, D.D.)_The Post-Exilian Prophets -Haggai, t^Amn H' M^ohi. With Introduction and Notes. Bible Class Hand books. Crown 8vo, 2s. The Book of Genesis. Bible Class Handbooks. Cr. 8vo, 2s. Doedes (Dr. J.)— Manual of Hermeneutics for the New Testa ment. Crown 8vo, 3s. Dollmger (Dr.)— Hippolytus and Oallistus : or, The Roman Church m the First Half of the Third Century. 8vo, 9s. Dorner (Professor)— History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d. System of Christian Doctrine. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. ¦ History of Protestant Theology, particularly in Germany, viewed according to its Fundamental Movement, and in connection with the Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Douglas (Principal)— The Book of Judges. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 3d. The Book of Joshua. Bible Class Handbooks. Cr. 8vo, Is. 6d. Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philifpians, Colossians. New and Revised Edi tions, Edited by Rev. William Young, M.A. Four vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each. Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.) — The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in support of the Four Gospels. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Elliott (Chas., D.D.) — A Treatise on the Inspiration of1 the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s. Ernesti — Principles of Biblical Interpretation of New Testa ment. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s. Ewald (Heinrich) — Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. 8vo, 8s. 6d. Fairbairn (Principal) — Typology of Scripture, viewed in connection with the series of Divine Dispensations. Sixth Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s. The Revelation of Law in Scripture, considered with lespect both to its own Nature and to its relative place in Successive Dispen sations. (The Third Series of Cunningham Lectures. ) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy : An Exposition. Fourth Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ¦ Prophecy Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special Functions, and Proper Interpretations. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. New Testament Hermeneutical Manual. 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Pastoral Epistles. The Greek Text and Translation. With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Pastoral Theology : A Treatise on the Office and Duties of the Christian Pastor. With a Memoir of the Author. Crown 8vo, Fisher (G-. B., D.D.)— The Beginnings of Christianity, with a View of the State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ. 8vo, 12s. T. and T. Clark 's Publications. Forbes (Professor) — The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture; or, Scripture Parallelism Exemplified. 8vo. 8s. 6d. ¦ Analytical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the Train of Thought by the aid of Parallelism. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its Relation to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.)— A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d. Gifford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets : Twelve Lectures preached on the Foundation of Bishop Warburton. Crown 8vo, 5s. Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truths of Scripture in connection with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 8vo, 9s. Glasgow (Professor) — The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. 8vo, 14s. Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 31s. The Messianic Prophecies. The Baird Lecture, 1879. In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d. Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s. Godet (Prof.) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is. Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. • Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cr. 8vo, 6s. Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things that are Made. Crown 8vo, 5s. Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) — History of Doctrines. Translated from the last Edition, and edited, with large additions from various sources. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzer land chiefly. Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition of the German by Evelina Moore. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Hall (Rev. Newman, LL.B.) — The Lord's Prayer: A Practical Meditation. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Harless (Dr. C. A.)— System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Harris (Rev. Samuel, D.D.)— The Philosophical Basis of Theism : An Examination of the Personality of Man to ascertain his Capacity to Know and Serve God, and the Validity of the Principles underlying the Defence of Theism, Ex. 8vo, 12s. Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. A Contribution to Biblical Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d. Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of Man— Spirit, Soul, and Body — applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrine of Original Sin, the New Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. With an Appendix on tho Fatherhood of God. Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. Hefele (Bishop)— A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol. I., .to A.D. 325 ; Vol. IL, a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., A.D. 431 to the close of tho Council of Chalcedon, 451. 8vo, 12s. each.. Hengstenberg (Professor)— Commentary on Psalms. 3 vols. 8 vo, 33s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Hengstenberg (Professor)— Commentary on the Book of Ecclesi- astes. To which are appended : Treatises on the Song of Solomon ; on the Book of Job ; on the Prophet Isaiah, etc. 8vo, 9s. The Prophecies of the Prophet Ezekiel Elucidated. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, and the Integrity of Zechariah. 8vo, 12s. History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testa ment. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. - Christology of the Old Testament : A Commentary on J-T.„ ¦»!-.-„• ..Ti_.Jf.i-_.. r, ...... „ .- -. J the Messianic Predictions. Second Edition, Four vols. 8vo, £2, On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Hermes Trismegistus— Theological and Philosophical Works. Translated from the original Greek by J. D, Chambers, M.A. 8vo, 6s. Herzog — Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology. Based on the Beal-Encyklopadie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck. Edited by Professor Schaff, D.D. In Three vols., price 24s. each. Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on Thessalonians. 8vo, 9s. Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In stitute. Translated from the French by W. Affleck, B.D. Second Editioii. Demy 8vo, 12s. The Theory of Morals. Translated from the latest French Edition. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. Shortly. JoufFroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. 8vo, 5 s. Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown 8vo, 6s. Keil (Professor)— Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Commentary on the Books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two vols. -8vo, 21s. Manual of Historico - Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.)— Notes on Genesis; or, Christ and His " Church among the Patriarchs. With a Preliminary Notice by the Bishop of Lincoln. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Kfflen (Prof.)— The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History, Doc trine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced from the Apostolic Age to the Establishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, a.d. 755. 8vo, 9s. Krummacher (Dr. F. W.)— The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edit. , crown 8vo, 7s.^ 6d. . David, the King of Israel : A Portrait drawn from Bible History and the Book of Psalms. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — Autobiography. Edited by his Daughter. Crown 8vo, 6s. Kurtz (Prof.) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. 8vo, 15s. History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Ladd (Prof. G. T.)— The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture : A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols., extra demy, 28s. Laidlaw (Rev. Prof. John,, D.D.)— The Bible Doctrine of Man. (The Seventh Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited, with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D. Second Edition, in Four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 28s. Commentaries on the Old and New Testament. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10 vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each. Lange (J. P., D.D.)— Commentary, Theological and Homiletical, on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 18s. ¦ On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 2.1s. Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. New Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. Lindsay (Rev. Prof., D.D.) — The Reformation. Bible Class Hand books. Crown 8vo, 2s. The Gospel of St. Mark. Bible Class Handbooks. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d. Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. Ldtze (Professor)— Microcosmos. In preparation. Luthardt, Kahnis, and Brfickner — The Church : Its Origin, its History, and its Present Position. Crown 8vo, 5s. Luthardt (Prof.) — St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel. 9s. St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according to its Peculiar Character. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (Sixth Edition), Saving (Fourth Edition), Moral Truths of Christianity (Third Edition). Three vols, crown 8vo, 6s. each. Macdonald (Rev. Donald) — Introduction to the Pentateuch : An Inquiry, Critical and Doctrinal, into the Genuineness, Authority, and Design of the Mosaic Writings. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s. Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Epistle to the Galatians. With Introduction and Notes. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Macpherson (Rev. John, M.A.) — The Westminster Confession of Faith. With Introduction and Notes. Bible Class Handbooks. Cr. 8vo, 2s, Presbyterianism. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. M'Lauchlan (T., D.D., LL.D.)— The Early Scottish Church. To the Middle of the Twelfth Century. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Mair (Alexander, D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Crown 8vo, 6s. Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (General Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (Individual Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (Social Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Te F ?t P' ?-D-)-fROWTH OF THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY, from Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3d Edition, 4s. 6d. yerM_™) — °RITrCAL AND Exegetical Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s On Mark and Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. ' rT a °HN'S GosPEL- Two vols. 8vo, 21s. ¦ Un Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. ¦ On the Epistle to the Romans. Two vok. 8vq, 21s. On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On Ephesians and Philemon. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ¦ On Thessalonians. (Dr. Lunemann.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Pastoral Epistles. (Dr. Huther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. v / . The Epistle to the Hebrews. (Dr. Lunemann.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. On St. James' and St. John's Epistles. (Dr. Huther.) 8vo, I0s. 6d. Peter and Jude. (Dr. Huther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Monrad (Dr. D. G.)— The World of Prayer; or, Prayer in relation to Personal Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. Morgan (J., D.D.)— Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 9s. Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 9s. Mulier (Dr. Julius)— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Murphy (Professor)— A Critical and Exegetical Commentary bN the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 12s. Books of Chronicles. Bible Class Handbooks. Cr. 8vo, Is. 6d. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. Navflle (Ernest)— The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despriiis. Cr.8vo,4s.6d. Modern Physics : Studies Historical and Philosophical. Translated by Rev. Henry Downton, M.A. Crown 8vo, 5s. NicoU (W. R., M.A.) — The Incarnate Saviour: A Life of Jesus Christ. Crown 8vo, 6s. Neander (Dr.) — General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d. Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. 8vo, 7s. 6d. each. Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s. Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown 8vo, 24s. Romans. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Corinthians. One vol. 8vo, 9s. Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. Onevol.8vo, 10s. 6d. Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £i, is. The ' Hebrews ' may be had separately, in Seven vols., £2, 2s. nett. Philippi (F. A. ) — Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. From the Third Improved Edition, by Rev. Professor Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Piper (Dr. Ferdinand) — Lives of the Leaders of the Church Universal. Translated from the German, and edited, with additions, by H. M. Maccracken, D.D. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I.— The Synoptical Gospels. Vol. II.— St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. III.— Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV.— Hebrews to Revelation. In Four vols, imperial 8vo, 18s. each. Pressense" (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses Translated from the French. Crown 8vo, 6s. Bainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine. (The Fifth Series of the Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Reusch (Professor) — Bible and Nature. In preparation. Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. In preparation. Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy: Its Origin, Historical Charac ter, and Relation to New Testament Fulfilment. Crown 8vo, 5s. Bitter (Carl) — The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula. Four vols. 8vo, 32s. Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Robinson (Edward, D.D.) — Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. 8vo, 9s. Rothe (Professor) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. 8vo, 6s. Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism : Essay on Religious Philo sophy. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Schaff (Professor)— History of the Christian Church. (New Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged. ) Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100. In Two Divisions. , Ex. 8vo, 21s. Ante-Nicene Christianity, a.d. 100-325. In Two Divisions. Ex. 8vo, 21s. Post-Nicene Christianity, a.d. 325-600. In Two Divisions. Ex. 8vo, 21s. Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) — Principles of New Testament Quotation Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Or. 8vo, 2nd Edit, 4s. Scrymgeour (Wm., M.A.) — Lessons on the Life of Christ. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Shedd (W., D.D.)— History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Smeaton (Professor)— The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. On the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. (Ninth Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Smith (H. B., D.D.)— Faith and Philosophy : Discourses and Essays. Edited, with an Introductory Notice, by G. L. Prentiss, D.D. 8vo, 12s. Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.)— Medieval Missions. (Duff Missionary Lectures, First Series.) Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. Stalker (Jas., M.A)— A Life of Christ. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.)— The Miracles of Our Lord : Examined in their relation to Modern Criticism. 8vo, 7s. 6d. — . — The History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, Considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Stevenson (Mrs.)— The Symbolic Parables : The Predictions of the StAw_,t|0^iyPV.eW^lnrelationtotheGeneralTrtlftsofScripture. Crown8vo,5s. steward (Rev G.)— Mediatorial Sovereignty : The Mystery of Christ . and the Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. " - 1HE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. A Posthumous Work. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Stier (Dr. Rudolph)-ON the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight vols. Svo, £4, 4s. Separate volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d. PuJ,l 0T<7r l°, h™£? this valuable Work more within the reach of all Classes, both ir, l?w ,('I7,. - ss™- plark continue to supply tlie Eight-volume Edition bound m j. our at the Original Subscription price of £2, 2s. The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d. -.fioluck (Professor)— Commentary on Gospel of St. John. 8vo, 9s. The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s. Light from the Cross : Sermons on the Passion of Our Lord. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s. Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Tophel (Pastor G.)— The Work of the Holy Spirit. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despres. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Uhlhorn (G.)— Christian Charity in the Ancient Church, Crown 8vo, 6s. UUmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. — : The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity. _ Fourth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. Urwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary upon Isaiah Iii. 13— liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 8vo, 6s. Vinet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown 8vo, 5s. Pastoral Theology. Second Edition, post 8vo, 3s. 6d. Walker (Rev. Norman L.) — Scottish Church History. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of TpE Faith. A Reply to Lectures by W. Robertson Smith, M.A., on the Old Testament in the Jewish Church. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s. Weiss (Prof. Bernhard) — Biblical Theology of the New Testa ment. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Life of Christ. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Vol. III. in Press. White (Rev. M.) — The Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Crown 8vo, 4s. Whyte (Alexander, D.D.)— The Shorter Catechism. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Williams (W. H., M.A.)— A Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology. For the use of Schools. Fcap. 8vo, Is. 6d. Ovid's Pontic Epistles. With Notes for Schools. In the Press. Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, 8vo, 15s. A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the Various Communities of Christendom. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Wuttke (Professor) — Christian Ethics. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. 6d. T. and T. Clark's Publications. NEW SERIES OF THE FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, The First Issue for 1884 will comprise — WEISS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Vol. III. (completion). SARTORIUS ON THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE LOVE. One Vol. 1880.— GODET'S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Vol. I. HAGENBACH'S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Vols. I and II. DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. VoL I. WW.— GODET'S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Vol. II. DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vol. II. MARTENSEN'S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Individual Ethics.) HAGENBACH'S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. VoL IH. (completion). 1889.— DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vols. III. and IV. (completion). WEISS'S BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF TEE NEW TESTAMENT. Vol. I. MARTENSEN'S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Social Ethics.) 1883.— WEISS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Vols. I. and II. WEISS ON BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT. Vol. II. (com pletion). GOEBEL ON THE PARABLES. One Vol. The Foreign Theological Library was commenced in 1846, and from that time to this Four Volumes yearly (or about 160 in all) have appeared with the utmost regularity. The Publishers decided to begin a New Series with 1880, and so give an opportunity to many to subscribe who are possibly deterred by the extent of the former Series. The Publishers are sanguine enough to believe that a Series containing the works of writers so eminent, upon the most important subjects, cannot fail to secure support. The Binding of the Series is modernized, so as to distinguish it from the former Series. The Subscription Price will remain as formerly, 21s. annually for Four Volumes, payable in advance. A Selection of Twenty Volumes FOR FTVE GUINEAS (QK MOBE AT SAME BATIO) May he had from the Volumes issued previously to New Series, viz. Works mentioned on three succeeding pages. FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION: One Guinea for Pour Volumes, Demy 8vo. 'FotkIfi^LZe?,rSln this Series oan be had at Subscription Price. A single Year's suWri W, -n , .? oa,se of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non- subsonbers, price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions maried. 18 6 4— Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes. 1 ft R Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II. I O b t> — Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III. Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes. 1 ft Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Euth. One Volume. 1 O t> 6— Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume. iteil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes. tenB6n'S System of Christian Doctrine. One Volume. 18 6 7 —Delitzsch on Isaiah. Two Volumes. Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. (12s.) One Volume. Anherlen on Divine Bevelation. One Volume. 18 6 8 — Keil's Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes. Delitzsch' s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. I. Harlesa' System of Christian Ethics. One Volume. 18 6 9 — Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. One Volume. Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume. Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I. Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I. 18 7 0— Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II. Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. Schmid's New Testament Theology. One Volume. Delitzsch' s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II. 18 7 1 — Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms. Three Volumes. Hengstenberg' s Kingdom of God under the Old Testament. Vol. I. 18 7 2 — Keil's Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume. Keil's Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. Keil's Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. Hengstenberg' s History of the Kingdom of God. Vol. II. 18 7 3 — Keil's Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume. Winer's Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume. Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. I. Martensen on Christian Ethics. 18 7 4— Christlieb's Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. II. Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. I. Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. VoL I. 18 7 5 — Godet's Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Volumes. Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. II. Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. II. 18 7 6 — Keil's Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Volumes. Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I. Godet's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I. ¦J877 — Delitzsch's Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. Godet's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vols. II. and III. Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. VoL II. 18 7 8 — Gebhardt' s Doctrine of the Apocalypse. Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. III. Philippi's Commentary on the Romans. Vol. I. Hagenbach's History of the Reformation. Vol. I. 18 7 9 — Philippi's Commentary on the Eomang. Vol.11. Hagenbach's History of the Reformation. Vol. II. Steinmeyer's History of the Passion and Besurrection of our Lord. Haupf s Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Volume. \* For New Series commencing with 1880, see previous page. T. and T. Clark's Publications. MESSES. CLAEK allow a SELECTION of Twektt Volumes (or more at the same ratio) from the Volumes issued previously to New Series (see below), At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas. Non-Subscription- Prices within Brackets. Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on the Psalms. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D., Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vols. 8vo. (33s.) Dr. Gieseler. — Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L. Gieseler, D.D., Professor of Theology in Gottingen. Five Vols. 8vo. (£2, 12s. 6d.) Dr. Olshauseu. — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Adapted especially for Preachers and Students. By Hermann Olshausen, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Erlangen. In Four Vols. 8vo. (£2, 2s. )— Com mentary on the Romans. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) — Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.) — Commentary on St. Paul'B Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, and the First to Timothy. In continuation of the .Work of Olshausen. By Lie. August Wiesinger. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Meander. — General History of the Christian Religion and Church. By Augustus Neander, D.D. Nine Vols. 8vo. (£3, 7s. 6d.) Prof. H. A, Ch. Havernick. — General Introduction to the Old Testament. By Professor Havernick. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) Dr, Mulier. — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. Jumus Muijubb. Two Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition. Dr. Hengstenberg. — Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D. Four Vols. (£2, 2s.) Dr. M. Baumgarten. — The Acts of the ApoBtles ; or, The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age. By M. Baumgarten, Ph.D. Three Vols. (£1, 7s.) Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Lord Jesns. By Eudolph Stiee, D.D., Chief Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In Eight Vols. 8vo. (£4, 4s.) Dr. Carl tTJImann. — Eeformers before the Eefonnation, principally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two Vols. 8vo. (£1, Is.) Professor Kurtz. — History of the Old Covenant; or, Old Testament Dispensation. By Professor Kurtz of Dorpat. In Three Vols. (£1, lis. 6d.) Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Eisen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of St James. By Eudolph Stier, D.D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. One Vol. (9s.) Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Hengstenberg. — On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended: Treatises on the Song of Solomon ; the Book of Job ; the Prophet Isaiah ; the Sacrifices of Holy Scripture ; and on the Jews and the Christian Church. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.) Dr. Ebrard. — Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. John H. A. Ebrard, Professor of Theology. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Lange. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and Mark. By J. P. Lange, D.D. Three Vols. (10s. 6d. each.) Dr. Dorner. — History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. By Dr. J. A. Dorner, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. Five Vols. (£2, 12s. 6d.) Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) Dr. Ebrard. — The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Lange, Lechler, and Gerok. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Dr. Lange. Two Vols. (21s.) Dr. Hengstenberg.— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Keil. — Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) T. and T. Clark's Publications. CLARK'S FOBEIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued. Professor Keil. —Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Euth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) ^ofessor Delitzsch.— A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.) ?r;fLi"^erlln-^TheDivine]aeTelation- 8vo. (10s. 6d.) professor Delitzsch.— Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s. ) rtotessor Keil. —Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d. ) Professor Delitzsch.— Commentary on the Book of Job. Two Vols. (21s.) Bisliop Ma,rtensen — Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the Doctrines of Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. J. P. Lange.— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Keil — Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Delitzsch.— Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (21s.) Dr. Hailess.— A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Hengstenberg.— Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Stier.— The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Keil.— Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Bleek.— Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Schmid.— New Testament Theology. One VoL (10s. 6d.) Professor Delitesch.— Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Dr. Heng3tenberg. — The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume. (10s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. (10s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. (10s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on Jeremiah. Two Vols. (21s.) Winer (Dr. G. B.) — Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. (10s.6d.) Bishop Martensen. — Christian Ethics. One Volume. (10s. 6d.) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Oehler.— Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s. ) Professor Christlieb. — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Godet. — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Luthardt. — Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Professor Godet. — Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gebhardt (H.)— Doctrine of the Apocalypse. Ono'Vol. (10s. 6d.) Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L. ) — History of the Passion and Eesurrection of our Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Haupt (E.) — Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Hagenbach (Dr. K. E.)— History of the Eeformation. Two Vols. (21s.) Philippi (Dr. F. A.)— Commentary on Eomans. Two Vols. (21s.) And, in connection with the Series — Murphy's Commentary on the Book of Psalms. To count as Two Volumes. (12s.) Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah. Two Volumes. (17s.) Bitter's (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Volumes. (32s. ) Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. Two Volumes. (21s.) Macdonald's Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Volumes. (21s.) Gerlach's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Hengstenberg. — Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.) The series, in 159 Volumes (including 1883), price £41, 14s. 9d„ forms an Apparatus without which it may be truly said no Theological Library can be complete; and the 'Publishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to a Clergyman than the Series, in whole or in part. * * No duplicates cam be included in the Selection of Twenty Volumes ; and it will save * trouble and correspondence if it be distinctly understood that no less number than Twenty can be supplied, unless at non-subscription price. Subscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers. London : (For Works at Non-subscription price only) Hamilton, Adams, & Co. T. and T. Clark's Publications. LANGE'S COMMENTARIES. (Subscription price, netf), 15s. each. THEOLOGICAL AND HOMILETICAL COMMENTARY x ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Specially designed and adapted for the use of Ministers and Students. By Prof. John Peter Lange, D.D., in connection with a number of eminent European Divines. Translated, enlarged, and revised under the general editorship of Rev. Dr. Philip Schaef, assisted by leading Divines of the various Evangelical Denominations. OLD TESTAMENT— 14 VOLUMES. I. GENESIS. With a General Introduction to the 014 Testament. By Prof. J. P. Large, D.D. Translated from the German, with Additions, by Prof. Tayleb Lewis, LL.D., and A. GosjtAir, D.D.- —II. EXODUS and LEVITICUS. By J. P. Lange, D.D. With General Introduction by Rev. Dr. Osgood.— III. NUMBERS. By Prof. J. P. Lahge, D.D. DEUTERONOMY. By W. J. Schboedeb. —IV. JOSHUA. By Rey. F.R. Fat. JUDGES and RUTH. By Prof. Paulus Cassell, D.D— V. SAMUEL. By Professor Ebdmahn, D.D.— VI. KINGS. By Kael Che. W. F Bahr, D.D.— VII. CHRONICLES. By Otto Zockleb. EZRA. By Fb. W. Schultz. NEHEMIAH. By Rev. Howaed Cbosbv, D.D., LL.D. ESTHER. By Fe. W. Schultz.— VIII. JOB. With an Introduction and Annotations by Prof. Tayleb Lewis, LL.D. A Commentary by Dr. Otto Zockleb, together with an Introductory Essay on Hebrew Poetry by Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D.— IX. THE PSALMS. By , C. B. Mou,, D.D.— X. PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, and THE SONG OF SOLOMON. By Prof. 0. Zocklee, D.D.— XI. ISAIAH. By C. W. E. Naegelsbach.— XII. JEREMIAH and LAMENTA TIONS. By C. W.E. Naegelsbach, D.D.— XIII. EZEKIEL. By F. W. Schbodeb, D.D. DANIEL. By Professor ZBcexeb, D.D.— XIV. THE MINOR PROPHETS. HOSEA, JOEL, and AMOS. By Otto Sohmolleb, Ph.D. OBADIAH, MICAH, JONAH, NAHUM, HABAKKUK, and ZEPHANIAH. By Rev. Paul Kleihebt. HAGGAI. ByRev. James E.M'Cdbdy. ZECHARIAH. By T. W. Cham- bees, D.D. MALACHI. By Joseph Paceaed, D.D. THE APOCRYPHA. ~BylTc7Bi™u_rD.D. One Volume. NEW TESTAMENT— 10 VOLUMES. I. MATTHEW. With a General Introduction to the New Testament. By J. P. Lahge, D.D. Translated, with Additions, by Philip Schaff, D.D.— U. MARK. By J. P. La»g_, D.D. IiUKE. By J. J. Van Oosterzee.— III. JOHN. By J. P. Lange, D.D.— IV. ACTS. By G. V. Lbohl-eb, D.D., and Rev Chaeles Geeok— V. ROMANS. By J. P. .Lahge, D.D., and Rev. F. R. Fat.— VI. CORINTHIANS. By Cbeistian F. Klihg,— VII. GALATIANS. By Otto Schhollbe, Ph.D. EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS, and PHILIPPIANS. By Kael Beauhe, D.D.— VIII. THESSA- LONIANS. By Drs. Acbeblen and Riggenbach. TIMOTHY, TITUS, and PHILEMON. By J. J. Vah Oosteezee, D.D. HEBREWS. By Kabl B. Moll, D.D.— IX. JAMES. By J. P. Lahge, D.D,, and J. J. Van Oosteezee, D.D. PETER and JUDE. By G. :F. C. FeonmDlljse, Ph.D. JOHN. By Kael Beadbe, D.D.— X. THE REVELATION OP JOHN. By Dr. J. P. Lahge. Together with double Alphabetical Index to all the Ten Volumes on the New Testament, by Johh H. Woods. PROFESSOR EADIE'S COMMENTARIES. MESSES. OLABK, with the concurrence of the Trustees of the late Professor Badib, beg to announce the issue, in Tour Volumes 8vo, of the following Com mentaries : — ¦ GALATIANS. EPHESIANS. PHILIPPIANS. COLOSSIANS. The Four Volumes will be supplied by Subscription at the price of TWENTY-FOUR SHILLINGS, or, in separate Volumes, at Ten Shillings and Sixpence each. They have been carefully Edited by The Rev. WILLIAM YOUNG, M.A., Glasgow. The value of these Commentaries is well known. They occupy a first and distinctive place in New Testament exegetical literature. Three of these Volumes hare been out of print for a considerable time, and all of them are much in demand. ' T. and T. Clark's Publications. KEIL AND DELITZSCH'S COMMENTARIES ON AND INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. f^iT^^cir7 ¦ ¦ ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ m f^?\i.JS;V.™ OHEOWIOTBS,' l_Vou .' Keil EZRA NEHEMIAH, akb ESTHEE71 Vol . . '. . . S. psUITw : : fest PBOVEBBS, 2 Vols. . S3 ^f^^pS and SONG OP SOLOMON- ' . '. $Sc). . ISAIAH, 2 Vols. . . . (Delitzsch) JEEEMIA H and LAMENTATIONS,' 2 Vols. '.'.'. (Keil). _-i-S.__.--.ll_il_, I Vols. . . (KeiA ¦ DANIEL, 1 Vol. . . . . ' ' >|S' MINOE PEOPHETS, 2 Vols. . '. ! . ! ! . (Keil). THE above series (published in Clark's Foreign Theological Library) is now completed in 27 Volumes, and Messrs. Clark will supply it at the Sub scription price, in complete sets (only), of £7, 2s. Separate volumes may be had at the non-subscription price of 10s. 6d. each. So complete a Critical and Exegetical Apparatus on the Old Testament is not elsewhere to be found in the English language, and at the present time, when the study of the Old Testament is more widely extended than perhaps ever before, it is believed this offer will be duly appreciated. ' This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar, and as regards its general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' — Edinburgh Review. ' We have often expressed our opinion of Dr. Delitzsch's great merits as a commentator, and, in particular, of his portion of the admirable Commentary on the Old Testament, written by himself and Dr. Keil, that we need only now congratulate our readers on the completion of the entire work.' — Church Bells. ' The authors are among the most accomplished of living Hebraists, and Delitzsch is, in addition, a man of fine historical imagination, and of clear spiritual vision.' — Baptist ' A more important contribution than this series of commentaries has, we think, never been presented to English theological students.' — Rock. ' Very high merit, for thorough Hebrew scholarship, and for keen critical sagacity, belongs to these Old Testament Commentaries. No scholar will willingly dispense with them.' — British Quarterly Review. 'The very va.lua.hle Keil and Delitzsch series of Commentaries.' — Wesleycm Methodist In One Volume, 8vo. price 12s., A SYSTEM OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY. By P. DELITZSCH, D.D. By the same Author. In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s., COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 7. and T. Clark's Publications. In Twenty Handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription Price £5, 5s., MEYER'S Commentary on the New Testament. ' Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest ot the German expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is unrivalled as an interpreter ot the grammatical and historical meaning ot the saored writers. The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to English students in producing this translation.'— Guardian. Each Volume will be sold separately at 10s. 6d. to Non-Subscribers. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. By De. H. A. W. MEYER, Oberconsistorialrath, Hannover. The portion contributed by Dr. Meyer has been placed under the editorial care of Rev. Dr. Dickson, Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow ; Rev. Dr. Crombie, Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. Mary's College, St. Andrews ; and Rev. Dr. Stewart, Professor of Biblical Criticism, University of Glasgow. 1st Year — Romans, Two Volumes. Galatians, One Volume. St. John's Gospel, Vol. I. 2d Year— St. John's Gospel, Vol. II. Philippians and Colossians, One Volume. Acts of the Apostles, VoL I. Corinthians, Vol. I. 3d Year — Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II. St. Matthew's Gospel, Two Volumes. Corinthians, Vol. II. 4th Year — Mark and Luke, Two Volumes. Ephesians and Philemon, One Volume. Thesaalonians. (Dr. Lunemann.) 6th Year— Timothy and Titus. (Dr. Huther.) Peter and Jude. (Dr. Huther.) Hebrews. (Dr. Lunemann.) James and John. (Dr. Huther.) The series, as written by Meyer himself, is computed by the publication of Ephesians with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have thought it right to add Thessalonians and Hebrews, by Dr. Lunemann, and the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles, by Dr. Huther. So few, however, of the Subscribers hove expressed a desire to have Dr. Diisterdieck's Commentary on Revelation included, that it has been resolved in the mean time not to undertake it. ' I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned com mentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout; and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholar ship of the learned editor.' — Bishop Elmcott in, Preface to his ' Commentary on Ephesians.'' ' The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.' — Philip Schaff, D.D. ' In accuracy of scholarship and freedom from prejudice, he is equalled by few,' — Literary Churchman. ' "We have only to repeat that it remains, of its own kind, the very best Commentary of the New Testament which we possess.' — Church Bells. ' No exegetical work is on the whole more valuable, or stands in higher public esteem. As a critic he is candid and cautious; exact to minuteness in philology ; a master of the grammatical and historical method of interpretation.' — Princeton Review.