Article Submission Re St Irenaeus .

The Project Gutenberg EBook of An Account of the Life and Writings of S.

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr by James Beaven

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most

other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions

whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re‐use it under the terms of

the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at

http://www.gutenberg.org/license. If you are not located in the United

States, you’ll have to check the laws of the country where you are located

before using this ebook.

Title: An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons

and Martyr

Author: James Beaven

Release Date: May 8, 2018 [Ebook #57119]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF‐8

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF S. IRENÆUS, BISHOP OF LYONS AND MARTYR***

An Account

Of The

Life and Writings

S. Irenæus,

Bishop of Lyons and Martyr:

Intended to Illustrate

The Doctrine, Discipline, Practices, and History of the Church, and the

Tenets and Practices of the Gnostic Heretics, During the Second Century.

James Beaven, M.A.

Of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford

And Curate of Leigh, in the County of Stafford.

London:

J. G. F. & J. Rivington

1841

CONTENTS

Preface.

Subscribers’ Names.

Chapter I. Life of S. Irenæus, and General Account Of His Writings.

Chapter II. Testimony of Irenæus to Certain Facts of Church History.

Chapter III. On The Nature, Office, Powers, and Privileges Of The Church.

Chapter IV. On The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Chapter V. The Origin of Evil.

Chapter VI. The Evil Spirits.

Chapter VII. The Divine Dispensations.

Chapter VIII. On The Canon, Genuineness, Versions, Use, And Value Of Holy

Scripture.

Chapter IX. On The Nature And Use of Primitive Tradition.

Chapter X. On The Creed.

Chapter XI. Freewill, Predestination, And Election.

Chapter XII. On Baptism.

Chapter XIII. The Eucharist.

Chapter XIV. On Justification.

Chapter XV. On Ceremonies, Usages, And Forms Of Words.

Chapter XVI. On The Sabbath.

Chapter XVII. On The Typical Interpretation Of Scripture.

Chapter XVIII. On The Intermediate State.

Chapter XIX. On Unfulfilled Prophecy.

Chapter XX. The Virgin Mary.

Chapter XXI. Account of the Gnostic Teachers and Their Tenets.

Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.

Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.

Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.

Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.

Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.

Section VI. Valentinus.

Section VII. Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, And Marcus.

Section VIII. Gnostic Redemption.

Section IX. Reflections Upon Gnosticism.

Footnotes

[Cover Art]

[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter

at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

DEDICATION.

To the Memory

Edward Burton, D.D.

Late Regius Professor Of Divinity In The University Of Oxford,

By Whose Advice And Encouragement

The Author Of This Work

Was First Led To Study, With Care And Attention,

The Writings Of

This Father and Martyr.

It Is Now Dedicated And Inscribed ;

As A Humble Acknowledgement Of His Extensive Learning,

His Remarkable Singleness Of Mind,

And The Cordial Assistance He Ever Rendered

To Younger Travellers

In The Same Path Which He Himself Pursued.

PREFACE.

It was, perhaps, somewhat presumptuous in a person occupying so humble a

station in the sacred ministry to offer to the Church a work which would

necessarily induce comparisons between itself and the similar productions

of a Prelate of the Church—a Divine of the highest rank and character. The

author can, however, at least say, that it was no foolish ambition which

led to his employing himself on such a work. Having been led by

circumstances to a repeated perusal and study of the writings of S.

Irenæus, he saw the great value of his testimony to the leading principles

and doctrines of the Church of England. He had himself derived much

benefit from the works of Bishop Kaye on others of the Fathers ; he thought

that if he could do nothing more than to draw out the substance of the

doctrine and opinions of Irenæus for the use of the student in theology,

in a more accessible form than that in which he himself had to look for

it, accompanied by the text of the portions from which he had formed his

statements, and with a little illustration of the meaning in passages

liable to misunderstanding,—he should have rendered a service to his

younger brethren: and if it should so happen that that distinguished

Prelate or any other writer did anticipate him, it would be so much clear

gain to himself to have been so employed. When he had completed his first

preparations, and had learnt by proper inquiry that the Illustrator of

Justin, Clement, and Tertullian was not engaged on Irenæus, he endeavoured

to put the work somewhat into form: and being afterwards encouraged by one

upon whose judgment and acquirements public opinion had set its stamp, and

who had seen portions of the work, to believe that it possessed a certain

degree of value,—he ventured to bring it into public notice in the only

way which appeared open to him.

He desires here to record his sense of the most kind and most hearty

encouragement he has met with from persons of all ranks and classes,

capable of appreciating a work of this description, or of aiding in its

publication: more especially of that afforded him by her Majesty THE QUEEN

DOWAGER, by the Most Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates who have

honoured him with their support, by the many persons distinguished either

for station or for literary eminence, whose names will be found in the

subjoined list, and by the warm‐hearted friends, both of the clergy and of

the laity, with whom he is either locally or personally connected.

His work, such as it is, he now sends forth, trusting that, through the

blessing of the Divine HEAD of the Church, it may be available to the

great ends of the ministry to which he has been called, and may tend to

the unity, the strength, and the stability of the Church.

Before, however, he takes his leave of his readers, he wishes to add a few

words on the Right Use of the Writings of the Fathers.

1. We use them as we do the writings of secular authors, to ascertain the

_facts_ of the _history_ of their own or of preceding times ; principally

as concerning the Church, and secondarily as concerning the world. To this

use of them no objection in principle can be raised ; and in so doing, we

treat them exactly as we do ordinary writers.

2. We use them, as _evidence_ of the state of the Church, in their own and

preceding ages, as regards either _discipline_ or _morals_. In regard to

the former, as it is a thing not in its nature liable to hasty

alteration,—discipline established in one age continuing on, for the most

part, into the next,—their testimony will avail for the immediately

preceding generation, as well as for their own. In regard to the latter,

it can scarcely be received for any thing anterior to their own age,

unless where they record the observations of some older person. In both,

moreover, it requires to be noted whether they are writing controversially

or historically: because we all know that through the imperfection of our

nature we are apt to overstate our own case, and to understate that of our

opponents. And if that is the case now, when a more extended and more

accurate education has disciplined the minds of writers to impartiality,

how much more must it have been so in an earlier stage of controversial

writing, when there had been no opportunity for any such discipline. It is

necessary, therefore, in the perusal of their controversial writings to be

on our guard, and to notice, in any particular case, whether the mind of

the writer is likely to have been influenced in his statements by any such

bias. It must be remembered, moreover, that no individual author can be

considered as evidence for the state of the universal Church, unless we

have sufficient proof that he had means of knowing the condition of the

whole Church, and unless we can gather that, being so qualified, he

intends to speak thus largely.

Again, when not writing controversially, if we are aware that they

laboured under any particular prejudice or bias, either towards any

particular opinion or state of feeling, or against any particular class or

individual, which is liable to affect their statements,—then likewise we

must view them with caution.

On the other hand, when we have no evidence of any circumstance likely to

pervert their perceptions, or to exaggerate their statements, it is

obvious that they must be taken at their full value.

3. We use the Fathers as evidence of the _doctrine_ which was taught by

the Church, in their own and preceding ages. And here some of the remarks

just made will apply again. The Fathers, like all other writers, sometimes

state their own individual opinions, or the views of doctrine which

prevailed in the sect or party to which they were attached, or in the

particular part of the Church in which they were placed, or in the age in

which they lived: at other times, and more frequently, the doctrines of

the whole Church, in their own and all preceding ages. Now, where a writer

states that what he is saying is held by the whole Church, unless we know

any thing to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that it was the

case ; because we know that the tradition of doctrine was, for the most

part, jealously kept up by the perpetual intercourse and communication

between the bishops of the several churches. And so again, where a writer

affirms that any particular doctrine has been handed down from the

beginning, unless we have opposing evidence, it is reasonable to take his

word ; because we know that it was the custom and practice of the whole

Church to require every new bishop to confess the doctrine _already

received_, and to teach its doctrines to new converts as already received.

And, at all events, such a statement is conclusive evidence, that such

doctrine had come down from a generation or two preceding that of the

writer ; unless (as was said before) we have proof to the contrary.

But, as has been already stated, it is possible for an individual to be

led away by controversy, or prejudice, or party bias ; and therefore, when

he is manifestly under any such influence, it is well to be on our guard.

For that and other reasons, in any matter of serious doubt, it is

impossible to rest upon the word of any single writer ; but we use him as a

link in the chain of evidence as to the doctrine taught from the beginning

by the united universal Church.

4. We use them to aid us in interpreting the text of Scripture. For many

of them quote very largely from the Sacred Volume ; and as some lived near

apostolical times, and many wrote in the language in which the New

Testament was written, whilst others were persons of great inquiry and

learning, and lived nearer to the localities of the sacred events than we

do,—they had advantages which we do not possess. When, therefore, several

or many of them concur in giving one uniform meaning to particular

passages of Scripture, the evidence becomes very strong that they had the

right interpretation: and even where only one writer gives any assistance

upon any particular text, we shall frequently see reason for accepting his

acceptation of it in preference to more modern suggestions. At the same

time it is necessary to bear in mind, that most of them knew nothing of

the original language of the Old Testament ; and that they are often only

_applying_ passages according to the prevalent habit (countenanced indeed

by our Lord and his Apostles, but carried to various degrees of excess by

most of the early writers) of seeking for mystical accommodations: and we

must distinguish between application and interpretation.

Now these methods of employing the writings of the Fathers are _à priori_

so obvious and so unobjectionable, that few writers of any credit object

to the principle: but as the results of the application of the principle

are highly inconvenient to those who have rejected the doctrine or

discipline universally upheld in the primitive ages of the Church, two

lines of argument have been taken to nullify this application. And as they

have been lately revived in various ways, and particularly by the re‐

publication of the work from which most of them have been derived, viz.

Daillé’s Treatise _on the Right Use of the Fathers_, I have thought proper

to notice them in that brief manner which the limits of a preface permit.

Some, indeed, of the objections brought forward ought to be considered as

simply cautions to the inquirer, and as such I have already treated them ;

the chief remaining ones I now proceed to mention.

(1.) Some contend that, however reasonable in the abstract this sort of

appeal to the Fathers may appear, it is beset with such difficulties, that

it is useless in practice: that we have so few early writings, that those

we have are so adulterated, that we have so many forgeries in the names of

early writers, that the writings of the Fathers are so difficult to

understand, that they so often give the opinions of others without any

intimation that they are not their own, that they so constantly altered

their views as they grew older, and that it so frequently happened that

the men who are now of most note were in a minority of their

contemporaries,—that it is practically useless to attempt to apply the

Fathers to modern use.

Now I do not deny that there is something in these difficulties ; otherwise

they would not have been brought forward at all. No doubt we have but few

writings of sub‐apostolical times: but then we must use such as we have,

and illustrate their sense by such methods as are in our power ; and we

shall find that they give a clear and consistent testimony to several

important matters, both of doctrine and of discipline. It might be true,

when Daillé first wrote, that the very important epistles of S. Ignatius

were much adulterated: but it is not so now ; the genuine copies having

become known to the world in his time: neither is it true to any

considerable extent of subsequent writers ; and when it is, it simply

presents a difficulty, which must be surmounted as we best can, or must

cast a doubt over any particular writing. Sermons and popular treatises of

writers of note were often altered in transcribing ; just as we, in these

days, re‐publish popular books with omissions and alterations suited to

the change of times, or to the shade of difference between our own views

and those of the writer: and for that reason works of that description,

however useful for devotional reading and instruction, must be brought

forward in controversy with more caution than others, and sometimes set

aside altogether. In short there is need of judgment and discrimination in

the use of the Fathers ; and that is the whole amount of this difficulty.

With regard to the difficulty of understanding them, that is of course a

matter of degree, dependent upon the acquaintance of the student with the

original languages, as used in the age and country of the writers, upon

his acquaintance with Church history and the state of controversy, upon

the degree of prejudice or false doctrine with which his own mind is

imbued: but I do not think that they present nearly so much difficulty as

the Platonical writers, which many persons study with great interest. As

to the Fathers giving the opinions of others without intimating that they

are so, that is no more than St. Paul himself does ; and it very seldom

occurs. So no doubt, like all other persons, they modify their views and

occasionally change them, as they grow older: but that is, for the most

part, only in subordinate matters, and it is very rarely that the

circumstance presents any practical difficulty. Finally, that men whose

name has become great amongst posterity were in a minority in their own

age, is no doubt true in some instances: but when it is so, it can be

ascertained, and must be allowed for ; and when it cannot be ascertained it

must not be surmised. And even where they were so, as in the case of

Athanasius, they may be connected with a majority in preceding and

subsequent ages.

So that these objections are partly such difficulties as occur in every

study, (but stated with much exaggeration,) and partly flimsy unpractical

cavils, not worth dwelling upon.

(2.) But supposing that the writings of the Fathers are intelligible upon

many points, another class of objections arises. It is asserted that they

were themselves often mistaken, that they even contradict one another, and

in short that no class or party is really willing to abide by their

decision.

Here again, if they were mistaken, let it be shown by undoubted testimony

(of Holy Writ or otherwise) that they were mistaken: but let no one take

for granted that because they differ from the received notions of our own

age, they were therefore in error. It should never be forgotten that

_every age has its errors_: and it may be, possibly, that wherein we

differ from them the error is our own. No doubt each eminent writer then,

as each eminent writer now, was in some respects mistaken. It is the

simple condition of humanity to be liable to error. But as that does not

cause us to refuse the testimony of our contemporaries, or their aid in

the pursuit of truth, so it need not cause us to turn a deaf ear to the

earlier writers. The circumstance that in some respects each was in error

only renders their combined testimony to truth more weighty. It has indeed

been asserted that they were all in error upon certain points: but that

assertion the Author has elsewhere(1) shown to be totally destitute of

truth. Again, with regard to their contradictions of each other, where

they do occur they should of course be noted ; but the cases will be found

to be of little practical importance ; and their differences upon some

points only place in a clearer light their agreement where they do agree.

Lastly, as to the alleged fact that no class or party heartily accepts

even the combined evidence of the Fathers, it is certainly true of two

opposite parties ; viz. the Roman Church and those Protestants who have

rejected the Apostolical succession,—both setting up modern opinions to

oppose or to explain away primitive doctrine: but it is not true of the

Church of England, which (as has been frequently shown) both formally

recognizes the consent of Catholic Doctors, and does in point of fact, in

her public acts and documents, agree substantially in doctrine and

discipline with that consent, so far as it has yet been ascertained ;

whatever instances have been brought forward to the contrary being

mistakes in matter of fact.

5. But besides this use of the Fathers as _evidence_, many persons

attribute to them a certain degree of _authority_ ; and greater objection

is felt to appealing to them as authority, than to using them as

testimony. There are, however, very different ways of treating them as

authority.

Now to quote sentences of the Fathers, as we do texts of Holy Writ, as

being infallibly conclusive, (which has been done by writers of the Roman

Church, especially before Daillé’s time,) can only be done in ignorance or

in bad faith ; because every person acquainted with them knows that, like

all uninspired writers, they differ from each other and from themselves.

But if we simply quote them as persons whose opinion or testimony ought to

have with us very great weight, either for what they were in themselves,

or for the age in which they lived, this is a quite different matter ; it

is constantly done in the Homilies of the Church ; and there surely can be

no valid objection to it. We do not hesitate to appeal to the judgment of

the great lights of our own Church, and to regard their dicta as not to be

lightly questioned, partly for their own learning, judgment, and piety,

(as Hooker, Sanderson, Wilson, Waterland,) partly for the era in which

they flourished, (as Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel:) we give them authority over

our own minds, and in deciding controversies between ourselves ; and what

valid objection can be raised to our giving corresponding weight to the

worthies of more ancient times? And as the earliest writers conversed

either with Apostles, or with those who had heard the Apostles, it is

natural to attribute greater weight to their words than to those of

subsequent writers. And what if they do show whilst writing, that they had

no anticipation of being guides to posterity? what if they caution us

against trusting them implicitly, and recommend us to search the

Scriptures for ourselves? what if they were sometimes in error? Do not all

these circumstances apply to those more modern authors whom we do not

hesitate to recognize as, in themselves, authorities? and why then should

we be reluctant to yield to the more ancient that authority, as

individuals, which all subsequent time has accorded to them? Authority may

be great without being infallible. Authority may have weighty influence

upon the judgment without directly binding the conscience.

These remarks and arguments are capable of being stated much more fully,

and of being illustrated by instances throughout ; but to do so would

require a separate treatise ; and it has been thought better to produce

them thus nakedly than to omit them altogether.

It is proper to state that the editions of Irenæus and of other Fathers

referred to are chiefly the Benedictine: Clement of Alexandria is quoted

in the edition of Klotz, and Eusebius in that of Zimmermann.

SUBSCRIBERS’ NAMES.

Her Majesty Adelaide The Queen Dowager.

The Most Reverend William Howley, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Canterbury,

Primate of all England, 2 copies.

The Most Reverend Edward Harcourt, D.C.L., Lord Archbishop of York,

Primate of England.

The Most Reverend John George Beresford, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh,

Primate of all Ireland.

The Right Reverend Edward Maltby, D.D., Lord Bishop of Durham.

The Right Reverend John Kaye, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Right Reverend Christopher Bethell, D.D., Lord Bishop of Bangor.

The Right Reverend Edward Coplestone, D.D., Lord Bishop of Llandaff.

The Right Reverend Richard Bagot, D.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford.

The Right Reverend Joseph Allen, D.D., Lord Bishop of Ely.

The Right Reverend Charles Thomas Longley, D.D., Lord Bishop of Ripon.

The Right Reverend Edward Denison, D.D., Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

The Right Reverend James Bowstead, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

The Right Reverend Connop Thirlwall, D.D., Lord Bishop of St. David’s.

Acland, Sir T. Dyke, Bart., M.P., Killerton, Devon.

Allen, Rev. Henry, Vicar of St. Mary‐le‐Wigford, Lincoln.

Anderson, Rev. J. S. M., Perpetual Curate of St. George’s, Brighton.

Andrews, Mr., Bookseller, Durham.

Andrews, Rev. W., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.

Anson, Very Rev. Frederic, D.D., Dean of Chester.

Anson, Rev. Frederic, Rector of Sudbury, Derbyshire.

Arnold, Rev. T. K., Rector of Lyndon, Rutland.

Associates of the late Rev. Dr. Bray, 4 copies.

Atkinson, Rev. William, Rector of Gateshead Fell, Durham.

Austen, Rev. J. T., Vicar of Aldworth, Berkshire.

Bagot, G. T., Esq., Exeter College, Oxford.

Bagot, Lady Harriet, Cuddesden Palace, Oxfordshire.

Bagot, Rev. Charles, Rector of Islip, Oxfordshire.

Bagot, Hon. and Rev. Hervey C., Blithfield, Staffordshire.

Bagot, Rev. Lewis F., Rector of Castle Rising, Norfolk.

Baker, Rev. R. B., Incumbent of Hilderstone, Staffordshire.

Bamford, William, Esq., Rugeley, Staffordshire.

Barrow, Rev. John, Tutor of Queen’s College, Oxford.

Bellett, Rev. George, Perpetual Curate of Bridgenorth, Salop.

Berens, Rev. E., Archdeacon of Berks, 2 copies.

Bickersteth, Rev. E., Rector of Watton, Hertfordshire.

Bill, John, jun., Esq., Farley Hall, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Blackburn, Rev. Peter.

Blagg, J. M., Esq., Solicitor, Cheadle, Staffordshire.

Bloxam, Rev. J. R., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Blunt, Rev. J. J., B.D., Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the

University of Cambridge, 2 copies.

Bonney, Ven. H. K., D.D., Archdeacon of Bedford.

Bowen, Rev. J., Rector of West Lynn, Norfolk.

Bridges, Rev. T. E., D.D., President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Brooks, H., Esq., Brazenose College, Oxford.

Broughton, Rev. B. S., Rector of Washington, Durham, 2 copies.

Broughton, Rev. C. F., Rector of Norbury and Vicar of Uttoxeter,

Staffordshire.

Brown, Mrs., Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Browne, Rev. T. P., Rector of Gratwich and Perpetual Curate of Kingston,

Staffordshire.

Browne, Mrs. Anne.

Bruges, W. H. Ludlow, Esq., M.P., Seend, Wiltshire.

Buckmaster, Nevill, Esq.

Buckston, Mrs., Ashbourne, Derbyshire, 2 copies.

Budd, Miss, Croscombe, Somerset.

Burns, Mr., Publisher, 17, Portman‐street, Portman‐square, London.

Butt, Rev. T., Rector of Kinnersley and Perpetual Curate of Trentham,

Staffordshire.

C., F.

Cambridge, Ven. G. O., Archdeacon of Middlesex, 2 copies.

Cambridge, Mrs.

Chaffers, Rev. Thomas, Fellow and Tutor of Brazenose College, Oxford.

Chamberlain, Rev. T. Student of Christ Church, Oxford.

Chandler, Very Rev. George, D.C.L., F.R.S., Dean of Chichester.

Charlewood, Rev. C. B., Oak Hill, Staffordshire.

Cheetham Library, Manchester.

Christie, A. J., Esq., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.

Churton, Rev. E., Rector of Crayke, Durham.

Clerke, Ven. C. C., Archdeacon of Oxford, and Rector of Milton, Berks.

Collinson, Rev. John, Rector of Bolden, Durham.

Collinson, Rev. R., Perpetual Curate of Usworth, Durham.

Combe and Crossley, Messrs., Booksellers, Leicester, 2 copies.

Copeland, Rev. W. J., Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.

Corfe, Rev. A. T., Vice Principal of Elizabeth College, Guernsey, and

Minister of Bethel Chapel in that Island.

Corfe, Rev. Joseph, Priest Vicar of Exeter Cathedral.

Cornish, Rev. C. L., Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.

Cotton, Mrs., Adderbury, Oxfordshire, 2 copies.

Craufurd, Mrs. R., Dawlish, Devonshire, 2 copies.

Craufurd, Rev. R. G., Curate of Portishead, Gloucestershire.

Crawley, Rev. Richard, Vicar of Steeple Ashton, Wiltshire, 2 copies.

Crouch, Mrs., Narborough, Leicestershire, 2 copies.

Crowther, H., Esq.

Dalton, Rev. C. B., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and Chaplain of

Lincoln’s Inn, 2 copies.

Dansey, Rev. W., M.A., Rector of Donhead St. Andrew, Wilts.

Dashwood, Rev. J., Barton‐under‐Needwood, Staffordshire.

Davis, J., Esq., Fisherton‐de‐la‐Mere House, Wilts, 2 copies.

Davies, Rev. W. L., Principal of Elizabeth College, Guernsey.

Dean, Rev. Thomas, Perpetual Curate of Little Malvern, Warwickshire, and

Master of Colwall Grammar School.

Disney, General Sir Moore, Manor House, East Acton.

Dodsworth, Rev. W., Incumbent of Christ Church, Regent’s Park, London.

Douglas, Rev. H., Rector of Whickham, Durham.

Eccles, John, Esq., M.D., Birmingham.

Elrington, Rev. C. R., D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the

University of Dublin.

Faber, Rev. G. S., B.D., Master of Sherborn Hospital, Durham, and

Prebendary of Salisbury.

Ferard, Joseph, Esq., Temple, London.

Fisher, Joseph, Esq., Englefield, Berkshire.

Forester, J., Esq., Winfield, Berkshire.

Fortescue, ——, Esq.

Fox, William, Esq., Woodseat, Staffordshire.

Fox, Mrs., Woodseat.

Fox, Mrs. Sarah.

Frere, P., Esq., Fellow and Tutor of Downing College, Cambridge.

Frith, ——, Esq.

Frowd, John Speed, Esq., M.D., Croscombe, Somersetshire.

Fulford, Rev. Francis, Rector of Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

Garbett, Rev. John, Rector of St. George’s, Birmingham.

Gepp, Rev. George Edward, Head‐Master of the Grammar School, Ashbourne,

Derbyshire.

Gibbons, Rev. John, Rector of Brasted, Kent.

Goode, Rev. Alexander, Vicar of Caverswall, Staffordshire.

Goodenough, Joseph, Esq., Nether Cerne, Dorset, 2 copies.

Goodenough, Rev. W. S., Rector of Yate, Gloucestershire, 4 copies.

Granville, Rev. Court, Vicar of Mayfield, Staffordshire.

Grayson, Rev. Anthony, D.D., Principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, Oxford.

Greenhill, W. A., Esq., M.D., Oxford.

Gresley, Rev. William, Prebendary of Lichfield and Lecturer of St. Mary’s.

Hale, Ven. W. H., Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Canon Residentiary of St.

Paul’s.

Hannaford, Mr., Bookseller, Exeter, 4 copies.

Hart, Thomas, Esq., Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Hart, Mrs., Uttoxeter, 2 copies.

Hart, Miss, Uttoxeter, 2 copies.

Hassells, Rev. Charles S., Foxearth, Staffordshire.

Haweis, Rev. J. O. W., Sydenham Grove, Norwood.

Haynes, Rev. Robert, Curate of Kingsley, Staffordshire.

Hayter, W. G., Esq., M.P., 11, Hyde Park Terrace, 2 copies.

Hendrickson, Rev. William, Perpetual Curate of Oakamoor, Staffordshire.

Hessey, Rev. J. A., Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford.

Higton, Rev. W., Perpetual Curate of Croxden, Staffordshire.

Hill, Rev. Charles, Rector of Bromesberrow, Gloucestershire.

Hill, Rev. John, Vice‐Principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, Oxford.

H., Miss.

Hoare, Ven. C. James, Archdeacon and Prebendary of Winton, and Vicar of

Godstone, Surrey.

Hoare, G. M., Esq., The Lodge, Morden, Surrey.

Hoare, Charles H., Esq., Morden Lodge.

Hoare, Henry James, Esq., Morden Lodge.

Hoare, Rev. Richard Peter, Rector of Stourton, Wilts.

Hoare, Mrs. Peter, Kilsey Park, Kent.

Hoare, Miss.

Hodson, Ven. George, Archdeacon of Stafford, and Vicar of Colwich.

Hoon, Mr., Bookseller, Ashbourne.

Hornby, Rev. R., Minister of Walton‐le‐Dale, Lancashire.

Howell, Rev. Hinds, Curate of Shobrooke, Devon.

Howman, Rev. E. J., Rector of Hookering and Bexwell, Norfolk.

Hutchinson, Rev. W., Rector of Checkley, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Jacobson, Rev. William, Vice‐Principal of Magdalen Hall, Oxford.

James, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Sibbertoft, Northamptonshire.

Jelf, George, Esq., Manor House, East Acton.

Jelf, Mrs.

Jenkins, Rev. H., Professor of Greek in the University of Durham.

Johnson, Rev. Wilbraham W., Collegiate Church, Manchester.

Kempe, Rev. A. A., Curate of Dilhorne, Staffordshire.

Kennaway, Rev. C., Incumbent of Christ Church, Cheltenham.

Kennedy, Rev. Rann, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul’s, Birmingham.

Kenrick, G. C., Esq., Surgeon, Melksham, Wilts.

King, Rev. Charles, Close, Salisbury.

King, Hon. Mr. Locke, Woburn.

Kinsey, Rev. W. M., B.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, and Assistant

Minister of St. John’s Church, Cheltenham, 2 copies.

Kynnersley, Thomas Sneyd, Esq., Loxley Park, Staffordshire.

Kynnersley, Mrs. C. Sneyd, Highfields, Staffordshire.

Kynnersley, Thomas C. Sneyd, Highwood, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Kynnersley, Rev. E. C. Sneyd, Rector of Draycott, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Langham, Dowager Lady, 2 copies.

Law, Hon. and Rev. W. T., Chancellor of Wells Cathedral, Rector of East

Brent, Somerset.

Lawton, Rev. E., Curate of Elmswell, Suffolk.

Le Hunt, Peter Bainbrigge, Esq., Ashbourne.

Lendon, Rev. Charles, Curate of Kensington.

Levett, Rev. Walter, Vicar of Bray, Berkshire.

Lloyd, Thomas, Esq., Bronwydd, Cardiganshire.

Lloyd, James, Esq., Bronwydd.

Lloyd, T. D., Esq., Bronwydd.

Lonsdale, Rev. J., B.D., Principal of King’s College, London.

Lowe, Very Rev. J. H., D.D., Dean of Exeter.

Ludlow, Rev. Edward, Vicar of Winterbourne St. Martin, Dorsetshire.

M’All, Rev. Edw., Rector of Brixton, Isle of Wight.

M’Ewen, Rev. A., Curate of Semington, Wiltshire.

Mackenzie, L. M., Esq., Exeter College, Oxford.

Madan, Rev. Spencer, Canon Residentiary of Lichfield, and Vicar of

Batheaston and Twiverton, Somersetshire.

Mair, Rev. Henry, Donhead Lodge, Wilts.

Marriott, Rev. C., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and Principal of the

Diocesan College, Chichester.

Marshall, Rev. A., M.A., Curate of Charlton, Wilts.

Merewether, Rev. Francis, Rector of Coleorton, Leicestershire.

Molesworth, Rev. J. E. N., D.D., Vicar of Rochdale.

Monkhouse, Mrs. Adderbury, Oxfordshire.

Moore, Rev. Henry, Vicar of Eccleshall, Staffordshire.

Morice, Rev. H., Rural Dean and Vicar of Ashwell, Herts.

Moseley, Rev. Thomas, Rector of St. Martin’s, Birmingham.

Newman, Rev. J. H., B.D., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and Vicar of

St. Mary’s.

Noel, Rev. B., Walthamstowe, Essex.

Norris, A., & Son, Booksellers, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 4 copies.

Norris, Rev. H. H., Rector of South Hackney, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s,

London.

Nunns, Rev. Thomas, Perpetual Curate of St. Bartholomew’s, Birmingham.

Ogilvie, Rev. C. A., Rector of Ross, Herefordshire, 2 copies.

Paget, Rev. F. E., Rector of Elford, Staffordshire.

Parsons, John, Esq., Oxford.

Philips, Robert, Esq., Heybridge, Staffordshire.

Philips, Mrs. R., Heybridge.

Pinder, Rev. John H., Professor of Theology in the Wells Diocesan College.

Pinfold, Rev. C. J., Rector of Bromshall, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Porcher, Charles, Esq., Cliff House, Dorsetshire.

Preston Clerical Book Society.

Prevost, Rev. Sir George, Perpetual Curate of Stinchcombe,

Gloucestershire.

Prichard, Rev. J. C., Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford.

Pulleine, Rev. Robert, Curate of Spennithorne, Yorkshire.

Pusey, Rev. E. B., D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Regius

Professor of Hebrew.

Radcliffe, Rev. G., Rector of St. Edmund’s, Salisbury.

Rawle, Rev. Richard, Rector of Cheadle, Staffordshire.

Ray, Rev. Henry, Curate of Hunston, Suffolk.

Redstone, Mr., Bookseller, Guernsey.

Reed, Rev. John, Vicar of Newburn, Northumberland, and Lecturer of St.

Nicholas, Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne.

Rham, Rev. W. H., Vicar of Winkfield, Berkshire.

Richards, Rev. J. L., D.D., Rector of Exeter College, Oxford.

Rickards, Rev. Samuel, Rector of Stowlangtoft, Suffolk.

Riggs, Rev. George, Fellow and Tutor of Queen’s College, Oxford.

Risley, Rev. W. Cotton, Vicar of Deddington, Oxfordshire.

Robinson, Frederick, Esq., 2 copies.

Rowden, Rev. E., Vicar of Highworth, Wiltshire.

Royds, Rev. C. S., Rector of Haughton, Staffordshire.

Russell, Jesse Watts, Esq., Ilam Hall, Staffordshire, 10 copies.

St. Edmund Hall, Library of, Oxford.

Sandars, Joseph, Esq., Johnson Hall, Shropshire.

Seagrave, Mrs., Bromshall Rectory.

Sewell, Rev. William, Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.

Shaw, Rev. E. B., Rector of Narborough, Leicestershire.

Sheppard, Sir Thomas Cotton, Bart., Crakemarsh Hall, Staffordshire, 2

copies.

Smyth, Rev. C., Vicar of Houghton, Northamptonshire, 2 copies.

Smythe, Rev. P. M., Curate of Tamworth, Warwickshire.

Sneyd, Rev. Henry, Perpetual Curate of Wetley Rocks, Staffordshire.

Soames, Rev. Henry, Rector of Stapleford Tawney, Essex.

Spreat, Mr., Bookseller, Exeter.

Stevenson, Mr., Bookseller, Cambridge.

Talbot, Rev. G., Vicar of Evercreech, Somerset.

Taylor, Herbert, Esq., M.D., Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Thynne, Rev. Lord Charles, Vicar of Longbridge Deverill, Wiltshire.

Todd, Rev. James H., D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and

Treasurer of Patrick’s Cathedral.

Tonyn, Rev. J. F., Rector of Alvechurch, Worcestershire.

Townsend, Rev. George, Prebendary of Durham.

Townsend, Rev. G. F., Curate of St. Margaret’s, Durham.

Trevelyan, Rev. J. T., Vicar of Milverton, Somersetshire.

Tripp, H., Esq., Scholar of Worcester College, Oxford.

Tritton, Rev. Robert, Rector of Morden, Surrey.

Tritton, Miss, Morden.

Trollope, Rev. Arthur, Curate of St. Mary‐le‐Bow, London.

Vaux, Rev. Bowyer, Hethersett, Norfolk.

Vaux, Rev. W. B.D., Prebendary of Winchester.

Vernon, Hon. Mrs. H. V., Mayfield, Staffordshire.

Vickers, Ven. W., Archdeacon of Salop, and Rector of Chetton, Salop.

Vincent, Rev. O. P., Curate of Devizes, Wilts.

Waite, Rev. Thomas, D.D., Rector of Great Chart, Kent, 2 copies.

Ward, Rev. W. H. P., Rector of Compton Vallence, Dorsetshire.

Walker, Rev. R., Wadham College, Oxford.

Walters, Mr., Bookseller, Rugeley, 4 copies.

Wells, Rev. E. Cornish, Perpetual Curate of Ixworth, Suffolk.

Whieldon, Rev. E., Rector of Burslem, and Perpetual Curate of Bradley,

Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Wickens, Rev. Henry, 35, Mortimer‐street, Cavendish‐square, 2 copies.

Wickens, J. Esq., 35, Mortimer‐street, Cavendish‐square, 2 copies.

Wickens, John, Esq., 7, New‐square, Lincoln’s Inn, 2 copies.

Wilberforce, Ven. Samuel, Archdeacon of Surrey, Canon of Winchester, and

Chaplain to H. R. H. Prince Albert.

Williams, Robert, Esq., M.P., Bridehead House, Dorsetshire.

Wilson, Rev. J. P., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Wilson, Rev. W., Curate of St. Chad’s, Rochdale.

Wolley, Rev. T. L., Rector of Portishead, and Prebendary of Wells.

Woodhouse, Rev. G. W., Vicar of Albrighton, Salop.

Wright, Rev. T. P., Hackney, 2 copies.

CHAPTER I. LIFE OF S. IRENÆUS, AND GENERAL ACCOUNT OF HIS WRITINGS.

If Polycarp is an object of great interest, as the disciple of St. John,

and the hearer both of him and of other contemporaries of our Lord ; if

Justin is so, as having been the first man of eminent learning who came

over from the walks of heathen philosophy to submit his mind to the

doctrine of Christ ; Irenæus, again, has claims upon our attention scarcely

less, as having been brought up in the Christian faith under the eye of

Polycarp ; having, therefore, no previous tinge of Judaism or heathen

philosophy, but imbued with Christian principles almost, if not quite,

from his cradle, and at the same time displaying equal vigour of mind, if

not equal knowledge of heathen learning, with either Justin or Clement of

Alexandria(2). To these circumstances we are no doubt to attribute it,

that there appear in his writings a greater justness of reasoning, and a

more unexceptionable use of scripture, than is to be found in the writers

of the Alexandrian school.

With regard to the time of his birth we know nothing certain. We find him

_still a lad_, παῖς ὢν ἔτι(3), listening to the Christian instruction of

Polycarp, not long, as it would appear, before the death of that martyr.

For, after saying(4) that he had seen Polycarp _in the early part of his

life_, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡλικίᾳ,—in order to account for what might appear

improbable, viz., his being the contemporary of that martyr at all,—he

says, that Polycarp lived to a very advanced age ; ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε,

καὶ πάνυ γεραλέος ... ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου. This makes it evident that it must

have taken place towards the very close of Polycarp’s life ; and yet not so

near to it but that he had had time to mark(5) _his manner of life, and

the discourses he made to the people_, and remembered _his account of his

familiar intercourse with the apostle John, and the survivors of those who

had seen the Lord, and his rehearsals of their sayings, and of their

accounts of the discourses and miracles of the Lord_. All this would

require, one should suppose, at least five or six years. Then, again, we

are to bear in mind that he would not have been capable of marking things

of such a nature, (so as to remember them, as he tells us he did,

perfectly,) when a young child, nor until his mind had in some degree

begun to expand. So that we can scarcely suppose him younger than sixteen

at the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom, and the expression παῖς would admit

of his being some years older.

Dodwell(6), indeed, has endeavoured to arrive at greater accuracy, and

thinks that, by another casual expression of Irenæus, in his _letter to

Florinus_, he is enabled to fix the date absolutely. Irenæus remarks that

he had seen Florinus, when himself still a lad, in the company of

Polycarp, in Lower Asia ; when at the same time Florinus was _getting on

very prosperously at the court of the emperor_: λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ

βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ. Taking it for granted that Irenæus intends to say that he

was an actual witness of the prosperity of his friend, and consequently

that the imperial court must have been at that very time sojourning in

Lower Asia, and having ascertained that Adrian is the only emperor who

appears to have remained any time there, he fixes upon the year 122 as the

probable year in which Adrian might have been there, and thus imagines

that he has established at least one date with certainty. Now the stress

of the observation of Irenæus does not lie upon the success of Florinus at

court, but upon his having associated with Polycarp, and having

endeavoured to gain his good opinion ; that, so far as appears, is the only

thing which Irenæus _witnessed_. The imperial court may therefore have

been at some other place, and Florinus may have been only on a visit at

Smyrna, at the time when Irenæus saw him there.

There is another objection to this hypothesis of Dodwell, and that is,

that it is inconsistent with the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp, which

took place A.D. 166‐7. We have seen above that Irenæus could not have

known him for many years before his death, whereas Dodwell’s notion would

require him to have been acquainted with him forty years before, when it

is impossible Polycarp could have been _very old_, to say nothing of

Irenæus’ implication as to its having been towards the close of his life.

If we suppose, then, that he was acquainted with him for six or eight

years, and that he was about eighteen at the time of his martyrdom, it

will make the birth of Irenæus to have taken place about the year 150.

This, at all events, is the latest date we can assign to it. Dupin(7) and

Massuet(8) place it A.D. 140 ; Tillemont(9) twenty years earlier ; and

Dodwell is desirous of carrying it up ten or twenty years earlier still.

Perhaps Massuet’s date may be nearest the truth. But exactness in these

particulars is of the less moment, as we have, established by his own

mouth, the main circumstance on account of which it is of importance to

ascertain it: for the chief, if not the only, reason for desiring to fix

the date of his birth is, that we may judge what kind of witness he is

likely to have been of apostolical tradition. Now we have seen him

expressly affirming that he had heard Polycarp recount the narratives and

doctrines of St. John and other contemporaries of Christ ; and he likewise

informs us he paid diligent attention to him, and that he remembered him

so minutely that he could(10) point out the place where he sat, and trace

the walks he was accustomed to take ; and moreover, that he not only heard

his words, but treasured them up in his memory, and was continually

refreshing his remembrance of them by meditation upon them. The testimony

of such a witness must be more than ordinarily valuable.

Upon the death of Polycarp, it is probable that he put himself under the

guidance of Papias, as he is called by Jerome(11) his _disciple_. Certain

it is, that he several times quotes that pious but too credulous writer,

and that with evident approbation. There is likewise a person, whom he

does not name, but whom he often mentions(12), from whom he appears to

have learnt much, and who was a contemporary of the apostolical

generation. Some have conjectured him to have been the same as Papias(13).

Dodwell thinks him to have been Pothinus(14), the predecessor of Irenæus

in the see of Lyons ; yet, if he had been either one or the other of them,

there appears no reason why he should not have named him ; for he does

mention Papias by name more than once, and Pothinus was likewise a person

of sufficient eminence to have been quoted by name. The probability

appears to be, that he was a person of no great note, but who had the

advantage of being a hearer of those who had seen the Lord(15).

How long Irenæus continued to reside in Asia Minor we know not ; but we

find him next at Lyons(16), a priest of the church there, under

Pothinus(17), its venerable bishop. What led him there we are not

informed. The place lay a good way up the Rhone, near the mouth of which

was Marseilles, a Greek colony from Phocæa in Asia Minor(18), with which

commercial intercourse had been kept up ever since B.C. 600. Business or

relationship might have taken him thither, or even to Lyons itself. For

although this latter was a Roman colony, and its name, Lugdunum,

sufficiently evinces that it was not of Greek foundation, yet the number

of Greek names(19) amongst the Christians there shows that there must have

been many of that race residing there. Indeed, the circumstance that the

Montanist heresy, which arose in Phrygia, spread in no long time to Lyons,

and that the Lyonnese wrote to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, both to

give an account of the persecution, and to discountenance the opinions of

Montanus, clearly prove that there was some reason for frequent

intercourse and sympathy between Lyons and Asia Minor.

There is no reason, therefore, to conjecture any extraordinary mission or

other conjuncture to bring him into that part of the world. He may have

been ordained priest after he arrived there ; but we cannot argue that with

any certainty from his being called by Jerome(20) _a priest of Pothinus_ ;

for even when church discipline attained its greatest strictness, and

every bishop regarded an ecclesiastic ordained by himself as his subject,

there was nothing to prevent a bishop from transferring one of his clergy

to the jurisdiction of another bishop, whose subject he thenceforward

became. So that the epithet made use of by Jerome only proves—what we know

from Eusebius(21)—that Irenæus was a priest of the diocese of Lyons when

Pothinus was bishop.

It is the more necessary to remark this, as there appears to be a

disposition gaining ground to take the slightest evidence as absolute

proof. Undoubtedly a sceptical disposition is a great mischief ; but a

credulous temper, although less injurious to the possessor, is no slight

evil, from its natural tendency to produce scepticism by an unavoidable

reaction.

But wheresoever Irenæus first entered into the priesthood, he had abode so

long at Lyons in the year 177(22), that he had gained the character of a

person _zealous for the gospel of Christ_(23), and recommended more by his

intrinsic excellence than by his sacred office ; and was so relied upon as

to be chosen by the martyrs of Lyons, then in prison, as a fit person to

send to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, with their testimony against the

Montanists. It is, indeed, barely said by Eusebius(24), that their

epistles were written for the purpose of promoting the peace of the

churches (τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες) ; but connecting

them, as he does in his narrative, with the mention of the Montanist

heresy, and of the dissensions occasioned by it (διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ

τῶν δεδηλωμένων), it is unavoidable to conclude that they had reference to

it. Some light may be thrown upon the subject by the assertion of

Tertullian(25), that _a bishop of Rome_ had admitted the Montanists to

communion by giving them letters of amity. Who the bishop was he gives no

hint ; and as he connects the matter with the account of the dissemination

of the heresy of Praxeas, some, as Dupin(26) and Tillemont(27), have

concluded that it could not have been an earlier bishop than Victor,

because Praxeas did not appear as a heretic at an earlier period. This,

however, as Massuet justly argues(28), is not conclusive ; for the throwing

together two things in a narrative by no means proves that they closely

followed each other ; and this visit of Praxeas to Rome may, with greater

probability, be assumed to have been when he was a catholic. A sufficient

space of time had evidently elapsed between the visit of Praxeas to Rome,

under the bishop who had granted communicatory letters to the Montanists,

and the time when Tertullian was writing(29), to allow of his becoming

tinged with the Patripassian heresy, of his disseminating it secretly, of

his avowing it openly, of his being convinced of his error, and being

reconciled to the church ; finally, of his relapsing, and ultimately

quitting the church. All this would take up many years, and allow ample

time for the supposition that Eleutherus was the bishop alluded to ; not to

say that a bishop of Rome was little likely to have listened to him when

an avowed heretic. And then the letter of the martyrs has a well‐defined

object, viz., to dissuade him from contributing to rend the church in

pieces by countenancing a set of men who had been excommunicated by the

churches by whom they were surrounded, and by those in Gaul with which

they were in some degree connected ; and thoroughly explains the expression

of Eusebius, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

There is another circumstance, which, so far as I know, has not been

adverted to: viz., that the Montanists appear not to have differed from

the other Christians of Asia Minor in the observance of Easter ; and as we

know that Victor excommunicated those Churches for differing from him, he

is not likely to have patronized a sect who also differed from him in a

matter he regarded as so important.

As we know that the Church of Lyons sent these letters to Eleutherus, with

one of their own, preserved in part by Eusebius(30), giving an account of

the martyrdoms, it has been supposed by some that Irenæus actually _wrote_

this letter ; and the idea is confirmed by the circumstance, that

Œcumenius, in his _Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter_, (cap. 3.

p. 498.) has preserved a fragment of a writing of Irenæus, _concerning

Sanctus and Blandina_. Now, these two persons are mentioned particularly

in the letter of the Church of Lyons(31) ; of which, therefore, this

fragment (numbered xiii. in the Benedictine edition) is probably another

remnant. There is no ground for doubting that Irenæus did really visit

Rome ; the more especially, as two of his subsequent compositions were

occasioned by errors of priests of that Church—viz. Florinus and

Blastus(32).

Pothinus died in this persecution, as really a martyr as others who have

been regarded as more truly such. Being upwards of ninety years old,

suffering under infirmity both of age and sickness, dragged to the

tribunal, and back again to prison, without any regard to his weakness and

age, beaten, kicked, and assailed with every missile that came to hand, it

is more wonderful that he did not breathe his last under their hands, than

that he lingered out two days in the prison(33). Irenæus succeeded

him(34) ; and if we may judge of him by the ability, learning, zeal, and

sound judgment displayed in his writings, and by the Christian temper he

evinced on the occasion of the paschal controversy, we may safely conclude

that he was a more than worthy successor.

Before I proceed further, I will observe a little upon the visit of

Irenæus to Rome, which appears to have been the third application made to

Rome from any distant Church ; the first being from Corinth, under St.

Clement, the second by Polycarp, to Anicetus. The first was not unnatural,

when we consider that Clement had been the companion of St. Paul, and that

the Church of Corinth was under pecuniary obligations to that of Rome. The

second was a consultation, as between equals. The third was a deputation

from the Churches of an adjacent country, (civilly subject to Rome, and

therefore in the habit of visiting the city,) to expostulate with the then

bishop upon an injudicious step he had taken. They were evidently led to

it by their sympathy with the Asiatic Churches, from whence they drew

their own origin, whose divisions and errors they deplored: and they were

afraid of the mischief likely to accrue to the Christian world from the

sanction given to the Montanist errors by the head of a Church so

important as that of Rome, to which, from its being the common resort of

Christians from all quarters, they had been in the habit of looking as the

depository of their common traditions, and whose example therefore must be

tenfold more hurtful than that of any other Church, if given on the side

of error. It was, moreover, in all probability, an expostulation with him

for having committed the actual error of countenancing what the whole

catholic Church, from first to last, has declared to be delusion and

heresy ; and the object of it was, to entreat him to recant his error. How

contrary is this whole matter to the notion of these Churches being

subject to that of Rome, or to their looking up to the bishop of it as an

authorized director in cases of doubt and difficulty! And even if we do

not admit that Eleutherus was the actual bishop who gave his letters of

peace to the Montanists, yet it has always been acknowledged that the

letters of the martyrs, thus sent by the public authority of the Gaulish

Churches, were intended to caution him against entertaining them, and that

either he or Victor did countenance them. And how inconsistent is such a

state of things with the idea of a Church privileged to be free from error

or delusion, watching over others, instead of being watched over by them!

One other point about this visit remains to be noticed. It has been

supposed(35) that Irenæus went to Rome to be consecrated to the Church of

Lyons, or that he was consecrated there. That he _went_ there for any such

purpose is contrary to all the evidence we have, which specifies another

cause for his journey, and does not hint at this. Massuet, indeed, argues,

from Jerome’s relating his visit to Rome immediately before his

ordination, as successor to Pothinus(36), that the two must have an

explicit connexion with each other ; but the very connecting term _postea_,

and the reason given with it, that Pothinus had suffered martyrdom, would

rather appear to separate the journey with its circumstances, from the

ordination with its reason. He likewise relies upon the request of the

martyrs to Eleutherus, ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει(37) ; which he chooses

to translate, _ut ipsum cæteris anteponas_. So very much to be drawn from

one word, reminds one of Dodwell’s theories. The expression might, indeed,

possibly have a force, which it is rather surprising that Massuet has

overlooked. It might mean “place him by thy side,” which, if it had

occurred to the French divine, he would probably have translated, “Elatum

eum fac in eundem quem ipse tenes ordinem:” “Make him a bishop like

thyself.” But when we take it in connexion with the concluding clause, ἐν

πρώτοις ἂν παρεθέμεθα, the phrase would appear to signify nothing more

than, “Treat him with all respect.”

That he may have been consecrated when there, if Pothinus died in the

interim, is not impossible ; for it has not been unusual, in all ages of

the Church, for a bishop elect to be consecrated in the place where he

happened to be at the time of his election. But there is no _evidence_ for

this ; nothing, in short, but the presumption, that there was no other

bishop in Gaul but the bishop of Lyons. And if there were, as is not

improbable, bishops of Autun, of Arles, and of Vienne, at this time, then

there was no motive whatever for having recourse to the bishop of Rome, at

a period when, as is well known, the neighbouring bishops always filled up

a vacancy, with the consent of the clergy and people, without having

recourse to any higher or ulterior authority. But supposing that he was

consecrated at Rome, it makes nothing whatever for the supremacy of that

see. I am willing to grant to it a much higher rank and authority than

such a circumstance would vindicate for it. Ignatius, when going to

martyrdom, besought Polycarp to appoint a bishop in his place ; and yet no

one has thought fit, on that ground, to claim for Polycarp the title even

of primate of the East ; whilst I readily admit that the bishop of Rome was

long looked up to, not only as primate of the West, but as the first

bishop _in rank_, and governing the first Church _in authority_, in the

whole Christian world.

But whatever may be doubtful, one thing is certain, that Irenæus _did_

succeed Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. Of his conduct in his own particular

Church we have no means of judging, for no record has survived to tell us

of anything he did there. It appears certain, from the expression of

Eusebius(38), ἐπεσκόπει τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν, that he was primate,

or, at least, had influence over several dioceses in Gaul ; as παροικία in

the early writers commonly signifies _a diocese_(39). This idea is farther

confirmed by the use of a parallel expression(40), to describe the

jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. It is well known that, in the

time of Athanasius, the number of dioceses under him was near a

hundred(41) ; of these, between seventy and eighty were in Egypt, and

sixteen within seventy miles of Alexandria, and in the same civil province

of Ægyptus Prima. Over all these, the bishop of Alexandria exercised a

control more complete than that of any other patriarch of those times. I

mention these circumstances to show that, at the time to which Eusebius

refers, his archiepiscopal province must have been considerable. And as

the ecclesiastical station of Irenæus is described in the same terms, it

almost amounts to demonstration, that he held a similar pre‐eminence. The

only difference is, that Irenæus is said to have ruled the παροικιῶν κατὰ

Γαλλίαν, and the bishop of Alexandria those κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν. But this

expression only shows that the Churches in Egypt emanated from Alexandria,

and were permanently dependent upon it ; whilst those in Gaul emanated from

no point within the country, nor were permanently dependent upon any one

church. If any one should suppose that the term παροικία is used with

regard to Alexandria in its modern sense of _parish_, and that Eusebius is

speaking of the extent of the single diocese of Alexandria, I will only

say, that that whole diocese contained only fourteen pastors, that the

city contained sixteen churches(42) ; and that Socrates, who wrote more

than one hundred years after Eusebius, when describing the distinction of

the pastoral charges in the diocese of Alexandria, merely says(43), that

they were _like_ παροικίαι: so that this word had retained its meaning of

_diocese_ even to that period.

Massuet, indeed, argues at great length(44) against the idea that there

was any other bishop in Gaul than the bishop of Lyons ; but all his

arguments resolve themselves into the one, that there is no mention made

in any early writer of any other. On this ground one might, with equal

reason, conclude that there were no bishops in Britain before the council

of Arles, when they are first mentioned. But until it can be shown that

there is an instance in any writer anterior to Eusebius, or of his time,

of the use of the term παροικία to signify a parochial church or parish,

the simple use of this word by him is sufficient evidence against all

negative arguments whatever. What the author of the Acts of the Martyrdom

of St. Saturninus says(45) of the fewness of churches in Gaul in his time

is really no contradiction to this opinion ; for if there were at that time

as many as twenty or thirty, it would be extremely few, considering the

extent of the country.

I have said that we have no record of the operations of Irenæus as bishop

of Lyons. I mean, that we know of nothing which he did in that particular

church. He bore, in a general way, the character of “the light of the

western(46) Gauls,” and is said to have “cultivated and enlightened the

Celtic nations(47).” And in consonance with this there is a tradition(48),

though of comparatively recent date, that he sent a priest and deacon as

missionaries to Besançon, and a priest and two deacons to Valence, in

Dauphiné. The circumstance is very probable in itself, and is in agreement

with the traditions of those Churches.

We now come to a more remarkable period of his life. We have seen that the

Christians of that age looked with peculiar anxiety to Rome, as the Church

where, from the constant meeting together of Christians from the

provinces, the traditions of the catholic Church were most accurately

preserved. Any departure of that Church from purity of doctrine would be

of more serious consequence than the deflexion of one of less influence.

Irenæus had been taught to exercise this feeling by his mission from the

martyrs ; and had no doubt learnt to feel it more deeply on the spot, when

he trode the ground consecrated by the martyrdom of the two great apostles

with whose joint superintendence and instruction that Church was so long

favoured, and when he observed how every heretic likewise resorted to

Rome, as a more important theatre than any other. Nor can we suppose that

he had left that Church without forming some bond of union with individual

members of it. His heart, therefore, returned no doubt to it, and caused

him to indite those several epistles Eusebius mentions(49), occasioned by

the dissensions he heard of as prevailing there. The first mentioned by

the historian is that addressed to Blastus on the subject of _schism_.

What it was which led him into schism is variously related by ancient

writers. Eusebius simply says(50) that he indulged in speculations of his

own at variance with truth. Theodoret(51) stated that he was entangled in

the errors of Marcion and Valentinus ; but if he had been so at that time,

it appears most probable that Irenæus would have noticed the errors

themselves even more prominently than the schism which accompanied them. A

more probable account is that given by the ancient author whose addition

to one of Tertullian’s works is commonly printed with it(52), that “he

wished covertly to introduce Judaism ; ” and in particular, that “he

insisted on the observance of the paschal season on the fourteenth day of

the moon, according to the law of Moses ; ” with which agrees what Pacian

says(53), “that he was a Greek, and that he adhered to the Montanists ; ”

for the Montanists, having arisen in Asia Minor, celebrated that season at

the same time as the other Christians of that country, i. e. with the

Jews. So that his schism probably consisted in this, that having come from

Asia, he wished to raise a party favourable to the Asiatic practice, or,

at least, declined to conform to that of Rome. And we can imagine how

earnestly Irenæus would press him to conform to the usages of the Church

in which he sojourned ; a thing he could do with so much greater authority,

inasmuch as, being himself of Asiatic birth, and brought up in the very

church of Polycarp, he had conformed to the Western usage.

Whether it was before or after this time that Blastus left the communion

of the Church we know not. Eusebius, however, relates(54), (at least so

Massuet(55), with great probability, apprehends his meaning,) that he was

deposed from the priesthood, and that he detached many from the Church to

follow speculations of his own, at variance with the truth. Theodoret’s

statement may therefore be substantially correct, although at a period

subsequent to that at which Irenæus wrote the letter Περὶ Σχίσματος.

The next letter Eusebius mentions is that to Florinus. This person was

likewise a priest of the Church at Rome, and had been known to Irenæus in

early life(56), when they were both pupils of Polycarp, and Florinus was

high in the court of the reigning emperor. But he had forsaken civil life,

and entered holy orders, from which he was now ejected, as being the head

of a party holding novel and peculiar opinions(57). His peculiarity is

distinctly specified, viz. that he taught that God was the author of evil.

To avoid this conclusion, Marcion had taught two first principles—the one

of good, the other of evil. It was probably in combating this error that

Florinus had insisted on the unity of God, and of his providential

government, which he had expressed by the term μοναρχία, and, from

opposing one heresy with zeal too ardent for his judgment, had fallen into

the opposite one. Irenæus, upon hearing of the fall of his former

acquaintance, felt an earnest desire to restore him, and accordingly wrote

to him, endeavouring, as it would appear, to explain the true notion of

the μοναρχία of God, and especially to combat his peculiar error. A

fragment of this letter is preserved by Eusebius(58), and printed(59) at

the end of the best editions of the works of Irenæus. In it Irenæus

represents to him how much at variance his opinions were with those of the

Church ; how impious in their tendency ; how far beyond what any

excommunicated heretic had ever taught ; how much opposed to apostolical

tradition: and he appeals to him from his own remembrance of the teaching

of Polycarp (whom they had mutually reverenced), and from his published

epistles, how shocked that blessed martyr would have been if he had heard

such blasphemies.

But Irenæus, as it would appear, succeeded only so far with the unstable

Florinus as to drive him from his position, that God was the author of

evil. From this he went into the Valentinian speculations, by which they

endeavour to escape the great difficulty of the origin of evil(60). From

them he learnt to believe in an _ogdoad_ of emanations from the Supreme

Being, from one of the later of whom, by a species of accident, evil

sprung. Irenæus could not give up his ancient friend, but composed for his

use a treatise(61) upon this portion of the Gnostic theory. Of this,

however, we have not a fragment left which can throw any light upon its

structure. There is only the concluding sentence preserved(62), in which

he adjures the transcriber of it to compare it most carefully with the

original, and to append the adjuration itself to his transcript. We might

wonder, perhaps, at the solemnity of the adjuration, did we not consider

how important it was that Irenæus himself should not be represented, by

any error of the copyist, as holding opinions at variance with the truth

he was so anxious to maintain. But although we have no distinct remains of

this particular treatise, it is highly probable that it formed the germ of

that great work which has, in some sort, remained entire, and upon which

the reputation of Irenæus, as a controversial writer, altogether rests. To

that I will now direct my attention.

The Gnostic theories had risen in the East, and from thence had early

spread to Rome ; whither came, in succession, most of their eminent

teachers. It is not my purpose to give a full account of them. This has

been done by the late Dr. E. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, “_On the

heresies of the apostolical age_,” and the notes appended to them. I

shall, however, give in detail Irenæus’s account of them in a subsequent

part of this work. The general principle of them all was to escape making

God the author of evil, by making it to spring, by a species of chance,

from some emanation indefinitely removed from the great First Cause. For

this purpose, they imagined certain spiritual beings, more or less

numerous, the first pair produced by the Supreme Being, in conjunction

with an emanation from himself ; the rest emanating, for the most part,

successively from each preceding pair, and becoming more and more liable

to infirmity as they were further distant from the One Original. From one

of the most distant they imagined the author of evil to have sprung, whom

they also made the creator of the world, and the god of the Jews. They

professed to believe in Jesus, but regarded him either as not truly man or

as not truly united with the Godhead ; and Christ, as well as the Only‐

begotten, the Saviour, and the Life, they looked on as distinct from him.

The great charm of these theories was, that they professed to unravel a

great secret, which no previous philosophy had reached, and which

Christianity itself had left untouched. We may wonder, indeed, that any

Christian should have found anything to tempt him in hypotheses so subtile

and intricate, and so palpably at variance with the known truths of the

Gospel. But we must bear in mind that when they first arose, no part of

the New‐Testament scripture was written ; that consequently the poison had

time to mix itself with the current of opinion everywhere, before an

antidote of general application was provided ; that the minds of all

inquiring men in those times were peculiarly given to subtilties, and to

the notion of inventing schemes selected from all prevailing opinions ; and

that, to recommend themselves to Christians, they professed to be the

depositories of that “hidden wisdom” which St. Paul was known to have

affirmed that he had imparted to those who were capable of receiving it.

It is, therefore, not much to be wondered at, that they prevailed amongst

the speculative for their very subtilty, and with the vain and weak‐minded

by their affectation of superior wisdom.

There was another feature of the scheme, which served a further purpose.

They pretended that the minds which inhabit human bodies are of two kinds,

_spiritual_ and _carnal_ ; that the carnal alone are the work of the

Creator of this world, whilst the spiritual are emanations from the

highest and purest order of spiritual beings: that the carnal are readily

contaminated by the flesh and the world, and thence require restraint and

law ; whilst the spiritual are only placed in bodies for a time, that they

may _know_ everything, but incapable of contamination, and destined, after

a period of exercise, to be taken up into the Supernal Fulness. By this

theory the abstracted and mystical were flattered with the idea of

spiritual superiority to their fellow‐men ; whilst the worldly and sensual

might keep up the highest pretensions, and yet wallow in the most

revolting profligacy. It was under this latter phase that Gnosticism first

showed itself amongst the half‐civilized, semi‐Roman inhabitants of

southern Gaul. In its more abstract and refined form it would have had no

attraction for them ; for the European mind is too plain and common‐sense

to follow subtilties. But its practical licentiousness found a fit nidus

in the accompanying sensual disposition which marked the Romans of that

age, and all who were tinged with their blood. It worked its way for some

time in silence, till the attention of the bishop of Lyons was drawn to it

by the seduction of Christian matrons, and by the influx of extraordinary

impurity throughout that region(63). He was thus led to trace the mischief

to its cause ; and finding this to be his old enemy, under its then

prevailing form of Valentinianism, which thus appeared to be rearing its

head everywhere, and had now come to assail him on his own ground, he set

himself to understand its system thoroughly, that, by refuting it both in

its principle and in its details, he might completely disabuse the

Christian world, do away with the divisions, and impurities, and

calumnies, arising from it, and thus afford the freer scope for the power

of truth upon the hearts and practice of men.

He was the more determined upon doing this by the solicitations of a

friend, who appears to have lived more in the heart of the mischief than

himself(64). Who he was we are not told. That he had some pastoral charge

is most probable, from the concluding portion of the preface to the first

book, in which Irenæus speaks to his friend as having spiritual care of

others, and as able, both by his station and by his abilities, to turn to

the best account the hints he was able to furnish him. That the native, or

at least customary, language of his friend was Greek, may be inferred from

the work being in that language, and by the apology made for the

imperfections of the style ; and altogether, it seems most probable that he

was a bishop of one of the Greek colonies of southern Gaul.

In the accomplishment of this work he no doubt made use of the treatise of

Justin Martyr against the Marcionites, now lost to us, because superseded

by the completer work of Irenæus. But he derived the greatest help from

the writings of the Gnostics themselves, from which he learnt their scheme

without any possibility of doubt or gainsaying, and thus was enabled, by

the mere _statement_, in open light, of its fantastic puerilities, to

unclothe it of the mystery which was one of its chief recommendations, to

demonstrate more clearly its self‐contradictions, and to contrast it in

its naked folly with the simplicity of acknowledged truth(65).

To the ascertaining of the date of this composition we have but two

certain guides. One is, the list of bishops of Rome given in the beginning

of the third book(66). The catalogue closes with the name of Eleutherus,

and thus shows that that book, at least, was begun, and most probably

published, under his pontificate, which began about A.D. 177. The other

is, that in the same book the author mentions the translation of the Old

Testament by Theodotion(67). Now that translation was not made till about

A.D. 184(68). Irenæus would not become acquainted with it immediately ; so

that we are driven towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus, who

died A.D. 192, for the publication of the third book. The work appears to

have grown upon the hands of the writer, and to have become more than

twice as voluminous as when it was first planned(69). The books were

written separately, as he found his matter arrange itself, and the two

first apparently sent first(70), followed by the three others at distinct

intervals(71).

The general object of the first book is to give a full exposition of the

Gnostic doctrines(72). The first seven chapters contain a detailed account

of the system of Valentinus, who was at that time the most fashionable

teacher of those doctrines. The eighth gives the Valentinian explanation

of numerous passages of Scripture, which they brought forward as

corroborative of the truth of their system, although they did not pretend

to rest it upon them ; and the ninth refutes those explanations. The tenth

points out the unity of Catholic doctrine, and the remaining chapters are

occupied in exhibiting the discrepancies of the various Gnostic sects and

teachers.

The object of the second book is to overthrow the system, both in its

principle and in its details, by demonstrating its contradictoriness and

impossibility(73). The first nineteen chapters are occupied in the

destruction of the system ; the next five are a fuller refutation of their

arguments in support of it than he had given in chapter nine of the first

book ; and the twenty‐sixth, twenty‐seventh, and twenty‐eighth lay down

certain rules for the proper study of the Scriptures. The rest of the book

is taken up with a fuller consideration and refutation of particular

opinions held by Gnostics.

Irenæus himself states it to be the object of the third book to confute

the heretical system by Scripture, as containing in writing the undoubted

doctrine of those apostles through whose preaching the economy of

salvation was originally revealed, and from whom the Church received the

doctrine she preached(74). But since the heretics appealed to tradition as

interpreting Scripture, he likewise appeals to it in the second, third,

and fourth chapters(75) ; and having shown that it is totally adverse to

the heretical doctrine, he returns to the argument from Scripture(76), and

carries it on by quotations briefly from the Old Testament, and more fully

from the words of the evangelists and apostles, showing, to the end of the

fifteenth chapter, that they knew but one God, and from thence to the end

of the twenty‐second chapter, that they taught but one Jesus Christ, truly

God and truly man. The twenty‐third is a refutation of Tatian’s opinion,

that Adam was not saved ; and the two last contain sundry general

reflections.

Our author had confined himself in the third book for the most part to the

testimony of evangelists and apostles ; he informs us, that his object in

the fourth is to show that our Lord himself testified of only one God, his

Father, the maker and governor of the world, the author of the old and new

covenants, and the judge of all mankind(77). He does not carry on his

argument with much regularity, and it would be difficult to give any

useful analysis of it. But he discusses, towards the end, in chapters

thirty‐seven, thirty‐eight, and thirty‐nine, the great question of the

accountability of man, and the freedom of the will.

In the preface to the fifth book(78), he announces his intention of

carrying on the argument by quotations from the writings of the apostle

Paul, to show that the same God who had spoken to Abraham and given the

law had in the latter days sent his Son to give salvation to human flesh ;

which he pursues in the first eighteen chapters, dwelling particularly on

the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh (chap. 7‐14), and

corroborating S. Paul’s doctrine from other parts of Scripture. He is

thence led to the object and end of the scheme of salvation by Christ, and

the opposition to it by Satan (chap. 19‐24), especially the great

opposition to it through the agency of antichrist (chap. 24‐30), and

passes from the notice of the state of departed souls (chap. 31) to

exhibit and confirm his opinion of the terrestrial reign of Christ and the

righteous (chap. 32‐35), concluding with the consummation of all things in

the eternal felicity of the just.

It will be seen by this slight sketch that the former part of the treatise

is by far the most regular ; and for this sufficient reason, that it was

more completely studied and digested before it was written. In the latter

books, he adheres but imperfectly to the intention announced in the

preface, and introduces much matter which was evidently suggested casually

as he was writing, by some word or expression he found himself using.

The work, as I have said, was written in Greek ; but the greater portion of

the original has been lost. What remains has been preserved by various

authors in the form of quotations. In this way two‐thirds of the first

book have come down to us ; a few detached fragments in the latter half of

the second ; considerably larger and more numerous portions of the third ;

very little of the fourth, but copious extracts from the fifth, especially

near the beginning. The whole, however, existed in the ninth century, as

we learn from the testimony of Photius(79). But, although we have lost the

greater part of the original, an ancient Latin translation of the whole

work has been preserved to us. The precise antiquity of this version we

are unable to ascertain ; but the closeness with which Tertullian appears

to follow it in many passages(80), and in particular his making the very

same mistakes as the interpreter, (as for instance, in regard to the

_name_ of the heretic Epiphanes, which they have both rendered by an

_epithet_, and others instanced by Massuet,) almost amounts to a

demonstration that he had read that version. That it existed in the time

of S. Augustin, is certain, as he quotes it at least twice, almost word

for word(81).

The effect of this great work appears to have been decisive, for we hear

no more of any eminent person who held the Gnostic opinions. They

prevailed to a certain degree for the greater part of another century, but

they did not make head again. The name, indeed, continued to have so great

a charm, that Clement of Alexandria took it from the heretics, and applied

it to an intelligent Christian, whom he depicts as the only true Gnostic.

But the system, as a whole, became so entirely extinct that scarce a trace

of its influence remains, except in the writings of those who had to

combat it.

In his opposition to the Gnostics, Irenæus had to combat a _heresy_ ; the

next circumstance which brought him forward was, a _schism_ which

threatened to separate a portion of the Christian world from the communion

of its most influential Church. There had been a variation in very early

times, and indeed from the beginning, between the Churches of Asia Minor,

Syria, and Mesopotamia on the one hand, and the rest of the Christian

world on the other, in regard to the keeping of Easter ; —other Churches

uniting in keeping Easter‐day on a Sunday, whilst the Christians of those

countries kept it at the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week it

happened to fall(82). The inconvenience had been felt in the time of S.

Polycarp, who sojourning in Rome in the time of its bishop Anicetus, they

endeavoured each to persuade the other to embrace the practice he

followed. But their conferences were without any other effect than to

cause both parties to agree to differ in peace(83). But Victor, who

succeeded Eleutherus in the see of Rome, viewed the matter in a different

light. He had no doubt felt the inconvenience of this diversity of

practice when Blastus endeavoured to raise a schism in Rome on this very

point(84). He therefore conceived the idea of using his influence, as the

bishop of the principal Church in the world, to bring all Christians to

one uniform rule. For this purpose he wrote to certain(85) leading bishops

in Asia, requesting them to convene synods of the neighbouring bishops, in

order to come to an agreement ; which was done accordingly ; and they all,

with the exception of the Churches above mentioned, wrote circular letters

to the whole catholic Church, affirming that with them the apostolical

tradition was, not to break their paschal fast until the Sunday. Eusebius

particularly mentions(86) the dioceses in Gaul under the superintendence

of Irenæus as having agreed upon such a synodical letter, which he asserts

was in existence in his time. So far, Victor was successful ; and, probably

upon the strength of the almost universal agreement of the Churches, he

appears to have held out some threat to those of Asia Minor(87), unless

they thought proper to conform to the general practice. This, however,

they absolutely refused to do ; maintaining that their region abounded with

relics of apostles and martyrs, and that they preserved a tradition purer

than that of any other Church, and more consonant with the Scriptures.

This reply so incensed Victor, that he forthwith issued letters,

announcing that the Asiatic brethren were cut off from the common unity of

Christians(88). Here, however, he was not followed by those who had

previously agreed with him ; and Irenæus in particular, in the name of the

Christians in Gaul under his jurisdiction, wrote both to Victor and to

various other bishops(89), strongly pressing milder measures, and

reminding the Roman prelate of the example of Anicetus, one of his

predecessors, who paid Polycarp the highest honour, even when assured that

he would not conform to the Western custom, and regarded his own as more

apostolical.

What the immediate result of these letters was we are not informed by any

contemporary writer. Anatolius, indeed, (if the Latin version of his

Treatise on the Paschal Cycle, published by Bucherius, is to be relied

on,) asserts that Victor did not persist in his excommunication(90) ; and

we know subsequently(91) that many Churches in Asia adhered to the Jewish

reckoning, and yet were not on that account regarded with any aversion by

their brethren ; and it was not until the council of Nice that their

bishops there assembled agreed to follow the general custom(92),—to which,

however, many persons did not conform in the time of Chrysostom.

The part which the bishop of Rome took in this matter requires perhaps a

more explicit notice. It has, no doubt, been felt that Victor acted in a

manner which countenances the claims set up by the popes of later days ;

but when we come to examine, we shall find that whatever claims he

advanced, beyond what we should allow, were discountenanced by the then

catholic Church. He did, or attempted to do, two things: first, to bring

the whole Church to one practice in the observance of the feast of Easter ;

secondly, when he did not succeed with some Churches, to excommunicate the

dissentients.

The first was laudable ; inasmuch as Christians who travelled upon

business, or removed their residence from one part of Christendom to

another, had their feelings disturbed by finding their brethren

celebrating so important a festival on a different day from that to which

they were accustomed ; and some weak or factious minds were thus tempted to

make divisions in Churches to which they removed. This had been

particularly the case in the Church of Rome, as being a place of general

resort ; and therefore Victor, both on that account, and as bishop of the

principal Church in the world, very rightly exerted himself to bring about

uniformity. The course he took was also a good one. He wrote to the

principal bishops in various countries, to request them to call synods of

the neighbouring bishops, that thus he might ascertain the sense of the

catholic Church. Nothing could be more prudent or temperate ; nor was

anything apparently better calculated to persuade the minority, than to

find one consenting custom in so many Churches, in countries separated so

entirely from each other.

Now so far we have no claim set up inconsistent with the station of

influence and dignity which we readily concede to have appertained to the

Roman bishops from very early times ; and which, if not most grossly

abused, would never have been denied to them. Some(93) have supposed that

he, with his letters, issued a threat of excommunicating those Churches

which refused to comply with the western custom ; but that is opposed to

the sequel of the history, from which we learn that such a threat would

have called forth remonstrances, of which in this stage of the business we

hear nothing.

Having received letters from every quarter except from Asia Minor, stating

that the traditional custom was the same as that of Rome, he then, instead

of proceeding by persuasion, immediately conceived the idea of

_compelling_ the dissentient Churches to comply with his wishes, by

threatening to cut them off from communion if they declined. His threat

had no effect, and he proceeded to put it into execution, nothing doubting

that the Churches who had been with him hitherto would still stand by him.

And this is the point at which we encounter something like the modern

papal claims ; for he declared the Churches of Asia Minor cut off, not only

from _his_ communion, but from the common unity(94). Some might argue that

he must have had some foundation for this claim ; but till something of the

kind can be shown, we have no need to suppose any ground but a strong

desire of a rash and determined mind to carry the point he had undertaken.

Be the ground what it may, _the Catholic Church negatived his claim_ ;

those who agreed with him in the desire of bringing about unity of

practice(95) would not unite with him in excommunicating their brethren,

but rebuked him sharply(96) ; and Irenæus in particular represented to him

the difference between his spirit and that of his predecessors. And so

entirely abortive was his attempt, that, as we have seen, about sixty

years after, Firmilian, in his letter to Cyprian(97), expressly asserted

that the peace and unity of the Catholic Church had never been broken by

differences about the observance of Easter or other religious rites: and

_that_, in alluding to the conduct of Stephen, bishop of Rome, who had

quarrelled with the African bishops because their custom differed from the

Roman on the subject of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by

heretics ; which would necessarily have brought to mind any schism produced

by Victor, a previous bishop of Rome, if any such had been produced.

Here, then, we have the most satisfactory evidence that the Catholic

Church, so near to the Apostles’ times, had decided against the power of

the bishop of Rome to cut off whom he might think fit from the common

unity ; not that they knew nothing of such a claim, but that _it was

practically made and decided against_.

We have now brought to a close all the circumstantial part of the public

life of Irenæus. Eusebius(98) (who is followed by Jerome(99)) has

preserved to us the names of others of his writings, which we have now

lost. Of these he mentions first, _A Discourse to the Gentiles_, which he

characterizes as _very brief, and very necessary_, or _cogent_, and

informs us that the title of it was Περὶ Ἐπιστήμης, which Jerome, in his

_Catalogue_, translates _De Disciplina_, and supposes it to be different

from the _Discourse_. Another tract he wrote, dedicated to one Marcianus,

_On the Preaching of the Apostles_. The last Eusebius mentions is a volume

of _miscellaneous tracts_ or _discussions_, of which the ninth fragment is

probably a remnant.

The _Discourse concerning Easter_, quoted by the author of the _Questions

to the Orthodox_(100), formerly ascribed to Justin Martyr, may have been

his letter to Victor on that subject. Maximus(101) cites some _Discourses

on Faith_, addressed to Demetrius, a deacon of Vienne, of which we have

two fragments, whether genuine or not, (numbered IV. and V.) in the best

editions of his Remains. Although forty‐two fragments, attributed to

Irenæus, have been collected, chiefly from Catenas, we have no clue for

appropriating the greater part of them to the writings of which they

formed a portion. One of them (the last in the Benedictine edition) is

said to pertain to a discussion _on the Eternity of Matter_ ; but whether

belonging to a separate treatise, or a remnant of his _Discourse to the

Gentiles_, we have no means of judging.

We have no account of the death of Irenæus upon which we can absolutely

depend. Jerome in one passage(102) calls him a martyr, and so does the

author of the _Questions and Answers_ above cited ; but no other early

writer gives him that appellation ; neither have we any notice of his death

by any earlier author than Gregory of Tours(103), who wrote towards the

end of the sixth century, and who asserts that he died a martyr in a

bloody persecution, which the martyrologists Usuard and Ado(104) assert

took place under Severus. In fact all the martyrologists, both Latin and

Greek, make him a martyr. The tradition, therefore, appears a highly

probable one. But in whatever way he quitted this world, we may rest

assured that his name is written in the book of life. His body is

said(105) to rest in the crypt under the altar of the Church of St. John

at Lyons.

CHAPTER II. TESTIMONY OF IRENÆUS TO CERTAIN FACTS OF CHURCH HISTORY.

There are two circumstances which must prevent us from expecting that the

writings of Irenæus should add largely to our stores of historical

knowledge ; one, that his remains are not very considerable in extent, and

the other, that they are chiefly occupied in doctrinal controversy. What,

however, he does tell us, is important. He asserts that the Church in his

time was spread throughout the world(106) ; and particularly specifies the

Churches in Germany, Iberia, (i. e. Spain), amongst the Celts (i. e. in

Gaul), in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia, and in the centre of the world, by

which he no doubt means Palestine(107). He likewise incidentally shows

that the Gospel had been preached in Ethiopia(108). He furnishes no

evidence concerning the first missionaries, except in the case of

Ethiopia, to which he informs us the eunuch baptized by Philip was sent ;

but he declares explicitly that all the Churches through the world,

although differing in usage(109), had but one faith(110), which was

delivered to them at baptism(111).

He speaks of the Churches in general as having been settled by the

Apostles(112), and particularly specifies that the Church of Rome was

founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, who appointed its first bishop

Linus(113) ; that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by Apostles(114), and

that the succession from him had been kept up to the time of his

writing(115) ; and that S. John watched over the Church of Ephesus down to

the time of Trajan(116). He informs us that the successors of the first

bishops might be reckoned up in many Churches down to his own time(117),

particularly specifies the Churches of Rome and Smyrna(118), and gives a

catalogue of the bishops of Rome as follows:—Linus, mentioned by S. Paul

in his epistles to Timothy(119) ; Anencletus(120) ; Clement(121), who had

seen and conferred with the Apostles ; Evarestus ; Alexander ; Xystus, or

Sixtus ; Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom ; Hyginus ; Pius ; Anicetus ;

Soter ; Eleutherius(122): and we have a fragment of a letter of his own to

Victor, the successor of Eleutherius(123). He has preserved an anecdote of

St. John, viz. that upon one occasion entering a bath, and seeing

Cerinthus there, he withdrew precipitately, saying that he was afraid lest

the building should fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, was

in it(124). This anecdote is indeed at variance with the notion of

Christian charity current at the present day, but it rests upon the

testimony of Polycarp, who knew St. John well ; and it is strictly in

accordance with the spirit of the directions he himself gave to “the elect

lady,” not to receive heretical teachers into her house, or bid them God

speed(125).

We are likewise indebted to Irenæus for some particulars respecting

Polycarp. He states that he had been favoured with familiar intercourse

with St. John and the rest who had seen Jesus, and had heard from them

particulars respecting him and his miracles and teaching(126). He mentions

his having spent some time in Rome in the days of Anicetus(127). He does

not, indeed, state the cause of his visit ; but Eusebius(128) and

Jerome(129) distinctly say that it was on account of the Paschal

controversy. This subject, amongst others, our author states to have been

discussed between them, and that Polycarp rested his adherence to the

Jewish practice upon his having always kept Easter in that way with St.

John and the other Apostles, and consequently declined to change it ;

whereupon, to show that this inflexibility had produced no breach of

amity, Anicetus thought proper to request Polycarp to officiate for him,

and to take his place at the holy communion(130). During his stay

there(131) he met Marcion, who inquired if he recognised him. His reply

was, “I recognise the first‐born of Satan.” This severity (or bigotry, as

it would now be called) does not appear to have operated in his disfavour ;

for he was instrumental in recovering to the Church many who had been led

away by the Gnostic delusions(132). Irenæus likewise mentions Polycarp’s

epistle to the Philippians(133), and other epistles to other Churches and

individuals(134).

Respecting Clement, whom Eusebius(135) identifies with the companion of S.

Paul(136), he states that he wrote a very effectual letter to the

Corinthians, to allay the dissensions which had arisen amongst them, and

to restore the integrity of their faith(137). This is, of course, the

first epistle of S. Clement, to the genuineness of which his mention of it

is a powerful testimony.

He speaks of the Church of Rome not only as having been founded and

settled under its first bishop by St. Peter and St. Paul, but as being one

of the greatest and most ancient, well known to all men(138), preserving

the true doctrine by the resort of persons from all quarters, and

possessing from this circumstance a more powerful pre‐eminence ; and states

that all Churches must on that account resort to it(139). It is well known

that this is a passage upon which Romanists very much rely, as

establishing the claim of their Church to be the mistress of controversies

to all Christendom ; and I have chosen to give it the utmost force of which

it is fairly capable, in order to avoid the charge of slurring it over,

and in order to show that even thus it states nothing inconsistent with

the doctrine of the Church of England respecting the present Church of

Rome. I will therefore give a translation of the passage, which appears

below, and make some remarks upon that translation:—“For every Church

(that is, the faithful who are on all sides,) must on account of its more

powerful pre‐eminence resort to this Church, in which the apostolical

tradition is preserved by those who are on all sides.”

There are several words in this passage which must influence the sense of

it. The first I shall notice is the word _potentiorem_, the more

especially as there is a various reading upon it. One MS. (the Clermont)

of considerable value, reads _potiorem_ ; but Massuet, who examined it,

says that it _had_ been written _pontiorem_ (but altered to _potiorem_,)

which is almost certainly a contraction for the common reading. We must

therefore, I conclude, sit down with the common reading ; although Massuet,

in the Benedictine edition, and J. J. Griesbach, in some remarks upon this

passage(140), prefer the other. But what Greek word _potentiorem_

represents must be matter of conjecture ; and no one who is acquainted with

the manner in which the translator has rendered Greek words will be

inclined to lay much stress upon it. It may have been put for ἱκανωτέραν,

or κρείττονα ; or, in short, the comparative of any adjective which

_admits_ of being rendered _potens_. We then come to the word

_principalitatem_. This we know that the ancient translator of Irenæus

uses to signify ἀρχή(141). Putting these two together, Griesbach has

rendered κρείττονα ἀρχὴν, _potiorem initium_, and thus got rid of the idea

of _authority_ altogether. But there is no need of this. _Principalis_ is

used by the translator as the rendering of ἡγεμονικός(142) ;

_principaliter_, of προηγουμένως(143), and προηγητίκως(144) ;

_principalitatem habeo_, of πρωτεύω(145). We know that all the apostolical

sees had a kind of _principality_ or _pre‐eminence_ above the surrounding

Churches ; a _more powerful_ pre‐eminence than other Churches equally

ancient with themselves. Nay, we know that the Church of Rome had at that

time, in point of fact, a more powerful pre‐eminence than any other

Church.

The next word to be considered is _convenire_, which may be rendered

either _resort_ or _agree_ ; and I confess I should have been disposed,

with Massuet, to render it _agree_, were it not for a perfectly parallel

passage in the 32d _Oration_ of Gregory of Nazianzum, delivered at the

first council of Constantinople. Speaking of Constantinople, he says, εἰς

ἣν τὰ πανταχόθεν ἄκρα συντρέχει, καὶ ὅθεν ἄρχεται ὡς ἐμπορίου κοινοῦ τῆς

πίστεως. Here Constantinople is spoken of _then_ under the very same terms

as Rome by Irenæus, as _the common repository of the faith_: other parts

of the Christian world are said to be _governed_ (ἄρχεται) by it ; and

distant Churches are said to _resort from all quarters_: συντρέχει

πανταχόθεν. Are not these words an exact parallel to the _convenire_ and

_undique_ of the translator of Irenæus? I therefore feel bound to give

_convenire_ the sense of _resort_. The next word to be noticed is

_undique_, the _application_ of which is disputed ; some, as Barrow(146)

and Faber(147), applying it only to the immediate neighbourhood of Rome,

i. e. Italy and the adjacent parts of Gaul ; others, and of course the

Romanists, to the whole Christian Church. According to the former plan,

the clause “hoc est ... fideles” is a limitation of the expression “omnem

ecclesiam,” confining it to the Churches immediately surrounding Rome ; and

consequently the pre‐eminence of the Church of Rome would be equally

narrowed by this interpretation of _undique_. I am far from contending

that this interpretation is not correct ; and the very fact of the passage

admitting it, without any force whatever, shows how little the papal cause

can be made to rest upon it. But as Gregory, in the parallel passage I

have quoted, uses the term πανταχόθεν, I am disposed to take _undique_ as

its representative ; the more especially as we have seen that, whatever

influence it gives to Rome, the selfsame influence had Constantinople in

an after age.

There are one or two more words still to be mentioned. _Necesse est_ is

one of them. It may imply that it is the _duty_ of every Church to resort

to Rome ; but its more natural and usual meaning is, that, _as a matter of

course_, Christians from all parts, and not strictly the Churches

themselves, were led to resort thither by the superior eminence of that

Church.

I have hitherto taken this passage as though it _must_ be applied

definitely to the Church of Rome. But this is by no means necessary ; for

it may be a general observation applicable to all the most eminent

Churches, as may be seen by the following translation and arrangement of

it:—“For every Church, (that is, the faithful all around,) must

necessarily resort to that Church in which the apostolical tradition has

been preserved by those on all sides of it, on account of its more

powerful pre‐eminence ; ” that is, Christians must have recourse each to the

most ancient and most eminent Church in his neighbourhood. And this agrees

with a passage of Tertullian(148), in which he refers southern Greeks to

Corinth, northern to Philippi and Thessalonica, Asiatics to Ephesus,

Italians and Africans to Rome. The only objection which occurs to me lies

in the word _hanc_, which, if the passage is to be taken in this

application, must be translated _that_ ; but as it was in all probability

the representative of ταύτην, this word can scarcely present any

difficulty.

I will close this whole discussion with two remarks ; first, that unless we

could recover the Greek text of this passage, it is plainly impossible to

_ascertain_ its true sense ; and secondly, that the strongest sense we can

attach to it, consistently with history, is, that Christians of that

period from all parts of Christendom must, if they wish to ascertain

traditions, have recourse to the Church of Rome, because, as the first

Church in Christendom, the common traditions were preserved there by the

resort of Christians from all quarters. This twofold reason for resorting

thither has long ceased to exist, and consequently this passage of Irenæus

can afford no support to the claims of modern Rome, until it can be proved

that those portions of the Christian world which are not in communion with

her are no part of the Catholic Church.

There is another subject which has caused much discussion, which is

adverted to by Irenæus, viz. the miraculous powers of the Church. He

declares that in his time powers of this kind were possessed by

Christians, such as raising the dead(149), and casting out devils, and

healing the sick ; that they likewise had the gift of prophecy(150), and

spoke with tongues, and revealed secret things of men and mysteries of

God(151). It is well known that Gibbon and Middleton have thrown doubt

upon the miraculous powers of the primitive Church ; and one of their chief

arguments is that the early writers, such as Irenæus, content themselves

with general statements, but bring no specific instance. The subject has

been very fully entered into by the present highly learned and amiable

bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, in his work on Tertullian(152) ; and in the

general I am disposed to acquiesce in the theory adopted by the bishop,

that those powers were conferred only by apostolical hands, and that of

course they would continue till all that generation was extinct who were

contemporary with St. John, the last of the Apostles. That would admit of

Irenæus having known instances ; and not having any idea that the power was

to be extinct, he would think that it still remained, even if he had not

known any _recent_ instances. It is necessary to remark, however, that he

speaks of the gifts of tongues and the revealing of secrets and mysteries,

not as a thing coming under his own knowledge, but heard of from others ;

and it does not appear that he intends to say that they continued to his

own time. And I will venture to observe that it appears rather unfair to

Irenæus to set aside his testimony by saying that he brings no specific

instance of those things which he speaks of as still done. He might feel

that the thing was so notorious, that those who were not convinced by the

notoriety of such occurrences would cavil at any particular case he might

select ; and his mentioning that some of those who had been delivered from

evil spirits had become converts, that some of those who had been raised

from the dead, being poor, had been assisted with money(153), and that

some had lived many years after(154), surely indicates that he was

speaking from a knowledge of individual cases. One should indeed have

expected that every one who owed his deliverance from Satanic possession

to the miraculous power possessed by Christians would have embraced the

faith of those who exercised it ; and the circumstance that Irenæus affirms

this of _some_ only gives a greater air of probability to his whole

statement. Besides this, we must distinguish between the cases of persons

healed by the direct agency of an individual, and those in which it

pleased God to hear the joint prayers of several ; for it is observable

that our author attributes the raising of the dead only to the united

prayers and fasting of a whole Church, and confines it to cases of great

urgency(155).

The testimony which Irenæus bears to the relation between the Church and

the empire is but slight. He mentions a Christian as having been in his

own youth high in the imperial court, at the same time that he was a

follower or admirer of Polycarp(156) ; he speaks of Christians in the

imperial palace deriving an income from the heathen, and able to assist

their poorer brethren(157) ; and he acknowledges the general advantages

which Christians derived from the supremacy of the Romans, in common with

their other subjects, in the prevalence of peace and the freedom from

individual outrage(158). But he mentions very distinctly the persecutions

at another time Christians suffered (particularly alluding to those which

took place at Lyons), and notices that slaves were compelled to inform

against their masters ; and that in this way the calumny that Christians

fed upon human flesh arose, from a misunderstanding of the nature of the

holy Eucharist(159) ; the slaves having heard their masters speak of

feeding on the body and blood of Christ, and taking it in a literal sense.

CHAPTER III. ON THE NATURE, OFFICE, POWERS, AND PRIVILEGES OF THE CHURCH.

The proper aspect to view the Church in is a matter of so much practical

importance at all times, that it can never be uninteresting to know the

light in which it was regarded in the subapostolical age, of which Irenæus

is a very unobjectionable evidence.

We shall find then that this writer considered the Church to be an

ascertainable society, planted first at Jerusalem(160), and thence spread

to the limits of the habitable globe(161) ; planted by the Apostles, and

kept up by and in the elders or bishops their successors(162). It is,

however, divided into separate Churches, which are to regard that of

Jerusalem as their mother Church(163). The whole Church, moreover, is to

its individual members as a mother to her children(164): she is appointed

for the quickening of creation(165), and in her is the way of life(166),

which those who keep aloof from her do not possess(167) ; in her is the

Holy Spirit, which is not to be found out of her(168). She possesses the

adoption and inheritance of Abraham, and her members are consequently the

seed of Abraham(169). Being thus appointed for the quickening of the

world, by being the way of life to its members, she has for that purpose

received the faith from the Apostles, which it is her business to

distribute to her children(170). She is therefore the appointed preacher

of the faith, or the truth, which is not variable and changeable, but one,

and only one(171) ; not merely a quality infused into the heart, but a form

of truths embodied or summed up in words, and delivered to her members

when they are initiated into her(172). Her ancient system is therefore the

guide to truth(173), and those who wish to know it must have recourse to

her, and be brought up in her bosom(174). Her testimony, moreover, is

confirmed by the Apostles and Prophets(175), whose writings are kept in

the custody of her elders(176), with which, moreover, those must expect to

be fed who come to her(177). She has succeeded to the office of the

ancient Jewish Church of being the great witness of the unity of the

Godhead(178).

To show that she is commissioned from above, she wrought continual

miracles for the good of the world by prayer and invocation of the name of

Jesus(179) ; she even raised the dead by means of fasting and prayer(180) ;

and she alone produced persons who sealed their own sincerity and the

truth of their faith by their blood(181).

Finally, although not exempt from weakness, and capable of losing whole

members, she, as a body, remains imperishable(182).

It is remarkable how strictly this notion of an external, visible,

ascertainable body, consisting of individuals, and under the government of

individual officers, having a personal succession in distinct

localities(183), is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of

England ; and how totally opposed it is to the notions held amongst

dissenters, and by individuals within the Church in modern times.

According to Irenæus, moreover, the different classes of sectaries would

be regarded as having neither spiritual life nor the Holy Spirit, _except_

so far as they might be supposed to be in communion with the body governed

by elders or bishops descended from the Apostles. If in any way or to any

degree they can be supposed to be in communion with them, to that extent

they would be thought to have the Holy Ghost, and to be in the way of

life, but no further. I am not now discussing whether he was right or

wrong ; I am merely pointing out the contrariety between his views of the

Church and those which appear to be most popular at present. I doubt if

most Protestants would not pronounce his doctrine to be gross bigotry ; for

very many of those who would go so far with him as to acknowledge the

Church to be a visible society, would be very far from restricting the

grace of the Holy Spirit to the communion of the bishops in succession

from the Apostles.

I must, however, direct more particular attention to one part of his

system which did not require to be brought out prominently. We have seen

that he thought it possible for the Church to lose whole members. In fact,

although he thought that the truth was kept up by the succession of

bishops _throughout the Church_, and that it was a mark of truth to be so

kept up, he still believed that presbyters or bishops might, through

pride, or other evil motives, make schisms in the Church(184) ; and he

taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, keep the

Apostles’ doctrine, and lead good lives(185) ; implying, of course, that

some who were in the succession might depart from the Apostles’ doctrine.

The succession was not, therefore, in his opinion, an infallible test of

truth in the individual Church. Any individual Church, or even a

considerable number or collection of Churches, might fall into heresy, and

thus become cut off from the Church ; but it is evident that he did not

think this possible to happen to the great body of the Church.

It is manifest from this that he thought the private Christian must

sometimes pass judgment upon his bishop, and might be called upon to

separate from him, and to adhere to those who were more orthodox. In what

cases this was requisite, or what was to be the extent of the alienation,

he does not give any hint ; but this clearly establishes that he thought

private judgment upon religious controversy to be sometimes a duty: for

without the exercise of private judgment upon the part of the layman, it

would be in some cases impossible for him to show his preference for those

bishops who adhered to the Apostles’ doctrine.

We find no trace in Irenæus of any authority in the Church of Rome to

decide controversies for the rest of the Church. On the contrary, he

taught Christians to have recourse to any ancient apostolical Church, or

rather collection of Churches(186), if they wished to ascertain the

traditional system of the Church. He indeed quotes that Church as being in

his time a more important witness to the truth than any other individual

Church, because, through the continual concourse of Christians thither, in

consequence of its more powerful pre‐eminence, the traditions of the

universal Church were there collected as it were into a focus(187) ; but,

as I have pointed out elsewhere(188), he recognises no authority in that

Church to _claim_ to decide controversies. With him it is not any

individual Church that is commissioned to preserve the truth, not even the

Church of Jerusalem, which he calls the mother of all Churches (a title

which has been since arrogated by the Roman Church), but the Catholic

Church, truly so called, by the mouth of her pastors throughout the world ;

for although he mentions the pre‐eminence of the Church of Rome in his day

as a matter of _fact_, he does not state it to be a matter of _right_ ; nor

does he ground any thing upon it but the further fact that it followed, of

course, that Christians resorted to it from all quarters, as they did

afterwards to Constantinople. He gives no hint as to the source of that

pre‐eminence, other than its having been settled by the _two_ Apostles St.

Peter and _St. Paul_, and honoured with being the scene of their

martyrdom(189). And his appeal to it he builds, not on any authority

residing in it, but upon the fact that _at that time_ the confluence from

all parts of the Church caused the tradition of the whole Church to be

best preserved there, as was afterwards the case at Constantinople, and

has since been no where. So that his appeal to Rome is not in fact an

appeal to that Church, but to the Church universal ; and since Rome has

ceased to be the place of resort to the universal Church, the ground for

appealing to her has ceased likewise.

On the subject of the Bishops of the primitive Church several questions

have arisen, and it is of course highly desirable to know whether Irenæus

furnishes any evidence on either side of them. It is not to be expected

that we can discuss any of them _fully_ by the aid of any single writer ;

but such indications as we meet with may with propriety be drawn out.

That which first demands our notice is whether Bishops existed, as a

distinct order from Presbyters, from the beginning.

Now Irenæus does undoubtedly call the same persons by the _name_ of

Bishops and Presbyters interchangeably. But it has been long ago pointed

out that the circumstance of the same _name_ being borne by persons

holding two different offices, proves nothing. It is unsafe to infer from

the circumstance that _bishops_ are called _presbyters_, or _presbyters

bishops_, that therefore there was not a permanent officer set over the

other presbyters, and endued with functions which they could not exercise,

although not at first distinguished by a specific name.

On the other hand, we learn from him that there were to be found in every

part of the Christian world bishops or presbyters placed at the head of

Churches, which from their importance, must have had other presbyters in

them, and which we know from other sources to have had other presbyters in

them ; that there was only one of these at one and the same time ; that they

were intrusted with the government of the Churches, and called the Bishops

of those Churches ; that the authority of the office was handed down from

individual to individual ; and that the individuals who filled this office,

and by consequence the office itself, were appointed by inspired

apostles(190). All these facts are irreconcileable with the hypothesis

that all presbyters were equal in authority and function.

The question whether these bishops and presbyters might not have been

simply pastors of independent congregations, is answered by finding that

they had other presbyters under them, (as Irenæus under Pothinus, and

Florinus and Blastus under the Bishops of Rome,) and _that_ in places such

as Rome, where there were probably more congregations than one.

There is nothing in Irenæus to favour the idea that the subject‐presbyters

were not properly clergymen ; on the contrary, the letter of the martyrs to

Eleutherius would appear to speak of Irenæus as a clergyman, when we at

the same time know him to have been a presbyter: and it does appear in the

highest degree improbable that the flourishing Church of Rome, which we

know to have been the place of residence of two Apostles at once, should

have been left, down to Irenæus’s time, with only a single clergyman in

it, which must have been the case upon this theory ; to say nothing of

Smyrna, which, according to the same scheme, must have been left destitute

of spiritual superintendence during Polycarp’s visit to Rome, which S.

Irenæus has recorded.

But granting the _existence_ of Bishops such as we have them now, and

their appointment by Apostles, another question arises, first suggested,

so far as we know, by S. Jerome, whether the powers now exclusively

reserved to Bishops, such as ordination and government, were so

exclusively delegated to them by the Apostles, as that those powers

exercised by other presbyters are invalid. The question does not appear to

have occurred to Irenæus: but we have no hint in him of other presbyters

having the same authority as the bishops of the Churches ; on the other

hand, he expressly states that the Apostles committed the Churches to the

government and teaching of individual bishops or presbyters in each,

_making them their successors, and giving them their own office_(191). And

the very circumstance of their committing the Churches to those

individuals did (by what appears to me inevitable consequence) exclude all

others from _the same place_ to which those individuals were appointed,

and constitute them an order by themselves. And that the universal Church

understood the appointment in that sense is proved by the fact, recorded

by Irenæus, that the succession of authority was kept up in individuals

down to his time ; the evident implication being that it was so in all

Churches.

The evidence, therefore, supplied by Irenæus, although not enabling us,

_by itself_, to discuss the whole question fully, is in support of the

discipline of the Church of England, which refuses to recognize the

ordinations of any but bishops, properly so called, and having their

authority in succession from the Apostles(192).

CHAPTER IV. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

The controversy which Irenæus carried on with the Gnostics being directly

and explicitly on the subject of the Divine Nature, led him to treat

distinctly of the divinity and humanity of Christ and his incarnation, of

the providential government of God, and his various manifestations. He is

thus led, almost of necessity, to enunciate the doctrine of the Trinity in

Unity in various aspects, but most especially in regard to the twofold

nature of Christ.

In direct reference to the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, he describes

the agency of the three Persons in the creation of man ; the Father willing

and commanding, the Son ministering and forming, the Spirit sustaining and

nourishing him(193). So again he declares that God made all things by his

Word or Son, and Wisdom or Spirit, using the terms personally ; and that

this was the same thing as making them by himself(194), because they are

his hands(195). And again, in explaining God’s dispensations in regard to

man, he affirms(196) that God was seen under the Old Testament by the

Spirit of prophecy, that he was seen subsequently by means of the Son,

adoptively, i. e. adopting human nature into the divine(197), and that he

will be seen in his character of Father in the kingdom of heaven ; and that

in this way the Spirit in the Son prepares man, and the Son brings him to

the Father, and the Father grants to him immortality: and so again in the

work of man’s redemption(198), the Spirit operates, the Son supplies, the

Father approves, and man is perfected to salvation. He likewise gives two

statements of the substance of the Creed, in which the three Persons of

the Trinity are spoken of in the same manner as in the Nicene Creed, both

of which will be given in a subsequent chapter.

These are all the passages, so far as I have been able to discover, which

speak of the three Persons of the most Holy Trinity together ; but the

doctrine is _implied_ throughout.

On the twofold nature of Christ, and especially on his divinity, he is

more full. Indeed it would take more space than I can spare to introduce

all the passages which bear upon the subject.

Very near the beginning of his treatise, in rehearsing the faith of the

Church, he speaks of “Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and

King(199) ; ” further on he quotes many passages of Scripture to show that

he was spoken of absolutely and definitely as God and Lord(200), and asks

the question, How would men be saved, if He who wrought out their

salvation upon earth was not God(201)?

He asserts that the Word was with God from everlasting(202), and that

Jesus was the Son of God before the creation(203), that no man knows the

mode of his generation(204), and that God made all things by his

indefatigable Word, who is the Artificer of all things, and sitteth upon

the cherubim, and preserves all things(205). He declares that the Lord who

spake to Abraham was the Son(206), and that it was the Word that appeared

to Moses(207).

This Divine Word, then, was united with his creature(208), (which union is

expressed by the name _Emmanuel_(209),) and humbled himself to take upon

him the infant state of man(210), and thus having become Son of man(211),

went through all the ages of man(212), and finally hung upon the

cross(213). He asserts, moreover, that although the angels knew the Father

solely by the revelation of the Son(214), and indeed all from the

beginning have known God by the Son(215), so that the Father is the Son

invisible, and the Son the Father visible(216), yet that the Son knew not

the day of judgment(217) ; and that this was so ordered, that we may learn

that the Father is above all(218), and that the Son ministers to the

Father(219): finally, that when Jesus was tempted and suffered, the Word

in him restrained his energy(220). But he declares likewise that Christ

remained in the bosom of the Father, even when upon earth(221).

These mysteries in the nature of Christ Irenæus does not attempt to

explain, fully holding the eternal and unchangeable Divinity of the Son,

even when made flesh, and his strict personal union with that flesh, and

at the same time asserting his subordination to the Father, even in his

divine nature ; feeling that when we cannot discover the reason of every

thing, we should consider the immeasureable difference between us and

God(222) ; that if we cannot explain earthly things, we cannot expect to

explain heavenly things, and that what we cannot explain we must leave to

God(223) ; and in short that it is much better to know nothing but Christ

crucified, than by subtil inquiries to fall into impiety(224).

This Jesus, then, who has been testified of by all things that he was

truly God and truly man(225), being related to both God and man, and thus

having the indispensable qualification for his office, became the Mediator

between them(226) ; he came in every dispensation, and summed up all things

in himself(227). He was born about the forty‐first year of the reign of

Augustus(228) ; when not full thirty he was baptized, but he did not begin

to teach till past forty(229). His ministry extended through three

passovers(230), and he suffered on the day of the passover(231). He is our

High Priest(232) ; he gave his soul for our souls, and his flesh for ours

(233) ; his righteous flesh has reconciled to God our sinful flesh (234) ;

and he brings us into union and communion with God(235). He rose again in

the flesh(236), and in the flesh he ascended into heaven, and will come

again to judgment(237) ; and he introduces his Church into the kingdom of

heaven(238).

Respecting the Holy Ghost, Irenæus declares that he was with God before

all created things(239), and (as we have seen) that he was the Wisdom of

God, whose operation was the operation of God(240) ; that he is rightly

called Lord(241) ; and he affirms that the bread of eternal life, which is

the Word, is also the Spirit of the Father(242). He speaks of him as

coming with power to give entrance unto life to all nations, and to open

to them the new Covenant, and as offering to the Father on the day of

Pentecost the first fruits of all nations(243).

He affirms that man, at his creation, had the image of God in the flesh,

the likeness in the soul by the communication of the Divine Spirit(244).

He implies that, since the fall, man has lost the Spirit, and consequently

the life of his soul ; he asserts that he remains carnal until he recovers

the Spirit of God(245), and then he becomes again a living soul, and has

in him the seed of eternal life(246) ; that the Spirit we receive here is a

pledge of a fuller portion(247) ; and that at the resurrection the souls

and bodies of the just will be quickened by the Spirit in union with them,

and their bodies become spiritual bodies(248), and capable of immortality.

This is the substance of the doctrine of Irenæus on the Trinity, and it

will be seen that it is identical with that of the Church of England, and

that his way of carrying it out throws light on important passages of Holy

Writ ; and if there had been nothing of interest to us in this Treatise

beyond these clear and direct testimonies to the belief of the Church of

that age on the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, we might well be glad

that it was written and handed down to our times.

CHAPTER V. THE ORIGIN OF EVIL.

This being the subject out of which the Gnostic theories appear to have

arisen (there being so many attempts to account for it, without in any

wise bringing it into connexion with the Supreme Being), it might,

perhaps, have been expected that Irenæus should have endeavoured to throw

some light upon it. He has, however, taken a much wiser course. He has

altogether declined making it clear, and thereby escaped the danger of

inventing another heresy.

He grants, indeed, that there is sufficient ground for inquiring why God

has allowed evil and imperfection to exist ; but he declares that all

things were intended by the Almighty to be created in the very state and

with the very qualities with which they were created(249). He will not

allow that subsequent dispensations were really intended to remedy the

imperfections of prior ones, because that would be to accuse God himself

of not understanding at first the effects of his works(250).

He asserts, moreover, that supposing angels and men to have a proper

voluntary agency, to be endued with reason and the power of examining and

deciding upon examination, they must, in the very nature of things, be

capable of transgressing ; and that, indeed, otherwise excellence would not

have been either pleasant or an object of desire, because they would not

have known its value, neither would it have been capable of reward, or of

being enjoyed when attained ; nor would intercourse with God have been

valued, because it would have come without any impulse, choice, care, or

endeavour of their own(251). This is the only approach to a solution of

the difficulty which all the study of philosophers and divines has ever

discovered.

But when we come to inquire why some of God’s creatures transgressed, and

some continued in obedience, this, he says, is a mystery which God has

reserved to himself, and which it is presumption for us to inquire into ;

and that we ought to consider what it has pleased him to reveal as a

favour, and leave to him that which he has not thought proper to make

known(252).

He notwithstanding suggests this practical good arising out of the

existence of evil, that the love of God will be more earnestly cherished

for ever by those who have known by experience the evil of sin, and have

obtained their deliverance from it not without their own exertion ; and

therefore that this may be regarded as a reason why God permitted

evil(253).

The sobriety of these views is so obvious, that it appears unnecessary to

dwell further upon them.

CHAPTER VI. THE EVIL SPIRITS.

Although Irenæus does not think proper to discuss the subject of the

origin of evil, properly so called, he speaks agreeably to the Scriptures

as to its introduction into this lower world, and in some degree fills up

their outline. Thus he describes Satan as having been originally one of

the angels who had power over the air(254). He attributes the beginning of

his overt acts of rebellion to his envy towards man(255), because he had

been made in the image of God, i. e. immortal(256) ; whom through envy he

stirred up to rebellion likewise(257), and that by falsehood(258), putting

on the form of the serpent, that he might escape the eye of God(259):

wherefore, although God had pity upon man, as having fallen through

weakness(260), and because otherwise Satan would have frustrated the

Divine purpose(261), he totally cut off from himself the apostate

angels(262), and doomed them and their Prince to the eternal fire(263),

which he had from the beginning prepared for obstinate transgressors(264),

although he did not make known to them at that time that their lot was

irremediable(265).

The next act of the apostate spirits was to mingle themselves with human

nature by carnal copulation with women, and thus to cause the total

corruption of the old world and its inhabitants (notwithstanding the

preaching of Enoch to these fallen spirits), and consequently their

destruction(266).

Irenæus makes none but very general allusions to the agency of the fallen

spirits from the fall of man till the coming of Christ. He declares that,

up to that time(267), they had not ventured upon blaspheming God ; but that

then, becoming aware that everlasting fire was the appointed recompense of

those who continued in rebellion without repentance, they felt themselves

already condemned, and waxing desperate, charged all the sin of their

rebellion on their Maker, by inspiring the Gnostics with their impious

tenets(268). It seems to be implied that sentence is not yet pronounced

upon the fallen angels(269).

CHAPTER VII. THE DIVINE DISPENSATIONS.

After the introduction of evil into creation, and the agency by which it

is propagated in the world, we have next to notice the Divine plans for

its counteraction and removal ; and as Irenæus was opposing the Gnostic

notion that the whole government of the world, prior to the Gospel, was in

the hands of beings adverse to the Supreme Being, he was naturally led to

show that, on the contrary, the whole history of mankind has been a series

of dispensations emanating from one and the same Supreme and only God.

We have already(270) seen him stating that the whole of these

dispensations were planned from the beginning ; and he states them to have

been carried into execution by God the Son exhibiting himself to mankind

under four different aspects, figured by the four faces of the cherubim ;

first to the Patriarchs, in a kingly and divine character ; secondly, under

the law, in a priestly and sacrificial aspect ; thirdly, at his nativity,

as a man ; fourthly, after his ascension, by his Spirit(271).

Again, he represents God as having made four covenants with mankind ; one

with Noah, of which the rainbow was the sanction ; a second with Abraham,

by circumcision ; a third of the law, by Moses ; a fourth of the Gospel, by

Christ(272). At least this is the enumeration made in the _Questions and

Answers_ of Anastasius, and in the _Theoria Rerum Ecclesiasticarum_ of

Germanus, where the Greek of Irenæus is transcribed, and from which it was

first published by Grabe. But the old Latin version makes a different

enumeration, reckoning the first covenant before the deluge with Adam, and

the second after that event with Noah(273).

He thinks that the knowledge of God was kept up amongst the patriarchs by

tradition from Adam, and amongst the Jews by the prophets ; whilst in

heathen nations the tradition has been lost, and men are left to find it

out by reason(274): that human governments were providentially ordained to

restrain the ferocity and rapacity of mankind after they had given up the

fear of God(275) ; that the law of Moses was given by way of discipline, to

recover the Israelites back to that sense of justice, and responsibility,

and feeling of love to God and man which they had lost(276) ; that the

prophets were inspired in order to accustom man by degrees to bear God’s

Spirit and to have communion with him(277): and thus in various ways God

prepared mankind for salvation, providing for them laws suited to their

various states of preparation.

In opposing the notions of the Gnostics, Irenæus had to defend the

position that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New ; that they both

emanated from the same God acting differently under different

circumstances. The abolition of the law, he contended, was no proof of a

change of mind, but only of a change of circumstances ; the law being in

its nature symbolical and preparatory, when the Gospel, the reality and

the end, was revealed, the office of the law ceased(278).

He distinguishes, however, between what he calls the _natural_ portions of

the law and the rest. As _they_ were kept by good men before the law(279),

so he conceives them to be binding on us ever since(280). It is not at

first sight clear what he means by that term, but he expressly informs us

that he comprises in it the whole decalogue(281). And yet there is every

appearance that he would exclude the fourth commandment, which he

expressly asserts not to have been observed before the giving of the

law(282).

But although the precepts of the moral law are equally _binding_ at all

times, he thought that they were not formally _given_ to the just men of

old, because they observed them voluntarily, being a law unto

themselves(283). But when God’s people forgot them in the land of Egypt,

then it became necessary distinctly to enact them, to prepare man for the

fuller duties of love to God and goodwill to man(284). And when they did

not obey the moral law, he added to it the ceremonial(285), that, by

types, their servile and childish natures might be trained up to the

apprehension of realities ; by temporal things, of eternal ; by carnal, of

spiritual ; by earthly, of heavenly(286). Some of their ordinances had a

twofold use ; as circumcision was intended, equally with their rites and

ceremonies, to keep them distinct from the heathen, and also to signify

the circumcision of the soul(287).

To show that the moral law was preparatory to the Gospel, he alleges the

fact that Jesus taught its precepts as the way of life to the young lawyer

who came to inquire of him ; not supposing that these were sufficient in

themselves, but that they were steps to the knowledge of Christ(288).

He, however, thought that our Lord wished that the whole ceremonial law

should be observed as long as Jerusalem stood(289).

But although he appears to think that the law, as a whole and in the

letter, is no longer binding to Christians, he does not think that this

leaves us at liberty to do as we like. If we are not tied down to the

letter, like slaves, that is because it was intended that the law of

liberty should be of wider range, and our obedience extend itself beyond

the letter, and that our subjection to our Heavenly King should be more

hearty and thoroughgoing than ever ; and therefore, if we wish to remain in

the way of salvation through Christ, we must voluntarily adopt the

precepts of the decalogue, and, giving them a completer meaning, endeavour

to realize in our conduct all the fulness of their enlarged

application(290).

It is almost unnecessary to point out the exact agreement of these

sentiments with the seventh and fourteenth articles of the Church of

England, and how impossible it must be for a person holding them to think

that we can do any thing whatever beyond what Christ has a right to expect

from us. It is manifest that he would not have thought that any degrees of

Christian holiness are really at our option, whether we shall seek them or

not ; but that every person who, having any degree of perfection, or any

means of advancement placed before him, knowingly neglects it, becomes

thereby unworthy of him who has given him liberty(291), and hazards his

salvation: in short, that “to whom much is given, of him will much be

required.”

CHAPTER VIII. ON THE CANON, GENUINENESS, VERSIONS, USE, AND VALUE OF HOLY

SCRIPTURE.

Unnatural as it may appear, it is notwithstanding true that we find much

less clear ideas in regard to the _canon_ of Holy Scripture in the earlier

ages than in the later. The word scripture was used, as we shall see, in a

latitude with which no church or party in later times has used it.

Irenæus quotes all the books which we of the Church of England esteem

canonical, except Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,

Canticles, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. But the mere

circumstance of his not citing them cannot, of course, imply any doubt as

to their inspiration or canonicity. He had no occasion to do so for the

purposes of his argument. It is only wonderful that he thought himself

obliged to quote so largely upon such a subject.

But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which

we reject from the canon. He not only repeats sentiments from them, as

when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom(292), or

the story of Susanna(293), without, however, mentioning the books

themselves ; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon(294) as truly

relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch(295) as

truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In

short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures ; and

he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as

part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of

that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he

believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books

contained in that version. But if so, that does not _prove_ (as we shall

see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical.

But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome

from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of

the books of the Apocrypha ; and that is, that he quotes, under the express

name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his

time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious—I

mean the _Shepherd_ of Hermas(296). It is true that he is not singular in

so speaking ; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to

Hermas(297). And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement,

affirms(298) that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared

his book apocryphal.

I argue thus on the supposition that his single authority is appealed to.

If he is adduced, with other writers of his age, to show that the Church

acknowledged the apocryphal books as canonical, then one reply is, that

even if this were true of the Church of that age, we are not bound by the

decision of a single age. Massuet, indeed(299), reasons as though the

canonicity of the books the Church of Rome receives were established by

the authority of “all churches, or at least the greater part of them, and

those of distinguished rank.” Now it so happens that we have quite a chain

of evidence on the opposite side. Melito(300), contemporary with Irenæus,

after diligent inquiry in Palestine, reckons up, as canonical, the same

books of the Old Testament which we acknowledge, and no others: for the

Σοφία(301), which (according to one reading) comes in after the Proverbs,

is merely another name for that book ; and Ezra, it is well known, included

Nehemiah and Esther. Origen(302), in the middle of the third century, and

Athanasius(303), Epiphanius(304), Gregory of Nazianzum(305), and

Jerome(306), successively in the fourth—and what is more, the council of

Laodicea(307), in the third century, whose acts were recognised by the

sixth synod of Constantinople and Pope Adrian(308)—all agree in receiving

a canon of the Old Testament much more like ours than like that of Rome.

It is true that Origen adds the Maccabees, but he states that they are not

in the canon. Athanasius, Epiphanius, and the Council of Laodicea reckon

Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah ; Athanasius and the Council add the

epistle of Jeremiah ; Athanasius alone reckons Susanna and Bel and the

Dragon. On the other hand, they all, together with Gregory of Nazianzum,

Jerome, and Ruffinus, who entirely agree with us, reject all the other

books which the Church of Rome has since admitted into the canon.

Epiphanius(309) says that Christians and Nazoræi agreed in receiving the

Jewish books, so that he could not have been aware that the Jews did not

admit Baruch. So that how many soever may agree in _quoting_ the

apocryphal books, the weight of authority is clearly against their

reception as _canonical_.

From all that has been said, it must be clear that we can make but little

use of Irenæus in settling the _canon_ of Scripture. But from the number

of books and of passages which he has quoted, he is of great value in

establishing the _genuineness_ of our present copies ; all the passages

bearing as near a resemblance to the corresponding parts of our MSS. as

can be expected from a writer who evidently quotes from memory.

He likewise bears direct testimony to the _authenticity_ of the four

Gospels and the Revelation of St. John ; affirming that St. Matthew wrote

his in Hebrew for the use of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St.

Paul conjointly were preaching and establishing the Church at Rome(310) ;

that after their departure, St. Mark committed to writing what he had

heard from St. Peter, and St. Luke what he had heard from St. Paul(311) ;

that St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, to oppose the errors of

Cerinthus(312), and that he was likewise the author of the Revelation

which bears his name(313), the visions of which he saw towards the close

of the reign of Domitian(314).

It is curious that Irenæus quotes a passage as written either by Isaiah or

Jeremiah, which does not appear in our present copies(315). Justin Martyr

had quoted it before him, and asserted that it had been wilfully erased by

the Jews from the Hebrew copies(316). Now, however, it does not appear

even in the Septuagint. He likewise records a saying or two as our Lord’s

which do not appear in the New Testament(317): the latter of which indeed

few persons will believe to have been spoken by our Lord.

He informs us that the Ebionites use only St. Matthew’s Gospel, and reject

St. Paul(318) ; that Marcion curtailed St. Luke, and in effect the whole

Gospel(319) ; that Cerinthus used St. Mark, and the Valentinians St.

John(320), and invented a Gospel of their own ; and that the Montanists

reject St. John’s Gospel and St. Paul(321). It appears, however, that the

Gnostics did in fact quote, at least when arguing with Christians, the

self‐same books which we now have ; for all the passages of Scripture which

Irenæus brings forward as perverted by them correspond with our present

copies.

Irenæus was of opinion that the whole of the sacred books of the Old

Testament were lost during the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra

restored them by divine inspiration(322).

He likewise fully believed the fable of Aristeas concerning the

translation of the Septuagint by the direction of one of the Ptolemies,

whom he names _the son of Lagus_(323). He does not relate it with all the

particularity of Josephus ; but he relates the separation of the seventy

interpreters from each other, and their miraculous agreement in the same

words and phrases from beginning to end. It is clear, therefore, that he

believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, so far as it is a

translation of the Hebrew ; and no wonder that he was unable to avoid

extending the same feeling to the other books which commonly accompany the

translated portion.

He likewise mentions Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus, both

Jewish proselytes, as having wrongly translated Isaiah vii. 14(324).

Theodotion was the contemporary of Irenæus, and must have published his

version so recently, that it is wonderful that Irenæus should have seen

it.

Lastly, he mentions and distinguishes between the genuine and ancient

copies of the Scriptures and the incorrect ones(325).

Having noticed all the _external_ matter, let us come to the opinions of

Irenæus in regard to the _use and value_ of the holy Scriptures, and the

method of _understanding_ them. Although here his example is more forcible

than his precepts, it is satisfactory that he speaks very definitely, and

to the purpose.

For instance, he informs us that, after the Apostles had preached the

Gospel orally, they took care that the substance of their preaching should

be put in writing, to be the ground and pillar of our faith(326). It is

very remarkable that he should use this very phrase in speaking of the

Gospel, which St. Paul had used in speaking of the Church itself ; showing

apparently that it was by the custody of the Scriptures that the Church

was to sustain its office. Indeed he expresses this in so many words in

another passage, when he says that the truth is preserved by the keeping

and reading of the Scripture, and preaching consistently with it(327).

His own practice is perfectly consistent with his principles. When he

enters into controversy, his first appeal, indeed, in the particular case

in hand, was to common sense, as showing the extreme absurdity and glaring

contradiction of the Gnostic theories(328). But as they claimed revelation

for their authority, he then goes to the Scripture, as the only authentic

_record_ of revelation(329) ; and it is evident that, on his own account,

he would never have appealed to any other authority in support of the

_great and leading doctrines_ he has to deal with. When he does bring in

tradition as an independent and collateral _witness_ of revelation, he

does so because the Gnostics themselves appealed to tradition(330) as

something more certain than Scripture. And having met them upon this

ground, he goes on(331), in the large remaining portion of his treatise,

to refute their systems by the induction of passages from the successive

portions of the Old and New Testaments.

Clearly, therefore, his disposition, where the question was what God had

revealed, would be to go, first of all, and entirely, if possible, to

Scripture ; for whereas the heretics held that the inspired volume was

obscure and uncertain(332), he maintained that there were truths contained

in it without any doubt or obscurity, and that those were the things in

which the sound‐minded and pious would chiefly meditate(333). And with

regard to those things which are obscure and doubtful, he taught that we

should endeavour to explain them by those parts which are

unambiguous(334).

There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most

certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was

the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the

right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which

he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted(335). It is evident,

therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, _to that extent_,

as divine and infallible.

A third aid was to be found in the assistance of the elders of the Church,

who preserve the doctrine of the Apostles(336), and, with the order of the

priesthood, keep sound discourse and an inoffensive life(337), who have

the succession from the Apostles, and, together with the episcopal

succession, have received the sure gift of truth(338). He who in this way

studies the Scriptures will judge (or condemn) all who are in error(339).

It is obvious that he means the bishops of the Churches, who were the

chief preachers of those times. And it is observable that he does not

think the succession a perfect guarantee of the truth being preserved,

otherwise he would not have added the qualifications of sound discourse

and a holy life. He does not therefore support the idea that the truth is

necessarily preserved in any one Church by the succession, or that any one

bishop of any particular Church (the Bishop of Rome, for instance,) is

capable of deciding the sense of Scripture authoritatively. And, in point

of fact, it is only upon _fundamentals_ that he recommends an appeal to

the bishops, as sure to guide the inquirer into truth.

It is obvious, moreover, that, although no doubt God will aid and bless

his ordinance of the ministry at all times to the faithful soul, yet that

the aid of one’s own particular pastor or bishop must be much less capable

of settling the mind now that Christ’s true pastors are opposed to each

other, than in the time of Irenæus, when they held all together. In his

time no such thing had occurred as a bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch,

Alexandria, Rome, or Constantinople, acknowledged by general consent to

have fallen into great and important error.

In short, we have no approach in Irenæus to the idea of an interpreter so

infallible as shall take away from the private Christian all

responsibility but that of ascertaining him and following his decisions.

He points out means of arriving at truth ; but he does not speak of them as

unfailing, except in the case of those foundation truths which are now

acknowledged by the body of every ancient Church under heaven.

CHAPTER IX. ON THE NATURE AND USE OF PRIMITIVE TRADITION.

It was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views

as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different

doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the

incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine

dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument:

from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from

common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the

inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic

systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to

rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures ; for in the

preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work,

he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from

Scripture, without mentioning tradition ; but since they demurred to its

authority, asserting(340) that it was imperfect and self‐contradictory,

and, in short, that it was impossible for any to learn the truth from it

but those who possessed the true _tradition_, (which they contended was

preserved amongst themselves, having been communicated to them orally, and

being, in fact, that hidden wisdom which had been imparted by the Apostles

only to the perfect,) Irenæus likewise appeals to tradition.

I cannot take leave of this passage without noticing the extraordinary

comments made upon it by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in the second of

his prefatory dissertations, art. iii. § 14.

He says, “Ex quibus hæc liquido sequuntur ; 1, ipsos omnium hæreticorum

pessimos agnovisse et confessos fuisse, _Scripturas varie dictas esse_, id

est, interdum obscuras esse, variosque iis subesse sensus: 2, obscurorum

locorum sensum a traditione petendum esse, non ea, _quæ per literas

tradita sit, sed per vivam vocem_: hæc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in

sequentibus probat, ut mox videbitur: 3, traditionem latius patere

scripturis, et ab iis distingui, utpote quæ earum sit interpres ; quod et

hæc Irenæi conclusio demonstrat: _Evenit itaque, neque scripturis jam

neque traditioni consentire eos_.”

I will take his conclusions in their order:—

1. So far is Irenæus from applauding the Gnostics for _admitting_ (not the

variety of senses which the Scripture may afford, but) the inconsistency

of different Scriptural statements, that it is evident that he is

_blaming_ them for wishing to escape from the obvious meaning of Scripture

under this pretence. I am not saying that he would have denied that

various senses of particular passages may appear equally natural ; but that

is not the case as between Irenæus and the Gnostics. He is evidently

asserting what he believes to be written throughout the Scriptures as with

a sunbeam, and brings in tradition, not to explain the Scripture, but to

confirm his view of it.

2. It is very true that Irenæus would evidently have gone to tradition to

explain the obscurities of Scripture, if in any point it could be so

explained ; but that does not appear _from this passage_: on the contrary,

it is the heretics who are _here_ for appealing to it, and not to such a

tradition as he approved, but to one which was capable of no proof that it

was apostolical. And with regard to the tradition he appealed to being an

_unwritten_ tradition ; in the first place, he does appeal to _written_

tradition when he can, viz. to the epistles of St. Clement and St.

Polycarp ; and in regard to the unwritten tradition which he adduces, the

only tradition of that kind to which both he and the Romanist writers

agree to appeal is the Baptismal Creed (as will be shown presently) ; for

on two of the other points on which he adduces a different kind of

unwritten tradition, viz. the millenium and the age of Christ at his

crucifixion, his views are rejected by the Roman Church.

3. That primitive tradition must originally have been wider than Scripture

(at least upon points _not of faith_), must be true from the very nature

of the case. But this does not by any means follow from Irenæus’s

distinguishing between Scripture and tradition, because what he means is

simply this, that the Gnostic tenets were at variance with apostolical

truth, whether gathered from Scripture or handed down by tradition. The

traditional truth he brings forward against them is _identical_ with what

he deduces from the written word.

Having shown, then, that really apostolical tradition unequivocally

opposed the Gnostic tenets, he returns again to the Scriptures, and goes

on in the large remaining portion of his work (which, contrary to his

intention, spread itself into a fourth, and even a fifth book,) to show

how inconsistent they were with the Scriptures, first of the Old, and

afterwards of the New Testament, and how important to our salvation those

verities were which they impugned.

It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the mind of Irenæus naturally

went to Scripture, either to prove doctrine or to refute error ; and that

he regarded it as being, to all orthodox Christians, the natural standard

of appeal. With regard to the Gnostics, he evidently thought that they

were past conviction from either reason, tradition, or Scripture ; because,

whatever criterion was produced, they had something to say against it or

to turn it aside(341): but to single‐minded Christians he felt that the

written word must be the great authority, and arguments drawn from it the

most perfectly conclusive. He speaks of some things in it as admitting no

doubt ; he points to an obvious aid to the interpretation of ambiguities,

by calling in plainer things to explain the doubtful ; he speaks of the New

Testament as the ground and pillar of our faith ; and he declares that the

truth is preserved by the keeping, reading, and consistent exposition of

the Scriptures.

In what way, then, does he appeal to tradition? In this part of his work

he calls it in as establishing the same _general_ views, which he confirms

more at length from Scripture ; as preparing the mind to believe that the

view he takes of Scripture is the true one ; as a separate and independent

witness to the selfsame truths which he is preparing to confirm by an

adduction of multiplied passages of Holy Writ. He does not bring it

forward to establish any thing not hinted at in the Bible ; neither, on the

other hand, does he bring it forward to show what others had gathered out

of the Scriptures ; but he adduces it as a separate testimony, emanating

originally from the same source as the Scriptures(342), and therefore, so

far as it went, a fitting criterion of their meaning.

I have chosen to adduce the opening of the _third_ book first of all,

because Irenæus enters more professedly there into his motives for

appealing to tradition ; but he had made the appeal, as may have been seen,

in an early part of the _first_ book(343). The manner of the appeal is

somewhat different in the two places: in the first book he appeals to it

to show the strong contrast between the inconsistencies and contradictions

of the Gnostics and the unity and consistency of catholic teaching ; in the

latter, to confirm his own views of Scripture. It is true that in both

these cases the appeal is in some sense of a negative character, i. e. it

is for the purpose of proving that such and such doctrines are _not_ to be

received ; but in other cases he makes a directly positive use of it, viz.

to prove particular doctrines which do not appear to have been explicitly

disputed.

What, then, is the tradition to which Irenæus assigns this important

function? It is that faith which the Church received from the Apostles,

and distributes to her children(344) ; which may be seen in every

Church(345) ; which is handed down by the bishops in all the several

Churches(346) ; which is taught to every person when he is baptized(347) ;

which was in his time preserved in the Church of Rome, in particular, by

the confluence of the faithful from every side(348) ; in the Church of

Smyrna by S. Polycarp and his successors ; in the Church of Ephesus,

founded by St. Paul, and watched over by St. John ; and in the rest of the

Asiatic Churches(349) ; which may likewise be learnt in the first epistle

of S. Clement, and in the epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians(350) ;

which was one and the same throughout the Churches, so that ability cannot

increase its efficacy, nor weakness diminish it ; so that knowledge may add

to it the explanation of difficulties, but cannot change the faith(351) ;

and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it(352).

It is obvious, from these quotations, that the particular tradition which

Irenæus adduces _against the Gnostics_ is the substance of the baptismal

creed ; and thence, perhaps, it may be inferred that he would confine

tradition altogether to the creed. But it must be remembered that, in

declining to go to Gnostic tradition, and choosing in preference that

which is truly apostolical, the principle of his appeal is this: that the

Apostles delivered the doctrines of the Gospel by preaching, &c. to the

different Churches, and by individual instruction to the particular

persons whom they made bishops of the Churches ; that the bishops had

delivered down the same mass of truths to the Churches they presided over,

and to their successors ; and that the truth might be ascertained by

discovering what was universally received in all the apostolical

sees(353). But this truth was not confined to the creed, for there are

other truths as certain as those in the creed, which are not specified in

it ; and the very creed itself was variable, or rather was variously stated

at different times(354).

But we are not left to inference alone to learn the views of Irenæus ; he

instances the epistles of Clement and Polycarp as containing true

traditions, and _they_ exhibit other truths beyond those of the creed.

Again, the faith, which, if the Apostles had left no writings, he affirms

must have been kept up by tradition, and which was, in fact, kept up in

barbarous nations without the aid of writing(355), must have been

something more extensive than the mere elementary points of belief. Nay,

his assertion that when we are in doubt, even upon _trifling_ points, it

is a duty to have recourse to the most ancient Churches(356), shows at

once that the province of tradition, in his mind, was far wider than the

transmission of simply fundamental points ; it was a great system of

doctrine, discipline, and practice, which such an observation looked at ;

and there can be but little doubt that, although his subject in his great

Treatise leads him to adduce it formally, only on the subject of doctrine,

that he found himself bound by it upon all points which appeared to be

thus universally handed down in the Churches.

But then it must be confessed that Irenæus stood in a position with regard

to this tradition very different from that in which we stand. It was a

thing which lived about him in all the daily intercourse of life, and

respecting which there was scarcely a possibility of a doubt ; whereas to

us it is a thing which has to be established by evidence, which does not

come to our minds unsought. It was a thing _then_ which the most unlearned

knew thoroughly ; for it was the very atmosphere in which he breathed: to

us learning is required, and actual application to the subject. The Church

_then_ testified directly to the individual: now we have to ascertain the

Church’s testimony by the further testimony of individuals. It is

impossible, therefore, that apostolical tradition should have the same

evidence to men’s minds now which it had then ; although we may think it

ought to be reverently followed, wherever and by whomsoever it can be

ascertained.

Again, we have seen that the medium through which Irenæus believed pure

tradition to be transmitted was the bishops of the Churches ; but it does

not follow that he thought every bishop, or the bishops of any particular

Church, an unerring depository of such tradition. He supposed the case of

a bishop who was in the succession, but yet did not hold fast the

Apostles’ doctrine(357), and he evidently implies that such a person was

not to be adhered to ; it is, therefore, not any individual bishop, or the

bishop of any particular see, that he would appeal to, but the aggregate

of the bishops of the universal Church.

It is remarkable how strong is the resemblance between the positions

occupied by the Gnostics and Irenæus respectively, and those taken up by

Romanists and the Church of England. Both that ancient father and

ourselves think Scripture perfectly clear upon the fundamental points to

the singleminded, go first and last to Scripture upon all doctrinal

points, and make tradition only auxiliary and subordinate to it. Both the

Gnostics and the Romanists complain of the insuperable difficulties of the

Scripture without tradition, and thus make tradition practically set aside

Scripture ; and the tradition they appeal to turns out, when examined, to

be nothing more nor less than their own teaching.

But besides this _public_ tradition, extant throughout all the Churches,

there is another kind of tradition he brings forward, viz. that kept up by

a direct line from the Apostles by the testimony of individuals. This he

brings forward under various forms of expression, as “I have heard from an

elder, who had heard from those who had seen and been instructed by the

Apostles ; ” “Wherefore the elders, who are disciples of the Apostles, say,”

&c. ; “As the elders, who saw John, the Lord’s disciple, remember that they

heard of him ; ” “And all the elders, who associated with John, the Lord’s

disciple, testify that John taught them this ; for he remained with them

down to the time of Trajan.” He appeals to it on the subject of Christ’s

descent into hell(358), which did not enter into the earliest creeds ; on

the place of the saints departed(359) ; on the millennium(360) ; as well as

on the fact that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of

age(361).

It is evident that such testimony, carried down in one chain, unchecked by

any other similar chain, must be liable to great deterioration. An

instance of this may be seen in the last‐mentioned case in which he quotes

this kind of evidence ; viz. his idea that Jesus continued his teaching

till past forty years of age(362). All other writers who speak on the

subject are agreed that Irenæus, or some person through whom this

assertion came, must have made some mistake ; that our Lord, in fact, began

his teaching shortly after his baptism, and continued it through three

passovers, and no more. And yet we have apparently very strong evidence

for the assertion of Irenæus ; for he declares that all the elders who

companied with John the Apostle affirmed it, and that some of them

declared that they had it from other Apostles. The probability is, that

Irenæus, who was quite a youth when acquainted with these persons, had

misunderstood what he had heard in their conversations with each other, or

remembered it incorrectly after a long lapse of years, being biassed by

his own view of a passage of Scripture which he quotes in

confirmation(363), and which may be the real foundation of the opinion in

question.

It is likewise evident that this tradition in regard to mere facts not

connected with any important doctrine, and depending upon the correctness

of the _memory_ of an individual, is of very different character from that

of important facts and doctrines, and points of discipline, kept up

publicly in all Christian Churches and _witnessed_ to by him as actually

subsisting in his own day or at the very time of his writing. At the same

time they may be received, as we receive other historical facts, when not

contradicted by other evidence.

And something of the same degree of uncertainty must in like manner hang

about the transmission of doctrines or opinions by such a channel. And it

is to be remembered that Irenæus, when he testifies of these, is not in

the same position as when he speaks of public doctrine, discipline, or

customs. There he is the witness of the combined teaching of many lines of

apostolical succession ; here, for all that appears, of only one: and that

one requires to be checked or confirmed by other evidence before it can

gain our full assent. If what is gained in this way fall in with

Scripture, or explains or carries out more fully the meaning of Scripture

in a manner not inconsistent with other Scripture, then we may feel that

it is to be treasured up, as being in all probability a fragment of

apostolical tradition. If, again, it is confirmed by other sufficient

testimony, it may be looked upon in the same light, in proportion to the

degree of evidence: for although Irenæus unquestionably quoted these

latter traditions as undoubted truths, it is impossible that they should,

upon his single testimony, appear so to our minds.

There is, however, one general remark which applies to all the various

instances in which he appeals to tradition, and that is, that he does not

appear to have known any thing of a transmitted comment on the text of

Scripture. The only way in which he applies tradition to the

interpretation of Scripture is, by laying down certain facts of our Lord’s

history, which were universally acknowledged or handed down by sufficient

testimony, or certain doctrines of religion or general principles which

were universally received as of apostolical authority, and bringing them

forward in confirmation of the views which he himself deduced from a

comparison and accumulation of texts.

CHAPTER X. ON THE CREED.

The Baptismal Creed having been mentioned in the two previous chapters, in

the one as a guide in the interpretation of Scripture, in the other as

embodying (to a certain extent) Primitive Tradition, it appears natural to

bring forward in the next place such notices of it as Irenæus furnishes.

We find, then, that it was customary at baptism to rehearse to every

person the rule of faith held throughout the Catholic Church ; in other

words, the Creed(364). This, indeed, was not uniform in language, but the

same points appear to have been adhered to, and to have been stated in

much the same order. Irenæus, indeed, does not distinctly copy any creed:

but he rehearses all the chief points of it in two different passages,

which I will give at length ; these being the first clear traces we have of

the primitive creed.

The first is as follows(365):—

“For the Church, although spread throughout the world, even to the utmost

bounds of the earth, and having received from the Apostles and their

disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and

earth, and the seas, and all that in them is: and in one Jesus Christ, the

Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation: and in one Holy Ghost,

who through the prophets preached the dispensations, and the advents, and

the birth of a Virgin, and the Passion, and the resurrection from the

dead, and the ascension into heaven in flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus

our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to gather

together all things in one, and to raise from the dead all flesh of all

mankind ; that according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father,

every knee may bow to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King,

of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and

every tongue may confess to him ; and that he may execute just judgment

upon them all, and send into eternal fire the spirits of wickedness, and

the angels that sinned and were in rebellion, and the ungodly and unjust

and lawless and blasphemous amongst men ; and bestowing life upon the just

and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and remained in his

love, some from the beginning and some after repentance, might give them

incorruption and clothe them with eternal glory: having received this

preaching and this faith, as we said before, the Church, though dispersed

throughout the world, keeps it diligently,” &c.

This passage strikes us at once as containing fragments of a creed the

same as that of Nice, repeated in portions in the same order, although the

general arrangement of the creeds is departed from.

The other passage is this(366):—

“But what if the Apostles had not left us any writings? must we not have

followed the order of that tradition which they delivered to those to whom

they entrusted the Churches? Which order is assented to by those many

barbarous tribes who believe in Christ, who have salvation written by the

Spirit in their hearts without paper and ink, and diligently keep the old

tradition ; believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all

that in them is, by Christ Jesus the Son of God: who for his most

exceeding love toward his own handywork, submitted to be born of the

Virgin, himself by himself uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius

Pilate, and rose again, and was received up in glory, and will come again

to be the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are

judged, and sendeth into eternal fire those who pervert the truth, and

despise his Father and his coming.”

The order of the creed is better preserved in this than in the other, but

it is not so full in its statements.

There is one other allusion to the opening words of the creed(367).

CHAPTER XI. FREEWILL, PREDESTINATION, AND ELECTION.

No controversy had arisen amongst Christians in the time of Irenæus on the

subject of predestination, but heathen Stoics believed in an irresistible

fate, and the Gnostics taught a natural and essential difference between

the soul of one man and that of another, by virtue of which the former was

of course raised at death to an intimate union with the Supreme Essence,

whilst the latter could never hope for such an elevation, although he

might be raised to a higher state than that of earthly existence.

Both these notions Irenæus combatted. He taught that man is endued with

freewill(368), having good and evil set before him, and having the power

to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act accordingly(369) ;

that God has always treated men as having the power to act for

themselves(370), rewarding or punishing them(371), praising or

blaming(372) them according to the nature of their choice ; and that this

proves that we have freewill(373): that in fact the circumstance that our

faith is called our own, and is rewarded(374), proves that we are free

agents(375). In conformity with this opinion, he teaches that men are

redeemed, not by compulsion, but by persuasion(376) ; that each person has

a portion of divine light given him, and will be recompensed according as

he keeps or rejects it(377) ; and that as each man’s salvation thus depends

upon his own exertion, and cannot be attained without it, so our reward

will be the more valued for having been gained by exertion(378).

We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the

salvation of the elect was accomplished by the mere will of God concerning

the individuals, either in opposition to their own will or by constraining

their wills ; although he asserted very fully the necessity of divine grace

to cause our freewill to take a right direction(379).

And yet he was a believer in divine _predestination_. He believed that

some were predestined to have the gift of incorruptibility imparted to

them, (which we have seen to mean the Divine Spirit, by which we become

the adopted children of God,) and thus to have life in the sight of God,

whereas they were originally in a state of death(380). But he no where

implies that they could not lose this gift, but the contrary(381). So

again he teaches that God intentionally delivers some men over to unbelief

without a trial. But who are they? Those who, he foresees, will not

believe(382). He was of opinion that there is a predestined _number_ of

those who shall be saved eternally, and that when that number is

completed, the end of the world will come(383): the very idea embodied in

our burial service(384). But he no where hints that the _individuals_ were

predestined, as well as the number, or that those who were predestined to

have the gift of immortality, were all in the number of those who should

be saved eternally: so that the more we examine, the more clear does it

become that he would have been opposed to _Calvinistic_ predestination.

Who, then, are those who are predestined to the gift of immortality? The

manner in which he speaks of _election_ will enable us to answer this

question. In explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen,

he says,(385) that, after the first set of husbandmen had been cast out,

the vineyard was “no longer fenced in, but opened to all the world, and

the tower of _the election_ exalted every where, beautiful to look on ;

for,” said he, “_the Church_ is every where distinctly visible, and every

where is there a winepress dug, and every where are those who receive the

Spirit.” Here we find election commensurate with the visible Church

(indeed he knows no other): and so he proceeds further on(386) to speak of

“the Word of God, who _elected_ the patriarchs _and us_ ; ” just as in the

passage before cited(387) he had said, “_We_ who were not as yet were

predestined to be ; ” that is, spiritually, through redemption. And so in

another place he speaks of the Church as “the congregation of God ; which

God, that is the Son, has himself collected by himself(388) ; ” and in

another passage, “the wages of Christ are men collected out of various and

differing nations into one company of faith(389).”

All these passages reflect light upon each other, and exhibit the all‐wise

God as planning from eternity the last dispensation, by which He chooses,

through the Divine Word, to gather out of the world men of all nations,

and to restore to them the lost gift of immortality, by adopting them for

his own children, and bestowing on them his Spirit, and thus uniting them

in the one body of his Church ; so that those who believe, and continue in

obedience to Him, and hold fast his teaching, continue his children ;

whilst those who do not obey Him are cut off from Him, and cease to be his

children. And as baptism is the sign and means of our union with God and

the reception of the Holy Spirit(390), so baptism is the sign and pledge

of this predestination and election.

There is another question as to this election, upon which Irenæus throws

but little light ; that is, whether God has elected into his Church upon

foreseen faith or not. He expressly declares(391) that God leaves in

darkness and unbelief those who, He foresees, will not believe ; but what

is the precise application of that declaration, whether to those to whom

God vouchsafes no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Gospel, or

to those who, living in the hearing of the Gospel, do not receive his

grace, is by no means clear. And it would be unsafe, therefore, to argue

that Irenæus believed that God predestines men to grace from foreseen

faith. The two things may appear to us correlative ; but we must remember

that there had been no controversy on the subject, and therefore he cannot

be supposed to have weighed his language as we should perhaps do at

present.

CHAPTER XII. ON BAPTISM.

The doctrine of the Church in regard to baptism has afforded less dispute

than almost any other down to the very times in which we live. It was

fully recognized by Irenæus, and appears scattered up and down in various

parts of his writings.

He asserts in direct terms that baptism is our new birth to God(392), and

ascribes to infants a share in that new birth equally with grown

persons(393). There is no room for any equivocal meaning in these

passages. It is not merely that he speaks, as a thing of course, of

infants being baptized, (which, by the plain force of words, he manifestly

does,) but he directly ascribes to them also the new birth, which he

asserts to be baptism. This testimony in favour of infant baptism and

infant regeneration is very valuable from one who lived so near the

apostolical times.

The necessity of the laver of regeneration he states to arise from the

original corruption of man(394), whom he asserts to be and to remain

carnal, until he receives the Spirit of God(395). The water of baptism is

therefore a type of the Holy Spirit(396) ; and in baptism our bodies

receive the union with God to eternal life, which our souls at the same

time receive by the Spirit(397). In receiving the Holy Spirit, therefore,

the soul of man receives that which it had not by nature since the fall ;

it becomes a living soul ; for the Spirit of God is the life of the

soul(398). This Spirit he elsewhere calls the Spirit of remission of

sins(399), and declares that we are quickened by it. In connexion with

what he says of our flesh being united to God in baptism, we may take what

he elsewhere says, that our flesh is a member of Christ(400).

If we inquire for his opinion of the actual spiritual state of the

Christian body, we shall find him declaring that those only are the

children of God who do the will of God(401) ; that some remain thus in the

love of God, even from the time of their baptism ; others fall away, and

cease to be his children ; and of those who fall, some by repentance

recover their relation to Him, and remain thenceforward in his love(402).

There is one passage(403) in which he appears at first sight to deny

forgiveness to those who sin since the coming of Christ, and thence to

give some countenance to the idea that wilful sin of Christians cannot be

forgiven. What he really does say is simply this ; that whereas the

ancients who sinned before the coming of Christ did, when they had the

Gospel preached to them in the regions below, and believed, receive

remission of sins, there is no such hope awaiting those who now commit

sin. If they die in sin, there is no further sacrifice remaining for them

to be preached to them in the regions of the dead.

We can scarcely avoid remarking the strict correspondence between the

doctrine of Irenæus upon this subject and that contained in the

formularies of the Church of England, particularly in the Baptismal

Service and the 16th and 27th Articles. And it is the more valuable,

because it does not appear _directly_ in the form of a precise statement,

but indirectly, as in the Scriptures themselves ; showing that it pervaded

the whole practical system with which his mind was imbued. The difficulty

in the Scriptures unquestionably is, that regeneration is no where in so

many words affirmed respecting infants, and that there is language, as in

St. John’s first epistle, appearing to restrict it to persons capable of

actual obedience. Now in Irenæus we find that omission supplied, and yet

he uses without scruple the same kind of language as St. John ; showing

that in the system he inherited, and that by an interval of only one

descent from St. John himself, the two things which, with our prejudices,

are apt to appear inconsistent, were parts of one and the same doctrine.

CHAPTER XIII. THE EUCHARIST.

Irenæus has expressed himself so much more fully on the subject of the

holy Eucharist than any other writer near his time, that it is not

wonderful that his opinions should be appealed to by those who have

entered into the various discussions on the subject. And his language has

just so much of ambiguity about it as to allow of hanging upon it a more

exact and positive meaning than he ever thought of. Every sentence, and

almost every word therefore, requires to be well weighed, that we may come

at his real meaning. And we must bear in mind that he wrote hundreds of

years before any controversy had arisen on the subject, and consequently

is not to be judged of as though he had written since.

There are two or three important passages which bear directly on the

subject, and I do not know how to do justice to it without giving them at

length.

The first I shall take is that in the fifth book(404), where he is

combating the Gnostic notion that the flesh is incapable of salvation. His

words are as follows:—

“And altogether absurd are they who despise the whole of the divine

arrangement, and deny the salvation of the flesh, and reject its

regeneration, saying that it is not capable of immortality. But if it is

not saved, then the Lord did not redeem us by his blood ; nor is the cup of

the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor the bread which we break the

communion of his body. For there is no blood, except from veins and flesh,

and the rest of man’s substance, in which the Word of God was truly made.

With his blood he redeemed us ; as also his apostle saith: _in whom we have

redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins_. And since we

are his members, and are nourished by the creature, and he himself gives

us the creature, making his sun to rise and sending rain as it pleaseth

him, he has recognised the cup of the creature for his own blood, with

which he tinges (δεύει) our blood, and the bread of the creature he has

ordained to be his own body, by which he strengthens our body.

“Since, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the

word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and body of Christ, and

by these the substance of our flesh gains strength and subsists, how can

they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, which is

eternal life, when it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and

is his member? As St. Paul saith: _For we are members of his body, of his

flesh, and of his bones_: not saying these things of some spiritual and

invisible man (for the spirit has neither flesh nor bones) ; but concerning

the divine work in the real man, consisting of flesh and veins and bones ;

which is also nourished from his cup, which is his blood, and is

strengthened by the bread, which is his body. And as the wood of the vine,

bent down into the earth, in its proper season bears fruit, and the grain

of wheat, falling into the earth and becoming dissolved, rises manifold

through the Spirit of God, which takes in all things ; and then, through

the wisdom of God, having come to the use of men, and having received the

word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ ;

so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and being deposited in the

earth and dissolved in it, will rise again in due season, the word of God

granting to them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father.”

In the beginning of this passage we have an explicit acknowledgment that

it is in some way or another in the real body and blood of Christ that we

communicate in the Eucharist ; and I am willing to grant that the whole

passage, on a cursory reading, might be taken to imply that the bread and

wine was _changed_ into the literal body and blood of Christ ; for he

appears to speak of our corporeal frames being literally sustained by the

body and blood of our Lord. But when we find him speaking of the necessity

of our bodily frames being sustained by himself, arising out of the fact

that we, even our bodies, are his members, we see immediately that, as we

cannot be literally and corporeally his members, so the change of the

bread into his body, and that of the wine into his blood, in order to

nourish our bodies with himself, cannot be a literal and corporeal change.

And so he does not say that Jesus effected any such change, but simply

that he _recognized_ the cup for his blood, and _ordained_ the bread to be

his body(405).

Before I attempt to draw out any other of the opinions implied in this

passage, I will go to another contained in the fourth book(406). It is

this:—

“Since, therefore, the Church offers with singleness of heart, its

sacrifice is rightly accounted pure with God. As also Paul saith to the

Philippians: _For I am filled with those things which I have received from

Epaphroditus, which were sent by you, a sweet savour, an acceptable

sacrifice, well pleasing to God._ For it is our duty to make an offering

to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, offering

to him the first fruits of his creatures with a pure mind and unfeigned

faith, in hope unshaken, in fervent charity. And this oblation the Church

alone offers pure to the Creator, offering to him of his own work with

giving of thanks. But the Jews do not offer it ; for their hands are full

of blood ; for they did not receive the Word, who is offered to God [or

through whom the offering is made to God], neither indeed do all the

assemblies of the heretics.... How, indeed, can they feel assured that the

bread over which thanksgiving is made, is the body of their Lord, and the

cup that of his blood, if they do not call himself the Son of the Creator

of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the wood bears fruit, and the

springs gush forth, and the earth affords first the blade, after that the

ear, then the full corn in the ear?

“And how, again, can they say that the flesh, which is sustained by the

body of the Lord and by his blood, turns to corruption, and partakes not

of life? Either let them alter their view, or let them decline to offer

the before‐mentioned gifts. But our view harmonizes with the Eucharist,

and the Eucharist again confirms our view: and we offer to him his own,

making a corresponding profession of communion and union, and

acknowledging the resurrection of flesh and spirit. For as the bread which

comes from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common

bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly,

so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible,

having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. For we offer to him, not

as though he needed, but giving thanks to his Divine Majesty, and

sanctifying the work of his hands.”

To understand this passage more completely, it will be necessary to go

back a little. Irenæus is showing, contrary to the Gnostic doctrine, that

the Old and New Covenants emanate from one and the same God, adopting

different methods at different periods of the world. He points out,

therefore, that the offerings of the law of Moses were not intended to be

permanent, and that, even under the law, God undervalued sacrifice as

compared with obedience. He then goes on to affirm(407) that the prophecy

of Malachi that sacrifices should cease, and that notwithstanding a pure

offering should throughout the world be offered to the name of God, was

fulfilled in the Eucharist ; for he informs us that Jesus, “instructing his

disciples to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures (not as though

he needed, but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful), took the

created thing, bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body ; ’ and

likewise the cup of the earthly creature he acknowledged as his blood, and

taught them the new offering of the New Testament ; which the Church,

receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God,—to him

who affords us our sustenance, the first fruits of his gifts.”

Here we see very distinctly what is the offering which the Church offers

in the Lord’s Supper, viz. the creatures or elements of bread and wine,

presented as the first fruits of his gifts, and as a thank‐offering to him

for the rest(408).

The same idea appears again in a fragment edited by Pfaff(409):—

“For we offer to God the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks to

him, because he hath commanded the earth to bring forth fruits for our

use ; and then having performed the offering, we invoke the Holy Spirit

that he would render this sacrifice, even the bread, the body of Christ,

and the cup the blood of Christ ; so that those who partake of these

figures may obtain remission of sins and eternal life. Those, therefore,

who bring these offerings with remembrance of the Lord, make no approach

to the opinions of the Jews, but, performing a spiritual service, shall be

called children of wisdom.”

There is something more definite in this passage than in the allusions in

the Treatise against the Heresies, but the spirit is precisely similar ;

and it is remarkable,—more remarkable than where he is not professing to

give details, that there is no mention of more than one offering, namely,

that of the elements, which, _and which alone_, are called by the name of

θυσία.

When, however, we come back to the second passage I have translated, we

find one clause(410) in which there is a various reading, where those

which are acknowledged to be the best MSS. speak of the Word (i. e. the

personal Word, Jesus Christ regarded especially in his divine nature,) as

_offered to God_ in the Eucharist, and the Jews are affirmed to be

incapable of offering the oblation in it because they did not receive him.

Now it is no doubt possible that Irenæus may have intended to speak of a

spiritual offering up of our Lord with the oblation, i. e. of an offering

of it in and through him ; but that is all that can be implied, for there

is no hint whatever of the repetition of the sacrifice of atonement for

the remission of sins. The _only_ offering is before the invocation of the

Holy Ghost ; and it is only after that invocation that the elements are to

be regarded as the body and blood of Christ, capable of communicating

remission of sins. If, therefore, according to him, there is any offering

up of our Lord, it must be _with_ the oblation of the material elements,

to render that thank‐offering acceptable.

But there is another reading(411) which is more consonant with other

passages, and therefore probably to be preferred ; viz. that which

represents “the Word” as the Mediator or Propitiation _through_ whom the

oblation is made. We have that idea distinctly expressed in a former

passage(412), in which he speaks, in reference to this very text of

Malachi, of the Church as offering _through_ Jesus Christ ; and it is

implied in the Fragment, in which he speaks of our offering these things

“_with remembrance_ (ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει) of the Lord(413).”

But whichever reading we take, there is no foundation for the idea of a

propitiatory sacrifice of Christ under the figure and appearance of the

consecrated elements.

Both this latter quotation from the “_Heresies_” and the Fragment are

opposed to the notion of any substantial change in the elements. The

former speaks of the bread after consecration as “not common bread,”

implying that it is still bread, although adapted to a sacred and

mysterious use ; and as “consisting of two things, an earthly and a

heavenly(414)” (meaning probably the elements themselves and the body and

blood of Christ), whereas the notion of transubstantiation requires that

there should be nothing of the earthly really left after the consecration.

The fragment still more explicitly calls them _figures_ at the very time

that we partake of them. It is true that the view of Irenæus differs

equally from ordinary Protestant notions, and indeed is more positive than

that of the English Church ; but we are to bear in mind that the Fathers

did not always speak with logical accuracy. Their language has been

brought forward in support of the theory of transubstantiation, and

therefore it has become necessary to show that they did not write on that

theory. It is not equally requisite that we should be able to construct a

theory which shall explain all the figurative and imaginative language in

which they expressed their faith in the real presence of Christ in the

Sacrament. Irenæus certainly taught this doctrine, and that is enough for

us of the Church of England, who do not concern ourselves to explain the

_manner_ of his presence. Some of us may agree with his manner of

expressing it, but we do not require of others that they should agree with

him.

We cannot complete our view of the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the

Eucharist without adverting to his ideas on the _consecration_ of the

elements. This he describes in various ways, sometimes attributing it to

_the word of God_(415), sometimes to _the invocation of God_(416),

sometimes to _the invocation of the Holy Ghost_(417). But all these may be

reconciled, if we consider them to be allusions to various portions of the

consecration prayer. There is such a form left in the _Apostolical

Constitutions_, with which all the four ancient liturgies exhibited by

Brett and Palmer coincide, viz. the Roman, the Oriental, the Egyptian, and

the Gallican. Now all these forms contain a recital of the words of

institution, which may not unfitly be called _the word of God_, and an

invocation of God to send down his Holy Spirit upon the gifts, to

consecrate them to be the body and blood of Christ, which may be called

either _an invocation of God_ or _an invocation of the Holy Ghost_. Is it

not therefore most probable that Irenæus alludes to this prayer, which

must have been used in very early ages, for its leading features to be

found thus spread throughout the world? The expressions, therefore, which

he uses, though various and distinct, are not contrary or contradictory:

they allude to various portions of the same form.

It is worthy of observation, however, that this attributing of the

consecration to these different things is contrary to the modern doctrine

of transubstantiation, which attributes it to one and one only, viz. the

recital of the words of institution: _This is my body, This is my blood_.

There is another passage which proves that no transubstantiation was then

thought of ; viz. the fragment(418), which appears likely to have been a

part of the account of the persecutions at Lyons. We there read that the

heathen tortured the slaves of some Christians, in order to extort from

them something which might serve as a colour for the severities they

exercised upon them ; and that the slaves, “not knowing what to say to

please their tormentors, except what they had heard from their masters,

that the Holy Communion was the blood and body of Christ, and _thinking_

that it was really flesh and blood, told this to those who were

questioning them.” Now it appears very clear that language such as this

could scarcely have been used by a person who thought that the sacred

elements had become really flesh and blood, which is the doctrine of

transubstantiation ; although it might be employed with perfect consistency

by those who believed in a real mysterious presence of them in the Holy

Communion, without any change in the nature of the elements.

Massuet(419) brings forward, in support of the doctrine of

transubstantiation, the fact that the Marcosians pretended, by magical

rites, to effect a change of the wine into blood. As they professed to

produce a substantial change, he infers that the Church must have really

produced such a change. But the inference is far from being a sound one ;

for as magical rites are invented to pander to the appetite of the

ignorant for something supernatural, so it is most probable that a

pretender of this description, who wished to set up for something superior

to the clergy, should profess to do something _more_ wonderful than they ;

that whereas they effected none but a mystical change, he should pretend

to a literal one. And this no doubt is the history of transubstantiation.

It is the attempt of unspiritual minds to raise the wonder of the sacred

mysteries to the highest pitch, forgetful meanwhile of the spiritual

objects of them. The doctrine is eminently a carnal doctrine.

CHAPTER XIV. ON JUSTIFICATION.

Those scholastical discussions on the nature of justification with which

we have become familiar had not arisen when Irenæus wrote, and

consequently we cannot expect him to speak with the precision to which we

are accustomed. Still there are some principal points upon which, simply

following the Scriptures, he is _practically_ clear.

He teaches, for instance, that men are not justified in themselves, but by

the coming of Christ(420), and more explicitly, by the obedience of

Christ(421) ; whence we may fairly conclude that he would place the

_meritorious cause_ of justification in Christ: and as he connects

justification with remission of sins(422), and remission of sins with the

cross and death of Christ(423), he would no doubt trace our justification

to the death of Christ on the cross.

In the same general manner he teaches that faith justifies man(424),

speaking particularly of Abraham, to whom he attributes faith in Christ.

He appears likewise to express faith, in another passage, by attending to

the light of Christ(425) ; but as the passage does not exist in the Greek,

we cannot be quite certain what is its real meaning. Now although he says

here that faith justifies, and elsewhere that our faith is our own(426),

because it springs from our own will and choice, yet it is plain, from the

previous paragraph, that he simply means that faith is the _qualification_

for justification.

Again, where Irenæus says that man is justified by the moral law, which

those who were justified by faith before the giving of the Law

observed(427) ; and again, quoting the text: “Offer unto God the sacrifice

of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High ; and call upon me in the

day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me ; ”

declares that God rejected the sacrifices and ceremonies by which the Jews

thought to obtain remission of sins, and taught them these things

(contained in that text) by which man is justified, and draws nigh to

God(428): in these passages Irenæus no doubt intends to say nothing more

or less than St. James does where he declares that man is _justified by

works_. If any one regards Irenæus as contradicting the true doctrine of

justification by faith, he must conceive that St. James equally

contradicts it ; and the same considerations which explain St. James will

equally explain Irenæus.

I may remark, moreover, in a matter confessedly not admitting of absolute

demonstration, that Irenæus appears to use justification in what is

commonly called the _forensic_ sense, and as taking its date from the act

of the soul, by which it receives and embraces the divine light, and as

being kept up and renewed by acts of thanksgiving and calling upon God and

dependence upon him, and observance of the moral law. But I have no wish

to insist controversially upon these conclusions.

CHAPTER XV. ON CEREMONIES, USAGES, AND FORMS OF WORDS.

The object of the Great Treatise of Irenæus, which is almost the whole

that remains to us of his writings, being to refute _doctrinal_ error,

things of a ceremonial and ritual nature can be introduced only

incidentally. It is interesting however to trace those fragments of the

external system of the Church which have dropped from the pen of the

writer whilst thinking chiefly of other matters.

We find then that he alludes to the commandments of God as being ten in

number, and as being divided into two tables(429): but he asserts,

conformably to the opinion of Josephus(430) and Philo(431), that each

table contained _five_ commandments. On the other hand Hesychius(432),

Origen(433), Ambrose(434), and Procopius(435) reckon them as we do. The

division into _three_ and _five_, followed by the Roman Church, does not

appear earlier than Augustine(436). There is however sufficient diversity

to prevent our insisting _much_ on our division. It must be observed,

however, that Josephus(437) and (I believe) Philo reckon the commandments

individually exactly as we do, and not as the Romanists.

We have several allusions to the form observed at the Holy Communion. We

find that the cup contained water mixed with wine(438) ; that a form of

invocation was used, which the heretics imitated(439) ; that the term

εὐχαριστέω (_to give thanks_) had become technical, and signified _to

consecrate_(440) ; that the expression _for ever and ever_ occurred in the

Eucharistical form(441), which shows that a settled form had become

customary in his time ; and that Christians sounded _Amen_ all

together(442). The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token

of communion and amity(443).

We find, too, that the same pharisaical spirit, which now keeps many from

communion, because others come to it in hypocrisy, had the selfsame effect

in his time(444).

There seems, in some of the practices of the Gnostics, to have been an

imitation of the _anointing_ at baptism or confirmation practised in the

Church(445).

There are several allusions to the practice of public _confession and

penance_, as a customary and established part of discipline. In some cases

it was voluntary(446).

It was the established custom not to kneel in prayer on the Lord’s day, or

during the whole season from Easter to Whitsuntide, which was called

Pentecost(447).

A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration,

according to the choice of those who observed it(448). The passage of

Irenæus has been introduced into the great controversy between those who

assert the apostolical antiquity of the forty days’ season of abstinence,

and those who deny it. In this country our great divines have taken

different sides ; Beveridge(449), Patrick(450), and Hooper(451) upholding

it, and Morton(452), Taylor(453), and Bingham(454) denying it. This

passage might appear to be decisive, if we could be sure of the

punctuation, but unhappily Ruffinus pointed it differently from all the

MSS. of Eusebius and, I believe, Nicephorus: for he introduces a stop

after τεσσαράκοντα, which makes Irenæus distinctly affirm that in his time

some fasted forty _days_, whereas the common reading makes them fast only

forty successive _hours_(455).

It would be impossible to do _justice_ to the subject without entering

fully into the arguments on both sides ; and therefore I will confine

myself to an observation or two on the text of Irenæus. Let us then look

at the passage according to the two methods of punctuation ; and we shall

find Irenæus affirming according to _one_ that those who fasted any number

of days, from one to forty, reckoned the hours both of day and of night

into their day ; or according to _the other_ that some fasted one day, some

two, some more ; and that some reckoned forty hours of day and night into

their day. Now that any persons could fast forty successive days, both day

and night, abstaining from food all the time, cannot be imagined: and if

they did not abstain from food all the time of their fast, the mention of

its continuance day and night would be unmeaning.

To this argument the reply of Beveridge, as may be seen in note 3, is,

that no fast was kept strictly throughout the twenty‐four hours by _total_

abstinence from food: and he quotes the 50th Canon of Laodicea to show

that the Lent fast was nothing more than abstaining from flesh, &c. and

living upon dry food. But, with deference to so great a name, this is but

begging the question. The Canon of Laodicea only shows what _the Church

required_, not what individuals practised. And Grabe(456) (on this

passage) has proved that there were anciently two kinds of strict fasts

observed in the last week of Lent ; one of abstinence from all food till

the evening, and then eating nothing but bread and salt accompanied with

pure water ; the other, practised by the more zealous, of _holding over_

one, two, three, four, or six days, till the cock‐crowing on Easterday.

Both Grabe and Bingham(457) agree (what indeed appears self‐evident) that

there is no meaning in words, if these persons did not remain in total

abstinence during this whole time ; for what extraordinary zeal could there

be in their practice, if they broke their fast in the evening, as others

did.

If, on the other hand, we suppose the fast to have been one of forty

_hours_, commencing from the hour in which Jesus gave up the ghost, and

terminating with that of his resurrection, there is then a sufficient

reason for mentioning that the fast continued day and night ; it becomes a

thing within the reach of probability ; and the period is a very natural

one for those persons to choose who felt themselves equal to it. At the

time in which the _Apostolical Constitutions_ were written, it was

enjoined on Christians(458) to fast the Friday and Saturday, if possible ;

if not, at least on the Saturday: and in either case it appears that they

were not to break their fast till the first cock‐crowing ; i. e. in all

probability, on Easter day.

Leaving, then, other sources of controversy on either side, the text

itself appears to supply the strongest evidence in favour of the

punctuation of the MSS. How that of Ruffinus arose, we are not absolutely

concerned to say: but when the practice of the more lengthened fast had

become established in the Church, it might easily lead to understanding

the words of Irenæus in such a manner as to give it primitive authority.

But even supposing the fast of forty _days_ to have been kept by _some_

persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to

have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority

for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that

would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is

that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that

Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it.

Chrysostom indeed expressly says(459), that the fast of forty days was not

ordained until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on

Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and

other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the

Communion on Easter day.

Very little more remains to be observed under this head.

Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term

παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a

bishop(460). And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use

to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely,

that of _Churchmen_(461). And that was perfectly natural, for the _Church_

had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of _Catholicism_ or

Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and

heresies, was not observed till afterwards ; and therefore the name of

_Catholic_ was posterior to that of _Churchman_.

CHAPTER XVI. ON THE SABBATH.

One of the greatest difficulties to modern readers in the history of the

primitive Church is the state of feeling and opinion on the subject of the

Sabbath. We have been in the habit of arguing from the primitive

institution of a holy day (which we have called a sabbath), and of viewing

the Lord’s day as answering to it ; and if we may judge by the language of

the earliest writers, they did not consider the Lord’s day as intended to

be a sabbath in itself, although some of them regarded it as being

appointed instead of the Sabbath(462). Irenæus certainly viewed the

institution of the Sabbath as entirely Mosaical, and thought that Abraham

and the patriarchs before the Law did not keep it(463).

It must not, however, be thence hastily concluded that he believed that

Abraham and the patriarchs knew nothing of the seventh day as a day of

divine worship. The primary and leading idea of a _sabbath_, properly so

called, is (not _holiness_ but) _rest_ ; that is, abstinence from any

employment that can be construed into labour. Now Irenæus might very well

deny that the Patriarchs kept a day of rest from all employment, without

in any degree intending to deny that they devoted the seventh day

especially to religious worship.

An illustration of my meaning will be found in the admission of Justin

Martyr, that Christians did not keep the Sabbath(464), coupled with the

well‐ascertained fact(465), that a very large proportion of them indeed

were in the habit of attending divine service on the seventh day. Perhaps

a still closer illustration is seen in the Canons of the Council of

Laodicea, which expressly forbid Christians to keep the Sabbath like

Jews(466), and at the same time direct the Eucharistic offering to be made

on that day as well as on the Lord’s day(467). If then many of the early

Christians devoted a portion of the Saturday statedly to public religious

exercises, and yet did not consider themselves as keeping a sabbath, it

would be very unsafe to infer from the assertion that the Patriarchs did

not keep the Sabbath, that therefore they had no day of religious worship.

In fact it seems scarcely possible that the division and numbering of the

days by sevens could have been kept up, as we know it was(468), before the

giving of the Law, without some religious observance connected with it.

Although, then, Irenæus did not regard the Mosaical Sabbath as being

observed before the giving of the Law, and consequently regarded it as

abolished with the Law, yet as he has asserted that the moral law or

decalogue was observed before Moses, and implies that _we_ are not at

liberty to reject it(469), it is very certain that he must have conceived

the fourth commandment to be in some sense or other a directory to

Christians: and it may therefore be inquired what he conceived ought to be

learnt from it. This may in some degree be gathered from his saying that

the Sabbath, like the whole Jewish Law, was symbolical, and that it was

intended to teach men to serve God every day, and to typify the kingdom of

God, when whosoever has persevered in godliness shall partake of his

table(470). For he believed that the world was destined to endure in its

present state as many thousands of years as the days of creation, and that

then God’s kingdom would be set up on earth(471), which will be the true

sabbath of the just(472). But he regarded our Lord’s apparent relaxation

of the stringency of the sabbath, not as a _direct_ instruction to

Christians, but as an explanation of the proper meaning of the fourth

commandment as addressed to the Jews(473).

I think it would appear from these passages that Irenæus was not in the

habit of regarding the Christian practice of hallowing the Lord’s day as

the explicit fulfilment of the fourth commandment. He lived so near the

apostolical times that he no doubt observed it in obedience to Christ’s

institution, without considering whether it was contemplated by the

original institution of a holy day or not. But in common with other

Christian writers, he did not think that the fulfilment of the fourth

commandment lay in devoting any particular portion of time to the service

of God ; but in serving him continually as much as possible ; and therefore,

as a matter of course, in observing those times of sacred repose and

divine worship which either the institution of Christ, or the common

custom of Christians, or the rules of the Church, might have

appointed(474). According to such a feeling, therefore, whilst _no_

particular portion of time would be kept with Jewish superstition, as

though it were an end of itself, whatever time was kept would be _so_ kept

as to ensure the ends proposed by its observance.

And, if we revert to what has been before observed as to Irenæus’s view of

the law of liberty, we shall see that he would be so far from supposing

that this Christian freedom authorized us to dispense with devoting one

day in seven to God’s service, that he would feel that it ought to lead

those who had it in their power to devote even a larger portion. And such

in fact was the practice of the Christians of those times. They assembled

together not only on the morning and evening of the Sunday, but also

throughout the east on the morning and evening of Saturday, and on the

morning of Wednesday and Friday. When, therefore, there was so much zeal

for the service of God, and the commandment was kept so amply in its

spirit without thinking of the letter of it,—the warm feeling of

Christians making them a law to themselves,—there was nothing to lead them

to inquire critically how much the commandment actually required of them ;

and to have instituted such an inquiry would have appeared like putting a

restriction upon the ardour of Christian love, and returning to the spirit

of the Law of Moses.

The true question, then, to ask is, _not_ why the first Christians did not

put the Lord’s day upon the footing of the paradisiacal sabbath, _but_ why

we are _called upon_ to do so in these latter days? And the true answer

will be found in the fact that the great body of us have abused the law of

liberty, as the Israelites of old had done, and therefore, like them, have

need, in the providential dealings of God, to be put back under rules and

restrictions again, until we are become fitted to act as _children_ of

God: and when we are so, we have no wish to shake off such restrictions,

but of our own accord go beyond them.

In connection with this subject it is very remarkable that the Church of

England in her catechism has not thought proper to connect the Lord’s day

in particular with the fourth commandment ; although most of our writers

for the last three hundred years have found it necessary so to do. It is

true that we have done no more than our duty by pointing out to our people

that God from the beginning has hallowed one day in seven, in order to

prevent them from relapsing into absolute heathenism ; —the error has been

that we have too much omitted to show that this was the least he would be

satisfied with. We have too much written as though those who fully

observed one day in seven had done their duty, instead of leading them to

feel that they cannot be possessed of the spirit of true Christian

obedience so long as they confine themselves to the _letter_ of the law,

and do not of their own accord embrace _every_ means of grace and

spiritual improvement.

CHAPTER XVII. ON THE TYPICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

The writers of the primitive Church, taking the lead from the inspired

writers, and probably preserving in many cases the traditional

interpretations of the Apostles, were in the habit of seeing types in many

things which to us appear to have none but a literal meaning. It is,

however, certain that there was a great tendency amongst the Hellenistic

Jews to make the whole of the Old Testament typical ; and no doubt some

Christians early followed them, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the

Shepherd of Hermas (which were early writings, whether spurious or not)

abundantly show: and this tendency continued to increase until the time of

Origen, by whom it was pushed to such extremes, that, from that time, it

became less popular.

Irenæus, however, is far from being a fanciful writer, and was more

directly connected with the Apostles than most of the Fathers, and

therefore the types which he recognises are worthy of much more attention

than those of Origen.

With him, then, Abel was a type of Christ, as having suffered

innocently(475) ; Joseph(476) was a type of Christ, though in what way we

are not told, probably in the same sense as Abel ; Moses was a type of him

when he spread forth his hands, and by that sign conquered Amalek(477).

That the brazen serpent was a type of healing man from the bite of the old

serpent by faith, the words of Christ himself led him to see(478).

There were other points in which Moses was a type of Christ. “He took an

Ethiopian woman to wife, whom he thereby made an Israelitess ; foreshowing

that the wild olive is grafted into the olive, and partakes of its

fatness. For since that Christ, who was born according to the flesh, was

to be sought out for destruction, and to be delivered in Egypt, that is,

amongst the Gentiles, to sanctify the infants there, whence also he made a

Church there ; (for Egypt was from the beginning a gentile nation, as was

also Æthiopia ; ) for this reason by the marriage of Moses was shown the

marriage of the Word, and by the Æthiopian wife the Gentile Church is

pointed out: and those who speak against it, and inveigh against and

deride it, shall not be clean ; for they shall be leprous and cast out of

the camp(479).”

He declares that the re‐appearance of justification by faith, after it had

been for some time cast out of sight by the Law of Moses, was typified by

the circumstances of the birth of the sons of Thamar. For as Zarah put

forth his hand first, and had the scarlet thread bound upon it, and then

retiring gave way to his brother Pharez, and thus was born after him ; by

this the Scripture declared “that people which has the scarlet sign, viz.

faith in uncircumcision, which was shown first in the patriarchs, and

afterwards withdrawn when its brother was born ; and that in consequence

that which was first was born second, being known by the scarlet mark upon

it, which is the suffering of the Just One, foreshown in Abel, written by

the Prophets, and accomplished in the last times in the Son of God(480).”

Irenæus was of opinion that some of the apparent misdeeds of the old

Patriarchs were not really sins, but circumstances brought upon them by

divine Providence, with some mystical and typical end. Thus the

cohabitation of Lot and his daughters is with him providential and

typical, signifying that from one Father the Word, by means of the life‐

giving Spirit, the two sister synagogues, the Jewish and the Christian,

have brought forth a spiritual seed(481).

St. Paul has taught us that Jacob and Esau were types of the elder and

younger Churches ; but Irenæus has much amplified the figure, and brought

in other parallelisms. “And if any one would study the acts of Jacob, he

will find them not empty, but full of providential arrangements(482): and

first in his birth, as he caught hold of the heel of his brother, and was

called Jacob, that is, the supplanter ; holding and not holden ; fettering

but not fettered ; struggling and conquering ; holding in his hand the heel

of his adversary, i. e. the victory: to this end was the Lord born, whose

birth he typified, concerning whom John saith in the Revelation, _He went

forth conquering, to conquer_. Moreover, in taking the birthright when his

brother disdained it ; as also the younger people accepted Christ the

first‐born, when the elder people rejected him, saying, _We have no __

king but Cæsar_. And in Christ was the whole blessing ; and for this reason

the latter people stole from the Father the blessing of the former people,

as Jacob took away the blessing from Esau. For which cause his brother

suffered from the lying in wait and persecutions of a brother, as also the

Church suffers from the Jews(483). The twelve tribes, the children of

Israel, were born in a foreign country, as Christ began at a distance from

his home to lay the twelve‐pillared foundation of the Church. The spotted

sheep were the wages of Jacob ; and Christ’s reward is the assemblage of

men from differing nations into the one bond of the faith(484), as the

Father promised him: ‘Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for

thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.’

And as to Jacob, the Lord’s prophet, it consisted of a multitude of

children, it was necessary that he should have children from two sisters ;

as also Christ from two laws of one and the same Father(485) ; and likewise

of two maid‐servants, signifying that Christ should make sons of God out

both of those who in the flesh were free and of slaves, granting to all

alike the gift of the life‐giving Spirit(486). And he did all for the sake

of the younger, Rachel, who typified the Church, for whose sake Christ

endured(487).”

Rahab the harlot, again, who was a heathen and a great sinner, and

received the three spies, and by reliance upon the scarlet thread, (which

meant the same thing as the passover,) was saved, whilst the city in which

she lived was destroyed, is a type of sinners in all future ages, who,

revering the Trinity, and by faith in Christ our passover, are saved,

whilst the world of those who rejected him are lost(488).

Joshua, again, he makes a type of Christ, bringing his people into their

eternal inheritance, as Moses brought them out of captivity ; and he

further declares that as Moses, representing the law, rested, in

prefiguration of the cessation of the law, so Joshua, as representing the

Gospel, and a perfect type of the personal Word, discoursed to the people ;

and that as Moses gave the manna, so Joshua gave the new bread, the first‐

fruits of life, a figure of the body of Christ(489).

He finds a very humble parallel to our Lord in the ass of Balaam: for as

all men rest from toil by mounting on a beast of burden, so Christ gives

us repose from the toil of our souls by bearing the burden of our

sins(490).

The last specimens of types which I shall bring forward are to be found in

the history of Samson. The temple in which he found his death, filled with

Philistines, St. Irenæus supposes to represent the world of the ungodly ;

Samson himself is God’s true people ; the two pillars are the two

covenants ; and the lad who conducted Samson to the pillars is John the

Baptist, leading God’s people to know the mystery of Christ(491).

These types will, of course, bring with them to the mind various degrees

of probability. The Scripture itself teaches us the principle of typical

application ; and no person who considers the manner in which the various

books of the New Testament were written, their occasional nature, so to

speak, will suppose that the whole of the types are developed in it. We

must therefore be left to ourselves, in some degree, to discover the other

types ; and yet it cannot be supposed that all the resemblances our mind

can strike out were absolutely intended. But it must be _some_

recommendation of any typical application, to say the least, to find it

struck out in that early age, when those who had conversed with

apostolical men were living: and where we find a number of writers

agreeing to adopt any one type, (as, for instance, Clement of Rome, Justin

and Irenæus, make Rahab’s scarlet line typical,) it will, I suppose,

appear to most minds to have a very high probability. And it is only by

noticing the types in each early writer, that we can arrive at this

species of authority for any one particular type.

CHAPTER XVIII. ON THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.

Persons sometimes ask, What is the advantage of studying the Fathers? why

cannot we be contented with the light of Scripture? Those who study them

reply, that one use at least is, that by their help the obscure parts of

Scripture, where some truths are but hinted at or supposed, are brought

forth into light and clear outline.

An instance of this, and a very unobjectionable one, is to be found in the

doctrine of Irenæus, and not of him alone, as to the intermediate state.

We know from Scripture that there is an unseen state to which Christ

descended(492) ; and that the just after death go to paradise(493), and are

with Christ(494). If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is taken

literally, it seems to be implied that the good and bad are separated in

that state, and yet that they are capable of holding intercourse with each

other ; and there seems to be a hint that the state of the dead is, in some

sense, a state of confinement(495). Beyond this we have little, if any

thing.

Our views, however, such as they are, become confirmed and acquire

definiteness, as we find the same subjects treated of or alluded to by

Irenæus.

He treats the parable I have spoken of, as not strictly a parable, but a

relation of real occurrences(496) ; and asserts that it shows us that the

soul, in a state of separation from the body, retains its individuality,

so that disembodied souls may know each other, and hold mutual

intercourse ; and that each class of persons has its appropriate habitation

even before the day of judgment(497). Accordingly he affirms that Christ

observed the law of the dead, and departed into the midst of the shadow of

death, where the souls of the dead were. And conformably he teaches us

that the souls of his disciples will at death depart into the invisible

place destined for them by God, and there remain, waiting for the

resurrection(498). And this invisible place he declares to be paradise, to

which Enoch and Elias are already translated with their bodies,

anticipating immortality(499). But to those who have died he declares that

this state is a state of condemnation, even to those who are found in

life(500). For he believed that the souls of the just, although in death

and consequent condemnation, would retain the Spirit of God, and

consequently the seed and pledge of a new life(501) ; and that by means of

this same Spirit they would rise again at the last day, being quickened by

the Spirit, even as their Lord was(502).

There is another branch of this subject ; viz. the employment of our

Saviour while in the intermediate state. Irenæus thought, as did other

Fathers, that our Lord went and preached the Gospel to those who were

dead, there being forgiveness to whosoever would believe in him, so

preaching to them ; and that those who in old times had hoped in him, and

foretold his coming, did then believe in him and obtain remission(503).

Here again we have a definite meaning given to passages of Holy Writ,

respecting which we may discuss and have discussed endlessly, resting in

the mere light of Scripture. And that being the case, it appears more

rational to accept the interpretation furnished by early writers, who are

in all probability in this and other cases giving us views which had come

down from the Apostles themselves.

CHAPTER XIX. ON UNFULFILLED PROPHECY.

It was the opinion of the Gnostics that the Tempter was either the same as

the God of the Old Testament, acting in opposition to the Supreme Being,

or a creature and agent of this God. In contradiction to this notion,

Irenæus lays down, and confirms from various portions of Scripture, that

he was one of the angels, attendants upon the Supreme Being, who rebelled

against him, who consummated his rebellion by seducing man from his

allegiance, and who is always setting himself up as a rebel against his

Maker(504).

Having proved this from the past history of the world, he continues the

proof by adducing the prophecies concerning Antichrist, the Millennium,

and the consummation of all things(505). In this way he is led to develope

his own views upon those subjects: and as his opinions on the Millennium

are different from those which have prevailed subsequently, with almost

universal consent in the Western Church, that portion of his Treatise is

rarely found complete in our present MSS., the copyists not thinking it

proper or worth their while to copy what was generally disapproved by the

Church(506).

Irenæus, then, regards Antichrist as a direct agent of Satan, in and by

means of whom he will fulfil the great object of his rebellion, of

procuring himself to be owned by mankind as their king, and worshipped as

their God ; by whom he will abolish all idols, and set himself up as the

one idol, uniting in himself all the delusion of all the false gods who

have ever existed. In him, therefore, will be literally fulfilled the

prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4(507) ; for he will literally

enthrone himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and by oppressive

methods will endeavour to exhibit himself as God, and Christ(508). Irenæus

applies to this event the prophecy of Daniel concerning _the abomination

of desolation_, quoted by our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 15, 16(509).

He likewise applies to him what is said by Daniel of _the little horn_, in

Dan. vii. 8. 20‐26 ; conceiving the _ten horns_ to be ten kings of

different portions of the Roman Empire(510), and consequently believing

that Antichrist will be a power, who will overthrow and kill three of the

kings of those divisions, and reign for a space of three years and a half ;

during which time he will trample under foot the saints of the Most

High(511).

He affirms that he is the _other_, mentioned by our Lord, (John v. 43,)

_who will come in his own name_ ; and the _unjust judge, who feared not God

nor regarded men_, to whom the widowed Jerusalem will come for redress

against her enemy ; in consequence of which he will transfer the seat of

his dominion thither.

He declares him to be the _wicked king_ of Daniel, (viii. 23‐25,) who for

three years and a half will put down the pure offering which the saints

offer to God, i. e. the Holy Eucharist(512).

He finds him under the _Beast_ of the Revelation of St. John, (xvii.

11‐14,) who will drive the Church into the wilderness, and finally be

vanquished by our Lord. He identifies the ten kings who will give their

kingdom to the beast with the ten divisions of Daniel’s fourth kingdom,

(Dan. ii. 33,) of whom three will be killed by Antichrist ; and the rest,

submitting to him, will assist him in conquering Babylon, and burning it

with fire: and he makes the stone cut out without hands to be Christ, who

shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and set up an eternal one, (Dan. ii. 44,

45(513)).

Irenæus again sees Antichrist in the _beast_ (Rev. xiii. 2‐18) whose head

was wounded, who has a mouth given to him speaking great things, and

receives power for forty and two months ; who has an armour‐bearer, called

the false prophet, who will work great miracles by magical power, through

the aid of evil spirits ; the number of whose name is 666(514).

Respecting this number he enters into a special discussion, in which he

first reproves those who hastily endeavoured to interpret it(515), and

then endeavours to lay down correct principles of interpretation for it.

He suggests that we must wait till the other signs of Antichrist begin to

be fulfilled, such as the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts, and

the sudden coming of another power to their discomfiture. We must also

remark, he tells us, that Jeremiah (viii. 16) has foretold that he will be

of the tribe of Dan(516). We must not be rash in applying the number to

any particular individual or power, for many names will correspond with

it, such as Εὐάνθας, Λατεῖνος, (which he thinks very probable, as being

the name of the last of the four empires,) and Τειτὰν, for which he

suggests many, to his apprehension, plausible recommendations(517).

This is the sum of what he tells us on the subject of Antichrist ; and he

declares that when he has reigned, sitting in the temple of Jerusalem, for

three years and a half, then the Lord will come to judgment, and to

introduce the times of the kingdom of heaven, and the true Sabbath, in

which many shall come from the east and west, and sit down with Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob(518).

It is foreign to my purpose to enter into the probability or improbability

of these interpretations: but two things strike me as remarkable: first,

the decided identification of the ten horns of _the beast_ with the Roman

Empire in a state of division ; and secondly, the admission of the mystical

meaning of _days_ in the prophecy of Daniel (viii. 27) as signifying

_years_, coupled with the literal interpretation of time in other

passages ; as, for instance, Dan. vii. 25, and Rev. xiii. 5.

When the short reign of Antichrist ceases, the undisputed reign of Christ

(according to Irenæus) will begin, and will continue a thousand years. For

as the days of creation were six, and the day of rest one ; as moreover one

day is with the Lord a thousand years ; this world is destined to endure

six thousand years in this state of turmoil and perplexity(519), and then

will succeed a thousand of rest and enjoyment(520). When that time

arrives, the world will be restored to its pristine state ; the very

animals will all associate together in peace ; the just will rise with

their bodies, and upon this very earth, upon which they suffered, will

receive the reward of their endurance(521). Then shall Abraham receive,

fully and literally, the promise made to him and to his seed, i. e. the

Church, and shall really enjoy his inheritance from the river of Egypt to

the great Euphrates(522). Then shall Jesus drink the fruit of the vine new

with his disciples(523) ; for there shall be no more labour, but there

shall be a continual table prepared by a creative hand, by the incredible

productiveness of the fruits of the earth(524). Then shall the righteous

hold intercourse and communion with Angels(525) in Jerusalem, which shall

be then rebuilt(526).

This state of things he believed, as I have said, would last a thousand

years ; and he adopted this view, not for want of knowing that there was an

allegorical interpretation, but because he thought it forced and

unnatural, and labouring under irremediable difficulties(527).

And when the thousand years were ended, he believed that the great day of

judgment would come, and the general resurrection, when the New Jerusalem

would descend from heaven, of which the former Jerusalem, in which the

just were prepared for immortality, would have been but an image(528).

Then will there be new heavens and a new earth, in which man will for ever

converse with God. But there will not be only one abode of the righteous:

some will ascend into heaven above the angels ; others will enjoy the

delights of a paradise(529) ; but all will have the continual manifestation

of the presence of God, and be changed into his likeness(530).

This, I believe, is a correct view of the opinions of Irenæus as to

certain departments of unfulfilled prophecy. I offer upon them no opinion

of my own ; but it is right to say that he was by no means singular in his

own age(531), and that there is no writer of any importance, down to the

time of Origen, who impugned the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ

on earth. After that time, that doctrine became more and more unpopular in

the Church at large ; although many, from time to time, have advocated

views more or less in accordance with those of the primitive millenarians.

CHAPTER XX. THE VIRGIN MARY.

There are two passages of Irenæus, in which the name of the Blessed Virgin

is introduced, which would not have called for any particular remark, were

it not for the manner in which they are perverted by Romanist writers, and

especially by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in support of the

blasphemous honour they bestow on her. When, however, we have examined

them, we shall perceive that, although they may, no doubt, to those whose

minds are imbued with superstitious prejudice, at first sight appear to

countenance that prejudice, they do not really favour it.

The first of these passages affirms that “as Eve, having Adam for her

husband, but being still a virgin ... being disobedient, became both to

herself and to the whole human race the cause of death ; so also Mary,

having her destined husband and yet a virgin, being obedient, became both

to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation(532).” There

seems no difficulty in granting all this, and yet the conclusion by no

means follows that the Blessed Virgin is to be regarded as a mediatrix and

intercessor with God, next after her Son(533). Eve was certainly the cause

of death to the whole human race, because through her transgression Adam

was made to transgress ; and in him all mankind are made sinners. But it

does not appear that original sin came to all mankind directly from Eve,

or that she was any otherwise the cause of death to our race, except by

bringing Adam into the transgression: otherwise we must suppose that our

Lord, being born of a woman, must have inherited a sinful nature ; for even

Massuet does not make the Virgin sinless. As the transgression of Eve

therefore, although no doubt her own act, was only instrumentally and

indirectly the cause of our condemnation, so the obedience of the Virgin

Mary, although her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the

cause of our salvation, that is, by leading to the incarnation and birth

of our Lord(534). And if so, there is no foundation whatever for making

her a mediatrix and intercessor with God.

But still stronger reliance appears to be placed upon the next passage, in

which the Virgin Mary is called “the _advocate_ of the Virgin Eve(535).”

And yet that very passage supplies a proof that this term cannot be taken

otherwise than in a figurative and improper sense: for Irenæus therein

asserts that “as the human race was condemned to death through a virgin,

so it is _saved_ through a virgin ; ” i. e. as he himself explains it,

through her submission to the angelic announcement of the will of God,

that his Son should be born of her. Now it would be clear blasphemy to

ascribe our _salvation_ to the Virgin otherwise than in a figurative

sense, as being an instrument in the divine hand for its accomplishment by

becoming the mother of the real Saviour ; and so, in the same figurative

sense she was the advocate of Eve, by becoming the mother of him who was

really her advocate. The figure is, no doubt, rather bold, but still it is

evidently but a figure.

This interpretation indeed is so obvious, that to us, who have no such

prejudices as the members of the Roman Church, it would have been

unnecessary to insist upon it, were it not for the violent perversion of

the passage by their writers. It is, perhaps, worthy of more distinct

indication, that Irenæus, by declaring that the Blessed Virgin was the

cause of salvation to _herself_, as well as to others(536), directly

contradicts the idea held by some in the Roman Church, (and I believe in

the Greek likewise,) that she was entirely sinless. On the other hand, he

undoubtedly countenances (although he does not use) the appellation given

to her by many, of the _mother of God_(537).

CHAPTER XXI. ACCOUNT OF THE GNOSTIC TEACHERS AND THEIR TENETS.

Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.

Several writers have speculated upon the sources of the Gnostic errors ;

but, I believe that the assertion of Irenæus remains uncontradicted, that

SIMON MAGUS was the first to give them a definite form(538). We learn from

Theodoret(539), Elias Cretensis(540), and Nicetas(541), that he imagined

an ogdoad of superior beings, all the rest of whom emanated from the

first. He imagined one First Cause, the source of all existence, with whom

he joined his Thought (Ἔννοια). Irenæus mentions no more than these(542).

Simon taught that this Thought, issuing forth from the Supreme Father, and

knowing his intentions, descended from above, and produced the Angels and

Powers by whom the world was made, and who were ignorant of the Father:

that they, not wishing to acknowledge any author of their existence,

detained her, and subjected her to every kind of contumely, to prevent her

return to the Father, and caused her to exist in this world in perpetual

transmigration from one female form to another.

He taught that he himself was this Supreme Father(543), and a prostitute,

named Helena, whom he had purchased at Tyre, and with whom he cohabited,

was his Thought, who had been formerly the Trojan Helen: that she was the

lost sheep(544), and that he was come down upon earth to rescue her from

the bondage in which she was held ; and to rescue man by the knowledge of

himself from the tyranny they were under to the angels who created the

world. This tyranny was obedience to the moral law, which was imposed upon

man by the agency of the inspired persons of the old dispensation solely

to keep him in subjection: and the deliverance he accomplished for his

followers was to bring them to believe that all actions were indifferent

in their own nature, and that the will of the Creative Powers was the only

thing which made one action more just than another. To do away with this

tyranny, he declared that he had transformed himself first into a

resemblance to the angels, then into that of man ; in which latter form he

had appeared in Judæa as the Son, and there apparently suffered ; but only

apparently(545) ; that he had afterwards manifested himself to the

Samaritans as the Father, and to the rest of the world as the Holy

Ghost(546).

Irenæus gives it as his own opinion that the conversion of Simon was only

pretended ; that he regarded the Apostles as nothing more than impostors or

sorcerers of a somewhat deeper skill and subtler knowledge than himself,

which he hoped to be initiated into: and that his mortification at the

rebuff he met with caused him to set himself in opposition to them, and to

dive deeper into magic arts for that purpose ; on account of his

proficiency in which he was honoured by Claudius Cæsar with a statue(547).

The natural fruits followed from such doctrines and such an example. The

priests of his heresy were sorcerers of various degrees of ability, and

their lives were very impure. They taught their followers to worship Simon

under the form of Jupiter, and Helena under that of Minerva(548).

It is obvious that such a scheme was adapted only to the gross and

ignorant, with just enough of mysticism about it to enable its founder to

keep up the character of a philosopher with the more refined, and enable

him to pass off his lewdness as the result of a philosophical system,

rather than the dominion of low propensities. The Emperor Claudius,

notorious as a man of weak intellect, was an extremely likely person to be

both amused and duped by his magical performances.

We have here the germ of all the Antinomian heresies from that time to the

present. However they may have been _espoused_ by refined and virtuous

minds, they all originate with persons of impure and unbridled

propensities, who are unwilling to avow the real grossness of their

characters, and therefore set up for some deeper knowledge or more subtle

system than ordinary men.

It will be observed, too, that Irenæus confirms the statement of Justin

Martyr respecting the statue erected in honour of Simon(549). The subject

is so well taken up by the late Dr. E. Burton, in the 42nd note to his

Bampton Lectures, that I do not purpose to enter into it here, further

than to remark that Irenæus ought not to be regarded as merely _following_

Justin: for he himself had visited Rome, and was therefore likely to have

informed himself personally upon a subject which he thought sufficiently

important to bring forward in controversy.

It is likewise a fact deserving notice, that the first instance we have of

the worship of images amongst persons recognizing in any degree the

gospel, is to be found amongst the followers of Simon Magus. Something of

this kind probably suggested St. John’s caution: “Little children, keep

yourselves from idols.”

Concerning NICOLAS, the author, whether intentionally or not, of the sect

which bears his name(550), he informs us that he was one of the seven

deacons, which some have doubted. He gives us no additional information

concerning the sect, beyond that furnished by St. John(551). This,

however, connects them with the Gnostics in their licentious doctrines,

and no further.

The EBIONITES are mentioned by Irenæus, as though he meant to class them

with the Gnostics: but all the information he gives respecting them leads

to the conclusion that they had nothing in common with them, except their

schism. He expressly states that they believed differently from the

Gnostics, and agreed with Christians as to the creation of the world ; and

that they differed from Cerinthus and Carpocrates on the subject of the

miraculous conception(552). Tertullian(553) indeed implies that Ebion

denied this latter fact ; and Eusebius distinctly asserts of the great body

of his followers, that they thought, as Carpocrates and Cerinthus did,

that Jesus was a mere man, and exalted for his excellence like other

men(554): but he states, and Theodoret(555) confirms his statement, that

there were Ebionites who believed the miraculous conception.

Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.

The succession of heresy, unlike that of the Church, had not for its

object the keeping up of one uniform system of doctrine, but the

exhibition of something sufficiently attractive or striking to prevent the

minds of men from dwelling upon the truth. It required _leaders_, and

therefore persons remarkable for ability of some kind or another. A

successor was therefore provided to Simon in the person of MENANDER, a

Samaritan like himself(556), and, as Justin informs us, his pupil(557) ;

but whose great qualification was, that he equalled or excelled his master

in the knowledge of magic(558). Heresy, likewise, not requiring to be

uniform, permitted its successive teachers to improve upon the system of

their predecessors ; and by this means both satisfied the natural love of

mankind for novelty, and kept up the appetite. So Menander differed a

little from Simon, at least in expression, in saying that the Supreme

Essence was unknown to all men. He likewise introduced another _name_ from

the Gospel, representing himself, not as the Supreme Being, either

personally or by direct emanation and operation, (as Simon did,) but as

the Saviour, _sent_ by the unseen Powers for the salvation of man. He

likewise taught his followers, that by the magical practices in which he

instructed them, they might even _vanquish_ the Angelic Creators of this

lower world, which was somewhat more than Simon promised.

It appears likewise that he initiated his followers by _baptism_, which he

represented as the true and only resurrection, and taught them to believe

that after receiving it they could neither grow old nor die(559). How he

got over the fact that they did both, we are not informed: but this making

baptism the same thing as the resurrection, explains St. Paul’s

words(560), where he represents some as teaching that “the resurrection is

already past.” Hymenæus and Philetus, who spread this error in all

probability in Asia Minor, might easily have been disciples of Menander,

who made Antioch his head quarters(561).

Menander was succeeded by two of his pupils(562), SATURNINUS and

BASILIDES, who, though taking up the same general system, were very

different men, and therefore modified it in different ways, and were

employed by their invisible master in different parts of _his_ vineyard.

SATURNINUS remained at Antioch, teaching the same general doctrine as his

preceptor Menander. He defined the number of the angels by whom the world

was made to be seven(563), one of whom was the God of the Jews ; and he

introduced one of the remaining angels, who had not been concerned in the

creation, under the name of Satan, as the opponent of the Creators, and

more especially of the God of the Jews(564). He represented the creation

of man as having taken place at the suggestion of the Supreme Power, who

exhibited to the angels a bright image of himself ; which, as he

immediately drew it up again to himself, they endeavoured to copy, and

thus made man _after its image and likeness_: but not having the power to

make him erect, he would have grovelled on the earth like a worm, had not

the Supreme Power, taking compassion on this poor copy of himself, sent

forth into it a spark of life, which gave it limbs and an erect

posture(565). By an unaccountable inconsistency, however, (for having a

system to make or improve at pleasure, he might as well have made its

parts consistent with each other,) he likewise taught that there were at

first created two sorts of men, one of which was not enkindled with the

celestial spark: that those alone would be saved who possessed it(566) ;

and that when they died, this heavenly portion of them would ascend to the

Powers above, and the other portions of their nature would be

dissolved(567).

The cause of the coming of the Saviour, or _Christ_, as they also called

him, (who was unborn, incorporeal, and man only in appearance,) he

declared to be the conspiracy of all the Angelic Princes, headed by the

Jewish God, against the Supreme Father ; which obliged him to come down to

destroy the God of the Jews, together with demons and wicked men, and to

save those who believed in him, that is, those who had received the spark

of life. Who these demons were, or whether the whole of the angels were to

be destroyed, we are not told(568).

The prophecies of the Old Testament he attributed partly to the Creators

and partly to Satan(569).

It is evident that this is merely a modification of the scheme of Simon

Magus, with the addition of _Satan_, and _the Jewish God_, and _the spark

of life_: but there is another feature of his system which is remarkable,

as differing widely from that of his predecessors. Instead of opening the

door to unbridled lust, he affected an extraordinary repugnance to every

thing carnal, declaring marriage and its natural consequences to be works

of Satan ; and some of his followers entirely abstain from animal

food(570).

BASILIDES(571), the other successor of Menander, settled at Alexandria in

Egypt. He was, as I have said, a man of very different character from

Saturninus, and followed his master in his addiction to magical practices,

and in his licentious doctrines ; teaching likewise that meats offered to

idols were to be eaten indifferently with others(572).

But that he might have something of his own, he greatly modified and added

to the speculative system of his predecessors. He taught that from the

Unborn Father was born his Mind, and from him the Word, from him

Understanding (Φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power, and from them

Excellences, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven. He then

introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set derived from

the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the author of their own

peculiar heaven(573). To all these angels and heavens he gave names(574),

and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first of them is

called Abraxas, a mystical name containing in it the number 365(575) ; the

last and lowest is the one which we see ; the Creators of which made this

world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this division

the Jewish nation came to the share of the Prince of the Angels ; and as he

wished to bring all other nations into subjection to his favourite nation,

the other angelic Princes and their nations resisted him and his

nation(576). The Supreme Father, seeing this state of things, sent his

first‐begotten Mind, who is also called Christ, to deliver those who

should believe in him from the power of the Creators. He accordingly

appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds. He did not,

however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of Cyrene, and stood

by laughing whilst Simon suffered ; and afterwards, being himself

incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this transformation,

Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all times deny him that

was crucified, and that they alone who did so understood the providential

dealings of the Most High, and by that _knowledge_ were freed from the

power of the angels, whilst those who confessed him remained under their

power(577). Like Saturninus, however, but in other words, he asserted that

the soul alone was capable of salvation, but the body necessarily

perishable(578).

He taught, moreover, that they who knew his whole system, and could

recount the names of the angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and

could pass through and see them, without being seen in return: that they

ought likewise to keep themselves individually and personally unknown to

common men, and even to deny that they are what they are ; that they should

assert themselves to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means

reveal their mysteries(579). This, of course, and their unscrupulousness

as to actions of any kind whatever, would entirely exempt them from

persecution.

It appears likewise, from a fragment preserved in Origen’s _Commentary on

the Romans_(580), that he taught the transmigration of souls. He affirmed

that the martyrs suffered for offences committed at some other time: for

he thought it contrary to the divine justice that any innocent person

should suffer(581).

In this scheme we find a feature, which was afterwards taken up and

amplified, viz., the connection of mystical numbers with Gnosticism.

It is likewise curious to observe how much of the Gospel history and

phraseology was interwoven with it, without one single atom of its purity

and regenerating influence.

Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.

CARPOCRATES is placed by Irenæus next to Basilides(582): but as there is a

general agreement amongst the early writers that Carpocrates was prior to

Cerinthus(583), and that the latter flourished in the last years of St.

John, it appears most probable that Carpocrates was, if any thing, earlier

than Basilides, and more properly coeval with Menander. In favour of this

idea there is this internal argument, that his system does not appear to

be in any degree an amplification or alteration of that of Basilides, but

rather to have been an independent modification of the original scheme of

Simon.

He agreed with him, and Menander, and Basilides, in professing magic(584),

and in preaching licentious doctrines. He agreed with Simon likewise in

teaching the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and adapted it to

the support of profligacy, by asserting that every soul is destined to

become acquainted with every kind of action, and that it passes from body

to body until it has accomplished every thing to which it is

predestined(585).

Like all other Gnostics, he asserted that the world and human bodies were

made by Angels(586) ; he agreed with some in teaching that all souls were

originally in the same _sphere_ (περιφορὰ) as the Supreme Being(587), but

that when once placed in bodies, they continued under the power of the

Angels, until they had fulfilled their destined task ; that when a person

died, his soul was brought before the Prince of the Angels, by the Devil,

and if it had not accomplished every thing, was handed over to another

Angel, to be inclosed again in a body ; but that when it has fulfilled its

destiny they have no longer any power over it, but it returns to the

Father, from whom it originally came(588).

Unlike Simon, however, or any whom I have yet mentioned, (except, perhaps,

Ebion) he taught that Jesus was a mere man, the son of Joseph ; that being

brought up in the Jews’ religion, remembering what he had been when in the

same sphere with the Father, and being of an unusually firm and resolute

mind, he looked down upon the Angels, and set at nought bodily

suffering(589). But his followers thought that there was no reason why any

individual man might not surpass Jesus, and that, in point of fact, many

of their sect were superior to the Apostles. Others went so far as to

affirm, that the Apostles were not at all inferior to Jesus, and that if

any man whatever could attain to a greater degree of contempt for the

Creators than Jesus arrived at, he would become superior to him(590).

They affirmed that we are to be saved by faith and love ; all actions being

good or bad only according to human opinion ; and that Jesus taught their

system as an esoteric doctrine to the Apostles, who delivered it to those

who were worthy(591).

Some branded their followers upon the right ear(592).

I mentioned before that the first worship of images arose amongst

heretics: and it is remarkable that heretics again, viz. the

Carpocratians, were the first to pay honour to the image of Christ, whom

they worshipped equally with Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, with

the same kind of honour as that which was customary amongst the

heathen(593).

One of the female followers of Carpocrates, by name Marcellina, is said to

have visited Rome in the time of Anicetus, and to have seduced many(594).

Respecting CERINTHUS, whom we know from Irenæus to have been a

contemporary of St. John(595), the information he furnishes is very

slight. He did not attribute the Creation to the Angels in a body, but to

some one Power far removed from the Supreme Power. He made Jesus a mere

man, but more excellent than other men: he affirmed that the Christ had

descended upon him at baptism, and made known to him the unknown Father,

and empowered him to work miracles, but that he departed from him before

the crucifixion, and left him to suffer alone(596).

Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.

CERDON would seem to be another independent offset from the stock of

Simon. He likewise taught a Supreme God, the Father of our Lord Jesus

Christ, and another inferior deity, who inspired the prophets(597). He

joined the church at Rome under Hyginus, its bishop, i. e. about A.D. 141,

and appears to have wished by all means to remain in its communion ; and

accordingly he recanted his error. He could not, however, refrain from

spreading it covertly, and being detected, he again recanted ; still he

kept his heresy, and being at length judged incorrigible, he was withheld

from the communion of the Church(598).

MARCION succeeded Cerdon(599), and took up and amplified his doctrine. He

likewise made the Creator inferior to the Supreme God, and the author of

evil, fond of war, inconsistent, and self‐contradictory ; and taught that

Jesus was sent by the Supreme God to do away all the operations of the

Creator, and especially the Law and the Prophets(600). He agreed with

other Gnostics in declaring that the soul alone was capable of salvation,

and of souls only those which received his doctrine ; but the peculiarity

of his system was, that Cain, and the Sodomites, and Egyptians, &c. were

saved by believing in Jesus, when he descended into hell ; but that Abel,

Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the good men and prophets of the Old

Covenant, having often been deceived by their God, were afraid to trust in

Jesus, and consequently remain still in the state of death(601).

Another peculiarity was that, whilst professing to receive portions of the

New Testament, such as the Gospel of St. Luke and the Epistles of St.

Paul, he rejected every portion of them which he imagined to militate

against his hypothesis(602).

Marcion, who, having been originally a Christian, and the son of a Bishop,

had been excommunicated for seduction(603), appears to have harmonized

with Saturninus in professing extraordinary strictness of habits(604).

Hence some of the followers of both formed themselves into a separate

sect, called by a name (Ἐγκρατεῖς) of which perhaps PURITANS is the best

English Translation. TATIAN, who had been a sincere Christian, was

formerly a disciple of Justin, and had written a treatise to set forth the

folly of the heathen religion(605), became a leading man amongst them: for

they adopted an opinion of his that Adam was not saved. Their most

distinguishing characteristics however were, their abstinence from

marriage, and from animal food(606).

Marcion taught that Cain and the Sodomites, &c. were saved by believing in

Jesus(607). Others went further, and declared that they were agents of the

Supreme Power, to oppose the God of this world. They likewise took Judas

under their patronage, and declare that he betrayed Jesus, not from

treachery or a love of gain, but because, being better instructed than the

rest, he was aware that the death of Jesus would be the means of

dissolving and breaking up the whole work of the Creator, whom they

regarded as in rebellion against the Great Original(608).

Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.

Those of whom I have hitherto spoken have been acknowledged disciples,

more or less directly, of Simon Magus. But there were others, who owned no

connexion with him, and yet taught a system more or less like his. The

BARBELIOTS, for instance, imagined one Supreme Being, and with him another

Being of the female sex, but remaining always a virgin, and never growing

old, whom they call Barbelo, Ennœa (Thought), &c.

They say that he _willed_ to manifest himself to her, and that she, coming

into his presence, called for Foreknowledge, and she came forth. At their

request again Incorruption was produced, and then Life Eternal. After this

Barbelo herself produced a light like to herself, which the Father saw and

anointed with his goodness, and thus made it the Christ. At his request

Understanding was sent him as a helpmate, and afterwards the Father added

the Word: upon which there were made Pairs, by the union of Thought and

the Word, Incorruption and the Christ, Life Eternal and the Will of the

Father, Understanding and Foreknowledge ; all of whom magnified the Great

Light and Barbelo(609).

From Thought and the Word was then sent forth the Self‐existent and the

Truth ; from the Christ and Incorruption, four Lights to attend upon the

Self‐existent ; and from Will and Life Eternal, four Beings to wait upon

these Lights, namely, Grace, Will, Comprehension (Σύνεσις), and Prudence.

These were joined respectively to the four Lights, and made other four

Pairs(610).

These two quaternions being settled, the Self‐existent creates a man, in a

state of perfection, named the Unconquered, and in union with him

Knowledge, likewise perfect. From these were manifested the Mother, the

Father, and the Son, and they jointly produced the tree of knowledge, and

their enjoyment consists in celebrating the praises of the Great

Being(611).

Lastly, Charis, the attendant upon Harmogenes(612), produces the Holy

Spirit, called likewise Wisdom and Prunicus. She, seeing herself unmated,

stretched herself forth in every direction, and even towards the nether

parts, seeking her mate ; and in the effort brought forth a production in

which appeared presumption and ignorance ; which production became the

Prime Governor, and Maker of this world, and Creator of Powers and Angels,

and being paired with Presumption, he begot malice, and emulation, and

jealousy, and fury, and desire: upon which his mother, being grieved,

departed and left him alone ; whence he imagines that there is none but he,

and utters that sentiment by the mouths of the prophets(613).

There was another more intricate and complete hypothesis, which owned no

master, but took its denomination variously from two different marked

portions of it, which will be noticed in their place(614).

It supposed, like most of its predecessors, an Original, called the First

Light, the Father of all, and the First Man ; and his Thought, issuing from

him, and thence called the Son of Man. Next to them came the Holy Spirit,

the first woman, which hovered over the elements, water, darkness, the

abyss and chaos. From the Father and Son, impregnating the Spirit, came

the Christ, the third man(615). By this impregnation, however, she was

filled so superabundantly, that she produced not only the Christ on the

right hand, but also another Being, imbued likewise with light, called

Wisdom and Prunicus, a hermaphrodite. Upon this the Christ was united with

the first Three, and with them formed the true holy Church(616) ; whilst

Wisdom descended upon the waters, and moved them to their lowest depths,

and took from them a material body, which had nearly overpowered her ; but

making a great effort, by the aid of the supernal light within her, she

rose aloft, and from her body, by a voluntary expansion, created the

heavens(617).

She, moreover, had a son, who knew not his mother, but sent forth from the

waters a son of his own, and he another, and so on to the seventh, who,

with their mother formed an ogdoad(618) ; the first of whom was named

Jaldabaoth, the second Jao, the third Great Sabaoth, the fourth Adonai,

the fifth Eloeus (or Elohei), the sixth Horeus, the seventh Astaphæus. All

these for some space of time sat harmoniously in heaven, in due

subordination one to the other: but Jaldabaoth, confident in having been

the author of the others, took upon him to create angels and archangels,

and excellencies, and powers and dominions ; envious at which, his

posterity rebelled against him: upon which he fixed his desires upon the

unformed matter, and from it produced a son in the form of a serpent,

called Understanding, (from whom these people derived their name of

OPHITES(619),) and subsequently Spirit, Soul, and all earthly things, from

which sprang forgetfulness, malice, emulation, jealousy, and death(620).

Jaldabaoth, blindly exulting in his success, exclaimed, _I am Father and

God, and besides me there is no other_ ; but his mother astonished him and

his posterity, by exclaiming, _Lie not, Jaldabaoth, for there is above

thee the First Man, the Father of all, and Man the Son of Man_. To call

off their attention from this intelligence, he invited them to make man in

their own image. This idea their mother secretly encouraged, that they

might empty themselves of their celestial virtue. Their production,

however, although immense in size and length, lay sprawling on the ground,

until they brought it to their father, who, to the great satisfaction of

Wisdom, breathed into it the breath of life, and thereby emptied himself

of his virtue(621). This newly‐created being, therefore, was possessed of

_understanding_ and _desire_, and deserting his Creators, gave thanks to

the First Man(622).

Jaldabaoth upon this being jealous of him, endeavoured to re‐extract the

celestial virtue from him, by creating woman from his desire ; but

Prunicus, having invisibly taken charge of her, extracted the virtue from

her, and the posterity of Jaldabaoth, admiring her beauty, called her Eve,

and begot from her angels. The machinations of Prunicus did not end here,

for she employed Understanding, the son of Jaldabaoth, who was in the form

of a serpent, to seduce the man and woman into disobedience to the

commands of Jaldabaoth, by eating the forbidden fruit(623), by which means

they became acquainted with the Supreme Virtue, and forsook their

Creators(624). Upon this they were ejected from paradise, and being

deprived by Prunicus of the divine light they had, that nothing divine

might be subjected to curse, they were cast out into this world, together

with the serpent, who from the earthly angels begat seven sons, in

imitation of Jaldabaoth and his six descendants. These with their parent

are always opposing the welfare of the human race(625).

Before Adam and Eve fell they had bright and spiritual bodies ; but

afterwards their bodies became opaque and heavy, and their souls relaxed

and weak ; until Prunicus having pity on them, restored to them the savour

of the heavenly light, by which means they became aware of their degraded

condition. Knowing, however, that the debasement was only temporary, they

complied with their condition, ate and drank, and begat Cain and Abel, of

whom Cain, being seized on by the serpent, fell into folly and

presumption, envy and murder. After this, by the interposition of

Prunicus, they begat Seth and Norea, from whom mankind sprung(626), and

were seduced by the serpent and his children into every evil ; although

Prunicus constantly opposed them, and saved the celestial light(627). So

likewise when Jaldabaoth, enraged at not being worshipped by mankind, sent

the flood upon them, Wisdom saved Noah and his family, for the sake of the

tincture of light which was in them. Abraham, however, and the Jews were

the chosen people of Jaldabaoth, who with his six descendants chose agents

from among them, each for himself, to glorify him as God(628). Moses,

therefore, Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk, were the prophets of Jaldabaoth ;

Samuel, Nathan, Jonah, and Micah of Jao ; Elijah, Joel, and Zachariah of

Sabaoth ; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel of Adonai ; Tobias and

Haggai of Elohei ; Micah and Nahum of Horeus ; Ezra and Zephaniah of

Astaphæus(629).

But here again Wisdom, or Prunicus, interfered, and turned these prophets

into her own instruments, causing them to speak of the Supreme Being, and

of the Christ above, who was to descend upon earth. These announcements

from the mouth of their own prophets so alarmed the Princes, the posterity

of Jaldabaoth, that they left her at liberty to cause him, not knowing

what he did, to send forth two men, one, John the Baptist, the other,

Jesus(630). For having found no rest below, she had returned in penitence

to her mother, the Holy Spirit, the first woman, and called upon her for

help. Whereupon the Holy Spirit petitioned the Supreme Father that the

Christ might descend to her aid: of which, when she was aware, she

inspired the prophets to speak ; and likewise prepared John to announce his

coming, and Jesus by means of her son Jaldabaoth, the God of this world,

to be his receptacle upon earth(631).

The Christ therefore descended through the seven heavens(632), taking upon

him the likeness of their children, and drew out from them their virtue,

so that all the supernal light with which they were imbued returned to

him ; and having arrived in this world united himself to Wisdom, his

sister, and in union with her descended upon Jesus, who thenceforward

begun to work miracles. Upon this Jaldabaoth and his posterity united to

kill him ; whereupon the Christ and Wisdom left him, and returned to the

upper sphere ; not however deserting him altogether ; for the Christ sent

down upon him a power by which he rose again, clothed with a spiritual

body(633). But after this, although he remained on earth eighteen months,

he wrought no miracle, (as neither did he before his baptism,) being

forsaken by the Christ and Wisdom. Yet he was in a certain degree

inspired, and taught these things to a few of his disciples(634).

At the end of eighteen months he was taken up into heaven, where the

Christ placed him(635) on the right hand of his father Jaldabaoth, though

without his knowledge, where his business is to receive the souls of those

who know these doctrines, viz. those who are imbued with the heavenly

light. By this means Jaldabaoth will by degrees lose the whole of that

which he originally possessed, and be left entirely earthly and material ;

whilst the whole of the light will be withdrawn from the world and its

creators ; and then will be the consummation of all things (636).

Section VI. Valentinus.

But none of the Gnostic leaders, excepting perhaps Marcion, obtained so

high a pre‐eminence as VALENTINUS, who drew out a kind of eclectic system,

and thus became the founder of a new school: at least Irenæus represents

the matter so completely in this light, that he classes all the others

together by the general name of Gnostics(637), in contradistinction to

Valentinus and his school.

Report(638) makes him an Ægyptian by birth, and Tertullian expressly

informs us(639) that he was originally a Christian ; and indeed a person of

such eminence in the Church that he aspired to the office of Bishop. But

his mind was tinged with the Platonism(640) which was so prevalent in

Alexandria, the place of his education: and it did not happen to him as to

Justin and Clement, in whom the truth moulded their philosophical notions,

and clad them in a Christian garb ; for being disappointed in the object of

his ambition, he showed how wisely the Church had acted in rejecting him,

by giving himself thenceforth, like Arius, to the propagation of error. As

he could not be a bishop, he would be a father of heresy.

He took for his foundation, as it would seem(641), the difficulty of

explaining the origin of evil consistently with holding the perfection of

God. He was thence led to make matter co‐eval with the Creator, and to

declare that all the defects of created things arise from that portion of

matter which he left untouched in the work of creation, as unfit for his

use. This idea he doubtless borrowed from the Platonic philosophy: but how

from this he passed into the absurdities of Gnosticism we are not

informed. We only learn from Irenæus that he fashioned them into a new

system. It is curious, however, that he is said by his followers to have

derived his notions from a disciple of St. Paul(642), and that he

endeavoured to represent them as perfectly consistent with the

Scriptures(643). He had attained such a degree of notoriety before the

year 142, in which Justin Martyr offered his First Apology to Antoninus

Pius, that Justin therein speaks of having written that book against all

the heresies(644), to which Tertullian is believed to refer when he

mentions Justin amongst those who had written against Valentinus(645). And

this agrees with what Irenæus says(646), that he came to Rome in the time

of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and continued to the time of Anicetus.

For whether we take the Chronology of Eusebius(647), who places his coming

to Rome in the year 141, or third of Antoninus, or that of Eutychius,

favoured by Bishop Pearson(648) who makes Hyginus contemporary with

Adrian, this would equally agree with Justin having already written

against him in 142: for he made himself known in his own country as an

opposer of the truth before he came to Rome(649). Whatever may be thought

of the precise year at which he came to that city, he remained there

fifteen or twenty years, for he continued to the episcopate of Anicetus,

and retained some character for piety and correctness of faith up to that

period(650). Thenceforward, however, he cast off all such pretensions, and

retiring to Cyprus, taught without disguise all the impieties his system

naturally led to(651).

It has so happened that Irenæus did not write directly against him, but

against his followers: and as every disciple held himself capable of

improving upon the system of his instructor, that which the Bishop of

Lyons gives in full detail differs in some particulars from that taught by

Valentinus himself. It was in fact more nearly that of Ptolemy, his most

noted follower(652): but still Ptolemy had some peculiarities of his

own(653). Yet Irenæus has preserved to us the leading features of the

scheme as taught by Valentinus, and by their help, and that of a fragment

preserved by Epiphanius(654), which corresponds with what Irenæus has told

us, (although Bishop Pearson rightly contends that it is not the work of

the heretical leader himself). I will endeavour to place it before my

readers.

Valentinus then taught, according to Irenæus, that all things sprung from

one primeval pair, the Ineffable and Silence(655): the latter being

according to the fragment the Thought of the former or his Grace, but

called Silence more correctly, because she accomplished every thing by

simple _desire_ without utterance. From these, according to Valentinus,

sprung another pair, the Father(656) and the Truth: the former of whom the

fragment makes to emanate from the Unbegotten Original and Silence, by her

desire ; the latter from herself and the Father, by some mysterious union

of the _lights_ from each ; so that their offspring was a _true_ image of

herself and thence derived her name. Truth, therefore, by a like

mysterious union with her Father, produces a tetrad of two pairs, the Word

and the Life, Man and the Church. Subsequently the Holy Spirit was sent

forth either by the Truth or by the Church, (for upon that point the Old

Translator of Irenæus and Epiphanius differ,) to examine the Æons, and to

make them fruitful in the produce of truth(657).

So far Irenæus and the fragment correspond, excepting that the latter

places Man and the Church first(658): but from this point there appears

nothing more in common, and as henceforth there is a general coincidence

between Valentinus and his followers, I shall give the scheme as it

appears in the first book of Irenæus, mentioning the variations where they

occur.

It may be however proper to notice this radical difference between the

heresiarch and his disciples, that he considered all these Æons, as they

were called, or Eternal Essences, as merely feelings, affections, and

motions of the one unseen, infinite First Cause, whereas they regarded

them as so many personal beings(659).

The last mentioned tetrad then, knowing themselves to have been sent forth

to the glory of the unbegotten Father, desired to glorify him by their own

act. Wherefore the Word and the Truth sent forth ten Æons, called the

Profound and Mixture, the Ever‐youthful and Union, the Self‐existent and

Pleasure, the Immoveable and Commixture, the Only‐begotten and the

Blessed: whilst Man and the Church sent forth twelve, called the Paraclete

and Faith, the Paternal and Hope, the Maternal and Charity, Aïnus (the

Eternal Mind, or as it is in the Latin Æons, or Praise) and Comprehension,

the Ecclesiastical and Blessedness, the Desired and Wisdom(660).

These thirty Æons, consisting of twelve, and ten, and eight, composed what

they called the Fulness(661): and Valentinus differed from his followers

in placing a barrier between the First Cause and the others(662) ; which

probably is to be explained by his saying that they were not, like him,

real beings, but merely qualities or emanations. Irenæus was probably the

first person who published their names: for the Valentinians prided

themselves on their being a secret, hidden from all but the initiated. The

names, however, were differently stated by later Valentinians(663), and

were in all probability altered on set purpose whenever they became known.

Of these thirty, the Only‐begotten or Father alone knew the nature of the

Great Father of all: the rest desired to know their origin, but knew him

not: and although the Only‐begotten was desirous of revealing him to them,

Silence restrained him(664). A new state of things, however, arose from

the restlessness of the last of the Æons, namely Wisdom ; who, under the

pretext of affection for the unknown First Parent, but in reality through

venturesome curiosity, reached forth into the fathomless height and depth,

in a state of extreme excitement and anxiety, and would have been

reabsorbed into the original substance, but for the interposition of a

power called the Barrier, which prevented her farther progress, and

brought her back to herself ; but at the same time kept up a perpetual

separation between her and the Father, to which she originally

belonged(665).

Valentinus then taught that Wisdom, being thus separated from Theletos,

became the mother of the Christ, producing him from the remembrance of the

better things or superior beings she had left, but with a kind of shadow

attached to him, derived from her fallen condition ; and by that means

emptied herself of her spiritual substance. Whereupon he, having become

possessed of it, cut off from him the shadow, and returned aloft into the

Fulness, leaving his mother under the shadow he rejected. In this still

more degraded condition, Valentinus makes her to have produced a son, who

became the Creator, and whom he regards as complete ruler of all things

subordinate to him(666).

His followers, however, improved, as they thought, upon this part of his

scheme. They personified the longing of Wisdom, making it her offspring,

comprising in it all the feelings of admiration and wonder, of sorrow, and

fear, and perplexity, under which she had laboured(667). They represent

the Barrier personally, as sent down at the intercession of the Word or

Only‐begotten, and give him the appellations of the Stake or Cross, the

Redeemer, the Limiter, the Reconciler(668). They affirm that by his agency

Wisdom was freed from the consequences of her vain search after her

original, and restored to her spouse and to the Fulness, whilst her

longing was separated from the Fulness(669).

At this crisis, to prevent another commotion amongst the Æons, by the will

of the Supreme Father, the Mind or Only‐begotten produced another pair,

the Christ and the Holy Spirit ; the former of whom gave them fully to

understand that it was impossible to comprehend the First Cause, but that

what could be comprehended of him was revealed in the Only‐begotten, whom

he taught them to contemplate(670) ; whilst the latter put them all upon an

equality with each other, and made them all, according to their sex,

Minds, Words, Men, and Christs, or Truths, Lives, Churches, and Spirits.

By this means they were reduced to a state of repose, and betook

themselves to magnify the Great First Father. In token whereof they all

united to produce one perfect being, Jesus, called also the Saviour, the

Christ, the Word, and the All, together with angels his attendants(671).

But we must return to the personified Longing of Wisdom, whom we shall

have to know henceforth under the name of Achamoth(672), which is merely a

corruption of the Hebrew word for wisdom, חכמות, _Chokmoth_, or the same

word in some kindred dialect, omitting the aspirate ח. She, it must be

remembered, was separated from the Celestial Fulness by Ὅρος, the personal

Barrier, the Σταυρὸς or Stake. But the Christ took pity on her, and

reaching forth over the Barrier, (διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ ἐπεκταθεὶς, a strange

perversion and accommodation of evangelical expressions to their system,)

gave her a _natural_ life, and left with her a _savour_ of immortality,

but did not communicate to her that knowledge, which in their system is

the principle of _spiritual_ life. What he did leave, however, worked its

effect. It led her to seek after him who had deposited it in her, and

being restrained by the Barrier, she sustained various feelings, sorrow,

and fear, and consternation, all accompanied by ignorance of all above

her, and a perpetual turning towards him who had given her life, and

pleasure in thinking of the glimpse of light which had been permitted to

her(673). From the tumult within her sprung various productions ; being

however in the whole, the Creator of the world and all created things, of

which we shall see more hereafter(674).

She had scarcely recovered from this state of perturbation, when the

Christ sent down to her the Paraclete ; not the offspring of Man and the

Church, but that perfect being produced by the Æons conjointly, called

likewise the Saviour(675), having power given him over all things below,

and accompanied by his angels. He separated her from all the products of

her perturbation, and endued her with that knowledge which before she

possessed not. He likewise separated her productions definitely into two

species of substance, one radically bad, the other capable of being either

good or evil ; the one material, the other animate ; to which she speedily

added another, spiritual in its nature, conceived from joyful

contemplation of the angel‐attendants of the Saviour(676).

From this period she begins to be herself an active fashioner of her

productions. With the _spiritual_ seed she could not meddle, because it

was equal to herself: but from the _animate_(677) substance she first

formed the actual Creator of all earthly things, called likewise God the

Father, the Saviour, the King of all, the Mother’s Father, the

Fatherless(678). By him she, or rather the Saviour through her, fashioned

all things here below, from the two substances, animate and material:

first the seven heavens, who are also seven angels(679), then the earth

and man(680), and all the elements and creatures, and lastly the spirits

of wickedness, of whom the prince of this world was the chief(681). Of

these man was a compound of the animate and the material(682). All these

the Creator made, not knowing what he did ; and so his mother Achamoth,

without his knowledge, infused into the man which he had made, that

spiritual seed of which I have before spoken(683), which is the Church,

(or rather the Calling, ἐκκλησία,) an image of the Ecclesia above(684).

It is not however to be supposed that all men have a share of this seed of

election. It is only partially possessed. Those who have it not may be

saved by faith and good works, those who have it are necessarily saved,

and are incapable of being corrupted by any action or course of life. To

the former class belong Churchmen, (Christians) to the latter

Gnostics(685). The natural consequences followed, such as I have detailed

before, with more or less of disguise, according to the character or

circumstances of the professors of such doctrines. Some did openly

whatever they felt inclined to, others went more warily to work: but the

result every where was the same, the free indulgence of the sensual

passions, with all their lamentable consequences ; and those so much the

more fatal, as they were accompanied by a profession of superior knowledge

and purity(686).

We have mentioned one Jesus already: but they likewise professed to

believe in the Jesus of the Gospel. They taught that the Creator produced

a son, unspiritual like himself, and that he was sent into the world by

the Virgin Mary, as a mere vehicle, such as a water‐pipe is to water ; that

he was(687) clad in a body different from that of others ; that when he was

baptized, the Jesus before mentioned descended upon him in the form of a

dove ; and that he was likewise impregnated by Achamoth with the spiritual

seed. Of these four portions of his nature only the two former suffered ;

the Saviour having quitted him when he was delivered up to Pilate(688).

The winding up of this state of things is to take place when all the

spiritual seed has become perfect in knowledge. Then Achamoth and the

spiritual portion of every Gnostic will be elevated into the Fulness: the

Creator, the animal souls of the Gnostics, with the souls of those who

have been saved by faith and good works, will be raised to the

intermediate heaven ; and then the hidden fire will burst forth from this

lower world and consume those souls which have not attained to salvation

together with all material things, and with them will be reduced to

nothing(689).

The most remarkable feature in the scheme of Valentinus was his treatment

of the Scriptures. He did not, like some of his predecessors, speak with

contempt of them, as having proceeded from an imperfect Being. He did not

like others reject the whole New Testament, as a figment of the “natural

men,” as they called the orthodox, and substitute apocryphal writings in

their place: nor did he again, like others, reject such portions of the

Scriptures as militated strongly against their views. He professed to

receive the whole of the Gospels and Apostolical writings, but he

accommodated the Scripture to his views. Tertullian indeed(690) uses very

different terms ; viz. that he did not accommodate the Scripture to his

views, but his views to the Scripture. It was certainly his endeavour to

_appear_ so to do ; and accordingly he adopted Scripture _language_ to a

very great extent, and no doubt professed, like all modern teachers of

false doctrine, to find all his doctrine in the Scripture: so that I

believe we have only one instance of his reading a passage differently

from the Church(691). Indeed he reproached the orthodox for not having

preserved the true meaning: or rather looked down upon them as being

naturally incapable of receiving it ; being not spiritual, but natural and

carnal.

It was, no doubt, in this way that he kept up that character for faith and

piety, of which Epiphanius speaks, and to which Tertullian alludes(692).

Irenæus has given us numerous instances in which he and his followers

quoted the Scriptures as supporting their own doctrine(693): but they will

be found to be either forced accommodations of numbers and names, or

violent perversions of the letter of Scripture, or mystical

interpretations put upon it in such a way as that it may almost be made to

mean anything. The success of such interpretations was of course aided by

the equally unnatural accommodations of Scripture customary with the

orthodox, at least those of the Alexandrian school. There are, likewise,

some fragments of his preserved by Clement of Alexandria(694), which have

the same tone as the system generally ; but one of these(695), in which he

compares the heart occupied by divers evil passions to an inn or

caravanserai defiled by travellers, appears at first sight so

unobjectionable, that, out of the connection in which it stands, one

should hardly suspect any evil meaning. It is however intended to teach

the Gnostic tenet, that the heart of the spiritual man is no more a

partaker of the evil wrought in it by evil spirits, than a caravanserai in

the nuisances committed by every wanton traveller. This is evidently

another, and a less offensive way of stating that to the spiritual mind no

passion can communicate any permanent pollution, and that the elect are

not to be called to account for what they fall into in this world: and its

inoffensiveness at first sight is no bad illustration of the habit Irenæus

charges them with of teaching their heresies by stealth(696).

Section VII. Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, And Marcus.

Irenæus mentions several successors of Valentinus, some more at length

than others.

Respecting SECUNDUS, who was the contemporary and disciple of

Valentinus(697), he is very brief, merely informing us that he divided the

first ogdoad into two tetrads, the right and the left, which he

denominated _light_ and _darkness_: and that he asserted that the Being

which erred and was forsaken by the upper powers was not one of the

thirty, but one of their productions(698). The latter idea would appear to

have for its object to remove the origin of evil further from the First

Cause: but the former seems to be a contradiction to it, as it brings

darkness into the Pleroma.

EPIPHANES, whose name the old translator has chosen to render by _Clarus_,

(probably not understanding it to be a proper name,) was the son of

Carpocrates(699), but attached himself to the followers of Secundus(700).

He died very young, being according to Clem. Alex. only seventeen at the

time of his death, and was honoured as a god by the people of Cephalonia,

the birth‐place of his mother and his own place of residence. He is

identified with the CLARUS of the old translator of Irenæus ; 1. because he

is commonly reckoned next to Secundus(701) ; 2. because _Clarus_ is a

literal rendering of Ἐπιφανής ; 3. because the doctrines ascribed to

Epiphanes are the same as those which are attributed in Irenæus to

Clarus(702). He differed from his predecessors in not giving any _name_

(properly speaking) to the First Cause, but in calling him Μονότης, and

his companion Ἐνότης, which may perhaps be rendered Soleness and Unity.

These, he said, constituted only one being. This duopersonal Being

produced, without separation from himself, a beginning of all things,

comprehensible, but unbegotten and invisible, called the Monad, and with

him another power denominated the One. This was his first tetrad ; but in

the rest he does not appear to have differed from the other

Valentinians(703).

PTOLEMY was a Valentinian, and is said to have been a disciple of Secundus

and Epiphanes. It would appear from Irenæus that the system which he

states at length, and which I have detailed above, was his actual

system(704). Epiphanius indeed, quoting Irenæus(705), makes him say that

this heretic and his disciples ascribed two wives to Bythus, Thought and

Will, from whom he made the rest of the Æons to proceed. But it is evident

from the version of the Ancient Interpreter that the actual words of

Irenæus were Οἱ περὶ Πτολεμαῦον, which may mean either Ptolemy or his

followers, and as Tertullian ascribes this tenet to his disciples,

desirous of improving upon their master, we may safely conclude that

Epiphanius does not intend to attribute it distinctly to Ptolemy, but

either to him or to his followers.

Of the followers of Ptolemy, Irenæus mentions the tenets of COLORBASUS

particularly. He does not indeed name him, but Epiphanes(706) and

Theodoret(707) have supplied that defect, nor is there any contradictory

statement on the subject. He taught that the first ogdoad of Æons did not

spring successively one pair from another, but that the first four after

the First Cause and his Thought were created at once when the Forefather

determined upon giving forth some being, that became the Father ; as what

he emitted was true, it was called the Truth: when he wished to manifest

himself, then came Man ; and those whom he then foresaw were the Church.

Then Man spoke the Word, and from Man and the Church came Life(708).

MARCUS is mentioned by Irenæus apparently as a disciple of Ptolemy, or at

least as having made his system after him(709): and as Tertullian(710)

speaks of him in the same terms, we may safely take that as the sense of

Irenæus. We find him first in Asia Minor, recompensing the hospitality of

a deacon with whom he lodged by corrupting his wife, who for a good while

followed him, but was at length brought back to the Church by the

perseverance of the Christians(711). Where his subsequent residence was we

do not learn. The circumstance which brought him more particularly under

the notice of Irenæus was that his opinions and the consequent depravity

of morals had spread to the neighbourhood of Lyons(712). The practical

mischief appears first to have attracted his attention, and he was thence

led to inquire into the speculative system which produced such fruits.

Both the one and the other shall be noticed in their order.

The scheme differed in reality very little in its frame‐work from that of

Valentinus, Ptolemy, and Colorbasus ; the latter of whom Irenæus represents

him as more particularly agreeing with(713) ; but it was differently

dressed up. Instead of making the Fulness a system of personal beings or

emanations, he made it the _name_ of the Great First Cause, consisting of

thirty letters, instead of as many Æons, divided into four syllables, of

which the two first consisted of four letters each, the third of ten, and

the fourth of twelve. This name originated in the wish of the Great Father

to reveal himself. He therefore opened his mouth, and spoke a Word like

himself, which was Ἀρχὴ, the Beginning ; (this was the first syllable ; )

then a second, a third, and a fourth. What the three latter are we are not

told: but they have continued to sound on from that day to the present,

and will continue so to do, until they all unite in sounding forth

together the same letter, when the consummation of all things will take

place. About this matter, however, there is some obscurity, the passage

not being very intelligible(714).

It would be tedious beyond measure to enter into the application of this

particular notion to the general Gnostic scheme: but he held a particular

doctrine in regard to Jesus, which it will be proper to mention. He

thought that he was the joint production of Man and the Church, the Word

and Life ; but that in producing him the angel Gabriel took the place of

the Word, the Holy Spirit of Life, the Power of the Most High of Man, and

the Virgin Mary of the Church: that the Supreme Father chose him in the

womb to manifest himself in him by means of the Word, who therefore

descended upon him at his baptism in the form of a dove(715).

I come now to the _practice_ of Marcus. He openly pretended supernatural

powers, communicated to him by a familiar spirit, which he flattered his

followers, chiefly women, by professing to communicate to them(716). The

Eucharist he found especially suited to his purpose, and was the first

apparently who taught any thing like transubstantiation. He used, like the

Church, wine mingled with water, but pretended to bring down into it by

his prayers, the blood of the supernal Grace ; and accordingly, lengthening

out his devotion, that the chemical agents, which he doubtless employed,

might have time to act, he at length produced the liquid, of a much deeper

colour than when he began his incantations. In another of his tricks he

gave his female friends a part. He requested one of them to take the

mingled cup, and to offer the prayer of benediction ; whereupon he poured

the contents of it into a much larger cup, which he himself held, which,

as he pronounced the mystical blessing upon the woman he employed,

gradually became full with the contents of the smaller, and at length

overflowed(717). This again was, in all probability, effected by some

chemical agent, deposited in the bottom of the larger cup, and producing a

gradual effervescence: but in those days of ignorance it stamped the

worker of such wonders as something more than ordinary man.

In communicating, as he pretended, to his devotees a portion of the grace

he possessed, he purposely contrived, in the most subtle manner, to

inflame their sensual desires, and to direct them towards himself, without

using a single word or act to which he could not immediately give a

mystical meaning ; so that, if his wishes did not succeed, there was

nothing with which he could be charged, without subjecting the person who

so charged him to the imputation of having put an unholy meaning upon holy

things. And if they did succeed, the victim, if not conscience‐seared,

would feel self‐corrupted and self‐betrayed. In this way he became master,

not only of the persons, but also of the substance of many women of wealth

and station(718). To make his arts, however, the more successful, he

administered to them inflammatory drugs(719): and still more to guard

himself from their defection, under the terror of conscience, and the

dread of future judgment, he taught them a form of words, to be addressed

to their mother Achamoth, whom he represents as seated with God on his

throne, by means of which they would be rendered invisible to the Judge,

and pass unhurt to their heavenly spouses the angels(720).

Such a scheme as this was too palatable to human nature not to have many

followers ; and accordingly it found its way to Lyons, where Irenæus was

bishop. The exact nature of it was first learnt by the confessions of his

victims and those of his followers, when, recovering from their delusion,

they wished to be readmitted to the Church. One particular instance I have

already mentioned, of his having seduced the wife of a deacon in Asia

Minor, with whom he had lodged. This person remained with him for a long

time ; but, being at length restored by the unwearied efforts of the

Christians, spent the rest of her life bewailing the pollution she had

sustained. This was not the only instance of repentance ; but most appear

to have dreaded the public acknowledgment which was then required in the

case of gross transgression, and thus never to have returned(721).

Section VIII. Gnostic Redemption.

There is one feature of the Gnostic scheme common to almost every variety

of the Gnostics, which was reserved for a separate detail ; and which

Irenæus introduces immediately after the account of the Marcosian heresy,

having probably been able to obtain a more perfect account of their views

on that subject, than of those of any other sect. That feature is their

ordinance of _Redemption_(722) ; which was in fact the initiating rite of

their perfect adepts(723), and without denying baptism, threw it into the

back ground, and thus virtually annulled it(724). The professed object of

this rite was the regeneration of those who underwent it, preparatory to

their entering into the Fulness(725). The outward form of it was various,

according to the fancy of the mystagogue(726). Some celebrated it as a

marriage ; others made it a baptism in water, with varying forms of

words(727) ; others again poured a mixture of oil and water upon the head

of the person who received it ; whilst some declared, that the blessing

being purely spiritual, all outward signs were unavailing and impertinent ;

that knowledge was in fact redemption, and that those, and those alone,

who were perfect in knowledge were partakers of it(728).

In most cases the Redemption was effected during the lifetime of those who

were made partakers of it ; but the dead were not excluded. The rite was

administered immediately after death.

In all cases the effect of it was to enable the initiated to escape the

power of the Creator and his angels, and, leaving their souls behind them,

to enter into the Fulness(729).

Section IX. Reflections Upon Gnosticism.

Gnosticism is now well‐nigh forgotten, or noticed only by those who are

led to an acquaintance with it either by its connexion with certain

passages in the New Testament, or by a systematic study of the early

Fathers of the Church. And yet it existed in the world, and spread over

the civilized portions of it as a system of philosophy at a time when

heathen speculation had attained its highest refinement, and Christianity

had introduced certainty to take the place of speculation. But that it

should have taken hold on the minds of men to such an extent and at such a

time, is surely one of the most unaccountable facts in the history of the

human mind. To us, even the Platonic system would appear so much more

rational and intelligible, and the Christian doctrine so much more simple

and natural, and, if I may so say, manly, that in their presence one

wonders what there could have been to recommend Gnosticism. The Grecian

schemes were so many efforts of unassisted reason to find out truth by

simple speculation. They could therefore never be propounded as

certainties, but only as probabilities. They accordingly rested on their

probability, and struck out many truths. They bear about them the air of

the conclusions of men searching after truth, and having in some degree

attained it. Christianity, on the other hand, professed to be a revelation

from above. It did not pretend to speculate or to reason ; it taught its

doctrines as infallible truths, and supported its teaching by miracles,

and an appeal to fulfilled prophecy. Gnosticism was like neither. It was

in fact gratuitous speculation, founded upon nothing but the fact of a

great difficulty, which human reason had never yet solved, the causation

of evil ; but it claimed no support from reason ; it propounded no proofs ;

but put itself forward as the revealed solution of this difficulty. It

wrought miracles, indeed, which might have served where the Christian

miracles were unknown, but poor and weak indeed to put in competition with

them, for they were mere juggles. They answered no beneficial end ; they

were over in a few minutes ; they submitted themselves to no daily and

hourly proof ; and although professing to support a higher and purer God

than was ever before thought of, they were of the same nature as those

practised by heathen sorcerers. But to have solved this great difficulty,

the system ought at least to have been uniform, or at most progressive. No

teacher should have contradicted another, however much he might improve

upon him. And yet this was far from being the case. The various successive

teachers not only pulled down what their predecessors had set up, but even

contemporary leaders contradicted each other. This would have been

perfectly consistent if they had set up as mere speculators ; but they

claimed a sort of inspiration ; nay, whilst setting aside the Gospel, they

claimed support from the Gospel ; whilst making higher pretensions than

they allowed the Apostles, they professed to have a tradition received

from the Apostles ; whilst utterly overthrowing the religion of Christ,

they appealed to his words and teaching as supporting them.

But although borrowing support from Christianity, it was not itself in any

sense a religion. It taught no present devotion towards any superior

being. It had no offerings, no prayers, still less any expiations.

Although some of its teachers practised rites borrowed from the eucharist,

they had no religious object. They were mere juggles. Although the _idea_

of glorifying the beings above entered into the system, yet it affected

only the beings above man, or man after he quitted this state. It had no

place on earth. This was a place of discipline, or training, for a state

in which he was to glorify the great First Cause ; but he had nothing to do

with glorifying him here. The great object of man here was _knowledge_. In

this respect it was analogous to the Grecian philosophies ; for they had no

connection with religion, but were rather antagonists to it. They tended

to overthrow the heathen superstitions, but they furnished nothing to

replace them. They taught, it may be, moral duties ; but it was not upon

any principles of religion, but rather of social benefit. They attained to

better notions on the unity and nature of God than were entertained by

their compatriots, but they led not to a purer worship of him. At best

they refined and mysticized the mythology and religious observances of the

old religions. In this respect, then, of being unconnected with religion,

it was like the philosophical systems of its own and former times ; but it

went further than they in being essentially _irreligious_, by placing the

perfection of man in _knowledge_, and that only. By this means the

necessity of religion of any kind was totally done away. Curiosity was

substituted for devotion, and unbounded liberty for duty, whether to God

or to man.

Curiosity being thus canonized, it is remarkable that the Gnostic system

had baits for almost every description of it. It is curiosity, the desire

of knowing what others know, fully as much as passion and appetite, which

leads men into the various descriptions of vice ; and this species of

curiosity was not only allowed, but even sanctioned and stimulated. Men

were told that it was the express destiny of every one who was to be

perfect, to know everything that could be known in this world ; and not

only that, but that if a person failed of acquiring the requisite

knowledge in one lifetime, his soul must pass into another and another

body, until it had arrived at the necessary degree of information. It is

true that this implied, in its literal meaning, the knowledge of good as

well as of evil. But it requires little acquaintance with human nature to

tell us in what sense it would be most commonly taken. And if any scruples

still remained, they were removed by the doctrine that all actions were

naturally indifferent, and that nothing but human opinion, or the

arbitrary will of a tyrannical being, the Jewish God, had ever made any

such thing as moral distinctions. Thus a vicious curiosity became a

_duty_, if such a term had been allowable in Gnosticism ; or, at all

events, that man who did not foster and indulge it to the utmost, was

fighting against his own interest.

There is another kind of curiosity, which has governed many in all ages,

and which is not even yet extinct, and that is, a desire to be acquainted

with future or unknown circumstances, or to possess a power beyond the

reach of ordinary men. There have been always those who have professed

themselves possessors of this supernatural knowledge, and of course others

who have desired either to possess it or to witness and profit by its

exercise. From this desire has arisen the whole of magic from the

beginning, and the science of astrology in particular. Accordingly, this

was a marked feature in many of the Gnostic teachers, that they laid claim

to magical powers ; and herein they differed from the heathen philosophers,

and became the antagonists of the Christian apostles. Simon Magus, for

instance, who is generally reckoned the first Gnostic leader, was a

magician, and there is great reason to suspect that his faith was more a

reliance on the Apostles, on the supposition of their having some deeper

art than his own, than the faith of the heart in the principles of the

Gospel.

But there is another class of persons who could neither be imposed on by

the pretensions to supernatural power, nor the seductions of evil

appetites, whose cast of character is altogether intellectual, and whose

temptations must therefore be intellectual. The attention of such persons

had in all ages been directed to the unseen things of creation, the

invisible springs of all earthly motions and actions, the secret agencies

of nature, the nature of the Great Original of all things, the methods of

his providential government, the time and manner of the creation, the

origin of evil, the future state of mankind after their departure from

this earthly scene. Questions of this kind had engaged the curiosity of

minds of the higher order ever since civilization began, and no system

could find acceptance with them which offered no solution of such

questions. Gnosticism accordingly furnished food for the curiosity of

these, and that in greater abundance than any other system yet invented.

Besides the Gentile speculatists, there was also the philosophical Jew,

who had become acquainted with the Grecian learning, and had thus come to

endeavour to account, upon new principles, for the economy of the divine

government under the law ; partly for his own satisfaction, partly to

render it palatable to his heathen friends. Two points in his law would

present difficulty: first, the endless forms and ceremonies considered

with reference to God, who, being a spirit, would require a spiritual

worship, (for this is a truth which this class of Jews were fully sensible

of,) together with the prohibitions of various animals ; and secondly, the

severities which God himself exercised and taught their forefathers to

exercise against idolaters. And no doubt many Jews of this class were

become practically unbelievers by speculating upon points which their

forefathers implicitly received and devoutly practised.

There was again another class ; viz. Christians by birth and education,

brought up in leisure, and given to study, who, never having received the

Gospel humbly and practically, became infected with the unsettled spirit

of speculative inquiry. These would see the apparent incongruities between

the law and the Gospel, especially in the spirit in which each was

administered ; and instead of being contented to be ignorant of that which

had not been revealed, would endeavour to form some system independent of

revelation, by which to account for these incongruities. To these two

classes we shall see that Gnosticism also adapted itself ; and indeed to

the latter it would be specially adapted in the licentiousness of its

morals. For being brought up without their own choice in a system of great

strictness, at which their nature perhaps rebelled, and which they had

themselves never heartily embraced ; and yet not liking to renounce it on

the distinct avowal of a love of vice, they would gladly close with a

scheme which gave unbounded license the character of superior wisdom, and

even of duty itself.

We see then what there was in the character of the times to prepare men

for such a system as Gnosticism. But it did not grow up at once into all

its completeness. It developed itself by degrees, as men were prepared for

it ; and when we have considered it in its leading features, we can

scarcely fail to acquiesce in the view of it taken by the Christian

writers contemporary with it ; viz. that it was a scheme specially

concocted by the author of evil, as antagonist to Christianity.

Simon Magus, as all agree, was the first teacher of Gnosticism ; and when

he first appeared in that character in Samaria, it is obvious that he

could have known but little of the Gospel, and this may account for the

little notice taken of it in his system. He came as the great power of

God, that is, as God manifested on earth ; and he wrought pretended

miracles in confirmation of his pretensions. It is remarkable that none of

his successors made any such pretension as this, although they too, at

least some of them, professed miraculous power. He was therefore the

antagonist of Christ ; strictly _Antichrist_, in a higher sense than any

other. He taught that the God of the Jews was not truly God, but only,

like the Jupiter of heathenism, one of a set of angelic powers ; that the

Supreme God had nothing to do with the origination of evil further than

that he had created those angelic powers from whom it had sprung ; nay,

that he had not created them directly, but by his _thought_, which, taking

a personal character, was the actual Creator of these ; that therefore the

Supreme Being had nothing to do with anything in this world, excepting in

so far as he had interfered to remedy the mischief occasioned by the

angels. It was in this way that he endeavoured to reconcile the

imperfections of this world with the perfection of God. But he went

further than this ; for by making the Creator of this world and the God of

the Old Testament an imperfect being, he in reality denied God, whilst

professing to know more of him than other men.

This part of the system only accounted for physical evil, and such moral

evils as oppression and violence: but moral evil, as we commonly

understand it, he treated in quite a different way ; i. e. by denying that

it was evil at all ; for he asserted that it was so only through the

tyrannical imposition of the angels. Nay, he even went so far as to assert

that he himself was God, come down from above to rescue men from their

thraldom by teaching them the truth of things ; and thus to restore them to

their rightful liberty, by showing them that they might do whatever they

listed, and indeed ought to do so to vindicate his authority, which had

been usurped by the angels. A more plausible scheme of blasphemy and

licentiousness could scarcely have been concocted for the philosophizing

Jew, or the heathen who had looked into Judaism merely as a rival system

of barbarian philosophy. It recognised all the facts of the Old Testament ;

but it totally neutralized them, and destroyed altogether the religion

with which they would have appeared to be inseparably blended.

When Christianity began to spread, and Jesus was believed on by

multitudes, and reverenced by many who did not receive him, it became

politic to recognise the Gospel in the same manner in which the Law had

been recognised. Accordingly, the external facts of the life of Jesus were

not disputed, but a new spirit was given to them. Jesus was a

manifestation of the Supreme God, as Simon was ; come upon the same errand,

to destroy the Jewish law ; and thence an object of hatred to the Jews, who

triumphed so far as to crucify the external body in which he appeared, but

had no power over him who had inhabited it. Here there was just enough of

truth to impose upon a person brought up to believe the Gospel without

really loving it, and falsehood enough altogether to prevent its

reception.

The sketch which I have now traced is the nucleus of Gnosticism. Simon’s

dignifying his paramour with the title of the Thought of the First Cause,

and his figment of her having been in a perpetual state of transmigration,

was no doubt an after thought to cover the grossness which prying minds

might fancy in the great empiric ; an end which might not be sufficiently

accomplished by his doctrine that all actions were indifferent.

Whether Simon really invented the first ogdoad of pure emanations from the

Great Father may be doubted ; for the testimony to that fact does not

appear sufficiently early, and those who assert it contradict each other

in the names of them. But that he taught that there were Excellences and

Powers, as well as angels, appears from Irenæus. Yet as that author

undertakes to tell the share which Simon had in forming the system, and

certainly attributes the regularity of it to his successors, it appears

most probable that he defined nothing as to the number or functions of

those celestial beings.

The sketch, however, of Simon, to whatever extent he went, was

sufficiently filled up by his successors. In his system of angelic beings

they defined their number, and to a certain extent fixed their functions.

There was at last a body of these formed between the Supreme Being and the

authors of this world, perfect in holiness and obedience. The defection of

one of these was made as much as possible the work of accident. She was

made, according to various schemes, sometimes to be totally excluded from

this perfect society, sometimes to be restored to it again, leaving an

imperfect offspring behind her. From her or her offspring, sprang the

Creator, who is sometimes represented as the chief of seven angels,

sometimes as a peculiar being having the angels under him. The creation of

man is represented as the work of this imperfect being, but the spark of

heavenly life in him as an emanation, more or less direct, from the First

Cause. In this way the scheme became more definite ; but from the same

cause it became a set of schemes more or less inconsistent with each

other, but all aiming at having a succession of mysteries to be

communicated by degrees. In this way the minds of men were amused and

tantalized, and prevented from a serious search after truth ; whilst if one

scheme was searched to the bottom, and its stock of mysteries exhausted,

there was still another and another refinement to lure him away from the

real truth. There was, however, the uniform tendency to remove the

government of this world from the cognizance of the Supreme Being, and to

represent the author of the law and the prophets as an imperfect, self‐

contradictory, cruel being. There was the same mode of rendering null the

distinction between moral good and evil, by attributing it to opinion, or

custom, or the ordinance of the God of this world. There was the same

attempt to nullify the Gospel, by doing away with the Christian idea of

the incarnate Son of God, and representing the advent of Jesus as a

portion of the Gnostic scheme. For whether Jesus was considered as only

_apparently_ a man, or as _merely_ a man ; whether the Saviour dwelt in him

or made use of him ; whether it were the Saviour, or the Christ, or the

Only‐begotten, or the Jesus above, who interested himself for the

redemption of the spiritual seed, it all amounted to the same thing in the

end. It abolished the real salvation of the soul ; it took away the

incarnation and atonement ; it made the Gospel of no effect.

The nature of the _redemption_ it preached was likewise everywhere the

same. It was not a redemption from the dominion of sin, but by denying

that there was any such thing as sin. Whether it taught that the simple

practical knowledge of this fact was all the redemption necessary, or that

some initiatory rite was requisite to give that knowledge, or that a full

knowledge of the Gnostic theory was to be superadded to qualify for

_eternal_ redemption,—whether it led its votaries to defy the God of the

Old Testament, or taught them mystic forms by which to elude him when

sitting in judgment, it all amounted to the same thing. Lewdness of the

grossest kind was denied to be any sin. There were, indeed, some who

embraced the general theory, and with it believed that the flesh, as being

the work of the Creator, was to be denied and mortified in every way, and

who therefore decried marriage(730) itself, and forbad to eat flesh ; but

they were the few. The opposite use of the undervaluing of the flesh was

the more popular and the more prevalent.

Hitherto, perhaps, there has appeared but little in common with our own

times ; but there were other features of Gnosticism, in which it will

appear to have been the parent of Antinomianism, even that of the most

recent days. If any one is at all familiar with the high Calvinism of

Toplady and his school, he will have found that it strongly resembled the

Gnosticism of the age of Irenæus. It is of the essence of strict Calvinism

to teach that _individuals_ are _inevitably_ destined to salvation ; and so

it was in Gnosticism. The spiritual seed must all be brought back again

from earthly degradation ; none can fail of being so, first or last. It may

be destined to numerous transmigrations ; but the spirit must finally be

wafted upward to the eternal Fulness(731). Again, the spiritual pride and

presumption of the genuine Antinomian is a very observable trait: his

speaking of all as carnal who do not adopt his scheme ; his placing

religion not in holiness, but in _knowing_ the truth ; his assumption of

superior illumination ; his declarations that none but those specially

favoured _are capable_ of knowing the truth ; all this is merely a

repetition of Gnosticism. The Gnostic called himself spiritual, and the

Churchman carnal(732) ; he was the elect and perfect, and the orthodox the

ignorant and simple(733) ; he derived his very name from his making

_knowledge_ paramount to all other things(734) ; he declared that none were

capable of receiving his scheme but the spiritual seed(735) ; that to

others good works were necessary and useful(736), but that their lot,

however praiseworthy, could never be the same as that of the elect(737).

So, again, the abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith is as early

as those times. They declared that faith and love was the sum of their

religion(738) ; that the law might be a restraint suited to inferior

natures, but that to them it would be a degradation to submit their minds

to its yoke ; and that, in fact, whatever acts they might commit, it was

impossible for them either to be polluted by those acts or to fail of

salvation(739). Who would not suppose that the modern ultra‐Calvinist was

the speaker? So again, at that time, as in these days these tenets were

not always taken up as a cloak for licentiousness. Saturninus and Tatian

were extremely correct in their lives ; and Valentinus was not accused of

any peculiar immorality: indeed, he long continued nominally a member of

the Church, which, if his conduct had been flagitious, he could not have

done. If they despised the restraints of the moral law, they probably

supposed, like Toplady and others, that they had higher principles, which

would lead them to greater heights of purity: or they were men of a

speculative turn, who took up Gnosticism as a theory, without any

disposition to make that practical use of it which others did, merely

because they were not persons of warm passions. Indeed, if we may judge

from a fragment preserved by Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus was rather

a mystic in his religion(740).

There are two or three features in which the Gnostics were the forerunners

of a very different class of errors. Transubstantiation no doubt arose in

time by a natural depravation of the true doctrine of the Eucharist,

through the desire of defining that which Scripture and primitive

tradition had left undefined. But it is curious that a hint of it should

have been struck out by Marcus, one of the magical Gnostics, who, amongst

other arts of legerdemain, hit upon the idea of bringing down into the

wine and water _the blood of the supernal grace_, by means of an

invocation(741). It is equally curious to read in the account of

Carpocrates and his disciples, that they asserted that Pilate had procured

a likeness of Jesus Christ to be taken, and that they set his image

amongst those of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle and the rest, and

decked it with chaplets, and paid to it the selfsame honours which the

heathen paid to their idols(742). Nor is it less remarkable that the

Gnostics in general, when refuted by the Scriptures, should have spoken in

disparagement of them (as I have already pointed out) in terms singularly

corresponding with those sometimes made use of by Roman controversialists:

“They turn to accuse the Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor

of authority ; and say that they are at variance with themselves, _neither

can the truth be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of_ THEIR

_tradition_(743).” Coincidences of this kind are at least curious ; and the

further we search the more clearly will it appear that the germs of all

subsequent errors appeared in very early times.

[Transcriber’s Note: Obvious printer’s errors have been corrected.]

FOOTNOTES

1 In his “Doctrine of Scripture and of the Primitive Church upon

Religious Celibacy,” in reply to the author of “Antient

Christianity.”

2 Tertullian (_adv. Valent._ 5.) calls him _omnium doctrinarum

curiosissimus explorator_.

3 _Epist. ad Florinum._ Εῖδον γάρ σε, παῖς ὢν ἔτι ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ παρὰ

τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ, καὶ πειρώμενον

εὐδοκιμεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Μᾶλλον γὰρ τὰ τότε διαμνημονεύω τῶν ἔναγχος

γινομένων· αἱ γὰρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις, συναύξουσαι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἐνοῦνται

αὑτῇ· ὥστε με δύνασθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾦ καθεζόμενος

διελέγετο ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος, καὶ τὰς προόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς

εἰσόδους, καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ βίου, καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν, καὶ

τὰς διαλέξεις ἃς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν μετὰ Ἰωάννου

συναναστροφὴν ὡς ἀπήγγελλε, καὶ τὴν μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἑωρακότων

τὸν Κύριον· καὶ ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευε τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ

Κυρίου τίνα ἧν ἂ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ἠκηκόει· καὶ περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ

καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζώης τοῦ Λόγου

παρειληφὼς ὁ Πολύκαρπος ἀπήγγελλε, πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς. Ταῦτα

καὶ τότε διὰ τὸ ἕλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ γεγονὸς σπουδαίως ἤκουον,

ὑπομνηματιζόμενος αὐτὰ οὐκ ἐν χάρτῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ καρδίᾳ· καὶ ἀεὶ

διὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνήσιως αὐτὰ ἀναμαρυκῶμαι.

4 _Adv. Hær._ III. iii. 4. Καὶ Πολύκαρπος δὲ οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων

μαθητευθεὶς, καὶ δυναναστραφεὶς πολλοῖς τοῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἑωρακόσιν,

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ

ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ·

(ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γηραλέος, ἐνδόξως καὶ ἐπιφανέστατα

μαρτυρήσας, ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου)· κ. τ. λ.

5 _Ep. ad Flor._

6 _Diss. in Irenæum_, III. § 10, 11.

7 _Auteurs Ecclésiastiques_, tom. i. S. Irenée.

8 The Benedictine Editor: _Dissert. Præv._ II. § 2.

9 _Mémoires_, tom. iii. S. Irenée, art. ii.

10 _Ep. ad Flor._ supra.

11 _Epist._ 53. al. 29. _ad Theodoram viduam_. Refert Irenæus, vir

Apostolicorum temporum, et Papiæ, auditoris Evangelistæ Joannis,

discipulus, Episcopus Ecclesiæ Lugdunensis, quod Marcus quidam, de

Basilidis Gnostici stirpe descendens, primum ad Gallias venerit, et

eas partes, per quas Rhodanus et Garumna fluunt, suâ doctrinâ

maculaverit, maximeque nobiles fœminas, quædam in occulto mysteria

repromittens, hoc errore seduxerit, magicis artibus et secretâ

corporum voluptate amorem sui concilians: inde Pyrenæum transiens,

Hispanias occuparit ; et hoc studii habuerit, ut divitum domos, et in

ipsis fœminas maxime appeteret, quæ ducuntur variis desideriis,

semper discentes, et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes.

Hoc ille scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos ; et scripsit in iis

libris, quos adversus omnes hæreses doctissimo et eloquentissimo

sermone composuit.

12 _Adv. Hær._ I. Præf. 2. xv. 6. III. xvii. 4. xxiii. 3. IV. xxvii. 1.

13 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ II. § 3.

14 _Diss. in Iren._ IV. 3.

15 Irenæus (IV. xxvii. 1.) calls him _quendam presbyterum qui audierat

ab his qui apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant_.

16 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. iii. 2. Καὶ δὴ διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ τῶν

δεδηλωμένων [sc. Montanus and his disciples] αὖθις οἱ κατὰ τὴν

Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοὶ τὴν ἰδίαν κρίσιν καὶ περὶ τούτων εὐλαβῆ καὶ

ὀρθοδοξοτάτην ὑποτάττουσιν· ἐκθέμενοι καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς

τελειωθέντων μαρτύρων διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς, ἃς ἐν δεσμοῖς ἔτι

ὑπάρχοντες τοῖς ἐπ᾽ Ἀσίας καὶ Φρυγίας ἀδελφοῖς διεχάραξαν· οὐ μὴν

ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἐλευθέρῳ τῷ τότε Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπῳ, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν

εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

iv. 1. Οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ μάρτυρες καὶ τὸν Εἰρηναῖον, πρεσβύτερον τότ᾽ ὅντα

τῆς ἐν Λουγδούνῳ παροικίας, τῷ δηλωθέντι κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐπισκόπῳ

συνίστων, πλεῖστα τῷ ἀνδρὶ μαρτυροῦντες, ὡς αἱ τοῦτον ἔχουσαι τὸν

τρόπον δηλοῦσι φωναί.

17 Jerome, _Catalog._ Irenæus Pothini Episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in

Gallia regebat ecclesiam, Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob

quasdam Ecclesiæ quæstiones legatus Romam missus, honorificas super

nomine suo ad Eleutherium Episcopum perfert literas. Postea jam

Pothino prope nonagenario ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum

ejus substituitur. Constat autem Polycarpi, cujus supra fecimus

mentionem, sacerdotis et martyris, hunc fuisse discipulum. Scripsit

quinque _adversus Hæreses_ libros, et _contra Gentes_ volumen breve,

et _de Disciplina_ aliud, et ad Marcianum fratrem _de Apostolica

prædicatione_, et librum _Variorum tractatuum_, et ad Blastum _de

Schismate_, et ad Florinum _de Monarchia_, sive, quod Deus non sit

conditor malorum, et _de Octava_ egregium commentarium, in cujus

fine significans se Apostolicorum temporum vicinum fuisse, sic

subscripsit:

“Adjuro te qui transcribis librum istum, per Dominum Jesum Christum,

et per gloriosum ejus adventum, quo judicaturus est vivos et

mortuos, ut conferas postquam transcripseris, et emendes illum ad

exemplar, unde scripsisti, diligentissime: hanc quoque obtestationem

similiter transferas, ut invenisti in exemplari.” Feruntur ejus et

aliæ ad Victorem Episcopum Romæ _de quæstione Paschæ_ epistolæ, in

quibus commonet eum, non facile debere unitatem collegii scindere:

siquidem Victor multos Asiæ et Orientis Episcopos, qui decimaquarta

luna cum Judæis pascha celebrabant, damnandos crediderat ; in qua

sententia hi qui discrepabant ab illis, Victori non dederunt manus.

Floruit maxime sub Commodo principe, qui Marco Antonino Vero in

imperium successerat.

18 Athen. _Deipnosoph._ xiii. 5. Justin, xliii. 3.

19 Pothinus, the bishop, Attalus, (Περγαμηνὸς τῷ γένει· Euseb. V. i.

7.) Alcibiades, Biblias, Alexander, (Φρὺξ τὸ γένος· ibid. 21.) all

mentioned by Eusebius, besides others recorded in the martyrologies.

20 See note 7, p. 8.

21 _Hist. Eccl._ V. v. 3. Ποθεινοῦ δὴ ἐφ᾽ ὅλοις τῆς ζωῆς ἔτεσιν

ἐνενήκοντα σὺν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασι τελειωθέντος, Εἰρηναῖος

τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον, ἧς ὁ Ποθεινὸς ἡγεῖτο παροικίας, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν

διαδέχεται. Πολυκάρπου δὲ τοῦτον ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν νέαν

ἐμανθάνομεν ἡλικίαν.

22 Tillemont, _Mémoires_, Note 1. Sur les Martyrs de Lion.

23 See the Epistle of the Martyrs to Eleutherus ; Euseb. V. iv. 1.

Χαίρειν ἐν Θεῷ σε ἐν πᾶσιν εὐχόμεθα καὶ ἀεὶ, πάτερ Ἐλεύθερε. Ταῦτά

σοι τὰ γράμματα προτρεψάμεθα τόν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ κοινωνὸν Εἰρηναῖον

διακόμισαι· καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει, ζηλωτὴν

ὄντα τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 2. Εἰ γὰρ ᾕδειμεν τόπον τινὶ

δικαιοσύνην περιποιεῖσθαι, ὡς πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐπ᾽

αὐτῷ, ἐν πρώτοις ἃν παρεθέμεθα.

24 _Hist. Eccl._ V. iii. 2. See note 6, p. 7.

25 Tertull. _adv. Praxean_, i. Nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus

perversitatis intulit Romæ.... Nam idem tunc Episcopum Romanum,

agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscæ, Maximillæ, et ex ea

agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiæ et Phrygiæ inferentem, falsa de ipsis

prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando, et præcessorum ejus

auctoritates defendendo, coëgit et literas pacis revocare jam

emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Ita

duo negotia diabolo Praxeas Romæ procuravit: prophetiam expulit (we

must remember that Tertullian was a Montanist), et hæresin intulit:

Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit. Fructicaverant avenæ

Praxeanæ, hic quoque superseminatæ, dormientibus multis in

simplicitate doctrinæ ; traductæ dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam

evulsæ videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione

sua ; et manet chirographum apud Psychicos (the orthodox), apud quos

res tunc gesta est. Exinde silentium.... Ita aliquamdiu per

hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit.

26 In his account of Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas.

27 Tom. ii. Note 4. Sur les Montanistes.

28 _Dissertationes Præv._ II. § 8, 9.

29 See Tertullian in loco.

30 _Hist. Eccl._ V. i. 1.

31 Euseb. V. i. 7.

32 Euseb. V. xx. 1. Ἐξεναντίας τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας

θεσμὸν παραχαραττόντων, Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει· τὴν

μὲν ἐπιγράψας πρὸς Βλάστον περὶ σχίσματος· τὴν δὲ πρὸς Φλωρῖνον περὶ

μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἑἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν· ταύτης γάρ

τοι τῆς γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν· δι᾽ ὂν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον

τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ, καὶ τὸ περὶ ὀγδοάδος συντάττεται τῷ

Εἰρηναίῳ σπούδασμα· ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐπισημαίνεται τὴν πρώτην τῶν ἀποστόλων

κατειληφέναι ἑαυτὸν διαδοχήν.——ἐν ᾗ γε μὴν προειρήκαμεν πρὸς τὸν

Φλωρῖνον ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐπιστολῇ αὗθις τῆς ἅμα Πολυκάρπῳ συνουσίας

αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει λέγων· Τὰ δόγματα, κ. τ. λ.

33 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. i. 14.

34 Ibid. V. v. 3, supra.

35 By Quesnel (see Tillemont, tom. iii. just at the end of his account

of Irenæus) ; and by Massuet, _Dissert. Præv._ II. § 12.

36 See note 7, p. 8.

37 See note 4, p. 10.

38 V. xxiii. 2.

39 Bingham, IX. ii. 1.

40 Euseb. V. 22. Τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν παροικῶν.

41 Athanas. _Apol._ 2. p. 788. Paris, 1527.

42 Bingham, IX. ii. 6.

43 _Hist._ I. 27. Εἰσὶν ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ πόλιν ὡς παροικίαι.

44 _Dissert._ II. § 13‐16.

45 Ruinart. _Act. Mart._ p. 110. cited by Massuet, _Diss._ II. § 15.

46 So called to distinguish them from the inhabitants of Galatia.

Theodoret. Dial. i. p. 33. ed. Sirmond:—Εἰρηναῖος τῆς Πολυκάρπου

διδασκαλίας ἀπήλαυσεν· ἐγεγόνει δὲ φωστὴρ Γαλατῶν τῶν ἐσπερίων.

47 Id. _Hær. Fab._ p. 189. Τοὺς μέντοι τῶν παλαιῶν αἱρέσεων μύθους ἐκ

τῶν παλαιῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων συνέλεξα, Ἰουστίνου τοῦ

φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος, καὶ Εἰρηναίου τοῦ τὰ Κέλτικα καὶ

γεωργήσαντος καὶ φωτίσαντος ἔθνη.

48 Anonymus auctor _martyrii S. Ferreoli presbyteri, et Ferruccionis

diaconi, ac sociorum ejus_, apud Surium, tom. viii. ad diem 16.

Junii. Eodem tempore quo summus Sacerdos et Martyr Ecclesiæ

Lugdunensis, S. Irenæus Episcopus Christi, lumen æternum et splendor

justitiæ, publice suam prædicationem in Galliis dederat, et assidue

verbum Domini nostri Jesu Christi gentibus declarârat, Sanctum

Ferreolum Presbyterum, et Ferruccionem Diaconum ad Vesunsensem

civitatem vere ut fundamentum fortissimum ad fundandam supra petram

Christi Ecclesiam misit: et sicut angularis lapis sponsi cœlestis,

et ut margaritæ resplendentes fulgebant, per quos nomen æternum et

splendor gloriæ gentibus, quæ in tenebris jacebant, coruscaret ; ut

eorum prædicatione ad Baptismatis gratiam convolarent in quibus erat

mira virtus Christi. In verbo enim et sapientia strenui, vultum

angelicum et Domini servitutibus aptum manifeste populis

demonstrabant. Augebatur Catholica fides, lætabantur de confuso et

victo diabolo quotidie Christiani ; qui derelinquentes idola,

sequebantur Christi vestigia. Similiter Sanctus Irenæus Felicem

Presbyterum, Fortunatum, et Achilleum Diaconos, ex suo latere ante

gloriosum martyrium suum Valentiam dirigit in urbem: quibus

ingressis, talem Dominus athletis suis contulit gratiam, ut illa

Paganorum multitudo, quæ in tenebris jacebat, eos plenissimo affectu

diligeret.

49 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xx. 1.

50 Ibid. 15.

51 _Hær. Fab._ I. 23.

52 Tertull. _de Præscript._ 53.

53 _Epist._ 1.

54 _Hist. Eccl._ V. 15. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκμαζον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Φλωρῖνος,

πρεσβυτερίου τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσὼν, Βλάστος τε σὺν τούτῳ

παραπλησίῳ, πτώματι κατεσχημένος· οἳ καὶ πλείους τῆς ἐκκλησίας

περιέλκοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ σφῶν ὑπῆγον Βούλημα· θάτερος ἰδίως περὶ τὴν

ἀλήθειαν νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος.

55 _Diss._ II. § 59.

56 _Epist. ad Florinum_, supra, p. 2.

57 Euseb. V. 15.

58 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xx. 2‐4.

59 Fragm. ii.

60 Euseb. V. xx. 1.

61 Περὶ Ὀγδοάδος.

62 Euseb. V. xx. 2, and Fragm. i. of the Benedictine edition. Ὀρκίζω σε

τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἦς ἔρχεται κρῖναι

ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ

πρὸς ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὄθεν μετεγράψω, ἐπιμελῶς· καὶ τὸν ὅρκον

τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφω.

63 _Adv. Hær._ I. v. 3. οἱ δὲ καὶ ταῖς τῆς σαρκός ἡδοναῖς κατακόρωσ

δουλεύοντες, τὰ σαρκικὰ τοῖς σαρκικοῖς, καὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ τοῖς

πνευματικοῖς ἀποδίδοσθαι λέγουσι. Καὶ οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν λάθρα τὰς

διδασκομένας ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην γυναῖκας διαφθείρουσιν, ὡς

πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ ἐνίων αὐτῶν ἐξαπατηθεῖσαι, ἔπειπα ἐπιστρέψασαι γυναῖκες

εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺν τῇ λοιπῇ πλάνῃ καὶ τοῦτο

ἐξωμολογήσαντο. οἱ δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸ φανερὸν ἀπερυθριάσαντες, ὧν ἂν

ἐρασθῶσι γυναικῶν, ταύτας ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἀποσπάσαντες, ἰδίας γαμετὰς

ἡγήσαντο. ἄλλοι δὲ αὖ πάλιν σεμνῶς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς, ὡς μετὰ ἀδελφῶν

προσποιούμενοι συνοικεῖν, προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου ηλέγχθησαν, ἐγκύμονος

τῆς ἀδελφῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γενηθείσης.

Ib. xiii. 7. Τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγοντες καὶ πράττοντες, καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽

ἡμᾶς κλίμασι τῆς Ῥοδανουσίας, πολλὰς ἐξηπατήκασι γυναῖκας, αἵτινες

κεκαυτηριασμέναι τὴν συνείδησιν, αἱ μὲν καὶ εἰς φανερὸν

ἐξομολογοῦνται, αἱ δὲ δυσωπούμεναι τοῦτο, ἡσυχῆ δέ πως ἑαυτὰς,

ἀπηλπικυῖαι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔνιαι μὲν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἀπέστησαν,

ἔνιαι δὲ ἐπαμφοτερίζουσι, καὶ τὸ τῆς παροιμίας πεπόνθασι, μήτε ἔξω,

μήτε ἔσω οὖσαι, ταύτην ἔχουσαι τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν

τέκνων τῆς γνώσεως.

64 _Adv. Hær._ I. Præf. 3. Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐκ Κελτοῖς

διατριβόντων, καὶ περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων,

λόγων τέχνην, ἣν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν, οὔτε δύναμιν συγγράφεως, ἣν οὐκ

ἠσκήσαμεν, οὔτε καλλωπισμὸν λέξεων, οὔτε πιθανότητα, ἧν οὐκ οἴδαμεν·

ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς, καὶ ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα,

μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺ προσδέξῃ· καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ, ἅτε

ἰκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν,

καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις τὰ δι᾽ ὀλίγων

ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰρημένα, καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς

ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα. καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐφιλοτιμήθημεν, πάλαι ζητοῦντός

σου μαθεῖν τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μὴ μόνον σοι ποιῆσαι φανερὰν, ἀλλὰ καὶ

ἐφόδια δοῦναι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ· οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὺ

φιλοτίμως τοῖς λοιποῖς διακονήσεις, κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ

Κυρίου σοὶ δεδομένην, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι παρασύρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ

τῆς ἐκείνων πιθανολογίας, οὔσης τοιαύτης.

65 I. Præf. 2. Ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἰτίαν συναρπάζωνταί τινες,

ὡς πρόβατα ὑπὸ λύκων, ἀγνοοῦντες αὐτοὺς, διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν τῆς

προβατείου δορᾶς ἐπιβουλὴν, οὓς φυλάσσειν παρήγγελκεν ἡμῖν Κύριος,

ὅμοια μὲν λαλοῦντας, ἀνόμοια δὲ φρονοῦντας· ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην,

ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν,

ἐνίοις δ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν,

μήνυσαί σοι, ἀγαπητὲ, τὰ τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα μυστήρια, ἃ οὐ πάντες

χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν· ὅπως καὶ σὺ

μαθὼν αὐτὰ, πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ φανερὰ ποιήσῃς, καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς

φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας, καὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν βλασφημίας.

66 III. iii. 1. given at length in ch. II. of this work.

67 III. xxi. 1. given at length in the chapter _on the Canon, &c. of

Holy Scripture_.

68 See Epiphan. _de Pond. et Mens._ § 17. and the _Alexandrian

Chronicle_, quoted by Massuet, _Diss._ II. § 47.

69 Book I. xxxi. 4. Cum igitur hæc sic se habeant, quatenus promisi,

secundum nostram virtutem inferemus eversionem ipsorum, omnibus eis

contradicentes in sequenti libro: (enarratio enim in longum pergit,

ut vides:) et viatica quoque dabimus ad eversionem ipsorum,

occurrentes omnibus sententiis secundum narrationis ordinem: ut

simus non tantum ostendentes, sed et vulnerantes undique bestiam.

70 III. Præf. Misimus tibi libros, ex quibus primus quidem omnium

illorum sententias continet, et consuetudines, et characteres

ostendit conversationis eorum. In secundo vero destructa et eversa

sunt quæ ab ipsis male docentur, et nudata, et ostensa sunt talia

qualia et sunt. In hoc autem tertio ex Scripturis inferemus

ostensiones, ut nihil tibi ex his, quæ præceperas, desit a nobis ;

sed et, præterquam opinabaris, ad arguendum et evertendum eos, qui

quolibet modo male docent, occasiones a nobis accipias. Quæ enim est

in Deo charitas, dives et sine invidia exsistens, plura donat quam

postulet quis ab ea. Memento igitur eorum quæ diximus in prioribus

duobus libris ; et hæc illis adjungens, plenissimam habebis a nobis

adversus omnes hæreticos contradictionem, et fiducialiter ac

instantissime resistes eis pro sola vera ac vivifica fide, quam ab

Apostolis Ecclesia percepit, et distribuit filiis suis. Etenim

Dominus omnium dedit Apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii, per quos

et veritatem, hoc est, Dei Filii doctrinam cognovimus ; quibus et

dixit Dominus: Qui vos audit, me audit: et qui vos contemnit, me

contemnit, et eum qui me misit.

71 Ib. & IV. Præf. 1. Hunc quartum librum, dilectissime, transmittens

tibi, operis quod est de detectione et eversione falsæ cognitionis,

quemadmodum promisimus, per Domini sermones ea, quæ prædiximus,

confirmabimus.——V. Præf. Traductis, dilectissime, omnibus hæreticis

in quatuor libris, qui sunt tibi ante hunc a nobis editi, et

doctrinis ipsorum manifestatis ; eversis quoque his, qui irreligiosas

adinvenerunt sententias, aliquid quidem ex propria uniuscujusque

illorum doctrina, quam in suis conscriptis reliquerunt ; aliquid

autem ex ratione, universis ostensionibus procedente ; et veritate

ostensa, et manifestato præconio Ecclesiæ, quod Prophetæ quidem

præconaverunt, quemadmodum demonstravimus, perfecit autem Christus,

Apostoli vero tradiderunt, a quibus Ecclesia accipiens, per

universum mundum sola bene custodiens, tradidit filiis suis ;

quæstionibusque omnibus solutis, quæ ab hæreticis nobis proponuntur ;

et Apostolorum doctrina explanata, et manifestatis pluribus, quæ a

Domino per parabolas et dicta sunt et facta: in hoc libro quinto,

operis universi, quod est de traductione et eversione falso

cognominatæ agnitionis, ex reliquis doctrinæ Domini nostri, et ex

Apostolicis epistolis, conabimur ostensiones facere.

72 I. Præf. 2. Καὶ, καθὼς δύναμις ἡμῖν, τήν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν

παραδιδασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, ἀπάνθισμα οὖσαν τῆς

Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, συντόμως καὶ σαφῶς ἀπαγγελοῦμεν.

73 II. Præf. 2. In hoc autem libro instruemus quæ nobis apta sunt, et

quæ permittit tempus, et evertemus per magna capitula omnem ipsorum

regulam: quapropter, quod sit detectio et eversio sententiæ ipsorum,

operis hujus conscriptionem ita titulavimus. Oportet enim

absconditas ipsorum conjugationes, per manifestarum conjugationum

indicium et eversionem, Bythum dissolvere ; et quoniam neque fuerit

aliquando, neque sit, accipere ostensionem.

74 See note 10 above, p. 34.

75 See III. ii. 1. quoted in the chapter on _Tradition_.

76 III. v. 1.

77 See IV. Præf. 1. quoted above, p. 35. and i. 1. Cum sit igitur hoc

firmum et constans, neminem alterum Deum et Dominum a Spiritu

prædicatum, nisi eum qui dominatur omnium Deus, cum Verbo suo, et

eos qui adoptionis Spiritum accipiunt, hoc est, eos qui credunt in

unum et verum Deum, et Christum Jesum Filium Dei ; similiter et

Apostolos neminem alium a semetipsis Deum appellasse, aut Dominum

cognominasse ; multo autem magis Dominum nostrum, qui et nobis

præcepit neminem Patrem confiteri, nisi eum qui est in cœlis, qui

est unus Deus, et unus Pater.

78 See V. Præf. quoted above, p. 35.

79 _In Bibliotheca_, cod. 120.

80 Massuet, _Diss._ II. §. 53. Quisquis Irenæum Latinum cum Tertulliano

contulerit, e vestigio deprehendet adeo hunc vestigia illius

premere, adeo verbis ipsis, verborumque figuris et ordini adhærere,

ut id unum sibi proposuisse videatur, paucioribus contrahere, iisdem

sæpe servatis verbis, immixtis tamen pro more dicteriis, quæ ille

fusioribus exsequutus est. Sic Irenæus, lib. I. cap. xi. n. 3.

Epiphanis sententiam referens, scribit: “Est quidem ante omnes

Proarche, proanennoëtos, et inenarrabilis, et innominabilis, quam

ego monotetem voco. Cum hac monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco

henotetem. Hæc henotes et monotes, cum sint unum, emiserunt, cum

nihil emiserint, principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoraton,

quam archem sermo monada vocat. Cum hac monade est virtus ejusdem

substantiæ ei, quam et eam voco hen. Hæ autem virtutes, id est,

monotes et henotes, et monas, et hen, emiserunt reliquas emissiones

Æonum.” Tertullianus vero cap. 37. “Est,” inquit, “ante omnia

Proarche, inexcogitabile et inenarrabile, quod ego nomino monoteta.

Cum hac erat alia virtus, quam et ipsam appello henoteta. Monotes et

henotes, id est, solitas et unitas, cum unum essent, protulerunt,

non proferentes, initium omnium intellectuale, innascibile,

invisibile, quod sermo monada vocavit. Huic adest consubstantiva

virtus, quam appellat unio. Hæ igitur virtutes, solitas,

singularitas, unitas, unio, cæteras prolationes Æonum propagarunt.”

Ubi eadem verba, (nisi quod Græca quædam Latine vertuntur,) eadem

styli barbaries, atque apud Irenæi interpretem occurrunt. Hic n. 5.

“Alii rursus ipsorum primam et archegonon octonationem his nominibus

nominaverunt: primum Proarchen, deinde Anennoëton, tertiam autem

Arrheton, et quartam Aoraton. Et de prima quidem Proarche emissum

esse primo et quinto loco Archen ; ex Anennoëto secundo et sexto loco

Acatalepton ; et de Arrheto tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston ; de

Aorato autem quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Tertullianus, cap.

25. totidem verbis: “Primo enim constituunt Proarchen, secundo

Anennoëton, tertio Arrheton, quarto Aoraton. Ex Proarche itaque

processisse primo et quinto loco Archen ; ex Anennoëto, secundo et

sexto loco Acatalepton ; ex Arrheto, tertio et septimo loco

Anonomaston ; ex Invisibili, quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Certe

si e Græco immediate exscripsisset omnia hæc Tertullianus, tot

nomina Græca Latine vertisset ; nec fortuito et casu fieri potuit ut

hoc illi cum Irenæi interprete convenerit. Hic cap. xii. n. 3.

Colorbaseorum hypothesim sic exponit. “Quando cogitavit aliquid

emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est ; at ubi quæ emisit, vera

fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum

ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. Quos autem præcogitaverat

posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Loquutus est Anthropos

Logon, hic est primogenitus Filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoe, et

sic prima octonatio completa est.” Ille cap. 36. “Quum, inquiunt,

cogitavit proferre, hoc Pater dictus est ; quum protulit, quia vera

protulit, hic Veritas appellata est. Quum semetipsum voluit probari,

hoc Homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem præcogitavit, cum protulit,

tunc Ecclesia nuncupata est. Sonuit Homo Sermonem, et hic est

primogenitus Filius: et Sermoni accessit Vita, et ogdoas prima

conclusa est.” Plura alia similia passim occurrunt apud

Tertullianum. Sed quod demum ostendit hunc non e Græco, sed ex

interprete Irenæi sumpsisse quæ refert, illud est, quod ubi lapsus

est interpres Græca perperam reddens, lapsus est et Tertullianus.

Ille, ut jam dixi, nomen Ἐπιφανὴς appellativum esse putans, male

omnino vertit “clarus.” Tertullianus similiter errantem sequutus

scripsit, “insignior.” Irenæus, cap. ii. n. 3. Sophiæ perturbationem

enarrans, scribit eam, fœtum informem cum peperisset, “primo quidem

contristatam propter inconsummationem generationis, post deinde,

φοβηθῆναι μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τέλος ἔχῃ.” Sic saltem legit interpres ; vertit

enim, “timuisse ne hoc ipsum finem habeat ; ” ubi τέλος

“perfectionem,” non “finem” vertendum erat, ut in notis ad hunc

locum diximus. Nec melius Tertullianus, cap. 10. “primo quidem

contristari propter inconsummationem generationis, et metuere

postremo, ne finis quoque insisteret.” Ubi similiter τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς

γεννήσεως vertit “inconsummationem generationis ; ” et relicto Irenæo

Græco, Latinum interpretem sequutus scripsit, “ne quoque finis

insisteret.” Eodem cap. n. 4. refert Irenæus, quod Pater per

Monogenem emiserit Horon in imagine sua, ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον: ubi

interpres perperam legens ἀσυζύγῳ, ἀθηλύντῳ, vel, ut alii volunt,

ἀῥῥενοθήλει, perperam et vertit, “sine conjuge masculo‐fœmina.”

Eadem culpa tenetur et Tertullianus, cap. cit. “Pater per Monogenem

Nun, quem supra diximus Horon, in hæc promit in imagine sua fœmina‐

mare.” Nempe uterque id ad imaginem refert, quod Horo soli convenire

posse recta ratio demonstrat. Culpam hanc non sustineret

Tertullianus, si textum Græcum hic potius quam interpretem

consuluisset. Paulo post, Sophian ab Horo mundatam et confirmatam,

ac suæ restitutam conjugationi cum dixisset Irenæus, addit:

Χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει,

αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς Πληρώματος μεῖναι· τὴν δὲ ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ

πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι. Quæ sic reddidit

interpres: “Separata enim intentione ab ea, cum appendice passione,

ipsam quidem infra Pleroma perseverasse: concupiscentiam vero ejus

cum passione ab Horo separatam, et crucifixam, et extra cum factam

esse, &c.” ubi duo peccat, primum quod, σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει,

vertit, “cum appendice passione ; ” vertendum erat, “cum passione quæ

supervenerat.” Secundum, quod ἀποσταυρωθῆναι vertit, “crucifixam ; ”

hic significat, quasi “vallo cinctam et disjunctam” a Pleromate.

Eadem omnino peccat et Tertullianus, scribens: “Enthymesin ejus et

illam appendicem passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifixam.” Hæc et

plura alia, quæ identidem in notis observavi, invicte, ni fallor,

probant, Tertullianum, ut Græcum Irenæum legerit, (quod non nego) ab

eo tamen sæpe defecisse, ut Latini interpretis, et quidem interdum

errantis, vestigia sectaretur.

81 _Contra Julianum Pelagianum_, I. c. 3. he has quoted the last clause

of IV. ii. 7 ; and c. 7. the last paragraph of V. xvii. 1.

82 Eusebius indeed says (V. xxiii. 1) that the Churches of _all Asia_

were united in differing from the rest of the world ; but it is

evident, from chap. xxv. that he means Asia Minor ; for he mentions

the bishops of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Tyre, and Ptolemais, as asserting

that the Church of Alexandria agreed with them in their present

practice, which was the same as that of the West.

Τῆς Ἀσίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας, σελήνης

τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην ᾥοντο δεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς

παραφυλάττειν, ἐν ᾗ θύειν τὸ πρόβατον Ἰουδαίοις προηγόρευτο· ὡς δέον

ἐκπαντὸς κατὰ ταύτην, ὁποίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἑβδομάδος περιτυγχάνοι,

τὰς τῶν ἀσιτιῶν ἐπιλύσεις ποιεῖσθαι· οὐκ ἔθους ὄντος τοῦτον

ἐπιτελεῖν τὸν τρόπον ταῖς ἀνὰ τήν λοιπὴν ἄπασαν οἰκουμένην

ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως τὸ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο κρατῆσαν ἔθος

φυλαττούσαις· ὡς μηδ᾽ ἑτέρᾳ προσήκειν παρὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ

Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέραν τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι.

83 As appears by the following Fragment of Irenæus’s Epistle to Victor,

quoted by Euseb. V. xxiv. 5. Καὶ οἱ πρὸ Σωτῆρος πρεσβύτεροι οἱ

προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἧς νῦν ἀφηγῇ, Ἀνίκητον λέγομεν καὶ Πίον,

Ὕγῖνόν τε καὶ Τελεσφόρον, καὶ Ξύστον, οὔτε αὐτοὶ ἐτήρησαν, οὔτε τοῖς

μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπέτρεπον. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον αὐτοὶ μὴ τηροῦντες,

εἰρήνευον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν, ἐν αἷς ἐτηρεῖτο, ἐρχομένοις πρὸς

αὐτοὺς, καίτοι μᾶλλον ἐνάντιον ἦν τὸ τηρεῖν τοῖς μὴ τηροῦσι· καὶ

οὐδέποτε διὰ τὸ εἶδος τοῦτο ἀπεβλήθησάν τινες. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ μὴ

τηροῦντες, οἱ πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι, τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν τηροῦσιν

ἔπεμπον εὐχαριστίαν. Καὶ τοῦ μακαρίου Πολυκάρπου ἐπιδημήσαντος τῇ

Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων τινῶν μικρὰ σχόντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους,

εὐθὺς εἰρήνευσαν, περὶ τούτου τοῦ κεφαλαίου μὴ φιλεριστήσαντες

ἑαυτούς. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ Ἀνίκητος τὸν Πολύκαρπον πεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ

τηρεῖν, ἅτε μετὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ μαθητοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ λοιπῶν

ἀποστόλων οἷς συνδιέτριψεν, ἀεὶ τετηρηκότα· οὔτε μὴν ὁ Πολύκαρπος

τὸν Ἀνίκητον ἔπεισε τηρεῖν, λέγοντα τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν πρὸ αὑτοῦ

πρεσβυτέρων ὀφείλειν κατέχειν. καὶ τούτων οὔτως ἐχόντων, ἐκοινὼνησαν

ἑαυτοῖς· καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παρεχώρησεν ὁ Ἀνίκητος τὴν εὐχαριστίαν

τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, κατ᾽ ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι, καὶ μετ᾽ εἰρήνης απ‘ ἀλλήλων

ἀπηλλάγησαν, πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰρήνην ἐχόντων, καὶ τῶν τηρούντων

καὶ τῶν μὴ τηρούντων.

84 See p. 23. above.

85 We know that he wrote to Polycrates of Ephesus, and therefore

probably to the rest. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. xxiv. 3.—Ἐδυνάμην δὲ τῶν

ἐπισκόπων τῶν συμπαρόντων μνημονεῦσαι, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἠξιώσατε

μετακληθῆναι ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ μετεκαλεσάμην.

86 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xxiii. 2. Σύνοδοι δὴ καὶ συγκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων ἐπὶ

ταὐτὸν ἐγίνοντο. πάντες τε μιᾷ γνώμῃ δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν

δόγμα τοῖς πανταχόσε διετυποῦντο, ὡς ἂν μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῃ ποτε τῆς

Κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου

μυστήριον, καὶ ὄπως ἐν ταύτῃ μόνῃ τῶν κατὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστειῶν

φυλαττοίμεθα τας ἐπιλύσεις. Φέρεται δ᾽ εἰσέτι νῶν τῶν κατὰ

Παλαιστίνην τηνικάδε συγκεκροτημένων γραφὴ, ὧν προὐτέτακτο Θεέφιλος

τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ παροικίας ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ Νάρκισσος τῆς ἐν

Ἱεροσολύμοις· καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης δὲ ὁμοίως ἄλλη περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ

ζητήματος, ἐπίσκοπον Βίκτορα δηλοῦσα· τῶν τε κατὰ Πόντον ἐπισκόπων,

ὧν Πάλμας ὡς ἀρχαιότατος προὐτέτακτο· καὶ τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν δὲ

παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει· ἔτι δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ὀσροηνὴν καὶ

τὰς ἐκεῖσε πόλεις· καὶ ἰδίως Βακχύλλου τῆς Κορινθίων ἐκκλησίας

ἐπισκόπου, καὶ πλείστων ὅσων ἄλλων, οἱ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτην δόξαν τε

καὶ κρίσιν ἐξενεγκόμενοι, τὴν αὐτὴν τέθεινται ψῆφον.... 24. Τῶν δὲ

ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπισκόπων τὸ πάλαι πρότερον αὐτοῖς παραδοθὲν

διαφυλάττειν ἔθος χρῆναι διϊσχυριζομένων ἡγεῖτο Πολυκράτης.

87 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xxiv. 2. Ἐγὼ οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἑξήκοντα καὶ πέντε ἔτη

ἔχων ἐν Κυρίῳ, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀδελφοῖς, καὶ

πᾶσαν ἁγίαν γραφὴν διεληλυθὼς, οὐ πτύρομαι ἐπὶ τοῖς

καταπλησσομένοις.

88 Euseb. V. xxiv. 3. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ,

ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσας ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας

ἀποτέμνειν, ὡς ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται· καὶ

στηλιτεύει γε διὰ γραμμάτων, ἀκοινωνήτους ἄρδην πάντας τοὺς ἐκεῖσε

ἀκακηρύττων ἀδελφούς.

89 Ibid. Ἀλλ᾽ οὺ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτ᾽ ἠρέσκετο·

ἀντιπαρακελεύονται δῦτα αὐτῷ, τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς

πλησίον ἑνώσεως καὶ ἀγάπης φρονεῖν. Φέρονται δὲ καὶ αἱ τούτων φωναὶ,

πληκτικώτερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίκτορος· ἐν οἷς καὶ ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ

προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, παρίσταται

μὲν τῷ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου

ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι μυστήριον· τῷ γε μὴν Βίκτορι προσηκόντως, ὡς

μὴ ἀποκόπτοι ὅλας ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἀρχαίου ἔθους παράδοσιν

ἐπιτηρούσας, πλεῖστα ἕτερα παραινεῖ, καὶ αὐτοῖς δὲ ῥήμασι τάδε

ἐπιλέγων· Then follows the fragment Οὐ γὰρ μόνον ... συνίστησι,

extracted in the chapter _on the Forms and Ceremonies of the

Church_, and that quoted above, p. 45, note 4.—Ibid. xxiv. 6. Ὁ δ᾽

αύτὸς οὐ μόνον τῷ Βίκτορι, ἀλλὰ και διαφόροις πλείστοις ἄρχουσιν

ἐκκλησιῶν, τὰ κατάλληλα δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν περὶ τοῦ κεκινημένου ζητήματος

ὡμίλει.

90 Anatolius, apud Bucher. _de Cycl. Vict._ p. 444. ed. Antwerp, 1633.

91 Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, in a letter addressed to

Cyprian, preserved amongst those of Cyprian (_Epist._ 75. ed.

Potter. p. 220.), says, in reference to the diversity of customs

“circa celebrandos dies paschæ, et circa multa alia divinæ rei

sacramenta,” “Nec tamen propter hoc ab ecclesiæ Catholicæ pace atque

unitate aliquando discessum est.”

Athanasius, (_de Synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ_, § 5.), says, that

before the Council of Nice, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας καὶ Κιλικίας καὶ

Μεσοποταμίας ἐχώλευον περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων

ἐποιοῦντο πάσχα.

Chrysostom, in his _Discourses against the Jews_, in that one in

which he dissuades the Christians of Antioch from joining in their

observances, (tom. v. _Hom._ 55. p. 608. ed. Benedict.) reminds them

that the Church of Antioch once universally kept the ante‐paschal

fast with the Jews, although they had, since the Council of Nice,

given up that practice: Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἐνηστεύομεν πρότερον, ἀλλ᾽

ὄμως προετιμήσαμεν τὴν συμφωνίαν τῆς τῶν χρόνων παρατηρήσεως.

92 Theodoret. _Hist._ I. 9. Euseb. _de Vit. Const._ 19.

93 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ II. § 21.

94 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. xxiv. 3. quoted p. 47, note 9.

95 Jerome in _Catal._ quoted p. 8, note 7.

96 Euseb. as quoted p. 47, note 1.

97 See note 3, p. 48.

98 _Hist. Eccl._ v. 26. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ πρὸς τοῖς ἀποδοθεῖσιν Εἰρηναίου

συγγράμμασι καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, φέρεταί τις αὐτοῦ πρὸς Ἕλληνας

λόγος συντομώτατος καὶ ταμάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατος, Περὶ ἐπιστήμης

ἐπιγεγραμμένος· καὶ ἄλλος, ὃν ἀνατέθεικεν ἀδελφῷ Μαρκιανῷ τοὔνομα,

εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος· καὶ βιβλίον τι Διαλέξεων

διαφόρων, ἐν ᾧ τῆς πρὸς Ἐβραίους ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας

Σολωμῶντος μνημονεύει, ῥητά τινα ἐξ αὐτῶν παραθέμενος.

99 See p. 2, note 7.

100 In the _Answer_ to _Question_ 115. Ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυρ

καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ κ. τ. λ.

101 Tom. II. p. 152, ed. Combefis.

102 On Isaiah, lxiv. 4, 5. in vol. iv. p. 761 of his Works.

103 _Hist. Franc._ x. 27. Veniente persecutione, talia ibidem diabolus

bella per tyrannum exercuit, et tanta ibi multitudo Christianorum ob

confessionem divini nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina

currerent de sanguine Christiano ; quorum nec numerum nec nomina

colligere potuimus: Dominus enim eos in libro vitæ conscripsit.

Beatum Irenæum, diversis in sua carnifex præsentia pœnis affectum,

Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit.

104 Tillemont, _Mémoires_, tom. iii. part. 1. S. Irenée, Art. x.

105 Gregor. Turon. _de Gloria Martyrum_, I. 5. Hic in crypta Basilicæ B.

Joannis sub altari est sepultus.

106 I. x. 1. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως

περάτων τῆς γῆς διεσπαρμένη.—2. Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα παρειληφυῖα, καὶ

ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλω τῷ κόσμῳ

διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει, ὡς ἕνα οἶκον οἰκοῦσα· καὶ ὀμοίως

πιστεύει τούτοις, ὡς μίαν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσα καρδίαν· καὶ

συμφώνως ταῦτα κηρύσσει, καὶ διδάσκει, καὶ παραδίδωσιν, ὡς ἓν στόμα

κεκτημένη.

107 I. x. 2. Καὶ γὰρ αἱ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον διάλεκτοι ἀνόμοιαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ

δύναμις τῆς παραδόσεως μία καὶ ἡ αὐτή· καὶ οὔτε αἱ ἐν Γερμανίαις

ἰδρυμέναι Ἐκκλησίαι ἄλλως πεπιστεύκασιν, ἢ ἄλλως παραδιδόασιν, οὔτε

ἐν ταῖς Ἰβηρίαις, οὔτε ἐν Κελτοῖς, οὔτε κατὰ τὰς ἀνατολὰς, οὔτε ἐν

Αἰγύπτῳ, οὔτε ἐν Λιβύῃ, οὔτε αἱ κατὰ μέσα τοῦ κόσμου ἰδρυμέναι.

108 III. xii. 8. Ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς, καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν

Βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε· Πιστεύω τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

ὃς καὶ ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὰ κλίματα Αἰθιοπίας, κηρύξων τοῦτο, ὅπερ

ἐπίστευσε, Θεὸν μὲν ἕνα, τὸν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυγμένον.—IV.

xxiii. 2. Nihil enim aliud deerat ei, qui a Prophetis fuerat

præcatechizatus: non Deum Patrem, non conversationis dispositionem,

sed solum adventum ignorabat Filii Dei ; quem cum breviter

cognovisset, agebat iter gaudens, præco futurus in Æthiopia Christi

adventus.

109 Frag. iii. p. 45, note 4.

110 I. x. 2, 3. Τῆς οὔσης Ἐκκλησίας πάσης μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν

ἐχούσης εἰς πάντα τὸν κόσμον, καθὼς προέφαμεν, κ. τ. λ.

111 I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ

κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, κ. τ. λ.

112 III. iii. 1. Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo

manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera

velint videre: et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti

sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui

nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur.

Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli, quæ seorsim et

latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea

quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et

irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores

relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes ; quibus

emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa

calamitas.

113 III. iii. 2. Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine

omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones ; maximæ, et antiquissimæ,

et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo

Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab Apostolis

Traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones

Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes

eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel

per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet colligunt.

114 See p. 2, note 3.

115 III. iii. 4. Μαρτυροῦσιν τούτοις αἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι,

καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον, πολλῷ ἀξιοπιστότερον

καὶ βεβαιότερον ἀληθείας μάρτυρα ὄντα Οὐαλεντίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ

τῶν λοιπῶν κακογνωμόνων.

116 III. iii. 4. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ Παύλου μὲν

τεθεμελιωμένη, Ἰωάννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ

χρόνων, μάρτυς ἀληθής ἐστι τῆς Ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως.

117 III. iii. 1. supra.

118 III. iii. 1. 4.

119 2 Tim. iv. 21.

120 _Anencletus_ is called _Anacletus_ by the ancient translator of

Irenæus, and _Cletus_ by Epiphanius (_Hær._ I. § 27.) and the Canon

of the Mass. Later writers than Epiphanius make him two persons, but

their accounts are contradictory. See Pearson’s Posthumous Works,

_Dissert. de Serie et Successione Episcoporum Romanorum_, II. 1 ; and

Nourry, _Apparatus ad Biblioth. Patrum_, VI. v. 5.

121 Clement is mentioned by Tertullian (_De Præscrip. Hær._ 32.) as

_ordained by Peter_. It is probable that this might have taken place

in the slight interval which elapsed between the death of St. Paul

and that of St. Peter, both of which took place in the same

persecution.

122 III. iii. 3. Θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι

ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν.

τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται·

διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὸν Ἀνέγκλητος. μετὰ τοῦτον καὶ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν

ἀποστόλων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης, ὁ καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς

μακαρίους ἀποστόλους, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔτι ἔναυλον τὸ

κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων, οὐ

μόνος· ἔτι γὰρ πολλοὶ ὑπελείποντο τότε ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων

δεδιδαγμένοι.—Τὸν δὲ Κλήμεντα τοῦτον διαδέχεται Εὐάρεστος· καὶ τὸν

Εὐάρεστον Ἀλέξανδρος· εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἔκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καθίσταται

Ξύστος· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Τελεσφόρος, ὃς καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησεν·

ἔπειτα Ὕγῖνος, εἶτα Πῖος· μεθ᾽ ὃν Ἀνίκητος. διαδεξαμένου τὸν

Ἀνίκητον Σωτῆρος, νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν

ἀποστόλων κετέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος. τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει, καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ

διδαχῇ ἤτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ τῆς

ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς.

123 Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

124 III. iii. 4. Καὶ εἴσιν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ἰωάννης, ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου

μαθητὴς, ἐν τῇ Ἐφέσῳ πορευθεὶς λούσασθαι, καὶ ἰδὼν ἔσω Κήρινθον,

ἐξήλατο τοῦ βαλανείου μὴ λουσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειπών· Φύγωμεν, μὴ καὶ

τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ, ἔνδον ὄντος Κηρίνθου, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροῦ.

125 3 John 10.

126 Frag. ii. See p. 2, note 2.

127 III. iii. 4. Ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῇ Ῥώμῃ, πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν

προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μίαν

καὶ μόνην ταύτην ἀλήθειαν κηρύξας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παρειληφέναι,

τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παραδεδομένην.

128 _Hist. Eccl._ IV. 14.

129 _De Viris Illustribus_, 27.

130 Frag. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

131 III. iii. 4. Καὶ αὐτὸς δε ὁ Πολύκαρπος Μαρκίωνί ποτε εἰς ὄψιν αὐτῷ

ἐλθόντι, καὶ φήσαντι, Ἐπιγίνώσκεις ἡμᾶς; ἀπεκρίθη· Ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν

πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Τοσαύτην οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτῶν

ἔσχον εὐλάβειαν, πρὸς τὸ μηδὲ μέχρι λόγου κοινωνεῖν τινὶ τῶν

παραχαρασσόντων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς καὶ Παῦλος ἔφησεν· Ἁἰρετικὸν

ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι

ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος, καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος.—That it

was _at Rome_ rests upon the testimony of Jerome, _De Vir. Ill._ 17.

132 III. iii. 4.

133 III. iii. 4. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὴ Πολυκάρπου πρὸς Φιλιππησίους

γεγραμμένη ἱκανωτάτη, ἐξ ἧς καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ

τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας, οἱ Βουλόμενοι, καὶ φροντίζοντες τῆς ἐαυτῶν

σωτηρίας, δύνανται μαθεῖν.

134 Frag. ii. Καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν δὲ αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἐπέστειλεν ἤτοι ταῖς

γειτνιώσαις ἐκκληίαις, ἐπιστηρίζων αὐτὰς, ἢ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τισι,

νουθετῶν αὐτοὺς, καὶ προτρεπόμενος, δύναται φανερωθῆναι.

135 _Hist._ III. 15.

136 Phil. iv. 3.

137 III. iii. 3. Ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος στάσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν

Κορίνθω γενομένης ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ρώμη ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην

γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοις, εἰς εἰρήνην συμβιβάζουσα αὐτοὺς, καὶ

ἀνανεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων

παράδοσιν εἰλήφει.

138 See p. 5, note 9.

139 III. iii. 2. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem

principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos

qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique,

conservata est ea quæ est ab Apostolis Traditio.

140 Prog. _de potentiore Eccl. Rom. principalitate_. Jenæ, 1780. 4to.

141 II. xxx. 9. In translating Eph. i. 21.

142 III. xi. 8.

143 I. ix. 3.

144 V. xxvii. 2.

145 IV. xxxviii. 3.

146 _Pope’s Supremacy_, V. ix. p. 234, edit. 1680. “The faithful who are

all about.”

147 _Difficulties of Romanism_, B. I. chap. iii. sect. iv. 2. (4.) “To

this Church, on account of the more potent principality, it is

necessary that every Church should resort ; that is to say, those

faithful individuals who are on every side of it. In which Church,

by those who are on every side of it, the tradition, which is from

the Apostles, has always been preserved.”

148 _De Præscr. Hær._ 36.

149 II. xxxi. 2. Καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀδελφότητι πολλάκις διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, τῆς

κατὰ τόπον ἐκκλησίας πάσης αἰτησαμένης μετὰ νηστείας πολλῆς καὶ

λιτανείας, ἐπέστρεψε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ τετελευτηκότος, καὶ ἐχαρίσθη ὁ

ἄνθρωπος ταῖς εὐχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων.—xxxii. 4. Quapropter et in illius

nomine, qui vere illius sunt discipuli ab ipso accipientes gratiam,

perficiunt ad beneficia reliquorum hominum, quemadmodum unusquisque

accepit donum ab eo. Alii enim dæmones excludunt firmissime et vere,

ut etiam sæpissime credant ipsi, qui emundati sunt a nequissimis

spiritibus, et sint in Ecclesia. Alii autem et præscientiam habent

futurorum, et visiones, et dictiones propheticas. Alii autem

laborantes aliqua infirmitate per manus impositionem curant, et

sanos restituunt. Jam etiam, quemadmodum diximus, et mortui

resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multis. Et quid

autem? Non est numerum dicere gratiarum, quas per universum mundum

Ecclesia a Deo accipiens, in nomine Christi Jesu, crucifixi sub

Pontio Pilato, per singulos dies in opitulationem gentium perficit,

neque seducens aliquem, nec pecuniam ei auferens. Quemadmodum enim

gratis accepit a Deo, gratis et ministrat. 5. ——munde et pure et

manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen

Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans, virtutes ad utilitates hominum,

sed non ad seductionem, perficit.

150 II. xxxii. 4, supra. V. vi. 1. Καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούομεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, προφητικὰ χαρίσματα ἐχόντων, καὶ παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων

διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος γλώσσαις, καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φανερὸν

ἀγόντων ἐπὶ τῷ συμφέροντι, καὶ τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκδιηγουμένων.

151 V. vi. 1.

152 Pp. 98‐102.

153 II. xxxi. 3. ——in Ecclesia autem miseratio, et misericordia, et

firmitas, et veritas ad opitulationem hominum, non solum sine

mercede et gratis perficiatur ; sed et nobis ipsis quæ sunt nostra

erogantibus pro salute hominum, et ea quibus hi, qui curantur,

indigent, sæpissime non habentes, a nobis accipiunt.

154 II. xxxii. 4. See p. 69, note 8.

155 II. xxxi. 2. διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. See p. 69, note 8.

156 Frag. ii. See p. 2. note 2.

157 IV. xxx. 1. Quid autem et hi, qui in Regali aula sunt, fideles,

nonne ex eis, quæ Cæsaris sunt, habent utensilia, et his qui non

habent, unusquisque eorum secundum virtutem præstat.

158 IV. xxx. 3. Sed et mundus pacem habet per eos, et nos sine timore in

viis ambulamus et navigamus quocumque voluerimus.

159 Frag. xiii. Χριστιανῶν γὰρ κατηχουμένων δούλους Ἕλληνες συλλαβόντες,

εἶτα μαθεῖν τι παρὰ τούτων δῆθεν ἀπόρῥητον περὶ Χριστιανῶν

ἀναγκάζοντες, οἱ δοῦλοι οὗτοι, μὴ ἔχοντες πῶς τὸ τοῖς ἀναγκάζουσι

καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἐρεῖν, παρ᾽ ὅσον ἤκουον τῶν δεσποτῶν, τὴν θείαν

μετάληψιν αἷμα καὶ σῶμα εἶναι Χριστοῦ, αὐτοὶ νομίσαντες τῷ ὄντι αἷμα

καὶ σάρκα εἶναι, τοῦτο ἐξεῖπον τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσι. οἱ δὲ λαβόντες ὡς

αὐτόχρημα τοῦτο τελεῖσθαι Χριστιανοῖς, κ.τ.λ.

160 III. xii. 5. After quoting Acts iv. 24, &c. he proceeds thus:—Αὑται

φωναὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴν ἀρχήν· αὗται

φωναὶ τῆς Μητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν.

161 I. x. 1. See p. 55, note.

162 III. iii. 1. See p. 56, note 7.

163 III. xii. 5. supra.

164 III. xxiv. 1. Prædicationem vero Ecclesiæ undique constantem, et

æqualiter perseverantem, et testimonium habentem a Prophetis et ab

Apostolis, et ab omnibus discipulis, quemadmodum ostendimus per

initia, et medietates, et finem, et per universam Dei dispositionem,

et eam quæ secundum salutem hominis est solitam operationem, quæ est

in fide nostra ; quam perceptam ab Ecclesia custodimus, et quæ semper

a Spiritu Dei, quasi in vase bono eximium quoddam depositum

juvenescens, et juvenescere faciens ipsum vas in quo est. Hoc enim

Ecclesiæ creditum est Dei munus, quemadmodum ad inspirationem

plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur: et in

eo disposita est communicatio CHRISTI, id est, Spiritus sanctus,

arrha incorruptelæ, et confirmatio fidei nostræ, et scala

ascensionis ad Deum. “In Ecclesia enim,” inquit, “posuit Deus

Apostolos, Prophetas, doctores,” et universam reliquam operationem

Spiritus: cujus non sunt participes omnes, qui non currunt ad

Ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita, per sententiam malam, et

operationem pessimam. Ubi enim Ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei ; et ubi

Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia, et omnis gratia: Spiritus autem

veritas. Quapropter qui non participant eum, neque a mammillis

Matris nutriuntur in vitam, neque percipiunt de corpore CHRISTI

procedentem nitidissimum fontem ; sed effodiunt sibi lacus detritos

de fossis terrenis, et de cœno putidam bibunt aquam, effugientes

fidem Ecclesiæ, ne traducantur ; rejicientes vero Spiritum, ut non

erudiantur.——2. Alienati vero a veritate, digne in omni volutantur

errore, fluctuati ab eo, aliter atque aliter per tempora de eisdem

sentientes, et nunquam sententiam stabilitam habentes, sophistæ

verborum magis volentes esse quam discipuli veritatis: non enim sunt

fundati super unam petram, sed super arenam.——V. xx. 2. Fugere

igitur oportet sententias ipsorum (of the Gnostics), et intentius

observare necubi vexemur ab ipsis ; confugere autem ad Ecclesiam, et

in ejus sinu educari, et Dominicis scripturis enutriri. Plantata

enim est Ecclesia, paradisus in hoc mundo: “ab omni” ergo “ligno

paradisi escas manducabitis,” ait Spiritus Dei ; id est, ab omni

scriptura Dominica manducate.

165 III. xxiv. 1. supra.

166 III. iv. 1. Tantæ igitur ostensiones cum sint, non oportet adhuc

quærere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere ;

cum Apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam

contulerint omnia quæ sint veritatis: uti omnis quicumque velit,

sumat ex ea potum vitæ. Hæc est enim vitæ introitus ; omnes autem

reliqui fures sunt et latrones. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem

illos ; quæ autem sunt Ecclesiæ, cum summa diligentia diligere, et

apprehendere veritatis Traditionem.

167 III. xxiv. 1. supra.

168 Ibid.

169 IV. viii. 1. Deum, qui in regnum cœlorum introducit Abraham, et

semen ejus quod est Ecclesia, per Christum Jesum, cui et adoptio

redditur, et hæreditas quæ Abrahæ promissa est.

170 III. Præf. quoted p. 34, note 10.——V. xx. 1. Et Ecclesiæ quidem

prædicatio vera et firma, apud quam una et eadem salutis via in

universo mundo ostenditur. Huic enim creditum est lumen Dei....

Ubique enim Ecclesia prædicat veritatem ; et hæc est ἑπτάμυξος

lucerna, Christi bajulans lumen.

171 I. ix. 5. Καὶ ἐκ τούτου γὰρ (the exhibition of the inconsistency of

error) ἀκριβῶς συνιδεῖν ἔσται, καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἀποδείξεως, βεβαίαν τὴν

ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσομένην ἀλήθειαν.—x. 3. cited p. 56, note

5.——III. xii. 7. Ecclesia vero per universum mundum ab Apostolis

firmum habens initium, in una et eadem de Deo et de Filio ejus

perseverat sententia.

172 I. ix. 4. See p. 56, note 6.

173 IV. xxxiii. 8. Γνῶσις ἀληθὴς, ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων διδαχὴ, καὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον

τῆς ἐκκλησίας σύστημα κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου, et character corporis

Christi secundum successiones Episcoporum, quibus illi eam, quæ in

unoquoque loco est Ecclesiam tradiderunt: quæ pervenit usque ad nos

custoditione sine fictione Scripturarum tractatio plenissima, neque

additamentum neque ablationem recipiens ; et lectio sine falsatione,

et secundum Scripturas expositio legitima, et diligens, et sine

periculo, et sine blasphemia.

174 V. xx. 2. See p. 75, note 5.

175 III. xxiv. 1. cited ibid.

176 IV. xxxii. 1. Post deinde et omnis sermo ei constabit, si et

Scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt

presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina.

177 V. xx. 2. See p. 75, note 5.

178 II. ix. 1. Veteribus quidem et in primis a protoplasti traditione

hanc suadelam custodientibus, et unum Deum, fabricatorem cœli et

terræ hymnizantibus ; reliquis autem post eos a prophetis Dei hujus

rei commemorationem accipientibus.... Ecclesia autem omnis per

universum orbem hanc accepit ab apostolis traditionem.

179 II. xxxii. 4, 5. See p. 69, note 8.

180 II. xxxi. 2. cited ibid.

181 IV. xxxiii. 9. Quapropter Ecclesia omni in loco ob eam quam habet

erga Deum dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum in omni tempore

præmittit ad Patrem ; reliquis autem omnibus non tantum non

habentibus hanc rem ostendere apud se, sed nec quidem necessarium

esse dicentibus tale martyrium ; esse enim martyrium verum sententiam

eorum: nisi si unus, aut duo aliquando, per omne tempus ex quo

Dominus apparuit in terris, cum martyribus nostris, quasi et ipse

misericordiam consequutus, opprobrium simul bajulavit nominis, et

cum eis ductus est, velut adjectio quædam donata eis.

182 IV. xxxi. 3. Ecclesia, quæ est sal terræ, subrelicta est in confinio

terræ, patiens quæ sunt humana ; et, dum sæpe auferuntur ab ea membra

integra, perseverat statua salis.

183 See pp. 57, 58.

184 IV. xxvi. 2. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt, Presbyteris

obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut

ostendimus ; qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis

certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt: reliquos vero, qui

absistunt a principali successione, et quocumque loco colligunt,

suspectos habere ; vel quasi hæreticos, et malæ sententiæ ; vel quasi

scindentes, et elatos, et sibi placentes ; aut rursus ut hypocritas,

quæstus gratia et vanæ gloriæ hoc operantes. Omnes autem hi

deciderunt a veritate.——3. Qui vero crediti quidem sunt a multis

esse presbyteri, serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non præponunt

timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, et

principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt, et in absconsis agunt

mala, et dicunt, “Nemo nos videt,” redarguentur a Verbo.

185 IV. xxvi. 4. Ab omnibus igitur talibus absistere oportet, adhærere

vero his qui et apostolorum, sicut prædiximus, doctrinam custodiunt,

et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum et conversationem sine

offensa præstant, ad confirmationem et correptionem reliquorum.——5.

Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet

veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab Apostolis Ecclesiæ successio,

et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et

inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis constat.

186 See III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7 ; ibid. 2. p. 58, note 9 ; ibid. 4. p.

58, notes 2 and 3.

187 III. iii. 2. See pp. 52 and 63.

188 See p. 68.

189 See p. 58, note 9, and p. 63, note 8.

190 See pp. 57‐59, and the passages there adduced.

191 —quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii

tradentes. See p. 58, note 7.

192 See the Preface to the Ordination Services.

193 IV. xxxviii. 3. Ὁ γεννητὸς καὶ πεπλασμένος ἄνθρωπος κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ

ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γίνεται Θεοῦ· τοῦ μὲν Πατρὸς εὐδοκοῦντος καὶ

κελεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ Υἱοῦ πράσσοντος καὶ δημιουργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ

Πνεύματος τρέφοντος καὺ αὔξοντος.

194 I. xxii. 1. Omnia per ipsum fecit Pater ... non per angelos, neque

per virtutes aliquas abscissas ab ejus sententia (nihil enim indiget

omnium Deus), sed et per Verbum et Spiritum suum omnia faciens et

disponens et gubernans, et omnibus esse præstans.——II. xxx. 9. Hic

Pater, hic Deus, hic Conditor, hic Factor, hic Fabricator, qui fecit

ea per semetipsum, hoc est, per Verbum et per Sapientiam suam, cœlum

et terram et maria et omnia quæ in eis sunt.——IV. vii. 4. Hæc enim

Filius, qui est Verbum Dei, ab initio præstruebat ; non indigente

Patre angelis, uti faceret conditionem et formaret hominem ... sed

habente copiosum et inenarrabile ministerium: ministrat enim ei ad

omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, id est Filius et Spiritus

Sanctus, Verbum et Sapientia ; quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes

angeli.

195 V. i. 3. Sic in fine Verbum Patris et Spiritus Dei, adunitus antiquæ

substantiæ plasmationis Adæ, viventem et perfectum effecit hominem,

capientem perfectum Patrem ... non enim effugit aliquando Adam manus

Dei, ad quas Pater loquens, dicit: “Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et

similitudinem nostrum.”—xxviii. 4. Plasmatus initio homo per manus

Dei, id est, Filii et Spiritus, fit secundum imaginem et

similitudinem Dei.

196 IV. xx. 5. Potens est enim in omnibus Deus ; visus quidem tunc per

Spiritum prophetiæ, visus autem et per Filium adoptive, videbitur

autem et in regno cœlorum paternaliter: Spiritu quidem præparante

hominem in Filio Dei, Filio autem adducente ad Patrem, Patre autem

incorruptelam donante in æternam vitam, quæ unicuique evenit ex eo

quod videat Deum.

197 III. xix. 1. Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ Λόγος ἄνθρωπος, et qui Filius Dei est

Filius hominis factus est, commixtus Verbo Dei, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος (i.

e. human nature) τὸν Λόγον χωρήσας, καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν, υἱὸς

γένηται Θεοῦ.

198 IV. xx. 6. Per omnia enim hæc Deus Pater ostenditur, Spiritu quidem

operante, Filio vero ministrante, Patre vero comprobante, homine

vero consummato ad salutem.

199 I. x. 1. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως

περάτων τῆς γῆς διεσπαρμένη, παρὰ δὲ τῶν Ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἐκείνων

μαθητῶν παραλαβοῦσα τὴν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν

πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὸ τὰς θαλάσσας καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν

αὐτοῖς, πίστιν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν

σαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας· καὶ εἰς Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ διὰ

τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας καὶ τὰς ἐλεύσεις, καὶ τὴν ἐκ

παρθένου γέννησιν, καὶ τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τὴν

ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὶς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ

Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐν τῇ δοξῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς παρουσίαν

αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἀναστῆσαι πᾶσαν σάρκα

πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος, ἵνα Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν καὶ Θεῷ καὶ

σωτήρι καὶ βασιλεῖ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ ἀοράτου, πᾶν

γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, καὶ πᾶσα γλώσσα

ἐξομολογήσηται αὐτῷ, καὶ κρίσιν δικαίαν ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι ποιήσηται, τὰ

μὲν πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, καὶ ἀγγέλους παραβεβηκότας καὶ ἐν

ἀποστασίᾳ γεγονότας, καὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἀδίκους καὶ ἀνόμους καὶ

βλασφήμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ πέμψῃ· τοῖς δὲ δικαίοις

καὶ ὁσίοις καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τετηρηκόσι, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ αὐτοῦ

διαμεμενηκόσι, τοῖς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, τοῖς δὲ ἐκ μετανοίας, ζωὴν

χαρισάμενος, ἀφθαρσίαν δωρήσηται, καὶ δόξαν αἰωνίαν περιποιήση.—2.

Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα παρειληφυῖα, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ

Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει.—A

translation of this passage will be found in the chapter _on

Creeds_.

200 III. vi. 1. Vere igitur cum Pater sit Dominus, et Filius vere sit

Dominus, merito Spiritus Sanctus Domini appellatione signavit eos.

Et iterum in eversione Sodomitarum Scriptura ait: “Et pluit Dominus

super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulfur a Domino de cœlo.” Filium

enim hic significat, qui et Abrahæ colloquutus sit, a Patre

accepisse potestatem ad judicandum Sodomitas, propter iniquitatem

eorum. Similiter habet illud: “Sedes tua, Deus, in æternum ; virga

directionis, virga regni tui. Dilexisti justitiam, et odisti

iniquitatem, propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus.” Utrosque enim Dei

appellatione signavit Spiritus, et eum qui ungitur, Filium, et eum

qui ungit, id est, Patrem.—2. Nemo igitur alius, quemadmodum

prædixi, Deus nominatur aut Dominus appellatur, nisi qui est omnium

Deus et Dominus, qui et Moysi dixit: “Ego sum qui sum: et sic dices

filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad vos:” et hujus Filius Jesus

Christus Dominus noster, qui filios Dei facit credentes in nomen

suum.

201 IV. xxxiii. 4. Πῶς δύνανται σωθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ τὴν σωτηρίαν

αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐργασάμενος; ἢ πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ

Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρωπον?

202 II. xxv. 3. Non enim infectus es, O homo, neque semper coëxsistebas

Deo, sicut proprium ejus Verbum.——xxx. 9. Semper autem coëxsistens

Filius Patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem, et angelis et

archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus, et omnibus quibus vult

revelare Deus.——III. xviii. 1. Ostenso manifeste, quod in principio

Verbum exsistens apud Deum, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper

aderat generi humano, hunc in novissimis temporibus secundum

præfinitum tempus a Patre, unitum suo plasmati, passibilem hominem

factum ; exclusa est omnis contradictio dicentium: “Si ergo tunc

natus est, non erat ergo ante Christus.” Ostendimus enim, quia non

tunc cœpit Filius Dei, exsistens semper apud Patrem.

203 Frag. xxxvii. Χριστὸς, ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων κληθεὶς Θεοῦ Υἱός.

204 II. xxviii. 6. Si quis itaque nobis dixerit “Quomodo ergo Filius

prolatus a Patre est?” dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam sive

generationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis

nomine vocaverit generationem ejus, inerrabilem exsistentem nemo

novit.

205 II. ii. 4. Nullius indigens omnium Deus Verbo condidit omnia et

fecit ; neque angelis indigens adjutoribus ad ea quæ fiunt ... omnia

autem quæ facta sunt infatigabili Verbo fecit.——III. xi. 8. Ὁ τῶν

ἁπάντων τεχνίτης Λόγος, ὁ καθημένος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβίμ καὶ συνέχων τὰ

πάντα.

206 III. vi. 1. p. 91, note 8.

207 IV. xx. 9. Et Verbum quidem loquebatur Moysi, apparens in conspectu.

208 III. xvi. 6. Hujus Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi

adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum Patris et

caro factus, ipse est Jesus Christus Dominus noster ; qui passus est

pro nobis, et surrexit propter nos, et rursus venturus in gloria

Patris ad resuscitandum universam carnem, et ad ostensionem salutis,

et regulam justi judicii ostendere omnibus, qui sub ipso facti

sunt.——IV. xxxiii. 11. Οἱ τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου Ἐμμανουὴλ κηρύττοντες,

τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ ἐδήλουν.

209 IV. xxxiii. 11. supra.—III. xxi. 4. Diligenter igitur significavit

Spiritus Sanctus, per ea quæ dicta sunt (Isai. vii. 10, &c.)

generationem ejus quæ est ex Virgine, et substantiam, quoniam Deus:

Emmanuel enim nomen hoc significat.

210 IV. xxxviii. 2. Συνενηπίαζεν Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τέλειος ὢν, τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ,

οὐ δι᾽ ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου νήπιον.

211 III. x. 2. Christus Jesus Dominus noster, Filius Dei altissimi, qui

per legem et prophetas promisit salutarem suum facturum se omni

carni visibilem, ut fieret Filius hominis, ad hoc ut et homo fieret

filius Dei.——xvi. 6. supra.

212 II. xxii. 4. Non reprobans, nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens

legem in se humani generis, sed omnem ætatem sanctificans per illam,

quæ ad ipsum erat, similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum

salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes,

et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem

venit ætatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes: in

parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes ætatem, simul et

exemplum illis pietatis effectus et justitiæ et subjectionis: in

juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino.

Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus,

non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum ætatem,

sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens. Deinde

et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit “primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse

primatum tenens in omnibus,” princeps vitæ, prior omnium, et

præcedens omnes.

213 III. xvi. 6. supra.—V. xviii. 1. Ipsum Verbum Dei incarnatum

suspensum est super lignum.

214 II. xxx. 9. Hic Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per Verbum suum,

qui est Filius ejus, per eum revelatur et manifestatur omnibus

quibus revelatur. See also p. 92, note 1.

215 IV. vii. 2. Omnes, qui ab initio cognitum habuerunt Deum et adventum

Christi prophetaverunt, revelationem acceperunt ab ipso Filio.

216 IV. vi. 6. Et per ipsum Verbum visibilem et palpabilem factum Pater

ostendebatur, etiamsi non omnes similiter credebant ei ; sed omnes

viderunt in Filio Patrem: invisibile etenim Filii Pater, visibile

autem Patris Filius.

217 II. xxviii. 6. Ipse Filius Dei ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit

scire solum Patrem.

218 Ibid 8. Etenim si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus

Pater communicans Filio, solus scire horam et diem a Domino

manifestatus est ; neque aptabilem magis neque decentiorem, nec sine

periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in præsenti ... ut discamus per

ipsum, super omnia esse Patrem.

219 IV. vi. 7. Omnia autem Filius administrans Patri, perfecit ab initio

usque ad finem.

220 III. xix. 3. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ Λόγος,

ἵνα δοξασθῇ· ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ Λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι et

inhonorari καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ

ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι

καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι.

221 III. xi. 5. Hic (Deus) et benedictionem escæ et gratiam potus in

novissimis temporibus per Filium suum donat humano generi,

incomprehensibilis per comprehensibilem, et invisibilis per

visibilem ; cum extra eum non sit, sed in sinu Patris exsistat.

222 II. xxv. 3. Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ

requiruntur, cogitet quia homo est in infinitum minor Deo, et qui ex

parte acceperit gratiam, et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit

Factori, et qui omnium experientiam et cogitationem habere non

possit, ut Deus: sed in quantum minor est ab eo, qui factus non est

et qui semper idem est, ille qui hodie factus est et initium facturæ

accepit ; in tantum secundum scientiam, et ad investigandum causas

omnium, minorem esse eo qui fecit.

223 II. xxviii. 2. Et non est mirum, si in spiritalibus et cœlestibus,

et in his quæ habent revelari, hoc patimur nos ; quandoquidem etiam

eorum quæ ante pedes sunt (dico autem quæ sunt in hac creatura, quæ

et contrectantur a nobis et videntur et sunt nobiscum) multa

fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hæc ipsa committimus.—3. Εἰ καὶ

ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς κτίσεως ἔνια μὲν ἀνάκειται τῷ Θεῷ, ἔνια δὲ καὶ εἰς

γνῶσιν ἐλήλυθε τὴν ἡμετέραν, τί χαλεπὸν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς

ζητουμένων, ὅλων τῶν γραφῶν πνευματικῶν οὐσῶν, ἔνια μὲν ἐπιλύομεν

κατὰ χάριν Θεοῦ, ἔνια δὲ ἀνακείσεται τῷ Θεῷ?

224 II. xxvi. 1. Ἄμεινον καὶ συμφερώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγομαθεῖς

ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῖ, ἢ πολυμαθεῖς

καὶ ἐμπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήμους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι

δεσπότην.... Melius itaque est, sicuti prædixi, nihil omnino

scientem quempiam, ne quidem unam causam cujuslibet eorum quæ facta

sunt, cur factum sit, credere Deo, et perseverare eos in dilectione,

aut (ἢ—rather _quam_) per hujusmodi scientiam inflatos excidere a

dilectione, quæ hominem vivificat: nec aliud inquirere ad scientiam,

nisi Jesum Christum Filium Dei, qui pro nobis crucifixus est, aut

(ἢ) per quæstionum subtilitates et minutiloquium in impietatem

cadere.

225 IV. vi. 7. Ab omnibus accipiens testimonium quoniam vere homo et

quoniam vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, ab ipsa

conditione, ab hominibus, et ab apostaticis spiritibus et dæmoniis

et ab inimico et novissime ab ipsa morte.

226 III. xviii. 7. Ἥνωσεν οὖν, καθὼς προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ

γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως

ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ μή ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὐκ

ἂν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ

ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ

ἀνθρώπων, διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειότητος, εἰς φιλίαν καὶ

ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν

ἄνθρωπον, ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν.

227 III. xvi. 6. Unus Christus Jesus Dominus noster, veniens per

universam dispositionem, et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans.

228 III. xxi. 3. Natus est enim Dominus noster circa primum et

quadragesimum annum Augusti imperii.

229 II. xxii. 6. Responderunt ei: “Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et

Abraham vidisti?” Hoc autem consequenter dicitur ei, qui jam xl

annos excessit, quinquagesimum autem annum nondum attigit, non tamen

multum a quinquagesimo anno absistat. Ei autem, qui sit xxx annorum,

diceretur utique: “Quadraginta annorum nondum es.” Qui enim volebant

eum mendacem ostendere, non utique in multum extenderent annos ultra

ætatem, quam eum habere conspiciebant: sed proxima ætatis dicebant,

sive vere scientes ex conscriptione census, sive conjicientes

secundum ætatem, quam videbant habere eum super quadraginta ; sed ut

non quæ esset triginta annorum. Irrationabile est enim omnino,

viginti annos mentiri eos, volentes eum juniorem ostendere

temporibus Abrahæ. Quod autem videbant, hoc et loquebantur: qui

autem videbatur, non erat putativus, sed veritas. Non ergo multum

aberat a quinquaginta annis.

230 II. xxii. 3. Et primum quidem ut fecit vinum ex aqua in Cana

Galilææ, ascendit in diem festum paschæ ... et post hæc iterum

secunda vice ascendit in diem festum paschæ in Hierusalem, quando

paralyticum, qui juxta natatoriam jacebat xxxviii annos, curavit....

Deinde, cum Lazarum suscitasset ex mortuis, et insidiæ fierent a

Pharisæis, secedit in Ephrem civitatem ; et inde “ante sex dies

paschæ veniens in Bethaniam” scribitur, et de Bethania ascendens in

Hierosolymam, et manducans pascha, et sequenti die passus.

231 IV. x. 1. Et non est numerum dicere in quibus a Moyse ostenditur

Filius Dei ; cujus et diem passionis non ignoravit, sed figuratim

prænuntiavit eum, Pascha nominans: et in eadem ipsa, quæ ante tantum

temporis a Moyse prædicata est, passus est Dominus adimplens Pascha.

232 IV. viii. 2. Non enim solvebat sed adimplebat legem, summi

sacerdotis operam perficiens, propitians pro hominibus Deum, et

emundans leprosos, infirmos curans, et ipse moriens, uti exsiliatus

homo exiret de condemnatione, et reverteretur intrepide ad suam

hæreditatem.—The allusion is to that provision of the Mosaic law by

which those who had been living in the cities of refuge, on the

death of the High Priest returned to their inheritance.

233 V. i. 1. Τῷ ἰδίῳ οὖν αἵματι λυτρωσαμένου ἡμᾶς τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ δόντος

τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν

ἡμετέρων σαρκῶν, κ.τ.λ.

234 V. xiv. 2. “In corpore,” ait, “reconciliati carnis ejus:” hoc,

quoniam justa caro, reconciliavit eam carnem quæ in peccato

detinebatur, et in amicitiam adduxit Deo.

235 V. i. 1. Et effundente Spiritum Patris in adunitionem et communionem

Dei et hominis ; ad homines quidem deponente Deum per Spiritum, ad

Deum autem rursus imponente hominem per suam incarnationem, et firme

et vere in adventu suo donante nobis incorruptelam per communionem

quæ est ad eum.

236 V. vii. 1. Christus in carnis substantia surrexit.

237 I. x. 1. supra, p. 91.—III. xvi. 8. Ἕνα καὶ αὐτὸν εἰδὼς Ἰησοῦν

Χριστὸν, ᾧ ἠνοίχθησαν αἱ πύλαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διὰ τὴν ἔνσαρκον ἀνάληψιν

αὐτοῦ· ὃς καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ σαρκὶ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἔπαθεν, ἐλεύσεται, τὴν

δόξαν ἀποκαλύπτων τοῦ Πατρός.

238 IV. viii. 1.——Deum, qui in regnum cœlorum introducit Abraham et

semen ejus, quod est Ecclesia, per Jesum Christum ; cui et adoptio

redditur et hæreditas quæ Abrahæ promissa est.

239 IV. xx. 3. Et Sapientia, quæ est Spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem

constitutionem.

240 See p. 89, note 2.

241 See p. 91, note 8.

242 IV. xxxviii. 1. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὡς νηπίοις ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ

Πατρὸς γάλα ἡμῖν ἑαυτὸν παρέσχεν, ὅπερ ἦν ἡ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ

παρουσία· ἵνα ὡς ὑπὸ μασθοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ τραφέντες, καὶ διὰ τῆς

τοιαύτης γαλακτουργίας ἐθισθέντες τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν Λόγον τοῦ

Θεοῦ, τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐν

ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κατασχεῖν δυνηθῶμεν.

243 III. xvii. 2. Quem et descendisse Lucas ait post ascensum Domini

super discipulos in Pentecoste, habentem potestatem omnium gentium

ad introitum vitæ et adapertionem novi testamenti: unde et omnibus

linguis conspirantes hymnum dicebant Deo ; Spiritu ad unitatem

redigente distantes tribus, et primitias omnium gentium offerente

Patri.

244 V. vi. 1. Cum autem Spiritus hic commixtus animæ unitur plasmati,

propter effusionem Spiritus spiritualis et perfectus homo factus

est: et hic est qui secundum imaginem et similitudinem factus est

Dei. Si autem defuerit animæ spiritus, animalis vere est, qui est

talis, et carnalis derelictus imperfectus est ; imaginem quidem

habens in plasmate, similitudinem vero non assumens per Spiritum.

245 V. vi. 1. supra.—viii. 2. Qui ergo pignus Spiritus habent, et non

concupiscentiis carnis serviunt, sed subjiciunt semetipsos Spiritui,

ac rationabiliter conversantur in omnibus, juste Apostolus

spirituales vocat, quoniam Spiritus Dei habitat in ipsis.

Incorporales autem spiritus non erunt homines spirituales ; sed

substantia nostra, id est, animæ et carnis adunatio, assumens

Spiritum Dei, spiritualem hominem perficit. Eos autem qui abjiciunt

quidem Spiritus consilium, carnis autem voluntatibus serviunt, ...

hos δικαίως ὁ Ἀπόστολος σαρκικοὺς καλεῖ.

246 V. ix. 2. Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii

ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei, hi

tales juste homines dicentur et mundi et spirituales et viventes

Deo ; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in

vitam Dei ... et ex utrisque factus est vivens homo ; vivens quidem

propter participationem Spiritus, homo autem propter substantiam

carnis.

247 V. viii. 1. Nunc autem partem aliquam a spiritu ejus sumimus, ad

perfectionem et præparationem incorruptelæ ; paulatim assuescens

capere et portare Deum: quod et pignus dixit Apostolus, hoc est pars

ejus honoris qui a Deo nobis promissus est.... Si igitur nunc pignus

habentes, clamamus, “Abba, Pater ; ” quid fiet quando resurgentes

facie ad faciem videbimus eum? ... Si enim pignus complectens

hominem in semetipsum, jam facit dicere, “Abba, Pater ; ” quid faciet

universa Spiritus gratia, quæ hominibus dabitur a Deo?

248 V. vii. 2. Per Spiritum surgentia, fiunt corpora spiritualia, uti

per Spiritum semper permanentem habeant vitam.

249 II. iv. 1. Causa igitur quærenda est hujusmodi dispositionis Dei,

sed non fabricatio mundi alteri adscribenda: et ante præparata omnia

dicenda sunt a Deo, ut fierent, quemadmodum et facta sunt.——2. Qui

enim postea emendat labem, et velut maculam emundat labem, multo

prius poterat observare, ne initio in suis fieri talem maculam.——Et

si ideo quod benignus sit, in novissimis temporibus misertus est

hominum, et perfectum eis dat ; illorum primo misereri debuit, qui

fuerunt hominum factores (he alludes to the Gnostic notion that man

was made by inferior beings) et dare eis perfectum. Sic utique et

homines miserationem percepissent, de perfectis perfecti facti.

250 Ibid. 2.

251 IV. xxxvii. 6. Sed oportebat, inquit, eum neque Angelos tales

fecisse, ut possent transgredi, neque homines qui statim ingrati

exsisterent in eum ; quoniam rationabiles, et examinatores, et

judiciales facti sunt, et non (quemadmodum irrationabilia, sive

inanimalia, quæ sua voluntate nihil possunt facere, sed cum

necessitate et vi ad bonum trahuntur, in quibus unus sensus, et unus

mos,) inflexibiles, et sine judicio, qui nihil aliud esse possunt,

præterquam quod facti sunt. Sic autem nec suave esset eis quod est

bonum, neque pretiosa communicatio Dei, neque magnopere appetendum

bonum, quod sine suo proprio motu et cura et studio provenisset, sed

ultro et otiose insitum: ita ut essent nullius momenti boni, eo quod

natura magis quam voluntate tales exsisterent, et ultroneum haberent

bonum, sed non secundum electionem ; et propter hoc nec hoc ipsum

intelligentes, quoniam pulchrum sit quod bonum, neque fruentes eo.

Quæ enim fruitio boni apud eos qui ignorant? Quæ autem gloria his

qui non studuerunt illud? Quæ autem corona his qui non eam, ut

victores in certamine, consequuti sunt?

252 II. xxviii. 7. Similiter autem et causam propter quam, cum omnia a

Deo facta sint, quædam quidem transgressa sunt, et abscesserunt a

Dei subjectione, quædam autem, immo plurima, perseveraverunt et

perseverant in subjectione ejus qui fecit ; et cujus naturæ sunt quæ

transgressa sunt, cujus autem naturæ quæ perseverant ; cedere oportet

Deo et Verbo ejus.—Ipsam autem causam naturæ transgredientium neque

Scriptura aliqua retulit, nec apostolus dixit, nec Dominus docuit.

Dimittere itaque oportet agnitionem hanc Deo, quemadmodum et Dominus

horæ et diei: nec in tantum periclitari, uti Deo quidem concedamus

nihil, et hæc ex parte accipientes gratiam.

253 IV. xxxvii. 7. Bonus igitur agonista ad incorruptelæ agonem

adhortatur nos ; uti coronemur, et pretiosam arbitremur coronam ;

videlicet quæ per agonem nobis acquiritur, sed non ultro coalitam.

Et quanto per agonem nobis advenit, tanto est pretiosior: quanto

autem pretiosior, tanto eam semper diligamus. Sed οὐχ ὁμοίως

ἀγαπᾶται τὰ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου προσγινόμενα τοῖς μετὰ ... σπουδῆς

εὐρισκομένοις. Quoniam igitur pro nobis erat plus diligere Deum, cum

labore hoc nobis adinvenire Dominus docuit et apostolus

tradidit.——Pro nobis igitur omnia hæc sustinuit Dominus (i. e. he

endured the existence of evil) uti per omnia eruditi, in omnibus in

futurum simus cauti et perseveremus in omni ejus dilectione,

rationabiliter edocti diligere Deum.

254 V. xxiv. 4. Sic etiam diabolus, cum sit unus ex angelis his, qui

super spiritum aëris præpositi sunt, quemadmodum Paulus apostolus in

ea quæ est ad Ephesios manifestavit, invidens homini, apostata a

divina factus est lege ; invidia enim aliena est a Deo. Et quoniam

per hominem traducta est apostasia ejus, et examinatio sententiæ

ejus homo factus est, ad hoc magis magisque semetipsum contrarium

constituit homini, invidens vitæ ejus, et in sua potestate

apostatica volens concludere eum.

255 IV. xl. 3. Ἐκ τότε γὰρ ἀποστάτης ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐχθρὸς, ἀφ᾽ ὅτε

ἐζήλωσε τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχθροποιῆσαι αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν

ἐπεχείρησε.—V. xxiv. 4. supra.

Tertullian, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem, were of the same

opinion. I subjoin the passages.—Tertullian _de Patientia_, 5.

Natales impatientiæ in ipso diabolo deprehendo, jam tunc cum Dominum

Deum universa opera quæ fecisset, imagini suæ, id est, homini

subjecisse impatienter tulit. Nec enim doluisset, si sustinuisset ;

nec invidisset homini, si non doluisset. Adeo decepit eum, quia

inviderat.——Cyprian, _de Zelo et Livore_, p. 223, ed. Potter. Hinc

diabolus inter initia statim mundi et petit primus et perdidit. Ille

dudum angelica majestate subnixus, ille Deo acceptus et carus,

postquam hominem ad imaginem Dei factum conspexit, in zelum malevolo

livore prorupit ... stimulante livore homini gratiam datæ

immortalitatis eripit.——Cyril. Hierosol. _Catech._ xii. 5. Ἀλλὰ

τοῦτο τὸ μέγιστον τῶν δημουργημάτων, ἐν παραδείσῳ χορεῦον, φθόνος

ἐξέβαλε διαβολικός.

256 III. xxiii. 1. Si enim qui factus fuerat a Deo homo, ut viveret, hic

amittens vitam, læsus serpente qui depravaverat eum, jam non

reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum projectus esset morti ; victus

esset Deus, et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem Dei. Sed

quoniam Deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se

exhibuit ad correptionem hominis, et probationem omnium, quemadmodum

prædiximus ; per secundum autem hominem alligavit fortem, et deripuit

ejus vasa, et evacuavit mortem, vivificans eum hominem, qui fuerat

mortificatus. Primum enim possessionis ejus vas Adam factus est,

quem et tenebat sub sua potestate, hoc est, prævaricationem inique

inferens ei, et per occasionem immortalitatis, mortificationem

faciens in eum.——8. Et serpens nihil profecit, dissuadens homini,

nisi illud quod eum (i. e. se) transgressorem ostendit, initium et

materiam apostasiæ suæ habens hominem ; Deum enim non vicit.

257 V. xxiv. 4. supra.

258 V. xxiii. 1. Assuetus enim erat jam ad seductionem hominum mentiri

adversus Deum.... Ille mentiens adversus Dominum tentavit hominem.

259 IV. Præf. 4. Et tunc quidem apostata angelus per serpentem

inobedientiam hominum operatus, existimavit latere se Dominum.——V.

xxvi. 2. infra.

260 IV. xl. 3. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν μὲν παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἐπισπείραντα τὸ

ζιζάνιον, τουτέστι, τὴν παράβασιν εἰσενεγκόντα, ἀφώρισε τῆς ἰδίας

μετουσίας· τὸν δὲ ἀμελῶς μὲν ἀλλὰ κακῶς παραδεξάμενον τὴν παρακοὴν

ἄνθρωπον ἐλέησε. καὶ ἀντέστρεψε τὴν ἔχθραν, ἣν ἐχθροποίησε, πρὸς τὸν

αὐτὸν inimicitiarum auctorem.

261 III. xxiii. 1. supra.

262 IV. xl. 3.

263 III. xxiii. 3. Non homini principaliter præparatus est æternus

ignis, sed ei qui seduxit et offendere fecit hominem, et, inquam,

qui princeps apostasiæ est, et his angelis qui apostatæ factæ sunt

cum eo: quem quidem juste percipient etiam hi, qui, similiter ut

illi, sine pœnitentia et sine regressu in malitiæ perseverant

operibus.

264 II. xxviii. 7. Quoniam præsciit Deus hoc futurum ... ignem æternum

his qui transgressuri sunt præparavit ab initio.—V. xxvi. 2. Omnes

qui falso dicuntur esse Gnostici organa Satanæ ab omnibus Deum

colentibus cognoscantur esse, per quos Satanas nunc, et non ante,

visus est maledicere Deo, qui ignem æternum præparavit omni

apostasiæ. Nam ipse per semetipsum nude non audet blasphemare suum

Dominum ; quemadmodum et initio per serpentem seduxit hominem, quasi

latens Deum. Καλῶς ὁ Ἰουστίνος ἔφη, ὅτι πρὸ μὲν τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου

παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν, ἅτε

μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάκρισιν· quoniam et in parabolis, et

allegoriis, a Prophetis de eo sic dictum est. Post autem adventum

Domini ex sermonibus Christi et Apostolorum ejus discens manifeste,

quoniam ignis æternus ei præparatus est ex sua voluntate abscedenti

a Deo, et omnibus qui sine pœnitentia perseverant in apostasia ; per

hujusmodi homines blasphemat eum Deum, qui judicium importat, quasi

jam condemnatus, et peccatum suæ apostasiæ Conditori suo imputat, et

non suæ voluntati et sententiæ: quemadmodum et qui supergrediuntur

leges, et pœnas dant, queruntur de legislatoribus, sed non de

semetipsis. Sic autem et hi diabolico spiritu pleni, innumeras

accusationes inferunt Factori nostro, qui et Spiritum vitæ nobis

donaverit, et legem omnibus aptam posuerit ; et nolunt justum esse

judicium Dei.

265 V. xxvi. 2.

266 IV. xxxvi. 4. Et temporibus Noë diluvium inducens, uti extingueret

pessimum genus eorum, qui tunc erant homines, qui jam fructificare

Deo non poterant, cum angeli transgressores commixti fuissent

eis.——xvi. 2. Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo, cum esset

homo, legatione ad angelos fungebatur, et conservatur usque nunc

testis justi judicii Dei: quoniam angeli quidem transgressi

deciderunt in terram in judicium, homo autem placens translatus est

in salutem.

The nature of the intercourse or commixture is not indeed stated by

Irenæus ; but, as Feuardent and Grabe have pointed out in commenting

on these passages, he is evidently alluding to the tradition spoken

of more fully by Josephus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Clement

of Alexandria, whose words I subjoin.

Joseph. _Antiq._ I. ii. 1. Πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ, γυναιξὶ

συμμιγέντες, ὑβριστὰς ἐγέννησαν παῖδας, καὶ παντὸς ὑπερόπτας καλοῦ,

διὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ δυνάμει πεποίθησιν· ὅμοια γὰρ τοῖς ὑπο γιγάντων

τετολμῆσθαι λεγομένοις ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων καὶ οὗτοι δράσαι παραδίδονται.

Justin M. _Apol._ II. 5. Ὁ Θεός ... τὴν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ

τὸν οὐρανὸν πρόνοιαν ἀγγέλοις, οὓς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔταξε, παρέδωκεν. Οἱ

δὲ ἄγγελοι, παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν τάξιν, γυναικῶν μίξεσιν ἡττήθησαν,

καὶ παῖδας ἐτέκνωσαν, οἱ εἰσιν οἱ λεγόμενοι δαίμονες.

Athenag. _Legat._ 22. Οἱ δὲ (the fallen angels) ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῆς

τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καῖ τῇ ἀρχῇ, οὗτός τε (Satan) ὁ τῆς ὕλης καὶ

τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰδῶν ἄρχων καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν περὶ τὸ πρῶτον τοῦτο

στερέωμα· ἐκεῖνοι μὲν εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν πεσόντες παρθένων, καὶ ἥττους

σαρκὸς εὑρεθέντες, οὗτος δὲ ἀμελήσας καὶ πονηρὸς περὶ τὴν τῶν

πεπιστευμένων γενόμενος διοίκησιν. Ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν περὶ τὰς παρθένους

ἐχόντων οἱ καλούμενοι ἐγεννήθησαν γίγαντες.

Clem. Alex. _Pædag._ III. 2. § 14. Οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ κάλλος

καταλελοιπότες διὰ κάλλος μαραινόμενον.——_Strom._ III. 7. § 59.

Ἄγγελοί τινες ἀκρατεῖς γενόμενοι ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἁλόντες οὐρανόθεν δεῦρο

καταπεπτώκασιν.

The opinion contained in these quotations has been discountenanced

since the time of Cyril of Alexandria ; but is it therefore

necessarily unfounded?

267 V. xxvi. 2. supra.

268 IV. Præf. 4. Nunc autem, quoniam novissima sunt tempora, extenditur

malum in homines, non solum apostatas eos faciens, sed et blasphemos

in Plasmatorem instituit multis machinationibus, id est, per omnes

hæreticos.

269 See V. xxvi. 2. p. 109, note 2.

270 See p. 103.

271 III. xi. 8. Καὶ γὰρ τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα· καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν

εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ζῶον,

φησὶ, ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ ἔμπρακτον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν

χαρακτηρίζον· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ

ἱερατικὴν τάξιν ἐμφαῖνον· τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἔχον πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου, τὴν

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν φανερώτατα διαγράφον· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον

ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετωμένῳ, τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

ἐφιπταμένου δόσιν σαφηνίζον.—Καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς μὲν

πρὸ Μωϋσέως πατριάρχαις, κατὰ τὸ θεïκὸν καὶ ἔνδοξον ὡμίλει· τοῖς δὲ

ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ἱερατικὴν et ministerialem τάξιν ἀπένεμεν· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα

ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος εἰς πᾶσαν

ἐξέπεμψε τὴν γῆν, σκεπάζων ἡμᾶς ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ πτέρυξιν. Ὁποία οὖν ἡ

πραγματεία τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοιαύτη καὶ τῶν ζώων ἡ μορφή· καὶ

ὁποία ἡ τῶν ζώων μορφὴ, τοιοῦτος καὶ ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.

Τετράμορφα γὰρ τὰ ζῶα, τετράμορφον καὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ ἡ

πραγματεία τοῦ Κυρίου. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες ἐδόθησαν καθολικαὶ

διαθῆκαι τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι· μία μὲν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τοῦ Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ

τόξου· δευτέρα δὲ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ, ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείου τῆς περιτομῆς· τρίτη

δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωüσέως· τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, διὰ τοῦ

Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

272 Ibid.

273 Et propter hoc quatuor data sunt testamenta humano generi ; unum

quidem ante cataclysmum sub Adam ; secundum vero, post cataclysmum

sub Noë ; tertium vero, legislatio sub Moyse ; quartum vero, quod

renovat hominem, et recapitulat in se omnia, quod est per

Evangelium, elevans et pennigerans homines in cœleste regnum.

274 I. ix. 1. See p. 78, note 1.

275 V. xxiv. 2. Quoniam enim absistens a Deo homo in tantum efferavit,

ut etiam consanguineum hostem sibi putaret, et in omni inquietudine

et homicidio et avaritia sine timore versaretur, imposuit illi Deus

humanum timorem, (non enim cognoscebant timorem Dei,) ut potestati

hominum subjecti, et lege eorum adstricti, ad aliquid assequantur

justitiæ, et moderentur ad invicem, in manifesto propositum gladium

timentes.

276 IV. xiv. 2. Sic et Deus ab initio hominem quidem plasmavit propter

suam munificentiam ; Patriarchas vero elegit propter illorum salutem ;

populum vero præformabat, docens indocibilem, sequi Deum ; Prophetas

vero præstruebat in terra, assuescens hominem portare ejus Spiritum,

et communionem habere cum Deo: ipse quidem nullius indigens ; his

vero qui indigent ejus, suam præbens communionem ; et his qui ei

complacebant, fabricationem salutis, ut architectus, delineans, et

non videntibus in Ægypto a semetipso dans ducationem ; et his qui

inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem, et his qui in bonam

terram introierunt, dignam præbens hæreditatem ; et his qui

convertuntur ad Patrem, saginatum occidens vitulum, et primam stolam

donans ; multis modis componens humanum genus ad consonantiam

salutis. Et propter hoc Joannes in Apocalypsi ait: “Et vox ejus

quasi vox aquarum multarum.” Vere enim aquæ multæ Spiritus, quoniam

dives, et quoniam magnus est Pater. Et per omnes illos transiens

Verbum, sine invidia utilitatem præstabat eis qui subjecti sibi

erant, omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens.——xvi.

3. Cum autem hæc justitia et dilectio, quæ erat erga Deum, cessit in

oblivionem, et extincta esset in Ægypto, necessario Deus propter

multam suam erga homines benevolentiam semetipsum ostendebat per

vocem, et eduxit de Ægypto populum in virtute, uti rursus fieret

homo discipulus et sectator Dei ; et affligebat indictoaudientes,

[dicto non audientes, contumaces] ut non contemnerent eum qui se

fecit ; et manna cibavit eum, uti rationalem acciperent escam,

quemadmodum et Moyses in Deuteronomio ait: “Et cibavit te manna,

quod non sciebant patres tui, uti cognoscas, quoniam non in pane

solo vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei, quod procedit de ore ejus,

vivit homo.” Et erga Deum dilectionem præcipiebat, et eam quæ ad

proximum est justitiam insinuabat, ut nec injustus, nec indignus sit

Deo ; præstruens hominem per Decalogum in suam amicitiam, et eam quæ

circa proximum est concordiam ; (quæ quidem ipsi proderant homini ; )

nihil tamen indigente Deo ab homine.

277 IV. xiv. 2.

278 This is the argument of the first twenty chapters of the fourth

book, and the quotations are too copious and diffuse to be given at

length. A few, therefore, must suffice.

IV. ii. 7. Non enim Lex prohibebat eos credere in Filium Dei, sed et

adhortabatur, dicens non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua serpentis

plaga, nisi credant in eum qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati

in ligno martyrii exaltatur a terra, et omnia trahit ad se, et

vivificat mortuos.—He alludes to the brazen serpent exhibited on a

pole in the wilderness.

v. 4. In Abraham enim prædidicerat et assuetus fuerat homo sequi

Verbum Dei. Etenim Abraham secundum fidem suam secutus præceptum

Verbi Dei, προθύμως τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας

θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ

πάντως τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν Υἱὸν θυσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς

λύτρωσιν ἡμετέραν.—5. Propheta ergo cum esset Abraham, et videret in

Spiritu diem adventus Domini, et passionis dispositionem, per quem

ipse quoque, et omnes qui, similiter ut ipse credidit, credunt Deo,

salvari inciperent, exsultavit vehementer.

ix. 1. Pater familias enim Dominus est, qui universæ domui paternæ

dominatur: et servis quidem et adhuc indisciplinatis condignam

tradens legem, liberis autem et fide justificatis congruentia dans

præcepta, et filiis adaperiens suam hæreditatem.—3. Novo enim

testamento cognito et prædicato per prophetas, et ille qui illud

dispositurus erat secundum placitum Patris prædicabatur ;

manifestatus hominibus, quemadmodum voluit Deus, ut possint semper

proficere credentes in eum, et per testamenta maturescere perfectum

salutis. Una enim salus, et unus Deus ; quæ autem formant hominem

præcepta multa, et non pauci gradus qui ducunt hominem ad Deum.

xiii. 1. Et quia Dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo justificatur,

quæ etiam ante legislationem custodiebant, qui fide justificabantur

et placebant Deo, non dissolvit, sed extendit et implevit ; ex

sermonibus ejus ostenditur.... Hæc autem non quasi contraria Legi

docebat ; sed adimplens Legem, et infigens justificationes Legis in

nobis. Illud autem fuisset Legi contrarium, si quodcumque Lex

vetasset fieri, idipsum discipulis suis jussisset facere. Et hoc

autem quod præcepit, non solum vetitis a Lege, sed etiam a

concupiscentiis eorum abstinere, non contrarium est, quemadmodum

diximus ; neque solventis Legem, sed adimplentis et extendentis et

dilatantis.

279 IV. xiii. 1.

280 IV. xiii. 4. Quia igitur naturalia omnia præcepta communia sunt

nobis et illis, in illis quidem initium et ortum habuerunt, in nobis

autem augmentum et adimpletionem perceperunt.

281 IV. xv. 1. Nam Deus primo quidem per naturalia præcepta, quæ ab

initio infixa dedit hominibus, admonens eos, id est, per Decalogum

(quæ si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem), nihil plus ab eis

exquisivit.

282 IV. xvi. 2. Et quia non per hæc justificabatur homo, sed in signo

data sunt populo, ostendit, quod ipse Abraham sine circumcisione, et

sine observatione sabbatorum, “credidit Deo, et reputatum est illi

ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est.” Sed et Lot sine

circumcisione eductus est de Sodomis, percipiens salutem a Deo. Item

Deo placens Noë cum esset incircumcisus, accepit mensuras mundi

secundæ generationis. Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo,

cum esset homo, legatione ad Angelos fungebatur, et translatus est,

et conservatur usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei: quoniam Angeli

quidem transgressi deciderunt in terram in judicium ; homo autem

placens, translatus est in salutem. Sed et reliqua autem omnis

multitudo eorum, qui ante Abraham fuerunt justi, et eorum

Patriarcharum, qui ante Moysem fuerunt, et sine his quæ prædicta

sunt, et sine lege Moysi justificabantur.

283 IV. xiii. 1. supra.—xvi. 3. Quare igitur patribus non disposuit

Dominus testamentum? Quia lex non est posita justis ; justi autem

patres, virtutem decalogi conscriptam habentes in cordibus et

animabus suis, diligentes scilicet Deum qui fecit eos, et

abstinentes erga proximum ab injustitia: propter quod non fuit

necesse admoneri eos correptoriis literis, quia habebant in

semetipsis justitiam legis.

284 IV. xvi. 3.

285 IV. xv. 1. At ubi conversi sunt in vituli factionem, et reversi sunt

animis suis in Ægyptum, servi pro liberis concupiscentes esse, aptam

concupiscentiæ suæ acceperunt reliquam servitutem, a Deo quidem non

abscindentem, in servitutis autem jugo dominantem eis.

286 IV. xiv. 3. Sic autem et populo Tabernaculi factionem, et

ædificationem Templi, et Levitarum electionem, sacrificia quoque et

oblationes, et monitiones, et reliquam omnem Lege statuebat

deservitionem. Ipse quidem nullius horum est indigens ; est enim

semper plenus omnibus bonis, omnemque odorem suavitatis, et omnes

suaveolentium vaporationes habens in se, etiam antequam Moyses

esset: facile autem ad idola revertentem populum erudiebat, per

multas vocationes præstruens eos perseverare, et servire Deo: per ea

quæ erant secunda, ad prima vocans, hoc est, per typica, ad vera ; et

per temporalia, ad æterna ; et per carnalia, ad spiritalia ; et per

terrena, ad cœlestia.

287 IV. xvi. 1. Quoniam autem et circumcisionem non quasi consummatricem

justitiæ, sed in signo eam dedit Deus, ut cognoscibile perseveret

genus Abrahæ, ex ipsa Scriptura discimus.... In signo ergo data sunt

hæc: non autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento,

neque otiosa, tanquam quæ a sapiente Artifice darentur ; sed secundum

carnem circumcisio circumcisionem significabat spiritalem.

288 IV. xii. 5. Quoniam autem Lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere

Christum, ipse facit manifestum, ei qui interrogavit eum, quid

faciens vitam æternam hæreditaret, sic respondens: “Si vis in vitam

introire, custodi præcepta.” Illo autem interrogante, “Quæ?” rursus

Dominus: “Non mœchaberis, non occides, non furaberis, non falsum

testimonium reddes, honora patrem et matrem, et diliges proximum

tanquam teipsum ; ” velut gradus proponens præcepta Legis introitus in

vitam, volentibus sequi eum: quæ uni tum dicens, omnibus dicebat.

289 IV. xii. 4. Non ergo eam Legem, quæ est per Moysem data, incusabat,

quam adhuc salvis Hierosolymis suadebat fieri.

290 IV. xiii. 2. Etenim Lex, quippe servis posita, per ea quæ foris

erant corporalia, animam erudiebat, velut per vinculum attrahens eam

ad obedientiam præceptorum, uti disceret homo servire Deo: Verbum

autem liberans animam, et per ipsam corpus voluntarie emundari

docuit. Quo facto, necesse fuit auferri quidem vincula servitutis,

quibus jam homo assueverat, et sine vinculis sequi Deum ;

superextendi vero decreta libertatis, et augeri subjectionem quæ est

ad regem, ut non retrorsus quis revertens, indignus appareat ei qui

se liberavit: eam vero pietatem et obedientiam, quæ est erga

patremfamilias, esse quidem eandem et servis et liberis ; majorem

autem fiduciam habere liberos, quoniam sit major et gloriosior

operatio libertatis, quam ea quæ est in servitute obsequentia.—3.

Hæc autem, quemadmodum prædiximus, non dissolventis erant Legem, sed

adimplentis, et extendentis in nobis: tamquam si aliquis dicat,

majorem libertatis operationem, et pleniorem erga Liberatorem

nostrum infixam nobis subjectionem et affectionem. Non enim propter

hoc liberavit nos, ut ab eo abscedamus ; nec enim potest quisquam

extra dominica constitutus bona, sibimetipsi acquirere salutis

alimenta: sed ut plus gratiam ejus adepti, plus eum diligamus.

Quanto autem plus eum dilexerimus, hoc majorem ab eo gloriam

accipiemus, cum simus semper in conspectu Patris.

291 IV. xiii. 2.

292 IV. xxxviii. 3. Ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. Quoted from

Wisdom vi. 19, 20.

293 IV. xxi. 2. Deus——qui est absconsorum cognitor. Quoted from Daniel

xiii. 42. in the Septuagint version.

294 IV. v. 2. Quem et Daniel propheta, cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex

Persarum, “Quare non adoras Bel?” annunciavit, dicens, “Quoniam non

colo idola manufacta, sed vivum Deum, qui constituit cœlum et

terram, et habet omnis carnis dominationem.”

295 V. xxxv. 1. Et quotquot ex credentibus ad hoc præparavit Deus ad

derelictos multiplicandos in terra, et sub regno sanctorum fieri, et

ministrare huic Hierusalem, et regnum in ea, significavit Jeremias

propheta ; “Circumspice,” dicens, &c.: and then he quotes a passage

from the book of Baruch, extending from ch. iv. 36. to the end of

ch. v.

296 IV. xx. 2. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ, ἡ λέγουσα· Πρῶτον πάντων

πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας,

καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. This is quoted

from the _first commandment_ in the abovementioned work.

297 Strom. I. xxix. § 181. Θείως τοίνυν ἡ δύναμις ἡ τῷ Ἑρμᾷ κατ᾽

ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα.

298 _De Pudicitia_, 10. Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura _Pastoris_, quæ

sola mœchos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi ; si non ab

omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum (he is addressing the

Bishop of Rome) inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur.

299 Dissert. III. § 4.

300 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ IV. xxvi. 6. “Ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς

διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι. ὧν ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα· Μωüσέως

πέντε· Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευïτικὸν, Ἀριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον· Ἰησοῦς

Ναυῆ, Κριταὶ, Ῥούθ· Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο· Ψαλμῶν

Δαβὶδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι (ἣ καὶ Σοφία), Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, Ἆσμα

ᾀσμάτων, Ἰώβ· προφητῶν, Ἡσαΐου, Ἱερεμίου· τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλω·

Δανιὴλ, Ἰεζεκιὴλ, Ἔσδρας.”

301 Some copies, instead of ἣ καὶ Σοφία, read ἡ Σοφία.

302 Euseb. _Hist._ VI. xxv. 1. Τὸν μέντοιγε πρῶτον ἐξηγούμενοσ ψαλμὸν,

ἔκθεσιν πεποίηται τοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης

καταλόγου, ὦδέ πως γραφῶν κατὰ λέξιν· Οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ᾽ εἶναι τὰς

ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, δύο καὶ εἴκοσι· ... ἡ

παρ᾽ ἡμῖν Γένεσις ἐπιγεγραμμένη, ... Ἔξοδος, Λευïτικὸν, ... Ἀριθμοὶ,

Δευτερονόμιον ... Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυῆ, ... Κριταὶ, Ῥοὺθ, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν

ἑνὶ, ... Βασιλειῶν πρώτη, δευτέρα, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἓν, Σαμουὴλ, ... 2.

Βασιλειῶν τρίτη, τετάρτη, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Παραλειπομένων πρώτη, δευτέρα,

ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Ἔσδρας πρῶτος καὶ δευτέρος, ἐν ἑνὶ Ἐζρᾶ, ... βίβλος

Ψαλμῶν, ... Σολομῶντος παροιμίαι, ... Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, ... Ἆσμα

ᾀσμάτων, ... ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῶν ιβʹ προφητῶν ἕν ἐστιν.... Ἡσαïας, ...

Ἱερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Δανιὴλ, ...

Ἱεζεκιὴλ, ... Ἰὼβ, ... Ἐσθὴρ, ... Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαïκά.

Here we have Origen distinctly recognizing the Hebrew canon as the

true one, only making a mistake in the matter of fact, that the

apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah belonged to the Hebrew book.

303 _Opera_, tom. ii. pp. 126‐204.

304 _De Pond. et Mens._ tom. ii. ed. Colon. p. 162. § 4, 5. _Hær._ xxix.

§ 7.

305 Quoted in Beveridge on the Sixth Article of the Church of England,

in his _Exposition of the Articles_.

306 _Prolog. Galeat._ and _Epist. ad Paulinum_.

307 Can. 60.

308 See Beveridge, as above cited.

309 _Hær._ 29.

310 III. i. 1. Ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαιος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν

καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμη

εὐαγγελιζομένων, καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων

ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ

Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε. καὶ Λουκᾶς δὲ ὁ

ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ

κατέθετο. ἔπειτα Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος

αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσὼν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας

διατρίβων.——_Frag._ 29. Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς Ἰουδαίους

ἐγάαφη· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐπεθύμουν πάνυ σφόδρα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ Χριστὸν.

ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην

ἐπιθυμίαν, παντοίως ἔσπευδε πληροφορίαν παρέχειν αὐτοῖς, ὡς εἴη ἐκ

σπέρματος Δαβὶδ ὁ Χριστός· διὸ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἤρξατο.

311 III. i. 1. supra.

312 Ibid.—xi. 1. Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens

per evangelii annuntiationem auferre cum qui a Cerintho inseminatus

erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur

Nicolaïtæ, qui sunt vulsio ejus quæ falso cognominatur scientiæ, ...

omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini, et

regulam veritatis constituere in ecclesia, ... sic inchoavit in ea

quæ est secundum evangelium doctrina: “In principio erat Verbum,”

&c.

313 V. xxvi. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de novissimo tempore ...

significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi.

314 V. xxx. 3. Ἡμεῖς οὖν οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ

Ἀντιχρίστου, ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς. Εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν τῷ νῦν

καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρῥ’eθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν

Ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν

ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς.

315 III. xx. 4. Et quoniam non solum homo erat, qui moriebatur pro

nobis, Esaias ait: “Et commemoratus est Dominus sanctus Israël

mortuorum suorum, qui dormierant in terra sepultionis ; et descendit

ad eos evangelizare salutem quæ est ab eo, ut salvaret eos.” At IV.

xxxiii. 1. he ascribes it to Jeremiah, as does Justin Martyr,

(_Dial. cum Tryph._ 72.) who gives it in Greek. In IV. xxxiii. 12.

and V. xxxi. 1. he quotes it without mentioning the author.

316 _Tryph._ 72.

317 II. xxxiv. 3. Et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis exsistentibus in eum:

“Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit

vobis?” The same passage is quoted by S. Clement of Rome, _Epist._

II. 8. Λέγει γὰρ Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ· Εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε,

τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει;——V. xxxiii. 3. Quemadmodum Presbyteri

meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab

eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat Dominus, et dicebat:

“Venient dies, in quibus vinæ nascentur, singulæ decem millia

palmitum habentes, et in una palmite dena millia brachiorum, et in

uno vero palmite dena millia flagellorum, et in unoquoque flagello

dena millia botruum, et in unoquoque botro dena millia acinorum, et

unumquodque acinum expressum dabit vigintiquinque metretas vini. Et

cum eorum apprehenderit aliquis sanctorum botrum, alius clamabit:

Botrus ego melior sum ; me sume ; per me Dominum benedic.” Similiter

et granum tritici decem millia spicarum generaturum, et unamquamque

spicam habituram decem millia granorum, et unumquodque granum

quinque bilibres similæ claræ mundæ: et reliqua autem poma, et

semina, et herbam secundum congruentiam iis consequentem: et omnia

animalia iis cibis utentia, quæ a terra accipiuntur, pacifica et

consentanea invicem fieri, subjecta hominibus cum omni

subjectione.—4. Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Παπίας Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου

δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ, ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ ἐν τῇ τετάρτη

τῶν αὐτοῦ βιβλίων. ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλὶα συντεταγμένα. Et

adjecit, dicens: “Hæc autem credibilia sunt credentibus.” Et “Juda,”

inquit, “proditore non credente, et interrogante: Quomodo ergo tales

genituræ a Domino perficientur?” dixisse Dominum: “Videbunt qui

venient in illa.”

318 III. xi. 7. Ebionei etenim eo Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthæum,

solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte præsumentes de

Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex

his quæ adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum exsistentem

Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem

perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum

Marcum est præferentes Evangelium, cum amore veritatis legentes

illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est

secundum Joannem plenissime utentes, ad ostensionem conjugationum

suarum.——xv. 1. Eadem etiam dicimus iterum et his qui Paulum

apostolum non cognoscunt.... Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum

non esse apostolum.

319 III. xi. 7.‐9. Etenim Marcion totum rejiciens Evangelium, immo vere

seipsum abscindens ab Evangelio, pariter gloriatur se habere

Evangelium. Alii vero ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in

novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in

humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quæ est secundum Joannis

Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit ; sed

simul et Evangelium, et propheticum repellunt Spiritum. Infelices

vere, qui pseudo‐prophetæ quidem esse volunt, propheticam vero

gratiam repellunt ab Ecclesia: similia patientes his, qui propter

eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communicatione se

abstinent.

320 III. xi. 7.

321 III. xi. 9.

322 III. xxi. 2. Πρὸ γὰρ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους κρατύναι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, ἔτι τῶν

Μακεδόνων τὴν Ἀσίαν κατεχόντων, Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου, φιλοτιμούμενος

τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένην βιβλιοθήκην ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ κοσμῆσαι

τοῖς πάντων ἀνθρώπων συγγράμμασιν, ὅσα γε σπουδαῖα ὑπῆρχεν, ᾐτήσατο

παρὰ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν εἰς τὴν Ἐλληνικὴν διάλεκτον σχεῖν αὐτῶν

μεταβεβλημένας τὰς γραφάς. οἱ δὲ (ὑπήκουον γὰρ ἔτι τοῖς Μακεδόσι

τότε) τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐμπειροτάτους τῶν γραφῶν, καὶ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν

διαλέκτων, ἑβδομήκοντα πρεσβυτέρους ἔπεμψαν Πτολεμαίῳ, ποιήσαντος

τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅπερ ἐβούλετο. Ὁ δὲ ἰδίᾳ πεῖραν αὐτῶν λαβεῖν θελήσας,

εὐλαβηθείς τε μήτι ἄρα συνθέμενοι, ἀποκρύψωσι τὴν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς

διὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἀλήθειαν, χωρίσας αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἐκέλευσε

τοὺς πάντας τὴν αὐτὴν ἑρμηνείαν γράφειν· καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν

βιβλίων ἐποίησε. Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ,

καὶ συναντιβαλόντων ἑκάστου τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἑρμηνείαν, ὁ μὲν Θεὸς

ἐδοξάσθη, αἱ δὲ γραφαὶ ὄντως θεῖαι ἐγνώσθησαν, τῶν πάντων τὰ αὐτὰ

ταῖς αὐταῖς λέξεσι, καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀναγορευσάντων ἀπ᾽

ἀρχῆς μέχρι τέλους· ὤστε καὶ τὰ παρόντα ἔθνη γνῶναι, ὅτι κατ᾽

ἐπίπνοιαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσιν ἡρμηνευμέναι αἱ γραφαί. καὶ οὐδέν γε

θαυμαστὸν, τὸν Θεὸν τοῦτο ἐνηργηκέναι, ὅς γε καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ

Ναβουχοδονόσορ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ διαφθαρεισῶν τῶν γραφῶν, καὶ μετὰ

ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνελθόντων εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν, ἔπειτα

ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Ἀρταξέρξου τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως, ἐνέπνευσεν Ἔσδρᾳ τῷ

ἱερεῖ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευï, τοὺς τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας

ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωσέως

νομοθεσίαν.—3. Cum tanta igitur veritate et gratia Dei interpretatæ

sint Scripturæ, ex quibus præparavit et reformavit Deus fidem

nostram, quæ in Filium ejus est, et servavit nobis simplices

Scripturas in Ægypto, in qua adolevit et domus Jacob, effugiens

famem quæ fuit in Chanaan ; in qua et Dominus noster servatus est,

effugiens eam persequutionem quæ erat ab Herode ; et hæc earum

Scripturarum interpretatio priusquam Dominus noster descenderet,

facta sit, et antequam Christiani ostenderentur, interpretata sit.

323 III. xxi. 2, 3.

324 III. xxi. 1. Ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων

τὴν γραφήν· Ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν· ὡς

Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος, καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς, ἀμφότεροι

Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι· οἷς κατακολουθήσαντες οἱ Ἐβιωναῖοι, ἑξ Ἰωσὴφ

αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι.

325 V. xxx. 1. Τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, καὶ ἐν πὰσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ

ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου κ. τ. λ.

326 III. i. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostræ

cognovimus, quam per eos, per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod

quidem tunc præconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in

Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostræ

futurum.——xi. 8. Neque autem plura numero quam hæc sunt, neque

rursus pauciora capit esse Evangelia. Ἐπειδὴ enim τέσσαρα κλίματα

τοῦ κόσμου, ἐν ᾧ ἐσμὲν, εἰσὶ, καὶ τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα,

κατέσπαρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς, στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα

ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ Πνεῦμα ζωῆς· εἰκότως τέσσαρας ἔχειν

αὐτὴν στύλους, πανταχόθεν πνέοντας τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ ἀναζωπυροῦντας

τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.

327 IV. xxxiii. 8. See p. 77, note 5.

328 Lib. I. II.

329 III. Præf. See p. 34, note 10.

330 III. ii. 1. Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem

convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque

sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictæ, et quia non possit ex

his inveniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant Traditionem. Non enim per

literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: ob quam causam et

Paulum dixisse: “Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos ;

sapientiam autem non mundi hujus.” Et hanc sapientiam unusquisque

eorum esse dicit, quam a semetipso adinvenerit, fictionem videlicet ;

ut digne secundum eos sit veritas, aliquando quidem in Valentino,

aliquando autem in Marcione, aliquando in Cerintho ; postea deinde in

Basilide fuit, aut et in illo qui contra disputat, qui nihil

salutare loqui potuit. Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo perversus,

semetipsum, regulam veritatis depravans, prædicare non confunditur.

331 III. v. 1. Traditione igitur, quæ est ab apostolis, sic se habente

in ecclesia et permanente apud nos, revertamur ad eam quæ est ex

Scripturis ostensionem eorum qui Evangelium conscripserunt

Apostolorum, &c.

332 III. ii. 1. Massuet (_Diss._ I. § 24) says, “Hanc non reprehendit

Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat.” Now, to my apprehension, he

does tacitly disapprove the sentiment in the very passage ; and

however he may acknowledge that there are many _parts_ of Scripture

obscure and ambiguous, yet the whole method of his arguing shows

incontestably that he thought its voice, on such points as he was

discussing with the Gnostics, perfectly unambiguous.

333 II. xxvii. 1. Ὁ ὑγιὴς νοῦς καὶ ἀκίνδυνος καὶ εὐλαβὴς καὶ φιλαληθὴς,

ὅσα ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξουσίᾳ δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ὑποτέταχε τῇ

ἡμετέρᾳ γνώσει, ταῦτα προθύμως ἐκμελετήσει, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς προκόψει,

διὰ τῆς καθημερινῆς ἀσκήσεως ῥᾳδίαν τὴν μάθησιν ἑαυτῷ ποιούμενος.

Ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα, τά τε ὑπ᾽ ὄψιν πίπτοντα τὴν ἡμετέραν, καὶ ὅσα φανερῶς

καὶ ἀναμφιβόλως αὐτολεξεὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς λέλεκται. Et ideo

parabolæ debent non ambiguis adaptari: sic enim et qui absolvit,

sine periculo absolvit, et parabolæ ab omnibus similiter

absolutionem accipient ; et a veritate [i. e. per veritatem] corpus

integrum, et simili aptatione membrorum, et sine concussione

perseverat.—2. Cum itaque universæ Scripturæ et Prophetiæ et

Evangelia in aperto et sine ambiguitate et similiter ab omnibus

audiri possint, etsi non omnes credunt.——xxviii. 1. Habentes itaque

regulam ipsam veritatem, et in aperto positum de Deo testimonium,

non debemus per quæstionum declinantes [in] alias atque alias

absolutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam: magis autem

absolutionem quæstionum in hunc characterem dirigentes, exerceri

quidem convenit per inquisitionem mysterii et dispositionis

exsistentis Dei ; augeri autem in charitate ejus, qui tanta propter

nos fecit et facit.

Grabe argues from the first of these passages as though _every_

thing which God would have us know or believe were contained in

express words in Scripture, and thus incurs the reprehension of

Massuet. (_Diss._ III. § 11.) All that can be gathered from it

legitimately is, that the things clearly revealed are expressed in

Scripture without ambiguity, and that these are the most important.

334 II. x. 1. Omnis autem quæstio non per aliud quod quæritur habebit

resolutionem, nec ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solvetur apud

eos qui sensum habent, aut ænigmata per aliud majus ænigma ; sed ea

quæ sunt talia ex manifestis et consonantibus et claris accipiunt

absolutiones.

335 I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ

κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ὀνόματα

καὶ τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰς παραβολὰς ἐπιγνώσεται.—x. 1. See p. 91, note

336 IV. xxxii. 1. See p. 77, note 8.

337 IV. xxvi. 4. See p. 80, note 7.

338 IV. xxvi. 2. See p. 80, note 7.

339 IV. xxxiii. 1. Talis discipulus vere spiritalis recipiens Spiritum

Dei, qui ab initio in universis dispositionibus Dei adfuit

hominibus, et futura annuntiavit et præsentia ostendit et præterita

enarrat, judicat quidem omnes, ipse autem a nemine judicatur. Nam

judicat gentes.... Examinabit autem doctrinam Marcionis, &c.

340 III. ii. 1. See p. 136, note 9.

341 III. ii. 1. See supra, p. 136, note 9.—2. Cum autem ad eam iterum

traditionem, quæ est ab Apostolis, quæ per successiones

presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos ; adversantur

traditioni, dicentes se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam Apostolis

exsistentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veritatem.... Evenit

itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos.

342 Conf. III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7, et i. 1. p. 135, note 5.

343 I. x. 1. See p. 91.

344 III. Præf. p. 34, note 10.

345 III. iii. 1. See p. 57, note 7.

346 Ibid.

347 I. ix. 4. p. 57, note 6.

348 III. iii. 2. p. 63, note 8.

349 III. iii. 4. p. 58, notes 2 & 3.

350 III. iii. 3, 4. p. 62, notes 2 & 6.

351 I. x. 2. Οὓτω καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας πανταχῆ φαίνει, καὶ

φωτίζει πάντας ἀνθρώπους τοὺς βουλομένους εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας

ἐλθεῖν. καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις

προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων ἐρεῖ· (οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον·) οὔτε

ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν· μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς

πίστεως οὔσης, οὔτε ὁ πόλυ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν, ἐπλεόνασεν,

οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἠλαττόνησε.

352 I. x. 3. Τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἢ ἔλαττον κατὰ σύνεσιν εἰδέναι τινάς ...

γίνεται ... ἐν τῷ τὰ, ὅσα ἐν παραβολαῖς εἴρηται, προσεπεργάζεσθαι

καὶ οἰκειοῦν τῇ τῆς πίστεως ὑποθέσει κ. τ. λ.

353 III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7 ; I. x. 1, 2. p. 91.

354 Thus Irenæus gives two different versions of it (I. x. 1. et III.

iv. 2) ; in one of which he mentions Christ’s ascent into heaven _in

the flesh_, and other matters, which are omitted in the other.

355 III. iv. 2. See p. 159, note 3.

356 III. iv. 1. ibid.

357 IV. xxvi. 4. p. 81, note 8.

358 IV. xxvii. 1. Quemadmodum audivi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat

ab his qui Apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant, sufficere

veteribus, de his quæ sine consilio Spiritus egerunt, eam quæ ex

Scripturis esset correptionem.... 2. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea,

quæ sunt sub terra, descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum

suum.

359 V. v. 1. Διὸ καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ,

τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἐκεῖσε μετατεθῆναι· i. e. to Paradise.

360 V. xxxiii. 3. Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem

discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de

temporibus illis (i. e. those of the new heavens and new earth)

docebat Dominus.

361 II. xxii. 6. p. 98, note 1.

362 II. xxii. 6.

363 II. xxii. 6.

364 I. ix. 4. p. 57, note 6.

365 I. x. 1. The Greek of this passage is to be found at p. 91.

366 III. iv. 1. Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio

esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in

quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de præsenti quæstione

sumere quod certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem si neque Apostoli

quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi

Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias?—2.

Cui ordinationi assentiunt multæ gentes barbarorum, eorum qui in

Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per

Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem Traditionem diligenter

custodientes ; in unum Deum credentes Fabricatorem cœli et terræ, et

omnium quæ in eis sunt, per Christum Jesum Dei Filium: qui propter

eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem, eam quæ esset ex

Virgine generationem sustinuit, ipse per se hominem adunans Deo, et

passus sub Pontio Pilato, et resurgens, et in claritate receptus, in

gloria venturus Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et Judex eorum qui

judicantur, et mittens in ignem æternum transfiguratores veritatis,

et contemptores Patris sui et adventus ejus. Hanc fidem qui sine

literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt:

quantum autem ad sententiam et consuetudinem et conversationem,

propter fidem perquam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo,

conversantes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia. Quibus si

aliquis annuntiaverit ea, quæ ab hæreticis adinventa sunt, proprio

sermone eorum colloquens, statim concludentes aures, longo longius

fugient, ne audire quidem sustinentes blasphemum colloquium. Sic per

illam veterem Apostolorum Traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem

mentis admittunt, quodcumque eorum portentiloquium est: nequedum

enim congregatio fuit apud eos, neque doctrina instituta.

367 I. iii. 6. Τὴν πίστιν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα

Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

368 IV. xxxvii. 1. Illud autem, quod ait: “Quoties volui colligere

filios tuos, et noluisti?” veterem legem libertatis hominis

manifestavit: quia liberum eum Deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam

potestatem, sicut et suam animam, ad utendum sententia Dei

voluntarie, et non coactum a Deo. Βία enim Θεῷ οὐ πρόσεστιν· ἀγαθὴ

δὲ γνώμη πάντοτε συμπάρεστιν αὐτῷ. Et propter hoc consilium quidem

bonum dat omnibus. Posuit autem in homine potestatem electionis,

quemadmodum et in angelis (etenim angeli rationabiles) ; uti hi

quidem qui obedissent, juste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a

Deo, servatum vero ab ipsis. Qui autem non obedierunt, juste non

invenientur cum bono, et meritam pœnam percipient: quoniam Deus

quidem dedit benigne bonum, ipsi vero non custodierunt diligenter

illud, neque pretiosum arbitrati sunt, sed supereminentiam bonitatis

contempserunt. Abjicientes igitur bonum, et quasi respuentes, merito

omnes justum judicium incident Dei.... Dedit ergo Deus bonum, ... et

qui operantur quidem illud, gloriam et honorem percipient, quoniam

operati sunt bonum, cum possint non operari illud ; hi autem qui

illud non operantur, judicium justum excipient Dei, quoniam non sunt

operati bonum, cum possint operari illud.—2. Εἰ φύσει οἱ μὲν φαῦλοι,

οἱ δὲ ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασιν, οὐθ᾽ οὗτοι ἐπαινετοὶ, ὄντες ἀγαθοὶ, τοιοῦτοι

γὰρ κατεσκευάσθησαν· οὐτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι μεμπτοὶ, οὕτως γεγονότες. Ἀλλ᾽

ἐπειδὴ οἱ πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσι φύσεως, δυνάμενοί τε κατασχεῖν κὶι

πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ δυνάμενοι πάλιν ἀποβαλεῖν αὐτὸ, καὶ μὴ

ποιῆσαι· δικαίως καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς εὐνομουμένοις, καὶ πολὺ

πρότερον παρὰ Θεῷ, οἱ μὲν ἐπαινοῦνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι

μαρτυρίας, τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καθόλου ἐκλογῆς καὶ ἐπιμονῆς· οἱ δὲ

καταιτιῶνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι ζημίας, τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ

ἀποβολῆς. καὶ διὰ τούτου οἱ προφῆται παρήνουν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

δικαιοπραγεῖν, καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐξεργάζεσθαι· ... ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ὄντος τοῦ

τοιούτου, καὶ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀμέλειαν εἰς λήθην ἐκπεπτωκότων, καὶ

γνώμης δεομένων ἀγαθῆς, ἣν ὁ ἀγαθὸς Θεὸς παρέσχε γινώσκειν διὰ τῶν

προφητῶν.—3. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἐπιδείκνυσι τοῦ

ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τὸ συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ... ἀποτρέποντος μὲν τοῦ

ἀπειθεῖν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ μὴ βιαζομένου.—5. Et non tantum in operibus, sed

etiam in fide liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit

Dominus, dicens: “Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi ; ” propriam fidem

hominis ostendens, quoniam propriam suam habet sententiam. Et

iterum: “Omnia possibilia sunt credenti ; ” et, “Vade, sicut

credidisti, fiat tibi.” Et omnia talia suæ potestatis secundum fidem

ostendunt hominem. Et propter hoc is “qui credit ei, habet vitam

æternam ; qui autem non credit Filio, non habet vitam æternam, sed

ira Dei manebit super ipsum.”——V. xxvii. 1. Si ergo adventus Filii

super omnes quidem similiter advenit, judicialis est autem, et

discretor credentium et non credentium, quoniam ex sua sententia

credentes faciunt ejus voluntatem, et ex sua sententia credentes

faciunt ejus voluntatem, et ex sua sententia indictoaudientes non

accedunt ad ejus doctrinam: manifestum, quoniam et Pater ejus omnes

quidem similiter fecit, propriam sententiam unumquemque habentem, et

sensum liberum ; respicit autem omnia, et providet omnibus, “solem

suum oriri faciens super malos et bonos, et pluens super justos et

injustos.”—2. Et ὅσα τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν τηρεῖ φιλίαν, τούτοις τὴν ἰδίαν

παρέχει κοινωνίαν. κοινωνία δὲ Θεοῦ, ζωὴ καὶ φῶς, καὶ ἀπόλαυσις τῶν

παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῶν. ὅσοι autem ἀφίστανται κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν τοῦ

Θεοῦ, τούτοις τὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χωρισμὸν ἐπάγει.——xxviii. 1. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν

τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, οἱ μὲν προστρέχουσι τῷ φωτὶ, καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως

ἑνοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, οἱ δὲ ἀφίστανται τοῦ φωτὸς, καὶ ἀφορίζουσιν

ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐκδέχεται ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῖς πᾶσιν ἁρμόζουσαν

οἴκησιν ἐπάγων· τοῖς μὲν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ, πρὸς τὸ ἀπολαύειν αὐτοὺς τῶν ἐν

αὐτῷ ἀγαθῶν, τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ σκότει, πρὸς τὸ μετέχειν αὐτοὺς τῆς ἐν

αὐτῷ μοχθηρίας. Διὰ τοῦτό φησι, τοὺς μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ἀνακαλέσασθαι εἰς

τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν, τοὺς δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ

πέμψειν· ἑαυτοὺς γὰρ πάντων ἐστέρησαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν.

369 IV. xxxvii. 1, 2. V. xxvii. 1. xxviii. 1.

370 IV. xv. 2. Si autem quidam, propter inobedientes Israëlitas et

perditos, infirmum dicunt legis doctorem, invenient in ea vocatione

quæ est secundum nos multos quidem vocatos, paucos vero electos ; et

intrinsecus lupos, a foris vero indutos pelles ovium ; et id quod

erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servasse Deum

et suam exhortationem.——xxxvii. 1.

371 IV. xxxvii. 1, 5. V. xxvii. 2. xxviii. 1.

372 IV. xxxvii. 2.

373 IV. xxxvii. 3.

374 IV. xxxvii. 5. V. xxvii. 1. xxviii. 1.

375 IV. xxxvii. 5.

376 IV. xxxvii. 3.—V. i. 1. Et quoniam injuste dominabatur nobis

apostasia, et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos

contra naturam, suos proprios faciens discipulos ; potens in omnibus

Dei Verbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus

ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea: non

cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant

sua insatiabiliter rapiens ; sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum

decebat Deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet:

ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque antiqua plasmatio Dei

deperiret.

377 IV. xxxvii. 1.

378 IV. xxxvii. 7. See p. 106, note 5.

379 III. xvii. 2. Sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non

fructificat, sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam

fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia.—3. Quapropter

necessarius nobis est ros Dei, ut non comburamur, neque infructuosi

efficiamur.

380 V. i. 1. Qui nunc nuper facti sumus, a Solo Optimo et bono, et ab eo

qui habet donationem incorruptibilitatis, in eam, quæ est ad eum,

similitudinem facti, (prædestinati quidem ut essemus, qui nondum

eramus, secundum præscientiam Patris, facti autem initium facturæ,)

accepimus in præcognitis temporibus secundum ministrationem Verbi,

qui est perfectus in omnibus: quoniam Verbum potens, et homo verus,

sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum

dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt.

381 IV. xli. 3. Quemadmodum enim in hominibus indictoaudientes patribus

filii abdicati, natura quidem filii eorum sunt, lege vero alienati

sent (non enim hæredes fiunt naturalium parentum), eodem modo apud

Deum, qui non obediunt ei, abdicati ab eo, desierunt filii ejus

esse.... Cum enim converterentur et pœnitentiam agerent et

quiescerent a malitia, filii poterant esse Dei, et hæreditatem

consequi incorruptelæ quæ ab eo præstatur.... Verum quando credunt

et subjecti esse Deo perseverant et doctrinam ejus custodiunt, filii

sunt Dei: cum autem abscesserint et transgressi fuerint, diabolo

adscribuntur principi, ei qui primo sibi, tunc et reliquis, causa

abscessionis sit factus.

382 IV. xxix. 2. Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credituros Deus,

cum sit omnium præcognitor, tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et

avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quæ ipsi

sibi elegerunt ; quid mirum si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaonem,

cum his qui cum eo erant, tradidit eos suæ infidelitate?——V. xxvii.

2. Ὅσοι autem ἀφίστανται κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτοις τὸν

ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χωρισμὸν [eam quæ electa est ab ipsis, separationem—OLD

LATIN VERSION] ἐπάγει. Χωρισμὸς δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ θάνατος· καὶ χωρισμὸς

φωτὸς σκότος· καὶ χωρισμὸς Θεοῦ ἀποβολὴ πάντων τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῶν.

383 II. xxxiii. 5. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πληρωθέντος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, οὗ αὐτὸς παρ᾽

αὐτῷ προώρισε, πάντες οἱ ἐγγραφέντες εἰς ζωὴν ἀναστήσονται, ἴδια

ἔχοντες σώματα, καὶ ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχὰς, καὶ ἴδια πνεύματα, ἐν οἷς

ἐυηρέστησαν τῷ Θεῷ· οἱ δὲ τῆς κολάσεως ἄξιοι ἀπελεύσονται εἰς τὴν

αὐτὴν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχὰς καὶ ἴδια σώματα, ἐν οἷς

ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος. Καὶ παύσονται ἑκάτεροι τοῦ

γεννᾷν ἔτι καὶ γεννᾶσθαι, καὶ γαμεῖν καὶ γαμεῖσθαι· ἵνα τὸ σύμμετρον

φῦλον τῆς προορίσεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπότητος ἀποτελεσθεὶς τὴν ἁρμονίαν

τηρήση τοῦ Πατρός.

The same idea is expressed by Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr.

Clem. R. _ad Corr._ I. 2. Ἀγὼν ἦν ὑμῖν ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτὸς ὑπὲρ

πάσης τῆς ἀδελφότητος, εἰς τὸ σώζεσθαι μετ᾽ ἐλέους καὶ συνειδήσεως

τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ.

Justin M. _Apol._ I. 45. Ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁ Πατὴρ

τῶν πάντων Θεὸς ... ἔμελλε, καὶ κατέχειν ἕως ἂν πατάξῃ τοὺς

ἐχθραίνοντας αὐτῷ δαίμονας, καὶ συντελεσθῇ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν

προεγνωσμένων αὐτῷ, ἀγαθῶν γινομένων καὶ ἐναρέτων, δι᾽ οὓς καὶ

μηδέπω τὴν ἐπικύρωσιν πεποίηται.

384 “Beseeching thee that it may please thee of thy gracious goodness

shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy

kingdom.”

385 IV. xxxvi. 2. Qui priores, sive primum, per servilem legisdationem

vocaverat Deus, hic posteriores, sive postea, per adoptionem

assumpsit. Plantavit enim Deus vineam humani generis, primo quidem

per plasmationem Adæ et electionem patrum ; tradidit autem colonis

per eam legisdationem quæ est per Moysem ; sepem autem circumdedit,

id est, circumterminavit eorum culturam ; et turrim ædificavit,

Hierusalem elegit ; et torcular fodit, receptaculum prophetici

Spiritus præparavit.... Non credentibus autem illis, novissime misit

Filium suum, (misit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum) quem cum

occidissent mali coloni, projecerant extra vineam. Quapropter

tradidit eam Dominus Deus non jam circumvallatam, sed expansam in

universum mundum aliis colonis, reddentibus fructus temporibus suis,

turre electionis exaltata ubique et speciosa: ubique enim præclara

est ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum torcular ; ubique enim sunt qui

suscipiunt Spiritum.

386 IV. xxxvi. 8. Sed quoniam et patriarchas qui elegit et nos, idem est

Verbum Dei, &c.

387 V. i. 1. supra.

388 III. vi. 1. Hæc (Ecclesia) enim est synagoga Dei, quam Deus, hoc est

Filius, ipse per semetipsum collegit.

389 IV. xxi. 3. Variæ oves, quæ fiebant huic Jacob merces ; et Christi

merces, qui ex variis et differentibus gentibus in unam cohortem

fidei convenientes fiunt homines.

390 See p. 173.

391 See p. 167, note 1.

392 I. xxi. 1. Καὶ ὅτι μὲν εἰς ἐξάρνησιν τοῦ βαπτίσματος, τῆς εἰς Θεὸν

ἀναγεννήσεως, καὶ πάσης τῆς πίστεως ἀπόθεσιν, ὑποβέβληται τὸ εἶδος

τοῦτο ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, κ. τ. λ.

393 II. xxii. 4. See p. 94, note 2.

394 V. xv. 3. Et quoniam in illa plasmatione, quæ secundum Adam fuit, in

transgressione factus homo indigebat lavacro regenerationis.

395 V. vi. 1. viii. 2. See p. 101, note 8.

396 III. xvii. 2. Unde et Dominus pollicitus est mittere se Paracletum,

qui nos aptaret Deo. Sicut enim de arido tritico massa una fieri non

potest sine humore, neque unus panis ; ita nec nos multi unum fieri

in Christo Jesu poteramus, sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida

terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat ; sic et nos, lignum

aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine

superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora enim nostra per lavacrum illam,

quæ est ad incorruptionem, unitatem acceperunt ; animæ autem per

Spiritum.

397 III. xvii. 2.

398 V. vi. 1.—vii. 1. Incompositus est enim et simplex Spiritus, et ipse

vita est eorum qui percipiunt illum.——ix. 2. Spiritum Patris, qui

emundat hominem, et sublevat in vitam.——xii. 2. Ἕτερόν ἐστι πνοὴ

ζωῆς, ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον· καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα

ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν.... διὸ καὶ πάλιν ὁ

αὐτὸς Ἠσαΐας διαστέλλων τὰ προειρημένα φησί· Πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ

ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ ἐποίησα· τὸ πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ

Θεοῦ τάξας τοῦ ἐκχέοντος αὐτὸ in novissimis temporibus διὰ τῆς

υἱοθεσίας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, τὴν δὲ πνοὴν κοινῶς ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως·

καὶ ποίημα ἀναγορεύσας αὐτὴν. ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν τοῦ

ποιήσαντος. Ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον. καὶ ἡ μὲν

πνοὴ ἀκμάσασα πρὸς βραχὺ, καὶ, καιρῷ τινι παραμείνασα, μετὰ τοῦτο

πορεύεται, ἄπνουν καταλιποῦσα ἐκεῖνο, περὶ ὃ ἦν τὸ πρότερον· τὸ δὲ

περιλαβὸν ἔνδοθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἅτε ἀεὶ παραμόνιμον,

οὐδέποτε καταλείπει αὐτὸν.

399 IV. xxxi. 2. Quando igitur hic vitale semen, id est, Spiritum

remissionis peccatorum per quem vivificamur, effudit in humanum

genus?

400 V. ii. 3. Πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ

Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ

Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν;

401 IV. xli. 2. Secundum igitur naturam quæ est secundum conditionem, ut

ita dicam, omnes filii Dei sumus, propter quod a Deo omnes facti

sumus: secundum autem dictoaudientiam [obedientiam] et doctrinam non

omnes filii Dei sunt, sed qui credunt ei et faciunt ejus voluntatem:

qui autem non credunt et non faciunt ejus voluntatem filii et angeli

sunt diaboli.

402 I. x. 1. ad finem. See p. 91, note 7.——IV. xli. 3. See p. 166, note

403 IV. xxvii. 2. Si enim hi qui præcesserunt nos in charismatibus

veteres, propter quos nondum Filius Dei passus erat, delinquentes in

aliquo, et concupiscentiæ carnis servientes, tali affecti sunt

ignominia (viz. to have their transgressions recorded in the

Scripture), quid passuri sunt qui nunc sunt, qui contempserunt

adventum Domini, et deservierunt voluptatibus suis? Et illis quidem

curatio et remissio peccatorum mors Domini fuit: propter eos vero

qui nunc peccant Christus non jam morietur, jam enim mors non

dominabitur ejus: sed veniet Filius in gloria Patris, exquirens ab

actoribus et dispensatoribus suis pecuniam quam eis credidit cum

usuris ; et quibus plurimum dedit, plurimum ab eis exiget.

404 V. ii. 2. Vani autem omnimodo, qui universam dispositionem Dei

contemnunt, et carnis salutem negant, et regenerationem ejus

spernunt, dicentes non eam capacem esse incorruptibilitatis. Si

autem non salvetur hæc, videlicet nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit

nos ; neque calix Eucharistiæ communicatio sanguinis ejus est, neque

panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis ejus est. Sanguis enim

non est, nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua quæ est secundum

hominem substantia, qua vere factum est Verbum Dei. Sanguine suo

redemit nos, quemadmodum et Apostolus ejus ait: “In quo habemus

redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum.” Et ἐπειδὴ

μέλη αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ διὰ τῆς κτίσεως τρεφόμεθα, τὴν δὲ κτίσιν ἡμῖν

αὐτος παρέχει, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλων καὶ βρέχων καθὼς βούλεται·

τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἡμέτερον

δεύει αἷμα, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο,

ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὰ ἡμέτερα αὔξει σώματα.—3. Ὁπότε οὖν καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον

ποτήριον καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λύγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ

γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ, ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται

ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις· πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα

τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ

αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν; καθὼς ὁ

μακάριος Παῦλός φησιν, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ· ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν

τοῦ σώματος, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ· οὐ περὶ

πνευματικοῦ τινος καὶ ἀοράτου ἀνθρώπου λέγων ταῦτα, (τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα

οὔτε ὀστέα, οὔτε σάρκα ἔχει) ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἀληθινὸν

ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας, τῆς ἐκ σαρκὸς καὶ νεύρων καὶ ὀστέων συνεστώσης·

ἥτις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστι τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, τρέφεται, καὶ

ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου, ὁ ἐστι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, αὔξεται. καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ

ξύλον τῆς ἀμπέλου κλιθὲν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ἐκαρποφόρησε, καὶ

ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθεὶς, πολλοστὸς

ἐγέρθη διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ συνέχοντος τὰ πάντα· ἔπειτα

δὲ διὰ τῆς σοφίας τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς χρῆσιν ἐλθόντα ἀνθρώπων, καὶ

προσλαμβανόμενα τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, εὐχαριστία γίνεται, ὅπερ ἐστὶ

σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα ἐξ αὐτῆς

τρεφόμενα, καὶ τεθέντα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθέντα ἐν αὐτῇ,

ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῖς

χαριζομένου εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός.

405 Tertullian, who uses this selfsame argument against the Gnostics,

expressly calls the bread the _representation_ of Christ’s body ;

arguing that if Christ had no real body, there could have been no

representation or _figure_ of it.—_Contra Marcionem_, IV. 40.

Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit,

“Hoc est corpus meum” dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei: figura

autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.... Sic et in calicis

mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum,

substantiam corporis confirmavit: nullius enim corporis sanguis

potest esse, nisi carnis.—See likewise Bishop Kaye’s _Tertullian_

(p. 454, note 137, of the second edition) for other passages.

406 IV. xviii. 4. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, juste

munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum est. Quemadmodum et

Paulus Philippensibus ait: “Repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito,

quæ a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis, hostiam acceptabilem,

placentem Deo.” Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, et in

omnibus gratos inveniri Fabricatori Deo, in sententia pura et fide

sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilectione ferventi, primitias

earum, quæ sunt ejus, creaturarum offerentes. Et hanc oblationem

Ecclesia sola puram offert Fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum

actione ex creatura ejus. Judæi autem non offerunt: manus enim eorum

sanguine plenæ sunt ; non enim receperunt Verbum, quod [or _per

quod_] offertur Deo. Sed neque omnes hæreticorum synagogæ. Alii enim

alterum præter fabricatorem dicentes Patrem, ea quæ secundum nos

creata sunt, offerentes ei, cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, et aliena

concupiscentem. Qui vero ex defectione et ignorantia et passione

dicunt facta ea, quæ sunt secundum nos ; ignorantiæ, passionis, et

defectionis fructus offerentes, peccant in Patrem suum, contumeliam

facientes magis ei, quam gratias agentes. Quomodo autem constabit

eis, eum panem in quo gratiæ actæ sint corpus esse Domini sui, et

calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi Filium

dicant, id est, Verbum ejus, per quod lignum fructificat, et

defluunt fontes, et terra dat primum quidem fœnum, post deinde

spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica?—5. Πῶς autem τὴν σάρκα

λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὸν χωρεῖν, καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ

σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην; ἢ τὴν γνώμην

ἀλλαξάτωσαν, ἢ τὸ προφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν. Ἡμῶν δὲ

σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία rursus βεβαιοῖ τὴν

γνώμην nostram: προσφέρομεν δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ ἴδια, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ

ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, καὶ ὀμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν.

Ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι

κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα,

ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου· οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα

τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας

ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα.—6. Offerimus enim ei, non quasi indigenti, sed

gratias agentes dominationi ejus, et sanctificantes creaturam.

407 IV. xvii. 5. Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo

offerre ex suis creaturis (non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec

infructuosi nec ingrati sint), eum, qui ex creatura panis est,

accepit, et gratias egit, dicens: “Hoc est corpus meum ; ” et calicem

similiter qui est ex ea creatura quæ est secundum nos, suum

sanguinem confessus est, et novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem ;

quam ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert

Deo,—ei, qui alimenta nobis præstat, primitias suorum munerum.

408 Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr exhibit the same view. Clem. R.

_ad Corr._ I. 40. Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅσα ὁ Δεσπότης

ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν· κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ

λειτουργίας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι.—And to show what kind of _offering_ is

spoken of in connection with the λειτουργία, take the following

passage from § 44. Ἁμαρτία γὰρ οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς

ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν.

Justin is more express: _Dial. cum Tryph._ 41. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν παντὶ

τόπῳ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν προσφερομένων αὐτῷ θυσιῶν, τουτέστι τοῦ

ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς εὐχαριστίας. And

again § 117. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων

γινόμεναι τέλειαι μόναι καὶ εὐάρεστοι εἰσὶ τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός

φημι· ταῦτα γὰρ μόνα καὶ Χριστιανοὶ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν, καὶ ἐπ᾽

ἀναμνήσει δὲ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν ξηρᾶς τε καὶ ὑγρᾶς, ἐν ᾖ καὶ τοῦ

πάθους ὃ πέπονθε δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ μέμνηται.

409 _Irenæi Scripta Anecdota_, Frag. 2. p. 29. Διότι καὶ ἑ προσφορὰ τῆς

εὐχαριστίας οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὴ ἀλλὰ πνευματικὴ, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ καθαρά.

Προσφέρομεν γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ τὸν ἄρτον καὶ τό ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας,

εὐχαριστοῦντες αὐτῷ, ὅτι τῇ γῇ ἐκέλευσεν ἐκφύσαι τοὺς καρποὺς

τούτους εἰς τροφὴν ἡμετέραν. καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν προσφορὰν τελέσαντες

ἐκκαλοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅπως ἀποφῄνη τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην καὶ

τὸν ἄρτον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τό ποτήριον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἵνα

οἱ μεταλάβοντες τούτων τῶν ἀντιτύπων τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ

τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου τύχωσιν. Οἱ οὖν ταύτας τὰς προσφορὰς ἐν τῇ

ἀναμνήσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἄγοντες οὐ τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων δόγμασι

προσέρχονται, ἀλλὰ πνευματικῶς λειτουργοῦντες τῆς σοφίας υἱοὶ

κληθήσονται.

410 Judæi autem non offerunt: ... non enim receperunt Verbum _quod

offertur_ Deo. See p. 182.

411 ——Verbum, _per quod offertur_ Deo.

412 IV. xvii. 6. Quoniam ergo nomen Filii proprium Patris est, et in Deo

omnipotente per Jesum Christum offert Ecclesia, bene ait secundum

utraque: “Et in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo et sacrificum

purum.” Incensa autem Joannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait

sanctorum.

413 Justin Martyr again: (_Dial._ 117.) Πάντας οὖν οἳ διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος

τούτου θυσίας ἅς παρέδωκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς γίνεσθαι [προσφέρουσιν

must be introduced either here or further on], τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ

εὐχαριστίᾳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, τὰς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς γῆς

γινόμενας ὑπὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, προσλαβῶν ὁ Θεὸς μαρτυρεῖ εὐαρέστους

ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ.

414 IV. xviii. 5. See p. 184, note.

415 V. ii. 3.

416 IV. xviii. 5.

417 See the _Fragment_, p. 186, note 6.

418 See p. 72, note 9.

419 Diss. III. § 76. See the passage quoted below, p. 200, note 2.

420 IV. xxvii. 2. Quemadmodum enim illi (the Patriarchs and just men of

old) non imputabant nobis incontinentias nostras, quas operati

sumus, priusquam Christus in nobis manifestaretur ; sic et nos non

est justum imputare ante adventum Christi his qui peccaverunt. Omnes

enim homines egent gloria Dei ; justificantur autem non a semetipsis,

sed a Domini adventu, qui intendunt (probably οἱ κατανοούμενοι ; see

I. ii. 3, where the Old Translator renders κατανοήσασαν by _cum

intendisset_) lumen ejus. Et illis quidem curatio et remissio

peccatorum mors Domini fuit.—In IV. vi. 5. the opposite to

_intendunt lumen_ is _fugiunt lumen_.

421 III. xviii. 7. Oportebat enim eum qui inciperet occidere (ἀποκτανεῖν

μέλλῃ—occisurus esset) peccatum, et mortis reum redimere hominem, id

ipsum fieri quod erat ille, id est, hominem: qui a peccato quidem in

servitium tractus fuerat, a morte vero tenebatur, ut peccatum ab

homine interficeretur, et homo exiret a morte. Ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς

παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ γῆς ἀνεργάστου

πεπλασμένου, ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ, καὶ ἀπέβαλον τὴν

ζωήν· οὕτως ἔδει καὶ δι᾽ ὑπακοῆςς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ

παρθένου γεγενημένου, δικαιωθῆναι πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπολαβεῖν τὴν

σωτηρίαν. Sic igitur Verbum Dei homo factus est.

422 IV. xxvii. 2.

423 Ibid. et V. xvii. 3. Uti quemadmodum per lignum facti sumus

debitores Deo, per lignum accipiamus nostri debiti remissionem.

424 IV. v. 5. Propheta ergo cum esset Abraham, et videret in Spiritu

diem adventus Domini et passionis dispositionem, per quem ipse

quoque et omnes qui, similiter ut ipse credidit, credunt Deo salvari

inciperent (σώζεσθαι μέλλωσι—salvandi essent), exsultavit

vehementer. Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus Abrahæ, cujus diem

concupivit videre: sed neque Pater Domini ; didicerat enim a Verbo

Domini, et credidit ei: quapropter et deputatum est ei ad justitiam

a Domino. Fides enim, quæ est ad Deum altissimum, justificat

hominem ; et propter hoc dicebat: “Extendam manum meam ad Deum

altissimum, qui constituit cœlum et terram.”

425 IV. xxvii. 2, supra.

426 IV. xxxvii. 5. Et non tantum in operibus sed etiam in fide liberum

et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit Dominus, dicens:

“Secundum fidem tuam fiet tibi ; ” propriam fidem hominis ostendens,

quoniam propriam habet sententiam.

427 IV. xiii. 1. See p. 117, note 9.

428 IV. xvii. 1. Deinde ne quis putet, propterea quod irasceretur, eum

recusare hæc (i. e. the sacrifices of the Law), infert, consilium ei

dans: “Immola Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo vota tua ; et

invoca me in die tribulationis tuæ, et eripiam te, et glorificabis

me:” illa quidem, per quæ putabant peccantes propitiari Deum,

abnuens ; hæc autem, per quæ justificatur homo et appropinquat Deo,

hortatur et admonet.——He elsewhere (IV. vi. 5.) affirms that “to

believe in Christ is to do his will.” Et ad hoc Filium revelavit

Pater, ut per eum omnibus manifestetur, et eos quidem qui credunt ei

justi [justos illos qui ei credunt] in incorruptionem et in æternum

refrigerium recipiat (credere autem ei est facere ejus voluntatem) ;

eos autem, qui non credunt, et propter hoc fugiunt lumen ejus, in

tenebras quas ipsi sibi elegerint juste recludet.

429 II. xxiv. 4. Unaquæque tabula, quam accepit a Deo, præcepta habebat

quinque.

430 _Antiq._ III. vi. 5. Τὰς δύο πλάκας, ἐν αἷς τοὺς δέκα λόγους

συγγεγράφθαι συμβεβήκει, ἀνὰ πέντε μὲν εἰς ἑκατέραν.

431 _De Decalogo_, cited by Feuardent in loco.

432 Cited by Feuardent.

433 _Hom._ 8. in cap. xx. Exodi, cited by Massuet in loco.

434 Cited by Feuardent.

435 Cited ibid.

436 _Quæst._ 71. in Exodum, cited ibid.

437 _Antiq._ III. v. 5.

438 IV. xxxiii. 2. Dominus ... accipiens panem, suum corpus esse

confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit.

V. ii. 3. Καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται

τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ· ἐκ τούτων

δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις.

439 I. xiii. 2. Ποτήρια οἴνῳ κεκραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχαριστεῖν, καὶ

ἐπὶ πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπικλήσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ ἐρυθρὰ

ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ· (He is speaking of Marcus, the Gnostic) ὡς

δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα Χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν τῷ

ἐκείνῳ ποτηρίῳ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ.

440 Ibid.

441 I. iii. 1. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας λέγοντας· Εἰς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων κ. τ. λ.

442 I. xiv. 1.——τὸ Ἀμην ὁμοῦ λεγόντων ἡμῶν κ. τ. λ.

443 Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

444 III. xi. 9. Infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetæ quidem esse volunt,

propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab ecclesia ; similia patientes

his qui, propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum

communicatione se abstinent.

445 I. xxi. 3. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπιλέγουσιν οἱ αὐτοὶ τελοῦντες· ὁ δὲ

τετελεσμένος ἀποκρίνεται· Ἐστήριγμαι καὶ λελύτρωμαι κ. τ. λ.—Ἔπειτα

μυρίζουσι τὸν τετελεσμένον τῷ ὀπῷ τῷ ἀπὸ βαλσάμου· τὸ γὰρ μῦρον

τοῦτο τύπον τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα εὐωδίας εἶναι λέγουσιν.

446 I. xiii. 5. Ὅτι δὲ φίλτρα καὶ ἀγώγιμα, πρὸς τὸ καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν

αὐτῶν ἐνυβρέζειν, ἐμποιεῖ οὗτος ὁ Μάρκος ἐνίαις τῶν γυναικῶν, εἰ καὶ

μὴ πάσαις, αὗται πολλάκις ἐπιστρέψασαι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ

ἐξωμολογήσαντο, καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἠχρειῶσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐρωτικῶς

πάνυ αὐτὸν πεφιληκέναι· ὥστε καὶ διακονόν τινα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ τῶν

ἡμετέρων, ὑποδεξάμενον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, περιπεσεῖν ταῦτῃ

τῇ συμφορᾷ, τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ εὐειδοῦς ὑπαρχούσης, καὶ τὴν γνώμην

καὶ τὸ σῶμα διαφθαρείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ μάγου τούτου, καὶ ἐξακολουθησάσης

αὐτῷ πολλῷ τῷ χρίνῳ. ἔπειτα, μετὰ πολλοῦ κόπου τῶν ἀδελφῶν

ἐπιστρεψάντων, αὐτὴ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἐξομολογουμένη διετέλεσε,

πενθοῦσα καὶ θρηνοῦσα ἐφ᾽ ἡ ἔπαθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ μάγου διαφθορᾷ.——III. iv.

3. Κέρδων δὲ ὁ πρὸ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ Ὕγίνου, ὃς ἦν ἔνατος

ἐπίσκοπος, εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐλθὼν, καὶ ἐξομολογούμενος, οὕτως

διετέλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν λαθροδιδασκαλῶν, ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἐξομολογούμενος,

ποτὲ δὲ ἐλενχόμενος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐδίδασκε κακῶς, καὶ ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν

ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας.

447 Fragm. vii. Τὸ δὲ ἐν Κυριακῇ μὴ κλίνειν γόνυ, σύμβολόν ἐστι τῆς

ἀναστάσεως, δι᾽ ἧς τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χάριτι, τῶν τε ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ τοῦ

ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τεθανατωμένου θανάτου ἠλευθερώθημεν. Ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν δὲ

χρόνων ἡ τοιαύτη συνήθεια ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν· καθώς φήσιν ὁ μακάριος

Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυρ καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα

λόγῳ· ἐν ᾦ μέμνηται καὶ περὶ τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς, ἐν ᾗ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ,

ἐπειδὴ ἰσοδυναμεῖ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς Κυριακῆς, κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν περὶ

αὐτῆς αἰτίαν. This is a quotation from the _Quæstiones et

Responsiones ad Orthodoxos_, formerly attributed to Justin Martyr, §

115. We learn from Basil the great, (_de Spiritu Sancto_, 27.) that

the whole space from Easter to Whitsunday was called _Pentecost_.

448 Frag. iii. Οὐ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστιν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ

καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας· οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται μίαν

ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν· οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ καὶ πλείονας· οἱ δὲ

τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμάραν

αὐτῶν. Καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων, οὐ νῦν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν

γεγονυῖα, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, τῶν παρὰ τὸ

ἀκριβὲς, ὡς εἰκὸς, κρατούντων, τὴν καθ᾽ ἀπλότητα καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν

συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετάπειτα πεποιηκότων. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον πάντες

οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε, καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καὶ ἡ διαφωνία

τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὀμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι.

449 Beverigii _Annotationes in Canones Apostolicos_. In Can. lxix.

Τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστήν.

Codices quibus usus est Valesius, eodem modo, quo nos jam

transcripsimus, legunt atque interpungunt.... Et huic quidem

lectioni favit Σύνοψις τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς ἱστορίας, in quam Beatus

Rhenanus in præf. ad Ruffinum se incidisse refert, ubi hæc Irenæi

verba sic citantur, seu potius explicantur: Οἱ μὲν γὰρ μίαν μόνον

ἡμέραν ἐνήστευον, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ πλείονας· οἱ δὲ μʹ ὥρας μόνας

ἡμερινὰς καὶ νυκτερινὰς, ὥραν ἀντὶ ἡμέρας, νηστεύοντες. Quod etiam

observatum est a doctissimo nostro Petro Gunning jam episcopo

Cicestriensi in appendice ad tractatum de paschali jejunio. Verum

multa sunt quæ huic lectioni refragantur. Ut alia omittam, quis miri

hujus jejunii quadraginta horis commensurati, e veteribus præsertim,

meminit? Quadraginta dierum jejunio nihil in antiquis scriptoribus

frequentius occurrit ; at de quadraginta horarum jejunio altum iis

silentium. Porro aliud quoque in his verbis, sic interpunctis, æque

si non magis inauditum observare licet, _diem_ viz. _quadraginta

horis diurnis ac nocturnis commensuratum_. Quo nihil absurdius

excogitari potest: ac proinde Valesius pro ἡμέραν substituendum

putat νηστείαν, ut non dies, sed jejunium quadraginta horis

commensuretur. Hanc autem violenter introductam verborum

commutationem contra unanimem omnium codicum consensum docti nunquam

admittent ; præcipue cum e verbis ipsis, ut in omnibus codicibus

leguntur, et in nonnullis distinguuntur, verior et ecclesiæ

primitivæ ritibus magis consonus sensus elucescat: nimirum Johannes

Christophorsonus et Henricus Savilius hunc Irenæi locum sic

distinxerunt ; ... τεσσαράκοντα. ὥρας τε ἡμερινὰς καὶ νυκτερινὰς

συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. Sic etiam legit et distinxit olim

Ruffinus, qui sic vertit: “Quidam enim putant uno tantum die

observari debere jejunium, alii duobus, alii vero pluribus, nonnulli

etiam quadraginta ; ita ut horas diurnas nocturnasque computantes

diem statuant.” Quibus verbis nihil aliud indigitatur, quam quod hi

uno, illi duobus, alii pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta diebus

jejunarunt ; omnes autem unamquamque diem, quam jejunii peregerunt,

per nocturnas æque ac diurnas horas emensi sunt ; ut nulla hora vel

diei vel noctis, usque ad numeri dierum, quos sibi constituerant,

exitum, jejunium solverent. Contra hanc expositionem H. Valesius duo

objicit: primo, quod hinc necessario consequetur, eos qui xl dies

jejunabant, toto illo tempore nihil prorsus comedisse, quando quidem

horas tam diurnas quam nocturnas jejunio deputabant. Respondeo,

nihil minus quam hoc ex dicta expositione consequi: in jejuniis enim

celebrandis, præsertim hoc paschali, non ab omni prorsus alimento,

ut cuique notum est, sed a carnibus tantum vel aliis fortasse

nonnullis ciborum generibus abstinebant ; at reliquis vesci licebat.

Hoc egregie confirmatur ex concil. Laod. can. 50, quo dicitur δεῖ

πᾶσαν τὴν τεσσαρακοστὴν νηστεύειν ξηροφαγοῦντας. Hic enim per totam

quadragesimam, ac proinde nocturnas æque ac diurnas horas, jejunare

præcipitur ; et tamen aridis vesci permittitur ; vel potius per istius

modi ξηροφαγίαν, sive aridorum esum, totum hoc quadragesimale

jejunium celebrari constituitur. Alterum, quod objicit, est, quod

cum Irenæus dixerit, alios uno die, alios biduo, alios vero pluribus

diebus jejunare, quid necesse est addere alios 40 dies jejunare, cum

in eo quod plures dies dixit, quadraginta satis comprehendantur.

Respondeo, quod etiamsi nonnullos plures quam duos dies jejunare

dixerat, non tamen superfluum erat, eorum etiam, qui xl dies

jejunabant, mentionem facere. Cum enim a minimo jejunio, viz. unius

diei, inceperit, quidni in maximum quoque expresse desineret, ut

maximus viz. dierum numerus, quem quispiam in jejuniis observabat,

æque ac minimus innotesceret?

450 _Of Fasting in Lent_, ch. xvi. p. 143.

451 _Discourse of Lent_, Part I. ch. 3.

452 _Catholick Appeal_, II. 24. p. 304.

453 _Ductor Dubitantium_, III. 4. p. 631.

454 _Antiquities_, XXI. i. 2.

455 Post τεσσαράκοντα interpungunt Christophorsonus, Savilius,

Strothius, præeunte Ruffino, nulla codicum auctoritate. Totum locum

οἱ δὲ ... αὐτῶν uno tenore sine interpunctura legunt C. F. Virgulam

post οἱ δὲ, item post νυκτερινὰς, ponunt Steph. A: eandem post ὥρας

ponunt B. D. Nicephorus μʹ pro τεσσαράκοντα legit, quod alterutri

interpretationi favere posset:—τε post ἡμερινὰς om. Steph. Stroth.

A. E:—αἷς post νυκτερινὰς add. M. Grut. Cast.—ὥρας τε legit

c.—BURTON in loco, in the last Oxford edition of Eusebius.——C. and

E. are of the tenth century.

456 Οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται, &c. Similiter Sæc. III. Dionysius Alexandrinus

de jejunii Ante‐Paschalis differentia scripsit in Epistola ad

Basilidem. Μηδὲ τὰς ἒξ τῶν νηστείων ἡμέρας ἴσως, μηδὲ ὁμοίως πάντες

διαμένουσιν· ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν καὶ πάσας ὑπερτιθέασιν, ἄσιτοι

διατελοῦντες, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς, οἱ δὲ τέσσαρας, οἱ δὲ

οὐδεμίαν. Et Epiphanius in Expositione fidei Catholicæ, libris

contra Hæreses subnexa, postquam de jejunio quartæ et sextæ feriæ,

et Quadragesimali dixerat, ad jejunium Ante‐Paschale, quod in

Canonibus Timothei Alexandrini vocatur, ἡ νηστεία τοῦ πάσχα,

progreditur, aitque fideles per hebdomadam Pascha præcedentem solo

pane et aqua vesci ad vesperam, et addit: Ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ σπουδαῖοι

διπλᾶς καὶ τριπλᾶς καὶ τετραπλᾶς ὑπερτιθέασι, καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα

τινὲς ἄχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κλανγῆς τῆς Κυριακῆς ἐπιφωσκούσης. In quibus

ὑπέρθεσις et νηστεία distinguuntur: et jejunare quidem dicuntur, qui

post abstinentiam totius diei vespere tenui fruuntur cibo ;

ὑπερτιθέναι vero, qui nec vespera ullam sumunt refectionem, sed

omnino abstinent, sive una, sive pluribus diebus, usque ad terminum

jejunii, Paschale scilicet mane, quod a galli cantu incipit.

457 _Antiquities_, XXI. i. 25.

458 _Constit. Apost._ V. 18. Τὴν παρασκευὴν καὶ τὸ σάββατον ὀλόκληρον

νηστεύσατε, οἷς δύναμις πρόσεστι τοιαύτη, μηδενὸς γευόμενοι μέχρις

ἀλεκτοροφωνίας νυκτός· εἰ δὲ τις ἀδυνατεῖ τὰς δύο συνάπτειν ὁμοῦ,

φυλασσέσθω κᾂν τὸ σάββατον.

459 Chrysost. _Contra Judæos_, III. § 4. p. 611. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν

νηστεύομέν, φησι, τὰς τεσσαράκοντα ταύτας ἡμέρας; Πολλοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν

τοῖς μυστηρίοις προσῄεσαν ἁπλῶς καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν

καιρὸν τοῦτον, καθ᾽ ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτὰ παρέδωκε. Συνειδότες οὖν οἱ

πατέρες τὴν βλάβην τὴν γινομένην ἐκ τῆς ἠμελημένης προσόδου,

συνελθόντες ἐτύπωσαν ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα νηστείαις, εὐχῶν,

ἀκροάσεως, συνόδων· ἵν᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις καθαρθέντες μετ᾽

ἀκριβείας ἅπαντες καὶ δι᾽ εὐχῶν, καὶ δι᾽ ἐλεημοσύνης, καὶ διὰ

νηστείας, καὶ διὰ παννυχίδων, καὶ διὰ δακρύων, καὶ δι᾽

ἐξομολογήσεως, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων, οὕτω κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν

ἡμετέραν μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος προσίωμεν.

460 Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

461 III. xv. 2. Hi enim ad multitudinem, propter eos qui sunt ab

ecclesia, quos communes ecclesiasticos ipsi dicunt, inferunt

sermones per quos capiunt simpliciores.

462 Bingham, _Antiquities_, XX. ii. 3. “St. Austin, or whoever was the

author of the _Sermons de Tempore_, (_Hom._ 251, _de Tempore_, T.

10, p. 307.) says, ‘The Apostles transferred the observation of the

Sabbath to the Lord’s day.’ ”——Clement of Alexandria gives

indications of the same idea, where he says that “to all appearance

the eighth day is likely to become the proper seventh day, and the

seventh the sixth ; so that the former will be the proper sabbath,

and the seventh a working day.”—Κινδυνεύει γὰρ ἡ μὲν ὀγδοὰς ἑβδομάς

εἶναι κυρίως, ἑξὰς δὲ ἡ ἑβδομὰς κατά γε τὸ ἐμφανές· καὶ ἡ μὲν κυρίως

εἶναι σάββατον, ἐργάτις δὲ ἡ ἑβδομάς.

463 IV. xvi. 2. See p. 119, note 4. See also Justin Martyr, _Dial. cum

Tryph._ 19. 27. 43.

464 _Dial. cum Tryph._ 10. He represents Tryphon charging the Christians

with neglecting circumcision, the feasts, and the sabbath ; which

charge he admits, and argues against the necessity of them.

465 Bingham’s _Antiquities_, XX. iii. 1.

466 Can. 29. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς Ἰουδαΐζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ

σχολάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ· τὴν δὲ Κυριακὴν

προτιμῶντες, εἴγε δύναιντο, σχολάζειν ὡς Χριστιανοί. εἰ δὲ εὑρεθεῖεν

Ἰουδαïσταὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα παρὰ Χριστῷ.

467 Can. 49. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἄρτον προσφέρειν, εἰ μὴ ἐν

Σαββάτῳ καὶ Κυριακῇ μόνον.

468 Gen. viii. 10. 12. xxix. 27.

469 See pp. 118, 119.

470 IV. xvi. 1. Hoc idem de sabbatis Ezechiel Propheta ait: “Et sabbata

mea dedi eis, ut sint in signo inter me et ipsos, ut sciant quoniam

ego Dominus, qui sanctifico eos.” Et in Exodo Deus ait ad Moysem:

“Et sabbata mea observabitis: erit enim signum apud me vobis in

generationes vestras.” In signo ergo data sunt hæc: non autem sine

symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque otiosa, tanquam

quæ a sapiente Artifice darentur ; sed secundum carnem circumcisio

circumcisionem significabat spiritalem. Etenim “nos,” ait Apostolus,

“circumcisi sumus circumcisione non manufacta.” Et Propheta ait:

“Circumcidite duritiam cordis vestri.” Sabbata autem perseverantiam

totius diei [i. e. _omni tempore_. See below] erga Deum

deservitionis edocebant. “Æstimati enim sumus,” ait Apostolus

Paulus, “tota die ut oves occisionis ; ” scilicet consecrati, et

ministrantes omni tempore fidei nostræ, et perseverantes ei, et

abstinentes ab omni avaritia, non acquirentes, nec possidentes

thesauros in terra. Manifestabatur autem et tanquam de [post] ea quæ

facta sunt requietio Dei ; hoc est, Regnum, in quo requiescens homo

ille qui perseveraverit Deo adsistere, participabit de mensa Dei.

471 V. xxviii. 3. Ὅσαις enim ἡμέραις ἐγένετο ὁ κόσμος, τοσαύταις

χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται. καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἡ γραφή· Καὶ

συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν. καὶ

συνετέλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ εʹ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἅ ἐποίησε, καὶ

κατάπαυσεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ζʹ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ.

Τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις, καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων προφητεία.

ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς α͵ ἔτη· ἐν ἓξ οὖν ἡμέραις συντετελέσται τὰ

γεγονότα· φανερὸν οὖν, ὅτι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτῶν τὸ δ͵ ἔτος ἐστίν. See

the Epistle of Barnabas, § 11. quoted p. 250.

472 V. xxviii. 2. Referring to Luke xiv. 12, 13, and Matt. xix. 29, he

says, “Hæc sunt in Regni temporibus, hoc est, in septima die quæ est

sanctificata, in qua requievit Deus ab omnibus operibus quæ fecit ;

quæ est verum justorum sabbatum ; in qua non facient omne terrenum

opus, sed adjacentem habebunt paratam mensam a Deo, pascentem eos

epulis omnibus.”

473 IV. viii. 2. Manifestum est igitur, quoniam eos qui similiter ut

Abraham credebant ei, solvit et vivificavit, nihil extra Legem

faciens, curans in die sabbatorum. Non enim prohibebat Lex curari

homines sabbatis, quæ et circumcidebat eos in hac die, et pro populo

jubebat ministeria Sacerdotibus perficere ; sed et mutorum animalium

curationem non prohibebat. Et Siloa etiam sæpe sabbatis curavit: et

propter hoc assidebant ei multi die sabbatorum. Continere enim

jubebat eos Lex ab omni opere servili, id est, ab omni avaritia, quæ

per negotiationem, et reliquo terreno actu agitur: animæ autem

opera, quæ fiunt per sententiam et sermones bonos, in auxilium eorum

qui proximi sunt, adhortabatur fieri. Et propter hoc Dominus

arguebat eos, qui injuste exprobrabant ei, quia sabbatis curabat.

Non enim solvebat, sed adimplebat Legem, summi Sacerdotis operam

perficiens, propitians pro hominibus Deum, et emundans leprosos,

infirmos curans, et ipse moriens, uti exsiliatus homo exiret de

condemnatione, et reverteretur intrepide ad suam hæreditatem.—3. Sed

et esurientes accipere sabbatis escam ex his quæ adjacebant, non

vetabat Lex: metere autem et colligere in horreum vetabat. Et ideo

Dominus his, qui incusabant discipulos ejus, quoniam vellentes

spicas manducabant, dixit: “Nec hoc legistis, quod fecit David, cum

esurisset, quemadmodum introivit in domum Dei, et panes

propositionis manducavit, et dedit eis qui cum eo erant, quos non

licebat manducare, nisi solis Sacerdotibus?” per Legis verba suos

discipulos excusans, et significans licere Sacerdotibus libere

agere. Sacerdos autem scitus fuerat David apud Deum, quamvis Saul

persequutionem faceret ei. Πᾶς enim βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει

τάξιν. Sacerdotes autem sunt omnes Domini Apostoli, qui neque agros,

neque domos hæreditant hic, sed semper altari et Deo serviunt.... Et

Sacerdotes in Templo sabbatum prophanabant, et rei non erant. Quare

ergo rei non erant? Quia cum essent in Templo, non sæcularia sed

Dominica perficiebant ministeria, Legem adimplentes, non autem

prætereuntes Legem, quemadmodum is qui a semetipso arida ligna

attulit in castra Domini ; qui et juste lapidatus est.

474 We have various indications of the observance of the Lord’s day in

early writers. Thus Ignatius (_Ad Magnes._ 9.) speaks of “the

ancient prophets leading lives in harmony with the Lord’s day.”

Μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ

ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. Here there is an evident allusion to

_some_ way in which that day was spent, in contradistinction to the

Jewish Sabbath.—The Epistle of Barnabas, written not far from

Apostolical times, speaks of it as a festival: Ἀγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν

ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν.—Justin

Martyr, again, (_Apol._ II. 67.) describes the practice of

assembling for instruction, worship, and communion on that day, and

affirms that our Lord, when he appeared to his disciples on Easter

day, taught them to observe the day in this manner. Καὶ τῇ μετὰ τὴν

Κρονικὴν, ἥτις ἐστιν Ἡλίου ἡμέρα, φανεὶς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ

μαθηταῖς, ἐδίδαξε ταῦτα.—A little later Dionysius of Corinth speaks

of “celebrating the Lord’s holy day.” Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν

ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν.—So Clement, as I showed above (p. 211, note 1),

informs us that in his time the Lord’s day appeared likely to be

regarded as the proper sabbath.—Further on we find the Council of

Laodicea (see p. 213, note 5) directing Christians to rest by

preference on the Lord’s day, and not on the Sabbath.—Finally, we

may see in Bingham (_Antiq._ XX. ii. 2, 3, 4.) how, as Christianity

became established, business, labour, and public sports were

forbidden by public authority ; which proves of course what had been

the practice of Christians themselves before their religion obtained

the sanction of the civil power.

475 IV. xxxiv. 4. “Vide enim,” inquit, “quomodo justus perit, et nemo

intuetur ; et viri justi tolluntur, et nemo excipit corde.” Hæc autem

in Abel quidem præmeditabantur, a prophetis vero præconabantur, in

Domino autem perficiebantur.

476 Frag. xvii. Ἐν μὲν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ προετυπώθη.

477 IV. xxiv. 1. Primogenitum mortuorum, et principem vitæ Dei, eum qui

per extensionem manuum dissolvebat Amalech, et vivificabat hominem

de serpentis plaga per fidem, quæ erat in eum.——Justin Martyr

(_Tryph._ 90.) expresses the same idea more fully ; and remarks as

confirmatory of the typical signification of the posture of Moses,

that it was altogether unusual as a posture of prayer, and indeed

adopted by him on no other occasion, nor by any one since his time.

478 Ibid.

479 IV. xx. 12. Sic autem et Moyses Æthiopissam accipiebat uxorem, quam

ipse Israelitidem fecit ; præsignificans, quoniam oleaster inseritur

in olivam, et participans pinguedinis ejus erit. Quoniam enim is qui

secundum carnem natus est Christus, a populo quidem habebat inquiri

ut occideretur, liberari vero in Ægypto, id est, in Gentibus,

sanctificare eos qui ibi essent infantes, unde et Ecclesiam ibi

perfecit ; (Ægyptus enim ab initio gentilis, quemadmodum et Æthiopia)

propter hoc διὰ τοῦ γάμου Μωüσέως ὁ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ νοητὸς γάμος

ἐδείκνυτο, καὶ διὰ τῆς Αἰθιοπικῆς νύμφης, ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐκκλησία

ἐδηλοῦτο· ἣν οἱ καταλαλοῦντες, καὶ ἐνδιαβάλλοντες, καὶ διαμωκώμενοι,

οὐκ ἔσονται καθαροί. λεπρήσουσι γὰρ, καὰ ἐξαφορισθήσονται τῆς τῶν

δικαίων παρεμβολῆς.

480 IV. xxv. 2. Hoc et per alia quidem multa, jam vero et per Thamar

Judæ nurum typice ostenditur. Cum enim concepisset geminos, alter

eorum prior protulit manum suam: et cum obstetrix putaret eum

primogenitum esse, coccinum alligavit signum in manu ejus. Cum hoc

autem factum esset, et abstraxisset manum suam, prior exivit frater

ejus Phares ; sic deinde secundus ille, in quo erat coccinum, Zara:

clare manifestante Scriptura eum quidem populum qui habet coccinum

signum, id est, eam fidem quæ est in præputio, præostensam quidem

primum in Patriarchis, post deinde subtractam, uti nasceretur frater

ejus ; deinde sic eum, qui prior esset, secundo loco natum, qui est

cognitus per signum coccinum, quod erat in eo ; quod est passio

Justi, ab initio præfigurata in Abel, et descripta a Prophetis,

perfecta vero in novissimis temporibus in Filio Dei.

481 IV. xxxi. 1. Quemadmodum et Lot, qui eduxit de Sodomis filias suas,

quæ conceperunt de patre suo, et qui reliquit in circumfinio uxorem

suam statuam salis usque in hodiernum diem. Etenim Lot non ex sua

voluntate, neque ex sua concupiscentia carnali, neque sensum neque

cogitationem hujusmodi accipiens, consummavit typum. Quemadmodum

Scriptura dicit: “Et intravit major natu, et dormivit cum patre suo

illa ; et non scivit Lot cum dormiret illa, et cum surgeret:” et in

minore hoc idem: “Et non scivit,” inquit, “cum dormisset secum, nec

cum surrexisset:” μὴ εἰδότος τοῦ Λὼτ, μηδὲ ἡδονῇ δουλεύσαντος,

οἰκονομία ἐπετελεῖτο, δι᾽ ἧς αἱ δύο filiæ, id est, duæ συναγωγαὶ ἀπὸ

ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς τεκνοποιησάμεναι ἐμηνύοντο ἄνευ σαρκὸς

ἠδονῆς. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄλλος οὐδεὶς σπέρμα ζωτικὸν καὶ τέκνων ἐπικαρπίαν

δυνάμενος δοῦναι αὐταῖς, καθὼς γέγραπται· “Dixit autem major ad

minorem ; Pater noster senior est, et nemo est super terram qui

intret ad nos, ut oportet omni terræ: veni, potionemus patrem

nostrum vino, et dormiamus cum eo, ut suscitemus de patre nostro

semen.”—2. Illæ quidem filiæ secundum simplicitatem et innocentiam

putantes universos homines perisse, quemadmodum Sodomitas, et in

universam terram iracundiam Dei supervenisse, dicebant hæc.

Quapropter et ipsæ excusabiles sunt, arbitrantes se solas relictas

cum patre suo ad conservationem generis humani, et propter hoc

circumveniebant patrem. Per verba autem earum significabatur,

neminem esse alterum qui possit filiorum generationem majori et

minori synagogæ præstare, quam Patrem nostrum. Pater autem generis

humani Verbum Dei ; quemadmodum Moyses ostendit dicens: “Nonne hic

ipse Pater tuus possedit te, et fecit te, et creavit te?” Quando

igitur hic vitale semen, id est, Spiritum remissionis peccatorum per

quem vivificamur, effudit in humanum genus? Nonne tunc cum

convescebatur cum hominibus, et bibebat vinum in terra? “Venit”

enim, inquit, “filius hominis manducans et bibens:” et cum

recubuisset, obdormivit, et somnum cepit. Quemadmodum ipse in David

dicit: “Ego dormivi et somnum cepi.” Et quoniam in nostra

communicatione et vita hoc agebat, iterum ait: “Et somnus meus

suavis mihi factus est.” Totum autem significabatur per Lot, quoniam

semen patris omnium, id est, Spiritus Dei, per quem facta sunt

omnia, commixtus et unitus est carni, hoc est, plasmati suo: per

quam commixtionem et unitatem duæ synagogæ, id est, duæ

congregationes fructificantes ex patre suo filios vivos vivo Deo.

482 Justin Martyr expresses the same sentiment: _Tryph._ 134. Οἰκονομίαι

τινὲς μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἐν ἑκάστῃ τινὶ τοιαύτῃ πράξει ἀπετελοῦντο.

483 Justin M. _Tryph._ 134, ad finem, draws the same parallel. Τὸν

χρόνον πάντα ἐμισεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ὁ Ἰακώβ· καὶ ἡμεῖς νῦν, καὶ

αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν μισεῖται ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπλῶς

ἀνθρώπων, ὄντων πάντων τῇ φύσει ἀδελφῶν.

484 Justin, ibid. Ἐδούλευσεν Ἰακὼβ τῷ Λάβαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ῥαντῶν καὶ

πολυμόρφων θρεμμάτων· ἐδούλευσε καὶ τὴν μέχρι σταυροῦ δουλείαν ὁ

Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐκ παντὸς γένους ποικίλων καὶ πολυειδῶν ἀνθρώπων,

δι᾽ αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ κτησάμενος αὐτούς.

485 Justin, ibid. Ἀλλὰ Λεία μὲν ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ συναγωγή· Ῥαχὴλ δὲ

ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν.

486 Justin, ibid. Εἰς ἀποκατάστασιν ἀμφοτέρων τε τῶν ἐλευθέρων τέκνων

καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς δούλων Χριστὸς ἐλήλυθε, τῶν αὐτῶν πάντας καταξιῶν

τοὺς φυλάσσοντας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ· ὃν τρόπον καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν

ἐλευθέρων καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν δούλων γενόμενοι τῷ Ἰακὼβ πάντες υἱοὶ καὶ

ὁμότιμοι γεγόνασι.

487 IV. xxi. 3. Si quis autem et actus qui sunt Jacob addiscat, inveniet

eos non inanes, sed plenos dispositionum. Et imprimis in nativitate

ejus, quemadmodum apprehendit calcaneum fratris, et Jacob vocatus

est, id est, supplantator ; tenens, et qui non tenetur ; ligans pedes,

sed qui non ligatur ; luctans, et vincens ; tenens in manu calcaneum

adversarii, id est, victoriam. Ad hoc enim nascebatur Dominus, cujus

typum generationis præstabat, de quo et Joannes in Apocalypsi ait:

“Exivit vincens, ut vinceret.” Deinde autem primogenita accipiens,

quando vituperavit ea frater ejus: quemadmodum et junior populus eum

primogenitum Christum accepit, cum eum repulit populus ætate

provectior, dicens: “Non habemus Regem, nisi Cæsarem.” In Christo

autem universa benedictio: et propter hoc benedictiones prioris

populi a Patre subripuit posterior populus, quemadmodum Jacob

abstulit benedictionem hujus Esaü ; ob quam causam fratris patiebatur

insidias et persecutiones frater suus, sicut et Ecclesia hoc idem a

Judæis patitur. Peregre nascebantur XII tribus, genus Israel,

quoniam et Christus peregre incipiebat duodecastylum firmamentum

Ecclesiæ generare. Variæ oves, quæ fiebant, huic Jacob merces: et

Christi merces, qui ex variis et differentibus gentibus in unam

cohortem fidei convenientes fiunt homines, quemadmodum Pater

promisit ei: “Postula,” dicens, “a me, et dabo tibi Gentes

hæreditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terræ.” Et quoniam

multitudinis filiorum Domini Prophetæ fiebat Jacob, necessitas omnis

fuit ex duabus sororibus eum filios facere ; quemadmodum Christus ex

duabus Legibus unius et ejusdem Patris: similiter autem et ex

ancillis ; significans quoniam secundum carnem ex liberis et ex

servis Christus statueret filios Dei, similiter omnibus dans munus

Spiritus vivificantis nos. Omnia autem ille faciebat propter illam

juniorem, bonos oculos habentem, Rachel, quæ præfigurabat Ecclesiam,

propter quam sustinuit Christus: qui tunc quidem per Patriarchas

suos et Prophetas præfigurans et prænuntians futura, præexercens

suam partem dispositionibus Dei, et assuescens hæreditatem suam

obedire Deo, et peregrinari in sæculo, et sequi verbum ejus, et

præsignificare futura. Nihil enim vacuum, neque sine signo apud

Deum.

488 IV. xx. 12. Sic autem et Raab fornicaria semetipsam quidem

condemnans, quoniam esset gentilis, omnium peccatorum rea, suscepit

autem tres speculatores, qui speculabantur universam terram, et apud

se abscondit, Patrem scilicet et Filium cum Spiritu sancto. Et cum

universa civitas, in qua habitabat, concidisset in ruinam,

canentibus septem tubicinis, in ultimis Raab fornicaria conservata

est cum universa domo sua, fide signi coccini: sicut et Dominus

dicebat his, qui adventum ejus non excipiebant, Pharisæis scilicet,

et coccini signum nullificant, quod erat pascha, redemptio et exodus

populi ex Ægypto, dicens: “Publicani et meretrices præcedunt vos in

Regno cœlorum.”

The same type is acknowledged by Clement of Rome, in his _First

Epistle to the Corinthians_, § 12. Καὶ προσέθεντο αὐτῇ δοῦναι

σημεῖον, ὅπως κρεμάσῃ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῆς κόκκινον, πρόδηλον

ποιοῦντες ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται πᾶσι τοῖς

πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν.——Likewise by Justin,

_Tryph._ 111. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ κοκκίνου σπαρτίου, οὗ ἔδωκαν

... οἱ κατάσκοποι Ῥαὰβ τῇ πόρνῃ, ... ὁμοίως τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ αἵματος

τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδήλου, δι᾽ οὗ οἱ πάλαι πόρνοι καὶ ἄδικοι ἐκ πάντων τῶν

ἐθνῶν σώζονται, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν λαβόντες.

489 Frag. xix. Λάβε πρὸς σεαυτὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν Ναυῆ. Ἔδει γὰρ ἐξ

Αἰγύπτου Μωüσῆν τὸν λαὸν ἐξαγαγεῖν, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῶν εἰς τὴν

κληροδοσίαν εἰσαγαγεῖν· καὶ τὸν μὲν Μωüσῆν, ὡς νόμον, ἀνάπαυλαν

λαμβάνειν, Ἰησοῦν δὲ, ὡς Λόγον, καὶ τοῦ ἐνυποστάτου Λόγου τύπον

ἀψευδῆ, τῷ λαῷ δημηγορεῖν· καὶ τὸν μὲν Μωüσῆν τὸ μάννα τοῖς πατράσι

τροφὴν διδόναι, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν τὸν νέον ἄρτι [rather ἄρτον], τὴν

ἀπαρχὴν τῆς ζωῆς, τύπον τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ· καθά φησι καὶ ἡ

γραφὴ, ὅτι τότε ἐπαύσατο τὸ μάννα Κυρίου μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν τὸν σῖτον

λαὸν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

Clement of Alexandria, _Protrept._ 9. § 85. & _Pædag._ I. 7. § 60,

makes Joshua a type of Christ, but draws other parallels than those

of Irenæus.

490 Frag. xxiii. Καὶ οὗτος ἐπεβεβήκει ἐπὶ τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ. Ἡ μὲν ὄνος

τύπον εἶχε σώματος Χριστοῦ· ἐφ᾽ ὃν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκ καυμάτων

ἀναπαυόμενοι, ὡς ὑπὸ ὀχήματος βαστάζονται. τὸ γὰρ φορτίον τῶν

ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνεδέξατο.

491 Frag. xxvii. Τὸ μὲν οὖν παιδάριον χειραγωγοῦν τὸν Σαμψὼν

προτυπωθήσεται εἶς Ἰωάννην τὸν Βαπτιστὴν, ἐπιδεικνύντα τῷ λαῷ τὴν

εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν. ὁ δὲ οἶκος, εἰς ὃν ἦσαν συνηγμένοι, σημαίνεται

εἶναι ὁ κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ κατῴκει τὰ ἀλλόφυλα ἔθνη καὶ ἄπιστα, θυσιάζοντα

τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὑτῶν· οἱ δὲ δύο στύλοι, αἱ δύο διαθῆκαι. τὸ οὖν

ἐπαναπαυθῆναι τὸν Σαμψὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς στύλους, τὸν διδαχθένται λαὸν

ἐπιγνῶναι τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστήριον.

492 Acts ii. 31.

493 Luke xvi. 22. xxiii. 43.

494 Phil. i. 23.

495 1 Pet. iii. 19. iv. 6.

496 IV. ii. 4. Non autem fabulam retulit nobis pauperis et divitis.

497 II. xxxiv. 1. Plenissime autem Dominus docuit, non solum

perseverare, non de corpore in corpus transgredientes, animas ; sed

et characterem corporis, in quo etiam adaptantur, custodire eundem,

et meminisse eas operum, quæ egerunt hic, et a quibus cessaverunt,

in ea relatione, quæ scribitur de divite et de Lazaro eo, qui

refrigerabat in sinu Abrahæ: in qua ait, divitem cognoscere Lazarum

post mortem, et Abraham autem similiter, et manere in suo ordine

unumquemque ipsorum, et postulare mitti ei ad opem ferendam Lazarum,

cui ne quidem de mensæ suæ amicis communicabat: et de Abrahæ

responso, qui non tantum ea, quæ secundum se, sed et quæ secundum

divitem essent, sciebat ; et præcipiebat Moysi assentire et Prophetis

eos, qui non mallent pervenire in illum locum pœnæ, et recipientes

præconium ejus, qui resurrexerit a mortuis. Per hæc enim manifeste

declaratum est, et perseverare animas, et non de corpore in corpus

transire, et habere hominis figuram, ut etiam cognoscantur, et

meminerint eorum, quæ sint hic ; et propheticum quoque adesse Abrahæ,

et dignam habitationem unamquamque gentem percipere, etiam ante

judicium.

498 V. xxxi. 2. Si ergo Dominus legem mortuorum servavit, ut fieret

primogenitus a mortuis, et commoratus usque in tertiam diem in

inferioribus terræ ; post deinde surgens in carne, ut etiam fixuras

clavorum ostenderet discipulis, sic ascendit ad Patrem ; quomodo non

confundantur, qui dicunt inferos quidem esse hunc mundum, qui sit

secundum nos ; interiorem autem hominem ipsorum derelinquentem hic

corpus, in supercœlestem ascendere locum? Cum enim Dominus “in medio

umbræ mortis abierit,” ubi animæ mortuorum erant, post deinde

corporaliter resurrexit, et post resurrectionem assumptus est ;

manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et hæc

operatus est Dominus, Αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὸν τόπον invisibilem

τὸν ὡρισμένον αὐταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἀκεῖ μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως

φοιτῶσι, περιμένουσαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν· ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι τὰ σώματα,

καὶ ὀλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτέστι σωματικῶς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος

ἀνέστη, οὕτως ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴς ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. “Nemo enim est

discipulus super magistrum: perfectus autem omnis erit sicut

magister ejus.” Quomodo ergo Magister noster non statim evolans

abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre resurrectionis suæ tempus,

(quod et per Jonam manifestatum est,) post triduum resurgens

assumptus est ; sic et nos sustinere debemus definitum a Deo

resurrectionis nostræ tempus, prænuntiatum a Prophetis, et sic

resurgentes assumi, quotquot Dominus ad hoc dignos habuerit.——So

Clement of Rome (_Ad Corr._ I. 50) affirms that “they who have

departed, fully established in love, enjoy the place of the

just”—χώραν εὐσεβῶν.

499 V. v. 1. Ὅπουγε Ἐνὼχ εὐαρεστήσας τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν σώματι μετετέθη, τὴν

μετάθεσιν τῶν δικαίων προμηνύων· καὶ Ἡλίας, ὡς ἦν, ἐν τῇ τοῦ

πλάσματος ὑποστάσει ἀνελήφθη, τὴν ἀνάληψιν τῶν πνευματικῶν

προφητεύων, κ.τ.λ. ... Διὸ καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, τῶν

ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ, τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἐκεῖσε [that is, to paradise]

μετατεθῆναι· (δικαίοις γὰρ ἀνθρώποις καὶ πνευματοφόροις ἠτοιμάσθη ὁ

παράδεισος, ἐν ᾧ καὶ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος εἰσκομισθεὶς ἤκουσεν ἄρῥητα

ῥήματα, ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ παρόντι·) κἀκεῖ μένειν τοὺς μετατεθέντας

ἕως συντελείας, προοιμιαζομένους τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν.

500 III. xix. 3. Ut quemadmodum caput resurrexit a mortuis, sic et

reliquum corpus omnis hominis, qui invenitur in vita, impleto

tempore condemnationis ejus, quæ erat propter inobedientiam,

resurgat.

501 V. ix. 2. Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii

ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei, hi

tales juste homines dicentur, et mundi et spiritales et viventes

Deo ; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in

vitam Dei.... Infirmitas enim carnis absorpta potentem ostendit

spiritum ; spiritus autem rursus absorbens infirmitatem, hæreditate

possidet carnem in se: et ex utrisque factus est vivens homo ; vivens

quidem propter participationem Spiritus, homo autem propter

substantiam carnis.——3. Ubi autem Spiritus Patris ibi homo vivens,

sanguis rationalis ad ultionem a Deo custoditus, caro a Spiritu

possessa, oblita quidem sui, qualitatem autem spiritus assumens,

conformis facta Verbo Dei.

502 V. vii. 1. Et iterum ad Romanos ait: “Si autem Spiritus ejus qui

suscitavit Jesum a mortuis habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Christum

a mortuis vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra.”——2. Hæc sunt enim

corpora mortalia, id est, participantia animæ, quam cum amiserint,

mortificantur ; deinde per Spiritum surgentia fiunt corpora

spiritualia, uti per Spiritum semper permanentem habeant vitam.

503 IV. xxvii. 2. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea, quæ sunt sub terra,

descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum suum ; remissione

peccatorum exsistente his qui credunt in eum. Crediderunt autem in

eum omnes qui sperabant in eum, id est, qui adventum ejus

prænuntiaverunt, et dispositionibus ejus servierunt, justi et

prophetæ et patriarchæ ; quibus similiter ut nobis remisit peccata.

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ VI. 6. § 44. Διόπερ ὁ Κύριος εὐηγγελίσατο καὶ

τοῖς ἐν Ἅιδου.——45. Φησὶ γοῦν ἡ γραφή· Λέγει ὁ Ἅιδης τῇ ἀπολείᾳ·

Εἶδος μὲν αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἴδομεν, φωνὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ ἠκούσαμεν.... Τί δ᾽ οὐχὶ

δηλοῦσιν εὐηγγελίσθαι τὸν Κύριον τοῖς τε ἀπολωλόσιν ἐν τῷ

κατακλυσμῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ πεπεδημένοις καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ τε καὶ φρουρᾷ

συνεχομένοις.——Tertullian _de Anima_, 55. Christus Deus, quia et

homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secus easdem, huic

quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanæ mortis apud inferos functus ;

nec ante ascendit in sublimiora cœlorum, quam descendit in inferiora

terrarum, ut illic patriarchas et prophetas compotes sui

faceret.—See also Cyril of Jerusalem, _Catech._ xiv. 18, 19.

504 V. xxiv. 4. See p. 107, note 1.

505 Book V. chapter xxv. to the end.

506 The five last chapters of the Fifth Book are wanting in all but two

MSS.

507 V. xxv. 1. Et non tantum autem per ea quæ dicta sunt, sed et per ea

quæ erunt sub Antichristo, ostenditur, quoniam existens apostata et

latro, quasi Deus vult adorari ; et cum sit servus, Regem se vult

præconari. Ille enim omnem suscipiens diaboli virtutem, veniet non

quasi Rex justus, nec quasi in subjectione Dei legitimus ; sed impius

et injustus et sine lege, quasi apostata et iniquus et homicida,

quasi latro, diabolicam apostasiam in se recapitulans: et idola

quidem seponens, ad suadendum quod ipse sit Deus ; se autem extollens

unum idolum, habens in semetipso reliquorum idolorum varium errorem:

ut hi qui per multas abominationes adorant diabolum, hi per hoc unum

idolum serviant ipsi, de quo Apostolus in epistola, quæ est ad

Thessalonicenses secunda, sic ait: “Quoniam nisi venerit abscessio

primum, et revelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius perditionis, qui

adversatur et extollit se super omne quod dicitur Deus, aut colitur ;

ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, ostendens semetipsum tanquam sit Deus.”

Manifeste igitur Apostolus ostendit apostasiam ejus, et quoniam

extollitur super omne quod dicitur Deus, vel quod colitur, hoc est,

super omne idolum, (hi enim sunt qui dicuntur quidem ab hominibus,

non sunt autem, Dii,) et quoniam ipse se tyrannico more conabitur

ostendere Deum.

508 V. xxv. 2. Super hæc autem manifestavit et illud, quod a nobis per

multa ostensum est, quoniam in Hierosolymis templum dispositione

veri Dei factum est. Ipse enim Apostolus ex sua persona diffinitive

templum illud dixit Dei. Ostendimus autem in tertio libro, nullum ab

Apostolis ex sua persona Deum appellari, nisi eum qui vere sit Deus,

Patrem Domini nostri: cujus jussu hoc, quod est in Hierosolymis,

factum est templum, ob eas causas quæ a nobis dictæ sunt: in quo

adversarius sedebit, tentans semetipsum Christum ostendere, sicut et

Dominus ait: “Cum autem videritis abominationem desolationis, quod

dictum est per Danielem Prophetam, stantem in loco sancto, (qui

legit, intelligat,) tunc qui in Judæa sunt, fugiant in montes: et

qui in tecto est, non descendat tollere quidquam de domo. Erit enim

tunc pressura magna, qualis non est facta ab initio sæculi usque

nunc, sed neque fiet.”—4. Et Dominus autem hoc item non credentibus

sibi dicebat: “Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non recepistis me ;

cum alius venerit in nomine suo, illum recipietis:” alium dicens

Antichristum, qui alienus est a Domino. Et ipse est “iniquus judex,”

qui a Domino dictus est, quoniam “Deum non timebat, neque hominem

reverebatur,” ad quem fugit vidua oblita Dei, id est, terrena

Hierusalem, ad ulciscendum de inimico. Quod et faciet in tempore

regni sui: transferet regnum in eam, et in templo Dei sedet

[sedebit], seducens eos qui adorant eum, quasi ipse sit Christus.

Quapropter ait Daniel iterum: “Et sanctum desolabitur: et datum est

in sacrificium peccatum, et projecta est in terra justitia, et

fecit, et prospere cessit.”——xxviii. 2. Et propter hoc Apostolus

ait: “Pro eo quod dilectionem Dei non receperunt, ut salvi fierent,

et ideo mittet eos Deus in operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio,

ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt

iniquitati.” Illo enim veniente, et sua sententia apostasiam

recapitulante in semetipsum, et sua voluntate et arbitrio operante

quæcumque operabitur, et in templo Dei sedente, ut sicut Christum

adorent illum qui seducentur ab illo ; quapropter et juste “in

stagnum projicietur ignis:” Deo autem secundum suam providentiam

præsciente omnia, et apto tempore eum, qui talis futurus erat,

immittente, “ut credant falso, et judicentur omnes, qui non

crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.”

509 V. xxv. 4.

510 V. xxv. 3. Daniel autem novissimi regni finem respiciens, (id est,

novissimos decem Reges, in quos dividitur regnum illorum, super quos

filius perditionis veniet,) cornua dicit decem nasci bestiæ ; et

alterum cornu pusillum nasci in medio ipsorum, et tria cornua de

prioribus eradicari a facie ejus. “Et ecce,” inquit, “oculi quasi

oculi hominis in cornu hoc, et os loquens magna, et aspectus ejus

major reliquis. Videbam, et cornu illud faciebat bellum adversus

sanctos, et valebat adversus eos ; quoadusque venit vetustas dierum,

et judicium dedit sanctis altissimi Dei, et tempus pervenit, et

regnum obtinuerunt sancti.” Postea in exsolutione visionum dictum

est ei: “Bestia quarta regnum quartum erit in terra, quod eminebit

super reliqua regna, et manducabit omnem terram, et conculcabit eam,

et concidet. Et decem cornua ejus, decem Reges exsurgent: et post

eos surget alius, qui superabit malis omnes qui ante eum fuerunt, et

Reges tres deminorabit, et verba adversus altissimum Deum loquetur,

et sanctos altissimi Dei conteret, et cogitabit demutare tempora et

Legem: et dabitur in manu ejus, usque ad tempus temporum et dimidium

tempus,” hoc est, per triennium et sex menses, in quibus veniens

regnabit super terram.——xxvi. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de

novissimo tempore, et de his qui sunt in eo decem Regibus, in quos

dividetur quod nunc regnat imperium, significavit Joannes Domini

discipulus in Apocalypsi, edisserens quæ fuerint decem cornua, quæ a

Daniele visa sunt, dicens sic dictum esse sibi: “Et decem cornua quæ

vidisti decem Reges sunt, qui regnum nondum acceperunt, sed

potestatem quasi reges una hora accipient cum bestia. Hi unam

sententiam habent, et virtutem et potestatem suam bestiæ dant. Hi

cum Agno pugnabunt, et Agnus vincet eos, quoniam Dominus Dominorum

est, et Rex Regum.” Manifestum est itaque, quoniam ex his tres

interficiet ille qui venturus est, et reliqui subjicientur ei, et

ipse octavus in eis ; et vastabunt Babylonem, et comburent eam igni,

et dabunt regnum suum bestiæ, et effugabunt Ecclesiam: post deinde

ab adventu Domini nostri destruentur. Quoniam enim oportet dividi

regnum, et sic deperire, Dominus ait: “Omne regnum divisum in se,

desolabitur: et omnis civitas vel domus divisa in se, non stabit.”

Dividi igitur et regnum, et civitatem, et domum oportet in decem: et

propterea jam partitionem et divisionem præfiguravit.

511 V. xxv. 3.

512 V. xxv. 4. Et Gabriel Angelus exsolvens ejus visionem, de hoc ipso

dicebat: “Et in novissimo regni ipsorum exsurget Rex improbus facie

valde, et intelligens quæstiones ; et valida virtus ejus et

admirabilis ; et corrumpet, et diriget, et faciet, et exterminabit

fortes et populum sanctum, et jugum torquis ejus dirigetur: dolus in

manu ejus, et in corde suo exaltabitur, et dolo disperdet multos, et

ad perditionem multorum stabit, et quomodo ova manu conteret.”

Deinde et tempus tyrannidis ejus significat, in quo tempore

fugabuntur Sancti, qui purum sacrificium offerunt Domino: “Et in

dimidio hebdomadis,” ait, “tolletur sacrificium et libatio, et in

Templum abominatio desolationis, et usque ad consummationem temporis

consummatio dabitur super desolationem ; ” dimidium autem hebdomadis

tres sunt anni et menses sex.

513 V. xxvi. 1. Et diligenter Daniel finem quarti Regni digitos ait

pedum esse ejus imaginis, quæ a Nabuchodonosor visa est, in quos

venit lapis sine manibus præcisus ; et quemadmodum ipse ait: “Pedes,

pars quidem aliqua ferrea, et pars aliqua fictilis ; quoadusque

abscissus est lapis sine manibus, et percussit imaginem in pedes

ferreos et fictiles, et comminuit eos usque ad finem.” Post deinde

in exsolutione ait: “Et quoniam vidisti pedes et digitos, partem

quidem fictilem, partem autem ferream, regnum divisum erit, et a

radice ferrea erit in eo, quemadmodum vidisti ferrum commixtum

testæ. Et digiti pedum, pars quidem aliqua ferrea, pars autem aliqua

fictilis.” Ergo decem digiti pedum, hi sunt decem Reges, in quibus

dividetur regnum: ex quibus quidam quidem fortes et agiles, sive

efficaces ; alii autem pigri et inutiles erunt, et non consentient:

quemadmodum et Daniel ait: “Pars aliqua regni erit fortis, et ab

ipsa pars erit minuta. Quoniam vidisti ferrum commixtum testæ,

commixtiones erunt in semine hominum, et non erunt adjuncti invicem,

quemadmodum ferrum non commiscetur cum testa.” Et quoniam finis

fiet, inquit: “Et in diebus Regum illorum excitabit Deus cœli

Regnum, quod in æternum non corrumpetur, et Regnum ejus alteri

populo non relinquetur. Comminuet et ventilabit omnia regna, et

ipsum exaltabitur in æternum. Quemadmodum vidisti, quoniam de monte

præcisus est lapis sine manibus, et comminuit testam, ferrum, et

æramentum, et argentum, et aurum. Deus magnus significavit Regi, quæ

futura sunt post hæc: et verum est somnium, et fidelis interpretatio

ejus.”—2. Si ergo Deus magnus significavit per Danielem futura, et

per Filium confirmavit ; et Christus est lapis, qui præcisus est sine

manibus, qui destruet temporalia Regna, et æternum inducet, quæ est

justorum resurrectio: “Resuscitabit,” ait, “Deus cœli Regnum, quod

in æternum nunquam corrumpetur.” See also xxvi. 1. p. 243, note.

514 V. xxviii. 2. Cujus adventum Joannes in Apocalypsi significavit ita:

“Et bestia quam videram, similis erat pardo.... Si quis gladio

occiderit, oportet eum in gladio occidi. Hic est sustinentia et

fides sanctorum.” Post deinde et de armigero ejus, quem et

pseudoprophetam vocat: “Loquebatur,” inquit, “quasi draco, et

potestatem primæ bestiæ omnem faciebat in conspectu ejus: et facit

terram, et qui habitant in ea, ut adorarent bestiam primam, cujus

curata est plaga mortis ejus. Et faciet signa magna, ut et ignem

faciat de cœlo descendere in terram in conspectu hominum, et seducet

inhabitantes super terram.” Hæc ne quis eum divina virtute putet

signa facere, sed magica operatione. Et non est mirandum, si

dæmoniis et apostaticis spiritibus ministrantibus ei, per eos faciat

signa, in quibus seducat habitantes super terram. “Et imaginem,”

ait, “jubebit fieri bestiæ, et spiritum dabit imagini, uti et

loquatur imago, et eos qui non adoraverint eam, faciet occidi. Et

characterem autem,” ait, “in fronte, et in manu dextra faciet dari,

ut non possit aliquis emere vel vendere, nisi qui habet characterem

nominis bestiæ, vel numerum nominis ejus ; et esse numerum sexcentos

sexaginta sex, quod est, sexies centeni, et deni sexies, et

singulares sex ; ” in recapitulationem universæ apostasiæ ejus, quæ

facta est in sex millibus annorum.

515 V. xxx. 1. Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ζημία ἐν τῷ ἀποτυχεῖν τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸ

μὴ ὂν ὡς ὂν ὑπολαβεῖν· ἔπειτα δὲ τοῦ προσθέντος ἢ ἀφελόντος τι τῆς

γραφῆς, ἐπιτιμίαν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἔχοντος, εἰς αὐτὴν ἐμπεσεῖν ἀνάγκη

τὸν τοιοῦτον. ἐπακολουθήσει δὲ καὶ ἕτερος οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν κίνδυνος τοῖς

ψευδῶς προειληφόσιν εἰδέναι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ὄνομα· εἰ γὰρ ἄλλο

μὲν οὗτοι δοκοῦσιν, ἄλλο δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔχων ἐλεύσεται, ῥᾳδίως

ἐξαπατηθήσονται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ· ὡς μηδέπου παρόντος ἐκείνου, ὃν

φυλάσσεσθαι προσήκει.

516 V. xxx. 2. Oportet itaque tales discere, et ad verum recurrere

nominis numerum ; ut non in pseudoprophetarum loco deputentur. Sed

scientes firmum numerum qui a Scriptura annuntiatus est, id est,

sexcentorum sexaginta sex, sustineant primum quidem divisionem Regni

in decem: post deinde, illis regnantibus, et incipientibus corrigere

sua negotia et augere suum regnum ; qui de improviso advenerit regnum

sibi vindicans, et terrebit prædictos, habens nomen continens

prædictum numerum, hunc vere cognoscere esse abominationem

desolationis. Hoc et Apostolus ait: “Cum dixerint, Pax et munitio,

tunc subitaneus illis superveniet interitus.” Hieremias autem non

solum subitaneum ejus adventum, sed et tribum, ex qua veniet,

manifestavit dicens: “Ex Dan audiemus vocem velocitatis equorum

ejus: a voce hinnitus decursionis equorum ejus commovebitur tota

terra: et veniet, et manducabit terram, et plenitudinem ejus, et

civitatem, et qui habitant in ea.” Et propter hoc non annumeratur

tribus hæc in Apocalypsi cum his quæ salvantur.

517 V. xxx. 3. Ἀσφαλέστερον οὖν καὶ ἀκινδυνέτερον, τὸ περιμένειν τὴν

ἔκβασιν τῆς προφητείας, ἢ τὸ καταστοχάζεσθαι, καὶ καταμαντεύεσθαι

ὀνόματος· τυχὸν δὲ ἐπὶ πολλῶν ὀνομάτων εὑρεθῆναι δυναμένου τοῦ αὐτοῦ

ἀριθμοῦ, et nihilominus quidem erit hæc eadem quæstio. Εἰ γὰρ πολλά

ἐστι τὰ εὑρισκόμενα ὀνόματα, ἔχοντα τὸν αὐτὸν ἀριθμὸν, ποῖον ἐξ

αὐτῶν φορέσει ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ζητηθήσεται. Quoniam autem non propter

inopiam nominum habentium numerum nominis ejus dicimus hæc, sed

propter timorem erga Deum et zelum veritatis: ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ enim nomen

habet numerum de quo quæritur: sed nihil de eo affirmamus. Sed et

ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ nomen habet sexcentorum sexaginta sex numerum: et valde

verisimile est, quoniam novissimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum.

Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant: sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur.

Sed et ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, prima syllaba per duas Græcas vocales ε et ι scripta,

omnium nominum quæ apud nos inveniuntur, magis fide dignum est.

Etenim prædictum numerum habet in se, et literarum est sex, singulis

syllabis ex ternis literis constantibus, et vetus, et semotum ; neque

enim eorum Regum, qui secundum nos sunt, aliquis vocatus est Titan ;

neque eorum, quæ publice adorantur, idolorum apud Græcos et barbaros

habet vocabulum hoc: et divinum putatur apud multos esse hoc nomen,

ut etiam sol Titan vocetur ab his qui nunc tenent: et ostentationem

quandam continet ultionis, et vindictam inferentis, quod ille

simulat se male tractatos vindicare. Et alias autem et antiquum, et

fide dignum et regale, magis autem et tyrannicum nomen. Cum igitur

tantum suasionum habeat hoc nomen Titan, tamen habet

verisimilitudinem, ut ex multis colligamus ne forte Titan vocetur,

qui veniet. Nos tamen non periclitabimur in eo, nec asseverantes

pronuntiabimus, hoc eum nomen habiturum: scientes, quoniam si

oporteret manifeste præsenti tempore præconari nomen ejus, per ipsum

utique editum fuisset, qui et Apocalypsim viderat.

518 V. xxx. 4. Cum autem vastaverit Antichristus hic omnia in hoc mundo,

regnans annis tribus et mensibus sex, et sederit in templo

Hierosolymis ; tunc veniet Dominus de cœlis in nubibus in gloria

Patris, illum quidem et obedientes ei in stagnum ignis mittens ;

adducens autem justis Regni tempora, hoc est, requietionem, septimam

diem sanctificatam ; et restituens Abrahæ promissionem hæreditatis:

in quo Regno ait Dominus, multos ab Oriente et Occidente venientes,

recumbere cum Abraham, Isaac, et Jacob.——Ibid. xxxiii. 2. See p.

215, note 2.

519 V. xxviii. 3. See p. 215, note 1.

The very ancient writer under the name of Barnabas, contemporary at

least with Justin Martyr, says, (_Epist._ § 11.) Προσέχετε, τέκνα,

τί λέγει τό· Συνετέλεσεν ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις. Τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι συντελεῖ

Κύριος ἐν ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσι τὰ πάντα.

520 V. xxx. 4. xxxiii. 2.

521 V. xxxii. 1. Quoniam igitur transferuntur quorundam sententiæ ab

hæreticis sermonibus, et sunt ignorantes dispositiones Dei et

mysterium justorum resurrectionis et Regni quod est principium

incorruptelæ, per quod regnum qui digni fuerint paulatim assuescunt

capere Deum ; necessarium est autem dicere de illis quoniam oportet

justos primos in conditione hac quæ renovatur, ad apparitionem Dei

resurgentes, recipere promissionem hæreditatis quam Deus promisit

patribus, et regnare in ea ; post deinde fieri judicium. In qua enim

conditione laboraverunt sive afflicti sunt, omnibus modis probati

per sufferentiam, justum est in ipsa recipere eos fructus

sufferentiæ.... Oportet ergo et ipsam conditionem, reintegratam ad

pristinum, sine prohibitione servire justis.——xxxiii. 4. Hæc ergo

tempora prophetans Esaias ait: “Et compascetur lupus cum agno, et

pardus conquiescet cum hædo, et vitulus et taurus et leo simul

pascentur, et puer pusillus ducet eos. Et bos et ursus simul

pascentur, et simul infantes eorum erunt: et leo et bos manducabunt

paleas. Et puer infans in cavernam aspidum, et in cubile filiorum

aspidum manum mittet ; et non male facient, nec poterunt perdere

aliquem in monte sancto meo.” Et iterum recapitulans ait: “Tunc lupi

et agni pascentur simul, et leo quasi bos vescetur paleis, serpens

autem terram quasi panem: et non nocebunt neque vexabunt in monte

sancto meo, dicit Dominus.” Non ignoro autem, quoniam quidam hæc in

feros, et ex diversis gentibus et variis operibus credentes, et cum

crediderint consentientes justis, tentent transferre. Sed etsi nunc

hoc sit in quibusdam hominibus, ex variis gentibus in unam

sententiam fidei venientibus, nihilominus in resurrectione justorum

super iis animalibus, quemadmodum dictum est: dives enim in omnibus

Deus. Et oportet conditione revocata, obedire et subjecta esse omnia

animalia homini, et ad primam a Deo datam reverti escam,

(quemadmodum autem in obedientia subjecta erant Adæ,) fructum terræ.

Alias autem et non est nunc ostendere leonem paleis vesci. Hoc autem

significabat magnitudinem et pinguedinem fructuum. Si enim leo

animal paleis vescitur ; quale ipsum triticum erit, cujus palea ad

escam congrua erit leonum?

Theophilus _ad Autolycum_, II. 25. Ὁπόταν οὖν πάλιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος

ἀναδράμῃ εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν, μηκέτι κακοποιῶν; κακεῖνα (i. e. τὰ

θηρία) ἀποκατασταθήσεται εἰς τὴν ἀρχῆθεν ἡμερέτητα.

522 V. xxxii. 2. “Semini tuo dabo terram hanc, a flumine Ægypti usque ad

flumen magnum Euphratem.” Si ergo huic [Abraham] promisit Deus

hæreditatem terræ non accepit autem in omni suo incolatu ; oportet

eum accipere cum semine suo, hoc est, qui timent Deum et credunt in

eum, in resurrectione justorum. Semen autem ejus Ecclesia, per

Dominum adoptionem quæ est ad Deum accipiens.... Neque Abraham neque

semen ejus, hoc est, qui ex fide justificantur, nunc sumunt in ea

hæreditatem ; accipient autem eam in resurrectione justorum.

523 V. xxxiii. 1. Promisit bibere de generatione vitis cum suis

discipulis ; utrumque ostendens, et hæreditatem terræ in qua bibitur

nova generatio vitis, et carnalem resurrectionem discipulorum ejus:

quæ enim nova resurgit caro, ipsa est quæ et novum percipit poculum.

Neque autem sursum in supercœlesti loco constitutus cum suis potest

intelligi bibens vitis generationem ; neque rursus sine carne sunt,

qui bibant illud: carnis enim proprium est, et non spiritus, qui ex

vite accipitur potus.——2. See p. 215, note 2.

524 V. xxxiii. 2. supra.—3. Prædicta itaque benedictio ad tempora Regni

sine contradictione pertinet, quando regnabunt justi surgentes a

mortuis: quando et creatura renovata, et liberata, multitudinem

fructificabit universæ escæ, ex rore cœli, et ex fertilitate

terræ.—See p. 131, note 5.

525 V. xxxv. 1. Regnabunt justi in terra, crescentes ex visione Domini,

et per ipsum assuescent capere gloriam Dei Patris, et cum sanctis

Angelis conversationem et communionem, et unitatem spiritalium in

Regno capient: et illos quos Dominus in carne inveniet, exspectantes

eum de cœlis, et perpessos tribulationem, qui et effugerint iniqui

manus.

526 V. xxxv. 2. In Regni temporibus, revocata terra a Christo, et

reædificata Hierusalem, secundum characterem quæ sursum est

Hierusalem.

527 V. xxxiii. 4. supra.—xxxv. 1. Si autem quidam tentaverint

allegorizare hæc, quæ ejusmodi sunt ; neque de omnibus poterunt

consonantes sibimetipsis inveniri, et convincentur ab ipsis

dictionibus.—2. Et nihil allegorizari potest, sed omnia firma, et

vera, et substantiam habentia, ad fruitionem hominum justorum a Deo

facta. Quomodo enim vere Deus est, qui resuscitat hominem ; sic et

vere resurgit homo a mortuis, et non allegorice, quemadmodum per

tanta ostendimus. Et sicut vere resurgit, sic et vere præmeditabitur

[μελετήσεται—sese exercebit in] incorruptelam, et augebitur, et

vigebit in Regni temporibus, ut fiat capax gloriæ Patris. Deinde

omnibus renovatis, vere in civitate habitabit Dei.

528 V. xxxv. 2. His itaque prætereuntibus super terram, novam superiorem

Hierusalem ait Domini discipulus Joannes descendere, quemadmodum

sponsam ornatam viro suo ; et hoc esse tabernaculum Dei, in quo

inhabitabit Deus cum hominibus. Hujus Hierusalem imago illa, quæ in

priori terra, Hierusalem, in qua justi præmeditantur incorruptelam,

et parantur in salutem. Et hujus tabernaculi typum accepit Moyses in

monte.

529 V. xxxvi 1. Παρελθόντος δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τούτου, καὶ ἀνανεωθέντος τοῦ

ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἀκμάσαντος πρὸς τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν, ὥστε μηκέτι δύνασθαι

πέρα παλαιωθῆναι, ἔσται ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς, καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή· ἐν τοῖς

καινοῖς ἀναμενεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀεὶ καινὸς, καὶ προσομιλῶν τῷ Θεῷ· ...

φησὶν γὰρ Ησαΐας· Ὅν τρόπον γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινῆ, ἃ

ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μένει ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, λέγει Κύριος, οὔτω στήσεται τὸ σπέρμα

ὑμῶν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ... ὡς οἱ πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε καὶ οἱ

μὲν καταξιωθέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς, ἐκεῖσε χωρήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ

τῆς τοῦ παραδείσου τρυφῆς ἀπολαύσουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς

πόλεως καθέξουσιν· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁραθήσεται, καθὼς ἄξιοι

ἔσονται οἱ ὁρῶντες αὐτόν.

530 V. xxxvi. 3. Ut progenies ejus, primogenitus Verbum, descendat in

facturam, hoc est, in plasma, et capiatur ab eo ; et factura iterum

capiat Verbum, et ascendat ad eum, supergrediens Angelos, et fiet

secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei.

531 Justin Martyr, _Dial. cum Tryph._ 80, makes Tryphon ask the

question: Εἰπὲ δὲ μοι ἀληθῶς, ὑμεῖς ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι τὸν τόπον

Ἰερουσαλὴμ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖτε, καὶ συναχθήσεσθαι τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν, καὶ

εὐφρανθῆναι σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἅμα τοῖς πατριάρχαις καὶ τοῖς προφήταις

καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους ἢ καὶ τῶν προσηλύτων, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν

ὑμῶν τὸν Χριστὸν, προσδοκᾶτε; And to this Justin replies, Ὡμολόγησα

οὖν σοι καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ταῦτα φρονοῦμεν,

ὡς καὶ πάντως ἐπίστασθε, τοῦτο γενησόμενον· πολλοὺς δ᾽ αὖ καὶ τῶν

τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης τοῦτο μὴ γνωρίζειν

ἐσήμανά σοι. And further on: Ἐγὼ δὲ, καὶ εἰ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες

κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοὶ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι ἐπιστάμεθα·

καὶ χίλια ἔτη ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἰκοδομηθείσῃ καὶ κοσμηθείσῃ καὶ

πλατυνθείσῃ οἱ προφῆται Ἰεζεκιὴλ καὶ Ησαΐας καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι

ὁμολογοῦσιν.—Perhaps I ought to notice, that some persons have

supposed Justin in this last passage to assert, that orthodox

Christians in general taught the doctrine of the personal reign, and

thence have imagined a discrepancy between the latter statement and

that immediately preceding: but a little attention will show, that

all he asserts concerning orthodox Christians in general is, that

they believe the resurrection of the flesh ; and he further adds,

that _the prophets_ taught that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, and to

remain a thousand years inhabited by the just.

Tertullian. _advers. Marcion._ III. 24. Nam et confitemur in terra

nobis regnum repromissum ; sed ante cœlum, sed alio statu ; utpote

post resurrectionem in mille annos, in civitate divini operis

Hierusalem cœlo delata.—See also Barnabas and Theophilus, quoted pp.

250 & 252.

532 III. xxii. 4. Maria virgo obediens invenitur, dicens: “Ecce ancilla

tua, Domine, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum:” Eva vero inobediens ;

non obedivit enim, adhuc cum esset virgo. Quemadmodum illa, virum

quidem habens Adam, virgo tamen adhuc existens ... inobediens facta,

et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est mortis ; sic et

Maria habens prædestinatum virum, et tamen virgo, obediens, et sibi

et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis.... Sic autem et

Evæ inobedientiæ nodus solutionem accepit per obedientiam Mariæ:

quod enim alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria

solvit per fidem.

533 Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ III. § 65. Nostræ salutis prima post Filium

mediatrix ... mediatricis conciliatricisque cum Deo.

534 And so Justin Martyr puts it in a parallel passage to this of

Irenæus: _Tryph._ 100. Παρθένος οὖσα Εὔα, τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ

ὄφεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε· πίστιν δὲ καὶ χαρὰν

λαβοῦσα Μαρία ἡ παρθένος, εὐαγγελιζομένου αὐτῇ Γαβριὴλ ἀγγέλου, ...

ἀπεκρίνατο· Γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. Καὶ διὰ ταύτης γεγένηται

οὗτος ... δι᾽ οὗ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ὄφιν ... καταλύει, ἀπαλλαγὴν δὲ τοῦ

θανάτου ... ἐργάζεται.

535 V. xix. 1. Quemadmodum enim illa per angeli sermonem seducta est, ut

effugeret Deum, prævaricata verbum ejus ; ita et hæc per angelicum

sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum, obediens ejus verbo. Et

si ea inobedierat Deo, sed hæc suasa est obedire Deo, uti virginis

Evæ virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti

genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem ; æqua lance

disposita, virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam.

536 III. xxii. 4.

537 V. xix. 1. ... ut portaret Deum.

538 I. xxiii. 2. xxvii. 4. II. Præf. 1. III. Præf.

539 _Hær._ I. 1. He calls the Great Original a twofold Fire, hidden and

apparent, and he gives the names of the Pairs who proceeded from

this Fire, as Νοῦς καὶ Ἐπίνοια, Φωνὴ καὶ Ἔννοια, Λογισμὸς καὶ

Ἐνθύμησις.

540 Ad Gregor. Naz. _Orat._ xxiii. The names he gives are Βυθὸς καὶ

Σιγὴ, Νοῦς καὶ Ἀλήθεια, Λόγος καὶ Ζωὴ, Ἄνθρωπος καὶ Ἐκκλησία.

541 Ad ejusdem _Orat._ xliv.

542 I. xxiii. 2.

543 I. xxiii. 1. II. ix. 2.

544 I. xxiii. 2.

545 I. xxiii. 1. 3.

546 I. xxiii. 1.

547 I. xxiii. 1.

548 1. xxiii. 4.

549 I. xxiii. 1.

550 Clem. Alex. _Strom._ II. 20. § 118. III. 4. § 25.

551 I. xxvi. 3.

552 I. xxvi. 2.

553 _De Virg. Vel._ 6. _De Carne Christi_, 13.

554 _Hist. Eccl._ III. 27.

555 _Hær._ II. 1. Τὸν δὲ Σωτῆρα καὶ Κύριον ἐκ παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι

φησίν.

556 I. xxiii. 5.

557 _Apol._ I. 26.

558 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ III. xxvi. 1.

559 I. xxiii. 5.

560 1 Tim. ii, 17, 18.

561 Justin. _Apol._ I. 26.

562 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ IV. vii. 2. Tertullian, _de Anima_, 23,

mentions Saturninus as the pupil of Menander.

563 I. xxiv. 1.

564 Ibid. 2.

565 Ibid. 1.

566 I. xxiv. 2.

567 Ibid. 1.

568 Ibid. 2.

569 Ibid.

570 I. xxiv. 2.

571 Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ VII. 17. § 106, 107.) speaks of Basilides as

being a good deal younger than Marcion, and about the same age as

Valentinus.

572 I. xxiv. 5.

573 I. xxiv. 3.

574 Ibid. 5.

575 Ibid. 7.

576 The Prophecies, like Simon, he attributed to the Angels in general,

but the Law to their Chief. § 5.

577 I. xxiv. 4.

578 Ibid. 5.

579 Ibid. 6.

580 Lib. V. cap. 5. See the Appendix to the Benedictine edition of

Irenæus.

581 Clem. Alex. _Strom._ IV. 12. § 83.

582 I. xxv. 1.

583 The writer of the Appendix to Tertull. _de Præscrip. Hær._ 48.

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 2. See also Lampe, _Proleg. in Joan._ II. 3.

2. p. 184, quoted in Burton’s _Bampton Lectures_, note 75.

584 I. xxv. 3.

585 Ibid. 4.

586 At least this is implied in § 4.

587 He said (§ 2) that they were in the same sphere as Jesus, who (§ 1)

was from the same as the Father.

588 I. xxv. 4.

589 Ibid. 1.

590 Ibid. 2.

591 Ibid. 5.

592 I. xxv. 6.

593 Ibid.

594 Ibid.

595 III. iii. 4. See p. 60.

596 I. xxvi. 1.

597 I. xxvii. 1. The Author of the Appendix to Tertullian’s Treatise _de

Præs._ (§ 51.) makes these two Primary Beings ; but Irenæus declares

that the former was unknown, the latter known ; the former good, the

latter merely just.

598 III. iv. 3.

599 Clement of Alexandria mentions Marcion as being in _time_ the

successor of Simon Magus, (_Strom._ VII. 17. § 107,) and predecessor

of Basilides and Valentinus ; contemporary, but older.

600 I. xxvii. 2.

601 Ibid. 3. His opinions concerning Cain became the nucleus of another

sect, the Cainites.

602 Ibid. 2. The writer in the name of Tertullian, as quoted above, note

5, asserts that he received only some of St. Paul’s Epistles.

603 Tertull. l. c.

604 I. xxviii. 1.

605 From this treatise, which is still extant, we learn that he was an

Assyrian by birth, had been a heathen, and had been initiated into

most of the heathen mysteries, but had been converted (a rare

instance) by the reading of the Scriptures (§§ 64 & 46). In this

treatise he opposes the idea that matter had no beginning, and

declares that it was created by the (personal) Word of God (§ 8).

Perhaps he may be thought to lean to Gnosticism where he says that

the soul is naturally mortal, and that the unenlightened soul

perishes with the body. § 21, 22.

606 I. xxviii. 1.

607 See above, note 9.

608 I. xxxi. 1.

609 I. xxix. 1.

610 Ibid. 2.

611 I. xxix. 3.

612 I read _Harmogenes_ for _Monogenes_, because the latter name has not

occurred as the name of any of these supposed Beings, and because

Harmogenes is the first of them who is said to have an _attendant_,

which is the idea implied in _Angelos_, the word used by Irenæus.

Massuet suggests _Autogenes_, but gives no reason.

613 I. xxix. 4.

614 See pp. 286, 288.

615 I. xxx. 1.

616 Ibid. 2.

617 Ibid. 3.

618 I. xxx. 4.

619 Some of them said that Wisdom herself took the form of a serpent. §

15.

620 I. xxx. 5.

621 In some degree ; for he was totally emptied of it by a different

process. See below, p. 291.

622 I. xxx. 6.

623 Those who called Wisdom the serpent, say that she inspired them with

knowledge.

624 I. xxx. 7.

625 Ibid. 8.

626 From leaving out Cain as joint progenitor of mankind, and deriving

all the human race from _Seth_, they seem to have been called

SETHITES.

627 I. xxx. 9.

628 Ibid. 10.

629 Ibid. 11.

630 Ibid.

631 These were, no doubt, Jaldabaoth and his six descendants, who (§ 5)

are called _heavens_, and are likewise spoken of as _per ordinem

sedentes in cœlo, secundum generationem ipsorum_.

632 I. xxx. 12.

633 Ibid. 12, 13.

634 I. xxx. 14.

635 I imagine this to be the meaning of _Christo sedente_ ; _sedeo_ being

taken in a transitive sense. Ἰδρύομαι was probably the original

word.

636 I. xxx. 14.

637 I. xi. 1. bis.

638 Epiphan. _Hær._ xxxi. 2.

639 _Adv. Valent._ 4.

640 Tertull. _de Præscr._ 7. 30. Epiphan. Πεπαιδεῦσθαι τὴν τῶν Ἐλλήνων

παιδείαν.

641 This appears from a fragment of his, preserved in a _Dialogue

against the Marcionites_, erroneously ascribed to Origen, (see Dupin

upon Origen,) in which it is quoted at length by one of the

speakers. See the fragment, in the Appendix to the Benedictine

edition of Irenæus, or in Grabe’s _Spicilegium_, II. p. 55.

642 Called _Theodas_, by Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ VII. 17. § 106.

643 Tertull. _de Præscr._ 38.

644 _Apol._ I. 26. See Grabe’s _Spicilegium_, II. 44, 45.

645 _Adv. Valent._ 5.

646 III. iv. 3.

647 In his _Canon Chronicus_.

648 Dissert. 2. _de annis primorum Romæ Episcoporum_, cap. 12.

649 Tertull. _adv. Valent._ 4.

650 Epiphan. _Hær._ xxxi. 7.

651 Ibid.

652 I. _Præf._ 2.

653 I. xii. 1.

654 _Hær._ xxxi. 5. It is printed in the Appendix to the best editions

of Irenæus.

655 I. xi. 1. The Valentinians against whom Irenæus wrote made the first

pair the First Cause, First Father, or Depth, and Thought, Grace or

Silence. See I. i. 1.—Ptolemy placed the Depth first, but gave him

two consorts, Thought and Will. See I. xii. 1.

656 Called by his followers Mind, Only‐begotten, Father or Beginning of

all things.

657 I. xi. 1.

658 As Irenæus tells us some of the Valentinians did.

659 At least this is the account of Tertullian, _adv. Valent._ 4.

660 I. i. 2. The names are Βύθιος, Μίξις, Ἀγήρατος, Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς,

Ἡδονὴ, Ἀκίνητος, Σύνκρασις, Μονογενὴς, Μακαρία· Παράκλητος, Πίστις,

Πατρικὸς, Ἐλπὶς, Μητρικὸς, Ἀγάπη, Ἀείνους, Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς,

Μακαριότης, Θελητὸς, Σοφία.

661 Πλήρωμα, I. i. 3.

662 I. xi. 1.

663 See the fragment above quoted.

664 I. ii. 1.

665 I. ii. 2.

666 I. xi. 1.

667 I. ii. 3.

668 I. ii. 4. Σταυρὸς, Λυτρωτὴς, Καρπιστὴς, Ὁροθέτης, Μεταγωγεύς.

669 I. ii. 4.

670 Ibid. 5.

671 Ibid. 6. It appears that he was likewise called the Paraclete or

Comforter (I. iv. 5), and Christ (I. iii. 1).

672 I. iv. 1.

673 I. iv. 1.

674 Ibid. 2.

675 See p. 300, note 5.

676 I. iv. 5. v. 1.

677 The term Irenæus uses (I. v. 1.) is ψυχικός. Its meaning is not easy

to express by another word. Valentinus, like the Platonists and

several of the early Christian writers, believed in three kinds of

substance, πνευματικὴ, ψυχικὴ, σωματικὴ, analogous to the three

parts of man, spirit, soul, and body ; the first of which he

conceived to be naturally and necessarily immortal, the third

necessarily perishable, the second capable of either immortality or

destruction, but having a kind of life, as long as it existed, which

the third had not.

678 I. v. 1.

679 Ibid. 2.

680 Valentinus himself appears to have made man the joint work of the

Creator and the other Angels. See a fragment of one of his letters,

preserved by Clem. Alex. _Strom._ II. 8. § 36.

681 I. v. 3, 4.

682 Ibid. 5.

683 This was recognised by Valentinus in the fragment above cited.

684 I. v. 6.

685 I. vi. 1, 2.

686 Ibid. 3.

687 Tertull. _de Resur. Carnis_, 2, states this as the opinion of

Valentinus, and _de Carne Christi_, 15. In the fragment, (Clem.

Alex. _Strom._ III. 7. § 59,) Valentinus says that Jesus attained to

divinity by his purity ; which was such that his food did not corrupt

within him.

688 I. vii. 2.

689 Ibid. 1.

690 _De Præscr._ 38.

691 Matt. xi. 27. See IV. vi. 1. But his followers preferred the Gospel

of St. John (III. xi. 7), and some of them forged what they called

the _Gospel of the Truth_. Ibid. 9.

692 _De Præscr._ 30.

693 I. i. 3. iii. viii.

694 _Strom._ II. 8. § 36. 20. § 114. III. 7. § 59. IV. 13. § 91. VI. 6.

§ 52.

695 Ibid. II. 20. § 114.

696 I. Præf. 2.

697 Epiphan. _Hær._ xxxi. 1.

698 I. xi. 2.

699 Clem. Alex. _Strom._ III. ii. § 5.

700 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ I. § 80.

701 Epiphan. xxxi. 1. xxxii. 3. Theodoret. _Hær. Fab._ I. 5.

702 Ibid.

703 I. xi. 3.

704 I. Præf. 2. viii. 5.

705 _Hær._ xxxiii. 1. Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ. The passage he

quotes is I. xii. 1.

706 _Hær._ xxxv. 1.

707 _Hær. Fab._ I. 12.

708 I. xii. 3.

709 I. xiii. 1. Magistri emendatorem se esse glorians.

710 _Adv. Valent._ 4.

711 I. xiii. 5. See p. 202, note 9.

712 Ibid.

713 I. xiv. 1.

714 Ibid.

715 I. xv. 3.

716 I. xiii. 3.

717 I. xiii. 2.

718 Ibid. 3.

719 I. xiii. 5. See p. 202, note 9.

720 Ibid. 6.

721 Ibid. 5. 7.

722 I. xxi. 1.

723 Ibid. 2.

724 Ibid. 1.

725 Ibid. 2.

726 Ibid. 1.

727 Ibid. 3.

728 I. xxi. 4.

729 Ibid. 5.

730 Irenæus (I. xxviii. 1) expressly says that they thought marriage to

be pollution and whoredom, and (xxiv. 2) that it and its natural

consequences were from Satan.

731 I. vi. 1, 2.

732 I. v. 2.

733 I. vi. 4. III. xv. 2.

734 I. vi. 1.

735 I. vi. 1.

736 I. vi. 2, 4.

737 I. vii. 1.

738 I. xxv. 5.

739 I. vi. 2.

740 _Strom._ II. 20. § 114.

741 I. xiii. 2.

742 I. xxv. 6.

743 III. ii. 1.

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF S. IRENÆUS, BISHOP OF LYONS AND MARTYR***

CREDITS

May 8, 2018

Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1

Produced by Richard Hulse, Bryan Ness, David King, and the

Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

< http://www.pgdp.net/ > . (This book was produced from scanned

images of public domain material from the Google Books

project.)

A WORD FROM PROJECT GUTENBERG

This file should be named 57119‐0.txt or 57119‐0.zip.

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/7/1/1/57119/

Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old editions will be

renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law

means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the

Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States

without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,

set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to

copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect

the Project Gutenberg™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a

registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the ebooks,

unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for

copies of this ebook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use

this ebook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works,

reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and

given away — you may do practically _anything_ in the United States with

ebooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to

the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

_Please read this before you distribute or use this work._

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or

any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”),

you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™

License (available with this file or online at

http://www.gutenberg.org/license).

Section 1.

General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A.

By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work,

you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the

terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)

agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this

agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee

for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work

and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may

obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set

forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.

“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or

associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be

bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can

do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying

with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are

a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you

follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or

PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the

collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual

work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from

copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works

based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are

removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™

mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing

Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement

for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can

easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the

same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you

share it without charge with others.

1.D.

The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you

can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant

state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of

your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before

downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating

derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work.

The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of

any work in any country outside the United States.

1.E.

Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.

The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access

to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever

any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase

“Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg”

is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or

distributed:

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States

and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no

restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re‐use

it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with

this ebook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org. If you are not

located in the United States, you’ll have to check the laws of the

country where you are located before using this ebook.

1.E.2.

If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts

not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating

that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can

be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying

any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a

work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on

the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1

through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project

Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3.

If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the

permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply

with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed

by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project

Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the

1.E.4.

Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License

terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any

other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5.

Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic

work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying

the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate

access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6.

You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed,

marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word

processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or

distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than

“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted

on the official Project Gutenberg™ web site (http://www.gutenberg.org),

you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a

copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon

request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form.

Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as

specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.

Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,

copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply

with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.

You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or

distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that

– You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from

the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you

already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to

the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to

donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60

days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally

required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments

should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4,

“Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation.”

– You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies

you in writing (or by e‐mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he

does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License.

You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the

works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and

all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

– You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the

electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of

receipt of the work.

– You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free

distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9.

If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic

work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this

agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The Project Gutenberg Trademark

LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation

as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.

Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to

identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not

protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™

collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,

and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such

as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,

transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property

infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer

virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2.

LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES — Except for the “Right of

Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™

trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for

damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE

NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH

OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE

FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT

WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,

PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY

OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3.

LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND — If you discover a defect in this

electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund

of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to

the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a

physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation.

The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect

to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the

work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose

to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in

lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a

refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.

Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in

paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ’AS‐IS,’ WITH NO OTHER

WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the

exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or

limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state

applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make

the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state

law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement

shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.

INDEMNITY — You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark

owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and

any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution

of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs

and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from

any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of

this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or

additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect

you cause.

Section 2.

Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic

works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including

obsolete, old, middle‐aged and new computers. It exists because of the

efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks

of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance

they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring

that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for

generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive

Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for

Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations

can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at

http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3.

Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit

501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of

Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64‐6221541.

Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at

http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. Contributions to the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full

extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the

mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its volunteers

and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business

office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801)

596‐1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date

contact information can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official

page at http://www.pglaf.org

For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby

Chief Executive and Director

gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4.

Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive

Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread

public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the

number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed

in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment

including outdated equipment. Many small donations (mls_upp_t_1692660476_raw.txt to ,000) are

particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.

Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable

effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these

requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not

received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or

determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit

http://www.gutenberg.org/donate

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have

not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against

accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us

with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any

statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the

United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods

and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including

checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please

visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5.

General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg™

concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with

anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™

eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions,

all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S.

unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep

ebooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Each ebook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the ebook’s ebook

number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, compressed

(zipped), HTML and others.

Corrected _editions_ of our ebooks replace the old file and take over the

old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed.

_Versions_ based on separate sources are treated as new ebooks receiving

new filenames and etext numbers.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how

to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,

how to help produce our new ebooks, and how to subscribe to our email

newsletter to hear about new ebooks.

***FINIS***

CCCCPPPPPXXX.

ccpppxxx.

files/57119/57119-0.txt