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

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons - and Martyr
Author: Beaven, James
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "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]

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
7.

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
5.

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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons - and Martyr" ***

Home