PG 9:1437DISSERTATIO TERTIA
THIRD DISSERTATION
De aliis Clementis Alexandrini operibus, sive veris, sive falsis, editis et ineditis, ac de iis quae ille scripturum se esse promiserat, et de variis chronologiis ab illo repraesentatis.
On the other works of Clement of Alexandria, whether genuine or spurious, published and unpublished, and on those which he had promised that he would write, and on the various chronologies set out by him.
De libro qui octavus Stromatum inscribitur.
On the book which is entitled the eighth of the Stromata.
Analysis hujus libri.
Analysis of this book.
Auctor hujus libri manifestum omnibus facit antiquissimos philosophos, quemadmodum Christianos, veram philosophiam profitentes, ab omni contentione et dubitatione, sive a litigiosi ac dubii semperque ancipitis animi vitio fuisse prorsus alienos. Contra vero juniores, uti ille ait, philosophi vana laudis cupiditate inducti, ad inutiles nugas tam alios fallendo quam digladiando feruntur. At Christiani, rejecta omni contentione, veritatem ex sacris Scripturis, interrogando et respondendo, propter honestum finem quaerentes, non eam tantummodo, sed et scientiam consequuntur.
The author of this book makes it plain to all that the most ancient philosophers, like the Christians who profess the true philosophy, were wholly free from all contention and doubt, that is, from the vice of a quarrelsome, doubtful and ever-wavering mind. On the other hand the later philosophers, as he says, led on by a vain desire of praise, are carried away into useless trifles, as much by deceiving others as by fighting it out with them. But the Christians, having cast away all contention, seeking the truth from the sacred Scriptures by asking and answering, for an honourable end, attain not only it but knowledge as well.
Tum deinde auctor noster paucis explicat, qua ratione et methodo ad veram ejus, quod quaeritur, demonstrationem pervenire possimus. Primo itaque scire, inquit ille, debemus quid nomen et oratio, seu de re quaerenda propositio significent. Secundo quaerendum an illud revera exsistat, quod sermone seu propositione enuntiatur. Tertio investigandum qualis sit ejus natura, et utrum datum superet ordinem. Si autem nulla sit de his controversia, sed unanimis omnium consensus, illud constitui debet doctrinae principium. Quod quidem ille proposito solis exemplo planius demonstrare conatur.
Then next our author explains in a few words by what reasoning and method we can arrive at a true demonstration of that which is sought. First, then, he says, we must know what the name and the statement, that is, the proposition concerning the thing to be sought, signify. Secondly, it must be asked whether that which is expressed by the statement or proposition really exists. Thirdly, it must be investigated what its nature is, and whether it exceeds the given order. But if there is no controversy about these things, but the unanimous consent of all, that ought to be established as the principle of teaching. This indeed he tries to demonstrate more plainly by setting forth the example of the sun.
Duplicem vero dicit esse sicut fidem, cognitionem, ac praescientiam, ita et demonstrationem. Una siquidem tantum est ex spe et opinione; altera vero ex scientia profluit, atque idcirco stabilis est, firma ac proprie dicta demonstratio. Cum autem indicatio et syllogismus hoc inter se differant, quod indicatio unum tantummodo denotet, syllogismus vero ex duabus praemissis propositionibus tertiam inferat, hinc sane fit, ut si hae certae et verae fuerint, tunc sit demonstratio: secus vero ratiocinatio duntaxat erit.
He says, moreover, that just as faith, knowledge and foreknowledge are twofold, so also is demonstration. For the one is only from hope and opinion; but the other flows from knowledge, and is therefore a stable, firm and properly so-called demonstration. And since indication and syllogism differ from each other in this, that indication denotes only one thing, while the syllogism infers a third proposition from two premised propositions, it certainly follows from this that if these are certain and true, then there is a demonstration; but otherwise it will be merely a reasoning.
Quia tamen philosophi profitentur esse quaedam principia, quae non possunt demonstrari, inde auctor noster concludit omnem demonstrationem ad fidem, quae demonstrari nequit, reapse reduci. Sed post haec alia ,sunt, ait ille, principia demonstrationum, quae ex sensu et intelligentia evidenter apparent. Quocirca si quae oratio ex iis, quae sunt credibilia, possit ea, quae nondum sunt probabilia, recte probare, hanc οὐσίαν ἀποδείξεως, « essentiam demonstrationis » dicimus. Quando vero ex iis, quae demonstrata sunt, ad ea quae per se sunt credibilia atque intelligentia et sensu plane evidentia recurrimus, tunc id resolutio vocatur.
Since, however, the philosophers profess that there are certain principles which cannot be demonstrated, our author concludes from this that every demonstration is in fact brought back to faith, which cannot be demonstrated. But after these, he says, there are other principles of demonstrations, which appear evidently from sense and understanding. Therefore if any statement can rightly prove, from things that are credible, those things that are not yet proved, we call this οὐσίαν ἀποδείξεως, "the essence of demonstration". But when from things that have been demonstrated we go back to those that are credible of themselves and plainly evident to understanding and sense, then that is called resolution.
Ex quibus auctor rursus colligit ei, qui aliquid demonstrare vult, maximam de propositionum veritate
From which the author again gathers that one who wishes to demonstrate anything must take the greatest care about the truth of the propositions,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1437
Footnotes
(25) ‹anchor: facit› · call in col 1437
Strom. l. VIII, p. 768.
Stromata, book VIII, p. 768.
(26) ‹anchor: uti ille ait› · call in col 1437
p. 769.
p. 769.
(27) ‹anchor: Tertio› · call in col 1437
p. 770.
p. 770.
(28) ‹anchor: inter se differant› · call in col 1437
p. 771.
p. 771.
(29) ‹anchor: Quando vero ex iis› · call in col 1437
p. 772.
p. 772.
Page
- running head: 1437 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER.
- marginal letters: B cundo quaerendum; C Quia tamen
- old-edition numerals: 333 before ARTICULUS I.
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ARTICULUS I.; full-width lines at top of page across cols 1437-1438 not set (DISSERTATIO TERTIA / De aliis Clementis Alexandrini operibus... / CAPUT PRIMUM. / De libro qui octavus Stromatum inscribitur.); word split at column break: ve-
- running head: 1437 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1438
- marginal letters: A ‹ARTICULUS I.› (level of the column's first line); B ‹cundo quaerendum an illud revera›; C ‹Quia tamen philosophi profitentur›; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 333 before ARTICULUS I.
esse debere curam, minime vero de nominibus. Veras autem debet semper assumere propositiones, et consequentem ex iis conclusionem elicere. Caeterum ante id, quod quaeritur, est aliquid prius, quod sine ulla creditur demonstratione, et inde ad aliorum inquisitionem procedendum est.
but by no means about the names. He must always take true propositions, and draw from them the consequent conclusion. Moreover, before that which is sought there is something prior, which is believed without any demonstration, and from there one must proceed to the inquiry into the rest.
Atque ut ab omnibus clarius intelligatur quomodo observandae sint hae omnes demonstrationum regulae, eas auctor noster ad hanc propositionem: « Utrum fetus, qui in utero gestatur, sit animal, » demonstrandam singulatim adhibet. Et id quidem ille postquam fuse prosecutus est, inde concludit demonstrationem esse orationem, quae unum probat ex aliis, quorum principium illud ponitur, quod sensu et intelligentia evidens est. Ex his quoque prima demonstratio fit, atque aliae deinceps, quae prima demonstratio amplius dici non possunt.
And so that it may be understood more clearly by all how all these rules of demonstrations are to be observed, our author applies them one by one to demonstrating this proposition: "Whether the foetus which is carried in the womb is a living being." And after he has pursued this at length, he concludes from it that demonstration is a statement which proves one thing from others, whose principle is laid down to be that which is evident to sense and understanding. From these, too, the first demonstration is made, and others in succession, which can no longer be called the first demonstration.
Postquam autem ille dixit non plura unius generis, sed diversorum tantummodo generum esse principia, tunc Pyrrhoniorum refellit opinionem, qua ab eis statuta erat ἐποχή, id est assensionis retentio, seu ille error, quo nihil prorsus certum, sed omnia esse dubia et incerta somniaverant. Fatetur nihilominus nonnunquam assensionem merito retineri, aut propter mentis imbecillitatem, aut obscuritatem ipsiusmet rei, aut paris aequalisque roboris argumenta. Atque ibi in Graeco-Latinis Clementinorum Operum editionibus prima hujus libri pars desinit.
But after he has said that there are not several principles of one genus, but only principles of different genera, he then refutes the opinion of the Pyrrhonists, by which they had established ἐποχή, that is, the withholding of assent, or that error by which they had dreamed that nothing at all is certain, but that all things are doubtful and uncertain. He admits nevertheless that assent is sometimes rightly withheld, either on account of the weakness of the mind, or the obscurity of the thing itself, or arguments of like and equal strength. And there, in the Greek-Latin editions of Clement's Works, the first part of this book ends.
In parte II auctor exponit quid ante definitiones, divisiones, demonstrationes fieri debeat, quid ad illas conferat inductio, quomodo ex divisione fiat definitio, ac per inductionem ex singularibus universale colligatur. Dehinc ille patefacit quid inductio, divisio, demonstratio et definitio efficiant. Quoniam autem scientia est, cum rei causa cognoscitur, idcirco quadruplicem ostendit esse causam, nimirum materiam, efficientem, formam, et finem.
In part II the author sets out what ought to be done before definitions, divisions and demonstrations, what induction contributes to them, how definition is made from division, and how the universal is gathered from particulars by induction. Next he makes plain what induction, division, demonstration and definition effect. And since there is knowledge when the cause of a thing is known, he therefore shows that cause is fourfold, namely the matter, the efficient, the form, and the end.
Assumpto subinde hominis exemplo, planum ille facit definitionem ex rei ipsius genere, et ultima illius differentia constitui. Divisionem vero esse triplicem, generis in species, totius in partes, ac tandem rei ipsiusmet in sua accidentia; sed primam tantum esse proprie dictam divisionem. Quamvis autem variae sint species, aut pluribus communes, aut quibusdam magis propriae; unaquaeque tamen rei constituit characterem et naturam, aut, ut aiunt, essentiam. Quamobrem qui alicujus rei habet scientiam, illius dabit et definitionem: vice vero versa, qui definitionem rei cujusdam ignorat, nunquam illius scientiam habebit. At in definitionibus singularis cujuslibet
Then, taking the example of man, he makes it plain that a definition is constituted from the genus of the thing itself and from its last difference. Division, he says, is threefold: of the genus into species, of the whole into parts, and finally of the thing itself into its accidents; but only the first is properly called division. And although the species are various, either common to several things or more proper to certain ones, yet each of them constitutes the character and nature, or, as they say, the essence of the thing. Wherefore he who has knowledge of any thing will also give its definition; and conversely, he who does not know the definition of some thing will never have knowledge of it. But in the definitions of any particular
Editors' notes and page, col. 1438
Footnotes
(30) ‹anchor: demonstrandam singulatim adhibet› · call in col 1438
p. 773 et seq.
p. 773 and following.
(31) ‹anchor: fuse prosecutus est› · call in col 1438
p. 775.
p. 775.
(32) ‹anchor: Postquam autem› · call in col 1438
p. 776 et seq.
p. 776 and following.
(33) ‹anchor: auctor exponit› · call in col 1438
p. 778.
p. 778.
(34) ‹anchor: Assumpto subinde› · call in col 1438
p. 779.
p. 779.
(35) ‹anchor: Divisionem vero› · call in col 1438
p. 780.
p. 780.
<!-- NOTE: the numerals of the first two notes are read as 25 and 26 from the sequence (the second prints like ²⁶); their calls stand above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 718)
Page
- running head: DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1438
- marginal letters: A ritate esse; B Postquam autem; C causam, nimirum
- old-edition numerals: 334 after aut
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ritate esse; full-width lines at top of page across cols 1437-1438 not set; word split at column break: -ritate
- running head: 1437 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1438
- marginal letters: A ‹ritate esse debere curam›; B ‹Postquam autem ille dixit›; C ‹causam, nimirum materiam›; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 334 after ‹aut pluribus communes, aut›
rei proprietas, quemadmodum in homine ridendi potestas, locum signi potius obtinet, quam illius naturam demonstrat. Perspicue vero auctor noster ostendit varias esse definitiones, alias quidem generales, ex decem praedicamentis desumptas, alias vero minores, alias denique minimas.
thing the property, just as in man the power of laughing, holds the place of a sign rather than demonstrates its nature. And our author clearly shows that definitions are various, some indeed general, taken from the ten predicaments, others lesser, and others finally least.
Ibi autem iterum monet praecipuas, cur assensio retineatur, causas esse mentis humanae inconstantiam et mutabilitatem, ac rerum diversitatem et discrepantiam; atque inde in rebus humanis judicia, et curas, ac varias etiam philosophorum opiniones oriri.
And there again he warns that the principal causes why assent is withheld are the inconstancy and mutability of the human mind, and the diversity and discrepancy of things; and that thence in human affairs judgements, and anxieties, and also the various opinions of philosophers arise.
Rursus etiam in voce tria esse ait, nomina, cogitata, ac res nominibus significatas. Cum autem infinita sint nomina, atque idcirco scientia dari nulla posset, grammatici illa prorsus omnia ad viginti quatuor elementa reduxerunt.
Again also he says that in speech there are three things: names, thoughts, and things signified by names. And since names are infinite, and on that account no scientific knowledge could be given, the grammarians reduced them all altogether to twenty-four elements.
Ex iis autem, quae nominibus et verbis exprimuntur, aliqua cum connexione dicuntur, et perfectam efficiunt orationem. Alia vero sine connexione proferuntur, quemadmodum decem praedicamenta, quae sub materiam cadunt, et ex quibus unum tantummodo ad aliud dicitur ac refertur. Ea porro quae materia carent, mente tantummodo, et per primam illius applicationem comprehendi possunt. Quaecunque vero sub praedicamentis collocantur, ea sunt vel synonyma, vel heteronyma, vel polyonyma, vel denominativa, vel homonyma : quae quidem auctor noster sigillatim definit et explicat.
Moreover, of those things which are expressed by nouns and verbs, some are spoken with connexion, and make a complete sentence. Others, however, are uttered without connexion, just like the ten predicaments, which fall under matter, and of which one only is spoken of and referred to another. Furthermore, those things which lack matter can be comprehended by the mind only, and through its primary application. And whatever things are placed under the predicaments are either synonyms, or heteronyms, or polyonyms, or denominatives, or homonyms: which indeed our author singly defines and explains.
Inde ad explanationem venit causarum, quarum, uti ille loquitur, aliae dictae sunt procataracticae, aliae vero synecticae, adjuvantes, et sine quibus non. Singulis autem ex ordine explicatis, solas synecticas, seu efficientes, proprie dictas causas esse concludit.
Thence he comes to the explanation of causes, of which, as he speaks, some are called procatarctic, and others synectic, auxiliary, and sine qua non. And having explained each one in order, he concludes that the synectic, or efficient, alone are causes properly so called.
Tum vero ipse expendit utrum causae sint corporeae, ut quidam volunt, vel, ut aliis placet, incorporeae. Postea probat ejusdem effectus esse aliquando plures causas, aut remotas, aut proximas, et has esse vere et proprie causas, quemadmodum id quod aliquid prohibet, illius dicitur causa, minime vero id quod non prohibet. Quatuor autem, ut ille repetit, sunt causae, efficiens, materia, forma et finis. Illud etiam, pergit ipse, sine quo res non fit, est illius quidem causa, non tamen proprie dicta, sed adjuvans. Causa vero synectica, seu efficiens, ad operandum tunc tempore non indiget, quando illud in quod agit, et aptum invenerit, et dispositum. Ita etiam causae quaedam procataracticae egent tempore, quo aliae opus non habent.
Then indeed he himself considers whether causes are corporeal, as some maintain, or, as pleases others, incorporeal. Afterwards he proves that of the same effect there are sometimes several causes, either remote or proximate, and that these are truly and properly causes, just as that which prevents something is called its cause, but by no means that which does not prevent it. Moreover, as he repeats, there are four causes: efficient, matter, form, and end. That also, he continues, without which a thing is not done is indeed a cause of it, yet not properly so called, but auxiliary. The synectic or efficient cause, however, does not need time for operating when it finds that upon which it acts both fit and disposed. So also certain procatarctic causes need time, of which others have no need.
Planum subinde auctor noster facit idem non posse sui ipsius esse causam, nec causas sui ipsius esse causas, sed plures, imo et contrarios esse posse unius ejusdemque causae effectus. Interea ille aperit quam variae et multiplices sint causae obscurae, ac rursus de procataracticis, synecticis, concausis, adjuvantibus, secundum naturam, et, ut aiunt, accidentalibus et occasionalibus disputat. Denique discrimine, quod inter concausam et causam adjuvantem intercedit, patefacto, finem libro suo imponit.
Next our author makes it plain that the same thing cannot be the cause of itself, nor can causes be the causes of themselves, but that the effects of one and the same cause can be several, nay even contrary. Meanwhile he discloses how varied and manifold are obscure causes, and disputes again concerning procatarctic, synectic, joint causes, auxiliary, natural, and, as they say, accidental and occasional causes. Finally, having made clear the distinction which exists between a joint cause and an auxiliary cause, he puts an end to his book.
Hunc tractatum non esse octavum Clementis Alexandrini Stromatum librum, nec eum esse integrum, ac plane incorruptum.
That this treatise is not the eighth book of the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, nor is it entire and wholly uncorrupted.
Observatum a nobis fuit Clementem in fine septimi Stromatum libri spopondisse, fore ut alium scriberet, qui octavus procul dubio Stromatum liber dici debuit. Utrum vero ille fidem suam liberaverit, et hunc revera composuerit librum, ac tandem utrum hic, cujus analysim exhibuimus, vel alius
It has been observed by us that Clement at the end of the seventh book of the Stromata promised that he would write another, which without doubt ought to be called the eighth book of the Stromata. Whether, however, he fulfilled his promise and really composed this book, and finally whether this one, the analysis of which we have presented, or another
Editors' notes and page, col. 1439
Footnotes
(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1439
Strom. l. VIII, p. 781.
Stromata, book VIII, p. 781.
(37) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1439
p. 782.
p. 782.
(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1439
p. 783.
p. 783.
(39) ‹anchor: Tum vero ipse expendit› · call in col 1439
p. 784.
p. 784.
(40) ‹anchor: ut ille repetit› · call in col 1439
p. 785.
p. 785.
(41) ‹anchor: auctor noster facit› · call in col 1439
p. 786.
p. 786.
(42) ‹anchor: Interea ille aperit› · call in col 1439
p. 787, etc.
p. 787, etc.
Page
- running head: 1439 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III.
- marginal letters: A rei proprietas; B nexione proferuntur; C has esse; D ut aiunt
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: rei proprietas
sit octavus Stromatum liber, a nobis more nostro examinandum est.
be the eighth book of the Stromata, must be examined by us in our usual manner.
Ac primo quidem Clementem promissis satisfecisse, octavumque Stromatum librum edidisse, haud plane incerto tam Eusebii, quam Hieronymi, Photii et aliorum testimonio probari posse multis procul dubio videbitur. Nam haec sunt de illo ipsissima Eusebii verba : « Quod ad Clementem attinet, exstant ejus octo Στρωματέων libri. » At doctus ille vir tanta confidentia hos octo libros suo tempore exstare non asseveraret, nisi octavum, quemadmodum septem alios priores Stromatum libros suismet oculis vidisset pervolutassetque. Eusebio hunc in modum subscripsit Hieronymus : « Feruntur ejus (Clementis) insignia volumina ..... e quibus illa sunt, Στρωματεῖς libri octo. » Denique, ut alios omittamus, Photius apertissime tradidit se « in perveteri exemplari » reperisse totidem Stromatum Clementinorum libros.
And first indeed, that Clement fulfilled his promises and published an eighth book of the Stromata will without doubt seem to many capable of being proved by the by no means uncertain testimony as well of Eusebius as of Jerome, Photius, and others. For these are the very words of Eusebius concerning him: "As far as pertains to Clement, there are extant his eight books of Στρωματέων." Now that learned man would not assert with such great confidence that these eight books were extant in his time unless he had seen and perused with his own eyes the eighth, just like the seven other prior books of the Stromata. To Eusebius Jerome subscribed in this manner: "There are circulated notable volumes of his (Clement's) ..... among which are those, eight books of Στρωματεῖς." Finally, to omit others, Photius most openly handed down that he found "in a very ancient copy" just as many books of the Clementine Stromata.
Quod autem octavus horumce Stromatum liber is sit, de quo disputamus, inde profecto probari posse quidam existimabant, quia ille, teste eodem Photio, in quibusdam, ut ait, codicibus : « Stromateus octavus, ut et reliqui septem libri, inscribitur, et incipit : Sed neque philosophi antiquissimi, quaeque sequuntur. » Atqui in Clementinorum Operum editionibus idem plane est hujusce libri titulus, idemque initium. Ex quibus haud absurde colligi posse videtur jam a longo tempore, et ante Photii aetatem persuasum plures habuisse hunc revera fuisse octavum eorumdem Clementis Stromatum librum, ac pro genuino illius fetu revera habendum.
Moreover, that the eighth book of these Stromata is that concerning which we are disputing, some supposed could assuredly be proved from this, because according to the testimony of the same Photius, in certain codices, as he says, it "is entitled the eighth Stromateus, just as the remaining seven books also, and begins: But neither the most ancient philosophers, and the things that follow." And yet in the editions of the Clementine Works the title of this book is plainly the same, and the beginning is the same. From which it seems capable of being gathered not absurdly that already for a long time, and before the age of Photius, many held it as persuaded that this was in reality the eighth book of the same Stromata of Clement, and was in reality to be held as his genuine offspring.
Verum quamvis idem, atque in editis, hujus libri et titulus et initium a Photio repraesentetur; non ideo tamen certum esse debet ea, quae Photius post prima ipsius verba in codice suo legerat, eadem omnino fuisse, atque illa, quae in vulgatis Clementis nostri Operibus nunc leguntur. Etenim ipsemet Photius iis, quae a nobis citata sunt, verbis haec continuo subjunxit : « Stromatum autem liber hic alicubi non sana tradit, non tamen ut Hypotyposes. Nam multa etiam, quae ibi dicta fuerunt, oppugnat. » Quibus ille verbis significat quaedam in eo libro, sicut in Clementis Hypotyposibus occurrisse, quae sanae orthodoxaeque fidei nostrae dogmatibus repugnabant : alia vero, quibus nonnulli errores, in Hypotyposibus dispersi impugnabantur. At in eo, de quo agitur, libro nihil quod ad Christianam religionem, aut pro illius doctrina, aut contra eam faciat, plane penitusque legimus. Et vero ex sola, quam dedimus, illius analysi manifestum omnibus fiet, nihil prorsus, nisi quod ad logicam et dialecticam spectat, in illo tractari. Nihil itaque liber a Photio pervolutatus, cum eo, qui Graecis Latinisque typis editus est, aliud sibi commune habuisse videtur, nisi prooemium, seu praefationem, quae ea tantummodo complectitur, quibus auctor de demonstrationis ratione ac methodo disputare incipit.
Yet although both the title and the beginning of this book are presented by Photius as the same as in the printed editions, nevertheless it ought not on that account to be certain that the things which Photius had read in his codex after its first words were altogether the same as those which are now read in the published Works of our Clement. For Photius himself immediately subjoined to those words which have been cited by us these things: "Moreover, this book of the Stromata in some places hands down unsound things, yet not as the Hypotyposes do. For it also attacks many things which were said there." By which words he signifies that certain things occurred in that book, just as in the Hypotyposes of Clement, which were repugnant to the dogmas of our sound and orthodox faith: and other things by which some errors scattered in the Hypotyposes were attacked. But in the book of which we are treating, we read plainly and utterly nothing that makes for the Christian religion, either for its doctrine or against it. And indeed from the analysis alone of it which we have given it will become manifest to all that nothing at all, except what pertains to logic and dialectic, is treated in it. Nothing else therefore does the book perused by Photius seem to have had in common with that which has been published in Greek and Latin print except the prologue, or preface, which comprises those things only with which the author begins to dispute concerning the reason and method of demonstration.
Quoquo autem modo res se habuerit, nobis sane certum omnino perspicuumque esse apparet hanc, de qua agimus, commentationem nec esse, nec dici unquam posse octavum Clementis nostri Stromatum librum. Neque enim ab hac solum Stromatum inscriptione et titulo, sed ab ipso etiam, quo Clemens noster Stromata sua scripsit, modo, atque ab illius scopo et fine penitus abhorret. Constat siquidem, ut a nobis supra demonstratum est, nomen Stromatum aliis septem libris ideo ab illo fuisse praefixum, ut eos variis dogmatibus hic et illic inspersis, nulloque certo ordine digestis, compositos esse significaret. Deinde vero ille, uti etiam diximus,
However the matter may have stood, to us indeed it appears to be altogether certain and clear that this treatise of which we are dealing neither is, nor can ever be called, the eighth book of the Stromata of our Clement. For it is utterly abhorrent not only from this inscription and title of Stromata, but also from the very manner in which our Clement wrote his Stromata, and from his aim and end. Since it is established, as has been demonstrated by us above, that the name of Stromata was prefixed by him to the other seven books for this reason, that he might signify that they were composed of various dogmas scattered here and there, and arranged in no fixed order. And next he, as we have also said,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1440
Footnotes
(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1440
l. VI Hist., p. 13, p. 214.
Book VI of the History, p. 13, p. 214.
(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1440
De script. eccles., § 48.
On Ecclesiastical Writers, § 48.
(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1440
Bibl. cod. 140, pag. 287.
Library, codex 140, page 287.
(46) ‹anchor: supra demonstratum est› · call in col 1440
dissert. super., c. 2, art. 2.
the dissertation above, ch. 2, art. 2.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 36–38 and 43–45 stand above the rendered foot. The call at "expendit" prints faintly (like ³⁸); assigned 39 by sequence. Note 45's codex number reads "140" on the scan (Photius's notice of the Stromata is cod. 111); kept as seen, check the page. --> (printed under page 719)
Page
- running head: IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1440
- marginal letters: A sit octavus; B Quod autem; C semet Photius; D tur, quibus
- old-edition numerals: 335 after videtur,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sit octavus; word split at column break: dixi-
- other: the word diximus, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1441
ne in iisdem libris sacra nostrae religionis mysteria Christianis exponendo, paganis patefaceret, eorum explanationem cum ethnicorum dogmatum explicatione permiscuit, sermonesque suos intersecavit, ac data opera, a proposito saepe saepius digressus est. Denique non alius Clementis, sicuti adhuc vidimus, in scribendis Stromatum libris finis et scopus fuit, quam ut Christianis veram et orthodoxam demonstraret religionis nostrae doctrinam, ac summam, ad quam contendere semper debent, illius perfectionem. Atqui nihil plane ex iis omnibus in hoc pseudo-octavo Stromatum libro reperitur : sed logicae tantum, seu dialecticae, ut diximus, est tractatus, qui non magis ad Christianos quam paganos et alios quoslibet homines spectat et pertinet.
in order that in the same books in expounding the sacred mysteries of our religion to Christians he might not lay them open to pagans, mingled the explanation of them with the explication of pagan dogmas, and intersected his discourses, and on purpose digressed very often from his subject. Finally, there was no other end and aim of Clement, just as we have hitherto seen, in writing the books of the Stromata than that he might demonstrate to Christians the true and orthodox doctrine of our religion, and its supreme perfection, towards which they ought always to strive. And yet plainly nothing of all these things is found in this pseudo-eighth book of the Stromata: but it is a treatise of logic only, or dialectic, as we have said, which looks and pertains no more to Christians than to pagans and any other men whatsoever.
Visne et ex iis, quae in hoc libro tractantur, illius falsitatem tibi adhuc evidentissime probari? Nobis sane id promptum et facile est. Hujus quippe libri auctor hanc quaestionem : « Annon sit animal fetus, qui gestatur in utero; » omnes versat in partes; ut manifestum inde lectori faciat quomodo propositae a se demonstrationum regulae ab omnibus observari debeant. At certe Clemens Alexandrinus non eo caecitatis, aut inconstantiae processisse credendus est, ut tanta arte et studio eam quaestionem, prae aliis innumeris, in octavo Stromatum suorum libro pro exemplo afferret, quam in quinto eorumdem Stromatum libro in quaestionum, de quibus, sicuti nos alibi diximus, a Christiano homine non movendarum exemplum proponit.
Do you wish also that from the things which are treated in this book its falsity should still be most evidently proved to you? To us indeed that is ready and easy. For the author of this book turns to all sides this question: "Whether the fetus which is carried in the womb is an animal or not;" that he may make manifest from this to the reader how the rules of demonstrations proposed by him ought to be observed by all. Yet certainly Clement of Alexandria is not to be believed to have proceeded to such a pitch of blindness or inconsistency that with such great art and study he would bring forward as an example in the eighth book of his Stromata, above innumerable others, that question which in the fifth book of the same Stromata he proposes as an example of questions which, just as we have said elsewhere, ought not to be raised by a Christian man.
Tractatus porro iste integer non videtur. Quamvis enim in Photii codicibus idem fuerit illius, atque in jam editis Clementis Operibus, initium, censent
Furthermore, this treatise does not seem to be entire. For although in the codices of Photius its beginning was the same as in the already published Works of Clement, they judge
De libro, Quis dives salutem consequi possit.
On the book, Who is the rich man that can attain salvation.
Analysis hujus libri.
Analysis of this book.
Ab ipso hujus libri exordio eos auctor pravos non solum adulatores, sed impios etiam, et insidiosos esse convincit, qui cum pestifero avaritiae ac superbiae divitum morbo mederi deberent, illum blandis fallacibusque obsequiis ac laudibus fovent, alunt, nutriunt et exasperant. Ad procurandam vero divitum salutem, doctrina, inquit, opus est quae fortem, optimum, justique tenacem animum postulat.
From the very beginning of this book the author proves those men to be not only depraved flatterers, but also impious and treacherous, who, when they ought to heal the pestiferous disease of avarice and pride of the rich, foster, nourish, feed, and exacerbate it with flattering and deceitful obsequiousness and praises. And for procuring the salvation of the rich, says he, there is need of a doctrine which demands a brave, most excellent soul, and one tenacious of justice.
Difficilior porro, uti ille pergit, divitum, quam egenorum salus ideo videbatur quia nonnulli auditis Christi verbis : « Facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum coelorum, » de futura locupletum salute plane desperabant. Alii vero haec Christi verba recte intelligentes, ea omnia negligebant, quae ad illam comparandam necessaria sunt. Quae quidem auctor iis a se dicta esse declarat, quibus virtus Christi et veritatis radius illuxit. Quapropter qui sincero fratrum amore tenetur, is Christi verba divitibus, neque petulantius insurgendo, neque blandius adulando, sic debet explicare; ut eos a coelestis regni haereditate repulsos non fuisse demonstret. Deinde vero probandum ipsi incumbit nullum iis, si Christi mandatis morem gesserint, esse timendi locum, ac bonis operibus promissam vitae aeternae coronam ab illis, sicut ab athletis labore et exercitatione palmam certaminis esse reportandam. Post haec Christum orat, ut eum sibi suggerat inspiretque
Furthermore, as he proceeds, the salvation of the rich seemed more difficult than that of the needy for this reason, because some, having heard the words of Christ: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," plainly despaired of the future salvation of the wealthy. Others, however, rightly understanding these words of Christ, neglected all those things which are necessary for acquiring it. Which things indeed the author declares to have been said by him for those upon whom the power of Christ and the ray of truth has shone. Wherefore he who is held by a sincere love of the brethren ought so to explain the words of Christ to the rich, neither rising up too petulantly nor flattering too smoothly, that he may demonstrate that they have not been repulsed from the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom. And next it is incumbent upon him to prove that there is no room for fear for them if they obey the commandments of Christ, and that the crown of eternal life promised to good works is to be won by them, just as the palm of the contest is won by athletes through labour and training. After these things he prays to Christ that He may suggest and inspire in him such a
Editors' notes and page, col. 1441
Footnotes
(47) ‹anchor: mus (first word of the column, tail of a word split from col 1440)› · call in col 1441
Dissert. super. c. 2, art. 2.
The dissertation above, ch. 2, art. 2.
(48) ‹anchor: adhuc vidimus› · call in col 1441
ibid.
ibid.
(49) ‹anchor: hanc quaestionem› · call in col 1441
Strom. l. VIII, p. 776.
Stromata, book VIII, p. 776.
(50) ‹anchor: omnes versat in partes› · call in col 1441
super. dissert., c. 23, art. 6.
The dissertation above, ch. 23, art. 6.
(51) ‹anchor: sicuti nos alibi diximus› · call in col 1441
ibid.
ibid.
(52) ‹anchor: hujus libri exordio› · call in col 1441
§ 1.
§ 1.
(53) ‹anchor: uti ille pergit› · call in col 1441
§ 2.
§ 2.
(54) ‹anchor: Quapropter› · call in col 1441
§ 3.
§ 3.
(55) ‹anchor: Post haec› · call in col 1441
§ 4.
§ 4.
Page
- running head: 1441 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER.
- marginal letters: A mus, ne; B mal fetus,; C Ab ipso; D veritatis radius
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: mus, ne; word split at column break: -mus; full-width heading CAPUT II. across cols 1441-1442
tamen aliqua ex eo fuisse excisa, quae ab auctore praetermitti non debuerant. Et certe in Graeco-Latinis ejus editionibus duas hic liber dividitur in partes, ac secundae parti hic titulus praefixus est : « Quaestionum principia et fines circa haec, et in his sunt. » Cur autem similis titulus priori parti non fuerit inscriptus, nulla sane vera certaque ratio proferri potest. Quod si respondeas et demonstres hanc epigraphen ex alicujus manu Graeca exarati codicis margine in textum fuisse intrusam, non repugnabimus quidem : sed non inde hujusce commentationis integritas ulli unquam probabitur. In Claromontano siquidem codice tota haec secunda pars, uti supra adnotavimus, omnino deest, nullumque illius in ea exstat vestigium. Nobis itaque facile persuadebitur hunc tractatum, in veteribus manuscriptis codicibus ab amanuensibus librariis, uti fieri solet, post septem Stromatum Clementis nostri libros fuisse ullo plane absque titulo transcriptum, ac postea illi ab aliis indoctis hominibus adjectam octavi Stromatum libri inscriptionem. Fatendum tamen est valde antiquum esse hunc errorem, et Photii forsitan tempore, id est, decimo Ecclesiae saeculo vetustiorem. At illud profecto non inde minus, imo vero eo majus, quo antiquius, erratum et mendum dici debet.
nevertheless that some things have been cut out from it which ought not to have been omitted by the author. And certainly in the Graeco-Latin editions of it this book is divided into two parts, and to the second part this title is prefixed: "The beginnings and ends of questions are about these things, and in these things." Why, however, a similar title was not inscribed upon the prior part, no true and certain reason at all can be brought forward. And if you should answer and demonstrate that this inscription was intruded into the text from the margin of some codex written by hand in Greek, we shall not indeed oppose it: yet not from that will the integrity of this treatise ever be proved to anyone. Since in the Clermont codex this whole second part, as we have noted above, is altogether wanting, and no trace of it is extant therein. We shall therefore easily be persuaded that this treatise, in ancient manuscript codices, was transcribed by copyist scribes, as usually happens, after the seven books of the Stromata of our Clement without any title at all, and that afterwards the inscription of the eighth book of the Stromata was added to it by other unlearned men. Yet it must be confessed that this error is very ancient, and perhaps older than the time of Photius, that is, the tenth century of the Church. But assuredly it ought not on that account to be called a lesser, nay rather all the greater a mistake and fault the more ancient it is.
Quamobrem Photius asseverare non ausus est hanc scriptionem esse reipsa octavum Stromatum librum. Nos enim ille tantummodo admonuit hunc librum in quibusdam manuscriptis sic inscriptum inveniri : in aliis vero ejusdem libri titulum esse : « Quis dives salvetur, » ejusque initium ab iis duci verbis : « Qui laudatorias, » etc. An autem potiori jure hic liber octavus Stromatum dicatur, jam investigandum est.
Wherefore Photius did not dare to assert that this writing was in reality the eighth book of the Stromata. For he only admonished us that this book is found thus inscribed in certain manuscripts: whereas in others the title of the same book is: "Who is the rich man that is saved," and its beginning is derived from these words: "Those who compose encomiastic," etc. Whether, however, this book may with better right be called the eighth of the Stromata must now be investigated.
sermonem, quo illud fratribus suis possit penitus persuadere.
discourse, whereby he may be able thoroughly to persuade his brethren of that.
His ita praefatis, ille ex Marci Evangelio omnia Christi ad divitem suosque apostolos, quae quosdam conturbaverant, verba nobis exhibet, observatque in aliis evangelistarum libris eadem, paucis tantum, quorum idem sensus est, immutatis, repraesentari.
Having thus prefaced these things, he presents to us from the Gospel of Mark all the words of Christ to the rich man and to his apostles which had troubled some, and observes that in the other books of the evangelists the same things are represented with only a few changes, of which the sense is the same.
Tum deinde ad ea explicanda aggressus, primo animadvertit Christi sermones non carnaliter, σαρκικῶς, accipiendos esse, sed spiritum, in eis latentem, solerter sagaciterque investigandum, atque ad ipsam Salvatoris mentem, atque ad id, quod in sententia arcanum occultumque est, attendendum.
Then next proceeding to explain them, he first remarks that the discourses of Christ are not to be taken carnally, σαρκικῶς, but that the spirit latent in them must be skilfully and sagaciously investigated, and that one must attend to the very mind of the Saviour, and to that which is secret and hidden in the meaning.
Secundo ille animadvertit propositam a divite quaestionem fuisse Christo dignam, et maxime convenientem. Quoniam vero dives Christum vocaverat bonum, inde ipsemet Christus, ut ait auctor noster, sumpta occasione, animum hujus divitis ad Deum bonum, primumque, ac solum vitae aeternae praebitorem prudentissime convertit. Nam haec cognitio documentorum omnium, ad vitam spectantium, est principium. Et vero Deus primo agnosci debet, deinde magnitudo Salvatoris, per quem facta gratia et veritas, quemadmodum per Moysem lex quidem data est, sed quae sola ad salutem non sufficiebat. Quamobrem dives, qui hanc a prima aetate impleverat, illam tamen a Christo jure merito poscit et flagitat.
Secondly, he remarks that the question proposed by the rich man was worthy of Christ, and most fitting. And since the rich man had called Christ "good", hence Christ himself, as our author says, taking the occasion, most prudently turned the mind of this rich man to the good God, the first and only giver of eternal life. For this knowledge is the beginning of all teachings looking towards life. And indeed God ought first to be acknowledged, and next the greatness of the Saviour, through whom grace and truth were made, just as through Moses the law indeed was given, but one which alone was not sufficient for salvation. Wherefore the rich man, who had fulfilled the latter from his earliest age, nevertheless rightly and deservedly demands and entreats the former from Christ.
Christus vero illum quod legi semper fuerit
And Christ indeed, because he had always been obedient to the law,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1442
Footnotes
(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1442?
super. dissert., c. 23, art. 6.
The dissertation above, ch. 23, art. 6.
(51) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1442?
ibid.
ibid.
(56) ‹anchor: immutatis, repraesentari› · call in col 1442
§ 5.
§ 5.
(57) ‹anchor: Secundo› · call in col 1442
§ 6.
§ 6.
(58) ‹anchor: primo agnosci debet› · call in col 1442
§ 8.
§ 8.
(59) ‹anchor: Christus vero› · call in col 1442
§ 9.
§ 9.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 47–51 stand above the rendered foot, in the text above the chapter heading; columns uncertain. Note 50 reads "c. 23" on the scan (possibly "c. 2"); kept as seen. Note 57's numeral prints damaged ("§ υ."); read as 6 by sequence. --> (printed under page 720)
Page
- running head: DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1442
- marginal letters: A tamen aliqua; B octavi Stromatum; C sermonem, quo; D noster, sumpta
- old-edition numerals: 336 after venientem.
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tamen aliqua; CAPUT II. splits column into upper (end of Cap. I) and lower (cont. of Cap. II from 1441)
obsecutus, non redarguit, sed colit ac diligit. Verumtamen eum adhuc imperfectum esse pronuntiat; utpote qui aeternae vitae curis fuisset otiosus, atque ad legis Mosicae plenitudinem et perfectionem, nimirum Christi fidem, nondum pervenisset. Quapropter Christus ei respondit : « Si vis perfectus esse, » id est, si tu qui, sicut auctor noster loquitur, voluntatis arbitrio praeditus es sincero, totoque corde velis esse perfectus, hanc assequeris perfectionem. Sed quia id toto animo non volebat, auditis sequentibus Christi verbis : « Vade, vende quae habes, » tristis abiit.
does not refute him, but cherishes and loves him. Nevertheless he pronounces him to be still imperfect; inasmuch as he had been idle in the cares of eternal life, and had not yet arrived at the fullness and perfection of the Mosaic law, namely the faith of Christ. Wherefore Christ answered him: "If you will be perfect," that is, if you who, just as our author speaks, are endowed with a sincere freedom of will, should wish with your whole heart to be perfect, you shall attain this perfection. But because he did not wish that with his whole soul, having heard the following words of Christ: "Go, sell what you have," he went away sad.
At ibi auctor noster ostendit ea non litterali sensu et obvio intelligi debere, ita ut his significetur divites teneri omnibus bonis suis, opibus, ac patrimonio, quemadmodum Anaxagoras, Democritus et Crates, vel se abdicare, vel ea aut suis, aut primo occupanti relinquere; sed tantum praecipi, ut effrenis divitiarum cupiditas et avaritiae labes radicitus avellatur; atque egenis, pauperibus et indigentibus opem ferendo, bene opibus, divitiis caeterisque bonis suis locupletes homines utantur.
Now there our author shows that those things ought not to be understood in the literal and obvious sense, so that by these words it would be signified that the rich are bound either to divest themselves of all their goods, wealth, and patrimony, just like Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Crates, or to leave them either to their own kinsfolk or to the first occupant; but that it is only commanded that the unbridled desire of riches and the stain of avarice be plucked out by the roots; and that by bringing help to the needy, the poor, and the indigent, wealthy men should make good use of their wealth, riches, and their other goods.
Palam etenim ille facit divitias non ex seipsis, sed ex earum usu aut malas esse, aut bonas. Atque inde colligit id quod Christus dixit illas esse vendendas, de affectibus perturbationibusque animi esse intelligendum. Nam relictis, aut projectis opibus, potest quis, etsi egenus, vitiis et affectibus esse dives. Non utiles itaque, sed noxias divitias, non secus atque animi vitia, aegritudines et affectus, quibus male copiis et opibus utimur, plane penitusque tollenda et rejicienda esse rursus ille contendit.
For he makes it plain that riches are either bad or good not of themselves, but from their use. And from this he gathers that what Christ said, that they are to be sold, is to be understood of the passions and perturbations of the soul. For when wealth has been left behind or cast away, a man, even though needy, can be rich in vices and passions. Therefore not useful, but harmful riches, no differently than the vices, sicknesses, and passions of the soul whereby we make ill use of resources and wealth, he again contends must be plainly and utterly removed and rejected.
His porro anima omnino vacua et nuda Christum, qui cor purum habenti via est, sequi debet. Impura autem est illius anima, qui pravis desideriis est dives. Veris siquidem bonisque divitiis is tantum abundat, qui eas esse Dei dona, nec tam sui, quam fratrum egentium causas se possidere agnoscit. Quamobrem vir iis minime mancipatus, jacturam illarum aequo fert animo, atque idcirco spiritu vere est pauper. Contra vero qui easdem opes fert animo, et quotidie augere cogitat, ille mundi irretitus est laqueis. Ex quibus duplicem auctor noster conclusionem elicit : ac primo quidem divitias ex earum usu aut bonas esse, aut malas. Deinde vero haec Christi verba : « Divites in regnum Dei difficile introibunt, » non litterali sed subtiliori sensu esse accipienda. Non enim in earum possessione, uti corporis exemplo palam ille facit, salus nostra posita est.
Furthermore, the soul utterly empty and bare of these things ought to follow Christ, who is the way to him who has a pure heart. Impure, however, is the soul of him who is rich in depraved desires. Since he alone abounds in true and good riches who acknowledges that they are the gifts of God, and that he possesses them not so much for his own sake as for the sake of his needy brethren. Wherefore a man by no means enslaved to them bears the loss of them with an even mind, and on that account is truly poor in spirit. On the contrary, however, he who bears the same wealth in his mind, and thinks daily to increase it, is entangled in the snares of the world. From which things our author draws a twofold conclusion: and first indeed, that riches from their use are either good or bad. And next, that these words of Christ: "The rich shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom of God," are to be taken not in the literal, but in a more subtle sense. For our salvation is not placed in the possession of them, as he makes plain by the example of the body.
Qui virtutibus igitur fretus, uti ille pergit, fortuna sua non absque fide et sanctitate utitur, is mundo corde est, et in regnum Dei ingredietur. Quando vero diviti Christus dixit : « Vende quae habes, » non eo sensu id ei praecepit, ut venditorum praediorum pretium recipiat; sed ut bonos sanctosque animi affectus, qui spirituales divitiae sunt, acquirat et consequatur.
He therefore who, relying on virtues, as he proceeds, uses his fortune not without faith and holiness, is of a clean heart, and shall enter into the kingdom of God. And when Christ said to the rich man: "Sell what you have," he did not command that to him in such a sense that he should receive the price of estates sold; but that he should acquire and attain good and holy dispositions of soul, which are spiritual riches.
Verum dives iste, qui Christum interrogaverat, hujusce responsionis sensum non percipiens, tristis abiit, atque ille, non secus ac ejusdem Christi discipuli, in ejus familiam nuper asciti, futuram divitum salutem desperavere. Christus autem iis respondit hominem non sua, sed divina virtute, cum vitiorum affectuumque vacuitatem sincere desiderabit, posse reipsa aeternam hanc salutem obtinere.
Yet that rich man who had questioned Christ, not perceiving the sense of this reply, went away sad, and he, no differently than the disciples of the same Christ newly admitted into his household, despaired of the future salvation of the rich. Christ, however, answered them that man, not by his own, but by divine power, when he shall sincerely desire freedom from vices and passions, can in reality obtain this eternal salvation.
Quo quidem Petrus audito, dixit se omnia, id est animi vitia et aegritudines, ut Christum sequeretur, penitus reliquisse. A Christo autem responsum accepit eum, qui patrem reliquerit, hoc est, qui patrem
Having heard this indeed, Peter said that he had utterly left all things, that is, the vices and sicknesses of the soul, that he might follow Christ. And from Christ he received the answer that he who has left his father, that is, he who
Editors' notes and page, col. 1443
Footnotes
(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1443
§ 10.
§ 10.
(61) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1443
§ 11.
§ 11.
(62) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1443
§ 12 et 13.
§§ 12 and 13.
(63) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1443
§ 14.
§ 14.
(64) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1443
§ 15 et 16.
§§ 15 and 16.
(65) ‹anchor: Contra vero› · call in col 1443
§ 17.
§ 17.
(66) ‹anchor: Deinde vero› · call in col 1443
§ 18.
§ 18.
(67) ‹anchor: uti ille pergit› · call in col 1443
§ 19.
§ 19.
(68) ‹anchor: Verum dives iste› · call in col 1443
§ 20.
§ 20.
(69) ‹anchor: Christus autem› · call in col 1443
§ 21.
§ 21.
(70) ‹anchor: Petrus audito› · call in col 1443
§ 22 et 23.
§§ 22 and 23.
Page
- running head: 1443 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III.
- marginal letters: A obsecutus, non; B indigentibus opem; C dere agnoscit.; D sunt, acquirat
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: obsecutus, non; word split at column break: pa-
- other: the word patrem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1444
magis quam Christum non timet, nec illi in eis, quae saluti officiunt, obtemperat, centuplum recepturum. Quod certe eodem plane modo de matre, fratre, sorore, et aliis parentibus, atque etiam de divitiis intelligendum est.
does not fear his father more than Christ, nor obey him in those things which hinder salvation, shall receive a hundredfold. Which certainly in the very same way is to be understood of mother, brother, sister, and other relatives, and also of riches.
Quia vero Christus addidit, « cum persecutionibus, » duplicem auctor noster distinguit persecutionem; et unam quidem extrinsecus, nimirum ex hominibus, aut diabolica suggestione advenientem. Altera autem, eaque gravissima, interior est, et ex impiis depravatae animae desideriis, pravisque affectibus oritur. Cum hac itaque secunda persecutione qui fratres, deliciasque carnales, carnaliaque aliqua pignora habuerit, ea omnia debet relinquere, atque animae suae consolatorem ac patronum, qui aeternam vitam illi daturus est, eligere Salvatorem.
And because Christ added, "with persecutions," our author distinguishes a twofold persecution; and one indeed coming from without, namely from men, or from diabolical suggestion. The other, however, and that the most grievous, is interior, and arises from the impious desires of a depraved soul and its evil passions. Together with this second persecution, therefore, he who has brethren, and carnal delights, and any carnal pledges, ought to leave them all, and choose as the consoler and patron of his soul the Saviour, who will give him eternal life.
In ultimis tandem Christi verbis : « Erunt novissimi primi, » etc., quamvis haud parum reconditi sensus subsit; quia tamen ad suum de divitibus argumentum ea nihil faciebant, illorum explicatione auctor noster sibi supersedendum esse duxit. Suo etenim officio satis se fecisse declarat, cum probaverit divitibus nullo plane modo ad regnum caeleste a Christo aditum intercludi, modo illius mandatis morem gerendo, divitiis suis bene utantur. Secus vero, facilius erit camelum, de quo ille alio in libro disputaverat, per foramen acus, quam illos in regnum intrare caelorum.
Finally, in the last words of Christ: "The last shall be first," etc., although no little hidden sense underlies them, yet because they contributed nothing to his argument concerning the rich, our author deemed that he should forbear from the explanation of them. For he declares that he has done enough for his duty when he has proved that entrance to the heavenly kingdom is in no way at all shut off to the rich by Christ, provided only that by obeying his commandments they make good use of their riches. Otherwise, however, it will be easier for a camel, concerning which he had disputed in another book, to enter through the eye of a needle than for them to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Omnibus Christi verbis ita singulatim explicatis, ostendit auctor noster divitias a Christo non improbari, aut ut projiciantur juberi : sed nos ab eo informari quomodo iis utendum, et vita aeterna comparanda sit. Quod quidem ut firmius asserat, ac quaenam adipiscendae salutis spes divitibus ab eodem Christo data, aut ablata fuerit, demonstret, ibi continenter ille probat hoc ipsiusmet Christi mandato : « Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex tota anima et virtute, » nullum plane esse majus.
All the words of Christ having been thus explained one by one, our author shows that riches are not disapproved by Christ, or commanded to be cast away: but that we are instructed by him how they are to be used, and how eternal life is to be acquired. And in order that he may assert this more firmly, and demonstrate what hope of obtaining salvation was given to or taken away from the rich by the same Christ, he there immediately proves that than this commandment of Christ himself: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole soul and strength," there is plainly none greater.
Nam cum secundo mandato jubet proximum sicut seipsum diligi, inde auctor noster colligit eum velle, ut Deus ab homine supra seipsum ametur. Proximi autem nomine quemlibet hominem proposita a Christo Samaritani parabola ostendit esse intelligendum, ac eumdem Christum qui peccatorum nostrorum sanavit vulnera, pium dici illum Samaritanum. Christus itaque, pergit ille, qui tantam ad nos sanandos operam impendit, debet aeque ac Deus diligi. Ab eo autem diligitur, qui ejus voluntati et praeceptis paret atque obtemperat.
For when by the second commandment he commands our neighbour to be loved as oneself, from this our author gathers that he wills that God be loved by man above himself. And by the name of neighbour the parable of the Samaritan proposed by Christ shows that any man whatsoever is to be understood, and that the same Christ, who healed the wounds of our sins, is called that pious Samaritan. Christ therefore, he proceeds, who expended such great labour to heal us, ought to be loved equally with God. And he is loved by him who obeys and complies with his will and precepts.
Tum deinde honorandi colendique sunt fideles ejusdem Christi discipuli, in quos quidquid fit, hoc ille sibi ipsi factum ascribit. Eos quippe appellat filios, pueros, infantes, amicos et parvulos, quorum minor in regno caelorum Joanne est major. Ex mammona igitur iniquitatis si aliquid eis erogatur, merces dantis nunquam peribit. At id non modo exigentibus et importune postulantibus, vult Christus tribui, sed eos in primis quaeri, apud quos beneficium sine murmure, tristitia et personarum distinctione non semel et iterum, sed perseveranter collocetur.
Then next the faithful disciples of the same Christ are to be honoured and cherished, unto whom whatsoever is done, he ascribes this as done unto himself. For he calls them sons, children, infants, friends, and little ones, the lesser of whom in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John. Therefore if anything from the mammon of iniquity is bestowed upon them, the reward of the giver shall never perish. Yet Christ wills that this be given not only to those who demand and importunately ask, but that those above all be sought out with whom a kindness may be placed without murmuring, sadness, and distinction of persons, not once and again, but perseveringly.
Neque enim repellendus, aut inique ferendus deformis, pannosus et debilis; quandoquidem interior opulentia et pulchritudo in testaceo vase includitur.
For neither is the deformed, ragged, and weak man to be repelled or borne with impatiently; since interior wealth and beauty is enclosed in an earthen vessel.
Quapropter auctor noster divitem hortatur, ut facultatibus et opibus suis exercitum instruat, cogatque satellites, nimirum senes, pupillos, viduas et pauperes, qui precibus, gemitibus ac lacrymis imperatorem Deum flectant, atque admonitionibus, correptionibus et consiliis ipsum adjuvent,
Wherefore our author exhorts the rich man that with his means and wealth he should equip an army, and gather bodyguards, namely old men, orphans, widows, and the poor, who by prayers, groanings, and tears may bend God the emperor, and by admonitions, reproofs, and counsels may help him,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1444
Footnotes
(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1444
§ 25.
§ 25.
(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1444
§ 26.
§ 26.
(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1444
§ 27.
§ 27.
(74) ‹anchor: auctor noster colligit› · call in col 1444
§ 28.
§ 28.
(75) ‹anchor: pergit ille› · call in col 1444
§ 29.
§ 29.
(76) ‹anchor: Tum deinde› · call in col 1444
§ 30.
§ 30.
(77) ‹anchor: Joanne est major› · call in col 1444
§ 31.
§ 31.
(78) ‹anchor: persevelanter collocetur› · call in col 1444
§ 32 et 33.
§§ 32 and 33.
(79) ‹anchor: divitem hortatur› · call in col 1444
§ 34 et 35.
§§ 34 and 35.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 60–64 and 71–73 stand above the rendered foot; their columns are inferred from the sequence. --> (printed under page 721)
Page
- running head: IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1444
- marginal letters: A trem magis; B conditi sensus; C Nam cum; D id non
- old-edition numerals: 337 before filios,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: trem magis; words split at column breaks: -trem, adju-
- other: the word adjuvent, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1445
ac cum Christo, qui jam in illo ipso habitat, colloquantur. Ex iis siquidem aliqui eo magis sunt illustres, quo magis ex mundi procellis sese subduxere, ac pietatem suam et sanctitatem abscondere conantur. Hi porro Dei haeredes, illiusque vera proles et imago in hunc mundum, alios exercendi ergo, atque excolendae virtutis aut doctrinae gratia missi sunt.
and converse with Christ, who already dwells in that very man. Since among these some are all the more illustrious the more they have withdrawn themselves from the storms of the world, and endeavour to hide their piety and holiness. Furthermore, these heirs of God, and his true offspring and image, have been sent into this world for the sake of exercising others, and for the sake of cultivating virtue or doctrine.
Post haec auctor noster hanc ut egenis opem ferant opulenti, reddit adhuc rationem : quia Deus charitas est, et Christus non solum infirmitates hominum suscepit, sed pro nobis mortuus est, quo animam a nobis quoque pro aliis ponendam esse doceret. Atqui si pro aliis mortem obire debemus, quanto magis divites omnia bona sua, copias et divitias ad sublevandam pauperum inopiam impendere tenentur. Quod quidem ille ipsismet Joannis et Pauli de charitate verbis luculenter confirmat.
After these things our author renders this further reason why the wealthy should bring help to the needy: because God is charity, and Christ not only took upon himself the infirmities of men, but died for us, in order that he might teach that life ought also to be laid down by us for others. And yet if we ought to undergo death for others, how much more are the rich bound to expend all their goods, resources, and riches to relieve the want of the poor. Which indeed he clearly confirms by the very words of John and Paul concerning charity.
Ex quibus, inquit, intelligitur quis dives locum in caelis habeat, aut non habeat. Quemadmodum enim in peccatis mortuus, inde excluditur : ita Deus Pater ibi illum lubentissime suscipit, qui ad eum toto corde convertitur. Hinc manifestum auctor facit quae vera sit poenitentia, et quale sit in caelis de peccatore, poenitentiam agente, gaudium angelis ac Deo, qui solus potest peccata dimittere. Ad eam porro agendam poenitentiam maxima ille probat opus esse diligentia. Nam quamvis inoliti pravi affectus confestim, simulque praecidi forsitan non possint, Dei tamen virtute fratrumque precibus et auxilio, ac vera poenitentia, assiduaque meditatione expugnari poterunt. Sed ad id consequendum necesse est ut pius sanctusque rector ac gubernator audiatur, qui salutari cum severitate tum lenitate peccatorem aut excitet et exacuat, aut deliniat et alliciat; qui cum eo fundat lacrymas, ac pro eo Deum precando noctes ducat insomnes; quem denique peccator timeat, quocum doleat, atque poenas deprecantem antevertat.
From which things, says he, it is understood what rich man has, or has not, a place in heaven. For just as he who is dead in sins is excluded thence: so God the Father most gladly receives him there who is converted to him with his whole heart. Hence the author makes manifest what true repentance is, and what joy there is in heaven over a sinner doing penance, among the angels and God, who alone can forgive sins. Furthermore, for performing that repentance he proves that there is need of the greatest diligence. For although ingrained depraved passions perhaps cannot be cut off immediately and all at once, yet by the power of God and the prayers and help of the brethren, and by true repentance and assiduous meditation, they will be able to be overcome. But to attain that it is necessary that a pious and holy ruler and governor be heard, who with salutary severity as well as gentleness may either rouse and sharpen the sinner, or soothe and allure him; who may shed tears with him, and spend sleepless nights in praying to God for him; whom finally the sinner may fear, with whom he may grieve, and whom he may anticipate as he deprecates punishments.
Ut autem id facilius auctor noster persuadere queat, integram describit historiam, qua Joannes evangelista cujusdam urbis, haud procul Epheso dissitae, episcopo juvenem eleganti corporis forma bonaque indole praeditum commendasse narratur. Hunc episcopus in tectis et aedibus suis receptum educatumque, sacro paulo post abluit baptismatis fonte. Sed remissa paulatim illius cura, juvenis immatura libertate potitus, flagitiosis et sceleratis hominibus se adjunxit, ac latronum dux factus, caeteros flagitiis superabat. Aliquanto vero postea Joannes redux, depositum juvenem ab episcopo repoposcit. Sed ab eo omnium, quae contigerant, certior factus, protinus, nullaque interposita mora perrexit ad juvenem, quem salutarem adduxit ad poenitentiam, ac postea Ecclesiae restituit.
Moreover, that our author may be able the more easily to persuade of this, he describes the entire history wherein John the Evangelist is related to have commended to the bishop of a certain city situated not far from Ephesus a youth endowed with a handsome form of body and a good disposition. The bishop, having received and brought him up under his roof and in his house, not long afterwards washed him in the sacred font of baptism. But as care of him was gradually relaxed, the youth, having obtained premature liberty, joined himself to shameful and wicked men, and having been made captain of a band of robbers, surpassed the rest in outrages. Some time afterwards, however, John returning, demanded back the youth deposited with the bishop. But having been informed by him of all that had happened, forthwith, and with no delay interposed, he proceeded to the youth, whom he brought to salutary repentance, and afterwards restored to the Church.
Ex hac porro narratione idem auctor noster concludit ab eo, qui peccatorum poenitentiam non agit, nec Deum idcirco, nec divitias, sed seipsum esse incusandum. Contra vero, qui sinceram peccatorum egerit poenitentiam, ac salutis suae curam vere habet, huic Pater caelestis perfectam absolutionem aeternamque vitam tribuet ac donabit.
Furthermore, from this narrative our same author concludes that by him who does not do penance for his sins, neither God on that account, nor riches, but he himself is to be blamed. On the contrary, however, he who has done sincere penance for his sins, and truly has care of his salvation, to him the heavenly Father will grant and bestow perfect absolution and eternal life.
Quomodo hic liber et quorum opera ad nos pervenerit, ac de variis illius editionibus, variorumque in eum observationibus et notis.
How and by whose labour this book has come down to us, and concerning its various editions, and the observations and notes of various scholars upon it.
Tractatus iste diu sane in bibliothecarum ruderibus et obscuritatis latebris delituit. Non octoginta etenim ante annos Matthaeus Cariophylus,
That treatise indeed lay hidden for a long time in the rubbish of libraries and the hiding-places of obscurity. For not eighty years ago Matthew Cariophylus,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1445
Footnotes
(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1445
§ 36.
§ 36.
(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1445
§ 37.
§ 37.
(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1445
§ 38.
§ 38.
(83) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1445
§ 39.
§ 39.
(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1445
§ 40.
§ 40.
(85) ‹anchor: gubernator audiatur› · call in col 1445
§ 41.
§ 41.
(86) ‹anchor: persuadere queat› · call in col 1445
§ 42.
§ 42.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 80–84 stand above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 722)
Page
- running head: 1445 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A vent, ac; B Ex quibus,; C quem denique; D concludit ab
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: vent, ac; word split at column break: -vent
postea Iconensis archiepiscopus, inter Graecos Vaticanae bibliothecae codices illum ad variarum Origenis homiliarum calcem repertum, Latine reddidit. Ex hoc autem codice, hacque interpretatione, ac praefixo ultimae Origenis homiliae titulo Michael Ghislerius eumdem hunc librum post suos in Jeremiam commentarios typis Graecis et Latinis anno 1623 Lugduni imprimi divulgarique curavit. Sed quia textus Graecus valde imperfectus, ac pluribus in locis mancus et mutilus erat, nec alius codex, quo ille emendaretur, inveniri potuit, idcirco in hac quoque editione variae sunt lacunae et hiatus.
afterwards Archbishop of Iconium, rendered into Latin that work found among the Greek codices of the Vatican Library at the end of various homilies of Origen. And from this codex, and this translation, and with the title of the last homily of Origen prefixed, Michael Ghislerius took care that this same book, after his commentaries on Jeremiah, should be printed and published in Greek and Latin type in the year 1623 at Lyons. But because the Greek text was very imperfect, and in many places defective and mutilated, nor could another codex be found whereby it might be emended, on that account in this edition also there are various lacunae and gaps.
Post haec vero cum Ghislerius comperisset hoc opusculum non ab Origene, sed a Clemente nostro Alexandrino fuisse revera profectum, in sua ad eosdem Jeremiae commentarios praefatione correxit errorem, palamque professus est illud eidem Clementi Alexandrino recte ab Eusebio, Hieronymo et Photio adjudicari.
After these things, however, when Ghislerius had discovered that this little work had in reality proceeded not from Origen, but from our Clement of Alexandria, in his preface to the same commentaries on Jeremiah he corrected the error, and openly professed that it is rightly adjudicated to the same Clement of Alexandria by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius.
In hujusce porro libri editione pluris idem Ghislerius, sed breves, et ad marginem tantum adjecit notationes, quibus vel ea quae in auctoris textu animadversione digna judicabat, paucis edisserit, vel quosdam, uti illi videbatur, arguit illius errores, vel tandem alia quaedam indicat, quae voluit caute ab omnibus legi.
Furthermore, in the edition of this book the same Ghislerius added many, though brief, notes, and only in the margin, whereby he either sets forth in a few words those things which in the author's text he judged worthy of notice, or censures certain errors of his, as it seemed to him, or finally points out certain other things which he wished to be read cautiously by all.
Longo dehinc elapso temporis intervallo Combefisius celebris ex Sancti Dominici ordine scriptor, in suo Graecorum Patrum Auctario Parisiis anno 1672 aliam hujus libri, cui Clementis nostri Alexandrini inscripsit nomen, Graeco Latinoque charactere editionem publicavit. In ea autem Graecum auctoris textum nova donavit Latinitate, ac conjecturis suis quosdam ejus hiatus explere conatus est. Multos tamen, qui sine manuscriptorum codicum auxilio vix ab ullo unquam poterunt restitui, penitus intactos reliquit.
A long interval of time having elapsed thereafter, Combefis, a celebrated writer of the Order of Saint Dominic, in his Graecorum Patrum Auctarium at Paris in the year 1672 published another edition of this book, upon which he inscribed the name of our Clement of Alexandria, in Greek and Latin character. And in it he presented the Greek text of the author with a new Latin translation, and endeavoured by his conjectures to fill up certain of its gaps. Many, however, which without the aid of manuscript codices will scarcely ever be able to be restored by anyone, he left utterly untouched.
Plurimas autem et prolixas in hujusce libri, a se editi, fine adjecit notas et observationes, quibus multa emendare connititur Graeci textus verba, quae male Graeco in codice scripta erant, vel quae Cariophylus adverso contrarioque sensu accepisse ipsi videbatur. Aggreditur insuper suis adnotationibus obscuriorem auctoris dictionem aliquando explicare et enucleare. Pluribus demum in locis probare conatur immerito prorsus hujus libri parenti inustam a Cariophylo vel Ghislerio quorumdam pravorum, ac praesertim Origenis errorum labem et maculam. Verum si doctis quibusdam viris credas, illum uno praesertim in loco ab ejusdem Origenis de animarum, ut aiunt, praeexsistentia errore non prorsus vindicavit et liberavit. Sed de his postea.
Moreover, at the end of this book edited by him he added very many and prolix notes and observations, whereby he strives to emend many words of the Greek text which had been badly written in the Greek codex, or which Cariophylus seemed to him to have taken in an opposite and contrary sense. He undertakes besides by his annotations sometimes to explain and elucidate the more obscure diction of the author. Finally, in many places he endeavours to prove that the stain and blot of certain depraved errors, and especially those of Origen, was branded upon the parent of this book by Cariophylus or Ghislerius altogether undeservedly. Yet if you should believe certain learned men, in one place especially he has not altogether vindicated and freed him from the error of the same Origen concerning the pre-existence, as they say, of souls. But of these things afterwards.
Praeterea vero hic liber Clementis Alexandrini nomine Oxonii, e theatro Sheldoniano typis Graecis et Latinis anno 1683 excusus est. Sed totus ille liber talis inde prodiit, qualis a Combefisio editus antea fuerat. Huic autem editioni praefectus omnes ab illis in huncce tractatum prius divulgatas observationes penitus ejecit, nec aliud quidquam addidit quam breve prooemium, quo hunc librum Clementi Alexandrino tam Eusebii Caesariensis, quam Hieronymi Photiique testimonio et auctoritate asserere nititur. Ad haec vero ille observat ultimam periodum : Ὧ διὰ τοῦ παιδός, etc., a librario, qui eumdem tractatum pro homilia Origeniana venditare volebat, fuisse omnino praepostere adjectam. Quid vero, si in hoc libro, ex quadam aut pluribus homiliis, seu concionibus composito eam auctor retinendam censuerit? At de his infra.
Besides this, moreover, this book was printed under the name of Clement of Alexandria at Oxford, from the Sheldonian Theatre, in Greek and Latin type in the year 1683. But that whole book came forth thence such as it had previously been edited by Combefis. He who was in charge of this edition, however, utterly cast out all the observations previously published by them upon this treatise, nor did he add anything else than a brief prologue, wherein he strives to assert this book for Clement of Alexandria by the testimony and authority as well of Eusebius of Caesarea as of Jerome and Photius. And in addition to these things he observes that the last period: Ὧ διὰ τοῦ παιδός ("To whom through the Son"), etc., was altogether preposterously added by a scribe who wished to pass off the same treatise as an Origenian homily. What, however, if in this book, composed out of one or several homilies or sermons, the author deemed that it should be retained? But of these things below.
Nos denique ille monitos fecit se quam paucissimis vocibus interpositis, quasdam explevisse lacunas, quibus, uti jam diximus, vetus exemplar aliaeque
Finally, he advised us that with as few words as possible interposed, he had filled up certain lacunae with which, as we have already said, the ancient copy and the other
Editors' notes and page, col. 1446
Page
- running head: DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1446
- marginal letters: A postea Iconensis; B In hujusce; C se editi,; D antea fuerat.
- old-edition numerals: 338 after inustam
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citation; editors' matter: postea Iconensis; word split at column break: aliae-
- other: the word aliaeque was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1447
editiones hiabant. Ne tamen loca a se interpolata genuinis commiscerentur, ea uncis includi voluit. Utrum vero haec mutila et hiantia loca, quae conjecturis tantum suis supplere conatus est, recte emendaverit, in dubium haud plane immerito quis vocaverit. Nam Ittigius, de quo mox dicendum, fatetur « adhuc passim Clementis textum medicas manus desiderare. »
editions gaped. Lest, however, the passages interpolated by him should be mingled with the genuine ones, he wished them to be enclosed in brackets. Whether, however, he rightly emended these mutilated and gaping passages, which he endeavoured to supply by his conjectures alone, anyone might call into doubt not at all undeservedly. For Ittigius, of whom we must speak presently, confesses "that everywhere the text of Clement still desires healing hands."
Postrema tandem hujus libri editio, eodem Clementis inscripta nomine, publicam in lucem Lipsiae ab illo Thoma Ittigio, anno 1700, emissa est. In illius autem praefatione plura de variis cum aliorum Clementis nostri Operum, tum in primis de hujus operis editionibus scite animadvertit. Ibi vero ille nos admonet Joannem Fell Oxoniensem episcopum superioris editionis, quam κατὰ πόδας secutus est, fuisse auctorem. Adnotat praeterea a nonnullis, uti Cotelerio, tentatam quorumdam hujus libelli locorum emendationem; sed non paucos adhuc superesse mutilos et hiantes. Denique omnes Combefisii ad hoc opusculum notas se addidisse significat, non ideo quidem, quod ubivis probandae sint, sed quia nonnulla notatu haud indigna complectantur, ac levi negotio deprehendi possit, ubi Combefisius partium potius quam veritatis studium sectatus fuerit.
Finally, the last edition of this book, inscribed with the same name of Clement, was sent forth into the public light at Leipzig by that Thomas Ittigius, in the year 1700. And in its preface he skilfully remarks many things concerning the various editions both of the other Works of our Clement, and especially of this work. And there he admonishes us that John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, was the author of the preceding edition, which he followed κατὰ πόδας ("foot by foot"). He notes besides that the emendation of certain passages of this little book was attempted by some, as by Cotelier; but that not a few still remain mutilated and gaping. Finally, he signifies that he has added all the notes of Combefis to this little work, not indeed for the reason that they are everywhere to be approved, but because they comprise some things not unworthy of note, and with slight trouble it can be detected where Combefis pursued zeal for party rather than for truth.
Postremo quae auctor noster in fine hujus libri de insigni quodam latrone, a Joanne evangelista ad meliorem frugem sinceramque peccatorum poenitentiam adducto, narrat, haec ab Eusebio in sua Ecclesiastica historia totidem pene verbis transcripta sunt. Quapropter Valesius in hanc narrationem, quemadmodum in totam Eusebii Historiam, a se editam, varias congessit observationes, quibus Graeci textus ex variis codicibus manuscriptis a semetipso emendati, reddit rationem. Aliis porro notis quaedam loca illustrat, ac potissimum ostendere adnititur his verbis, τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου, non confirmationis, sed baptismatis significari sacramentum.
Lastly, the things which our author at the end of this book relates concerning a certain notable robber, brought by John the Evangelist to a better life and a sincere repentance of his sins, have been transcribed by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History in almost the very same words. Wherefore Valesius upon this narrative, just as upon the whole History of Eusebius edited by him, collected various observations, whereby he gives an account of the Greek text emended by himself from various manuscript codices. Furthermore, by other notes he illustrates certain passages, and chiefly strives to show that by these words, τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου ("the seal of the Lord"), the sacrament not of confirmation, but of baptism is signified.
ARTICULUS III.
ARTICLE III.
Quis hujus libri auctor, quisve illius titulus, utrum ex homilia quadam, seu quibusdam concionibus ad populum habitis, sit compositus, quam ob rationem editus, an octavus Stromatum Clementis Alexandrini liber dici possit, et quo scriptus fuerit tempore.
Who is the author of this book, or what is its title, whether it was composed out of a certain homily, or certain sermons delivered to the people, for what reason it was published, whether it can be called the eighth book of the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, and at what time it was written.
Ex iis, quae in superiori articulo a nobis dicta sunt, omnibus sane patet hanc commentationem duobus clarissimis scriptoribus fuisse attributam. Ab aliis enim Origeni, ab aliis autem Clementi nostro Alexandrino adjudicatur. Nec desunt utriusque opinionis fautoribus argumenta, quibus unusquisque suam sententiam conatur propugnare et tueri.
From the things which have been said by us in the preceding article, it is assuredly clear to all that this treatise has been attributed to two most illustrious writers. For by some it is adjudicated to Origen, and by others to our Clement of Alexandria. Nor are arguments wanting to the supporters of either opinion, whereby each one endeavours to defend and maintain his own view.
Et certe qui hunc tractatum ab Origene profectum esse existimant, his nituntur rationum firmamentis. Primum siquidem in manuscripto codice Vaticano nomen praefert Origenis. Deinde vero stylus illius comptus, mitis, aequabiliter fluens, et clarus ad hunc magis pertinere videtur, quam ad Clementem, cujus oratio plerisque suis in operibus sublimior est et obscurior. Tertio Cariophylus, sive potius Ghislerius persuasum habuere varios, quos illi notant, hoc in opere deprehendi Origenis errores. Ex his autem ille in primis error notatur, quo Origenes aliique haeretici humanam animam ante corpus exstitisse garriebant. Denique ejusdem operis auctor alicubi ad suam principiorum et theologiae expositionem nos mittit. Atqui ea videtur esse, quae de hocce argumento ab Origene scripta dicitur.
And certainly those who think that this treatise proceeded from Origen rely upon these supports of reasons. First indeed, in the Vatican manuscript codex it bears the name of Origen. And next, its neat, gentle, evenly flowing, and clear style seems to pertain more to him than to Clement, whose discourse in most of his works is more sublime and more obscure. Thirdly, Cariophylus, or rather Ghislerius, held it as persuaded that various errors of Origen, which they note, are detected in this work. And among these that error above all is noted, whereby Origen and other heretics prated that the human soul existed before the body. Finally, the author of the same work somewhere sends us to his exposition of principles and theology. And yet that seems to be what is said to have been written concerning this subject by Origen.
Contra vero alii putant Clementem nostrum Alexandrinum
On the contrary, however, others think that our Clement of Alexandria
Editors' notes and page, col. 1447
Footnotes
(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1447?
l. III Hist., cap. 23, pag. 91.
Book III of the History, chapter 23, page 91.
(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1447?
De script. eccles.
On Ecclesiastical Writers.
(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1447?
cod. 111. p. 287.
codex 111, p. 287.
(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1447?
l. III Hist., cap. 23, p. 91, et l. VI, c. 13, p. 214.
Book III of the History, chapter 23, p. 91, and book VI, ch. 13, p. 214.
<!-- NOTE: no call is visible in the rendered foot; all four stand higher on the page, columns uncertain. Note 89 (cod. 111, p. 287) suggests that note 45 on page 719, read "140", is also cod. 111. --> (printed under page 723)
Page
- running head: 1447 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A que editiones; B ad hoc; C mentum.; D ctum esse
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek phrases; editors' matter: que editiones; words split at column breaks: -que, Ale-
- other: the word Alexandrinum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1448
hujus lucubrationis verum genuinumque parentem esse; idque invictissima Eusebii, Hieronymi Photiique auctoritate posse confici et demonstrari. Apertissime etenim Eusebius et Photius declarant ab eodem Clemente editum fuisse librum, hoc Graeco titulo inscriptum : Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος· Quis dives salvetur, vel, Quis dives salutem consequi possit. Quod quidem semel et iterum ab Eusebio assertum legimus. Hieronymus denique eamdem epigraphen Latine reddidit : Quisnam dives sit, qui salvetur. At ille ipse titulus huic operi non solum praefixus est, sed praefigi etiam debuit. Non aliud quippe, quam hoc argumentum, tota illa in commentatione tractatur. Deinde vero Photius haec ait fuisse prima illius verba : Οἱ μὲν τοὺς ἐγκωμιαστικοὺς λόγους· quae quidem eodem plane modo in illius cum Ghislerii, tum Combefisii aliorumque exhibentur editionibus. Denique Eusebius integram illam adolescentis latronis, a Joanne evangelista ad sinceram flagitiorum scelerumque suorum poenitentiam conversi, historiam ex hoc libro se transcripsisse asseverat. At haec ipsa quoque est, quae in omnium ejusdem libri editionum calce totidem verbis, si librariorum menda excipias, reperitur. Nullus autem est, uti putamus, aequus rerum aestimator, qui non videat his posterioribus argumentis hunc librum longe potiori jure Clementi Alexandrino, quam prioribus Origeni attribui et vindicari.
is the true and genuine parent of this work; and that this can be established and demonstrated by the most invincible authority of Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. For most openly do Eusebius and Photius declare that there was published by the same Clement a book inscribed with this Greek title: Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος· Quis dives salvetur ("Who is the rich man that is saved"), or, Quis dives salutem consequi possit ("Who is the rich man that can attain salvation"). Which indeed we read asserted once and again by Eusebius. Finally, Jerome rendered the same inscription into Latin: Quisnam dives sit, qui salvetur ("Who the rich man is that is saved"). Now that very title not only has been prefixed to this work, but also ought to have been prefixed. For nothing else than this argument is treated in that whole treatise. And next, Photius says that these were its first words: Οἱ μὲν τοὺς ἐγκωμιαστικοὺς λόγους ("Those who compose encomiastic discourses"): which indeed are presented in the very same way in the editions of it both of Ghislerius and of Combefis and others. Finally, Eusebius asserts that he transcribed from this book that entire history of the young robber converted by John the Evangelist to a sincere repentance of his outrages and crimes. Now this very history is also that which is found at the end of all the editions of the same book in the very same words, if you except the faults of scribes. Moreover, there is no fair judge of things, as we think, who does not see that by these latter arguments this book is attributed and claimed with far better right for Clement of Alexandria than by the former ones for Origen.
Nobis enimvero neque Cariophylus, neque Ghislerius edixerunt cujus notae, quave manu, an antiqua, vel recentiore scriptus sit ille Vaticanus codex, ubi illud opus post Origenis homilias transcriptum invenerunt.
For to us indeed neither Cariophylus nor Ghislerius have declared of what character, or by what hand, whether ancient or more recent, that Vatican codex was written where they found that work transcribed after the homilies of Origen.
Huc accedit, quod etiamsi nomen Origenis ibi praenotatum legatur; non inde tamen hunc librum ab eo compositum fuisse iis adeo facile persuadebitur, qui nescire non possunt quam frequentes sint librariorum amanuensium in describendis librorum titulis lapsus, quantaque in eis fabricandis ac fingendis audacia ac temeritas.
To this is added that even if the name of Origen be read prefixed there, nevertheless not from that will it be so easily persuaded that this book was composed by him, to those who cannot be ignorant how frequent are the slips of copyist scribes in transcribing the titles of books, and how great is their audacity and rashness in fabricating and inventing them.
Ad hujus vero scriptoris stylum et dictionem quod spectat, Eusebius certe et Photius, optimi procul dubio Clementinae Origenianaeque orationis judices, nihil penitus in hoc libro animadverterunt, quod ab ipsa Clementis nostri Alexandrini scribendi ratione ullo plane modo discrepans et alienum dici possit, vel ei omnino non congruat ac conveniat.
And as far as concerns the style and diction of this writer, certainly Eusebius and Photius, without doubt the best judges of Clementine and Origenian discourse, remarked nothing at all in this book which can in any way at all be called discrepant and foreign from the very manner of writing of our Clement of Alexandria, or which does not altogether agree and suit with it.
Si quis tamen hanc lucubrationem ab aliis ejusdem Clementis operibus stylo diversam esse ostenderit, is meminisse debet variam pro loci, temporis, personarum et argumentorum varietate fuisse eorumdem auctorum dictionem diversumque scribendi modum.
Yet if anyone should show that this work is different in style from the other works of the same Clement, he ought to remember that according to the variety of place, time, persons, and subjects the diction of the same authors was various and their manner of writing diverse.
Errores porro si qui in hoc libro retegantur, atque illa etiam, ad quam nos illius auctor mittit, principiorum et theologiae expositio, non magis eum ab Origene, quam a Clemente nostro editum esse arguunt. In ea quippe ipsa principiorum et theologiae expositione se auctor dicit enucleasse quid camelus, de quo Christus locutus est, significet. Sed hanc explicationem in Origenis Periarchon libris frustra quaesieris. Verum et de hac ipsa expositione, et de inustis auctori nostro errorum maculis paulo post disputabimus.
Furthermore, if any errors be uncovered in this book, and that exposition also of principles and theology to which its author sends us, they argue no more that it was published by Origen than by our Clement. For in that very exposition of principles and theology the author says that he has elucidated what the camel, of which Christ spoke, signifies. But you will seek this explanation in vain in the books of Origen's Periarchon. Yet both concerning this very exposition, and concerning the stains of errors branded upon our author, we shall dispute a little later.
Quamobrem nisi validiora majorisque ponderis argumenta proferantur, ad eorum lubenter accedemus sententiam, qui hoc opus Clementi Alexandrino vindicarunt. Quem vero titulum illi Clemens, sive ejus auctor inscripserit, jam ex Eusebio, Hieronymo Photioque vidimus. At illud non in homiliarum sed librorum ipsius numero ponendum esse
Wherefore unless stronger arguments and of greater weight be brought forward, we shall gladly accede to the opinion of those who have claimed this work for Clement of Alexandria. And what title Clement, or its author, inscribed upon it, we have already seen from Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. Moreover, that it is to be placed not in the number of his homilies, but of his books,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1448
Page
- running head: X. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1448
- marginal letters: A xandrinum hujus; B evangelista ad; C persuadebitur, qui; D que illa
- old-edition numerals: 339 before praenotatum
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citations; editors' matter: xandrinum hujus; word split at column break: -xandrinum
evidentissimo trium horum doctissimorum hominum testimonio plane convincitur. Nam ii magno sane consensu hanc ipsam lucubrationem librum appellant, et inter alios Clementis nostri libros recensent.
is plainly proved by the most evident testimony of these three most learned men. For with great agreement indeed they call this very work a book, and reckon it among the other books of our Clement.
Utrum vero is liber ex pluribus, aut una quadam homilia, a Clemente nostro ad populum Alexandrinum habita, ac postmodum non sine amplificatione in libri formam redacta, compositus sit, sicuti definire non audemus, ita haud temere dicere possumus vix ullam in eo amplius exstare concionis speciem, neque alios, nisi libri omnibus suis numeris expleti characteres. Quidam tamen in illo nonnullas concionis notas animadvertisse sibi visi sunt, quibus si suffragium nostrum ferendum esse recte probaveris, haud plane refragabimur.
Whether, however, this book was composed out of several, or one certain homily delivered by our Clement to the Alexandrian people, and afterwards not without amplification reduced into the form of a book, just as we do not dare to define, so we can say not rashly that scarcely any appearance of a sermon is any longer extant in it, nor any other characters than those of a book complete in all its parts. Yet some have seemed to themselves to have remarked in it some marks of a sermon, to whom, if you rightly prove that our vote ought to be given, we shall by no means oppose it.
Qua autem ratione ad eum scribendum mentem suam auctor appulerit, hunc in modum declarat : « Nihil sic juvat, ac ipsa rursus audire verba, quae in Evangeliis exposita, nec justo satis examine, atque errore auditoribus prae infantia mentis accepta hactenus vos conturbarunt. » At his ille verbis planum omnibus facit quosdam suo exstitisse tempore, quos Christi ad divitem verba conturbaverant. Nam ea vero rectoque sensu non accipientes, omnem prorsus de divitum salute spem perdidisse videbantur. Ad eam itaque commotionem, perturbationemque sedandam, ac falsam, qua imbuti erant, opinionem ex eorum animis penitus evellendam, ad hanc lucubrationem scribendam animum se appulisse haud obscure significat.
Moreover, by what reason the author applied his mind to writing it, he declares in this manner: "Nothing so helps as to hear again the very words which, set forth in the Gospels, have hitherto troubled you because they were taken by the hearers without a sufficiently just examination and erroneously through infancy of mind." Now by these words he makes it plain to all that there existed some in his time whom the words of Christ to the rich man had troubled. For not taking them in a true and right sense, they seemed to have lost altogether all hope concerning the salvation of the rich. In order therefore to allay that commotion and perturbation, and utterly to pluck out from their minds the false opinion with which they were imbued, he signifies not obscurely that he applied his mind to writing this work.
Dictu igitur longe difficilius est quem Clemens varias inter suas lucubrationes huic libro locum dederit. In quibusdam siquidem codicibus octavus Stromatum ejus liber, teste Photio, inscriptus fuit. Sed falsum omnino esse hunc titulum inde primum evidentissime demonstratur, quod hic liber ab ipso Stromatum nomine, et ab ipsa, qua Stromatum libri scripti sunt, ratione penitus discrepet. Haec quippe Stromatum commentaria, uti ex ipsomet Clemente superius adnotavimus, « varia sunt, et ut ipsum nomen indicat, varie contexta, ab alio ad aliud continens transeuntia, et per verborum quidem seriem, ac contextum, aliud significantia, aliud vero indicantia. » Quocirca rursus alibi de illis ita loquitur : « Iis quae, prout occasio sese obtulit, mihi venerunt in mentem, et neque ordine, neque dictione sunt expurgata, sed de industria dispersa sunt, permistim nobis instar prati variata est Stromatum descriptio. »
It is therefore far more difficult to say what place Clement gave to this book among his various works. Since in certain codices, according to the testimony of Photius, it was entitled the eighth book of his Stromata. But that this title is altogether false is first most evidently demonstrated from this, that this book utterly differs from the very name of Stromata, and from the very manner in which the books of the Stromata were written. For these commentaries of the Stromata, as we noted above from Clement himself, "are various, and as the very name indicates, variously woven together, passing continually from one thing to another, and through the series and context of the words signifying one thing, indeed, and indicating another." Wherefore again elsewhere he speaks thus of them: "With the things which, according as occasion offered itself, came into my mind, and are neither polished in order nor in diction, but have been purposely scattered, the description of the Stromata has been promiscuously variegated by us like a meadow."
Deinde vero ibidem ostendimus sacrae nostrae doctrinae nostrorumque sacratiorum mysteriorum explanationem his in libris cum ethnicorum placitorum et dogmatum expositione passim ubique permisceri, ac Clementem et a proposito saepe saepius digredi, et frequentissime ab uno ad aliud argumentum transire, atque a posteriore ad prius reverti.
And next we showed in the same place that the explanation of our sacred doctrine and of our more sacred mysteries in these books is everywhere promiscuously mingled with the exposition of pagan tenets and dogmas, and that Clement both very often digresses from his subject, and most frequently passes from one argument to another, and returns from a later one to a former.
Atqui econtrario in hoc, quo de agimus, libro magna est orationis connexio et cohaerentia, vix ulla a proposito digressio, nullaque prorsus profani atque ethnici dogmatis admistio. Quis igitur in animum sibi inducat Clementem Alexandrinum, nemine prius admonito, eam lucubrationem pro octavo, quem promiserat, Stromatum libro dedisse, quae a septem aliis non minus quam caelum a terra distat, planeque dissidet?
And yet on the contrary in this book of which we are treating, there is a great connexion and coherence of discourse, scarcely any digression from the subject, and no admixture at all of profane and pagan dogma. Who therefore could induce his mind to believe that Clement of Alexandria, with no one previously admonished, gave that work for the eighth book of the Stromata which he had promised, which is distant from the seven others no less than heaven from earth, and plainly disagrees with them?
Nescii quidem non sumus haec ipsiusmet Clementis esse in septimi Stromatum libri fine verba : « Atque adeo post hunc septimum librum de iis, quae sequuntur, aliud sumamus exordium. » At certe quantumvis dixerit diversum ab aliis fore octavi sui Stromatum libri exordium, cui tamen credibile fiet Clementem, nemine alibi prius, uti observavimus, unquam commonefacto, argumentum in eo octavo libro pertractavisse, ab aliorum
We are not indeed ignorant that these are the words of Clement himself at the end of the seventh book of the Stromata: "And so after this seventh book let us take another beginning concerning the things that follow." Yet certainly however much he may have said that the beginning of his eighth book of the Stromata would be diverse from the others, to whom nevertheless will it become credible that Clement, with no one elsewhere previously, as we have observed, ever reminded, treated thoroughly in that eighth book a subject from the
Editors' notes and page, col. 1449
Footnotes
(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1449
p. 165 et 174.
pp. 165 and 174.
(92) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1449
§ 4.
§ 4.
(93) ‹anchor: teste Photio› · call in col 1449
loc. cit.
at the place cited.
(94) ‹anchor: superius adnotavimus› · call in col 1449
dissert. super. 2, c. 2, art. 3, p. 890.
the second dissertation above, ch. 2, art. 3, p. 890.
(95) ‹anchor: libri fine verba› · call in col 1449
l. VII, p. 767.
book VII, p. 767.
Page
- running head: 1449 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A evidentissimo trium; B atque errore; C matum libri; D magna est
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: evidentissimo trium; signature mark at bottom: PATROL. GR. IX.
praecedentium librorum materia, scribendique ratione omnino differens, ac penitus dissimile? Quinimo omnes facile concedent, cum sub septimi libri finem Clemens scripserit : « Aggrediamur quod sumus polliciti, » eum in subsequenti, si tamen illum aliquando composuerit, libro de his disputasse, de quibus se disputaturum esse ibidem promiserat. At fidem suam ibi obligaverat fore ut aliquando philosophorum ethnicorum, atque nostrorum haereticorum, ac nominatim Prodici et Marcionitarum impugnaret errores, atque etiam de verae Ecclesiae notis et characteribus, aliisque de rebus ageret, de quibus nihil plane, ac ne minimum quidem vestigium in eo, de quo agimus, libro reperitur. Singularis itaque hic liber est, a septem Stromatum libris omnino diversus, nec eorum octavus ullo unquam jure dici potuit.
matter and manner of writing of the other preceding books altogether differing and utterly dissimilar? Nay rather, all will easily grant that since towards the end of the seventh book Clement wrote: "Let us enter upon what we have promised," in the subsequent book, if however he ever composed it, he disputed concerning those things concerning which he had in the same place promised that he would dispute. Now he had pledged his faith there that at some time he would attack the errors of the pagan philosophers and of our heretics, and by name of Prodicus and the Marcionites, and would also treat of the marks and characters of the true Church, and concerning other things, of which plainly nothing, and not even the slightest trace, is found in the book of which we are treating. This book therefore is a separate work, altogether diverse from the seven books of the Stromata, nor could it ever by any right be called the eighth of them.
Quo autem tempore a Clemente Alexandrino, si revera ejus auctor fuerit, publici factus sit juris, dictu non omnino promptum et expeditum est. Nullam etenim illius aetatis aliam in eo deprehendimus notam, nisi ubi auctor ad suam « principiorum et theologiae expositionem, τὴν ἀρχῶν καὶ θεολογίας ἐξήγησιν, nos mittit. » At si eo nomine tractatus ille, quem in tertio Stromatum libro semel et iterum De principiis adversus Marcionistas conscripturum se esse ipse spoponderat, intelligendus sit, certe neque ante perfectos et absolutos septem Stromatum libros, neque ante octavum, modo tamen eum composuisse probetur, huic commentationi manum admovere potuit. Vidimus enimvero omnes Stromatum libros sic sibi invicem esse conjunctos ac cohaerentes, ut nullum aliud opus eis fuerit interpositum.
At what time, however, it was made public property by Clement of Alexandria, if he was in reality its author, is not altogether ready and easy to say. For we detect in it no other mark of its age than where the author "sends us to his exposition of principles and theology, τὴν ἀρχῶν καὶ θεολογίας ἐξήγησιν." Now if by that name that treatise is to be understood which in the third book of the Stromata he had himself promised once and again that he would write On Principles against the Marcionites, certainly neither before the seven books of the Stromata were completed and finished, nor before the eighth, provided however it be proved that he composed it, could he have put his hand to this treatise. For we have seen that all the books of the Stromata are so joined and coherent with one another that no other work was interposed between them.
ARTICULUS III.
ARTICLE III.
Novae hunc in librum notae et observationes, ubi de alio libro, qui octavus Stromatum inscribitur.
New notes and observations upon this book, wherein concerning another book which is entitled the eighth of the Stromata.
Diximus hujus libri auctorem variorum, ac praesertim Origenis errorum a quibusdam reum agi, palamque insimulari. Utrum autem ille jure vel injuria accusetur, a nobis sedulo examinandum est. Primum itaque ubi hic ipse auctor noster scribit divitem, qui mandatis Christi morem gesserit, bonis operibus caelesti dignum esse patria, tunc continenter adjicit : « In quam corona donatus, angelorumque praeconio, revertitur. » At haec posteriora verba in Ghislerianae editionis margine hac gravi inuruntur censura : « Origenis innuitur damnata opinio de praeexsistentia animarum in caelis. » Sed immerito plane et perperam, uti scite Combefisius animadvertit, id dicitur. Nam post apostolos plerique omnes Ecclesiae Patres docent nos in hac vita esse peregrinos et hospites, ac caelestem inquirere patriam, ad quam, si justi fuerimus, post mortem revertemur. Ad eam siquidem prima nostra origine jus habemus : sed illud sicut peccato cum originali, tum aliis gravioribus postea perpetratis amittimus, ita poenitentia et pietate, ac divina gratia recuperamus. Quapropter cum in gratia, ut aiunt, sanctificante mortem obimus, ad caelestem patriam redire haud prorsus inepte dicimur.
We have said that the author of this book is arraigned and openly accused by some of various errors, and especially those of Origen. Whether, however, he is accused justly or unjustly must be sedulously examined by us. First, therefore, where this very author of ours writes that the rich man who has obeyed the commandments of Christ is worthy through good works of the heavenly fatherland, he then immediately adds: "Unto which, presented with a crown, and with the proclamation of angels, he returns." Now these latter words in the margin of the Ghislerian edition are branded with this heavy censure: "The condemned opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls in heaven is hinted at." But altogether undeservedly and wrongly, as Combefis skilfully remarks, is that said. For after the apostles almost all the Fathers of the Church teach that in this life we are strangers and sojourners, and seek a heavenly fatherland, to which, if we have been just, we shall return after death. Since to it from our first origin we have a right: but just as we lose that right both by original sin and by other more grievous sins afterwards perpetrated, so by repentance and piety and divine grace we recover it. Wherefore when we die in sanctifying grace, as they say, we are not at all ineptly said to return to the heavenly fatherland.
Non potiori ratione eumdem Origenis errorem sapere arguuntur haec adhuc de divite auctoris nostri verba : « A culpa remotius est, si statim a Deo praebente animam, ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν νέμοντος, in domum ejusmodi hominum (divitum) genusque copiosum εἰσῳκίσθη, inductus est, » vel, ut vertit Cariophylus, immissus est. Cum ibi etenim anima dicatur a Deo praeberi, hoc certe loquendi modo aperte significatur eam a Deo creari; ac post suam creationem in domum divitiis et opibus locupletatam induci, et, si velis, immitti. At frustra sane, ac plane perperam hoc ultimo verbo significari
With no better reason are these further words of our author concerning the rich man argued to savour of the same error of Origen: "It is further removed from blame if immediately by God bestowing the soul, ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν νέμοντος, into a house of such men (the rich) and an abundant lineage εἰσῳκίσθη, he was introduced," or, as Cariophylus translates, was sent in. For since the soul is there said to be bestowed by God, by this manner of speaking it is certainly openly signified that it is created by God; and after its creation is introduced, and, if you will, sent into a house enriched with riches and wealth. Yet in vain assuredly, and plainly wrongly by this last word do they wish it to be signified
Editors' notes and page, col. 1450
Footnotes
(96) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1450
Strom. l. III, p. 431 et 434.
Stromata, book III, pp. 431 and 434.
(97) ‹anchor: continenter adjicit› · call in col 1450
§ 3.
§ 3.
(98) ‹anchor: post apostolos› · call in col 1450
Paul. ad Heb. XI, 13, et I Petr. II, 11.
Paul to the Hebrews 11:13, and 1 Peter 2:11.
(99) ‹anchor: auctoris nostri verba› · call in col 1450
§ 26.
§ 26.
<!-- NOTE: the numeral of note 96 prints faintly; assigned by sequence; its call stands above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 724)
Page
- running head: S CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1450
- marginal letters: A praecedentium librorum; B dictu non; C Diximus hujus; D tratis amittimus,
- old-edition numerals: 340 after theologiae
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek phrases; editors' matter: praecedentium librorum; signature mark at bottom: 46; word split at column break: signifi-
- other: the word significari was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1451
volunt animam prius exstitisse, atque ob peccata prius admissa in corpus tanquam in carcerem detrudi. Nihil quippe ab auctoris nostri mente magis alienum fingi potest; quandoquidem ille ibi perspicue declarat animam eo ipso temporis puncto a Deo creari, quo in corpus immittitur et infunditur.
that the soul existed previously, and on account of sins previously committed is thrust down into the body as into a prison. For nothing can be imagined more foreign from the mind of our author; since he there perspicuously declares that the soul is created by God at that very point of time at which it is sent and infused into the body.
Eodem plane sensu ab eodem auctore nostro postea dictum legimus : « Hoc semen (scilicet pauperum) ..... velut in exsilium quoddam, ac peregrinationem magno patris propensiore consilio, congruaque eis ratione, ac sorte huc mittitur. » Enimvero cum ibi dixerit, ὥσπερ ἐπί τινα ξενιτείαν, « tanquam in peregrinationem, » et hospitium, haud obscure colligitur illum ad Petri et Pauli verba, a nobis paulo ante citata, allusisse, quibus nos in hoc mundo hospites et peregrinos esse illi pronuntiarunt. At si in eo revera simus peregrini, atque etiam exsules, quid prohibet quominus in illum mitti dicamur?
In the very same sense we read it said afterwards by our same author: "This seed (namely of the poor) ..... as if into a certain exile and pilgrimage by the great and more propitious counsel of the Father, and by a reason and lot suitable to them, is sent hither." For when he said there, ὥσπερ ἐπί τινα ξενιτείαν, "as if into a pilgrimage," and sojourn, it is gathered not obscurely that he alluded to the words of Peter and Paul cited by us a little before, whereby they pronounced that we are sojourners and strangers in this world. Now if in reality we are strangers in it, and also exiles, what prevents us from being said to be sent into it?
At hujus, inquiunt, Origeniani erroris venenum palam ac manifeste his propinatur verbis : Σχῆμα τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἔξωθεν ὑμῖν περιβεβλημένον, τῆς εἰς κόσμον παρόδου πρόσφασις· ἵνα εἰς τὸ κοινὸν τοῦτο παιδευτήριον εἰσελθεῖν δυνηθῶμεν. « Habitus hic nobis exterius adhibitus est, nostri in hunc mundum ingressus occasio; ut in communem hanc scholam ingredi possimus. » Verum Combefisius declarat se non videre cur ibi auctor noster his tam paucis verbis, nec ita sane claris et apertis in hujusce Origeniani de animarum transmigratione, seu potius earum, uti loquuntur, praeexsistentia erroris scopulum impegisse credatur. Ait enim Combefisius ibi ab auctore nostro tantum asseri animam in corpus, veluti in scholam et palaestram, ubi sese exerceat, venire, corpusque ad eam, quasi habitus, quod in illa divinum est, obtegentis habere rationem. Ad id autem nihil necesse est ut anima prius exstiterit : sed sufficit eam a Deo cum originalis peccati contrahendi debito tunc creari, cum in corpus ex Adami radice generatum infunditur.
But the poison of this Origenian error, say they, is openly and manifestly administered in these words: Σχῆμα τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἔξωθεν ὑμῖν περιβεβλημένον, τῆς εἰς κόσμον παρόδου πρόσφασις· ἵνα εἰς τὸ κοινὸν τοῦτο παιδευτήριον εἰσελθεῖν δυνηθῶμεν. "This vesture has been applied to us externally, the occasion of our entrance into this world; that we may be able to enter into this common school." Yet Combefis declares that he does not see why our author there in these so few words, and not indeed so clear and open, should be believed to have struck upon the rock of this Origenian error concerning the transmigration of souls, or rather their pre-existence, as they say. For Combefis says that there it is only asserted by our author that the soul comes into the body as into a school and wrestling-place where it may exercise itself, and that the body has towards it the relation as it were of a vesture covering what is divine in it. Now for that there is no need at all that the soul should have existed previously: but it suffices that it be created by God with the debt of contracting original sin at the time when it is infused into the body generated from the root of Adam.
Sed haec Combefisii explanatio, qua proposita difficultas solvi non videtur, aliis omnino non arrisit. Nec plane quidem immerito. Nemini siquidem ille facile unquam persuadebit auctorem nostrum ibi potius de peccato originali, quam de anima longo, ante corpus tempore creata, fuisse locutum. Nobis itaque facilius probabitur illum neque ad hoc, neque ad illud spectasse, ac de iis ne quidem cogitasse. Ibi etenim ille perspicue docet pauperes, ob corporis deformitatem aut infirmitatem, a divitibus non esse contemnendos aut pessumdandos. Hominis quippe corpus est tantum habitus, vel forma, sive figura extrinseca, sed intus in illo Deus Pater, et Filius, qui pro nobis mortuus est, inhabitant. Graeca autem verba, superius objecta, sic Latine ad litteram reddi possunt : « Figura haec nobis (ibi enim ἡμῖν, et non ὑμῖν, legendum est) extrinsecus circumdata est, nostri in mundum transitus causa; ut in commune hoc doctrinae diversorium ingredi possimus, » id est corpus nostrum formatum et figuratum, causa est cur anima nostra, a Deo creata, in illud infundatur, atque ita in hunc mundum, quod commune doctrinae diversorium est, ingredi possimus. Ex quibus colligitur eumdem esse horum auctoris nostri verborum atque superiorum sensum, eamdemque plane veram et orthodoxam significationem. Infitias tamen plane non ibimus in his verbis : « Anima transit in corpus, » vel « anima hoc transitu in mundum ingreditur, » et aliis similibus si ab homine, Origeniana, vel alia prava haereticorum de anima, ante suum exsistente corpus, opinione imbuto proferrentur, posse aliquid habere insidiosi et suspecti : sed recto catholicoque sensu ab aliis orthodoxis viris haec dici posse, nemo uti putamus, jure merito poterit
But this explanation of Combefis, whereby the proposed difficulty does not seem to be solved, did not at all please others. And plainly not undeservedly. Since he will never easily persuade anyone that our author spoke there of original sin rather than of the soul created a long time before the body. By us therefore it will be more easily proved that he looked neither to the one nor to the other, and did not even think of them. For there he perspicuously teaches that the poor, on account of the deformity or infirmity of the body, are not to be despised or trampled under foot by the rich. For the body of man is only a vesture, or form, or extrinsic figure, whereas within it God the Father, and the Son, who died for us, dwell. Moreover, the Greek words objected above can be rendered literally into Latin thus: "This figure has been encompassed around us (for there ἡμῖν, and not ὑμῖν, is to be read) externally, for the sake of our passage into the world; that we may be able to enter into this common lodging-place of instruction," that is, our formed and fashioned body is the cause why our soul, created by God, is infused into it, and that thus we may be able to enter into this world, which is the common lodging-place of instruction. From which things it is gathered that the sense of these words of our author is the same as that of the preceding ones, and has the very same true and orthodox signification. Nevertheless we shall plainly not deny that in these words: "The soul passes into the body," or "the soul by this passage enters into the world," and other similar ones, if they were uttered by a man imbued with the Origenian or other depraved opinion of heretics concerning the soul existing before its body, they could have something insidious and suspect: but that these things can be said in a right and catholic sense by other orthodox men, no one, as we think, will rightly and deservedly be able to
Editors' notes and page, col. 1451
Footnotes
(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1451
§ 36.
§ 36.
(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1451
§ 33.
§ 33.
(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1451
§ 29.
§ 29.
(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1451?
Rom. VIII, 21.
Romans 8:21.
Page
- running head: 1451 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A cari volunt; B palam ac; C cum in; D transitus causa;
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citations; editors' matter: cari volunt; word split at column break: -cari
diffiteri. Et vero, non aliam certe ob causam Cariophylus et Ghislerius his aliisque auctoris nostri in verbis absurdas Origenis opiniones deprehendere sibi visi sunt, quam quia in animum sibi falso induxerant Origenem esse hujus libri parentem et auctorem.
deny. And indeed, certainly for no other cause did Cariophylus and Ghislerius seem to themselves to detect the absurd opinions of Origen in these and other words of our author than because they had falsely induced their minds to believe that Origen was the parent and author of this book.
Alterius Origeniani erroris auctor noster accusatur, ubi de angelis haec scribit : « Hic est, qui angelos, et principatus, et potestates, ut nobis ministerio fungantur, sub magna mercede subjecit. Nam et ipsi liberabuntur a mundi vanitate in revelatione gloriae filiorum Dei. » Ubi ille dubio procul ad ea Apostoli ad Romanos scribentis alludit verba : « Quia et ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis in libertatem gloriae filiorum Dei. »
Our author is accused of another Origenian error where concerning the angels he writes these things: "He it is who subjected angels, and principalities, and powers, that they may perform ministry for us, under a great reward. For they also shall be delivered from the vanity of the world in the revelation of the glory of the sons of God." Where without doubt he alludes to those words of the Apostle writing to the Romans: "Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God."
Fatentur tamen theologi eum erroris, ab Ecclesia sanctisque Patribus condemnati, revera esse reum, qui dixerit angelos, suae salutis hactenus incertos, nostram ideo exspectare liberationem, ut et ipsi pro officiis in nos bene aut male collatis, aeterna felicitate, aut cruciatibus sempiternis afficiantur. Quidam vero hunc errorem in libris Periarchon simpliciter, alii, lib. I hujus operis, cap. 7 et 8, ab Origene assertum fuisse observarunt. Verum illud longe clarius ab eo traditur libro VIII, cap. 7, in Pauli ad Romanos Epistolam, atque homil. 13 in Lucam, ubi haec leguntur : « Et quo modo homo si commissam sibi dispensationem bene gerit, laudatur a Domino, si male, culpa et vitio subjacet, sic et angelus. Scriptum est enim in Apocalypsi Joannis : Sed habes ibi nomina pauca .... et accusantur angeli, quibus creditae sunt Ecclesiae. Porro frequenter evenit, ut nobis laborantibus, illi suum officium non expleant, et in culpis sint. » Nec minus clare loco a nobis prius laudato : « Spes namque est ab iis rebus corporeis et corruptibilibus aliquando cessandum. Hanc enim habet exspectationem creatura ista « rationabilis : » ut revelatio fiat filiorum Dei, propter quos angeli mittuntur in ministerium, ut et ipsi cum his, quibus ministrarunt, haereditatem capiant salutis; ut terrestrium, et caelestium fiat unus grex, et unus pastor, et sit Deus omnia in omnibus. » Huic autem Origenis non tam de salvandis, uti quidam aiunt, daemonibus, quam de dubia adhuc et incerta angelorum, humanae custodiae praepositorum, salute opinioni nostrum auctorum suffragari arbitrati sunt.
Yet theologians confess that he is in reality guilty of an error condemned by the Church and the holy Fathers, who should say that the angels, hitherto uncertain of their salvation, await our deliverance for this reason, that they also, according to the offices well or ill conferred upon us, may be visited with eternal felicity or everlasting torments. And some have observed that this error was asserted by Origen simply in the books of the Periarchon, others in book I of this work, chap. 7 and 8. Yet that is handed down far more clearly by him in book VIII, chap. 7, on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, and homily 13 on Luke, where these things are read: "And just as a man, if he manages well the dispensation committed to him, is praised by the Lord, if ill, is subject to blame and fault, so also the angel. For it is written in the Apocalypse of John: But you have there a few names .... and the angels to whom the Churches were entrusted are accused. Furthermore, it frequently happens that while we labour, they do not fulfil their office, and are in fault." Nor less clearly in the passage previously cited by us: "For the hope is that there must at some time be a ceasing from these corporeal and corruptible things. For this rational creature has this expectation: that the revelation of the sons of God may be made, on account of whom the angels are sent into ministry, that they also with those to whom they have ministered may receive the inheritance of salvation; that of earthly and heavenly things there may be made one flock, and one shepherd, and God may be all in all." Now with this opinion of Origen not so much concerning the saving of demons, as some say, as concerning the still doubtful and uncertain salvation of the angels set over the guardianship of men, they supposed that our author agreed.
Sed Combefisius existimat citata illius verba hoc benigniori et orthodoxo sensu posse explicari : angelos, qui aeterna et immutabili, sive, ut aiunt scholastici, essentiali potiuntur beatitudine, propter nos, prout bene aut male agimus, metaphorico quodam modo dici aut gaudere et laetari, aut contristari et flere. Nobis vero de hac a scholasticis theologicis excogitata beatitudinis in accidentalem et essentialem distinctione eo minus cogitasse videtur auctor noster, quo magis ex ejus verbis nihil unde ea distinctio colligi possit, plane discernimus.
But Combefis thinks that his cited words can be explained in this more benign and orthodox sense: that the angels, who possess eternal and immutable, or, as the scholastics say, essential beatitude, on our account, according as we act well or ill, are in a certain metaphorical manner said either to rejoice and be glad, or to be saddened and weep. To us, however, our author seems all the less to have thought of this distinction of beatitude into accidental and essential devised by scholastic theologians, the more plainly we discern from his words nothing whence that distinction can be gathered.
Posset itaque potior illius excusandi ratio peti ex Augustino, qui de hac quaestione et de citatis Apostoli verbis hunc scribit in modum : « Deinde liberandam creaturam dixit a servitute interitus, quo illos cecidisse, qui in caelis agunt vitam beatissimam, non possumus credere. Tamen nihil temere confirmandum est, sed pia diligentia etiam atque etiam verba divina tractanda sunt; ne forte quae congemiscit, et dolet, et vanitati subjecta est, possit aliquo modo intelligi, ut de summis angelis, quandiu infirmitati nostrae opitulantur, non impie possit existimari. Sed sive illa, quam exsecuti sumus, sive alia aliqua hujus capituli expositio proferatur, id tantum curandum est, ne violet, aut vulneret catholicam fidem. Scio enim vanos haereticos de hoc capitulo multa impia et inepta jactasse. » Docet itaque Augustinus vanos quosdam
A better method of excusing him could therefore be sought from Augustine, who concerning this question and concerning the cited words of the Apostle writes in this manner: "Next he said that the creature is to be delivered from the servitude of destruction, into which we cannot believe that those have fallen who lead a most blessed life in heaven. Nevertheless nothing is to be rashly affirmed, but with pious diligence the divine words are to be treated again and again; lest perchance that which groans together, and grieves, and is subject to vanity, may in some way be understood so that concerning the highest angels, so long as they aid our infirmity, it may be thought not impiously. But whether that exposition which we have pursued, or any other exposition of this passage be brought forward, this only is to be cared for, that it do not violate or wound the catholic faith. For I know that vain heretics have boasted many impious and inept things concerning this passage." Augustine therefore teaches that there were certain vain
Editors' notes and page, col. 1452
Footnotes
(5) ‹anchor: (Apocalypse quotation) Sed habes ibi nomina pauca› · call in col 1452
Apoc. III, 4.
Revelation 3:4.
(6) ‹anchor: hunc scribit in modum› · call in col 1452
tom. VI, De divers. quaest. 83, quaest. 67, § 7, p. 51.
vol. VI, On Eighty-three Diverse Questions, question 67, § 7, p. 51.
<!-- NOTE: the series restarts at 1 on this page. Calls of 1–4 stand above the rendered foot; note 5's call stands just before the quotation at the head of the right foot. --> (printed under page 725)
Page
- running head: LEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1452
- marginal letters: A diffiteri. Et; B et ipsi; C filiorum Dei,; D Posset itaque
- old-edition numerals: 341 after latione
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: diffiteri. Et
fuisse haereticos, qui citata, uti diximus, Pauli verba, de angelis praepostere explicantes, multa falsa, absurda et impia effutierant. At quamvis haec eadem Apostoli verba de angelis videantur non posse accipi, pro solita nihilominus sua singulari moderatione ac modestia doctor ille eximius fatetur eos non esse temere condemnandos, qui illa modo aliquo, nec impio, nec absurdo fuerint interpretati. Porro autem auctor noster obiter tantum ad eadem, sicut vidimus, Apostoli verba collineando, ea brevissime de angelis explicuit. Verum ibi penitus silet quo sensu intelligenda esse putaverit, aut quomodo angeli a mundi vanitate liberabuntur. Quo igitur jure dici potest ea pravo ac haeretico sensu ab auctore nostro fuisse accepta? Satius est Augustini modestiam imitari, nec eum condemnare, qui quo sensu Apostoli verba intellexerit, certo sciri non potest.
heretics who, preposterously explaining the cited words of Paul, as we have said, concerning the angels, had blurted out many false, absurd, and impious things. Yet although these same words of the Apostle seem incapable of being taken concerning the angels, nevertheless in accordance with his usual singular moderation and modesty that eminent doctor confesses that those are not to be rashly condemned who have interpreted them in some manner neither impious nor absurd. Furthermore, our author, aiming only in passing at the same words of the Apostle, just as we have seen, explained them most briefly concerning the angels. Yet there he is utterly silent as to what sense he thought they were to be understood in, or how the angels shall be delivered from the vanity of the world. By what right therefore can it be said that they were taken by our author in a depraved and heretical sense? It is better to imitate the modesty of Augustine, and not to condemn him, as to whom it cannot be known with certainty in what sense he understood the words of the Apostle.
Pelagianismum autem olere Ghislerio, vel etiam Cariophylo videntur haec auctoris nostri verba : « Homo ipse a se suaque virtute operam ponens, studensque, ac laborans, ut compressis affectibus, tranquilli animi fiat, καὶ διαπονούμενος ἀπάθειαν, nihil inde praestat; sin autem ejus palam rei desiderio vehementius inardescat, diligentiamque omnem adhibeat, adjuncta illi divina virtute, τῇ προσθήκῃ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως, evadit votorum compos. Deus namque volentibus animis aspirat. » At tantum abest, ut haec Pelagianismum redolere Combefisius existimaverit; quin potius magna ipsi videantur gratiae commendatio nostrique ad eam libera voluntate conatus explicatio. Nam ibi, inquit, humana voluntas sine gratia excitante ita inutilis declaratur, ut non sine novo Dei auxilio fiat virtutis compos, et ἀπάθειαν adipiscatur.
Moreover, to Ghislerius, or even to Cariophylus, these words of our author seem to smell of Pelagianism: "Man himself of himself and by his own power bestowing labour, and striving, and toiling, that with passions repressed he may become of a tranquil mind, καὶ διαπονούμενος ἀπάθειαν ('and working out apathy'), accomplishes nothing thereby; but if he openly burn more vehemently with desire of that thing, and apply all diligence, with divine power joined to him, τῇ προσθήκῃ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως ('by the addition of the power from God'), he becomes master of his wishes. For God breathes upon willing souls." Yet so far is Combefis from having thought that these things smell of Pelagianism, that rather they seem to him a great commendation of grace and an explanation of our effort towards it by free will. For there, says he, the human will without exciting grace is declared so useless that not without new aid of God does it become master of virtue and obtain ἀπάθειαν ("apathy").
Sed ingenue fatendum est duplicem esse posse auctoris nostri verborum explicationem et sensum. Et primo quidem significare possunt hominem, nimirum divitem, de quo auctor noster disputat, tunc ἀπάθειαν, perturbationum, sive pravi divitiarum desiderii vacuitatem et immunitatem consequi, cum totis connititur viribus, omnemque, ut illius expers et liber sit, diligentiam adhibet, atque divina gratia ei accedit, et additur. Verbum etenim προσθήκη idem sonat atque augmentum, incrementum et accessio. Quo quidem sensu significaretur divinam gratiam humanis conatibus praeveniri, et istis postea adjici. At hic sensus, etsi non ipsummet Pelagianismum, saltem semi-Pelagianismum sapit et redolet.
But it must be frankly confessed that there can be a twofold explanation and sense of the words of our author. And first indeed they can signify that man, namely the rich man concerning whom our author disputes, then attains ἀπάθειαν, freedom and immunity from perturbations, or from the depraved desire of riches, when he strives with all his might, and applies all diligence that he may be devoid and free of it, and divine grace approaches and is added to him. For the word προσθήκη sounds the same as increase, increment, and addition. In which sense indeed it would be signified that divine grace is anticipated by human efforts, and afterwards added to them. Now this sense, even if not Pelagianism itself, at least savours and smells of Semi-Pelagianism.
Secundus vero sensus esse potest hominem ad hanc ἀπάθειαν, seu pravi divitiarum affectus vacuitatem pervenire, quando illi adjuncta est, seu conceditur divina gratia, aut gratiae praevenientis adjutorium : atque hac divina ope adjutus, omnem operam impendit ut illam ἀπάθειαν obtineat. Hic autem sensus plane sanus est et orthodoxus. Atqui hanc esse auctoris nostri mentem inde confici posse videtur, quod ille ibidem probandum susceperit, hoc non ab hominibus, sed a solo Deo posse fieri. Quando itaque ibi addidit, βουλομέναις μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ταῖς ψυχαῖς συνεπιπνεῖ· « Deus enim volentibus animis aspirat, » sive potius, « simul aspirat et afflat, » nonne his verbis ille declarat Deum volentibus divitum animis simul aspirare, gratia scilicet praeveniente ac concomitante, qua possint illud obtinere, quod sine ea nunquam consequi possent? Quamobrem prius ipse dixerat : « In homine, tanquam libero, libera erat voluntatis electio; in Deo autem dare, tanquam Domino et arbitro. Dat autem volentibus, et summo studio annitentibus et orantibus; ut sic illorum propria exsistat salus. Neque enim Deus cogit (vis enim inimica est Deo), sed quaerentibus tribuit, et petentibus praebet, et pulsantibus aperit. » Quibus sane verbis ille docet homini divina gratia, tametsi eum agentem et praeveniat
The second sense, however, can be that man arrives at this ἀπάθειαν, or freedom from the depraved passion for riches, when divine grace, or the aid of prevenient grace, is joined or granted to him: and aided by this divine help, he expends all labour that he may obtain that ἀπάθειαν. Now this sense is plainly sound and orthodox. And yet that this is the mind of our author seems capable of being established from this, that he undertook in the same place to prove that this can be done not by men, but by God alone. When therefore he added there, βουλομέναις μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ταῖς ψυχαῖς συνεπιπνεῖ· "For God breathes upon willing souls," or rather, "breathes and blows together with them," does he not by these words declare that God breathes together with the willing souls of the rich, namely by prevenient and concomitant grace, whereby they may be able to obtain that which without it they could never attain? Wherefore previously he himself had said: "In man, as free, there was free choice of will; whereas in God it was to give, as Lord and arbiter. Moreover, he gives to those who will, and strive with the highest zeal, and pray; that thus salvation may become their own. For God does not compel (for violence is hostile to God), but bestows upon those who seek, and furnishes to those who ask, and opens to those who knock." By which words assuredly he teaches that by divine grace no violence at all is brought to bear upon man, although it anticipates and accompanies him when acting:
Editors' notes and page, col. 1453
Footnotes
(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1453
§ 21.
§ 21.
(8) ‹anchor: ibi addidit› · call in col 1453
§ 10.
§ 10.
Page
- running head: 1453 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A fuisse haereticos,; B studensque, ac; C θειαν, perturbationum,; D videtur, quod
- old-edition numerals: 342 after cogit
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citations; editors' matter: fuisse haereticos,; word split at column break: prae-
- other: the word praeveniat was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1454
et comitetur, nullam plane vim afferri : sed ea effici, ut libere agat, ac libera voluntate aeternam salutem adipiscatur.
but that by it it is brought about that he acts freely, and by free will obtains eternal salvation.
Nodum porro in scirpo ii certe quaerunt, qui volunt auctorem nostrum errori Novatianorum his praelusisse verbis : « Si quis... forte per ignorantiam, aut vitae casus involuntarios, post signaculum, σφραγῖδα, et liberationem a peccatis, in peccata, seu debita prolapsus fuerit, ita ut illis prorsus obrutus sit, is a Deo penitus rejectus est, ac reprobus exsistit. Quisquis enim ex toto corde ad Deum convertitur, portae ei apertae sunt, suscipitque libentissimo animo Pater filium vere poenitentem. » Quod enim, amabo te, vel minimum Novatianae haereseos vestigium ibi deprehendi potest? Quid ad remittendorum peccatorum negatam ministris Ecclesiae potestatem, quod hujus haeresis caput erat, ibi aut spectat aut accedit? Nihil plane. Non enim aliud auctor noster iis verbis sibi voluit, nisi eum, qui in peccatis perseverat, tandiu a Deo rejici et reprobari, quandiu iis obrutus fuerit. At ubi ad Deum ex toto corde convertitur, et eum peccatorum vere poenitebit, tum a Patre aeterno, qui salutis portas illi aperiet, illico suscipietur. In Graeco autem auctoris nostri textu nihil cum Cariophylo immutandum est, quandoquidem nihil prorsus nisi verum et catholicum complectitur.
Furthermore, those men certainly seek a knot in a bulrush who will have it that our author preluded the error of the Novatians by these words: "If anyone... perchance through ignorance, or involuntary accidents of life, after the seal, σφραγῖδα, and deliverance from sins, has lapsed into sins, or debts, so that he is altogether overwhelmed by them, he is utterly rejected by God, and is reprobate. For whosoever is converted to God with his whole heart, the gates are open to him, and with a most gladly willing mind the Father receives the truly penitent son." For what, I pray you, even the slightest trace of the Novatian heresy can be detected there? What either looks or approaches there to the power of forgiving sins denied to the ministers of the Church, which was the head of this heresy? Plainly nothing. For our author meant nothing else by those words than that he who perseveres in sins is rejected and reprobated by God so long as he is overwhelmed by them. But when he is converted to God with his whole heart, and truly repents of his sins, then by the eternal Father, who will open the gates of salvation to him, he will immediately be received. And in the Greek text of our author nothing is to be changed with Cariophylus, since it comprises nothing at all except what is true and catholic.
Quid vero, quod huic nostrae explicationi non parum roboris et firmamenti inde adjicitur, quod ab auctore nostro diserte traditum postea legimus latronem ac sicarium, vera poenitentia, quasi altero quodam baptismate, a Joanne evangelista Ecclesiae restitutum fuisse? Quamobrem ille ibidem addidit in illo ostendi « magnum sincerae poenitentiae, et iteratae regenerationis grande documentum, ac conspicuae resurrectionis tropaeum. » Quibus sane verbis Novatianus error radicitus amputatur. Vera siquidem et sincera peccatorum, post baptisma admissorum, poenitentia quasi alter quidam baptismus esse dicitur, propter quam Joannes latronem Ecclesiae κατέστησε, seu ἀπεκατέστησε, « restituit. » Quod quidem Graecum verbum, ut id obiter observemus, male prorsus, sicut ab aliis animadversum est, Rufinus Latino, « praefecit, » reddiderat. Nam Joannes facinorosissimum furem, quantumvis poenitentem, non illico contra statam et solemnem coapostolorum suorum disciplinam « praefecit » Ecclesiae, sed « restituit. »
What, moreover, of the fact that no little strength and support is added to this explanation of ours from this, that we read afterwards expressly handed down by our author that a robber and assassin, by true repentance, as if by a certain second baptism, was restored to the Church by John the Evangelist? Wherefore he added in the same place that in him was shown "a great proof of sincere repentance, and a grand example of repeated regeneration, and a trophy of a conspicuous resurrection." By which words assuredly the Novatian error is cut off by the roots. Since true and sincere repentance for sins committed after baptism is said to be as it were a certain second baptism, on account of which John κατέστησε, or ἀπεκατέστησε, "restored" the robber to the Church. Which Greek word indeed, to observe this in passing, Rufinus had altogether badly, just as has been remarked by others, rendered by the Latin, "set over" (praefecit). For John did not immediately, contrary to the fixed and solemn discipline of his fellow apostles, "set over" the Church a most criminal thief, however penitent, but "restored" him.
Nullus igitur nobis amplius insusurret hujusce libri auctorem esse Clementem Alexandrinum, qui Hermam, Novatianismi haud plane immerito postulatum, κατὰ πόδα subsecutus est. Utrumque etenim in hoc errore minime allisum, ita, nisi mens nostra nos fallat, perspicue ostendimus, ut nullus, et ne doctus quidem ille vir, qui haec nobis objecit, tantillum quid contra allatas a nobis rationes in medium potuerit adducere.
Let no one therefore whisper to us any longer that the author of this book is Clement of Alexandria, who followed κατὰ πόδα ("foot by foot") Hermas, arraigned not at all undeservedly of Novatianism. For that neither of the two dashed against this error we have, unless our mind deceives us, so perspicuously shown that no one, and not even that learned man who objected these things to us, could bring forward the slightest thing against the reasons alleged by us.
Denique auctor noster eo adhuc corripitur, quod relicto ac rejecto litterali propositorum a se Christi verborum sensu, non alium quam spiritualem admittere videatur. In eo quippe persequendo paulo nimium ideo fuisse putant, quia de bonorum, praediorum et divitiarum abdicatione sic disputat, quasi Christus discipulos suos ad eam adhortatus non fuerit. Sed praeterquam quod nullus est, qui nesciat veteres Ecclesiae Patres magis allegorico et spirituali, quam litterali Scripturae sensu inhaerere, ipsemet auctor noster aperte fatetur ab iisdem Christi discipulis hamos et retia, aliaque bona sua, ut illum sequerentur, penitus derelicta. Deinde vero ille spirituali Scripturae sensui idcirco potissimum insistit, quia multos, uti animadvertimus, litteralis verborum Christi sensus ad aeternae suae salutis desperationem redegerat. Quamobrem ut illos a desperatione ad spem revocaret, probandum sibi esse credidit, non tam opes et divitias, quam
Finally, our author is still reproved on this account, that having left and rejected the literal sense of the words of Christ proposed by him, he seems to admit none other than the spiritual sense. For in pursuing that they think he went a little too far for this reason, because he disputes concerning the renunciation of goods, estates, and riches as if Christ had not exhorted his disciples to it. But besides the fact that there is no one who does not know that the ancient Fathers of the Church cleave more to the allegorical and spiritual than to the literal sense of Scripture, our author himself openly confesses that by the same disciples of Christ their hooks and nets, and their other goods, that they might follow him, were utterly forsaken. And next, he insists chiefly upon the spiritual sense of Scripture for this reason, because, as we have remarked, the literal sense of the words of Christ had reduced many to despair of their eternal salvation. Wherefore, that he might recall them from despair to hope, he believed that he must prove that not so much wealth and riches as
Editors' notes and page, col. 1454
Footnotes
(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1454
§ 39.
§ 39.
(10) ‹anchor: in illo ostendi› · call in col 1454
§ 42.
§ 42.
(11) ‹anchor: Nullus igitur› · call in col 1454
Ittig. praefat. in hunc libr.
Ittig, preface to this book.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 7 and 9 stand above the rendered foot; columns inferred from the sequence. --> (printed under page 726)
Page
- running head: IIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1454
- marginal letters: A veniat et; B nisi eum,; C smus esse; D relicto ac
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek phrases; editors' matter: veniat et; word split at column break: -veniat
pravum earum usum a Christo proscribi et condemnari. Quamvis igitur alicubi longius, quam par est, contra litteralem Scripturae sensum progressus fuerit, ipsi certe eam, quam attulimus, ob causam aliqua saltem venia danda est.
the depraved use of them is proscribed and condemned by Christ. Although therefore in some places he has progressed further than is fitting against the literal sense of Scripture, certainly on account of that cause which we have alleged at least some pardon must be granted to him.
Ab impactis porro auctori nostro erroribus ut gradum ad alia faciamus, observare juvat ab illo narrari Joannem e Patmo insula Ephesum rediisse, ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας Ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος σημαινομένων· « partim quidem ut episcopos constitueret, partim vero ut Ecclesias integras disponeret et formaret, partim etiam ut unumquemque a Spiritu sancto designatum in clerum seponeret, ac cooptaret. » Quo quidem ex loco, quem Valesius ex tribus optimae notae manuscriptis codicibus emendavit, aperte colligitur auctorem nostrum ibi de vera sacrorum Ecclesiae ministrorum ordinatione fecisse sermonem. Et id sane eo accuratius a nobis animadverti debuit, quod prava prorsus interpretatione hunc locum Latine quidam reddiderant. Verum hic lapsus iis facile condonandus est, qui cum in corruptos codices inciderint, depravata textus Graeci verba nullo malo dolo, sed bona fide interpretari conati sunt.
Furthermore, that we may take a step from the errors fastened upon our author to other things, it is helpful to observe that it is related by him that John returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας Ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος σημαινομένων· "partly indeed that he might appoint bishops, partly also that he might arrange and form whole Churches, and partly also that he might set apart and co-opt into the clergy each one designated by the Holy Spirit." From which passage indeed, which Valesius emended from three manuscript codices of the best note, it is openly gathered that our author there made mention of the true ordination of the sacred ministers of the Church. And this assuredly ought to have been remarked by us all the more accurately, because some had rendered this passage into Latin by an altogether depraved translation. Yet this slip is easily to be pardoned to those who, since they fell upon corrupt codices, endeavoured with no evil guile, but in good faith, to translate the depraved words of the Greek text.
Post haec autem scribit auctor noster adolescentem quemdam, qui postea latronum dux factus est, a Joanne evangelista episcopo commendatum fuisse, qui eum in domum suscepit, ac deinceps baptismi sacramento initiavit. Tum continuo auctor noster narrationem suam sic prosequitur : « Deinceps sacerdos de pristina cura atque custodia paulatim remisit, quippe cum perfectissimo custode apposito, Christi videlicet signaculo, juvenem communisset. » Graeca autem haec sunt verba : Ὡς τὸ τέλειον αὐτῷ φυλακτήριον ἐπιστήσας τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου. Quid autem ea significent, non minima certe est inter celebres quosdam hujus aetatis scriptores discordia et contentio. Quidam enim iis confirmationis, alii baptismatis sacramentum significari existimant. Hi autem opinionem inde confirmant et stabiliunt, tum quia hoc verbo σφραγῖδα, plerique antiquissimi Ecclesiae Patres baptismum appellaverint, tum etiam quia auctor noster paulo ante, uti vidimus, de eodem baptismate locutus est. Sed ab iis in sententiae suae confirmationem adjici potuit idem verbum ab ipsomet auctore nostro, ut jam vidimus, fuisse paulo superius usurpatum. « Si quis post signaculum, inquit, μετὰ τὴν σφραγῖδα, liberationem a peccatis, » etc. Cum autem illud alteri verbo λύτρωσις adjungatur, eo certe potius baptismi quam confirmationis sacramentum ibi designari videtur. Quamvis ergo nomen σφραγῖδα, de quo non semel a nobis postea dicendum erit, pro utroque sacramento significando ab Ecclesiae Patribus adhibeatur; probabilius tamen videtur illud ab auctore nostro ad baptismum significandum loco prius citato usurpari.
Moreover, after these things our author writes that a certain youth, who afterwards became captain of a band of robbers, was commended by John the Evangelist to a bishop, who received him into his house, and subsequently initiated him with the sacrament of baptism. Then immediately our author prosecutes his narrative thus: "Subsequently the priest gradually relaxed from his former care and guardianship, inasmuch as he had fortified the youth by setting over him the most perfect guardian, namely the seal of Christ." Now the Greek words are these: Ὡς τὸ τέλειον αὐτῷ φυλακτήριον ἐπιστήσας τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου. What, however, they signify, there is certainly no slight discord and contention among certain celebrated writers of this age. For some think that the sacrament of confirmation, others that the sacrament of baptism is signified by them. And the latter confirm and establish their opinion from this, both because very many most ancient Fathers of the Church called baptism by this word σφραγῖδα ("seal"), and also because our author a little before, as we have seen, spoke of the same baptism. But by them in confirmation of their view there could have been added that the same word was employed a little above, as we have already seen, by our author himself. "If anyone after the seal," says he, μετὰ τὴν σφραγῖδα, "the deliverance from sins," etc. Now since that is joined to the other word λύτρωσις ("deliverance"), certainly the sacrament of baptism rather than of confirmation seems to be designated by it there. Although therefore the noun σφραγῖδα, concerning which we shall have to speak more than once afterwards, is employed by the Fathers of the Church to signify either sacrament; nevertheless it seems more probable that it is employed by our author to signify baptism in the passage previously cited.
Cariophylus autem, sive Ghislerius, et Combefisius observarunt monasticum ordinem his auctoris nostri verbis eximie commendari : « Non desunt, qui et jam inter electos majore electis praestantia fulgeant, eoque magis illustres sint, quo velut ad portum ex mundi procella seipsos subducant, resque suas in tutum recipiant; qui sancti videri nolint, ac si quis nuncupaverit, erubescant; qui imo ipso pectore ineffabilia mysteria abscondant, suamque nobilitatem humanis oculis objici contemnant. Hos nimirum Scriptura lumen mundi, et sal terrae vocat. » Sed nulla alia ratione his verbis ordinis monastici commendationem factam
Moreover, Cariophylus, or Ghislerius, and Combefis observed that the monastic order is eminently commended by these words of our author: "There are not wanting those who even already among the elect shine with a greater excellence than the elect, and are all the more illustrious the more they withdraw themselves as it were to a harbour out of the storm of the world, and betake their affairs into safety; who are unwilling to seem holy, and if anyone calls them so, blush; who in the very depth of their breast hide ineffable mysteries, and disdain that their nobility should be exposed to human eyes. These assuredly Scripture calls the light of the world, and the salt of the earth." But by no other reason do they prove that a commendation of the monastic order was made by these words,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1455
Footnotes
(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1455
§ 42.
§ 42.
(13) ‹anchor: verbis eximie commendari› · call in col 1455
§ 26.
§ 26.
(14) ‹anchor: et sal terrae vocat› · call in col 1455
Matth. V, 13, 14.
Matthew 5:13–14.
Page
- running head: 1455 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A pravum earum; B animadverti debuit,; C ptores discordia; D dum loco
- old-edition numerals: 343 after dum
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citations; editors' matter: pravum earum
esse probant, quam quia ille Ecclesiae nunquam defuit. At certe quamvis id verum esset, non inde tamen nostrum auctorem ibi de ordine monastico loqui, vel etiam ad eum collineare confici posse putamus. Ullo etenim sine discrimine de omnibus plane disputat pauperibus, ac nominatim de senibus, pupillis et viduis, qui aliis cum hominibus vitam agentes, caeteris omnibus pietate et sanctimonia antecellebant : quique pia vivendi ratione sese ex mundi subducebant procellis, atque omnia pietatis officia, sanctasque actiones suas aliis sedulo occultabant, ac despicatui habebant ea humanis oculis objici. At haec omnia absque monasticae vitae professione fieri potuisse, et a plurimis facta saepius fuisse, nullus, uti opinamur, jure unquam merito inficiabitur.
than because it was never wanting to the Church. Yet certainly although that were true, nevertheless we do not think it can be established from that that our author there speaks of the monastic order, or even aims at it. For without any distinction he disputes plainly concerning all the poor, and by name concerning old men, orphans, and widows, who, living their life with other men, excelled all the rest in piety and holiness: and who by a pious manner of living withdrew themselves from the storms of the world, and sedulously hid all their offices of piety and their holy actions from others, and held it in contempt that they should be exposed to human eyes. Now that all these things could be done without the profession of the monastic life, and were very often done by very many, no one, as we opine, will ever rightly and deservedly deny.
Anaxagorae porro, Democriti, et Cratetis exemplo manifestum auctor noster facit ante Christi ad nos adventum fuisse quosdam voluntarios pauperes, qui abdicarunt divitias, easque inopibus et egenis liberaliter largiti sunt. Verumtamen id de tribus illis philosophis non uno plane eodemque modo ab antiquis scriptoribus narratur. Laertius siquidem de Anaxagora haec memoriae mandavit : « Universum patrimonium suis, τοῖς οἰκείοις, consanguineis (sive familiaribus) concessit. » Contra vero Plato : « Cum amplas, inquit, a parentibus fortunas accepisset, ita stolide et insipienter philosophatus est, ut eas incuria plane profligarit. » De eodem autem Anaxagora et Democrito haec scriptis prodidit Cicero : « Quid ergo aut Homero ad delectationem animi ac voluptatem, aut cuiquam docto defuisse arbitramur? Aut ni ita se res haberet, Anaxagoras, aut hic ipse Democritus agros et patrimonia sua reliquissent, huic discendi quaerendique divinae delectationi toto se animo dedissent? » Quibus itaque illi agros et patrimonium reliquerint, tacet orator; tacet etiam Valerius Maximus, et apud Photium Himerius sophista, et alii.
Furthermore, by the example of Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Crates our author makes it manifest that before the coming of Christ to us there were certain voluntary poor men, who renounced riches, and liberally bestowed them upon the needy and destitute. Nevertheless, concerning those three philosophers this is narrated by ancient writers not plainly in one and the same way. For Laertius committed these things to memory concerning Anaxagoras: "He yielded up his entire patrimony to his own, τοῖς οἰκείοις, kinsmen (or household)." On the contrary, however, Plato says: "When he had received ample fortunes from his parents, he philosophized so foolishly and unwisely that he utterly squandered them through neglect." Moreover, concerning the same Anaxagoras and Democritus Cicero handed down these things in his writings: "What then do we think was wanting either to Homer for the delight and pleasure of his mind, or to any learned man? Or unless the case were so, would Anaxagoras, or this very Democritus, have left their fields and patrimonies, and given themselves with their whole soul to this divine delight of learning and inquiring?" To whom therefore they left their fields and patrimony, the orator is silent; silent also is Valerius Maximus, and in Photius Himerius the sophist, and others.
Verum idem Cicero id paulo enodatius de Democrito his explicat verbis : « Patrimonium neglexit, agros deseruit incultos, quid quaerens aliud, nisi beatam vitam? » Quamobrem Philo de utroque cum Anaxogora tum Democrito : « Anaxagoram, inquit, et Democritum celebrant Graeci, quod prae amore philosophiae praedia sua pecori compascua reliquerint. » Eadem prorsus Plutarchus, ac Suidas de Anaxagora, atque de Democrito Origenes, et Lactantius litteris consignasse leguntur.
Yet the same Cicero explains this a little more clearly concerning Democritus in these words: "He neglected his patrimony, he deserted his fields uncultivated, seeking what else than a happy life?" Wherefore Philo concerning both Anaxagoras and Democritus says: "The Greeks celebrate Anaxagoras and Democritus, because for love of philosophy they left their estates as common pasture for cattle." The very same things Plutarch and Suidas are read to have consigned to letters concerning Anaxagoras, and Origen and Lactantius concerning Democritus.
De Cratete autem haec Plutarchi, cui Hieronymus quoque assentitur, ipsissima sunt verba : « Thebanus Crates cum nemo ab ipso exigeret, cum nemini quidquam deberet, ipsam rei familiaris dispensationem, curasque, et occupationes aversatus, rem XIX talentum deseruit, sumptisque pallio et pera, ad philosophiam et paupertatem confugit. » Suidas vero aliter : « Thebanus, ait, Crates fortunas in mare demersit, nec pecudibus, nec hominibus utiles relinquens. » Unde colligi potest hunc ipsum esse, de quo Lactantius, tacito nomine, eum loquitur in modum : « Quid ille, qui patrimonium, in nummos redactum, effudit in mare? Ego dubito utrumne sanus an demens fuerit. « Abite, inquit, in « profundum, malae cupiditates. Ego vos mergam, « ne ipse mergar a vobis. » Antisthenes porro apud Laertium magis ad auctoris nostri mentem apposite dixit illum « patrimonio vendito, erat quippe vir nobilis, cum congregasset circiter ducenta talenta, civibus ea divisisse. » Suum ei suffragium haec in verba tulit Origenes : « Vulgatum est apud Graecos ex ipsorum commentariis... Cratetem, quo liberius philosopharetur, largitum populo Thebano
Moreover, concerning Crates these are the very words of Plutarch, with whom Jerome also agrees: "The Theban Crates, when no one exacted from him, when he owed nothing to anyone, turning away from the very management of his household property, and its cares and occupations, deserted an estate of nineteen talents, and having taken cloak and wallet, fled for refuge to philosophy and poverty." Suidas, however, says otherwise: "The Theban Crates," says he, "plunged his fortunes into the sea, leaving them useful neither to cattle nor to men." Whence it can be gathered that this is the very man concerning whom Lactantius, suppressing his name, speaks in this manner: "What of that man who poured out into the sea his patrimony reduced into coin? I doubt whether he was sane or mad. 'Depart,' said he, 'into the deep, evil desires. I will drown you, lest I myself be drowned by you.'" Furthermore, Antisthenes in Laertius spoke more appositely to the mind of our author, saying that he, "having sold his patrimony, for he was a noble man, when he had collected about two hundred talents, divided them among the citizens." Origen gave his vote to him in these words: "It is commonly reported among the Greeks from their own commentaries... that Crates, in order that he might philosophize the more freely, bestowed upon the Theban people
Editors' notes and page, col. 1456
Footnotes
(15) ‹anchor: memoriae mandavit› · call in col 1456
lib. II, § 6.
book II, § 6.
(16) ‹anchor: Contra vero Plato› · call in col 1456
Hipp. circ. init. tom. III, p. 233.
Hipp., about the beginning, vol. III, p. 233.
(17) ‹anchor: prodidit Cicero› · call in col 1456
l. V Tuscul. circa fin., p. 283.
Tusculan Disputations, book V, near the end, p. 283.
(18) ‹anchor: Valerius Maximus› · call in col 1456
l. VIII, c. 7, § 6.
book VIII, ch. 7, § 6.
(19) ‹anchor: apud Photium› · call in col 1456
Bibl. cod. CCXLIII, p. 1037.
Library, codex 243, p. 1037.
(20) ‹anchor: explicat verbis› · call in col 1456
lib. V De fin., p. 113.
On Ends, book V, p. 113.
(21) ‹anchor: Anaxagoram, inquit› · call in col 1456
l. De vita contemp.
the book On the Contemplative Life.
(22) ‹anchor: Plutarchus› · call in col 1456
De vitand. aere alien., tom. II, p. 831.
On Avoiding Debt, vol. II, p. 831.
(23) ‹anchor: ac Suidas› · call in col 1456
ad verb. Ἀναξαγόρας.
at the word "Anaxagoras".
(24) ‹anchor: de Democrito Origenes› · call in col 1456
l. II contr. Celsum circa med.
Against Celsus, book II, about the middle.
(25) ‹anchor: et Lactantius› · call in col 1456
l. III, c. 23.
book III, ch. 23.
(26) ‹anchor: ipsissima sunt verba› · call in col 1456
loc. cit.
at the place cited.
(27) ‹anchor: Thebanus, ait› · call in col 1456
loc. cit.
at the place cited.
(28) ‹anchor: loquitur in modum› · call in col 1456
loc. cit.
at the place cited.
(29) ‹anchor: apud Laertium› · call in col 1456
l. VI, § 87.
book VI, § 87.
(30) ‹anchor: tulit Origenes› · call in col 1456
loc. cit.
at the place cited.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 12, 15 and 16 stand above the rendered foot; columns inferred from the sequence. --> (printed under page 727)
Page
- running head: LEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1456
- marginal letters: A esse probant,; B qui abdicarunt; C Verum idem; D nibus utiles
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with one Greek phrase; editors' matter: esse probant,
pecuniam, quam ex suis bonis confecerat. » Utrum autem Cratetis cives, seu populus Thebanus, aut Anaxagorae οἰκεῖοι, quibus uterque bona sua reliquisse dicitur, egeni revera et pauperes fuerint, neque laudati a nobis scriptores, neque Laertius edixerunt. Ab illorum porro opinione minus auctor noster recessisset, si in ejus textu, uti in antiqua editione, πτωχοῖς, ἠ πατρίσιν, sive potius πατρίδι, patriae, scriptum legeremus. Sed quamvis vera esset haec lectio, multi tamen, uti ex dictis patet, adhuc superessent, qui huic sententiae plane penitusque refragati sunt.
the money which he had made out of his goods." Whether, however, the fellow-citizens of Crates, or the Theban people, or the οἰκεῖοι ("kinsmen") of Anaxagoras, to whom each is said to have left his goods, were in reality needy and poor, neither the writers cited by us nor Laertius have declared. Furthermore, our author would have receded less from their opinion if in his text, as in the ancient edition, we read written πτωχοῖς, ἠ πατρίσιν, or rather πατρίδι, to his fatherland. But although this reading were true, nevertheless many, as is clear from what has been said, would still remain who have plainly and utterly opposed this view.
Plura autem hujus libri, solo Clementis nomine citato, in editis sancti Joannis Damasceni Parallelis fragmenta invenies. Multa etiam ex ejusdem Clementis Stromatum, sed praecipue Paedagogi, ut id obiter dicamus, libris eodem plane modo excerpta tibi occurrent. Sed ad ipsos cum Joannis Damasceni, tum Clementis divulgatos libros, ubi ea magno sine labore reperire poteris, te mittendum esse satius duximus.
Moreover, you will find several fragments of this book, with the name of Clement alone cited, in the published Parallela of Saint John Damascene. Many excerpts also from the books of the same Clement's Stromata, and especially of his Paedagogus, to say this in passing, will meet you in the very same way. But we have deemed it better to send you to the published books themselves both of John Damascene and of Clement, where you will be able to find them without great labour.
Porro autem non infirmis, uti opinamur, argumentis probavimus neque hunc, neque superiorem librum a nemine jure unquam merito octavum Stromatum librum dici potuisse. In hujus vero opinionis confirmationem adduci potest Acacii, Caesareae in Palaestina episcopi, quaedam Clementis nostri Alexandrini verba, ex octavo quoque Stromatum, quemadmodum ab eo citatur, libro desumpta, citantis testimonium. Illud autem legimus in Graeco codice Regiae bibliothecae num. 2431 notato, quo Graeca in primam Genesis partem catena exhibetur. Atque ibi in ejusdem Genesis cap. III, 21, Acacius ea refert quae Clemens noster in tertio Stromatum libro, pagina 466, de Cassiano his dixerat verbis : « Pelliceas autem tunicas existimat Cassianus esse corpora, de quibus postea et eum, et qui idem cum eo sentiunt, aberrasse ostendemus, cum de ortu hominis, iis consequenter quae prius dicenda sunt, aggrediemur expositionem. » Tum continuo pergit Acacius : Καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ δὲ Στρωματεῖ ἀθετεῖ τὴν περὶ τοῦ προεῖναι τὰς ψυχὰς δόξαν, λέγων αὐταῖς λέξεσιν· Ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν οὐ προόντας. Ἐχρῆν γὰρ καὶ εἰδέναι ἡμᾶς τὸ ποῦ ἦμεν, καὶ προῆμεν καὶ πῶς, καὶ διὰ τί δεῦρο ἥκοιμεν. Εἰ δὲ οὐ προῆμεν, τῆς γενέσεως ἡμῶν μόνος αἴτιος ὁ Θεὸς, ὃς οὐκ ὄντας ἐποίησεν, οὕτως καὶ γενομένους σώζει. Ὁ δὲ τοὺς δερματίνους χιτῶνας τὰ αἰσθητὰ εἶναι λέγων σώματα, πάντως που καὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς αἰσθητὸν εἶναι ὁμολογήσει. Μετὰ τοὺς χιτῶνας γὰρ εἴρηται· Μήποτε λάβῃ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ φάγῃ, καὶ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. « Et in libro octavo Stromatum rejicit eorum opinionem, qui animas ante corpora exstitisse praedicabant, his inquiens verbis : Deus nos cum prius non essemus, fecit. Oportebat enim et illud nosse ubi et eramus, et prius eramus, ac quomodo, et quam ob causam huc inde venimus. Si vero antea non eramus, Deus solus nostri auctor est ortus; utpote qui nondum exsistentes fecerit, et sic factos conservet. Qui vero tunicas pelliceas corpora sensu dicit esse praedita, is omnino confitebitur lignum vitae sensu quoque esse praeditum. Post has quippe tunicas dictum est : Ne forte sumat de ligno vitae, et comedat, et vivat in aeternum. »
Furthermore, by arguments not weak, as we opine, we have proved that neither this nor the preceding book could ever rightly and deservedly be called by anyone the eighth book of the Stromata. And in confirmation of this opinion there can be adduced the testimony of Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, citing certain words of our Clement of Alexandria, taken also from the eighth book of the Stromata, just as it is cited by him. Now we read that in the Greek codex of the Royal Library marked no. 2431, wherein a Greek Catena on the first part of Genesis is presented. And there on chap. III, 21 of the same Genesis, Acacius reports those things which our Clement in the third book of the Stromata, page 466, had said concerning Cassianus in these words: "Now Cassianus thinks that the coats of skins are bodies; concerning which we shall show afterwards that both he and those who think the same with him have erred, when we shall undertake the exposition concerning the origin of man, conformably to the things which must be said beforehand." Then immediately Acacius proceeds: Καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ δὲ Στρωματεῖ ἀθετεῖ τὴν περὶ τοῦ προεῖναι τὰς ψυχὰς δόξαν, λέγων αὐταῖς λέξεσιν· Ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν οὐ προόντας. Ἐχρῆν γὰρ καὶ εἰδέναι ἡμᾶς τὸ ποῦ ἦμεν, καὶ προῆμεν καὶ πῶς, καὶ διὰ τί δεῦρο ἥκοιμεν. Εἰ δὲ οὐ προῆμεν, τῆς γενέσεως ἡμῶν μόνος αἴτιος ὁ Θεὸς, ὃς οὐκ ὄντας ἐποίησεν, οὕτως καὶ γενομένους σώζει. Ὁ δὲ τοὺς δερματίνους χιτῶνας τὰ αἰσθητὰ εἶναι λέγων σώματα, πάντως που καὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς αἰσθητὸν εἶναι ὁμολογήσει. Μετὰ τοὺς χιτῶνας γὰρ εἴρηται· Μήποτε λάβῃ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ φάγῃ, καὶ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. "And in the eighth book of the Stromata he rejects the opinion of those who proclaimed that souls existed before bodies, speaking in these words: God made us when previously we were not. For we ought also to have known where we both were and previously were, and how, and for what cause we came hither thence. But if previously we were not, God alone is the author of our origin; inasmuch as he made us when not yet existing, and preserves us when thus made. Moreover, he who says that the coats of skins are bodies endowed with sense, will altogether confess that the tree of life also is endowed with sense. For after these coats it was said: Lest perchance he take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."
Duo itaque, uti vides, Acacius transcripsit Stromatum Clementis Alexandrini fragmenta, quorum prius ex tertio, posterius ex octavo eorum libro desumptum fuisse dicitur. Atqui ex utroque illo fragmento haud absurde colligi potest promissum ab eodem Clemente octavum Stromatum librum, ab eo revera fuisse editum, ubi illos Cassiani et aliorum
Acacius therefore, as you see, transcribed two fragments of the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, of which the former is said to have been taken from the third, the latter from the eighth book of them. And yet from both those fragments it can not absurdly be gathered that the eighth book of the Stromata promised by the same Clement was in reality published by him, wherein he confuted those errors of Cassianus and of other
Editors' notes and page, col. 1457
Footnotes
(31) ‹anchor: quippe tunicas dictum est› · call in col 1457
Genes. III, 22.
Genesis 3:22.
Page
- running head: 1457 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A pecuniam, quam; B magno sine; C hominis, iis; D solus nostri
- old-edition numerals: 344 after rejicit
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citations; editors' matter: pecuniam, quam
haereticorum, sicuti lib. IV, pag. 510, pollicitus fuerat, errores confutavit. Verumtamen quia jam a longo tempore periit citatus Acacii et octavus Clementis liber, idcirco utrum in illa Patrum catena, et ejusdem Acacii operibus eo octavi Stromatum libri titulo reipsa inscriptus fuerit, vel in describendo hoc titulo aliquis erraverit, ita certo definire non audemus. Et vero Clemens alios, uti capite sequenti articulo tertio dicetur, de anima promisit libros, ubi prolata ab Acacio verba pariter scribi potuerunt. Si quis tamen probare possit Clementem, mutato deinceps consilio, de iis in octavo Stromatum libro disputasse, quae in libris de anima tractare decreverat, ac proinde illum recte ab Acacio citari, huic plane non repugnabimus.
heretics, just as he had promised in book IV, page 510. Nevertheless, because both the cited book of Acacius and the eighth book of Clement have now for a long time perished, on that account whether in that Catena of the Fathers and the works of the same Acacius it was in reality inscribed with that title of the eighth book of the Stromata, or whether someone erred in transcribing this title, we do not dare so certainly to define. And indeed Clement, as will be said in the following chapter, article third, promised other books concerning the soul, wherein the words adduced by Acacius could equally well have been written. Yet if anyone can prove that Clement, having subsequently changed his plan, disputed in the eighth book of the Stromata concerning those things which he had decreed to treat in the books concerning the soul, and that consequently he is rightly cited by Acacius, we shall plainly not oppose him.
Praeterea penes doctum ac religiosum ordinis Sancti Dominici virum P. Michaelem Lequien, nobis jampridem amicitia conjunctum, quidam sunt Parallelorum sancti Joannis Damasceni Graeci codices, ab editis diversi, ubi haec cap. 18 leguntur : Ἐκ τοῦ η' Στρωμάτων· Ἀγάπη ἑκουσίων ἄρχει, ἀκόντων δὲ φόβος, οὗτος φαῦλος. Ὁ δὲ εἰς ἀγαθὸν παιδαγωγῶν ἡμᾶς εἰς Χριστὸν ἄγει, καὶ ἔστι σωτήριος. « Ex libro octavo Stromatum : Charitas volentibus, nolentibus vero imperat timor, et hic malus est. Alter timor in bonum ducens, ad Christum nos conducit, et est salutaris. »
Besides this, in the possession of the learned and religious man of the Order of Saint Dominic, Father Michael Lequien, long since joined to us in friendship, there are certain Greek codices of the Parallela of Saint John Damascene, different from the published ones, wherein these things are read in chap. 18: Ἐκ τοῦ η' Στρωμάτων· Ἀγάπη ἑκουσίων ἄρχει, ἀκόντων δὲ φόβος, οὗτος φαῦλος. Ὁ δὲ εἰς ἀγαθὸν παιδαγωγῶν ἡμᾶς εἰς Χριστὸν ἄγει, καὶ ἔστι σωτήριος. "From the eighth book of the Stromata: Charity rules the willing, whereas fear rules the unwilling, and this fear is evil. The other fear, leading unto good, conducts us to Christ, and is salutary."
Alibi vero, cap. 12 : Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ η' Στρωμάτων· Φοβηθῶμεν οὐχὶ νόσον τὴν ἔξωθεν, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτήματα, δι' ἃ νόσος, καὶ νόσον ψυχῆς, οὐχὶ σώματος. « Timeamus non externum morbum, sed peccata, propter quae morbus. Timeamus, inquam, morbum animae, non corporis. »
And elsewhere, chap. 12: Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ η' Στρωμάτων· Φοβηθῶμεν οὐχὶ νόσον τὴν ἔξωθεν, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτήματα, δι' ἃ νόσος, καὶ νόσον ψυχῆς, οὐχὶ σώματος. "Of the same, from the eighth of the Stromata: Let us fear not external disease, but sins, on account of which is disease, and the disease of the soul, not of the body."
Deinde vero : Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Νόμος ἔστω κατὰ τῶν σεμνὰ καὶ θεῖα, σεμνῶς καὶ θεοπρεπῶς ὁρᾷν ἀξιόντων, κόλασιν ἐπιφέρειν ἀορασίας. « Lege sancitum sit, ut qui reverenda, et divina reverenter, et divine conspicere noluerint, suae ad conspiciendum negligentiae dent poenas. » Ibi autem procul dubio omissa est negatio οὐ ante σεμνῶς.
And next: Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Νόμος ἔστω κατὰ τῶν σεμνὰ καὶ θεῖα, σεμνῶς καὶ θεοπρεπῶς ὁρᾷν ἀξιόντων, κόλασιν ἐπιφέρειν ἀορασίας. "Of the same: Let it be enacted by law to inflict the punishment of blindness against those who have not deemed it worthy to behold venerable and divine things venerably and in a manner worthy of God." Now there without doubt the negation οὐ has been omitted before σεμνῶς.
At primum fragmentum totidem verbis invenitur in secunda parte § 26 opusculi, quod post omnes Stromatum libros, in Graeco-Latinis Clementinorum operum editionibus Graeco tantum charactere divulgatum, ac deinde Combefisio in suo Graecorum Patrum Auctario Latine versum est. Ibi autem Graeca illa verba Combefisius pag. 201 sic Latine reddidit : « Charitas iis imperat, qui spontanei sunt; illis vero qui inviti pareant, malus hic timor; qui autem ad bonum rudimento est, ad Christum ducit, et salutaris exsistit. » Ex hoc itaque opusculo si haec verba a Joanne Damasceno reapse excerpta fuerint, quid aliud inde confici potest, nisi eum, ut infra cap. 3, art. 2, demonstrabitur, falso codicum suorum titulo deceptum, existimavisse illud octavum fuisse Stromatum Clementis nostri Alexandrini librum? Alia porro fragmenta ex eodem opusculo, quod imperfectum ac mutilatum esse ostendemus, desumi quoque potuerunt. Idem fortasse dicendum de alio fragmento, quod in iisdem codicibus Parallelorum Joannis Damasceni litt. λ, cap. 1, corruptum occurrit, atque ex octavo etiam Stromatum Clementis libro notatur esse delibatum. Verum quia in hoc fragmento plures sunt amanuensium librariorum errores, inde forsitan aliquis haud absurde suspicabitur, illos in auctoris aut libri, ex quo illud desumptum fuit, describendo nomine similiter erravisse. Sed haec ut ab erudito Patre M. Lequien, in nova, quam molitur, omnium sancti Joannis Damasceni Operum editione clarius explicentur, avide exspectamus.
Now the first fragment is found in the very same words in the second part, § 26, of the little work which after all the books of the Stromata, in the Graeco-Latin editions of the Clementine works, was published in Greek character only, and afterwards translated into Latin by Combefis in his Graecorum Patrum Auctarium. And there Combefis, page 201, rendered those Greek words into Latin thus: "Charity rules those who are spontaneous; whereas for those who obey unwillingly, this fear is evil; but that which is an elementary instruction unto good, leads to Christ, and is salutary." If therefore these words were in reality excerpted by John Damascene from this little work, what else can be established thence than that he, as will be demonstrated below in chap. 3, art. 2, deceived by the false title of his codices, thought that that was the eighth book of the Stromata of our Clement of Alexandria? Furthermore, the other fragments could also have been taken from the same little work, which we shall show to be imperfect and mutilated. The same perhaps must be said concerning another fragment, which in the same codices of the Parallela of John Damascene, letter λ, chap. 1, occurs corrupt, and is noted as having been culled also from the eighth book of the Stromata of Clement. Yet because in this fragment there are several errors of copyist scribes, thence perhaps someone will not absurdly suspect that they erred similarly in transcribing the name of the author or of the book from which it was taken. But that these things may be more clearly explained by the learned Father M. Lequien, in the new edition of all the Works of Saint John Damascene which he is preparing, we eagerly await.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1458
Page
- running head: S CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1453
- marginal letters: A haereticorum, sicuti; B ces, ab; C gentiae dent; D quod imperfectum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek citations; editors' matter: haereticorum, sicuti
De opusculo quod in Graece et Latine editorum Clementis Alexandrini Operum fine Graecis tantum typis excusum est.
Concerning the little work which at the end of the Works of Clement of Alexandria published in Greek and Latin was printed in Greek type only.
Analysis hujusce Graeci opusculi.
Analysis of this Greek little work.
In Graeco-Latinis Clementis nostri Alexandrini operibus post octo, de quibus hactenus disputavimus, Stromatum libros adjectum est opusculum, Graecis duntaxat editum typis, et in duas partes divisum. Prima autem hoc titulo inscribitur : Ἐκ τοῦ Θεοδότου, καὶ τῆς Ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας, κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί. « Epitome doctrinae tam a Theodoto, quam in Oriente, circa Valentini tempora traditae. »
In the Graeco-Latin works of our Clement of Alexandria, after the eight books of the Stromata concerning which we have hitherto disputed, there has been added a little work, published in Greek type only, and divided into two parts. Now the first is inscribed with this title: Ἐκ τοῦ Θεοδότου, καὶ τῆς Ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας, κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί. "Epitomes of the doctrine handed down both by Theodotus and in the East, about the times of Valentinus."
In hac vero prima hujus opusculi parte varia Veteris Novique Testamenti loca ullo absque ordine, ullaque sine cohaerentia et connexione accumulantur, nec rectis sanisque plerumque interpretationibus explicantur. Quid enim, amabo te, a recto veroque sacrae Scripturae sensu magis alienum et abhorrens, quam quod auctor hujusce commentationis ab ipso illius initio tradidit? Post allata siquidem haec Christi verba : Πατὴρ, παρατίθεμαί σοι (in sacro autem Lucae textu, παραθήσομαι) εἰς χεῖρας τὸ πνεῦμά μου· « Pater, in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum, » confestim ille addit Salvatorem Patri suo commendasse sapientiam, tum ut eam acciperet, tum etiam ne ii, a quibus ea spoliari aliquando poterat, illam retinerent. Quod quidem quam absurdum falsumque sit, nemo est qui non videat. Plura alia auctor ille non minus inepta, ridicula et absurda passim spargit et disseminat. Aperte siquidem docet quaedam esse σώματα νοερά, corpora spiritualia, ac daemones, angelos, atque animas naturae esse corporeae, ipsosmet angelos sacro tinctos fuisse et ablutos baptismate. Caetera vero errata, somnia, et deliramenta, in hanc scriptionem passim congesta, singillatim recensere, tam superfluum est, quam illa omnia repraesentare, quae auctor de Basilidis, aliorumque haereticorum, ac praesertim Valentinianorum erroribus, de quibus jam satis disseruimus, ita memorat, ut de illis confutandis saepissime non curaverit.
Now in this first part of this little work various passages of the Old and New Testament are accumulated without any order, and without any coherence and connexion, nor are they for the most part explained by right and sound interpretations. For what, I pray you, is more foreign and abhorrent from the right and true sense of sacred Scripture than what the author of this treatise has handed down from its very beginning? Since after alleging these words of Christ: Πατὴρ, παρατίθεμαί σοι (in the sacred text of Luke, however, παραθήσομαι) εἰς χεῖρας τὸ πνεῦμά μου· "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," forthwith he adds that the Saviour commended Wisdom to his Father, both that he might receive her, and also lest those by whom she could at some time be despoiled might retain her. Which indeed how absurd and false it is, there is no one who does not see. Many other things no less inept, ridiculous, and absurd that author scatters and disseminates everywhere. Since he openly teaches that there are certain σώματα νοερά, spiritual bodies, and that demons, angels, and souls are of a corporeal nature, and that the very angels were dipped and washed in sacred baptism. To recount one by one the rest of the errors, dreams, and ravings piled together everywhere into this writing is as superfluous as to represent all those things which the author so mentions concerning the errors of Basilides and other heretics, and especially of the Valentinians, of which we have already sufficiently discoursed, that very often he has taken no care to confute them.
Ad haec vero, Combefisius monitos nos fecit se diu multumque ancipitem haesisse, utrum hoc opus Graece tantum, uti diximus, editum, Latinum faceret. Quamobrem petito a viris doctis, ac nonnullis Ecclesiae praesulibus consilio, satius esse judicavit tot absurda deliramenta Graece doctis Graeca relinquere, quam ea Latino sermone ante omnium ponere oculos. Nam haec Latine versa paucissimis utilitatis et emolumenti aliquid, plurimis vero damni et detrimenti multum afferre poterant. Quis igitur omnia, quae in hac scriptione occurrunt, eodem modo ac alia, quae in veterum Ecclesiae Patrum lucubrationibus habentur, a nobis accurate ac solito more singulis quibusque exponi jure merito postulabit, quae tot viri doctrina et ecclesiastica dignitate praestantes iis solis, qui Graecam callent linguam, deserenda esse censuerunt? Ad aliam igitur hujusce commentationis partem, quam Combefisius Latino idiomate omnibus exhibendam esse putavit, jam veniamus.
And in addition to these things, Combefis advised us that he hesitated long and much in doubt whether he should render into Latin this work published, as we have said, in Greek only. Wherefore, having sought counsel from learned men and some prelates of the Church, he judged that it was better to leave so many absurd ravings in Greek to those learned in Greek, than to place them before the eyes of all in the Latin language. For these things translated into Latin could bring some utility and profit to very few, but much harm and detriment to very many. Who therefore will rightly and deservedly demand that all the things which occur in this writing should be accurately and in our usual manner expounded by us to each and all in the same way as the other things which are contained in the works of the ancient Fathers of the Church, when so many men excelling in learning and ecclesiastical dignity deemed that they ought to be abandoned to those alone who are skilled in the Greek language? Let us therefore now come to the other part of this treatise, which Combefis thought ought to be presented to all in the Latin tongue.
Secundae itaque hujus opusculi partis, quae « Ex
Of the second part therefore of this little work, which is entitled "Selections from
Editors' notes and page, col. 1459
Footnotes
(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1459
col. 2.
col. 2.
(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1459
col. 1.
col. 1.
(34) ‹anchor: σώματα νοερά› · call in col 1459
col. 5.
col. 5.
(35) ‹anchor: naturae esse corporeae› · call in col 1459
col. 6.
col. 6.
(36) ‹anchor: ablutos baptismate› · call in col 1459
col. 9.
col. 9.
(37) ‹anchor: monitos nos fecit› · call in col 1459
Auctar. Graec. Patr., part. I, p. 197 et seq.
Auctarium of the Greek Fathers, part I, p. 197 and following.
(38) ‹anchor: hujus opusculi partis› · call in col 1459
§ 1.
§ 1.
(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1459?
Graece et Latine prodiit in editione Potteri.
It appeared in Greek and Latin in Potter's edition.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 32–33 and 39–45 stand above the rendered foot. Note (1) is a separate editor's note set below the numbered series; its call is not visible in the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 729)
Page
- running head: 1459 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A In Graeco-Latinis; B dem haec; C jam satis; D hujusce commentationis
- old-edition numerals: 345 after ita
scripturis prophetarum electa, » Ἐκ τῶν προφητικῶν ἐκλογαί, inscribitur, ab iis verbis exordium sumitur, quae Daniel a tribus pueris in camino ignis ardentis ad benedicendum Deum prolata fuisse auctor testatur. Ille autem ab eodem Daniele haec verba : « Benedictus es, qui intueris abyssos, » eodem sensu, quo isthaec ab Enocho : « Et vidi omnes materias, » dicta esse docet. Continenter vero primis Geneseos verbis : « In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, » caelestia et terrestria significari, ac Filium Dei esse ἀρχήν, principium, quodam Oseae prophetae testimonio ostendere conatur. Ibi porro citatis aliis ejusdem prophetae et sequentibus Geneseos verbis : « Spiritus ferebatur super abyssum, » multa de baptismate disputat.
the Scriptures of the Prophets," Ἐκ τῶν προφητικῶν ἐκλογαί, the beginning is taken from those words which the author testifies that Daniel relates to have been uttered by the three youths in the furnace of burning fire to bless God. And he teaches that these words by the same Daniel: "Blessed art Thou, that beholdest the depths," were spoken in the same sense as these by Enoch: "And I saw all matters." And immediately he endeavours to show by a certain testimony of Hosea the prophet that by the first words of Genesis: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," heavenly and earthly things are signified, and that the Son of God is ἀρχήν, the beginning. Furthermore, having cited there other words of the same prophet and the following words of Genesis: "The Spirit was borne over the abyss," he disputes many things concerning baptism.
Dehinc nulla facta transitione, ille scribit timori bonitatem a Deo commisceri, cum fideles malis quibusdam vexari permittit. Quamobrem senes, ut ipse ait, nisi mali aliquid, quo peccata sua expiarentur, quotidie perferrent, vehementer dolebant. Peccata enimvero magis quam morbus, cujus causa sunt, timeri debent. Et certe caelestia speramus bona, ac paternam etiam haereditatem, cujus jam pignus accepimus. Ad ea autem viam Dominus monstravit, ubi jubet, ut rejectis terrenarum rerum curis primum quaeratur Dei regnum, atque ipsomet Deo animus noster impleatur. Pater autem, Filius et Spiritus sanctus tres sunt, quibus testibus atque adjutoribus mandata perfecte observari necesse est.
Next, having made no transition, he writes that goodness is mingled with fear by God when he permits the faithful to be vexed by certain evils. Wherefore the elders, as he himself says, grieved vehemently unless they daily endured some evil whereby their sins might be expiated. For sins indeed ought to be feared more than disease, of which they are the cause. And certainly we hope for heavenly goods, and also the paternal inheritance, of which we have already received the pledge. And the Lord showed the way to them where he commands that, rejecting the cares of earthly things, the kingdom of God be sought first, and our mind be filled with God himself. Moreover, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, with whom as witnesses and helpers it is necessary that the commandments be perfectly observed.
Tum auctor ibi exponit quid jejunium mystice significet, et qui sint illius effectus. Orationem vero majoris virtutis esse ostendit, quam fidem; tametsi is qui credit, remissionem peccatorum consequatur. Deus vero, cujus nutu omnia fiunt, prophetas et apostolos in hominum mittit salutem, atque per homines nos genuit, et erudiit, praestatque beneficia. Ad haec vero, ille nos, antequam essemus, creavit, suaque deinceps, si digni fuerimus, gratia salvat. Porro autem ille unus est Deus, qui tempestates, tempora, fructus et elementa mutat, ac singulis principium et finem definit.
Then the author there expounds what fasting mystically signifies, and what are its effects. And he shows that prayer is of greater power than faith; although he who believes attains the remission of sins. Moreover, God, by whose nod all things are done, sends prophets and apostles unto the salvation of men, and through men begot us, and instructed us, and bestows benefits. In addition to these things, moreover, he created us before we were, and subsequently saves us by his grace, if we have been worthy. Furthermore, he is the one God, who changes seasons, times, fruits, and elements, and defines for each its beginning and end.
Qui vero ex fide et timore ad scientiam, γνῶσιν, pervenit, jam non servus, sed filius est, qui metu liberatus, et provectus ad charitatem, a vetitis abstinet, ac mandatis obtemperat. Christus autem sanguine suo pretioso redimit, atque in libertatem vindicat filios, cohaeredes et amicos, quibus in caelis est Pater. Charitas enimvero illis imperat, sicut iis, qui inviti ei parent, malus est timor. Nullus porro Deum diligit pro dignitate, quam auctor summam et infinitam esse demonstrat.
And he who from faith and fear arrives at knowledge, γνῶσιν, is no longer a servant, but a son, who, freed from fear and advanced to charity, abstains from forbidden things and obeys the commandments. Moreover, Christ by his precious blood redeems and claims into liberty sons, co-heirs, and friends, whose Father is in heaven. For charity indeed rules them, just as for those who obey him unwillingly, fear is evil. Furthermore, no one loves God according to his dignity, which the author demonstrates to be supreme and infinite.
Quamvis autem anima, pergit ille, ex seipsa moveatur, id illi tamen ex gratia oritur Dei, qui illius vult esse proprium, quod bonum illi tribuit. Itaque Deus animae diligendi partes dedit, ut eam et sui admoneat officii, et illa libere volens, et eligens capiat, ac teneat.
Although, however, the soul, he proceeds, is moved of itself, yet this arises for it from the grace of God, who wills that the good which he bestows upon it should be its own. Therefore God gave to the soul the faculty of loving, that he may both admonish it of its duty, and that freely willing and choosing it may lay hold of and keep it.
At Christus olim per prophetas, ac humano corpore assumpto, per seipsum nobis locutus est,
Moreover, Christ formerly spoke to us through the prophets, and having assumed a human body, through himself,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1460
Footnotes
(39) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
§ 2.
§ 2.
(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
Dan. III, 55.
Daniel 3:55.
(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
§ 3 et 4.
§§ 3 and 4.
(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
Gen. I, 1.
Genesis 1:1.
(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
§ 5, 6, 7, 8.
§§ 5, 6, 7, 8.
(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
Gen. I, 2.
Genesis 1:2.
(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1460
§ 9, 10, 11, 12.
§§ 9, 10, 11, 12.
(46) ‹anchor: Pater autem› · call in col 1460
§ 13.
§ 13.
(47) ‹anchor: auctor ibi exponit› · call in col 1460
§ 14.
§ 14.
(48) ‹anchor: Deus vero› · call in col 1460
§ 15.
§ 15.
(49) ‹anchor: mittit salutem› · call in col 1460
§ 16.
§ 16.
(50) ‹anchor: Ad haec vero› · call in col 1460
§ 17 et 18.
§§ 17 and 18.
(51) ‹anchor: Qui vero› · call in col 1460
§ 19.
§ 19.
(52) ‹anchor: in coelis est Pater› · call in col 1460
§ 20.
§ 20.
(53) ‹anchor: esse demonstrat› · call in col 1460
§ 21.
§ 21.
(54) ‹anchor: pergit ille› · call in col 1460
§ 22.
§ 22.
(55) ‹anchor: per prophetas› · call in col 1460
§ 23.
§ 23.
Page
- running head: EX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1460
- marginal letters: A scripturis prophetarum; B ipse ait,; C essemus, creavit,; D sui admoneat
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with embedded Greek phrases; editors' matter: CAPUT III. (spanning 1459-1460) and scripturis prophetarum
aegrotosque curavit : nunc vero per apostolos et doctores id praestat. Homo etenim factus est, ut paternae voluntati obsequeretur, hominumque saluti consuleret. Et vero ille peccata nostra abolendo, terreni veterisque delevit hominis imaginem, ac caelestis et novi impressit.
and cured the sick: and now he performs this through the apostles and teachers. For he was made man that he might obey his Father's will, and consult for the salvation of men. And indeed by abolishing our sins, he blotted out the image of the earthly and old man, and imprinted that of the heavenly and new.
Palam subinde auctor noster facit quomodo intelligenda sint haec Joannis Baptistae verba : « Post me venit, qui vos baptizet in spiritu et igni. Cujus ventilabrum... paleas autem comburet igni; » ac quo etiam sensu Deus a Moyse ignis consumens dictus sit. Atque ibi ille observat ab Heracleone et aliis quibusdam baptismate ablutorum aures fuisse igne obsignatas. Aliorum vero refellit opinionem, qui his Christi verbis : « Ignem veni mittere in terram, » putabant significari virtutem, quae sanctos quidem expurget, terrenos vero mergat atque exterminet.
Thereafter our author makes it plain how these words of John the Baptist are to be understood: "After me comes he who shall baptize you in spirit and fire. Whose fan... and the chaff he will burn with fire;" and in what sense also God was called by Moses a consuming fire. And there he observes that by Heracleon and certain others the ears of those washed in baptism were sealed with fire. And he refutes the opinion of others, who thought that by these words of Christ: "I came to cast fire on the earth," was signified a power which purges the holy indeed, but plunges and exterminates the earthly.
Rationes porro ille profert cur seniores sacram, quam praedicabant, doctrinam scriptis non tradiderint, nec de ea libros composuerint. Gnosticos vero qui domesticis magis, quam extraneis invidebant, ille corripit, ostenditque scientiam, et sacrorum dogmatum cognitionem omnibus utilem esse, simulque necessariam. At praeterea praefectis, inquit, et praepositis longa opus est experientia, eruditione, qua omnia habeant explorata, ac discipulos ab haereticorum erroribus avertant, doceantque quomodo illos impugnare et debellare possint. Vitae porro integritas, sicuti ille ait, et morum innocentia extra invidiae, odii et calumniae aleam posita est.
Furthermore, he brings forward the reasons why the elders did not hand down in writings the sacred doctrine which they preached, nor compose books concerning it. And he reproves the Gnostics who envied those of the household more than outsiders, and shows that knowledge and the cognition of sacred dogmas is useful to all, and at the same time necessary. And besides, those set in charge, says he, and superiors have need of long experience and erudition, whereby they may have all things explored, and may turn their disciples away from the errors of heretics, and teach them how they may be able to attack and vanquish them. Furthermore, integrity of life, just as he says, and innocence of morals is placed beyond the hazard of envy, hatred, and calumny.
Beata vero illius est senectus, qui vivendo aeterna vita dignus efficitur, nullique nisi pravo homini molestus, cum eo, quod est praestantissimum, deinceps versatur.
Blessed, moreover, is the old age of him who by living is made worthy of eternal life, and troublesome to no one except a depraved man, converses thereafter with that which is most excellent.
Post haec ille narrat Pythagoram existimasse eum, qui rebus nomina imponeret, sapientum esse antiquissimum. Quapropter qui sacram Scripturam scrutatur, ex illius verbis et nominibus debet latentem sensum elicere; agnita autem veritate, ad Dei nititur pervenire similitudinem. At quisquis mundus et purus est, doctrinam divinamque virtutem assequetur.
After these things he relates that Pythagoras thought that he who imposed names upon things was the most ancient of wise men. Wherefore he who searches sacred Scripture ought to elicit the hidden sense from its words and names; and having recognized the truth, he strives to arrive at the likeness of God. And whosoever is clean and pure will attain doctrine and divine virtue.
Scientiae mysteria, prosequitur auctor noster, vulgo deridentur; paucos vero primum quidem agent in stuporem, sed postea assuefacti, depulsis ignorantiae tenebris, lumen veritatis laeti aspicient. Ibi autem ille explicat quonam modo investiganda sit veritas. At gnostica, inquit, virtus, ἡ ἀρετὴ ἡ γνωστική, hominem contemplatione simul et actione reddit excultum, qui temperantia et justitia exercitatus, et in carne angelici muneris functionem meditatus, in corpore animum sacrificat.
The mysteries of knowledge, prosecutes our author, are commonly derided; and a few at first indeed they will drive into amazement, but afterwards accustomed to them, with the darkness of ignorance dispelled, they will gladly behold the light of truth. And there he explains in what manner truth is to be investigated. Now Gnostic virtue, says he, ἡ ἀρετὴ ἡ γνωστική, renders a man cultivated at once in contemplation and in action, who, exercised in temperance and justice, and meditating in the flesh the performance of the angelic office, sacrifices his soul in the body.
Tum continuo ille docet quid Tatiano, qui haec Geneseos verba : « Fiat lux, » optantis esse somniaverat, sit respondendum. Addit vero hunc haeresiarcham dixisse mulieres, propter crines et mundum, a virtute his rebus praefecta puniri. Varia porro ibi ostendit esse Dei judicia. Monitos subinde nos facit in quadam scriptura, haud dubie apocrypha, asseri projectos et abortivos infantes angelo praesidi ac tutori educandos erudiendosque tradi; atque illic verba quaedam, ex Apocalypsi Petri desumpta, in medium adducit.
Then immediately he teaches what must be answered to Tatian, who had dreamed that these words of Genesis: "Let there be light," are the words of one wishing. And he adds that this heresiarch said that women, on account of their hair and adornment, are punished by the power set over these things. Furthermore, he shows there that the judgements of God are various. Thereafter he advises us that in a certain scripture, doubtless apocryphal, it is asserted that exposed and abortive infants are handed over to a guardian and tutelary angel to be brought up and instructed; and there he adduces certain words taken from the Apocalypse of Peter.
Quosdam postea psalmi decimi septimi versus, nimirum 26, 45 et 51, breviter interpretatur. Continenter vero ait malorum tolerantiam propter ipsius fructum esse bonam. Porro autem qui continens est, tum illico his affectibus non est immunis. Ubi vero accesserit habitus, non jam est continens;
Afterwards he briefly interprets certain verses of the seventeenth Psalm, namely 26, 45, and 51. And immediately he says that the endurance of evils is good on account of its fruit. Furthermore, he who is continent is not then immediately immune from these passions. But when a habit has been added, he is no longer continent;
Editors' notes and page, col. 1461
Footnotes
(56) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461
§ 24.
§ 24.
(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461
§ 25 et 26.
§§ 25 and 26.
(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461
Matth. III, 11, 12; Luc. III, 16, 17.
Matthew 3:11–12; Luke 3:16–17.
(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461
Luc. XII, 49.
Luke 12:49.
(59') ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461 § 27.
§ 27.
(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461
§ 28 et 29.
§§ 28 and 29.
(60') ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461 § 30.
§ 30.
(61) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461
§ 31.
§ 31.
(62) ‹anchor: ille narrat› · call in col 1461
§ 32, 33, 34.
§§ 32, 33, 34.
(63) ‹anchor: prosequitur auctor noster› · call in col 1461
§ 35.
§ 35.
(64) ‹anchor: ille explicat› · call in col 1461
§ 36.
§ 36.
(65) ‹anchor: At gnostica, inquit› · call in col 1461
§ 37.
§ 37.
(66) ‹anchor: ille docet› · call in col 1461
§ 38 et 39.
§§ 38 and 39.
(67) ‹anchor: Addit vero› · call in col 1461
§ 40.
§ 40.
(68) ‹anchor: ibi ostendit› · call in col 1461
§ 41.
§ 41.
(69) ‹anchor: breviter interpretatur› · call in col 1461
§ 42, etc.
§ 42, etc.
(70) ‹anchor: Ubi vero› · call in col 1461
§ 45.
§ 45.
(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1461?
§ 46.
§ 46.
Page
- running head: 1461 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A aegrotosque curavit; B tradiderint, nec; C scrutatur, ex; D hunc haeresiarcham
- old-edition numerals: 346 after niaverat,
- other: Primarily Latin with one Greek phrase; editors' matter: aegrotosque curavit
quippe qui ut in uno habitu et Spiritu sancto esset, nactus sit. Caeterum affectus suggestione et nutu spiritus vocantur. At ratio non praecipit quidem ut a creatura abscedamus, sed ut ea bene et sine affectuum pravitate utamur.
inasmuch as he has obtained to be in one habit and the Holy Spirit. For the rest, passions by suggestion and nod are called spirits. Now reason does not indeed command that we depart from the creature, but that we use it well and without depravity of passions.
Dehinc ille refert quid Petrus in Apocalypsi de abortivis, quorum melior sors est, infantibus, atque de futura eorum salute constituerit. Nobis quoque explicat quid sibi ille velit, cum in eodem libro scripsit ex lacte, a mulierum uberibus defluente, ac concreto, minusculas, sed carnivoras bestias procreari. Planum denique facit quid senex quidam docuerit de modo, quo anima hominis ab angelo, humanae generationi praefecto, infunditur, ac quo fit, ut fetus in matris suae utero sit animal.
Next he reports what Peter in the Apocalypse determined concerning abortive infants, whose lot is better, and concerning their future salvation. He explains to us also what he means when in the same book he wrote that out of milk flowing down from the breasts of women, and congealed, tiny but carnivorous beasts are procreated. Finally, he makes plain what a certain old man taught concerning the manner in which the soul of man is infused by the angel set over human generation, and whereby it comes to pass that the fetus in its mother's womb is a living being.
Tum confestim auctor expositionem psalmi decimi octavi aggreditur, ostenditque, qui sint caeli, qui enarrant gloriam Dei, quid sit firmamentum quo manuum ejus opus annuntiatur, qui dies diei eructet verbum, ac quae nox nocti scientiam indicet. At ibi duo adjicit. Et primo quidem diabolum, qui Dominum venturum esse noverat, ac daemones, qui Salomonem, antequam peccaret, Dominum esse arbitrabantur, non prius agnovisse Christi divinitatem, quam a mortuis resurrexisset. Deinde ille nos admonet ab Enocho litteris mandatum fuisse homines ab angelis transgressoribus non solum astronomiam et divinationem, sed alias etiam artes didicisse.
Then forthwith the author undertakes the exposition of the eighteenth Psalm, and shows what are the heavens which declare the glory of God, what is the firmament whereby the work of his hands is announced, what day utters word unto day, and what night indicates knowledge unto night. And there he adds two things. And first indeed that the devil, who knew that the Lord was about to come, and the demons, who before Solomon sinned supposed that he was the Lord, did not recognize the divinity of Christ before he had risen from the dead. Next he admonishes us that it was committed to letters by Enoch that men learned from the transgressing angels not only astronomy and divination, but also other arts.
Pergit ipse, et quartum ejusdem psalmi versum explanando, observat stellas esse corpora spiritualia, quibus ita cum perfectis angelis communis est rerum administratio, ut tamen non causa earum, sed sint tantum signa.
He proceeds himself, and in explaining the fourth verse of the same Psalm, observes that the stars are spiritual bodies, to which the administration of things is common with the perfect angels in such a way that nevertheless they are not the cause of them, but only signs.
In hoc autem subsequenti versu : « In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, » vult esse hyperbaton, ita ut post sequentes versus debeant transponi. Ibi vero ait Hermogenem opinatum esse Salvatorem in sole suum posuisse corpus. Subinde autem interposito Pantaeni testimonio, aliam sed obscuram, nec omnino sanam affert eorumdem verborum interpretationem. Ei vero tertiam ipse, sed secunda non magis veram et catholicam subjungit.
Moreover, in this subsequent verse: "In the sun He has set His tabernacle," he will have it that there is a hyperbaton, so that they ought to be transposed after the following verses. And there he says that Hermogenes opined that the Saviour placed his body in the sun. And thereafter, having interposed the testimony of Pantaenus, he brings forward another, though obscure and not altogether sound, interpretation of the same words. And to it he himself subjoins a third, but no more true and catholic than the second.
Post haec alios ejusdem psalmi versus, scilicet octavum, decimum, duodecimum et decimum quartum, praetermissis tribus intermediis, breviter edisserit. Caetera vero, quae ille prosecutus fuerat, in editis omnino desunt, nec aliunde potuerunt restitui et resarciri.
After these things he briefly sets forth other verses of the same Psalm, namely the eighth, tenth, twelfth, and fourteenth, passing over the three intermediate ones. The rest, however, which he had prosecuted, are altogether wanting in the published editions, nor could they be restored and repaired from elsewhere.
De hujus epitomes horumque excerptorum auctore.
Concerning the author of this epitome and of these excerpts.
Ex hujusce operis analysi, et utriusque illius partis titulo constat, et extra controversiam positum esse debet illud variis sententiis, nullo prorsus ordine digestis, nec sibi invicem connexis et cohaerentibus, fuisse compactum. Unde autem, et ex cujus auctoris lucubrationibus ea omnia hujusce epitomes scriptor decerpserit, inter eruditos nostrae aetatis homines disceptatur. Quidam enim putant Theodotum, cujus nomen primae hujus scriptionis parti praefixum legitur, fuisse ex Clementis nostri Alexandrini praeceptoribus unum, quem ille Stromatum initio ex Palaestina oriundum fuisse testatur, ac ipsummet Clementem ex illius doctrina hoc composuisse opus, quod idcirco Ἀνατολικὴν διδασκαλίαν vocavit. Sed levissima sane est, ac minimi momenti horum auctorum conjectura. Nullo siquidem argumento, nullaque ratione eam hactenus probavere, neque probare unquam poterunt.
From the analysis of this work, and the title of both its parts, it is established and ought to be placed beyond controversy that it was compacted out of various sentences digested in no order at all, nor connected and coherent with one another. Whence, however, and from the works of what author the writer of this epitome culled all those things, is debated among the learned men of our age. For some think that Theodotus, whose name is read prefixed to the first part of this writing, was one of the instructors of our Clement of Alexandria, whom at the beginning of the Stromata he testifies to have been a native of Palestine, and that Clement himself composed this work out of his doctrine, which on that account he called Ἀνατολικὴν διδασκαλίαν ("Eastern Teaching"). But this conjecture of these authors is assuredly most slight and of very little weight. Since by no argument and by no reason have they hitherto proved it, nor will they ever be able to prove it.
Nos quidem non fugit Theodotum non semel in
It does not indeed escape us that Theodotus is more than once in
Editors' notes and page, col. 1462
Footnotes
(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462
§ 47 et 48.
§§ 47 and 48.
(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462
§ 49.
§ 49.
(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462
§ 50.
§ 50.
(75) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462
§ 51.
§ 51.
(76) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462
§ 52.
§ 52.
(77.78) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462 § 53.
§ 53.
(79) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1462
§ 54.
§ 54.
(80) ‹anchor: Pergit ipse› · call in col 1462
§ 55 et 56.
§§ 55 and 56.
(81.82) ‹anchor: In hoc autem› · call in col 1462 § 57.
§ 57.
(83) ‹anchor: catholicam subjungit› · call in col 1462
§ 58.
§ 58.
(84) ‹anchor: fuisse testatur› · call in col 1462
Strom. l. I, p. 274.
Stromata, book I, p. 274.
<!-- NOTE: Migne prints doubled numerals 59' and 60' (with a mark after the numeral) and joined calls 77.78 and 81.82; set as printed. Calls of 56–61 and 71–79 stand above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 730)
Page
- running head: IIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1462
- marginal letters: A quippe qui; B mamentum quo; C vero ait; D cujus auctoris
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Primarily Latin with one Greek phrase; editors' matter: quippe qui
illa prima hujus operis parte citari, sed inde haud plane incerto conficitur eum non fuisse Clementis Alexandrini praeceptorem. Nam ibi primo arguitur in illorum errorem impegisse haereticorum, qui Deum Patrem passum garriebant. Deinde ille adhuc ab auctore nostro fautor patronusque dicitur fictitii ac ridiculi Aeonum Pleromatis, quod supra libro secundo, dissertat. 2, cap. 4, § 1, a Valentino ejusque asseclis perperam excogitatum, ac praepostere venditatum vidimus. Atqui Clemens Alexandrinus eo ipso, qui laudatur Stromatum libro asseveranter, uti ostendimus, affirmat sacra et orthodoxa religionis nostrae documenta ab omnibus, quorum ille mentionem facit, praeceptoribus suis asseri ac propugnari. Non potuit igitur is Theodotus tot errorum fautor et assertor, unus ex eis esse quos Clemens magistros suos appellavit.
cited in that first part of this work, yet from that it is concluded not altogether uncertainly that he was not the teacher of Clement of Alexandria. For there, in the first place, he is convicted of having stumbled into the error of those heretics who prattled that God the Father suffered. Next, he is further called by our author a supporter and patron of the fictitious and ridiculous Pleroma of Aeons, which we saw above in the second book, dissertation 2, chapter 4, § 1, was wrongly devised and preposterously peddled by Valentinus and his followers. Yet Clement of Alexandria, in that very book of the Stromata which is cited, emphatically affirms, as we have shown, that the sacred and orthodox teachings of our religion were asserted and championed by all his teachers of whom he makes mention. Therefore, that Theodotus, the supporter and champion of so many errors, could not have been one of those whom Clement called his masters.
Aliis itaque haec epitome vel ex editis a Clemente nostro Hypotyposeon libris excerpta videtur, vel plura saltem exhibere et complecti eorumdem librorum fragmenta. Nam illorum auctor, uti inquit Photius, « Et si recte in quibusdam sentire visus est, in aliis rursus impie omnino fabuloseque disserit. » Et ne id a se gratis dictum quis causaretur, plures in iisdem libris disseminatos errores postquam retulit, alios longe plurimos ac pene infinitos se praetermisisse significat. Ex his igitur libris eos omnes, qui in hac epitome occurrunt, decerptos fuisse existimant.
To others, therefore, this epitome seems either to have been excerpted from the books of the Hypotyposes published by our Clement, or at least to exhibit and embrace several fragments of those same books. For the author of those books, as Photius says, "Even if he seemed to hold right opinions in some things, in others again he discourses altogether impiously and fabulously." And lest anyone should allege that this was said by him gratuitously, after he has recounted several errors disseminated in the same books, he indicates that he has passed over very many others and almost infinite ones. From these books, therefore, they think that all those which occur in this epitome were culled.
Huc accedit quod hujus epitomes auctor, ubi in secunda illius parte traditam a Pantaeno quorumdam psalmi decimi octavi versuum expositionem exhibet, ibi ab eo his compellatur verbis : ὁ Πανταῖνος ἡμῶν, « Pantaenus noster. » At Clemens, teste Eusebio, in suis Hypotyposeon libris : « Pantaenum magistrum suum ( Graece διδασκάλου τοῦ Πανταίνου) nominatim appellat, quaecunque ille a majoribus accepisset, et traditiones, quas posteris reliquisset, exponens. » Quis ergo sibi facile persuaderi non patiatur, illam Pantaeni allatam in hac epitome, quam notamus interpretationem, ex iisdem Hypotyposeon libris fuisse delibatam ? Denique Joannes Damascenus quoddam Clementis Alexandrini nomine testimonium retulit, quod hisce in electis revera invenitur.
To this is added the fact that the author of this epitome, where in its second part he presents an exposition of certain verses of the eighteenth Psalm handed down by Pantaenus, addresses him there in these words: "our Pantaenus," "our Pantaenus." Now Clement, as Eusebius testifies, in his books of the Hypotyposes: "calls Pantaenus his master (in Greek, of the teacher Pantaenus) by name, setting forth whatever things he had received from the elders, and the traditions which he had left to posterity." Who, then, would not easily suffer himself to be persuaded that that interpretation of Pantaenus adduced in this epitome which we are noting was drawn from those same books of the Hypotyposes? Finally, John of Damascus reported a certain testimony under the name of Clement of Alexandria, which is in fact found in these extracts.
Verum alii, his argumentis minime victi, suum huic opinioni ideo negabunt suffragium, quia ex variis erroribus, quos ex Hypotyposeon libris idem Photius repraesentat, nullus fere in hac epitome reperitur. Contra vero plures, uti diximus, in ea haereticorum ac praesertim Valentinianorum errores, delirationes, atque commenta occurrunt, quae Photius in Hypotyposeon libris a se reperta esse non dicit, sed quae in genuinis Clementis nostri operibus, ut in superiori dissertatione a nobis observatum est, confutantur, ac funditus destruuntur.
But others, by no means won over by these arguments, will refuse their support to this opinion for the reason that out of the various errors which the same Photius presents from the books of the Hypotyposes, scarcely one is found in this epitome. On the contrary, as we have said, there occur in it many errors, ravings, and figments of heretics, and especially of the Valentinians, which Photius does not say were found by him in the books of the Hypotyposes, but which in the genuine works of our Clement, as was observed by us in the preceding dissertation, are refuted and utterly destroyed.
Deinde ab horum excerptorum auctore Pantaenus non suus magister vocatur, sed Πανταῖνος ἡμῶν, « Pantaenus noster, » id est vel ejusdem cum eo doctrinae defensor, vel ex eodem populo, eademque gente prognatus.
Next, by the author of these excerpts Pantaenus is not called his master, but "our Pantaenus," "our Pantaenus," that is, either a defender of the same doctrine with him, or born of the same people and the same nation.
Postremo locus a Joanne Damasceno citatus, nihil aliud probat, nisi in eo, quo usus est, horum electorum manuscripto codice nomen Clementis inscribi : sed veram esse hanc inscriptionem nulla unquam ratione iis demonstrari poterit, qui infinitis propemodum exemplis didicerunt eam librariorum amanuensium saepius fuisse pravam consuetudinem, ac prorsus intolerabilem impudentiam, qua ut descriptis a se operibus majorem conciliarent auctoritatem, falsum antiquissimi vel doctissimi
Lastly, the passage cited by John of Damascus proves nothing else than that in the manuscript codex of these extracts which he used, the name of Clement was inscribed; but that this inscription is true will never by any reasoning be able to be demonstrated to those who have learned by almost infinite examples that it was quite often the depraved custom and utterly intolerable shamelessness of copyists and scribes that, in order to procure greater authority for the works transcribed by them, they did not hesitate to prefix the false name of some very ancient or very learned
Editors' notes and page, col. 1463
Footnotes
(85) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1463
p. 794, col. 1.
p. 794, col. 1.
(86) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1463
ibid., col. 2.
ibid., col. 2.
(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1463
Strom. l. I, pag. 274.
Stromata, book I, page 274.
(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1463
sup. dissert. 2, c. 1, art. 9, p. 642.
the second dissertation above, ch. 1, art. 9, p. 642.
(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1463
Bibl., cod. CIX.
Library, codex 109.
(90) ‹anchor: compellatur verbis› · call in col 1463
§ 57.
§ 57.
(91) ‹anchor: teste Eusebio› · call in col 1463
l. VI Hist. c. 13, p. 214.
Book VI of the History, ch. 13, p. 214.
(92) ‹anchor: revera invenitur› · call in col 1463
sup., p. 1306.
above, p. 1306.
Page
- running head: 1463 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A illa prima; B brorum fragmenta.; C suaderi non; D nus non
- old-edition numerals: 347 after variis
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: illa prima hujus operis; word split at end of column: doctis-
- other: the word doctissimi was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1464
scriptoris nomen illorum fronti praefigere non dubitaverunt.
writer to their front.
Nobis itaque persuasum facilius quilibet faciet hujus opusculi utramque, quam unius ejusdemque scriptoris esse concedunt, partem neque ex Clementis Alexandrini Hypotyposibus, neque ex aliis illius libris fuisse compilatam. Nulla enim ratione vel ex hujus operis inscriptione, vel ex illius textu desumpta id confici potest. Quinimo ibi absurda prorsus et ridicula cujusdam senis proponuntur argumenta, quibus probare volebat « animal esse, quod in matris utero gestatur. » At supra a nobis observatum hanc quaestionem in earum a Clemente nostro exemplum proponi, quae a Christianis nunquam movendae sunt.
Anyone, therefore, will more easily persuade us that both parts of this little work, which they grant to be of one and the same writer, were compiled neither from the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria nor from his other books. For by no reason drawn either from the title of this work or from its text can that be established. Nay more, there are propounded there the utterly absurd and ridiculous arguments of a certain old man, by which he wished to prove "that what is carried in the mother's womb is an animal." Yet it was observed by us above that this question is proposed by our Clement as an example of those which ought never to be raised by Christians.
Eorum itaque opinioni haud aegre subscribemus qui hanc commentationem a scriptore aliquo, haereticorum, atque quorumdam inprimis Valentinianorum potius, quam Catholicorum partibus emancipato, profectam esse probaverint. Et certe si praefixus huic opusculo titulus verus, uti plane videtur, sincerusque sit, in illius auctore quaerendo tanta contentione non erat laborandum. Ex eo siquidem jure haud immerito colligi potest totum illud idem opusculum ex Theodoti et Orientalium haud dubie haereticorum doctrina fuisse delibatum. Quis autem ille Theodotus fuerit, dictu profecto difficile est. Quidam tamen opinantur eum fuisse Byzantinum origine, et arte coriarium, qui Christum, ut alibi dicemus, quem coram tyrannis negaverat, Deum esse postea inficiatus est. Aliis vero is Theodotus videtur, quem Eusebius primum pseudoprophetarum Montani et Priscillae quasi procuratorem, et eodem vesano spiritu afflatum perhibet. Verum si Theodotus in hujus epitomes titulo idem atque in illius textu appellatus est, ille certe alius ab illis, et Valentinianae haereseos sectator non minori forsitan jure dici potest. Ut ut sit, haec sane scripta tanti non sunt momenti, nec eorum auctor tantae est auctoritatis, ut in illius inquirendo nomine majorem operam consumamus.
We shall therefore subscribe without difficulty to the opinion of those who prove that this treatise proceeded from some writer sold over to the party of the heretics, and especially of certain Valentinians, rather than to that of the Catholics. And certainly if the title prefixed to this little work is true, as it plainly seems to be, and genuine, there was no need to labour with such great contention in seeking its author. For from it by right it can not undeservedly be gathered that the whole of that same little work was drawn from the teaching of Theodotus and of the Easterners, who were undoubtedly heretics. Who that Theodotus was, however, is assuredly difficult to say. Yet some are of the opinion that he was a Byzantine by origin, and a tanner by trade, who, as we shall say elsewhere, afterwards denied that Christ, Whom he had denied before the tyrants, was God. To others, however, he seems to be that Theodotus whom Eusebius records as the first steward, so to speak, of the false prophets Montanus and Priscilla, and inspired by the same mad spirit. But if Theodotus in the title of this epitome is the same as the one named in its text, he can certainly be called someone other than those, and perhaps with no less right a follower of the Valentinian heresy. Be that as it may, these writings are surely not of such great moment, nor is their author of such great authority, that we should spend greater labour in inquiring into his name.
ARTICULUS III.
Article III.
Novae in secundam hujus opusculi partem adnotationes.
New annotations on the second part of this little work.
Quandoquidem secunda hujus opusculi pars digna Combefisio, aliisque visa est, quae Latina fieret, idcirco quid in ea praecipue adnotari debeat, paucis demonstrandum est. Primum itaque observabimus praefixum ei titulum : « Ex Scripturis prophetarum electa, » non ab ejus auctore, sed ab aliquo potius male feriato exscriptore profectum videri. Ex ipsa siquidem vel sola illius a nobis exhibita analysi nemini obscurum esse poterit, alia longe plurima, quam prophetarum ex Scripturis electa in eo pertractari. Multa siquidem ibi notavimus ex apocryphis quibusdam libris delibata ; pluraque ab ejus auctore prolata, quae vel sacris prophetarum oraculis adversantur, vel ex eorum libris desumpta non fuerunt. Quod quidem ex mox dicendis clarius adhuc patebit.
Since the second part of this little work seemed to Combefis and others worthy of being put into Latin, therefore what ought chiefly to be noted in it must be shown in a few words. First, then, we shall observe that the title prefixed to it, "Extracts from the Scriptures of the Prophets," seems to have proceeded not from its author, but rather from some ill-employed copyist. For even from the analysis alone of it presented by us it can be obscure to no one that very many other things than extracts from the Scriptures of the prophets are treated in it. For we have noted there many things drawn from certain apocryphal books; and several things brought forward by its author which either oppose the sacred oracles of the prophets or were not taken from their books. And this indeed will appear still more clearly from what is presently to be said.
Deinde vero animadvertendum est bis in hac scriptione citari Enochi librum, et secundo loco haec ex illo proferri : « Jam vero etiam Enoch ait transgressores angelos docuisse homines astronomiam, et divinationem, ac reliquas artes. » Vidimus autem a Clemente nostro genuinis suis in operibus, nimirum in quinto Stromatum libro expresse traditum praevaricatores angelos non quidem hominibus, sed nominatim mulieribus, plura annuntiasse arcana, et quaecunque in eorum cognitionem venerant. Solerter igitur expendas velim utrum id Clemens
Next, however, it is to be noticed that the book of Enoch is cited twice in this writing, and in the second place these things are brought forward from it: "Now indeed Enoch also says that the transgressing angels taught men astronomy, and divination, and the rest of the arts." Yet we have seen that by our Clement in his genuine works, namely in the fifth book of the Stromata, it is expressly handed down that the transgressing angels announced many secret things, and whatever had come to their knowledge, not indeed to men, but expressly to women. I would therefore wish you to weigh carefully whether Clement
Editors' notes and page, col. 1464
Footnotes
(93) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1464
§ 51.
§ 51.
(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1464
sup. cap. 1, art. 2, p. 1391.
above, ch. 1, art. 2, p. 1391.
(95) ‹anchor: quem Eusebius› · call in col 1464
l. V Hist., c. 16, p. 181.
Book V of the History, ch. 16, p. 181.
(96) ‹anchor: animadvertendum est› · call in col 1464
§ 2 et 54.
§§ 2 and 54.
(97) ‹anchor: Vidimus autem› · call in col 1464
Dissert. sup. 2, c. 8, art. 2, p. 992 et 993.
the second dissertation above, ch. 8, art. 2, pp. 992 and 993.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 85–89 and 93–94 stand above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 731)
Page
- running head: D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1464
- marginal letters: A simi scriptoris; B praefixus huic; C tantae est; D culis adversantur,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; word split at beginning of column: simi; editors' matter: ARTICULUS III. Novae; word split at end of column: Cle-
ex eodem apocrypho Enochi libro hauserit.
drew from the same apocryphal book of Enoch.
Petro quoque supposita tum Apocalypsis, tum Praedicatio tribus in locis citata legitur, atque in priore asseritur non solum futura abortivorum infantum, in angelorum disciplinam traditorum, salus et felicitas, sed ridicula etiam opinio de carnivoris quibusdam minusculis bestiis, ex lacte ab uberibus matrum defluente procreatis. In secundo Salvator et lex dicitur et Verbum. Jam autem a nobis adnotatum est eumdem plane ac ultimum hujus apocryphi libri locum a Clemente Alexandrino citari. Ibi quoque nonnulla de falsa Petri Apocalypsi animadvertimus.
Both the Apocalypse and the Preaching falsely ascribed to Peter are also read cited in three places; and in the former there is asserted not only the future salvation and happiness of aborted infants, handed over to the tutelage of angels, but also a ridiculous opinion about certain tiny flesh-eating beasts, engendered from the milk flowing down from the breasts of mothers. In the second the Saviour is called both Law and Word. Now it has already been noted by us that exactly the same passage, and the last one of this apocryphal book, is cited by Clement of Alexandria. There, too, we made some remarks on the false Apocalypse of Peter.
Nota quadam marginali Combefisius observat ab horum excerptorum auctore singularem Pantaeno, quem praeceptorem suum appellat, ac plane falsam ascribi opinionem, ab Hermogenis errore de corpore Christi in sole posito non valde diversam. Sed ibi nihil aliud ex Pantaeno defloratum videtur, nisi in sacris Scripturis saepius praesens pro futuro, et futurum pro praesente usurpari. Qua quidem regula ab eo constituta, auctor noster haec verba: « In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, » singulari prorsus atque falsa explanatione interpretatur. De Hermogenis porro erroribus supra lib. II, dissert. 2, cap. 8, art. 1, disputavimus.
In a marginal note Combefis observes that the author of these excerpts ascribes to Pantaenus, whom he calls his teacher, a singular and plainly false opinion, not very different from Hermogenes' error about the body of Christ being placed in the sun. But nothing else appears to be culled there from Pantaenus except that in the sacred Scriptures the present is quite often used for the future, and the future for the present. On the strength of this rule, laid down by Pantaenus, our author interprets these words, "In the sun He has set His tabernacle," with an altogether singular and false explanation. On the errors of Hermogenes, moreover, we have argued above, Book II, Dissertation 2, chapter 8, article 1.
Alia vero Tatiani opinio ab auctore nostro rejicitur, qua illa haec Geneseos verba: « Fiat lux. » optantis esse perperam contendebat. At inde illud confirmari potest, quod adhuc supra lib. II, cap. 6, art. 2, a nobis notatum fuit, hunc Tatianum, non secus atque Marcionem, falso docuisse duos esse deos. Verum si auctor noster hunc Tatiani errorem confutavit, nihil certe contra aliam, quam illi continenter attribuit, opinionem « propter crines, καὶ τὸν κόσμον, et mundum, » haud dubie muliebrem, feminas a virtute his rebus praefecta puniri.
But another opinion of Tatian is rejected by our author, by which he wrongly contended that these words of Genesis, "Let there be light," are those of one wishing. From this, however, can be confirmed what was noted by us above, Book II, chapter 6, article 2: that this Tatian, no differently from Marcion, falsely taught that there are two gods. But if our author refuted this error of Tatian, he certainly said nothing against the other opinion which he attributes to him immediately after: that "on account of their hair, καὶ τὸν κόσμον, and their adornment," doubtless the feminine kind, women are punished by the power set over these things.
Non semel porro mentionem fecimus Heracleonis, qui, uti auctor noster refert, eorum aures igne obsignabat, qui baptismate initiabantur. Videsis supra lib. II, dissert. 2, cap. 4, art. 3, § 3, et hujus libri dissert. 2, cap. 13, art. 2.
We have, moreover, more than once made mention of Heracleon, who, as our author reports, sealed with fire the ears of those who were being initiated by baptism. See above, Book II, Dissertation 2, chapter 4, article 3, § 3, and Dissertation 2 of this book, chapter 13, article 2.
Citatis paulo post Christi verbis: « Ignem veni mitere in terram, » haec auctor noster adjecit: « Nempe virtutem, quae sanctos quidem emundet; terrenos vero, ut quidam aiunt, interitu mergat et deleat, » Graece δύναμιν ὑλικῶν ἀφανιστικήν, virtutem terrenos, sive potius materiales exterminantem. At Combefisius ad marginem adnotavit hunc esse Gnosticorum de abolendo corpore errorem. Sed id certe aliqua saltem ratione probandum erat, aut quinam essent illi Gnostici, designandum. Nonne enim his verbis alii potius designantur haeretici, sive Valentiniani, sive Montanistae, aut alii qui seipsos spirituales, Catholicos autem ψυχικούς, animales, atque etiam carnales, et materiales esse jactitabant?
A little later, having cited Christ's words, "I came to cast fire upon the earth," our author added these: "That is, a power which cleanses the saints, but, as some say, sinks and destroys the earthly in ruin," in Greek δύναμιν ὑλικῶν ἀφανιστικήν, a power that exterminates the earthly, or rather the material. But Combefis noted in the margin that this is the error of the Gnostics about the abolition of the body. But this certainly had to be proved by at least some reasoning, or it had to be shown who those Gnostics were. For are not other heretics rather indicated by these words, whether Valentinians or Montanists, or others who boasted that they themselves were spiritual, but that Catholics were ψυχικούς, animal men, and indeed carnal and material?
Editors' notes and page, col. 1465
Footnotes
(98) ‹anchor: citata legitur› · call in col 1465
§ 41, 49, 50.
§§ 41, 49, 50.
(99) ‹anchor: adnotatum est› · call in col 1465
dissert. super. 2, c. 4, p. 931.
the second dissertation above, ch. 4, p. 931.
(1) ‹anchor: praeceptorem suum appellat› · call in col 1465
§ 37.
§ 37.
(2) ‹anchor: haec verba› · call in col 1465
Psal. XVIII, 6.
Psalm 18 (19):6.
(3) ‹anchor: rejicitur› · call in col 1465
§ 38.
§ 38.
(4) ‹anchor: continenter attribuit› · call in col 1465
§ 39.
§ 39.
(5) ‹anchor: auctor noster refert› · call in col 1465
§ 25.
§ 25.
(6) ‹anchor: Citatis paulo post› · call in col 1465
§ 26.
§ 26.
(7) ‹anchor: Christi verbis› · call in col 1465
Luc. XII, 49.
Luke 12:49.
Page
- running head: 1465 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A mens ex; B et futurum; C Non semel; D qui seipsos
- old-edition numerals: 348 after feminas
- other: Latin with short Greek phrases quoted (καὶ τὸν κόσμον; δύναμιν ὑλικῶν ἀφανιστικήν; ψυχικούς); word split at beginning of column: mens; full-width heading CAPUT IV. De quibusdam in aliquot Epistolas canonicas adumbrationibus, Clementi Alexandrino attributis. not set; editors' matter: ARTICULUS I. Analysis
- running head: 1465 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1466
- marginal letters: A ‹mens ex eodem apocrypho›; B ‹et futurum pro praesente usurpari›; C ‹Non semel porro mentionem›; D ‹qui seipsos spirituales›
- old-edition numerals: 348 after ‹feminas›
- placement (QA Q2a): on the page col 1465 ends at ‹Catholicos autem ψυχικούς,›; the words from ‹animales, atque etiam carnales› to ‹jactitabant?› stand at the top of col 1466 (its first paragraph runs on to ‹demonstraverint.›), but are set at the end of this file's last paragraph and are not in c1466_a.md; left in place so that no text is lost; the assembler should treat them as col 1466's.
- placement (QA Q2a): the CAPUT IV. band (full width across 1465/1466) and, below it in col 1465, ‹ARTICULUS I.›, ‹Analysis harum adumbrationum.› and ‹Hae adumbrationes … sed breves› are not in this file; they are set in c1466_a.md (with the 1466 continuation ‹duntaxat in quosdam …›). Checked against the page there: text present and correct.
- misprints (QA Q3a): ‹Ignem veni mitere in terram› — printed mitere for mittere; set as printed (the earlier read had silently corrected it). For misprints.tsv.
- footnote 5 (QA Q3a): the numeral prints ambiguously, 25 or 23; 25 kept (Eclogae propheticae 25 is the Heracleon passage).
Neque etiam repugnabimus iis, qui ab auctore nostro Valentinianos notari demonstraverint. Ab iis siquidem non solum tria, ut vidimus, hominum genera constituebantur, unum scilicet spirituale, secundum animale, et materiale tertium; verum etiam quasdam animas natura sua dicebant esse malas, nec suscipiendi seminis capaces.
Nor shall we oppose those who may show that the Valentinians are marked out by our author. For by them, as we have seen, not only were three kinds of men established, namely one spiritual, the second animal, and the third material; but they also said that certain souls are evil by their own nature, and incapable of receiving the seed.
Quosdam porro Gnosticos, a superius memoratis haud dubie diversos, etiamsi paulo post auctor noster nominatim corripiat, ipse nihilominus antea dixerat: « Qui credidit, remissionem peccatorum a Domino consecutus est: ὁ δὲ ἐν γνώσει γενόμενος, ἅτε μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνων, παρ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν λοιπῶν κομίζεται. « Qui autem adeptus est scientiam, seu gnosim, ut qui non peccet (vel quasi amplius non peccans), a seipso reliquorum remissionem obtinet. » Cujus explicandi gratia Combefisius in margine addidit: « Quasi merendo, qua gratia justificatus est. » Sed nihil in illo auctoris nostri textu videmus, quod ad hanc explicationem nos conducat. Quapropter verisimilius fortasse videbitur illum ibi ad errorem allisisse quorumdam pseudo-Gnosticorum, qui vitam spiritualem profitentes, ad eum statum, in quo amplius peccare non possent, se aliquando pervenisse venditabant.
Moreover, although a little later our author rebukes by name certain Gnostics, doubtless different from those mentioned above, he had nevertheless said earlier: "He who has believed has obtained remission of sins from the Lord; ὁ δὲ ἐν γνώσει γενόμενος, ἅτε μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνων, παρ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν λοιπῶν κομίζεται. "But he who has attained knowledge, or gnosis, as one who does not sin (or, as it were, no longer sinning), obtains from himself the remission of the rest." To explain this Combefis added in the margin: "As if by meriting, by which grace he has been justified." But we see nothing in that text of our author that leads us to this explanation. Wherefore it will perhaps seem more likely that he there alluded to the error of certain pseudo-Gnostics who, professing the spiritual life, boasted that they had at some time reached that state in which they could no longer sin.
Plures alias, vel ex variis apocryphis, uti vidimus, libris, vel nullo citato auctore scriptor noster falsas opiniones, ac praecipue de stellis et angelis simpliciter proponit, quas ille nec refutare, nec quid in eis cavendum sit, retegere, aut saltem indicare curat. Nonnulla tamen sana, recta et orthodoxa in hac epitome occurrunt. Nam ut alia, quae ex illius analysi satis intelliguntur, missa faciamus, illud profecto verum et orthodoxum est, atque ab antiquis Patribus saepius traditum et assertum, quod ille his edixit verbis: « Salvator noster baptizatus est, cum ipse non egeret; ut his qui regenerarentur aquas omnes sanctificaret. » Verum sicut boni scriptoris est recta et sana scribere, ita illius quoque officii et muneris esse debet, si quae falsa et absurde proponere cogatur, quod in eis noxium est, aut confutare, aut saltem ne incauti quidam decipiantur, nota aliqua inurere. Porro autem qua necessitate ad tot absurda et ridicula opinionum commenta vel ex se ipso, vel ex alterius scriptoris lucubrationibus tradenda auctor noster compulsus fuerit, nobis prorsus incompertum esse fatebimur.
Our writer sets out many other false opinions, whether from various apocryphal books, as we have seen, or with no author cited, and especially about the stars and the angels, simply as they stand; and he takes no care either to refute them, or to disclose what in them is to be guarded against, or at least to point it out. Yet some sound, right and orthodox things occur in this epitome. For, to pass over the others, which are sufficiently understood from its analysis, this is certainly true and orthodox, and quite often handed down and asserted by the ancient Fathers, which he declared in these words: "Our Saviour was baptized, though He Himself had no need, so that He might sanctify all waters for those who were to be regenerated." But just as it is the part of a good writer to write right and sound things, so too it ought to be his office and duty, if he is compelled to propose things false and absurdly, either to refute what is harmful in them, or at least to brand it with some mark, so that certain incautious people may not be deceived. Further, by what necessity our author was compelled to hand on so many absurd and ridiculous fabrications of opinions, whether from himself or from the writings of another writer, we shall confess is wholly unknown to us.
Denique observabimus hunc tractatum perfectum non esse, pluresque adhuc in eo esse hiatus, et loca detruncata, ac mutilata, ac tandem in illius fine multa desiderari, quae vel temporis injuria periere, vel ex manuscriptis codicibus abstracta avulsaque fuerunt.
Finally we shall observe that this treatise is not complete, and that there are still several gaps in it, and places cut short and mutilated, and lastly that at its end much is missing, which either perished through the injury of time or was torn away and removed from the manuscript codices.
De quibusdam in aliquot Epistolas canonicas adumbrationibus, Clementi Alexandrino attributis.
On certain adumbrations on some canonical Epistles, attributed to Clement of Alexandria.
Analysis harum adumbrationum.
Analysis of these adumbrations.
Hae adumbrationes scriptae sunt in primam Petri apostoli, et Judae, ac primam et secundam Joannis Epistolam. Verum illae non perpetua et continuata in integras illas Epistolas commentaria, sed breves duntaxat in quosdam earum versus, vel aliquam duntaxat eorumdem versuum partem enarrationes, ac saepe saepius notulas tantummodo et animadversiones exhibent.
These adumbrations were written on the First Epistle of Peter the apostle, and on that of Jude, and on the First and Second Epistles of John. But they present not a perpetual and continuous commentary on those whole Epistles, but only brief expositions of certain of their verses, or of only some part of those verses, and very often only little notes and remarks.
A prima autem Petri Epistola, sed a tertio tantum primi ejus capitis versu auctor orditur. Inde
Now the author begins with the First Epistle of Peter, but only from the third verse of its first chapter. Then
Editors' notes and page, col. 1466
Footnotes
(8) ‹anchor: ut vidimus› · call in col 1466
lib. sup. dissert. 2, c. 4, art. 2.
the book above, dissertation 2, ch. 4, art. 2.
(9) ‹anchor: nominatim corripiat› · call in col 1466
§ 26 et 27.
§§ 26 and 27.
(10) ‹anchor: antea dixerat› · call in col 1466
§ 15.
§ 15.
(11) ‹anchor: simpliciter proponit› · call in col 1466
§ 53, 56, 58.
§§ 53, 56, 58.
(12) ‹anchor: his edixit verbis› · call in col 1466
§ 7.
§ 7.
<!-- NOTE: the series restarts at 1 after 99. Calls of 98–3 and 8–10 stand above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 732)
Page
- running head: DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1466
- marginal letters: A animales, atque; B fisius in; C quod ille; D saque fuerunt.
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with one Greek sentence quoted (ὁ δὲ ἐν γνώσει … κομίζεται); full-width heading CAPUT IV. De quibusdam in aliquot Epistolas canonicas adumbrationibus, Clementi Alexandrino attributis. not set; editors' matter: animales, atque etiam
- running head: 1465 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1466
- marginal letters: A ‹animales, atque etiam carnales›; B ‹fisius in margine addidit›; C ‹quod ille his edixit verbis›; D ‹saque fuerunt›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
transit ad quintum, ac deinde nonum, decimum, duodecimum, decimum nonum, vicesimum tertium, et vicesimum quintum, omnibus aliis praetermissis, edisserit. Ex capite autem secundo non alios versus ille explicat, quam nonum, et vicesimum tertium ; quemadmodum ex capite tertio quasdam tantum versus decimi quinti, decimi octavi, vicesimi, vicesimi primi et secundi partes interpretatur. Similiter in subsequentis capitis quarti versum decimum, decimum tertium, decimum quartum et decimum septimum quaedam animadvertit. Sed ex capite quinto nihil aliud, praeter aliquam versus decimi et decimi quarti partem attigit.
he passes to the fifth, and then discourses upon the ninth, tenth, twelfth, nineteenth, twenty-third, and twenty-fifth, passing over all the others. From the second chapter, however, he explains no other verses than the ninth and the twenty-third; just as from the third chapter he interprets only certain parts of the fifteenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-second verses. Similarly, on the tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth verses of the following fourth chapter he makes certain remarks. But from the fifth chapter he touched upon nothing else besides some part of the tenth and fourteenth verses.
Datae vero a Juda Epistolae expositionem inde ille inchoat, quod Judas ipsius initio se non fratrem Domini, sed servum appellaverit. Quo enarrato, confestim venit ad versum quintum, et alios subsequentes, usque ad versum decimum quartum, in quos breves tantum, ac quandoque in minimas eorum partes observationes exhibet. Hinc transilit ad versum decimum nonum, ac postea versum vicesimum, vicesimum primum, vicesimum secundum, et vicesimum tertium, omissis quibusdam verbis, transcripsit, nihilque in eos, nisi in nonnulla vicesimi tertii verba adnotat. Deinde vero paulo fusius vicesimum quartum explanat : ac manifestum tandem facit cur Christus, morti proximus, principi sacerdotum interroganti, se revera Filium Dei esse responderit.
The exposition of the Epistle written by Jude, however, he begins from the fact that Jude at its beginning called himself not the brother of the Lord, but a servant. Having expounded this, he immediately comes to the fifth verse, and the others following, down to the fourteenth verse, upon which he presents only brief observations, and sometimes upon their smallest parts. Hence he leaps across to the nineteenth verse, and afterwards transcribed the twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third verses, omitting certain words, and notes nothing upon them except upon some words of the twenty-third. Next, however, he explains the twenty-fourth a little more at length; and finally makes manifest why Christ, when near to death, answered the high priest when he questioned Him that He was in truth the Son of God.
Simili plane modo prima Joannis Epistola ab auctore nostro exponitur. Primum etenim ille patefacit quam pulchre hujus Epistolae exordium cum Evangelii secundum Joannem principio congruat et conveniat. Tum vero ille enarrat ejusdem capitis versum secundum, quintum, secundam septimi partem, ac tandem decimum. Ex capite autem secundo secundam primi versus partem, et post haec versum tertium, quintum, septimum, octavum, nonum, decimum, ac hoc duodecimi verbum, filioli, edisserit. Postea vero decimum tertium explicat, sicut decimum sextum, decimum septimum, decimum nonum, vicesimum secundum, vicesimum tertium, ac secundam vicesimi noni partem. Capitis vero tertii alteram versus primi partem, ac subinde versum secundum, octavum, nonum, decimum, decimum quintum, decimum sextum, ac postremo vicesimum interpretatur. Nam sequentis quidem versus verba refert, sed nihil in ea observat. Duos porro nec plures capitis quarti versus, nempe secundum et decimum octavum exponit. Gradum inde facit ad quorumdam capitis quinti versuum explanationem, nimirum secundae sexti septimique versus partis ; ac post haec ad versus decimi quarti, atque alterius quoque tantum versus decimi noni et vicesimi partis expositionem.
In a plainly similar manner the first Epistle of John is expounded by our author. For first he makes clear how beautifully the exordium of this Epistle agrees and harmonizes with the beginning of the Gospel according to John. Then indeed he expounds the second and fifth verses of the same chapter, the second part of the seventh, and finally the tenth. From the second chapter, however, he discourses upon the second part of the first verse, and after these the third, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth verses, and this word of the twelfth, "little children." Afterwards, indeed, he explains the thirteenth, as well as the sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, twenty-third, and the second part of the twenty-ninth. Of the third chapter, however, he interprets the second part of the first verse, and thereupon the second, eighth, ninth, tenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and lastly the twentieth verse. For he reports indeed the words of the following verse, but observes nothing upon them. Moreover, he expounds two verses and no more of the fourth chapter, namely the second and the eighteenth. Thence he takes a step to the explanation of certain verses of the fifth chapter, namely of the second part of the sixth and seventh verses; and after these to the exposition of the fourteenth verse, and also of the second part only of the nineteenth and twentieth verses.
Postremo auctor noster secundae ejusdem Joannis Epistolae, quam ad virgines, non secus, atque ad Babyloniam, cui nomen Electae erat, scriptam opinatur, argumentum nobis breviter proponit. Ex tota autem illa Epistola solus, caeteris omnibus penitus omissis, decimus versus ab eo explicatur.
Lastly, our author briefly propounds to us the argument of the second Epistle of the same John, which he is of the opinion was written to virgins, no otherwise than to a Babylonian woman whose name was Electa. Out of that whole Epistle, however, all the rest being entirely omitted, the tenth verse alone is explained by him.
De harum adumbrationum editionibus, auctore, ac titulo.
Concerning the editions, author, and title of these Adumbrations.
Adumbrationes illae, sive potius brevissimae notae et animadversiones typis editae fuerunt non solum in Parisiensi, et nostra Lugdunensi Patrum Bibliotheca, sed Oxonii etiam anno 1683, ac Lipsiae anno 1700, post tractatum, Quis dives salutem consequi possit, de quo superius diximus, publici factae sunt juris.
Those Adumbrations, or rather very brief notes and remarks, were published in print not only in the Paris and in our Lyons Bibliotheca Patrum, but were also made public at Oxford in the year 1683, and at Leipzig in the year 1700, after the treatise Who is the rich man that can be saved, of which we spoke above.
Qui autem editionibus illis praefecti fuere, ii Clementis Alexandrini nomen huic opusculo inscripserunt.
Now those who were in charge of those editions inscribed
Editors' notes and page, col. 1467
Page
- running head: 1467 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A transit ad; B ad versum; C decimum, ac; D natur, argumentum
- old-edition numerals: 349 after tertii
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ARTICULUS II. De harum; word split at end of column: inscri-
Veram porro esse eam inscriptionem, atque a Clemente Alexandrino scriptas esse has adumbrationes probare conantur Cassiodori auctoritate, hisque illius verbis : « In Epistolis canonicis Clemens, Alexandrinus presbyter, qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in Epistola sancti Petri prima, sancti Joannis prima et secunda, et Jacobi quaedam Attico sermone declaravit. Ubi multa quidem subtiliter, sed aliqua incaute locutus est : quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam offendiculis, purificata doctrina ejus securior potuisset hauriri. » Adumbrationes enimvero, de quibus disputamus, has ipsasmet esse, quas Cassiodorus commemorat, inde colligunt ; quia ille aperte testificatur in illis, quae a Clemente Alexandrino profectae sunt, non integras horumce apostolorum Epistolas fuisse expositas, sed ex iis quaedam tantum Attico sermone explicata, ex quibus nonnulla incaute dicta ipse consulto resecavit. At ex istarum, de quibus agimus, adumbrationum exhibita a nobis analysi patet quamplurima quatuor apostolicarum harumce Epistolarum loca sine ulla aut nota aut explicatione in iisdem penitus omissa fuisse adumbrationibus.
the name of Clement of Alexandria upon this little work. Moreover, they endeavour to prove that that inscription is true, and that these Adumbrations were written by Clement of Alexandria, by the authority of Cassiodorus, and by these words of his: "Upon the canonical Epistles Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, who is also called Stromateus, that is, upon the first Epistle of Saint Peter, the first and second of Saint John, and of James, explained certain things in Attic speech. Wherein he spoke many things subtly indeed, but some things incautiously: which we have caused to be so translated into Latin that, certain stumbling-blocks having been excluded, his purified teaching might be drawn with greater safety." That the Adumbrations, indeed, about which we are disputing are these very ones which Cassiodorus mentions, they gather from this: because he openly testifies that in those which proceeded from Clement of Alexandria, not the whole Epistles of these apostles were expounded, but only certain things from them were explained in Attic speech, from which he himself purposely cut away some things spoken incautiously. And from the analysis presented by us of these Adumbrations of which we are treating, it is clear that very many passages of these four apostolic Epistles were entirely omitted in the same Adumbrations without any note or explanation.
Oxoniensis vero episcopus existimat eas esse Ὑποτυπώσεων Clementinarum partem, ac Cassiodorum, qui Clementem Stromateum vocat, verbum Graecum, ὑποτυπώσεις, Latine adumbrationes reddidisse. In hujus autem conjecturae confirmationem proferri forsitan possunt haec Eusebii de eodem Clemente verba : « In libris Ὑποτυπώσεων, omnium ut uno verbo dicam, utriusque Testamenti Scripturarum compendiosam instituit enarrationem, ne illis quidem praetermissis scripturis, de quibus inter multos ambigitur : Judae Epistolam, et Barnabae, ac reliquas catholicas Epistolas intelligo. » Quid enim, inquies, istae adumbrationes aliud continent, nisi compendiosam, uti diximus, enarrationem illarum Petri, Joannis et Judae Epistolarum, quas Eusebius a Clemente sic expositas esse testificatur ? Quid vero, quod id auctoritate stabiliri adhuc potest Photii, qui, etsi paulo obscurius, in eumdem tamen sensum scripsit : « Hypotyposes quidem disceptationem continent locorum aliquot Veteris Novique Testamenti, quae etiam summatim explicat et interpretatur ? »
The Bishop of Oxford, however, thinks that they are a part of the Clementine Hypotyposes, and that Cassiodorus, who calls Clement Stromateus, rendered the Greek word hypotyposeis in Latin as adumbrationes. In confirmation of this conjecture, moreover, there can perhaps be brought forward these words of Eusebius concerning the same Clement: "In the books of the Hypotyposes, he drew up, to say it in a single word, a compendious exposition of all the Scriptures of both Testaments, not passing over even those scriptures concerning which there is doubt among many: I mean the Epistle of Jude, and of Barnabas, and the remaining catholic Epistles." For what else, you will say, do those Adumbrations contain than a compendious exposition, as we have said, of those Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, which Eusebius testifies were thus expounded by Clement? What, moreover, of the fact that this can be further established by the authority of Photius, who, though a little more obscurely, nevertheless wrote to the same effect: "The Hypotyposes indeed contain a discussion of certain passages of the Old and New Testament, which he also summarily explains and interprets?"
Sed hae conjecturae multis parum verosimiles, ac levissimae procul dubio videbuntur. Plurima enim ante saecula cum libri Hypotyposeon deperditi fuerint, quonam, quaeso, modo probare ullus unquam poterit illas, de quibus disputamus, adumbrationes ex istis Hypotyposeon libris fuisse collectas ?
But these conjectures will without doubt seem to many little probable and very slight. For since the books of the Hypotyposes were lost many centuries ago, in what way, I ask, will anyone ever be able to prove that those Adumbrations about which we are disputing were collected from those books of the Hypotyposes?
Deinde vero Cassiodorus, qui has adumbrationes Graece scriptas viderat, jusseratque Latinam verti in linguam, de iis tanquam singulari quodam Clementis opere, ab Hypotyposeon libris distincto loquitur.
Next, however, Cassiodorus, who had seen these Adumbrations written in Greek, and had ordered them to be translated into the Latin tongue, speaks of them as of some separate work of Clement, distinct from the books of the Hypotyposes.
Non minus praeterea incertum est utrum Cassiodorus loco a nobis citato, de hisce Epistolarum Petri, Judae et Joannis adumbrationibus sermonem fecerit. Primo siquidem ille Epistolae a Jacobo, non autem a Juda datae meminit. Neque dixeris solita librariorum amanuensium incuria in Cassiodori textu pro Judae, nomen Jacobi fuisse substitutum. Nulla etenim codicum seu editorum seu manuscriptorum auctoritate, nullaque alia ratione id probari potest.
Furthermore, it is no less uncertain whether Cassiodorus in the passage cited by us spoke of these Adumbrations on the Epistles of Peter, Jude, and John. For in the first place, he makes mention of the Epistle written by James, and not of that by Jude. Nor could you say that by the usual carelessness of copyists and scribes in the text of Cassiodorus the name of James was substituted for that of Jude. For by no authority of codices, whether printed or manuscript, and by no other reason can that be proved.
Secundo Cassiodorus nos admonet se ex iis, quos prae manibus habuit, Clementis Alexandrini in illas trium apostolorum Epistolas commentariis quaedam sustulisse, haud dubie errorum offendicula, ut sana rectaque ejus doctrina posset securius hauriri. Atqui in his, de quibus quaestio est, adumbrationibus, nonnulli adhuc supersunt errores, quos
Secondly, Cassiodorus informs us that from those commentaries of Clement of Alexandria on those Epistles of the three apostles which he had in hand he removed certain things, undoubtedly stumbling-blocks of errors, so that his sound and right teaching might be drawn with greater safety. Yet in these Adumbrations about which the question is, there still remain some errors, which
Editors' notes and page, col. 1468
Footnotes
(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1468?
lib. De institut. divin. litter., c. 8, p. 543.
the book On the Institution of Divine Letters, ch. 8, p. 543.
(14) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1468?
lib. VI Hist. eccles., c. 14, p. 215.
Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 14, p. 215.
(15) ‹anchor: sensum scripsit› · call in col 1468
Bibl. cod. CIX, p. 286.
Library, codex 109, p. 286.
<!-- NOTE: calls of 13 and 14 stand above the rendered foot; columns uncertain. --> (printed under page 733)
Page
- running head: EX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1468
- marginal letters: A pserunt. Veram; B rum, de; C nem illarum; D dorus loco
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; word split at beginning of column: pserunt.; editors' matter: pserunt. Veram porro
Cassiodorus non minus inde quam alios amputare debuit. Quod quidem ex iis, quae in sequenti articulo dicenda sunt, manifestum omnibus fiet.
Cassiodorus ought no less to have cut away from there than the others. And this indeed will become manifest to all from the things which are to be said in the following article.
Cum nulla igitur satis valida ratione probatum hactenus fuerit eas adumbrationes aut ex Clementis Alexandrini operibus fuisse decerptas, aut ab illo seorsim compositas, iis facilius assentiemur, qui illas a scriptore non plane orthodoxo, sed haereticorum partibus potius addicto, profectas esse ostenderit.
Since, therefore, it has hitherto been proved by no sufficiently valid reason that those Adumbrations were either excerpted from the works of Clement of Alexandria or composed separately by him, we shall more easily assent to those who show that they proceeded from a writer not altogether orthodox, but rather devoted to the party of the heretics.
Paulo itaque majoris momenti argumentis probari potest praefixam fuisse huic operi Adumbrationum inscriptionem. Testatum siquidem Labbeus facit haec se vidisse commentariola « calamo exarata in membranis codicis antiqui, qui fuit olim coenobii S. Mariae Montis Dei, ubi Adumbrationes inscribuntur. » Neque etiam ullus dubitandi locus est eas in manuscripto codice, ex quo typis Latinis excusae, in vulgus prodierunt, eodem hoc titulo, quo a Fabro quoque Stapulensi laudantur, fuisse praenotatas.
By arguments of somewhat greater weight, therefore, it can be proved that the title of Adumbrations was prefixed to this work. For Labbe testifies that he saw these brief commentaries "written with a pen on the parchments of an ancient codex, which formerly belonged to the monastery of Saint Mary of Mount God, where they are entitled Adumbrationes." Nor also is there any room for doubting that in the manuscript codex from which, printed in Latin types, they went forth to the public, they were marked in advance with this same title by which they are also cited by Faber Stapulensis.
Cur porro eo nomine illud opusculum nuncupatum fuerit, si a nobis quis rogaverit, respondebimus illud idcirco ita esse inscriptum, quia non perfecta et omnibus numeris absoluta in Petri, Judae et Joannis Epistolas commentaria, sed leves tantum, uti ex dictis liquet, earum imagines et species exhibent ac repraesentant. Atque illud certe nomine adumbratio non male significatur.
Why, moreover, that little work was called by that name, if anyone should ask of us, we shall answer that it was so entitled for this reason, because they exhibit and represent not complete commentaries, finished in every part, upon the Epistles of Peter, Jude, and John, but only slight outlines and sketches of them, as is clear from what has been said. And that is certainly not badly signified by the name adumbratio.
ARTICULUS III.
Article III.
Novae in hasadumbrationes, sive commentariola, notae et animadversiones.
New notes and remarks upon these Adumbrations, or brief commentaries.
Quamvis brevissimum sit hoc opusculum, ad nos tamen illud plane integrum et incorruptum pervenisse non putamus. In hunc siquidem primae Joannis Epistolae primum capitis secundi versum : « Et si quis peccaverit, consolatorem habemus apud Patrem, Jesum Christum, » haec scripta sunt : « Sicut enim apud Patrem consolator est pro nobis Dominus ; sic etiam consolator est, quem post assumptionem suam dignatus est mittere. [Hae namque primitivae virtutes, ac primocreatae, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam, et cum subjectis angelis et archangelis, cum quibus vocantur aequivoce, diversas operationes efficiunt. Sic etiam et Moyses Michael angeli virtutem per vicinum sibi et infimum angelum vocat. Similiter quoque in prophetis sanctis invenimus, sed Moysi quidem propinquus ac vicinus angelus apparuit. Exaudivit eum, et locutus ei Moyses manifeste facie ad faciem. Aliis autem prophetis secundum operationem angelorum motus quidam fiebat, veluti audientium ac videntium. Idcirco et soli audiebant, solique cernebant, sicut et in Samuele manifestatur. Eliseus etiam solus audiebat vocem, qua vocatus est. Si autem esset manifesta et communis vox, ab omnibus praesentibus audiretur : nunc autem a solo, in quo operabatur motus, qui ab angelo fiebat, audita est.]» Totum autem haud exiguum hoc fragmentum, uncis inclusum, nullam penitus cum praecedentibus ac subsequentibus, neque cum ipsiusmet Joannis apostoli, quae explicantur, verbis nec connexionem habet, nec affinitatem. Itaque a male feriato aliquo scriptore illud adjectum, aut amanuensium librariorum negligentia et oscitantia loco suo forsitan motum est. Magis siquidem illud spectare videtur ad ea, quae prius auctor noster in caput tertium, vers. 22, primae Petri Epistolae hunc in modum dixerat : « Subjectis sibi angelis, qui sunt primus ordo : et subditis potestatibus, quae sunt secundi ordinis : subditis quoque virtutibus, quae ad tertium ordinem pertinere declarantur. »
Although this little work is very brief, nevertheless we do not think that it has come down to us altogether whole and uncorrupted. For upon this first verse of the second chapter of the first Epistle of John: "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ," these things are written: "For just as the Lord is an advocate for us with the Father; so also is he an advocate whom He vouchsafed to send after His assumption. [For these primitive and first-created powers, existing immovable according to substance, perform diverse operations together with the subject angels and archangels, with whom they are called equivocally. Thus also Moses calls the power of the angel Michael through an angel near to himself and lowest. Similarly also we find in the holy prophets, but to Moses indeed a near and neighbouring angel appeared. He heard him, and Moses spoke to him manifestly face to face. To the other prophets, however, according to the operation of the angels, a certain movement was made, as of those hearing and seeing. Therefore they both heard alone and perceived alone, as is also manifested in Samuel. Elisha also heard alone the voice by which he was called. Now if the voice were manifest and common, it would be heard by all present: but as it is, it was heard by him alone in whom the movement which was made by the angel was working.]" Now the whole of this not inconsiderable fragment, enclosed in brackets, has no connection whatever and no affinity either with the preceding and following things, or with the words of the apostle John himself which are being explained. Therefore it was either added by some ill-employed writer, or perhaps moved from its own place by the negligence and drowsiness of copyists and scribes. For it seems rather to relate to those things which our author had said earlier upon the third chapter, verse 22, of the first Epistle of Peter in this manner: "Angels being made subject unto Him, who are the first order: and authorities being made subject, which are of the second order: powers also being made subject, which are declared to belong to the third order."
Quidquid autem de hujus fragmenti additione,
Whatever may be said, however, concerning the addition of this fragment,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1469
Footnotes
(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1469
De script. eccles. tom. I p. 23).
On Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. I, p. 23[?].
Page
- running head: 1469 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A Cassiodorus non; B quo a Fabro; C ut enim; D operabatur motus,
- old-edition numerals: 350 before ARTICULUS III.
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ARTICULUS III. Novae
aut transpositione dicatur, eadem in eo, atque ab auctore nostro opinio asseritur, superiores angelos per alios inferiores in res humanas agere, et cum hominibus loqui. Etenim in Epist. Judae vers. 9 haec ille observavit : « Michael autem hic dicitur, qui per propinquum angelum altercabatur cum diabolo. »
or its transposition, the same opinion is asserted in it as by our author, that the higher angels act upon human affairs and speak with men through other lower ones. For on the Epistle of Jude, verse 9, he observed this: "Now Michael is here meant, who through a neighbouring angel disputed with the devil."
A bonis autem angelis ad malos et praevaricatores si transeamus, ille paulo superius in sextum ejusdem Epistolae versum haud haesitanter affirmavit hos apostatas angelos « in vicinum terrae locum, hoc est, caliginosum aerem, fuisse detrusos. » Petavius vero tom. III Theol. dogm., lib. III, cap. 4, ostendit eam fuisse veterum Ecclesiae Patrum opinionem. Sed his scriptoribus auctorem nostrum annumerare potuisset.
Now if we pass from the good angels to the evil and transgressing ones, a little above, upon the sixth verse of the same Epistle, he affirmed without hesitation that these apostate angels "were thrust down into a place near the earth, that is, the dark air." Now Petavius, in tome III of the Dogmatic Theology, book III, chapter 4, shows that this was the opinion of the ancient Fathers of the Church. And he could have numbered our author among these writers.
Animadvertere praeterea debemus auctorem nostrum vulgatae catholicarum Epistolarum versioni non penitus inhaerere. Verumtamen eam saepe saepius ita sequitur, ut ab ipso, vel si Graecus homo fuerit, ab ejus interprete lectitatam, huicque usui fuisse vix a quoquam in dubium merito vocari queat. Aliquando vero, sed rarius tam ab illa quam a Graeco earum textu parumper discedit. Utrum autem inde colligi possit ab ipso ea verba, a vulgata versione et Graeco textu discrepantia, memoriter tantum reddita fuisse, ab aliis audire, quam aliquid statuere malumus.
Furthermore, we ought to notice that our author does not cleave entirely to the Vulgate version of the catholic Epistles. Nevertheless, he follows it very often in such a way that it can scarcely be called into doubt with justice by anyone that it was frequently read by him, or, if he was a Greek, by his translator, and was of use to him. Sometimes, however, though more rarely, he departs slightly both from it and from their Greek text. Whether, however, it can be gathered from this that those words differing from the Vulgate version and the Greek text were rendered by him merely from memory, we prefer to hear from others rather than to determine anything.
Notandum insuper a nobis est cur et quomodo auctor noster Evangelium a Marco scriptum esse censuerit. De hoc etenim ita ille pronuntiat : « Marcus Petri sectator, palam praedicante Petro Evangelium Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus, et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his, quae a Petro dicta sunt, Evangelium, quod secundum Marcum vocitatur. » Quis enim, quaeso, praeter istum auctorem dixit Marcum ideo Evangelium suum scripsisse, quia « a quibusdam, » qui Petrum praedicantem audierant « Caesareanis equitibus petitus » fuerat ? Et certe Clemens Alexandrinus, ut caeteros praetermittamus, longe aliter sentiebat. In illius siquidem Hypotyposeon libris, sicut ex Eusebio alibi vidimus, Marcus Evangelium tunc composuisse perhibetur, postquam multi, qui Petrum concionantem audierant, eum ad illud scribendum fuissent cohortati. Ibi autem nihil de Caesareanis equitibus, ac multo minus de quibusdam occurrit ; sed indefinite multos, Graece πολλούς, legimus. Utrum vero inde inferri possit has adumbrationes nostro Clementi Alexandrino perperam ascribi, non audemus omnino asseveranter affirmare. Fieri enim potest ut ille in deperditis suis libris, varias aliquando, atque etiam contrarias eadem de re opiniones retulerit.
Moreover, it must be noted by us why and how our author thought that the Gospel was written by Mark. For concerning this he pronounces thus: "Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome before certain Caesarean knights, and bringing forward many testimonies of Christ, being requested by them, in order that they might be able to commit to memory the things that were being said, wrote from the things which were spoken by Peter the Gospel which is called according to Mark." For who, I ask, besides this author, has said that Mark wrote his Gospel because he had been "requested by certain Caesarean knights" who had heard Peter preaching? And certainly Clement of Alexandria, to pass over the rest, thought far otherwise. For in his books of the Hypotyposes, as we have seen elsewhere from Eusebius, Mark is recorded to have composed the Gospel after many who had heard Peter preaching had exhorted him to write it. Now there nothing occurs about Caesarean knights, and much less about "certain" of them; but we read indefinitely "many," in Greek pollous. Whether, however, it can be inferred from this that these Adumbrations are wrongly ascribed to our Clement of Alexandria, we do not dare altogether emphatically to affirm. For it may be that in his lost books he sometimes reported various, and even contrary, opinions about the same matter.
Ad ejusdem vero Clementis sententiam his propius auctor noster accessit verbis, quae ab eo continenter subjunguntur : « Sicut Lucas quoque et Actus apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnosceret, et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus Epistolam. » Prius vero ille eamdem ad Haebraeos Epistolam, cujus prima verba citavit, Paulo adhuc adjudicaverat. At Eusebii, jam a nobis citati, auctoritate sup. dissert. 2, cap. 4, art. 2, ostendimus eamdem omnino Clementis et de Actibus apostolorum, et de hac ad Hebraeos Epistola fuisse opinionem.
To the opinion of the same Clement, however, our author came nearer in these words, which are immediately subjoined by him: "Just as Luke also may be recognized as having both set forth the Acts of the Apostles with his pen, and translated the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews." Earlier, however, he had still adjudged the same Epistle to the Hebrews, whose first words he cited, to Paul. Yet by the authority of Eusebius, already cited by us, above in dissertation 2, chapter 4, article 2, we have shown that the opinion of Clement both concerning the Acts of the Apostles and concerning this Epistle to the Hebrews was altogether the same.
Ab aliis autem dissentit idem auctor noster, ubi de iis, ad quos secunda Joannis Epistola data est, sic disputat : « Secunda Joannis Epistola, quae ad virgines scripta, simplicissima est. Scripta vero est ad quamdam Babyloniam, Electam nomine. »
The same author of ours dissents from others, however, where concerning those to whom the second Epistle of John was written he disputes thus: "The second Epistle of John, which was written to virgins, is very simple. Now it was written to a certain Babylonian woman, Electa by name."
Et vero haec Epistola directa est Electae, καὶ τοῖς
And indeed this Epistle is directed to Electa, and to
Editors' notes and page, col. 1470
Footnotes
(17) ‹anchor: ille pronuntiat› · call in col 1470
in Petr. I Epist., c. V, v. 14.
on the First Epistle of Peter, ch. 5, v. 14.
(18) ‹anchor: alibi vidimus› · call in col 1470
dissert. sup. 2, c. 4, art. 2, p. 924.
the second dissertation above, ch. 4, art. 2, p. 924.
<!-- NOTE: note 16's page number ends in a damaged or misprinted glyph ("23)"); probably 239; check the page. Its call stands above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 734)
Page
- running head: DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1470
- marginal letters: A aut transpositione; B pius ita; C quia « a quibusdam, »; D continenter subjunguntur :
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aut transpositione dicatur,
τέκνοις αὐτῆς, « et natis, seu filiis ejus. » Atqui illa Epistola ad virgines dari non potuit, nisi Electae filii virgines revera fuerint. Cuinam autem, obsecro, illud hactenus probatum est ?
her children, "and to her offspring, or children." Yet that Epistle could not have been addressed to virgins unless the children of Electa were in fact virgins. To whom, I pray, has that hitherto been proved?
Eorum porro qui hujus opusculi scriptorem, vel Clementem Alexandrinum, vel alium quempiam Nicaena synodo antiquiorem esse arbitrati sunt, magna attentione dignum in primis illud fuit, quod ab eo haud semel de summa Filii Dei, Christi Domini divinitate asseritur et praedicatur. Tanta etenim evidentia et perspicuitate illam tuetur et vindicat, ut nihil clarius a quoquam desiderari posse videatur. Suam enimvero Epistolae a Juda datae enarrationem sic ille absolvit : « In Evangelio secundum Marcum interrogatus Dominus a principe sacerdotum, si ipse esset Christus Filius Dei benedicti, respondens dixit : Ego sum ; et videbitis Filium Hominis ..... In aliis autem Evangeliis dicitur principi sacerdotum interroganti, si ipse esset Filius Dei, non econtra respondisse. Sed quid dixit ? Vos dicitis ; satis bene respondens. Si enim diceret : Sicut vos intelligitis, mentiretur utique, non se confitens Filium Dei ; illi non ita de illo intelligebant. Dicens autem : Vos dicitis, vere locutus est. Quod enim non sapiebant, verbis dicebant, hoc ille verum esse confessus est. » Haec itaque est auctoris nostri ratiocinatio. Mentitus fuisset Christus, si a principe sacerdotum interrogatus, utrum Dei esset Filius, id respondisset, quod ille sacerdotum princeps hac interrogatione intelligebat. Non credebat enim eum esse Deum, sed tantummodo hominem. Quapropter Christus respondit : « Vos dicitis ; » atque ita vere locutus est. Etenim his verbis confessus est se non esse duntaxat hominem, sicut illi arbitrabantur, sed esse verum Dei Filium, quemadmodum ipsi dicebant. Cur autem, amabo te, ita auctor noster argumentatus est, nisi quia persuasum omnino habuit Christum verum, sicut et Patrem, esse Deum ?
Moreover, for those who have judged the writer of this little work to be either Clement of Alexandria or someone else more ancient than the Nicene synod, worthy of great attention in the first place was that which is more than once asserted and proclaimed by him concerning the supreme divinity of the Son of God, Christ the Lord. For with such great evidence and perspicuity does he defend and vindicate it that nothing clearer seems able to be desired by anyone. Indeed, he concludes his exposition of the Epistle written by Jude thus: "In the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord, when questioned by the high priest whether He Himself was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God, answering said: I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man... In the other Gospels, however, He is said, when the high priest questioned Him whether He Himself was the Son of God, not to have answered to the contrary. But what did He say? Ye say it; answering well enough. For if He had said: As ye understand, He would certainly have lied, not confessing Himself the Son of God; they did not so understand concerning Him. But in saying: Ye say it, He spoke truly. For what they did not understand, they said in words, and this He confessed to be true." This, therefore, is the reasoning of our author. Christ would have lied if, when questioned by the high priest whether He was the Son of God, He had answered what that high priest understood by this question. For he did not believe that He was God, but only a man. Wherefore Christ answered: "Ye say it;" and thus spoke truly. For by these words He confessed that He was not merely a man, as they supposed, but was the true Son of God, just as they themselves said. Now why, I pray you, did our author reason thus, unless because he was altogether persuaded that Christ, just like the Father, is true God?
Observa, quaeso, utrum auctor noster memoriter tantum dixerit in aliis Evangeliis scriptum fuisse : « Vos dicitis. » Nam id in solo Lucae Evangelio occurrit, ubi Christus non soli sacerdotum principi, uti ait auctor noster, sed senioribus plebis, principibus sacerdotum et scribis ita respondisse narratur. At haec per transennam.
Observe, I ask, whether our author said merely from memory that in the other Gospels it was written: "Ye say it." For that occurs in the Gospel of Luke alone, where Christ is related to have answered thus not to the high priest alone, as our author says, but to the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes. But this in passing.
Christi porro divinitatem longe adhuc clarius et luculentius auctor noster astruit, ubi exordium primae Joannis Epistolae sic interpretatur : « Quod dicit : Ab initio, hoc modo presbyter exponebat, quod principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit : Quod erat ab initio, generationem tangit sine principio Filii cum Patre exstantis. Erat, ergo verbum aeternitatis significativum, non habentis initium, sicut etiam Verbum ipsum, hoc est Filius Dei secundum aequalitatem substantiae unum cum Patre subsistit, sempiternum est, et infectum. Quod semper erat Verbum significatur dicendo : In principio erat Verbum. Ibi ille apertissime docet aeternam et sine initio esse Filii Dei generationem, huncque esse Verbum sempiternum, atque ejusdem cum Patre suo aeterno substantiae et naturae. Et id quidem non suis solum verbis luculentissime declaravit, sed ex ipsis quoque cum hujusce canonicae Epistolae, tum etiam Joannis Evangelii plane similibus ac consentientibus exordiis.
Moreover, our author establishes the divinity of Christ far more clearly and brilliantly still, where he interprets the exordium of the first Epistle of John thus: "What he says: From the beginning, the presbyter expounded in this way, that the beginning of generation is not separate from the beginning of the Maker. For when he says: That which was from the beginning, he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son existing with the Father. Was, therefore, is a word significative of eternity, not having a beginning, just as the Word Himself also, that is, the Son of God, subsists one with the Father according to equality of substance, is everlasting, and uncreated. That the Word always was is signified by saying: In the beginning was the Word. There he most openly teaches that the generation of the Son of God is eternal and without beginning, and that He is the everlasting Word, and of the same substance and nature with His eternal Father. And this indeed he declared most brilliantly not only by his own words, but also from the very exordia, plainly similar and agreeing, both of this canonical Epistle and of the Gospel of John.
Neque satis ei fuit illud tam diserte affirmasse, sed rursus paulo post : « Patris, inquit, appellatione significat, quoniam et Filius semper erat sine initio. » At haec in tam parvo opere repetitio nonne manifestissime ostendit nihil auctori nostro magis cordi fuisse, quam ut omnibus hanc doctrinam traderet et inculcaret ?
Nor was it enough for him to have affirmed this so expressly, but again a little later: "By the appellation of Father," he says, "he signifies that the Son also always was without beginning." Now does not this repetition in so small a work show most manifestly that nothing was dearer to our author's heart than that he should hand down and inculcate this teaching to all?
Verum quomodo, arguet aliquis, Filius dici potest semper fuisse sine principio, qui a Patre aeterno
Yet how, someone will argue, can the Son be said always to have been without beginning, Who from the eternal Father
Editors' notes and page, col. 1471
Footnotes
(19) ‹anchor: scriptum fuisse› · call in col 1471
Luc. XXII, 70.
Luke 22:70.
(20) ‹anchor: significatur dicendo› · call in col 1471
Joan. I, 1.
John 1:1.
Page
- running head: 1471 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY
- marginal letters: A τέκνοις αὐτῆς,; B respondens. Si; C tantum dixerit; D bum. Ibi
- old-edition numerals: 351 before Filium
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: τέκνοις αὐτῆς,
genitus est, atque idcirco principium habuit ? Sed huic respondebimus Filium Dei idcirco dici esse sine principio, seu initio, quia, cum ab omni aeternitate genitus a Patre fuerit, nullum habuit temporis initium ; quandoquidem nullum assignari potest temporis punctum, quo ille, cum prius non fuisset, esse et exsistere incoeperit. Eodem plane sensu post Nicaenam synodum loquuntur doctissimi et antiquissimi Ecclesiae Patres, qui Filium Dei sine principio, et ἄναρχον esse haud dubitanter dixerunt. Ne autem omnes nominibus suis, quod inutile foret, singillatim appellemus, sufficiat id unius ex iis, atque alterius scriptoris, omni exceptione majoris, probare auctoritate ac testimonio. Primus itaque prodeat Cyrillus Alexandrinus, cujus haec sunt verba : « Ut Pater, inquit, ipse principio caret, minimeque factus est ; sic et Verbum, quod ex ipsius substantia processit, initio carens, ἄναρχος, expers erit temporis, nec factum, uti nec ille qui ipsum genuit. » In eumdem quoque modum contra Eunomianos disputat Gregorius Nazianzenus orat. 35, paulo post initium, pag. 765 : « Quid ergo, inquies, si Filius et Spiritus sanctus Patri coaeterni sunt, quid afferri potest, quin principii quoque, quemadmodum et ille, sint expertes ? Quia ab ipso sunt, licet non post ipsum. Quod enim principio caret, aeternum quoque est : quod autem aeternum est, non protinus quoque principio vacat, quandiu ad Patrem, velut ad principium et originem refertur. Ergo illi quantum ad causam principio minime carent (perspicuum est autem causam non omnino antiquiorem esse iis, quorum causa est ; neque enim sol lucem tempore antecedit), quantum autem ad tempus, principii expertes sunt, quamlibet tu verborum larvis simpliciores animos territes. » Auctor igitur noster recte, sicut eruditissimi illi scriptores, dicere potuit Filium Dei, quamvis aeternus, sicut Pater fuerit, esse tamen ἄναρχον, ac sine temporis initio. Aeterna siquidem illius generatio omne antecessit tempus, nec ullum designari potest temporis momentum, ante quod ille non exstiterit.
has been begotten, and therefore had a beginning? But to this man we shall answer that the Son of God is said to be without beginning, or start, for this reason, because, since He was begotten by the Father from all eternity, He had no beginning of time; seeing that no point of time can be assigned in which He, when He had not been before, began to be and to exist. In plainly the same sense after the Nicene synod speak the most learned and ancient Fathers of the Church, who without hesitation said that the Son of God is without beginning, and anarchon. Lest, however, we should call upon all of them singly by their names, which would be useless, let it suffice to prove this by the authority and testimony of one and another writer from among them, above all exception. First, therefore, let Cyril of Alexandria come forward, whose words are these: "As the Father Himself," he says, "lacks a beginning, and was by no means made; so also the Word, which proceeded from His substance, lacking a beginning, anarchos, will be devoid of time, and not made, just as neither was He Who begot Him." In the same manner also disputes Gregory Nazianzen against the Eunomians, Oration 35, a little after the beginning, page 765: "What then, you will say, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, what can be adduced why they should not also be devoid of a beginning, just as He is? Because they are from Him, although not after Him. For that which lacks a beginning is also eternal: but that which is eternal is not forthwith also devoid of a beginning, so long as it is referred to the Father as to its beginning and origin. Therefore, as regards cause, they by no means lack a beginning (now it is evident that a cause is not altogether prior to those things of which it is the cause; for neither does the sun precede light in time), but as regards time, they are devoid of a beginning, however much you may terrify simpler minds with the masks of words." Our author, therefore, rightly, just like those most learned writers, was able to say that the Son of God, although He was eternal, just like the Father, is nevertheless anarchon, and without beginning of time. For His eternal generation preceded all time, nor can any moment of time be designated before which He did not exist.
Neque audiendus est, qui nobis objiciet, haec quae retulimus, auctoris notri, Nicaena synodo antiquioris, verba ab ipso profecta non fuisse, sed a Cassiodoro, vel ab eo qui ejus jussu has adumbrationes Latine reddidit. Nam Cassiodorus aperte quidem declarat se ex iis quaedam offendicula sustulisse, sed nullibi dixit aliquid eis a se, aut ab alio fuisse unquam additum. Deinde vero incertum est utrum hoc adumbrationum opusculum illud ipsum sit de quo sermonem Cassiodorus fecit.
Nor is he to be listened to who will object to us that these words which we have reported of our author, more ancient than the Nicene synod, did not proceed from him, but from Cassiodorus, or from him who by his order rendered these Adumbrations into Latin. For Cassiodorus openly declares indeed that he removed certain stumbling-blocks from them, but nowhere did he say that anything was ever added to them by himself or by another. Next, however, it is uncertain whether this little work of Adumbrations is that very one of which Cassiodorus spoke.
At illud profecto minus sanum et orthodoxum videtur, quod auctor noster de humana anima ad primae Petri Epistolae caput primum, vers. 5, hunc scripsit in modum : « Apparet quoniam non est naturaliter anima incorruptibilis, sed gratia Dei, per fidem, et justitiam, et per intellectum perficitur incorruptibilis. » Quomodo autem hominis anima « non est naturaliter incorruptibilis, » quae cum substantiae omnino spiritualis sit, atque idcirco nec corpore, nec ullis constet partibus, mori nunquam potest, neque corrumpi ? Ad haec vero, istud catholicae Ecclesiae de humanae animae immortalitate dogma tam diserte ab ejusdem Ecclesiae Patribus, atque in divinis sacrae Scripturae libris definitum statutumque est, ut qui id negavit, haereticus jure merito habeatur.
Yet that assuredly seems less sound and orthodox which our author wrote concerning the human soul upon the first chapter, verse 5, of the first Epistle of Peter in this manner: "It appears that the soul is not naturally incorruptible, but by the grace of God, through faith, and righteousness, and through understanding is made perfect as incorruptible." Now how is the soul of man "not naturally incorruptible," seeing that, since it is of an altogether spiritual substance, and therefore consists neither of body nor of any parts, it can never die nor be corrupted? In addition to these things, indeed, this dogma of the Catholic Church concerning the immortality of the human soul has been so expressly defined and established by the Fathers of the same Church, and in the divine books of sacred Scripture, that he who has denied it is rightly and deservedly held a heretic.
Scimus quidem ad Lugdunensis Patrum bibliothecae marginem adnotari haec auctoris nostri verba posse forsitan explicari, « vel de perfecta incorruptibilitate, ac supernaturali gloria, vel quod anima non per suam naturam, ut Deus, sed a causa efficiente dependet, nempe a Deo. » Sed recte quidem hujus animadversionis auctor verbum forsitan, quod dubitantis
We know indeed that in the margin of the Lyons Bibliotheca Patrum it is noted that these words of our author can perhaps be explained "either of perfect incorruptibility and supernatural glory, or because the soul depends not through its own nature, like God, but on an efficient cause, namely on God." Yet rightly indeed did the author of this remark employ the word "perhaps," which
Editors' notes and page, col. 1472
Footnotes
(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1472
Thes., p. 35.
Thesaurus, p. 35.
<!-- NOTE: note 21's call stands above the rendered foot. --> (printed under page 735)
Page
- running head: EX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1472
- marginal letters: A genitus est,; B genuit. » In; C temporis initio.; D corruptibilis. » Quomodo
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: genitus est, atque; word split at end of column: dubi-
- other: the word dubitantis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1473
animi est, ibi adjecit. Satis enim aperte anima ab auctore nostro dicitur non naturaliter immortalis, sed immortalitem gratia tantum Dei, fide et justitia, sive bonis suis operibus consequi. At id falsum omnino esse nemo certe catholicus homo inficiabitur.
is the mark of a doubting mind, in adding it there. For it is said plainly enough by our author that the soul is not immortal by nature, but attains immortality only by the grace of God, by faith and justice, that is, by its good works. But that this is wholly false no Catholic man, surely, will deny.
Quid vero, quod ille paulo post in haec Petri verba: « Regenerati non ex semine corruptibili, » id tantummodo expositionis gratia dixit: « Corruptibilis igitur est anima, quae cum corpore simul profunditur, ut quidam putant. »
And what of the fact that a little later, on these words of Peter, "Born again not of corruptible seed," he said only this by way of exposition: "Corruptible, therefore, is the soul which is poured forth together with the body, as some think"?
Verum, ibi, inquies, non suam sed aliorum ipse refert opinionem. Esto. Sed cur, quaeso, haec nec plura protulit? Cur hunc errorem non explodit, aut impugnat? Cur eum aliqua saltem nota non inurit, aut veram sententiam illi non opponit?
But there, you will say, he reports not his own opinion but that of others. Granted. But why, I ask, did he put forward these words and no more? Why does he not hiss this error off, or attack it? Why does he not brand it with at least some mark, or set the true view against it?
Porro autem nonne ex his colligi haud absurde potest has Adumbrationes, ab iis esse penitus diversas, quas a Clemente Stromataeo editas, Cassiodorus ab alio Graece docto curavit in Latinum verti sermonem? Etenim cum transcripta a nobis verba vix ac ne vix quidem recto sensu explicari, atque incautis pluribus offendiculo esse queant, non minori sane diligentia pius vir ea excidisset, quam alia, quae a se ex hoc opusculo amputata fuisse testificatur.
Further, can it not be gathered from these things, not absurdly, that these Adumbrations are wholly different from those which, published by Clement the author of the Stromata, Cassiodorus had translated into the Latin tongue by another man learned in Greek? For since the words transcribed by us can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be explained in a right sense, and can be a stumbling-block to many of the unwary, the pious man would certainly have cut them out with no less diligence than the other things which he testifies were pruned by him from this little work.
Quae quidem iis adhuc confirmari possunt, quae idem auctor noster in undecimum subsequentis Judae Epistolae versum: « Vae illis, quia in via Cain abierunt, » his nec pluribus verbis edixit: « Sic etiam peccato Adae subjacemus, secundum peccati similitudinem. » Nonne enim hic putus purusque Pelagianorum, peccatum originale negantium, error est, proscriptaque ab omnibus orthodoxis Patribus et conciliis opinio? Scimus quidem ibi ab auctore nostro aperte non definiri hunc solum esse, quo Adae peccato subjacemus, modum unicamque rationem. Sed ille procul dubio ob tam brevem tamque durum de peccato originali sermonem, quibusdam non immerito forsitan pravi Pelagianorum erroris si non conscius, saltem suspectus videbitur. Quid enim eum prohibuit, quominus aliquid ad suam de peccato originali mentem clarius explicandam ibi adjiceret?
These things can be further confirmed by what the same author of ours declared, in these words and no more, on the eleventh verse of the following Epistle of Jude, "Woe to them, for they have gone in the way of Cain": "Thus we too are subject to the sin of Adam, according to the likeness of the sin." For is not this the pure and simple error of the Pelagians, who deny original sin, and an opinion proscribed by all orthodox Fathers and councils? We know indeed that our author does not there plainly define that this is the only manner and the one way by which we are subject to the sin of Adam. But on account of so brief and so harsh a statement about original sin he will doubtless seem to some, perhaps not undeservedly, if not privy to the depraved error of the Pelagians, at least suspect of it. For what prevented him from adding something there to explain more clearly his mind about original sin?
In primum vero primae Joannis Epistolae versum haec auctor noster de attrectata Joannis manibus carne Christi scriptis prodidit: « Fertur in Traditionibus
But on the first verse of the First Epistle of John our author committed to writing these things about the flesh of Christ handled by the hands of John: "It is said in the Traditions
Editors' notes and page, col. 1473
Footnotes
(22) ‹anchor: in haec Petri verba› · call in col 1473
I Petr. I, 23.
1 Peter 1:23.
(28) ‹anchor: narrat Eusebius› · call in col 1473
lib. IX Hist. eccles. c. 13, p. 214.
Book IX of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 13, p. 214.
Misprints (as printed, kept)
- ‹immortalitem› (for immortalitatem), para 1. - ‹lib. IX› (for lib. VI; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI, 13), footnote 28 (QA Q3b).
Page
- running head: 1473 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPE
- marginal letters: A tantis animi; B sermonem ? Etenim; C nem, quibusdam; D ARTICULUS I.
- old-edition numerals: 352 before aperte
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tantis animi; word split at beginning of column: tantis (tail of ‹dubitantis›, set whole at the end of col 1472, so not restored here); word split at end of column: Tradi- (set whole here as ‹Traditionibus›); full-width heading above Art. I cut off at right edge, not set: CAPUT V. De deperditis Clementis Alexandrini operibus, et de iis [quae ille scripturum se esse] promiserat.
- running head: 1473 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1474
- marginal letters: A ‹tantis animi est›; B ‹sermonem? Etenim cum›; C ‹nem, quibusdam non immerito›; D ‹ARTICULUS I.›
- old-edition numerals: 352 after ‹Satis enim›
- footnotes 23–27 printed under this page are called in col 1474 and stand in n1474 (QA Q2a).
- placement (QA Q2a): the CAPUT V. band (full width across 1473/1474) and, below it in col 1473, ‹ARTICULUS I.›, its title ‹De deperditis … fragmentis.›, ‹Praeter omnia illa … potuerunt.› and ‹Praecipuum autem … in quibus› are set in c1474_a.md after 1474's text above the band, so that the reading order holds; checked against the page there.
quoniam Joannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens, manum suam in profunda misisse, et ei duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui praebuisse discipuli. » Quaenam autem fuerint hae Traditiones, nemo facile divinabit. A nobis siquidem jam observatum est, a Clemente Alexandrino citari Matthiae Traditiones: sed forsitan Traditionum nomine, auctor noster designavit laudata ab Ephraemio pseudepigrapha Joannis aut apostolorum Acta, quae Augustinus et Epiphanius inter apocryphas scripturas amandant, et solis haereticis usui fuisse testificantur.
that John, touching the body itself, which was outward, put his hand into its depths, and that the hardness of the flesh in no way resisted him, but gave way to the hand of the disciple." But what these Traditions were, no one will easily guess. For it has already been observed by us that the Traditions of Matthias are cited by Clement of Alexandria; but perhaps by the name of Traditions our author designated the pseudepigraphal Acts of John or of the apostles mentioned by Ephraemius, which Augustine and Epiphanius banish among the apocryphal scriptures, and testify were in use only among heretics.
Ut ut sit, constat sane, et certum est laudatas ab auctore nostro Traditiones falsas omnino fuisse et apocryphas. Nihil enim de carne Christi, quae Joanni eam contrectanti non reluctata est, in sacris Evangeliis legimus.
However that may be, it is clearly established and certain that the Traditions cited by our author were wholly false and apocryphal. For we read nothing in the sacred Gospels about the flesh of Christ not resisting John when he handled it.
Neque dixeris in auctoris nostri textu esse librariorum errorem, ac pro Joannes, scribendum Thomas, cui Christus, ut in ejusdem Joannis Evangelio narratur, corpus suum tangendum obtulit. Nam ibi de Christi carne, quae illi tangenti cesserit, nihil prorsus ac ne minimum quidem verbum. Porro autem cum auctor noster verbo « fertur » usus fuerit, eo certe haud obscure significat non gravis sane momenti, nec magnae auctoritatis fuisse has Traditiones, nec a se unquam pervolutatas.
Nor should you say that there is an error of the copyists in our author's text, and that for John we should write Thomas, to whom Christ, as is narrated in the Gospel of the same John, offered His body to be touched. For there there is nothing at all, not even the least word, about the flesh of Christ giving way to him as he touched it. Moreover, since our author used the word "it is said", by this he certainly signifies, not obscurely, that these Traditions were of no great weight indeed, nor of great authority, nor ever read through by himself.
Denique haec ejusdem Joannis Epistolae cap. II, vers. 13, verba: Juvenes..... vicistis malignum, sic ab auctore nostro exponuntur: « Malignum diaboli extollentiam significat. Filii autem cognoscunt patrem; utpote qui ab idolis confugerunt, et ad unum Deum vocati sunt. » Utrum autem ideo haec ab illo animadversa fuerint, quia, cum haec scriptis mandabat, tunc adhuc quidam erant pagani et idolorum cultores, nullus forsitan satis consideratus rerum aestimator ex his tam paucis, tamque parum claris illius verbis certo definire audebit. Deinde vero etiamsi plures tum adhuc exstiterint idolorum cultores, non inde tamen concludi posset eum primis floruisse Ecclesiae temporibus; nisi qua in regione hae Adumbrationes ab illo editae sint, nobis foret compertum. Constat enim idolorum cultum in quibusdam regionibus longe diutius, quam in aliis perseverasse.
Finally, these words of the same Epistle of John, chapter II, verse 13, "Young men ..... you have conquered the evil one," are expounded thus by our author: "The evil one signifies the arrogance of the devil. But the sons know the Father, inasmuch as they have fled from idols and have been called to the one God." But whether these things were remarked by him because, when he was committing them to writing, there were then still some pagans and worshippers of idols, no sufficiently careful judge of things will perhaps dare to determine with certainty from these so few and so unclear words of his. And further, even if there were still many worshippers of idols at that time, it could not be concluded from this that he flourished in the first times of the Church, unless it were known to us in what region these Adumbrations were published by him. For it is established that the worship of idols persisted far longer in some regions than in others.
De deperditis Clementis Alexandrini operibus, et de iis quae ille scripturum se esse promiserat.
On the lost works of Clement of Alexandria, and on those which he had promised that he would write.
De deperditis Clementis Alexandrini Hypotyposeon libris, ac de quibusdam eorum, aliarumque ejus scriptionum fragmentis.
On the lost books of Clement of Alexandria's Hypotyposes, and on certain fragments of them and of his other writings.
Praeter omnia illa, de quibus disseruimus, Clementis Alexandrini opera, certum est plura adhuc ab eo fuisse edita, quorum jactura eo magis deploranda est, quo asserta in illis sacra religionis nostrae documenta, et tradita morum praecepta nobis facilius comperta esse potuerunt.
Besides all those works of Clement of Alexandria which we have discussed, it is certain that several more were published by him, whose loss is the more to be lamented in that the sacred teachings of our religion asserted in them, and the precepts of conduct handed down in them, could have been ascertained by us more easily.
Praecipuum autem inter tot opera, jam a longo tempore amissa, locum haud dubie tenebant octo Hypotyposeon libri, de quibus haec narrat Eusebius: « Sunt et alii totidem (nimirum octo) ejus libri Ὑποτυπώσεων titulo inscripti, in quibus Pantaenum magistrum suum nominatim appellat, quaecunque ille a majoribus accepisset, et traditiones, quas posteris reliquerat, exponens. » Hieronymus vero: « Feruntur, inquit, ejus insignia volumina, plenaque eruditionis et eloquentiae, tam de Scripturis divinis, quam de saecularis litteraturae instrumento, e quibus illa sunt Στρωματεῖς libri octo, Ὑποτυπώσεων libri octo. » Haec ille, nec plura.
Among so many works, long since lost, the chief place was without doubt held by the eight books of the Hypotyposes, about which Eusebius relates this: "There are also as many other books of his (namely eight) inscribed with the title Ὑποτυπώσεων, in which he names Pantaenus his teacher by name, setting out whatever he had received from his elders and the traditions which he had left to posterity." And Jerome: "There are extant," he says, "his remarkable volumes, full of learning and eloquence, both on the divine Scriptures and on the equipment of secular literature, among which are these: Στρωματεῖς, eight books; Ὑποτυπώσεων, eight books." This much he says, and no more.
Quia vero hi libri jamdudum perierunt, dictu quibusdam difficile videtur, quinam illorum scopus, quodve argumentum fuerit. At utrumque tamen non ita obscure his indicatur Eusebii verbis: « In libris Ὑποτυπώσεων, omnium, ut uno verbo dicam, utriusque Testamenti Scripturarum compendiosam
But since these books perished long ago, it seems difficult to some to say what their aim or what their subject was. Yet both are indicated, not so obscurely, by these words of Eusebius: "In the books Ὑποτυπώσεων, of all, to say it in one word, of the Scriptures of both Testaments, a compendious
Editors' notes and page, col. 1474
Footnotes
(23) ‹anchor: jam observatum est› · call in col 1474
dissert. sup. 2, cap. 4, art. 3, p. 932.
the second dissertation above, ch. 4, art. 3, p. 932.
(24) ‹anchor: ab Ephraemio› · call in col 1474
apud Phot., Bibl. cod. CCXXIX, p. 799.
in Photius, Library, codex 229, p. 799.
(25) ‹anchor: quae Augustinus› · call in col 1474
Aug. t. VI, De fid.
Augustine, vol. VI, On Faith.
(26) ‹anchor: et Epiphanius› · call in col 1474
haeres. XLVII, Encrat. § 1, et haeres. XXX, Ebion. § 23, p. 147.
Heresy 47, the Encratites, § 1, and Heresy 30, the Ebionites, § 23, p. 147.
(27) ‹anchor: Evangelio narratur› · call in col 1474
Joan. XX, 27.
John 20:27.
(29) ‹anchor: Hieronymus vero› · call in col 1474
De script. eccles., § 48.
On Ecclesiastical Writers, § 48.
(30) ‹anchor: indicatur Eusebii verbis› · call in col 1474
loc. cit. c. 14, p. 215 et seq.
at the place cited, ch. 14, p. 215 and following.
(printed under page 736) <!-- NOTE: calls 23–27 read on the column images (QA Q2a): all five stand in col 1474; 22 and 28 are in col 1473. Note 28 reads "lib. IX" on the scan, where the citation (ch. 13, p. 214) is to book VI elsewhere in these notes; kept as seen. Note 30's "loc. cit." is damaged on the scan and read from what survives. -->
Page
- running head: EM. ALEX. OPER. 1474
- marginal letters: A tionibus quoniam; B lio narratur,; C vero etiamsi; D Pantaenum magistrum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tionibus quoniam; word split at beginning of column: tionibus (set whole at the end of col 1473); word split at end of column: compen- (set whole here as ‹compendiosam›; the tail at the top of col 1475 is not restored there, and c1475_a.md opens ‹instituit enarrationem›, QA Q3b); full-width heading cut off at left edge, not set: [CA]PUT V. [De deperditis Clementis Alexandrini op]eribus, et de iis quae ille scripturum se esse [pro]miserat.
- running head: 1473 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1474
- marginal letters: A ‹quoniam Joannes›; B ‹lio narratur, corpus suum›; C ‹vero etiamsi plures›; D ‹Pantaenum magistrum suum›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- placement (QA Q2a): the rest of the sentence from ‹quoniam Joannes› to ‹discipuli. »› stands at the top of this column on the page; it had been set at the end of c1473_a.md and is now moved here (‹Quaenam autem› runs on in the same paragraph, unindented). The CAPUT V. band and col 1473's text below it (ARTICULUS I. … ‹in quibus›) are set here, before ‹Pantaenum magistrum›, to keep the reading order.
instituit enarrationem, ne illis quidem praetermissis scripturis, de quibus inter multos ambigitur. Judae Epistolam, et Barnabae, ac reliquas catholicas Epistolas intelligo, et Revelationem, quae dicitur, Petri. Epistolam autem ad Hebraeos Pauli quidem esse affirmat, sed Hebraico sermone, utpote ad Hebraeos, primum scriptam fuisse ; Lucam vero eamdem Graeco sermone studiose interpretatum, Graecis hominibus edidisse. Quare in ea Epistola et in Actibus apostolorum eumdem dictionis colorem reperiri. Hanc vero inscriptionem Paulus apostolus, recte atque ordine omissam fuisse observat. Cum enim Hebraeis scriberet, qui sinistram de ipso opinionem multo ante combiberant, ipsumque suspectum habebant, prudenti consilio usus, illos absterrere statim ab initio, apposita sui nominis inscriptione, noluit. Deinde aliquanto post his utitur verbis : Jam vero sicut beatus dicebat presbyter, quandoquidem Dominus, omnipotentis Dei apostolus, ad Hebraeos missus fuerat, prae modestia Paulus, utpote qui ad gentes erat directus, Hebraeorum apostolum se minime inscribit, tum ob suam erga Dominum reverentiam, tum quod ex abundanti ad Hebraeos ipse gentium praeco et apostolus scriberet. Sed et in iisdem libris Clemens traditionem quamdam de ordine Evangeliorum, quam a vetustioribus presbyteris acceperat, refert in hunc modum : Dicebat ex Evangeliis prius scripta esse illa, quae seriem generis Dominici continent. Marci autem Evangelium ex hujusmodi occasione scriptum fuisse. Cum Petrus in urbe Roma verbum Dei publice praedicasset, et Spiritu sancto afflatus, Evangelium promulgasset ; multi qui aderant, Marcum cohortati sunt, utpote qui Petrum jamdudum sectatus fuisset, et dicta ejus memoria teneret, ut quae ab apostolo praedicata erant, conscriberet. Marcus igitur Evangelium composuit, iisque qui illud ab ipso rogabant, impertiit. Quod cum Petrus comperisset, nec prohibuit omnino rem fieri ; nec, ut fieret, incitavit. At Joannes, omnium postremus, cum videret in aliorum Evangeliis ea, quae ad corpus Christi pertinent, tradita esse, ipse divino Spiritu afflatus, spiritale Evangelium familiarium suorum rogatu conscripsit. »
exposition he has composed, not passing over even those scriptures about which there is doubt among many. I mean the Epistle of Jude, and of Barnabas, and the rest of the Catholic Epistles, and the so-called Revelation of Peter. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews he affirms to be indeed Paul's, but to have been written first in the Hebrew tongue, inasmuch as to Hebrews; and that Luke carefully translated the same into the Greek tongue, and published it for Greek men. Wherefore in that Epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles the same colour of style is found. Moreover, he observes that this superscription, 'Paul the apostle,' was rightly and properly omitted. For since he was writing to the Hebrews, who had long before imbibed an unfavourable opinion of him, and held him in suspicion, using prudent counsel, he was unwilling to deter them right from the beginning by prefixing the superscription of his own name. Next, a little later, he uses these words: 'Now indeed, just as the blessed presbyter used to say, seeing that the Lord, as the apostle of almighty God, had been sent to the Hebrews, out of modesty Paul, inasmuch as he had been directed to the Gentiles, by no means inscribes himself apostle of the Hebrews, both on account of his reverence towards the Lord, and because out of superabundance he, being himself the herald and apostle of the Gentiles, was writing to the Hebrews.' Moreover, in the same books Clement also reports a certain tradition concerning the order of the Gospels, which he had received from the older presbyters, in this manner: He used to say that of the Gospels those were written first which contain the genealogy of the Lord. And that the Gospel of Mark was written on an occasion of this sort. When Peter had publicly preached the word of God in the city of Rome, and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had promulgated the Gospel, many who were present exhorted Mark, inasmuch as he had followed Peter for a long time now, and retained his sayings in memory, to write down the things which had been preached by the apostle. Mark therefore composed the Gospel, and imparted it to those who asked it of him. Which when Peter had learned, he neither altogether forbade the thing to be done, nor urged that it should be done. But John, last of all, when he saw that in the Gospels of the others the things which pertain to the body of Christ had been handed down, himself inspired by the divine Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel at the request of his intimates."
Integrum hunc Eusebii, etsi paulo longiorem, locum eo lubentius retulimus, quo clarius inde patet quam certa sit illius de his libris, quos a se haud indiligenter lectos fuisse evidentissime significat, testificatio, quantique ponderis debeat esse ipsius hac in re auctoritas. At ibi ille non modo horumce librorum argumentum et scopum nobis aperte exhibet, sed quaedam etiam eorum repraesentat fragmenta, quibus colligi potest quomodo Clemens noster propositum sibi argumentum pertractaverit.
This entire passage of Eusebius, although a little longer, we have reported all the more gladly, the more clearly it appears thence how certain is his testimony concerning these books, which he most evidently signifies were read by himself with no lack of diligence, and of how great weight his authority in this matter ought to be. Now there he not only openly sets forth to us the argument and aim of these books, but also presents certain fragments of them, from which it can be gathered how our Clement treated the argument proposed to himself.
Inde etiam discimus Clementem Ὑποτυπώσεων nomine, quod alii institutiones, alii informationes, aut dispositiones Latine verterunt, nihil aliud significavisse, quam compendiosam omnium sacrae Scripturae librorum, atque etiam apocryphorum enarrationem, seu breves in Vetus et Novum Testamentum, et apocryphas quasdam lucubrationes, commentarios. Huic Eusebii sententiae Photius a nobis mox citandus plane suffragatur, nisi quod non omnes, sed aliquot tantum Veteris Novique Testamenti locos in his Hypotyposeon libris a Clemente explicatos fuisse declarat.
Thence we also learn that Clement by the name of Hypotyposes, which some have turned into Latin as "institutions," others as "informations," or "dispositions," signified nothing else than a compendious exposition of all the books of sacred Scripture, and also of the apocryphal ones, or brief commentaries upon the Old and New Testament, and certain apocryphal compositions. With this opinion of Eusebius, Photius, shortly to be cited by us, plainly agrees, except that he declares that not all, but only some passages of the Old and New Testament were explained by Clement in these books of Hypotyposes.
Nihil porro Eusebius in eis adnotavit, quod sanum omnino et orthodoxum esse non crediderit. Multa porro ibi narrat, scitu plane digna, quae pro virili parte nostra in superiori dissertatione notis et observationibus nostris enucleare et illustrare conati sumus.
Furthermore, Eusebius noted nothing in them which he did not believe to be altogether sound and orthodox. Moreover, he narrates many things there, plainly worthy to be known, which to the best of our ability we have endeavoured in the preceding dissertation to explain and illustrate with our notes and observations.
Sed ab hac Eusebii, qui nihil in his libris, nisi verum ac fidei nostrae dogmatibus consentaneum
Yet from this opinion of Eusebius, who noticed nothing in these books except what was true and consonant with the dogmas of our faith,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1475
Page
- running head: 1475 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURR
- marginal letters: A diosam instituit; B ad Hebraeos; C citavit. At; D ficavisse, quam
- old-edition numerals: 353 before edidisse
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: diosam instituit; word split at beginning of column: diosam
animadvertit, opinione Photius plurimum dissidet, ac longe diversum de iisdem illis Clementis Hypotyposibus judicium tulit. Sed operae pretium est eum id suis verbis enarrantem audire : « Hypotyposes, inquit, disceptationem continent locorum aliquot Veteris Novique Testamenti, quae etiam summatim explicat et interpretatur. Etsi autem recte in quibusdam sentire visus est, in aliis rursus impie omnino fabuloseque disserit. Asserit enim materiam aeternam esse, et ideas veluti certis decretis induci fingit. Filium quoque in rebus creatis numerat. Ad haec animarum migrationes, multosque ante Adamum mundos prodigiose comminiscitur. Evam praeterea ex Adamo, non ut sacri libri tradunt, sed obscene atque impie deducit. Angelos quoque cum feminis congressos, liberos inde sustulisse somniat. Quin et Verbum carnem non esse factum, sed ita visum duntaxat. Duo ad haec Patris Verba finxisse deprehenditur, quorum minus mortalibus sit visum : imo ne hoc quidem. Sic enim scribit : Dicitur quidem et Filius Verbum aequivoce, cum patrio Verbo. Verum neque hoc illud Verbum est, quod caro factum est, neque etiam patrium illud est Verbum : sed vis quaedam et potestas Dei, tanquam a Verbo ipso profluens, mens effecta, hominum animos pervasit. Quae quidem omnia Scripturae testimoniis astruere nititur. Quanquam et alia sexcenta blasphema voce nugatur, seu ipse, sive quis alius, ejus personam indutus. Plane ut octo ipsos libros hisce blasphemiarum portentis, de iisdem identidem disserendo, ac sparsim, atque confuse veluti stupore perculsus, Scripturas producendo repleverit. Universi autem operis scopus fuisse videtur Geneseos, Exodi, Psalmorum, Epistolarum sancti Pauli, et Catholicarum, ac denique Ecclesiastici interpretatio. Hoc interim fatetur ipse, discipulum se fuisse Pantaeni. »
Photius very greatly disagrees, and has passed a far different judgement concerning those very same Hypotyposes of Clement. But it is worthwhile to hear him relating this in his own words: "The Hypotyposes," he says, "contain a discussion of some passages of the Old and New Testament, which he also summarily explains and interprets. Now although in certain things he seemed to think rightly, in others again he discourses altogether impiously and fabulously. For he asserts that matter is eternal, and feigns that ideas are introduced as if by certain decrees. The Son also he numbers among created things. In addition to these things, he monstrously invents migrations of souls, and many worlds before Adam. Eve, moreover, he derives from Adam not as the sacred books hand down, but obscenely and impiously. He dreams also that angels had intercourse with women, and begot children thence. Nay, even that the Word was not made flesh, but only seemed so. In addition to these things, he is found to have feigned two Words of the Father, the lesser of which appeared to mortals: nay, not even this one. For thus he writes: 'The Son indeed is also called Word equivocally with the paternal Word. Yet neither is this that Word which was made flesh, nor indeed is it that paternal Word: but a certain power and efficacy of God, flowing forth as it were from the Word itself, having become mind, pervaded the minds of men.' All which things indeed he strives to establish by testimonies of Scripture. Although he also utters six hundred other trifles with blasphemous voice, whether he himself, or someone else who has put on his persona. Plainly so that he has filled the eight books themselves with these monsters of blasphemies, by discoursing repeatedly about the same things, and by producing Scriptures here and there and confusedly, as if struck with stupor. Now the aim of the entire work seems to have been the interpretation of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the Epistles of Saint Paul, and the Catholic Epistles, and finally Ecclesiasticus. Meanwhile he himself confesses this, that he was a disciple of Pantaenus."
Ex his Photii verbis primum apertissime liquet ab eo, sicut ab Eusebio, accurate pervolutatos esse octo illos Hypotyposeon libros ; quandoquidem claram non solum eorum analysim repraesentat, sed quoddam quoque fragmentum, ex iis desumptum, de verbo, uti videtur, ad verbum transcripsit.
From these words of Photius, first, it is most openly clear that those eight books of Hypotyposes were accurately perused by him, just as by Eusebius; seeing that he not only presents a clear analysis of them, but also transcribed a certain fragment taken from them, word for word, as it seems.
Deinde vero ille diserte ibi explicat quod fuerit hujus, sicut jam diximus, operis argumentum, quis auctoris scopus, ac quomodo, quotve sacrae Scripturae cum libros tum Epistolas ille ipsemet auctor fuerit interpretatus.
Next, indeed, he expressly explains there what was the argument of this work, just as we have already said, what was the aim of the author, and how, or how many both books and Epistles of sacred Scripture that very same author interpreted.
Verum quia Eusebius longe plures quam Photius Veteris Novique Testamenti libros in his Hypotyposibus a Clemente explicatos esse affirmat, unde, inquies, tanta Photium inter et Eusebium, qui hosce libros accuratissime, quemadmodum vidimus, perlegerant, orta est dissensio, illudque dissidium ? At expende, quaeso, utrum illud in varios codices, quibus uterque usus est, refundendum sit. Eusebius siquidem integros, Photius vero mutilatos, et ab haereticis post Eusebii tempora corruptos, hujus operis codices habuisse haud immerito videtur.
Yet because Eusebius affirms that far more books of the Old and New Testament than Photius says were explained by Clement in these Hypotyposes, whence, you will say, arose so great a disagreement and that variance between Photius and Eusebius, who, as we have seen, had read through these books most accurately? Yet weigh, I ask, whether that should be attributed to the different manuscripts which each of them used. For Eusebius seems not undeservedly to have had entire manuscripts of this work, whereas Photius had mutilated ones, corrupted by heretics after the times of Eusebius.
Et vero Eusebius, qui satis copiose et fuse, quemadmodum adnotatum est, de his Clementis Alexandrini Hypotyposibus disputat, nullum ex tot a Photio memoratis erroribus se in eis deprehendisse significavit. Qui ergo fieri potuit, ut tot tantique errores in illis, quibus Photius usus est, codicibus sparsi disseminatique fuerint, nec in aliis antiquioribus ab Eusebio perlectis occurrerint ; nisi quia hi libri a nebulonibus quibusdam, et impiis haereticis depravati adulteratique sunt ? Ab his itaque sceleratis hominibus quaedam, quae corrumpere non poterant, ex libris illis resecata, amputataque haud immerito videntur, alia vero ab iis in
And indeed Eusebius, who disputes abundantly and at length enough, as has been noted, concerning these Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria, signified that he had detected in them none out of so many errors mentioned by Photius. How then could it have happened that so many and so great errors were scattered and disseminated in those manuscripts which Photius used, and did not occur in the other more ancient ones read through by Eusebius, unless because these books were depraved and adulterated by certain worthless fellows and impious heretics? By these wicked men, therefore, certain things which they could not corrupt seem not undeservedly to have been cut out and pruned away from those books, while other things were by them, for
Editors' notes and page, col. 1476
Footnotes
(31) ‹anchor: enarrantem audire› · call in col 1476
Phot. Bibl. cod. CIX, p. 286 et seq.
Photius, Library, codex 109, p. 286 and following.
Page
- running head: X. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1476
- marginal letters: A animadvertit, opinione; B talibus sit; C octo illos; D tos, et
- old-edition numerals: 354 before adulteratique
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: animadvertit, opinione
pravarum opinionum suarum defensionem nefarie addita, inserta, atque intrusa.
the defence of their own perverse opinions, nefariously added, inserted, and thrust in.
Neque ab hac opinione recedit ipsemet Photius, qui, cum sibi persuadere omnino non posset memoratos a se errores a Clemente traditos assertosque fuisse, consulto adjecit : seu ipse, sive quis alius, ejus personam indutus, tot tantaque errorum monstra ac portenta his libris inseruit.
Nor does Photius himself depart from this opinion, who, since he could by no means persuade himself that the errors mentioned by him had been handed down and asserted by Clement, deliberately added: "whether he himself, or someone else who has put on his persona," inserted so many and so great monsters and portents of errors into these books.
Quid vero, quod in superioribus dissertationibus observatum a nobis fuit, quosdam quidem, ac praesertim de angelorum cum feminis concubitu errores in genuinis Clementis Alexandrini operibus deprehendi ? Sed manifestum ibidem fecimus veram orthodoxamque ab eo constanter et perspicue propugnari doctrinam, de unico mundo, et materia a Deo creata, de unico et divino Patris aeterni Verbo, de vera carne ab eo assumpta, atque in primis de suprema illius divinitate, eademque prorsus ac Patris aeterni natura. Tot igitur, atque adeo repugnantes, et contrarios his sacris dogmatibus errores Clemens in suis Hypotyposibus, nisi incredibili prorsus caecitate perculsus, asserere et disseminare non potuit.
What, moreover, of the fact that in the preceding dissertations it was observed by us that certain errors indeed, and especially concerning the intercourse of angels with women, are detected in the genuine works of Clement of Alexandria? Yet in the same place we made it manifest that the true and orthodox doctrine is constantly and perspicuously championed by him, concerning the single world and matter created by God, concerning the single and divine Word of the eternal Father, concerning the true flesh assumed by Him, and above all concerning His supreme divinity, and His nature altogether the same as that of the eternal Father. So many errors, therefore, and ones so repugnant and contrary to these sacred dogmas, Clement could not have asserted and disseminated in his Hypotyposes unless struck with an altogether incredible blindness.
Quamobrem recte omnino et apposite Rufinus de adulteratione librorum ubi disputat, haec de Clemente Alexandrino scripsit : « Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, et magister illius Ecclesiae, in omnibus pene libris suis Trinitatis gloriam, atque aeternitatem unam eamdemque designat, et interdum invenimus aliqua in libris ejus capitula, in quibus Filium Dei creaturam dicit. Nunquid credibile est de tanto viro, tam in omnibus catholico, tam erudito, ut vel sibi contraria senserit, vel ea quae de Deo non dicam credere, vel audire quidem impium est, scripta reliquerit ? »
Wherefore Rufinus altogether rightly and appositely, where he disputes concerning the adulteration of books, wrote these things about Clement of Alexandria: "Clement of Alexandria, presbyter and teacher of that Church, in almost all his books designates the glory and eternity of the Trinity as one and the same; and sometimes we find some chapters in his books in which he calls the Son of God a creature. Is it at all credible of so great a man, so catholic in all things, so learned, either that he thought things contrary to himself, or that he left behind in writing those things concerning God which, I will not say to believe, but even to hear is impious?"
Scimus quidem nonnullis visum esse hos Hypotyposeon libros a Clemente Alexandrino prius compositos, quam veris omnibus Christianae religionis documentis plene perfecteque imbueretur. Verum gratis omnino id dicitur. Ex dictis siquidem satis, nisi fallimur, probatum est, hos libros ab haereticis fuisse adulteratos foedeque corruptos.
We know indeed that to some it has seemed that these books of Hypotyposes were composed by Clement of Alexandria before he was fully and perfectly imbued with all the true teachings of the Christian religion. Yet that is said altogether gratuitously. For from what has been said it has been sufficiently proved, unless we are mistaken, that these books were adulterated and foully corrupted by heretics.
Neque dixeris eosdem libros ab illis tot in locis non potuisse corrumpi. Constat enim per ea et superiora etiam tempora eo usque processisse effrenatam illorum haereticorum impudentiam, ut in plures alias sanctorum Ecclesiae Patrum lucubrationes, ac divinos etiam sacrae Scripturae libros, uti haud semel adnotavimus, non minus violentas manus injecerint, quibus eos variis ejuscemodi amputationibus, interpolationibus et additamentis turpiter foedarunt deformaruntque.
Nor could one say that the same books could not have been corrupted by them in so many places. For it is established that throughout those and even earlier times the unbridled impudence of those heretics proceeded so far that upon several other compositions of the holy Fathers of the Church, and even upon the divine books of sacred Scripture, as we have noted more than once, they laid no less violent hands, whereby they basefully befouled and deformed them with various excisions, interpolations, and additions of that sort.
Nec audiendi sunt, qui nobis objecerint magna Photium oscitantia Clementi ea tribuisse, quae ille non ex semetipso, sed ex perversa haereticorum opinione referebat. Cur enim, obsecro, Photius ille de aliis disputans Clementis operibus, ac maxime de Stromatum libris, ubi tot haereticorum paganorumque errores protulisse legitur, eos ipsi quoque non ascripsit ? Deinde magis perspicax et oculatus fuit Photius, quam ut ea quae Hypotyposibus vel a Clemente vel ab aliis profecta erant, non discreverit ; nec adeo mendax et fraudulentus, ut Clementi innumeros tribuerit errores, quos ipsemet Clemens aliorum esse significabat. Denique etiamsi Photius de plurimis aliorum auctorum scriptis et lucubrationibus disserat, eorumque epitomen exhibeat, nullibi tamen a quopiam hujusce seu oscitantiae et erroris, seu fraudis, doli et mendacii insimulatur.
Nor are those to be listened to who would object to us that Photius through great carelessness attributed to Clement those things which he reported not from himself, but from the perverse opinion of heretics. For why, I pray, did that Photius, when disputing about the other works of Clement, and especially about the books of the Stromata, where he is read to have brought forward so many errors of heretics and pagans, not ascribe them to him himself also? Next, Photius was more perspicacious and sharp-sighted than not to have discerned the things in the Hypotyposes which had proceeded either from Clement or from others; nor so mendacious and fraudulent as to have attributed to Clement innumerable errors which Clement himself signified belonged to others. Finally, although Photius discourses about very many writings and compositions of other authors, and presents an epitome of them, yet nowhere is he accused by anyone of this carelessness and error, or of fraud, deceit, and falsehood.
A vero autem non minus abhorrent, qui nullo auctore citato, nulla prolata ratione Clementem Ὑποτυπώσεων scriptorem a Clemente Alexandrino,
Moreover, no less far from the truth are those who, citing no author and bringing forward no reason, think that Clement the writer of the Hypotyposes was different from Clement of Alexandria,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1477
Footnotes
(32) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1477 or 1478 (not visible; Latin-only text)
lib. De adulterat. lib. apud Origen. tom. I, p. 494.
Book On the Adulteration of the Books [of Origen], in Origen, vol. I, p. 494.
(33) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1477 or 1478 (not visible; Latin-only text)
in prolegom. ad Euseb. Chron., p. 18.
In the prolegomena to Eusebius's Chronicle, p. 18.
(34) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1477 or 1478 (not visible; Latin-only text)
L. v Hist., c. 11, p. 175.
Book V of the History, ch. 11, p. 175.
Page
- running head: 1477 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX
- marginal letters: A pravarum opinionum; B tibus errores; C documentis plene; D ille de aliis
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: pravarum opinionum; word split at end of column: Alexan-
Stromatum auctore, alium esse opinantur. Ex his enim, quae ex Eusebio et Photio retulimus, funditus evertitur haec falsa opinio. Visne et id adhuc, si fieri possit, evidentius validiusque demonstrari ? Audi eumdem Eusebium, de Clemente Alexandrino haec dicentem : « Tunc etiam Alexandriae, inquit, iisdem cum Pantaeno studiis divinarum Scripturarum incumbens, floruit Clemens..... Qui etiam in Institutionum libris Ὑποτυπώσεσι a se conscriptis Pantaenum praeceptorem suum diserte nominat. Sed et in primo Stromateon libro eumdem ipsum designare mihi videtur, » etc. Potuitne Eusebius clarioribus verbis asseverare Clementem Alexandrinum esse verum non minus Hypotyposeon quam Stromatum parentem et auctorem ? Sed pudet, tam vanam opinionem seu potius vigilantis hominis somnium confutando, tempus frustra impendere et operam.
the author of the Stromata. For by these things which we have reported from Eusebius and Photius, this false opinion is utterly overthrown. Do you wish even this still, if it be possible, to be demonstrated more evidently and more validly? Hear the same Eusebius saying these things concerning Clement of Alexandria: "Then also at Alexandria," he says, "devoting himself to the same studies of the divine Scriptures with Pantaenus, flourished Clement ... Who also in the books of Institutions, Hypotyposes, written by himself, expressly names Pantaenus as his teacher. Moreover, in the first book of the Stromateis also he seems to me to designate the very same man," etc. Could Eusebius have affirmed in clearer words that Clement of Alexandria is the true parent and author no less of the Hypotyposes than of the Stromata? But it is shameful, in refuting so vain an opinion, or rather the dream of a waking man, to spend time and labour in vain.
Neque etiam tempus in iis, qui hos libros ideo, quia erroribus scatebant, intercidisse suspicantur, refellendis terendum est. Norunt enim omnes eamdem fuisse non solum pessimorum, sed etiam optimorum librorum, et ab antiquissimis ac doctissimis Ecclesiae Patribus editorum sortem et fortunam. Quis etiam ignorat noxias et pestiferas quasdam haereticorum ac paganorum lucubrationes diutius perseverasse, quam alias, quae ab orthodoxis scriptoribus in Christianae religionis defensionem, illiusque dogmatum explicationem compositae, omnibus summae poterant esse utilitatis ? Neque id longa et inutili inductione probari necesse est, quod ex ipsis Clementis nostri deperditis libris, de quibus mox disputabimus, luculentissime demonstratur.
Nor also is time to be wasted in refuting those who suspect that these books perished for this reason, because they swarmed with errors. For all know that the same was the lot and fortune not only of the worst, but also of the best books, even those published by the most ancient and most learned Fathers of the Church. Who also is ignorant that certain noxious and pestiferous compositions of heretics and pagans survived longer than others which, composed by orthodox writers for the defence of the Christian religion and the explanation of its dogmas, could have been of the greatest utility to all? Nor is it necessary for this to be proved by a long and useless induction, since it is most brilliantly demonstrated from the lost books themselves of our Clement, concerning which we shall shortly dispute.
Porro autem Eusebius in Historia sua ecclesiastica hos Clementinarum Hypotyposeon libros saepius citat, et quaedam aliquando eorum fragmenta exhibet. Etenim praeter illa quae ex illius lib. VI, capite 14, pag. 215 et seq., protulimus, ab ipso prius lib. I Histor., cap. 12, pag. 30, citatur quintus Hypotyposeon liber ; sextus autem et septimus postea lib. II Histor., cap. 1, pag. 38, et cap. 9, pag. 46, ac cap. 15, pag. 53.
Furthermore, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History quite often cites these books of the Clementine Hypotyposes, and sometimes presents certain fragments of them. For besides those things which we have brought forward from his book 6, chapter 14, page 215 and following, the fifth book of the Hypotyposes is cited by him earlier in book 1 of the History, chapter 12, page 30; and the sixth and seventh afterwards in book 2 of the History, chapter 1, page 38, and chapter 9, page 46, and chapter 15, page 53.
Plura adhuc fragmenta ex iisdem Clementis nostri libris ab OEcumenio decerpta sunt. Primum siquidem in hujus ad primam ad Corinthios Epistolam cap. XI, 10, pag. 326, commentariis ex tertio illius Ὑποτυπώσεων libro desumptum est. Secundum ex quarto earumdem Hypotyposeon libro descriptum in eisdem ad II ad Corinth. Epist., cap. V, 16, pag. 637, commentariis occurrit. Tertium ex eodem Hypotyposeon libro in hisce commentariis cap. seq., v. 11, pag. 645. Quartum ex quinto earumdem Hypotyposeon libro in commentariis ad Epist. ad Galat. cap. V, 24, pag. 763. Quintum ex septimo Hypotyposeon libro in commentariis ad primam Epistolam ad Timotheum cap. II, 6, tom. II, pag. 220. Sextum ex eodem Hypotyposeon libro in commentariis ad eamdem Epistolam, cap. III, 16, pag. 229. Septimum rursus ex eodem libro, in commentariis ad eamdem Epist., cap. V, 8, pag. 237. Octavum in vers. 10, pag. seq., ex eodem libro. Nonum rursus ibidem in v. 21, pag. 242, ex hoc ipso libro. Decimum ex eodem adhuc libro in iisdem commentariis in cap. VI, 13, pag. 248. Undecimum denique ex eodem quoque libro in commentariis in caput II, 2, subsequentis ad Timotheum Epistolae, pagina 249.
Still more fragments from the same books of our Clement have been culled by Oecumenius. For the first, in his commentaries on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11:10, page 326, is taken from the third book of his Hypotyposes. The second, copied from the fourth book of the same Hypotyposes, occurs in the same commentaries on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 5:16, page 637. The third, from the same book of Hypotyposes, in these commentaries on the following chapter, verse 11, page 645. The fourth, from the fifth book of the same Hypotyposes, in the commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 5:24, page 763. The fifth, from the seventh book of the Hypotyposes, in the commentaries on the first Epistle to Timothy, chapter 2:6, tome 2, page 220. The sixth, from the same book of Hypotyposes, in the commentaries on the same Epistle, chapter 3:16, page 229. The seventh again from the same book, in the commentaries on the same Epistle, chapter 5:8, page 237. The eighth on verse 10, on the following page, from the same book. The ninth again in the same place on verse 21, page 242, from this very book. The tenth from the same book still, in the same commentaries on chapter 6:13, page 248. The eleventh, finally, from the same book also, in the commentaries on chapter 2:2 of the following Epistle to Timothy, page 249.
Praeterea vero Joannes Moschus in Prato spirituali, cap. 176, quoddam ex lib. V Hypotyposeon de apostolorum baptismate fragmentum retulit.
Moreover, John Moschus in the Spiritual Meadow, chapter 176, reported a certain fragment from book 5 of the Hypotyposes concerning the baptism of the apostles.
Omnia autem illa excerpta in his, qui omnium versantur manibus, Eusebii, OEcumenii et Joannis Moschi libris quandoquidem a quolibet possunt
Now since all those excerpts can by anyone in these books of Eusebius, Oecumenius, and John Moschus, which are in everyone's hands,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1478
Page
- running head: IIS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1478
- marginal letters: A drino, Stromatum; B quia erroribus; C capite 14,; D II, pag. 220.
- old-edition numerals: 355 after commentariis
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: drino, Stromatum; word split at beginning of column: drino
facillime inveniri, ea idcirco hic describere superfluum et inutile esse duximus.
very easily be found, we have therefore deemed it superfluous and useless to copy them out here.
A nonnullis porro observatum est Frontonem olim Savilio scripsisse apud patriarcham Alexandrinum asservari integrum illarum Clementis Hypotyposeon opus. Sed utinam hasce in regiones transportatum fuisset ! Certius enim non solum de illius fragmentis, sed de toto etiam ipsomet illo opere judicium ferri forsitan posset.
Furthermore, it has been observed by some that Fronto once wrote to Savile that the entire work of those Hypotyposes of Clement was preserved in the possession of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Would that it had been transported into these regions! For a more certain judgement could perhaps be passed not only concerning its fragments, but also concerning the whole of that very work itself.
Multa insuper alia in Graecorum praesertim Patrum catenis fragmenta, solo Clementis nomine citata, occurrunt ; quae proinde utrum ex illius Hypotyposibus, vel aliis ejus scriptis desumpta fuerint, dictu sane difficillimum est. Et vero in ea, quam Nicetas Heracleae patriarcha adornavit, in librum Job catena longum plane invenies in eumdem librum Job cap. I, 21, fragmentum Clementi Alexandrino, sed nullo designato illius opere, attributum, cujus paucissima tantummodo priora verba, non sine quibusdam diversis lectionibus in quarto Stromatum libro, pag. 538, invenies. Quapropter si quis caetera, quae sequuntur, a Clemente nostro scripta esse dixerit, is certe fateri debet ea, atque adeo totum illud fragmentum vel ex ejus Hypotyposibus, vel ex alio deperdito ejus opere fuisse decerptum. Suspicamur autem non plura, quam quae notavimus, in toto illo fragmento Clementis verba exhiberi. Reliqua enim omnia non aliud nobis esse videntur, nisi Clementis sententiae, prout eam Nicetas capiebat, expositio et amplificatio.
Many other fragments besides occur, especially in the catenae of the Greek Fathers, cited under the name of Clement alone; whether therefore they were taken from his Hypotyposes or from his other writings is assuredly most difficult to say. And indeed in that catena on the book of Job which Nicetas, metropolitan of Heraclea, prepared, you will find on the same book of Job, chapter 1:21, a plainly long fragment attributed to Clement of Alexandria, but with no work of his designated, of which you will find only the very few opening words, not without certain variant readings, in the fourth book of the Stromata, page 538. Wherefore if anyone should say that the remaining things which follow were written by our Clement, he certainly ought to confess that they, and indeed that whole fragment, were culled either from his Hypotyposes or from some other lost work of his. We suspect, however, that no more words of Clement than those we have noted are presented in all that fragment. For all the rest seem to us to be nothing else than an exposition and amplification of Clement's thought, according as Nicetas understood it.
Neque facilius indicari potest quo ex Clementis libro idem ipse Nicetas ea delibaverit, quae in eadem tam in Jobi cap. XXXIV, 7, quam in Matthaei cap. V, 43, se transcripsisse declarat.
Nor can it be more easily indicated from which book of Clement the very same Nicetas culled those things which in the same catena, both on Job chapter 34:7 and on Matthew chapter 5:43, he declares that he transcribed.
At quae ille ibidem in Matthaei cap. XIII, 31 et 32, eidem Clementi nostro attribuit, ea quidem ex illius Paedagogi lib. I, cap. 11, pag. 132, quemadmodum et alia, quae in idem cap. Matthaei XIII, 46, ex ejusdem Paedagogi lib. II, cap. 12, pag. 206, hausta esse arbitramur. Verum in istis duobus posterioribus locis Nicetas non Clementis verba, sed mentem et sententiam exprimit atque amplificat.
But the things which in the same place on Matthew chapter 13:31 and 32 he attributes to the same Clement of ours, we judge to have been drawn indeed from book 1 of his Paedagogus, chapter 11, page 132, just as also the other things on the same chapter of Matthew 13:46 were drawn from book 2 of the same Paedagogus, chapter 12, page 206. Yet in those two latter passages Nicetas expresses and amplifies not the words of Clement, but his mind and thought.
In catena vero in Lucam, a Balthasare Corderio publicata, quaedam etiam Clementis fragmenta satis ad verbum repraesentantur, uti in cap. XIII Lucae, num. 14, legitur excerptum ex libro I Paedagogi, cap. 6, pag. 96. Praeterea in cap. XIII Lucae, num. 14, aliud fragmentum ex capite XI, pag. 132, quod etiam in superiori catena citatum vidimus. Item in cap. XVII, num. 16, ex lib. III Paedag., cap. 11, pag. 244. Deinde in cap. XXI, num. 35, 37 et 38, ex lib. II Paedagogi, cap. 2, pag. 154, pag. 155, et pag. 156. Sed in his locis Corderius Latinam horum librorum interpretationem sequitur, atque ibi aliquando nonnulla haud dubie a catenae collectore addita sunt. Duo tandem alia loca occurrunt in Lucae cap. III, num. 33, et in cap. XVI, num. 22, quae quidem unde, aut quo ex Clementis libro desumpta sint, compertum habere non potuimus.
Moreover, in the catena on Luke published by Balthasar Corderius, certain fragments of Clement are also presented fairly word for word, as on chapter 13 of Luke, number 14, there is read an excerpt from book 1 of the Paedagogus, chapter 6, page 96. Besides, on chapter 13 of Luke, number 14, another fragment from chapter 11, page 132, which we also saw cited in the preceding catena. Likewise on chapter 17, number 16, from book 3 of the Paedagogus, chapter 11, page 244. Next, on chapter 21, numbers 35, 37, and 38, from book 2 of the Paedagogus, chapter 2, page 154, page 155, and page 156. But in these passages Corderius follows the Latin translation of these books, and there sometimes some things have without doubt been added by the compiler of the catena. Finally, two other passages occur on Luke chapter 3, number 33, and on chapter 16, number 22, whence indeed, or from which book of Clement they were taken, we have not been able to ascertain.
Alia porro his similia in aliis catenis procul dubio invenientur, de quibus idem ac de istis dici debet. Quapropter haec de illis adnotasse sufficiat.
Furthermore, other things similar to these will without doubt be found in other catenae, concerning which the same ought to be said as concerning these. Wherefore let it suffice to have noted these things about them.
Necesse etiam magis non est alia a nobis repraesentari varia et prolixa editorum Clementis nostri librorum fragmenta, ab Eusebio in suis De historia ecclesiastica, atque in primis De praeparatione evangelica libris, et alia quaedam ab Epiphanio et Rufino citata et transcripta. Suo etenim in loco, ea satis a nobis hisce in dissertationibus cum indicata fuerint, actum non censuimus esse amplius agendum.
Even less is it necessary for there to be presented by us the other varied and lengthy fragments of the published books of our Clement, cited and transcribed by Eusebius in his books On Ecclesiastical History, and especially On the Preparation for the Gospel, and certain others by Epiphanius and Rufinus. For since they have been sufficiently indicated by us in their own place in these dissertations, we have not thought that what is already done should be done over again.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1479
Footnotes
(35) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1479 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
l. xi Hist. c. 13, p. 214.
Book XI [sic as read; probably VI] of the History, ch. 13, p. 214.
(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1479 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
Bibl. cod. cxi.
Bibliotheca [of Photius], codex 111.
(37) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1479 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
De script. eccles., § 48.
On Ecclesiastical Writers, § 48.
(38) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1479 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
l. iv Hist., c. 26, p. 147.
Book IV of the History, ch. 26, p. 147.
(39) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1479 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
l. vi, c. 13, p. 215.
Book VI, ch. 13, p. 215.
Page
- running head: 1479 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOUR
- marginal letters: A facillime inveniri,; B quarto Stromatum; C ex ejusdem; D Lucae cap. III,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: facillime inveniri,
De aliis Clementis Alexandrini amissis operibus, ac de quibusdam eorum fragmentis.
On the other lost works of Clement of Alexandria, and on certain fragments of them.
Inter alia Clementis nostri Alexandrini deperdita opera, ab Eusebio recensentur, Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα σύγγραμμα, et simplicius a Photio Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα ; Latine vero ab Hieronymo, De Pascha liber unus. Qua autem occasione hunc librum Clemens scripserit, ab eodem Eusebio discimus. Postquam enim de libro, quem Melito eodem de argumento divulgaverat, sermonem ille fecit, tunc continenter subjunxit : « Hujus autem libri mentionem facit Clemens Alexandrinus in opere suo De Pascha, ἐν ἰδίῳ Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ. Quod quidem ut conscriberet, Melitonis librum causam sibi praebuisse testatur. » Quid autem in eo libro tractaretur, ita idem Eusebius postea edisseruit : « In libro vero, quem de Pascha composuit, coactum se affirmat a familiaribus suis, ut traditiones, quas ab antiquioribus presbyteris acceperat, scriptas posteris mandaret. Meminit in eodem opusculo Melitonis et Irenaei, et aliquot aliorum, quorum etiam enarrationes in medium adducit. »
Among the other lost works of our Clement of Alexandria, there are enumerated by Eusebius A Treatise on the Pasch, and more simply by Photius On the Pasch; and in Latin by Jerome, One Book on the Pasch. Now on what occasion Clement wrote this book, we learn from the same Eusebius. For after he spoke of the book which Melito had published on the same subject, he then immediately subjoined: "Now Clement of Alexandria makes mention of this book in his work On the Pasch, in his own discourse On the Pasch. And to write this, indeed, he testifies that the book of Melito afforded him the occasion." Moreover, what was treated in that book, the same Eusebius afterwards set forth thus: "And in the book which he composed on the Pasch, he affirms that he was compelled by his intimates to commit to writing for posterity the traditions which he had received from the older presbyters. He makes mention in the same little work of Melito and Irenaeus, and of some others, whose expositions also he brings forward."
In praefatione autem Chronici paschalis seu Alexandrini, falso Petri Alexandriae episcopi et martyris nomine inscripta, duo hujusce libri fragmenta hunc in modum pag. 7 exhibentur : « Sed et Clemens sanctissimus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae presbyter, vir antiquissimus, et qui non multum abfuit ab apostolicis temporibus, in libro De Paschate consimilia docet, ita scribens : Praeteritis ergo temporibus immolatum a Judaeis Pascha, festum agens, manducavit Dominus. Sed postquam praedicavit, ipse qui erat Pascha Agnus Dei, ut ovis ad occisionem ductus, discipulos statim edocuit figurae mysterium decima quarta, qua etiam illum rogarunt : Ubi vis paremus tibi Pascha manducare ? Hac igitur die, et sanctificatio azymorum, et festi praeparatio facta est. Unde Joannes ubi hac die rite paratis jam discipulis, quo a Domino abluerentur, scripsit, subdit : Passus est sequenti die Dominus noster, cum ipse esset Pascha, immolatus a Judaeis. Et post alia : Post haec ergo decima quarta, quando passus est, ipso mane ad palatium adducto, pontifices et scribae non introierunt praetorium, ut non contaminarentur ; sed ut vespere libere manducarent Pascha. Huic dierum accurationi Scripturae omnes consentiunt, atque adeo Evangelia sibi invicem consentanea. Quinetiam idipsum testatur resurrectio : tertia enim die resurrexit, quae est in prima hebdomade messis, qua et manipulum deferre pontifex a lege praecipitur. » Graeca porro verba, qui legere voluerit, ea loco a nobis citato facile reperiet.
Moreover, in the preface of the Paschal or Alexandrian Chronicle, falsely inscribed with the name of Peter, bishop and martyr of Alexandria, two fragments of this book are presented in this manner on page 7: "Moreover, Clement also, the most holy presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, a most ancient man, and one who was not far distant from the apostolic times, teaches quite similar things in his book On the Pasch, writing thus: 'In past times, therefore, the Lord kept the feast and ate the Pasch sacrificed by the Jews. But after He preached, He Himself who was the Pasch, the Lamb of God, led as a sheep to the slaughter, straightway taught the disciples the mystery of the figure on the fourteenth day, on which also they asked Him: Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch? On this day, therefore, both the sanctification of the unleavened bread and the preparation of the feast took place. Whence John, when he has written that on this day the disciples were now duly prepared so that they might be washed by the Lord, subjoins: Our Lord suffered on the following day, being Himself the Pasch, sacrificed by the Jews.' And after other things: 'After these things, therefore, on the fourteenth day, when He suffered, having Himself been led early in the morning to the palace, the chief priests and scribes did not enter the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that in the evening they might freely eat the Pasch. With this exact reckoning of the days all the Scriptures agree, and indeed the Gospels are in agreement with one another. Moreover, the resurrection also testifies to this very thing: for He rose on the third day, which is in the first week of the harvest, on which also the high priest is commanded by the law to offer the sheaf.'" Furthermore, whoever wishes to read the Greek words will easily find them in the place cited by us.
Jacturam quoque fecimus duarum aliarum Clementis commentationum, quae ab Eusebio appellantur Διαλέξεις περὶ νηστείας, καὶ περὶ καταλαλιᾶς, a Photio autem, Περὶ νηστείας, καὶ περὶ κακολογίας· atque ab Hieronymo, De jejunio disceptatio, de obtrectatione liber unus.
We have also suffered the loss of two other treatises of Clement, which by Eusebius are called Discourses on Fasting, and on Slander, and by Photius, On Fasting, and on Evil-speaking; and by Jerome, A Discussion on Fasting, One Book on Slander.
Tertium amisimus Clementis librum, qui ab eodem Eusebio appellatur : Ὁ προτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονὴν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ βεβαπτισμένους· « Est etiam exhortatio ad patientiam, scripta ad neophytos. »
A third book of Clement we have lost, which by the same Eusebius is called: An Exhortation to Patience, or to the Newly Baptized: "There is also an exhortation to patience, written to neophytes."
Pergit Eusebius, et quartum his verbis indicat : καὶ ὁ ἐπιγεγραμμένος Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός, ἢ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαΐζοντας, ὃν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ δεδηλωμένῳ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀνατέθεικεν· « et liber qui Ecclesiastica regula inscribitur, seu adversus eos qui errores Judaeorum sequuntur ; quem quidem Alexandro supradicto episcopo nuncupavit. » Photius vero, Περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν, κατὰ τῶν
Eusebius proceeds, and indicates a fourth in these words: "and the one entitled Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Judaizers, which he dedicated to the aforesaid bishop Alexander"; "and the book which is entitled Ecclesiastical Rule, or against those who follow the errors of the Jews; which indeed he dedicated to the aforesaid bishop Alexander." And Photius: On Ecclesiastical Canons, against those who
Editors' notes and page, col. 1480
Footnotes
(40) ‹anchor: Pascha manducare› · call in col 1480
Matth. XXVI, 17.
Matthew 26:17.
(41) ‹anchor: manducarent Pascha› · call in col 1480
Joan. XVIII, 28.
John 18:28.
(42) ‹anchor: ab Eusebio› · call in col 1480
lib. vi, cap. 13, p. 214.
Book VI, ch. 13, p. 214.
(43) ‹anchor: ab Hieronymo› · call in col 1480
loc. cit.
In the place cited.
(44) ‹anchor: eodem Eusebio› · call in col 1480
ibid.
Ibid.
(45) ‹anchor: Pergit Eusebius› · call in col 1480
ibid.
Ibid.
Page
- running head: EX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1480
- marginal letters: A ARTICULUS II.; B actum se; C praeparatio facta; D a Photio
- old-edition numerals: 356 before consentiunt
- other: Latin only (with short embedded Greek titles), no facing Greek printed; editors' matter: ARTICULUS II.
ἀκολουθούντων τῇ τῶν Ἰουδαίων πλάνη, ὃν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Ἱεροσολύμων ἐπισκόπῳ προσειπεῖν ἔδοξεν· « De canonibus seu regulis ecclesiasticis, adversus eos, qui Judaeorum errorem sequuntur, quem Alexandro Hierosolymorum episcopo nuncupasse videtur. » Denique Hieronymus : « De canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversus eos, qui Judaeorum sequuntur errorem, liber unus, quem proprie Alexandro Hierosolymorum episcopo προσεφώνησε. » Ex his itaque trium doctissimorum illorum hominum nec obscuris verbis, nec plane incerto eorum testimonio evidenter colligitur hunc unum duntaxat fuisse librum, quo quidem Clemens noster non canones apostolorum, ut quidam perperam arbitrati sunt, ab eo collecti, sed quo errores Judaeorum ecclesiasticis regulis, hoc est, uti videtur, sacris Scripturis confutabantur.
follow the error of the Jews, which he saw fit to address to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem: "On ecclesiastical canons or rules, against those who follow the error of the Jews, which he seems to have dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem." Finally Jerome: "On ecclesiastical canons, and against those who follow the error of the Jews, one book, which he specially dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem." From these words, therefore, far from obscure, of those three most learned men, and from their testimony by no means uncertain, it is evidently gathered that this was only one single book, in which indeed not the canons of the apostles were collected by our Clement, as some have wrongly supposed, but in which the errors of the Jews were confuted by ecclesiastical rules, that is, as it seems, by the sacred Scriptures.
Alii vero opinantur hos errores fuisse Christianorum, qui sacrum Pascha, Judaico more, die lunae decima quarta celebrabant. Et hi quidem opinionem suam tuentur citatis haud dubie Eusebii verbis, πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαΐζοντας, id est « adversus Judaizantes, » ut nonnulli loquuntur. Sed quia Eusebius, Hieronymus, et Photius alium, sicut diximus, Clementis De Pascha librum, in quo illud procul dubio argumentum tractabatur, nobis ibidem indicaverunt, quis sibi facile persuadebit duos eadem de re libros, sed diverso titulo inscriptos, a Clemente nostro compositos fuisse ? Nonne et alii Judaeorum errores fuerunt de Christo, de observanda lege Mosaica, etc., qui in hoc posteriore libro ab illo potuerunt impugnari et refelli ?
Others, however, are of the opinion that these were the errors of Christians who celebrated the sacred Pasch in the Jewish manner, on the fourteenth day of the moon. And these indeed no doubt defend their opinion by citing the words of Eusebius, πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαΐζοντας, that is, "against the Judaizers," as some express it. Yet because Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius have indicated to us in the same place, just as we have said, another book of Clement On the Pasch, in which that subject was without doubt treated, who will easily persuade himself that two books on the same subject, but inscribed with a different title, were composed by our Clement? Were there not also other errors of the Jews concerning Christ, concerning the observance of the Mosaic law, etc., which in this latter book could have been attacked and refuted by him?
Porro autem quoddam reperitur hujus libri in nondum edito Nicephori Constantinopolitani adversus Iconoclastas Antirrhetico fragmentum, quod in duabus Graecâ manu exaratis bibliothecae Regiae codicibus, et Colbertinae tertio descriptum est. Primus autem Regius codex, num. 1989 notatus, venerandae est antiquitatis, et ante annos octingentos scriptus videtur. Alter recentior, num. 1826, ex illo priore transcriptus fuit. In utroque autem isto codice haec Graeca illius fragmenti verba legimus :
Furthermore, a certain fragment of this book is found in the not yet published Antirrheticus of Nicephorus of Constantinople against the Iconoclasts, which is copied in two Greek manuscript codices of the Royal Library, and in a third of the Colbertine Library. Now the first Royal codex, marked number 1989, is of venerable antiquity, and seems to have been written eight hundred years ago. The other more recent one, number 1826, was transcribed from that former one. And in both these codices we read these Greek words of that fragment:
Κλήμεντος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰουδαϊζόντων·
Of Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, from the work Against the Judaizers:
Σαλομῶν ὁ τοῦ Δαβὶδ, κ. τ. λ.
Solomon the son of David, etc.
Praeterea in Lausiaca Palladii historia, cap. 139, narratur quamdam virginem, morti proximam, matri suae dedisse Clementis nostri Alexandrini in prophetam Amos opus, ut illud exsuli episcopo traderet. Palladii autem haec sunt verba : « Cum dedisset matri suae opus Clementis Stromatei in prophetam Amos, dixit ei : Da id episcopo relegato... decessit ipsa nocte. » Haec ibi, nec plura de illo Clementis nostri commentario. Quamobrem quidnam illud esset, et utrum ex illius Hypotyposeon libris excerptum fuerit, divinari certe non potest.
Moreover, in the Lausiac History of Palladius, chapter 139, it is narrated that a certain virgin, near to death, gave to her mother the work of our Clement of Alexandria on the prophet Amos, that she might hand it over to an exiled bishop. Now the words of Palladius are these: "When she had given to her mother the work of Clement the Stromatist on the prophet Amos, she said to her: Give it to the banished bishop ... she departed that very night." Thus far there, and no more concerning that commentary of our Clement. Wherefore what that was, and whether it was excerpted from the books of his Hypotyposes, certainly cannot be divined.
Nec magis notus est Clementis Alexandrini De Providentia liber, cujus S. Maximus confessor duo fragmenta suis opusculis inseruit. Et primum quidem pag. 144 his habetur verbis :
No better known is the book of Clement of Alexandria On Providence, of which Saint Maximus the Confessor inserted two fragments into his opuscula. And the first indeed, on page 144, is given in these words:
Τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Κλήμεντος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐκ τοῦ Περὶ προνοίας·
Of the most holy Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, from the work On Providence:
Οὐσία ἐστὶν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ. Θεὸς οὐσία θεία ἐστίν, κ. τ. λ.
Essence is predicated of God. God is divine essence, etc.
Secundum vero ibidem pag. 152 sic repraesentatur :
And the second in the same place, on page 152, is presented thus:
Κλήμεντος τοῦ Στρωματέως ἐκ τοῦ Περὶ προνοίας λόγου·
Of Clement the Stromatist, from the discourse On Providence:
Θέλησις ἐστὶ φυσικὴ δύναμις, κ. τ. λ.
Will is a natural power, etc.
Prius autem illud fragmentum in quodam non admodum vetusto bibliothecae Regiae cartaceo codice, ac nota 2431 signato totidem verbis, his exceptis : Οὐσία ἐστὶ, τὸ δι' ὅλου ὑφεστός, habetur. At continenter haec adjiciuntur : Φύσις λέγεται παρὰ τὸ πεφυκέναι· πρώτη οὐσία ἐστὶ πᾶν καθ' ἑαυτοῦ
Moreover, that former fragment is found in the very same words, except for these: "Essence is that which subsists throughout," in a certain not very ancient paper codex of the Royal Library, marked with the number 2431. And immediately these words are added: "Nature is so called from having naturally grown; first essence is everything that by itself
Editors' notes and page, col. 1481
Footnotes
(1) ‹anchor: fragmenti verba legimus› · call in col 1481
Hoc et sequentia fragmenta quae hic D. Nourrius exhibet supra jam edidimus hujus voluminis col. 767 inter Clementis fragmenta varia. Edit. Patr.
This and the following fragments which Dom Le Nourry presents here we have already published above, in column 767 of this volume, among Clement's miscellaneous fragments. The editors of the Patrologia.
Misprints (as printed, kept)
- ‹πλάνη› (for πλάνῃ, no iota subscript printed), para 1 (QA Q3b; spot check settled on the page). ‹Graecâ› in para 3 is printed with the circumflex and set so.
Page
- running head: 1481 DE ALIIS CLEM. ALEX.
- marginal letters: A ἀκολουθούντων τῇ; B τοὺς Ἰουδαΐζοντας,; C scriptus videtur.; D fragmenta suis
- old-edition numerals: 357 before De
- other: Latin with embedded Greek fragments, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: ἀκολουθούντων τῇ
- footnotes 45 and 45* printed under this page are called in col 1482 (QA Q3b).
ὑφεστὴς, οἷον λίθος οὐσία λέγεται. Δευτέρα δὲ οὐσία αὐξητικὴ καθὸ αὔξει, καὶ φθίνει, τὸ φυτόν· τρίτη δὲ οὐσία ἔμψυχος, αἰσθητικὴ, τὸ ζῶον, ὁ ἵππος. Δευτέρα οὐσία ἔμψυχος, αἰσθητικὴ, λογικὴ, ἄνθρωπος. Δι' ὃ καὶ ἕκαστος γέγονεν, ὡς ὢν ἐκ πάντων τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχων ἄϋλον καὶ τὸν νοῦν Θεοῦ εἰκόνα. « Natura ex eo dicitur, quod natum est. Prima substantia est id omne, quod per se subsistit, quemadmodum lapis substantia dicitur. Secunda vero substantia est, quae incrementi vim habet, quoniam augetur et perit, sicut planta. Tertia autem substantia est animata, sensuque praedita, ut animal, et equus. Altera substantia est animata, sensu praedita, rationalis, ut homo. Quamobrem unusquisque factus est, et qui ex his omnibus constat, is animam habet non materiatam, et mentem Dei imaginem. »
subsists, as a stone is called an essence. Second is vegetative essence, in so far as it grows and decays, the plant; and third is animate, sentient essence, the animal, the horse. Another essence is animate, sentient, rational: man. Wherefore also each one has come into being, as being composed of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind that is the image of God." "Nature is so called from that which has been born. First substance is all that which subsists by itself, just as a stone is called a substance. Second substance, however, is that which has the power of growth, since it increases and perishes, like a plant. And third substance is animate and endowed with sense, as an animal, and a horse. Another substance is animate, endowed with sense, rational, as man. Wherefore each one has been made, and he who consists of all these has an immaterial soul, and a mind that is the image of God."
In eodem codice Regio adhuc descriptum est istud ex eodem, uti ibi dicitur, Clementis Alexandrini libro fragmentum :
In the same Royal codex there is still copied this fragment from the same book, as it is called there, of Clement of Alexandria:
Τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου, καὶ μακαριωτάτου Κλήμεντος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας τοῦ Στρωματέως ἐκ τοῦ Περὶ προνοίας λόγου·
Of the most holy and most blessed Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, the Stromatist, from the discourse On Providence:
Τί Θεός ; Θεός ἐστιν, κ. τ. λ.
What is God? God is, etc.
De hoc porro Clementis De providentia libro cum plura non suppetant, quis ille sit, utrumve in illo citando nulla fuerit scriptorum vel librariorum oscitantia, nullusque lapsus et error, qui recte ostenderit, is sane de nobis aliisque pluribus optime merebitur.
Furthermore, since no more details are at hand concerning this book of Clement On Providence, whoever rightly shows what it is, or whether in citing it there was no carelessness of writers or copyists, and no slip and error, he assuredly will deserve very well of us and of many others.
Denique Sozomenus variis historiae scriptoribus annumerat « Clementem et Hegesippum, viros sapientissimos, qui apostolorum temporibus proxime successerunt. » Sed Valesius putat id de Clemente Romano, qui libros Recognitionum composuisse perhibetur, esse intelligendum. Nam ille non solum ante Hegesippum exstitit, sed apostolorum etiam comes ac successor appellatur. Deinde vero hae Clementis Recognitiones quamdam magis quam Clementis Alexandrini opera prae se ferunt historiae formam et speciem.
Finally, Sozomen numbers among various writers of history "Clement and Hegesippus, most wise men, who succeeded most closely to the times of the apostles." But Valesius thinks that this is to be understood of Clement of Rome, who is said to have composed the books of Recognitions. For he not only existed before Hegesippus, but is also called a companion and successor of the apostles. Next, indeed, these Recognitions of Clement display a certain form and appearance of history more than do the works of Clement of Alexandria.
Sed, ut verum fateamur, parum validae nobis hae rationes videntur. Praeterquam quod enim pseudepigraphum, ut alibi diximus, illud est Recognitionum opus, certe mos antiquorum scriptorum non fuit, ut auctores appellando, chronologicum semper sequantur ordinem. Secundo Clemens Alexandrinus se, ut alibi etiam vidimus, primis apostolorum successoribus proximum nuncupat. Denique longe plures chronologiae in primo Stromatum Clementis nostri Alexandrini libro, quam in Recognitionibus illis exhibentur. Quod quidem, quamvis cuivis hos libros legenti facillime pateat, planius tamen et manifestius fiet ex iisdem, quae paulo post a nobis repraesentabuntur, Clementis nostri Alexandrini chronologiis. Nihil itaque, uti nobis videtur, obstare potest, quominus has propter chronologias Clemens Alexandrinus a Sozomeno laudatus, et in chronographorum numero positus censeatur. At res ita si se habeat, certe hoc Clementis opus inter perditas ejus lucubrationes computari non debet.
Yet, to confess the truth, these reasons seem to us of little weight. For besides the fact that, as we have said elsewhere, that work of Recognitions is pseudepigraphal, certainly it was not the custom of ancient writers in naming authors always to follow chronological order. Secondly, Clement of Alexandria calls himself, as we have also seen elsewhere, next to the first successors of the apostles. Finally, far more chronologies are presented in the first book of the Stromata of our Clement of Alexandria than in those Recognitions. And although this is very easily patent to anyone reading these books, yet it will become plainer and more manifest from those same chronologies of our Clement of Alexandria which will be presented by us a little later. Nothing therefore, as it seems to us, can stand in the way of Clement of Alexandria being deemed to have been praised by Sozomen and placed in the number of chronographers on account of these chronologies. Yet if the matter be so, certainly this work of Clement ought not to be reckoned among his lost compositions.
ARTICULUS III.
Article III.
De quibusdam libris et commentariis, quos Clemens Alexandrinus scripturum se esse promiserat.
On certain books and commentaries which Clement of Alexandria had promised that he would write.
Quemdam de arcanis mysteriis tractatum, haud dubie divulgandum, in aliud tempus distulisse his Clemens noster declarat verbis : « Manifestum est, inquit, esse alterum genus sermonis, cujus institutum est docere, quod quidem est subtile, et spiritale, et accuratam tractandi rationem sequitur, et in arcanis contemplandis mysteriis versatur. Id autem in praesentia differatur. » An autem fidem liberaverit suam, et peculiarem aliquam ea de re commentationem ediderit, hactenus ignotum.
That he postponed to another time a certain treatise concerning secret mysteries, without doubt to be published, our Clement declares in these words: "It is manifest," he says, "that there is another kind of discourse, the purpose of which is to teach, which indeed is subtle and spiritual, and follows an accurate method of treatment, and is engaged in contemplating secret mysteries. Let that, however, be deferred for the present." Whether, however, he fulfilled his pledge and published some special treatise on that subject is thus far unknown.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1482
Footnotes
(48) ‹anchor: Sozomenus … annumerat› · call in col 1482
lib. i Hist., cap. 1, pag. 401.
Book I of the History, ch. 1, p. 401.
(48*) ‹anchor: noster declarat verbis› · call in col 1482 Pæd. l. i, c. 3, p. 83.
Paedagogus, book I, ch. 3, p. 83.
Page
- running head: IS CLEM. ALEX. OPER. 1482
- marginal letters: A ὑφεστὴς, οἷον; B Τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου,; C Clementis Alexandrini; D chronographorum numero
- old-edition numerals: 358 after institutum
- other: Latin with embedded Greek fragments, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: ὑφεστὴς, οἷον
Librum vero De resurrectione se scripturum semel atque iterum disertissime affirmat : « Sed hoc rursus (ipsa sunt illius verba) a nobis dicetur apertius in libro De resurrectione, Περὶ ἀναστάσεως. » Et iterum alibi eodem plane modo : « Ut pluribus ostendetur in libro De resurrectione. » Utrum autem his ille promissis satisfecerit, nihil omnino comperti habemus.
Moreover, that he would write a book On the Resurrection he affirms once and again most expressly: "But this again (these are his very words) will be stated by us more openly in the book On the Resurrection, On the Resurrection." And again elsewhere in plainly the same manner: "As will be shown at greater length in the book On the Resurrection." Whether, however, he fulfilled these promises, we have nothing at all ascertained.
Nulli autem dubium esse potest publici ab eo juris factam fuisse eam lucubrationem, quam ipse his verbis se composuisse testatur : « Prolixiori oratione tractavimus, quod neque in nominibus, sed neque in partibus ad coitum pertinentibus, et nuptiali congressione, in quibus obtinent nomina, quae usu minime trita sunt, ejus quod vere turpe est, ponitur appellatio. » At in dubium merito vocari potest, an singulari quadam in commentatione, vel in aliquo ex iis, quos jam composuerat, libris argumentum illud tractaverit. Utut sit, magis procul dubio certum videtur factam jam a longo tempore fuisse hujusce lucubrationis jacturam.
Now to no one can it be doubtful that there was made public by him that composition which he himself testifies in these words that he composed: "In a more extended discourse we have treated the point that neither in the names, nor yet in the parts pertaining to coition, and the nuptial union, in which obtain names that are by no means worn by use, is the appellation of that which is truly shameful placed." Yet it can deservedly be called into doubt whether he treated that subject in some single treatise, or in some one of those books which he had already composed. However that may be, it seems more certain without doubt that the loss of this composition occurred a long time ago.
Testatum adhuc ipsemet Clemens facit scriptos a se libros De continentia et De nuptiis. Nam de primo quidem sic ille loquitur : « Et hoc a nobis declaratum est in libro De continentia, ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἐγκρατείας. » De secundo autem : « Et quomodo, inquit, oporteat quidem uxorem simul cum marito vivere, et de domus administratione, et usu famulorum, et quae ab ea seorsim fieri oporteat, et de tempore matrimonii, et de iis quae ad mulieres pertinent, disserimus in libro De nuptiis. » Plura a se hoc in libro pertractata, ac forsitan totius libri argumentum his Clemens verbis explicat. Singulare igitur videtur esse opus, cujus damnum eo magis lugendum, quo majori jam nobis esse posset fructui et utilitati.
Clement himself still bears witness that books On Continence and On Marriage were written by him. For concerning the first indeed he speaks thus: "And this has been declared by us in the book On Continence, in the work On Continence." And concerning the second: "And how," he says, "a wife ought indeed to live together with her husband, and concerning the administration of the household, and the employment of servants, and what things ought to be done by her separately, and concerning the time of marriage, and concerning the things which pertain to women, we discourse in the book On Marriage." Many things treated thoroughly by himself in this book, and perhaps the argument of the whole book, Clement explains in these words. It seems therefore to be a special work, the loss of which is all the more to be mourned, the greater fruit and utility it could now be to us.
De episcoporum, presbyterorum, diaconorum et viduarum officiis se aliquid dicturum, in haec rursus Clemens verba promittit : « Plurima autem alia praecepta, quae ad electas personas pertinent, in sanctis libris scripta sunt ; haec quidem presbyteris, alia vero episcopis, alia diaconis, alia autem viduis, de quibus fuerit aliud dicendi tempus. » Non inde tamen certo colligi potest peculiare aliquid de iis opus, vel commentarium fuisse ab eo scriptis promulgatum.
That he will say something concerning the duties of bishops, presbyters, deacons, and widows, Clement again promises in these words: "Moreover, very many other precepts, which pertain to chosen persons, are written in the sacred books; these indeed for presbyters, and others for bishops, others for deacons, and others for widows, concerning which there will be another time for speaking." Yet it cannot be gathered with certainty thence that any special work or commentary concerning them was published by him in writing.
Alia adhuc plura se scripturum Clemens in suis Stromatum libris pollicitus est. Primum enim postquam varias philosophorum de ultimo fine et beatitudine opiniones retulit, ibi continenter haec subjunxit verba : « Quae autem dicuntur adversus eas, quae dictae sunt, sententias, dicentur suo tempore. » Spondet itaque se contra has philosophorum opiniones, sive potius errores aliquid scriptis traditurum. At autem satis sponsioni suae fecerit, quis compertum habere potuit ?
Still many other things Clement promised in his books of the Stromata that he would write. For first, after he reported the various opinions of the philosophers concerning the ultimate end and happiness, there he immediately subjoined these words: "Now the things which are said against those opinions which have been stated, will be said in their own time." He pledges, therefore, that he will hand down something in writing against these opinions, or rather errors, of the philosophers. Yet whether he satisfied his pledge, who has been able to ascertain?
Postea vero ubi Marcionistas refellit : « Sed adversus eos quidem, cum de principiis, inquit, tractabimus, accuratissime disseremus. » Et rursus paulo post : « Quando autem tractabimus de principiis, tunc et has repugnantias, quas et tacite significant philosophi, et suis dogmatibus decernunt Marcionistae, considerabimus. »
Afterwards, moreover, where he refutes the Marcionites: "But against them indeed," he says, "when we shall treat of first principles, we shall discourse most accurately." And again a little later: "Now when we shall treat of first principles, then we shall also consider these contradictions, which both the philosophers tacitly signify, and the Marcionites decree in their dogmas."
Alium quoque contra eosdem haereticos tractatum De anima his verbis promittit : « Adversus quos fuerit aliud dicendi tempus, cum de anima tractabimus. » Nec semel id dixisse contentus, plures cum eadem De anima, tum De prophetia libros se confecturum sic alibi pollicetur : « Sed quomodo fiat haec divisio, id est, quomodo ad credendum Spiritus sancti gratia in nostras mentes infundatur, et quidnam sit Spiritus sanctus, ostendetur
Another treatise also against the same heretics, On the Soul, he promises in these words: "Against whom there will be another time for speaking, when we shall treat of the soul." And not content to have said this once, he promises elsewhere thus that he will compose several books both on the same subject On the Soul, and On Prophecy: "But how this division takes place, that is, how the grace of the Holy Spirit is infused into our minds for believing, and what the Holy Spirit is, will be
Editors' notes and page, col. 1483
Footnotes
(46) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
Pæd. l. i, c. 6, p. 104.
Paedagogus, book I, ch. 6, p. 104.
(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
l. ii, c. 10, p. 199.
Book II, ch. 10, p. 199.
(48) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
ibid. c. 6, p. 169.
Ibid., ch. 6, p. 169.
(49) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
ibid. c. 10, p. 193.
Ibid., ch. 10, p. 193.
(50) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 (call not visible; inferred from numbering)
l. ii, c. 8, p. 237.
Book II [numeral blurred; possibly III], ch. 8, p. 237.
(51) ‹anchor: verba promittit› · call in col 1483
l. iii, c. 12, p. 264.
Book III, ch. 12, p. 264.
(52) ‹anchor: subjunxit verba› · call in col 1483
Strom. l. ii, p. 419.
Stromata, book II, p. 419.
(53) ‹anchor: Marcionistas refellit› · call in col 1483
l. iii, p. 431.
Book III, p. 431.
(54) ‹anchor: paulo post› · call in col 1483
ibid. p. 434.
Ibid., p. 434.
(55) ‹anchor: verbis promittit› · call in col 1483
ibid. p. 432.
Ibid., p. 432.
(56) ‹anchor: alibi pollicetur› · call in col 1483
l. v, p. 591.
Book V, p. 591.
(57) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 or 1484 (call not visible)
l. iv, p. 511.
Book IV, p. 511.
(58) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot crop› · call in col 1483 or 1484 (call not visible)
ibid. p. 510.
Ibid., p. 510.
Page
- running head: 1483 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOUR
- marginal letters: A Librum vero; B pore fuisse; C alia praecepta,; D tractabimus, accuratissime
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with short Greek titles, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Librum vero; word split at end of column: osten-
- other: the word ostendetur was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1484
a nobis in libris De prophetia et in libris De anima. »
shown by us in the books On Prophecy and in the books On the Soul."
Jam autem superius dixerat fore ut Phryges confutaret : « Cum agemus, inquit, de prophetia. »
Now he had already said earlier that he would confute the Phrygians: "When we shall treat," he says, "of prophecy."
Expende autem an aliud dici debeat illud opus, de quo ipse paulo ante haec scribit in verba : « Quod unus Deus sit, qui praedicatur per legem, et prophetas, et Evangelium, tractabimus. »
Weigh, moreover, whether that work ought to be called another one, concerning which he himself a little before writes in these words: "That there is one God, who is preached through the law, and the prophets, and the Gospel, we shall treat."
At certe ab his libris plane diversa erat ea adversus haereses commentatio, de qua ita ille ibidem : « Quod autem, inquit, hic sit Pater Filii, creator universorum, ad illam distulimus contemplationem, in qua adversus haereses disserere proposuimus. » In animum autem tuum ne, quaeso, inducas eum in fine libri septimi, ubi de variis haereticis disserit, promissa solvisse. Nam illic ibi quidem unde haereses et haeretici nomen suum acceperint ostendit, sed contra eorum errores non disputat.
Yet certainly plainly different from these books was that treatise against heresies, concerning which he speaks thus in the same place: "Now that this is the Father of the Son, the Creator of all things, we have deferred to that contemplation in which we have proposed to discourse against heresies." Do not, however, I pray, persuade yourself that at the end of the seventh book, where he discourses concerning various heretics, he fulfilled his promises. For there indeed he shows whence heresies and heretics received their name, but he does not dispute against their errors.
Contra Cassiani autem de humana anima, ante corpus exsistente, ac de pelliceis Adami et Evae tunicis errores se aliquando in suo de ortu hominis tractatu, sive libro disputaturum his Clemens verbis significat : « Pelliceas autem tunicas existimat Cassianus esse corpora, de quibus postea et eum, et qui idem cum eo sentiunt, aberrasse ostendemus, cum de ortu hominis iis consequenter, quae prius dicenda sunt, aggrediemur expositionem. » Ubi autem, et utrum in octavo Stromatum libro, quem ab Acacio, Caesareae in Palaestina episcopo, citatum vidimus, de ortu hominis, et contra Cassiani errores Clemens disputaverit, nec certum omnino, nec compertum esse ostendimus.
Moreover, that against the errors of Cassian concerning the human soul existing before the body, and concerning the tunics of skin of Adam and Eve, he would at some time dispute in his treatise or book on the origin of man, Clement signifies in these words: "Now Cassian supposes that the tunics of skin are bodies; concerning which we shall show hereafter that both he and those who think the same with him have erred, when we shall enter upon the exposition of the origin of man in sequence to those things which must be said first." Where, however, and whether in the eighth book of the Stromata, which we saw cited by Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Clement disputed concerning the origin of man and against the errors of Cassian, we have shown to be neither altogether certain nor ascertained.
Ipsam vero Prodici haeresim evertere in animo aliquando se habuisse ita adhuc Clemens testatur : « Suo autem tempore adversus impiam exsecrandorum istorum dicetur cognitionem. » Sed id in suo De haeresibus tractatu praestare facile poterat.
Moreover, that he at some time had it in mind to overthrow the very heresy of Prodicus, Clement further testifies thus: "And in its own time we shall speak against the impious knowledge of those execrable men." Yet he could easily perform that in his treatise On Heresies.
Adversus impia quoque Basilidis de μετεμψυχώσει, et diabolo dogmata pugnare nonnunquam Clemens cogitaverat : « Ad illa si quidem dogmata, ait ille, an a corporibus in corpora migret anima, et de diabolo dicetur suo tempore. »
Against the impious dogmas of Basilides also concerning metempsychosis and the devil, Clement had sometimes thought to fight: "For as to those dogmas," he says, "whether the soul migrates from bodies into bodies, and concerning the devil, we shall speak in its own time."
Quae autem de Dei membris dicuntur, allegorice esse intelligenda, « procedente tempore, inquit Clemens, suo loco aperiemus. » Sed his verbis futura hocce de argumento peculiaris aliqua scriptio non videtur indicari. Alium quoque de angelis tractatum ab illo haud prorsus absimili modo promissum fuisse adnotavimus.
Moreover, that the things which are said concerning the members of God are to be understood allegorically, "as time proceeds," says Clement, "we shall lay open in its own place." Yet by these words some special future writing on this subject does not seem to be indicated. We have noted that another treatise also concerning angels was promised by him in a not altogether dissimilar manner.
In sexti quoque Stromatum libri fine leguntur haec Clementis verba : « Qualis autem sit gnosticus in contemplatione rerum naturalium, postea ostendetur : ἐπ' ἂν περὶ γενέσεως κόσμου διαλαμβάνειν ἀρξώμεθα· cum de ortu mundi tractare coeperimus. » Sed his posterioribus verbis ad ea magis, quae de mundi ortu paulo ante dixerat, quam ad alia, quae de illo dicenda erant, alludere videtur. Et re quidem ipsa de gnostico tantum deinceps disserit.
At the end of the sixth book of the Stromata also are read these words of Clement: "Now of what sort the Gnostic is in the contemplation of natural things will be shown hereafter: when we shall begin to treat concerning the genesis of the world; when we shall have begun to treat of the origin of the world." Yet by these latter words he seems to allude more to those things which he had said a little before concerning the origin of the world, than to other things which were to be said about it. And in very fact he discourses thereafter only about the Gnostic.
Denique ad septimi libri calcem posteaquam ille verae Ecclesiae notas et characteres declaravit, tum continenter haec subjunxit : ταυτὶ μὲν οὖν καὶ εἰς ὕστερον· « atque de iis quidem dicetur postea. » Utrum autem fidem ipse suam liberaverit, hancque et alias a se promissas scriptiones publicam emiserit in lucem, dictu sane eo difficilius, quo majus est de iis veterum scriptorum silentium, ac quo magis incertum est utrum ulla ex iis in vulgus unquam prodierit.
Finally, at the close of the seventh book, after he declared the marks and characters of the true Church, he then immediately subjoined these words: "These things, then, also for later; and concerning these things indeed we shall speak hereafter." Whether, however, he himself fulfilled his pledge, and sent forth into public light this and the other writings promised by himself, is assuredly all the more difficult to say, the greater is the silence of ancient writers concerning them, and the more uncertain it is whether any of them ever went forth to the public.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1484
Footnotes
(59) ‹anchor: Quod autem, inquit› · call in col 1484
ibid.
Ibid.
(60) ‹anchor: verbis significat› · call in col 1484
l. iii, p. 456.
Book III, p. 456.
(61) ‹anchor: esse ostendimus› · call in col 1484
sup. c. 2, art. 4.
Above, ch. 2, art. 4.
(62) ‹anchor: Clemens testatur› · call in col 1484
l. vii, p. 722.
Book VII, p. 722.
(63) ‹anchor: ait ille› · call in col 1484
l. iii, p. 507.
Book III, p. 507.
(64) ‹anchor: inquit Clemens› · call in col 1484
l. v, p. 580.
Book V, p. 580.
(65) ‹anchor: fuisse adnotavimus› · call in col 1484
sup. c. 8, art. 2, p. 1005.
Above, ch. 8, art. 2, p. 1005.
(66) ‹anchor: Clementis verba› · call in col 1484
lib. vi Strom., p. 698.
Book VI of the Stromata, p. 698.
(67) ‹anchor: continenter hæc subjunxit› · call in col 1484
l. vii, p. 765.
Book VII, p. 765.
Page
- running head: EX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO III. 1484
- marginal letters: A detur a; B disputat. Contra; C id in; D mus. » Sed
- old-edition numerals: 359 before tantum
- other: Latin with short Greek quotes, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: detur a; word split at beginning of column: detur
- other: footnotes (57) and (58), set in n1483 with "call in col 1483 or 1484", are called in THIS column: (57) at "Cum agemus, inquit", (58) at "scribit in verba" (Q1b, read on the page; n1483 to be corrected to "call in col 1484" with these anchors)
- other: "Nam illic ibi quidem" is printed so (illic, not ille); set as printed (Q1b)
Migne Reading Room