Migne Reading Room
PG 7 · cols. 173–242
R. Massuet, O.S.B., Dissertationes praeviae in Irenaei libros, Dissertatio II, De sancti Irenaei vita et rebus gestis ... de ejus libris quinque adversus haereses
Editors' preface
DISSERTATIO SECUNDA.
SECOND DISSERTATION.
De sancti Irenaei vita et rebus gestis; de ejus libris quinque adversus haereses et aliis scriptis deperditis.
On the life and deeds of Saint Irenaeus; on his five books against the heresies and his other writings that have been lost.
ARTICULUS PRIMUS.
FIRST ARTICLE.
SANCTI IRENAEI VITA ET RES GESTAE.
THE LIFE AND DEEDS OF SAINT IRENAEUS.
Quae fuerit Irenaei patria, quod genus, quove anno in lucem editus, nullibi apud veteres, quorum exstant opera, scriptum legitur. Id tamen certum videtur, Graecum exstitisse; quod ipsum nomen plane Graecum, et ejus institutio suadet. Narrat enim vir sanctus in epistola ad Florinum, cujus fragmentum recitat Eusebius, se puerum adhuc, παῖς ὢν ἔτι, vel, ut loquitur in opere adversus Haereses, in prima sua aetate, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ, Polycarpum jam valde senem, πάνυ γηραλέον, audiisse, et ab eo primis Christianae religionis praeceptis imbutum fuisse. Quin Polycarpus tunc Smyrnae, cujus episcopus erat, ageret, dubitari non potest, innuereque videtur Irenaeus loco proxime citato. Ex quo inferre licet, hunc non procul ab ea urbe, ac proinde ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ, in inferiore Asia, ut habet in epistola laudata, ortum accepisse. Fidem quippe superat, tenerae aetatis puerum e longinquis regionibus illuc missum fuisse. Non tamen adeo tenerae aetatis puer fuit Irenaeus, quin Polycarpum studiose, ut ipse scribit, audierit, et ea quae ab illo docebantur alte in corde suo consignaverit, semperque studiosa mente revolverit. Annos itaque plus minus duodecim natus tunc fuerit necesse est: vix enim in duodenni, aut decenni minorem mox dicta caderent. Sed absit ut cum cl. Dodwello credam, vicesimum annum tunc eum excessisse, ac tricesimo proximum fuisse, cum Polycarpum audiret. Monstro prorsus simile, puerum et in prima aetate eum dici, qui vicesimum quintum annum attigerit. Nec Dodwellum juvat, quod Irenaeus hominum aetates enumerans, infantium, parvulorum, puerorum, juvenum et seniorum meminerit, puerosque
What Irenaeus's native country was, what his family, or in what year he was brought into the light, is nowhere found written among the ancients whose works are extant. This much, however, seems certain, that he was a Greek; this both his name itself, plainly Greek, and his education suggest. For the holy man relates in the letter to Florinus, a fragment of which Eusebius quotes, that while still a boy, παῖς ὢν ἔτι ("being still a boy"), or, as he puts it in the work against the Heresies, in his first youth, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ ("in our first youth"), he heard Polycarp, already a very old man, πάνυ γηραλέον ("very aged"), and was instructed by him in the first precepts of the Christian religion. That Polycarp was then living at Smyrna, of which he was bishop, cannot be doubted, and Irenaeus seems to hint at it in the passage just cited. From this it may be inferred that he was born not far from that city, and therefore ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ, in lower Asia, as he has it in the letter mentioned. For it passes belief that a boy of tender age was sent there from distant regions. Yet Irenaeus was not a boy of so tender an age that he did not listen to Polycarp attentively, as he himself writes, and seal deep in his heart the things that were taught by him, and turn them over constantly with an attentive mind. He must therefore have been about twelve years old at the time: for the things just said would hardly fit one younger than twelve, or ten. But far be it from me to believe, with the celebrated Dodwell, that he had then passed his twentieth year and was close to his thirtieth when he heard Polycarp. It is quite like a monstrosity that one who had reached his twenty-fifth year should be called a boy, and in his first youth. Nor does it help Dodwell that Irenaeus, enumerating the ages of men, mentions infants, little ones, boys, young men and elders, and the boys
Editors' notes and page, col. 173
Footnotes
(89) ‹recitat Eusebius› · call in col 173
Lib. V, c. 20.
Book 5, chapter 20.
(printed under page 93)
(90) ‹adversus Haereses› · call in col 173
L. III, c. 3, n. 4.
Book 3, chapter 3, no. 4.
(printed under page 93)
(91) ‹semperque studiosa mente revolverit› · call in col 173
In epist. ad Flor.
In the letter to Florinus.
(printed under page 93)
(92) ‹cum cl. Dodwello› · call in col 173
Diss. 3, in Iren., § 6 et seqq.
Dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, § 6 and following.
(printed under page 93)
(93) ‹quod Irenaeus› · call in col 173
Iren., lib. II, c. 22, n. 4.
Irenaeus, Book 2, chapter 22, no. 4.
(printed under page 93)
Page
- running head: 173 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IREN
- marginal letters: A lere conati sumus,; B Quae fuerit Irenaei; C licet, hunc non; D eum dici, qui
- old-edition numerals: [LXXVII.] before Quae
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (end) and Dissertatio II, Art. I (Quae fuerit Irenaei patria...); full-width headings between A and B cut off at right edge (DISSERTATIO SECUNDA. / De sancti Irenaei vita et rebus gestis... / ARTICULUS PRIMUS. / SANCTI IRENAEI VITA ET...), not set; begins mid-word lere from col 172
- other: a full-width band stands across cols 173/174 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 174 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 173 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
- other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at Quae fuerit Irenaei patria
- running head: 173 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 174 (the left column number is printed blurred, like 175)
- marginal letters: A beside ‹lere conati sumus, ipsas ad genuinos fontes› (end of Dissertatio I, previous unit, not set); B ‹Quae fuerit Irenaei patria, quod›; C ‹licet, hunc non procul ab ea urbe›; D ‹Monstro prorsus simile, puerum et in prima aetate›
- old-edition numerals: [LXXVII.] before ‹Quae fuerit› (bracketed, at the paragraph start)
proximos juvenibus faciat, medios inter hos et parvulos: juventutis vero senectutisque limites ita definiat, ut a tricenario juventutem inchoet, extendatque ad quadragenarium; a quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinare dicat hominem in seniorem aetatem. Palam est enim ibi juventutem pro virili aetate accipi, utpote quam proxime senectus excipiat. Quod vero pueros juvenibus, omissis adolescentibus, immediate praeponat, nihil est. Irenaeo animus non fuit ibi omnes hominum aetates sigillatim recensere, et exacte definire: probare satis pro instituto fuit, Christum sanctitatem omnibus aetatibus, singulas decurrendo, contulisse, ut inde conficeret (qui scopus fuit) et ad senilem aetatem pervenisse, ac proinde quadragesimum annum excessisse. Hinc memoratis infantibus, parvulis, pueris, juvenibus et senioribus, subdit: Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem.... in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior in senioribus, etc. Ubi pueros ante memoratos omittit, quod a parvulis haudquaquam distinguantur. At quamvis pueros hic pro adolescentibus accepisset Irenaeus, quod paradoxi genus nulli sobrio persuadebit unquam Dodwellus, certe hinc concludi non posset, eum vicesimo majorem fuisse, cum Polycarpum audiret: neque enim puerum tantum se tunc exstitisse dicit, sed in prima aetate, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ. Quis vero ferat primam aetatem usque ad annum vicesimum quintum extendi? Si tantum aetate processisset Irenaeus, non est quod commentitia Dodwello videantur omnia quae de
he places next to the young men, midway between these and the little ones; while he so defines the limits of youth and old age that he begins youth at thirty and extends it to forty, and says that from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man declines into the older age. For it is plain that youth is taken there for the age of manhood, inasmuch as old age follows next upon it. That he sets boys immediately before young men, leaving out adolescents, is nothing. It was not Irenaeus's intention there to review all the ages of men one by one and define them exactly: it was enough for his purpose to prove that Christ conferred holiness on all ages, running through each of them, so as to conclude from this (which was his aim) that He also reached old age, and therefore passed His fortieth year. Hence, having mentioned infants, little ones, boys, young men and elders, he adds: Therefore He came through every age, and was made an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a little one among little ones, sanctifying those who have this very age.... a young man among young men, becoming an example to young men, and sanctifying them to the Lord. So also an elder among elders, etc. Here he omits the boys mentioned before, because they are in no way distinguished from the little ones. But even if Irenaeus had taken boys here for adolescents, a kind of paradox of which Dodwell will never persuade any sober man, it certainly could not be concluded from this that he was older than twenty when he heard Polycarp: for he does not say only that he was then a boy, but that he was in his first youth, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ ("in our first youth"). And who would allow the first youth to be extended up to the twenty-fifth year? If Irenaeus had advanced so far in age, there is no reason why Dodwell should think fictitious all the things that
Editors' notes and page, col. 174
Page
- running head: I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 174
- marginal letters: A pessime vestitum nobis; B proximos juvenibus faciat,; C quadragesimum annum excessisse.; D tunc exstitisse dicit,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (conclusion) and Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); full-width headings between A and B cut off at left edge (...ATIO SECUNDA. / ...de ejus libris quinque adversus haereses... / ...ULUS PRIMUS. / ...EI VITA ET RES GESTAE.), not set
- other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 173 (reading order, moved on receipt)
- running head: 173 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 174
- marginal letters: A beside ‹pessime vestitum nobis constat› (end of Dissertatio I, previous unit, not set); B ‹proximos juvenibus faciat›; C ‹quadragesimum annum excessisse›; D ‹tunc exstitisse dicit, sed in prima aetate›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the quotation (Ideo per omnem venit aetatem ... etc.) is printed in italics; the four dots after aetatem are as printed.
Irenaei presbyteratu, diaconatu, aliisque Ecclesiae officiis a Polycarpo acceptis, tradidit Halloixius. Puerumne, inquit ille, Polycarpus, et in prima aetate constitutum, ad presbyteratum usque fuerat evecturus? Non certe. Sed si puer ille annum XXV aetatis attigisset, ad diaconatum saltem evehi potuisset.
Halloix handed down concerning the presbyterate, diaconate, and other offices of the Church received by Irenaeus from Polycarp. Was Polycarp, says he, going to raise a boy, and one situated in his first age, right up to the presbyterate? Certainly not. Yet if that boy had reached the 25th year of his age, he could at least have been raised to the diaconate.
2. Constat itaque Irenaeum tum cum Polycarpum audiret, duodenni majorem esse non potuisse. Cum vero Polycarpus jam tunc πάνυ γηραλέος, valde senex esset, ac proinde martyrio propior, diutius sub tanti magistri disciplina versari non potuit : is quippe gloriosa morte vitam finiisse creditur anno Christi 166. Non procul igitur a vero aberraverimus, si natum Irenaeum dicamus anno circiter 140, sub Antonini Pii imperii initia. Toto vicennio citius natum volunt alii, ac in primis doctissimus Tillemontius : sed vereor ut Polycarpus anno circiter 132, quo Irenaeum docere debuisset, valde senex dici potuerit; quem non nisi post quatuor et triginta abhinc annos obiisse fatetur ipse vir clarissimus. Quod a fortiori contra Dodwellum militat, qui ortum Irenaei sub Trajano collocandum censet, et quidem illum a Trajani initio fortasse repetendum. Quod si verum sit, Polycarpum audierit Irenaeus anno plus minus 125, quod ultro fatetur vir cl. Sed futili, inter alias plurimas, nititur conjectura : quod nempe Irenaeus ad Florinum scribens, vidisse se eum asseveret in inferiore Asia apud Polycarpum, cum in imperatoria aula splendide ageret, λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ. Ex quo consequens Dodwello videtur, adfuisse eodem tempore, quo Polycarpum audivit Irenaeus puer, in Asia proconsulari imperatorem, in cujus aula versatus fuerit Florinus; non alium certe quam Adrianum, qui circa annum 122 in Asiam profectus est. Sed qui ex Irenaei verbis erui possit, imperatorem tunc in Asia commoratum fuisse, solus viderit Dodwellus; alter quivis hinc tantum intulerit, Florinum aulicum quempiam fuisse, qui summa apud imperatorem gratia valuerit, nec quidquam amplius. Sunt qui Irenaeum Joannis apostoli discipulum faciant, ut Paradinus, et Severtius, una diplomatis cujusdam auctoritate freti, cui subscripsisse dicuntur Gregorius papa V, Henricus rex Burgundiae, et Hugo Lugdunensis archiepiscopus. Sed quidquid sit de diplomate, repugnant veteres omnes, qui Irenaeum Polycarpi, non Joannis discipulum fuisse asserunt; repugnat Irenaeus ipse, qui quidem non semel a senioribus, qui apostolos eorumque discipulos viderunt et audierunt, plura didicisse se gloriatur, at nusquam ab apostolis ipsis; quod nunquam, si factum fuisset, omisisset, non leve argumentis contra haereticos allatis pondus hinc additurus. Et de Joannis Apocalypsi
2. It is established, therefore, that Irenaeus, at the time when he heard Polycarp, could not have been older than twelve. Now since Polycarp was already then pany geraleos, very old, and accordingly nearer to his martyrdom, he could not have remained very long under the instruction of so great a master: for he is believed to have ended his life by a glorious death in the year of Christ 166. We shall not, therefore, wander far from the truth if we say that Irenaeus was born around the year 140, under the beginnings of the reign of Antoninus Pius. Others, and especially the most learned Tillemont, wish him to have been born a whole twenty years earlier: but I fear whether Polycarp around the year 132, in which he would have had to teach Irenaeus, could have been called very old; who the most illustrious man himself confesses did not die until thirty-four years after that time. Which militates still more strongly against Dodwell, who judges that the birth of Irenaeus is to be placed under Trajan, and indeed that it should perhaps be traced back to the beginning of Trajan. And if this be true, Irenaeus heard Polycarp around the year 125, which the illustrious man willingly confesses. But among very many others he relies upon a futile conjecture: namely, that Irenaeus, writing to Florinus, affirms that he saw him in lower Asia with Polycarp while he was faring splendidly in the imperial court, lampros prattonta en te basilike aule. From which it seems to Dodwell to follow that at the same time when the boy Irenaeus heard Polycarp, the emperor, in whose court Florinus was dwelling, was present in proconsular Asia; certainly no other than Hadrian, who set out into Asia around the year 122. But how it can be drawn out from the words of Irenaeus that the emperor was then lingering in Asia, Dodwell alone may see; anyone else would infer from this only that Florinus was some courtier who prevailed with the highest favour with the emperor, and nothing more. There are some who make Irenaeus a disciple of John the Apostle, such as Paradin and Severt, relying on the sole authority of a certain charter which Pope Gregory V, Henry King of Burgundy, and Hugh Archbishop of Lyons are said to have subscribed. But whatever be the case with the charter, all the ancients object, who assert that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, not of John; Irenaeus himself objects, who indeed more than once glories that he learned many things from the elders who saw and heard the apostles and their disciples, but nowhere from the apostles themselves; which, had it been the case, he would never have omitted, as he would have added no light weight hence to the arguments brought forward against the heretics. And dealing with the Apocalypse of John,
Editors' notes and page, col. 175
Footnotes
(94) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 175
T. II Hist. eccles., p. 79.
Vol. 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, p. 79.
(printed under page 94)
(95) ‹Dodwellum› · call in col 175
Diss. III in Iren., § 3, 10 seqq.
Dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, §§ 3, 10 and following.
(printed under page 94)
(96) ‹ut Paradinus› · call in col 175
Lib. II Hist. Lugd., c. 30.
Book 2 of the History of Lyons, chapter 30.
(printed under page 94)
(97) ‹et Severtius› · call in col 175
De Lugd. archiep., I part., c. 2.
On the Archbishops of Lyons, part 1, chapter 2.
(printed under page 94)
(98) ‹repugnat Irenaeus ipse› · call in col 175
Lib. V, c. 30, n. 4.
Book 5, chapter 30, no. 4.
(printed under page 94)
Page
- running head: 175 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN I
- marginal letters: A Irenaei presbyteratu, diaconatu,; B anno circiter 140,; C inferiore Asia apud; D dam auctoritate freti,
- old-edition numerals: [LXXVIII] after Polycarpi,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
agens, scribit, non ante multum temporis visam esse, sed pene sub suo saeculo, σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, ad finem Domitiani imperii. Quibus verbis non longe quidem a Joannis temporibus vixisse se agnoscit, ei vero coaevum exstitisse se negat.
he writes that it was seen not a long time before, but almost in his own generation, schedon epi tes hemeteras geneas, towards the end of the reign of Domitian. By which words he acknowledges indeed that he lived not far from the times of John, but denies that he was contemporary with him.
3. Sed etsi Joannem ipsum non audierit vir sanctus, Joannis tamen lectiones excepisse dicendus est, qui a discipulis ejus institutus, tantum in eorum schola profecit, ut inter apostolicos viros, apostolicae doctrinae testes, primosque canales, a veteribus omnibus merito recenseatur. Cum enim per Polycarpi mortem sanctissimi senis scholam diu frequentare non licuisset, Papiam alterum Joannis discipulum adiit, ejusque disciplinae se tradidit, ut auctor est Hieronymus. Seniores alios, apostolorum, apostolicorumque virorum discipulos, et inter eos eximium quemdam, audiisse se non semel affirmat in libris adversus haereses. Quis sit autem ille senior tam frequenter ab eo laudatus, an ipse Papias, an alter, hactenus incompertum. A talibus tantisque viris sanctioris doctrinae purissimos latices, profundioremque sacrarum litterarum intelligentiam, simul et vitae sanctimoniam, ac incensum tuendae fidei, quam una cum nutricis lacte suxisse verosimile est, studium hausit medullitus, atque deinceps in scriptis suis ubertim effudit. Nec enim segnis et otiosus auscultator, quae acceperat, e memoria elabi sinebat : quin potius ab ipsa pueritia, cum vix aliis per teneram aetatem seriis attendere licet, Irenaeus quaecunque sanctissimorum illorum, primorumque Christianae religionis magistrorum ore promebantur, ceu pretiosas Evangelii margaritas studiose colligens, sibique, spretis omnibus aliis, comparans, in intimo cordis sinu recondebat, suo tempore proferenda. Ita se affectum fuisse, cum sub Polycarpi disciplina degeret, pro jure suo gloriatur, Florinoque, suo quondam sub tanto praeceptore condiscipulo, sed deinde misere in haeresim prolapso, ob oculos ponit : ut colendi utrique magistri memoria devium ad pristinam fidem revocaret. Verba tum Graece, tum Latine ad calcem operis retulimus inter fragmenta. Et ut Polycarpi praesertim memoria cordi altius infixa haereret, sibi ipse exscripsisse creditur Ecclesiae Smyrnensis epistolam, in qua martyrii ejus historia refertur; ut inferre licet ex adnotatione quam ad calcem illius epistolae reperit in mss. codicibus Usserius.
3. Yet even though the holy man did not hear John himself, nevertheless he must be said to have received the lessons of John, who, instructed by his disciples, made such progress in their school that by all the ancients he is deservedly reckoned among the apostolic men, the witnesses and first channels of apostolic doctrine. For when through the death of Polycarp it had not been permitted him to frequent the school of the most holy old man for long, he went to Papias, another disciple of John, and gave himself over to his instruction, as Jerome is the authority. That he heard other elders, disciples of the apostles and of apostolic men, and among them a certain distinguished one, he affirms more than once in his books Against Heresies. Who that elder so frequently praised by him may be, however, whether Papias himself or another, is hitherto unascertained. From such and so great men he drank in to his very marrow the purest waters of holier doctrine and a deeper understanding of the sacred letters, together with sanctity of life and a burning zeal for defending the faith, which it is likely he sucked in along with his nurse's milk, and thereafter poured forth abundantly in his writings. For not as a sluggish and idle listener did he allow the things which he had received to slip from his memory: nay rather, from very boyhood, when through tender age it is scarcely permitted to others to attend to serious things, whatever things were brought forth from the mouth of those most holy and first masters of the Christian religion, Irenaeus, studiously gathering them like precious pearls of the Gospel, and procuring them for himself while spurning all other things, stored up in the inmost bosom of his heart, to be brought forth in their own time. That he was thus disposed when he lived under the instruction of Polycarp, he glories as is his right, and sets it before the eyes of Florinus, once his fellow-disciple under so great a preceptor, but afterwards wretchedly lapsed into heresy, so that by the memory of the master to be revered by both he might recall the erring man to his former faith. The words both in Greek and in Latin we have placed at the end of the work among the fragments. And in order that the memory of Polycarp especially might cleave more deeply fixed in his heart, he is believed to have transcribed for himself the epistle of the Church of Smyrna in which the history of his martyrdom is related; as it is permissible to infer from the note which Ussher found in manuscript codices at the end of that epistle.
4. Non adeo tamen ad sacras litteras animum intendit, ut humaniores negligendas sibi putaret. Probe noverat vir perspicacissimus, ejusmodi studia non tantum ad ingenium excolendum, firmandumque judicium haud parum conducere; sed et iis apprime necessaria esse, qui ethnicos, haereticosque confutaturi, vanae theologiae, profanaeque superstitionis intelligentiam ex ipsis fontibus, poetarum
4. Yet he did not so direct his mind to sacred letters as to think that humane letters ought to be neglected by him. The most perspicacious man knew full well that studies of that kind not only contribute no little to cultivating the mind and strengthening the judgement, but are also exceedingly necessary for those who, being about to confute heathens and heretics, ought to draw an understanding of vain theology and profane superstition from the very sources, the books especially of the poets
Editors' notes and page, col. 176
Footnotes
(99) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 176
In Catal. et ep. 53, al. 29, ad Theod
In the Catalogue, and letter 53 (otherwise 29), to Theod[ora]
(printed under page 94)
Page
- running head: PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 176
- marginal letters: A agens, scribit, non; B alios, apostolorum, apostolicorumque; C neram aetatem seriis; D psisse creditur Ecclesiae
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
praesertim ac philosophorum libris, haurire debent : Ut aemuli persecutoresque Christianae veritatis de suo proprio instrumento, et erroris in se, et iniquitatis in nos revincantur. Hinc in evolvendos profanorum auctorum libros indefessus incubuit : quod ex iis quae passim citat poetarum ac philosophorum veterum testimoniis luculenter patet : ut non immerito eum Tertullianus omnium doctrinarum curiosissimum exploratorem vocaverit. Nec vero intempestive, et, ut a plurimis fit, ut multiplicis litteraturae laudem aucupetur, e veteribus decerptos flores operibus inspergit, sed quotiescunque facit, opportune et apposite ad argumentum facit; vel ut ridicula haereticorum deliria festivis salibus perfricet; vel ut impuras, e quibus acceperant, lacunas aperiat; vel ut Ecclesiae hostes propriis mucronibus configat. Et eapropter Hieronymus studii philosophici vindicias agens, utilitatemque demonstrans, argumentum ab Irenaei et aliorum quorumdam exemplo petit, qui origines haereseon singularum, et ex quibus philosophorum fontibus emanarint, multis voluminibus explicarunt. Minus ergo sibi aequus humillimus, modestissimusque Pater, dum amico persuadere conatur, se nec verborum artificium didicisse, nec in comparanda vi conscriptoris elaborasse; ac dictionum ornamenti, persuadendique facultatis expertem se ac ignarum esse. Minus etiam Irenaeo aequi, qui paulo humiliorem ejus stylum conqueruntur. Secus sensere aequissimi rerum aestimatores Tertullianus paulo ante laudatus, et Hieronymus, qui ipsos libros adversus omnes haereses doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone compositos asserere non dubitat : quod facile animadvertit quisquis eos attentus legit, probantque, quae inter ipsas male sani textus Graeci, barbaraeque versionis Latinae salebras identidem emicat sublimis perspicacisque ingenii acies, acerrimi judicii firmitas, mira in excogitandis argumentis ubertas, in deligendis solertia, in proponendis facilitas, in refellendis adversariis vis ac dexteritas; quaeque demum hirsutas molestissimi argumenti spinas emolliunt, et obscurioribus locis lucem afferunt elegantes et e re nata petitae similitudines, lectorisque animum jucunde recreat condita interdum sale et facetiis oratio.
and philosophers: So that the rivals and persecutors of Christian truth may from their own equipment be convicted both of error in themselves and of iniquity towards us. Hence he applied himself untiringly to unrolling the books of profane authors: which is brilliantly clear from the testimonies of the ancient poets and philosophers which he cites everywhere: so that not undeservedly did Tertullian call him the most curious explorer of all doctrines. Nor indeed does he sprinkle flowers plucked from the ancients over his works unseasonably and, as is done by very many, to court praise for manifold learning; but as often as he does it, he does it opportunely and appositely to the argument: either to rub down the ridiculous ravings of the heretics with witty salt, or to lay open the impure pools from which they had taken them, or to transfix the enemies of the Church with their own points. And on that account Jerome, conducting the defence of philosophical study and demonstrating its utility, seeks an argument from the example of Irenaeus and certain others, who explained in many volumes the origins of the individual heresies, and from what fountains of the philosophers they emanated. Less than fair to himself, therefore, is the most humble and modest Father, while he endeavours to persuade a friend that he has neither learned the artifice of words, nor laboured in acquiring the force of a writer, and that he is devoid and ignorant of ornament of diction and the faculty of persuading. Less than fair to Irenaeus also are those who complain of his somewhat humble style. Otherwise thought those fairest judges of things, Tertullian, praised a little before, and Jerome, who does not hesitate to assert that those very books Against All Heresies were composed in most learned and eloquent language: which anyone who reads them attentively easily notices, and which are proved by the keenness of a sublime and perspicacious mind that flashes forth again and again amid the very rough places of an unsound Greek text and a barbarous Latin version, the firmness of a most keen judgement, a wonderful fertility in devising arguments, skill in selecting them, ease in setting them forth, force and dexterity in refuting adversaries; and finally the elegant similes drawn from the matter at hand, which soften the bristling thorns of a most troublesome subject and bring light to more obscure passages, while discourse seasoned at times with salt and pleasantries delightfully refreshes the mind of the reader.
5. Quantum temporis in Oriente versatus fuerit, postquam ex ephebis excessit Irenaeus, quidve ibidem gesserit, an sacras functiones obierit, vel docendi munus susceperit, tacentibus veteribus dici non potest. Halloixius quidem eum inter sacros ministros allectum, et diaconi, imo et presbyteri munere decoratum a Polycarpo fuisse asserit; sed nullo antiquitatis testimonio fretus. Qui puer Polycarpum jam valde senem audiit, diu satis cum eo commorari non potuisse videtur, ut in sacris Ecclesiae
5. How much time Irenaeus spent in the East after he passed out of youth, or what he did there, whether he discharged sacred functions or undertook the office of teaching, cannot be said, since the ancients are silent. Halloix indeed asserts that he was enrolled among the sacred ministers, and adorned by Polycarp with the office of deacon, nay even of presbyter; but relying on no testimony of antiquity. He who as a boy heard Polycarp already very old seems not to have been able to linger with him long enough that in the sacred
Editors' notes and page, col. 177
Footnotes
(1) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 177
Tertull., De Test. an. c. 1.
Tertullian, On the Testimony of the Soul, chapter 1.
(printed under page 95)
(2) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 177
In Val., c. 5.
Against the Valentinians, chapter 5.
(printed under page 95)
(3) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 177
Ep. 83, al. 84, ad Mag.
Letter 83 (otherwise 84), to Magnus.
(printed under page 95)
(4) ‹Minus etiam Irenaeo› · call in col 177
Praef. lib. I.
Preface to Book 1.
(printed under page 95)
(5) ‹Halloixius› · call in col 177
Vit. Iren., c. 5.
Life of Irenaeus, chapter 5.
(printed under page 95)
Page
- running head: 177 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IREN
- marginal letters: A praesertim ac philosophorum; B nas aperiat; vel; C nymus, qui ipsos; D oratio.
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); ends mid-word Eccle- (continued in col 178 as siae)
- other: the word Ecclesiae was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 178
gradibus collocari ab illo potuerit. Si quis tamen contenderet Irenaeum prius ab episcopo quopiam orientali diaconum fuisse ordinatum, quam in Gallias mitteretur, haud adeo repugnarem; vix enim crediderim laicum eo destinatum fuisse, qui illas regiones Evangelii luce collustraret. At intra conjecturae metas sisto, nihil sine historicorum monumentorum fide temere affirmandum ratus. Illud certum, Irenaeum in Gallias profectum, Lugdunum venisse : quando vero, a quo, et qua occasione missus fuerit, incertum prorsus. A S. Polycarpo missus fuisse scribit Gregorius Turonensis : quod factum putat Halloixius circa annum 157, tum cum Romae degeret Polycarpus, quo venerat Aniceti temporibus. Sed junior tunc fuisse videtur Irenaeus, ut mitti potuerit. Tardius igitur missum puto, quamvis quo anno, et a quo, definire nec ausim, nec possim.
degrees of the Church he could have been placed by him. Yet if anyone should contend that Irenaeus was ordained deacon by some Eastern bishop before he was sent into the Gauls, I would not greatly object; for I could scarcely believe that a layman was destined thither to illumine those regions with the light of the Gospel. But I stay within the bounds of conjecture, thinking that nothing ought to be rashly affirmed without the credit of historical monuments. This is certain, that Irenaeus having set out into the Gauls came to Lyons: but when, by whom, and on what occasion he was sent is altogether uncertain. Gregory of Tours writes that he was sent by Saint Polycarp: which Halloix thinks was done around the year 157, at the time when Polycarp was staying at Rome, whither he had come in the times of Anicetus. But Irenaeus seems to have been too young at that time to have been able to be sent. I think therefore that he was sent later, although in what year, and by whom, I neither dare nor am able to define.
6. A S. Pothino Lugdunensi episcopo ordinatum fuisse presbyterum, ex Hieronymi verbis inferre licet; eum enim Pothini episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in Gallia regebat Ecclesiam, presbyterum vocat. Quae significare videntur, Pothinum, pro more qui dudum in Ecclesia viguit, per impositionem manuum sibi et Ecclesiae suae vindicasse ac mancipasse Irenaeum; quem eam ob rem Eusebius appellat presbyterum Ecclesiae Lugdunensis. Quae vanam esse ostendunt recentiorum quorumdam conjecturam, Irenaeum angelum illum esse, sive episcopum Ecclesiae Thyatirensis, in Apocalypsi Joannis designatum; ne repetam, quod superius probavi, eum nonnisi post multos a scripta Apocalypsi et ipsa morte Joannis annos natum esse. Quam praeclare sese in presbyteratus munere gesserit, satis probant ea quibus pietatem ejus, ardentissimumque Christianae legis tuendae atque amplificandae studium commendant martyrum Lugdunensium verba, brevia quidem, sed efficacissima, in iis quas ad Eleutherum papam scribunt epistolis, quas perferendas Irenaeo tradiderant. Te per omnia ac perpetuo optamus in Domino valere, Pater Eleuthere. Has litteras ut ad te perferret, fratrem et collegam nostrum Irenaeum hortati sumus. Quem quidem ut commendatum habeas, rogamus, utpote aemulatorem testamenti Christi. Quod si nobis compertum esset, locum cuiquam conferre justitiam, eum tanquam presbyterum Ecclesiae (hunc enim gradum obtinet) tibi in primis commendasserunt. Sic illi. Has quidem epistolas a martyribus ipsis scriptas fuisse negat Blondellus, sed potius a clero Lugdunensi, quia, inquit, anno 7 imperii Marci, Christi 167, quo martyrium Pothini ac Lugdunensium contigit, Soter Romanam Ecclesiam regebat, non Eleutherus. Sed ut id assequatur, prius Eusebii fidem elevet necesse est, qui eas epistolas
6. That he was ordained presbyter by Saint Pothinus, Bishop of Lyons, may be inferred from the words of Jerome; for he calls him the presbyter of Bishop Pothinus, who ruled the Church of Lyons in Gaul. Which words seem to signify that Pothinus, according to the custom which long flourished in the Church, claimed and bound Irenaeus to himself and his Church by the laying on of hands; on which account Eusebius calls him presbyter of the Church of Lyons. Which things show to be vain the conjecture of certain moderns that Irenaeus is that angel, or bishop of the Church of Thyatira, designated in the Apocalypse of John; not to repeat what I proved above, that he was born only many years after the writing of the Apocalypse and the very death of John. How nobly he bore himself in the office of the presbyterate is sufficiently proved by the words of the martyrs of Lyons, brief indeed, yet most efficacious, wherewith they commend his piety and most ardent zeal for defending and enlarging the Christian law, in those epistles which they write to Pope Eleutherus, which they had handed over to Irenaeus to be conveyed: We wish you in all things and perpetually to fare well in the Lord, Father Eleutherus. We have exhorted our brother and colleague Irenaeus to convey these letters to you; whom indeed we ask you to hold commended, as a zealous adherer of the testament of Christ. For if we knew that righteousness conferred place upon anyone, we would have commended him to you among the first as a presbyter of the Church (for this degree he holds). Thus they. That these epistles indeed were written by the martyrs themselves Blondel denies, saying that they were written rather by the clergy of Lyons, because, says he, in the 7th year of the reign of Marcus, and of Christ 167, in which the martyrdom of Pothinus and the people of Lyons happened, Soter was ruling the Roman Church, not Eleutherus. But in order to compass that, he must first disparage the credit of Eusebius, who affirms that those epistles
Editors' notes and page, col. 178
Footnotes
(6) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 178
Hist. Franc., lib. I, c. 29.
History of the Franks, Book 1, chapter 29.
(printed under page 95)
(7) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 178
Loc. cit.
In the place cited.
(printed under page 95)
(8) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 178
In Catal.
In the Catalogue.
(printed under page 95)
(9) ‹eam ob rem Eusebius› · call in col 178
L. V Hist., c. 4.
Book 5 of the History, chapter 4.
(printed under page 95)
(10) ‹Irenaeo tradiderant› · call in col 178
Id., ibid.
The same, in the same place.
(printed under page 95)
(11) ‹negat Blondellus› · call in col 178
Apol. pro sent. Hieron., c. 8.
Apology for the Opinion of Jerome, chapter 8.
(printed under page 95)
Page
- running head: . I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 178
- marginal letters: A siae gradibus collocari; B Irenaeus, [LXXIX] ut; C sive episcopum Ecclesiae; D utpote aemulatorem testamenti
- old-edition numerals: [LXXIX] after Irenaeus,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); begins mid-word siae from col 177
a martyribus adhuc in carcere positis scriptas, eosque sub Eleuthero, anno 17 Marci Aurelii passos esse affirmat. Hinc ergo potius concludere debebat Blondellus, eos saltem anno 170, quo pontificatum iniisse vult Eleutherum (tardius ego iniisse putem), martyrium subiisse, quam id vanis conjecturis nixus ad an. 167 referre. Certe post annum 167, imo et 170, exaratas fuisse illas epistolas, demonstrat scribendi occasio.
were written by the martyrs while still placed in prison, and that they suffered under Eleutherus in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius. Hence, therefore, Blondel ought rather to have concluded that they underwent martyrdom at least in the year 170, in which he wishes Eleutherus to have entered upon his pontificate (I would think that he entered upon it later), than, relying on vain conjectures, to refer it to the year 167. Certainly that those epistles were penned after the year 167, nay even 170, the occasion of writing demonstrates.
7. Praeter externas quibus Ecclesia, M. Aurelio in Christianos saeviente, jactabatur procellas, motibus intestinis quassata Christi sponsa gemebat, civilibusque discordiis, quas pepererat animorum dissensio, flagrabat. Exorti circa annum 170 Cataphryges, Montano, Alcibiade ac Theodoto ducibus, afflante et instigante daemone, novis quibusdam praestigiis, falsisque vaticiniis incautos decipiebant plurimos. Eo proclivior erat in errorem lapsus, quo, Irenaeo teste, verorum miraculorum gloria coruscabat adhuc Ecclesia, coelestiumque gratiarum dona multis in locis frequenter emicabant. Hinc animorum dissensio; aliis, quibus fucum faciebat pseudo-prophetarum simulata sanctitatis species, et austerum vivendi genus ab omni lautitia et deliciis temperans, Montanum et asseclas prophetiae spiritu praefulgere opinantibus, eosque ut prophetas suscipientibus atque mirantibus; aliis, ut erat, a cacodaemone afflatos credentibus, et ut praestigiatores ac diaboli organa damnantibus et profligantibus. Interea persecutionis aestus Lugduni et Viennae in Galliis effervescebat, plurimique e fidelibus tum laicis, tum clericis, cum Pothino Lugdunensi comprehensi, et in tetros carceres conjecti, egregium multiplexque Christianae constantiae in perferendis tormentis specimen ediderant. Consulti in hoc temporum miserrimo statu Lugdunenses et Viennenses ab Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae, quid de novis prophetis sentirent, peculiari epistola significarunt. Ipsi martyres in carcere constituti, quos Ecclesiarum Orientalium perturbatio magis, quam propria calamitas angebat, sententiam rogati privatis epistolis dixerunt, quas suis adjecit clerus, ut martyrum auctoritate judicium suum firmaret. Religiosum in primis, et cum recta fide consentiens fuisse, ac proinde pseudo-prophetis, ut par erat, adversum, asserit is qui omnium epistolas legerat Eusebius. Certe a Montanistarum, qui peccatoribus Ecclesiae fores occludebant, immanitate probanda procul aberant ii, qui neque fastu et arrogantia intumescentes adversus lapsos, neque dolorem matri, aut fratribus discidium ac bellum, sed gaudium et pacem et concordiam, charitatemque omnibus relinquentes, gratificati sunt iis qui fidem negaverant, mortuaque jam Ecclesiae membra ad vitam revocaverant; quique uni e sociis, S. Alcibiadi, persuaserant, ut a duro illo et squalido vivendi genere, quod affectabant novi prophetae,
7. Besides the external storms whereby the Church was tossed while Marcus Aurelius was raging against the Christians, the bride of Christ groaned, shaken by intestine commotions, and blazed with civil discords which dissension of minds had brought forth. Having arisen around the year 170, the Cataphrygians, under the leaders Montanus, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, with the demon breathing upon and instigating them, were deceiving very many unwary persons by certain new impostures and false prophecies. The slip into error was all the more easy in that, as Irenaeus witnesses, the Church still gleamed with the glory of true miracles, and the gifts of heavenly graces frequently flashed forth in many places. Hence arose dissension of minds: some, on whom the feigned appearance of sanctity of the false prophets and an austere manner of living abstaining from all elegance and delicacies practised deceit, opining that Montanus and his followers shone forth with the spirit of prophecy, and receiving and admiring them as prophets; others believing them, as was the case, to be breathed upon by an evil demon, and condemning and routing them as impostors and instruments of the devil. Meanwhile the heat of persecution was boiling up at Lyons and Vienne in the Gauls, and very many of the faithful, both lay and clerical, having been arrested together with Pothinus of Lyons and cast into noisome prisons, had given an illustrious and manifold proof of Christian constancy in enduring torments. Consulted in this most wretched state of the times by the Churches of Asia and Phrygia as to what they thought concerning the new prophets, the people of Lyons and Vienne signified it in a special epistle. The martyrs themselves, placed in prison, whom the disturbance of the Eastern Churches tormented more than their own calamity, when asked their opinion spoke it in private epistles, which the clergy adjoined to their own in order to strengthen their judgement by the authority of the martyrs. That it was pious in the highest degree and agreeing with the right faith, and accordingly adverse to the false prophets, as was fitting, Eusebius asserts, who had read the epistles of all. Certainly far from approving the savagery of the Montanists, who shut the doors of the Church against sinners, were those who, neither swelling with pride and arrogance against the lapsed, nor leaving grief to their mother, or discord and war to their brethren, but joy and peace and concord and charity to all, showed favour to those who had denied the faith, and recalled to life the already dead members of the Church; and who had persuaded one of their companions, Saint Alcibiades, to moderate that hard and squalid manner of living which the new prophets
Editors' notes and page, col. 179
Footnotes
(12) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 179
Euseb., lib. V, c. 3.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 3.
(printed under page 96)
(13) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 179
Lib. II, c. 31, n. 2, et c. 32, n. 4, 5; l. V, c. 5, n. 1.
Book 2, chapter 31, no. 2, and chapter 32, nos. 4, 5; Book 5, chapter 5, no. 1.
(printed under page 96)
(14) ‹legerat Eusebius› · call in col 179
L. V, c. 2 et 3.
Book 5, chapters 2 and 3.
(printed under page 96)
Page
- running head: 179 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A a martyribus adhuc; B cibus, afflante et; C ningantibus et profligantibus.; D recta fide consentiens
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); ends mid-word pro- (continued in col 180 as phetae)
temperaret; quia Attalo Deus revelaverat, non recte, neque ordine facere Alcibiadem, qui et creaturis Dei minime uteretur, et aliis exemplum scandali fieret. Quia vero in omnibus ecclesiasticis negotiis primae sunt episcopi Romani partes, nihil in re tanti momenti, ipso inconsulto, definiendum esse merito censuerunt clerus et martyres. Quare pro pace Ecclesiarum quasi legatione fungentes, litteras ad Eleutherum scripserunt; rogantes, ut pro summa, qua valebat in Ecclesia auctoritate, in sedandos ortos in Asia motus, pacemque restituendam, pro virili parte incumberet.
affected; because God had revealed to Attalus that Alcibiades was not acting rightly nor in order, since he both made no use at all of the creatures of God, and became an example of scandal to others. Moreover, because in all ecclesiastical affairs the leading part belongs to the Roman bishop, the clergy and martyrs deservedly judged that nothing in a matter of so great moment ought to be defined without consulting him. Wherefore, discharging as it were an embassy for the peace of the Churches, they wrote letters to Eleutherus, asking that in accordance with the supreme authority wherewith he prevailed in the Church, he should apply himself for his own part to calming the commotions that had arisen in Asia and restoring peace.
8. Alia scribendi ad Eleutherum causa esse potuit. Forte inclinabat ad novos prophetas deceptus eorum artibus pontificis animus, imo et praeproperas eis litteras pacis jam dederat. Si enim verum sit quod scribit Tertullianus initio libri adversus Praxean, idem Praxeas, cum Romam venisset, tunc episcopum Romanum agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis et Ecclesiis eorum asseverando (sic ille Montanistarum laqueis jam irretitus), et praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et litteras pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Eum quidem episcopum Romanum proprio nomine designare Tertulliano non placuit; unde alii Anicetum, alii Victorem, alii alium intelligunt. At in Eleutherum magis quadrare videntur omnia; et quae hic narrantur apprime consentiunt cum epistolarum Lugdunensium et Viennensium circumstantiis. Haec contigisse certum est ipsismet Montanistarum initiis, cum necdum in apertum schisma eruperant, et Ecclesiae catholicae episcopos, Romanum in primis circumvenire nitebantur, ut hujus auctoritate pseudo-prophetias munirent, et tutius effunderent. Audierant Lugdunenses et Viennenses, ab Asianis forte moniti, deceptum Eleutherum intempestivam pacem fanaticis dedisse; inde turbari fideles, ac Ecclesiarum dissensiones augeri. E re sua arbitrati ex animo pontificis conceptam opinionem evellere, ad eum scribunt, martyrumque epistolas mittunt; hortati ut ad invictorum Christi athletarum sententiam, cujus tantum in Ecclesia pondus, suam componeret; ac id quod praepropere gesserat revocando, dissensiones ortas sedaret, pacemque in Ecclesia judicii sui auctoritate restitueret. Interea commodum accidit ut Praxeas ab Oriente Romam veniens, Montanistarum fraudes sibi probe notas Eleuthero aperuerit, ipsumque monuerit jam a decessoribus suis, Sotere videlicet, repudiatam esse prophetiam. Ita cum Lugdunensium epistolis accedente rerum notitia, Eleutherus mutata sententia litteras pacis revocat jam emissas, ortamque discordiam compescit.
8. There may have been another reason for writing to Eleutherus. Perhaps the mind of the pontiff, deceived by their arts, was inclining towards the new prophets, nay, had even already given them hasty letters of peace. For if what Tertullian writes at the beginning of his book Against Praxeas be true, the same Praxeas, when he had come to Rome, by asserting falsehoods concerning the prophets themselves and their Churches (so spoke he, already entangled in the snares of the Montanists) and by defending the authorities of his predecessors, compelled the then Roman bishop, who was already acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and from that acknowledgment was bringing peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, both to recall the letters of peace already sent out, and to desist from his purpose of receiving the charisms. That Roman bishop indeed it did not please Tertullian to designate by his own name; whence some understand Anicetus, others Victor, and others another. Yet all things seem to square better with Eleutherus; and what is narrated here agrees exceedingly well with the circumstances of the epistles of Lyons and Vienne. It is certain that these things happened at the very beginnings of the Montanists, when they had not yet broken out into open schism, and were striving to circumvent the bishops of the Catholic Church, the Roman bishop above all, so that by his authority they might fortify their false prophecies and pour them forth more safely. The people of Lyons and Vienne had heard, warned perhaps by the Asians, that Eleutherus, deceived, had given an unseasonable peace to the fanatics, and that thence the faithful were being disturbed and the dissensions of the Churches increased. Thinking it to their interest to pluck out from the mind of the pontiff the opinion he had conceived, they write to him and send the epistles of the martyrs, exhorting him to conform his own opinion to that of the unconquered athletes of Christ, the weight of which was so great in the Church, and by recalling what he had hastily done, to calm the dissensions that had arisen and restore peace in the Church by the authority of his judgement. Meanwhile it opportunely happened that Praxeas, coming to Rome from the East, laid open to Eleutherus the frauds of the Montanists, which were well known to him, and warned him that the prophecy had already been repudiated by his predecessors, namely Soter. Thus, as knowledge of the facts was added along with the epistles of the people of Lyons, Eleutherus, changing his opinion, recalls the letters of peace already sent out, and quells the discord that had arisen.
9. Omnia haec apte simul cohaerent, mutuamque
9. All these things fitly cohere together, and Tertullian and Eusebius
Editors' notes and page, col. 180
Page
- running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 180
- marginal letters: A phetae, temperaret; quia; B ras eis litteras; C drare videntur omnia;; D tentiam, cujus tantum
- old-edition numerals: [LXXX] after Viennenses,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); begins mid-word phetae from col 179
sibi lucem inde afferunt Tertullianus et Eusebius. Haec conjectura omnium certe probabilior. Eam dudum proposuerat Henricus Valesius, in illamque satis propendebat bonae memoriae Tillemontius; ne tamen tueretur vir doctissimus unum obstitit. Nimirum, inquit, Tertullianus quam narrat historiam mutatae a summo pontifice, monente Praxea, sententiae, tam arcte cum ejusdem Praxeae haeresi colligat, ut utrumque eodem tempore contigisse videatur. At certum est Praxean non emersisse, nisi post utrumque Theodotum, quorum antiquior sub Victore primum visus est. Alium igitur quam Victorem episcopum Romanum monere non potuit Praxeas. Ita vir clarissimus. Verum quidem est illa consequenter a Tertulliano referri : non tamen hinc inferri posse putem eodem prorsus tempore contigisse; imo contrarium suadet tota narrationis Tertullianicae series. Constat siquidem Praxean, cum ex Asia Romam advenit, Romanoque episcopo auctor fuit ut litteras pacis datas Montanistis revocaret, catholicam fidem, si non animo tenuisse, saltem adhuc simulasse, nec nisi post aliquot annos deprehensum fuisse haereticum. Neque enim fidem tam facile apud pontificem obtinuisset perfidus haeresiarcha, quem turbis in Ecclesia ciendis studere compertum fuisset. Sed ne quidpiam hic conjecturis indulgere videar, Tertullianum ipsum audiamus : Fruticaverant, inquit, avenae Praxeanae, hic quoque superseminatae, dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinae : traductae dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam evulsae videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua; et manet chirographum apud Psychicos, apud quos gesta res est; exinde silentium. Et nos quidem postea agnitio Paracleti, atque defensio, disjunxit a Psychicis. Itaque primum steriles avenas, ut cum Virgilio loquitur Tertullianus, seu falsam doctrinam seminavit Praxeas, non palam quidem, sed clam, dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinae, nec infelix lolium advertentibus. Tam parum sibi ab eo cavebant fideles, ut jam fruticarent avenae, id est, prava dogmata multorum animos occuparent inficerentque; donec tandem patefactum sit malum semen, per quem Deus voluit, nempe, ut videtur, per Tertullianum ipsum, qui nondum a Catholicis defecerat, ut ipse ait; et Praxeas palinodiam recantaverit. Haec omnia simul et eodem tempore contigisse nemo sibi persuaserit; plures annos inter avenarum seminationem, fruticationem, patefactionem, et Praxeae palinodiam intercessisse necesse est. Jam ergo si dicamus Praxean Eleuthero malas artes Montanistarum aperuisse anno 177, quo passi sunt martyres Lugdunenses; tum per viginti circiter annos catholicam fidem simulantem, haeresin clanculum disseminasse, eamque jam maturescentem latiusque
bring mutual light to each other thence. This conjecture is certainly the most probable of all. Henri de Valois had long ago proposed it, and Tillemont of good memory inclined sufficiently towards it; yet one thing stood in the way of the most learned man's defending it. Namely, says he, the history which Tertullian narrates of the opinion changed by the supreme pontiff at the warning of Praxeas, he binds so closely with the heresy of the same Praxeas that both seem to have happened at the same time. Now it is certain that Praxeas did not emerge except after both Theodotuses, the elder of whom was first seen under Victor. Praxeas, therefore, could not have warned any other Roman bishop than Victor. Thus the most illustrious man. It is true indeed that those things are related in sequence by Tertullian: yet I would not think it can be inferred hence that they happened at altogether the same time; nay, the whole series of the Tertullianic narrative persuades the contrary. For it is established that Praxeas, when he arrived at Rome from Asia and was the instigator to the Roman bishop to recall the letters of peace given to the Montanists, if he did not hold the Catholic faith in his heart, at least still feigned it, and was not detected as a heretic until after several years. For the perfidious heresiarch would not so easily have obtained credit with the pontiff if it had been ascertained that he was eager to stir up disturbances in the Church. But lest I seem to indulge in conjectures at all here, let us hear Tertullian himself: The Praxean wild oats had sprouted, says he, oversown here also while many were sleeping in the simplicity of doctrine; exposed thereafter through whom God willed, they even seemed to have been plucked up. Finally the teacher had given security for his former self concerning his amendment; and his handwriting remains among the Psychics, among whom the matter was transacted; thenceforth silence. And us indeed afterwards the acknowledgment and defence of the Paraclete separated from the Psychics. Accordingly, Praxeas first sowed barren wild oats, as Tertullian speaks with Virgil, or false doctrine, not openly indeed, but secretly, while many were sleeping in the simplicity of doctrine and not noticing the unhappy darnel. So little did the faithful guard themselves against him that the wild oats were already sprouting, that is, perverse dogmas were occupying and infecting the minds of many; until at length the evil seed was laid open through whom God willed, namely, as it seems, through Tertullian himself, who had not yet defected from the Catholics, as he himself says; and Praxeas sang his recantation. That all these things happened together and at the same time no one could persuade himself; several years must necessarily have intervened between the sowing of the wild oats, their sprouting, their exposure, and the recantation of Praxeas. Now therefore, if we say that Praxeas laid open to Eleutherus the evil arts of the Montanists in the year 177, in which the martyrs of Lyons suffered; and then for about twenty years, feigning the Catholic faith, secretly disseminated his heresy, and that when it was already ripening and creeping more widely
Editors' notes and page, col. 181
Footnotes
(15) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 181 (inferred)
In Adnot. in lib. V Euseb., c. 3.
In the Annotations on Book 5 of Eusebius, chapter 3.
(printed under page 97)
(16) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 181 (inferred)
T. II Hist. eccl., not. 4, in Montan.
Vol. 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, note 4, on Montanus.
(printed under page 97)
(17) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 181 (inferred)
Adv. Prax. cap. 1.
Against Praxeas, chapter 1.
(printed under page 97)
(18) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 181 (inferred)
Euseb., l. V, c. 3.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 3.
(printed under page 97)
Page
- running head: 181 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRE
- marginal letters: A sibi lucem inde; B est illa consequenter; C mientibus multis in; D patefactum sit malum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
serpentem sub hujus saeculi finem agnitam fuisse, ac tandem evulsam, auctore recantante, cum Victor Ecclesiam regeret, et uterque Theodotus emersisset; nihil, puto, affirmaverimus quod repugnet vel Tertulliano, vel certis historiae ecclesiasticae monumentis, vel temporum rationibus. Viderint tamen eruditi, quorum judicio conjecturas nostras libenter permittimus. Sed ad Lugdunensium et Viennensium epistolas redeamus.
towards the end of this century it was recognized, and at length plucked up, with its author recanting, while Victor was ruling the Church and both Theodotuses had emerged; we shall have affirmed nothing, I think, which contradicts either Tertullian, or the certain monuments of ecclesiastical history, or the calculations of the times. Let the learned see to it, however, to whose judgement we willingly leave our conjectures. But let us return to the epistles of the people of Lyons and Vienne.
10. Cum clerus et martyres varias partim in Asiam et Phrygiam ad fratres, partim Romam ad Eleutherum papam litteras scripsissent; Irenaeum rogaverunt, ut eas quae ad Eleutherum dirigebantur, perferre non dedignaretur, et pacem inter Ecclesias pro virili sollicitaret. Provinciam cum libens suscepisset sanctissimus presbyter, profecturum martyres commendarunt pontifici, ut superius vidimus. Quae vero causa fuerit ut Irenaeum prae caeteris delegerint cum clerus, tum martyres, qui litteras eorum Romam perferret, obscurum in primis. Prima siquidem fronte intempestiva prorsus ea legatio videtur. Esto, permagni fuisset momenti de pace Ecclesiarum apud summum pontificem agere; at alteri demandari negotium poterat; saltem non adeo urgere videbatur, quin in aliud tempus commodius differri potuisset. Neque enim in tam adversa temporum conditione, saeviente in Christi gregem persecutione, clericis omnibus vel in vincula conjectis, vel latebras quaerere coactis, opportunum erat ut Irenaeus Ecclesiae decus ac columen, cujus praesentia suis tantopere necessaria erat, tam procul mitteretur. His rationibus permotus cl. Henricus Valesius fatetur quidem tum a Pothino Lugdunensi episcopo, tum a clero, tum a martyribus designatum fuisse Irenaeum qui legatione apud summum Pontificem perfungeretur, et a martyribus commendatum fuisse; expletam vero legationem negat, sed superveniente Pothini morte alteri fuisse demandatam, ne in tanta rerum difficultate suo praecipuo lumine privaretur viduata mox suo pastore Ecclesia. Franciscus Feuardentius et Halloixius putant Irenaeum, nedum ad Eleutherum, sed et ad Ecclesias Asiae et Phrygiae legationem obiisse : cum hoc tamen discrimine, quod prior velit eum Pothino adhuc in vivis agente, alter post ejus ac caeterorum martyrum necem profectum fuisse. Baronius denique censet Irenaeum missum esse ad Eleutherum papam, et eam reipsa legationem obiisse; de Asiana autem profectione silet prorsus. Istius sententiam amplectitur is qui novam editionem operum S. Leonis papae procuravit vir doctissimus, Irenaeumque ante Pothini martyrumque mortem profectum esse probabilius existimat. Quid ipsi ea de re sentiamus, proferre liceat.
10. When the clergy and martyrs had written various letters, partly into Asia and Phrygia to the brethren, partly to Rome to Pope Eleutherus, they asked Irenaeus not to disdain to convey those which were directed to Eleutherus, and to solicit peace among the Churches with all his might. When the most holy presbyter had willingly undertaken the charge, as he was about to set out the martyrs commended him to the pontiff, as we saw above. Now what the reason was that both the clergy and the martyrs chose Irenaeus above the rest to convey their letters to Rome is exceedingly obscure. For at first sight that embassy seems altogether unseasonable. Granted that it would have been of very great moment to treat with the supreme pontiff concerning the peace of the Churches; yet the business could have been entrusted to another; at least it did not seem to press so hard that it could not have been put off to another more convenient time. For in so adverse a condition of the times, with persecution raging against the flock of Christ, and all the clergy either cast into bonds or forced to seek hiding-places, it was not opportune that Irenaeus, the glory and pillar of the Church, whose presence was so greatly necessary to his own people, should be sent so far away. Moved by these reasons, the illustrious Henri de Valois confesses indeed that Irenaeus was designated both by Pothinus Bishop of Lyons, and by the clergy, and by the martyrs to discharge the embassy to the supreme Pontiff, and that he was commended by the martyrs; but he denies that the embassy was fulfilled by him, saying that when the death of Pothinus supervened it was entrusted to another, lest in so great a difficulty of affairs the Church, soon widowed of her pastor, should be deprived of her chief light. François Feuardent and Halloix think that Irenaeus discharged an embassy not only to Eleutherus, but also to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia: with this difference, however, that the former wishes him to have set out while Pothinus was still among the living, the latter after his violent death and that of the rest of the martyrs. Finally, Baronius judges that Irenaeus was sent to Pope Eleutherus, and actually discharged that embassy; whereas concerning the Asian journey he is altogether silent. His opinion the most learned man who procured the new edition of the works of Pope Saint Leo embraces, and considers it more probable that Irenaeus set out before the death of Pothinus and the martyrs. May it be permitted to set forth what we ourselves think on that matter.
11. Et quidem Irenaeum in Asiam et Phrygiam
11. And indeed that Irenaeus into Asia and Phrygia
Editors' notes and page, col. 182
Footnotes
(18) ‹10. Cum clerus› · call in col 182
Euseb., l. V, c. 3.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 3.
(printed under page 97)
(19) ‹Valesius fatetur› · call in col 182
In Not. ad lib. V Hist. Eus., c. 4.
In the Notes on Book 5 of Eusebius's History, chapter 4.
(printed under page 97)
(20) ‹Franciscus Feuardentius› · call in col 182
In Vit. S. Iren. operib. ejus praefixa.
In the Life of St Irenaeus prefixed to his works.
(printed under page 97)
(21) ‹et Halloixius› · call in col 182
In Vit., c. 7.
In the Life, chapter 7.
(printed under page 97)
(22) ‹vir doctissimus› · call in col 182
T. II nov. edit. S. Leon. Paris. an. 1675; diss. V, c. 13.
Vol. 2 of the new edition of St Leo, Paris, 1675; Dissertation 5, chapter 13.
(printed under page 97)
Page
- running head: T. I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 182
- marginal letters: A serpentem sub hujus; B Ecclesias pro virili; C opportunum erat ut; D legationem obiisse : cum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
a Lugdunensibus et Viennensibus missum fuisse, vel in eas regiones usquam migrasse, gratis omnino, nullaque monumentorum historicorum fide asseritur. Affirmat quidem Eusebius varias a martyribus, cum adhuc tenerentur in vinculis, de pace Ecclesiarum scriptas fuisse epistolas, tum ad fratres qui erant in Asia et Phrygia, tum ad Eleutherum papam; mortuis vero martyribus, qui superstites erant fideles, eas longiori illi ac insigni epistolae, quam ab ipso Irenaeo Graeco idiomate scriptam fuisse arbitrantur multi (haud certe indignus est fetus qui tanto viro tribuatur), in qua martyrum certamina describebantur, et ad cujus calcem judicium de novis prophetis ferebant, adjecisse; sed illas Irenaeo traditas fuisse, vel rogatum eum usquam fuisse, ut in Orientem perferret, nec Eusebius, nec alius quisquam e veteribus memorat. Longe aliud sentiendum de iis, quae ad Eleutherum papam scribebantur, epistolis. Has, ut Romam ferret, Irenaeum rogasse se disertis verbis testantur martyres in scriptis ad eumdem Eleutherum in Irenaei gratiam commendatitiis litteris. Morem vero gessisse Irenaeum, litterasque Romam pertulisse expresse asserit Hieronymus : cui eo major hac in parte fides tribuenda, quo Romae diutissime commoratus, ut probe notat doctissimus Leonis editor, scriniorumque apostolicorum particeps factus, hoc partim ex traditione urbis, partim ex monumentis adhuc superstitibus potuit ediscere. Nec dissentit Eusebius : imo demandatam legationem expletam fuisse satis silentio suo significat; si effectum sortita non fuisset, id procul dubio non omissurus. Non committendum autem putem, ut a tantae auctoritatis scriptorum sententia discedamus, nisi gravissimis momentis ac rationibus, quae hic certe desunt, abducti. At, inquit Valesius, credibile non est Irenaeum Ecclesiam Lugdunensem persecutionis acerbitate fatiscentem, suoque viduatam pastore, deserere aut voluisse, aut potuisse. Sed si credibile sit in iis temporum circumstantiis tum a clero, tum a martyribus jam in vincula conjectis, quibus propediem denuntianda esset capitalis adversus eos lata sententia, Pothino vel comprehenso vel mortuo, caeterisque clericis aut captis, aut fugatis, Irenaeum, metu perculsae et afflictae Ecclesiae tam necessarium, delectum fuisse, qui Romam litteras perferret; cur revera pertulisse fidem superabit? Quod impedimento fuisse supponitur quominus legatio expleretur; idem et esse debuit quominus decerneretur. Cum igitur hanc in ipso persecutionis aestu decreverint clerus et martyres; quin ea perfunctus fuerit Irenaeus, pro summo quo invictos Christi athletas colebat obsequio, saeviente licet persecutione, dubitari non potest.
was sent by the people of Lyons and Vienne, or ever migrated into those regions, is asserted altogether gratuitously and with no credit of historical monuments. Eusebius indeed affirms that various epistles concerning the peace of the Churches were written by the martyrs while they were still held in bonds, both to the brethren who were in Asia and Phrygia, and to Pope Eleutherus; and that when the martyrs were dead, the faithful who survived adjoined them to that longer and distinguished epistle which many suppose to have been written in the Greek language by Irenaeus himself (certainly it is an offspring not unworthy to be attributed to so great a man), wherein the struggles of the martyrs were described, and at the end of which they passed judgement concerning the new prophets; but that those epistles were handed over to Irenaeus, or that he was ever asked to convey them into the East, neither Eusebius nor any other of the ancients mentions. Far otherwise must we think concerning those epistles which were written to Pope Eleutherus. That they asked Irenaeus to bear these to Rome, the martyrs testify in express words in the commendatory letters written to the same Eleutherus in favour of Irenaeus. And that Irenaeus complied, and conveyed the letters to Rome, Jerome expressly asserts: to whom all the greater credit is to be given in this matter in that, having lingered a very long time at Rome, as the most learned editor of Leo rightly notes, and having been made a sharer in the apostolic archives, he was able to learn this thoroughly partly from the tradition of the city, partly from monuments still surviving. Nor does Eusebius dissent: nay, by his silence he sufficiently signifies that the entrusted embassy was fulfilled; since, if it had not obtained effect, he would without doubt not have omitted that. Now I would not think that we should allow ourselves to depart from the opinion of writers of so great authority, unless led away by the weightiest considerations and reasons, which here certainly are lacking. But, says Valois, it is not credible that Irenaeus either wished or was able to forsake the Church of Lyons when she was fainting from the bitterness of persecution and widowed of her pastor. Yet if it be credible that in those circumstances of the times, both by the clergy and by the martyrs already cast into bonds, to whom the capital sentence passed against them was shortly to be announced, with Pothinus either arrested or dead, and the rest of the clergy either captured or put to flight, Irenaeus, so necessary to the fear-stricken and afflicted Church, was chosen to convey the letters to Rome; why will it surpass belief that he actually conveyed them? What is supposed to have been a hindrance to the embassy's being fulfilled ought also to have been the same to its being decreed. Since therefore the clergy and martyrs decreed it in the very heat of persecution, it cannot be doubted that Irenaeus discharged it, in accordance with the supreme deference wherewith he revered the unconquered athletes of Christ, even though persecution was raging.
12. Si quidem de sollicitanda apud summum pontificem Ecclesiarum Orientalium pace, eaque
12. If indeed the question had been only of soliciting the peace of the Eastern Churches before the supreme pontiff, and of conveying to Rome that opinion
Editors' notes and page, col. 183
Footnotes
(23) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 183 (inferred)
Lib. V, c. 3.
Book 5, chapter 3.
(printed under page 98)
(24) ‹asserit Hieronymus› · call in col 183
In Catal.
In the Catalogue.
(printed under page 98)
Page
- running head: 183 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A a Lugdunensibus et; B usquam fuisse, ut; C legationem expletam fuisse; D cis aut captis,
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXI] before vel
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
quam de Montani vaticiniis Lugdunenses atque Viennenses tulerant sententia Romam perferenda, quaestio duntaxat fuisset, ut supponit Valesius, nonnihil ponderis forsitan haberet ejus ratio. Non enim tanti momenti fuisse videtur, aut adeo urgebat negotium, quin in aliud tempus commodius differri, aut saltem alteri quam Irenaeo facile committi potuisset. Unde quod in tam difficilibus Ecclesiarum Lugdunensis et Viennensis temporibus rogatus fuerit talis et tantus vir, ut Eleutherum papam adiret, illud procul dubio demonstrat, longe aliam atque majoris momenti fuisse causam adeundi; praesensque aliquod ab istis Ecclesiis propulsandum discrimen maturasse profectionem. Quidnam vero rei fuerit, haud obscure, ni fallor, tum ex historia martyrum, tum ex Eusebio ipso et Hieronymo colligitur. Ipsis persecutionis initiis comprehensus Pothinus episcopus Lugdunensis, atque a militibus immaniter raptatus, innumerisque plagis affectus, pene exanimis conjectus in carcerem, biduo post ex vulneribus acceptis nonagenario major animam exhalaverat. Si diutius antistite orba in iis temporum angustiis relicta fuisset Ecclesia, periculum fuisset ne Christianae res in Galliis, jam persecutorum furore non parum labefactatae, funditus ruerent. Quare communis tum cleri, tum martyrum votis delectus Irenaeus Pothino sufficitur. Quia vero aut rarissimi, aut nullidum erant in Galliis episcopi (nullum saltem iis temporibus memorat Eusebius, ne quidem apud Viennenses) qui electo manus possent imponere, necesse fuit Romani pontificis opem implorare, tum propter vicinitatem, tum propter potiorem, ut loquitur Irenaeus, principalitatem; ut viduatae suo pastore Ecclesiae per ejusdem Irenaei consecrationem suppetias ferret. Hic ergo Romam mittendus fuit, et, ut ferebant Ecclesiae leges, ejus fides, pietas, merita denique Eleuthero probanda. Hucque spectant epistolae commendatitiae quas ad pontificem scripsere martyres, quibus Irenaei singulare pro Christi testamento studium praedicant, hortanturque ut ipsum caeteris anteponat, ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει : ne minus notum presbyterum ad dignitatem episcopalem evehere dubitaret. Sic Eusebium cum cl. Leonis editore interpretor; a quo tamen in eo dissentio, quod probabilius putet ante Pothini martyrumque mortem ad Eleutherum profectum esse Irenaeum. Neque enim obtinere a me possum ut credam, martyres suo adhuc in vivis agente episcopo Romam misisse, qui necdum vacuam sedem capesseret. Nam, praeterquam quod id Ecclesiae legibus repugnabat, ipsa martyrum Acta, quae refert Eusebius, ad Ecclesias Asiae et Phrygiae missa, testantur Pothinum ineunte fere persecutione comprehensum, martyrio vitam finiisse; idque tota Eusebianae narrationis series satis insinuat; adeo ut de mittendo Romam Irenaeo consilium
which the people of Lyons and Vienne had passed concerning the prophecies of Montanus, as Valois supposes, his reasoning would perhaps have some weight. For the business does not seem to have been of such great moment, nor did it press so hard, that it could not easily have been put off to another more convenient time, or at least entrusted to another than Irenaeus. Whence the fact that in such difficult times of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne such and so great a man was asked to go to Pope Eleutherus demonstrates without doubt that there was a far different reason, and one of greater moment, for going to him, and that some present danger to be warded off from those Churches hastened the journey. Now what the matter was is gathered not obscurely, unless I am mistaken, both from the history of the martyrs and from Eusebius himself and Jerome. Arrested at the very beginnings of the persecution, Pothinus Bishop of Lyons, having been savagely dragged about by the soldiers and afflicted with innumerable blows, and cast almost lifeless into prison, two days later, being over ninety years old, had breathed out his soul from the wounds he had received. If the Church had been left longer bereft of a prelate in those straits of the times, there would have been danger lest Christian affairs in the Gauls, already shaken no little by the fury of the persecutors, should fall into utter ruin. Wherefore Irenaeus, chosen by the common prayers both of the clergy and of the martyrs, is appointed to succeed Pothinus. Moreover, because there were either very few bishops, or none as yet, in the Gauls (Eusebius at least mentions none in those times, not even among the people of Vienne) who could lay hands upon the elect, it was necessary to implore the aid of the Roman pontiff, both on account of nearness and on account of his more potent principality, as Irenaeus speaks, that he might bring succour to the Church widowed of her pastor through the consecration of the same Irenaeus. He therefore had to be sent to Rome, and, as the laws of the Church required, his faith, piety, and finally his merits had to be approved to Eleutherus. And to this look the commendatory epistles which the martyrs wrote to the pontiff, wherein they extol the singular zeal of Irenaeus for the testament of Christ, and exhort him to prefer him before the rest, echein se auton en parathesei: lest he should hesitate to raise a less known presbyter to the episcopal dignity. Thus with the illustrious editor of Leo I interpret Eusebius; from whom, however, I dissent in this, that he thinks it more probable that Irenaeus set out to Eleutherus before the death of Pothinus and the martyrs. For I cannot prevail upon myself to believe that the martyrs, while their bishop was still among the living, sent to Rome one to take possession of a see not yet vacant. For besides the fact that this was contrary to the laws of the Church, the very Acts of the martyrs which Eusebius relates, sent to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, testify that Pothinus, arrested almost at the beginning of the persecution, ended his life by martyrdom; and the whole series of the Eusebian narrative sufficiently intimates this, so much so that the martyrs are related to have taken counsel concerning sending Irenaeus to Rome
Editors' notes and page, col. 184
Footnotes
(25) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 184 (inferred)
Lib. V, c. 1.
Book 5, chapter 1.
(printed under page 98)
(26) ‹memorat Eusebius› · call in col 184
Lib. V, c. 6.
Book 5, chapter 6.
(printed under page 98)
(27) ‹Sic Eusebium› · call in col 184
Ibid. c. 4.
In the same place, chapter 4.
(printed under page 98)
(28) ‹refert Eusebius› · call in col 184
Ib., cap. 1.
In the same place, chapter 1.
(printed under page 98)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 184
- marginal letters: A quam de Montani; B martyrum, tum ex; C Eusebius, ne quidem; D cl. Leonis editore
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); ends mid-word consi- (continued in col 185 as lium)
- other: the word consilium was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 185
cepisse martyres referantur, post memoratam jam episcopi sui mortem, ut haec illi praeivisse demonstretur. Si vero Eusebius post commemoratam, cap. 4, Irenaei legationem, iterum de Pothini morte, Irenaeique in ejus locum substitutione agat; argumento non est eam morte priorem fuisse; sed cum Eusebius cleri et martyrum epistolas, in quibus omnia haec eodem, quo dixi, ordine referuntur, exscribendas sibi proposuisset, quod primis quatuor libri quinti capitibus exsequitur; quae de Irenaeo jam suis verbis dicturus erat, debuit, ne narrationis filum abrumperet, in caput sextum rejicere. Ab Eusebio non discedit Hieronymus, qui in libro De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, de Irenaeo ita loquitur : Irenaeus Pothini episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in Gallia regebat Ecclesiam, presbyter, a martyribus ejusdem loci ob quasdam Ecclesiae quaestiones legatus Romam missus, honorificas super nomine suo (id est, nomini ejus, quod pacificum sonat, respondentes) ad Eleutherum episcopum perfert litteras. Postea jam Pothino prope nonagenario ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum ejus substituitur. Quibus verbis non obscure significat duplicem fuisse legationis Irenaei finem : alterum, eumque minus praecipuum, quem jam memoravimus, ut de quibusdam Ecclesiae quaestionibus, iis nimirum quae ad novas prophetias spectabant, apud pontificem ageret; alterum longe potiorem, ut in Pothini defuncti locum substitueretur; et eam ob rem honorificas super nomine suo pertulisse litteras. Priori legationis officio perfunctus Irenaeus, postea secundum obiit, in Pothini ob Christum martyrio coronati locum substitutus. A quo? nisi ab Eleuthero, ad quem honorificas super nomine suo pertulerat litteras. Illud igitur, postea, non longiorem aliquam temporis moram, quasi Irenaeus litteris Romam perlatis, in Gallias redux in Pothini locum substitutus fuisset; sed rerum seriem significat, quarum aliae alias paucis diebus praecesserint : nimirum Irenaeum primum Ecclesiarum pacem apud Eleutherum sollicitasse, tum demum consecratum ab eo fuisse episcopum, in locum Pothini defuncti.
after the death of their bishop has already been mentioned, so that the latter is shown to have preceded the former. And if Eusebius, after commemorating the embassy of Irenaeus in Chapter 4, deals again with the death of Pothinus and the substitution of Irenaeus in his place, that is no proof that the embassy was prior to his death; but since Eusebius had proposed to himself to transcribe the epistles of the clergy and martyrs, wherein all these things are related in the same order that I have stated—which he executes in the first four chapters of the fifth book—he had to put off to the sixth chapter what he was now about to say concerning Irenaeus in his own words, lest he should break off the thread of the narrative. From Eusebius Jerome does not depart, who in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers speaks thus concerning Irenaeus: Irenaeus, presbyter of Bishop Pothinus who ruled the Church of Lyons in Gaul, having been sent as legate to Rome by the martyrs of the same place on account of certain questions of the Church, conveys to Bishop Eleutherus letters honourable concerning his name (that is, corresponding to his name, which sounds peace-making). Afterwards, when Pothinus, nearly ninety years old, had already been crowned with martyrdom for Christ, he is substituted in his place. By which words he not obscurely signifies that the end of the embassy of Irenaeus was twofold: the one, and that the less principal, which we have already mentioned, that he might treat before the pontiff concerning certain questions of the Church, namely those which looked to the new prophecies; the other far more important, that he might be substituted in the place of the deceased Pothinus; and that on that account he conveyed letters honourable concerning his name. Having discharged the first office of the embassy, Irenaeus afterwards entered upon the second, being substituted in the place of Pothinus crowned with martyrdom for Christ. By whom? unless by Eleutherus, to whom he had conveyed the letters honourable concerning his name. That word, therefore, afterwards, signifies not some longer delay of time, as if Irenaeus, having conveyed the letters to Rome, had returned to the Gauls and been substituted in the place of Pothinus; but a series of events, of which some preceded others by a few days: namely, that Irenaeus first solicited the peace of the Churches before Eleutherus, and then at last was consecrated bishop by him in the place of the deceased Pothinus.
13. Unum superest quod forte scrupulum cuipiam injicere queat : id videlicet quod dixi, rarissimos tunc temporis, aut forte nullosdum in Galliis fuisse episcopos, a quibus manuum impositionem accipere potuisset Irenaeus. Non quidem hic celeberrimam de primis Galliarum apostolis quaestionem ad novum examen revocare mihi in animo est : illud tantum asserere liceat, quod ex certis indubitatisque monumentis exploratum videtur, M. Aurelii temporibus Christianam religionem nondum altas firmasque radices in Galliis egisse, paucissimasque ibi Pothini et Irenaei aetate constitutas fuisse episcopales sedes. Certum est, nec negant acerrimi Missionum apostolicarum in Galliis
13. One thing remains which might perhaps cast a scruple into someone's mind: namely what I have said, that at that time there were very few bishops, or perhaps none as yet, in the Gauls, from whom Irenaeus could have received the laying on of hands. It is not indeed in my mind here to recall to a new examination the most famous question concerning the first apostles of the Gauls: may it be permitted to assert this only, which seems ascertained from certain and indubitable monuments, that in the times of Marcus Aurelius the Christian religion had not yet struck deep and firm roots in the Gauls, and that very few episcopal sees had been established there in the age of Pothinus and Irenaeus. It is certain, nor do the keenest defenders of the Apostolic Missions in the Gauls deny,
Editors' notes and page, col. 185
Page
- running head: 185 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRE
- marginal letters: A lium cepisse martyres; B Lugdunensem in Gallia; C rem honorificas super; D piam injicere queat :
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXII] before Quibus
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); begins mid-word lium from col 184; ends mid-sentence (continued in col 186)
patroni, Ecclesiae Lugdunensis exordia deberi Pothino episcopo, qui primus in ea urbe Evangelii fundamenta jecit. Si autem religio Christiana longe lateque diffusa tunc fuisset in Galliis, pluresque jam a Petri et Pauli temporibus constitutae in iis regionibus episcopales sedes; qui fieri potuit ut Lugdunum, unam e primariis Galliae civitatibus, metropolitica dignitate conspicuam, mercatura, populi frequentia, primorum magistratuum Romanorum habitatione ac domicilio celeberrimam, Italiaeque vicinam, nullus adierit Evangelii minister, nullus ibi fundarit Ecclesiam, episcopumque instituerit, qui amplissimae urbis conversioni operam navaret? Non procul adeo distant a Lugduno Vienna, Narbona, Arelate, Tolosa, etc. Si igitur eae urbes jam ante Pothinum evangelica luce, suisque praesulibus gavisae fuissent; prima istorum cura esse debuisset, si quod amplificandae religionis studium pectora incessisset, Lugdunum coloniam Christianam deducere, e qua tanta utilitas in Ecclesiam manasset; nec necesse fuisset Pothinum, Irenaeum, aliosque Evangelii ministros ex Oriente mittere, qui eam urbem vicinasque regiones ad Christum converterent. Certe si quae urbs Pothini aetate proprium episcopum habere debuisset, maxime Vienna, in qua constitutam fuisse Ecclesiam ex citata martyrum epistola liquido patet. Mirum autem in tota ea epistola, Viennensium perinde atque Lugdunensium nomine scripta, Lugdunensis episcopi honorificam, Viennensis vero ne levissimam quidem fieri mentionem. Et tamen non omittitur unus e martyrum numero Sanctus, Viennensis diaconus. De episcopo autem Viennensi altissimum ubique silentium. Scribunt Lugdunenses et Viennenses, quod ex utraque Ecclesia praestantissimi quique, et quorum maxime labore et industria res hic constitutae fuerant, simul omnes tenerentur. Si praestantissimi quique ex utraque Ecclesia simul omnes tenerentur, comprehendi debuit cum Pothino et Viennensis episcopus, nec nomen ejus praetermitti. Dum tamen praestantissimorum illorum nomina recensent, Lugdunensem episcopum non silent, Viennensis ne verbo quidem meminerunt. Hunc implicite saltem contineri vult doctissimus Tillemontius inter praestantissimos illos, quos ex utraque Ecclesia comprehensos narrat epistola. At id miror etiam atque etiam, tam accuratam Lugdunensium et Viennensium diligentiam fuisse erga Lugdunensem episcopum, ut implicita mentione haudquaquam contenti, eum proprio nomine appellandum censuerint; sic vero eos defecisse diligentiam, ut diaconi Viennensis explicita mentione facta, episcopi implicite meminisse satis fuerit, tacito prorsus ejus nomine et gradu, quasi vel obscuri nominis homo fuisset, vel res nullius momenti. Gregorius Turonensis pariter, et Ado Viennensis, qui epistolam integram legerant, praecipuorum
that the beginnings of the Church of Lyons are owed to the bishop Pothinus, who first laid the foundations of the Gospel in that city. Now if the Christian religion had at that time been spread far and wide in the Gauls, and several episcopal sees had already been established in those regions from the times of Peter and Paul, how could it have happened that no minister of the Gospel approached Lyons, one of the primary cities of Gaul, conspicuous for metropolitan dignity, most renowned for commerce, populousness, and the residence and domicile of the foremost Roman magistrates, and neighbouring Italy, and that no one founded a Church there and instituted a bishop to devote his labour to the conversion of that most ample city? Not so far distant from Lyons are Vienne, Narbonne, Arles, Toulouse, etc. If therefore those cities had already before Pothinus rejoiced in the evangelical light and in their own prelates, the first care of those men ought to have been, if any zeal for enlarging religion had entered their breasts, to lead out a Christian colony to Lyons, from which so great a benefit would have flowed into the Church; nor would it have been necessary to send Pothinus, Irenaeus, and other ministers of the Gospel from the East to convert that city and the neighbouring regions to Christ. Certainly, if any city in the age of Pothinus ought to have had its own bishop, above all Vienne, in which it is clearly evident from the cited epistle of the martyrs that a Church was established. Yet it is wonderful that in that whole epistle, written in the name of the people of Vienne just as much as of those of Lyons, honourable mention is made of the bishop of Lyons, but of the bishop of Vienne not even the slightest mention is made. And yet one of the number of the martyrs is not omitted, Sanctus, the deacon of Vienne. Concerning a bishop of Vienne, however, there is everywhere the deepest silence. The people of Lyons and of Vienne write that all the most eminent men from each Church, and those by whose labour and industry above all things had been established here, were held together. If all the most eminent men from each Church were held together, the bishop of Vienne also ought to have been arrested with Pothinus, and his name not passed over. Yet while they recount the names of those most eminent men, they are not silent regarding the bishop of Lyons, whereas of that of Vienne they do not make mention by so much as a word. The most learned Tillemont wishes him to be included at least implicitly among those most eminent men whom the epistle relates to have been arrested from each Church. But at this I marvel again and again, that the diligence of the people of Lyons and Vienne towards the bishop of Lyons was so exact that, by no means content with an implicit mention, they judged that he should be called by his own name; yet that diligence so failed them that, after making explicit mention of the deacon of Vienne, it was enough to remember the bishop implicitly, passing over his name and rank in complete silence, as though either he had been a man of obscure name, or the matter were of no moment. Gregory of Tours likewise, and Ado of Vienne, who had read the entire epistle,
Editors' notes and page, col. 186
Footnotes
(29) ‹Gregorius Turonensis› · call in col 186
De Gl. Mart., c. 49.
On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 49.
(printed under page 99)
(30) ‹et Ado Viennensis› · call in col 186
2 Jun.
June 2.
(printed under page 99)
Page
- running head: T. I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 186
- marginal letters: A patroni, Ecclesiae Lugdunensis; B bes jam ante; C episcopi honorificam, Viennensis; D mus Tillemontius inter
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); praeci- split at column break
- other: the word praecipuorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 187
quorumque martyrum nomina haud impigre recensent, numerumque definiunt: de Viennensi episcopo ne verbum quidem. Quod autem addit vir cl. post Valesium, Viennae tunc temporis constitutam fuisse Ecclesiam, eamque jam perfectam et formatam, non urget. Si enim perfectae et formatae Ecclesiae nomine eam intelligat, quae proprium habet episcopum, talem fuisse Viennensem negabimus, aut saltem dubitabimus. Si vero quemlibet fidelium coetum intelligat, nihil obtinebit: cum in pluribus locis fuerint Ecclesiae eo sensu, quae tamen episcopales non erant. Certum quippe est ex Athanasio in Apologet. II, in Maraeotide regione plures fuisse Ecclesias; et tamen nec ullus unquam in ea fuit episcopus, ac ne chorepiscopus quidem; sed universae ejus regionis Ecclesiae, inquit, subjectae sunt episcopo Alexandrino. Singuli autem presbyteri proprios habent pagos, eosque maximos, aut plures. Quid si ergo tam modicus apud Viennam tum fuerit fidelium numerus, ut pusillo gregi regendo satis superque fuerit unus Lugdunensis episcopus, illi urbi vicinus; cum maxime tanta esset adhuc virorum episcopalium penuria, ut singuli singulis urbibus praefici non possent? Eamque forte ob causam qui Viennae comprehensi sunt fideles, Lugdunum abducti, coram praeside Lugdunensi judicio sistuntur, ab eo interrogantur, extremisque suppliciis addicuntur. Certe Lugdunum et Vienna ad diversas provincias pertinebant, haec ad Narbonensem, illa ad Celticam, cujus caput erat. Suus erat unicuique provinciae praefectus, et quidem alter ab altero genere diversus. Celticam, quae juris imperatoris erat, regebat propraetor; Narbonensem, quae juris senatus, proconsul. Cum itaque Lugdunensis propraetor nihil in Viennam jurisdictionis exercere posset, fidelium Viennensium causae cognitionem pro jure sibi vindicare non poterat. Quid ergo eos coram proprio tribunali Lugduni sisti jubet, eorumque causam disceptari? Hoc unum mihi in mentem venit, propraetorem in mandatis habuisse, Lugdunensem Ecclesiam stirpitus delere. Et quia audierat Viennenses ad Lugdunensem Ecclesiam pertinere, et a Lugdunensi episcopo regi; idcirco eos pro mandatis comprehendi jubet, et coram se sisti. Hunc nodum hactenus aliter secari posse non puto. Nec enim audiendus videtur doctissimus Valesius, qui Lugdunum et Viennam uni et eidem Romano praesidi tunc paruisse censet; gratis quippe asserit, nec probat.
diligently recount the names of all the principal martyrs, and define their number: of a bishop of Vienne, not even a word. Moreover, what the illustrious man adds after Valesius, that a Church had at that time been established at Vienne, and that it was already complete and formed, does not press the point. For if by the name of a complete and formed Church he understands one that has its own bishop, we shall deny, or at least doubt, that the Church of Vienne was such. But if he understands any assembly of the faithful whatsoever, he will gain nothing: since in many places there were Churches in that sense which nevertheless were not episcopal. For indeed it is certain from Athanasius in his second Apology, that in the region of Mareotis there were many Churches; and yet there was never any bishop in it, nor even a chorepiscopus; but all the Churches of that region, says he, are subject to the bishop of Alexandria. And individual presbyters have their own villages, and those very large ones, or several of them. What if, therefore, the number of the faithful at Vienne was then so small that a single bishop of Lyons, neighbouring to that city, was more than sufficient to rule the little flock, especially since there was as yet so great a scarcity of episcopal men that single bishops could not be set over single cities? And perhaps for that reason the faithful who were arrested at Vienne were led away to Lyons, set on trial before the governor of Lyons, interrogated by him, and condemned to extreme punishments. Certainly Lyons and Vienne belonged to different provinces, the latter to Narbonensis, the former to Celtica, of which it was the capital. Each province had its own prefect, and indeed one different in kind from the other. A propraetor ruled Celtica, which was under the jurisdiction of the emperor; a proconsul ruled Narbonensis, which was under the jurisdiction of the senate. Since, therefore, the propraetor of Lyons could exercise no jurisdiction over Vienne, he could not by right claim for himself the cognizance of the case of the faithful of Vienne. Why then does he order them to be produced before his own tribunal at Lyons, and their case to be tried? This one thing comes to my mind, that the propraetor had received orders to destroy the Church of Lyons from the roots. And because he had heard that the people of Vienne belonged to the Church of Lyons, and were ruled by the bishop of Lyons, for that reason he orders them, in accordance with his instructions, to be arrested and produced before him. I do not think that this knot can thus far be untied in any other way. For the most learned Valesius does not seem worthy to be heeded when he supposes that Lyons and Vienne obeyed one and the same Roman governor at that time; for he asserts it gratuitously, and does not prove it.
14. Si vero contendat quis Viennensem episcopum persequentium furori sese subduxisse, nec inter Ecclesiae suae praestantissimos comprehensum fuisse (mirum si subducere se potuerit; tanta erat eorum in perquirendis Christianorum ducibus diligentia!), saltem exhiberetur vel ab Eusebio, vel a martyribus pro Christi grege sollicitus, afflictaeque
14. But if anyone should contend that the bishop of Vienne withdrew himself from the fury of the persecutors, and was not arrested among the most eminent men of his Church (it would be wonderful if he could have withdrawn himself, so great was their diligence in searching out the leaders of the Christians!), he would at least be presented either by Eusebius or by the martyrs as solicitous for the flock of Christ, and
Editors' notes and page, col. 187
Page
- running head: 187 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A puorum quorumque martyrum; B quidem; sed universae; C bonensem, illa ad; D comprehendi jubet, et
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXIII] after pertinere,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); puorum continued from praeci- in col. 186
Ecclesiae curam gerens: et in eorum capite qui utriusque Ecclesiae nomine, tum ad Eleutherum papam, tum ad Orientales scribunt, pro merito dignitatis appareret. Nullibi tamen hunc videas; ubique desideratur. Quae epistola ad fratres in Asia et Phrygia degentes mittitur, hanc prae se fert inscriptionem: Servi Christi, qui apud Viennam et Lugdunum Galliae degunt, fratribus per Asiam et Phrygiam constitutis, etc., nulla Viennensis episcopi mentione facta. An vero Viennenses inconsulto proprio episcopo de martyrum suorum certaminibus scribere, judiciumque suum de novis Montanistarum prophetiis interponere voluissent? De Lugdunensibus nihil mirum si fecerint; vacabat tum Lugdunensis sedes. At quod adhuc in vivis superstite Viennensi episcopo, ejus ne verbo quidem meminerint sui, in rebus tanti momenti, vix credat qui ad totius Ecclesiae consuetudinem et leges attenderit.
taking care of the afflicted Church: and he would appear, according to the merit of his dignity, at the head of those who write in the name of both Churches, both to Pope Eleutherus and to the Easterns. Yet nowhere may you see him; everywhere he is missing. The epistle that is sent to the brethren dwelling in Asia and Phrygia bears this inscription before it: The servants of Christ who dwell at Vienne and Lyons of Gaul, to the brethren established throughout Asia and Phrygia, etc., with no mention made of a bishop of Vienne. Or would the people of Vienne really have wished, without consulting their own bishop, to write about the struggles of their martyrs, and to interpose their own judgement concerning the new prophecies of the Montanists? Concerning the people of Lyons it is no wonder if they did so; the see of Lyons was then vacant. But that while a bishop of Vienne was still surviving among the living, his own people did not remember him by so much as a word in matters of such great moment, anyone who has attended to the custom and laws of the whole Church could scarcely believe.
15. Deinde notissimum est quod scribit Sulpicius Severus, quod sub Aurelio Antonini filio persecutio quinta agitata: ac tum primum intra Gallias martyria visa, serius trans Alpes Dei religione suscepta. Notissimum item quod legitur in sinceris, optimaeque notae Actis sancti Saturnini martyris, primi Tolosatium apostoli, quae vidit citavitque Gregorius Turonensis, publici juris factis et emendatis a doctissimo Ruinartio nostro: Decio et Grato consulibus, id est anno Christi 250, raras in aliquibus civitatibus (Galliae) Ecclesias paucorum Christianorum devotione consurgere, et crebra miserabili errore gentilium nidoribus fetidis in omnibus locis templa fumare. Si serius trans Alpes Dei religio suscepta fuerit; si anno Christi 250 rarae adhuc et in quibusdam duntaxat Galliae civitatibus Ecclesiae consurgerent, eaeque paucorum Christianorum; si crebra in omnibus locis gentilium templa nidoribus fetidis fumarent; tardius in Galliis fundatas fuisse episcopales sedes, rarissimasque anno 250 esse debuisse judicabit prudens quivis rerum aestimator. Si autem is esset tum temporis trans Alpes Christianae rei status, si paucissimi in Galliis episcopi; is multo deterior, et simul etiam multo minor episcoporum numerus ibi esse debuit anno 177, quo passus est Pothinus Lugdunensis episcopus. Si enim tunc et antea floruisset pluribus in Galliae locis religio, si jam multis in urbibus constitutae Ecclesiae, quae a propriis regerentur episcopis; sub Aurelio Antonini filio tum primum intra Gallias martyria videri non debuissent, sed dudum antea; nec Lugduni modo, sed et Viennae, Arelatae, Narbonae, Lutetiae Parisiorum, et si quae aliae civitates Ecclesias et proprios episcopos habuissent, videri debuissent. Cur enim Ecclesiis nostris plus pepercissent Trajanus et Adrianus, quam Orientalibus et Italis; et cur in Lugdunensem duntaxat saevierit M. Aurelius, non in alias, non video; nec, puto,
15. Next, what Sulpicius Severus writes is very well known, that under Aurelius the son of Antoninus the fifth persecution was carried on, and then for the first time were martyrdoms seen within the Gauls, the religion of God having been received somewhat late across the Alps. Very well known likewise is what is read in the genuine Acts of the best quality of Saint Saturninus the martyr, the first apostle of the people of Toulouse, which Gregory of Tours saw and cited, published and emended by our most learned Ruinart: that when Decius and Gratus were consuls, that is, in the year of Christ 250, rare Churches in some cities (of Gaul) were rising up by the devotion of a few Christians, and thick temples in all places were smoking with foul fumes through the miserable error of the Gentiles. If the religion of God was received somewhat late across the Alps; if in the year of Christ 250 Churches were still rising up rarely and only in certain cities of Gaul, and those of a few Christians; if thick temples of the Gentiles in all places were smoking with foul fumes; any prudent judge of affairs will conclude that episcopal sees were founded rather late in the Gauls, and must have been very rare in the year 250. Now if that was the state of the Christian cause across the Alps at that time, if there were very few bishops in the Gauls, that state must have been much worse, and at the same time the number of bishops there must also have been much smaller in the year 177, in which Pothinus the bishop of Lyons suffered. For if religion had then and previously flourished in many places of Gaul, if Churches had already been established in many cities, governed by their own bishops, martyrdoms ought not to have been seen then for the first time within the Gauls under Aurelius the son of Antoninus, but long before; nor ought they to have been seen only at Lyons, but also at Vienne, Arles, Narbonne, Paris, and whatever other cities had possessed Churches and their own bishops. For why Trajan and Hadrian would have spared our Churches more than the Eastern and Italian ones, and why Marcus Aurelius would have raged against that of Lyons alone and not against others, I do not see; nor, I think,
Editors' notes and page, col. 188
Footnotes
(31) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 188 (inferred)
Lib. II Hist. sacr.
Book 2 of the Sacred History.
(printed under page 100)
(32) ‹Gregorius Turonensis› · call in col 188
L. I Hist., § 28, nov. edit.
Book 1 of the History, § 28, new edition.
(32*) ‹Ruinartio nostro› · call in col 188 Act. mart. sinc. et sel., p. 110.
Genuine and Select Acts of the Martyrs, p. 110.
(printed under page 100)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 188
- marginal letters: A Ecclesiae curam gerens:; B stite Viennensi episcopo,; C quibus civitatibus (Galliae); D passus est Pothinus
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
videbit quisquis spretis spuriis dubiisque monumentis, nihil nisi certum exploratumque proferre voluerit. Huic nulla tutior, qua ab his sese difficultatum laqueis expediat, apparebit via, quam ut affirmet cum Sulpicio Severo, et antiquo auctore Actorum S. Saturnini martyris, viris omni exceptione majoribus, serius trans Alpes, et in Galliis, vix ante Pothini adventum, Dei religionem susceptam esse: et ideo sub M. Aurelio tum primum intra Gallias, nec alibi prius quam Lugduni, martyria visa esse: quia sensim et gradatim in omnem terram sono Evangeliorum exeunte, parique (vel ut alii legunt, tardogue) processu in regionibus nostris apostolorum praedicatione coruscante, religio Christiana nondum longe lateque diffusa erat, Lugduno et Vienna conclusa. Ex quibus aperte sequitur paucissimos M. Aurelii anno 17 episcopos in Galliis, vixque alibi quam Lugduni esse potuisse.
will anyone see who, spurning spurious and doubtful monuments, wishes to bring forward nothing except what is certain and ascertained. To such a one no safer way will appear by which to extricate himself from these snares of difficulties than to affirm with Sulpicius Severus and the ancient author of the Acts of St. Saturninus the martyr, men above all exception, that the religion of God was received somewhat late across the Alps and in the Gauls, scarcely before the arrival of Pothinus: and that therefore under Marcus Aurelius martyrdoms were seen then for the first time within the Gauls, and nowhere earlier than at Lyons: because as the sound of the Gospels went out slowly and gradually into all the earth, and with an equal (or as others read, a slow) progress the preaching of the apostles shone forth in our regions, the Christian religion had not yet been spread far and wide, being confined to Lyons and Vienne. From which it clearly follows that in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius there could have been very few bishops in the Gauls, and scarcely anywhere else than at Lyons.
16. Nec multo plures illic episcopos exstitisse, Irenaeo ipso post Pothini mortem Ecclesiam Lugdunensem regente, ex Eusebio colligi posse videtur. Nam quotiescunque de rebus in Gallia gestis, sive cum de Ecclesiarum fundatione, sive cum de vexatione gentilium, sive cum de controversiis in Ecclesia exortis, et in Gallia disceptatis sermonem habet, unius episcopi Lugdunensis, alterius nusquam meminit. Imo disputationem enarrans, quae de Paschate celebrando inter Victorem papam et Asiaticos efferbuit, Irenaeum bis exhibet quasi solum, qui Galliarum Ecclesias episcopali jure tunc regeret. Inter eos qui Victorem objurgant, quod Asiaticas Ecclesias a sua communione abscidisset, Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, etc.: Irenaeus ex persona fratrum in Gallia commorantium, quibus praeerat, ad eumdem scripsit, etc. Alio jure fratribus in Gallia degentibus praeesse non poterat Irenaeus, quam episcopali, non certe metropolitico, longe minus exarchico aut patriarchico. Neque enim, ut erudite arguit cl. auctor novae editionis operum S. Leonis papae, dissertatione laudata, secundo Ecclesiae saeculo, quo Christianae fidei fundamenta trans Alpes vix erant posita, quo nascenti Ecclesiae ne mutire quidem licebat in iis regionibus, quo denique ea Galliae civitas quae prima fidem suscepisse videtur, vix alterum antistitem a Pothino habebat, eam hierarchiae formam jam in paucis quae illic exsurgebant Ecclesiis introductam esse, quae et episcopos metropolitanis, et metropolitanos exarchis subjiceret, a quoquam demonstrari posse putem. Sane si ipso medio tertio saeculo, quo Tolosam advenit Saturninus, tam rarae adhuc essent in nostris regionibus Ecclesiae, eaeque paucorum Christianorum; quis credat secundo desinente saeculo tam frequentes fuisse, ut pluribus episcopis metropolitico aut exarchico jure praeesset Irenaeus? His adde quod Fratrum nomine episcopos
16. And that not many more bishops existed there when Irenaeus himself was ruling the Church of Lyons after the death of Pothinus seems able to be gathered from Eusebius. For whenever he speaks of things done in Gaul, whether of the foundation of Churches, or of the harassment by the Gentiles, or of controversies arisen in the Church and debated in Gaul, he makes mention of the one bishop of Lyons, and nowhere of another. Indeed, in recounting the dispute which boiled up between Pope Victor and the Asiatics concerning the celebration of Easter, he twice presents Irenaeus as though he were the only one who then ruled the Churches of the Gauls by episcopal right. Among those who rebuke Victor because he had cut off the Asiatic Churches from his communion, Irenaeus, writing in the person of the brethren across Gaul whom he led, etc.: Irenaeus wrote to the same in the person of the brethren dwelling in Gaul, over whom he presided, etc. By no other right could Irenaeus preside over the brethren dwelling in Gaul than by episcopal right, certainly not metropolitan, much less exarchal or patriarchal. For neither, as the illustrious author of the new edition of the works of Pope St. Leo learnedly argues in the dissertation cited, could I think it possible for anyone to demonstrate that in the second century of the Church, when the foundations of the Christian faith had scarcely been laid across the Alps, when the nascent Church was not even permitted to mutter in those regions, and when finally that city of Gaul which seems first to have received the faith had scarcely its second prelate after Pothinus, that form of hierarchy had already been introduced in the few Churches which were rising up there, which would subject both bishops to metropolitans and metropolitans to exarchs. Truly, if in the very middle of the third century, when Saturninus arrived at Toulouse, Churches were still so rare in our regions, and those of few Christians, who would believe that at the close of the second century they were so numerous that Irenaeus presided over many bishops by metropolitan or exarchal right? Add to this that by the name of Brethren
Editors' notes and page, col. 189
Footnotes
(33) ‹jure tunc regeret› · call in col 189
Euseb., l. V, c. 24.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 24.
(printed under page 101)
(34) ‹dissertatione laudata› · call in col 189
Diss. V, pro S. Hil. Arel., c. 13; t. II nov. edit. S. Leon.
Dissertation 5, for St Hilary of Arles, chapter 13; vol. 2 of the new edition of St Leo.
(printed under page 101)
Page
- running head: 189 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRE
- marginal letters: A videbit quisquis spretis; B Vienna conclusa. Ex; C regeret. Inter eos; D quae prima fidem
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotation; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
designare non soleant veteres, sed Christianam plebem. Sed si cui anceps appareat iste Eusebii locus, clariora forte videbuntur quae antea praemisit. Nempe recensens varias synodos, episcoporumque conventus, συνόδους δὴ καὶ συγκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων, qui adversus Asiaticos coacti sunt, Romanam, Palaestinam, Ponticam, Osrhoenam et Corinthiam memorat. Has omnes, una excepta Osrhoena, diserte appellat synodos episcoporum, et quae in iis definita sunt, decreta episcoporum; nec omittit episcopos qui iis synodis praefuerint. Ubi vero decretum ab Ecclesiis Galliae de eadem controversia editum refert, jam non synodos episcoporum commemorat, sed decretum τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει, parochiarum Galliae, quarum Irenaeus episcopus erat, seu quas ut episcopus administrabat. Quibus Irenaeum unicum Galliae episcopum designat. Si enim illud decretum in concilio plurium Galliae episcoporum editum fuisse censuisset Eusebius, id non minus observandum sibi putasset, quam observandum putavit, decretum Palaestinorum ab iis episcopis emissum fuisse quibus praeerant Theophilus Caesariensis et Narcissus Hierosolymitanus; Italorum, ab iis quibus praefuit Victor; Ponticorum, ab iis quibus praefuit Palmas; Achaicorum denique, ab iis quibus praefuit Bacchylus. Cum igitur non eodem modo de Galliae Ecclesiis loquatur, atque de aliis, sed procul diverso; haud obscure innuit, longe aliam fuisse tunc Ecclesiarum nostrarum conditionem, easque adhuc in cunabulis, nec latius diffusas, vix alium episcopum habuisse quam Irenaeum. Nullum saltem alium proferri posse, aut ex indubitatis ecclesiasticae historiae monumentis erui, fatetur ipse qui nobis hic adversatur peritissimus ecclesiasticae antiquitatis indagator Tillemontius. Nec enim Synodicon moror, in quo duplex concilium sub Irenaeo celebratum exhibetur; alterum duodecim, alterum tredecim episcoporum; illius quippe sublesta admodum fides in rebus tantae antiquitatis. Sed de his jam plus satis pro instituto nostro.
the ancients are not accustomed to designate bishops, but the Christian common people. Yet if that passage of Eusebius should appear doubtful to anyone, what he premised earlier will perhaps seem clearer. Namely, in recounting the various synods and assemblies of bishops, synods indeed and gatherings of bishops, which were convened against the Asiatics, he mentions the Roman, Palestinian, Pontic, Osrhoenian, and Corinthian. All these, with the sole exception of the Osrhoenian, he expressly calls synods of bishops, and the things defined in them, decrees of bishops; nor does he omit the bishops who presided over those synods. But when he relates the decree issued by the Churches of Gaul concerning the same controversy, he no longer commemorates synods of bishops, but the decree of the parishes across Gaul which Irenaeus oversaw as bishop, of the parishes of Gaul, of which Irenaeus was bishop, or which he administered as bishop. By which words he designates Irenaeus as the sole bishop of Gaul. For if Eusebius had supposed that decree to have been issued in a council of several bishops of Gaul, he would have thought that no less worthy of note by himself than he thought it worthy of note that the decree of the Palestinians was sent forth by those bishops over whom Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; that of the Italians, by those over whom Victor presided; that of the Pontics, by those over whom Palmas presided; and finally that of the Achaeans, by those over whom Bacchylus presided. Since therefore he does not speak in the same way of the Churches of Gaul as of the others, but in a far different way, he hints not obscurely that the condition of our Churches was then far different, and that, being still in their cradle and not more widely spread, they had scarcely any other bishop than Irenaeus. That at least no other can be brought forward, or unearthed from undoubted monuments of ecclesiastical history, Tillemont himself, the most skilled investigator of ecclesiastical antiquity who opposes us here, confesses. For I do not detain myself with the Synodicon, in which a twofold council celebrated under Irenaeus is presented, the one of twelve, the other of thirteen bishops; since its trustworthiness is very slight indeed in matters of such great antiquity. But of these things already more than enough for our purpose.
17. Roma reversus Irenaeus in resarciendam ingentem illam, quam gentilium furor Ecclesiae Lugdunensi mox intulerat, vastitatem totus incubuit. Quam feliciter autem id praestiterit, docet Gregorius Turonensis. Beatissimus Irenaeus, inquit, hujus successor martyris (Pothini) qui a beato Polycarpo ad hanc urbem (Lugdunum) directus est, admirabili virtute enituit: qui in modici temporis spatio, praedicatione sua maxime in integro civitatem reddidit Christianam. Unde in altera persecutione quae sub Severo contigit, quaeque Irenaeum coelo transmisit, asserit idem Gregorius tantam cum Irenaeo multitudinem Christianorum ob confessionem Dominici nominis esse jugulatam, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano, quorum, ait, nec
17. Having returned from Rome, Irenaeus devoted himself wholly to repairing that vast devastation which the fury of the Gentiles had recently inflicted upon the Church of Lyons. How successfully he accomplished this, Gregory of Tours teaches. The most blessed Irenaeus, says he, the successor of this martyr (Pothinus), who was directed to this city (Lyons) by the blessed Polycarp, shone forth with admirable virtue: who in a short space of time, by his preaching, restored the city almost entirely to being Christian. Whence, in the second persecution which happened under Severus, and which sent Irenaeus across to heaven, the same Gregory asserts that so great a multitude of Christians was slaughtered with Irenaeus for the confession of the Lord's name, that rivers of Christian blood ran through the streets, of whom, says he, neither
Editors' notes and page, col. 190
Footnotes
(35) ‹indagator Tillemontius› · call in col 190
T. III Hist. eccl., not. 3, in Iren.
Vol. 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, note 3, on Irenaeus.
(printed under page 101)
(36) ‹Synodicon moror› · call in col 190
T. I Concil. Lab., p. 599-601.
Vol. 1 of Labbe's Councils, pp. 599–601.
(printed under page 101)
Page
- running head: T. I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 190
- marginal letters: A designare non soleant; B λίαν παροικιῶν, ἃς; C fuisse tunc Ecclesiarum; D Quam feliciter autem
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXIV] after Ponticam,
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
numerum, nec nomina colligere potuimus. Quod et confirmant Usuardus aliique Martyrologiorum scriptores, dum narrant Irenaeum cum omni fere civitatis suae populo coronatum esse glorioso martyrio. Eximia haec sunt argumenta illius, quo ardebat sanctissimus episcopus, Christianae religionis apud suos promovendae studii. Sed et majus fuit, quam ut angustioribus Lugdunensis urbis limitibus concludi potuerit: in totam Galliam, imo et totam Ecclesiam sese diffudit. Id enim ipsi curae fuit, ut discipulos Christianae vitae atque doctrinae praeceptis excoleret, qui deinceps de tota Ecclesia verbis, scriptis et exemplis bene mererentur. Talis fuit, Photio teste, S. Hippolytus episcopus et martyr, qui inter tertii saeculi Patres sanctitatis et eruditionis laude floruit. Talis etiam Caius presbyter, ejusdem saeculi scriptor haud ignobilis, saltem si quae fides iis, quae in mss. codd. scripta leguntur ad calcem Actorum S. Polycarpi martyris, quae a Caio, qui cum Irenaeo conversatus est, συνεπολιτεύσατο, descripta dicuntur, ex ipsius Irenaei, Polycarpi discipuli, apographo.
the number nor the names have we been able to collect. Which Usuard and other writers of Martyrologies also confirm, when they relate that Irenaeus with almost the whole people of his city was crowned with a glorious martyrdom. These are extraordinary proofs of that zeal for promoting the Christian religion among his own people with which the most holy bishop burned. Yet it was even greater than could be confined within the narrower limits of the city of Lyons: it spread itself into all Gaul, and indeed into the whole Church. For he made it his care to cultivate disciples with the precepts of Christian life and doctrine, who thereafter would deserve well of the whole Church by words, writings, and examples. Such was, as Photius witnesses, St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, who flourished among the Fathers of the third century in the praise of sanctity and erudition. Such also was Caius the presbyter, a far from ignoble writer of the same century, at least if any credence is to be given to the things which are read written in manuscript codices at the end of the Acts of St. Polycarp the martyr, which are said to have been transcribed by Caius, who conversed with Irenaeus, lived as a fellow citizen with him, from the copy of Irenaeus himself, the disciple of Polycarp.
18. Sed cum in Galliis apostoli munere fungeretur, eamque vineae Domini partem sibi colendam suscepisset, ibi majora zeli sui specimina edere par erat. Quare nihil antiquius habuit, quam ut in eas partes quae novis cultoribus indigerent, operas mitteret necessarias. Ex Actis SS. martyrum Ferreoli presbyteri, et Ferutionis diaconi, Felicis presbyteri, ac Fortunati et Achillei diaconorum, S. Irenaei discipulorum, discimus priores duos Vesuntionem, posteriores tres Valentiam ab eo missos fuisse, ut per ea loca divini cultus fundamenta jacerent. Quamvis autem non usque adeo sincera videantur haec acta, ut iis plenam et indubitatam fidem in omnibus tribuere possimus, nihil tamen est quod de missione sanctorum illorum dubitationem movere queat, cum maxime consentientem habeamus earum Ecclesiarum traditionem. Et eapropter a veteribus, Galliarum apostolus, lumen Gallorum Occidentalium, jure merito dictus fuit Irenaeus; utpote qui Celticas gentes excoluit et illuminavit. Et hinc non parum confirmatur quod paulo ante diximus, raras tum fuisse in Galliis Ecclesias Christianas, rariores episcopos: cum Valentia et Vesuntio, civitates haud obscuri nominis et infimi gradus, nec a Lugduno procul adeo dissitae, Christi fidem nondum audiissent, quarum etiam priores apostolos episcopali dignitate insignes fuisse non legimus. Ea vero omnia cum nullis chronologicis notis signata legamus apud auctores, quo anno contigerint definire non possumus. At illud certum, Eleuthero adhuc pontifice, scriptos saltem tres priores libros, ex quinque, adversus Gnosticorum fabulas. Neque enim Irenaeo satis erat Christi imperii fines quam longe lateque posset proferre, nisi pacem in eo tueri, hostiumque domesticorum malas artes, et
18. But since he was discharging the office of an apostle in the Gauls, and had undertaken that part of the Lord's vineyard for himself to cultivate, it was fitting that he should give greater proofs of his zeal there. Wherefore he held nothing more important than to send necessary labourers into those parts which stood in need of new cultivators. From the Acts of the holy martyrs Ferreolus the presbyter and Ferutio the deacon, Felix the presbyter, and Fortunatus and Achilleus the deacons, disciples of St. Irenaeus, we learn that the first two were sent by him to Besançon, and the latter three to Valence, to lay the foundations of divine worship throughout those places. Now although these acts do not seem so thoroughly genuine that we can accord them full and undoubted credence in all things, nevertheless there is nothing that could raise a doubt concerning the mission of those saints, especially since we have the consenting tradition of those Churches. And on that account Irenaeus was rightly and deservedly called by the ancients the apostle of the Gauls, the light of the Western Gauls, inasmuch as he cultivated and illuminated the Celtic nations. And hence what we said a little before is confirmed in no small measure, that Christian Churches were then rare in the Gauls, and bishops still rarer: since Valence and Besançon, cities of no obscure name and lowest rank, nor situated so far distant from Lyons, had not yet heard the faith of Christ, and we do not read that even their first apostles were distinguished by episcopal dignity. Yet since we read all those things marked with no chronological notes in the authors, we cannot define in what year they happened. But this is certain, that while Eleutherus was still pontiff, at least the first three books out of the five against the fables of the Gnostics were written. For neither was it enough for Irenaeus to extend the bounds of Christ's empire as far and wide as he could, unless he should also guard peace within it, and the evil arts of enemies of his own household and their
Editors' notes and page, col. 191
Footnotes
(37) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 191 (inferred)
Cod. 121.
Codex 121.
(printed under page 102)
(38) ‹excoluit et illuminavit› · call in col 191
Theodoret., dial. 1. Immut.
Theodoret, Dialogue 1, The Immutable.
(printed under page 102)
(39) ‹Gnosticorum fabulas› · call in col 191
Id., Compend. Haer. fab. I.
The same, Compendium of Heretical Fables, Book 1.
(printed under page 102)
Page
- running head: 191 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A numerum, nec nomina; B tionis laude floruit.; C teri, ac Fortunati; D scopos: cum Valentia
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek word; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
impetus frangere pro virili parte conaretur. Dudum emerserant in Oriente Valentiniani, quos brevi post exceperant Marcosii, Simonis Magi aliorumque Gnosticorum mala progenies; qui sub nomine Christiano animum plus quam ethnicum gerentes, incredibilibus errorum monstris, horrendisque flagitiis Christianae religionis sanctitati summam infamiae labem aspergebant. Eo periculosius serpebat venenum, quo occultius: jamque Lugdunensem regionem pervaserat, pluresque, mulieres praesertim, infecerat, quorum animos non a fide modo, sed et ab omni rationis sensu prope abduxerat. Irenaeus excubias agens pro Christi grege, ubi malum sensit, satisque totam ejus gravitatem ex haereticorum tum libris, tum sermonibus exploratam habuit, ad scribendum se contulit, ut sceleratas eorum nugas, dolos et mores in propatulo poneret et funditus everteret. Sed de S. episcopi libris et scriptis postea fusius et accuratius disseremus. Valentinianos, Marcionitas, aliosque veteres haereticos damnatos ab Irenaeo fuisse in synodo quam Lugduni habuit, cuique duodecim adfuerint episcopi, tradit jam citatus Libellus synodicus; sed in hujusmodi rebus nullae fidei esse posse hunc libellum, nono saeculo editum, jam monuimus.
onslaughts he strove with all his might to break. Long before, the Valentinians had emerged in the East, whom the Marcosians had shortly afterwards succeeded, the evil progeny of Simon Magus and of the other Gnostics; who, bearing under the Christian name a more than pagan mind, were spattering the supreme stain of infamy upon the sanctity of the Christian religion by incredible monsters of errors and horrendous outrages. The poison crept the more dangerously, the more secretly it moved: and it had already pervaded the region of Lyons, and had infected many, especially women, whose minds it had drawn away not only from the faith, but also almost from all sense of reason. Irenaeus, keeping watch for the flock of Christ, when he perceived the evil, and had sufficiently ascertained its whole gravity both from the books and from the discourses of the heretics, betook himself to writing, that he might lay open to public view their wicked trifles, deceits, and morals, and overthrow them from the foundations. But concerning the books and writings of the holy bishop we shall discourse more fully and accurately hereafter. That the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other ancient heretics were condemned by Irenaeus in a synod which he held at Lyons, and at which twelve bishops were present, the already cited Libellus synodicus hands down; but that in matters of this sort this booklet, published in the ninth century, can be of no authority, we have already warned.
19. Quam tuendae ac fovendae in Ecclesia pacis studiosus fuerit Irenaeus, nusquam manifestius patuit, quam in ea quae inter Victorem papam et Asiaticos efferbuit controversia. Hactenus non una et eadem fuerat Ecclesiarum omnium in celebrando Paschate disciplina. Asiae Minoris Ecclesiae agendum Paschatis et resurrectionis Dominicae diem festum, jejuniisque finem imponendum esse contendebant, ipsa decima quarta luna post aequinoctium vernum, in quamcunque hebdomadae feriam incideret. Romana vero, ne Judaicos ritus imitari videretur, celebrandum esse censebat die Dominica, quae decimam quartam lunam proxime sequeretur, et eo usque protrahenda esse jejunia. Romanae consentiebant praeter Occidentales omnes, Alexandrina, Phoeniciae, Ponti, Achaiae, et Osrhoenae Ecclesiae. An etiam Syriae, Ciliciae et Mesopotamiae? dubitandi locus est. Hinc siquidem constat ex Athanasio in libro De synodis, quod ante Nicaenum concilium, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας, καὶ Κιλικίας, καὶ Μεσοποταμίας, ἐχώλευον περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐποιοῦντο Πάσχα, Syri, Cilices et Mesopotamiani circa festum claudicabant, et cum Judaeis Pascha celebrabant. Tradit etiam epistola synodica ipsius concilii, πάντας τοὺς τῆς Ἑῴας ἀδελφοὺς, omnes Orientis fratres, qui prius a Romanis, Alexandrinis, et aliis nationibus in festo Paschatis dissentiebant, jam cum illis consensisse. Porro Orientis ae Syriae caput Antiochia. Quin saltem in ea urbe Asianarum Ecclesiarum de Paschate disciplina olim obtineret, donec concilium Nicaenum Ecclesias omnes ad concordiam revocasset, dubitare
19. How zealous Irenaeus was for guarding and fostering peace in the Church nowhere appeared more manifestly than in that controversy which boiled up between Pope Victor and the Asiatics. Hitherto the discipline of all the Churches in celebrating Easter had not been one and the same. The Churches of Asia Minor contended that the feast day of the Passover and of the Lord's resurrection should be kept, and an end put to the fasts, on the fourteenth moon itself after the vernal equinox, on whatever day of the week it might fall. The Roman Church, however, lest she should seem to imitate Jewish rites, judged that it should be celebrated on the Lord's day which immediately followed the fourteenth moon, and that the fasts should be prolonged until then. With the Roman Church agreed, besides all the Western ones, the Churches of Alexandria, Phoenicia, Pontus, Achaia, and Osrhoene. Whether also those of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, there is room for doubt. For on the one hand it is established from Athanasius in his book On the Synods that before the Nicene council, those from Syria, and Cilicia, and Mesopotamia halted concerning the feast, and kept the Passover with the Jews; the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians halted concerning the feast, and celebrated the Passover with the Jews. The synodical epistle of the council itself also hands down that all the brethren of the East, all the brethren of the East, who previously dissented from the Romans, Alexandrians, and other nations in the feast of Easter, had now agreed with them. Furthermore, the capital of the East and of Syria is Antioch. That at least in that city the discipline of the Asian Churches concerning Easter formerly obtained, until the Nicene council recalled all the Churches to concord, we are not permitted to
Editors' notes and page, col. 192
Footnotes
(40) ‹Irenaeus excubias› · call in col 192
Lib. I, c. 13, n. 7.
Book 1, chapter 13, no. 7.
(printed under page 102)
(41) ‹illis consensisse› · call in col 192
Apud Theodoret., lib. I Hist., c. 9.
In Theodoret, Book 1 of the History, chapter 9.
(printed under page 102)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 192
- marginal letters: A impetus frangere pro; B bendum se contulit,; C non una et; D Athanasio in libro
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXV] after manifestius
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); dubi- split at column break
- other: the word dubitare was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 193
- misprint: Orientis ae Syriae (for ac), kept as printed
nos non sinit S. Joannis Chrysostomi, Antiocheni civis ac presbyteri, expressa auctoritas, in oratione quam adversus quosdam e suis habuit, qui veteris ritus memores, Pascha etiam post Nicaenam synodum luna 14 celebrare non destiterant. Fatetur hunc quidem fuisse ante synodum Antiochenorum morem, deinceps autem observationi temporum concordiam fuisse praelatam. Illinc vero Eusebii moratur auctoritas. Nam disertis verbis asserit, praeter Asianas aliasque finitimas Ecclesias, ταῖς ἀνὰ τὴν λοιπὴν ἅπασαν οἰκουμένην Ἐκκλησίαις, caeteris per reliquum orbem terrarum dispersis Ecclesiis, de Pascha cum Romana convenisse. Quibus complecti videtur Ecclesias Syriae, Ciliciae et Mesopotamiae, perinde atque alias plures, quarum disertam mentionem non facit. Nodum hunc scidit, non solvit, eruditissimus Tillemontius, scribens eas quidem Victoris aetate Pascha, more Romano, die Dominica celebrasse, postea vero a pristino ritu sic defecisse, ut Nicaeni concilii temporibus Pascha cum Judaeis agerent luna ipsa 14. Quod quidem Ecclesiae quaedam quae Victori papae acrius restiterant, saniori postea suscepto consilio a pristinis ritibus desciscentes, ad communes aliarum fere omnium Ecclesiarum redierint, nihil adeo mirum videbitur. Et ita fecisse plures Asiae Ecclesias satis probabile; cum Constantinus imperator inter eas quae Nicaeni concilii temporibus Pascha cum Romana agebant, dioecesim Asiae recenseat; et Anatolius, qui circiter an. 276 scribebat, ait, quod ad hanc usque diem episcopi Asiae Pascha celebrabant 14 luna post aequinoctium; quibus innuere videtur, tunc celebrare destitisse. Sed qui et cur Ecclesiae, quae per ducentos ferme annos Pascha die Dominica non tantum observassent, sed et sub saeculi secundi finem, dum acrior erat ea de re disputatio, ita observandum esse vehementer contendebant; mutata disciplina pro qua decertaverant, centum circiter abhinc annis alterius, quam impugnaverant, quamque pene totius orbis moribus repugnare non nesciebant, tenaces reperirentur, nemo facile dixerit, nec causam tam inopinatae mutationis assignaverit. At, inquit vir clarissimus, haud dubium quin Mesopotamia quarto ineunte saeculo veterem ritum deseruisset. Nam secundo desinente Osrhoena cum Romana Ecclesia consentiebat. Osrhoena autem in sermone quotidiano pro Mesopotamia accipitur. Sed quod velut certum assumit vir doctissimus, Mesopotamiam et Osrhoenam promiscue usurpare solere ab auctoribus, aliis dubium saltem videbitur. Certe alteram ab altera distinguit Ammianus Marcellinus: Et quia, inquit, Mesopotamiae tractus omnes crebro inquietari sueti, praetenturis et stationibus servabantur agrariis, laevorsum flexo itinere Osrhoenae subsederat
doubt by the express authority of St. John Chrysostom, citizen and presbyter of Antioch, in the discourse which he delivered against certain of his own people who, mindful of the ancient rite, had not ceased even after the Nicene synod to celebrate Easter on the 14th moon. He confesses that this was indeed the custom of the Antiochenes before the synod, but that thereafter concord was preferred to the observance of times. On the other side, however, the authority of Eusebius gives us pause. For in express words he asserts that, besides the Asian and other neighbouring Churches, with the Churches throughout all the rest of the inhabited world, the other Churches dispersed throughout the rest of the world agreed concerning Easter with the Roman Church. Under which words he seems to include the Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, just as much as many others of which he does not make express mention. The most learned Tillemont cut this knot, rather than untied it, writing that in the age of Victor they indeed celebrated Easter after the Roman custom on the Lord's day, but afterwards so fell away from their former rite that at the time of the Nicene council they kept Easter with the Jews on the 14th moon itself. That indeed certain Churches which had more sharply resisted Pope Victor, adopting a sounder counsel afterwards and departing from their former rites, returned to the common rites of almost all other Churches, will seem nothing so wonderful. And that many Churches of Asia did so is probable enough, since the Emperor Constantine reckons the diocese of Asia among those which at the time of the Nicene council kept Easter with the Roman Church; and Anatolius, who wrote around the year 276, says that up to this day the bishops of Asia celebrated Easter on the 14th moon after the equinox, by which words he seems to hint that they then ceased so to celebrate it. But how and why Churches which for nearly two hundred years had not only observed Easter on the Lord's day, but also towards the end of the second century, while the dispute concerning that matter was sharper, vehemently contended that it must be so observed, having changed the discipline for which they had fought, should about a hundred years later be found tenacious of the other discipline which they had impugned, and which they were not ignorant was repugnant to the customs of almost the whole world, no one could easily say, nor assign the cause of so unexpected a change. Yet, says the most illustrious man, there is no doubt that Mesopotamia at the beginning of the fourth century had forsaken its ancient rite. For at the close of the second century Osrhoene agreed with the Roman Church. And Osrhoene in everyday speech is taken for Mesopotamia. But what the most learned man assumes as certain, that Mesopotamia and Osrhoene are accustomed to be used promiscuously by authors, will to others seem at least doubtful. Certainly Ammianus Marcellinus distinguishes the one from the other: And because, says he, all the tracts of Mesopotamia, being accustomed to be frequently disturbed, were guarded by frontier outposts and field stations, having bent his march to the left he had halted at the
Editors' notes and page, col. 193
Footnotes
(42) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 193 (inferred)
T. V. Hom. 55, p. 608 et seqq.
Vol. 5, Homily 55, p. 608 and following.
(printed under page 103)
(43) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 193 (inferred)
Euseb., lib. V, c. 23.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 23.
(printed under page 103)
(44) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 193 (inferred)
Hist. eccl., t. III, not. 1, in Vict. pap.
Ecclesiastical History, vol. 3, note 1, on Pope Victor.
(printed under page 103)
(45) ‹Constantinus imperator› · call in col 193
Euseb., lib. III De Vit. Const., c. 19
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book 3, chapter 19.
(45*) ‹scribebat, ait› · call in col 193 Apud Bucher., de Cycl. Vict., p. 444, ed. Antuerp., 1633.
In Bucherius, On the Cycle of Victorius, p. 444, Antwerp edition, 1633.
(printed under page 103)
(46) ‹Ammianus Marcellinus› · call in col 193
L. XIV, c. 3.
Book 14, chapter 3.
(printed under page 103)
Page
- running head: 193 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IREN
- marginal letters: A tare nos non; B disertam mentionem non; C Anatolius, qui circiter; D saeculo veterem ritum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotation; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); tare continued from dubi- in col. 192
extimas partes, etc. Distinguit et Procopius: Oppida, inquit in Alamundari oratione, Μεσοποταμίας καὶ τῆς Ὀσροηνῆς καλουμένης χώρας· Mesopotamiae, et regionis quae Osrhoene vocatur. In Notitiis etiam imperii et Ecclesiae distinguuntur ab invicem Osrhoene et Mesopotamia proprie dicta, et hujus caput Amida, illius Edessa statuitur. Denique Anthemusia, quae fere Osrhoena est, Strabone auctore, est τῆς Μεσοποταμίας, Mesopotamiae ipsius portio, scilicet Mesopotamiae latius acceptae. Quae probant Osrhoenam apud auctores passim a Mesopotamia distingui, vel ut partem a toto, vel ut partem ab altera parte. Sed etsi quidam utramque promiscue usurparint, nullo tamen, ni fallor, argumento demonstrari potest Eusebium ita accepisse. Sive ergo Mesopotamiam accipiamus pro ingenti terrarum tractu, qui plures provincias complectitur, sive pro certa ejusdem tractus provincia, longe probabilius videtur alios fuisse semper Osrhoenae, alios caeterarum Mesopotamiae Ecclesiarum mores. Itaque cum Eusebius Asianis Ecclesiis finitimas quasdam in disciplina Paschatis consensisse dicat, verbis ejus vim illaturum eum esse non crediderim, qui illis Ciliciae, Seleucidis (cujus caput Antiochia) et Mesopotamiae saltem provinciae Ecclesias adjunxerit. De Cilicia vix ulla difficultas, cum inter Asiae Minoris provincias tum numeraretur; nec major de Seleucide huic contermina. Ciliciam tamen numerat Constantinus inter eas Ecclesias quae, Nicaeni concilii aetate, Pascha cum Romana celebrabant. Sed ne cum Athanasio supra laudato aperte pugnet, necessario explicandus est de Ciliciae parte aliqua. Ut ut est.
farthest parts of Osrhoene, etc. Procopius also distinguishes them: The towns, says he in the speech of Alamundarus, of Mesopotamia and of the region called Osrhoene; of Mesopotamia, and of the region which is called Osrhoene. In the Notitiae of the empire and of the Church also, Osrhoene and Mesopotamia properly so called are distinguished from one another, and Amida is established as the capital of the latter, Edessa of the former. Finally Anthemusia, which is nearly Osrhoene, on the authority of Strabo, is a portion of Mesopotamia, of Mesopotamia itself, namely of Mesopotamia taken in a wider sense. Which things prove that Osrhoene is everywhere distinguished from Mesopotamia in authors, either as a part from the whole, or as one part from another part. But even if some used both promiscuously, yet by no argument, unless I am mistaken, can it be demonstrated that Eusebius so took it. Whether therefore we take Mesopotamia for the vast tract of lands which comprises several provinces, or for a particular province of the same tract, it seems far more probable that the customs of Osrhoene were always one thing, and those of the other Churches of Mesopotamia another. And so, since Eusebius says that certain neighbouring Churches agreed with the Asian Churches in the discipline of Easter, I would not believe that anyone would do violence to his words who should join to them the Churches of Cilicia, of Seleucis (whose capital is Antioch), and at least of the province of Mesopotamia. Concerning Cilicia there is scarcely any difficulty, since it was then reckoned among the provinces of Asia Minor; nor is there any greater difficulty concerning Seleucis bordering upon it. Yet Constantine reckons Cilicia among those Churches which, in the age of the Nicene council, celebrated Easter with the Roman Church. But lest he openly conflict with Athanasius cited above, he must necessarily be explained as speaking of some part of Cilicia. However that may be.
20. Eo gravior inter litigantes exstitit contentio, quo graviora quique pro se momenta proferebant. Utrique enim traditione apostolica nitebantur: non quod, inquit Socrates, apostolorum quisquam legem ea de re tulisset; sed quod exemplum eorum, tanquam legem sibi positam venerarentur discipuli. Asiani afferebant instituti sui auctores Joannem apostolum, Philippum unum e septem primis diaconis, Polycarpum martyrem, Melitonem, aliosque praestantissimos viros, qui, cum apud eos degerent, Pascha eorum more celebrabant die 14 lunae. Romani e contrario asserebant Petrum et Paulum, Romae cum essent, Pascha nunquam nisi die Dominica egisse. Et quidem ante Victorem papam pax inter Ecclesias, quamvis sibi invicem ea in re dissimiles, semper constiterat: unaquaeque suo more vivens, aliam suo more vivere sinebat. Id tantum curaverant alii pontifices, ne sanam et sinceram Ecclesiae suae consuetudinem peregrinis Asianorum moribus depravarent inquieta ingenia. Cumque id agere praesumpsisset Blastus quidam Romanae Ecclesiae presbyter, temeritatem
20. The contention between the disputants proved all the weightier, the weightier were the considerations that each party brought forward on its own behalf. For both relied upon apostolic tradition: not because, says Socrates, any of the apostles had enacted a law concerning that matter, but because the disciples venerated their example as though it were a law laid down for themselves. The Asians adduced as authors of their usage John the apostle, Philip one of the seven first deacons, Polycarp the martyr, Melito, and other most eminent men, who, when they dwelt among them, celebrated Easter according to their custom on the 14th day of the moon. The Romans on the contrary asserted that Peter and Paul, when they were at Rome, never kept Easter except on the Lord's day. And indeed before Pope Victor peace between the Churches, however dissimilar to one another in that matter, had always stood firm: each living after its own custom allowed the other to live after its own custom. Other pontiffs had taken care of this only, that restless minds should not corrupt the sound and pure custom of their Church with the foreign customs of the Asians. And when a certain Blastus, a presbyter of the Roman Church, had presumed to do this, Irenaeus restrained his
Editors' notes and page, col. 194
Footnotes
(47) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 194 (inferred)
Procop., lib. I Bel. Pers., c. 17.
Procopius, Persian War, Book 1, chapter 17.
(printed under page 103)
(48) ‹numerat Constantinus› · call in col 194
Euseb., lib. III De Vit. Const., c. 19.
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book 3, chapter 19.
(printed under page 103)
(49) ‹inquit Socrates› · call in col 194
L. V, c. 21.
Book 5, chapter 21.
(printed under page 103)
(50) ‹venerarentur discipuli› · call in col 194
Euseb., l. V, c. 24, 25.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapters 24, 25.
(printed under page 103)
(51) ‹inquieta ingenia› · call in col 194
Id., l. V, c. 20; Tertull., De praesc., c. 53
The same, Book 5, chapter 20; Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 53.
(printed under page 103)
Page
- running head: I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 194
- marginal letters: A extimas partes, etc.; B Sive ergo Mesopotamiam; C Ecclesias quae, Nicaeni; D lunae. Romani e
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXVI] after Id tantum
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
ejus coercuit Irenaeus, cui haud minor erat tuendae pacis quam antiquitatis ac traditionis Ecclesiarum cura, scripta adversus eum epistola, quam inscripsit De schismate. Illi vero pontifices, Anicetus videlicet, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus atque Sixtus, eodem Irenaeo teste, quamvis Pascha eadem cum Asianis die neque celebrarent, neque celebrari a suis permitterent, cum iis tamen pacem et communionem studiose colebant, et sacram Eucharistiam pro more illorum temporum iisdem mittebant. Imo cum Polycarpus Romam Aniceti temporibus venisset, levis aliis de rebus, levior de Paschate inter utrumque disputatio fuit. Anicetus quidem Polycarpo persuadere conatus est ut Romanos ritus, Polycarpus Aniceto ut Asianos amplecteretur; sed neutro alteri cedente, pax cito coaluit, adeo ut pontifex Romanus Eucharistiae celebrandae munus Smyrnensi, reverentiae causa, concesserit.
rashness—for he had no less care for guarding peace than for the antiquity and tradition of the Churches—by writing an epistle against him, which he entitled On Schism. Moreover those pontiffs, namely Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, as the same Irenaeus witnesses, although they neither celebrated Easter on the same day as the Asians, nor permitted it to be so celebrated by their own people, nevertheless studiously cultivated peace and communion with them, and sent the sacred Eucharist to them according to the custom of those times. Indeed, when Polycarp had come to Rome in the times of Anicetus, there was a slight dispute between the two concerning other matters, and a still slighter one concerning Easter. Anicetus indeed tried to persuade Polycarp to embrace the Roman rites, and Polycarp Anicetus to embrace the Asian; but with neither yielding to the other, peace quickly united them, so much so that the Roman pontiff granted the office of celebrating the Eucharist to the bishop of Smyrna, out of reverence.
21. Eo loco res erant, cum Victor Ecclesiae regimen suscepit. Hic decessoribus suis paulo fervidior, eam rituum diversitatem impatienter ferens, ut omnem Ecclesiam ad unum et eumdem revocaret, ardentiori studio elaboravit. Id sub Severo imperatore contigisse scribit Hieronymus in Catalogo; in Chronico vero assignat annum 4 ejus imperii, Christi 196. Scripsit itaque Victor ad praecipuos totius Ecclesiae episcopos, ut provinciae suae synodos cogerent, et in iis quaestionem disceptarent, ac pro Ecclesiae Romanae votis atque disciplina definirent; Asiaticis, nisi consentirent, excommunicationem denuntians. Habita Romae, in Palaestina, in Ponto, in Osrhoena, in Achaia, pluribusque aliis in locis concilia, uno consensu atque judicio ecclesiasticam regulam universis fidelibus per epistolas synodicas tradiderunt; ne videlicet alia die quam Dominica mysterium resurrectionis Domini a mortuis unquam celebraretur. Eadem fuit etiam sententia Ecclesiarum Galliae, quas Irenaeus regebat episcopus. At Polycrates Ephesinus episcopus, coacto Asianorum episcoporum concilio, minacibus Victoris litteris minime commotus, ab antiqua Ecclesiae suae consuetudine discedendum sibi non putavit. Rescripsit igitur concilii sui nomine ad pontificem; traditionem Ecclesiarum Asiae exposuit; ostendit a Joannis evangelistae temporibus ad suam usque aetatem Pascha non alia die quam 14 luna celebratum fuisse ab omnibus, quotquot in Asia sanctitate et doctrina floruerant; a quorum proinde moribus recedere nefas: his quae sibi ad terrorem objiciebantur, minime conturbari, cum a majoribus didicisset, Deo magis quam hominibus obtemperandum esse. Accepta hac epistola Victor ἄμετρα τερμανθεὶς, ait Socrates, supra modum iracundia inflammatus, omnes Asiae Ecclesias, quae Pascha decima quarta die mensis celebrabant, a communione rescidit, ἀκοι-
21. Matters stood in this position when Victor undertook the government of the Church. He, being a little more fiery than his predecessors, and bearing that diversity of rites impatiently, laboured with more ardent zeal to recall the whole Church to one and the same rite. Jerome writes in his Catalogue that this happened under the Emperor Severus; and in his Chronicle he assigns the 4th year of his reign, the year of Christ 196. Victor therefore wrote to the principal bishops of the whole Church, that they should convene synods of their province, debate the question in them, and define it in accordance with the wishes and discipline of the Roman Church, denouncing excommunication against the Asiatics unless they agreed. Councils held at Rome, in Palestine, in Pontus, in Osrhoene, in Achaia, and in many other places, with one consent and judgement handed down the ecclesiastical rule to all the faithful by synodical epistles: namely, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead should never be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's day. The same was also the sentence of the Churches of Gaul, which Irenaeus ruled as bishop. But Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, having convened a council of the Asian bishops, not at all moved by the threatening letters of Victor, did not think that he ought to depart from the ancient custom of his Church. He therefore wrote back in the name of his council to the pontiff; he set forth the tradition of the Churches of Asia; he showed that from the times of John the evangelist even to his own age Easter had been celebrated on no other day than the 14th moon by all who had flourished in sanctity and doctrine in Asia, from whose customs, accordingly, it was unlawful to depart; and that he was not at all disturbed by the things that were cast against him to terrify him, since he had learned from his elders that one must obey God rather than men. Upon receiving this epistle, Victor, immoderately heated, says Socrates, inflamed beyond measure with anger, cut off from communion all the Churches of Asia which celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the month,
Editors' notes and page, col. 195
Footnotes
(52) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 195 (inferred)
Epist. ad Vict. pap. ad calcem hujus Op.
Letter to Pope Victor, at the end of this work.
(printed under page 104)
(53) ‹Hieronymus in Catalogo› · call in col 195
C. 43, 45.
Chapters 43, 45.
(printed under page 104)
(54) ‹Christi 196› · call in col 195
Euseb., l. V, c. 23, 24.
Eusebius, Book 5, chapters 23, 24.
(printed under page 104)
(55) ‹ait Socrates› · call in col 195
L. V Hist., c. 22.
Book 5 of the History, chapter 22.
(printed under page 104)
Page
- running head: 195 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A ejus coercuit Irenaeus,; B neutro alteri cedente,; C plina definirent; Asiaticis,; D Asiae exposuit; ostendit
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotation; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); ἀκοι- split at column break
νωνησίαν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατήταις ἀπέστειλε. Consentit Eusebius, additque Victorem non totius Asiae modo, sed et alias finitimas Ecclesias, Ciliciae videlicet, Syriae, Seleucidis et Mesopotamiae proprie dictae, velut a catholica sententia dissentientes, simul omnes a communi unitate Ecclesiae amputare conatum fuisse, iisque per litteras notatis, fratres omnes, qui eas regiones incolebant, excommunicatos edixisse, ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσης, ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις Ἐκκλησίαις, τὰς παροικίας ἀποτέμνειν, ὡς ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται, καὶ στηλιτεύει γε διὰ γραμμάτων, ἀκοινωνήτους ἄρδην πάντας τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. Hinc Epiphanius dissensionem Ecclesiarum exaggerans, tantam fuisse scribit, ut Orientales ab Occidentalibus divisi nullas a se invicem pacificas acciperent litteras.
sent non-communion to the Quartodecimans in Asia. Eusebius agrees, and adds that Victor endeavoured to cut off from the common unity of the Church at once not only all the Churches of Asia, but also the other neighbouring Churches, namely those of Cilicia, Syria, Seleucis, and Mesopotamia properly so called, as dissenting from the catholic sentence, and having branded them by letters, proclaimed all the brethren who inhabited those regions excommunicated: he attempts to cut off from the common unity all at once the parishes of all Asia, together with the bordering Churches, as holding other doctrines, and he inveighs against them by letters, proclaiming all the brethren there utterly out of communion. Hence Epiphanius, exaggerating the dissension of the Churches, writes that it was so great that the Easterns, divided from the Westerns, received no peaceful letters from one another.
22. Laudata quidem Eusebii verba sic interpretatur Valesius, ut jactatas excommunicationis minas, non autem vibratam excommunicationem ipsam ex iis erui posse putet. Sed verentur alii ut satis adverterit vir clarissimus, minas quidem ante concilium Ephesinum intentasse pontificem, sed telum continuisse: accepto autem concilii decreto exasperatum, illud emisisse. Nec obstat, inquiunt, quod ait idem Eusebius, Victorem conatum fuisse Asiae Ecclesias a communi unitate amputare. Aliud enim erat eas Ecclesias a propria pontificis communione, aliud a communi totius Ecclesiae unitate rescindi. Prius quidem fecit Victor, idque apertissime ab Eusebio significatum contendunt; posterius autem ut obtineret, scriptis litteris notavit Asianos, sacrisque interdictos edixit, ut ab eorum communione abstinerent caeteri. Sed in ea sententia, scribit Hieronymus, hi qui discrepabant ab illis, Victori non dederunt manus; ejusque severitas, Eusebio teste, οὐ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ἠρέσκετο; non omnibus placuit episcopis, imo pluribus displicuit. Quamvis enim Asiaticorum sententiam et disciplinam minime comprobarent, molestius tamen ferebant tot Ecclesias, ob quaestionem quae nihil ad fidem attineret, ab Ecclesiae corpore discindi; ex ardentiori papae zelo erupturum ipsa consuetudinum diversitate pejus schismatis malum praevidentes. Quare plures epistolis eum acerbius perstrinxerunt, serioque monuerunt ut fovendae pacis, charitatis et concordiae studiosus, temperaret ab immodica severitate, ex qua emolumenti parum, detrimenti plurimum in totam Ecclesiam redundaret. Sed prae caeteris Irenaeus nominis sui appellationi pulchre respondens (εἰρηναῖος enim Graece, Latine studiosum pacis significat), nihil potius habuit, quam ut sua agendi ratione se pacis auctorem probaret. Scripto itaque Victorem convenit, ac nomine fratrum, quibus praeerat in Gallia fervidiorem ejus aestum fortiter et graviter
22. Valesius indeed interprets the cited words of Eusebius in such a way as to think that threats of excommunication uttered, but not excommunication itself actually hurled, can be elicited from them. Yet others fear whether the most illustrious man sufficiently noticed that before the council of Ephesus the pontiff had indeed held out threats, but had withheld the weapon; whereas upon receiving the decree of the council, being exasperated, he discharged it. Nor does it stand in the way, say they, that the same Eusebius says that Victor endeavoured to cut off the Churches of Asia from the common unity. For it was one thing for those Churches to be cut off from the pontiff's own communion, and another thing to be cut off from the common unity of the whole Church. The former Victor indeed did, and they contend that this is most openly signified by Eusebius; while to obtain the latter, he branded the Asians in written letters and proclaimed them interdicted from sacred rites, so that the rest might abstain from their communion. But in that sentence, writes Jerome, those who differed from them did not surrender to Victor; and his severity, as Eusebius witnesses, did not please all the bishops; it did not please all the bishops, nay, it displeased most. For although they by no means approved the sentence and discipline of the Asiatics, yet they bore it very ill that so many Churches should be rent from the body of the Church on account of a question which pertained nothing to the faith, foreseeing that from the too ardent zeal of the pope an evil of schism worse than the diversity of customs itself would break forth. Wherefore many rebuked him rather sharply in epistles, and seriously warned him that, being zealous for fostering peace, charity, and concord, he should refrain from immoderate severity, from which little advantage and very much detriment would redound to the whole Church. But above the rest Irenaeus, answering nobly to the appellation of his name (for εἰρηναῖος in Greek signifies zealous for peace in Latin), held nothing more important than by his manner of acting to prove himself an author of peace. Therefore he addressed Victor in writing, and in the name of the brethren over whom he presided in Gaul bravely and gravely
Editors' notes and page, col. 196
Footnotes
(56) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 196 (inferred)
L. V, c. 24.
Book 5, chapter 24.
(printed under page 104)
(57) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 196 (inferred)
Haer. LXX, § 9.
Heresy 70, § 9.
(printed under page 104)
(58) ‹scribit Hieronymus› · call in col 196
In Catal.
In the Catalogue.
(printed under page 104)
(59) ‹Eusebio teste› · call in col 196
C. 24.
Chapter 24.
(printed under page 104)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 196
- marginal letters: A νωνησίαν ἐν τῇ; B dentalibus divisi nullas; C tate rescindi. Prius; D tis malum praevidentes.
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); νωνησίαν continued from ἀκοι- in col. 195
increpavit. Plures alias de eodem argumento scripsit epistolas ad varios episcopos, quibus eos ad instaurandam turbatam Ecclesiae pacem hortaretur, quae injuria temporum interiere; sed epistolae ad Victorem haud poenitendum fragmentum conservavit Eusebius, quod ad calcem hujus operis excudi curavimus. Hortatur in eo pontificem, ut more decessorum, quos enumerat, pacem cum Asiaticis tueatur, nec gravate ferat eos antiquis consuetudinibus firmiter adhaerere, quas a Joanne evangelista, virisque apostolicis ac sanctissimis hominibus acceperant, quasque tanti momenti esse non duxerant Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus et Sixtus, ut propter eas miscendus Ecclesiae status videretur.
rebuked his too fiery heat. He wrote several other epistles on the same subject to various bishops, in which he exhorted them to restore the disturbed peace of the Church, which have perished through the injury of time; but of the epistle to Victor Eusebius has preserved a fragment far from negligible, which we have taken care to have printed at the end of this work. In it he exhorts the pontiff that, after the custom of his predecessors, whom he enumerates, he should guard peace with the Asiatics, and not bear it ill that they firmly adhere to ancient customs which they had received from John the evangelist, and from apostolic men and most holy persons, and which Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus had not deemed to be of such great moment that on their account the state of the Church should seem to be thrown into confusion.
23. Docet praeterea, eam esse quaestionem, quae plures alias inducat, nec cito, nec facile dirimendas, sicque altius immergendam totam Ecclesiam infinitarum propemodum rixarum barathro, e quibus vix emersura sit. Nam si ii sollicitandi sunt, qui de festo Paschali ab Ecclesia Romana dissentiunt, litem etiam consequenter iis movendam qui jejunium, quod festo praemittitur, secus atque Romani observant. Sed praestat ipsum audire, ac difficultates nec paucas, nec leves, hic, cum occasio opportune se offerat, elucidare. Οὐ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστὶν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους 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 ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. Neque enim de die solum controversia est, sed etiam de forma ipsa jejunii. Quidam enim unico die sibi jejunandum esse existimant, alii duobus, alii insuper pluribus, alii vero quadraginta. Diurnis pariter ac nocturnis horis computatis diem suum commetiuntur. Verba haec doctissimos homines secum invicem commiserunt, nec de lectione, nec de sensu consentientes. H. Valesius, cum Grabio et pluribus aliis, deleta distinctionis nota post vocem τεσσαράκοντα, uno et eodem tenore legendum censet: οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τῆν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. Nonnulli vero quadraginta horis, diurnis ac nocturnis computatis, diem suum commetiuntur. Sed cum animadverteret Valesius, diem quadraginta horarum absurdi quidpiam prae se ferre, id ut averteret, Irenaei verba commutare aggressus est, ac pro ἡμέραν substituere νηστείαν, licet refragentur codices omnes tam editi, tum mss., ut sit sensus, quosdam quadragesimale jejunium sic commetiri, ut per quadraginta horas continuas jejunent. Nempe, inquit, antiquarii, vocabulo ex superiore linea huc translato, locum corruperunt. Alii vero quibus nullam distinctionis notam inter τεσσαράκοντα et ὥρας reponere placet, et ἡμέραν retinent, diem illum XL horarum interpretantur de tempore quod effluxit a
23. He teaches, moreover, that this is a question which brings in several others, neither quickly nor easily to be settled, and that thus the whole Church would be plunged deeper into an abyss of almost infinite quarrels, out of which it would scarcely emerge. For if those are to be disturbed who dissent from the Roman Church concerning the Paschal feast, a lawsuit must consequently also be raised against those who observe the fast which is premised to the feast otherwise than the Romans do. But it is better to hear him himself, and here, since the occasion opportunely offers itself, to elucidate difficulties neither few nor slight. For the dispute is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very form of the fast. For some think that they ought to fast for one day, others for two, others for even more, and others for forty. They measure their day by computing both the hours of the day and those of the night. For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very form of the fast. For some think that they ought to fast for a single day, others for two, others moreover for several, and others for forty. By computing the diurnal equally with the nocturnal hours they measure their day. These words have set most learned men at variance with one another, agreeing neither about the reading nor about the sense. H. Valesius, with Grabe and several others, deleting the mark of punctuation after the word τεσσαράκοντα, judges that it should be read in one and the same breath: and others measure their day by forty hours, both of the day and of the night. And some measure their day by forty hours, computing those of the day and of the night. But since Valesius noticed that a day of forty hours carried some absurdity on the face of it, in order to avert this he undertook to alter the words of Irenaeus, and to substitute νηστείαν for ἡμέραν, although all codices both printed and manuscript oppose it, so that the sense may be that some so measure the quadragesimal fast as to fast for forty continuous hours. Namely, says he, the copyists, having transferred the word hither from the line above, corrupted the passage. Others, however, who are pleased to place no mark of punctuation between τεσσαράκοντα and ὥρας, and who retain ἡμέραν, interpret that day of 40 hours of the time which elapsed from
Editors' notes and page, col. 197
Footnotes
(60) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 197 (inferred)
Socrat., l. V, c. 19.
Socrates, Book 5, chapter 19.
(printed under page 105)
(61) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 197 (inferred)
Lib. V, c. 24.
Book 5, chapter 24.
(printed under page 105)
(62) ‹H. Valesius› · call in col 197
Not. in lib. V Hist. Euseb., c. 24
Notes on Book 5 of Eusebius's History, chapter 24.
(printed under page 105)
Page
- running head: 197 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IREN
- marginal letters: A increpavit. Plures alias; B 23. Docet praeterea,; C οἱ δὲ καὶ; D computatis, diem suum
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXVII] after barathro,
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
morte Christi usque ad ejus resurrectionem (id est, ab hora tertia post meridiem Parasceves, usque ad horam circiter sextam Dominicae sequentis), quod ἄσιτοι ducebant plures, nihil quidquam cibi aut potus degustantes. Sed alii tum lectioni, tum explicationi merito repugnant. Dies enim LX horarum quoquo modo explicetur, portentum est in tota antiquitate ecclesiastica inauditum, cujus nec vola, nec vestigium apud omnes retro auctores occurrit, eos etiam quibus familior fuit vel Eusebius, vec Irenaeus: nullique homini, si sanus fuerit, in mentem usquam venire potuit diem suum ex XL horis conficere. Sed fac Irenaei aetate aliqui exstiterint, qui privatam sibi, et a communi omnium hominum et gentium usu, alienam temporum rationem sibi constituentes, diem suum ita commensi fuerint, utquid addidit Irenaeus eos diurnas pariter ac nocturnas horas computasse? Puerile istud et insulsum prorsus. Quasi vero dies aliqua XL horis constare posset, quin nocturnae pariter ac diurnae computarentur? Deinde si, ut quidam volunt, Christiani aliqui fuerint, qui novissimas duntaxat XL horas, quae Christi resurrectionem immediate praecesserunt, ἄσιτοι duxerint, necesse est diei Parasceves, qua crucifixus est Dominus, jejunium non ante ipsum crucifixionis tempus inchoaverint. Id vero Tertulliano repugnat, qui in fine libri De oratione, quem adhuc Catholicus scripsit, diserte asserit, die Paschae, quo nomine crucifixionis diem, fatentibus omnibus, intelligit, quasi publicam jejunii religionem esse. An vero ea die publica jejunii religio fuisset, si hora tantum tertia post meridiem jejunium aliqui inchoassent, reliqua autem diei parte epulis indulgere liberum sibi putassent? Nullos certe reperias ex iis qui a Quartodecimanorum disciplina discedebant, qui jejunium ea die solvere ante solis occasum fas sibi esse crederent. Imo Dionysius Alexandrinus, Constitutiones apostolicae, Epiphanius et alii, testatum faciunt, non modo Parasceves, sed et quinque aliorum majoris hebdomadae dierum jejunium tanta religione a Christianis observatum fuisse, ut nonnulli biduum, vel triduum, vel quatriduum, alii etiam totam hebdomadam ad usque sequentis Dominicae gallicinium, pro suis quisque viribus ac pietate, sine cibo transmitterent; omnes vero, sex illis diebus, aliis cibis quam xerophagiis, hoc est pane duntaxat, cum sale et aqua vesci, idque prius quam sub vesperam, nefas ducerent.
the death of Christ until His resurrection (that is, from the third hour after noon on the day of Preparation until about the sixth hour of the following Lord's day), which many spent fasting, tasting nothing whatever of food or drink. But others rightly oppose both the reading and the explanation. For a day of 40 hours, in whatever way it may be explained, is a portent unheard of in all ecclesiastical antiquity, of which neither palm nor footprint occurs in all past authors, even those to whom either Eusebius or Irenaeus was more familiar; and it could never have come into the mind of any man, if he were sane, to make up his day out of 40 hours. But suppose that in the age of Irenaeus there existed some who, establishing for themselves a private reckoning of times, foreign to the common usage of all men and nations, so measured their day: why did Irenaeus add that they computed the diurnal hours equally with the nocturnal? That is altogether childish and insipid. As though indeed any day could consist of 40 hours without the nocturnal hours being computed equally with the diurnal! Next, if, as some wish, there were some Christians who spent only the last 40 hours which immediately preceded the resurrection of Christ without food, it is necessary that on the day of Preparation, on which the Lord was crucified, they did not begin the fast before the very time of the crucifixion. But this conflicts with Tertullian, who at the end of his book On Prayer, which he wrote while still a Catholic, expressly asserts that on the day of the Passover—by which name, as all confess, he understands the day of the crucifixion—the observance of the fast is as it were public. Or would there really have been a public observance of the fast on that day, if some had begun the fast only at the third hour after noon, and had thought themselves free to indulge in feasts during the remaining part of the day? Certainly you could find none of those who departed from the discipline of the Quartodecimans who believed it lawful for themselves to break the fast on that day before sunset. Indeed, Dionysius of Alexandria, the Apostolic Constitutions, Epiphanius, and others bear witness that the fast not only of the day of Preparation, but also of the five other days of the great week, was observed with such great devotion by Christians that some passed two days, or three days, or four days, and others even the whole week up to the cock-crowing of the following Lord's day, without food, each according to his own strength and piety; while all deemed it unlawful, on those six days, to feed on any other foods than dry diet, that is, bread alone with salt and water, and that before evening.
24. Absurda haec ut declinaret cl. Grabius, aliam a Valesio viam iniit, sed non feliciori successu. Irenaei quidem verbis pepercit, sed sensui vim intulit. Nempe vocem ἡμέραν, diem, in fine secundae periodi retinet; sed non hic modo, verum etiam in primo fragmenti versu, οὐ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας, etc., per ἡμέραν tempus, et quidem jejunii interpretatur: cujus significationis usum, addit, pluribus exemplis probatum lege, si placet, in Psochenii
24. In order to avoid these absurdities, the illustrious Grabe entered upon a different path from Valesius, but with no happier success. He spared indeed the words of Irenaeus, but did violence to the sense. Namely, he retains the word ἡμέραν, day, at the end of the second period; but not only here, nay, even in the first line of the fragment, for not only concerning the day, etc., by ἡμέραν he interprets time, and indeed the time of the fast: the use of which signification, he adds, read proved by many examples, if you please, in Pfochenius's
Editors' notes and page, col. 198
Page
- running head: . I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 198
- marginal letters: A morte Christi usque; B diem suum ita; C telligit, quasi publicam; D sine cibo transmitterent;
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
Diatriba de stylo Novi Testamenti, num. 31, et Vorstii dissert. 3, illi opposita. Psochenii Diatribam et Vorstii Dissertationem hactenus non legi: sed pro comperto habeo ea omnia quae proferunt exempla, etsi sexcenta essent, ad rem praesentem nihil quidquam facere, nec iis stabiliri posse Grabii expositionem. Si enim valeat, turpissimo laboret aequivoco necesse est Irenaei oratio. Voce ἡμέρα quinquies utitur duabus in periodis, iisque brevissimis, ter videlicet expressa, et bis subintellecta. Certissimum est autem in his verbis: Οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν· οἱ δὲ δύο (supple ἡμέρας), οἱ δὲ πλείονας (supp. ἡμέρας), vocem ἡμέρα non de alio, quam de XXIV horarum spatio, intelligi. Debuit igitur Irenaeus, nisi fucum lectoribus facere voluerit, eamdem vocem, quae proxime praecedit, subsequiturque, eodem prorsus sensu accipere. Nae! scriptor insulsus sit, qui in una et eadem voce ludens, hanc primum a communi significatione, lectore haud praemonito, detorqueat; mox ad communem significationem redeat, ab hac statim transiturus ad alienam. Eam fuisse Irenaei scribendi rationem si cuipiam persuaserit Grabius, nulli certe sobrio. Quod addit vir eruditus, ut XL horarum nocturnarum una cum diurnis computatarum absurdum devitet, mirum quomodo in mentem venire potuerit. Qui vero, inquit, quadraginta horarum nocturnarum una cum diurnis mentionem hic incommode factam objiciunt; idem quoque contra Matth. IV, 2, objiciant necesse est, ubi Servator quadraginta non modo dies, sed et noctes jejunasse dicitur. Christus cum XL dies, totidemque noctes jejunus egerit, factum referens sacer scriptor noctes omittere non debuit, ex quibus tantopere commendatur Christi jejunii asperitas. Aliud quippe est XL dies duntaxat jejunare, aliud noctes diebus addere; alterum altero longe durius ac molestius, nec qui unum egisse dicitur, intelligitur egisse et aliud, nisi expressa fiat ejusdem mentio. Tantum abest igitur ut nocturnarum horarum mentio sit hic incommode facta; quin potius necessario fieri debuerit. At quid hoc exemplum affine habeat cum jejunio XL horarum, non certe video, nec alius quivis forte videbit. Cum quis quadraginta horas cibi expers traduxisse dicitur, satis intelligitur alteram istius temporis partem, horas esse diurnas, alteram nocturnas. Horarum ergo nocturnarum una cum diurnis non tantum incommode, sed et ridicule omnino ac pueriliter hic injiceretur mentio.
Diatribe on the Style of the New Testament, no. 31, and Vorstius's 3rd Dissertation opposed to it. Pfochenius's Diatribe and Vorstius's Dissertation I have not hitherto read: but I hold it for certain that all those examples which they bring forward, even if there were six hundred of them, have nothing whatever to do with the present matter, nor can Grabe's exposition be established by them. For if it holds good, the discourse of Irenaeus must needs labour under a most shameful equivocation. He uses the word ἡμέρα five times in two periods, and those very brief ones, namely thrice expressed and twice understood. Now it is most certain that in these words: For some think that they ought to fast for one day, others for two (supply days), others for several (supply days), the word ἡμέρα is understood of nothing else than the space of 24 hours. Irenaeus therefore ought, unless he wished to play a trick on his readers, to take the same word, which immediately precedes and follows, in altogether the same sense. Truly, he would be an insipid writer who, playing upon one and the same word, should first twist it away from its common signification without forewarning the reader, shortly return to the common signification, and immediately pass from this to a foreign one! If Grabe has persuaded anyone that such was Irenaeus's manner of writing, he has certainly persuaded no sober person. As for what the learned man adds in order to avoid the absurdity of 40 nocturnal hours computed together with diurnal ones, it is wonderful how it could have come into his mind. But those, says he, who object that mention of forty nocturnal hours together with diurnal ones is inappropriately made here, must needs also make the same objection against Matt. 4:2, where the Saviour is said to have fasted not only forty days, but also forty nights. Since Christ spent 40 days and as many nights fasting, the sacred writer in relating the fact ought not to have omitted the nights, by which the severity of Christ's fast is so greatly commended. For it is one thing to fast for 40 days only, and another to add the nights to the days; the one is far harder and more burdensome than the other, nor is he who is said to have done the one understood to have done the other also, unless express mention is made of the same. So far, therefore, is the mention of nocturnal hours from being inappropriately made here, that rather it had to be made of necessity. Yet what affinity this example has with a fast of 40 hours, I certainly do not see, nor perhaps will anyone else see. When someone is said to have passed forty hours without food, it is sufficiently understood that one part of that time consists of diurnal hours, and the other of nocturnal. Mention, therefore, of nocturnal hours together with diurnal would be thrown in here not only inappropriately, but altogether ridiculously and childishly.
25. Mirum in quantas ambages sese conjiciant eruditi viri, quas devitare nullo negotio potuissent. Irenaei verba legendo ac distinguendo eo modo quo superius exscripsimus, jam nihil offensionis habet ejus oratio. Nempe interposita una distinctionis notula inter τεσσαράκοντα, quadraginta, et ὥρας, horas, amovet offendiculum, quod ex duabus vocibus male junctis exsurgit. Sic legerunt, distinxeruntque
25. It is wonderful into what great tangles learned men cast themselves, which they could have avoided with no trouble. By reading and punctuating the words of Irenaeus in the manner in which we transcribed them above, his discourse no longer has anything offensive. Namely, the interposition of a single mark of punctuation between τεσσαράκοντα, forty, and ὥρας, hours, removes the stumbling-block which arises from the two words being badly joined. Thus read and punctuated
Editors' notes and page, col. 199
Page
- running head: 199 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A Diatriba de stylo; B facere voluerit, eamdem; C 2, objiciant necesse; D cibi expers traduxisse
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXVIII] after mentio sit hic
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); distinxe- split at column break
Christophorsonus et Savilius. At, inquit Valesius, refragantur mss. codices, in quibus nulla inter ambas voces interseritur distinctionis nota. Sed manuscriptos codices diutius et accuratius versaverat vir doctissimus, ut nesciret, nullam aut parvam omnino fiduciam esse posse in iis quas plerumque vel exhibent, vel omittunt, distinctionum notis; ut pote quas librarii, vel pro suo quisque arbitrio, vel ex imperitia, aut incogitantia saepe addidere aut omisere, repugnante tum auctore, tum sensu. Si ad codd. mss. provocare fas sit, ut eos omittam quibus usi sunt Christophorsonus et Savilius; vetustiores iis omnibus, qui modo exstant, fuere illi quos prae oculis habebat Rufinus, dum Latinam Eusebii versionem adornabat. In iis autem occurrisse, quam diximus, distinctionis notam palam colligitur ex ejusdem interpretatione, quae sic habet: 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. Equidem scio boni interpretis officio saepe defuisse Rufinum; sed accuratum hic fuisse probat perfecta Graecarum vocum cum Latinis consensio.
Christophorson and Savile. But, says Valesius, the manuscript codices oppose this, in which no mark of punctuation is inserted between the two words. Yet the most learned man had handled manuscript codices too long and too accurately not to know that no confidence, or very little at all, can be placed in those marks of punctuation which they generally either exhibit or omit; inasmuch as copyists, either each according to his own caprice, or out of inexperience or thoughtlessness, often added or omitted them, against both the author and the sense. If it be lawful to appeal to manuscript codices, to pass over those which Christophorson and Savile used, older than all those which now exist were those which Rufinus had before his eyes while he was preparing his Latin version of Eusebius. And that the mark of punctuation of which we spoke occurred in them is openly gathered from his translation, which runs thus: For some think that the fast ought to be observed on one day only, others on two, and others on several; some even on forty: so that computing the diurnal and nocturnal hours they establish the day. I know indeed that Rufinus often failed in the duty of a good translator; but that he was accurate here is proved by the complete agreement of the Greek words with the Latin.
26. Textu vero ita distincto, sibi pariter et eorum temporum historiae aptissime cohaerent omnia. Eam fuisse quaestionem inter Asianos et Romanos diximus, an decima quarta luna primi mensis celebrandum esset Pascha, seu jejuniis solemnibus imponendus finis; an vero ea proroganda essent in Dominicam proxime sequentem. Qui posterius asserebat Victor papa, in Asianos negantes excommunicationis fulmen vibraverat, aut vibrare paratus erat. Indignatus Irenaeus sacris excludi tot et tantas Ecclesias, ob quaestionem quae nihil ad fidei dogmata pertineret, a praecipiti sententia revocare pontificem nititur. Monet in primis satius esse quaestionem prudenti silentio premere, quam tanto cum tumultu agitare, ne forte una controversia pluribus aliis fomitem subministret. Neque enim, inquit, de die solum, quo jejuniis imponendus est finis, controversia est, sed etiam de forma ipsa jejunii. Observa, quaeso, non de ipso jejunio, neque etiam de ipso jejuniorum numero controversiam fuisse. Constabat siquidem eo tempore inter Orientales et Occidentales, adeoque inter omnes istius saeculi Ecclesias, plures saltem jejunii dies Paschali festo praemittendos esse: alioquin tanta de eorum fine contentio inter Ecclesias esse non potuisset, si unus vel alter jejunii dies suffecisset; nec adeo indecorum visum fuisset, ut iisdem diebus alii jejuniis vacarent, alii agitarent convivia; ac post dies Paschatis alii in festis et animorum remissione versarentur, alii praescriptis jejuniis se dederent; ut omittam, quod ex Dionysio Alexandrino, qui non plus sexaginta annis post Irenaeum florebat, et Constitutionibus apostolicis supra laudatis liquet,
26. Now when the text is thus punctuated, all things cohere most aptly both with themselves and with the history of those times. We have said that the question between the Asians and the Romans was this: whether Easter should be celebrated, or an end put to the solemn fasts, on the fourteenth moon of the first month, or whether they should be prolonged to the Lord's day immediately following. Pope Victor, who asserted the latter, had hurled, or was prepared to hurl, the thunderbolt of excommunication against the Asians who denied it. Irenaeus, indignant that so many and so great Churches should be excluded from sacred rites on account of a question which pertained nothing to the dogmas of the faith, strives to recall the pontiff from his hasty sentence. He warns in the first place that it is better to suppress the question in prudent silence than to agitate it with so great a tumult, lest perchance one controversy supply fuel to several others. For neither, says he, is the controversy only concerning the day on which an end is to be put to the fasts, but also concerning the very form of the fast. Observe, I pray, that the controversy was not concerning the fast itself, nor even concerning the number itself of the fasts. For it was agreed at that time between the Easterns and the Westerns, and therefore among all the Churches of that century, that at least several days of fasting must be premised to the Paschal feast: otherwise there could not have been so great a contention among the Churches concerning their end, if one or two days of fasting had sufficed; nor would it have seemed so unseemly that on the same days some should devote themselves to fasts, while others held banquets, and after the days of Easter some should be engaged in feasts and relaxation of mind, while others gave themselves to prescribed fasts; not to mention that it is clear from Dionysius of Alexandria, who flourished not more than sixty years after Irenaeus, and from the Apostolic Constitutions cited above,
Editors' notes and page, col. 200
Footnotes
(63) ‹jejuniis se dederent› · call in col 200
Ep. Const. Mag. apud Euseb., l. III De Vit.
Letter of Constantine the Great, in Eusebius, Life [of Constantine], Book 3.
(printed under page 106)
(64) ‹Constitutionibus apostolicis› · call in col 200
C. 18.
Chapter 18.
(printed under page 106)
Page
- running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 200
- marginal letters: A runtque Christophorsonus et; B tem occurrisse, quam; C imponendus finis; an; D fuisse. Constabat siquidem
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); runtque continued from distinxe- in col. 199
totos sex majoris hebdomadae dies non modo jejunio, sed rigidiori caeteris abstinentiae dicatos fuisse: ne dicam etiam Origenis Irenaeo fere aequalis aetate, habitos jam Quadragesimae dies jejuniis consecratos. Et quamvis de numero jejuniorum antepaschalium nondum sub saeculi secundi finem apud omnes constaret, nec adeo etiam Socratis et Sozomeni aevo constiterit, quin apud quosdam minor, apud alios major exstiterit; nullam tamen iis temporibus motam ea de re controversiam legimus. Certum est itaque eam, de qua hic loquitur Irenaeus, controversiam, ne minimum quidem spectasse vel ad ipsum jejunium, quasi servandum aliqui negassent; vel ad jejuniorum numerum (quae tamen plurimorum falsissima sententia est), quasi aliqui unico die sibi simpliciter jejunandum esse existimassent, alii duobus duntaxat, alii pluribus, alii quadraginta. Haec in quaestionem nunquam eo tempore vocata. Longe minus disceptari potuit de jejunio quod vocant ὑπερθέσεως, seu superpositionis (ad quod Irenaei verba perperam detorquent Valesius et Grabius), quod qui servarent, ne vespera quidem cibum caperent, sed penitus abstinerent, sive una, sive pluribus diebus, usque ad terminum jejunii, Paschale scilicet mane, quod a galli cantu incipit. Ea enim jejunii species, ut a veteribus commendata, et a piis pluribus servata; nulla tamen ecclesiastica lege, aut consuetudine, quae vim legis haberet, sancita fuit; sed uniuscujusque arbitrio ac pietati, ut par erat, permissa; adeo ut absurdum sit, pace virorum doctissimorum dixerim, controversiam ea de re inter Ecclesias fingere.
that all six days of the great week were dedicated not only to fasting, but to an abstinence more rigid than on the rest: not to say also that in the age of Origen, who was nearly contemporary with Irenaeus, the days of Lent were already held consecrated to fasts. And although concerning the number of the ante-Paschal fasts there was not yet agreement among all towards the end of the second century, nor even in the age of Socrates and Sozomen was it so settled that it was not smaller among some and greater among others, yet we read of no controversy having been raised concerning that matter in those times. It is certain, therefore, that the controversy of which Irenaeus speaks here did not look even in the least degree either to the fast itself, as though some had denied that it should be kept, or to the number of the fasts (which nevertheless is the most false opinion of very many), as though some had thought that they ought simply to fast on a single day, others on two only, others on several, and others on forty. These things were never called into question at that time. Much less could there have been a debate concerning the fast which they call that of ὑπερθέσεως, or of superposition (to which Valesius and Grabe wrongly twist the words of Irenaeus), which those who kept did not take food even in the evening, but abstained altogether, whether for one or for several days, until the end of the fast, namely the Paschal morning, which begins from cock-crowing. For that kind of fast, though commended by the ancients and kept by many pious persons, was nevertheless sanctioned by no ecclesiastical law or custom having the force of law, but was left, as was fitting, to the choice and piety of each individual; so that it is absurd, may I say it with all respect to most learned men, to invent a controversy concerning that matter among the Churches.
27. Sed quid nodus in scirpo quaeritur, cum asseveret Irenaeus controversiam fuisse, περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας, de ipsa forma jejunii, id est de specie, modo atque ratione jejunii; quo pacto, quove ritu servandum esset jejunium? Quis, inquis, hujusce controversiae status? Paulo post aperit Irenaeus ipse. Nempe, quamvis fideles omnes plurimis diebus ante Pascha jejunium observarent, non una tamen apud omnes observandi ratio fuit. 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' ἁπλότητα, καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετέπειτα πεποιηκότων. Quae quidem verba paululum intricata, sic Latine reddenda puto. Atque haec quidem inter eos, qui jejunia observant, varietas non nostra primum aetate nata est, sed longe antea apud majores nostros ortum cepit; qui non accurate, ut verisimile est, retinentes (jejunii formam) eam, quae ex simplicitate et imperitia ortum habuit, consuetudinem in posterum induxerunt. Vocem κρατούντων Musculus et H. Valesius male omnino reddiderunt per rerum habenis potitos, vel praesidentes. Nam, ut optime advertit Cl. Beveregius, verbum κρατέω
27. But why is a knot sought in a bulrush, when Irenaeus affirms that the controversy was concerning the very form of the fast, concerning the very form of the fast, that is, concerning the kind, manner, and method of the fast: in what way, or by what rite, the fast ought to be kept? What, you ask, was the state of this controversy? A little later Irenaeus himself discloses it. Namely, although all the faithful observed a fast on very many days before Easter, yet the manner of observing it was not one and the same among all. And such variety among those who observe it did not arise now in our own time, but even long before in the time of those before us, who, holding fast beside what was exact, as is likely, made the custom in accordance with simplicity and private usage for the time thereafter. Which somewhat intricate words I think should be rendered in Latin thus: And this variety among those who observe the fasts was not born first in our own age, but took its rise long before among our ancestors; who, not holding accurately, as is likely (the form of the fast), introduced for the future that custom which had its rise from simplicity and inexperience. The word κρατούντων Musculus and H. Valesius rendered altogether badly by those who held the reins of affairs, or those who presided. For, as the illustrious Beveridge excellently notes, the verb κρατέω
Editors' notes and page, col. 201
Footnotes
(65) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 201 (inferred)
L. VIII cont. Cels., et homil. X in Levit.
Against Celsus, Book 8, and Homily 10 on Leviticus.
(printed under page 107)
(66) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 201 (inferred)
L. V Hist., c. 23.
Book 5 of the History, chapter 23.
(printed under page 107)
(67) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 201 (inferred)
Lib. VII, c. 19.
Book 7, chapter 19.
(printed under page 107)
(68) ‹Cl. Beveregius› · call in col 201
Cod. Can. Eccl. prim., l. III, c. 7, § 4.
Code of the Canons of the Primitive Church, Book 3, chapter 7, § 4.
(printed under page 107)
Page
- running head: 201 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRE
- marginal letters: A totos sex majoris; B aliqui unico die; C que arbitrio ac; D πρὸ ἡμῶν, τῶν
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
simpliciter positum, nunquam praesidere significat, vel dominari, nisi saltem res illa adjiciatur, cui quis dominari dicitur, ut κρατεῖν τῆς θαλάσσης, κρατεῖν τῶν θηρίων. Irenaeus vero hoc in loco non de praesidentibus vel praesulibus Ecclesiae (qui nunquam κρατούντες vocantur), sed περὶ τοῦ εἴδους τῆς νηστείας, de forma jejunii loquitur, quam dicit nonnullos ex simplicitate et ignorantia, rudiores proinde ac privatos homines, ἰδιώτας, non certe ἄρχοντας, παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς κρατῆσαι, non accurate observasse, vel retinuisse. Inde ergo controversia, seu multorum querela, quod multi remissiorem jejunandi formam tenentes, quam nonnullorum imperitia invexerat, ab accurata recessissent. Quaenam vero accurata esset jejunandi forma, non quidem ab Irenaeo ipso discere possumus, sed ex jam citatis veteribus eruere licet. Dionysius Alexandrinus in sua ad Basilidem epistola scribit sex postremos jejuniorum ante-paschalium dies, quamvis non eodem modo ab omnibus transigerentur, a pluribus tamen sua aetate sic transmissos fuisse, ut alii totos sex impasti ducerent, alii quatuor, alii tres, alii duos. Quae quidem piorum hominum jejunandi forma, licet in legem omnibus communem trahi non possit, ex ea tamen perspicue colligitur, eam jam obtinuisse in Ecclesia consuetudinem, ut sex illorum dierum jejunium rigidius caeteris servaretur. Epiphanius eamdem Ecclesiae consuetudinem paulo enucleatius aperit, simulque innuit sua aetate non recens invectam, sed pervetustam habitam fuisse, utpote quae altas in tota Ecclesia radices egisset. Τὴν δὲ τεσσαρακοστὴν, τὴν πρὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγίου Πάσχα ὡσαύτως φυλάττειν εἴωθεν Ἐκκλησία, ἐν νηστείαις διατελοῦσα· τὰς δὲ Κυριακὰς οὐδ' ὅλως, οὔτε ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ. Τὰς δὲ ἓξ ἡμέρας τοῦ Πάσχα ἐν ξηροφαγίᾳ διατελοῦσι πάντες οἱ λαοί· φημὶ δὲ ἄρτῳ, καὶ ἁλὶ, καὶ ὕδατι τότε χρώμενοι πρὸς ἑσπέραν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ σπουδαῖοι διπλᾶς, καὶ τριπλᾶς, καὶ τετραπλᾶς ὑπερτίθενται, καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα τινὲς ἄχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κλαγγῆς τῆς Κυριακῆς ἐπιφωσκούσης. Eam vero Quadragesimae partem, quae praecedit septem dies Paschatis, similiter observare, in jejuniis perseverando, eadem consuevit Ecclesia. Dominicis autem nullis, ne quidem in ipsa Quadragesima, jejunare solet. Praeterea sex Paschatis dies in xerophagiis transmittunt populi omnes; hoc est, pane duntaxat, cum sale et aqua tunc sub vesperam vescentes. Sed et pietatem studiose colentes, ad biduum, vel triduum, vel quatriduum usque jejunia prorogant; quidam etiam totam hebdomadam ad usque sequentis Dominicae gallicinium sine cibo transigunt. Triplicem hic jejunii formam clare distinguit Epiphanius: alteram illius Quadragesimae partis, quae septem dies Paschatis, seu majorem hebdomadam praecedit: haec mitior erat, utpote a xerophagiorum lege libera, alteram majoris hebdomadae, prima strictiorem et xerophagiis astrictam; alteram
placed simply, never signifies to preside or to bear rule, unless at least that thing is added over which one is said to bear rule, as to rule the sea, to rule the wild beasts. Now Irenaeus in this passage is speaking not of the presidents or prelates of the Church (who are never called κρατούντες), but concerning the form of the fast, concerning the form of the fast, which he says that some out of simplicity and ignorance—and therefore ruder and private men, laymen, certainly not rulers—held beside what was exact, did not accurately observe, or retain. Thence, therefore, arose the controversy, or the complaint of many, that many, holding a laxer form of fasting which the inexperience of some had brought in, had departed from the accurate form. Now what the accurate form of fasting was, we cannot indeed learn from Irenaeus himself, but we may elicit it from the ancients already cited. Dionysius of Alexandria in his epistle to Basilides writes that the last six days of the ante-Paschal fasts, although they were not spent in the same manner by all, were nevertheless so passed by most in his age that some spent all six without food, others four, others three, and others two. And although this form of fasting of pious men cannot be drawn into a law common to all, yet from it one clearly gathers that the custom had already obtained in the Church that the fast of those six days should be kept more rigidly than the rest. Epiphanius discloses the same custom of the Church a little more distinctly, and at the same time hints that in his age it was held to be not recently introduced, but very ancient, inasmuch as it had struck deep roots in the whole Church. And the forty days before the seven days of the holy Passover the Church is likewise accustomed to keep, continuing in fasts; but on the Lord's days not at all, not even in the forty days themselves. And during the six days of the Passover all the peoples continue in dry diet: I mean using bread, and salt, and water at that time towards evening. Moreover the earnest also superpose two-day, and three-day, and four-day fasts, and some the whole week until cock-crowing as the Lord's day dawns. And that part of Lent which precedes the seven days of the Passover, the same Church has been accustomed similarly to observe, persevering in fasts. But on no Lord's days, not even in Lent itself, is she accustomed to fast. Furthermore, all the peoples pass the six days of the Passover in dry diet; that is, feeding then towards evening on bread alone, with salt and water. Moreover those who studiously cultivate piety prolong their fasts to two days, or three days, or four days; and some even pass the whole week without food until the cock-crowing of the following Lord's day. Here Epiphanius clearly distinguishes a threefold form of the fast: the first, that of that part of Lent which precedes the seven days of the Passover, or the great week—this was milder, inasmuch as it was free from the law of dry diet; the second, that of the great week, stricter than the first and bound to dry diet; and the
Editors' notes and page, col. 202
Footnotes
(69) ‹Epiphanius› · call in col 202
Exp. fid., § 22.
Exposition of the Faith, § 22.
(printed under page 107)
Page
- running head: . I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 202
- marginal letters: A simpliciter positum, nunquam; B discere possumus, sed; C pervetustam habitam fuisse,; D junare solet. Praeterea
- old-edition numerals: [LXXXIX] after dominari
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); alte- split at column break
- other: the word alteram was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 203
denique ambabus severiorem, qua hujus hebdomadae pars, imo et tota sine cibo transmittebatur. Prima et secunda toti Ecclesiae, populis omnibus in more posita fuit; ac proinde vim legis habuit: postrema iis duntaxat, qui prae caeteris pietatem studiose colebant; merumque consilium, non praeceptum fuit. Hinc idem Epiphanius majorem hebdomadam, τῆς ξηροφαγίας ἑβδομάδα, xerophagiae hebdomadam vocat. Et eapropter Aerianos merito perstringit, quod diebus Paschatis, quo tempore, inquit, catholici humi cubando, castimoniam servando, precibus, vigiliis, jejuniis, aridorum ciborum usu, aliisque id genus afflictationibus corpus et animam vexare solebant; ipsi carnibus vesci, agitare convivia, et effuse laetari non erubescerent. Epiphanio consentiunt Constitutiones apostolorum, falso quidem ita nuncupatae, Epiphanio tamen antiquiores: Ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις οὖν τοῦ Πάσχα νηστεύετε, ἀρχόμενοι ἀπὸ δευτέρας μέχρι τῆς παρασκευῆς, καὶ Σαββάτου, ἓξ ἡμέρας μόνῳ χρώμενοι ἄρτῳ, καὶ ἁλὶ, καὶ λαχάνοις, καὶ ποτῷ ὕδατι. Οἴνου δὲ καὶ κρεῶν ἀπέχεσθε ἐν ταύταις· ἡμέραι γάρ εἰσι πένθους, ἀλλ' οὐχ ἑορτῆς. In diebus igitur Paschae jejunate, incipientes a feria secunda usque ad Parasceven et Sabbatum, per sex dies solo utentes pane et sale, et oleribus, et aquae potu. Abstinete autem vino et carne istis diebus: Dies enim sunt luctus, et non festi.
last, finally, severer than both, by which a part of this week, and indeed the whole of it, was passed without food. The first and the second were established in custom for the whole Church, for all the peoples, and accordingly had the force of law; the last was for those only who studiously cultivated piety above the rest, and was a mere counsel, not a precept. Hence the same Epiphanius calls the great week the week of dry diet, the week of xerophagy. And on that account he deservedly censures the Aerians, because in the days of the Passover, at which time, says he, the Catholics were accustomed to afflict body and soul by lying on the ground, observing chastity, prayers, vigils, fasts, the use of dry foods, and other mortifications of that kind, they themselves did not blush to feed on flesh, hold banquets, and make merry extravagantly. With Epiphanius agree the Constitutions of the Apostles, falsely indeed so called, yet more ancient than Epiphanius: In the days of the Passover, therefore, fast, beginning from the second day of the week until the day of Preparation and the Sabbath, for six days using only bread, and salt, and herbs, and water for drink. And abstain from wine and flesh in these days: for they are days of mourning, and not of feasting. In the days of the Passover, therefore, fast, beginning from Monday until the Preparation and the Sabbath, for six days using only bread and salt, and herbs, and drink of water. And abstain from wine and flesh on those days: for they are days of mourning, and not of feasting.
28. Haec igitur accurata fuit prioribus saeculis apud maximam Ecclesiarum partem jejunii forma, ut prima Quadragesimae pars jejunio quidem, sed paulo remissiori, posterior longe asperiori consecraretur. Si quae proinde Irenaei aetate de jejunii forma controversia fuit, si quae inter Ecclesias discrepantia, in eo fuisse videtur, quod quaedam postremis sex Quadragesimae diebus mollius quam par esset, ac ferret communior Ecclesiarum consuetudo, jejunarent, nec xerophagiis vescerentur. Et idipsum est quod hic repraesentat Irenaeus. Quidam enim, inquit, unico die sibi jejunandum esse, videlicet secundum accuratam jejunii formam, existimant; alii duobus, alii insuper pluribus; alii vero, quorum pietas major, longius progressi totos quadraginta dies in xerophagiis agunt. Omnibus autem hoc commune fuit, ut horis diurnis pariter ac nocturnis computatis, diem suum metirentur, id est dies illi quos jejunio deputabant, non artificiales erant; sed naturales, sive civiles, quibus nocturnae pariter ac diurnae continentur horae. Quod quidem non frustra; sed prudenter omnino addidit Irenaeus, ne quis sibi fingeret jejunantes illos, dum quidem sol luceret, tenui cibo usos fuisse, noctu vero lautioribus epulis, more Judaeorum, indulsisse. Porro verissima haec omnia, et cum veteribus monumentis apprime consentanea. Nam concilium Laodicaenum, can. 50, statuit, Δεῖν πᾶσαν τὴν Τεσσαρακοστὴν νηστεύειν ξηροφαγοῦντας, Oportere totam Quadragesimam
28. This, therefore, was the accurate form of the fast in the earlier centuries among the greatest part of the Churches, that the first part of Lent should be consecrated to fasting indeed, yet a little more relaxed, and the latter part to a far harsher fast. Accordingly, if in the age of Irenaeus there was any controversy concerning the form of the fast, if there was any discrepancy among the Churches, it seems to have consisted in this, that certain Churches on the last six days of Lent fasted more softly than was fitting and than the more common custom of the Churches allowed, and did not feed on dry diet. And this very thing is what Irenaeus represents here. For some, says he, think that they ought to fast on a single day, namely according to the accurate form of the fast; others on two, others moreover on several; while others, whose piety is greater, advancing further, spend all forty days in dry diet. Now all had this in common, that by computing the diurnal hours equally with the nocturnal, they measured their day: that is, those days which they appointed for the fast were not artificial days, but natural or civil days, in which the nocturnal hours are contained equally with the diurnal. And this Irenaeus added not in vain, but altogether prudently, lest anyone should imagine to himself that those who fasted made use of slender food while the sun shone, but at night indulged in more sumptuous banquets after the custom of the Jews. Furthermore, all these things are most true, and in the highest degree consonant with ancient monuments. For the council of Laodicea, canon 50, decrees that one must fast during the whole of Lent feeding on dry diet, that one must fast during the whole of
Editors' notes and page, col. 203
Footnotes
(70) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 203 or 204 (not visible)
Haer. LXX, § 12, et haer. LXV, § 3.
Heresy 70, § 12, and Heresy 65 [so printed, perhaps 75], § 3.
(printed under page 108)
(71) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 203 or 204 (not visible)
L. V, c. 18.
Book 5, chapter 18.
(printed under page 108)
(72) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 203 or 204 (not visible)
L. V Hist., c. 22.
Book 5 of the History, chapter 22.
(printed under page 108)
(73) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 203 or 204 (not visible)
Gen. I, 20, 21.
Genesis 1:20, 21.
(printed under page 108)
Page
- running head: 203 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A ram denique ambabus; B Epiphanio consentiunt Constitutiones; C ut prima Quadragesimae; D ac nocturnis computatis,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); ram continued from alte- in col. 202; Quadra- split at column break
- other: the word Quadragesimam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 204
jejunare aridis cibis vescentes. Ex quo palam fit quarumdam Ecclesiarum consuetudinem fuisse non modo per sex postremos, sed et per totos quadraginta dies aridis cibis vesci. Aliunde vero testatum facit Socrates, fideles ante-paschalia jejunia servantes, non in numero dierum duntaxat, verum etiam in ciborum abstinentia inter se discrepasse. Nam alii quidem, inquit, ab animatis penitus abstinent; alii ex animantibus pisces solos comedunt. Nonnulli cum piscibus etiam avibus vescuntur; ex aquis, ut est apud Moysen, eas quoque conditas esse affirmantes. Quidam ab omni arborum fructu et ab ovis abstinent. Quidam solo vescuntur pane; alii ne hoc quidem utuntur. Nonnulli usque ad horam nonam jejunantes, quovis posthac ciborum genere utuntur absque discrimine. Alii alia ratione jejunant, etc. Quibus maxime illustrantur Irenaei verba, et confirmantur quae jam diximus, quosdam videlicet ab accurata jejunii forma sic recessisse, ut alii unico die, alii duobus duntaxat, etc., eo quo par erat modo, aridis cibis vescentes jejunarent.
Lent feeding on dry foods. From which it becomes plain that it was the custom of certain Churches to feed on dry foods not only during the last six days, but also throughout all forty days. From another quarter, moreover, Socrates bears witness that the faithful who kept the ante-Paschal fasts differed among themselves not only in the number of days, but also in the abstinence from foods. For some indeed, says he, abstain altogether from living creatures; others among living creatures eat fish alone. Some feed on birds also along with fish, affirming that they too were created out of the waters, as it is in Moses. Some abstain from all fruit of trees and from eggs. Some feed on bread alone; others do not use even this. Some, fasting until the ninth hour, thereafter use any kind of food without distinction. Others fast in another manner, etc. By which words the words of Irenaeus are greatly illustrated, and what we have already said is confirmed, namely that some had so departed from the accurate form of the fast that some fasted on a single day, others on two only, etc., in the manner that was fitting, feeding on dry foods.
29. Monet autem Victorem papam Irenaeus, istos omnes pacem semper inter se coluisse. Et nos, inquit, eam retinemus; sicque discrepans jejunii ratio concordiam fidei commendat. Unde concludere in promptu erat, quod si iis qui praescriptam ab Ecclesia Romana jejunandi formam non tenebant, lis nulla movebatur; neque etiam moveri debebat iis, qui cum ea de Paschatis die dissentiebant; quia utrumque ad disciplinam, quae pro locis et temporibus varia esse potest; neutrum ad fidem, quae eadem et inconcussa manebat in omnibus Ecclesiis, spectabat. Maximi ponderis esse argumenta haec omnia, Irenaeique pietate, prudentia et eruditione dignissima, nemo negaverit. Tantum apud Victorem valuisse, ut his victus nimium praecipitem gradum revocaverit, Ecclesiisque Orientalibus pacem restituerit, ex eo colligitur, quod Firmilianus sexaginta circiter post haec annis scripserit, inter diversas Romanae Ecclesiae aliarumque regionum consuetudines, illaesam semper constitisse catholicae Ecclesiae pacem et unitatem. Sed disertis verbis asserit Anatolius, qui annis plus minus XX post Firmilianum scribebat, Irenaeo sequestro pacis et conciliatore, sic compositas adversantium controversias, ut unicuique avitos mores retinere tutum fuerit et liberum. Et revera, quamvis ab ea, quam a majoribus acceperant, celebrandi Paschatis ratione non discesserint Orientales, vexatos tamen deinceps a Victoris successoribus non legimus: donec concilii Nicaeni decreto sancita Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudo, communi omnium aliarum gentium consensu recepta et probata fuerit. Haec proinde Irenaei laus fuit, quod dissidentes Ecclesias, moxque fractis foederibus sacris discindendas, reconciliaverit; inde apud utrasque nunquam satis pro merito
29. Moreover Irenaeus reminds Pope Victor that all those men always cultivated peace among themselves. And we, says he, retain it; and thus the differing manner of the fast commends the concord of faith. Whence it was easy to conclude that if no lawsuit was raised against those who did not hold the form of fasting prescribed by the Roman Church, neither ought one to be raised against those who dissented from her concerning the day of Easter; because both pertained to discipline, which can vary according to places and times, and neither pertained to the faith, which remained the same and unshaken in all the Churches. That all these arguments are of the greatest weight, and most worthy of the piety, prudence, and erudition of Irenaeus, no one will deny. That they prevailed so much with Victor that, overcome by them, he recalled his too hasty step and restored peace to the Eastern Churches, is gathered from the fact that Firmilian wrote about sixty years after these events that amid the diverse customs of the Roman Church and of other regions, the peace and unity of the Catholic Church always stood unharmed. Moreover Anatolius, who wrote twenty years more or less after Firmilian, asserts in express words that with Irenaeus as mediator and peacemaker, the controversies of the opponents were so settled that it was safe and free for each to retain his ancestral customs. And in fact, although the Easterns did not depart from that manner of celebrating Easter which they had received from their ancestors, yet we do not read that they were harassed thereafter by the successors of Victor, until the custom of the Roman Church, sanctioned by the decree of the Nicene council, was received and approved by the common consent of all other nations. This, accordingly, was the praise of Irenaeus, that he reconciled the dissenting Churches, which otherwise would soon have been rent asunder with their sacred covenants broken; whence among both parties he can never be sufficiently
Editors' notes and page, col. 204
Footnotes
(74) ‹quod Firmilianus› · call in col 204
Apud Cyprian. ep. 75, edit. Oxon.
In Cyprian, letter 75, Oxford edition.
(printed under page 108)
(75) ‹asserit Anatolius› · call in col 204
Ap. Bucher., p. 44[5?].
In Bucherius, p. 44[5?] (last digit blurred).
(printed under page 108)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 204
- marginal letters: A gesimam jejunare aridis; B tur absque discrimine.; C utrumque ad disciplinam,; D conciliatore, sic compositas
- old-edition numerals: [XC] after concludere in
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); gesimam continued from Quadra- in col. 203
commendandus, quod schismatis malum utrisque funestum averterit.
commended according to his merit, because he averted the evil of schism fatal to both.
30. Praeclaro huic facinori diu superstes non fuit Irenaeus. Vixdum intestina, quibus agitabantur Ecclesiae, bella restinxerat, cum externis acerbius vastatas ingemuit. Saevum illud ac truculentum dico bellum, quod rei Christianae intulit Severus anno decimo imperii, Christi vero 202, nulli Ecclesiae infestius quam Lugdunensi. Quam immani fidelium strage eam vastaverit, pastorisque cum grege pro Christo fortiter dimicantis sanguine resperserit, docet Gregorius Turonensis. Veniente, ait, persecutione talia ibidem diabolus bella per tyrannum exercuit, et tanta ibi multitudo Christianorum ob confessionem Dominici nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano; quorum nec numerum, nec nomina colligere potuimus. Dominus enim eos in libro vitae conscripsit. Beatum Irenaeum, diversis in sua carnifex praesentia poenis affectum, Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit. Gregorio consentiunt Ado et Notkerus, dum narrant Irenaeum cum omni fere civitatis suae populo coronatum esse glorioso martyrio. Alias tam pretiosae mortis circumstantias non novimus. Quas enim ex vetustis quibusdam Ecclesiae Lugdunensis codicibus mss. eruisse se dicunt Severtius, Halloixius et Theophilus Raynaldus, parum tutas esse existimo. In eo duntaxat antiquis hisce monumentis habenda fides, quod Irenaeum inter Christi martyres recenseant. Nam in hoc sibi consentientes habent Hieronymum, et auctorem Quaestionum ad Orthodoxos, inter opera Justini Martyris, qui Irenaeum disertis verbis martyrem appellant, ac vetustissimos quosque Martyrologiorum codices cum editos, tum mss., Hieronymianum vulgo dictum, a Florentinio editum, Bedae, Usuardi, etc., et ipsorum Menaeorum Graecorum. Exstat in Bibliotheca nostra San-Germanensi membranaceus codex in-4°, n. 264, plures continens Tractatus Isidori, Joannis Chrysostomi, Gregorii Mag., etc., quem antiquissimum esse et annorum plus quam mille probat ipsa scripturae forma. In medio siquidem duos quaterniones videre est, eadem si non manu, saltem aetate descriptos, quorum pars vulgaribus, pars Merovingicis characteribus exarata est, ita ut in uno et eodem opusculo, imo et folio utrosque characteres legere sit: quod summam codicis antiquitatem demonstrat. Porro initio praemittitur brevissimum Kalendarium, eadem manu atque reliquum opus descriptum, in quo ita legitur: IV Kal. Jul. Lugduno Gallea Pas. S. Herenei Ep. Dolendum quod passionis ejus Acta sincera et sana exciderint. Dudum est quod interiere: nam Gregorius Mag. conqueritur quod beati Irenaei gesta et scripta
30. Irenaeus did not long survive this noble deed. Scarcely had he extinguished the intestine wars by which the Churches were agitated, when he groaned over their being more bitterly devastated by external ones. I mean that savage and truculent war which Severus waged against the Christian cause in the tenth year of his reign, and the year of Christ 202, against no Church more hostile than that of Lyons. With what a monstrous slaughter of the faithful it devastated her, and spattered her with the blood of the pastor fighting bravely with his flock for Christ, Gregory of Tours teaches. When the persecution came, says he, the devil waged such wars in that same place through the tyrant, and so great a multitude of Christians was slaughtered there for the confession of the Lord's name, that rivers of Christian blood ran through the streets; of whom we have been able to collect neither the number nor the names. For the Lord enrolled them in the book of life. The executioner dedicated the blessed Irenaeus, afflicted in his presence with diverse punishments, to Christ the Lord through martyrdom. With Gregory agree Ado and Notker, when they relate that Irenaeus with almost the whole people of his city was crowned with a glorious martyrdom. Other circumstances of so precious a death we do not know. For those which Severtius, Halloix, and Theophilus Raynaud say that they unearthed from certain ancient manuscript codices of the Church of Lyons, I consider to be far from safe. Only in this is credence to be given to these ancient monuments, that they reckon Irenaeus among the martyrs of Christ. For in this they have agreeing with them Jerome, and the author of the Questions to the Orthodox among the works of Justin Martyr, who in express words call Irenaeus a martyr, as well as all the most ancient codices of the Martyrologies, both printed and manuscript: that commonly called the Hieronymian, published by Fiorentini, those of Bede, Usuard, etc., and of the Greek Menaea themselves. There is extant in our Library of Saint-Germain a parchment codex in quarto, no. 264, containing several Treatises of Isidore, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, etc., which the very form of the writing proves to be most ancient and of more than a thousand years. For in the middle one may see two quaternions transcribed, if not by the same hand, at least in the same age, part of which is written in common characters and part in Merovingian characters, so that in one and the same tract, and indeed on the same leaf, one may read both characters: which demonstrates the extreme antiquity of the codex. Furthermore, at the beginning there is prefixed a very brief Calendar, transcribed by the same hand as the rest of the work, in which it is read thus: On the 4th day before the Kalends of July, at Lyons in Gaul, the Passion of St. Irenaeus, Bishop. It is to be lamented that the genuine and sound Acts of his passion have been lost. It is long since they perished: for Gregory the Great complains that the deeds and writings of the blessed Irenaeus
Editors' notes and page, col. 205
Footnotes
(76) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 205 (inferred)
Lib. I Hist. Franc., § 27.
History of the Franks, Book 1, § 27.
(printed under page 109)
(77) ‹Severtius› · call in col 205
De Lugd. archiep., p. I, num. 3, § 2.
On the Archbishops of Lyons, part 1, no. 3, § 2.
(printed under page 109)
(78) ‹Halloixius› · call in col 205
Not. in cap. 12 Vitae Iren.
Note on chapter 12 of the Life of Irenaeus.
(printed under page 109)
(79) ‹Theophilus Raynaldus› · call in col 205
T. VIII, pag. 22, 23.
Vol. 8, pp. 22, 23.
(printed under page 109)
(80) ‹habent Hieronymum› · call in col 205
In cap. LXIV Isa., tom. III nov. edit.
On chapter 64 of Isaiah, vol. 3 of the new edition.
(printed under page 109)
(81) ‹Quaestionum ad Orthodoxos› · call in col 205
Respons. ad Quaest. 115 ad Orthod.
Response to Question 115 of the Questions to the Orthodox.
(printed under page 109)
(82) ‹a Florentinio editum› · call in col 205
P. 629, 632.
Pp. 629, 632.
(printed under page 109)
(83) ‹Menaeorum Graecorum› · call in col 205
22 Aug.
August 22.
(printed under page 109)
(84) ‹Bibliotheca nostra› · call in col 205
Biblioth. Caes., p. 208, Lambec., tom. VIII.
Imperial Library, p. 208, Lambecius, vol. 8.
(printed under page 109)
(85) ‹sana exciderint› · call in col 205
Act. Mart. sinc. et sel., p. 706.
Genuine and Select Acts of the Martyrs, p. 706.
(printed under page 109)
(86) ‹Gregorius Mag.› · call in col 205
L. XI, ep. 56, ad Aether. Lugd. episc. tom. II nov. edit.
Book 11, letter 56, to Aetherius, bishop of Lyons, vol. 2 of the new edition.
(printed under page 109)
Page
- running head: 205 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IREN
- marginal letters: A commendandus, quod schismatis; B plateas flumina currerent; C Hieronymum, et auctorem; D pars Merovingicis characteribus
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
a se diu conquisita reperire non potuerit. Eorum fragmentum a se repertum fuisse affirmat Baronius in notis ad Martyrologium Romanum, et in Annal. eccles. ad annum 205, n. 28, idem forte quod e veteri codice Lugdunensi erutum descripsit Severtius laudatus: quam enim Irenaei mortis historiam narrat Baronius, ad Severtianam satis accedit. Sed Acta ipsa, quae sublata una pagina mutila nactus fuerat Em. cardinalis, integra invenit doctissimus noster D. Theodericus Ruinart, in cod. ms. archicoenobii Cisterciensis; verum cum ad Irenaei aetatem accedere non videantur, ea proferre operae pretium non duxit. Ut ut est de actis, quae ex veteribus monumentis testimonia deprompsimus, palam faciunt jam saltem a quinto saeculo eam in omnes gentes manasse sententiam, Irenaeum martyrio vitam finiisse.
could not be found by him, though long sought after. Baronius affirms in his notes on the Roman Martyrology, and in his Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 205, no. 28, that a fragment of them was found by him, perhaps the same as that which the cited Severtius transcribed after unearthing it from an ancient codex of Lyons: for the history of the death of Irenaeus which Baronius relates comes close enough to that of Severtius. But the Acts themselves, which the Eminent Cardinal had obtained mutilated by the removal of a single page, our most learned Dom Thierry Ruinart found complete in a manuscript codex of the arch-monastery of Cîteaux; yet since they do not seem to approach the age of Irenaeus, he did not deem it worthwhile to publish them. However that may be concerning the acts, the testimonies which we have drawn from ancient monuments make it plain that at least from the fifth century that opinion had spread to all nations, that Irenaeus ended his life by martyrdom.
31. Sed ecce, nuperus scriptor Dodwellus adversus receptam hactenus et traditam a tot veteribus sententiam insurgit, et ex Irenaei capite martyrii lauream avellere nititur. Mirum si martyrum multitudini a teneris unguiculis infensissimus, Galliarum sideri pepercisset. At, quibus argumentis Lugdunensem episcopum ex albo martyrum expungit? Iis videlicet, quibus plus aequo delectatur, vanis infinitisque conjecturis, ac negantibus argumentis; quae si quid hic valeant, nihil in tota antiquitate ecclesiastica adeo certum erit, quin audaculorum manibus facile concutiatur. Ac primo quidem eos confutat, qui putant eo anno trucidatum Irenaeum, quo Albinum praelio ad urbem Lugdunensem commisso superavit Severus; capta nimirum eodem impetu urbe, et in cives ejus, praesertim Christianos, caede edita immanissima. Annus is erat Christi 197, Severi 5. Sed si excipias auctorem Actorum S. Irenaei, quorum dubia omnino fides, paucissimi sunt qui ita sentiant. Eo siquidem anno, teste Hieronymo in Chronico, tum primum emergebat, aut saltem invalescebat Paschalis inter Victorem papam et Asianos controversia, quae deinceps Irenaeo conciliatore composita est. Ultro igitur concedunt eruditi, episcopum Lugdunensem tandiu vitam prorogasse, donec veniens persecutio, ut loquitur Gregorius Turonensis, ea nimirum quam quinquennio post suscitavit Severus, pastorem cum maxima gregis parte demessuerit. Quo anno martyrii coronam adepti fuerint, non liquet; non nisi post annum 202 adipisci potuisse constat, nec improbabilis Raynaldi conjectura, differendam esse usque ad annum 208, quo Severus Galliis peragratis in Majorem Britanniam profectus est. Haec ne leviter quidem attingit Dodwellus; imo nec auctores primae sententiae valde premunt ea quae profert in eos argumenta.
31. But behold, a recent writer, Dodwell, rises up against the opinion hitherto received and handed down by so many ancients, and strives to pluck the laurel of martyrdom from the head of Irenaeus. It would be a wonder if he who from his tender nails was most hostile to the multitude of martyrs had spared the star of the Gauls. Yet by what arguments does he expunge the bishop of Lyons from the roll of the martyrs? By those, namely, in which he delights more than is fair: vain and endless conjectures, and negative arguments; which, if they have any force here, nothing in all ecclesiastical antiquity will be so certain as not to be easily shaken by the hands of rash men. And first indeed he refutes those who think that Irenaeus was slaughtered in that year in which Severus overcame Albinus in a battle fought near the city of Lyons, the city namely having been captured in the same assault, and a most monstrous slaughter having been wrought against its citizens, especially the Christians. That was the year of Christ 197, the 5th of Severus. Yet if you except the author of the Acts of St. Irenaeus, whose trustworthiness is altogether doubtful, there are very few who think thus. For in that year, as Jerome witnesses in his Chronicle, the Paschal controversy between Pope Victor and the Asians was then for the first time emerging, or at least growing strong, which thereafter was settled with Irenaeus as peacemaker. Learned men therefore willingly concede that the bishop of Lyons prolonged his life until the coming persecution, as Gregory of Tours speaks—namely that which Severus stirred up five years later—mowed down the pastor with the greatest part of his flock. In what year they obtained the crown of martyrdom is not clear; that they could not have obtained it until after the year 202 is agreed, nor is Raynaud's conjecture improbable, that it should be deferred until the year 208, in which Severus, having traversed the Gauls, set out for Great Britain. These things Dodwell does not even lightly touch upon; nay, the arguments which he brings forward against the authors of the first opinion do not press even them very hard.
Editors' notes and page, col. 206
Footnotes
(87) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 206 (inferred)
Dissert. 3, in Iren., § 31 et seqq.
Dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, § 31 and following.
(printed under page 109)
(88) ‹improbabilis Raynaldi› · call in col 206
Theoph. Rayn., tom. VIII, p. 37.
Théophile Raynaud, vol. 8, p. 37.
(printed under page 109)
Page
- running head: . I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 206
- marginal letters: A a se diu; B manasse sententiam, Irenaeum; C eos confutat, qui; D post suscitavit Severus,
- old-edition numerals: [XCI] after constat, nec
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
32. « At, inquit, tanta cum fuerit martyrum apud veteres auctoritas, ut martyrum nunquam sine martyrii encomio mentionem faciendam existimarent; quid est quod Irenaeum nemo e veteribus, etiam ubi testis adducitur, etiam ubi cum aliis testibus martyribus junctus legitur, martyrem tamen appellavit? » Id confidentius asserit Dodwellus. An e veterum catalogo expunget Hieronymum, auctorem Quaestionum et Responsionum ad Orthodoxos, et Gregorium Turonensem? Atqui illi disertis verbis Irenaeum martyrem appellant, ac priores quidem duo ubi testem adducunt. Eorum quidem vel fidem elevare, vel testimonium infirmare nititur, sed vanis cavillationibus, quas postea discutiemus. His adjungendi vetustissimi Martyrologiorum et Kalendariorum scriptores, qui Irenaeum in martyrum fastos constantissime retulerunt; idque non propria auctoritate, non futilibus conjecturis, aut temere divinando, sed ex veteribus Ecclesiarum monumentis quae consulebant, et prae oculis habebant. Hos si fabulatores iterum appellet Dodwellus, meminerit, iis verbis ejusmodi criminationes dudum excepisse doctissimum nostrum ac piae memoriae D. Theodericum Ruinart, ut ad incitas redactus desperatam causam tueri hactenus non potuerit. « Etsi enim, inquit ille, ejusmodi libros ab omni penitus mendo immunes esse affirmare nemo possit (haec quippe est singularis sacrorum codicum praerogativa), non tamen hinc inferre licet, eos mala fide, aut temere, aut leviter conscriptos fuisse; imo vero certum est Martyrologia a viris gravibus, ex antiquioribus monumentis, et peculiarium Ecclesiarum Kalendariis collecta fuisse: quae cum ab episcopis approbata fuissent, publice in ecclesiasticis conventibus lecta fuerunt; ut si omnium sanctorum festivitates celebrari non possent, eorum saltem aliqua commemoratio fieret, tum in tesseram communionis, quae inter Ecclesias catholicas haberi debet; tum ut ea ratione aliquis saltem cultus exteris martyribus exhiberetur. Caeterum falso confictas martyrum historias igni tradi jubent Trullani concilii Patres can. 63, vetantque ne in Ecclesia legantur; eos autem qui eos admitterent, anathemati subjiciunt. » Quod ostendit quanta cautione ac religione nomen alicujus a majoribus nostris in album martyrum referretur, nec cuivis ita referre pro libito licuisse. Editus est ea de re canon secundus concilii I Carthaginensis sub Grato, tempore Julii papae. Nec latet quempiam, Lucillam factiosam illam feminam, quae schismati Donatistarum initium praebuit, quod homini cuidam mortuo, etsi martyri, sed necdum vindicato, aliquos honores exhibuisset, ab Ecclesiae ministris correptam fuisse. Adeo certum est, ut alia multa, quae proferri possent, argumenta praetermittam, sollicitos semper fuisse Ecclesiarum rectores, ne quis temere martyrum numero ascriberetur.
32. "But," says he, "since the authority of martyrs among the ancients was so great that they thought mention ought never to be made of martyrs without the encomium of martyrdom, how is it that no one of the ancients, even where Irenaeus is adduced as a witness, even where he is read joined with other martyr witnesses, nevertheless called him a martyr?" This Dodwell asserts rather confidently. Will he expunge from the catalogue of the ancients Jerome, the author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, and Gregory of Tours? Yet they in express words call Irenaeus a martyr, and the first two indeed where they adduce him as a witness. He strives indeed either to disparage their credit or to weaken their testimony, but by vain cavils, which we shall discuss hereafter. To these must be joined the most ancient writers of Martyrologies and Calendars, who most constantly entered Irenaeus into the registers of the martyrs; and that not on their own authority, not by futile conjectures or rashly guessing, but from the ancient monuments of the Churches which they consulted and had before their eyes. If Dodwell should again call these men romancers, let him remember that our most learned Dom Thierry Ruinart of pious memory long ago met accusations of this sort with such words that, reduced to extremity, he has hitherto not been able to defend his desperate case. "For although," says he, "no one can affirm that books of this sort are altogether immune from every fault (since this is the singular prerogative of the sacred codices), yet one may not infer from this that they were compiled in bad faith, or rashly, or lightly; nay, it is certain that the Martyrologies were collected by grave men from more ancient monuments and from the Calendars of particular Churches: and when they had been approved by the bishops, they were read publicly in ecclesiastical assemblies, so that if the festivals of all the saints could not be celebrated, at least some commemoration of them might be made, both as a token of the communion which ought to be maintained among Catholic Churches, and so that in that way at least some veneration might be shown to foreign martyrs. For the rest, the Fathers of the council in Trullo, canon 63, order falsely invented histories of martyrs to be delivered to the fire, and forbid them to be read in the Church; and those who should admit them they subject to anathema." Which shows with what great caution and religious care the name of anyone was entered by our ancestors into the roll of the martyrs, and that it was not lawful for anyone so to enter it at pleasure. The second canon of the 1st council of Carthage under Gratus, in the time of Pope Julius, was issued concerning that matter. Nor is it hidden from anyone that Lucilla, that factious woman who furnished the beginning to the schism of the Donatists, because she had shown some honours to a certain dead man, even if a martyr, yet not yet vindicated, was rebuked by the ministers of the Church. So certain is it—to pass over many other arguments which could be brought forward—that the rulers of the Churches were always solicitous lest anyone should be rashly enrolled in the number of the martyrs.
33. Verum ut ad Tertullianum, Eusebium, Epiphanium,
33. But to return to Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius,
Editors' notes and page, col. 207
Footnotes
(89) ‹call above the cropped foot; not visible› · call in col 207 (inferred)
Act. Mart. sinc. et sel. Praef., § 3 fin.
Genuine and Select Acts of the Martyrs, Preface, end of § 3.
(printed under page 110)
(90) ‹necdum vindicato› · call in col 207
Optat., lib. I.
Optatus, Book 1.
(printed under page 110)
Page
- running head: 207 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A 32. « At, inquit,; B rum scriptores, qui; C aut leviter conscriptos; D alicujus a majoribus
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); Epi- split at column break
Theodoretum, et alios quos in causae suae defensionem citat Dodwellus, pedem referamus; illi quidem Irenaeum nusquam appellant martyrem; sed nihil aliud ad summum ex eorum silentio colligi potest, nisi quod ad eorum notitiam Acta martyrii non pervenerint, aut martyrem fuisse nescierint. Ex eo vero quod ad Tertulliani, Eusebii, Epiphanii et aliorum quorumdam Orientalium scriptorum notitiam martyris alicujus Occidentalis Acta non pervenerint, martyrem fuisse confidenter negare a ratione prorsus alienum videtur. Ut enim sic inferri jure possit, supponatur necesse est martyres omnes Occidentales iis apprime cognitos fuisse nec ullam eos latere potuisse martyrii historiam; quod quam absurdum sit, nemo non videt. Et si quidem iis in regionibus, vel non procul ab iis passus fuisset Irenaeus, in quibus vitam egere scriptores laudati, quidpiam ponderis habere posset argumentum ab eorum silentio repetitum. Sed quod martyrem fuisse nescierunt episcopum, qui in remotissimis Occidentis partibus, et in Ecclesia nascente, necdum magni nominis, aut longe lateque diffusa, sanguinem fuderit, non est quod adeo miremur. Certe martyres fuisse Saturninum Tolosanum, Dionysium Parisinum episcopum, cum sociis Rustico et Eleutherio, Patroclum Trecensem, Fructuosum Tarraconensem, et alios complures, qui varias Occidentis partes sanguine suo purpurarunt, adeo constat ut ne ii quidem inficias ierint quos acrius exagitat martyrum numerum contrahendi prurigo. Illorum autem mentionem frustra requiras apud Eusebium, Epiphanium, Theodoretum et alios rerum Orientalium scriptores. Sed ut causae jugulum propius adhuc petam, Eusebius, cujus silentium adeo urget Dodwellus, Hippolyti non semel meminit, catalogum ejus operum texit, episcopum fuisse dicit; martyrem nuspiam. Martyrio tamen vitam finiisse certissimum esse debet vel ipsi Dodwello; nam in iis ipsis quae profert Theodoreti, adversus Irenaei martyrium locis, martyr appellatur. Appellatur et ab Hieronymo non semel. Quid jam respondere posset Dodwellus, si quis martyrem fuisse Hippolytum negans, verba ejus in ipsum retorquens diceret: non id procul dubio taciturum Eusebium, si vere nosset; nec ignoraturum, si qua reperisset illius martyrii monumenta, in sua martyrum collectione inferenda? Nihil aliud, si saperet, re⟨s⟩pondendum occurreret, nisi istud: Eusebium quidem non nosse Hippolytum martyrem fuisse, nec reperisse illius martyrii monumenta; ipsius tamen silentium praeponderare nec posse, nec debere disertis aliorum veterum testimoniis, qui martyrem fuisse asseverant. Boni ergo consulat, si eadem reponentes contendamus, diserta Hieronymi, Eusebio supparis, Epiphanio coaevi, Theodoreto et Cyrillo Alexandrino antiquioris; auctoris Quaestionum et Responsionum ad Orthodoxos, qui ad posteriorum
Theodoret, and the others whom Dodwell cites in defence of his case: they indeed nowhere call Irenaeus a martyr; yet nothing else at most can be gathered from their silence than that the Acts of his martyrdom did not come to their knowledge, or that they did not know that he was a martyr. Now from the fact that the Acts of some Western martyr did not come to the knowledge of Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and certain other Eastern writers, to deny confidently that he was a martyr seems altogether foreign to reason. For in order that such an inference may rightfully be drawn, it must needs be supposed that all the Western martyrs were thoroughly known to them, and that no history of a martyrdom could have escaped their notice; and how absurd this is, everyone sees. And if indeed Irenaeus had suffered in those regions in which the cited writers spent their lives, or not far from them, the argument drawn from their silence might have some weight. But that they did not know that a bishop was a martyr who shed his blood in the remotest parts of the West, and in a nascent Church not yet of great name or spread far and wide, there is no reason why we should so greatly marvel. Certainly that Saturninus of Toulouse, Dionysius bishop of Paris with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, Patroclus of Troyes, Fructuosus of Tarragona, and many others who purpled various parts of the West with their blood, were martyrs, is so well established that not even those have denied it whom the itch for contracting the number of the martyrs more sharply torments. Yet you would look in vain for any mention of them in Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and other writers of Eastern affairs. But to aim still closer at the throat of the case: Eusebius, whose silence Dodwell presses so hard, makes mention of Hippolytus more than once, weaves a catalogue of his works, and says that he was a bishop; a martyr, nowhere. Yet that he ended his life by martyrdom must be most certain even to Dodwell himself; for in those very passages of Theodoret which he brings forward against the martyrdom of Irenaeus, he is called a martyr. He is also called so by Jerome more than once. What now could Dodwell answer if someone, denying that Hippolytus was a martyr and turning his own words back against him, should say that without doubt Eusebius would not have kept silence about this if he had truly known it, nor would he have been ignorant of it if he had found any monuments of that martyrdom to insert in his collection of martyrs? Nothing else, if he were wise, would occur to him to answer except this: that Eusebius indeed did not know that Hippolytus was a martyr, and had not found the monuments of his martyrdom; yet that his silence neither could nor ought to outweigh the express testimonies of other ancients who affirm that he was a martyr. Let him take it in good part, therefore, if, making the same reply, we contend that the express testimonies of Jerome, nearly contemporary with Eusebius, coeval with Epiphanius, and more ancient than Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria; of the author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, who approached the
Editors' notes and page, col. 208
Footnotes
(91) ‹Eusebius› · call in col 208
Lib. VI, cap. 20, 22.
Book 6, chapters 20, 22.
(printed under page 110)
(92) ‹profert Theodoreti› · call in col 208
Dial. 1, 2, 3.
Dialogues 1, 2, 3.
(92*) ‹non semel› · call in col 208 Hier. Prol. in Matth. et Ep. 11, al. 125, tom. II nov. edit.
Jerome, Prologue to Matthew, and Letter 11 (otherwise 125), vol. 2 of the new edition.
(printed under page 110)
Page
- running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 208
- marginal letters: A phanium, Theodoretum, et; B iis in regionibus,; C acrius exagitat martyrum; D si vere nosset;
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); phanium continued from Epi- in col. 207
aetatem accessit: Gregorii Turonensis, aliorumque rerum Occidentalium scriptorum testimonia, longe majoris esse ponderis, Eusebii caeterorumque Orientalium silentio. Certe si regula est omnium gentium consensione firmata, in rebus historicis patrios testes prae exteris audiendos esse; tum potissimum, aut nuspiam valere debet, cum illi loquuntur, isti tacent. Ecquis enim sobrius sibi persuadeat, historica regionis alicujus monumenta, exteris notiora esse posse, quam incolis ipsis? An ferret vir clariss. Italum qui tantam sibi rerum Britannicarum scientiam arrogaret, quantam Angli ipsi; vel contenderet hos aliis non instructos esse monumentis, in iis quae ad rerum Anglicarum historiam attinent, quam Italos?
age of the latter; of Gregory of Tours, and of other writers of Western affairs, are of far greater weight than the silence of Eusebius and the other Easterns. Certainly, if it is a rule confirmed by the consent of all nations that in historical matters native witnesses are to be heard before foreign ones, then above all, or nowhere, ought it to hold good when the former speak and the latter are silent. For what sober man would persuade himself that the historical monuments of any region can be better known to foreigners than to the inhabitants themselves? Would the most illustrious man bear with an Italian who should arrogate to himself as great a knowledge of British affairs as the English themselves possess, or who should contend that the latter are furnished with no other monuments, in the things that pertain to the history of English affairs, than the Italians?
34. Argumenti vim sensit Dodwellus; ne tamen victus succumberet, auctoris Quaestionum ad Orthodoxos, Hieronymi et Gregorii Turonensis testimoniorum fidem infirmare nititur. Certum est, ait, auctorem Quaestionum ad Orthodoxos, quicunque tandem is fuerit, recepti in imperio Christianismi temporibus esse juniorem; ut proinde in causis historicis, etiam quarti quintive saeculi, non sit, nisi interposito genuinorum auctorum testimonio, tuto audiendus. Egregiam certe responsionem! quae id habet commodi, ut molestam veterum quorumlibet, si de trium priorum saeculorum rebus testimonium ferant, auctoritatem ab imis fundamentis facile succutiat. Ergone ii duntaxat tuto audiendi, qui recepti in imperio Christianismi temporibus aut antiquiores, aut saltem aequales exstitere; et alii omnes quarti desinentis, vel quinti saeculi auctores rejiciendi? Si ita sit, cur in causae suae patrocinium adducit Dodwellus Epiphanium, Theodoretum, Augustinum et Cyrillum Alexandrinum? Omnes quippe recepti in imperio Christianismi temporibus juniores fuerunt. Quas aliis imponere vult leges, adeo sensui communi adversantur, ut ne ipse quidem jugum ferre possit. Si quidem auctor saeculi quinti, scriptoribus quarti negantibus, quidpiam affirmaret; ille, fateor, tuto audiendus non esset; sed si ille tuto audiendus non sit, dum his tacentibus aliquid affirmat, quod alii ante et post eum affirmarunt, et ii quidem quibus perspecta et explorata magis esse debuerunt rei monumenta, antiquandae sunt communes historiae leges.
34. Dodwell felt the force of the argument; yet lest he should succumb as vanquished, he strives to weaken the credit of the testimonies of the author of the Questions to the Orthodox, of Jerome, and of Gregory of Tours. It is certain, says he, that the author of the Questions to the Orthodox, whoever he may at length have been, is younger than the times when Christianity was received in the empire; so that accordingly in historical cases, even of the fourth or fifth century, he cannot safely be heeded unless the testimony of genuine authors is interposed. An admirable answer indeed! which has this convenience, that it easily shakes from the lowest foundations the troublesome authority of any ancients whatsoever, if they bear witness concerning the affairs of the first three centuries. Are those only, therefore, to be safely heeded who were either more ancient than, or at least contemporary with, the times when Christianity was received in the empire; and are all other authors of the close of the fourth or of the fifth century to be rejected? If it be so, why does Dodwell adduce in support of his case Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria? For all of them were younger than the times when Christianity was received in the empire. The laws which he wishes to impose upon others are so opposed to common sense that not even he himself can bear the yoke. If indeed an author of the fifth century affirmed something while the writers of the fourth denied it, he, I confess, could not safely be heeded; but if he cannot safely be heeded when, while they are silent, he affirms something which others before and after him affirmed, and those indeed to whom the monuments of the matter must have been better known and ascertained, the common laws of history must be abolished.
35. Nec felicius Dodwello cedunt ii, quibus Hieronymum concutere molitur, conatus. Vereor, ait, ne quod apud eum de martyrio Irenaei legitur, e margine (quod saepe evenire solebat) a studioso aliquo recentiore notatum, in textum irrepserit. Sic sagacissimi viri in salebra nunquam haerent. Si quid apud auctores molestum occurrat, quod facile detorqueri non possit; in caeteris fidentiori, hic timidiori animo, verentur ne e margine in textum irrepserit. Sed quis hic pertimescendi locus? Ecce enim, in omnibus cum editis, tum mss. codd. Hieronymus in cap. LXIV Isaiae, Irenaeum diserte appellat episcopum et martyrem: haec ne minimum quidem
35. Nor do those efforts by which he endeavours to shake Jerome turn out any more happily for Dodwell. I fear, says he, lest what is read in him concerning the martyrdom of Irenaeus, having been noted in the margin (as often used to happen) by some more recent student, crept into the text. Thus most sagacious men never stick in a rough place! If anything troublesome occurs in authors which cannot easily be twisted away, being of a bolder mind in other things, here of a more timid one, they fear lest it crept from the margin into the text. But what room is there for fear here? For behold, in all codices both printed and manuscript, Jerome on chapter 64 of Isaiah expressly calls Irenaeus bishop and martyr: these words do not in the least
Editors' notes and page, col. 209
Page
- running head: 209 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRE
- marginal letters: A aetatem accessit: Gregorii; B 34. Argumenti vim; C tiquiores, aut saltem; D debuerunt rei monumenta,
- old-edition numerals: [ XCII ] after scientiam
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
repugnant antecedentibus et consequentibus, sensum non perturbant, nec orationis seriem abrumpunt; certissima textus sinceri nec interpolati argumenta. Veretur tamen Dodwellus ne verba haec, Et martyr, e margine in textum irrepserint: imo parum abest quin excusso metu fidenter pronuntiet, adeo haec non scripsisse Hieronymum, ut ne quidem scribere potuerit. Cur ita? Quia si martyrem Irenaeum nosset Hieronymus, cur, quaeso, nullam habemus in Catalogo, ubi exspectanda erat, martyrii vel levissimam mentionem? Cur aliis, quoties testem adducit, ornat encomiis, praetermisso illo martyrii omnium dignissimo? Hoc Dodwelli argumentum, quod in ipsum auctoris caput facile retorserit alius quispiam Dodwelliano more pavidus. Vereor, inquiet ille, ut Irenaei martyrium e Catalogi textu librariorum negligentia, quod saepe evenire solebat, exciderit; sunt enim alia quae merito faciant ut suspicemur verba illa et martyr, adeo non omisisse Hieronymum, ut ne quidem omittere potuerit. Ecquis sibi persuadeat eum, cui martyrem fuisse Irenaeum certissime constitisse patet ex Commentariis in Isaiam, nullam in Catalogo, ubi exspectanda erat, martyrii vel levissimam fecisse mentionem? etc. Pares utrinque timendi rationes cum sint, vel metum suum inanem, vel alterius gravem esse fateatur Dodwellus necesse est. Certe Hippolytum martyrem fuisse, et ab Hieronymo martyrem agnitum et appellatum fuisse, negare nec potest, nec audet. Hieronymus tamen, qui in sua ad Damasum epistola, scripta ante annum 384, ut probat eruditus Martianaeus noster in suis in tomum II Hieronymianae editionis Prolegomenis, dudum antequam Catalogus ederetur, Hippolytum martyrem appellaverat, appellavit et postea cum in Matthaeum praefaretur; nullam in Catalogo, ubi exspectanda erat, martyrii vel levissimam injicit mentionem. An ergo hinc inferre liceat, id quod de Hippolyti martyrio legitur tum in citata ad Damasum epistola, tum in Prologo in Matthaeum, e margine in textum irrepsisse, haecque adeo non scripsisse Hieronymum, ut ne quidem scribere potuerit? Inferat Dodwellus, si lubet, sed alius nemo. Scripta quae ab illustribus viris in lucem emissa fuissent, accurate recensere Hieronymo animus erat, sed non eorum gesta. Nihil proinde ex silentio Catalogi contra Irenaei martyrium colligi potest, quod non et contra Hippolyti martyrium meliori jure colligatur. Sed etsi martyrium Irenaei, dum Catalogum scriberet Hieronymus, prudens omiserit, vel tunc nescierit; dispendium resarcivit jam forte doctior factus, cum lectis martyrii monumentis, Isaiae prophetiam exposuit. Quos enim in eam edidit commentarios, viginti circiter annis post scriptum Catalogum editi sunt. Hic quippe scriptus est, si Hieronymo ipsi credimus, anno Theodosii principis decimo quarto, Christi 392, illi vero annis triginta postquam Constantinopoli apud virum eloquentissimum Gregorium Nazianzenum, tunc ejusdem urbis episcopum, sanctarum
conflict with what precedes and what follows, they do not disturb the sense, nor do they break off the train of the discourse—most certain proofs of a genuine and uninterpolated text. Yet Dodwell fears lest these words, And martyr, crept from the margin into the text; nay, he comes very near to shaking off fear and confidently pronouncing that Jerome was so far from having written these words that he could not even have written them. Why so? Because if Jerome knew Irenaeus to be a martyr, why, I pray, do we have in the Catalogue, where it was to be expected, not even the slightest mention of his martyrdom? Why, whenever he adduces him as a witness, does he adorn him with other encomiums, passing over that of martyrdom, the worthiest of all? Such is Dodwell's argument, which someone else, timid after Dodwell's fashion, might easily turn back upon the head of its author himself. I fear, that man will say, that the martyrdom of Irenaeus fell out of the text of the Catalogue through the negligence of copyists, as often used to happen; for there are other things which deservedly cause us to suspect that Jerome was so far from omitting those words, and martyr, that he could not even have omitted them. Who would persuade himself that he to whom it is plain from the Commentaries on Isaiah that it was most certainly established that Irenaeus was a martyr, made not even the slightest mention of his martyrdom in the Catalogue, where it was to be expected? etc. Since the reasons for fearing on both sides are equal, Dodwell must needs confess either that his own fear is vain, or that the other man's is weighty. Certainly that Hippolytus was a martyr, and was recognized and called a martyr by Jerome, he neither can nor dares deny. Yet Jerome, who in his epistle to Damasus—written before the year 384, as our learned Martianay proves in his Prolegomena to volume 2 of the edition of Jerome, long before the Catalogue was published—had called Hippolytus a martyr, and called him so afterwards also when writing his preface to Matthew, throws in not even the slightest mention of his martyrdom in the Catalogue, where it was to be expected. May one therefore infer from this that what is read concerning the martyrdom of Hippolytus both in the cited epistle to Damasus and in the Prologue to Matthew crept from the margin into the text, and that Jerome was so far from having written these things that he could not even have written them? Let Dodwell infer it, if he pleases, but no one else will. It was Jerome's intention to recount accurately the writings which had been published by illustrious men, not their deeds. Nothing, accordingly, can be gathered from the silence of the Catalogue against the martyrdom of Irenaeus which could not also be gathered with better right against the martyrdom of Hippolytus. Moreover, even if Jerome, while writing the Catalogue, knowingly omitted the martyrdom of Irenaeus, or did not know of it then, he repaired the loss when, having perhaps become better informed after reading the monuments of his martyrdom, he expounded the prophecy of Isaiah. For the commentaries which he published upon it were published about twenty years after the Catalogue was written. For the latter was written, if we believe Jerome himself, in the fourteenth year of the Emperor Theodosius, the year of Christ 392, whereas the former were written thirty years after at Constantinople, under that most eloquent man Gregory of Nazianzus, then bishop of the same city, he had been instructed in the studies of the holy
Editors' notes and page, col. 210
Page
- running head: . I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 210
- marginal letters: A repugnant antecedentibus et; B ille, ut Irenaei; C ronymus tamen, qui; D nymo animus erat,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
Scripturarum studiis eruditus fuisset; ac proinde circiter annum Christi 410. Nam Gregorius Nazianzenus Constantinopolitanam regebat Ecclesiam anno 380 et 381.
Scriptures; and accordingly around the year of Christ 410. For Gregory of Nazianzus ruled the Church of Constantinople in the years 380 and 381.
36. Postremus e tribus Irenaei martyrii testibus a Dodwello exagitatis superest Gregorius Turonensis; cui, quia caeteris eo molestior videtur, quo trita de verbis e margine in textum temere conjectis fabula decantari hic non potest, ut auctoritatem omnem ac fidem deroget suam omnem conjecturalem industriam confert. Contendit Gregorium Turonensem ita Irenaeum martyrem credidisse, ut non alia quam Lugdunensium Viennensiumque persecutione, qua coronatus est Pothinus, et illum quoque coronatum crediderit. Unde vero tam immanem errorem hauserit Gregorius, a Dodwello si quaeras; respondebit, ex eodem fonte hausisse, ex quo imperite e Latinis Eusebii Rufiniani verbis numerum XLVIII martyrum, quos persecutio Lugdunensis coelo transmiserit, collegerunt recentiores martyrologi; conjectis temere in censum quaecunque occurrebant in Viennensium Lugdunensiumque epistolis, nominibus. Qua quidem temeritate factum est, ait, ut Zacharias presbyter in martyrum numerum relatus sit. Πρεσβύτην nempe Ζαχαρίαν, presbyterum Zachariam verterat Rufinus, non animadvertens de Zacharia Joannis Baptistae patre, non de alio nescio quo, qui martyr fuerit, Zacharia presbytero, locutos Viennenses atque Lugdunenses. Simili errore, addit Dodwellus, Irenaeum martyribus accensuit Gregorius, quod in eadem persecutionis historia Irenaei mentionem reperisset in epistola martyrum ad Eleutherum. Erant enim praeterea in eadem epistola, quae a lectoribus, quales illi erant impostores, parum attentis possent in eam sententiam intelligi. Irenaeum martyres ἀδελφὸν καὶ κοινωνὸν appellant. Proclive erat ut eam κοινωνίαν de tolerandis, Christi causa, passionibus intelligerent, qui novos eruendi martyres quaslibet occasiones avide captarent. Et quamvis sanguinem pro Christo non fuderit Irenaeus, ea tamen παθημάτων κοινωνία, passionum communio, sufficere potuit ad titulum martyrii, quo sensu vocem illam intelligebant illius aevi veteres. Sic omnino Dodwellus, semper sibi similis, ingentemque, quo catholica gloriatur Ecclesia, martyrum numerum arietare frivolis conjecturis studens; licet eam ob rem sic a Ruinartio nostro dudum exceptus fuerit, ut primo congressu fractus victusque cesserit.
36. The last of the three witnesses to the martyrdom of Irenaeus harassed by Dodwell remains, Gregory of Tours; to strip whom of all authority and credit—because he seems all the more troublesome than the rest inasmuch as the worn-out fable about words rashly cast from the margin into the text cannot be chanted here—he brings to bear all his conjectural industry. He contends that Gregory of Tours believed Irenaeus to be a martyr in such a way as to believe that he too was crowned in no other persecution than that of the people of Lyons and Vienne in which Pothinus was crowned. And if you ask Dodwell whence Gregory drew so monstrous an error, he will answer that he drew it from the same source from which more recent martyrologists unskilfully gathered out of the Latin words of Rufinus's Eusebius the number of 48 martyrs whom the persecution of Lyons sent across to heaven, having rashly cast into the roll whatever names occurred in the epistles of the people of Vienne and Lyons. By which rashness indeed it came to pass, says he, that Zacharias the presbyter was entered into the number of the martyrs. Namely, Rufinus had translated Πρεσβύτην Ζαχαρίαν as presbyter Zacharias, not noticing that the people of Vienne and Lyons had spoken of Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, not of some other unknown presbyter Zacharias who was a martyr. By a similar error, adds Dodwell, Gregory reckoned Irenaeus among the martyrs because in the same history of the persecution he had found mention of Irenaeus in the epistle of the martyrs to Eleutherus. For there were moreover in the same epistle things which could be understood in that sense by little-attentive readers, such as those impostors were. The martyrs call Irenaeus brother and partner. It was easy for men who eagerly seized any occasions whatsoever for unearthing new martyrs to understand that partnership as concerning the enduring of sufferings for Christ's sake. And although Irenaeus did not shed his blood for Christ, yet that fellowship of sufferings, communion of sufferings, could suffice for the title of martyrdom, in the sense in which the ancients of that age understood that word. Thus altogether speaks Dodwell, always like himself, and zealous to batter with frivolous conjectures the vast number of martyrs in which the Catholic Church glories, although on that account he was long ago so met by our Ruinart that at the first encounter he gave way broken and vanquished.
37. Ille vero plura hic supponit, quae cum recta ratione e diametro pugnant. Ac primo quidem inane commentum est, quod asserit, numerum XLVIII martyrum e Latinis Eusebii Rufiniani collectum a recentioribus, ut vocat, martyrologis fuisse. Qui enim ii ex Rufiniana Eusebii interpretatione eum numerum colligere potuerunt, cujus nec vola, nec vestigium ibidem apparet? Paulo
37. Now he supposes many things here which are diametrically opposed to right reason. And first indeed it is an empty figment when he asserts that the number of 48 martyrs was gathered from the Latin of Rufinus's Eusebius by the more recent martyrologists, as he calls them. For how could they gather from Rufinus's translation of Eusebius that number, of which neither palm nor footprint appears there? Even if
Editors' notes and page, col. 211
Page
- running head: 211 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A Scripturarum studiis eruditus; B manem errorem hauserit; C Irenaeum martyribus accensuit; D wellus, semper sibi
- old-edition numerals: [XCIII] after Baptistae
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotations; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued)
liberior sit Rufiniana interpretatio; alia tamen Lugdunensium martyrum nomina, aliumve numerum non exhibet, quam Christophorsoniana, Valesiana et aliae. Ex illa proinde, quascunque rationes ducat Dodwellus, aut alius quivis, geminato etiam numero, aut temere conjectis in censum quaecunque occurrerint nominibus, XLVIII nunquam eruet. Hallucinatus quidem Rufinus Zachariam, Joannis Baptistae patrem, presbyterum Christianum perperam arbitratus est; sed hunc martyrem fuisse ne verbo quidem dixit. Qui ergo designato Zachariae presbyteri supplicio securi percussum asserunt, et XLVII Lugdunensibus martyribus adjungunt, Gregorius Turonensis, Ado, Notkerus, et alii; necesse est et Zachariae illius, quem presbyterum nuncupant, martyrium, et XLVII sociorum nomina ac numerum aliunde collegerint, quam ex Rufiniana Lugdunensium et Viennensium epistolarum interpretatione. Unde vero, nisi ex ipsis epistolis, quarum non Eusebiana modo fragmenta, sed et integra exemplaria legerant? In iis quippe accurato recensita fuisse et martyrum nomina, et varia quibus interiere suppliciorum genera certum est ex Eusebio. Quid opus est, inquit, expressum in supradicta epistola catalogum martyrum hic recensere, quorum alii securi percussi, alii feris objecti, alii in carcere exanimati sunt? Atqui laudati auctores non tantum martyrum catalogum recensent, sed etiam qui securi percussi, qui feris objecti, qui in carcere exanimati sunt, accurate distinguunt, et eodem prorsus modo et ordine, atque epistolas fecisse narrat Eusebius. Ut vel caecis ipsis hinc appareat, ex eo solo fonte, non ex Rufino, apud quem ea frustra requiras, manare potuisse quae de martyrum nominibus et suppliciis referunt illi.
Rufinus's translation is a little freer, yet it exhibits no other names of the martyrs of Lyons, nor any other number, than those of Christophorson, Valesius, and others. From it, accordingly, whatever calculations Dodwell or anyone else may make, even by doubling the number, or by rashly casting into the roll whatever names have occurred, he will never elicit 48. Rufinus indeed blundered and wrongly supposed Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, to be a Christian presbyter; yet that he was a martyr he did not say by so much as a word. Those, therefore, who, designating the punishment of Zacharias the presbyter, assert that he was beheaded with an axe, and join him to the 47 martyrs of Lyons—Gregory of Tours, Ado, Notker, and others—must needs have gathered both the martyrdom of that Zacharias whom they call a presbyter, and the names and number of his 47 companions, from elsewhere than from Rufinus's translation of the epistles of the people of Lyons and Vienne. And whence indeed, unless from the epistles themselves, of which they had read not only the Eusebian fragments, but the complete copies? For that both the names of the martyrs and the various kinds of punishments by which they perished were accurately recounted in them is certain from Eusebius. What need is there, says he, to recount here the catalogue of the martyrs expressed in the aforesaid epistle, of whom some were beheaded with an axe, others cast to wild beasts, and others expired in prison? Now the cited authors not only recount the catalogue of the martyrs, but also accurately distinguish those who were beheaded with an axe, those who were cast to wild beasts, and those who expired in prison, and in altogether the same manner and order as Eusebius relates that the epistles did. So that even to the blind themselves it may hence appear that from that source alone, and not from Rufinus, in whom you would look for those things in vain, could have flowed what they relate concerning the names and punishments of the martyrs.
38. Graviter quidem in iis omnibus offendit Dodwellus; sed longe gravius in eo quod confidenter asseverat, Gregorium Turonensem non alia quam Lugdunensium illa Viennensiumque persecutione, qua coronatus est Pothinus, et nostrum quoque coronatum credidisse Irenaeum. Si Gregorium usquam legerit, caligantibus oculis legerit. Is enim eam persecutionem quae Pothinum absumpsit, ab ea qua coronatus est Irenaeus, clarius secernere non poterat. In Galliis, ait, multi pro Christi nomine sunt per martyrium gemmis coelestibus coronati; quorum passionum historiae apud nos fideliter usque hodie retinentur. Ex quibus et ille primus Lugdunensis Ecclesiae Photinus (sic scribit) episcopus fuit, qui plenus dierum diversis affectus suppliciis, pro Christi nomine passus est. Beatissimus vero Irenaeus hujus successor martyris, qui a beato Polycarpo ad hanc urbem directus est, admirabili virtute enituit; qui in modici temporis spatio, praedicatione sua maxime in integro civitatem reddidit Christianam. Sed veniente persecutione talia ibidem diabolus bella per tyrannum exercuit, et tanta ibi multitudo Christianorum
38. Grievously indeed does Dodwell stumble in all these things, but far more grievously in that which he confidently affirms, that Gregory of Tours believed our Irenaeus also to have been crowned in no other persecution than that of the people of Lyons and Vienne in which Pothinus was crowned. If he ever read Gregory, he must have read him with dim eyes. For he could not have separated more clearly that persecution which carried off Pothinus from that in which Irenaeus was crowned. In the Gauls, says he, many were crowned with heavenly gems through martyrdom for the name of Christ; the histories of whose passions are faithfully retained among us even to this day. Among whom was also that first bishop of the Church of Lyons, Photinus (so he writes), who, full of days and afflicted with diverse punishments, suffered for the name of Christ. And the most blessed Irenaeus, the successor of this martyr, who was directed to this city by the blessed Polycarp, shone forth with admirable virtue; who in a short space of time, by his preaching, restored the city almost entirely to being Christian. But when the persecution came, the devil waged such wars in that same place through the tyrant, and so great a multitude of Christians
Editors' notes and page, col. 212
Footnotes
(93) ‹In Galliis, ait› · call in col 212
Lib. I Hist. Fr., c. 26, 27, edit.
History of the Franks, Book 1, chapters 26, 27, edition.
(printed under page 112)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 212
- marginal letters: A liberior sit Rufiniana; B pant, martyrium, et; C exanimati sunt, accurate; D poterat. In Galliis,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); Chri- split at column break
- misprint: In iis quippe accurato recensita (for accurate), kept as printed
ob confessionem Dominici nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano; quorum nec numerum, nec nomina colligere potuimus. Dominus enim eos in libro vitae conscripsit. Beatum Irenaeum diversis in sua carnifex praesentia poenis affectum, Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit. Nec eo loci duntaxat ita loquitur Gregorius, sed et alibi, semper sibi constans, post recensita XLVIII martyrum nomina, et supplicia postremumque omnium memoratum Pothinum, paucis interjectis de eorum reliquiis et sepultura, subjungit: Igitur martyrio consummatus gloriosus Photinus, qui Lugdunensi praefuit urbi sacerdos, per certaminis nobilis meritum invectus est coelo. Cui et merito et sanctitate condignus Irenaeus successit episcopus, per martyrium et ipse finitus. Clarissima haec, nec Dodwelli conjecturarum nebulis usquam obscuranda. In ea persecutione, qua multi in Galliis pro Christi nomine sunt per martyrium coronati, Lugdunensis episcopus Photinus passus est. Beatissimum vero Irenaeum hujus successorem martyris factum fuisse tradit Gregorius. Qui igitur credere potuit eadem persecutione, quae si Lugduni multos dies, non certe menses efferbuit, coronatum utrumque fuisse? Nisi forte fingat Dodwellus, eam fuisse Gregorii sententiam, Irenaeum paucis admodum diebus Lugdunensem Ecclesiam rexisse. At ita sentire non potuit Gregorius, qui Irenaeum asserit tam naviter pastorali functum officio, ut in modici temporis spatio, praedicatione sua in integro civitatem reddiderit Christianam? Tantum igitur temporis spatium Pothino superstitem fuisse Irenaeum existimavit, quantum saltem necessarium erat ut illata per primam persecutionem Ecclesiae Lugdunensi dispendia resarciret. Dum vero haec ageret Irenaeus, veniens persecutio, addit Gregorius, quae tot et tantorum martyrum sanguine Lugduni plateas inundavit, ut nec nomina, nec numerus colligi potuerit, sanctissimum occupat episcopum, ac Christo Domino per martyrium dedicat. An clarius exprimi et designari potuisset nova persecutio, a priori et tempore et circumstantiis procul diversa? In priori tantam multitudinem Christianorum ob confessionem Dominici nominis Lugduni jugulatam esse, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano, nullibi legimus; sed nec scribere unquam potuit Gregorius, se nec numerum, nec nomina martyrum, qui in priori passi sunt Lugduni, colligere potuisse; qui alibi et numerum et nomina tam accurate collegit, ut recenseat, et quo quisque supplicii genere affectus sit referre non omittat. Haec Dodwello legenda erant, aut si quae fides, dissimulanda non fuerant. Id si fecisset, nunquam certe commisisset, ut scripsisset, proclive Gregorio Turonensi fuisse Irenaeum inter martyres Lugdunenses recensere, quod in eadem persecutionis historia Irenaei mentionem
was slaughtered there for the confession of the Lord's name, that rivers of Christian blood ran through the streets; of whom we have been able to collect neither the number nor the names. For the Lord enrolled them in the book of life. The executioner dedicated the blessed Irenaeus, afflicted in his presence with diverse punishments, to Christ the Lord through martyrdom. Nor is it in that passage only that Gregory speaks thus, but elsewhere also, always consistent with himself, after recounting the names and punishments of the 48 martyrs and Pothinus mentioned last of all, having interposed a few words concerning their relics and burial, he subjoins: Therefore the glorious Photinus, having been perfected by martyrdom, who presided as priest over the city of Lyons, was borne to heaven through the merit of a noble contest. Whom Irenaeus, worthy of him both in merit and in sanctity, succeeded as bishop, himself also ended by martyrdom. These things are most clear, and never to be obscured by the clouds of Dodwell's conjectures. In that persecution in which many in the Gauls were crowned through martyrdom for the name of Christ, Photinus the bishop of Lyons suffered. And Gregory hands down that the most blessed Irenaeus was made the successor of this martyr. How then could he have believed that both were crowned in the same persecution, which if it boiled up at Lyons for many days, certainly did not do so for months? Unless perchance Dodwell should imagine that it was Gregory's opinion that Irenaeus ruled the Church of Lyons for only a very few days. Yet how could Gregory think thus, who asserts that Irenaeus discharged his pastoral office so diligently that in a short space of time, by his preaching, he restored the city entirely to being Christian? He considered, therefore, that Irenaeus survived Pothinus by at least so great a space of time as was necessary to repair the losses inflicted upon the Church of Lyons by the first persecution. And while Irenaeus was doing these things, the coming persecution, adds Gregory, which flooded the streets of Lyons with the blood of so many and so great martyrs that neither the names nor the number could be collected, overtakes the most holy bishop, and dedicates him to Christ the Lord through martyrdom. Could a new persecution, far different from the former both in time and in circumstances, have been more clearly expressed and designated? That in the former so great a multitude of Christians was slaughtered at Lyons for the confession of the Lord's name that rivers of Christian blood ran through the streets, we nowhere read; nor could Gregory ever have written that he was able to collect neither the number nor the names of the martyrs who suffered in the former persecution at Lyons, when elsewhere he collected both the number and the names so accurately that he recounts them, and does not omit to relate with what kind of punishment each was afflicted. These things ought to have been read by Dodwell, or, if there were any good faith, ought not to have been dissembled. If he had done this, he would certainly never have committed the fault of writing that it was easy for Gregory of Tours to reckon Irenaeus among the martyrs of Lyons because in the same history of the persecution he had found mention of Irenaeus
Editors' notes and page, col. 213
Footnotes
(94) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images (the bracketed [XCIV] in col 213 is Massuet's page number, not this call)› · call in col 213 or 214 (unconfirmed)
Greg. Tur., l. I De glor. mart., c. 49, 50, p. 779, 780.
Gregory of Tours, On the Glory of the Martyrs, book I, chapters 49 and 50, pp. 779–780.
(printed under page 113)
Page
- running head: 213 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IRE
- marginal letters: A stianorum ob confessionem; B successit episcopus, per; C in integro civitatem; D minis Lugduni jugulatam
- old-edition numerals: [XCIV] after numerum
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); stianorum continued from Chri- in col. 212
reperisset in epistola martyrum ad Eleutherum; et quidem eo magis, quo Irenaeum martyres ἀδελφὸν et κοινωνὸν appellant. Itane, quaeso, plumbeus et hebes exstiterit Gregorius, ut in Lugdunensium et Viennensium martyrum historiis, quas apud suam caeterasque Gallicanas Ecclesias fideliter usque hodie retineri dicit; et in iis tum cleri, tum Lugdunensium et Viennensium martyrum epistolis, quas legisse eum fatetur Dodwellus, ea distinguere non potuerit, quae vel Londinensium bajulorum aut nautarum stupidissimus quisque nunquam permisceret? Ecce, martyres in sua ad Eleutherum epistola scribunt Irenaeum Romam se mittere, qui litteras eorum perferat; hunc profecturum pontifici commendant, debitisqe ornant encomiis; hunc fratrem laborumque consortem vocant, quem Christianum et presbyterum esse, martyresque in carcere detentos consilio, monitis, eleemosynis, pro virili sua, non certe citra capitis discrimen, sublevasse, constabat; et Gregorius imprudens hinc arrepta turpissimae hallucinationis occasione, eum ipsum quem itineri sese committentem, aut mox commissurum legebat, inter illos recensuerit, qui in ea persecutione, quae delegationi ansam praebuit, vitam pro Christo profuderint? Quis credat?
in the epistle of the martyrs to Eleutherus, and indeed all the more because the martyrs call Irenaeus brother and partner. Was Gregory, I pray, so leaden and dull that in the histories of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, which he says are faithfully retained even to this day in his own and the other Gallican Churches, and in those epistles both of the clergy and of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne which Dodwell confesses that he read, he could not distinguish things which even the stupidest of London porters or sailors would never confound? Behold, the martyrs in their epistle to Eleutherus write that they are sending Irenaeus to Rome to carry their letters; as he is about to set out, they commend him to the pontiff and adorn him with due encomiums; they call him brother and sharer of their labours, who, it was agreed, was a Christian and a presbyter, and had relieved the martyrs detained in prison by counsel, admonitions, and alms to the best of his ability, certainly not without peril to his life; and did the imprudent Gregory, seizing hence the occasion of a most shameful blunder, reckon the very man whom he read to be committing himself, or about to commit himself, to the journey, among those who poured forth their life for Christ in that persecution which furnished the occasion for the delegation? Who would believe it?
39. Sed, inquit Dodwellus, descripto Irenaei martyrio statim addit Gregorius: Post hunc et quadraginta octo martyres passi sunt, ex quibus primum fuisse legimus Vettium Epagatum. Constat autem illos XLVIII martyres, quorum primus fuerit Vettius Epagatus, non in alia persecutione passos fuisse, quam illa Lugdunensium Viennensiumque, qua coronatus est Pothinus. Si ergo post Irenaeum passos fuisse crediderit Gregorius, illum in eadem persecutione coronatum fuisse existimaverit necesse est. Ita quidem scriptum legi in hodierno Gregorii textu non diffiteor. Sed fidentior hic evasit Dodwellus. Quin hic contigisse vereatur, quod supra Hieronymiano textui accidisse inanis suadebat timor; ne videlicet mox citata verba e margine (quod saepe evenire solet) a studioso aliquo recentiore e libro I De gloria martyrum collecta, in textum, sed incommodo loco irrepserint, vel ab imperito aliquo aut festinante scriba loco perperam mota, in capitis finem male translata fuerint? Quin addat, esse alioqui alia quae merito faciant ut suspicemur, verba illa adeo non scripsisse Gregorium, ut ne quidem scribere potuerit? Fortasse non abs re veritus, suspicatusve fuisset. Quomodo enim fieri potuit, ut is qui Lugdunensium ac Viennensium Martyrum passionum historias in ipsis fontibus legerat, et apud Gallos fideliter ad suam usque aetatem retineri dicit; qui Irenaeum Pothino, quem XLVIII martyribus alibi annumerat, successisse scribit, diuque post eum, et in alia longe diversa persecutione martyrium subiisse diserte asserit; sui
39. But, says Dodwell, after describing the martyrdom of Irenaeus, Gregory immediately adds: After him also forty-eight martyrs suffered, of whom we read that the first was Vettius Epagatus. Now it is agreed that those 48 martyrs, of whom the first was Vettius Epagatus, suffered in no other persecution than that of the people of Lyons and Vienne in which Pothinus was crowned. If therefore Gregory believed that they suffered after Irenaeus, he must needs have supposed that he was crowned in the same persecution. That it is read so written in the present-day text of Gregory, I do not deny. Yet here Dodwell has turned out bolder! Why does he not fear that there happened here what a vain fear persuaded him above had happened to the text of Jerome: namely, lest the words just cited, having been collected in the margin (as often happens) by some more recent student from book 1 On the Glory of the Martyrs, crept into the text, but in an inconvenient place, or, having been wrongly moved from their place by some unskilful or hasty scribe, were badly transferred to the end of the chapter? Why does he not add that there are moreover other things which deservedly cause us to suspect that Gregory was so far from having written those words that he could not even have written them? Perhaps it would not have been without reason had he feared or suspected this. For how could it have happened that he who had read the histories of the passions of the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne in the very sources, and says that they were faithfully retained among the Gauls even to his own age; who writes that Irenaeus succeeded Pothinus, whom elsewhere he numbers among the 48 martyrs, and expressly asserts that he underwent martyrdom long after him, and in another far different persecution,
Editors' notes and page, col. 214
Page
- running head: . I, DE S. IRENAEI VITA ET GESTIS. 214
- marginal letters: A reperisset in epistola; B fratrem laborumque consortem; C fuisse legimus Vettium; D rito aliquo aut
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek words; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued); debitisque printed as debitisqe
ipsius eo usque oblitum fuisse, ut ipsos XLVIII martyres, e quorum numero Pothinus Irenaei decessor erat, post hunc coronatos esse velit? Hoc rectae rationi tam immaniter adversatur, ut gravissimo, qualis erat Gregorius, scriptori tribui nullo modo possit. Certe male interpolatum fuisse textum legitima, si quae unquam, suspicio est, dum ea apud auctorem aliquem leguntur, quae ab ejus sententia aliunde nota abhorrent, clarissimisque ac perspicuis ejusdem verbis aperte repugnant; quod hic occurrit. Quisquis enim aequus rerum aestimator, sepositis tantisper omnibus praejudiciis, posteriora haec capitis 27 (nov. edit.) verba, Post hunc et quadraginta octo martyres, etc., cum prioribus, et iis quae lib. I De gloria mart., cap. 49 et 50, leguntur, conferre voluerit, nulla ratione conciliare poterit. Haud spernenda proinde eorum conjectura, qui ea quae de posterioribus istis martyribus apud Gregorium leguntur, perperam translocata esse censentes, jungenda esse opinantur cum iis quae initio capitis scribuntur de Pothino, in hunc modum: Ex quibus et ille primus Lugdunensis Ecclesiae Phctinus episcopus fuit, qui plenus dierum, diversis affectus suppliciis, pro Christi nomine passus est. Post hunc et quadraginta octo martyres passi sunt, ex quibus primum fuisse legimus Vettium Epagatum. Beatissimus vero Irenaeus hujus successor martyris, etc. Sic conjicit is qui novam Leonis Magni operum editionem adornavit vir clarissimus; at quod idem resecandum vellet totum capitis finem, ab his verbis, Beatissimus vero Irenaeus, etc., eo quod totum ipsum caput in mss. quibusdam codiribus desit; in ejus sententiam concedere non possum. Ne tamen actum agam, legat is quem ea de re scrupulus incesserit, Praefationem novae Gregorii Turonensis editioni praefixam, art. 3, in qua hujusmodi scrupulos facile, pro ea qua praestabat eruditione, exemit noster piae memoriae Theodericus Ruinart. Sed ut ut sit de proposita modo conjectura, esto Gregorius ea scripserit quae de XLVIII martyribus post Irenaei martyrium leguntur, memoriae lapsus erit, et hic gravis quidem. An vero quia memoria lapsus est in aliquo scriptor aliquis, huic affingenda statim aliena sententia quam ipse diserte respuit? An quia in capitis fine paucula quaedam et intricata verba subtexuit Gregorius, alia quae perspicua sunt et aperta, ex obscuris illis explicanda, et ad ea, invito ac reluctante auctore, violenter detorquenda? Si ita sit, novas critices regulas, veteribus antiquatis statuat Dodwellus.
of himself, that he would have the forty-eight martyrs themselves, of whose number Pothinus, Irenaeus's predecessor, was one, crowned after him? This is so monstrously opposed to right reason that it can in no way be ascribed to a writer as weighty as Gregory was. Certainly there is a legitimate suspicion, if ever there was one, that a text has been badly interpolated when things are read in some author which are at odds with his opinion known from elsewhere, and openly contradict his own clearest and plainest words; which is what occurs here. For any fair judge of the matter who, setting aside all prejudices for a while, chooses to compare these later words of chapter 27 (new edition), After him also forty-eight martyrs, etc., with the earlier ones, and with what is read in Book I of the De gloria martyrum, chapters 49 and 50, will be able to reconcile them in no way. Not to be despised, therefore, is the conjecture of those who, holding that what is read in Gregory about those later martyrs has been wrongly displaced, think it should be joined to what is written at the beginning of the chapter about Pothinus, in this way: Of whom also that Photinus was the first bishop of the Church of Lyons, who, full of days, having been subjected to various tortures, suffered for the name of Christ. After him also forty-eight martyrs suffered, of whom we read that Vettius Epagatus was the first. But the most blessed Irenaeus, successor of this martyr, etc. So conjectures the most distinguished man who prepared the new edition of the works of Leo the Great; but because he would also have the whole end of the chapter cut away, from the words But the most blessed Irenaeus, etc., on the ground that the whole chapter itself is missing in certain manuscript codices, I cannot come over to his opinion. Yet, so as not to do what has been done already, let anyone who has been troubled by a scruple on that matter read the Preface prefixed to the new edition of Gregory of Tours, article 3, in which our Theodoric Ruinart, of pious memory, easily removed scruples of this kind, with the learning in which he excelled. But however it may be with the conjecture just proposed, grant that Gregory wrote what is read about the forty-eight martyrs after the martyrdom of Irenaeus: it will be a lapse of memory, and a serious one here. But because some writer has suffered a lapse of memory in some matter, is an opinion foreign to him, which he himself expressly rejects, to be fastened on him at once? Because Gregory appended at the end of the chapter a few tangled words, are the other things which are clear and plain to be explained from those obscure ones, and violently twisted to them, against the will and resistance of the author? If so, let Dodwell lay down new rules of criticism, the old ones being abolished.
40. Hactenus dicta demonstrant, eam jam a saeculo quinto toto orbe invaluisse sententiam, Irenaeum pro Christiana fide dimicantem necatum fuisse, eamque haud parum tutis niti fundamentis, quae non nisi futilibus argumentis, frivolisque conjecturis peti possit. Martyrii hujus memoriae diem 28 Junii solemnem consecrant Latini omnes, Graeci vero 23 Augusti. Corpus ejus Gregorii Turonensis aetate miraculis celeberrimum in crypta basilicae Beati Joannis sub altari sepultum quiescebat; ab uno quidem latere Epipodium, ab alio vero Alexandrum martyrem tumulatum habens. Sed Calvinistae anno 1562, capto Lugduno, amenti furore perciti S. martyris sepulcrum foede violaverunt; ossibusque dissipatis, capitis cranium, postquam diutius ludibrio fuit, in media platea turpiter projectum tandiu jacuit, donec hinc ereptum hodie Lugduni religiose asservatur.
40. What has been said so far shows that the opinion had already prevailed throughout the whole world from the fifth century that Irenaeus was killed while contending for the Christian faith, and that it rests on foundations far from insecure, which cannot be attacked except with futile arguments and frivolous conjectures. All the Latins consecrate the 28th of June as the solemn day of the memory of this martyrdom, but the Greeks the 23rd of August. His body, most famous for miracles in the time of Gregory of Tours, rested buried in the crypt of the basilica of Blessed John beneath the altar, having Epipodius entombed on one side and the martyr Alexander on the other. But the Calvinists in the year 1562, having taken Lyons, driven by a mad fury, foully violated the holy martyr's tomb; and the bones having been scattered, the skull of the head, after it had long been made a mockery, lay shamefully thrown out in the middle of the street until, rescued from there, it is today devoutly preserved at Lyons.
ARTICULUS II.
SECOND ARTICLE.
DE IRENAEI LIBRIS QUINQUE ADVERSUS HAERESES
ON THE FIVE BOOKS OF IRENAEUS AGAINST THE HERESIES
Editors' notes and page, col. 215
Page
- running head: 215 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A ipsius eo usque; B conferre voluerit, nulla; C resecandum vellet totum; D [XCV] 41. Iis, quo
- old-edition numerals: [XCV] before 41. Iis,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (continued) and Art. II; full-width two-line title ARTICULUS [II.] / DE IRENAEI LIBRIS QUINQUE AD[VERSUS HAERESES] between C and D cut off at right edge, not set; in- split at end of Art. I
- other: a full-width band stands across cols 215/216 in mid-page: the 2 paragraph(s) above it in col 216 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 215 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
- running head: 215 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 216
- marginal letters: A ‹ipsius eo usque oblitum fuisse›; B ‹conferre voluerit, nulla ratione conciliare poterit› (right: ‹tis statuat Dodwellus›); C ‹resecandum vellet totum capitis finem› (right: ‹perciti S. martyris sepulcrum›); D ‹[XCV] 41. Iis, quo potuimus studio› (right: ‹adhuc emiserit›)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other (Q2a): the word split at the foot of col 215 is in-|cesserit (col 216 opens with cesserit,); set whole as incesserit, where the import had dropped the tail
- other (Q2a): the lines of section 41 printed in col 215 below the band (Iis, quo potuimus studio … aut pauca in lucem) stand in parts/c216_a.md, joined to the col 216 text, not under this rail; the reading order is unbroken, so they were not moved
- misprint (Q2a): ‹codiribus› printed for codicibus, set as printed (not yet in misprints.tsv); ‹Phctinus› printed for Photinus (in misprints.tsv)
41. Iis, quo potuimus studio, collectis et explicatis quae ad Irenaei nostri vitam et gesta pertinent, operae pretium est de ejus scriptis, quam accurate fieri poterit, disserere. Plura reliquit vir apostolicus ingenii, pietatis ac zeli, quo pro tuenda catholica fide fervebat monimenta. Sed nullum antiquis omnibus majori in pretio, saepiusque ab iis citatum fuit, quam eximium illud opus in quinque libros divisum, quod adversus Gnosticorum haereses elucubravit, quodque solum a temporum edacitate tutum hactenus mansit. Primum hunc Irenaei fetum esse vulgata opinio est; nam ipse in Praefatione libri primi testatur, se scribendi usu exercitatum non esse, nec dicendi artem coluisse; quod hominem arguit qui nihil, aut pauca in lucem adhuc emiserit. Colligi tamen cum Cl. Grabio, in Prolegomenis, posse videtur ex lib. III, cap. 7, n. 1, quidpiam aliud antea scripsisse Irenaeum. Ait enim se ex multis et alibi ostendis⟨s⟩e Pauli consuetudinem esse hyperbatis uti. De eo autem frequenti Paulinorum hyperbatorum usu ne verbo quidem tractat in duobus praecedentibus libris, imo nec in sequentibus. Quempiam igitur alium tractatum prius edidisse videtur, in quo de his ex professo egerit.
41. Having gathered and set out, with what care we could, the things that pertain to the life and deeds of our Irenaeus, it is worth the trouble to discuss his writings as accurately as can be done. The apostolic man left several monuments of the talent, piety and zeal with which he burned for the defence of the Catholic faith. But none was held in greater esteem by all the ancients, and more often cited by them, than that outstanding work divided into five books which he composed against the heresies of the Gnostics, and which alone has so far remained safe from the voracity of time. It is the common opinion that this is Irenaeus's first offspring; for he himself testifies in the Preface to the first book that he is not practised in the habit of writing, nor has cultivated the art of speaking; which points to a man who had as yet brought nothing, or little, into the light. Yet it seems possible to gather, with the celebrated Grabe in his Prolegomena, from Book III, chapter 7, number 1, that Irenaeus had written something else before. For he says that he has shown from many instances, and elsewhere, that it was Paul's custom to use hyperbata. But of that frequent use of Pauline hyperbata he does not treat by so much as a word in the two preceding books, nor indeed in those that follow. He seems, therefore, to have published some other treatise earlier, in which he dealt with these things expressly.
42. Scribendi vero dicti operis contra haereses duplex causa fuit. Altera ut morem gereret amico cuidam, qui precibus eum eo egerat, ut abstrusa Valentini discipulorum mysteria, necdum a quoquam satis explicata, manifesta sibi faceret, ac
42. Now there was a twofold reason for writing the said work against the heresies. The one, to comply with a certain friend, who had brought him by entreaties to this point, that he should make plain to him the hidden mysteries of Valentinus's disciples, not yet sufficiently explained by anyone, and
Editors' notes and page, col. 216
Footnotes
(95) ‹anchor: Gregorii Turonensis› · call in col 216
Lib. I De glor. mart., c. 50.
On the Glory of the Martyrs, book I, chapter 50.
(printed under page 114)
(96) ‹anchor: 42.› · call in col 216
Iren., Praef. lib. I.
Irenaeus, Preface to book I.
(printed under page 114)
Page
- running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 216
- marginal letters: A cesserit, Praefationem novae; B tis statuat Dodwellus.; C perciti S. martyris; D adhuc emiserit. Colligi
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. I (concluded) and Art. II (continued); full-width two-line title [AR]TICULUS II. / [DE IRENAEI LIBRIS] QUINQUE ADVERSUS HAERESES between C and D cut off at left edge, not set; cesserit continued from in- in col. 215; adhuc continued from lucem in col. 215
- other: the 2 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 215 (reading order, moved on receipt)
- running head: 215 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 216
- marginal letters: A ‹cesserit, Praefationem novae Gregorii Turonensis› (upper text, in c215_a); B ‹tis statuat Dodwellus.› (in c215_a); C ‹perciti S. martyris sepulcrum› (in c215_a); D ‹adhuc emiserit. Colligi tamen› (left: ‹[XCV] 41. Iis, quo potuimus studio›)
- old-edition numerals: [XCV] before ‹41. Iis› (bracketed, at the paragraph start)
simul arma ministraret, quibus haec errorum portenta confoderentur. Quis fuerit amicus ille, tacente Irenaeo, dici non potest. Graecum tamen hominem fuisse ex eo conjicio, quod Graece scripserit Irenaeus, ut inferius probabo; alias Latine scripturus, si in Latini gratiam scripsisset. Adde quod Graecis regionibus longe infestior, quam Latinis semper fuerit Valentini, caeterorumque Gnosticorum lues. Episcopum etiam fuisse suspicor, aut aliquem in clero conspicuum, qui plebem curae suae concreditam haberet. Huc saltem trahi posse videtur quod ait Irenaeus, ideo se morem amico gessisse, ut et ipse quoque portentuosissima et altissima mysteria cognoscens, ea omnibus his qui cum eo erant, πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ, manifesta faceret, et praeciperet eis observare se a profundo insensationis, et ejus quae est in Deum blasphemationis. Hinc postea eumdem monet, ut pro ea qua valet eruditione, quae invalide relata sunt, potenter asserat iis qui secum sunt; subministrationemque sibi datam efficaciter reliquis ministret, secundum gratiam quae ipsi a Domino data est; ut jam non abstrahantur homines a Valentinianorum suadela. Et in Praefatione libri IV, spondet se amico undique ministraturum occasiones ad confutandos omnes haereticos, ut eos omnimodo retusos non longius sinat in erroris procidere profundum, neque ignorantiae praefocari pelago, sed convertens eos in veritatis portum, faciat suam perci⟨p⟩ere salutem. Quae vix in alium quam in episcopum conveniunt, qui scribendi procurationem, ut lib. II, cap. 17, n. 1, loquitur auctor noster, amico suo Irenaeo crediderit. Sunt qui amicum illum putent fuisse Turibium Toletanum episcopum, Patruini cujusdam successorem; auctoritate freti Pseudo-Dextri, ad an. Christi 185, istud asseverantis; sed nulla huic fabulatori fides. Altera scribendi causa fuit, ut Marcosiorum haeresi, Valentinianae germini, quae in Celticam, seu Rhodanenses regiones clam irruperat, occurreret, malumque in ipso ortu suffocaret. Eo periculosius erat, quo majores mulierum praesertim cupiditati et curiositati illecebras objiciebat, difficiliusque imperitis erat oves a lupis discernere; cum illarum vocem et pellem passim aemularentur. Maxime enim circa mulieres vacabant veteratores illi, circa ditissimas potissimum, quarum non paucas jam seduxerant, vana prophetiae sublimiorisque scientiae spe delusas. Veritus ergo sanctissimus vir, ne forte et cum suo delicto abriperetur sexus suapte natura imbecillior, ac innata sibi indole curiosior, et cum eo et per eum simpliciores quidam quasi oves a lupis; ignorantes eos, propter exterius ovilis pellis superindumentum, a quibus cavere denuntiavit nobis Dominus, similia quidem nobis loquentes, dissimilia vero sentientes; necessarium duxit larvam personatis ovibus detrahere,
at the same time furnish weapons with which these monsters of errors might be pierced through. Who that friend was, since Irenaeus is silent, cannot be said. Yet that he was a Greek I conjecture from the fact that Irenaeus wrote in Greek, as I shall prove below; whereas otherwise he would have written in Latin, if he had written for the sake of a Latin. Add that the pestilence of Valentinus and the other Gnostics was always far more hostile to Greek regions than to Latin ones. I suspect also that he was a bishop, or someone conspicuous among the clergy, who had a people entrusted to his care. To this point at least seems able to be drawn what Irenaeus says, that he complied with his friend to the end that he himself also, coming to know the most portentous and deep mysteries, might make them manifest to all those who were with him, to all those with you, and charge them to guard themselves from the abyss of folly and of blasphemy against God. Hence afterwards he admonishes the same man that, in accordance with the erudition in which he is strong, he should powerfully set forth the things which have been weakly related to those who are with him, and efficaciously minister to the rest the supply given to him, according to the grace which has been given to him by the Lord, so that men may no longer be drawn away by the persuasion of the Valentinians. And in the Preface of book 4, he promises that he will furnish his friend on every side with occasions for refuting all heretics, so that, having blunted them in every way, he may no longer suffer them to fall forward into the depth of error, nor to be choked in the sea of ignorance, but turning them into the harbour of truth, may cause them to lay hold of their salvation. Which things scarcely suit anyone other than a bishop, who entrusted the charge of writing, as our author speaks in book 2, chapter 17, no. 1, to his friend Irenaeus. There are some who think that friend was Turibius, bishop of Toledo, the successor of a certain Patruinus, relying on the authority of Pseudo-Dexter at the year of Christ 185, who affirms this; but no credence is to be given to this romancer. The second cause for writing was that he might meet the heresy of the Marcosians, an offshoot of the Valentinian, which had secretly burst into Celtica, or the regions of the Rhône, and choke the evil in its very birth. It was all the more dangerous, the greater were the allurements that it held out to the cupidity and curiosity of women especially, and the more difficult it was for the inexperienced to discern the sheep from the wolves, since they everywhere imitated the voice and fleece of the former. For those old practitioners busied themselves chiefly about women, above all the richest, not a few of whom they had already seduced, deluded by a vain hope of prophecy and of higher knowledge. The most holy man, fearing therefore lest perchance the sex weaker by its own nature, and more curious by its innate disposition, should be swept away together with its own transgression, and with it and through it some of the simpler folk like sheep by wolves, not knowing—because of the outward covering of a sheep's fleece—those of whom the Lord warned us to beware, who speak things like to ours indeed, yet think things unlike, deemed it necessary to strip the mask from the disguised sheep,
Editors' notes and page, col. 217
Footnotes
(97) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 217 or 218 (unconfirmed)
Id., ibid.
The same, in the same place.
(printed under page 115)
(98) ‹anchor: clam irruperat› · call in col 217
Lib. I, c. 13, n. 3.
Book I, chapter 13, number 3.
(printed under page 115)
(99) ‹anchor: passim aemularentur.› · call in col 217
Id., ibid., n. 3.
The same, in the same place, number 3.
(printed under page 115)
(1) ‹anchor: spe delusas.› · call in col 217
Praef. lib. I.
Preface to book I.
(printed under page 115)
(2) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 217 or 218 (unconfirmed)
Id., ibid.
The same, in the same place.
(printed under page 115)
(3) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 217 or 218 (unconfirmed)
Id., Praef., lib. IV.
The same, Preface to book IV.
(printed under page 115)
(4) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 217 or 218 (unconfirmed)
Id., ibid., lib. I.
The same, in the same place, book I.
(printed under page 115)
Page
- running head: 217 DISSERTATIO II, ART. II, DE IRENAEI
- marginal letters: A simul arma ministraret,; B ciperet eis observare; C II, cap. 17, n. 1,; D bant veteratores illi,
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with embedded Greek quotation; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. II (continued)
ut retecta lupina facies horrorem veris incuteret.
so that the uncovered wolfish face might strike horror into the true sheep.
43. Arduum quidem opus ab Irenaeo susceptum, quod tentaverant hactenus plures, sed parum feliciter. Vel enim indiligentius ei incumbentes, vel labore fracti, vel ingenii acie destituti, portentuosissima et altissima iniquitatis mysteria pervadere non potuerant, haeserant fere in ipso limine. Eum, inquit ille, qui velit haereticos convertere, oportet diligenter scire regulas, sive argumenta ipsorum. Nec enim possibile est alicui curare quosdam male habentes, qui ignorat passionem eorum qui male valent. Quapropter hi qui ante nos fuerunt, et quidem multo nobis meliores, non tamen satis potuerunt contradicere his qui sunt a Valentino, quia ignorabant regulam ipsorum. Nec mirum: obscurissima erat, iisque solis pervia, quibus ea ingenii acies, ut ancipiti verborum cortice tectum errorem deprehendere possent. Irenaeus vero ad id operis accessit ea diligentia, sagacitate, dogmatum haereticorum notitia, caeterisque dotibus instructus, quibus illud ad exitum feliciter perduceret. Nam, perquisitis Valentini discipulorum commentariis ac libris, eos accurate evolvit, et cum nonnullis eorum pedem contulit, tantumque improbo labore et indefesso studio effecit, ut, dissipatis tenebris, quas artificio simulationis eruditi homines, pestiferae sententiae offuderant, ut incautos deciperet, eam perceperit, perceptamque demum in lucem protulerit. Satis erat ad illam funditus evertendam. Nam, ut ipse ait, amicum alloquens, adversus eos victoria est sententiae eorum manifestatio. Quapropter conati sumus nos universum male compositae vulpeculae hujus corpusculum in medium producere, et per te facere manifestum. Jam enim non multis opus erit sermonibus ad evertendum doctrinam eorum, manifestam omnibus factam. Quod egregia similitudine illustrat. Quemadmodum bestiae alicujus in silva absconditae, et inde impetum facientis, et multos vastantis, qui segregat et denudat silvam, et ad visionem adduxit ipsam feram, jam non elaboravit ad capiendam, videntes quoniam ea fera fera est; ipsis enim adest videre et cavere impetus ejus, et jaculari undique, et vulnerare et interficere vastatricem illam bestiam. Sic et nobis, cum in manifestum redegerimus eorum abscondita et apud se tacita mysteria, jam non erit necessarium multis destruere eorum sententiam. His tamen non contentus S. doctor eam fusiori stylo exagitavit, penitusque subvertit. Oppressit vero argumentis undequaque conquisitis, ac petitis sive a ratione ipsa, sive a divina auctoritate: eo successu cui satis pro merito plaudere se non posse putarunt veteres, putant et recentiores, quicunque Irenaeum ea qua par est animi attentione, atque aequitate legunt. Ubique enim suspiciunt hominem ingenio praestanti, atque eruditione perfecta,
43. An arduous work indeed was undertaken by Irenaeus, which several had hitherto attempted, yet with little success. For either applying themselves to it too negligently, or broken by the labour, or destitute of keenness of mind, they had been unable to penetrate the most portentous and deep mysteries of iniquity, and had stuck almost on the very threshold. He, says he, who wishes to convert heretics must diligently know their rules, or arguments. For it is not possible for anyone to cure those who are ill if he is ignorant of the malady of those who are unwell. Wherefore those who were before us, and indeed much better than we, nevertheless were not able sufficiently to gainsay those who are of Valentinus, because they were ignorant of their rule. And no wonder: it was most obscure, and penetrable to those alone who possessed such keenness of mind as to be able to detect the error covered by an ambiguous bark of words. Irenaeus, however, approached that work furnished with such diligence, sagacity, knowledge of heretical dogmas, and other gifts as to bring it happily to completion. For having searched out the commentaries and books of the disciples of Valentinus, he unrolled them accurately, and crossed swords with some of them, and accomplished so much by relentless labour and untiring zeal that, having dispelled the darkness which men skilled in the artifice of simulation had poured over their pestiferous teaching in order that it might deceive the unwary, he grasped it, and having grasped it brought it forth at last into the light. That was enough to overthrow it from the foundations. For, as he himself says, addressing his friend, victory against them is the manifestation of their teaching. Wherefore we have endeavoured to bring forth into the midst the whole little body of this badly put together little fox, and through you to make it manifest. For there will no longer be need of many discourses to overthrow their doctrine, once it has been made manifest to all. Which he illustrates by an admirable simile: Just as when some wild beast is hidden in a wood, and makes an onslaught thence and ravages many, he who parts and strips the wood and has brought the wild beast itself into view has no longer laboured to capture it, since they see that this wild beast is a wild beast; for it is in their power to see and beware of its onslaughts, and to hurl darts from every side, and to wound and kill that devastating beast: so also for us, when we have brought into the open their hidden mysteries kept silent among themselves, it will no longer be necessary to destroy their teaching with many words. Yet not content with this, the holy doctor assailed it with a fuller pen and utterly subverted it. And he crushed it with arguments sought out from every quarter, and drawn either from reason itself or from divine authority: with such success that the ancients thought, and the moderns too think—whoever read Irenaeus with due attention of mind and fairness—that they can never applaud it enough according to its merit. For everywhere they look up to a man of outstanding genius and consummate erudition,
Editors' notes and page, col. 218
Footnotes
(5) ‹anchor: ut ipse ait› · call in col 218
Id., lib. I, cap. ult., n. 4.
The same, book I, last chapter, number 4.
(printed under page 115)
(a) ‹anchor: similitudine illustrat› · call in col 218
Vide quae notavimus in hunc locum.
See what we have noted on this passage.
(printed under page 115)
Page
- running head: I, DE IRENAEI LIBRIS ADV. HAERESES. 218
- marginal letters: A ut retecta lupina; B iisque solis pervia,; C ait, amicum alloquens,; D festum redegerimus eorum
- old-edition numerals: [XCVI] after vastatricem
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio II, Art. II (continued)
Scripturarum sacrarum scientia, ac venerandae traditionis notitia nulli secundum, virum, ut ait Epiphanius, omnino Spiritus sancti donis instructissimum, ac coelestibus ornamentis, ut ita dixerim, ad certamen perunctum, qui sincerae fidei ac scientiae praesidiis omnia haereticorum prostravit, evertitque mendacia; uno verbo, virum apostolicum, apostolorum spiritu, fide et charitate plenum, qui quos ex ipsis pene fontibus hauserat puros sacrae doctrinae latices, puros in scriptis effudit; et quidem ea copia, ut mirum sit tot et tanta, tamque multiplici eruditione conspersa, non adeo magno volumine comprehendi potuisse.
second to none in knowledge of the sacred Scriptures and acquaintance with venerable tradition, a man, as Epiphanius says, most fully equipped with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and anointed, so to speak, with heavenly ornaments for the contest, who with the bulwarks of sincere faith and knowledge laid low and overthrew all the falsehoods of the heretics; in a word, an apostolic man, full of the spirit of the apostles, of faith and charity, who poured forth pure in his writings the pure streams of sacred doctrine which he had drawn almost from the very fountains themselves; and indeed in such abundance that it is a wonder so many and such great things, sprinkled too with such manifold erudition, could have been comprised in not so large a volume.
44. Accidit tamen, fateor, ut, dum sententias premit Irenaeus, obscurus interdum evadat. Sed sic a natura comparata sunt ingenia fecunda : cum parere festinant quod ubertim animo concepere, verba conceptibus saepe non respondent. Accedit altera obscuritatis causa, eaque fere praecipua, rerum videlicet, de quibus disserebat, difficultas et sublimitas. Totus est in rimandis Gnosticorum arcanis, reconditioribusque eorum sensibus eruendis; totus est in dissipandis vanissimis quibusque luxuriantium et captiosissimorum ingeniorum argutiis, rebusque divinis explicandis; quo nihil abstrusius et sublimius cogitari potest. Vix autem fieri poterat, ut qui versabatur in ejusmodi salebrosis argumentis, a nullo hactenus nisi parum feliciter tentatis, ea sic pertractaret, quin lectoribus insuetis laborem crearet ipsa argumenti novitas, reique innata difficultas. Ut nihil hic dicam de barbara Latina interpretatione, quae perspicuis ex se sententiis densissimas saepe saepius offundit tenebras, imperiti interpretis, non auctoris ipsius, vitio. Si quis tamen libri primi spinis haudquaquam deterritus, eum accurate legerit, ibique exposita Gnosticorum dogmata attente meditatus fuerit (difficultatem forte levabunt tum nostrae in hunc librum notae, tum ea quam in lucem emittimus de Gnosticorum hypothesi dissertatio), is huic constabit laboris fructus, ut fere nullum, aut longe minorem in evolvendis et intelligendis caeteris experiatur : imo ex sententiarum gravitate, argumentorum vi et efficacia, totque tamque praeclare dictorum sublimitate et pietate voluptatem non modicam, operae pretium habeat. Id enim plures fallit, quod libri primi lectione, quod taedium pariat tot absurdissimorum dogmatum expositio, facile abstinere posse putantes, alios hoc omisso legere praefestinent : sicubi vero, quod saepe evenit, haereant, culpam in auctorem conferunt, cum tota penes ipsos sit. Ecqui libri polemici sensus planus ac facilis evadere possit ei, quem eorum, quos confutandos sibi suscepit auctor, sententiam et hypothesim delibare piguerit? Cum enim ad eam perpetuo alludat, jamque notam supponat; non mirum si ipsa luce clariora verba totidem aenigmata lectoribus in hoc
44. Yet it happens, I confess, that while Irenaeus compresses his thoughts, he sometimes turns out obscure. But fertile minds are so constituted by nature: when they hasten to bring forth what they have abundantly conceived in mind, words often do not match the conceptions. There is added another cause of obscurity, and that almost the chief one, namely the difficulty and sublimity of the matters about which he was discoursing. He is wholly engaged in probing the secrets of the Gnostics, and in drawing out their more recondite meanings; he is wholly engaged in scattering all the most vain subtleties of luxuriant and most captious minds, and in explaining divine things; than which nothing more abstruse and more sublime can be thought of. Now it could scarcely happen that one who was occupied in rugged subjects of this sort, attempted by no one hitherto except with little success, should handle them in such a way that the very novelty of the subject and the innate difficulty of the matter would not create labour for unaccustomed readers. To say nothing here of the barbarous Latin translation, which time and again pours the thickest darkness over sentences clear in themselves, through the fault of the unskilful translator, not of the author himself. Yet if anyone, by no means deterred by the thorns of the first book, reads it accurately and attentively meditates upon the dogmas of the Gnostics set forth therein (both our notes on this book and the dissertation on the hypothesis of the Gnostics which we are publishing will perhaps lighten the difficulty), this fruit of his labour will be assured to him, that he will experience almost no difficulty, or far less, in unrolling and understanding the rest: nay rather, from the weightiness of the sentences, the force and efficacy of the arguments, and the sublimity and piety of so many and such admirably spoken words, he will have no moderate pleasure as the reward of his trouble. For this deceives many, that thinking they can easily abstain from the reading of the first book because the exposition of so many most absurd dogmas produces weariness, they prematurely hasten to read the others, omitting this one: and if anywhere, as often happens, they stick fast, they lay the blame upon the author, when the whole of it rests with themselves. How could the sense of a polemical book turn out plain and easy to one who has been reluctant to taste the opinion and hypothesis of those whom the author undertook to refute? For since he perpetually alludes to it, and supposes it already known, it is no wonder if words clearer than light itself seem so many riddles to readers who in this
Editors' notes and page, col. 219
Footnotes
(6) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 219 or 220 (unconfirmed)
Haer. XXXI, § 33.
Heresy 31, § 33.
(printed under page 116)
Page
- running head: 219 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A Scripturarum sacrarum; B natura comparata; C rem crearet; D mitate et
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (Scripturarum sacrarum...)
argumento peregrinis videantur. Quisquis Irenaeum assequi cupit, Irenaei vestigia premat, ejusque libros eo ordine quo conscripti sunt, legat necesse est.
subject are strangers. Whoever desires to grasp Irenaeus must tread in the footsteps of Irenaeus, and read his books in that order in which they were written.
45. Ut enim in debellandis haereticis, adversus quos arma capessebat S. doctor, ordine procederet, necessarium sibi putavit, et merito quidem, sententiam eorum accuratius quam antea fuerat, exponere. A Valentinianis autem exordium sumpsit, et in id potissimum incubuit, ut eorum hypothesim majori caeteris cura explicatam daret, tum quia ea erant amici sui vota, tum quia in eam haeresim, velut in sentinam, confluxerant aliarum omnium sordes; et ideo in hanc omnes fere vires convertit, ratus ea semel probe nota et prostrata, caeteras stare non posse. Cum vero inter Valentinianos omnes primas facile tenerent et asseclarum numero, et indigesta dogmatum omnigenum male sibi cohaerentium farragine, et projecta propugnantium audacia et temeritate Ptolemaitae et Marcosii, hique Lugdunensem tractum, cui praeerat Irenaeus, infestare coepissent; in eorum explicanda hypothesi diutius immoratus est, utpote in quam tota belli moles incumbere debebat. Sed quia Valentiniani omnes callide dissimulatis probrosis avorum nominibus, illud Gnosticorum sibi superbius arrogabant; ut eorum impudentiam castigaret Irenaeus, ac simul haeresim a radicibus imis convelleret, ostendit communem omnium parentem esse Simonem Magum, illud impietatis monstrum potius quam hominem, a cujus vel nomine abhorrebant Christiani omnes; idque invicte demonstrat ex continua Magi illius discipulorum ad Valentinianos usque successione, omniumque in iisdem dogmatibus corruptissimisque moribus consensione : cum hoc tantum discrimine, quod ad explicanda veterum commenta secum pugnantes posteriores, alia aliis absurdiora finxissent. Cum sit igitur, inquit, adversus omnes haereticos detectio atque convictio varia et multifaria, et nobis propositum est omnibus iis secundum ipsorum charactera contradicere; necessarium arbitrati sumus prius referre fontem et radicem eorum, uti sublimissimum ipsorum Bythum cognoscens, intelligas arborem, de qua defluxerunt tales fructus. Tum explicata Simonis haeresi concludit, a Simonianis falsi nominis scientiam accepisse initia, sicut ex ipsis assertionibus eorum adest discere. Et in fine libri primi, post recensita veterum Gnosticorum dogmata, addit : A talibus matribus, et patribus, et proavis eos qui a Valentino sint, sicut ipsae sententiae et regulae ostendunt eos, necessarium fuit manifeste arguere, et in medium afferre dogmata ipsorum.
45. For in order that in vanquishing the heretics against whom the holy doctor was taking up arms he might proceed in order, he thought it necessary for himself, and deservedly indeed, to set forth their opinion more accurately than had been done before. Now he took his beginning from the Valentinians, and bent his effort chiefly to this, that he might give their hypothesis explained with greater care than the rest, both because such were the wishes of his friend, and because into that heresy, as into a bilge, the filth of all the others had flowed together; and therefore against this one he turned almost all his strength, reckoning that once it was thoroughly known and laid low, the rest could not stand. Moreover, since among all the Valentinians the Ptolemaeans and Marcosians easily held the first place both by the number of their followers, and by an undigested medley of dogmas of every kind badly cohering with one another, and by the unbridled audacity and rashness of their champions, and since these had begun to infest the district of Lyons, over which Irenaeus presided; he lingered longer in explaining their hypothesis, as being that upon which the whole weight of the war had to rest. But because all the Valentinians, having craftily concealed the disgraceful names of their forefathers, more haughtily arrogated to themselves that of Gnostics; in order that Irenaeus might chastise their impudence, and at the same time pluck up the heresy from its deepest roots, he showed that the common parent of them all was Simon Magus, that monster of impiety rather than man, from whose very name all Christians shrank in horror; and he invincibly demonstrates this from the continuous succession of the disciples of that Magus right down to the Valentinians, and the agreement of them all in the same dogmas and most corrupt morals: with only this difference, that the later ones, at variance with themselves in explaining the fictions of the ancients, had devised things one more absurd than another. Since therefore, he says, the detection and conviction against all the heretics is varied and manifold, and it is our purpose to reply to them all according to their own character, we have judged it necessary first to relate their fountain and root, that knowing their most sublime Bythus, you may understand the tree from which such fruits have flowed down. Then, having explained the heresy of Simon, he concludes that from the Simonians knowledge falsely so called received its beginnings, as one may learn from their own assertions. And at the end of the first book, after reviewing the dogmas of the ancient Gnostics, he adds: From such mothers, and fathers, and forefathers it was necessary manifestly to convict those who are from Valentinus, just as their very opinions and rules show them to be, and to bring their dogmas into the open.
46. Eapropter cum per Valentinianorum latus Gnosticos omnes transfigere vellet, operi titulum inscripsit, Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Detectio et eversio falso cognominatae agnitionis. Id ipse conceptis verbis testatur in Praefatione
46. Therefore, since he wished to transfix all the Gnostics through the side of the Valentinians, he inscribed the title upon the work, Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called. This he himself testifies in set words in the Preface
Editors' notes and page, col. 220
Footnotes
(7) ‹anchor: Cum sit igitur, inquit› · call in col 220
Iren., lib. I, c. 22, n. 2.
Irenaeus, book I, chapter 22, number 2.
(printed under page 116)
(8) ‹anchor: haeresi concludit› · call in col 220
Cap. 23.
Chapter 23.
(printed under page 116)
(9) ‹anchor: dogmata, addit› · call in col 220
Cap. 31, n. 3.
Chapter 31, number 3.
(printed under page 116)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 220
- marginal letters: A argumento peregrinis; B omnes primas; C hominem, a; D nianis falsi
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (argumento peregrinis...); Praefa- split at column break
libri secundi : In primo quidem libro, qui ante hunc est, arguentes falsi nominis agnitionem, ostendimus tibi, dilectissime, omne ab his qui sunt a Valentino, per multos et contrarios modos adinventum esse falsiloquium; etiam sententias exposuimus eorum qui priores exstiterunt, etc. In hoc autem libro instruemus quae nobis apta sunt, et quae permittit tempus, et evertemus per magna capitula omnem regulam ipsorum. Quapropter quod sit detectio et eversio sententiae ipsorum, operis hujus conscriptionem ita titulavimus. Et in Praefatione libri IV : Hunc quartum librum, dilectissime, transmittens tibi operis quod est de detectione et eversione falsae cognitionis, etc. Et in ejusdem libri fine : Reliquos igitur sermones Domini quos quidem non per parabolas, sed simpliciter ipsis dictionibus docuit de Patre, et expositionem Epistolarum beati Apostoli in altero libro disponentes, integrum tibi opus exprobrationis et eversionis falso cognominatae agnitionis, praestante Deo, praebebimus. Denique in Praefatione libri quinti, librum hunc vocat librum quintum operis universi, quod est De traductione et eversione falso cognominatae agnitionis. Hic traductionem dixit interpres, quod paulo ante exprobrationem, alibi vero detectionem vertit, quia vox ἔλεγχος, qua usus est Irenaeus, iis omnibus significatis gaudet; sed auctoris scopo magis congruit, Detectio, ut ex iis patet quae jam diximus. Quin igitur is sit genuinus librorum Irenaei titulus, quem modo dicebamus, quemque initio operis restituimus, dubitari non potest. Sub hoc titulo libros Irenaei citat Eusebius, lib. V Historiae, cap. 7, ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως; citant et Andreas Caesariensis in Apocalypsin serm. 6, cap. 18; Damascenus in Parallelis mss. passim; Photius in Bibliotheca cod. 120; OEcumenius, in II Epist. Petri III, et in epistolam Judae. Quin et vetustiores mss. codd., ut Claromont., vetus ille Feuard., Vossii, et Arundel., licet in fronte praefixam ferant recentiorem inscriptionem, Contra haereticos, vel haereses; veterem tamen retinent, dum exhibent argumenta capitum secundi et quarti libri. Sic enim habent : Haec insunt in secundo libro redargutionis et eversionis falso cognominatae agnitionis. Haec sunt in IV libro exprobrationis et eversionis falsae agnitionis. Ex quibus evidenter demonstratur eam esse inscriptionem quae legebatur in ipsis autographis, vel in prioribus codicibus, ex quibus descripti sunt posteriores; sed a recentioribus scribis brevitati studentibus male omissam. Omissioni vero occasionem dedisse videtur Eusebius ipse, qui Irenaei libros compendii causa interdum vocat, Libros adversus haereses; quem sic imitati sunt Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Hieronymus, et alii plures cum veteres, tum recentiores, ut omisso prorsus genuino titulo (qui certe neutiquam omittendus fuerat), compendiosum istum solum retinuerint, et aliis retinendi ansam praebuerint. Photius
of the second book: In the first book indeed, which is before this one, convicting knowledge falsely so called, we showed you, most beloved, that all the falsehood devised by those who are of Valentinus has been contrived in many and contrary ways; we also set forth the opinions of those who existed before, etc. Now in this book we shall draw up what is suitable for us and what time permits, and we shall overthrow through great heads their whole rule. Wherefore, because it is the detection and overthrow of their opinion, we have so titled the writing of this work. And in the Preface of Book 4: Sending to you, most beloved, this fourth book of the work which is on the detection and overthrow of false knowledge, etc. And at the end of the same book: Arranging therefore in another book the remaining words of the Lord which He taught concerning the Father not through parables, but simply in the very expressions themselves, and the exposition of the Epistles of the blessed Apostle, we shall afford you, God granting it, the complete work of the exposure and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called. Finally, in the Preface of the fifth book, he calls this book the fifth book of the entire work, which is On the exposure and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called. Here the translator said traductio for what a little before he rendered exprobratio, and elsewhere detectio, because the word ἔλεγχος, which Irenaeus used, enjoys all those meanings; but Detectio agrees better with the aim of the author, as is clear from what we have already said. That this therefore is the genuine title of the books of Irenaeus, which we were just mentioning, and which we have restored at the beginning of the work, cannot be doubted. Under this title Eusebius cites the books of Irenaeus, Book 5 of the History, chapter 7, ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως; so too cite Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse, sermon 6, chapter 18; Damascene in his manuscript Parallels passim; Photius in the Bibliotheca, codex 120; Oecumenius, on the Second Epistle of Peter 3, and on the Epistle of Jude. Moreover, the older manuscript codices also, such as the Clermont, that ancient one of Feuardent, those of Vossius and Arundel, although on the front they bear prefixed the more recent inscription, Against Heretics, or Heresies, nevertheless retain the ancient one when they exhibit the summaries of the chapters of the second and fourth books. For thus they have: These things are contained in the second book of the refutation and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called. These things are in the 4th book of the exposure and overthrow of false knowledge. From which it is evidently demonstrated that this is the inscription which was read in the autographs themselves, or in the earlier codices from which the later ones were copied; but was wrongly omitted by more recent scribes studious of brevity. Now Eusebius himself seems to have given occasion to the omission, who for the sake of brevity sometimes calls the books of Irenaeus, Books against Heresies; whom Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and many others both ancient and more recent have so imitated, that having altogether omitted the genuine title (which certainly ought by no means to have been omitted), they retained only that abridged one, and gave handle to others to retain it. Photius,
Editors' notes and page, col. 221
Page
- running head: 221 DISSERTATIO II, ART. II. DE IRENAEI
- marginal letters: A tione libri; B sed simpliciter; C operis restituimus; D sionis falsae
- old-edition numerals: XCVII after et
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (tione libri secundi...); tione split from preceding column
vero, quem imitari satius esse duximus, quod utramque inscriptionem passim usitatam animadverteret, utramque proposuit retinuitque. Posteriori occasionem etiam dedisse videntur ea Irenaei verba, quae mox retulimus : Cum sit igitur adversus omnes haereticos detectio atque convictio varia et multifaria, et nobis propositum est iis omnibus secundum ipsorum charactera contradicere, etc. Et ea quibus librum IV claudit : Et nos ipsos, et te ad contradictionem omnium haereticorum in quinque exercentes libris. Et hinc in mss. quibusdam codd., ut Vossii et Feuardentii, praefixus Irenaei libris legitur hic titulus : Contra omnes haereticos, vel haereses. Sed hunc titulum, qui apud recentiores obtinuit, libris suis nunquam praefixit Irenaeus; illum duntaxat, ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, scripsit : isque ad auctoris scopum longe melius quadrat. Duo enim, ut ipse monet in librorum suorum praefationibus, praestanda sibi proponebat : alterum Valentinianorum Gnosticorumque omnium sententias hactenus abditas ἐλέγχειν, detegere; alterum eas ἀνατρέπειν, evertere. Prius quidem libro primo praestitit, in quo Valentinianorum Gnosticorumque omnium dogmata accurate recenset; posterius libris sequentibus. Et quidem libro secundo ea rationibus subvertit; tertio, Scripturas et Traditionem adhibuit; quarto ex Veteri Testamento praecipue disputavit; quinto ex reliquis doctrinis Domini nostri, et ex apostolicis epistolis, ut ipse in Praefationibus facturum se spondet.
however, whom we have thought it better to imitate, because he noticed that both inscriptions were in common use everywhere, set forth and retained both. Those words of Irenaeus which we quoted just now seem also to have given occasion to the latter: Since therefore the detection and conviction against all heretics is varied and manifold, and it is our purpose to reply to them all according to their own character, etc. And those with which he closes Book 4: Exercising both ourselves and you in five books unto the refutation of all heretics. And hence in certain manuscript codices, such as those of Vossius and Feuardent, there is read prefixed to the books of Irenaeus this title: Against All Heretics, or Heresies. But this title, which has prevailed among more recent writers, Irenaeus never prefixed to his books; he wrote that one only, ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως: and it squares far better with the author's aim. For two things, as he himself points out in the prefaces of his books, he proposed to himself to perform: the one, ἐλέγχειν, to detect, the opinions of the Valentinians and of all the Gnostics hitherto hidden; the other, ἀνατρέπειν, to overthrow them. The former indeed he performed in the first book, in which he accurately reviews the dogmas of the Valentinians and of all the Gnostics; the latter in the following books. And indeed in the second book he subverted them by arguments of reason; in the third, he employed the Scriptures and Tradition; in the fourth he disputed chiefly from the Old Testament; in the fifth from the remaining teachings of our Lord, and from the apostolic epistles, as he himself in the Prefaces promises that he will do.
47. Quamvis quo tempore scripti sint dicti quinque libri, accurate definire difficillimum sit; a vero tamen haud procul discesserit, qui sub finem Eleutheri pontificatus, vel partim sub Eleuthero, partim sub Victore editos asseruerit. Et quidem librum primum ante annum 172 scribi non potuisse manifestum est; nam in eo Tatiani et Encratitarum fit mentio; qui, si Eusebii Chronico fides, anno XII M. Aurelii, Christi vero 172 emerserunt : quamvis paulo citius erupisse probabile sit. Librum tertium Eleuthero jam Ecclesiam regente prodiisse constat : in eo siquidem Irenaeus Romanorum pontificum catalogum texens, hunc ad Eleutherum usque perducit, quem tum Romae sedisse perspicue dicit, Νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος, Nunc duodecimo loco episcopatum ab apostolis habet Eleutherus. Ejusdem libri cap. 11, n. 8, satis aperte, tacito licet nomine, Montanistas perstringit, qui Irenaeo vix ante annum 177 noti esse potuerunt. Sed quod eum Librum non nisi sub Eleutheri pontificatus finem scriptum esse demonstrare videtur, illud est, quod in eo meminerit Irenaeus Theodotionis interpretationis. Hic enim, testibus Epiphanio et auctore Chronici Alexandrini, sacra Biblia vertit Commodo jam imperatore, Marullo (sic enim legendum puto, non Marcello),
47. Although it is most difficult to define accurately at what time the said five books were written, yet he will not have departed far from the truth who asserts that they were published towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus, or partly under Eleutherus, partly under Victor. And indeed that the first book could not have been written before the year 172 is manifest; for in it mention is made of Tatian and the Encratites, who, if credit be given to the Chronicle of Eusebius, emerged in the 12th year of Marcus Aurelius, that is, 172 of Christ: although it is probable that they broke out a little earlier. That the third book appeared when Eleutherus was already governing the Church is established: since in it Irenaeus, weaving the catalogue of the Roman pontiffs, brings it down to Eleutherus, whom he clearly says to have been sitting at Rome at that time, Νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος, Now in the twelfth place Eleutherus holds the inheritance of the episcopate from the apostles. In chapter 11, no. 8 of the same book, he touches clearly enough, though suppressing the name, upon the Montanists, who could scarcely have been known to Irenaeus before the year 177. But what seems to demonstrate that that Book was written only towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus is this, that in it Irenaeus makes mention of the translation of Theodotion. For he, as Epiphanius and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle witness, translated the sacred Bible when Commodus was already emperor, under Marullus (for so I think it must be read, not Marcellus)
Editors' notes and page, col. 222
Footnotes
(10) ‹anchor: siquidem Irenaeus› · call in col 222
Iren., lib. I, c. 28.
Irenaeus, book I, chapter 28.
(printed under page 117)
(11) ‹anchor: meminerit Irenaeus› · call in col 222
L. III, c. 21, n. 1.
Book III, chapter 21, number 1.
(printed under page 117)
(12) ‹anchor: testibus Epiphanio› · call in col 222
De Pond. et Mens., § 17.
On Weights and Measures, § 17.
(printed under page 117)
Page
- running head: II. DE IRENAEI LIBRIS ADV. HAERESES 222
- marginal letters: A vero, quem; B χου καὶ; C Praefationibus facturum; D disse perspicue
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (vero, quem imitari...)
et AEliano coss., id est anno Christi 184. Igitur post aliquot annos a publicata Theodotionis interpretatione scripserit Irenaeus necesse est, nec proinde procul ab anno 192, quo vita cessit Eleutherus, qui anno circiter 177 Ecclesiae regimen susceperat.
and Aelianus as consuls, that is, in the year of Christ 184. Therefore Irenaeus must necessarily have written some years after the publication of Theodotion's translation, and accordingly not far from the year 192, in which Eleutherus departed this life, who had undertaken the government of the Church about the year 177.
48. Nec hic moror Dodwelli conjecturas, qui, ut citius quam dixi, scilicet circa annum Christi 177, scriptos Irenaei libros probet, contendit in Dissertatione singulari de pontificum Romanorum successione, cap. 14, § 17, ea quae apud Irenaeum de Theodotione leguntur, a priori ejus exemplari forte abfuisse, ac postea ab ipso inserta fuisse. Sic conjectando, molestissimos quoscunque nodos facile secat vir subtilissimus. Sed pueris forte placeant ejusmodi nugae; quas certe adulti rideant. Aliam in suis in Irenaeum Dissertationibus viam iniit. Ut id quocunque tandem modo assequatur, Theodotionis interpretationem Commodo imperatore antiquiorem esse, ac sub Marco Aurelio concinnatam fuisse, Chronici Alexandrini auctoritatem elevare conatur. Nempe, ait, Chronici illius auctor tempus Theodotionis collegit ex Epiphanio De ponderibus et mensuris, cujus ratiocinia chronologica de Scripturarum interpretibus et sibi aegre constant, et suxt tamen, ubi constant, admodum vitiosa. Breve quidem effatum, quod Dodwelli solius auctoritate nititur, quae tamen nondum satis apud eruditos obtinuit, ut in talis magistri verba juremus. Mirum certe auctorem Chronici Alexandrini certam temporum epocham ex Epiphanio collegisse, quae nulla apud eum apparet. Neque enim, ipso fatente Dodwello, consules designat Epiphanius, uti designat Chronici auctor. Hic ergo aliunde collegerit necesse est. At, inquit Dodwellus, ratiociniis collegit falsissimis. Falsissima quidem sunt ratiocinia quae auctori Chronici affingere placuit; sed ea fuisse hujus ratiocinia, aliis argumentis quam frigidis conjecturis, ab ipso limine probandum erat. Donec id praestiterit Dodwellus, nobis, quibus non licet esse tam perspicacibus, per ejus humanitatem licebit cum auctore Chronici sentire.
48. Nor do I dwell here upon the conjectures of Dodwell, who, in order to prove that the books of Irenaeus were written earlier than I have said, namely around the year of Christ 177, contends in his separate Dissertation on the succession of the Roman pontiffs, chapter 14, § 17, that the things which are read in Irenaeus concerning Theodotion were perhaps absent from his first copy, and were afterwards inserted by himself. By thus conjecturing, the most subtle man easily cuts whatever most troublesome knots he pleases. But trifles of that sort may perhaps please boys; grown men will certainly laugh at them. He entered upon another way in his Dissertations on Irenaeus. That he may attain this in whatever way at last, namely that the translation of Theodotion is older than the Emperor Commodus and was put together under Marcus Aurelius, he tries to disparage the authority of the Alexandrian Chronicle. To wit, says he, the author of that Chronicle gathered the time of Theodotion from Epiphanius On Weights and Measures, whose chronological reckonings concerning the translators of the Scriptures both scarcely agree with themselves, and yet, where they do agree, are very faulty. A brief pronouncement indeed, which rests upon the authority of Dodwell alone, which however has not yet sufficiently prevailed among the learned that we should swear by the words of such a master. It is certainly wonderful that the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle gathered a definite epoch of times from Epiphanius, none of which appears in him. For neither, as Dodwell himself confesses, does Epiphanius designate the consuls, as the author of the Chronicle designates them. He must therefore necessarily have gathered it from elsewhere. But, says Dodwell, he gathered it by most false reckonings. Most false indeed are the reckonings which it has pleased him to impute to the author of the Chronicle; but that those were this author's reckonings had to be proved from the very threshold by other arguments than frigid conjectures. Until Dodwell has performed this, it will be permitted to us, who are not allowed to be so keen-sighted, by his courtesy to agree with the author of the Chronicle.
49. Alio argumento, quo fere persuasum se dicit, probare nititur cl. Grabius in suis in Irenaeum Prolegomenis, eum adhuc presbyterum, ante annum 177, quo Romam a martyribus Lugdunensibus missus est, haereticorum refutationem integram edidisse. Id deducitur ex ortu sectae Cataphrygum, quae Phrygiae Asiaeque Ecclesias vexavit; quem Eusebius in Chronico anno XVII Marci, Christi 171, ascripsit. Duos sane, inquit, priores Irenaei libros praecessisse, inde colligitur, quod in his nullam hujus sectae, sed haereseos Tatiani tanquam novissimae fecerit mentionem : illam non omissurus, si Asiam, in quam hos mittebat libros, jam tum turbare coepisset. Contra libro III et IV pseudoprophetas
49. By another argument, by which he says he is almost persuaded, the illustrious Grabe strives to prove in his Prolegomena to Irenaeus that while still a presbyter, before the year 177, in which he was sent to Rome by the martyrs of Lyons, he published the entire refutation of the heretics. This is deduced from the rise of the sect of the Cataphrygians, which harassed the Churches of Phrygia and Asia; which Eusebius in his Chronicle assigned to the 17th year of Marcus, 171 of Christ. That the first two books of Irenaeus indeed preceded it, says he, is gathered from this, that in them he made no mention of this sect, but made mention of the heresy of Tatian as the newest: whereas he would not have omitted the former if it had already at that time begun to disturb Asia, into which he was sending these books. On the other hand, in Books 3 and 4 the false prophets
Editors' notes and page, col. 223
Footnotes
(12*) ‹anchor: quod Dodwelli› · call in col 223 Dissert. 4, in Iren., § 49.
Dissertation 4 on Irenaeus, § 49.
(printed under page 118)
Page
- running head: 223 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A et AEliano; B ejusmodi nugae; C Mirum certe; D cit, probare
- old-edition numerals: XCVIII after nititur,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (et AEliano coss....); pseudoprophe- split at column break
- misprint (Q2a): ‹suxt› printed for sunt (after aegre constant, et), set as printed; spot check settled for the Opus reading (not yet in misprints.tsv)
istos leviter perstringit; unde illos post excitatas ab iis turbas scripserit necesse est; neque enim longum inter priores et posteriores libros intercessit intervallum. Sed tantum abest haec Grabii causam juvent, quin potius omnino evertant. Nam si Cataphrygas lib. III et IV perstringat Irenaeus, et si inter priores et posteriores Irenaei libros non longum intercesserit intervallum; scribi posteriores cum non potuerint ante annum 177, vix et priores potuisse, fateatur necesse est Grabius. Quamvis enim jam ab anno 171 emersissent Cataphryges; non tamen ante annum 177, quo martyres jam in carcerem conjecti erant, eorum sectae fama ad Lugdunensium aures pervenit. Certe si prius pervenisset, citius quid de novis prophetis sentiebant, martyres scripsissent; commodiori, quam omnium difficillimo, tempore id acturi. Quod vero Irenaeus libro primo Cataphrygum mentionem nullam fecerit, nihil mirum. Huic animus erat Valentini discipulorum sententiam exponere, et ut rem a capite repeteret, referre fontem et radicem eorum; arguere videlicet a Simone veteribusque Gnosticis, ceu patribus et proavis, ortum accepisse Valentinianos, et in medium afferre dogmata ipsorum, ut superius vidimus. Quid autem ad hoc Irenaei consilium conducebat Cataphrygum mentio? Nihil quidquam a Gnosticis et Valentinianis acceperant; nullum tunc temporis catholicum dogma oppugnabant, solam Ecclesiae unitatem scindebant. Immerito proinde Irenaeus inter Gnosticos et Valentinianos recensuisset homines, qui nihil affine habebant cum ea falsi nominis scientia, quam detegendam et evertendam sibi proposuerat. Nec opportuniora Grabii causae ea, quibus Irenaeus Prooemlum libri III incipit, verba : Tu quidem, dilectissime, praeceperas nobis, etc., nec non quae in Prooemio libri V exstant : Quoniam postulasti a nobis, obedientibus tuo praecepto; quoniam in administratione sermonis positi sumus : ex quibus eruere se posse putat, Irenaeum tunc presbyterum, necdum episcopum fuisse : neminem quippe episcopo praecepturum, ut calamum in haereticos acueret; vix etiam Irenaeum se praecepto obedientem professurum, etc. Ut enim omittam, quod inter amicos ipsa consilia et preces, praecepta habentur; plus aequo urget vir doctissimus verbum praecipio, quo usus est Irenaei interpres. Irenaeum quippe Graeco verbo παραινέω usum fuisse ex eo colligo, quod in Prooemio libri primi amicum monens, ut, cum Valentinianorum mysteria ex se didicerit, omnibus iis, qui secum versantur, patefaciat, addit, καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας, quae vertit interpres : et praecipias eis observare se a profundo insensationis. Ubi παραινέσῃς vertit, praecipias; cum tamen παραινέω Latine, non proprie praecipio, sed hortor, suadeo, consilium do, etc., significet. Ex quo conjicere licet, idem verbum locis citatis usurpatum ab Irenaeo, eodem modo
these he lightly touches upon; whence he must necessarily have written those books after the disturbances stirred up by them; for no long interval intervened between the earlier and the later books. But so far are these things from aiding Grabe's cause, that they rather overturn it altogether. For if Irenaeus touches upon the Cataphrygians in Books 3 and 4, and if no long interval intervened between the earlier and the later books of Irenaeus, then since the later ones could not have been written before the year 177, Grabe must necessarily confess that the earlier ones also could scarcely have been. For although the Cataphrygians had already emerged from the year 171, nevertheless not before the year 177, when the martyrs had already been cast into prison, did the report of their sect reach the ears of the people of Lyons. Certainly if it had reached them earlier, the martyrs would have written earlier what they thought about the new prophets, as they would have done it at a more convenient time than the most difficult time of all. And that Irenaeus in the first book made no mention of the Cataphrygians is nothing wonderful. His mind was to set forth the opinion of the disciples of Valentinus, and in order to trace the matter from the head, to relate their fountain and root; namely, to prove that the Valentinians had received their origin from Simon and the ancient Gnostics, as fathers and forefathers, and to bring their dogmas into the open, as we saw above. Now what did mention of the Cataphrygians contribute to this design of Irenaeus? They had received nothing whatever from the Gnostics and Valentinians; at that time they were attacking no Catholic dogma, they were only rending the unity of the Church. Undeservedly therefore would Irenaeus have reckoned among the Gnostics and Valentinians men who had nothing akin to that knowledge falsely so called which he had proposed to himself to detect and overthrow. Nor are those words more serviceable to Grabe's cause with which Irenaeus begins the Preface of Book 3: You indeed, most beloved, had enjoined upon us, etc., as well as those which stand in the Preface of Book 5: Since you have requested of us, obeying your command; since we are placed in the ministry of the word: from which he thinks he can elicit that Irenaeus was then a presbyter, and not yet a bishop: inasmuch as no one would command a bishop to sharpen his pen against heretics; and scarcely either would Irenaeus profess himself obedient to a command, etc. For to pass over the fact that among friends counsels and prayers themselves are accounted commands, the most learned man presses more than is fair the word praecipio, which the translator of Irenaeus used. Indeed, that Irenaeus used the Greek word παραινέω I gather from this, that in the Preface of the first book, admonishing his friend that when he has learned the mysteries of the Valentinians from him, he should make them known to all those who associate with him, he adds, καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας, which the translator renders: and command them to guard themselves from the abyss of madness. Where he renders παραινέσῃς by praecipias; whereas παραινέω in Latin does not properly signify praecipio [I command], but hortor [I exhort], suadeo [I advise], consilium do [I give counsel], etc. From which one may conjecture that the same word used by Irenaeus in the places cited was in the same way
Editors' notes and page, col. 224
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 224
- marginal letters: A tas istos; B tyres scripsissent; C inter Gnosticos; D plus aequo
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (tas istos leviter...); tas split from preceding column
- misprints kept as printed: Prooemlum (for Prooemium), before libri III
ab imperito interprete redditum fuisse. Sed quocunque verbo, aut quacunque voce usus fuerit Irenaeus; quo sensu praecepisset amicus, et quo sensu obediret ipse, perspicue declarat in eodem Prooemio, cum ait, dilectione se adhortante conaturum et amico et omnibus, qui cum eo sunt, Valentinianorum doctrinam exponere. Et postea : Quae tibi cum dilectione scripta sunt, cum dilectione percipies. Qui ideo se morem amico gerere dicit, quia dilectio adhortatur et impellit, sola charitatis lege constrictum se aperte significat. Et certe si superiorem agnovisset Irenaeus eum in cujus gratiam scribebat, nunquam commissurus fuisset, ut illum dilectissimi nomine compellaret, uti compellat semper, ac tam familiariter eo uteretur, atque usum fuisse librorum praefationes demonstrant. Eo modo simplices presbyteros cum episcopis egisse, nullis exemplis probabitur. Eccui, quaeso, potiori ac meliori jure, quam episcopo, conveniunt ea verba Praefationis libri V, quibus abutitur Grabius : quoniam in administratione sermonis positi sumus? At, inquit vir doctissimus, in προστασίᾳ Ecclesiae potius quam in administratione sermonis, se positum dixisset Irenaeus, si jam tum summus Ecclesiae Lugdunensis sacerdos fuisset. Imo in προστασίᾳ Ecclesiae positum se manifeste dicebat iis temporibus, qui in administratione sermonis constitutum se significabat. Nullis enim aliis quam episcopis, quatuor prioribus saeculis, creditam fuisse administrationem sermonis in Occidente, invicte demonstratur ex Cypriani epistola 56, ex Optato sub finem operis contra Donatistas, ex Vita D. Hilarii Arelatensis a Cypriano ejus discipulo conscripta, ex Possidio in Vita S. Augustini; multisque aliis eorum temporum monumentis facile probari posset, si quod operae pretium foret.
rendered by the unskilful translator. But whatever verb or whatever word Irenaeus may have used, in what sense his friend had commanded, and in what sense he himself obeyed, he clearly declares in the same Preface, when he says that with love exhorting him he will endeavour to set forth the doctrine of the Valentinians both to his friend and to all who are with him. And afterwards: What has been written to you with love, you will receive with love. He who says that he complies with his friend for this reason, because love exhorts and impels, openly signifies that he is bound by the law of charity alone. And certainly if Irenaeus had recognized as a superior the one for whose sake he was writing, he would never have ventured to address him by the name of most beloved, as he always addresses him, and to deal with him so familiarly as the prefaces of the books demonstrate that he did. That simple presbyters dealt in that manner with bishops will be proved by no examples. To whom, I ask, by a better and stronger right than to a bishop do those words of the Preface of Book 5 agree, which Grabe misuses: since we are placed in the ministry of the word? But, says the most learned man, Irenaeus would have said that he was placed in the προστασίᾳ [presidency] of the Church rather than in the ministry of the word, if he had already at that time been the chief priest of the Church of Lyons. Nay rather, in those times he manifestly said that he was placed in the προστασίᾳ of the Church who signified that he was appointed in the ministry of the word. For that to none other than bishops, in the first four centuries, was the ministry of the word entrusted in the West, is invincibly demonstrated from Cyprian's Epistle 56, from Optatus towards the end of his work against the Donatists, from the Life of St Hilary of Arles written by his disciple Cyprian, from Possidius in the Life of St Augustine; and by many other monuments of those times it could easily be proved, if it were at all worth the trouble.
50. Certum igitur ac probatum manere debet, quidquid dicant Dodwellus et Grabius, ab Irenaeo jam episcopo conscriptos fuisse quinque libros Detectionis et eversionis falso cognominatae agnitionis. An vero simul et eodem tempore omnes, an per intervalla prodierint? Alia difficultas est, quam paucis sic explico. Primo quidem breve quoddam opus scribere, quo retectis Valentinianorum dogmatibus, argumenta quaedam ad ea evertenda opportuna subjungeret, animo sibi constituerat, rei difficultate laborisque magnitudine nondum satis explorata, Irenaeus. Quantum nobis virtutis adest, inquit in Praefatione libri primi, sententiam ipsorum, qui nunc aliud docent, dico autem eorum, qui sunt circa Ptolemaeum, compendiose et manifeste ostendemus, et aliis occasiones dabimus, secundum nostram mediocritatem, ad evertendum eam. Hinc postea amicum hortatur, ut quae simpliciter, et vere, et idiotice ad se scripta sunt, ipse augeat penes se, ut magis idoneus, quasi semen et initia accipiens; et in latitudine sensus sui in multum fructificet ea, quae
50. It must therefore remain certain and proved, whatever Dodwell and Grabe may say, that the five books of the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called were written by Irenaeus when already a bishop. Whether however they all appeared together and at the same time, or at intervals, is another difficulty, which I thus explain in a few words. At first indeed Irenaeus, not having yet sufficiently explored the difficulty of the matter and the magnitude of the labour, had resolved in his mind to write a certain brief work, in which, having uncovered the dogmas of the Valentinians, he would subjoin some suitable arguments for overthrowing them. As much power as is in us, says he in the Preface of the first book, we shall compendiously and manifestly show the opinion of those who now teach otherwise, I mean of those who are around Ptolemy, and we shall give occasions to others, according to our moderate ability, for overthrowing it. Hence afterwards he exhorts his friend that the things which have been written to him simply, and truly, and in a plain style, he himself should enlarge within himself, as being more capable, receiving them as seed and beginnings; and in the breadth of his understanding make to bear much fruit those things which
Editors' notes and page, col. 225
Page
- running head: 225 DISSERTATIO II, ART. II, DE IRENAEI
- marginal letters: A ab imperito; B librorum praefationes; C tionem sermonis; D argumenta quaedam
- old-edition numerals: XCIX after nobis
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (ab imperito interprete...)
in paucis dicta sunt. At vixdum labori incubuerat, cum latiori, quam existimaverat, sese aperiente disputandi campo, mutato proposito, ad majoris moliminis opus se contulit. Id in fine libri primi significat, cum ait : Cum igitur haec sic se habeant, quatenus promisi, secundum nostram virtutem inferemus eversionem ipsorum, omnibus eis contradicentes in sequenti libro; enarratio enim in longum pergit, ut vides. Spes enim prima fuisse videtur eversionem detectioni in eodem libro subjungere. Eapropter in Prooemio libri III, amico praeter exspectationem id eventurum esse dicit, ut crescente operis mole, majora et ampliora quam speraverat, postulaveratque ad evertendos haereticos argumenta sit accepturus. In hoc autem tertio (libro) ait, ex Scripturis inferemus ostensiones, ut nihil tibi ex his quae praeceperas desit a nobis; sed et, praeterquam opinabaris, ad arguendum et evertendum eos, qui quolibet modo male docent, occasiones a nobis accipias. Quae enim est in Deo charitas, dives et sine invidia exsistens, plura donat, quam postulet quis ab ea. Itaque suscepto majoris operis consilio, quo quinque libris plenius et uberius confutarentur vanae omnes haereticorum argutiae, priores duos absolvere festinavit; utpote quibus satis pro tempore et pro amici votis, falsi nominis scientiam retegeret, everteretque. Absolutos confestim ad amicum misit, dum interea tres alios, quos jam in animo habebat, ad umbilicum perduceret; qui singuli, statim atque unicuique summa manus imposita, haud exspectato sequenti, missi sunt. Omnia haec constant tum ex Praefationibus, tribus posterioribus libris praefixis, tum ex uniuscujusque libri fine, tum ex lib. II, cap. 2, n. 6; cap. 8, n. 3; cap. 11, n. 2, et cap. 28, n. 4, in quibus sequentes libros expresse pollicetur. Iis omnibus maxime probabile fit, quod jam dixi, totum opus partim sub Eleuthero pontifice, partim sub Victore scriptum fuisse.
have been said in few words. But scarcely had he bent to the labour when, a wider field of disputation opening itself out than he had supposed, changing his purpose, he betook himself to a work of greater scale. This he signifies at the end of the first book, when he says: Since therefore these things are so, according as I promised, we shall bring in their overthrow according to our power, replying to them all in the following book; for the narrative runs on to a great length, as you see. For his first hope seems to have been to subjoin the overthrow to the detection in the same book. Therefore in the Preface of Book 3 he tells his friend that this will happen beyond his expectation, that as the bulk of the work grows, he will receive greater and fuller arguments for overthrowing the heretics than he had hoped and requested. And in this third (book), says he, we shall bring in proofs from the Scriptures, so that nothing of those things which you had enjoined may be wanting to you from us; but also that, beyond what you expected, for convicting and overthrowing those who in any way teach ill, you may receive occasions from us. For the love which is in God, being rich and without grudging, bestows more things than anyone asks from it. Accordingly, having undertaken the plan of a larger work, whereby in five books all the vain subtleties of the heretics might be more fully and abundantly refuted, he hastened to finish the first two, as those by which, sufficiently for the time and for his friend's wishes, he might uncover and overthrow knowledge falsely so called. Once finished, he immediately sent them to his friend, while in the meantime he brought to completion the three others which he already had in mind; which were sent one by one, as soon as the finishing touch had been put to each, without waiting for the next. All these things are established both from the Prefaces prefixed to the three later books, and from the end of each book, and from Book 2, chapter 2, no. 6; chapter 8, no. 3; chapter 11, no. 2, and chapter 28, no. 4, in which he expressly promises the following books. From all these things what I have already said becomes most probable, that the whole work was written partly under the pontiff Eleutherus, partly under Victor.
51. Graeco idiomate exaratum fuisse adeo certa demonstrant argumenta ut mirum sit aliquam ea de re dubitationem Erasmi et aliorum quorumdam eruditorum mentem subire potuisse. Eusebius plura Irenaei fragmenta Historiae suae inserta Graece refert : nusquam tamen monet, uti Tertullianum et alios quosdam auctores Latinos citans se fecisse dicit, ea e Latino in Graecum sermonem a se conversa fuisse. Et quotquot e scriptoribus Graecis Irenaeum citant (frequenter vero citant), Graece certe legerunt; nec alio sermone conscriptos ejus libros legisse se satis aperte significat Photius, qui vix alios quam Graecos auctores in Bibliotheca sua recenset. Hieronymus etiam, licet Latinus, qui Irenaei libros accurate legerat, et quo proinde sermone scripti fuissent probe noverat, eum tamen e Latinorum numero perspicue excludit, ut inter Graecos annumeret. Nam auctores commemorans qui Chiliastarum errori faverant : Latinorum, inquit, Tertulliani,
51. That it was composed in the Greek language arguments so certain demonstrate that it is a wonder any doubt about that matter could have entered the mind of Erasmus and certain other learned men. Eusebius reports in Greek several fragments of Irenaeus inserted into his History; yet nowhere does he note, as he says he did when citing Tertullian and certain other Latin authors, that they were translated by him from the Latin into the Greek tongue. And all of the Greek writers who cite Irenaeus (and they cite him frequently) certainly read him in Greek; nor does Photius, who reviews scarcely any other than Greek authors in his Bibliotheca, signify clearly enough that he read his books written in any other tongue. Jerome also, though a Latin, who had read the books of Irenaeus accurately, and accordingly knew well in what tongue they had been written, nevertheless clearly excludes him from the number of the Latins, so as to reckon him among the Greeks. For mentioning the authors who had favoured the error of the Chiliasts: Of the Latins, says he, I shall make mention of Tertullian,
Editors' notes and page, col. 226
Footnotes
(13) ‹anchor: Hieronymus etiam› · call in col 226
In Prologo lib. XVIII in Isa., t. III, nov. edit.
In the Prologue to book XVIII on Isaiah, vol. III, new edition.
(printed under page 119)
Page
- running head: I, DE IRENAEI LIBRIS ADV. HAERESES. 226
- marginal letters: A in paucis; B Scripturis inferemus; C unicuique summa; D alios quosdam
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (in paucis dicta...); Ter- split at column break
Victorini, Lactantii; Graecorum, ut caeteros praetermittam, Irenaei tantum Lugdunensis episcopi faciam mentionem. Et alibi ejusdem erroris fautores recensens, nominatis Tertulliano, Lactantio, Victorino Petavionensi et Severo : Et ut Graecos nominem, addit, et primum extremumque conjungam, Irenaeus et Apollinarius. At, inquit Erasmus, in sua epistola nuncupatoria, quam Irenaei a se adornatae editioni praemisit, dubitare licet, utrumne natione Graecum dixerit Hieronymus, an scriptorem Graecum. Imo dubitandi locus nullus est, quin Hieronymus eodem sensu atque eadem prorsus ratione Graecum dixerit Irenaeum, atque Graecum dixit Apollinarium, et Latinos Tertullianum, Victorinum, Lactantium, ad quorum certe nationem haudquaquam, sed ad scripta duntaxat attendebat. Ecquid hic nationes ad Hieronymi scopum faciebant? Animus non erat nationes a nationibus secernere, sed scriptores a scriptoribus, et eos recensere ac distinguere qui tum ex iis qui Latine scripserant, tum ex iis qui Graece, in Chiliastarum sententiam abierant. Deinde vel ipse titulus Irenaei libris praefixus Graece scriptos fuisse probat. Genuinum hunc esse : De detectione et eversione falso cognominatae agnitionis, supra ostendimus. Qui quidem ut Graece, qualem repraesentant Eusebius et Photius, non inelegans; sic Latine quidpiam adeo barbarum et obscurum sonat, ut hunc nusquam, sed alium quemvis et commodiorem, et clariorem, et magis Latinum operi suo facile praefixisset quisquis Latine scribens prima Latinae linguae rudimenta delibasset. Sed et e Graeco in Latinum conversum esse demonstrat ipsa scribendi diversitas; interdum enim scribitur, de detectione, interdum de redargutione, de exprobratione, vel traductione falso cognominatae agnitionis, aut falsae agnitionis, falso dictae scientiae, etc., quae scribendi varietas procul dubio orta est ex diversa interpretatione vocum, ἐλέγχου et ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Nullam autem ejusmodi varietatem apud Graecos reperies. Titulum prorsus eodem modo scribunt Eusebius, Photius et Damascenus, Περὶ ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Certo argumento Graece scriptum fuisse, non Latine. 3° Hieronymus, optimus styli aestimator, testatur in sua ad Theodoram viduam epistola, Irenaei libros adversus haereses doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone compositos esse. At nisi in lingua Latina rudis omnino fuerit Hieronymus, id de Latinis Irenaei libris nec cogitare, nec asserere potuit. Stylus siquidem barbarus est, incomptus, asper et salebrosus, soloecismis scatens, auctorisque mentem multis in locis, aut non satis, aut male omnino exprimens. Econtrario vero Graecus textus, qui superest, elegans est, nitidus et gravis, verbisque constat propriis, significantibus, ac tum ad res ipsas, tum ad Irenaei mentem et scopum accommodatissimis. Quis autem credat hinc Irenaeum Graece doctissimum, acerrimique judicii virum, patrio neglecto idiomate,
Victorinus, Lactantius; of the Greeks, to pass over the rest, of Irenaeus alone, bishop of Lyons. And elsewhere reviewing the abettors of the same error, having named Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus of Pettau and Severus: And that I may name the Greeks, he adds, and join the first and the last, Irenaeus and Apollinarius. But, says Erasmus, in his dedicatory epistle which he prefixed to the edition of Irenaeus prepared by him, one may doubt whether Jerome called him a Greek by nation, or a Greek writer. Nay rather, there is no room at all for doubting that Jerome called Irenaeus a Greek in the same sense and by the very same reasoning as he called Apollinarius a Greek, and Tertullian, Victorinus, and Lactantius Latins, to whose nation certainly he was by no means attending, but only to their writings. What had nations to do here with Jerome's aim? His mind was not to separate nations from nations, but writers from writers, and to review and distinguish those who, both of those who had written in Latin and of those who had written in Greek, had gone over into the opinion of the Chiliasts. Next, even the title itself prefixed to the books of Irenaeus proves that they were written in Greek. That the genuine one is this: On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called, we showed above. Which indeed, just as in Greek, such as Eusebius and Photius represent it, is not inelegant, so in Latin sounds something so barbarous and obscure that anyone writing in Latin who had tasted the first rudiments of the Latin tongue would nowhere have prefixed this to his work, but easily any other title both more suitable, and clearer, and more Latin. Moreover, the very diversity of writing also demonstrates that it was translated from Greek into Latin; for sometimes it is written, on the detection, sometimes on the refutation, on the exposure, or arraignment of knowledge falsely so called, or of false knowledge, of science falsely so called, etc., which variety of writing without doubt arose from a diverse translation of the words ἐλέγχου and ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Now you will find no variety of that sort among the Greeks. Eusebius, Photius and Damascene write the title in altogether the same way, Περὶ ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. A sure argument that it was written in Greek, not in Latin. 3rd, Jerome, the best judge of style, testifies in his epistle to the widow Theodora that the books of Irenaeus against heresies were composed in most learned and most eloquent language. Now unless Jerome was altogether unacquainted with the Latin tongue, he could neither think nor assert this of the Latin books of Irenaeus. For the style is barbarous, unpolished, rough and rugged, abounding in solecisms, and in many places expressing the mind of the author either not sufficiently or altogether badly. On the contrary, the Greek text which survives is elegant, clear and weighty, and consists of proper, significant words, most well suited both to the matters themselves and to the mind and aim of Irenaeus. Now who would believe on the one hand that Irenaeus, a man most learned in Greek and of the keenest judgement, neglecting his native idiom,
Editors' notes and page, col. 227
Page
- running head: 227 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A tulliani, Victorini; B haudquaquam, sed; C xisset quisquis; D ronymus, optimus
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (tulliani, Victorini...); tulliani split from preceding column; idio- split at column break
eo scripturum, quod male adeo calluisset, ut hoc animi sensa eloqui non valeret; illinc vero Graecum interpretem lectis barbare omnino et obscurissime scriptis Latinis libris, auctoris sensum facilius ac felicius assecuturum quam auctor verbis explicare potuerit? Sed, inquies, Irenaeus ipse in Praefatione libri primi stylum simplicem ac vulgarem, omni verborum artificio, ac dictionum ornamento destitutum, hac excusatione deprecatur, quod apud Celtas commoratus, in barbarum sermonem plerumque vacaret. Ita est; sed tantum abest hinc infirmentur argumenta nostra, quin potius iis novum robur accedat. Si enim Latine scripsisset Irenaeus, haud magis ferenda videretur Celtici sermonis excusatio, quam si Gallus quivis apud Batavos vel Anglos Latine scribens, inelegantem et impolitam orationem hac excusatione deprecaretur; quod apud Batavos vel Anglos commoratus, in peregrinum sermonem plerumque vacaret. Valeret quidem Galli hujus excusatio, si patria lingua scribens desuetudinem causaretur : at inepta prorsus, si de Latina sermo sit, quae Batavis et Anglis aeque familiaris est, ac Gallis. Sic licet Irenaeus apud Celtas degeret, et Celtica lingua interdum loqueretur; haud tamen excusandus foret, quod Latine scribens, inculte et indiserte id faceret; quia lingua Latina tunc temporis Lugdunensibus familiaris erat, et multo familior quam nobis. 4° Quisquis vel mediocriter Graece peritus in textum Irenaei Latinum oculos injecerit, facile deprehendet, revera Graecum sermonem esse in quo identidem aliqua Latini species animadvertitur. Nam orationis modus, dictio, verborum constructio, phrasis, syntaxis, etc., hominem arguunt qui Graeca prae oculis habens, in Latinum converterit; sed ita imperite et serviliter, ut verbum pro verbo reddiderit, servato Graecorum ordine, genere et regimine. Graecus fuerit Irenaeus, Latini sermonis rudis; an tamen adeo hebes, Latinarumque vocum inops, ut ignoratis iis quae passim obviae sunt, faciles, omnibus notae et vel pueris ipsis tritae, iis Hellenismos longe petitos, obscuros et difficiles, Latinis auribus asperrimos, mentibusque fere impervios substitueret? An difficilioris erat operae scribere, Nus vel a Nu geniti, Valentinus, Ptolemaeus, vel Valentini, aut Ptolemaei discipuli; quam qui sunt circa vel erga Nun, Ptolemaeum, Valentinum; ostendere posse, quam habere ostendere; creatio vel creatura, quam conditio; principium, quam initium; ablativos absolutos, quam genitivos, et sexcenta ejusmodi, quae propriis locis notare non omisimus? Graecus erat Ammianus Marcellinus, Graece longe magis quam Latine doctus, et ideo in iis quae Latine scripsit interdum obscurus; durioribus tamen ejusmodi Hellenismis abstinuit. Quid, quod Latinis vocibus ea significata tribuuntur, quae quidem Graece iis respondentes facile admittunt, ipsae vero Latinae prorsus respuunt? Pertransiens alicubi scribitur pro legendo percurrens,
would write in one that he knew so badly that he was unable to express the thoughts of his mind in it; and on the other hand, that a Greek translator, having read Latin books written altogether barbarously and most obscurely, would attain the sense of the author more easily and happily than the author was able to explain in words? But, you will say, Irenaeus himself in the Preface of the first book excuses a simple and common style, destitute of all artifice of words and ornament of expressions, by this plea, that dwelling among the Celts, he was for the most part occupied in a barbarous speech. So it is; but so far is it from our arguments being weakened hence, that rather new strength accrues to them. For if Irenaeus had written in Latin, the excuse of the Celtic speech would seem no more tolerable than if any Frenchman writing in Latin among the Dutch or the English should excuse an inelegant and unpolished discourse by this plea, that dwelling among the Dutch or the English, he was for the most part occupied in a foreign speech. The excuse of this Frenchman would indeed avail if, writing in his native tongue, he pleaded disuse: but it would be altogether absurd if the question were of Latin, which is equally familiar to the Dutch and the English as to the French. Thus, although Irenaeus lived among the Celts, and sometimes spoke in the Celtic tongue, yet he would by no means be excusable for doing so unculturedly and inarticulately when writing in Latin; because the Latin tongue at that time was familiar to the people of Lyons, and much more familiar than to us. 4th, Whoever even moderately skilled in Greek casts his eyes upon the Latin text of Irenaeus will easily perceive that it is in reality Greek speech in which now and then some appearance of Latin is noticed. For the manner of discourse, the diction, the construction of the words, the phrasing, the syntax, etc., prove a man who, having the Greek before his eyes, translated it into Latin; but so unskilfully and slavishly that he rendered word for word, keeping the order, gender and government of the Greek. Grant that Irenaeus was a Greek, unacquainted with the Latin speech; yet was he so dull, and so destitute of Latin words, that being ignorant of those which are obvious everywhere, easy, known to all and hackneyed even to boys themselves, he would substitute for them far-fetched, obscure and difficult Hellenisms, most harsh to Latin ears, and almost impenetrable to their minds? Was it a work of greater difficulty to write Nus or those born from Nus, Valentinus, Ptolemy, or the disciples of Valentinus or of Ptolemy, than those who are around or towards Nus, Ptolemy, Valentinus; to be able to show, than to have to show; creation or creature, than condition; principle, than beginning; ablatives absolute, than genitives, and six hundred things of that sort, which we have not omitted to note in their proper places? Ammianus Marcellinus was a Greek, learned far more in Greek than in Latin, and therefore sometimes obscure in what he wrote in Latin; yet he abstained from harsher Hellenisms of that sort. What of the fact that to Latin words are attributed those meanings which indeed the Greek words corresponding to them easily admit, whereas the Latin ones themselves altogether reject? Pertransiens [passing through] is somewhere written for running through in reading,
Editors' notes and page, col. 228
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 228
- marginal letters: A mate, eo; B apud Batavos; C in textum; D operae scribere
- old-edition numerals: C after abest
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (mate, eo scripturum...); mate split from preceding column
perexivimus pro enarravimus, incipio hoc facere passim pro hoc facturus sum, principalis pro antiquus, aliquid pro partim, etc. Quis in his et aliis ejusmodi vocibus non paucis Latinum auctorem deprehendat? Quis potius hic non agnoscat Latinum interpretem, sed imperitum et nullius judicii, qui prae oculis habens textum Graecum, et in eo voces διερχόμενος, διεξήλθομεν, μέλλω τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἀρχαῖος, τί, etc., lexicaque puerili modo consulens, e variis cuicunque voci subjunctis significationibus eam, quae prius obvia fuerit, imprudenter acceperit? Quid demum, quod Latini textus auctor Irenaei sensum haud assecutus, alienos saepe affingit? An de propria mente ipsi Irenaeo non constabat? Certe erroris alia causa esse non potuit, quam quod interpres aut vitioso codice Graeco usus, aut similitudine vocum deceptus male legerit, vel a Graecorum sensu aberrans alienum supposuerit. Sexcenta ejusmodi exempla observavimus in notis nostris. Sic interdum pro φυτὰ legit φύλλα, γένεσιν pro φύσιν, ἔτι pro ὅτι, ἑκάστου pro ἐσχάτου, τρόπῳ pro τύπῳ, ἢ pro ᾗ, ἐξ ἧς pro ἑξῆς, 888 pro Ἰησοῦς, quasi singulae hujus vocis litterae totidem notae arithmeticae essent, et alia ejusmodi multa. Sed Latini illius hallucinatio in nomine Ἐπιφανὴς hic omitti non debet. Arbitratus appellativum esse, vertit clarus; cum certum sit haeretici nomen proprium esse, cujus sententiam refert Irenaeus lib I, c. 11, n. 3. Tam immanis error in Irenaeum ipsum conferri non potest, cui certe de nomine illius quem perstringebat, probe constabat, cum maxime Graece et Latine idem sit. In imperitum igitur interpretem refundatur necesse est. 5° Si Latine et in gratiam Latinorum scripsisset Irenaeus, Latinos potius quam Graecos auctores citasset; nullos tamen sive sacros, sive profanos ab eo laudatos reperias, nisi Graecos. Sic, ut multa sileam, lib. I, cap. 9, centonem ex Homeri versibus contexit. Certe quisquis Latine scripsisset, Virgilium potius, aut aliquem alium poetam Latinis familiorem elegisset, ut ex eo centonem conficeret. Denique lib. V, cap. 30, de Antichristi nominibus disputans, quibus continebitur numerus 666, ea duntaxat exempli causa profert quae adeo Graeca sunt, ut nisi Graece scribantur, summa non occurrat. Talia sunt ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ, ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ, ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, quae si Latine scribas, jam numerus ad nomen non quadrabit. Quis putet Latine scribentem Graeca nomina longe quaesiturum, cum Latina plura tam facile fingi potuissent, ex quibus idem numerus colligi potuisset?
perexivimus [we have gone quite through] for we have narrated, incipio hoc facere [I begin to do this] everywhere for I am about to do this, principalis [principal] for ancient, aliquid [something] for partly, etc. Who would detect a Latin author in these and not a few other words of that sort? Who rather would not recognize here a Latin translator, yet unskilful and of no judgement, who having before his eyes the Greek text, and in it the words διερχόμενος, διεξήλθομεν, μέλλω τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἀρχαῖος, τί, etc., and consulting lexicons in a boyish manner, out of the various meanings subjoined to each word imprudently took that which first met his eye? What finally of the fact that the author of the Latin text, having by no means attained the sense of Irenaeus, often imputes foreign senses to him? Was Irenaeus himself not sure of his own mind? Certainly there could have been no other cause of the error than that the translator, either using a faulty Greek codex, or deceived by the similarity of words, read badly, or wandering from the sense of the Greek substituted a foreign one. We have observed six hundred examples of this sort in our notes. Thus sometimes for φυτὰ he reads φύλλα, γένεσιν for φύσιν, ἔτι for ὅτι, ἑκάστου for ἐσχάτου, τρόπῳ for τύπῳ, ἢ for ᾗ, ἐξ ἧς for ἑξῆς, 888 for Ἰησοῦς, as if the individual letters of this word were so many arithmetical signs, and many other things of that sort. But the blunder of that Latin writer over the name Ἐπιφανὴς ought not to be omitted here. Thinking it to be an appellative, he rendered it clarus [illustrious]; whereas it is certain that it is the proper name of a heretic, whose opinion Irenaeus reports in Book 1, chapter 11, no. 3. So monstrous an error cannot be laid upon Irenaeus himself, who was certainly well aware of the name of the one whom he was censuring, especially since it is the same in Greek and in Latin. It must therefore necessarily be charged back upon the unskilful translator. 5th, If Irenaeus had written in Latin and for the sake of the Latins, he would have cited Latin rather than Greek authors; yet you will find none, whether sacred or profane, praised by him except Greeks. Thus, to pass over many things in silence, in Book 1, chapter 9, he wove a cento out of the verses of Homer. Certainly anyone who had written in Latin would have chosen Virgil rather, or some other poet more familiar to the Latins, to make a cento out of him. Finally, in Book 5, chapter 30, disputing about the names of Antichrist in which the number 666 will be contained, he brings forward by way of example only such as are so Greek that unless they are written in Greek, the sum does not occur. Such are ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ, ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ, ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, which if you write in Latin, the number will no longer square with the name. Who would think that one writing in Latin would seek Greek names from afar, when several Latin ones could so easily have been devised from which the same number could have been gathered?
52. Duas Erasmi objectiunculas non moror, quod nimirum versus aliquot Graecos admistos videamus Irenaei libris, et quod nullus indicaverit interpretis nomen. Liberum siquidem est interpretibus, si quos offendant poetarum versus Graecos, eos vel Latine duntaxat, vel majoris ἐνεργείας causa Graece et Latine referre, praesertim si pauci sint et elegantes. Exempla obvia sunt. Eodem modo
52. I do not dwell upon the two petty objections of Erasmus, namely that we see some Greek verses mingled in the books of Irenaeus, and that no one has indicated the name of the translator. For translators are free, if they come across any Greek verses of the poets, to report them either in Latin only, or for the sake of greater ἐνέργεια [force] in Greek and in Latin, especially if they are few and elegant. Examples are obvious. In the same way
Editors' notes and page, col. 229
Page
- running head: 229 DISSERTATIO II, ART. II, DE IRENAEI
- marginal letters: A perexivimus pro; B quod interpres; C conferri non; D Graece scribantur
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (perexivimus pro...)
se gessit Irenaei interpres. Si plures occurrerint versus, Latine tantum; si unus aut alter, Graece et Latine, idque duobus in locis duntaxat, scripsit. Quod attinet ad interpretis nomen, haud advertit Erasmus, objectionem eos ex aequo petere, qui censent Graecum textum meram interpretationem esse; neque enim iis facilius est indicare Graeci interpretis nomen, quam aliis Latini. Sed cum paulo majoris difficultatis specie ab eruditissimis quibusdam viris objectum audivi, vix credibile esse Irenaeum qui Lugduni degebat, ubi nullus linguae Graecae usus erat, quique in gratiam Lugdunensium suorum scribebat, quorum fines jam subierat Marcosia lues, eo sermone scripturum quem nullus intellexisset. At illi supponunt quod ab ipso limine probandum incumbit, videlicet potissimum hoc Irenaeo consilium fuisse, ut in gratiam Lugdunensium scriberet. Scripsisse ut amici cujusdam precibus obsequeretur, singulae cuique libro praefixae praefationes demonstrant. Porro amicum illum Graecum exstitisse, non Lugdunensem, longe probabilius videtur. Neque enim hic ab Irenaeo quaerebat quaenam esset Marcosiorum, qui soli Gallias infestabant, sed Ptolemaitarum sententia, ut ex libri primi Praefatione constat. Certum est autem Ptolemaitarum, Valentinianorum, imo et ipsorum Marcosiorum, caeterorumque Gnosticorum haeresi, quam explanandam et confutandam sibi susceperat Irenaeus, longe acerbius vexatas fuisse Orientales, quam Occidentales provincias : adeo ut his scripti remedio consulere voluerit Irenaeus, potius quam illis, quibus ipse coram et viva voce facile mederi poterat. Sed esto, amicus ille apud Latinos egerit, non id tamen adversariorum causae profuturum puto. Quid enim si ille, licet apud Latinos degens, Graecus aliquis exstiterit ex eorum numero, qui cum Pothino vel Irenaeo in Occidentem venerant? Jam ruit omnis, quae fingitur, necessitas scribendi Latine. Quippe id unum sibi primo proposuerat Irenaeus, ut ipse declarat in Praefatione libri primi, ut breves ad eum commentarios et veluti memorialem quemdam libellum mitteret, in quo paucis explicata Valentinianorum sententia, argumenta quaedam ad hanc evertendam opportuna suggereret : ut et ille cognoscens portentuosissima et altissima haereticorum mysteria, ea omnibus, qui cum eo erant, manifesta faceret, et praeciperet eis observare se a profundo insensationis, et ejus, quae est in Deum, blasphemationis. Hinc postea hortatur eum, ut pro ea, qua praestabat, eruditione accepta semina et initia amplificaret, et quae paucis et invalide dicta erant, uberius explicaret, et patentius assereret iis qui cum eo erant. Et in fine libri primi, de eadem haeresi agens : Conati sumus nos, inquit, universum male compositae vulpeculae hujus corpusculum in medium producere, et per te facere manifestum. Jam non multis opus erit sermonibus ad evertendum doctrinam eorum manifestam omnibus factam..... Adest enim et
the translator of Irenaeus conducted himself. Where several verses occurred, he wrote them in Latin only; where one or two, in Greek and Latin, and that in two places only. As regards the name of the translator, Erasmus failed to notice that the objection equally assails those who think the Greek text to be a mere translation; for neither is it easier for them to indicate the name of the Greek translator than for others to indicate that of the Latin. But I have heard it objected with a show of somewhat greater difficulty by certain most learned men, that it is scarcely credible that Irenaeus, who lived at Lyons, where there was no use of the Greek tongue, and who was writing for the sake of his own people of Lyons, whose borders the Marcosian plague had already entered, would write in that speech which no one would have understood. Yet they suppose what is incumbent upon them to prove from the very threshold, namely that Irenaeus's chief design was to write for the sake of the people of Lyons. That he wrote in order to comply with the prayers of a certain friend, the individual prefaces prefixed to each book demonstrate. Moreover, that that friend was a Greek, not a native of Lyons, seems far more probable. For he was not asking of Irenaeus what was the opinion of the Marcosians, who alone were infesting the Gallic provinces, but of the Ptolemaeans, as is established from the Preface of the first book. Now it is certain that by the heresy of the Ptolemaeans, of the Valentinians, nay even of the Marcosians themselves, and of the rest of the Gnostics, which Irenaeus had undertaken to explain and refute, the Eastern provinces had been far more bitterly harassed than the Western: so much so that Irenaeus wished to provide for the former by the remedy of a writing, rather than for the latter, whom he could easily heal in person and by the living voice. But grant that that friend lived among the Latins, yet I do not think this will profit the cause of our adversaries. For what if he, though living among the Latins, was some Greek out of the number of those who had come into the West with Pothinus or Irenaeus? At once falls to the ground all the necessity that is imagined of writing in Latin. Inasmuch as Irenaeus had at first proposed this one thing to himself, as he himself declares in the Preface of the first book, to send to him brief commentaries and as it were a sort of memorandum-book, in which, having explained the opinion of the Valentinians in few words, he might suggest some suitable arguments for overthrowing it: so that he also, knowing the most monstrous and deep mysteries of the heretics, might make them manifest to all who were with him, and urge them to guard themselves from the abyss of madness, and of blasphemy against God. Hence afterwards he exhorts him that, in accordance with the erudition in which he excelled, he should amplify the seeds and beginnings he had received, and explain more abundantly what had been said in few words and weakly, and assert it more openly to those who were with him. And at the end of the first book, treating of the same heresy: We have endeavoured, says he, to bring forth into the open the whole little body of this badly put together little fox, and to make it manifest through you. There will no longer be need of many words to overthrow their doctrine once it has been made manifest to all. For it is in the power both
Editors' notes and page, col. 230
Page
- running head: I, DE IRENAEI LIBRIS ADV. HAERESES. 230
- marginal letters: A se gessit; B ab ipso; C Orientales, quam; D opportuna suggereret
- old-edition numerals: CI after Orientales,
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (se gessit Irenaei...)
tibi, et omnibus qui tecum sunt, ad haec quae praedicta sunt exerceri, et evertere nequam ipsorum doctrinas inconditas, et apta veritati ostendere dogmata. Ex quibus colligere licet quod dixi, hoc primum Irenaeo consilium fuisse, non tam scriptis publicis Valentinianam haeresim confutare, quam commentariis privatim ad amicum missis ἐφόδια δοῦναι, ut ipse ait, πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ, subministrationem, vel, ut alibi loquitur, occasiones seu argumenta suppeditare ad falsitatem ipsius commonstrandam; ut et ille efficaciter reliquis ministraret, secundum gratiam quae ei a Domino data erat. Quo supposito, jam nihil necesse fuerit Irenaeum, licet in Galliis scribentem, et in gratiam amici apud Latinos degentis, Latine scripsisse. Satis erat hunc ea quae sibi instar memorialis cujusdam libri destinabantur, intelligere; eadem deinceps uberiori sermone, pro data occasione, aliis explicaturum. Propositum quidem, ut superius dictum est, postea mutavit Irenaeus, et pro brevibus commentariis, ad majoris opus molis animum appulit; sed quod Graece scribere coeperat, non propterea Graece scribere destitit : continuavit potius, ratus amicum Latine explicaturum, aut etiam conversurum quae sibi Graeca mittebantur. Erit forte qui me diutius in his, quam par sit, immoratum esse conqueratur, cum jam communior sit inter eruditos sententia, Irenaeum Graece scripsisse. Sed cum plures offenderim viros Graece et Latine doctissimos, qui id adhuc in dubium vocent, operae pretium visum est quaestionem paulo accuratius pertractare; ut vel eximerentur, qui superesse videbantur, scrupuli; vel saltem lector pensitatis aequa lance utriusque partis rationibus, iis calculum adjicere tutus possit, quas ponderosiores esse perspexerit.
of you, and of all who are with you, to exercise yourselves upon these things which have been aforesaid, and to overthrow their wicked and uncouth doctrines, and to show forth dogmas agreeable to the truth. From which one may gather what I have said, that this was Irenaeus's first design, not so much to refute the Valentinian heresy by public writings, as by commentaries sent privately to his friend ἐφόδια δοῦναι, as he himself says, πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ, to supply a provision, or, as he speaks elsewhere, occasions or arguments for demonstrating its falsehood; so that he also might effectively minister to the rest, according to the grace which had been given to him by the Lord. Which being supposed, there was now no necessity at all for Irenaeus, though writing in the Gallic provinces, and for the sake of a friend living among the Latins, to have written in Latin. It was enough that the latter should understand those things which were destined for him after the manner of a sort of memorandum-book, as he was afterwards going to explain the same things to others in fuller discourse, as occasion offered. Irenaeus indeed, as was said above, afterwards changed his purpose, and instead of brief commentaries, applied his mind to a work of greater bulk; but because he had begun to write in Greek, he did not on that account cease to write in Greek: rather he continued, reckoning that his friend would explain in Latin, or even translate, what was sent to him in Greek. There will perhaps be someone who will complain that I have lingered longer upon these things than is fitting, since the more common opinion among the learned already is that Irenaeus wrote in Greek. But since I have met with several men most learned in Greek and Latin who still call this into doubt, it has seemed worth the trouble to handle the question a little more accurately; so that either the scruples which seemed to remain might be removed, or at least the reader, having weighed the reasons of both sides in an even balance, may safely add his vote to those which he perceives to be weightier.
53. Dolendum sane quod textus Irenaei Graecus, qui antiquis Patribus tanto in pretio fuit, nullaque vetustate consumendus videbatur, integer tamen sic exciderit, ut ea duntaxat temporum edacitati subduci potuerint fragmenta, quae scriptis suis inseruere auctores Graeci. Sed eadem fuit aliorum plurimorum eximiorum operum pessima sors. Constat Hermae Pastorem, ut alios similes libros taceam, Graece scriptum fuisse, tantumque apud Graecos auctoritate valuisse, ut apud quosdam, imo et apud Irenaeum, vix canonicis libris concederet. Hujus tamen, ut et Irenaei, Graeca sic interierunt, ut sola supersint fragmenta quae proferunt antiqui, cum integra interpretatione Latina. Irenaei quidem interpretationis auctor quis fuerit, hactenus incompertum. Sunt qui putant Irenaeum ipsum Graece primum scripsisse, tum eadem Latine convertisse. Sed parum S. doctoris honori consulunt illi. Irenaeus enim Irenaei sensum saltem assecutus fuisset, nec perperam accepisset expressissetque, uti saepissime accepit expressitque interpres. Graeculus
53. It is indeed to be lamented that the Greek text of Irenaeus, which was held in such high value by the ancient Fathers, and seemed destined to be consumed by no age, has nevertheless in its entirety so perished that only those fragments could be rescued from the devouring tooth of time which Greek authors inserted into their writings. But the same was the worst lot of very many other noble works. It is established that the Shepherd of Hermas, to say nothing of other similar books, was written in Greek, and prevailed with so much authority among the Greeks that with some, nay even with Irenaeus, it scarcely yielded to the canonical books. Yet the Greek of this work, as also of Irenaeus, has so perished that there survive only the fragments which the ancients bring forward, together with the complete Latin translation. Who indeed was the author of the translation of Irenaeus is hitherto unknown. There are some who think that Irenaeus himself first wrote in Greek, and then translated the same into Latin. But they have little regard for the honour of the holy doctor. For Irenaeus would at least have attained the sense of Irenaeus, and would not have wrongly taken and expressed it, as the translator very often took and expressed it. Some petty Greek
Editors' notes and page, col. 231
Footnotes
(14) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 231 or 232 (unconfirmed)
Diss. 5, in Iren., § 6.
Dissertation 5 on Irenaeus, § 6.
(printed under page 122)
Page
- running head: 231 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A tibi, et; B hunc ea; C huc in; D cos auctoritate
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (tibi, et omnibus...)
quispiam potius exstiterit, Latini sermonis plane rudis nec admodum acri judicio, qui e Graecis bonis Latina mala fecerit, alienosque sensus auctori suo non semel affinxerit. At quisquis ille fuerit, antiquissimam esse versionem Latinam, et Irenaeo ipso vel adhuc in vivis superstite, vel nuper erepto, editam constat. Quin enim Tertullianus qui paulo post scripsit, eam prae oculis habuerit, dum suum adversus Valentinianos librum elucubravit, negari non potest, nisi a solo Dodwello. Quisquis alius Irenaeum Latinum cum Tertulliano contulerit, statim deprehendet adeo hunc vestigia illius premere, adeo verbis ipsis, verborumque figuris et ordini adhaerere, ut id unum sibi proposuisse videatur, paucioribus contrahere, iisdem saepe servatis verbis, immistis tamen pro more dicteriis, quae ille fusioribus exsecutus est. Sic Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 11, n. 3, Epiphanis sententiam referens, scribit : Est quidem ante omnes Proarche, proanennoetos, et inenarrabilis, et innominabilis, quam ego monotetem voco. Cum hac monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco henotetem. Haec henotes et monotes, cum sint unum, emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint, principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoraton, quam archem sermo monada vocat. Cum haec monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco hen. Hae autem virtutes, id est monotes et henotes, et monas, et hen, emiserunt reliquas emissiones AEonum. 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. Hae igitur virtutes, solitas, singularitas, unitas, unio, caeteras prolationes AEonum propagarunt. Ubi eadem verba (nisi quod Graeca quaedam Latine vertuntur), eadem styli barbaries, atque apud Irenaei interpretem occurrunt. Hic n. 5 : Alii rursus ipsorum primam et archegonon octonationem his nominibus nominaverunt : primum Proarchen, deinde Anennoeton, tertiam autem Arrheton, et quartam Aoraton. Et de prima quidem Proarche emissum esse primo et quinto loco Archen, ex Anennoeto 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 Anonnoeton, tertio Arrheton, quarto Aoraton. Ex Proarche itaque processisse primo et quinto loco Archen : ex Anennoeto, secundo et sexto loco Acatalepton; ex Arretho tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston; ex Invisibili, quarto et octavo loco Agenneton. Certe si e Graeco immediate exscripsisset omnia
must rather have been the man, altogether unacquainted with the Latin speech and of no very keen judgement, who out of good Greek made bad Latin, and more than once imputed foreign senses to his author. Yet whoever he was, it is established that the Latin version is most ancient, and was published either while Irenaeus himself was still surviving among the living, or when he had recently been taken away. For that Tertullian, who wrote a little after, had it before his eyes when he composed his book against the Valentinians, cannot be denied, except by Dodwell alone. Anyone else who compares the Latin Irenaeus with Tertullian will immediately perceive that the latter so treads in the footsteps of the former, so adheres to the very words, and to the figures and order of the words, that he seems to have proposed this one thing to himself, to contract into fewer words, often keeping the same words, though mingling in according to his custom witticisms, what the former had pursued at greater length. Thus Irenaeus in Book 1, chapter 11, no. 3, reporting the opinion of Epiphanes, writes: There is indeed before all Proarche, fore-inconceivable, and ineffable, and unnameable, which I call Monotes. With this Monotes there is a power, which also itself I call Henotes. This Henotes and Monotes, being one, sent forth, though they sent forth nothing, a principle of all things, intelligible, and unbegotten, and invisible, which principle speech calls Monas. With this Monas there is a power of the same substance with it, which also I call Hen. Now these powers, that is Monotes and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen, sent forth the remaining emissions of the Aeons. And Tertullian in chapter 37: There is, says he, before all things Proarche, inconceivable and ineffable, which I name Monotes. With this was another power, which also itself I call Henotes. Monotes and Henotes, that is Solitariness and Unity, being one, brought forth, not bringing forth, an intellectual, unbegotten, invisible beginning of all things, which speech has called Monas. To this is present a consubstantial power, which it calls Union. These powers therefore, Solitariness, Singularity, Unity, Union, propagated the rest of the projections of the Aeons. Where the same words (except that certain Greek words are turned into Latin) and the same barbarism of style occur as in the translator of Irenaeus. The latter in no. 5: Others again of them have named the first and primordial Octad by these names: first Proarche, then Anennoetos, third Arrhetos, and fourth Aoratos. And from the first, Proarche, there was sent forth in the first and fifth place Arche; from Anennoetos, in the second and sixth place Acataleptos; and from Arrhetos, in the third and seventh place Anonomastos; and from Aoratos, in the fourth and eighth place Agennetos. Tertullian in chapter 25, in the very same words: For first they establish Proarche, second Anonnoetos, third Arrhetos, fourth Aoratos. From Proarche therefore proceeded in the first and fifth place Arche; from Anennoetos, in the second and sixth place Acataleptos; from Arrethos, in the third and seventh place Anonomastos; from the Invisible, in the fourth and eighth place Agennetos. Certainly if Tertullian had copied all
Editors' notes and page, col. 232
Footnotes
(14) ‹anchor: a solo Dodwello› · call in col 232
pointer: text set once in n231 (printed under page 122, left foot); its call stands in col 232 after Dodwello, so n231's "call in col 231 or 232 (unconfirmed)" should read call in col 232 (Q1b).
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 232
- marginal letters: A quispiam potius; B verbis, immistis; C omnia Proarche; D prima quidem
- old-edition numerals: CII after quinto
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (quispiam potius...); om- split at column break
- other: the word omnia was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 233
haec Tertullianus, tot nomina Graeca Latine vertisset; nec fortuito et casu fieri potuit ut hoc illi cum Irenaei interprete convenerit. Hic cap. 12, n. 3, Colorbaseorum hypothesim sic exponit : Quando cogitavit aliquid emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est; at ubi quae emisit, vera fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. Quos autem praecogitaverat posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Locutus est Anthropos Logon, hic est primogenitus Filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoe, et sic prima octonatio completa est. Ille cap. 36 : Cum, inquiunt, cogitavit proferre, hoc Pater dictus est. Cum protulit, quia vera protulit, hic Veritas appellata est. Cum semetipsum voluit probari, hoc Homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem praecogitavit, 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 Graeco, sed ex interprete Irenaei sumpsisse quae refert, illud est, quod ubi lapsus est interpres Graeca perperam reddens, lapsus est et Tertullianus. Ille, ut jam dixi, nomen Ἐπιφανὴς appellativum esse putans, male omnino vertit clarus. Tertullianus similiter errantem secutus scripsit, insignior. Irenaeus cap. 2, n. 3, Sophiae perturbationem enarrans, scribit eam, fetum 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 Irenaeo Graeco, Latinum interpretem secutus, scripsit, ne quoque finis insisteret. Eodem cap. n. 4, refert Irenaeus, quod Pater per Monogenem emiserit Horon in imagine sua, ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον, ubi interpres perperam legens ἀσυζύγῳ, ἀθηλύντῳ, vel, ut alii volunt, ἀῤῥενοθήλει, perperam et vertit, sine conjuge masculo-femina. Eadem culpa tenetur et Tertullianus cap. cit. : Pater per Monogenem Nun, quem supra diximus Horon in haec promit in imagine sua femina-mare. Nempe uterque id ad imaginem refert, quod Horo soli convenire posse recta ratio demonstrat. Culpam hanc non sustineret Tertullianus, si textum Graecum hic potius quam interpretem consuluisset. Paulo post, Sophian ab Horo mundatam et confirmatam, ac suae restitutam conjugationi cum dixisset Irenaeus, addit : Χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπ' αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει, αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς Πληρώματος μεῖναι · τὴν δὲ
these things immediately from the Greek, he would have turned so many Greek names into Latin; nor could it have happened by chance and accident that he agreed in this with the translator of Irenaeus. The latter in chapter 12, no. 3, thus sets forth the hypothesis of the Colorbasians: When the Propator thought to send forth something, in this He was called Father; but when the things which He sent forth were true, in this it was called Alethia. When therefore He wished to show Himself, in this He was called Anthropos. And after He sent forth those whom He had forethought, in this it was called Ecclesia. Anthropos spoke Logos, this is the firstborn Son. And Zoe follows Logos, and thus the first Octad was completed. The former in chapter 36: When, say they, He thought to bring forth, in this He was called Father. When He brought forth, because He brought forth true things, in this it was named Truth. When He wished Himself to be approved, in this He was pronounced Man. And when He brought forth those whom He had forethought, then was named the Church. Man uttered Speech, and this is the firstborn Son, and to Speech was added Life; and the first Ogdoas was concluded. Many other similar things occur everywhere in Tertullian. But what finally shows that he took what he reports not from the Greek, but from the translator of Irenaeus, is this, that where the translator slipped in wrongly rendering the Greek, Tertullian slipped also. The former, as I have already said, thinking the name Ἐπιφανὴς to be an appellative, altogether badly rendered it clarus [illustrious]. Tertullian similarly following him in his error wrote insignior [more distinguished]. Irenaeus in chapter 2, no. 3, narrating the perturbation of Sophia, writes that when she had brought forth a shapeless offspring, she was at first indeed grieved on account of the incompleteness of the generation, and afterwards, φοβηθῆναι μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τέλος ἔχῃ. So at least the translator read; for he renders, feared lest this very thing should have an end; where τέλος ought to have been rendered perfection, not end, as we have said in the notes on this place. Nor does Tertullian do better in chapter 10: was at first indeed grieved on account of the incompleteness of the generation, and feared finally lest the end also should press on. Where similarly he renders τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς γεννήσεως by the incompleteness of the generation; and leaving the Greek Irenaeus, and following the Latin translator, he wrote, lest the end also should press on. In the same chapter, no. 4, Irenaeus reports that the Father through Monogenes sent forth Horos in His own image, ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον, where the translator, wrongly reading ἀσυζύγῳ, ἀθηλύντῳ, or, as others wish, ἀῤῥενοθήλει, wrongly also rendered, without a spouse male-female. Tertullian also is held by the same fault in the chapter cited: The Father through Monogenes Nus, whom we have called Horos above, brings forth for these things in His own image female-male. Namely, both refer to the image that which right reason demonstrates can agree with Horos alone. Tertullian would not bear this blame if he had consulted the Greek text here rather than the translator. A little after, when Irenaeus had said that Sophia was cleansed and strengthened by Horos, and restored to her consort, he adds: Χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπ' αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει, αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς Πληρώματος μεῖναι · τὴν δὲ
Editors' notes and page, col. 233
Page
- running head: 233 DISSERTATIO II, ART. II, DE IRENAEI
- marginal letters: A nia haec; B nuntiatus est; C rationis, post; D vel, ut
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (nia haec Tertullianus...); nia split from preceding column
ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι. Quae 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 eum factam esse, etc., ubi duo peccat, primum quod, σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει, vertit, cum appendice passione; vertendum erat, cum passione quae 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. Haec et plura alia, quae identidem in notis observavi, invicte, ni fallor, probant, Tertullianum, ut Graecum Irenaeum legerit (quod non nego), ab eo tamen saepe defecisse, ut Latini interpretis, et quidem interdum errantis vestigia sectaretur.
ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι [For when the intention had been separated from her together with the passion that supervened, she herself indeed remained within the Pleroma; while her intention together with the passion was set apart and fenced off by Horos]. Which the translator rendered thus: For when the intention had been separated from her, with the appendage passion, she herself indeed continued within the Pleroma; while her concupiscence with the passion was separated by Horos, and crucified, and put outside him, etc., where he commits two faults: first, that he renders σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει by with the appendage passion; it ought to have been rendered, with the passion which had supervened. Second, that he renders ἀποσταυρωθῆναι by crucified; here it signifies, as it were fenced around with a palisade and disjoined from the Pleroma. Tertullian also commits altogether the same faults, writing: Her Enthymesis and that appendage passion were banished by Horos and crucified. These and many other things, which I have repeatedly observed in the notes, invincibly prove, unless I am mistaken, that Tertullian, though he may have read the Greek Irenaeus (which I do not deny), nevertheless often departed from him to follow the footsteps of the Latin translator, and that too when he was sometimes in error.
54. Eamdem Latinam interpretationem, sed jam vitiosam, prae oculis habuisse videtur Cyprianus, dum epist. 74 (edit. Oxon.), ad Pompeium, de Cerdone et Marcione scribit : Cujus (Marcionis) magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit; quem Marcion secutus, additis ad crimen augmentis, impudentius caeteris et abruptius in Deum Patrem creatorem blasphemare instituit. Quae iisdem pene verbis habentur lib. I, c. 27, n. 1 et 2, nisi quod mendoso codice usus Cyprianus, nonus legerit pro octavus. Cyprianum autem Graece doctum fuisse, nullo argumento constat : adeo ut probabilius sit Latinum interpretem legisse, uti et legerat magister ejus Tertullianus. Legit et Augustinus : ex eo quippe testimonia duo deprompsit, citavitque contra Julianum Pelagianum, lib. I, c. 3 et 7, quae etiamnum totidem fere verbis exstant apud Irenaeum Latinum lib. IV, cap. 2, n. 7, et lib. V, c. 19, n. 1. Paucos deinceps e Latinis reperias, ex iis etiam qui veterum Patrum testimoniis studiose collectis, veluti centones ac catenas, ut vocant, contexuerunt, qui Irenaeum allegaverint. Faciebat exemplarium Latinorum penuria, tanta jam ab ipso septimo aut sexto desinente saeculo, ut cum AEtherius Lugdunensis episcopus nulla apud Lugdunenses ipsos nancisci posset, litteris Gregorium Magnum adierit, ut gesta vel scripta B. Irenaei ab eo acciperet. Cui respondet Gregorius : Gesta vel scripta B. Irenaei jam diu est quod sollicite quaesivimus; sed hactenus ex eis inveniri aliquid non valuit. Ea vero tantae penuriae fuisse videtur causa, quod exstinctis jam haeresibus ab Irenaeo confutatis, aliisque in dies emergentibus, quae nihil cum veteribus illis affine haberent; ac tum styli barbarie, tum argumenti difficultate deterritis et lectoribus et librariis, his ne exscriberent, illis ne legerent, eximii operis usus pene exsoleverit. Hujus tamen superfuere semper exemplaria aliqua; sed quae
54. Cyprian seems to have had before his eyes the same Latin translation, but already faulty, when in Epistle 74 (Oxford edition), to Pompeius, he writes concerning Cerdon and Marcion: Whose (Marcion's) master Cerdon came to Rome under Hyginus, then bishop, who was the ninth in the City; whom Marcion following, with additions made to the crime, began more shamelessly than the rest and more abruptly to blaspheme against God the Father the Creator. Which things are found in almost the same words in Book 1, chapter 27, nos. 1 and 2, except that Cyprian, using a corrupt codex, read ninth for eighth. Now that Cyprian was learned in Greek is established by no argument: so that it is more probable that he read the Latin translator, just as his master Tertullian had read him. Augustine also read him: for from him he drew two testimonies, and cited them against Julian the Pelagian, Book 1, chapters 3 and 7, which even now stand in almost as many words in the Latin Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 2, no. 7, and Book 5, chapter 19, no. 1. Thereafter you will find few of the Latins, even of those who, having studiously collected the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, wove as it were centos and cadenas, as they call them, who have alleged Irenaeus. The scarcity of Latin copies was the cause, so great already from the very seventh or the close of the sixth century, that when Aetherius, bishop of Lyons, could obtain none among the people of Lyons themselves, he approached Gregory the Great by letter in order to receive from him the deeds or writings of blessed Irenaeus. To whom Gregory replies: It is now a long time that we have anxiously sought the deeds or writings of blessed Irenaeus; but hitherto nothing of them has been able to be found. Now the cause of so great a scarcity seems to have been this, that since the heresies refuted by Irenaeus were already extinct, and others were emerging day by day which had nothing akin to those ancient ones; and since both readers and copyists were deterred both by the barbarism of the style and by the difficulty of the subject, the former from copying it and the latter from reading it, the use of the noble work almost died out. Yet some copies of it always survived; which however
Editors' notes and page, col. 234
Footnotes
(15) ‹anchor: Cui respondet Gregorius› · call in col 234
Lib. II, ep. 56, ad Aether. Lugdun. episc., tom. II nov. edit.
Book II, letter 56, to Aetherius, bishop of Lyons, vol. II of the new edition.
(printed under page 123)
Page
- running head: I, DE IRENAEI LIBRIS ADV. HAERESES. 234
- marginal letters: A ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς; B observavi, invicte; C Cyprianus, nonus; D Lugdunenses ipsos
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς...)
Gregorii M. aetate in forulis bibliothecarum delitescebant, inde demum novissimis hisce saeculis, Dei beneficio, extracta novam lucem aspexerunt. Sed fecit ea, quam dixi, styli barbaries et argumenti difficultas, ut librariis scribendorum sensum saepe minus assequentibus, non admodum sana ad nos pervenerint. Ea etiam fuit audaculorum quorumdam temeritas, ut resectis postremis libri quinti capitibus, quibus Millenariorum error asseritur, mutilum ediderint : adeo ut paucissimos codices mss. reperire sit, in quibus integer appareat, ut in Praefatione dixi. Imo existimat clariss. Grabius in suis in Irenaeum Prolegomenis, sect. II, § 6, librum V adhuc in fine magna parte mutilum esse. Id autem ex eo probare se posse putat, quod Irenaeus tum in fine libri IV, tum in Praefatione libri V, pollicetur se ex reliquis doctrinae Domini, et ex apostolicis epistolis conaturum ostensiones facere, videlicet unum et eumdem esse Patrem, factorem mundi hujus, eum qui locutus sit ad Abraham, qui legisdationem fecerit, qui prophetas praemiserit, qui Filium suum miserit, salutem suo plasmati donans, quod est carnis substantia. — Atqui, inquit Grabius, ut carnis resurrectionem multis argumentis probaverit Irenaeus, ut etiam promissam ex verbis Christi, citra parabolarum involucrum prolatis, demonstrationem de uno Deo mundi creatore, eodemque Patre Servatoris nostri cap 21 demum aggressus fuerit; eo tamen confestim longius inde digresso, reliquae ex verbis Christi et apostoli Pauli scriptis petitae demonstrationes unius et ejusdem in Veteri et Novo Testamento Dei perierunt; quod librarii exosam sequiori aetate millenarii regni doctrinam ulterius describere nollent, ideoque filum abruperint. Sic ille. Sed mirari subit, quod post descriptam exosam illam millenarii regni doctrinam, prolixamque ea de re Irenaei argumentationem, quae jam absoluta videbatur, praeposterus librarios omnes incessere coeperit scrupulus, idque ulterius describere noluerint quod ad eam doctrinam nihil aut parum spectare videbatur. Haud certe attendit vir doctissimus, Irenaei scopum in hoc libro V nec fuisse, nec esse potuisse, ex verbis Christi et apostoli Pauli scriptis generatim demonstrare, unum esse Deum mundi creatorem, eumdemque Patrem Servatoris nostri, ne actum superioribus libris ageret. Id ipse declarat in fine libri IV : Quoniam, inquit, multi quidem Domini sermones, unum autem et eumdem annuntiant Patrem, factorem mundi hujus; oportebat et nos propter eos, qui in multis erroribus continentur, per multa confutare, si quo modo possent per multa confutati ad veritatem converti, et salvari. Quae igitur agenda supererant? Duo haec : 1° post Domini sermones subjungere quoque Pauli doctrinam, et examinare sententiam ejus, et Apostolum exponere, et quaecunque ab haereticis in totum non intelligentibus quae a Paulo dicta sunt, alias acceperunt interpretationes, explanare, et dementiam insensationis eorum ostendere
in the age of Gregory the Great lay hidden in the bookcases of libraries, and finally in these latest centuries, by the kindness of God, drawn forth from thence, have beheld new light. But that barbarism of style and difficulty of subject of which I have spoken caused them, since the copyists often failed to grasp the sense of what they had to write, to come down to us in no very sound state. Such also was the rashness of certain bold men that, having cut off the last chapters of the fifth book, in which the error of the Millenarians is asserted, they published it mutilated: so that one can find very few manuscript codices in which it appears complete, as I have said in the Preface. Nay more, the illustrious Grabe thinks in his Prolegomena to Irenaeus, section 2, § 6, that Book 5 is still mutilated in great part at the end. And he thinks he can prove this from the fact that Irenaeus, both at the end of Book 4 and in the Preface of Book 5, promises that he will endeavour to make proofs from the remainder of the teaching of the Lord and from the apostolic epistles, namely that the Father, the Maker of this world, the One who spoke to Abraham, who gave the law, who sent the prophets beforehand, who sent His Son, bestowing salvation upon His own handiwork, which is the substance of the flesh, is one and the same. — And yet, says Grabe, though Irenaeus proved the resurrection of the flesh by many arguments, and though in chapter 21 he at length entered upon the promised demonstration from the words of Christ, uttered without the wrapping of parables, concerning the one God the Creator of the world, and the same the Father of our Saviour; nevertheless, as he immediately digressed far from thence, the remaining demonstrations of one and the same God in the Old and New Testaments sought from the words of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul have perished; because the copyists in a later age were unwilling to copy further the hated doctrine of the millennial kingdom, and therefore broke off the thread. So says he. But one cannot help wondering that after copying out that hated doctrine of the millennial kingdom, and Irenaeus's prolix argumentation on that matter, which already seemed finished, a preposterous scruple began to seize all the copyists, and they refused to copy further that which seemed to pertain nothing or little to that doctrine. Assuredly the most learned man failed to notice that the aim of Irenaeus in this 5th book neither was, nor could have been, to demonstrate generally from the words of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul that there is one God the Creator of the world, and the same the Father of our Saviour, lest he should do over again what had been done in the preceding books. This he himself declares at the end of Book 4: For since, says he, the words of the Lord are many, and all announce one and the same Father, the Maker of this world, it behoved us also, on account of those who are held in many errors, to refute them through many things, if by any means, refuted through many things, they might be converted to the truth and be saved. What things therefore remained to be done? These two: 1st, after the words of the Lord to subjoin also the teaching of Paul, and to examine his meaning, and to expound the Apostle, and to explain whatever things have received other interpretations from the heretics, who altogether fail to understand what was said by Paul, and to show the madness of their folly;
Editors' notes and page, col. 235
Page
- running head: 235 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A Gregorii M.; B quod Irenaeus; C Pauli scriptis; D rem, eumdemque
- old-edition numerals: CIII after eumdem
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (Gregorii M. aetate...); osten- split at column break
- other: the word ostendere was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 236
: et ab eodem Paulo, ex quo nobis quaestiones inferunt, manifestare illos quidem mendaces, Apostolum vero praedicatorem esse veritatis, et omnia consonantia veritatis praeconio docuisse, unum Deum Patrem, eum qui locutus sit ad Abraham, qui legisdationem fecerit, qui prophetas praemiserit, qui novissimis temporibus Filium suum misit, et salutem suo plasmati donat, quod est carnis substantia. Id ergo primum sibi proponebat Irenaeus, pravas, quas Apostoli verbis haeretici subjiciebant, explicationes confutare : nec hoc tantum, sed et ostendere Apostolum docuisse, non quidem, ut perperam existimavit Grabius, unum esse Deum Patrem qui locutus sit ad Abraham, etc., id enim abunde praestiterat libro tertio, ubi, ut ipse ait in Praefatione libri V, apostolorum doctrina explanata fuerat; sed unum et eumdem Deum Patrem, eum quem ad Abraham locutum fuisse, et legisdationem fecisse jam demonstratum fuerat, novissimis temporibus Filium suum misisse, ut salutem suo plasmati donaret, quod est carnis substantia. Hoc enim argumentum, cum nondum satis hactenus edisseruisset, uberius libro V pertractandum reservaverat. Fuse vero pertractavit ab initio usque ad caput 17. Alterum erat quod Irenaeo agendum restabat, scilicet reliquos sermones Domini, quos quidem non per parabolas, sed simpliciter ipsis dictionibus docuit de Patre, disponere. Quod praestitit a cap. 17 usque ad 25, a quo de Antichristo, tum de millenario Christi regno usque ad libri finem disserere incipit. Scopum igitur cum attigerit Irenaeus, fidemque liberaverit, frustra librum quintum magna parte mutilum esse contendit Grabius.
and from the same Paul, out of whom they bring questions against us, to manifest that they indeed are liars, whereas the Apostle is a preacher of the truth, and taught all things consonant with the proclamation of the truth: one God the Father, the One who spoke to Abraham, who gave the law, who sent the prophets beforehand, who in the last times sent His Son, and bestows salvation upon His own handiwork, which is the substance of the flesh. This therefore Irenaeus first proposed to himself, to refute the perverse explanations which the heretics subjected to the words of the Apostle: and not this only, but also to show that the Apostle taught, not indeed, as Grabe wrongly supposed, that there is one God the Father who spoke to Abraham, etc., for this he had abundantly performed in the third book, where, as he himself says in the Preface of Book 5, the teaching of the apostles had been explained; but that one and the same God the Father, the One who had already been demonstrated to have spoken to Abraham and to have given the law, in the last times sent His Son in order to bestow salvation upon His own handiwork, which is the substance of the flesh. For this subject, since he had not yet sufficiently discoursed upon it hitherto, he had reserved to be handled more fully in Book 5. And he handled it at length from the beginning up to chapter 17. The second thing which remained for Irenaeus to do was namely to arrange the remaining words of the Lord, which He taught concerning the Father not through parables, but simply in the very expressions themselves. Which he performed from chapter 17 up to 25, from which he begins to discourse concerning Antichrist, and then concerning the millennial kingdom of Christ right to the end of the book. Since therefore Irenaeus reached his aim and fulfilled his promise, in vain does Grabe contend that the fifth book is in great part mutilated.
55. De Latinis qui supersunt Irenaei codicibus mss. in Praefatione disserui. De Graecis nihil est quod dicam; nulli enim, qui saltem noti sint, hodie supersunt. Testantur, ait Feuardentius in Commonitione ad lectores suae editioni praefixa, nonnulli pii et docti viri, se Graecum exemplar in Venetiana bibliotheca legisse; alii quoque in Vaticana visum ferunt; quae tamen, addit, ibi postea frustra quaesita sunt. In bibliotheca quidem Vaticana nullum exstare ms. Irenaei codicem Graecum, imo nec jam Latinum, constat. In Veneta vero si quis forsitan esset, quod non puto, suo pulvere sepultus aeternum jaceret. Neque enim istius bibliothecae codicibus lucem aspicere permittitur. Sic factum est, ut archetypus ille Graecus textus, longe elegantior et majori in pretio apud veteres quam Latinus, longe saepius, diutius, et a pluribus Graecis transcriptus, tritus et citatus, quam usquam fuerit a Latinis interpretatio Latina, quae Gregorii M. aetate adeo rara erat, ut nulli ejusdem codices reperiri potuerint, hac tamen salva et superstite perierit. Illius enim non tantum Gregorii aevo, sed diu post, frequentes exstitere codices, ut patet ex Germano Constantinopolitano, Photio, Joanne Damasceno et aliis pluribus, qui hunc allegarunt : quanquam tamen non existimem ea omnia
55. Concerning the Latin manuscript codices of Irenaeus which survive I have discoursed in the Preface. Concerning the Greek ones there is nothing for me to say; for none, at least that are known, survive today. Some pious and learned men testify, says Feuardent in the Admonition to the readers prefixed to his edition, that they have read a Greek copy in the Venetian library; others also report that one was seen in the Vatican; which however, he adds, were afterwards sought there in vain. In the Vatican library indeed it is established that there exists no Greek manuscript codex of Irenaeus, nay, not even a Latin one now. And in the Venetian, if perchance there were any, which I do not think, it would lie forever buried in its own dust. For the codices of that library are not permitted to behold the light. Thus it has come to pass that that original Greek text, far more elegant and held in greater value among the ancients than the Latin, and transcribed, handled and cited far more often, longer, and by more Greeks than the Latin translation ever was by Latins — which in the age of Gregory the Great was so rare that no codices of it could be found — has nevertheless perished while the latter remained safe and surviving. For of the former, not only in the age of Gregory, but long after, frequent codices existed, as is clear from Germanus of Constantinople, Photius, John Damascene and many others who alleged him: although I do not think that all those
Editors' notes and page, col. 236
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 236
- marginal letters: A dere : et; B libri V; C incipit. Scopum; D quis forsitan
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (dere : et ab eodem...); dere split from preceding column; om- split at column break
- other: the word omnia was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 237
Graeca Irenaei fragmenta quae in Joannis Damasceni ms. cod. Claromontano inserta leguntur, ab ipso Joanne Damasceno exscripta fuisse. A Graeco recentiori collecta fuisse videntur. Sed de hoc fusius disserit is qui novam editionem operum S. Joannis Damasceni adornavit, vir eruditione singulari, nec minori humanitate conspicuus, R. P. Michael Lequien, ordinis Praedicatorum, t. II ejusdem editionis. Sunt qui putant, nec improbabiliter, praeter Latinam quinque Irenaei librorum interpretationem, alteram Syriacam exstitisse. Nam Ephrem diaconus Edessenus, qui Graece nesciebat, integrum ex lib. I, c. 8, n. 1, locum exscripsit, inseruitque capitulo 8 Tractatus De virtute; qui quidem Tractatus ei vulgo ascribitur, nec, quin ascribatur, quidquam repugnat.
Greek fragments of Irenaeus which are read inserted in the Clermont manuscript codex of John Damascene were copied out by John Damascene himself. They seem to have been collected by a more recent Greek. But on this matter he who has prepared the new edition of the works of St John Damascene discourses more at length, a man conspicuous for singular erudition and no less courtesy, the Reverend Father Michel Lequien, of the Order of Preachers, in volume 2 of the same edition. There are some who think, and not improbably, that besides the Latin translation of the five books of Irenaeus, there existed another, a Syriac one. For Ephrem, the deacon of Edessa, who did not know Greek, copied out an entire passage from Book 1, chapter 8, no. 1, and inserted it into chapter 8 of his Treatise On Virtue; which Treatise indeed is commonly ascribed to him, nor does anything militate against its being ascribed to him.
56. Id vero utrique textui, tum Graeco, tum Latino commune fuit, ut divisus quidem in libros quinque, nullis vero capitibus, aut capitum argumentis distinctus prodierit. Divisionem in libros quinque indicat ipse Irenaeus in fine et initio cujusque libri, ubi insuper summatim repetitis iis quae praecedenti libro pertractaverat, sequentis argumentum dilucide ac breviter aperit. Sed deinceps continuum procedit orationis filum, sicque contextum, ut nulla partitionis cujuscunque se prodant vestigia, nullae transitiones, aut aliud quidpiam quod capitis unius finem et initium, aut stylum interruptum probet. Hinc qui e veteribus Irenaeum allegarunt, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Augustinus et alii librum saepe designant, caput vero aut quodvis alius divisionis genus, nusquam. Hinc etiam in omnibus mss. codicibus Latinis liber quintus continuo nec interrupto stylo ab initio ad finem usque procedit, nullaque apparent capita, capitumque argumenta. Primi omnium hunc in capita secuerunt Gallasius et Feuardentius, quanquam nec eodem modo, praefixo unicuique capiti suo argumento. Nam antea Erasmus et Grynaeus librum hunc ediderant, qualem mss. codices exhibebant. Hinc denique nec in aliis libris, in secundo praesertim, secum invicem consentiunt mss. codices, in quibus alia atque alia divisio occurrit; in his longiora capita, in illis breviora; in istis major capitum numerus, in illis minor. Quam etiam in suos codices invexere divisionem recentiores Graeci, a Latina procul discedebat; minutiora quippe illius quam hujus capita, ut solerter colligit doctissimus Grabius ex Procopii Gazaei Comment. in cap. III Geneseos, ubi ea quae Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 23 (alias 38), n. 5, de pelliceo Adami vestimento docet, tanquam ex cap. 59 et 65 allegat. Quibus omnibus id conficitur, Irenaeum de textu in certa capita dividendo ne cogitasse quidem, imo nec veterem interpretem. Divisionis hujus auctores, recentiores quipiam, seu librarii, seu alii quivis; sed adeo imperiti, judicioque destituti, ut omnia susque deque miscentes, orationisque filum temere ac perperam abrumpentes, ea plerumque secuerint,
56. Now this was common to both texts, both the Greek and the Latin, that while divided into five books, it appeared distinguished by no chapters or summaries of chapters. Irenaeus himself indicates the division into five books at the end and beginning of each book, where moreover, having summarily repeated the things which he had handled in the preceding book, he clearly and briefly opens the subject of the following one. But thereafter the thread of the discourse proceeds continuously, and so woven together that no traces of any partition whatever betray themselves, no transitions, or anything else that would prove the end and beginning of a single chapter, or an interrupted style. Hence those of the ancients who have alleged Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine and others, often designate the book, but a chapter or any kind of another division, nowhere. Hence also in all the Latin manuscript codices the fifth book proceeds in a continuous and uninterrupted style from the beginning right to the end, and no chapters or summaries of chapters appear. Des Gallars and Feuardent were the first of all to cut this book into chapters, though not in the same way, prefixing to each chapter its own summary. For previously Erasmus and Grynaeus had published this book such as the manuscript codices exhibited it. Hence finally in the other books also, in the second especially, the manuscript codices do not agree with one another, in which one and another division occurs; in these longer chapters, in those shorter; in these a greater number of chapters, in those a smaller. The division also which more recent Greeks brought into their codices departed far from the Latin; inasmuch as the chapters of the former were minuter than those of the latter, as the most learned Grabe shrewdly gathers from the Commentary of Procopius of Gaza on chapter 3 of Genesis, where he alleges the things which Irenaeus in Book 3, chapter 23 (otherwise 38), no. 5, teaches concerning Adam's garment of skins, as if from chapters 59 and 65. By all of which this is established, that Irenaeus did not even think of dividing the text into definite chapters, nay, nor did the ancient translator. The authors of this division were some more recent persons, whether copyists or anyone else; but so unskilful and destitute of judgement that, confounding all things up and down, and rashly and wrongly breaking off the thread of the discourse, they for the most part severed those things
Editors' notes and page, col. 237
Page
- running head: 237 DISSERTATIO II, ART. II, DE IRENAEI
- marginal letters: A nia Graeca; B bitur, nec; C Augustinus et; D capitum numerus
- old-edition numerals: CIV after argumenta.
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (nia Graeca Irenaei...); nia split from preceding column
quae continua esse debebant, et saepissime ab iis verbis novum caput inceperint, quae vix colo distinguenda erant a praecedentibus. Uno verbo textum misere lacerarunt, potius quam diviserunt. Hujus rei experimentum fieri potest in omnibus quae hactenus prodierunt Irenaei editionibus. Eadem judicii maturitate atque solertia concinnata, quae singulis quatuor priorum librorum capitibus praefixa leguntur argumenta. Ex veteris quidem interpretis verbis plerumque condita sunt, novis tamen non raro fabricatis, quasi de barbarie sermonis contentio fuisset; sed adeo insulse atque inepte disposita, ut saepissime vel nihil minus quam subjecti capitis scopum atque consilium, vel id perperam, vel levissimam duntaxat ejusdem particulam, eamque minus praecipuam, lectoribus exhibeant. Antiquissima quidem ea esse non negaverim, utpote quae in vetustioribus quibusque mss. codicibus, quanquam alia atque alia ratione collocata, occurrant. Sed quamtumvis antiqua sint, ex quo certum est Irenaeum ipsum auctorem non habere, lectoribusque incommodo potius quam levamento esse, haud aliter spectanda quam ut imperiti cujuspiam opus illi Irenaei perperam additum.
which ought to have been continuous, and very often began a new chapter from those words which ought scarcely to have been distinguished by a colon from the preceding ones. In a word, they wretchedly mangled the text rather than divided it. Trial of this matter can be made in all the editions of Irenaeus which have hitherto appeared. Put together with the same maturity of judgement and shrewdness are the summaries which are read prefixed to the individual chapters of the first four books. They are indeed for the most part framed out of the words of the ancient translator, though with new ones not seldom coined, as if there had been a rivalry over barbarism of speech; but so foolishly and ineptly arranged that very often they exhibit to the readers either nothing less than the aim and design of the chapter subjoined, or that wrongly, or only the slightest particle of the same, and that the less principal one. That they are indeed most ancient I would not deny, inasmuch as they occur in all the older manuscript codices, though placed in one and another way. But however ancient they may be, since it is certain that they do not have Irenaeus himself for their author, and are an inconvenience rather than a relief to readers, they are to be regarded no otherwise than as the work of some unskilful person wrongly added to that of Irenaeus.
57. Utrique malo, ineptae videlicet Irenaei textus divisioni, et ineptioribus adhuc argumentis consulendum esse dudum censent eruditi. Posteriori jam consuluerat Joannes Jacobus Grynaeus in sua Irenaei editione; nam veteribus maxima ex parte sublatis, novas, easque aptiores capitum περιοχὰς adjecit. Displicuit consilium Feuardentio, nam veteres summulas restituit; eo nomine, ut puto, quod antiquae essent : quasi rebus absurdis auctoritatem et pretium adderet antiquitas. Displicuit et Grabio, qui male a Grynaeo factum palam pronuntiat. An vero melius a Grabio ipso? Judicium penes lectores esto. Sic enim vetera argumenta restituit, ut spreta codicum auctoritate, qua tamen sola fretus retinenda ea esse censuit, proprio arbitratu disposuerit, transposueritque, interdum uno et eodem in plura dissecto, interdum pluribus in unum congestis. Ex quo factum, ut pluribus capitibus aliquando idem, aliquando etiam nullum omnino, aliquando quod nihil aut parum conveniat, argumentum praefigatur. Tutius forte ab omnibus iis incommodis sese expediret, qui rem ad Irenaei institutum revocans, textum ejus nullis capitibus et argumentis distinctum ederet. Haecque fuit doctorum aliquot hominum, quos consuluimus, sed paucorum, sententia. Alii vero, iique multo plures, secus sensere; eorumque judicium praevaluit, hac potissimum ratione nixum, quod lector divisioni et argumentis jam assuetus non modicam ex iis, si modo recte fiant, utilitatem colligere possit. Quare nova et commodiori capitum instituta divisione, nova singulis argumenta praefiximus, quibus uniuscujusque scopus et consilium lectoris oculis summatim exhibetur, ut jam in Praefatione diximus.
57. That a remedy must be provided for both evils, namely the inept division of the text of Irenaeus, and the still more inept summaries, the learned have long judged. For the latter Johann Jakob Grynaeus had already provided in his edition of Irenaeus; for having removed the ancient ones for the most part, he added new and more suitable περιοχαὶ [contents] of the chapters. The plan displeased Feuardent, for he restored the ancient summaries; on that account, as I think, because they were ancient: as if antiquity added authority and value to absurd things. It displeased Grabe also, who openly pronounces that it was badly done by Grynaeus. Was it done any better by Grabe himself? Let the judgement rest with the readers. For he so restored the ancient summaries that, spurning the authority of the codices, relying upon which alone he had nevertheless judged that they ought to be retained, he arranged and transposed them at his own discretion, sometimes cutting up one and the same into several, sometimes heaping several together into one. From which it has come to pass that to several chapters there is prefixed sometimes the same summary, sometimes even none at all, sometimes one that agrees nothing or little with them. More safely perhaps would he extricate himself from all those inconveniences who, recalling the matter to the plan of Irenaeus, should publish his text distinguished by no chapters and summaries. And this was the opinion of some learned men whom we consulted, though few. Others however, and those much more numerous, thought otherwise; and their judgement prevailed, resting chiefly on this reason, that the reader already accustomed to a division and summaries can gather no moderate advantage from them, provided only they are rightly made. Wherefore, having instituted a new and more convenient division of chapters, we have prefixed new summaries to each, by which the aim and design of each is summarily exhibited to the eyes of the reader, as we have already said in the Preface.
Editors' notes and page, col. 238
Page
- running head: II, DE IRENAEI LIBRIS ADV. HAERESES. 238
- marginal letters: A quae continua; B culam, eamque; C sublatis, novas; D niat, argumentum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (quae continua...)
ARTICULUS III.
THIRD ARTICLE.
DE ALIIS IRENAEI SCRIPTIS.
ON THE OTHER WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS.
58. Pluribus aliis, iisque egregiis operibus Christianam et catholicam fidem illustravit Irenaeus; sed quae temporum injuria sic excidere, ut ea duntaxat supersint fragmenta, quae suis in scriptis servaverunt antiqui Patres. Scripsit adversus Florinum epistolam, cujus insigne fragmentum transcripsit Eusebius, et nos ex ipso ad calcem hujus operis edidimus. Florinus vero, Irenaeo teste, in imperatoris aula splendide agens, munus aliquod gesserat in inferiore Asia, cum ibi sanctitatis et doctrinae laude floreret Polycarpus. Tanti viri fama permotus, se in ejus disciplinam tradidit, nihilque non egit ut sese ipsi probaret. Factus postea Romanae Ecclesiae presbyter, tum in errorem lapsus, aliorumque fidem sollicitans ut ejusdem erroris reos faceret, gradu dejectus est. Condiscipuli, quem apud Polycarpum viderat noveratque, casum dolens Irenaeus, eumque ab errore revocare cupiens, scripsit adversus eum epistolam Περὶ τῆς μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν, De monarchia, sive quod Deus non sit conditor malorum. Ταύτης γάρ τοι τῆς γνώμης, addit Eusebius, οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν, eam enim opinionem hic defendere videbatur. Quae quidem sic explicat H. Valesius, quasi Florinus, Marcionis et Cerdonis dogmatibus adhaerens, duo principia invexisset, alterum bonorum, alterum malorum auctorem. Sed repugnat Irenaeus scribens, Florini dogmata ne quidem haereticos extra Ecclesiam positos proferre unquam ausos fuisse. Gravior igitur quam Cerdonis ac Marcionis erat Florini error: ac proinde in eo positus fuisse videtur, quod non, ut illi, duplicem Deum, alterum boni, alterum mali auctorem fingeret; sed in unum et eumdem Deum, tanquam in causam, mala omnia ac peccata refunderet: quod revera nullus hactenus haereticus proferre ausus fuerat. Unde licet pro μοναρχίᾳ, seu principii unitate contra Marcionitas cum Catholicis decertaret, hanc tamen pejus illis violabat, dum malis omnibus contaminabat. Irenaeus vero retinendam esse μοναρχίαν, nec tamen malorum labe aspergendam esse, tam vere quam pie contendebat. Quam vero a pestifera Florini doctrina alienus exstitisset, quamque nefarium dogma exhorruisset Polycarpus, quem dudum praeceptorem audierat, ei ob oculos ponit: ut tanti praeceptoris memoria devium in catholicae veritatis viam efficacius reduceret. Philastrius Florianorum quorumdam haereticorum meminit; sed quos Carpocratianorum surculum
58. Irenaeus shed light on the Christian and Catholic faith with many other works, and outstanding ones; but these have so perished through the injury of time that only those fragments survive which the ancient Fathers preserved in their own writings. He wrote a letter against Florinus, a notable fragment of which Eusebius transcribed, and which we have published from him at the end of this work. Now Florinus, on Irenaeus's testimony, living splendidly at the emperor's court, had held some office in lower Asia at the time when Polycarp flourished there with the praise of holiness and learning. Moved by the fame of so great a man, he gave himself over to his teaching, and left nothing undone to win his approval. Made afterwards a presbyter of the Roman Church, then falling into error and tempting the faith of others so as to make them guilty of the same error, he was cast down from his rank. Irenaeus, grieving at the fall of his fellow disciple, whom he had seen and known at Polycarp's side, and desiring to call him back from error, wrote against him a letter Περὶ τῆς μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν, On the Monarchy, or That God Is Not the Maker of Evils. For this man, Eusebius adds, seemed to champion this opinion: for he seemed to defend that opinion. H. Valesius explains this as though Florinus, adhering to the doctrines of Marcion and Cerdo, had brought in two principles, one the author of good things, the other of evil things. But Irenaeus contradicts this, writing that not even the heretics placed outside the Church had ever dared to put forward the doctrines of Florinus. Florinus's error, then, was graver than that of Cerdo and Marcion: and it seems therefore to have consisted in this, that he did not, as they did, invent a double God, one the author of good, the other of evil, but poured back all evils and sins upon one and the same God, as upon their cause: which in truth no heretic had so far dared to put forward. Hence, although he contended alongside the Catholics against the Marcionites for the monarchy, that is, the unity of the principle, he nevertheless violated it worse than they, in that he defiled it with all evils. Irenaeus, however, contended as truly as piously that the monarchy must be retained, and yet must not be spattered with the stain of evils. He sets before his eyes how far removed Polycarp, whom he had long ago heard as his teacher, had been from Florinus's pestilential doctrine, and how he would have shuddered at the abominable dogma: so that the memory of so great a teacher might more effectively lead the wanderer back into the way of Catholic truth. Philastrius mentions certain heretics called Floriani; but these, as an offshoot of the Carpocratians,
Editors' notes and page, col. 239
Footnotes
(16) ‹anchor: transcripsit Eusebius› · call in col 239
Lib. V, c. 20.
Book V, chapter 20.
(printed under page 126)
(17) ‹anchor: ut sese ipsi probaret.› · call in col 239
Ibid., c. 15.
In the same place, chapter 15.
(printed under page 126)
(18) ‹anchor: casum dolens Irenaeus› · call in col 239
Ibid., c. 20.
In the same place, chapter 20.
(printed under page 126)
(19) ‹anchor: reduceret. Philastrius› · call in col 239
Cap. 57.
Chapter 57.
(printed under page 126)
(20) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 239 or 240 (unconfirmed)
Dogm., c. 76.
On Dogmas, chapter 76 (the first digit is damaged in the print; 7 is the likely reading).
(printed under page 126)
Page
- running head: 239 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
- marginal letters: A 58. Pluribus; B gradu dejectus; C Cerdonis ac; D quem dudum
- old-edition numerals: CV after nefarium
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width lines at head of column before 58 (ARTICULUS III. / DE ALIIS IRENAEI SCRIPTIS.) cut off at right edge, not set; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (58. Pluribus aliis...)
- running head: 239 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 240 (the left column number is printed blurred, like 230)
- marginal letters: A ‹58. Pluribus aliis, iisque egregiis operibus›; B ‹gradu dejectus est. Condiscipuli›; C ‹ferre unquam ausos fuisse. Gravior igitur quam›; D ‹quem dudum praeceptorem audierat, ei ob oculos›
- old-edition numerals: [CV] after ‹nefarium› (mid-line, left out)
- note 20's call is not in col 239 (all calls printed in col 239 are 16, 17, 18, 19); it stands in col 240.
esse dicit. Gennadius vero Florianum, seu Florinum culpat, quod carnem mali causam esse crediderit. Quae quidem, si uterque Florinum nostrum intellexerit, non omnino cum Eusebio et Irenaeo, quibus potior fides, consentiunt. Quidquid sit, Florinus Irenaei rationibus et argumentis victus, non tamen convictus, ne hinc Deum ipsum auctorem mali faceret, illinc vero a μοναρχίᾳ, quam hactenus propugnaverat, deficiens, cum Cerdone et Marcione duplicem Deum induceret; mediam, ut sibi videbatur, inter utrumque extremum Valentini sententiam amplexus, cum eo insanire maluit quam cum Catholicis sapere. Quare Irenaeus illius salutis semper sollicitus, eumque e novo illo, in quod praeceps sese dederat, barathro extrahere studens, scripsit librum Περὶ ὀγδοάδος, De ogdoade, vel, ut habet Hieronymus in Catalogo, De octava, cujus clausulam duntaxat refert Eusebius. Utinam saltem opusculi, seu, ut vocat, σπουδάσματος illius argumentum exhibuisset. Id fuisse videtur, ut famosam Valentinianorum ogdoada, seu primigenum illum Aeonum octonarium, caeterorum omnium radicem, brevi scripto selectisque rationibus convelleret; quem fusiori stylo vel jam exagitaverat, vel tum exagitabat in longiori illo De detectione et eversione falso cognominatae agnitionis. Nec enim mihi constat, an jam ad umbilicum perductum esset hoc opus. Scribit quidem Theodoretus, non affirmat tamen (ferunt, inquit), Irenaeum Florini morbum deplorantem, scripsisse adversus Valentinum. Sed incertum an quinque Detectionis et eversionis libros, an breve illud Περὶ ὀγδοάδος opusculum intellexerit. Utrumque enim adversus Valentinum scriptum fuisse videtur.
he describes. Gennadius, for his part, blames Florianus, or Florinus, for having believed that the flesh is the cause of evil. These statements, if both of them meant our Florinus, do not altogether agree with Eusebius and Irenaeus, who deserve greater credence. Be that as it may, Florinus, beaten by Irenaeus's reasons and arguments, yet not convinced, so as not, on the one side, to make God Himself the author of evil, nor, on the other, falling away from the monarchy which he had defended until then, to bring in a double God with Cerdo and Marcion, embraced the opinion of Valentinus, midway, as it seemed to him, between the two extremes, and preferred to be mad with him rather than wise with the Catholics. Wherefore Irenaeus, ever anxious for his salvation, and striving to drag him out of that new abyss into which he had thrown himself headlong, wrote the book Περὶ ὀγδοάδος, On the Ogdoad, or, as Jerome has it in the Catalogue, On the Eighth, of which Eusebius quotes only the closing words. Would that he had at least set out the argument of that little work, or, as he calls it, σπουδάσματος ("study")! It seems to have been this: to overthrow, in a short writing and with chosen reasons, the famous ogdoad of the Valentinians, that is, that first-begotten eightfold set of Aeons, the root of all the rest; which he had either already attacked in a fuller style, or was then attacking, in that longer work On the Detection and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called. For it is not clear to me whether this work had already been brought to its end. Theodoret indeed writes, though he does not affirm it (they say, he says), that Irenaeus, lamenting Florinus's sickness, wrote against Valentinus. But it is uncertain whether he meant the five books of the Detection and Overthrow or that short little work Περὶ ὀγδοάδος. For both seem to have been written against Valentinus.
59. Scripsit Irenaeus alteram epistolam adversus Blastum, quam inscripsit Περὶ σχίσματος, De schismate. Hic quoque presbyter Romanae Ecclesiae σὺν τούτῳ (Φλωρίνῳ) παραπλησίῳ πτώματι κατεσχημένος, non simili errore cum Florino implicatus fuerat, ut perperam vertit Valesius, sed similem cum illo depositionis sententiam exceperat. Utrique quidem hoc commune fuit, quod multos ab Ecclesiae gremio abstrahentes, in suam sententiam perducerent, et τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θεσμὸν, sinceram Ecclesiae legem adulterarent; sed praeterea θάτερος, alter, Florinus videlicet, non uterque, ut hic etiam male reddidit Valesius, seorsim novam doctrinam adversus fidei veritatem invehere laborabat. Utrumque in Valentini haeresim incidisse
59. Irenaeus wrote another letter, against Blastus, which he entitled Περὶ σχίσματος, On Schism. This man too, a presbyter of the Roman Church, σὺν τούτῳ (Φλωρίνῳ) παραπλησίῳ πτώματι κατεσχημένος ("overtaken together with him (Florinus) by a like fall"), had not been entangled in an error like Florinus's, as Valesius wrongly translates, but had received a sentence of deposition like his. This indeed was common to both, that drawing many away from the bosom of the Church they brought them over to their own opinion, and adulterated τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θεσμὸν, the sound law of the Church; but besides this θάτερος, the one of them, namely Florinus, not both, as Valesius has also rendered badly here, laboured separately to bring in a new doctrine against the truth of the faith. That both fell into the heresy of Valentinus
Editors' notes and page, col. 240
Footnotes
(20) ‹anchor: Gennadius vero› · call in col 240
Dogm., c. 76.
On Dogmas, chapter 76 (the first digit is damaged in the print; 7 is the likely reading).
(printed under page 126)
(21) ‹anchor: duntaxat refert Eusebius› · call in col 240
C. 20.
Chapter 20.
(printed under page 126)
(22) ‹anchor: Scribit quidem Theodoretus› · call in col 240
L. I, c. 23.
Book I, chapter 23.
(printed under page 126)
(23) ‹anchor: 59.› · call in col 240
Euseb., c. 15 et 20.
Eusebius, chapters 15 and 20.
(printed under page 126)
Page
- running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 240
- marginal letters: A esse dicit; B studens, scripsit; C naeum Florini; D ceram Ecclesiae
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width lines at head of column before esse dicit (ARTICULUS III. / DE ALIIS IRENAEI SCRIPTIS.) cut off at left edge, not set; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (esse dicit. Gennadius...)
- running head: 239 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 240
- marginal letters: A ‹esse dicit. Gennadius›; B ‹studens, scripsit librum Περὶ ὀγδοάδος›; C ‹naeum Florini morbum deplorantem›; D ‹ceram Ecclesiae legem adulterarent›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other (Q3): note 20's call is printed in col 240 after ‹Gennadius› (line 1); the note is set here. Its entry in notes/n239.md (anchor unconfirmed) is a duplicate, to be removed when that column is next written.
- other (Q3): the English opens with "he describes." for ‹esse dicit›, which completes the col 239 sentence (‹sed quos Carpocratianorum surculum›).
significat Theodoretus citatus, postea vero Blastum inter Marcionis discipulos annumerat; sed praeter Eusebii et Irenaei mentem : una schismatis culpa tenebatur Blastus; unde et inscripta adversus eum epistola, De schismate. Quae vero schismatis hujus causa fuerit, docet antiquus auctor Additamenti quod ad calcem libri De praescriptionibus exstat apud Tertullianum : quod nimirum Blastus latenter Judaismum vellet introducere : Pascha enim dicebat non aliter custodiendum esse, nisi secundum legem Moysi, XIV mensis. Quae etiam Florini culpa fuit : idque significat Eusebius, dum ait sinceram Ecclesiae (non dicit, fidem, sed) legem adulteratam ab utroque fuisse. Cum enim alter Polycarpi discipulus fuisset, alter, Paciano teste, Graecus esset, Asianum Paschatis celebrandi morem Romam inducere satagebant : sicque Pascha praeter hujus Ecclesiae consuetudinem celebrantes, eam scindebant turbabantque. Merito proinde Pacianus Blastum Montanistis adhaesisse scribit; non quod novis prophetis fidem adhiberet, sed quod et ipsi Montanistae Pascha luna XIV primi mensis celebrandum esse vellent. Porro utraque Irenaei tum adversus Florinum, tum adversus Blastum epistola eodem tempore scripta videtur. Quo vero anno, incertum. Cum tamen Eusebius utramque ad Commodi imperium et Eleutheri pontificatum referat, sub utriusque finem scriptam fuisse probabilius videtur.
Theodoret, as cited, indicates, and afterwards he reckons Blastus among the disciples of Marcion; but contrary to the mind of Eusebius and Irenaeus: Blastus was held by the sole fault of schism; whence also the epistle against him was entitled, On Schism. Now what the cause of this schism was, the ancient author of the Addition which stands at the end of the book On Prescriptions in Tertullian teaches: namely that Blastus secretly wished to introduce Judaism: for he said that Easter must not be kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses, on the 14th of the month. Which was also the fault of Florinus: and Eusebius signifies this when he says that the sound law (he does not say faith, but law) of the Church was adulterated by both. For since the one had been a disciple of Polycarp, and the other, as Pacian witnesses, was a Greek, they were busy introducing the Asian custom of celebrating Easter into Rome: and thus celebrating Easter contrary to the custom of this Church, they rent and disturbed it. Deservedly therefore Pacian writes that Blastus adhered to the Montanists; not that he gave credit to the new prophets, but because the Montanists themselves also wished Easter to be celebrated on the 14th moon of the first month. Furthermore, each epistle of Irenaeus, both that against Florinus and that against Blastus, seems to have been written at the same time. In what year, however, is uncertain. Yet since Eusebius refers both to the reign of Commodus and the pontificate of Eleutherus, it seems more probable that each was written towards the end of both.
60. De aliis, quas tum ad Victorem papam, tum ad alios scripsit Irenaeus, epistolis de festo Paschatis, disseruimus in ejus Vita. Ex aliqua istarum epistolarum depromptum videtur, quod ex Irenaeo citat auctor Quaestionum et Resp. ad Orthod. inter opera Justini, quaest. 115, non flectendum esse genu, neque Dominico die, neque 50 illis quae sequuntur Pascha. Editum ab eodem Irenaeo πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγον συντομώτατον καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατον, περὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐπιγεγραμμένον, brevissimum et in primis necessarium librum, seu potius Sermonem, vel Orationem adversus Graecos, vel, ut vertunt alii, adversus gentes, qui De scientia inscribebatur, memorat Eusebius : cujus mentem perperam accepit, aliisque perperam accipiendi ansam dedit Hieronymus, dum ait in Catalogo, scriptum ab Irenaeo contra gentes volumen breve, et de disciplina aliud : quasi opusculum contra gentes ab illo de disciplina seu scientia diversum fuisset. Meminit uterque alterius Irenaei Sermonis Marciano fratri nuncupati, qui demonstrationem continebat apostolicae praedicationis, et libelli Διαλέξεων διαφόρων, Variarum disputationum, vel, ut vertit Hieronymus, Variorum tractatuum, in quo Epistolae ad Hebraeos et Sapientiae Salomonis mentionem faciebat, et quasdam sententias ex istis libris adducebat. Quis vero esset auctoris in his omnibus opusculis seu libris scopus, quodve consilium, tacentibus
60. Concerning the other epistles on the feast of Easter which Irenaeus wrote both to Pope Victor and to others, we have discoursed in his Life. From one of those epistles seems to have been drawn what the author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox among the works of Justin, question 115, cites from Irenaeus, that the knee must not be bent either on the Lord's day, or on those 50 days which follow Easter. Eusebius records as published by the same Irenaeus πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγον συντομώτατον καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατον, περὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐπιγεγραμμένον, a very brief and especially necessary book, or rather Discourse, or Oration against the Greeks, or, as others render it, against the Gentiles, which was entitled On Knowledge: whose meaning Jerome wrongly took, and gave handle to others to take wrongly, when he says in his Catalogue that there was written by Irenaeus a brief volume against the Gentiles, and another on discipline: as if the little work against the Gentiles had been different from that on discipline or knowledge. Both make mention of another Discourse of Irenaeus dedicated to his brother Marcianus, which contained a demonstration of the apostolic preaching, and of a little book Διαλέξεων διαφόρων, Of Various Disputations, or, as Jerome renders it, Of Various Treatises, in which he made mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon, and adduced certain sentences from those books. Now what the author's aim or what his design was in all these little works or books, since there is silence on the part of
Editors' notes and page, col. 241
Footnotes
(24) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 241 or 242 (unconfirmed)
De praescr., c. 53.
On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 53.
(printed under page 127)
(25) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 241 or 242 (unconfirmed)
Ep. 4.
Letter 4.
(printed under page 127)
(26) ‹anchor: memorat Eusebius› · call in col 241
Lib. V, c. 26.
Book V, chapter 26.
(printed under page 127)
(27) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 241 or 242 (unconfirmed)
Lib. I, cap. 27, n. 4, et lib. III, c. 12, n. 13.
Book I, chapter 27, number 4, and book III, chapter 12, number 13.
(printed under page 127)
(28) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 241 or 242 (unconfirmed)
Lib. V, c. 8.
Book V, chapter 8.
(printed under page 127)
(29) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 241 or 242 (unconfirmed)
Lib. IV, cap. 25.
Book IV, chapter 25.
(printed under page 127)
(30) ‹anchor: call not visible in the foot images› · call in col 241 or 242 (unconfirmed)
T. II, p. 152.
Vol. II, p. 152.
(printed under page 127)
Page
- running head: 241 DISSERTATIO II, ART. III, DE ALIIS
- marginal letters: A significat Theodoretus; B cipulus fuisset; C 60. De aliis; D ansam dedit
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (significat Theodoretus...); ta- split at column break
veteribus, dici non potest : soli sagacissimo Dodwello dicere licet, qui plura de iis pro more disputat, nec verbis et conjecturis parcit; sed Dodwellianae conjecturae sunt, quas qui legerit, miratur et dissertatorem multa dixisse ut nihil diceret, lectorem vero multa legisse ut nihil disceret. Pollicitus est Irenaeus, nec semel, Marcionem speciatim se confutaturum, hujusque promissi meminit Eusebius. At liberatam ab Irenaeo fidem satis significat idem Eusebius, cum eum recenset inter illos qui Marcionem egregiis operibus confutarunt. Citat Maximus abbas et confessor quosdam Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis Sermones de Fide, ad Demetrium Viennensem diaconum, quorum etiam initium et sententias aliquas Graece refert. Aliud fragmentum ex sermone ad Demetrium edidit Feuardentius, sed Latine duntaxat : quod quidem a N. Fabro accepisse se dicit; sed unde hic acceperit, dicere omisit. Si Graeca adessent, emendatius forte prodire posset. At cum ejusmodi sermones Eusebio et Hieronymo ignoti fuerint, dubium est an genuini sint Irenaei fetus. Paulo aliter sentiendum puto de iis quae Irenaeo tribuit verbis OEcumenius in Comment. ad I Petri Epist. cap. III. Haud dubitem quin deprompta sint ex celebri Lugdunensium et Viennensium de martyribus suis epistola, quam ab Irenaeo ipso scriptam fuisse valde probabile esse diximus, confirmatque is OEcumenii locus. Hic enim ea desumpsisse se dicit ex iis quae scripsit Irenaeus Περὶ Σάγκτου καὶ Βλανδίνης, De Sancto et Blandina; non quidem verbo ad verbum, sed compendium verborum faciens : ὡς δὲ διὰ βραχέων παραθέσθαι ἔστι ταῦτα. Et revera quae ibi de Sancto et Blandina recitat OEcumenius, ad ea quae in citata Lugdunensium epistola referuntur, satis quadrant : adeo ut aliunde accipi potuisse non videantur.
the ancients, cannot be said: only the most sagacious Dodwell is allowed to say, who disputes much about them according to his custom, and spares neither words nor conjectures; but they are Dodwellian conjectures, on reading which one wonders both that the dissertator said much in order to say nothing, and that the reader read much in order to learn nothing. Irenaeus promised, and more than once, that he would specially refute Marcion, and Eusebius makes mention of this promise. And the same Eusebius sufficiently signifies that Irenaeus fulfilled his promise, when he reckons him among those who refuted Marcion in noble works. Maximus the abbot and confessor cites certain Discourses on Faith of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, to Demetrius, deacon of Vienne, the beginning and some sentences of which he also reports in Greek. Feuardent published another fragment from the discourse to Demetrius, but in Latin only: which indeed he says he received from N. Lefèvre; but whence the latter received it, he omitted to say. If the Greek were present, it could perhaps appear in a more emended state. Yet since discourses of that sort were unknown to Eusebius and Jerome, it is doubtful whether they are genuine offspring of Irenaeus. I think we should judge a little otherwise concerning those words which Oecumenius attributes to Irenaeus in his Commentary on the First Epistle of Peter, chapter 3. I should have no doubt that they were drawn from the celebrated epistle of the people of Lyons and Vienne concerning their martyrs, which we have said was very probably written by Irenaeus himself, and this passage of Oecumenius confirms it. For he says that he took them from the things which Irenaeus wrote Περὶ Σάγκτου καὶ Βλανδίνης, Concerning Sanctus and Blandina; not indeed word for word, but making an abridgement of the words: ὡς δὲ διὰ βραχέων παραθέσθαι ἔστι ταῦτα [and to set them forth in brief, they are these]. And in reality the things which Oecumenius recites there concerning Sanctus and Blandina square well enough with what is reported in the cited epistle of the people of Lyons: so that they do not seem able to have been taken from elsewhere.
61. Explicatam ab Irenaeo Joannis Apocalypsin tradit Hieronymus in Catalogo : quam, inquit, interpretantur Justinus Martyr et Irenaeus. Hinc tamen colligi posse non puto integros ab Irenaeo editos fuisse Commentarios in Apocalypsin; nec ea Hieronymi mens fuisse videtur. Respiciebat Hieronymus ad varia Apocalypseos loca, quae in suis quinque libris explicat Irenaeus, et praesertim in quinto, sub cujus finem de millenario Christi regno, et de Antichristo disserens, plura sacri hujusce libri testimonia interpretatur, et ad institutum accommodat. Quidam, Photio teste, Irenaeo ascribebant librum cui titulus, De Universo seu De substantia mundi. Sed Caii presbyteri Romani, et Irenaei discipuli, opus esse verisimilius est. De aliis quae ad calcem edidimus Irenaei fragmentis, proprio loco diximus. Haec sunt quae de tanti viri scriptis dicenda nobis erant. Jam de variis doctrinae ejus capitibus sermo instituendus est.
61. Jerome relates in his Catalogue that the Apocalypse of John was explained by Irenaeus: which, says he, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus interpret. Yet I do not think it can be gathered hence that complete Commentaries on the Apocalypse were published by Irenaeus; nor does that seem to have been the mind of Jerome. Jerome was looking to various passages of the Apocalypse which Irenaeus explains in his five books, and especially in the fifth, towards the end of which, discoursing on the millennial kingdom of Christ and on Antichrist, he interprets several testimonies of this sacred book and adapts them to his purpose. Certain persons, as Photius witnesses, ascribed to Irenaeus a book entitled On the Universe or On the Substance of the World. But it is more likely that it is the work of Caius, the Roman presbyter and disciple of Irenaeus. Concerning the other fragments of Irenaeus which we have published at the end, we have spoken in their proper place. These are the things which we had to say concerning the writings of so great a man. Now discourse must be instituted concerning the various heads of his doctrine.
Editors' notes and page, col. 242
Footnotes
(27) ‹anchor: Pollicitus est Irenaeus› · call in col 242
pointer: text set once in n241 (printed under page 127, right foot); call confirmed in col 242 (Q1b).
(28) ‹anchor: promissi meminit Eusebius› · call in col 242
pointer: text set once in n241 (printed under page 127, left foot); call confirmed in col 242 (Q1b).
(29) ‹anchor: significat idem Eusebius› · call in col 242
pointer: text set once in n241 (printed under page 127, left foot); call confirmed in col 242 (Q1b).
(30) ‹anchor: abbas et confessor› · call in col 242
pointer: text set once in n241 (printed under page 127, left foot); call confirmed in col 242 (Q1b).
(31) ‹anchor: Hieronymus in Catalogo› · call in col 242
C. 19.
Chapter 19.
(printed under page 127)
(32) ‹anchor: Photio teste› · call in col 242
Cod. 48.
Codex 48.
(printed under page 127)
Page
- running head: T. III, DE ALIIS IRENAEI SCRIPTIS. 242
- marginal letters: A centibus veteribus; B fragmentum ex; C Irenaeus Περὶ; D libris explicat
- old-edition numerals: CVI after tribuit
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (centibus veteribus...); centibus split from preceding column
- other: the tail "centibus" printed at the top of this column belongs to the word split from col 241 ("ta-"); per the column-break rule it is set whole at the end of col 241 and is not restored here; col 241's source still ends with the broken "ta-" (to be joined there; noted by Q1b)