PG 10 · cols. 17–24

A. Gallandius, Notitia de Caio presbytero Romano

Editors' preface

PG 10:17

ANNO DOMINI CCXIV.

IN THE YEAR OF THE LORD CCXIV.

CAIUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS

CAIUS, PRESBYTER OF ROME

NOTITIA.

NOTICE.

(GALLAND, Biblioth. Patrum, tom. II, Proleg., p. XXVIII.)

(GALLAND, Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. II, Prolegomena, p. XXVIII.)

I. Caius, sancti Irenaei contubernalis, an domo Corinthius? Ecclesiae Romanae presbyter et episcopus gentium. De Caii presbyteratu et episcopatu Dodwellus et Fabricius minus belle opinati esse videntur. Rectius Bacchinius.

I. Caius, companion of Saint Irenaeus: was he a Corinthian by birth? Presbyter of the Roman Church and bishop of the nations. On Caius's presbyterate and episcopate Dodwell and Fabricius seem to have judged less happily. Bacchini more correctly.

II. Quo tempore claruit auctor, vir disertissimus. Disputationem scripsit adversus Proculum Cataphrygarum sectatorem. Ex veterum et recentiorum sententia opus eidem asseritur, Parvus Labyrinthus inscriptum.

II. At what time the author, a most eloquent man, flourished. He wrote a disputation against Proclus, a follower of the Cataphrygians. In the judgement of ancients and moderns a work entitled The Little Labyrinth is ascribed to him.

III. Scripsisse quoque Caius De Canone sacrarum Scripturarum existimatur: in ea fortasse disputatione quam habuit adversus Proculum Montanistam. Hujusce argumenti fragmentum acephalum, haud ita pridem vulgatum, adducitur; ipsique variis conjecturis tribuitur ab editore Muratorio V. C., cujus monitum exhibetur.

III. Caius is also thought to have written On the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures: perhaps in the disputation which he held against Proclus the Montanist. A headless fragment on this subject, published not long ago, is brought forward; and it is attributed to him on various conjectures by its editor Muratori, a most distinguished man, whose preface is set out.

IV. Observationes nonnullae tum in allatum fragmentum, tum in monitum Muratorianum subjiciuntur.

IV. Some observations are added, both on the fragment brought forward and on Muratori's preface.

I. Caius, vel Gaius, una cum sancto Irenaeo conversatus fuisse, ὃς καὶ συνεπολιτεύσατο τῷ Εἰρηναίῳ, ex subscriptione Actorum martyrii S. Polycarpi existimatur. Ex qua quidem subscriptione fuisse ipsum domo Corinthium, et cum Irenaeo Romam profectum conjicit Moynius: sed praeter rem, ut censent eruditi Historiae litterariae Gallicae auctores. Illud certius ex Photio, fuisse Caium Romanae Ecclesiae presbyterum, ordinatumque et gentium episcopum. Τοῦτον τὸν Γάϊον πρεσβύτερόν φασι γεγενῆσθαι τῆς κατὰ Ῥώμην Ἐκκλησίας· χειροτονηθῆναι δὲ αὐτὸν τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον. Mirum sane Dodwellum conjectasse, Caium Romanae Ecclesiae presbyterum, propter ipsas traditiones quas conservarit, appellatum: cum praeter Photii testimonium, Eusebius quoque virum ecclesiasticum, ἐκκλησιαστικὸν ἄνδρα, illum nominet. Neque minus mirari subit visum fuisse Fabricio, apud Photium pro ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον legendum esse Ἀθηνῶν:

I. That Caius, or Gaius, lived together with Saint Irenaeus, "who also shared his life with Irenaeus", is inferred from the subscription of the Acts of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. From this subscription indeed Moyne conjectures that he was a Corinthian by birth and set out for Rome with Irenaeus: but beside the point, as the learned authors of the Histoire littéraire de la France judge. This is more certain, from Photius: that Caius was a presbyter of the Roman Church, and was also ordained bishop of the nations. "This Gaius, they say, became a presbyter of the Church at Rome, and was ordained bishop of the nations." It is surely strange that Dodwell conjectured that Caius was called a presbyter of the Roman Church because of the very traditions which he preserved: when, besides the testimony of Photius, Eusebius too names him a churchman, "an ecclesiastical man". Nor is it less a matter for wonder that it seemed to Fabricius that in Photius one should read, in place of "bishop of the nations", "of Athens":

Editors' notes and page, col. 17

Footnotes

(62) ‹anchor: Polycarpi existimatur› · call in col 17

Vide tom. V nostr. Biblioth.

See vol. V of our Bibliotheca.

(printed under page 15)

(63) ‹anchor: conjicit Moynius› · call in col 17

Moyn. ad Var. sacr. pagg. 937, 940.

Moyne, on the Varia sacra, pp. 937, 940.

(printed under page 15)

(64) ‹anchor: Gallicae auctores› · call in col 17

Hist. littér. de la France, tom. I, part. I, pag. 556.

Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, part I, p. 556.

(printed under page 15)

(65) ‹anchor: ex Photio› · call in col 17

Phot. Bibl., cod. 48.

Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 48.

(printed under page 15)

(66) ‹anchor: Dodwellum conjectasse› · call in col 17

Dodw. Dissert. 3 Iren. § 31, p. 284.

Dodwell, Dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, § 31, p. 284.

(printed under page 15)

(67) ‹anchor: illum nominet› · call in col 17

Euseb. Hist. eccl., lib. II, cap. 25.

Eusebius, Church History, book II, chapter 25.

(printed under page 15)

(68) ‹anchor: visum fuisse Fabricio› · call in col 17

Fabric. Bibl. Gr., tom. V, pag. 267.

Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. V, p. 267.

(printed under page 15)

Page

running head: 17 CAIUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS. —
marginal letters: A De ordinatione presbyterorum; B fuisse ipsum domo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only (with short Greek citations in editors' prose); words split at end of column passages: adju-[mento], Ἀθη-[νῶν]; full-width headings and synopsis in middle (ANNO DOMINI CCXIV. / CAIUS / PRESBYTER ROM... / NOTITIA. / (GALLAND, Biblioth. Patrum, tom. II, Proleg., ... / I. Caius, sancti Irenaei... / II. Quo tempore claruit... / III. Scripsisse quoque Caius... / IV. Observationes nonnullae...) cut off at right edge, not set; editors' matter: II. De ordinatione presbyterorum (chapter heading), I. Caius, vel Gaius (Notitia)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 17/18 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 18 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 17 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at I. Caius, vel Gaius
running head: 17 CAIUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS. — NOTITIA. 18
marginal letters: (none in this column; the gutter letters A, B are recorded in c18)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: reading order — the page's text is split in halves: this file holds the end of the preceding piece (caption II and its paragraph, which runs from the top of col. 17 into the top of col. 18), the full-width title band and synopsis (editors' matter, layer 1), and the lower half of col. 17; c18 holds the lower half of col. 18.
other: SPOT CHECK settled: col. 17 prints "adju-" at the line end and the word continues "mento" at the head of col. 18: adjumento (neither "adjui" nor a run-on into the title band).
other: "t mpore": the e is lost to damaged type. "Saturnino": print is faint and could be read "Saturaino"; UNSURE. "gentium." in synopsis I: the stop after gentium could be a comma; UNSURE. "traditionès": a speck above the e, taken as a blot, not an accent; "presbyterum'," has a stray mark, not set.
other: the last word Ἀθη- is split at the column break and set whole as Ἀθηνῶν from the head of col. 18 (bottom third).

PG 10:18

adeo ut, hac lectione fidenter admissa, fuisse Caium Atheniensem episcopum securus pronuntiet. Quis porro nesciat ab initio rei Christianae in more positum institutoque majorum fuisse, ut episcopi crearentur qui nulli certae Ecclesiae praesiderent? « In Ecclesiis ex gentibus tantum fundandis (verba sunt Bacchinii V. C.) Petrum successoresque pontifices priores, id servasse compertum, ut episcopi crearentur, antequam gentiles quibus illi praeesse debebant, converterentur. Id ex veteribus et sincerioribus Ecclesiarum monumentis liquido constat. Missi sunt plures episcopali charactere insigniti a Petro et successoribus in Italiae Hispaniarum, Britanniae, Africae, Galliarum regiones, qui Ecclesias sibi constituerent, gentilibus ad veritatis lumen conversis. Ita in Oriente ubi Judaei frequentes degebant, conversis ex circumcisione et praeputio dati sunt episcopi: in Occidente, ubi Judaei vel rari vel eorum nullus, episcopi

so much so that, confidently admitting this reading, he pronounces without hesitation that Caius was bishop of Athens. Yet who does not know that from the beginning of the Christian cause it was the custom and the practice of our forebears that bishops were created who presided over no fixed Church? "In Churches only to be founded from among the gentiles (these are the words of Bacchini, a most distinguished man) Peter and the earlier pontiffs his successors are found to have kept this practice, that bishops were created before the gentiles over whom they were to preside were converted. This is clearly established from the ancient and more genuine records of the Churches. Many men marked with the episcopal character were sent by Peter and his successors into the regions of Italy, the Spains, Britain, Africa and the Gauls, to establish Churches for themselves once the gentiles had been converted to the light of truth. So in the East, where Jews lived in great numbers, bishops were given to those converted from the circumcision and from the uncircumcision: in the West, where Jews were either rare or none of them were there, bishops

Editors' notes and page, col. 18

Footnotes

(69) ‹anchor: Bacchinii V. C.› · call in col 18

Bacchin., De eccl. hierarch. origin., part. I, cap. 3, § 19, pag. 266.

Bacchini, On the Origin of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, part I, chapter 3, § 19, p. 266.

(printed under page 15)

Page

running head: ROMANUS. — NOTITIA. 18
marginal letters: A corda vestra in; B episcopi crearentur qui
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only (with Greek word ending νῶν at start of Notitia continuation); words split at start of passages: [adju]mento, [Ἀθη]νῶν, and at end of column: epi-[scopi]; full-width headings and synopsis in middle (...INI CCXIV. / ...IUS / ...R ROMANUS / ...TIA. / ...tom. II, Proleg., p. XXVIII.) / ...nthius? / ...Disputationem scripsit... / ...Scripturarum existimatur... / ...tum, tum in monitum...) cut off at left edge, not set; editors' matter: νῶν: adeo ut (continuation of Notitia)
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 17 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 17 CAIUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS. — NOTITIA. 18
marginal letters: A ‹mento plurimum gaudeatis›; B ‹episcopi crearentur qui nulli›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the title band (ANNO DOMINI CCXIV, CAIUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS, NOTITIA, Galland attribution) and the synopsis I–IV are set in c17_a.md, with the top of this column (end of the preceding piece) and the lower half of col. 17. The opening "νῶν :" at the head of the lower half belongs to Ἀθηνῶν, set whole at the end of c17.

PG 10:19

creati qui gentiles converterent. Ibi Ecclesiae episcopos receperunt: hic episcopi, quas regerent Ecclesias fundarunt. Ordinatos propterea primis Ecclesiae temporibus in Occidente, non modo certae gentis quae in fide erudiri deberet, sed etiam creatos non certae gentis nec certae regionis episcopos novimus, qui gentibus praedicantes, ubi consisterent ibi certam sibi sedem fundarent. Ejus rei, et post apostolica tempora in moribus positae, et ab apostolis procul dubio fluentis, certum documentum exhibet Photius... Id nempe ab initio obtinuerat, ut hujusmodi Evangelii emissariis, orbis gentilium ad Christum converteretur, qui Romanae sedis tanquam metropolis colonias fundarent in Occidente, de quibus Innocentius I epist. ad Decentium Eugubinum haec habet: Legant si in his provinciis alius apostolorum invenitur, aut legitur docuisse. Quod si non legant, quia nusquam invenitur, oportet eos hoc sequi quod Romana Ecclesia custodit, a qua eos initium accepisse non dubium est. » Hactenus vir doctus, Sed hac de re Tillemontium quoque consulas velim.

were created who should convert the Gentiles. There the Churches received bishops: here the bishops founded the Churches which they were to rule. Therefore we know that in the first times of the Church in the West there were ordained bishops not only of a fixed nation which was to be instructed in the faith, but also created of no fixed nation nor of a fixed region, who preaching to the Gentiles, wherever they settled, there founded a fixed see for themselves. Of this practice, both established in custom after apostolic times and flowing without doubt from the apostles, Photius furnishes a sure proof... Namely, that had obtained from the beginning, that by emissaries of the Gospel of this kind the world of the Gentiles should be converted to Christ, who should found in the West colonies of the Roman see as of a mother city, concerning which Innocent I in his epistle to Decentius of Gubbio has these words: Let them read if in these provinces another of the apostles is found, or is read to have taught. But if they do not read it, because it is nowhere found, it behoves them to follow this which the Roman Church keeps, from which there is no doubt that they received their beginning." Thus far the learned man. But on this matter I would wish you to consult Tillemont also.

II. Claruit Caius, vir disertissimus, λογιώτατος ἀνήρ, sub Zephyrino Romanae urbis episcopo, ut post Eusebium tradit sanctus Hieronymus, Antonino Caracalla imperante, id est, saeculo III ineunte, sive circa aerae vulgaris annum 212. Inter ejus scripta celebratur Disputatio adversus Proculum Montani sectatorem, quam valde insignem Doctor maximus; accuratam, σπουδαίαν, Photius appellat: cujus fragmenta ex Eusebio descripsimus.

II. Caius, a most eloquent man, a most learned man, flourished under Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, as Saint Jerome relates after Eusebius, when Antoninus Caracalla was emperor, that is, at the beginning of the third century, or about the year 212 of the common era. Among his writings is celebrated the Disputation against Proculus, a follower of Montanus, which the greatest Doctor calls very distinguished; and Photius calls accurate, earnest: the fragments of which we have transcribed from Eusebius.

Stylum item stripxisse Caius adversus Artemonis haeresim, suamque lucubrationem parvum Labyrinthum inscripsisse, ex veterum monumentis perhibetur. Hujus quidem scripti tria insignia fragmenta nobis servavit Eusebius; qui tamen tum auctoris nomen, tum operis titulum reticet. Hinc nonnulli apud Theodoretum Origeni opus perperam tribuisse noscuntur. Sic enim ille: Κατὰ τῆς τούτων αἱρέσεως ὁ σμικρὸς συνεγράφη Λαβύρινθος, ὅν τινες Ὠριγένους ὑπολαμβάνουσι πόνημα· ἀλλ' ὁ χαρακτὴρ ἐλέγχει τοὺς λέγοντας. « Contra istorum (Artemonis et Theodoti coriarii) haeresim conscriptus est parvus Labyrinthus, quem nonnulli Origenis opus esse putant: sed eos qui hoc dicunt, stylus redarguit. » Neque aliter Photius. Plerique tamen recentiorum genuinum fetus parentem Caium agnoscunt. Jamque rem confecisse videtur Pearsonius his verbis: « Quin scriptor qui adversus Artemonis haeresim sub Zephyrino scripsit, idem fuerit cum eo qui sub Antonino Severi filio disputationem cum Proculo Montanista iniit, nempe Caius, dubitari

Likewise Caius is reported from the monuments of the ancients to have drawn his pen against the heresy of Artemon, and to have entitled his work the Little Labyrinth. Of this writing indeed Eusebius has preserved for us three notable fragments; who nevertheless keeps silent both the name of the author and the title of the work. Hence some in Theodoret are known to have wrongly attributed the work to Origen. For thus he says: Against their heresy was written the Little Labyrinth, which some suppose to be a work of Origen; but the style refutes those who say so. "Against the heresy of those men (Artemon and Theodotus the cobbler) was written the Little Labyrinth, which some think to be a work of Origen: but the style refutes those who say this." Nor does Photius speak otherwise. Yet most of the more recent scholars recognize Caius as the genuine parent of the offspring. And Pearson seems already to have settled the matter in these words: "That the writer who wrote against the heresy of Artemon under Zephyrinus was the same as he who under Antoninus the son of Severus entered into a disputation with Proculus the Montanist, namely Caius, ought not to be doubted.

Editors' notes and page, col. 19

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 19

Phot. Bibl. cod. 48, ubi de Caio, cujus loci verba modo retulimus.

Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 48, where he speaks of Caius; we have just quoted the words of the passage.

(printed under page 16)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 19

Tillem., Mém. tom. II, pag. 233, art. 5e, sur la persécut. d'Adrien.

Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. II, p. 233, art. 5, on the persecution of Hadrian.

(printed under page 16)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 19

Euseb. Hist. eccl. lib. VI, cap. 20.

Eusebius, Church History, book VI, chapter 20.

(printed under page 16)

(73) ‹anchor: post Eusebium› · call in col 19

Id. ibid. lib. II, cap. 25.

The same, ibid., book II, chapter 25.

(printed under page 16)

(74) ‹anchor: sanctus Hieronymus› · call in col 19

Hieron., De vir. illustr., cap. 59.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chapter 59.

(printed under page 16)

(75) ‹anchor: Photius appellat› · call in col 19

Phot. l. c.

Photius, in the place cited.

(printed under page 16)

(76) ‹anchor: servavit Eusebius› · call in col 19

Euseb., Hist. ecc. lib. V, cap. 28.

Eusebius, Church History, book V, chapter 28.

(printed under page 16)

(77) ‹anchor: apud Theodoretum› · call in col 19

Theodor., Haeret. fab. lib. II, cap. 5, p. 209.

Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables, book II, chapter 5, p. 209.

(printed under page 16)

(78) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 19

Phot., l. c.

Photius, in the place cited.

(printed under page 16)

(79) ‹anchor: his verbis› · call in col 19

Pearson., opp. post. Dissert. 2, cap. 1, § 3, pag. 148.

Pearson, posthumous works, Dissertation 2, chapter 1, § 3, p. 148.

(printed under page 16)

Page

running head: 19 CAIUS PRESBYTER
marginal letters: A scopi creati qui; B num haec habet; C cujus fragmenta ex; D opus esse putant
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter in Latin (with Greek citations): scopi creati qui (continuation of Notitia); words split at start and end of column: [epi]scopi, dubi-[tari]
other: misprints kept as printed: "stripxisse" (for strinxisse); "doctus, Sed" (capital after a comma). (Q2)

PG 10:20

non debet. Quamvis enim Eusebius nec nomen auctoris nec libri titulum ex quo excerpta verbatim transcripsit, commemoret, titulum tamen libri cognoscimus μικρὸν Λαβύρινθον fuisse. Nam non tantum Nicephorus affirmat, τὸν μικρὸν ειρήμένον Λαβύρινθον redarguisse absurditatem Artemonis et Theodoti, quam beatus Victor depugnavit; sed et Theodoretus trium pericoparum apud Eusebium summam ex parvo Labyrintho deducit, de Theodoto agens. Parvum autem hunc Labyrinthum Photius Γαΐου πόνημα agnoscit, τῇ ἀληθείᾳ αὐτοῦ συντεταχότος, quod re vera ille composuit, qui et διάλεξιν contra Proculum Montanistam edidit. » Hactenus vir eruditus. Haud velim tamen omittas quae in eamdem sententiam observant doctissimi viri, Tillemontius, Historiae litterariae Gallicae auctores, nec non Wesselingius.

For although Eusebius mentions neither the name of the author nor the title of the book from which he transcribed the excerpts word for word, nevertheless we know that the title of the book was the Little Labyrinth. For not only does Nicephorus affirm that the so-called Little Labyrinth refuted the absurdity of Artemon and Theodotus, which blessed Victor combated; but Theodoret also deduces the summary of the three passages in Eusebius from the Little Labyrinth, when treating of Theodotus. Moreover, Photius recognizes this Little Labyrinth as a work of Gaius, "since he in truth composed it", that is, he did in fact compose it, he who also published the disputation against Proculus the Montanist." Thus far the learned man. Yet I would not wish you to omit what most learned men observe to the same effect, Tillemont, the authors of the Literary History of France, and also Wesseling.

III. Tribus hujusce operis excerptis Eusebianis quae cum notis Valesii et Coutantii protulimus, fragmentum acephalum de Canone sacrarum Scripturarum addidimus, haud ita pridem a cl. Muratorio evulgatum: cujus proinde monitum hic apponere operae pretium existimamus. Sic autem se habet: « Asservat Ambrosiana Mediolanensis bibliotheca membranaceum codicem, e Bobiensi acceptum, cujus antiquitas paene ad annos mille accedere mihi visa est. Scriptus enim fuit litteris majusculis et quadratis. Titulus praefixus omnia tribuit Joanni Chrysostomo, sed immerito. Mutilum in principio codicem deprehendi.... Ex hoc ergo codice ego decerpsi fragmentum antiquissimum, ad Canonem divinarum Scripturarum spectans. Nulli diligentiae peperci ut ejus auctorem detegerem, simulque rescirem num hactenus editum fuerit. Nisi me fefellerunt oculi, aut complurium librorum defectus quem non semel doleo, nusquam deprehendi evulgatum; ac propterea spes mihi superest, fore ut libentius a lectoribus excipiatur, ac praecipue quod antiquitatem redoleat maxime venerabilem. Si conjecturam meam exserere fas est, in illam opinionem feror, tribuenda haec esse Caio Ecclesiae Romanae presbytero, qui sub Victore et Zephyrino pontificibus, teste Photio, hoc est, qui circiter annum Christi 196 floruit. Disputationem Caii istius, disertissimi viri, habitam Romae temporibus Zephyrini adversus Proclum quemdam Cataphrygarum haeresis propugnatorem, memorat Eusebius Caesariensis; in qua ille dum adversariorum in componendis novis Scripturis temeritatem et audaciam sugillat, τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ Ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους μὴ συναριθμήσας ταῖς λοιπαῖς· ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τισὶν,

III. To the three Eusebian excerpts of this work which we have produced with the notes of Valesius and Coustant, we have added the headless fragment on the Canon of the sacred Scriptures, published not so long ago by the illustrious Muratori: whose notice therefore we think it worthwhile to set down here. And it runs thus: "The Ambrosian Library of Milan preserves a parchment codex, received from Bobbio, whose antiquity seemed to me almost to approach a thousand years. For it was written in capital and square letters. The title prefixed attributes all to John Chrysostom, but undeservedly. I found the codex mutilated at the beginning.... From this codex therefore I extracted a most ancient fragment, pertaining to the Canon of the divine Scriptures. I spared no diligence that I might discover its author, and at the same time learn whether it had hitherto been published. Unless my eyes deceived me, or the lack of several books which I grieve over more than once, I found it nowhere published; and on that account hope remains to me that it will be more gladly received by readers, and especially because it savours of a most venerable antiquity. If it is permissible to put forward my conjecture, I am carried to that opinion, that these things are to be attributed to Caius, presbyter of the Roman Church, who under the pontiffs Victor and Zephyrinus, as Photius witnesses, that is, who flourished about the year of Christ 196. Eusebius of Caesarea mentions a Disputation of that Caius, a most eloquent man, held at Rome in the times of Zephyrinus against a certain Proclus, a champion of the heresy of the Cataphrygians; in which, while he censures the rashness and audacity of the adversaries in composing new Scriptures, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy Apostle, not reckoning that to the Hebrews with the rest; since even unto this day among certain of the Romans

Editors' notes and page, col. 20

Footnotes

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Niceph., Hist. eccl. lib. IV, cap. 20.

Nicephorus, Church History, book IV, chapter 20.

(printed under page 16)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Theodor., l. c.

Theodoret, in the place cited.

(printed under page 16)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Phot. l. c.

Photius, in the place cited.

(printed under page 16)

(83) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Tillem., Mém., t. III, pag. 176.

Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. III, p. 176.

(printed under page 16)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Hist. littér. de la France, tom. I, part. I, pag. 359.

Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, part I, p. 359.

(printed under page 16)

(85) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Wesseling., lib. Probabil. cap. 21, pagg. 173, 177.

Wesseling, book of Probabilia, chapter 21, pp. 173, 177.

(printed under page 16)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 20

Murat., Antiqq. Ital. med. aev., tom. III, pag. 851 seqq.

Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, vol. III, p. 851 ff.

(printed under page 16)

(87) ‹anchor: teste Photio› · call in col 20

Phot., Bibl. cod. 48.

Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 48.

(printed under page 16)

(88) ‹anchor: Eusebius Caesariensis› · call in col 20

Euseb., Hist. eccl. lib. VI, cap. 20.

Eusebius, Church History, book VI, chapter 20.

(printed under page 16)

Page

running head: US PRESBYTER ROMANUS. 20
marginal letters: A tari non debet; B lemontius, Historiae litterariae; C cerpsi fragmentum antiquissimum; D simi viri, habitam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter in Latin (with Greek citations): tari non debet (continuation of Notitia); words split at start and end of column: [dubi]tari, τι-[σὶν]

PG 10:21

οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ Ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν: tredecim tantum divini Apostoli recenset Epistolas, eam quae ad Hebraeos inscripta est, cum reliquis non adnumerans. Sane haec epistola Etiamnum a quibusdam Romanis Apostoli esse non creditur. Sanctus Hieronymus totidem fere verbis, de Caio isto loquens, reddidit sententiam Eusebii: nisi quod addit, disputationem a Caio habitam sub Zephyrino Romanae urbis episcopo, id est sub Antonino Severi filio; ac propterea secundum illum Caius haec scripserit circiter annum vulgaris epochae 212. Addit etiam de eadem epistola: Sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli Apostoli non habetur; cum tamen Eusebius tantum scripserit apud quosdam Romanos. Photius quoque l. c. auctor est, Caium tredecim duntaxat beati Pauli Epistolas enumerasse, non recepta in censum quae est ad Hebraeos. Ille quoque haec ab Eusebio hausit. Caeterum non est hujus loci recensere, quibus auctoribus et rationibus in Canonem sacrarum Scripturarum merito recepta deinde ab omnibus fuerit Epistola ad Hebraeos, de qua idem sanctus Hieronymus ad Evagrium scribens, dicit: Quam omnes Graeci recipiunt et nonnulli Latinorum. Ita quaestionem hanc jam diu versarunt ac illustrarunt viri doctissimi, ut rursus eamdem agitare velle, supervacaneum foret.

it is not considered to be the Apostle's: he enumerates only thirteen Epistles of the divine Apostle, not reckoning that which is inscribed to the Hebrews with the rest. Truly this epistle even now by certain Romans is not believed to be the Apostle's. Saint Jerome in almost the same words, speaking of that Caius, rendered the sentence of Eusebius: except that he adds that the disputation was held by Caius under Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, that is under Antoninus the son of Severus; and on that account according to him Caius would have written these things about the year 212 of the common era. He adds also concerning the same epistle: But among the Romans also even unto this day it is not held as being of Paul the Apostle; whereas nevertheless Eusebius only wrote among certain Romans. Photius also in the place cited is voucher that Caius enumerated only thirteen Epistles of blessed Paul, not receiving into the count that which is to the Hebrews. He also drew these things from Eusebius. For the rest, it is not the business of this place to recount by what authors and reasons the Epistle to the Hebrews was afterwards deservedly received by all into the Canon of the sacred Scriptures, concerning which the same Saint Jerome, writing to Evagrius, says: Which all the Greeks receive and some of the Latins. Thus most learned men have long since treated and illustrated this question, so that to wish to agitate the same again would be superfluous.

« Illud quod ad me spectat, arripio. Hippolytus quoque Portuensis episcopus, Caii supra laudati aequalis, Photio teste, sensit Epistolam ad Hebraeos non esse Pauli apostoli. Imo ne temporibus quidem sancti Hieronymi Romana Ecclesia illam inter canonicas Apostoli Pauli Epistolas receperat. Cum ergo eam omiserit Caius presbyter Romanus, scriptor antiquissimus, caeteras recensens; veri videtur simile eidem Caio tribuendum esse fragmentum infra evulgandum, in quo praetermissam plane videas Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accedit et alterum robustius argumentum. Memorat hic scriptor celebrem Hermae librum, titulo Pastoris inscriptum, his verbis: Pastorem vero NUPERRIME TEMPORIBUS NOSTRIS in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente in cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre ejus. Jam inter eruditos constat, Hermam floruisse ad dimidium saeculi a Christo nato secundi. Et certe si tunc Romanam cathedram tenuit Pius I papa, illius frater, is librum Pastoris scripsisse dicendus est circiter annum Christi 150. At nos supra vidimus, Caium Romanum presbyterum vixisse circiter annum 196, et nihil obstat, quin antea haec scripserit. At quando fragmenti auctor testatur, Hermam nuperrime temporibus nostris librum Pastoris conscripsisse, quemnam opportunius quam eumdem Caium fragmenti ipsius parentem fuisse conjicias? Tandem scribit fragmenti auctor: Apocalypsim etiam Joannis et Petri, tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in Ecclesia nolunt. Recte haec in Caii tempora conveniunt.

"That which pertains to me, I seize upon. Hippolytus also, bishop of Portus, contemporary of Caius praised above, as Photius witnesses, held that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not of Paul the apostle. Nay, not even in the times of Saint Jerome had the Roman Church received it among the canonical Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Since therefore Caius the Roman presbyter, a most ancient writer, omitted it when enumerating the rest, it seems probable that to the same Caius is to be attributed the fragment to be published below, in which you may plainly see the Epistle to the Hebrews passed over. There is added also another more solid argument. This writer mentions the famous book of Hermas, inscribed with the title of the Shepherd, in these words: Moreover, the Shepherd Herma wrote very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while Bishop Pius, his brother, was sitting in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome. Now among the learned it is agreed that Hermas flourished towards the middle of the second century after the birth of Christ. And certainly if Pope Pius I, his brother, then held the Roman chair, he must be said to have written the book of the Shepherd about the year of Christ 150. But we saw above that Caius the Roman presbyter lived about the year 196, and nothing prevents his having written these things earlier. Now when the author of the fragment testifies that Hermas wrote the book of the Shepherd very recently in our times, whom could you more fittingly conjecture to have been the parent of the fragment itself than the same Caius? Finally the author of the fragment writes: The Apocalypse also of John and of Peter only do we receive, which some of ours do not wish to be read in the Church. Rightly do these things agree with the times of Caius.

Editors' notes and page, col. 21

Footnotes

(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 21

Hieron. De vir. illustr., cap. 59.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chapter 59.

(printed under page 17)

(90) ‹anchor: Photio teste› · call in col 21

Phot., Bibl. cod. 121.

Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 121.

(printed under page 17)

(91) ‹anchor: ad Hebraeos› · call in col 21

Vid. infr. col. 33, § 3.

See below, col. 33, § 3.

(printed under page 17)

(92) ‹anchor: hic scriptor› · call in col 21

Ibid. § 4.

Ibid., § 4.

(printed under page 17)

(93) ‹anchor: fragmenti auctor› · call in col 21

Ibid. § 4.

Ibid., § 4.

(printed under page 17)

Page

running head: 21 NOTITIA.
marginal letters: A σὶν, οὐ νομίζεται; B Pauli Epistolas enumerasse; C sancti Hieronymi Romana; D cathedram tenuit Pius
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter in Latin (with Greek citation at start): σὶν, οὐ νομίζεται (continuation of Notitia); words split at start and end of column: [τι]σὶν, con-[veniunt]

PG 10:22

Eusebius enim Apocalypsim Petri inter dubios quidem libros recenset, non tamen abjicit velut haereticorum fetum. Eodem quoque testante, Clemens Alexandrinus eadem Apocalypsi est usus, non secus ac Epistola Barnabae. Sozomenus pariter nos monuit, hanc Apocalypsim in quibusdam Ecclesiis Palaestinae usque adhuc singulis annis semel legi.

For Eusebius enumerates the Apocalypse of Peter among the doubtful books indeed, yet does not reject it as the offspring of heretics. As the same also testifies, Clement of Alexandria used the same Apocalypse, no differently than the Epistle of Barnabas. Sozomen likewise informed us that this Apocalypse in certain Churches of Palestine even until now is read once every year.

« Temporibus etiam Caii ipsius circumferebatur epistola spuria Pauli apostoli ad Laodicenses, a sancto Hieronymo et Theodoreto explosa, quam Marcion haeresiarcha in subsidium sui delirii adhibuit, uti nos docet sanctus Epiphanius. At praeter hanc, ex ipso fragmento nunc discimus, alteram Paulo suppositam fuisse, nempe ad Alexandrinos, cujus nescio an quisquam alius meminerit. Cum vero Apocalypsim Pauli, ab Augustino et Sozomeno memoratam, scriptor hic nequaquam recenseat; confirmatur sententia Joannis Ernesti Grabii, qui censuit erupisse hanc imposturam saeculo duntaxat Ecclesiae Christianae IV. Hic quoque videas memorari librum Psalmorum a Valentino haeresiarcha elaboratum. Unus Tertullianus, quod sciam, istos indicavit, scribens: Nobis quoque ad hanc speciem Psalmi patrocinabuntur, non quidem apostatae et haeretici et Platonici Valentini, sed sanctissimi et receptissimi prophetae David. Quis vero fuerit Miltiades ille haereticus, sive Miltiades cujus est mentio in hoc fragmento, divinent alii. Profecto non fuerit Miltiades rhetor, ab Eusebio ac Hieronymo laudatus, qui sub Antonino Commodo multa scripsit pro catholica Ecclesia. Age vero jam proferamus fragmentum ipsum e vetustissimo codice Ambrosiano decerptum, atque illud eruditorum omnium examini subjiciamus, nullum demendo ex erroribus, quibus librariorum imperitia scripturam saturavit atque foedavit, quanquam nihil ii obstent quominus pretium rei intelligamus. » Huc usque doctissimus Muratorius.

"In the times of Caius himself also there was circulated a spurious epistle of Paul the apostle to the Laodiceans, rejected by Saint Jerome and Theodoret, which Marcion the heresiarch employed in support of his madness, as Saint Epiphanius teaches us. But besides this, from the fragment itself we now learn that another was forged under the name of Paul, namely to the Alexandrians, of which I know not whether anyone else has made mention. And since the Apocalypse of Paul, mentioned by Augustine and Sozomen, this writer by no means enumerates, the opinion of Johann Ernst Grabe is confirmed, who judged that this imposture broke out only in the fourth century of the Christian Church. Here also you may see mentioned a book of Psalms elaborated by Valentinus the heresiarch. Tertullian alone, so far as I know, indicated those, writing: For us also as regards this kind the Psalms will plead, not indeed of the apostate and heretic and Platonist Valentinus, but of the most holy and most received prophet David. But who that heretic Miltiades was, or the Miltiades of whom there is mention in this fragment, let others divine. Assuredly he was not Miltiades the rhetorician, praised by Eusebius and Jerome, who under Antoninus Commodus wrote many things for the catholic Church. Come now, let us bring forward the fragment itself extracted from the most ancient Ambrosian codex, and submit it to the examination of all the learned, removing none of the errors with which the unskilfulness of copyists has saturated and befouled the text, although they hinder nothing from our understanding the value of the piece." Thus far the most learned Muratori.

IV. Post tanti viri judicium liceat et nobis nonnullas observationes adjicere, quibus ejus sententia magis magisque firmetur. Et primum quidem illud advertimus, fragmenti auctorem ex eo quod haud recenseat inter Scripturas canonicas Epistolam ad Hebraeos, apprime referre sive sodalem sive discipulum Irenaei, Caium nimirum Ecclesiae Romanae presbyterum, ut superius ostendimus. Siquidem sanctus ille Lugdunensis antistes, teste Stephano Gobaro tritheita apud Photium, eamdem Epistolam perinde non admittebat. Hic tamen haud omittendum edicere, a primis Christianae religionis temporibus Clementem Romanum Pauli apostoli συνεργόν, adeoque Romanam Ecclesiam, canonicam illius Epistolae auctoritatem agnovisse: quod miror sacros interpretes hactenus praeteriisse. Si ejusmodi fragmentum ineunte hoc saeculo in lucem fuisset editum, nullus dubito quin illud in suos usus convertisset

IV. After the judgement of so great a man, let it be permitted to us also to add some observations, by which his opinion may be more and more confirmed. And first indeed we notice this, that the author of the fragment, from the fact that he does not enumerate among the canonical Scriptures the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially resembles either the companion or the disciple of Irenaeus, namely Caius the presbyter of the Roman Church, as we showed above. Since indeed that holy bishop of Lyons, as Stephen Gobarus the tritheist witnesses in Photius, likewise did not admit the same Epistle. Yet here one must not omit to declare that from the first times of the Christian religion Clement of Rome, the fellow worker (Phil. 4:3) of Paul the apostle, and therefore the Roman Church, recognized the canonical authority of that Epistle: which I wonder that sacred interpreters have hitherto passed over. If a fragment of this kind had been published to the light at the beginning of this century, I have no doubt that the learned Humphrey Hody would have turned it to his own uses,

Editors' notes and page, col. 22

Footnotes

(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 22

Euseb., Hist. eccl. lib. III, cap. 25.

Eusebius, Church History, book III, chapter 25.

(printed under page 17)

(95) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 22

Sozom., Hist. eccl. lib. VII, cap. 19.

Sozomen, Church History, book VII, chapter 19.

(printed under page 17)

(96) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 22

Epiph., Haer. 42.

Epiphanius, Heresies, 42.

(printed under page 17)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 22

Grab., Spicil. tom. I, p. 84.

Grabe, Spicilegium, vol. I, p. 84.

(printed under page 17)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 22

Tertull., lib. De carn. Chr., cap. 20.

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 20.

(printed under page 17)

(99) ‹anchor: apud Photium› · call in col 22

Phot., Bibl. cod. 232.

Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 232.

(printed under page 17)

(1) ‹anchor: apostoli συνεργόν› · call in col 22

Philip. IV, 3.

Philippians 4:3.

(printed under page 17)

(2) ‹anchor: auctoritatem agnovisse› · call in col 22

Clem. Rom., epist. 1 ad Corinth., 36

Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians, 36.

(printed under page 17)

Page

running head: NOTITIA. 22
marginal letters: A veniunt. Eusebius enim; B nescio an quisquam; C Antonino Commodo multa; D pulum Irenaei, Caium
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter in Latin (with Greek word συνεργόν): veniunt. Eusebius enim (continuation of Notitia); words split at start and end of column: [con]veniunt, con-[vertisset]
other: the word convertisset was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 23

PG 10:23

eruditus Humfredus Hodius, dum librorum biblicorum numerum ac ordinem juxta saeculorum seriem pertexere studebat.

while he strove to weave through the number and order of the biblical books according to the series of centuries.

Illud quoque animadversione dignum occurrit, ut modo monebat noster editor, quod fragmenti scriptor § IV Miltiadis haeretici mentionem injiciat. ut propterea aequum fuerit existimare, excerptum istud ad illam disputationem pertinere, quam adversus Proculum Cataphrygarum sectatorem Caius instituit. Asterius enim Urbanus apud Eusebium sub ipsum initium operis quod adversus Cataphrygas composuit, Miltiadis haeresim nominat. Unde confirmatur Eusebii lectio, ut et Nicephori eam exscribentis, a Valesio et Lango sollicitata, qui loco Miltiadis substituendum Alcibiadem existimant. Neque aliter Dodwellus, licet aliam hujus loci causam et rationem ineat.

That also occurs as worthy of notice, as our editor just now admonished, that the writer of the fragment in § 4 introduces mention of Miltiades the heretic, so that on that account it was reasonable to suppose that that excerpt belongs to that disputation which Caius instituted against Proculus, a follower of the Cataphrygians. For Asterius Urbanus in Eusebius at the very beginning of the work which he composed against the Cataphrygians names the heresy of Miltiades. Whence the reading of Eusebius is confirmed, as also of Nicephorus transcribing it, which was questioned by Valesius and Langus, who think that in place of Miltiades there should be substituted Alcibiades. Nor does Dodwell think otherwise, although he enters upon another cause and explanation of this passage.

Sunt praeterea notatu plane dignissima, quae eodem § IV, memoriae prodidit fragmenti auctor: PASTOREM, inquit, nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus. Quibus verbis vim inesse maximam jure censuit eruditissimus editor. Sed, ut vere dicam, est in loci hujus interpretatione Muratoriana, quod non satis assequor. Videtur enim ipse allata verba de Herma viro apostolico accepisse, ejusque respexisse opus quod etiamnum superat, titulo Pastoris inscriptum. In hanc autem sententiam ex eo potissimum adducor, quod V. C. illum Hermae librum celebrem vocet, ut vere est Pastoris opus cujus auctor Hermas, antiquis Patribus summis laudibus celebratum. Si ejusmodi sit Muratorii sensus et opinio, in nihilum abit ejus argumentum robustius: siquidem apostolicus Hermas neque Pii I frater exstitit, neque ad dimidium saeculi a Christo nato secundi floruit; qui nimirum centum ante annos sub Clementis Romani pontificatu vixisse comperitur, ut ad volumen I Bibliothecae nostrae praefati sumus. Alius igitur quaerendus Hermas vel Hermes, qui saeculo II clarus, Pii I frater fuerit, quique librum Pastoris titulo scripserit: quo semel posito, fragmenti acephali auctorem Caium esse constet. Jam vero vir eruditione praestans Justus Fontaninus luculenter ostendit, Hermetem sancti Pii fratrem plane diversum esse ab Herma, qui opus litteris

Moreover, those things are plainly most worthy of note which in the same § 4 the author of the fragment has handed down to memory: The Shepherd, says he, Herma wrote very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while Bishop Pius his brother was sitting in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome. In which words the most learned editor rightly judged that the greatest force resides. But, to speak truly, there is in the Muratorian interpretation of this passage something which I do not sufficiently grasp. For he himself seems to have taken the cited words as concerning Hermas the apostolic man, and to have had regard to his work which even now survives, inscribed with the title of the Shepherd. And I am led to this opinion chiefly from the fact that the most illustrious man calls that book of Hermas famous, as truly is the work of the Shepherd whose author is Hermas, celebrated with the highest praises by the ancient Fathers. If such be the meaning and opinion of Muratori, his more solid argument comes to nothing: since the apostolic Hermas was neither the brother of Pius I, nor did he flourish towards the middle of the second century after the birth of Christ; who namely is found to have lived a hundred years before under the pontificate of Clement of Rome, as we stated in the preface to volume I of our Library. Another Hermas or Hermes is therefore to be sought, who, famous in the second century, was the brother of Pius I, and who wrote a book under the title of the Shepherd: which once posited, it would be established that the author of the headless fragment is Caius. Now indeed a man excelling in learning, Justus Fontanini, has clearly shown that Hermes the brother of Saint Pius is plainly different from Hermas, who committed to writing the work

Editors' notes and page, col. 23

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 23

Hod., de Biblior. textib. origin. lib. IV, cap. 4, pag. 644, seqq.

Hody, On the Original Texts of the Bible, book IV, chapter 4, p. 644 ff.

(printed under page 18)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 23

Euseb., Hist. eccl. lib. V, cap. 26.

Eusebius, Church History, book V, chapter 26.

(printed under page 18)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 23

Niceph., Hist. eccl. lib. IV, cap. 23.

Nicephorus, Church History, book IV, chapter 23.

(printed under page 18)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 23

Dodw. Dissert. 4 Iren., § 38, pag. 371.

Dodwell, Dissertation 4 on Irenaeus, § 38, p. 371.

(printed under page 18)

(7) ‹anchor: praefati sumus› · call in col 23

Prolegom. ad Bibl. PP. tom. I, cap. 2, §§ 1 et 2, pagg. 26, 28 (Patr. Gr., t. II).

Prolegomena to the Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. I, chapter 2, §§ 1 and 2, pp. 26, 28 (Patrologia Graeca, vol. II).

(printed under page 18)

(8) ‹anchor: luculenter ostendit› · call in col 23

Fontan., Hist. litt. Aquil., lib. II, cap. 1, §§ 1 et 2, pagg. 53 seqq.

Fontanini, Literary History of Aquileia, book II, chapter 1, §§ 1 and 2, p. 53 ff.

(printed under page 18)

Page

running head: 23 CAII ROMANI PRESB
marginal letters: A vertisset eruditus Humfredus; B mant. Neque aliter; C cet, ut vere; D culenter ostendit, Hermetem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: vertisset eruditus Humfredus (continuation of Notitia); word split at start of column: [con]vertisset

PG 10:24

consignavit Pastor inscriptum. Docet igitur Fontaninus ex Catalogo Bucheriano, Anastasio aliisque, Hermetem Pii fratrem librum scripsisse, nunc deperditum, de Paschate die Dominico celebrando, in quo mandatum continebatur quod ei praeceperat Angelus, cum venit ad eum in habitu pastoris. Unde illi ab angelico Pastore cujus visum in suo de Paschate libro enarravit, postea cognomentum adhaesit, dictusque inde

inscribed the Shepherd. Fontanini therefore teaches from the Bucherian Catalogue, Anastasius, and others, that Hermes the brother of Pius wrote a book, now lost, on celebrating Easter on the Lord's day, in which was contained the command which the Angel had enjoined upon him when he came to him in the garb of a shepherd. Whence from the angelic Shepherd whose vision he related in his book on Easter, the surname afterwards clung to him, and he was called thence

Angelicus Pastor, quia tradita verba locutus,

The Angelic Shepherd, because he spoke the words delivered,

ut canit vetustissimus scriptor poematis in Marcionem sub finem libri III. Haec aliaque plura in eamdem sententiam laudatus vir eruditus. Habemus igitur Hermem Pii I fratrem, cognomento Pastorem, qui librum de Paschate scripsit.

as the most ancient writer of the poem against Marcion sings near the end of book III. These and many other things to the same effect says the learned man we have cited. We have therefore Hermes the brother of Pius I, surnamed the Shepherd, who wrote a book on Easter.

At enim fragmenti auctor non Hermam cui nomen inditum Pastor, sed Hermam Pasteris scriptorem appellat. Cui quidem objectioni ut fiat satis, illud unum reponimus quod de Hermae Pastore nos alibi dixisse meminimus. Nimirum, quemadmodum viri apostolici opus antiquis Patribus Pastor seu liber Pastoris appellatus fuit, inde fortasse derivata denominatione hujusmodi, quod in toto ferme opere Pastor inducitur Hermam alloquens et informans: ita quoque contigerit, ut et Hermetis liber de Paschate fuerit, nonnullis saltem, Pastor nominatus; quia illius auctor de iis scripsit, quae ei praecepit Angelus, cum venit ad eum in habitu Pastoris, ut habet Catalogus II Henschenianus: unde non solum scriptori, sed ejus etiam libro Pastoris nomen inhaeserit. Haec tantum in praesentiarum habemus, quibus propositae difficultati occurramus. Verum eruditorum arbitrio rem definiendam dimittimus.

But indeed the author of the fragment calls him not Hermas to whom was given the name Shepherd, but Hermas the writer of the Shepherd. To satisfy this objection, we make only this one reply, which we remember having said elsewhere concerning the Shepherd of Hermas. Namely, just as the work of the apostolic man was called by the ancient Fathers the Shepherd or the book of the Shepherd, a designation of this kind having perhaps been derived thence because in almost the whole work the Shepherd is introduced speaking to and instructing Hermas: so also it may have happened that the book of Hermes on Easter was, by some at least, named the Shepherd; because its author wrote of those things which the Angel enjoined upon him when he came to him in the garb of a Shepherd, as the second Henschenian Catalogue has it: whence the name of the Shepherd clung not only to the writer, but also to his book. These things only do we have for the present with which to meet the proposed difficulty. But we leave the matter to be determined by the judgement of the learned.

Caeterum doleo equidem ejusmodi fragmentum esse foedis deformatum erroribus. Sed, ut cum magno Baronio loquar, quidquid antiquitas offert, sive corrosum mendosumve sit, accipi tamen grato animo solet.

For the rest, I grieve indeed that a fragment of this kind is disfigured by foul errors. But, to speak with the great Baronius, whatsoever antiquity offers, whether it be corroded or faulty, is nevertheless wont to be received with a grateful mind.

De alio autem opere Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, quod a se scriptum in fine Labyrinthi testatur Caius apud Photium loco superius citato, praeter ea quae infra dicenda sunt ubi de Hippolyti scriptis, consulas velim prae ceteris Tillemontium, nec non auctores Historiae litterariae Gallicae, sed in primis Dodwellum.

Moreover, concerning the other work On the substance of the universe, which Caius in Photius in the place cited above testifies was written by himself at the end of the Labyrinth, besides those things which are to be said below when treating of the writings of Hippolytus, I would wish you to consult above others Tillemont, and also the authors of the Literary History of France, but especially Dodwell.

Editors' notes and page, col. 24

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: Baronio loquar› · call in col 24

Baron., ad ann. 431, § 27.

Baronius, Annals, at the year 431, § 27.

(printed under page 18)

(10) ‹anchor: ceteris Tillemontium› · call in col 24

Tillem., Mém., tom. III, pag. 176.

Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. III, p. 176.

(printed under page 18)

(11) ‹anchor: litterariae Gallicae› · call in col 24

Hist. litt. de la France, tom. I, part. I, pag. 359.

Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, part I, p. 359.

(printed under page 18)

(12) ‹anchor: primis Dodwellum› · call in col 24

Dodw. Dissert. 6 Iren., § 18, pag. 403 seqq.

Dodwell, Dissertation 6 on Irenaeus, § 18, p. 403 ff.

(printed under page 18)