Various Prefaces

S. CLEMENT I, POPE OF ROME

NOTICE FROM THE PONTIFICAL BOOK OF POPE DAMASUS

Clement, by nation a Roman and from the Caelian Hill district, son of Faustinus, held office for 9 years, 11 months, and 10 days. He lived in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulship of Traulus and Italicus until the ninth year of Vespasian and Titus. Being a man who wrote many books with great zeal for the faith and the Christian religion, he was crowned with martyrdom. He had the seven regions divided among faithful notaries of the Church, so that each might search diligently and carefully for the deeds of the martyrs in his own region. He wrote two epistles that are called Canonical. By the command of blessed Peter, he undertook the government of the Church’s pontificate, just as the chair had been handed down or committed to him by the Lord Jesus Christ. However, you will find in the Epistle written to James how the Church was committed to him by blessed Peter. Linus and Cletus are written down before him because they were ordained as bishops by the Prince of Apostles himself to perform the priestly ministry. He performed two ordinations in the month of December, appointing ten presbyters, two deacons, and fifteen bishops for various places. He died a martyr in the third year of Trajan. He was buried in Greece on the 23rd of November, and the episcopate was vacant for 21 days.

VARIOUS HISTORICAL AND LITERARY PROOEMIA TO THE EPISTLES OF SAINT CLEMENT I, POPE

I. FROM THE EDITION OF COTELERIUS

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES REGARDING THE EPISTLES OF SAINT CLEMENT

Old Interpretation: The blessed apostles, therefore, having founded and built up the Church, handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his letters to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded him. After him, in the third place from the apostles, ^A Clement obtained the episcopate;

[Greek text translated in the side-by-side columns above]

Interpretation of Valesius: The Church having now been founded and built, the most blessed apostles handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in his letters to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After whom, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtained the pontificate;

^A who also saw the blessed apostles themselves, and conferred with them; and still had the preaching of the apostles sounding in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes. And not he alone; for many were still surviving at that time who had been taught by the apostles. Under this Clement, a no small dissension having arisen among those who were in Corinth, the Church of Rome wrote a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, calling them to peace, and repairing their faith, and announcing the tradition which it had so recently received from the apostles, announcing one God omnipotent, maker of heaven and earth, fashioner of man, who brought about the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people out of the land of Egypt, who spoke with Moses, who arranged the Law, and sent the prophets, and who prepared fire for the devil and his angels. That this Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is preached by the Church, those who wish can learn from the Scripture itself, and from the apostolic tradition of the Church; since the epistle is older than those who now falsely teach, and invent another God above the Demiurge and creator of all things that are.

II

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS; Stromata, lib. I, cap. 7, edit. Oxon., a. 1715, tom. I, p. 359.

If you seek the royal and authentic entrance, you will hear: *This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter into it.* Since, therefore, many gates are opened in righteousness, this is to be found in Christ. CLEM. epist. I, cap. 48.

IDEM, ibid., lib. et cap. citt.

Immediately, Clement in his letter to the Corinthians says, word for word, explaining the distinction of those who are approved in the Church: "Let a man be faithful; let him be powerful to explain knowledge; let him be wise in the discretion of words; ^B let him be urgent in works." A passage existing in the same cap. 48, epist. I.

IDEM, ibid., lib. IV, cap. 47, tom. I, pp. 609, 610.

Moreover, the apostle Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, also describing to us a certain image of the Gnostic, says: "For who that has sojourned among you," etc. Epist. I, capp. I, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53.

IDEM, ibid., lib. V, cap. 12, tom. II, pag. 693.

But also in the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians it is written: "The ocean is impassable to men, and the worlds beyond it." Epist. I, cap. 20.

IDEM, ibid., lib. VI, cap. 8, tom. II, pag. 773.

"By so much the more ought he to be humble, by how much he seems to be greater," says Clement in his letter to the Corinthians. Epist. I, cap. 48. ^C

III

ORIGENES, De Principiis, lib. II, cap. 3, num. 6, edit. Paris., 1733, tom. I, pag. 82.

Clement, disciple of the apostles, indeed makes mention even of those whom the Greeks called antipodes, and of other parts of the world to which neither can anyone of our own people gain access, nor can those who are there ^D

transit to us; whom he also called worlds, when he says: "The ocean is impassable to men, and those worlds which are beyond it are governed by these same ordinances of the Lord, the Master." And, having interposed a few words... Yet from these things which Clement seemed to indicate when he says: "The ocean which is impassable to men, and those worlds which are beyond it": by naming the worlds that are beyond it in the plural, and signifying that they are directed and ruled by the same providence of God, he seems to scatter for us certain seeds of this kind of understanding, so that the whole totality of those things which are and subsist—the heavenly and the super-celestial, the earthly and the infernal—might be thought to be called one and perfect world, within which or by which (if any such there be) they are to be thought to be contained. Epist. 1, cap. 20.

IDEM, in Ezechiel., cap. 8, tom. III, pag. 422, A. Clement also says: "The ocean is impassable to men, and the worlds which are beyond it are governed by such great ordinances of the Lord." Epist. 1, cap. 20.

IDEM, in Joan., tom. IX. part. 11, pag. 143, edit. Huet. Colon., 1685.

[IV] It is also reported and attested among the Gentiles that many, when pestilential diseases were attacking, gave themselves up as victims for their country; and Clement, that faithful man—to whom Paul bears witness, saying, "With Clement, etc." (Phil. 4:3)—believing the histories not without reason, admits that these things happened in this way. Epist. 1, cap. 55.

EUSEBIUS, Hist. eccl., lib. III, cap. 16.

Of this Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians

IDEM, ibid., lib. III, cap. 38. Clement, in the Epistle which he writes to the Corinthians, makes mention of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, and uses its testimonies. Whence it is evident that the Apostle wrote it in his native language to those who were Hebrews, and as some report, the evangelist Luke, or, as others say, this very Clement, translated it. And what is more true is that the very style of Clement’s Epistle corresponds with this one, and the meaning of both scriptures bears a very great similarity. It is said, however, that there is another Epistle of Clement, of which we have received no notice.

But we do not know this one to be as well-recognized as the former, for we do not know that the ancients used it. ^A And the writing of Clement which is acknowledged is plain. Learn, however, that it is possible, after what he has said regarding the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, to add these things. In this very same writing, he also mentions the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, showing that from olden times, by ancient custom, it was the practice of the Church to read it. He says, therefore: "We have passed the holy Lord’s day today, in which we have read your Epistle; which we shall always have for reading for our admonition, even as also the former one written to us by Clement." ^B He makes use in these same books, indeed, of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures: namely, the Wisdom called Solomon’s, and that of Jesus Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Barnabas, and Clement, and Jude.

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Catecheses XVIII, cap. 8.

^B And with a few words following: God knew this stubbornness of men in believing, and provided for this purpose a bird, called the phoenix. This, as Clement writes, and many others relate, being unique, coming into the region of the Egyptians every five hundred years, shows the resurrection: not in desert places, lest the mystery of what takes place remain hidden, but appearing in a conspicuous city, so that that which is disbelieved may be touched by hand. For, having built itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh and the rest of the spices, and in the completion of the years entering into this, it dies openly and decays. Then from out the rotting flesh of the dead bird a worm is born; and this, having grown, is formed into a bird. Then, having grown wings—

^A the aforementioned phoenix, and becomes perfect just as the former one was, it flies off into the air, such as it was when it died, showing humans a most manifest resurrection of the dead. Epist. 1, cap. 25.

VI.

EPIPHANIUS, Against the Carpocratians, Heresy 27, num. 6.

For he says in one of his epistles: "I depart, I go away; let the people of God be steadfast," counseling this to some; for we found this lying in certain commentaries. Epist. 1, cap. 54.

THE SAME, Against the Ebionites, Heresy 30, num. 15.

Clement himself refutes them (the Ebionites) in every way by those circular epistles of his which are read in the holy Churches, from which it is evident that his faith and discourse are of a far different character than those things forged by them under his name in the "Circuits" (Periodoi). For he teaches virginity, and they do not accept it; he praises Elijah, and David, and Samson, and all the prophets, whom these people loathe. ^B

VII.

JEROME, Book on Illustrious Men, cap. 15, with the ancient Greek interpreter.

Clement, of whom the Apostle Paul, writing to the Philippians, says: "With Clement and my other fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life," was the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter. For the second was Linus, the third Anacletus, although many of the Latins suppose that Clement was the second after the Apostle Peter. ^C He wrote on behalf of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth a very wonderful epistle, which is read publicly in open places, and which in its character agrees with Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, not only in its meanings, but also in its words. And, in short, there is a very great similarity in both. There is also reported to be another epistle in his name, which is rejected by all. And a dialogue of Peter and Apion composed in a long discourse, which Eusebius refutes in the third volume of his Ecclesiastical History. He passed away in the third year of Trajan, and a church built at Rome preserves the memory of him to this day. ^D

THE SAME, Book I against Jovinian, cap. 7.

To these (the eunuchs) Clement, the successor of the Apostle Peter, whom the Apostle Paul mentions (Phil. iv, 3), also writes epistles, and has woven almost his entire discourse on the purity of virginity.

THE SAME, Book I, Commentary on Isaiah, lii, 13.

Clement, an apostolic man who ruled the Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians: "The scepter of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the boastfulness of pride, although He can do all things, but in humility." Epist. 1, cap. 16.

THE SAME, Book II, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, ii, 2.

We also ask what is meant by: "In which you once walked according to the age of this world"; whether there is another age which does not pertain to this world, but to other worlds, of which Clement also writes in his epistle: "The Ocean, and the worlds that are beyond it." Epist. 1, cap. 20.

THE SAME, ibid., Book II, on cap. iv, 6.

Of which matter Clement is also a witness to the Corinthians: "Who can describe the bond of the love of God?" Epist. 1, cap. 49.

VIII. PSEUDO-JUSTIN, or the author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, in the response to quæst. 74 (inter Opera S. Justini martyris, p. 469, B, Paris edit. 1742).

If the end of the present order of things is the judgment of the impious by fire, as the Scriptures of the prophets and the apostles testify, and also the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in his Epistle to the Corinthians. ^A

IX. DOROTHEUS, Archimandrite, doctrine 23, near the end.

For as Saint Clement also says: Even if one is not crowned, let him nevertheless strive not to be found far from those being crowned. Epist. 2, cap. 7.

X. GEORGE SYNCELLUS, Chronogr., p. 344, Paris edit.

His (Clement's) epistle, which is considered the one genuine one to the Corinthians, is brought forward as having been written by the Roman Church, when an insurrection had arisen at Corinth at that time, as Hegesippus testifies; which is also received by the Church. ^B

XI. PHOTIUS, Biblioth., cod. 113.

This is that Clement, of whom the divine Paul says to the Philippians: "With Clement and my other fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life." He also wrote an epistle to the Corinthians worthy of note, which was held in such estimation by many that it was even accustomed to be read publicly. But the one said to be the second to the same is rejected as spurious, just as the long discourse which falsely bears the name of Peter himself and of Apion. Some affirm that he held the episcopate of Rome second after Peter, but others the fourth; for they say that Linus and Anacletus were bishops of Rome between him and Peter, and that he ended his life in the third year of Trajan. ^C

THE SAME, ibid., cod. 126.

I read a book in which two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians were contained: the first of which accuses them because, through insurrections, disturbances, and dissensions, they had destroyed the peace and concord which ought to have prevailed among them, and it exhorts them to cease from this evil. It is simple and clear in its diction, and approaches an ecclesiastical and unelaborated style of speaking. Someone might indeed find fault with him in these concerning: firstly, that he supposes that there are certain worlds outside the ocean; and secondly, perhaps, that he uses the bird, the phoenix, as a most truthful example; and thirdly, that while naming our Lord Jesus Christ High Priest and President, he did not utter the divine and more sublime expressions concerning Him; although he nowhere openly blasphemes Him in these writings. The second epistle also introduces training and exhortation toward a better life, and in the beginning proclaims Christ as God. However, he introduces certain strange sayings as if from Holy Scripture; by which not the first... ^D

^A nor the second was entirely spared. Moreover, it contains interpretation of certain sayings that are alien; further, the thoughts contained in them are somehow thrown together, and they do not keep a continuous order and consequence.

XII. ANASTASIUS the Librarian, Eccl. Hist., Paris ed., p. 17. The Epistle of this (Clement) is reported to have been sent to the Corinthians, which the whole Church receives, as Hegesippus bears witness.

XIII. NICON the monk, in Pandect. serm. 18. Clement of Rome: "It is therefore just and holy... in dissension and seditions (if men steer us) to turn us away from what is right and honorable. Let us therefore follow those who with piety... Far be it from me... Let us therefore cleave to the innocent and ^B just: for these are the elect of God. For it is written: Cleave to the holy, for those who cleave to them shall be sanctified. And the Lord says: He who has confessed me... of my Father. In what, however... (not despising) his commandments." Epist. 1, ch. 14, 15 and 46; Epist. 2, ch. 3.

JUDGMENTS OF MORE RECENT AUTHORS

THE PREFACE OF PATRICK YOUNG.

If, friendly reader, you desire to know more fully about our Clement and his writings, you can consult at your leisure Gregory of Tours, in *The Glory of Martyrs*, Simeon Metaphrastes, the biographers of the Roman Pontiffs, Baronius, the founder of the Annals, Sixtus of Siena, Bellarmine, and others who have handed down to us ecclesiastical writers and their works. Content with this cloud of illustrious witnesses, which we have set forth in advance, we cease to abuse your eyes and patience any longer, and regarding the faith and authority of this work, which is genuine and indisputable, we forbear from adding more of our own, lest we seem to wish to lend light to the sun and kindle a dim torch at noonday. But before you gird yourself for the reading of this divine and truly apostolic writing, allow us, I pray, to warn you in a few words about the antiquity of the exemplar which we have used and about our plain and rough translation. Cyril, who today holds the patriarchate at Constantinople, a man distinguished for piety and learning, when he was leaving the Alexandrian see from Egypt, brought with him a great store of books, among which he transmitted as a gift to our most serene King ^C the most ancient and by far the most precious codex of all (in which the books of the Old and New Testament were beautifully inscribed in larger letters, by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian woman, about the time of the first Nicene Council), through the most distinguished and famous man Sir Thomas Roe, a knight, and orator of our most serene King to the Emperors of the Turks, when he was returning from the East. At the end of this venerable codex and most precious treasure, on torn membranes, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was appended, written in the same hand, which we now bring to light for the public good and for your use. Not unmindful of the Pythagorean law (which, as Synesius is author in his *Dion*, "does not permit one to tamper with books, but wants them to remain as they were in the first hand, whatever fate or art they may have had"), we have expressed it as faithfully as possible, changing nothing, adding nothing of our own, not a syllable, not a letter, not an apex or one iota. But the lost words and letters worn away by age we have supplied, having measured the spaces and intervals most accurately, according to the modesty of our small talent, and we have marked them with red minium (a new and unusual type of printing); which was done by us deliberately, lest by referring you too often to the notes, we might create useless annoyance for you, or defile the margin of the book too much with frequent supplements and emendations; and finally, lest we should snatch away the free conjecture of more fortunate industries and more ^D conjectural minds for a freer judgment. In the rest of the work also, we have expunged very many errors, and as

far as our ability and capacity permitted, we have striven to ensure that all things should appear as corrected as possible. Yet we wish this to be accepted ^A in such a way that we do not believe ourselves to have attained this, but rather that we have labored to attain it, and perhaps not in vain; provided only that you show yourself a candid judge of our labors, and a kind interpreter of our diligence, such as it is. The author's style and manner of writing smack of the primitive simplicity, and the tender cradles of the still-nascent Church, in which the ancient Fathers and the first nurses of the Church, were reared; they brought forward into the midst nothing haughty or lofty, nor anything painted with cultured speech to catch the allurements of a popular audience; but, as Cyprian says to Donatus, they made use of words ^B not eloquent but forceful, and simple with an unpolished truth. Wherefore, if you expect in our version the charm of eloquence or the brilliance of rhetorical speech, you will be disappointed; fidelity, not adornment or elegance of words, was before our eyes in this business. What remains is, support our efforts, and grant fuller aid to this undertaking of ours, and rescue other ancient works, which commend their memory to you, from the injury of oblivion; while you consult for their immortality, you will likewise provide for your own. Farewell, and think on eternity. Oxford, the day before the Kalends of November, 1632.

PRELIMINARY NOTE OF THE SAME

The bishops of the primitive Church, not only ^C attended with diligence to the flocks committed to them, as Paul admonishes, whom they instructed with word and speech and a holy and blameless manner of life; but truly also, that they might show the love of the Spirit, an undivided charity, one faith, one Church, and one episcopate, they extended their care and concern to the far-distant, and those whom they could not instruct by word of mouth, because of the distance of places, in the word of the Lord and true piety, they did not cease to admonish, advise, and sometimes rebuke by letters, and to address and exhort the whole fraternity (as Cyprian speaks in his letters written to the Roman clergy) to pray for the mercy of God: and in this twofold manner they preached the Gospel of Christ. Which Clement of Alexandria calls

preaching clearly and not preaching clearly, the word

^A at the end of the works of Fulgentius; and I pray that this may happen one day, and that our hopes may not be found vain! This is made known to us by the catalog of the manuscripts of the Lobienses brothers, which we possess at home, written 400 years ago.

From the French letter of V. A. Hieronymus Bignonius to Hugo Grotius, dated in Paris on August 7, 1633.

I would like to know your judgment concerning the Epistle of Clement newly published in England. The trustworthiness of the manuscript, which is said to have been brought from the East and donated to the King of Great Britain, the sincerity of Patrick Young ^B who edited it, and the testimonies drawn from that epistle by the ancients, which can still be read in this one, led me at first to believe that the Epistle of Clement was genuine. Afterwards, a certain character of the style and the spirit, so to speak, of that age seemed to me so present in it that there was scarcely room for doubt. Nevertheless, as I read it, I confess that some things occur in it that are alien to the apostolic style. There are frequent epithets and florid formulas that seem to savor of a later age, such as the Liturgies and the Euchologia of the Greeks. The argument drawn from the phoenix, and its description, which is foreign, are in my judgment ^C from the disciple of the apostles; although those who followed him have used such an argument, it was against the heathens and philosophers, and in writings of a different kind than an epistle addressed to an apostolic Church, which for some time was held as canonical. There also occurs a passage in which he wishes offerings to be made in a certain place, at a certain time and set hours, on pages 52 and 53, where the little word «laicus» (layman) is also read, which is suspect to me. Page 62 also calls the Corinthian Church [GREEK WORD], something which can scarcely fit Clement. Finally, while I judge the writing to be genuine, I would nevertheless believe that many clauses and words were added to it by those from whom it was later transcribed; which also happened to other writings of the same antiquity, and indeed to Clement himself. I would gladly hear what you think of the matter, you to whom it is not easy to impose, since you are so exceptionally wise in such things.

Hugo Grotius, Epistle CLIV to the Gauls, to the most eminent man Hieronymus Bignonius, Royal Advocate in the Supreme Senate of Paris.

As for the epistle which is inscribed as Clement’s to the Corinthians, most eminent sir, which was promised to me long ago by the English, when I had waited in vain for a long time at Hamburg, I have now at last received it, since I came to Frankfurt, at the call of the Swedish Royal Chancellor, a most great man, from the family of the English ambassador. I did not wish to add any delay to this, which arose through no fault of my own, although neither your letters, to which I owe a reply for so long, were at hand, nor was there a supply of the books which I wished to inspect. What little I was able to do, I read and reread the epistle several times, and spent all my energies on it; I could not judge it otherwise than as being the same one that Photius read, and since it existed in his time, it is no wonder if it has been preserved ^D to our own times among the more sacred books. Nor do I see any reason why either the one that Photius read should not be the same as that which Jerome, and before him Clement of Alexandria, and closer to the times of the Roman Clement, Irenæus, had: or why another writer should be assigned to it, other than that same Clement of Rome, which has been handed down by everyone with such consensus. Not only do all the places which are cited by the ancients appear here, but the very things themselves which Photius observes, and, what is greatest, the character which Jerome says approaches the one that is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The reason for this is none other than that this Clement, as also Luke, and whoever else that writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is, had drawn the Greek language from the learned authors before they became Christians, the elegance of which is easily recognized when they do not insert foreign sayings or words taken from the holy scriptures into their own work, but use a more free mode of expression. Hence those words: [GREEK WORDS], and what Luke uses, [GREEK WORD], and other similar ones. And the discourse itself is not, as the [GREEK WORDS], concise in its minutiae, but flowing more broadly. For indeed, that he had read Euripides and Sophocles is shown by the sentiments translated from the Phoenissae of the former and the Ajax of the latter. Added to this are the proofs of an unfeigned antiquity: that he always speaks of Christ, not as the later ones [GREEK WORD], but simply and plainly, and as the Apostle Paul is accustomed to do. He also treats other dogmas, more subtly explained later, [GREEK WORD], and uses the words [GREEK WORDS] in a clearly Pauline sense; which, in the places from the Old Testament, follows the Septuagint version of the seventy, most pure and not yet corrupted. Nor does he scorn those books of the Hebrews which had authority among the most ancient of the Christians according to the Old Testament; because he uses words and things taken from the writings of Paul, Peter, and others to the Hebrews, not yet from those books which we call the Gospels, which were produced after the Epistles; because he uses certain sayings not written, but handed down by hand through recent memory; because he nowhere mentions that exceptional authority of the bishops which began to be introduced by the custom of the Church after the death of Mark at Alexandria, and by that example elsewhere, but clearly, as the Apostle Paul, shows that the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters, who are all also called bishops by Paul himself. For as for the fact that he names [GREEK WORDS], all those names do not refer to the Church, but to the Hierosolymitic temple; whence in-

- ^A truth, "let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer" (1 Pet. iv, 15). These are the reasons why I not only judge this epistle to be genuine, but also recognize in it no traces of an adulterous hand. As for the second epistle, of which a fragment has been added, although in some books it too bears Clement's name, the ancients themselves judged that it should not be attributed to him; to whose authority is added the diversity of its character. Yet I do not doubt that it is a work of the first century, written before the canon was established by the consent of the churches, and perhaps by some other Clement. These things which I have thought, with the same freedom that you granted me to converse with you, I submit to your most exact judgment on all matters, a man incomparable in every respect, etc. Frankfurt, July 17, 1634.

Ex alia epistola ejusdem Bignonii, a. d. 28 Augusti 1634 data. ^B I give you thanks, for your learned and solid judgment concerning Clement. You alone can today, in the moment of an hour, settle matters of this kind, and for any age and writer, render what is due to him, and show the fruit that can be gathered from him. There is nothing in your arguments that can be objected to, and it is right that the authority of your judgment be considered irrefragable. I had indeed thought this monument to be entirely genuine, but I suspected that some periods or words had been added to it by copyists. But you relieve me of that doubt, except that the narration concerning the phoenix still offends me slightly; for it is more verbose and ^C more sophisticated (*sophistikotéra*) than the apostolic style allows. That fable, although afterwards employed by Christian writers, seems not worthy enough for the writings of the first successor of the Prince of the apostles, especially as it is set forth at such length. Otherwise, it might not seem strange that he used an opinion accepted at that time, so as to invite the heathens to admit more fully the truth of the Christian doctrine; just as Paul also used the inscription of the "Unknown God" (Acts xvii, 23), although his sentiment was different from the common opinion and that inscribed on the base of the altar. I thought, therefore, that the description of the phoenix had been added by another to his bare mention of it, injected by Clement in passing; but I acquiesce in your better opinion, nor is it mine to contend with you. (These excerpts are from the testimonies concerning Bignonius, which are prefixed to the second Parisian edition of the *Formulae* of Marculf, of the year 1665.)

HERMANNUS CONRINGIUS TO JOACHIM JOHANN MADER, A MOST LEARNED MAN, GREETINGS.

^D You deserve much from the public, most learned Mader, in spending those hours that you are permitted to snatch from your ordinary duty in order to show to our people the monuments of that first golden age that survive. For although the canon of the Divine Scriptures is perfect, and we have long since learned with St. Augustine to defer this honor and awe to those books alone, and to believe most firmly that none of them erred in writing anything: yet at the same time it is both pleasant and useful to consult the disciples and hearers of the apostles as well, that we may know what they received from such great teachers, or at least with what faith they kept the doctrine they received, seeing that they did not hesitate to pour out their own blood in witness of Christ, invested already with white robes, and standing before the throne of God, they serve him day and night in his temple, he who sits on the throne dwelling above them (Apoc. vii, 15)—with which eulogy the Holy Spirit has honored the martyrs. At least it is a sin to despise those things which the Church herself, ancient and holy, has deemed worthy of public reading, such as the Epistle of Polycarp in the assemblies of Asia, and which we know from the testimony of Eusebius and St. Jerome to have been read publicly in many places. It is certainly right to make much of both these Epistles, if only because the most holy martyr Irenaeus long ago appealed to both of them, as to a certain secondary canon of sincere faith, against the heresies of his own age. In both of them...

moreover, you have hitherto employed ^A your labor in publishing them, first the holy letters of Polycarp, and now those of Clement.

Indeed, I see no reason to suspect that these of ours are anything other than those which the ancient Church held in such high esteem. In the epistle of Polycarp, one can certainly detect that very sound doctrine concerning God and our Lord Jesus Christ, for the sake of which the holy Irenaeus pronounced it sufficient and commended it for the refutation of the heresies of his age. One can detect one integral passage after another, which Eusebius adduces, and after him Nicephorus Callistus, and in such a way that it is clearly apparent that they were inserted without any fraud. One can detect not a few things taken from the first Epistle of Peter, which the same Eusebius had noted; and finally, one can detect everything that Photius, that most accurate censor of books, had observed in the epistle of Polycarp he read, namely, that it was filled with many admonitions, ^B *with clarity and simplicity according to the ecclesiastical type of interpretation*, and that in it the author says he had sent the epistles of Ignatius to the Philippians, and asks them to inform him if they have heard anything concerning him. Nothing, I say, of all these things is missing. Besides this, the very beginning of the Epistle shows that it was written at a time when the administration of the Church was not in the hand of a single bishop, but all things were governed by the common counsel and authority of the presbyters: a state of affairs which changed not long after Polycarp. But one can also see the condemned tenets of Marcion regarding the flesh and passion of Christ, and likewise the resurrection and judgment of the dead, and even that solemn detestation, personal to that one martyr, by which Irenaeus records that Polycarp, when he met Marcion at Rome, received him—calling him, of course, the *firstborn of Satan*. Conversely, the arguments by which Flacius, and others who followed him, attempted to render that Epistle doubtful are such that, try as you might, you cannot possibly turn them to your advantage. The simplicity of the diction and the unlabored style, which they complain of, argue rather for the apostolic age and composition, as things familiar to that one period and to the apostles themselves and their disciples.

The case is similar for that Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which not long ago the most illustrious Patricius Junius communicated to us from the very ancient Alexandrian codex, and which you today are bringing forth from the London one. For here too, one can find what all the ancients handed down, both concerning it and from it. We certainly observe the *no small faction* that arose at Corinth among the brothers, which had surely progressed to violence and war—or, as it were, duels—and that the letters were written not in the name of Clement alone, but in the name of the Roman Church; and that they turn the Corinthians toward peace and concord, while calling to mind their faith, which they had recently received from the apostles. ^A Furthermore, just as the holy Irenaeus praised that Epistle, so too do Clement of Alexandria and Origen bring forth passages from that Epistle in the very same words as they are found in ours, and in such a way that you would say they were born there, and not introduced by a deceitful hand. Eusebius also reveals that, because of the dissension that had arisen among the Corinthians, an Epistle was written by our Clement *from the Church of the Romans*, or as he speaks elsewhere, *on behalf of the Church of the Romans*, and that it agrees very much in character of diction and in its sentiments with the Epistle to the Hebrews: all of which is most clearly apparent here. Whatever that Epistle was like for Eusebius, the holy Jerome likewise described it to us in the same way, so that our text here lacks nothing of what was at hand for Jerome. Furthermore, those things which the same holy Jerome brought forward once or twice from that Epistle are not missing in ours, just as the mention of the phoenix, which Cyril of Jerusalem produces from Clement's epistle, is also found here. In every part, our work here also corresponds to that description which Photius has in his *Bibliotheca*, namely, in its argument, its diction, and its doctrine regarding the worlds beyond the ocean, the phoenix, and the person of Christ. Perhaps all that is missing is what St. Justin Martyr—or some other author of the *Responsiones ad orthodoxos*—reports from that Epistle, or what Basil quotes as being said to Clement in his *Ad Amphilochium*. But there is no reason why we should suspect it all the less for that reason, since the one to whom we owe the first edition, Patricius Junius, confirms that four entire leaves are missing for us; and Basil (or whoever else the writer of that book was) may not have taken those particular lines from this Epistle. Certainly, you could not produce anything from all of antiquity concerning that genuine Epistle of Clement which would make one rightfully doubt ours.

Now, as one reads ours with care, nothing appears fraudulent or devious; and yet everything clearly echoes the apostolic times, in the character of the writing and in the doctrine itself. This is firm evidence that the Epistle reached us from that age at the very least, even if the author were perhaps not certain. The style is indeed such as the supreme critic Photius judged it to be: *simple in its phrasing and clear, and close to the ecclesiastical character*; but outside that first age of the Church you would search in vain for that form of writing. Thus, the fact that the epistle was written in the name of the Roman Church, and not truly of a bishop and presbyters or of the bishop alone, does not befit any age other than the apostolic; for the authority of the presbyterial college first grew little by little, then that of one bishop, and the people were gradually removed from the administration of sacred matters. The following age also spoke very differently about the person of Christ, whereas here you find almost nothing other than those things which St. Paul used. One can also see here in the order of hierar

^Achico to be numbered as nothing other than bishops and deacons, with the name of bishop encompassing all presbyters: differing from what prevailed later in the apostolic and post-apostolic eras closer to that time. To this one age, the celebration of sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, which this Epistle mentions, is also congruent. Hugo Grotius, a man of the highest standing, has gathered many other signs of unfeigned antiquity in a certain letter to Hieronymus Bignominus, which is number CLIV in the book *Epistolarum ad Gallos*, which I cannot but approve, unless he erred in that one point of his: that he denies that Clement brought forward anything from the Gospels which we so call, when nevertheless the words of our Lord from St. Luke chapter vi are repeated. Yet even those things which we have adduced are sufficient for vindicating the dignity of that Epistle of ours, and thus it is of no import to bring forward more in confirmation at this time. And indeed, to you, my dear Maderus, it is perhaps enough that no one—with absolutely no opposition from those among whom the kingdom of criticism resides today—denies that this Epistle is genuine. For why might you not safely follow in this matter Grotius, Salmasius, Calixtus, Horneius, Vossius, Rivetus, Blondellus, Seldenus, Petavius, Patricius, and other very exact censors of books? Especially if—which I do not know of—no one more learned dissents, as indeed no one here dissents. I am speaking, as you know, only of that longer Epistle to the Corinthians, not of that other one, a fragment of which that same Patricius Junius published. Although I also believe this to be the one read by Photius, indeed the one which Eusebius, Jerome, and others have mentioned as being attributed to Clement as author, but incorrectly. For indeed, in this very fragment ^B you might discern what Photius noted, namely, his *nous* and exhortation to a better life, and in the beginning, the proclamation of Christ our God. To be sure, I acknowledge that first one as genuine with all antiquity, but not the second, even if it is ancient and of a far better reputation—and such are those which commonly circulate among the Latins under the name of Clement. And truly, that no more than a single epistle proceeded from Clement, while all the rest which come under the name of the Apostolic Constitutions, or Recognitions, or Epistles wrongly ascribe their author, is by itself a sufficient argument: the fact that St. Irenæus praises only that one as a testimony to Catholic truth while studiously assailing heresies with the consensus of the Roman bishops. Indeed, such is the strength of that recommendation of Irenæus that it is equivalent to convicting of forgery the epistles of the other Roman bishops of that age which Isidorus Mercator edited. It is not within the scope of this work to touch upon that sore. ^C Therefore, to return to the beginning of this my epistle, you are performing a work truly praiseworthy to the public good, most learned sir, by publishing at our presses those golden monuments of the primitive Church, which are rare to find in these regions and read by few. I certainly cannot help but encourage you to persevere strenuously in that undertaking. To pore over such writings is surely far more excellent and useful than to waste time reading quarrelsome, nay, even contumelious pamphlets, of which our modern age produces a great many, to its eternal infamy. Farewell, my Maderus, and be very well. Helmstadt, in the Julia Academy, 1654, November 27th.

JOACHIM JOHANNES MADERUS: PREFACE TO THE READER

Benevolent reader, this Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, ἱκανωτάτη καὶ θαυμασία [most sufficient and admirable], according to Irenæus and Eusebius, has been desired for many centuries. ^D The most illustrious Patricius Junius, formerly the librarian—alas!—to the most serene King of Great Britain, to whom we certainly owe the greatest thanks on this account, restored it to the light not long ago. How great its authority was among the ancients, so many testimonies of theirs, which we provide hereafter, suggest to you; which, together with other prophetic and apostolic writings, assure us that it was once customary to be read in certain Churches, and inform you likewise of the reason for its writing and the style of the work. There was, therefore, no reason for me to delay you any longer, since the ever-to-be-praised Patricius, by his Preface to the Reader and the testimonies of the ancients subjoined above, could have satisfied you in the rest, had there not been someone who wished to cast a nebula over such light, and who too rashly and inconsiderately denied the *authenticity* of this writing. For in that worm-eaten book of his, which he published among the public while I was thinking about this edition, he gnaws so boldly at its reputation that it yields to the biting of no moths or savage bookworms—which had already inflicted maximum damage upon it before. And yet, I do not believe that this man, otherwise great, has ever attentively read and properly examined this epistle or the passages of the authors from whom he takes his testimonies, but instead wished to pull the wool over the eyes of simpletons poorly instructed in antiquity. For I shall pass over in silence those trifles about the red minium, by which the lacunae in the previous edition were noted with great diligence, and the other things he puts forward concerning the simplicity of the style and its unrefined connection, as things that were already long ago observed by Photius himself, when first incautiously stitched together.

^A For St. Paul likewise had already proven the resurrection with the argument of the grain that is sown, in his former Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, and the Fathers of the many following centuries who use this same method of proof likewise follow him. Especially those examples of nature sleeping and rising again, which the diligence of the Septimian style ^B augments and illustrates quite ingeniously, as if he had deliberately chosen this very passage of Clement to adorn. Look, he says, even to these divine demonstrations of power. Day dies into night, and is buried everywhere in darkness. The splendor of the world is struck by mourning, all substance is blackened. Everything is sordid, silent, and stunned: everywhere there is a cessation of judicial activity. Thus the lost light is mourned, and yet it rises again, whole and intact, with its own beauty, with its own gift, with its own sun, for the whole world: killing its own death, the night; cutting away its own burial, the darkness; becoming its own heir, until the night itself rises again with its own attendant circumstances. For the rays of the stars are relit, which the morning’s kindling had extinguished; the absences of the heavenly bodies are brought back, which the passage of time had removed; the mirrors of the moon are re-adorned, which the monthly counting had worn away; winters and summers, springs and autumns, return with their own powers, their own ways, their own fruits. And a little later, concerning the phoenix: If the universe provides little proof of the resurrection, if the condition of things signs nothing of this sort, because things here are said not so much to die as to cease, and are thought not to be re-animated but to be re-formed, receive the fullest and firmest specimen of this hope. Since it is a thing of the animal, subject to life and to death; I speak of that peculiar bird of the East, famous for its singularity, monstrous in its progeny, which willingly burying itself renews itself, departing and succeeding in a natal ending; again the phoenix, where now there is no one; again the same, which is not now; another, yet the same. What is more expressive and significant for this cause? Or for what other thing such a document? God also in His Scriptures: And it shall flourish, He says, like the phoenix; that is, from death, from the funeral; so that you might believe that from ashes also the substance of the body can be recovered. The Lord pronounced that we stand before many sparrows; if not also the phoenixes, it is nothing great. But will men perish once, and the birds of Arabia be secure about the resurrection? Thus, how most elegantly Tertullian in the third century after Christ, ^D book *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, chapters 12 and 13, so that you do not think that Clement alone used arguments of this kind. For Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in his *Ancoratus* or Exposition of the Christian Faith, and Cyril of Jerusalem in his eighteenth *Catechesis*, then Dracontius in his *Hexaemeron*, write to the same effect, to omit others who speak singularly of the phoenix as a sign of the resurrection. For it was once a tale in the mouth and conversation of all: "Already it has reached the ears of many, both believers and non-believers," says Epiphanius in the aforementioned passage; whence also its frequent mention both among the Gentiles and the Christians, although no small variety is found in their narrations. Let Herodotus be consulted from among them, book.

11, ch. 73; Ovid, 15 Metamorph. ver. 392; Pliny, book 10 of *Natural History*, ch. 2; Mela, book 3; Solinus, *Polyhistor*, ch. 46; Aristides in *Palinode on the Restoration of Smyrna*, vol. 1, p. 470; Aelian, book 6 of *On the Nature of Animals*, ch. 58; Lucian, *Dialogue on the Death of Peregrinus*; Claudian, *First Idyll*. Among Christians, however, along with those mentioned above, and those whom the very learned Weitz cited in the notes appended to this epistle regarding Dracontius and Junius, [see] Eusebius, book 4 of *Life of Constantine*, ch. 72, and Suidas on the word "Phoenix." It was therefore no wonder if the teachers of Christianity appealed to a matter commonly believed; since even Dio dares to assert, in book 57, that in the consulship of Sextus Papinius and Q. Plautius, shortly before the death of Tiberius, a phoenix appeared in Egypt—a fact which Pliny also reports in the aforementioned place from Cornelius Valerianus. Tacitus, indeed, in *Annals* 6.28, reduces the same event to the time of Paulus Fabius and L. Vitellius, whose consulships, according to Onuphrius' *Fasti*, fell in the year of the City 787, or 35 A.D.: a rumor that was still fresh in our Clement's time, as he began his rule over the Roman episcopate in the 93rd year of that century according to Anastasius the Librarian, though according to others even earlier. Furthermore, one may learn from the *Acts* of St. Cecilia that the Christians of those times engraved the phoenix on sepulchral tombs as a symbol of the resurrection, for she caused the very same to be engraved on the sarcophagus of the blessed martyr Maximus. The words of the Acts, as Aringhius cites them in his new work *Roma Subterranea* from a Vatican-Vallicellian manuscript, are these: "Whom," namely Maximus, "the virgin St. Cecilia buried in a new sarcophagus, and she ordered the phoenix to be carved upon his sarcophagus, as a mark of his faith, who with his whole heart accepted the resurrection he would find, after the example of the phoenix." You see, therefore, how justly that eminent critic breaks forth into these words: "Is this (namely, Clement) a good and faithful apostle and helper of St. Paul, who can prove the resurrection of the flesh with such beautiful fables?" And has that Belgian star, Hugo Grotius, judged much more correctly, stating falsely in that same writing, shortly after, that the author is absurd—a calumniator—in a certain epistle to Bignonius not yet published: that the matter of the phoenix was believed by the learned at that time, and ^B that there is no handle here for dissenting from Patricius, or for rejecting the whole epistle; since neither Scultetus nor Cocus ever saw it—perhaps as not yet seen by Patricius, much less published—and thus they could not offer their judgment on an unknown matter. Abraham Scultetus himself, the former Heidelberg professor, testifies to this in his *Medulla*, pp. 371-372, saying among other things regarding these writings of Clement: "He once wrote this epistle to the Corinthians, which Dionysius of Corinth mentions in Eusebius (book 4, ch. 23; book 2, ch. 38). This celebrated epistle has perished, but five others have been substituted in its place, as well as the ten books of the *Recognitions*, which go around under Clement's name today." The epistles exist in the first volume of the *Councils*, which speak of an adulterated Clement in almost every line. Robert Cocus of England instituted an examination of those same five Clementines—which are commonly called Decretals, though they are not this one to the Corinthians—in his *Censura*, p. 41 et seqq. Blondel also [did the same] in a separate book against the forgeries of Isidore Mercator, published at Geneva in 1628 A.D., where he simultaneously shows from which compilations they were stitched together and fabricated. How much value he himself held this epistle in, however, is proven by his very learned *Apologia* for Jerome's opinion on bishops and presbyters, in which he does not fear to confirm and assert the Blessed Father's opinion with testimonies taken from it. Just as one could not easily perceive or judge from Voetius and Rivetus, who with Blondel both saw and read it, whether they take the side of those accepting it or rejecting it; for from his last Genevan edition of 1652, these are the words: "Clement wrote, according to Jerome in his *Catalogue*, an epistle on behalf of the Roman Church to the Church of Corinth, which was very useful and was read publicly in some places at that time." This epistle, however, having been long desired, the most illustrious man Patricius Junius, librarian to the King of Great Britain, brought forth from the torn remains of the very ancient royal copy, filled the gaps, translated it into Latin, and illustrated it with brief notes; he published it, along with a fragment of the second epistle to the same people, at Oxford in 1633. In it are found those things which are cited by some of the ancients, as the most learned editor shows in his notes from collation; he thinks Clement's epistle is true and genuine, notwithstanding the fable of the phoenix which he adduces for the illustration of the doctrine of the resurrection. Which many others among the ancients did afterwards. The learned reader will be able to weigh the arguments of that most learned man. The whole epistle otherwise sufficiently reflects primeval simplicity, and the things read in it are sufficiently accommodated to the argument treated within it. It is indeed to be noted what is written on p. 41 regarding justification: "We, having been called by the will of God in Christ Jesus," etc. But Gisbertus Voetius, professor of theology at the University of Utrecht, in his *Disputationes Selectae Theologicae*, p. 103 of the first part, when he had brought forward this question: "What of the epistle of Clement to the"

Corinthians newly published, but not without many major ^A lacunae?" he responds with equal ambiguity: "I admire the singular divine Providence, which ensured that from the disciples of the apostles and men apostolic and close to the apostolic age, either nothing was written, or nothing was preserved and passed down to posterity; or at least nothing survived from the beginning of the Church to this day that would not be doubted, or which would not have been mutilated by moths and bookworms or any other army of God: so that the authority of Scripture alone might stand out the more evidently, and to it alone might its own incorruptibility and eternity belong." If, therefore, that author of the ^A *ἐπικρίσεως* [critical judgment] had even glanced through, as they say, the writers he cites—even just in passing—he could not have been unaware that all those testimonies he puts forward against this Epistle work against him rather than for him. For Eusebius, whom he pretends to write a book (lib. vi, c. 13) saying that in his own time, clearly around the year 324, Clement's Epistle was no longer held to be genuine, does not aid him any further, even though in lib. iii, c. 16, [Eusebius] himself had testified that Clement, the fellow-worker of Paul, wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians, which was even read in certain churches. For these words, too, are not read in that way in Eusebius; but rather, he is treating the whole of the 12th and 13th chapters of that book concerning Clement of Alexandria and his writings: "He uses," he says, "in those [writings] even the testimonies of those Scriptures which are disputed, such as that which is [the Wisdom of] Jesus Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and finally also Barnabas and Clement and Jude," as the words sound according to the Latin edition of Grynæus. But as Rufinus translates it, ^B among whom there is a different division of the chapters: "He uses," he says (c. 2), "examples even from those books which by some are deemed not at all acceptable, that is, from the Wisdom which is called Solomon's, and from the Wisdom of Sirach, which is called *Ecclesiasticus* among the Latins. But he also puts forward examples for the Romans from the Epistle of Barnabas and Clement, and from the Epistle of Jude." Which words, if you think the *τὸ ἀντιλέγεσθαι* [the being spoken against] or "not to be received" also apply to Clement's Epistle, they do not speak of every contradiction or non-reception simply, but only of non-reception into the canon of the Scriptures; for the same reason many other books, both of the Old and New Testament, were spoken against, with some now approving and others now rejecting them. Meanwhile, the latter does not abolish the former—that it was accustomed to be read in some churches; since in the primitive Christian Church, not only those strictly called canonical were read, but also other books commended by their antiquity and utility, for the edification of the people, though not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas: in which matter, although churches could likewise differ among themselves and prefer the reading of some over others, yet that particular rejection made by a certain Church or its doctor could not immediately derogate from the writing itself in every respect, or infringe its credit. Finally, it is gross ignorance, and in a doctor of theology (and such a great one, at that) not to be tolerated, namely, that this Epistle—along with those ^A mentioned above—is confused with decretals: a thing which he himself commits in this *ἐπικρίσις* of his not only in one place, but clearly in the following words, to which he adds a finishing touch as if to what had been said about Clement up to then: "And what is more," he says, "when the recent Bishop of Ypres, Cornelius Jansenius, in his *Augustinus*, Vol. III, lib. vi, cap. 12, having cited a testimony from Clement’s epistle, the Jesuit of Orléans, Dionysius Petavius, mocks him in his *De Eccles. dogm.*, Vol. III, lib. iii, *De Opific.*, cap. 8, num. 5, because he does not distinguish between sincere and supposititious writers. A lid worthy of the pot indeed, about which ^B however, one might barely restrain one's laughter, as the saying goes." For who can be unaware that when he himself looks at the words of Jansenius and then of Petavius, both spoke of a far different epistle, and indeed the very third decretal, which exists in Vol. I of Surius's *Concilia*, p. 148, and in Blondel's *Censura*, p. 72, and which falsely bears a title to all co-bishops, presbyters, deacons, and remaining clergy, and all princes, major and minor? "After St. Dionysius," says Jansenius, "Clement the Pope, in the third epistle; where first he says what Augustine has so often handed down: that we are of free will, because we have the power of will and nill." To this Dionysius Petavius: "In this sense," he says, "the authority was accepted by that author who, under the name of Clement, composed the third epistle from the books of the *Recognitions*. From which epistle the patron of the new sect placed a second testimony, being so careless in the selection of witnesses that he promiscuously holds genuine and supposititious ones." Whence, since I cannot by any means be brought to believe that some great theologian would err in such trifles merely from ignorance, let him see with what intention and with what conscience he did it. With God as my witness, I can affirm for certain that I have undertaken this examination of his *ἐπικρίσεως*, whatever it may be, led by no zeal for any party but solely by a love of truth, so that he might not lead the more incautious under the name of truth and deter them from the most useful reading of this Epistle. Then, that I might vindicate my blessed teacher from injury—whom this same person, because he had pronounced this Clement to be a fellow-worker of the Apostle, accuses of imprudence—perhaps he himself should rather be accused. I desire, however, that that warning of our Clement, more precious than any gold, might firmly adhere to the mind of every Christian: "Why are there contentions, angers, strifes, schisms, and war among us? Do we not have one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace who has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rend the members of Christ, and move sedition against our own body, and come to such insanity that we forget that we are members of one another?" For what remains, kind reader, we have taken care to express this Epistle with as much faithfulness and diligence as we could, so that you can find almost nothing missing here—save that the lacunae are marked not in red lead, as done in the English edition, but in smaller letters. For indeed, even if that [lacuna] was not for us

permissible, we have therefore desired to omit the whole thing, but even in this way to distinguish the genuine text from the supplement, so that your industry might also be left a space, if it seemed good, either for conjecturing or for judging. Elsewhere, the testimonies have been augmented by us here and there, with a Latin version also added to the Greek; then, the passages and variant readings in Clement of Alexandria discovered, with each page indicated from the most recent Parisian edition of the year of Christ 1641. If, in all matters, everything does not perhaps satisfy your palate, you will attribute it partly to my scholastic occupations, partly to my absence from the typographic works, and what you would wish in a similar kind, you will take in good part. Farewell, and be well.

GODEFREDUS VENDELINUS' CONJECTURE ON THE TIME OF CLEMENT AND HIS LETTERS

^AClement Romanus, son of Faustinus (whom the apostle Paul, writing to the Philippians, calls his fellow-worker among the others whose names are written in the book of life), successor to Peter the apostle—he is himself called an apostle by Clement of Alexandria in book IV of the *Stromata*: just as Barnabas and other companions and disciples of the great apostles were held and called apostles by the same name (though lesser ones). This Clement ruled the Church after Peter the Roman, and lived until the times of Trajan; in the third year of whose reign, which was the one hundredth of our era, he is also signaled by the death of John the Evangelist, killed in Cherson in Pontus after five years of his exile. This was the sixty-eighth year after Christ’s Ascension, as we have it handed down. ^B But how many years Clement was then, although we do not read it recorded, it is nevertheless certain that he was not much younger than a centenarian; it had to be that he was an old man, indeed, if (as the books of the *Recognitions* have it, not entirely dramatic) he was a youth of blooming age, of refined judgment, and avid for the more sublime doctrines, at the first fame of Christ already received into heaven, while Tiberius was still living. So that he could easily have exceeded twenty-five years, or approached closer to thirty, and seems to have been born around the beginning of our era, almost a contemporary and fully a coeval of John the Evangelist.

Within this first century, bishop Clement held the Roman pontificate, for (as is agreed among all, although they hand down very diverse accounts) nine years with some months and days. Within the same century, the Roman bishops Linus, Cletus, and Anacletus are listed; although the Greeks seem to understand one and the same person from Cletus and Anacletus, too care-lessly, and slothful because of the similarity of the names.

But what place, or what time is owed to Clement—whether before these, or among them, or after them—writers have contested since the ancient century immediately following them. And thus, there is discord in our Breviaries of earlier editions compared to the later ones, and Baronius repeatedly confesses his ^C *aporia* in all points, up to the year 179, until he thus clears his belief: If anyone should find a more certain chronology of the years, by which, however, Cletus is not rejected from the number of Roman pontiffs, nor the sincere testimony of the Lyonese martyrs condemned, we will not unwillingly assent. Therefore, after I have diligently shaken out all the reasons of various writers with much curious investigation, I seem to myself to have discovered this most certain credit of the truth.

In the year of our era 41, on the 23rd of January, after Gaius was killed, Claudius succeeded to the empire, who immediately dismissed Herod Agrippa into his own kingdom, and he returned with great speed into Judea through the month (in fact) of February, or the beginnings of March. Received honorably by his fellow citizens; in order to please whom (so that he might show himself gracious and popular) he attempted to oppress the hateful multitude of Christians, who were too strong, and to drag those new men—seditious, and accused of wicked impiety against God and the Mosaic laws—to punishments, having made a beginning of his raiding from their chief heads, the apostles. And so he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword.*

We have this death noted on the Kalends of April, which in this year 41 fell on a Sabbath; so that it appears that James, on the occasion of the Sabbath itself, as if caught in some act or word of violation in a tumultuous manner by the raging crowd, and immediately (as if in the act of crimes in flagrante) beheaded, at least after sunset; at which moment the Jewish Sabbath and the days of the Kalends of April were ending, and the first of the Sabbath was beginning; the second of the month of April was reckoned as being for them. And this is what Jerome in *Ezechiel*, chapter XLIII, handed down from the ancients, which he did not sufficiently understand; while he writes that James was sacrificed on the second day of the Passover; which Baronius also saw could not possibly stand. And certainly, the Jewish Passover in that year fell on the fourth day of April, at evening. Therefore, James was not killed on the second day of the Passover, but on the second of the month, on which the Passover fell that year.

Therefore, after the killing, whether on the Kalends of April themselves, or the next morning, Herod, seeing that this had pleased the Jews, set out to apprehend Peter also; not, I believe, on the same day,

^A but at least a day or two after, when he could explore and perceive the applause of the people, and Peter could be found; who thereupon was hurried into prison on the very day of Unleavened Bread, that most holy asylum of security, and because of the public joy, to such sad and unexpected events. But neither the Sabbaths in Jacob, nor the Unleavened Bread in the case of Peter, delayed Herod, so that they were at least apprehended, though the punishment was deferred for a time, which he meditated for Peter after the Passover and all the days of Unleavened Bread had passed. He was therefore kept in prison, from which he was delivered by an angel, on the eve of the destined punishment, to wit, in the night, between the twelfth and thirteenth of April.

Liberated by so great a miracle, Peter, having left Judea, betook himself to other regions. And having traveled through various provinces, and confirmed the churches, he arrived at length at Rome, at the beginning of the second year of Claudius, he himself being consul for the second time along with Largus, which was the year of our era 42; and he fixed there his pontifical seat, the anniversary of whose chair is celebrated on the eighteenth of January. From which day to his death are numbered 25 years, 5 months, and 12 days, if you count from the 15th of the Kalends of February to the Kalends of July of our year 67, in which, being crucified, he rendered his soul to God.

In the meantime, when the Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome by an edict, Peter himself was also compelled to withdraw; and having returned to Judea, he held that first council of the apostles in our year 50; and afterwards, Claudius being removed, on the 13th of the Kalends of October, in our year 54, Nero succeeded, a prince most clement during the first five years of his reign. Under whom Peter, having returned to Rome, did not pass a sedentary life there, but diligently and actively traveled through other provinces of the Roman world, and at length penetrated into the Britains. But while he was away, ^B so that Rome might not in the meantime act without a head, he appointed Linus as bishop for it, in the consulship of Nero and Veterius, in our year 55. He held the seat for 12 years (I construe this as inchoate), that is, eleven years completed with four months and twelve days, as the days and months contained in the Bucherian membrane provide. He ceased therefore to live in our year 66, while Peter was still completely alive; which an anonymous writer ^C on the contests, travels, life, and death of Peter and Paul clearly confirms; whom the chaplain (Pertaus) of the Earl of Arundel brought with him from Greece to England, from which Patricius Junius cites this illustrious passage, in Greek indeed, but which I thus represent in Latin: "Peter having stayed in Britain for some days, when he had enlightened many with the word of grace, and had constituted churches, after he had also ordained bishops and presbyters and deacons, having laid on his hands in the twelfth year of Nero (this was our year 66, already indicated), he returned again to Rome; where he found Linus already dead, ^D and ordained Clement in his place against his will, who was refusing the dignity." Whom, having been persuaded by suitable reasons, he advanced and admonished to rely upon the chair of the divine oracles (which he had obtained). This journey into Britain Baronius also saw from other sources, and it was convincingly substantiated not long ago. But the anonymous writer proceeds, after a few words: "Therefore, the soldiers immediately, having apprehended all who had given their name to Christ, led them to the place of the condemned. And to Clement indeed, as being of the family of Caesar, they spared him, but Herodian and Olympas, with the rest of the multitude, they struck with the sword. But Peter, that great apostle of the Lord, they suspended on the cross in an inverted position; on which, having suffered the pains of wounds like our Lord ^B and God, he offered his pure and undefiled soul into the hands of God; but Clement, his disciple and bishop, magnificently buried his precious body in an illustrious place."

Behold how, while Peter was still alive, Linus sat as bishop, whom for that reason Marianus and others have written down as a chorepiscopus, among whom is Leo II, successor of Agatho: "Peter," he says, "took to himself helpers, Linus and Cletus; yet he did not hand over to them the pontifical power, but to Clement." It has always been so certain that Linus presided over the Roman faithful together with Peter, and that the pontificate was handed down from that same Peter to Clement. Thus therefore this chronology begins to flow more clearly, in this manner:

In our year 66 Linus lived for the last time, having died on the twenty-third of September, in the 12th year of Nero, when Peter, having returned from Britain to Rome, found Linus already dead. He himself soon, with Paul, was cast into the Mamertine prison, in which they were detained for eight months, until the end of the following June.

In our year 67, Peter, being set in prison, persuaded Clement to be willing to undertake the episcopate and to succeed Linus. He therefore sat from about the Easter of this year for 9 years, 11 months, and 12 days, as the Indiculus has it, according to whom he magnificently buried the precious body of the slain Peter, in an illustrious place, as I have seen.

In the year 77, therefore, when there had arisen among the faithful at Rome (as happened later at Corinth) a great dissension ^D over the honor of the pontificate, lest Clement should seem to have succeeded as if by the testament of Peter, and lest this ambition of principate should be held as a pernicious example for posterity, he voluntarily abdicated the pontificate, using these words, which he proposed to the Corinthians in another epistle to be imitated: "If because of me there are sedition, contention, and schisms, I will depart, I will go away wherever you wish." Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Carpocratians, hints at this abdication of Clement in this epiphonema

^A concluded: "I will withdraw, I will depart; may the people of God be well established," adding that he had found this in certain commentaries thus. He abdicated, therefore, on the 12th of February, which was then the Wednesday of Ash Wednesday. Thus, after four days, Cletus, having been elected both in deed and name, began his pontificate on the 16th of February, the very Sunday of Lent, and he held the pontificate, while Clement was still alive, for six years, two months, and ten days, which the *Indiculus* clearly represents: "From the consulship," it says, "of Vespasian for the sixth time and Domitian for the fifth," which is the year already indicated by me as 77, most plainly.

In our year 83, therefore, under the consuls Domitian for the ninth time and Rufus, Cletus died on the 26th of April, as is in the Hemerologium, confirming that interval from his creation to a hair. It is handed down that the see was vacant for 15 days. Therefore, from the 11th of May, which was then Pentecost, Anacletus, having been elected again, held the see for 12 years, 2 months (not 10), and 3 days, until our year 95, and the day recognized by the Hemerologium, the 13th of July, under the consuls Domitian for the fifteenth time and Flavius Clemens, which the *Indiculus* also recognizes, with a marvelous constancy and faith in these truths.

This was the 14th year of the tyrant Domitian, in which he stirred up a persecution against the Christians, the cause of which Clement, in that brilliant Epistle (which he wrote not in his own person, but as the Roman Church to the Corinthians, against those who were seditious towards their bishop) refers to those dissensions of Christians rising up against one another; an instance of which he also hints happened at Rome, tacitly implying his own struggle ^B eighteen years prior.

Meanwhile, however, whether Anacletus was already killed or cast into chains, Evaristus was designated as successor, to whom the scrolls attribute 13 years, 7 months, and 2 days, until the consulship of Gallus and Bradua of our year 108, so that he would have begun entirely from that year already mentioned, 95. But since Clement had already died, decrepit, in our year 100, on the 23rd of November; and his death could not have been reported from Pontus to Rome until at least thirty days later, hence it came about that from that point, counting another as it were a beginning, Evaristus is written to have held the see for 7 years, 10 months, and 2 days, until the 26th of October of the year 108, and as we read in the Greeks, after the election of the pontiff Evaristus, Alexander succeeded in the 12th year of Trajan.

Alexander therefore began to hold the see from the year 108 already mentioned, and held it for 10 years, 5 months, and 21 days. He was cast into prison in our year 116, the eighth year of his pontificate, under the consuls Aelianus and Vetere, while Trajan was still alive, as the Acts have it; in which prison he spent two years, until the third year of Hadrian, ^C under the consuls Hadrian and Rusticus, when he was put to death on the 3rd of May, and the see was vacant for 25 days, until Sunday the 29th of May, when Xystus succeeded. After him, in the year 128, Telesphorus, in 138 Hyginus, in 142 Pius, under whom the heretic Marcion arose, 115 years after the two twin consuls, that is, in our year 143, as Tertullian teaches.

30 Thus, therefore, with a specimen at least provided for the restoring of the pontifical chronology, which I promised, and having understood the time during which Clement held the bishopric, and when after his abdicated pontificate he was finally killed, let us now see also concerning the true time of his epistles, especially this one which we now pass judgment on. For that illustrious one, praised by all ancient Fathers and accustomed to be recited in the churches like the apostolic ones, which was given not under the person of the abdicated Clement, but rather of the Roman Church (having lived after Anacletus without a bishop, indeed) to the Church of Corinth, has already sufficiently indicated its own occasion and year, our 95, written while the persecution of Domitian was raging as much as possible; in the very same style that the same Roman clergy uses towards Cyprian. But the character of this homily of ours is more similar to the epistle, and quite different from the other, proving a private writer. It also insinuates a most peaceful time, untroubled by any storms in the Church; and so much the more exhortatory towards fostering mutual charity and peace. ^D To obtain which, one should not need to find a man who grants it, but God indeed. By which words, either I am mistaken, or it hints at the emperor Vespasian, who in our year 75, in his sixth consulship, dedicated the temple of Eternal Peace, the most beautiful in the whole world; thinking himself that prince of peace, the father of the world to come foretold by Isaiah, whose kingdom would have no end. Not this mortal man, therefore, does Clement admonish to be found, but God, who is about to grant eternal peace to his own. So much, therefore, is this Epistle prior to that one, which was sent to Corinth after 10 years at last. And this is indicated in Eusebius, lib. IV, cap. 25, by Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, in the epistle dedicated to Pope Soter about our year 167, in which he addresses the Romans in these words: "Today we have celebrated the holy day of the Lord, in which we have read your epistle, which we shall always read for our instruction, just as the one written to us prior by Clement." From which words I conclude what I wished: that this present epistle is of Clement himself; but that other one, not so much of the decrepit Clement, as also of the Roman clergy.

TO THE READER

Thus far Vendelinus, whose words we have described from the edition of Paul Colomiès. Furthermore, whoever wishes to know with much greater certainty the years in which Clement sat, let him approach the most erudite Dissertations of John Pearson and Henry Dodwell, regarding the succession of the first bishops of the city of Rome; men who have happily illustrated the entire pontifical chronology, although they do not agree in all things. Pearson wants Clement to have sat from the year 69 to 83. Dodwell, however, from the year 64, or 65, to 81. He also, in chapter 11 of his ^A *Dissertation on the Succession of the Roman Pontiffs*, contends it is uncertain whether the first epistle of Clement was written by him when he was already bishop; but certainly it does not seem that Hegesippus and Irenaeus testify that he was already Clement the bishop, however much they testify that he was bishop under the name of bishop. The things he has on this matter are worth reading, but are too lengthy to be transferred here. The same man, in the first of his *Irenaean Dissertations*, § 28, suspects not unjustly that the other epistle, which is called Clement's, is rather his *didache* or his teaching, committed to writing by another, and gathered from the mouth of him preaching, or recorded from the memory of those who heard him. Approach him, Reader, for there is no one who has brought a brighter torch to the ecclesiastical matters of the most ancient age.

J. B. COTELERIUS' JUDGMENT ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT

Since whatever could be brought forward concerning the Epistle written in the name of the Roman Church by the blessed Clement to the Church of the Corinthians has almost all been partly handed down by the ancients and partly occupied by the more recent ones, by way of a preface we will note down only a few things regarding those testimonies of the ancients which might perchance cast a not insignificant ^B doubt on readers if they were not explained; and then we shall seek when Clement sharpened his style. Indeed, by Eusebius in book III, chapters 16 and 38, the epistle is called *homologoumenē*, acknowledged by all with one consent. Yet that historian, in book VI, chapter 43, reports that Clement of Alexandria in his *Stromata* used testimonies of the Scriptures which were repudiated by some, namely, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude. How is it that a volume admitted by all is rejected by some? You will resolve the contradiction if you say that everyone indeed recognized the work as a genuine product of the Pontiff, but not all held it to be canonical Scripture: regarding the first point, no controversy was stirred up in antiquity; regarding the second, it was stirred up, because some placed it outside the canon, which opinion prevailed, while others placed it within, like the author of the *Apostolic Canons*, in the last canon, and therefore perhaps also John of Damascus, who places those canons in the number of the sacred Scriptures, and those to whom the Trullan bishops admit them. And a proof of this latter opinion is provided by the most ancient codex of the bibles written by the hand of Thecla, from which these two epistles emerged; since it exhibits them bound together with the books of the New Testament. And indeed there is no reason why you should suspect other ^C so-called Apostolic Canons of Clement; which among the Greeks either did not exist, or were not read separately, but at the beginning of the *Recognitions*, the *Acts of Peter*, the *Clementines*, and other apocrypha of the same grade.

To this same observation of Eusebius—that Clement imitated the Epistle to the Hebrews—it may be added that there is a similar imitation of other books of the New Testament, especially the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistles of Peter: for he was a disciple of both apostles. And it is no wonder that the Lordly and apostolic sentiments and expressions were in the mouths of apostolic men and in the use of the first Christians. Photius, in *Bibliotheca* codex 126, seems to have written: *one might blame him in these, but not in those*. Yet someone might rebuke him in these matters.

In the *Liber Pontificalis*, where the life of Clement is celebrated, as well as the transcribers of his Work, two epistles of Clement are mentioned, and these are canonical and catholic. Which is taken thus by the author of the book *On the Deeds of the Roman Pontiffs*, attributed to Liutprand, as if it treated of the first two Clementine Decretals to James. A serious error, as I indeed feel. For if the writer of the *Pontifical* book had had the Decretals in mind, he would not only have said two, but five. Just as that ^D biographer, who with amazing slothfulness, after he reported concerning the two catholic epistles given by Clement to James, adds what is contained in those two, and in the remaining three. Add to this that in the *Pontifical* work the epistle to James seems to be separated from the two canonical epistles. He made two epistles, which are called canonical. And further down:

^A Concerning the time when the Romans sent their letter to the Corinthians, there is no single opinion among critics. Some assign it to the end of Nero’s reign, or at least to those years that preceded the reign of Vespasian and the destruction of Jerusalem. The epistle itself refutes these, both in chapter 47, where it mentions as if it were ancient the first dissension of the Corinthians, stirred up under Apollos—who, according to Jerome near the end of his Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, was bishop of Corinth—and because it calls the Corinthian Church "ancient," and in chapters 1, 5, and 6 it hints at a persecution other than that first one of Nero. But after Nero, Domitian was the first who persecuted Christians, once Jerusalem had already been overthrown. But, say most learned men, Clement mentions in chapter 41 the offerings in the Temple. Why should he not have mentioned them? Since even now, after so many centuries have passed, the same mention and the same discourse can be held, as will be clear to the reader. Others suspect that the letter was written by Clement while in exile, toward the end of his life, because chapter 5 says that Paul suffered in the regions of the West, and he makes no mention of the city of Rome; and because at the beginning he sets forth his own calamities and adversities. But who would believe that the Romans went into the Chersonesus in order to write to the Corinthians? ^B Furthermore, Patrick Young’s hope for a Hieronymian interpretation of Clement’s epistle is very slight or non-existent to me, when I consider the deceptions of scribes, and how, in order to have more saleable merchandise, they removed the hateful name of Rufinus from the beginning and end of the interpretation of Origen’s Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans (which the codex of the Thuanian library nevertheless retains) and inserted the favorable name of Jerome. Wherefore the suspicion holds me that the same crime was committed here, and that the version of Clement’s epistle to James, made by Rufinus, was honored with the title of Jerome. Lastly, you are to be warned, Reader, that enclosed in brackets throughout the work are those things which, having been deleted or lost in the manuscript, were supplied by conjecture, and in the English edition were printed in red letters.

J. B. COTELERIUS’ JUDGMENT ON THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT

^C There exists concerning this Epistle a judgment of the great critic Eusebius, in *Ecclesiastical History* book III, chapter 38, expressed in these words: "It must be known that there is also said to be a second epistle of Clement; but we do not know that this is recognized as being like the first, because we are not aware that the ancients made use of it." Which are rendered by Rufinus, as he is accustomed to do, carelessly as follows: "It is said, however, that there is also another epistle of Clement, of which we have received no notice." Nor is Jerome more accurate in his book *On Illustrious Men*: "There is also said to be a second epistle under his name, which is rejected by the ancients." And Photius, *Myriobiblon* codex 112, 113 writes, "nor that of the Roman Clement, except for two and only two epistles." ^D But indeed, just as we believe the Bishop of Caesarea that there was doubt concerning the author of our epistle—just as we cannot now, after so many books of the first Fathers have been lost, blame his memory, which nevertheless did not always remain faithful—so we deny that it follows from there that the epistle must necessarily be considered pseudepigraphal: since it could happen that a genuine work came into controversy and was not celebrated by the first writers of the Church. Certainly, that doubt and that omission did not deter the author of the *Apostolic Canons* (last canon), Epiphanius (*Heresy* 37, ch. 6; *Heresy* 30, ch. 15), and the one who composed the *Liber Pontificalis* from speaking about the Clementine epistles as if no difference existed between them. I pass over Nikon, of whom I spoke relative to chapter 14 of the previous Epistle. Indeed, what you would marvel at most is that this is indicated by Jerome and Photius themselves, when they do not set forth their own opinion but Eusebius’s; the former in volume 1 *Against Jovinian*, chapter 7, the latter in *Myriobiblon*, chapter 126. Moreover, they seem to have placed both among the books of Sacred Scripture—those Churches which were ruled by the apostolic canons, and those who reckon those canons among the volumes of the New Testament, John

Damascenus, lib. IV *De fide orthodoxa*, cap. 18, and as many as used codices of the Scriptures similar to that of Thecla, from which these two epistles ^A proceeded. It is added furthermore that the same marks of antiquity appear in both, and that the same words are sometimes used; nor does the style have such great diversity that it could not have arisen from the same writer at different times and for different reasons. Dionysius of Corinth, however, writing to the Romans (as found in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* lib. IV, cap. 23), makes mention of only one epistle of Clement, because he speaks of letters given in the name of the Romans to the Corinthians; yet the later epistle of Clement, although—as Photius testifies—it was also written to the Corinthians, did not, like the former, bear the name of the Roman Church, but that of the Roman Pontiff. This is indicated by the appellation "my brethren," which you will find used more than once in the second, but never in the first. ^B

James Ussher objects, in his *Dissertation on the writings of Ignatius, etc.*, cap. 10, in this manner: The epistle adorned with the title of Clement to the Corinthians set forth (as we understand from the *Questions to the Orthodox*, attributed to Justin Martyr, Resp. ad quaest. 74) the Sibylline verses, which were later than the time of Clement; whence it is gathered that, since that citation nowhere appears in the former epistle of Clement, it must be referred to the other, which is falsely inscribed with his name. An argument clearly weak. Hear the words of the pseudo-Justin: "If the end of the present order of things is the judgment of the impious by fire, as the writings of the prophets and apostles testify, and furthermore the Sibyl herself, as the blessed Clement says in the Epistle to the Corinthians," etc. Which David Blondell translated into the French language in the first book *De Sibyllis*, cap. 20, as if he had read [the text thus]. But it is the error of a man in haste, and of too much... ^C And so, seeing that the pseudo-Justin speaks generally of the epistles, and yet neither has reached us in its entirety, it is rashly asserted by Ussher as a fact, which he could by no means know for certain. Nay, if one may indulge in conjectures, I would believe that in the first epistle, in the lacuna after cap. 57, mention was made of the Sibyl. And I provide as a foundation and author for this conjecture St. Irenæus, *Adversus hæreses*, lib. III, cap. 3, where he discourses in this way: "Under this Clement, then, a no small dissension having arisen among the brothers who were at Corinth, the Church which is in Rome wrote most powerful letters to the Corinthians, gathering them into peace and repairing their faith, and announcing ^D (the word "announcing" is omitted in the Greek in Eusebius, lib. V, cap. 6; and Nicephorus, lib. IV, cap. 15, perhaps due to the similarity of the participles. Rufinus seems to have read this also in Eusebius when he translates, expressing the tradition which he had received) the tradition which announced one God omnipotent, maker of heaven and earth, the fashioner of man; who brought on the cataclysm, and called Abraham, who led the people out of the land of Egypt, who spoke with Moses, who ordained the law, and sent the prophets, who prepared fire for the devil and his angels."

The holy martyr establishes a brief enumeration of the chapters contained in this letter of the Roman Church. And all these things can still be read, with the exception of the final one, which without doubt the lacuna inserted toward the end contained. Who, moreover, does not see that where the fire prepared for the devil and his angels was mentioned, it could conveniently have followed by speaking of the end of the world, and of the judgment of the impious by fire then to come; and therefore also the mention of the Sibyl?

The very learned man, however, says that it was not permitted for Clement to seek testimony from the Sibylline verses, as being later than himself. This had to be proved, not merely stated: for if it were certain, I would inquire of the manuscripts of the *Questions* mentioned above, whether they had [the Greek text] or [the other]. But it is not ascertained concerning the Sibylline verses when they began to be published among Christians. One might be persuaded that the matter happened under the apostles, from the fact that it is reported by many that Clement of Alexandria in the sixth *Stromateis* (p. 636) cites the words of the Apostle Paul, directing the Greeks or Gentiles to the oracles of the Sibyl; unless it could be said that Clement took the story from some apocryphal book; or rather that learned men have not grasped its sense; which indeed is my opinion. For in that place, after he had affirmed from the *Preaching of Peter* (a book placed outside the canon), that to the Greeks, that they might worship God and offer him glory, philosophy had been granted, just as it had been for the same reason to Jews and Christians in both Testaments; he adds these somewhat obscure things: [Greek text omitted]. Which words they understand as if "Take," etc., were an exhortation of the Apostle. But I do not refer the words "and the Apostle saying," etc., to the succeeding [quotation], but to the preceding ["familiar to them in their own dialect... prophets"], or to the twelfth verse of the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus, saying...

"the prophets of the same [people]," ^A etc. I attribute this to the Preaching of Peter, ^B and it perfectly accords with the final sermon of that work, which I praised just a little earlier in Clement. Therefore I translate: ^C "For just as it was God's will that the Jews should be saved, giving them prophets, so too for the Greeks, he raised up the most approved prophets of their own tongue, so as to separate them from the base and vulgar masses, as he saw they could grasp the benefit of God," as the apostle Paul declares in the Preaching of Peter when he says: "Take also the Greek books; acknowledge the Sibyl, in what manner she manifests one God, and the things that are to come: read also the Hystaspes you have taken, and you will find the Son of God written of much more clearly and openly, and many kings will marshal their battle-line against Christ, hating both him and those who bear his name, and his faithful ones, and his tolerance and coming." Then, with a single word (or single reason), he asks us: "But the whole world, and what is in the world, whose are they? Are they not God's?" So beautifully do all things stand together, otherwise they are more encumbered. Add that you will scarcely find in the whole of Clement anything cited that is apocryphal, merely by the author's name alone, without the title of the work having been set down beforehand, and without the addition of the wording that might declare what sort of writing it is. Let the whole discussion of the Alexandrian be read; let it be compared with those things he discusses in *Stromateis* I concerning the Greek sages, especially page 299, where he adduces a passage from the Epistle to Titus: "I trust that my interpretation will not be disapproved." Therefore we are not helped by this testimony for investigating the time we are looking for.

But if we are indeed dealing with the collection of Sibylline poems that we use today, it must be held for certain, as has been evidently proven by many, that it came to light long after the apostolic age. Some verses, indeed, are read in it that are later in age than the writings of the Fathers who cite the Sibylline Oracles: such as these two: "No longer through you will the maiden daughters of the fire-loving matter find the inspired fire," in our [collection], book V, after the middle; for they are about the temple of Vesta, towards the end of the reign of Commodus, and consequently when Justin, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch had already advocated the Sibylline [books] as testimony for the Christian faith. And it smacks of the hand of some Origenist, against whom the Greek scholiast noted as follows: "Falsely, clearly: for the fire punishing the condemned will never cease. For I myself would pray that this were so, Branded as I am with the deepest wounds of sins, Which require greater philanthropy. But let Origen be ashamed, babbling, Saying that there is an end to punishments." And he who in our age has surpassed most in judgment, Gerard Vossius, rightly observes in *De poetis Graecis* chap. 1, that [the collection] did not exist in the times of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and others.

^D As for what is believed by many, that the Sibyl could not have been cited by Christian writers in the first century and the beginning of the second, I truly deny this, led by not a few reasons. Since, forsooth, it is asserted gratuitously and without foundation. Next, because while the apostles were still living, and Luke was writing the Gospel, many apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works were being published by idle and reckless men, says Origen, *Homily* 1 on Luke; and following him most often, Jerome, in the *Proem to the Commentaries on Matthew*, as well as Titus, Ambrose, Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, on the first verse of the Gospel of Luke: why not also [citing] certain things under the name of the Sibyl? To these it is certain from Varro, Cicero, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, that many vain and supposititious things as if Sibylline were circulated among the pagans, before and immediately after the beginnings of our religion: following this example, why should not the same have happened among us? Add to these the testimony of Hermas, book I, vision 2, chap. 4, and what I noted there concerning that remarkable passage of Josephus, *Jewish Antiquities*, book I, chap. 5: "Concerning this tower and the confusion of men, the Sibyl also makes mention, saying thus: 'When all men were of one voice, some built a very high tower, as if by it they would ascend to heaven. But the gods, having sent winds, overturned the tower, and gave to each his own language; and for this reason it happened that the city was called Babylon,'" which passage corresponds to these Sibylline [verses] lib. III, around the beginning: "But when the threats of the great God draw near," etc. I conclude that nothing forbids that the Sibyl was indeed praised by Clement, especially in a matter not unknown to the heathens, namely the end of the world and the judgment of the impious by fire, concerning which consult especially Justin Martyr, *Apology* II, p. 66, and our Sibylline Oracles, books II and III. And perhaps Clement had seen the copies before they had been interpolated with many [additions] by Christians (as Celsus complains in Origen, book VIII, against him).

Furthermore, this second letter seems to have been written before the first. Since it alludes to that [community’s] peaceful times; and from Photius, *Codex* 126, we gather that no mention was made in it of the Corinthian dissension: but if it had been given after the former, that is, after the end of the persecution of Domitian, in a time of peace, and before the persecution under Trajan had been renewed, he would not have passed over the discord or reconciliation of the Corinthians, since only a year separates both times. Wherefore the letter sent...

between the two first persecutions, those of Nero and Domitian, and before the sedition stirred up at Corinth.

I had omitted here, as in the testimonies of the ancients, two passages that occurred later. The first passage is from the preface of the Council of Nicaea, rendered into Latin from the Arabic by Abraham Ecchellensis; in which it is said that Clement in his second epistle made mention of 70 sects. But that epistle, if it is the same as ours, is by no means apocryphal, and it by no means reported 70 heresies, perhaps it reported 7. The second passage I have extracted from the best membranes of a codex extremely ancient in the library of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, through the kindness of Gabriel Cessartius, a man of both signal learning and extensive kindness. It is, moreover, from the *Eclogae sacrarum* of St. Damascus, chapter "On things temporary and things eternal, and that one ought to prefer the things which are to come to those which are present," which corresponds to chapter 20 of Book II of the editor’s *Parallela*. ^A

From St. Clement’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians

II. FROM THE EDITION OF PETER COUSTANT.

EPISTLES OF ST. CLEMENT I, POPE.

1. Clement is celebrated according to the testimony of the ancients as an apostolic man. Wherefore he is believed to be none other than the one whom Paul mentions in Philippians 4:3. Although, as we have already warned, Tertullian in his *Book on Prescription*, ch. 32, hands down that he was ordained bishop by Peter, and in the age of Jerome, by Jerome’s own testimony, many of the Latins thought he was second after the apostle Peter; yet that same Jerome, and also Epiphanius, Augustine, Optatus, Eusebius, the author of the poem against Marcion once attributed to Tertullian, and Irenaeus, as well as the ancient catalogs of Roman pontiffs, designate not Clement, but Linus, as the immediate successor of Peter. Thus he is understood to have been ordained bishop by Peter to perform episcopal or apostolic duties, such that he was not attached to any particular church, but after the death of Linus and Cletus was chosen by the Romans as their own bishop. We explained Epiphanius’s conjecture on this matter above, where we discussed Linus, having related his own words.

2. In the year of Christ 91, Clement is believed to have succeeded in the place of Cletus. He is remembered to have occupied the Roman see in the Bucherian catalog for 9 years, 11 months, and 12 days, ^C and in the Corbelensis for 9 years, 10 months, and 1 day. He is written by Eusebius, *Hist.*, bk. III, c. 34, to have departed from this life in the third year of the Emperor Trajan, that is, the one hundredth [year] of Christ, when he had directed the preaching of the divine word for a total of nine years. Hence, the account of the *Predestinatus*, published by Sirmond in chapter 12, is of very shaky faith, which narrates that a certain Marcus—who denied the resurrection of the flesh and therefore strove to argue that Christ did not truly suffer, but only apparently—was refuted by Clement, the Roman bishop, as a most worthy martyr of Christ, with fixed and complete assertions, and was detected before the people in the church and punished with eternal damnation. For Irenaeus also, in bk. I, c. 9, around the year 180 or even 190, refuting the commentaries of Marcus, speaks of him as if still living; and Eusebius, in bk. IV, c. 11, after narrating that Valentinus and other heretics had come to Rome under Pope Hyginus and had remained until Anicetus, adds that this Marcus also existed at the same time. Which is evidence that this heretic was unknown before the times of Hyginus. ^D

ADMONITION ON THE FIRST EPISTLE

^A 1. During the past century, Cyril Lucaris, first Patriarch of Alexandria and subsequently of Constantinople, sent the distinguished Alexandrian Codex as a gift to Charles I, King of England. It was written in large letters by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian woman, around the time, it is said, of the First Nicene Council, and in it the two Epistles of Clement are appended to the books of the Old and New Testament. The first of these was highly celebrated among the ancients. Indeed, it is praised by Irenæus (bk. III, ch. 5); and by Eusebius (bk. V, ch. 6), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, bks. I, IV, and VI); Origen (bk. On Principles, ch. 5, and in John 1, 29); Hegesippus (in Eusebius, bk. IV, ch. 22); Eusebius (bk. III, Hist. eccl., ch. 16); the author of the questions commonly attributed to Justin (ch. 74); Epiphanius (heresy 37, n. 6, and heresy 30, n. 15); Jerome (On Illustrious Men, ch. 25; bk. XIV, on Isaiah 51:13; and Commentary on Ephesians 4:1); and Photius (cod. 113 and 126), to mention no others. Although it is attributed to Clement by most, it is nevertheless called the Epistle of the Romans, because it was written in their name by Clement. Specifically, Clement of Alexandria, in bk. V of the Stromata, p. 584, quotes the words of section 20 thus: "The vast ocean, which the Lord has prepared for men, and the worlds beyond it." Indeed, it is written in the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians: "Ocean, etc."

^B Those who find it treated briefly here, and explained at greater length opposite on page 517, may think that this epistle has not reached us in its sincere form, but has been truncated in some places and interpolated in others. But no one will doubt that the person who interpolated Clement of Alexandria [into this text] was a disciple of the Roman Clement, who found that the words added were accommodated to the purposes of the Alexandrian himself, who had proposed to write about Gnosis. One cannot doubt, however, that he who thought he had the license to interpolate the sentiments of our Clement in some places could have used the same license to shorten them in others. Furthermore, Jean Le Clerc, in *Ars Critica* (part III, sect. 2, ch. 5, n. 12), observes that some are moved by the similarity of two passages in chapter 46 of our epistle to the words of Clement of Alexandria, and opine that these two passages were taken from the Alexandrian. We shall refer to and examine the words of the Alexandrian himself regarding the aforementioned chapter 46.

II. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. bk. III, ch. 16) records, and Epiphanius (heresy 30, n. 15) and Jerome (On Illustrious Men) confirm, that this epistle was formerly read publicly in many churches. Dionysius of Alexandria (in Eusebius, bk. IV) is a most credible witness that this was certainly done at Corinth by ancient custom. From that passage it is also clear that the Alexandrian Codex holds, as if by conjecture, a dignity equal to or next to the Sacred Scriptures. This conjecture is favored by the final canon of the Apostles, in which the two Epistles of Clement are listed among the books of the New Testament. And indeed, Clement of Alexandria, in bk. V of the *Stromata*, while praising this as an apostolic letter of Clement, seems to give it a place among the apostolic Scriptures. ^C Indeed, for no other reason does Eusebius (bk. VI, ch. 13) note that Clement of Alexandria used the Scriptures rejected by others—specifically the testimonies of the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude—except because he held this Epistle of Clement to be Sacred Scripture. ^D In this way, Cotelerius observes that the apparent contradiction which occurs in Eusebius’s *History*—where he writes that the Epistle of Clement was rejected by some in the passage just cited, yet in bk. III, ch. 16 and 38, writes that it was received by all with one consent—can be resolved. For although it was received by all as an ecclesiastical document, it was not received by all as Sacred Scripture; rather, it was rejected by most from the canon of divine books.

III. There are not wanting those who, along with the sentiments of our Clement—

IV. The first to translate this famous epistle into Latin and illustrate it with notes was Patrick Young, who published it at Oxford in the year 1633. Joachim Johannes Mader had it reprinted at Helmstedt in 1654, with a distinguished preface. I pass over that which Bartonius published in 1647, and subsequently the efforts put into it by Godefroy Wendelin and John Fell, the Oxford prelate, and others. Later, Jean-Baptiste Cotelier published it to the world in Paris in 1672, adorned with a new interpretation and new notes. Finally, Paul Colomiès reviewed it and collected a gleaning of notes; his most recent edition was published in London in 1694. I have decided to retain Cotelier’s interpretation, as it adheres more closely to the letter, though I have changed a few words from time to time.

V. Regarding the time when it was written, there is not yet consensus among the learned. And although almost everyone agrees that its opening words were spoken regarding a persecution, some interpret them as referring to the persecution of Nero, others to that of Domitian. And indeed, some understand this persecution as intense, others as subsiding. Hence, there exists a threefold opinion regarding the time when this epistle was written: the first is that of John Ernest Grabe, who, in *Spicileg. Patr.*, vol. 1, p. 254-255, contends that it was written when the Neronian persecution was subsiding, immediately after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, that is, in the year of Christ 68, or perhaps at the end of 65; the second is that of Godefroy Wendelin, who links it to the year of Christ 95, during the raging of Domitian's persecution; the third belongs to Cotelier and Tillemont, who believe it was written around the year 97 of Christ, at the end of that same emperor's persecution. A fourth [opinion] was devised by the most distinguished man, Claude Fleury, in vol. I of his *Hist. eccl.*, p. 248, whereby he inclines more toward Grabe’s opinion. He opines that it can be referred to that time which followed the death of Nero and preceded the destruction of Jerusalem; and he interprets the adverse events mentioned at the beginning of the epistle as the civil war which the death of Nero had stirred up.

^A It is not obscure that Clement, in speaking of the distresses by which the Roman Church was oppressed when it received the epistle of the Corinthians, but from which it was recovering when he wrote this reply, is not to have the opinion of Vendelinus regarding a raging persecution accepted in the least. Nor is it less certainly concluded from that same beginning that those miseries are not to be interpreted as the persecution of Nero. For there was nothing to excuse the silence of the Corinthians regarding the delay of the letters, namely that Peter, whose duty it was to satisfy their questions, had been detained immediately upon receiving them, beaten, and taken from the living. Then, in the whole context of the epistle, it is hinted that he who is now writing back had previously received the writings of the Corinthians. Wherefore, Irenæus (lib. III, Adv. hæres. c. 3) and likewise ^B Eusebius (Hist. eccl., lib. V, c. 6), as well as Hegesippus (with the same Eusebius, lib. IV, c. 22), are to be understood according to the letter, since they testify that the dissension which Clement is now endeavoring to calm arose not under Peter, but under Clement. Furthermore, since the same Irenæus, so near to the apostolic times, writes that Clement was allotted the episcopate of Rome in the third place from the apostles after Linus and Cletus, or as he calls him, Anacletus, it remains that he believed he undertook the administration of the Roman Church many years after Nero. But who would persuade himself that he was mistaken in this matter? To this, most of the Fathers who weave the series of the Roman Pontiffs bear witness, and the ancient catalogues themselves, in which it is read that Linus succeeded Peter, Cletus succeeded Linus, and Clement succeeded him. Whoever weighs the very words of Clement in section 44, where, having praised the providence of the apostles, he adds: "Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men... and have long since received ^C an excellent testimony from all, we hold that it is unjust to remove these from their office"; whoever weighs these words, I say, will be persuaded that this epistle was written at a time when the presbyters who had been ordained not only by the apostles but also by others thereafter, that is, by their successors, had already performed their duties for a long time. We must therefore stand by the opinion of Eusebius, who in his Chronicle, cap. 15, attributes the beginning of Clement’s pontificate to the final years of the Emperor Domitian. Hence nothing appears more consonant with reason than to conclude that the epistle of the Corinthians arrived in Rome while the persecution of Domitian was raging, and that the reply was written by Clement about the year of Christ 97, as that persecution was ending.

VII. Nor is that statement in number 41 opposed to this: "Not everywhere, brothers, are the daily sacrifices ^D offered, whether voluntary or for sin and guilt, but only in Jerusalem," even though Grabe says that it is certain to him from this that the Jerusalem temple stood at the time, and that its destruction—which occurred in the year 70—had not yet come to pass; otherwise it would have to be said not that they are offered in the present, but that they were offered formerly. But the learned man does not pay enough attention to the use of speech, by which it is permitted to one narrating to place past events before the eyes as if they were present and to declare time in the present. For what does he intend for himself in this epistle, "Sacrifices are not offered in every place, but only in Jerusalem," unless that: "Except that, according to the prescription of the Law, sacrifices are offered only in Jerusalem"? Since that prescription still remains in the Law, it would not be inept even for us now to bring forth the very words of Clement. Indeed, Clement, by comparison and by the custom of the Jews, to whom the laws of sacrifices are prescribed by Moses, is a witness to the Christians that they too should reverently accept and observe the order of offerings and offices established by the apostles. This, however, as the distinguished Claude Fleury himself admits, usually happens in explaining comparisons, so that past things are placed before the eyes as if they were present.

VIII. Also, it is gathered in vain from the fact that Clement wrote immediately after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, in that in section 4 he subjects the examples of Abel, Jacob, Moses, and David, who suffered many things through emulation and envy, having premised them in section 5 at the beginning, but having set aside the old examples, he says: "Let us come to the nearest athletes, and let us take the generous examples of our age," and then he narrates the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. For no one can fail to see how rightly Clement, at about the year of Christ 97, called the martyrdom of Peter and Paul—compared with the times of David, Moses, Jacob, and Abel—"next and near" to our age. Indeed, it is not called "next" by him for the days in which he writes, but for the life, the generation in which he acts, or in which he lives. Finally, in section 47, where he brings in what he writes, he calls the ancient Church of the Corinthians, and recalls their first dissension, of which Paul speaks in I Cor. 1, as having arisen in the beginning of the Gospel, and he does not hesitate to say that this very epistle of the apostle was written in the beginning of the Gospel, even though it preceded the destruction of Jerusalem by only fourteen years. This is surely for us an evident argument that, when he wrote thus, he had receded further from that same beginning; nor would he seem to have receded further from this point if, as Grabe wishes, the aforementioned Epistle of Paul were only nine or at most twelve years posterior to this one of Clement.

IX. From that venerable monument of sacred antiquity, which savors of the supreme simplicity of the first Christians, the faithful perceive two documents of especially great moment. For first, where they see that within the primary Church, adorned with so many gifts of the Holy Spirit and cultivated by the greatest labors of the apostles, the thorns of dissension sprang up, they no longer marvel if among Christian societies, which are heard to be rightly composed, such scandals have chanced to arise. Surely, the ancient sower of tares never rests, and ceases not to defile the field of the Lord with ill-omened seeds. But although this evil is ancient, it is not for that reason any less to be lamented; but that it is a plague for which a remedy must be applied all the more quickly, we are taught by this writing, as also by the Epistle of Paul. Indeed, they knew very well how to stifle the thin flame of discords before, as soon as possible, it could be stirred into a great conflagration.

ADMONITION REGARDING THE SECOND EPISTLE

I. From the same Alexandrian codex from which the preceding epistle proceeded. Concerning this, Eusebius says in ^A *Hist. eccl.* lib. III, c. 38: "We know that there is also a second epistle of Clement, but we do not know that it is as familiar as the former, because we do not know that the ancients used it." It must be known, however, that a certain second epistle of Clement is said to exist, but we have discovered that it is not as well known as the former; for we do not know that the ancients used it. Cotelerius observes that these words of Eusebius were carelessly rendered by Rufinus thus: "Yet it is said that there is another epistle of Clement, of which we have received no knowledge"; nor was it expressed more accurately by Jerome in his *Book of Illustrious Men* (if, indeed, he refers there to the words of Eusebius) in this manner: "A second epistle is also said to exist under his name, which is rejected by the ancients"; finally, Photius in codex 143 follows the opinion of Jerome, where he says: "What is called the second to the same (Corinthians) is rejected as spurious." Certainly, this second epistle is not at all called spurious and adulterine by Eusebius, or rejected by the ancients, but rather less known than the first and omitted by the ancients in their citations. Nicephorus Callisti also departed somewhat from the mind of Eusebius in *lib.* XI, c. 18, where he speaks of the same thing thus: "And another epistle of his is carried, falling far short of the former; concerning which the same Eusebius says that the ancients did not have knowledge of it." For Eusebius says it was less known to the ancients than the first, but he does not write that it was entirely unknown to them.

II. Here it is to be noted that among all the writers ^B just cited, there is none who attributes to Clement of Rome more than two letters, or recognizes them as attributed to him. From which it is to be gathered that Epiphanius, when in *Haer.* 27, n. 6, he cites Clement in one of his epistles, or when in *Haer.* 30, n. 15, he praises the *Circular Epistles* which (the same pontiff) wrote, which are read in the holy Churches, and in which he teaches virginity, he is not memorizing others than the one aforementioned or the following one. And this is indeed the more probable because, when Jerome in his *Book of Illustrious Men* lists only two epistles of Clement, he does not hesitate to commend those very ones, which Epiphanius recently praised, in *lib.* I *Against Jovinian* with these words: "To these (the eunuchs) also Clement, the successor of the apostle Peter, of whom the apostle Paul makes mention, writes epistles, and has woven his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity." Truly, who would believe that Jerome, in the year 392, in his *Book of Illustrious Men*, in which he deliberately reviews the writings of illustrious men, would have made mention of only two epistles of Clement, if, writing against Helvidius from the year 384, he had already known of others besides these two? But if he knew of no others, where he says that Clement has woven his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity, he is to be understood as speaking in the customary way, even if hyperbolically; for when someone has spoken repeatedly ^C about a matter, he is said quite familiarly to have woven his entire discourse concerning it. Clement, however, both in epistle 1, n. 21, 29, 30, 38, 45, 48, 58, and in epistle 2, n. 8, 9, and 19 (to say nothing of what may have been discussed regarding that matter on the torn-away pages), commends parity, continence, and chastity. Hence follows that which, if Epiphanius and Jerome were proclaiming that the purity of virginity is taught not in an epistle, but in the epistles of Clement, and wished to indicate both, they might rightfully have attributed equal authority to both, as if from the same parent. Even the place which it holds in the Alexandrian codex, in which, along with the sacred books of both testaments, no other work is contained besides this one and the former epistle of Clement, is an indication that both have been admitted among the holy Scriptures: and this is confirmed by the 84th, or last, of the apostolic canons, which indeed places two epistles of Clement in the catalogue of the books of the New Testament.

III. In all editions, indeed, with the exception of that of Patrick Young, it is inscribed as the *Second Epistle to the Corinthians*: but some doubt whether this inscription is genuine or supported by the authority of the Alexandrian codex; especially since in the Junian edition, in which it first appeared in Greek, it bears this title: *Fragment of the second epistle from the same manuscript*, and neither Eusebius, Rufinus, Jerome, nor Nicephorus Callisti, when speaking of the other epistle of Clement, indicate to whom it was written. But this scruple, injected because of the carelessness of him who subjoined this second one to the first epistle of Clement edited by Young, omitting its title, is easily removed. For since the Alexandrian codex bears before itself a general index of all the writings contained in it, written in the same hand in which the entire codex was written; this second epistle is noted ^D not only in this index, but also on its own front page as *Epistle to the Corinthians*. Nor do Eusebius, Rufinus, Jerome, or Nicephorus contradict this codex. For while, having mentioned the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, they immediately subjoin: "Another is said to exist," and do not designate this other one as written to others, they are considered to understand that it was written to the same people. Or certainly, if they had known it was written to others, this silence of theirs would deservedly be blamed as negligence. But also Photius, who held at least some copy of this epistle, and Damascene, who transmitted one or another fragment of it to us, while they state in clear words that it was written to the Corinthians, confirm that which the words of Eusebius, Rufinus, etc., imply by themselves.

IV. Nevertheless, some hold it suspect of being a forgery; and specifically, John Ern. Grabe, *Spicil. Patr.* t. I, page 265, thinks it is proven from the words of Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, in Eusebius, *lib.* IV, c. 23, writing thus to the Roman Church...

"Today we have celebrated the holy Lord’s day, in which we read your epistle; which we shall always read from time to time, as well as the former one written to us by Clement, receiving abundance of good counsel and instruction." ^A However, it is not established how what he wishes to infer might be concluded from these words. Only one thing is confirmed from them, namely, that the first epistle of Clement, and not this second one, was accustomed to be read publicly at Corinth: yet it does not follow from this that this second one is spurious. Was it the custom then, that not only the epistles of the apostles, but also those of apostolic men should be read in the public assemblies of the Churches; and therefore should the second epistle of Clement be condemned as a forgery, because it was not read in those assemblies? Surely, if an argument of this kind were valid, it seems one could hardly doubt that Eusebius, Jerome and Photius would have used it to reject that epistle. But from this disparity, by which we learn that the first was read in the churches and the second was not, the reason is perceived why the first became more well-known and the second more famous.

V. Grabius adds that his suspicion of forgery is increased by the place of a certain apocryphal book, which, having been cited in epistle 1, n. 23, is cited again in this epistle, n. 4. As if it were a sufficient cause for suspecting forgery that the citation of the same sentiment is repeated. But what is surprising if one and the same passage, when the occasion offers itself, is cited repeatedly by the same writer in the same work, and how much more so in different ones? Moreover, the more unique the sentiment brought forward again is, the more apt it is for persuading us that the epistles in which it is equally praised proceed from one author. Or if this sentiment, because it is excerpted from some apocryphal book, renders the second suspicious; why should it not also render the first?

VI. The same must be said concerning the censure of Photius, who indeed, where he premised: "A little book was read in which two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians were contained," and where he explained what he thought of the first, adds concerning the second: "The second one also introduces an admonition to a better life, and in the beginning proclaims Christ as God. But it introduces certain alien sayings, as if from Holy Scripture, which the first epistle does not quite lack. And it brings forth interpretations of certain places that are rather strange." ^B And finally he concludes regarding both: "Otherwise, the very thoughts contained in these epistles are somewhat abject, nor do they maintain continuous seriousness and consistency." For he blames nothing in this second one that he does not confess is common to it with the first, and by that method he notes the singular agreement of both, whence we are justly led to accept both.

VII. Nor does that response of pseudo-Justin (to q. 74) impugn the truth of our epistle more effectively: "If the end of the present state of things is the judgment of the impious by fire, as the writings of the prophets and apostles testify, and moreover the prophecies of the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in his epistle to the Corinthians." For, first, in this book the very words of Clement are passed over in silence, which ought first to be weighed in order that a judgment might be passed on them. Then, it is not certain whether the second epistle of Clement is lauded there. Ussher, indeed, in his *Dissertation on the writings of Ignatius*, c. 10, thinks that the second epistle is mentioned in the words of pseudo-Justin; but Blondellus, in *lib.* 1 *De Sibyllis*, c. 20, translates the same passage into French as if he had read the first cited in them. Thirdly, there is no lack of conjecture that the place which pseudo-Justin touches upon pertains to that which Irenæus in *lib.* 1 *Adv. haer.*, c. 3, cites as if from the first epistle, where he testifies that Clement had a discourse concerning the fire which God has prepared for the devil and his angels. If this is so, it in no way hinders the truth of the second epistle. Finally, Cotelerius has eruditely shown the argument taken from the mention of the Sibyl to be very weak.

VIII. Likewise, that most illustrious man thinks that nothing stands in the way of this second epistle being held as a genuine work of Clement. ^C The very ancient Alexandrian Codex exhibits it annexed to the first and designated by the name of Clement, in which no writings later than Clement are contained. It is supported not only by Photius, who had a similar one in his possession, but also by the last canon of the apostles, which lists that second epistle exactly like the first, immediately after the sacred books. Also, certain peculiar passages expressed, as it seems, from apocryphal writings prove the kinship of both. I pass over other writers who have praised it under the name of Clement. I only observe that in Dorotheus the abbot, who among those deserved to be mentioned on account of the testimony brought forward from it and inserted into *Doctrine* 25, the name of Clement had crept into the *Bibliotheca Patrum* in the place of Climacus through the carelessness of the librarians. As far as we are concerned, it is a matter of religion for us to separate the epistle which has been coupled with the first for such a stretch of time, or to adjudicate the name, which it bears before itself in the memory of all men, away from it. Even they who suspect it of forgery do not deny that it is pious, useful, and not unworthy of Clement. ^D It would have been desirable that it had come down to us in a more complete state.

IX. Nor should we be delayed by the opinion of those, to whom Grabius unhesitatingly subscribes, who, because of the exordium—in which the salutation coupled with a prayer is lacking, contrary to the custom of the apostles and of Clement himself—judge it to be a portion of a homily rather than an epistle. For that reason is not so great that it can, I will not say be preferred to, but even in any way be compared with the supreme consensus of the ancients who designate it an epistle. Nor does there need to be any longer delay in the investigation of the time in which it was written. For since that is not fully determined, it is of no great importance, because no factual event is explained in it. Learned men, however, observe that it savors of the time when the churches were enjoying peace. It first appeared at Oxford in the year 1633, only in Greek, added to the end of epistle I, edited by Patrick Young. Afterward, John Baptist Cotelerius and Godfrey Vendelinus rendered it in Latin, and thence it has been reprinted many times in Greek and Latin. We adhere to the interpretation of Cotelerius, with the same liberty that we used in the first.

III. FROM THE EDITION OF GALLANDI

SYNOPSIS OF THE DISSERTATION

SECTION I.

I. Some notes on Clement of Rome, of whom four epistles survive. And first, indeed, concerning those two to the Corinthians. Study applied to these, published here again. II. The excellence and integrity of the first Epistle to the Corinthians asserted. Conjecture regarding its interpolation, refuted. III. The sincerity of the latter is likewise asserted and confirmed. IV. The objections of adversaries are removed: the first of which is taken from the dissimilarity of style. V. It is falsely thought to have been disapproved by the holy Fathers. The reliability of Eusebius is suspect. The passage concerning Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, is discussed. VI. The agreement of the same epistle with the former, as judged by Photius himself. VII. The passage of Pseudo-Justin is unworthily objected. VIII. The arguments by which Hermann Venema suspects the epistle to be spurious are solved. Clement was of Gentile origin, not a Jew. Christianity, in his age, was spread far and wide. An important passage in the first epistle defended concerning the divinity of Christ. IX. The time at which both epistles were written is investigated.

SECTION II.

X. The second Epistle of the same Clement to the Virgins, recently edited. Printed here again in a new recension. XI. The arguments by which the genuineness of these epistles is confirmed, some external, others internal. The testimony of Epiphanius is examined and defended. XII. The testimony of Jerome is also weighed, illustrated, and asserted. The same epistle was not unknown to certain other more ancient Fathers. XIII. Internal characteristics are proposed. Some sentences of the Syriac epistles occur also in the Corinthian ones. There is the same method of writing and reasoning in both. Finally, the morals are truly apostolic. XIV. The witty comment of Hermann Venema concerning Grapte, mentioned in Hermas, as the wife of Clement of Rome, is refuted. Two passages of the first epistle to the Corinthians are vindicated. Those which are inscribed to the Virgins are stated to have been first written in Greek letters, when the Church was established in peace.

SECTION I.

I. Clement of Rome is the most ancient of all the holy Fathers who exist, and not only first in name, he leads the choir: a man truly apostolic, instructed by the apostles themselves, and also a disciple of Peter and a fellow-worker ^A of Paul; to whom, therefore, by these same princes of the apostles, the Gospel, freshly sealed by their own blood, is said to have been entrusted; whose writings are all but divinely inspired; whose name, finally, while he yet walked upon the earth, was written in the book of life, as the Holy Spirit testifies*. He, therefore, this supreme pontiff of the universal Church, a pastor and excellent teacher, certainly wrote many monuments of apostolic doctrine, by which he might illustrate and confirm the Christian religion: but of these, almost nothing remains except four Epistles, by which the institution of faith and piety which he had received from the apostles, ^B he kept holy and religiously, and faithfully transmitted to us. The first two of these, inscribed to the Corinthians, date from about the middle of the past century; but the two later ones, treating of virginity, were recently brought forth into the light, unearthed from the shadows of libraries. We must deal with both. But now, concerning the two Corinthian epistles.

These, therefore, were edited at Oxford in the year 1633, from the most ancient Alexandrian manuscript codex, by Patrick Young, the first of all; the former, indeed, with a Latin translation added and illustrated with notes; but the remains of the latter were relegated to the end in Greek only. And so that the editor might duly complete his task, the lost words, as he himself testifies in the preface, and letters worn away by age, he supplied with precise ^C spaces and intervals and marked them in red ink; and...

he did so with the specific intention that readers might more easily distinguish those things which had been added or supplied from the original text. These Junian supplements, indeed, ^A later editors took care to see printed in enclosed types. For truly great and praiseworthy is the ingenuity of Junius, if one were to place trust in him. But the most learned men—Wotton, Mill, and Grabe above all—think differently about him and his labor in transcribing the Alexandrine manuscript; so that, consequently, Fell considered it less than correct that someone—he who would have undertaken the task of re-examining everything anew after Junius against the Alexandrine exemplar—would have been acting in a vain endeavor; since, he adds, the reputation for learning, industry, and fidelity of Mr. Junius is held in such high regard by all, that to undermine it with any suspicion would seem not only uncivil, but altogether unjust.

But it would be worth the effort here to bring forward what was noted by Grabe himself regarding the Junian edition of the Clementine Epistles. ^B They are as follows: “Those things which, from a collation (of the Alexandrine manuscript), offer an emendation, are reduced for the most part to these heads: I. Some things are omitted in the editions which exist in the prototype, as is evident from the Latin version. II. A fair number of words are published in red letters which exist in the manuscript; which it is likely was done by the typesetters. III. There are not a few things which the editor did not transcribe correctly. IV. Some things are written differently than the editor represented them, out of a certain singular opinion of his own; by which he could not be persuaded to exhibit the ancient spelling otherwise than according to the common manner of writing. V. Often, when he himself has transcribed poorly, he adds a correction from conjecture in the margin; which correction is actually found in the manuscript itself.” Thus far Grabe. ^C With what defects, therefore, do almost all the editions labor, being those which were modeled after the Junian? This is rendered liquidly clear from the Wottonian edition, which is the most corrected of them all.

This Cambridge edition, therefore, which is sufficiently luminous, was brought into the public domain in the year 1718, elaborated with the utmost care by Henry Wotton. For in examining it more than once against the trustworthiness of the Alexandrine manuscript—having summoned the counsel of the Junian edition, as well as the edition collated with the same manuscript by Mill and Grabe—he corrected and supplied the Junian text, which other editors had followed, eighty times; and those things which were absent from the manuscript exemplar, and which were designated by Junius in red letters, he took care to have printed in smaller type. But it is better to hear Wotton himself, who explains his design and study in preparing this edition in these words: “When I had first decided with myself to undertake the edition of St. Clement, ^D I procured the exemplars of Grabe and Mill—those which each of them had accurately compared with the manuscript codex—and I diligently noted their collations and emendations in the margins of my book. When I had done this, I compared the manuscript codex anew, more than once, with as much diligence as possible; and, since it is unique, I followed it to the letter, except in the abbreviations, which I thought better to note in this place. These are of the form: ΘΣ for *Theos* (God), ΚΕ for *Kyrios* (Lord), ΙΣ for *Iēsous* (Jesus), ΧΣ for *Christos* (Christ), ΠΝΑ and ΠΝΣ for *Pneuma* (Spirit) and *Pneumatos* (of the Spirit), ΟΥ͂ΝΟΣ for *ouranos* (heaven), ΑΠΟΣ for *anthrōpos* (man), ΙΣΛ and ΙΗΛ for *Israēl* (Israel), ΙΑΜ for *Ierousalēm* (Jerusalem), ΠΡΑ for *patĕra* (Father). When, however, the manuscript codex departs from the common manner of writing, or holds itself less correctly, I have placed the true and more customary manner of writing, as well as the readings, emendations, and conjectures of Junius, Boisius, Cotelerius, Fell, Colomesius, and Clericus, among the variant readings. In very many places I have also emended the text and restored it to its integrity, where it was described less correctly by Junius.”

The things that had primarily compelled me to undertake this edition were: that there should not be wanting an edition of the Greek text with emendations, etc. Yet this Wottonian edition, although the most accurate of all, was passed over without consideration by the learned men who subsequently struck the Clementine epistles into type, if you except Richard Russell. This is indeed a source of wonder, if not regarding the others, at least regarding Le Clerc, who had the same in his hands: for from it he transcribed the more select annotations of Boisius, first edited by Wotton, which he transferred into the second Amsterdam edition of the Apostolic Fathers of Cotelerius. But it seems Clericus held it in small regard above all for this reason: that the Cambridge editor both mocked the notes of Edward Bernard, by which he had attempted to elevate the First Epistle, and repeatedly, and not unjustly, castigated Clericus himself.

Since, however, mention of Russell has occurred, it is of interest to note that this industrious editor, in his *Genuine Works of the Apostolic Fathers*, published in London in the year 1746, rightly judged that the Wottonian edition was to be followed in preference to the others. And he who—at the end of the second part of volume I—submitted many laudable observations, accurately transcribed from the autograph of John Mill to the trust of the Alexandrine manuscript; which annotations Wotton had indeed omitted, although he himself asserts that he procured the Millian autograph, I truly wonder; and that the more so, because some things are found therein by which the reading of the codices by editors is rendered more accurate in places. Nor, furthermore, should that be passed over, regarding the learned man John Louis Frey, who in the year 1742 *Epistolas Patrum*...

^A of the Basel types consignment, Wotton’s exemplar, which he indeed desired to see, finally arrived, though Clement’s 1st Epistle had already escaped the press: and so he presented the latter only slightly more emended. Yet, whatever the deficiency of this Frey edition, otherwise quite polished, the learned man Anthony Birrius attempted to supply in his public *Specimen*, likewise published at Basel in the year 1744, and by conjectures not to be regretted, he referred to the further cleansing of the Clementine text of the Wottonian edition. But having sought for a long time in vain, though requested with the greatest zeal, for an exemplar of this Birrian *Specimen*, I was finally made to possess my wish by the most liberally learned man Gaspar Hagenbuchius, from whom, together with letters full of humanity and kindness, I received it as a gift from the Swiss of Zurich: for which name indeed I give and owe thanks to the excellent man.

Equipped with these and other aids, I betook myself to preparing and elaborating the edition which I here present: concerning how much industry and study I have employed in this work, let it be the judgment of others. I would dare to affirm this, that the Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are now at last coming forth much more corrected than they have hitherto been published to the world: for so many places have been restored, so many errors removed; that very few, if any at all, seem to remain needing amendment. But as for ^B Henry Wotton, who seems in cleaning the Greek text to have been occupied with the greatest praise above all others, I have followed this skillful editor almost everywhere: yet with this reason applied, that I have sometimes inserted some things in the notes, especially from Mill’s autograph, which even escaped the Cambridge editor himself, as I have just warned; and further, I have brought into the middle some conjectures of learned men, especially Birrian’s, which have seemed to come closer to eliciting the true reading where the text was defective. I have retained the interpretation of Cotelier revised by Coutant, unless a more exact collation of the Alexandrian codex, instituted by Wotton and Mill, persuaded otherwise; for if, by the faith of the manuscript, the vulgar reading had to be reformed, it was also fitting that the interpretation be brought to accord with the Greek text. Moreover, I have prefixed the testimonies of the Ancients taken from the Cotelier edition; however, I have interwoven some other things with them, while others were either omitted or unseen by me. I have also added the Clementine Fragments, taken especially from those which Coutant gathered: but I omitted the Irenaean passage quoted by him, which I thought better to be referred ^C among the testimonies; for in that, not something new, but only a synopsis of the First Epistle is said to have been exhibited by Irenaeus, as is clear to any diligent observer: which indeed had long since been sensed by the great parent of Church annals, while Clement’s text was still in the hidden places of libraries. Finally, we have appended the head chapters woven together from the Coutant and Frey editions.

II. But now, that we may discuss the excellence and sincerity of these epistles, it is most celebrated, as all the learned know, that which is inscribed to the Corinthians: the *Ikane tate graphe* called by St. Irenaeus, *Epistole megale te kai thaumasia* (the great and wondrous Epistle). By Eusebius and indeed almost canonical, it obtained such authority among all that, just like the remaining Epistles of the apostles, it was publicly read in some churches: which fact, besides Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, is testified to by the older Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians (8). This surely breathes the ancient vigor of the Gospel: its style approaches as closely as possible to the New Testament: the subject matter and the words themselves are taken primarily from the Epistles of Paul: finally, nothing is found in it that does not refer to the primitive beginnings of the nascent Church, and nothing which does not most greatly befit a man who is clearly apostolic.

But although such a venerable monument of sacred antiquity is everywhere supported by most of the ancient and most rich witnesses which we have prefixed to it; and, as soon as it was published to the light from the most ancient Alexandrian manuscript codex, it was recognized, received, and approved by the consensus of almost all the learned, yet there have not been wanting, in this and the previous century, those who have contended that it was vitiated and wonderfully interpolated. Among these, Edward Bernard holds the first place, whose notes ^D appear in both Amsterdam editions of the Apostolic Fathers by Cotelier: in which, indeed, he occupies himself with all the effort applied to this task, being a man *kritikotatos* (most critical), so as to persuade that this epistle is wretchedly defiled by a plain rogue who added countless scraps of Clement of Alexandria to Clement of Rome. However, the views of this more severe critic are generally approved by John Le Clerc, who first published them to the world. Furthermore, the praiseworthy Henry Wotton solide refutated both, but Bernard especially, in his notes to the Clementine epistles, the edition of which he professes to have adorned in his own name for this very reason (9). But let it not be a bother to hear the most accurate editor himself discussing this matter (10): "Vain," he says, "are the attempts of this (Bernard); for he who argues in this way from Clement of Alexandria, either does not know him properly, or acts in bad faith: for by the same reasoning, it would be done with the authenticity and faith of all those writers who are ever cited by Clement of Alexandria. For no one of the Fathers has used greater license in citing authors, whether sacred or pagan; since it is his custom not always to use the entire words of authors.

^A but to contract them now at his own whim, and to insert ideas of his own, or to omit others, or to change them in various ways. If you attend carefully to these things, you will recognize, pious Reader, with me, that the Epistle of Clement of Rome was not interpolated by the Alexandrian, but was repeatedly celebrated with praises by the primitive Church, indeed, and read publicly along with the sacred Scriptures. So says Wotton; whom, however, the illustrious John Potter had preceded in his animadversions on Clement of Alexandria (11), where he refuted the conjectures of Bernard, concisely indeed, but sharply.

John Laurence Mosheim (12) follows the footsteps of this English critic with pressed foot; if you listen to him, the first epistle of Clement must be pruned by you in its fourth part here and there, from chapter 9 to 55. But in his judgment, the first ten chapters are not entirely immune to interpolation. But John Louis Frey (13) has visibly demonstrated that the arguments of Mosheim are empty and futile: for the learned man convincingly proves, both from the antiquity of the Alexandrian codex ^B and from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that the very same epistle is held [by us] which the ancient Church held; which the primitive Christians heard, while its reading was still in use; and which, finally, Dionysius of Corinth, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and others read.

But if the illustrious man had risen still higher, he could have added to those ancient writers of the Church one even more ancient: Polycarp, the most holy bishop of Smyrna and martyr, who is reported to have handled this same Clementine Epistle, and indeed even to have translated some things from it almost word for word into his own Epistle to the Philippians. Nor perhaps would it be useless to bring forward in a collected and compared form the things that occur to learned men and to us concerning the Polycarpian reading. Accordingly, we have instituted a collation of some passages.

Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

Cap. I. Women — be encouraged, loving your own husbands in fit manner — very chaste. ^C Cap. IV. Let us teach — your wives, loving their own husbands in all truth and — in all chastity.

Cap. V. Peter — having thus suffered martyrdom, he went to the due place of glory. Cap. IX. Peter and Paul — all these — are in the place due to them with the Lord.

Cap. VII. Therefore let us abandon the empty and vain cares, and let us come upon the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Cap. VII. Therefore let us abandon the vanity of the many — and let us turn back to the word delivered to us from the beginning.

Cap. IX. Therefore let us obey the magnificent and glorious will of Him [God] — abandoning vain struggle, and strife, etc. Cap. II. Therefore, having girded up our loins, serve God in fear and truth, abandoning the empty idle-talk, and the error of the many.

Cap. XIII. Being mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus, which He spoke while teaching: — With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you. Cap. II. Being mindful of what the Lord said while teaching: — With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you.

Cap. XX. Let us see how near [the Lord] is and that nothing escapes Him of our thoughts, nor the reasonings ^D which we form — for He is a searcher of thoughts and intents. Cap. IV. Know — that [God] observes all things of ours, and nothing escapes Him, neither of our reasonings, nor of our thoughts, nor of any of the hidden things of the heart...

Ibid. Let us train the youth in the training of the fear of God; let us direct our wives to the good; let them show the lovable character of chastity — let them manifest their love toward all equally, in all chastity, and let them train their children in the discipline of the fear of God. Ibid. Let us teach our wives [to walk] in the faith, and love, and chastity given to them — and loving all equally in all chastity; and to train the children in the discipline of the fear of God.

From the passages brought forth and collated until now, it is manifest, as I think, that the Epistle of Clement of Rome, of which we treat, existed even from the most distant antiquity of Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evangelist, and that the holy prelate of Smyrna had it before his eyes while he was writing his own to the Philippians: whence arose that similarity, which not only seems to refer to the same style everywhere, but time and again to the same words. Since, therefore, so many traces of the Clementine work appear in the very brief Epistle of Polycarp; for this one reason, the conjectures of Bernard, Le Clerc, and Mosheim concerning the fragments of this taken from Clement of Alexandria, must altogether vanish. Nor indeed are others lacking who call the sincerity of the same Epistle into doubt; because, forsooth, it presents some fabulous things; because some things are desired in it which are cited by the ancient Fathers, etc. But we dismiss these more difficult critics: both because their objections lean on a very weak foundation, so that...

it is not expedient to confer with each one individually, and primarily because the matter has already been abundantly handled by many learned men. Therefore, let it be held as firm and ratified, that the first epistle of Clement is entirely genuine—would that it had survived to us in its integrity! For whatever is contained in it reflects clearly the apostolic times; nor could any witness be produced from all of ancient history who could deservedly make sound-minded men doubtful of its sincerity. ^A And furthermore, should one argue, and rightly, from the silence of that same index concerning the name of the Corinthians being absent in the case of the latter epistle?

Nor should the silence of Eusebius, and those who followed him, Jerome and Rufinus, move us; for when they mention the second epistle, they do not state that it was inscribed to the Corinthian Church. For since the praised writers—as Coutantius rightly notes—having mentioned the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, immediately add: "And another is attributed to him," and do not designate that this second epistle was written to others, they are deservedly thought to understand it as written to the same people; otherwise, if they knew it was sent to others, and did not hint at it, this reticence of theirs would deservedly and rightly be censured as negligence. Why, even Dorotheus the archimandrite, John of Damascus, and Nicon ^B the monk read the second Epistle of Clement, and indeed as written to the Corinthians, and we still find even now one or another fragment of it preserved among them. What of the fact that even Photius himself openly testifies once and again that he read a book in which the two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians were contained, and his judgment concerning each one strangely accords with those that still survive? Consult the testimonies of the ancients regarding the Clementine Epistles placed below, and the fragments appended to them. If, therefore, the passages of the older writers, Eusebius, Jerome, and Rufinus, cause any trouble—which, however, I would hardly admit—from this source all difficulty must undoubtedly be removed; since the clear words of the later writers both explain the meaning of the former and confirm their ^C testimonies.

We have thus discovered from these things, as I at least believe, that the authority of the Alexandrian codex carries no small weight in asserting this second Epistle to Clement of Rome, being copied, as it seems, in the century following the Council of Nicaea from an older exemplar. For it is clear from it that both Clementine Epistles were not only reckoned among the canonical Scriptures, as if both were truly canonical, but also that both held a place for that reason in the census of the sacred Books, and were bound together with other canonical books, because both at that time were either accustomed to be read in ecclesiastical assemblies, or at least were destined for public sacred reading. This is indeed still more confirmed by the apostolic canons, collected about the middle of that century: for in the last of these canons, putting forward a review of the sacred Scriptures, after the Epistles of the apostles are enumerated, there are immediately subjoined the "Epistles of Clement," which indeed appear to be the same as those which the index of the Alexandrian codex displays; and this all the more because that same apostolic canon arranges them in the very same order as the praised index: so that therefore no doubt remains that both ^D of them...

^A place for receiving them is to be understood regarding the two Corinthian Epistles, of which Clement of Rome was the author.

Hence, the opinion of learned men such as Vendelinus and Dodwell—which is also approved by Grabe and others—is most deservedly exploded: namely, that the work inscribed "Second Epistle" is actually a part of the homilies, and that the fairly long fragment of it which still survives ought to be relegated entirely to the ancient Clementine *didache*. Dodwell himself, a man most studiously devoted to rather intemperate criticism, even went so far as to profess that some passages in this same Epistle echo the *eclogarian* style of the *Hypotyposes* of Clement of Alexandria, and he conjectured that those two Clements had been confused with one another. But let us dismiss such censors, who are known to wander far from the truth. For surely those who presume to categorize the Epistle—which the apostolic canons, the very ancient Alexandrian codex, and finally Eusebius, Jerome, Dorotheus, Damascenus, Photius, and the rest all call by that name—within the *Homilies* and relegate it among the supposititious Clementine writings only by conjecture, are doing nothing but abusing their leisure; they do not follow reason in their arguments, but rather allow themselves to be swept away by a desire either for contention or for novelty. Therefore, their opinion should not only not be preferred to that of the ancients, but it does not even seem worthy of comparison with it.

IV. Finally, the objections of our opponents, even when taken individually, are not of such weight that they can render this Epistle suspect of being a forgery. John Morin, a man learned in other respects, considering with himself that it was held by the holy Fathers to be spurious—but undeservedly, as will shortly appear—draws an argument from the very style of the Epistle to prove his point, and perhaps more harshly than he ought. "Its style," he says, "is not simple, like the former one, but subtle; it does not flow spontaneously, but is studiously elaborated according to the author’s capacity; it is not non-periodic and sometimes *anantapodotos*, but ambitiously affects wordiness and antitheses and their corresponding clauses." These are the words of Morin, whose opinion also seems to be approved by Richard Simon. I would not, indeed, wish to deny that diversity of style sometimes provides a not insignificant argument for judging a work to be removed from one writer and assigned to another, provided, however, that the remaining factors are duly in agreement. But everyone sees that this critical canon must not be pressed too hard: since, as Cotelerius—whom Grabe follows—well notes, a dissimilarity of style can arise from the same writer due to the variety ^B of times and circumstances.

There is no lack of examples to prove an assertion of this kind. But to propose one or two: some of the ancients, such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, thought, based on the character of its style, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not by the apostle Paul, but by either Barnabas, Luke, or our Clement. Yet how shaky this opinion is, is sufficiently clear both from the Second Epistle of Peter and, especially, from the context of the Epistle to the Hebrews itself—a point which John Mill argues most trenchantly, above all others. The same writers whom we have just mentioned testify that the same judgment was passed long ago regarding the Second Epistle of Peter. But even here, critics labor in vain to prove from a dissimilarity of style that those Epistles were the work of two different writers, when it is clearly evident from other sources that they are both by the one Peter. Likewise, in regard to the author of the Apocalypse, there has been doubt from ancient times—due to other names, but especially due to the character of the style—as to whether it was the apostle John. If we listen to Dionysius of Alexandria, as recorded in Eusebius, the Gospel of John and his First Epistle cohere with one another; and, if you weigh it correctly, one and the same character of writing is evidently apparent in both; the Apocalypse, however, is alien and foreign to both those writings. But how little weight should be given in this matter to the authority of Dionysius of Alexandria, the learned are aware, as the well-regarded man just mentioned has abundantly placed before our eyes.

From the examples brought forward thus far, it is manifest, in my opinion, upon how weak a reed the argument based on the dissimilarity of style rests, by which the Second Epistle is judged not to be Clement’s. Now let us proceed to the rest.

V. We have just heard Morin, without citing any witness, assert that this epistle was considered by the holy Fathers as spurious; an opinion which is also approved by some others. Let us see whether he is right or not. Regarding this very epistle, we have the following testimony from Eusebius: "And a certain second epistle is said to be Clement’s; but we do not know this one to be as familiar as the first, because there is no evidence that the ancients have used it." It must be understood, however, that while a certain second epistle is said to be Clement’s, we do not know it to be as familiar as the former; for we do not know that the ancients used it. This passage Rufinus, as is his wont, interprets carelessly: "It is said, however, that there is another epistle of Clement, the knowledge of which has not come to us." Jerome is no more accurate: "A second epistle is reported under his name, which is rejected by the ancients." Photius, however, agreeing with Jerome’s opinion, has this to say: "But that which is called the second to..."

the same [Corinthians] is rejected as spurious." But it is more correct to follow the mind of Eusebius, ^A whom Nicephorus follows. "There is also another epistle of his in circulation, falling far short of the former; concerning which the same Eusebius says that the ancients had no knowledge of it." An epistle of his (Clement's) is indeed in circulation, far inferior to the former; concerning which the same Eusebius says that the ancients had no knowledge of it. Thus, it is clear to everyone that one must stand by Eusebius alone as a witness: for credibility rests with the author, not with interpreters or copyists. Photius, however, is hardly to be listened to, as he is much too recent for us to give him our assent; for he brings forward the authority of no older witness. What, then, of Eusebius? He does not say that the later epistle was condemned by the ancients, nor does he reveal that the ancients had no knowledge of it, nor does he write that it should be rejected among the adulterine ones; but only that it was less known than the former, and not made use of by the ancients. Tell me, does it follow from this that our epistle was condemned, unknown, and claimed to be spurious? For it is one thing to be less known, and quite another to be altogether unknown; and it is one thing not to use an epistle, and quite another to condemn it and relegate it to the class of supposititious works. In what way, then—I use the words of the illustrious Cotelier—we cannot now, after the loss of so many books of the early Fathers, accuse the memory of Eusebius, which, moreover, was not always reliable; in the same way, we deny that it follows from this that the epistle must necessarily be considered pseudepigraphal, since it could have come about that a genuine work fell into controversy and was not celebrated by the earliest writers of the Church.

What, indeed, if Eusebius, being intensely addicted to the views of Arius, had felt and written so disdainfully about the second epistle of Clement; specifically, for the reason that in it the holy Father gave a most illustrious testimony concerning the divinity of Christ (30)? This, indeed, has been observed by learned men, both ancient and modern, that the bishop of Caesarea was more than once carried away by the heat of factions, and in his History he either did not recount things sufficiently openly, or dissembled much, or passed over in total silence what he knew to be inconvenient to his own opinions. On this matter, it is better to consult Photius (31), Baronius (32), and Montfaucon (33). But whatever the Bishop of Caesarea may have ultimately thought about the second epistle of Clement, it is sufficiently certain that his adversaries can extract nothing from his words by which they can deservedly render it suspect of being a forgery.

But consider: Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, writing back ^B to Pope Soter in Eusebius (34), makes mention of one epistle of Clement, and that the former, in these words: "Therefore, we have passed today as the holy Lord’s day, in which we read your epistle, which, indeed, we shall continue to read from time to time for our admonition, just as we also read the former one written to us through Clement." Hence Grabe infers (55) that only one epistle was written by Clement to the Corinthians; which Dionysius calls "the former, written through Clement," because, forsooth, it was sent to the Corinthian Church before Soter subsequently addressed his own to them. Be it so: Dionysius here makes mention only of the former epistle of Clement; for the opinion of Beveridge (36) is not pleasing, who conjectures that the bishop of the Corinthians, omitting the epistle of Soter, spoke of both Clementine ones. Less agreeable to us, likewise, is what others think, namely that Dionysius perhaps called that epistle of Clement which was publicly read "the former," so that he might distinguish it from the other written by Soter to the Corinthians. But these things being dismissed, can you therefore rightly conclude with Grabe that, only after the time of Dionysius, well into the second century, the second Clementine was forged? This one thing, surely, seems to be able to be concluded from these facts: that it was in the custom and practice of the Church of the Corinthians that the former epistle of Clement be read, but the latter not so. Are we to conclude, then, that at that time every epistle—not only of the apostles, but also of apostolic men—was to be read in the public assemblies of the churches; so that, consequently, the later Clementine must be ^C considered pseudepigraphal and not genuine, because Dionysius makes no mention of its reading in the Corinthian assembly? Since, therefore, we learn that the former was accustomed to be read in the ecclesiastical assembly, though the latter was not, by the bishop of the Corinthians, we see clearly why the bishop of Caesarea called the former entirely excellent and marvelous, while he wrote of the latter that it was less known and was not used by the ancients. Thus Coutantius argues, and the recent Roman dissertator does not depart from his position.

VI. Let us proceed further. The learned man adds, moreover, that the suspicion of supposition is cast upon it from a certain apocryphal book, which exists in chapter 11 of this epistle, when it already occurs in chapter 23 of the former, with few changes. This same objection was subsequently repeated by Hermann Venema in the letters which he recently opposed to the Wetstein edition of the Clementine epistles (37). For from this he thinks a sufficiently open judgment can be formed, by which a writer other than Clement is assigned to the second epistle. ^D

^A Verily, do they place an obstacle to the truth from the pseudo-Justin, who is as follows (42): "The end of the present state of things is the judgment of the impious by fire, as the scriptures of the prophets and apostles declare, and furthermore also of the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in the Epistle to the Corinthians, etc." ^B Regarding these words, Cotelerius makes many learned observations, and following him, Coutant and others. But, omitting these, I am pleased to bring forward what the recent Parisian editor of the works of S. Justin noted concerning this pseudo-Justin passage: "Since the Sibylline verses," he says, "are quoted in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, book v, which work was circulated under the name of Clement, it could be conjectured that this writer of ours, through a lapse of memory, supposed that this Sibylline testimony, which he had read in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, existed in the Epistle to the Corinthians." If this conjecture is not satisfactory, I will at least not hesitate to assert with most learned men that our writer is in no way acting with those who use his testimony to prove that the second Epistle of S. Clement is by no means genuine, but the product of a man who was familiar with the Sibylline verses on the final judgment, and who lived much later than S. Clement: for to omit that the pseudo-Justin has questionably cited the Epistle of S. Clement, who is ignorant that many Sibylline oracles, consistent with prophetic sayings, used to be attributed to the Sibyl before those Sibylline poems were produced? Which he would not seem to have been about to undertake, or at least would not have had the wished-for result of the fraud, unless there had already been an anticipated opinion in men's minds regarding the Sibylline predictions. So far that learned man. But those who desire to know more on this matter, we refer them to the writers just cited.

But indeed, we know that that sentiment of which we are disputing was taken from some pseudepigraphical work. As if the authority of any work were therefore diminished, because its writer might perhaps have adduced some things that were truly said and pertinent to the argument he is already treating, even from (as it were) non-canonical sources. For if this reason had force against the second epistle, the integrity of the first would also be shouted down. What about the fact that Photius's censure, confirming the agreement of both epistles as regards certain apocryphal locations, recognizes also that they share one and the same author? Behold the criticism of this judge concerning these Clementine epistles (40): "The second," he says, "introduces certain foreign sayings and sacred Scripture, which the first epistle is not entirely free from. And he offers interpretations of certain places that are rather strange." From this, he concludes thus regarding both: "Otherwise, the very thoughts that are in these epistles are somewhat abject, and they do not maintain a continuous series and sequence." Do you see that Photius notes nothing in the later one which he does not also declare to be common to the former one? Photius therefore, as Coutant rightly argues, by pointing out the agreement of both in this matter, in a way induces, exhorts, and urges us to accept both equally.

So far we have primarily engaged with Grabe; who, however, is reported to have changed his mind soon after: inasmuch as elsewhere (41) he defends a passage from Epistle II, and indeed accepts it as Clementine, against the cavils of Luc Melier, Artemonius, or Samuel Crellius: to such an extent that it seems that there is nothing left for the patrons of the Grabian opinion, nor even for Grabe himself.

VII. There are, moreover, others who, ^C regarding the second of these epistles, offer objections by which the integrity of this Epistle, of which we are treating, is more vehemently assailed. And in the first of his epistles (43) to which we just referred, the illustrious man is entirely absorbed in proving that not only did Jerome, that greatest of doctors, look to the second Clementine epistle when he taught us that S. Clement wrote to spiritual and evangelical eunuchs, and wove almost his whole discourse on the purity of virginity, but that S. Epiphan: us ^D also had his eyes fixed on the same when he held a discourse on the encyclical epistles of Clement himself. And not long after, the learned man, utterly forgetting himself—which indeed is surprising, as it arises—he heaps up many more things (44) by which he attempts to prove that a different

author is to be ascribed to this same Epistle, and that not one much later than Clement. But would that this had not been done: for what shall I say? Did he wish to mock us with that long disputation which H. Venema was the first to weave together? Or did he truly think Jerome and Epiphanius such blockheads that they would accept a supposititious Epistle as a Clementine offspring? Doubtless, the critic, to undermine the integrity of the Clementine Epistles *On Virginity* and to parry the weapons of the illustrious editor Wetstein, fled first to the latter Corinthian Epistle of Clement as to an asylum, and moves every stone to demonstrate that this is the very epistle which the ancients, Jerome and Epiphanius primarily, pointed to with their finger; afterward, however, as if secure of victory, he rises up against this same second Corinthian Epistle, which he tries to persuade us is spurious; and he cares nothing for the truth, provided that the author of the first Epistle to the Corinthians appears to be Clement. Come now, let us discuss those weightier matters which the learned man brings forward to prove its supposititious nature. ^A

The first argument, therefore, H. Venema draws from this (45): that the author of the latter Epistle openly reveals himself to be a Gentile by birth (46), whereas the place in the former Epistle, where he calls James "our father," is thought to declare that Clement was a Jew by nationality (47). Fine indeed. And the opinion regarding Clement’s Judaism did not arise only recently. The first, as far as I know, who brought it forth was Tillemont (48). Afterward, the same view seemed correct to Coutant (49), although he later changed his opinion (50). Finally, Ceillier joined in, who, too confidently, did not hesitate to assert it (51). But an argument of this kind ought certainly to be considered weak, by which the integrity of the latter Corinthian Epistle is removed. Why, I pray, could not Clement, as Paul’s fellow-worker, call James "our father" in the same sense in which the same Apostle teaches that the children of the promise are reckoned in the seed of Abraham and Israel, as Coutant—better advised—rightly maintains? For, says the divine Preacher (a), it is not that all who are from Israel are Israelites; nor that all are children because they are the seed of Abraham: but "in Isaac shall your seed be called," that is, not those who are children of the flesh are the children of God, but those who are children of the promise are reckoned in the seed. Hence, elsewhere, the Apostle himself calls these same children of the promise the "Israel of God," whether called from circumcision or from uncircumcision. This doctrine Clement Romanus followed, having first attained his instruction from the Apostle, and subsequently, being able himself to imbue the Corinthians with the same apostolic precepts, he called James "our father": just as, also, with some few things interspersed there (52), he called Abraham "our father." This doctrine, when the Roman Church had subsequently received it, either from the Apostle or even from Clement himself, she directed to be recited by sacred ministers during the action of the holy sacrifice (53): "God, the highest Father of the faithful, who throughout the whole world dost multiply the children of thy promise by the diffused grace of adoption, and through the paschal sacrament dost make Abraham, thy servant, the father of all nations, as thou didst swear," etc. Elsewhere also even more clearly (54): "The supreme Abraham, father of our faith, offered a whole burnt-offering upon the altar for his son." ^B

What of the fact that Theophilus, in his books *To Autolycus* (55)—which I had almost forgotten—calls David "our father" or progenitor? "Then David our ancestor (who reigned) for forty years." Next, "David our father reigned for forty years." Is that bishop of Antioch a Hebrew for that reason?

But, that we may return to those words, "James our father," to be more clearly explained and simultaneously defended, so that thereafter every occasion for objection from their ambiguity may be cut off: the most ancient of the Fathers are also held to have spoken in the same sense as Clement: Justin Martyr (56), Clement of Alexandria (57), Tertullian (58), the author of the *Exposition on the Gospel of Luke* which circulates under the name of Titus of Bostra (59), and Augustine (60). Hence, therefore, the Venemian objection vanishes: for in the same sense that the apostle Paul spoke, in which the Roman Church instructed by him spoke, and in which the earlier Fathers spoke, our Clement is also to be said to have spoken, and indeed when writing to the Corinthians in the name of the Roman Church: so that for this reason, he is to be thought to have called Abraham and James our fathers—that is, the fathers of our faith—not only in his own name, but also in the name of the Romans and Corinthians. ^C

Furthermore, the critic insists, and from these words of the same Epistle (61): "We have become more than those who are considered to have God (the Jews)," he gathers that the author lived at a time when Christianity was indeed most numerous among the Gentiles, exceeding the Jews: which, he says, fits more correctly the times of Trajan and the subsequent emperors—rather than those of Clement—in which the Church of the Gentiles far and wide ^D

^A grew. But what need is there of many words? Did not Paul, writing to the Romans, give thanks to God that their faith was announced in all the world? Did he not say that the sound of the apostles had gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world? Did he not glorify God because the mystery, silent for eternal ages, had been made manifest for the obedience of faith among all nations? The same Apostle uses a similar manner of speech elsewhere. To the Colossians: *In the word of the truth of the Gospel, which is in all the world, and bringeth forth fruit, and groweth.* And again: *The Gospel... which is preached in all creation which is under heaven.* To Timothy likewise: *Great is the mystery of godliness, which... was preached unto THE GENTILES, was believed on in THE WORLD.* Nor is it any wonder, to be sure; for, to pass over other apostles, one great Paul, as our Clement witnesses, became a herald in the east and west... when he had taught the whole world justice, and had reached the limit of the west, and had suffered martyrdom under the prefects, he thus departed from the world. Since these things are so, why, then, did Clement of Rome not write truly in his later Epistle: *We have become more numerous than the Jews, who are considered to possess God?*

^B sanguine suo. Nor do I doubt that in these words, *the sufferings of Him were before your eyes*, the holy Father looked to that passage of the same Apostle, thus rebuking the Galatians: *O foolish Galatians, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was depicted, crucified among you.* Doubtless Clement, as is his habit, imitating Paul, brings back to the memory of the Corinthians how, before the troubles recently arisen in their Church, they flourished in every kind of virtue, and the sufferings of God were always placed before their eyes. Therefore, the most holy Father joins here the majesty of the divine nature with the humility of the flesh and the ignominy of the cross: he acknowledges likewise two natures in Christ: one person of the Word, which suffered in the flesh: and he proposes the sufferings of God to the Corinthian Church as a mystery of the greatest importance, from which all the precepts and institutions of a holier life are drawn. From which, therefore, it is clear ^C not only what S. Clement, but also what the Romans, what the Corinthians, and finally what the rest of the Christians of the first apostolic century felt and believed concerning God having suffered in the flesh. This point, indeed, a learned man, Marsnus, urges validly against the Socinians; and the same argument had long before been pursued by Grabe, who, having instituted a parallelism of the other places of our holy Father, vigorously vindicated this same point of which we are treating, and confidently objected it to the enemies of the divinity of Christ.

Truly, it does not escape me that in this Clementine passage which we have just brought forward, Junius conjectured that for *pathēma* (sufferings) one should perhaps read *mathēma* (teachings). But he is clearly to be rejected, with Grabe, Wotton, and other learned men, as a trifler who is found to disturb the text without any necessity, and without the authority of any manuscript. And with good reason: for would not all things fit together aptly if the words were directed to the attention of Clement, and his sufferings were placed before the eyes of the heart? When I attend to this diligently, I am surprised that the celebrated Fleury should have preferred to follow the unfortunate conjecture of Junius, rather than the sincere reading of the text; for in French he rendered it not "sufferings," but "doctrine."

^D It has pleased me to treat these matters more extensively, both to vindicate the signal testimony of Clement concerning the divinity of Christ, and in the first place to dissolve the objection of Venema; who preferred to pass over what the most learned men had noted on this passage, rather than to abandon or take more kindly the judgment of Photius, which was set forth less cautiously; namely, for the purpose of confirming and verifying, by the calculation of that famous critic, his preconceived opinion concerning the supposititious nature of the second epistle.

PROOEMIA OF VARIOUS AUTHORS

IX. It now remains for us to inquire at what time each epistle was inscribed to the Corinthians. With regard to the first, there is indeed a great controversy among learned men. But, after the arguments on both sides have been brought forth and weighed with all our strength, we think that we must side with those who hold that it was written by Clement while the Neronian persecution was subsiding and the Temple at Jerusalem was still standing, namely, about the year 68 of the common era. We know that such an opinion has been favored above others by those two most learned men, Pagi (69) and the recently elevated Father to whom we owe the Ecclesiastical History elegantly rendered in the Italian tongue (70). ^A However, so that it may be clear upon what firm grounds an opinion of this sort rests, let us briefly summarize the main arguments from the Epistle itself. Thus, therefore, writes Clement at the beginning (71): *“Because of the sudden and successive calamities and setbacks which have befallen us, we acknowledge, brethren, that we have been rather slow in turning our attention to those things which were requested of you.”* In these words, first of all, it is recognized that a persecution was designated which had already abated, or rather which had recently ceased; and next, that here the persecution of either Nero or Domitian is implied, no one surely can fail to see. But the things which Clement adds shortly thereafter are observed to indicate the Neronian one. For, concerning the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, as having been finished by martyrdom not so long ago, he has this to say (72): ^B *“Let us come to the athletes who are near to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.”* Here it must be carefully noted, along with Dodwell (73) and others, that the words of Clement, by which he describes the glorious struggles of Peter and Paul, call them *ἐγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς*, the most recent athletes, or testify that they were taken from our midst as recently as possible, and that they flourished in *τῇ γενεᾷ ἡμῶν*, this our age. Furthermore, that same persecution seems to be emphasized even more by the words which occur after a few sentences (74): *“To these men who lived holy lives, a great multitude of the elect was gathered.”* You see that no one is praised by Clement, if you exclude Peter and Paul—not Flavius Clemens, not Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitilla—finally, none of so many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian; any one of whom the holy Father would have mentioned, if he had written after the ^C persecution of Domitian, as that most eminent author argues very well indeed (75). What if Tacitus is found to have written consistently concerning the Neronian persecution (76)? *“Nero,”* he says, *“seemed to be seeking the glory of founding a new city, and naming it after himself.—But the infamy did not cease by human means, nor by the emperor’s lavish gifts, or by placating the gods, so that the conflagration was believed to have been commanded. Therefore, to abolish the rumor, Nero substituted as criminals and afflicted with the most exquisite punishments those who, hated for their shameful deeds, the crowd called Christians.—Therefore, first those were arrested who confessed: then from their information, a huge multitude (the very same phrase which the holy Father uses, πολὺ πλῆθος) were convicted not so much of the crime of arson as of hatred of the human race. And cruelty was added to their deaths, so that covered with the skins of beasts, they would perish by being torn by dogs, or be fastened to crosses, or set on fire: and when day had ceased, they were used for nocturnal illumination.”* Domitian, however, did not rage so fiercely, as Tertullian testifies, who describes his persecution ^D thus (77): *“Domitian also attempted, a portion of Nero in cruelty; but because he was a human being, he easily suppressed what he had begun, even restoring those whom he had banished.”* So that, therefore, no doubt seems to remain that those words of Clement which we at the beginning of this section have quoted, are to be understood of the persecution of Nero rather than that of Domitian. Moreover, that persecution cooled off, or rather even ceased, with the removal of Nero, who it is known perished on the 9th of June in the year 68 of the common era. Therefore, in that same year, while it was running or at least ending, with the Roman Church settled in some measure of peace, the holy Father likely wrote. You may see more on this opinion in the authors just mentioned, to whom I would wish you to add Wotton (78), so that we may pass over others.

Also, the fact that this first epistle to the Corinthians must be assigned to the year 68 is suggested by the mention of the Jewish cult in the Temple at Jerusalem still standing at that time, which occurs in the same epistle in these terms (79): *“For to the high priest his own offices have been assigned; and to the priests their own place is appointed; and to the levites their own ministries are incumbent. Not everywhere, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or those for sin and trespass, but only in Jerusalem: and even there the offering is not made in any place whatsoever, but before the temple at the altar, after the inspection and testing of the victim has first been made by the high priest and the aforesaid ministers. Those therefore who do anything beyond what is agreeable to his will, are punished by death.”* And surely Clement speaks no differently than Paul writing to the Hebrews: whom the holy Father follows almost everywhere, his *συνεργός*. For in that Epistle the Apostle mentions [*Heb. IX, 25]...

the high priest who enters into the holy places every year with the blood of another: he mentions also the priest who is ready to minister daily, and the sacrifices that priests offer unceasingly. Indeed, just as we omit other things said to the same effect, since at the present time they are set forth by Clement just as they are by Paul, it seems that the temple was still standing and that the Jewish rite of worship was still in force. Nay, the Clementine words are found to insinuate that the city of Jerusalem itself ^A was not yet besieged, but rather at peace; or at least they declare quite openly that the rumor of its siege had not yet reached Rome. But in the year of Christ 68, Vespasian, having occupied most of the cities of Judea, set himself to invest the metropolis of Jerusalem itself; which Titus, later left by his father Vespasian to pursue the war in Judea, captured and destroyed together with the temple, after a four-month siege begun at the Passover of the year 70: so that, accordingly, Saint Clement wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians around the year 68.

Thus far, one thing more pleases us to add concerning the things already said. Naturally, toward the end of that same Epistle (80), among the messengers sent by Clement to the Corinthian Church, Fortunatus is listed, the very same one, as it seems, who a few years earlier had been sent by these same Corinthians, along with Stephanas and Achaicus, to Paul while he was at Ephesus. The Apostle mentions him with praise in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (81)—which is reported to have been written around the year 57. Since he therefore stood out in the assembly of the Corinthians, he was sent by him to Rome, so that the Roman Church might bring aid to itself as it labored under ^B a dire schism. From there, indeed, Clement sent the same legate back with an epistle, asking that he might return to him shortly with the messenger of the peace that had been initiated. For who, furthermore, could easily persuade himself—as an erudite man argues, following Dodwell (82)—that the same Fortunatus, after such an interval of time, as much as elapsed from the year 57 to the end of the century, could have been able or willing, being already very advanced in age, to undertake so long a journey? But all things, finally, are recognized to fit together properly if the Clementine epistle is judged to have been written around the year of Christ 68. Nor are there wanting, in truth, other arguments by which this opinion is supported more and more; yet these we pass over by design for the sake of brevity.

Regarding the notation of the time, however, when the later Epistle of Clement was written, we can indeed elicit nothing certain from it, since it has reached us in a mutilated state, from which that might be established. Photius, who is thought to have read it whole, in his review of it makes no mention of the Corinthian dissension; but writes only that it introduces the instruction and admonition of a better life (83). From this, one might easily gather that, upon the return of Fortunatus to Rome with his other companions, the schism having already been removed and that church restored to tranquility, this epistle was then written by Clement, perhaps in the following year, 69, in which the Corinthians were still more firmly established in peace.

SECTION II. ON THE TWO EPISTLES TO THE VIRGINS.

X. Now, however, we must begin our discussion concerning the two Epistles which Saint Clement wrote *On Virginity* or *To Virgins*. They were first published at Leiden in the year 1752, from a manuscript codex of the New Testament in Syriac, with a Latin version, by Joannes Jacobus Wetstein; and they exist at the end of the second volume of the Greek New Testament, printed by the same at Amsterdam. We have based our edition on the Wetstein exemplar, restoring in their proper places those things which the most learned editor, in the prolegomena subjected to it, had advised were either to be added or emended. Also, in the Syriac text, we have distinguished the sections or chapters, following the order which the interpreter himself felt should be kept in his own version. We have taken care to describe the words of Holy Scripture—not a few of which had escaped Wetstein—in italics, and furthermore, we have indicated in the margin the places from ^D which the holy Father took them, those entirely passed over by the editor. Moreover, in order that our edition might go forth even more accurately, the Reverend Father Bonifacius Finetti of the Order of Preachers, a man most zealous in cultivating exotic languages, at our request corrected the Wetstein [text] whether in the text or in the version: whose conjectures into the Syriac reading and whose castigations of the Wetstein version, signed with his own name, we have placed in the margin. But since in this city the Syriac types which were necessary were not readily available, we went to Padua; and to our requests, by which we sought that the same Epistles be printed in Syriac and in Latin at the seminary of Padua, the most eminent Prince, now indeed our most holy Lord Pope Clement XIII, very kindly consented. Antonius Zanolinus, professor of oriental languages in that same seminary—a man of celebrity—willingly undertook the burden of the printing for himself: to which two most learned men, indeed, whose names...

are to hold the highest place in our esteem, we openly profess ourselves to be most greatly indebted; and ^A furthermore, to the most holy Father the Supreme Pontiff.

XI. Now, however, we must inquire whether each of these two epistles may rightfully be attributed to Clement of Rome. For the illustrious editor has truly acknowledged them as the genuine offspring of Clement and has attempted with all his might to assert them as such. Yet, he has encountered two adversaries who are by no means obscure: the one being Nathaniel Lardner, who in the year 1753 published an 8vo dissertation of 70 pages in English at London; and having persuaded many to take the contrary view, he finally arrived at the opinion that these epistles were written around the middle of the third century by a bishop of the Eastern Church (84). The other is Hermann Venema, who in the following year, 1754, having published three epistles at Harlingen addressed to the illustrious Messieurs Wesseling, Hemsterhuis, and Cannegieter, strove with all his might to prove ^B that these same Clementine epistles were supposititious: for in them he hinted, among other things, that he smelled the style of Jerome (85); and although he defines nothing concerning the author or the time in which he lived, he argues that he was an Oriental, not a Roman, and later than Origen (86). Wetstein immediately answered both of them, and once again championed the epistles he had edited as being all the more definitely those of Clement of Rome: Lardner, indeed, in the literary journal written in French entitled *Bibliothèque raisonnée* (87); but to Venema he responded in an epistle printed that same year, 1754, at Amsterdam, which he set against the epistle of Venema. Would that the learned man had been able to respond, too, to the other two! But Wetstein was lying low with a lethal illness while he wrote the first letter on the 5th of the Kalends of March 1754, and in the following month, on the 9th of the Kalends of April, he departed this life, being in his 61st year. The small works I have reviewed ^C thus far, I received as a gift from the most learned Jacob Kringhout, who, having sent also most kind letters along with the funeral oration which he himself delivered upon the death of the aforementioned Wetstein, his predecessor, heaped upon me very welcome gifts: for which reason I cannot refrain from giving testimony to the courtesy of that distinguished man, which is singular in every respect.

But to approach the matter more closely, we undertake to demonstrate that the author of these epistles was Clement of Rome by a two-fold class of arguments. First, we draw from external sources, namely, the testimonies of the ancient writers by which it is established that they were written by Clement, or from the works of the most ancient Fathers, from which it is gathered that they were read by them. The second class we derive from intrinsic sources, namely, from the epistles themselves. In organizing these arguments, ^D we follow Wetstein primarily, so that some points omitted by him—which seem to us to pertain more to the matter, especially those drawn from the diligent collation of these epistles with the other two Corinthian ones—may be brought forward by us on both sides.

Therefore, an older witness is Epiphanius, who has this to say against the Ebionites (87): *“Clement refutes them in every respect by the circular epistles which he wrote, which are read in the holy churches; for his own faith and speech bear a character different from those things forged by them in his name in the Circuits.”* For he himself teaches virginity, and they do not accept it; he praises Elijah, and David, and Samson, and all the prophets whom these men detest. That is: Clement himself refutes them (the Ebionites) in all ways by those circular epistles which are read in the most holy churches; from which it is clear that his faith and speech were far removed from those things which adulterously exist in his name in those *Circuits* (of Peter). For he himself (Clement) teaches Virginity, and they (the Ebionites) reject it: he commends Elijah, David, and Samson and all the prophets, whom they abhor. Which things, indeed, are known to agree in a wonderful way with these two Clementine epistles. First, therefore, in them, as Epiphanius bears witness, St. Clement teaches virginity: for as Wetstein (88) rightly notes, the smallest part of these epistles is concerned with the praise of virginity; but the far greater part, or rather the entire second epistle, is occupied with admonishing virgins in their duty, or treats of how virginity is to be kept piously and righteously: so that for this reason, the holy Father is rightly said by Epiphanius to teach virginity in these epistles rather than to commend it.

Let us proceed to the rest. Elijah, he says, Clement praises. And indeed in these words (89): *“Certainly we also find that the manner of life of Elijah and Elisha and many other saints was holy and without spot.”* Then, he says, he commends David. That was also performed by Clement in this manner (90): *“Does not that history of David teach you, whom God found a man after His own heart, a man faithful, perfect, holy, true?”* Then he extols Samson, adds Epiphanius. Behold the Clementine passage (91): *“Have you not heard of Samson the Nazirite, with whom the Spirit of God was, a strong man? This man was a Nazirite, and the holy one of God, and he was in strength and power.”* Finally, he adds, he praises all the prophets. Assuredly to this effect (92): *“Furthermore, we also find that Elisha and Gehazi and the sons of the prophets lived in”*

the fear of God; and she was hospitable to them. We find that Micah and all the prophets likewise lived in the fear of the Lord.” So far Clement; and it seems that nothing can be clearer or more luminous for confirming the testimony of Epiphanius by his words; or rather, it is evident that nothing more apt and nothing more valid can be brought forward for attributing these Epistles of ours to Clement than this testimony of Epiphanius.

What, however, is objected to these observations, let us examine. Not long ago a learned man said, “I do not care for the testimony of St. Epiphanius; for it was sought from the Epistles of Clement, which were then read in the churches.” Indeed, we learn from the testimony of St. Jerome that no other Epistles of Clement were accustomed to be read in the churches at that time except the two to the Corinthians. I am unwilling, indeed, that things should have escaped that most learned man. St. Jerome ^B does indeed testify that the first Epistle of Clement to the Church of the Corinthians was read in some ecclesiastical assemblies; but he asserts that the second was rejected by the ancients; so far is it from being the case, as we learn from his testimony, that the two Epistles to the Corinthians were accustomed to be read in the churches at that time. But that which this greatest doctor declares on this matter, the same was also professed before him by Dionysius of Corinth, the same also by Eusebius of Caesarea, and the same by the other, more ancient writers. Since, therefore, it is certainly established by the testimonies of the ancients that one Epistle, and that the first, inscribed to the Corinthians, was publicly read, Epiphanius is rightly to be judged to have known this same fact; and thus, where he affirms not one Epistle of Clement, but his circular Epistles, were read in the churches, his words are by no means to be understood as applying to the Corinthian Epistles. Furthermore, is it not the case that the testimony of Epiphanius is reported to refer to matters altogether different from the Epistles to the Corinthians? For in the Corinthian ones there is no mention of Samson, nor does a eulogy of all the prophets occur anywhere; to pass over other matters which St. Epiphanius clearly testifies existed in the Clementine Epistles.

But you will say, with Lardner, that although Epiphanius acknowledges that there are several Epistles of Clement, and that in them Clement not only wrote about Virginity but also praised Samson, he himself confesses that both are seen in the Syriac Epistles, but are missing in the Greek. From this, however, as Lardner judges, no one can rightly conclude that Epiphanius is to be understood immediately as referring to the former; for since neither Corinthian Epistle has reached us in its entirety, it is possible that the mention of Samson occurred among those things that are missing in the same Epistles, especially in the second. Truly, he who reasons in this way is laboring in vain. What do you seek? There is no room for conjectures where the thing itself cries out. Whatever Epiphanius narrates concerning the Epistles of Clement, those things ^B appear exclusively in our Syriac ones; but it is in vain that you would seek them in the Greek; so that it may rightly be seen that there is no further doubt remaining, but that the testimony of Epiphanius must be accepted concerning the former, and not the latter.

Hermann Venema, following Lardner, gathers many other things by which he might enervate the Epiphanian passage and draw it into his own opinion. And first indeed he causes trouble for the critical man, because St. Epiphanius calls our epistles circular; yet, turning his mind away from this scruple for a little while, and not having yet laid aside all hesitation, he says it shines forth that the holy Father, with the added criterion, had only the most common ones written to the Corinthians before his eyes. I fear, indeed, that learned men might not give assent to the Venemian statements, as they seem to cohere with themselves less correctly. However the matter may be, nothing certainly prevents us from thinking either that in the age of Epiphanius it was the custom in some churches for the Epistles *On Virginity* to be read publicly; or, with Wetstein, that we might judge that Epiphanius, as he was pressing the Ebionites with the authority not only of Clement but also of the Church, transferred the encomium attributed to the first Corinthian Epistle to both of the ones to the virgins. And why might the holy Father not have done this rightly? Thinking, no doubt, that the Epistles of the Roman bishop pertained to the instruction of the universal Church, just as he knew had been done regarding the first to the Corinthians. Furthermore, to diminish the other Epiphanian points, the same learned man gathers many things, all of which, however, the distinguished editor weighs and dilutes; so that it is established that the holy bishop of Constantia, when he was writing out the words recited above, directed his eyes toward these Syriac Epistles.

XII. To Epiphanius, let the greatest doctor, Jerome, another most copious witness, be added. Thus, therefore, he speaks against Jovinian: “These are the eunuchs whom not necessity, but will, has castrated. Following these, Clement, successor of the apostle Peter, of whom the apostle Paul makes mention, writes epistles and has woven almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity.” Let us now examine a testimony of this kind. There are three things in it to be well noted. I. The holy doctor asserts that Clement wrote to these spiritual and evangelical eunuchs. II. He testifies that he wrote not an epistle, but epistles inscribed to them. III. He relates that in these epistles he has woven almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. Which things are indeed so manifest that no doubt remains but that they are to be taken concerning our epistles. But what, indeed, of the points of the learned man just mentioned? They think, forsooth, that Jerome here intended the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where perhaps Clement has treated more prolixly concerning virginity.

In these places which are now missing; for not even the complete work has come down to us. What shall I say? I would dare to contend by any pledge, that out of the three marks observed in the testimony of Jerome, none at all apply to the latter Epistle to the Corinthians; but on the contrary, that they all fit our Epistles rightly. For, ^A in the first place, they are reported as inscribed to the virgin brothers and virgin sisters, that is, to the spiritual eunuchs whom the will has castrated. Next, it was not one, but two Epistles that St. Clement sent to them. Finally, in them he composed almost the entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. Where it must be noticed that the holy Jerome spoke quite aptly; for, using meaningful words, to borrow the Augustinian phrase, and using the little word "almost" as a restriction, he did not say absolutely "the entire," ^B but that "almost the entire" discourse on virginity was composed by Clement, for the reason, as Wetstein very well noted, that in the first Epistle, chapter 14, it treats of visiting the sick, and in chapter 15, of other duties which pertain no more to virgins than to married persons; whereas in the second, the examples of Moses, Aaron, and Joshua are proposed, who certainly lived in matrimony.

But then, Jerome in his disputations with adversaries, and especially in that book against Jovinian, exaggerates everything and speaks hyperbolically: so that no one should wonder if, ^C looking only to the second Epistle to the Corinthians, he testifies that the Epistles were written by Clement: which is the opinion first of Grabe, then of Lardner and Venema. Be it so: Jerome may sometimes have been accustomed to exaggerate in the heat of a disputation; yet there is no reason why we should think he did not speak in a humane and proper way here. Moreover, the holy Father asserts that Clement sent epistles to the evangelical eunuchs. Shall we therefore think he used hyperbole in this instance too, or that the one which is the latter to the Corinthians was sent to those whom not necessity, but the will, castrated? What of the fact that Epiphanius, agreeing with Jerome, ^D testifies that this same Clement sent circular epistles in which he teaches virginity? Or are we to say that the holy bishop of Constantia also exaggerated? Suppose, finally, that in the remaining parts of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians which have perished, Clement had spoken of Virginity: yet how, I pray, could Jerome’s words, by which he affirms that in those Clementine Epistles almost the entire discourse was composed concerning the purity of virginity, fit into what survives? For there, those matters which occupy the primary place are Christ God, the excellence of the Christian calling, the contempt of the world, the spiritual struggle, the resurrection of the flesh, the good promises, etc., while very few things are said concerning chastity in general, [which applies] even to everyone who is married, ^A and which ought to be preserved among them. To conclude, you may add with Wetstein that the Syriac epistles most certainly support Jerome and act against Jovinian: for in them Clement ordains that a more excellent place in heaven will be given to holy virgins than to holy married persons: which is the very sentiment of Jerome. But from the Greek Epistles, the holy doctor could not have sought any defense for his own cause, where there is no trace of the cultivation of virginity. Since these things are so, it is known that Jerome’s words must be understood as referring to nothing other than our Epistles to virgins.

But behold, that most learned man again, whom we mentioned a little earlier, who thinks he can prove the forgery of these Epistles from Jerome’s silence in his book *De viris illustribus*. Jerome, he says, does not neglect Clement in his Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, and praises his first epistle to the Corinthians: he mentions also the second, which, however, he affirms is not admitted by all. Truly, he would not have been silent about the two others, if he had known of them. The holy doctor would certainly not have omitted them, if he had known of them at the time he published the book *De viris illustribus*. But can we rightfully render their integrity suspect from this? Tell me, in what year, pray, were both that Jeromean Catalogue finished, in which there is no mention of our epistles, and the two books against Jovinian in which the same are, in our opinion, praised? We learn, in fact, from Jerome himself, that the book *De viris illustribus* was finished in the fourteenth year of the emperor Theodosius, that is, in the year of Christ 392. Furthermore, it is established from the same holy doctor that the books against Jovinian appeared after this very year, since in their first [book], he mentions the number 26 of the work *De viris illustribus*. Wherefore, the holy doctor wrote against Jovinian in the year 393 at the earliest, or perhaps later. It is not surprising, therefore, if he passed over in the Catalogue the Clementine epistles of which he speaks in those books. Why then, you ask, did he do so? Because, clearly, in the prologue to that same Catalogue, Jerome himself complains that many things were at that time unknown to him. For, he says, I could not know of those things which I have not read; and what perhaps is known to others, was unknown to me in this corner of the world. What, furthermore, if the most holy doctor mentions more works of ecclesiastical writers in subsequent books, which he omitted when he was reviewing the rest of them in the Catalogue? Or are those works to be considered fictitious because the greatest doctor had passed them over in the Catalogue? Nay, truly, no one can rightly say, along with Jerome himself, that he could not have known what he had not then read, and that what was unknown to him before in that corner of the world, in the solitude of Bethlehem, he discovered later. Come now, let us support the matter with one or two examples. 1. Jerome mentions in Epistle 71, to

Lucinius, number 4, a minor work of Hippolytus of Portus, ^A *Against the Gentiles*, of which there is no mention in his *Catalogue*, chapter 61. I do not indeed wonder at this, for in that same place he reviews the books of Hippolytus that he found, as he himself testifies: but the aforementioned apologetic work was discovered by him later, as the year 397, in which the same epistle is said to have been written, indicates. II. In his preface to book XVIII *On Isaiah*, he records that Dionysius of Alexandria composed a book against Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, the assertor of a chiliastic kingdom; yet he omits this in the *Catalogue*, chapter 69, even though he instituted a far more accurate enumeration of the works of this same Dionysius there. The reason for this silence is simply that those commentaries were composed five years later. Nor can I agree with the most learned Valesius, who thinks (3) that the holy Doctor refers to Irenæus less correctly concerning the writings which Dionysius sent against the Egyptian bishop Nepos. Since in the *Catalogue*, Jerome clearly declares, just as Eusebius before him, that Dionysius published two books against Nepos: yet in the preface to *Isaiah* (l.c.), he asserts that the same Dionysius published a book against Irenæus. III. When speaking in the *Catalogue*, chapter 76, of Pierius, a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, the holy Father mentions only his treatise on the prophet Hosea: yet in epistle 49, number 3, written toward the end of the year 393 to Pammachius, he praises the most extensive commentary of the same Pierius on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. IV. He omits in the *Catalogue*, chapter 129, Didymus’ *Commentary on the Psalms*; of which, however, he makes mention in Epistle 112, number 20, sent in the year 404, to Augustine. Time would fail me if I wished to recount all ^B the works of ancient writers previously omitted in the book *On Illustrious Men*, which are later announced in other Jeromean studies. But let these suffice, by which the whole dispute seems to be settled.

Lest anyone think, however, that these two ancient Fathers were the only ones who clearly knew the Epistles of which we speak—since we have discovered that other, older authors were not ignorant of them from many parallel passages in Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and furthermore Jerome himself, all of which the acclaimed Wetstein (4) diligently sought out and examined—and although it would have been pleasing to describe them here, we have judged it better, for the sake of our plan, to omit them, lest our discourse run on longer than is fitting.

XIII. Since, however, besides the external arguments drawn from the testimony ^C of the ancients, which we have defended as far as we were able against objections, there are also internal ones at hand by which the integrity of these same epistles is more and more confirmed; it is our opinion that it is in our interest to propose them, if only briefly, here.

First, therefore, we perceive in these Syriac epistles some sentiments which the Greek versions likewise exhibit almost word for word. Take one or two examples. 1. We read in 1 *Corinthians*, chapter 27: *With this hope, therefore, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises. He who commanded us not to lie, much more will He not lie: for nothing is impossible to God, except to lie.* Thus clearly in the first epistle *to the virgins*, chapter 4: *It desires the hope promised and prepared and placed in the heavens by God, who has promised with His mouth and does not lie.* In both instances, Clement ^D is imitating the apostle Paul, as he is accustomed; in whom the same phrase occurs: *That by two immovable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.* II. In the 4th epistle *to the Corinthians*, chapter 4, the holy Father writes thus: *Emulation caused Joseph to sustain persecution even unto death, and to be sold into slavery.* The same mode of expression is in the 2nd epistle *to the virgins*, chapter 8: *Did the woman not covet the beauty of this chaste and righteous man (Joseph)? So that when he would not submit and incline himself to her concupiscence to do her lust and will, she cast the righteous man into every affliction and every torture even unto death.* III. In the 1st epistle *to the virgins*, Clement praises laborers who imitate the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. St. Basil brings forth matters akin to these from another place in the same Clement, saying thus (5): *‘O Κλήμης ἀρχαϊκώτερον· Ζῇ, φησὶν, ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.’* Clement more simply: *Vital, he says, is God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.* Many other things of this kind will be readily available to one who attentively reads the Corinthian and Syriac epistles and diligently compares them one with another; and therefore we refrain from citing them. Here, however, it pleases me to add only this once more, that a sentiment repeated by a most learned man—the more often it is brought forward, the more fit it is to convince—originates from one author. For what is surprising if one and the same place, when occasion offers, is cited repeatedly by the same writer in the same work, how much more in different ones?

Next, the method of writing, of bringing forward examples, and of reasoning is observed to be absolutely the same in both. For example, in the 1st epistle *to the Corinthians*, chapters 4-12 and elsewhere passim: *Let us run,* he says, *unto all generations. Let us look with fixed eyes upon those who have served His glory perfectly. Let us take Enoch, etc.* But as for the ancient...

examples, let us leave them and come to those athletes who are closer to the period, and let us propose the generous examples of our own age. Now, you have very similar and most closely related passages in the 2nd Epistle to Virgins, chaps. 7-15: *Let us consider, therefore, brothers, and let us see how all the righteous fathers behaved during the whole time of their habitation in life: let us inquire and search from the Law to the New Testament.* And, not to make our discourse too long, what was said about the Lord Jesus Christ? *The Lord Himself, with the twelve disciples, etc.* ^B Clearly, it was the custom of Clement, who was most studious of the sacred Scriptures, to draw many examples from the pages of both Testaments which he perceived to be in the highest degree congruent with his purpose: a thing which, indeed, in both pairs of Epistles, we see plainly done in exactly the same tenor. And here, too, as often elsewhere, he constantly adheres to the apostle Paul, who first sets the deeds of the patriarchs and prophets before the eyes of the Hebrews, and exhorts them to the retention of the faith; then, having proposed the examples of Christ and the saints, he strives to entice them to endure passions and to preserve peace, concord, and holiness, thus finally concluding his prayer: *Therefore, we also, having such a great cloud of witnesses set before us, laying aside every weight and the sin that surrounds us, let us run with patience the contest proposed to us.*

Neither do we think that one or another indication of style should be omitted—which is certainly not insignificant—by which what we intend is more strongly confirmed. Behold that from Epist. 1 to the Corinthians, chap. 3: *Hence,* he says, *emulation, envy, strife, sedition, persecution, commotion, war, and captivity have flowed.* And chap. 35: *Let us therefore strive with the greatest zeal to be found in the number of those who wait for Him, casting away from us all injustice and iniquity, avarice, contentions, malignities and deceits, whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, pride and ostentation, vain glory, and the love of vanity.* Compare these, if you please, with those things which are read in the Epist. to Virgins, chap. 8: *Whoever are truly faithful,* he says, *and the spirit of Christ dwells in them, in them there cannot be the thought of the flesh, which is fornication, impurity, uncleanness, idolatry, witchcraft, enmity, envy, strife, anger, quarreling, division, zeal, etc.* Does not ^D Clement reveal himself in both places? For Clement, I say, having everywhere imitated the character of the Pauline writing, seems to have looked both here and there toward Rom. 1, 29-31; Gal. 5, 19-21; 1 Tim. 6, 4-5 and 2 Tim. 3, 2-5. To this, I would like you to add the doxology, used midway through the epistle in the same Pauline manner, and the abundance of words derived everywhere from the divine Scriptures, and many other things that run before the eyes of a clever reader, whether in those to the Corinthians or in the Syriac ones. To these, moreover, are added truly apostolic morals: simplicity, modesty, frugality, benevolence, and the rest. In a word, both pairs of epistles appear both to bear the living image of Clement and to almost breathe it.

XIV. It remains for us to clarify also that which the often-praised learned man does not fear to impute. Namely, he says (7), the author himself numbers himself among the brothers of the virgins (8), and proposes his own example to them to be imitated in all conduct. Which historical fact, if you listen to this censor, seems alien to the person of Clement; nay, it does not even consist with the confession of Clement himself; for if those things which are uttered in the first person in his epistle to the Corinthians could be referred to himself as well, it should be allowed, provided nothing stands in the way. But the critic adds that he speaks of our wives and children when he says (9): *Let us correct our wives toward what is good; let our children be participants in the discipline of Christ, etc.* To which I ask, eventually, what strength does it add if Grapte is joined to Clement in Hermas (10)? The reason for which matter can hardly be given better than that Grapte was the wife of Clement. So far the learned Venema: and indeed quite cleverly. I for my part would not wish to suspect a distinguished man of being prejudiced against ecclesiastical celibacy. But that which I do not at all think he should be forgiven is that, wishing to add force to his opinion, he foists upon us, as if it were the reading of the Roman [Clement], that which was to be attributed to the Alexandrian. We touch upon the matter briefly below (11); yet, since the Veneman figment demands that it be discussed here, not merely requests it, therefore St. Clement (12) says: *Τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν διορθωσώμεθα. Τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ παιδείας μεταλαμβανέτωσαν.* That is: *Let us correct our wives toward what is good. Let your children be participants in the discipline of Christ.* Thus consistently the manuscript codex, from which alone the Clementine epistle was taken. It surely does not escape me that in Clement of Alexandria (13), who transcribed from the Roman [epistle] almost the entire 21st chapter, *τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν* is read. But there is finally no reason why we should "correct" the Roman Clement from the Alexandrine, and do violence to the reading of the manuscript codex, with the distinguished editor Potter and Davis who followed him: especially since no one is unaware that it was the custom of Clement of Alexandria, in transcribing the places of authors, to contract some things, to remove others, to interpolate others, and to change them at will, in a word, to permit himself everything: a thing which he executes quite licentiously in this very chapter, as can be seen in Wotton.

^A Who then among you is noble? Who is compassionate? Who is full of charity? Let him say: "If because of me there are sedition and discord and schisms, I depart, I go away whithersoever you will..." Whoever shall have done this, shall win for himself great glory in the Lord, and every place will receive him. By which words, surely, no one fails to see that Clement exhorts the Corinthians that even if there be anyone among them who is righteous and immune from schism, and even adorned with every kind of virtue, he should nevertheless yield to his right, that the tranquility of the Corinthian Church may arise from it. Does not Epiphanius, therefore, marvelously agree with Clement when he says that he spoke in this way, [*τισὶ τοῦτο συμβουλεύων*]? Hence the holy bishop of Constance is undeservedly accused by Thorndike and Burton, that he did not grasp the Clementine sentiment. By the same token, other men of great name strive in vain to confirm the abdication of Clement from the words of the same holy Father.

What do you ask, you say? Granted: Clement may have written [*τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν*]: but that he wrote [*τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν*] is clear, which is of course sufficient to strengthen Venema’s position. Indeed, he who thinks so must have read Clement less attentively. Since the reason why the holy Father wrote [*τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν*] was the word [*διορθωσώμεθα*]; so that it might be congruent with the sentiment of the address instituted a little before in the first person: [*ἐντραπῶμεν, αἰδεσθῶμεν, τιμήσωμεν, παιδεύσωμεν*]. But when he immediately after uses another sort of speech, it must be judged that he wrote [*τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν*]: just as if he were swept away by the course of his discourse, and, satisfied less with what he had just written, "let us correct our wives," he wished to amend it; and so, sharpening his style more chastely, and looking toward the dignity of one teaching, he changes the speech and writes more conveniently, "let your children receive." The good reading of the Alexandrian manuscript is therefore to be retained, and the conjecture of the learned man, drawn from here about Grapte being the wife of Clement, is to be cast far away; he preferred to copy the Cotelerian version—revised by Clericus, whether corrupt or unfaithful—rather than to consult the text itself.

^B H. Venema is to be noted with better right, who abuses the authority of Epiphanius for this very reason, that by his invention concerning Grapte, the wife of Clement, he might lay a foundation, relying on no testimony of the ancients—nay, with the faith of ancient writers resisting him on the contrary. For, to omit the interpolator of the Epistles of Ignatius, whom this censor alone knows, we have the yet more ancient writer of the *Recognitions*, at the end of the second century, whose words are these: "I, Clement, born in the city of Rome, from my first age practiced the study of chastity." Which afterwards the authors both of the *Clementines* and of the *Epitome* copied. To these is added Althelmus, who is found to have celebrated the virginity of Clement both in prose and in verse. Clement, therefore, was a virgin, if there be faith in these authors. "And why not faith?" says the most learned Cotelerius.

But Hermann Venema is not yet to be dismissed. The critic proceeds! And in order to prove that the words brought forward are to be taken as if spoken by Clement about himself, he adds: "Although he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome, he nevertheless wrote the epistle himself, and points his finger expressly to himself," as in the words: "If because of me there are sedition and discord and schisms, I depart, I go away: to be done, Epiphanius established." ^C This censor labors in vain. And it is indeed hard to bear that a man so sharp-sighted did not perceive that Epiphanius did not transcribe the sentiment of Clement from his own epistle, but from certain commentaries in which he had found that saying. For thus he says in the loc. cit.: "He says in one of his epistles: 'I withdraw, I go away.' ...For we found this lying in certain commentaries." Because not only does Epiphanius himself clearly testify that Clement, bringing those things forward, was advising some in this way: [*τισὶ τοῦτο συμβουλεύων*]: so far is the holy bishop of Constance from having handed down to memory that Clement expressly pointed his finger to himself in that place, as the clear man perversely contends.

Nevertheless, let us hear Clement himself speaking thus: "Who therefore among us is noble? Who is compassionate? Who is full of love? Let him say: 'If because of me there is sedition, and strife, and schisms, I withdraw, I go away, wherever you wish.' He who has done this shall win for himself great glory in the Lord, and every place will receive [him]." ^D Truly, what more is to be said about Grapte? If you look deeply into the words of Hermas, you should indeed feel with the learned men that she was a woman of notable piety, perhaps a deaconess, or [*πρεσβῦτις*] of the Roman Church, a widow, namely, to whom the office was entrusted of instructing the remaining younger widows and orphans placed under the care of the widows with the best precepts and institutions. Since, therefore, the learned Venema looks in vain for the support of his cause from the words of Clement or the authority of Epiphanius—nay, since both the most ancient writers of the Church and the most learned of the moderns stand against him; and since he himself brings forward no surety at all in public for his opinion—Grapte, the wife of Clement, whom he invents, must of necessity vanish into nothing; and since with such a fable vanishes...

that argument also taken from here, by which he attempted to attack the sincerity of the Epistles to Virgins. But enough of these. Moreover, the learned Wetstein gathers that the same Epistles were written originally in Greek, both from the words εὐχαριστία, ἀσωτία, κίνδυνος, τάξις, σχήμα, διαθήκη, ἀγών, occurring verbatim; and ^A from the not obscure Greek expressions φιλαδελφία, φιλοξενία, φιλαργυρία, φιλοπρωτεία, παραιτεῖσθαι, etc. And they were perhaps written not long after the death of Nero, while the Church was enjoying tranquil peace: for in them there is no mention of any calamity or vexation of the Christians.

IV. FROM THE HISTORY OF FR. LUMPER.

CHAPTER FIRST.

SINGLE ARTICLE. — HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF ST. CLEMENT.

^BThe fatherland and nobility of the lineage of St. Clement. — Clement Romanus is the most ancient of the holy Fathers, as many as are extant, and is not the first by name alone; he was born at Rome of a senatorial family (25). The Greek Acts of St. Peter, in Henschenius, testify also that he was a relative of the Emperors, and that Nero, while he was persecuting the Christians, abstained from him for that reason.

The year of his birth, and his conversion. — In what year he first saw the light, no one, so far as I know, has reported; if, however, one may be permitted to conjecture, he can be reckoned as born while Christ was still dwelling on earth, based on the remainder of the series of his life. St. Paul, in the epistle which he addressed to the Philippians, praises our Clement as his companion in apostleship and fellow-worker; in the books ^B of the Recognitions, which circulate under this name of Clement, it is narrated that he was converted to Christ by the divine Peter, the prince of the apostles, and afterwards adhered to him as a faithful companion. Although the authority of these books may not be very firm, yet in this regard nothing of great importance presents itself why it should seem to be rejected.

He is designated bishop by the divine Peter. — That Clement moved with both princes of the apostles for a long time and intimately, and that he was also designated by Peter as his successor in pasturing the flock of the Lord, most people admit (26).

He succeeds Cletus in the pontificate, in the year of Christ 91. — In what order he occupied the Roman cathedra is an ancient matter, and one still ^C under judgment; that he did not sit before he moved toward this path of the just, being even of the stock of the Caesars, ^D filled with all knowledge, and most skilled in all the liberal arts; and therefore he flourished so excellently in it, that he stood forth also as the successor of the Prince of the apostles. We do not at all disparage their faith, since the words of Clement himself, brought forward to the contrary, can be understood concerning the grace of faith, on account of which, as the apostle Paul says to the Galatians, chap. III, they are reckoned as children of the promise in the seed. What of the fact that Theophilus, in his books to Autolycus, lib. II, sect. 25, calls David our father or progenitor? "Then David our father reigned forty years." Is that bishop of Antioch, therefore, a Hebrew? In the very same sense have the most ancient Fathers spoken along with Clement: Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, sect. 134); Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, lib. VI, c. 7); Tertullian against Marcion, lib. IV, c. 24; the author of the Exposition on the Gospel of Luke, which circulates under the name of Titus of Bostra (Tit. Bost. on chap. 1 of Luke, Bibliot. PP., edit. Paris., tom. XIII, pag. 767); Augustine, sermon 5, §4, Opp. tom. V, pag. 30.

(25) More recent critics, led by very slight evidence, think he was not Roman and born of a most illustrious family, but generated from Jewish stock. The first to introduce this novelty was Tillemont in his *Ecclesiastical historical monuments*, vol. II, pag. 149. From there, however, the same view appeared to our Coutant in his most celebrated work, *Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs*, vol. I, pag. 11, although later he changed his opinion in the cited place, pag. 41. Finally, our most reverend lord Remi Ceillier approached, who did not hesitate to assert this too confidently in his *General History of Sacred and Ecclesiastical Authors*, vol. I, pag. 598. He thought it could be gathered from the fourth chapter of the same saint's epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: "By reason of jealousy, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother." But these words cannot excise the ancient opinion. Indeed, the author of the *Liber Pontificalis* followed it, saying: "Clement by birth a Roman, from the region of the Caelian mount, from his father Faustinus." Similar things are held in the older *Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs*, and the *Roman Breviary* agrees for the day of November 23; about him also St. Eucherius of Lyon in his epistle to Valerius: "Clement of an ancient senatorial family"—(26) See Irenaeus, lib. III, c. 3; Zosimus, in Baron., ad ann. 417, num. 20.

^A Linus, whom the divine Jerome mentions at the beginning of chapter LIII of Isaiah, is already held for certain. For although he was consecrated bishop by Saint Peter and designated as successor, he nevertheless modestly refused the honor at that time, and is said by Baronius—whose opinion is confirmed by Natalis Alexander, Bollandus, Cotelerius, and Tillemont—to have voluntarily yielded to Saint Linus after the death of Saint James. And Natalis Alexander, in the cited place, notes that he would have been setting a very bad example for posterity had he exercised the pontificate by virtue of the ordination and designation made to him by Saint Peter (however just it might have been); for he foresaw that if it were permitted for a pontiff to designate his own successor, many would be elevated to the chair of Peter who, not following in the footsteps of Peter, would pay heed to the relationship of flesh and blood rather than to the breath of the Holy Spirit... ^B and thus the supreme priesthood of the Church would descend from the order of Melchizedek into the order of Aaron, and not the dignity of celestial grace, but carnal succession would generate the Priest.

Saint Irenaeus, enumerating the Roman pontiffs who flourished up to his own time, places Clement in the third position after Saint Peter. Similarly, Eusebius and Epiphanius are of this opinion; but on the contrary, Saint Augustine testifies that Clement immediately succeeded Linus; this order in the numbering of Peter's successors is also held by Saint Optatus of Milevis, by the Chronicle which is commonly attributed to Damasus, and by the old catalogue of Roman pontiffs from the manuscript codex of the Queen of Sweden, printed by the Belgian hagiographers in the *Propylaeum* of May.

Beyond the fact that these testimonies are so contradictory, there is no lack of difficulties for each of these opinions; yet the latter is heavily weighed down by the fact that the Church's fasti, the ancient tradition of the Romans, and most of the catalogues of Roman pontiffs assert that Saint Clement was crowned with martyrdom during the reign of Trajan, and thus at the beginning of the second century; although no one testifies that Linus sat for more than eleven, or Clement for more than ten years, and yet it is certain that thirty years at the absolute minimum passed from the martyrdom of Peter to the reign of Trajan. To extricate themselves from this difficulty, ^C some claim that he abdicated the pontifical dignity and died long afterward; but that is not free from all doubt. Whatever, however, may come nearer to the truth in a matter so obscure and entangled with chronological knots, must be left to the reader's judgment: my own mind inclines toward subscribing to Saint Irenaeus, as the most ancient of all witnesses and one who was not stationed far from the Romans but lived in the City itself, and I judge that Clement held the chair not before, but after Linus and Cletus, or Anacletus, as Irenaeus has it.

*Things done by him in the pontificate.*—At the time when he presided over the Church, he is remembered for having done two things above all. Because the Church of the Corinthians was suffering from a dire schism, he wrote an excellent epistle, still extant today, in which he persuaded them to peace and mutual concord against the laity who were rising up against the most holy presbyters. The holy Pontiff brought that matter to a successful conclusion. The second thing is that he divided the seven regions of the city into as many notaries, who were to inquire into the acts of the holy martyrs and commit them to writing for posterity: from this we also discern what great diligence the Roman Church has employed from its very infancy in collecting the records of the martyrs. These documents, to the great detriment of the Christian cause, perished in the flames under Diocletian, who labored to extirpate the Christian religion from its foundations, so that today only a few genuine monuments of venerable antiquity remain. Clement himself also deserved to be inscribed in those same records.

*The martyrdom of Saint Clement, and his death.*—For when he was banished to the Tauric Chersonese (commonly called Little Tartary) and had converted all the inhabitants to Christ by his doctrine and miracles, by the order of Trajan he was cast into the sea in the year of our Lord 100, in the third year of Trajan. These things are derived from the acts which are in our hands today; yet they are rightfully called into doubt by most grave men, especially Pearson, as we shall show later in a special article. There are those who opine that the divine Clement did not depart this life by a violent death at all. Thus Eusebius and Saint Jerome commemorate his death without making any mention of martyrdom. ^D

^A Irenæus (37), however, when listing the Pontiffs down to Eleutherius, signifies that none of them suffered martyrdom except Telesphorus. Rufinus (38) alone calls the holy Clement a martyr, and Pope Zosimus (39) says regarding him that he made such progress in recognizing the truth that he sealed the faith he had received from Saint Peter and handed down to the people with martyrdom. ^B It must be observed, however, with the learned Remi Ceillier (40), that the title of martyr was often attributed to those who suffered something for Christ, even if they had not been killed by tortures; and this seems to have been the reason why Rufinus and Zosimus called him a holy martyr, for although he had governed the Church while the persecution of Domitian was raging, he had not been entirely immune from it.

CHAPTER II. ON THE WRITINGS OF SAINT CLEMENT, THE FIRST ROMAN PONTIFF.

ARTICLE I. ON HIS FIRST EPISTLE WRITTEN TO THE CORINTHIANS.

Saint Clement wrote in the name of the Roman Church. Among the many small works accustomed to be attributed to our Clement, there is one epistle sent by him in the name of the Roman Church to the Corinthians, which can certainly be praised as his genuine product. It is recommended by Irenæus (41), Dionysius, the bishop of the Corinthians in the second century, in his letter to Soter (42), Eusebius (43), Cyril of Jerusalem (44), Epiphanius (45), and many others (46). Saint Jerome teaches that this Epistle was written in the name of the Roman Church (47). For in that age, bishops did not undertake anything without consulting their Church. Moreover, since the plan was to remove the schism that was harassing the Church of the Corinthians, it seemed that the entire Roman Church would have greater weight among them than the Bishop alone.

What was the occasion of its writing?—This Epistle, as we have noted, was written on the occasion of a schism which at that time was vexing the Church of the Corinthians. ^C That schism had been stirred up out of the envy of certain people against those who held dignities and offices; whence an opportunity was given to the infidels to blaspheme the religion of Jesus Christ. But when the Corinthians themselves were ashamed of their schism, they wrote to the Roman Church, proposing certain questions. This schism was afflicting the soul of Saint Clement greatly, and he desired to oppose such an evil: but because the Romans themselves were being tossed by other troubles, he could not bring them ready aid. However, when Domitian was dead in the year 95 and Roman affairs were placed in greater tranquility, Saint Clement, taking the opportunity, finally wrote back to the Corinthians.

Judgment on this epistle.

^A does not recount—nothing that would be altogether unbecoming for a man clearly apostolic.

Dubious questions are raised concerning this epistle. But although such a venerable monument of sacred antiquity is supported on every side by many ancient and richly-supplied witnesses; and although at the same time, as soon as it was brought to light from the most ancient Alexandrian manuscript, it was acknowledged, received, and approved by the highest consensus of almost all learned men as entirely sincere, however much it may be; yet both in this and the previous century, there have been those who have stubbornly contended that it is corrupted and wondrously interpolated. Among these, holding the first rank, is Gisbertus Voetius, professor of theology at the Academy of Utrecht, who moved various (52) objections against this epistle, but they are clearly frivolous and savor of slothful negligence, as Joachimus Maderus clearly shows in the preface to the reader prefixed to the Helmstedt edition of Clement’s Epistle. But it is not at all surprising that this man, otherwise of much reading in more recent works, should have called into doubt the epistle of Saint Clement and other such monuments to be venerated for their antiquity; since he himself, from a poorly preconceived opinion and hatred against the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church, has wished that no writing of the apostolic men should survive, as he indicates in that very place with the following words: "We admire the singular providence of God, which took care so that by the disciples of the apostles, and by men close to the age of the apostles, either nothing was written, or nothing was preserved and passed on to posterity, or at least that nothing from the beginning of the Church down to this day should survive about which there might not be doubt; or [that it] was not mutilated by moths, by worms, or by any other army of God: so that the authority of Scripture alone might stand out the more evidently, and that to it alone might belong incorruptibility and eternity." But others, of better judgment in these matters, directly contradicting such things, marvel rather, and rightly proclaim (in the judgment of the most illustrious man Grabe (53)), the singular divine providence which took care that by the disciples of the holy apostles, and by apostolic men close to the age of the apostles, many things were written, and that some of these, having been holily preserved from the beginning of the Church, should survive to this very day, and not by moths and worms, or any other army of that kind, been destroyed, but [would be] brought forth by strenuous defendants standing in the orderly battle line of God, so that no room for doubt might be left regarding them; so that the authority of Scripture might stand out so much more evidently, and the canonical Gospels and other writings of the holy apostles and disciples might be discerned from the false ones which have been supposititiously assigned to their names (which, without the tradition of the Catholic Fathers, ^B to an age of those nearby, can scarcely, and not even scarcely, be done), and finally so that the sacred codex might be vindicated from corruption and injury, not so much of times as of evil minds, and its genuine sense in some places, somewhat obscure, and more obscured by heretics, might be egregiously illuminated; and thus the proper truth of the divine word against the false opinions of certain men, born yesterday but destined to die tomorrow, might be strengthened, to endure forever. Thus far the most grave man, Grabius.

Following closely in Voetius’s footsteps, Eduard Bernard and Joannes Clericus (54) have attempted to satisfy [their readers that] this epistle is miserably defiled by a clearly wicked man, who has added to the Roman Clement innumerable scraps of Clement of Alexandria. This both men, furthermore, the illustrious Henry Wotton (55) has solidly refuted. It is helpful to hear this very most learned man himself discussing this matter: "Vain," he says, "are the attempts of this (Bernard): for he who argues in this way from Clement of Alexandria, either does not know him properly, or acts in bad faith; for by the same reasoning, the authenticity and reliability of those [authors] who are cited anywhere by Clement of Alexandria will be lost. For no Father used greater license in citing authors, whether sacred or ethnic: since it is his custom not always to recite the very words of authors, but at his own discretion now to condense, now to insert from his own, to omit some things, and to change others in various ways."

^C If you apply yourself diligently to these things, you will recognize, pious reader, along with me that the epistle of Clement of Rome was not interpolated from the Alexandrian, having been celebrated with praises so often by the primitive Church, and indeed publicly read along with the sacred Scriptures. This Wotton, however, was preceded by the illustrious man Joannes Potter in his annotations on Clement of Alexandria (56), where he refuted Bernard’s conjectures summarily, indeed, but sharply.

Joannes Mosheim (57) has progressed even further, judging that the first epistle of Clement should be docked by a fourth part of itself, namely from chapter 9 to 55; but not even the first ten chapters, in his judgment, are entirely immune from interpolation. But Joannes Ludovicus Frey (58) has placed before [our] eyes that Mosheim’s arguments are empty and futile. Since ^D the learned man invincibly proves, as much from the antiquity of the Alexandrian codex as from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that we have entirely the same epistle which the ancient Church had, which the primitive Christians heard in sacred assemblies while the use of its reading still thrived; which Dionysius of Corinth, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and others read; which, finally, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and mar

martyr, turned with his own hand; and furthermore, that he excerpted some things from it verbatim and transferred them into his own Epistle to the Philippians, is persuaded by the passages taken from the Clementine and Polycarpian epistle, brought forward and compared with one another. For this reason alone, the conjectures of Bernard, Clericus, and Mosheim regarding the fragments of this work taken from Clement of Alexandria ought to vanish entirely.

Nor, indeed, are there wanting others who call the sincerity of the same epistle into doubt, for the reason that it naturally bears some fabulous elements; because some things are missing from it that were alleged by the ancient Fathers, etc. But we dismiss these more peevish critics: both because their objections lean upon such a shaky foundation that it is hardly expedient to compare them one by one, and especially because the matter has been sufficiently and abundantly handled by most learned men. It is, therefore, firm and established that the former Epistle of Clement is entirely genuine; for whatever is contained in it reflects the truly apostolic times; nor could anyone, from all the reach of antiquity, produce a witness who could deservedly render sensible men doubtful of its sincerity.

ARTICLE II. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

[i]Doubts of the ancients regarding the second epistle of Saint Clement.[i] Besides the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, of which we have treated thus far, a second one is attributed to him from the age of Eusebius, which, nevertheless, as noted by him, was not as celebrated as the first, nor was it read by the ancients. Indeed, Saint Jerome reports that the ancients rejected it; Photius, for his part, testifies that in his own age it was held to be supposititious.

It is complained here, furthermore, that it contains humble sentiments, not sufficiently connected to one another, and interpretations of Scripture and of Jesus Christ that are rather alien.

But these having been disregarded, Cotelerius, Coutantius, Gallandius, Bull, and others contend that this epistle is truly that of Saint Clement. For we perceive it, in the final canon of the apostles, not only attributed to Saint Clement but even, like the former, enumerated among the sacred Scriptures. Saint Epiphanius also cites it under the name of Saint Clement, to whom it is attributed also by Saint Jerome and even by Photius. Whereby it happens that, where they have said it was held to be supposititious, they have spoken not of their own opinion, but that of others. Eusebius, however, is by no means to be numbered among those who judged this epistle as supposititious, since he pronounces nothing about it, except that it was not as celebrated as the former, nor mentioned by the ancients. But this ought not seem surprising, since it was not written, as the former was, in the name of the Roman Church, but only in the name of the pontiff, nor was it read publicly in the Church: whence it happened, as Bull conjectures, that it was gradually held in neglect, as if it were not truly Clement's; for which reason also other epistles of Clement (for that the holy man wrote others is indubitable to me) have completely perished. Moreover, in those small remnants of this epistle, much similarity to the former shines forth: the same color of antiquity is also present, the same forms of speaking, and several passages brought forward from apocryphal books are seen in both.

[i]It was inscribed to the Corinthians.[i]—Eusebius does not commemorate to whom this epistle was given; but Photius states openly that it was given to the Corinthians, which, from the testimony of Dorotheus the Archimandrite, Nicon the monk, and the author of the *Parallels*, is held among the...

works of John of Damascus; and ^A from the manuscript codex which Junius used for its publication, which he considers to have been copied from the times of the First Nicene Council. The first epistle in the renowned codex is inscribed at the end thus: *Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians*; the second indeed thus: *Clement’s Epistle II*; yet although the latter, perhaps through the oversight of librarians, does not appear with the prefix *to the Corinthians*, why should we not assume it was also sent to the Corinthians, since the inscription of the prior one renders us more than sufficiently certain on this matter? Indeed, the prior one is not read in the *Indiculus* to have been written to the Corinthians either. Who, furthermore, would rightly argue that even that one was not signed with the name of the Corinthians from the silence of that same *Indiculus*? Nor should the silence of Eusebius move us, and those who followed him, Jerome and Rufinus, who, while they make mention of the second epistle, do not state that it was addressed to the Corinthian Church. For since the aforementioned writers, as Coutantius correctly notes, immediately append to the mention of Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians: *it is reported that there is another*, and do not designate that this other was written to others, they are justifiably thought to understand it as written to the same people: otherwise, if they knew it was sent to others, and did not hint at it, this reticence of theirs would justifiably and deservedly be seen as something to be blamed for negligence.

*First objection against the authenticity of this Clementine Epistle.* Joannes Morinus holds this epistle as suspect of supposition on the argument that its style, unlike the first, is not simple, but rather subtle ^B, not flowing spontaneously but elaborately crafted according to the author’s grasp; it is not *periodical* and is sometimes *anantapodoton* [lacking the corresponding clause], but ambitiously affects a circuit of words, antitheses, and repetitions of them. Richard Simon likewise presses the same argument. I would not wish to deny that a not-inconsiderable argument sometimes arises from a dissimilarity of style, by which a work is denied to one writer and assigned to another, provided, however, that the rest should cohere rightly. But that this critical canon should not be pressed too hard is something everyone sees; since, as Cotelier optimally—whom Grabius also follows—suggests, the dissimilarity of style could have arisen from the same writer due to the variety of times and causes.

*Second objection, taken from Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians.* The renowned Joannes Grabius, from the words of Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, according to Eusebius, ^C Response. — Be it so, that this Dionysius mentions only the first epistle of Clement; nor does the opinion of Beveridge please us, who conjectured that the bishop of the Corinthians, omitting the epistle of Soter, spoke of both Clementine epistles. Less acceptable to us, likewise, is what others think, namely that Dionysius perhaps called that epistle of Clement which was being read publicly the *prior* one, so as to distinguish it from the other written by Soter to the Corinthians. But setting these aside, can you therefore rightly conclude with Grabius that the second Clementine was forged only after the time of Dionysius, in the passing of a century? This one thing alone, our Coutantius observes, seems to be able to be concluded from them: that it had been the custom and institute of the Corinthian Church that the first epistle of Clement was read, but the latter not so. Were all the epistles, not only of the apostles but also of apostolic men, to be read at that time in the public gatherings of the churches? As a result, is the later [epistle] of Clement to be judged pseudepigraphical on the grounds that Dionysius makes no mention of its reading in the Corinthian assembly? Since, therefore, we learn from the bishop of the Corinthians that the first [epistle]—but not the later—was accustomed to be read in the ecclesiastical assembly, hence we truly perceive why the Bishop of Caesarea called the former *entirely excellent and wonderful*; but wrote of the latter: that it was *less known, and not used by the ancients*.

*The third objection is countered.* Response. — Nor let the learned man say that he injects into himself the suspicion of supposition from the sentiment accepted from a certain apocryphal book, which stands in chapter 11 of this epistle, when it already occurs, with a few changes, in chapter 23 of the former. For if this reasoning held force against the second epistle, the integrity of the first would already be condemned. Add that the repeated citation of the same sentiment is in no way a suitable cause for suspecting falsehood, as Coutantius, a man most skilled in critical matters, so judges.

*Fourth objection, and response.* There are, moreover, ^D those who raise a point against the truth of this second epistle, taken from Pseudo-Justin, which stands thus: *If the end of the present state of things is the judgment of the impious by fire, as the scripture of the prophets and apostles testifies, and furthermore the Sibyls, as the Blessed Clement says in [his] epistle to the Corinthians*, to which words Cotelier indeed observes many things learnedly, and from that [version] in which we read your own epistle: *which we indeed reading perpetually thereafter, just as we have that former one written by Clement, from which we are instructed by the best admonitions. Euseb., H. E., l. IV, c. 23.*

Coutantius and others. But these being passed over, one might ^A first conjecture that this writer, his memory failing him, imagined that this testimony of the Sibyl, which he had read in the Apostolic Constitutions, existed in the epistle to the Corinthians. If this conjecture is less pleasing, I shall at least not hesitate to assert with most learned men that our writer by no means agrees with those who use his testimony to prove that the second epistle of St. Clement is not genuine, but the product of a man who was familiar with the Sibylline verses concerning the final judgment, and who was much more recent than St. Clement; to omit that pseudo-Justin left it in doubt which epistle of St. Clement he cited. So, generally, argues our most learned Prudentius Maran.

The fifth objection is diluted. — Hermannus Venema advances an argument against the authenticity of the second epistle, based on the fact that the author of the latter epistle openly reveals himself as a Gentile by origin, whereas, on the contrary, it is thought that Clement is proclaimed to have been a Jew by nation in that place of the earlier epistle where he calls Jacob our father. But such an argument, by which the integrity of the second Corinthian epistle is set aside, is truly feeble. Why, I ask, could not Clement, as a fellow-worker of Paul, call Jacob our father in that sense in which the same Apostle teaches that the children of the promise are to be reckoned in the seed of Abraham and Israel, as our Coutantius rightly observes? For, says the divine herald, not all who are of Israel are Israelites; nor are they all children who are the seed of Abraham; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, not they who are children of the flesh are children of God; but they who are children of the promise are counted for the seed; ^B hence elsewhere the Apostle himself calls those same children of promise Israel of God, whether they are called from circumcision or from the uncircumcision. This doctrine and instruction, therefore, first attained by Clement of Rome from Paul, he subsequently, wishing to imbue the Corinthians with the same apostolic precepts, called Jacob our father; just as he also in the same place, with a few words interposed, called Abraham our father. Which doctrine, when it had then been received by the Roman Church, either from the Apostle or from Clement himself, it prescribed that this kind of prayer should be recited by sacred ministers during the holy action: O God, the supreme Father of the faithful, who throughout the whole world dost multiply the children of promise by the grace of adoption, and by the Paschal sacrament dost make Abraham, thy servant, the father of all nations, as thou hast sworn, etc.; elsewhere also ^C more clearly still: Father of our faith, Abraham the greatest, offered a holocaust upon the altar for his son.

The sixth objection, and the response. — Furthermore, the critic insists, and from these words of the same epistle: We have become many more than those who are considered to have God, he deduces that the author lived at a time when Christianity was much more numerous among the Gentiles than among the Jews, which, he says, fits the times of Trajan and the following emperors, in which the Church of the Gentiles was propagated far and wide, better than those of Clement. What need is there of many words? Did not Paul, writing to the Romans, give thanks to God that their faith was announced in the whole world? Did he not say that their words had gone out into all the earth? Did he not glorify God that the mystery, hidden for eternal ages, had been made manifest for the obedience of faith in all nations? The same Apostle also uses the same kind of speech elsewhere to the Colossians: In the word of the truth of the Gospel, which... is in the whole world, and bringeth forth fruit and groweth. And again: The Gospel... preached to every creature which is under heaven; and to Timothy likewise: Which was preached to the Gentiles, was believed in the world (the great mystery of piety, indeed). Nor is this wonderful; for, not to mention other apostles, the one great Paul, as our Clement (93) witnesses, having become a herald in the East and West... when he had taught the whole world justice, and had reached the limit of the West, and had suffered martyrdom under the prefects, thus departed from the world. Since these things are so, why, then, should not Clement of Rome have truly written in his later epistle: We have become many more than the Jews who are considered to have God?

The seventh objection is diluted. — But let us zealously hasten to resolve a weightier knot; for the learned man Venema (94) maintains that the author of the second epistle declares himself ^D to be different from Clement by the very fact that he expressly inculcates the divinity of Christ, and contends that not only the title of Lord, but also that of God, must be attributed to Him; whereas the true Clement (95) nowhere did this with set purpose, nor adorned Him with any other title than that of Lord, although here and there he insinuates that he acknowledges the divinity of Christ. But by a single passage brought forward from the first epistle, the whole objection of Venema is refuted. It is as follows: Τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι καὶ προσέχοντες τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς, ἐστερνισμένοι ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν. This is: Content with the provision of God, and attending diligently to his words, ye were expanded in your bowels, and his sufferings were before your eyes. Where it must first be observed that the relative αὐτοῦ refers without doubt to the immediately preceding Θεοῦ. Since...

these sufferings cannot in any way be attributed to God the Father, it remains that the holy Clement understood this as Jesus Christ the Son of God, God from God, true God from true God.

ARTICLE III. ON THE TIME AT WHICH EACH EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN TO THE CORINTHIANS.

Concerning the time at which the first was written, there are diverse opinions. It remains now to inquire into the time at which each of Saint Clement's epistles was written to the Corinthians. And indeed, there is great controversy among learned men regarding the former. Although almost everyone agrees that its opening words were spoken concerning persecution, some interpret them as referring to the persecution of Nero, others to that of Domitian. And of the latter, some understand it as being at its height, others as it was ending; hence, there are three main opinions concerning the time at which that epistle was written. The first is that of John Ernest Grabe, Pagi, Orsi, and Gallandi, who contend that it was written when the Neronian persecution was ending, immediately after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, that is, in the year of Christ 68, or even at the end of 65. The second is that of Godefroy Wendelin, who assigns it to the year of Christ 95, while the persecution of Domitian was raging. The last is that of Cotelier and Tillemont, who believe it was written around the year of Christ 97, at the end of the same emperor's persecution. A fourth was devised by the most illustrious Claudius Fleury, which approaches closer to the opinion of Grabe. Namely, he opines that it can be referred to the time which followed the death of Nero and preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, and he interprets the "adverse circumstances" mentioned at the beginning of the epistle as the civil war which the death of Nero stirred up. ^A

Circa the year of Christ 97, it is said to have been written probably.

It is not obscure that Clement there speaks of the calamities by which the Roman Church was oppressed when it received the epistle of the Corinthians, but from which it was finding relief when he wrote back, and therefore the opinion of Wendelin concerning a raging persecution is by no means to be approved. Nor is it less certain from that same preface that those calamities cannot be interpreted as referring to the persecution of Nero. For there was no reason why, in an apology to the Corinthians for his delay in writing, he should have kept silent about this fact: namely, that Peter, whose duty it was to satisfy their questions, had been detained, beaten, and taken from the living after these were received. Furthermore, throughout the context of the letter, it is implied that he himself who is now writing back had previously received the writings of the Corinthians. Wherefore, both Irenæus and Hegesippus are to be understood literally when they testify that the dissension which Clement now endeavors to settle did not arise under Peter, but under Clement. Furthermore, since the same Irenæus writes that Clement, being so near to the times of the apostles, obtained the episcopate at Rome in the third place after Linus and Cletus—or, as he calls him, Anacletus—it remains that he believed he assumed the administration of the Roman Church many years after Nero. But who would persuade himself that he was mistaken in this? He is supported by most of the Fathers who weave the series of Roman pontiffs, and by the ancient catalogs themselves, in which Linus is read to have succeeded Peter, and Cletus to have succeeded Linus, and Clement to have succeeded him. Whoever weighs the very words of Clement occurring in chapter 44 of this epistle, where, having praised the forethought of the apostles, he adds: "Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men... and have for a long time received excellent testimony from all, we think are unjustly cast out from their office." Whoever, I say, weighs these words will be convinced that this epistle was written at that time when the presbyters had been removed from their office; those who had been ordained not only by the apostles but also by others in succession, that is, by their successors, had carried out their duty for a long time. Therefore, we must stand by the opinion of Eusebius, in whose Chronicle the beginnings of the pontificate of Clement are referred to the last years of the emperor Domitian. Whence no explanation occurs that is more consistent with reason than that we should judge that the epistle of the Corinthians arrived at Rome while the persecution of Domitian was raging, and that it was answered by Clement when that same persecution was ending, around the year of Christ 97. ^B

That the Jerusalem temple was standing is by no means established from it.

Nor is that saying of our Clement opposed to these things: "Not everywhere, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the votive, or those for sin and transgression, but in Jerusalem only." Although Grabe says that it is certain from this that the Jerusalem temple was then standing, and that its destruction, which occurred in the year 70, had not yet happened—otherwise, he argues, he would have had to say, "are not offered" in the present, but "were once offered." But the learned man does not sufficiently attend to the usage of speech, by which it is permitted to a narrator to put past things before the eyes as if they were present, and to speak of them in the present tense. For what does "sacrifices are not offered in every place, but in Jerusalem only" mean in this epistle, if not that, according to the prescription of the Law, sacrifices are offered only in Jerusalem? Since that prescription still remains in the Law, it would be permissible even for us now not ineptly to bring forward the very words of Clement. Namely, Clement, by way of comparison and in the manner of the Jews, to whom the laws of sacrifices were prescribed by Moses, exhorts Christians that they, too, should reverently accept and observe the order of offerings and offices established by the apostles. This, however, as he himself...

acknowledges—as the most celebrated Claudius Fleury admits (5)—is used in setting forth comparisons so that things past are placed before the eyes as if they were present.

Nor does it follow from this that the martyrdom of Peter and Paul had occurred immediately before. In vain, too, is it concluded that Clement wrote immediately after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, from the fact that in chapter 4 (6), having premised the examples of Abel, Jacob, Moses and David, who suffered much through emulation and envy, he adds at the beginning of chapter 5: "But let us leave the ancient examples and come to the athletes who are near, and take the noble examples of our age" (7), and then narrates the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. For there is no one who does not see how correctly Clement, writing about the year of Christ 97, called the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, when compared with the times of David, Moses, Jacob, and Abel, near and neighboring to our age. Indeed, it is not said to be near by the days in which he writes, but by the "age" (γενεᾷ) in which he acts, or in which he dwells. Finally, in the forty-seventh chapter, when he turns his mind to the evangelical times and compares them with that span of time in which he writes, he does not hesitate to call the Church of the Corinthians "ancient," and to commemorate their first discord, of which Paul speaks, as having arisen in the "beginning of the Gospel," and to call this very epistle of the apostle, even though it preceded the destruction of Jerusalem by only fourteen years, as having been written in the "beginning of the Gospel." This is truly an evident argument that he, when he wrote thus, had receded further from that same beginning; nor would he seem to have receded further, if, as Grabe wishes, the aforementioned epistle of Paul were only nine or at most twelve years later than this of Clement. ^B

A ^Aqui, on account of the exordium, in which a greeting is joined with a prayer, contrary to the custom of the apostles and of Clement himself, judged that it should be referred to the category of homilies. But this reasoning is not so great that it can, I will not say be preferred to, but even in any way be compared with the supreme consensus of the ancients who call it an epistle. Dodwell proceeded even further, a most studious follower of harsh criticism, who did not hesitate to assert that some passages of the same epistle recall the eclogary style of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria, and that therefore those two Clements were intermingled with one another. But let us dismiss censors of this sort, who are known to wander far from the truth.

Duo maximi momenti documenta pro fidelibus. From this venerable monument of sacred antiquity, which savors of the supreme simplicity of the first Christians, the faithful perceive two documents of the greatest importance. For, first, when they see that in the primary Church, adorned with so many gifts of the Holy Spirit and cultivated by the greatest labors of the apostles, the thorns of dissension had sprung up, they wonder less if, among Christian societies which are called rightly constituted, scandals of this kind have happened to arise. For the ancient sower of tares never rests, and he does not cease to pollute the field of the Lord with unlucky seeds. But however ancient this evil may be, it is not on that account less to be lamented; but we are taught by this writing, as by the Epistle of Paul, that there is no evil to which a remedy should be applied more quickly; namely, they were especially skilled in the fact that the flame of discord, unless it be extinguished as soon as possible, in a short time invites a huge conflagration. ^C

ARTICLE IV. UTRIUSQUE EPISTOLAE BREVIS ANALYSIS. Primae ad Corinthios divi Clementis epistola analysis.

De tempore, quo altera epistola scripta. Concerning the notation of the time, in which the later epistle of Clement was written, we can elicit nothing certain from it, since it has come down to us mutilated, from which that might be established. Photius, who is thought to have read it whole, makes no mention of the Corinthian discord in his review; but he writes that it introduces only instruction and admonition for a better life (8). Hence one might easily conclude that after Fortunatus, with other companions, had returned to Rome from Corinth, the schism having already been removed and that Church restored to peace, this epistle was subsequently written by Clement in the year 98, perhaps, in which the Corinthians might be more firmly established in peace.

Num altera Clementis epistola sit homiliæ pars. It seemed to certain learned men, especially Vendelin and Blondell, that the second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was rather part of a homily, to which opinion Grabe also subscribed without hesitation, ^D that it should be restored to the category of homilies. But this reasoning is not so great that it can... [Text continues]

Saint Clement, after he had offered a greeting to the Corinthians in the same manner almost as divine Paul begins his Epistles, purges himself before them for writing back later than the doubts proposed required. He then extols their virtues, especially the constancy of their faith, the excellence of their piety, the magnificence of their hospitality, their most absolute knowledge, their sincere candor of mind towards their pastors and the salvation of others, and their fidelity in keeping the laws of the Lord. Proceeding then to the schism, by which so many virtues were obscured: "All glory," he says, "and abundance was given to you, and in you that Scripture was fulfilled: 'The beloved ate and drank and was enlarged and grew fat; and he kicked'" (1). Hence emulation and discord, and sedition. Thus the unhonored rose up against the honored—

the inglorious against the glorious, the senseless against the wise, and the young against the old. ^A Therefore, justice and peace are far away, while everyone forsakes the fear of God, and becomes blind in his faith; he walks neither in the precepts of His statutes, nor conducts himself worthily of Christ; but each one proceeds according to his own wicked desires, assuming unrighteous and impious envy, through which death entered into the world.

He then demonstrates with many examples from the Old Testament what inconveniences arise from envy; among others, he recounts the examples of Cain, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron, and of Dathan and Abiron; and in order to move the Corinthians more sharply with a new example of envy, he says: "Because of unrighteous emulation," he says, "the apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom." Because of emulation also, the Danaids and Dirce, those most courageous women, when they had endured grave and unspeakable torments, completed their course with invincible faith. But in order to exhort them to the duties of their vocation and to repentance, he sets before their eyes the holiness of their vocation, the precious blood of Christ poured out for our salvation, the repentance of the Ninevites, the faithfulness of Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, and the other virtues of the patriarchs, the humility of Jesus Christ, and the goodness and mercy of Him by whom we were created; the advantages of peace and humility; the obedience of inanimate creatures—of the sun, the moon, the stars, the sea, and the impenetrable abysses—rendered to the laws imposed upon them by God; and finally, the benefits of the Lord toward all created things, and especially toward Christians. ^B To these he adds: "It is right, therefore, that we should not be deserters from His will: let us offend foolish, senseless, proud men, who boast in the arrogance of their speech, rather than God. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us. Let us reverence our leaders; let us honor our elders; let us teach our young the discipline of the fear of God; let our children learn what charity can avail with God."

Saint Clement then exhorts the Corinthians to fear the Lord, and to hope in His goodness, both on account of the assurance of the resurrection—examples of which he puts forward, drawn from natural things, such as that of the phoenix—and on account of God's faithfulness in keeping His promises, and because it is impossible for sinners to escape His eyes. He adds, ^C as the Father of His Divine election has made us participants of Himself, and rendered us members of a holy people, that nothing remains for us but to pursue, with the greatest ardor of soul, all kinds of right works after the example of our Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose faith, obedience, and humility were rewarded with such great prizes. Let all our boasting and confidence, therefore, be in Him: let us be subject to His will: and let us unanimously, with the angels who cry before Him "Holy, holy, holy," cry out with common consent and as if with one mouth, that we may become participants of His great and illustrious promises, the excellence and quantity of which He alone knows.

But being about to demonstrate the necessity of order, and the distinction between leaders and subjects in the ecclesiastical ministry, he proposes the example of the military. For neither are all there prefects, nor tribunes, nor centurions, but each one performs the commands in his own order from the emperor and the generals. We ought, therefore, to do everything in order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform. He has commanded that offerings and offices should not be performed rashly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours; and he even defined, by His own most exalted will, in what place and by whom He wishes them to be celebrated, so that all things done purely and holily according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to His will. Those, therefore, who make their offerings at the assigned times are acceptable and blessed; for those who follow the laws of the Lord do not go astray. For to the high priest his own duties are assigned; and to the priests their own proper place is assigned; and to the Levites their own ministries are incumbent; the lay person is bound by the precepts for the laity. Each one of you, brothers, should give thanks to God in his own state, living in a good conscience, not overstepping the prescribed rule of his duty. Offerings are not everywhere, brothers, perpetual sacrifices, but only in Jerusalem, and there not in every place is the offering made, but before the temple at the altar.

Saint Clement then shows that God Himself is the author of ecclesiastical hierarchy; that Jesus Christ was sent by God, and the apostles by Jesus Christ; that they, confirmed in the faith by the Holy Spirit, announced everywhere the coming of the kingdom of God, and appointed the first-fruits of those whom they converted to the faith as bishops and deacons of those who were to believe. Nor is this new: for from many times there has been mention in Scripture concerning bishops and deacons. ^D

^A in the sheepfold of Christ are to be found the little ones and the approved, who are wise in high things and who are cast out from His hope. He concludes the epistle by praying to God that, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, He may grant them faith, fear, peace, patience, and other virtues, and he asks that they send back, quickly and with joy, Claudius, Ephebus, Valerius, and Fortunatus, the bearers of this epistle, so that, as he says, they may the sooner announce to us the peace and concord we desire and long for.

...that a determination had been made. Soon after, he describes the contentions which arose in the age of Moses concerning the priesthood of Aaron, and that the Corinthians had unjustly deprived of their bishopric those who had been appointed by the successors of the apostles, and who were discharging their duty blamelessly and excellently. "Your schism," he says, "has perverted many; it has cast many into dejection of mind, many into vacillation, and all of us into sadness. It is shameful, beloved, and very shameful, and unworthy of Christian conduct, that it should be heard that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or another man, is stirring up sedition against the presbyters. And this rumor has not only reached us, but also those who are alien to us in mind and sentiment; so that, because of your folly, blasphemies and insults are even brought upon the name of the Lord. Let us therefore quickly remove this scandal, and let us fall down before the Lord and lament, praying that, having become propitious, He may be reconciled to us and lead us back and restore us to the becoming and chaste path of brotherly love."

He then pursues the praises of charity, recommending it after the pattern of Moses, who desired to be blotted out of the book of life if he did not obtain pardon for his people; and he teaches by what reason it can be preserved among them; to which he adds the example of the Gentiles themselves, who underwent death and exile for the sake of the public good. He also commemorates the usefulness of fraternal correction, and adds: "You, therefore, who have laid the foundations of sedition, be subject to the presbyters and be disciplined into repentance: for it is better for you to be ^B found in the sheepfold of Christ as little ones and approved, than to be wise in high things and be cast out from His hope."

Analysis of the second epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians

In the second epistle to the Corinthians, Saint Clement seems to have proposed to himself the task of exhorting the Corinthians to lead a life worthy of their calling. Wherefore, at the very beginning, he teaches that it is right for them to think of Christ as God, and how much they owe to Him, and how grateful they should show themselves to Him, because He has called them to the light of the Gospel; and he says that a grateful mind is proven not only by openly professing His divinity, but rather by walking in the path of His commandments. He adds that human life is divided into two times, or ages, different from one another: the present one, and the future one, which exert a kind of enmity against each other; the former preaches wickedness and flagrant crimes; the latter sends a message to abandon all these; the present age is destined for repentance, and is suited for escaping the wrath of God and the punishments of the future age, whose day and time we are completely ignorant of. ^C

CHAPTER III.

DUBIOUS WORKS OF SAINT CLEMENT OF ROME

SINGLE ARTICLE. — What should be thought concerning the two epistles of Clement to virgins.

Who first brought these epistles to light. — Most recently, the renowned Mr. John James Wetstein ^D brought forth two other epistles of Saint Clement of Rome, hitherto unknown to all, which the learned editor acknowledged as the genuine offspring of St. Clement, and strove with all his might to attribute to him. But he encountered two adversaries who were by no means obscure above others: the one was indeed Nathaniel Lardner, who in the year 1753 published a dissertation of 60 pages in 8vo in English in London; and having brought forward many things for the contrary opinion, he at length arrived at the conclusion that these epistles had been written about the middle of the third century by a bishop of the Oriental Church; the other was indeed Hermann Venema, who in the following year, 1754, having published three epistles at Harlingen, addressed to the most illustrious men Wesseling, Hemsterhuis, and Cannegieter, strove with all his might to prove by every means that these Clementine epistles were supposititious; for in them, among other things, he hinted that the style of St. Jerome had insinuated itself. And although he does not define the author or the time in which he lived, he argues that he was an Oriental, not a Roman, and that he was even later than Origen. Wetstein immediately replied to both, and once again, more and more, vindicated the epistles he had edited to Clement of Rome; certainly to Lardner in the Literary Journal...

printed at Amsterdam in the same year, 1754, which he opposed to the first Venetian epistle. Further vindications for these Clementine epistles were finally written by the illustrious Andreas Gallandius ^A. However, I agree with the illustrious Joannes Mansi that, once the arguments both intrinsic and extrinsic have been weighed on either side without prejudice, they are positively doubtful; and nothing certain can be established for or against their authenticity.

The first argument for authenticity. — The aforementioned authors seek the first argument for the authenticity of these epistles of D. Clement from the testimonies of Saints Jerome and Epiphanius; of whom the former praises these epistles of Clement for their frequent commendation of virginity 20, while the latter says that Elijah, David, and Samson are extolled with praises by Saint Clement 21. As neither of these is read anywhere in the two commonly known epistles of Divine Clement to the Corinthians, so on the contrary they appear clearly in both of these [new] ones.

The second argument. — Secondly, they prove the authenticity of the Clementines from the conformity of the style of these epistles with the two sent to the Corinthians: they observe everywhere the same sentiments, the same method of writing, of bringing forward examples, and of reasoning. Added to this are morals that are truly apostolic; the same simplicity, modesty, frugality, benevolence, etc., are present; in one word, they think that both of these epistles reflect the living image of Clement and all but breathe him. Finally, Wetstein and others strive to persuade [us] that there is nothing in either of these epistles contrary to the morals of the Christian Church of the first century, in which Clement flourished.

Arguments against authenticity. — But it seems difficult for more fastidious critics to admit and acknowledge as genuine epistles that were unknown throughout all antiquity and up to this very century. Nor do they easily concede that Saint Jerome spoke of them in the fragment produced by Wetstein and his followers, which they believe can be proven by this argument. Jerome in his catalogue *De viris illustribus* does not neglect Clement, and praises his first epistle to the Corinthians; he also mentions the second, which, however, he affirms is not admitted by all. Truly, he would not have been silent about the two others, if he had known them 22. To what, therefore, did he refer in the testimony produced from the book *Against Jovinian*? I suppose he had before his eyes the second epistle to the Corinthians, in which perhaps there was a more prolix discourse on virginity; for although it is not read in that form now, there is no reason for anyone to wonder; for it has not come down to us complete, as is well known to all scholars. Nor should the testimony of Epiphanius delay us much; since that is easily explained by the epistles of Clement which were read in the Churches at that time. Certainly, from the testimony of Saint Jerome, we learn that no other epistles of Clement were accustomed to be read in the Church at that age except the twin ones to the Corinthians. Add to this that, as the illustrious Lardner observes 23, neither of the Corinthian epistles has reached us complete, and from this it easily could have happened that the mention of Samson occurred among those things that are missing in the same epistles, most especially in the second.

Does nothing contrary to the morals of the first century occur? — But as to what Wetstein says, that nothing occurs in both of these letters that is abhorrent to the morals of that age, the most illustrious D. Mansi 24 does not judge this to be so true; for from the reading of them, he seems to himself to have detected I know not what traces of monachism, namely, a body of men who have chosen a singular sanctity of life, which shines forth very strongly in these words: "That which does not befit the faithful, especially those who have chosen sanctity." But the withdrawal of monks from the fellowship of the faithful is more recent than that it can be compared with the age of Clement 25. Furthermore, the similarity of style and the equality of sentiments do not always prove the same author of a work. Finally, it is hardly probable that Clement of Rome wrote in Syriac.

Furthermore, Semler attacks these epistles with other arguments, but they seem to me to be prejudices rather than reasons. Such are certainly that Ignatius 26 concedes purity to Clement, not virginity, and that the doctrine of fleeing in every way from women, even as regards the place, does not savor of the genius ^D of the apostolic, but of the monastic order. Against this, Wetstein (but at the peace of the adversaries, let it be said, this argument proves too much, and consequently nothing is proved from it. For learned men observe that very many works of ancient writers were later set forth in other Jeromean lucubrations, having been previously omitted by D. Jerome in the Book *De viris illustribus*. Add that he completed the book *De viris illustribus* in the year of Christ 392, and first published the books against Jovinian in the following year, as is evident from the same holy doctor. For who is ignorant that asceticism already existed from the time of the apostles, who among the Christians embraced a certain stricter and more severe type of life? See Montfaucon, dissert. *De Pailonis Therapeutis*.)

^A apostolic, but monastic. On the other hand, Wetstein adduces this very argument to establish their authenticity, taking this very severity as the reason why, with the zeal for celibacy cooled and luxury introduced even among the clergy, those letters had been lost for so long.

Both of these letters are of an ascetic character, nor do they contain much that contributes greatly to a more accurate understanding of doctrine, history, or ecclesiastical discipline. The first contains a praise of chastity, specifically virginity, and its true nature, joined with virtue; the second illustrates the same with many examples, especially those of the author himself and others similar to him, whose flight and abstinence from women is described as truly great and anxious, so that they might not stay or dwell in any place where there were no men at all, or only a single woman, and that abstinence is recommended by the examples of almost all the prophets. Those to whom he writes are also warned not to let pagans read or explain the sacred rites, for fear of mockery.

The primitive language of these letters. Their version is simple and faithful, yet not so similar to the Syriac idiom that either their clarity or the purity of the Latin tongue suffers: a thing, however, which occurred more, we know not by what chance, in the second letter, so that all things being translated word for word, they were most similar to the Schmidian version of the Bible; this, however, seems to have been given by those frequent allusions to the books of Holy Scripture. As for the rest, as to Wetstein’s belief that they were written originally in Greek, because of the Greek words which are read there frequently; why could we not say they were written in Latin? Since at the beginning of the first letter we have found the Latin word *seligo*, and the word *saeculum*. For that many words passed from Greek into this language is apparent even from the New Testament. Galland believes they were perhaps written not long after the death of Nero, while the Church was enjoying tranquil peace. ^B

CHAPTER IV.

CONCERNING THE SUPPOSITITIOUS WRITINGS BEARING THE NAME OF ST. CLEMENT.

Besides the letters praised thus far, many other works circulate under the name of Clement of Rome: namely, five letters to various persons, nineteen homilies, the ten books of the *Recognitions*, eight of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, the *Liturgy*, and the *Canons of the Apostles*; all of which Johannes Baptista Cotelerius, a doctor of the Sorbonne, collected and, illustrated with annotations, edited in Greek and Latin among the Apostolic Fathers in the year 1672.

ARTICLE I.

CONCERNING THE FIVE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE LETTERS.

It is a wonder that the most learned men, Turrian, Binius, and certain others, could have been convinced of these five decretal letters supposed to be by Clement of Rome in the light of such great ecclesiastical erudition. ^C For they seem so uncouth to men of sharp perception, at least at this time, that they could be adorned by no art, no white lead, nor rouge. The first, addressed to James, the brother of the Lord, prelate of Jerusalem, though sufficiently ancient—inasmuch as it was already translated into Latin by Rufinus, a writer of the fourth century, and inserted into some ancient collections of canons, and specifically into some copies of the codex published by Paschasius Quesnel—is nevertheless recognized as spurious by almost all modern critics. From this, however, the certainty and ^D known falsity of this letter is established, because it is imagined that Clement wrote to James after the passion of Peter; whom it is known by indubitable monuments to have died before Peter. For all agree that James was killed by the Jews in the year of Christ 62: but some think Peter died in the year 65, more in 66, others in 68 or 67; truly, none consider him to have suffered before the year 65.

The second instructs the same holy James concerning sacraments, vestments, and sacred vessels; who could believe that the true Clement arrogated this to himself as an apostle? The third is inscribed among others to major and minor princes, as if they were already joined to Christ, who in the age of Clement were not yet among the faithful. The fourth, given to the disciples Julian and Julianus, urges Jewish purifications or washings, and assumes as a certainty that he who neglects these does not think about the internal purity of the soul. Finally, the fifth, inscribed to the brethren and fellow-disciples living in Jerusalem with James, narrates that Clement was present when the spouses Ananias and Sapphira fell down dead before Peter, which seems to have no verisimilitude: and who would believe that the saint (as is read in this letter) taught that a common use of all things, and indeed even of wives themselves, ought to intervene.

Article II. On the Books of the Recognitions, the Clementine Liturgy, and other Supposititious Works.

Photius (29) testifies that he had read through two volumes which contained many writings under the name of Saint Clement. The first contained the Apostolic Constitutions, a work most celebrated throughout all antiquity, which, however, in the judgment of learned men, was composed long after the times of this holy Pontiff (30). In the second are described the deeds of Saint Peter, and his conversations with Simon Magus, and in what manner he himself recognized his own parent and brothers, whence the title of *Recognitions* was given to this composition. It is also accustomed to be called the *Journeys*, or *Itinerary*, or *Circuits of Saint Peter*, and also the *Acts of Saint Peter*. Some have even confused this work with that which is called the *Disputation of Saint Peter with Apion*. But Photius (31) contends that these works are distinct from one another. ^A

Some of the ancients attributed them to Saint Clement. Origen (32) recites many passages under the name of Saint Clement which are read today in the books of the *Recognitions*. The work, therefore, is older than Origen, and in his age it was not considered by everyone to be supposititious. It is also praised as a writing of Saint Clement of Rome by Saint Epiphanius and Rufinus (33); but both complain that it had been corrupted and interpolated by heretics, especially the Ebionites, and that they had sprinkled their own errors into it from every side. Saint Epiphanius adds that nothing intact was left by them. Saint Jerome (34) cites the very same work under the name of Saint Clement. Rufinus (35), at the request of Saint Gaudentius, rendered this work into Latin, and he mentions that nothing was cut out by him except for some few passages that exceeded his capacity and understanding. Nevertheless, he observes that these contain, besides the errors of the Ebionites and Eunomians and of several others, those things which have been condemned by the Church (36).

These are supposititious.

*They were written around the third century.*—We cannot accurately designate the age of the author of the *Recognitions*; but if this work were the same as the *Disputation of Saint Peter with Apion*—which was the opinion of Cotelier (44) and of certain distinguished critics—it would have to be judged that it was written in the late second or early third century, shortly before Origen. For Eusebius (45) says that certain thick works were put forth under the name of Saint Clement... ^D

^A which contained the dialogues of Saint Peter with Apion. Photius, however, thinks these works were mutually distinct (46). There exist in the Recognitions eleven chapters on fate extracted from a certain work written by Bardesanes around the year 170. Yet it does not follow from this that he is the author of the Recognitions, since his errors concerning the two principles are refuted in the same work in several places. It is better to believe that he who wrote this work inserted that part which Bardesanes said concerning fate, just as Eusebius also did in his books of the Evangelical Preparation, where we read the same passage that the author of the Recognitions had borrowed from Bardesanes.

In how many books the whole work is distributed. What is to be thought of it.—The author records in the third book of the Recognitions that he sent to Saint James ten other books of the sermons of Saint Peter, which he had heard in Caesarea. But whether they were ever published to the public, we do not know; today, however, no trace of them survives. The Recognitions are distributed into ten books. In the first, Saint Clement is introduced telling the manner in which he was brought to the faith by the preachings of Saint Barnabas, and was instructed in it by Saint Peter. The second comprises the sermon of Saint Peter with Simon Magus. In the third, they converse on the nature of free will, in which Saint Peter defines the power of our mind ^B as the capacity to do what one wishes. The fourth discusses what was done by Saint Peter on the journey undertaken from Tripoli to Caesarea and reports that very many were brought to the faith by the exhortations of Saint Peter. The fifth is a hortatory sermon in which Saint Peter demonstrates that nescience or ignorance is the origin of all sins, and he demonstrates the falsity of idol worship and the unity of God. In the sixth, he proves the necessity of baptism and explains how one who is about to approach it must be prepared. In the seventh, Saint Clement narrates the various events which happened to his mother and brothers, and in what manner he encountered them again in Palestine. The following two are dialogues in which Saint Peter, Aquila, Nicetas, and Saint Clement show a certain old man, whom they later recognized to be the father of Saint Clement, that we ought to confess fully that all things are governed by the mandate of divine Providence, not by chance. ^D The tenth and final book is also a dialogue between Saint Clement and that same old man regarding the nature of good and evil. At the end of the book, mention is made of Simon Magus and of that, recorded there, regarding the metamorphosis of this old man into the face of Simon Magus. These are the things which we have proposed to lightly touch upon for the readers from the ten books of the Recognitions that exist today, so that we might relieve them of the labor ^A of reading works that are almost entirely useless. Photius (47) rightly pronounced that the style and erudition in them were worthy of commendation; but that the author was not very skilled in theology and ecclesiastical doctrine, and was to be numbered among the inventors of fables.

ARTICLE III. CONCERNING THE CLEMENTINES AND CERTAIN OTHER SUPPOSITITIOUS WRITINGS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME.

The Clementines falsely bear the name of Saint Clement.—Besides the ten books of the Recognitions, there exist nine and ten homilies under the name of Saint Clement, which usually are called the Clementines. Cotelerius (48) thinks they are perhaps another edition of the Recognitions bearing the name of Saint Peter; it is certainly constant that many things exist in these homilies which are also read in the Recognitions; the same fables and the same errors occur on both sides; and the distribution of both works appears the same. They are of a very elegant style, and the author provides a specimen of much erudition; however, he betrays himself to be a fabricator in many notes.

The Epitome of the life of Saint Peter is also supposititious.—There is also a history of Saint Clement, edited by Cotelerius (49), which is inscribed as the Epitome of the life of Saint Peter. This writing is feigned to have been given to Saint James the bishop of Jerusalem, and besides the deeds of Saint Peter, it also comprises a history of the life of Saint Clement. This, however, is nothing but a summary of the Recognitions, the Clementines, the Acts of the martyrdom of Saint Clement, and the history regarding Ephraim. ^C The author of this collection, who is believed to be Metaphrastes (50), pruned away those things which, in the writings from which he extracted these, appeared to him to be redundant, or false and pernicious.

Other supposititious writings bearing the name of Saint Clement.—It has already been noted by us above that the author of the Recognitions affirms that ten books of Saint Peter's sermons, held at Caesarea, were sent by him to Saint James. Those ten books, as we have already once warned, did not reach us; yet the pseudo-Clement took pains that we should not be entirely ignorant of what was contained in them. Some of them (51) dealt with the marks of the true prophet, and with the understanding of the law. Anastasius (52) of Antioch furthermore praises a certain oration under the name of Saint Clement concerning Providence and the justice of God. From that, perhaps, fragments edited by Cotelerius (53) are taken, in which the mystery of the Trinity is well explained. The ancients often praised the writings of Saint Clement without adding their name, among others Saint Basil (54), the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the author of the disputation against Arius among the works of Saint Athanasius, Anastasius Sinaita, Nice-

- ^Aphorus Callistus, and several others. The same judgment must be passed upon the liturgy of Saint Clement and the collection which they claim was instituted by him, the revelations of Saint Peter.

ARTICLE IV. ON THE ACTS OF THE MARTYRDOM OF SAINT CLEMENT.

The acts of the martyrdom of Saint Clement are composed entirely of such wondrous narratives that it is difficult for a reader not to see them as supposititious. They consist of a mere narration of miracles, and although written in a very grave style, that native color of antiquity which is conspicuous in the genuine writings of that age is not to be seen in them. They relate, first, that Sisinnius, being greatly indignant because his wife Theodora had professed the Christian religion, sought a reason by which he could avenge this deed; and when, one day, Theodora went to church, Sisinnius also hastened there, but entered through another door and, with great curiosity, scrutinized everything that was being performed in the mysteries of the Christians. ^B Being freed by the prayers of Saint Clement, with the people responding "Amen," Sisinnius paid the penalty for his curiosity, being immediately struck in his tongue and ears. Struck, however, by the event of such swift retribution, he repented of his error and, with the baptism of his body, attained the salvation of his soul as well. Publius Tarquinianus, the count of the sacred imperial offices, seeing that the Christian religion was making such great progress in the city, provided money to the prefects of the regions, and was the author of their inciting the people against the Christians. Therefore, they first attacked Clement, accusing him of sacrilege, impiety, and violating the edicts of the Emperors. Trajan, having heard all these things from Mamertinus, the prefect of the city, relegated the holy Pontiff to the Chersonesus beyond the Euxine Sea. There, he found two thousand Christians who had long since been condemned to the work of hewing marble. Among the greatest hardships of these faithful was the fact that they were required to carry water on their shoulders for a distance of six miles. The Pontiff, touched by pity for them, and having learned where a spring was through the guiding of a lamb, pointed it out to the Christians so that they might dig it up. When they worked in vain, Saint Clement himself struck that place with a light blow, and a spring immediately gushed forth. ^C Because the whole province flocked to hear of this miracle, and all were brought to the faith and baptized within the space of a year, seventy churches were built, all idols were broken, the temples of the surrounding region were razed, and all the sacred groves within a circuit of three hundred miles were felled. Trajan, however, in order to halt such progress of the Christian cause, ordered Clement to be cast into the sea with an anchor tied to his neck. But when the sea receded to the place where the body of the Pontiff lay, the Christians found it buried in a stone tomb within a marble temple.

However, there is no need for much discussion to demonstrate the falsity of this history; for a reader can easily perceive that it smacks of a fable, ^D that which is reported concerning Sisinnius. For who could believe that in that age, when pagans were most vigilant in forbidding the worship of Christians, churches were so commonly known, and there was such license to enter them, that access was open to pagans themselves, and they were able to observe what was being done in the celebration of the sacred mysteries, with the ministers of the Lord prohibiting nothing? It is also not plausible that in the age of Trajan there was any prefect of such audacity as to dare to stir up seditions in the city or against the Christians. To this, the title of "count of the sacred imperial offices" attributed to Publius was not yet known in the age of Saint Clement; but we learn from history that it was first used when Constantine was reigning. It also exceeds belief that Saint Clement called those who were seeking him for death "dogs barking at men"; which, nevertheless, we read was pronounced by him in his acts.

The huge number of Christians deported to the Chersonesus at the arrival of Saint Clement is also an argument for the falsity of these acts. For we cannot perceive the time when they could have been deported there. Indeed, if we say they were condemned under Domitian, it may be answered that in the second year of Trajan, when Saint Clement is said to have been relegated there, they no longer existed there; since Nerva, the successor of Domitian and the immediate predecessor of Trajan (55), had recalled everyone relegated by Domitian—both Christians and those of any other kind—as we are taught by the example of Saint John. Nor were they condemned at the beginning of the reign of Trajan, since he only began to institute inquiries against Christians in the tenth year of his reign, as we are taught by Eusebius in his Chronicle.

It must also be numbered among fables that it is related in these acts that within the space of a single year seventy churches were built in the Chersonesus. For they could not have been built without the knowledge of the Caesar. And if Trajan had known of it, he would not have allowed them to be built in such numbers, since he was more iniquitous toward the Christians, which those who affirm these acts to be sincere must necessarily admit. Added to this is the fact that we know that Christians only had churches where they could meet publicly by the beginning of the third century. Aufidianus the governor, who is said to have been sent by Trajan to the Chersonesus to prevent the growth of the Christian piety, would not have been content with the death of Saint Clement alone, but because of his piety toward the gods and his obedience to the commands of the Caesar, he certainly would have had to punish very many of those rebels who were refusing to obey the mandates of the Caesar and who were enemies of the worship of idols.

What these acts relate concerning that wondrous spring which flowed forth at the prayers of Saint Clement, we believe we should pass over; for individual parts of this narrative refute themselves.

^A The same must be thought regarding those things which these acts add, when, a few days after the martyrdom of Saint Clement, his disciples approached the place where he had been immersed in the waters, namely, that the sea had receded three miles from the shore and that they found the relics of the holy martyr interred in a stone tomb within a marble temple. For how could it be that matters so wondrous were unknown to all antiquity and buried in deepest silence by all writers of ecclesiastical history? We do not indeed deny that mention is made of this occurrence in a certain short work [(56)] attributed to Ephraim, bishop of Cherson: but that writing seems to be of lesser weight. For from its very style we recognize that it is a work of some Greek of the Middle Ages. We understand from this that the author, like the author of the acts of Saint Clement's martyrdom, delights in fables, since the individual details related by him are refuted as false by a certain ancient bishop named Constantine, whose acts have been published by Bolland. For when he had traveled to Cherson around the year 850, he inquired diligently of the inhabitants whether the report that had been spread—that the body of Saint Clement had been found in a marble monument in a temple built by angels and that the sea each year on the saint's day ^B receded three miles—was confirmed for him; to which the inhabitants answered that these things had been unknown to them until then [(57)].

Furthermore, this history was held to be more obscure, or rather, as apocryphal and fabricated, from the age of Saint Gregory the Great until later times; for when Saint Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, sought the acts of the martyrs collected by Eusebius of Caesarea, that most learned Pontiff replied: "Beyond those things which are contained in the books of the same Eusebius concerning the Deeds of the holy martyrs, I have known of none in the Archive of this our Church nor in the libraries of the Roman city, except for a few things gathered in the volume of a single codex. We, however, have the names of almost all the martyrs, collected by individual days in their passions in one codex, and on each day we perform the solemnities of the Masses in their veneration. It is not, however, indicated in the same volume who or in what manner each suffered, but only the name, place, and day of the passion is set down." Saint Gregory [(58)] certainly would not have written this if he had known the acts that today exist under the name of Saint Clement, in which not only the day and place of his passion are read, but many other things that happened concerning his death are described in detail.

Chapter V. DOCTRINE OF SAINT CLEMENT. ARTICLE I. DOGMATIC OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENUINE EPISTLES OF DIVINE CLEMENT OF ROME. § I. On holy Scripture and tradition.

From the first epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, ^C we extract a most useful testimony in favor of the Sacred Scriptures; for he calls them the oracles of the Holy Spirit: "Diligently," one reads there, "inspect the Scriptures, the true oracles of the Holy Spirit: Tὰ ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου [(59)]." The holy Pontiff also says: "For you know, and you know well, the Sacred Scriptures, beloved, and you have penetrated deeply into the divine words, Tὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ." What more suitable could be produced to prove both the inspiration and the divinity of the Holy Scriptures? Nor do we show the divinity of the Holy Scriptures from Saint Clement alone, but we also bring forward this same holy pontiff as a witness not to be despised concerning the apostolic origin of the Gospels, with a most learned man [(60)] against Freret [(61)]; for in each of his epistles he frequently uses the words of the evangelists. Indeed, from his own writings we can demonstrate, against both ancient and recent bibliomachs, that not a few books of Holy Scripture have canonical authority. For he says: "Especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus, which He spoke while teaching gentleness and patience. For so He said: 'Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven you [(62)].'" From the canonical books, he had in mind the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. And when he says in the second chapter of his first epistle: "Moreover, you were all humble-minded, in no way ^D arrogant,"

^A being more submissive than forcing submission, more ready to give than to receive, he had the Acts of the Apostles before his eyes. Moreover, he cites entire sentences and turns of phrase evident in the Epistles of St. Paul, Peter, and James. Thus, in chapter 35 of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, he says: "If we have followed the way of truth, casting off from ourselves all injustice and iniquity, avarice, contentions, malignities and frauds, whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vainglory and love of vanity." For those who do these things are hateful to God; and not only those who do them, but also those who consent to them. Indeed, these are entire sentences from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.

In chapter 47, in his first Epistle, the holy Pontiff recounts almost the entire history of the dissension that arose in the Church of the Corinthians in the times of St. Paul the Apostle, written in the first Epistle of the Doctor of the Gentiles to the Corinthians. "Take up the Epistle," he says, "of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he first write to you in the beginning of the Gospel? In truth, he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had formed factions." ^B

In the same Epistle, St. Clement alludes three times to certain things of blessed Paul in the second Epistle to the Corinthians; first when he says: "Through him (Jesus Christ) let us look up to the heights of heaven. Through him we shall behold his spotless and most exalted countenance." Second, when he writes: "And let us therefore pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that moderation and humility may be given to them, so that they may yield not to us, but to the will of God; for thus they will yield to us a compassionate and fruitful remembrance of them, ^C and not to those who are of them." Third, when he says: "Laus nostra in Deo sit, et non nobis ipsis" (Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves). He interprets the sense of the words of blessed Paul to the Colossians in the chapter of his Epistle when the holy Pope writes: "Unless we have lived worthily of him, doing what is good and well-pleasing in his sight with concord."

He expresses the Pauline phrase to the Thessalonians in these words: "Having all these things therefore from him, we ought in all things to give thanks to him, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." And when he says: "Let the whole body therefore be preserved in Christ Jesus." ^D Thus he alludes twice to the first Epistle of blessed Paul to Timothy; first when he says: "Let us therefore approach him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands to him, loving our gentle and merciful Father." Second, when he says: "Let us see what is good, what is pleasant, and what is acceptable before him who made us." And when he writes: "Let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our calling," he imitates the expression of the second Epistle of blessed Paul to Timothy. Elsewhere he also recites the very same words which are held in the Epistle of blessed Paul to Titus. Also, he most frequently uses sentences which agree with the Epistle of the Doctor of the Gentiles to the Hebrews; and on this account he was believed by not a few Greek Fathers and Eastern Churches to be the author of that same Epistle. Regarding the Catholic Epistle of James, which Luther once rejected as "strawy," St. Clement took not a few things into his own work. Finally, of both blessed Peter

and of his, he said: "When the two shall be one, and that which is outside as that which is inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female." Yet I do not see how it can happen that the testimony of this holy pontiff should be rejected on that account regarding the genuine writings of the holy apostles. ^A

The holy Clement also inserted the history of Judith into his Epistle, in chapter fifty-five; and since he immediately adds to it the deeds of Esther, it is inferred by a not-implausible consequence that he valued the book of Judith as highly as the book of Esther. Truly, no Christian now dares to exclude the book of Esther from the register of divine Scriptures, except for the hyper-critic Semler, and almost all learned men with one voice profess that it was recognized as a divine book by the nascent Church: why then can we not also conclude that the book of Judith was regarded by blessed Clement as among the sacred Scriptures?

Furthermore, there is the use of the holy Fathers, especially of the apostolic age, in illustrating and confirming the sacred text, of which we now give certain examples beyond what has been noted thus far. Blessed Clement adopted modes of speech drawn from the sacred books, among many others, as follows: first, it is clear from the phrase that for our Clement *kanona* ^B is used regarding the limits of an office and province, and he has this from 2 Cor. x, 13: *Mh parekbainwn wrismenon ths leitoyrgias aytoy kanona*. "Not transgressing the prescribed rule of his office." Second, he explains the sentiment of Paul to the Philippians, ch. ii, v. 6 and 7, with the following words: *Ihsous oyk hlqen en kompwi alazoneias, oyde yperhfancias, kaipet dynamenos, alla tapeinofro- nwn*. ^C Cyril of Jerusalem, *Cat*. 14, p. 222, end: *Ti estin eteron ginwskon ta baqh toy Qeoy*; 1 Cor. ii, 10; whence it is evident that in the word *ereynan* no emphasis was sought by him, which is not there either: and for that word Clement [put]: *Egkyptein, egkekufotes eis ta baqh ths qeias ths gnwsews*, whence it also is evident [that] ^D *dia pyros kai qeioy prodhlon poihsas o Despoths, oti toys elpizontas ep' ayton oyk egkataleipei, toys de eteroklineis yparxontas eis kolasin, kai aixismon tiqhsi*.

^A Sentiments regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ are worthy of consideration in both of Saint Clement’s epistles. “But you all were,” says Saint Clement (95), “of a humble mind... content with the viaticum of God... and accurately attending to his words... The sufferings of Him (God) were before your eyes: *Ta pathēmata autou (Theou) ēn pro ophthalmōn hymōn* (96).” In this place, the divine Clement calls the sufferings of Christ the sufferings of God, instructed, indeed, by the apostle Paul, whose *synergos* (cooperator) he was; he who in the exact same sense called the Church of Christ: *Ekklēsian tou Theou hēn periepoiēsato dia tou idiou haimatos*. “The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Nor do I doubt that with these words, *Kai ta pathēmata autou ēn pro ophthalmōn hymōn*, the holy Father alluded to that of the same Apostle, rebuking the Galatians ^B thus: “O foolish Galatians... before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you.” Doubtless Clement, as is his custom, imitating Paul, brought to the memory of the Corinthians how, before the disturbances recently arisen in their Church, they flourished in every kind of virtue, and the sufferings of God were always kept before their eyes.

Two natures in Christ, one divine, the other human; and one Person. Therefore, the holy Father joins the majesty of the divine nature in this place with the humility of the flesh and the ignominy of the cross; he acknowledges two natures in Christ: one Person of the Word, who suffered in the flesh, and sets forth the sufferings of God to the Corinthian Church as perhaps the greatest mystery, from which all precepts of a holier life and all institutions are derived. From which, then, it is clear ^C not only what Saint Clement, but also what the Romans, what the Corinthians, and what, in conclusion, the other Christians in the apostolic age felt and believed concerning God having suffered in the flesh. These things indeed are of great value not only against Arianism and the Nestorian heresy, but also strongly against the Socinians, a point pushed by our learned man Maranus (97); and the same argument had long before been pursued by several others, and Grabius (98), who, having established a parallel of other sayings of our holy Father, strenuously defended this very one with which we are dealing, and [defended] the Divinity of Christ ^D against those who conjectured that for *pathēmata* (sufferings) perhaps *mathēmata* (teachings) should be read. But this is plainly to be rejected along with Grabius, Wotton, and other learned men as an empty fiction, which attempts to disturb the text without any necessity and without the authority of any manuscript codex. And with good reason: for do not all things cohere aptly if the words [are directed] to the attention of the mind of God, and His sufferings are set before the eyes of the heart? When I attend to this diligently, it is surprising that the distinguished Fleury, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, Vol. I, page 277, Latin edition in 8vo, preferred to follow the erroneous conjecture of Junius rather than the sincere reading of the text, which in French rendered not *sufferings*, but *doctrine*.

^A

He confidently held it against the enemies. In the second epistle the author teaches us that we should feel toward Jesus Christ as toward God, and as toward the judge of the living and the dead: "Brothers," he says himself at the beginning of that epistle, "it is appropriate for us to think about Jesus Christ as about God, as about the judge of the living and the dead." And in number 36, chap. 1, he says openly that Jesus Christ is from God according to the flesh: "From him is the Lord Jesus according to the flesh." I do not know whether anyone can offer a clearer testimony concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ. Elsewhere he expressly declares that Jesus Christ was spirit before he became flesh: "Jesus Christ the Lord... having first been spirit, became flesh." From which it is deduced against certain Arians of our own time that the Son of God existed before his incarnation. ^B

Benefits of the incarnate Word toward men. — Nothing can be said more aptly to move souls than what holy Clement hands down in both epistles concerning the benefits which have followed for men from the incarnation of the Word. For he says in the first that we have found our Savior in Jesus Christ; that he is the supreme Pontiff of our offerings; that he is the patron and helper of our infirmity. Through him, this holy pontiff continues, we shall fix our eyes on the heights of the heavens; through him we shall behold his immaculate and supreme countenance; through him the eyes of our heart have been opened; through him our insensate and darkened mind sprouts anew into his admirable light; through him the Lord willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge. Who, since he is—he adds further—the splendor of his majesty, is as much greater than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name. Which is as if excerpted word for word from the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the Apostle forms an encomium of Jesus Christ in almost the same words. Hence Eusebius notices that in this first epistle of holy Clement there are found not a few sentiments of the Epistle of divine Paul to the Hebrews, and sometimes even expressed in the same words which the Apostle uses: which indeed shows, Eusebius continues, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is by no means a recent work, and is justly and deservedly joined to the other epistles of that apostle. ^C

In the second epistle he urges no less the immense benefits of the incarnation. In the first place, he forbids Photius to dwell on humble things, while he does not blush to assert that nothing is to be found in holy Clement to prove the divinity of the Savior. He would certainly never have spoken thus if he had attended to the words which we have just brought forward, in which the holy Pontiff constitutes it as something certain and ratified that divinity resides in Jesus Christ together with humanity. ^D

to feel about our salvation, and about him who is the author of this salvation. Furthermore, he teaches us that we sin if we are ignorant of whence and how we were called, and by whom, and to what place; and how much Jesus Christ suffered on our behalf. These are the greatest benefits which we have received from this divine Savior, as holy Clement hands down! He bestowed light upon us; he called us sons like a father; he saved us when we were perishing. He took pity on us, and moved in his heart, he made us safe, when he had beheld in us much error and destruction; and that we had no hope of salvation, except that which is from him. For he called us, who were not, and willed us to be from nothing. Here Clement openly hands down what Augustine later frequently taught, that we were called by God when he had perceived no merits in us, but rather many demerits.

The misery of man before the incarnation. — These words wondrously show the greatest misery of man before the incarnation, and the extreme necessity, by which he was held, of the medicinal grace of the Savior; he also hands down a little further on that, before the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Gentiles were so blinded in mind that they worshipped stones, wood, gold, silver, and copper—works of men; furthermore, that their whole life was nothing but death: they were enveloped in darkness and gloom; that the Church consisted of only a few faithful, and was surrounded by an ungrateful people, oblivious of the benefits of God. Which things are indeed to be understood concerning the worshippers of idols; for before the incarnation they did not belong to the Church, and they were ignorant of God. Wherefore (Scripture) said, the Father says: "Rejoice, you who do not bear," it called us: "Sterile, for our Church was sterile before children were given to her." Therefore it cannot be inferred that no just person existed before the incarnation. So also Christ, he concludes excellently, willed to save that which was perishing, and saved many when he came, and when he called us who were already perishing. ^D

It is proper here to observe with our pious author that we ought to nourish true and genuine sentiments of gratitude toward the Savior. But we shall confess him by doing what he says, and by not spurning his commandments; and not by honoring him with our lips alone, but from the whole heart, from the whole mind. Not merely, therefore, does this holy pontiff say, let us call him Lord—for that will not save us—but let us confess him in our works; in loving one another, in not committing adultery, and we write down what is more appropriate: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; render the favor, and become Spirit and dwell in him": as if he were saying, the Word, when he was spirit, or God, was made flesh, by taking on human nature; render the favor, and you who are flesh, become in a certain way Spirit and God, by putting on the divine nature, and dwell in God.

^A nor by disparaging one another, nor by envying; but by living in continence, mercy, and goodness, etc. (9) By doing these things, and being mindful of the benefits we have received, we shall truly be as it becomes Christians.

Jesus Christ was not a phantom man, but true, although not unrefined. In his first epistle, Saint Clement clearly attributes to Jesus Christ flesh, blood, and soul. In love, he says (10), our Lord God took us by the will of God, handed over his blood for us, and flesh for our flesh, and soul for our souls.

Christ died for all. — That the blood of Christ was shed for the salvation of the whole world, and that no mortal is excluded from this grace, this holy pontiff clearly affirms (11): With keen eyes, let us look to the blood of Christ, and let us discern how precious his blood is, which, having been shed for our salvation, brought the grace of repentance to the whole world.

Jesus Christ is the judge of the living and the dead. The eternity of punishments and rewards. The merit and necessity of good actions. — Saint Clement calls Jesus Christ also the judge of the living and the dead (12), and likewise affirms the eternity of punishments with a most clear testimony, when he writes to the Corinthians (13): For if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest. But if not, nothing will snatch us from eternal punishment if we contemn his commandments; ... what do you think? He who has broken the contest of incorruption, what shall he suffer? For concerning those who have not kept the seal, he says: Their worm shall not die. Therefore, my brothers, he writes elsewhere (14), let us not waver at all, but let us persevere with hope, that we may also receive the reward. For he is faithful who has promised that he will render to each one the retribution of his works. If, therefore, we have done justice before God, we shall enter into the kingdom, and we shall receive the promises, which "ear has not heard, nor eye seen, and which have not ascended into the heart of man." ^B

The holy Father teaches here combined together three excellent truths; first, that our vocation to faith is gratuitous on the part of God, since it is an effect of his good will and mercy toward us: *And we also, called by his will.* Secondly, that all human efforts, and even the works of piety themselves, if they are viewed in and of themselves, and separated from faith, by which they are vivified, are in no way sufficient to merit justification: *We are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or intelligence, or piety, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart.* Thirdly, that through faith we are made just, and that this faith has at all times been necessary for salvation; indeed, through it God has justified all who have ever been just: *But by faith, through which the Almighty God has justified all from the beginning.*

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that there are some words in the cited text which could trouble a reader unless he were perfectly versed in the true principles of Saint Clement. For the following words are not so clear: *The works which we have wrought in holiness of heart.* From which someone might infer that this holy pontiff rejects the merit of good works. But one would infer this conclusion undeservedly; and this would be to depart from the mind of the holy Pontiff, who in more than one place acknowledges both the merit and the necessity of good works. ^C What then shall we do, brothers? says the saint after the words cited above (17); shall we cease from good works, and abandon love? May the Lord not permit this to be done by us; but let us hasten with diligence and alacrity to perform every work... let us see that all the just have been adorned with good works. And the Lord himself, therefore, when he had adorned himself with works, rejoiced. Having, therefore, this example, let us approach his will without sloth; with all our strength let us perform the work of justice. And a few things having been interposed, he concludes thus (18): It behoves us, therefore, to be of a ready mind for doing good: for from this all things consist. Let these suffice, that it may be known to all what Saint Clement thought concerning the merit and necessity of good works. Furthermore, when he says that we do not come to justification through good works, he intends only this, that the good works of piety, taken in themselves and destitute of the spirit of faith, as we said above, cannot work our justification, and that this effect can be expected only from the faith by which our works are vivified. In this way the holy Pontiff sufficiently and more than enough proves the excellence and efficacy of the Christian faith.

Making speech concerning the graces which the ancient patriarchs obtained, Saint Clement clearly teaches that God bestowed all these freely, and that they cannot be attributed to the merits and good works of these men. Therefore, all of them, he says (15), obtained glory and greatness, not through themselves, or their works, or the just actions which they did, but through his will. From which premises he infers this conclusion (16): And we, therefore, called by his will, that is, of God, in Christ Jesus, are not made just by ourselves; nor by our wisdom, or intelligence, or piety, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by faith, by ^D

§ III. Of resurrection.

**Resurrection of the flesh.** Saint Clement speaks in express terms concerning the resurrection of bodies. That we may be able easily to place faith in this truth, this holy pontiff uses in his first epistle some similitudes which are humble and do not exceed the grasp of the less learned. First, he proves it from the very resurrection of the Savior, saying that Jesus Christ showed us in His own resurrection the first-fruits of our resurrection. Second, he proves this by an analogy drawn from night and day succeeding one another (19); third, from daily experience, by which we see dry and naked seeds cast into the ground rising again by the great power of the Lord's providence, and bringing forth fruit.

**The fabulous history of the phoenix.** Fourth, from the fabulous history of the phoenix (20). In eastern regions, namely in Arabia, Saint Clement relates that there is that bird which is called the phoenix, which, existing as singular and unique, lives five hundred years. When it is now to be resolved by death, it constructs for itself a coffin of frankincense, myrrh, and other aromatics, which coffin it enters when the time is complete, and dies. From its putrefied flesh a certain worm is born, which, nourished by the humor of the defunct animal, becomes feathered, and another phoenix appears to the eyes of all. Saint Clement recounts some other miraculous circumstances about the phoenix, which, as has just been suggested, are fictitious. The Pontiff therefore erred when he gave full credit to such a history; however, he erred with most of the most esteemed ancient authors, Christians and Gentiles alike (21).

Finally, the holy Pontiff fifthly proves the resurrection of the dead by those places in Scripture which treat of this truth, and he uses them most aptly to stir up in us faith and hope for this article. God, who commands us not to lie, he says excellently (22), much more does not lie. For nothing is impossible to God except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up in us, he concludes, and let us consider that all things are near to Him. By the word of His magnificence He established all things, and by a word He is able to overturn them. When He willed, and as He willed, He created all things (23): and nothing decreed by Him shall pass away: all things are before Him, and nothing is hidden from His counsel. By this doctrine, the truth of which we speak is, in my opinion, most evidently proven. It is impossible not to feel the force of this argument; God in His Scriptures promises the resurrection of bodies; but God cannot lie, because He is Truth on the one hand; and on the other hand, He is omnipotent so as to fulfill what He has promised: therefore, without any controversy, our bodies will rise again. This argument, I shall say again, conquers the obstinacy of any incredulous person.

**The dead shall rise in their own flesh —** In his second epistle (24) he expressly asserts that we shall rise in our own body and receive the reward for our good works. We shall receive the reward in this flesh, *ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σαρκί*. Great precision is found in this little text, and no room remains for any evasion.

§ IV. Of ecclesiastical hierarchy

This ancient Father hands down much of no slight importance concerning ecclesiastical order. First, he wishes that everything in the Church be done in an orderly manner. We must, he says (25), do all things in order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform: that oblations and duties be performed at stated times, and he ordered that they should not be done rashly or inordinately, but at appointed times and hours: where also and by whom He wishes them to be celebrated, He Himself has defined by His own most excellent will, so that all things done purely and holily in good pleasure might be acceptable to His will. Therefore, throughout the Church, designated places, times, and persons have always been assigned for the celebration of the divine sacrifice.

Moreover, he presses further regarding ecclesiastical subordination: For to the High Priest, he says (26), his proper duties are assigned, and the priests have their proper place appointed, and the Levites have their ministries incumbent upon them; the layman, *λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος*, is bound by the lay precepts. From which he concludes (27): Let each of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own station, living in good conscience, not transgressing the set rule of his office, in honesty. Let us consider those, he says elsewhere (28), who serve under our leaders, how orderly, how strenuously, how submissively they perform what is commanded. Not all are commanders, nor tribunes, nor centurions, nor captains of fifty, nor of the following ranks; but each one performs the commands from the emperor and the leaders in his own order. Hence we infer what kind of subordination existed in the first times of the Church, in ministry and ecclesiastical dignities; namely, that bishops stood above simple priests, priests above deacons, and in general, clergy above the laity.

**The mission of the apostles and bishops who were substituted in their place.** Since we speak of ecclesiastical order, we can bring forward into the middle what Saint Clement teaches concerning the mission of the apostles and bishops, who were substituted in their place.

^A He says, therefore, that the apostles preached the gospel to us, having been sent by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ having been sent by God; and thus "Jesus Christ was sent from God, and the apostles from Christ; and both missions took place in orderly fashion by the will of God." Furthermore, that the apostles, having received mandates, and being fully persuaded by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, went forth with the fullness of the Holy Spirit and with security, announcing the coming kingdom of God: preaching therefore, he finally concludes, through regions and cities, they appointed the firstfruits of these, having tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe. Nor is this new, the holy pontiff adds: for from long ago it had been written concerning bishops and deacons; for so the Scripture says somewhere: "I will appoint their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith" (29). From Isaiah ch. LX, verse 17, this text seems to be excerpted, where something similar is read; but others think it was transcribed from some apocryphal book.

With a few things interposed concerning the unjust deposition of good pastors, the holy Pontiff adds that the apostles, knowing through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention over the title of episcopacy, for this reason, having received perfect knowledge, appointed successors for themselves, and subsequently transmitted the rule for future succession (30), so that when they had passed away, other approved men might receive their ministry and office (31). Those therefore appointed by them (the holy Pontiff continues), or subsequently by other eminent men, with the entire Church consenting and approving; who ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly with humility, quietly, and not greedily, and who for a long time received an outstanding testimony from all—we consider it unjust that these should be cast out from their office: for it will be no small sin if we deprive of the episcopacy those who, without complaint and in a holy manner, offer the gifts. You have now what seemed to me worthy of note in Saint Clement, concerning order or ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Instruction against the schismatics.

"Things base, beloved," Saint Clement continues, "and very base, and unworthy of the Christian conversation, are heard: that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two men, move sedition against the presbyters." And this rumor has not only reached us, but also those who are alienated from us in mind and opinion, so much so that because of your folly, blasphemies and revilings are brought against the name of the Lord. For you, danger is created by providing an occasion for these blasphemies. This is the image which this holy pontiff paints of schism, and of the evils which result from it. Let us now see what remedies he prescribes to the Corinthians so that they may be freed from this spiritual contagion.

Remedies against schism.

V. Of penance and the observance of commandments. Of the confession of sins and their remission.

Saint Clement also makes mention of penance to be done and the confession of sins to be made, not in one place, but in several, but most especially in numbers 51 and 52 of epistle 1 (34), and he proves that the Lord God requires this confession from the cited ^D scriptural passages: he also adds a correction. Note: [original-script column: see facsimile]. This, however, does not hinder that this norm could be changed with the lapse of time: since it is sufficiently established that matters which pertain to the discipline of the Church are subject to change without danger to the faith.

on certain places of Holy Scripture: he also teaches that reproof, or rather fraternal correction, is to be received from the ministers of the Church. But does not the Council of Trent also teach the same in session 14, chapter 5 and canon 6?

That confession is to be made to presbyters is clear from chapter 57 of Clement's epistle, where he says: be subject to the presbyters, and receive correction unto repentance; bending the knees of your hearts, learn to be subject, laying aside the arrogant and proud boasting of your tongue... ^A He also maintains that the forgiveness of sins is universal, and that there is no sin which, after serious repentance, is not remitted through the merit of Christ (35).

Elsewhere he also teaches (36) that for our justification and for the remission of our sins, not faith alone is required, but also charity.

Furthermore, Saint Clement declares that all the precepts of God can be kept by us, and that they necessarily ought to be kept by us. With diligence and alacrity, he himself says (37), let us hasten to perform every good work... Let us work the work of righteousness with all our might.

§ VI. On the Authority of the Roman Church.

Of the Catholic dogma, which we also publicly profess by the prescription of the Council of Trent—namely, that the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all Churches—Saint Clement makes no explicit mention in his epistle. But if we properly weigh the principal scope and other circumstances of this epistle, the aforementioned dogma is quite clearly gathered from it; and the most learned man, Father Conrad Ebert, a Benedictine and professor of sacred theology at Fulda, has deduced it in approximately this manner. These are his words:

"Indeed, if we examine who those were who, either by letters sent beforehand, or, as seems at least most probable, by an embassy sent by the Roman Church, sought aid after the storms of contention had arisen among them; if we examine the time, the manner, and those to whom the Church of the Corinthians fled; if we duly examine the events that occurred after the writing of this epistle, many things certainly will occur which most highly illustrate and confirm this most celebrated dogma of the Catholic Church."

The Church of Corinth, founded by the most celebrated Apostle of the Gentiles, ^C to which the same Divine Apostle Paul had given two epistles written under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, which had been taught the faith of Christ by the apostles at almost the same time as the Roman Church; or which perhaps could boast of greater antiquity; in which Christians of such wealth and nobility resided that they transmitted their alms even to foreign Churches—the Church of Corinth, I say, because of a certain sedition, fled to the Roman Church and sought aid from it.

Let us likewise pay attention to the time when this sedition arose in the Church of Corinth, namely, when the Roman Church was enduring a sufficiently grave persecution; when, indeed, the apostles were still living; when very many disciples of Christ and the apostles, and truly countless men led by the apostolic spirit, were still alive; when in Asia, much more so, as one may at least surmise, the Christian religion flourished than in the city of Rome itself, where pagan superstition possessed almost all its temples and its own worshippers; when ^D the pillars of the Church, namely the divine apostles Peter and Paul, were already dead; when, however, as we learn from Eusebius, the beloved disciple of Christ, the divine apostle and evangelist John, was still living, dwelling either on the island of Patmos or at Ephesus.

Of the Roman Church.

And what, finally, comes to pass after the epistle obtained from Saint Clement, in the name of the Roman Church, is received in the Church of the Corinthians? The sedition ceases, the serenity of peace returns, as we learn from Irenaeus. This epistle is received there with such applause that further, for many a reason, it was poured out for our salvation, and offered the graces of repentance to the whole world. Let us recur to all generations, and let us learn that in generation after generation the Lord has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him, chapter 7 and chapter 8. The ministers of divine grace have spoken through the Holy Spirit concerning repentance, and the Lord of all has Himself spoken concerning repentance with an oath. "As I live, says the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should be converted."

(36) We are good, beloved, if we have acted in the concord of charity, so that by charity our sins may be forgiven us, for it is written: Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Clement, epistle 1, chapter 50. (37) Clement, epistle 1, chapter 34.

^A for a certain time in the public assemblies of Christians, just as Eusebius recounts from Dionysius of Corinth, and as the divine Jerome testifies it was done even in his own time: for the Corinthians regarded this epistle as a most powerful antidote against future seditions; they perceived in it many passages of Sacred Scripture more clearly explained and happily applied to the amendment of morals; they found in it apostolic traditions written down for them by a most celebrated disciple of the apostles; they read therein laws of discipline already introduced from the apostolic age; and they quite clearly gathered from it the primacy of the Roman Church above others. For why did the Corinthian Church flee to the Roman Church, unless it had recognized in this very place a certain superior magisterium or a certain more eminent authority? Were there not many far closer churches likewise founded by the apostles, to which it could have fled much more easily, if it had recognized in them an authority equal in every way to the Roman? Was there not at that time, when the Corinthian Church fled to the Roman, Domitian sitting at the helm of the empire, persecuting Christians cruelly, ruling most powerfully in the city of Rome and harassing Christians there, as we learn from Eusebius? Why, with such great danger, does it send legates or at least an epistle there, unless it had venerated the Roman Church as the teacher of the rest? Was it not at this very time that various apostolic men were still flourishing, and many disciples of Christ and the apostles, to whom it could have had access much more easily? Why did it not seek help from these instead—unless even these had professed a certain dependency on the Roman Church? Was not He himself, in whom our Savior Jesus Christ had founded His Church, already deceased in his own person along with the divine Paul, the most zealous apostle of the Gentiles? And nevertheless, from the same Church, in which both apostles had laid down their lives in cruel persecution, does the Corinthian Church seek help and instruction at a time of sedition and contention arisen among the Christians themselves! And why that, unless it had known the power of the divine Peter to be flourishing even then in the Roman Church itself? And finally, whence, I ask, such great effect for this epistle of Clement, or for the Romans, that contentions cease in the Corinthian Church, the fire of sedition is extinguished, and peace returns? Why is the epistle of the divine Clement received with such veneration that all obey it as quickly as possible? Why is such reverence attributed to it that after many centuries they read it in public assemblies, unless they had venerated the divine Clement as the successor of the holy Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and unless they had attributed to him a certain greater authority than even to the other most holy men? At this very time, indeed, as we learn from Eusebius, there was still living at Ephesus the divine ^A John the apostle and evangelist, the beloved disciple of Christ, who (to speak in the phrase of the Church) had drunk the streams of the Gospel from the very sacred fountain of the Savior's breast, who furthermore, as the divine Jerome testifies (38), founded and ruled all the Churches of Asia: but that in Rome the divine apostles Peter and Paul had already suffered martyrdom, that surely did not escape the Corinthian Church at all. And nonetheless, the Corinthians do not direct their embassy to the divine John, but to the Roman Church and its Prelate. Who from this does not conclude that the Corinthians venerated the divine Clement as the head of the whole Church, and as the father and teacher of all Christians? And through this very submission and obedience in a difficult matter, where the zeal of envy had already flared up before, they confessed that full power had been handed down to the divine Clement in the blessed Peter for feeding, ruling (as far as spiritual matters are concerned), and governing the universal Church. Thus far the most renowned theologian of Fulda.

ARTICLE II. MORAL OBSERVATIONS.

§ 1. On humility and charity, and the vice opposed to them, emulation.

Humility. Example of humility in the holy Person of the Savior. As regards the moral doctrine of St. Clement, here are more beautiful passages which, excerpted from the two epistles, pertain to it. He speaks first of Christian humility, and this holy pontiff commends its practice to the faithful; he exhibits the example of Jesus Christ himself, concerning whom he has these words (39): The scepter of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the puff of arrogance, nor with pride, though he be powerful; but in humility, as the Holy Spirit has spoken concerning him. Then, after having adduced those passages of the prophet Isaiah in which there is talk of the torments and abjections of the Savior, he concludes thus, turning his discourse to the Corinthians: You see, dear men, what example has been given to us? for if the Lord so humbly behaved himself, what shall we do, who through him have come under the yoke of his grace?

Other examples of humility in the patriarchs and prophets. After this divine example of humility and abjection, the holy Pontiff sets before our eyes the perfect humility of the holy prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel. He commends (40) the humility of Abraham in these words of the same patriarch: But I am earth and ashes; (Gen. xviii, 27) the humility of Job in this most true statement, which he passes down: No one is clean from filth, even if his life be but one day; (Job xiv, 4) the humility of Moses in the refusal he testified to God against taking up the rule of the people of Israel; (Exod. iii, 11) the humility of David, which is found mostly in Psalm 50, where this true penitent manifests the humility of his heart (41).

Beautiful sentiments concerning humility.

Concerning charity. The characteristics of charity.

To this most beautiful eulogy of charity, the holy Pontiff adds an example of this same virtue, and proposes for consideration that of Moses, who once poured out his prayers to God, that he might either forgive the sin of his people, or blot him out of the book of the living. "Who therefore among you is noble?" concludes saint Clement (47), "who is merciful? who is full of charity? Let him say: 'If because of me there is sedition, and discord, and schisms, I depart, I go away whithersoever you will; and I do what is commanded by the people; only let the flock of Christ dwell in peace with the appointed presbyters.'" This truly is perfect charity, which is led by no desire for private gain; and its guidance has been followed by several holy bishops, when dissensions and ^A schisms were found to be stirred up on their account.

Let us also say that all the ministers of the Lord ought to perform the same in the same circumstances; for they are bound to provide for the faithful examples of charity, which should be most pure, and seek no advantage for itself. Let them not fear, therefore, while doing this, to lose things that are necessary: For whoever has done this, the holy Pontiff says most excellently (48), "every place will receive him: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."

That he might show, saint Clement, that what he has taught above is by no means impossible, brings forward examples of the Gentiles, and narrates how many kings and princes emerged from the Gentiles who gave themselves over to death, that they might liberate their citizens with their own blood. He says further (49): "We have known many among us who cast themselves into bonds, that they might redeem others. Many gave themselves into servitude, and, having received the price for themselves, fed others." May the ministers of the Church have these excellent examples of perfect charity before their eyes, and consider them attentively.

Concerning emulation. The effects of emulation.

^A Let us set the holy apostles before our eyes. Because of jealousy and envy, those who were the faithful and most righteous pillars of the Church suffered even unto death under bitter persecution. Let us set the holy apostles before our eyes. Because of wicked jealousy, Peter endured not one or two, but many labors, and by this, having suffered martyrdom, he ascended to the place of glory that was his due. Because of jealousy, Paul obtained the prize of patience, having borne chains seven times, having been beaten and stoned. He became a herald in the East... teaching the whole world righteousness, and coming to the limit of the West, and having suffered martyrdom under the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become a great example of patience. This passage is worthy of attentive consideration; for first, it contains a testimony to the martyrdom of the two princes of the apostles, namely, the holy Peter and Paul, which is clearly expressed and stands above all exception. Secondly, it relates that the latter apostle traveled to the very limits of the West; by which words, as the abbot Fleury observes, and after him the most reverend Ceillier, the journey of this holy apostle to Spain could be designated. But let judgment on this remain with the critics: for to weigh this does not tend toward the end we have proposed in this work.

§ II. Regarding the duties of Christians, etc.

Regarding the present and future age. The contempt of this age, and the love of the future. We cannot be friends of both. Here are some places in the second epistle to the Corinthians which pertain to morals. The author here exhorts the Corinthians to despise all earthly things and to covet only the heavenly; the very strong reason he brings forward to move them to do this is: because while we desire to possess those things (earthly, that is), we fall away from the just path (52); from which he truly infers that the present age and the future are two enemies; because the present age preaches adultery, corruption, avarice, and fraud; but the future renounces these. Furthermore, this age and the future are two enemies... We cannot, therefore, he concludes, be friends of both. But it is necessary that, saying farewell to the former, we should embrace the latter (53). This truth is sufficiently firm and grave; and if it needed proofs, one would suffice to bring into the midst the oracle of the Saviour: *No one can serve two masters*. As to the future age, this author teaches that which should stir us most vehemently: namely, that we shall not enter into the kingdom of God unless we have kept our baptism pure and immaculate; that is, unless we have kept our baptismal innocence, or unless through penance we have obtained the remission of the ^B stain by which we have defiled it: We, unless we have kept our baptism pure and immaculate, with what confidence shall we enter into the kingdom of God (54)! From this terrible truth, which evidently proves the necessity of persevering in Christian righteousness, having taken the opportunity, he adds spurs to us, that we may enter into the struggle with the enemies of our salvation. Let us therefore struggle, he says (55), that we may all obtain the crown... and if we cannot all be crowned, at least let us be near the crown. These last words ought to bring the greatest consolation to those Christians who are not sufficiently firm, who cannot obtain a perfect victory over vehement passions, even though they strive toward it with all their might.

For after this life there is no time for penance. — But that he may move us more effectively to this struggle, he teaches that God grants us the time of this temporal life so that we may be led to penance. For after we have departed from the world, he says himself (56), we can no longer confess there, or yet do penance. He desires, therefore, that as long as God has granted this to us, we should strive with all our strength to keep the purity of our baptism, or to wash away the stains brought in by sins.

The holy Pontiff has comprised all Christian duties in a few words, while he says and admonishes the Corinthians (57) that they should revere the Lord Jesus Christ, revere those placed over them, honor the elders, teach the young the discipline of the fear of God; that they lead their wives to that which is good; that they show the lovable customs of chastity, demonstrate a simple and sincere will of their own meekness, that they make the moderation of their tongue manifest by silence; that they provide their charity not according to the inclinations of the spirit, but equally to all who fear God holily. Let our children be participants of the discipline of Christ; let them learn what humility avails before God, what chaste charity can do before God, how his (the Lord’s) fear is good and great and saves all who dwell in him in a pure mind.

ARTICLE III.

OF THE TRUE OR FALSE ERRORS OF ST. CLEMENT.

What Photius finds to reprehend in the divine Clement. — Photius (58) finds fault with three things in the prior epistle to the Corinthians. First, that the author seems to imagine that there are other worlds beyond the ocean. Secondly, that to prove the resurrection of bodies he uses the comparison of the phoenix, as if that bird truly existed, and those things which are told about it were entirely true. Lastly, that where he deals with Jesus Christ, ^D he means that He is truly equal to the Father, and thought that impious men and even demons were to be restored to their original order. For these things cannot be admitted without prior penance. And again, while we are taught in the following number that no time remains after this life in which we can be healed, that hope of returning to their original order is entirely taken away from the impious.

^A Cotelerius. Indeed, above in number 40, besides priests and Levites, he calls [him] the high priest 66, and below in number 44, he expostulates with the Corinthians because presbyters, whom the apostles or other eminent men had ordained, were deposed by them 67. Perhaps he also lists here only bishops and deacons, because of the passage from Isaiah soon cited by him, in which bishops and deacons are mentioned by name 68. It is added that in number 21 of the first epistle, he clearly distinguishes presbyters from bishops; for he says: Let us reverence our presbyters; let us honor our elders. In Greek: Τοὺς προηγουμένους ἡμῶν αἰδεσθῶμεν, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἡμῶν τιμήσωμεν. But who is unaware that bishops were frequently called προηγούμενοι? See the learned Bingham, *Originum eccles.*, vol. I, c. 2, § 5.

Whether Saint Clement believed the hierarchy consisted of bishops, presbyters, and ministers?—There have been some critics who think that from the prior epistle of our holy Pontiff it can be concluded that only two orders in the clergy are recognized by Clement, namely bishops and deacons; because he says that bishops and deacons were ordained by the apostles, with no mention added concerning presbyters 65. But the very learned Cotelerius refutes them with many points. Indeed, above in number 40, besides priests and Levites, he mentions the high priest 66, and below in number 44, he expostulates with the Corinthians because presbyters, whom the apostles or other eminent men had ordained, were deposed by them 67. Perhaps he lists here only bishops and deacons because of the passage from Isaiah soon cited by him, in which bishops and deacons are mentioned by name 68. Furthermore, in number 21 of the first epistle, he clearly distinguishes presbyters from bishops; for he says: Let us reverence our presbyters; let us honor our elders. In Greek: Τοὺς προηγουμένους ἡμῶν αἰδεσθῶμεν, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἡμῶν τιμήσωμεν. But who is ignorant that bishops were frequently called προηγούμενοι? See the learned Bingham, *Originum eccles.*, vol. I, c. 2, § 5.

^C It is certainly established that saint Clement praises certain passages which do not exist in Scripture in the same words; yet some of these are read elsewhere according to the meaning. Thus he reports these words 69 as if they were in the Scriptures: "Miserable are they who are double-souled and doubting, who say: These things we have heard even from our fathers, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things has happened to us." The other epistle also recites the same passage 70; although it is read nowhere in the Bible in that manner. But if we gather more passages dispersed in various books of Scripture 71, we shall discover the same meaning. Saint Clement also recites another passage in the other epistle, which Clement of Alexandria 72 says was taken from the *Gospel according to the Egyptians*. It is of this kind: "When the two shall be one, and that which is outside as that which is inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female 73."

^D Clement sets forth, if we remove them from the bishopric, and then he immediately adds, "Blessed are the presbyters," etc. He indicates that to him, no less than to Irenaeus, the terms presbyter and bishop are synonymous, and that he uses them interchangeably in this place to express the same thing.

For it had been written concerning bishops and deacons. For Scripture says somewhere in Isaiah LX, 17: "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith." Similar is the observation of this kind in Chrysostom's book, *That Christ is God*, vol. V, c. 7, p. 737: "And the very name of priests, I say the name of bishops, the old law did not pass over; for it says, 'I will appoint thy princes in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness'." Naturally, he had read in Isaiah in Greek: Καταστήσω γὰρ τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. For the word καταστήσω, there stands in the Septuagint καὶ δώσω; following whom Irenaeus, lib. IV, c. 44, writes: "Such are the mature presbyters (presbyteros) which the Church nourishes, concerning whom even the prophet says: 'And I will give thy princes in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness'." In which passage Irenaeus receives the words presbyter and bishop interchangeably and holds them as synonyms.

^A Saint Clement uses the version of the Septuagint Interpreters in his epistles; but he generally represents the thought rather than the very words. Indeed, while mentioning the envy stirred up against Aaron on account of the priesthood, he recounts many things which are not read in the book of Numbers. Therefore, we think that these were received by him from the tradition of the Jews; just as he has that which concerns Rahab, that when interrogated about the route of the scouts, she demonstrated a path far different from that by which they were to return; which does not occur at all in the book of Joshua, where this history is described. So far the learned Remi Ceillier. ^B But the fact that he demonstrated a contrary path to the scouts from Rahab was derived from an erroneous reading of this Clementine passage by Junius; for Junius, studying to supply what is missing here in the archetype, had edited [—] [—] [—] and in Latin: *showing them the contrary way*. When Cotelerius observed that this was repugnant to Sacred History, which teaches that the scouts had not yet departed from the house of Rahab, but were still hiding in it, he substituted [—] for [—]. And there is no doubt that his correction is to be preferred to the Junian reading, especially since the string of the discourse does not allow this to be referred to the scouts of Joshua, to whom alone Rahab is remembered to have shown the contrary way. Previously, the learned Coutantius also conjectured that perhaps it should be read [—], and *I know not whither they are going*, but wrongly; for the lacuna of the manuscript is not capable of this supplement.

ARTICLE IV. VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT, POPE OF ROME.

The epistles of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the more sincere they are in comparison to the rest published under his name, and the less alien they are to primitive simplicity, by so much more have scholars devoted their efforts to editing them, translating them into other languages, and illustrating them. In this regard, Patrick Young (Junius) the Scot ^C is praised in Gallandi's Prolegomena; a heterodox man, indeed, but learned, and an indefatigable seeker of antiquities; who first published this distinguished monument of the apostolic age, long buried in darkness, from the very ancient Alexandrian manuscript—which Cyril Lucaris, the Constantinopolitan patriarch from Alexandria, had sent as a gift to Charles I, King of England, having been brought back from the East by Thomas Roe, in 1633—at Oxford, in quarto, in Greek and Latin: the first epistle indeed with a Latin version added and illustrated with notes; but the remains of the second were rejected to the end in Greek only. But so that the editor might faithfully complete his task, he supplied the lost words, as he himself ^D confesses in his preface, and filled them in with most accurately measured spaces and intervals, and marked them with red lead; surely with the intention that readers might more easily distinguish those things which were missing in the lacerated membranes due to the injury of time, from those which were added or supplied. Later editors took diligent care that these Junian supplements were printed in types enclosed in brackets. For the diligence of Junius was great, and worthy of praise, if faith is to be placed in him. But the most learned men, Wotton in particular, Mill, and Grabe (76), feel otherwise about him and his labor in transcribing the Alexandrian manuscript, so that Fell (77) therefore judged less correctly: *It is finished, namely, that he who, after Junius, would have acted with a vain effort, had he finished transcribing everything according to the Alexandrian example*: for, he adds, the fame of Junius for erudition, industry, and fidelity is such among all, that to undermine it with any suspicion appears not only uncivil, but altogether unjust.

But it would be worth the effort here to bring forward what were noted by Grabe (78-100) himself in the Junian edition of the Clementine epistles; they stand thus: "Those things which offer an emendation from the collation of the Alexandrian manuscript are reduced to these heads. First, some things are omitted in the published texts which exist in the prototype, as is evident from the Latin version; secondly, not a few words are edited in red letters which exist in the codex, which it is likely was done by the typesetters; thirdly, there are not a few which the editor did not transcribe correctly; fourthly, some things are written otherwise than the editor represented, by a certain singular opinion of his; by which he could not be led to exhibit the ancient writing otherwise than according to the vulgar manner of writing; fifthly, he often adds a correction from conjecture at the margin when he himself had transcribed badly; which correction is found in the codex itself." So far Grabe. By which vices, therefore, almost all editions labor, inasmuch as they were modeled on the Junian. Joachim Johannes Mader caused the same Junian edition to be printed at Helmstedt in 1654, and by adding a new preface, demonstrated that this was the genuine offspring of Clement, against a certain theologian of the Lutheran communion. John Fell, bishop of Oxford, in 1669 at Oxford and 1687 at London, represented both epistles of Clement to the Corinthians in smaller format, but no less distinguished by learned notes. The former epistle to the Corinthians is seen in Latin only in Francis Rous's *Mella Patrum*, London, 1650. In 1672, Jean Cotelerius, doctor of the Sorbonne, brought these epistles to light in Paris, in folio, adorned with a new interpretation and new notes in his work.

^A celeberrimo de Patribus apostolicis. These he also reviewed, and Paul Colomies collected a gleaning of notes in London, 1687, in octavo, which edition came out again, revised and corrected, in 1694 in the same place. Le Clerc published Cotelerius’s interpretation with his own short notes added at Antwerp, or more truly at Amsterdam, in 1698 in his collection of the Apostolic Fathers, and more fully again in 1724 in the same place, in folio. Furthermore, Coutant’s epistles were inserted into the collection of councils of both Labbe and Mansi, as well as into the first volume of the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs. In 1718, a sufficiently luminous Cambridge edition of these epistles was brought before the public, elaborated with the greatest care by Henry Wotton. For, examining it not just once, that distinguished man compared it to the faith of the Alexandrian manuscript, also employing the edition of Junius compared with the same codex by Mill and Grabe; he corrected and supplied the Junian text—which other editors followed—eighty times. Those parts which were missing from the manuscript exemplar and were marked by Junius in red letters, he had printed in smaller type, and he placed the readings and conjectures of Junius, Bois, Cotelerius, Fell, Colomies, and Le Clerc among the variant readings. Although this Wottonian edition is the most accurate of all, learned men who subsequently printed the Clementine epistles—if you except Richard Russell and Galland—passed it by, ignoring it. This is indeed a strange thing, if not regarding the others, at least regarding Le Clerc, who had that same edition in his hands; for he transcribed from it the more choice annotations of Bois, which Wotton had then first published, and transferred them to the second Amsterdam edition of the Apostolic Fathers, which was the Cotelerian one. But Le Clerc seems to have held it in contempt primarily for the reason that the Cambridge editor both mocked the notes of Edward Bernard, with which he had tried to elevate the first epistle’s authority, and not undeservedly castigated Le Clerc himself again and again. In 1742, Johann Ludwig Frey consigned the epistles of the Apostolic Fathers to the Basel press; he obtained the Wottonian exemplar, which he had desired, only when the first epistle of Clement had already escaped from the press, so that consequently he presented the latter only slightly corrected. However, the learned Antonius Birrius attempted to supply the defect of this Frey edition, otherwise quite neat, in a *Public specimen* also published at Basel in 1744, providing not insignificant conjectures for further cleansing the text of the Clementine Wottonian edition. Russell, in his *Genuine Works of the Apostolic Fathers* published in London in 1746, justly judged that he should follow the Wottonian edition above others; he also, with a commendable plan, appended at the end of the second part of the first volume many notes taken from the transcription of John Mill, accurately copied to the faith of the Alexandrian manuscript; which notes, indeed, Wotton had omitted, although he himself had had the Millian transcription available to him and claimed that he could have made it more accurate from it, as Galland testifies.

At last, ^B the most esteemed and Reverend Andreas Galland, priest of the Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, instructed by the aid of all preceding editions, strove with every study and work to publish these epistles of Clement in his *Bibliotheca veterum Patrum*, both as a most excellent work and one most distinguished by the praise of the utility it offers to all students of ecclesiastical sciences; it is likewise sumptuous, refined throughout by the brightness of the paper and the elegance of the characters, from the press of Jo. Albrizzi at Venice, 1765. As to how much labor and diligence he expended in preparing this edition, he explains in the ^B Prolegomena, and at the same time in that place guards and vindicates the excellence, integrity, and sincerity of these epistles with invincible arguments; that we have also made much use of his labor, we publicly confess in token of gratitude.

Regarding the English version, the epistles of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians were published by William Burton, with copious notes and the judgment of William Cave, London, 1647, and again by the translator William Wake, together with the epistles of Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hermas, likewise translated into the English tongue under the title *Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers translated into the English tongue*, London, 1693, in octavo; and they appeared again in the same place in 1710. They were translated into the French language by Gratus, a member of the Oratory, and inserted into the fourth volume of the French Bibles, in folio, Paris, 1717. Jo. Otto Glusing translated the same into the German idiom at Hamburg in 1723, in octavo, with the epistles and writings of the apostolic men. An older translation is held to exist in the German Bibles published at Hamburg in 1710. In our own age, Simon Grynaus edited both in German at Basel in 1782, in octavo, along with other monuments of the Apostolic Fathers, with some added notes of doubtful faith: hence it came about that P. Vitalis Moesl, a monk of the Order of St. Benedict at St. Peter’s in Salzburg, in order to make the reading of the Apostolic Fathers easier and safer for Catholics, had the same re-printed at Augsburg in 1774, having changed a few things that fought against the Catholic faith.

The books of the *Recognitions*, rendered into Latin by Rufinus, were published at Basel with the pseudo-decretals in 1526, in folio, and subsequently in Paris in 1541 and 1568, and at Cologne in 1569. They were published at Lyons in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* in 1677. The Cologne edition, besides the books of the *Recognitions*, also includes the *Clementina* and the summary of the *Acts of St. Peter* translated by Perionius, together with the notes of Venradius.

Turnebus was the first to edit the same in Greek and Latin at Paris in 1554, in quarto. The *Clementina* and the aforementioned *Epitome* also exist in the Cotelerian collection, about which we made mention above, along with the supposititious letters of Saint Clement to Saint James, Bishop of Jerusalem.

ON THE TWO EPISTLES OF CLEMENT OF ROME.

1. That Clement was the same person whom Saint Paul extols with praises in his Epistle to the Philippians (iv, 3), has already been affirmed by Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and other ancients. If this matter is as stated, it easily appears that Clement was a most deserving companion and coadjutor to Saint Paul while he was preaching the Gospel at Philippi in Macedonia during his second apostolic journey, in the years 53–55 (cf. Acts xvi).

Chrysostom, in his Commentary on 1 Timothy, suspects that Clement, along with Luke and Timothy, was a perpetual companion of the travels of the divine Paul.

I, however, am of the opinion that Clement was a citizen of the city of Philippi, who, having been converted by Paul while Paul was staying at Philippi, himself assisted in the apostolic work as a herald of the Gospel; and when Paul left, he remained at home, promoting the cause of Christ among his own people. Our conjecture can be proven by several points: a) When Paul was hastening to Philippi, he seems to have had no one with him as a companion except Silas, Timothy, and Luke. Cf. Acts xvi. b) Sacred Scripture nowhere makes mention of Clement accompanying the apostle Paul on his journeys. c) From Philippians iv, 3, it clearly appears that at the time of Paul's first Roman captivity, Clement was residing at Philippi. d) In Philippians iv, 3, no different mention is made of Clement than of those who were undoubtedly Philippian citizens. ^A

When, where, and of what origin our Clement was born, we do not know. The *Liber pontificalis*, the catalogs of the Roman pontiffs, Saint Eucherius of Lyon, and the Roman Breviary have received that fabulous narrative from the *Recognitions* and the pseudo-Clementine homilies, which claims for Clement a senatorial family in Rome and a father, Faustinus, from the line of the Caesars. Such things need no refutation.

Tillemont (*Mémoires* II, p. 449), gathering from the first epistle of Clement, chapter 4 (πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ), concluded that our apostolic man was of Jewish origin. This was first brought forth by Cotelerius in his celebrated edition of the *Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs*, vol. I, p. 11; but afterwards (l.c., p. 41) that most learned man changed his opinion. Tillemont’s opinion was embraced by Herm. Venema, in order to deduce from it an argument against the later epistle, whose writer openly betrays himself as a Gentile by birth.

Tillemont could have added that Clement, not only in chapter 4 but also in chapter 31 (ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ), calls the patriarch of the Jews "our father." ^B Furthermore, Clement, in chapter 55, while discussing love for one's country, and having put forward examples from the Gentiles, proceeds to the examples of those whom, as he says, we have known among us. Since he seems to ascribe to these the Jewish women, Judith and Esther, he incurs the suspicion of Jewish birth.

But these are not very weighty arguments. For it is known that other Fathers, whom no one denies to have been born of the Gentiles, ascribe just persons of the Old Testament to their own ancestors. E.g., Theophilus, lib. II *ad Autol.*, n. 24, writes: Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατριάρχης ἡμῶν; n. 27: Ἀβραὰμ τοῦ προπάτορος ἡμῶν; and n. 94: Δαβὶδ ὁ πρόγονος ἡμῶν.

As for the examples mentioned in chapter 55, it should be noted, moreover, that Clement perhaps first brought forth examples of love of country from the Gentiles, then from the Christians, and finally from the Jews. ^C

That Clement, a disciple of the apostles, designated by Clement of Alexandria by the title "Apostle," was bishop of the Roman Church, the ancients unanimously hand down; but in what order he occupied the Roman cathedra is a matter of long-standing and ongoing debate.

1. That he was the immediate successor of Peter, many of the Latins in earlier times affirmed, as Jerome testifies. Tertullian adds that he was ordained by Peter himself. Even Jerome, although in his *Catalog* he placed Clement after Linus and Anacletus, afterwards changed his opinion and acceded to the other Latins, who claimed he was the second bishop of Rome after Peter; since Linus was second, Anacletus third, even though many Latins think that Clement was the second after the apostle Peter. ^D

as it seems, writing: "And Clemens, an apostolic man, who presided over the Roman Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians" (9).

2. That our Clement succeeded Linus at last, is the opinion of Augustine (10), Optatus of Milevis (11), the *Apostolic Constitutions* (12), and the *Catalogue of Roman Pontiffs* published by the Bollandists in the *Propylaeum* of the month of May.

3. Finally, that not only Linus, but Cletus or Anacletus, held the helm of the Roman Church before our Clement, Irenaeus (13) contends: "Having founded and built the Church, the blessed Apostles entrusted the episcopal ministry to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in the Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeds him; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement inherits the episcopate, who had also seen the blessed Apostles and conferred with them, and still had the preaching of the Apostles echoing and their tradition before his eyes," etc.

Eusebius stands with Irenaeus (*H. E.* III, 13, 15, 34), teaching that Linus held the Roman see from the year 68 to the year 80, Anencletus from 80-92, and Clement from 92-101 A.D. ^B

Jerome maintained the same opinion in the *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*, c. 15, as we saw above (14).

4. Learned men of ancient and modern times have sought to reconcile these various opinions, conjecturing that Linus and Cletus were bishops of the Roman faithful while the apostles Paul and Peter were still living; but that Clement, perhaps after they were deceased or crowned with martyrdom under Nero (15), was ordained by Peter, then hastening toward his death, as bishop of the Roman Church.

This opinion has been maintained by: a) Rufinus (*Pref. to S. Clement's Recognitions*): "The reason for this—as we have received it—is that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but while Peter was still alive, namely, so that they might manage the requirements of the episcopate, while he himself might fulfill the office of the apostolate. Just as he is found to have done at Caesarea; where, while he was present, he nevertheless had Zacchaeus ordained by himself as bishop. And in this way, both will seem true: that they are numbered as bishops before Clement, and yet Clement assumed the see of teaching after Peter's death."

β) The *Chronicon of Damasus*: Unless the times of the pontificate of Linus and Cletus are comprehended within the span of the rule of the blessed Peter, they will not respond consonantly with the years of the Roman pontiffs to the years of the emperors.

γ) The Venerable Bede, Rabanus, Haymo, and others. Cf. Cotelerius, *ed. PP. apost.*, vol. I, p. 492 and p. 387.

Eusebius opposes this conjecture, teaching that Clement ascended the episcopal see only in the year 92, twenty-four years after the death of St. Peter, of which 12 are assigned to Linus, and likewise 12 to Anencletus. But I can hardly believe that Eusebius wrote this supported by evidence. Perhaps it had become known to him through tradition that Linus and Anencletus had ruled the Roman Church for 12 years. Since, however, it was hidden from him that they had held the reins of government conjointly while Peter was yet alive, it could be that, looking at the catalogue of Irenaeus, he proposed his own computation to us with highest confidence.

5. Let us not remain silent regarding the conjecture of Epiphanius, who, having misinterpreted 1 Clement, c. 54, assumes that Clement, ordained by Peter, ceded [his place] to Linus for the sake of peace; but that Cletus succeeded Linus, and Clement succeeded Cletus having resumed the pontificate (16). We shall touch upon this question again, debating the time at which Clement's epistle was written.

Now let us speak of the death of Clement. Eusebius contends that Clement, having performed the episcopal duty for nine years, died in the third year of Trajan (101 A.D.). However, paying attention to what we have said above and shall say below, we indeed assign nine years of government to Clement (a. 68-77) with Cave, Dodwell, Fleury, and others; but we think he was already deceased under Vespasian. But whoever wishes to grant credence to Eusebius must believe with him that, in a short time, between 101-153, no fewer than seven or eight pontiffs ascended the Roman see, even though only one persecution occurred to disturb this span of time.

Eusebius and Jerome (l.l.c.c.) commemorate the death of Clement having instituted no mention of martyrdom. Irenaeus also (III, 3), listing the pontiffs up to Eleutherius, signifies that none of them suffered martyrdom except for Telesphorus. But by Rufinus and Zosimus, Clement is called our martyr (17).

From the Acts of the martyrdom, which are without doubt supposititious, Lumper recounts the history of the martyrdom of St. Clement with these words: "Trajan relegated Clement, who had been accused for the sake of the faith by Mamertinus, the prefect of the city, to Chersonesus beyond the Euxine Sea." And he finds there

^A over two thousand Christians, for a long time condemned to the work of hewing marble. Among the greatest hardships of these faithful, however, was this, that they were obliged to carry water on their shoulders for six miles. But the Pontiff, touched by compassion for them, and having learned by the guidance of a certain lamb where a spring was, showed it to the Christians so that they might dig it out. While they were laboring not in vain, Saint Clement himself struck that place with a light blow, and a spring immediately leaped forth. As the whole province came running to the fame of this miracle, and all were brought to the faith and baptized, within the space of a year seventy churches were constructed, all the idols broken, the temples of the surrounding region leveled, and all the groves for three hundred miles in the circuit were cut down. Trajan, however, that he might stop such progress of the Christian cause, ordered that Clement be thrown into the sea with an anchor tied to his neck. But when the sea receded as far as the place where the Pontiff’s body lay, the Christians found it buried in a stone tomb within a marble temple (18).

II. Since a most grievous dissension had arisen at Corinth among the brethren in the time of Clement (19), the Roman Church wrote a most brilliant letter to the Corinthians, by which it might call them back to peace and concord, and renew their faith and the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles. So Irenaeus (20). Eusebius reports that our Clement wrote this letter in the name of the Roman Church (21); and many other ancients have made mention of this letter. But before the XVIIth century, all the theologians of the middle and lower ages lamented this letter of the apostolic Father as lost.

In the year 1632, Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, sent as a gift to King Charles I of England a most ancient codex of the Old and New Testament; and behold, at the bottom of this most excellent Alexandrian codex, that long-desired letter of Clement was found (22) along with a fragment of another book, which the catalog prefaced to the codex marks with these letters: .... εντος ἐ....λη Β. (23) that is, *Clement’s Second Epistle*. Patrick Young, librarian to the King of the English, was the first of all to edit both these epistles of Clement from that most ancient codex at Oxford in 1633; he filled in the lost words and letters worn away by age, having accurately, as he thought, measured the spaces and intervals ^D and marked them with red lead. But his edition, and all those exacted according to the Junian, labor under not a few faults. Wherefore it happened that Henry Wotton, A.M., from the college of St. John the Evangelist, examined the manuscript codex accurately anew, and corrected and supplemented the Junian text eighty times. Thus, the Wottonian edition appeared at Cambridge in 1718, in which you find what was missing from the manuscript exemplar printed in smaller type. Gallandius, with the highest right, judged this edition to be the one to follow, who, moreover, in elaborating his own edition, used the notes and conjectures of other learned men, Mill, Birch, Frey, etc. Finally, in 1839, the most elegant edition of William Jacobson was produced at Oxford from the academic press, who again unrolled the Alexandrian codex, corrected the text throughout, proposed learned conjectures, and added his own to the annotations of others (24).

We, with Gallandius and Jacobson, have changed those things which were found in Wotton, written in a faulty or obsolete manner, clearly clinging to the manuscript codex; we have enclosed in brackets the words and letters which are missing in the codex, and we have had Jacobson and other learned men as our guides.

III. No one will deny that Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthians. There were, however, those who thought our letter was not genuine and did not judge it to be the one which the ancient Fathers praised and cited. Especially John Toland (25), Christ. Aug. Salig (26), and Gisbertus Voetius, professor of theology at the Academy of Utrecht (27), denied the authenticity of our epistle, the former imperiously offering no arguments, the latter bringing forward hallucination rather than demonstration. How poorly he acted, led by a preconceived opinion, listen. "We admire," he says, "the singular divine providence, which saw to it that by the disciples of the apostles, and apostolic men, and those near the apostolic age, either nothing was written, or nothing was preserved and passed down to posterity, or at least that nothing from the beginning of the Church down to this day remained, about which there would be no doubt, or which had not been mutilated by moths and bookworms, or any other army of God: so that the authority of Scripture alone might the more evidently stand, and that to it alone might belong its proper incorruptibility and eternity."

That we have the same letter that Clement wrote is sufficiently proven thence, because those things which ^D

the ancient Fathers of the Church have cited from the said epistle are found in ours.

(a) St. Polycarp, as Gallandius has noted, handled this same Clementine epistle and translated some things from it almost verbatim into his own epistle to the Philippians.

[Table of citations: I Clem. 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 21; ibid. | Epist. Polyc. 4, 9, 7, 2, 4, ibid. omitted from translation]

(b) What Irenaeus reports concerning the epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthians responds very well to the character of our epistle. Behold his words: ^A Since in the time of this Clement, no small sedition having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them to peace, and renewing their faith, and [reminding them of] the tradition which it had recently received from the Apostles.

(c) Clement of Alexandria cites many passages of the Clementine epistle which are still found in our epistle. Strom. I, c. 7, p. 339: Straightway Clement in the epistle to the Corinthians says literally, setting forth the distinctions of those who are approved in the Church: "Let one be faithful, let one be able to speak to the knowledge, let one be wise in distinguishing words, let one be vigorous in works." These same words, taken from I Clem. c. 48, the Alexandrian repeats in Strom. VI, c. 8, p. 773. Strom. IV, c. 17, p. 609, 610: Indeed, in the epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Clement himself also sketches for us a kind of type of the Gnostic, saying: "For who that has journeyed to you..." etc. Here the Alexandrian has excerpted chapters 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53 of our epistle. Strom. V, c. 12, p. 693: But even in the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians: "An ocean impassable to men is described, and the worlds beyond it." Cfr. I Clem. c. 20. Strom. VI, c. 8, p. 773: "For by so much more ought one to be humble, by how much he seems to be greater," says Clement in the [epistle] to the Corinthians. Cfr. I Clem. c. 48. Strom. I, c. 7, p. 339: "But if you seek the royal and authoritative entrance, you shall hear: This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter in by it. Since therefore many gates are opened in righteousness, this one was in Christ." Cfr. I Clem. c. 48.

(d) Origen, *De principiis*, II, c. 3, n. 6, vol. 1, p. 82, ed. BB.: Clement, the disciple of the apostles, indeed mentions even those whom the Greeks called ^B *antichthones* (inhabitants of the opposite earth), and other parts of the world to which no one of our people can go, nor can any one from those who are there cross to us; these he also called worlds, when he says: "The ocean is impassable to men, and the worlds that are beyond it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the Lord God." Cfr. I Clem. c. 20. Orig. in Ezech. c. 8, vol. III, p. 422: Clement says: "An ocean impassable to men, and if there are worlds beyond it, they are governed by so many [arrangements] of the Master." Cfr. I Clem. c. 20. The same in Joann. I, 29, vol. IV, p. 153: It is also testified among the heathens that many ^C certain pestilential diseases having fallen upon...

them, they have offered themselves as sacrifices for the common good; and the faithful Clement, testified to by Paul, saying: ^A *With Clement*, etc. Cfr. I Clem. c. 55.

(e) That Eusebius had the same epistle of Clement which exists now before his eyes, his words sufficiently demonstrate: *Hist. eccl.* III, 16: "One single epistle of his, confessed by all, is handed down, great and admirable, which he, as from the Church of the Romans, addressed to that of the Corinthians, at a time when there occurred a sedition in Corinth." *Ibid.* III, 38: "Of Clement, in that epistle recognized by all, which he addressed from the person of the Church of the Romans to that of the Corinthians. In which, having set forth many thoughts from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and having already used phrases word for word from it," etc. That our epistle often uses the same words which are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, no one is ignorant (28).

(f) Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catech.* 18, c. 8, as he himself testifies, brings forward the fable of the phoenix (I Clem. 25) from the epistle of Clement.

(g) Epiphanius, *hær.* 27, n. 6: He says (Clement) in one of his epistles: "I will withdraw, I will depart; let the people of God be at peace." Cfr. I Clem., c. 54.

(h) Jerome, *Catal. script. eccl.* c. 15: "He wrote (Clement) from the person ^B of the Roman Church to the Church of the Corinthians a very useful epistle, which is also read publicly in some places, which seems to me to correspond to the character of the epistle which is carried under Paul's name to the Hebrews. And he makes use of many things from the same epistle, not only in sense, but also according to the order of the words." The same, book XIV, *Comment. in Isai.*, c. LII, 13: "Clement, an apostolic man, who after Peter ruled the Church, writes to the Corinthians: 'The Scepter of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come in the boastfulness of pride, although He could do all things, but in humility.'" Cfr. I Clem., c. 16. The same, book I, *Comment. in Ep. ad Eph.*, c. IV, 2: "Clement, in his epistle writes: 'The Ocean and the worlds which are beyond it.'" Cfr. I Clem. c. 20. The same, *ibid.*, book I, ad c. IV, 1: "Of which thing Clement is also a witness to the Corinthians: 'Who can tell the bond of the love of God?'" Cfr. I Clem. c. 49. Let us pass over the testimonies of later ones.

IV. Some of the ancients praise places in the Clementine epistle which are not read in our copies. E.g., Basil, *lib. de Spiritu sancto*, c. 29, n. 72, ^C vol. III, p. 61, ed. B. B. writes: "But also Clement, an older writer (or *the older*), says: 'God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.'" (29).

But the arguments of those who for this reason have impugned the authenticity of our epistle are futile; for perhaps all these passages, whose number is small, were formerly read after chapter 57, where a whole leaf has fallen out. Certainly that phrase of Basil, as Freyius has warned, fits that place most opportunely, and can be accommodated to the epistle as it draws to an end.

V. Now we must speak of its integrity.

(a) In the same year, 1633, in which our epistle was first published in print, Jerome Biguonius, a Parisian jurist, called its integrity into doubt, thinking that many clauses and words had been added to the genuine epistle. Especially did it displease the very learned man: (α) the narrative about the phoenix, c. 25. (β) the frequency of epithets. (γ) the word *laikos* (layman), c. 40, and (δ) [where] it is called *archaia* (ancient).

To him responded Hugo Grotius, (30), among other things warning that Clement, without doubt, just like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, had drawn his Greek speech from learned authors, and therefore used a freer diction, not, as ^D *epistolousin*, condensed into trifles, but flowing more broadly. As far as the narrative about the phoenix is concerned, others of the ancients, e.g., Tacitus (*Annal.* VI, 28) and Pliny (*H. N.* VII, 49; X, 9; XXX, 9) gave credence to the same fable. That the Church of the Corinthians could be called *archaia* (ancient) by Clement, in respect of other Churches, no one will deny. Finally, what must be said about the word *laikos* you will find in the notes to c. 40.

(b) Above we have already said that Clement of Alexandria excerpted many chapters of our epistle (1, 9-12, 17, 18, etc.), without the name of the Roman Clement, and wove them into the fourth book of the *Stromata* (31). Indeed, Edward Bernard and Clericus, in both Amsterdam editions of the Apostolic Fathers by Cotelerius, suspected that the Alexandrian himself was the author of all these passages, from whose book they contend our epistle was interpolated. To them was added Laurentius Mosheim, V. C. (32). (28) Some imagined that Clement himself wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, or at least had it before his eyes when writing his own. Dr. Mack conjectures far otherwise (*Tubing. theol. Quartalschrift* 1838, fasc. III, p. 385 sqq.), doing this, to show us that the epistle of Clement was prior to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that this one was fashioned to introduce Clement's epistle well among the Corinthians, and together with Clement's epistle was given to the Corinthians. Mack was impugned by W. F. Rinck in Ullmann's *Stud. et krit.* 1839, fasc. IV, p. 1002 sq. (29) *Ibid.*, t. I, p. 44 sq. (30) See above, col. 47. (31) Cfr. Not. ad c. 9. (32) *Instit. hist. chr. majores*, p. 214 sq.

for there appear in our epistle many things ^A which have no relation to the design of calling the Corinthians back to concord. "The first ten chapters," he says, "contain certain traces of a deceptive hand, yet not so many; for the author consistently pursues his plan." But in chapters XI and XII, he proceeds to commend faith and hospitality, in which there appears absolutely no coherence with the preceding. Wherefore it is not far from my opinion that these chapters are interpolated. Clement returns to his theme in chapter XIII, and proceeds in it as far as c. XXII. But at this chapter, suddenly, without any reason inviting him, he hastens to a far different argument, to the resurrection of dead bodies, concerning which he discourses up to chapter XXVIII. At chapter XXV ^B III he seems to recall his plan again; and the beginning of this chapter agrees well with the end of chapter XXI, yet it can be joined with difficulty to the end of chapter XXVII. Wherefore the things which are enjoined in six chapters concerning the return of corpses to life seem to be subject to Clement... Nor do I think any better of chapters XL—XLV and of chapter LV, in which you may read things which could have occurred to the mind of no man, unless he were entirely unmindful of the subject with which he is dealing.

As regards the argumentation of Bernard and Le Clerc, Wotton (33) discourses well thus: "Yet the attempts of this man are vain. For he who argues in this way from Clement of Alexandria, either does not know him properly, or acts in bad faith. For by the same reasoning the authenticity and trustworthiness of all those writers who are ever cited by Clement of Alexandria will be done away with. ^C For no one of the Fathers has used greater license in citing authors, whether sacred or pagan; since it is his custom not always to recite the whole words of the authors, but according to his own judgment now to abridge, now to insert from his own, to omit other things, or to change them in various ways."

Finally, let us answer Mosheim thus: (a) Chapters XI and XII of our epistle cohere well with the preceding, since they treat of the same matter as them, opposing to the envy of the Corinthians examples of hospitality, piety, and faith, and at the same time showing the punishments of dissension (c. XI). (β) Nor are chapters XXIII—XXVIII removed from the design of Clement. For Clement mentions the resurrection either because, as witness 1 Cor. 15, 12, some of the Corinthians were denying the resurrection of the dead; or for the sake of confirming those things ^D which our author had said in c. 21 and 22 concerning the punishments of the wicked. (γ) Chapters XL—XLV openly aim at this, that they might recall the Corinthians, who were rebelling against the clergy, to concord and subjection. They very well respond, and at the same time adhere most closely with chapters 37 and 38. (δ) Finally, chapter LV brings forward nothing but examples of his charity, concerning which words were made in the preceding chapter. (ε) Furthermore, some chapters, displeasing to Mosheim, are already lauded and cited by the Ancients, e. g., c. LIV by Origen in *Joann.* 1, 29; c. XXV by Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catech.* 18, 8. (ζ) All the chapters called into question are found in that most ancient Alexandrian codex. (η) When the epistle of Clement was being read in public in the Churches, it could hardly have happened that it was defiled by a wicked man. (θ) The diversity of style and oratory is nowhere to be found in our epistle.

VI. Men of learning of more recent times all acknowledge as one the authenticity and integrity of the first epistle of Clement, and no more serious doubt is now moved concerning this matter. For who would be ignorant of the primal simplicity with which it is adorned, the evangelical wisdom in which it excels, and the apostolic preaching which this epistle of Clement sounds forth? Does it not show itself most worthy of an apostolic man? All the signs of authenticity are truly present in it. Hear Wotton (34): "In it," he says, "the order of time is not violated, nothing is instituted contrary to the (ancient) discipline of the Church; nothing is commanded contrary to Christian doctrine; the style and method of speaking approach very closely to the New Testament, nor is anything found in it which is not most worthy of an apostolic man." And in another place (35): "That divine force and energy shines everywhere in him (Clement), which strikes the mind of the reader with its own splendor; so that I might almost say, you feel the Spirit of God, not man, speaking in it."

Hugo Grotius (36) contends that signs of unfeigned antiquity are to be found in our epistle: "He always speaks of Christ, not like those who came later in a Platonic manner, but simply, plainly, and as the Apostle Paul is wont to do. Other dogmas, too, explained more subtly later on, he treats more simply, and uses the words *kleseos*, *kletos*, *eklektos* in a sense clearly Pauline."

VII. Great was the authority of our epistle among the ancients, which Irenaeus calls a most sufficient writing (37), and Eusebius a great and admirable one (38). That it was read in public, especially on the Lord's days, in some Churches, is testified by Dionysius the Corinthian (39), Eusebius (40), Jerome (41), and Photius (42).

Photius himself estimated it as of less value, because Clement supposed that worlds existed across the ocean (c. 20), because he used the example of the phoenix bird as the most certain truth (c. 25), and because he [omits names of those whom]*

voices regarding Him that are becoming and more sublime.

VIII. Now let us dispute regarding the time at which the first epistle of Clement was written. It is established from the epistle itself (c. 1) that it was written shortly after some persecution. No one doubts that this was either the persecution of Nero or Domitian. Grabius, Pagius, Orsi, Gallandius, Wotton, and others contend that it was written immediately after the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, at the end of the Neronian persecution, circa A.D. 68. Cotelerius, however, Tillemont, and Lumper think it was written circa A.D. 96 or 97, at the end of the persecution of Domitian.

This whole question could be solved very easily if the time of Clement’s episcopate were clearly established. But from what has been said above, we have understood that the ecclesiastical rule of Clement should be assigned either to the years 68–77, or 92–101. Since, however, the matter stands thus, let us examine the epistle itself to investigate the indications of time.

(a) Clement, mentioning the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul in chapter 5, says: "Let us set before our eyes the good apostles... who have lived nearest to our time." Hence it appears that our epistle was written not long after the persecution of Nero.

(b) In chapter 6, a persecution recently passed (c. 1) is described as being so bloody, and the multitude of martyrs so great, that the times of Nero, not Domitian, are indicated. For Tacitus informs us (43) that a massive multitude was tortured under Nero (using indeed the same phrase that the holy Father uses, *πολὺ πλῆθος*); but regarding Domitian, Tertullian speaks as follows: "Domitian also had attempted [to do so], being a portion of Nero in cruelty, but because he was a human being, he easily repressed his attempt, even restoring those whom he had relegated" (44).

(c) In chapters 5 and 6, none of the many illustrious martyrs who suffered under Domitian is named: not Flavius Clemens, not Acilius Glabrio, not Flavia Domitilla, not John the Evangelist; any one of whom, as Cardinal Orsi (45) notes, the holy Father would at least have mentioned had he written after the Domitianic persecution.

(d) That our epistle was written before the times of Domitian, and shortly after the Neronian persecution, is suggested by the mention of the Jewish cult, which was then still flourishing in the Jerusalem temple (chaps. 40 and 41). To enervate this argument, ^B Lardner and others used the example of Flavius Josephus, who in A.D. 93 disputed about sacrifices no differently than if the temple still existed (46).

But both cases, that of Josephus and that of Clement, are far different. Josephus, describing the sacred rites of his people, uses the present tense in a figure not unusual for historians—which is what we are saying. Clement, however, in order to lead the Corinthians to preserve order, places the order of the Jewish cult before the eyes of the readers. But if the temple had already been destroyed, the whole argument of the holy Father would have been weak, and would have invited his adversaries to say: "Behold, by the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, God Himself has testified that such an order is not desired by Him."

From these points, we conclude that our epistle was written at the end of the Neronian persecution and before the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 68–70), and that St. Clement succeeded St. Peter immediately.

Things objected by Cotelerius and others are of no weight. For from the fact that Clement, in c. 47, reports that the first dissension of the Corinthians was stirred up *ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου* (in the beginning of the Gospel), it cannot be concluded that a long space of time had passed since that first dissension. For St. Paul also, about nine years after the Philippian Church was founded, speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians IV, 15, of the *ἀρχῇ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου*, not in the least implying that the Philippian Church had been founded many years prior.

Nor does it move us that St. Clement, in c. 42, called the church of the Corinthians *ἀρχαίαν* (ancient). For as Dodwell rightly observes, that church is called *ἀρχαία* with the best right which was founded *ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου*, that is, in the first times of the Gospel being preached (47).

IX. Regarding the doctrine of St. Clement, Lumper (48), Heyns, Junius, and Van Gilse (49), and Moehler (50) have disputed.

X. The second epistle of Clement is mentioned by none of the earliest Fathers. For that two epistles of Clement were already known to the faithful in the second century after Christ cannot in any way be conjectured from the words of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (51). ^D Since he called that excellent epistle of Clement, which we discussed above, the "former" one, it is manifest that he said this not with respect to a certain second epistle of Clement, but with respect to the epistle of Soter, the Roman pontiff, which was likewise read publicly among the Corinthians.

^A Gallandius attempted to demonstrate from the 85th Apostolic Canon that in the third century the second epistle of Clement was in use and accepted as authoritative (52). But that most learned man erred. For this last canon was not compiled before the end of the fifth century, as Dr. Sebastian von Drey famously taught (53). The first to mention a second epistle of Clement is Eusebius, noting that another epistle of Clement is brought forward, but that it is not as well-known as the former, since the ancients did not use it (54).

Furthermore, this epistle is contained in that most famous Alexandrian codex, preserved in the British Museum in London. Therefore, in the fourth and fifth centuries, Clement was thought by many to be the author of this epistle. By what right, we do not know. Likewise, it escapes us upon what arguments Jerome (55) and Photius (56) relied when they contended that this epistle was rejected by the ancients; for Eusebius does not bring forth such things, and those who are more ancient are entirely silent about it. I might deem you not to be in error if you should contend that Jerome and Photius interpreted the words of Eusebius less than correctly. Therefore, we clearly perceive that the testimonies of the ancients do not openly deny the authenticity of this epistle, but the silence of the most ancient Fathers renders it suspect (57).

Since these things are so, we must approach the epistle itself, or rather the fragment that still survives in the Alexandrian codex, investigating whether it contains internal evidence by which our Clement might be proven its author. Let us hear Wotton (58). As to the style, he says, and the method of speaking, it is so dissimilar to the former and indubitable one that one may justly doubt whether it is truly Clement’s. Joannes Morinus had already warned of the same thing, saying (59): Its style, unlike the former’s, is not simple but rather subtle; it does not flow spontaneously, but is studiously elaborated to fit the author’s grasp; it is not without proof, and is sometimes lacking a concluding clause, but it ambitiously affects the scope of words, antitheses, and their rhetorical rendering. Richard Simon (60), the prince of critics, agrees with Morinus, and most have followed him.

^B Wocherus maintained in his version that Clement’s prior epistle was held in use. Whoever has read this second epistle attentively will be unable to deny that a great difference in style exists between it and the former one.

Beyond the silence of the most ancient Fathers and the diversity of style, the fact that half of the 23rd chapter of the first epistle is also received into the second (ch. 11) casts suspicion of forgery upon us. Grabe (62) adds well that the piece which is called the second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians hardly possesses the form of an epistle, and that it lacks a salutation joined with a vow in the frontispiece, which nevertheless clearly exists in all the letters of the Apostles and apostolic men given to particular Churches, and in the first of Clement itself. Vendelinus rightly judged it similar to a homily rather than an epistle, though he incorrectly ascribed it to Clement himself, and after him Dodwell, *Dissert. 1 in Irenæum*, § 29 (63). Cotelerius (64), Coutantius (65), Gallandius (66), and Lumper (67) endeavored to vindicate this epistle for our Clement. But those most learned men will hardly draw you to their side, since their own arguments are trivial, and they themselves have rather declared war on the objections of others than proven their own opinion. That was certainly easier without any doubt; for it will escape no one that Hermann Witsius (68) and others have sometimes dared to present even lighter objections against the authenticity of this epistle. But it has fallen to the lot of no defender of this epistle to bring forth firm arguments for Clement as the author.

^C We are pleased with the opinion of Grabe, which is also accepted by Moehler (69), that this commonly called second epistle of Clement was one of the homilies falsely ascribed to him, of which it is clear from the Questions of Anastasius of Antioch (96) that there were more than one.

Wocherus, relying on no certain foundation, thinks that this epistle ought to be attributed to Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (70).

Grabe, however, suspects that this spurious work was palmed off as Clement’s in the middle of the third century, after the time of Origen (71-78).