Thus, then, let our fifth Miscellany of gnostic notes in accordance with the true philosophy be brought to a close.
[3108] Wisd. vii. 24.
[3109] Ps. xxxvi. 5.
[3110] Ps. civ. 4.
[3111] Eusebius reads poietikos.
[3112] [Guardian angels. Matt. xviii. 10.]
[3113] geneton.
[3114] [Compare Tayler Lewis, Plato against the Atheists, p. 342.]
[3115] Gen. i. 1-3.
[3116] Deut. xiii. 4.
[3117] The text has palin: Eusebius reads Platon.
[3118] The text has anthroto: Plato and Eusebius, anthropois.
[3119] Deut. xxx. 15, 19, 20.
[3120] ten chrusen is supplied, according to a very probably conjecture.
[3121] "Spoken or" supplied from Plato and Eusebius.
[3122] monon en te polei is here supplied from Plato. [Note in Migne.]
[3123] Iliad, xiv. 206.
[3124] Iliad, xviii, 483.
[3125] [On the Faith, see p. 444, [97]note 6, supra.]
[3126] Metra is the reading of the text, but is plainly an error for metro, which is the reading of Eusebius.
[3127] Eph. vi. 12.
[3128] Ps. iii. 5.
[3129] Matt. xxiv. 42, etc.
[3130] [The bearing of this passage on questions of Sabbatical and Dominical observances, needs only to be indicated.]
[3131] Wisd. ii. 12.
[3132] [See Leighton, Works, vol. v. p. 62, the very rich and copious note of the editor, William West, of Nairn, Scotland. [98]Elucidation IX.]
[3133] Isa. xl. 18, 25.
[3134] H. Stephanus, in his Fragments of Bacchylides, reads aikeleion (foul) instead of aei kai lian of the text.
[3135] Quoted in Exhortation to the Heathen, p. 192, ante, and is here corrected from the text there.
[3136] This is quoted in Exhortation to the Heathen, p. 192, ch. vii. The reading varies, and it has been variously amended. Theo is substituted above for seo. Perhaps the simplest of the emendations proposed on this passage is the change of seo into soi, with Thee.
[3137] Heraclitus
[3138] Deut vi. 4.
[3139] See Exhortation, p. 194, where for "So" read "Lo."
[3140] "Houtis, Noman, Nobody: a fallacious name assumed by Ulysses (with a primary allusion to ms, tis, metis, Odyss., xx. 20), to deceive Polyphemus."--Liddell and Scott. The third line is 274 of same book.
[3141] Odyss., ix. 410.
[3142] Iliad. xxii. 8.
[3143] Isa. xl. 18, 25.
[3144] All these lines from Epicharmus: they have been rendered as amended by Grotius.
[3145] logos [or Word].
[3146] Isa. i. 11, 16.
[3147] This passage, with four more lines, is quoted by Justin Martyr [De Monarchia, vol. i. p. 291, this series], and ascribed by him to Philemon.
[3148] Jer. xxiii. 23, 24.
[3149] Ps. iv. 5.
[3150] In Justin Martyr, in the place above quoted, these lines are joined to the preceding. They are also quoted by Eusebius, but differently arranged. The translation adopts the arrangement of Grotius.
[3151] Isa. lxv. 24.
[3152] These lines are quoted by Justin (De Monarchia [vol. i. p. 291, this series]), but ascribed by him part to Philemon, part to Euripides.
[3153] Ascribed by Justin to Sophocles.
[3154] Adopting the reading keinos instead of kainos in the text.
[3155] Quoted in Exhortation, p. 193.
[3156] Isa. lxvi. 1.
[3157] Isa. lxiv. 1, 2; xl. 12.
[3158] [On the Orphica, see Lewis' Plato cont. Ath., p. 99.]
[3159] Amos iv. 13.
[3160] Deut. xxxii. 39.
[3161] For ouranous oras we read anthropous (which is the reading of Eusebius); and dres (Sylburgius's conjecture), also from Eusebius, instead of ha themis athemista.
[3162] Isa. x. 14.
[3163] Jer. x. 12.
[3164] Isa. xl. 13.
[3165] Iliad, viii. 69.
[3166] These lines of Æschylus are also quoted by Justyn Martyr (De Monarchia, vol. i. p. 290). Dread force, aplatos horme: Eusebius reads horme, dative. J. Langus has suggested (aplastos) uncreated; aplestos (insatiate) has also been suggested. The epithet of the text, which means primarily unapproachable, then dread or terrible, is applied by Pindar to fire.
[3167] Ps. lxviii. 8. [Comp. Coleridge's Hymn in Chamounix.]
[3168] This Pythian oracle is given by Herodotus, and is quoted also by Eusebius and Theodoret.
[3169] gnomikotata. Eusebius reads geniikotaton, agreeing with patera.
[3170] A game in which a potsherd with a black and white side was cast on a line; and as the black or white turned up, one of the players fled and the other pursued.
[3171] Eusebius has krinei, which we have adopted, for krinein of the text.
[3172] Plato, Rep., book vii.
[3173] [Pearson, On the Creed, p. 47.]
[3174] According to the reading in Eusebius, pan ethnos heoon pan de hesperion eonon, boreion te kai to, k.t.l.
[3175] Instead of pronoian, Eusebius has pronomian (privilege).
[3176] Clement seems to mean that they knew God only in a roundabout and inaccurate way. The text has periphasin; but periphrasin, which is in Eusebius, is preferable.
[3177] [See p. 379, [99]Elucidation I., supra.]
[3178] Isa xxxvi. 7, 8, 10.
[3179] Jonah i. 6, 9, 14.
[3180] Mal. i. 10, 11, 14. [The prophetic present-future.]
[3181] Perhaps Bacchylides.
[3182] archaian.
[3183] The reading of H. Stephanus, agathas Horas, is adopted in the translation. The text has agatha soteras. Some supply Oras, and at the same time retain soteras.
[3184] Jer. iii. 19.
[3185] [This strong testimony of Clement is worthy of special note.]
Elucidations.
I.
(Clement's Hebrew, p. 446, [100]note 8.)
On this matter having spoken in a former Elucidation (see [101]Elucidation VIII. p. 443), I must here translate a few words from Philo Judæus. He says, "Before Abram was called, such was his name; but afterward he was named Abraam, by the simple duplication of one letter, which nevertheless enfolds a great significance. For Abram is expounded to mean sublime father, but Abraam means elect father of sound." Philo goes on to give his personal fancies in explication of this whim. But, with Clement, Philo was an expert, to whom all knowledge was to be credited in his specialty. This passage, however, confirms the opinion of those who pronounce Clement destitute of Hebrew, even in its elements. No need to say that Abram means something like what Philo gives us, but Abraham is expounded in the Bible itself (Genesis 17:3). The text of the LXX, seems to have been dubious to our author's mind, and hence he fails back on Philo. But this of itself appears decisive as to Clement's Hebrew scholarship.
II.
(The Beetle, cap. iv. p. 449, [102]note 6.)
Cicero notes the scarabæus on the tongue, as identifying Apis, [3186] the calf-god of the Egyptians. Now, this passage of our author seems to me to clear up the Scriptural word gillulim in Deut. xxix. 17, where the English margin reads, literally enough, dungy-gods. The word means, things rolled about (Lev. xxvi. 30; Hab. ii. 18, 19; 1 Kings xv. 12); on which compare Leighton (St. Peter, pp. 239, 746, and note). Scripture seems to prove that this story of Clement's about the beetle of the Egyptians, was known to the ancient Hebrews, and was the point in their references to the gillulim (see Herod., book iii. cap. 28., or Rawlinson's Trans., vol. ii. 353). The note in Migne ad loc. is also well-worthy to be consulted.
III.
(The Tetrad, cap. vi. p. 452, [103]note 4.)
It is important to observe that "the patriarchal dispensation," as we too carelessly speak, is pluralized by Clement. He clearly distinguishes the three patriarchal dispensations, as given in Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and then comes the Mosaic. The editor begs to be pardoned for referring to his venerated and gifted father's division (sustained by Clement's authority), which he used to insist should be further enlarged so as to subdivide the first and the last, making seven complete, and thus honouring the system of sevens which runs through all Scripture. Thus Adam embraces Paradise, and the first covenant after the fall; and the Christian covenant embraces a millennial period. So that we have (1) Paradise, (2) Adam, (3) Noah (4) Abraham, (5) Moses, (6) Christ (7) a millennial period, preluding the Judgment and the Everlasting Kingdom. My venerated and most erudite instructor in theology, the late Dr. Jarvis, in his Church of the Redeemed, expounds a dispensation as identified by (1) a covenant, original or renewed, (2) a sign or sacrament, and (3) a closing judgment. (See pp. 4, 5, and elsewhere in the great work I have named.) Thus (1) the Tree of Life, (2) the institution of sacrifice, (3) the rainbow, (4) circumcision, (5) the ark, (6) the baptismal and eucharistic sacraments, and (7) the same renewed and glorified by the conversion of nations are the symbols. The covenants and the judgments are easily identified, ending with the universal Judgment.
Dr. Jarvis died, leaving his work unfinished; but the Church of the Redeemed is a book complete in itself, embodying the results of a vast erudition, and of a devout familiarity with Scripture. It begins with Adam, and ends with the downfall of Jerusalem (the typical judgment), which closed the Mosaic dispensation. It is written in a pellucid style, and with a fastidious use of the English language; and it is the noblest introduction to the understanding of the New Testament, with which I am acquainted. That such a work should be almost unknown in American literature, of which it should be a conspicuous ornament, is a sad commentary upon the taste of the period when it was given to the public. [3187]
IV.
(The Golden Candlestick, cap. vi. p. 452, [104]note 6.)
The seven gifts of the Spirit seem to be prefigured in this symbol, corresponding to the seven (spirits) lamps before the throne in the vision of St. John (see Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, and v. 6; also Isa. xi. 1, 2, and Zech. iii. 9, and iv. 10). The prediction of Isaiah intimates the anointing of Jesus at his baptism, and the outpouring of these gifts upon the Christian Church.
V.
(Symbols, cap. vi. p. 453, note 3.)
Clement regards the symbols of the divine law as symbols merely, and not images in the sense of the Decalogue. Whatever we may think of this distinction, his argument destroys the fallacy of the Trent Catechism, which pleads the Levitical symbols in favour of images in "the likeness of holy things," and which virtually abrogates the second commandment. Images of God the Father (crowned with the Papal tiara) are everywhere to be seen in the Latin churches, and countless images of all heavenly things are everywhere worshipped under the fallacy which Clement rejects. Pascal exposes the distinctions without a difference, by which God's laws are evacuated of all force in Jesuit theology; but the hairsplitting distinctions, about "bowing down to images and worshipping them," which infect the Trent theology, are equal to the worst of Pascal's instances. [3188] It is with profound regret that I insert this testimony; but it seems necessary, because garblings of patristic authorities, which begin to appear in America, make an accurate and intelligent study of the Ante-Nicene Fathers a necessity for the American theologian.
VI.
(Perfection, cap. x. p. 459, [105]note 2.)
The teleioi of the ancient canons were rather the complete than the perfect, as understood by the ancients. Clement's Gnostic is "complete," and goes on to moral perfection. Now, does not St. Paul make a similar distinction between babes in Christ, and those "complete in Him?"(Col. ii. 10.) The pepleromenoi of this passage, referring to the "thoroughly furnished" Christian (fully equipped for his work and warfare), has thrown light on many passages of the fathers and of the old canons, in my experience; and I merely make the suggestion for what it may be worth. See Bunsen's Church and Home Book (Hippol., iii. 82, 83, et seqq.) for the rules (1) governing all Christians, and (2) those called "the faithful," by way of eminence. So, in our days, not all believers are communicants.
VII.
(The Unknown God, cap. xii. p. 464, [106]note 1.)
Must we retain "too superstitious," even in the Revised Version? (Which see ad loc.) Bunsen's rendering of deisidaimonia, by demon-fear, [3189] is not English; but it suggests the common view of scholars, upon the passage, and leads me to suppose that the learned and venerable company of revisers could not agree on any English that would answer. That St. Paul paid the Athenians a compliment, as devout in their way, i.e., God fearing towards their divinities, will not be denied. Clement seems to have so understood it, and hence his constant effort to show that we must recognise, in dealing with Gentiles, whatever of elementary good God has permitted to exist among them. May we not admit this principle, at least so far as to believe that Divine Providence led the Athenians to set up the very inscription which was to prompt Christ's apostle to an ingenious interpretation, and to an equally ingenious use of it, so avoiding a direct conflict with their laws? This they had charged on him (Acts xvii. 18), as before on Socrates.
VIII.
(Xenocrates and Democritus, cap. xiii. p. 465, note 3.)
My grave and studious reader will forgive me, here, for a reference to Stromata of a widely different sort. Dulce est desipere, etc. One sometimes finds instruction and relief amid the intense nonsense of "agnostic" and other "philosophies" of our days, in turning to a healthful intellect which "answers fools according to their folly." I confess myself an occasional reader of the vastly entertaining and suggestive Noctes of Christopher North, which may be excused by the famous example of a Father of the Church, who delighted in Aristophanes. [3190] To illustrate this passage of Clement, then, let me refer to Professor Wilson's intense sympathy with animals. See the real eloquence of his reference to the dogs of Homer and of Sir Walter Scott. [3191] "The Ettrick Shepherd" somewhere wondered, whether some dogs are not gifted with souls; and, in the passage referred to, it is asked, whether the dog of Ulysses could have been destitute of an immortal spirit. On another occasion, Christopher breaks out with something like this: "Let me prefer the man who thinks so, to the miserable atheist whose creed is dust." He looks upon his dog "Fro," and continues (while the noble animal seems listening), "Yes, better a thousand times, O Fro, to believe that my faithful dog shall bear me company,' than that the soul of a Newton perishes at death," etc. How often have I regaled myself with the wholesome tonic of such dog loving sport, after turning with disgust from some God hating and mandestroying argument of "modern science," falsely so called.