A according to the image of God and after His likeness, he bears within himself symbolically the imitation of Him who created him. For he has within himself the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit B. And I say how: the mind holds the place of the Father; the word, which is begotten of the mind, that of the Son; and the voiced sound of the utterance represents the Spirit. And just as the mind that begets the internal word does not ever pre-exist the word, so neither does the Father who begets the Word of God pre-exist Him. And again, just as the sensible word does not pre-exist our sensible breath, so neither does the Word of God pre-exist the divine and life-giving Spirit; as the example above has demonstrated. And after a few words: For if light is the offspring of the sun, and likewise the radiance of the eye, or the fountain the source of the river, yet the sun never pre-existed the light, nor the eye the radiance, nor the fountain the river; for at the same moment that you have conceived of the sun, at that same moment will you also conceive with it the light begotten from it; and at the same moment that you conceive of the eye, at that same moment will you conceive with it the radiance proceeding from it; just as we conceive of the river together with the fountain: in the same way must one think also concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
See the notes for the rest. Gallandius prefixes the judgment of Cotelier concerning the Clementines to his Dissertation which follows.
CONCERNING THE CLEMENTINES, GALLANDIUS'S PROOEMIAL DISSERTATION
(Vet. Patrum Bibliotheca, t. II. Venice, 1766, in-folio, Proleg., p. Lv.)I. The work of the Clementines is not undistinguished, since it is mentioned and excerpted by the ancient writers of the Church. The various divisions of this work. II. Although it teems with errors, its reading is nevertheless not without profit, especially on account of its manifold doctrine, and for the better understanding of the dogmas of the first heresies. In many respects, the Clementine Recognitiones are similar; which also seem to have suffered interpolation. What the Homilies are. III. The author of the Clementine Recognitiones and Homilies appears to be one and the same. He was of the sect of the Nazarenes. He thinks far otherwise concerning the Son of God than the Ebionites. IV. He acknowledges a twofold nature in Christ. V. He teaches that all things were created by Him. VI. His conflict with the Ebionites is perceived from many other principles. VII. Concerning the time at which the work of the Homilies is thought to have been written. In what way this edition has been prepared.
I. This is the judgment of JEAN-BAPTISTE COTELIER (Patres apostolici, I, 606) concerning the work of the Clementines: C “Among the many apocrypha which the ancients attributed to Clement of Rome, and on account of which Sozomen (1) seems to make him the first of ecclesiastical historians, this one is not undistinguished: for it is excerpted by John of Damascus; and it is specifically mentioned in the Athanasian Synopsis, the Alexandrian Chronicle, the Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus, in the Collectanea of Anastasius the presbyter or another, and in the Pandects of Nikon, to be cited below concerning Homily XII, chapter 25, and it has been reduced into an Epitome by Metaphrastes. And that it was seen by Epiphanius (2), Anastasius the Antiochene (3), Maximus (4), and Cedrenus (5) is gathered, if their cited passages are compared with our Clementines (6). Moreover, Nicephorus CP. had perhaps even named the Clementines in his Stichometry or Canon of the Scriptures: and where it is now read, in Scaliger and Croy, *Clement 36*, but in the *Critici sacri* vol. VIII: *Clement 32*, that is, with Anastasius the Librarian as interpreter, *of Clement*, there it was originally written *Clementina 36*, or *Clementina 26*. For the said Synopsis, which Nicephorus follows, has *Clementina*. But if you retain 36, you will either say that the division of this work was once varied, like that of the Recognitiones; or trusting to the authority of Francis Turrianus (who finding that...
manuscript in a letter to Cardinal Hosius, in his A *Defense for the Canons of the Apostles and the Epistles of the Pontiffs*, cites from Book VIII the passage which you will read here, Hom. XVII, 15, and in the *Defense*, Book V, last chapter, from Books VI and V, the passages of Hom. XI, 22, and Hom. XVI, 12; while in his *Explanations of the Apostolic Constitutions*, Book II, chapter 36, he praises from Book VII the passage Hom. XVIII, 4), you will say that another book of the same character was joined to this volume, for instance one that contained the disputes of Peter and Apion. "But if you prefer to correct the number to 20, you will be able to understand the twenty homilies, the Epistle of Peter and James with their attestation, and the Epistle of Clement to the same James. You may also, by separating the Epistle of Peter from the attestation, believe that the Epistle of Clement was omitted. Certainly, from Epiphanius (7), Rufinus (8), Photius (9), and this collection of ours, it is established that apocrypha were ascribed to Clement concerning the journeys, discourses, acts, and disputes of Peter; and concerning the recognition of Clement and his parents and brothers, that they were written in various ways, interpolated, corrupted, and intermingled; and that the Epistle of Peter to James was accustomed to be prefixed to certain books, and in others the Epistle of Clement to the same, and in others both; although the same work followed regardless, starting with 'I, Clement.' Whence it also happens that the thirty-two books of Nicephorus may perhaps have comprised the ten books of the *Recognitiones*."
II. And indeed, the *Clementina* which we provide, although they teem with trifles and errors B stemming from semi-Christian philosophy and heresy, especially Ebionite, are nonetheless read not without profit, both on account of the elegance of their language, the cause of their manifold doctrine, and finally for the better understanding of the dogmas of the early heresies. In many respects, however, the *Clementina* are similar to the *Recognitiones*: whence Turrianus probably supposed them to be another edition of the *Recognitiones*, of which Rufinus speaks in his preface; although the author of the *Synopsis* distinguishes the *Periods of Peter* from the *Clementina*. But I conjecture that interpolation has been practiced in these homilies, and that not just once, from these facts: 1. from the similar fate of kindred apocrypha; 2. because what is brought forward in the *Chronicon Alexandrinum* and by Maximus is not a little different, nor indeed is what is sometimes brought forward by Damascenus; 3. from this corruption of the Eunomians, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and He created also the Son,' which Turrianus draws from Ammonius in his Greek preface to the *Apostolic Constitutions*; 4. because a passage cited from the manuscript of the Claromontan library among the testimonies of the ancients speaks of a writer other than ours and one more pious; perhaps the one whose fragment *On the Holy Spirit* you have below, in the Appendix of monuments dedicated to the *Recognitiones of Clement*, num. 1; 5. finally, Nicephorus says (10) that the *Clementia* are accepted by the Church, but he would in no way have attributed that merit to Clement if he had encountered them in a purged state. I hold the same judgment regarding the old scholiast, who is mentioned in the annotations of the most learned Henricus Valesius to Eusebius, *Hist.* lib. II, cap. 38. But perhaps Nicephorus and that scholiast had seen only the *Epitome* of Simeon Metaphrastes, or another similar to it. Moreover, the fact that in the *Synopsis* of Athanasius, the *Clementina* are referred to among the books of the New Testament which are contradicted, but in Nicephorus of Constantinople among the apocrypha, the reason is a manifest lacuna in the Athanasian codex. You will easily recognize this from the context, and you will complete it by means of Nicephorus and Anastasius. C
"Homilies are the same as 'proclamations' or 'discourses,' colloquies, sermons, preachings, dissertations, Epistle to James, ch. 2; Epitome, num. 145; Clementines 1, 20." Thus far Cotelerius.
III. But in order that the author of the *Clementina* may be more fully known, and at the same time purged in the first place from the impious taint of Ebionism, with which some, both of the ancients and the moderns, claim he was stained, it will be worth the effort to bring forward here the researches written on this matter by a learned man, which the studious reader will not regret having examined. Thus, therefore, the author of this most excellent work (11): "The similarity between the *Clementina* Homilies and the *Recognitiones* is so great that to some they appear to be one and the same work, but issued more than once. That this writer was circumcised, and an observer of the Mosaic law in the very midst of the Christian religion, I judge is not to be doubted by anyone. For both in the *Recognitiones* and in the *Homilies*, Peter is introduced in many places as either practicing Jewish purifications himself, or enjoining them on others, and not eating with Gentiles who had not yet been initiated by baptism. After the Epistle of Peter to James, James is introduced gravely ordaining that the books of the *Preachings of Peter* should not be committed to anyone unless he is a faithful circumcised person. See *Recognit.* lib. IV, cap. 3; lib. V, cap. 36; and lib. VIII, cap. 1; and *Homil.* I, cap. 19; X, capp. 1 and 26; XI, capp. 28, 29, 30, 31; XIII, capp. 4 and 9.
"Origen cited these books (12): which indeed demonstrates their antiquity. They were written at the end of the second century, and after the year 170, if their generator was changed from Bardesanes, which, drawn by Eusebius (13) from the book of Bardesanes, are read in the same words in *Recognit.* lib. IX, cap. 19. Epiphanius, who did not see these books as entirely foisted upon Clement, D deemed them to have been corrupted by the Ebionites (14); and to their perfidious hands he attributes
A whatever seemed to accord little with the doctrine of Clement. Cotelerius considers the Clementine Homilies to be marked with the characteristics of the Ebionite heresy; Tillemont considers them useful for nothing, unless perhaps for the knowledge of the doctrine of the Ebionites. It seems to favor their opinion that the author of the Homilies, especially in Homil. 1, cap. 38, declares that false things were mixed with true in the holy Scriptures: a judgment concerning the Scriptures which was indeed common to the Ebionites and customary, as Cotelerius rightly observes. But since Philo himself, regarding the formation of Eve from Adam’s rib, does not hesitate to pronounce (15) that "what has been said on this matter is fabulous," it must be admitted that this temerity was not peculiar to the Ebionites, but had long been devised by the Jews as a way to clear up more easily those places in Scripture whose appearance seemed quite absurd. Although it must be confessed that the author of the Homilies speaks much more audaciously and ineptly than Philo. But what evidently proves that this writer, even though he was circumcised and studious of retaining the Law, was by no means an Ebionite, is set forth in the Homilies and in the Recognitions concerning the Son of God, which are thoroughly abhorrent to the Ebionite heresy. B "There is no one who does not perceive the immense discrepancy of this writer from the Ebionites, if one reads what is narrated by the pseudo-Clement, Homil. 1, cap. 7, that he had heard at Rome under Tiberius, when a certain man was publicly crying out: 'Roman men, listen: the Son of God is present in Judea.' He adds that upon hearing this, he was grieved that no one from such a great multitude of people, having received such a great message, said: 'I shall set out for Judea, so that I may find out whether this man who brings these things speaks the truth;' C namely, ὅτι Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἐπιδεδήμηκεν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, 'that the Son of God has come to Judea.'" Such admiration for the announced arrival of the Son of God in Judea, as it excellently expresses his pre-existence (for no one would say that the prophet Isaiah arrived in Judea), also demonstrates that some great mystery is being observed in the spirit, which deviates far from the fabrications of the Socinians and Arians. With this notion of the Son of God, what is said in Lib. 1 Recogn., cap. 33, that the true Prophet (by which name he designates Christ) was seen by Abraham, marvelously squares. It is narrated that he appeared to Moses in cap. 34. Whoever has not learned the truth from him, they are said to have not found it, and to have died seeking it, Homil. 11, cap. 6: "Ὅσοι ποτὲ ἀλήθειαν γνῶναι ἐπεθύ- μησαν, παρὰ δὲ τούτου μαθεῖν αὐτὴν οὐκ εὐτύχη- σαν, μὴ εὑρόντες, ζητοῦντες ἐτελεύτησαν." Simon Magus, Homil. XVII, cap. 4, in order to prove that God was previously unknown and preached by Christ, uses these words: "No one knows the Father, except the Son;" then he adds: "Εἰ οὖν αὐτὸς Υἱὸς ἦν ὁ παρών, ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, οἷς ἐβούλετο τὸν πᾶσιν ἄγνω- στον ἀπεκάλυπτεν.—If, therefore, he who arrived was himself the Son, after his arrival, he revealed to whom he wished him who was unknown to all." These reasonings of Simon the Magus, taken from Christian principles, are evidence that Christ was not worshipped by them as a simple man who is called the Son of God in name only, but as the Son of God himself, who came into this world from heaven. IV. D Those things which Peter responds to this argument of Simon demonstrate the dual nature of Christ, Homil. XVII, cap. 13: "Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ δύναται ὁ λόγος εἰρῆσθαι πρὸς πάντας Ἰουδαίους, τοὺς πατέρα νομίζοντας εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸν Δαβίδ· καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν Υἱὸν ὄντα, καὶ Υἱὸν Θεοῦ μὴ ἐγνωκέναι. Διὸ καὶ οἰκείως εἴρηται· Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν Πατέρα· ἐπεὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν Δαβὶδ πάντες ἔλεγον. Τὸ δὲ ἐπάξαντα εἰπεῖν· Ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν Υἱόν τις οἶδεν· ἐπεὶ αὐτὸν Υἱὸν οὐκ ᾔδεισαν. Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν· Οἷς ἂν βούληται ὁ Υἱός ἀποκαλύψαι· ὀρθῶς εἴρηται. Ὁ γὰρ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ὢν Υἱός, μόνος ὡρίσθη, ἵνα οἷς βούληται ἀπο- καλύψῃ.—For first, the word can be spoken to all the Jews who thought David to be the father of Christ, and did not know him, the Christ, to be the Son, and the Son of God. Wherefore it is also aptly said: 'No one knew the Father,' since instead of God, all called David the father. And the addition of saying: 'As no one knows the Son,' since they did not know him to be the Son. And the saying: 'To whom the Son may wish to reveal him,' is rightly said. For he who is the Son from the beginning was alone ordained that he might reveal to whom he wishes." Truly, the first testimony can be said to be directed toward all the Jews, who thought David was the father of Christ, because they did not know Christ to be the Son (of man), and the Son of God. Wherefore it is aptly said, No one knows the Father, because they all called David the father instead of God. And regarding what he subjoins, Nor does anyone know the Son, because they did not know him to be the Son. And regarding what he says, To whom the Son wills to reveal, it is correct. For he who is the Son from the beginning is alone destined to reveal to whom he desires. A very accurate discussion, indeed, concerning the eternity of the Son and his generation from the Father. The Son of God and man is called the Son from the beginning: and so that it may be clear how great a distance there is between the Father and the creator, and between the Son and the created thing, the Jews are said to have been ignorant of God insofar as He is the Father of Christ, although they knew Him well as the creator of all. Many things in the books of the Recognitions provide for the same sentiment. Lib. 1, cap. 45, these things are read: "When he was both the Son of God and the beginning of all things, he became man." And cap. 69: "Do not think that we say there are two unbegotten Gods, or that one is divided into two, or, as the impious say, the same male and female effect of himself; but we say he is the only-begotten Son of God, not from another beginning, but ineffably born from him himself. Similarly, we also say the same concerning the Paraclete." And lib. 11, cap. 48: "But our Master, who is the Son of God and man, is manifestly good: but that he truly is the Son, it has been said to those to whom it was necessary and will be said." Hence, cap. 2 of the same book, Simon is indignant that the Son is attributed to God as if to an animal. V. That all things were created by the Son is confirmed in many places: "Υἱοῦ ἐστιν τοῦ οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν δια- κοσμήσαντος,—He is the Son of him who arranged the heaven and earth," says Peter, Homil. XVI, cap. 6, "τῷ ᾧ βούλεται ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν ἐν ἀποῤῥήτοις Πατέρα.—to whom he wishes to reveal the Father who is in secret." It pertains to the Son, the framer of heaven and earth, to reveal the Father himself, placed in the hidden things, to whom he wishes. And Homil. XVI, cap. 11 and 12, to Simon, who objects that there are two creators because God said, "Let us make," Peter thus answers: "One...
is He who by His own Wisdom said: Let us make man. And with this Wisdom, as with His own Spirit, He always rejoiced." He is united as the soul to God, and He extends from Him as a hand creating the universe. There is one who said to His Wisdom: "Let us make man." And in this Wisdom, as in Its own proper Spirit, He always Himself rejoiced. It is united to God, as is the soul: but from Him it is extended as a hand, producing the universe. Hence, in these words of Homil. XI, cap. 22: "The Spirit from the God who made all things has the beginning of [His] extension"—I think it should be read: "the Spirit from God who made all things, has the beginning of extension." Water is said to be made through the Only-Begotten, lib. VII Recogn., cap. 8. See cap. 7 of the same book, and capp. 34 and 40, lib. V. From which it is evident that the pseudo-Clement, although he was involved in many relics of Judaism, held nevertheless the same view as the other ecclesiastical writers concerning the creation of the world through the Son; against which view the Socinians are pleased to object, who pretend that this doctrine was entirely unknown to the circumcised Christians, and was introduced by those who embraced the religion of the philosophers. B
«By many other things is the similarity of this writer's words and sentiments with the Catholics declared. Christ is said to know all things, Homil. VIII, cap. 21. That He alone can illuminate souls, and alone reveal the truth, Homil. II, cap. 4. That He alone unchangeably sees the Father, Hom. XVI, cap. 16. "For to see the Father unchangeably belongs to the Son alone." The books of the Recognitions hold the same, especially lib. V, cap. 10, where we read these things: "For this is the true Prophet who appeared to us in Judea, as you have heard: who, standing publicly, by a mere command made the blind to see, the deaf to hear; put demons to flight, restored health to the sick, and life to the dead. And since nothing was impossible for Him, He even perceived the thoughts of men: which is possible to none, save God alone."
«Nor must that principle be omitted which is common to this writer with the other ecclesiastical writers: that gods are not to be worshipped, even if they are called ministers of the supreme and omnipotent God; but that this honor is to be rendered to the Father alone, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: in which matter, indeed, he cannot escape the stigma of insanity if he numbered the Son and the Holy Spirit among created things. He teaches the first in Homil. X, cap. 15 and 16, and Recogn. lib. V, cap. 19. He testifies to the second in many places. Concerning the worship of the Father and the Son, Peter speaks thus in lib. X Recognit., cap. 47: "For what is there in which any one should have to oppose our preaching? Or in which the discourse of our preaching is detected to be against the faith of truth and honesty? Which says that God and the Father of all, the Creator, is to be honored, and His Son, who alone knows Him and His will, and to whom alone is to be believed whatever He has commanded; for He alone is the law and the legislator and the judge C just. They teach that one and the same worship is to be applied to the most holy Trinity, which are read in Homil. III, cap. 72: "For Thine is the eternal glory, praise, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen." To Thee, indeed, belongs eternal glory, praise, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, for all ages. Amen. Hence Homil. IX, cap. 23, baptism is said to be administered: "By a thrice-blessed invocation:" which clearly is to be understood of the three Persons from these words in lib. I Recognit., cap. 63: "Finally, however," says Peter, "I admonished them, that before we proceed to the Gentiles to preach to them the knowledge of God the Father, they should be reconciled to God by receiving His Son. For otherwise, in no way could it be shown that they could be saved, unless they hastened to be cleansed by the grace of the Holy Spirit with a trine invocation in baptism."
VI. "In the same place, Jesus is called the eternal Christ." That this may be understood, what force and meaning it has, it must be observed that Jesus is so called to oppose Simon, who called himself Christ and 'the Standing One.' [Greek text omitted.] "He proclaims himself for our true Christ," says Aquila, Homil. II, cap. 22. Furthermore, by that name he declares himself greater than the creator of the world, in the same place. Cap. 24, thus to Dositheus who was asking: "Tell me, if you are 'the Standing One,' that I may worship you," Simon answers: "I am;" and immediately Dositheus fell down; and worshipped him. Nicetas, cap. 28, addresses the same Simon thus: "You cannot be God: fear Him, who is truly God." Similarly, Simon is worshipped, lib. II Recognit., cap. 11. In the same book, cap. 14, he is called by a ridiculous term, the incorruptible God. There is no doubt, therefore, that the pseudo-Clement, when he contends that Jesus is the true and eternal Christ, attributes to Him all that Simon arrogated to himself by the highest impiety. D
«It must not be dissembled that some things occur in these books which were said less conveniently concerning Christ, and which seemed to Rufinus very similar to the tenets of Eunomius, and which led Epiphanius to attach to the Ebionites—by whom he thought these books were interpolated—a sentiment twin to the Arian, against the testimony of all antiquity; nay, even against his own, who declares that Christ is held to be a mere man by the Ebionites. But since Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius have imitated these things, the time will be more opportune to deal with them when we apply our efforts to solving the more difficult passages of the holy Fathers.
«But from these things which we have brought forward, it is easily perceived that this writer not only has nothing that savors of the error of the Ebionites, but also thinks rightly concerning the eternity, omnipotence, and true generation of the Son from the Father. Wherefore, regarding those things which Justin (16), Jerome (17), and Augustine (18) testify concerning the Nazarenes, namely that they acknowledged the divinity of the Son; who would call these into doubt, when they rely upon such great authors, and when in the writer [they are] boldly [defending] the observation of the law...