Saturday, March 31, 2012

PG001(col. 183-187): On the Two Epistles of the Roman Clement. Section I.

(From the "Works of the apostolic Fathers" of Karl Josef von Hefele, <published> at Tubingen, 1842, in octavo)
Googlebooks PDF: PG001

     I. That the Roman Clement is the same as he whom St. Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians 4:3 elevates with praises[[1]], already Origen[[2]], Eusebius[[3]], Epiphanius[[4]], Jerome[[5]], and others of the ancients have affirmed.  <And so> if the matter thus holds itself, it easily appears that Clement had been a most worthy associate and coworker of St. Paul <when he was> preaching the Gospel at Philippi in Macedonia <on his> second apostolic journey [in the years] 53-55 (cf. Acts 16).
     Chrysostom in <his> Commentary on 1 Timothy suspects that Clement, just as Luke and Timothy, had been a constant journey-companion of the divine Paul.
     To me, however, Clement seems to have been a citizen of the city of the Philippians, who, converted by Paul <who was> staying at Philippi, himself best aided the herald of the Gospel in apostolic work, but <when> Paul <had gone away>, he remained at home, conducting the cause of Christ among his own.
     With many things our conjecture can be proved:

a) When Paul hurried to Philippi, he seems to have had no one <as> a companion except Silas, Timothy, and Luke. Cf. Acts 16.

b) Sacred Scripture nowhere mentions Clement <as> accompanying the apostle Paul in <his> journeys.

c) From Philippians 4:3 it clearly appears that Clement lived at Philippi at the time of Paul's first Roman captivity.

d) <In> Philippians 4:3, mention of Clement is not made otherwise than of those who were without doubt Philippian citizens.

     When, where, and from what stock our Clement arose, we do not know.  The "Liber pontificalis", the catalogs of the Roman pontiffs, St. Eucherius of Lyons, and the "Roman Breviary" have from the "Recognitions" and the pseudo-clementine homilies received that fabulous narrative which claims for Clement a senatorial family at Rome and father Faustinus from the stock of Caesar.  Such things to not require refutation.
     Tillemont ("Memoirs" II, page 149) infers from the first epistle of Clement, chapter 4 ("our father Jacob"), that our apostolic man was put forth from Jewish stock.  To him at first acceded Coustant in his most celebrated publication of "The Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs", tome 1, page 11; but later (loc. cit., page 41) <that> most learned man changed his opinion.  Herman Venema embraced the opinion of Tillemont, such that he thereupon drew forth an argument against the latter epistle, whose writer openly reveals himself <as> a gentile in origin.
     Tillemont could have added that Clement not only <in> chapter 4, but also <in> chapter 31 ("our father Abraham") calls the patriarch of the Jews our father.
     Besides, Clement, <in> chapter 55 discoursing about love towards <one's own country>, examples of gentiles <having been> brought forth, he proceeds to examples of those whom, as he says, we have recognized among ourselves.  Since to whom he appears to add the jewish women, Judith and Esther, he himself <falls under> suspicion of jewish origin.
     But these arguments are not very weighty.  For it is known that even other Fathers whom no one does not know arose from the gentiles, add to their ancestors the just persons of the Old Testament.  E.g., Theophilus <in> book 3 to Autolycus, number 24, writes, "Abraham our patriarch"; <in> number 27, "Abraham our forefather"; and <in> number 94, "David our forebear". [[A]][See, <if you please>, several other examples in Semisch, "Justin Martyr", tome 1, page 121.]
     However, <as> concerns the mentioned examples of chapter 55, [perhaps] <it> should moreover be reminded that Clement had brought forth examples of love of country first from the gentiles, then from the Christians, <and> finally from the Jews.
     That Clement, the disciple of the apostles, distinguished with the title of "apostle" by Clement of Alexandria, "had been the bishop of the Roman Church", all the ancients <unanimously> hand down; but <as> what number in the order did he sit in the Roman chair, is an old quarrel and still under judgment.

     1. That Clement was the immediate successor of the Peter, very many of the Latins affirmed already in ancient times, <as> Jerome <testifies>[[7]].
     That he was ordained by Peter himself, Tertullian adds[[8]].  Jerome himself, although in the Catalog he places Clement after Linus and Anacletus, seems later to have changed <his> opinion and to have acceded to the other Latins, writing, "And Clement, an apostolic man, who ruled the Roman Church after Peter, writes to the Corinthians[[9]]."

     2. That Clement Augusting[[10]], Optatus of Milevis[[11]], the "Apostolic Constitutions"[[12]], and the Catalog of the Roman pontiffs published by the Bollandists in the "Gateway" of the month of May, judge that our Clement precisely succeeded Linus.

     3. Finally, that not only Linus, but also Cletus or Anacletus held the governance of the Roman Church before our Clement, Irenaeus asserts: "Therefore, <having founded> and <having built> the church, the blessed Apostles handed over the service of the episcopate to Linus.  This Linus Paul mentions in the Epistles to Timothy; and Anegkletus succeeds him; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement obtained the episcopate, the <Clement> <who had seen> the blessed Apostles.  And having joined with them, and the proclamation of the Apostles still <fresh in his ears>, and having the tradition before <his> eyes, etc."
     With Irenaeus stands Eusebius ("Ecclesiastical History", III, 13, 15, 34), teaching that Linus held the Roman seat from the year 68 up to the year 80, Anencletus 80-92, <and> Clement 92-101 <after the birth of  Christ>[[D]].
     Jerome <used to maintain> the same opinion in the "Catalog of ecclesiastical writers", chapter 15, as we saw above[[14]].

     4. Learned men of both ancient and more recent times thus collected these various opinions, that they conjectured that Linus and Cletus were overseers of the faithful Romans <while> the apostles Paul and Peter <were> still living; whereas Clement, perhaps <when> those <had> discharged <sc. their duty>, or rather <had been> crowned with martyrdom by Nero[[15]], was ordained <as> bishop of the Roman Church by Peter <when he was> hastening towards death.
     <Those who maintain> this opinion are:

a) Rufinus (<In the> Preface to St. Clement's "Recognitions"): "Of which matter we accept this to be the reason, that Linus and Cletus were indeed before Clement bishops in the city <of> Rome, but <with> Peter <as> supervisor, evidently, so that they <took care> of the episcopate, but he himself fulfilled the office of the apostolate.  Just as he is found also to have done at Caesarea; where, when he himself was present, he nevertheless had Zachaeus ordained <as> bishop by himself.  And in this manner both <things> will appears <to be> true: such that both those <sc. Linus and Cletus> before Clement were numbered <as> bishops, and Clement, however, took up the seat of teaching after the death of Peter."

b) The Chronicle of Damasus[[E]]: "Unless you understand the times of the pontificated of Linus and Cletus <as> under the interval of the patronage of the blessed Peter, not harmoniously with themselves will correspond the years of the Roman pontiffs with the years of the emperors."

c) The venerable Bede, Rabanus, Haymo, and others.  Cf. Cotelier's edition of the "Apostolic Fathers", tome 1, page 492 and page 387.

     Eusebius stands against this conjecture, teaching that Clement in precisely the year 92 ascended <to> the episcopal seat, <when> 24 years from the death of St. Peter <had> elapsed, of which <years> 12 are assigned to Linus and equally 12 to Anacletus.  But I will hardly believe that Eusebius ahd written that supported by documents.  Perhaps <it> became know to him through tradition that Linus and Anencletus ruled the Roman Church <for> 12 years.  But since it lay hidden <from> him that they, united, "one with Peter still living", had held the rudders; it could have that looking back to the Catalog of Irenaeus, he set forth to us his own computation with the highest confidence.

     5. Neither let us be silent about the conjecture of Epiphanius, who <having> badly interpreted I Clement, chapter 54, asserts that Clement, ordained by Peter, for the cause of peace yielded to Linus; moreover, he thinks that Cletus succeeded Linus, <and> Clement <succeeded> Cletus <upon resuming> the pontificate[[16]].  We will touch upon this question again, discussing about the time at which <the first> epistle of Clement was written.
     Now let us make words about the death of Clement.  Eusebius asserts that Clement, <having> discharged the episcopal office <for> nine years, met death in the third year of Trajan (101 after Christ).  Now, attending to the things which we said above and will say below, nine indeed years of rule we attribute to Clement (years 68-77) with Cave, Dodwell, Fleury and others; however, we think that already under Vespasian he was dead.  But <he> who may wish to have faith in Eusebius, it behooves him <to believe> with him that in a short time, the years 101-153, not fewer than seven or eight pontiffs ascended the Roman seat, although only one persecution disturbed this space of time.
     Eusebius and Jerome (<in the> cited passages) recall the death of Clement <with> no mention of martyrdom established.  Irenaeus also (III, 3), reckoning the pontiffs up to Eleutherius, does not indicate that any of them suffered martyrdom except Telesphorus.  But our Clement is called martyr by Rufinus and Zosimus[[17]].
     From the Acts of martyrdom, with a doubt spurious, Lumper relates the history of the martyrdom of St. Clement with these words: [[F]]"Trajan, <upon the acceptance of> all these <charges> by Mamertinus the city's prefect, consigned the holy Pontiff to Chersonese beyond the Black Sea.  But there, moreover, he found two thousands of Christians already for a long time condemned to the work of cutting marble. Now, among the greatest troubles of these faithful was that, <namely>, that they had to transport water on their shoulders <for six miles>.  In turn, the Pontiff, touched by compassion <for them>, when he had learned by the guidance of a certain lamb where the water-source was, he showed it to the Christians that they might excavate.  For those laboring in vain St. Clement himself struck the place with a light stroke, and in that place the water-source sprang forth.  <Upon> the province hastening to the report of his miracle, and all having been lead over to the faith and baptized within the space of a year, seventy churches were constructed, all idols were smashed, temples of the surrounding region were thrown down, and all sacred groves <within a circumference of 300 miles> were cut down.  But Trajan, so that he might stop such progress of the Christian matter, ordered Clement to be submerged in the sea with an anchor tied around <his> neck.  But <upon> the seas receding up to the place where the Pontiff's body was lying, the Christians found it <the body> concealed by a rocky mound in a certain marble temple.[[18]]"

1."And I ask also you, genuine yoke-fellow; help those <women>, whoever assembled with me in the gospel, with Clement and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are in the book of life."

2. <Commentary> on John 1:29, "Works", tome 4, page 153, edition <of> Ruaeus.[[B]]

3. "Ecclesiastical History", 3, 15.

4. "Against Heresies", 26, number 6.

5. "Catalog of ecclesiastical writers", chapter 15.  Gieseler ("Textbook of Church History", I, 121), Guerike ("Manual of Church History", I, 167), and others impugn this opinion,  towards increasing the doubt of whom, Jacobson thinks agrees the great weight from <the fact> that Irenaeus, who augments our Clement with all praise, has not even a word about such and so great a testimony (<i.e.,>Philippians 4:3).[[C]]

6. "Miscellanies", 4, 17, page 609, Potter's edition.

7. "Catalog of ecclesiastical writers", chapter 15: "Clement...the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter; since if second was Linus, <and> third <was> Anacletus, although very many of the Latins think Clement was second after Peter the apostle."

8. "On the <formal limitation> of heretics", chapter 32: "(The Church) of the Romans puts forth Clement, ordained by Peter."

9. <Commentary> on Isaiah, chapter 52.

10. Epistle 53 to Generosus: "Linus succeeded Peter, Clement <succeeded> Linus, Anacletus <succeeded> Clement."

11. Book 2: "The chair is one; first sat Peter, whom Linus succeeded, Clement <succeeded> Linus, Anacletus <succeeded> Clement."

12. Book 7, chapter 46: "And of the Roman Church, Linus <son> of Claudia <received the laying of hands> first by Paul, and second Clement after the death of Linus <received the laying of hands> second by me, Peter."

13. "Against Heresies", book 3, chapter 3, in Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", book 5, chapter 6.

14. Cf. note 7 above.

15. The Little Index of the Roman Pontiffs[[G]], mentioned above, notes that Linus departed from the living <when> Capito and Rufus <were> consuls (i.e., the year 67 after Christ).

16. Heresy 27, number 6.

17. Lumper, "Theologico-critical History", tome 1, page 16.

18. "Theologico-critical History", tome 1, page 52 <and following>.

My Notes
A. This paragraph ends a page in Hefele's edition.  Migne does not have this sentence because it is apparently from a later edition of Hefele's work.

B. Migne's text has "ed. BB".  What "BB" is, I have no clue.

C. This was hard to render literally.  Speaking simply, Jacobson thinks that Irenaeus's silence helps Gieseler's and Guerike's argument.

D.  "p. Ch. n." = "post Christum natum".

E.  I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to be.  I gather it may be a portion of the Liber Pontificalis attributed to Pope Damasus, but since that attribution is probably now defunct, the name "chronicon damasi" is no longer operative.  But I don't know.  Also, I gather from a citation in Butler's Lives the of the Saints that Henry Canisius may have published an edition of this.

F. This passage appears earlier in Migne here.

G. I don't know what this refers to.  Perhaps the mentioned Bollandist catalog?