Migne Reading Room
PG 1 · cols. 85–122
Variorum prooemia III: Gallandi, dissertations on the letters to the Corinthians and to virgins
Editors' preface
III. EX EDITIONE GALLANDI.
III. FROM THE EDITION OF GALLANDI.
(Vet. Patr. t. I, Venet. 1765, in-fol., p. XI.)
(Vet. Patr., vol. I, Venice 1765, in folio, p. XI.)
SYNOPSIS DISSERTATIONIS.
SYNOPSIS OF THE DISSERTATION.
SECTIO I.
SECTION I.
I. Nonnulla de Clemente R. cujus quatuor supersunt epistolae. Et primum quidem de duabus ad Corinthios. Studium in iis hic iterum evulgatis, adhibitum.
I. Some things concerning Clement of Rome, of whom four epistles survive. And first, indeed, concerning the two to the Corinthians. The care bestowed on them, here published once more.
II. Prioris epistolae Corinthiacae praestantia et integritas asserta. Conjecturae de illius interpolatione, explosae.
II. The excellence and integrity of the former Corinthian epistle asserted. Conjectures about its interpolation exploded.
III. Posterioris item sinceritas astruitur et confirmatur.
III. The genuineness of the latter likewise is established and confirmed.
IV. Adversariorum objectiones tolluntur: quarum prima e dissimilitudine styli desumpta.
IV. The objections of the adversaries are removed: of which the first is drawn from the unlikeness of style.
V. Falso existimatur illa fuisse a sanctis Patribus reprobata. Suspecta fides Eusebii. Dionysii Corinthiorum episcopi locus discussus.
V. It is falsely thought to have been rejected by the holy Fathers. The trustworthiness of Eusebius suspect. A passage of Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, discussed.
VI. Ejusdem epistolae cum priore consensus, judice vel ipso Photio.
VI. The agreement of the same epistle with the former, even Photius himself being judge.
VII. Pseudo-Justini locus immerito objectus.
VII. A passage of Pseudo-Justin undeservedly brought as an objection.
VIII. Solvuntur argumenta, quibus notham suspicatur epistolam Hermannus Venema. Clemens origine gentilis, non Judaeus. Christianismus, ejus aetate, longe lateque propagatus. Epistolae 1 locus insignis de Christi divinitate propugnatus.
VIII. The arguments are answered by which Hermann Venema suspects the epistle to be spurious. Clement a Gentile by origin, not a Jew. Christianity, in his age, spread far and wide. A notable passage of Epistle 1 concerning the divinity of Christ defended.
IX. Tempus quo utraque epistola scripta fuerit, inquiritur.
IX. The time at which each epistle was written is inquired into.
SECTIO II.
SECTION II.
X. Ejusdem Clementis Epistolae 2 ad Virgines, nuper editae. Nova recensione hic denuo typis excusae.
X. The 2 Epistles of the same Clement to Virgins, lately published. Here printed anew in a fresh recension.
XI. Argumenta quibus harum epistolarum ingenuitas confirmatur, alia externa, interna alia. Epiphanii testimonium excutitur ac defenditur.
XI. The arguments by which the genuineness of these epistles is confirmed, some external, others internal. The testimony of Epiphanius is examined and defended.
XII. Testimonium item Hieronymi expensum, illustratum assertumque. Aliis etiam nonnullis Patribus antiquioribus eaedem epistolae haud incompertae.
XII. The testimony of Jerome likewise weighed, illustrated and asserted. The same epistles not unknown also to some other, more ancient Fathers.
XIII. Characteres interni propositi. Aliquot sententiae Syriacarum epistolarum, in Corinthiacis quoque occurrunt. Eadem utrobique scribendi et ratiocinandi methodus. Mores denique vere apostolici.
XIII. The internal marks set forth. Several sentences of the Syriac epistles occur also in the Corinthian ones. The same method of writing and of reasoning in both. Finally, a character truly apostolic.
XIV. Diluitur de Grapte cujus mentio apud Hermam, Clementis Romani uxore, lepidum Hermanni Venemae commentum. Duo epistolae 1 ad Corinthios loca vindicata. Quae vero Virginibus inscribuntur, Graecis litteris fuisse primum exaratae perhibentur, Ecclesia in pace constituta.
XIV. The pleasant fiction of Hermann Venema about Grapte, of whom mention is made in Hermas, as the wife of Clement of Rome, is dissolved. Two passages of Epistle 1 to the Corinthians vindicated. Those, however, which are inscribed to Virgins are held to have been first written in Greek letters, when the Church was established in peace.
SECTIO I.
SECTION I.
DE DUABUS EPISTOLIS AD CORINTHIOS.
ON THE TWO EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
I. Clemens Romanus, sanctorum Patrum quotquot exstant vetustissimus, neque uno nomine primus, chorum ducit: vir plane apostolicus, ab ipsis nempe apostolis institutus, Petri quoque discipulus et Pauli συνεργός; cui proinde ab iisdem apostolorum principibus evangelium ipsorum sanguine recens signatum, concreditum fuisse perhibetur; cujus scripta tantum non θεόπνευστα; cujus denique nomen, dum adhuc in terris ageret, Spiritu sancto testante, scriptum erat in libro vitae. Hic igitur summus Ecclesiae universae pontifex, pastor et doctor egregius, plura sane perscripserit apostolicae doctrinae monumenta, quibus Christianam religionem illustraret confirmaretque: verum ex his nihil ferme aliud est reliqui nisi quatuor Epistolae, quibus fidei ac pietatis institutionem quam ab
I. Clement of Rome, the most ancient of all the holy Fathers who survive, and first on more than one count, leads the choir: a man plainly apostolic, instructed, that is, by the apostles themselves, a disciple also of Peter and a fellow worker of Paul; to whom accordingly the Gospel, freshly sealed with their own blood, is reported to have been entrusted by those same princes of the apostles; whose writings are all but divinely inspired; whose name, finally, while he was still living on earth, the Holy Spirit bearing witness, was written in the book of life. This supreme pontiff of the universal Church, therefore, an outstanding pastor and teacher, will surely have written out many monuments of apostolic doctrine, by which to illustrate and confirm the Christian religion: but of these scarcely anything else remains except four Epistles, by which the instruction in faith and piety which from
Editors' notes and page, col. 85
Footnotes
(33) ‹anchor: Spiritu sancto testante› · call in col 85
Philipp. IV, 3.
Philippians 4:3.
(printed under page 42)
Page
- running head: 85 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 86
- marginal letters: A ‹I. Clemens Romanus, sanctorum Patrum quot-›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Page 42 (cols 85-86): the title, the edition reference, the whole Synopsis (Sectio I items I-IX, Sectio II items X-XIV) and the captions SECTIO I. / DE DUABUS EPISTOLIS AD CORINTHIOS. are printed full width across both columns and are cut by the column crops; they are set once here, pieced together from the crops of col 85 and col 86 (every word seen in one crop or the other). Two-column text begins at "I. Clemens Romanus". Foot note 33, called after "testante": Philipp. IV, 3 (belongs in notes). The column ends mid-sentence.
- running head: 85 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 86
- marginal letters: A ‹I. Clemens Romanus, sanctorum Patrum quot-›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter unit (Gallandi), set as layer 1. Full-width head, synopsis and captions verified against the whole page width. Foot note call 33 after ‹testante› (Philipp. IV, 3) not set here. The numeral III. stands on its own line above EX EDITIONE GALLANDI on the page; joined to the title per the bare-numeral rule. The edition reference prints its page numeral in small capitals. Column ends mid-sentence at ‹quam ab›.
apostolis hauserat, sancte custoditam et religiose servatam, fideliter ad nos usque transmisit. Harum duae priores Corinthiis inscriptae, circa elapsi saeculi medium; duae vero posteriores de virginitate pertractantes, nuper demum e bibliothecarum tenebris erutae, in lucem prodierunt. De utrisque nobis agendum. Nunc vero de duabus epistolis Corinthiacis.
the apostles he had drawn, holily guarded and religiously preserved, he has faithfully handed down even to us. Of these the two former, inscribed to the Corinthians, came forth into the light about the middle of the last century; the two latter, however, which treat of virginity, only lately, dug out from the darkness of libraries. We must treat of both pairs. But now of the two Corinthian epistles.
Has itaque anno 1633, e vetustissimo ms. codice Alexandrino edidit Oxonii primus omnium Patricius Junius: priorem quidem, addita Latina versione notisque illustratam; posterioris vero reliquias Graece tantum ad calcem rejectas. Quo vero suum pensum rite absolveret editor, voces deperditas, ut ipsemet in praefatione testatur, et litteras vetustate exesas, spatiis et interstitiis accuratissime
These, then, in the year 1633, from the most ancient manuscript codex of Alexandria, Patrick Young was the first of all to publish, at Oxford: the former, indeed, with a Latin version added and illustrated with notes; but the remains of the latter in Greek only, relegated to the end. And that the editor might duly discharge his task, the lost words, as he himself testifies in his preface, and the letters eaten away by age, the spaces and intervals most accurately
Editors' notes and page, col. 86
Page
- running head: 85 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 86
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Page 42: the title, Synopsis and section captions run full width above this column and are set once under col 85. The marginal A between the columns is recorded under col 85. Column begins mid-sentence; last word split at the break ("accuratis-"), completed from the first line of col 87 ("sime"). In the image the year reads 1633 with a blot beside "edidit".
- running head: 85 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 86
- marginal letters: (none) (the one letter A stands between the two columns, level with this column's first line; it is recorded under col 85)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter unit (Gallandi), set as layer 1. Column begins mid-sentence. The last word is split at the column break: only ‹accuratis-› is visible on this page (next column not seen); the English assumes a form of accuratissime, UNSURE. In ‹edidit› the last letters are covered by a blot on the scan; read from the visible ‹edid› and the sense.
dimensis, supplevit et minio rubro notavit; eo nimirum consilio, ut quae in laceris membranis temporis injuria consumpta desiderabantur, ab iis quae addita vel suppleta fuerint lectores facilius secernerent. Quae quidem supplementa Juniana posteriores editores, ut uncinulis clausa typis imprimerentur, diligenter curarunt. Magna enimvero et laudanda Junii solertia, si fides ipsi adhibenda. Verum secus sentiunt de eo deque ejus labore in describendo ms. Alexandrino viri longe doctissimi, Wottonus in primis, Millius et Grabius: ut proinde minus recte censuerit Fellus, « actum scilicet irrito conatu acturum fuisse illum, qui post Junium ad exemplar Alexandrinum omnia denuo exegisset: siquidem, subdit, ea habetur de eruditione, industria et fide D. Junii apud omnes fama, ut eamdem suspicione aliqua labefactare, non incivile modo, sed iniquum prorsus videatur. »
measured, he supplied and marked in red vermilion; with this purpose, namely, that readers might more easily distinguish what was missing in the torn parchments, consumed by the injury of time, from what had been added or supplied. And these supplements of Young the later editors took diligent care to have printed enclosed in small brackets. Great indeed and praiseworthy is Young's skill, if he is to be trusted. But men by far the most learned think otherwise of him and of his labour in transcribing the Alexandrian manuscript, Wotton above all, Mill and Grabe: so that Fell judged less than rightly, "that he, namely, would have been doing over, with vain effort, what was already done, who after Young should have checked everything anew against the Alexandrian exemplar: since," he adds, "such is the reputation among all of Mr Young's learning, industry and fidelity, that to shake it by any suspicion would seem not merely uncivil but altogether unjust."
At pretium fuerit operae hic in medium proferre, quae de Juniana Clementinarum Epistolarum editione fuere ab ipso Grabio adnotata. Sic autem se habent: « Quae ex collatione (ms. codicis Alexandrini) emendationem praebent, ad haec fere capita reducuntur. I. Nonnulla in editis omittuntur quae in prototypo exstant, ut ex versione Latina constat. II. Haud pauca vocabula litteris miniatis eduntur, quae in codice exstant; quod factum esse a typothetis verisimile est. III. Sunt haud pauca, quae non recte exscripsit editor. IV. Nonnulla aliter scripta sunt, quam editor repraesentavit ex singulari quadam ejus opinione; qua adduci non potuit, ut scriptionem veterem aliter exhiberet, quam secundum vulgarem scribendi morem. V. Saepe cum ipse male exscripserit, correctionem ex conjectura addit ad marginem; quae correctio in ipso codice reperitur. » Hactenus Grabius. Quibus ergo vitiis laborant editiones ferme omnes, utpote quae fuere ad Junianam exactae: quod quidem liquido patet ex Wottoniana, omnium emendatissima.
But it will be worth while to bring forward here what was noted by Grabe himself about Young's edition of the Clementine Letters. It runs thus: "The things which, from the collation (of the Alexandrian manuscript codex), afford correction are reducible to roughly these heads. I. Some things are omitted in the printed texts which stand in the prototype, as is clear from the Latin version. II. Not a few words are printed in red letters which stand in the codex; which was probably done by the compositors. III. There are not a few things which the editor did not transcribe correctly. IV. Some things are written otherwise than the editor represented them, owing to a certain peculiar opinion of his; by which he could not be brought to exhibit the ancient spelling otherwise than according to the common manner of writing. V. Often, when he himself has transcribed wrongly, he adds a correction from conjecture in the margin; which correction is found in the codex itself." Thus far Grabe. With these faults, therefore, nearly all the editions labour, inasmuch as they were modelled on Young's: which is indeed plainly evident from Wotton's, the most correct of all.
Haec igitur Cantabrigiensis satis luculenta ἔκδοσις in vulgus prodiit anno 1718, summa cura Henrici Wottoni elaborata. Eam enim haud semel exigens V. C. ad fidem ms. codicis Alexandrini, adhibito etiam Junii edito cum eodem codice a Millio atque a Grabio collato, Junianum textum quem caeteri editores sunt secuti, octogies emendavit supplevitque; quae vero aberant a ms. exemplari, atque a Junio litteris miniatis designabantur, minutioribus typis imprimenda curavit. Sed praestat Wottonum ipsum audire, qui consilium studiumque suum in hac editione adornanda hisce verbis exponit: « Cum primum mecum decrevissem editionem S. Clementis in me suscipere, Grabii Milliique exemplaria
This quite splendid Cambridge edition, then, came out to the public in the year 1718, worked out with the utmost care of Henry Wotton. For that most distinguished man, checking it more than once against the authority of the Alexandrian manuscript codex, and using also Young's printed text as collated with the same codex by Mill and by Grabe, emended and supplemented eighty times the text of Young which the other editors have followed; while what was absent from the manuscript exemplar, and was marked by Young in red letters, he had printed in smaller type. But it is better to hear Wotton himself, who sets out his plan and his care in preparing this edition in these words: "As soon as I had resolved with myself to take upon me an edition of St Clement, the copies of Grabe and Mill
Editors' notes and page, col. 87
Footnotes
(1) ‹anchor: Wottonus› · call in col 87
Prolegom. ad Bibl. polyglott., sect. IX, § 34.
Prolegomena to the Polyglot Bible, section IX, § 34.
(printed under page 43)
(2) ‹anchor: Millius› · call in col 87
Apud Russel., edit. PP. Apost., tom. I, part. II, p. 256.
In Russel, edition of the Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, part II, p. 256.
(printed under page 43)
(3) ‹anchor: Grabius› · call in col 87
Prolegom. ad vers. LXX, cap. II, § 1.
Prolegomena to the Septuagint version, chapter II, § 1.
(printed under page 43)
(4) ‹anchor: Fellus› · call in col 87
Praefat. ad epist. 1 Clem., edit. Oxon., 1669.
Preface to the first epistle of Clement, Oxford edition, 1669.
(printed under page 43)
(5) ‹anchor: habent› · call in col 87
Apud Wottonum ad calcem epist. Clem., pag. 102.
In Wotton, at the end of the epistles of Clement, page 102.
(printed under page 43)
(6) ‹anchor: hisce verbis exponit› · call in col 87
Praefat., p. CCVII.
Preface, p. CCVII.
(printed under page 43)
Page
- running head: 87 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 88
- marginal letters: A ‹sime dimensis, supplevit et minio rubro notavit ;›; B ‹ea habetur de eruditione, industria et fide D. Junii›; C ‹scripta sunt, quam editor repraesentavit ex singu-›; D ‹etiam Junii edito cum eodem codice a Millio atque›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: The column opens with "sime", the tail of "accuratissime", set whole at the end of col 86. Last word split at the break ("exem-"), completed from the first line of col 88 ("plaria"). Foot-note calls (1)-(6) dropped from the text; notes at the foot of this column: (1) Prolegom. ad Bibl. polyglott., sect. IX, § 34. (2) Apud Russel., edit. PP. Apost., tom. I, part. II, p. 256. (3) Prolegom. ad vers. LXX, cap. II, § 1. Calls (4)-(6) are answered under col 88. The closing guillemet after "videatur" and after "reperitur" is printed.
quae eorum uterque cum ms. codice quam accurate contulerat, mihi comparavi, atque illorum collationes et emendationes diligenter ad oram libri mei adnotavi. Quod cum egissem, ms. codicem quanta fieri potuit diligentia plus quam semel de novo contuli; quem, cum unicus sit, usque ad litteram secutus sum, praeterquam in abbreviationibus, quas hoc in loco potius adnotandas duxi. Hujusmodi sunt: ΘΣ pro Θεὸς, ΚΣ pro Κύριος, ΙΣ pro Ἰησοῦς, ΧΣ pro Χριστὸς, ΠΝΑ et ΠΝΣ pro Πνεῦμα et Πνεύματος, ΟΥΝΟΣ pro οὐρανὸς, ΑΠΟΣ pro ἄνθρωπος, ΙΣΛ et ΙΗΛ pro Ἰσραὴλ, ΙΛΜ pro Ἱερουσαλὴμ, ΠΡΑ pro πατέρα. Ubi vero codex ms. discedit a vulgari scribendi ratione, vel parum recte se habet, veram ac usitatiorem scribendi rationem, ut et lectiones, emendationes et conjecturas Junii, Boisii, Cotelerii, Felli, Colomesii ac Clerici, inter variantes lectiones posui. Plurimis etiam in locis textum emendavi et suae integritati restitui, ubi parum recte a Junio describebatur. — Quae me ad hanc editionem suscipiendam praecipue impulerunt, haec fuerunt: ne deesset emendatior Graeci textus editio, etc. » Hanc autem Wottonianam editionem, omnium licet accuratissimam, qui deinceps epistolas Clementinas typis excuderunt viri eruditi, si Richardum Russelium excipias, praeteriere inconsultam. Quod quidem mirum, sin minus de reliquis, at saltem de Clerico qui eamdem prae manibus habuit: ex ea enim selectiores Boisii adnotationes a Wottono tum primum editas descripsit, quas in secundam Amstaelodamensem Patrum apostolicorum editionem Cotelerianam transtulit. At eo in primis nomine illam insuper habuisse videtur Clericus, quod editor Cantabrigiensis tum Eduardi Bernardi notulas quibus Epistolae 1 αὐθεντίαν elevare conatus est exsufflarit, tum ipsummet Clericum identidem haud immerito castigarit.
which each of them had collated as accurately as possible with the manuscript codex, I procured for myself, and I diligently noted their collations and emendations in the margin of my book. When I had done this, I collated the manuscript codex afresh more than once, with all the diligence that was possible; and since it is the only one, I have followed it to the letter, except in the abbreviations, which I have thought it better to note in this place. They are of this kind: ΘΣ for Θεὸς, ΚΣ for Κύριος, ΙΣ for Ἰησοῦς, ΧΣ for Χριστός, ΠΝΑ and ΠΝΣ for Πνεῦμα and Πνεύματος, ΟΥΝΟΣ for οὐρανός, ΑΠΟΣ for ἄνθρωπος, ΙΣΛ and ΙΗΛ for Ἰσραήλ, ΙΛΜ for Ἱερουσαλήμ, ΠΡΑ for πατέρα. But where the manuscript codex departs from the common manner of writing, or is not quite correct, I have placed the true and more usual manner of writing, as also the readings, emendations and conjectures of Young, Boys, Cotelier, Fell, Colomiès and Le Clerc, among the variant readings. In very many places, too, I have emended the text and restored it to its integrity, where it was being transcribed not quite correctly by Young. — What chiefly impelled me to undertake this edition was this: that a more correct edition of the Greek text might not be wanting, etc." Yet this edition of Wotton, though the most accurate of all, the learned men who afterwards printed the Clementine letters, if you except Richard Russel, passed by unconsulted. Which is indeed surprising, if not of the rest, then at least of Le Clerc, who had it in his hands: for from it he copied out the choicer annotations of Boys, then first published by Wotton, which he transferred into the second Amsterdam printing of Cotelier's edition of the Apostolic Fathers. But Le Clerc seems to have disregarded it on this account above all, that the Cambridge editor both blew away the little notes of Edward Bernard, by which he tried to lessen the authenticity of Letter 1, and repeatedly, not undeservedly, chastised Le Clerc himself.
Quandoquidem vero Russelii mentio incidit, illud interest adnotare, industrium hunc editorem in suis Patrum apostolicorum operibus genuinis, Londini anno 1746 evulgatis, Wottonianam editionem prae caeteris sibi sequendam jure censuisse. Qui et ad calcem secundae partis voluminis 1 laudabili consilio pleraque subjecit adnotata, ex Joannis Millii apographo accurate ad ms. codicis Alexandrini fidem exacto descripta: quae quidem adnotata Wottonum praetermisisse, quamvis et ipse apographum Millianum sibi comparasse asseveret, miror enimvero; eo vel maxime quod nonnulla in iis reperiantur, quibus ex eodem ms. vetustissimo codicum editorum lectio passim exactior redditur.
Since, however, mention of Russel has come up, it is worth noting that this industrious editor, in his Genuine Works of the Apostolic Fathers, published at London in the year 1746, rightly judged that he ought to follow Wotton's edition before the rest. He also, with a laudable plan, subjoined at the end of the second part of volume 1 a good many notes, copied from John Mill's transcript, accurately checked against the authority of the Alexandrian manuscript codex: and that Wotton passed over these notes, although he too asserts that he procured Mill's transcript for himself, I do indeed wonder; all the more because some things are found in them by which, from that same most ancient manuscript, the reading of the printed books is here and there made more exact.
Neque porro illud praetermittendum, V. C. Joanni Ludovico Frey, qui anno 1742 Epistolas Patrum
Nor, further, is this to be passed over, that the most distinguished Johann Ludwig Frey, who in the year 1742 the Letters of the Fathers
Editors' notes and page, col. 88
Page
- running head: 87 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 88
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: The column opens with "plaria", the tail of "exemplaria", set whole at the end of col 87. The eleven manuscript abbreviations are printed in capitals under a stroke of contraction (overline), not reproduced here. UNSURE: the accent on the last syllable of the Greek words for Israel and Jerusalem (acute or grave before the comma) and the breathing on the latter are not clear in the image; the grave before the comma in the first Greek word is read as printed. Marginal letters A-D of this page stand between the columns and are recorded under col 87. Notes at the foot of this column: (4) Praefat. ad epist. 1 Clem., edit. Oxon., 1669. (5) Apud Wottonum ad calcem epist. Clem., pag. 102. (6) Praefat., p. CCVII. The work title "Patrum apostolicorum operibus genuinis" and "Epistolas Patrum" are in italic. Column ends mid-sentence.
apostolicorum typis Basileensibus consignavit, Wottonianum exemplar, quod quidem exoptabat, videre tum demum licuisse, cum jam epistola 1 Clementis e prelo evasisset: ut proinde posteriorem tantummodo paulo emendatiorem exhibuerit. Qualemcunque tamen hujus editionis Freyanae, alioqui satis nitidae, defectum supplere adnisus est vir eruditus Antonius Birrius in publico Specimine, itidem Basileae anno 1744 edito, atque conjecturis haud poenitendis ad textum Clementinum editionis Wottonianae ulterius adhuc detergendum referto. Hujus autem Speciminis Birriani exemplar cum frustra diu conquisivissem, summo licet studio expetitum, voti tandem compotem me fecit vir liberaliter eruditus Gaspar Hagenbuchius, a quo una cum litteris humanitatis et officii plenissimis Turico Helvetiorum dono illud accepi: quo quidem nomine viro optimo gratias ago et habeo.
Apostolic committed to the Basel press, was allowed to see Wotton's copy, which indeed he longed for, only when Letter 1 of Clement had already come off the press: so that accordingly he presented only the latter in a somewhat more correct form. Yet the defect, such as it is, of this edition of Frey, otherwise handsome enough, the learned Anton Birr strove to supply in a public Specimen, likewise published at Basel in the year 1744, and filled with conjectures by no means to be regretted, for cleansing still further the Clementine text of Wotton's edition. But when I had long sought in vain a copy of this Specimen of Birr, though I desired it with the greatest eagerness, the liberally learned Caspar Hagenbuch at last granted me my wish, from whom I received it as a gift from Zürich of the Swiss, together with a letter most full of kindness and courtesy: on which account I render and owe thanks to that excellent man.
His itaque aliisque subsidiis instructus, ad eam quam hic profero editionem parandam elaborandamque me contuli: quo quidem in opere quantum industriae ac studii adhibuerim, aliorum esto judicium. Illud sane affirmare ausim, Clementis Epistolas ad Corinthios nunc demum prodire multo castigatiores, quam hactenus fuere in vulgus emissae: tot enim loca sunt restituta, tot menda sublata; ut perpauca, si qua sunt, adhuc emendanda superesse videantur. Cum vero in textu Graeco emaculando summa cum laude prae omnibus versatus fuisse videatur Henricus Wottonus, solertem hunc editorem ferme ubique sum assectatus: ea tamen adhibita ratione, ut nonnulla quandoque in notis subjecerim ex Millii praesertim apographo, quae vel ipsum editorem Cantabrigiensem fugerunt, ut modo praemonui; quin et in medium protulerim aliquot virorum eruditorum conjecturas, Birrianas in primis, quae ad veram lectionem eruendam, ubi textus defecit, propius accessisse visae sunt. Interpretationem Cotelerii a Coutantio recensitam retinui, nisi aliter suaserit exactior codicis Alexandrini collatio, a Wottono et Millio instituta; sicubi enim ex fide ms. lectio vulgata reformanda fuit, interpretatio quoque ut ad textum Graecum exigeretur oportuit. Adhaec, Veterum testimonia praemisi ex Coteleriana editione desumpta; quibus tamen alia nonnulla intexui, caeteris aut praetermissa aut invisa. Fragmenta item Clementina adjeci, ex iis potissimum petita quae Coutantius congessit: at locum Irenaicum ab ipso recitatum omisi, quem potius inter testimonia referendum censui; in eo namque non aliquid novi, sed tantum Epistolae I synopsin Irenaeus exhibuisse perhibetur, ut cuilibet diligenter attendenti compertum fiet: quod quidem magno Ecclesiae annalium parenti jampridem suboluit, cum adhuc Clementis textus in bibliothecarum
Furnished, then, with these and other aids, I applied myself to preparing and working out the edition which I here bring forward: and how much industry and care I have applied in this work, let others judge. This at least I would dare to affirm, that the Letters of Clement to the Corinthians now at last come forth much more correct than they have hitherto been issued to the public: for so many passages have been restored, so many faults removed, that very few things, if any, seem still to remain to be emended. And since Henry Wotton seems to have laboured, with the highest praise and beyond all others, in purging the Greek text, I have followed this skilful editor almost everywhere: yet with this method applied, that I have sometimes subjoined in the notes some things, especially from Mill's transcript, which escaped even the Cambridge editor himself, as I have just forewarned; and indeed have also brought forward some conjectures of learned men, those of Birr above all, which have seemed to come nearer to drawing out the true reading where the text has failed. I have retained Cotelier's translation as revised by Coustant, unless the more exact collation of the Alexandrian codex, undertaken by Wotton and Mill, urged otherwise; for wherever the common reading had to be reformed on the authority of the manuscript, the translation too had to be brought into line with the Greek text. In addition, I have prefixed the Testimonies of the Ancients taken from Cotelier's edition; into which, however, I have woven some others, either passed over by the rest or unseen by them. I have likewise added the Clementine Fragments, drawn chiefly from those which Coustant gathered: but the passage of Irenaeus cited by him I have omitted, which I judged ought rather to be placed among the testimonies; for in it Irenaeus is held to have presented not something new, but only a synopsis of Letter I, as will become clear to anyone who attends carefully: which indeed the great parent of the Church's annals scented long ago, when the text of Clement still, in the libraries'
Editors' notes and page, col. 89
Footnotes
(7) ‹anchor: jampridem suboluit› · call in col 89
Baron., ad ann. 95, num. 2.
Baronius, at the year 95, no. 2.
(printed under page 44)
Page
- running head: 89 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 90
- marginal letters: A ‹apostolicorum typis Basileensibus consignavit, Wot-›; B ‹humanitatis et officii plenissimis Turico Helvetio-›; C ‹satus fuisse videatur Henricus Wottonus, solertem›; D ‹ex Coteleriana editione desumpta ; quibus tamen›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins mid-sentence (the first word, in italic, completes the title begun at the end of col 88). Last word split at the break ("bibliothe-"), completed from the first line of col 90 ("carum"). Foot-note call (7) dropped after "suboluit". Notes at the foot of this column: (7) Baron., ad ann. 95, num. 2. (8) Dionys. Corinth. apud Euseb. Hist. eccl. lib. IV, c. 23. Call (8) stands in col 90. "publico Specimine" is in italic.
latebris delitesceret. Summaria denique capita e Coutantiana et Freyana editionibus contexta subjecimus.
hiding-places lay concealed. Finally, we have subjoined the chapter summaries, woven together from the editions of Coustant and Frey.
II. Jam vero, ut de harum epistolarum praestantia et sinceritate disseramus, celeberrima est, quod omnes eruditi norunt, quae prior Corinthiis inscribitur: Ἱκανωτάτη γραφὴ dicta S. Irenaeo, Ἐπιστολὴ μεγάλη τε καὶ θαυμασία Eusebio: atque adeo tantum non canonica, eam apud omnes auctoritatem obtinuit, ut perinde ac reliquae apostolorum Epistolae, publice aliquibus in ecclesiis lecta fuerit: quod quidem praeter Eusebium, Hieronymum aliosque veteres scriptores, testatur antiquior Dionysius Corinthiorum episcopus. Haec sane priscum Evangelii vigorem spirat: stylus quàm proxime ad Novum Testamentum accedit: res verbaque ipsa desumpta in primis ex Epistolis Paulinis: denique nihil fere in ea reperiri contingit, quod primaeva nascentis Ecclesiae incunabula non referat, nihilque quod virum plane apostolicum non maxime deceat.
II. Now then, to discourse of the excellence and genuineness of these letters: most celebrated, as all the learned know, is the former one addressed to the Corinthians, called "a most adequate writing" by St Irenaeus, "a letter both great and wonderful" by Eusebius; and, being indeed all but canonical, it obtained such authority among all that, just like the other Letters of the apostles, it was publicly read in some churches: which, besides Eusebius, Jerome and other ancient writers, the more ancient Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, attests. It breathes, indeed, the pristine vigour of the Gospel: the style comes as near as possible to the New Testament: the matter and the very words are taken above all from the Pauline Letters: in short, almost nothing happens to be found in it which does not recall the earliest cradle of the nascent Church, and nothing which does not most highly befit a man plainly apostolic.
At quamvis hujusmodi venerandum sacrae antiquitatis monumentum a plerisque vetustis locupletissimis testibus quos eidem praemisimus, usquequaque astruatur; atque, simul ac ex antiquissimo ms. codice Alexandrino illud in lucem fuit editum, summo eruditorum ferme omnium consensu, sincerum omnino quantumcunque est, agnitum fuerit, receptum comprobatumque: non defuere tamen hoc et superiore saeculo, qui vitiatum idem mireque interpolatum obfirmate contenderint. Eos inter primas tenet Eduardus Bernardus, cujus notulae in utraque Amstaelodamensi Coteleriana Patrum apostolicorum editione comparent: quibus nimirum in id operis potissimum omni adhibito conatu incumbit vir κριτικώτατος, quo hanc epistolam a plano improbo misere foedatam suadeat, qui Clementi Romano innumeras Clementis Alexandrini lacinias adsuerit. Severioris autem hujus critici placita Joanni Clerico plerumque probantur, qui ea primus in vulgus emisit. Utrumque porro, sed Bernardum praesertim, solide refutavit laudatus Henricus Wottonus in notis ad Clementinas epistolas, quarum editionem eo potissimum nomine a se adornatam profitetur. Verum haud pigeat ipsummet accuratissimum editorem hac de re disserentem audire: « Irriti sunt, inquit, hujus (Bernardi) conatus; qui enim hoc modo ex Clemente Alexandrino arguit, aut eum non probe novit, aut mala fide agit: eadem enim ratione actum erit de authentia et fide eorum omnium, qui a Clemente Alexandrino usquam citantur, scriptorum. Nemo enim Patrum majori licentia est usus in citandis auctoribus, sive sacris sive ethnicis; cum ei in more sit, non integra auctorum verba semper
But although so venerable a monument of sacred antiquity is established on every side by very many ancient and most trustworthy witnesses, whom we have prefixed to it; and although, as soon as it was brought to light from the most ancient Alexandrian manuscript codex, it was acknowledged, received and approved, by the fullest consent of nearly all the learned, as wholly genuine in all its extent: yet there have not been wanting, in this and the preceding century, those who have obstinately contended that it is corrupted and strangely interpolated. Among them Edward Bernard holds the first place, whose little notes appear in both Amsterdam printings of Cotelier's edition of the Apostolic Fathers: in which, to be sure, this most critical of men bends every effort chiefly to this task, to persuade us that this letter was wretchedly disfigured by a shameless impostor, who stitched on to Clement of Rome countless patches from Clement of Alexandria. Now the opinions of this rather severe critic are for the most part approved by Jean Le Clerc, who was the first to issue them to the public. Both of them, moreover, but Bernard especially, were solidly refuted by the aforementioned Henry Wotton in his notes on the Clementine letters, the edition of which he professes to have prepared chiefly on that account. But let it not be irksome to hear that most accurate editor himself discoursing on this matter: "Vain," he says, "are this man's (Bernard's) efforts; for he who argues in this way from Clement of Alexandria either does not know him well or acts in bad faith: for by the same reasoning it will be all over with the authenticity and credit of all those writers who are anywhere cited by Clement of Alexandria. For none of the Fathers used greater licence in citing authors, whether sacred or pagan; since it is his custom not always the authors' words entire
Editors' notes and page, col. 90
Footnotes
(8) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 90
Dionys. Corinth. apud Euseb. Hist. eccl. lib. IV, c. 23.
Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book IV, ch. 23.
(printed under page 44)
(9) ‹anchor: adornatam profitetur› · call in col 90
Praefat. ad Clement. Epist., p. 207.
Preface to the Epistles of Clement, p. 207.
(printed under page 44)
(10) ‹anchor: disserentem audire› · call in col 90
In not. ad Clem. Epist. 1, cap. 9, p 40.
In the notes on Clement's Epistle 1, ch. 9, p. 40.
(printed under page 44)
Page
- running head: 89 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 90
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: The column opens with "carum", the tail of "bibliothecarum", set whole at the end of col 89. Column ends mid-sentence (the verb follows at the top of col 91). "quàm" is printed with its grave accent. Marginal letters A-D of this page stand between the columns and are recorded under col 89. Foot-note calls (8), (9), (10) dropped from the text; note (8) is printed under col 89. Notes at the foot of this column: (9) Praefat. ad Clement. Epist., p. 207. (10) In not. ad Clem. Epist. 1, cap. 9, p. 40.
recitare, sed pro arbitrio suo nunc contrahere, nunc de suo inserere, alia omittere, alia variis modis mutare. — Si ad haec sedulo attendas, agnosces, pie Lector, mecum, ex Alexandrino non interpolatam fuisse, toties ab Ecclesia primaeva celebratam laudibus, imo et cum sacris Scripturis publice lectam Romani Clementis Epistolam.» Haec Wottonus; cui tamen praeiverat Joannes Potterus vir clar. in animadversionibus ad Clementem Alexandrinum, ubi summatim quidem, sed acriter, Bernardi conjectationes elisit.
to recite, but at his own discretion now to abridge, now to insert something of his own, to omit some things, to change others in various ways. — If you attend carefully to these things, you will acknowledge with me, pious Reader, that the Epistle of Clement of Rome, so often celebrated with praises by the primitive Church, nay even publicly read together with the sacred Scriptures, was not interpolated from the Alexandrian.” Thus Wotton; before whom, however, the most distinguished John Potter had led the way in his animadversions on Clement of Alexandria, where, summarily indeed but sharply, he demolished Bernard's conjectures.
Hujus vero critici Angli vestigia presso pede persequitur Joannes Laurentius Moshemius, quem si audias, Clementis epistola 1 quarta sui parte mulctanda tibi erit hinc et illinc, a capite 9 ad 55. Sed non priora quidem decem capita, eo judice, ab interpolatione sunt prorsus immunia. At inania esse ac futilia Moshemii argumenta in oculis posuit Joannes Ludovicus Frey: siquidem invicte vir eruditus evincit cum ex antiquitate codicis Alexandrini ex quo descriptum est pretiosum illud κειμήλιον, tum ex veterum Patrum testimoniis, nos eamdem omnino epistolam habere, quam habuit vetusta Ecclesia; quam audierunt in sacris coetibus primaevi Christiani, dum adhuc ejus lectionis usus vigeret; quam denique legerunt Dionysius Corinthius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Hieronymus, et caeteri.
The footsteps of this English critic, however, are followed close by John Lawrence Mosheim; if you listen to him, you will have to dock Clement's Epistle 1 of a fourth part of itself, here and there, from chapter 9 to 55. But not even the first ten chapters, in his judgement, are altogether free from interpolation. Yet that Mosheim's arguments are empty and futile John Louis Frey has set before our eyes: for that learned man proves irrefutably, both from the antiquity of the Alexandrian codex from which that precious treasure was copied, and from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that we have altogether the same epistle which the ancient Church had; which the first Christians heard in their sacred assemblies, while the custom of reading it was still in force; which, finally, Dionysius of Corinth, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome and the rest read.
Verum si altius adhuc assurrexisset vir clar., vetustis illis Ecclesiae scriptoribus vetustiorem etiam addere poterat Polycarpum, sanctissimum Smyrnensem episcopum et martyrem, qui eamdem Clementinam Epistolam manu versasse, quin et nonnulla ex ea pene verbo tenus excerpta in suam ad Philippenses Epistolam transtulisse perhibetur. Neque fortasse otiosum fuerit, quae viris eruditis nobisque observata de Polycarpiana lectione occurrunt, in unum congesta atque invicem comparata in medium proferre. En itaque locorum aliquot parallelismum institutum.
But if that most distinguished man had risen still higher, he could have added to those ancient writers of the Church one more ancient still, Polycarp, the most holy bishop of Smyrna and martyr, who is reported to have had the same Clementine Epistle in his hands, and indeed to have transferred some things excerpted from it almost word for word into his own Epistle to the Philippians. Nor perhaps will it be idle to bring forward, gathered into one and compared with one another, the things that learned men and we ourselves have observed concerning Polycarp's reading. Here, then, is a parallel of several passages drawn up.
Epist. 1 Clementis ad Corinthios.
Epistle 1 of Clement to the Corinthians.
Epist. Polycarpi ad Philipp.
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
Cap. I. Γυναιξίν τε — παρηγγέλλετε, στεργούσας καθηκόντως τοὺς ἄνδρας ἑαυτῶν — πάνυ σωφρονούσας.
Chap. I. And to the women — you gave charge, cherishing their own husbands as is fitting — being very sober-minded.
Cap. IV. Διδάξωμεν — τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν — στεργούσας τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας ἐν πάσῃ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ — ἐν πάσῃ ἐγκρατείᾳ.
Chap. IV. Let us teach — your wives — cherishing their own husbands in all truth and — in all continence.
Cap. V. Πέτρος — οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης.
Chap. V. Peter — having thus borne witness, went to the place of glory that was due.
Cap. IX. Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος — οὗτοι πάντες — εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον αὐτοῖς τόπον εἰσὶ παρὰ τῷ Κυρίῳ.
Chap. IX. Peter and Paul — all these — are in the place due to them, with the Lord.
Cap. VII. Διὸ ἀπολείπωμεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν τῆς ἁγίας κλήσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα.
Chap. VII. Therefore let us leave behind empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling.
Cap. VII. Διὸ ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν πολλῶν — ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν.
Chap. VII. Therefore, having left behind the vanity of the many — let us turn back to the word handed down to us from the beginning.
Cap. IX. Διὸ ὑπακούσωμεν τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ βουλήσει αὐτοῦ [Θεοῦ] — ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιοπονίαν, τήν τε ἔριν, κ. τ. λ.
Chap. IX. Therefore let us obey His magnificent and glorious will [God's] — having left behind vain labour, and strife, etc.
Cap. II. Διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας, δουλεύσατε τῷ Θεῷ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, ἀπολιπόντες τὴν κενὴν ματαιολογίαν, καὶ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν πλάνην.
Chap. II. Therefore, having girded up your loins, serve God in fear and truth, having left behind empty vain talk and the error of the many.
Cap. XIII. Μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, οὓς ἐλάλησεν διδάσκων· — ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν αὐτῷ μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.
Chap. XIII. Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which He spoke when teaching: — with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you.
Cap. II. Μνημονεύσαντες δὲ ὧν εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος διδάσκων· — ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.
Chap. II. And being mindful of what the Lord said when teaching: — in what measure you measure, it shall be measured back to you.
Cap. XXI. Ἴδωμεν πῶς ἐγγύς ἐστιν [ὁ Κύριος] καὶ ὅτι οὐδὲν λέληθεν αὐτὸν τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐδὲ τῶν διαλογισμῶν ὧν ποιούμεθα· — ἐρευνητὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἐννοιῶν καὶ ἐνθυμήσεων.
Chap. XXI. Let us see how near He is [the Lord], and that nothing of our thoughts has escaped Him, nor of the reasonings which we make; — for He is a searcher of thoughts and intentions.
Cap. IV. Γινώσκ. — ὅτι [ὁ Θεὸς] πάντα ἡμῶν σκοπεῖται, καὶ λέληθεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲν, οὔτε λογισμῶν, οὔτε ἐννοιῶν, οὔτε τι τῶν κρυπτῶν τῆς καρδίας.
Chap. IV. Know. — that [God] surveys all that is ours, and nothing has escaped Him, neither of reasonings, nor of thoughts, nor any of the secrets of the heart.
Ibid. Τοὺς νέους παιδεύσωμεν τὴν παιδείαν τοῦ φόβου τοῦ Θεοῦ· τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν διορθωσώμεθα· τὸ ἀξιαγάπητον τῆς ἁγνείας ἦθος ἐνδειξάσθωσαν· — τὴν ἀγάπην αὐτῶν μὴ κατὰ προσκλίσεις, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸν Θεὸν ὁσίως, ἴσην παρεχέτωσαν.
Ibid. Let us train the young in the discipline of the fear of God; let us set our wives right towards what is good; let them show forth the lovable character of chastity; — let them offer their love not according to partialities, but equal to all who fear God in holiness.
Ibid. Διδάξωμεν — τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν [πορεύεσθαι] ἐν τῇ δοθείσῃ αὐταῖς πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγνείᾳ — καὶ ἀγαπώσας πάντας ἐξ ἴσου ἐν πάσῃ ἐγκρατείᾳ· καὶ τὰ τέκνα παιδεύειν τὴν παιδείαν τοῦ φόβου τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Ibid. Let us teach — your wives [to walk] in the faith given to them and in love and chastity — and loving all equally in all continence; and to train their children in the discipline of the fear of God.
Ex hactenus allatis collatisque locis manifeste liquet, ut quidem arbitror, ab ultima usque antiquitate Polycarpo, Joannis evangelistae discipulo, fuisse perlectam Clementis Romani Epistolam qua de agimus, eamque prae oculis habuisse sanctum Smyrnensem antistitem, dum suam scriberet ad Philippenses: unde orta similitudo illa, quae non solum eumdem stylum ubique, sed eadem quoque pene verba referre haud semel videtur. Cum itaque in Polycarpiana perbrevi Epistola tot appareant
From the passages thus far adduced and compared it is manifestly clear, as I for my part judge, that from the very remotest antiquity the Epistle of Clement of Rome of which we are treating was read through by Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evangelist, and that the holy prelate of Smyrna had it before his eyes while he was writing his own to the Philippians: whence arose that likeness, which more than once seems to reproduce not only the same style everywhere, but also almost the same words. Since, therefore, in Polycarp's very short Epistle there appear so many
Editors' notes and page, col. 91
Footnotes
(11) ‹anchor: ad Clementem Alexandrinum› · call in col 91
Potter. ad Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. IV, cap. 18, p. 610, not. 4.
Potter, on Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book IV, ch. 18, p. 610, note 4.
(printed under page 45)
(12) ‹anchor: Joannes Laurentius Moshemius› · call in col 91
Instit. hist. Christ. major. saec. I, p. 212-215.
Institutiones historiae Christianae majores, first century, pp. 212-215.
(printed under page 45)
Page
- running head: 91 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 92
- marginal letters: A ‹recitare, sed pro arbitrio suo nunc contrahere,›; B ‹Sed non priora quidem decem capita, eo judice,›; C ‹Cap. IX. Διὸ ὑπακούσωμεν τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ καὶ›; D ‹προσκλίσεις, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸν Θεὸν›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: READING ORDER on page 45 (cols 91-92) is broken by a two-column table of parallels: the prose above the table runs col 91 top -> col 92 top; then the table (Clement's passages in col 91, Polycarp's facing them in col 92, each under its own italic caption); then the prose below the table runs col 91 bottom -> col 92 bottom. This file sets col 91 as printed, top to bottom. "Alexandrini" is split at the foot of the upper prose ("Alexan-") and completed from the first line of col 92 ("drini"); "appareant" is split at the foot of the column ("appa-") and completed from col 92 below the table ("reant"). Both Greek columns of the table are the author's citations (not a Greek text with facing Latin version), so both are set. In the last two words of Cap. XIII's citation the italic Greek type shows nu like rho-shaped letters; read as the normal forms. Foot-note calls (11), (12), (13) dropped. Notes at the foot of this column: (11) Potter. ad Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. IV, cap. 18, p. 610, not. 4. (12) Instit. hist. Christ. major. saec. I, p. 212-215. Note (13) is printed under col 92. The square brackets in Cap. IX and Cap. XXI are printed.
- running head: 91 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 92
- marginal letters: A ‹recitare, sed pro arbitrio suo nunc contrahere,›; B ‹Sed non priora quidem decem capita, eo judice,› (stands between the columns, beside ‹Neque fortasse otiosum fuerit› on the right); C ‹Cap. IX. Διὸ ὑπακούσωμεν τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ καὶ›; D ‹ὁσίως, ἴσην παρεχέτωσαν.›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter unit (Gallandi), layer 1. Page 45 laid in reading order under this rail: 91 upper, 92 upper, the two-sided table (each row Clement then Polycarp, after the two side captions), then 91 lower. The existing part files were not opened (not permitted in this pass), so the text was set afresh from the whole-page images rather than moved. The second paragraph runs across the break 91 upper to 92 upper (‹Alexan-|drini›), joined. Last word ‹appa-|reant› is split across the lower column break and set whole here; the 92 rail resumes at ‹Clementinae vestigia›. Foot note calls (11) after ‹Alexandrinum›, (12) after ‹Moshemius›, (13) after ‹Frey› not set; notes 11-13 at the foot not set. Column begins mid-sentence. In the table the left side reads ‹πάντα ἡμῶν σκοπεῖται› on the Polycarp side as printed.
Clementinae vestigia; hanc unam ob causam, Bernardi, Clerici ac Moshemii conjectationes de hujus laciniis ex Clemente Alexandrino desumptis, omnino evanescant oportet.
traces of the Clementine one; for this one reason the conjectures of Bernard, Le Clerc and Mosheim about its patches taken from Clement of Alexandria must altogether vanish.
Neque alii profecto desunt, qui ejusdem Epistolae sinceritatem in dubium revocent; quod nimirum nonnulla fabulosa prae se ferat; quod aliqua in ea desiderantur a vetustis Patribus allegata, etc. Sed hos morosiores criticos missos facimus: tum quod eorum objectiones fluxo adeo talo nitantur, ut pedem
Nor indeed are others lacking who call the genuineness of the same Epistle into doubt; because, namely, it exhibits some fabulous things; because some things cited by the ancient Fathers are missing in it, etc. But we dismiss these more captious critics: both because their objections rest on so unsteady a footing that to come to close quarters
Editors' notes and page, col. 92
Footnotes
(13) ‹anchor: Joannes Ludovicus Frey› · call in col 91
Praefat. ad Epist. SS. PP. apostol. circa med.
Preface to the Epistles of the holy Apostolic Fathers, about the middle.
(printed under page 45)
Page
- running head: 91 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 92
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: READING ORDER on page 45: prose above the table runs col 91 top -> col 92 top; the table of parallels follows (Clement in col 91, Polycarp here in col 92); the prose below the table runs col 91 bottom -> col 92 bottom. This file sets col 92 as printed, top to bottom: its first paragraph continues the sentence broken off above the table in col 91, and the paragraph beginning "Clementinae vestigia" continues the sentence at the foot of col 91. The column opens with "drini" (tail of "Alexandrini") and its lower prose opens with "reant" (tail of "appareant"); both are set whole in col 91. Last word split at the break ("pe-"), completed from the first line of col 93 ("dem"). The Greek of this column is the author's citation of Polycarp, not a facing version, so it is set. "Γινώσκ." is printed abbreviated; the square brackets in Cap. IV and Ibid. are printed. UNSURE: the accent of the Greek word for "nothing" before its comma (grave read). Marginal letters A-D of this page stand between the columns and are recorded under col 91. Note at the foot of this column: (13) Praefat. ad Epist. SS. PP. apostol. circa med.
- running head: 91 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 92
- marginal letters: (none in this lower part; A, B, C, D of the page recorded under 91)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter unit (Gallandi), layer 1. This rail keeps only 92 lower, where its text resumes after the table; 92 upper stands under the 91 rail in reading order. The first word here is the remainder of the sentence whose split word ‹appareant› is set whole under 91. The last word is split at the column break (‹pe-|dem›) and is set whole here (Q2: tail read from the first line of col 93, whose file does not restore it); the English carries the sense of the completed word. Existing part files not opened; text set afresh from the whole-page images. Note 13 at the foot not set; its call (13) stands after ‹Frey› in col 91 upper, the note itself under col 92.
cum singulis conferre haud expediat, tum in primis quod a plerisque viris eruditis res abunde satis fuerit pertractata. Firmum igitur ratumque sit, germanam omnino esse priorem Clementis epistolam, quae utinam ad nos integra pervenisset! quidquid enim in ea continetur, tempora plane apostolica refert; neque ullum ex omni retro antiquitate quispiam testem produxerit, qui homines cordatos de illius sinceritate merito ancipites reddere valeat.
with each of them singly is not worth while, and above all because the matter has been abundantly enough handled by very many learned men. Let it therefore be firm and settled that the former letter of Clement is altogether genuine; and would that it had reached us entire! For whatever is contained in it plainly reflects apostolic times; nor will anyone produce any witness from all antiquity past who is able to make sensible men justly doubtful of its genuineness.
III. Posterioris item ad Corinthios Epistolae Clementinae, sunt qui non solum veritatem, verum etiam antiquitatem impugnant. His nuper etiam accessit haud incelebris criticus Hermannus Venema in Epistolis Harlingae evulgatis, eo potissimum nomine, quo epistolarum Clementis a clar. Wetstenio haud ita pridem editarum integritatem everteret: qua de re mox inferius. Ne itaque officio nostro deesse videamur, Cotelerium, Bullum, Coutantium aliosque viros doctos assectati, adversariorum objectationibus facere satis operae pretium existimamus.
III. Of the latter Clementine Letter to the Corinthians likewise, there are those who attack not only the authenticity but even the antiquity. To these there has lately been added also a critic of no small renown, Hermann Venema, in Letters published at Harlingen, chiefly with this aim, to overthrow the integrity of the letters of Clement published not so long ago by the distinguished Wettstein: of which matter presently below. Lest, therefore, we should seem to fail in our duty, following Cotelier, Bull, Coustant and other learned men, we think it worth while to answer the objections of the opponents.
Observandum itaque primum Epistolam utramque ex uno superstite vetustissimo codice Alexandrino in lucem prodiisse. Scilicet, codex iste quatuor voluminibus constans, praefixum habet indiculum librorum utriusque Foederis, ab ejusdem librarii manu characteribus uncialibus exaratum: quem integrum exhibet Beveregius, et quidem summa fide descriptum, adeo ut ne lacunas quidem suppleverit, sed ubi litterae quaevis erant vetustate abrasae, ibi interstitia accurate dimensa reliquerit: quod itidem praestitit ex Beveregio Humfredus Hodius; et deinceps, at non pari religione, Joannes Ernestus Grabius. In hoc igitur indiculo sub finem, litteris grandioribus absque accentibus et spiritibus quibus caret, sic legitur:
It is to be observed first, then, that both Letters have come to light from the one surviving, most ancient Alexandrian codex. That codex, namely, consisting of four volumes, has prefixed to it a list of the books of both Testaments, written in uncial characters by the hand of the same scribe: which Beveridge presents entire, and indeed transcribed with the utmost fidelity, so much so that he did not even fill the gaps, but, where any letters had been rubbed away by age, there left spaces accurately measured: which Humphrey Hody likewise did, from Beveridge; and afterwards, but not with equal scrupulousness, Johann Ernst Grabe. In this list, then, towards the end, in larger letters without the accents and breathings, which it lacks, one reads thus:
ΚΛΗΜΕΝΤΟΣ Ε. . . . . . . ΛΗ Α
OF CLEMENT, L[ETT]ER I
. . . . . ΕΝΤΟΣ Ε. . . . . . . ΛΗ Β
[OF CLE]MENT, L[ETT]ER II
Quas autem prae se fert hic indiculus duas Clementis Epistolas, eas exhibet ad calcem ejusdem ms. codicis volumen quartum: priorem quidem sic inscriptam, ΚΛΗΜΕΝΤΟΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ Α; posteriorem vero sic, ΚΛΗΜΕΝΤΟΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ Β: ut videre est apud Wottonum, solertissimum laudati codicis exscriptorem. Ex hoc igitur Alexandrino exemplari compertum est, primo, duas Epistolas Clementem scripsisse; deinde utramque fuisse Corinthiis inscriptam. Licet enim posterior, ex librariorum fortasse incuria, praenotata πρὸς Κορινθίους haud compareat; quidni et eam ad Corinthios missam existimemus, cum prioris inscriptio hac de re satis superque indubios nos reddat? Enimvero neque prior legitur in indiculo fuisse ad Corinthios perscripta. Quis
Now the two Letters of Clement which this list displays are presented at the end of the same manuscript codex by the fourth volume: the former inscribed thus, OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS, LETTER I; the latter thus, OF CLEMENT, LETTER II: as may be seen in Wotton, the most skilful transcriber of the said codex. From this Alexandrian exemplar, then, it is ascertained, first, that Clement wrote two Letters; next, that both were addressed to the Corinthians. For although the latter, perhaps through the carelessness of the scribes, does not appear headed "to the Corinthians", why should we not suppose that it too was sent to the Corinthians, when the inscription of the former makes us more than sufficiently free of doubt on this point? Indeed, neither is the former read in the list as having been written to the Corinthians. Who
Editors' notes and page, col. 93
Footnotes
(14) ‹anchor: integrum exhibet Beveregius› · call in col 93
Cod. can. Eccl. prim., lib. II, cap. 9.
Codex canonum Ecclesiae primitivae, book II, ch. 9.
(printed under page 46)
(15) ‹anchor: Humfredus Hodius› · call in col 93
De Bibl. text. orig., lib. IV, cap. 4, p. 649.
De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, book IV, ch. 4, p. 649.
(printed under page 46)
(16) ‹anchor: Joannes Ernestus Grabius› · call in col 93
Prolegom. ad vers. LXX, tom. I, cap. 1, § 2.
Prolegomena to the Septuagint version, vol. I, ch. 1, § 2.
(printed under page 46)
Page
- running head: 93 PROOEMIA VARIORUM 94
- marginal letters: A ‹dem cum singulis conferre haud expediat, tum in›; B ‹mine, quo epistolarum Clementis a clar. Wetstenio›; C ‹summa fide descriptum, adeo ut ne lacunas quidem›; D ‹ΤΟΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ Β : ut videre est apud Wot-›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: The column opens with "dem", the tail of "pedem", set whole at the end of col 92. Column ends mid-sentence at a whole word. The two displayed lines of the codex's list are printed centred, in capitals, with rows of dots for the lost letters (the number of dots is approximate here) and with a stroke over the final numeral letter of each line (not reproduced); the dots are the printed lacunae of the manuscript, not gaps in Migne's type. Foot-note calls (14), (15), (16) dropped. Notes at the foot of this column: (14) Cod. can. Eccl. prim., lib. II, cap. 9. (15) De Bibl. text. orig., lib. IV, cap. 4, p. 649. Note (16) is printed under col 94.
porro ne illam quidem Corinthiorum nomine signatam ex ejusdem indiculi silentio jure arguat?
then would rightly argue from the silence of that same list that not even that one was marked with the name of the Corinthians?
Neque item silentium nos moveat Eusebii, et qui eum secuti sunt, Hieronymi atque Rufini; qui dum Epistolae secundae meminerunt, Ecclesiae Corinthiacae fuisse illam inscriptam non perhibent. Cum enim laudati scriptores, ut recte Coutantius, memorata priore Clementis ad Corinthios Epistola, statim subdant: Fertur et altera, neque ad alios hanc alteram scriptam esse designent, eam quoque ad eosdem scriptam intelligere merito existimantur: alioquin, si ad alios missam nossent, neque id innuissent, haec ipsorum reticentia jure ac merito negligentiae culpanda videretur. Quid quod Dorotheus archimandrita, Joannes Damascenus et Nicon monachus secundam Clementis Epistolam, et quidem ad Corinthios scriptam, legerunt, ejusque unum alterumve fragmentum apud illos servatum etiamnum reperimus? Quid quod vel ipse Photius semel iterumque palam testatur, sibi lectum libellum in quo Clementis Epistolae duae ad Corinthios continebantur, ejusque de utraque judicium mire consonat cum iis quae adhuc supersunt? Consulesis infra veterum testimonia Epistolis Clementinis praemissa, fragmentaque iisdem subjecta. Si quid ergo negotii facessant antiquiorum Eusebii, Hieronymi ac Rufini loca haud satis aperta, quod tamen vix admiserim, hinc procul dubio difficultas omnis tollatur oportet; cum diserta posteriorum scriptorum verba, priorum et sententiam explanent et testimonia confirment.
Nor likewise should the silence of Eusebius move us, or of those who followed him, Jerome and Rufinus; who, while they mention a second Letter, do not state that it was addressed to the Church of Corinth. For since the said writers, as Coustant rightly observes, after mentioning the former Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, immediately add: A second also is reported, and do not indicate that this second was written to others, they are with reason judged to understand it too as written to the same people: otherwise, if they had known it to have been sent to others and had not hinted as much, this reticence of theirs would rightly and deservedly seem blameworthy for negligence. What of the fact that Dorotheus the archimandrite, John of Damascus and Nicon the monk read a second Letter of Clement, and indeed one written to the Corinthians, and that we still find one or two fragments of it preserved in them? What of the fact that even Photius himself openly testifies, once and again, that he had read a little book in which two Letters of Clement to the Corinthians were contained, and that his judgement on each agrees wonderfully with those which still survive? Consult, please, below, the testimonies of the ancients prefixed to the Clementine Letters, and the fragments subjoined to them. If, therefore, the not sufficiently clear passages of the more ancient Eusebius, Jerome and Rufinus cause any trouble, which however I would scarcely grant, from this beyond doubt every difficulty must be removed; since the express words of the later writers both explain the meaning of the earlier and confirm their testimonies.
Ex his itaque compertum habemus, ut equidem existimo, haud parum ponderis ad asserendam Clementi Romano hanc secundam Epistolam, habere auctoritatem codicis Alexandrini, proximo ut videtur saeculo post concilium Nicaenum ex antiquiore profecto exemplari descripti. Ex eo enim liquet utramque Clementinam Epistolam non solum inter canonicas Scripturas perinde recensitam fuisse, ac si utraque vere canonica esset, verum etiam ambas propterea in sacrorum Librorum censu locum habuisse, unaque cum aliis canonicis libris fuisse compactas, quod utraque tunc temporis in coetibus ecclesiasticis vel legi soleret, vel saltem sacrae publicae lectioni destinaretur. Quod quidem magis adhuc confirmatur ex canonibus apostolicis, circa saeculi III medium collectis: in horum enim canonum ultimo, sacrarum Scripturarum recensionem proferente, post enumeratas apostolorum Epistolas statim subjiciuntur Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ δύο: quae profecto eaedem fuisse videntur cum iis quas Alexandrini codicis indiculus exhibet; eo vel maxime quod eodem plane ordine quo laudatus indiculus, canon iste apostolicus illas digerat: ut proinde nulla subsit dubitatio, quominus utriusque
From these things, then, we hold it ascertained, as I for my part judge, that no little weight for claiming this second Letter for Clement of Rome belongs to the authority of the Alexandrian codex, transcribed, as it seems, in the century next after the Council of Nicaea, from an exemplar assuredly more ancient. For from it it is clear that both Clementine Letters were not only reckoned among the canonical Scriptures just as if each were truly canonical, but also that both had a place in the roll of the sacred Books, and were bound up together with the other canonical books, for this reason, that each was at that time either customarily read in the assemblies of the Church, or at least was appointed for sacred public reading. And this is still further confirmed from the apostolic canons, collected about the middle of the third century: for in the last of these canons, which sets forth a list of the sacred Scriptures, after the Letters of the apostles have been enumerated there are immediately subjoined "two letters of Clement": which assuredly seem to have been the same as those which the list of the Alexandrian codex presents; all the more because this apostolic canon arranges them in plainly the same order as the said list: so that accordingly no doubt remains but that of both
Editors' notes and page, col. 94
Page
- running head: 93 PROOEMIA VARIORUM 94
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins and ends mid-sentence at whole words. The column number in the running head is damaged in the scan (reads like "91"); it is 94. Italic in the print: "ad Corinthios", "Fertur et altera", "secundam", "lectum libellum in quo Clementis Epistolae duae ad Corinthios". UNSURE: the accent on the last syllable of the middle Greek word of the three-word citation (grave read). "saeculi III": the numeral is faint in the image. Marginal letters A-D of this page stand between the columns and are recorded under col 93. Note at the foot of this column: (16) Prolegom. ad vers. LXX, tom. I, cap. 1, § 2.
recensionis locus sit accipiendus de duabus Epistolis Corinthiacis, quorum auctor fuerit Clemens Romanus.
passage of the recension is to be understood of the two Epistles to the Corinthians, whose author was Clement of Rome.
Hinc itaque meritissimo exploditur a viris doctis Vendelini et Dodwelli opinio, quae Grabio quoque aliisque probatur: homiliae scilicet partem esse, quae inscribitur secunda Epistola; illiusque fragmentum satis longum quod etiamnum superest, ad veterem διδαχὴν Clementinam esse omnino amandandum: quin et eo processit ipse Dodwellus intemperantioris critices sectator studiosissimus, ut loca nonnulla ejusdem Epistolae stylum eclogarium hypotyposeon Clementis Alexandrini referre professus fuerit, adeoque immistos invicem duos illos fuisse Clementes conjecerit. Sed censores istiusmodi mittamus, qui a veritate longe aberrare noscuntur. Quam enim canones apostolici, quam pervetustus codex Alexandrinus, quam denique Eusebius, Hieronymus, Dorotheus, Damascenus, Photius, et caeteri summo consensu Epistolam nuncupant, eam vero nonnisi conjectando in Homiliarum censum referre atque inter supposititia Clementina collocare: id tum demum est hominum otio abutentium, qui non rationem in disputando sequantur, sed sive contentionis sive novitatis studio se abripi sinant: ut propterea eorum opinio veterum sententiae non solum non praeferenda, sed ne conferenda quidem cum illa videatur.
Hence, therefore, the opinion of Wendelin and Dodwell, which is approved by Grabe also and by others, is most deservedly rejected by learned men: namely, that what is entitled the second Epistle is part of a homily; and that the fairly long fragment of it which still survives is to be relegated altogether to the ancient Clementine διδαχή; indeed Dodwell himself, a most zealous follower of a too intemperate criticism, went so far as to declare that some passages of the same Epistle recall the style of the excerpts of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria, and so conjectured that those two Clements had been mixed up with one another. But let us dismiss critics of this kind, who are known to wander far from the truth. For that which the apostolic canons, which the very ancient Codex Alexandrinus, which finally Eusebius, Jerome, Dorotheus, the Damascene, Photius, and the rest with the fullest agreement call an Epistle, to refer this, by nothing but conjecture, to the class of Homilies and to place it among the spurious Clementine writings: that is precisely the part of men abusing their leisure, who do not follow reason in disputing, but allow themselves to be carried away by zeal either for contention or for novelty; so that on this account their opinion seems not only not to be preferred to the judgement of the ancients, but not even to be compared with it.
IV. Neque demum singillatim acceptae adversariorum objectationes tanti sunt ponderis, ut hanc Epistolam suppositionis suspectam reddere valeant. Joannes Morinus, vir caetera doctus, eamdem a sanctis Patribus adulterinam fuisse habitam secum reputans, sed immerito ut mox patebit, quo id magis adhuc astruat, ab ipsius Epistolae stylo argumentum desumit, et quidem acrius fortasse quam decebat. « Illius stylus, inquit, ut prioris non est simplex, sed argutulus; non sponte fluens, sed pro auctoris captu studiose elaboratus; non ἀπεριοδικὸς et nonnunquam ἀνανταπόδοτος sed verborum ambitum, antitheses earumque redditionem ambitiose affectat. » Haec Morinus, cujus sententia Richardo quoque Simonio probari videtur. Inficiari equidem nolim haud leve aliquando argumentum ex dissimilitudine styli suppetere, quo alicui scriptori opus abjudicetur, aliique addicatur; dummodo tamen reliqua rite cohaereant. Verum hunc canonem criticum non esse nimium urgendum, nemo non videt: siquidem, ut optime Cotelerius quem sequitur et Grabius, styli dissimilitudo ab eodem scriptore pro varietate temporum et causarum oriri potuit.
IV. Nor, finally, are the objections of the opponents, taken one by one, of such weight that they are able to render this Epistle suspect of being supposititious. Jean Morin, a man in other respects learned, considering with himself that it was held spurious by the holy Fathers, though wrongly, as will soon appear, in order to establish this still further draws an argument from the style of the Epistle itself, and indeed perhaps more sharply than was fitting. "Its style," he says, "is not simple like that of the former, but somewhat over-subtle; not flowing of its own accord, but studiously elaborated according to the author's capacity; not unperiodic and sometimes lacking its answering clause, but it ambitiously affects the rounding of words, antitheses and their answering members." Thus Morin, whose judgement seems to be approved by Richard Simon also. I for my part would not wish to deny that sometimes no slight argument is supplied by dissimilarity of style, by which a work may be taken away from one writer and assigned to another; provided, however, that the rest duly hangs together. But that this critical canon is not to be pressed too far, everyone sees: since, as Cotelier very well says, whom Grabe also follows, dissimilarity of style could arise in the same writer according to the variety of times and occasions.
Editors' notes and page, col. 95
Footnotes
(17) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 95
Dodw., Dissert. in Iren. § XXIX, p, 53.
Dodwell, Dissertations on Irenaeus, § XXIX, p. 53.
(printed under page 47)
(18) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 95
Spicil.. tom. I, p. 268.
Spicilegium, vol. I, p. 268.
(printed under page 47)
(19) ‹anchor: Illius stylus, inquit› · call in col 95
Exercit. biblic., lib. I, exerc. IX, cap. 4, § IX.
Exercitationes biblicae, book I, exercitation IX, ch. 4, § IX.
(printed under page 47)
(20) ‹anchor: probari videtur› · call in col 95
Bibl. chois., t. I, chap. 28, p. 282.
Bibliothèque choisie, vol. I, ch. 28, p. 282.
(printed under page 47)
(21) ‹anchor: sequitur et Grabius› · call in col 95
Spicil., tom. I, p. 268.
Spicilegium, vol. I, p. 268.
(printed under page 47)
Page
- running head: 95 AD S. CLEMENTEM I [continues across the page]
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the page's letters stand beside the right column)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (17)–(21) removed from the text; foot notes 17–22 at the column foot belong in notes (note 22 is called from col. 96). Guillemets set for the printed quotation marks. "Vendelini": the d is damaged in the type but legible.
Neque desunt exempla, quibus hujusmodi assertum comprobetur. Ut autem unum vel alterum proponamus, Epistolam ad Hebraeos non esse apostoli Pauli, sed vel Barnabae vel Lucae vel nostri Clementis, e styli charactere veterum nonnulli existimarunt, Origenes, Eusebius, Hieronymus, aliique antiquiores. Attamen quam fluxa sit haec sententia, cum ex Epistola II Petri, tum in primis ex ipsius Epistolae ad Hebraeos contextu satis liquet, ut prae caeteris nervose rem astruit Joannes Millius. Idem judicium latum olim fuisse de Petri Epistola II testantur iidem scriptores quorum modo meminimus. Verum et hic frustra censitum ex dissimilitudine styli, eas Epistolas duos scriptores prodere, quas unius Petri esse luculenter aliunde constat. De auctore itidem Apocalypseos, aliis quidem nominibus, at praesertim e styli ratione antiquitus dubitatum, utrum fuerit Joannes apostolus. Dionysium Alexandrinum apud Eusebium si audiamus, Evangelium Joannis et ejusdem Epistola I sibi mutuo cohaerent; atque in omnibus, si recte perpenderis, unum idemque utriusque scriptionis genus evidenter apparet; Apocalypsis vero ab utroque illo scripto aliena est et extranea. At quam parum hac in re tribuendum sit Dionysii Alexandrini auctoritati, norunt eruditi, ut abunde satis ante oculos posuit vir doctus modo laudatus.
Nor are examples wanting by which an assertion of this kind may be confirmed. To set forth one or two, some of the ancients, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and others of the older writers, judged from the character of the style that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the apostle Paul's, but either Barnabas's or Luke's or our Clement's. Yet how unstable this opinion is, is sufficiently clear both from the Second Epistle of Peter and above all from the context of the Epistle to the Hebrews itself, as John Mill beyond the rest vigorously establishes the matter. That the same judgement was formerly passed on the Second Epistle of Peter is attested by the same writers whom we have just mentioned. But here too it was vainly judged from dissimilarity of style that those Epistles betray two writers, which are clearly established on other grounds to be Peter's alone. Concerning the author of the Apocalypse likewise, on other grounds indeed, but especially by reason of the style, it was doubted in antiquity whether he was John the apostle. If we listen to Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius, the Gospel of John and his First Epistle cohere with each other; and in all things, if you weigh it rightly, one and the same manner of writing plainly appears in both; but the Apocalypse is alien and foreign to both of those writings. Yet how little is to be allowed in this matter to the authority of Dionysius of Alexandria the learned know, as the learned man just cited has set before our eyes abundantly enough.
Ex hactenus allatis exemplis manifeste liquet, mea quidem sententia, quam tenui tibicine fultum sit argumentum e styli dissimilitudine sumptum, quo Epistola II abjudicetur Clementi. Jam caetera prosequamur.
From the examples adduced thus far it is manifestly clear, in my judgement at least, on how slender a prop rests the argument taken from dissimilarity of style, by which the Second Epistle is taken away from Clement. Let us now pursue the rest.
V. Morinum modo audivimus, nullo teste adhibito, asseruisse hanc epistolam a sanctis Patribus tanquam adulterinam fuisse habitam: quae quidem sententia nonnullis quoque aliis probatur. Jurene, an secus, videamus. De hac ipsa epistola Eusebii testimonium hujusmodi habemus: 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. « Sciendum est autem, quod et secunda quaedam Clementis epistola esse dicatur: verum hanc non perinde ac priorem notam esse comperimus; quoniam nec veteres ea usos esse novimus. » Quem locum Rufinus indiligenter pro more suo ita interpretatur: Dicitur tamen esse et alia Clementis epistola, cujus nos notitiam non accepimus. Neque magis accurate Hieronymus: Fertur secunda esse ex ejus nomine epistola, quae a veteribus reprobatur. Photius autem ad Hieronymi sententiam accedens, haec habet: Ἡ δὲ λεγομένη δευτέρα πρὸς
V. We have just heard Morin assert, with no witness adduced, that this epistle was held by the holy Fathers as spurious: an opinion which is approved by some others also. Whether rightly or otherwise, let us see. Concerning this very epistle we have a testimony of Eusebius of this kind: But it must be known that there is said to be also 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 know that not even the ancients made use of it. "Now it must be known that there is said to be also a certain second epistle of Clement; but we have found that this one is not known in the same way as the former, since we know that neither did the ancients use it." Which passage Rufinus, carelessly as is his custom, renders thus: There is said, however, to be also another epistle of Clement, of which we have received no knowledge. Nor does Jerome render it more accurately: A second epistle is reported to exist under his name, which is rejected by the ancients. Photius, moreover, coming over to Jerome's opinion, has this: But the so-called second [epistle] to
Editors' notes and page, col. 96
Footnotes
(22) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 96
Origen., apud Euseb., Hist. eccl., lib. VI, cap. 25.
Origen, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VI, ch. 25.
(printed under page 47)
(23) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 96
Prolegom. ad N. T., n. 85. seqq.
Prolegomena to the New Testament, no. 85 and following.
(printed under page 47)
(24) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 96
Origen., Comment. in Joan., tom. V. p. 88 ; Euseb., l. c. ; Hieron., De vir. illustr., cap. 1.
Origen, Commentary on John, tome V, p. 88; Eusebius, in the place cited; Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 1.
(printed under page 47)
(25) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 96
Hist. eccl., lib. VII, cap. 30.
Ecclesiastical History, book VII, ch. 30. [chapter numeral faint in the scan; read as 30]
(printed under page 47)
(26) ‹anchor: modo laudatus› · call in col 96
Mill., l. c. num. 176, seqq.
Mill, in the place cited, no. 176 and following.
(printed under page 47)
(27) ‹anchor: hujusmodi habemus› · call in col 96
Hist. eccl., lib. III, cap. 38.
Ecclesiastical History, book III, ch. 38.
(printed under page 47)
(28) ‹anchor: haec habet› · call in col 96
Bibl. cod. CXIII.
Bibliotheca, codex CXIII.
(printed under page 47)
Page
- running head: [continued] . CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 96
- marginal letters: A Neque desunt exempla; B stat. De auctore itidem; C sit argumentum e styli; D perimus; quoniam nec veteres
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column ends mid-sentence in the Greek of Photius. Foot-note calls (22)–(28) removed; foot notes 23–28 at the column foot belong in notes. UNSURE whether the type has μὲν or μὴν after οὐ (read as μὲν). Italic titles and italic Latin quotations set in plain text.
τοὺς αὐτοὺς, ὡς νόθος ἀποδοκιμάζεται. « Quae autem secunda ad eosdem (Corinthios) dicitur, ut notha rejicitur. » At rectius ad mentem Eusebii Nicephorus: 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 (Clementis) epistola, priore longe inferior; de qua dicit idem Eusebius, veteres ejus notitiam non habere. » Ex his itaque testibus uni Eusebio standum, nemo non videt: fides enim penes auctorem, non autem penes interpretes aut exscriptores. Photius vero minime audiendus, qui multo recentior est quam ut ipsi assensum praebeamus: neque enim ullius testis antiquioris auctoritatem adducit. Quid igitur Eusebius? Neque a veteribus reprobatam dicit posteriorem epistolam, neque prodit veteres ejus notitiam non habuisse, neque illam scribit inter adulterina rejectam; sed tantum « priore minus notam fuisse, neque a veteribus usurpatam. » Cedo, num inde consequitur epistolam nostram fuisse reprobatam, ignotam, postulatamque νοθείας? Aliud enimvero est minus cognitum, aliud ignotum omnino; atque aliud est non uti, aliud reprobare atque inter supposititia referre. « Quemadmodum igitur, verbis utor cl. Cotelerii, non possumus nunc, post deperditos tot primorum Patrum libros, memoriam Eusebii 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. »
the same is rejected as spurious. "But that which is called the second to the same (the Corinthians) is rejected as spurious." But Nicephorus speaks more correctly according to the mind of Eusebius: 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 in circulation another epistle of his (Clement's), far inferior to the former; of which the same Eusebius says that the ancients had no knowledge of it." Of these witnesses, therefore, everyone sees that we must stand by Eusebius alone: for credit rests with the author, and not with interpreters or copyists. Photius indeed is by no means to be listened to, being far too recent for us to give him our assent: for he does not adduce the authority of any more ancient witness. What then does Eusebius say? He neither says that the later epistle was rejected by the ancients, nor reports that the ancients had no knowledge of it, nor writes that it was cast out among spurious works; but only that "it was less known than the former, and was not used by the ancients." Tell me, does it follow from this that our epistle was rejected, unknown, and charged with spuriousness? For indeed what is less known is one thing, what is altogether unknown another; and it is one thing not to use, another to reject and to reckon among supposititious works. "As therefore," I use the words of the illustrious Cotelier, "we cannot now, after the loss of so many books of the earliest Fathers, accuse the memory of Eusebius, 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 dispute, and was not made much of by the first writers of the Church."
Quid vero, si Eusebius Arii placitis impense addictus, de secunda Clementis epistola sic abjecte sensisset scripsissetque; propterea nimirum quod in ea sanctus Pater illustrissimum de Christi divinitate testimonium ediderit? Illud sane viris doctis cum veteribus tum recentioribus observatum, Caesariensem episcopum aestu partium haud semel abreptum, in sua Historia sive non satis aperte tradidisse, sive pleraque dissimulasse, sive silentio penitus praeteriisse, quae suis opinionibus novisset incommoda. Qua de re Photium, Baronium et Montfauconium consulere praestat. Verum quidquid demum senserit de secunda Clementis epistola Caesariensis episcopus, satis compertum est nihil ex ejus verbis exsculpere posse adversarios, quo illam suppositionis merito suspectam reddere possint.
But what if Eusebius, being strongly attached to the tenets of Arius, had thought and written so meanly of the second epistle of Clement precisely because in it the holy Father has given a most illustrious testimony concerning the divinity of Christ? This certainly has been observed by learned men both ancient and more recent, that the bishop of Caesarea, more than once carried away by the heat of party, in his History either handed down not openly enough, or dissembled a great many things, or passed over altogether in silence, what he knew to be inconvenient to his own opinions. On which matter it is well to consult Photius, Baronius and Montfaucon. But whatever in the end the bishop of Caesarea thought of the second epistle of Clement, it is sufficiently established that the opponents can extract nothing from his words by which they might render it deservedly suspect of being supposititious.
At enim Dionysius Corinthiorum episcopus apud Eusebium, ad Soterem papam rescribens, unius epistolae Clementis, et quidem prioris, meminit hisce verbis: Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν
But, it is said, Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, in Eusebius, writing back to Pope Soter, mentions one epistle of Clement, and that the former, in these words: Today, therefore, the Lord's holy day
Editors' notes and page, col. 97
Footnotes
(29) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 97
Hist., lib. III, cap. 18.
History, book III, ch. 18. [chapter numeral faint in the scan; read as 18]
(printed under page 48)
(30) ‹anchor: testimonium ediderit› · call in col 97
Clem., Epist. II, cap. 1.
Clement, Epistle II, ch. 1.
(printed under page 48)
(31) ‹anchor: Photium› · call in col 97
Bibl. cod. CXXVII.
Bibliotheca, codex CXXVII.
(printed under page 48)
(32) ‹anchor: Baronium› · call in col 97
Ad ann. 318, §§ XC, XCV.
At the year 318, §§ XC, XCV.
(printed under page 48)
(33) ‹anchor: et Montfauconium› · call in col 97
Opp. Athan., tom. I, part. I, pag. 243.
Works of Athanasius, vol. I, part I, page 243.
(printed under page 48)
(34) ‹anchor: apud Eusebium› · call in col 97
Hist. eccl., lib. IV, cap. 23.
Ecclesiastical History, book IV, ch. 23.
(printed under page 48)
Page
- running head: 97 PROOEMIA VARIO [continues across the page]
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the page's letters stand beside the right column)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence (Greek of Photius continued from col. 96) and ends mid-sentence in the Greek of Dionysius. Last word ἡμέ-|ραν is split across the column break; completed from the first line of col. 98 as visible at the edge of this column's top image. Foot-note calls (29)–(34) removed; foot notes 29–33 at the column foot belong in notes. The bracketed glosses (Corinthios) and (Clementis) are printed in the text.
διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνεγνώκαμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν. « Hodie sanctum diem Dominicum transegimus, in quo vestram legimus epistolam, quam quidem perpetuo deinceps legentes, perinde ac priorem illam a Clemente scriptam, unde optimis monitis instruamur habebimus. » Hinc infert Grabius, unam a Clemente scriptam ad Corinthios epistolam; quam τὴν προτέραν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν Dionysius appellat, quod scilicet ad Ecclesiam Corinthiacam prius ea missa fuerit, quam Soter suam deinceps eidem inscripserit. Esto: meminerit hic Dionysius prioris tantum Clementis epistolae: neque enim placet Beveregii sententia, conjicientis episcopum Corinthiorum, omissa Soteris epistola, de utraque Clementina verba fecisse. Minus item nobis probatur quod alii arbitrantur, Dionysium nempe illam Clementis epistolam, quae publice legebatur, ideo fortasse προτέραν vocasse, ut eam ab altera Soteris ad Corinthios pariter scripta distingueret. At his missis, num propterea rite cum Grabio colligas, post aevum demum Dionysii vertente saeculo II ita scribentis, Clementinam secundam fuisse confictam? Hoc unum scilicet ex iis confici posse videtur, fuisse in more positum institutoque Corinthiorum Ecclesiae, priorem quidem Clementis epistolam legi, posteriorem vero non item. Numquid demum tunc temporis erant legendae in publicis Ecclesiarum conventibus omnes non apostolorum modo, sed etiam apostolicorum virorum epistolae; ut proinde posterior Clementina censenda sit pseudepigrapha eo nomine, quod de illius lectione in conventu Corinthiaco nullam injiciat mentionem Dionysius? Cum itaque priorem quidem, minime vero posteriorem, in coetu ecclesiastico perlegi consuevisse ab episcopo Corinthiorum ediscamus; hinc sane perspicimus, cur priorem eximiam prorsus atque mirabilem appellarit episcopus Caesariensis; de posteriore vero scripserit, illam minus notam fuisse neque a veteribus usurpatam. Sic ferme argumentatur Coutantius, a quo pedem non discedit nuperus dissertator Romanus.
we have kept, on which we have read your epistle, which we shall have, reading it always, to be admonished by, as also the former one written to us through Clement. "Today we have passed the holy Lord's day, on which we read your epistle, which indeed, reading it continually hereafter, just as that former one written by Clement, we shall have as a source from which to be instructed with excellent admonitions." From this Grabe infers that one epistle was written by Clement to the Corinthians; which Dionysius calls the former one written through Clement, namely because it was sent to the Corinthian Church before Soter afterwards addressed his own to the same. Be it so: let Dionysius here have mentioned only the former epistle of Clement: for the opinion of Beveridge does not please us, who conjectures that the bishop of the Corinthians, leaving aside Soter's epistle, spoke of both the Clementine ones. Likewise we approve less of what others think, namely that Dionysius perhaps called that epistle of Clement which was publicly read the former for this reason, to distinguish it from the other, Soter's, equally written to the Corinthians. But, these things set aside, would you on that account rightly conclude with Grabe that the second Clementine epistle was forged only after the age of Dionysius, who wrote thus as the second century was running its course? This one thing, surely, seems able to be made out from these words, that it was the established custom and practice of the Church of the Corinthians that the former epistle of Clement was read, but not so the later. Were, then, at that time all the epistles not only of the apostles but also of apostolic men to be read in the public assemblies of the Churches, so that the later Clementine epistle must accordingly be judged pseudepigraphal on this ground, that Dionysius makes no mention of its being read in the Corinthian assembly? Since, therefore, we learn from the bishop of the Corinthians that the former indeed, but by no means the later, was accustomed to be read through in the assembly of the church, from this we plainly perceive why the bishop of Caesarea called the former altogether excellent and admirable, but wrote of the later that it was less known and not used by the ancients. So, for the most part, argues Coustant, from whom the recent Roman dissertator does not depart by a foot.
VI. Pergamus porro. Subdit praeterea vir eruditus, suppositionis suspicionem sibi injicere sententiam e libro quodam apocrypho acceptam, quae in hujus epistolae capite 11 exstat, cum jam et in prioris capite 23 paucis mutatis occurrat. Eamdem objectionem deinceps repetiit Hermannus Venema in epistolis, quas Clementinarum epistolarum editioni Wetstenianae nuper opposuit. Hinc enim judicium sumi posse satis apertum existimat, quo epistolae secundae alius a Clemente scriptor statuatur.
VI. Let us go on further. The learned man adds besides that a suspicion of forgery is raised in him by a sentence taken from a certain apocryphal book, which stands in chapter 11 of this epistle, whereas it already occurs also, with a few changes, in chapter 23 of the former. The same objection Hermann Venema afterwards repeated in the letters which he recently set against Wettstein's edition of the Clementine epistles. For he thinks that from this a sufficiently plain judgement can be drawn, by which a writer other than Clement is established for the second epistle.
Editors' notes and page, col. 98
Footnotes
(35) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 98
Spicil., tom. I, pag. 266.
Spicilegium, vol. I, page 266.
(printed under page 48)
(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 98
Cod. can. lib. II, cap. 9, § X, pag. 115.
Codex canonum, book II, ch. 9, § X, page 115.
(printed under page 48)
(37) ‹anchor: nuper opposuit› · call in col 98
Venem., Epist. 2, § XXI, pag. 78.
Venema, Epistle 2, § XXI, page 78.
(printed under page 48)
Page
- running head: [continued] PROOEMIA VARIORUM. 98
- marginal letters: A ραν διηγάγομεν; B conjicientis episcopum Corinthiorum; C dae in publicis Ecclesiarum; D tus, suppositionis suspicionem
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence; its first printed syllable ραν completes ἡμέραν, set whole at the end of col. 97. Foot-note calls (35)–(37) removed; foot notes 34–37 at the column foot belong in notes (34 is called from col. 97). The column number in the running head is damaged (reads as "98"). Italic phrases set in plain text.
Itane censes? Quasi vero, ut cum viro docto respondeam, justam suspicionis ansam ejusdem sententiae repetitio praebeat. Quod si res ita se haberet, actum profecto esset de pluribus veterum indubiis monumentis, in quibus passim unus idemque auctor, sive in ipso opere, sive etiam in variis, eadem Scripturarum loca easdemque sententias pro re nata sibi repetenda esse duxit. Cujus quidem rei exemplum quod mihi nunc succurrit, apud Justinum Martyrem cum in utraque Apologia tum in Dialogo cum Tryphone, luculentum satis habetur. Quid porro vetat, quo minus pro temporis institutique ratione unam eamdemque sententiam in eodem opere, adeoque magis si diversa illa sint, recitet iterum idem auctor? Imo vero, quo singularius est effatum rursus in medium adductum, eo conducibilius evadit ad suadendum unum esse auctorem epistolae utriusque, in quibus relatum pariter comperitur.
Do you really think so? As though indeed, to answer with a learned man, the repetition of the same sentence offered a just handle for suspicion. But if the matter stood thus, it would assuredly be all over with many undoubted monuments of the ancients, in which everywhere one and the same author, whether in the very same work or also in different ones, judged that the same passages of the Scriptures and the same sentences were to be repeated by him as occasion arose. Of which an example that now occurs to me is found, clear enough, in Justin Martyr, both in each Apology and in the Dialogue with Trypho. What, moreover, forbids the same author, according to the circumstances of time and purpose, from citing one and the same sentence again in the same work, and so all the more if the works are different? Nay rather, the more singular the saying that is brought forward again, the more serviceable it proves for persuading that there is one author of both epistles, in which it is found equally reported.
At enim sententiam illam de qua disputamus, ex opere aliquo pseudepigrapho exceptam novimus. Quasi vero alicujus operis auctoritas propterea minuatur, quod illius scriptor quaedam vere dicta et argumento quod jam tractat apprime congrua, ex libro non canonico forte adduxerit. Viri eruditissimi verbis utor. Nae, si contra secundam epistolam haec ratio vim habeat, jam de primae quoque integritate conclamatum est. Quid quod Photii censura epistolae utriusque consensionem, ad loca quaedam apocrypha quod attinet, confirmans, utriusque item unum eumdemque auctorem agnoscit? En peracre de his Clementinis epistolis critici hujus judicium: Secunda, inquit, dicta quaedam peregrina velut e sacra Scriptura subinducit, quibus ne epistola quidem prima omnino vacat. Et interpretationes quorumdam locorum alieniores profert. Hinc de utraque ita demum concludit: Alioquin ipsa quae in his epistolis insunt sensa, nonnihil abjecta sunt, nec continentem seriem ac consequentiam servant. Videsne nihil in posteriore notare Photium, quod non et priori cum ea esse commune pronuntiet? Photius igitur, ut jure arguit Coutantius, utriusque hac in re consensum indigitans, ad utramque pariter suscipiendam nos quodammodo inducit, hortatur, perurget.
But, it is said, we know that the sentence about which we are disputing was taken from some pseudepigraphal work. As though indeed the authority of any work were lessened on that account, because its writer has perhaps adduced from a non-canonical book certain things truly said and exceedingly well suited to the argument he is then treating. I use the words of a most learned man. Truly, if this reasoning has force against the second epistle, then the integrity of the first also is past all hope. What of the fact that the censure of Photius, confirming the agreement of both epistles as regards certain apocryphal passages, likewise recognizes one and the same author of both? Here is this critic's very sharp judgement on these Clementine epistles: The second, he says, brings in certain foreign sayings as if from sacred Scripture, from which not even the first epistle is altogether free. And it puts forward rather strange interpretations of certain passages. Hence concerning both he finally concludes thus: Otherwise the very thoughts that are in these epistles are somewhat mean, and do not keep a continuous order and sequence. Do you see that Photius notes nothing in the later which he does not declare to be common to the former with it? Photius therefore, as Coustant rightly argues, pointing out the agreement of both in this matter, in a certain way leads, exhorts and urges us to receive both equally.
Hactenus cum Grabio sumus in primis congressi; qui tamen deinceps animum mutasse perhibetur: siquidem alibi locum ex Epistola II, et quidem tanquam Clementinum acceptum, contra Lucae Mellierii Artemonii seu Samuelis Crellii cavillationes acriter propugnat: adeo ut sive Grabianae sententiae patronis, sive vel ipsi Grabio nihil reliqui esse videatur.
Thus far we have engaged chiefly with Grabe; who nevertheless is reported to have afterwards changed his mind: since elsewhere he keenly defends a passage from the Second Epistle, and indeed taken as Clementine, against the cavils of Lucas Mellierus Artemonius, or Samuel Crell: so that nothing seems to be left either to the patrons of Grabe's opinion or even to Grabe himself.
VII. Sunt insuper, qui secundae hujus Epistolae
VII. There are, moreover, those who of this second Epistle
Editors' notes and page, col. 99
Footnotes
(38) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 99
Coutant., Epist. Rom. Pontif., pag. 39, § V.
Coustant, Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, page 39, § V.
(printed under page 49)
(39) ‹anchor: verbis utor› · call in col 99
Mill., Prolegom. ad N. T., n. 147.
Mill, Prolegomena to the New Testament, no. 147.
(printed under page 49)
(40) ‹anchor: critici hujus judicium› · call in col 99
Bibl. cod. CXXVI.
Bibliotheca, codex CXXVI.
(printed under page 49)
(41) ‹anchor: siquidem alibi› · call in col 99
Annot. ad G. Bulli defens. fid. Nic., sect. II, cap. 3, § 5. pag. 62.
Annotations on G. Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith, section II, ch. 3, § 5, page 62.
(printed under page 49)
Page
- running head: 99 AD S. CLEMENTEM I [continues across the page]
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the page's letters stand beside the right column)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column ends mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (38)–(41) removed; foot notes 38–41 at the column foot belong in notes. The column number in the running head is damaged (reads as "99"). Italic titles and the italic Latin quotations from Photius set in plain text.
veritati locum objiciant e pseudo-Justino desumptum, qui sic se habet: 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, κ.τ.λ. « Si praesentis rerum status finis, est impiorum per ignem judicium, prout testantur Scripturae prophetarum et apostolorum, atque insuper Sibyllae, ut ait beatus Clemens in Epistola ad Corinthios, » etc. Ad quae quidem verba plura erudite observat Cotelerius, atque ex eo Coutantius aliique. Verum, iis missis, in medium proferre libet, quae ad hunc pseudo-Justini locum adnotavit nuperus operum S. Justini editor Parisiensis: « Cum Sibyllini versus, inquit, referantur in Constitut. apostol. lib. V, quod opus sub nomine Clementis ferebatur, conjici posset nostrum hunc scriptorem, memoria effluente existimasse, hoc Sibyllae testimonium quod in Constitutionibus apostolicis legerat, in Epistola ad Corinthios exstare. Si minus placeat haec conjectura, illud saltem cum doctissimis viris asseverare non dubitabo, nostrum scriptorem minime cum eis facere, qui ejus testimonio utuntur, ut Epistolam S. Clementis secundam minime genuinam esse probent, sed hominis fetum cui noti erant Sibyllini de extremo judicio versus, multo recentioris S. Clemente. Ut omittam pseudo-Justinum in ambiguo reliquisse, utrum S. Clementis Epistolam citaverit; quis ignorat multa Sibyllis oracula, propheticis sententiis consentanea, attribui solita fuisse, antequam prodirent carmina illa Sibyllina? Quorum artifex non videtur facinus suscepturus, aut saltem optatos fraudis exitus habiturus, nisi jam tum animis insedisset anticipata de Sibyllinis praedictionibus opinio. » Hactenus vir ille doctus. Qui autem hac de re plura scire gestiunt, eos ad scriptores modo laudatos remittimus.
truth object a passage taken from pseudo-Justin, which runs thus: If the end of the present state of things is the judgement of the impious through fire, as the writings both of prophets and of apostles say, and moreover also 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 through fire, as the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles testify, and the Sibyl's besides, as the blessed Clement says in the Epistle to the Corinthians," etc. On these words indeed Cotelier makes many learned observations, and after him Coustant and others. But, leaving these aside, it is pleasing to bring forward what the recent Parisian editor of the works of Saint Justin has noted on this passage of pseudo-Justin: "Since the Sibylline verses," he says, "are cited in the Apostolic Constitutions, book V, a work which circulated under the name of Clement, it could be conjectured that this writer of ours, his memory slipping, thought that this testimony of the Sibyl, which he had read in the Apostolic Constitutions, stood in the Epistle to the Corinthians. If this conjecture should be less pleasing, this at least I shall not hesitate to affirm with most learned men, that our writer by no means sides with those who use his testimony to prove that the second Epistle of Saint Clement is by no means genuine, but the offspring of a man to whom the Sibylline verses on the last judgement were known, one much more recent than Saint Clement. To pass over that pseudo-Justin has left it in doubt whether he cited the Epistle of Saint Clement; who is ignorant that many oracles, consonant with the prophetic sayings, used to be attributed to the Sibyls before those Sibylline poems came forth? Whose fabricator does not seem likely to have undertaken the deed, or at least to have had the desired outcome of his fraud, unless already then a preconceived opinion about Sibylline predictions had settled in men's minds." Thus far that learned man. Those, however, who are eager to know more on this matter we refer to the writers just cited.
VIII. Reliquum est ut alius adversarii neque incelebris neque indocti, Hermanni Venemae, objectationibus occurramus, quibus hujus Epistolae qua de agimus, integritas vehementius impetitur. Et in prima quidem Epistolarum suarum quarum modo meminimus, in eo totus est vir clar. quo probet, non tantum Hieronymum doctorem maximum ad secundam Epistolam Clementinam respexisse, dum nos edocuit S. Clementem ad spirituales et evangelicos eunuchos scripsisse, omnemque pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexuisse, verum etiam S. Epiphanium in eamdem oculos habuisse intentos, dum de ipsius Clementis Epistolis encyclicis sermonem habuit. Nec ita multo post, sui penitus oblitus vir eruditus, quod profecto mirari subit, plura congerit quibus evincat, alium omnino
VIII. It remains for us to meet the objections of another opponent, neither obscure nor unlearned, Hermann Venema, by which the integrity of this Epistle of which we are treating is more vehemently assailed. And in the first indeed of his Letters, which we have just mentioned, the illustrious man is wholly occupied in proving that not only did Jerome, the greatest of doctors, have the second Clementine Epistle in view when he taught us that Saint Clement wrote to spiritual and evangelical eunuchs, and wove almost his whole discourse about the purity of virginity, but that Saint Epiphanius also had his eyes fixed on the same when he spoke of the Encyclical Epistles of Clement himself. And not so long afterwards the learned man, altogether forgetful of himself, which one is assuredly moved to wonder at, heaps up many things by which to prove that someone altogether other
Editors' notes and page, col. 100
Footnotes
(42) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 100
Quaest. ad orthod. Respons. ad quaest. LXXIV, inter. Opp. S. Just. M.
Questions to the Orthodox, Answer to question LXXIV, among the works of St. Justin Martyr.
(printed under page 49)
(43) ‹anchor: Epistolarum suarum› · call in col 100
Epist. I, ad cel. P. Wesseling, § 10, p. 15.
Epistle I, to the celebrated P. Wesseling, § 10, p. 15.
(printed under page 49)
(44) ‹anchor: plura congerit› · call in col 100
Epist. II, ad cl. T. Hemsterus., § 20, p. 76.
Epistle II, to the distinguished T. Hemsterhuis, § 20, p. 76.
(printed under page 49)
Page
- running head: [continued] CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 100
- marginal letters: A veritati locum objiciant; B sus, inquit, referantur; C quis ignorat multa Sibyllis; D non tantum Hieronymum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Last word om-|nino is split across the column break; completed from the first line of col. 101 (seen when that column was read; this file was rewritten once for it). Foot-note calls (42)–(44) removed; foot notes 42–44 at the column foot belong in notes. "fetum" and "pene" are so printed. Italic titles and quotations set in plain text.
esse a Clemente nec eo paulo recentiorem, cui haec ipsa Epistola referatur accepta. Nollem factum enimvero: quid loquar? An longa illa disputatione quam primum contexuit II. Venema, nos ludere voluit? An vero Hieronymum et Epiphanium ita bardos existimavit, ut pro fetu Clementino Epistolam reciperent supposititiam? Nimirum vir criticus ad subruendam Clementinarum Epistolarum De virginitate integritatem, telaque clar. Wetstenii editoris declinanda, primum quidem ad posteriorem Clementis Corinthiacam Epistolam velut ad asylum confugit, nullumque non movet lapidem quo hanc Epistolam demonstret illam ipsissimam esse in quam digitum intenderunt veteres, Hieronymus in primis atque Epiphanius: postmodum autem, perinde ac de triumpho securus, in eamdem consurgit secundam Corinthiacam Epistolam, quam commentitiam esse nobis persuadere conatur; nihilque pensi habet, dummodo unius prioris ad Corinthios Epistolae auctor Clemens esse videatur. Age nunc, illa discutiamus potiora, quae ad ejus suppositionem evincendam vir doctus adducit.
than Clement, and not a little more recent than he, is the one to whom this very Epistle should be credited. I could indeed wish it had not been done: what am I to say? Did H. Venema wish to make sport of us with that long disputation which he first wove together? Or did he really think Jerome and Epiphanius so dull as to receive a supposititious Epistle for an offspring of Clement? Evidently the critic, in order to undermine the integrity of the Clementine Epistles On Virginity and to parry the weapons of their illustrious editor Wettstein, first indeed takes refuge in the later Corinthian Epistle of Clement as in an asylum, and leaves no stone unturned to show that this Epistle is the very one at which the ancients pointed the finger, Jerome above all and Epiphanius: but afterwards, just as if secure of his triumph, he rises up against the same second Corinthian Epistle, which he tries to persuade us is a fabrication; and he cares nothing, provided that Clement appear to be the author of the former Epistle to the Corinthians alone. Come now, let us examine those weightier points which the learned man adduces to prove it supposititious.
Primum igitur argumentum ex eo petit H. Venema, quod auctor Epistolae posterioris sese origine gentilem aperte prodat, cum contra natione Judaeum fuisse Clementem clamare censeatur locus ille prioris Epistolae, ubi Jacobum patrem nostrum appellat. Perbelle sane. Neque nuper demum exorta est de Judaismo Clementis opinio. Primus, quod quidem sciam, qui eam invexit, fuit Tillemontius. Exinde vero idem visum Coutantio, licet postea sententiam mutarit. Accessit demum Ceillierius, qui fidenter nimis id asserere non dubitavit. At elumbe profecto habendum argumentum istiusmodi, quo Corinthiacae posterioris Epistolae tollatur integritas. Quidni sodes Clemens Pauli συνεργὸς, Jacobum patrem nostrum eo sensu vocare potuerit, quo idem Apostolus promissionis filios in semine Abrahae et Israel computari docet, ut recte Coutantius melius consultus? Non enim, inquit divinus praeco, omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae: neque qui semen sunt Abrahae, omnes filii: sed in Isaac vocabitur tibi semen: id est, non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed qui filii sunt promissionis, aestimantur in semine. Hinc alibi etiam ipsemet Apostolus Israel Dei vocat eosdem promissionis filios, sive ex circumcisione sive ex praeputio vocatos. Hanc igitur doctrinam
H. Venema, then, seeks his first argument from this, that the author of the later Epistle openly reveals himself a Gentile by origin, whereas on the contrary that passage of the former Epistle, where he calls Jacob our father, is thought to proclaim that Clement was a Jew by nation. Very fine indeed. Nor has the opinion of Clement's Judaism arisen only lately. The first, so far as I know, to introduce it was Tillemont. And thereafter the same seemed good to Coustant, although he afterwards changed his opinion. Finally Ceillier joined them, who did not hesitate to assert it too confidently. But an argument of this kind, by which the integrity of the later Corinthian Epistle is to be taken away, must assuredly be held feeble. Why, pray, could not Clement, the fellow worker of Paul, have called Jacob our father in that sense in which the same Apostle teaches that the children of the promise are reckoned in the seed of Abraham and Israel, as Coustant, better advised, rightly says? For not all, says the divine herald, who are of Israel are Israelites: nor are those who are the seed of Abraham all children: but in Isaac shall a seed be called for you: that is, not those who are children of the flesh are children of God, but those who are children of the promise are counted in the seed (Rom. 9:6–8). Hence elsewhere too the Apostle himself calls the same children of the promise the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15–16), whether called from the circumcision or from the uncircumcision. This doctrine, therefore,
Editors' notes and page, col. 101
Footnotes
(34) ‹anchor: inquit divinus praeco› · call in col 101
Rom. IX, 6-8.
Romans 9:6-8.
(printed under page 50)
(35) ‹anchor: Hinc alibi› · call in col 101
Galat. VI, 15, 16.
Galatians 6:15, 16.
(printed under page 50)
(45) ‹anchor: H. Venema› · call in col 101
Epist. II, l. c
Epistle II, in the place cited.
(printed under page 50)
(46) ‹anchor: aperte prodat› · call in col 101
Clem., Epist. II ad Cor., capp. 1 et 2.
Clement, Epistle II to the Corinthians, chs. 1 and 2.
(printed under page 50)
(47) ‹anchor: patrem nostrum appellat› · call in col 101
Id., Epist. I, cap. 4.
The same, Epistle I, ch. 4.
(printed under page 50)
(48) ‹anchor: fuit Tillemontius› · call in col 101
Mem. Hist. eccl., t. II, p. 149.
Mémoires for the Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, p. 149.
(printed under page 50)
(49) ‹anchor: visum Coutantio› · call in col 101
Epist. Rom. Pontif., p. 11.
Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 11.
(printed under page 50)
(50) ‹anchor: sententiam mutarit› · call in col 101
Ibid., p. 41.
The same work, p. 41.
(printed under page 50)
(51) ‹anchor: asserere non dubitavit› · call in col 101
Hist. gener., tom. I, p. 508.
Histoire générale, vol. I, p. 508.
(printed under page 50)
Page
- running head: 101 PROOEMIA VARIOR [continues across the page]
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the page's letters stand beside the right column)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence; its first printed syllable "nino" completes "omnino", set whole at the end of col. 100. It ends mid-sentence: last word doctri-|nam is split across the column break and completed from the first line of col. 102 (this file was rewritten once for it). Foot-note calls (45)–(51) and the superscript scripture-note calls 34, 35 removed; the scripture notes at the foot read "Rom. IX, 6-8." and "Galat. VI, 15, 16." and are given in the English in modern form; foot notes 45–53 at the column foot belong in notes (52, 53 are called from col. 102). "hi filii Dei": the word filii is overwritten by a pen mark in the scan but legible. "fetu" is so printed. Italic titles and quotations set in plain text.
institutionemque primum quidem assecutus a Paulo Clemens Romanus, deinceps vero volens et ipse iisdem apostolicis praeceptis imbuere Corinthios, Jacobum patrem nostrum vocavit: quemadmodum etiam ibidem nonnullis interjectis, patrem nostrum appellavit Abrahamum. Quam quidem doctrinam cum deinde accepisset Ecclesia Romana sive ab Apostolo sive etiam ab ipso Clemente, sanctam inter actionem precationem hujusmodi sacris ministris recitandam indixit: Deus, fidelium pater summe, qui in toto orbe terrarum promissionis tuae filios diffusa adoptionis gratia multiplicas, et per paschale sacramentum, Abraham puerum tuum universarum, sicut jurasti, gentium efficis patrem, etc. Alibi quoque clarius adhuc: Pater fidei nostrae Abraham summus, obtulit holocaustum super altare pro filio.
and instruction Clement of Rome first obtained from Paul, and afterwards, wishing himself also to imbue the Corinthians with the same apostolic precepts, he called Jacob our father: just as also in the same place, after a few things interposed, he called Abraham our father. And when the Roman Church had afterwards received this doctrine, whether from the Apostle or also from Clement himself, she appointed a prayer of this kind to be recited by the sacred ministers during the holy action: O God, supreme Father of the faithful, Who throughout the whole world dost multiply the children of Thy promise by the grace of adoption spread abroad, and through the paschal sacrament dost make Abraham Thy servant the father of all nations, as Thou didst swear, etc. Elsewhere too, still more clearly: Abraham, the supreme father of our faith, offered a holocaust upon the altar in place of his son.
Quid quod Theophilus in suis ad Autolycum libris, quod pene exciderat, Davidem patrem seu progenitorem nostrum appellat? Ἔπειτα Δαβὶδ ὁ πρόγονος ἡμῶν (ἐβασίλευσεν) ἔτη μʹ. « Deinde David pater noster regnavit annos quadraginta. » Nunquid ideo Hebraeus, episcopus iste Antiochenus?
What of the fact that Theophilus in his books to Autolycus, which had almost escaped me, calls David our father or forefather? Then David our forefather (reigned) forty years. "Then David our father reigned forty years." Was that bishop of Antioch therefore a Hebrew?
Verum, ut ad ea verba, Jacobum patrem nostrum, apertius enucleanda simulque propugnanda redeamus, quo deinceps ex eorum ambiguitate omnis objiciendi praecidatur occasio: Patrum quoque antiquissimi eodem plane sensu cum Clemente perhibentur esse locuti: Justinus martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullianus, auctor Expositionis in Evangelium Lucae quae sub Titi Bostrensis nomine circumfertur, et Augustinus. Hinc ergo Venemiana objectio evanescit: quo enim sensu locutus est apostolus Paulus, quo Ecclesia Romana ab ipso edocta, quo Patres antiquiores, eo item Clemens noster locutus esse dicendus, et quidem ad Corinthios Romanae Ecclesiae nomine scribens: ut propterea non suo tantum, sed et Romanorum atque Corinthiorum nomine, Abrahamum et Jacobum patres nostros, fidei scilicet nostrae patres, ipsemet appellasse putandus.
But, to return to those words, Jacob our father, in order to explain them more openly and at the same time to defend them, so that henceforth every occasion of objecting from their ambiguity may be cut off: the most ancient of the Fathers also are reported to have spoken in plainly the same sense as Clement: Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the author of the Exposition on the Gospel of Luke which circulates under the name of Titus of Bostra, and Augustine. Hence, therefore, Venema's objection vanishes: for in the sense in which the apostle Paul spoke, in which the Roman Church taught by him, in which the more ancient Fathers spoke, in that same sense our Clement too must be said to have spoken, and indeed when writing to the Corinthians in the name of the Roman Church: so that on this account he must be thought to have himself called Abraham and Jacob our fathers, that is, the fathers of our faith, not only in his own name but also in that of the Romans and the Corinthians.
Instat porro vir criticus, atque ex his verbis ejusdem Epistolae: Plures facti sumus iis qui Deum habere censentur (Judaeis), colligit auctorem eo demum tempore vixisse, quo Christianismus inter gentes numerosissimus erat supra Judaeos: quod quidem, inquit, rectius quam in Clementis, quadrat in Trajani et sequentium imperatorum tempora, quibus Ecclesia gentium longe lateque
The critic presses further, and from these words of the same Epistle: We have become more numerous than those who are thought to have God (the Jews), he gathers that the author lived only at that time when Christianity among the Gentiles was most numerous, beyond the Jews: which indeed, he says, suits the times of Trajan and the following emperors more correctly than those of Clement, in which the Church of the Gentiles far and wide
Editors' notes and page, col. 102
Footnotes
(52) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 102
Epist. I, cap. 31.
Epistle I, ch. 31.
(printed under page 50)
(53) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 102
Missal. Rom. in Sabb. sanct. ad prophet. IV
Roman Missal, on Holy Saturday, at the fourth prophecy.
(printed under page 50)
(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 102
Brev. Rom. Sabb. ante Quinq. ad Magnificat.
Roman Breviary, Saturday before Quinquagesima, at the Magnificat.
(printed under page 50)
(55) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 102
Lib. III, ad Autolyc., § 25
Book III, To Autolycus, § 25.
(printed under page 50)
(56) ‹anchor: Justinus martyr› · call in col 102
Dial. cum Tryph., § 134.
Dialogue with Trypho, § 134.
(printed under page 50)
(57) ‹anchor: Clemens Alexandrinus› · call in col 102
Clem. Alex., Strom. lib. VI, cap. 7, p. 770.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book VI, ch. 7, p. 770.
(printed under page 50)
(58) ‹anchor: Tertullianus› · call in col 102
Adv. Marcion., lib. IV, cap. 24.
Against Marcion, book IV, ch. 24.
(printed under page 50)
(59) ‹anchor: nomine circumfertur› · call in col 102
In cap. I Evang. Luc. Bibl. PP. edit. Paris, tom. XIII, p. 767.
On chapter 1 of the Gospel of Luke, Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris edition, vol. XIII, p. 767.
(printed under page 50)
(60) ‹anchor: et Augustinus› · call in col 102
Serm. V, § 4; Opp. tom. V, p. 30.
Sermon V, § 4; Works, vol. V, p. 30.
(printed under page 50)
(61) ‹anchor: ejusdem Epistolae› · call in col 102
Epist. II, cap. 2.
Epistle II, ch. 2.
(printed under page 50)
Page
- running head: [continued] OOEMIA VARIORUM. 102
- marginal letters: A nam institutionemque primum; B ter fidei nostrae Abraham; C mens Alexandrinus; D eo demum tempore vixisse
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence; its first printed syllable "nam" completes "doctrinam", set whole at the end of col. 101. It ends mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (52)–(61) removed; foot notes 54–61 at the column foot belong in notes. The glosses (ἐβασίλευσεν) and (Judaeis) are printed in the text in parentheses. "pene" and "Nunquid" are so printed. The liturgical prayer quoted is address to God, hence Thou/Thy in the English. Italic quotations set in plain text.
propagata est. Quid multis opus est? Nonne Paulus ad Romanos scribens, gratias Deo agebat, quod fides eorum annuntiabatur in universo mundo? Nonne dicebat, in omnem terram exiisse sonum apostolorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum? Nonne Deum glorificabat, quod mysterium temporibus aeternis tacitum, patefactum esset ad obeditionem fidei in cunctis gentibus? Eodem loquendi genere alibi quoque utitur idem Apostolus. Ad Colossenses: In verbo veritatis Evangelii, quod in universo mundo est, et fructificat, et crescit. Et iterum: Evangelium.... praedicatum est in universa creatura quae sub coelo est. Ad Timotheum item: Magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod... praedicatum est GENTIBUS, creditum est in MUNDO. Nec mirum sane: ut enim alios praetereamus apostolos, unus magnus Paulus, teste nostro Clemente, Praeco factus in oriente et occidente.... cum universum mundum docuisset justitiam, et ad occidentis terminum venisset, ac sub praefectis martyrium passus esset, ita e mundo migravit. Quae cum ita sint, quidni ergo vere scripserit in posteriore Epistola Clemens Romanus: Plures facti sumus Judaeis, qui Deum habere censentur?
was propagated. What need is there of many words? Did not Paul, writing to the Romans, give thanks to God that their faith was being proclaimed in the whole world (Rom. 1:8)? Did he not say that the sound of the apostles had gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world (Rom. 10:18)? Did he not glorify God that the mystery kept silent through eternal times had been laid open for the obedience of faith among all the nations (Rom. 16:25–26)? The same Apostle uses the same manner of speaking elsewhere also. To the Colossians: In the word of the truth of the Gospel, which is in the whole world, and bears fruit, and grows (Col. 1:6). And again: The Gospel.... has been preached in the whole creation that is under heaven (Col. 1:23). To Timothy likewise: Great is the mystery of godliness, which... has been preached to the GENTILES, has been believed in the WORLD (1 Tim. 3:16). Nor indeed is it any wonder: for, to pass over the other apostles, the great Paul alone, as our Clement testifies, Having become a herald in the east and in the west.... when he had taught the whole world righteousness, and had come to the boundary of the west, and had suffered martyrdom under the prefects, so departed from the world. Since these things are so, why then should Clement of Rome not have written truly in the later Epistle: We have become more numerous than the Jews, who are thought to have God?
Verum ad nodum graviorem solvendum studiose properemus. Statuit nimirum vir clar.: « Epistolae secundae auctorem se a Clemente diversum eo ipso profiteri, quod Christi divinitatem expresse inculcet, et Domini non tantum, sed et Dei titulum ei dandum esse contendat; cum verus Clemens nusquam id data opera fecerit, nec alio ac Domini titulo eum ornaverit, licet hic illic se divinitatem Christi agnoscere insinuet. » Quid quaeris? Locus ex Epistola I, in medium proferatur, quo uno tota eliditur Venemae objectio. Sic autem se habet: Τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι καὶ προσέχοντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς, ἐστερνισμένοι ἦτε τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν. Hoc est: « Dei viatico contenti, et sermonibus illius diligenter attendentes, dilatati eratis in visceribus, et passiones ejus prae oculis vobis erant. » Ubi primum observandum, relativum αὐτοῦ respicere procul dubio proxime antecedens Θεοῦ. Cum autem παθήματα nullo pacto Deo Patri attribui possint, reliquum est ut hic Jesum Christum, Deum, Filium Dei, Deum de Deo, Deum verum de Deo vero intellexerit S. Clemens. Qui quidem passiones Christi passiones Dei appellat, sic nempe ab apostolo Paulo institutus, cujus erat συνεργός; qui eodem plane sensu Christi Ecclesiam appellavit τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, « Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit
But let us hasten earnestly to untie a weightier knot. The illustrious man, namely, lays it down: "That the author of the second Epistle declares himself different from Clement by the very fact that he expressly inculcates the divinity of Christ, and contends that the title not only of Lord but also of God is to be given to Him; whereas the true Clement has nowhere done this of set purpose, nor has he adorned Him with any other title than that of Lord, although here and there he intimates that he acknowledges the divinity of Christ." What more do you ask? Let a passage from the First Epistle be brought forward, by which alone Venema's whole objection is crushed. It runs thus: Being content with the provisions of God and attending carefully to His words, you had them laid up in your inmost parts, and His sufferings were before your eyes. That is: "Content with God's provision for the journey, and attending diligently to His words, you were enlarged in your inmost parts, and His sufferings were before your eyes." Where it is first to be observed that the relative αὐτοῦ beyond doubt looks back to the immediately preceding Θεοῦ. But since sufferings can in no way be attributed to God the Father, it remains that Saint Clement here understood Jesus Christ, God, the Son of God, God from God, true God from true God. He indeed calls the sufferings of Christ the sufferings of God, having of course been so instructed by the apostle Paul, whose fellow worker he was; who in plainly the same sense called the Church of Christ the Church of God, which He acquired through His own blood (Acts 20:28), "the Church of God which He acquired
Editors' notes and page, col. 103
Footnotes
(36) ‹anchor: Romanos scribens› · call in col 103
Rom. I, 8.
Romans 1:8.
(printed under page 51)
(37) ‹anchor: Nonne dicebat› · call in col 103
Rom. X, 18.
Romans 10:18.
(printed under page 51)
(38) ‹anchor: Deum glorificabat› · call in col 103
Rom. XVI, 25, 26.
Romans 16:25, 26.
(printed under page 51)
(39) ‹anchor: Ad Colossenses› · call in col 103
Coloss. I, 6, 23.
Colossians 1:6, 23.
(printed under page 51)
(40) ‹anchor: Timotheum item› · call in col 103
I Tim. III, 16.
1 Timothy 3:16.
(printed under page 51)
(41) ‹anchor: Ecclesiam appellavit› · call in col 103
Act. XX, 28.
Acts 20:28.
(printed under page 51)
(62) ‹anchor: nostro Clemente› · call in col 103
Epist. I, cap. 5.
Epistle I, ch. 5.
(printed under page 51)
(63) ‹anchor: nimirum vir clar.› · call in col 103
Venem., Epist., II, § 20, p. 77
Venema, Epistle II, § 20, p. 77.
(printed under page 51)
(64) ‹anchor: dandum esse contendat› · call in col 103
Epist. II, cap. 1-3.
Epistle II, chs. 1-3.
(printed under page 51)
(65) ‹anchor: autem se habet› · call in col 103
Epist. I, cap. 2.
Epistle I, ch. 2.
(printed under page 51)
Page
- running head: 103 AD S. CLEMENTEM I [continues across the page]
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the page's letters stand beside the right column)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence (the Latin version of the Acts quotation runs on into col. 104). Foot-note calls (62)–(65) and the superscript scripture-note calls 36–41 removed; all six scripture calls stand in this column (36 after "scribens", 37 after "dicebat", 38 after "glorificabat", 39 after "Colossenses", 40 after "Timotheum item", 41 after "appellavit"). The scripture notes are printed in one line across the foot of the page: "Rom. I, 8.", "Rom. X, 18.", "Rom. XVI, 25, 26." under col. 103, then "Coloss. I, 6, 23.", "I Tim. III, 16.", "Act. XX," under col. 104, ending "28." on the second line under col. 103, followed by 42 "Gal. III, 1." (called from col. 104). All six references of this column are given in the English (Q4, read from both foot images). Foot notes 62–65 belong in notes. The dots of omission (...., ...) and the capitals GENTIBUS, MUNDO are printed. The comma in "τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, τοῦ Θεοῦ" is as printed. Italic quotations set in plain text.
sanguine suo. » Nec dubito quin hisce verbis, καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν, respexerit S. Pater ad illud ejusdem Apostoli, Galatas ita objurgantis: Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, — οἷς κατ' ὀφθαλμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη, ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος: « O insensati Galatae...., ante quorum oculos Jesus Christus praescriptus est, in vobis crucifixus. » Nimirum Clemens, ut assolet, Paulum imitatus, in memoriam redigit Corinthiis, quomodo ante motus in eorum Ecclesia nuper exortos, omni virtutum genere florerent, atque Dei passiones semper ante oculos ipsis obversarentur. Divinae igitur naturae majestatem cum carnis humilitate crucisque ignominia hoc loci conjungit sanctissimus Pater: duas item naturas agnoscit in Christo: unam Verbi Personam, quae carne passa est: ac Dei passiones Ecclesiae Corinthiacae proponit velut longe maximum mysterium, unde vitae sanctioris praecepta institutaque omnia ducantur. Ex quibus ergo liquido patet, non solum quid S. Clemens, sed etiam quid Romani, quid Corinthii, quid demum caeteri Christiani, saeculo I apostolico de Deo in carne passo senserint atque crediderint. Quae quidem contra Socinianos valide urget vir doctus Maranus: idemque argumentum jam pridem pluribus fuerat persecutus Grabius; qui aliorum S. Patris nostri locorum parallelismo instituto, hunc ipsum de quo agimus strenue vindicavit, atque Christi deitatis hostibus fidenter objecit.
by His own blood" (Acts 20:28). Nor do I doubt that by these words, and His sufferings were before your eyes, the holy Father had regard to that saying of the same Apostle, rebuking the Galatians thus: O foolish Galatians, — before whose eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed, crucified among you: "O senseless Galatians...., before whose eyes Jesus Christ was set forth, crucified among you" (Gal. 3:1). Evidently Clement, imitating Paul as he is accustomed to do, recalls to the Corinthians' memory how, before the disturbances lately arisen in their Church, they flourished in every kind of virtue, and the sufferings of God were always present before their eyes. The most holy Father therefore in this place joins the majesty of the divine nature with the lowliness of the flesh and the ignominy of the cross: he likewise acknowledges two natures in Christ: one Person of the Word, which suffered in the flesh: and he sets the sufferings of God before the Corinthian Church as by far the greatest mystery, from which all the precepts and rules of a holier life are drawn. From which, therefore, it is plainly clear not only what Saint Clement, but also what the Romans, what the Corinthians, what finally the rest of the Christians in the first, the apostolic, century thought and believed concerning God having suffered in the flesh. These things indeed the learned Maran presses strongly against the Socinians: and the same argument Grabe had long before pursued at greater length; who, having set up a parallel of other passages of our holy Father, vigorously vindicated this very one of which we are treating, and confidently cast it against the enemies of Christ's deity.
Haud me latet enimvero, in eo Clementino loco quem modo protulimus, Junium conjectasse pro παθήματα forte legendum μαθήματα. Sed plane respuendum cum Grabio, Wottono aliisque viris doctis inane commentum, quod textum citra ullam necessitatem, neque ullius ms. codicis auctoritate sollicitare comperitur. Et jure quidem: etenim nonne demum apte cohaerent omnia, si verba Dei mentis attentioni, ejusque passiones cordis oculis proponantur? Quod ubi diligenter attendo, mirari subit, clar. Fleuryum vitiosam Junii conjecturam sequi maluisse, quam sinceram textus lectionem; qui Gallice non passiones, sed doctrinam reddiderit.
It does not indeed escape me that in that Clementine passage which we have just produced Junius conjectured that for παθήματα one should perhaps read μαθήματα. But with Grabe, Wotton and other learned men the empty fiction is plainly to be rejected, since it is found to disturb the text without any necessity and on the authority of no manuscript codex. And rightly indeed: for do not all things at last cohere fitly, if the words of God are set before the attention of the mind, and His sufferings before the eyes of the heart? When I attend carefully to this, I am moved to wonder that the illustrious Fleury preferred to follow the faulty conjecture of Junius rather than the genuine reading of the text; he who rendered it in French not sufferings but teaching.
Haec autem fusius pertractasse libuit, tum ut insigne Clementinum de Christi divinitate testimonium vindicarem, tum vero in primis ut Venemae objectionem diluerem: qui virorum doctissimorum in hunc locum adnotata praeterire maluit, quam Photii judicium minus caute prolatum deserere aut benignius accipere; eo scilicet nomine, quo praeconceptam opinionem de epistolae secundae suppositione celebris illius critici calculo comprobaret confirmaretque.
It has pleased me, moreover, to treat these things more fully, both that I might vindicate the notable Clementine testimony concerning the divinity of Christ, and indeed above all that I might dissolve the objection of Venema: who preferred to pass over the annotations of most learned men on this passage rather than to abandon the judgement of Photius, less cautiously pronounced, or to take it more kindly; on this ground, namely, that he might approve and confirm by the vote of that celebrated critic his preconceived opinion about the supposititious character of the second epistle.
Editors' notes and page, col. 104
Footnotes
(42) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 104 (inferred; call not visible)
Gal. III, 1.
Galatians 3:1.
(printed under page 51)
(66) ‹anchor: vir doctus Maranus› · call in col 104
Divinit. D. N. J.-C. manif., lib. IV, cap. 3. p. 377.
Divinitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi manifesta, book IV, ch. 3, p. 377.
(printed under page 51)
(67) ‹anchor: persecutus Grabius› · call in col 104
In Annotat. ad Bulli defens. fid. Nic., p. 60.
In the Annotations on Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith, p. 60.
(printed under page 51)
(68) ‹anchor: doctrinam reddiderit› · call in col 104
Hist. eccl., tom. I, p. 242, edit. in-4.
Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. I, p. 242, quarto edition.
(printed under page 51)
Page
- running head: [continued] . CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 104
- marginal letters: A sanguine suo. » Nec dubito; B sonam, quae carne passa est; C Haud me latet enimvero; D nium vindicarem, tum vero
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence (end of the Latin version of the Acts quotation begun in col. 103); it ends at a paragraph end. The column number in the running head is damaged (last digit unclear; read as 104). UNSURE: "κατ' ὀφθαλμῶν" (the first letter after the apostrophe is blurred; the genitive is read as printed, where the received text has the accusative). Part of "quorum oculos" is covered by an ink blot but legible. Foot-note calls (66)–(68) and the superscript scripture-note call 42 removed. The scripture notes running across the page foot, now fully visible, read: 39 "Coloss. I, 6, 23."; 40 "I Tim. III, 16."; 41 "Act. XX, 28."; 42 "Gal. III, 1." Notes 39–41 are called from col. 103, whose English does not carry those three references (Col. 1:6, 23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 20:28). Foot notes 66–68 belong in notes. The dash and the dots of omission are printed. Italic phrases set in plain text.
IX. Superest nunc tempus inquirendum, quo utraque epistola fuerit Corinthiis inscripta. Et de priore quidem, magna inter viros eruditos controversia. Sed rationibus utrimque allatis pro viribus excussis, eorum demum sententiae nobis accedendum existimamus, qui Neroniana persecutione desinente, stanteque adhuc templo Hierosolymitano, nempe circa aerae vulgaris annum 68 eam fuisse a Clemente scriptam censuerunt. In quam sane sententiam prae caeteris concessisse novimus duumviros doctissimos, Pagium ac nuper purpuratum Patrem cui acceptam referimus Historiam ecclesiasticam eleganter Italicis litteris traditam. Quo autem utcunque pateat quam firmis rationibus innitatur sententia hujusmodi, praecipua saltem ex ipsa Epistola argumenta paucis contrahamus. Sic itaque scribit Clemens sub initium: Propter subitas ac sibi invicem succedentes calamitates et casus adversos qui nobis acciderunt, tardius, fratres, nosmetipsos convertisse agnoscimus ad ea quae a vobis quaesita fuerunt. Quibus verbis, primum quidem persecutionem quae jam deferbuerit, vel potius quae nuper desierit, designari; deinde vero vel Neronis vel Domitiani persecutionem hic innui, nemo est sane qui non perspiciat. Verum, quae paulo post subdit Clemens, Neronianam scilicet indicare perhibentur. De beatis enim apostolis Petro et Paulo, ceu non ita pridem martyrio consummatis, haec habet: Ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς· λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα. — Λάβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστόλους, h. e. « Veniamus ad proximos athletas, et saeculi nostri generosa exempla sumamus. — Ponamus nobis ante oculos bonos Apostolos. » Ubi probe notanda cum Dodwello aliisque, Clementis verba, quibus gloriosa Petri et Pauli certamina describens, illos ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητὰς, nuperrimos athletas, appellat, seu quam proxime sublatos e medio fuisse testatur, atque τῇ γενεᾷ ἡμῶν, hac nostra aetate floruisse. Eamdem porro persecutionem magis adhuc inculcare videntur; quae paucis interjectis occurrunt: Τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως πολιτευσαμένοις συνηθροίσθη πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν. « Viris istis qui vitam sancte instituerunt, magna electorum multitudo aggregata est. » Ubi videas neminem, si Petrum ac Paulum excipias, a Clemente laudari, non Flavium Clementem, non Acilium Glabrionem, non Flaviam Domitillam, nullum denique tot illustrium martyrum qui sub Domitiano passi sunt; quorum aliquem saltem memorasset S. Pater, si post Domitianeam
IX. It now remains to inquire into the time at which each letter was addressed to the Corinthians. And about the first, indeed, there is great controversy among learned men. But having sifted, as far as we were able, the reasons brought forward on both sides, we judge that we must in the end accede to the opinion of those who have held that it was written by Clement as the Neronian persecution was ceasing and while the temple of Jerusalem was still standing, namely about the year 68 of the common era. To this opinion, certainly, we know that two most learned men have above the rest gone over: Pagi, and lately the Father clothed in the purple to whom we owe the Ecclesiastical History elegantly delivered in Italian letters. But that it may in some measure be plain on how firm reasons an opinion of this kind rests, let us draw together in few words at least the chief arguments from the Letter itself. Thus, then, Clement writes near the beginning: On account of the sudden calamities and adverse chances that have befallen us, following one upon another, we acknowledge, brothers, that we have turned ourselves somewhat late to the things that were asked by you. By these words there is surely no one who does not perceive, first, that a persecution is designated which has already cooled, or rather which has lately ceased; and then that either Nero's or Domitian's persecution is here hinted at. But what Clement subjoins a little afterwards is held to indicate, namely, the Neronian. For of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, as having been perfected by martyrdom not so long before, he has this: Let us come to the athletes who lived nearest; let us take the noble examples of our generation. — Let us take before our eyes the good apostles, that is, "Let us come to the nearest athletes, and let us take the noble examples of our age. — Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles." Here, with Dodwell and others, Clement's words are to be well noted, in which, describing the glorious contests of Peter and Paul, he calls them athletes who lived nearest, the most recent athletes, or testifies that they had been taken from our midst as lately as possible, and that they flourished in our generation, in this our age. Moreover, the words that occur after a few things interposed seem to press the same persecution still more: To these men who lived their lives holily there was gathered a great multitude of the elect. "To these men who ordered their life holily a great multitude of the elect was joined." Here you may see that no one, if you except Peter and Paul, is praised by Clement, not Flavius Clemens, not Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitilla, none, in short, of so many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian; of whom the holy Father would have mentioned some one at least, if after the Domitianic
Editors' notes and page, col. 105
Footnotes
(69) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 105 (inferred; call not visible)
Pagi Crit., ad ann. 78, § 3.
Pagi, Critica, at the year 78, § 3.
(printed under page 52)
(70) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 105 (inferred; call not visible)
Orsi, Istor. eccl. lib. II, § 33, t. I, p. 411, edit. Rom. in-8°.
Orsi, Istoria ecclesiastica, book II, § 33, vol. I, p. 411, Roman edition in octavo.
(printed under page 52)
(71) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 105 (inferred; call not visible)
Epist. 1 ad Cor. cap. 1.
Epistle 1 to the Corinthians, ch. 1.
(printed under page 52)
(72) ‹anchor: haec habet› · call in col 105
Ibid., cap. 5
The same, ch. 5.
(printed under page 52)
(73) ‹anchor: cum Dodwello› · call in col 105
Addit. ad Pears. Opp., post p. 219
Additions to Pearson's Works, after p. 219.
(printed under page 52)
(74) ‹anchor: interjectis occurrunt› · call in col 105
Ibid.. cap. 6.
The same, ch. 6.
(printed under page 52)
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM (page head cut by the crop; column number 105)
- marginal letters: A ‹IX. Superest nunc tempus›; B ‹ipsa Epistola argumenta›; C ‹ὑποδείγματα. — Λάβωμεν›; D ‹gregata est.›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins at § IX and ends mid-sentence (Domitianeam). Foot-note calls (69)–(74) removed from the text; foot notes (69)–(73) stand under this column (Pagi; Orsi; Epist. 1 ad Cor. cap. 1; ibid. cap. 5; Addit. ad Pears. Opp.), with a scripture note 43 (Hebr. IX, 25) belonging to the preceding column; printer's signature PATROL. GR. I at the foot. Italics of the print not marked.
persecutionem scripsisset, ut auctor eminentissimus optime arguit. Quid quod Clementinis pene consona de Neronis persecutione scripsisse Tacitus comperitur? Videbatur Nero, inquit, condendae urbis novae, et cognomento suo appellandae, gloriam quaerere. — Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis, aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin jussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. — Igitur primo correpti qui fatebantur: deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens (eadem sane phrasi, qua utitur S. Pater, πολὺ πλῆθος) haud perinde in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti, laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus affixi, aut flammandi: atque ubi defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. Non adeo tamen saeviebat Domitianus, Tertulliano teste, qui ejus persecutionem ita describit: Tentaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate; sed qua et homo facile coeptum repressit, restitutis etiam quos relegaverat: ut propterea nullum dubium superesse videatur, quin verba illa Clementis quae sub initium hujus § recitavimus, de Neronis potius quam Domitiani persecutione sint accipienda. Deferbuit autem, imo vero et desiit ea persecutio, sublato Nerone, quem 9 Junii anno aerae vulgaris 68 periisse compertum. Eodem igitur anno currente vel saltem desinente, Romana Ecclesia in pace utcunque constituta, scripserit S. Pater. Plura in hanc sententiam videsis apud scriptores modo laudatos, quibus addas velim Wottonum, ut alios praetereamus.
had written after the persecution, as the most eminent author argues excellently. What of the fact that Tacitus is found to have written of Nero's persecution things almost in accord with Clement's? Nero seemed, he says, to be seeking the glory of founding a new city and of calling it by his own surname. — But not by human help, not by the emperor's largesses or by appeasements of the gods did the infamy abate, so that the fire should not be believed to have been ordered. Therefore, to abolish the rumour, Nero put forward as culprits, and visited with the most exquisite punishments, those whom, hated for their outrages, the common people called Christians. — Accordingly those who confessed were first seized; then on their information an immense multitude (in the very same phrase, indeed, which the holy Father uses, a great multitude) were convicted, not so much on the charge of the fire as of hatred of the human race. And mockeries were added to them as they perished, so that, covered with the hides of wild beasts, they died by the mangling of dogs, or were fastened to crosses, or were to be set on fire; and when day had failed, they were burnt to serve as light by night. Yet Domitian did not rage to such a degree, on the witness of Tertullian, who describes his persecution thus: Domitian too had made the attempt, a portion of Nero in cruelty; but, inasmuch as he was also a man, he easily checked what was begun, even restoring those whom he had banished; so that for this reason no doubt seems to remain but that those words of Clement which we recited near the beginning of this § are to be taken of Nero's persecution rather than of Domitian's. Now that persecution cooled, or rather indeed ceased, when Nero was taken away, who is ascertained to have perished on 9 June in the year 68 of the common era. In that same year, therefore, while it was running or at least ending, the Roman Church being in some measure established in peace, the holy Father will have written. You may see more to this purpose in the writers just cited, to whom I would have you add Wotton, to pass over others.
Huic item anno 68 esse illigandam hanc ad Corinthios priorem epistolam, suadet cultus Judaici mentio in templo Hierosolymitano tunc adhuc stante vigentis, quae in eadem epistola hisce conceptis verbis occurrit: Summo quippe sacerdoti sua munia tributa sunt; et sacerdotibus locus proprius assignatus est; et levitis sua ministeria incumbunt. — Non ubique, fratres, offeruntur sacrificia jugia, vel pro peccato et delicto, sed Hierosolymis tantum: neque illic in quovis loco fit oblatio, sed ante templum ad altare, prius facta a summo sacerdote et praedictis ministris, oblati inspectione et probatione. Qui ergo praeter id quod voluntati ejus consentaneum est, aliquid faciunt, morte multantur. Neque aliter sane loquitur Clemens, ac Paulus ad Hebraeos scribens: quem ubique fere sectatur S. Pater, ejus συνεργός. In ea enim Epistola meminit Apostolus
That this first letter to the Corinthians is likewise to be tied to this year 68 is urged by the mention of the Jewish worship flourishing in the temple of Jerusalem, then still standing, which occurs in the same letter in these express words: For to the high priest his own functions have been assigned; and to the priests their proper place has been appointed; and upon the levites their own ministries are incumbent. — Not everywhere, brothers, are the continual sacrifices offered, or those for sin and trespass, but at Jerusalem only; nor is the offering made there in any place whatever, but before the temple at the altar, an inspection and approval of what is offered having first been made by the high priest and the aforesaid ministers. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond what is agreeable to His will are punished with death. Nor indeed does Clement speak otherwise than Paul writing to the Hebrews, whom the holy Father, his fellow worker, follows almost everywhere. For in that Letter the Apostle mentions
Editors' notes and page, col. 106
Footnotes
(43) ‹anchor: meminit Apostolus› · call in col 106
Hebr. IX, 25.
Hebrews 9:25.
(printed under page 52)
(75) ‹anchor: optime arguit› · call in col 106
Orsi, Istor. eccl., t. I, p. 412.
Orsi, Istoria ecclesiastica, vol. I, p. 412.
(printed under page 52)
(76) ‹anchor: Tacitus comperitur› · call in col 106
Annal. lib. XV, capp. 41-44.
Annals, book XV, chs. 41-44.
(printed under page 52)
(77) ‹anchor: ita describit› · call in col 106
Apologet. cap. 5.
Apologeticus, ch. 5.
(printed under page 52)
(78) ‹anchor: velim Wottonum› · call in col 106
Praefat. ad Clem. epist., 203 seqq.
Preface to the epistles of Clement, 203 and following.
(printed under page 52)
(79) ‹anchor: verbis occurrit› · call in col 106
Epist. 1, capp. 40-41.
Epistle 1, chs. 40-41.
(printed under page 52)
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM. (column number 106)
- marginal letters: A ‹persecutionem scripsisset›; B ‹dibria, ut ferarum tergis›; C ‹pace utcunque constituta›; D ‹praedictis ministris›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (75)–(79) and the scripture call 43 (after Apostolus, the column's last word) removed; foot notes (74)–(79) stand under this column (Ibid. cap. 6; Orsi; Annal. lib. xv; Apologet. cap. 5; Praefat. ad Clem. epist.; Epist. 1, capp. 40-41). The scripture note 43 (Hebr. IX, 25) printed at the foot of column 105 belongs to the call here, not to an earlier column as the comment in c105_a.md says. Signature numeral 4 at the foot. Italics of the print not marked. Q1: the calls (75), (76), (77) are visible in the column images (after "arguit", "comperitur", "describit"); their anchors are set from the column.
pontificis, qui intrat in sancta per singulos annos in sanguine alieno: meminit item sacerdotis, qui praesto est quotidie ministrare, ac hostiarum quas indesinenter offerunt ministri. Quae quidem, ut alia in eamdem sententiam dicta omittamus, cum tempore praesenti apud Clementem, haud secus ac apud Paulum efferantur, tunc adhuc templum stetisse, cultumque viguisse Judaicum videtur. Quin et nondum obsessam, sed pacatam potius vel ipsam urbem Hierosolymitanam Clementina verba insinuare comperiuntur; aut saltem rumorem de illius obsidione Romam nondum fuisse perlatum satis aperte declarant. Anno autem Christi 68, Vespasianus, plerisque Judaeae urbibus occupatis, ipsam Hierosolymorum metropolim circumsidere molitus est: quam deinde Titus, a Vespasiano patre ad consequendum bellum in Judaea relictus, post quatuor mensium obsidionem in paschate inchoatam, anno demum 70 cepit atque cum templo diruit: ut proinde priorem ad Corinthios epistolam circa annum 68 scripserit S. Clemens.
of the high priest, who enters into the holy places every year with the blood of another: he mentions likewise the priest who stands ready daily to minister, and the victims which the ministers unceasingly offer. Since these things, to pass over others said to the same purpose, are expressed in the present tense in Clement, just as in Paul, it appears that the temple was then still standing and the Jewish worship flourishing. Indeed Clement's words are found to imply that the very city of Jerusalem was not yet besieged, but rather at peace; or at least they declare plainly enough that the rumour of its siege had not yet been carried to Rome. Now in the year of Christ 68, Vespasian, having occupied most of the cities of Judaea, set about investing the very metropolis of Jerusalem: which Titus afterwards, left in Judaea by his father Vespasian to carry on the war, after a siege of four months begun at the Passover, at length in the year 70 took and destroyed together with the temple: so that accordingly Saint Clement will have written the former epistle to the Corinthians about the year 68.
Hactenus vero dictis unum adhuc addere placet. Nimirum, sub finem ejusdem epistolae inter nuntios a Clemente ad Ecclesiam Corinthiacam missos recensetur Fortunatus, ipsemet ille ut videtur, qui aliquot ab hinc annis ab iisdem Corinthiis cum Stephana et Achaico, ad Paulum dum ageret Ephesi, fuerat ablegatus. Ejus cum laude meminit Apostolus in priore ad Corinthios Epistola, quae scripta fertur circa annum 57. Hic igitur cum in coetu Corinthiorum valde emineret, ab eo missus Romam venit, quo sibi diro schismate laboranti opem ferret Romana Ecclesia. Exinde vero eumdem legatum illuc cum epistola Clemens remittit, postulatque ut cum nuntio concordiae initae brevi ad se redeat. Quis porro facile sibi persuadeat, ut praeeunte Dodwello arguit vir eruditus, eumdem Fortunatum post tantum temporis intervallum, quantum ab anno 57 ad finem saeculi elapsum est, potuisse aut voluisse aetate jam valde provectum, adeo longum iter suscipere? At omnia demum rite cohaerere noscuntur, si Clementina epistola circa annum Christi 68 scripta censeatur. Neque alia profecto desunt argumenta, quibus sententia isthaec magis magisque firmetur; quae tamen brevitatis ergo consulto praeterimus.
To what has been said thus far, however, it pleases us to add one thing more. Namely, towards the end of the same epistle, among the messengers sent by Clement to the Corinthian Church is counted Fortunatus, the very same man, as it seems, who some years before had been dispatched by the same Corinthians, with Stephanas and Achaicus, to Paul while he was staying at Ephesus. The Apostle mentions him with praise in the former Epistle to the Corinthians, which is said to have been written about the year 57. He, therefore, since he was very eminent in the assembly of the Corinthians, came to Rome sent by it, in order that the Roman Church might bring help to it as it laboured under a dreadful schism. Thereafter Clement sends the same envoy back there with the epistle, and asks that he return to him shortly with news of concord restored. Who, moreover, would easily persuade himself, as a learned man argues, with Dodwell leading the way, that the same Fortunatus, after so great an interval of time as elapsed from the year 57 to the end of the century, could or would, being now very advanced in age, have undertaken so long a journey? But everything is at last recognized to cohere duly, if the Clementine epistle is judged to have been written about the year of Christ 68. Nor indeed are other arguments lacking by which this opinion may be more and more strengthened; which, however, for brevity's sake we deliberately pass over.
De temporis autem notatione quo scripta fuerit posterior Clementis epistola, nihil quidem certi ex ea elicere possumus, cum mutila ad nos pervenerit, unde illud statuatur. Qui eam integram legisse putatur Photius, in ejus recensione nullam facit dissidii Corinthiaci mentionem; sed ipsam tantummodo institutionem et admonitionem melioris vitae inducere scribit. Hinc facile quis colligat, Corintho Romam reduce Fortunato cum aliis sociis, schismate jam sublato et quieti ecclesia illa restituta, hanc deinde fuisse a Clemente perscriptam epistolam, anno forte insequente 69, quo in pace magis adhuc firmarentur Corinthii.
As to the marking of the time at which the latter epistle of Clement was written, however, we can draw nothing certain from it, since it has come down to us mutilated, by which that might be settled. Photius, who is thought to have read it entire, makes in his review of it no mention of the Corinthian dissension; but writes only that it introduces instruction and admonition to a better life. Hence one may easily gather that, when Fortunatus had returned from Corinth to Rome with his other companions, the schism being now removed and that church restored to quiet, this epistle was then written out by Clement, perhaps in the following year 69, that the Corinthians might be still more confirmed in peace.
SECTIO II.
SECTION II.
DE DUABUS EPISTOLIS AD VIRGINES.
ON THE TWO EPISTLES TO VIRGINS.
X. Nunc autem sermo instituendus de duabus epistolis, quas De virginitate seu ad virgines scripsit S. Clemens. Eas primum evulgavit Lugduni Batavorum anno 1752 e ms. codice Novi Testamenti Syriaci, cum versione Latina, Joannes Jacobus Wetstenius; exstantque ad calcem voluminis II Nov. Test. Graeci, ab eodem typis Amstaelodamensibus excusi. Ad exemplar Wetstenianum nostram editionem exegimus, suis quibusque locis ea restituentes, quae doctissimus editor prolegomenis subjecta sive addenda sive emendanda monuerat. In textu item Syriaco sectiones seu capita distinximus, ordinem secuti quem ipsemet interpres in sua versione retinendum censuit. Sacrae Scripturae verba quorum haud pauca Wetstenium fugerant, charactere Italico describenda curavimus, locis insuper ad oram indicatis unde illa desumpsit S. Pater, ab
X. Now, however, the discourse must be taken up concerning the two epistles which Saint Clement wrote On virginity, or to virgins. These were first published at Leiden in the year 1752, from a manuscript codex of the Syriac New Testament, with a Latin version, by John James Wettstein; and they stand at the end of volume II of the Greek New Testament, printed by the same man in Amsterdam type. We have conformed our edition to Wettstein's copy, restoring each in its own place those things which the most learned editor, in matter subjoined to the prolegomena, had noted as to be either added or corrected. In the Syriac text likewise we have marked off sections or chapters, following the order which the translator himself judged should be kept in his version. The words of Sacred Scripture, not a few of which had escaped Wettstein, we have taken care to have set in Italic character, with the places moreover indicated in the margin from which the holy Father took them,
Editors' notes and page, col. 107
Footnotes
(44) ‹anchor: meminit item› · call in col 107
Hebr. X, 3, 11.
Hebrews 10:3, 11.
(printed under page 53)
(45) ‹anchor: ad Corinthios Epistola› · call in col 107
I Cor. XVI, 15, 17.
1 Corinthians 16:15, 17.
(printed under page 53)
(80) ‹anchor: ejusdem epistolae› · call in col 107
Epist. 1, cap. 68.
Epistle 1, ch. 68. [chapter numeral as read from the scan; the first digit is not fully clear]
(printed under page 53)
(81) ‹anchor: praeeunte Dodwello› · call in col 108
Addit. ad Pears. Opp., post p. 221.
Additions to Pearson's Works, after p. 221.
(printed under page 53)
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM (page head spans both columns; column number 107)
- marginal letters: A ‹pontificis, qui intrat›; B ‹quam deinde Titus›; C ‹X. Nunc autem sermo›; D ‹ctere Italico describenda›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence. The page is in two tiers: the upper tier of 107 (ending 'cum in coetu') continues in the upper tier of 108; then the caption SECTIO II. / DE DUABUS EPISTOLIS AD VIRGINES., printed across both columns, is set once here; the lower tier of 107 (ending 'S. Pater, ab') continues in the lower tier of 108. Foot-note call (80) and scripture calls 44, 45 removed; foot notes under this column: 44 Hebr. X, 3, 11; 45 I Cor. XVI, 15, 17; (80) Epist. 1, cap. 68 [so printed]; (81) Addit. ad Pears. Opp., post p. 221 (called in col. 108). Stray type marks before 'tunc' ignored. 'consequendum bellum' so printed. Italics of the print not marked.
- running head: 107 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 108
- marginal letters: A ‹pontificis, qui intrat in sancta per singulos annos›; B ‹quam deinde Titus, a Vespasiano patre ad conse-›; C ‹X. Nunc autem sermo instituendus de duabus›; D ‹ctere Italico describenda curavimus, locis insuper›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter unit (Gallandi), layer 1. Page 53 laid in reading order under this rail: 107 upper, 108 upper (end of Section I; the second paragraph runs across the break at ‹in coetu | Corinthiorum›, joined), the full-width caption, then 107 lower. The existing part files were not opened (not permitted in this pass), so the text was set afresh from the whole-page images rather than moved. Foot note calls not set: 44 after ‹item›, (80) after ‹epistolae›, 45 after ‹Epistola›, (81) after ‹Dodwello›, (82) after ‹eruditus›, (83) after ‹scribit›; the foot notes not set. The head prints the right column number as ‹103› or ‹108› with a weak last figure; 108 by sequence. Column begins and ends mid-sentence (‹S. Pater, ab›); ‹intrat›, ‹praesto est›, ‹offerunt›, ‹De virginitate›, ‹ad virgines›, ‹institutionem et admonitionem melioris vitae inducere› are in italic.
editore omnino praetermissis. Quin etiam, ut exactior adhuc editio nostra prodiret, Wetstenianam sive in textu sive in versione a nobis rogatus recensuit R. P. Bonifacius Finetti Ord. Praedic., vir in linguis exoticis excolendis studiosissimus: cujus proinde conjecturas in lectionem Syriacam et castigationes in Wetstenii versionem, ipsius nomine signatas in limbum conjecimus. Cum autem hac in urbe typi Syriaci quotquot erant necessarii haud praesto essent, Patavium contendimus; votisque nostris quibus expetebamus ut eaedem epistolae Syriace ac Latine in seminario Patavino excuderentur, eminentissimus princeps, nunc vero SS. D. N. Clemens XIII perhumaniter annuit. Impressionis curam sibi suscepit libens Antonius Zanolinus, celebris linguarum orientalium in eodem seminario professor: quibus quidem nominibus duumviris doctis
which the editor had passed over altogether. Moreover, that our edition might come forth still more exact, the Reverend Father Bonifacio Finetti of the Order of Preachers, a man most zealous in the cultivation of foreign tongues, at our request revised Wettstein's edition, both in text and in version: whose conjectures on the Syriac reading and corrections of Wettstein's version we have accordingly placed in the margin, marked with his own name. But since in this city the Syriac types, as many as were needed, were not at hand, we betook ourselves to Padua; and to our wishes, by which we sought that the same epistles might be printed in Syriac and Latin in the seminary of Padua, the most eminent prince, now indeed our most holy Lord Clement XIII, most graciously assented. The care of the printing was gladly undertaken by Antonio Zanolini, the celebrated professor of oriental languages in the same seminary: on which accounts, indeed, to the two learned men
Editors' notes and page, col. 108
Footnotes
(82) ‹anchor: arguit vir eruditus› · call in col 108
Frey., not. ad cap. 2 epist. 1 Clem., p. 113.
Frey, note on ch. 2 of Clement's epistle 1, p. 113.
(printed under page 53)
(83) ‹anchor: inducere scribit› · call in col 108
Bibl. cod. CXXVI.
Bibliotheca, codex CXXVI.
(printed under page 53)
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM (page head spans both columns; column number 108, its last figure damaged)
- marginal letters: A ‹Corinthiorum valde emineret›; B ‹ergo consulto praeterimus›; C ‹editore omnino praetermissis›; D ‹bris linguarum orientalium›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence in both tiers: the upper tier continues the upper tier of 107, the lower tier (below the full-width caption SECTIO II, set in c107_a.md) continues the lower tier of 107; it is set here as a separate paragraph for that reason. Last word 'doctis' is split at the column break (do- | ctis), completed from the first line of col. 109. Foot-note calls (81), (82), (83) removed; foot notes under this column: (82) Frey., not. ad cap. 2 epist. 1 Clem., p. 113; (83) Bibl. cod. CXXVI. A stray mark stands between 'missus' and 'Romam'. 'jam sublato': the first letter may be printed i. Italics of the print not marked.
- running head: 107 AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 108
- marginal letters: C ‹editore omnino praetermissis. Quin etiam, ut exa-›; D ‹bris linguarum orientalium in eodem seminario pro-› (the letters stand between the columns; A and B of the page recorded under 107)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter unit (Gallandi), layer 1. This rail keeps only 108 lower, where its text resumes after the full-width caption; 108 upper stands under the 107 rail in reading order. Column begins mid-sentence. The last word is split at the column break (‹do-|ctis›) and is set whole here (Q2: tail read from the first line of col 109, whose file does not restore it); ‹duumviris doctis› is dative, governed by ‹obstrictos› in col 109, and the English sentence is completed there. Existing part files not opened; text set afresh from the whole-page images. Foot notes (82), (83) not set.
, in primis autem sanctissimo Patri Pontifici Maximo nosmetipsos summopere obstrictos palam profitemur.
, but in the first place to the most holy Father the Supreme Pontiff, we openly profess ourselves bound in the highest degree.
XI. Jam vero disquirendum, num demum Clementi Romano utraque epistola jure sit adscribenda. Eas enimvero velut sinceros Clementis fetus agnovit cl. editor, ac pro viribus eidem asserere aggressus est. Verum duos prae caeteris viros haud incelebres nactus est adversarios: alterum quidem Nathanaelem Lardnerum, qui anno 1753 dissertationem 70 paginarum in-8° Anglice Londini edidit; pluribusque in contrariam sententiam adductis, in eam tandem cogitationem devenit, has nimirum epistolas circa medium saeculi III ab episcopo Ecclesiae orientalis fuisse perscriptas: alterum vero Hermannum Venema, qui anno insequente 1754, Harlingae vulgatis tribus epistolis, VV. CC. Wesselingio, Hemsterhusio et Cannegietero inscriptis, easdem epistolas Clementinas supposititias esse omni studio contendit evincere: in iis enim inter alia Hieronymi stylum sibi suboluisse innuit; et quamvis de auctore ac tempore quo vixerit nihil definiat, eum tamen fuisse orientalem, non Romanum, et Origene quoque posteriorem arguit. Utrique statim respondit Wetstenius, iterumque quas edidit epistolas, magis magisque Clementi Romano vindicavit: Lardnero quidem in Diario litterario Gallice inscripto Bibliothèque raisonnée: Venemae autem, epistola eo ipso anno 1754 Amstaelodamensibus typis consignata, quam epistolae Venemianae opposuit. Utinam vero duabus quoque reliquis respondere valuisset vir doctus! At lethali morbo decumbebat Wetstenius, dum primam exaravit epistolam V Kal. Martii 1754 menseque sequente diem supremum obiit IX Kal. Aprilis, annum agens LXI. Quae vero hactenus recensui opuscula, ea dono accepi ab eruditissimo Jacobo Krighout; qui datis quoque humanissimis litteris una cum sermone funebri, quem ipsemet habuit in obitum laudati Wetstenii decessoris sui, munera mihi pergrata large cumulavit: quo nomine mihi temperare haud possum, quin V. C. comitatem adeo singularem quam maxime testatam faciam.
XI. Now, however, it must be examined whether, after all, each letter is rightly to be ascribed to Clement of Rome. The distinguished editor did indeed acknowledge them as genuine offspring of Clement, and set about claiming them for him to the best of his powers. But he met with two men above the rest, by no means obscure, as adversaries: the one, Nathaniel Lardner, who in the year 1753 published at London a dissertation of 70 pages in octavo in English, and, having brought forward many things for the contrary opinion, came at length to this thought, namely that these letters were written about the middle of the third century by a bishop of the Eastern Church; the other, Herman Venema, who in the following year 1754, having published at Harlingen three letters addressed to the most distinguished Wesseling, Hemsterhuis and Cannegieter, strove with all zeal to prove that the same Clementine letters are spurious; for he intimates that in them, among other things, he had caught a scent of Jerome's style; and although he determines nothing about the author and the time at which he lived, he nevertheless argues that he was an Oriental, not a Roman, and later than Origen as well. Wettstein answered both at once, and again claimed the letters he had published more and more for Clement of Rome: Lardner, in the literary journal entitled in French Bibliothèque raisonnée; and Venema, in a letter committed to the Amsterdam press in that very year 1754, which he set against Venema's letter. Would that the learned man had been able to answer the two remaining ones also! But Wettstein was lying ill of a mortal disease while he penned the first letter, on the fifth day before the Kalends of March 1754, and in the following month he met his last day, on the ninth day before the Kalends of April, in his sixty-first year. Now the little works I have reviewed thus far I received as a gift from the most learned Jacob Krighout; who, having also sent a most courteous letter together with the funeral discourse which he himself delivered on the death of the said Wettstein, his predecessor, heaped upon me abundantly most welcome gifts; on which account I cannot restrain myself from making the so singular courtesy of that most distinguished man as fully attested as possible.
Verum ut ad rem propius accedamus, harum epistolarum auctorem fuisse Clementem Romanum, duplici argumentorum genere demonstrandum suscipimus. Primum quidem petimus ab externis, sive antiquorum scriptorum testimoniis quibus illas fuisse a Clemente perscriptas astruitur, sive Patrum vetustissimorum operibus unde ab iisdem eas fuisse perlectas colligitur. Alterum vero, internum scilicet, ex ipsis epistolis sumimus. In his autem argumentis digerendis Wetstenium potissimum
But to come nearer to the matter, we undertake to show by a twofold kind of arguments that the author of these letters was Clement of Rome. The first we seek from external things, whether the testimonies of ancient writers by which it is established that they were written by Clement, or the works of the most ancient Fathers from which it is gathered that they were read through by the same. The second, namely the internal, we take from the letters themselves. Now in arranging these arguments Wettstein chiefly
Editors' notes and page, col. 109
Footnotes
(84) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 109 (inferred; call not visible)
Lardner, A dissertation upon the two Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, p. 37, 54, 57.
Lardner, A Dissertation upon the Two Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, pp. 37, 54, 57.
(printed under page 54)
(85) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 109 (inferred; call not visible)
Epist. 2, § 27, p. 89.
Epistle 2, § 27, p. 89.
(printed under page 54)
(86) ‹anchor: posteriorem arguit› · call in col 109
Epist. 3, § 16 seqq., p. 129.
Epistle 3, § 16 and following, p. 129.
(printed under page 54)
(87) ‹anchor: Bibliothèque raisonnée› · call in col 109
Tom. L, part. II, art. 8, p. 363 et suiv.
Vol. L, part II, art. 8, p. 363 and following.
(87*) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 110 (inferred; call not visible) Haer. XXX, § 15, Opp. tom. I, p. 139.
Heresy XXX, § 15, Works, vol. I, p. 139.
(printed under page 54)
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM (page head cut by the crop; column number 109)
- marginal letters: A ‹ctis, in primis autem›; B ‹vero Hermannum Venema›; C ‹lodamensibus typis consignata›; D ‹epistolarum auctorem fuisse›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first printed letters 'ctis' finish the word 'doctis' split from col. 108 and are set there; this file begins at the comma that follows. Last word 'potissimum' is split at the break (potissi- | mum), completed from the first line of col. 110 visible at the gutter. Foot-note calls (84)–(87) removed; foot notes under this column: (84) Lardner, A dissertation upon the two Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, p. 37, 54, 57; (85) Epist. 2, § 27, p. 89; (86) Epist. 3, § 16 seqq., p. 129; (87) Tom. L, part. II, art. 8, p. 363 et suiv.; (87*) Haer. XXX, § 15, Opp. tom. I, p. 139 (called in col. 110). Damaged type in 'cum sermone' and 'Gallice' read from context. Italics of the print not marked.
assectamur: ea tamen ratione, ut nonnulla utrobique a nobis in medium proferantur, Wetstenio praetermissa; eaque in primis quae ex harum epistolarum instituta collatione cum duabus reliquis Corinthiacis, ad rem magis pertinere nobis visa sunt.
we follow; yet on this plan, that on both heads some things are brought forward by us which Wettstein passed over, and those above all which, from a comparison instituted of these letters with the two others to the Corinthians, have seemed to us to bear more upon the matter.
Testis itaque antiquior Epiphanius, qui adversus Ebionaeos haec habet: 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. Id est: « Clemens ipse omnibus illos (Ebionaeos) modis redarguit iis epistolis circularibus, quae in sacrosanctis ecclesiis leguntur: ex quibus constat, longe ab iis quae in Circuitibus ⟨il⟩lis (Petri) sub ejus nomine adulterina exstant, illius fidem ac sermonem abhorruisse. Etenim virginitatem ipse (Clemens) edocet; et isti (Ebionaei) repudiant: ille Eliam, Davidem et Samsonem omnesque prophetas commendat; quos hi detestantur. » Quae profecto Epiphaniana duabus hisce Clementinis epistolis mirum in modum congruere noscuntur. Primum itaque in iis, Epiphanio teste, S. Clemens virginitatem edocet: harum enim epistolarum pars minima, ut recte advertit Wetstenius, in extollenda quidem virginitate versatur; at longe maxima, imo tota epistola secunda, in virginibus officii admonendis occupatur, seu de virginitate pie ac rite servanda pertractat: ut propterea S. Pater in his epistolis virginitatem potius edocere, quam commendare, jure ab Epiphanio dicatur.
An older witness, then, is Epiphanius, who against the Ebionites has this: Clement himself refutes them in all respects from the encyclical letters which he wrote, those which are read in the holy churches; because his own faith and discourse have a different stamp from the things falsified by these men under his name in the Journeys. For he himself teaches virginity, and they do not accept it; for he himself praises Elijah, and David, and Samson, and all the prophets, whom these men abominate. That is: "Clement himself refutes them (the Ebionites) in every way by those circular letters which are read in the most holy churches; from which it is established that his faith and discourse were far removed from those spurious things which are extant under his name in those Circuits (of Peter). For he himself (Clement) teaches virginity, and those men (the Ebionites) reject it; he commends Elijah, David and Samson and all the prophets, whom these detest." These words of Epiphanius are assuredly recognized to agree in a wonderful manner with these two Clementine letters. First, then, in them, on Epiphanius's witness, Saint Clement teaches virginity: for the smallest part of these letters, as Wettstein rightly observes, is indeed engaged in extolling virginity; but by far the greatest part, nay the whole second letter, is occupied in admonishing virgins of their duty, or treats thoroughly of keeping virginity piously and duly; so that on this account the holy Father is rightly said by Epiphanius in these letters to teach virginity rather than to commend it.
Jam caetera prosequamur. Eliam, inquit, laudat Clemens. Et quidem his verbis: Certe etiam Eliae et Elisae, et multorum aliorum sanctorum reperimus conversationem fuisse sanctam et sine macula. Tum vero, ait, Davidem commendat. Id quoque sic praestitum a Clemente: Nonne docet te illud Davidis, quem invenit Deus virum secundum cor suum, hominem fidelem, perfectum, sanctum, verum? Deinde Samsonem extollit, subjungit Epiphanius. En Clementinum locum: Non audivisti de Samsone Naziraeo, cum quo fuit Spiritus Dei, viro forti? Is vir Naziraeus fuit, et sanctus Dei, et fuit in fortitudine et robore. Denique, subdit, omnes prophetas laudibus effert. Scilicet in hanc sententiam: Porro etiam Elisam et Gehasi et filios prophetarum reperimus habitasse in
Now let us pursue the rest. Clement, he says, praises Elijah. And indeed in these words: Certainly we find that the manner of life of Elijah also and of Elisha, and of many other holy men, was holy and without stain. Then indeed, he says, he commends David. This too was thus performed by Clement: Does not that case of David teach you, whom God found a man after His own heart, a faithful, perfect, holy, true man? Next he extols Samson, Epiphanius subjoins. Here is the passage of Clement: Have you not heard of Samson the Nazirite, with whom was the Spirit of God, a strong man? That man was a Nazirite, and a holy one of God, and he was in strength and might. Lastly, he adds, he exalts all the prophets with praises. Namely to this effect: Moreover we find that Elisha also and Gehazi and the sons of the prophets dwelt in
Editors' notes and page, col. 110
Footnotes
(88) ‹anchor: advertit Wetstenius› · call in col 110
Epist. ad H. Venem., p. 21.
Epistle to H. Venema, p. 21.
(printed under page 54)
(89) ‹anchor: his verbis› · call in col 110
De virg. epist. 1, cap. 6.
On Virginity, epistle 1, ch. 6.
(printed under page 54)
(90) ‹anchor: praestitum a Clemente› · call in col 110
Epist. 2, cap. 9.
Epistle 2, ch. 9.
(printed under page 54)
(91) ‹anchor: Clementinum locum› · call in col 110
Ibid., cap. 9.
The same, ch. 9.
(printed under page 54)
(92) ‹anchor: hanc sententiam› · call in col 110
Ibid., cap. 14.
The same, ch. 14.
(printed under page 54)
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM. (column number 110)
- marginal letters: A ‹mum assectamur›; B ‹Σαμψὼν, καὶ πάντας›; C ‹epistolarum pars minima›; D ‹dum cor suum, hominem›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column's first printed letters 'mum' finish 'potissimum' from col. 109 and are set there; the column ends mid-sentence ('habitasse in'). Foot-note calls (87*), (88)–(92) removed; foot notes under this column: (88) Epist. ad H. Venem., p. 21; (89) De virg. epist. 1, cap. 6; (90) Epist. 2, cap. 9; (91) Ibid., cap. 9; (92) Ibid., cap. 14. The Greek testimony of Epiphanius is printed inline with the editor's own Latin rendering after it; both set. 'Circuitibus ⟨il⟩lis': first letters lost to damaged type at the line end. Ἠλίαν: breathing read as smooth, UNSURE at this resolution. Italics of the print not marked.
timore Dei; et hospita non fuit eis. Micham et prophetas omnes pariter sic reperimus habitasse in timore Domini. Hactenus Clemens; cujus verbis enimvero ad Epiphanii testimonium comprobandum nihil clarius esse aut luculentius videtur; seu potius ad nostras Clementi asserendas epistolas, nihil aptius hujusmodi Epiphanii testimonio, validius nihil proferri posse liquet.
the fear of God; and there was no woman lodging with them. Micah and all the prophets alike we find to have dwelt thus in the fear of the Lord. Thus far Clement; than whose words, indeed, nothing seems clearer or more luminous for confirming the testimony of Epiphanius; or rather, for claiming our letters for Clement, it is plain that nothing more apt than a testimony of Epiphanius of this kind, nothing stronger, can be brought forward.
Quaenam vero hactenus observatis objiciantur, inspiciamus. Haud ita pridem V. C. « Nihil moror, inquit, S. Epiphanii testimonium; nam illud expetitum est ex epistolis Clementis, quae tunc legebantur in ecclesiis. Profecto ex testimonio S. Hieronymi discimus, nullas alias Clementis Epistolas aetate illa in Ecclesiis legi consuevisse, nisi ad Corinthios geminas. » Nolim enimvero viro eruditissimo haec excidisse. Testatur quidem S. Hieronymus, Clementis priorem ad Ecclesiam Corinthiorum Epistolam in nonnullis coetibus ecclesiasticis lectam fuisse; at secundam a veteribus reprobatam asserit; tantum abest, ut in ecclesiis tunc legi consuevisse geminas ad Corinthios epistolas, ex ejus testimonio discamus. Quod autem hac de re doctor maximus, idem quoque ante ipsum Dionysius Corinthius, idem etiam Eusebius Caesariensis, idem reliqui antiquiores profitentur. Cum itaque certo constet ex veterum testimoniis, unam, et quidem priorem, Corinthiis inscriptam epistolam publice fuisse lectitatam, id ipsum profecto Epiphanius item novisse jure existimandus: adeoque, ubi non unam Clementis epistolam, sed ejus Epistolas circulares in ecclesiis fuisse perlectas affirmat, de Corinthiacis epistolis ipsius verba nullo pacto accipienda esse videntur. Quid quod Epiphanianum testimonium alias omnino ab epistolis ad Corinthios respicere perhibetur? In Corinthiacis enim nulla Samsonis mentio, neque uspiam omnium prophetarum encomium occurrit; ut reliqua praetereamus: quae sane in epistolis Clementinis extitisse, S. Epiphanius luculenter testatur.
But let us look at what is objected to the observations made thus far. Not so long ago a most distinguished man says: "I make no account of Saint Epiphanius's testimony; for it was drawn from the letters of Clement which were then read in the churches. Assuredly we learn from the testimony of Saint Jerome that no other letters of Clement were accustomed to be read in the Churches in that age except the two to the Corinthians." I could wish indeed that these words had not escaped that most learned man. Saint Jerome does indeed testify that Clement's first Letter to the Church of the Corinthians was read in some ecclesiastical assemblies; but he asserts that the second was rejected by the ancients; so far are we from learning by his testimony that the two letters to the Corinthians were then accustomed to be read in the churches. And what the greatest doctor professes on this matter, the same also before him does Dionysius of Corinth, the same too Eusebius of Caesarea, the same the other more ancient writers. Since, therefore, it is certainly established from the testimonies of the ancients that one letter addressed to the Corinthians, and that the first, was publicly read again and again, Epiphanius too is assuredly to be rightly thought to have known this very thing; and so, where he affirms that not one letter of Clement, but his circular Letters, were read through in the churches, his words seem by no means to be taken of the Corinthian letters. What of the fact that the testimony of Epiphanius is held to look to letters altogether other than those to the Corinthians? For in the Corinthian ones there is no mention of Samson, nor does a eulogy of all the prophets occur anywhere, to pass over the rest; which things Saint Epiphanius clearly testifies did indeed stand in Clement's letters.
At inquies cum Lardnero, Epiphanium quidem epistolas Clementis una plures agnoscere, atque in iis non solum de Virginitate scripsisse Clementem, sed etiam Samsonem laudasse, ipsum profiteri: quod utrumque in epistolis Syriacis conspicitur, desideratur autem in Graecis. Hinc tamen nemo jure colligat, judice Lardnero, Epiphanium de prioribus statim intelligendum: cum enim neutra Corinthiaca epistola integra ad nos pervenerit, fieri potest, ut Samsonis mentio inter ea quae in iisdem epistolis desunt, maxime vero in secunda, occurrerit. Nae, qui rationes suas ita subducit, operam ludit. Quid quaeris? nullus conjecturis locus, ubi res ipsa clamat. Quaecunque de Clementis epistolis refert Epiphanius, in primis
But you will say with Lardner that Epiphanius does indeed acknowledge more letters of Clement than one, and himself declares that in them Clement not only wrote on Virginity but also praised Samson: both of which are seen in the Syriac letters, but are wanting in the Greek. Yet from this, in Lardner's judgement, no one may rightly gather that Epiphanius is at once to be understood of the former; for since neither Corinthian letter has come down to us entire, it may be that the mention of Samson occurred among the things that are missing in those same letters, and especially in the second. Truly, he who casts up his reckonings thus wastes his labour. What would you have? There is no room for conjectures where the thing itself cries out. Whatever Epiphanius reports of Clement's letters, in the first place
Editors' notes and page, col. 111
Footnotes
(93) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 111 (inferred; call not visible)
De vir. illustr., cap. 15.
On Illustrious Men, ch. 15.
(printed under page 55)
(94) ‹anchor: cum Lardnero› · call in col 111
Lardner, A dissert. upon the two Epist., p. 24.
Lardner, A Dissertation upon the Two Epistles, p. 24.
(printed under page 55)
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM (page head spans both columns, cut by the crop; column number 111)
- marginal letters: A ‹timore Dei; et hospita›; B ‹nisi ad Corinthios geminas›; C ‹existimandus: adeoque›; D ‹Clementem, sed etiam Samsonem›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (93), (94) removed; foot notes under this column: (93) De vir. illustr., cap. 15; (94) Lardner, A dissert. upon the two Epist., p. 24. Italics of the print not marked.
autem Samsonis elogium, ea demum omnia in nostris Syriacis comparent; frustra vero in Graecis requiras: ut propterea nullum amplius dubium superesse merito videatur, quin de prioribus tantum, non autem de posterioribus, Epiphanii testimonium sit accipiendum.
however the eulogy of Samson, all these things, in short, appear in our Syriac letters; but in the Greek ones you would look for them in vain: so that on this account no further doubt seems deservedly to remain but that the testimony of Epiphanius is to be taken of the former only, and not of the latter.
Lardnerum secutus alia plura congerit Hermannus Venema, quibus Epiphanianum locum enervet, atque in sententiam suam pertrahat. Et primo quidem negotium facessit viro critico, quod S. Epiphanius ἐγκυκλίους, circulares, epistolas nostras appellet; verumtamen animum ab hoc scrupulo parumper avertens, nondumque deposita omni cunctatione, elucescere ait, S. Patrem hoc addito criterio vulgatissimas tantum Corinthiis inscriptas in oculis habuisse. Vereor equidem ne dictis Venemianis calculum non adjiciant viri docti, ut quae minus recte sibi cohaerere videntur. Utcunque autem res se habeat, nihil sane prohibet, quominus vel existimemus, Epiphanii aetate apud nonnullas ecclesias in more fuisse positum epistolas De virginitate publice legi; vel cum Wetstenio censeamus « Epiphanium ut Ebionaeos, non Clementis solum, sed etiam Ecclesiae auctoritate premeret, encomium priori Corinthiacae Epistolae tributum, in utramque ad virgines transtulisse. » Quidni autem id rite fecerit S. Pater? ratus nimirum episcopi Romani epistolas ad Ecclesiae universae institutionem pertinere, quemadmodum et de priore ad Corinthios factitatum noverat. Porro ad reliqua Epiphaniana extenuanda, plura congerit idem vir eruditus; quae tamen omnia expendit ac diluit cl. editor: adeo ut constet, sanctum episcopum Constantiensem, dum verba superius recitata perscriberet, in has epistolas Syriacas oculos intendisse.
Following Lardner, Herman Venema heaps together many other things by which to weaken the passage of Epiphanius and drag it over to his own opinion. And first, indeed, it gives the critic trouble that Saint Epiphanius calls our letters encyclical, circular; nevertheless, turning his mind away from this scruple for a little, and not yet having laid aside all hesitation, he says that it shines forth that the holy Father, by this added criterion, had before his eyes only the very widely known letters addressed to the Corinthians. I fear indeed that learned men will not add their vote to Venema's statements, as things that seem to hang together none too well. But however the matter stands, nothing certainly forbids us either to think that in the age of Epiphanius it was the established custom in some churches for the letters On virginity to be read publicly; or to judge with Wettstein "that Epiphanius, in order to press the Ebionites with the authority not of Clement only but also of the Church, transferred the commendation given to the first Corinthian Letter to both of those to virgins." And why should the holy Father not have done this rightly? thinking, namely, that the letters of the Roman bishop pertain to the instruction of the universal Church, just as he knew had also been the practice with the first to the Corinthians. Further, to make light of the rest of what Epiphanius says, the same learned man heaps up many things; all of which, however, the distinguished editor weighs and dissolves: so that it is established that the holy bishop of Constantia, while he was writing out the words recited above, had his eyes fixed on these Syriac letters.
XII. Epiphanio Hieronymus accedat doctor maximus, testis alter locupletissimus. Sic igitur ille adversus Jovinianum: Hi sunt eunuchi, — quos castravit non necessitas, sed voluntas. — Ad hos et Clemens successor apostoli Petri, cujus Paulus apostolus meminit, scribit epistolas omnemque pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexuit. Agesis nunc, hujusmodi testimonium expendamus. Tria in eo sunt probe notanda. I. Ad eunuchos spirituales et evangelicos scripsisse Clementem asserit sanctus doctor. II. Non epistolam, sed epistolas iisdem inscriptas ipsum exarasse testatur. III. In his epistolis omnem pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate illum contexuisse tradit. Quae quidem adeo sunt manifesta, ut nullum supersit dubium quin de nostris epistolis sint accipienda. Quid vero ad haec eruditi viri modo laudati? Existimant nempe Hieronymum hic animum intendisse in secundam ad Corinthios epistolam, ubi forte de virginitate Clemens prolixius egerit
XII. To Epiphanius let Jerome, the greatest doctor, be added, a second and most trustworthy witness. Thus, then, he writes against Jovinian: These are the eunuchs — whom not necessity but will has made eunuchs. — To these Clement also, the successor of the apostle Peter, whom the apostle Paul mentions, writes letters, and he wove almost his whole discourse about the purity of virginity. Come now, let us weigh a testimony of this kind. Three things in it are to be well noted. I. The holy doctor asserts that Clement wrote to spiritual and evangelical eunuchs. II. He testifies that he penned not a letter but letters addressed to the same. III. He hands down that in these letters he wove almost his whole discourse about the purity of virginity. These things indeed are so manifest that no doubt remains but that they are to be taken of our letters. But what do the learned men just cited say to this? They think, namely, that Jerome here directed his mind to the second letter to the Corinthians, where perhaps Clement treated of virginity at greater length
Editors' notes and page, col. 112
Footnotes
(95) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 112 (inferred; call not visible)
Epist. 1, pag. 6.
Epistle 1, page 6.
(printed under page 55)
(96) ‹anchor: [Wet]stenio› · call in col 112
Epist. ad H. Venem., p. 22.
Epistle to H. Venema, p. 22.
(printed under page 55)
(97) ‹anchor: adversus Jovinianum› · call in col 112
Lib. I, § 12.
Book I, § 12.
(printed under page 55)
Page
- running head: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM (page head spans both columns, cut by the crop; column number 112)
- marginal letters: A ‹autem Samsonis elogium›; B ‹scriptas in oculis habuisse›; C ‹dum et de priore ad Corinthios›; D ‹expendamus. Tria in eo›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (95), (96), (97) removed; foot notes under this column: (95) Epist. 1, pag. 6; (96) Epist. ad H. Venem., p. 22; (97) Lib. I, § 12. Italics of the print not marked.
iis in locis quae nunc desiderantur; neque enim integra ad nos pervenit. Quid loquar? Quovis equidem pignore contendere ausim, ex tribus notis in testimonio Hieronymiano observatis, nullam omnino posteriori epistolae Corinthiacae; at contra epistolis nostris ad unam omnes rite congruere. Primum enim hae virginibus fratribus et virginibus sororibus, id est eunuchis spiritualibus quos castravit voluntas, inscriptae feruntur. Deinde, non unam, sed duas epistolas ad illos misit S. Clemens. Denique in iisdem omnem pene sermonem de virginitatis puritate contexuit. Ubi advertendum, perquam apposite fuisse locutum sanctum Hieronymum: vigilanti siquidem verbo usus, ut phrasi Augustiniana loquar, atque restrictionis voculam pene usurpans, non omnem absolute dixit, sed omnem pene sermonem de virginitate a Clemente fuisse contextum: propterea scilicet, ut optime Wetstenius, quod in prima epistola cap. 14, agitur de visitandis aegrotis, et cap. 15, de aliis officiis, quae non magis ad virgines quam ad conjuges pertinent; in secunda vero proponuntur exempla Mosis, Aaronis et Josuae, qui certe in conjugio vixerunt.
in those places which are now wanting; for it has not come down to us entire. What shall I say? I would indeed dare to wager any pledge that, of the three marks observed in Jerome's testimony, none whatever fits the later Corinthian letter, but that on the contrary all to a one duly fit our letters. For first, these are reported as addressed to virgin brothers and virgin sisters, that is, to spiritual eunuchs whom will has made eunuchs. Next, Saint Clement sent to them not one, but two letters. Lastly, in the same he wove almost his whole discourse about the purity of virginity. Here it is to be observed that Saint Jerome spoke with the greatest fitness: for, using a watchful word, to speak in Augustine's phrase, and employing the little word of restriction almost, he did not say absolutely the whole, but that almost the whole discourse about virginity was woven by Clement: for this reason, namely, as Wettstein excellently observes, that in the first letter, chapter 14, the visiting of the sick is treated, and in chapter 15 other duties, which pertain no more to virgins than to the married; while in the second the examples are set forth of Moses, Aaron and Joshua, who certainly lived in wedlock.
At enim Hieronymus in disputationibus cum adversariis, ac praesertim eo in libro contra Jovinianum, omnia exaggerat atque hyperbolice loquitur: ut proinde haud miretur quispiam, si secundam tantummodo epistolam Corinthiacam respiciens, epistolas fuisse a Clemente perscriptas testetur: quae est primum Grabii, deinde Lardneri et Venemae sententia. Esto: consueverit aliquando in disputationis aestu exaggerare Hieronymus; non est tamen cur hic ipsum non humane, non proprie locutum existimemus. Praeterea, epistolas ad eunuchos evangelicos dedisse Clementem perhibet S. Pater. Num ergo et hic illum hyperbole fuisse usum; aut ad eos quos castravit non necessitas, sed voluntas, missam putabimus quae est posterior ad Corinthios? Quid quod Hieronymo consentiens Epiphanius, testatur circulares epistolas eumdem missitasse Clementem, in quibus virginitatem edocet? An vero sanctus quoque Constantiensis episcopus exaggerasse dicendus? Fac denique in reliquis quae exciderunt posterioris Epistolae Corinthiacae, fuisse de Virginitate locutum Clementem: at quomodo, sodes, in ea quae supersunt quadrent Hieronymi verba, quibus affirmat in illis Clementinis Epistolis omnem pene sermonem fuisse de virginitatis puritate contextum? Ibi namque potissimum pleraque occurrunt de Christo Deo, de vocationis Christianae praestantia, de mundi contemptu, de certamine spirituali, de carnis resurrectione, de bonis promissis, etc., paucissima vero de castitate in genere, omnibus etiam conjugatis,
But, it will be said, Jerome in his disputes with adversaries, and especially in that book against Jovinian, exaggerates everything and speaks hyperbolically: so that accordingly no one should wonder if, looking only to the second Corinthian letter, he testifies that letters were written by Clement: which is the opinion first of Grabe, then of Lardner and Venema. Be it so: let Jerome have been accustomed at times to exaggerate in the heat of disputation; yet there is no reason why we should think that here he did not speak in the ordinary human way, did not speak properly. Besides, the holy Father reports that Clement addressed letters to evangelical eunuchs. Shall we then think that here too he used hyperbole; or that the one which is the later to the Corinthians was sent to those whom not necessity but will has made eunuchs? What of the fact that Epiphanius, agreeing with Jerome, testifies that the same Clement sent out circular letters in which he teaches virginity? Or is the holy bishop of Constantia also to be said to have exaggerated? Suppose, finally, that in the remaining parts of the later Corinthian Letter which have dropped out Clement spoke of Virginity: yet how, pray, would Jerome's words square with those parts that survive, in which he affirms that in those letters of Clement almost the whole discourse was woven about the purity of virginity? For there above all most things that occur are about Christ as God, about the excellence of the Christian calling, about contempt of the world, about the spiritual contest, about the resurrection of the flesh, about the good things promised, and so on, but very few indeed about chastity in general, to all, even the married,
Editors' notes and page, col. 113
Footnotes
(98) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 113 (inferred; call not visible)
Aug., in Joan. tract. 120, § 2, Opp. t. III, part. II, col. 804.
Augustine, Tractate 120 on John, § 2, Works, vol. III, part II, col. 804.
(printed under page 56)
(99) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 113 (inferred; call not visible)
L. c., pag. 40.
In the place cited, page 40.
(printed under page 56)
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM (page head cut by the crop; column number 113)
- marginal letters: A ‹iis in locis quae nunc›; B ‹culam pene usurpans›; C ‹quae est primum Grabii›; D ‹liquis quae exciderunt›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot-note calls (98), (99) removed; foot notes under this column: (98) Aug., in Joan. tract. 120, § 2, Opp. t. III, part. II, col. 804; (99) L. c., pag. 40. A vertical rule or fold line runs down the gutter beside the first lines. Italics of the print not marked.
servanda. His denique cum Wetstenio addas velim, epistolas quidem Syriacas pro Hieronymo et contra Jovinianum maxime facere: in iis enim statuit Clemens, virginibus sanctis excellentiorem in coelis locum datum iri, quam conjugibus sanctis: quae est ipsissima sententia Hieronymi. Verum ex Epistolis Graecis nullum suae causae praesidium quaerere potuisset sanctus doctor, ubi nullum de virginitate colenda vestigium. Quae cum ita se habeant, nonnisi de nostris ad virgines epistolis Hieronymi verba intelligenda esse noscuntur.
to be kept. To these, finally, I would have you add with Wettstein that the Syriac letters do indeed tell most strongly for Jerome and against Jovinian: for in them Clement lays down that a more excellent place in the heavens will be given to holy virgins than to holy married persons: which is the very opinion of Jerome. But from the Greek Letters the holy doctor could have sought no support for his cause, where there is no trace of the cultivation of virginity. Since these things are so, Jerome's words are recognized as to be understood of none but our letters to virgins.
Sed ecce tibi rursus vir ille doctissimus, cujus paulo ante meminimus, qui ex Hieronymi silentio in libro De viris illustribus, harum Epistolarum suppositionem evincere existimat. « Hieronymus, inquit, in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Clementem non negligit, laudatque ejus epistolam primam ad Corinthios: meminit et secundae, quam tamen non ab omnibus admitti affirmat. Profecto non siluisset et geminas alias, si nosset. » Illas utique non omisisset sanctus doctor, si nosset quo tempore librum De viris illustribus edidit. Hincne vero earum integritatem suspectam reddere liceat? Cedo, quo demum anno confecti fuere sive Catalogus ille Hieronymianus ubi nulla nostrarum epistolarum mentio, sive libri duo contra Jovinianum in quibus eaedem ex nostra sententia laudantur? Scilicet ex ipso Hieronymo discimus, librum De viris illustribus fuisse absolutum anno Theodosii principis XIV, hoc est anno Christi 392. Patet praeterea ex eodem sancto doctore, libros adversus Jovinianum post hunc ipsum annum prodiisse: siquidem in eorum primo, num. 26 operis De viris illustribus meminit. Quare, anno minimum 393, aut serius fortasse, contra Jovinianum scripserit S. doctor. Nihil igitur mirum, si de quibus loquitur Clementinis epistolis in iis libris, eas in Catalogo praeterierit. Cur ita demum, inquies? quia videlicet in prologo ad eumdem Catalogum queritur ipsemet Hieronymus, pleraque tunc sibi fuisse incomperta. Neque enim, ait, de his quae non legi, nosse potui; et quod aliis forsitan sit notum, mihi in hoc terrarum angulo fuerit ignotum. Quid porro, si sanctissimus doctor in subsecutis libris plura memoret tractatorum ecclesiasticorum opera, quae dum eorumdem reliqua in Catalogo recenseret, omisit? An vero fictitia reputanda opera illa, eo quod eadem in Catalogo praetermisisset doctor maximus? Imo vero nemo jure non dixerit cum ipso Hieronymo, illum nempe quae tunc non legerat, nosse non potuisse, quodque in illo terrarum angulo, in solitudine Bethleemitica, ei antea fuerat ignotum, postea comperisse. Agedum, uno vel altero exemplo rem adstruamus. I. Memorat Hieronymus in epistola 71, ad
But here again you have that most learned man whom we mentioned a little before, who thinks that from Jerome's silence in the book On Illustrious Men he proves these Letters to be supposititious. "Jerome," he says, "in the Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers does not neglect Clement, and cites his first letter to the Corinthians; he mentions the second also, which, however, he affirms is not admitted by all. Assuredly he would not have been silent about the other two as well, if he had known them." Certainly the holy doctor would not have omitted them, if he had known them at the time when he published the book On Illustrious Men. But is it permissible on this ground to render their soundness suspect? Tell me, pray, in what year were composed either that Catalogue of Jerome's, where there is no mention of our letters, or the two books against Jovinian, in which the same are, in our opinion, cited? Why, we learn from Jerome himself that the book On Illustrious Men was finished in the fourteenth year of the emperor Theodosius, that is, in the year of Christ 392. It is plain, moreover, from the same holy doctor that the books against Jovinian came out after this very year: since in the first of them, number 26, he mentions the work On Illustrious Men. Therefore the holy doctor will have written against Jovinian in the year 393 at the least, or perhaps later. It is nothing wonderful, then, if he passed over in the Catalogue those letters of Clement of which he speaks in those books. Why so, pray, you will say? Because, namely, in the prologue to the same Catalogue Jerome himself complains that very many things were at that time unknown to him. For, he says, I could not know about those things which I have not read; and what may perhaps be known to others will have been unknown to me in this corner of the earth. What, further, if the most holy doctor in his subsequent books mentions several works of ecclesiastical writers which he omitted while he was reviewing the rest of the same men's works in the Catalogue? Are those works indeed to be reckoned fictitious because the greatest doctor had passed them over in the Catalogue? Nay rather, no one would not rightly say with Jerome himself that he, namely, could not know what he had not then read, and that what had before been unknown to him in that corner of the earth, in the solitude of Bethlehem, he afterwards ascertained. Come then, let us establish the matter by one or two examples. I. Jerome mentions in letter 71, to
Editors' notes and page, col. 114
Footnotes
(100) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 114 (inferred; call not visible)
Epist., pag. 34.
Epistle, page 34.
(printed under page 56)
(1) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 114 (inferred; call not visible)
Clem., epist. 1 De virgin. cap. 4.
Clement, epistle 1 On Virginity, ch. 4.
(printed under page 56)
(2) ‹anchor: Hieronymo discimus› · call in col 114
De vir. illustr., in prolog. et cap. 135.
On Illustrious Men, in the prologue and ch. 135.
(printed under page 56)
Page
- running head: PROOEMIA VARIORUM. (column number 114, its last figure damaged)
- marginal letters: A ‹servanda. His denique›; B ‹suppositionem evincere existimat›; C ‹illustribus fuisse absolutum›; D ‹simus doctor in subsecutis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence ('in epistola 71, ad'). Foot-note calls (100), (1), (2) removed; foot notes under this column: (100) Epist., pag. 34; (1) Clem., epist. 1 De virgin. cap. 4; (2) De vir. illustr., in prolog. et cap. 135. 'Illas utique': the first letters are damaged in the type and read from context. Stray marks at the right edge of the lines 'epistolam … Profecto' ignored. Italics of the print not marked.
Lucinium n. 4, Hippolyti Portuensis opusculum Contra Gentes, cujus nulla mentio in Catalogo cap. 61. Haud equidem miror: in eo enim recenset S. doctor Hippolyti libros quos reperit, ut ipse testatur: ab eo autem postea repertum opus illud apologeticum, indicat annus 397, quo scripta fertur eadem epistola. II. In praefatione ad librum XVIII, in Isaiam, Dionysium Alexandrinum librum composuisse tradit contra Irenaeum Lugdunensem episcopum, chiliastici regni assertorem; quem tamen omittit in Catalogo cap. 69, licet ibi ejusdem Dionysii operum recensionem longe accuratam instituat. Cujus silentii ratio ea demum est, quod commentaria illa quinque post annos fuerint elucubrata. Neque enim assentiri possum Valesio viro doctissimo, censenti S. doctorem minus recte in Irenaeum transferre, quae adversus Nepotem episcopum Aegyptium Dionysius litteris tradidit. Siquidem in Catalogo diserte perhibet Hieronymus, sicuti ante ipsum et Eusebius, duos libros edidisse Dionysium adversus Nepotem: in praefatione autem ad Isaiam l. c. eumdem Dionysium librum evulgasse adversus Irenaeum asseverat. III. De Pierio, Ecclesiae Alexandrinae presbytero, verba faciens in Catalogo cap. 76, S. Pater, ejus tractatum de propheta Osee tantummodo nominat: in epistola vero 49, num. 3, sub finem anni 393, Pammachio inscripta, ejusdem Pierii amplissimum commentarium in Epistolam I ad Corinthios collaudat. IV. Praetermittit in Catalogo, cap. 129, Didymi Commentarium in Psalmos; cujus tamen meminit in Epistola 112, n. 20, anno 404, ad Augustinum missa. Dies me deficiet, si omnia recensere velim quae veterum scriptorum opera prius omissa in libro De viris illustribus, in aliis postea lucubrationibus Hieronymianis enuntiantur. Verum satis haec sunto: ex quibus lis omnis dirempta esse videtur.
Lucinius, n. 4, the little work of Hippolytus of Portus Against the Gentiles, of which there is no mention in the Catalogue, ch. 61. For my part I do not wonder: for in it the holy doctor lists the books of Hippolytus which he found, as he himself testifies; and that that apologetic work was found by him afterwards is shown by the year 397, in which the same letter is said to have been written. II. In the preface to book XVIII on Isaiah he relates that Dionysius of Alexandria composed a book against Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, a maintainer of the chiliastic kingdom; which nevertheless he omits in the Catalogue, ch. 69, although there he draws up a very accurate review of the works of the same Dionysius. The reason of this silence is simply this, that those commentaries were worked out five years later. For I cannot agree with the most learned Valesius, who judges that the holy doctor less correctly transfers to Irenaeus what Dionysius committed to writing against Nepos, the Egyptian bishop. For in the Catalogue Jerome expressly declares, as Eusebius also did before him, that Dionysius published two books against Nepos; but in the preface to Isaiah, in the place cited, he asserts that the same Dionysius put forth a book against Irenaeus. III. Speaking of Pierius, presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, in the Catalogue, ch. 76, the holy Father names only his treatise on the prophet Hosea; but in letter 49, n. 3, addressed to Pammachius towards the end of the year 393, he highly praises the very ample commentary of the same Pierius on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. IV. He passes over in the Catalogue, ch. 129, the Commentary of Didymus on the Psalms; of which nevertheless he makes mention in Letter 112, n. 20, sent to Augustine in the year 404. The day would fail me, if I should wish to review all the works of the ancient writers which, first omitted in the book On Illustrious Men, are afterwards declared in other labours of Jerome. But let these suffice: by which the whole dispute seems to be settled.
Ne quis autem putet his duobus tantummodo antiquis Patribus Epistolas de quibus agimus fuisse perspectas: siquidem et alios vetustiores illas haud ignorasse comperimus ex plerisque locis parallelis Justini martyris, Clementis Alexandrini, Cypriani atque insuper ejusdem Hieronymi, quae diligenter conquisita exegit ad Clementina laudatus Wetstenius. Et ea quidem hic describere libuisset. Verum pro instituti nostri ratione satius duximus illa praetermittere, ne longius quam par sit excurrat oratio.
But let no one suppose that the Epistles of which we are treating were known to these two ancient Fathers only: for we find that other, older ones also were not ignorant of them, from very many parallel passages of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and moreover of the same Jerome, which the aforesaid Wetstein, having diligently sought them out, weighed against the Clementine texts. And indeed it would have been pleasing to transcribe them here. But in keeping with the plan of our undertaking we have thought it better to pass them over, lest our discourse run on further than is fitting.
XIII. Quandoquioem vero praeter argumenta externa e veterum testimoniis usurpata quae ab objectionibus hactenus pro viribus vindicavimus, praesto sunt quoque interna quibus earumdem epistolarum integritas magis magisque confirmatur; ea
XIII. But since, besides the external arguments taken from the testimonies of the ancients, which we have thus far defended from objections to the best of our power, there are at hand internal ones also, by which the genuineness of the same epistles is more and more confirmed; these
Editors' notes and page, col. 115
Footnotes
(46) ‹anchor: not in this column's text› · call in col 116 (inferred; no call in col 115's text)
Hebr. VI, 18.
Hebrews 6:18.
(printed under page 57)
(3) ‹anchor: doctissimo, censenti› · call in col 115
Ad Euseb. H. E., lib. VII, cap. 24.
On Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, ch. 24.
(printed under page 57)
(4) ‹anchor: laudatus Wetstenius› · call in col 115
Wetsten., Epist. ad H. Venem., pagg. 10 seq. et Biblioth. raison., tom. L, art. 8, p. 365.
Wetstein, Epistle to H. Venema, pages 10 and following, and Bibliothèque raisonnée, vol. L, art. 8, p. 365. [the volume numeral is unclear in the scan, I or L; read as L, as in note (87) of page 54]
(printed under page 57)
Page
- running head: 115 AD S. CLEMENTEM I (remainder cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹Lucinium n. 4, Hippolyti›; B ‹doctissimo, censenti›; C ‹Didymi Commentarium›; D ‹nius. Et ea quidem›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot notes of this column not set here (for notes): a scripture note called by two asterisk-like marks, "Hebr. VI, 18", whose call is not in this column's text (belongs to a neighbouring column); (3) Ad Euseb. H. E., lib. VII, cap. 24, called after "censenti"; (4) Wetsten., Epist. ad H. Venem., pagg. 10 seq. et Biblioth. raison., tom. I, art. 8, p. 365, called after "Wetstenius". UNSURE: "cap. 129" (last digit imperfect; could be 120); "n. 20" (the 0 is broken type); "lucubrationibus" (initial l broken, looks like i); italics of the print (Contra Gentes, reperit, duos libros, librum, De viris illustribus, externa, interna) not marked. Q1: "Quandoquioem" (opening of § XIII) is set as the page shows it, for "Quandoquidem"; UNSURE whether a misprint (o for d) or a d whose ascender failed to print. Q1: the scripture note's number is too small to settle in the lean images (46 or 44); its call is taken to stand in col. 116, since col. 115 has none. Q1: the call (3) is visible in the column image after "censenti".
nunc strictim saltem proponere, nostra interesse existimamus.
we judge it to be our concern to set forth now, at least briefly.
Primum igitur in his epistolis Syriacis nonnullas sententias perspicimus, quas paene αὐτολεξεὶ Graecae pariter exhibent. Unum alterumve specimen accipe. I. Legimus in Epist. 1 ad Corinth. cap. 27: Hac igitur spe animi nostri ad eum adstringantur, qui fidelis est in promissionibus. — Qui ne mentiamur praecepit, multo magis ipse non mentietur: nihil quippe Deo impossibile, praeterquam mentiri. Sic plane in epist. 1 ad virgines, cap. 4: Desiderat spem promissam et praeparatam et positam in coelis a Deo, qui promisit ore et non mentitur. Utrobique scilicet Paulum apostolum, ut assolet, imitatur Clemens; apud quem eadem phrasis occurrit: Ut per duas res immobiles, in quibus impossibile est mentiri Deum, fortissimum solatium habeamus, qui confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem. II. In Epist. 1 ad Corinth., cap. 4, ita scribit S. Pater: Aemulatio effecit, ut Joseph ad mortem usque persecutionem sustineret, et in servitutem addiceretur. Eadem loquendi ratio in epist. 2 ad virgin., cap. 8: Nonne pulchritudinem hujus casti et recti (Joseph) concupivit mulier? ut in concupiscentia cum non se subjiceret et inclinaret ut faceret libidinem et voluntatem ejus, in omnem afflictionem et in omnem cruciatum conjiceret virum justum usque ad mortem. III. In epist. 1 ad virgin. laudat Clemens operarios imitantes Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Quibus affinia ex alio ejusdem Clementis loco profert S. Basilius, sic inquiens: Ὁ Κλήμης ἀρχαϊκώτερον· «Ζῇ, φησὶν, ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.» Clemens simplicius: «Vivit, inquit, Deus, et Dominus Jesus Christus, et Spiritus sanctus.» Alia ejusmodi haud pauca in promptu erunt Epistolas Corinthiacas ac Syriacas attente legenti, easque sedulo invicem conferenti; quibus proinde referendis supersedemus. Hic tamen illud solummodo rursum subjicere placet, quod ex viro doctissimo superius protulimus: «Quo singularior, ait, est sententia iterum prolata, eo aptior est ad persuadendum, epistolas in quibus pariter laudatur, ab uno auctore proficisci. Unum enim eumdemque locum, ubi sese offert occasio, ab eodem scriptore in eodem opere, quanto magis in diversis, iterato citari quid mirum?»
First, then, we observe in these Syriac epistles some sentences which the Greek ones likewise exhibit almost word for word. Take one or two specimens. I. We read in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 27: With this hope, therefore, let our souls be bound to Him Who is faithful in His promises. — He Who has commanded us not to lie, much more will He Himself not lie: for nothing is impossible to God, except to lie. Just so in the first epistle to virgins, ch. 4: He desires the hope promised and prepared and laid up in the heavens by God, Who has promised with His mouth and does not lie. In both places, namely, Clement, as is his custom, imitates the apostle Paul; in whom the same phrase occurs: That by two immovable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a most strong consolation, we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us (Heb. 6:18). II. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 4, the holy Father writes thus: Jealousy brought it about that Joseph endured persecution even unto death, and was delivered into slavery. The same manner of speaking is in the second epistle to virgins, ch. 8: Did not a woman lust after the beauty of this chaste and upright man (Joseph)? so that, since he did not submit himself in lust and incline to do her pleasure and her will, she cast the just man into every affliction and into every torment, even unto death. III. In the first epistle to virgins Clement praises workers who imitate the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Things akin to these St Basil brings forward from another place of the same Clement, speaking thus: Clement, in more archaic fashion: "God lives," he says, "and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit." Clement, more simply: "God lives," he says, "and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit." Not a few other things of this kind will be at hand for one who reads the Corinthian and the Syriac Epistles attentively and carefully compares them with one another; which we therefore forbear to recount. Here, however, it pleases us to subjoin again only that which we brought forward above from a most learned man: "The more singular," he says, "a sentence is that is uttered a second time, the more apt it is to persuade that the epistles in which it is alike cited proceed from one author. For what wonder that one and the same passage, where occasion offers itself, should be cited repeatedly by the same writer in the same work, how much more in different ones?"
Deinde scribendi, exempla in medium producendi, et ratiocinandi methodus, eadem omnino utrobique perhibetur. Verbi causa, in epist. 1 ad Corinth., capp. 4-12 et alibi passim: Recurramus, inquit, ad omnes generationes. — Fixis oculis eos intueamur, qui magnificae ejus gloriae perfecte servierunt. Sumamus Enoch, etc. — Sed ut vetera
Next, the method of writing, of bringing examples forward, and of reasoning, is shown to be altogether the same in both. For example, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chs. 4-12 and elsewhere throughout: Let us go back, he says, to all generations. — Let us gaze with fixed eyes on those who have perfectly served His magnificent glory. Let us take Enoch, etc. — But, that the old
Editors' notes and page, col. 116
Footnotes
(5) ‹anchor: sic inquiens› · call in col 116
De Spir. sanct., cap. 29, § 72.
On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, § 72.
(printed under page 57)
(6) ‹anchor: ex viro doctissimo› · call in col 116
Coutant., Epist. Rom. pontif., pag. 39, § 5
Coustant, Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, page 39, § 5.
(printed under page 57)
Page
- running head: CLEMENTEM I PAPAM 116 (left part cut by the column crop; with col. 115: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM)
- marginal letters: A ‹nunc strictim saltem›; B ‹Ut per duas res›; C ‹fert S. Basilius› (set between that line and ‹Quibus affinia›); D ‹locum, ubi sese›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot notes not set here (for notes): scripture note 44 "Hebr. VI, 18", called after "occurrit" (printed at the foot under col. 115; the reference is supplied in the English); (5) De Spir. sanct., cap. 29, § 72, called after "inquiens"; (6) Coutant., Epist. Rom. pontif., pag. 3⟨ ⟩, § 5, called before "superius" (second digit of the page broken, perhaps 39 or 30). The Greek of Basil and the Latin version following it in the same line are both printed in this column and both set. Guillemets as printed. UNSURE: "I." before "Legimus" (printed as 1 or l); italics of the print not marked.
exempla relinquamus, veniamus ad proximos athletas, et saeculi nostri generosa exempla proponamus. Habes autem simillima et maxime gemina in Epist. 2 ad virgin. capp. 7-15: Consideremus igitur, fratres, et videamus quomodo conversati fuerint omnes patres justi toto tempore habitationis vitae suae: inquiramus et scrutemur a Lege ad Novum Testamentum. — Et ne nimis longum faciamus sermonem nostrum, quid dictum est de Domino Jesu Christo? Ipse Dominus cum duodecim discipulis, etc. Scilicet, mos erat Clementi, sacrarum Scripturarum studiosissimo, ex utriusque Foederis paginis pleraque exempla desumere, quae instituto suo summe congruentia perspiceret: quod quidem in utroque Epistolarum pari, eodem plane tenore, satis aperte factitatum cernimus. Et hic quoque, ut saepe alias, apostolo Paulo constanter adhaeret: qui primum patriarcharum et prophetarum gesta Hebraeis ante oculos ponens, eos ad fidem retinendam adhortatur; deinde propositis Christi et sanctorum exemplis, ad tolerandas passiones, ad pacem, concordiam et sanctitatem servandam illos allicere studet, ita demum orationem concludens: Ideoque et nos tantam habentes impositam nubem testium, deponentes omne pondus, et circumstans nos peccatum, per patientiam curramus ad propositum nobis certamen.
examples we may leave behind, let us come to the nearest athletes, and let us set forth the noble examples of our own age. And you have things most like and thoroughly twin in the second epistle to virgins, chs. 7-15: Let us therefore consider, brethren, and see how all the just fathers conducted themselves through the whole time of the sojourn of their life: let us inquire and search from the Law to the New Testament. — And, that we may not make our discourse too long, what is said of the Lord Jesus Christ? The Lord Himself with the twelve disciples, etc. That is to say, it was the custom of Clement, most devoted to the sacred Scriptures, to take most of his examples from the pages of both Covenants, such as he perceived to be supremely fitting to his purpose: which indeed we see done plainly enough, in altogether the same tenor, in both pairs of Epistles. And here too, as often elsewhere, he steadily keeps close to the apostle Paul: who, first setting before the eyes of the Hebrews the deeds of the patriarchs and prophets, exhorts them to hold fast the faith (Heb. 11 and 12); then, having set forth the examples of Christ and of the saints, strives to draw them to the bearing of sufferings, to the keeping of peace, concord and holiness, concluding his discourse at last thus: And therefore we also, having so great a cloud of witnesses laid upon us, laying aside every weight, and the sin that stands around us, let us run by patience to the contest set before us.
Neque etiam omittendum putamus unum vel alterum styli indicium, haud quidem exiguum, quo magis adhuc id quod intendimus, confirmatur. En illud ex epist. 1 ad Corinth. cap. 3: Hinc, inquit, aemulatio, invidia, contentio, seditio, persecutio, commotio, bellum et captivitas manarunt. Et cap. 35: Nos igitur summo studio contendamus in numero exspectantium eum reperiri, — abjicientes a nobis omnem injustitiam et iniquitatem, avaritiam, contentiones, malignitates et fraudes, susurros et obtrectationes, odium Dei, superbiam et ostentationem, inanem gloriam atque amorem vanitatis. Confer ista, si placet, cum his quae leguntur in Epist. 1 ad virgin. cap. 8: Qui vere fideles sunt, ait, et spiritus Christi habitat in ipsis, in illis non potest esse cogitatio carnis; quae est scortatio, impudicitia, impuritas, idololatria, veneficium, inimicitia, invidia, contentio, ira, rixa, divisio, zelus, etc. Nonne Clemens utrobique se ipsum prodit? quippe Clemens, inquam, scriptionis Paulinae characterem ubique fere imitatus, cum hic tum illic respexisse videtur Rom. I, 29-31; Gal. V, 19-21; I Tim. VI, 4-5 et II Tim. III, 2-5.
Nor do we think that one or two marks of style should be passed over, and they by no means slight, by which what we aim at is confirmed still more. Here is this from the first epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 3: Hence, he says, flowed jealousy, envy, contention, sedition, persecution, tumult, war and captivity. And ch. 35: Let us therefore strive with the utmost zeal to be found in the number of those who await Him, — casting away from us all injustice and iniquity, avarice, contentions, malignities and frauds, whisperings and detractions, hatred of God, pride and ostentation, vainglory and love of vanity. Compare these, if you please, with what is read in the first epistle to virgins, ch. 8: Those who are truly faithful, he says, and in whom the spirit of Christ dwells, in them there cannot be the thought of the flesh; which is fornication, unchastity, impurity, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, envy, contention, anger, strife, division, jealousy, etc. Does not Clement in both places betray himself? for Clement, I say, having almost everywhere imitated the character of the Pauline writing, seems both here and there to have had in view Rom. 1:29-31; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Tim. 6:4-5 and 2 Tim. 3:2-5.
His addas velim δοξολογίαν, mediam inter epistolam, more itidem Paulino, usurpatam: verborum copiam ex divinis Litteris passim derivatam:
To these I would have you add the doxology, employed in the middle of the epistle, likewise after the Pauline manner: the abundance of words drawn everywhere from the divine Scriptures:
Editors' notes and page, col. 117
Footnotes
(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 117 (inferred; call not visible)
Hebr. XI et XII.
Hebrews 11 and 12.
(printed under page 58)
(7) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 117 (inferred; call not visible)
Venem., epist. 2, pag. 87.
Venema, epistle 2, page 87.
(printed under page 58)
(8) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 117 (inferred; call not visible)
Clem., epist. 2 ad Virg., cap. 16.
Clement, epistle 2 to Virgins, ch. 16.
(printed under page 58)
(9) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 117 (inferred; call not visible)
Epist. 1 ad Cor., cap. 21.
Epistle 1 to the Corinthians, ch. 21.
(printed under page 58)
Page
- running head: 117 PROOEMIA VARIO (remainder cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹exempla relinquamus›; B ‹factitatum cernimus›; C ‹illud ex epist. 1 ad Corinth.› (set between that line and ‹magis adhuc›); D ‹dia, contentio, ira›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins and ends mid-sentence. Foot notes not set here (for notes): scripture note 47 "Hebr. XI et XII", called before "patriarcharum" (reference supplied in the English); notes (7) Venem., epist. 2, pag. 87; (8) Clem., epist. 2 ad Virg., cap. 16; (9) Epist. 1 ad Cor., cap. 21; (10) Past. lib. I, vis. 2, cap. 4 are printed at this column's foot but their calls are not in this column (they belong to col. 118). Scripture references at the end of the second paragraph are printed in the running text without parentheses and set so. Italics of the print not marked.
aliaque plura, quae in solertis lectoris oculos gemina prorsus sive in Corinthiacis sive in Syriacis incurrunt. Ad haec, mores vere apostolici, simplicitas, modestia, frugalitas, benignitas, et caetera. Uno verbo, utrumque epistolarum par vivam Clementis imaginem referre, ac tantum non spirare comperitur.
and many other things, which strike the eyes of an attentive reader as wholly twin, whether in the Corinthian or in the Syriac ones. Besides these, the truly apostolic manners, simplicity, modesty, frugality, kindness, and the rest. In a word, each pair of epistles is found to present the living image of Clement, and all but to breathe.
XIV. Superest ut illud quoque diluamus quod vir eruditus saepe laudatus ingerere haud veretur. Nimirum, inquit, «auctor se ipse virginibus fratribus adnumerat, et suum exemplum illis in omni conversatione imitandum proponit. Quod quidem factum historicum, si censorem hunc audias, a Clementis persona esse videtur alienum: quin et cum ipsius Clementis confessione consistere nequit; si quae in prima persona in epistola ejus ad Corinthios efferuntur, ad ipsum quoque referre, ut oportet si nihil obstet, liceat. Loquitur autem, subdit vir criticus, de uxoribus et liberis nostris, cum dicit: Uxores nostras ad id quod bonum est corrigamus; — liberi nostri disciplinae Christi participes sint, etc. Cui nescio, tandem concludit, num quid roboris addat, quod Clementi adjungatur Grapte apud Hermam. Cujus rei melior reddi vix posse videtur ratio, quam quod Grapte fuerit Clementis uxor.» Hactenus eruditus Venema: et quidem satis belle.
XIV. It remains that we also dispel that which the learned man so often mentioned does not fear to press upon us. To be sure, he says, "the author numbers himself among the virgin brethren, and sets forth his own example to them to be imitated in every manner of life. Which historical fact indeed, if you listen to this censor, seems foreign to the person of Clement: nay more, it cannot stand together with the confession of Clement himself; if it be allowed to refer to himself also, as is proper if nothing stands in the way, the things that are expressed in the first person in his epistle to the Corinthians. Now he speaks, the critic adds, of our wives and children, when he says: Let us correct our wives to that which is good; — let our children be partakers of the discipline of Christ, etc. To which I do not know, he at length concludes, whether it adds any strength that Grapte is joined with Clement in Hermas. Of which matter it seems that scarcely a better account can be given than that Grapte was the wife of Clement." Thus far the learned Venema: and prettily enough indeed.
Nolim equidem virum clar. in caelibatum ecclesiasticum iniquum suspicari. At illud ipsi condonandum minime reor, quod suae sententiae vim addere cupiens, nobis obtrudat velut Clementis Romani lectionem, quae Alexandrino erat adscribenda. Rem paucis attingimus infra; quam tamen hic pertractandam, commentum Venemianum flagitat, non postulat. Sic igitur S. Clemens: Τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν διορθωσώμεθα. — Τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ παιδείας μεταλαμβανέτωσαν. Id est: Uxores nostras ad id quod bonum est corrigamus. — Filii vestri disciplinae Christi participes sint. Ita constanter codex ms. ex quo uno Clementina epistola fuit desumpta. Haud sane me fugit, apud Clementem Alexandrinum qui ex Romano integrum paene caput illud 21 exscripsit, legi τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν. Sed non est demum cur Clementem Romanum ex Alexandrino emendemus, vimque inferamus codicis ms. lectioni cum clar. editore Pottero, ac Davisio ipsum secuto: eo vel maxime quod nemo nesciat in more positum fuisse Clementi Alexandrino, in auctorum locis describendis alia contrahere, alia tollere, alia interponere atque pro arbitrio mutare, omnia uno verbo sibi permittere: quod et hoc ipso in capite licenter nimis exsequitur, ut apud Wottonum videre est.
For my part I would not wish to suspect the distinguished man of being hostile to ecclesiastical celibacy. But this I by no means think should be pardoned him, that, desiring to add force to his opinion, he thrusts upon us as a reading of Clement of Rome one which ought to have been ascribed to the Alexandrian. We touch on the matter in a few words below; yet Venema's fiction does not merely ask but demands that it be thoroughly handled here. Thus, then, St Clement: Let us correct our wives to that which is good. — Let your children partake of the discipline that is in Christ. That is: Let us correct our wives to that which is good. — Let your sons be partakers of the discipline of Christ. So, consistently, the manuscript codex from which alone the Clementine epistle was taken. It certainly does not escape me that in Clement of Alexandria, who copied out from the Roman almost that whole chapter 21, there is read "our children". But there is, after all, no reason why we should emend Clement of Rome from the Alexandrian, and do violence to the reading of the manuscript codex with the distinguished editor Potter, and Davies who followed him: all the more because no one is unaware that it was the habit of Clement of Alexandria, in transcribing passages of authors, to contract some things, to remove others, to insert others and to change them at will, in a word to allow himself everything: which he also carries out too freely in this very chapter, as may be seen in Wotton.
Editors' notes and page, col. 118
Footnotes
(10) ‹anchor: Grapte apud Hermam› · call in col 118
Past. lib. I, vis. 2, cap. 4.
The Shepherd, book I, vision 2, ch. 4.
(printed under page 58)
(11) ‹anchor: attingimus infra› · call in col 118
Vid. not. in cap. 21 epist. 1 ad Corinth.
See the note on ch. 21 of epistle 1 to the Corinthians.
(printed under page 58)
(12) ‹anchor: igitur S. Clemens› · call in col 118
L. c.
In the place cited.
(printed under page 58)
(13) ‹anchor: Clementem Alexandrinum› · call in col 118
Strom., lib. IV, cap. 16, p. 612, edit. Oxon.
Stromata, book IV, ch. 16, p. 612, Oxford edition.
(printed under page 58)
Page
- running head: ROOEMIA VARIORUM. 118 (left part cut by the column crop; with col. 117: PROOEMIA VARIORUM.)
- marginal letters: A ‹aliaque plura›; B ‹quit; si quae in prima persona›; C ‹addere cupiens› (set between that line and ‹nandum minime reor›); D ‹mentem Romanum›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence and ends at a full stop. Foot notes not set here (for notes): (7) Venem., epist. 2, pag. 87, called after "inquit"; (8) Clem., epist. 2 ad Virg., cap. 16, called after "adnumerat"; (9) Epist. 1 ad Cor., cap. 21, called after "dicit"; (10) Past. lib. I, vis. 2, cap. 4, called after "Hermam" (these four printed at the foot under col. 117); (11) Vid. not. in cap. 21 epist. 1 ad Corinth., called after "infra"; (12) L. c., called after "S. Clemens"; (13) Strom., lib. IV, cap. 16, p. 612, edit. Oxon., called after "Alexandrinum". The full stop after "postulat" has not printed (space only); supplied. The closing guillemet after "uxor." is printed; the opening one stands before "auctor". Italics of the print not marked.
Quid quaeris, inquies? Esto: scripserit Clemens τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν: at ipsum τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν scripsisse liquet: quod utique ad Venemae sententiam confirmandam satis est. Nae, qui sic sentiat, minus attente Clementem legerit. Siquidem, quod scripserit S. Pater τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν, in causa fuit verbum διορθωσώμεθα; ut sermoni paulo ante in prima persona instituto, ἐντραπῶμεν, αἰδεσθῶμεν, τιμήσωμεν, παιδεύσωμεν, sententia congrueret. Cum autem mox aliud loquendi genus usurpet, scripsisse omnino censendus est τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν: perinde ac si ab orationis cursu abreptus, quod modo scripserat minus sibi consentanee, uxores nostras corrigamus, emendare voluerit; adeoque stylum statim castigatius exacuens, docentisque dignitati prospiciens, orationem permutat, atque, filii vestri suscipiant, convenientius rescribit. Retinenda igitur proba lectio ms. codicis Alexandrini, ac procul amandanda de Grapte Clementis uxore hinc eruta conjectura viri eruditi; qui Cotelerianam versionem a Clerico recensitam sive mendosam sive infidam exscribere maluit, quam textum ipsum consulere.
What more do you want, you will say? Granted: let Clement have written "your children"; yet it is clear that he himself wrote "our wives": which is certainly enough to confirm Venema's opinion. Truly, whoever thinks so will have read Clement with too little attention. For the reason why the holy Father wrote "our wives" was the verb "let us correct"; so that the sentence might agree with the discourse set a little before in the first person, "let us reverence, let us respect, let us honour, let us train". But since he presently uses another kind of speech, he must altogether be judged to have written "your children": just as if, carried away by the course of his discourse, he wished to amend what he had just written less consistently with himself, let us correct our wives; and so, at once sharpening his pen more strictly, and having regard to the dignity of one who teaches, he changes the expression and more fittingly writes instead, let your sons receive. The sound reading of the Alexandrian manuscript codex is therefore to be retained, and the learned man's conjecture about Grapte as Clement's wife, dug out from this, is to be sent far away; he who preferred to copy out Cotelier's version as revised by Le Clerc, whether faulty or unfaithful, rather than to consult the text itself.
Sed nondum dimittendus Hermannus Venema. Pergit vir criticus! et, quo probet allata verba esse accipienda velut a Clemente de se ipso prolata, haec subdit: «Licet nomine Ecclesiae Romanae, ipse tamen epistolam scripsit, et ad se subinde expresse digitum intendit, uti in verbis: Si propter me seditio, et discordia, et schismata, discedo, abeo: fieri, Epiphanius statuit.» Operam ludit censor iste. Et aegre quidem ferendum, quod non perspexerit vir oculeus totus, Epiphanium Clementis sententiam non ex ipsius epistola, sed ex quibusdam commentariis in quibus dictum illud invenerat, descripsisse. Sic enim ille l. c.: Λέγει γὰρ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν αὐτοῦ· Ἀναχωρῶ, ἄπειμι. .... εὕρομεν γὰρ ἔν τισιν ὑπομνηματισμοῖς τοῦτο ἐγκείμενον. «Dicit enim (Clemens) in una Epistolarum suarum: Recedo, abeo:... nam in quibusdam commentariis ita scriptum reperimus.» Quid quod ipsemet Epiphanius luculenter testatur, quod Clemens illa proferens, nonnullis hoc modo consulebat? τισὶ τοῦτο συμβουλεύων: tantum abest, ut sanctus Constantiensis episcopus memoriae tradiderit, Clementem eo loci ad se digitum expresse intendisse, quemadmodum praepostere contendit vir clar. Verumtamen Clementem ipsum ita loquentem audiamus: Τίς οὖν ἐν ἡμῖν γενναῖος; τίς εὔσπλαγχνος; τίς πεπληροφορημένος ἀγάπης; εἰπάτω· εἰ δι' ἐμὲ στάσις, καὶ ἔρις, καὶ σχίσματα, ἐκχωρῶ, ἄπειμι, οὗ ἐὰν βούλησθε. — Τοῦτο ὁ ποιήσας, ἑαυτῷ μέγα κλέος ἐν Κυρίῳ περιποιήσεται, καὶ πᾶς τόπος δέξεται
But Hermann Venema is not yet to be dismissed. The critic goes on, and, in order to prove that the words adduced are to be taken as uttered by Clement about himself, he adds this: "Although in the name of the Roman Church, yet he himself wrote the epistle, and from time to time he expressly points the finger at himself, as in the words: If on my account there are sedition, and discord, and schisms, I depart, I go away: that this is done, Epiphanius has laid down." This censor wastes his labour. And indeed it is hard to bear that a man who is all eyes did not perceive that Epiphanius copied Clement's saying not from his own epistle, but from certain commentaries in which he had found that saying. For thus he, in the place cited: For he says in one of his epistles: I withdraw, I go away. .... for we have found this lying in certain memoranda. "For he (Clement) says in one of his Epistles: I withdraw, I go away:... for in certain commentaries we have found it so written." What of the fact that Epiphanius himself clearly testifies that Clement, in uttering those words, was counselling certain persons in this manner? "counselling this to certain persons": so far is the holy bishop of Constantia from having handed down that Clement in that place expressly pointed the finger at himself, as the distinguished man perversely contends. Nevertheless, let us hear Clement himself speaking thus: Who then among you is noble? who is tender-hearted? who is filled with charity? let him say: if on my account there are sedition, and strife, and schisms, I withdraw, I go away, wherever you wish. — He who has done this will win for himself great renown in the Lord, and every place will receive
Editors' notes and page, col. 119
Footnotes
(14) ‹anchor: uti in verbis› · call in col 119
Epist. 1 ad Corinth., cap. 54.
Epistle 1 to the Corinthians, ch. 54.
(printed under page 59)
(15) ‹anchor: Epiphanius statuit› · call in col 119
Haeres. XXXVIII, § 6.
Heresy XXXVIII, § 6. [numeral as read from the scan; not fully clear]
(printed under page 59)
Page
- running head: 119 AD S. CLEMENTEM I P (remainder cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹Quid quaeris, inquies›; B ‹orationem permutat› (set between that line and ‹convenientius rescribit›); C ‹sor iste. Et aegre› (set between that line and ‹fieri, Epiphanius›); D ‹disse, quemadmodum› (set between that line and ‹Clementem eo loci›)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column ends mid-sentence (the Greek quotation runs on into col. 120). Foot notes not set here (for notes): (14) Epist. 1 ad Corinth., cap. 54, called after "in verbis"; (15) Haeres. XXXVIII, § 6, called after "statuit"; notes (16) Origin. eccles., pag. 386; (17) In not. ad Clem. l. c.; (18) Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. interpol. cap. 4; (19) Auct. Recognit. lib. I, cap. 1; (20) Auct. Clement. hom. I, cap. 1 are printed at this column's foot but their calls are not in this column (they belong to col. 120). UNSURE: both misprint entries are judgements (the "!" may be a broken colon; ἡμῖν is what the type shows, where Clement's text has ὑμῖν); "abeo: fieri, Epiphanius statuit" set as printed though the sense seems defective; breathing of εὕρομεν and of ἔν τισιν small in the scan. Greek and its Latin version are both printed in this one column and both set. Italics of the print not marked.
αὐτόν. «Quis ergo inter vos generosus? quis misericors? quis charitatis plenus? dicat: Si propter me seditio, et discordia, et schismata; discedo, abeo quocunque volueritis... Qui hoc fecerit, sibi magnum decus in Domino comparabit, omnisque locus eum suscipiet.» Quibus sane verbis nemo non videt, hortari Clementem Corinthios, ut etiamsi justus quis inter eos fuerit, atque immunis a schismate, quin et omni virtutum genere ornatus; juri tamen suo cedat, ut Ecclesiae Corinthiacae tranquillitas inde consurgat. An non igitur Clementi mire concinit Epiphanius, dum ait ipsum ita fuisse locutum, τισὶ τοῦτο συμβουλεύοντα? Hinc immerito insimulant sanctum illum Constantiensem episcopum Thorndicius et Burtonus, quod Clementinam sententiam haud sit assecutus. Immerito item ex ejusdem S. Patris verbis, Clementis abdicationem confirmare nituntur alii magni nominis viri.
him. "Who then among you is noble? who is merciful? who is full of charity? let him say: If on my account there are sedition, and discord, and schisms; I depart, I go away wherever you wish... He who has done this will acquire for himself great honour in the Lord, and every place will receive him." By which words, surely, everyone sees that Clement exhorts the Corinthians that, even if someone among them be just, and free from the schism, nay even adorned with every kind of virtue, he should nevertheless yield his right, so that the tranquillity of the Corinthian Church may arise from it. Does not Epiphanius, then, agree wonderfully with Clement, when he says that he spoke thus, "counselling this to certain persons"? Hence Thorndike and Burton undeservedly accuse that holy bishop of Constantia of not having grasped Clement's meaning. Undeservedly likewise do other men of great name strive to establish Clement's abdication from the words of the same holy Father.
At potiori jure notandus H. Venema, qui eo potissimum nomine Epiphanii auctoritate abutitur, quo nimirum commento suo de Grapte Clementis uxore fundamentum praejaciat, nullo innixus veterum testimonio, quin e contra obnitente scriptorum antiquorum fide. Nam, ut Ignatii Epistolarum interpolatorem omittamus, quem unum novit hic censor, vetustiorem adhuc habemus Recognitionum scriptorem, saeculo II desinente, cujus haec sunt verba: Ego Clemens in urbe Roma natus, ex prima aetate pudicitiae studium gessi. Quae postea tum Clementinorum, tum Epitomes auctores exscripsere. His accedit Althelmus, qui Clementis virginitatem sive prosa sive carmine celebrasse comperitur. Clemens itaque virgo, si fides his auctoribus. Et quidni fides? ait doctissimus Cotelerius.
But with better right is H. Venema to be censured, who abuses the authority of Epiphanius chiefly on this account, namely that he may lay beforehand a foundation for his fiction about Grapte as Clement's wife, resting on no testimony of the ancients, nay, on the contrary, with the credit of the ancient writers standing against him. For, to pass over the interpolator of the Epistles of Ignatius, the only one whom this censor knows, we have the still older writer of the Recognitions, at the close of the second century, whose words are these: I, Clement, born in the city of Rome, have from my earliest age cherished a zeal for chastity. Which the authors both of the Clementines and of the Epitome afterwards copied out. To these is added Aldhelm, who is found to have celebrated Clement's virginity both in prose and in verse. Clement, therefore, was a virgin, if these authors are to be trusted. And why should they not be trusted? says the most learned Cotelier.
Verum, quid porro de Grapte dicendum? Si Hermae quidem verba penitus introspicias, sentias utique cum viris eruditis oportet, ipsam fuisse feminam spectatae pietatis, forsitan diaconissam, sive Ecclesiae Romanae πρεσβύτιδα, viduam scilicet, cui reliquas viduas juniores atque orphanos sub viduarum cura positos, optimis praeceptis institutisque imbuendi munus commissum fuerit. Cum igitur sive ex verbis Clementis, sive ex Epiphanii auctoritate, suae causae praesidium frustra quaerat eruditus Venema, quin et ipsi obstent tum Ecclesiae scriptorum vetustissimi, tum recentiorum doctissimi; neque ullum omnino vadem ipsemet pro sua sententia in medium adducat: in nihilum abeat necesse est Grapte Clementis uxor, quam comminiscitur; cumque istiusmodi figmento evanescit
But what, further, is to be said of Grapte? If indeed you look thoroughly into the words of Hermas, you must certainly think with the learned that she was a woman of proved piety, perhaps a deaconess, or an elder woman of the Roman Church, that is, a widow, to whom was committed the office of imbuing with the best precepts and principles the other, younger widows and the orphans placed under the care of the widows. Since, therefore, the learned Venema seeks in vain a support for his cause whether from the words of Clement or from the authority of Epiphanius, nay, since both the most ancient of the Church's writers and the most learned of the more recent ones stand against him; and since he himself brings forward no surety whatever for his opinion: Grapte the wife of Clement, whom he invents, must needs come to nothing; and with a figment of this kind there vanishes
Editors' notes and page, col. 120
Footnotes
(16) ‹anchor: episcopum Thorndicius› · call in col 120
Origin. eccles., pag. 386.
Origines ecclesiasticae, page 386.
(printed under page 59)
(17) ‹anchor: et Burtonus› · call in col 120
In not. ad Clem. l. c.
In the notes on Clement, in the place cited.
(printed under page 59)
(18) ‹anchor: interpolatorem omittamus› · call in col 120
Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. interpol. cap. 4.
Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, interpolated, ch. 4.
(printed under page 59)
(19) ‹anchor: haec sunt verba› · call in col 120
Auct. Recognit. lib. I, cap. 1.
The author of the Recognitions, book I, ch. 1.
(printed under page 59)
(20) ‹anchor: tum Clementinorum› · call in col 120
Auct. Clement. hom. I, cap. 1.
The author of the Clementines, homily I, ch. 1.
(printed under page 59)
(21) ‹anchor: tum Epitomes› · call in col 120
Auct. Epitom. cap. 1.
The author of the Epitome, ch. 1.
(printed under page 59)
(22) ‹anchor: celebrasse comperitur› · call in col 120
De laud. virg. et de laudib. virginit. cap. 22.
On the Praise of Virgins and On the Praises of Virginity, ch. 22.
(printed under page 59)
(23) ‹anchor: doctissimus Cotelerius› · call in col 120
Cotel. in not ad Clem. epist. 1, cap. 38.
Cotelier, in the notes on Clement's epistle 1, ch. 38.
(printed under page 59)
(24) ‹anchor: cum viris eruditis› · call in col 120
Cotel. et Fell., ad Herm. vis. 2, cap. 4, ac Dodw. in addit. ad Pearson. opp. posthum., p. 196, et ibid., in dissert. singul. p. 158.
Cotelier and Fell, on Hermas, vision 2, ch. 4, and Dodwell in the additions to Pearson's posthumous works, p. 196, and in the same, in the Dissertatio singularis, p. 158.
(printed under page 59)
Page
- running head: CLEMENTEM I PAPAM. 120 (left part cut by the column crop; with col. 119: AD S. CLEMENTEM I PAPAM.)
- marginal letters: A ‹αὐτόν. Quis ergo inter vos›; B ‹mentinam sententiam› (set between that line and ‹pum Thorndicius›); C ‹postea tum Clementinorum› (set between that line and ‹natus, ex prima aetate›); D ‹sive ex verbis Clementis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column begins mid-sentence (the last word of the Greek quotation from col. 119) and ends mid-sentence. Foot notes not set here (for notes): (16) Origin. eccles., pag. 386, called after "Thorndicius"; (17) In not. ad Clem. l. c., called after "Burtonus"; (18) Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. interpol. cap. 4, called after "omittamus"; (19) Auct. Recognit. lib. I, cap. 1, called after "verba"; (20) Auct. Clement. hom. I, cap. 1, called after "Clementinorum" (these five printed at the foot under col. 119); (21) Auct. Epitom. cap. 1, called after "Epitomes"; (22) De laud. virg. et de laudib. virginit. cap. 22, called after "comperitur"; (23) Cotel. in not. ad Clem. epist. 1, cap. 38, called after "Cotelerius"; (24) Cotel. et Fell., ad Herm. vis. 2, cap. 4, ac Dodw. in addit. ad Pearson. opp. posthum., p. 196, et ibid., in dissert. singul. p. 158, called after "eruditis". "Althelmus" set as printed. The points after "volueritis" are printed. Italics of the print not marked. Q1: the calls (16) and (17) are visible in the column image (after "Thorndicius" and "Burtonus"); their anchors are set from the column.
quoque illud argumentum hinc desumptum, quo epistolarum ad virgines sinceritatem oppugnare aggressus est. At de his satis.
also that argument drawn from this source, by which he set about attacking the genuineness of the letters to virgins. But enough of these matters.
Caeterum easdem Epistolas Graece primitus exaratas fuisse colligit cl. Wetstenius tum ex vocibus, εὐχαριστία, ἀσωτία, κίνδυνος, τάξις, σχῆμα, διαθήκη, ἀγὼν, αὐτολεξεί occurrentibus; tum ex indiciis
For the rest, that these same Letters were originally written in Greek the distinguished Wettstein gathers both from the words εὐχαριστία, ἀσωτία, κίνδυνος, τάξις, σχῆμα, διαθήκη, ἀγὼν, occurring letter for letter; and from indications
<!-- other: below a full-width rule begins the next piece, set full width across the page: IV. EX P. LUMPERI HIS[TORIA ...] (Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis atque doctrina SS. Patrum, etc. ...), CAPUT PRIMUM., ARTICULUS UNICUS. — VITAE S. CLEMENT[IS ...]; Lumper's text then runs in both columns (col 121 from "S. Clementis patria et generis nobilitas." to "coadjutorem; in libris"), with foot note 48-100 and foot note (25). All of it belongs to the neighbouring unit and is NOT set here. The title lines are cut by the column crop (settle: full_width). -->
Editors' notes and page, col. 121
Footnotes
(48-100) ‹anchor: socium et coadjutorem› · call in col 121 Ad Philipp., cap. IV, v. 3 et seq.
Philippians 4:3 and following.
(printed under page 60)
(25) ‹anchor: e senatorio genere› · call in col 121
Recentiores critici, levissima ducti conjectura, non Romanum et praeclarissimo natum genere, sed ex stirpe Judaica procreatum censent. Primus qui eam invexit novitatem fuit Tillemontius in suis Monumentis historiae ecclesiasticae, tomo II, pag. 149. Exinde vero idem visum Coutantio nostro in celeberrimo suo opere Epistolarum Romanorum pontificum, tomo I, pag. 11, licet postea suam mutarit sententiam loco citato, pag. 41. Accessit demum reverendissimus dominus Remigius Ceillierius noster, qui fidenter nimis id asserere non dubitavit in Historia generali auctorum sacrorum et ecclesiasticorum, tomo I, pag. 598. Colligi id posse ex ejusdem sancti Clementis ad Corinthios epistola capite IV arbitrabatur, ubi ait : Propter aemulationem Pater noster Jacob aufugit a facie Esau fratris sui. Verum haec verba nequeunt vetustam opinionem elidere. Sane illam auctor Libri pontificalis secutus ait : Clemens natione Romanus de regione Caelio monte ex patre Faustino. Similia habentur in Catalogis Romanorum Pontificum vetustioribus : consentitque Breviarium Romanum ad diem 23 Novembris; de illo item sanctus Eucherius Lugdunensis in epistola ad Valerium : Clemens vetusta prosapia senatorum, atque etiam stirpe Caesarum, omni scientia refertus, omniumque liberalium artium peritissimus ad hanc justorum viam transiit; itaque in ea excellenter floruit, ut Principis quoque apostolorum successor exstiterit. His fidem minime derogamus, cum ipsius Clementis in contrarium producta intelligi possint de fidei gratia, propter quam, ut inquit ad Galatas cap. VI Paulus apostolus, Filii promissionis computantur in semine. Quid quod Theophilus in suis ad Autolycum libris, lib. III, sect. 25, Davidem patrem seu progenitorem nostrum appellat? Ἔπειτα Δαβὶδ ὁ πρόγονος ἡμῶν (ἐβασίλευσεν) ἔτη μ'· Deinde David pater noster regnavit annos quadraginta. Nunquid ideo Hebraeus episcopus iste Antiochenus? Eodem plane sensu cum Clemente locuti sunt Patrum antiquissimi Justinus M. (Dialogo cum Tryphone, sect. 134); Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromatum lib. VI, c. 7); Tertullianus adversus Marcionem, lib. IV, c. 24; auctor Expositionis in Evang. Luc. quae sub Titi Bostrensis nomine circumfertur (Tit. Bost. in cap. I Lucae) Bibliot. PP., edit. Paris., tom. XIII, pag. 767; Aug. serm. 5, § 4, Opp. tom. V, pag. 30.
More recent critics, led by the slightest of conjectures, hold that he was not a Roman born of a most distinguished family, but sprung from Jewish stock. The first to bring in this novelty was Tillemont in his Memoirs of Ecclesiastical History, volume II, page 149. After him the same view was taken by our Coustant in his most celebrated work, the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, volume I, page 11, although he afterwards changed his opinion in the place cited, page 41. Lastly there came our most reverend Dom Remi Ceillier, who did not hesitate to assert it all too confidently in his General History of Sacred and Ecclesiastical Authors, volume I, page 598. He judged that it could be gathered from the same Saint Clement's letter to the Corinthians, chapter 4, where he says: Because of jealousy our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother. But these words cannot overthrow the ancient opinion. Indeed the author of the Liber pontificalis, following it, says: Clement, by nation a Roman, of the region of the Caelian hill, his father being Faustinus. The like is found in the older Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs; and the Roman Breviary agrees, at the 23rd day of November; of him likewise Saint Eucherius of Lyons in his letter to Valerian: Clement, of the ancient lineage of senators, and even of the stock of the Caesars, filled with all knowledge and most skilled in all the liberal arts, passed over to this way of the just; and so he flourished in it so excellently that he became also the successor of the Prince of the apostles. We by no means withdraw credence from these, since the words of Clement himself brought forward to the contrary can be understood of the grace of faith, on account of which, as the apostle Paul says to the Galatians, chapter 6, The children of the promise are counted as the seed. What of the fact that Theophilus in his books to Autolycus, book III, section 25, calls David our father or forefather? Then David our forefather (reigned) forty years: Then David our father reigned forty years. Was that bishop of Antioch therefore a Hebrew? In plainly the same sense as Clement have spoken the most ancient of the Fathers: Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, section 134); Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, book VI, chapter 7); Tertullian, Against Marcion, book IV, chapter 24; the author of the Exposition on the Gospel of Luke which circulates under the name of Titus of Bostra (Titus of Bostra on chapter 1 of Luke), Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris edition, volume XIII, page 767; Augustine, sermon 5, § 4, Works, volume V, page 30.
(printed under page 60)
Page
- running head: 121 PROOEMIA VARIORUM. (right half of the head, with the column number 122, cut off by the crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹quoque illud argumentum hinc desumptum, quo›; B, C and D stand beside Lumper's text and its foot notes below the rule (pointer only)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column opens mid-sentence, continuing from col 120. The last word is split at the column break ("indi-"); it is set whole from the first line of col 122, of which only the left edge ("ciis haud obsc") shows in this crop. Gallandi's dissertation does NOT end in col 121: it continues in the upper part of col 122, above the rule, for about four lines (left-edge fragments visible only: Greek words beginning φιλαργυρία, then Latin lines), which could not be read in these images and are NOT set here. They must be set from the col 122 images. UNSURE: αὐτολεξεί appears to carry an acute as printed (grave expected before the following word); set as seen. κίνδυνος and διαθήκη are set with kappa, the type's kappa resembling chi. Q3: foot notes 48-100 and (25) are both called from Lumper's text below the rule (unit ed_lumper), so by the unit rule they are pointer-only in this unit; they were collated here against the foot images and left in place for the settler to move or drop (settle: neighbour_unit). Q3 UNSURE: in note (25) the italic ligature in "Caelio" could not be told from oe at this resolution (Migne's usual spelling is with oe); left as set, check at higher zoom.
haud obscuris verborum φιλαδελφία, φιλοξενία, φιλαργυρία, φιλοπρωτεία, παραιτεῖσθαι, etc. Et scriptae quidem fortasse fuerint non longe a Neronis obitu, dum Ecclesia tranquilla pace frueretur: in iis enim nullius calamitatis aut vexationis Christianorum mentio.
by no means obscure, of the words φιλαδελφία, φιλοξενία, φιλαργυρία, φιλοπρωτεία, παραιτεῖσθαι, etc. And they may indeed perhaps have been written not long after the death of Nero, while the Church was enjoying tranquil peace: for in them there is no mention of any calamity or harassment of the Christians.
<!-- other: pointer only, not set. Below the full-width rule begins the neighbouring piece: full-width title, of which the crop shows ‹…›V. / ‹…›ERI HISTORIA. / ‹…›na SS. Patrum, etc.; t. I, Aug. Vindelic., 1783, in octavo. / ‹…›PRIMUM. / ‹…›TAE S. CLEMENTIS HISTORIA. (title IV, Lumper's Historia). Lumper's text in this column runs from ‹vero Recognitionum, qui sub Clementis hujus nomine› to ‹non sedisse tamen ante›, with italic sub-captions ‹A divo Petro episcopus designatur.› and ‹Cleto in pontificatu succedit, anno Christi 91.›; margin B beside ‹vero Recognitionum›. His foot notes (continuation of a note from the left column, margin C and D, and note (26)) are not set. -->
Editors' notes and page, col. 122
Footnotes
(26) ‹anchor: plerique fatentur› · call in col 122
Vide Irenaeum, l. III, c. 3; Zozim. apud Baron. ad ann. 417, num. 20.
See Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3; Zosimus in Baronius at the year 417, number 20.
(printed under page 60)
Page
- running head: ‹…›IA VARIORUM. 122 (only the right-hand part of the running head falls inside the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹ciis haud obscuris verborum›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: boundary chunk: only the last lines of Gallandi's dissertation, above the full-width rule, are set. The column opens with the fragment ‹ciis› (end of indiciis, already set whole at the end of col 121; not repeated here). The dissertation's last words: ‹Christianorum mentio.› The full-width title below the rule is cut by the column crop (settle: full_width).