A commentary on the Epistles of St. John - The Preterist Archive

364 APPENDIX.
which they referred. Now, Cassiodor^^ says, that
Clemens had explained attico sermone, 1 St. Peter, 1
and 2 John, and the Epistle of St. James,^^ and that
he, Cassiodor, had caused these expressly to be trans-
lated into Latin, ita, ut exclusis quibusdam offendicu-
lis,^^ purificata doctrina ejus securior possit hauriri.
This mutilated Latin translation we think has been
preserved in that work which is entitled Adumbra-
tiones Clem. Alex. It cannot be doubted that these
Adumhrationes are identical with the Hypotyposes
spoken of by Eusebius and Photius.^'^ Several things,
from these, have already been communicated in our
Commentary on the First and Second Epistle of St.
John. But, in order to characterize more precisely
this very fragmentary, unequal, sometimes gnostic-
theological, and sometimes grammatic interpretation,
we will here add what follows : 1 Epist. ver. 1, "O i/ f is
rightly referred to "koyog rou ^sou in the same sense in
which it is used, John i. 1, and likewise o ku^d/iafxiv—
s-^TtXdtpriffccv to the prsesentia Domini in carne. But
1* De Institut. Divin. Litt. cap. VII F.
^^ Cassiodorus writes " Jacobi.'''' But, surely, it is more
correct to read " Judce,'''' cfr. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 14.
*' The same complaint is made by Photius, loc. cit.
^^ The Latin Avord adumbrationes corresponds with the
Greek v-roTVTrekxnn (Sketches,* 2 Tim. i. 13.) The Adumltra-
tions were first edited in the Biblioth. Patr. Tom. III., but the
best edition is by Potter. Opp. Clem.
* Abrisse, says the Author, which I translate Sketches, and, I doubt not,
thatjthis is, generally speaking, the right translation of i'Xo-vxuaii,
yet, I much doubt, the application of that translation to 2 Tim. i. 13.—
Transl.