Migne Reading Room
PG 1 · cols. 31–84
Notitia ex libro pontificali; Variorum prooemia I (Cotelier) and II (Coustant)
Editors' preface
S. CLEMENS I PONTIFEX ROMANUS.
SAINT CLEMENT I, ROMAN PONTIFF.
NOTITIA EX LIBRO PONTIFICALI DAMASI PAPAE.
NOTICE FROM THE PONTIFICAL BOOK OF POPE DAMASUS.
(Mansi, Concil., I, 83.— Cf. variorum notas ad hunc locum Libri Pontificalis, Patr. Latinae t. CXXVII, col. 1079.)
(Mansi, Concilia, I, 83. Compare the notes of various scholars on this place of the Pontifical Book, Patrologia Latina vol. CXXVII, col. 1079.)
Clemens natione Romanus, de regione Coelio monte, ex patre Faustino, sedit annis 9 [mens. II, d. X]. Fuit autem temporibus Galbae et Vespasiani, a consulatu Tragali [Trachalae] et Italici, usque ad Vespasianum nono et Titum. Hic cum multo libros zelo fidei et Christianae religionis scriberet, martyrio coronatur. Hic fecit VII regiones dividi notariis fidelibus Ecclesiae, qui gesta martyrum sollicite et curiose, unusquisque per regionem suam, perquirerent. Hic fecit duas epistolas, quae Canonicae nominantur. Hic ex praecepto B. Petri suscepit Ecclesiae pontificatum gubernandum, sicut ei fuerat a Domino Jesu Christo cathedra tradita vel commissa. Tamen in Epistola quae ad Jacobum scripta est, qualiter ei commissa est a B. Petro Ecclesia, reperies. Ideo Linus et Cletus ante eum conscribuntur, quia ab ipso Principe apostolorum, ad ministerium sacerdotale exhibendum sunt episcopi ordinati. Hic fecit ordinationes duas per mensem Decembrem, presbyteros decem, diaconos duos, episcopos per diversa loca quindecim. Obiit martyr anno Trajani tertio. Qui etiam sepultus est in Graecia IX Kalend. Decemb. Et cessavit episcopatus dies XXI.
Clement, by nation a Roman, of the region of the Caelian hill, his father being Faustinus, sat for 9 years [2 months, 10 days]. He lived in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulship of Tragalus [Trachalus] and Italicus down to Vespasian for the ninth time and Titus. While he was writing books with great zeal for the faith and the Christian religion, he is crowned with martyrdom. He had the VII regions divided among faithful notaries of the Church, who were to search out the acts of the martyrs carefully and diligently, each through his own region. He composed two epistles, which are called Canonical. By the command of blessed Peter he took up the pontificate of the Church, to govern it just as the chair had been handed over or entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet in the Epistle which was written to James you will find how the Church was entrusted to him by blessed Peter. Linus and Cletus are enrolled before him for this reason, that they were ordained bishops by the Prince of the apostles himself, to discharge the priestly ministry. He held two ordinations in the month of December: ten presbyters, two deacons, fifteen bishops for various places. He died a martyr in the third year of Trajan. He was also buried in Greece on the ninth day before the Kalends of December. And the episcopate was vacant for XXI days.
VARIORUM PROOEMIA HISTORICO-LITTERARIA AD EPISTOLAS SANCTI CLEMENTIS I PAPAE.
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY PREFACES OF VARIOUS SCHOLARS TO THE EPISTLES OF SAINT CLEMENT I, POPE.
I. EX EDITIONE COTELERII.
I. FROM THE EDITION OF COTELIER.
(Patres apostolici, Amstelaedami, 1724, in-fol.)
(The Apostolic Fathers, Amsterdam, 1724, in folio.)
VETERUM TESTIMONIA DE SANCTI CLEMENTIS EPISTOLIS.
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE EPISTLES OF SAINT CLEMENT.
I. S. Irenaeus, lib. III, adversus Haereses, cap. 3.
I. Saint Irenaeus, book III, Against Heresies, chapter 3.
Apud Eusebium Hist. eccl. l. V, c. 6.
In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter 6.
Θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. Τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον Ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται· διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὸν Ἀνέγκλητος· μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, put the ministry of the episcopate into the hands of Linus. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy; and Anencletus succeeds him; and after him, in the third place from the apostles,
Editors' notes and page, col. 31
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Page 15 (cols 31-32) is printed full width down to the testimonia; the two column crops overlap, and every word here was read in one crop or the other. At the foot the page is in THREE columns: Interpretatio vetus (old Latin, left), the Greek from Eusebius (middle), Interpretatio Valesii (right). Only the Greek is set, here under col 31; the two Latin versions are facing versions, not set. The last Greek word is split at the break (ἀπο-/στόλων) and completed from the top line of col 33. Some letters weak in the Notitia (ipso, diaconos, IX) read by sense from damaged type. The whole unit is editors' matter.
Editors' notes and page, col. 32
Page
- other: facing Latin version, not set
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. The page of cols 31-32 is printed full width (titles, Notitia, captions) and all of that is set once under col 31. What belongs to col 32 alone is the right-hand column at the foot, the Interpretatio Valesii of the Irenaeus testimony, a facing Latin version.
τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης· ὁ καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ἀποστόλους, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἔτι ἔναυλον τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων οὐ μόνος· ἔτι γὰρ πολλοὶ ὑπελείποντο τότε ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων δεδιδαγμένοι. Ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος, στάσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθῳ γενομένης ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ Ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοις, εἰς εἰρήνην συμβιβάζουσα αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀνανεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει.
Clement obtains the episcopate by lot; who had both seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, and still had the preaching of the apostles ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes, and not he alone; for many were still left at that time who had been taught by the apostles. In the time of this Clement, then, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a most adequate writing to the Corinthians, bringing them together into peace, and renewing their faith and the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.
annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum, et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Aegypti, qui collocutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et prophetas miserit, qui ignem praeparaverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Hunc Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi ab Ecclesia annuntiari, ex ipsa Scriptura qui velint discere possunt, et apostolicam Ecclesiae traditionem: cum sit vetustior epistola his qui nunc falso docent, et alterum Deum super Demiurgum et factorem horum omnium quae sunt, commentiuntur.
proclaiming one God almighty, maker of heaven and earth, fashioner of man, Who brought on the flood, and called Abraham, Who led the people out of the land of Egypt, Who spoke with Moses, Who set forth the law, and sent the prophets, Who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. That this Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed by the Church, those who wish can learn from the writing itself, and also the apostolic tradition of the Church; since the epistle is older than those who now teach falsely and invent another God above the Demiurge and maker of all these things that are.
II. Clemens Alexandrinus, Στρωμ. lib. I. cap. 7, edit. Oxon., an. 1715, tom. I, p. 339.
II. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book I, chapter 7, Oxford edition, year 1715, vol. I, p. 339.
Ἐὰν δὲ τὴν βασιλικήν τε καὶ αὐθεντικὴν εἴσοδον ζητῇς, ἀκούσῃ· Αὕτη ἡ πύλη τοῦ Κυρίου· δίκαιοι εἰσελεύσονται ἐν αὐτῇ. Πολλῶν τοίνυν ἀνεῳγμένων πυλῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, αὕτη ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ.
But if you seek the royal and authentic entrance, you will hear: This is the gate of the Lord; the just shall enter in by it (Ps. 117:20). Many gates, therefore, being opened in righteousness, this one was in Christ.
Idem, ibid., lib. et cap. citt.
The same, in the same work, the book and chapter cited.
Αὐτίκα ὁ Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ, κατὰ λέξιν φησὶ, τὰς διαφορὰς ἐκτιθέμενος τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν δοκίμων· Ἤτω τις πιστός· ἤτω δυνατός τις γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν· ἤτω σοφὸς ἐν διακρίσει λόγων· ἤτω γοργὸς ἐν ἔργοις. Eadem repetit Alexandrinus infra lib. VI, cap. 8, tom. II, p. 773.
Clement, for instance, in the epistle to the Corinthians, says word for word, setting out the differences among those who are approved in the Church: Let a man be faithful; let a man be able to utter knowledge; let him be wise in the discernment of words; let him be vigorous in deeds. The Alexandrian repeats the same below, book VI, chapter 8, vol. II, p. 773.
Idem, ibid., lib. IV, cap. 17, tom. I, pp. 609, 610.
The same, in the same work, book IV, chapter 17, vol. I, pp. 609, 610.
Ναὶ μὴν ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ ὁ ἀπόστολος Κλήμης, καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν τύπον τινὰ τοῦ γνωστικοῦ ὑπογράφων, λέγει· Τίς γὰρ παρεπιδημήσας πρὸς ὑμᾶς, κ. τ. λ. Hic Clemens Alex. capita e regione notata excerpsit.
Moreover, in the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle Clement, himself also sketching for us a certain pattern of the gnostic, says: For who that has sojourned among you, and so on. Here Clement of Alexandria has excerpted the chapters noted opposite.
Idem, ibid., lib. V, cap. 12, tom. II, pag. 693.
The same, in the same work, book V, chapter 12, vol. II, page 693.
Ἀλλὰ κἀν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ῥωμαίων ἐπιστολῇ· Ὠκεανὸς ἀπέραντος ἀνθρώποις γέγραπται, καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτὸν κόσμοι.
But also in the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians it is written: The ocean, impassable to men, and the worlds beyond it.
Idem, ibid., lib. VI, cap. 8, tom. II, pag. 773.
The same, in the same work, book VI, chapter 8, vol. II, page 773.
Τοσούτῳ γὰρ μᾶλλον ταπεινοφρονεῖν ὀφείλει, ὅσῳ δοκεῖ μᾶλλον μείζων εἶναι· ὁ Κλήμης, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους φησί.
For he ought to be so much the more humble-minded, the greater he seems to be, says Clement in the epistle to the Corinthians.
III. Origenes, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. II, cap. 3, num. 6, edit. Paris., 1733, tom. I, pag. 82.
III. Origen, On First Principles, book II, chapter 3, number 6, Paris edition, 1733, vol. I, page 82.
Meminit sane Clemens apostolorum discipulus etiam eorum quos ἀντίχθονας Graeci nominarunt, atque alias partes orbis terrae ad quas neque nostrorum quisquam accedere potest, neque ex illis qui ibi sunt
Clement, the disciple of the apostles, does indeed make mention also of those whom the Greeks have named antichthones, and of other parts of the earth to which neither can any of our people come, nor of those who are there
Editors' notes and page, col. 33
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM.
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width / mixed layout on page 16 (cols 33-34). Top: three columns (old Latin, Greek, Valesius) under a repeated continuation caption (S. Irenaeus ... / Apud Eusebium ...), not set again. The Greek opens with the second half of a split word (-στόλων), already set whole at the end of col 31. Where the Greek stops, the old Latin runs on full width (annuntiantem ... commentiuntur): no Greek is printed for it, so it is set here as layer 1; the old Latin above that point, parallel to the Greek, is a facing version and not set. Captions II, III and the Idem lines are centred across both columns; set once here. The Origen passage (Latin only, full width) was read from both crops. Foot note at the page foot, called in the Latin column: Psal. CXVII, 20; used for the reference in the English. The two Latin sentences ending the Greek paragraphs (Eadem repetit ...; Hic Clemens Alex. ...) are Cotelier's own remarks, printed in the Greek column.
Editors' notes and page, col. 34
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: intrabunt in eam› · call in col 34
Psal. CXVII, 20.
Psalm 117:20.
(printed under page 16)
Page
- other: facing Latin version, not set
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM.
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: col 34 holds only facing Latin: the Interpretatio Valesii of Irenaeus (top) and the Latin version of the five Clement of Alexandria extracts. The full-width matter of the page (old Latin continuation, captions II and III, the Origen passage) is set under col 33. The Latin column also carries Cotelier's cross-references to 1 Clement, not set: after extract 1, epist. 1, cap. 48; after extract 2, the same cap. 48; after extract 3, epist. 1, capp. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53; after extract 4, epist. 1, cap. 20; after extract 5, epist. 1, cap. 48. Foot note: Psal. CXVII, 20.
quisquam transire ad nos; quos et ipsos mundos appellavit, cum ait: Oceanus intransmeabilis est hominibus: et hi qui trans ipsum sunt mundi, qui his eisdem dominatoris Dei dispositionibus gubernantur. Paucisque interjectis..... Ex his tamen quae Clemens visus est indicare cum dicit: Oceanus qui intransmeabilis est hominibus, et hi mundi qui post ipsum sunt: qui post ipsum sunt mundos pluraliter nominans, quos et eadem Dei providentia agi regique significat, semina quaedam nobis hujusmodi intelligentiae videtur aspergere, quo putetur omnis quidem universitas eorum quae sunt atque subsistunt, coelestium et supercoelestium, terrenorum infernorumque, unus et perfectus mundus generaliter dici: intra quem vel a quo (si qui illi sunt) putandi sunt contineri. Epist. 1, cap. 20.
can anyone cross over to us; and these too he called worlds, when he says: The ocean is impassable to men, and those worlds which are beyond it, which are governed by these same dispositions of God the ruler. And after a few words: Yet from what Clement seemed to indicate when he says, The ocean which is impassable to men, and those worlds which are beyond it, naming in the plural the worlds that are beyond it, which he also signifies to be driven and ruled by the same providence of God, he seems to scatter for us certain seeds of an understanding of this kind, by which the whole universe of things that are and subsist, heavenly and supercelestial, earthly and infernal, may be thought to be called in general one perfect world; within which, or by which, those [others], if there are any, are to be thought to be contained. Epistle 1, chapter 20.
Idem, in Ezechiel., cap. 8, tom. III, pag. 422, A.
The same, On Ezekiel, chapter 8, vol. III, page 422, A.
Φησὶ δὲ ὁ Κλήμης· Ὠκεανὸς ἀπέρατος ἀνθρώποις, καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτὸν κόσμοι τοσαύταις διαταγαῖς τοῦ Δεσπότου διοικοῦνται.
And Clement says: The ocean, impassable to men, and the worlds beyond it are governed by so many ordinances of the Master.
Idem, in Joan., tom. IX. part. II, pag. 143, edit. Huet. Colon., 1685.
The same, On John, tome IX, part II, page 143, Huet's edition, Cologne, 1685.
Μεμαρτύρηται δὲ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅτι πολλοί τινες λοιμικῶν ἐνσκηψάντων νοσημάτων ἑαυτοὺς σφάγια ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ παραδεδώκασι· καὶ παραδέχεται ταῦθ' οὕτως γεγονέναι οὐκ ἀλόγως πιστεύσας ταῖς ἱστορίαις ὁ πιστὸς Κλήμης, ὑπὸ Παύλου μαρτυρούμενος, λέγοντος· Μετὰ Κλήμεντος, κ. τ. λ.
And it is attested among the nations also that many, when pestilential diseases had fallen upon them, gave themselves up as victims for the common good; and the faithful Clement, to whom Paul bears witness when he says, With Clement, and so on, accepts that these things so happened, having not unreasonably believed the histories.
IV. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., lib. III, cap. 16.
IV. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter 16.
Τούτου δὴ οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος ὁμολογουμένη μία ἐπιστολὴ φέρεται, μεγάλη τε καὶ θαυμασία, ἣν ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας τῇ Κορινθίων διετυπώσατο, στάσεως τηνικάδε κατὰ τὴν Κόρινθον γενομένης. Ταύτην δὲ καὶ ἐν πλείσταις Ἐκκλησίαις ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ δεδημοσιευμένην πάλαι τε καὶ καθ' ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἔγνωμεν. Καὶ ὅτι γε κατὰ τὸν δηλούμενον, τὰ τῆς Κορινθίων κεκίνητο στάσεως, ἀξιόχρεως μάρτυς ὁ Ἡγήσιππος. Lege Nicephorum, lib. III, cap. 16.
Of this Clement, then, one acknowledged epistle is extant, great and admirable, which he composed as from the Church of the Romans to that of the Corinthians, a dissension having at that time arisen at Corinth. And we know that this has been read publicly before the congregation in very many Churches, both of old and in our own day. And that in the time of the man indicated the affair of the Corinthians' dissension was stirred up, Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. Read Nicephorus, book III, chapter 16.
Idem, ibid., lib. III, cap. 38.
The same, in the same work, book III, chapter 38.
Τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν τῇ ἀνωμολογημένῃ παρὰ πᾶσιν, ἣν ἐκ προσώπου τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας τῇ Κορινθίων διετυπώσατο. Ἐν ᾗ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους πολλὰ νοήματα παραθεὶς, ἤδη δὲ καὶ αὐτολεξεὶ ῥητοῖς τισιν ἐξ αὐτῆς χρησάμενος, σαφέστατα παρίστησιν ὅτι μὴ νέον ὑπάρχει τὸ σύγγραμμα. Ὅθεν εἰκότως ἔδοξεν, αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγκαταλεχθῆναι γράμμασι τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. Ἑβραίοις γὰρ διὰ τῆς πατρίου γλώττης ἐγγράφως ὡμιληκότος τοῦ Παύλου, οἱ μὲν τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Λουκᾶν, οἱ δὲ τὸν Κλήμεντα τοῦτον αὐτὸν, ἑρμηνεῦσαι λέγουσι τὴν γραφήν. Ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον εἴη ἂν ἀληθὲς, τῷ τὸν ὅμοιον τῆς φράσεως χαρακτῆρα τήν τε τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους
Of Clement, in the epistle acknowledged by all, which he composed in the person of the Church of the Romans to that of the Corinthians. In which, setting down many thoughts of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and indeed even using certain phrases from it word for word, he shows most clearly that the composition is not recent. Whence it reasonably seemed right that it should be reckoned among the other writings of the Apostle. For Paul having addressed the Hebrews in writing through their native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this very Clement, translated the writing. And this would rather be true, because both the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews [preserve] the like character of phrasing
Editors' notes and page, col. 35
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width / mixed layout on page 17 (cols 35-36). The Origen passage at the top is Latin only, full width, read from both crops and set here; the mark after the first 'hominibus' lies under a pen stroke (colon or semicolon, UNSURE). The two Origen extracts in Greek have their Latin in col 36. Under IV the page is in THREE columns (Rufino interprete, the Greek, Valesio interprete); only the Greek is set, pieced from the two crops, and both Latin versions are facing versions, not set. 'Lege Nicephorum ...' is Cotelier's remark in the Greek column. The verb supplied in brackets in the last English line stands in the next column.
Editors' notes and page, col. 36
Page
- other: facing Latin version, not set
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: col 36 alone holds only facing Latin: the Latin of the two Greek Origen extracts and the Interpretatio Valesii of Eusebius III, 16 and III, 38. The full-width Origen passage at the top of the page and the centred captions are set under col 35. Cotelier's cross-references in the Latin column, not set: Epist. 1, cap. 20 (after the Ezekiel extract); Epist. 1, cap. 55 (after the John extract).
ἀποσώζειν· καὶ τῷ μὴ πόῤῥω τὰ ἐν ἑκατέροις τοῖς συγγράμμασι νοήματα καθεστάναι. Ἰστέον δὲ ὡς καὶ δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολή· οὐ μὴν ἔθ' ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα· ὅτι μηδὲ τοὺς ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ κεχρημένους ἴσμεν. Et infra: Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος ὁμολογουμένη γραφὴ, πρόδηλος. Lege Nicephorum, lib. II, cap. 46, et lib. III, cap. 18.
preserve; and because the thoughts in the two compositions do not stand far apart. But it must be known that there is said to be also a certain second epistle of Clement; yet we do not understand this one to be recognized in the same way as the former, since we do not know that the ancients made use of it either. And below: The acknowledged writing of Clement, then, is plain. Read Nicephorus, book II, chapter 46, and book III, chapter 18.
Eusebius Hist. eccl., lib. IV, cap. 22.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter 22.
Ἀκοῦσαί γέ τοι πάρεστι, μετά τινα περὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ εἰρημένα, ἐπιλέγοντος ταῦτα. Lege Niceph., lib. IV, cap. 5.
One may indeed hear him, after certain things said by him about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, adding these words. Read Nicephorus, book IV, chapter 5.
Idem, ibid., lib. IV, cap. 23.
The same, in the same work, book IV, chapter 23.
Ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους μέμνηται ἐπιστολῆς, δηλῶν ἀνέκαθεν ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔθους ἐπὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν αὐτῆς ποιεῖσθαι. Λέγει γοῦν· Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνεγνώκαμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν. Lege Niceph., lib. IV. cap. 8.
And in this same [letter] he makes mention also of the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, showing that from the beginning, by ancient custom, the reading of it was made in the Church. He says, at any rate: Today, then, we have passed the Lord's holy day, on which we have read your epistle; which we shall always have, reading it from time to time, to be admonished by it, as also the former one written to us through Clement. Read Nicephorus, book IV, chapter 8.
Idem, ibid., lib. IV, cap. 13.
The same, in the same work, book IV, chapter 13.
Κέχρηται δ' ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων Γραφῶν μαρτυρίαις· τῆς τε λεγομένης Σολομῶντος Σοφίας, καὶ τῆς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Σιρὰχ, καὶ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους Ἐπιστολῆς, τῆς τε Βαρνάβα, καὶ Κλήμεντος, καὶ Ἰούδα. Niceph., lib. IV, cap. 33.
And in them he has used also testimonies from the disputed Scriptures: from the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, and that of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that of Barnabas, and of Clement, and of Jude. Nicephorus, book IV, chapter 33.
V. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Cateches. XVIII, cap. 8, edit. Paris., 1720, pag. 288, D.
V. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis XVIII, chapter 8, Paris edition, 1720, page 288, D.
ᾜδει Θεὸς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν ἀπιστίαν, καὶ ὄρνεον εἰς τοῦτο κατειργάσατο, φοίνικα οὕτω καλούμενον. Τοῦτο, ὡς γράφει Κλήμης, καὶ ἱστοροῦσι πλείονες, μονογενὲς ὑπάρχον, κατὰ τὴν Αἰγυπτίων χώραν ἐν περιόδοις πεντακοσίων ἐτῶν ἐρχόμενον, δείκνυσι τὴν ἀνάστασιν· οὐκ ἐν ἐρήμοις τόποις, ἵνα μὴ ἀγνοηθῇ τὸ μυστήριον γινόμενον, ἀλλ' ἐν φανερᾷ πόλει παραγενόμενον, ἵνα ψηλαφηθῇ τὸ ἀπιστούμενον. Σηκὸν γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ποιῆσαν ἐκ λιβάνου καὶ σμύρνης, καὶ λοιπῶν ἀρωμάτων, καὶ ἐν τῇ συμπληρώσει τῶν ἐτῶν εἰς τοῦτον εἰσελθὸν, τελευτᾷ φανερῶς καὶ σήπεται· εἶτα ἐκ τῆς σαπείσης σαρκὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος, σκώληξ τις γεννᾶται· καὶ οὗτος αὐξηθεὶς, εἰς ὄρνεον μορφοῦται. Paucisque interjectis: Εἶτα πτεροφυήσας
God knew the unbelief of men, and for this purpose He fashioned a bird, called the phoenix. This bird, as Clement writes and more relate, being the only one of its kind, coming to the land of the Egyptians in cycles of five hundred years, shows forth the resurrection; not in desert places, lest the mystery should happen unknown, but arriving in a conspicuous city, so that what is disbelieved might be handled. For having made itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, and having entered into it at the completion of the years, it dies openly and rots; then from the rotted flesh of the dead bird a certain worm is born; and this, having grown, is shaped into a bird. And after a few words: Then, having grown wings,
Editors' notes and page, col. 37
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM.
- marginal letters: A ‹ἀποσώζειν· καὶ τῷ μὴ πόῤῥω› (gutter, serving both columns); B ‹ᾜδει Θεὸς τῶν ἀνθρώπων› (gutter)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: mixed layout on page 18 (cols 37-38). Top block in two columns (Greek | Valesius); then three columns (Rufino interprete | Greek | Valesio interprete) for Eusebius IV, 22; IV, 23 and the next extract, with the Greek pieced from the two crops; then two columns again from V. Only the Greek is set; the Latin versions are facing versions. The 'Lege Nicephorum ...' sentences and 'Et infra', 'Paucisque interjectis' are Cotelier's words in the Greek column. The last word is split at the break (πτεροφυή-/σας) and completed from the top line of col 39.
Editors' notes and page, col. 38
Page
- other: facing Latin version, not set
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM.
- marginal letters: A ‹utriusque scripti sententiae›; B ‹Noverat Deus hanc hominum›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: col 38 holds only facing Latin: the Interpretatio Valesii of the Eusebius extracts and the Latin version of Cyril of Jerusalem. The centred captions of the page are set under col 37. One remark of Cotelier stands only in this Latin column and is not set: after the first block, a direction to read Maximus in the prologue to the works of Dionysius.
ὁ προειρημένος φοῖνιξ, καὶ τέλειος οἷος ἦν ὁ πρότερος, φοῖνιξ γενόμενος, ἀνίπταται τοιοῦτος εἰς ἀέρα, οἷος καὶ ἐτετελευτήκει σαφεστάτην νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν ἀνθρώποις ἐπιδείξας.
the aforesaid phoenix, having become a perfect phoenix such as the former one was, flies up into the air such as it also was when it died, having displayed to men a most manifest resurrection of the dead.
VI. Epiphanius, Advers. Carpocrasios, Haeresi 27, num. 6.
VI. Epiphanius, Against the Carpocratians, Heresy 27, number 6.
Λέγει γὰρ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν αὐτοῦ· Ἀναχωρῶ, ἄπειμι, ἐνσταθήτω ὁ λαὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· τισὶ τοῦτο συμβουλεύων· εὕρομεν γὰρ ἔν τισιν ὑπομνηματισμοῖς τοῦτο ἐγκείμενον.
For he says in one of his epistles: I withdraw, I depart, let the people of God stand firm; giving this counsel to certain persons; for we have found this set down in certain memoirs.
Idem, Advers. Ebionaeos, Haeresi 30, num. 15.
The same, Against the Ebionites, Heresy 30, number 15.
Αὐτὸς Κλήμης αὐτοὺς κατὰ πάντα ἐλέγχει ἀφ' ὧν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολῶν ἐγκυκλίων, τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις Ἐκκλησίαις ἀναγινωσκομένων, ὅτι ἄλλον ἔχει χαρακτῆρα ἡ ἑαυτοῦ πίστις καὶ ὁ λόγος, παρὰ τὰ ὑπὸ τούτων εἰς ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς Περιόδοις νενοθευμένα· αὐτὸς γὰρ παρθενίαν διδάσκει, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ δέχονται· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγκωμιάζει Ἠλίαν, καὶ Δαβὶδ, καὶ Σαμψὼν, καὶ πάντας τοὺς προφήτας, οὓς οὗτοι βδελύττονται.
Clement himself refutes them in every point from the encyclical epistles which he wrote, which are read in the holy Churches, [showing] that his own faith and discourse have a different character from the things falsified by these men under his name in the Journeys; for he teaches virginity, and they do not accept it; for he praises Elijah, and David, and Samson, and all the prophets, whom these men abominate.
VII. Hieronymus, lib. De viris illustribus, cap. 15, cum vetere Graeco interprete.
VII. Jerome, the book On Illustrious Men, chapter 15, with the old Greek translator.
Κλήμης, περὶ οὗ Παῦλος ὁ Ἀπόστολος πρὸς Φιλιππησίους γράφων, λέγει· Μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος, κτλ., τέταρτος μετὰ Πέτρον Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος· δεύτερος γὰρ Λῖνος ἐγένετο, τρίτος Ἀνέγκλητος, εἰ καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ὑπολαμβάνουσι, δεύτερον μετὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον Πέτρον γεγενῆσθαι Κλήμεντα. Ἔγραψεν ἐκ προσώπου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ῥώμης πρὸς τὴν ἐν Κορίνθῳ Ἐκκλησίαν ἐπιστολὴν πάνυ θαυμαστὴν, ἥτις ἐν φανεροῖς τόποις δημοσίᾳ ἀναγινώσκεται, τῷ χαρακτῆρι τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους Ἐπιστολῆς Παύλου συνάδουσα, οὐ μόνον νοήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγοις. Καὶ ἁπλῶς μεγίστη ἐστὶν ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ ὁμοίωσις. Φέρεται καὶ ἑτέρα ἐξ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ εἶναι ἐπιστολὴ, ἥτις παρὰ πάντων ἀποδοκιμάζεται. Καὶ διάλογος Πέτρου καὶ Ἀπίωνος μακρῷ λόγῳ συνταγεῖσα, ἥντινα Εὐσέβιος εὐθύνει ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τεύχει. Τελευτᾷ τῷ τρίτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ Τραϊανοῦ, καὶ τὴν τούτου μνήμην ἄχρι τήμερον ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ οἰκοδομηθεῖσα ἐκκλησία φυλάττει.
Clement, of whom Paul the Apostle, writing to the Philippians, says, With Clement also, and so on, was the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter; for Linus was the second, Anencletus the third, although many of the Romans suppose that Clement was the second after the apostle Peter. He wrote, in the person of the Church of Rome, to the Church in Corinth a very admirable epistle, which is read publicly in conspicuous places, agreeing with the character of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, not only in thoughts but also in words. And, in short, the likeness in each is very great. There is current also another epistle said to be under his name, which is rejected by all. And a dialogue of Peter and Apion, composed at great length, which Eusebius censures in the third volume of the Ecclesiastical History. He dies in the third year of Trajan, and a church built in Rome guards his memory to this day.
Editors' notes and page, col. 39
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM
- marginal letters: A ‹σας ὁ προειρημένος φοῖνιξ› (gutter, serving both columns); B ‹Ἐκκλησίαις ἀναγινωσκομένων›; C ‹πολλοὶ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ὑπολαμβάνουσι›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column opens with the second half of a split word (-σας), already set whole at the end of col 37. Under VII the roles are REVERSED: Jerome wrote Latin, so the Greek here is the old Greek version and the Latin in col 40 is the original. Both are set (this Greek here, Jerome's Latin under col 40), against the unit's general rule; decide whether to keep the Greek version. The four further Jerome extracts at the foot of the page are Latin only, printed full width; they are set under col 40, after the De viris text, to keep reading order. ἐνσταθήτω and τήμερον are set as printed.
Clemens, de quo apostolus Paulus ad Philippenses (IV, 3) scribens ait: Cum Clemente et caeteris cooperatoribus meis, quorum nomina scripta sunt in libro vitae: quartus post Petrum Romae episcopus: siquidem secundus Linus fuit, tertius Anacletus; tametsi plerique Latinorum, secundum post Petrum apostolum putent fuisse Clementem. Scripsit ex persona Romanae Ecclesiae ad Ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem epistolam, quae et in nonnullis locis publice legitur, quae mihi videtur characteri Epistolae, quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos fertur, convenire. Sed et multis de eadem epistola, non solum sensibus, sed juxta verborum quoque ordinem abutitur. Omnino grandis in utraque similitudo est. Fertur et secunda ejus nomine epistola, quae a veteribus reprobatur. Et disputatio Petri et Apionis longo sermone conscripta, quam Eusebius in tertio Historiae ecclesiasticae volumine coarguit. Obiit tertio Trajani anno, et nominis ejus memoriam usque hodie Romae exstructa ecclesia custodit.
Clement, of whom the apostle Paul, writing to the Philippians (Phil. 4:3), says: With Clement and my other fellow workers, whose names are written in the book of life; the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, since Linus was the second and Anacletus the third; although most of the Latins think that Clement was the second after the apostle Peter. He wrote, in the person of the Roman Church, to the Church of the Corinthians a very useful epistle, which is also read publicly in some places, and which seems to me to agree with the character of the Epistle which goes under Paul's name to the Hebrews. Moreover he draws freely on many things from that same epistle, not only in their senses but even according to the order of the words. Altogether there is a great likeness in both. There is current also a second epistle under his name, which is rejected by the ancients. And a disputation of Peter and Apion, written out at great length, which Eusebius refutes in the third volume of the Ecclesiastical History. He died in the third year of Trajan, and a church built at Rome guards the memory of his name to this day.
Idem, lib. I advers. Jovinianum, cap. 7.
The same, book I Against Jovinian, chapter 7.
Ad hos (eunuchos) et Clemens successor apostoli Petri, cujus Paulus apostolus meminit (Philip. IV, 3) scribit epistolas, omnemque pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexuit.
To these (eunuchs) Clement also, the successor of the apostle Peter, of whom the apostle Paul makes mention (Phil. 4:3), writes epistles, and has woven almost his whole discourse about the purity of virginity.
Idem, lib. XIV Comment. in Isa. LII, 13.
The same, book XIV of the Commentary on Isaiah, 52:13.
Clemens vir apostolicus, qui post Petrum rexit Ecclesiam, scribit ad Corinthios: Sceptrum Dei Dominus Jesus Christus, non venit in jactantia superbiae, cum possit omnia, sed in humilitate. Epist. 1, cap. 16.
Clement, an apostolic man, who ruled the Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians: The sceptre of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the boasting of pride, though He can do all things, but in humility. Epistle 1, chapter 16.
Idem, lib. I Comment. in Epist. ad Ephes., II. 2.
The same, book I of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 2:2.
Quaerimus quoque quid sit: In quibus aliquando ambulastis secundum saeculum mundi hujus: utrumnam et aliud saeculum sit, quod non pertineat ad mundum istum, sed ad mundos alios, de quibus et Clemens in Epistola sua scribit: Oceanus, et mundi qui trans ipsum sunt. Epist. 1, cap. 20.
We ask also what this means: In which you once walked according to the age of this world; whether there is also another age, which does not belong to this world but to other worlds, of which Clement too writes in his Epistle: The ocean, and the worlds which are beyond it. Epistle 1, chapter 20.
Idem, ibid., lib. II, ad cap. IV, 1.
The same, in the same work, book II, on chapter 4:1.
Cujus rei et Clemens ad Corinthios testis est: Vinculum charitatis Dei quis poterit enarrare? Epist. 1, cap. 49.
Of which thing Clement also is a witness, to the Corinthians: Who shall be able to declare the bond of the charity of God? Epistle 1, chapter 49.
Editors' notes and page, col. 40
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM
- marginal letters: A ‹Paucisque interjectis: Postea phoenix›; B ‹ptae in sacrosanctis Ecclesiis›; C ‹siquidem secundus Linus fuit›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the upper part of col 40 is facing Latin, NOT set: the end of the Latin of Cyril of Jerusalem and the Latin of the two Epiphanius extracts (with Cotelier's cross-references Epist. 1, cap. 25 and Epist. 1, cap. 54). Set here: Jerome, De viris illustribus 15, whose Latin is the original (its old Greek version is under col 39, with caption VII), and the four further Jerome extracts printed full width at the foot of page 19, read from both crops (settle: full_width). 'Vinculum' has one damaged letter, read by sense.
VIII. Ps⟨e⟩udo-Justinus, seu auctor Quaestionum et responsionum ad orthodoxos, in respons. ad quaest. 74 (inter Opera S. Justini martyris, pag. 469, B, edit. Paris. 1742).
VIII. Pseudo-Justin, or the author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, in the answer to question 74 (among the Works of St Justin Martyr, p. 469, B, Paris edition of 1742).
Εἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστάσεως τὸ τέλος ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κρίσις τῶν ἀσεβῶν, καθά φασιν αἱ Γραφαὶ προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς Σιβύλλης, καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ἐπιστολῇ.
If the end of the present state of things is the judgement of the ungodly through fire, as the Scriptures of both prophets and apostles say, and moreover those of the Sibyl too, as the blessed Clement says in the Epistle to the Corinthians.
IX. Dorotheus Archimandrita, doctrina 23, sub finem.
IX. Dorotheus the Archimandrite, Instruction 23, towards the end.
Ὡς λέγει καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Κλήμης· Κἂν μὴ στεφανῶταί τις, ἀλλὰ σπουδάσῃ μὴ μακρὰν εὑρεθῆναι τῶν στεφανουμένων.
As the holy Clement also says: Even if one is not crowned, yet let him strive to be found not far from those who are crowned.
X. Georgius Syncellus, Chronogr., pag. 344, edit. Paris.
X. George Syncellus, Chronography, p. 344, Paris edition.
Τούτου ἐπιστολὴ ἡ μία γνησία Κορινθίοις φέρεται, ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας γραφεῖσα, στάσεως ἐν Κορίνθῳ συμβάσης τότε, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ Ἡγήσιππος, ἥτις καὶ ἐκκλησιάζεται.
Of this man one genuine epistle, to the Corinthians, is in circulation, written as from the Church of the Romans, a sedition having arisen at Corinth at that time, as Hegesippus testifies; which epistle is also read in church.
XI. Photius, Biblioth., cod. 113.
XI. Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 113.
Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Κλήμης, περὶ οὗ φησιν ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους Ἐπιστολῇ· Μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς. Οὗτος καὶ ἐπιστολὴν ἀξιόλογον πρὸς Κορινθίους γράφει, ἥτις παρὰ πολλοῖς ἀποδοχῆς ἠξιώθη, ὡς καὶ δημοσίᾳ ἀναγινώσκεσθαι. Ἡ δὲ λεγομένη δευτέρα πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοὺς, ὡς νόθος ἀποδοκιμάζεται· ὥσπερ ἐπιγραφόμενος ἐπ' ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ Πέτρου καὶ Ἀπίωνος πολύστιχος διάλογος. Τοῦτόν φασιν οἱ μὲν δεύτερον μετὰ Πέτρον ἐπισκοπῆσαι Ῥώμης, οἱ δὲ τέταρτον· Λῖνον γὰρ καὶ Ἀνάκλητον μεταξὺ αὐτοῦ καὶ Πέτρου Ῥώμης ἐπισκόπους διαγεγονέναι· τελευτῆσαι δὲ αὐτὸν τρίτῳ ἔτει Τραϊανοῦ.
This is the Clement of whom the divine Paul says in the Epistle to the Philippians: With Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. He also writes a noteworthy epistle to the Corinthians, which was deemed by many worthy of such acceptance as even to be read publicly. But the one called the second to the same people is rejected as spurious; as is the lengthy dialogue of Peter and Apion inscribed under his name. Some say that he was the second after Peter to hold the bishopric of Rome, others the fourth; for Linus and Anacletus came between him and Peter as bishops of Rome; and that he died in the third year of Trajan.
Idem, ibid., cod. 126.
The same, in the same work, codex 126.
Ἀνεγνώσθη βιβλιδάριον, ἐν ᾧ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ δύο πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐνεφέροντο· ὧν ἡ πρώτη δι' αἰτίας αὐτοὺς ἄγει, στάσεσι καὶ ταραχαῖς καὶ σχίσμασι τὴν πρέπουσαν αὐτοῖς εἰρήνην καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ἐμπολιτεύεσθαι, λύσαντας, καὶ παραινεῖ παύσασθαι τοῦ κακοῦ. Ἁπλοῦς δὲ κατὰ τὴν φράσιν καὶ σαφής ἐστιν, καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ καὶ ἀπεριέργου χαρακτῆρος. Αἰτιάσοιτο δ' ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἐν ταύταις· ὅτι τε τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ ἔξω κόσμους τινὰς ὑποτίθεται εἶναι· καὶ δεύτερον ἴσως, ὅτι ὡς παναληθεστάτῳ τῷ κατὰ τὸν Φοίνικα τὸ ὄρνεον ὑποδείγματι κέχρηται· καὶ τρίτον ὅτι ἀρχιερέα καὶ προστάτην τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐξονομάζων, οὐδὲ τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς καὶ ὑψηλοτέρας ἀφῆκε περὶ αὐτοῦ φωνάς· οὐ μὴν οὐδ' ἀπαρακαλύπτως αὐτὸν οὐδαμῆ ἐν τούτοις βλασφημεῖ. Ἡ δὲ δευτέρα καὶ αὐτὴ νουθεσίαν καὶ παραίνεσιν κρείττονος εἰσάγει βίου, καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν κηρύσσει. Πλὴν ὅτι ῥητά τινα, ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς θείας Γραφῆς, ξενίζοντα παρεισάγει· ὧν
A little book was read in which two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians were contained; of which the first brings them under accusation for having, by seditions and disturbances and schisms, dissolved the peace and concord that it befitted them to live by, and exhorts them to cease from the evil. He is simple and clear in his diction, and close to the ecclesiastical and unelaborate style. Yet one might find fault with him in these: first, that he supposes there to be certain worlds beyond the ocean; and secondly, perhaps, that he has used the example of the bird, the phoenix, as though it were entirely true; and thirdly, that while naming our Lord Jesus Christ high priest and protector, he did not also utter the more exalted expressions about Him that befit God; not that he anywhere in these openly blasphemes Him either. The second likewise introduces admonition and exhortation to a better life, and at the beginning proclaims Christ as God. Except that it brings in certain strange sayings as though from the divine Scripture; of which
Editors' notes and page, col. 41
Page
- running head: 41 PROOEMIA VARIORUM 42
- marginal letters: A ‹Εἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστάσεως›; B ‹ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας›; C ‹ἀποδοκιμάζεται· ὥσπερ ἐπιγραφόμενος›; D ‹ἐστιν, καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: captions VIII–XI and "Idem, ibid., cod. 126" are printed across both columns of the page; completed from the col. 42 crops and set once here. In "Pseudo" the e is damaged type. The column number 41 in the head is damaged (looks like 44). The foot note (Ephes. IV, 2) is called only in the facing Latin and is left to the notes. "ὥσπερ ἐπιγραφόμενος" is set as printed (no article). The column ends mid-sentence at "ὧν". Editors' matter unit: testimonia veterum on Clement, Greek with facing Latin in col. 42.
Editors' notes and page, col. 42
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: in libro vitae› · call in col 42
Ephes. IV, 2.
Ephesians 4:2. [So printed; the words quoted are those of Philippians 4:3.]
(printed under page 20)
Page
- other: facing Latin version, not set
οὐδ' ἡ πρώτη ἀπήλλακτο παντελῶς. Καὶ ἑρμηνείας δὲ ῥητῶν τινων ἀλλοκότους ἔχει· ἄλλως τε δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς νοήματα ἐῤῥιμμένα πως, καὶ οὐ συνεχῆ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ὑπῆρχε φυλάττοντα.
not even the first was wholly free. And it also has outlandish interpretations of certain passages; and besides, the thoughts in them were somehow thrown out at random, and did not keep the sequence continuous.
XII. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Hist. eccles., edit. Paris., pag. 17.
XII. Anastasius the Librarian, Ecclesiastical History, Paris edition, p. 17.
Hujus (Clementis) Epistola fertur ad Corinthios missa, quam tota recipit, ut Hegesippus testatur, Ecclesia.
Of this man (Clement) there is in circulation an Epistle sent to the Corinthians, which the whole Church receives, as Hegesippus testifies.
XIII. Nicon monachus, in Pandect. serm. 18.
XIII. Nicon the monk, in the Pandects, discourse 18.
Κλήμεντος Ῥώμης. Δίκαιον οὖν καὶ ὅσιον... καὶ στάσεις τοῦ ἀπαλλοτριῶσαι ἡμᾶς τοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντος. Τοίνυν ἀκολουθήσωμεν τοῖς μετ' εὐσεβείας... Πόῤῥω ἀπέχει ἀπ' ἐμοῦ... Κολληθῶμεν οὖν τοῖς ἀθώοις καὶ δικαίοις· εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Γέγραπται γάρ· Κολλᾶσθαι τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς, ἁγιασθήσονται. Καὶ ὁ Κύριος λέγει· Τὸν ὁμολογήσαντά με... τοῦ Πατρός μου. Ἐν τίνι δὲ... τῶν ἐντολῶν. Haec ex codd. Regiis 2418, 2423, 2424, descripsit Cotelerius, ediditque in not. ad epist. Clem. cap. 14, unde huc translata sunt.
Of Clement of Rome. It is therefore just and holy... and seditions, so as to estrange us from what is right. Let us therefore follow those who with piety... It is far distant from me... Let us therefore cleave to the innocent and the righteous; and these are the elect of God. For it is written: Cleave to the saints, for those who cleave to them shall be sanctified. And the Lord says: Him who has confessed me... of my Father. And in what... of the commandments. These Cotelier copied out from the Royal codices 2418, 2423, 2424, and published in his notes on the Epistle of Clement, ch. 14, whence they have been transferred here.
JUDICIA RECENTIORUM
JUDGEMENTS OF MORE RECENT WRITERS
ET PRIMUM QUIDEM
AND FIRST OF ALL
PATRICII JUNII PRAEFATIO.
THE PREFACE OF PATRICK YOUNG.
Si plenius de Clemente nostro et ejus scriptis, amice Lector, scire desideras, Gregorium Turonensem De martyrum gloria, Simeonem Metaphrastem, Pontificum Romanorum βιογράφους, Baronium, annalium conditorem, Sixtum Senensem, Bellarminum et alios, qui ecclesiasticos scriptores et eorum scripta nobis tradiderunt, per otium potes consulere. Nos nube hac tam illustrium testium, quos in antecessum praemisimus, contenti, oculis tuis et patientia diutius abuti desinimus, et de fide et auctoritate hujus operis γνησίου καὶ ἀναμφιβόλου, plura de nostro adjicere supersedemus, ne soli lucem fenerari, et faculam obscuram meridie accendere velle videamur. Antequam autem ad lectionem divini hujus et plane apostolici scripti te accingas, patere, quaeso, ut de antiquitate exemplaris quo nos usi sumus, et de versione nostra plana et rudi, paucis te moneamus. Cyrillus, qui hodie Constantinopoli patriarchatum obtinet, vir pietate et eruditione insignis, ex Aegypto, cum sedem Alexandrinam relinqueret, magnam librorum supellectilem secum advexit, inter quos codicem omnium vetustissimum et longe pretiosissimum (in quo veteris et novi foederis libri litteris grandioribus, manu Theclae nobilis feminae Aegyptiae, circa primi concilii Nicaeni tempora, bellissime exarati sunt) per
If, friendly Reader, you desire to know more fully about our Clement and his writings, you can at your leisure consult Gregory of Tours On the Glory of the Martyrs, Simeon Metaphrastes, the biographers of the Roman Pontiffs, Baronius, the founder of the annals, Sixtus of Siena, Bellarmine and others who have handed down to us the ecclesiastical writers and their writings. We, content with this cloud of such illustrious witnesses, whom we have set out in advance, cease to abuse your eyes and patience any longer, and refrain from adding more of our own about the trustworthiness and authority of this genuine and undoubted work, lest we seem to wish to lend light to the sun and to kindle a dim little torch at midday. But before you gird yourself for the reading of this divine and plainly apostolic writing, allow us, I pray, to advise you in a few words about the antiquity of the copy which we have used, and about our plain and unpolished version. Cyril, who today holds the patriarchate at Constantinople, a man distinguished for piety and learning, when he was leaving the see of Alexandria, brought with him from Egypt a great stock of books, among which a codex the most ancient of all and by far the most precious (in which the books of the Old and New Testament are most beautifully written out in larger letters, by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian woman, about the times of the first Council of Nicaea), through
Editors' notes and page, col. 43
Page
- running head: 43 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 44
- marginal letters: A ‹οὐδ' ἡ πρώτη ἀπήλλακτο›; B ‹ἀπέχει ἀπ' ἐμοῦ... Κολληθῶμεν›; C ‹Si plenius de Clemente nostro›; D ‹patere, quaeso, ut de antiquitate›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: mixed page. Top: end of Photius cod. 126 (Greek; facing Latin in col. 44). XII Anastasius: Latin only, printed full width across both columns, completed from the col. 44 crops and set once here. XIII Nicon: Greek with facing Latin in col. 44; the ellipses "..." are printed; the closing Latin sentence "Haec ex codd. Regiis..." is the editor's remark printed in the Greek column. The captions XII, XIII and the three-line title JUDICIA RECENTIORUM / ET PRIMUM QUIDEM / PATRICII JUNII PRAEFATIO run across both columns and are set once here. Κολλᾶσθαι is as printed; "intended" is a judgment from the source passage, UNSURE. Column ends mid-sentence at "per".
ornatissimum et clarissimum virum dominum Thomam Roe, equitem auratum, et apud Turcarum impp. serenissimi regis nostri oratorem, cum ex Oriente rediret, dono ad serenissimum regem nostrum transmisit. Ad calcem venerandi hujus codicis et κειμηλίου τιμαλφεστάτου, in membranis laceris, adjecta erat Clementis ad Corinthios Epistola eadem manu scripta, quam nunc bono publico et tuo usui in lucem damus, legis Pythagoricae non immemores (quae, ut Synesius in Dione auctor est, οὐκ ἐᾷ τοῖς βιβλίοις ἐπιποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ βούλεται μένειν αὐτὰ ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης χειρὸς, ὅπως ποτὲ ἔσχε τύχης, ἢ τέχνης), nihil dementes, nihil de nostro addentes, non syllabam, non litteram, non apicem aut iota unum, fidelissime quantum potuit fieri expressimus. Voces autem deperditas et litteras vetustate exesas, spatiis et interstitiis accuratissime dimensi, pro ingenioli nostri tenuitate supplevimus et minio rubro (novo hoc et inusitato imprimendi genere), notavimus; quod a nobis consulto factum est, ne rejicientes te saepius ad notas, molestiam tibi inutilem crearemus, vel oram libri supplementis et emendationibus crebris nimium foedaremus, denique ne industriis felicioribus et ingeniis στοχαστικωτέροις conjecturam liberam ad judicium liberius praeriperemus. In reliquo etiam opere, errata quamplurima expunximus, et ut
the most distinguished and illustrious man Sir Thomas Roe, knight, and ambassador of our most serene king to the emperors of the Turks, he sent over as a gift to our most serene king, when Roe was returning from the East. At the end of this venerable codex and most precious treasure, on torn parchment leaves, there had been added the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, written by the same hand, which we now bring to light for the public good and for your use, not unmindful of the Pythagorean law (which, as Synesius attests in the Dion, does not allow anything to be added to books, but wishes them to remain as from the first hand, whatever they happened to have of fortune or of art); taking nothing away, adding nothing of our own, not a syllable, not a letter, not one tittle or iota, we have reproduced it as faithfully as could be done. The lost words, however, and the letters eaten away by age, having measured the spaces and gaps most accurately, we have supplied according to the slenderness of our small wit, and have marked with red vermilion (by this new and unaccustomed kind of printing); which was done by us deliberately, lest by sending you back too often to the notes we should cause you useless trouble, or disfigure the margin of the book too much with frequent supplements and emendations, and finally lest we should snatch away beforehand from more fortunate industry and from minds more skilled in conjecture a free conjecture towards a freer judgement. In the rest of the work also we have expunged very many errors, and that
Editors' notes and page, col. 44
Page
- running head: 43 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 44
- marginal letters: A ‹dem epistola omnino vacat›; B ‹qui cum pietate›; C ‹ornatissimum et clarissimum›; D ‹perditas et litteras vetustate›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: mixed column. Its upper part is the facing Latin version of Photius cod. 126 (end) and of Nicon (XIII), NOT set; the captions XII, XIII, the full-width Anastasius paragraph and the title of Junius's preface are set once in col. 43. Only the continuation of Junius's preface (Latin, the unit's text) is set here; it begins and ends mid-sentence.
omnia quam emendatissima prodirent, pro facultate nostra et modulo adnisi sumus. Verum hoc sic accipi volumus, non tanquam assecutos nos credamus, sed tanquam assequi laboraverimus, et fortasse non frustra; si modo tu candidum te aestimatorem laborum nostrorum, et diligentiae qualiscunque benignum interpretem praebueris, stylus auctoris et scribendi genus primaevam simplicitatem sapit, et tenera adhuc nascentis Ecclesiae incunabula, quibus veteres Patres et Ecclesiae primi nutritii, nihil excelsum aut elatum, nec ad audientiae popularis illecebras culto sermone fucatum, in medium proferebant; sed ad divinam indulgentiam praedicandam
everything might come forth as correct as possible we have striven according to our ability and measure. But we wish this to be taken thus: not as though we believed that we have attained it, but as though we have laboured to attain it, and perhaps not in vain; if only you show yourself a fair appraiser of our labours and a kindly interpreter of our diligence, such as it is. The author's style and manner of writing savours of primeval simplicity and of the still tender cradle of the nascent Church, in which the ancient Fathers and first nurses of the Church brought forward nothing lofty or exalted, nor anything painted with polished speech for the allurements of a popular audience; but for proclaiming the divine mercy
EJUSDEM ΠΡΟΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΙΣ.
THE SAME AUTHOR'S PRELIMINARY NOTE.
Veteres primitivae Ecclesiae episcopi, non tantum gregibus sibi commissis, ut monet Paulus, sedulo attendebant, quos verbo et sermone, sanctaque et inculpata conversatione instruebant; verum etiam, ut dilectionem Spiritus, charitatem individuam, unam fidem, unam Ecclesiam, et episcopatum unum ostenderent, curam suam et sollicitudinem ad longe dissitos extendebant, et quos viva voce, propter locorum distantiam, in verbo Domini et vera pietate erudire non poterant, per epistolas monere, consulere, objurgare interdum, et universam fraternitatem (ut Cyprianus de epistolis suis ad clerum Romanum scriptis loquitur) ad deprecandum Dei misericordiam, alloqui et hortari non desinebant: duplicique hac ratione Christi Evangelium praedicabant. Quod Clementi Alexandrino est ἐγγράφως καὶ ἀγράφως τὸν λόγον κηρύττειν, voce scilicet et scripto; ubi probat ἐπιστήμην τὴν διὰ τῆς χειρὸς, quam vocat ἀγγελικὴν, non minus commodi et utilitatis Ecclesiae Dei afferre, quam illam alteram, quae διὰ τῆς γλώττης est, et κηρυκικὴ appellatur. Hinc est, quod inter Cypriani, et aliorum Patrum scripta, frequentes epistolae ad clerum et plebem diversarum Ecclesiarum, reperiantur, hujusque generis sunt quae Encyclicae nominantur, qualis et haec, quae in manibus est, non immerito censenda est, cum publice in omnibus ecclesiis primitus legeretur, licet ad unam scripta, ac hoc nomine ab Epiphanio etiam insigniatur. Magnam autem olim inter Ecclesiam Romanam et Corinthiacam necessitudinem, et animorum conjunctionem fuisse, praeter hanc responsoriam Clementis, testantur etiam epistolae Dionysii Corinthiorum episcopi, quarum mentionem facit Eusebius Historiae suae lib. IV, cap. 22, quippe quae eosdem apostolos Petrum et Paulum, primos fundatores haberent, et in eadem fide conspirantes, doctrinae consanguinitate (ut verbis Tertulliani utar), pacis communicatione, fraternitatis appellatione, et hospitalitatis contesseratione, tanquam firmissimo glutino, inter se invicem copularentur. Ecclesiae autem Romanae non suum nomen fronti praefixit; ut modestiae et humilitatis posteris aetatibus
The ancient bishops of the primitive Church not only attended diligently, as Paul admonishes, to the flocks committed to them, whom they instructed by word and discourse and by a holy and blameless way of life; but also, in order to show the love of the Spirit, undivided charity, one faith, one Church and one episcopate, they extended their care and solicitude to those far distant, and those whom, because of the distance of places, they could not instruct by the living voice in the word of the Lord and in true piety, they did not cease to admonish, to counsel, sometimes to rebuke by letters, and to address and exhort the whole brotherhood (as Cyprian says of his letters written to the Roman clergy) to entreat the mercy of God; and in this twofold way they preached the Gospel of Christ. Which for Clement of Alexandria is to proclaim the word in writing and without writing, that is, by voice and by script; where he proves that the knowledge that comes through the hand, which he calls that of the messenger, brings no less advantage and usefulness to the Church of God than that other which is through the tongue and is called that of the herald. Hence it is that among the writings of Cyprian and of other Fathers frequent letters to the clergy and people of various Churches are found; and of this kind are those which are named Encyclicals, such as this one also which is in our hands is not undeservedly to be reckoned, since it was at first read publicly in all the churches, although written to one, and is even marked with this name by Epiphanius. That there was of old, moreover, a great intimacy and union of minds between the Roman and the Corinthian Church is attested, besides this reply of Clement, also by the letters of Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, of which Eusebius makes mention in book IV, ch. 22 of his History; inasmuch as they had the same apostles, Peter and Paul, as their first founders, and, agreeing in the same faith, were joined to one another by kinship of doctrine (to use the words of Tertullian), by the communication of peace, by the title of brotherhood, and by the mutual token of hospitality, as by the firmest glue. Yet he prefixed to the front the name of the Roman Church, not his own; so that to later ages of modesty and humility
Editors' notes and page, col. 45
Footnotes
(7) ‹anchor: Clementi Alexandrino› · call in col 45
Lib. i Strom.
Book 1 of the Stromata. [The call figure is legible in the text only; at the foot it is not visible in the image.]
(printed under page 22)
Page
- running head: 45 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 46
- marginal letters: B ‹Veteres primitivae Ecclesiae episcopi›; C ‹menti Alexandrino est ἐγγράφως›; D ‹hanc responsoriam Clementis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: page in two tiers. Reading order: col. 45 upper tier (end of Junius's preface) -> col. 46 upper tier -> title EJUSDEM ΠΡΟΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΙΣ (across both columns, set once here) -> col. 45 lower tier -> col. 46 lower tier. The upper tier ends with "praedi-" completed as "praedicandam" from the first line of col. 46's upper tier, which is therefore set from "et gratiam". The margin letter A stands beside that line of col. 46. Foot-note call 7 after "Alexandrino" removed; its note (Lib. I Strom.) is left to the notes. The Προσημείωσις is printed in italic. Column ends mid-sentence at "aetatibus".
et gratiam ac salutem auditori procurandam (ut Cyprianus ad Donatum) verbis non disertis sed fortibus, et rudi veritate simplicibus utebantur. Quare si in versione nostra eloquii venustatem aut rhetorici sermonis nitorem exspectas, frustra fueris; fides, non ornatus aut verborum elegantia, nobis prae oculis in hoc negotio erat. Quod reliquum est, conatibus nostris fave, et pleniorem opem huic nostro tribue, aliosque veteres, qui memoriam suam tibi commendant, ab oblivionis injuria assere; quorum immortalitati dum consulis, pariter et tuae prospicies. Vale, et aeternitatem cogita. Oxonii pridie Kal. Nov. 1632.
and for procuring grace and salvation for the hearer (as Cyprian says to Donatus) they used words not eloquent but strong, and simple with unpolished truth. Therefore if in our version you look for charm of expression or the brilliance of rhetorical speech, you will be disappointed; faithfulness, not adornment or elegance of words, was before our eyes in this business. For the rest, favour our endeavours, and grant fuller help to this our author, and rescue from the injury of oblivion the other ancients who commend their memory to you; while you take thought for their immortality, you will equally provide for your own. Farewell, and think on eternity. At Oxford, 31 October 1632.
exemplar imitandum proponeret: et Corinthios, quos ad fraternam concordiam et humilitatem tota hac epistola hortatur, non tantum scripto, sed exemplo etiam suo, veram et non fucatam ταπεινοφροσύνην doceret, quae, Basilio teste, τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν θησαυροφυλάκιον est. Quo anno autem episcopatus ejus missa sit haec epistola, et an Romae esset Clemens cum hanc scriberet, apud antiquos nullum vestigium: probabile est non prius scriptam fuisse quam in exsilium relegaretur, quod factum est biennio antequam martyrio vitam finiret; quod ex ipsius verbis non obscure colligi potest, ubi de Pauli laboribus, de mortis genere, et martyrii loco disserens, ait, eum in finibus Occidentis passum esse. Verisimile est, si in urbe tum fuisset, ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ βασιλίδι πόλει, vel aliquid ejusmodi, voluisse illum scribere. Adde quod statim in initio, cum tarditatem suam in rescribendo excusat, calamitatum suarum et περιπτώσεων mentionem faciat: ἀλλ' ἐπέχω καὶ οὐδὲν ὁρίζω, et ex via hac ἀβάτῳ, quam nemo ante calcavit, pedem refero. Post salutationem, quae verbis Paulinis concipitur, Corinthios propter constantis fidei sinceritatem, propter morum probitatem, et insignem in omnibus εὐκοσμίαν καὶ εὐταξίαν, vehementer laudat, et in hoc etiam Pauli discipulum se probat, qui Epistolas suas a laudibus ordiri amat. Sic enim ad Romanos: Ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν καταγγέλλεται ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, sic ad Corinthios: Ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει, ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι. Sed non est propositum nostrum accuratam analysin, aut longiores commentarios scribere: neque operae typographicae, quae connatas has et congenitas stricturas praecipiti festinatione extrudunt, immaturum fetum teneriore cura lambere, et paterni affectus γνωρίσματα simul exponere, patiuntur. Quare praeter illa quae magis obvia erant, et supra a nobis suis locis in margine emendata sunt, quaedam inpraesentiarum, quae medicam manum desiderant, vel notatu digniora videbuntur, observabimus, reliqua cum Graecia aut Aegyptus exemplar emaculatius et perfectius nobis subministrarint, vel in Hieronymi versionem Latinam incidere
he might set forth a pattern to be imitated; and might teach the Corinthians, whom he exhorts throughout this epistle to brotherly concord and humility, a true and unfeigned lowliness of mind not only by his writing but also by his own example, which lowliness, as Basil attests, is the treasury of the other virtues. But in what year of his episcopate this epistle was sent, and whether Clement was at Rome when he wrote it, there is no trace among the ancients: it is probable that it was not written before he was banished into exile, which happened two years before he ended his life by martyrdom; which can be gathered not obscurely from his own words, where, discoursing on Paul's labours, the manner of his death and the place of his martyrdom, he says that he suffered in the bounds of the West. It is likely that, if he had then been in the city, he would have wished to write "in this royal city", or something of the kind. Add that at the very beginning, when he excuses his slowness in writing back, he makes mention of his calamities and misfortunes; but I suspend judgement and define nothing, and from this untrodden way, which no one has walked before, I draw back my foot. After the salutation, which is framed in Pauline words, he vehemently praises the Corinthians for the sincerity of their constant faith, for the uprightness of their conduct, and for their remarkable good order and discipline in all things, and in this also he proves himself a disciple of Paul, who loves to begin his Epistles from praises. For thus to the Romans: Your faith is proclaimed in the whole world; thus to the Corinthians: You were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, so that you are not lacking in any gift. But it is not our purpose to write an exact analysis or longer commentaries; nor do the printers, who with headlong haste push out these inborn and native sparks, allow us to lick the immature offspring with more tender care and at the same time to set out the tokens of a father's affection. Therefore, besides those things which were more obvious and have been emended by us above in their places in the margin, we shall for the present observe certain things which require a healing hand or will seem more worthy of note; the rest, when Greece or Egypt shall have supplied us with a cleaner and more perfect copy, or it shall be granted us to light upon
Editors' notes and page, col. 46
Page
- running head: 45 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 46
- marginal letters: A ‹candam, et gratiam ac salutem›; B ‹exemplar imitandum proponeret›; C ‹modi, voluisse illum scribere›; D ‹mentarios scribere: neque operae›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: page in two tiers (see col. 45): the first paragraph here is the upper tier, the close of Junius's preface, continuing col. 45's upper tier; its first printed syllables "candam," complete "praedi-" and are set in col. 45. The second paragraph is the lower tier (the Προσημείωσις, italic), continuing col. 45's lower tier. "huic" in "huic nostro" has a damaged c (looks like "huie"), UNSURE. The English of the last clause anticipates the verb governing "incidere", which stands in col. 47. Column ends mid-sentence at "incidere".
contigerit, quam in bibliothecis alicubi latere, spem nobis facit catalogus codicum fratrum Lobiensium, quem domi habemus scriptum ante 400 annos, ad
Jerome's Latin version, which, as the catalogue of the codices of the brothers of Lobbes, which we have at home, written 400 years ago, gives us hope, lies hidden somewhere in libraries, at
Ex epistola Gallica V. A. Hieronymi Bignonii ad Hugonem Grotium, data Lutetiae a. d. 7 Augusti 1633.
From a letter in French of the most distinguished Jérôme Bignon to Hugo Grotius, given at Paris on 7 August 1633.
Velim scire quodnam sit tuum judicium de epistola Clementis nuper in Anglia edita. Fides codicis manuscripti, qui ex Oriente advectus dicitur et M. Britanniae regi donatus, sinceritas Patricii Junii, qui eam edidit, testimonia a veteribus ex ea epistola deprompta, quae in hac etiamnum leguntur, primum veram ut crederem Clementis epistolam me adduxerunt. Postea styli quaedam ratio et spiritus, ut ita dicam, saeculi ita ei inesse videbantur, ut vix dubitandi esset locus. Attamen, dum eam lego, fateor mihi quaedam in ea occurrere a stylo apostolico aliena. Insunt frequentiora epitheta, amplificandique formulae, quae aevum posterius, Liturgiasque et Euchologia Graecorum sapere videntur. Argumentum e phoenice ductum, ejusque descriptio aliena, meo quidem judicio, sunt a Clemente, proximo
I should like to know what your judgement is of the epistle of Clement lately published in England. The trustworthiness of the manuscript codex, which is said to have been brought from the East and given to the king of Great Britain, the integrity of Patrick Young, who published it, and the testimonies drawn by the ancients from that epistle, which are still read in it, at first led me to believe it a true epistle of Clement. Afterwards a certain manner of style and, so to speak, the spirit of the age seemed so to be present in it that there was scarcely room for doubting. Nevertheless, as I read it, I confess that certain things occur to me in it which are foreign to the apostolic style. There are in it rather frequent epithets and formulas of amplification, which seem to savour of a later age and of the Liturgies and Euchologia of the Greeks. The argument drawn from the phoenix, and the description of it, are, in my judgement at least, foreign to Clement, the nearest
Hugo Grotius epistol. ad Gallos CLIV, ad amplissimum virum Hieronymum Bignonium, in supremo Senatu Parisiensi Advocatum Regium.
Hugo Grotius, Letters to the French CLIV, to the most distinguished Jérôme Bignon, King's Advocate in the supreme Parlement of Paris.
Epistolam quae Clementis ad Corinthios inscribitur, vir amplissime, ab Anglis promissam mihi jam pridem, cum Hamburgi frustra diu exspectassem, nunc demum, postquam Francofurtum veni, viri maximi, Suecorum regii cancellarii vocatu, a familia Anglicani legati accipio. Nolui vero ad moram hanc, sine mea culpa natam, aliam adjungere, quamvis nec litterae tuae quibus responsum tam diu debeo, essent ad manum, neque librorum, quos inspectos vellem, copia. Quod unum potui, epistolam illam legi relegique aliquoties, et omnibus quantum mearum est virium expensis, aliter existimare non potui, quin haec sit eadem quam legit Photius, cujus tempore cum exstiterit, non mirum est, si ad nostra tempora in sanctioribus libris servata fuerit. Neque vero causae quidquam video, cur aut illa quam Photius legit, non eadem sit cum ea quam Hieronymus et ante eum Clemens Alexandrinus, propiusque Clementis Romani tempora Irenaeus, habuerunt: aut cur illi alius dandus sit scriptor, quam is ipse Clemens Romanus, quod tanto consensu ab omnibus proditum est. Non loca tantum omnia, quae ab antiquis adducuntur, hic apparent, sed et res ipsae, quas observat Photius, et quod maximum, character Hieronymo dictus, ad illum qui est in Epistola ad Hebraeos accedere. Cujus causa non alia est, quam quod hic Clemens, ut et Lucas, et quisquis ille est scriptor ad Hebraeos Epistolae, antequam Christiani fierent, Graecum sermonem ex eruditis auctoribus hauserant, cujus nitor, ubi non aliena dicta, aut ex sacris litteris deprompta verba suis inserunt, sed liberiori dictione utuntur, facile cognoscitur. Hinc illae voces, μεγαλοπρεπές
The epistle which is entitled Clement's to the Corinthians, most distinguished Sir, long since promised me by the English, after I had waited for it long and in vain at Hamburg, I now at last receive from the household of the English ambassador, after coming to Frankfurt at the summons of that very great man, the royal chancellor of the Swedes. I did not wish, however, to add another delay to this one, which arose without my fault, although neither was your letter, to which I have so long owed an answer, at hand, nor a supply of the books which I should have wished to inspect. I did the one thing I could: I read and reread that epistle several times, and, having weighed everything as far as my powers allow, I could not think otherwise than that this is the same which Photius read; and since it existed in his time, it is no wonder if it has been preserved to our times among the more sacred books. Nor indeed do I see any reason why either that which Photius read should not be the same as that which Jerome, and before him Clement of Alexandria, and, nearer to the times of Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, possessed; or why another writer should be assigned to it than that very Clement of Rome, which has been handed down by all with so great an agreement. Not only do all the passages which are adduced by the ancients appear here, but also the very matters which Photius observes, and, what is the greatest thing, the style spoken of by Jerome, as approaching that which is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Of which the cause is none other than that this Clement, as also Luke, and whoever he is that wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, had, before they became Christians, drunk in the Greek language from learned authors; the polish of which is easily recognized where they do not insert among their own words sayings of others or words drawn from the sacred writings, but use a freer diction. Hence those words, magnificent
Editors' notes and page, col. 47
Page
- running head: 47 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 48
- marginal letters: A ‹contigerit, quam in bibliothecis›; B ‹dubitandi esset locus›; C ‹familia Anglicani legati accipio›; D ‹naeus, habuerunt: aut cur illi›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: page in three tiers, each read across both columns: (1) end of Junius's Προσημείωσις (italic), col. 47 -> col. 48; (2) Bignon to Grotius, col. 47 -> col. 48; (3) Grotius to Bignon, col. 47 -> col. 48. The two captions run across both columns and are set once here. Tier 2 ends "pro-", completed "proximo" from col. 48; tier 3 ends "μεγα-", completed "μεγαλοπρεπές" from col. 48; col. 48's tiers are set from the next word. The first English line supplies "Jerome's Latin version" from col. 46 so that the relative clause can stand (the verb "contigerit" was anticipated in col. 46's English). A few letters of "veram" and "adduxerunt ... dicam ... dubitandi" lie under an ink mark, read with certainty from context.
calcem Operum Fulgentii; atque utinam id aliquando eveniat, et spes nostrae non inanes deprehendantur!
the end of the Works of Fulgentius; and would that this may one day come to pass, and our hopes not be found empty!
apostolorum discipulo; quamvis qui eum secuti sunt, eo argumento usi sint, sed contra ethnicos et philosophos, inque scriptis alius generis, quam est epistola ad Ecclesiam apostolicam data, quaeque aliquandiu pro canonica habita est. Occurrit etiam locus, in quo oblationes vult loco, tempore et horis certis offerri, pag. 52 et 53, ubi etiam legitur vocula laicus, quae mihi suspecta est. Pagina etiam 62 Ecclesiam Corinthiam ἀρχαίαν vocat, quod vix Clementi convenire queat. Denique, cum scriptum genuinum censeam, crediderim tamen plures clausulas et voces ei additas ab iis a quibus postea exscripta est; quod etiam aliis ejusdem antiquitatis scriptis, ipsique adeo Clementi contigit. Libenter audiverim quid de re sentias tu, cui non facile, ad talia egregie sapienti, imponi queat.
disciple of the apostles; although those who followed him used that argument, but against pagans and philosophers, and in writings of another kind than is an epistle given to an apostolic Church, and one which was for some time held as canonical. There also occurs a passage in which he wishes the oblations to be offered at a fixed place, time and hours, pp. 52 and 53, where the little word layman is also read, which is suspect to me. On page 62 too he calls the Corinthian Church ancient, which can scarcely suit Clement. Finally, although I judge the writing genuine, I should nevertheless believe that a number of clauses and words have been added to it by those by whom it was afterwards copied out; which has also happened to other writings of the same antiquity, and indeed to Clement himself. I should gladly hear what you think of the matter, you on whom, being excellently wise in such things, it is not easy to impose.
, ἀπροσωπολήπτως ῥιψοκινδύνους, αὐτεπαίνετος, ἐργοπαρέκτης, ἀξιαγάπητος, μωμοσκοπεῖσθαι, ἑτεροκλινὲς, ἑτερογνώμων, et, quo Lucas utitur, ἀντοφθαλμεῖν, aliaque similia. Et ipse sermo, non ut ἑβραΐζουσιν in minutias concisus, sed largius fluens. Nam et lectum ab illo Euripidem et Sophoclem ostendunt sententiae ex illius Phoenissis, hujus Ajace translatae. Accedunt indicia non simulatae vetustatis: Quod de Christo semper loquitur, non ut posteriores πλατωνικώτερον, sed simpliciter plane, et ut Paulus apostolus solet. Alia quoque dogmata postea subtilius explicata tractat ἀφελέστερον, et vocibus κλήσεως, κλητῶν, ἐκλεκτῶν, sensu plane Paulino utitur; quod in Veteris Instrumenti locis purissimam neque adhuc interpolatam sequitur Septuaginta senum versionem. Sed nec illos spernit Hebraeorum libros, qui secundum Vetus Instrumentum apud Christianorum antiquissimos auctoritatem habuere; quod verbis rebusque utitur desumptis ex iis quae Paulus, Petrus et alii ad Hebraeos scripsere, non etiam ex illis libris quae Evangelia nos vocamus, quaeque post Epistolas prodierunt; quod dicta quaedam usurpat non scripta, sed ut memoria recente per manus tradita; quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius episcoporum auctoritatis, quae Ecclesiae consuetudine, post Marci mortem, Alexandriae, atque eo exemplo alibi, introduci coepit, sed plane ut Paulus apostolus, ostendit ecclesias communi presbyterorum, qui iidem omnes et episcopi ipsi Paulo dicuntur, consilio fuisse gubernatas. Nam quod ἀρχιερέα, λευίτας et λαϊκοὺς nominat, omnia ista nomina non ad Ecclesiam, sed ad templum Hierosolymiticum pertinent; unde infert
, without respect of persons, reckless, self-praised, giver of work, worthy of love, to be inspected for blemish, inclined to the other side, of a different mind, and, what Luke uses, to face against, and other like ones. And the language itself is not, as with those who Hebraize, cut up into small pieces, but more amply flowing. For that Euripides and Sophocles too were read by him is shown by the sentences transferred from the Phoenissae of the former and the Ajax of the latter. There are added the marks of an antiquity that is not feigned: that he always speaks of Christ not, as later writers do, in a more Platonic manner, but quite simply, and as the apostle Paul is accustomed to do. Other doctrines also, afterwards more subtly unfolded, he treats more plainly, and he uses the words calling, called, elect, in a plainly Pauline sense; that in the passages of the Old Testament he follows the version of the Seventy elders in its purest and not yet interpolated form. But neither does he scorn those books of the Hebrews which, next after the Old Testament, had authority among the most ancient of the Christians; that he uses words and matters taken from what Paul, Peter and others wrote to the Hebrews, but not also from those books which we call Gospels and which came forth after the Epistles; that he employs certain sayings not written, but as handed down from hand to hand while memory was fresh; that he nowhere mentions that singular authority of bishops which, by the custom of the Church, after the death of Mark, began to be introduced at Alexandria, and after that example elsewhere, but, plainly as the apostle Paul does, shows that the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters, who are all likewise called bishops by Paul himself. For as to his naming a high priest, levites and laymen, all those names belong not to the Church but to the temple at Jerusalem; whence he infers
Editors' notes and page, col. 48
Page
- running head: 47 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 48
- marginal letters: A ‹calcem Operum Fulgentii›; B ‹quod vix Clementi convenire queat›; C ‹ἑβραΐζουσιν in minutias concisus›; D ‹ptis ex iis quae Paulus›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: page in three tiers (see col. 47); the three paragraphs here are the right-hand halves of tiers 1, 2 and 3, each continuing the corresponding paragraph of col. 47; the captions are set in col. 47. Tier 2's first printed syllables "ximo" complete "pro-" and tier 3's first printed "λοπρεπές" completes "μεγα-"; both are set in col. 47, so tier 3 here opens at the comma. No comma is printed between ἀπροσωπολήπτως and ῥιψοκινδύνους. Column ends "in-", completed "infert" from the first line of col. 49. "ethni cos" and "Instrumen tum" have lost their line-end hyphens in the print; joined.
omnia certo ordine agenda, si Judaeis, tanto magis Christianis. Tempus ipsum quo scripta est haec epistola, ego ad finem Neronis, aut certe ad eos annos qui Vespasiani imperium antecesserunt, referam. Nam oblationum meminit, quae in templo ex lege fierent, sicut et ad Hebraeos scriptor, post cujus epistolam hanc credo scriptam: eoque fieri ut aliqua inde sumpta suae intexuerit epistolae Clemens. Mirum videri possit dissidia ista Corinthiorum Christianorum ad vim usque, et ut loquitur, bellum, id est, rixam, progressa, nisi et de aliis ex Hebraea gente Christianis similia commemoraret in Epistola Jacobus. Ex iis autem, quorum ad vim usque progressa erat animi impotentia, quosdam a magistratibus in carcerem datos, non est quod miremur. Neque enim de nihilo est, quod Ponticis Christianis scribens Petrus tam sollicite eos
that all things are to be done in a fixed order, if by the Jews, so much the more by Christians. The time itself at which this epistle was written I would refer to the end of Nero, or at any rate to those years which preceded the reign of Vespasian. For he mentions the oblations which were made in the temple according to the law, as does also the writer to the Hebrews, after whose epistle I believe this one was written; and that for that reason it comes about that Clement wove into his own epistle some things taken from it. It might seem strange that those dissensions of the Corinthian Christians advanced even to violence and, as he says, to war, that is, to brawling, were it not that James in his Epistle also relates similar things of other Christians of the Hebrew nation. And that some of those whose lack of self-control had advanced even to violence were committed to prison by the magistrates is nothing for us to wonder at. For it is not for nothing that Peter, writing to the Christians of Pontus, so anxiously
Ex alia epistola ejusdem Bignonii, a. d. 28 Augusti 1634 data.
From another letter of the same Bignon, given on 28 August 1634.
Gratias tibi ago, eruditi et solidi tui judicii, de Clemente, causa. Solus hodie horae momento ejusmodi res dirimere potes, idque cuivis saeculo et scriptori, quod ei debetur, reddere, et fructum, qui ex eo capi possit, ostendere. Rationibus tuis nihil est quod objiciatur, judiciique tui auctoritatem irrefragabilem esse par est. Genuinum quidem omnino monumentum hoc esse putaveram, sed suspicabar ei periodos aut voces aliquot a librariis assutas. Tu vero dubitatione illa me levas, nisi quod narratio de phoenice me etiamnum nonnihil offendit; quippe quae copiosior est et σοφιστικωτέρα, quam stylus apostolicus patiatur. Ea fabula, quamvis a scriptoribus
I thank you for your learned and solid judgement concerning Clement. You alone today can settle matters of this kind in the space of an hour, and render to each age and writer what is owed to it, and show the fruit that can be gathered from it. There is nothing to be objected to your reasons, and it is right that the authority of your judgement should be irrefragable. I had indeed thought this monument altogether genuine, but I suspected that some periods or words had been stitched on to it by copyists. You, however, relieve me of that doubt, except that the account of the phoenix still offends me somewhat; since it is more copious and more sophistical than the apostolic style would allow. That fable, although by writers
(Excerpta haec sunt e testimoniis de Bignonio, quae alteri editioni Parisinae Formularum Marculfi anni 1665 sunt praefixa.)
(These are excerpted from the testimonies concerning Bignon which are prefixed to the second Paris edition of the Formulae of Marculf, of the year 1665.)
HERMANNUS CONRINGIUS
HERMANN CONRING
JOACHIMO JOANNI MADERO, VIRO DOCTISSIMO S. P. D.
TO JOACHIM JOHANN MADER, A MOST LEARNED MAN, SENDS HEARTY GREETING.
Praeclare de publico mereris, doctissime Madere, illas horas, quas succidere tibi licet ordinario muneri, in id impendens, ut hominibus nostris exhibeas primae illius aureae tempestatis quae superant monumenta. Etsi enim perfectus sit divinarum Scripturarum canon, et jamdudum cum S. Augustino didicerimus, solis illis libris hunc honorem timoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum scribendo aliquid errasse, firmissime credamus: per tamen simul est jucundum atque utile, apostolorum quoque discipulos auditoresque consulere, quid illi scilicet a tantis magistris acceperint, aut certe quanta fide doctrinam acceptam servarint, qui non dubitavere sanguinem suum profundere in Christi testimonium,
You deserve excellently of the public, most learned Mader, in spending those hours which you are able to cut away from your ordinary office on presenting to our people the monuments that survive of that first golden age. For although the canon of the divine Scriptures is complete, and we have long since learned with St Augustine to pay to those books alone this honour and reverence, that we most firmly believe that none of them erred in anything in writing: yet it is at once most pleasant and useful to consult also the disciples and hearers of the apostles, namely as to what they received from such great masters, or at least with how great fidelity they kept the doctrine received, they who did not hesitate to pour out their blood in testimony to Christ
Editors' notes and page, col. 49
Footnotes
(7*) ‹anchor: scribens Petrus› · call in col 49 I Petr. IV, 15.
1 Pet. 4:15.
(printed under page 24)
(9) ‹anchor: Etsi enim› · call in col 49
Vinc. Lirinens.
Vincent of Lérins.
(printed under page 24)
(10) ‹anchor: cum S. Augustino› · call in col 49
Epist. XIX, ad Hier.
Letter 19, to Jerome.
(printed under page 24)
Page
- running head: 49 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 50
- marginal letters: A ‹fert omnia certo ordine agenda›; B ‹remur. Neque enim de nihilo est›; C ‹sutas. Tu vero dubitatione›; D ‹Praeclare de publico mereris›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: page in three tiers, each read across both columns: (1) end of Grotius to Bignon; (2) Bignon's second letter; (3) Conring to Mader. The caption of tier 2, the italic parenthesis "(Excerpta haec sunt ...)" and Conring's two-line title run full width across both columns (settle: full_width, PG001b page 24); they are completed from the col. 50 crops and set once here (the parenthesis follows the end of tier 2 in col. 50 in reading order). The first printed syllable "fert" completes col. 48's "in-" and is set there. Tier 2 ends "scri-", completed "scriptoribus", and tier 3 ends "testimo-", completed "testimonium," (with the comma printed after "nium,"), both from col. 50. Foot-note calls 7*, 9, 10 removed; notes left to the notes. The year in the parenthesis is read 1665, last digit UNSURE (5 or 6). "per tamen simul est jucundum" (tmesis) is as printed.
monet, μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς, ἢ κλέπτης, ἢ κακοποιός. Hae sunt causae, cur ego hanc epistolam non modo genuinam arbitrer, sed et nulla in ea manus adulterae vestigia agnoscam. Alteram epistolam, cujus fragmentum additum est, quanquam Clementis et ipsa in libris nonnullis nomen praetulit, non esse tamen ei tribuendam, etiam veteres judicarunt: quorum auctoritati accedit characteris diversitas. Neque tamen dubito, quin primi saeculi sit opus, scriptum ante constitutum ecclesiarum consensu canonem, et forte alterius alicujus Clementis. Haec quae mihi visa, eadem libertate qua colloqui tecum mihi concesseras, ad exactissimum de rebus omnibus judicium tuum, vir omni ex parte incomparabilis, defero, etc. Francofurti 17 Julii 1634.
admonishes them: for let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer. These are the reasons why I not only judge this epistle genuine, but also recognize in it no traces of an adulterating hand. That the other epistle, of which a fragment has been added, although it too has borne the name of Clement in some books, is nevertheless not to be attributed to him, the ancients also judged; and to their authority is added the difference of style. Yet I do not doubt that it is a work of the first century, written before the canon was established by the consent of the churches, and perhaps by some other Clement. These things, as they have seemed to me, I submit, with the same freedom with which you had allowed me to converse with you, to your most exact judgement on all matters, O man in every respect incomparable, etc. At Frankfurt, 17 July 1634.
Christianis postea adhibita, scriptis primi successoris apostolorum Principis non sat digna videtur, praesertim tot verbis exposita. Alioqui mirum videri non possit eum esse usum opinione tunc temporis recepta, ut ethnicos ad veritatem doctrinae Christianae plenius admittendam invitaret; quomodo et Paulus usus est inscriptione Dei ignoti, quamvis sententia diversa ab opinione vulgari atque inscriptionis basi arae insculptae. Putabam ergo descriptionem phoenicis adjectam ab alio fuisse nudae ejus mentioni, a Clemente obiter injectae; sed in meliore tua sententia acquiesco, nec meum est tecum contendere.
who were Christians afterwards employed, does not seem sufficiently worthy of the writings of the first successor of the Prince of the apostles, especially set out in so many words. Otherwise it could not seem strange that he used an opinion received at that time, in order to invite the pagans to admit more fully the truth of Christian doctrine; in the way that Paul also used the inscription of the unknown God, although with a meaning different from the common opinion and from that of the inscription carved on the base of the altar. I thought therefore that the description of the phoenix had been added by another to a bare mention of it thrown in by Clement in passing; but I acquiesce in your better opinion, nor is it for me to contend with you.
induti jam proinde stolis candidis, et ante thronum Dei constituti serviunt illi die ac nocte in templo ejus, illo qui sedet in throno habitante super illos, quo elogio martyres Spiritus sanctus prosecutus est. Saltem illa nefas est contemnere, quae publica auditione ipsa vetus et sancta Ecclesia dignata est: ut Polycarpi epistolam in Asiae conventibus, Clementis in nonnullis locis publice lectitatam esse, et Eusebii et S. Hieronymi testimonio novimus. Hanc certe utramque Epistolam magni facere par est, vel ideo quoniam ad utramque, ceu ad secundarium quemdam sincerae fidei canonem, jam tum olim adversus haereses sui saeculi provocaverit sanctissimus martyr Irenaeus. In utraque
and, accordingly, now clothed in white robes and set before the throne of God, serve Him day and night in His temple, while He Who sits on the throne dwells over them; with which commendation the Holy Spirit has honoured the martyrs. At the least it is wrong to despise those writings which the ancient and holy Church herself deemed worthy of public hearing: as we know by the testimony both of Eusebius and of St Jerome that the epistle of Polycarp was regularly read publicly in the assemblies of Asia, and that of Clement in some places. Certainly it is right to value both these Epistles highly, if only because the most holy martyr Irenaeus already of old appealed to both, as to a kind of secondary canon of sincere faith, against the heresies of his own age. In both
Editors' notes and page, col. 50
Footnotes
(8) ‹anchor: inscriptione Dei ignoti› · call in col 50
Act. XVII, 23.
Acts 17:23.
(printed under page 24)
(11) ‹anchor: habitante super illos› · call in col 50
Apoc. VII, 15.
Rev. 7:15.
(printed under page 24)
(12) ‹anchor: testimonio novimus› · call in col 50
Lib. III Histor.; Lib. de scriptor. eccles.
Book 3 of the History; the book On Ecclesiastical Writers.
(printed under page 24)
(13) ‹anchor: martyr Irenaeus› · call in col 50
Lib. III, c. 3.
Book 3, chapter 3.
(printed under page 24)
Page
- running head: 49 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 50
- marginal letters: A ‹monet, μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν›; B ‹cofurti 17 Julii 1634›; C ‹descriptionem phoenicis adjectam›; D ‹nium, induti jam proinde›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: page in three tiers (see col. 49); the three paragraphs here are the right-hand halves of tiers 1, 2 and 3, each continuing the corresponding paragraph of col. 49. The full-width caption of tier 2, the italic parenthesis "(Excerpta haec sunt ...)" and Conring's title are set in col. 49. Tier 2's first printed syllables "ptoribus" and tier 3's first printed "nium," complete words set in col. 49. Foot-note calls 8, 11, 12, 13 removed; notes (I Petr. IV, 15; Act. XVII, 23; Vinc. Lirinens.; Epist. XIX ad Hier.; Apoc. VII, 15; Lib. III Histor.; Lib. de scriptor. eccles.; Lib. III, c. 3) left to the notes. Parts of "πασχέτω", "sunt", "genuinam", "adulterae", "fragmentum", "ipsa", "esse" lie under a pen stroke; read with certainty. Column ends mid-sentence at "In utraque".
autem illa publicanda hactenus tuam operam collocasti, primum Polycarpi, nunc et Clementis sanctas illas litteras edens.
moreover you have thus far bestowed your labour on publishing those, editing first Polycarp's, and now also Clement's, holy letters.
Neque vero quidquam video causae, cur suspicemur alias esse illas nostras ab iis quas tanto in pretio prisca Ecclesia habuit. In Polycarpi sane epistola deprehendere est ipsam illam de Deo et Domino nostro Jesu Christo sanam doctrinam, cujus nomine refellendis sui saeculi haeresibus, ἱκανωτάτην illam pronuntiavit commendavitque S. Irenaeus: deprehendere est locum integrum unum alterumque, quem adducit Eusebius, et post illum Nicephorus Callistus, et quidem ita ut liquido appareat, fraude nulla insertos esse: deprehendere est ex prima Petri Epistola deprompta haud pauca, quae idem Eusebius notaverat: deprehendere denique est illud omne, quod Photius, accuratissimus librorum censor, in lecta Polycarpi epistola animadverterat, multis nimirum refertam admonitionibus, μετὰ σαφηνείας καὶ ἁπλότητος κατὰ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν τῆς ἑρμηνείας τύπον, quodque in ea dicat auctor se Ignatii epistolas ad Philippenses misisse, petereque ab illis edoceri si quid de eo inaudiant. Horum, inquam, omnium desideratur nihil. Ad hoc, ipsum Epistolae exordium ostendit, scriptam illam, quo tempore non unius exsortis episcopi in manu Ecclesiae erat administratio, sed communi presbyterorum consilio et auctoritate omnia regerentur: quod non diu post Polycarpum mutavit. Sed et videre est damnata placita Marcionis de carne et passione Christi, resurrectione item et judicio mortuorum, illamque adeo solemnem et uni illi martyri propriam detestationem, qua obviam sibi Romae factum Marcionem excepisse Polycarpum, πρωτοτόκου scilicet τοῦ Σατανᾶ, memorat Irenaeus. Ex adverso, quibus Flacius, eumque secuti alii, dubiam reddere Epistolam illam tentavere, talia sunt ut in commodum συλλογισμὸν referre nequeas, quamvis coneris. Simplicitas certe dictionis et inelaboratus sermo, quae illi causantur, arguunt potius apostolicam aetatem scriptionemque, ut quae uni illi tempestati et solis apostolis, eorumque discipulis familiaria fuerint.
Nor indeed do I see any reason why we should suspect that those letters of ours are other than the ones which the ancient Church held in such high esteem. In Polycarp's epistle, certainly, one may find that very sound doctrine concerning God and our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of which Saint Irenaeus pronounced and commended it as "most sufficient" for refuting the heresies of his own age: one may find one and another whole passage, which Eusebius adduces, and after him Nicephorus Callistus, and indeed in such a way that it plainly appears they were inserted by no fraud: one may find not a few things drawn from the first Epistle of Peter, which the same Eusebius had noted: one may find, finally, all that which Photius, a most exact judge of books, had observed on reading Polycarp's epistle, namely that it is filled with many admonitions, "with clearness and simplicity, according to the ecclesiastical type of expression", and that in it the author says that he has sent the epistles of Ignatius to the Philippians, and asks to be informed by them if they should hear anything about him. Of all these, I say, nothing is wanting. Besides this, the very opening of the Epistle shows that it was written at a time when the administration of the Church was not in the hand of a single bishop set apart, but all things were governed by the common counsel and authority of the presbyters: which changed not long after Polycarp. But one may also see condemned the tenets of Marcion concerning the flesh and passion of Christ, likewise the resurrection and judgement of the dead, and indeed that solemn execration, peculiar to that one martyr, with which, as Irenaeus relates, Polycarp received Marcion when he met him at Rome, namely as "the firstborn of Satan". On the other side, the things by which Flacius, and others following him, have tried to render that Epistle doubtful are such that you could not reduce them to a suitable syllogism, however much you might try. Certainly the simplicity of diction and the unlaboured speech, which they allege, argue rather an apostolic age and writing, as being things that were familiar to that time alone and only to the apostles and their disciples.
Par ratio est Clementinae illius Epistolae ad Corinthios, quam ex vetustissimo Alexandrino codice nobis non adeo pridem Patricius Junius vir clariss. communicavit, et tu hodie ex Londinensi exprimis, Etiam hic enim invenire est, quae cum de illa, tum ex illa veteres omnes prodiderunt. Observamus sane et στάσιν οὐκ ὀλίγην Corinthi ortam inter fratres; progressam nimirum ad vim et bellum, sive duella: et Romanae Ecclesiae, non autem unius Clementis nomine exaratas litteras; easque ad pacem et concordiam Corinthios flectentes, memorantesque eorum fidem, quam recenter ab apostolis acceperant,
The same reasoning holds for that Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which the most illustrious Patrick Young communicated to us not so long ago from the very ancient Alexandrian codex, and which you today reproduce from the London edition. For here too one may find the things which all the ancients have handed down both about it and out of it. We observe, certainly, both "no small sedition" arisen at Corinth among the brethren, which had in fact advanced to violence and war, or duels: and a letter drawn up in the name of the Roman Church, and not of Clement alone; and that letter bending the Corinthians towards peace and concord, and recalling their faith, which they had recently received from the apostles,
Editors' notes and page, col. 51
Footnotes
(14) ‹anchor: memorat Irenaeus› · call in col 51
Lib. iii Hist., c. 36; l. iv, c. 14.
Book 3 of the History, chapter 36; book 4, chapter 14.
(printed under page 25)
(15) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Loc. citat.
In the place cited.
(printed under page 25)
(16) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Lib. iii, c. 13.
Book 3, chapter 13. [The chapter figure is small in the image; read as 13.]
(printed under page 25)
(17) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Lib. iv Strom.; lib. ii Περὶ ἀρχῶν.
Book 4 of the Stromata; book 2 of On First Principles.
(printed under page 25)
(18) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Lib. iii Hist. c. 12 et 32.
Book 3 of the History, chapters 12 and 32. [The chapter figures are small in the image; read as 12 and 32, not certain.]
(printed under page 25)
(19) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
De scriptor.
On the Writers [On Ecclesiastical Writers].
(printed under page 25)
(20) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
In cap. lii Isai. et cap. iv Ephes.
On chapter 52 of Isaiah and chapter 4 of Ephesians.
(printed under page 25)
(21) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Catech. 18.
Catechesis 18.
(printed under page 25)
Page
- running head: 51 AD S. CLEMENTEM I [remainder of the running head lies beyond this column's crop]
- marginal letters: A autem illa publicanda hactenus; B quae idem Eusebius notaverat; C mutavit. Sed et videre est; D rinthios, quam ex vetustissimo
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Variorum prooemia; a letter addressed to the editor of Polycarp and Clement), set as this unit's text. Column begins mid-sentence. The first letter of "autem" (line 1) is damaged type, read as a. Last word "acce-|perant," completed from the first line of col. 52, visible at the right edge of the top image. Foot-note calls 14 (after Eusebius) and 15 (after Irenaeus) removed; the foot notes run full width at the page foot and are not set here. Italic phrases in the Photius report (multis nimirum refertam admonitionibus; se Ignatii epistolas ad Philippenses misisse, petereque ab illis edoceri si quid de eo inaudiant) set in plain type.
plane quemadmodum Epistolam illam laudavit S. Irenaeus. Quae Clemens Alexandrinus et Origenes ex illa Epistola proferunt, verbis totidem in nostra reperiuntur, et quidem ita ut ibi nata dixeris, non autem dolosa manu inducta. Eusebius quoque prodit, dissidio apud Corinthios orto, scriptam a Clemente nostro Epistolam ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας, aut ut alibi loquitur, ἐκ προσώπου τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας, eamque dictionis charactere et sententiis cum Epistola ad Hebraeos plurimum convenire: quae omnia hic luculentissime apparent. Qualem vero Epistolam illam Eusebius, talem et S. Hieronymus eam nobis descripsit: ut proinde nostra haec ab illa quae Hieronymo ad manum fuit, nihil abeat. Sed et quae idem S. Hieronymus semel iterumque ex Epistola illa in medium affert, haud in nostra desiderantur: perinde ut hic reperitur etiam illa phoenicis commemoratio, quam ex Clementis epistola producit Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Omni ex parte quoque nostra haec respondet illi descriptioni quam Photius in Bibliotheca habet, argumento videlicet, dictione et doctrina de mundis trans oceanum, de Phoenice et de Christi persona. Tantum deest fortassis quod S. Justinus martyr, sive quis alius auctor Responsion. ad orthodox. ex Epistola illa refert, quodque ceu Clementi dictum laudat Basilius ad Amphilochium. Verum non est quod propterea sequius suspicemur, cum quatuor integra folia nobis deesse testetur is cui editionem primam debemus, Patricius Junius: et Basilius (sive alius libri illius scriptor) illa sua ex hac Epistola forte non prompserit. Nihil sane ex omni antiquitate produxeris de Clementis illa germana Epistola, quod merito quem fecerit de nostra dubitare.
exactly as Saint Irenaeus cited that Epistle. The things which Clement of Alexandria and Origen bring forward from that Epistle are found in ours in as many words, and indeed in such a way that you would say they were born there, and not brought in by a deceitful hand. Eusebius also reports that, when dissension had arisen among the Corinthians, an Epistle was written by our Clement "as from the Church of the Romans", or, as he says elsewhere, "in the person of the Church of the Romans", and that it agrees very much in the character of its diction and in its thoughts with the Epistle to the Hebrews: all of which appears here most clearly. And such as Eusebius described that Epistle, such also has Saint Jerome described it to us: so that this one of ours accordingly departs in nothing from that which Jerome had at hand. But the things too which the same Saint Jerome once and again brings forward from that Epistle are not wanting in ours: just as here is found also that mention of the phoenix, which Cyril of Jerusalem produces from Clement's epistle. In every respect also this one of ours answers to that description which Photius has in the Bibliotheca, namely in argument, in diction, and in its teaching about the worlds beyond the ocean, about the Phoenix, and about the person of Christ. Only that perhaps is lacking which Saint Justin Martyr, or whoever else is the author of the Responses to the Orthodox, reports from that Epistle, and which Basil, writing to Amphilochius, cites as said by Clement. But there is no reason why we should on that account suspect anything worse, since he to whom we owe the first edition, Patrick Young, testifies that four whole leaves are lacking to us: and Basil (or another writer of that book) perhaps did not draw those words of his from this Epistle. Certainly you could produce nothing out of all antiquity about that genuine Epistle of Clement which would with reason make anyone doubt about ours.
Jam vero cum cura nostram hanc legenti nihil occurrit fucati aut subdoli; et tamen omnia referunt plane apostolica tempora, charactere scribendi, et doctrina ipsa. Quod firmo est argumento, saltem ex illo aevo ad nos Epistolam illam pervenisse, etsi de auctore forte non constaret. Sermo sane is est, qualem summus criticus Photius judicavit, ἁπλοῦς κατὰ τὴν φράσιν καὶ σαφὴς, καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ χαρακτῆρος; extra autem primum illud Ecclesiae aevum frustra formam illam scribendi quaesieris. Sic quod epistola Romanae Ecclesiae, non vero episcopi et presbyterorum aut episcopi solius nomine exarata est, alteri aetati quam soli apostolicae non convenit: paulatim crescente auctoritate primum collegii presbyteralis, inde unius episcopi, et sensim a curatione sacrarum rerum remoto populo. Sequens etiam aevum longe aliter de persona Christi locutum est: cum hic non fere alia reperias, quam illa quibus S. Paulus est usus. Videre etiam hic est in ordine hierarchico
Now indeed, to one reading this letter of ours with care nothing counterfeit or crafty presents itself; and yet all things plainly reflect apostolic times, in the character of the writing and in the doctrine itself. Which is a firm proof that that Epistle has come down to us at least from that age, even if perhaps there were no certainty about the author. The style, certainly, is such as the supreme critic Photius judged it, "simple in phrasing and clear, and near to the ecclesiastical character"; but outside that first age of the Church you would seek that manner of writing in vain. So too the fact that the epistle was drawn up in the name of the Roman Church, and not in that of the bishop and presbyters or of the bishop alone, suits no other age than the apostolic alone: the authority first of the presbyteral college, then of the one bishop, growing little by little, and the people being gradually removed from the care of sacred things. The following age, too, spoke far otherwise about the person of Christ: whereas here you would find scarcely anything other than what Saint Paul used. One may also see here in the hierarchical order
Editors' notes and page, col. 52
Footnotes
(22) ‹anchor: S. Justinus martyr› · call in col 52
Resp. 74 Basil., c. 29.
Response 74; Basil, chapter 29.
(printed under page 25)
Page
- running head: [AD S.] CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 52
- marginal letters: A perant, plane quemadmodum; B idem S. Hieronymus semel; C bis deesse testetur; D primum illud Ecclesiae aevum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text. The column's first printed word-part "perant," completes "acce-" of col. 51 and is set there (acceperant,), not here. The last line ends "hierar" with no hyphen printed; the word is split at the column break and its tail "chico" stands at the top of col. 53, so the word is set whole here (hierarchico) and the tail is not restored in col. 53 (Q1, read from the col. 53 image). Damaged type read from context: "refert" (the second e looks like c), "deesse" (blot over de-). Foot-note calls 16–22 removed. Italics (Bibliotheca; Responsion. ad orthodox.) set plain.
- other: pointer (Q1): the foot notes of page 25 run full width; note 22 is set above, and notes 16–21, whose calls all stand in col 52, are set in the notes file of col 51 with their anchors left open. Their calls in col 52 follow these words: 16 S. Irenaeus; 17 Origenes; 18 Eusebius (quoque prodit); 19 S. Hieronymus (eam nobis descripsit); 20 idem S. Hieronymus; 21 Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus.
numerari non alios quam episcopos et diaconos, episcopi nomine omnes presbyteros comprehendente: secus quam infra apostolica et apostolicis viciniora tempora obtinuit. Huic uni aetati etiam congrua est sacrificiorum celebratio in Hierosolymitano templo, cujus haec Epistola meminit. Multa alia non simulatae vetustatis indicia congessit Hugo Grotius, vir summus, epistola quadam ad Hieronymum Bignonium, quae in libro Epistolar. ad Gallos est CLIV: quae non possum non probare: nisi in eo erraverit ille ὁ πάνυ, quod neget Clementem aliquid ex Evangeliis, quae appellamus, adduxisse, cum tamen ex S. Lucae cap. VI verba Domini nostri sint repetita. Satis vero vel illa a nobis allata sunt paria vindicandae suae dignitati illi nostrae epistolae: eoque nihil attinet plura in confirmationem nunc producere. Et sane tibi quidem, mi Madere, fortasse satis est id, quod nemine adversante omnes omnino, penes quos hodie criticae regnum est, Epistolam hanc ut germanam admittant. Quidni enim tuto sequaris hac in re Grotios, Salmasios, Calixtos, Horneios, Vossios, Rivetos, Blondellos, Seldenos, Petavios, Patricios, aliosque censores librorum exactissimos? Praesertim si nemo doctior dissentiat, ut hic dissentit, quod sciam, nemo.
none other than bishops and deacons are counted, the name of bishop comprising all the presbyters: otherwise than prevailed after the apostolic times and those nearer to the apostolic. To this age alone, too, is suited the celebration of sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem, of which this Epistle makes mention. Many other marks of an unfeigned antiquity were gathered by Hugo Grotius, a very great man, in a certain letter to Jérôme Bignon, which in the book of Letters to the French is CLIV: which I cannot but approve: unless that most eminent man has erred in this, that he denies that Clement adduced anything from the Gospels, as we call them, although the words of our Lord have been repeated from chapter VI of Saint Luke. But even those things brought forward by us are sufficient and equal to vindicating for that epistle of ours its own dignity: and so there is no need to produce more now in confirmation. And certainly for you at least, my dear Mader, perhaps this is enough, that with no one opposing, all without exception in whose hands the dominion of criticism lies today admit this Epistle as genuine. For why should you not safely follow in this matter such men as Grotius, Salmasius, Calixtus, Horneius, Vossius, Rivet, Blondel, Selden, Petavius, Patrick, and other most exact judges of books? Especially if no one more learned dissents, as here, so far as I know, no one dissents.
Loquor vero, uti novisti, tantum de Epistola illa prolixiore ad Corinthios, non de altera ista, cujus fragmentum itidem publicavit Patricius ille Junius. Quanquam et hanc existimem esse illam Photio lectam, imo illam cujus Eusebius, Hieronymus, et alii meminerunt, ut Clementi quidem auctori tributae, sed perperam. Utique enim in hoc ipso fragmento
But I am speaking, as you know, only of that longer Epistle to the Corinthians, not of that other one, a fragment of which the same Patrick Young likewise published. Although I should think that this too is the one read by Photius, indeed the one which Eusebius, Jerome and others have mentioned as attributed indeed to Clement as author, but wrongly. For assuredly in this very fragment
JOACHIMI JOANNIS MADERI AD LECTOREM PRAEFATIO.
PREFACE OF JOACHIM JOHANN MADER TO THE READER.
Properat ad te, Lector benevole, haec Clementis ad Corinthios epistola ἱκανωτάτη καὶ θαυμασία, juxta Irenaeum et Eusebium, multis jam saeculis desiderata. Luci illam non ita pridem donavit rursum vir clarissimus Patricius Junius, serenissimi, heu quondam! Britanniarum regis bibliothecarius, cui propterea maximas certe gratias debemus. Quantae vero apud veteres fuerit auctoritatis, tot tibi illorum, quos deinceps exhibemus, suggerunt testimonia; quae una cum aliis propheticis apostolicisque scriptis legi olim in quibusdam Ecclesiis solitam, fidem faciunt, itidemque de causa scriptionis et styli genere te certiorem reddunt. Non ergo erat, quo te amplius morarer, quandoquidem nunquam satis laudatus Patricius sua ad Lectorem praefatione veterum testimoniis supra subnexa, in reliquis tibi poterat satisfacere: ni fuisset qui tantam lucem
There hastens to you, kind Reader, this epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, "most sufficient and wonderful", according to Irenaeus and Eusebius, missed now for many centuries. Not so long ago the most illustrious Patrick Young, librarian of the most serene (alas, once!) king of the Britains, gave it again to the light, to whom on that account we certainly owe the greatest thanks. How great its authority was among the ancients, so many testimonies of theirs, which we set out next, suggest to you; they give assurance that it used once to be read in certain Churches together with the other prophetic and apostolic writings, and likewise inform you of the cause of its writing and the kind of its style. There was therefore no reason for me to detain you further, since Patrick, never sufficiently praised, by his preface to the Reader, with the testimonies of the ancients subjoined above, could satisfy you in the rest: had there not been one who wished to overcast so great a light
Editors' notes and page, col. 53
Page
- running head: 53 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 54
- marginal letters: A chico numerari non alios; B nostrae epistolae: eoque nihil; C ctam, imo illam cujus; D naeum et Eusebium, multis
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text. The first printed word-part "chico" completes "hierar" at the end of col. 52 (hierarchico), which was set there as the visible part only: join on assembly; the English of the word stands in c52. The caption JOACHIMI JOANNIS MADERI / AD LECTOREM PRAEFATIO. is printed in two lines across both columns (seen whole from the images of cols 53 and 54) and is set once here on one line. Reading order on this page: col. 53 upper part runs on into col. 54 upper part (the letter ends there, "Helmestadii ... Decembr."); the caption follows; then col. 53 lower part ("Properat ad te") runs on into col. 54 lower part. So the paragraph ending "in hoc ipso fragmento" continues at the head of col. 54, and the one ending "tantam lucem" continues in col. 54 below the caption; the English "wished to overcast" anticipates col. 54. Damaged type read from context: "Photio" (blot), "donavit". Italics (Epistolar. ad Gallos) set plain.
deprehendas quod Photius notavit, nempe νουθεσίαν καὶ παραίνεσιν κρείττονος βίου, καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ τὸ κήρυγμα Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Solam, nimirum, illam primam cum omni antiquitate germanam agnosco: alteram non item, etsi sit vetusta, et longe melioris notae, atque sunt illae quae vulgo apud Latinos Clementis nomine circumferuntur. Et vero nonnisi unicam a Clemente epistolam profectam esse, reliqua vero omnia, quae sive Constitutionum apostolicarum, sive Recognitionum, sive Epistolarum nomine veniunt, mentiri auctorem, vel illud unum pro sufficiente est argumento, quod S. Irenaeus nonnisi unicam illam laudet in veritatis catholicae testimonium, dum studiose oppugnat haereses, episcoporum Romanorum consensu. Imo tanti est roboris illa Irenaei commendatio, ut par sit reliquorum etiam episcoporum Romanorum ejus aevi epistolis, quas Isidorus Mercator edidit, falsi convincendis. Quod ulcus tangere non est hujus instituti.
you may find what Photius noted, namely "admonition and exhortation to a better life, and at the beginning the proclamation of Christ as God". That first one alone, to be sure, I acknowledge with all antiquity as genuine: the second not so, even though it is ancient, and of a far better stamp than are those which commonly circulate among the Latins under Clement's name. And indeed, that only a single epistle proceeded from Clement, while all the rest, which go under the name either of the Apostolic Constitutions, or of the Recognitions, or of Epistles, falsely claim their author, even this one thing serves as sufficient proof, that Saint Irenaeus cites only that single one in testimony of the Catholic truth, while he zealously assails the heresies by the consensus of the Roman bishops. Indeed that commendation of Irenaeus is of such strength that it suffices also for convicting of falsehood the epistles of the other Roman bishops of that age, which Isidore Mercator published. To touch that sore is not part of the present purpose.
Ut redeam igitur ad epistolae hujus meae initium, laudabilem profecto operam praestas bono publico, vir doctissime, aurea illa primitivae Ecclesiae monumenta, rariora inventu hisce in oris et paucis lecta, nostris typis publicans. Non possum sane ego non tibi auctor esse, in illo instituto strenue pergendi. Ejusmodi utique scripta volvere, longe praestabilius utiliusque est, quam rixosis, imo contumeliosis libellis legendis tempus terere, quales haec nostra aetas aeterna cum infamia edit passim plurimos.
To return, then, to the beginning of this letter of mine, you are certainly rendering a praiseworthy service to the public good, most learned sir, in publishing with our types those golden monuments of the primitive Church, rather rare to find in these parts and read by few. I for my part certainly cannot but urge you to go on vigorously in that undertaking. To turn over writings of this kind is assuredly far more excellent and more useful than to waste time reading quarrelsome, indeed abusive, pamphlets, such as this age of ours, to its everlasting infamy, puts out everywhere in very great number.
Vale, mi Madere, et salve plurimum. Helmestadii in Acad. Julia 1654, VI Kal. Decembr.
Farewell, my dear Mader, and my warmest greetings. At Helmstedt, in the Academia Julia, 1654, on the sixth day before the Kalends of December.
nebula nuper voluisset obducere, et hujus scripti γνησιότητα temere nimis atque inconsiderate negare. Sane in verminoso libro suo quem interim, dum de hac editione cogito, in vulgus emisit, tam audacter famam ejus arrodit, ut ne tineis quidem trucibusque blattis, quae damnum ipsi jam ante summum intulerant, mordacitate cedat. Nec tamen virum istum alias magnum, vel hanc epistolam, vel loca auctorum a quibus testimonia sumit, attente unquam reor legisse et probe examinasse, sed fucum potius simplicioribus parum ab antiquitate instructis facere voluisse. Ut enim silentio involvam frivola ista de minio rubro, quo lacunae in superiore editione magna diligentia sunt notatae, et quae praeterea de styli simplicitate et incondita ejus connexione profert, ut jamdudum ipsi Photio observata: primum imprudenter satis consarcinatorem
with a cloud lately, and too rashly and inconsiderately to deny the genuineness of this writing. Indeed, in his worm-ridden book, which meanwhile, while I am thinking about this edition, he has sent out among the public, he gnaws at its reputation so boldly that he does not yield in bite even to the moths and savage bookworms which had already before inflicted the greatest damage on it. And yet I do not think that this man, great in other respects, ever attentively read and properly examined either this epistle or the passages of the authors from whom he takes his testimonies, but rather wished to impose upon simpler people little furnished with knowledge of antiquity. For, to wrap in silence those trifles about the red vermilion with which the gaps in the earlier edition have been marked with great diligence, and what he further brings forward about the simplicity of the style and its unpolished connection, as things long ago observed by Photius himself: first, imprudently enough, [he says that] the patcher-together
Editors' notes and page, col. 54
Page
- running head: 53 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 54
- marginal letters: A deprehendas quod Photius; B consensu. Imo tanti est; C plurimos.; D gare. Sane in verminoso
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text. Reading order: the upper part of this column continues the letter from the upper part of col. 53 and ends it (date line); the full-width caption JOACHIMI JOANNIS MADERI AD LECTOREM PRAEFATIO. is set once under col. 53; the lower part of this column ("nebula nuper") continues the lower part of col. 53 mid-sentence. Last word "consarcinato-|rem" completed from the first line of col. 55 (seen). After "observata" the page shows a raised point (a damaged colon), set as a colon. In the Greek, the ε of νουθεσίαν and the ν of ἐν are damaged at the line ends, read from the remaining strokes.
epistolae (ita namque ejus sonant Germanica) multa omisisse ait, quae sub Clementis Romani nomine ab aliis Patribus citentur, velut Hieronymi locum in cap. II ad Ephesios: Oceanus et mundi qui trans ipsum sunt; et in quartum ejusdem: Vinculum charitatis Dei quis potest enarrare? quasi non utrumque, illud scilicet pag. 29 sub finem, hoc pag. 63 clare inveniatur scriptum. His subnectit, etiam centuriatores Magdeb., centur. I, lib. 2, x, observasse illud quod Basilius Magnus cap. 29 libri De Spiritu S. ex hoc Clemente citat in haec verba scriptum: Sed et Clemens Romanus: « Venit, inquit, Deus Dominus Jesus Christus et Spiritus sanctus, » in ea quae tum exstabat editione non potuisse reperiri. Mallem vero ostenderet aliquam, quae tum exstiterit, hujus epistolae editionem. Ipsi centuriatores paulo ante eodem illo capite: Meminerunt, inquiunt, epistolae cujusdam ejus ad Corinthios Irenaeus, Eusebius et Hieronymus, quae hodie nusquam exstat. Num ergo deinceps sibi ipsis contradicunt? Non sane: sed longe illis mens alia verbis a paulo ante productis: Incertum, aiunt, utrum ex ea Epistola, an ex alio aliquo Clementis scripto, Basilius in libro De Spiritu S. cap. 29, haec verba protulerit in enumeratione testimoniorum doctorum veterum de Trinitate; sed et Clemens Rom., etc. Ex quibus paucis, amice Lector, judicare posses quam, scilicet, in reliquis oratio ejus mereatur fidem, adeoque quod proverbio dicitur, ἐκ τοῦ κρασπέδου τὸ ὕφασμα γινώσκειν, ni longe turpius sese in sequentibus daret ille ab affectibus excaecatus judex. Cum primis, inquit, illud de phoenice commentum prodit auctorem hujus epistolae, non esse eum adjutorem S. Pauli, ad Philippenses IV, quod pag. 34 et 35 est reperire. Ubi Clemens ille personatus it probatum (quod minime verum est) resurrectionem carnis quotidie fieri, quemadmodum nox cubat, exsurgit dies, abit dies, nox ingruit et insequitur, etc. Hic principio non contentus vocem carnis, quae nusquam in contextu comparet, causae suae probandae gratia, inseruisse; praeterea magna iterum cum impudentia haereseos eum audet insimulare, quasi affine quippiam senserit errori Hymenaei et Phileti, quorum dogma hoc fuerit, quod resurrectionem eodem modo, quemadmodum hic Clemens explicarint; nempe, unum hominem perire, alterum huic similem renasci; idque ad finem usque mundi duraturum. Sicuti hic Clemens asserat, quando parentes liberos gignunt, hoc vocari resurrectionem mortuorum. Pervolvas vero totam, quaeso, epistolam, videasque num vel sensum solum, ne dicam verba postrema, exinde possis exsculpere. Argumentatur Clemens hoc modo: Si diem noctemque videant abire et redire; si semina in terram jacta computrescere, et nihilominus deinde fructus ferre: si phoenicem credant sepulcro sibi exstructo mori et ex seipso renasci; an magnum et mirabile sit censendum, si rerum omnium opifex, ut ipse loquitur, resurgere eos faciat, qui in
of the epistle (for so his German words run) omitted many things which are cited by other Fathers under the name of Clement of Rome, such as the passage of Jerome on chapter II to the Ephesians: "The Ocean and the worlds that are beyond it"; and on the fourth of the same: "Who can declare the bond of the charity of God?" as though both were not clearly found written, the former, namely, on page 29 towards the end, the latter on page 63. To these he subjoins that the Magdeburg centuriators too, century I, book 2, X, observed that what Basil the Great, in chapter 29 of the book On the Holy Spirit, cites from this Clement as written in these words: "But Clement of Rome also: 'There comes,' he says, 'God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,'" could not be found in the edition which then existed. But I should prefer that he would show some edition of this epistle which existed at that time. The centuriators themselves, a little earlier in that same chapter, say: "Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome have made mention of a certain epistle of his to the Corinthians, which today is nowhere extant." Do they then go on to contradict themselves? Certainly not: but their meaning is far other than the words produced a little before: "It is uncertain," they say, "whether it was from that Epistle, or from some other writing of Clement, that Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29, brought forward these words in his enumeration of the testimonies of the ancient teachers concerning the Trinity; 'but Clement of Rome also,'" etc. From these few things, friendly Reader, you could judge how far, forsooth, his discourse deserves credit in the rest, and so, as the proverb says, "know the web from its fringe", did not that judge, blinded by his passions, show himself far more shamefully in what follows. "Above all," he says, "that fiction about the phoenix betrays the author of this epistle, that he is not that helper of Saint Paul, in Philippians IV, which is to be found on pages 34 and 35. Where that masked Clement sets out to prove (which is by no means true) that the resurrection of the flesh takes place daily, just as the night lies down, the day rises, the day departs, the night presses on and follows," etc. Here, not content at the outset with having inserted, for the sake of proving his case, the word "of the flesh", which appears nowhere in the context, he further dares, again with great impudence, to accuse him of heresy, as though he had held something akin to the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus, whose doctrine was this, that they explained the resurrection in the same way as this Clement does; namely, that one man perishes, another like him is born again; and that this will last to the end of the world. Just as though this Clement asserted that when parents beget children, this is called the resurrection of the dead. But read through the whole epistle, I pray, and see whether you can carve out of it even the sense alone, to say nothing of those last words. Clement argues in this way: If they see day and night depart and return; if they see seeds cast into the earth rot, and none the less afterwards bear fruit: if they believe that the phoenix, having built itself a tomb, dies and is born again from itself; whether it is to be thought a great and wonderful thing if the Maker of all things, as he himself puts it, should make those rise again who in
Editors' notes and page, col. 55
Page
- running head: 55 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 56
- marginal letters: A rem epistolae (ita namque; B quae tum exstiterit, hujus; C in sequentibus daret ille; D quod resurrectionem eodem modo
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text (Mader's preface continues). The first printed word-part "rem" completes "consarcinato-" of col. 54 and is set there (consarcinatorem), not here. Column is one unbroken paragraph, beginning and ending mid-sentence. "cap. II ad Ephesios": the numeral is printed in small slanted type, read as II (UNSURE). "lib. 2, x," set as printed (the x is the chapter numeral, no "c." printed). Italic quotations set plain; guillemets as printed. No foot notes on this page.
bonae fidei conscientia illi inservierunt. Ita D. Paulus jam ante satae frugis argumento resurrectionem in priore sua ad Corinthios Epistola, cap. XV, evicerat, utunturque eadem probandi ratione tot deinceps sequentium saeculorum Patres. Cum primis illa naturae dormientis et resurgentis exempla Septimiani styli diligentia ingeniose admodum auget et illustrat, plane ac si hunc ipsum Clementis locum de industria sibi sumpsisset exornandum. Aspice, inquit, ad ipsa quoque exempla divinae potestatis. Dies moritur in noctem, et tenebris usquequaque sepelitur. Funestatur mundi honor, omnis substantia denigratur. Sordent, silent, stupent cuncta: ubique justitium est. Ita lux amissa lugetur, et tamen rursus cum suo cultu, cum dote, cum sole, eadem et integra et tota universo orbi reviviscit; interficiens mortem suam, noctem, rescindens sepulturam suam, tenebras; haeres sibimet existens, donec et nox reviviscat, cum suo illo suggestu. Redaccenduntur enim et stellarum radii, quos matutina succensio exstinxerat, reducuntur et siderum absentiae, quas temporalis distinctio exemerat; redornantur et specula lunae, quae menstruus numerus attriverat; revolvuntur hiemes et aestates, verna et autumna, suis viribus, moribus, fructibus. Et paulo post de phoenice: Si parum universitas resurrectionem figurat; si nihil tale conditio signat, quia singula ejus non tam mori quam desinere dicantur; nec redanimari, sed reformari existimentur, accipe plenissimum atque firmissimum hujus spei specimen. Siquidem animalis est res et vitae obnoxia et morti; illum dico alitem Orientis peculiarem, de singularitate famosum, de posteritate monstruosum, qui semetipsum lubenter funerans renovat, natali fine decedens atque succedens; iterum phoenix, ubi jam nemo; iterum ipse, qui non jam; alius idem. Quid expressius atque signatius in hanc causam? aut cui alii rei tale documentum? Deus etiam Scripturis suis: « Et florebit enim, inquit, velut phoenix; » id est de morte, de funere; uti credas de ignibus quoque substantiam corporis exigi posse. Multis passeribus nos antistare Dominus pronuntiavit; si non et phoenicibus, nihil magnum. Sed homines semel interibunt, avibus Arabiae de resurrectione securis? Sic quam elegantissime Tertullianus saeculo post natum Christum tertio, libri De resurrect. carnis cap. 12 et 13, ne solum Clementem ejusmodi argumentis usum existimes. Nam et Epiphanius, Constantiae Cypri episcopus, in Ancorato suo sive fidei Christianae expositione, et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Catechesi XVIII, tum Dracontius in Hexaemero in eamdem scribunt sententiam, ut alios omittam qui de phoenice tanquam resurrectionis signo singulariter loquuntur. De ea namque in ore olim atque in sermone omnium erat fabula: Jam ad aures multorum pervenit credentium et non credentium, inquit Epiphanius dicto loco; unde et tam frequens ejus cum apud gentiles, tum Christianos mentio, licet in illorum narrationibus non parva reperiatur varietas. Videatur ex illis Herodotus lib.
the consciousness of good faith have served Him. So the divine Paul had already before established the resurrection by the argument of the sown crop in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter XV, and so many Fathers of the ages that followed thereafter use the same manner of proof. Above all, the diligence of the Septimian pen most ingeniously amplifies and illustrates those examples of nature sleeping and rising again, exactly as if he had deliberately taken up this very passage of Clement to adorn it. "Look," he says, "also at the very examples of the divine power. The day dies into night, and is buried everywhere in darkness. The honour of the world is put in mourning, every substance is blackened. All things are squalid, silent, numb: everywhere there is a cessation of business. Thus the lost light is mourned, and yet again, with its own adornment, with its dowry, with the sun, the same and entire and whole, it comes to life again for the whole world; slaying its own death, the night, tearing open its own burial, the darkness; becoming heir to itself, until the night too comes to life again, with that array of its own. For the rays of the stars also are rekindled, which the morning kindling had put out; the absences of the constellations also are brought back, which the distinction of seasons had taken away; the mirrors of the moon also are adorned anew, which the monthly number had worn away; winters and summers, springs and autumns come round again, with their own powers, habits and fruits." And a little further on, of the phoenix: "If the universe figures the resurrection too little; if the creation signifies nothing of the kind, because its several parts are said not so much to die as to cease; and are thought not to be reanimated but to be re-formed, take a most full and most firm specimen of this hope. For it is a living thing, subject both to life and to death; I mean that bird peculiar to the East, famous for its singularity, marvellous for its posterity, which, gladly performing its own funeral, renews itself, departing and succeeding by an end that is a birth; once more a phoenix, where now there is none; once more itself, which now is not; another, the same. What could be more express and more marked for this cause? or for what other thing is there such a proof? God also in His Scriptures: 'And he shall flourish,' He says, 'like the phoenix;' that is, from death, from the funeral; so that you may believe that the substance of the body can be reclaimed even from the fires. The Lord has declared that we are of more worth than many sparrows; if not than phoenixes also, it is no great thing. But shall men perish once for all, while the birds of Arabia are sure of their resurrection?" Thus most elegantly Tertullian, in the third century after the birth of Christ, in chapters 12 and 13 of the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, lest you should think that Clement alone used arguments of this kind. For Epiphanius also, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in his Ancoratus or exposition of the Christian faith, and Cyril of Jerusalem, in Catechesis XVIII, and then Dracontius in the Hexaemeron, write to the same effect, to pass over others who speak of the phoenix particularly as a sign of the resurrection. For the story about it was of old in the mouth and in the talk of all: "It has already come to the ears of many, believers and unbelievers," says Epiphanius in the place mentioned; whence also the mention of it is so frequent both among the gentiles and among Christians, although no small variety is found in their accounts. Of these let Herodotus be consulted, book
Editors' notes and page, col. 56
Page
- running head: 55 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 56
- marginal letters: A bonae fidei conscientia illi; B integra et tota universo; C mum hujus spei specimen; D post natum Christum tertio
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text (Mader's preface continues; long quotations from Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis 12–13). Column is one unbroken paragraph, beginning and ending mid-sentence; the last word "lib." is whole. "non tam mori quam desinere": the page shows a mark after "mori" at the line end that makes it look like "moris"; read as mori (UNSURE). "Scripturis suis" is printed with a damaged u (looks like svis). "phoenix" in the italic quotation is printed with a ligature that could be ae or oe; set oe. Italic quotations set plain; guillemets as printed. No scripture references printed. No foot notes on this page.
II, cap. 73; Ovid., XV Metamorph. vers. 392; Plinius, lib. X Histor. naturalis cap. 2; Mela, lib. III; Solinus Polybist., cap. XLVI; Aristides in Palinodia de Smyrna restaurata, tom. I, p. 470; Aelianus lib. VI Histor. animal., cap. 58; Lucianus, Dialogo περὶ τοῦ Περεγρίνου τελευτῆς; Claudianus, Eidyllion primo. Ex Christianis vero, una cum superius memoratis, et quos doctissimus Weitzius ad Dracontium, Juniusque in notis huic epistolae subjectis citat, Eusebius, IV De vita Constantini, cap. 72, Suidas in Φοῖνιξ. Non ergo mirum erat, si Christianismi doctores ad rem vulgo creditam provocarent; quandoquidem et Dio asserere audet lib. LVIII, Sexto Papinio et Q. Plautio coss. paulo ante Tiberii obitum in Aegypto phoenicem apparuisse, id quod etiam Plinius memorato loco ex Cornelio Valeriano refert. Tacitus vero, VI Annal., 28, idem ad Pauli Fabii, et L. Vitellii tempora reducit, quorum consulatus juxta Onuphrii Fastos in annum U. C. DCCLXXXVII, Christi 35 incidit: quae fama nostri Clementis tempore adhuc erat recens, utpote qui juxta Anastasium Bibliothecarium anno ejus saeculi 93, secundum alios vero citius, episcopatui Romano praeesse coepit. Quid quod Christianos illis temporibus phoenicem resurrectionis symbolum coemeterialibus tumulis inter alia insculpsisse, ex B. Caeciliae Actis discas: quae idipsum B. Maximi martyris sarcophago curavit insculpendum. Verba Actorum, ut ex cod. ms. Vatic. Vallic. in Roma subterranea novissima Aringhius citat, haec sunt: Quem, Maximum scilicet, S. Caecilia virgo sepelivit in novo sarcophago, et jussit ut in sarcophago ejus sculperetur phoenix, ad indicium fidei ejus, qui resurrectionem se inventurum exemplo phoenicis ex toto corde suscepit. Vides ergo, quam juste in haec tandem verba erumpat κριτὴς ille egregius: Estne hic (Clemens, scilicet) bonus, fideque dignus apostolus et adjutor S. Pauli, qui resurrectionem carnis fabulis tam bellis potest astruere? et annon multo rectius judicarit illud Belgii sidus, Hugo Grotius, falso itidem illo ipso scripto verbis mox subsequentibus, ut rei absurdae auctor, sugillatus, epistola quadam ad Bignonium hactenus inedita: De phoenice rem fuisse eo tempore eruditis creditam, nec eo argumento uti Clementem ut probet τῶν νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, sed ut ostendat ex re credita non esse eam τῶν ἀδυνάτων. Inscitia profecto summa est, illi propterea hanc epistolam abjudicare, praecipue cum jam suis temporibus Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Photiusque Constantinopolitanus, hic saeculo nono, ille quarto, commentum illud in eadem legerint, et exinde in scriptis suis citarint, ut ex illorum testimoniis superius manifestum fuit. Nec minoris est audaciae, persuadere velle eruditis, Scultetum, Cocum, Blondellum, Rivetum, Voetium partibus reformatorum, ut jam vulgo dici amant, una addictos doctores, ex hac fabula arripuisse
II, chapter 73; Ovid, Metamorphoses XV, line 392; Pliny, Natural History, book X, chapter 2; Mela, book III; Solinus, Polyhistor, chapter XLVI; Aristides in the Palinode on Smyrna Restored, volume I, p. 470; Aelian, History of Animals, book VI, chapter 58; Lucian, in the Dialogue "On the Death of Peregrinus"; Claudian, in the first Idyll. And from among the Christians, together with those mentioned above, and those whom the most learned Weitz cites on Dracontius, and Young in the notes subjoined to this epistle: Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine IV, chapter 72, and the Suda under "Phoenix". It was therefore no wonder if the teachers of Christianity appealed to a thing commonly believed; seeing that Dio too ventures to assert, in book LVIII, that in the consulship of Sextus Papinius and Quintus Plautius, shortly before the death of Tiberius, a phoenix appeared in Egypt, which Pliny also reports in the place mentioned, from Cornelius Valerianus. Tacitus, however, Annals VI, 28, carries the same back to the times of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius, whose consulship, according to the Fasti of Onuphrius, falls in the year of the City DCCLXXXVII, of Christ 35: which report was still fresh in the time of our Clement, inasmuch as he, according to Anastasius the Librarian, began to preside over the Roman episcopate in the year 93 of that century, but according to others sooner. What of the fact that you may learn from the Acts of Blessed Cecilia that the Christians in those times carved the phoenix, among other things, on cemetery tombs as a symbol of the resurrection: she who had that very thing carved on the sarcophagus of the blessed martyr Maximus. The words of the Acts, as Aringhi cites them in the Roma subterranea novissima from a manuscript codex of the Vatican and the Vallicelliana, are these: "Whom," namely Maximus, "the holy virgin Cecilia buried in a new sarcophagus, and she ordered that a phoenix be carved on his sarcophagus, as a token of the faith of him who with his whole heart accepted, by the example of the phoenix, that he would find the resurrection." You see, therefore, how justly that excellent "judge" at length bursts out into these words: "Is this man" (namely Clement) "a good apostle and one worthy of credit, and a helper of Saint Paul, who can build up the resurrection of the flesh with such pretty fables?" and whether that star of the Low Countries, Hugo Grotius, likewise falsely taunted in that same writing, in the words that soon follow, as the author of an absurd thing, did not judge much more rightly, in a certain letter to Bignon hitherto unpublished: "That the matter of the phoenix was at that time believed by the learned, and that Clement does not use that argument to prove the resurrection of the dead, but to show from a thing believed that it is not among the things impossible." It is surely the height of ignorance to deny this epistle to him on that account, especially since already in their own times Cyril of Jerusalem and Photius of Constantinople, the latter in the ninth century, the former in the fourth, read that fiction in the same epistle, and cited it from there in their writings, as was made plain above from their testimonies. Nor is it a matter of less audacity to wish to persuade the learned that Scultetus, Cocus, Blondel, Rivet and Voetius, teachers all alike attached to the party of the Reformed, as they now commonly like to be called, seized from this fable
Editors' notes and page, col. 57
Footnotes
(23) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Edit. Francofurt. 1634.
Frankfurt edition, 1634.
(printed under page 28)
(24) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Edit. Helmstad., anno 1641.
Helmstedt edition, of the year 1641. [The call figures at the foot are small and partly blurred; read as 23 and 24, in sequence with page 25.]
(printed under page 28)
Page
- running head: 57 PROOEMIA VARIOR[UM. — remainder beyond this column's crop]
- marginal letters: A II, cap. 73; Ovid.; B Plinius memorato loco; C terranea novissima Aringhius; D eo argumento uti Clementem
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text (Mader's preface continues). Column is one unbroken paragraph, beginning and ending mid-sentence; the last word "arripuisse" is whole. Damaged type read from context: Περεγρίνου (the first ε broken), "coepit" (blot), "Voetium" (final m broken, a point after it). "Polybist." may itself be a damaged h rather than a printed b (UNSURE). The two foot notes at the page foot (23, 24) are called from col. 58 and are not set here. Italics set plain.
ansam a Patricio dissentiendi, totamque epistolam rejiciendi; cum nec Scultetus, nec Cocus, unquam eamdem, ut nondum a Patricio forte visam, nedum evulgatam, viderint, adeoque de re ignota judicium suum non potuerint interponere. Ipsemet hoc testatur Abrahamus Scultetus, quondam professor Heidelbergensis Medullae suae pag. 371 et 372; de hujus Clementis scriptis inter alia inquiens: Epistolam hic quondam ad Corinthios scripsit, cujus meminit Dionysius Corinthius apud Euseb. (lib. IV, cap. 23; lib. III, cap. 38.) Periit celebris ista epistola, sed in locum ejus substitutae sunt quinque aliae, et Recognitionum libri decem, qui hodie Clementis nomine circumferuntur. Epistolae exstant tomo primo Conciliorum, quae singulis fere lineis Clementem adulterinum loquuntur. Earumdem quinque Clementinarum, quae Decretales vulgo, non vero hujus ad Corinthios, examen instituit Robertus Cocus Anglus in sua Censura pag. 41 et seqq. Blondellus item singulari libro adversus Isidori Mercatoris figmenta, Genevae an. Christi 1628 excuso, ubi simul ostendit ex quibus centonibus eae consutae fuerint et confectae. Quanto vero in pretio hanc ipsam habuerit Epistolam, Apologia ejus pererudita pro Hieronymi sententia de episcopis et presbyteris probat, in qua non veretur B. Patris sententiam testimoniis ex ea desumptis confirmare et asserere. Quemadmodum etiam ex Voetio et Riveto, qui cum Blondello eam et viderunt et legerunt, haud facile queas perspicere et dijudicare, num vel recipientium, vel respuentium sequantur partes: hujus namque ex editione ultima Genevensi anni 1652, haec sunt verba: Scripsit Clemens, teste Hieronymo in Catalogo, ex persona Ecclesiae Romanae ad Ecclesiam Corinthi valde utilem Epistolam, quae nonnullis in locis publice tum legebatur. — Hanc autem desideratam Patricius Junius vir clarissimus, regis magnae Britanniae bibliothecarius, ex laceris reliquiis vetustissimi exemplaris regii eruit, lacunas explevit, Latine vertit, et brevibus notis illustravit, eamque edidit, cum fragmento secundae epistolae ad eosdem, Oxoniae anno 1633. In ea reperiuntur quae a nonnullis veteribus citantur, ut in notis suis, ex collatione, ostendit eruditissimus editor, qui veram et genuinam esse Clementis Epistolam existimat, non obstante fabula de phoenice, quam ad illustrationem doctrinae de resurrectione adducit. Quod postea fecerunt alii plures ex veteribus. Argumenta viri doctissimi expendere poterit lector eruditus. Epistola tota alioqui satis refert simplicitatem primaevam, et quae in ea leguntur ad argumentum quod in ea tractatur, satis sunt accommodata. Id sane notandum quod pag. 41 de justificatione scribitur: Nos ex voluntate Dei in Christo Jesu vocatos, etc. Gisbertus Voetius vero theologiae in academia Ultrajectina prof., in Disputt. selectis theologicis, pag. 103 partis primae, cum quaestionem attulisset hanc: Quid de epistola Clementis ad
a handle for dissenting from Patrick and for rejecting the whole epistle; whereas neither Scultetus nor Cocus ever saw it, as being perhaps not yet seen by Patrick, much less published, and so could not interpose their judgement about a thing unknown. Abraham Scultetus himself, formerly professor at Heidelberg, testifies to this on pages 371 and 372 of his Medulla; saying among other things about the writings of this Clement: "He once wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, which Dionysius of Corinth mentions in Eusebius (book IV, chapter 23; book III, chapter 38). That celebrated epistle has perished, but in its place five others have been substituted, and ten books of Recognitions, which today circulate under Clement's name. The Epistles are extant in the first volume of the Councils, and in almost every line they bespeak a spurious Clement." Of those same five Clementine epistles, which are commonly called Decretals, but not of this one to the Corinthians, Robert Cocus, an Englishman, undertook an examination in his Censura, page 41 and following. Blondel likewise, in a special book against the fictions of Isidore Mercator, printed at Geneva in the year of Christ 1628, where he shows at the same time from what patchworks they were stitched together and made up. But in how great esteem he held this very Epistle is proved by his most learned Apology for the Opinion of Jerome concerning Bishops and Presbyters, in which he does not fear to confirm and assert the opinion of the blessed Father by testimonies taken from it. Just as also from Voetius and Rivet, who together with Blondel both saw and read it, you could not easily perceive and decide whether they follow the side of those who receive it or of those who reject it: for these are the words of the latter, from the last Geneva edition of the year 1652: "Clement wrote, as Jerome testifies in the Catalogue, in the person of the Roman Church, to the Church of Corinth, a very useful Epistle, which in some places was then read publicly. — This, however, long missed, the most illustrious Patrick Young, librarian of the king of Great Britain, dug out from the tattered remains of a very ancient royal copy, filled up its gaps, translated it into Latin, and illustrated it with brief notes, and published it, with a fragment of a second epistle to the same, at Oxford in the year 1633. In it are found the things which are cited by some of the ancients, as the most learned editor shows in his notes by collation, who thinks it to be the true and genuine Epistle of Clement, notwithstanding the fable of the phoenix, which he adduces to illustrate the doctrine of the resurrection. Which several others of the ancients afterwards did. The learned reader will be able to weigh the arguments of that most learned man. The whole Epistle, for the rest, sufficiently reflects the primitive simplicity, and the things read in it are sufficiently fitted to the argument treated in it. This certainly is to be noted, which is written on page 41 about justification: 'That we, called by the will of God in Christ Jesus,'" etc. And Gisbert Voetius, professor of theology in the academy of Utrecht, in the Select Theological Disputations, page 103 of the first part, when he had brought forward this question: "What of the epistle of Clement to
Editors' notes and page, col. 58
Page
- running head: [PR]OOEMIA VARIORUM. 58
- marginal letters: A ansam a Patricio dissentiendi; B terinum loquuntur. Earumdem; C perspicere et dijudicare; D Clementis Epistolam existimat
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text (Mader's preface continues). Column is one unbroken paragraph, beginning and ending mid-sentence; the last word "ad" is whole. Foot-note calls 23 (after "Medullae suae") and 24 (after "Censura") removed; the two foot notes run across the page foot and are not set here. The parenthesis (lib. IV, cap. 23; lib. III, cap. 38.) is printed in the text and kept. Damaged type read from context: "Earumdem" (the E blotted), "Blondello". Italics set plain; the dash before "Hanc autem" as printed.
Corinthios nuper evulgata, sed non sine multis maximisque lacunis? dubie pariter respondet: Admiramur singularem divinam Providentiam, quae curavit ut ab apostolorum discipulis virisque apostolicis et apostolorum saeculo proximis, aut nihil scriberetur, aut nihil conservaretur et ad posteros manaret; aut saltem nihil ab initio Ecclesiae usque in hunc diem superesset, de quo non dubitaretur, aut quod per tineas blattasque, aut alium quemvis Dei exercitum mutilatum non esset: ut soli Scripturae tanto evidentius sua constaret auctoritas, illique soli esset propria incorruptibilitas et aeternitas. Quod si igitur ille ἐπικρίσεως auctor saltem per transennam, quod aiunt, eos quos adducit scriptores inspexisset, non potuisset ignorare omnia illa testimonia, quae contra hanc Epistolam producit, potius adversari sibi, quam prodesse. Nec enim ulterius eum quidquam juvat Eusebius, quem fingit lib. VI, c. 13 scribere, jam suo tempore, circa annum videlicet 324, Clementis Epistolam non pro genuina amplius habitam, etiamsi lib. III, c. 16 ipse fuerat testatus, adjutorem Pauli Clementem Epistolam ad Corinthios scripsisse, quae etiam in quibusdam ecclesiis sit lecta. Nam ista quoque verba eo modo apud Eusebium non leguntur, sed cum toto 12 et 13 capite illius libri de Clemente Alexandrino et ejus scriptis agat: Hunc uti, ait, in illis etiam earum Scripturarum testimoniis quibus contradicitur, et ejus quae est Jesu Sirach, et Epistolae ad Hebraeos, denique et Barnabae et Clementis et Judae; uti verba sonant juxta edit. Latinam Grynaei. Ut vero Rufinus vertit, apud quem est alia capitum divisio: Utitur, inquit cap. 2, exemplis etiam ex his libris, qui a nonnullis minime recipiendi videntur, id est, ex Sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis, et ex Sapientia Sirach, quae appellatur Ecclesiasticus apud Latinos. Sed et de Barnabae et Clementis Epistola ponit Romanis exempla, et de Epistola Judae. Quae verba, si τὸ contradici, vel non recipi, etiam ad Clementis Epistolam restringenda putes, non de omni contradictione sive non receptione simpliciter, sed tantum de non receptione in canonem Scripturarum loquuntur: eademque ratione multis aliis qua Veteris, qua N. T. libris contradictum est, aliis alios nunc probantibus, nunc reprobantibus. Interim posterius hoc non tollit prius, legi eam in quibusdam ecclesiis solitam; cum in primitiva Ecclesia Christianis non tantum canonici stricte ita appellati, sed etiam alii libri ab antiquitate sua et utilitate commendati, ad aedificationem plebis, non vero ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam, praelegerentur: qua in re licet similiter discrepare possent inter se ecclesiae, et aliae aliorum lectionem praeferre, tamen illa particularis reprobatio ab Ecclesia quadam aut ejus doctore facta, non statim poterat ipsi scripto omni ex parte derogare, aut ejus fidem infringere. Demum crassa est ignorantia, inque theologiae doctore, et quidem tanto, non ferenda, hanc scilicet Epistolam, cum istis, de quibus
the Corinthians lately published, but not without many and very great gaps?" answers equally doubtfully: "We marvel at the singular divine Providence, which has seen to it that by the disciples of the apostles and by the apostolic men and those nearest to the age of the apostles either nothing was written, or nothing was preserved and flowed down to posterity; or at least that nothing from the beginning of the Church down to this day should survive about which there was not doubt, or which had not been mutilated by moths and bookworms, or by some other army of God: so that for Scripture alone its own authority might stand so much the more evidently, and incorruptibility and eternity might be proper to it alone." If, therefore, that author of the "censure" had looked into the writers whom he adduces even, as they say, through a lattice, he could not have failed to know that all those testimonies which he produces against this Epistle tell against him rather than help him. For neither does Eusebius help him any further, whom he pretends to write, in book VI, chapter 13, that already in his own time, namely about the year 324, the Epistle of Clement was no longer held as genuine, even though in book III, chapter 16, he himself had testified that Clement, the helper of Paul, wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, which was also read in certain churches. For those words too are not read in that form in Eusebius, but, since in the whole of chapters 12 and 13 of that book he is treating of Clement of Alexandria and his writings, he says: "That he uses in them also testimonies of those Scriptures which are spoken against, both of that which is Jesus Sirach's, and of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and lastly also of Barnabas and of Clement and of Jude;" as the words run according to the Latin edition of Grynaeus. But as Rufinus translates, in whom there is another division of the chapters: "He uses," he says in chapter 2, "examples also from those books which by some seem by no means to be received, that is, from the Wisdom which is called Solomon's, and from the Wisdom of Sirach, which among the Latins is called Ecclesiasticus. But he also sets down examples from the Epistle of Barnabas and of Clement of Rome, and from the Epistle of Jude." Which words, if you think that the "being spoken against", or "not being received", is to be restricted also to the Epistle of Clement, speak not of every contradiction or non-reception simply, but only of non-reception into the canon of the Scriptures: and in the same way many other books both of the Old and of the New Testament have been spoken against, some approving and others now rejecting different ones. Meanwhile this latter point does not take away the former, that it used to be read in certain churches; since in the primitive Church not only the books strictly called canonical, but also other books commended by their antiquity and usefulness, were read out to Christians for the edification of the people, though not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas: in which matter, although the churches could likewise differ among themselves, and some prefer the reading of some books, others of others, yet that particular rejection made by some one Church or its teacher could not at once detract from the writing itself in every respect, or weaken its credit. Finally it is gross ignorance, and not to be borne in a doctor of theology, and so great a one indeed, to confuse this Epistle, forsooth, with those of which
Editors' notes and page, col. 59
Page
- running head: 59 AD S. CLEMENTEM I [remainder beyond this column's crop]
- marginal letters: A Corinthios nuper evulgata; B tra hanc Epistolam producit; C juxta edit. Latinam Grynaei; D bus, nunc reprobantibus
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text (Mader's preface continues). Column is one unbroken paragraph, beginning and ending mid-sentence. Last word "qui-|bus" completed from the first line of col. 60 (seen at the right edge of the top image). "ponit Romanis exempla" is set as printed; the English takes Romanis with Clementis ("of Clement of Rome") (UNSURE). The English "to confuse" anticipates the infinitive in col. 60. No foot notes on this page. Italics set plain.
supra mentio injecta est, decretalibus confundere: quod ipsum cum non uno loco in ista ἐπικρίσει sua facit, tum evidenter in sequentibus verbis, quibus quasi hactenus de Clemente dictis colophonem addit: Et quod magis est, inquiens, cum nuperus episcopus Yprensis Cornelius Jansenius Augustini sui tom. III, lib. VI, cap. 12, ex Clementis epistola testimonium citasset, deridet eum Jesuita Aurelianensis Dionysius Petavius tom. III De Eccles. dogm. lib. III, De Opific. cap. 8, num. 5, quod non distinguat inter sinceros et supposititios scriptores. Dignum sane patella operculum, de quo tamen aegre
mention was made above, the decretals: which very thing he does both in more than one place in that "censure" of his, and evidently in the following words, with which he adds as it were the finishing stroke to what has so far been said about Clement: "And what is more," he says, "when the late bishop of Ypres, Cornelius Jansen, in volume III of his Augustinus, book VI, chapter 12, had cited a testimony from the epistle of Clement, the Jesuit of Orléans, Denis Pétau, in volume III On the Dogmas of the Church, book III, On the Work of Creation, chapter 8, number 5, mocks him because he does not distinguish between genuine and supposititious writers." A lid truly worthy of the dish, at which, however, you would hardly,
Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici.
admitted to the sight, hold back your laughter, friends.
Ecquis enim nescire potest, ipsemet cum Jansenii, tum Petavii verba inspiciens, de longe alia epistola, et quidem ipsa tertia decretali, quae tomo I Conciliorum Surii pag. 148, in Blondelli vero Censura pag. 72 exstat, et ad omnes coepiscopos, presbyteros, diaconos, ac reliquos clericos, et cunctos principes majores minoresve, titulum mentitur, utrumque locutum. Post S. Dionysium, inquit Jansenius, Clemens papa, in epistola tertia; ubi primo dicit, quod Augustinus toties tradidit, nos esse liberi arbitrii, quia velle et nolle habemus in potestate. Ad haec Dionysius Petavius: Hoc sensu, ait, vim accepit auctor ille, qui sub Clementis nomine epistolam tertiam concinnavit ex libris Recognitionum. Qua ex epistola novae sectae patronus testimonium secundum posuit, adeo in testium delectu incuriosus, ut promiscue sinceros ac supposititios habeat. Unde cum nullo pacto adducar ut credam magnum aliquem theologum in ejusmodi minutiis tantum ex ignorantia errare errorem; viderit ille, quo animo, qua conscientia id fecerit. Ego hoc, Deo teste, pro certo affirmare queo, me nullius partis studio, sed solius veritatis amore ductum hoc qualecunque ejus ἐπικρίσεως examen instituisse, ne scilicet incautioribus sub veri nomine posset imponere, eosque ab utilissima hujus Epistolae lectione absterrere. Tum ut B. praeceptorem meum ab injuria vindicarem: quem idem ille, ob Clementem hunc Apostoli cooperatorem pronuntiatum, imprudentiae arguit, ipse potius ita fortassis coarguendus. Opto vero, ut uniuscujusque Christiani menti firmiter inhaereat illud Clementis nostri, auro quovis pretiosius, monitum: Cur inter nos sint contentiones, irae, simultates, schismata et bellum? Nonne unum Deum et unum Christum habemus? nonne unus est Spiritus gratiae, qui super nos effusus est, et una vocatio in Christo? Cur Christi membra divellimus et discerpimus, et contra proprium corpus seditionem movemus, eoque vesaniae devenimus, ut aliorum nos membra esse oblivioni tradamus. Quod superest, Lector benevole, hanc Epistolam, ea qua potuimus fide et diligentia curavimus exprimendam, ut nihil amplius fere hic desiderare possis, quam quod lacunae non minio rubro, ut in editione Anglicana factum, sed minoribus litteris sint notatae. Neque enim, etiamsi illud nobis non
For who can fail to know, if he himself looks into the words both of Jansen and of Pétau, that each of them spoke of a far different epistle, and indeed of the third decretal itself, which is extant in volume I of the Councils of Surius, page 148, and in Blondel's Censura, page 72, and falsely bears the title "to all fellow bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the rest of the clergy, and all princes greater or lesser". "After Saint Dionysius," says Jansen, "Pope Clement, in the third epistle; where first he says, what Augustine so often taught, that we are of free will, because we have willing and not willing in our power." To this Denis Pétau says: "In this sense that author took the force [of the word], who under Clement's name put together the third epistle out of the books of the Recognitions. From which epistle the patron of the new sect set down his second testimony, so careless in the choice of witnesses that he holds genuine and supposititious ones indiscriminately." Hence, since I can in no way be brought to believe that any great theologian errs so great an error in trifles of this kind out of ignorance; let him look to it with what mind, with what conscience he did this. I can affirm this for certain, God being witness, that, led by zeal for no party but by love of the truth alone, I have undertaken this examination, such as it is, of his "censure", lest, namely, he should be able to impose on the less cautious under the name of truth, and frighten them away from the most useful reading of this Epistle. Then also that I might vindicate my blessed teacher from wrong: whom that same man charges with imprudence for having pronounced this Clement the fellow worker of the Apostle, being himself perhaps rather to be so convicted. But I desire that that admonition of our Clement, more precious than any gold, may cling firmly to the mind of every Christian: "Why are there among us strifes, angers, feuds, schisms and war? Have we not one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace, Who has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ? Why do we tear apart and rend the members of Christ, and stir up sedition against our own body, and come to such madness that we consign to oblivion that we are members one of another." For the rest, kind Reader, we have taken care that this Epistle be printed with what fidelity and diligence we could, so that you can find scarcely anything further wanting here, except that the gaps are marked not with red vermilion, as was done in the English edition, but with smaller letters. For not even if that were not to us
Editors' notes and page, col. 60
Page
- running head: [AD S.] CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 60
- marginal letters: A bus supra mentio injecta; B tum Petavii verba inspiciens; C ceros ac supposititios habeat; D Christiani menti firmiter
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose, set as this unit's text (Mader's preface continues). The first printed word-part "bus" completes "qui-" of col. 59 and is set there (quibus), not here. The hexameter "Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici." is printed centred on its own line inside the sentence and is set as its own line; the sentence before it ends "aegre" and runs into it. Column ends mid-sentence; the last word "non" is whole, and the last English line is provisional until col. 61 is set. Damaged type read from context: "tom. III De Eccles." (the third I broken), "tum Petavii", "fecerit", "Neque enim" (last line faint). The quotation ending "oblivioni tradamus." closes with a full point as printed, not a question mark. No foot notes on this page. Italics set plain.
liceret, voluimus propterea totum intermittere, sed vel eo modo textum genuinum a supplemento distinguere, quo et tuae, si ita videretur, industriae relinqueretur palaestra vel ad conjectandum, vel ad judicandum. Alias testimonia passim a nobis aucta sunt, addita etiam Graecis versione Latina; tum loca et variantes lectiones apud Clementem Alexandrinum
were permitted, did we on that account wish to pass the whole over, but rather in just such a way to distinguish the genuine text from the supplement that an exercise-ground might also be left to your own diligence, should it so seem good, whether for conjecturing or for judging. For the rest, the testimonies have been increased by us throughout, a Latin version being also added to the Greek ones; then too the passages and variant readings in Clement of Alexandria
GODEFREDI VENDELINI
OF GODEFRIDUS VENDELINUS
DE CLEMENTIS ET EJUS EPISTOLARUM TEMPORE DIVINATIO.
A CONJECTURE ON THE DATE OF CLEMENT AND OF HIS EPISTLES.
Clemens Romanus, Faustini filius (quem apostolus Paulus, ad Philippenses scribens, suum vocat cooperatorem inter caeteros, quorum nomina scripta sunt in libro vitae) Petri apostoli successor, apostolus idem ipse vocatur a Clemente Alexandrino lib. IV Stromatum: quomodo et Barnabas aliique magnorum apostolorum comites et discipuli pari nomine apostoli (minores tamen) habiti fuerunt et appellati. Clemens hic post Petrum Romanam rexit Ecclesiam, vixitque ad tempora Trajani; cujus anno tertio, qui fuit epochae nostrae centesimus, Joannis quoque evangelistae morte nobilis, Chersonae in Ponto, post exsilii sui quinquennium, occiditur. Is erat annus post Christi Ascensionem sexagesimus et octavus, prout habemus traditum. Quot vero tunc annos habuerit Clemens, etsi non legimus proditum, constat tamen non multo minorem fuisse centenario, valde senem utique fuisse oportet, si (quod habent Recognitionum libri, non in totum dramatici) ad primam famam Christi jam in coelum recepti, vivente adhuc Tiberio, juvenis fuit florentis aetatis, judicii limati, doctrinarumque sublimiorum avidi; plane ut annos facile viginti quinque excesserit, vel ad trigesimum propius accesserit, natusque videatur per initia circiter nostrae epochae, Joanni evangelistae quasi coaetaneus ac plane coaevus.
Clement of Rome, the son of Faustinus (whom the apostle Paul, writing to the Philippians, calls his fellow worker among the rest whose names are written in the book of life), the successor of the apostle Peter, is himself also called an apostle by Clement of Alexandria in book IV of the Stromata: in the same way as Barnabas too and other companions and disciples of the great apostles were held and named apostles by the like title (though lesser ones). This Clement ruled the Roman Church after Peter, and lived down to the times of Trajan; in whose third year, which was the hundredth of our era, a year made notable also by the death of John the evangelist, he is put to death at Cherson in Pontus, after the five years of his exile. That was the sixty-eighth year after the Ascension of Christ, as we have it handed down. But how many years Clement then had, although we do not read it recorded, it is nevertheless agreed that he was not much less than a hundred years old; he must at any rate have been very old, if (as the books of the Recognitions have it, which are not wholly dramatic fiction) at the first report of Christ already received into heaven, while Tiberius was still living, he was a young man of flourishing age, of polished judgement, and eager for the higher doctrines; so plainly that he had easily passed twenty-five years, or had come nearer to the thirtieth, and seems to have been born about the beginnings of our era, as it were of an age with John the evangelist and plainly his contemporary.
Intra hoc primum saeculum pontificatum Romanum gessit episcopus Clemens, annis (ut inter omnes, quamvis diversissima tradentes, consentitur) novem cum mensibus et diebus aliquot. Intra idem saeculum episcopi Romani recensentur Linus, Cletus et Anacletus; quanquam Graeci ferme ex Cleto et Anacleto unum eumdemque videantur intelligere, nimis oscitanter, propter affinitatem nominum, socordes.
Within this first century the bishop Clement held the Roman pontificate, for nine years (as is agreed among all, though they hand down the most diverse accounts) with some months and days. Within the same century Linus, Cletus and Anacletus are reckoned as Roman bishops; although the Greeks for the most part seem to understand one and the same man by Cletus and Anacletus, being too drowsily careless on account of the likeness of the names.
Quis vero vel ante hos, vel inter illos, vel post hos, Clementi locus, quod tempus debeatur, scriptores certant, jam ab antiquo proximoque illis saeculo. Itaque et in Breviariis nostris priorum editionum a posterioribus discordia est, et ἀπορίαν suam in omnibus, usque ad annum 179, profitetur Baronius identidem, donec ita fidem suam liberat: Si quis
But what place, whether before these, or among them, or after them, and what time is due to Clement, the writers dispute, already from antiquity and from the century nearest to those men. And so in our Breviaries too there is a disagreement of the earlier editions with the later, and Baronius again and again professes his perplexity in all these matters, down to the year 179, until he discharges his pledge thus: If anyone
Editors' notes and page, col. 61
Page
- running head: 61 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 62
- marginal letters: A ‹liceret, voluimus propterea totum intermittere, sed›; B ‹Clemens Romanus, Faustini filius (quem aposto-›; C ‹vero tunc annos habuerit Clemens, etsi non legi-›; D ‹nes, quamvis diversissima tradentes, consentitur)›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout (close of the preceding editor's address to the reader, then Vendelinus's Divinatio). The page is laid out in two blocks: the upper block (7 lines per column) ends the preceding piece and runs col 61 top -> col 62 top; the two-line caption is printed across both columns and is set once here; the lower block begins the Divinatio. In strict reading order the caption follows col 62's upper block. 'Alexandrinum' split across cols 61/62 (upper block), completed from col 62. 'consentitur' and 'sublimiorum' have damaged initial letters (the latter looks like 'cublimiorum'), read as intended. Foot of page: note 28 'Act. XII, 2.' is called in col 62.
repertae, suis quaeque pagellis, ex editione Parisiensi a. Chr. 1641 novissima indicatae. In omnibus si non omnia forte palato tuo respondeant, id partim scholasticis occupationibus meis, partim absentiae meae ab operibus typographicis tribues, et quod in simili genere optares, aequi bonique facies. Salve, ac bene vale.
that have been found, each indicated by its own pages from the most recent Paris edition of the year of Christ 1641. If in all these things not everything should perhaps answer to your taste, you will put that down partly to my scholastic occupations, partly to my absence from the printers' work, and you will take in good part what in a like kind you might have wished for. Farewell, and fare well indeed.
certiorem de annis invenerit chronographiam, qua tamen non rejiciatur e numero pontificum Romanorum Cletus, nec martyrum Lugdunensium sincerum testimonium condemnetur, haud inviti assentiemur. Ego itaque multa curiosaque indagine, postquam rationes omnes variorum scriptorum diligenter excussi, videor mihi veri fidem deprehendisse hanc certissimam.
shall have found a surer chronography concerning the years, by which nevertheless Cletus is not cast out of the number of the Roman pontiffs, nor the genuine testimony of the martyrs of Lyons condemned, we shall not unwillingly assent. I therefore, with much and careful searching, after I had diligently sifted all the reckonings of the various writers, seem to myself to have caught hold of this as the most certain assurance of the truth.
Anno epochae nostrae 41, die 23 Januarii, occiso Caio, successit in imperium Claudius, qui Herodem Agrippam statim dimisit in suum regnum, isque magna celeritate reversus est in Judaeam per mensem (fac) Februarium totum, vel initia Martii. Exceptus a suis popularibus honorifice; quibus demerendis (ut se gratiosum ac popularem praeberet) odiosam illis Christianorum, nimis invalentium, multitudinem opprimere, hominesque illos novos, seditiosos, nefariae impietatis in Deum, legesque Mosaicas insimulatos ad supplicia rapere aggressus est, a praecipuis eorum capitibus apostolis grassandi facto initio. Itaque occidit Jacobum, fratrem Joannis, gladio.
In the year 41 of our era, on the 23rd day of January, Caius having been killed, Claudius succeeded to the empire, who at once sent Herod Agrippa away to his own kingdom; and he returned with great speed into Judaea in the course of (say) the whole month of February, or the beginning of March. He was received with honour by his own countrymen; and to win their favour (that he might show himself gracious and a friend of the people) he set about crushing the multitude of the Christians, hateful to them and growing too strong, and dragging off to punishment those men, new, seditious, and accused of abominable impiety against God and the Mosaic laws, making a beginning of his violence with their chief heads, the apostles. And so he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword.
Hanc mortem habemus adnotatam Kalendis Aprilis, quae hoc anno 41 inciderunt in Sabbatum; ut videatur Jacobus, de occasione ipsius Sabbati, quasi facto, dictove aliquo violati tumultuose correptus a furentibus, statimque (ut fit in delictis flagrantibus) plexus capite, saltem post occasum solis; quo momento Judaicum Sabbatum, diesque Kalend. Aprilis desinebat, inibatque prima Sabbati; eadem Aprilis mensis illis numerabatur secunda. Atque hoc est quod Hieronymus in Ezech. cap. XLIII, traditum a majoribus non satis intellexit; dum scribit immolatum Jacobum, die secunda Paschatis; quod constare haud posse Baronius quoque pervidit. Et certe Pascha Judaicum isto anno incidit in diem quartam Aprilis, ad vesperam. Non ergo die secunda Paschatis occisus est Jacobus, sed secunda mensis, in quam Pascha illo anno incidit.
We have this death noted on the Kalends of April, which in this year 41 fell on a Sabbath; so that James would seem to have been seized tumultuously by raging men on the occasion of the Sabbath itself, as though it had been violated by some deed or word, and at once (as happens in offences caught in the act) beheaded, at least after sunset; at which moment the Jewish Sabbath, and the day of the Kalends of April, was ending, and the first day of the week was beginning; the same was counted by them the second of the month of April. And this is what Jerome, on Ezekiel chapter XLIII, did not sufficiently understand as handed down by the elders, when he writes that James was sacrificed on the second day of the Pasch; which Baronius also clearly saw cannot stand. And certainly the Jewish Pasch in that year fell on the fourth day of April, at evening. James was therefore not killed on the second day of the Pasch, but on the second of the month in which the Pasch fell that year.
Post occisum ergo, seu ipsis adhuc Kalendis Aprilibus, seu postridie mane, Jacobum, videns Herodes hoc placuisse Judaeis, apposuit apprehendere et Petrum; non quidem eodem, credo, die,
After James had been killed, therefore, whether still on the Kalends of April themselves or on the morning of the next day, Herod, seeing that this had pleased the Jews, went on to arrest Peter also; not indeed, I believe, on the same day,
Editors' notes and page, col. 62
Footnotes
(25) ‹anchor: fratrem Joannis, gladio› · call in col 62
Act. XII, 2.
Acts 12:2. [The call figure is small and blurred in the image; read as 25, in sequence with page 28.]
(printed under page 30)
Page
- running head: 61 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 62
- marginal letters: A ‹drinum repertae, suis quaeque pagellis, ex editione›; B ‹certiorem de annis invenerit chronographiam, qua›; C ‹odiosam illis Christianorum, nimis invalentium,›; D ‹Aprilis desinebat, inibatque prima Sabbati; eadem›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout. Upper block (7 lines) continues col 61's upper block and ends the preceding piece; its first syllables 'drinum' complete 'Alexandrinum', set whole in col 61. The full-width caption (GODEFREDI VENDELINI / DE CLEMENTIS ET EJUS EPISTOLARUM TEMPORE DIVINATIO.) is set in col 61. Lower block continues the Divinatio from col 61's last words, inside Baronius's quotation (italic to 'assentiemur'). Foot note call 28 after 'gladio' removed; the note, printed at the foot under col 61, reads 'Act. XII, 2.' (for the notes layer). Small ink blots over 'postquam', 'diligenter', 'illis'; readings not in doubt.
sed uno saltem alterove interposito, quibus populi applausum explorare ac persentiscere potuit, et Petrus inveniri; qui proin raptus fuerit in carcerem, ipso die Azymorum, sanctissimo securitatis asylo, et propter publicam laetitiam ad tam tristia inopinabili. Sed Herodem nec Sabbata in Jacobo, nec Azyma in Petro remorata sunt, quominus saltem comprehenderentur, dilato interim supplicio, quod Petro meditabatur post Pascha, diesque Azymorum omnes transactos. Is ergo custodiebatur in carcere, ex quo per angelum liberatus est, pridie destinati supplicii, nocte scilicet, inter duodecimam et decimam tertiam Aprilis.
but with at least one or two days between, in which he could test and perceive the applause of the people, and in which Peter could be found; who accordingly would have been hurried off to prison on the very day of Unleavened Bread, a most sacred refuge of safety, and one where, on account of the public rejoicing, such grim things were not to be looked for. But neither the Sabbath in the case of James, nor the Unleavened Bread in the case of Peter, held Herod back from at least having them seized, the punishment being meanwhile put off, which he was planning for Peter after the Pasch and when all the days of Unleavened Bread were past. He was therefore being kept in the prison, from which he was set free by an angel on the day before the appointed punishment, that is to say in the night between the twelfth and the thirteenth of April.
Liberatus tanto miraculo Petrus, relicta Judaea, contulit se in alia loca, peragratisque regionibus variis, ecclesiisque confirmatis, pervenit tandem Romam, coeptante anno Claudii secundo, ipso secundum et Largo consulibus, qui fuit annus aerae nostrae 42, fixitque illic sedem pontificiam, cujus cathedrae natalis celebratur, decima octava Januarii. A qua die ad ejus mortem numerantur anni 25, menses 5, dies 12, si numeres a die XV Kal. Febr. ad III Kal. Julias anni nostri 67, quo crucifixus animam Deo reddidit.
Set free by so great a miracle, Peter, leaving Judaea, betook himself to other places, and having travelled through various regions and strengthened the churches, came at length to Rome, as the second year of Claudius was beginning, in the consulship of Claudius himself for the second time and of Largus, which was the year 42 of our era, and there he fixed the pontifical see, the birthday of which chair is kept on the eighteenth of January. From that day to his death are counted 25 years, 5 months, 12 days, if you count from the 15th day before the Kalends of February to the 3rd before the Kalends of July of our year 67, in which, crucified, he gave back his soul to God.
Medio isto tempore, cum Claudius imperator edicto Judaeos Roma expulisset, ipse quoque Petrus cedere coactus est; reversusque in Judaeam concilium habuit illud primum apostolorum, anno nostro 50, Claudio dein sublato, a. d. III Idus Octobris, anno nostro 54, successit Nero, primo imperii sui quinquennio clementissimus princeps. Sub quo Petrus reversus Romam, non illic sedentariam vitam transegit, sed gnaviter atque impigre alias quoque orbis Romani provincias circumiit, ac denique in Britannias penetravit. Dum vero abest, ne Roma sine capite interim ageret, Linum illi constituit episcopum, consulatu Neronis et Veteris, anno nostro 55. Is vero sedit annos 12 (inchoatos interpretor) hoc est, undecim exactos cum mensibus quatuor, diebus duodecim, quotidem menses ac dies habent membranae Bucherianae. Desiit ergo vivere anno nostro 66, omnino, vivente adhuc Petro; quod luculente confirmat scriptor anonymus De certaminibus, peregrinationibus, vita et morte Petri et Pauli; quem Arundellae comitis Sacellanus (Pertaeus) e Graecia secum advexit in Angliam, ex quo Patricius Junius illustrem hunc locum citat, Graece quidem, sed quem ego sic Latine repraesento: Moratus Petrus in Britannia dies aliquot, cum multos illuminasset verbo gratiae, ecclesiasque constituisset, postquam episcopos quoque et presbyteros ac diaconos ordinasset, impositis manibus duodecimo Neronis anno (is fuit noster 66, jam indicatus) iterum Romam rediit; ubi Linum jam mortuum inveniens
In the midst of that time, when the emperor Claudius had by edict driven the Jews out of Rome, Peter himself also was forced to withdraw; and having returned to Judaea he held that first council of the apostles, in our year 50. Claudius then having been removed, on the 3rd day before the Ides of October, in our year 54, Nero succeeded, in the first five years of his reign a most clement prince. Under him Peter, having returned to Rome, did not pass a sedentary life there, but busily and untiringly went round other provinces also of the Roman world, and at last made his way into the Britains. But while he was away, lest Rome should meanwhile be without a head, he appointed Linus bishop for it, in the consulship of Nero and Vetus, in our year 55. He sat 12 years (I take them as years begun), that is, eleven complete with four months and twelve days, the same number of months and days as the Bucherian parchments have. He therefore ceased to live in our year 66, certainly while Peter was still living; which is clearly confirmed by the anonymous writer On the contests, journeys, life and death of Peter and Paul, whom the chaplain of the Earl of Arundel (Pertaeus) brought with him out of Greece into England, and from whom Patricius Junius cites this notable passage, in Greek indeed, but which I render thus in Latin: Peter, having stayed some days in Britain, when he had enlightened many with the word of grace and had established churches, after he had also ordained bishops and presbyters and deacons, by the laying on of hands, in the twelfth year of Nero (that was our 66, already indicated) returned again to Rome; where, finding Linus already dead,
Editors' notes and page, col. 63
Footnotes
(26) ‹anchor: interim ageret, Linum› · call in col 63
Cletum addit Damasus in Gestis pontificum mss. Hoc enim in editis non comparet. Sic etiam Marianus Scotus.
Damasus adds Cletus in the manuscript copies of the Deeds of the Pontiffs; for this does not appear in the printed ones. So also Marianus Scotus.
(printed under page 31)
(27) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Quae Clementi dixerit Petrus, cum eum consecravit, ex Anastasio ms. leges apud Salmasium, in Eucharistico. Jac. Sirmondo. p. 664. Haec enim ab Anastasii editoribus expuncta sunt.
What Peter said to Clement when he consecrated him you will read, from the manuscript Anastasius, in Salmasius, in the Eucharisticon to Jacques Sirmond, p. 664; for these words have been struck out by the editors of Anastasius.
(printed under page 31)
(28) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Rom. XVI, 11, 15.
Romans 16:11, 15.
(printed under page 31)
(29) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Theodoretum vide Περὶ ἀγάπης.
See Theodoret, On Charity.
(printed under page 31)
Page
- running head: 63 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 64
- marginal letters: A ‹sed uno saltem alterove interposito, quibus populi›; B ‹variis, ecclesiisque confirmatis, pervenit tandem›; C ‹tobris, anno nostro 54, successit Nero, primo im-›; D ‹Petri et Pauli; quem Arundellae comitis Sacellanus›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout (Vendelinus, Divinatio). Type worn in the first lines ('sed', 'alterove interposito', 'inopinabili', 'Azymorum', 'angelum', 'alia'); read as intended, none in real doubt. 'Vete ris' has lost its line-end hyphen; set 'Veteris'. Last word 'inveniens' split across cols 63/64, completed from col 64 (seen in the image). Foot note call 26 after 'Linum' removed. Foot notes, printed full width at the page foot (for the notes layer): 26 'Cletum addit Damasus in Gestis pontificum mss. Hoc enim in editis non comparet. Sic etiam Marianus Scotus.' 27 'Quae Clementi dixerit Petrus, cum eum consecravit, ex Anastasio ms. leges apud Salmasium, in Eucharistico. Jac. Sirmondo. p. 664. Haec enim ab Anastasii editoribus expuncta sunt.' 28 'Rom. XVI, 11, 15.' 29 'Theodoretum vide Περὶ ἀγάπης.' (26 is called in col 63; 27, 28, 29 in col 64.)
Clementem loco illius ordinavit invitum, dignitatemque istam recusantem. Quem idoneis rationibus persuasum, ac confidere admonitum in cathedram divinorum eloquiorum (quam ille obtinuerat) sublimavit. Profectionem hanc in Britanniam aliunde vidit etiam Baronius, et est luculenter adstructa, non ita pridem. Sed pergit, post pauca, anonymus: Igitur confestim milites, comprehensis omnibus qui Christo nomen dederant, in condemnatorum eos deduxerunt locum. Et Clementi quidem, ut pote de cognatione Caesaris, pepercerunt, Herodionem vero et Olympam cum reliqua multitudine, gladio percusserunt. Petrum autem, magnum illum Domini apostolum situ inverso suspenderunt in cruce; in qua vulnerum dolores instar Christi ac Dei nostri perpessus, puram suam atque incontaminatam animam in Dei manus obtulit. Clemens vero discipulus ejus et episcopus pretiosum ejus corpus magnifice in loco illustri tumulavit.
he ordained Clement in his place, unwilling and refusing that dignity. Him, persuaded by fitting reasons and admonished to take courage, he raised to the chair of the divine oracles (which that man had held). This journey into Britain Baronius also saw from another source, and it has been clearly established not so long ago. But the anonymous writer goes on, after a few words: Straightway therefore the soldiers, having seized all who had given their name to Christ, led them to the place of the condemned. And Clement indeed, as being of the kindred of Caesar, they spared, but Herodion and Olympas with the rest of the multitude they struck down with the sword. But Peter, that great apostle of the Lord, they hung on a cross in an inverted position; on which, having endured the pains of wounds after the likeness of Christ our God, he offered his pure and undefiled soul into the hands of God. And Clement, his disciple and bishop, entombed his precious body magnificently in a notable place.
Ecce ut, vivente adhuc Petro, Linus sederit episcopus quem propterea chorepiscopum Marianus aliique scripserunt, inter quos Leo II, successor Agathonis: Petrus, inquit, adjutores sibi accivit Linum et Cletum; non tamen pontificii potestatem eis tradidit, sed Clementi. Tam certum semper fuit una cum Petro Linum praefuisse fidelibus Romanis, et ab eodem Petro traditum pontificatum Clementi. Sic ergo liquidior incipit fluere haec Chronologia, in hunc modum:
See how, while Peter was still living, Linus sat as bishop, whom on that account Marianus and others have written of as a chorepiscopus, among them Leo II, the successor of Agatho: Peter, he says, called Linus and Cletus to himself as helpers; yet he did not hand over to them the power of the pontificate, but to Clement. So certain has it always been that Linus presided over the Roman faithful together with Peter, and that the pontificate was handed on by the same Peter to Clement. Thus, then, this Chronology begins to flow more clearly, in this manner:
Anno nostro 66 Linus postremum vixit, mortuus vigesima tertia Septembris, anno 12 Neronis, quo Petrus ex Britannia reversus Romam Linum invenit jam mortuum. Ipse mox, cum Paulo, conjectus est in carcerem Mamertinum, in quo detenti fuerunt menses octo, usque ad finem Junii sequentis.
In our year 66 Linus lived his last, having died on the twenty-third of September, in the 12th year of Nero, in which Peter, having returned from Britain to Rome, found Linus already dead. He himself soon afterwards, with Paul, was thrown into the Mamertine prison, in which they were held eight months, until the end of the following June.
Anno nostro 67, Petrus in carcere constitutus persuasit Clementi, ut episcopatum vellet suscipere et Lino succedere. Is ergo ex hujus anni circiter Paschate sedit annos 9, menses 11, dies 12, ut habet Indiculus, juxta quem occisi Petri pretiosum corpus magnifice sepelivit, insigni in loco, ut vidimus.
In our year 67, Peter, being in prison, persuaded Clement to be willing to take up the episcopate and to succeed Linus. He therefore, from about the Pasch of this year, sat 9 years, 11 months, 12 days, as the Catalogue has it, according to which he magnificently buried the precious body of the slain Peter, in a distinguished place, as we have seen.
Anno ergo 77, cum Romae inter fideles orta esset (qualis postea Corinthi) magna dissensio super honore pontificatus, ne quasi ex testamento Petri successisse videretur Clemens, ac ne posteris haec principatus ambitio perniciosi exempli haberetur, ultro se pontificatu abdicavit, usus istis verbis, quae in altera epistola Corinthiis proposuit imitanda: Si propter me seditio, contentio et schismata orta sunt, emigrabo, abibo quocunque volueritis. Epiphanius, in haeresi Carpocratianorum, hanc Clementis abdicationem hoc epiphonemate innuit
In the year 77, therefore, when at Rome among the faithful there had arisen (such as afterwards at Corinth) a great dissension over the honour of the pontificate, lest Clement should seem to have succeeded as though by Peter's testament, and lest this ambition for the first place should be held by posterity as a pernicious example, he of his own accord resigned the pontificate, using those words which in one of his epistles he set before the Corinthians for imitation: If on my account sedition, strife and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away wherever you wish. Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Carpocratians, hints at this resignation of Clement by this exclamation
Editors' notes and page, col. 64
Page
- running head: 63 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 64
- marginal letters: A ‹niens, Clementem loco illius ordinavit invitum, di-›; B ‹Dei nostri perpessus, puram suam atque incontami-›; C ‹Anno nostro 66 Linus postremum vixit, mor-›; D ‹esset (qualis postea Corinthi) magna dissensio su-›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout (Vendelinus, Divinatio). The column opens with 'niens,' completing 'inveniens', set whole in col 63; this file begins at 'Clementem', still inside the anonymous writer's quotation (italic to 'sublimavit'). Foot note calls removed: 27 after 'persuasum', 28 after 'Olympam', 29 after 'situ'; the notes themselves are recorded in col 63's comment. Worn type in 'cum reliqua', 'Christi', 'perpessus', 'animam', 'dies 12'; read as intended.
conclusam: Secedo, abeo, bene stabiliatur populus Dei; addens, se id in commentariis quibusdam sic invenisse. Abdicaverit ergo die 12 Februarii, quae tunc fuit feria quarta Cinerum. Ita post quatuor dies Cletus, et re et nomine electus, sedere coepit ex die 16 Februarii, Dominica ipsa Quadragesimae, tenuitque pontificatum, vivo Clemente, annis sex, mensibus duobus, diebus decem, quos Indiculus repraesentat exserte: A consulatu, inquit, Vespasiani VIII et Domitiani V, qui est annus mihi jam indicatus 77, planissime.
summed up thus: I withdraw, I go away, let the people of God be well established; adding that he had found it so in certain commentaries. He would therefore have resigned on the 12th day of February, which was then Ash Wednesday. So after four days Cletus, chosen both in fact and in name, began to sit from the 16th day of February, the very Sunday of Lent, and held the pontificate, Clement being alive, for six years, two months, ten days, which the Catalogue sets out expressly: From the consulship, it says, of Vespasian for the VIIIth time and Domitian for the Vth, which is most plainly the year 77 already indicated by me.
Anno igitur nostro 83, Domitiano IX et Rufo consulibus, obierit Cletus, die 26 Aprilis, ut est in Hemerologio, intervallum illud a creatione illius, ad unguem confirmante. Vacasse traditur sedes diebus 15. Ergo ex die undecima Maii, quae tunc fuit Pentecoste, rursum electus Anacletus sedit annos 12, menses 2 (non 10) dies 3, usque ad annum nostrum 95, diemque Hemerologio agnitum decimum tertium Julii, Domitiano XVII et Flavio Clemente consulibus, quos etiam agnoscit Indiculus, mira in his constantia et veri fide.
In our year 83, therefore, in the consulship of Domitian for the IXth time and of Rufus, Cletus would have died, on the 26th day of April, as it stands in the Calendar, which confirms to a nicety that interval from his creation. The see is reported to have been vacant 15 days. Therefore from the eleventh day of May, which was then Pentecost, Anacletus, elected in turn, sat 12 years, 2 months (not 10), 3 days, down to our year 95, and the day acknowledged by the Calendar, the thirteenth of July, in the consulship of Domitian for the XVIIth time and of Flavius Clemens, whom the Catalogue also acknowledges, with a wonderful consistency in these matters and assurance of truth.
Erat hic annus Domitiani tyranni 14, quo persecutionem suscitavit in Christianos, cujus causam Clemens, in Epistola illa luculenta (quam ex persona non sua, sed Ecclesiae Romanae scripsit ad Corinthios adversus episcopum suum seditiosos) refert ad dissidia illa Christianorum, adversus se invicem consurgentium; quale quid etiam Romae factum innuit; suum ipsius certamen ante annos octodecim tacite innuens.
This was the 14th year of the tyrant Domitian, in which he stirred up a persecution against the Christians, the cause of which Clement, in that splendid Epistle (which he wrote, not in his own person but in that of the Roman Church, to the Corinthians who were seditious against their bishop), refers to those dissensions of the Christians rising up against one another; and he hints that something of the kind had happened at Rome also, tacitly hinting at his own contest eighteen years before.
Interim autem, sive occiso jam Anacleto, sive conjecto in vincula, Evaristus successor designatus est, cui membranae tribuunt annos 13, menses 7, dies 2, usque ad Gallum et Braduam, consules anni nostri 108, ut omnino coeperit ex anno illo jam dicto 95. Quia vero Clemens jam decrepitus obierat anno, sicut diximus, nostro 100, die 23 Novembris; neque mors ejus ex Ponto Romam perferri potuit, nisi post dies saltem triginta, hinc factum est ut abinde, numerato altero velut initio, Evaristus sedisse scribatur annos 7, menses 10, dies 2, usque ad diem vicesimam sextam Octobris anni 108, utque in Graecis legamus, post electionem Evaristi pontificis, successisse Alexandrum anno 12 Trajani.
Meanwhile, however, whether Anacletus had already been killed or had been thrown into chains, Evaristus was designated successor, to whom the parchments assign 13 years, 7 months, 2 days, down to Gallus and Bradua, the consuls of our year 108, so that he certainly began from that year 95 already named. But because Clement, now worn out with age, had died, as we have said, in our year 100, on the 23rd day of November, and his death could not be reported from Pontus to Rome until after at least thirty days, hence it has come about that from then on, a second beginning as it were being counted, Evaristus is written to have sat 7 years, 10 months, 2 days, down to the twenty-sixth day of October of the year 108, and that we read in the Greek writers that, after the election of the pontiff Evaristus, Alexander succeeded in the 12th year of Trajan.
Alexander ergo sedere coepit ex anno 108 jam dicto, seditque annos 10, menses 5, dies 21. Conjectus in carcerem anno nostro 116, octavo sui pontificatus, Aeliano et Vetere consulibus, vivente adhuc Trajano, ut habent Acta; in quo carcere duos annos egit, usque ad tertium Adriani, nostrum
Alexander therefore began to sit from the year 108 already named, and sat 10 years, 5 months, 21 days. He was thrown into prison in our year 116, the eighth of his pontificate, in the consulship of Aelianus and Vetus, Trajan being still alive, as the Acts have it; in which prison he spent two years, down to the third of Hadrian, our
Editors' notes and page, col. 65
Footnotes
(30) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call above the part of the page shown
Intellige secundam.
Understand: the second.
(printed under page 32)
Page
- running head: 65 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 66
- marginal letters: A ‹conclusam: Secedo, abeo, bene stabiliatur populus›; B ‹diebus 15. Ergo ex die undecima Maii, quae tunc›; C ‹ctum innuit; suum ipsius certamen ante annos oc-›; D ‹Evaristi pontificis, successisse Alexandrum anno›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout (Vendelinus, Divinatio). Last word 'nostrum' split across cols 65/66, completed from col 66 (seen in the image). No foot note is called in this column. Foot notes printed full width at the page foot (for the notes layer; all three are called in col 66): 30 'Intellige secundam.' 31 'Haec legas sect. XI.' 32 'Quae Clementi Alexandrino, Strom. lib. V, p. 786, ἡ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ῥωμαίων ἐπιστολή.'
119, Adriano III et Rustico consulibus, quando ad diem tertiam Maii occisus est, et vacavit sedes diebus 25, usque ad vicesimam nonam Maii Dominicam, qua successit Xystus. Post quem anno 128 Telesphorus, 138 Hyginus, 142 Pius, sub quo Marcion haereticus exortus est, annis 115 post duos geminos consules, hoc est, anno nostro 143, docente hoc Tertulliano.
119, in the consulship of Hadrian for the IIIrd time and of Rusticus, when on the third day of May he was killed, and the see was vacant 25 days, until Sunday the twenty-ninth of May, on which Xystus succeeded. After him in the year 128 Telesphorus, in 138 Hyginus, in 142 Pius, under whom the heretic Marcion arose, 115 years after the two Gemini consuls, that is, in our year 143, as Tertullian teaches.
Sic ergo specimine saltem praebito restituendae, quod pollicebar, chronologiae pontificiae, intellectoque tempore, quo episcopatum gessit Clemens, quoque post abdicatum pontificatum tandem occisus est, videamus nunc et de vero epistolarum illius tempore, istius maxime quam nunc damus. Nam illa praeclara omnibusque antiquis Patribus laudata, et in Ecclesiis, instar apostolicarum, recitari, solita, quae data est sub persona non abdicati Clementis, sed potius Romanae Ecclesiae (post Anacletum sine episcopo degentis scilicet) ad Ecclesiam Corinthiam, satis jam suam occasionem annumque indicavit, nostrum 95, fervente persecutione Domitiani quam maxime, perscripta; eodem admodum stylo, quo idem Romanus clerus ad Cyprianum utitur. At character nostrae hujus homiliae similior, quam epistolae, et ab altero diversissimus, privatum scriptorem arguit. Tempus quoque insinuat pacatissimum, nullis in Ecclesiam procellis turbidum; tantoque magis ad charitatem mutuam fovendamque pacem hortatoriam⟨.⟩ Ad quam obtinendam non oporteat inveniri hominem qui eam largiatur, sed Deum scilicet. Quibus verbis vel ego fallor, vel innuitur Vespasianus imperator, qui anno nostro 75, sexto suo consulatu, templum Pacis Aeternae omnium toto orbe pulcherrimum dedicavit; semet existimans illum principem pacis, patrem futuri saeculi praenuntiati apud Isaiam, cujus imperii non foret finis. Non hunc ergo mortalem hominem, sed Deum inveniri debere monet Clemens, qui aeternam pacem suis largiturus sit. Tanto ergo Epistola haec prior illa, quae post 20 demum annos missa fuit Corinthum. Idque subindicat apud Eusebium, lib. IV, cap. 23, Dionysius Corinthiorum episcopus, in epistola dicata Soteri papae circa annum nostrum 167, in qua Romanos alloquitur, his verbis: Hodie Dominicam sacram diem peregimus, in qua legimus vestram epistolam, quam semper ad nostram instructionem legemus, sicut et priorem nobis a Clemente scriptam. De quibus verbis quod volui conficio, Clementis ipsius esse hanc epistolam; illam vero alteram, non tam decrepiti Clementis, quam etiam Romani cleri.
A specimen at least having thus been offered of the pontifical chronology that is to be restored, as I was promising, and the time being understood at which Clement held the episcopate, and at which, after the pontificate had been resigned, he was at length killed, let us now look also at the true date of his epistles, and most of all of this one which we now give. For that illustrious one, praised by all the ancient Fathers, and accustomed to be read in the Churches after the manner of the apostolic epistles, which was issued in the person not of Clement, who had resigned, but rather of the Roman Church (living, that is, without a bishop after Anacletus) to the Corinthian Church, has already sufficiently indicated its own occasion and year, our 95, having been written out when the persecution of Domitian was raging at its height; in just the same style as the same Roman clergy uses to Cyprian. But the character of this one of ours, more like a homily than an epistle, and most unlike the other, points to a private writer. It also suggests a most peaceful time, troubled by no storms against the Church; and all the more one exhorting to mutual charity and to the fostering of peace. For obtaining which there ought not to be found a man to bestow it, but God, that is. By which words either I am mistaken, or the emperor Vespasian is hinted at, who in our year 75, in his sixth consulship, dedicated the temple of Eternal Peace, the most beautiful of all in the whole world; reckoning himself that prince of peace, the father of the age to come foretold in Isaiah, of whose rule there should be no end. Clement therefore warns that not this mortal man, but God must be found, Who is to bestow eternal peace on His own. By so much, therefore, is this Epistle earlier than that one, which was sent to Corinth only 20 years later. And this is hinted in Eusebius, book IV, chapter 23, by Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, in an epistle addressed to Pope Soter about our year 167, in which he addresses the Romans in these words: Today we have passed the Lord's sacred day, on which we read your epistle, which we shall always read for our instruction, as also the former one written to us by Clement. From which words I draw what I wished, that this epistle is Clement's own; but that other one not so much the aged Clement's as rather the Roman clergy's.
Editors' notes and page, col. 66
Footnotes
(31) ‹anchor: inveniri hominem› · call in col 66
Haec legas sect. xi.
You may read these words in section 11.
(printed under page 32)
(32) ‹anchor: legimus vestram› · call in col 66
Quae Clementi Alexandrino, Strom. lib. v, p. 786, ἡ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ῥωμαίων ἐπιστολή.
Which to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 5, p. 786, is "the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians".
(printed under page 32)
Page
- running head: 65 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 66
- marginal letters: A ‹strum 119, Adriano III et Rustico consulibus,›; B ‹laudata, et in Ecclesiis, instar apostolicarum, re-›; C ‹obtinendam non oporteat inveniri hominem qui›; D ‹quitur, his verbis: Hodie Dominicam sacram diem›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout; Vendelinus's Divinatio ends at the foot of this column (a rule follows). The column opens with 'strum', completing 'nostrum', set whole in col 65; this file begins at '119'. After 'hortatoriam' the stop has dropped out (visible gap), set ⟨.⟩. 'occi sus' and 'il lius' have lost their line-end hyphens; set whole. Foot note calls removed: 30 after 'maxime', 31 after 'hominem', 32 after 'vestram'; the notes are recorded in col 65's comment. Ink blots over 'peregimus, in' and 'Ad quam'; readings not in doubt.
LECTORI.
TO THE READER.
Hactenus Vendelinus, cujus verba ex editione Pauli Colomesii descripsimus. Caeterum qui annos, quibus sedit Clemens, multo certius rescire avebit, is adeat oportet eruditissimas Dissertationes Joannis Pearsonii et Henrici Dodwelli, de successione primorum Romanae urbis episcoporum; qui viri totam chronologiam pontificiam feliciter illustrarunt, quamvis per omnia non consentiant.
Thus far Vendelinus, whose words we have copied out from the edition of Paul Colomiès. But whoever shall desire to learn much more surely the years in which Clement sat must go to the most learned Dissertations of John Pearson and Henry Dodwell, on the succession of the first bishops of the city of Rome; which men have happily illuminated the whole pontifical chronology, although they do not agree in everything.
Pearsonius vult Clementem sedisse ab anno 69 ad 83. Dodwellus vero ab anno 64, vel 65 ad 81. Hic etiam cap. 11 Diss. de success. pontificum Rom. contendit incertum esse, an epistola Clementis prior ab eo jam episcopo scripta sit; at certe non debuisse
Pearson holds that Clement sat from the year 69 to 83; Dodwell, however, from the year 64 or 65 to 81. The latter also, in chapter 11 of his Dissertation on the succession of the Roman pontiffs, contends that it is uncertain whether the former epistle of Clement was written by him when already bishop; but that certainly it ought not
J. B. COTELERII
OF J. B. COTELIER
JUDICIUM DE PRIORE EPISTOLA S. CLEMENTIS.
A JUDGEMENT ON THE FORMER EPISTLE OF ST CLEMENT.
Cum quaecunque de Epistola a B. Clemente, Romanae Ecclesiae nomine ad Corinthiorum Ecclesiam scripta, proferri potuissent, fere omnia partim ab antiquis tradita, partim a recentioribus occupata fuerint, vice praefationis, pauca duntaxat adnotabimus ad ea veterum testimonia, quae nonnihil scrupuli legentibus forte injicerent, nisi exponerentur; ac deinde quaeremus quando stylum acuerit Κλήμης, τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κλῆμα. Equidem ab Eusebio lib. III, cap. 16 et 38, epistola vocatur ὁμολογουμένη, ἀνωμολογημένη παρὰ πᾶσιν, ab omnibus uno consensu recepta. Ille tamen historicus lib. VI, cap. 13, refert Clementem Alexandrinum in libris Στρωματέων uti testimoniis Scripturarum a quibusdam repudiatarum, nempe Sapientiae Salomonis, Sapientiae Siracidis, Epistolae ad Hebraeos, Epistolarumque Barnabae, Clementis et Judae. Quo modo volumen ab omnibus admissum, a quibusdam rejicitur? Eam repugnantiam tolles, si dixeris cunctos quidem opus agnovisse pro genuino Pontificis foetu, sed non omnes habuisse pro scripto canonico: de primo, nullam motam antiquitus controversiam; de secundo, motam, aliis extra canonem ponentibus, quae sententia obtinuit, aliis intra, ut auctor Canonum apostolicorum, canone ultimo, proindeque forsan et qui eos canones in numero sacrarum Scripturarum collocat Joannes Damascenus, quique eosdem admittunt Trullani episcopi. Atque hujus postremae opinionis documentum praebet antiquissimus codex bibliorum manu Theclae exaratus, ex quo duae istae epistolae prodierunt; quandoquidem eas cum libris Novi Testamenti conjunctas exhibet. Neque vero quidquam causae est, cur alias quaspiam
Since almost everything that could have been brought forward concerning the Epistle written by blessed Clement, in the name of the Roman Church, to the Church of the Corinthians has been partly handed down by the ancients, partly anticipated by more recent writers, we shall, in place of a preface, note only a few things on those testimonies of the ancients which might perhaps cast some scruple into readers if they were not explained; and then we shall inquire when Clement, the vine-branch of Christ, sharpened his pen. By Eusebius indeed, book III, chapters 16 and 38, the epistle is called acknowledged, admitted by all, received by all with one consent. Yet that historian, in book VI, chapter 13, reports that Clement of Alexandria in the books of the Stromateis uses testimonies from Scriptures rejected by some, namely the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement and Jude. How is a volume admitted by all rejected by some? You will remove that contradiction if you say that all indeed acknowledged the work as the genuine offspring of the Pontiff, but that not all held it as a canonical writing: that on the first point no controversy was raised in antiquity; that on the second one was raised, some placing it outside the canon, which opinion prevailed, others within, as the author of the Apostolic Canons, in the last canon, and accordingly perhaps also John Damascene, who places those canons in the number of the sacred Scriptures, and the bishops in Trullo, who admit the same. And a proof of this last opinion is supplied by the very ancient codex of the Bible written out by the hand of Thecla, from which these two epistles have come forth; seeing that it presents them joined with the books of the New Testament. Nor indeed is there any reason why you should suspect any other
Editors' notes and page, col. 67
Page
- running head: 67 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 68
- marginal letters: A ‹Hactenus Vendelinus, cujus verba ex editione›; B ‹Cum quaecunque de Epistola a B. Clemente, Ro-›; C ‹tiae Siracidis, Epistolae ad Hebraeos, Epistolarumque›; D ‹simus codex bibliorum manu Theclae exaratus, ex›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout. The page is in two blocks, each under a caption printed across both columns: LECTORI. (the Migne editors' note on Vendelinus; upper block runs col 67 top -> col 68 top and ends there), then J. B. COTELERII / JUDICIUM DE PRIORE EPISTOLA S. CLEMENTIS. (lower block). Both captions are set once, here; in strict reading order the second caption follows col 68's upper block. 'debuisse' (upper block) and 'quaspiam' (lower block) are split across cols 67/68 and completed from col 68 (seen in the images). No foot notes on this page.
episcopi nomine scribi, quamvis episcopum jam Clementem fuisse testari videantur Hegesippus atque Irenaeus. Digna sunt lectu quae hanc in rem habet, sed prolixiora, quam quae huc transferantur. Idem in Dissertationum Irenaicarum prima, § 28, suspicatur non immerito, alteram, quae dicitur, Clementis epistolam, esse potius διδαχὴν ejus seu ejus doctrinam, ab alio scriptis mandatam, atque ex ejus concionantis ore exceptam, vel ex auditorum ab eo memoria exaratam. Eum, Lector, adito, quo rebus ecclesiasticis antiquissimi aevi nemo facem hactenus intulit fulgentiorem.
to have been written in the name of a bishop, although Hegesippus and Irenaeus seem to testify that Clement was already bishop. What he has on this matter is worth reading, but too lengthy to be transferred hither. The same writer, in the first of the Irenaean Dissertations, § 28, suspects not without reason that the second epistle of Clement, as it is called, is rather his teaching or his doctrine, committed to writing by another, and taken down from his mouth as he preached, or written out from the memory of those who heard him. Go to him, Reader, than whom no one has hitherto brought a brighter torch to the ecclesiastical affairs of the most ancient age.
suspiceris apostolorum Canonis Clementinas epistolas; quae apud Graecos aut nullae fuerunt, aut non seorsum lectae, sed initio Recognitionum, Actuum Petri, Clementinorum, similisque farinae apocryphorum.
epistles to be the Clementine epistles of the Canon of the apostles; for others among the Greeks either did not exist at all, or were not read separately, but at the beginning of the Recognitions, the Acts of Peter, the Clementines, and apocrypha of like grain.
Ad ejusdem Eusebii observationem, imitatum esse Clementem Epistolam ad Hebraeos, addi potest consimilis, de imitatione aliorum Novi Testamenti librorum, praesertimque Epistolarum ad Corinthios et Epistolarum Petri: utriusque enim apostoli erat discipulus. Nec mirum, quod Dominicae ac apostolicae sententiae et dictiones in ore fuerint hominum apostolicorum, atque in usu primorum Christianorum.
To the observation of the same Eusebius, that Clement imitated the Epistle to the Hebrews, a like one can be added, concerning his imitation of other books of the New Testament, and especially of the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistles of Peter: for he was a disciple of both apostles. Nor is it surprising that the sayings and expressions of the Lord and of the apostles were on the lips of apostolic men, and in use among the first Christians.
Photius Bibliothecae codice CXXVI videtur scripsisse: Αἰτιάσοιτο δ' ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἐν τούτοις, non autem ἐν ταύταις. Reprehenderit vero eum quispiam in his.
Photius, in codex CXXVI of the Bibliotheca, seems to have written: But one might find fault with him in these things [ἐν τούτοις], and not ἐν ταύταις. Someone, however, might blame him in these things.
In Libro pontificali, ubi de Clementis vita, necnon in ejus Operis exscriptoribus, memorantur duae Clementis epistolae, eaeque canonicae et catholicae. Quod ita acceptum ab auctore libri De gestis Romanorum pontificum, credito Luitprando, quasi ageretur de duabus primis Clementis Decretalibus ad Jacobum. Gravi, ut equidem sentio, errore. Nam si Decretales in animo habuisset scriptor Pontificalis libri, non solum duas dixisset, verum quinque. Quemadmodum βιογράφος ille, qui mira supinitate, postquam de duabus epistolis catholicis a Clemente ad Jacobum datis retulit, subjungit quaenam contineantur in illis duabus, et in reliquis tribus. Adde quod in Pontificali opere sejungi videtur epistola ad Jacobum a duabus canonicis epistolis. Hic fecit duas epistolas, quae canonicae nominantur. Et infra:
In the Liber pontificalis, where it treats of the life of Clement, and likewise in those who have copied from that Work, two epistles of Clement are mentioned, and these canonical and catholic. This was so taken by the author of the book On the deeds of the Roman pontiffs, believed to be Liutprand, as though the matter concerned the first two Decretals of Clement to James. By a grave error, as I for my part think. For if the writer of the Pontifical book had had the Decretals in mind, he would have said not only two, but five. Just as that biographer does who, with wonderful carelessness, after he has reported on two catholic epistles given by Clement to James, subjoins what is contained in those two, and in the remaining three. Add that in the Pontifical work the epistle to James seems to be separated from the two canonical epistles. He composed two epistles, which are named canonical. And below:
Editors' notes and page, col. 68
Page
- running head: 67 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 68
- marginal letters: A ‹buisse episcopi nomine scribi, quamvis episcopum›; B ‹piam suspiceris apostolorum Canonis Clementinas›; C ‹Αἰτιάσοιτο δ' ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἐν τούτοις, non autem ἐν›; D ‹neantur in illis duabus, et in reliquis tribus. Adde›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout. Upper block: end of the note LECTORI. (opens with 'buisse', completing 'debuisse', set whole in col 67; this file begins at 'episcopi'). Lower block: Cotelier's Judicium continued (opens with 'piam', completing 'quaspiam', set whole in col 67; this file begins at 'suspiceris'). Both full-width captions are set in col 67. UNSURE: the smooth breathing on the capital of Αἰτιάσοιτο is not clearly visible in the scan; set as intended. In the Photius sentence the bracketed Greek in the English marks which of the two readings is being rendered. No foot notes on this page.
Tamen in Epistola, quae ad Jacobum scripta est.
Yet in the Epistle which was written to James.
Circa tempus quo Romani litteras ad Corinthios dederunt, non una est criticorum opinio. Alii assignant finem Neronis, aut certe eos annos qui Vespasiani imperium excidiumque Hierosolymitanum antecesserunt. Hos refellit epistola, tum cap. 47, cum velut antiquae meminit Corinthiorum primae dissensionis, sub Apollo excitatae, qui teste Hieronymo circa finem Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Titum, Corinthi fuit episcopus; tum Corinthiacam Ecclesiam, veterem appellat: dumque cap. 1, 5 et 6 subindicat persecutionem aliam ab illa prima Neronis. Post Neronem autem Domitianus primus Christianos persecutus est, jam eversa Hierosolyma. Sed Clemens, inquiunt viri doctissimi, meminit, cap. 41, oblationum in templo. Quidni meminisset? cum nunc quoque, tot elapsis saeculis, par mentio idemque sermo haberi queat; quemadmodum legenti patebit. Alii suspicantur a Clemente exsule factas litteras, sub finem vitae: quia cap. 5 dicit Paulum in finibus Occidentis passum esse, nec urbis Romae facit commemorationem; et quia in initio calamitates adversitatesque suas proponit. Verum quis credat Romanis aditam Chersonesum, ut ad Corinthios scriberent?
About the time at which the Romans sent their letter to the Corinthians, the opinion of the critics is not one. Some assign the end of Nero, or at any rate those years which preceded the reign of Vespasian and the destruction of Jerusalem. These the epistle refutes, both in chapter 47, when it mentions as something ancient the first dissension of the Corinthians, stirred up under Apollos, who, as Jerome testifies about the end of his Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, was bishop of Corinth; and when it calls the Corinthian Church ancient; and while in chapters 1, 5 and 6 it hints at a persecution other than that first one of Nero. Now after Nero, Domitian was the first to persecute the Christians, when Jerusalem had already been overthrown. But Clement, say very learned men, mentions in chapter 41 the offerings in the temple. Why should he not have mentioned them? since even now, so many centuries having passed, a like mention and the same language can be used; as will be plain to one who reads. Others suspect that the letter was composed by Clement in exile, towards the end of his life: because in chapter 5 he says that Paul suffered in the bounds of the West, and makes no mention of the city of Rome; and because at the beginning he sets forth his own calamities and adversities. But who would believe that the Romans went to the Chersonese in order to write to the Corinthians?
Exstat de hac Epistola judicium magni critici Eusebii, Historiae ecclesiasticae lib. III, cap. 38, hisce verbis expressum: Ἰστέον δ' ὡς καὶ δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολή· οὐ μὲν ἔθ' ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα, ὅτι μηδὲ τοὺς ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ κεχρημένους ἴσμεν. Quae a Rufino, uti solet indiligenter redduntur sic: Dicitur tamen esse et alia Clementis epistola, cujus nos notitiam non accepimus. Nec magis accurate Hieronymus, libro De viris illustribus: Fertur et secunda esse ex ejus nomine epistola, quae a veteribus reprobatur. Et Photius Μυριοβίβλου cod. 112, 113, ἡ δὲ λεγομένη δευτέρα πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοὺς, ὡς νόθος ἀποδοκιμάζεται. Neque enim dicit Eusebius secundam Clementis epistolam notham esse, et ab antiquis reprobatam; dicit solummodo ignoratam fuisse, in citationibus a veteribus praetermissam, in dubium vocatam; unde eodem loci et alibi priorem nuncupat ὁμολογουμένην, ἀνωμολογημένην παρὰ πᾶσιν. Itaque rectius in Nicephoro lib. III, c. 18 habetur: Καὶ ἄλλη δὲ αὐτοῦ φέρεται ἐπιστολὴ, τῆς προτέρας κατὰ πολὺ ἀποδέουσα· περὶ ἧς ὁ αὐτός φησιν Εὐσέβιος, μὴ ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ ταύτης τοὺς ἀρχαίους εἶναι. Maximus in Prologo ad Dionysii opera, agens de Eusebio, καὶ μὴν οὔτε Πανταίνου τοὺς πόνους ἀνέγραψεν
There is extant concerning this Epistle the judgement of the great critic Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter 38, expressed in these words: It should be known that there is also said to be a certain second epistle of Clement; yet we do not know this one too to be recognized in the same way as the former, since we do not know that the ancients made use of it either. Which words are rendered by Rufinus, carelessly as is his wont, thus: Yet there is said to be another epistle of Clement also, of which we have received no knowledge. Nor more accurately Jerome, in the book On illustrious men: There is reported to be also a second epistle under his name, which is rejected by the ancients. And Photius, Myriobiblon, codices 112, 113: but the so-called second to the same people is rejected as spurious. For Eusebius does not say that the second epistle of Clement is spurious and rejected by the ancients; he says only that it was unknown, passed over in citations by the ancients, called into doubt; whence in the same place and elsewhere he terms the former acknowledged, admitted by all. And so it stands more correctly in Nicephorus, book III, chapter 18: And another epistle of his also is in circulation, falling far short of the former; concerning which the same Eusebius says that the ancients were not in knowledge of it. Maximus, in the Prologue to the works of Dionysius, treating of Eusebius: and indeed he recorded neither the labours of Pantaenus
Editors' notes and page, col. 69
Page
- running head: 69 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 70
- marginal letters: A ‹Tamen in Epistola, quae ad Jacobum scripta est.›; B ‹doctissimi, meminit, cap. 41, oblationum in tem-›; C ‹Exstat de hac Epistola judicium magni critici Eu-›; D ‹quis reprobatam; dicit solummodo ignoratam fuis-›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout (Cotelier). The page is in two blocks: the upper block ends Cotelier's Judicium de priore Epistola (col 69 top -> col 70 top); then the caption J. B. COTELERII / JUDICIUM DE POSTERIORE EPISTOLA S. CLEMENTIS., printed across both columns, is set once in col 70's file, where it falls in reading order after the upper block's end; the lower block (from 'Exstat') is the new piece. NB for the parser: in this file the paragraph 'Exstat ...' therefore stands BEFORE its caption, which is in c70. The first line 'Tamen ... scripta est.' closes the Liber pontificalis quotation begun at the foot of col 68 and is printed as its own line. UNSURE: 'οὐ μὲν ἔθ'' is read as printed (Eusebius's text has μὴν). 'de hac' has an ink blot over 'de'. Last word ἀνέγραψεν split across cols 69/70, completed from col 70 (seen in the image). No foot notes on this page.
Et vero eum qui nomine Ecclesiae Romanae scribebat, illa eloqui decuit quae Urbi, non quae sibi convenirent, ut certe Urbi conveniunt. Unde evanescit quidquid objicitur. Alii epistolam missam volunt anno Domini 95, fervente persecutione Domitiani. Rectius tamen quam fervens, desinens notaretur persecutio, quam nimirum innuit epistolae principium, quaeque aptior fuit ad destinandos cum litteris quinque legatos, nominatos in fine epistolae.
And indeed it befitted him who was writing in the name of the Roman Church to utter those things which suited the City, not those which suited himself, as they certainly do suit the City. Whence whatever is objected vanishes. Others hold that the epistle was sent in the year of the Lord 95, when the persecution of Domitian was raging. More correctly, however, than a raging persecution a ceasing one would be marked, which is evidently what the beginning of the epistle hints at, and which was more suitable for dispatching with the letter the five envoys named at the end of the epistle.
Caeterum spes Patricii Junii de Hieronymiana Clementinae epistolae interpretatione, mihi pertenuis aut nulla est, librariorum dolos consideranti, et quo pacto, ut vendibiliorem mercem haberent, odiosum Rufini nomen e principio ac fine interpretationis Explanationum Origenis in Epistolam ad Romanos sustulerint (quod tamen retinet codex Thuanae bibliothecae) ac favorabile Hieronymi intruserint. Quocirca suspicio tenet me, idem scelus hic perpetratum, ac versionem Clementinae epistolae ad Jacobum a Rufino factam, Hieronymi titulo fuisse honestatam.
For the rest, the hope of Patricius Junius concerning a translation by Jerome of the Clementine epistle is to me very slender or none, when I consider the tricks of the copyists, and how, in order to have more saleable wares, they removed the odious name of Rufinus from the beginning and end of the translation of Origen's Expositions on the Epistle to the Romans (which the codex of the de Thou library nevertheless retains) and thrust in the well-liked name of Jerome. Wherefore the suspicion holds me that the same crime was committed here, and that the version of the Clementine epistle to James made by Rufinus was dignified with the title of Jerome.
Denique monendus es, Lector, uncis per totum opus inspersis includi ea quae in ms. deleta aut amissa, per conjecturam suppleta, in editione Anglicana miniatis litteris impressa sunt.
Lastly you are to be advised, Reader, that within the brackets scattered through the whole work are enclosed those things which, erased or lost in the manuscript and supplied by conjecture, were printed in the English edition in red letters.
J. B. COTELERII
OF J. B. COTELIER
JUDICIUM DE POSTERIORE EPISTOLA S. CLEMENTIS.
A JUDGEMENT ON THE LATTER EPISTLE OF ST CLEMENT.
οὔτε τοῦ Ῥωμαίου Κλήμεντος, πλὴν δύο καὶ μόνων ἐπιστολῶν. Et vero quemadmodum Caesariensi episcopo credimus, dubitatum fuisse de auctore nostrae epistolae; quemadmodum non possumus nunc, post deperditos tot primorum Patrum libros, memoriam illius accusare, quae tamen non semper fida exstitit; ita negamus inde consequi, pro pseudepigrapha necessario habendam epistolam: cum fieri quiverit, ut opus genuinum in controversiam venerit, et a primis Ecclesiae scriptoribus non fuerit celebratum. Certe ea dubitatio, ea omissio, non deterruerunt auctorem Canonum apostolicorum, can. ult., Epiphanium haeresi 37, c. 6, haeresi 30, c. 15, et eum qui Librum pontificalem composuit, quo minus de Clementinis epistolis, perinde ac nihil intercederet inter illas discriminis, loquerentur. Mitto enim Niconem, de quo ad superioris Epistolae caput 14. Imo quod admodum mirere, id ab ipsis Hieronymo ac Photio designatum, quando suam non Eusebii proponunt opinionem; ille in volumine 1 adversus Jovinianum cap. 7, hic in Myriobibli cap. 126. Quinetiam utramque inter sacrae Scripturae libros collocasse videntur Ecclesiae illae, quae canonibus apostolicis regebantur, quique eos canones in Novi Testamenti voluminibus recenset Joannes
nor those of Clement the Roman, except two epistles only. And indeed, just as we believe the bishop of Caesarea that there was doubt about the author of our epistle; just as we cannot now, after the loss of so many books of the first Fathers, accuse his memory, which nevertheless did not always prove trustworthy; so we deny that it follows from this that the epistle must necessarily be held pseudepigraphal: since it could have happened that a genuine work came into controversy, and was not made much of by the first writers of the Church. Certainly that doubt, that omission, did not deter the author of the Apostolic Canons, in the last canon, Epiphanius in heresy 37, chapter 6, and heresy 30, chapter 15, and him who composed the Liber pontificalis, from speaking of the Clementine epistles just as though no difference lay between them. For I pass over Nicon, on whom see at chapter 14 of the preceding Epistle. Nay, what you may greatly wonder at, this was indicated by Jerome and Photius themselves, when they set forth their own opinion and not that of Eusebius; the former in volume 1 against Jovinian, chapter 7, the latter in chapter 126 of the Myriobiblon. Moreover those Churches which were governed by the apostolic canons seem to have placed both among the books of sacred Scripture, as does he who reckons those canons among the volumes of the New Testament, John
Editors' notes and page, col. 70
Page
- running head: 69 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 70
- marginal letters: A ‹Et vero eum qui nomine Ecclesiae Romanae scribe-›; B ‹manos sustulerint (quod tamen retinet codex Thu-›; C ‹γραψεν, οὔτε τοῦ Ῥωμαίου Κλήμεντος, πλὴν δύο καὶ›; D ‹tercederet inter illas discriminis, loquerentur. Mitto›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose throughout (Cotelier). Upper block: end of the Judicium de priore Epistola, continued from col 69's upper block. Then the full-width two-line caption, set once here (in reading order it follows this upper block; the new piece's first paragraph, 'Exstat ...', is in col 69's file). Lower block: opens with 'γραψεν,' completing ἀνέγραψεν, set whole in col 69; this file begins at οὔτε. The last word is split at the column break ('Joan-'): only the visible part 'Joan' is set (col 71 not seen); the English gives 'John'. UNSURE: 'haeresi 37' is read as printed; the digit may be a 2 (Epiphanius on the Carpocratians is heresy 27), so the misprint line is tentative. Worn type in 'Mitto', 'Hieronymo', 'canones'; ink blots over 'quae sibi', 'fuisse', 'totum'; readings not in doubt. No foot notes on this page.
Damascenus lib. IV Orthodoxae fidei cap. 18, et quotquot Bibliorum codicibus utebantur similibus illi Theclae, e quo duae istae epistolae prodierunt. Accedit huc quod eaedem utrobique apparent antiquitatis notae, eadem interdum verba usurpantur; nec tantam diversitatem habet stylus, quin ab eodem scriptore variis temporibus diversisque pro causis oriri potuerit. Dionysius autem Corinthius scribens ad Romanos apud Eusebium lib. IV, c. 25, ideo unius tantum epistolae Clementis mentionem facit, quia loquitur de litteris Romanorum nomine datis ad Corinthios; at posterior Clementis, etsi, teste Photio, ad Corinthios quoque esset scripta, non tamen sicut prior, Ecclesiae Romanae nomen, sed Romani Pontificis praeferebat. Indicatur id appellatione, ἀδελφοί μου, quam in secunda non semel positam invenies, nusquam in priore.
Damascene, in book IV of the Orthodox Faith, chapter 18, and all who used codices of the Bible like that codex of Thecla from which these two epistles came forth. Added to this is the fact that the same marks of antiquity appear in both, that the same words are sometimes employed; nor does the style show so great a difference that it could not have arisen from the same writer at various times and for different occasions. Now Dionysius of Corinth, writing to the Romans, in Eusebius, book IV, chapter 25, makes mention of only one epistle of Clement for this reason, that he is speaking of the letter sent to the Corinthians in the name of the Romans; whereas Clement's later one, although, as Photius attests, it too was written to the Corinthians, nevertheless did not, like the earlier, bear in front the name of the Roman Church, but that of the Roman Pontiff. This is indicated by the form of address, "my brothers", which you will find set down more than once in the second, nowhere in the first.
Objicit Jacobus Usserius, dissertatione de scriptis Ignatii, etc., cap. 10 ad hunc modum: Epistola titulo Clementis ad Corinthios ornata, proferebat (quemadmodum ex Quaestionibus ad orthodoxos, Justino Martyri tributis, Resp. ad quaest. 74 intelligimus) carmina Sibyllina, quae Clementis temporibus posteriora fuerunt; unde colligitur eam citationem cum in priore Clementis epistola nusquam compareat, ad alteram referri debere, quae ejusdem nomine falso inscribatur. Infirmum plane argumentum. Audi verba pseudo-Justini: Εἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστάσεως τὸ τέλος ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κρίσις τῶν ἀσεβῶν, καθά φασιν αἱ γραφαὶ προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς Σιβύλλης, καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ, etc. Si praesentis rerum status finis est impiorum per ignem judicium, prout testantur prophetarum et apostolorum scripta, atque insuper Sibyllae ipsius, quemadmodum ait beatus Clemens in Epistola ad Corinthios, etc. Quae in Gallicam linguam ita vertit David Blondellus libro primo De Sibyllis, cap. 20, ac si legisset, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ. Sed erratum est properantis hominis, nimiumque memoria fidentis. Itaque cum pseudo-Justinus generatim de epistolis loquatur, neutra autem ad nos integra pervenerit, temere ab Usserio asseveratur res, quam nullo modo potuit rescire. Quinimo si divinationibus indulgere liceat, crediderim in primae epistolae lacuna ad c. 57 factam Sibyllae mentionem. Atque conjecturae fundum et auctorem do S. Irenaeum lib. III Adversus haereses, cap. 3, ubi hoc pacto disserit: Sub hoc igitur Clemente, dissensione non modica inter eos qui Corinthi essent fratres facta, scripsit quae est Romae Ecclesia potentissimas litteras Corinthiis, ad pacem eos congregans, et reparans fidem eorum, et annuntians (annuntians omittitur in Graeco apud Eusebium lib. V, cap. 6; et Nicephorum lib. IV, cap. 15, forte ob similitudinem participiorum ἀνανεοῦσα et ἀναγγέλλουσα. Nam Rufinus videtur hoc quoque in Eusebio legisse, dum interpretatur exprimens) quam in recenti ab apostolis receperant
James Ussher, in his dissertation on the writings of Ignatius, etc., chapter 10, objects in this manner: The epistle adorned with the title of Clement to the Corinthians used to cite (as we understand from the Questions to the Orthodox attributed to Justin Martyr, Answer to question 74) the Sibylline verses, which were later than the times of Clement; whence it is gathered that this citation, since it nowhere appears in Clement's earlier epistle, must be referred to the other, which is falsely inscribed with his name. A plainly feeble argument. Hear the words of pseudo-Justin: If the end of the present state is the judgement of the impious through fire, as the writings of both prophets and apostles say, and moreover also those of the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in the Epistle to the Corinthians, etc. If the end of the present state of things is the judgement of the impious by fire, as the writings of the prophets and apostles testify, and besides those of the Sibyl herself, as blessed Clement says in the Epistle to the Corinthians, etc. David Blondel, in the first book On the Sibyls, chapter 20, renders these words into the French tongue as though he had read, "in the first epistle to the Corinthians". But it is the error of a man in haste and trusting too much to memory. Therefore, since pseudo-Justin speaks of the epistles in general, and neither has come down to us entire, a thing is rashly asserted by Ussher which he could in no way have ascertained. Nay rather, if one may indulge in divinations, I should believe that the mention of the Sibyl was made in the lacuna of the first epistle at chapter 57. And as the ground and author of the conjecture I give St Irenaeus, book III Against Heresies, chapter 3, where he discourses in this fashion: Under this Clement, therefore, when no small dissension had arisen among those brothers who were at Corinth, the Church which is at Rome wrote a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, gathering them together to peace, and restoring their faith, and announcing (announcing is omitted in the Greek in Eusebius, book V, chapter 6, and Nicephorus, book IV, chapter 15, perhaps on account of the likeness of the participles "renewing" and "announcing". For Rufinus seems to have read this too in Eusebius, since he translates it expressing) which they had recently received from the apostles
Editors' notes and page, col. 71
Page
- running head: 71 AD S. CLEMENTEM I (remainder of the head lies over the facing column, outside this crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹nes Damascenus lib. IV›; B ‹pellatione, ἀδελφοί μου›; C ‹φητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων›; D ‹nullo modo potuit rescire›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-word (‹nes›, the end of a name split from col. 70); the tail is NOT set here (the file begins at ‹Damascenus›), because a word split at the column break is set whole at the end of the earlier column, so col. 70's file must carry the name whole (Q4: not checked from here, neighbouring column). Last word split at the break ‹re-|ceperant›, completed from the top of col. 72 visible at the right edge of the top image (final letter t taken on trust). UNSURE: ‹c. 25› after Eusebium lib. IV may be printed 23 (digit unclear at this resolution; Q4: re-read, still not decidable between 3 and 5, left as set). The ‹a› of ‹at posterior› and of ‹liceat› is printed with damaged/turned type, read as a. Whole column is editors' prose (Cotelier's judgment on the Clementine epistles), set as this unit's text.
(ex Eusebio, Rufino, Nicephoro, atque ex sensu scribendum receperat) traditionem, annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, plasmatorem hominis; qui induxerit cataclysmum, et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Aegypti, qui collocutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et prophetas miserit, qui ignem praeparaverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Brevem enumerationem capitum, in hac Ecclesiae Romanae epistola contentorum, sanctus martyr instituit. Ea autem omnia adhuc legere est, excepto ultimo, quod dubio procul lacuna illa circa finem interjecta complectebatur. Quis porro non videt, ubi ignis diabolo et angelis ejus praeparatus memorabatur, ibi commode potuisse agi de mundi fine, ac de impiorum per ignem judicio tunc futuro; ideoque et Sibyllae mentio fieri?
(from Eusebius, Rufinus, Nicephorus, and from the sense, one should write "it had received") tradition, announcing one God almighty, maker of heaven and earth, fashioner of man; Who brought on the flood, and called Abraham, Who led the people out of the land of Egypt, Who spoke with Moses, Who ordained the law, and sent the prophets, Who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. The holy martyr sets out a brief enumeration of the heads contained in this epistle of the Roman Church. Now all of these may still be read, except the last, which beyond doubt that lacuna interposed near the end used to contain. Who, moreover, does not see that, where the fire prepared for the devil and his angels was being mentioned, there the end of the world, and the judgement of the impious by fire then to come, could fittingly have been treated; and therefore mention made of the Sibyl as well?
Ait tamen vir perdoctus non licuisse per tempora Clementi ex Sibyllinis carminibus, utpote ipso posterioribus, testimonium petere. Hoc probandum erat, non modo dicendum: quod si constaret, requirerem praedictarum Quaestionum codices mss. num pro καθώς haberent καὶ ὡς aut καὶ καθώς. Verum super Sibyllinis versibus exploratum non habetur, quando coeperint apud Christianos evulgari. Sub apostolis rem contigisse persuaderet, quod a multis refertur, Clementem Alexandrinum in VI Stromateo (p. 636) recitare verba Pauli apostoli, Graecos seu gentiles ad Sibyllae oracula amandantis; nisi aut Clemens fabulam a quodam apocrypho sumpsisse dici posset; aut potius illius sensum viderentur non attigisse homines docti; quae quidem mea est opinio. Eo quippe loci postquam ex Petri praedicatione, libro extra canonem posito, affirmavit ὁ Στρωματεὺς, Graecis, ut Deum colerent et gloria afficerent, concessam fuisse philosophiam, quemadmodum eamdem ob causam utrumque Testamentum Judaeis et Christianis; ista paulo obscuriora subjicit: Ἐπεὶ ὅτι καθάπερ Ἰουδαίους σώζεσθαι ἐβούλετο ὁ Θεὸς, τοὺς προφήτας διδοὺς, οὕτως καὶ Ἑλλήνων τοὺς δοκιμωτάτους, οἰκείους αὐτῶν τῇ διαλέκτῳ προφήτας ἀναστήσας, ὡς οἷοί τε ἦσαν δέχεσθαι τὴν παρὰ Θεοῦ εὐεργεσίαν, τῶν χυδαίων ἀνθρώπων διέκρινεν, δηλώσει πρὸς τῷ Πέτρου κηρύγματι, ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγων Παῦλος. Λάβετε καὶ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς βίβλους, ἐπίγνωτε Σίβυλλαν, ὡς δηλοῖ ἕνα Θεὸν καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἔσεσθαι· καὶ τὸν Ὑστάσπην λαβόντες ἀνάγνωτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε πολλῷ τηλαυγέστερον καὶ σαφέστερον γεγραμμένον τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ καθὼς παράταξιν ποιήσουσι τῷ Χριστῷ πολλοὶ βασιλεῖς μισοῦντες αὐτὸν, καὶ τοὺς φοροῦντας τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοὺς πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν ὑπομονὴν, καὶ τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ. Εἶτα ἑνὶ λόγῳ πυνθάνεται ἡμῶν· Ὅλος δὲ ὁ κόσμος καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, τίνος; οὐχὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ; Quae verba sic accipiunt, quasi λάβετε, etc., sit Apostoli exhortatio. At ego illa, ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγων Παῦλος, non refero ad consequentia λάβετε, etc., sed ad praecedentia, οἰκείους αὐτῶν τῇ διαλέκτῳ προφήτας, seu ad versiculum 12 capitis I Epistolae ad Titum, εἶπέ
Yet the very learned man says that the times did not allow Clement to seek a testimony from the Sibylline verses, as being later than himself. This had to be proved, not merely said: and if it were established, I should inquire of the manuscript codices of the aforesaid Questions whether in place of "as" they had "and as" or "and just as". But concerning the Sibylline verses it is not held as ascertained when they began to be published among Christians. That the thing happened under the apostles one might be persuaded by what is reported by many, that Clement of Alexandria in the VIth Stromateus (p. 636) recites words of the apostle Paul sending the Greeks or gentiles off to the oracles of the Sibyl; unless either Clement could be said to have taken the tale from some apocryphal book; or rather learned men should seem not to have reached his meaning; which indeed is my opinion. For in that place, after the author of the Stromateis has affirmed from the Preaching of Peter, a book placed outside the canon, that philosophy was granted to the Greeks, that they might worship God and render Him glory, just as for the same reason both Testaments were granted to the Jews and the Christians, he subjoins these somewhat obscurer words: Since, that just as God willed the Jews to be saved, giving the prophets, so also the most approved of the Greeks, having raised up prophets proper to them in their own tongue, according as they were able to receive the beneficence that is from God, He distinguished from the common run of men, this, in addition to the Preaching of Peter, the apostle Paul will show, saying. Take also the Greek books, recognize the Sibyl, how she shows one God and the things that are to be; and taking Hystaspes, read, and you will find the Son of God written of far more luminously and more clearly, and how many kings will make array against the Christ, hating Him, and those who bear His name, and His faithful ones, and His patience, and His coming. Then in one word he asks us: And the whole world and the things in the world, whose are they? Are they not God's? These words they take thus, as though "take", etc., were the Apostle's exhortation. But I refer those words, "the apostle Paul saying", not to what follows, "take", etc., but to what precedes, "prophets proper to them in their own tongue", or to verse 12 of chapter I of the Epistle to Titus, said
Editors' notes and page, col. 72
Page
- running head: CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 72 (first part of the head lies over the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹ceperant ( ex Eusebio›; B ‹ignem judicio tunc futuro›; C ‹Clemens fabulam a quodam›; D ‹λέγων Παῦλος. Λάβετε›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first printed letters ‹ceperant› complete the word split at the break and are set whole at the end of col. 71; this file begins with the parenthesis after it. A small mark after ‹Στρωματεὺς,› (note call or blemish) is left out. A stain covers ‹καὶ τὰ› in ‹κόσμος καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ› and ‹verba sic› below it; both read through the stain, ‹καὶ› UNSURE. ‹eam|dem› is printed without a line-end hyphen and set as one word. Last word ‹εἶπέ› begins a Greek quotation continued in col. 73 (accent/breathing UNSURE). Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης; et λάβετε, etc., Clementis esse arbitror, non Pauli: tum quod in fine dicitur, εἶτα ἑνὶ λόγῳ, etc. Praedicationi Petri tribuo, cum cujus ultimo sermone paulo ante per Clementem laudato convenit optime. Quocirca verto: Quandoquidem quod sicut Judaeos Deus salvos esse voluit, dans eis prophetas, ita etiam Graecorum probatissimos, proprios suae linguae prophetas excitans, prout poterant capere Dei beneficentiam, a vilibus vulgaribusque hominibus secreverit, declarabit, praeter Petri praedicationem, qui hoc dicit apostolus Paulus. Libros quoque Graecos sumite; agnoscite Sibyllam, quo modo unum Deum manifestet, et ea quae futura sunt: sumptum etiam Hystaspem legite, et invenietis Dei Filium multo clarius apertiusque esse scriptum, utque multi reges adversus Christum aciem instruent, odio habentes tum illum, tum eos qui nomen ejus gestant, et ejus fideles, illiusque tolerantiam atque adventum. Deinde uno verbo (seu una ratione) nos interrogat: Totus autem mundus, et quae sunt in mundo, cujus sunt? Nonne Dei? Sic pulchre omnia sibi constant, aliter impeditiora. Adde quod vix in toto Clemente invenias aliquid apocryphi prolatum, nomine duntaxat, auctoris, non praemisso operis titulo, non adjecta dictione, quae quale sit scriptum declaret. Legatur tota Alexandrini disputatio; conferatur cum iis quae in Stromateo I edisserit de Graecorum sapientibus, praesertim pag. 299, ubi locum Epistolae ad Titum adducit: Confido fore ut mea non improbetur interpretatio. Nihil ergo adjuvamur hoc testimonio, ad investigandum quod quaerimus tempus.
a certain one of them, a prophet of their own; and "take", etc., I judge to be Clement's, not Paul's: while what is said at the end, "then in one word", etc., I assign to the Preaching of Peter, with whose last discourse, cited a little before by Clement, it agrees excellently. Wherefore I translate: Seeing that, as God willed the Jews to be saved, giving them prophets, so also He set apart the most approved of the Greeks from base and common men, raising up prophets proper to their own tongue, according as they were able to receive God's beneficence, this, besides the Preaching of Peter, the apostle Paul will declare, who says this. Take up the Greek books also; recognize the Sibyl, in what way she makes manifest one God and the things that are to be: take up Hystaspes too and read, and you will find the Son of God written of much more clearly and openly, and how many kings will draw up their battle line against Christ, holding in hatred both Him and those who bear His name, and His faithful, and His endurance and coming. Then in one word (or by one reasoning) he asks us: But the whole world, and the things that are in the world, whose are they? Are they not God's? Thus everything hangs together handsomely; otherwise it is more entangled. Add that in the whole of Clement you would scarcely find anything apocryphal brought forward with the bare name of the author, with no title of the work prefixed, with no phrase added to declare what kind of writing it is. Let the whole discussion of the Alexandrian be read; let it be compared with what he sets forth in Stromateus I concerning the wise men of the Greeks, especially page 299, where he adduces the passage of the Epistle to Titus: I trust that my interpretation will not be disapproved. We are therefore helped not at all by this testimony towards tracking down the time that we seek.
Jam vero si agatur de Sibyllinorum carminum sylloge qua hodie utimur, pro certo haberi debet, quod a multis evidenter fuit probatum, eam multo post apostolica tempora lucem vidisse. Nonnulli sane in ea versus leguntur, aetate posteriores scriptis Patrum Sibyllina oracula citantibus: quales hi duo:
Now indeed, if the question is of the collection of Sibylline verses which we use today, it must be held as certain, what has been plainly proved by many, that it saw the light long after apostolic times. Some verses, to be sure, are read in it that are later in age than the writings of the Fathers who cite the Sibylline oracles: such as these two:
Οὐκέτι γὰρ παρὰ σεῖο τὸ τῆς φιλοθρέμμονος ὕλης
For no longer beside you, of the fuel that loves to nourish,
Παρθενικαὶ κοῦραι πῦρ ἔνθεον εὑρήσουσιν,
Shall the virgin maidens find the divine fire,
in Ῥαψῳδίᾳ nostra lib. V post medium; sunt enim de incenso Vestae templo sub finem imperii Commodi, proindeque cum jam Justinus, Athenagoras, et Theophilus Antiochenus Sibyllina in testimonium pro fide Christiana advocassent. Ac Origeniani cujusdam manum redolet libri II finis, ad quem scholiastes Graecus sic adnotabat:
in our Rhapsody, book V, after the middle; for they concern the burning of the temple of Vesta towards the end of the reign of Commodus, and accordingly when Justin, Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch had already called the Sibylline verses in as testimony for the Christian faith. And the end of book II smacks of the hand of some Origenist, on which a Greek scholiast used to annotate thus:
Ψευδῆ προφανῶς· οὐδὲ γὰρ λήξει ποτέ
Manifestly false; for never shall it cease,
Τὸ πῦρ κολάζον τοὺς κατακεκριμένους.
The fire that punishes those who have been condemned.
Κἀγὼ γὰρ ἂν εὔξαιμι τοῦθ' οὕτως ἔχειν,
For I too would pray that this were so,
Οὐλαῖς μεγίσταις σφαλμάτων ἐστιγμένος,
Branded as I am with the greatest scars of transgressions,
Αἳ μείζονος χρῄζουσι φιλανθρωπίας.
Which stand in need of a greater loving-kindness.
Ἀλλ' αἰσχυνέσθω φληναφῶν Ὠριγένης,
But let Origen be ashamed of his babbling,
Πέρας γενέσθαι τῶν κολάσεων λέγων.
Saying that there comes an end of the punishments.
Recteque observat qui nostra aetate plurimos judicio superavit Gerardus Vossius De poetis Graecis cap. 1, non exstitisse temporibus Justini martyris, Tatiani, Clementis Alexandrini, Eusebii, aliorumque
And Gerard Vossius, who in our age has surpassed very many in judgement, rightly observes, On the Greek Poets, chapter 1, that in the times of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and others
Editors' notes and page, col. 73
Page
- running head: 73 PROOEMIA VARIOR (remainder of the head lies over the facing column, outside this crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος›; B ‹utque multi reges adversus›; C ‹improbetur interpretatio. Nihil›; D ‹Theophilus Antiochenus Sibyllina›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column opens mid-quotation (continuing ‹εἶπέ› from col. 72). Verse lines are set one to a line, the Latin sentence between the two groups of verses as its own paragraph (in print it runs on from the couplet without indent). A blot covers the comma in ‹illum, tum›; the ‹a› of ‹Origeniani› and of ‹adnotabat› is damaged type, read as a. Accent of ‹εὔξαιμι› UNSURE. Last word split at the break ‹aliorum-|que›, completed from the top of col. 74 visible at the right edge of the top image. Printer's signature ‹PATROL. GR. I.› at the foot left out. Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
multorum, versus Sibyllinae Collectionis lib. I, et lib. III de Sibylla Noe coaetanea; quandoquidem ex illorum Patrum professione, nulla e Sibyllis Mosem antiquitate superavit. Ex quibus intelligitur non unum poetam Sibyllam se esse finxisse, sed plures, diverso tempore, quorum versus disjectos, unum in corpus consarcinator incertus multo post denatos apostolos compegerit.
many, the verses of the Sibylline Collection, book I and book III, about a Sibyl contemporary with Noah did not exist; seeing that, by the avowal of those Fathers, none of the Sibyls surpassed Moses in antiquity. From which it is understood that not one poet feigned himself to be the Sibyl, but several, at different times, whose scattered verses an unknown patcher put together into one body long after the apostles had died.
Quod autem a pluribus existimatur, primo saeculo ac principio secundi Sibyllam a Christianis scriptoribus citari nequivisse, id vero ego inficior, rationibus adductus non paucis. Quoniam, scilicet, gratis ac sine fundamento illud asseritur. Deinde quia viventibus apostolis, ac Luca scribente Evangelium, multa apocrypha et pseudepigrapha otiosi temerariique homines edebant, inquit Origenes, homil. 1 in Lucam, eumque saepissime sequens Hieronymus, Prooemio Commentariorum super Matthaeum, nec non Titus, Ambrosius, Beda, Euthymius, Theophylactus, ad primum versum Evangelii Lucae: quidni et in illis quaedam Sibyllino nomine? Ad haec certum est ex Varrone, Cicerone, Tacito, Suetonio, Plutarcho, multa vana et supposititia inter paganos quasi Sibyllina fuisse circumlata, ante et statim post primordia nostrae religionis: hoc exemplo cur non idem evenerit apud nos? Adjice his testimonium Hermae lib I, vis. 2, cap. 4, quaeque ibi adnotabam de insigni isto loco Josephi Antiquit. Judaic., lib. I, cap. 5: Περὶ δὲ τοῦ πύργου τούτου καὶ τῆς ἀλλοφωνίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μέμνηται καὶ Σίβυλλα, λέγουσα οὕτως· Πάντων ὁμοφώνων ὄντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πύργον ᾠκοδόμησάν τινες ὑψηλότατον, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβησόμενοι δι' αὐτοῦ. Οἱ δὲ θεοὶ, ἀνέμους ἐπιπέμψαντες, ἀνέτρεψαν τὸν πύργον, καὶ ἰδίαν ἑκάστῳ φωνὴν ἔδωκαν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Βαβυλῶνα συνέβη κληθῆναι τὴν πόλιν· qui locus respondet his Sibyllinis lib. III, circa initium:
But as to what is thought by a good many, that in the first century and the beginning of the second the Sibyl could not have been cited by Christian writers, that indeed I deny, led by not a few reasons. Because, namely, it is asserted gratuitously and without foundation. Next, because while the apostles were living, and Luke was writing his Gospel, idle and rash men were putting out many apocryphal and pseudepigraphic works, says Origen, homily 1 on Luke, and Jerome, who very often follows him, in the Preface of his Commentaries on Matthew, as also Titus, Ambrose, Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, on the first verse of the Gospel of Luke: why not among them also certain things under the Sibylline name? Besides, it is certain from Varro, Cicero, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, that many empty and spurious things were carried about among the pagans as Sibylline, before and immediately after the first beginnings of our religion: with this example, why should the same not have happened among us? Add to these the testimony of Hermas, book I, vision 2, chapter 4, and what I noted there concerning that remarkable passage of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, book I, chapter 5: Now of this tower and of the diversity of speech of men the Sibyl also makes mention, speaking thus: When all men were of one speech, certain ones built a very lofty tower, as intending to go up to heaven by means of it. But the gods, sending winds upon it, overturned the tower, and gave to each a speech of his own; and for this reason it came about that the city was called Babylon; which passage answers to these Sibylline lines of book III, near the beginning:
Ἀλλ' ὁπόταν μεγάλοιο Θεοῦ πελάσωσιν ἀπειλαὶ, etc.
But when the threats of the great God draw near, etc.
Concludo nihil vetare quin vero Clementi laudata fuerit Sibylla, in re praesertim ethnicis non ignota, mundi videlicet fine, ac impiorum per ignem judicio: de qua consule praecipue Justinum Martyrem Apologetico II, p. 66, et Sibyllina nostra Oracula lib. II et III. Ac forsan Clemens exemplaria viderat antequam a Christianis (ut conqueritur Celsus apud Origenem lib. VII, contra eum) fuissent interjectis pluribus interpolata.
I conclude that nothing forbids the Sibyl's having been cited by the true Clement, especially in a matter not unknown to the heathen, namely the end of the world and the judgement of the impious by fire: on which consult especially Justin Martyr, Apologeticus II, p. 66, and our Sibylline Oracles, books II and III. And perhaps Clement had seen copies before they had been interpolated by the Christians (as Celsus complains in Origen, book VII against him) with many things inserted.
Caeterum videtur haec secunda epistola ante primam esse scripta. Quandoquidem innuit fragmentum illius pacifica tempora; et ex Photii codice 126 colligimus dissidii Corinthiaci in ea factam non fuisse mentionem: at si data esset post priorem, hoc est post finem persecutionis Domitiani, tempore pacis, atque ante persecutionem sub Trajano redintegratam, non praetermisisset discordiam aut reconciliationem Corinthiorum, cum utrumque tempus solummodo annus sejungat. Quare missam arbitror
For the rest, this second epistle seems to have been written before the first. Seeing that its fragment hints at peaceful times; and from codex 126 of Photius we gather that no mention of the Corinthian dissension was made in it: whereas if it had been sent after the earlier one, that is, after the end of Domitian's persecution, in a time of peace, and before the persecution renewed under Trajan, it would not have passed over the discord or the reconciliation of the Corinthians, since only a year separates the two times. Wherefore I judge that it was sent
Editors' notes and page, col. 74
Page
- running head: OOEMIA VARIORUM. 74 (first letters of the head lie over the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹que multorum, versus Sibyllinae›; B ‹riique homines edebant›; C ‹ἀλλοφωνίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων›; D ‹Apologetico II, p. 66›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first printed letters ‹que› complete ‹aliorumque›, set whole at the end of col. 73; this file begins at ‹multorum›. English of the first paragraph supplies the verb carried over from col. 73 (‹non exstitisse›). Last word split at the break ‹ar-›: next column not seen, only the visible part ‹ar› is set (English leaves it untranslated). UNSURE: ‹πελάσωσιν› in the Sibylline verse (first letters small at this resolution); ‹lib I› after Hermae printed without a point. Printer's signature ‹3› at the foot left out. Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
inter duas primas persecutiones, Neronis ac Domitiani, et ante seditionem Corinthi excitatam.
between the first two persecutions, those of Nero and Domitian, and before the sedition stirred up at Corinth.
Omittebam hic, ut in veterum testimoniis, duo quae postea occurrerunt loca. Primus locus est praefationis concilii Nicaeni, Latinae ex Arabico per Abrahamum Ecchellensem factae; in quo dicitur Clementem epistola 2 mentionem fecisse sectarum 70. Verum illa epistola, si eadem est ac nostra, nec est plane apocrypha, nequaquam retulit 70 haereses, retulit forsan 7. Alterum locum deprompsi ex optimis membranis codicis admodum antiqui in bibliotheca PP. Soc. Jesu, copiam faciente Gabriele Cossartio, viro cum insignis doctrinae, tum prolixae humanitatis. Est autem S. Damasceni Eclogarum sacrarum cap. Περὶ τῶν προσκαίρων καὶ τῶν αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν, καὶ ὅτι χρὴ τῶν παρόντων τὰ μέλλοντα προτιμᾷν, quod respondet capiti 20 libri II Parallelorum editorum.
I was passing over here, as in the testimonies of the ancients, two passages that came to hand afterwards. The first passage belongs to the preface of the Nicene council, rendered into Latin from the Arabic by Abraham Ecchellensis; in which it is said that Clement in epistle 2 made mention of 70 sects. But that epistle, if it is the same as ours and is not plainly apocryphal, by no means reported 70 heresies; it reported perhaps 7. The other passage I drew from the excellent parchments of a very ancient codex in the library of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, access being granted by Gabriel Cossart, a man both of distinguished learning and of abundant courtesy. It is the chapter of Saint Damascene's Sacred Eclogues, On temporal and eternal goods, and that one ought to prefer the things to come to the things present, which corresponds to chapter 20 of book II of the published Parallels.
II. EX EDITIONE PETRI COUSTANTII.
II. FROM THE EDITION OF PIERRE COUSTANT.
(Epp. Rom. Pont. t. I, Paris. 1721, in-fol.)
(Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. I, Paris 1721, in folio.)
EPISTOLAE S. CLEMENTIS I PAPAE.
THE EPISTLES OF SAINT CLEMENT I, POPE.
Quando et quam diu sederit.
When and how long he held the see.
1. Clemens veterum testimonio ut apostolorum aequalis celebratur. Quamobrem non alius creditur ab eo, cujus Paulus Philip. IV, 3, meminit. Licet hunc, uti jam praemonuimus, a Petro episcopum ordinatum Tertullianus Lib. de praescript., c. 32, tradat, atque aevo Hieronymi, ipso Hieronymo teste, plerique Latinorum secundum post Petrum apostolum putarent fuisse; idem tamen Hieronymus, necnon Epiphanius, Augustinus, Optatus, Eusebius, scriptor poematis adversus Marcionem, Tertulliano olim tributi, et Irenaeus, sicut et veteres Romanorum pontificum catalogi, proximum Petri successorem non Clementem, sed Linum designant. Ita ille intelligi potest a Petro ordinatus episcopus ad episcopalia, seu apostolica munia obeunda, ut nulli tum ecclesiae esset alligatus, sed post mortem Lini et Cleti a Romanis in episcopum proprium cooptatus fuerit. Epiphanii ea de re conjecturam superius, ubi de Lino disseruimus, relatis ipsius verbis exposuimus.
1. Clement is celebrated by the testimony of the ancients as a contemporary of the apostles. For which reason he is believed to be no other than the one whom Paul mentions at Phil. 4:3. Although Tertullian, in the Book on Prescription, ch. 32, hands down that he, as we have already forewarned, was ordained bishop by Peter, and although in Jerome's age, on Jerome's own witness, most of the Latins thought that he had been second after the apostle Peter; nevertheless the same Jerome, and also Epiphanius, Augustine, Optatus, Eusebius, the writer of the poem against Marcion once attributed to Tertullian, and Irenaeus, as also the ancient catalogues of the Roman pontiffs, mark out as Peter's next successor not Clement but Linus. Thus he can be understood to have been ordained bishop by Peter for the discharge of episcopal, or apostolic, duties in such a way that he was at that time bound to no church, but after the death of Linus and Cletus was chosen by the Romans as their own bishop. Epiphanius's conjecture on this matter we set forth above, where we treated of Linus, his own words being reported.
2. Anno Christi 91, Clemens in Cleti locum suffectus creditur. Romanam sedem in Bucheriano quidem catalogo annis IX, mensibus XI, diebus XII,
2. In the year of Christ 91 Clement is believed to have been put in the place of Cletus. The Roman see, in the Bucherian catalogue indeed for IX years, XI months, XII days,
Editors' notes and page, col. 75
Page
- running head: 75 AD S. CLEMENTEM I (remainder of the head lies over the facing column, outside this crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹bitror inter duas primas›; B ‹νίων ἀγαθῶν, καὶ ὅτι χρὴ›; C ‹1. Clemens veterum testimonio›; D ‹tum ecclesiae esset alligatus›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first letters ‹bitror› complete the word split at the end of col. 74, which was written as ‹ar› only (next column not then seen): the word is ‹arbitror›, and col. 74's last source word and English should be read with this file's opening. A rule closes Cotelier's piece (Prooemia I); below it the captions of piece II (Coustant) are printed FULL WIDTH across both columns and are cut by this crop (settle: full_width, PG001b page 36); only the visible left parts are set, with ⟨ ⟩ at the cut, and their right parts are recorded in col. 76's file. The upper right of this page (col. 76 above the rule) carries a Greek testimonium. UNSURE: ‹Philip. IV, 3› (digit could be 5); ‹c. 32›. Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
- running head: 75 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 76
- marginal letters: A ‹bitror inter duas primas persecutiones, Neronis ac›; B ‹νίων ἀγαθῶν, καὶ ὅτι χρὴ τῶν παρόντων τὰ μέλ-›; C ‹1. Clemens veterum testimonio ut apostolorum ae-›; D ‹tum ecclesiae esset alligatus, sed post mortem Lini›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
Τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Κορινθίους βʹ.
Of Saint Clement, from the second [epistle] to the Corinthians.
Ὁ τῶν παρόντων αἰσθητικὸς συνίησιν ὡς οὔτε ἃ λογίζονταί τινες εἶναι τερπνὰ, ξένα καὶ μακράν ἐστι τῶν ἀπεχθῶν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ πλοῦτος πολλάκις μᾶλλον πενίας ἔθλιψε, καὶ ὑγεία πλέον ἠνίασε νόσου. Καὶ καθόλου τῶν λυπηρῶν καὶ φευκτῶν πάντων ὑπόθεσις καὶ ὕλη, ἡ τῶν ἀσπαστῶν καὶ †μετ' εὐχὴν περιβολὴ γίνεται.
He who is perceptive of present things understands that not even the things which some reckon to be delightful are foreign to and far from the things that are hateful. Rather, wealth too has often afflicted more than poverty, and health has distressed more than sickness. And in general the abundance of things welcome and prayed for becomes the ground and matter of all things grievous and to be shunned.
in Corbeiensi autem annis IX, mensibus X, die I obtinuisse memoratur. Eum, anno Trajani imperatoris tertio, hoc est Christi centesimo, cum totos novem annos praedicationem verbi divini procurasset, e vita abiisse Eusebius lib. III Hist., c. 34, scribit. Hinc valde sublestae est fidei, quod solus Praedestinatus a Sirmondo vulgatus cap. 12, narrat, quemdam videlicet Marcum, qui carnis negabat resurrectionem, ideoque Christum non vere passum, sed putative, conabatur astruere, a Clemente Romano episcopo ut dignissimo Christi martyre fixis et integris assertionibus confutatum, et coram plebe in ecclesia detectum, aeterna damnatione punitum fuisse. Nam et Irenaeus lib. I, c. 9, circa annum 180, aut etiam 190, Marci commenta confutans, de eo ut adhuc superstite loquitur: et Eusebius lib. IV, c. 11, postquam Valentinum aliosque haereticos Hygino pontifice Romam venisse, atque ad Anicetum usque permansisse enarravit, adjungit et hunc Marcum eodem tempore exstitisse. Quod indicio est hunc haereticum ante Hygini tempora fuisse ignotum.
but in the Corbie one for IX years, X months, I day, he is recorded to have held. That he, in the third year of the emperor Trajan, that is, the hundredth of Christ, when he had for nine whole years had charge of the preaching of the divine word, departed from life, Eusebius writes in book III of the History, ch. 34. Hence it is of very slight credit, what Praedestinatus alone, published by Sirmond, relates in ch. 12, namely that a certain Marcus, who denied the resurrection of the flesh and therefore strove to maintain that Christ had not truly suffered but only in appearance, was refuted by Clement the Roman bishop, as a most worthy martyr of Christ, with firm and sound assertions, and, exposed before the people in the church, was punished with eternal condemnation. For Irenaeus too, in book I, ch. 9, about the year 180 or even 190, refuting the fabrications of Marcus, speaks of him as still surviving; and Eusebius, in book IV, ch. 11, after he has recounted that Valentinus and other heretics came to Rome under the pontiff Hyginus and remained down to Anicetus, adds that this Marcus also existed at the same time. Which is an indication that this heretic was unknown before the times of Hyginus.
Editors' notes and page, col. 76
Page
- running head: . CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 76 (first part of the head lies over the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹Τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος ἐκ›; B ‹περιβολὴ γίνεται.›; C ‹in Corbeiensi autem annis›; D ‹ut adhuc superstite loquitur›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: above the rule this column is split into two narrow sub-columns: the Greek testimonium (set, layer 1) and its facing Latin version, headed ‹S. Clementis ex Epistola II ad Corinthios.›, which is NOT set (facing Latin version). Below the rule, the captions of piece II are printed FULL WIDTH across cols 75–76 (settle: full_width, PG001b page 36) and are set once, cut, in col. 75's file; read whole across both crops they are: ‹II. EX EDITIONE PETRI COUSTANTII.› / ‹(Epp. Rom. Pont. t. I, Paris. 1721, in-fol.)› / ‹EPISTOLAE S. CLEMENTIS I PAPAE.› / ‹Quando et quam diu sederit.› (middle letters of the first and third lines fall in the gutter between the two crops and are inferred from the overlap). The third paragraph continues the sentence from the foot of col. 75. UNSURE: ‹μετ' εὐχὴν› (first letters small; could be κατ'); a small mark after ‹Ἀλλὰ καὶ› is a blemish, not a note call; ‹annos› and ‹Hinc› are under ink blots and read through them; ‹c. 34› and ‹cap. 12› digits. Whole column is editors' matter, set as this unit's text.
- running head: 75 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 76
- marginal letters: (none within this column; the letters A B C D stand in the gutter and are recorded under c75; A stands beside the Greek caption, B beside ‹περιβολὴ γίνεται.›, C beside ‹in Corbeiensi autem annis IX›, D beside ‹ut adhuc superstite loquitur›)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM PRIMAM.
ADMONITION ON THE FIRST EPISTLE.
I. Elapso saeculo Cyrillus Lucaris primum Alexandrinus, ac deinde Constantinopolitanus patriarcha Carolo I, Anglorum regi, insignem dono misit codicem Alexandrinum, grandioribus litteris manu Theclae nobilis feminae Aegyptiae, circa Nicaeni I concilii, ut fertur, tempora exaratum, in quo Veteris et Novi Testamenti libris duae Clementis epistolae subjiciuntur. Harum prima valde celebris apud veteres fuit. Hanc quippe laudant Irenaeus lib. III, c. 3; et apud Eusebium lib. V, c. 6, Clemens Alexandrinus Stromatum lib. I, IV, V et VI; Origenes lib. II De principiis, cap. 3, et in Joan. I, 29; Hegesippus apud Eusebium lib. IV, c. 22; Eusebius ipse lib. III Hist. eccl., c. 16; scriptor quaestionum Justini nomine vulgatarum, c. 74; Epiphanius haer. 27, n. 6, et haer. 30, n. 15; Hieronymus, Lib. de vir. illustr. c. 25, lib. XIV, in Isaiae LII, 13, et Comment. in Ephes. IV, 1; Photius cod. 113 et 126, ut alios taceam. Etiamsi autem a plerisque Clementis, a nonnullis tamen Romanorum, quia videlicet eorum nomine a Clemente conscripta est, epistola nuncupatur. Nominatim vero Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. V Strom. pag. 584, verba numeri 20 sic laudat: Ἀλλὰ κἀν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ῥωμαίων ἐπιστολῇ ὠκεανὸς ἀπέραντος ἀνθρώποις γέγραπται, καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτὸν κόσμοι. Quin etiam in epistola Romanorum ad Corinthios scriptum est: Oceanus, etc.
I. In the last century Cyril Lucaris, patriarch first of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, sent as a gift to Charles I, king of the English, the remarkable Alexandrian codex, written in larger letters by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian woman, about the times, as is reported, of the first Nicene council, in which two epistles of Clement are appended to the books of the Old and New Testament. Of these the first was very celebrated among the ancients. For it is cited by Irenaeus, book III, ch. 3, and in Eusebius, book V, ch. 6; by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, books I, IV, V and VI; by Origen, book II On First Principles, ch. 3, and on John 1:29; by Hegesippus in Eusebius, book IV, ch. 22; by Eusebius himself, book III of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 16; by the writer of the questions published under Justin's name, ch. 74; by Epiphanius, heresy 27, no. 6, and heresy 30, no. 15; by Jerome, in the Book on Illustrious Men, ch. 25, in book XIV on Isaiah 52:13, and in the Commentary on Ephesians 4:1; by Photius, codices 113 and 126, to pass over others. Now although it is called by most the epistle of Clement, yet by some it is called that of the Romans, because, namely, it was written by Clement in their name. And Clement of Alexandria expressly, in book V of the Stromata, page 584, cites the words of number 20 thus: But also in the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians it is written, An ocean impassable to men, and the worlds beyond it. Moreover in the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians it is written: The ocean, etc.
II. Epistolam illam publice olim plurimis in ecclesiis lectam fuisse Eusebius Hist. eccl. lib. III, c. 16, tradit, et Epiphanius haer. 30, n. 15, atque Hieronymus lib. De viris illustr. confirmant. Hoc certe Corinthi ex prisca consuetudine factum esse Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusebium lib. IV, c. 23, locupletissimus testis est. Ex eo etiam loco, quem in laudato codice Alexandrino obtinet, conjectare est ei a nonnullis vel parem sacris libris, vel proximam post illos tributam esse auctoritatem. Cui conjecturae favet ultimus Apostolorum canon, in quo inter Novi Testamenti libros duae Clementis epistolae recensentur. Et Clemens quidem Alexandrinus lib. IV Strom., dum hanc ut Clementis apostoli laudat, inter apostolicas Scripturas videtur ei locum dare. Imo non alia de causa Eusebius lib. VI, c. 13, Clementem Alexandrinum Scripturarum ab aliis repudiatarum, nominatimque epistolarum Barnabae, Clementis et Judae testimoniis uti notat, nisi quia pro sacra Scriptura hanc Clementis epistolam habebat. Eo pacto quamdam pugnae speciem, quae in Eusebii Historia occurrit, dum Clementis epistolam loco mox laudato ab aliis repudiatam, et lib. III, cap. 16 et 38, ab omnibus uno consensu receptam scribit, componi posse Cotelerius observat. Quamvis enim ab omnibus inter ecclesiasticas, non item ab omnibus inter sacras Scripturas est recepta, sed a plerisque e divinorum librorum canone rejecta fuit.
II. That this epistle was once read publicly in very many churches Eusebius hands down in the Ecclesiastical History, book III, ch. 16, and Epiphanius, heresy 30, no. 15, and Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men confirm. That this was certainly done at Corinth by ancient custom, Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, book IV, ch. 23, is a most trustworthy witness. From the place, too, which it holds in the aforesaid Alexandrian codex, one may conjecture that an authority either equal to the sacred books or next after them was ascribed to it by some. This conjecture is favoured by the last canon of the Apostles, in which two epistles of Clement are reckoned among the books of the New Testament. And Clement of Alexandria indeed, in book IV of the Stromata, when he cites it as that of Clement the apostle, seems to give it a place among the apostolic Scriptures. Indeed for no other reason does Eusebius, book VI, ch. 13, note that Clement of Alexandria uses the testimonies of Scriptures rejected by others, and by name of the epistles of Barnabas, Clement and Jude, than because he held this epistle of Clement as sacred Scripture. In this way Cotelier observes that a certain appearance of conflict which occurs in the History of Eusebius, when he writes that the epistle of Clement, in the place just cited, was rejected by others, and in book III, chs. 16 and 38, was received by all with one consent, can be reconciled. For although it was received by all among the ecclesiastical writings, it was not likewise received by all among the sacred Scriptures, but was rejected by most from the canon of the divine books.
III. Non desunt, qui cum Clementis nostri sententias
III. There are not wanting those who, since they meet the sentences of our Clement
Editors' notes and page, col. 77
Page
- running head: 77 PROOEMIA VARIOR (remainder of the head lies over the facing column, outside this crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹I. Elapso saeculo Cyrillus›; B ‹27, n. 6, et haer. 30›; C ‹c. 16, tradit, et Epiphanius›; D ‹aliis repudiatarum, nominatimque›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the caption ‹ADMONITIO IN EPISTOL…› is printed FULL WIDTH across cols 77–78 and is cut by this crop (settle: full_width, PG001b page 38); it is set whole in col. 77's file, completed from the col. 78 crop. Last word split at the break ‹sen-|tentias›, completed from the top of col. 78 visible at the right edge of the top image; the English of the last line ends mid-sentence, its main verb lying in col. 78. ‹Dionysius Alexandrinus› is as printed (the witness in Eusebius IV, 23 is Dionysius of Corinth): an author's slip, not a misprint of type. UNSURE digits: ‹de vir. illustr. c. 25› (could be 15), ‹c. 3›, ‹cap. 3›, ‹c. 13›, and the verse figure of ‹Ephes. IV, 1› (it may be printed as a small-capital I). Several letters lie under ink blots (‹Hieronymus›, ‹consuetudine›, ‹auctoritatem›, ‹Clementis›) and are read through them. Whole column is editors' prose (Coustant's admonition), set as this unit's text.
- running head: 77 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 78
- marginal letters: A ‹I. Elapso saeculo Cyrillus Lucaris primum Alexan-›; B ‹27, n. 6, et haer. 30, n. 15; Hieronymus, Lib. de›; C ‹c. 16, tradit, et Epiphanius haer. 30, n. 15, atque›; D ‹aliis repudiatarum, nominatimque epistolarum Bar-›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
apud Clementem Alex. lib. IV, pag. 516, paucioribus perstrictas, et contra pag. 517 pluribus explicatas offendant, epistolam hanc non sinceram, sed aliis locis truncatam et aliis interpolatam ad nos pervenisse suspicentur. Sed Clementis Romani Alexandrinum interpolatorem esse non ambiget, qui verba addita ad institutum ipsius Alexandrini, quo de Gnosi tractare sibi proposuerat, accommodata esse compererit. Qui autem Clementis nostri sententias nonnullis in locis interpolare sibi licere existimavit, in aliis eadem licentia ad eas contrahendas uti potuisse non dubitatur. Praeterea Joan. Clericus Artis criticae part. III, sect. 2, c. 5, n. 12, observat, ex duorum locorum capitis 46 epistolae nostrae cum verbis Clementis Alexandrini cognatione nonnullos moveri, ut haec duo loca ex Alexandrino ascita opinentur. Ipsius Alexandrini verba ad praedictum caput 46 referemus et expendemus.
in Clement of Alexandria, book IV, page 516, touched on in fewer words, and on the other hand at page 517 unfolded in more, suspect that this epistle has come down to us not intact, but cut short in some places and interpolated in others. But no one will doubt that the Alexandrian is the interpolator of Clement of Rome who has found that the added words are fitted to the purpose of the Alexandrian himself, by which he had proposed to himself to treat of Gnosis. And he who judged that he was free to interpolate the sentences of our Clement in some places is not doubted to have been able to use the same freedom in others for abridging them. Besides, Jean Le Clerc, in the Ars critica, part III, sect. 2, ch. 5, no. 12, observes that some are moved by the kinship of two passages of chapter 46 of our epistle with the words of Clement of Alexandria to think that these two passages were taken over from the Alexandrian. The words of the Alexandrian himself we shall report and weigh at the aforesaid chapter 46.
IV. Praeclaram hanc epistolam primus Patricius Junius Latine conversam ac notis illustratam Oxonii anno 1633 edidit. Eamdem cum insigni praefatione anno 1654 Helmestadii recudi curavit Joachimus Joannes Maderus. Mitto et quam Bartonius anno 1647, ac subinde Godefridus Vendelinus et Joannes Fell. Oxoniensis antistes aliique subinde in eam navarunt operam. Postmodum et Joannes Baptista Cotelerius anno 1672 illam nova interpretatione novisque notis adornatam Parisiis in lucem emisit. Eam demum recensuit ac notarum spicilegium collegit Paulus Colomesius, cujus novissima editio Londini anno 1694 prodiit. Cotelerii interpretationem, ut litterae tenaciorem, verbis nonnullis identidem mutatis, retinendam duxi.
IV. This illustrious epistle Patrick Young was the first to publish, turned into Latin and illustrated with notes, at Oxford in the year 1633. The same, with a notable preface, Joachim Johann Mader had reprinted at Helmstedt in the year 1654. I pass over also the labour which Burton in the year 1647, and thereafter Godfrey Wendelin and John Fell, bishop of Oxford, and others after them bestowed upon it. Afterwards Jean-Baptiste Cotelier too, in the year 1672, brought it to light at Paris furnished with a new version and new notes. Finally Paul Colomiès revised it and gathered a gleaning of notes, whose latest edition came out at London in the year 1694. Cotelier's version, as holding more closely to the letter, I have judged should be kept, with some words changed here and there.
V. De tempore quo scripta est, nondum inter eruditos convenit. Ac licet prima illius verba de persecutione dicta esse plerique omnes consentiant, ea tamen alii de Neronis, alii de Domitiani persecutione interpretantur. Et hanc quidem alii ferventem, alii desinentem intelligunt. Hinc circa tempus, quo epistola ista scripta est, triplex maxime existit opinio: prima Joannis Ernesti Grabii, qui Spicileg. Patr. t. I, p. 254 et 255, eam Neronis persecutione desinente, proxime post apostolorum Petri et Pauli martyrium, hoc est anno Christi 68 vel etiam 65 exeunte scriptam esse contendit; altera Godefridi Vendelini eamdem anno Christi 95, fervente Domitiani persecutione illigantis; postrema Cotelerii atque Tillemontii, qui illam desinente ejusdem imperatoris persecutione, circa annum Christi 97 scriptam arbitrantur. Quartam vir clarissimus Claudius Fleury, t. I Hist. eccl., pag. 248, excogitavit, quae ad Grabii sententiam propius accedat. Nempe ad id tempus, quod Neronis interitum excepit, et Jerosolymitanum antecessit excidium, referri posse opinatur; et casus adversos, in epistolae principio memoratos, de bello civili, quod Neronis mors excitavit, interpretatur.
V. As to the time at which it was written, there is not yet agreement among the learned. And although nearly all agree that its first words were spoken of a persecution, yet some interpret them of Nero's persecution, others of Domitian's. And this latter some understand as raging, others as ending. Hence concerning the time at which this epistle was written there are chiefly three opinions: the first that of Johann Ernst Grabe, who in the Spicilegium Patrum, vol. I, pp. 254 and 255, contends that it was written as Nero's persecution was ending, immediately after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, that is, in the year of Christ 68, or even at the close of 65; the second that of Godfrey Wendelin, who ties the same to the year of Christ 95, while Domitian's persecution was raging; the last that of Cotelier and Tillemont, who judge that it was written as the persecution of the same emperor was ending, about the year of Christ 97. A fourth the most distinguished Claude Fleury, vol. I of the Ecclesiastical History, page 248, has devised, which comes nearer to Grabe's opinion. Namely, he thinks it can be referred to that time which followed Nero's death and preceded the destruction of Jerusalem; and the adverse events mentioned at the beginning of the epistle he interprets of the civil war which Nero's death stirred up.
Editors' notes and page, col. 78
Page
- running head: OOEMIA VARIORUM. 78 (first letters of the head lie over the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹tentias apud Clementem Alex.›; B ‹tione nonnullos moveri›; C ‹gium collegit Paulus Colomesius›; D ‹etiam 65 exeunte scriptam›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first printed letters ‹tentias› complete ‹sententias›, set whole at the end of col. 77; this file begins at ‹apud›. The verb of the cum-clause of that sentence is ‹offendant› (come upon); the last English line of col. 77's file renders it so and joins this file's first English line without a break (checked in the Q5 re-read; the earlier bracketed supplement is no longer there). Full-width caption over cols 77–78 (settle: full_width, PG001b page 38), read whole across both crops: ‹ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM PRIMAM.›; it is set whole in col. 77's file. UNSURE: ‹Bartonius›; years 1633, 1654, 1647; ‹68 vel etiam 65›; the ‹d› of ‹adversos› is damaged type. A short rule closes the piece at the foot. Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
- running head: 77 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 78
- marginal letters: (none within this column; the letters stand in the gutter and are recorded under c77; A stands beside ‹tentias apud Clementem Alex. lib. IV, pag. 516,›, B beside ‹tione nonnullos moveri›, C beside ‹gium collegit Paulus Colomesius›, D beside ‹etiam 65 exeunte scriptam esse contendit›)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
VI. Obscurum non est, Clementem ibi de aerumnis, quibus oppressa erat Romana Ecclesia cum Corinthiorum epistolam accepit, sed a quibus respirabat cum hanc rescripsit, habere sermonem, adeoque Vendelini de persecutione fervente sententiam minime probandam esse. Neque minus certo ex eodem exordio conficitur, aerumnas illas de Neronis persecutione interpretari non licere. Nihil enim erat, cur in litterarum tarditate Corinthiis excusanda hoc taceretur, Petrum videlicet, cujus erat ipsorum satisfacere quaestionibus, iis acceptis detentum, caesum et e vivis fuisse sublatum. Deinde in toto epistolae contextu illud innuitur, eum ipsum qui nunc rescribit, prius Corinthiorum scripta accepisse. Quocirca ad litteram intelligendi sunt tum Irenaeus lib. III, Adv. haeres. c. 3, et apud Eusebium Hist. eccl., lib. V, cap. 6; tum Hegesippus apud eumdem Eusebium lib. IV, c. 22, cum dissensionem, quam sedare nunc conatur Clemens, non sub Petro, sed sub Clemente ortam esse testantur. Praeterea cum idem Irenaeus, apostolicorum temporum tam vicinus, Clementem tertio loco ab apostolis post Linum et Cletum, seu ut vocat, Anacletum, Romae episcopatum sortitum esse scribat, reliquum est ut eum pluribus post Neronem annis Romanae Ecclesiae administrationem suscepisse crediderit. Hunc autem ea in re falsum esse quis sibi persuadeat? Eidem suffragantur et plerique Patres, qui Romanorum Pontificum seriem texunt, atque ipsi veteres catalogi, in quibus Petro Linus, Lino Cletus, huic Clemens successisse legitur. Ipsa quoque Clementis verba num. 44 qui expenderit, ubi laudata apostolorum providentia subdit: Qui igitur ab illis, aut deinceps ab aliis viris eximiis constituti sunt... ac longo tempore praeclarum ab omnibus testimonium reportarunt, hos censemus officio injuste dejici; haec, inquam, qui expenderit, is persuasum habebit epistolam istam tunc temporis conscriptam esse, cum ab officio suo remoti fuissent presbyteri, qui non solum ab apostolis, sed etiam ab aliis deinceps, hoc est ab eorum successoribus ordinati, munus suum longo tempore obierant. Standum igitur est sententiae Eusebii, in cujus Chronico cap. 15, pontificatus Clementis initia ad postremos Domitiani imperatoris annos referuntur. Unde nihil rationi magis consentaneum occurrit, quam ut Corinthiorum epistolam saeviente Domitiani persecutione Romam pervenisse, atque illis eadem persecutione desinente a Clemente circa annum Christi 97, rescriptum esse censeamus.
VI. It is not obscure that Clement is there speaking of the hardships by which the Roman Church had been oppressed when it received the letter of the Corinthians, but from which it was drawing breath when it wrote this in reply, and therefore that Wendelin's opinion about a raging persecution is by no means to be approved. And no less certainly is it concluded from the same opening that those hardships may not be interpreted of Nero's persecution. For there was no reason why, in excusing the lateness of the letter to the Corinthians, this should be passed over in silence, namely that Peter, whose part it was to satisfy their questions, had, after receiving them, been detained, slain and taken from among the living. Next, in the whole texture of the epistle this is intimated, that the very one who now writes back had earlier received the writings of the Corinthians. Wherefore both Irenaeus, book III Against Heresies, chapter 3, and in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter 6, and Hegesippus in the same Eusebius, book IV, chapter 22, are to be understood to the letter when they testify that the dissension which Clement is now trying to calm arose not under Peter but under Clement. Moreover, since the same Irenaeus, so near to apostolic times, writes that Clement obtained the episcopate at Rome in the third place from the apostles, after Linus and Cletus, or, as he calls him, Anacletus, it remains that he believed him to have undertaken the administration of the Roman Church many years after Nero. And who would persuade himself that he was mistaken in that matter? The same is supported also by most of the Fathers who weave the series of the Roman Pontiffs, and by the ancient catalogues themselves, in which Linus is read to have succeeded Peter, Cletus Linus, and Clement him. Whoever also weighs Clement's own words in number 44, where, having praised the foresight of the apostles, he adds: Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men... and have for a long time borne away an excellent testimony from all, these we judge to be unjustly cast down from their office; whoever, I say, weighs these words will hold it as settled that this epistle was written at that time when presbyters had been removed from their office who, ordained not only by the apostles but also by others afterwards, that is, by their successors, had discharged their function for a long time. We must therefore stand by the opinion of Eusebius, in whose Chronicle, chapter 15, the beginnings of Clement's pontificate are referred to the last years of the emperor Domitian. Whence nothing presents itself more consonant with reason than that we should judge that the letter of the Corinthians reached Rome while Domitian's persecution was raging, and that a reply was written to them by Clement as the same persecution was ending, about the year of Christ 97.
VII. Neque his adversatur illud, num. 41: Non ubique, fratres, offeruntur sacrificia jugia, vel votiva, vel pro peccato et delicto, sed Jerosolymis tantum, licet Grabius hinc certo constare sibi dicat, templum Jerosolymitanum tum stetisse, atque excidium illius, quod in annum 70 incidit, necdum contigisse; alioqui non offeruntur in praesenti, sed olim offerebantur fuisse dicendum. Verum non satis attendit vir eruditus sermonis usum, quo res praeteritas veluti praesentes ob oculos ponere et per praesens
VII. Nor is that passage of number 41 opposed to these things: Not everywhere, brothers, are the continual sacrifices offered, or the votive ones, or those for sin and transgression, but at Jerusalem only, although Grabe says that from this it is certainly established for him that the temple of Jerusalem was then standing, and that its destruction, which fell in the year 70, had not yet happened; otherwise it would have had to be said not "are offered" in the present, but "were once offered". But the learned man does not sufficiently attend to the usage of speech by which things past, as though present, to set before the eyes and through the present
Editors' notes and page, col. 79
Page
- running head: 79 AD S. CLEMENTEM I (remainder of the head lies over the facing column, outside this crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹VI. Obscurum non est›; B ‹Irenaeus lib. III, Adv. haeres.›; C ‹logi, in quibus Petro Linus›; D ‹toris annos referuntur. Unde›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: last word split at the break ‹prae-|sens›, completed from the top of col. 80 visible at the right edge of the top image; the English of the last sentence stops mid-clause, its verb lying in col. 80. The three points in ‹constituti sunt... ac› are the editor's own ellipsis in the quotation, as printed. UNSURE digits: ‹Chronico cap. 15›, ‹c. 3›, ‹num. 44›, ‹num. 41›; the ‹m› of ‹eumdem› is damaged type. Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
tempus enuntiare narranti licet. Quid enim in hac epistola sibi vult, Sacrificia non in omni loco, sed Jerosolymis tantum offeruntur, nisi illud, Ex praescripto legis sacrificia Jerosolymis tantum offeruntur? Quod quidem praescriptum cum etiamnum in lege maneat, ipsa Clementis verba etiam nobis efferre non inepte nunc liceret. Nempe Clemens comparatione ac more Judaeorum, quibus sacrificiorum leges a Moyse praescribuntur, Christianis auctor est, ut et ipsi statutum ab apostolis oblationum et officiorum ordinem reverenter accipiant ac servent. Hoc autem, ut ipse v. cl. Claud. Fleury fatetur, in exponendis comparationibus usuvenit, ut res praeteritae perinde ac si praesentes adessent, ob oculos ponantur.
tense to express them is permitted to one who narrates. For what does it mean in this epistle, Sacrifices are offered not in every place, but at Jerusalem only, if not this: By the prescription of the law sacrifices are offered at Jerusalem only? And since that prescription even now remains in the law, it would be allowable even for us now, not ineptly, to utter Clement's very words. Clement, namely, by a comparison with and by the custom of the Jews, to whom the laws of sacrifices are prescribed by Moses, urges the Christians that they too should reverently accept and keep the order of oblations and offices established by the apostles. Now this, as the most distinguished Claude Fleury himself admits, commonly happens in setting out comparisons, that things past are set before the eyes just as if they were present.
VIII. Frustra etiam Clementem proxime post Petri ac Pauli martyrium scripsisse ex eo colligitur, quod num. 4 Abelis, Jacob, Moysis ac Davidis, qui per aemulationem et invidiam multa passi sunt, praemissis exemplis, num. 5 initio subjicit, sed missis veteribus exemplis, veniamus ad proximos athletas, et aetatis nostrae generosa exempla sumamus, ac deinde Petri et Pauli martyrium enarrat. Nemo enim non videt quam recte Clemens circa annum Christi 97, Petri ac Pauli martyrium, cum temporibus Davidis, Moysis, Jacob et Abelis comparatum, proximum ac vicinum aetatis nostrae dixerit. Imo neque proximum ab eo dicitur diebus quibus scribit, sed aetati, γενεᾷ quam agit, seu in qua degit. Demum num. 47 ubi ad evangelica tempora animum refert, eaque cum illo confert quo scribit, Corinthiorum Ecclesiam antiquam vocare, et primum eorum dissidium, de quo Paulus I Cor. I, loquitur, ut in principio Evangelii ortum memorare, ipsamque apostoli hujus epistolam, tametsi quatuordecim tantum annis excidium Jerosolym. praecesserit, in principio Evangelii scriptam dicere non dubitat. Quod sane evidenti argumento est eum, cum ita scriberet, longius ab eodem principio recessisse; nec ab hinc recessisse longius videretur, si, ut vult Grabius, praedicta Pauli Epistola haec Clementis novem duntaxat vel ad summum duodecim annis posterior foret.
VIII. In vain also is it gathered that Clement wrote very soon after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul from the fact that, having set down in number 4 the examples of Abel, Jacob, Moses and David, who suffered many things through emulation and envy, he subjoins at the beginning of number 5, but leaving the ancient examples, let us come to the nearest athletes, and let us take the noble examples of our own age, and then relates the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. For no one fails to see how rightly Clement, about the year of Christ 97, called the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, compared with the times of David, Moses, Jacob and Abel, near and neighbouring to our age. Nay, it is not even called by him near to the days in which he writes, but to the age, the "generation", which he is passing, or in which he lives. Lastly, in number 47, where he turns his mind back to the times of the Gospel and compares them with that in which he writes, he does not hesitate to call the Church of the Corinthians ancient, and to record their first dissension, of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 1, as having arisen in the beginning of the Gospel, and to say that this apostle's very epistle, although it preceded the destruction of Jerusalem by only fourteen years, was written in the beginning of the Gospel. Which surely is an evident proof that, when he wrote thus, he had withdrawn a long way from that same beginning; nor would he seem to have withdrawn a long way from it if, as Grabe wishes, this epistle of Clement were later than the aforesaid Epistle of Paul by only nine or at most twelve years.
IX. Ex venerando illo sacrae antiquitatis monumento, quod summam primorum Christianorum simplicitatem sapit, duo inprimis maximi momenti documenta fideles percipiunt. Primum enim ubi in primaria Ecclesia, tot Spiritus sancti donis ornata, ac maximis apostolorum sudoribus exculta, spinas dissensionum exortas vident, minus jam mirantur, si inter Christianas societates, quae recte compositae audiunt, hujusmodi scandala oboriri contigerit. Nunquam nimirum quiescit antiquus zizaniorum seminator, et agrum Domini infaustis seminibus foedare non cessat. Sed quamvis antiquum sit hoc malum, non ideo tamen minus lugendum; sed nullum esse, cui remedium citius adhibendum sit, item ex hoc scripto, ut ex Pauli Epistola, docemur. Nempe tenui discordiarum flamma, nisi quam primum exstinguatur, brevi ingens incendium concitari apprime callebant.
IX. From that venerable monument of sacred antiquity, which savours of the utmost simplicity of the first Christians, the faithful gather two lessons especially of the greatest moment. For first, when they see that in a foremost Church, adorned with so many gifts of the Holy Spirit and cultivated by the greatest labours of the apostles, thorns of dissensions sprang up, they now wonder less if it should happen that scandals of this kind arise among Christian societies which have the name of being rightly ordered. Never, to be sure, does the ancient sower of tares rest, and he does not cease to defile the Lord's field with ill-omened seeds. But although this evil is ancient, it is not on that account the less to be mourned; rather, that there is none to which a remedy ought to be applied more quickly we are taught likewise from this writing, as from Paul's Epistle. For they knew very well that by a slight flame of discords, unless it be put out as soon as possible, a huge conflagration is in a short time stirred up.
Editors' notes and page, col. 80
Page
- running head: CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 80 (first part of the head lies over the facing column)
- marginal letters: A ‹sens tempus enuntiare narranti›; B ‹VIII. Frustra etiam Clementem›; C ‹illo confert quo scribit›; D ‹simplicitatem sapit, duo inprimis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first printed letters ‹sens› complete ‹praesens›, set whole at the end of col. 79; this file begins at ‹tempus›, so the English opens mid-clause ("[the present] tense"). UNSURE: iota subscript and accent of ‹γενεᾷ› (type crowded at the line end); ‹num. 4›, ‹num. 5›, ‹num. 47› digits; the ‹d› of ‹perinde› and the ‹e› of ‹evangelica› are damaged type; an ink smear lies over ‹Pauli Epistola› in the last line of VIII, read through it. The column ends at a full stop; whether section IX continues in col. 81 was not seen. Whole column is editors' prose, set as this unit's text.
ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SECUNDAM.
NOTICE ON THE SECOND EPISTLE.
I. Ex eodem codice Alexandrino, ex quo superior, prodiit subsequens epistola. De hac Eusebius lib. III Hist. eccl. c. 38: Ἰστέον δ' ὡς καὶ δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολὴ, οὐ μὴν ἔθ' ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα, ὅτι δὲ μὴ τοὺς ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ κεχρημένους ἴσμεν. Sciendum autem est quod et secunda quaedam Clementis epistola esse dicatur: eam autem non similiter ac priorem notam esse comperimus; quoniam nec veteres ea usos esse novimus. Observat Cotelerius haec Eusebii verba indiligenter a Rufino sic reddita: Dicitur tamen esse et alia Clementis epistola, cujus nos notitiam non accepimus; neque magis accurate ab Hieronymo Lib. de vir. illustr. (si tamen ibi ad Eusebii verba respicit) expressa fuisse in hunc modum: Fertur et secunda esse ex ejus nomine epistola, quae a veteribus reprobatur; Photium denique cod. 113 Hieronymi sententiam sequi, ubi ait: Quae secunda ad eosdem (Corinthios) dicitur, ut notha rejicitur; certe hanc secundam epistolam minime ab Eusebio dici notham et adulterinam, aut a veteribus reprobatam, sed prima minus notam atque in citationibus a veteribus praetermissam. Ab Eusebii mente nonnihil etiam recessit Nicephorus Callisti lib. III, c. 18, ubi de eadem sic loquitur: Καὶ ἄλλη δὲ αὐτοῦ φέρεται ἐπιστολὴ τῆς προτέρας κατὰ πολὺ ἀποδέουσα· περὶ ἧς ὁ αὐτός φησιν Εὐσέβιος, μὴ ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ ταύτης τοὺς ἀρχαίους εἶναι. Fertur et alia ejus epistola multo inferior prima, de qua dicit idem Eusebius, veteres ejus notitiam non habere. Ait quippe Eusebius eam veteribus minus notam prima, sed non eis prorsus ignotam scribit.
I. From the same Alexandrian codex from which the foregoing epistle came forth, the following one has come forth as well. Of it Eusebius says, in book III of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 38: It must be known that a certain second epistle of Clement is also said to exist; yet we do not know this one too to be recognized in the same way as the former, since we are aware that the ancients did not make use of it either. Now it must be known that a certain second epistle of Clement is also said to exist; but we have found that it is not known in the same way as the former, since we know that the ancients did not use it either. Cotelier observes that these words of Eusebius were carelessly rendered by Rufinus thus: Yet there is said to be another epistle of Clement as well, of which we have received no knowledge; and that they were expressed no more accurately by Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men (if indeed he is there looking to the words of Eusebius), in this manner: There is also said to be a second epistle under his name, which is rejected by the ancients; and lastly that Photius, in codex 113, follows Jerome's opinion, where he says: That which is called the second to the same (the Corinthians) is rejected as spurious; whereas certainly this second epistle is by no means called spurious and counterfeit by Eusebius, or rejected by the ancients, but less known than the first and passed over by the ancients in their citations. Nicephorus Callisti too departed somewhat from the mind of Eusebius, in book III, ch. 18, where he speaks of the same epistle thus: And another epistle of his is also in circulation, falling far short of the former; concerning which the same Eusebius says that the ancients were not in knowledge of it. There is also said to be another epistle of his, much inferior to the first, of which the same Eusebius says that the ancients have no knowledge of it. For Eusebius says that it was less known to the ancients than the first, but does not write that it was altogether unknown to them.
II. Hic notandum, ex omnibus scriptoribus mox citatis, nullum esse, qui duabus litteris plures Clementi Romano attribuat aut attributas agnoscat. Ex quo colligere est, Epiphanium cum haeres. 27, n. 6, Clementem in una epistolarum suarum citat, aut cum haer. 30, n. 15, laudat Epistolas circulares quas (idem pontifex) scripsit, quaeque in sanctis Ecclesiis leguntur, et in quibus virginitatem docet, non alias vel a praemissa vel a sequente memorare. Et hoc quidem eo est probabilius, quod cum Hieronymus Lib. de script. eccl. tantum duas Clementis epistolas recenseat, eas ipsas, quas Epiphanius proxime laudavit, lib. I Adversus Jovinianum commendare non dubitatur his verbis: Ad hos (eunuchos) et Clemens successor apostoli Petri, cujus Paulus apostolus meminit, scribit epistolas, omnemque sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexuit. Et vero quis credat Hieronymum anno 392 in Libro de script. eccl. in quo data opera virorum insignium scripta recenset, tantum duarum epistolarum Clementis mentionem fuisse facturum, si ab anno 384 contra Helvidium scribens alias ab his duabus jam nosset. Quod si nullas alias novit, ubi Clementem dicit omnem sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexuisse, hyperbolico quidem, sed tamen
II. Here it must be noted that, of all the writers just cited, there is none who attributes to Clement of Rome more than two letters, or acknowledges more as attributed to him. From which one may gather that Epiphanius, when in heresy 27, no. 6, he cites Clement in one of his epistles, or when in heresy 30, no. 15, he mentions the circular Epistles which (the same pontiff) wrote, and which are read in the holy Churches, and in which he teaches virginity, is recalling no others than either the one set before or the one that follows. And this is indeed the more probable because, although Jerome in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers reckons only two epistles of Clement, he is not doubted to commend those very ones which Epiphanius has just mentioned, in book I Against Jovinian, in these words: To these (the eunuchs) Clement also, the successor of the apostle Peter, of whom the apostle Paul makes mention, writes epistles, and has woven his whole discourse about the purity of virginity. And indeed who would believe that Jerome in the year 392, in the Book on Ecclesiastical Writers, in which he expressly reviews the writings of distinguished men, would have made mention of only two epistles of Clement, if, writing against Helvidius from the year 384, he already knew others besides these two. But if he knew no others, where he says that Clement wove his whole discourse about the purity of virginity, he must be understood to be speaking in a hyperbolical indeed, but nevertheless
Editors' notes and page, col. 81
Page
- running head: 81 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 82
- marginal letters: A ‹I. Ex eodem codice Alexandrino›; B ‹esse ex ejus nomine epistola›; C ‹non habere. Ait quippe Eusebius›; D ‹non dubitatur his verbis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Coustant's Admonitio on the second epistle), set as this unit's text. The caption runs across both columns of the page; its second half was read from the column 82 image and it is set once here. The page number in the head at the right prints with a damaged last figure. Damaged type read from context: "quidem" (Et hoc quidem), "eccl." (first Lib. de script. eccl.), the closing parenthesis after "eunuchos". UNSURE of the figures: "c. 38", "cod. 113", "anno 384" (last digit faint). The Greek of Eusebius prints "ὅτι δὲ μὴ"; kept as printed. The last English clause borrows "he must be understood to be speaking" from the first line of column 82 so as to read; the source line ends at "sed tamen".
familiari more intelligendus est loqui. Ubi enim aliqua de re quis identidem locutus est, is omnem de ea orationem contexuisse satis familiariter dicitur. Clemens vero cum epist. 1, n. 21, 29, 30, 38, 45, 48, 58, tum epist. 2, n. 8, 9 ac 12, ut taceam quae forte in foliis avulsis ea de re disserebantur, puritatem, continentiam, castitatemque commendat. Hinc et illud consequens ut, si Epiphanius atque Hieronymus non in epistola, sed in epistolis Clementis puritatem virginitatis doceri praedicantes, utramque indicare voluerint, parem simul a⟨m⟩babus, ut ejusdem parentis, tribuerint auctoritatem. Ipse etiam locus, quem in codice Alexandrino obtinet, in quo cum sacris utriusque foederis libris nullum aliud opus praeter hanc et superiorem Clementis epistolam continetur, utramque nonnullis in Ecclesiis inter sacras Scripturas admissam fuisse indicio est: idque confirmat 84 seu ultimus apostolorum canon, qui quidem in catalogo librorum Novi Testamenti duas Clementis epistolas ponit.
familiar manner of speech. For when someone has spoken again and again about some matter, he is said, familiarly enough, to have woven his whole discourse about it. Now Clement, both in epistle 1, nos. 21, 29, 30, 38, 45, 48, 58, and in epistle 2, nos. 8, 9 and 12, to say nothing of what was perhaps discussed on that subject in the leaves that have been torn away, commends purity, continence and chastity. Hence this too follows: that if Epiphanius and Jerome, in declaring that the purity of virginity is taught not in an epistle but in the epistles of Clement, meant to indicate both, they at the same time assigned equal authority to both, as being of the same parent. The very place too which it holds in the Alexandrian codex, in which, together with the sacred books of both Testaments, no other work is contained besides this and the foregoing epistle of Clement, is evidence that both were admitted among the sacred Scriptures in some Churches; and this is confirmed by the 84th or last canon of the apostles, which indeed places two epistles of Clement in the catalogue of the books of the New Testament.
III. In omnibus quidem editionibus, una Patricii Junii excepta, δευτέρα πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ inscribitur: sed haec inscriptio ad Corinthios num genuina aut Alexandrini codicis auctoritate fulta sit, nonnulli dubitant; maxime cum in Juniana editione, in qua primum Graece prodiit, hunc unum prae se ferat titulum, Fragmentum epistolae secundae ex eodem ms., nec Eusebius, Rufinus, Hieronymus ac Nicephorus Callisti de altera loquentes Clementis epistola, ad quos scripta sit indicent. Verum hic scrupulus, ex indiligentia ejus injectus, qui primae Clementis epistolae a Junio editae alteram hanc omisso ejus titulo subnexuit, facile eximitur. Nam cum Alexandrinus codex omnium scriptorum, quae in eo continentur, generalem prae se ferat indicem eadem manu, qua totus codex scriptus est, exaratum; haec altera epistola non solum in hoc indice, sed etiam in ipsius fronte ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κορινθίους praenotatur. Neque codici huic refragantur Eusebius, Rufinus, Hieronymus aut Nicephorus. Dum enim, memorata Clementis ad Corinthios epistola prima, proxime subjiciunt: Fertur et altera, nec ad alios hanc alteram scriptam esse designant, e⟨t⟩ hanc ad eosdem scriptam censentur intelligere. Aut certe, si ad alios scriptam nossent, haec illorum reticentia merito negligentiae culparetur. Sed et Photius, qui aliquod saltem epistolae hujus exemplar penes se habuit, et Damascenus, qui unum et alterum nobis fragmentum illius transmisit, dum eam ad Corinthios scriptam disertis verbis tradunt, id quod per se innuunt Eusebii, Rufini, etc., verba, confirmant.
III. In all the editions indeed, that of Patrick Young alone excepted, it is inscribed Second Epistle to the Corinthians; but whether this inscription "to the Corinthians" is genuine, or supported by the authority of the Alexandrian codex, some doubt; chiefly since in Young's edition, in which it first came forth in Greek, it bears this one title only, Fragment of the second epistle from the same manuscript, and neither Eusebius, Rufinus, Jerome nor Nicephorus Callisti, when speaking of the other epistle of Clement, indicate to whom it was written. But this scruple, raised by the carelessness of the man who appended this second epistle, with its title omitted, to the first epistle of Clement published by Young, is easily removed. For since the Alexandrian codex displays a general index of all the writings contained in it, penned by the same hand by which the whole codex was written, this second epistle is headed Epistle to the Corinthians not only in this index but also at its own beginning. Nor do Eusebius, Rufinus, Jerome or Nicephorus contradict this codex. For when, having mentioned the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, they immediately subjoin, There is also said to be a second, and do not mark this second as written to others, they are judged to understand this one too as written to the same people. Or certainly, if they had known it to be written to others, this silence of theirs would deservedly be blamed as negligence. Moreover both Photius, who had in his possession at least some copy of this epistle, and Damascene, who has handed down to us one or two fragments of it, in reporting in express words that it was written to the Corinthians, confirm what the words of Eusebius, Rufinus and the rest of themselves imply.
IV. Eam nihilominus nonnulli suppositionis suspectam habent, idque nominatim Joan. Ern. Grabius Spicil. Patr. t. I, pag. 265, confici putat ex verbis Dionysii Corinthiorum episcopi apud Eusebium lib. IV, c. 23, ad Romanam Ecclesiam sic rescribentis
IV. Nevertheless some hold it suspect of being supposititious, and John Ernest Grabe by name, in the Spicilegium Patrum, vol. I, p. 265, thinks this is established from the words of Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, in Eusebius, book IV, ch. 23, writing back to the Roman Church thus
Editors' notes and page, col. 82
Page
- running head: 81 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 82
- marginal letters: A ‹familiari more intelligendus›; B ‹epistolam continetur, utramque›; C ‹epistola, ad quos scripta sit›; D ‹certe, si ad alios scriptam›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Coustant's Admonitio on the second epistle, continued), set as this unit's text. The caption across both columns is set once under column 81. The column number in the head prints with a damaged last figure (reads like 83). Damaged type: "a⟨m⟩babus" (the m is broken, its last stroke printing as a stray point; both b's are printed; Q3 re-read, the earlier setting marked the first b instead), "e⟨t⟩ hanc". Pen marks over "Hieronymus" (line 9) and over "suspectam … Grabius" at the foot do not hide the reading. UNSURE: the accent of the first ἐπιστολὴ (grave or acute) before "inscribitur"; the figures "48, 58" in the list of numbers; which letter of "ambabus" is the damaged one (m or the first b). "84 seu ultimus" is the author's own numeral, not an old-edition number. The last word "rescribentis" is split at the column break ("re-" here, "scribentis" at the head of column 83, seen in its top image) and is set whole here.
: Hodie sacrum diem Dominicum transegimus, in quo epistolam vestram legimus; quam quidem perpetuo deinceps legentes, perinde atque priorem illam nobis a Clemente scriptam, optimis praeceptis ac documentis abundabimus. Quomodo tamen ex his verbis id quod vult conficiatur, non est exploratum. Hoc unum ex iis conficitur, primam videlicet Clementis epistolam, non item hanc alteram, Corinthi publice legi consuevisse: at ut haec altera falsa sit, inde non est consequens. An id moris tunc erat, ut omnes non apostolorum tantum, sed et apostolicorum virorum epistolae in publicis Ecclesiarum conventibus legerentur; ideoque falsi arguenda sit altera Clementis epistola, quod in illis conventibus minime lecta fuerit? Certe si valeret hujusmodi argumentum, vix ambigendum videtur, quin eo Eusebius, Hieronymus ac Photius ad epistolam istam rejiciendam usi essent. Certius autem ex hac disparitate, qua primam in ecclesiis lectam, alteram non lectam docemur, percipitur ratio cur prima notior ac celebrior altera evaserit.
: Today we have passed the holy Lord's day, on which we read your epistle; and reading it continually hereafter, just as that earlier one written to us by Clement, we shall abound in the best precepts and lessons. Yet how what he wants is established from these words has not been made out. This one thing is established from them, namely that the first epistle of Clement, and not likewise this second, was accustomed to be read publicly at Corinth; but that this second is therefore false does not follow from it. Was it then the custom that all the epistles, not of the apostles only but also of apostolic men, should be read in the public assemblies of the Churches, so that the second epistle of Clement is to be convicted of falsity because it was not read in those assemblies? Certainly, if an argument of this kind held good, it seems scarcely to be doubted that Eusebius, Jerome and Photius would have used it for rejecting that epistle. More surely, however, from this disparity, by which we are taught that the first was read in the churches and the second not read, the reason is perceived why the first turned out better known and more celebrated than the second.
V. Addit Grabius suppositionis sibi suspicionem augeri ex loco cujusdam libri apocryphi, qui cum epist. 1, n 23, sit laudatus, in hac epistola n. 11, iterum citatur; quasi repetita ejusdem sententiae citatio idonea sit falsi suspicandi causa. Sed unum eumdemque locum, ubi sese offert occasio, ab eodem scriptore in eodem opere, quanto magis in diversis, iterato citari quid mirum? Quo etiam singularior est sententia iterum prolata, eo aptior est ad persuadendum, epistolas in quibus pariter laudatur, ab uno auctore proficisci. Aut si haec sententia, quia ex libro aliquo apocrypho excerpta est, suspectam reddit secundam; cur non reddat et primam?
V. Grabe adds that his suspicion of its being supposititious is increased by a passage of a certain apocryphal book which, having been quoted in epistle 1, no. 23, is cited again in this epistle, no. 11; as though the repeated citation of the same saying were a sufficient cause for suspecting falsity. But what wonder is it that one and the same passage, where occasion offers itself, should be cited a second time by the same writer in the same work, and how much more in different ones? Indeed, the more singular the saying that is brought forward a second time, the fitter it is to persuade us that the epistles in which it is equally quoted proceed from one author. Or if this saying, because it is excerpted from some apocryphal book, renders the second suspect, why should it not render the first so too?
VI. Idem dicendum et de censura Photii, qui quidem ubi praemisit, Lectus est libellus, in quo Clementis epistolae duae ad Corinthios continebantur, ac de prima quid sentiret ubi exposuit, subjicit de altera: Secunda vero et ipsa admonitionem melioris vitae inducit, atque in principio Christum Deum praedicat. Verum dicta quaedam peregrina velut e sacra Scriptura subinducit, quibus ne prima quidem epistola omnino vacat. Et interpretationes quorumdam locorum alieniores profert. Ac demum de utraque concludit: Alioquin ipsa, quae in his epistolis insunt sensa, nonnihil abjecta sunt, nec continentem seriem ac consequentiam servant. Nam nihil in hac secunda reprehendit, quod non primae cum ea commune esse fateatur: eoque pacto singularem notat utriusque consensionem, unde ad utramque suscipiendam jure inducamur.
VI. The same must be said also of the censure of Photius, who indeed, after prefacing, A little book was read in which two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians were contained, and after setting out what he thought of the first, subjoins concerning the second: The second too itself introduces an admonition to a better life, and at the beginning proclaims Christ as God. But it brings in certain strange sayings as though from sacred Scripture, from which not even the first epistle is altogether free. And it puts forward rather far-fetched interpretations of certain passages. And at last he concludes concerning both: Otherwise the very thoughts that are in these epistles are somewhat mean, and do not keep a continuous order and sequence. For he blames nothing in this second which he does not admit to be common to the first along with it; and in this way he marks the singular agreement of the two, whence we may rightly be led to receive both.
VII. Neque efficacius veritatem epistolae nostrae impugnat illud pseudo-Justini respons. ad quaest. 74: Si praesentis rerum status finis est impiorum per ignem judicium, prout testantur prophetarum et apostolorum scripta, atque insuper Sibyllae vaticinia, quemadmodum ait B. Clemens in sua ad Corinthios epistola. Primo enim in hoc libro ipsa tacentur Clementis verba, quae prius essent expendenda, ut sanum
VII. Nor does that passage of pseudo-Justin, in the answer to question 74, assail the genuineness of our epistle any more effectively: If the end of the present state of things is the judgement of the impious by fire, as the writings of the prophets and apostles testify, and moreover the oracles of the Sibyl, as blessed Clement says in his epistle to the Corinthians. For first, in this book the very words of Clement are passed over in silence, which would first have to be weighed, in order that a sound
Editors' notes and page, col. 83
Page
- running head: 83 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 84
- marginal letters: A ‹scribentis : Hodie sacrum diem›; B ‹jusmodi argumentum, vix ambigendum›; C ‹gularior est sententia iterum›; D ‹concludit : Alioquin ipsa›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Coustant's Admonitio on the second epistle, continued), set as this unit's text. The column opens with "scribentis", the second half of "rescribentis", which is set whole at the end of column 82; this file therefore begins at the colon that follows it. The last word "sanum" is split at the column break ("sa-" here, "num" at the head of column 84, seen in its top image) and is set whole here. A pen mark crosses "citatio" and "eumdemque" in section V without hiding the reading. "n 23" prints without its point (possibly a dropped sort rather than a misprint).
de illis judicium ferri posset. Deinde primane an secunda Clementis epistola ibi laudetur, non constat. Usserius quidem dissert. de scriptis Ignatii cap. 10, pseudo-Justini verbis secundam epistolam memorari putat; sed Blondellus lib. I De Sibyllis, c. 20, sic eadem Gallice vertit, quasi primam in eis citatam legisset. Tertio nec deest conjectura, locum illum, quem pseudo-Justinus perstringit, ad eum pertinere, quem Irenaeus lib. III Adv. haer., c. 3, velut ex prima epistola citat, ubi Clementem de igne, quem Deus diabolo et angelis ejus praeparavit, sermonem habuisse testatur. Quod si ita est, nihil officit epistolae secundae veritati. Denique argumentum ex Sibyllae mentione petitum, valde infirmum esse Cotelerius erudite ostendit.
judgement might be passed on them. Next, it is not established whether the first or the second epistle of Clement is quoted there. Ussher indeed, in the dissertation on the writings of Ignatius, ch. 10, thinks that the second epistle is mentioned in the words of pseudo-Justin; but Blondel, in book I On the Sibyls, ch. 20, so translates the same words into French as though he had read the first as cited in them. Thirdly, the conjecture is not wanting that the passage which pseudo-Justin touches upon belongs to that which Irenaeus, in book III Against Heresies, ch. 3, cites as from the first epistle, where he testifies that Clement discoursed of the fire which God has prepared for the devil and his angels. And if this is so, it does no harm to the genuineness of the second epistle. Finally, Cotelier learnedly shows that the argument drawn from the mention of the Sibyl is very weak.
VIII. Item vir clarissimus nihil obstare censet, quominus et haec secunda epistola pro genuino Clementis fetu habeatur. Illam primae subnexam et Clementis nomine insignitam exhibet pervetustus codex Alexandrinus, in quo nulla Clemente posteriora scripta continentur. Eidem suffragantur non modo Photius, qui similem penes se habuit, sed et ultimus apostolorum canon, qui secundam illam epistolam non secus ac primam proxime post sacros libros recenset. Utriusque etiam cognationem probant peculiares quidam loci ex apocryphis, ut videtur, expressi. Alios mitto scriptores, qui eam Clementis nomine laudarunt. Tantum observo, apud Dorotheum abbatem, qui inter illos merito propter testimonium ex ea prolatum ac Doctrinae 23 insertum appellandus erat, in Biblioth. Patrum Climaci loco Clementis nomen per oscitantiam librariorum irrepsisse. Ad nos quod attinet, epistolam tanto temporum tractu cum prima conjunctam separare, aut nomen quod ex omni hominum memoria prae se fert, ei abjudicare religioni nobis est. Illam piam, utilem et Clemente non indignam esse neque ipsi, qui eam suppositionis suspicantur, negant. Desiderandum esset, ut integrior ad nos pervenisset.
VIII. Likewise that most distinguished man judges that nothing stands in the way of this second epistle too being held a genuine offspring of Clement. The very ancient Alexandrian codex, in which no writings later than Clement are contained, presents it appended to the first and marked with Clement's name. It is supported not only by Photius, who had a like copy in his possession, but also by the last canon of the apostles, which reckons that second epistle, no otherwise than the first, immediately after the sacred books. The kinship of the two is also proved by certain peculiar passages drawn, as it seems, from apocryphal books. I pass over the other writers who have quoted it under Clement's name. I observe only that in the abbot Dorotheus, who deserved to be named among them on account of the testimony brought forward from it and inserted in Instruction 23, the name of Climacus has, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, crept in in place of Clement's through the drowsiness of the copyists. As far as we are concerned, we have a scruple against separating an epistle joined with the first through so long a stretch of time, or against denying it the name which it has borne from all human memory. That it is pious, useful and not unworthy of Clement not even those deny who suspect it of being supposititious. It would have been desirable that it had come down to us more complete.
IX. Nec morari nos debet opinio eorum, quibus Grabius incunctanter subscribit, qui, propter exordium, in quo salutatio cum prece conjuncta contra apostolorum atque ipsius Clementis morem deest, id quod etiamnum habemus, homiliae potius quam epistolae partem judicant. Non enim tanta est illa ratio, ut veterum, qui epistolam nuncupant, summo consensui non dicam anteferri, sed vel conferri ullo modo valeat. Neque etiam in inquisitione temporis, quo scripta est, nos opus est diutius distineri. Ut enim illud certo dignoscatur non admodum interest, cum nullum in ea factum explicetur. Observant tamen eruditi, eam redolere tempus, quo ecclesiae pace fruebantur. Primum anno 1633, Graece tantum ad calcem epistolae I, a Patricio Junio editae adjuncta Oxonii prodiit. Eam postea Latinitate donarunt Joann. Bapt. Cotelerius et Gottifredus Vendelinus, exindeque Graece et Latine saepius recusa est. Cotelerii interpretationi, ea qua in prima usi sumus libertate, adhaeremus.
IX. Nor ought we to be delayed by the opinion of those, to whom Grabe subscribes without hesitation, who, on account of the opening, in which the salutation joined with a prayer is lacking, contrary to the custom of the apostles and of Clement himself, judge what we still have to be part of a homily rather than of an epistle. For that reason is not of such weight that it can, I do not say be preferred to, but even in any way be compared with the full agreement of the ancients, who call it an epistle. Nor again is there need for us to be detained longer in the inquiry into the time at which it was written. For it matters little that this be known for certain, since no event is set forth in it. Yet the learned observe that it savours of a time when the churches were enjoying peace. It first came forth at Oxford in the year 1633, in Greek only, attached at the end of epistle I published by Patrick Young. Afterwards Jean-Baptiste Cotelier and Godfrey Wendelin gave it a Latin dress, and since then it has often been reprinted in Greek and Latin. We adhere to Cotelier's version, with the same freedom that we used in the first.
Editors' notes and page, col. 84
Page
- running head: 83 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 84
- marginal letters: A ‹num de illis judicium ferri›; B ‹VIII. Item vir clarissimus›; C ‹testimonium ex ea prolatum›; D ‹epistolae partem judicant›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Coustant's Admonitio on the second epistle, end), set as this unit's text. The column opens with "num", the second half of "sanum", which is set whole at the end of column 83; this file begins at "de illis". Damaged type read from context: "Sibyllis" (the second l prints as a broken sort), "epistola" in VIII line 2 (broken t). A pen mark stands over "in ea factum" in IX without hiding the reading. UNSURE: the point after "inquisitione temporis" may be a full stop in the print; set as a comma, which the syntax requires. The column ends with blank space below "adhaeremus."; no foot notes on this page.