2 It was the opinion of Jerome in his Catalogus that the Clement spoken of by Alexander was Clement of Alexandria. This Clement, at any rate, did live up to the time of the Emperor Severus, and sojourned in these parts, as he tells us himself in the first book of his Stromateis. And he was also the friend of bishop Alexander, to whom he dedicated his book On the Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Jews, as Eusebius states in his Eccles. Hist., book vi. ch. xiii. (Migne). [But from the third of these epistles one would certainly draw another inference. How could he, a pupil of Clement, describe and introduce his master in such terms as he uses here?]
6 The text gives o0moi/wj e0moi\ f@ronh=sai. Several of the codices and also Nicephorus give the better reading, o9moi/wj e0moi\ o9mofronh=sai, which is confirmed by the interpretations of Rufinus and Jerome.
12 [This precise and definite testimony is not to be controverted. It follows the traditions of the Synagogue (Acts xiii. 15), and agrees with the Pauline prescription as to the use of the charismata in 1 Cor. xiv. The chiefs of the Synagogue retained the power of giving this liberty, and this passed to the Christian authorities.]
4 Lardner (part ii. book i. chap. xxiv.) does not think that there was a commentary written by Pierius on this epistle, but only that the word of Paul, mentioned below, was expounded at length in some work or other by Pierius. Fabricius holds the opposite opinion.-Tr.
1 From book ii. In Athanasius, On the Decrees of the Nicene Council, sec. xxv. From the edition BB., Paris, 1698, vol. i. part i. p. 230. Athanasius introduces this fragment in the following terms:-Learn then, ye Christ-opposing Arians, that Theognostus, a man of learning, did not decline to use the expression "of the substance" (e0k th=j ou0siaj). For, writing of the Son in the second book of his Outlines, he has spoken thus: The substance of the Son.-Tr.