be overcome in another way, by reading e for → (5th for 9th) and supposing the quotation to be taken from the lost end of our Second Epistle. Again Timotheus of Alexandria, who before has quoted 'the First Epistle on Virginity,' immediately afterwards cites the opening of our Second Epistle to the Corinthians as 'Of the same Clement from the beginning of the Third Epistle' (Cureton Corp. Ign. pp. 212, 244, 254). This shows that the Epistles were differently arranged in different collections. It is not improbable that some of the fragments, which are printed below after the text of the two Epistles to the Corinthians, belonged to these lost letters. Their homiletic tone, if not in harmony with a genuine letter, is quite in character with a forgery. 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. 158), may have been one of these; 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. This opinion is confirmed by the language of Epiphanius quoted above, p. 16. 5. Of the Two Epistles to the Corinthians, the one genuine and the other spurious, only one мs exists or is known to have existed since the revival of learning. From this therefore all the printed texts are derived. In the Alexandrian мs (A) of the Greek Bible these two Epistles stand (fol. 159 a) at the close of the New Testament and immediately after the Apocalypse. The title of the First is mutilated, so that it begins C KOPINOιOYс. It ends towards the bottom of fol. 168 a. col. 1; and below is written климентоспроско ρινθιογεπιστολή A. The Second commences fol. 168 a. col. 2, without any heading. As the end leaves of the мs are wanting, this Second Epistle is only a fragment and terminates abruptly in the middle of a sentence (fol. 169 b). Both epistles are included in the table of contents prefixed by the scribe to the MS (see Baber's Codex Alexandrinus I. tab. Iv), where the list of books under the heading н kainн diaðнкн ends thus: ATTOKAAYYI[CIWA]NNOY [KAHM]ENTOCELTICTOλH] B [OM]OYBIBAIA[......] Ψαλμ[ο]ισολομ[ω]NTOC IH As the edges of the leaves are worn in many places and the vellum is in other parts very fragile, words or parts of words have occasionally disappeared. Moreover the use of galls by the first editor, Patrick Young, has rendered some passages wholly or in part illegible. In addition to this, a leaf is wanting towards the close of the First Epistle, between fol. 167 and fol. 168 (i. e. between § 57 and § 58). The hiatus is detected by the numerals in ancient Arabic characters at the tops of the pages, where 132 (fol. 167) is followed immediately by 134 (fol. 168). My attention was first called to this fact respecting the Arabic numerals by Mr H. Bradshaw of the Cambridge University Library; and it has since been noticed by Tischendorf (p. xv). The first editor, Patrick Young, had said 'Desideratur hic in exemplari antiquo folium integrum.' Bp. Jacobson accounts for this statement by remarking 'Forte codicem conferre contigit priusquam a bibliopego Anglico præscissus fuerat et in corio compactus,' which was perhaps the case. It is strange however that the Arabic numerals, which set the question at rest, should have been so long overlooked. The lacuna accounts for the fact that a few quotations from Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which occur in ancient writers, are not found in the existing text. The Alexandrian мs was presented to Charles I by Cyril Lucar, patriarch first of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, and brought to England in the year 1628. It was transferred from the King's Library and placed in the British Museum, where it now is, in 1753. The Epistles of Clement are written in the same hand with the rest of the Ms, and the whole may be assigned to about the middle of the 5th century. More detailed accounts of the мs, as a whole, will be found in the well known introductions to the New Testament (e. g. Tregelles Horne's Introduction to the N. T. p. 152 sq., or Scrivener Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. p. 79). The Epistles of Clement are transcribed with tolerable but not strict accuracy, and the lacunæ supplied for the most part with felicity, by the first editor, Patricius Junius (Patrick Young), A. D. 1633. But an editio princeps necessarily left much to be done. Collations were accordingly made by Mill and Grabe; and Wotton, in preparing his edition (A. D. 1718), not only employed these collations, but also examined the MS itself. Lastly, Dr Jacobson (1st ed. 1838) recollated it throughout and corrected many inaccuracies which had run through previous editions. Hitherto however, while facsimiles had been made of the text of the New Testament in this мs by Woide (1786) and subsequently of the Old by Baber (1816-1821), nothing of the kind had been done for the Epistles of Clement, though here the Ms is unique. But in the year 1856 Sir F. Madden, the keeper of the MSS at the British Museum, owing to a memorial from the Divinity Professors and others of Oxford and Cambridge and by permission of the Trustees of the Museum, published a photograph of this portion of the Ms. Hilgenfeld, the latest editor of these epistles (1866), seems to have been unaware of the existence of this photograph, though it had appeared ten years before; but in a foreigner this ignorance was very excusable. Where the мs has not been injured by time or by the application of galls, the photograph is all that could be desired; but passages which have suffered in this way may often be read accurately in the мs itself, though wholly illegible in the photograph. For this reason Tischendorf's reproduction of these epistles, published in his Appendix Codicum Celeberrimorum Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini (Lips. 1867), was not superfluous, but supplied fresh materials for a more accurate text. Before I was aware that Tischendorf was engaged upon this facsimile, I had with a view to this edition procured a new and thorough collation of the text of these epistles through the kindness of Mr A. A. Vansittart, who at my request undertook the work; and we found that notwithstanding the labours of previous editors the gleanings were still a sufficient reward for the trouble. On the appearance of Tischendorf's facsimile, I compared it with Mr Vansittart's collation, and found that they agreed in the great majority of instances where there was a divergence from previous editors (e. g. in the reading Tís aρKETòs eέeɩπeîv § 49, where the printed texts have hitherto read Tís apkeî w's deî eineîv). In some readings however they differed: and in such cases I have myself inspected the мs (repeating the inspection at three different times, where the writing was much defaced), in order to get the result as accurate as possible. There still remain however a few passages where the мs is so injured that it is impossible to determine the reading with certainty. Tischendorf's text contains several errors, which however are for the most part corrected in the preface. A few still remain, of which the most important is διακονιαν (§ 35), where the Ms has διανοιαν, as even the photograph shows. On the whole the мs appears to give a good text. The shortcomings of the scribe are generally such that they can be easily corrected; for they arise from petty carelessness and ignorance, and not from perverse ingenuity. Thus there are errors of the ordinary type arising from repetition or omission, where the same letters recur, e.g. § 2, αμαμνησικακοι, § 11 ετερογνωμοσ[?], § 12 υποτοτοεγοσ, § τη δομενου, § 19 ταπεινοφρονον, § 25 τελευτηκοτοσ, § 32 ημερασ, § 35 μον, αδελφούσσου, § 48 διακριακρισει, § 50 μακακαριοι, ii § 9 αιωνιον (for αινοναιωνιον), ii § 1 r ασουκ (for ασουσουκ): there is the usual substitution of wrong caseendings, arising mostly from confusion with the context, e. g. § 3 τησ, § 16 ελθοντοσ, § το αλλασ, § 32 του, § 43 κεκοσμημενω, § 44 μεμαρτυρημενοισ, ii $ 1 εχοντεσ, ii § 6 αιχμαλωσία; there is now and then a transposition, e. g. § 4 ζηλοσ and διαζηλοσ, § 39 σητον[?]τροποσ for σητοστροπον; there are also several paltry blunders of omission or miswriting or substitution, which cannot be classed under any of these heads, e. g. § 2 εδεδετο, πεποιηθησεωσ, § 3 δοθη, απεγαλακτισεν, § 8 διε λεχθώμεν, δ το πιστισ, § 15 αναστησομεν, § 16 έψεται, § 20 κρύματα, § 21 εγκαυχωμενοιεν, § 23 εξαιχνησ, § 25 μονογενησ, § 29 αριθον, § 30 αγνουσ, εδεήθη, § 33 εγγοισ, § 34 λιτουργουν, § 35 καταλιλιασ, φιλοξενιαν, § 38 τμμελείτω, § 41 συνειδησιν, καταξιωθημεν, § 44 μεταξυ, μεταγάγετε, § 45 επιτασθαι, στυητοι, § 51 οι, § 56 ουκοψεται, § 59 ανεπεμψατε, ii $ η θε ii § 9 πουντες : there is lastly the common phenomenon of debased and ungrammatical forms, e. g. § 1 ασφαλην, § 14 ασεβην, § 15 κατηρουντο [?], § 18 πλυνιεισ, § 26 (comp. ii. § 8) σαρκαν, §§ 1, 29 επιεικην, § 40 υπερτατω, § 42 καθεστανον, § 59 επιποθήτην, ii § 1 ελπίδαν, ii § 12 δηλοσ, with several others, though in some cases they may be attributed to the author rather than the scribe. In the instances which I have given the correct text is generally obvious. But one or two deeper corruptions remain, where emendation is more difficult; e. g. § 2 συνειδησεωσ, § 6 δαηαιδε σκαιδιρκαι, § 45 επαφροι. η This is also exhibits the usual interchanges of like-sounding vowels and diphthongs; of o and w, as § 48 εξομολογησωμαι, § 54 τοπωσ, ii § 4 αυτων, and on the other hand, § 25 βασταζον, § 45 ειπομεν, ii § 6 οιομεθα; of n and i, as $ ι αιφνηδίουσ, καθικουσαν, § 4 ηυλησθησαν, § 8 προστηθεισ, § 39 μυκτιρηζουσιν, § 47 προσκλησεισ, ii § το ηληκην; of e and al, as § 14 αιπερομενον (for επαιρόμενον), § 6 οσταίων, § το οραίων, §§ 21, 52 ναιουσ, ναιον, §§ 25, 26, ορναιον, ορναίου, § 39 επεσεν (for ἔπαισεν), § 4 παιδιον, παιδίω, (for πεδίον, πεδίῳ), § 2, 9, 18, 22, ii § 3 ελαιοσ, ελαιουσ, etc. (for ἔλεος, ἐλέους, etc.); and lastly, of . and el, e. g. § 26 το μεγαλιον τησ επαγγε λειασ, § 27 ποιησειν for ποιησιν, § 40 λειτουργειασ but § 41 λιτουργιασ and § 44 λιτουργειασ, § 2 ειλεικρινεισ but § 32 ιλικριν[ωσ] and ii. § 9 ιλικρινουσ, § 14 στασισ for στασεισ but §§ 6, 44, ερεισ for ερισ. In all such cases I have substituted the ordinary classical spelling: but when we call to mind that half a century later the heretic Marcus (Iren. Hær. I. 15. 1, Hippol. Ref. vi. 49) founds a theory on the fact that on contains five letters (CEH) and Xploròs eight (XPEICTOC), and that about this very time the Roman biographer confuses Χριστὸς and Χρηστὸς (Suet. Claud. 25), we cannot feel at all sure that Clement might not in this respect have allowed himself the same latitude in spelling which we find in our scribe. The contractions which I have noted in these epistles (besides the line over the previous letter as a substitute for the final v) are the following; &NOC, ΑΝΟΥ, etc., for ανθρωπος, ανθρωπου, etc., oYNOC, ΟΥΝΟΥ, etc., for ουρανος, ουρανου ; πηρ, προc, etc., for πατηρ, πατρος, etc. ; ΜΗΡ for μηTMηp; oc, ey, etc., KC, KY, etc., xc, XY, etc., IC, Y etc., for eos, θεου, etc., κυριος, κυριου, etc., χριστος, χριστου, etc., ιησους, ιησου, etc. (but, where Joshua is meant § 12, it is written in full); πna, NC, TNI, etc., for πνευμα, πνευματος, πνευματι, etc. ; Δad for δαυειδ; IHM for ιερουσaλnu; icλ (§§ 4, 29, 43, 55) and IHA (§ 8) for iσpaŋλ. The difficulty of filling in the lacunæ, where the MS is worn or defaced, is not the least which an editor of these epistles encounters. In supplying the missing words and letters, I have in each case named the critic who (so far as I could discover) first suggested the reading which I have adopted as the best. Where no other name is mentioned, the first editor, Patrick Young, is to be understood. I think it will be allowed that Mr Vansittart has correctly divined the opening of § 58, of which editors had hitherto despaired. In establishing the text we are occasionally assisted by the quotations in the fathers. The references to these will be given in their respective places. The citations of Clement of Alexandria are especially valuable, from their number, their length, and their early date : and we are more than once enabled by their means to correct errors in the MS. Whether other мss may not yet be discovered, it is impossible to say. Tischendorf (p. xv) mentions an eager chase after a palimpsest reported to be at Ferrara, which turned out after all to be a copy of the legendary life of Clement. The unwary may be deceived by seeing 'Clementis Epistolæ duæ' entered in the catalogues of MSS in some of the great libraries of Europe. These are the two Latin Epistles to James. It should be added in conclusion, that a record is preserved of a |