PG 2 · cols. 11–19

A. Gallandius, Dissertatio prooemialis de Clementinis

Editors' preface

Reliqua vide in Notis. — Cotelerii judicium de Clementinis praemittit Gallandius Dissertationi suae quae sequitur.

For the rest see the Notes. — Gallandi places Cotelier's judgement on the Clementines before his own Dissertation, which follows.

DE CLEMENTINIS

ON THE CLEMENTINES

GALLANDII DISSERTATIO PROOEMIALIS.

GALLANDI'S INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION.

(Vet. Patrum Bibliotheca, t. II, Venetiis, 1766, in-fol., Proleg., p. LV.)

(Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, vol. II, Venice, 1766, folio, Prolegomena, p. LV.)

I. Clementinorum opus non incelebre: quippe antiquis Ecclesiae scriptoribus memoratum atque excerptum. Varia hujus operis partitio.

I. The work of the Clementines is not without renown: for it was mentioned and excerpted by ancient writers of the Church. The various divisions of this work.

II. Licet erroribus scateat, fructu tamen haud caret ejus lectio, multiplicis in primis doctrinae causa, atque ad primarum haereseon dogmata melius cognoscenda. In multis similia sunt Recognitionibus Clementina; quae interpolationem quoque passa esse videntur. Quid Ὁμιλίαι.

II. Although it teems with errors, the reading of it is nevertheless not without fruit, above all on account of its manifold teaching, and for the better knowledge of the doctrines of the earliest heresies. In many things the Clementines are like the Recognitions; they too appear to have suffered interpolation. What the Homiliai are.

III. Auctor Recognitionum et Homiliarum Clementinarum, unus et idem esse videtur. Erat ex secta Nazaraeorum. Longe aliter sentit de Filio Dei ac Ebionitae.

III. The author of the Recognitions and of the Clementine Homilies seems to be one and the same. He was of the sect of the Nazaraeans. He thinks of the Son of God far otherwise than the Ebionites.

IV. Duplicem in Christo naturam agnoscit.

IV. He acknowledges a twofold nature in Christ.

V. Omnia per eum creata esse docet.

V. He teaches that all things were created through Him.

VI. Illius cum Ebionitis pugna, ex pluribus aliis principiis perspicitur.

VI. His conflict with the Ebionites is plain from many other principles.

VII. De tempore quo scriptum Homiliarum opus existimatur. Quo pacto adornata isthaec editio.

VII. On the time at which the work of the Homilies is reckoned to have been written. How this edition has been prepared.

I. Hoc est de Clementinorum opere Joannis Baptistae Cotelerii judicium (Patres apostolici, I, 606):

I. This is the judgement of John Baptist Cotelier on the work of the Clementines (Patres apostolici, I, 606):

« Inter multa apocrypha quae Clementi Romano veteres tribuerunt, quorumque causa eum videtur primum historicorum ecclesiasticorum constituere Sozomenus, non incelebre istud est: excerpitur enim a Joanne Damasceno; nominatim vero memoratur in Synopsi Athanasiana, Chronico Alexandrino, Historia ecclesiastica Nicephori, Anastasii presbyteri vel alterius Collectaneis, et Niconis Pandecte inferius citanda ad Homil. XII, cap. 25, atque in Epitomen per Metaphrastem redactum est. Conspectum autem fuisse ab Epiphanio, Anastasio

« Among the many apocrypha which the ancients attributed to Clement of Rome, and on whose account Sozomen seems to make him the first of the ecclesiastical historians, this one is not without renown: for it is excerpted by John Damascene; and it is mentioned by name in the Athanasian Synopsis, the Alexandrian Chronicle, the Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus, the Collectanea of Anastasius the presbyter or of another, and the Pandect of Nicon, to be cited below at Homily XII, chapter 25; and it was reduced to an epitome by Metaphrastes. That it was seen, moreover, by Epiphanius, Anastasius

Editors' notes and page, col. 11

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: constituere Sozomenus› · call in col 11

Sozom., Hist. lib. I, cap. 1.

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 1.

(printed under page 3)

(2) ‹anchor: ab Epiphanio› · call in col 11

Epiph., Haer. XXVI, n. 16.

Epiphanius, Heresies 26, no. 16.

(printed under page 3)

Page

running head: 11 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PON
marginal letters: A sui imitationem.; B fluvium fons ;; C I. Hoc est
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: upper part of column (sui imitationem... e. Spiritu sancto.) is facing Latin version of Greek in col 12, not set; full-width note, title and synopsis lines (Reliqua vide in Notis...; DE CLEMENTINIS GALLANDII DISSERTATIO...; I. CLEMENTINORUM opus... VII. De tempore...) across cols 11-12 cut off at right edge, not set; lower part set is Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: I. Hoc est de Clementinorum opere
other: a full-width band stands across cols 11/12 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 12 are set here, after the 0 above it in col 11 (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. Hoc est de Clementinorum opere
running head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. (11 | 12)
marginal letters: A, B stand beside the previous unit's lines above the band (not set here); C ‹I. Hoc est de Clementinorum›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PG 2:12

Antiocheno, Maximo et Cedreno colligitur, si cum Clementinis nostris citata eorum loca conferuntur. Quin etiam Clementina forte nominaverat Nicephorus CP. in Stichometria seu Canone Scripturarum: et ubi nunc legitur, apud Scaligerum et Croium, Κλήμεντος λϐʹ, in Criticis autem sacris tom. VIII: Κλήμεντ. λϐʹ, hoc est, Anastasio Bibliothecario interprete, Clementis (XXXII), ibi primitus scriptum erat Κλημέντια λϐʹ, aut Κλημέντια κϐʹ. Etenim Synopsis dicta, quam Nicephorus sequitur, Κλημέντια habet. Si autem retineas λϐʹ, vel dices variam olim fuisse hujus operis, ut Recognitionum, divisionem; fretus auctoritate

of Antioch, Maximus and Cedrenus is gathered, if the passages of theirs that are cited are compared with our Clementines. Indeed, Nicephorus of Constantinople had perhaps also named the Clementines in his Stichometry or Canon of the Scriptures: and where it now reads, in Scaliger and Croy, Κλήμεντος λϐʹ [of Clement, 32], but in the Critici sacri, vol. VIII, Κλήμεντ. λϐʹ, that is, with Anastasius the Librarian as interpreter, "of Clement (XXXII)", there was originally written Κλημέντια λϐʹ [Clementines, 32], or Κλημέντια κϐʹ [Clementines, 22]. For the so-called Synopsis, which Nicephorus follows, has Κλημέντια. But if you keep λϐʹ, you will either say that the division of this work, like that of the Recognitions, was once different; relying on the authority

Editors' notes and page, col. 12

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: Anastasio Antiocheno› · call in col 12

Anastas., Quaest. XX, pag. 242.

Anastasius, Questions 20, p. 242.

(printed under page 3)

(4) ‹anchor: Maximo› · call in col 12

Max., Serm. 53 et 55.

Maximus, Sermons 53 and 55.

(printed under page 3)

(5) ‹anchor: et Cedreno› · call in col 12

Cedren., Compend. hist., pagg. 170-173.

Cedrenus, Historical Compendium, pp. 170–173.

(printed under page 3)

(6) ‹anchor: Clementinis nostris› · call in col 12

Clement., hom. [numeral obscured by a blot on the scan], n. 16; hom. II, 32; hom. IV, 4; hom. XI, 8, 11; hom. III, 38 et seq.

Clementines, homily [numeral obscured], no. 16; homily 2, 32; homily 4, 4; homily 11, 8, 11; homily 3, 38 and following.

(printed under page 3)

Page

running head: NTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 12
marginal letters: A κόνα γεγονὼς; B τῆς αὐγῆς; C Antiocheno (3), Maximo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: begins with word fragment κόνα from col 9; full-width note, title and synopsis lines across cols 11-12 cut off at left edge, not set; lower part set is Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Antiocheno, Maximo et Cedreno; ends with word fragment au- split across column break to col 13
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 11 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. (11 | 12)
marginal letters: C ‹Antiocheno, Maximo et Cedreno›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PG 2:13

Francisci Turriani (qui illud nactus manu scriptum, in epistola ad Hosium cardinalem praeliminari Defensionis pro canonibus apostolorum et epistolis pontificum, citat ex libro VIII locum quem hic leges homil. XVII, 15, et Defensionis lib. V, cap. ult., e libb. VI et VIII loca homil. XI, 22, et hom. XVI, 12; in Explanationibus vero ad Constit. apost., lib. II, cap. 36, laudat e lib. VII locum hom. XVIII, 4), vel dices, cum hocce volumine conjunctum fuisse alium ejusdem farinae librum, verbi gratia illum qui Petri et Apionis disputationes complectebatur.

of Francisco Torres (who, having obtained it in manuscript, in his preliminary epistle to Cardinal Hosius of the Defence on behalf of the Canons of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Pontiffs, cites from book 8 a passage which you will read here at Homily 17, 15, and in book 5, final chapter of the Defence, from books 6 and 8 passages of Homily 11, 22, and Homily 16, 12; and in his Explanations on the Apostolic Constitutions, book 2, chapter 36, quotes from book 7 a passage of Homily 18, 4), or you will say that there was joined with this volume another book of the same stamp, for example that which contained the disputations of Peter and Apion.

« Quod si malis corrigere κϛʹ, intelligere poteris viginti homilias, epistolam Petri ad Jacobum cum contestatione, ac epistolam Clementis ad eumdem Jacobum. Poteris etiam epistolam Petri separando a contestatione, credere omissam fuisse epistolam Clementis. Certe ex Epiphanio, Rufino, Photio et Sylloge hac nostra constat, Clementi ascripta apocrypha de peregrinationibus, sermonibus, actibus et disputationibus Petri; deque recognitione Clementis ejusque parentum ac fratrum, varie conscripta fuisse, interpolata, corrupta atque permista; et quibusdam libris praefigi solitam epistolam Petri ad Jacobum, aliis Clementis ad eumdem aliis utramque; cum tamen idem opus sequeretur, incipiens, Ἐγὼ Κλήμης. Quo etiam fit, ut triginta duo Nicephoriani libri complexi forsan fuerint libros decem Recognitionum.

"But if you prefer to emend it to κϛʹ, you will be able to understand the twenty homilies, the epistle of Peter to James with the contestation, and the epistle of Clement to the same James. You will also be able, by separating the epistle of Peter from the contestation, to believe that the epistle of Clement was omitted. Certainly from Epiphanius, Rufinus, Photius, and this collection of ours it is established that the apocryphal works ascribed to Clement concerning the journeys, discourses, acts, and disputations of Peter, and concerning the recognition of Clement and his parents and brothers, were variously written, interpolated, corrupted, and mingled together; and that to some books the epistle of Peter to James used to be prefixed, to others that of Clement to the same, and to others both; while nevertheless the same work followed, beginning, I, Clement. Whence it also comes about that the thirty-two books of Nicephorus perhaps included the ten books of the Recognitions.

II. « Et vero quae damus Clementina, licet nugis, licet erroribus scateant, a semichristiana philosophia, et haeresi, praecipue Ebionitica, profectis; non sine fructu tamen legentur, tum propter elegantiam sermonis, tum multiplicis doctrinae causa, tum denique ad melius cognoscenda primarum haereseon dogmata. In multis autem similia sunt Clementina Recognitionibus : unde probabiliter existimatum Turriano, ea esse aliam editionem Ἀναγνωρίσεων, de qua Rufinus in praefatione; quanquam auctor Synopseos Periodos Petri a Clementinis distinguit. Sed et interpolationem factam esse in homiliis istis, idque non semel, conjicio ex his : 1. e simili sorte congenerum apocryphorum; 2. quod ea quae in Chronico Alexandrino et a Maximo proferuntur, non parum diversa sint, nec non quae a Damasceno interdum; 3. ex hac Eunomianorum corruptela : Ἐν ἀρχῇ κτίσας ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, ἔκτισε καὶ τὸν υἱόν· quae Turrianus in praefatione Graeca ad Constitutiones apostolicas adducit ex Ammonio; 4. quia locus e ms. bibliothecae Claromontanae relatus inter testimonia veterum, alium a nostro scriptorem magisque pium sapit; eum forte cujus fragmentum De Spiritu sancto

II. "And indeed the Clementines which we present, although they abound in trifles and errors proceeding from a semi-Christian philosophy and heresy, especially the Ebionite, will nevertheless be read not without fruit, both on account of the elegance of their style, and for the sake of their manifold learning, and finally for becoming better acquainted with the doctrines of the earliest heresies. Moreover, in many respects the Clementines are similar to the Recognitions: whence it was plausibly judged by Torres that they are another edition of the Recognitions, of which Rufinus speaks in his preface; although the author of the Synopsis distinguishes the Circuits of Peter from the Clementines. But that interpolation has also taken place in these homilies, and that more than once, I conjecture from the following: 1. from the similar lot of kindred apocryphal works; 2. because the passages which are adduced in the Alexandrian Chronicle and by Maximus are not a little different, as well as those adduced at times by Damascene; 3. from this corruption of the Eunomians: In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, He created also the Son; which Torres in his Greek preface to the Apostolic Constitutions adduces from Ammonius; 4. because the passage from the manuscript of the Clermont library recounted among the testimonies of the ancients savours of another and more pious writer than ours; perhaps the one whose fragment On the Holy Spirit

Editors' notes and page, col. 13

Footnotes

(7) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 13 (presumed; call above the crop)

Epiph., Haer. XXX, n. 15.

Epiphanius, Heresies 30, no. 15.

(printed under page 4)

(8) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 13 (presumed; call above the crop)

Rufin., praefat. ad libb. Recognit. et lib. De adulter. libb. Origen.

Rufinus, preface to the books of the Recognitions, and the book On the Falsification of the Books of Origen.

(printed under page 4)

(9) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 13 (presumed; call above the crop)

Phot., codd. CXII, CXIII. [last numeral partly blotted on the scan]

Photius, codices 112, 113.

(printed under page 4)

(10) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot crop› · call NOT in col 13 (Q4: no (10) call in col 13's text; presumably col 12; printed under col 13)

Niceph., Hist. eccl. lib. III, cap. 18.

Nicephorus, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 18.

(printed under page 4)

Page

running head: 13 CLEMENTINA. — PROO
marginal letters: A ctoritate Francisci; B Jacobum. Poteris; C II. « Et vero; D proferuntur, non
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek printed in the text (κϛʹ, Ἐγὼ Κλήμης, Ἀναγνωρίσεων, and the Ammonius quotation Ἐν ἀρχῇ … υἱόν); editors' matter: ctoritate Francisci Turriani; begins with word fragment ctoritate from col 12; the foot under col 13 also prints the start of note (11) (Maran.), called in col 14 and continued under col 14

PG 2:14

habes infra, in Appendice monumentorum ad Recognitiones Clementis, num. 1; 5. denique Nicephorus dicit, Κλημέντια esse τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ εὐπαράδεκτα · id vero laudis nequaquam tribuisset Κλημεντίοις, nisi incidisset in ea repurgata. Idem judicium fero de scholiaste vetere, cujus mentio fit in adnotationibus V. C. Henrici Valesii ad Euseb. Hist. lib. III, cap. 38. Sed fortassis Nicephorus et scholiastes ille viderant tantum Simeonis Metaphrastae Epitomen, aut aliam ei similem. Caeterum quod in Synopsi Athanasii, Clementina referantur cum libris Novi Testamenti quibus contradicitur, apud Nicephorum vero CP. cum apocryphis, ratio est lacuna manifesta Athanasiani codicis. Eam tu et ex contextu facile agnosces, et per Nicephorum ac Anastasium complebis.

you have below, in the Appendix of monuments to the Recognitions of Clement, no. 1; 5. finally, Nicephorus says that the Clementines are well received by the Church; now he would by no means have bestowed that praise upon the Clementines unless he had come upon them in an expurgated form. I pass the same judgement concerning the ancient scholiast of whom mention is made in the annotations of the illustrious Henri de Valois on Eusebius's History, book 3, chapter 38. But perhaps Nicephorus and that scholiast had seen only the Epitome of Simeon Metaphrastes, or another similar to it. For the rest, as to why in the Synopsis of Athanasius the Clementines are classed with the books of the New Testament that are disputed, whereas in Nicephorus of Constantinople they are classed with the apocrypha, the reason is a manifest lacuna in the Athanasian manuscript. You will easily recognize it from the context, and fill it out by means of Nicephorus and Anastasius.

« Ὁμιλίαι idem sunt atque κηρύγματα et διαλέξεις, colloquia, sermones, praedicationes, dissertationes, Epist. ad Jacobum, cap. 2; Epitom., num. 145; Clementinorum I, 20. » Hactenus Cotelerius.

"Homilies are the same as proclamations and disputations, conversations, discourses, preachings, discussions, Epistle to James, chapter 2; Epitome, no. 145; Clementines 1, 20." Thus far Cotelier.

III. Verum quo plenius dignoscatur Clementinorum auctor, simulque in primis ab impia Ebionismi labe purgetur, qua ipsum fuisse inquinatum perhibent nonnulli cum veterum tum recentiorum, operae pretium fuerit disquisitiones hac de re a viro docto perscriptas hic in medium adducere, quas inspexisse studiosum lectorem haud poenitebit. Sic igitur praestantissimi operis auctor : « Homiliarum et Recognitionum Clementinarum tanta est similitudo, ut nonnullis unum et idem esse opus, sed non semel editum videatur. Hunc scriptorem circumcisum fuisse, et Mosaicae legis in ipsa religione Christiana observantem, nemini dubium esse arbitror. Nam cum in Recognitionibus tum in Homiliis Petrus plurimis in locis inducitur lustrationes Judaicas aut ipse usurpans, aut aliis praecipiens, nec cum ethnicis baptismo nondum initiatis comedens. Post epistolam Petri ad Jacobum, inducitur Jacobus graviter sanciens, ut libri Praedicationum Petri, nisi fideli circumciso, nemini committantur. Vide Recognit. lib. IV, cap. 3; lib. V, cap. 36, et lib. VIII, cap. 1, et homil. I, cap. 19; X, capp. 1 et 26; XI, capp. 28, 29, 30, 31; XIII, c⟨ap⟩p. 4 et 9.

III. But in order that the author of the Clementines may be more fully known, and at the same time above all be cleared of the impious stain of Ebionism with which some both of the ancients and of the moderns assert that he was tainted, it will be worthwhile to bring forward here the inquiries written on this subject by a learned man, which the studious reader will not regret having examined. Thus therefore writes the author of that most excellent work: "So great is the similarity of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions that to some they seem to be one and the same work, though published more than once. That this writer was circumcised, and observant of the Mosaic law within the Christian religion itself, I think is doubtful to no one. For both in the Recognitions and in the Homilies Peter is introduced in very many places as either practising Jewish purifications himself or enjoining them upon others, and not eating with Gentiles not yet initiated by baptism. After the epistle of Peter to James, James is introduced solemnly ordaining that the books of the Preachings of Peter be entrusted to no one save a circumcised believer. See Recognitions, book 4, chapter 3; book 5, chapter 36, and book 8, chapter 1, and Homily 1, chapter 19; 10, chapters 1 and 26; 11, chapters 28, 29, 30, 31; 13, chapters 4 and 9.

Citavit hos libros Origenes : quod quidem e⟨or⟩um antiquitatem demonstrat. Scripti saeculo sec⟨un⟩do exeunte, ac post annum 170, si eorum pare⟨ns⟩ ex Bardesane mutuatus est, quae ab Eusebi⟨o⟩ ex libro Bardesanis deprompta, totidem verbis leguntur lib. IX Recognit., cap. 19.

"Origen cited these books: which indeed demonstrates their antiquity. They were written at the close of the second century, and after the year 170, if their parent borrowed from Bardesanes the things which, drawn by Eusebius from the book of Bardesanes, are read in the very same words in book 9 of the Recognitions, chapter 19.

« Epiphanius, qui hos libros Clementi omnino suppositos non videbat, ab Ebionitis corruptos existimavit; eorumque perfidis manibus tribuit

"Epiphanius, who did not see that these books were altogether spuriously attributed to Clement, thought that they had been corrupted by the Ebionites; and he attributed to their treacherous hands

Editors' notes and page, col. 14

Footnotes

(11) ‹anchor: operis auctor› · call in col 14

Maran., Divinit. D. N. J. C., lib. II, cap. 7, § 4, pagg. 250-254.

Maran, On the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, book 2, chapter 7, § 4, pp. 250–254.

(printed under page 4)

(12) ‹anchor: Citavit hos libros Origenes› · call in col 14

Origen., tom. III, in Gen. Philocal. cap. 22, et in Matth. XXVI, 6.

Origen, tome 3 on Genesis, Philocalia chapter 22; and on Matthew 26:6.

(printed under page 4)

(13) ‹anchor: ab Eusebio› · call in col 14

Euseb., Praep. evang., lib. VI, cap. 20

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 6, chapter 20.

(printed under page 4)

(14) ‹anchor: corruptos existimavit› · call in col 14

Epiph., Haer. XXX, § 15.

Epiphanius, Heresies 30, § 15.

(printed under page 4)

Page

running head: NTINA. — PROOEMIA. 14
marginal letters: A habes infra; B ac Anastasium; C est similitudo; D Citavit hos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: habes infra, in Appendice; vertical ink blot at left of section D obscures letters in c⟨ap⟩p., e⟨or⟩um, sec⟨un⟩do, pare⟨ns⟩, Eusebi⟨o⟩

PG 2:15

quaecunque parum congruere cum Clementis doctrina videbantur. Cotelerius homilias Clementinas haeresis Ebioniticae notis signatas existimat. Tillemontius nullam ad rem utiles putat, nisi forte ad cognitionem Ebionitarum doctrinae. Videtur eorum opinioni favere, quod saepe auctor Homiliarum, praesertim vero homil. II, cap. 38, falsa veris permista fuisse in sacris Scripturis pronuntiat : quod quidem de Scripturis judicium Ebionitis usitatum et solemne fuit, ut recte observat Cotelerius. Sed cum ipse Philo de formatione Evae ex Adami costa pronuntiare non dubitet, Quod ea de re dictum est, fabulosum esse; liquet hanc temeritatem Ebionitarum propriam non fuisse, sed dudum a Judaeis excogitatam, quo facilius Scripturae loca quorum subabsurda species videbatur, expedirent. Quanquam fatendum est multo audacius et ineptius loqui auctorem Homiliarum, quam Philonem. Sed quod evidenter probat hunc scriptorem, etsi circumcisus et legis retinendae studiosus fuit, minime tamen Ebionitam fuisse; ea de Filio Dei in Homiliis et in Recognitionibus statuit, quae ab Ebionitarum haeresi prorsus abhorreant.

whatever things seemed to agree little with the doctrine of Clement. Cotelier thinks that the Clementine homilies are marked with the stamps of the Ebionite heresy. Tillemont considers them useful for nothing, unless perhaps for the knowledge of the doctrine of the Ebionites. It seems to favour their opinion that the author of the Homilies often, and especially in Homily 2, chapter 38, pronounces that false things have been mingled with true in the sacred Scriptures: which judgement concerning the Scriptures was indeed customary and habitual among the Ebionites, as Cotelier rightly observes. But since Philo himself does not hesitate to pronounce concerning the formation of Eve from the rib of Adam that what is said on that matter is fabulous, it is clear that this rashness was not peculiar to the Ebionites, but had long since been devised by the Jews, so that they might more easily explain away passages of Scripture whose appearance seemed somewhat absurd. Although it must be confessed that the author of the Homilies speaks much more boldly and foolishly than Philo. Yet what evidently proves that this writer, even though he was circumcised and zealous for retaining the law, was nevertheless by no means an Ebionite, is that concerning the Son of God he lays down in the Homilies and in the Recognitions things which are utterly abhorrent to the heresy of the Ebionites.

« Nemo est qui non perspiciat immanem hujus scriptoris ab Ebionitis discrepantiam, si legat quae homil. I, cap. 7, a pseudo-Clemente narrantur, audisse se Romae sub Tiberio, cum quidam publice clamaret : Viri Romani, audite : Filius Dei adest in Judaea. Addit se his auditis moleste tulisse neminem ex tanta hominum multitudine, tam magno accepto nuntio dixisse : In Judaeam proficiscar, ut cognoscam, utrum iste haec proferens vera loquatur; nempe ὅτι Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἐπιδεδήμηκεν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, « Filium Dei in Judaeam advenisse. » Tanta admiratio ob nuntiatum Filii Dei in Judaeam adventum, cum ejus praeexistentiam praeclare exprimit (nemo enim dixerit Isaiam prophetam advenisse in Judaeam), tum magnum aliquod mysterium animo observari demonstrat, quod a Socinianis et Arianis commentis longe discrepet.

"There is no one who would not perceive the immense discrepancy of this writer from the Ebionites, if he reads the things which are narrated in Homily 1, chapter 7, by pseudo-Clement, that he heard at Rome under Tiberius when someone cried out publicly: Men of Rome, hear: the Son of God is present in Judaea. He adds that upon hearing these things he was grieved that no one out of so great a multitude of men, upon receiving so great a message, said: I will set out for Judaea, that I may learn whether this man uttering these things speaks the truth; namely, that the Son of God has come to sojourn in Judaea, 'that the Son of God has arrived in Judaea.' So great an admiration on account of the announced arrival of the Son of God in Judaea both splendidly expresses His pre-existence (for no one would say that Isaiah the prophet had arrived in Judaea), and demonstrates that some great mystery was contemplated in the mind, which differs widely from the figments of the Socinians and Arians.

« Cum hac Filii Dei notione mirifice quadrat quod verus Propheta (quo nomine Christum designat) visus esse Abrahae dicitur lib. I Recogn., cap. 33. Similiter Mosi apparuisse narratur cap. 34. Quicunque verum ab eo non didicerunt, hi illud non invenisse et quaerentes obiisse dicuntur, homil. II, cap. 6 : Ὅσοι ποτὲ ἀλήθειαν γνῶναι ἐπεθύμησαν, παρὰ δὲ τούτου μαθεῖν αὐτὴν οὐκ εὐτύχησαν, μὴ εὑρόντες, ζητοῦντες ἐτελεύτησαν.

"With this notion of the Son of God wonderfully agrees the fact that the true Prophet (by which name he designates Christ) is said to have been seen by Abraham in book 1 of the Recognitions, chapter 33. Similarly He is narrated to have appeared to Moses in chapter 34. Whoever did not learn the truth from Him are said not to have found it and to have died seeking it, in Homily 2, chapter 6: All who ever desired to know the truth, but were not fortunate enough to learn it from Him, died seeking without having found it.

« Simon Magus homil. XVII, cap. 4, ut probet Deum ante incognitum a Christo nuntiatum, his verbis utitur : Nemo novit Patrem, nisi Filius; tum addit : Εἰ οὖν αὐτὸς Υἱὸς ἦν ὁ παρὼν, ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, οἷς ἐβούλετο τὸν πᾶσιν ἄγνωστον ἀπεκάλυπτεν. « Si ergo qui advenit, ipse Filius erat, post suum adventum, quibus voluit, eum qui cunctis incognitus erat, revelavit. » Haec Simonis

"Simon Magus in Homily 17, chapter 4, in order to prove that a previously unknown God was announced by Christ, uses these words: No one knows the Father, except the Son; then he adds: If therefore He Who was present was Himself the Son, from His coming He revealed to whom He wished Him Who was unknown to all. 'If therefore He Who came was Himself the Son, after His coming He revealed to whom He wished Him Who was unknown to all.' This reasoning of Simon

Editors' notes and page, col. 15

Footnotes

(15) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 15 (presumed; call above the crop)

Philo, lib. II Leg. Allegor., tom. I, pag. 70, edit. Londin. 1742.

Philo, Allegorical Laws book 2, vol. 1, p. 70, London edition of 1742.

(printed under page 5)

Page

running head: 15 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT.
marginal letters: A quaecunque parum; B subabsurda species; C mimem ex tanta; D Quicunque verum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: quaecunque parum congruere; ends with word fragment Simo- split across column break to col 16

PG 2:16

Magi ratiocinatio, e Christianorum principiis petita, argumento est Christum ab eis, non ut simplicem hominem, qui Filius Dei nominetenus dicatur, sed ut ipsum Dei Filium, qui in hunc mundum e coelo venerit, adoratum fuisse.

Magus, drawn from the principles of the Christians, is a proof that Christ was worshipped by them not as a mere man who is called the Son of God in name only, but as the very Son of God, Who came into this world from heaven.

IV. « Duplicem Christi naturam demonstrant quae Petrus huic Simonis argumento respondet homil. XVIII, cap. 13 : Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ δύναται ὁ λόγος εἰρῆσθαι πρὸς πάντας Ἰουδαίους, τοὺς πατέρα νομίζοντας εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸν Δαβίδ· καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν Υἱὸν ὄντα, καὶ Υἱὸν Θεοῦ μὴ ἐγνωκέναι. Διὸ καὶ οἰκείως εἴρηται· Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν Πατέρα· ἐπεὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν Δαβὶδ πάντες ἔλεγον. Τὸ δὲ ἐπάξαντα εἰπεῖν· Ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν Υἱόν τις οἶδεν· ἐπεὶ αὐτὸν Υἱὸν οὐκ ᾔδεισαν. Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν· Οἷς ἂν βούληται ὁ Υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι· ὀρθῶς εἴρηται. Ὁ γὰρ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ὢν Υἱὸς, μόνος ὡρίσθη, ἵνα οἷς βούληται ἀποκαλύψῃ. Enimvero primum potest testimonium esse dictum ad omnes Judaeos, qui putabant patrem Christi esse Davidem, eos non cognovisse Christum Filium (hominis) et Filium Dei. Quare apte dictum est, Nemo novit Patrem, quia pro Deo omnes Davidem dicebant. Et quod subjungit, Nec filium quis novit, quia eum Filium esse nesciverunt. Et quod ait, Quibus voluerit Filius revelare, recte habet. Qui enim ab initio Filius est, solus destinatus est, ut quibus cupit revelet. Accurata sane de Filii aeternitate, ejusque ex Patre generatione disputatio. Dei et hominis Filius, ab initio Filius dicitur : et ut pateat quantum inter Patrem et creatorem, inter Filium et rem creatam intersit, Deum Judaei quatenus Patrem Christi, ignorasse dicuntur, quamvis eum ut creatorem omnium probe novissent.

IV. "The twofold nature of Christ is demonstrated by the things which Peter replies to this argument of Simon in Homily 18, chapter 13: For first, the statement can have been spoken with reference to all the Jews, who supposed that David was the father of the Christ, and did not know that the Christ Himself was both a Son and the Son of God. Wherefore also it was fittingly said: No one knew the Father; since instead of God, all called David His father. And as for His adding and saying: Just as no one knows the Son either; that is because they did not know that He was the Son. And the saying: To whomsoever the Son wishes to reveal Him; is rightly spoken. For He Who is the Son from the beginning was alone appointed to reveal Him to whom He wishes. Indeed, first the testimony can have been spoken to all the Jews, who thought that the father of Christ was David, that they did not know Christ to be the Son (of man) and the Son of God. Wherefore it was aptly said, No one knows the Father, because instead of God they all named David. And what He subjoins, Nor does anyone know the Son, is because they did not know that He was the Son. And what He says, To whom the Son wishes to reveal Him, holds rightly. For He Who is the Son from the beginning is alone appointed to reveal Him to whom He desires. An accurate disputation indeed concerning the eternity of the Son and His generation from the Father. The Son of God and of man is called the Son from the beginning: and that it may be clear how great a difference there is between the Father and the creator, and between the Son and a created thing, the Jews are said to have been ignorant of God insofar as He is the Father of Christ, although they knew Him well as the creator of all things.

« Multa in eamdem sententiam libri Recognitionum suppeditant. Lib. I, cap. 45, haec leguntur : Cum esset Filius Dei et initium omnium, factus est homo. Et cap. 69 : Nolite putare nos duos ingenitos dicere Deos, aut unum divisum esse in duos, vel, sicut impii dicunt, eumdem masculum et feminam sui effectum : sed Filium Dei unigenitum dicimus, non ex alio initio, sed ex ipso ineffabiliter natum. Similiter etiam de Paracleto dicimus. Et lib. III, cap. 48 : Noster autem Magister, qui est Filius Dei et hominis, manifeste bonus est : quod autem vere sit Filius, quibus oportuit dictum est et dicetur. Hinc cap. 2 ejusdem libri indignatur Simon, Deo Filium attribui tanquam animali.

"The books of the Recognitions supply many things to the same effect. In book 1, chapter 45, these words are read: Whereas He was the Son of God and the beginning of all things, He became man. And in chapter 69: Do not think that we speak of two unbegotten Gods, or that one is divided into two, or, as the impious say, that the same one was made both male and female by Himself: but we speak of the only-begotten Son of God, born not from another beginning, but ineffably from Himself. Similarly we speak also concerning the Paraclete. And in book 3, chapter 48: Now our Master, Who is the Son of God and of man, is manifestly good: and that He is truly the Son has been said and will be said to those to whom it ought to be said. Hence in chapter 2 of the same book Simon is indignant that a Son is attributed to God as though to an animal.

V. Omnia a Filio creata esse, multis locis confirmatur : Υἱοῦ ἐστιν τοῦ οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν διακοσμήσαντος, ait Petrus, homil. XVIII, cap. 6, τὸ ᾧ βούλεται ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν ἐν ἀποῤῥήτοις Πατέρα. Ad Filium coeli et terrae constitutorem spectat revelare cui vult ipsius Patrem in absconditis positum. Et homil. XVI, cap. 11 et 12, objicienti Simoni duos esse creatores, eo quod dixerit Deus, Faciamus, sic respondet Petrus : Εἷς

V. That all things were created by the Son is confirmed in many places: It belongs to the Son Who ordered heaven and earth, says Peter in Homily 18, chapter 6, to reveal to whom He wishes the Father Who is in secret. To the Son, the framer of heaven and earth, it belongs to reveal to whom He wills His Father Who abides in secret. And in Homily 16, chapters 11 and 12, to Simon objecting that there are two creators because God said, Let Us make, Peter replies thus: One

Editors' notes and page, col. 16

Page

running head: S I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 16
marginal letters: A nis Magi; B ᾔδεισαν. Καὶ; C et hominis Filius; D et hominis, manifeste
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: nis Magi ratiocinatio; begins with word fragment nis from col 15

PG 2:17

ἐστιν ὁ τῇ αὐτοῦ σοφίᾳ ειπών· Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον. Ἡ δὲ σοφίᾳ, ὥσπερ ἰδίῳ πνεύματι, αὐτὸς ἀεὶ συνέχαιρεν. Ἥνωται μὲν ὡς ψυχὴ τῷ Θεῷ· ἐκτείνεται δὲ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, ὡς χεὶρ δημιουργοῦσα τὸ πᾶν. Unus est qui Sapientiae suae dixit : Faciamus hominem. Huic vero Sapientiae tanquam proprio spiritui semper ipse congaudebat. Unita quidem est Deo, ut anima : ab eo autem extenditur ut manus, universitatem producens. Hinc in his verbis homil. XI, cap. 22 : Τὸ πνεῦμα ἀπὸ τοῦ τὰ ὅλα πεποιηκότος Θεοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἐκστάσεως ἔχει , legendum puto ἐκτάσεως Spiritus a Deo qui omnia fecit, initium habet extensionis. Aqua per Unigenitum facta dicitur lib. VII Recogn., cap. 8. Vide cap. 7 ejusdem libri, et capp. 34 et 40, lib. VIII. Ex quibus patet pseudo-Clementem, quamvis multis Judaismi reliquiis implicatus esset, idem tamen ac caeteros scriptores ecclesiasticos de mundi per Filium creatione sensisse; contra quam placet Socinianis, qui hanc doctrinam, Christianis circumcisis penitus ignotam, a philosophis religionem amplectentibus inductam fingunt.

is He Who said to His Wisdom: Let Us make man. And in His Wisdom, as in His own spirit, He Himself always rejoiced together. She is united indeed as a soul to God; but she is extended from Him as a hand fashioning the universe. One is He Who said to His Wisdom: Let Us make man. And in this Wisdom, as in His own spirit, He Himself always rejoiced together. She is united indeed to God as a soul: but from Him she is extended as a hand, producing the universe. Hence in these words of Homily 11, chapter 22: The spirit has the beginning of its ecstasy, where I think one should read extension, from God Who made all things: The Spirit has the beginning of its extension from God Who made all things. Water is said to have been made through the Only-begotten in book 7 of the Recognitions, chapter 8. See chapter 7 of the same book, and chapters 34 and 40 of book 8. From which it is clear that pseudo-Clement, although he was entangled in many remnants of Judaism, nevertheless held the same view as other ecclesiastical writers concerning the creation of the world through the Son; contrary to what pleases the Socinians, who pretend that this doctrine, utterly unknown to the circumcised Christians, was introduced by philosophers embracing the religion.

« Multis aliis rebus declaratur hujus scriptoris cum Catholicis verborum et sententiarum similitudo. Omnia nosse dicitur Christus homil. VIII, cap. 21. Solus animas illuminare posse, solus veritatem retegere, homil. II, cap. 4. Solus Patrem immutabiliter videre, hom. XVII, cap. 16. Τὸ γὰρ ἀτρέπτως Πατέρα ιδεῖν Υἱοῦ μόνου ἐστίν. Nam Patrem immutabiliter videre, solius Filii est. Eadem habent libri Recognitionum, praesertim lib. V, cap. 10, ubi haec legimus : Hic ergo est verus Propheta, qui in Judaea nobis apparuit, ut audistis : qui stans publice sola jussione faciebat caecos videre, surdos audire; fugabat daemones, aegris sanitatem reddebat, et mortuis vitam. Cumque nihil ei esset impossibile, etiam cogitationes hominum pervidebat : quod nulli est possibile, nisi soli Deo.

"By many other things is declared the similarity of words and sentiments of this writer with Catholics. Christ is said to know all things in Homily 8, chapter 21. Alone to be able to illuminate souls, alone to uncover the truth, in Homily 2, chapter 4. Alone to see the Father immutably, in Homily 17, chapter 16. For to see the Father immutably belongs to the Son alone. For to see the Father immutably belongs to the Son alone. The books of the Recognitions have the same things, especially book 5, chapter 10, where we read these words: This therefore is the true Prophet, Who appeared to us in Judaea, as you have heard: Who standing in public by His command alone made the blind to see, the deaf to hear; drove away demons, restored health to the sick, and life to the dead. And since nothing was impossible to Him, He also perceived the thoughts of men: which is possible to no one, save to God alone.

« Neque etiam illud principium praetermittendum est, quod huic scriptori cum caeteris scriptoribus ecclesiasticis commune est : deos coli non licere, etiamsi summi et omnipotentis Dei ministri dicantur; sed soli Patri, et Filio et Spiritui sancto hunc honorem deferendum : in quo quidem insaniae notam effugere non potest, si Filium et Spiritum sanctum in rebus creatis numerabat. Primum docet homil. X, cap. 15 et 16, et Recogn. lib. V, cap. 19. Alterum multis locis testatur. De cultu Patris et Filii sic loquitur Petrus lib. X Recognit. cap. 47 : Quid enim est in quo adversari praedicationi nostrae quis debeat? aut in quo contra veri honestique fidem sermo praedicationis nostrae deprehenditur? qui dicit honorandum esse Deum et Patrem omnium conditorem, ejusque Filium: qui solus eum et voluntatem ejus novit, cuique soli de omnibus credendum est quae praecepit : solus enim est lex et legislator et judex

"Nor again must that principle be passed over which is common to this writer with the other ecclesiastical writers: that it is not lawful for gods to be worshipped, even if they are called ministers of the supreme and almighty God; but that to the Father alone, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit is this honour to be paid: wherein indeed he cannot escape the brand of madness if he numbered the Son and the Holy Spirit among created things. The first point he teaches in Homily 10, chapters 15 and 16, and Recognitions, book 5, chapter 19. The second he attests in many places. Concerning the worship of the Father and the Son Peter speaks thus in book 10 of the Recognitions, chapter 47: For what is there in which anyone ought to oppose our preaching? or in what respect is the word of our preaching found contrary to faith in what is true and honourable? seeing that it says that God the Father and Creator of all things is to be honoured, and His Son, Who alone knows Him and His will, and Who alone is to be believed concerning all things which He has commanded: for He alone is the law and the lawgiver and the judge

Editors' notes and page, col. 17

Page

running head: 17 CLEMENTINA. — PROO
marginal letters: A ἐστιν ὁ τῇ; B lib. VIII. Ex quibus; C trem immutabiliter; D honorem deferendum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ἐστιν ὁ τῇ αὐτοῦ σοφίᾳ

PG 2:18

justus. Unum et eumdem cultum sanctissimae Trinitati adhiberi docent, quae leguntur homil. III, cap. 72 : Σοῦ γάρ ἐστιν δόξα αιώνιος, ὕμνος , Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, εἰς τοὺς σύμπαντας αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. Ad te enim pertinet aeterna gloria, laus, Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto, in omnia saecula. Amen. Hinc homil. IX, cap. 23, baptismus administrari dicitur : Τρισμακαρίᾳ ἐπονομασίᾳ, « Ter beata invocatione : » quod de tribus Personis intelligendum patet ex his verbis lib. I Recognit., cap. 63 : Ad ultimum autem, inquit Petrus, admonui eos, ut priusquam progrederemur ad gentes praedicare eis agnitionem Dei Patris, ipsi reconciliarentur Deo, suscipientes Filium ejus. Aliter enim nullo modo eos ostendi posse salvari, nisi per Spiritus sancti gratiam trinae invocationis dilui baptismate properarent.

that is just. That one and the same worship is paid to the most holy Trinity is taught by the words read in Homily 3, chapter 72: For Thine is eternal glory, praise, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, unto all ages. Amen. For to Thee belongs eternal glory, praise, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, unto all ages. Amen. Hence in Homily 9, chapter 23, baptism is said to be administered: By the thrice-blessed invocation, 'By the thrice-blessed invocation:' which is manifestly to be understood of the three Persons from these words of book 1 of the Recognitions, chapter 63: And finally, says Peter, I admonished them that, before we went forth to the Gentiles to preach to them the knowledge of God the Father, they themselves should be reconciled to God by receiving His Son. For otherwise I showed that in no way could they be saved, unless through the grace of the Holy Spirit they hastened to be washed with the baptism of the threefold invocation.

VI. « Ibidem Jesus vocatur Christus aeternus. Quod ut intelligatur, quam vim et sententiam habeat, observandum est ita Jesum vocari, ut opponatur Simoni qui se Christum et Stantem dictitabat. Ἀντὶ τοῦ ὄντως Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν ἑαυτὸν ἀναγορεύει. « Pro vero Christo nostro se ipsum praedicat, » inquit Aquila homil. II, cap. 22. Porro eo nomine majorem se mundi creatore, ibidem declarat. Cap. 24, sic quaerenti Do⟨s⟩itheo : Dic mihi, si tu es Stans, ut adorem te; respondet Simon : Ego sum; et statim Dositheus cecidit, et adoravit eum. Nicetas cap. 28, sic eumdem Simonem alloquitur : Deus esse non potes : time eum, qui vere Deus est. Similiter adoratur Simon, lib. II Recognit., cap. 11. In eodem libro, cap. 14, per ridiculum vocatur incorruptibilis Deus. Non dubium ergo quin pseudo-Clemens, cum Jesum verum et aeternum Christum esse contendit, omnia ei tribuat quae sibi Simon per summum nefas arrogabat.

VI. "In the same place Jesus is called the eternal Christ. That it may be understood what force and meaning this has, it must be observed that Jesus is so called in order to be opposed to Simon, who repeatedly called himself the Christ and the Standing One. Instead of our true Christ he proclaims himself. 'Instead of our true Christ he proclaims himself,' says Aquila in Homily 2, chapter 22. Furthermore, by that name he declares himself in the same place to be greater than the creator of the world. In chapter 24, when Dositheus asks thus: Tell me if you are the Standing One, so that I may worship you; Simon answers: I am; and immediately Dositheus fell down and worshipped him. Nicetas in chapter 28 addresses the same Simon thus: You cannot be God: fear Him Who is truly God. Similarly Simon is worshipped in book 2 of the Recognitions, chapter 11. In the same book, chapter 14, by way of ridicule he is called an incorruptible God. There is no doubt, therefore, that pseudo-Clement, when he maintains that Jesus is the true and eternal Christ, attributes to Him all the things that Simon by the height of wickedness arrogated to himself.

« Non dissimulandum est nonnulla his in libris occurrere quae de Christo dicta minus commode, et Rufino visa sunt Eunomii commentis simillima, et Epiphanium adduxerunt, ut Ebionitis a quibus hos libros interpolatos putabat, sententiam Arianae gemellam affingeret contra totius antiquitatis testimonium, imo contra suum ipsius, qui Christum ab Ebionitis simplicem hominem haberi declarat. Sed cum haec imitati sint Origenes, Methodius et Lactantius, erit tempus de his agendi magis opportunum, cum solvendis sanctorum Patrum difficilioribus locis operam dabimus.

"It must not be concealed that some things occur in these books which, being less fittingly spoken concerning Christ, both seemed to Rufinus very similar to the figments of Eunomius, and led Epiphanius to impute to the Ebionites, by whom he thought these books had been interpolated, a doctrine twin to the Arian, contrary to the testimony of all antiquity, nay, contrary to his own testimony, seeing that he declares that Christ was held by the Ebionites to be a mere man. But since Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius imitated these expressions, there will be a more opportune time for treating of them when we devote our labour to resolving the more difficult passages of the holy Fathers.

« Ex his autem quae attulimus, facile perspicitur hunc scriptorem non modo nihil habere quod Ebionitarum errorem redoleat, sed etiam de Filii aeternitate, omnipotentia et vera ex Patre generatione recte sentire. Quare quae de Nazaraeis Justinus, Hieronymus et Augustinus testantur, eos nimirum Filii divinitatem agnovisse; ea quis in dubium revocet, cum et tantis auctoribus nitantur, et in scriptore legis observationem audacter docente

"Now from these things which we have adduced, it is easily perceived that this writer not only has nothing that savours of the error of the Ebionites, but also thinks rightly concerning the eternity of the Son, His omnipotence, and His true generation from the Father. Wherefore the things which Justin, Jerome, and Augustine attest concerning the Nazarenes, namely that they acknowledged the divinity of the Son—who would call those things into doubt, when they both rest upon such great authorities, and in a writer boldly teaching the observance of the law

Editors' notes and page, col. 18

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: Nazaraeis Justinus› · call in col 18

Justin., Dial. cap. 47.

Justin, Dialogue, chapter 47.

(printed under page 6)

(17) ‹anchor: Hieronymus› · call in col 18

Hieron., Epist. 80, ad August.

Jerome, Letter 80, to Augustine.

(printed under page 6)

(18) ‹anchor: et Augustinus› · call in col 18

August., lib. De haeres.

Augustine, book On Heresies.

(printed under page 6)

Page

running head: ENTINA. — PROOEMIA. 18
marginal letters: A justus. Unum; B Spiritus sancti; C Deus esse non potes; D Sed cum haec
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: justus. Unum et eumdem; ends with word fragment do- split across column break

PG 2:19

et praedicante, conceptis verbis legantur? Praeter legis observationem et fidem in Christum Deum, illud etiam huic scriptori cum Nazaraeis commune est, quod Pharisaeos acriter interdum insectatur, ut homil. XI, capp. 28 et 29 et Recognit. lib. I, cap. 54. » Huc usque doctissimus Maranus.

and preaching, are read in set terms? Besides the observance of the law and faith in Christ as God, this writer also has this in common with the Nazaraeans, that he sometimes sharply attacks the Pharisees, as in Homily 11, Chapters 28 and 29, and Recognitions Book 1, Chapter 54." Thus far the most learned Maranus.

VII. Unum tamen est, quod hic moneamus. Nimirum, sub harum disquisitionum initium opinatus est V. C. Recognitionum et Homiliarum unum et idem opus esse, sed non semel editum, quod pridem insinuaverat Cotelerius ac post annum 170 litteris traditum. Verum antequam haec describeremus, de Recognitionibus jam fuerat nobis demonstratum, illas demum scripto non fuisse consignatas ante annum 216. Clementinorum autem auctorem circa annum Christi 250 floruisse, cum Joanne Millio existimabamus, qui ejus Homilias editas fuisse censet sub idem tempus quo suam Harmoniam perscribebat Ammonius Alexandrinus. Caeterum Cotelerii editionem typis excudendam curavimus. Notis Cotelerianis ea passim intexuimus quae animadvertit eruditus Davisius, ad textum potissimum emendandum comparata : paucula etiam ex Joanne Clerico adjecimus : utraque vero ex iterata Patrum Apostolicorum editione Amstaelodamensi desumpsimus. Epistolae sub Clementis nomine Jacobo inscriptae Graecum exemplar stitimus inter duplicem versionem, alteram Rufini, alteram Cotelerii : eique praeterea nonnullas doctissimi Coutantii adnotationes ex ejus Epistolis Romanorum pontificum subjecimus : qui et illud observat, eamdem Epistolam, postquam a Rufino Latinitate donata est, quibusdam antiquis Canonum collectionibus insertam fuisse. Hinc haud miratur, illam anno 441 a concilio Vasensi I, can. 16, ac subinde a Nicolao I, Joanne VIII, aliisque Clementis nomine fuisse laudatam : qua quidem in re adnotanda praeiverat Cotelerius.

VII. There is, however, one thing of which we should give notice here. Namely, near the beginning of these disquisitions the distinguished man was of the opinion that the Recognitions and the Homilies are one and the same work, though published more than once, as Cotelerius had long ago suggested, and that it was committed to writing after the year 170. Yet before we transcribed these things, it had already been demonstrated by us concerning the Recognitions that they were after all not committed to writing before the year 216. Moreover, we considered along with John Mill that the author of the Clementines flourished around the year of Christ 250, who judges that his Homilies were published around the same time at which Ammonius of Alexandria was writing out his Harmony. For the rest, we have seen to having the edition of Cotelerius printed. Into the notes of Cotelerius we have woven here and there the observations of the learned Davies, prepared chiefly for emending the text; we have also added a very few things from Jean Le Clerc; and both of these we have taken from the second Amsterdam edition of the Apostolic Fathers. Of the Epistle inscribed to James under the name of Clement, we have placed the Greek text between a double translation, the one of Rufinus, the other of Cotelerius; and to it we have furthermore subjoined some annotations of the most learned Coustant from his Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, who also observes this, that the same Epistle, after it was rendered into Latin by Rufinus, was inserted into certain ancient collections of Canons. Hence he does not wonder that in the year 441 it was cited under the name of Clement by the First Council of Vaison, canon 16, and subsequently by Nicholas I, John VIII, and others; in noting which matter Cotelerius had indeed led the way.

CLEMENTIS ROMANI

OF CLEMENT OF ROME

QUAE FERUNTUR

THE SO-CALLED

HOMILIAE VIGINTI

TWENTY HOMILIES

NUNC PRIMUM INTEGRAE.

NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME COMPLETE.

Textum ad codicem Ottobonianum constituit, versionem Cotelerii passim correxit, eamque absolvit, selectas virorum doctorum notas suasque subjunxit Albertus Rud. Max. DRESSEL, phil. Dr.

Albert Rud. Max. Dressel, Ph.D., established the text according to the Ottobonian codex, corrected the version of Cotelerius throughout and completed it, and subjoined selected notes of learned men together with his own.

(GOTTINGAE, SUMPTIBUS LIBRARIAE DIETERICHIANAE. MDCCCLIII, in-8°.)

(Göttingen, at the expense of the Dieterich Bookstore, 1853, in octavo.)

LECTURIS S.

GREETINGS TO THE READERS.

Editors' notes and page, col. 19

Footnotes

(19) ‹anchor: editas fuisse censet› · call in col 19

Mill., Prolegom. ad N. T. Gr., § 670.

Mill, Prolegomena to the Greek New Testament, § 670.

(printed under page 7)

(20) ‹anchor: Coutantii adnotationes› · call in col 20 (col 20's text is set under col 19)

Coutant., Append. ad Epistt. Rom. pontif., p. 5, § ‹tail beyond the image edge; not read›

Coustant, Appendix to the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 5, § ‹not read›

(printed under page 7)