PG 7 · cols. 243–382

R. Massuet, O.S.B., Dissertationes praeviae in Irenaei libros, Dissertatio III, De Irenaei doctrina

Editors' preface

DISSERTATIO TERTIA.

THIRD DISSERTATION.

DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF IRENAEUS.

1. Solius supremi numinis est nec falli, nec fallere posse: mortalium omnium, nisi singulari Dei beneficio, solis scriptoribus sacris concesso, eximantur, ea est sors et conditio, ut eos a vero devios error interdum decipiat. Nullum igitur opus adeo castigatum, numerisque omnibus absolutum, quin naevis quibusdam inspergatur, pluribus aut paucioribus, majoribusque vel minoribus, pro majori aut minori scriptoris diligentia et eruditione. Neutra quidem Irenaeo defuit; ita tamen sibi semper non cavit, ut aliquando non offenderit, sed plerumque levius; sicubi vero paulo gravius, eo magis error condonandus, quo nondum satis ad liquidum exploratis certis quibusdam doctrinae Christianae capitibus, vix fieri poterat ut attentioribus etiam animis nebulas non offunderent praeconceptae quaedam ac communes priorum saeculorum opiniones. Ut vero excusandus non est Irenaeus, ubi lapsus est; sic nec temere culpandus, ubi culpa vacat, nec aliena ei affingenda dogmata quae respuit. Sunt enim homines, quibus omnia anctorum dicta excusanda videntur; sunt et alii qui infesto dente carpunt quidquid minus intelligunt; sunt alii denique qui apud veteres Ecclesiae Patres videre se putant quod videre cupiunt, ut erroris consortes habeant. Ne ad eosdem scopulos appellamus, visum est praecipua quaeque doctrinae Irenaei capita, quam breviter fieri poterit, percurrere; et si quid lapsus est, id adnotare; si quid vero alienum affingitur, id a⟨b⟩ eo depellere.

1. It belongs to the supreme Godhead alone neither to be deceived nor to be able to deceive: of all mortals, unless they are exempted by a singular gift of God, granted to the sacred writers alone, such is the lot and condition that error at times beguiles them and leads them astray from the truth. No work, then, is so carefully corrected and so perfect in every respect that it is not sprinkled with some blemishes, more or fewer, greater or smaller, according to the greater or lesser diligence and learning of the writer. Neither of these was wanting to Irenaeus; yet he did not always so guard himself as never to stumble at times, though for the most part lightly; and where he stumbled somewhat more gravely, the error is the more to be pardoned in that, certain heads of Christian doctrine not yet having been explored with sufficient clarity, it could scarcely happen that certain preconceived and common opinions of earlier centuries should not cast clouds even over the more attentive minds. But as Irenaeus is not to be excused where he has slipped, so neither is he to be blamed rashly where he is free of fault, nor are doctrines foreign to him, which he rejects, to be fastened upon him. For there are men to whom all the sayings of authors seem worthy of excuse; there are others who carp with hostile tooth at whatever they understand too little; there are others, finally, who think they see in the ancient Fathers of the Church what they wish to see, so as to have them as partners in their error. Lest we run aground on the same rocks, it has seemed good to run through, as briefly as can be done, all the chief heads of the doctrine of Irenaeus; and if he has slipped in anything, to note it; but if anything foreign is fastened upon him, to repel it from him.

2. Observat Photius, in aliquibus Irenaei scriptis ecclesiasticorum dogmatum certam veritatem spuriis rationibus fucari. Sic saltem Graeca haec interpretor: Εἰ καὶ ἔν τισιν αὐτῶν (συγγραμμάτων καὶ ἐπιστολῶν) ἡ τῆς κατὰ τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ δόγματα ἀληθείας ἀκρίβεια νόθοις λογισμοῖς κιβδηλεύεται. In quae Irenaei scripta scriptorumque loca digitum intenderit Photius incertum. Sed si is sit Photii verborum sensus, infirma interdum argumenta, ad probandas certas fidei veritates, ab Irenaeo adhiberi, levissimum vitii genus est, omnibus fere scriptoribus commune, quodque eo difficilius cavere quis potest, quo adversarios studiosius insectatur, ac omnigenis argumentis obruere nititur. Quis enim auctor tantum valeat, ut ea omnia, quibus adversarios refellit, argumenta, totidem demonstrationes sint? Vix fieri potest quin, si praesertim de una et eadem re multa sint, alia aliis efficaciora vel

2. Photius observes that in some writings of Irenaeus the sure truth of the Church's doctrines is counterfeited by spurious reasonings. So at least I interpret these Greek words: "Even if in some of them (his writings and letters) the exactness of the truth concerning the Church's doctrines is adulterated by spurious reasonings." To which writings of Irenaeus, and to which passages of the writings, Photius pointed his finger is uncertain. But if this is the sense of Photius's words, that weak arguments are at times employed by Irenaeus to prove sure truths of the faith, it is the lightest kind of fault, common to almost all writers, and one which a man can guard against the less easily the more zealously he pursues his adversaries and strives to overwhelm them with arguments of every kind. For what author could have such power that all the arguments by which he refutes his adversaries should be so many demonstrations? It can scarcely happen, especially if there are many on one and the same matter, that some should not be more effective or

Editors' notes and page, col. 243

Page

other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width lines at head of column before 1 (DISSERTATIO TERTIA. / DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.) cut off at right edge, set at the head of this column; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (1. Solius supremi...)
running head: 243 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 244
marginal letters: A ‹1. Solius supremi numinis›; B ‹ribus etiam animis nebulas›; C ‹alienum affingitur, id ab eo›; D ‹enim auctor tantum valeat› (letters printed in the gutter between the columns)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PG 7:244

infirmiora sint. Deinde ut de rationum quarumcunque pondere et efficacia judicium feramus, aequitatis ratio postulat, ut ad id attendamus in quod potissimum intendebat auctor. Si quidem plures Irenaei ratiocinationes in seipsis et a scopo auctoris praecisae spectentur, infirmae videbuntur; secus vero si consilii ejus habeatur ratio. Quia in apertis Scripturarum verbis nulla erant vanissimis haereticorum dogmatibus praesidia, alia sibi in parabolis et allegoriis, quas pro libito interpretabantur, comparare sibi studebant. Cassa et futilia esse merito contendit Irenaeus. Nam, inquit, parabolae debent non ambiguis adaptari. Absurdissimum quippe est ea quae non aperte dicta sunt, neque ante oculos posita, copulare absolutionibus parabolarum, quas unusquisque prout vult adinvenit. Ne tamen hoc, infirmo licet, praesidio gloriarentur haeretici, fucumque facerent imperitis, id sibi libro quarto praesertim probandum suscipit, desperatam eorum causam parabolis nihil juvari, et si quid valeat id argumenti genus, totum in pravorum dogmatum ruinam cedere. Quisquis ergo queritur, ea interdum a parabolis et allegoriis ad probandas fidei veritates argumenta ab Irenaeo duci, quae parum roboris habere videntur, meminerit et S. doctorem non nescium fuisse quid quantumque valerent ejusmodi argumenta secundum se spectata; ab eo tamen pro jure suo usurpari, quia usurpandi exemplum primi dederant ii quos refellebat. Unde argumenta erant velut ad hominem, et ex adversariorum principiis et confesso petita, quae efficaciam ab iis ipsis sortiebantur. Ex quo enim parabolis et allegoriis utebantur adversus Catholicos, eo minus argumentorum inde petitorum pondus declinare poterant, quo iis ad dirimendam litem sibi utendum esse primi censuerant. Id si advertisset Gallasius, ab insulsa et inepta censura temperasset, qua Irenaeum vexat, quod hac Christi parabola: Propterea omnis scriba doctus in regno coelorum similis est homini patrifamilias, qui profert de thesauro suo nova et vetera, utatur ut probet, unum et eumdem Deum utriusque Testamenti auctorem esse. Nam praeterquam quod Irenaei expositionem secuti sunt Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Hilarius, Hieronymus et alii plures, ut recte adnotat Feuardentius; ut forte adversus alios haereticos non valuisset ejusmodi argumentum, maxime valebat adversus Valentinianos,

less effective than others. Next, if we are to pass judgement on the weight and force of any reasonings whatever, fairness demands that we attend to what the author chiefly had in view. For if many of the reasonings of Irenaeus are regarded in themselves and cut off from the author's aim, they will seem weak; but otherwise, if account is taken of his purpose. Since in the plain words of the Scriptures there was no support for the most empty doctrines of the heretics, they strove to procure other supports for themselves in parables and allegories, which they interpreted at their pleasure. Irenaeus rightly contends that these are hollow and futile. "For," he says, "parables ought not to be fitted to ambiguities. For it is most absurd to join things that were not said openly, nor set before the eyes, to the solutions of parables, which each man invents as he wishes." Yet lest the heretics should glory in this support, weak though it was, and impose upon the unlearned, he undertakes to prove, especially in the fourth book, that their desperate cause is in no way helped by parables, and that, if this kind of argument has any force, it all goes to the ruin of their depraved doctrines. Whoever, then, complains that arguments are at times drawn by Irenaeus from parables and allegories to prove truths of the faith, arguments which seem to have little strength, should remember that the holy doctor too was not unaware what and how much arguments of this kind were worth regarded in themselves; yet that he made use of them by his own right, because those whom he was refuting had been the first to give the example of using them. Hence they were arguments as it were ad hominem, sought from the principles and admissions of his adversaries, which drew their force from those very men. For since they used parables and allegories against the Catholics, they were the less able to decline the weight of arguments sought from that source, inasmuch as they had been the first to decide that these were to be used for settling the dispute. Had Gallasius noticed this, he would have refrained from the senseless and inept censure with which he harasses Irenaeus, because he uses this parable of Christ, "Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a householder, who brings forth out of his treasure new things and old," to prove that one and the same God is the author of both Testaments. For besides the fact that Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hilary, Jerome and many others followed the exposition of Irenaeus, as Feuardent rightly notes, even if perhaps an argument of this kind would not have availed against other heretics, it availed most of all against the Valentinians,

Editors' notes and page, col. 244

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: Nam, inquit› · call in col 244

Iren., lib. II, c. 27, n. 1.

Irenaeus, Book II, chapter 27, no. 1.

(printed under page 128)

(34) ‹anchor: nova et vetera› · call in col 244

Matth. XIII, 52.

Matthew 13:52.

(printed under page 128)

(35) ‹anchor: quod Irenaei› · call in col 244

Lib. IV, c. 9, n. 1.

Book IV, chapter 9, no. 1.

(printed under page 128)

Page

running head: PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 244
marginal letters: A infirmiora sint; B larum, quas; C et ex; D mus, Theophylactus
old-edition numerals: CVII after patrifamilias,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width lines at head of column before infirmiora (DISSERTATIO TERTIA. / DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.) cut off at left edge, not set; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (infirmiora sint...)
running head: 243 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 244
marginal letters: A ‹infirmiora sint. Deinde›; B ‹ante oculos posita, copulare›; C ‹fellebat. Unde argumenta›; D ‹mus, Theophylactus, Hilarius› (letters printed in the gutter between the columns)
old-edition numerals: CVII after ‹patrifamilias,›

PG 7:245

qui e parabolis efficacia peti posse censebant : ad quos proinde retundendos sufficiebat parabolam eo sensu explicari, qui cum Christi verbis et instituto non pugnaret. Alia esse clariora Christi dicta, e quibus argumenta duci poterant, probe sciebat Irenaeus; sed haec libro quinto reservabat, ut ipse profitetur initio hujus libri et in fine quarti. Idem dici velim de variis numerorum copulationibus, quibus interdum plus aequo delectari videtur auctor noster. Ejusmodi quidem argutias fastidivit posterior aetas; non ita vero ea, qua scripsit Irenaeus, et hujus mores nostris metiri sana ratio non sinit. Allegoricum hoc philosophandi genus, a Pythagoricis et Platonicis acceptum, maximo apud ethnicos, imo et Judaeos ipsos, in pretio erat : ad quod conformare sese antiquos Patres necesse fuit, tum ut superbos animos sibi facilius conciliarent, semel persuasos Christianam religionem a recta philosophandi ratione non abhorrere; tum ut eos propriis mucronibus, ubi sese occasio daret, configerent. Et id quidem ab Irenaeo, eo potiori jure usurpatum, quo Gnostici, ut alibi ostendi, Pythagoreorum Platonicorumque principiis imbuti, plurimum numeris tribuerent, et in variis eorum copulationibus haud exiguum causae suae praesidium constituerent. Ad quorum proinde philosophemata eo se consilio componit, ut ea in aucto-

who judged that effective arguments could be sought from parables: for beating back whom, accordingly, it was enough that the parable should be explained in that sense which did not conflict with the words and purpose of Christ. That there were other clearer sayings of Christ from which arguments could be drawn, Irenaeus knew well; but he reserved these for the fifth book, as he himself professes at the beginning of this book and at the end of the fourth. I should wish the same to be said concerning the various combinations of numbers in which our author sometimes seems to take delight more than is fair. A later age indeed disdained subtleties of that sort; not so however the age in which Irenaeus wrote, and sound reason does not permit us to measure its customs by our own. This allegorical kind of philosophizing, received from the Pythagoreans and Platonists, was held in the highest value among the heathens, nay even among the Jews themselves: to which it was necessary for the ancient Fathers to conform themselves, both in order that they might more easily win over proud minds, once persuaded that the Christian religion was not averse from a right method of philosophizing; and in order that they might pierce them with their own blades when occasion offered itself. And this indeed was used by Irenaeus by all the stronger right, the more the Gnostics, as I have shown elsewhere, imbued with the principles of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, attributed very much to numbers, and set up no small bulwark for their cause in their various combinations. To whose philosophical speculations he accordingly adapts himself with this design, that he may turn them back upon the head of the au-

rum ipsorum caput retorqueat. Quare quid et quantum valeant ejusmodi rationes, ut aequa lance pensitetur, proponentis aetas, scopus, adversarii, ac litigantium hypothesis prae oculis semper haberi debet : ad quae quisquis aequus attenderit, fateri non dubitabit id egisse SS. Patres quod in iis temporum disputationumque circumstantiis recta ratio ab iis exigebat. Sed quam parum tribueret Irenaeus ejusmodi numerorum rationibus et copulationibus, luculenter patet ex iis quae lib. II, cap. 25 et 26, disserit. Ibi enim ex professo probat, Dei opera, res divinas, rationem, ac veritatis argumenta ad numeros exigi non debere; sed potius numeros ad res divinas, rationem et veritatis argumenta exigendos esse; curiosamque illam numerorum inquisitionem, et ex iis ducta argumenta infirma esse ac plerumque vana et periculosa. Non tamen hactenus dictis negaverim, quin apud Irenaeum spuriae quaedam occurrant rationes, quibus revera ecclesiasticorum dogmatum veritas fucetur potius quam illustretur; quales sunt eae quas a Christi aetate, et millenario regno petit; sed iis et aliis quibusdam paucis exceptis, caeteris omnibus, si aequitatis ponderibus examinentur, et ad auctoris scopum atque consilium exigantur, pretium constabit et robur. Sed quid et quantum ex ejus doctrina juvari possit catholica fides, jam videamus.

thors themselves. Wherefore, in order that what and how much arguments of that sort avail may be weighed in an even balance, the age of the proposer, his aim, his adversaries, and the hypothesis of the disputants must always be kept before the eyes: to which whoever attends fairly will not hesitate to confess that the holy Fathers did that which in those circumstances of times and disputations right reason demanded of them. Moreover, how little Irenaeus attributed to reckonings and combinations of numbers of that sort is clearly evident from the things which he discourses in Book II, chapters 25 and 26. For there he professedly proves that the works of God, divine things, reason, and the arguments of truth ought not to be adjusted to numbers; but rather that numbers ought to be adjusted to divine things, reason, and the arguments of truth; and that that curious investigation of numbers and the arguments drawn from them are weak and for the most part vain and dangerous. Yet after what has been said thus far I would not deny that there occur in Irenaeus certain spurious arguments by which in reality the truth of ecclesiastical dogmas is disguised rather than illustrated; such as are those which he seeks from the age of Christ and the millennial kingdom; but with these and some few others excepted, for all the rest, if they are examined by the weights of fairness and measured by the aim and design of the author, their value and strength will stand firm. But what and how much the Catholic faith can be aided from his doctrine, let us now see.

3. Scripturas sacras Deum ipsum auctorem habere, ejusque Spiritu afflante exaratas esse, tam aperte tamque frequenter profitetur Irenaeus, ut id observare operam fere ludere sit. Scripturae, inquit, perfectae sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictae. Et ne diutius quam par sit immorer in re tam manifesta, totus est Irenaeus libro tertio et quarto, ut probet unum et eumdem Deum et Patrem, utriusque Testamenti, Novi videlicet et Veteris, auctorem esse; ipsoque, nec alio, per Verbum et Spiritum suum scriptoribus sacris, tum prophetis, tum apostolis et evangelistis afflante, ea omnia quae in Canonem retulit Ecclesia, exarata fuisse.

3. That the sacred Scriptures have God Himself for their author, and were written under the inspiration of His Spirit, Irenaeus professes so openly and so frequently that to observe it is almost to waste labour. The Scriptures, says he, are perfect, inasmuch as they are spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit. And not to linger longer than is fitting upon so manifest a matter, Irenaeus is wholly occupied in the third and fourth books in proving that one and the same God and Father is the author of both Testaments, namely the New and the Old; and that as He Himself, and no other, inspired through His Word and Spirit the sacred writers, both the prophets and the apostles and evangelists, all those things which the Church has received into the Canon were written.

4. Sed quam late Irenaeo pateret sacer hic Canon, quosve libros complecteretur, haud ita facile dictu est. Certum quidem est sequentes Veteris Testamenti libros velut sacros et canonicos a S. Doctore

4. But how widely this sacred Canon extended for Irenaeus, or what books it comprised, is by no means so easy to say. It is indeed certain that the following books of the Old Testament are held as sacred and canonical by the holy Doctor,

Editors' notes and page, col. 245

Footnotes

(36) ‹anchor: profitetur Irenaeus› · call in col 245

Lib. II, c. 18, n. 2.

Book II, chapter 18, no. 2.

(printed under page 129)

Ancient version (Latin)

ARTICULUS PRIMUS. De Scripturarum sacrarum divinitate, canone et versionibus.

Page

running head: 245 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A qui e; B ad quod; C 3. Scripturas; D quosve libros
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width lines between aucto- and 3 (ARTICULUS PRIMUS. / De Scripturarum sacrarum divinitate, canone et versionibus.) cut off at right edge, not set; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (qui e parabolis...); aucto- split at column break
other: a full-width band stands across cols 245/246 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 246 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 245 (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

PG 7:246

haberi, et plura ex iis, tanquam ex libris divinae auctoritatis, allegari : Pentateuchum Moysis, Josue, Judices; libros quatuor Regum; Psalmos, Proverbia Salomonis; prophetias Isaiae, Jeremiae Ezechielis, Danielis, Oseae, Joelis, Amos, Jonae, Michaeae, Habacuc, Zachariae et Malachiae. Quae ex iis libris testimonia proferat, demonstrat Index locorum Scripturae sacrae a nobis concinnatus, ad calcem hujus operis. Hoc semel tanquam ex Isaiae, multoties vero tanquam ex Jeremiae prophetia depromptum allegat : Et commemoratus est Dominus sanctus Israel mortuorum suorum, qui dormierant in terra sepultionis : et descendit ad eos evangelizare salutem, quae est ab eo, ut salvaret eos. Idem allegavit et Justinus martyr in Dialogo cum Tryphone, velut ex Jeremia, conquestus insuper, Judaeos, odio Christianorum, sententiam hanc et plures alias e sacris Bibliis erasisse. Ex quibus colligitur eam

and that many things from them are alleged as from books of divine authority: the Pentateuch of Moses, Joshua, Judges; the four books of Kings; the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon; the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zechariah and Malachi. What testimonies he brings forward from those books, the Index of passages of sacred Scripture put together by us at the end of this work demonstrates. This passage he alleges once as drawn from the prophecy of Isaiah, and many times as from that of Jeremiah: And the holy Lord of Israel remembered His dead, who had slept in the land of burial: and He descended to them to preach the salvation which is from Him, that He might save them. Justin Martyr also alleged the same in his Dialogue with Trypho, as from Jeremiah, complaining moreover that the Jews, out of hatred of the Christians, had erased this sentence and several others from the sacred Bibles. From which it is gathered that it

Editors' notes and page, col. 246

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 246
marginal letters: A rum ipsorum; B merorum inquisitionem; C haberi, et; D velut ex
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width lines between videamus. and haberi (ARTICULUS PRIMUS. / De Scripturarum sacrarum divinitate, canone et versionibus.) cut off at left edge, not set; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (rum ipsorum...); rum split from preceding column
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 245 (reading order, moved on receipt)

PG 7:247

tunc in quibusdam Bibliorum Christianorum codicibus exstitisse, sed paucissimis; vix enim alios, praeter Justinum et Irenaeum reperias, a quibus citetur. Jam nullibi librorum sacrorum occurrit. Quin Jeremiae Threnos seu Lamentationes inter canonicas Scripturas recensuerit Irenaeus, dubitari non potest. Ut enim ex iisdem Scripturis probet, Christum Filium Dei, et salutem, et Salvatorem, et salutare vere et dici, et esse, verba haec Thren. IV, 20 : Spiritus faciei nostrae Christus Dominus, inter alia e libris sacris petita profert, non nominato tamen libro e quo petuntur, sed generatim duntaxat indicata, ut saepe solet, Scriptura, hoc verbo, inquit. Spiritus enim, inquit, faciei nostrae Christus Dominus. Idem dicendum de Baruchi libro, quem ut propheticum et sacrum laudat, non tamen sub Baruchi, sed vel sub generali prophetae, vel sub Jeremiae nomine. Libro IV, cap 20, n. 4, probans, unum esse Deum, qui Verbo et Sapientia fecit et aptavit omnia, qui secundum magnitudinem quidem ignotus est omnibus qui ab eo facti sunt, secundum dilectionem autem cognoscitur semper per eum per quem constituit omnia; scilicet per Verbum ejus, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, qui novissimis temporibus homo in hominibus factus est, ut finem conjungeret principio, id est hominem Deo; ait : Et propterea prophetae, ab eodem Verbo propheticum accipientes charisma, praedicaverunt ejus secundum carnem adventum, per quem commistio et communio Dei et hominis secundum placitum Patris facta est, ab initio praenuntiante Verbo Dei, quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus, et conversabitur cum eis super terram, etc. Quibus postremis verbis manifeste alludit ad ea Baruch III, 38 : Post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. Sed libro V, cap. 35, n. 1, finem capitis quarti et totum caput quintum ejusdem Baruch clare et ipsis verbis refert, velut ex Jeremia propheta : Significavit, inquit, Jeremias propheta, Circumspice, dicens, ad orientem Hierusalem, et vide laetitiam, etc. Ex qua Irenaei aliorumque Patrum citatione libri Baruch, canonicam ejus auctoritatem recte omnino colligit Feuardentius in notis ad hunc Irenaei locum. Ecce tamen, in Feuardentium insurgit cl. Grabius in notis suis, eumque hallucinari graviter pronuntiat. Quis enim nescit, inquit, apocrypha scripta subinde a Patribus allegari? Hocque apophthegmate contentus adversarium prostratum iri confidit. Ergone quia apocrypha scripta subinde a Patribus allegantur, statim pronuntiandum, eum hallucinari, qui ex eorum citatione colliget librum aliquem canonicum esse? Si ita sit, jam adversus Grabium prodeat impius aliquis, qui aliquod e quatuor Evangeliis, vel aliquas ex Epistolis Pauli, aliorumve apostolorum, ex albo Scripturarum expungat; quo argumento hunc confutabit vir clarissimus? An ex continua Patrum et Conciliorum citatione probare se posse putabit, sacra haec scripta ab omnibus Ecclesiis, aut maxima saltem

existed at that time in some codices of the Christian Bibles, though very few; for you will scarcely find others besides Justin and Irenaeus by whom it is cited. Now it occurs nowhere in the sacred books. That Irenaeus reckoned the Threni or Lamentations of Jeremiah among the canonical Scriptures cannot be doubted. For in order to prove from the same Scriptures that Christ the Son of God both is truly called and is salvation, and Saviour, and saving health, he brings forward among other things sought from the sacred books these words of Lamentations 4:20: The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord, not indeed naming the book from which they are sought, but only indicating the Scripture generally, as he is often wont to do, by this word, it says. For the Spirit of our countenance, it says, is Christ the Lord. The same must be said of the book of Baruch, which he praises as prophetic and sacred, yet not under the name of Baruch, but either under the general name of the prophet, or under that of Jeremiah. In Book 4, chapter 20, no. 4, proving that there is one God, who by His Word and Wisdom made and fitted together all things, who according to His greatness indeed is unknown to all who have been made by Him, but according to His love is always known through Him through whom He ordained all things; namely through His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God; he says: And therefore the prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, preached His coming according to the flesh, through whom the commingling and communion of God and man according to the good pleasure of the Father was accomplished, the Word of God foretelling from the beginning that God shall be seen by men, and shall converse with them upon the earth, etc. By which last words he manifestly alludes to those of Baruch 3:38: Afterwards He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men. Moreover in Book 5, chapter 35, no. 1, he clearly and in the very words reports the end of the fourth chapter and the whole fifth chapter of the same Baruch, as from Jeremiah the prophet: Jeremiah the prophet signified, says he, saying, Look about you towards the east, O Jerusalem, and behold the joy, etc. (Bar. 4:36). From which citation of the book of Baruch by Irenaeus and other Fathers, Feuardent in his notes on this passage of Irenaeus quite rightly gathers its canonical authority. Yet behold, the illustrious Grabe rises up against Feuardent in his notes, and gravely pronounces that he is blundering. For who does not know, says he, that apocryphal writings are now and then alleged by the Fathers? And content with this apophthegm, he trusts that his adversary will be laid low. Must it therefore immediately be pronounced, because apocryphal writings are now and then alleged by the Fathers, that he is blundering who from their citation gathers that some book is canonical? If it be so, let some impious man now come forth against Grabe and expunge one of the four Gospels, or some of the Epistles of Paul, or of the other apostles, from the roll of the Scriptures; by what argument will the most illustrious man refute him? Will he think that he can prove from the continuous citation of Fathers and Councils that these sacred writings were always held as canonical by all the Churches, or at least by the greatest

Editors' notes and page, col. 247

Page

running head: 247 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A tunc in; B ticam et; C placitum Patris; D tium insurgit
old-edition numerals: CVIII after quem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (tunc in quibusdam...); sal- split at column break
other: the word saltem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 248

PG 7:248

Ecclesiarum, earumque insigniorum parte, tanquam canonica habita semper fuisse? Invictum quidem caeteris est argumentum, sed Grabio prorsus infirmum et inutile. Nam statim occurret impius, hacque unica Grabiana responsione, apocrypha scripta subinde a Patribus allegari, totam vim argumenti facile infringet, Grabiumque ipsum ad incitas rediget. Non igitur ex eo quod quidam Patres apocrypha interdum scripta allegaverint, eorum illico elevanda fides est, cum librum aliquem velut canonicum citant. Si quidem tot et tanti, tam diu, tamque continuata serie apocryphum quoddam scriptum citarent, quanti, quamque diu librum canonicum allegant, premeret forte Grabiana difficultas. At multum abest ut paria sint utrinque momenta. Qui librum apocryphum velut sacrum citarunt, pauci sunt, nec obtinuit eorum sententia; imo potius, majori Ecclesiarum parte praevalente, successu temporis prorsus obsolevit. E contrario vero dum liber aliquis, quem sacrum deinceps agnovit Ecclesia, a Patribus allegatus est, quamvis initio dubitarent multi, quia paulo obscurior erat ea de re traditio apostolica; ea tamen, successu temporis, accuratiori rei examine, consultisque iis Ecclesiis, in quibus notissima erat et continuata episcoporum successio ab apostolis, patefacta, demum ad liquidum explorata veritate, calculum veteribus adjecit universa Ecclesia. Tam immensum tamque apertum discrimen facile animadvertere potuisset Grabius, nisi anticipatae Calvinianorum Lutheranorumque opiniones fucum fecissent. Sed de vana ejus objectiuncula, toties a Catholicis contrita, jam satis. Id tantum, ut ad Irenaeum revertar, addiderim : si Baruchi prophetiam sub Jeremiae nomine laudaverit, non solum ita laudavisse. Eodem quippe modo allegavere Clemens Alexandrinus lib. I Paedag., c. 2, et lib. II, c. 3; Cyprianus, lib. II Testimon. ad Quirin. et in lib. De oratione Domin.; Eusebius, in libris De demonst. evang.; Basilius, lib. IV cont. Eunom., et alii tum Graeci, tum Latini. Ratio omnibus nota est, quia nimirum Baruch Jeremiae discipulus fuit, illiusque prophetia magistri libro juncta erat.

part of the Churches, and those the more notable ones? To others indeed the argument is invincible, but to Grabe altogether weak and useless. For the impious man will immediately meet him, and by this single Grabian reply, that apocryphal writings are now and then alleged by the Fathers, will easily break the whole force of the argument, and reduce Grabe himself to extremity. Therefore the credit of the Fathers is not immediately to be disparaged when they cite some book as canonical, from the fact that certain of them have sometimes alleged apocryphal writings. If indeed so many and such great men, for so long a time, and in such a continuous series cited some apocryphal writing as many and as long as allege a canonical book, the Grabian difficulty would perhaps press hard. But the weights on both sides are far from being equal. Those who have cited an apocryphal book as sacred are few, nor did their opinion prevail; nay rather, the greater part of the Churches prevailing, in course of time it altogether died out. On the contrary, when some book which the Church afterwards recognized as sacred was alleged by the Fathers, although many doubted at the beginning because the apostolic tradition on that matter was a little more obscure, yet when in course of time, by a more accurate examination of the matter, and by consulting those Churches in which the continuous succession of bishops from the apostles was best known, it was made clear, the truth having at length been explored to clearness, the universal Church added its vote to the ancients. So immense and so open a distinction Grabe could easily have noticed, had not the preconceived opinions of the Calvinists and Lutherans imposed upon him. But of his vain petty objection, so many times crushed by Catholics, enough now. This only, to return to Irenaeus, I would add: if he praised the prophecy of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, he was not alone in so praising it. For in the same way Clement of Alexandria alleged it, Book 1 of the Paedagogus, chapter 2, and Book 2, chapter 3; Cyprian, Book 2 of the Testimonies to Quirinus and in the book On the Lord's Prayer; Eusebius, in the books On the Demonstration of the Gospel; Basil, Book 4 Against Eunomius, and others both Greek and Latin. The reason is known to all, namely because Baruch was the disciple of Jeremiah, and his prophecy was joined to the book of his master.

5. Librorum Tobiae, Judith, Esther, Paralipomenon, Ecclesiastae, Cantici canticorum, Ecclesiastici, Job, Abdiae, Nahum, Sophoniae, Aggaei, et Machabaeorum, nuspiam, nisi me fallit memoria, in iis qui exstant Irenaei libris, occurrit mentio. Tobiam tamen jam tum in pluribus Ecclesiis inter prophetas eodem jure locum habuisse, quo Moysen, Jesum Nave, Amos, Habacuc, Joel, Zachariam, Isaiam, Ezechielem, Jeremiam, Danielem, Aggaeum, Michaeam, Nahum, Esdram et Sophoniam, ex eo colligi posse videtur, quod Irenaeus, libro I, cap. 30, Sethianorum et Ophitarum deliria describens, ait n. 10, sic eos inter septem Angelos mundi rectores, prophetas partitos fuisse, qui illorum nomine et afflatu vaticinia funderent, ut suo Eloei Tobiam et Aggaeum ascriberent. Susannae et Belis historias,

5. Of the books of Tobit, Judith, Esther, Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ecclesiasticus, Job, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Maccabees, nowhere, unless my memory deceives me, does mention occur in the books of Irenaeus which survive. That Tobit nevertheless already at that time held a place among the prophets in several Churches by the same right as Moses, Joshua the son of Nun, Amos, Habakkuk, Joel, Zechariah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Haggai, Micah, Nahum, Ezra and Zephaniah, seems able to be gathered from this, that Irenaeus, in Book 1, chapter 30, describing the ravings of the Sethians and Ophites, says in no. 10 that they so divided the prophets among the seven Angels who rule the world, to pour forth prophecies in their name and under their inspiration, as to ascribe Tobit and Haggai to their Eloaeus. The histories of Susanna and Bel,

Editors' notes and page, col. 248

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 248
marginal letters: A tem Ecclesiarum; B utrinque momenta; C animadvertere potuisset; D menon, Ecclesiastae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (tem Ecclesiarum...); tem split from preceding column

PG 7:249

quales Danielis cap. XIII et XIV referuntur, non tantum in suis Bibliorum codicibus descriptas legit Irenaeus, sed et ut certas et indubitatas, sacras et canonicas, ac a Daniele propheta scriptas agnoscit, et citat lib. IV, c. 5, n. 2, et cap. 26, n. 3. Observat Eusebius, Irenaeum in eo quem scripserat libello Διαλέξεων διαφόρων, Epistolae ad Hebraeos et Sapientiae Salomonis mentionem fecisse. Et antea de libris Contra haereses agens, ait : Καὶ ῥητοῖς δέ τισιν ἐκ τῆς Σολομῶντος Σοφίας κέχρηται, μονονουχὶ φάσκων · Ὅρασις δὲ Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας · ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. Utitur etiam sententiis ex Salomonis Sapientia depromptis, ita fere dicens : Visio Dei parit incorruptionem, incorruptio autem proximos Deo facit. Qua quidem Sapientiae sententia, prout hic allegatur ab Eusebio, utitur Irenaeus libro IV, cap. 38, n. 3, ita tamen, ut neque librum nominatim citet, nec verbotenus indicet e Scriptura petitam esse : imo Sapientiae verba sic propria sibi faciat, ut partim sensum, partim ipsa verba referat. Nam Sap. VI, 18, 19, quem locum prae oculis habebat Irenaeus, non legitur : Ὅρασις δὲ Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας, etc., sed, προσοχὴ δὲ νόμων, βεβαίωσις ἀφθαρσίας · ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. Custoditio autem legum, consummatio incorruptionis est; incorruptio autem facit esse proximum Deo. Quatuor Esdrae libros agnovisse videtur S. doctor; nec enim alio ex fonte, quam ex libri IV cap. 14, hausta videntur quae de corruptis tempore captivitatis Babylonicae sacris codicibus, et postea ab Esdra, Deo aspirante, instauratis, scribit lib. III, c. 21, n. 2. Haec de Veteris Testamenti libris ab Irenaeo memoratis et citatis.

such as are related in Daniel chapters 13 and 14, Irenaeus not only read copied out in his codices of the Bibles, but also recognizes as certain and undoubted, sacred and canonical, and written by Daniel the prophet, and cites in Book 4, chapter 5, no. 2, and chapter 26, no. 3. Eusebius observes that Irenaeus in that little book which he had written, Διαλέξεων διαφόρων, made mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon. And previously, treating of the books Against Heresies, he says: Καὶ ῥητοῖς δέ τισιν ἐκ τῆς Σολομῶντος Σοφίας κέχρηται, μονονουχὶ φάσκων · Ὅρασις δὲ Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας · ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. He uses also sentences drawn from the Wisdom of Solomon, speaking almost thus: The vision of God procures incorruption, and incorruption makes men near to God. Which sentence of Wisdom indeed, just as it is alleged here by Eusebius, Irenaeus uses in Book 4, chapter 38, no. 3, yet in such a way that he neither cites the book by name, nor indicates word for word that it is sought from Scripture: nay rather, he makes the words of Wisdom so much his own that he reports partly the sense, partly the very words. For in Wisdom 6:18, 19, which passage Irenaeus had before his eyes, it is not read: Ὅρασις δὲ Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας, etc., but, προσοχὴ δὲ νόμων, βεβαίωσις ἀφθαρσίας · ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. And the keeping of the laws is the assurance of incorruption; and incorruption makes one to be near to God. The holy doctor seems to have recognized the Fourth Book of Esdras; for from no other source than from chapter 14 of Book 4 seem to have been drawn the things which he writes in Book 3, chapter 21, no. 2, concerning the sacred codices corrupted at the time of the Babylonian captivity, and afterwards restored by Ezra under the inspiration of God. So much concerning the books of the Old Testament mentioned and cited by Irenaeus.

6. Quod attinet ad sacros Novi Testamenti codices, quid de quatuor Evangeliis sentiat, ab initio libri tertii statim aperit. Postquam ostendit evangelistas jam indutos supervenientis Spiritus sancti virtutem ex alto, ac de omnibus adimpletos, et habentes perfectam agnitionem, ad scribendum Evangelium mentem appulisse, addit : Ita Matthaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua Scripturam edidit Evangelii, cum Petrus et Paulus Romae evangelizarent, et fundarent Ecclesiam. Post vero horum excessum, Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, et ipse quae a Petro annuntiata erant, per scripta nobis tradidit. Et Lucas autem sectator Pauli, quod ab illo praedicabatur Evangelium, in libro condidit. Postea et Joannes discipulus Domini, qui et supra pectus ejus recumbebat, et ipse edidit Evangelium, Ephesi Asiae commorans. Plures in his verbis occurrunt difficultates, quas cum expenderimus in notis ad hunc locum, illuc lectorem remittere satius est, quam hic diutius detinere. Adeo vero de numero quatuor Evangeliorum constabat Irenaeo, ut, secundum ipsum, neque plura numero quam haec sunt, neque rursus pauciora capiat esse Evangelia.

6. As regards the sacred codices of the New Testament, what he thinks of the four Gospels he immediately opens at the beginning of the third book. After showing that the evangelists, already clothed from on high with the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and filled concerning all things, and having perfect knowledge, applied their mind to writing the Gospel, he adds: Thus Matthew among the Hebrews published a written Gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. And after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. And Luke also, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel which was preached by him. Afterwards John also, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, himself also published a Gospel, while dwelling at Ephesus in Asia. Several difficulties occur in these words, which, since we have weighed them in the notes on this passage, it is better to refer the reader thither than to detain him longer here. Now Irenaeus was so sure of the number of the four Gospels that, according to him, it is not possible that there should be either more Gospels in number than these are, or again fewer.

Editors' notes and page, col. 249

Footnotes

(37) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 249

Lib. V, c. 2, 6.

Book V, chapter 2, 6.

(printed under page 131)

(38) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 249

Ibid., c. 8.

Same place, chapter 8.

(printed under page 131)

(39) ‹anchor: libri tertii› · call in col 249

C. 1, n. 1.

Chapter 1, no. 1.

(printed under page 131)

(40) ‹anchor: constabat Irenaeo› · call in col 249

Ibid., c. 11, n. 7.

Same place, chapter 11, no. 7.

(printed under page 131)

Page

running head: 249 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A quales Danielis; B hic allegatur; C ab Esdra; D Petro annuntiata
old-edition numerals: CIX after Lucas
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (quales Danielis...)

PG 7:250

Quae tamen verba non ita urgenda sunt, quasi sic necesse fuerit quatuor esse Evangelia, ut huic numero Deus nihil addere aut detrahere potuerit. Non is est S. doctoris sensus; id tantum vult, sapientissima Dei providentia constitutum, ut quatuor essent Evangelia, nec plura, nec pauciora. Cujus quidem providentiae multas affert rationes, petitas a quatuor mundi regionibus et cardinibus, quatuor ventis principalibus, quatuor praecipuis, quibus aedificium quodque fulcitur, columnis, quatuor Ezechielis animalibus, etc., mysticas certe rationes, non demonstrationes, quibus probare contendat rem ita fieri debuisse, nec aliter potuisse (tam absurda cogitatio mentem Irenaei subire nusquam potuit), sed quibus rem jam factam explicet, ostendatque sapientissimo Dei consilio ordinatam fuisse. Eo autem vergebat tota Irenaei oratio, ut insanam Gnosticorum audaciam castigaret, qui Evangeliorum numerum, nulla habita ratione Dei consiliorum, quorum sapientiam tam multa probant, arbitrio suo augebant vel minuebant. His igitur sic se habentibus, inquit, vani omnes, et indocti, et insuper audaces, qui frustrantur speciem Evangelii, et vel plures quam dictae sunt vel rursus pauciores inferunt personas Evangelii; quidam, ut plus videantur, quam est veritatis adinvenisse; quidam vero, ut reprobent dispositiones Dei. Vanos etiam et indoctos dicere liceat eos qui, ut Gallasius et Scultetus, Irenaei mentem ne minimum quidem assecuti, quas de numero Evangeliorum mysticas profert rationes, ceu futiles et infirmas aspernantur. Nae! fastidii delicatissimi homines, quos ejus rei satietas cepit, quae Anastasio Sinaitae, Germano Constantinopolitano, Hieronymo, aliisque pluribus adeo probata fuit, ut primi totum hunc Irenaei locum exscripserint, caeteri rationes amplexi fuerint. Praestat, ut Irenaei verbis utar, cum hujusmodi idiotis religiosis desipere, quam cum blasphemis et impudentibus sophistis sapere.

Yet these words are not to be so pressed as if it had been so necessary that there should be four Gospels that God could have added nothing to or taken nothing away from this number. That is not the sense of the holy doctor; he means this only, that it was ordained by the most wise providence of God that there should be four Gospels, neither more nor fewer. Of which providence indeed he brings forward many reasons, sought from the four regions and cardinal points of the world, the four principal winds, the four chief pillars by which every building is supported, the four living creatures of Ezekiel, etc., mystical reasons certainly, not demonstrations by which he strives to prove that the thing had to be done so and could not have been otherwise (so absurd a thought could never enter the mind of Irenaeus), but by which he explains the thing already done, and shows that it was ordained by the most wise counsel of God. Moreover, the whole discourse of Irenaeus tended to this, to chastise the insane audacity of the Gnostics, who at their own caprice increased or diminished the number of the Gospels, taking no account of the counsels of God, whose wisdom so many things prove. Since therefore these things are so, says he, all are vain, and unlearned, and moreover audacious, who frustrate the form of the Gospel, and bring in either more or again fewer faces of the Gospel than have been said; some, that they may seem to have found out more than is the truth; others, that they may reject the dispensations of God. May one also call vain and unlearned those who, like Des Gallars and Scultetus, not having grasped the mind of Irenaeus in the least degree, spurn as futile and weak the mystical reasons which he brings forward concerning the number of the Gospels. Truly, men of the most delicate fastidiousness, whom weariness of that thing has seized which was so approved by Anastasius of Sinai, Germanus of Constantinople, Jerome, and many others, that the first copied out this whole passage of Irenaeus, and the rest embraced his reasons. It is better, to use the words of Irenaeus, to be foolish with religious simpletons of this sort than to be wise with blasphemous and shameless sophists.

7. De aliis Novi Testamenti partibus haec tantum observanda veniunt, in omnibus, quae exstant, Irenaei scriptis nullam Epistolae D. Pauli ad Philemonem mentionem occurrere; quod non adeo mirum, quia totum hujus Epistolae argumentum nihil ad Irenaei scopum faciebat. Ad Epistolam vero ad Hebraeos interdum alludit, nec ipsa tamen, nec auctore ejus nominatim citatis. Sic lib. II, cap. 30, n. 9, ait, solum Deum Patrem omnia fecisse Verbo virtutis suae; quibus alludit ad illud Hebr. I, 3, portans omnia Verbo virtutis suae. Et lib. IV, c. 11, n. 4, dicit munditias exteriores Legis in figuram futurorum traditas fuisse, velut umbrae cujusdam descriptionem faciente Lege : quae desumpta videntur ex illo Hebr. X, 1 : Umbram habens Lex futurorum bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum. Nec

7. Concerning the other parts of the New Testament these things only come to be observed, that in all the writings of Irenaeus which survive no mention occurs of the Epistle of St Paul to Philemon; which is not so wonderful, because the whole subject of this Epistle contributed nothing to the aim of Irenaeus. To the Epistle to the Hebrews, however, he sometimes alludes, though neither it itself nor its author is cited by name. Thus in Book 2, chapter 30, no. 9, he says that God the Father alone made all things by the Word of His power; by which words he alludes to that passage of Hebrews 1:3, upholding all things by the Word of His power. And in Book 4, chapter 11, no. 4, he says that the outward cleansings of the Law were handed down as a figure of things to come, the Law making a sketch as it were of a certain shadow: which things seem to have been taken from that passage of Hebrews 10:1: For the Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things. Nor

Editors' notes and page, col. 250

Footnotes

(41) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 250

Ibid., n. 8.

Same place, no. 8.

(printed under page 131)

(42) ‹anchor: Anastasio Sinaitae› · call in col 250

Q. 144.

Question 144.

(printed under page 131)

(43) ‹anchor: Germano Constantinopolitano› · call in col 250

Theor. rerum Eccles., tom. II Auctar. Bibliot. PP.

Theoria rerum ecclesiasticarum, in volume II of the Auctarium Bibliothecae Patrum.

(printed under page 131)

(44) ‹anchor: Hieronymo› · call in col 250

Prol. in Matth.

Prologue to the Commentary on Matthew.

(printed under page 131)

(45) ‹anchor: nominatim citatis› · call in col 250

Cap. VII, 14.

Chapter 7, 14.

(printed under page 131)

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 250
marginal letters: A Quae tamen; B plicet, ostendatque; C quidem assecuti; D rum, quia
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (Quae tamen verba...)

PG 7:251

aliter citat Epistolas Catholicas Jacobi et Judae, et secundam Petri, nisi verba quaedam suis inserendo, tacendo locum et auctorem unde deprompta sunt, ut ei constabit qui loca in Indice designata consulere dignabitur. Secus dicendum de Epistola secunda Joannis, quam ut Epistolam Joannis discipuli Domini agnoscit et allegat lib. I, c. 16, n. 3, et lib. III, c. 16, n. 8. Apocalypsim etiam Joanni discipulo Domini nominatim ascribit, et sub ejus nomine citat lib. IV, c. 20, n. 11; lib. V, c. 35, n. 2, et alibi. Illud etiam non omittendum, quod Hermae Pastorem velut Canonicam Scripturam laudet Irenaeus lib. IV, c. 20, n. 2. Bene ergo, inquit, pronuntiavit scriptura, quae dicit : Primo omnium crede, quoniam unus est Deus, etc., quae verba desumuntur ex lib. II Pastoris, Mand. I. Sed eodem modo citavere plures alii Patres Graeci, quorum testimonia collegit doctissimus Cotelerius, librisque Pastoris a se editis praemisit. Latinis vero tanti non fuit iste Hermae Pastor : unde postea ab omnibus Ecclesiis e numero librorum sacrorum expunctus est.

does he cite otherwise the Catholic Epistles of James and Jude, and the Second of Peter, save by inserting certain words into his own, keeping silent as to the passage and author whence they were drawn, as will be clear to him who deigns to consult the passages designated in the Index. Otherwise must it be said concerning the Second Epistle of John, which he recognizes and alleges as the Epistle of John the disciple of the Lord in Book 1, chapter 16, no. 3, and Book 3, chapter 16, no. 8. The Apocalypse also he ascribes by name to John the disciple of the Lord, and cites under his name in Book 4, chapter 20, no. 11; Book 5, chapter 35, no. 2, and elsewhere. This also must not be omitted, that Irenaeus praises the Shepherd of Hermas as Canonical Scripture in Book 4, chapter 20, no. 2. Well therefore, says he, did the Scripture pronounce, which says: First of all believe that God is one, etc., which words are taken from Book 2 of the Shepherd, Mandate 1. But in the same way several other Greek Fathers cited it, whose testimonies the most learned Cotelier collected and prefixed to the books of the Shepherd published by him. Among the Latins, however, that Shepherd of Hermas was not held of so much account: whence afterwards it was expunged by all the Churches from the number of the sacred books.

8. Inter omnes, quibus usa est Ecclesia, sacrae Scripturae versiones, nulla Irenaeo venerabilior visa est ea quae dicitur Septuaginta Interpretum. Hanc ipsi fonti Hebraeo auctoritate pene parem existimavit, utpote quam per aspirationem Dei factam credidit. In eam vero sententiam abiit, quod Septuaginta, qui dicuntur, Interpretes, quasi prophetas habuerit, qui afflante atque dirigente Spiritu sancto versionem suam concinnaverint. Censet igitur Irenaeus, Ptolemaeum Lagi filium, cum eam, quam Alexandriae construxerat, bibliothecam omnigenis codicibus ornare in votis haberet, misisse legatos qui a Hierosolymitis tum Scripturas eorum, tum Hebraici et Graeci sermonis peritos exposcerent, qui easdem ex Hebraeo in Graecum converterent. Hierosolymitae, qui tum Macedonibus parebant, regi morem gerentes, delectos septuaginta seniores, Scripturarum et utriusque linguae peritiores, mittunt. Veritus Ptolemaeus ne interpretes ex compacto Scripturarum arcana prodere nolentes, fucum spuria et adulterina interpretatione facerent, separans eos ab invicem, jussit omnes eamdem interpretari Scripturam; et hoc in omnibus libris fecit; id est, jussit ut omnes simul eumdem Scripturae librum interpretarentur. Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum, et comparantibus suas interpretationes, Deus glorificatus est, et Scripturae vere divinae creditae sunt, omnibus eadem, et eisdem verbis, et eisdem nominibus, recitantibus ab initio usque ad finem : uti et praesentes gentes cognoscerent, quoniam per aspirationem Dei interpretatae sunt Scripturae. Ut autem res habeat fidem, addit Irenaeus nihil mirum esse, si idem Deus qui olim Esdrae Scripturas sacras instauranti aspiravit, aspiraverit et LXX Interpretibus easdem in Graecum sermonem convertentibus. Corruptis siquidem Babylonicae captivitatis tempore Scripturis, Deum,

8. Among all the versions of sacred Scripture which the Church has used, none seemed more venerable to Irenaeus than that which is called that of the Seventy Translators. This heesteemed almost equal in authority to the Hebrew fountain itself, inasmuch as he believed it to have been made by the inspiration of God. Indeed, he went over into the opinion that he held the Seventy Translators, as they are called, as prophets, who put together their version with the Holy Spirit inspiring and directing them. Irenaeus therefore judges that Ptolemy the son of Lagus, since he had it among his wishes to adorn with codices of every kind that library which he had built at Alexandria, sent ambassadors to demand from the people of Jerusalem both their Scriptures and men skilled in the Hebrew and Greek speech to translate the same from Hebrew into Greek. The people of Jerusalem, who at that time obeyed the Macedonians, complying with the king, send seventy chosen elders, more skilled in the Scriptures and in both tongues. Ptolemy, fearing lest the translators, unwilling by compact to disclose the secrets of the Scriptures, should impose upon him with a spurious and counterfeit translation, separating them from one another, commanded them all to translate the same Scripture; and this he did in all the books; that is, he commanded that all at the same time should translate the same book of Scripture. And when they came together into one place before Ptolemy, and compared their translations, God was glorified, and the Scriptures were believed to be truly divine, since all recited the same things, and in the same words, and in the same names, from the beginning right to the end: so that the Gentiles present also knew that the Scriptures were translated by the inspiration of God. Moreover, that the matter may win credit, Irenaeus adds that it is nothing wonderful if the same God who of old inspired Ezra when restoring the sacred Scriptures inspired also the Seventy Translators when turning the same into the Greek speech. For since the Scriptures had been corrupted at the time of the Babylonian captivity, God,

Editors' notes and page, col. 251

Page

running head: 251 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A aliter citat; B sumuntur ex; C cto versionem; D id est, jussit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae (aliter citat...)

PG 7:252

ea demum soluta, Judaeisque in patriam reducibus, temporibus Artaxerxis Persarum regis, inspirasse Esdrae sacerdoti tribus Levi veterum prophetarum sermones omnes instaurare, et restituere populo eam legem, quae data est per Moysen. Ex quibus omnibus concludit (qui scopus erat), vere impudoratos et audaces esse haereticos, qui, ut haeresim suam Scripturarum auctoritate muniant, alias, praeter antiquissimam illam, quae miris adeo modis facta est, Scripturae interpretationes proferre audent : apostolos enim, haereticis omnibus vetustiores, consonare praedictae interpretationi, et interpretationem consonare apostolorum traditioni; cum hi prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverint, quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio continet. Sic argumentabatur Irenaeus, ut probaret haec Isaiae verba, Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium, a Theodotione et Aquila corrupta esse, dum vocem עלמה, Virgo, verterunt νεᾶνις, adolescentula; ne scilicet ex eo Isaiae loco inferretur Christum ex Virgine natum esse.

when that at length was ended, and the Jews were returning to their fatherland, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, He inspired Esdras the priest of the tribe of Levi to restore all the discourses of the ancient prophets, and to re-establish for the people that law which was given through Moses. From all of which he concludes (which was his aim) that the heretics are truly shameless and audacious, who, in order to fortify their heresy by the authority of the Scriptures, dare to bring forward other interpretations of Scripture besides that most ancient one, which was made in such wonderful ways: for the apostles, being older than all the heretics, agree with the aforesaid interpretation, and the interpretation agrees with the tradition of the apostles; since these proclaimed all the prophetic sayings even as the interpretation of the Elders contains them. Thus argued Irenaeus, in order to prove that these words of Isaiah, Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, were corrupted by Theodotion and Aquila, when they rendered the word עלמה, Virgin, as νεᾶνις, young woman; lest, namely, from that passage of Isaiah it should be inferred that Christ was born of a Virgin.

9. Vulgatam versionis LXX Interpretum historiam hic examinare nostri non est instituti : cum maxime id actum sit a pluribus, iisque doctissimis hominibus. Pauca duntaxat circa Irenaei nostri narrationem observare sufficiat. Primo non Irenaeum solum tanti fecisse versionem LXX Interpretum : eodem in honore fuit apud omnes quatuor priorum saeculorum Patres, apud quos obtinuerat ea sententia, Interpretes prophetarum vices et officia peregisse. Fons autem ex quo profluxit communis ea veterum existimatio, fuit Aristaeae historia, sive vera, sive falsa; testis, ut ipse credi amat, oculati, quam Josephus lib. XII Antiquitatum, cap. 2, et Philo lib. II De vita Mosis, compendio retulerunt, quamque omnes tum veteres Judaei, tum priores Christiani unanimi consensu receperunt; tum pervagata opinio, Septuaginta Interpretes in totidem cellulis a Ptolemaeo inclusos, sic a Deo inspiratos fuisse, ut collatis inter se versionibus singulis, omnes in iisdem sententiis, verbis et nominibus convenisse reperti fuerint. Hujus quidem circumstantiae non meminit Aristaeas : primos ante Irenaeum meminit Justinus Martyr in Exhortatione ad gentes; uterque vero traditam accepit partim a Pbilone, partim a caeteris Judaeis, quibus Aristaeae historiam novis miraculis ornare placuit. 2° Ptolemaeum illum, quo regnante atque jubente, ex Hebraeo in Graecum sermonem conversae sunt Scripturae, fuisse, ex Irenaei sententia, non Philadelphum, ut sentiunt Aristaeas, Josephus, Philo, Tertullianus in Apologetico, et alii plerique e Patribus, sed Lagi filium ; quae et eadem sententia fuit Clementis Alexandrini lib. I Strom., pag. 341 et seqq. Gravibus quidem haec premitur difficultatibus, vixque ac ne vix quidem cum historia Aristaeae, ubi huic semel sua constiterit auctoritas, conciliari poterit. Conciliare tamen utcunque student, qui Anatolio episcopo Laodicaeno duce, cujus fragmentum recitat Eusebius

9. To examine here the commonly received history of the version of the Seventy Interpreters does not belong to our design: especially since this has been done by many, and those most learned men. Let it suffice to observe only a few things concerning the narrative of our Irenaeus. First, that Irenaeus was not alone in valuing so highly the version of the Seventy Interpreters: it was held in the same honour among all the Fathers of the first four centuries, among whom the opinion had prevailed that the Interpreters had performed the part and office of prophets. Now the source from which that common estimation of the ancients flowed was the history of Aristaeas, whether true or false, of an eyewitness, as he himself loves to be believed, which Josephus in book 12 of the Antiquities, chap. 2, and Philo in book 2 On the Life of Moses, related in summary, and which both all the ancient Jews and the earlier Christians received with unanimous consent; and also the widespread opinion that the Seventy Interpreters, shut up by Ptolemy in as many cells, were so inspired by God that when the individual versions were compared with one another, all were found to have agreed in the very same meanings, words, and names. Of this circumstance indeed Aristaeas makes no mention: the first before Irenaeus to mention it is Justin Martyr in the Exhortation to the Greeks; and both received it as handed down partly from Philo, partly from the other Jews, whom it pleased to adorn the history of Aristaeas with new miracles. Secondly, that that Ptolemy, under whose reign and at whose command the Scriptures were translated from the Hebrew into the Greek language, was, in the opinion of Irenaeus, not Philadelphus, as Aristaeas, Josephus, Philo, Tertullian in the Apologeticus, and most others of the Fathers think, but the son of Lagus; which was also the same opinion of Clement of Alexandria in book 1 of the Stromata, p. 341 et seqq. This opinion is indeed pressed by grave difficulties, and scarcely, or not even scarcely, will it be able to be reconciled with the history of Aristaeas, once its own authority is established for it. Yet those strive to reconcile them somehow who, following the lead of Anatolius bishop of Laodicea, a fragment of whom is cited by Eusebius

Editors' notes and page, col. 252

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 252
marginal letters: A ea demum; B tabatur Irenaeus; C peregisse. Fons; D uterque vero
old-edition numerals: [CX] after consonare
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ea demum soluta; ends mid-word Euse-; footnote call 44 printed after "haec Isaiae verba", but no footnote text is printed at the foot of page 132

PG 7:253

lib. VII Hist., c. 32, putant, versionem LXX Interpretum, si non factam, saltem decretam fuisse, legationemque ad Judaeos, comparandorum sacrorum codicum causa, missam eo tempore, quo Ptolemaeus filius Lagi Philadelphum filium in regni societatem asciverat; adeo ut utrique ascribi potuerit. Sed vereor ut hanc conciliandi rationem admittat Aristaeas. Nodum, meo quidem judicio secant, qui excussa auctoritate Aristaeae illius, censent, ut certum sit Scripturas Ptolemaeo sive Lagi, sive Philadelpho, forte etiam utroque regnante atque jubente, in Graecum conversas fuisse a selectis quibusdam peritisque Judaeis, caetera omnia ab Aristaea, Judaeo Hellenista, aliisque recentioribus Judaeis, pro gentis genio, ut res admirationem haberet, conficta fuisse. Sed haec ad criticos remittimus : satis est nobis si vanae credulitatis argui non possit Irenaeus; utpote qui sententiam amplexus fuerit, quam suo tempore, re nondum ad criticae leges exacta, Christiani omnes eo fidentius tuebantur, quo Judaeis tunc temporis versioni LXX Interpretum, quae Ecclesiae Christianae arma contra eos ministrabat, maligne detrahentibus, sanctis Patribus in suspicionem venire non poterat Aristaeae librum a Judaeo fuisse confictum. 3° Non modicam apud Christianos auctoritatem versioni τῶν Οʹ conciliavit ea persuasio, Christum Dominum in citandis Veteris Instrumenti testimoniis, neglecto Hebraico textu, solius dictae versionis rationem habuisse. Sic quidem sensere plures e Patribus : non tamen Irenaeus. Saltem id e verbis ejus erui posse non putem, ut in notis ad hunc locum ostendi. Ex eo tantum auctoritatem huic versioni conciliare videtur (quod genuinum auctoritatis ejus fundamentum est), quod in omnibus, quae protulerunt apostoli, Veteris Instrumenti testimoniis, nihil occurrat quod versioni τῶν Οʹ repugnet : imo consonent apostolica omnia praedictae interpretationi, et interpretatio consonet apostolicae praedicationi; propheticaque omnia ita annuntiaverint apostoli, quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio continet. Quod quidem argumentum ut valeat, necesse non est ea omnia, quae ab apostolis prolata sunt, testimonia Graecis τῶν Οʹ respondere; sed horum satis probata manet sinceritas et fides, si cum apostolicis quoad sensum conveniant. 4° Sentire videtur Irenaeus, non Pentateuchum duntaxat, sed et canonicas omnes Judaeorum Scripturas in Graecum sermonem, Ptolemaei regis jussu, conversas fuisse. Utitur enim semper voce indefinita, Scripturas, nec quidquam addit quod eam ad Pentateuchum coerceat. Imo quod scribit, tum Ptolemaeum petiisse a Hierosolymitis interpretatas habere Scripturas eorum; tum eamdem separatis ab invicem interpretibus jussisse, ut omnes eamdem interpretarentur Scripturam; hocque in omnibus libris fecisse : satis indicat libros omnes, qui Judaeis sacri essent, conversos fuisse. Cum enim existimaret Irenaeus, Ptolemaeum bibliothecam suam omnium hominum dignis conscriptionibus

in book 7 of the History, c. 32, think that the version of the Seventy Interpreters, if not executed, was at least decreed, and that the embassy to the Jews for the purpose of procuring the sacred codices was sent at that time when Ptolemy the son of Lagus had associated his son Philadelphus with himself in the partnership of the kingdom; so that it could be ascribed to both. But I fear that Aristaeas would not admit this method of reconciliation. In my judgement indeed, those cut the knot who, having cast off the authority of that Aristaeas, hold that, while it is certain that under Ptolemy, whether the son of Lagus or Philadelphus, or perhaps even under the reign and command of both, the Scriptures were translated into Greek by certain chosen and skilled Jews, all the rest was fabricated by Aristaeas, a Hellenist Jew, and other more recent Jews, according to the genius of their nation, so that the matter might excite admiration. But we leave these matters to the critics: it is enough for us if Irenaeus cannot be accused of vain credulity, inasmuch as he embraced an opinion which in his time, when the matter had not yet been tested by the laws of criticism, all Christians defended all the more confidently because, while the Jews at that time were maliciously disparaging the version of the Seventy Interpreters, which supplied the Christian Church with weapons against them, it could not enter into the suspicion of the holy Fathers that the book of Aristaeas had been fabricated by a Jew. Thirdly, no small authority among Christians was won for the version of the Seventy by the persuasion that Christ the Lord, in citing the testimonies of the Old Testament, setting aside the Hebrew text, had regard to the aforesaid version alone. Thus indeed thought several of the Fathers: not so, however, Irenaeus. At least I would not think that this can be drawn out from his words, as I have shown in the notes on this passage. He seems to win authority for this version from this fact alone (which is the genuine foundation of its authority), that in all the testimonies of the Old Testament which the apostles brought forward, nothing occurs which is repugnant to the version of the Seventy: nay rather, all the apostolic sayings agree with the aforesaid interpretation, and the interpretation agrees with the apostolic preaching; and the apostles proclaimed all the prophetic sayings even as the interpretation of the Elders contains them. Now in order that this argument may hold good, it is not necessary that all those testimonies which were brought forward by the apostles should correspond to the Greek words of the Seventy; rather, their integrity and trustworthiness remain sufficiently proved if they agree with the apostolic citations as to the sense. Fourthly, Irenaeus seems to hold that not the Pentateuch only, but also all the canonical Scriptures of the Jews were translated into the Greek language by command of King Ptolemy. For he always uses the indefinite word, the Scriptures, and adds nothing to restrict it to the Pentateuch. Nay more, what he writes, both that Ptolemy sought from the people of Jerusalem to have their Scriptures translated, and that he commanded the translators separated from one another that all should translate the same Scripture, and that he did this in the case of all the books, sufficiently indicates that all the books which were sacred to the Jews were translated. For since Irenaeus considered that Ptolemy [desired to adorn] his library with the worthy writings of all men,

Editors' notes and page, col. 253

Page

running head: 253 DISSERTATIO III DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A bius lib.; B beret, conficta; C tamen Irenaeus.; D manet sinceritas
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): bius lib. VII; begins mid-word bius and ends mid-word conscriptio-
other: the word conscriptionibus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 254

PG 7:254

ornare cupiisse, credere consequenter debuit, neglecta ab eo non fuisse prophetarum oracula; dignas certe conscriptiones, quae et ipsae bibliothecam regiam ornarent. Denique si, Irenaeo teste, prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverunt apostoli quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio continet : ergo prophetica omnia, non solum Pentateuchum, interpretati sunt Seniores, ex auctoris nostri sententia, quae et eadem fuit Justini Martyris, Clementis Alexandrini, Tertulliani, Origenis, et aliorum. 5° Demum, quod cum pluribus ex mox laudatis Patribus censet Irenaeus, corruptas fuisse, tempore captivitatis Babylonicae, Scripturas sacras, et ab Esdra postmodum aspirante Spiritu sancto instauratas, haustum videtur, ut jam dixi, ex apocrypho libro IV Esdrae, cap. 14, ubi narrat auctor, quinque viros, Esdra, quae sibi revelata erant, dictante, plures scripsisse libros. Ut ut sit, ex verbis Irenaei inferri posse non putem, Scripturas tempore captivitatis prorsus interiisse. Non enim ait deperditas fuisse Scripturas, sed corruptas; nec easdem, Deo Esdrae afflante, de integro suscitatas in lucem iterum prodiisse; sed Deum inspirasse Esdrae sacerdoti, τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωϋσέως νομοθεσίαν, veterum prophetarum sermones omnes in ordinem digerere, et restituere populo eam legem quae data est per Moysen. Id igitur vult duntaxat Irenaeus, corruptas tum ignorantia, tum negligentia Judaeorum Scripturas; ab Esdra, Deo inspirante, recensitas, atque recognitas, a mendis quae irrepserant, purgatas fuisse; confusosque et perturbato ordine jacentes prophetarum libros, in pristinum ordinem digestos fuisse, ac denique legem longa oblivione veluti sepultam, de novo promulgatam et propositam populo fuisse. Sic Irenaeus a communi caeterorum Patrum atque interpretum sententia non recedit.

he consequently had to believe that the oracles of the prophets were not neglected by him—writings certainly worthy of adorning the royal library themselves also. Finally, if, as Irenaeus witnesses, the apostles proclaimed all the prophetic sayings even as the interpretation of the Elders contains them: therefore the Elders translated all the prophetic writings, not the Pentateuch alone, according to the opinion of our author, which was also the same as that of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Fifthly and finally, what Irenaeus holds along with several of the Fathers just praised, that the sacred Scriptures were corrupted at the time of the Babylonian captivity, and afterwards restored by Esdras under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, seems to have been drawn, as I have already said, from the apocryphal fourth book of Esdras, chap. 14, where the author relates that five men wrote many books while Esdras dictated the things that had been revealed to him. However that may be, from the words of Irenaeus I would not think it can be inferred that the Scriptures altogether perished at the time of the captivity. For he does not say that the Scriptures were lost, but corrupted; nor that the same, through God's breathing upon Esdras, were raised up anew and came forth again into the light; but that God inspired Esdras the priest, τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωϋσέως νομοθεσίαν, to arrange in order all the discourses of the ancient prophets, and to restore to the people that legislation which was given through Moses. This only, therefore, does Irenaeus mean: that the Scriptures, corrupted both by the ignorance and by the negligence of the Jews, were reviewed and revised by Esdras under God's inspiration, and purged of the faults which had crept in; that the books of the prophets, lying confused and in disturbed order, were arranged into their former order; and finally that the law, buried as it were by long oblivion, was promulgated anew and set before the people. Thus Irenaeus does not depart from the common opinion of the rest of the Fathers and interpreters.

10. Duarum aliarum Veteris Testamenti versionum meminit eodem loco Irenaeus, Theodotionis videlicet Ephesii, et Aquilae Pontici, utriusque Judaei proselyti; sed obiter tantum, et occasione illius Isaiae testimonii : Ecce virgo concipiet, quem ab illis corruptum prava interpretatione merito conqueritur. Et hinc accepta occasione, versionis LXX Interpretum fidem et auctoritatem commendat, eo modo quo diximus, eamque caeteris omnibus longe praefert. Hanc in citandis Veteris Testamenti locis plerumque sequitur. Si vero interdum ab ea discedere videatur, triplex hujus rei causa afferri potest : 1a Quod aliquando non ex codice, sed ex memoria citet; idque ex eo patet quod eadem testimonia diversis in locis saepe proferens, non tamen eodem modo semper scribat, sed hic verbis quibusdam aucta, illic decurtata, prout memoria suggerebat et occasio ferebat. 2a Quod non omnes τῶν Οʹ codices secum invicem in omnibus consentirent. Quanta inter eos codices, Origenis aetate, diversitas interesset, quamque desudandum Origeni fuerit, ut eos

10. In the same passage Irenaeus makes mention of two other versions of the Old Testament, namely that of Theodotion of Ephesus and that of Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes; but only in passing, and on the occasion of that testimony of Isaiah, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, which he rightly complains was corrupted by them through a perverse translation. And taking occasion from this, he commends the trustworthiness and authority of the version of the Seventy Interpreters in the manner we have stated, and prefers it by far to all the rest. This version he generally follows in citing passages of the Old Testament. But if at times he seems to depart from it, a threefold cause of this fact can be adduced: First, that sometimes he quotes not from a codex, but from memory; and this is clear from the fact that, while often bringing forward the same testimonies in different places, he nevertheless does not always write them in the same way, but here enlarged with certain words, there shortened, according as memory suggested and the occasion required. Secondly, that not all the codices of the Seventy agreed with one another in all respects. How great a diversity existed among those codices in the age of Origen, and how much Origen had to sweat in order that he might

Editors' notes and page, col. 254

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 254
marginal letters: A nibus ornare; B libro IV; C gligentia Judaeorum; D tur. Et hinc
old-edition numerals: [CXI] after recensitas,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): nibus ornare; begins mid-word nibus

PG 7:255

secum invicem conciliaret, vel iis resectis quae negligentia vel audacia librariorum perperam addita fuerant, vel iis additis quae male omissa fuerant, docet ipse t. XV Commentar. in Matthaeum. Cum igitur non iidem essent ubique versionis τῶν Οʹ codices, non mirum si ea, quae ex ea profert Irenaeus, non semper cum nostris exacte conveniant. Qui enim supersunt nobis, pauciores numero sunt; longe plures Irenaei aetate circumferebantur; qui si adhuc exstarent, certius de iis, quibus usus est, judicare possemus. 3ª Quod Latinus Irenaei interpres ea, quae S. doctor Scripturae testimonia allegat, interdum vel minus accurate verterit, vel non ex ipso Graeco verterit; sed labori parcens, prout ea in vulgatis Latinorum versionibus legebantur, Irenaei textui inseruerit. Eaedemque rationes valent, non pro Veteris duntaxat, sed et pro Novi Testamenti locis quae citavit Irenaeus. Nec enim ea semper ex codice protulit, sed interdum ex memoria; nec minor fuit inter Novi quam inter Veteris Testamenti codices diversitas, ut saepe conquestus est Hieronymus, et satis patet ex iis omnibus Graecis, qui etiamnum supersunt: nec minor fuit in iis vertendis Irenaei interpretis incuria. Haec ex eo potissimum deprehenditur, quod veterem vulgatam Italicam versionem ad verbum non raro sequatur, ut pluribus in locis observavi. Nihil vero necesse est moneam, tantam nusquam exstitisse varietatem inter omnes sive Veteris, sive Novi Testamenti codices, quibus usa est Ecclesia, quosque legit Irenaeus, ut quidpiam dispendii pertulerit sensus: res ipsa per se loquitur, et ei qui loca omnia sive ab auctore nostro, sive a veteribus Patribus allegata cum hodiernis nostris sacrae Scripturae exemplaribus conferre voluerit, palam illico fiet totum discrimen in verbis quibusdam, illaeso semper manente sensu, haerere. Id tantum ex hactenus dictis colligi velim, vix quidquam certi statui posse de iis, quibus usus est Irenaeus, Novi praesertim Testamenti codicibus: adeo ut ex iis quae allegat Scripturae locis, ut quid certum et indubitatum concludi non possit, sic vel sic omnino habuisse Irenaei codices; sed ejusmodi argumenta sobrie proponenda sint, et intra conjecturarum limites manere debeant. Ad haec si attendisset cl. Grabius, non ita fidenter pronuntiasset, haec vel illa exstitisse in veteribus Ecclesiae codicibus, vel ab iis abfuisse. Quisquis prudens est, et in lectione Patrum tantillum versatus, abstinet ab ejusmodi judiciis, ne temeritatis notam incurrat.

he would reconcile them with one another, either cutting away what had been wrongly added through the negligence or boldness of copyists, or adding what had been wrongly omitted, he himself teaches in tome XV of his Commentary on Matthew. Since, then, the manuscripts of the version of the Seventy were not everywhere the same, it is no wonder if the things which Irenaeus brings forward from it do not always agree exactly with ours. For those that survive to us are fewer in number; far more were in circulation in the age of Irenaeus; and if they still existed, we could judge more surely of those which he used. 3rdly, that the Latin translator of Irenaeus at times either rendered less accurately the testimonies of Scripture which the holy doctor adduces, or did not render them from the Greek itself, but, sparing himself labour, inserted them into the text of Irenaeus as they were read in the common versions of the Latins. And the same reasons hold good not only for the passages of the Old Testament, but also for those of the New Testament which Irenaeus cited. For he did not always bring them forward from a manuscript, but sometimes from memory; nor was the diversity among the manuscripts of the New Testament less than among those of the Old, as Jerome often complained, and as is plain enough from all the Greek ones that still survive; nor was the carelessness of the translator of Irenaeus less in rendering them. This is detected above all from the fact that he not seldom follows the old common Italic version word for word, as I have observed in many places. But there is no need for me to point out that never anywhere did so great a variety exist among all the manuscripts, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, which the Church used and which Irenaeus read, that the sense suffered any loss: the thing speaks for itself, and to anyone who will compare all the passages adduced, whether by our author or by the ancient Fathers, with our present-day copies of sacred Scripture, it will at once become plain that the whole difference lies in certain words, the sense always remaining unharmed. This only would I have gathered from what has been said so far, that scarcely anything certain can be established about the manuscripts which Irenaeus used, especially of the New Testament: so that from the passages of Scripture he adduces nothing certain and indubitable can be concluded, that the manuscripts of Irenaeus had it entirely thus or thus; but arguments of this kind are to be put forward soberly, and ought to remain within the limits of conjecture. Had the learned Grabe attended to this, he would not have pronounced so confidently that this or that existed in the ancient manuscripts of the Church, or was absent from them. Whoever is prudent, and even a little versed in the reading of the Fathers, abstains from judgements of this kind, lest he incur the mark of rashness.

ARTICULUS II.

ARTICLE II.

De Scripturarum perspicuitate et obscuritate.

On the clearness and obscurity of the Scriptures.

Editors' notes and page, col. 255

Page

running head: 255 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A secum invicem; B Irenaei textui; C 11. Claras; D cap. 27, n. 2
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): secum invicem; full-width two-line heading (ARTICULUS II. / De Scripturarum perspicuitate et obscuritate.) between paragraphs 1 and 2, cut off at right edge, not set
other: a full-width band stands across cols 255/256 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 256 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 255 (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: 255 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 256
marginal letters: A ‹secum invicem conciliaret› / ‹Italicam versionem›; B ‹Irenaei textui inseruerit› / ‹pturae locis›; C ‹11. Claras et perspicuas› / ‹his attenderit›; D ‹cap. 27, n. 2› / ‹qui Scripturas temere› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: page 134 set in reading order: this file holds the upper text of col 255 and the upper text of col 256 (one continuous paragraph, "Italicam versionem" onward is col 256), then the heading band of Art. II printed across both columns. The lower text of both columns is in c256_a.md. "τῶν Ο΄": printed with a numeral stroke after O. "3ª": the superscript after 3 reads as a small a on the page (QA Q3a, 2026-11-03; earlier read as °), i.e. tertia [ratio]; still small on the scan, slightly UNSURE.

PG 7:256

11. Claras et perspicuas esse Scripturas sacras, earumque sensum cuilibet attento et studioso lectori facilem et obvium esse, vulgatus Protestantium error est, quem mirum, si Irenaeo tantae auctoritatis Patri non affinxissent. Hunc quamvis in notis suis paulo parcius insinuet cl. Grabius, in Indice generali ad vocem Scriptura sollicitius inculcat. Scriptura sacra, inquit, omnia quae scire debemus, aperte et citra parabolarum involucrum proponit. Judaeis cum legitur, obscura et fabulae similis, Christianis vero perspicua. Sed si ea quae ibi indicantur loca conferas, miraberis nihil minus, quam quod spondet Index, occurrere. Nec accuratior, ne dicam sincerior, fuit vir cl. in notula, quam lib. II, cap. 46, suae editionis pag. 172 (nostrae vero cap. 27, n. 2, p. 155), subtexuit. Nimirum occasione istorum Irenaei verborum: Cum itaque universae Scripturae, et Prophetiae, et Evangelia, in aperto, et sine ambiguitate, et similiter ab omnibus audiri possint, etc., tam scite quam vere sic monuerat Feuardentius: Non vult, ait, omnes Scripturas adeo apertas, et cuivis obvias esse, ut nulla sit in eis obscuritas; cum hoc alibi frequenter affirmet, etc. Sed eas adeo perspicue et constanter unum et solum Deum mundi creatorem et rectorem praedicare, ut nemo, qui his attenderit, ignorare possit. Recte omnino. Subjungit vero Grabius: Attamen praecedenti pagina aperte et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus in Scripturis posita dicit universe, quae quidem dedit in hominum potestatem Deus, et subdidit nostrae scientiae, prout ibidem loquitur: id est, quae Deus a nobis sciri, vel credi voluit. Verum quidem est Irenaeum initio capitis asserere, quaedam esse aperte et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus posita in Scripturis; sed hanc Irenaei propositionem universalem esse, hacque S. doctorem complecti voluisse ea omnia quae Deus a nobis sciri, vel credi voluit, Grabii commentaria sunt cum ipso textu e diametro pugnantia. Nimirum postquam Irenaeus capite praecedenti insanam Gnosticorum curiositatem redarguit, qui Scripturas temere scrutati, insulsisque de Deo rebusque divinis quaestionibus atque commentationibus delectati, vano scientiae nomine superbius efferebantur: tum initio capitis sequentis (in quo demonstrandum sibi proponit, ex parabolis, quibus multiplex subesse potest sensus, obscura explicanda non esse, sed ex iis quae clare et aperte posita sunt in Scripturis) subjungit, sensum sanum, et qui sine periculo est, et religiosum, et amantem rerum, quae quidem dedit in hominum potestatem Deus,

11. That the sacred Scriptures are clear and plain, and that their sense is easy and ready to hand for any attentive and studious reader, is a common error of the Protestants, and it would be a wonder if they had not fastened it upon Irenaeus, a Father of such great authority. Though the learned Grabe insinuates it somewhat sparingly in his notes, in the general Index under the word "Scripture" he inculcates it more earnestly. "Sacred Scripture," he says, "sets forth all that we ought to know openly and without the wrapping of parables. When it is read to the Jews it is obscure and like a fable, but to Christians it is plain." But if you compare the passages there indicated, you will be amazed that nothing is met with less than what the Index promises. Nor was the learned man more accurate, not to say more honest, in the little note which he appended to Book II, chapter 46, page 172 of his edition (but chapter 27, number 2, page 155 of ours). On the occasion, that is, of these words of Irenaeus: "Since, therefore, the whole Scriptures, both the Prophets and the Gospels, can be heard openly and without ambiguity, and alike by all," etc., Feuardent had warned as skilfully as truly: "He does not mean," he says, "that all the Scriptures are so open and ready to hand for anyone that there is no obscurity in them, since elsewhere he frequently affirms this," etc., "but that they proclaim so plainly and constantly one and only God, Creator and Ruler of the world, that no one who has attended to them can be ignorant of it." Quite rightly. But Grabe adds: "Yet on the preceding page he says universally that the things which God has given into the power of men, and has subjected to our knowledge, as he puts it there, are set in the Scriptures openly and without ambiguity, in the very words: that is, the things which God willed to be known or believed by us." It is true indeed that Irenaeus asserts at the beginning of the chapter that certain things are set in the Scriptures openly and without ambiguity, in the very words; but that this proposition of Irenaeus is universal, and that by it the holy doctor meant to embrace all the things which God willed to be known or believed by us, these are Grabe's commentaries, diametrically at war with the text itself. That is to say, after Irenaeus in the preceding chapter had rebuked the mad curiosity of the Gnostics, who, having rashly searched the Scriptures and taking delight in senseless questions and speculations about God and divine things, were puffed up too proudly by the empty name of knowledge, then at the beginning of the following chapter (in which he sets himself to show that obscure things are not to be explained from parables, beneath which a manifold sense may lie, but from those things which are set clearly and openly in the Scriptures) he adds that a sound mind, one which is without danger, and religious, and loving the things which God has given into the power of men,

Editors' notes and page, col. 256

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 256
marginal letters: A Italicam versionem; B pturae locis,; C his attenderit,; D qui Scripturas
old-edition numerals: [CXII] after in
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): Italicam versionem; full-width two-line heading (ARTICULUS II. / De Scripturarum perspicuitate et obscuritate.) between paragraphs 1 and 2, cut off at left edge, not set
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 255 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 255 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 256
marginal letters: A ‹secum invicem conciliaret› / ‹Italicam versionem›; B ‹Irenaei textui inseruerit› / ‹pturae locis›; C ‹11. Claras et perspicuas› / ‹his attenderit›; D ‹cap. 27, n. 2› / ‹qui Scripturas temere› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CXII after ‹in› (before Scripturis, col 256)
other: page 134 set in reading order: this file holds the lower text of col 255 ("11. Claras" to "ut nemo, qui") and the lower text of col 256 ("his attenderit" to "potestatem Deus,"), one continuous paragraph. Q6a (2026-11-03): the page prints "amantem re-/rum" (Irenaeus's own text reads "amans verum"); the source keeps "rerum" as printed and the English now renders it ("loving the things which"), no longer supplying the verb of the quotation, which continues on col 257. UNSURE whether "rerum" is a misprint for "verum": the scan is too coarse to tell r from v with certainty; check on the rescan.

PG 7:257

et subdidit nostrae scientiae, haec prompte meditari, et in ipsis proficere, diuturno studio facilem scientiam eorum efficientem. Quaenam vero ea sint, quae dedit in hominum potestatem Deus, et subdidit nostrae scientiae, statim indicat : Sunt autem haec, addit, quae ante oculos nostros occurrunt, et quaecunque aperte, et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus posita sunt in Scripturis. An vero, quisquis ita loquitur, aperte et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus in Scripturis posita dicit universe, quae dedit in hominum potestatem Deus, et subdidit nostrae scientiae; id est, quae Deus a nobis sciri vel credi voluit? Lippis oculis Irenaeum legerit, qui sic concludat. Id vult S. doctor, quaedam esse, quorum investigationem permisit nobis Deus, quaeque subdidit nostrae scientiae; ea vero esse 1° Quae ante oculos nostros occurrunt, res naturales videlicet; non certe ea omnia, quae in Scripturis habentur, utpote quae ante oculos nostros occurrere, nemo sanae mentis dixerit. 2° Quaecunque aperte et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus posita sunt in Scripturis. Ut ergo quaecunque aperte et sine ambiguo posita sunt in Scripturis, scientiae nostrae atque investigationi permiserit Deus; non hinc tamen, nisi puerili sophismate, concludi potest, ea omnia, quae Deus a nobis sciri vel credi voluit, aperte et sine ambiguo posita esse in Scripturis. Alias eodem jure concludi posset, ea omnia quae Deus a nobis sciri, vel credi voluit, ante oculos nostros occurrere, id est sub conspectum nostrum cadere; alterum enim ab altero non separat Irenaeus; quae tamen conclusio absurdissima foret. Longe quippe diversae sunt hae propositiones : Quaecunque ante oculos nostros occurrunt, et aperte et sine ambiguo in Scripturis posita sunt, ea omnia dedit in hominum potestatem Deus, et subdidit nostrae scientiae; et : Ea omnia quae Deus a nobis sciri vel credi voluit, aperte et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus posita sunt in Scripturis. Prima propositio Irenaei est; secunda Grabii solius, non certe S. doctoris.

and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make progress in them, rendering the knowledge of them easy by daily study. Now what those things are which God has given into the power of men and subjected to our knowledge, he immediately indicates: And these, he adds, are the things which meet us before our eyes, and whatsoever things are set down in the Scriptures openly and without ambiguity, in the very words themselves. Does anyone who speaks thus say universally that all things which God has given into the power of men and subjected to our knowledge—that is, what God willed to be known or believed by us—are set down openly and without ambiguity, in the very words themselves, in the Scriptures? He must have read Irenaeus with blear eyes who would conclude thus. What the holy doctor means is that there are certain things the investigation of which God has permitted to us, and which He has subjected to our knowledge; and that these are: First, the things which meet us before our eyes, namely natural things—certainly not all those things which are contained in the Scriptures, inasmuch as no one of sound mind would say that they meet us before our eyes. Secondly, whatsoever things are set down in the Scriptures openly and without ambiguity, in the very words themselves. Granting, therefore, that God has permitted to our knowledge and investigation whatsoever things are set down openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures, yet from this it cannot be concluded, save by a childish sophism, that all those things which God willed to be known or believed by us are set down openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures. Otherwise by the same right it could be concluded that all those things which God willed to be known or believed by us meet us before our eyes, that is, fall under our sight—for Irenaeus does not separate the one from the other—which conclusion would nevertheless be most absurd. For these propositions are far different: Whatsoever things meet us before our eyes, and are set down openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures, all these God has given into the power of men, and subjected to our knowledge; and: All those things which God willed to be known or believed by us are set down openly and without ambiguity, in the very words themselves, in the Scriptures. The first proposition is that of Irenaeus; the second is that of Grabe alone, certainly not of the holy doctor.

12. Tantum abest hic dicat, ea omnia, quae in Scripturis habentur, aperte et sine ambiguo, ipsis dictionibus posita esse; quin potius, postquam ostendit ex parabolis obscuris clara et perspicua Scripturae verba explicanda non esse, subjungit, stultum esse et absurdum, quae non aperte dicta sunt in Scripturis, neque ante oculos posita, copulare absolutionibus parabolarum, quas unusquisque, prout vult, adinvenit. Igitur praeter parabolas, quibus multiplex subesse potest sensus, alia in Scripturis occurrunt, quae non aperte dicta sunt; obscura proinde, nec unicuique facile pervia, sed quae explicatione et interprete indigeant. Ea vero licet obscura, si non a nobis sciri, certe credi Deus voluit. Si autem ab Irenaeo quaeras, quaenam ea sint quae aperte et sine ambiguo posita sint in

12. So far is he from saying here that all those things which are contained in the Scriptures are set down openly and without ambiguity, in the very words themselves, that on the contrary, after showing that the clear and perspicuous words of Scripture are not to be explained from obscure parables, he subjoins that it is foolish and absurd to join the things that are not spoken openly in the Scriptures, nor set before the eyes, to the interpretations of parables, which each one devises as he wills. Therefore, besides parables, under which a manifold sense can lie, other things occur in the Scriptures which are not spoken openly—obscure, accordingly, and not easily accessible to everyone, but such as stand in need of explanation and an interpreter. And yet those things, though obscure, God willed, if not to be known, certainly to be believed by us. Now if you ask of Irenaeus what those things are which are set down openly and without ambiguity in

Editors' notes and page, col. 257

Page

running head: 257 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A et subdidit; B tiae; ea vero; C sub conspectum; D Scripturae verba
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): et subdidit

PG 7:258

Scripturis, respondebit : non universe, ut perperam fingit Grabius, sed singulariter, et quantum ad argumentum praesens pertinebat, unum esse et solum Deum, mundi conditorem et rectorem. Cum itaque, inquit, universae Scripturae, et Prophetiae, et Evangelia in aperto, et sine ambiguitate, et similiter ab omnibus audiri possint, etsi non omnes credunt, unum et solum Deum, ad excludendos alios, praedicent omnia fecisse per Verbum suum, sive visibilia, sive invisibilia, etc., et ipsa autem creatura, in qua sumus, per ea quae in aspectum veniunt, hoc ipsum testante, unum esse, qui eam fecerit et regat : valde hebetes apparebunt, qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem caecutiunt oculos, etc. Quam multa autem sint in Scripturis obscurissima, quae explicari a nobis non possunt, fusius docet cap. sequenti, ubi probat plures in iis occurrere difficultates, quae solvi a nobis non possint, sed quarum solutio Deo soli humili fide committi debeat : Scripturas quidem perfectas esse, utpote a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus inspiratas; sed tantis mysteriis abundare, ut ad ea intelligenda revelatione opus sit : adeo siquidem angustos esse mentis nostrae limites, ut in ipsis rebus naturalibus, quarum assiduus nobis est usus, quasque quotidie videmus et contrectamus, caecutiat. Legi verba apud auctorem possunt n. 2 et 3, longiora siquidem loca sunt, quam ut hic exscribantur. Et lib. IV, cap. 26, n. 1 (quo etiam loco abutitur Grabius), docet, Christum esse thesaurum in Scripturis absconditum, ejusdem Christi adventu et cruce revelatum. Prophetias omnes, priusquam habeant efficaciam, aenigmata et ambiguitates esse hominibus : cum autem venerit tempus, et evenerit quod prophetatum est, tunc prophetias habere liquidam et certam expositionem. Et propter hoc quidem Judaeis, cum legitur Lex in hoc nunc tempore, fabulae similem esse; non enim habent expositionem omnium rerum pertinentem ad adventum Filii Dei, qui est secundum hominem; a Christianis vero cum legitur, thesaurum esse absconsum in agro, cruce vero Christi revelatum esse et explanatum. Ratio est, quia Christiani habent expositionem omnium rerum pertinentem ad adventum Filii. A quo vero habent? Ab eis qui in Ecclesia sunt presbyteris, quibus proinde obaudire oportet, his nimirum qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt. Nam ubi charismata Domini sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea, quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis constat. Hi enim et eam, quae est in unum Deum, qui omnia fecit, fidem nostram custodiunt; et eam, quae est in Filium Dei, dilectionem adaugent... et Scripturae sine periculo nobis exponunt. Reliqui

the Scriptures, he will answer: not universally, as Grabe wrongly imagines, but particularly, and so far as pertained to the present argument, that there is one and only God, the founder and ruler of the world. Since therefore, he says, the entire Scriptures, both the Prophecies and the Gospels, can be heard openly, and without ambiguity, and in like manner by all, even though not all believe, and proclaim that one and only God, to the exclusion of others, made all things through His Word, whether visible or invisible, etc., and the creation itself also, in which we are, through the things which come into view, bearing witness to this very thing, that there is One Who made and rules it: very dull will they appear who blind their eyes to so bright a manifestation, etc. Moreover, how many things there are in the Scriptures most obscure, which cannot be explained by us, he teaches more at length in the following chapter, where he proves that many difficulties occur in them which cannot be solved by us, but the solution of which ought to be committed with humble faith to God alone: that the Scriptures indeed are perfect, inasmuch as they are inspired by the Word of God and His Spirit, yet abound in such great mysteries that revelation is needed to understand them; since the limits of our mind are so narrow that in natural things themselves, of which we make continual use, and which we daily see and handle, it is blind. The words may be read in the author at n. 2 and 3, since the passages are too long to be transcribed here. And in book 4, chap. 26, n. 1 (which passage Grabe also misuses), he teaches that Christ is the treasure hidden in the Scriptures, revealed by the coming and cross of the same Christ; that all prophecies, before they have their fulfilment, are riddles and ambiguities to men, but when the time has come, and what was prophesied has happened, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition; and that on account of this, to the Jews indeed, when the Law is read at this present time, it is like a fable, for they do not have the exposition of all things pertaining to the coming of the Son of God, which is according to man, whereas when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure hidden in a field, but revealed and explained by the cross of Christ. The reason is, because Christians have the exposition of all things pertaining to the coming of the Son. And from whom do they have it? From those presbyters who are in the Church, whom accordingly it is necessary to obey—those, namely, who have succession from the apostles; who together with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. For where the charisms of the Lord are, there must one learn the truth, among those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and that which is sound and blameless in conduct, and unadulterated and incorruptible in discourse, stands fast. For these both guard our faith in the one God Who made all things, and increase our love for the Son of God... and expound the Scriptures to us without danger. But the rest,

Editors' notes and page, col. 258

Footnotes

(46) ‹anchor: vero habent?› · call in col 258

Lib. IV, n. 2.

Book IV, no. 2.

(printed under page 135)

(47) ‹anchor: Patris acceperunt.› · call in col 258

Ibid., n. 5.

Same place, no. 5.

(printed under page 135)

(48) ‹anchor: nobis exponunt› · call in col 258

Ibid., n. 2.

Same place, no. 2.

(printed under page 135)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 258
marginal letters: A Scripturis, respondebit; B nobis non possunt,; C saurum in Scripturis; D teris, quibus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): Scripturis, respondebit; faint t at end of adaugent...

PG 7:259

vero qui absistunt a principali successione, et quocunque loco colligunt, suspecti habendi, vel quasi haeretici et malae sententiae; vel quasi scindentes, et elati, et sibi placentes; aut rursus ut hypocritae, quaestus gratia et vanae gloriae hoc operantes. Omnes autem hi deciderunt a veritate.

but those who stand apart from the principal succession, and assemble in any place whatever, are to be held suspect, either as heretics and of evil opinion; or as schismatics, and puffed up, and pleasing themselves; or again as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vainglory. But all these have fallen away from the truth.

13. Videat jam cl. Grabius utrum haec Irenaei verba, ad quae ipse remittit, causae suae faveant. Videat utrum ex S. doctoris sententia, Scripturae adeo perspicuae sint et apertae, ut interprete non indigeant. Videat utrum earum interpretatio cujusvis privati hominis judicio permittatur. Videat demum, et serio perpendat, utrum ea societas, vel in qua natus est, vel cui se adjunxit, tales presbyteros nutriat, quales hic describit Irenaeus, qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt; qui et apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt; et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum et conversationem sine offensa praestant, ad confirmationem et correptionem reliquorrm, etc. Edat, ut cum Tertulliano loquar, origines Ecclesiarum suarum; evolvat ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apo⟨s⟩tolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Confingat quidquid libuerit; si candide et sincere agere voluerit, cum devenerit ad Matthaeum Parkerum in Anglia, Lutherum in Germania, Calvinum in Gallia, aliosque ejusmodi recentiores sectarum duces et conditores; deprehendet eos successionem apostolicam vel ludicra et sacrilega ordinatione invertisse, vel spreta omni ordinatione funditus evertisse. Sed de his postea.

13. Let the learned Grabe now see whether these words of Irenaeus, to which he himself refers, favour his cause. Let him see whether, in the holy doctor's judgement, the Scriptures are so plain and open that they need no interpreter. Let him see whether their interpretation is entrusted to the judgement of any private man. Let him see, finally, and seriously weigh, whether that society, either in which he was born or to which he has joined himself, nurtures such presbyters as Irenaeus here describes, "who have the succession from the apostles; who with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father; who also guard the doctrine of the apostles, and together with the order of the presbyterate show forth sound speech and a manner of life without offence, for the confirming and correcting of the rest," etc. Let him "publish," to speak with Tertullian, "the origins of his Churches; let him unroll the order of his bishops, running down by successions from the beginning in such a way that that first bishop had as his author and predecessor one of the apostles, or of the apostolic men who nevertheless persevered with the apostles." Let him invent whatever he pleases; if he is willing to act candidly and honestly, when he comes to Matthew Parker in England, Luther in Germany, Calvin in France, and other more recent leaders and founders of sects of this kind, he will find that they either overturned the apostolic succession by a mock and sacrilegious ordination, or, spurning all ordination, destroyed it utterly. But of these matters later.

ARTICULUS III.

ARTICLE III.

De Traditionis auctoritate et fundamento.

On the authority and foundation of Tradition.

Editors' notes and page, col. 259

Footnotes

(49) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 259

De praescrip.

De praescriptione (Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics).

(printed under page 136)

(50) ‹anchor: docet Irenaeus› · call in col 259

Lib. IV, c. 35, n. 4.

Book IV, chapter 35, no. 4.

(printed under page 136)

(51) ‹anchor: aperte praedicat› · call in col 259

Lib. V, cap. 30, n. 2.

Book V, chapter 30, no. 2.

(printed under page 136)

(52) ‹anchor: libri tertii› · call in col 259

C. 2.

Chapter 2.

(printed under page 136)

Page

running head: 259 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A vero qui; B cessionem habent; C 14. Scripturas; D traditam illam,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): vero qui; paragraph 2 ends mid-word do-; full-width two-line heading (ARTICULUS III. / De Traditionis auctoritate et fundamento.) between paragraphs 2 and 3, cut off at right edge, not set
other: a full-width band stands across cols 259/260 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 260 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 259 (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: 259 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 260
marginal letters: A ‹vero qui absistunt› / ‹ctrinam custodiunt›; B ‹cessionem habent ab apostolis› / ‹tione invertisse›; C ‹14. Scripturas quidem› / ‹iis distingui›; D ‹traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem› / ‹sus est, Traditio› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CXIII after ‹suarum;› (col 260)

PG 7:260

14. Scripturas quidem sacras Dei sermones esse, et regulam veritatis certam et immutabilem, cui nihil addere vel detrahere liceat, rectissime docet Irenaeus. Iis tamen omnia Dei verba expresse non contineri, sed apostolos, ut Christi legatos atque praecones, plura docuisse, quae scriptis haudquaquam consignarunt, non minus aperte praedicat. Traditionis siquidem auctoritate impugnaturus haereticos, jam ab initio libri tertii ostendit, eam esse impiorum hominum proterviam, ut cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertantur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictae, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem; non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem... Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quae est ab apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesia custoditur, provocamus eos; adversantur traditioni, dicentes se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam apostolis existentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veritatem .. Evenit itaque neque Scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos. Ex quibus haec liquido sequuntur, 1° ipsos omnium haereticorum pessimos agnovisse et confessos fuisse, Scripturas varie dictas esse, id est interdum obscuras esse, variosque iis subesse sensus. 2° Obscurorum locorum sensum a traditione petendum esse, non ea, quae per litteras tradita sit, sed per vivam vocem. Haec non reprehendit Irenaeus, imo in sequentibus probat, ut mox videbitur. 3° Traditionem latius patere Scripturis, et ab iis distingui, utpote quae earum sit interpres; quod et haec Irenaei conclusio demonstrat: Evenit itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos. Et postquam de traditione apostolica fusius disseruit, jam argumento finem imponens, et ad illud, quod e Scripturis petitum coeperat, reversurus, sic caput 5 orditur: Traditione igitur, quae est ab apostolis, sic se habente in Ecclesia, et permanente apud nos, revertamur ad eam, quae est ex Scripturis ostensionem, eorum qui Evangelium conscripserunt, apostolorum, etc. Ubi traditionem apostolorum ab eorum scriptis perspicue distinguit. Sed non possum quin hic obiter malam Gallasii fidem castigem, qui cum clara haec Irenaei verba adulterare in textu non potuisset, ea in summulis suis corrumpere ausus est, Traditio, inquit, apostolorum convenit cum eorum scriptis, ad quae semper est nobis redeundum. An is sit Irenaei verborum sensus, judicet quisquis oculos habet, nec deinceps ejusmodi novarum editionum auctoribus fidat. Illud igitur Irenaei aevo certum erat, non satis esse ad catholicam fidem, ut quis Scripturis consentiret, nisi insuper consentiret et traditioni, ei quae per vivam vocem, non per litteras tradita fuit ab apostolis, quaeque per successiones presbyterorum, id est episcoporum, in Ecclesia custoditur. Et hinc etiam in confesso erat apud omnes, non Scripturas tantum, sed traditionem etiam, regulam esse fidei nostrae; neque enim ad Scripturas duntaxat provocabantur haeretici, uti provocari vellent recentiores heterodoxi, sed et ad traditionem, tanquam ad certissimam Christianae

14. That the sacred Scriptures are the words of God, and the sure and unchangeable rule of truth, to which it is lawful neither to add nor to take away anything, Irenaeus teaches most rightly. Yet that not all the words of God are expressly contained in them, but that the apostles, as Christ's envoys and heralds, taught many things which they by no means committed to writing, he proclaims no less openly. For, being about to attack the heretics by the authority of Tradition, he shows right from the beginning of the third book that such is the effrontery of impious men that, "when they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right, nor of authority, and because they were spoken in various ways, and because the truth cannot be found from them by those who do not know the Tradition; for it was handed down not through writings but by the living voice... But when we in turn challenge them to that Tradition which is from the apostles, which is guarded in the Church through the successions of presbyters, they oppose the Tradition, saying that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters but even than the apostles, have found the unadulterated truth.. It comes about, therefore, that they agree now neither with the Scriptures nor with the Tradition." From which these things clearly follow: 1st, that the very worst of all the heretics acknowledged and confessed that the Scriptures were spoken in various ways, that is, that they are at times obscure, and that various senses lie beneath them. 2nd, that the sense of obscure passages is to be sought from Tradition, not that which has been handed down through writings, but by the living voice. These things Irenaeus does not censure; rather, in what follows he approves them, as will soon be seen. 3rd, that Tradition extends more widely than the Scriptures, and is distinguished from them, inasmuch as it is their interpreter; which this conclusion of Irenaeus also demonstrates: "It comes about, therefore, that they agree now neither with the Scriptures nor with the Tradition." And after he has discoursed at greater length on the apostolic Tradition, now putting an end to the argument and about to return to the argument drawn from the Scriptures which he had begun, he opens chapter 5 thus: "The Tradition, then, which is from the apostles, being so in the Church and abiding among us, let us return to the demonstration which is from the Scriptures, of those apostles who wrote the Gospel," etc. Where he plainly distinguishes the Tradition of the apostles from their writings. But I cannot help here, in passing, chastising the bad faith of Gallasius, who, since he had been unable to adulterate these clear words of Irenaeus in the text, dared to corrupt them in his summaries: "The Tradition of the apostles," he says, "agrees with their writings, to which we must always return." Whether that is the sense of the words of Irenaeus, let anyone who has eyes judge, and let him not henceforth trust the authors of new editions of this kind. This, then, was certain in the age of Irenaeus: that it was not enough for the catholic faith that one should agree with the Scriptures unless one also agreed besides with Tradition, that which was handed down by the apostles by the living voice, not through writings, and which is guarded in the Church through the successions of presbyters, that is, of bishops. And hence too it was admitted among all that not the Scriptures only but Tradition also is the rule of our faith; for the heretics were challenged not to the Scriptures alone, as the more recent heterodox would wish to be challenged, but also to Tradition, as to the most certain

Editors' notes and page, col. 260

Page

running head: PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 260
marginal letters: A ctrinam custodiunt;; B tione invertisse,; C iis distingui,; D sus est,
old-edition numerals: [CXIII] after suarum;
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ctrinam custodiunt; begins mid-word ctrinam; full-width two-line heading (ARTICULUS III. / De Traditionis auctoritate et fundamento.) between paragraphs 1 and 2, cut off at left edge, not set
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 259 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 259 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 260
marginal letters: A ‹vero qui absistunt› / ‹ctrinam custodiunt›; B ‹cessionem habent ab apostolis› / ‹tione invertisse›; C ‹14. Scripturas quidem› / ‹iis distingui›; D ‹traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem› / ‹sus est, Traditio› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other (Q6a, 2026-11-03): footnote 49 (De praescrip.), listed in n259 with its call "not visible", is called in col 260's upper paragraph (set under col 259) at "cum Tertulliano ⁴⁹ loquar"; its anchor in n259 should read "cum Tertulliano" and "call in col 260". Footnotes 50–52 are called in col 259's lower text, which this file carries in reading order; they stand in n259. The same upper paragraph of col 260 (set under col 259) prints the misprint "reliquorrm" (for reliquorum) in the italic quotation: check that col 259's file keeps it as printed.

PG 7:261

et catholicae veritatis regulam : hacque confundebantur, ut ait auctor noster capite sequenti, omnes ii, qui quoquo modo vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet colligebant. Si qui autem traditioni non consentirent, adversus eos certamen erat, et undique resistendum esse illis censebant Ecclesiae Patres.

and Catholic truth; and by this were confounded, as our author says in the following chapter, all those who in any way whatsoever, either through self-pleasing, or vainglory, or through blindness and evil opinion, gathered otherwise than as they ought. And if any did not agree with tradition, the contest was against them, and the Fathers of the Church judged that they must be resisted on every side.

15. Cur vero tanta esse in traditione, ad catholicam fidem tuendam, momenta vellent SS. doctores, ratio, ex Irenaeo, in promptu est : quia traditio est ab apostolis. Nimirum, non omnia quae docuerunt apostoli, haec scriptis mandarunt, sed plura vivae vocis oraculo tradiderunt, iis maxime quibus Ecclesias committebant; quae per successiones episcoporum pervenerunt usque ad nos. Traditionem itaque apostolorum, inquit cap. 3, n. 1, in toto mundo manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre; et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, quae seorsim et latenter a reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea, quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes, quibus emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa calamitas. Firmissimum itaque et ineluctabile illud argumentum est. Cum dogma quidpiam in Ecclesia proponitur, quod Scripturis aut fulciri aut impugnari satis non potest, illud ad Ecclesiarum traditionem exigendum est; si cum ea consentiat, id apostolis ipsis acceptum referendum est; si dissentiat, illico rejiciendum et damnandum. Cum enim Ecclesiae omnes vel ab apostolis ipsis, vel ab eorum discipulis aut successoribus fundatae sint; qui primi ad eas Ecclesias regendas ordinati sunt episcopi, eorum omnium quae a Christo tradita et accepta docuerant, vel explicuerant apostoli, notitia probe instructi accesserunt : valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse apostoli, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes. Ii vero apostolorum successores quae ab apostolis acceperunt, suis vicissim successoribus tradiderunt et crediderunt, hi aliis, donec per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos traditionem et doctrinam apostolicam ipsi acceperimus. Ex quibus evidenter patet, eam quam Irenaeus, aliique SS. Patres traditionem apostolorum dicunt, ipsissimam esse apostolorum doctrinam, quam viva voce tum Ecclesiis a se fundatis, tum iis quos instituerunt episcopis, tradiderunt et crediderunt : hanc enim, ut jam dixi, Irenaeus a Scripturis aperte distinguit. Non minoris

15. Now why the holy doctors held that there was such great weight in tradition for defending the Catholic faith, the reason, according to Irenaeus, is close at hand: because tradition is from the apostles. Namely, the apostles did not commit to writing all the things that they taught, but handed down many things by the oracle of the living voice, especially to those to whom they were committing the Churches; and these have come down through the successions of the bishops even to us. The tradition of the apostles, therefore, he says in chap. 3, n. 1, manifested in the whole world, is present in every Church to be beheld by all who wish to see what is true; and we are able to enumerate those who were appointed bishops by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors even to us, who neither taught nor knew anything such as is raved of by these men. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they used to teach to the perfect apart and secretly from the rest, they would have handed them down above all to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they wished them to be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom they also left behind as their successors, handing over to them their own place of teaching authority; from whose upright conduct great benefit would arise, but from their fall the greatest calamity. Most firm, therefore, and inescapable is that argument. When any dogma is proposed in the Church which cannot be sufficiently either supported or impugned by the Scriptures, it must be tested by the tradition of the Churches; if it agrees with it, it is to be credited as received from the apostles themselves; if it disagrees, it is immediately to be rejected and condemned. For since all the Churches were founded either by the apostles themselves, or by their disciples or successors, the bishops who were first ordained to rule those Churches came well furnished with the knowledge of all those things which, handed down and received from Christ, the apostles had taught or explained: for the apostles wished them to be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom they also left behind as their successors, handing over to them their own place of teaching authority. And those successors of the apostles in turn handed down and entrusted to their own successors the things which they had received from the apostles, and these to others, until we ourselves received the apostolic tradition and doctrine coming down through the successions of the bishops even to us. From which it is clearly evident that what Irenaeus and the other holy Fathers call the tradition of the apostles is the very doctrine of the apostles, which they handed down and entrusted by the living voice both to the Churches founded by them and to the bishops whom they appointed; for this, as I have already said, Irenaeus openly distinguishes from the Scriptures. Not less

Editors' notes and page, col. 261

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 261

C. 3, n. 2; c. 2, n. 3; c. 4, n. 1.

Chapter 3, no. 2; chapter 2, no. 3; chapter 4, no. 1.

(printed under page 137)

Page

running head: 261 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A et catholicae; B venerunt usque; C utilitas, lapsis; D biles in omnibus
old-edition numerals: [CXIV] after [fundatis,]
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): et catholicae; ends mid-word mino-
other: the word minoris was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 262

PG 7:262

proinde auctoritatis est, quam ipsa apostolica scripta, cum utraque Dei et Christi ipsius sermones sint. Nam sive viva voce, sive scripto docuerint apostoli quidpiam, quod ad fidem aut mores necessario pertineat, Christi doctrina est, et a Christo revelata et accepta, quam afflante atque dirigente Spiritu sancto tradidernnt : Dei proinde verbum est, Deo ipsi acceptum referendum. Eapropter traditionem primis libri tertii capitibus, et alibi saepe, tam sollicite opponit haereticis auctor noster, meritoque tantum illius pondus esse vult, ut hoc obruantur quicunque male sentiunt. Eapropter haereticis traditionem aut contemnentibus aut violantibus undique resistendum, eosque ut fures et latrones devitandos esse monet. Oportet, inquit, devitare quidem illos; quae autem sunt Ecclesiae cum summa diligentia diligere, et apprehendere veritatis traditionem. Eapropter denique tantum traditioni tribuit, ut si neque apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, oporteret tamen ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias. Quod adeo verum est, addit, ut huic ordinationi assentiant multae gentes barbarorum, eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento (id est sine scripturis) scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, in unum Deum credentes, fabricatorem coeli et terrae, etc. Hanc fidem qui sine litteris crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum, barbari sunt; quantum autem ad sententiam et consuetudinem, et conversationem, propter fidem perquam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conversantes in omni justitia, et castitate, et sapientia. Ad hanc unam traditionis normam barbari illi exigentes quaecunque nova ab haereticis proponerentur, statim concludentes aures suas, longe longius fugerent, nec audire quidem sustinentes blasphemum colloquium. Sic per illam veterem apostolorum traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt quodcunque haereticorum portentiloquium est. En quae et quanta priscis Ecclesiae Patribus, apostolicisque viris, traditionis auctoritas erat.

authority, accordingly, than the apostolic writings themselves, since both are the words of God and of Christ Himself. For whether by the living voice or in writing the apostles taught anything that necessarily pertains to faith or morals, it is the doctrine of Christ, both revealed and received from Christ, which they handed down under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit: it is accordingly the word of God, to be credited as received from God Himself. Wherefore in the first chapters of the third book, and often elsewhere, our author so sedulously opposes tradition to the heretics, and rightly holds its weight to be so great that whoever thinks amiss is overwhelmed by it. Wherefore he admonishes that heretics who either despise or violate tradition must be resisted on every side, and avoided as thieves and robbers. We must, he says, avoid them indeed, but love with the utmost diligence the things that belong to the Church, and lay hold of the tradition of the truth. Wherefore, finally, he attributes so much to tradition that, even if the apostles had not left us the Scriptures, it would nevertheless be necessary to follow the order of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they were committing the Churches. Which is so true, he adds, that to this ordinance assent many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ, having salvation written without paper and ink (that is, without writings) through the Spirit in their hearts, and diligently guarding the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the framer of heaven and earth, etc. Those who have believed this faith without written letters, so far as regards our language, are barbarians; but so far as regards opinion, and custom, and conduct, on account of their faith they are exceedingly wise, and please God, living in all righteousness, and chastity, and wisdom. Testing by this one norm of tradition whatsoever novelties might be proposed by the heretics, those barbarians, immediately stopping their ears, would flee far, far away, not enduring even to hear the blasphemous talk. Thus through that ancient tradition of the apostles they do not admit even into the conception of their mind whatever is the monstrous talk of the heretics. Behold what and how great was the authority of tradition among the ancient Fathers of the Church and apostolic men.

16. Medium autem, ac veluti canalis, quo traditio apostolica ad nos usque fluxit intemerata, successio episcoporum est legitime in Ecclesia catholica ordinatorum. Neque enim quemquam Ecclesiis praefecerunt praeficique permiserunt apostoli, nisi prius ea omnia, quae ad fidem et mores necessario pertinent, apprime calleret, eorumque omnium quae credenda et agenda Ecclesiae proposuerant, notitia solerter imbutus fuisset : ut nimirum eamdem notitiam posteris transmitteret. Et hinc eam episcoporum successionem tam acriter tamque frequenter urget adversus haereticos Irenaeus; ratus videlicet, nihil efficacius esse ad retundendam omnem haereticam pervicaciam. Non enim, inquit, oportet quaerere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere : cum apostoli, quasi in

16. Now the medium, and as it were the channel, through which apostolic tradition has flowed down uncorrupted even to us, is the succession of bishops legitimately ordained in the Catholic Church. For the apostles neither set anyone over the Churches, nor permitted anyone to be set over them, unless he was first thoroughly versed in all those things which necessarily pertain to faith and morals, and had been carefully imbued with the knowledge of all those things which they had proposed to the Church to be believed and done: so that, namely, he might transmit the same knowledge to posterity. And hence Irenaeus urges that succession of bishops so sharply and so frequently against the heretics, judging, namely, that nothing is more efficacious for beating back all heretical obstinacy. For one must not, he says, seek among others the truth which it is easy to take from the Church: since the apostles, as into

Editors' notes and page, col. 262

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor: primis libri tertii capitibus› · call in col 262

C. 3, n. 2; c. 2, n. 3; c. 4, n. 1.

Chap. 3, no. 2; chap. 2, no. 3; chap. 4, no. 1.

(printed under page 137)

(54) ‹anchor: Quod adeo verum est, addit› · call in col 262

N. 2.

No. 2.

(printed under page 137)

(55) ‹anchor: Non enim, inquit› · call in col 262

N. 1.

No. 1.

(printed under page 137)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 262
marginal letters: A ris proinde; B devitare quidem; C tiam et consuetudinem,; D cessio episcoporum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ris proinde; begins mid-word ris

PG 7:263

depositorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia, quae sunt veritatis; ut omnis, quicunque velit, sumat ex ea potum vitae. Porro depositorii illius divitis, in quod plenissime contulerunt apostoli omnia quae sunt veritatis, custodes sunt ii, quos Deus ipse in Ecclesia sua constituit ministros Christi, et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei; episcopi videlicet, qui per legitimam impositionem manuum ab apostolis eorumque successoribus in Ecclesia catholica ordinati et consecrati sunt. Propterea, ait auctor noster, si de aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de praesenti quaestione sumere quod certum, et re liquidum est? Ratio est quia non tantum in antiquissimis illis Ecclesiis conversati sunt apostoli, et plenissime in eas contulerunt omnia quae sunt veritatis; sed et iisdem praefecerunt episcopos, qui sibi in earum regimine succederent; quos cum valde perfectos, et irreprehensibiles in omnibus vellent esse; si recondita mysteria scissent, his vel maxime traderent ea, quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant.

a rich depository, have most fully brought together into her all things that belong to the truth, so that everyone, whosoever wishes, may take from her the drink of life. Moreover, of that rich depository, into which the apostles most fully brought together all things that belong to the truth, the guardians are those whom God Himself has appointed in His Church as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God—namely, the bishops, who through the legitimate imposition of hands have been ordained and consecrated in the Catholic Church by the apostles and their successors. Therefore, says our author, if there should be a dispute concerning some slight question, would it not be necessary to have recourse to the most ancient Churches, in which the apostles lived and conversed, and to take from them what is certain and truly clear concerning the present question? The reason is, because the apostles not only lived and conversed in those most ancient Churches, and most fully brought together into them all things that belong to the truth, but also set over the same Churches bishops to succeed them in their government; and since they wished these to be very perfect and blameless in all things, if they had known hidden mysteries, they would have handed them down above all to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.

17. Merito igitur ad episcoporum successionem provocat haereticos Irenaeus, quia illa successio certissimum est, indubitatum, omnibusque manifestum apostolicae traditionis atque doctrinae argumentum; haec per illam dignoscitur, vera a falsa secernitur, sinceraque et intemerata ad nos usque transmittitur. Traditionem itaque apostolorum, inquit, in toto mundo manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus, qui vera velint videre. Cur ita? Quia, addit, habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in Ecclesiis, traditionis illius custodes atque dispensatores, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab haereticis deliratur. Quia vero longum esset, ut ipse ait, omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; satis esse, idque jure merito, putat, si praecipuarum ac celebriorum, ac in primis maximae, et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognitae, et a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae Ecclesiae, ea, quam habet ab apostolis, traditio, et annuntiata hominibus fides, per succcessiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos, indicetur, ut confundantur omnes, qui quoquo modo praeterquam oportet colligunt, id est, praeter jus fasque conventus agunt. In ea quippe Ecclesia semper conservata est ea, quae est ab apostolis, traditio. Quod subinde probat ex continua Romanorum episcoporum a Petro ad Eleutherum usque, qui suo tempore Romanam Ecclesiam regebat, successione; qua enumerata, concludit : Hac ordinatione et successione, ea quae est ab apostolis, in Ecclesia traditio, et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. Et est plenissima haec ostensio,

17. Rightly, therefore, does Irenaeus challenge the heretics to the succession of the bishops, because that succession is the most certain, undoubted, and universally manifest proof of apostolic tradition and doctrine; through it this tradition is discerned, the true is separated from the false, and it is transmitted pure and uncorrupted even to us. The tradition of the apostles, therefore, he says, manifested in the whole world, is present in every Church to be beheld by all who wish to see what is true. Why so? Because, he adds, we are able to enumerate those who were appointed bishops by the apostles in the Churches, the guardians and stewards of that tradition, and their successors even to us, who neither taught nor knew anything such as is raved of by the heretics. And because it would be tedious, as he himself says, to enumerate the successions of all the Churches, he thinks it enough, and deservedly so, if of the principal and more celebrated Churches, and above all of the greatest, and most ancient, and known to all, the Church founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, that tradition which it has from the apostles, and the faith proclaimed to men, coming down even to us through the successions of the bishops, be pointed out, so that all may be confounded who in any way whatsoever gather otherwise than as they ought, that is, who hold assemblies contrary to right and divine law. For in that Church has always been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles. Which he thereupon proves from the continuous succession of the Roman bishops from Peter down to Eleutherus, who in his time ruled the Roman Church; and having enumerated this, he concludes: By this ordination and succession, the tradition in the Church from the apostles, and the proclamation of the truth, has come down even to us. And this is a most full demonstration

Editors' notes and page, col. 263

Footnotes

(56) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 263

Lib. III, cap. 3, n. 1.

Book III, chapter 3, no. 1.

(printed under page 138)

(57) ‹anchor: ut ipse ait› · call in col 263

N. 2.

No. 2.

(printed under page 138)

(58) ‹anchor: concludit› · call in col 263

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 138)

Page

running head: 263 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A depositorium dives,; B mis illis Ecclesiis; C quit, in toto; D minibus fides,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): depositorium dives; ends mid-word osten-
other: the word ostensio, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 264

PG 7:264

unam et eamdem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc, sit conservata et tradita in veritate.

that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

18. Romanae Ecclesiae traditioni subjungit traditionem Asianarum Ecclesiarum, Smyrnensis inprimis et Ephesinae, quam pariter probat ex successione episcoporum. In ea siquidem, quae est Smyrnis, Ecclesia Polycarpus, ab apostolis edoctus, et conversatus cum multis ex eis qui Dominum nostrum viderunt, ab apostolis in Asia constitutus episcopus, haec docuit semper quae ab apostolis didicerat, quae et Ecclesiae tradidit, et sola sunt vera. Testimonium his perhibent, quae sunt in Asia, Ecclesiae omnes, et qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo... Sed et quae est Ephesi Ecclesia, a Paulo quidem fundata, Joanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora, testis est verus apostolorum traditionis. Et hinc rectissime concludit, eis, qui in Ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportere, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt; reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principali successione, et quocunque loco colligunt, suspectos habere, vel quasi haereticos et malae sententiae; vel quasi scindentes, et elatos, et sibi placentes; aut rursus ut hypocritas, quaestus gratia et vanae gloriae hoc operantes. Et, apud eos discere oportere veritatem, apud quos est ea, quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis constat. Hi enim et eam, quae est in unum Deum, qui omnia fecit, fidem nostram custodiunt; et eam, quae est in Filium Dei, dilectionem adaugent; qui tantas dispositiones propter nos fecit : et Scripturas sine periculo nobis exponunt. Hinc denique merito infert, per successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam, quae in unoquoque loco est, Ecclesiam tradiderunt, pervenisse usque ad nos custoditione sine fictione Scripturarum tractationem plenissimam, neque additamentum, neque ablationem recipientem; et lectionem sine falsatione; et secundum Scripturas expositionem legitimam, et diligentem, et sine periculo, et sine blasphemia; et praecipuum dilectionis munus, etc.

18. To the tradition of the Roman Church he subjoins the tradition of the Asian Churches, above all of Smyrna and of Ephesus, which he likewise proves from the succession of the bishops. For in the Church which is at Smyrna, Polycarp, instructed by the apostles, and having conversed with many of those who saw our Lord, and appointed bishop in Asia by the apostles, always taught these things which he had learned from the apostles, which also he handed down to the Church, and which alone are true. To these things bear witness all the Churches that are in Asia, and those who up to now have succeeded Polycarp... Moreover, the Church also that is at Ephesus, founded indeed by Paul, and with John abiding among them down to the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. And hence he most rightly concludes that it is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who have succession from the apostles, who together with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father; but to hold the rest, who depart from the principal succession and assemble in any place whatsoever, as suspect, either as heretics and of evil opinion, or as schismatics and puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vainglory; and that it is necessary to learn the truth among those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom that which is sound and blameless in conduct, and unadulterated and incorruptible in discourse, stands fast. For these both guard our faith in the one God Who made all things, and increase our love for the Son of God, Who made such great dispensations on our account, and expound the Scriptures to us without danger. Hence, finally, he deservedly infers that through the successions of the bishops, to whom the apostles handed over the Church that is in each place, there has come down even to us, by a preservation without falsehood, a most full handling of the Scriptures, admitting neither addition nor curtailment; and a reading without falsification; and a legitimate and diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and the chief gift of love, etc.

19. Ex iis omnibus sequitur, legitimam episcoporum successionem certissimum esse argumentum, quo demonstratur traditionem apostolicam puram et illibatam semper in Ecclesia conservatam fuisse; eamque intemeratam, per episcopos, qui sibi invicem ab apostolorum temporibus ad nostra usque successerunt, ad nos pervenisse; si modo episcopi legitime et secundum Ecclesiae leges ordinati sint, et ab unitate Ecclesiae non defecerint. Nam, ut ait auctor noster, vera apostolorum traditio atque doctrina, Dei munus est Ecclesiae

19. From all these things it follows that the legitimate succession of bishops is the most certain proof by which it is demonstrated that the apostolic tradition has always been preserved pure and unblemished in the Church, and that it has come down uncorrupted to us through the bishops who have succeeded one another from the times of the apostles down to our own; provided only that the bishops have been ordained legitimately and according to the laws of the Church, and have not fallen away from the unity of the Church. For, as our author says, the true tradition and doctrine of the apostles is the gift of God entrusted to the Church,

Editors' notes and page, col. 264

Footnotes

(59) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 264

N. 4.

No. 4.

(printed under page 138)

(60) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 264

Iren., lib. IV, c. 26, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book IV, chapter 26, no. 2.

(printed under page 138)

(61) ‹anchor: operantes. Et› · call in col 264

N. 5.

No. 5.

(printed under page 138)

(62) ‹anchor: merito infert› · call in col 264

Cap. 33, n. 8.

Chapter 33, no. 8.

(printed under page 138)

(63) ‹anchor: auctor noster› · call in col 264

Lib. III, c. 24, n. 1.

Book III, chapter 24, no. 1.

(printed under page 138)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 264
marginal letters: A sio, unam; B quidem fundata,; C quod est sanum; D nus, etc.
old-edition numerals: [CXV] after Patris
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): sio, unam; begins mid-word sio

PG 7:265

creditum, quemadmodum inspiratio plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur. Et ut jam ex eodem Irenaeo diximus : Non oportet quaerere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere : cum apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia, quae sunt veritatis. Quicunque proinde ab unitate Ecclesiae desciverunt, a divite illo depositorio Spiritus Dei et veritatis alieni, in ejus partem non veniunt. Ratio est, quia ex quo episcopus aliquis, licet secundum Ecclesiae catholicae ritum ordinatus, et successionis ordinem tenens, ab unitate recessit; si in errorem labatur, jam media omnia, quibus ab eodem revocetur, sibi ipse ademit. Potissimum est ad aliarum Ecclesiarum, Romanae inprimis, quae centrum est unitatis, traditiones privatam sententiam exigere, et ab eis legitimum Scripturarum sensum petere. Si ergo eas audire renuerit, omnem sibi dubio procul ad veritatem aditum interclusit.

even as breath was to the fashioned body, to the end that all the members partaking of it may be made alive. And as we have already said from the same Irenaeus: One must not seek among others the truth which it is easy to take from the Church, since the apostles, as into a rich depository, have most fully brought together into her all things that belong to the truth. Whoever, accordingly, have revolted from the unity of the Church, being strangers to that rich depository of the Spirit of God and of the truth, do not come to have a share in it. The reason is, because from the moment that any bishop, although ordained according to the rite of the Catholic Church and holding the order of succession, has withdrawn from unity, if he falls into error, he has already deprived himself of all the means whereby he might be recalled from the same. The chief means is to test private opinion by the traditions of the other Churches, and above all of the Roman Church, which is the centre of unity, and to seek from them the legitimate sense of the Scriptures. If therefore he refuses to hear them, he has without doubt shut off for himself every approach to the truth.

20. Sequitur deinde, in ea sola Ecclesia conservatam esse eam, quae est ab apostolis, traditionem, seu ab iis solis presbyteris discendam esse veritatem, ab iis solis fidem nostram custodiri, et Scripturas sine periculo nobis exponi; per eos solos pervenisse usque ad nos custoditione sine fictione Scripturarum tractationem plenissimam, neque additamentum, neque ablationem recipientem, et lectionem sine falsatione, et secundum Scripturas expositionem legitimam, et diligentem et sine periculo, et sine blasphemia, apud quos est ea, quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio; utpote qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris, acceperunt. Reliquos vero omnes, qui absistunt a principali successione, et quocunque loco extra eam Ecclesiam, in qua servatur principalis ea successio, colligunt, seu conventus agunt, suspectos habendos esse; quippe qui omnes deciderint a veritate, quae in ea sola Ecclesia reperiri potest, in qua successionis apostolicae ordo reperitur. Porro in sola Ecclesia Romana (quo nomine eas omnes Ecclesias hic intelligo, quae cum Romana, omnium, Irenaeo teste, maxima, et antiquissima, et omnibus cognita, unitatisque centro, communionis nexu colligatae sunt) occurrit legitimus ordo successionis apostolicae; in eo positus, ut primus cujusque Ecclesiae episcopus ab apostolis, eorumve discipulis aut successoribus vocatus, ordinatus et constitutus episcopus, missionem ac potestatem acceperit eam Ecclesiam fundandi, regendi, verbi Dei commisso sibi gregi praedicandi, sacramenta administrandi, aliosque ministros tum superiores, tum inferiores ordinandi, qui ministerium ecclesiasticum in Ecclesia perpetuent. Extra Romanam Ecclesiam nullam assignare est ejusmodi legitimam episcoporum successionem, qui missionem ac auctoritatem suam apostolis

20. It follows next that in that Church alone has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles—or that from those presbyters alone is the truth to be learned, by them alone is our faith guarded, and the Scriptures expounded to us without danger; through them alone has come down even to us, by a preservation without falsehood, a most full handling of the Scriptures, admitting neither addition nor curtailment, and a reading without falsification, and a legitimate and diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy—among whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles; inasmuch as together with the succession of the episcopate they have received the certain charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father: whereas all the rest, who depart from the principal succession, and assemble or hold meetings in any place whatsoever outside that Church in which that principal succession is preserved, are to be held suspect; inasmuch as they have all fallen from the truth, which can be found in that Church alone in which the order of apostolic succession is found. Furthermore, in the Roman Church alone (by which name I here understand all those Churches which are bound together by the bond of communion with the Roman Church, the greatest of all, as Irenaeus witnesses, and the most ancient, and known to all, and the centre of unity) is found the legitimate order of apostolic succession; which consists in this, that the first bishop of each Church, called, ordained, and appointed bishop by the apostles, or by their disciples or successors, received the mission and power of founding and ruling that Church, of preaching the word of God to the flock committed to him, of administering the sacraments, and of ordaining other ministers, both higher and lower, to perpetuate the ecclesiastical ministry in the Church. Outside the Roman Church one cannot point to any such legitimate succession of bishops who [can credit] their mission and authority [as received] from the apostles

Editors' notes and page, col. 265

Footnotes

(64) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 265

N. 2.

No. 2.

(64*) ‹anchor: quo Tertullianus› · call in col 266 De praesc.

De praescriptione (Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics).

(printed under page 139)

Page

running head: 265 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A creditum, quemadmodum; B quae centrum; C mia, apud; D nis nexu
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): creditum, quemadmodum; ink blotches over initial letters at left margin of last 13 lines

PG 7:266

ipsis per successores intermedios, acceptam referre possint. Frustra igitur extra Romanam Ecclesiam quaesieris eam quae est ab apostolis traditionem, frustra veritatem, expositionemque Scripturarum legitimam, diligentem, sine periculo et sine blasphemia, etc. Hujus pondere obruere se posse haereticos omnes ac schismaticos sui temporis merito confidebat Irenaeus : eodem posteriores haereticos oppressere, qui secuti sunt SS. Patres, Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Optatus, Epiphanius, Augustinus, aliique passim.

themselves through intermediate successors. In vain, therefore, outside the Roman Church would you seek that tradition which is from the apostles; in vain the truth, and the legitimate, diligent exposition of the Scriptures, without danger and without blasphemy, etc. By the weight of this argument Irenaeus rightly trusted that he could overwhelm all the heretics and schismatics of his time; by the same argument the holy Fathers who followed—Tertullian, Cyprian, Optatus, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others everywhere—crushed later heretics.

21. Quod autem SS. Patribus efficacissimum et ineluctabile visum est ad confundendos omnes sui temporis haereticos et schismaticos, non minus efficax esse debet ad prosternendos nostri temporis haereticos, Lutheranos, Calvinianos, aliosque quotquot ab Ecclesia Romana secessionem fecerunt. Hi quippe cum non minus quam veteres, a principali successione abstiterint, hoc ipso non minus quam illi, decidisse a veritate convincuntur. Quorum proinde sectae architectis, ducibus et antesignanis Luthero, Calvino, Zuinglio, aliisque, eodem jure dicere possumus, quo Tertullianus veteribus illis : Qui estis? Quando et unde venistis? Quid in meo agitis, non mei? Quo denique, Zuingli, jure silvam meam caedis? Qua licentia, Calvine, fontes meos transvertis? Qua potestate, Luthere, limites meos commoves? Mea est possessio : olim possideo, prior possideo, habeo origines firmas, ab ipsis auctoribus quorum fuit res. Ego sum haeres apostolorum. Cupio igitur ostendant mihi Lutherus, Calvinus, etc., ex qua auctoritate prodierunt.... Si eorum haereses audent interserere se aetati apostolicae... possumus dicere : Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum : evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverint, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt; sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum a Joanne collocatum refert : sicut Romanorum, Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit : proinde utique et caeterae exhibent, quos ab apostolis in episcopatum constitutos, apostolici seminis traduces habeant. Confingant aliquid tale haeretici hodierni. Confingere certe non possunt, qui omni apostolicae successionis ordine susque deque verso, eversa ab imis fundamentis ecclesiastica hierarchia, violata per summum nefas legitima, antiqua et apostolica ordinandi ministros sacros lege, nullaque accepta missione et auctoritate ab iis, qui suam ab apostolis ipsis per legitimam successionem derivabant, assumentes sibi ipsis honorem, nec vocati a Deo tanquam Aaron, ministerium ecclesiasticum usurparunt. Ad quos, aeque ad veteres haereticos, spectant ea ejusdem Tertulliani verba : Ordinationes eorum temerariae, leves, inconstantes,

21. Now what seemed to the holy Fathers most efficacious and inescapable for confounding all the heretics and schismatics of their time ought to be no less efficacious for overthrowing the heretics of our time—the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and all others whatsoever who have made a secession from the Roman Church. For since these have departed no less than the ancients from the principal succession, by that very fact they are convicted of having fallen from the truth no less than they. To the architects, leaders, and standard-bearers of their sect, accordingly—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the others—we can say with the same right wherewith Tertullian spoke to those ancients: Who are you? When and whence did you come? What are you doing on my property, being none of mine? By what right, finally, Zwingli, do you cut down my wood? By what licence, Calvin, do you divert my springs? By what power, Luther, do you remove my landmarks? Mine is the possession: I have possessed it of old, I possess it first, I have sure origins from the very authors whose the property was. I am the heir of the apostles. I desire, therefore, that Luther, Calvin, etc., show me from what authority they came forth... If their heresies dare to insert themselves into the apostolic age... we can say: Let them therefore produce the origins of their Churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, running down through successions from the beginning in such a way that that first bishop had as his author and predecessor someone from among the apostles, or from the apostolic men who nevertheless persevered with the apostles. For in this way the apostolic Churches bring forward their registers; just as the Church of the Smyrnaeans, having Polycarp, relates that he was placed there by John; just as that of the Romans publishes Clement as ordained by Peter; and just so do the rest also exhibit those whom, appointed to the episcopate by the apostles, they have as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics of today devise something of the sort. Devise it they certainly cannot, who, having turned upside down the whole order of apostolic succession, having overthrown from the deepest foundations the ecclesiastical hierarchy, having violated through the utmost impiety the legitimate, ancient, and apostolic law of ordaining sacred ministers, and having received no mission and authority from those who derived theirs from the apostles themselves through legitimate succession, taking the honour upon themselves, and not called by God as Aaron was, have usurped the ecclesiastical ministry. To whom, equally as to the ancient heretics, belong those words of the same Tertullian: Their ordinations are rash, light, inconstant;

Editors' notes and page, col. 266

Footnotes

(65) ‹anchor: Tertulliani verba› · call in col 266

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 139)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 266
marginal letters: A ipsis per; B poris haereticos,; C ostendant mihi; D habeant. Confingant
old-edition numerals: [CXVI] after verso,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ipsis per

PG 7:267

nunc neophytos collocant, nunc saeculo obstrictos; nunc apostatas nostros, ut gloria eos obligent, quia veritate non possunt. Nusquam facilius proficitur quam in castris rebellium, ubi ipsum esse illic, promereri est. Itaque alius hodie episcopus, cras alius : hodie diaconus, qui cras lector: hodie presbyter, qui cras laicus. Nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt. Laici siquidem fuere, aut simplices presbyteri, iique apostatae, ab Ecclesia Romana excommunicati, legitimaque et canonica auctoritate ac potestate destituti, qui prima novae religionis fundamenta jecerunt, docendique, sacramenta administrandi, aliosque ministros ordinandi munus sibi, foede conculcatis antiquis omnibus canonibus, arrogarunt : quique, etiamsi episcopi fuissent in Ecclesia catholica canonice ordinati; ex quo tamen ab ea per apostasiam, haeresim et schisma defecissent, legitima, quam accepissent, auctoritate, excidissent; nec proinde alios, quam sibi similes, apostatas videlicet et perditionis filios, non certe veros Ecclesiae ministros, gignere potuissent.

now they place neophytes in office, now men bound to the world, now our apostates, that they may bind them by glory, since they cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of being there is a merit. And so one man is bishop today, another tomorrow; today a deacon, who tomorrow is a reader; today a presbyter, who tomorrow is a layman. For even upon laymen do they enjoin priestly functions. For laymen they were, or simple presbyters, and those apostates, excommunicated by the Roman Church, and destitute of legitimate and canonical authority and power, who laid the first foundations of the new religion, and arrogated to themselves the office of teaching, of administering the sacraments, and of ordaining other ministers, after foully trampling underfoot all the ancient canons; and who, even if they had been bishops canonically ordained in the Catholic Church, yet from the moment that they had fallen away from her through apostasy, heresy, and schism, would have fallen from the legitimate authority which they had received, and accordingly could have begotten none other than men like themselves, namely apostates and sons of perdition, certainly not true ministers of the Church.

22. Molestissimum hoc Protestantibus omnibus argumentum, petitum a continua episcoporum, praesertim Romanorum successione, quod fusius prosequi nostri non est instituti, infirmare non uno loco nititur cl. Grabius : Nunc, inquit in notis ad cap. 3 libri III, id argumenti genus minus valet, postquam Romani papae traditioni ab apostolis acceptae alios articulos, incertos partim, partim falsos assuerunt; quorum disertam professionem quandiu ab omnibus stricte requirunt, frustra argumentum illud aliis a communione sua divisis opponunt. Sed si id argumenti genus minus nunc valeat, concludendum ex ipsa Grabii responsione, nunquam valuisse, operamque lusisse veteres Patres, dum illud tam fidenter haereticis ac schismaticis sui temporis opponunt. Nam si quo jure contendat Grabius, posteriores pontifices Romanos traditioni ab apostolis acceptae alios articulos, incertos partim, partim falsos assuisse; eodem certe contendere potuerunt veteres haeretici, adulteratam similiter a prioribus pontificibus Romanis fuisse traditionem ab apostolis acceptam. Age, prodeat adversus Irenaeum quispiam e Gnosticorum grege, Grabianaque responsione ad infringendam illius argumenti vim utatur : vires jam experiatur Grabius; certus sum Gnosticum vanos hominis conatus irridentem, ab omnibus ejus telis tutum mansurum esse; parum esset nisi iisdem telis adversarium ipsum facile confoderet. Sed quid et quantum contra Gnosticum valeat, si minus experiri Grabio placet, meminerit quam infeliciter hactenus adversus domesticos haereticos, Socinianos, dimicaverint sui. Vix, ubi de Scripturarum sensu quaestio est, traditionem proferunt, cum hanc solitis Patrum argumentis a continua episcoporum successione petitis munire nec valentes, nec audentes, victi pedem referre statim coguntur. Pudeat igitur cl. Grabium virum alioqui candidum et eruditum vanorum

22. This argument, most troublesome to all Protestants, drawn from the continuous succession of the bishops, especially of the Roman bishops, which it does not belong to our design to pursue more at length, the illustrious Grabe strives in more than one place to weaken: Now, he says in the notes on chap. 3 of book 3, that kind of argument has less force, since the Roman popes have stitched on to the tradition received from the apostles other articles, partly uncertain, partly false; and so long as they strictly require an explicit profession of these from all, in vain do they oppose that argument to others divided from their communion. Yet if that kind of argument has less force now, it must be concluded from Grabe's own reply that it never had force, and that the ancient Fathers lost their labour when they so confidently opposed it to the heretics and schismatics of their own time. For if by any right Grabe may contend that the later Roman pontiffs stitched on to the tradition received from the apostles other articles, partly uncertain, partly false, by the very same right certainly the ancient heretics could have contended that the tradition received from the apostles had likewise been adulterated by the earlier Roman pontiffs. Come now, let someone from the herd of the Gnostics step forth against Irenaeus, and use Grabe's reply to break the force of his argument: let Grabe now make trial of his strength; I am certain that the Gnostic, mocking the vain efforts of the man, will remain safe from all his darts—nay, it would be a small thing if he did not easily pierce his adversary himself with the very same darts. But if it pleases Grabe less to test what and how much avail he has against a Gnostic, let him remember how unsuccessfully hitherto his own party have fought against their domestic heretics, the Socinians. Scarcely, when the question is about the sense of the Scriptures, do they bring forward tradition, when, neither able nor daring to fortify it with the usual arguments of the Fathers drawn from the continuous succession of bishops, they are immediately forced to retreat vanquished. Let the illustrious Grabe, therefore, a man otherwise candid and learned, be ashamed of vain

Editors' notes and page, col. 267

Page

running head: 267 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A nunc neophytos; B sia catholica
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): nunc neophytos; right edge of column slightly clipped in c267_2 and c267_3

PG 7:268

ejusmodi effugiorum, quae toties, tamque invicte praeclusere catholici, quibusque Christiana fides in apertum adducta discrimen perditissimorum quorumque haereticorum insultationibus facile pateret.

subterfuges of that sort, which Catholics have so often and so invincibly shut off, and by which the Christian faith, brought into open jeopardy, would easily lie exposed to the insults of the most abandoned heretics.

23. Romani papae, ait ille, traditioni ab apostolis acceptae alios articulos, incertos partim, partim falsos assuerunt. Cito dictum : sed quam cito et facile asseritur, tam cito et facile negatur. Sed si Grabium urgeas ut dictis fidem astruat, quos, quaeso, articulos assignabit? vel falsas catholicae doctrinae expositiones, a ministris gratis et per calumniam confictas, a catholicis vero damnatas; vel quasdam imperitae plebeculae superstitiones, a sobriis ac piis quibusque pastoribus improbatas et rejectas; vel privatas theologorum quorumdam opiniones, quibus alii contradicunt; vel articulos qui ad disciplinam, nihil ad fidem attinent; vel si quos proferet articulos, quorum diserta professio ab omnibus stricte requiritur; eos ex continua nec interrupta saeculorum omnium fide ab apostolis ipsis traditos fuisse illico convincetur. Certe mirum esset et portento simile, Romanos pontifices alios articulos tum falsos, tum incertos apostolicae traditioni admiscuisse, eorumque disertam professionem ab omnibus stricte requisivisse; alias vero Ecclesias, quae et ipsae traditionem apostolicam per continuam episcoporum successionem, illibatam apud se conservaverant; et interdum Romanis pontificibus in iis quae ad disciplinam spectabant, acriter restiterunt, suaque jura peregrinis moribus violari conquestae fuerunt; fidem tamen et traditionem apostolicam ab iisdem adulteratam conquestas non fuisse, novaeque et hactenus inauditae professionis jugum sibi impositum subire aperte non renuisse. Vix Liberius papa Formulae Sirmiensi subscripsit, vix Honorius pravis Sergii Constantinopoli artibus delusus, fucum sibi a veteratore illo fieri incautus permisit, cum adversus utrumque universa statim insurrexit Ecclesia, utrumque improbavit et damnavit : nec mitius cum iis egere, qui secuti sunt, Romani pontifices. Qui ergo fieri potuit ut hi deinceps ab avita praedecessorum suorum fide et traditione sic defecerint, ut reclamante nullo, nullo obsistente, totam Ecclesiam secum in ejusdem erroris consensionem et professionem abduxerint? An, inimico homine seminante in agro Christi zizania, sic dormiebant omnes patresfamilias, ut nullus omnino perciperet, nullus evellere zizania niteretur? Ubi igitur Christi promissiones, se nusquam Ecclesiae suae defuturum, defecturam nunquam Ecclesiam, nec fore ut adversus eam praevaleant inferni portae?

23. The Roman popes, says he, have stitched on to the tradition received from the apostles other articles, partly uncertain, partly false. Quickly said: but as quickly and easily as it is asserted, so quickly and easily is it denied. Yet if you press Grabe to establish credit for his words, what articles, I ask, will he assign? Either false expositions of Catholic doctrine, gratuitously and calumniously fabricated by ministers, but condemned by Catholics; or certain superstitions of the ignorant common folk, disapproved and rejected by all sober and pious pastors; or private opinions of certain theologians, which others contradict; or articles which pertain to discipline and not at all to faith; or if he brings forward any articles of which an explicit profession is strictly required from all, he will immediately be convicted by the continuous and uninterrupted faith of all ages that they were handed down by the apostles themselves. Certainly it would be a wonder and like a portent that the Roman pontiffs had mingled other articles, both false and uncertain, with the apostolic tradition, and had strictly required an explicit profession of them from all, and yet that the other Churches—which themselves also had preserved among themselves unblemished the apostolic tradition through the continuous succession of bishops, and which at times sharply resisted the Roman pontiffs in matters that regarded discipline, and complained that their rights were violated by foreign customs—nevertheless did not complain that the faith and apostolic tradition had been adulterated by the same pontiffs, and did not openly refuse to undergo the yoke of a new and hitherto unheard-of profession imposed upon them. Scarcely had Pope Liberius subscribed to the Formula of Sirmium, scarcely had Honorius, deluded by the perverse arts of Sergius of Constantinople, incautiously allowed himself to be hoodwinked by that old deceiver, when the universal Church immediately rose up against both, disapproved and condemned both; nor did the Roman pontiffs who followed deal more mildly with them. How then could it have come to pass that these pontiffs thereafter so fell away from the ancestral faith and tradition of their predecessors that, with no one crying out against it and no one resisting, they drew the whole Church away with them into the consent and profession of the same error? When the enemy sowed tares in the field of Christ, were all the householders so fast asleep that no one at all perceived it, no one strove to pluck up the tares? Where then are the promises of Christ, that He would nowhere fail His Church, that the Church would never fail, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against her?

24. Sed esto (absit ut concedam), Romana Ecclesia traditionem apostolicam adulteraverit, ejus doctrina ab apostolica defecerit, si Protestantes negant veritatem ejus, debent probare illam quoque haeresim esse eadem forma revictam, qua ipsi revincuntur, ex traditione et consensu veterum et apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, et ostendere simul ubinam

24. But grant (far be it from me to concede it) that the Roman Church has adulterated the apostolic tradition, and that her doctrine has fallen away from the apostolic doctrine: if the Protestants deny her truth, they ought to prove that that heresy also has been convicted in the same manner in which they themselves are convicted, from the tradition and consent of the ancient and apostolic Churches, and to show at the same time where

Editors' notes and page, col. 268

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 268
marginal letters: A ejusmodi effugiorum,; B niones, quibus; C violari conquestae; D ejusdem erroris
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ejusmodi effugiorum; right edge slightly clipped in c268_3

PG 7:269

quaerenda sit veritas, et ubi vera Christi Ecclesia. Si Romana deserenda fuit, ad aliquam aliam confugiendum fuit, quae cum apostolica successione traditionem intemeratam conservasset; huic adhaerendum, coram ea damnandus, ac rejiciendus error hactenus propugnatus, emittendaque catholicae fidei professio : hoc enim modo resipiscentes haeretici omni aevo reconciliati sunt, nec aliter reconciliari vera usquam permisit Ecclesia. Jam vero probet Grabius, si possit, Romanae Ecclesiae haeresim, ut vocant sui, eadem forma esse revictam, qua ipsi revincuntur : dicat ubinam veritatem et Ecclesiam quaesierint novae religionis architecti, et ad quam Ecclesiam, a Romana desciscentes, confugerint. Non certe ad Occidentales alias, utpote quae cum Romana sentirent et communicarent : non ad Orientales, quibuscum nullo communionis nexu juncti usquam fuerunt. Quid ergo? Novam sibi fidem, novam religionem, novam Ecclesiam ipsi a fundamentis exstruxerunt. Immane facinus! cujus atrocitatem prodit ipsa hesternarum pene Ecclesiarum novitas. At, inquit cl. Grabius, in notis ad cap. 26 lib. IV, ab improbis, ac in conversatione Christiana haud recte se gerentibus recedendum docet Irenaeus, atque iis adhaerendum, qui cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum, et conversationem sine offensa praestant. Verum id quidem; sed dissimulandum non erat improbos illos, ac in conversatione Christiana haud recte se gerentes, eos esse qui abstiterant a principali successione, et quocunque loco colligebant; haereticos videlicet et malae sententiae, scindentes, seu schismaticos, et elatos, sibi placentes, et hypocritas, quaestus gratia, et vanae gloriae hoc operantes, qui omnes a veritate deciderant. De quibus omnibus postquam sigillatim disseruit Irenaeus, ac nominatim de falsis illis pastoribus, qui crediti quidem sunt a multis esse presbyteri, serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non praeponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, et principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt, et in absconsis agunt mala; concludit, ab omnibus talibus absistere oportere; adhaerere vero his qui et apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum, et conversationem sine offensa praestant, ad confirmationem et correptionem reliquorum. Ubi vero tales inveniat aliquis, statim ex apostolo Paulo indicat, in Ecclesia videlicet : Tales, ait, presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia. Quaenam Ecclesia? Ea nimirum in qua est ea quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio. Frustra igitur in alia quavis societate presbyteros, quales descripsit Irenaeus, quaeras. Frustra proinde apud omnes recentiores sectarios quaesieris; apud quos cum nulli occurrant episcopi ab iis ordinati, qui ordinationem

the truth is to be sought, and where the true Church of Christ is. If the Roman Church was to be forsaken, recourse had to be had to some other Church which together with apostolic succession had preserved the tradition uncorrupted; to her they had to cleave, before her the error hitherto defended had to be condemned and rejected, and a profession of the Catholic faith had to be made: for in this manner repentant heretics have been reconciled in every age, nor has the true Church ever anywhere permitted them to be reconciled otherwise. Now let Grabe prove, if he can, that the heresy of the Roman Church, as his party call it, has been convicted in the same manner in which they themselves are convicted: let him say where the architects of the new religion sought the truth and the Church, and to what Church, when revolting from the Roman, they fled for refuge. Certainly not to the other Western Churches, inasmuch as these agreed and communicated with the Roman; not to the Eastern Churches, with which they were never anywhere joined by any bond of communion. What then? A new faith for themselves, a new religion, a new Church they themselves built up from the foundations. Monstrous crime! the atrocity of which is betrayed by the very novelty of Churches that are almost of yesterday. But, says the illustrious Grabe, in the notes on chap. 26 of book 4, Irenaeus teaches that we must withdraw from wicked men and those who do not behave rightly in Christian conduct, and cleave to those who together with the order of the presbyterate exhibit sound speech and conduct without offence. True indeed; but it ought not to have been concealed that those wicked men, who do not behave rightly in Christian conduct, are those who had departed from the principal succession and were assembling in any place whatsoever—namely, heretics and men of evil opinion, schismatics, and those who are puffed up, self-pleasing, and hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vainglory, all of whom had fallen from the truth. After discoursing of all these one by one, and expressly of those false pastors who are indeed believed by many to be presbyters, but serve their own pleasures, and do not set the fear of God first in their hearts, but treat the rest with insults, and are puffed up with the pride of the principal seat, and do evil in secret, Irenaeus concludes that we must withdraw from all such men, and cleave to those who both guard the doctrine of the apostles and together with the order of the presbyterate exhibit sound speech and conduct without offence, for the confirmation and correction of the rest. And where anyone may find such men, he immediately points out from the Apostle Paul, namely in the Church: Such presbyters, he says, does the Church nurture. What Church? That, namely, in which is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles. In vain, therefore, would you seek in any other society whatsoever such presbyters as Irenaeus has described. In vain, accordingly, would you seek them among all the more recent sectaries; among whom, since there occur no bishops ordained by those who, as regards their ordination,

Editors' notes and page, col. 269

Footnotes

(66) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image; the note's numeral is hidden by a scan blot, 66 inferred from the sequence› · call in col 269

Ibid.

Same place.

(*) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 269 [blot] V. A Treatise of the vocation of bishops, and [blot: other?] ecclesiastical ministers, by Antony Champney, [blot] Douay, 1616. A Treatise of the nature of Catholick faith and heresy, etc., by N. N., 1657. Nullity of the prelatick clergy and Church of England further discovered, etc., by N. N., 1659.

See: A Treatise of the Vocation of Bishops and [other?] Ecclesiastical Ministers, by Anthony Champney, Douai, 1616; A Treatise of the Nature of Catholic Faith and Heresy, etc., by N. N., 1657; The Nullity of the Prelatic Clergy and Church of England Further Discovered, etc., by N. N., 1659.

(printed under page 141)

Page

running head: 269 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A quaerenda sit; B non ad Orientales,; C loco colligebant;; D fensa praestant,
old-edition numerals: [CXVII] after error
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): quaerenda sit; ink blotches over initial letters at left margin of lower lines in c269_3

PG 7:270

suam continua successione apostolis ipsis acceptam referunt, non est ea quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio. Frustra apud ipsam hodiernam Anglicanam Ecclesiam, cui jam se adjungere Grabio placuit, quaesieris. Haec quidem episcopali ordine et successione gloriatur : sed meram ejusdem umbram et larvam, quae imperitis fucum faciat, rem certe non tenet. Certum siquidem est, hodiernorum episcoporum Anglorum ordinationem et successionem a Matthaeo Parkero, in archiepiscopalem Cantuariensem sedem intruso, tanquam a capite et fonte fluxisse. Tantum igitur valet, quantum valuit Parkeri ordinatio. At ludicram hujus ordinationem fuisse, ab ementito episcopo Joanne Scory (quem Eduardi VI temporibus Zwingliani et Puritani episcopum, secundum novi Ritualis Anglicani formam, ordinaverant), violatis omnibus Ecclesiae canonibus, spretisque hactenus recepta materia et forma factam, invicte adeo demonstrarunt Catholici; ut eorum argumentis nihil, nisi vanas cavillationes hactenus opponere potuerint heterodoxi. Viderit igitur cl. Grabius, ac serio perpendat, an apud hodiernos Anglicanae Ecclesiae ministros sit ea quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio, certissima verae Ecclesiae nota, ac proinde utrum ea Ecclesia apostolorum doctrinam custodire potuerit, sermonemque sanum et conversationem sine offensa exhibere, quae a principali successione tam procul abstitit. Viderit demum ipse vir doctissimus quid quaestioni a se propositae in fine notae superius citatae respondendum sit. Quid vero tunc agendum, quando erroribus, schismatibus, vitiis plena sunt omnia? Id dicere, inquit, nec facile, nec hujus loci est. Imo dicere facillimum erat, chimaeram esse e Protestantium cerebro natam; impossibile siquidem esse, erroribus, schismatibus et vitiis plena esse omnia, quandiu, ex Christi promissis, futura est in orbe vera Ecclesia, depositorii illius divitis, ut cum Irenaeo loquar, custos, in quod apostoli plenissime contulerunt omnia, quae sunt veritatis. Tandiu autem futura est ea Ecclesia, quandiu futuri sunt presbyteri, qui successionem habent ab apostolis, qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt. Tales certe presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia Romana, in qua per successiones episcoporum semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quae est ab apostolis traditio, et pervenit usque ad nos vera Christi doctrina. Tales vero exhibere non potest ulla Protestantium societas; apud quos cum non sit ea quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio, verumque ministerium, quale Christus instituit, deesse etiam, id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et inadulteratum, et incorruptibile sermonis constat.

credit it as their own, received by continuous succession from the apostles themselves, there is not that succession of the Church which is from the apostles. In vain would you seek it in the present-day Anglican Church itself, to which it has now pleased Grabe to join himself. She indeed boasts of the episcopal order and succession; but she holds a mere shadow and mask thereof, to hoodwink the unskilful, certainly not the reality. For it is certain that the ordination and succession of the present-day English bishops flowed as from its head and fountain from Matthew Parker, who was intruded into the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. It avails, therefore, just so much as Parker's ordination availed. Now that his ordination was a mockery, performed by the pretended bishop John Scory (whom in the times of Edward VI the Zwinglians and Puritans had ordained bishop according to the form of the new Anglican Ritual), in violation of all the canons of the Church, and in contempt of the matter and form hitherto received, Catholics have so invincibly demonstrated that the heterodox have hitherto been able to oppose nothing to their arguments save vain cavils. Let the illustrious Grabe therefore see, and seriously weigh, whether among the present-day ministers of the Anglican Church there is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, the most certain mark of the true Church, and accordingly whether that Church, which has departed so far from the principal succession, has been able to guard the doctrine of the apostles, and to exhibit sound speech and conduct without offence. Let the most learned man himself see, finally, what answer must be given to the question proposed by himself at the end of the note cited above: What then is to be done when all things are full of errors, schisms, and vices? To say that, says he, is neither easy, nor belongs to this place. Nay rather, it was most easy to say that this is a chimera born from the brain of Protestants; since it is impossible that all things should be full of errors, schisms, and vices, so long as, according to the promises of Christ, there is to be in the world the true Church, the guardian, to speak with Irenaeus, of that rich depository into which the apostles most fully brought together all things that belong to the truth. And that Church will exist so long as there exist presbyters who have succession from the apostles, who together with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. Such presbyters the Roman Church certainly nurtures, in which through the successions of the bishops has always been preserved by those who are everywhere that tradition which is from the apostles, and the true doctrine of Christ has come down even to us. But no society of Protestants is able to exhibit such men; and since among them there is not that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, nor the true ministry such as Christ instituted, it is established that there is wanting also that which is sound and blameless in conduct, and unadulterated and incorruptible in discourse.

Editors' notes and page, col. 270

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 270
marginal letters: A suam continua; B episcopum, secundum; C quaestioni a; D runt. Tales
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): suam continua

PG 7:271

25. Sequitur denique ex hactenus explicata Irenaei doctrina, descriptisque ejusdem testimoniis, apostolos in iis, quas fundaverunt, Ecclesiis, singulos, qui iis praeessent, episcopos instituisse ac successores suos; presbyteris proinde jure divino ac ex ipsa Christi institutione superiores. Habemus, inquit, annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi et successores eorum usque ad nos. Harum proinde successionum episcoporum, unius post alterum, catalogus, Irenaei aetate, exstabat in archivis omnium Ecclesiarum. Sed quia longius fuisset, ut ipse dicit, eas omnes successiones recensere, illarum specimen in una praebet Romana Ecclesia, quae caeteris antecellit; aliis summatim tantum memoratis: Fundantes igitur, ait, et instruentes beati apostoli Petrus et Paulus Ecclesiam Romanam, Lino episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Succedit autem ei Anacletus; post eum tertio loco ab apostolis episcopatum sortitur Clemens. Caeteros deinceps enumerat usque ad Eleutherum, qui, ait, nunc duodecimo loco episcopatum ab apostolis habet. Romanae igitur Ecclesiae, ex apostolica institutione, praefuerunt singuli moderatores et pastores, episcopi nomine ac titulo. Quod tam certum est apud Irenaeum, quam ipsa traditio, cujus eo loci auctoritatem adversus haereticos astruebat. Imo manifestior ac notior esse debuit successio, quam traditio, seu potius, traditio successionis, quam dogmatis et doctrinae: cum doctrinae traditio per alteram successionem approbetur: quod si verum est, ac non Romae tantum, sed in reliquis etiam urbibus, auctoribus apostolis, eadem constituta forma est gubernandarum Ecclesiarum, profecto falsum est Puritanorum commentum, non nisi post apostolorum obitum, ac secundo medio saeculo, suum unicuique Ecclesiae praepositum episcopum fuisse; cum hactenus a pluribus, hoc est toto presbyterio sive presbyterorum collegio, pari iure et potestate regerentur. Utquid enim scriberet Irenaeus, vir apostolicorum temporum, singulos in singulis Ecclesiis constitutos ab apostolis episcopos fuisse; quibus mortuis alii singuli sic sufficerentur, ut earum successionum series et catalogus in unaquaque Ecclesia servaretur? Utquid unius alteri succedentis memoria scriptis tam studiose mandata est; si presbyteri omnes aequales erant, ut appellatione, ita et dignitate, nullusque aliis jure divino superior fuit? Quamobrem hic potius quam iste, cum omnes sint aequales, catalogo inscribitur? Ubi illud est quod scrib⟨i⟩t Salmasius, apostolos nullos unquam praefecisse singulares episcopos iis Ecclesiis quas fundarunt; cum Irenaeus sigillatim recensere se posse contestetur singularium illorum episcoporum, ab apostolis institutorum, successiones? Nodus est, quem nullus unquam dissolverit, secueritve Blondellus, Dallaeus aut Salmasius. Sed cum hoc argumentum solide pertractaverint doctissimi viri, tum catholici, tum Anglicani episcopales, et a Puritanorum tricis munierint, pluribus dicendis supersedeo. Unum duntaxat hic observabo, Irenaeum dudum occupasse argumentum illud quod Puritani petunt ab iis Actorum XX, 17, verbis: A Mileto Paulus mittens Ephesum, vocavit majores natu Ecclesiae, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Qui cum venissent ad eum, et simul essent, dixit eis.... Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei. Quasi Paulus hic vocet episcopos, quos immediate antea vocaverat majores natu, seu presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae. Eos siquidem presbyteros, quos Paulus Miletum advocaverat, fuisse tum simplices presbyteros, tum episcopos, et utrosque non ab Epheso tantum, sed et a proximis Asiae civitatibus convocatos, diserte asserit Irenaeus. In Mileto, inquit, convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso, et a reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinaret Hierosolymam Pentecosten agere, multa testificans eis, et dicens quae oporteret ei Hierosolymis evenire, adjecit: Scio quoniam jam non videbitis faciem meam, etc. Clara sunt haec, nec ullis Puritanorum nebulis ob⟨s⟩curanda. Quos proinde Apostolus episcopos dicit ⟨a⟩ Spiritu sancto positos regere Ecclesiam Dei, no⟨n⟩ erant presbyteri Ephesini, sed ejusdem urbis epi⟨-⟩scopus, et reliquarum proximarum civitatu⟨m⟩ episcopi.

25. It follows, finally, from the doctrine of Irenaeus explained so far and from his testimonies set out, that the apostles, in the Churches which they founded, appointed individual bishops to preside over them, and as their own successors; bishops, therefore, superior to the presbyters by divine right and by the very institution of Christ. "We are able," he says, "to enumerate those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and their successors down to us." Of these successions of bishops, then, one after another, a catalogue existed in the age of Irenaeus in the archives of all the Churches. But since it would have been too long, as he himself says, to recount all those successions, he offers a specimen of them in the one Roman Church, which excels the rest, the others being mentioned only summarily: "The blessed apostles, then," he says, "founding and building up the Roman Church, Peter and Paul, handed over to Linus the episcopate of administering the Church. Anacletus succeeds him; after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtains the episcopate." He then enumerates the rest down to Eleutherus, "who," he says, "now holds the episcopate in the twelfth place from the apostles." Over the Roman Church, therefore, by apostolic institution, there presided single rulers and pastors, with the name and title of bishop. This is as certain in Irenaeus as Tradition itself, whose authority against the heretics he was building up in that place. Indeed the succession must have been more manifest and better known than the Tradition, or rather the Tradition of the succession better known than that of dogma and doctrine, since the Tradition of doctrine is proved by means of the other, the succession. And if this is true, and if not at Rome only but in the other cities also the same form of governing the Churches was established on the authority of the apostles, then surely false is the invention of the Puritans that only after the death of the apostles, and in the middle of the second century, did each Church have its own bishop set over it, whereas until then the Churches had been ruled by several men, that is, by the whole presbyterate or college of presbyters, with equal right and power. For why would Irenaeus, a man of the apostolic times, write that individual bishops were appointed by the apostles in the individual Churches, and that when they died other individuals were substituted in such a way that the series and catalogue of those successions was preserved in each Church? Why was the memory of one succeeding another committed to writing so diligently, if all presbyters were equal, in dignity as in title, and no one was superior to the others by divine right? Why is this man rather than that inscribed in the catalogue, when all are equal? Where is that which Salmasius writes, that the apostles never set single bishops over the Churches which they founded, when Irenaeus attests that he can recount one by one the successions of those single bishops, appointed by the apostles? It is a knot which no Blondel, Daillé or Salmasius has ever untied or cut. But since most learned men, both Catholics and Anglican episcopalians, have treated this argument solidly and defended it against the trickeries of the Puritans, I refrain from saying more. One thing only will I observe here: that Irenaeus long ago forestalled the argument which the Puritans seek from those words of Acts 20:17: "From Miletus Paul, sending to Ephesus, called the elders of the Church" (the presbyters of the Church). "And when they had come to him, and were together, he said to them.... Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the Church of God." As if Paul here called bishops those whom immediately before he had called elders, or presbyters of the Church of Ephesus. For Irenaeus expressly asserts that those presbyters whom Paul had summoned to Miletus were both simple presbyters and bishops, and that both had been called together not from Ephesus only but also from the neighbouring cities of Asia. "At Miletus," he says, "having called together the bishops and presbyters who were from Ephesus and from the other neighbouring cities, since he was hastening to keep Pentecost at Jerusalem, testifying many things to them, and saying what must befall him at Jerusalem, he added: I know that you will no longer see my face," etc. These things are clear, and are not to be obscured by any fogs of the Puritans. Those, therefore, whom the Apostle calls bishops placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God were not presbyters of Ephesus, but the bishop of that same city and the bishops of the other neighbouring cities.

ARTICULUS IV.

ARTICLE IV.

De Ecclesia, ejus notis ac characteribus, et Romanae primatu atque auctoritate.

On the Church, its marks and characteristics, and on the primacy and authority of the Roman Church.

Editors' notes and page, col. 271

Footnotes

(67) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 271

Iren., l. III, c. 3, n. 1.

Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3, no. 1.

(printed under page 142)

(68) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 271

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 142)

Page

running head: 271 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A 25. Sequitur; B el instruentes; C quod si verum; D 26. Cum extra
old-edition numerals: [CXVIII] after commentum,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): 25. Sequitur; full-width two-line heading (ARTICULUS IV. / De Ecclesia, ejus notis ac characteribus, et Romanae primatu atque auctoritate.) between paragraphs 1 and 2, cut off at right edge, not set; ends mid-word enume-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 271/272 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 272 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 271 (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 word enumerant, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 272
running head: 271 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 272
marginal letters: A ‹25. Sequitur denique› / ‹et catalogus in unaquaque›; B ‹et instruentes beati apostoli› / ‹Anglicani episcopales›; C ‹quod si verum est› / ‹proximis Asiae civitatibus›; D ‹26. Cum extra veram› / ‹rant, haereticisque› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CXVIII after ‹commentum,› (col 271)
other: misprint kept as printed (QA Q3a): "pari iure et potestate" (for jure; the page prints i, no descender, against jure elsewhere in the column); for misprints.tsv
other: the call 67 stands after "superiores" (Habemus), the call 68 after "ait" (Fundantes igitur); the call 69 (after "asserit Irenaeus", col 272 upper text set here) is listed in n272.md (QA Q3a)

PG 7:272

26. Cum extra veram Christi Ecclesiam salus obtineri non possit, divinae bonitati consentaneum erat, ut ea, solis instar, clarissimos undique radios diffunderet, quibus facillime cognosci posset; seu certis quibusdam ac perspicuis notis et characteribus insigniretur, quibus ab omni falsa religione, aliisque spuriis adulterinisque societatibus discerneretur. Multas autem verae Ecclesiae notas enumerant, haereticisque ac schismaticis objiciunt tu⟨m⟩ SS. Patres, tum theologi catholici. Sed omnes ⟨ad⟩ quatuor istas facile revocantur, quas Symbolo ⟨ ⟩ inseruit concilium Constantinopolitanum: « ⟨ ⟩ unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecc⟨le⟩siam. » Quaecunque igitur vera Christi Ecclesia ⟨ ⟩ his notis dignoscatur necesse est, quod nimir⟨um⟩ una sit, sancta, catholica et apostolica. Talis e⟨ ⟩

26. Since salvation cannot be obtained outside the true Church of Christ, it was fitting to the divine goodness that she should, like the sun, pour forth on every side the brightest rays, by which she might most easily be recognized; or be distinguished by certain clear marks and characteristics, by which she might be told apart from every false religion and from the other spurious and adulterous societies. Now both the holy Fathers and the catholic theologians enumerate many marks of the true Church and set them against heretics and schismatics. But all are easily brought back to these four, which the Council of Constantinople inserted into [its] Creed: "[I believe in] one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." Whatever, therefore, is the true Church of Christ must needs be recognized by these marks, namely that it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Such

Editors' notes and page, col. 272

Footnotes

(69) ‹anchor: serit Irenaeus› · call in col 272

L. III, c. 14, n. 2.

Book III, chapter 14, no. 2.

(printed under page 142)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 272
marginal letters: A et catalogus; B Anglicani episcopales,; C proximis Asiae; D rant, haereticisque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): et catalogus; full-width two-line heading (ARTICULUS IV. / De Ecclesia, ejus notis ac characteribus, et Romanae primatu atque auctoritate.) between paragraphs 1 and 2, cut off at left edge, not set; paragraph 2 begins mid-word rant; right edge slightly clipped in c272_2 and c272_3
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 271 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the scan cuts the outer (right) edge of the lower part of this column; line-end letters and words lost there are supplied in ⟨ ⟩ as conjectures (QA Q1a); the column belongs on the rescan list
running head: 271 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 272
marginal letters: A ‹25. Sequitur denique› / ‹et catalogus in unaquaque›; B ‹et instruentes beati apostoli› / ‹Anglicani episcopales›; C ‹quod si verum est› / ‹proximis Asiae civitatibus›; D ‹26. Cum extra veram› / ‹rant, haereticisque› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: page 142 set in reading order: this file holds the lower text of col 271 ("26. Cum extra" to "enume-") and of col 272 ("rant" to "Talis e"), one paragraph. The scan is cropped at the right edge of col 272: the line ends are lost. Supplied in ⟨ ⟩ conjecturally: tu⟨m⟩, ⟨ad⟩, Ecc⟨le⟩siam, nimir⟨um⟩; left empty ⟨ ⟩ where the lost word cannot be read: after "Symbolo" (perhaps suo), after « (the opening word of the Creed clause), after "Ecclesia" (perhaps est,), and after "Talis e" (perhaps est), the last word of the column, which runs on to col 273. All UNSURE; check against another scan.

PG 7:273

ea, cujus membrum erat Irenaeus, cujus fidem atque doctrinam tuebatur, et a qua perperam secessisse eos, quos impugnabat, haereticos, invicte demonstrabat. Hisce characteribus eam ipse non semel designavit, et a qualibet alia societate haeretica vel schismatica distingui voluit.

that Church of which Irenaeus was a member, whose faith and doctrine he defended, and from which he invincibly demonstrated that those heretics whom he was assailing had wrongly seceded. By these characters he himself more than once designated her, and willed that she should be distinguished from any other heretical or schismatic society whatsoever.

27. Unitatis notam soli Ecclesiae catholicae singularem esse ac propriam, qua ab haereticis omnibus ac schismaticis discernitur, adeo Irenaeo constabat, ut in hac arce tutissimum defensionis fidei praesidium constituat, indeque disputandi initium ducat. « Hanc praedicationem, inquit, cum acceperit, et hanc fidem, quemadmodum praediximus, Ecclesia, et quidem (Graece, καίπερ, quamvis) in universum mundum disseminata, diligenter custodit, quasi unam domum inhabitans : et similiter credit iis, videlicet quasi unam animam habens, et unum cor : et consonanter haec praedicat, et docet, et tradit, quasi unum possidens os. » Quasi diceret : Haec verae Ecclesiae nota, hic character. Quamvis per totum orbem longe lateque propagata sit, perinde est tamen ad fidei unitatem, ac si unam domum habitaret. Quam enim fidem atque doctrinam ab apostolis sibi creditam accepit, eodem ubique studio et eadem cura conservat; et quasi unam animam, unum cor et unum os haberet, eodem ubique modo credit, praedicat, docet et accepta tradit. Nam, addit, etsi dispares inter se mundi linguae sunt, una tamen et eadem est ubique vis traditionis; nec eae quae in Germania, Hispaniis, Galliis, Oriente, Aegypto, aut alibi gentium constitutae sunt Ecclesiae, aliter credunt aut aliter tradunt; sed sicuti sol a Deo conditus, in universo mundo unus atque idem est, ita etiam veritatis praedicatio eadem ubique lucet, omnesque homines, qui ad veritatis agnitionem venire cupiunt, illustrat. Et quamvis non eaedem omnium Ecclesiae antistitum dotes, aliique aliis peritiores et disertiores sint; eadem tamen omnium doctrina est. « Cum enim una et eadem fides sit, neque is qui multum de ea potest dicere, ampliat; neque is qui minus, deminorat. » — « Eorum, inquit alibi, qui ab Ecclesia sunt, semita, circumiens mundum universum, quippe firmam habens ab apostolis traditionem, et videre nobis donans omnium unam et eamdem esse fidem, omnibus unum et eumdem Patrem praecipientibus, et eamdem dispositionem incarnationis Filii Dei credentibus, et eamdem donationem Spiritus scientibus, et eadem meditantibus praecepta, et eamdem figuram ejus, quae est erga Ecclesiam, ordinationis (id est eamdem regiminis ecclesiastici formam) custodientibus, et eumdem exspectantibus adventum Domini, et eamdem salutem totius hominis, id est animae et corporis, sustinentibus. Et Ecclesiae quidem praedicatio vera et firma, apud quam una et eadem salutis via in universo

27. That the note of unity is singular and proper to the Catholic Church alone, whereby she is discerned from all heretics and schismatics, was so well established for Irenaeus that in this citadel he sets up the safest bulwark for the defence of the faith, and from it draws the beginning of his disputation. "The Church," he says, "having received this preaching and this faith, as we have said before, although (in the Greek, καίπερ, although) scattered throughout the whole world, diligently guards it, as if inhabiting one house; and she likewise believes these things, namely as having one soul and one heart; and harmoniously she proclaims, teaches, and hands down these things, as possessing one mouth." As if he were to say: This is the note of the true Church, this her character. Although she is spread far and wide throughout the whole world, yet as regards the unity of the faith it is just as if she inhabited a single house. For the faith and doctrine which she received as entrusted to her by the apostles, she preserves everywhere with the same zeal and the same care; and as if she had one soul, one heart, and one mouth, everywhere in the same way she believes, proclaims, teaches, and hands down what she has received. For, he adds, although the languages of the world are unlike one another, yet the force of the tradition is one and the same everywhere; nor do the Churches that have been established in Germany, the Spains, the Gauls, the East, Egypt, or elsewhere among the nations believe otherwise or hand down otherwise; but just as the sun, created by God, is one and the same in the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere the same, and enlightens all men who desire to come to the knowledge of the truth. And although the gifts of all the prelates of the Church are not the same, and some are more skilled and more eloquent than others, yet the doctrine of all is the same. "For since the faith is one and the same, neither does he who can say much concerning it enlarge it, nor does he who can say less diminish it." — "The path," he says elsewhere, "of those who belong to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as having the firm tradition from the apostles, and granting us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all prescribe one and the same God the Father, and believe the same dispensation of the incarnation of the Son of God, and know the same gift of the Spirit, and meditate upon the same precepts, and guard the same figure of that ordination which regards the Church (that is, the same form of ecclesiastical government), and await the same coming of the Lord, and uphold the same salvation of the whole man, that is, of soul and body. And the preaching of the Church is indeed true and firm, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole

Editors' notes and page, col. 273

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 273

Iren., lib. I, cap. 10, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book I, chapter 10, no. 2.

(printed under page 143)

(71) ‹anchor: inquit alibi› · call in col 273

Lib. V, c. 20, n. 1.

Book V, chapter 20, no. 1.

(printed under page 143)

Page

running head: 273 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A ea, cujus; B dit, quasi; C traditionis; nec; D nem, et videre
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ea, cujus; ends mid-word uni-
other: the word universo was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 274

PG 7:274

mundo ostenditur. Huic enim creditum est lumen Dei, etc. »

world. For to her has been entrusted the light of God, etc."

28. Haec apostolicorum hominum fides, haec in eorum animis insita, et ab apostolis accepta et quasi consignata verae Ecclesiae notio. Apage ergo spuriam illam portentosamque, quam commenti sunt recentiores Protestantium ministri, Ecclesiae notionem, quae sectas omnes, tum haereticas, tum schismaticas complectatur, quae in iis fidei articulis, quos quidem fundamentales vocare, nusquam vero clare et aperte designare placuit, conveniant, licet in caeteris omnibus dissideant, et quasi civili bello pugnantes, mutuis anathematum vulneribus sese misere conscindant atque lacerent. Nihil ab ea animae, cordis et oris unitate, quam verae Ecclesiae characterem esse dicit Irenaeus, alienius fingi potuit. Imo tantum abest ut quaslibet sectas haereticas sinu suo complectatur Ecclesia, qualem describebat Irenaeus, quin potius in hoc ab haereticis distinctam esse contendat, quod « ejus praedicatio undique constans et aequaliter perseverans » secum ubique terrarum consentiat; illi vero nunquam constantes, semper et ubique secum pugnantes, omni vento doctrinae moveantur, ac velut alternantibus, sibique succedentibus variarum sententiarum fluctibus jactentur. « Nos, inquit, unum et solum verum Deum doctorem sequentes, et regulam veritatis habentes ejus sermones, de iisdem semper eadem dicimus omnes. » Illi vero « non bene sentientes, interim tamen semetipsos arguunt, de iisdem verbis non consentientes. » Et alibi : « Bene habere putavimus, ostendere primo, in quibus ipsi patres hujus fabulae discrepant adversus se invicem, quasi qui sint ex variis spiritibus erroris. Et ex hoc enim diligenter cognoscere est, et ex ostensione (Graece, καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἀποδείξεως, « nullis dum etiam allatis argumentis, » ut melius vertit Billius) eam firmam, quae ab Ecclesia praedicatur, veritatem, et ab iis quod fingitur falsiloquium. » Tum exposita mira Ecclesiarum omnium in una fide atque doctrina consensione; subjicit : « Videamus nunc et horum inconstantem sententiam, cum sint duo, vel tres, quemadmodum de iisdem non eadem dicunt, sed et nominibus, et rebus contraria respondent. » Descriptis vero praecipuorum Valentini discipulorum secum pugnantibus sententiis, concludit : « Cum autem discrepent ab invicem, et doctrina, et traditione, et qui recentiores eorum agnoscuntur, affectant per singulos dies novum aliquid adinvenire, et fructificare quod nunquam quisquam excogitavit, durum est omnium describere sententias. » Si autem quaeras, quae causa tam effusae apud haereticos sentiendi licentiae; hanc assignabit Irenaeus : « quod » nimirum « non fundati super unam petram, sed super arenam habentem in se lapides multos; multi ex

28. This was the faith of apostolic men, this the notion of the true Church implanted in their minds, and received and as it were sealed by the apostles. Away then with that spurious and monstrous notion of the Church which the more recent ministers of the Protestants have devised, which would embrace all sects, both heretical and schismatic, provided they agree in those articles of faith which it has pleased them indeed to call fundamental, but nowhere clearly and openly to designate, even though in all other things they disagree, and, fighting as it were in civil war, miserably rend and mangle one another with mutual wounds of anathemas. Nothing more foreign to that unity of soul, heart, and mouth, which Irenaeus says is the character of the true Church, could have been imagined. Nay, so far is the Church, such as Irenaeus described her, from embracing in her bosom any heretical sects whatsoever, that on the contrary he contends that she is distinguished from heretics in this very respect, that "her preaching, everywhere constant and equally persevering," agrees with itself everywhere on earth; whereas they, never constant, always and everywhere fighting with themselves, are moved by every wind of doctrine, and are tossed about as it were by alternating waves of various opinions succeeding one another. "We," he says, "following the one and only true God as our teacher, and having His words as the rule of truth, all always say the same things concerning the same matters." Whereas they, "not thinking rightly, meanwhile convict themselves, not agreeing about the same words." And elsewhere: "We have thought it well to show first in what matters the very fathers of this fable differ against one another, as being inspired by different spirits of error. For from this very fact, even before proof (in the Greek, καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἀποδείξεως, 'even before any arguments are brought forward,' as Billy better translates it), one may diligently recognize both that firm truth which is proclaimed by the Church, and the falsehood which is fabricated by them." Then, having set forth the wonderful agreement of all the Churches in one faith and doctrine, he subjoins: "Let us now look also at the inconstant opinion of these men, since when there are two or three of them, how they do not say the same things concerning the same matters, but give contrary answers both in names and in things." And having described the mutually conflicting opinions of the principal disciples of Valentinus, he concludes: "Since therefore they differ from one another both in doctrine and in tradition, and those of them who are recognized as more recent affect every day to devise something new, and to bring forth fruit which no one ever thought of before, it is hard to describe the opinions of all." And if you ask what is the cause of such unbridled licence of opinion among the heretics, Irenaeus will assign this: namely, "because they are not founded upon the one rock, but upon sand having in itself many stones; wherefore many of

Editors' notes and page, col. 274

Footnotes

(72) ‹anchor: Nos, inquit› · call in col 274

Lib. IV, cap. 35 n. 4.

Book IV, chapter 35, no. 4.

(printed under page 143)

(73) ‹anchor: Et alibi› · call in col 274

Lib. I, c. 9, n. 5.

Book I, chapter 9, no. 5.

(printed under page 143)

(74) ‹anchor: subjicit› · call in col 274

Cap. 11, n. 1.

Chapter 11, no. 1.

(printed under page 143)

(75) ‹anchor: concludit› · call in col 274

C. 21, n. 5.

Chapter 21, no. 5.

(printed under page 143)

(76) ‹anchor: assignabit Irenaeus› · call in col 274

Cap. 28, n. 1, et lib. III, c. 24, n. 2.

Chapter 28, no. 1, and Book III, chapter 24, no. 2.

(printed under page 143)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 274
marginal letters: A verso mundo; B quam verae; C bene sentientes,; D traria respondent.
old-edition numerals: [CXIX] after cas,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): verso mundo; begins mid-word verso

PG 7:275

ipsis, imo omnes velint doctores esse, et abscedere quidem ab haeresi, in qua fuerunt, aliud autem dogma ab alia sententia, et deinceps alteram ab altera componentes, nove docere insistunt, semetipsos adinventores sententiae, quamcunque compegerint, gloriantes. » Nempe excusso semel Ecclesiae auctoritatis jugo, repudiataque veritatis regula; nullo jam freno coerceri valentes, in obvias quaslibet opiniones facile concedunt. « Arguuntur » proinde « non quidem apostolorum, sed suae malae sententiae esse discipuli. Propter hoc autem et variae sententiae sunt uniuscujusque eorum, recipientis errorem, quemadmodum capiebat. » Eapropter rectissime monet, « non oportere adhuc quaerere apud alios, » videlicet apud haereticos, veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere; cum apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia, quae sint veritatis : uti omnis, quicunque velit, sumat ex ea potum vitae. Haec est enim vitae introitus : omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et latrones. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos; quae autem sunt Ecclesiae, cum summa diligentia diligere et apprehendere veritatis traditionem. » Igitur apud solam Ecclesiam quaerenda veritas : huic soli credita est ab apostolis, huic soli creditum lumen Dei, huic soli « creditum Dei munus, » fides, « quemadmodum inspiratio plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur; » ab hac sola sumendus vitae potus; haec sola vitae introitus. Et quae Ecclesia? Ea nimirum quam jam descripsit Irenaeus, quae per totum orbem propagata habet unam animam, unum cor, unum os, unam et eamdem regiminis ecclesiastici formam, per continuam episcoporum ab apostolis successionem, cujus una fides, doctrina atque docendi ratio. Tantum abest ad hanc Ecclesiam pertinere haereticos arbitretur, ut potius diserte ab ea excludat, ut fures et latrones, apud quos nulla vita, nulla quaerenda veritas sit.

them, nay all, wish to be teachers, and depart indeed from the heresy in which they were, and putting together one dogma from one opinion, and then another from another, they persist in teaching after a new fashion, boasting themselves to be the inventors of whatever opinion they have patched together." Namely, having once shaken off the yoke of the authority of the Church, and rejected the rule of truth, being no longer able to be restrained by any bridle, they easily give way to any opinions that meet them. "They are convicted," accordingly, "of being disciples not indeed of the apostles, but of their own evil opinion. And on account of this there are also various opinions of each one of them, receiving error according as he had capacity for it." Wherefore he most rightly admonishes that "one must not still seek among others," namely among the heretics, "the truth which it is easy to take from the Church; since the apostles, as into a rich depository, have most fully brought together into her all things that belong to the truth, so that everyone, whosoever wishes, may take from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life; while all the rest are thieves and robbers. On account of which we must avoid them indeed, but love with the utmost diligence the things that belong to the Church, and lay hold of the tradition of the truth." Therefore in the Church alone is the truth to be sought: to her alone has it been entrusted by the apostles; to her alone has been entrusted the light of God; to her alone has been "entrusted the gift of God," the faith, "even as breath was to the fashioned body, to the end that all the members partaking of it may be made alive"; from her alone is the drink of life to be taken; she alone is the entrance to life. And what Church? That, namely, which Irenaeus has already described, which, spread throughout the whole world, has one soul, one heart, one mouth, one and the same form of ecclesiastical government through the continuous succession of bishops from the apostles, and whose faith, doctrine, and manner of teaching is one. So far is he from thinking that heretics belong to this Church, that on the contrary he expressly excludes them from her as thieves and robbers, among whom no life and no truth is to be sought.

29. Sed, inquiunt, inter illius ipsius Ecclesiae, quae unitate tantopere gloriatur, membra, gravissimae interdum oriuntur contentiones acerrimaeque controversiae. Verum id quidem : at omissis consulto pluribus, quae responderi possent (nec enim controversiarum campo plus quam Irenaeus noster sinat, inferre me velim), id unum duntaxat observabo; eo scilicet veram Christi Ecclesiam a caeteris quibuscunque societatibus discriminari, quod in his nulla sit finiendarum controversiarum regula; in illa vero certus sit quarumcunque contentionum componendarum modus, auctoritas videlicet ejusdem Ecclesiae per episcopos suos, vel in conciliis generalibus loquentis, judicantis, ac definientis, vel unanimi consensione quidpiam aut probantis aut respuentis. Cum enim episcopis commiserint Ecclesias apostoli, ut toties asserit Irenaeus, iisque custodiendum crediderint « depositorium

29. But, they say, among the members of that very Church which boasts so greatly of unity, most grave contentions and most bitter controversies sometimes arise. True indeed: yet purposefully passing over many things that could be answered (for I would not wish to betake myself into the field of controversies further than our Irenaeus permits), this one thing only will I observe: namely, that the true Church of Christ is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever by this, that in them there is no rule for ending controversies, whereas in her there is a certain method of settling any contentions whatsoever—namely, the authority of the same Church speaking, judging, and defining through her bishops, either in general councils, or by unanimous consent either approving or rejecting anything. For since the apostles committed the Churches to the bishops, as Irenaeus so often asserts, and entrusted to their keeping "that

Editors' notes and page, col. 275

Footnotes

(77) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 275

Lib. III, c. 12, n. 7.

Book III, chapter 12, no. 7.

(printed under page 144)

(78) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 275

Ibid., c. 4, n. 1.

Same place, chapter 4, no. 1.

(printed under page 144)

(79) ‹anchor: creditum lumen Dei› · call in col 275

Ibid., c. 24, n. 1.

Same place, chapter 24, no. 1.

(printed under page 144)

Page

running head: 275 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A ipsis, imo; B quam facile; C sola vitae; D controversiarum campo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): ipsis, imo

PG 7:276

illud dives, » in quod « plenissime contulerunt omnia, quae sunt veritatis; » impossibile est, quandiu vera stabit Ecclesia, Christusque promissis suis non deerit (defuturum unquam quis Christianus suspicari queat?), episcopos omnes, singulasque ab iis administratas Ecclesias, in errorem conspirare. Quapropter ut quid certum et indubitatum, et a quo religata pendet Ecclesiae unitas, proponit, ac frequenter inculcat Irenaeus, « eis, qui in Ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportere, » ab iis « discere oportere » veritatem, germanamque Scripturarum expositionem esse quaerendam. Ratio est, quia « cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris, acceperunt. » Et quamvis interdum oriantur « crediti quidem a multis presbyteri, » sed « qui serviunt suis voluptatibus, et non praeponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis; » certum est tamen, « tales » semper « presbyteros nutrire Ecclesiam, qui et apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum, et conversationem sine offensa praestant, ad confirmationem et correptionem reliquorum; » quibus proinde « adhaerere oportet. »

rich depository," into which "they most fully brought together all things that belong to the truth," it is impossible, so long as the true Church shall stand and Christ shall not fail His promises (and what Christian could suspect that He will ever fail?), that all the bishops, and the individual Churches administered by them, should conspire in error. Wherefore Irenaeus proposes and frequently inculcates, as something certain and undoubted, and on which the unity of the Church hangs bound, that "it is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church," and that from them "it is necessary to learn" the truth, and to seek the genuine exposition of the Scriptures. The reason is, because "together with the succession of the episcopate they have received the certain charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father." And although at times there arise men "who are indeed believed by many to be presbyters," but "who serve their own pleasures, and do not set the fear of God first in their hearts," yet it is certain that "such presbyters the Church" always "nurtures, who both guard the doctrine of the apostles, and together with the order of the presbyterate exhibit sound speech and conduct without offence, for the confirmation and correction of the rest"; to whom accordingly "we must cleave."

30. Ut vero unitas inter tot episcopos totque singulares Ecclesias tam longe a se invicem distantes foveri, omniumque consensus facilius explorari posset, nec omnes emergentibus quibuscunque controversiis maximo cum singularum gravamine simul in unum locum convenire cogerentur : necesse erat primam aliquam inter omnes Ecclesiam constitui, quae caeteris omnibus praeesset, caeteris pro jure invigilaret, ac veluti quoddam unitatis centrum esset, in quod omnes confluentes, ejusdem fidei et communionis nexu colligarentur. Cognita igitur hujus primae Ecclesiae sententia, caeterarum omnium satis ut plurimum cognita fuerit; una enim omnium cum ea Ecclesia fides atque doctrina : haec caeterarum caput, cui arctissime adhaerere tenentur omnes. Porro hoc esse unius Romanae Ecclesiae privilegium, ut primum inter caeteras omnes honoris, dignitatis atque auctoritatis gradum obtineat, aliasque omnes sibi inferiores habeat, tam clare et aperte docet Irenaeus, ut lubens in meridiana luce caecutiat, quisquis negare audeat. Argumenta contra haereticos ducturus ab auctoritate traditionis apostolicae, et consensu omnium Ecclesiarum; id principii loco statuit, traditionem apostolicam unam et eamdem, puram et illibatam in omnibus Ecclesiis conservatam fuisse, eamque veritatis studiosis omnibus patere. « Traditionem itaque apostolorum in omni mundo manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus, qui vera velint videre. » Hanc vero propositionem ex eo probat, quod cum in singulis ecclesiis apostolicis, a primo, qui ab apostolis institutus est, episcopo continua semper fuerit, nec usquam interrupta

30. Now in order that unity might be fostered among so many bishops and so many individual Churches so far distant from one another, and that the consent of all might more easily be ascertained, and that not all should be forced upon the arising of any controversies whatsoever to assemble together into one place to the greatest burden of each, it was necessary that some first Church among all should be established, which should preside over all the rest, watch over the rest by right, and be as it were a centre of unity, flowing together into which all might be bound together by the bond of the same faith and communion. Once the opinion of this first Church, therefore, is known, that of all the rest is for the most part sufficiently known; for the faith and doctrine of all is one with that Church: she is the head of the rest, to which all are bound most closely to cleave. Moreover, that this is the privilege of the Roman Church alone, that she holds the first degree of honour, dignity, and authority among all the rest, and has all the others inferior to herself, Irenaeus teaches so clearly and openly that whoever dares to deny it willingly blinds himself in the midday light. Being about to draw arguments against the heretics from the authority of apostolic tradition and the consent of all the Churches, he lays down in the place of a principle that the apostolic tradition, one and the same, has been preserved pure and unblemished in all the Churches, and lies open to all who are studious of the truth: "The tradition of the apostles, therefore, manifested in the whole world, is present in every Church to be beheld by all who wish to see what is true." And this proposition he proves from the fact that, since in the individual apostolic Churches from the first bishop who was appointed by the apostles there has always been a continuous and nowhere

Editors' notes and page, col. 276

Footnotes

(80) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 276

Lib. IV, cap. 24, n. 2 et seqq.

Book IV, chapter 24, no. 2 and following.

(printed under page 144)

(81) ‹anchor: studiosis omnibus patere.› · call in col 276

Lib. III, c. 3, n. 1.

Book III, chapter 3, no. 1.

(printed under page 144)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 276
marginal letters: A illud dives,; B quidem a multis; C simul in unum; D bens in meridiana
old-edition numerals: [CXX] after doctrina :
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): illud dives; ends mid-word in-
other: the word interrupta was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 277

PG 7:277

series episcoporum sibi succedentium, qui sibi invicem ac curae suae commissis populis veluti per manus tradiderunt, quod ab apostolis traditum fuerat; si in aliquo dogmate consentientes omnes Ecclesiae inveniantur, invictum est argumentum, illud ab apostolis ipsis manasse. « Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, quae seorsim et latenter a reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea, quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant, etc. » Tota vis hujus argumenti pendet a duplici propositione; prima, in singulis Ecclesiis apostolicis continuam semper perseverasse episcoporum ab apostolis successionem; secunda, omnes illas Ecclesias in eamdem sententiam conspirare. Utramque simul ut probaret Irenaeus, necesse sibi esse non duxit adire singulas Ecclesias, ut successionis catalogos in archivis earum asservatos evolveret, et singularum sententiam exploraret : longius id fuisset, multisque difficultatibus obnoxium; expeditiori ac breviori via procedit. Unius Ecclesiae Romanae traditionem per continuam episcoporum successionem in ea conservatam consulere satis habuit, ut haereticos omnes confunderet; ratus jure merito, ea semel cognita, illico aliarum omnium Ecclesiarum traditionem, sententiam atque doctrinam cognosci. Cum enim Ecclesia Romana omnium princeps, caput et prima sit, omnium maxima, antiquissima, et maxime cognita, ab apostolorum principe Petro, ejusque socio Paulo fundata, quae caeteris omnibus pro jure suo praesit et dominetur, et cum qua omnes omnino fideles unius et ejusdem fidei, et communionis vinculis colligari necesse sit; inde liquido patet, aliam esse non posse aliarum Ecclesiarum traditionem et fidem, a fide et traditione Romanae Ecclesiae. Praetermissis itaque totius orbis Ecclesiarum episcoporum catalogis, illius unius continuam episcoporum successionem recensere, ac, quae per hunc veluti canalem manavit usque ad nos, apostolorum traditionem declarare satis est; ut ex communi omnium Ecclesiarum, quae cum Romana consentire debent, sententia et traditione devincantur omnes haeretici. « Sed quoniam, inquit, valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; maximae et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab apostolis, traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem, et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam

interrupted series of bishops succeeding one another, who handed down as it were from hand to hand to one another and to the peoples committed to their care what had been handed down by the apostles, if all the Churches are found agreeing in any dogma, it is an invincible proof that it flowed from the apostles themselves. "We are able to enumerate those who were appointed bishops by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors even to us, who neither taught nor knew anything such as is raved of by these men. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they used to teach to the perfect apart and secretly from the rest, they would have handed them down above all to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves, etc." The whole force of this argument hangs upon a twofold proposition: first, that in the individual apostolic Churches there has always persevered a continuous succession of bishops from the apostles; second, that all those Churches conspire in the same opinion. In order to prove both at once, Irenaeus did not think it necessary for him to visit the individual Churches, so as to unroll the catalogues of succession preserved in their archives and ascertain the opinion of each: that would have been too long, and liable to many difficulties; he proceeds by a more expeditious and shorter way. He held it enough to consult the tradition of the one Roman Church preserved in her through the continuous succession of bishops, in order to confound all the heretics; judging, and deservedly so, that once that tradition was known, immediately the tradition, opinion, and doctrine of all the other Churches was known. For since the Roman Church is the chief, head, and first of all, the greatest, most ancient, and best known of all, founded by Peter the prince of the apostles and his companion Paul, which by her own right presides over and rules all the rest, and with which all the faithful altogether must necessarily be bound together by the bonds of one and the same faith and communion, from this it is clearly evident that the tradition and faith of the other Churches cannot be other than the faith and tradition of the Roman Church. Passing over, therefore, the catalogues of the bishops of the Churches of the whole world, it is enough to recount the continuous succession of the bishops of that one Church, and to declare the tradition of the apostles which has flowed down even to us through this channel, as it were, so that all the heretics may be vanquished by the common opinion and tradition of all the Churches, which must agree with the Roman. "But since," he says, "it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to enumerate the successions of all the Churches, by pointing out the tradition which that greatest, and most ancient, and universally known Church founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul has from the apostles, and the faith proclaimed to men, coming down even to us through the successions of the bishops, we confound all those who in any way whatsoever, either through self-pleasing, or vainglory, or through blindness and evil opinion, gather otherwise than as they ought. For with this Church,

Editors' notes and page, col. 277

Footnotes

(82) ‹anchor: quoniam, inquit› · call in col 277

N. 2.

No. 2.

(printed under page 145)

Page

running head: 277 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A terrupta series; B tinuam semper; C Cum enim; D consentire debent,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): terrupta series; begins mid-word terrupta and ends mid-word Eccle-
other: the word Ecclesiam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 278

PG 7:278

propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique, fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quae est ab apostolis traditio. »

on account of her superior pre-eminence, it is necessary that every Church should agree—that is, the faithful who are everywhere—in which Church has always been preserved by those who are everywhere that tradition which is from the apostles."

31. In iis verbis plura observanda sunt : 1° Romanam Ecclesiam jam Irenaei saeculo omnium maximam existimatam fuisse, longe minus fidelium numero, de quo tunc temporis cum ea contendere potuissent aliae quaedam Ecclesiae, quam auctoritatis amplitudine. 2° Omnium antiquissimam; quod si ad fundationis tempus referatur, falsissimum erit; dudum enim antea Hierosolymitanam, Antiochenam et alias fundaverant apostoli. Ad dignitatem igitur necessario referendum est, ut ideo omnium antiquissima dicatur Romana Ecclesia, quia omnium princeps et praecipua. Quare vix dubito quin Graece scripserit Irenaeus, ἀρχαιοτάτης, quod male verterit interpres, antiquissimae; cum vertendum hic fuisset, « praecipuae ac principis. » 3° Omnibus cognitam asserit Irenaeus, utpote quam caeteris sublimiorem ac excellentiorem, aliae omnes ut caput et primam suspicerent, ac venerarentur. 4° A gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo fundatam et constitutam dicit; quo ruit absurdum illud recentiorum quorumdam haereticorum commentum, qui tota reclamante antiquitate, negare ausi sunt Petrum Romam usquam venisse. 5° Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse esse omnem Ecclesiam seu omnes omnino fideles per totum orbem dispersos convenire : non quod illuc proficisci tenerentur ii, qui erant undique fideles; id vel cogitare absurdissimum fuisset; sed quod, ut fateri coactus est ipse Salmasius, necesse esset « convenire et concordare in rebus fidei cum Ecclesia Romana. Graece quippe, inquit, locutus fuerat Irenaeus, συμβαίνειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίαν · porro συμβαίνειν πρός τινα, aeque usitatum Graecis, ac συμβαίνειν τινί; illud vero hic non nisi ad consensum et concordiam referri, ad quamcunque peregrinationem detorqueri, nonnisi insulsissime potest. Ratio autem cur cum Romana Ecclesia necesse sit omnem consentire Ecclesiam, haec ab Irenaeo affertur, « ob potiorem » illius « principalitatem. » Sic scripsisse Latinum interpretem nobiscum merito censet idem Salmasius : Graece vero scriptum ab Irenaeo putat, διὰ τὸ ἐξαίρετον αὐτῆς πρωτεῖον; nos probabilius, διὰ τὸ ὑπέρτερον πρωτεῖον. Sed alterutrum scripserit auctor noster, significare voluit, ideo omnes Ecclesias cum Romana consentire teneri; quia licet caeterae in suis quaeque finibus principatus in sibi subditos fideles jure gaudeant, longe tamen potior est in quem obtinet Romana; utpote quae principatus ac primatus jure omnibus dominetur, omnibus praesit, omnesque sibi subditas habeat. 6° Denique, in ea Ecclesia semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservatam esse eam,

31. In these words several things are to be observed: First, that already in the century of Irenaeus the Roman Church was esteemed the greatest of all, far less by the number of the faithful—in which respect certain other Churches could at that time have vied with her—than by the amplitude of her authority. Secondly, the most ancient of all; which, if it be referred to the time of foundation, will be most false, for long before had the apostles founded the Church of Jerusalem, that of Antioch, and others. It must therefore necessarily be referred to dignity, so that the Roman Church is called the most ancient of all because she is the chief and principal of all. Wherefore I scarcely doubt that Irenaeus wrote in Greek ἀρχαιοτάτης, which the translator badly rendered "most ancient," whereas here it ought to have been rendered "principal and chief." Thirdly, Irenaeus asserts that she is known to all, inasmuch as all the other Churches looked up to and venerated her as higher and more excellent than the rest, as their head and first. Fourthly, he says that she was founded and established by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul; whereby falls to the ground that absurd fiction of certain more recent heretics who, with all antiquity crying out against them, have dared to deny that Peter ever came to Rome. Fifthly, that with this Church it is necessary that every Church, or all the faithful altogether scattered throughout the whole world, should agree: not that those who were the faithful everywhere were bound to travel thither—even to think that would have been most absurd—but because, as Salmasius himself was forced to confess, it was necessary "to agree and be in accord in matters of faith with the Roman Church. For in Greek," he says, "Irenaeus had spoken thus: συμβαίνειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίαν; now συμβαίνειν πρός τινα is just as customary among the Greeks as συμβαίνειν τινί; and that this is here referred only to consent and concord, and cannot save most absurdly be twisted to mean any pilgrimage." Moreover, the reason why it is necessary that every Church should agree with the Roman Church is stated by Irenaeus thus: "on account of her superior pre-eminence." That the Latin translator wrote thus, the same Salmasius rightly holds with us; and in Greek he thinks was written by Irenaeus διὰ τὸ ἐξαίρετον αὐτῆς πρωτεῖον, while we think more probably διὰ τὸ ὑπέρτερον πρωτεῖον. Yet whichever of the two our author wrote, he meant to signify that all the Churches are bound to agree with the Roman for this reason, because although the rest each within its own borders rightly enjoy pre-eminence over the faithful subject to them, yet far superior is that which the Roman Church holds, inasmuch as by the right of pre-eminence and primacy she rules over all, presides over all, and has all subject to herself. Sixthly and finally, that in that Church has always been preserved by those who are everywhere that

Editors' notes and page, col. 278

Footnotes

(83) ‹anchor: ipse Salmasius› · call in col 278

De primat. pap., cap. 5, p. 65 edit. Lugd. Bat. 1645.

De primatu papae, chapter 5, p. 65 of the Leiden edition of 1645.

(printed under page 145)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 278
marginal letters: A siam propter; B nium antiquissima; C seu omnes; D litatem. » Sic
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): siam propter; begins mid-word siam

PG 7:279

quae est ab apostolis, traditionem. Cum enim hujus sententiae atque doctrinae adhaerere teneantur omnes, qui sunt undique, fideles, longe tutius ac facilius conservari in ea potuit apostolica traditio, tot episcopis, presbyteris et clericis, totque fidelium myriadibus credita, imisque pectoribus recondita, quam in aliis Ecclesiis divisim spectatis, quarum jurisdictionis fines non tam longe lateque patebant.

tradition which is from the apostles. For since all the faithful who are everywhere are bound to cleave to her opinion and doctrine, the apostolic tradition could be preserved in her far more safely and easily, entrusted as it was to so many bishops, presbyters, and clerics, and to so many myriads of the faithful, and stored up in the depths of their hearts, than in the other Churches viewed separately, the bounds of whose jurisdiction did not extend so far and wide.

32. Locus hic Irenaei male habet eos omnes, qui « per caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet, collegerunt, » id est qui catholicae fidei simul et obedientiae, quam exhibere Romanae tenebantur Ecclesiae, jugum excusserunt, ut ἀκέφαλα sibi ad arbitrium conventicula constituerent. Quare, ne turpissimam schismatis ac haereseos labem incurrant Protestantes, nullum lapidem non movent, ut importunissimi loci pondus declinent. Sed tam parum sibi in hoc explicando, quam in fidei dogmatibus consentiunt. Salmasius ad clarissimae lucis fulgorem oculos claudere non valens, fateri, ut dixi, coactus est, Irenaei verborum sensum esse, « necesse esse omnem Ecclesiam convenire et concordare in rebus fidei, ac doctrina cum Romana Ecclesia. » Idipsum est quod ex eo Irenaei loco inferunt Catholici omnes. Fateatur igitur necesse est Salmasius, eam omnem Ecclesiam, quae a Romana discrepabit ac dissentiet in rebus fidei ac doctrina, eo ipso schismatis ac haereseos culpa teneri. Videant proinde Salmasii asseclae, Calviniani omnes, et quicunque a Romana Ecclesia in rebus fidei dissentiunt, quo pacto culpam hanc a se amoliantur. Neque enim quod secundo Ecclesiae saeculo, Salmasio fatente, necesse erat, posterioribus his saeculis minus necesse est. Quod hic addit, « velle Irenaeum, Ecclesiam Romanam, ut principalem, id est primam et omnium maxime puram, typum et exemplum caeteris debere esse doctrinae sinceritatis et apostolicae traditionis custodiendae, » in eo verum est quod fatetur, Irenaeum velle, Ecclesiam Romanam principalem et primam omnium esse. Velit igitur, nolit, sequitur, eam principatus ac primatus jure caeteris omnibus praeesse ac dominari; ac proinde eos omnes qui imperium illius detrectant, objectum sibi apertae rebellionis crimen dissolvere non posse. Si vero eo duntaxat sensu Romanam Ecclesiam primam ac principalem esse velit Salmasius, quod omnium maxime pura, typus et exemplum caeteris esse debeat doctrinae sinceritatis, et apostolicae traditionis custodiendae, nugatur, et nugari secum vult Irenaeum. Ut enim taceam hic plura, quae modo Grabii sententiam expendens dicturus sum; si ea solum ratione principalis ac prima sit Romana Ecclesia, de primatu ac principatu jure merito cum ea contendere potuissent Smyrnensis et Ephesina Ecclesia, quas subinde memorat Irenaeus. Et ipsae enim tunc temporis nec minus purae erant, quam Romana, nec minori jure ut typus et

32. This passage of Irenaeus troubles all those who "through blindness and evil opinion have gathered otherwise than as they ought," that is, who have shaken off the yoke both of the Catholic faith and of the obedience which they were bound to render to the Roman Church, in order to set up headless conventicles for themselves at their own pleasure. Wherefore, lest they incur the most shameful brand of schism and heresy, the Protestants leave no stone unturned in order to evade the weight of this most inconvenient passage. Yet they agree as little with one another in explaining this passage as they do in the dogmas of the faith. Salmasius, unable to shut his eyes to the brightness of the clearest light, was forced, as I have said, to confess that the sense of the words of Irenaeus is that "it is necessary that every Church should agree and be in accord in matters of faith and doctrine with the Roman Church." That is the very thing which all Catholics infer from that passage of Irenaeus. Salmasius must therefore necessarily confess that every Church which differs and dissents from the Roman in matters of faith and doctrine is by that very fact held guilty of schism and heresy. Let the followers of Salmasius, accordingly, all the Calvinists, and whosoever dissent from the Roman Church in matters of faith, see how they may clear themselves of this guilt. For what in the second century of the Church, by the confession of Salmasius, was necessary is no less necessary in these later centuries. As for what he adds here, that "Irenaeus means that the Roman Church, as principal, that is, the first and purest of all, ought to be the type and example to the rest of preserving the purity of doctrine and the apostolic tradition," it is true in so far as he confesses that Irenaeus means that the Roman Church is the principal and first of all. Whether he wills it or not, therefore, it follows that by the right of pre-eminence and primacy she presides over and rules all the rest; and that accordingly all those who refuse her authority cannot clear themselves of the charge of open rebellion brought against them. But if Salmasius would have the Roman Church to be the first and principal in this sense only, that, being the purest of all, she ought to be the type and example to the rest of preserving the purity of doctrine and the apostolic tradition, he trifles, and wishes Irenaeus to trifle with him. For to pass over several things here which I am presently going to say in weighing the opinion of Grabe, if by that reason alone the Roman Church were principal and first, the Church of Smyrna and that of Ephesus, which Irenaeus immediately mentions, could deservedly have vied with her for the primacy and pre-eminence. For they themselves also at that time were no less pure than the Roman, and with no less right could have been proposed to the rest as a type and

Editors' notes and page, col. 279

Footnotes

(84) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 279

T. II Panstrat. Cathol. lib. XIII, De oecum. Pont., cap. 22, n. 12 seqq.

Volume II of the Panstratia Catholica, Book XIII, On the Ecumenical Pontiff, chapter 22, no. 12 and following.

(printed under page 146)

Page

running head: 279 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A quae est ab; B turpissimam schismatis; C seclae, Calviniani; D crimen dissolvere
old-edition numerals: [CXXI] after credita,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): quae est ab

PG 7:280

exemplum doctrinae sinceritatis et traditionis apostolicae custodiendae caeteris proponi potuissent. Frustra ergo et ridicule uni Romanae Ecclesiae potiorem principalitatem asseruisset Irenaeus, quam aliae eodem jure, ipsae et ab apostolis pariter fundatae, et a sanctissimis eorum successoribus gubernatae, vindicare sibi potuissent. Frustra contendisset, necesse esse omnem Ecclesiam convenire et concordare in rebus fidei ac doctrina cum Romana, ob potiorem ejusdem principalitatem. Nisi enim hujus sententiae in rebus fidei caeterae Ecclesiae parere teneantur, nulla potior necessitas cum illa Ecclesia consentire, quam cum Antiochena, Ephesina, Smyrnensi et aliis.

example of preserving the purity of doctrine and the apostolic tradition. In vain, therefore, and ridiculously would Irenaeus have asserted for the Roman Church alone a superior pre-eminence, which others by the same right, being themselves also equally founded by the apostles and governed by their most holy successors, could have claimed for themselves. In vain would he have contended that it is necessary that every Church should agree and be in accord in matters of faith and doctrine with the Roman, on account of her superior pre-eminence. For unless the rest of the Churches are bound to obey her judgement in matters of faith, there is no greater necessity to agree with that Church than with the Church of Antioch, of Ephesus, of Smyrna, and others.

33. Quam male hac sua explicatione Protestantium causam egerit Salmasius, optime sensit cl. Grabius. Quare ea rejecta, aliter sibi sentiendum esse putavit, inclinatamque causam aliis commentariis erigere tentavit : non novis quidem, sed quos ad obscurandum hunc Irenaei locum dudum scripserat Chamierus. Ea quae Irenaeo Graeca supponit, ac, prout lubet, fabricatur, non morabor : inanes luxuriantis ingenii conjecturae sunt, quae tam facile negantur, quam gratis proponuntur. Id etiam non morabor, quod apud Irenaeum Latinum legendum putat, potentiorem principalitatem, ut hactenus ferunt omnes editi codices, et plerique mss., non potiorem, ut ex ms. Claromontano, omnium antiquissimo, restituimus; quamvis enim posterior haec lectio ad Irenaei mentem et verba melius quadret; bene tamen quadrat et altera; quare alterutra retineatur, perinde esse ad sensum existimo. Sed ad rem venio. Contendit itaque Grabius, « per conventum omnis Ecclesiae, id est eorum, qui sunt undique, fidelium, ad Ecclesiam Romanam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, intelligendum esse confluxum eorum, qui ab omni Ecclesia Romam mittebantur, ut causam Christianorum agerent apud imperatores, quorum potentior erat principalitas, id est suprema potestas. Ob potentiorem itaque principalitatem Romanorum, ait, contingebat, ut ad Romanam urbem, et proinde Ecclesiam, ab omnibus undique Ecclesiis convenirent fideles, defensionem suae fidei et Ecclesiae suscepturi. De hoc vero conventu ad locum urbis atque Ecclesiae Romanae, non de communione fidei ac charitatis cum ea, multo minus de subjectione obedientiae ⟨Ir⟩enaeum hoc loco scripsisse. » Sic Grabius.

33. How badly Salmasius pleaded the cause of the Protestants by this explanation of his, the illustrious Grabe perceived very well. Wherefore, rejecting it, he thought he must hold otherwise, and attempted to prop up a tottering cause by other commentaries—not new ones indeed, but those which Chamier had long ago written to obscure this passage of Irenaeus. Over the Greek words which he attributes to Irenaeus, and fabricates as he pleases, I will not linger: they are idle conjectures of a luxuriant wit, which are as easily denied as they are gratuitously proposed. Neither will I linger over the fact that in the Latin Irenaeus he thinks we should read potentiorem principalitatem, "more powerful pre-eminence," as all the printed editions hitherto and most manuscripts read, and not potiorem, "superior," as we have restored from the Clermont manuscript, the most ancient of all; for although this latter reading squares better with the mind and words of Irenaeus, yet the other also squares well, wherefore whichever of the two is retained, I consider it makes no difference to the sense. But I come to the point. Grabe contends, therefore, that "by the coming together of the whole Church, that is, of the faithful who are everywhere, to the Roman Church, on account of a more powerful pre-eminence, is to be understood the confluence of those who were sent from every Church to Rome in order to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, whose pre-eminence, that is, supreme power, was more powerful. On account of the more powerful pre-eminence of the Romans, therefore, says he, it happened that the faithful came together from all the Churches everywhere to the city of Rome, and consequently to the Roman Church, to undertake the defence of their faith and Church. And it was concerning this coming together to the place of the city and Church of Rome, not concerning the communion of faith and charity with her, much less concerning the subjection of obedience, that Irenaeus wrote in this passage." Thus Grabe.

34. Sed nec ea explicatio ad Irenaei verba, nisi prorsus delirasse supponatur, quadrare ulla ratione potest. 1° Si de confluxu eorum, qui ab omni Ecclesia Romam mittebantur, ut causam Christianorum agerent apud imperatores, intelligendus sit; sensus erit, necesse fuisse omnem Ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, Romam venire, ut causam Christianorum agerent apud imperatores. Atqui tantum abest id necesse fuerit, ut ante Irenaei

34. Yet neither can that explanation in any way square with the words of Irenaeus, unless he is supposed to have been altogether raving. First, if it is to be understood of the confluence of those who were sent from every Church to Rome in order to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, the sense will be that it was necessary for every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, to come to Rome in order to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors. And yet so far was this from being necessary, that before the age of Irenaeus

Editors' notes and page, col. 280

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 280
marginal letters: A exemplum doctrinae; B tium causam; C ad Irenaei; D urbis atque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): exemplum doctrinae; damaged type in ⟨Ir⟩enaeum; ends mid-word Ire-

PG 7:281

aetatem factum aliquando fuisse ne uno quidem exemplo probare possit Grabius. Plures quidem Christianorum Apologias oblatas imperatoribus, a Quadrato, Aristide, Melitone, Apollinari, Athenagora et Justino legimus : sed eos ab Ecclesiis Romam missos fuisse, ut causam Christianorum agerent apud imperatores, falsissimum : imo plerosque, ipsum etiam Athenagoram, cujus Apologiae titulo, quod inscribatur, Legatio, abutitur Grabius, e patria pedem extulisse, ut Apologias suas offerrent, nullibi legimus; si qui vero, ut Justinus, Romae obtulerint, dudum antea ibi degebant, nec huc eo fine venerant. Et, quaeso, quae necessitas Christianis adeundi imperatores ethnicos, a quibus nihil, nisi jus omne fasque violatum sperare poterant? 2° Irenaeus scribit necesse esse, fideles convenire ad Romanam, non urbem, sed Ecclesiam. Utquid igitur verbis ejus vim apertam inferendo, per « Ecclesiam » Grabius intelligi vult « urbem? Ad Romanam urbem, et proinde Ecclesiam, » ait, « ab omnibus undique Ecclesiis conveniebant fideles. » Quasi vero Romana urbs et Romana Ecclesia, idem prorsus sic sonent, ut quisquis urbem adibat, illico ad Ecclesiam convenire dicendus esset? Ecce, Romanae urbis, aulae, imperatorum, ne verbo quidem hactenus meminit Irenaeus, sed solius Ecclesiae Romanae; et tamen verba haec, ob potentiorem principalitatem, si Grabio fides, non ad Ecclesiam, de qua ex professo sermonem instituit, sed ad urbem, aulam, imperatores, quorum nulla facta est mentio, referenda sunt? Ecquis stomachus absurda haec concoquere valeat? Quis non videat potentiorem illam principalitatem, ut legere amat vir clariss., ad eam Ecclesiam pertinere, ad quam fideles omnes sic convenire debent, ut tota conveniendi ratio sit ipsa potentior ejusdem Ecclesiae principalitas? 3° Denique (et hic causae cardo est) negare nec potest, nec audet Grabius, quin Irenaei toto hoc capite scopus sit probare, unam et eamdem in omni Ecclesia traditionem apostolicam, et fidem esse, qua confundantur omnes haeretici; eam vero puram et illibatam per continuam episcoporum successionem ad suam usque aetatem manasse. Quia vero longius et molestius fuisset omnium et singularum Ecclesiarum successiones episcopales enumerare, sufficere si unius Ecclesiae Romanae successio, per quam apostolica traditio pervenit usque ad illud aevum, recenseatur; quia eadem est aliarum omnium Ecclesiarum cum Romana fides et traditio. Quamobrem recensita episcoporum Romanorum successione, concludit : « Hac ordinatione et successione, ea quae est ab apostolis, in Ecclesia traditio, et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. Et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam et eamdem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate. » Eamdem autem aliarum Ecclesiarum cum Romana fidem et traditionem esse ex eo probat Irenaeus, quod ad Romanam Ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem

Grabe could not prove by even a single example that it had ever been done. We read indeed that several Apologies of the Christians were presented to the emperors, by Quadratus, Aristides, Melito, Apollinaris, Athenagoras, and Justin; but that they were sent to Rome by the Churches in order to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors is most false; nay rather, we nowhere read that most of them—even Athenagoras himself, the title of whose Apology, because it is inscribed Legatio (Embassy), Grabe misuses—ever set foot out of their fatherland to present their Apologies; and if any, like Justin, presented them at Rome, they had been living there long before, and had not come hither for that purpose. And what necessity, I ask, was there for Christians to approach heathen emperors, from whom they could hope for nothing save the violation of all human and divine law? Secondly, Irenaeus writes that it is necessary for the faithful to agree with the Roman, not city, but Church. Why then, doing open violence to his words, does Grabe wish "city" to be understood by "Church"? "To the city of Rome, and consequently to the Church," says he, "the faithful came together from all the Churches everywhere." As if indeed "city of Rome" and "Roman Church" meant altogether the very same thing in such a way that whoever went to the city must immediately be said to come together to the Church! Behold, of the city of Rome, of the court, of the emperors, Irenaeus has thus far made mention not even by a single word, but of the Roman Church alone; and yet these words, on account of a more powerful pre-eminence, if credit is to be given to Grabe, are to be referred not to the Church, concerning which he expressly instituted his discourse, but to the city, the court, the emperors, of whom no mention has been made! What stomach could digest these absurdities? Who does not see that that "more powerful pre-eminence," as the most illustrious man loves to read it, belongs to that Church with which all the faithful ought so to agree that the whole reason for agreeing is the very more powerful pre-eminence of the same Church? Thirdly and finally (and here is the hinge of the case), Grabe neither can nor dares to deny that the aim of Irenaeus in this whole chapter is to prove that in every Church there is one and the same apostolic tradition and faith, whereby all heretics are confounded, and that this has flowed down pure and unblemished through the continuous succession of bishops even to his own age; and that, because it would have been too long and troublesome to enumerate the episcopal successions of all the individual Churches, it is enough if the succession of the one Roman Church, through which the apostolic tradition came down to that age, be recounted, because the faith and tradition of all the other Churches is the same with the Roman. Wherefore, having recounted the succession of the Roman bishops, he concludes: "By this ordination and succession, the tradition in the Church from the apostles, and the proclamation of the truth, has come down even to us. And this is a most full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." And that the faith and tradition of the other Churches is the same with the Roman, Irenaeus proves from the fact that with the Roman Church, on account of her superior pre-eminence,

Editors' notes and page, col. 281

Page

running head: 281 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA.
marginal letters: A naei aetatem; B naeus scribit; C renda sunt?; D rum successiones
old-edition numerals: [CXXII] after haec,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): naei aetatem; begins mid-word naei

PG 7:282

necesse sit omnem Ecclesiam convenire. Si ergo Grabianam explicationem admittamus, ea supposita, sic argumentatum fuisse Irenaeum dicendum erit : Illarum Ecclesiarum eadem est cum Romana fides et traditio, quarum fideles necesse est Romam venire, ut Christianorum causam agant apud imperatores, quorum potentior est principalitas seu potestas suprema. Atqui necesse est fideles ex omnibus Ecclesiis Romam venire, ut causam Christianorum agant apud imperatores, quorum potentior est principalitas. Igitur omnium Ecclesiarum eadem est cum Romana fides et traditio. Grabium ipsum judicem volo, quis, nisi delirus, ita argumentetur? Supponamus econtrario, Irenaeum argumentari eo modo, quo argumentari superius demonstravi; sic procedet argumentum. Earum Ecclesiarum una et eadem est cum Romana fides et traditio, quas necesse est cum capite, duce et principe Romana, caeteris regendis a Deo praefecta, consentire in rebus fidei atque doctrina. Atqui necesse est omnes Ecclesias, seu quod idem est, fideles omnes, ex quocunque loco, regione aut gente sint, cum Romana Ecclesia omnium capite, duce ac principe, regendis omnibus a Deo praefecta, consentire. Omnium igitur Ecclesiarum eadem est cum Romana fides et traditio; ac proinde cum ex traditione hujus Ecclesiae confundantur haeretici omnes, et schismatici, ex consensu omnium Ecclesiarum confundi necessario consequitur. Judicet quisquis aequus rerum aestimator, et posterius hoc argumentum, quod Irenaei esse merito contendunt Catholici, cum eo conferat, quod sanctissimo martyri Grabius affingit : nisi sponte caecutire velit, fateatur necesse est, quantum hoc Irenaeo repugnat, tantum in illo secum omnia consentire, et ad Irenaei scopum, doctrinam et antecedentia mire quadrare.

it is necessary that every Church should agree. If therefore we admit Grabe's explanation, on that supposition we shall have to say that Irenaeus argued thus: Of those Churches the faith and tradition is the same with the Roman, whose faithful must necessarily come to Rome in order to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, whose pre-eminence or supreme power is more powerful. But it is necessary for the faithful from all the Churches to come to Rome in order to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, whose pre-eminence is more powerful. Therefore the faith and tradition of all the Churches is the same with the Roman. I wish Grabe himself to be the judge: who, unless he were raving, would argue thus? Let us suppose, on the contrary, that Irenaeus argues in the manner in which I have demonstrated above that he argues; the argument will proceed thus: Of those Churches the faith and tradition is one and the same with the Roman, which must necessarily agree in matters of faith and doctrine with the Roman Church, their head, leader, and chief, set by God over the ruling of the rest. But it is necessary that all the Churches—or, what is the same thing, all the faithful, from whatever place, region, or nation they may be—should agree with the Roman Church, the head, leader, and chief of all, set by God over the ruling of all. Therefore the faith and tradition of all the Churches is the same with the Roman; and accordingly, since by the tradition of this Church all heretics and schismatics are confounded, it necessarily follows that they are confounded by the consent of all the Churches. Let any fair judge of things decide, and compare this latter argument, which Catholics rightly contend is that of Irenaeus, with that which Grabe fastens upon the most holy martyr: unless he wishes willingly to blind himself, he must necessarily confess that by so much as the latter is repugnant to Irenaeus, by so much do all things in the former agree with one another, and admirably square with the aim, doctrine, and preceding words of Irenaeus.

35. Sed, inquit Grabius, Ecclesiae Romanae tantum abest, ut Irenaeus semetipsum, aliosque fideles adeo obstrictos existimaverit, ut publico facto contrarium existimaverit. Cum enim Asianas Ecclesias Victor papa a communione resecuisset, quod Pascha Ecclesiae Romanae more celebrare renuerent; non ob id Asianos praesules redarguit Irenaeus, quod morem pontifici gerere detrectarent, nec hortatur ut ab Ecclesiae Romanae communione se nulla ratione divelli patiantur; sed potius Victorem ipsum increpavit, quod integras Ecclesias, morem sibi a majoribus traditum custodientes, a communione abscidisset, ut ipsi superius ex Eusebio et aliis retulimus. Dolendum sane quod Grabius futilibus ejusmodi argumentationibus deludi se patiatur. Quae comparatio institui potest inter res, quae ad fidem pertinent, et inter eas, quae ad Ecclesiae disciplinam spectant? Quis nesciat totam eam de celebrando Paschate quaestionem, ad disciplinam duntaxat, ad fidem nullatenus pertinuisse, et eadem semper inter disputantes, ac illaesa manente fide agitari potuisse? Suam quidem utraque pars sententiam traditione apostolica fulciebat; sed vel tirones non fugit, alias esse traditiones apostolicas, quae ad

35. But, says Grabe, so far was Irenaeus from thinking himself and the other faithful so bound to the Roman Church, that by a public act he showed that he thought the contrary. For when Pope Victor had cut off the Asian Churches from communion because they refused to celebrate Easter after the custom of the Roman Church, Irenaeus did not on that account reprove the Asian prelates because they refused to comply with the pontiff, nor did he exhort them on no account to suffer themselves to be torn away from the communion of the Roman Church; but rather he rebuked Victor himself, because he had cut off from communion whole Churches that were guarding the custom handed down to them from their ancestors, as we ourselves have related above from Eusebius and others. It is truly to be lamented that Grabe allows himself to be deluded by futile arguments of that sort. What comparison can be instituted between matters that pertain to faith and those that regard the discipline of the Church? Who does not know that that whole question about the celebration of Easter pertained to discipline only, and in no way to faith, and could be agitated among the disputants while the faith remained always the same and unharmed? Each party indeed supported its own opinion by apostolic tradition; yet even beginners are not unaware that there are some apostolic traditions which pertain to

Editors' notes and page, col. 282

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 282
marginal letters: A necesse sit; B argumentum. Earum; C dunt Catholici,; D divelli patiantur;
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): necesse sit

PG 7:283

fidem aut mores pertinent, alias quae ad disciplinam; priores, easdem semper et ubique, nulli unquam mutationi obnoxias esse; posteriores vero, pro diversitate locorum et temporum, varias esse posse. Posterioris hujus generis fuit de celebrando Paschate traditio apostolica. Potuit enim alia esse in Oriente, alia vero in Occidente apostolorum agendi ratio, ubique prudens, atque charitate nixa; ex utraque autem nata hic et illic varia disciplina, quam sequi tandiu liberum fuit, quandiu contrariam in conciliis suis non invexit universalis Ecclesia. Porro cum dicimus, necesse esse omnem Ecclesiam cum Romana consentire, de rebus fidei loquimur; non contendimus vero, nec contendunt ipsi pontifices Romani, eamdem esse debere omnium Ecclesiarum cum Romana disciplinam. Et in hoc peccasse Victorem papam contendebant multi, quod a prudenti decessorum suorum oeconomia desciscens, Asiaticas Ecclesias ad Romanae morem et disciplinam obstringere voluisset : contra atque senserant fecerantque priores pontifices Romani, aliique totius Occidentis praesules, qui nullam ea de re litem Asiaticis movendam esse hactenus censuerant. Unde decenter ab Irenaeo monitus, ut loquitur Eusebius, ab incepto statim destitit, pacem Asianis restituit, nec deinceps sollicitandos esse existimavit. Sed quam infeliciter ab ea historia argumentum petiit Grabius, tam feliciter idem adversus ipsum retorqueri posset. Nisi enim Victori papae jurisdictio in orientales Ecclesias fuisset, nunquam certe commisisset, ut iis imperaret, ac Ecclesiae suae morem sequi juberet. Cur enim Romanus episcopus Ephesinum, et non Ephesinus Romanum hic sibi subditum ac obsequentem habere vult? Cur Romanus episcopus Ephesinum et non Ephesinus Romanum a communione abscindere praesumit? Sed cur ille, si nulla huic auctoritas erat, insanam hominis arrogantiam ac superbiam non deridet? Negat quidem Ephesinus episcopus, negant et Asiatici caeteri, eo usque patere Romani pontificis auctoritatem, ut caeteros ad privatam Ecclesiae suae disciplinam obstringere possit; sed tantum abest auctoritatem ipsam negent, quin potius jubenti ut per totum Orientem synodos habeant episcopi, hi statim morem gerunt, pontificemque eorum, quae in conciliis suis definierant, ea, qua par erat, reverentia certiorem faciunt. Imo Irenaeus ipse, licet paulo fervidiorem Victoris zelum non probaret; non redarguit tamen quod aliquam sibi in Orientales auctoritatem arrogaret : sed monet duntaxat, idque decenter ac reverenter, ne ea auctoritate in praesenti occasione abusus, integras Ecclesias immeritas a communione abscinderet. Adeo certum est, ne ipsos quidem, quibuscum Ecclesia Romana gravissimae intercedebant controv⟨e⟩rsiae, primatum illius, auctoritatem et jurisdictionem negare ausos fuisse.

faith or morals, and others which pertain to discipline; that the former, being always and everywhere the same, are liable to no change ever, whereas the latter can vary according to the diversity of places and times. Of this latter kind was the apostolic tradition concerning the celebration of Easter. For the practice of the apostles could have been one in the East and another in the West, everywhere prudent and resting upon charity; and from each arose here and there a varied discipline, which it was free to follow so long as the universal Church did not in her councils introduce a contrary one. Moreover, when we say that it is necessary for every Church to agree with the Roman, we are speaking of matters of faith; we do not contend, nor do the Roman pontiffs themselves contend, that the discipline of all the Churches must be the same with the Roman. And in this many contended that Pope Victor had erred, because, departing from the prudent economy of his predecessors, he had wished to bind the Asian Churches to the custom and discipline of the Roman Church, contrary to what the earlier Roman pontiffs and the other prelates of the whole West had thought and done, who had hitherto judged that no dispute on that matter ought to be raised against the Asians. Wherefore, having been becomingly admonished by Irenaeus, as Eusebius speaks, he immediately desisted from his undertaking, restored peace to the Asians, and thought that they ought not to be troubled thereafter. Yet as unsuccessfully as Grabe sought an argument from that history, so successfully could the same be turned back against himself. For unless Pope Victor had possessed jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches, he would certainly never have ventured to command them and order them to follow the custom of his Church. For why does the Roman bishop wish to have the bishop of Ephesus, and not the bishop of Ephesus the Roman bishop, subject and obedient to him here? Why does the Roman bishop presume to cut off the bishop of Ephesus, and not the bishop of Ephesus the Roman bishop, from communion? And why does the latter, if the former had no authority, not mock the insane arrogance and pride of the man? The bishop of Ephesus denies indeed, and the rest of the Asians deny, that the authority of the Roman pontiff extends so far that he can bind the rest to the private discipline of his own Church; yet so far are they from denying the authority itself, that on the contrary, when he commands that the bishops throughout the whole East should hold synods, they immediately comply, and inform the pontiff with all due reverence of the things which they had defined in their councils. Nay, Irenaeus himself, although he did not approve the somewhat too fervent zeal of Victor, nevertheless does not reprove him for arrogating to himself some authority over the Easterns, but only admonishes him, and that becomingly and reverently, not to abuse that authority on the present occasion by cutting off from communion whole Churches that had not deserved it. So certain is it that not even those very men with whom the Roman Church had most grave controversies dared to deny her primacy, authority, and jurisdiction.

36. Nimirum, ut dixi, unam Ecclesiam esse oportuit,

36. Namely, as I have said, it was necessary that the Church should be one,

Editors' notes and page, col. 283

Page

running head: 283 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A fidem aut; B cum Romana; C peraret, ac; D pontificemque eorum,
old-edition numerals: [CXXIII] after auctoritatem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): fidem aut; missing letter in controv⟨e⟩rsiae; ends mid-word o-
other: the word oportuit, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 284

PG 7:284

dispersasque per orbem singulares Ecclesias secum invicem unius et ejusdem communionis vinculis colligari; quod fieri non potuit, nisi interventu unius Ecclesiae, quae instar centri unitatis caeteras omnes et sibi et secum invicem colligaret. Quisquis vere spiritalis est, huic uni Ecclesiae immobiliter adhaerebit, nec ab unitatis centro divelli se ulla unquam ratione patietur : imo, Irenaeo teste, « judicabit, » damnabitque « eos qui schismata operantur, qui sunt inanes, non habentes Dei dilectionem, suamque utilitatem potius considerantes, quam unitatem Ecclesiae : et propter modicas et quaslibet causas, magnum et gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt, et dividunt, et, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt : pacem loquentes, et bellum operantes : vere liquantes culicem, et camelum transglutientes. Nulla enim ab eis tanta potest fieri correctio, quanta est schismatis pernicies. » Maxime ponderanda sunt postrema haec verba : « Nulla a » schismaticis, iisve omnibus, qui ab una cathedra secesserunt, « tanta fieri potest correctio, quanta est schismatis pernicies. » Quamcunque ergo correctionem fecisse se glorientur inanes homines, haec schismatis perniciem adaequare, et eam, quam fecere, charitatis jacturam compensare nunquam potest. Qui enim ab unitate desciscit, a charitate excidit, amittitque « praecipuum » illud « dilectionis munus, quod est pretiosius quam agnitio, gloriosius autem quam prophetia, omnibus autem reliquis charismatibus supereminentius. » Porro pretiosum illud munus unius corporis Christi, illius videlicet Ecclesiae, in qua est una cathedra, unitatisque centrum, character est. « Quapropter, » addit Irenaeus, « Ecclesia omni in loco ob eam, quam habet erga Deum, dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum in omni tempore praemittit ad Patrem; reliquis omnibus non habentibus hanc rem ostendere apud se... opprobrium enim eorum, qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam, et omnes poenas sustinent, et mortificantur propter eam quae est erga Deum, dilectionem et confessionem Filii ejus, sola Ecclesia pure sustinet. »

and that the individual Churches scattered throughout the world should be bound together with one another by the bonds of one and the same communion; which could not be done save through the intervention of one Church, which like a centre of unity should bind all the rest both to herself and to one another. Whoever is truly spiritual will cleave immovably to this one Church, and will never on any account suffer himself to be torn away from the centre of unity; nay rather, as Irenaeus witnesses, "he will judge" and condemn "those who work schisms, who are empty, not having the love of God, and considering their own advantage rather than the unity of the Church; and who for slight and any causes whatsoever rend and divide, and as far as in them lies slay, the great and glorious body of Christ: speaking peace and working war, truly straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. For no reformation so great can be made by them as is the destructiveness of schism." Most weighty are these last words: "No reformation so great can be made by" schismatics, or by all those who have seceded from the one chair, "as is the destructiveness of schism." Whatever reformation, therefore, empty men may boast that they have made, it can never equal the destructiveness of schism and compensate for that loss of charity which they have caused. For he who revolts from unity falls from charity, and loses that "chief gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and more eminent than all the other charisms." Moreover, that precious gift is the character of the one body of Christ, namely of that Church in which is the one chair and the centre of unity. "Wherefore," adds Irenaeus, "the Church in every place, on account of that love which she has towards God, sends forward a multitude of martyrs in every time to the Father; whereas all the rest do not have this thing to show among themselves... for the reproach of those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, and endure all punishments, and are put to death for the love which is towards God and the confession of His Son, the Church alone purely sustains."

37. Ab ea verae Ecclesiae nota, unitate, fluit altera, sanctitas videlicet. Sancta enim non esse non potest, quae in charitate radicata et fundata est, quae pretiosum illud Dei munus, omnibus reliquis charismatibus supereminentius, proprio jure possidet. Sancta sit necesse est, cujus ipsum Dei Verbum caput est. Nam, ut ait auctor noster, « super omnia quidem Pater, et ipse est caput Christi; per omnia autem Verbum, et ipse est caput Ecclesiae; » siquidem « Verbum homo universa in semetipsum recapitulans est : uti sicut in supercoelestibus, et spiritalibus, et invisibilibus princeps est Verbum Dei; sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum principatum assumens, et apponens semetipsum caput Ecclesiae, universa

37. From that note of the true Church, unity, flows a second, namely holiness. For she cannot but be holy who is rooted and founded in charity, and who possesses in her own right that precious gift of God, more eminent than all the other charisms. Holy she must necessarily be whose head is the very Word of God Himself. For, as our author says, "over all things indeed is the Father, and He Himself is the head of Christ; and through all things is the Word, and He Himself is the head of the Church"; since "the Word made man recapitulates all things in Himself: so that, just as in supercelestial, spiritual, and invisible things the Word of God is prince, so also in visible and corporeal things He may have the pre-eminence, taking the pre-eminence to Himself, and setting Himself as head of the Church, that He may draw all things

Editors' notes and page, col. 284

Footnotes

(85) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot crops; the quotation it serves stands at the head of col 284› · call in col 284

Lib. IV, c. 33, n. 7.

Book IV, chapter 33, no. 7.

(printed under page 148)

(86) ‹anchor: compensare nunquam potest› · call in col 284

N. 8.

No. 8.

(printed under page 148)

(87) ‹anchor: addit Irenaeus› · call in col 284

N. 9.

No. 9.

(printed under page 148)

(88) ‹anchor: ut ait auctor noster› · call in col 284

Lib. V, cap. 18, n. 2; lib. III, c. 16, n. 6.

Book V, chapter 18, no. 2; Book III, chapter 16, no. 6.

(printed under page 148)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 284
marginal letters: A portuit, dispersasque; B tes, et bellum; C eminentius. » Porro; D quae in charitate
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter (Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae): portuit, dispersasque; begins mid-word portuit

PG 7:285

attrahat ad semetipsum apto tempore. » Ecclesia igitur « est synagoga Dei, quam Deus, hoc est, Filius ipse per semetipsum collegit, » quamque per Spiritum sanctum sibi univit; cui « creditum est lumen Dei; » quae « ubique praedicat veritatem : » ἑπτάμυξος « lucerna, Christi bajulans lumen. » Quidquid igitur docet Ecclesia, quidquid credendum proponit, quidquid faciendum jubet, sanctum est; utpote testimonium habens a prophetis, et ab apostolis, et ab omnibus discipulis; in ea siquidem manet Spiritus sanctus, luminis, vitae et sanctitatis fons, qui huic lucem, vitam et sanctitatem omnem infundit. Quare « fides, quam perceptam ab Ecclesia custodimus, semper a Spiritu Dei, quasi in vase bono eximium quoddam depositum juvenescit, et juvenescere facit ipsum vas, in quo est. Hoc enim Ecclesiae creditum est Dei munus, quemadmodum inspiratio plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur; et in eo disposita est communicatio Christi, id est Spiritus sanctus, arrha incorruptelae, et confirmatio fidei nostrae, et scala ascensionis ad Deum. » In Ecclesia enim, inquit, posuit Deus apostolos, prophetas, doctores, « et universam reliquam operationem Spiritus; cujus non sunt participes omnes, qui non currunt ad Ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita, per sententiam malam, et operationem pessimam. Ubi enim Ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei; et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia, et omnis gratia : Spiritus autem veritas. »

draws to Himself at the fitting time." The Church therefore "is the synagogue of God, which God, that is, the Son Himself, has gathered together by Himself," and which He has united to Himself through the Holy Spirit; to which "has been entrusted the light of God;" which "everywhere proclaims the truth:" a seven-wicked "lamp, bearing the light of Christ." Whatever therefore the Church teaches, whatever she proposes to be believed, whatever she commands to be done, is holy, inasmuch as she has witness from the prophets, and from the apostles, and from all the disciples; since in her abides the Holy Spirit, the fountain of light, life, and holiness, Who pours into her all light, life, and holiness. Wherefore "the faith, which we receive from the Church and guard, always by the Spirit of God, like some excellent deposit in a good vessel, renews its youth, and causes the very vessel in which it is to renew its youth. For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, just as breath was to the fashioned man, to the end that all the members receiving it may be made alive; and in it has been disposed the communion of Christ, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, and the confirmation of our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God." For in the Church, he says, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers, "and all the remaining operation of the Spirit; of Whom all those do not partake who do not run to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through an evil opinion and most wicked conduct. For where the Church is, there also is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace: and the Spirit is truth."

38. Hinc concludit Irenaeus 1° nullam extra veram Christi Ecclesiam, qualem hactenus ex ipso descripsimus, veram doctrinae morumque sanctitatem esse quaerendam; eos quippe, qui non currunt ad Ecclesiam, ubi Spiritus Dei, semetipsos fraudare a vita et omni gratia, per sententiam malam, et operationem pessimam; « nec participare Spiritum sanctum; neque a mamillis matris nutriri in vitam, neque percipere de corpore Christi procedentem nitidissimum fontem : sed effodere sibi lacus detritos de fossis terrenis, et de coeno putidam bibere aquam, effugientes fidem Ecclesiae, ne traducantur; rejicientes vero Spiritum, ut non erudiantur. Alienati vero a veritate, digne in omni volutantur errore, fluctuati ab eo, aliter atque aliter per tempora de eisdem sentientes, et nunquam sententiam stabilitam habentes, sophistae verborum magis volentes esse, quam discipuli veritatis. Non enim sunt fundati super unam petram, sed super arenam habentem in seipsa lapides multos. »

38. Hence Irenaeus concludes, first, that outside the true Church of Christ, such as we have thus far described her from him, no true holiness of doctrine and morals is to be sought; since those who do not run to the Church, where the Spirit of God is, defraud themselves of life and of all grace through an evil opinion and most wicked conduct; "nor do they partake of the Holy Spirit, nor are they nourished unto life from the breasts of their mother, nor do they receive the most clear fountain proceeding from the body of Christ: but they dig for themselves broken cisterns out of earthly trenches, and drink foul water from the mire, fleeing the faith of the Church lest they be convicted, and rejecting the Spirit so that they may not be instructed. And being alienated from the truth, they deservedly wallow in every error, tossed about by it, thinking differently at different times concerning the same things, and never holding an established conviction, wishing rather to be sophists of words than disciples of the truth. For they are not founded upon the one rock, but upon sand that has in itself many stones."

39. Concludit 2° in sola vera Ecclesia, vera miracula esse posse : extra Ecclesiae sinum nulla, ad eorum, quae reprobat, dogmatum confirmationem, nisi falsa et ementita miracula, merasque praestigias, et magicas operationes fieri posse. « Arguentur qui sunt

39. He concludes, secondly, that only in the true Church can there be true miracles: outside the bosom of the Church no miracles can be wrought in confirmation of the dogmas that she condemns, save false and counterfeit miracles, mere impostures, and magical operations. "They shall be convicted who are

Editors' notes and page, col. 285

Footnotes

(89) ‹anchor: call above the crop, in the text at the head of the page› · call in col 285

Cap. 6, n. 1.

Chapter 6, no. 1.

(printed under page 149)

(90) ‹anchor: call above the crop, in the text at the head of the page› · call in col 285

Lib. III, c. 24, n. 1.

Book III, chapter 24, no. 1.

(printed under page 149)

(91) ‹anchor: call above the crop, in the text at the head of the page› · call in col 285

I Cor. XII, 28.

1 Corinthians 12:28.

(printed under page 149)

(92) ‹anchor: lapides multos› · call in col 285

Iren., lib. III, c. 24, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 24, no. 2.

(printed under page 149)

(93) ‹anchor: Arguentur qui sunt› · call in col 285

Lib. II, cap. 31, n. 2 et 3, et cap. seq. n. 3 et 4.

Book II, chapter 31, nos. 2 and 3, and the following chapter, nos. 3 and 4.

(printed under page 149)

Page

running head: 285 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A attrahat ad; B juvenescere facit; C veritas.; D volutantur errore,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:286

a Simone et Carpocrate, et si qui alii virtutes operari dicuntur : non in virtute Dei, neque in veritate, neque ut benefici hominibus facientes ea, quae faciunt; sed in perniciem et errorem, per magicas elusiones et universa fraude; plus laedentes, quam utilitatem praestantes his, qui credunt eis, in eo quod seducant, nec enim caecis possunt donare visum, neque surdis auditum, neque omnes daemones effugare, praeter eos qui ab ipsis immittuntur, si tamen et hoc faciunt, etc. » Tum probat adhuc aetate sua, « in fraternitate saepissime, propter aliquid necessarium ea, quae est in quoquo loco, Ecclesia universa postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, reversum esse spiritum mortui, et donatum esse hominem orationibus sanctorum; » pluresque mortuos sic resurrexisse, ut « perseveraverint nobiscum, inquit, annis multis; » daemones passim ex obsessorum corporibus expelli, infirmos per manuum impositionem curari, sanosque restitui, ac multos in Ecclesia videri, qui praescientia futurorum, visionibus, dictionibus propheticis et charismatibus, dono linguarum, etc., conspicui essent. « Et quid autem? Non est numerum dicere gratiarum quas per universum mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens, in nomine Christi Jesu, crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato, per singulos dies in opitulationem gentium perficit; neque seducens aliquem, nec pecuniam ei auferens..... sed munde et manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini Jesu Christi invocans. » Ex quibus omnibus merito infert, « ibi » duntaxat « discere oportere veritatem, ubi charismata Domini posita sunt, » nempe « apud quos est ea, quae est ab apostolis Ecclesiae successio. »

from Simon and Carpocrates, and if there are any others who are said to work miracles: who do the things they do not in the power of God, nor in truth, nor as benefactors to men, butunto destruction and error, through magical delusions and every kind of fraud; doing more harm than good to those who believe them, inasmuch as they lead them astray; for they cannot give sight to the blind, nor hearing to the deaf, nor drive away all demons, except those that are sent in by themselves, if indeed they even do this, etc." Then he proves that still in his own age, "very often in the brotherhood, on account of some pressing need, when the whole Church in any place made petition with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead returned, and the man was granted to the prayers of the saints;" and that several dead persons had thus risen, so that "they abode with us," he says, "for many years;" that demons were everywhere driven out of the bodies of the possessed, that the sick were healed by the laying on of hands and restored to health, and that many were seen in the Church who were conspicuous for foreknowledge of things to come, visions, prophetic utterances and charisms, the gift of tongues, etc. "And what more? It is not possible to tell the number of the gifts which the Church throughout the whole world, receiving them from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, accomplishes day by day for the succour of the nations; neither deceiving anyone, nor taking money from him... but purely and openly directing her prayers to the Lord Who made all things, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." From all of which he rightly infers that "there" alone "ought one to learn the truth, where the charisms of the Lord have been placed," namely, "among those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles."

40. Quam certum est autem eam, quam agnovit Irenaeus, Ecclesiam, unam et sanctam esse, tam certum est eamdem et catholicam et apostolicam esse. Id evidenter demonstrant ea omnia, quae hactenus protulimus ex ipso loca. Nihil enim efficacius, ut jam diximus, esse arbitratus est ad retundendam haereticorum, varias in sectas, secumque pugnantes divisorum, pervicaciam, quam ut iis opponeret unanimem totius Ecclesiae per totum mundum longe lateque propagatae consensum in rejiciendis, profligandisque nefariis eorum dogmatibus. Hinc perpetuo urget, ut vidimus, « Ecclesiam per universum orbem usque ad fines terrae seminatam, in universum mundum disseminatam; : per Germaniam, Hispanias, Gallias, Orientem, Aegyptum, Libyam et Judaeam dispersam; apud « multas gentes barbarorum » et « per universum mundum » constitutam, circumeuntem mundum universum; ac denique vineam « non jam circumvallatam, sed expansam in universum mundum, » cujus tamen esset una fides, doctrina et traditio,

40. Now, just as certain as it is that the Church which Irenaeus acknowledged is one and holy, so certain is it that the same Church is also catholic and apostolic. All those passages that we have thus far adduced from him evidently demonstrate this. For he judged nothing more effectual, as we have already said, for beating back the obstinacy of the heretics, divided into various sects warring with one another, than to oppose to them the unanimous consent of the whole Church, spread far and wide throughout the whole world, in rejecting and routing their impious dogmas. Hence he continually urges, as we have seen, "the Church sown throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, disseminated into all the world; dispersed through Germany, the Spains, the Gauls, the East, Egypt, Libya, and Judaea;" established among "many nations of barbarians" and "throughout the whole world," encompassing the whole world; and finally a vineyard "no longer hedged around, but expanded into the whole world," which nevertheless had one faith, doctrine, and tradition,

Editors' notes and page, col. 286

Footnotes

(94) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 286› · call in col 286

Lib. V, c. 6, n. 1.

Book V, chapter 6, no. 1.

(printed under page 149)

(95) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 286› · call in col 286

Lib. II, cap. 23, n. 4.

Book II, chapter 23, no. 4.

(printed under page 149)

(96) ‹anchor: merito infert› · call in col 286

Lib. III, c. 26, n. 5.

Book III, chapter 26, no. 5.

(printed under page 149)

(97) ‹anchor: ut vidimus› · call in col 286

Lib. I, c. 10, n. 1, 2.

Book I, chapter 10, nos. 1, 2.

(printed under page 149)

(98) ‹anchor: per universum mundum› · call in col 286

Lib. III, c. 4, n. 2, et c. 12, n. 8.

Book III, chapter 4, no. 2, and chapter 12, no. 8.

(printed under page 149)

(99) ‹anchor: in universum mundum› · call in col 286

Lib. IV, cap. 36, n. 2.

Book IV, chapter 36, no. 2.

(printed under page 149)

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 286
marginal letters: A a Simone; B ctorum; »; C omnia fecit,; D rejiciendis, profligandisque
old-edition numerals: CXXIV after et
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:287

una anima, unum cor, unum os, una et eadem praedicatio, ac regiminis ecclesiastici forma. Rideat proinde, vel sui compos non sit necesse est, quisquis Ecclesiam tam longe lateque propagatam, visibilem ac conspicuam esse neget, et ad fictitium quemdam et invisibilem electorum coetum coerceat. Ecqui latere possit, « cujus lumen, praedicatio veritatis, ubique lucet, et illuminat omnes homines, qui volunt ad cognitionem veritatis venire? » Quomodo ignota esse possit, quae « ubique praedicat veritatem, apud quam una et eadem salutis via in universo mundo ostenditur, » quae « plantata est paradisus in hoc mundo, » quaeque « ubique praeclara est? » Qui denique invisibilis esse queat, quae « est ἑπτάμυξος lucerna, Christi bajulans lumen; cui creditum est lumen Dei; et propter hoc » sapientia « Dei, per quam salvat omnes homines, in exitu canitur, in plateis autem fiducialiter agit, in summis muris praedicatur, in portis autem civitatis constanter loquitur? »

one soul, one heart, one mouth, one and the same preaching, and form of ecclesiastical government. Whoever, therefore, denies that a Church spread so far and wide is visible and conspicuous, and restricts her to some fictitious and invisible assembly of the elect, must needs be jesting or out of his mind. How could she lie hidden, "whose light, the preaching of the truth, shines everywhere, and enlightens all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth?" How could she be unknown, who "everywhere proclaims the truth, with whom one and the same way of salvation is shown in the whole world," who "has been planted as a paradise in this world," and who "is everywhere illustrious?" How, finally, could she be invisible, who "is the seven-wicked lamp, bearing the light of Christ; to whom has been entrusted the light of God; and on account of this" the wisdom "of God, through which He saves all men, is sung in the streets, acts confidently in the public squares, is proclaimed on the tops of the walls, and speaks constantly in the gates of the city?"

41. Nihil etiam validius ad confundendos eos omnes, qui vel male sentiunt, vel praeterquam oportet, colligunt, esse existimavit auctor noster, quam iis Ecclesiam apostolicam objicere. Hinc tam saepe, tamque constanter inculcat, ut ostendimus, eamdem Ecclesiam ab apostolis ipsis suam accepisse fidem, doctrinam et traditionem, ab iis fundatam esse, et ordinatam, ab iis constitutos fuisse episcopos, penes quos in unaquaque Ecclesia summa rerum esset, a quibus sibi invicem succedentibus perpetuo regeretur et administraretur; hacque continua episcoporum successione, nunquam desitura, unam et eamdem, apostolicam, puram et intemeratam ad nos usque manare fidem et traditionem. Hinc in ea successione certissimum corporis Christi, seu Ecclesiae characterem positum esse vult, quo ab infidelium, haereticorum et schismaticorum conventiculis secernatur. « Character, inquit, corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus illi eam, quae in unoquoque loco est, Ecclesiam tradiderunt. » Ubi perperam contendit, nullo certe argumento probat, clariss. Grabius, hic characterem non tam signum, sive notam, quam formam, sive figuram Ecclesiae denotare. Quod etiamsi obtineret, male tamen adhuc causae suae consuleret. Id enim, velit, nolit, ex Irenaeo constabit, eam secundum successiones episcoporum formam in corpore Christi sive Ecclesia, ab apostolis ipsis constitutam esse; ac proinde ea semper nota discriminatum iri veram Christi Ecclesiam, ab apostolis fundatam, a quacunque alia societate; quod in illa forma sit secundum legitimam episcoporum successionem, quae in hac desit. Hinc « eos qui ab Ecclesia sunt, eamdem figuram ejus, quae est erga Ecclesiam, ordinationis, » id est eamdem regiminis ecclesiastici formam, quam constituerunt

41. Our author also judged nothing more powerful for confounding all those who either hold false opinions or gather assemblies otherwise than as they ought, than to confront them with the apostolic Church. Hence so often and so constantly does he inculcate, as we have shown, that the same Church received her faith, doctrine, and tradition from the apostles themselves, that she was founded and ordered by them, that by them bishops were appointed in whose hands the supreme authority in each Church was to rest, and by whom, succeeding one another in turn, she was to be perpetually governed and administered; and that through this continuous succession of bishops, never to fail, one and the same apostolic, pure, and undefiled faith and tradition flows down even to us. Hence in that succession he holds that the most certain mark of the body of Christ, or the Church, is placed, whereby she is distinguished from the conventicles of unbelievers, heretics, and schismatics. "The mark," he says, "of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, to whom they delivered that Church which is in each place." Where the illustrious Grabe wrongly contends, and certainly proves by no argument, that character here denotes not so much a sign or mark as the form or figure of the Church. Even if he were to make this good, he would still serve his own cause badly. For whether he will or no, it will be established from Irenaeus that this form according to the successions of bishops in the body of Christ, or the Church, was instituted by the apostles themselves; and that consequently by this mark the true Church of Christ, founded by the apostles, will always be distinguished from any other society whatever, because in the former the form is according to the legitimate succession of bishops, which is lacking in the latter. Hence our author asserts that "those who are of the Church" always guard "the same figure of that ordination which relates to the Church," that is, the same form of ecclesiastical government which was established by

Editors' notes and page, col. 287

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 287

Lib. I, c. 10, n. 2.

Book I, chapter 10, no. 2.

(printed under page 150)

(2) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 287

Lib. V, c. 20, n. 1, 2.

Book V, chapter 20, nos. 1, 2.

(printed under page 150)

(3) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 287

Prov. I, 20, 21.

Proverbs 1:20–21.

(printed under page 150)

(4) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 287

Lib. IV, cap. 36, n. 2.

Book IV, chapter 36, no. 2.

(printed under page 150)

(5) ‹anchor: call not visible in the crop; probably at "Character, inquit"› · call in col 287

Lib. V, c. 20, n. 1.

Book V, chapter 20, no. 1.

(printed under page 150)

(6) ‹anchor: quae in hac desit› · call in col 287

Ibid.

In the same place.

(printed under page 150)

Page

running head: 287 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A una anima,; B lumen; cui; C rum esset,; D etiamsi obtineret,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:288

apostoli, semper custodire asserit auctor noster. Hinc demum jure merito infert, sectis quibuscunque haereticis aut schismaticis antiquiorem esse veram Ecclesiam, utpote quae originem apostolis, imo ipsi Christo capiti suo acceptam referat : « Omnes vero haereticos valde posteriores esse, quam episcopos, quibus apostoli tradiderunt Ecclesias. » Apud barbaros siquidem jam obtinebat ea, quam praedicabat Ecclesia, fides; quibus tamen, ne quidem nomine tenus, notae erant haereticorum sectae; longe minus eorum sententiae : « nequedum enim congregatio » haereticorum « fuit apud eos, neque doctrina instituta. » Deinde uniuscujusque haereseos initia, primosque parentes et architectos facile assignari posse; recentioris quippe memoriae esse : Ecclesiae vero catholicae exordia in Christum solum, ejusque apostolos refundi posse. « Ante Valentinum enim non fuerunt, qui sunt a Valentino, neque ante Marcionem erant, qui sunt a Marcione; neque omnino erant reliqui sensus maligni, quos supra enumeravimus, antequam initiatores, et inventores perversitatis eorum fierent. Valentinus enim venit Romam sub Hygino; increvit vero sub Pio, et prorogavit tempus usque ad Anicetum. Cerdon autem, qui ante Marcionem, et hic sub Hygino vixit.... Marcion autem illi succedens invaluit sub Aniceto... Reliqui vero, qui vocantur Gnostici, a Menandro Simonis discipulo, quemadmodum ostendimus accipientes initia unusquisque eorum, cujus principatus est sententiae, ejus et pater, et antistes apparuit. Omnes autem hi multo posterius, mediantibus jam Ecclesiae temporibus, insurrexerunt in suam apostasiam. »

the apostles. Hence, finally, he rightly and deservedly infers that the true Church is more ancient than any heretical or schismatic sects whatever, inasmuch as she traces her origin to the apostles, nay, to Christ Himself, her Head: "Whereas all heretics are much later than the bishops to whom the apostles delivered the Churches." For among the barbarians there already prevailed that faith which the Church preached, whereas to them the sects of the heretics were not known even by name, much less their opinions: "for not yet had a congregation" of heretics "arisen among them, nor had their doctrine been established." Next, he shows that the beginnings of each heresy, and its first parents and architects, can easily be assigned, as being of more recent memory; whereas the origins of the Catholic Church can be traced back only to Christ and His apostles. "For before Valentinus there did not exist those who are from Valentinus, nor before Marcion did there exist those who are from Marcion; nor did the remaining malignant doctrines which we have enumerated above exist at all before the initiators and inventors of their perversity arose. For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus; he flourished under Pius, and extended his time even to Anicetus. And Cerdon, who was before Marcion, he too lived under Hyginus... And Marcion, succeeding him, grew strong under Anicetus... And the rest, who are called Gnostics, taking their beginnings from Menander, the disciple of Simon, as we have shown, each one of them appeared as both the father and the high priest of that opinion whose leadership he held. All these, however, rose up into their apostasy much later, when the times of the Church were already in their midst."

42. Certissimis hisce characteribus, hactenus explicatis, eam Ecclesiam, cujus fidem et traditionem contra haereticos propugnabat Irenaeus, definit, et a qualibet alia societate discriminat, ac discriminari vult. Quaenam vero ea fuerit Ecclesia, haud ambigat quisquis Irenaeum dicentem audierit, ad Romanam Ecclesiam necesse esse omnem Ecclesiam, si verae Ecclesiae membrum et pars esse velit, convenire, id est, ut superius demonstravimus, in una cum ea fide, traditione atque doctrina consentire, ejusque communioni adhaerere : et quisquis meminerit sanctissimum apostolicorum virorum discipulum cum ea semper Ecclesia individua communionis societate vinctum ad mortem usque perseverasse. Porro si Romana Ecclesia ideo fuerit secundo saeculo vera Christi Ecclesia, quia sola praedictis verae Ecclesiae characteribus ac notis insigniebatur, necesse est eamdem et solam, postremis etiam hisce saeculis, veram esse Christi Ecclesiam, cum in eam solam conveniant illi characteres. Quisquis enim sepositis tantisper praejudiciis, sectas omnes, quae jam corpus Christi misere lacerant, percurrere voluerit, evestigio deprehendet Ecclesiam

42. By these most certain marks, thus far explained, Irenaeus defines that Church whose faith and tradition he was defending against the heretics, and distinguishes her, and wishes her to be distinguished, from every other society. And what Church that was, no one can doubt who hears Irenaeus saying that with the Roman Church every Church, if it wishes to be a member and part of the true Church, must agree, that is, as we have demonstrated above, must consent in one faith, tradition, and doctrine with her, and adhere to her communion; and whoever remembers that the most holy disciple of apostolic men persevered even until death bound in an undivided fellowship of communion with that same Church. Furthermore, if the Roman Church was therefore in the second century the true Church of Christ, because she alone was distinguished by the aforesaid marks and notes of the true Church, it is necessary that the same Church, and she alone, in these last centuries also, is the true Church of Christ, since in her alone do those marks meet. For whoever, setting aside prejudices for a little while, is willing to survey all the sects that now wretchedly rend the body of Christ, will forthwith perceive that the

Editors' notes and page, col. 288

Footnotes

(7) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 288› · call in col 288

Lib. III, c. 4, n. 2, 3.

Book III, chapter 4, nos. 2, 3.

(printed under page 150)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 288
marginal letters: A apostoli, semper; B vero catholicae; C tus est; D quisquis meminerit
old-edition numerals: CXXV before virorum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:289

Romanam solam esse quae sit unius fidei, unius doctrinae, unius oris, ac labii, quaeque secum ubique consentiat in rebus fidei ac morum, communi pastorum sententia definitis; aliis omnibus sectis in tot fere sententias, quot capita divisis, alternantibusque variorum dogmatum fluctibus in haec, vel illa jactatis, pro ratione temporum, affectuum, commodi aut incommodi; solam Romanam Ecclesiam sanctam esse, non quod omnia ejus membra a peccato immunia sint, in agro quippe Dominico paleae cum frumento permistae sunt; sed quod, cum sola nihil nisi sanctum doceat, praecipiatque, in ea sola resideat Spiritus sanctus gratiarum omnium et charismatum fons, qui plures, etiam nostris diebus, ad eximium sanctitatis gradum perduxit, verorumque miraculorum gloria illustravit; dum aliae omnes sectae, cum a vera sanctitatis laude procul desciverint nullos peccantibus frenos injicere valeant, eaque doceant absurditatis plena dogmata, quibus fidei, morumque sanctitas funditus evertatur; quale est illud, peccatores sola fide veram justitiam consequi posse, neminemque justum a vera quam semel consecutus est, justitia excidere unquam posse; quae fuerunt ipsissima Gnosticorum exitiosissima principia, quibus latissimum ad scelera omnia aditum pandi alibi ostendimus; solam Ecclesiam Romanam apostolicam esse, ac continua episcoporum pastorumque suorum successione ab apostolis derivatam, fidemque et traditionem, quam ab iis accepit, illibatam custodiisse; cum aliae omnes sectae temere abrupta successione apostolica, novas sibi Ecclesias condiderint, quarum novi sunt auctores ac fundatores; solam denique Romanam Ecclesiam catholicam esse et universalem, per totum mundum propagatam, ubique perspicuam et insignem, miraque fecunditate gaudentem, novos sibi et Christo sponso suo in dies filios, per eos, quos ad remotissimas gentes mittit pastores et doctores, parere; aliis omnibus sectis in angulo orbis, et intra certarum regionum fines conclusis, longeque minus sollicitis de novis Christo gignendis filiis, quam de veteribus pervertendis.

Roman Church alone is of one faith, of one doctrine, of one mouth and lip, and everywhere agrees with herself in matters of faith and morals defined by the common judgement of her pastors, while all other sects are divided into almost as many opinions as heads, and are tossed to and fro by the alternating waves of various dogmas according to times, inclinations, advantage, or disadvantage; that the Roman Church alone is holy, not because all her members are immune from sin—for in the Lord's field the chaff is mixed with the wheat—but because, since she alone teaches and commands nothing save what is holy, in her alone resides the Holy Spirit, the fountain of all graces and charisms, Who even in our own days has led many to an eminent degree of holiness and made them illustrious by the glory of true miracles, whereas all other sects, having departed far from the true praise of holiness, are able to put no curbs upon sinners, and teach dogmas full of absurdity whereby holiness of faith and morals is utterly overthrown—such as that sinners can attain true righteousness by faith alone, and that no righteous man can ever fall from the true righteousness he has once attained, which were the very most destructive principles of the Gnostics, whereby we have elsewhere shown that the widest door is opened to all crimes; that the Roman Church alone is apostolic, and derived from the apostles by the continuous succession of her bishops and pastors, and has kept uncorrupted the faith and tradition which she received from them, whereas all other sects, having rashly broken off the apostolic succession, have founded new Churches for themselves, of which new men are the authors and founders; finally, that the Roman Church alone is catholic and universal, spread throughout the whole world, everywhere conspicuous and distinguished, and rejoicing in a wonderful fruitfulness, daily bearing new children to herself and to Christ her Spouse through the pastors and teachers whom she sends to the most remote nations, while all other sects are shut up in a corner of the world and within the bounds of certain regions, and are far less concerned about begetting new children for Christ than about perverting the old.

43. Haec, ac potissimum Romanae Ecclesiae amplitudinem, cum post Irenaeum frequenter in notis suis tam vere quam pie inculcaverit, aliisque Patrum sententiis confirmaverit doctissimus, bonaeque memoriae Feuardentius, molestissima ejus argumenta eludere, propitiosque sibi, si posset, Irenaeum et Augustinum, cujus etiam auctoritatem objiciebat Feuardentius, facere pro virili sua conatus est Grabius in notis suis ad Irenaei lib. IV, c. al. LXX, nunc XXXVI. Itaque fatetur Augustinum in certamine cum Donatistis multum in eo fuisse, ut universitatem, ipsumque nomen catholicum, tanquam proprium verae Ecclesiae characterem assereret, quo a falsis haereticorum et schismaticorum coetibus, in parte mundi haerentibus, et ab ea, vel ab auctoribus suis denominationem indeptis distingueretur. Atque ita plerumque rem ejus aevo et ante se habuisse. Secus

43. Since after Irenaeus the most learned Feuardent, of happy memory, frequently inculcated these things, and especially the wide extent of the Roman Church, as truly as piously in his notes, and confirmed them by other statements of the Fathers, Grabe in his notes on Irenaeus Book IV, formerly Chapter 70, now 36, endeavoured with all his might to elude his most troublesome arguments, and to make Irenaeus and Augustine, whose authority Feuardent also urged, favourable to himself if he could. Accordingly he confesses that Augustine in his struggle with the Donatists dwelt much upon asserting universality, and the Catholic name itself, as the proper mark of the true Church, whereby she might be distinguished from the false assemblies of heretics and schismatics clinging to a part of the world and taking their name from it or from their founders; and that for the most part the matter stood thus in his age and before him. But

Editors' notes and page, col. 289

Page

running head: 289 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A Romanam solam; B gloria illustravit;; C diisse; cum; D suis tam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: Se-
other: the word Secus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 290

PG 7:290

vero sentiendum de sequiori ac ultima prope mundi aetate, deque tempore illo (toties a ministris Calvinianis et Lutheranis decantato) meretricis magnae, cujus mentio Apocal. capp. XVII, XVIII et XIX. « Quae, inquit, non de S. Joannis solum, sed et ultima mundi aetate ab ipsis pontificiis, et quidem Societatis Jesu theologis plerisque, in sacram Apocalypsin Commentariis, ingenue explicata sunt, nec aliam expositionem admittunt. Tunc sane, addit, qui inductus universitate et amplitudine istius corruptae Ecclesiae, ex virgine in meretricem versae, eam amplexus fuerit, nae is misere semetipsum deceperit. » Sic cl. Grabius. Cui ego : Nae potius is miserrime semetipsum, aliosque decipiat, qui frivolis ejusmodi ratiunculis inductus, apertissimis sanctorum Patrum testimoniis vim inferat, efficacissimaque eorum argumenta sic infirmet, ut ea vel levissimo spiritu difflare haeretici omnes ac schismatici semper potuerint. Nihil certius, Irenaeum, Optatum, Augustinum, aliosque SS. Patres Ecclesiae amplitudinem et universitatem objecisse. At nisi amplitudo haec et universitas, essentialis ac perpetuus sit Ecclesiae character, nihil infirmius argumento ab ea amplitudine petito. Quo enim jure huic respondere se posse putat Grabius, valuisse quidem prioribus saeculis, tum cum virgo adhuc esset Ecclesia, non valere vero postrema mundi aetate, qua virgo illa in meretricem versa est : eodem prorsus reponere potuisset Gnosticus quivis Sabellanius, Arianus, Nestorianus, Donatista, etc. Ecclesiam jam a pristina sanctitate et fide sic defecisse, ut quisquis inductus universitate et amplitudine istius corruptae Ecclesiae, ex virgine in meretricem versae, eam amplecteretur, is misere semetipsum deciperet; ac proinde si hac responsione a Catholicorum telis tutum se esse, ac verae Christi Ecclesiae ad angustiores redactae limites membrum putet vir doctissimus; fateatur necesse est eodem se clypeo munire merito potuisse perditissimos quosvis haereticos, cum veteres, tum recentiores, ac verae Ecclesiae membrorum titulo gloriari. Infelix certe Grabius, qui responsis suis arma ministret haereticis quibuscunque, quorum ictum nulla arte declinare ipse valeat.

one must think otherwise, he says, regarding the later and almost last age of the world, and regarding that time (so often harped upon by Calvinist and Lutheran ministers) of the great harlot mentioned in Apocalypse Chapters 17, 18, and 19. "Which things," he says, "have been frankly explained not only of the age of St. John, but also of the last age of the world, by the papists themselves, and indeed by most theologians of the Society of Jesus, in their Commentaries on the sacred Apocalypse, and admit of no other exposition. Then indeed," he adds, "he who, induced by the universality and wide extent of that corrupt Church, turned from a virgin into a harlot, embraces her, truly deceives himself wretchedly." Thus the illustrious Grabe. To whom I reply: Truly rather does he most wretchedly deceive himself and others, who, induced by frivolous quibbles of this sort, does violence to the clearest testimonies of the holy Fathers, and so weakens their most cogent arguments that all heretics and schismatics could always blow them away with the lightest breath. Nothing is more certain than that Irenaeus, Optatus, Augustine, and the other holy Fathers urged the wide extent and universality of the Church. Yet unless this wide extent and universality be an essential and perpetual mark of the Church, nothing is weaker than the argument drawn from that wide extent. For by the very same right by which Grabe thinks he can reply to this that it held good indeed in earlier centuries, when the Church was still a virgin, but does not hold good in the last age of the world, in which that virgin has been turned into a harlot, by that very same right any Gnostic, Sabellian, Arian, Nestorian, Donatist, etc., could have retorted that the Church had already so fallen away from her pristine holiness and faith that whoever, induced by the universality and wide extent of that corrupt Church, turned from a virgin into a harlot, embraced her, would wretchedly deceive himself; and consequently, if the most learned man thinks that by this reply he is safe from the shafts of the Catholics, and is a member of the true Church of Christ reduced to narrower limits, he must needs confess that all the most abandoned heretics, both ancient and more recent, could deservedly have protected themselves with the same shield, and boasted of the title of members of the true Church. Unhappy Grabe indeed, who by his replies furnishes weapons to any heretics whatever, the stroke of which he himself is unable by any art to parry!

44. Sed ne quod toties a Catholicis feliciter actum est, hic iterum agere cogar, id unum a Grabio quaeram; an postrema hac mundi aetate societas quaedam in orbe supersit, quae vera Christi Ecclesia jure dici possit? Superstitem esse non negabit, puto, si prophetarum oraculis, Christique ipsius et Evangelii dictis, quibus perituram nunquam Ecclesiam praenuntiatur, fidem habeat. Porro si vera aliqua Ecclesia nunc in orbe supersit, talem esse necesse est, iisdemque characteribus insignitam, qualem et quibus notis conspicuam esse voluit Christus. At ex Scripturis propheticis et evangelicis certissimum est, universitatem et amplitudinem proprium esse, essentialem, ac proinde perpetuum illius, qualem constituit Christus, Ecclesiae

44. But lest I be compelled to do here again what has so often been successfully done by Catholics, I will ask this one thing of Grabe: whether in this last age of the world there survives in the world some society that can rightly be called the true Church of Christ? That she survives he will not deny, I think, if he has faith in the oracles of the prophets and in the sayings of Christ Himself and of the Gospel, whereby it is foretold that the Church will never perish. Now if some true Church survives at present in the world, she must needs be such, and distinguished by the same marks, as Christ willed her to be and by what notes He willed her to be conspicuous. But from the prophetic and evangelical Scriptures it is most certain that universality and wide extent is a proper, essential, and therefore perpetual mark of that Church which Christ established.

Editors' notes and page, col. 290

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 290
marginal letters: A cus vero; B sanctorum Patrum; C Sabellanius, Arianus,; D 44. Sed
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: Se-cus

PG 7:291

characterem. Id adeo perspicue, efficaciter et invicte demonstrat Augustinus in libro De unitate Ecclesiae, ne alios proferam, quos scripsit contra Donatistas, ut prorsus obstruatur os loquentium iniqua. Allatis et expensis Scripturarum utriusque Testamenti vocibus concludit S. doctor § 32. « Evangelizata est nobis Ecclesia per totum orbem terrarum futura. Hoc in lege, et prophetis, et psalmis esse praenuntiatum ipse Dominus testificatus est, qui eam coepturam a Jerusalem, et per omnes gentes permanaturam esse praedixit; testes sibi futuros in Jerusalem, et in tota Judaea, et Samaria, et usque in totam terram, cum jam in coelum ascenderet, praenuntiavit. Haec verba facta secuta sunt. Quomodo coeptum sit a Jerusalem, et deinde processum in Judaeam, et Samariam, et inde in totam terram, ubi adhuc crescit Ecclesia, donec usque in finem etiam reliquas gentes, ubi adhuc non est, obtineat, Scripturis sanctis testibus consequenter ostenditur : quisquis aliud evangelizat, anathema sit. Aliud autem evangelizat, qui periisse dicit de caetero mundo Ecclesiam, et in parte Donati in sola Africa remansisse (jam dicendum est, in parte Calvini et Lutheri in sola Anglia, Belgio et Germania remansisse) dicit. Ergo anathema sit. Aut legat mihi hoc in Scripturis sanctis, et non sit anathema. »

This Augustine demonstrates so clearly, effectually, and invincibly in his book On the Unity of the Church, not to mention the others that he wrote against the Donatists, that the mouth of them that speak iniquity is altogether stopped. Having adduced and weighed the utterances of the Scriptures of both Testaments, the holy doctor concludes in § 32: "The Church has been announced to us by the Gospel as destined to be throughout the whole world. That this was foretold in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, the Lord Himself testified, Who foretold that she would begin from Jerusalem and would spread through all nations; and when He was now ascending into heaven, He foretold that they would be witnesses unto Him in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria, and even unto the whole earth. Deeds followed these words. How a beginning was made from Jerusalem, and then a progression into Judaea and Samaria, and thence into the whole earth, where the Church is still growing until right up to the end she obtains also the remaining nations where she is not yet, is consequently shown by the witness of the holy Scriptures: whoever preaches another gospel, let him be anathema. Now he preaches another gospel who says that the Church has perished from the rest of the world and has remained in the party of Donatus in Africa alone (now one must say, has remained in the party of Calvin and Luther in England, Belgium, and Germany alone). Therefore let him be anathema. Or let him read this to me in the holy Scriptures, and let him not be anathema."

45. Respondebunt forte recentiores Donatistae, quod veteres illi apud Augustinum § 33. « Et ista, inquiunt, credimus, et completa esse confitemur; sed postea orbis terrarum apostatavit, et sola remansit Donati (Calvini et Lutheri) communio. » Sed statim cum Augustino reponemus : « Hoc nobis legant et nihil resistimus. Si autem non ea de Scripturis sanctis legunt, sed suis contentionibus persuadere conantur; credo illa, quae in Scripturis sanctis leguntur, non credo ista, quae ab haereticis vanis dicuntur. » Aequissima certe conditio ab Augustino proposita. Cum enim apertissima sint, et, ut Augustini verbis, § 56, utar, « nullo interprete indigeant canonicarum Scripturarum testimonia, quae commendant Ecclesiam in totius orbis communione consistere; » quisquis asserit amplitudinem hanc et universitatem non fore perpetuam verae Ecclesiae notam, necesse est tam clara et aperta Scripturarum testimonia proferat quibus assertionem suam probet. Nisi enim Deus fallere nos voluerit, quod absit ut vel cogitemus, commendata ubique et designata Ecclesia sua, velut societate quadam, quae prae caeteris omnibus amplitudine et universitate insignis foret; debuit pro bonitate sua, alicubi saltem tam disertis verbis monere amplitudinem hanc, temporalem duntaxat Ecclesiae notam fore, postrema mundi aetate desituram; ac tandem aliquando futurum esse, ut Ecclesia, quae prioribus saeculis orbem totum obtineret, postrema mundi aetate angustioribus septa limitibus, in minima

45. Perhaps the more recent Donatists will reply what those ancient ones did in Augustine, § 33: "These things also," they say, "we believe, and confess that they have been fulfilled; but afterwards the whole world fell into apostasy, and the communion of Donatus (of Calvin and Luther) alone remained." But we will immediately reply with Augustine: "Let them read this to us, and we make no resistance. But if they do not read these things from the holy Scriptures, and try to persuade us by their own contentions, I believe those things that are read in the holy Scriptures, I do not believe these things that are spoken by vain heretics." A most fair condition certainly proposed by Augustine. For since the testimonies of the canonical Scriptures, which commend the Church as consisting in the communion of the whole world, are most clear, and, to use Augustine's words in § 56, "need no interpreter," whoever asserts that this wide extent and universality will not be a perpetual mark of the true Church must needs bring forward equally clear and open testimonies of the Scriptures whereby to prove his assertion. For unless God wished to deceive us—which far be it from us even to think—having everywhere commended and designated His Church as a society that would be distinguished above all others by its wide extent and universality, He ought in His goodness at least somewhere to have warned us in equally express words that this wide extent would be only a temporary mark of the Church, destined to cease in the last age of the world; and that at length it would one day come to pass that the Church, which in earlier centuries occupied the whole world, would in the last age of the world be hemmed in by narrower limits and confined in the

Editors' notes and page, col. 291

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: call above the crop; column not visible, assumed col 291› · call in col 291

Matth. XXIV, 23.

Matthew 24:23.

(printed under page 152)

(9) ‹anchor: call above the crop; column not visible, assumed col 291› · call in col 291

Matth. V, 14.

Matthew 5:14.

(printed under page 152)

Page

running head: 291 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN I
marginal letters: A characterem. Id; B processum in; C inquiunt, credimus,; D petuam verae
old-edition numerals: CXXVI after futura.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: mi-
other: the word minima was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 292

PG 7:292

mundi parte coerceretur. Hinc Augustinus § 72, 75, cujus verba sibi dicta putet Grabius, et quisquis cnm ipso misere deceptus tam immaniter errat. « Audistis, inquit, pastoris vocem manifestissimam, non solum per legem ejus, et prophetas et psalmos, sed etiam per os proprium commendantis Ecclesiam suam futuram. Et ea quae praedixit, quemadmodum ex ordine consecuta sint, in Actibus et Litteris apostolorum, quae divinarum Scripturarum canonem complent, legendo perspicitis. Non est obscura quaestio in qua vos fallant, quos ipse Dominus praedixit futuros atque dicturos : Ecce hic est Christus, ecce illic, ecce in deserto, quasi ubi non est frequentia multitudinis; ecce in cubiculis, quasi in secretis traditionibus atque doctrinis. Habetis Ecclesiam ubique diffundi, (nec tantum, sed) et crescere usque ad messem, id est usque ad extremum judicii diem. Habetis civitatem de qua ipse, qui eam condidit, ait : Non potest civitas abscondi super montem posita. Ipsa est ergo, quae non aliqua parte terrarum, sed ubique notissima est.... Vos autem innitentes tot evidentissimis testimoniis Legis, Prophetarum, Psalmorum, ipsius Domini, et Apostolorum de sancta Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe diffusa, exigite ab istis, ut ostendant de Africa (jam de Anglia, etc.) quod attinet ad partem Donati (jam Calvini et Lutheri), aliqua manifesta de canonicis libris testimonia. Neque enim, sicut jam dixi, ullo modo fieri posset, ut Ecclesia, sicut dicunt, et quod absit, tam cito ex tot gentibus peritura, tot testimoniis tam sublimiter et tam indubitanter praedicaretur; et de ista, quam volunt, sua, quae usque in finem, sicut contendunt, permansura fuerat, taceretur. » Proinde Grabius et asseclae « perscrutentur Scripturas (et hic iterum Augustini verba sunt § 42), et contra tam multa testimonia, quibus ostenditur Ecclesia Christi toto terrarum orbe diffundi, vel unum proferant tam certum et tam manifestum, quam illa sunt, quo demonstrent Ecclesiam Christi periisse de caeteris gentibus et in sola « Anglia » remansisse... Sed quam non permittantur saltem quaerere aliquid, quo probent esse praedictum, deficientibus a fide Christiana caeteris gentibus, in sola « Anglia » Ecclesiam remansuram : attendant illud quod saepe commemoravi, utraque crescere usque ad messem, et agrum esse mundum, messem finem saeculi, non nobis, sed ipso Domino interpretante parabolam suam... Desinant ergo quaerere quod invenire non poterunt, non quia occultum est, sed quia non est. Sunt enim adhuc nonnullae gentes, in quibus nondum est Evangelium praedicatum; necesse est autem impleri omnia, quae de Christo et Ecclesia praedicta sunt : oportet ergo et in eis praedicari. »

smallest part of the world. Hence Augustine, §§ 72, 75, whose words Grabe, and whoever is wretchedly deceived with him and errs so monstrously, may consider spoken to himself: "You have heard," he says, "the most manifest voice of the Shepherd, commending His future Church not only through His Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, but also by His own mouth. And how the things that He foretold have followed in order, you perceive by reading in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, which complete the canon of the divine Scriptures. It is not an obscure question wherein they deceive you, whom the Lord Himself foretold would arise and say: Behold, here is Christ, behold, there, behold, in the desert, as though where there is no concourse of the multitude; behold, in the chambers, as though in secret traditions and doctrines. You have the Church spread everywhere (and not only so, but) also growing even unto the harvest, that is, even unto the last day of judgement. You have the city of which He Himself Who founded it says: A city set on a hill cannot be hid. She herself, therefore, is the one that is most well known, not in some part of the earth, but everywhere... Do you, therefore, relying on so many most evident testimonies of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Lord Himself, and the Apostles concerning the holy Church spread throughout the whole world, demand of these men that they show concerning Africa (now concerning England, etc.), as regards the party of Donatus (now of Calvin and Luther), some manifest testimonies from the canonical books. For neither, as I have already said, could it in any way come to pass that a Church destined, as they say—and far be it!—so quickly to perish out of so many nations, should be proclaimed by so many testimonies so sublimely and so indubitably, while concerning that Church of theirs which they wish, which, as they contend, was to endure even to the end, silence should be kept." Accordingly let Grabe and his followers "search the Scriptures" (and here again the words are Augustine's, § 42), "and against so many testimonies whereby the Church of Christ is shown to be spread throughout the whole world, let them bring forward even one as certain and as manifest as those are, whereby they may demonstrate that the Church of Christ has perished from the remaining nations and has remained in 'England' alone... But how much less are they permitted even to seek anything whereby to prove that it was foretold that, when the remaining nations fell away from the Christian faith, the Church would remain in 'England' alone: let them heed what I have often recalled, that both grow together until the harvest, and the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of the world, not we, but the Lord Himself interpreting His own parable... Let them cease, therefore, to seek what they will not be able to find, not because it is hidden, but because it does not exist. For there are still some nations in which the Gospel has not yet been preached; now it is necessary that all things that have been foretold concerning Christ and the Church be fulfilled: therefore it must be preached in them also."

46. At, inquit Grabius, legimus in Apocalypsi futuram esse meretricem magnam, cum qua fornicabuntur reges terrae, et inebriabuntur qui habitant

46. But, says Grabe, we read in the Apocalypse that there will be a great harlot, with whom the kings of the earth will commit fornication, and they who inhabit

Editors' notes and page, col. 292

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: ecce in cubiculis› · call in col 292

Matth. XXIV, 23.

Matthew 24:23.

(printed under page 152)

(9) ‹anchor: super montem posita› · call in col 292

Matth. V, 14.

Matthew 5:14.

(printed under page 152)

(10) ‹anchor: messem finem saeculi› · call in col 292

Matth. XIII, 30.

Matthew 13:30.

(printed under page 152)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 292
marginal letters: A nima mundi; B betis Ecclesiam; C itura, tot; D mansuram : attendant
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: mi-nima

PG 7:293

terram, de vino prostitutionis ejus, etc., quae de ultima mundi aetate ab ipsis pontificiis explicantur. Sed rursus cum Augustino § 9 respondebo, « illa seponenda esse, quae obscure posita, et figurarum velaminibus involuta (qualia sunt ea fere omnia, quae in Apocalypsi leguntur), et secundum nos et secundum illos possunt interpretari. Est quidem acutorum hominum dijudicare atque discernere, quis ea probabilius interpretetur; sed nolumus in has ingeniorum contentiones, in ea causa, quae populos tenet, nostram disputationem committere.... Aperta veritas clamet, luceat, in obturatas aures irrumpat, dissimulantium oculos feriat, nemo in eis latebris quaerat falsae suae sententiae locum, omnem conatum contradicendi confundat, omnem frontem impudentis elidat. » Si quae ejusmodi Scripturae loca habeat Grabius, proferat; sed Apocalypseos interpretationem Deo soli committat, memineritque quam infeliciter quibusdam e suis cesserit. Quanquam tamen si sacrae hujus prophetiae mysteria scrutari liceat, longe facilius quaecunque de meretrice illa magna praenuntiantur, possumus in Protestantes ipsos convertere, et ei quam fidei et moribus intulerunt, corruptelae accommodare, quam possint in Ecclesiam Romanam transferre. Sed missis hisce « rerum figuris, in quibus, ut rursus ait Augustinus § 10, quia vel interpretem quaerunt, nolo nostra ingenia comparentur, » concludamus: cum in Scripturis hac universitatis, amplitudinisque nota designetur ea, quam constituit Christus, Ecclesia, nec aliquando desituram eam notam ullibi appareat; si quae hodie in orbe vera supersit Ecclesia, eam solam esse quae caeteris societatibus longius latiusque pateat; ac proinde solam Romanam esse. « Illae quippe singulae in multis gentibus, ubi ista est, non inveniuntur; haec autem, quae ubique est, etiam ubi illae sunt, invenitur. »

earth, of the wine of her fornication," etc., which are explained by the papists themselves of the last age of the world. But again I shall answer with Augustine, § 9, "that those things are to be set aside which are put obscurely and wrapped in the veils of figures (such as are almost all the things read in the Apocalypse), and can be interpreted both in our favour and in theirs. It belongs indeed to acute men to judge and discern which of us interprets them more probably; but we do not wish to commit our dispute to these contests of wits in a cause which concerns whole peoples.... Let the open truth cry out, let it shine, let it break into stopped ears, let it strike the eyes of those who pretend not to see; let no one seek in those hiding places room for his false opinion; let it confound every attempt at contradiction, let it crush every brazen forehead." If Grabe has any passages of Scripture of this kind, let him bring them forward; but let him leave the interpretation of the Apocalypse to God alone, and remember how unhappily it turned out for some of his own party. Although, if it be permitted to search the mysteries of this sacred prophecy, we can far more easily turn whatever is foretold of that great harlot against the Protestants themselves, and fit it to the corruption which they brought upon faith and morals, than they can transfer it to the Roman Church. But, setting aside these "figures of things, in which," as Augustine says again, § 10, "I do not wish our wits to be matched, because they even need an interpreter," let us conclude: since in the Scriptures the Church which Christ founded is designated by this mark of universality and amplitude, and it nowhere appears that this mark will ever cease, if any true Church survives today in the world, she alone is it who extends further and more widely than the other societies; and therefore the Roman alone is it. "For those single sects are not found among many nations where she is; but she, who is everywhere, is found even where they are."

ARTICULUS V.

ARTICLE V.

De mysterio sanctissimae Trinitatis.

On the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

Editors' notes and page, col. 293

Footnotes

(11) ‹anchor: no call found in col 293's own text on the page (the page is not cropped above "terram", the column's first line); the call is presumably in col 294's upper text, set under this rail, at the close of the Augustine quotation (Illae quippe … invenitur), which is cut off in this scan; UNSURE (QA Q3a)› · call in col 293 or 294

August., § 6.

Augustine, § 6.

(printed under page 153)

Page

running head: 293 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A terram, de; B impudentis elidat. »; C [CXXVII] 47. Totam,; D que eorum
old-edition numerals: CXXVII before 47.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); full-width heading between § 46 and § 47 cut off at right edge (ARTICULUS / De mysterio sanctissima) not set; word split at break after § 46: Quan-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 293/294 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 294 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 293 (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: 293 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 294
marginal letters: A ‹terram, de vino› / ‹quam tamen si sacrae›; B ‹impudentis elidat› / ‹esse. « Illae quippe›; C ‹47. Totam, quam› / ‹prioris edit.›; D ‹que eorum et Deus› / ‹xerit, quae deinceps› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other (QA Q3a): in col 293's lower text (§47, set in c294_a.md) the page shows a mark after "divinitatem," that may be a printed semicolon (",;") or a speck; c294_a.md has "divinitatem, sicut"; UNSURE, for the col 294 read

PG 7:294

47. Totam, quam de sacro Trinitatis mysterio tenet Ecclesia catholica, fidem paucissimis comprehensam verbis tradidit Augustinus lib. XI De Civit. Dei c. 24: « Credimus, inquit, et tenemus, et fideliter praedicamus, quod Pater genuerit Verbum, hoc est Sapientiam per quam facta sunt omnia, unigenitum Filium, unus unum, aeternus coaeternum, summe bonus aequaliter bonum: et quod Spiritus sanctus simul et Patris et Filii sit Spiritus, et ipse consubstantialis et coaeternus ambobus: atque hoc totum et Trinitas sit propter Trinitatem personarum, et unus Deus propter inseparabilem divinitatem, sicut unus omnipotens propter inseparabilem omnipotentiam. Ita ut etiam, cum de singulis quaeritur, unusquisque eorum et Deus omnipotens esse respondeatur; cum vero de omnibus simul, non tres dii, vel tres omnipotentes, sed unus Deus omnipotens: tanta ibi est in tribus inseparabilis unitas, quae sic se voluit praedicari. » Haec, inquam, catholicae fidei summa, a qua late recessisse Irenaeum calumniantur Sociniani, quorum maxime interfuit tantae auctoritatis virum in partes suas vel invitum pertrahere. De ea minus recte sensisse, imprudentius quam malignius conquesti sunt e Catholicis quidam. Hunc ab utrorumque criminationibus strenue vindicarunt cl. Georgius Bullus presbyter Anglicanus in sua Defensione fidei Nicaenae, et doctissimus noster domnus Nicolaus Le Nourry, in Apparatu ad Bibliothecam maximam veterum Patrum, t. II prioris edit., an. 1697, dissert. VI, cap. 6, § 2 et seqq., quorum lucubrationibus si nihil addere potuerim, saltem aliquid lucis forsitan inspersurus sim.

47. The whole faith which the catholic Church holds concerning the sacred mystery of the Trinity Augustine handed down, comprised in very few words, in Book XI of The City of God, chapter 24: "We believe," he says, "and hold, and faithfully proclaim, that the Father begot the Word, that is, the Wisdom through which all things were made, the only-begotten Son, One begetting One, Eternal Coeternal, the Supremely Good One equally Good; and that the Holy Spirit is at once the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, and is Himself consubstantial and coeternal with both; and that this whole is both a Trinity on account of the Trinity of persons, and one God on account of the inseparable divinity, just as one Almighty on account of the inseparable almightiness. So that also, when the question is asked of each, the answer is that each of Them is God almighty; but when of all together, not three gods or three almighties, but one God almighty: so great is the inseparable unity in the Three, which has willed to be so proclaimed." This, I say, is the sum of the catholic faith, from which the Socinians falsely allege that Irenaeus widely departed, for it was very much in their interest to drag a man of such authority over to their side, even against his will. Certain Catholics have complained, more imprudently than maliciously, that he thought less rightly about it. The learned George Bull, an Anglican priest, in his Defence of the Nicene Faith, and our most learned Dom Nicolas Le Nourry, in the Apparatus to the Great Library of the Ancient Fathers, tome II of the earlier edition, year 1697, dissertation VI, chapter 6, § 2 and following, have vigorously vindicated him from the accusations of both; and if I can add nothing to their labours, I shall perhaps at least shed some light.

48. Ut Irenaei mens certius exploretur, tutior omnium via est penitus inspicere quis fuerit ejus scopus, quae adversariorum, quos impugnabat, hypothesis, quid demum adversus eos probandum sibi susceperit? Animo itaque recolat quisquis primam nostram dissertationem, ac potissimum art. I, § 5 et seqq., legere gravatus non fuerit, Gnosticos omnes, et Valentinianos, quos refellebat Irenaeus, fidem omnem mysterii SS. Trinitatis profanis, Platonicisque suis commentis funditus evertisse: adeo ut ex impurissimis hisce fontibus fluxerit, quae deinceps Christianam religionem infecit, Sabelliana et Ariana haeresis. Ad Trinitatem usque divinarum personarum, quarum una eademque esset natura ac substantia divina, animum erigere non valentes, statuebant Deum, quem primum ac supremum Patrem appellabant, immensis saeculorum intervallis solitarium, unumque ut natura, sic et persona fuisse, tacite secum cogitantem, unaque sua cogitatione contentum et occupatum. Cum vero exterius sese prodere, orbem condendo, animo constituisset, in actum erupit, qui rerum omnium seminarium, principium, forma et archetypus esset: huncque voca⟨b⟩ant Nun, Mentem seu sensum, et Filium unigenitum Patris, parentique suo perfecte similem et aequalem esse dicebant

48. That the mind of Irenaeus may be explored more surely, the safest way of all is to look deeply into what his aim was, what the hypothesis of the adversaries whom he was attacking, and what, finally, he undertook to prove against them. Let whoever has not been loath to read our first dissertation, and especially Art. I, § 5 and following, therefore call to mind that all the Gnostics, and the Valentinians whom Irenaeus was refuting, utterly overturned the whole faith in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity with their profane and Platonic inventions: so much so that from these most impure springs flowed the Sabellian and Arian heresy which afterwards infected the Christian religion. Unable to raise their minds as far as a Trinity of divine Persons, Whose nature and divine substance should be one and the same, they held that God, Whom they called the first and supreme Father, had been solitary through immense intervals of ages, and one in person as in nature, silently thinking within Himself, content with and occupied by His one thought. But when He had resolved in His mind to show Himself outwardly by founding the world, there burst forth into act one who was to be the seed-bed, principle, form and archetype of all things; and him they called Nous, Mind or understanding, and the only-begotten Son of the Father, and they said that he was perfectly like and equal to his parent,

Editors' notes and page, col. 294

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 294
marginal letters: A quam tamen; B esse. « Illae; C prioris edit.,; D xerit, quae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); full-width heading between § 46 and § 47 cut off at left edge (TICULUS V. / io sanctissimae Trinitatis.) not set; words split at column breaks: Quan-quam, dice-
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 293 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word dicebant, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 295
running head: 293 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 294
marginal letters: A ‹terram, de vino› / ‹quam tamen si sacrae›; B ‹impudentis elidat› / ‹esse. « Illae quippe›; C ‹47. Totam, quam› / ‹prioris edit.›; D ‹que eorum et Deus› / ‹xerit, quae deinceps› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CXXVII before ‹47. Totam› (col 293)
other: page 153 set in reading order: this file holds the lower text of col 293 (section 47 to "t. II") and of col 294 ("prioris edit." to "dice-"), sections 47 and 48. "vocaoant": the b is damaged, set voca⟨b⟩ant.
other (Q6a, 2026-11-03): the column ends "dice-"; the file had set only "dice", and c295_a.md opens at "atque ita comparatum" with no tail, so the tail was lost in the join: the word is now set whole here as "dicebant" (the tail "bant" and any punctuation after it are on col 295, not seen in this read; check the punctuation on col 295's image). The English, which had dropped "parentique suo perfecte similem et aequalem esse", now ends "and they said that he was perfectly like and equal to his parent," and reads on into col 295's "and so constituted".
other (Q6a): footnote 11 (August., § 6.), listed in n293 with an UNSURE anchor, is called in col 294's upper paragraph (set under col 293) at "esse. « ¹¹ Illae quippe", the opening of the closing Augustine quotation; n293's anchor should read "esse. « Illae quippe" and "call in col 294".
other (Q6a): Q3a's query on "divinitatem,;" (col 293 lower text): the mark after the comma is a speck of the kind that recurs on these pages (also after "respondeatur;" here, "Traditio, ;inquit" on col 260, "sunt;Chrysosto-" on col 244); "divinitatem, sicut" stands.

PG 7:295

atque ita comparatum, ut solus magnitudinem Patris caperet; utpote qui a Patre haudquaquam sive re, sive persona distinctus esset : nihilque aliud esset quam Pater ipse sentiens, ac exterius velut effundere sese incipiens. A Nu productum aiebant Verbum, quod rerum spiritalium, angelorum videlicet superiorum principium, auctor et formator esset, Angelus ipse a Patre, ejusque Nu, substantia et persona longe diversus : nec enim huic, ut Unigenito, datum capere magnitudinem Patris. A Verbo emissi sunt alii Aeones, seu angeli, a quibus vicissim alii geniti; ab omnibus vero simul conspirantibus productus Salvator, qui inferiorem angelum mundi hujus aspectabilis conditorem dirigeret. Cum autem novissimus Aeon supremi Patris magnitudinem temere scrutatus pene periisset; ne idem casus alios subiret, emissum ab Unigenito alterum par Aeonum, seu angelorum, Christus et Spiritus sanctus, a quibus fulciretur munireturque Pleroma. Summa proinde, quod ad rem praesentem attinet, huc redit : Patrem Verbo et Spiritui sancto longis saeculorum myriadibus praeexstitisse; Unigenitum illum, quem dicebant, Filium, meram Patris ἐνέργειαν, efficientiam, actum, aut proprietatem ἀνυπόστατον, non personam ab eo distinctam fuisse : Verbum autem, Spiritum sanctum, Christum et Salvatorem totidem spiritales naturas et personas, angelici ordinis, a se invicem distinctas, et in tempore conditas, atque divina seu paterna longe inferiores exstitisse : Demiurgum denique, seu mundi opificem, angelum et ipsum fuisse, sed praecedentibus ignobiliorem; qui nec in Pleromate, aliorum sede, locum haberet, et densioribus ignorantiae tenebris obvolutus natus esset. Haec sunt haereticorum commenta, quae confutanda sibi suscepit Irenaeus, ac toto opere passim confutat.

and so constituted that he alone comprehended the greatness of the Father, inasmuch as he was in no way distinct from the Father either in reality or in person, and was nothing else than the Father Himself perceiving, and beginning, as it were, to pour Himself forth outwardly. From Nous, they said, was produced the Word, which was the principle, author, and fashioner of spiritual things, namely, of the higher angels, being himself an angel far different in substance and person from the Father and His Nous; for to him it was not given, as to the Only-begotten, to comprehend the greatness of the Father. From the Word were emitted other Aeons, or angels, by whom in turn others were begotten; and by all conspiring together was produced the Saviour, who was to direct a lower angel, the creator of this visible world. Moreover, when the last Aeon, having rashly scrutinized the greatness of the supreme Father, had almost perished, lest the same misfortune should befall the others, another pair of Aeons, or angels, Christ and the Holy Spirit, was emitted by the Only-begotten, by whom the Pleroma might be supported and fortified. The sum of the matter, therefore, so far as concerns the present subject, comes to this: that the Father pre-existed the Word and the Holy Spirit by long myriads of ages; that that Only-begotten Son, as they called him, was a mere ἐνέργεια, efficiency, act, or unsubsistent property (ἀνυπόστατον) of the Father, not a person distinct from Him; whereas the Word, the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the Saviour were so many spiritual natures and personas, of an angelic order, distinct from one another and created in time, and far inferior to the divine or paternal nature; and finally, that the Demiurge, or maker of the world, was himself also an angel, but more ignoble than the preceding ones, who neither had a place in the Pleroma, the seat of the others, and was born wrapped in denser darkness of ignorance. These are the figments of the heretics, which Irenaeus undertook to refute, and refutes everywhere throughout his whole work.

49. Et primo quidem quia haeretici variis, quae passim in Scripturis occurrunt, Christi et Verbi nominibus abusi, male distinguebant inter unigenitum Filium, Verbum, Christum, Jesum, Salvatorem et Demiurgum; qua prava distinctione nitebatur Valentiniani systematis maxima pars : vanam eam esse probat Irenaeus, primum auctoritate Evangelii Joannis; quo exposito concludit lib. I, cap. 9, n. 3 : « Unum et eumdem ostendi Logon, et Monogenem, et Zoen, et Phos, et Soterem, et Christum Filium Dei, qui incarnatus est pro nobis. » Et lib. II, cap. 13, eam, quam inter Patrem, Nun et Verbum distinctionem interponebant haeretici, cum eo, quem fingebant emissionum ordine, cum recta ratione pugnare multis demonstrat. In primis cum Nus, seu mens sit « ipsum quod est principale, et summum, et velut principium, et fons universi sensus, » et cogitationis, uno verbo mens ipsa essentialis et substantialis Patris, et ipse Pater; emissum dici non nisi absurdissime posse, ne Deus ipse et Pater « a semetipso separetur,

49. And first indeed, because the heretics, abusing the various names of Christ and the Word that occur everywhere in the Scriptures, wrongly distinguished between the only-begotten Son, the Word, Christ, Jesus, the Saviour, and the Demiurge—upon which perverse distinction the greatest part of the Valentinian system rested—Irenaeus proves that it is vain, first by the authority of the Gospel of John, after expounding which he concludes in Book 1, Chapter 9, n. 3: "That the Logos, and the Only-begotten, and Life, and Light, and the Saviour, and Christ the Son of God, Who became incarnate for us, are shown to be one and the same." And in Book 2, Chapter 13, he demonstrates at length that the distinction which the heretics interposed between the Father, Nous, and the Word, together with that order of emissions which they devised, is repugnant to right reason. First of all, since Nous, or mind, is "that very thing which is principal, and supreme, and as it were the principle and fountain of all sense" and thought—in a word, the very essential and substantial mind of the Father, and the Father Himself—it cannot without the greatest absurdity be said to have been emitted, lest God Himself and the Father "be separated from Himself,

Editors' notes and page, col. 295

Page

running head: 295 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A bant, atque; B magnitudinem temere; C longe inferiores; D I, cap. 9,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: dice-bant, sepa-
other: the word separetur, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 296

PG 7:296

et quasi ab alio aliud emittatur. » Deinde si ea emissionum series, qualem comminiscebantur haeretici, in Deo admittitur, ita ut longe prius exstiterit Pater, quam Verbum suum emiserit, hocque ab illo tam procul distet; hominum compositorum natura, et ex corpore et anima subsistentium, affectiones, et intentiones mentis, dum cogitant, in Deum ipsum transferri necessario consequitur. Ea est enim hominum conditio, ut verbum ab eorum mente non emittatur, nisi post aliquam actuum seriem et successionem. « In eo autem, qui sit super omnes Deus, cum simplex et non compositus, et similimembrius, et totus ipse sibi similis, et aequalis sit, totus Nus, et totus Logos cum sit, totus sensus, et totus ennoea, et totus ratio; et nec aliud antiquius, nec posterius, aut aliquid alterius habente in se, sed toto aequali, et simili, et uno perseverante, jam non talis hujus ordinationis sequetur emissio. » Et cap. 17, n. 7 : « Non enim ut compositum animal quiddam est omnium Pater, praeter Nun, quemadmodum praeostendimus; sed Nus Pater, et Pater Nus. Necesse est itaque, et eum, qui est ex eo Logos, imo magis autem ipsum Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et impassibilem esse; et eas, quae ex eo sunt emissiones, ejusdem substantiae cum sint, cujus et ipse, perfectas et impassibiles et semper similes cum eo perseverare, qui eas emisit. »

and as though one thing were emitted from another." Next, if that series of emissions, such as the heretics devised, is admitted in God, so that the Father existed long before He emitted His Word, and the latter is so far distant from Him, it necessarily follows that the affections and mental intentions of men while they think—who are composite by nature and subsist of body and soul—are transferred to God Himself. For such is the condition of men that a word is not emitted from their mind save after some series and succession of acts. "Whereas in Him Who is God over all, since He is simple and not composite, and of like parts throughout, and wholly like and equal to Himself, since He is wholly Nous and wholly Logos, wholly sense, and wholly thought, and wholly reason, and has in Himself nothing either more ancient or later, or anything of another, but continues wholly equal and like and one, there will no longer follow an emission of such an ordering." And in Chapter 17, n. 7: "For the Father of all is not, like some composite animal, something apart from Nous, as we have shown before; but Nous is the Father, and the Father is Nous. It is necessary, therefore, that He also Who is the Logos from Him, nay rather Nous Himself, since He is the Logos, should be perfect and impassible; and that those emissions which are from Him, being of the same substance as He Himself is, should remain perfect and impassible and always like Him Who emitted them."

50. Haec sunt argumenta, quibus Valentinianos impugnabat Irenaeus. 1° Velut certissimum quid, ex catholica fide et Evangelio supponebat, Unigenitum, Verbum, Salvatorem et Christum Filium Dei, qui incarnatus est pro nobis, unum et eumdem, seu unam et eamdem esse personam, cujus diversa duntaxat essent nomina. Deinde in hoc assentiebatur haereticis (quod et catholica fides probabat), non quod Unigenitus mera esset Patris ἐνέργεια, ut illi volebant; sed quod Unigenitus, per quem facta esse omnia cum Joanne asserebat, ipsi Patri consubstantialis esset, ei perfecte similis, et perfecte comprehendens magnitudinem Patris. Ex quo concludebat, et Verbum ipsum Patri consubstantiale esse, huic perfecte simile, et comprehendens ejus magnitudinem. 3° Quia haeretici Verbum procul a Patre, et natura et ordine generationis dissitum, ignorantiae et passioni obnoxium esse statuebant; eodem fundamento nixus blasphemiam hanc refellit. Nimirum, Logos est ipse Nus, et Nus est Logos : eadem proinde utriusque et substantia, et natura, et perfectio. Praeterea necesse est eas, quae ex Nu sunt emissiones, ejusdem substantiae esse, cujus et ipse Nus, perfectas et impassibiles et semper similes cum eo perseverare, qui eas emisit. Atqui Nus Patris, ipsis fatentibus haereticis, Verbum emisit. Necesse est itaque Verbum ejusdem esse substantiae cum Nu Patris, perfectum et impassibile et semper simile cum eo. 4° « Multum

50. These are the arguments with which Irenaeus attacked the Valentinians. First, as something most certain from the Catholic faith and the Gospel, he presupposed that the Only-begotten, the Word, the Saviour, and Christ the Son of God, Who became incarnate for us, are one and the same, that is, one and the same person, whose names only are different. Secondly, in this he agreed with the heretics (which the Catholic faith also approved), not that the Only-begotten was a mere ἐνέργεια of the Father, as they wished, but that the Only-begotten, through Whom he asserted with John that all things were made, was consubstantial with the Father Himself, perfectly like Him, and perfectly comprehending the greatness of the Father; from which he concluded that the Word Himself also is consubstantial with the Father, perfectly like Him, and comprehending His greatness. Thirdly, because the heretics held that the Word was far removed from the Father both in nature and in the order of generation, and subject to ignorance and passion, resting on the same foundation he refutes this blasphemy. Namely, the Logos is Nous Himself, and Nous is the Logos: the substance, therefore, and nature, and perfection of both are the same. Moreover, it is necessary that those emissions which are from Nous be of the same substance as Nous himself, perfect and impassible, and always remain like him who emitted them. Now the Nous of the Father, as the heretics themselves confess, emitted the Word. It is necessary, therefore, that the Word be of the same substance with the Nous of the Father, perfect and impassible, and always like him. Fourthly, "Far

Editors' notes and page, col. 296

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 296; column assumed› · call in col 296

Iren., lib. II, c. 13, n. 4.

Irenaeus, Book II, chapter 13, no. 4.

(printed under page 154)

(13) ‹anchor: call above the crop; probably the quotation closing at "qui eas emisit" near the head of col 296› · call in col 296

N. 3 et 8.

Nos. 3 and 8.

(printed under page 154)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 296
marginal letters: A retur, et; B ennoea, et; C impugnabat Irenaeus.; D procul a
old-edition numerals: CXXVIII after cum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: sepa-retur

PG 7:297

distat omnium Pater ab his, quae proveniunt hominibus, affectionibus et passionibus. » Eae vero sunt hominum affectiones et passiones, ut verbum eorum prolationis initium habeat, et mente cogitante posterius genesim habeat in tempore. Cum ergo Verbum Dei verbum humanum infinito superet intervallo, nec prolationis initium habere potuit, nec genesim in tempore. Denique quidquid in Deo est, Deus ipse est : nec enim aliud antiquius, nec posterius, aut aliud alterius, seu a se diversum habet in se; sed totus simplex est, et non compositus, totus aequalis, et similis, et unus perseverans. Atqui Verbum et Spiritus sanctus in Deo sunt, et Dei Verbum et Spiritus sanctus sunt; nam ipse Deus Verbum, totus Spiritus, totus Logos, totus Nus, etc. Igitur Verbum et Spiritus sanctus sunt ejusdem cum Deo substantiae et naturae, ejusdem cum eo antiquitatis et aeternitatis, huic coaevi et consubstantiales; uno verbo, Deus ipse. Quin haec ipsissima sint Irenaei argumenta, nullus inficias ierit, qui ad mox citata testimonia, totumque ejusdem scopum attenderit : eadem certe argumenta, quibus deinceps usi sunt SS. Patres contra Arianos et Macedonianos, et utuntur etiamnum theologi ad Socinianorum impietatem refellendam. Eadem proinde in utrisque de mysterio sanctissimae Trinitatis fides. Nec tamen iis contentus martyr sanctissimus, vel eadem latius explicat, vel alia subinde profert, quibus, quam recte et catholice senserit, magis ac magis demonstretur.

distant is the Father of all from those affections and passions which befall men." Now the affections and passions of men are such that their word has a beginning of utterance, and has its genesis in time posterior to the thinking mind. Since, therefore, the Word of God surpasses a human word by an infinite interval, He could have neither a beginning of utterance nor a genesis in time. Finally, whatever is in God is God Himself: for He has in Himself nothing either more ancient or later, or anything of another, or diverse from Himself; but He is wholly simple, and not composite, wholly equal, and like, and continuing one. Now the Word and the Holy Spirit are in God, and are the Word and the Holy Spirit of God; for God Himself is Word, wholly Spirit, wholly Logos, wholly Nous, etc. Therefore the Word and the Holy Spirit are of the same substance and nature with God, of the same antiquity and eternity with Him, co-eternal and consubstantial with Him; in a word, God Himself. That these are the very arguments of Irenaeus no one will deny who attends to the testimonies just cited and to his whole aim: the very same arguments, certainly, which the holy Fathers afterwards used against the Arians and Macedonians, and which theologians still use to refute the impiety of the Socinians. There is, accordingly, in both the same faith concerning the mystery of the most holy Trinity. Yet, not content with these, the most holy martyr either unfolds the same arguments more at large, or repeatedly brings forward others, whereby it may be more and more demonstrated how rightly and catholically he thought.

51. Quia, ut dixi, negabant haeretici Verbi Dei aeternitatem, fingebantque nec ab ipso Patre, nec a Verbo ejus immediate conditum esse aspectabilem hunc mundum, sed « a Virtute aliqua valde inferiori ab illo, et ignorante Patrem; » hoc commentum confutans Irenaeus lib. II, cap. 2, ostendit n. 4 et 5 homines quidem « inopes » cum sint, « nec possint statim aliquid ex parato fabricare, indigere multis organis ad » rei alicujus « fabricationem. Proprium » autem « esse hoc Dei supereminentiae, non indigere aliis organis ad conditionem eorum » (ad condenda ea) « quae fiunt; neque angelis indigere adjutoribus ad ea, quae fiunt, neque virtute aliqua valde inferiori ab illo, et ignorante Patrem; sed idoneum esse et sufficiens ad formationem omnium proprium ejus Verbum, quemadmodum et Joannes Domini discipulus ait de eo : Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. In omnibus autem est et hic qui est secundum nos, mundus. Et hic ergo a Verbo factus est, » etc. Eadem summatim repetens cap. 30, n. 9 : « Deum ipsum a semetipso fecisse libere et ex sua potestate, et disposuisse, et perfecisse omnia, et esse substantiam omnium voluntatem ejus : Solus, addit, unus Deus fabricator, hic qui est super omnem Principalitatem, et Potestatem, et Dominationem, et Virtutem : hic Pater, hic Deus, hic

51. Because, as I have said, the heretics denied the eternity of the Word of God, and feigned that this visible world was created immediately neither by the Father Himself nor by His Word, but "by some Power far inferior to Him, and ignorant of the Father," Irenaeus, refuting this figment in Book 2, Chapter 2, shows in nn. 4 and 5 that men indeed, since they are "needy, and cannot immediately fashion anything out of hand, stand in need of many instruments for the fashioning" of anything; whereas "this belongs to the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things" (for creating those things) "which are made; nor to stand in need of angels as helpers for the things that are made, nor of any power far inferior to Him and ignorant of the Father; but that His own Word is fitting and sufficient for the formation of all things, just as John, the disciple of the Lord, also says concerning Him: All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing (John 1:3). Now among all things is also this world of ours. This world also, therefore, was made by the Word," etc. Repeating the same things summarily in Chapter 30, n. 9, he says: "That God Himself by Himself made freely and of His own power, and arranged, and perfected all things, and that His will is the substance of all things: Only," he adds, "one God the fashioner, He Who is above every Principality, and Power, and Domination, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He is

Editors' notes and page, col. 297

Footnotes

(14) ‹anchor: factum est nihil› · call in col 297

Joan. I, 3.

John 1:3.

(printed under page 155)

Page

running head: 297 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A distat omnium; B Nus, etc.; C senserit, magis; D Patrem; sed
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:298

conditor, hic factor, qui fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est per Verbum et Sapientiam suam, coelum, et terram, et maria, et omnia quae in eis sunt : hic justus, hic bonus, etc., hic Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, e⟨t⟩c., hic Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi per Verbum suum, qui est Filius ejus, per eum revelatur et manifestatur omnibus, » etc. Haec igitur apud Irenaeum certa et demonstrata, unum Deum omnia prorsus, tam visibilia quam invisibilia condidisse, eumque esse, qui sit super omnem Principalitatem, Potestatem, Dominationem, uno verbo supra omnes angelos, et omnium Pater; condidisse, inquam, non per organa et instrumenta a se diversa, et alterius a se naturae, sed per semetipsum, hoc est per Verbum, Filium suum, et Sapientiam suam, id est Spiritum sanctum, ut ipse explicat lib. IV, c. 20, n. 1 : « Nec enim, ait, horum (angelorum) indigebat Deus ad faciendum quae ipse apud se praedefinierat fieri, quasi ipse suas non haberet manus. Adest enim ei semper Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, per quos, et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, ad quos et loquitur dicens : Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; ipse a semetipso substantiam creaturarum, et exemplum factorum, et figuram in mundo ornamentorum accipiens. » Eapropter Verbum et Spiritum sanctum vocat Dei manus, non hic modo, sed et in ejusdem libri Praefatione, et lib. III, c. 21, n. 10. Eas vero manus cum opponat aliis organis, et Virtuti inferiori, hinc manifeste sequitur, Verbum et Spiritum sanctum a Patre quidem distingui, utpote quibuscum consilium habeat, dum ait : Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; non tamen inferioris, et alterius ab eo naturae esse : sicuti proportione servata, manus hominis a corpore, cujus sunt manus, natura et substantia non differunt. Imo manifeste se ipse explicat Irenaeus, cum ait, unum Deum omnia fecisse per semetipsum, hoc est, addit, per Verbum et Sapientiam suam. Verbum igitur et Spiritus sanctus sunt unus et idem cum Patre Deus, una et eadem cum eo substantia et natura.

founder, He is maker, Who made them by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom—heaven, and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just, He is good, etc., He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, etc., He the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ through His Word, Who is His Son, through Him is revealed and manifested to all," etc. These things, therefore, are certain and demonstrated in Irenaeus: that one God created all things whatsoever, both visible and invisible, and that He is the One Who is above every Principality, Power, and Domination—in a word, above all the angels, and the Father of all; that He created them, I say, not through organs and instruments diverse from Himself and of a nature other than His own, but by Himself, that is, through the Word, His Son, and His Wisdom, that is, the Holy Spirit, as he himself explains in Book 4, Chapter 20, n. 1: "For neither," he says, "did God stand in need of these (the angels) in order to make the things that He had Himself foreordained with Himself to be made, as though He Himself did not have His own hands. For there is ever present with Him the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through Whom and in Whom He made all things freely and of His own accord, to Whom also He speaks, saying: Let Us make man after Our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26); Himself taking from Himself the substance of the creatures, and the pattern of the things made, and the figure of the adornments in the world." Wherefore he calls the Word and the Holy Spirit the hands of God, not here only, but also in the Preface of the same book, and in Book 3, Chapter 21, n. 10. Now since he opposes these hands to other instruments and to an inferior Power, hence it manifestly follows that the Word and the Holy Spirit are indeed distinguished from the Father, inasmuch as He takes counsel with Them when He says, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness, yet are not of an inferior nature or of a nature other than His: just as, due proportion being observed, the hands of a man do not differ in nature and substance from the body whose hands they are. Nay, Irenaeus manifestly explains himself when he says that one God made all things by Himself, that is, he adds, through His Word and His Wisdom. Therefore the Word and the Holy Spirit are one and the same God with the Father, of one and the same substance and nature with Him.

52. Ex iis concludit Irenaeus, Verbum seu Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, nedum rebus omnibus creatis praeexstitisse, sed et ipsi Patri semper coexstitisse, ac coaeternos fuisse. Deus siquidem « suas semper habuit manus : adest enim ei semper Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus. » Et lib. II, cap. 30, n. 9. « Semper autem coexsistens Filius Patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem, et angelis, et archangelis, et Potestatibus, et Virtutibus, et omnibus, quibus vult revelare Deus. » Et cap 25, n. 8, rationem afferens cur plurima sint, quae mentis humanae captum superant, quaeque proinde curiosius et sollicitius a nobis investiganda non sint; docet Dei solius, a quo facta sunt omnia,

52. From these things Irenaeus concludes that the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit, not only pre-existed all created things, but also always co-existed with the Father Himself, and were co-eternal with Him. Since God "always had His own hands: for there is ever present with Him the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit." And in Book 2, Chapter 30, n. 9: "And the Son, ever co-existing with the Father, of old and from the beginning ever reveals the Father, both to angels, and to archangels, and to Powers, and to Virtues, and to all to whom God wills to reveal Himself." And in Chapter 25, n. 8, giving the reason why there are very many things that surpass the grasp of the human mind, and which therefore ought not to be investigated by us too curiously and anxiously, he teaches that it belongs to God alone, by Whom all things were made,

Editors' notes and page, col. 298

Footnotes

(15) ‹anchor: similitudinem nostram› · call in col 298

Gen. I, 26.

Genesis 1:26.

(printed under page 155)

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 298
marginal letters: A conditor, hic; B pientiam suam,; C cum opponat; D Filium, et
old-edition numerals: CXXIX before 52.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:299

proprium esse omnia nosse; hominem vero « esse in infinitum minorem Deo; » et « in quantum minor est ab eo qui factus non est, et qui semper idem est, in tantum secundum scientiam, et ad investigandum causas omnium, minorem esse eo qui fecit. » Non enim, ait, « infectus es, o homo, neque semper coexsistebas Deo, sicut proprium ejus Verbum; sed propter eminentem bonitatem ejus, nunc initium facturae accipiens, sensim discis a Verbo dispositiones Dei, qui te fecit. » Ideo ergo finita est, angustisque coarctata limitibus hominis scientia, quia « initium facturae accepit, » et « in infinitum minor est Deo; » ideo vero Verbi Dei scientia infinita, quia infectum est, Deoque semper coexstitit. Eadem ratio est, quam affert lib. IV, c. 13, n. 4, ut probet, Verbum divinum, quod hominum saluti semper consuluerit, et Abrahae amicitiam conciliare sibi veluti studuerit, non indigentia fecisse. « Sed neque Abrahae amicitiam propter indigentiam assumpsit Dei Verbum, exsistens ab initio perfectus : Antequam Abraham esset, ego sum, inquit; sed ut ipsi Abrahae donaret aeternam vitam, exsistens ab initio bonus, quoniam amicitia Dei immortalitatis est condonatrix his qui aggrediuntur eam. » Nullius igitur rei indigum Dei Verbum, quia exsistit ab initio perfectum, et bonum, ac fons omnium bonorum; Deusque natura cum sit, amicis suis donat aeternam vitam et immortalitatem. Et hinc infert Irenaeus principio capitis sequentis, « initio non quasi indigentem Deum hominis, plasmavisse Adam, sed ut haberet in quem collocaret beneficia sua. Non enim solum ante Adam, sed et ante omnem conditionem glorificabat Verbum Patrem suum, manens in eo; et ipse a Patre clarificabatur, quemadmodum ipse ait : Pater, clarifica me claritate, quam habui apud te, priusquam mundus fieret. » Denique cap. 20, n. 3, probans quod n. 1 dixerat, « Adesse Patri semper Verbum et Sapientiam, Filium et Spiritum, per quos, et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit; » haec habet : « Et quoniam Verbum, id est Filius, semper cum Patre erat, per multa demonstravimus. Quoniam autem et Sapientia, quae est Spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem constitutionem, per Salomonem ait : Deus sapientia fundavit terram, paravit autem coelum prudentia, etc. Et rursus : Dominus creavit me principium viarum suarum in opera sua, etc. Unus igitur Deus, qui Verbo et Sapientia fecit, et aptavit omnia, » etc. Filius igitur et Spiritus sanctus sic apud Deum Patrem fuerunt ante omnem, non visibilium modo, sed et invisibilium, et Aeonum, quam fingebant haeretici, constitutionem, ut Patri semper adfuerint, ipsi coaeterni, ac coaevi, Verbum, Sapientia, et manus Patris, quibus carere nunquam potuit, quamvis Angelis aut Virtutibus inferioribus quibusvis facile semper carere potuerit.

to know all things; whereas man "is infinitely inferior to God;" and "by as much as he is inferior to Him Who was not made, and Who is always the same, by so much is he inferior to Him Who made him as regards knowledge and for investigating the causes of all things." For, he says, "you are not uncreated, O man, nor did you always co-exist with God, as His own Word did; but on account of His eminent goodness, now receiving a beginning of creation, you gradually learn from the Word the dispensations of God, Who made you." For this reason, therefore, is the knowledge of man finite and confined within narrow limits, because "he received a beginning of creation," and "is infinitely inferior to God;" and for this reason is the knowledge of the Word of God infinite, because He is uncreated, and always co-existed with God. The same is the reason that he adduces in Book 4, Chapter 13, n. 4, to prove that the divine Word, Who always took thought for the salvation of men, and as it were studied to win for Himself the friendship of Abraham, did not do so from need: "Neither did the Word of God assume the friendship of Abraham on account of need, existing perfect from the beginning: Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58), He says; but that He might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, existing good from the beginning, since the friendship of God is the bestower of immortality upon those who enter into it." The Word of God, therefore, stands in need of nothing, because He exists from the beginning perfect and good, and the fountain of all good things; and since He is God by nature, He bestows eternal life and immortality upon His friends. And hence Irenaeus infers at the beginning of the following chapter that "in the beginning God did not fashion Adam as though standing in need of man, but that He might have someone upon whom to bestow His benefits. For not only before Adam, but also before all creation the Word glorified His Father, abiding in Him; and He Himself was glorified by the Father, even as He Himself says: Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was (John 17:5)." Finally, in Chapter 20, n. 3, proving what he had said in n. 1, "that the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, Through Whom and in Whom He made all things freely and of His own accord, are ever present with the Father," he has these words: "And that the Word, that is, the Son, was always with the Father, we have demonstrated by many proofs. And that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was with Him before all creation, He says through Solomon: God by wisdom founded the earth, and by prudence prepared the heaven (Prov. 3:19), etc. And again: The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways unto His works (Prov. 8:22), etc. There is therefore one God, Who by His Word and Wisdom made and fitted together all things," etc. The Son, therefore, and the Holy Spirit were so with God the Father before the whole constitution, not of visible things only, but also of invisible things, and of the Aeons that the heretics feigned, that They were ever present with the Father, co-eternal and co-eval with Him, the Word, the Wisdom, and the hands of the Father, which He could never lack, although He could easily always have lacked angels or any inferior Powers whatever.

Editors' notes and page, col. 299

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 299› · call in col 299

Joan. VIII, 58.

John 8:58.

(printed under page 156)

(17) ‹anchor: priusquam mundus fieret› · call in col 299

Joan. XVII, 5.

John 17:5.

(printed under page 156)

(18) ‹anchor: caelum prudentia› · call in col 299

Prov. III, 19, 20.

Proverbs 3:19–20.

(printed under page 156)

(19) ‹anchor: in opera sua› · call in col 299

Prov. VIII, 22.

Proverbs 8:22.

(printed under page 156)

Page

running head: 299 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A proprium esse; B c. 13, n. 4,; C sequentis, « initio; D per Salomonem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:300

53. Nec vero Irenaeo satis fuit probasse divini Verbi et Spiritus sancti aeternitatem, sed causae jugulum petens passim asserit et demonstrat utrumque Patri consubstantialem esse, ejusdem cum eo naturae et substantiae : quamvis id satis aperte consequatur ex hactenus dictis. Nam ex S. doctoris principiis, quodcunque infectum est, et sine initio, vere et substantialiter Deus est. Quo certissimo principio probat lib. III, cap. 8, n. 2 et 3, « nihil quidquam ex his quae constituta, et in subjectione sunt, » nec proinde Angelos, Archangelos, etc., a Deo constitutos et factos per Verbum ejus, et per Spiritum oris ejus, per quem coeli firmati sunt, et omnis virtus eorum, auctori suo comparari posse. Infinite enim distant « quae constituta sunt ab eo qui constituit, et quae facta sunt ab eo qui fecit. Ipse enim infectus, et sine initio, et sine fine, et nullius indigens, ipse sibi sufficiens, et adhuc reliquis omnibus, ut sint, praestans; quae vero ab eo sunt facta, initium sumpserunt. Quaecunque autem initium sumpserunt, et dissolutionem possunt percipere, et subjecta sunt, et indigent ejus qui se fecit : necesse est omnimodo, uti differens vocabulum habeant, apud eos etiam, qui vel modicum sensum in discernendo talia habent : ita ut is quidem qui omnia fecerit, cum Verbo suo juste dicatur Deus et Dominus solus; quae autem facta sunt, non jam ejusdem vocabuli participabilia esse, neque juste id vocabulum sumere debere, quod est Creatoris. » Haec igitur apud Irenaeum certissima : Qui infectus est, et sine initio, et sine fine, nullius indigens, et ipse sibi sufficiens, vere, proprie ac juste dicitur Deus et Dominus solus : qui rerum omnium auctor, conditor et fabricator est, infectus est et sine initio. Atqui nec minus certum apud Irenaeum, Verbum et Spiritum sanctum initium non habuisse, Patri semper adfuisse, eique coexstitisse; Verbum et Spiritum sanctum cum Patre, omnia condidisse; unde necessario concludendum, Verbum et Spiritum sanctum, ex Irenaeo, cum Patre juste dici et esse unum Deum ac Dominum, unamque trium esse naturam et substantiam. Sed ad institutum redeo.

53. Nor indeed was it enough for Irenaeus to have proved the eternity of the divine Word and of the Holy Spirit, but striking at the throat of the cause, he everywhere asserts and demonstrates that each is consubstantial with the Father, of the same nature and substance with Him, although this follows clearly enough from what has been said thus far. For according to the principles of the holy doctor, whatever is uncreated and without beginning is truly and substantially God. By which most certain principle he proves in Book 3, Chapter 8, nn. 2 and 3, that "nothing whatever of the things that have been established and are in subjection," and consequently neither Angels, nor Archangels, etc., established and made by God through His Word and through the Spirit of His mouth, by Whom the heavens were established and all the power of them, can be compared to their Author. For infinitely distant are "the things that have been established from Him Who established them, and the things that have been made from Him Who made them. For He Himself is uncreated, and without beginning, and without end, and standing in need of nothing, Himself sufficient to Himself, and moreover granting to all the rest that they exist; whereas the things that have been made by Him took a beginning. And whatever things took a beginning both can receive dissolution, and are subject, and stand in need of Him Who made them: it is altogether necessary that they have a different name, even among those who have but a moderate sense in discerning such things: so that He indeed Who made all things, together with His Word, is justly called God and Lord alone; whereas the things that have been made are no longer capable of participating in the same name, nor ought they justly to assume that name which belongs to the Creator." These things, therefore, are most certain in Irenaeus: He Who is uncreated, and without beginning, and without end, standing in need of nothing, and Himself sufficient to Himself, is truly, properly, and justly called God and Lord alone; He Who is the author, founder, and fashioner of all things is uncreated and without beginning. Now it is no less certain in Irenaeus that the Word and the Holy Spirit had no beginning, were ever present with the Father, and co-existed with Him, and that the Word and the Holy Spirit together with the Father created all things; whence it must necessarily be concluded that, according to Irenaeus, the Word and the Holy Spirit together with the Father are justly called and are one God and Lord, and that the nature and substance of the Three is one. But I return to my purpose.

54. Haeretici, uti dixi, comminiscebantur, alium esse supremum Patrem, alium Demiurgum, seu rerum omnium inferiorum, et aspectabilium conditorem : hunc veteris legis auctorem fuisse, solum in ea celebratum, et solum a Judaeis agnitum et adoratum; illum vero incognitum mansisse semper, donec Evangelio lucescente, Jesuquc (afflante, qui in eum descendit, Christo) revelante, notus fieret, novam legem conderet et promulgaret. Exitiosissimum dogma, malorum omnium scaturiginem, eversurus Irenaeus toto libro III probat, unum esse Deum factorem coeli et terrae, et utriusque legis auctorem, huncque esse ipsum summum Patrem, et Verbum ejus, ac Spiritum sanctum, nec alium

54. The heretics, as I have said, devised the figment that the supreme Father is one, and the Demiurge, or creator of all lower and visible things, is another: that the latter was the author of the old law, alone celebrated in it, and alone acknowledged and adored by the Jews; whereas the former always remained unknown until, when the Gospel shone forth, and Jesus (inspired by the Christ who descended into him) revealed Him, He became known, and founded and promulgated the new law. To overthrow this most destructive dogma, the source of all evils, Irenaeus proves throughout the whole of Book 3 that there is one God, the Maker of heaven and earth and the author of both laws, and that He is the supreme Father Himself, and His Word, and the Holy Spirit, and that no other

Editors' notes and page, col. 300

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 300
marginal letters: A 53. Nec; B qui constituit,; C Creatoris. » Haec; D esse supremum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:301

unquam a lege et prophetis annuutiatum fuisse, aut ab ipso Christo, ejusque apostolis et discipulis agnitum et celebratum. Quia vero respondebant Gnostici, eum, quem mundi conditorem identidem confitetur Jesus, quemque tum ipse, tum apostoli et discipuli ejus Deum Patrem ac Dominum, rerum omnium fabricatorem passim appellant, ipsum Demiurgum esse; qui quidem licet Deus natura non sit, quod tamen rerum omnium inferiorum rex, dominus et conditor constitutus sit, Dei appellationem sortitur, et eam ob rem tum ab iis, tum a prophetis et veteri lege Deus vocatur; id confutaturus Irenaeus, probat cap. 6, n. 1, quod, « Neque Dominus, » (veritas cum sit, nec mentiatur, ut cap. praecedenti dixit) « neque Spiritus sanctus, neque apostoli eum qui non esset Deus, definitive et absolute Deum nominassent aliquando, nisi esset vere Deus; neque Dominum appellassent aliquem ex sua persona, nisi qui dominatur omnium : si quando vero Scriptura eos, qui non sunt dii, nominat, non in totum ostendere illos deos; sed cum aliquo additamento et significatione, per quam ostenduntur non esse dii. » Hoc igitur Irenaei principium, verissimum atque certissimum. Quem Dominus, Spiritus sanctus aut apostoli in Scripturis definitive et absolute Deum nominant, is est vere Deus; quem Dominum appellant ex sua persona, is est qui dominatur omnium. At, inquit idem Irenaeus, Dominus, Spiritus sanctus, et apostoli definitive et absolute Deum nominant, Dominumque appellant ex sua persona « Deum Patrem, et Filium ejus, qui dominium accepit a Patre suo omnis conditionis, » id est rerum omnium conditarum; et « nemo alius » in Scripturis « Deus nominatur, aut Dominus appellatur, nisi qui est omnium Deus et Dominus, qui et Moysi dixit : Ego sum qui sum. Et sic dices filiis Israel : Qui est, misit me ad vos; et hujus Filius Jesus Christus Dominus noster, qui filios Dei facit credentes in nomen suum; » quod subinde plurimis Scripturarum utriusque Testamenti testimoniis demonstrat. Ex quibus evidenter concludere est, ex Irenaei sententia, solum Patrem, et Filium ejus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum vere Deum esse, et iis qui interdum in Scripturis nominantur dii, nec sunt tamen, infinite praecellere; ac proinde veram esse, unam et eamdem in utroque naturam divinam et essentiam. Hinc ex iis, quae ubertim profert, Scripturarum locis passim infert : « Unus igitur et idem Deus, qui a Prophetis praedicatus est, et ab Evangelio annuntiatus, et hujus Filius, qui ex fructu ventris David, id est ex David Virgine, et Emmanuel. » Tum istiusmodi argumentis e Scripturarum auctoritate petitis coronidem imponens cap. 15, n. 3, concludit : « Cum declaratum sit manifeste, quoniam neminem alium Deum vocaverunt, vel Dominum nominaverunt, qui veritatis

was ever announced by the Law and the Prophets, or acknowledged and celebrated by Christ Himself and His apostles and disciples. And because the Gnostics replied that He Whom Jesus repeatedly confesses as the Creator of the world, and Whom both He Himself and His apostles and disciples everywhere call God the Father and Lord, the Fashioner of all things, is the Demiurge himself—who, although he is not God by nature, yet because he has been appointed king, lord, and creator of all lower things, obtains the appellation of God, and for that reason is called God both by them and by the prophets and the old law—Irenaeus, in order to refute this, proves in Chapter 6, n. 1, that "neither the Lord" (since He is the truth and does not lie, as he said in the preceding chapter), "nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles would ever have named definitively and absolutely as God him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have called anyone Lord in their own person, save Him Who rules over all: whereas whenever Scripture names those who are not gods, it does not declare them gods altogether, but with some addition and qualification whereby they are shown not to be gods." This, therefore, is the principle of Irenaeus, most true and most certain: He Whom the Lord, the Holy Spirit, or the apostles in the Scriptures name definitively and absolutely God, is truly God; He Whom they call Lord in their own person, is He Who rules over all. Now, says the same Irenaeus, the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and the apostles name definitively and absolutely as God, and call Lord in their own person, "God the Father, and His Son, Who received from His Father dominion over all creation," that is, over all created things; and "no one else" in the Scriptures "is named God, or called Lord, save He Who is the God and Lord of all, Who also said to Moses: I am Who am. And thus you shall say to the children of Israel: He Who is has sent me to you (Exod. 3:14); and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who makes those who believe in His name sons of God;" which he forthwith demonstrates by very many testimonies of the Scriptures of both Testaments. From which it is evidently to be concluded that, in the judgement of Irenaeus, the Father alone, and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, are truly God, and infinitely excel those who are sometimes named gods in the Scriptures, yet are not; and that consequently the divine nature and essence in both is true, and one and the same. Hence from the passages of the Scriptures which he abundantly adduces, he everywhere infers: "He is therefore one and the same God, Who was preached by the Prophets and announced by the Gospel, and His Son, Who is of the fruit of the womb of David, that is, of the Virgin of David, and Emmanuel." Then, putting the finishing touch to arguments of this sort drawn from the authority of the Scriptures, in Chapter 15, n. 3, he concludes: "Since it has been manifestly declared that those who were the preachers of the truth

Editors' notes and page, col. 301

Footnotes

(20) ‹anchor: ut cap. praecedenti› · call in col 301

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 157)

(21) ‹anchor: inquit idem Irenaeus› · call in col 301

N. 2.

No. 2.

(printed under page 157)

(22) ‹anchor: et Moysi dixit› · call in col 301

Exod. III 14.

Exodus 3:14.

(printed under page 157)

(23) ‹anchor: locis passim infert› · call in col 301

Cap. 9, n. 2.

Chapter 9, no. 2.

(printed under page 157)

Page

running head: 301 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAE
marginal letters: A unquam a; B tus sanctus,; C ctus, et; D et iis
old-edition numerals: CXXX after veritas
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: verita-
other: the word veritatis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 302

PG 7:302

fuerunt praedicatores, et apostoli libertatis, nisi solum verum Deum Patrem et Verbum ejus, qui in omnibus principatum habet; manifeste est ostensum, factorem coeli et terrae, qui locutus sit cum Moyse, et Legis dispositionem ei dederit, qui convocaverit Patres, Dominum Deum confiteri eos, et alterum neminem nosse. » Quid clarius? Pater et Verbum, Pater et hujus Filius, sunt unus et idem Deus a prophetis praedicatus, et ab Evangelio annuntiatus; solus verus Deus ac Dominus, factor coeli et terrae, qui locutus sit cum Moyse et legis dispositionem ei dederit, etc.

and the apostles of liberty called no one else God, or named anyone else Lord, save the only true God the Father and His Word, Who has the pre-eminence in all things, it has been manifestly shown that they confess the Maker of heaven and earth, Who spoke with Moses, and gave to him the dispensation of the Law, and Who called together the Fathers, to be the Lord God, and know no other." What could be clearer? The Father and the Word, the Father and His Son, are one and the same God preached by the prophets and announced by the Gospel; the only true God and Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth, Who spoke with Moses and gave to him the dispensation of the Law, etc.

55. Idem argumentum instaurans Irenaeus toto fere libro IV, et propius adhuc ad causam accedens, probat ex Scripturis, et ipsis praesertim Domini nostri sermonibus, unum et eumdem esse Deum utriusque legis auctorem, qui res omnes condiderit, qui legem veterem dederit, cum Moyse, caeterisque Patribus ac prophetis locutus fuerit, quique per Verbum suum, non fictitium illud haereticorum, sed Filium suum unigenitum, unumque ac verum cum eo Deum, perfectissimum et omniscium, notum sese fecerit in utroque Testamento. Eam in rem profert cap. 5, n. 2, ea Christi verba Matth. XXII, 29 seqq. ad Sadducaeos : Erratis, nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei. De resurrectione enim mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente : Ego sum Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob? et adjecit : Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium : omnes enim ei vivunt. Tum subdit Irenaeus : « Per haec utique manifestum fecit, quoniam is, qui de rubo locutus est Moysi, et manifestavit se esse Deum Patrum, hic est viventium Deus. Quis enim est vivorum Deus, nisi qui est Deus, super quem alius non est Deus? Quem et Daniel propheta, cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum : Quare non adoras Bel? annuntiavit dicens : Quoniam non colo idola manufacta, sed vivum Deum, qui constituit coelum et terram, et habet omnis carnis dominationem. Iterum dixit : Dominum Deum meum adorabo, quoniam hic est Deus vivus. Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur Deus vivus, hic est vivorum Deus, et Verbum ejus, qui et locutus est Moysi, qui et Sadducaeos redarguit, qui et resurrectionem donavit : utraque his, qui caecutiunt, ostendens, id est resurrectionem et Deum. » Quo demonstrato concludit : « Ipse igitur Christus, cum Patre, vivorum est Deus, qui locutus est Moysi, qui et patribus manifestatus est. » Sic uno et eodem telo duplicem simul Gnosticorum errorem configit Irenaeus, tum quod comminiscebantur, Verbum Patre inferius esse, nec ipsi pervium esse Patrem; tum quod fingebant, eum qui prophetis loquebatur, Demiurgum ipsum esse, a supremo Patre longe alium atque diversum. Nempe, is qui de rubo locutus est Moysi, et manifestavit se esse Deum patrum, quem

55. Renewing the same argument throughout almost the whole of Book IV, and coming still closer to the case, Irenaeus proves from the Scriptures, and especially from the very discourses of our Lord, that one and the same God is the author of both laws, Who created all things, Who gave the old law, Who spoke with Moses and the rest of the Fathers and prophets, and Who through His Word—not that fictitious one of the heretics, but His only-begotten Son, and one and true God with Him, most perfect and omniscient—made Himself known in both Testaments. To this end he adduces in Chapter 5, n. 2, those words of Christ to the Sadducees in Matt. 22:29 et seqq.: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? And He added: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him. Then Irenaeus subjoins: "By these words He assuredly made it manifest that He Who spoke from the bush to Moses, and manifested Himself to be the God of the fathers, He is the God of the living. For who is the God of the living, save He Who is God, above Whom there is no other God? Whom also Daniel the prophet, when Cyrus king of the Persians had said to him: Why do you not adore Bel? announced, saying: Because I do not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, Who established heaven and earth, and has dominion over all flesh (Dan. 14:4). Again he said: I will adore the Lord my God, because He is the living God (Dan. 14:24). The living God, therefore, Who was adored by the prophets, He is the God of the living, and His Word, Who also spoke to Moses, Who also refuted the Sadducees, Who also bestowed the resurrection, showing both to those who are blind, that is, the resurrection and God." Having demonstrated this, he concludes: "Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, Who spoke to Moses, and Who was also manifested to the fathers." Thus with one and the same shaft Irenaeus pierces at once the twofold error of the Gnostics: both that they devised the figment that the Word is inferior to the Father, and that the Father is not accessible to Him; and that they feigned that He Who spoke to the prophets was the Demiurge himself, far other and different from the supreme Father. Namely, He Who spoke from the bush to Moses, and manifested Himself to be the God of the fathers, Whom

Editors' notes and page, col. 302

Footnotes

(24) ‹anchor: et Daniel propheta› · call in col 302

Cap. 14.

Chapter 14.

(printed under page 157)

(25) ‹anchor: omnis carnis dominationem› · call in col 302

Ibid. 4.

Same chapter, [verse] 4.

(printed under page 157)

(26) ‹anchor: hic est Deus vivus› · call in col 302

Ibid. 24.

Same chapter, [verse] 24.

(printed under page 157)

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 302
marginal letters: A tis fuerunt; B mini nostri; C est Deus; D ducaeos redarguit,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: verita-tis

PG 7:303

prophetae Deum vivum appellant, et Deum vivum adorabant, hic est viventium Deus, Deus super quem alius Deus non est, uno verbo summus Deus. Atqui Pater et Verbum ejus, Christus cum Patre is est qui locutus est Moysi, qui et patribus manifestatus est, et a prophetis adoratus, et appellatus Deus vivus. Igitur Christus cum Patre est Deus vivorum, Deus super quem alius non est Deus, et supremus Deus. Quid, quaeso, manifestius afferri potest ad vindicandam Irenaei fidem, stabiliendamque Verbi cum Patre consubstantialitatem? Ne quidem apud Athanasium ipsum apertius quidquam et expressius occurret. Alia consimilia testimonia et argumenta occurrent toto libro IV et alibi passim.

the prophets call the living God, and adored as the living God, He is the God of the living, the God above Whom there is no other God, in a word, the supreme God. Now the Father and His Word, Christ together with the Father, is He Who spoke to Moses, Who was also manifested to the fathers, and adored by the prophets, and called the living God. Therefore Christ together with the Father is the God of the living, the God above Whom there is no other God, and the supreme God. What, I ask, can be brought forward more manifest for vindicating the faith of Irenaeus, and establishing the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father? Not even in Athanasius himself will anything clearer and more express occur. Other similar testimonies and arguments will occur throughout the whole of Book 4 and everywhere else.

56. Quia vero Valentiniani abutebantur Christi verbis Matth. XI, 27, et Luc. X, 22, eaque sic describebant : Nemo cognovit Patrem, nisi Filius, nec Filium, nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius revelare; sic vero « interpretabantur, » inquit Irenaeus cap. 6, n. 1, « quasi a nullo cognitus sit verus Deus ante Domini nostri adventum : et eum Deum, qui a prophetis sit annuntiatus, dicebant non esse Patrem Christi; » demonstrat sanctus martyr toto illo capite, et adulterinam esse verborum lectionem, et falsissimam eorumdem explicationem. Cum enim ait Dominus : Nemo cognoscit Filium, nisi Pater; neque Patrem, nisi Filius, et quibuscunque Filius revelaverit; quae genuina verborum lectio est : « Revelaverit, non solum in futurum dictum est, quasi tunc inceperit Verbum manifestare Patrem, cum de Maria natus; sed communiter per totum tempus positum est. Ab initio enim assistens Filius suo plasmati, revelat omnibus Patrem, quibus vult, et quando vult, et quemadmodum vult Pater. » Nam bonum placitum Patris Filius perficit : mittit enim Pater, mittitur autem et venit Filius. » Hinc omni aevo et semper, multisque modis Verbum revelavit seipsum, ut simul revelaret et Patrem. Ratio est, quia « invisibile Filii, Pater; visibile autem Patris, Filius. » Et licet « Pater invisibilis sit, et indeterminabilis, quantum ad nos est; agnitio » tamen « Patris est Filii manifestatio : omnia enim per Verbum manifestantur. Agnitio Patris, Filius; agnitio autem Filii in Patre, et per Filium revelata. » Ex iis omnibus sic concludit Irenaeus. « Non ergo alius erat qui cognoscebatur, et alius qui dicebat : Nemo cognoscit Patrem; sed unus et idem, omnia subjiciente ei Patre, et ab omnibus accipiens testimonium, quoniam vere homo, et quoniam vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, etc. Et propter hoc in omnibus, et per omnia unus Deus Pater, et unum Verbum Filius, et unus Spiritus; et una salus omnibus credentibus in eum. » Pater igitur et Verbum, Irenaeo teste, non sunt alius et alius Deus : invisibile Filii, Pater; visibile autem

56. And because the Valentinians abused the words of Christ in Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22, and wrote them out thus: No one knew the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal Him; and "interpreted them," says Irenaeus in Chapter 6, n. 1, "as though the true God had been known by no one before the coming of our Lord; and they said that the God Who was announced by the prophets is not the Father of Christ;" the holy martyr demonstrates throughout the whole of that chapter both that this reading of the words is corrupt, and that their explanation of the same is most false. For when the Lord says: No one knows the Son, save the Father; neither the Father, save the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall have revealed Him—which is the genuine reading of the words—"Shall have revealed was not spoken with reference to the future alone, as though the Word then began to manifest the Father when He was born of Mary; but it is set down generally throughout all time. For from the beginning the Son, being present with His own handiwork, reveals the Father to all, to whom the Father wills, and when He wills, and as He wills." For the Son accomplishes the good pleasure of the Father: for the Father sends, and the Son is sent and comes." Hence in every age and always, and in many ways, the Word revealed Himself, so that at the same time He might reveal the Father also. The reason is, because "what is invisible of the Son is the Father; and what is visible of the Father is the Son." And although "the Father is invisible and indeterminable, so far as concerns us; yet the knowledge of the Father is the manifestation of the Son: for all things are manifested through the Word. The knowledge of the Father is the Son; and the knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and has been revealed through the Son." From all these things Irenaeus concludes thus: "He, therefore, Who was known was not one, and He Who said, No one knows the Father, another; but one and the same, the Father subjecting all things to Him, and He receiving testimony from all that He is truly man, and that He is truly God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from the angels, etc. And on account of this, in all things and through all things there is one God the Father, and one Word the Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation to all who believe in Him." The Father and the Word, therefore, as Irenaeus witnesses, are not one God and another God: what is invisible of the Son is the Father; and what is visible

Editors' notes and page, col. 303

Footnotes

(27) ‹anchor: verborum lectio est› · call in col 303

N. 7.

No. 7.

(printed under page 158)

(28) ‹anchor: Pater. Nam› · call in col 303

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 158)

(29) ‹anchor: quia› · call in col 303

N. 6.

No. 6.

(printed under page 158)

(30) ‹anchor: Et licet› · call in col 303

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 158)

(31) ‹anchor: concludit Irenaeus› · call in col 303

N. 7.

No. 7.

(printed under page 158)

Page

running head: 303 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A prophetae Deum; B 56. Quia; C borum lectio; D per Verbum
old-edition numerals: CXXXI after tris
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:304

Patris, Filius, id est, quod in Patre divinum est, quae natura divina et invisibilis Patris, eadem est et Filii; per quod autem videtur et cognoscitur Filius, per idem cognoscitur et Pater, quia Filius imago Patris est, et figura seu character substantiae ejus : Verbum caro factum, ut vere homo, sic et vere Deus : denique in omnibus, et per omnia unus Deus Pater, unum Verbum, et unus Spiritus; unitas in tribus, una in tribus natura. Quid clarius? Quod autem dicit Irenaeus, agnitionem Patris, Filium esse, et agnitionem Filii in Patre esse, et per Filium revelatam esse, idipsum est quod dixerat lib. III, c. 6, n. 2 : « Filium esse in Patre, et habere in se Patrem. » Idipsum est etiam, quod dixerat lib. IV, c. 4, n. 2. Nempe respondens vanis Gnosticorum cavillationibus, qui ex eversa Hierosolyma, civitate regis magni, et abrogata veteri lege inferebant alium esse Veteris, alium Novi Testamenti auctorem et Deum; ostendit et Hierosolymae, et veteri legi suum tempus a Deo mensum ac definitum fuisse; utramque, adveniente nova lege, desinere debuisse; idque sapientissimo et ordinatissimo Dei consilio factum fuisse. « Omnia enim, inquit, mensura et ordine Deus facit, et nihil non mensum apud eum, quoniam nec incompositum. » Quod postremum, scilicet, nihil non mensum apud Deum esse, ut probet, laudat veterem aliquem aut coaevum scriptorem ecclesiasticum, cujus nomen tacet, sed verba probat : « Et bene ait qui dixit ipsum immensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum; mensura enim Patris, Filius, quoniam et capit eum. » Quibus ostendit, Deum adeo ordinis, proportionis et mensurae amantem esse, ut neque suam ipse sib. mensuram deesse voluerit; Filius enim est mensura Patris, qui totam Patris immensitatem, infinitatem et substantiam in se capit, continet, ac veluti circumscribit. Ea divinarum personarum περιχώρησις, circumincessio est, ex qua tam frequenter, tamque feliciter argumenta deprompserunt adversus Arianos sancti Patres, ut Filium Patri ὁμοούσιον esse probarent. Nempe in se invicem sunt Pater et Filius, nec minus in Filio, quam in se ipso est Pater, nec minus in Patre est Filius, quam in se ipso; adeo ut mutuo exsistant in se, et, ut ita loquar, immeent invicem, atque penetrent, ac proinde et a se invicem distinguantur, et tamen in una et eadem natura et substantia sine ullo discrimine conveniant.

of the Father is the Son, that is, what is divine in the Father, that divine and invisible nature of the Father, is the same also of the Son; and that whereby the Son is seen and known, by that same is the Father also known, because the Son is the image of the Father, and the figure or character of His substance: the Word made flesh, as truly man, so also truly God; finally, in all things and through all things one God the Father, one Word, and one Spirit; unity in three, one nature in three. What could be clearer? Moreover, what Irenaeus says, that the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and that the knowledge of the Son is in the Father and has been revealed through the Son, is the very same thing that he had said in Book 3, Chapter 6, n. 2: "That the Son is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself." It is the very same thing also that he had said in Book 4, Chapter 4, n. 2. Namely, replying to the vain cavils of the Gnostics, who from the overthrow of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, and the abrogation of the old law inferred that the author and God of the Old Testament is one, and that of the New is another, he shows that both to Jerusalem and to the old law their own time had been measured out and defined by God; that with the coming of the new law both had to cease; and that this was done by the most wise and most orderly counsel of God. "For God," he says, "makes all things by measure and in order, and nothing is unmeasured with Him, because nothing is unarranged." To prove which last point, namely, that nothing is unmeasured with God, he cites some ancient or contemporary ecclesiastical writer, whose name he passes over in silence, but whose words he approves: "And well spoke he who said that the unmeasured Father Himself is measured in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him." Whereby he shows that God is so fond of order, proportion, and measure that He did not wish His own measure to be lacking even to Himself; for the Son is the measure of the Father, Who comprehends, contains, and as it were circumscribes in Himself the whole immensity, infinity, and substance of the Father. This is the περιχώρησις, the circumincession of the divine persons, from which the holy Fathers so frequently and so successfully drew arguments against the Arians in order to prove that the Son is ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) with the Father. Namely, the Father and the Son are in each other, nor is the Father less in the Son than in Himself, nor is the Son less in the Father than in Himself; so that They mutually exist in each other, and, so to speak, pass into each other and penetrate each other, and consequently are both distinguished from each other, and yet agree in one and the same nature and substance without any difference.

57. Sed ex modo dictis habes, cur et quo sensu tam saepe et sollicite inculcet Irenaeus toto libro IV, et alibi (quod et aliis ante et post eum Patribus infrequens non fuit), Patrem invisibilem semper mansisse, neque a quoquam, ne specie quidem externa ac sensibili forma dissimulatum visum esse; neque videri omnino posse; sed ex divinis personis solum in Veteri Testamento divinum Verbum veteribus patriarchis ac prophetis apparuisse, ut hominibus

57. But from what has just been said you see why and in what sense Irenaeus so often and so carefully inculcates throughout the whole of Book 4, and elsewhere (which was also not uncommon among other Fathers before and after him), that the Father has always remained invisible, and has never been seen by anyone, not even disguised under an external appearance and sensible form, nor can be seen at all; but that of the divine persons, in the Old Testament only the divine Word appeared to the ancient patriarchs and prophets, in order that

Editors' notes and page, col. 304

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 304
marginal letters: A Patris, Filius,; B rum cavillationibus,; C mensum Patrem; D loquar, immeent
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: ho-
other: the word hominibus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 305

PG 7:305

Dei ac Patris notitiam importaret, qua vitam illorum tueretur, quae sine Dei cognitione esse non potest; Filium esse qui Adamo, Noe, Abrahae, aliisque videndum se praebuerit, qui cum Moyse locutus sit, « qui » denique, ut loquitur Irenaeus, « et visiones propheticas, et divisiones charismatum, et ministeria sua, et Patris glorificationem consequenter et composite ostenderit humano generi, apto tempore ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones; invisibilitatem quidem Patris custodiens, ne quando homo fieret contemptor Dei, et semper haberet ad quod proficeret; visibilem autem rursus hominibus per multas dispositiones ostendens Deum ne in totum deficiens homo a Deo cessaret esse. » Uno verbo, « ipse est qui dicit Moysi : Videns vidi vexationem populi mei, qui est in Aegypto, et descendi ut eruam eos; ab initio assuetus Verbum Dei ascendere et descendere, propter salutem eorum, qui male haberent. » De his fuse disserit Irenaeus fere a cap. 5 usque ad 20, sed hoc praesertim. Haec omnia eodem collimant. Nempe cum probandum sibi suscepisset sanctus doctor, unum et eumdem esse utriusque Testamenti auctorem, ostendit unum et eumdem Deum hominum semper saluti consuluisse ac providisse : unum et eumdem Deum a veteribus et nobis adoratum fuisse, eamdem fuisse veterum fidem et nostram; omnes Veteris Testamenti prophetias et figuras in unum et eumdem Christum Novi Testamenti mediatorem conspirasse, ac proinde unum et eumdem esse Deum et Patrem, quem ipse annuntiavit, et notum hominibus fecit, nec alterum et diversum ab eo quem annuntiabant prophetae, qui adventum ejus praecinebant : hinc quidem Patrem invisibilem semper fuisse, nec cuiquam mortalium datum unquam fuisse videre magnitudinem ejus et mirabilem gloriam; « incapabilis » enim, « et incomprehensibilis, et invisibilis; » at male inde ab haereticis inferri, ignotum semper fuisse donec adveniret Christus. « Quoniam qui omnia in omnibus operatur, Deus est, qualis et quantus est, invisibilis et inenarrabilis est omnibus, quae ab eo facta sunt; incognitus nequaquam. » Ratio est, quia « omnia per Verbum ejus discunt, quia est unus Deus Pater, qui continet omnia, et omnibus esse praestat, quemadmodum in Evangelio scriptum est : Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris : ipse enarravit. « Enarrat ergo ab initio Filius Patris, quippe qui ab initio est cum Patre. » Cur autem uni Verbo provinciam hanc demandat Irenaeus, ut se et Patrem suum notum faceret? Cur unum Verbum videndum se praebuisse, Patre semper invisibili manente, tam constanter affirmat? An quod vel inferiorem Patre crediderit Filium, vel natura sua hunc aspectabilem, potius quam illum, arbitratus sit? Atqui id diserte

He might bring to men the knowledge of God and the Father, whereby He might preserve their life, which cannot exist without the knowledge of God; that it was the Son Who presented Himself to be seen by Adam, Noah, Abraham, and others, Who spoke with Moses, and "Who," finally, as Irenaeus says, "consequently and harmoniously showed to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of charisms, and His own ministries, and the glorification of the Father, at the fitting time for the profit of men, on whose account He made so great dispensations; guarding indeed the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he might always have something towards which to advance; while on the other hand showing God visible to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away altogether from God, should cease to exist." In a word, "He Himself it is Who says to Moses: Seeing I have seen the affliction of My people that is in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them (Exod. 3:7–8); the Word of God being accustomed from the beginning to ascend and descend on account of the salvation of those who were in evil case." On these things Irenaeus discourses at length almost from Chapter 5 to Chapter 20, but in this chapter especially. All these things aim at the same point. Namely, when the holy doctor had undertaken to prove that the author of both Testaments is one and the same, he shows that one and the same God has always taken thought and provided for the salvation of men; that one and the same God was adored by the ancients and by us, and that the faith of the ancients and ours was the same; that all the prophecies and figures of the Old Testament conspired unto one and the same Christ, the Mediator of the New Testament, and that consequently the God and Father Whom He Himself announced and made known to men is one and the same, and not another and different from Him Whom the prophets announced, who foretold His coming: that hence indeed the Father has always been invisible, nor was it ever granted to any mortal to see His greatness and wonderful glory—for He is "incapable of being grasped, and incomprehensible, and invisible"—yet that the heretics wrongly infer from this that He was always unknown until Christ came. "Since He Who works all in all is God, as to what and how great He is, He is invisible and unutterable to all things that have been made by Him; but by no means unknown." The reason is, because "all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, Who contains all things, and grants existence to all, even as it is written in the Gospel: No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (John 1:18). Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He is from the beginning with the Father." Why, then, does Irenaeus entrust this province to the Word alone, that He should make Himself and His Father known? Why does he so constantly affirm that the Word alone presented Himself to be seen, while the Father always remained invisible? Is it because he either believed the Son to be inferior to the Father, or judged the former rather than the latter to be visible by His own nature? Nay, this he expressly

Editors' notes and page, col. 305

Footnotes

(32) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 305

Lib. IV, c. 20, n. 7.

Book IV, chapter 20, no. 7.

(printed under page 159)

(33) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 305

Cap. 12, n. 4.

Chapter 12, no. 4.

(printed under page 159)

(34) ‹anchor: call above the crop› · call in col 305

Exod. III, 7, 8.

Exodus 3:7–8.

(printed under page 159)

(35) ‹anchor: et invisibilis› · call in col 305

Cap. 20, n. 5

Chapter 20, no. 5.

(printed under page 159)

(36) ‹anchor: Christus. Quoniam› · call in col 305

N. 6.

No. 6.

(printed under page 159)

(37) ‹anchor: ipse enarravit› · call in col 305

Joan. I, 18.

John 1:18.

(printed under page 159)

(38) ‹anchor: est cum Patre› · call in col 305

N. 7.

No. 7.

(printed under page 159)

Page

running head: 305 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A minibus Dei; B « ipse est; C menti mediatorem; D Deus Pater,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: ho-minibus

PG 7:306

refellit. « Et Patrem quidem invisibilem et indeterminabilem, quantum ad nos est, cognoscit suum ipsius Verbum; et cum sit inenarrabilis, ipse enarrat nobis; rursum autem Verbum suum solus cognoscit Pater. » Non minus ergo invisibile, et indeterminabile, et inenarrabile est, « quantum ad nos est, » ipsum Verbum quam Pater, cum a solo Patre quantum est, cognoscatur : « invisibile etenim, » ut paulo post ait, « Filii Pater; » nam quae natura Patris est, eadem et Filii; utriusque secundum se invisibilis est. Et cap. 24, n. 2, aperte docet, « esse unum Deum, qui est super omnem principatum, et dominationem et potestatem, et omne nomen quod nominatur : et hujus Verbum, naturaliter quidem invisibilem, palpabilem et visibilem in hominibus, et usque ad mortem descendisse, mortem autem crucis. » Si igitur videndum se praebuit divinum Verbum, non certe in ipsa natura sua divina et invisibili, sed tantum in alienis et assumptis formis et speciebus. Id fuse probat cap. 20, n. 9 et seqq., ubi expendens ea divini Verbi ad Moysen, cum quo loquebatur, verba : Sta in loco alto petrae, et manu mea contegam super te. Quando vero transierit claritas mea, tunc videbis quae sunt posteriora mea : facies autem mea non videbitur tibi; non enim videt homo faciem meam, et vivet; ait, utraque his significari, « quoniam et impossibilis est homo videre Deum, et quoniam per Sapientiam Dei in novissimis temporibus videbit eum homo in altitudine petrae, hoc est in eo qui est secundum hominem ejus adventu. » Tunc ergo duntaxat divinum Verbum facie ad faciem visum esse putat, cum humanam sibi naturam assumpsit, propriamque sibi fecit. Hinc concludit, « non manifeste ipsam faciem Dei vidisse prophetas, sed dispositiones et mysteria, per quae inciperet homo videre Deum, » ut iis paulatim assuesceret homo ad videndum eum carnem factum. Et postea : « Igitur si neque Moyses vidit Deum, nec Elias, nec Ezechiel, qui multa de coelestibus viderunt; quae autem ab his videbantur, erant similitudines claritatis Domini, et prophetiae futurorum : manifestum est, quoniam Pater quidem invisibilis est, de quo et Dominus dixit : Deum nemo vidit unquam : Verbum autem ejus, quemadmodum volebat ipse, et ad utilitatem credentium, claritatem monstrabat Patris, et dispositiones exponebat...... non in una figura, nec in uno charactere videbatur videntibus eum, sed secundum dispensationum ejus causas et efficaciam. » Quasi diceret : Si neque Moyses, neque Elias, neque Ezechiel, neque prophetae, quibuscum familiariter agebat, divinum Verbum, non tamen ipsam Dei essentiam viderunt, sed similitudines duntaxat claritatis Domini; manifestum est, quoniam nec Pater secundum naturam suam visibilis est in hac mortali vita; nec Verbum ejus in essentia sua conspiciendum

refutes: "And the Father indeed, Who is invisible and indeterminable so far as concerns us, His own Word knows; and since He is unutterable, He Himself declares Him to us; and again, the Father alone knows His own Word." The Word Himself, therefore, is no less invisible, and indeterminable, and unutterable, "so far as concerns us," than the Father, since He is known by the Father alone as to how great He is: "for what is invisible of the Son," as he says a little later, "is the Father;" for the nature that belongs to the Father is the same also as that of the Son; that of each is invisible in itself. And in Chapter 24, n. 2, he openly teaches "that there is one God, Who is above every principality, and domination, and power, and every name that is named: and that His Word, though naturally invisible, became palpable and visible among men, and descended even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." If, therefore, the divine Word presented Himself to be seen, it was certainly not in His own divine and invisible nature itself, but only in foreign and assumed forms and appearances. He proves this at length in Chapter 20, n. 9 et seqq., where, weighing those words of the divine Word to Moses, with whom He was speaking: Stand in a high place of the rock, and with My hand I will cover you. And when My glory shall have passed by, then you shall see My back parts: but My face shall not be seen by you; for man shall not see My face and live (Exod. 33:19–20), he says that both things are signified by these words, "that it is impossible for man to see God, and that through the Wisdom of God in the last times man shall see Him in the height of the rock, that is, in His coming according to man." Then only, therefore, does he think that the divine Word was seen face to face, when He assumed human nature to Himself and made it His own. Hence he concludes "that the prophets did not openly see the very face of God, but the dispensations and mysteries whereby man might begin to see God," so that through them man might gradually become accustomed to seeing Him made flesh. And afterwards: "Therefore, if neither Moses saw God, nor Elias, nor Ezechiel, who saw many of the heavenly things; and the things that were seen by them were similitudes of the glory of the Lord, and prophecies of things to come: it is manifest that the Father indeed is invisible, concerning Whom the Lord also said: No one has ever seen God (John 1:18); whereas His Word, as He Himself willed, and for the profit of believers, showed the glory of the Father and set forth the dispensations... not in one figure, nor in one character was He seen by those who saw Him, but according to the causes and efficacy of His dispensations." As though he were to say: If neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezechiel, nor the prophets, with whom the divine Word familiarly conversed, yet saw the very essence of God, but only similitudes of the glory of the Lord, it is manifest that neither is the Father visible according to His nature in this mortal life, nor did His Word in His own essence present Himself to be beheld,

Editors' notes and page, col. 306

Footnotes

(39) ‹anchor: et vivet› · call in col 306

Exod. XXXIII, 19, 20.

Exodus 33:19–20.

(printed under page 159)

(40) ‹anchor: nemo vidit unquam› · call in col 306

Joan. I, 18.

John 1:18.

(printed under page 159)

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 306
marginal letters: A refellit. « Et; B hominibus, et; C dine petrae,; D modum volebat
old-edition numerals: CXXXII after potestatem,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: conspicien-

PG 7:307

se praebuit, sed in varia figura, nec in uno charactere, secundum dispensationum ejus causas et efficaciam.

but in varied figure, and not in one character, according to the causes and efficacy of His dispensations.

58. Id ergo vult Irenaeus (et hic ejus, aliorumque Patrum eadem cum ipso asserentium, et sentientium scopus), Patrem cum sit origo et fons totius sanctissimae Trinitatis, a quo manant et mittuntur aliae personae, ipsum a nemine missum, minus decuisse frequentes illas, quae olim factae sunt, Dei ἐπιφανείας. Dei quidem bonitatem semper decuit notum se ipsum hominibus facere, ac, quantum ipsi capere queunt, conspiciendum praebere; quia « vita hominis visio Dei. » At id muneris in se suscipere Filium potius quam Patrem congruebat. Ea enim hominum animis inspergenda Dei notitia, frequentesque illae Dei visiones ad οἰκονομίαν spectabant, et ad utilitatem hominum lapsorum fiebant, totidemque futurae incarnationis veluti praeludia erant. Porro sicuti Filium, quod a Patre necessariam et aeternam originem habeat, quod a Patre natus sit, a Patre mittatur, ejusque imago, figura substantiae ejus, et, ut loquitur Irenaeus, agnitio sit, carnem suscipere decuit potius quam Patrem, qui, cum prima persona sit, a nulla alia vel oritur, vel mittitur; sic Filium magis quam Patrem decuit frequentibus illis apparitionibus futurae incarnationi suae praeludere, hominumque, quos deinceps sanguine suo redempturus erat, salutis ab initio curam gerere. Neque enim hanc tum primum suscepit, cum in carne mortali advenit, ut non semel Irenaeum dicentem audivimus, sed ab initio et ab hominis lapsu. Ideo vero ab initio de hominum salute sollicitus fuit Filius, ac toties in publicum manifestandi tum Patris, tum sui ipsius causa, veluti prodiit, quia ea erat voluntas Patris. « Omnia autem Filius administrans Patri perficit ab initio usque ad finem, et sine illo nemo potest cognoscere Deum; » et « bonumplacitum Patris Filius perficit. » Si autem ab Irenaeo quaeras, cur omnia administrans Patri, bonumque placitum Patris Filius perficiat, rationem hanc cum Catholicis omnibus afferet : « Mittit enim Pater, mittitur autem et venit Filius. » Filium vero mittit Pater, quia Filii principium est, eumque gignit; mittitur autem Filius, quia a Patre tanquam a principio procedit, et ab eo gignitur. Porro sicut honorificum est Patri Filium gignere et mittere; sic nec minus honorificum Filio mitti et gigni; nullamque in utroque substantiae disparitatem arguit haec missio. « Non enim genitorem (ait Augustinus lib. III cont. Maxim, c. 14) ab eo quem genuit, sed genitum a genitore mitti oportebat; verum haec non est inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae; non quod alter prior esset altero, sed quod alter esset ex altero. »

58. This, therefore, is what Irenaeus means (and this is his aim, and that of the other Fathers who assert and think the same things with him): that since the Father is the origin and fountain of the whole most holy Trinity, from Whom the other persons flow and are sent, while He Himself is sent by no one, those frequent ἐπιφάνειαι (manifestations) of God that took place of old were less fitting for Him. It always befitted the goodness of God indeed to make Himself known to men, and, so far as they are able to grasp, to present Himself to be beheld, because "the life of man is the vision of God." But to take that office upon Himself suited the Son rather than the Father. For that knowledge of God which was to be instilled into the minds of men, and those frequent visions of God, pertained to the οἰκονομία (dispensation), and took place for the profit of fallen men, and were so many preludes, as it were, of the future incarnation. Furthermore, just as it befitted the Son—because He has His necessary and eternal origin from the Father, because He is born of the Father, is sent by the Father, and is His image, the figure of His substance, and, as Irenaeus says, the knowledge of Him—to take flesh rather than the Father, Who, since He is the first person, neither arises from nor is sent by any other; so it befitted the Son rather than the Father to prelude His future incarnation by those frequent apparitions, and from the beginning to take care for the salvation of the men whom He was afterwards to redeem with His own blood. For He did not undertake this care then for the first time when He came in mortal flesh, as we have more than once heard Irenaeus saying, but from the beginning and from the fall of man. And the reason why the Son was solicitous from the beginning for the salvation of men, and so often came forth, as it were, in public for the sake of manifesting both the Father and Himself, was that such was the will of the Father. "For the Son, ministering to the Father, accomplishes all things from the beginning even to the end, and without Him no one can know God;" and "the Son accomplishes the good pleasure of the Father." And if you ask of Irenaeus why the Son, ministering all things to the Father, accomplishes the good pleasure of the Father, he will give this reason with all Catholics: "For the Father sends, and the Son is sent and comes." Now the Father sends the Son because He is the principle of the Son, and begets Him; and the Son is sent because He proceeds from the Father as from a principle, and is begotten by Him. Furthermore, just as it is honourable to the Father to beget and send the Son, so it is no less honourable to the Son to be sent and begotten; and this mission argues no disparity of substance in either. "For it behoved not the Begetter," says Augustine in Book 3 Against Maximinus, Chapter 14, "to be sent by Him Whom He begot, but the Begotten to be sent by the Begetter; yet this is not an inequality of substance, but the order of nature; not that the one was prior to the other, but that the one was from the other."

59. Ex dictis etiam facile colliges quo sensu plus semel dixerit Irenaeus, Patrem Verbo suo praecepisse ut mundum crearet, Filium et Spiritum

59. From what has been said you will also easily gather in what sense Irenaeus said more than once that the Father commanded His Word to create the world, that the Son and the Holy

Editors' notes and page, col. 307

Footnotes

(41) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 307› · call in col 307

Iren., c. 20, n. 7.

Irenaeus, chapter 20, no. 7.

(printed under page 160)

(42) ‹anchor: Patris Filius perficit› · call in col 307

Cap. 6, n. 7 et 3.

Chapter 6, nos. 7 and 3.

(printed under page 160)

(43) ‹anchor: dixerit Irenaeus› · call in col 307

Lib. III, c. 8, n. 3; lib. IV, c. 7, n. 4; Ibid., c. 38, n. 3.

Book III, chapter 8, no. 3; Book IV, chapter 7, no. 4; same book, chapter 38, no. 3.

(printed under page 160)

Page

running head: 307 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A dum se; B tia, frequentesque; C suscepit, cum; D quia a
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: conspicien-dum

PG 7:308

sanctum in rebus condendis Patri ministrasse; hominem factum esse, Patre quidem bene sentiente et jubente, Filio vero ministrante et jubente; Spiritu autem nutriente, et augente, et alia ejusmodi. Nempe Pater Filio et Spiritui sancto jubet ac praecipit, non tanquam superior ac Dominus inferioribus ac subditis, sed tanquam aequalis aequalibus, consubstantialis consubstantialibus, coaeternus coaeternis, sine quibus facere nihil potest; imo Filio et Spiritui sancto imperat Pater, tanquam sibi ipsi. Neque enim alias Filium et Spiritum sanctum a Patre distinguit, quam persona et subsistentia, non certe natura et substantia, quam unam et eamdem in tribus agnoscit et confitetur. Id clare et absque ambagibus demonstrat lib. II, c. 30, n. 9, aliisque locis jam a nobis citatis. Illud vero ministerium quod Patri praestitere Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quam immensum ab eo distet, quod vel minimam subjectionis ac servitutis umbram adjunctam habeat, demonstrat S. doctor lib. IV, c. 7, n. 4, ubi illud vocat « copiosum et inenarrabile ministerium. Ministrat enim ei, » addit, « progenies et figuratio sua, id est Filius et Spiritus sanctus, Verbum et Sapientia, quibus serviunt, et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. » Sic ergo ministrant Patri Filius et Spiritus sanctus, ut ministerium illud inenarrabile sit, et infinito a se removeat intervallo ideas omnes, quas in humanis adjunctas secum habet. Sic ministrant, ut alter sit ipsa progenies Patris, alter figuratio et imago Filii (hanc enim vocem, figuratio sua, ad Filium refero, ut in notis in hunc locum explicui); non ergo tanquam servi hero, sed tanquam progenies principio a quo procedit, et ejusdem cum eo dignitatis. Sic denique ministrant, ut iis serviant et subditi sint angeli. Atqui eo nomine Filio et Spiritui sancto serviunt angeli, quod hi ab iis conditi sint, ut explicat auctor lib. III, c. 8, n. 3, iis proinde infinite minores.

Spirit ministered to the Father in creating things; that man was made, the Father indeed approving and commanding, the Son ministering and commanding, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing, and other things of this sort. Namely, the Father commands and enjoins the Son and the Holy Spirit, not as a superior and Lord commands inferiors and subjects, but as an equal commands equals, the consubstantial the consubstantial, the co-eternal the co-eternal, without Whom He can do nothing; nay, the Father commands the Son and the Holy Spirit as He does Himself. For He does not distinguish the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Father otherwise than in person and subsistence, certainly not in nature and substance, which He acknowledges and confesses to be one and the same in the Three. This he demonstrates clearly and without ambiguity in Book 2, Chapter 30, n. 9, and in other passages already cited by us. And how immensely that ministry which the Son and the Holy Spirit rendered to the Father differs from one that has even the slightest shadow of subjection and servitude attached to it, the holy doctor demonstrates in Book 4, Chapter 7, n. 4, where he calls it "an abundant and unutterable ministry. For there ministers to Him," he adds, "His own offspring and His own figuration, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, Whom all the angels serve and to Whom they are subject." Thus, therefore, do the Son and the Holy Spirit minister to the Father, in such a way that that ministry is unutterable, and removes from itself by an infinite interval all the notions that it has attached to itself in human affairs. They minister in such a way that the one is the very offspring of the Father, the other the figuration and image of the Son (for I refer this expression, His own figuration, to the Son, as I have explained in the notes on this passage); not therefore as servants to a master, but as offspring to the principle from which it proceeds, and of the same dignity with it. Finally, They minister in such a way that the angels serve Them and are subject to Them. Now the angels serve the Son and the Holy Spirit on this account, that they were created by Them, as the author explains in Book 3, Chapter 8, n. 3, and are consequently infinitely inferior to Them.

60. Sed his et similibus loquendi modis Gnosticorum vesaniam retundit Irenaeus. Hi enim mundum hunc aspectabilem ab inferioribus angelis, vel a Virtute aliqua longe absistente a Patre universorum, ipso Patre vel inscio, vel invito, conditum esse blasphemabant, ut ex toto lib. I, et initio libri II constat. Hinc ad profligandum illud impietatis monstrum tam saepe urget, omnia, praecipiente ac jubente Patre, per Filium et Spiritum sanctum condita esse : ut nimirum inde conficiat, nec inscio, nec invito Patre condita esse. Hinc tam frequenter inculcat, Verbum et Spiritum sanctum Patri ministrasse, ut inde concludat, nec Angelis, nec Virtutibus inferioribus ab ejus natura et sententia alienis et remotis indiguisse : utpote qui habeat ex sese copiosum et inenarrabile ministerium, progeniem et figurationem suam; habuerit semper suas manus, Verbum et Sapientiam, Filium et Spiritum sanctum, per quos sibi coexsistentes,

60. Now by these and similar modes of speaking Irenaeus beats back the madness of the Gnostics. For they blasphemously alleged that this visible world was created by lower angels, or by some Power far removed from the Father of all, the Father Himself being either ignorant or unwilling, as is established from the whole of Book 1 and the beginning of Book 2. Hence, in order to rout that monster of impiety, he so often urges that all things were created through the Son and the Holy Spirit at the command and bidding of the Father: in order, namely, to establish therefrom that they were created neither without the knowledge nor against the will of the Father. Hence he so frequently inculcates that the Word and the Holy Spirit ministered to the Father, in order to conclude therefrom that He stood in need neither of Angels nor of inferior Powers foreign to and remote from His nature and mind: inasmuch as He has from Himself an abundant and unutterable ministry, His own offspring and His own figuration, and always had His own hands, the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Holy Spirit, through Whom, co-existing,

Editors' notes and page, col. 308

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 308
marginal letters: A sanctum in; B nobis citatis.; C imago Filii; D lib. I, et
old-edition numerals: CXXXIII before 60.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: coex-

PG 7:309

coaeternos et consubstantiales, et in quibus, non invitus, nulla necessitate coactus, sed sciens et volens, omnia libere et sponte fecit; non aliunde, non extra semetipsum, sed ipse a semetipso, in voluntate sua, in Verbo et Sapientia sua, substantiam creaturarum, et exemplum factorum, et figuram in mundo ornamentorum accipiens, ut loquitur lib. IV, c. 20, n. 1. Ea omnia satis patent ex hactenus allegatis Irenaei testimoniis, adeo ut eadem hic repetere nihil necesse sit.

co-eternal, and consubstantial with Himself, and in Whom, not unwillingly, nor compelled by any necessity, but knowingly and willingly, He made all things freely and of His own accord; not from elsewhere, not outside Himself, but Himself from Himself, in His own will, in His Word and His Wisdom, taking the substance of the creatures, and the pattern of the things made, and the figure of the adornments in the world, as he says in Book 4, Chapter 20, n. 1. All these things are sufficiently clear from the testimonies of Irenaeus thus far alleged, so that there is no need to repeat them here.

61. Unum superest expendendum, an Irenaeus extremi judicii ignorationem Filio Dei tribuerit. Et id enim sanctissimo martyri ascribitur; sed perperam omnino. Gnosticos quidem perstringens scribit lib. II, c. 28, n. 6. « Irrationabiliter autem inflati, audaciter Dei mysteria scire vos dicitis : quandoquidem et Dominus, ipse Filius Dei, ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem, manifeste dicens : De die autem illa, et hora nemo scit, neque Filius, nisi Pater solus. Si igitur scientiam diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem, sed dixit quod verum est; neque nos erubescamus, quae sunt in quaestionibus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo. Nemo enim super magistrum est. » Ubi ipsi Dei Filio ignorantiam ascribere prima fronte videtur auctor : adeo ut vana sit Georgii Bulli solutio, qua contendit Christo homini tantum ignorantiam tribuisse Irenaeum : hic enim de Filio Dei diserte agit. Quanquam et dum Christo homini ignorationem ascribi posse cum Protestantibus multis tuetur Bullus, in eumque sensum Irenaeum explicare satagit, aliam ei labem aspergit. Sed missa hacce controversia, quae extra institutum est, illud fidenter assevero, quod quisquis praesens, quod nunc versamus, caput ea, qua par est, animi attentione legerit, totiusque Irenaei argumentationis seriem et scopum adverterit, e vestigio deprehendet, nullam prorsus ignorantiam hic affingi Christo Domino.

61. One point remains to be weighed: whether Irenaeus attributed ignorance of the last judgement to the Son of God. For this too is ascribed to the most holy martyr, but altogether wrongly. Censuring the Gnostics indeed, he writes in Book 2, Chapter 28, n. 6: "But being unreasonably puffed up, you audaciously say that you know the mysteries of God: seeing that even the Lord, the very Son of God, granted that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgement, manifestly saying: But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the Son, save the Father alone (Mark 13:32). If, therefore, the Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, but said what is true, neither let us be ashamed to reserve to God those things in questions which are too great for us. For no one is above his master (Matt. 10:24)." Where at first sight the author seems to ascribe ignorance to the very Son of God: so that the solution of George Bull is vain, whereby he contends that Irenaeus attributed ignorance only to Christ as man; for here he expressly treats of the Son of God. Although even while Bull maintains with many Protestants that ignorance can be ascribed to Christ as man, and busies himself to explain Irenaeus in that sense, he casts another blemish upon him. But setting aside this controversy, which is outside our purpose, I confidently affirm this: that whoever reads the present chapter with which we are now dealing with due attention of mind, and observes the train and aim of Irenaeus's whole argumentation, will forthwith perceive that no ignorance whatever is here imputed to Christ the Lord.

62. Scilicet Irenaeus, ut dixi, Gnosticorum impudentiam castigat, qui vanae scientiae laudem captantes, insanam sibi de rebus omnibus, ipsis etiam profundioribus Christianae religionis mysteriis, quale est divini Verbi generatio, disserendi, novaque rerum tum divinarum, tum humanarum systemata pro arbitrio condendi licentiam sumebant. Ubi vero probavit certam esse in Scripturis divinis veritatis regulam, ad quam sic exigi debeant quaestiones, quas de rebus divinis agitare sinit religio, ut ab illa nusquam deflectere liceat; ostendit plura tamen esse in Scripturis, licet ex sese perfectis, quae angustos mentis nostrae limites longissime superant, quaeque proinde, cum sciri a nobis non possint, Deo humiliter committenda sunt, nec temere scrutanda. Nec mirum esse, si in spiritalibus, et coelestibus, quae sola fide percipi possunt, caecutiamus : cum ipsae res naturales, ob oculos

62. Namely, Irenaeus, as I have said, chastises the shamelessness of the Gnostics, who,courting the praise of vain knowledge, took to themselves a mad licence to discourse about all things, even the deeper mysteries of the Christian religion themselves, such as the generation of the divine Word, and to construct at their own pleasure new systems of things both divine and human. And when he has proved that there is in the divine Scriptures a certain rule of truth, by which the questions that religion permits us to discuss concerning divine things must be so tested that it is never lawful to swerve from it, he shows that there are nevertheless many things in the Scriptures, aunque perfect in themselves, which far surpass the narrow limits of our mind, and which therefore, since they cannot be known by us, must be humbly committed to God, and not rashly scrutinized. And that it is no wonder if in spiritual and heavenly things, which can be perceived by faith alone, we are dim-sighted, since natural things themselves, set before our eyes,

Editors' notes and page, col. 309

Footnotes

(44) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 309› · call in col 309

Marc. XIII, 32.

Mark 13:32.

(printed under page 161)

(45) ‹anchor: super magistrum est› · call in col 309

Matth. X, 24.

Matthew 10:24.

(printed under page 161)

(46) ‹anchor: Georgii Bulli› · call in col 309

Def. fid. Nic., sect. II, c. V, § 8.

Defensio fidei Nicaenae, section II, chapter 5, § 8.

(printed under page 161)

Page

running head: 309 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A sistentes, coaeternos; B inflati, audaciter; C quam et; D vaque rerum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: coex-sistentes

PG 7:310

positae, scientiam nostram plerumque fugiant. Hinc concludit insanos esse haereticos, qui aeternam divini Verbi generationem, aliaque ejusmodi profundissima mysteria investigare et explicare moliebantur : in eoque tam graviter labi, quod superbiae typho elati, nihil Deo reservarent, sed omnia temere scrutari vellent. Tum ut haereticorum vesaniam magis ac magis confundat, ab ipsius Christi Filii Dei exemplo argumentum a majori ad minus petit. Si, inquit Dominus, ipse Filius Dei judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem, scientiamque diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem : cur nos, Dei Filio infinite minores, erubescamus, quae sunt in quaestionibus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo? Nemo enim super magistrum est. Qua quidem argumentandi ratione id unum conficere vult sanctus doctor, Christum, oeconomiae causa, judicii diem et horam concessisse scire solum Patrem : non quod ipse nesciret, sed quod ejusmodi scientiam ad Patrem, a quo ipse eam cum ipsa divinitate acceperat, referendam esse vellet, ab eoque duntaxat exspectandam esse diei illius notitiam. Quamvis enim eam ipse haberet, cum aliis tamen communicare nolebat, idve explicare, quod Pater (a quo loquebatur, et a quo mandatum acceperat, quid diceret, et quid loqueretur, ut ait Joan. XII, 49) taceri voluerat : ut nimirum exemplo suo doceret quaedam esse Deo humiliter reservanda, nec ea temere a nobis explicanda esse, quae Deus abdita esse voluit. Sic mentem paulo post, nempe n. 8, explicat auctor noster : « Si quis, ait, exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est; neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorem, nec sine periculo alteram, quam hanc, inveniat in praesenti (quoniam enim solus verax magister est Dominus) : ut discamus per ipsum, super omnia esse Patrem. Etenim Pater, ait, major me est. Et secundum agnitionem itaque praepositus esse Pater annuntiatus est a Domino nostro ad hoc, ut et nos, in quantum in figura hujus mundi sumus, perfectam scientiam, et tales quaestiones concedamus Deo : et ne forte quaerentes altitudinem Patris investigare, in tantum periculum incidamus, uti quaeramus, an super Deum alter sit Deus. » Observa 1° nusquam Irenaeum simpliciter asserere, solum Patrem scire diem et horam, sed solum scire diem et horam a Domino manifestatum esse; Dominum judicii diem et horam concessisse scire solum Patrem, etc. 2° S. doctorem palam profiteri, in omnibus Patrem communicare Filio. Qui in omnibus communicare dicit, nihil prorsus excipit, ne quidem scientiam diei et horae extremi judicii. 3° Auctori nostro propositum non fuisse quaestionem hanc ex professo pertractare, an revera solus Pater sciret diem et horam extremi judicii, Filius vero

for the most part elude our knowledge. Hence he concludes that the heretics are mad who endeavoured to investigate and explain the eternal generation of the divine Word and other most profound mysteries of that sort, and that they fall so grievously herein because, puffed up with the pride of arrogance, they reserved nothing to God, but wished rashly to scrutinize all things. Then, in order to confound the madness of the heretics more and more, he draws an argument from the greater to the less from the example of Christ the Son of God Himself. If, he says, the Lord, the very Son of God, granted that the Father alone knows the day and hour of judgement, and the Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, why should we, who are infinitely inferior to the Son of God, be ashamed to reserve to God those things in questions which are too great for us? For no one is above his master. By which mode of arguing the holy doctor wishes to establish this one thing: that Christ, for the sake of the dispensation (oeconomia), granted that the Father alone knows the day and hour of judgement—not that He Himself did not know it, but that He wished knowledge of that sort to be referred to the Father, from Whom He Himself had received it together with the divinity itself, and that the knowledge of that day was to be awaited from Him alone. For although He Himself had it, yet He did not wish to communicate it to others, or to explain what the Father (from Whom He spoke, and from Whom He had received a commandment what He should say and what He should speak, as He says in John 12:49) had willed to be kept silent: in order, namely, to teach by His own example that certain things are to be humbly reserved to God, and that those things which God willed to be hidden are not to be rashly explained by us. Thus our author explains his mind a little later, namely in n. 8: "If anyone," he says, "inquires into the reason why the Father, communicating in all things to the Son, was manifested by the Lord as alone knowing the hour and the day, he will find at present neither a more fitting, nor a more becoming, nor any other safe reason than this (for the Lord alone is a true Master): that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For the Father, He says, is greater than I (John 14:28). Wherefore the Father was announced by our Lord as having pre-eminence according to knowledge also, to this end, that we too, so long as we are in the fashion of this world, may yield perfect knowledge and such questions to God, and lest perchance, seeking to investigate the depth of the Father, we fall into so great a danger as to inquire whether above God there is another God." Observe, first, that Irenaeus nowhere simply asserts that the Father alone knows the day and the hour, but that He was manifested by the Lord as alone knowing the day and the hour; that the Lord granted that the Father alone knows the day and hour of judgement, etc. Secondly, that the holy doctor openly professes that the Father communicates in all things to the Son. He who says that He communicates in all things excepts nothing whatever, not even the knowledge of the day and hour of the last judgement. Thirdly, that it was not our author's purpose professedly to treat this question, whether in reality the Father alone knew the day and hour of the last judgement, while the Son

Editors' notes and page, col. 310

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: major me est› · call in col 310

Joan. XIV, 28.

John 14:28.

(printed under page 161)

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 310
marginal letters: A positae, scientiam; B gistrum est.; C canda esse,; D gare, in
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:311

absolute nesciret; sed de ea agere duntaxat, quantum sufficeret in praesenti seu quantum ad argumentum praesens conduceret. Atqui argumentum praesens erat, exquirere causam, propter quam in omnibus, et in ipsa rerum omnium, ac diei judicii scientia, Pater communicans Filio, solus tamen scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est. Quomodo enim « verax magister Dominus, verum dicens, » id referre potuit ad solum Patrem, quod tamen commune habeat cum Patre? Cui quaestioni respondet, meliorem nullam « in praesenti » rationem afferri posse, quam id oeconomiae et exempli causa factum esse a Christo, « ut discamus per ipsum, super omnia esse Patrem, perfectamque scientiam, et tales quaestiones concedendas esse Deo, ne forte quaerentes altitudinem Patris investigare, in periculum incidamus. » Etenim Pater, ait ipse Christus, major me est; et secundum agnitionem praepositus esse Pater a Domino annuntiatus est : non quod Pater major natura sit, aut minor sit agnitio Filii; Spiritus siquidem Salvatoris, qui in eo est, scrutatur omnia, et altitudines Dei; semperque coexsistens Deo proprium ejus Verbum, omnium experientiam et cogitationem, infinitamque scientiam habet, ut Deus ipse, ac Patrem suum perfecte cognoscit, ejusque mensura est, quoniam et capit, ut Irenaeum supra dicentem audivimus; sed quod Pater ordine et origine prior sit, primum omnium, ipsiusque Filii principium; cui omnia, ut naturam, sic et scientiam, accepta refert Filius; cui denique omnia, ut auctori suo concedit, nihil quidquam sive agere, sive loqui et revelare praeter ejus voluntatem volens : ad hoc ut et nos, Deo in infinitum minores, Christi exemplo discamus perfectam scientiam, abstrusasque quaestiones Deo concedere, nec ea temere scrutari quae latere nos voluit. Uno verbo totius Irenaei argumentationis summa huc redit : Si ipse Dominus, Dei Filius, Verbum Patris, cui in omnibus communicat Pater, cujus Spiritus qui in eo est id est, divinus intellectus, scrutatur omnia, ipsas etiam altitudines Dei, quem proinde latere non potest quod de die et hora extremi judicii statuit Pater; illius tamen diei scientiam retulit ad Patrem, eique concessit, nec id explicare et reserare voluit, quod reserare non sinebat voluntas Patris : a fortiori nos qui super terram degimus, quibus divisiones duntaxat gratiarum sunt, et divisiones ministeriorum et divisiones operationum, quique ex parte cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus; de universis quaestionibus concedere oportet ei, qui ex parte nobis praestat gratiam, ut paulo ante dixit, nec id explicare aut investigare niti, quod in sapientiae suae thesauris delitescere voluit Deus. Quod quidem argumenti genus quam catholicum, et ab Ariana impietate remotum, quisquis aequus rerum aestimator facile videt.

was absolutely ignorant of it; but to deal with it only so far as sufficed at present, or so far as conduced to the present argument. Now the present argument was to inquire into the reason why, although the Father communicates to the Son in all things, and in the very knowledge of all things and of the day of judgement, He was nevertheless manifested by the Lord as alone knowing the hour and the day. For how could "the Lord, the true Master, speaking the truth," refer to the Father alone that which He nevertheless has in common with the Father? To which question he replies that no better reason can be given "at present" than that this was done by Christ for the sake of the dispensation and for an example, "that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things, and that perfect knowledge and such questions are to be yielded to God, lest perchance, seeking to investigate the depth of the Father, we fall into danger." For the Father, says Christ Himself, is greater than I; and the Father was announced by the Lord as having pre-eminence according to knowledge also: not that the Father is greater in nature, or that the knowledge of the Son is less—for the Spirit of the Saviour, which is in Him, searches all things, even the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:10); and His own Word, ever co-existing with God, has the experience and thought of all things, and infinite knowledge, as God Himself, and perfectly knows His Father, and is His measure, since He also comprehends Him, as we heard Irenaeus saying above—but because the Father is prior in order and origin, the first of all, and the principle of the Son Himself; to Whom the Son refers all things, both nature and knowledge, as received; to Whom, finally, as to His Author, He yields all things, willing neither to do anything whatever, nor to speak and reveal anything, apart from His will: to the end that we too, who are infinitely inferior to God, may learn by the example of Christ to yield perfect knowledge and abstruse questions to God, and not rashly to scrutinize the things that He willed to be hidden from us. In a word, the sum of Irenaeus's whole argumentation comes to this: If the Lord Himself, the Son of God, the Word of the Father, to Whom the Father communicates in all things, Whose Spirit that is in Him, that is, the divine intellect, searches all things, even the very depths of God, and from Whom consequently what the Father has determined concerning the day and hour of the last judgement cannot be hidden, nevertheless referred the knowledge of that day to the Father, and yielded it to Him, and would not explain and unlock that which the will of the Father did not permit to be unlocked: how much more ought we who dwell upon the earth, to whom there are only diversities of graces, and diversities of ministries, and diversities of operations (1 Cor. 12:4–6), and who know in part and prophesy in part (1 Cor. 13:9), to yield concerning all questions to Him Who bestows grace upon us in part, as he said a little before, and not strive to explain or investigate that which God willed to lie hidden in the treasures of His wisdom! How Catholic indeed this kind of argument is, and how remote from Arian impiety, any fair judge of things easily sees.

Editors' notes and page, col. 311

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor: altitudines Dei› · call in col 311

I Cor. II, 10.

1 Corinthians 2:10.

(printed under page 162)

(49) ‹anchor: paulo ante dixit› · call in col 311

I Cor. XII, 5.

1 Corinthians 12:5.

(printed under page 162)

Page

running head: 311 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A absolute nesciret;; B concedendas esse; C principium; cui; D Patrem, eique
old-edition numerals: CXXXIV before propter
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:312

63. Jam, puto, nullus, nisi quis perfrictae frontis Socinianus, negabit, quin Irenaei de Verbi et Spiritus sancti divinitate et cum Patre consubstantialitate fides cum Nicaena et Constantinopolitana ad apicem consentiat. Nemo etiam deinceps sine stomacho leget apud Centuriatores Magdeburgenses, « ita obscure et perplexe non raro vocabulo Verbi, seu τοῦ Λόγου uti Irenaeum : ut videatur non perspicue inter Verbum substantiale, et verbum vocale, seu oris distinguere. » Profecto qui haec scribebant, Irenaei libros vel nunquam, vel lippis oculis legerant. Huic refutandae calumniae Irenaeique fidei vindicandae plus quam sufficiunt ea omnia quae hactenus diximus. Paulo latius adhuc exspatiari potuissemus, et argumenta multa ab iis petere, quae fuse disserit auctor noster lib. III, c. 16, et seqq. In iis enim totus est ut probet contra Gnosticos, unum et eumdem esse Jesum Christum, unigenitum Dei Filium, verum Deum ac verum hominem, ubi cum primis ad id conficiendum utitur eo Apostoli testimonio, Rom. IX, 5 : Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula. Sed forte cum lectorum fastidio factum fuisset : quare maluimus Irenaeum ipsum legi. Aliud est quod conqueruntur citati Centuriatores, « de Spiritu sancto rarius loqui » Irenaeum. Paulo quidem rarius de Spiritu sancto, quam de Verbo loquitur : ratus videlicet satis esse, ut ipse profitetur lib. I, c. 9, si funditus eversa prava distinctione, quam inter Unigenitum, Verbum, Salvatorem, Christum, etc., interponebant Valentiniani, prima eorum ogdoas, a qua veluti religata pendebat tota Pleromatis Valentiniani moles, dirueretur; hac enim eversa ruere totam hypothesim necessum esse. Unde in hanc concutiendam distinctionem, statuendamque Verbi cum Unigenito ταυτότητα, eamdemque illius cum Patre naturam et divinitatem, salva distinctione personarum, tota fere argumentorum moles incumbit. Non tamen adeo raro de Spiritu sancto loquitur, quin ex iis, quae identidem disserit, liquido pateat, verum Deum, Patri et Filio coaequalem, coaeternum et consubstantialem ab eo censeri. Id perspicue demonstrant ea, quae supra retulimus, sanctissimi martyris loca et argumenta. Hinc eum Dei manum appellat, indeque concludit Patri semper coexstitisse, et ante res omnes conditas fuisse; quod et ex libro Proverbiorum probat. Hinc eum in opere creationis cum Patre et Filio consociat. Creationis autem opus ita divinum esse, Deique solius proprium jure merito credit, ut ex eo quod per Verbum constituta sint omnia, inferat, non tantum a Verbo infinite distare angelos, archangelos, aliasque res creatas; sed et illud infectum esse, sine initio, sine fine, solumque cum Patre juste dici Deum ac Dominum : caetera omnia, ex eo quod creata sint, initium habuisse. dissolvi

63. Now, I think, no one, unless he be some shameless-browed Socinian, will deny that the faith of Irenaeus concerning the divinity of the Word and of the Holy Spirit and Their consubstantiality with the Father agrees to a tittle with the Nicene and Constantinopolitan faith. Nor henceforth will anyone read without indignation in the Magdeburg Centuriators that "Irenaeus not seldom uses the word Word, or ὁ Λόγος, so obscurely and perplexingly that he seems not clearly to distinguish between the substantial Word and the vocal word, or word of the mouth." Assuredly those who wrote these things had either never read the books of Irenaeus, or had read them with blear eyes. To refute this calumny and to vindicate the faith of Irenaeus, all that we have said thus far is more than sufficient. We could have digressed a little more widely still, and drawn many arguments from the things that our author discusses at length in Book III, Chapter 16 et seqq. For in those chapters he is wholly occupied in proving against the Gnostics that Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, true God and true man, is one and the same, where among the foremost proofs to establish this he uses that testimony of the Apostle in Rom. 9:5: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever. But perhaps this would have been done to the weariness of the readers; wherefore we have preferred that Irenaeus himself be read. There is another thing of which the cited Centuriators complain: that Irenaeus "speaks rather rarely of the Holy Spirit." He does indeed speak a little more rarely of the Holy Spirit than of the Word: judging, namely, that it was enough, as he himself professes in Book I, Chapter 9, if, by utterly overthrowing the perverse distinction which the Valentinians interposed between the Only-begotten, the Word, the Saviour, Christ, etc., their first Ogdoad, from which the whole mass of the Valentinian Pleroma hung as though bound to it, should be demolished; for when this was overthrown, the whole hypothesis must needs collapse. Whence almost the whole weight of his arguments rests upon shaking this distinction, and establishing the ταυτότης (identity) of the Word with the Only-begotten, and His same nature and divinity with the Father, saving the distinction of persons. Yet he does not speak so rarely of the Holy Spirit that from the things which he repeatedly discusses it does not clearly appear that He is accounted by him true God, co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The passages and arguments of the most holy martyr that we have related above clearly demonstrate this. Hence he calls Him the hand of God, and concludes therefrom that He always co-existed with the Father, and existed before all created things, which he also proves from the book of Proverbs. Hence he associates Him with the Father and the Son in the work of creation. Now he rightly and deservedly believes the work of creation to be so divine, and proper to God alone, that from the fact that all things were established through the Word he infers not only that angels, archangels, and other created things are infinitely distant from the Word, but also that He is uncreated, without beginning, without end, and alone with the Father is justly called God and Lord; whereas all other things, from the fact that they were created, had a beginning, can be dissolved,

Editors' notes and page, col. 312

Footnotes

(50) ‹anchor: Centuriatores Magdeburgenses› · call in col 312

Centur. II, cap. 10, in fin.

Centuries [of Magdeburg], II, chapter 10, at the end.

(printed under page 162)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 312
marginal letters: A 63. Jam,; B petere, quae; C eversa prava; D sanctissimi martyris
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin text with Greek words quoted inline (no facing Greek column); editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:313

posse, subjecta esse, neque juste Dei voca⟨b⟩ulum sumere posse, quod est Creatoris. Quod argumentum vel nihil omnino probat, vel invicte probat Spiritum sanctum, ex Irenaei sententia, non minus verum Deum esse, infectum, sine initio, sine fine, nulli subjectum, etc., quam ipsum Verbum: utpote qui non minus manus Patris fuerit, nec minus ad res creandas operam contulerit, quam ipsum Verbum. Sed cui praedicta omnia sufficere non videbuntur, legat quod Irenaeus lib. V, c. 12, n. 2, scribit. Hoc omne exceptionis genus praeclusum iri confido. Ibi distinguit Irenaeus inter « afflatum vitae, qui et animalem efficit hominem, et Spiritum vivificantem, qui et spiritalem efficit hominem. » « Et propter hoc, inquit, Isaias ait: Sic ⟨d⟩icit Dominus, qui fecit coelum, et fixit illud, qui firmavit terram, et quae in ea sunt; et dedit afflatum populo, qui super eam est, et spiritum his qui calcant illam. Afflatum quidem communiter omni, qui super terram est, populo dicens datum: Spiritum autem proprie his, qui inculcant (id est conculcant) terrenas concupiscentias. Propter quod rursus ipse Isaias distinguens quae praedicta sunt, ait: Spiritus enim a me exiet, et afflatum omnem ego feci. Spiritum quidem proprie in Deo (ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, hic verti debuisset, in Deum) deputans quem in novissimis temporibus effudit per adoptionem filiorum in genus humanum: afflatum autem communiter in conditionem, et facturam ostendens illum. Aliud autem est quod factum est, ab eo qui fecit. Afflatus igitur temporalis; Spiritus autem sempiternus, » etc. Hic ex Isaiae verbis probat Irenaeus, latissimum discrimen Spiritum inter et afflatum interponendum esse: « Spiritum quidem » ab Isaia « proprie in Deum deputari, » τὸ πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας, τοῦ ἐκχέοντος αὐτό, id est in eodem ordine, gradu, dignitate et natura constitui, cujus est is, qui effudit eum, Deus: « afflatum autem communiter in conditionem » ab eo deputari, « et facturam ostendi; » tantumque differre afflatum a Spiritu, quantum differt quod factum est, ab eo qui fecit; ac proinde afflatum temporalem esse, initium habuisse, creatumque fuisse; Spiritum vero sempiternum esse, sine initio, conditorem ac verum Deum. Erit forte qui minus feliciter Isaiae loca ab Irenaeo explicata esse obtendat; sed hic de genuino Isaiae sensu non disputamus; id tantum jure merito contendimus, sic ab auctore nostro expositum esse prophetam, ut ex verbis ejus intulerit, Spiritum sanctum verum esse Deum, ei consubstantialem a quo in humanum genus effusus est.

can, are subject, and cannot justly take the name of God, which belongs to the Creator. This argument either proves nothing at all, or proves invincibly that the Holy Spirit, in the judgement of Irenaeus, is no less true God, unmade, without beginning, without end, subject to no one, etc., than the Word Himself: inasmuch as He was no less the hand of the Father, and contributed His work to the creating of things no less than the Word Himself. But let anyone to whom all that has been said does not seem enough read what Irenaeus writes in Book V, chapter 12, number 2. I am confident that every kind of objection will be shut out by it. There Irenaeus distinguishes between "the breath of life, which makes man animal, and the life-giving Spirit, which makes him spiritual." "And on this account," he says, "Isaiah says: Thus says the Lord, Who made heaven and fixed it, Who established the earth and the things that are in it, and gave breath to the people who are upon it, and spirit to those who tread it. Saying that the breath is given in common to all the people who are upon the earth, but the Spirit properly to those who tread down (that is, trample on) earthly desires. Wherefore again Isaiah himself, distinguishing the things said above, says: For the Spirit shall go forth from Me, and every breath I have made. Assigning the Spirit properly in God (ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ should here have been rendered 'to God'), Whom in the last times He poured out upon the human race through the adoption of sons; but showing the breath to belong in common to the creation, and to be a thing made. Now what is made is other than He Who made it. The breath, therefore, is temporal; but the Spirit is everlasting," etc. Here Irenaeus proves from the words of Isaiah that the widest difference is to be placed between the Spirit and the breath: that "the Spirit," by Isaiah, "is assigned properly to God," "ranking the Spirit properly with God, Who pours it out," that is, is set in the same order, rank, dignity and nature as He Who poured Him out, God; but that "the breath" is by him "assigned in common to the creation, and shown to be a thing made"; and that the breath differs from the Spirit as much as what is made differs from Him Who made it; and therefore that the breath is temporal, had a beginning, and was created; but the Spirit is everlasting, without beginning, Creator and true God. There may perhaps be someone who will allege that the passages of Isaiah are explained by Irenaeus not very happily; but we are not here disputing about the genuine sense of Isaiah; this only do we rightly and deservedly contend, that the prophet was so expounded by our author that he inferred from his words that the Holy Spirit is true God, consubstantial with Him by Whom He was poured out upon the human race.

ARTICULUS VI.

ARTICLE VI.

De mysterio Incarnationis, Christi nativitate, baptismo, et descensu ad inferos, ac B. Mariae Virginis dignitate et intercessione.

On the mystery of the Incarnation, Christ's nativity, baptism and descent into hell, and the dignity and intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Editors' notes and page, col. 313

Footnotes

(51) ‹anchor: Isaias› · call in col 313

Cap. 42, 5.

Chapter 42:5 [of Isaiah].

(printed under page 163)

(52) ‹anchor: Isaias› · call in col 313

Cap. 57, 16.

Chapter 57:16 [of Isaiah].

(printed under page 163)

Page

running head: 313 DISSERTATIO III. DE IRENA
marginal letters: A posse, subjecta; B minus, qui; C 64. Operam,; D hunc vero
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); full-width heading between § 63 and § 64 cut off at right edge (ARTICULUS / De mysterio Incarnationis, Christi nativitate, b / B. Mariae Virginis dignitate e) not set; word split at break at foot of col: ve-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 313/314 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 314 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 313 (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 word verum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 314
running head: 313 DISSERTATIO III. DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 314
marginal letters: A ‹posse, subjecta esse› / ‹in novissimis temporibus›; B ‹minus, qui fecit coelum› / ‹factum est, ab eo qui fecit›; C ‹64. Operam, mea quidem› / ‹rum Deum, qui›; D ‹hunc vero in eum› / ‹« et filium hominis› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CXXXV after ‹afflatum› (col 314)
other (Q3b): call 51 stands after the first Isaias (« Et propter hoc, inquit, Isaias ait »), call 52 after the second (« ipse Isaias distinguens »); both are visible on the page, not above the crop

PG 7:314

64. Operam, mea quidem sententia, luderet, qui sanam esse et orthodoxam Irenaei de mysterio Incarnationis doctrinam longa dissertatione demonstrandum sibi putaret. Scripta siquidem per se loquuntur, et quisquis ea legerit, quae auctor libro praesertim tertio, a cap. 16 usque ad 24 disputat, non minus accurate scripsisse fatebitur, quam si post Pauli Samosateni, Photini, Nestorii et Eutychetis tempora vixisset. Haeretici quibuscum conflictabatur, Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum verum Deum et verum hominem esse negabant; sed Jesum a Christo impie dividentes, alii illum meram hominis larvam exstitisse, quae per Mariam, velut per canalem transierat; alii, more caeterorum hominum, ex Josephi et Mariae satu genitum esse: hunc vero in eum, tum cum baptismo tingendus esset, devolasse, mox revolaturum, cum crucifigendus esset, blasphemabant. Haec errorum monstra citatis capitibus ut profliget Irenaeus, totus est, ut probet unum et eumdem esse Jesum Christum, Verbum Dei, Deum super omnia, Unigenitum Dei Filium, verum Deum ac verum hominem: verum Deum, qui « in principio Verbum exsistens apud Deum, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper aderat generi humano, » quique « in novissimis temporibus, secundum praefinitum tempus a Patre, unitus suo plasmati, passibilis homo factus fuerit: » adeo ut « exclusa sit omnis contradictio dicentium: Si ergo tunc natus est, non erat ergo ante Christus; non » enim « tunc coepit Filius Dei exsistens semper apud Patrem; sed quando incarnatus est, et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem praestans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus. » Verum Deum « Christum Filium Dei vivi, » eumdem esse « et filium hominis. Quoniam enim nemo in totum ex filiis Adae, Deus appellatur secundum eum, aut Dominus nominatur, ex Scripturis demonstravimus. Quoniam autem ipse proprie praeter omnes, qui fuerunt tunc homines, Deus, et Dominus, et Rex aeternus, et unigenitus, et Verbum incarnatum praedicatur et a prophetis, et apostolis, et ab ipso

64. He would waste his labour, in my opinion at least, who thought he must demonstrate by a long dissertation that the doctrine of Irenaeus on the mystery of the Incarnation is sound and orthodox. For the writings speak for themselves, and whoever reads what the author discusses, especially in the third book from chapter 16 to 24, will confess that he wrote no less accurately than if he had lived after the times of Paul of Samosata, Photinus, Nestorius and Eutyches. The heretics with whom he was in conflict denied that Jesus Christ our Lord is true God and true man; but, impiously dividing Jesus from Christ, they blasphemed, some that he had been a mere phantom of a man, which had passed through Mary as through a channel; others that he had been begotten, in the manner of other men, from the seed of Joseph and Mary, but that Christ had flown down upon him at the time when he was to be dipped in baptism, and would soon fly back when he was to be crucified. To overthrow these monstrous errors in the chapters cited, Irenaeus is wholly bent on proving that Jesus Christ is one and the same, the Word of God, God over all, the Only-begotten Son of God, true God and true man: true God, Who "being the Word in the beginning with God, through Whom all things were made, Who also was always present to the human race," and Who "in the last times, according to the time fixed beforehand by the Father, united to His own handiwork, was made passible man"; so that "every objection is shut out of those who say: If then He was born at that time, then Christ did not exist before"; for "the Son of God, existing always with the Father, did not begin then; but when He was incarnate and made man, He recapitulated in Himself the long unfolding of mankind, granting us salvation in a compendium, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, being according to the image and likeness of God, this we might recover in Christ Jesus." True God, "Christ, the Son of the living God," being the same "also the son of man. For that no one at all of the sons of Adam is, in the strict sense, called God or named Lord, we have demonstrated from the Scriptures. But that He Himself, properly, beyond all who were then men, is proclaimed God and Lord and eternal King and Only-begotten and the Word incarnate, both by the prophets and by the apostles and by the

Editors' notes and page, col. 314

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor: qui in principio› · call in col 314

Cap. 18, n. 1.

Chapter 18, no. 1.

(printed under page 163)

(54) ‹anchor: Deum Christum Filium› · call in col 314

Cap. 19, n. 2.

Chapter 19, no. 2.

(printed under page 163)

Page

running head: O III. DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 314
marginal letters: A in novissimis; B factum est,; C rum Deum,; D « et filium
old-edition numerals: CXXXV after afflatum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); full-width heading between § 63 and § 64 cut off at left edge (TICULUS VI. / nativitate, baptismo, et descensu ad inferos, ac / nis dignitate et intercessione.) not set; word split at break before § 64 continuation: ve-rum
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 313 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 313 DISSERTATIO III. DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 314
marginal letters: A ‹posse, subjecta esse› / ‹in novissimis temporibus›; B ‹minus, qui fecit coelum› / ‹factum est, ab eo qui fecit›; C ‹64. Operam, mea quidem› / ‹rum Deum, qui›; D ‹hunc vero in eum› / ‹« et filium hominis› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PG 7:315

Spiritu, adest videre omnibus, qui vel modicum de veritate attigerint. Haec autem non testificarentur Scripturae de eo, si, similiter ut omnes, homo tantum fuisset. Sed quoniam praeclaram praeter omnes habuit in se eam, quae est ab altissimo Patre, genituram, praeclara autem functus est et ea, quae est ex Virgine, generatione, utraque Scripturae divinae de eo testificantur; et quoniam homo indecorus, et passibilis, et super pullum asinae sedens, aceto et felle potatur, et spernebatur in populo, et usque ad mortem descendit : et quoniam Dominus sanctus, et mirabilis consiliarius, et decorus specie, et Deus fortis, super nubes veniens universorum judex, omnia de eo Scripturae prophetabant... Hic igitur Filius Dei Dominus noster, exsistens Verbum Patris, et filius hominis : quoniam ex Maria, quae ex hominibus habebat genus, quae et ipsa erat homo, habuit secundum hominem generationem, factus est filius hominis. » Clara sunt haec, nullisque vanis haereticorum suffugiis eludenda. Christus et verus Dei Filius, et verus hominis filius : verus Deus, propter aeternam « ab altissimo Patre genituram; » verus homo, propter temporalem, sed « praeclaram ex Virgine genituram; » in quo proinde duplex natura fuerit, duplici geniturae respondens, unica vero persona utramque naturam sic afficiens et copulans, ut unus et idem sit Filius Dei et filius hominis, unum Verbum incarnatum. Hinc naturarum unionem adeo urget contra haereticos, ut interdum asserat, « Verbum, qui semper humano generi adest, unitum fuisse et consparsum suo plasmati, et carnem factum; hominem vero commistum Verbo Dei. » Quae tamen catholice, et salva semper naturarum distinctione, dicta esse propriis locis ostendimus.

Spirit Himself, it is open to all to see who have attained even a little of the truth. Now the Scriptures would not testify these things concerning Him if, like all others, He had been a mere man. But because beyond all others He had in Himself that pre-eminent generation which is from the Most High Father, and also underwent that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures testify both concerning Him: both that as a man without comeliness, and passible, and sitting upon the foal of an ass, He is given vinegar and gall to drink, and was despised among the people, and descended even unto death; and that He is the holy Lord, and wonderful Counsellor, and comely in beauty, and the mighty God, coming upon the clouds as the Judge of all—all these things the Scriptures prophesied concerning Him... This Son of God our Lord, therefore, existing as the Word of the Father, is also the Son of man: because from Mary, who had her lineage from men, and who was herself also a human being, He had a generation according to man, He became the Son of man." These things are clear, and cannot be eluded by any vain evasions of the heretics. Christ is both the true Son of God and the true Son of man: true God, on account of His eternal "generation from the Most High Father;" true man, on account of His temporal, yet "pre-eminent generation from the Virgin;" in Whom accordingly there was a twofold nature, answering to the twofold generation, but a single person so affecting and uniting each nature that the Son of God and the Son of man is one and the same, one incarnate Word. Hence he urges the union of the natures so strongly against the heretics that he sometimes asserts that "the Word, Who is ever present with the human race, was united and kneaded together with His own handiwork, and made flesh; and that man was mingled with the Word of God." Which expressions we have nevertheless shown in their proper places to have been spoken catholically, and always saving the distinction of the natures.

65. Et hinc etiam Mariae dignitatem commendat Irenaeus, quod virgo permanens, verum Emmanuel, qui substantia Deus est, pepererit, et ut verum hominem, sic et verum Deum genuerit; vanosque Theodotionis, Aquilae, aliorumque impiorum conatus dissipat, qui pravis Scripturarum interpretationibus Mariae virginitatem oppugnabant. Hinc a praecipuo illo Mariae decore et illud accersit, quod Mater Dei facta, nostrae salutis prima post Filium mediatrix evaserit : ac per ejus fidem et obedientiam, salutem ac redemptionem adeptos nos esse asserit; quae mediatricis conciliatricisque cum Deo partes sunt. « Quemadmodum illa (Eva) virum quidem habens Adam, virgo tamen adhuc exsistens..... inobediens facta, et sibi, et universo generi humano causa facta est mortis : sic et Maria praedestinatum habens virum, et tamen virgo, obediens, et sibi, et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis. » Et postea : « Quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc solvit virgo Maria per fidem. » Et lib. V, c. 19 : « Quemadmodum illa (Eva)

65. And hence also Irenaeus commends the dignity of Mary, because, remaining a virgin, she brought forth the true Emmanuel, Who in substance is God, and bore Him Who is both true man and true God; and he scatters the vain endeavours of Theodotion, Aquila, and other impious men, who by perverse interpretations of the Scriptures impugned the virginity of Mary. Hence from thatchief glory of Mary he derives this also, that having become the Mother of God, she became after her Son the first mediatrix of our salvation; and he asserts that through her faith and obedience we have obtained salvation and redemption, which are the offices of a mediatrix and reconciler with God. "Just as the former (Eve), having indeed Adam for a husband, yet still being a virgin... having become disobedient, became the cause of death both to herself and to the whole human race; so also Mary, having a predestined husband, and yet a virgin, being obedient, became the cause of salvation both to herself and to the whole human race." And afterwards: "What the virgin Eve bound through unbelief, this the virgin Mary loosed through faith." And in Book 5, Chapter 19: "Just as the former (Eve)

Editors' notes and page, col. 315

Footnotes

(55) ‹anchor: interdum asserat› · call in col 315

Cap. 16, n. 6: cap. 19, n. 2.

Chapter 16, no. 6; chapter 19, no. 2.

(printed under page 164)

(56) ‹anchor: commendat Irenaeus› · call in col 315

Cap. 21, n. 4, et alibi passim.

Chapter 21, no. 4, and elsewhere throughout.

(printed under page 164)

(57) ‹anchor: Deo partes sunt› · call in col 315

Cap. 22, n. 4.

Chapter 22, no. 4.

(printed under page 164)

Page

running head: 315 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A Spiritu, adest; B Patris, et; C terdum asserat,; D mediatrix evaserit :
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:316

per angeli sermonem seducta est, ut effugeret Deum, praevaricata verbum ejus : ita haec (Maria) per angelicum sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum, obediens ejus verbo. Et si ea inobedierat Deo; sed haec suasa est obedire Deo, uti virginis Evae virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum astrictum morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem : aequa lance disposita, virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam. Adhuc enim protoplasti peccatum per correptionem primogeniti emendationem accipiens, et serpentis prudentia devicta in columbae simplicitate, vinculis autem illis resolutis, per quae alligati eramus morti. » Quae posteriora verba, « et quemadmodum astrictum est morti, » etc., descripsit Augustinus lib. I cont. Julian. cap. 3.

was seduced by the discourse of an angel, so that she fled from God, having transgressed His word; so the latter (Mary) received the glad tidings through an angelic discourse, so that she bore God, being obedient to His word. And if the former had disobeyed God, yet the latter was persuaded to obey God, that the virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just as the human race was bound to death through a virgin, it is saved through a virgin: virginal disobedience having been balanced in an equal scale by virginal obedience. For moreover the sin of the first-formed man receives amendment through the correction of the First-begotten, and the subtilty of the serpent is vanquished in the simplicity of the dove, while those bonds are loosed whereby we were bound to death." Which latter words, "and just as it was bound to death," etc., Augustine transcribed in Book 1 Against Julian, Chapter 3.

66. Haec male habent hagiomachos omnes. Incommode dicta putant Magdeburgenses. His petulantior Gallasius, in suis ad postremum Irenaei locum adnotationibus, in Irenaeum ipsum et caeteros Patres, totamque Ecclesiam catholicam furit. Moderatior cl. Grabius Irenaei quidem personae parcit, verbis duntaxat vim inferre nititur. « Licet, inquit, advocata hic patronam, « quae pro altera intercedat, significaret, nihil tamen de B. Maria jam defuncta eam accipere cogeret. » Quidni? Si Maria in terris degens, pro ea qua in humanum genus charitate flagrabat, mediatricis ac patronae munere functa est, ac pro hominibus intercessit; an mortuam, sed Deo viventem, cum Deo regnantem, Deo ipsi charitatis fonti altius velut immersam, charitas, quae, Apostolo teste, nunquam excidit, sic defecit, ut eorum, quorum antea miserebatur, prorsus oblita, nullas pro ipsis preces fundere dignetur? Certe secus longe sensisse veteres omnes Patres, et Ecclesias, probat, ut alia taceam, Liturgiarum omnium antiquissimarum Graecarum, Latinarumque, quas ipse Grabius veneratione dignas existimat, consensus; in quibus B. Mariae auxilium exposcit, ejusque meritis ac precibus veniam peccatorum, et beneficia caetera impetrare studet Ecclesia. Quare hujusce ratiunculae vanitatem sentiens vir clariss. addit : « Etsi concedatur, illam nunc pro fidelibus vivis universe consideratis intercedere, id quod moderatiores Protestantium doctores merito admittunt, ne inde quidem ejus invocatio a singulis facta probari posset; quod incertum, ne dicam, falsum sit, audiat, vel possitne audire simul tot mille hominum compellationes. » Sed si moderatiores Protestantium doctores, teste Grabio, merito admittunt, Mariam, caeterosque sanctos nunc pro fidelibus vivis universe consideratis intercedere; admittant proinde necesse est, nulla uni Dei et hominum mediatori facta injuria, alios praeter Christum secundarios,

66. These things vex all the enemies of the saints. The Magdeburg Centuriators think them unsuitably spoken. More petulant than they, Gallasius, in his notes on the last passage of Irenaeus, rages against Irenaeus himself and the rest of the Fathers, and the whole Catholic Church. More moderate, the illustrious Grabe spares indeed the person of Irenaeus, and strives only to do violence to his words. "Although," he says, "advocate here should signify a patroness who intercedes for another, yet nothing would compel us to understand it of the Blessed Mary now departed." Why not? If Mary while dwelling on earth, in accordance with that charity wherewith she burned towards the human race, discharged the office of mediatrix and patroness, and interceded for men, has charity, which, as the Apostle witnesses, never fails (1 Cor. 13:8), so failed her now that she is dead, yet living unto God, reigning with God, and immersed as it were more deeply in God Himself, the fountain of charity, that, utterly forgetful of those on whom she formerly had compassion, she deigns to pour forth no prayers for them? Assuredly that all the ancient Fathers and Churches thought far otherwise is proved, not to mention other things, by the consensus of all the most ancient Liturgies, both Greek and Latin, which Grabe himself judges worthy of veneration, in which the Church implores the help of the Blessed Mary, and by her merits and prayers strives to obtain pardon of sins and other benefits. Wherefore, perceiving the emptiness of this quibble, the illustrious man adds: "Even if it be granted that she now intercedes for the living faithful considered universally, which the more moderate doctors of the Protestants rightly admit, not even thence could the invocation of her made by individuals be proved, since it is uncertain, not to say false, whether she hears or can hear at once the addresses of so many thousands of men." But if the more moderate doctors of the Protestants, as Grabe witnesses, rightly admit that Mary and the rest of the saints now intercede for the living faithful considered universally, they must needs consequently admit that, without any injury done to the one Mediator of God and men, there can be other secondary mediators besides Christ,

Editors' notes and page, col. 316

Footnotes

(58) ‹anchor: call above the crop, at the head of col 316; column assumed› · call in col 316

Cent. II, cap. 4.

Centuries [of Magdeburg], II, chapter 4.

(printed under page 164)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 316
marginal letters: A per angeli; B morti, » etc.,; C intercessit; an; D tur, illam
old-edition numerals: CXXXVI before disposita,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:317

ipsique subjectos mediatores esse posse, quorum proinde de salute nostra sollicitorum praesidium implorare liceat, ut per eos ad principalem Mediatorem pateat accessus.

and subject to Him, whose protection, solicitous as they accordingly are for our salvation, it is lawful to implore, so that through them access may lie open to the principal Mediator.

67. Sed, ait Grabius, beata Virgo audire non potest simul tot mille hominum compellationes. Sagacem virum, cujus ea sit mentis acies, ut beatorum intimos animi sensus altissime pervadens, certos limites eorum audiendi ac cognoscendi facultati praefinire valeat! Tanta non fuit Ecclesiae per totum orbem, perque omnia tempora diffusae sagacitas, quae sanctos et orare pro nobis, et a nobis invocari posse duxit; rata videlicet preces nostras ab iis audiri et percipi. Tantum ingenii acumine non valuerunt veteres Patres, qui plurima quae hic geruntur, beatis explorata esse confidenter asseruerunt. Certe recens non est Grabii, imo Calvini et Petri Molinaei objectio. Hanc dudum sibi proposuit, solvitque Severianus Gabalitanus, in serm. 6 De mundi opificio, tom. VI Operum Chrysost., p. 639. Nempe cum dixisset, verissime id de se affirmasse S. Mariam, Beatam me dicent omnes generationes, subinde hoc opponit sibi : « Et quid illam juvat istud, inquies, cum non audiat? » Cui sic respondet : « Imo vero maxime audit, eo quod in loco est splendido Mater salutis, fons sensibilis lucis. » Basilius lib. De vera virginit. virginem Deo consecratam admonet, ut non tantum angelos vereatur, sed etiam hominum sanctorum, ac Patrum spiritus. « Et quid singula commemoro, inquit, angelorum innumerabiles multitudines, cumque iis sanctos Patrum spiritus? Nullus enim eorum est, qui non ubique prospiciat : cum ipse quidem corporis oculis non conspectus, incorporeo tamen visu ad notitiam cuncta complectatur. » Augustinus serm. 316, al. 94, De diversis, loquens de Paulo et Stephano : « Ambo, ait, ibi vos videtis, ambo modo sermonem nostrum auditis, ambo pro nobis orate. » Theodoretus lib. VIII, De curandis Graecorum affectionibus, ubi de martyribus agit, eorum refellit errorem, qui martyres credebant, « nullum sensum eorum habere, quae in terris geruntur; » quod ex eo refutat, « quod divina quadam et beatissima in sorte constituti sint. » Denique, ut citandis Patribus finem faciam, eumdem errorem refellens Gregorius Magn. lib. XII Moral. cap. 19, eodem argumento probat, animas divinae lucis ac felicitatis compotes, rerum humanarum, quas scire ipsarum interest, scientiam non fugere; « quia quae intus omnipotentis Dei claritatem vident, nullo modo credendum est, quia foris sit aliquid quod ignorent. » Sic sentiebant boni illi idiotae, Christiana simplicitate et humilitate rudes, sic credebant, sic aliis persuadere nitebantur. Si vero imperitiam eorum arguat Grabius, meminerit ab Irenaeo dictum : « Qui relinquunt praeconium Ecclesiae, imperitiam sanctorum presbyterorum

67. But, says Grabe, the Blessed Virgin cannot hear at once the addresses of so many thousands of men. O sagacious man, whose keenness of mind is such that, penetrating most deeply the inmost mental perceptions of the blessed, he is able to prescribe fixed limits to their faculty of hearing and knowing! Not so great was the sagacity of the Church spread throughout the whole world and through all times, which held that the saints both pray for us and can be invoked by us, judging, namely, that our prayers are heard and perceived by them. Not so powerful in keenness of wit were the ancient Fathers, who confidently asserted that very many things that are done here are known to the blessed. Assuredly the objection of Grabe, nay of Calvin and Pierre Du Moulin, is not new. Long ago Severian of Gabala proposed it to himself and solved it, in Sermon 6 On the Creation of the World, Vol. VI of the Works of Chrysostom, p. 639. Namely, after saying that St. Mary had most truly affirmed this of herself, All generations shall call me blessed (Luke 1:48), he forthwith objects this to himself: "And what does that profit her, you will say, since she does not hear?" To which he replies thus: "Nay, she hears most of all, because the Mother of salvation, the fountain of sensible light, is in a resplendent place." Basil, in his book On True Virginity, admonishes a virgin consecrated to God to reverence not only the angels, but also the spirits of holy men and of the Fathers. "And why do I mention details," he says, "the innumerable multitudes of angels, and with them the holy spirits of the Fathers? For there is none of them who does not behold everywhere; since, though himself not seen by bodily eyes, yet by incorporeal sight he embraces all things in his knowledge." Augustine, in Sermon 316, formerly 94, On Diverse Subjects, speaking of Paul and Stephen: "Both of you," he says, "see each other there, both of you now hear our discourse, both of you pray for us." Theodoret, in Book 8 On the Cure of Pagan Maladies, where he treats of the martyrs, refutes the error of those who believed that the martyrs "have no perception of the things that are done on earth;" which he refutes from the fact "that they are placed in a certain divine and most blessed lot." Finally, to make an end of citing the Fathers, Gregory the Great, refuting the same error in Book 12 of the Morals, Chapter 19, proves by the same argument that souls possessed of divine light and felicity are not without knowledge of the human affairs which it concerns them to know; "because as to those souls which within see the brightness of Almighty God, it is in no way to be believed that outside there is anything of which they are ignorant." Thus thought those good simple folk, unpolished in Christian simplicity and humility, thus they believed, thus they strove to persuade others. And if Grabe charges them with unskilfulness, let him remember what was said by Irenaeus: "Those who abandon the preaching of the Church accuse the unskilfulness of the holy presbyters,

Editors' notes and page, col. 317

Footnotes

(59) ‹anchor: ab Irenaeo› · call in col 317

Iren., lib. V, c. 20, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 20, no. 2.

(printed under page 165)

Page

running head: 317 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A ipsique subjectos; B quae hic; C quit, angelorum; D Denique, ut
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: pre-

PG 7:318

arguunt; non contemplantes, quanto pluris sit idiota religiosus a blasphemo et impudente sophista. Tales sunt autem omnes haeretici, et qui se plus aliquid praeter veritatem invenire putant.. semper quaerentes, et nunquam verum invenientes. » Tutius igitur cum religiosis illis idiotis imperitum esse, nec curiosius inquirere, quemadmodum fiat, uti preces nostras audiant sancti; quam cum vanis sophistis semper quaerentibus, et nunquam verum invenientibus sapere. Sufficiat rem certam esse, et in Ecclesia semper constitisse; explicandi modus Deo committendus : quanquam tamen consuli ea de re possit Augustinus lib. De cura pro mortuis gerenda, cap. 15 et 16, cujus modestiam in solvendis ejusmodi quaestionibus laudabit et imitabitur probus et prudens quisque.

not considering of how much greater worth a religious simple man is than a blasphemous and shameless sophist. And such are all the heretics, and those who think that they find something more beyond the truth... ever seeking, and never finding what is true." It is safer, therefore, to be unskilful with those religious simple folk, and not to inquire too curiously how it comes to pass that the saints hear our prayers, than to be wise with vain sophists who are ever seeking and never finding what is true. Let it suffice that the matter is certain, and has always stood fast in the Church; the manner of explaining it must be committed to God: although Augustine may nevertheless be consulted on this subject in his book On Care to Be Had for the Dead, Chapters 15 and 16, whose modesty in solving questions of this sort every upright and prudent man will praise and imitate.

68. Quam parum tuta sint ea, quae mox praeclusimus effugia, probe sentiens cl. Grabius, aliud sibi parare studuit, caeteris tamen nec melius, nec tutius. Advocata, ait, ex Graeco παράκλητος, consolandi, non intercedendi significationem hoc loco manifeste habet; quod ex quibusdam, non Irenaei ipsius, sed Tertulliani testimoniis probare nititur. Unde concludit, advocatam, id est consolatricem Evae et totius humani generis ab Irenaeo dici B. Virginem, quia haec Deo obediens, secundum Adam, Salvatorem mundo peperit; sicut illa diabolo aures praebens, primum Adamum seduxit, indeque posteris exitii causa fuit. Sed quid tam fidenter supponit Grabius, Irenaeum Graece scripsisse, παράκλητος? Παράκλητος, inquit, consolandi, non intercedendi significationem hoc loco manifeste habet. Diceres, hominem Graeca Irenaei prae oculis habuisse. Quid si contendam, aliud quidvis scripsisse Irenaeum, quod deprecatricem, mediatricem ac sequestrem significet? Quo argumento conjecturam hanc confutabit Grabius? At scripserit Irenaeus, παράκλητος, haud repugnabo. Sed cur vocis hujus significationem a Tertulliano, et non potius ab Irenaeo ipso petit? Si quidem semel duntaxat ea voce usus esset martyr sanctissimus, ferri utcunque posset. At cum eamdem aliis in locis usurpaverit, cur ea non conferebat ejus editor, ut genuinum vocis sensum ab Irenaeo ipso peteret, Irenaeumque ex Irenaeo explicaret? Lib. III, c. 18, n. 7, scribit Gnosticos existimantes Christum specie tenus hominem exstitisse, adhuc esse sub veteri damnatione, « advocationem praebentes peccato, » id est « tutelam, patrocinium, defensionem. » Eodem sensu ait lib. IV, c. 34, n. 4 : « Si aliquis Judaeis advocationem praestans, erectionem templi, quae posteaquam in Babylonem transmigraverint, facta est sub Zorobabel, et discessionem populi, quae facta est post septuaginta annos, dicat hoc esse novum Testamentum, cognoscat, » etc. Sic et lib. III, c. 23, n. 8 : « Qui contradicunt saluti Adae... advocatos se serpentis et mortis ostendunt.

68. Well perceiving how unsafe are those evasions which we have just precluded, the illustrious Grabe strove to prepare another for himself, yet neither better nor safer than the rest. Advocate, he says, from the Greek παράκλητος, manifestly has in this passage the signification of consoling, not of interceding; which he strives to prove from certain testimonies, not of Irenaeus himself, but of Tertullian. Whence he concludes that the Blessed Virgin is called by Irenaeus the advocate, that is, the consoler of Eve and of the whole human race, because she, obeying God, brought forth the second Adam, the Saviour, for the world, just as the former, lending her ears to the devil, seduced the first Adam, and thereby was the cause of destruction to her posterity. But why does Grabe so confidently suppose that Irenaeus wrote in Greek παράκλητος? Παράκλητος, he says, manifestly has in this passage the signification of consoling, not of interceding. You would say that the man had the Greek of Irenaeus before his eyes. What if I should contend that Irenaeus wrote something else whatever, which signifies a female intercessor, mediatrix, and reconciler? By what argument will Grabe refute this conjecture? Yet suppose that Irenaeus did write παράκλητος, I shall not object. But why does he seek the signification of this word from Tertullian, and not rather from Irenaeus himself? If indeed the most holy martyr had used that word only once, this might somehow be borne. But since he used the same word in other passages, why did his editor not compare them, so as to seek the genuine sense of the word from Irenaeus himself, and explain Irenaeus from Irenaeus? In Book 3, Chapter 18, n. 7, he writes that the Gnostics who think that Christ was man only in appearance are still under the old condemnation, "affording advocacy to sin," that is, "protection, patronage, defence." In the same sense he says in Book 4, Chapter 34, n. 4: "If anyone, lending advocacy to the Jews, should say that the erection of the temple which took place under Zorobabel after they had migrated to Babylon, and the departure of the people which took place after seventy years, is the New Testament, let him know," etc. So also in Book 3, Chapter 23, n. 8: "Those who contradict the salvation of Adam... show themselves advocates of the serpent and of death."

Editors' notes and page, col. 318

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 318
marginal letters: A sbyterorum arguunt;; B bitur probus; C denter supponit; D editor, ut
old-edition numerals: CXXXVII after hanc
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: pre-sbyterorum, osten-
other: the word ostendunt. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 319

PG 7:319

» Igitur advocationem alicui praestare, seu, quod idem est, alicujus advocatum esse, Irenaeo est alicujus non tantum consolatorem esse, ut perperam interpretatur Grabius, sed ejus patrocinium ac defensionem suscipere, hunc in clientelam accipere, huic praesidio esse atque opitulari. Quae proinde B. Virgo Evae ac totius humani generis advocata apud Deum ab eodem dicitur; non alias eo munere fungitur, quam Deum fide et obedientia placando, humanum genus in gratiam cum Deo reducendo, hunc precibus sollicitando, pro susceptis in tutelam clientibus interpellando, deprecando, preces fundendo, ut Dei accersat opem, ac beneficentiam eliciat. Hae illius, qui apud Deum pro aliis advocatum agit, partes, hoc munus; quod pluribus confirmari posset, si necesse videretur; sed dicta sufficiunt ad Grabianae adnotationis vanitatem demonstrandam.

Therefore to lend advocacy to someone, or, what is the same thing, to be someone's advocate, means for Irenaeus not merely to be someone's consoler, as Grabe wrongly interprets it, but to undertake his patronage and defence, to receive him into clientship, to be a protection to him and to succour him. Accordingly, the Blessed Virgin, who is called by him the advocate before God of Eve and of the whole human race, discharges that office in no other way than by appeasing God through faith and obedience, restoring the human race to favour with God, entreating Him with prayers, interceding for the clients whom she has received under her protection, making supplication, and pouring forth prayers in order to call in the help of God and draw forth His beneficence. These are the parts, this is the office of one who acts as an advocate before God for others; which could be confirmed at greater length if it seemed necessary, but what has been said suffices to demonstrate the emptiness of Grabe's note.

69. Antequam tamen a B. Virgine discedam, operae pretium est et hic iniquam Grabii criminationem confutem, qua et Mariae sanctitati, et Irenaei doctrinae labem adspergere molitur. Iste lib. III, c. 16, n. 7 ostendens, Christum omnia suo tempore, ut a Patre praefinita erant, peregisse, subdit : « Propter hoc properante Maria ad admirabile vini signum (in nuptiis Cana Galilaeae) et ante tempus volente participare compendii poculo, Dominus repellens ejus intempestivam festinationem, dixit : Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? nondum venit hora mea; exspectans eam horam, quae a Patre erat praecognita. » Hinc avidissime captata occasione concludit Grabius, imperfectionem humanae naturae, peccatorum venialium matrem, in B. Virgine Maria agnovisse Irenaeum. Iniqua ex omni parte observatio. Quisquis aequus rerum aestimator est, id unum ex Irenaei verbis exsculpserit, B. Virginem horae a Patre praecognitae et praedestinatae, qua Christus miracula palam et publice patraturus erat, ignaram, unum a Filio ante tempus obtinere voluisse. Sciebat quidem Filium tandem aliquando palam prodeuntem, vitae sanctitate, doctrina et miraculis orbem illustraturum : jam publico munere fungi, discipulosque colligere coepisse viderat; quare et publicorum miraculorum tempus et horam advenisse putans, de vini penuria monet, ut laborantibus divinitus consulat. Et hoc est quod Irenaeus intempestivam festinationem vocat; non quod Mariae animus praeceps, aut inani gloria stimulatus fuerit : sed quod ipsam horam a Patre praefinitam nesciens, advenisse tamen existimans, pauperum egestate commota, miraculum eo loco et tempore fieri cupierit, quibus publica et omnibus manifesta omnipotentiae suae signa edere Christum sinebat Patris voluntas. Quare miraculum absolute non detrectat Christus, sed veluti clam et occulte patrat. Divinorum igitur decretorum ignara si fuerit Maria, non certe ullius imperfectionis moralis rea.

69. Before I take leave of the Blessed Virgin, however, it is worthwhile here also to refute an unjust accusation of Grabe, whereby he endeavours to cast a blemish both upon the holiness of Mary and upon the doctrine of Irenaeus. The latter, showing in Book III, Chapter 16, n. 7, that Christ accomplished all things in His own time, as they had been foreordained by the Father, subjoins: "On account of this, when Mary was hastening to the admirable sign of the wine (at the marriage in Cana of Galilee), and wished before the time to partake of the cup of the short cut, the Lord, repelling her untimely haste, said: What is that to Me and to you, woman? My hour is not yet come (John 2:4); waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father." Greedily seizing this occasion, Grabe concludes hence that Irenaeus acknowledged in the Blessed Virgin Mary the imperfection of human nature, the mother of venial sins. An observation unjust in every respect. Whoever is a fair judge of things will extract this one point from the words of Irenaeus: that the Blessed Virgin, being ignorant of the hour foreknown and predestined by the Father in which Christ was openly and publicly to work miracles, wished to obtain one from her Son before the time. She knew indeed that her Son, coming forth openly at length, would enlighten the world by holiness of life, doctrine, and miracles: she had already seen that He had begun to discharge His public office and to gather disciples; wherefore, thinking that the time and hour of public miracles had also arrived, she reminds Him of the lack of wine, so that He may divinely provide for those in need. And this is what Irenaeus calls untimely haste: not that the mind of Mary was precipitate, or spurred on by vainglory, but that, not knowing the very hour foreordained by the Father, yet thinking that it had arrived, moved by the need of the poor, she desired a miracle to be wrought in that place and at that time at which the will of the Father permitted Christ to put forth public signs of His omnipotence manifest to all. Wherefore Christ does not absolutely refuse the miracle, but works it as it were secretly and privately. Even if Mary was ignorant of the divine decrees, therefore, she was certainly not guilty of any moral imperfection.

Editors' notes and page, col. 319

Page

running head: 319 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A dunt. » Igitur; B confirmari posset,; C cognita. » Hinc; D advenisse putans,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: osten-dunt

PG 7:320

70. Sed si hactenus probandus sit Irenaeus, haud certe excusandus videtur in eo quod scribit lib II, c. 22, Christum jam seniorem, id est ut ipse explicat, quadragenario majorem, imo prope quinquagenarium passum ac mortuum fuisse. Idque eo magis mireris, quod e veteribus plerique Salvatorem longe juniorem, quam revera fuerit, et exhibeat Evangelium, exstitisse velint, cum passus est. Plurimi enim ad baptismum venisse statuunt anno aetatis circiter 29, tum anno sequenti mortem obiisse : adeo ut inter baptismum et mortem vix plus quam anni unius spatium interponant : cum tamen ex Evangelio tria saltem a baptismo Paschata celebrasse Christum, eaque gessisse compertum sit, quae trium saltem annorum intervallum probent. Sed multos hac in occasione minus, quam par esset, attentos Evangeliis fecerant ea Isaiae verba : Annum acceptum Domino praedicare misit me, etc., de Christo recte quidem intellecta, sed minus feliciter explicata, quasi inde consequeretur fore ut Christus uno duntaxat anno praedicaret. Unus Chrysostomus homil. 54, in cap. IX S. Joannis, propius ad Irenaei sententiam accessisse videtur. Nempe in iis Judaeorum ad Christum verbis, quae etiam ad confirmandam opinionem suam trahere nititur Irenaeus : « Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, » etc., « quadraginta » pro « quinquaginta, » legendum esse putans, concludit, « prope jam Christum quadraginta annorum fuisse. »

70. But if Irenaeus is to be approved thus far, he certainly seems by no means excusable in what he writes in Book 2, Chapter 22, that Christ suffered and died when already an elder man, that is, as he himself explains, over forty, nay almost fifty years old. And one may wonder at this all the more because most of the ancients hold that the Saviour was much younger when He suffered than He really was, and than the Gospel shows Him to have been. For very many maintain that He came to baptism in about the twenty-ninth year of His age, and then died in the following year, so that between His baptism and His death they interpose scarcely more than the space of a single year; whereas from the Gospel it is established that Christ celebrated at least three Passovers after His baptism, and did those things which prove an interval of at least three years. But those words of Isaias, He has sent Me to preach the acceptable year of the Lord (Isa. 61:2; Luke 4:19), etc.—rightly understood indeed of Christ, yet less felicitously explained, as though it followed therefrom that Christ was to preach for one year only—had made many on this occasion less attentive to the Gospels than was fitting. Chrysostom alone, in Homily 54 on Chapter 9 of St. John, seems to have come nearer to the opinion of Irenaeus. Namely, in those words of the Jews to Christ which Irenaeus also strives to draw into confirming his opinion, "Thou art not yet fifty years old" (John 8:57), etc., thinking that "forty" should be read for "fifty," he concludes that "Christ was already nearly forty years old."

71. Quod vero veteres non paucos in transversum egit perperam explicatum Isaiae testimonium, idem et Gnosticis errandi, seu potius praeconceptum errorem confirmandi ansam praebuit. Ut enim Aeonum suorum commenta quoquo modo fulcirent, fingebant, « ob hoc Salvatorem triginta annorum exsistentem venisse ad baptismum, ut ostenderet tacitos Aeones eorum triginta..... Duodecimo autem mense dicebant eum passum, ut fuerit anno uno post baptismum praedicans : et ex Propheta tentabant hoc ipsum confirmare; scriptum est enim : Vocare annum Domini acceptum, et diem retributionis. » Hunc errorem confutaturus auctor noster recte quidem probat, eum non esse verborum Isaiae sensum. Tum statuit, Christum « triginta annorum exsistentem venisse ad baptismum; » ac demum ter « secundum tempus Paschae Dominum post baptisma ascendisse in Hierusalem, et illic diem festum Paschae celebrasse. » Quilibet ex iis conficeret, Christum anno aetatis 33, aut 34 passum esse. Nihil tamen minus infert Irenaeus; sed pluribus argumentis, quae apud ipsum legi possunt, probare nititur Salvatorem jam in senium declinantem mortuum fuisse, et ultra quadragesimum annum ac quinquagesimo proximum docuisse. Quae quidem argumenta infirma esse, legenti statim patebit. Nec illud caeteris validius, quod ab auctoritate seniorum, qui apostolos viderant, repetit. Nam praeterquam

71. Now that testimony of Isaias, wrongly explained, which led not a few of the ancients astray, also furnished the Gnostics with a handle for erring, or rather for confirming a preconceived error. For in order to prop up the figments of their Aeons in any way whatever, they feigned that "on this account the Saviour came to baptism when thirty years of age, that He might set forth their thirty silent Aeons... And they said that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He preached for one year after His baptism; and they attempted to confirm this very thing from the Prophet, for it is written: To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution." In order to refute this error, our author rightly proves indeed that this is not the sense of the words of Isaias. Then he establishes that Christ "came to baptism when thirty years of age;" and finally that three times "at the season of the Passover the Lord went up after His baptism to Jerusalem, and there celebrated the feast day of the Passover." Anyone would conclude from these things that Christ suffered in the thirty-third or thirty-fourth year of His age. Yet Irenaeus infers nothing of the kind; rather, by several arguments, which can be read in his work, he strives to prove that the Saviour died when already declining into old age, and taught beyond His fortieth year and very near to His fiftieth. That these arguments are weak will immediately be clear to the reader. Nor is that argument stronger than the rest which he draws from the authority of the elders who had seen the apostles. For besides

Editors' notes and page, col. 320

Footnotes

(60) ‹anchor: Isaiae verba› · call in col 320

Cap. 61, 2.

Chapter 61:2 [of Isaiah].

(printed under page 166)

(61) ‹anchor: fulcirent, fingebant› · call in col 320

Iren., l. II, c. 22, n. 1.

Irenaeus, Book II, chapter 22, no. 1.

(printed under page 166)

(62) ‹anchor: scriptum est enim› · call in col 320

Luc. IV, 19.

Luke 4:19.

(printed under page 166)

(63) ‹anchor: venisse ad baptismum› · call in col 320

N. 4.

No. 4.

(printed under page 166)

(64) ‹anchor: Paschae celebrasse› · call in col 320

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 166)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 320
marginal letters: A 70. Sed; B bent. Sed; C 71. Quod; D « triginta annorum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: prae-

PG 7:321

terquam quod de nomine et auctoritate seniorum illorum non constat, et ab uno forte Papia, homine, ut ait Eusebius, pertenuis ingenii, nec eorum, quae ab apostolis audierat, sensum semper assecuti, cujus tamen fidei plus aequo tribuebat Irenaeus, id accipere potuit, quod narrat; illud tantum a senioribus illis, quicunque tandem sint, audierat, non Christum anno aetatis fere quinquagesimo passum esse, sed declinantem jam in seniorem aetatem mortuum esse; quam senilem aetatem ex arbitrio, et disputationis aestu paulo longius, quam par fuisset, ab haereticorum sententia discedens, postmodum interpretatus est.

besides the fact that nothing is established about the name and authority of those elders, and that he could have received what he relates perhaps from Papias alone, a man, as Eusebius says, of very slender intelligence, who did not always grasp the sense of what he had heard from the apostles, yet in whose good faith Irenaeus placed more trust than was fair, he had heard from those elders, whoever they finally were, only this: not that Christ suffered in about the fiftieth year of His age, but that He died when already declining into older age; and this aged condition he afterwards interpreted at his own discretion, and, in the heat of disputation, departing from the opinion of the heretics somewhat further than was right.

72. Id ergo verissimum, quod observat Augustinus lib. II De doct. Christ. cap. 28, forte in Irenaeum nostrum digitum intendens, « ignorantiam consulatus quo natus est Dominus, et quo passus est, nonnullos coegisse errare, ut putarent quadraginta sex annorum aetate passum esse Dominum. » Mirari tamen subit, qui Irenaeus, cui constitit Christum anno aetatis 30 baptismum suscepisse, et ex Evangeliis compertum fuit tria duntaxat a baptismo Paschata celebrata ab eodem fuisse, id sibi in animum inducere potuit, eum tum passum fuisse, cum jam annum quadragesimum excessisset, et quinquagesimum prope attingeret. Illud enim si verum, necesse est existimaverit Christum non ter tantum, sed plus quam duodecies a baptismo Pascha peregisse. Id unum responderi posse videtur, Irenaeum credidisse, Christum non statim a baptismo docendi munus suscepisse, sed tandiu delitescere, privatamque vitam degere perseverasse, donec magistri aetatem perfectam assecutus esset; tum vero palam prodire ac magistrum agere coepisse, cum annum aetatis quadragesimum tertium aut quartum attigisset. Is esse videtur verborum istorum sensus: « Triginta quidem annorum exsistens, cum veniret ad baptismum, deinde magistri aetatem perfectam habens venit Hierusalem, ita ut ab omnibus juste audiret magister. » Ibi quippe inter baptismi et docendi tempus distinguere videtur, alterumque ab altero non paucorum annorum spatio dirimere. Venit quidem Jesus ad baptismum triginta annorum exsistens, id est, Irenaei sensu, adhuc juvenis; nam « triginta annorum aetas, » ut ipse ait, « prima indolis est juvenis: » prius autem non venit Hierusalem, ibi Pascha primum, non ex quo baptismum susceperat, sed ex quo palam docere coeperat, celebraturus, quam magistri aetatem perfectam haberet, et in senium jam declinaret, id est, ut postea explicat, annum aetatis quadragesimum excederet. Tria proinde, quae Christum baptizatum Paschata peregisse probat ex Evangeliis, non ab ipso baptismo numerat Irenaeus, sed ab eo duntaxat tempore, quo magistri munere fungi coepit. Quid vero Irenaeum in tam insolitam, et cum Evangeliis e diametro pugnantem opinionem adduxerit, ut Christi praedicationis tempus a baptismo tanto annorum spatio dirimeret, non video, nec quidquam occurrit, quo sententia tam procul aberrans a vero emolliri possit. Nodum hunc scindere, non solvere tentavit doctissimus Antonius Pagius, t. I Criticae Historico-Chronologicae in Annales Baronii, p. 24, edit. Antuerp. 1705, sed infeliciter. Existimat enim, ea omnia quae apud Irenaeum de seniori Christi aetate leguntur, corrupta esse et insititia. Sed id aliis argumentis, quam meris conjecturis, iisque admodum infirmis probandum esset. Nam praeterquam quod tota oratio adeo sibi cohaeret, ut nulla pars avelli possit, quin tota dissolvatur; et stylus, qui certe Irenaei est, et verba quae ex eo refert Eusebius lib. III Hist. cap. 23 (ea nimirum, quibus sententiam suam a Joannis discipulis accepisse se profitetur Irenaeus) omnem interpolationis suspicionem eximunt.

72. Most true, then, is what Augustine observes in Book II of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 28, perhaps pointing his finger at our Irenaeus, that "ignorance of the consulship in which the Lord was born and in which He suffered compelled some to err, so that they thought the Lord suffered at the age of forty-six years." Yet one cannot help wondering how Irenaeus, to whom it was established that Christ received baptism in the thirtieth year of His age, and who had found from the Gospels that only three Passovers were celebrated by Him after His baptism, could persuade himself that He suffered when He had already passed His fortieth year and was nearly reaching His fiftieth. For if that were true, he must have thought that Christ kept the Passover after His baptism not three times only but more than twelve times. This one answer seems possible: that Irenaeus believed that Christ did not undertake the office of teaching immediately after His baptism, but persevered in lying hidden and leading a private life until He had attained the full age of a master; and that only then did He begin to come forth publicly and act as master, when He had reached the forty-third or forty-fourth year of His age. This seems to be the sense of these words: "Being thirty years old when He came to baptism, then, having the full age of a master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might rightly be heard by all as master." For there he seems to distinguish between the time of baptism and that of teaching, and to separate the one from the other by a space of not a few years. Jesus came to baptism, indeed, being thirty years old, that is, in Irenaeus's sense, still a young man; for "the age of thirty years," as he himself says, "is the first of a young man's disposition"; but He did not come to Jerusalem, to celebrate there His first Passover, counted not from His receiving baptism but from His beginning to teach publicly, before He had the full age of a master and was already declining into old age, that is, as he afterwards explains, was passing His fortieth year. Accordingly the three Passovers which he proves from the Gospels that Christ kept after His baptism, Irenaeus counts not from the baptism itself, but only from the time when He began to discharge the office of master. But what led Irenaeus into so unusual an opinion, one diametrically at war with the Gospels, so that he separated the time of Christ's preaching from His baptism by so great a space of years, I do not see, nor does anything occur to me by which an opinion straying so far from the truth could be softened. The most learned Antoine Pagi tried to cut this knot, not to untie it, in tome I of the Critica Historico-Chronologica on the Annals of Baronius, p. 24, Antwerp edition of 1705, but unhappily. For he judges that all the things read in Irenaeus about the older age of Christ are corrupt and interpolated. But that would have to be proved by other arguments than mere conjectures, and very weak ones at that. For besides the fact that the whole discourse so coheres with itself that no part can be torn away without the whole being dissolved, both the style, which is certainly that of Irenaeus, and the words which Eusebius reports from him in Book III of the History, chapter 23 (namely those in which Irenaeus professes that he received his opinion from the disciples of John), remove all suspicion of interpolation.

Editors' notes and page, col. 321

Page

running head: 321 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A terquam quod; B naeum nostrum; C a baptismo; D Irenaei sensu
old-edition numerals: CXXXVIII after ingenii,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); full-width heading before § 74 cut off at right edge (ARTICULUS / De Poenitentiae et Eucharisti) not set; words split at column breaks: prae-terquam, pere-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 321/322 in mid-page: the 2 paragraph(s) above it in col 322 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 321 (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: 321 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 322
marginal letters: A ‹terquam quod de nomine› / ‹gisse probat ex Evangeliis›; B ‹naeum nostrum digitum› / ‹iisque admodum infirmis›; C ‹a baptismo docendi munus› / ‹eos et salvare eos›; D ‹Irenaei sensu, adhuc juvenis› / ‹de quibus et dicebat› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CXXXVIII after ‹ingenii,›
other: page 167 set in reading order and split at a paragraph boundary: this file holds the first upper paragraph of col 321 (end of section 71) and section 72, which runs from col 321 into the upper part of col 322 ("pere-/gisse" joined across the columns) and ends at "eximunt.". Section 73, the heading band of Art. VII and the one lower line of each column are in c322_a.md.

PG 7:322

73. Laudem vero meretur quod scribit auctor noster, lib. V, c. 31, n. 1, Christum post mortem suam tribus diebus conversatum esse « ubi erant mortui, quemadmodum, inquit, Propheta ait de eo: Commemoratus est Dominus sanctorum mortuorum suorum, eorum qui ante dormierunt in terra sepelitionis, et descendit ad eos, extrahere eos et salvare eos. » Nec minus clare l. IV, c. 27, n. 2: « Dominum in ea, quae sunt sub terra, descendisse, evangelizantem et illis » (veteribus, qui jam e vivis excesserant) « adventum suum; remissione peccatorum exsistente his qui credunt in eum, id est qui adventum ejus praenuntiaverunt, et dispositionibus ejus servierunt, justi et prophetae, et patriarchae: quibus similiter ut nobis remisit peccata, quae non oportet nos imputare his, si quominus contemnimus gratiam Dei. » Denique ejusdem libri c. 22, n. 1: « passionem Christi expergefactionem esse dormientium discipulorum, propter quos et descendit in inferiora terrae, id quod erat inoperatum conditionis visurum oculis, de quibus et dicebat discipulis: Multi prophetae et justi cupierunt videre et audire, quae vos videtis et auditis. » Ubi diserte docet Christum ad inferna descendisse, ut sanctorum ac justorum animabus agentibus in subterraneis locis, donec per Salvatoris mortem reseraretur coelum, annuntiaret adventum suum, et solutum a se redemptionis nostrae pretium, easque illinc extraheret, ac sempiterna felicitate donaret

73. But praise is deserved by what our author writes in Book V, chapter 31, number 1, that Christ after His death spent three days "where the dead were, as," he says, "the Prophet says of Him: The Lord remembered His holy dead, those who had fallen asleep before in the land of burial, and He went down to them, to draw them out and to save them." No less clearly in Book IV, chapter 27, number 2: "that the Lord went down into the places that are under the earth, announcing the good news of His coming to them also" (the men of old who had already departed from among the living), "remission of sins being granted to those who believe in Him, that is, to those who foretold His coming and served His dispensations, the just and the prophets and the patriarchs: to whom, as to us, He remitted their sins, which we ought not to impute to them, unless we despise the grace of God." Finally, in chapter 22, number 1 of the same book: "that the passion of Christ is the awakening of the sleeping disciples, for whose sake He also went down into the lower parts of the earth, to see with His eyes what was unaccomplished of the creation, of whom He also said to the disciples: Many prophets and just men desired to see and to hear what you see and hear." Where he teaches expressly that Christ went down to the regions below in order that to the souls of the saints and the just, dwelling in the places under the earth until heaven should be unbarred through the Saviour's death, He might announce His coming and the price of our redemption paid by Him, and might draw them out from there and endow them with everlasting happiness

ARTICULUS VII.

ARTICLE VII.

De Poenitentiae et Eucharistiae sacramentis

On the sacraments of Penance and of the Eucharist

74. Antiquissimum esse in Ecclesia confessionis illius usum, qua quis omnia et singula post baptismum

74. That the practice in the Church of that confession, by which one declares distinctly and one by one before

Editors' notes and page, col. 322

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 322
marginal letters: A gisse probat; B iisque admodum; C eos et; D de quibus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); full-width heading between § 73 and § 74 (ARTICULUS VII. / De Poenitentiae et Eucharistiae sacramentis), cut off at the left edge in this column's image, is set in this file; words split at column breaks: pere-gisse, baptis-mum
other: the 2 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 321 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word baptismum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt; set whole in the source by QA Q6b, 2026-11-03, col 323 opening "admissa"); the English of the § 74 line is phrased to run on into col 323's English ("those who preside over the Church all and each of the mortal sins committed after baptism is most ancient")
running head: 321 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 322
marginal letters: A ‹terquam quod de nomine› / ‹gisse probat ex Evangeliis›; B ‹naeum nostrum digitum› / ‹iisque admodum infirmis›; C ‹a baptismo docendi munus› / ‹eos et salvare eos›; D ‹Irenaei sensu, adhuc juvenis› / ‹de quibus et dicebat› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: page 167 set in reading order and split at a paragraph boundary: this file holds section 73 (upper col 322), the heading band of Art. VII across both columns, and the single line below the band in each column (col 321 "74. Antiquissimum ... confessionis", col 322 "illius usum ... post baptis-"). Section 73 ends "donaret" with no stop printed before the band. The heading "De Poenitentiae et Eucharistiae sacramentis" is printed without a stop. The column ends with "baptis-" split at the break; the rest of the word ("mum") is at the top of col 323 and the word is set whole here. "sepelitionis" read at low resolution, UNSURE (possibly "seplitionis"; QA Q6b also read it at low resolution and left it).

PG 7:323

admissa peccata lethalia distincte et sigillatim coram eis, qui Ecclesiae praesunt, enuntiat, fateri coguntur ipsi Protestantes, fatetur et cl. Grabius in suis in cap. 13, al. 9, lib. I, Irenaei observationibus. Et si quis negaret, errorem illico revinceret Irenaeus, suisque verbis demonstraret, et confessionem sacramentalem, et piaculares poenas, pro delictorum gravitate majores aut minores, publicas aut privatas, a delinquentibus repetitas, jam ab ipso aevo apostolico, ex Christi proinde lege atque instituto, tanquam necessaria ad eluenda peccata remedia usitari coepisse. Lib. I, c. 6, n. 3 refert, quosdam e Valentinianis « clam eas mulieres, quae discunt ab eis doctrinam hanc, corrumpere : quemadmodum, ait, multae saepe ab eis suasae, post conversae mulieres ad Ecclesiam Dei, cum reliquo errore et hoc confessae sunt. » Ecce, mulieres ab haereticis, non palam, sed clam, nullisque mortalibus, nisi reis solis, testibus et consciis, corruptas, quarum proinde crimen, si quod aliud, occultum erat : hoc tamen ad Ecclesiam conversae, cum reliquo errore confitentur. Cur ita? Nisi quia ex Ecclesiae fide atque doctrina intelligebant, ejusmodi confessionem sibi necessariam esse ad eluendam peccatorum maculam? Id quidem ex Irenaei verbis colligi posse negat Grabius, sed perperam et gratis omnino negat. Quid enim aliud mulieres, quas prae caeteris afficit verecundia, ad retegenda occulta crimina tanto cum famae et honoris dispendio, impulisset? An sola confessionis utilitas? At certe levius incitamentum est, quam ut eo rumpi possint illi, quos opponit insitus a natura pudor, obices; si maxime aliqua alia minusque molesta ratione elui crimina tuto possint. Testem ipsum appello Grabium, iis in regionibus degentem, in quibus excusso gravi, ut vocant, confessionis jugo, illius duntaxat utilitas commendatur, necessitas vero negatur : an unquam audivit, aliquas suae sectae mulieres clanculum corruptas, adiisse ministros, ut coram eis occultum illud scelus nullique notum, retegerent ac confiterentur? Ne unum quidem, si quod res est candide fateri velit, exemplum proferre poterit. Breviorem forte et expeditiorem viam hanc dicant ministri ad obtinendam noxarum veniam; ex quo semel aliam aperiunt, qua quis famae simul et saluti tuto consulat, hac, ut sunt homines, incedent quique, priori nulli.

those who preside over the Church all and each of the mortal sins committed after baptism is most ancient, the Protestants themselves are forced to confess, and the illustrious Grabe also confesses in his observations on Irenaeus Book 1, Chapter 13, formerly 9. And if anyone were to deny it, Irenaeus would immediately convict the error, and demonstrate by his own words that both sacramental confession and expiatory penalties, greater or lesser according to the gravity of the offences, public or private, exacted from offenders, had already begun to be practised from the apostolic age itself, and consequently by the law and institution of Christ, as necessary remedies for washing away sins. In Book 1, Chapter 6, n. 3, he relates that certain of the Valentinians "secretly corrupt those women who learn this doctrine from them: even as," he says, "many women, often persuaded by them, and afterwards converted to the Church of God, have confessed this too along with the rest of their error." Behold, women corrupted by the heretics, not openly, but secretly, with no mortals save the guilty parties alone as witnesses and privy to it, whose crime was consequently, if any ever was, hidden: yet when converted to the Church, they confess this along with the rest of their error. Why so? Unless because from the faith and doctrine of the Church they understood that a confession of this sort was necessary for them in order to wash away the stain of their sins? Grabe indeed denies that this can be gathered from the words of Irenaeus, but he denies it wrongly and altogether gratuitously. For what else could have impelled women, whom modesty affects beyond others, to uncover hidden crimes with so great a loss of reputation and honour? Was it the mere utility of confession? Yet that is certainly too slight an incentive to break through those barriers which modesty implanted by nature opposes, especially if crimes can safely be washed away in some other and less troublesome manner. I call to witness Grabe himself, living in those regions in which, after shaking off what they call the heavy yoke of confession, its utility alone is commended, while its necessity is denied: has he ever heard that any women of his sect, secretly corrupted, went to the ministers in order to uncover and confess before them that hidden crime known to no one? Not even a single example, if he wishes candidly to confess the truth, will he be able to produce. Let the ministers call this perhaps a shorter and readier way to obtain pardon of offences; once they open another way whereby a person may safely consult both reputation and salvation at once, everyone, such as men are, will walk by the latter, and none by the former.

75. Quod autem forsitan ne semel quidem apud Protestantes factum est, Irenaei temporibus passim in Ecclesia fiebat. Invictum certe argumentum, aliam fuisse causam, quae homines ad occultorum criminum confessionem impelleret, quam solam illius utilitatem. Narrat siquidem eodem lib. c. 13, n. 5, sanctus doctor, Marcum praestigiatorem philtris, aliisque veteratoriis artibus, mulieribus insidias struxisse, pluriumque demum « corporibus contumeliam irrogasse. Hae vero saepissime conversae ad Ecclesiam Dei, confessae sunt, et secundum

75. Now what has perhaps not been done even once among the Protestants was done everywhere in the Church in the times of Irenaeus—an invincible argument, certainly, that there was another cause which impelled men to the confession of hidden crimes than its utility alone. For in the same book, Chapter 13, n. 5, the holy doctor relates that Marcus the impostor laid snares for women by love-potions and othercrafty arts, and finally "inflicted dishonour upon the bodies" of many. "And these, very often converted to the Church of God, confessed both that as regards

Editors' notes and page, col. 323

Page

running head: 323 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A mum admissa; B conversae mulieres; C dispendio, impulisset?; D dam noxarum
old-edition numerals: CXXXIX after crimina
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: baptis-mum, secun-

PG 7:324

corpus exterminatas se ab eo, velut cupidine, et inflammatas valde illum se dilexisse; ut et diaconus quidam eorum, qui sunt in Asia nostri, suscipiens eum in domum suam, inciderit in hujusmodi calamitatem. Nam cum uxor ejus esset speciosa, et sententia et corpore corrupta esset a mago isto, et secuta eum esset multo tempore, post deinde cum magno labore fratres eam convertissent, omne tempus in exhomologesi consummavit, plangens et lamentans ob hanc, quam passa est ab hoc mago, corruptelam. » Mulieres illae non tantum abditum crimen confitentur, sed et occultissimas ejusdem criminis circumstantias aperiunt, scilicet quod Marcum deperiissent, illudque poenitentia publica sibi a sacerdotibus imposita eluere satagunt. Hoc ipsum confirmatur ex iis, quae addit Irenaeus n. 7, Marci discipulos « multas » in regione Lugdunensi « seduxisse mulieres, quae cauterizatas conscientias habentes, quaedam quidem in manifesto exomologesin faciunt, quaedam vero reverentes hoc ipsum, in silentio sensim semetipsas retrahunt, desperantes a vita Dei; quaedam quidem in totum abcesserunt; quaedam autem inter utrumque dubitant, et quod est proverbii passae sunt, neque intus, neque foris exsistentes, hunc fructum habentes seminis filiorum agnitionis. » Ex hoc loco poenitentiam publicam in prisca Ecclesia usitatam fuisse, merito colligunt doctissimi ac bonae memoriae viri Billius et Feuardentius. Ego vero, ait cl. Grabius, et confessionem publicam quandoque factam exinde demonstrari puto. Putaverant et alii, et recte quidem; haec enim ad illam referebatur, ut norunt omnes; sed utrique praeibat confessio privata, qua quis coram legitimo pastore vel sacerdote huic muneri praefecto, peccatorum tum occultorum, tum publicorum, si quae erant, enumeratione facta, ea postmodum publice confitebatur, quae palam evulgari posse ac debere, nullo cum confitentis discrimine, servatisque prudentiae ac charitatis legibus, censuerat sacerdos. Utraque vero confessio, seu privata, seu publica, sacramentalis erat : utramque excipiebat imposita delinquentibus canonica poenitentia, hanc absolutio a peccatis, et corporis Christi suscipiendi facultas. Haec leviter perstringo, quia trita et omnibus perspecta. Sed adeo liberum non erat peccatoribus seu privatim, seu publice confiteri, ut, Irenaeo teste, e mulieribus illis « cauterizatas habentibus conscientias » quaedam, cum puderet latens ulcus retegere, terreretque poenitentiae seu exhomologeseos remedium, animum misere despondentes ab Ecclesia deficerent, vel inter spem et metum animo pendentes, neque intus, neque foris exsisterent. Certe si quo alio sibi ipsae opitulari posse remedio existimassent eae mulieres; si uni Deo facta confessio, privataque sponte suscepta poenitentia sceleribus expiandis satis fuisset, quid ambigebant? quid ab Ecclesia deficiebant, vel animo dubiae inter defectionem et reconciliationem haerebant? Quin potius tam facili remedio sibi ipsae consulebant?

the body they had been defiled by him, and that, inflamed as though by passion, they had loved him exceedingly; just as a certain deacon of ours among those who are in Asia, receiving him into his house, fell into a calamity of this sort. For since his wife was comely, and had been corrupted both in mind and in body by that magician, and had followed him for a long time, afterwards, when with great labour the brethren had converted her, she spent all her time in exomologesis (public penance), weeping and lamenting over this corruption which she had suffered from this magician." Those women not only confess their hidden crime, but also disclose the most secret circumstances of the same crime, namely, that they had been passionately in love with Marcus, and strive to wash it away by public penance imposed upon them by the priests. This very thing is confirmed by what Irenaeus adds in n. 7, that the disciples of Marcus in the region of Lyons "seduced many women, who, having their consciences seared, some of them indeed make exomologesis openly, while others, shrinking from this very thing, gradually withdraw themselves in silence, despairing of the life of God; some indeed have departed altogether, while others hesitate between the two, and have suffered what the proverb says, being neither within nor without, having this fruit of the seed of the children of knowledge." From this passage those most learned men of happy memory, Billy and Feuardent, rightly gather that public penance was practised in the ancient Church. And I, says the illustrious Grabe, think that it is demonstrated thence that public confession also was sometimes made. Others too had thought so, and rightly indeed; for the former was referred to the latter, as all know; but both were preceded by private confession, whereby a person, having made an enumeration before the legitimate pastor or the priest appointed for this office of his sins, both hidden and public, if there were any, afterwards publicly confessed those things which the priest had judged could and ought to be openly published without any danger to the penitent, observing the laws of prudence and charity. Now each confession, whether private or public, was sacramental: each was followed by canonical penance imposed upon the offenders, and this by absolution from sins and permission to receive the body of Christ. I touch upon these things lightly, because they are familiar and well known to all. But so far was it from being optional for sinners to confess either privately or publicly that, as Irenaeus witnesses, of those women "having their consciences seared," some, being ashamed to uncover the hidden sore, and terrified by the remedy of penance or exomologesis, wretchedly losing heart, fell away from the Church, or hanging in suspense of mind between hope and fear, were neither within nor without. Assuredly, if those women had thought that they could help themselves by any other remedy; if confession made to God alone, and private penance voluntarily undertaken, had been sufficient for expiating their crimes, why did they hesitate? why did they fall away from the Church, or linger in doubt of mind between defection and reconciliation? Why did they not rather provide for themselves by so easy a remedy?

Editors' notes and page, col. 324

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 324
marginal letters: A dum corpus; B ipsum confirmatur; C sionem publicam; D trita et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: secun-dum

PG 7:325

Nodum hunc solvat, si possit, Grabius, videatque num apud suos ejusmodi pudor, aut anxietas, peccatorum mentes usquam torserit. Ne ejusmodi ambagibus unquam implicarentur, abscissa penitusque resecta tot molestiarum causa, sollicite caverunt. Sed tam expeditum salutis iter necdum Irenaei aetate notum erat.

Let Grabe untie this knot, if he can, and see whether among his own people shame or anxiety of this sort has ever tormented the minds of sinners. Lest they should ever be entangled in such perplexities, they have carefully taken precaution by cutting off and utterly excising the cause of so many troubles. But so easy a road to salvation was not yet known in the age of Irenaeus.

76. De Eucharistiae sacramento quid senserit Irenaeus, pluribus in locis mox memorandis dilucide aperit. Ac primo quidem illud recolendum, quod in dissert. 1 de Marci praestigiis agentes ostendimus, tam alte eorum omnium qui Christiano nomine utcunque gloriarentur, pectoribus infixum fuisse, Eucharistiam verum esse corpus et sanguinem Christi, et panem ac vinum per invocationem Spiritus sancti, et sacra verba vere converti, eo conversionis genere, quod transsubstantiatio dicitur, in ipsum Christi corpus et sanguinem, ut profligatissimi omnium haereticorum Marcosii hanc oculis ipsis exhibere praestigiis suis conarentur. Cum enim probe conscius esset Marcus, nullam sibi offerendi sacrificii Eucharistici potestatem esse, hancque ad eos duntaxat pertinere, qui per legitimam manuum impositionem consecrati sunt sacerdotes; ut tamen ea se divinitus ab Achamoth, seminum electionis matre, donatum esse suis persuaderet, id efficere se magicis artibus, ac visibili ratione tam impie quam ridicule simulabat, quod re et vere, invisibili tamen modo peragebant veri Christi sacerdotes. Nam pocula albo vino mista fusis precibus consecrare se fingens, in purpureum et rubicundum colorem sic transmutabat, ut sanguinem oculis exhiberet, quem supremae virtutis sanguinem esse jactabat; quemque ideo degustare astantes a veteratore delusi gestiebant. Marcus ab apostolica Eucharistiam conficiendi formula longe abierit, et propria protulerit deliria, ut vult Grabius, quid inde colligi possit praesentiens, non abnuo; id tamen certissimum esse fatebitur, quisquis sepositis tantisper praejudiciis omnia circumspexerit, nullum hominem id sibi in animum inducere unquam potuisse, ut tam insolenti portento aliis fucum faceret, nisi ex praeconcepta praesentiae realis et transubstantiationis doctrina, ut loco citato probavimus.

76. What Irenaeus thought concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist he clearly discloses in several passages shortly to be mentioned. And first indeed we must recall what we showed in Dissertation I when treating of the juggleries of Marcus: that it was so deeply fixed in the hearts of all who in any way gloried in the Christian name that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, and that the bread and wine are truly converted through the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the sacred words—by that kind of conversion which is called transubstantiation—into the very body and blood of Christ, that the Marcosians, the most profligate of all heretics, endeavoured by their juggleries to exhibit this to the very eyes. For since Marcus was well aware that he had no power of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that this belonged only to those priests who have been consecrated through the legitimate laying on of hands, yet in order to persuade his followers that he had been divinely endowed with it by Achamoth, the mother of the seeds of election, he simulated both impiously and ridiculously that he accomplished by magical arts and in a visible manner that which the true priests of Christ accomplished in reality and truly, yet in an invisible manner. For feigning to consecrate cups mixed with white wine by pouring forth prayers, he so transmuted them into a purple and ruddy colour as to exhibit blood to the eyes, which he boasted to be the blood of the supreme Power, and which the bystanders, deluded by the impostor, were therefore eager to taste. That Marcus departed far from the apostolic formula of consecrating the Eucharist, and brought forward his own ravings, as Grabe maintains—foreseeing what can be gathered thence—I do not deny; yet anyone who, setting aside prejudices for a little while, surveys the whole matter will confess that this is most certain: that no man could ever have brought himself to impose upon others by so strange a portent, save from a preconceived doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation, as we proved in the place cited.

77. Nec Marcosiorum duntaxat, sed et Gnosticorum omnium eam fuisse sententiam, omnesque cum Catholicis hac in parte consensisse, Eucharistiam verum esse corpus et sanguinem Christi, nisi quod ea quae haeretici ore astruebant, exitiosis aliis, quae statuebant, principiis imprudentes everterent, perspicue ex Irenaeo liquet. Hic enim cum lib. IV, c. 9 et seqq., latissime probasset unum et eumdem Deum utriusque legis, Mosaicae et evangelicae, auctorem fuisse, nec veterem ideo abrogatam fuisse, quod mala esset, sed quod ad tempus duntaxat data fuisset, ut viam sterneret

77. And that this was the opinion not of the Marcosians only, but also of all the Gnostics, and that all agreed with the Catholics in this respect, that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ—save that the heretics unwittingly overthrew by other destructive principles which they held the things that they affirmed with their mouth—is clearly evident from Irenaeus. For when in Book 4, Chapter 9 et seqq., he had proved at very great length that one and the same God was the author of both laws, the Mosaic and the evangelical, and that the old law was abrogated not because it was evil, but because it had been given only for a time in order to pave the way

Editors' notes and page, col. 325

Page

running head: 325 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAE
marginal letters: A Nodum hunc; B Spiritus sancti,; C Christi sacerdotes.; D loco citato
old-edition numerals: CXL before quod
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:326

novae legi, veraeque sanctitati, quam per se ipsa praestare non poterat; tum demum cap. 17 et 18, ostendit, Deum vetera sacrificia offerri sibi a Judaeis praecepisse, non quod iis indigeret, sed quod eorum infirmitati haec indulgenda esse censuisset, ne in idololatriam declinarent; non quod per ea veram justitiam offerentibus impertiri, sed quod Novum Testamentum, verumque ac purum ejusdem Testamenti sacrificium et oblationem significari vellet. Sic igitur abroganda fuisse vetera sacrificia, ut genus integrum servaretur, species duntaxat immutaretur. Sua siquidem utrique Testamento sacrificia esse debuerunt, sed alia umbrae et figurae, alia ipsa veritas; alia servorum, alia liberorum propria; alia crassa, et vera sanctitate vacua, alia munda et pura, quibus in spiritu et veritate colitur Deus, veramque justitiam consequitur homo. Cum itaque jam Deus per Malachiae prophetiam, cap. I, 10, 11, « manifestissime significasset, quoniam prior quidem populus cessabit offerre Deo, omni autem loco sacrificium offeretur ei, et hoc purum; » implens hanc prophetiam Christus, Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo. » Nimirum « suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est, accepit, et gratias egit, dicens : Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est. » Et haec « Ecclesiae oblatio » est « quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo; » hoc purum sacrificium, » quod « cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert. Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, et in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori Deo, in sententia pura, et fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilectione ferventi, primitias earum, quae sunt ejus, creaturarum offerentes. » Ipsum ergo quod pridie quam pateretur Christus Deo Patri sacrificium obtulit, panem et vinum consecrando, alterum suum esse sanguinem confitendo; illud idem Ecclesia in universo mundo, Christi magistri sui exemplo, fabricatori Deo offert. Hoc ejus sacrificium, haec oblatio, sacrificium purum, oblatio munda et illibata. Sic Irenaei aetate sentiebat Ecclesia, sic agebat, sic credebat : panem et vinum, veluti primitias earum, quae sunt Dei, creaturarum offerebat, benedicebat et consecrabat; consecratione vero facta, jam non communem esse panem et commune vinum existimabat, ut mox explicabit Irenaeus, sed ipsum Christi corpus et sanguinem esse confitebatur. Haec, inquam, Ecclesiae catholicae secundi saeculi toto orbe fides.

for the new law and for true holiness, which of itself it could not bestow; then at length in Chapters 17 and 18 he shows that God commanded the old sacrifices to be offered to Him by the Jews, not because He stood in need of them, but because He had judged that these should be conceded to their weakness lest they should turn aside into idolatry; not because He willed true righteousness to be imparted through them to those who offered them, but because He willed the New Testament, and the true and pure sacrifice and oblation of the same Testament, to be signified. Thus, therefore, the old sacrifices had to be abrogated in such a way that the genus should be preserved intact, and the species only should be changed. For each Testament had to have its own sacrifices, but the one shadows and figures, the other the very truth; the one proper to servants, the other to free men; the one gross and void of true holiness, the other clean and pure, whereby God is worshipped in spirit and in truth, and man attains true righteousness. Since, therefore, God had already through the prophecy of Malachias, Chapter 1:10-11, "most manifestly signified that the former people indeed shall cease to offer to God, but in every place a sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; fulfilling this prophecy, Christ taught the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout the whole world." Namely, "giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His creatures, not as though He stood in need of them, but that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took that bread which is of the creation, and gave thanks, saying: This is My body (Matt. 26:26). And the cup likewise, which is of that creation which belongs to us, He confessed to be His blood." And this is "the oblation of the Church, which the Lord taught to be offered throughout the whole world;" this is "the pure sacrifice," which "the Church offers with simplicity. For we ought to make an oblation to God, and in all things be found grateful to God the Fashioner, in a pure mind, and faith without hypocrisy, in firm hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of those creatures which are His." That very sacrifice, therefore, which on the day before He suffered Christ offered to God the Father by consecrating bread and wine, confessing the one [to be His body and the other] to be His blood, that same sacrifice the Church throughout the whole world, after the example of Christ her Master, offers to God the Fashioner. This is her sacrifice, this her oblation, a pure sacrifice, a clean and unblemished oblation. Thus did the Church think in the age of Irenaeus, thus did she act, thus did she believe: bread and wine, as the first-fruits of those creatures which are God's, she offered, blessed, and consecrated; and when the consecration had been made, she judged that it was no longer common bread and common wine, as Irenaeus will presently explain, but confessed that it was the very body and blood of Christ. This, I say, was the faith of the Catholic Church of the second century throughout the whole world.

78. Quae vero hostium ejus tunc temporis sententia? An ejus de sacrificio Eucharistiae fidem impugnabant, vel eo contineri et offerri verum Christi corpus et sanguinem negabant? Judaei quidem, ait

78. And what was the opinion of her enemies at that time? Did they impugn her faith concerning the sacrifice of the Eucharist, or deny that the true body and blood of Christ were contained and offered therein? The Jews indeed, says

Editors' notes and page, col. 326

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 326 (probable; not seen)

Iren., lib. IV, c. 17, n. 5.

Irenaeus, book IV, chapter 17, no. 5.

(printed under page 169)

(46) ‹anchor: in universo mundo› · call in col 326

Cap. 18, n. 1 et 4.

Chapter 18, nos. 1 and 4.

(printed under page 169)

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 326
marginal letters: A novae legi,; B pura, quibus; C ex ea; D purum, oblatio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:327

Irenaeus, Eucharistiae sacrificium spernunt, nec puram oblationem offerunt : « Manus enim eorum » divini Verbi carne induti, quod crucifixerunt, « sanguine plenae sunt. » Cum ergo « non receperint Verbum » incarnatum, « quod offertur Deo » Patri in sacrificio Eucharistiae; quid ea repudiata vera novae legis hostia miseris jam superesse potest, praeter vanam et impuram sacrificii umbram? Haeretici vero offerebant quidem Eucharistiam; sed quia non « in sententia pura, et fide sine hypocrisi, » eorum oblatio pura esse non poterat : « Nec enim » ipsi « receperunt Verbum quod offertur Deo. » Et quamvis Eucharistiam « corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus, » ore praedicarent, id tamen eis constare non poterat. « Quomodo, » ait Irenaeus, « constabit eis, eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus?... Ergo aut sententiam mutent, aut abstineant offerendo quae praedicta sunt. » Offerebant igitur haeretici panem et vinum, utrumque consecrabant, et corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus fatebantur. Nec in hoc male sentiebant. Sed in hoc duntaxat peccabant, quod secum ipsi pugnantes, id de Verbo Dei sentirent, quod Eucharistiae fidem funditus evertebat. Ex quo fiebat, ut quamvis « eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui » palam assererent, id tamen eis « constare » nulla ratione poterat.

Irenaeus, despise the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and do not offer a pure oblation: "For their hands are full of the blood" of the divine Word clothed in flesh, Whom they crucified. Since, therefore, "they have not received the incarnate Word, Who is offered to God" the Father in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, once that true victim of the new law has been repudiated, what can now remain for those wretched men save a vain and impure shadow of sacrifice? The heretics, on the other hand, offered the Eucharist indeed; but because they did not do so "in a pure mind, and faith without hypocrisy," their oblation could not be pure: "For neither have they received the Word Who is offered to God." And although with their mouth they proclaimed that the Eucharist "is the body of their Lord, and the cup of His blood," yet this could not be consistent for them. "How," says Irenaeus, "will it be established for them that that bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup of His blood?... Therefore either let them change their opinion, or let them abstain from offering the things that have been spoken of." The heretics, therefore, offered bread and wine, consecrated both, and confessed that they are the body of their Lord and the cup of His blood. Nor did they think amiss in this. But they erred in this alone, that, contradicting themselves, they held concerning the Word of God an opinion which utterly overthrew the faith of the Eucharist. Whence it came to pass that although they openly asserted that "that bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord," yet this could in no way "be consistent" for them.

79. Id ut facilius percipiat lector, advertat, quaeso, Marcionitas et Valentinianos hic, et postea fusius lib. V, cap. 11, argumentis ab Eucharistiae mysterio petitis ab Irenaeo confutari. Porro utrorumque is error erat, ut explicuimus dissert. 1, de eorum haeresi agentes, mundum hunc aspectabilem a supremo Deo et Patre conditum non esse; sed vel ab altera quadam potestate, ut blasphemabat Marcion; vel labis et ignorantiae passi Aeonis fructum esse, ut delirabant Valentiniani. Hinc duplex alter manabat error, 1° carnem, vel mali principii opus, vel ignorantiae fructum, interitui sic obnoxiam esse, ut semel dissoluta nunquam resurgat; 2° Christum Jesum veram carnem a Maria non accepisse; ea enim duntaxat sibi sumpsit, quae servaturus erat : carni autem salutem impertire non poterat. Ut ergo materiale quoddam corpus gestaverit, non humanum certe ac carneum, sed ita ab omni crassiori materia defaecatum et purum, ac tam solerti arte concinnatum, ut nihil cum illa commune haberet, sed spiritale quodammodo prae ea esset. Et hinc etiam fluxit altera eorum blasphemia, Verbum divinum nec mundi opificis filium fuisse, nec vere hominem factum fuisse, sed Christo Jesu ad tempus duntaxat unitum fuisse, idque efficientia tenus, et eo unitionis genere, quod ab hypostatico et substan⟨t⟩ivo procul abesset. Haec sunt vesanorum hominum deliria, quae tum hic,

79. That the reader may more easily perceive this, let him observe, I pray, that the Marcionites and Valentinians are refuted by Irenaeus here, and afterwards more at length in Book 5, Chapter 11, by arguments drawn from the mystery of the Eucharist. Now the error of both was this, as we explained in Dissertation I when treating of their heresy: that this visible world was not created by the supreme God and Father, but either by some other power, as Marcion blasphemously alleged, or was the fruit of the fall and ignorance of the suffering Aeon, as the Valentinians raved. Hence flowed a twofold further error: first, that the flesh, being either the work of an evil principle or the fruit of ignorance, is so subject to destruction that once dissolved it never rises again; secondly, that Christ Jesus did not receive true flesh from Mary, for He took to Himself only those things which He was going to save, whereas to the flesh He could not impart salvation. Even granting, therefore, that He bore a certain material body, it was certainly not human and of flesh, but one so refined and pure from all grosser matter, and fashioned with such skilful art, that it had nothing in common with our flesh, but was in a manner spiritual in comparison with it. And hence also flowed their other blasphemy, that the divine Word was neither the Son of the Maker of the world, nor was truly made man, but was united to Christ Jesus only for a time, and that only in efficiency, and by a kind of union far removed from a hypostatic and substantive one. These are the ravings of madmen, which Irenaeus, both here

Editors' notes and page, col. 327

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 327 (probable; not seen)

N. 4.

No. 4.

(printed under page 170)

Page

running head: 327 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A Irenaeus, Eucharistiae; B modo, »; C 79. Id; D servaturus erat :
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:328

tum lib. V, cit. Irenaeus, et cum Eucharistiae fide, quam profitebantur, pugnare ostendit.

and in the cited Book 5, shows to be repugnant to the faith of the Eucharist which they professed.

80. Ac primo quidem id principii loco statuit, in « sola Ecclesia » catholica eucharisticam « oblationem puram offerri fabricatori; » quia sola « in sententia pura, et fide sine hypocrisi offert ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus; » id est sola Deum Patrem mundi hujus opificem esse credens, munera quae vere sunt ejus et ad eum jure creationis pertinent, panem videlicet et vinum, ex rebus creatis desumpta, ei cum gratiarum actione, et acceptorum ab eo beneficiorum memor offert et consecrat. Tum infert, nullam a Judaeis puram oblationem offerri; tum quod « manus eorum sanguine plenae sint; » tum quod « non receperint Verbum » incarnatum, « quod offertur Deo » in Christianorum sacrificiis, quodque abrogatis veteris legis sacrificiis, sola jam et unica novae legis hostia est. Addit, « neque omnes haereticorum synagogas » puram oblationem offerre. Quamvis enim Eucharistiam ex pane et vino conficiant, impura tamen eorum oblatio est, Deumque probro magis, quam honore afficit. Quod duplici probat argumento, pro duplici haereticorum errore, quem confutat. Primum ex eo desumitur, quod haeretici Deum Patrem mundi hujus opificem esse negantes, « ea quae secundum nos creata sunt, offerentes ei, » vel « cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, et aliena concupiscentem; » vel « ignorantiae, passionis et defectionis fructus offerentes, peccant in eum, » ac proinde contumeliam ei inferunt. Quisquis enim fingit, Deum Patrem, ea quae ipse non condidit, nec ad eum creationis jure pertinent, offerri sibi velle, is Patrem alicui cupidum esse ostendit : et quisquis Deo Patri labis et ignorantiae fructus offerre audet, is pollutis et impuris hisce muneribus « contumeliam facit ei magis, quam gratias agit. » Alterum argumentum ex eo repetitur, quod haereticis negantibus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum esse ipsius « mundi fabricatoris filium, id est Verbum ejus » unigenitum, constare non poterat, « eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem esse calicem sanguinis ejus. » Qui enim haeretici negabant Dominum nostrum esse mundi fabricatoris filium, et Verbum Patris unigenitum, ii consequenter negabant Verbum incarnatum ac verum hominem factum fuisse, et Dominum nostrum veram carnem et verum corpus assumpsisse. At ei qui negat Verbum assumpsisse verum corpus, jam constare non potest Eucharistiam esse corpus Domini nostri. Quia qui negat Dominum nostrum habuisse verum corpus humanum, nostro consubstantiale, et ex materia a mundi opifice condita conflatum; is proinde neget necesse est, Dominum nostrum in Eucharistia verum habere et conficere sibi corpus. Is siquidem panem et vinum, res a mundi opifice conditas, in veram ac propriam corporis sui substantiam convertere non potest, qui nullum ex materiali substantia,

80. And first indeed he lays this down as a principle, that in "the Catholic Church alone" is a pure Eucharistic "oblation offered to the Fashioner;" because she alone "in a pure mind, and faith without hypocrisy, offers to Him with thanksgiving from His creation;" that is, she alone, believing that God the Father is the Maker of this world, offers and consecrates to Him with thanksgiving, and mindful of the benefits received from Him, gifts which are truly His and belong to Him by right of creation, namely bread and wine, taken from created things. Then he infers that no pure oblation is offered by the Jews: both because "their hands are full of blood," and because "they have not received the incarnate Word, Who is offered to God" in the sacrifices of Christians, and Who, now that the sacrifices of the old law have been abrogated, is the sole and only victim of the new law. He adds that "neither do all the synagogues of the heretics" offer a pure oblation. For although they consecrate the Eucharist from bread and wine, yet their oblation is impure, and visits God with insult rather than honour. This he proves by a twofold argument, corresponding to the twofold error of the heretics which he refutes. The first is drawn from the fact that the heretics, denying that God the Father is the Maker of this world, "when they offer to Him the things that belong to our creation," either "show Him to be covetous of another's property, and desiring what is another's," or, "offering the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, sin against Him," and consequently inflict dishonour upon Him. For whoever feigns that God the Father wills those things to be offered to Him which He Himself did not create, and which do not belong to Him by right of creation, shows the Father to be covetous of another's property; and whoever dares to offer to God the Father the fruits of fall and ignorance, by these polluted and impure gifts "does Him dishonour rather than gives thanks." The second argument is drawn from the fact that since the heretics denied that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the "Fashioner of the world Himself, that is, His only-begotten Word," it could not be consistent for them "that that bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and that the cup is the cup of His blood." For those heretics who denied that our Lord is the Son of the Fashioner of the world, and the only-begotten Word of the Father, consequently denied that the Word became incarnate and was made true man, and that our Lord assumed true flesh and a true body. Now for him who denies that the Word assumed a true body, it can no longer be consistent that the Eucharist is the body of our Lord. Because he who denies that our Lord had a true human body, consubstantial with ours, and formed from matter created by the Maker of the world, must needs consequently deny that our Lord has and makes for Himself a true body in the Eucharist. For He cannot convert bread and wine, things created by the Maker of the world, into the true and proper substance of His body, Who could assume to Himself no body from material substance

Editors' notes and page, col. 328

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 328
marginal letters: A tum lib.; B tur Deo »; C ferunt. Quisquis; D bant Verbum
old-edition numerals: CXLI after abrogatis
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: sub-

PG 7:329

a mundi fabricatore creata, corpus assumere sibi potuit, ne materiam vel natura sua malam, vel a malo opifice creatam sibi ascisceret. « Quomodo » enim, ait inferius auctor noster, c. 33, n. 2, « juste Dominus, si alterius Patris exsistit, hujus conditionis, quae est secundum nos, accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit? » Iis igitur, qui negant Dominum nostrum esse mundi fabricatoris Filium, et Verbum Patris unigenitum, constare non potest, Eucharistiam esse corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri. Ecqui id eis constaret, qui Domino nostro verum corpus et sanguinem adimunt?

created by the Fashioner of the world, lest He should take to Himself matter either evil by its own nature or created by an evil maker. "For how," says our author below in Chapter 33, n. 2, "did the Lord justly, if He belongs to another Father, taking bread of this creation which belongs to us, confess that it was His body, and affirm the mixture of the cup to be His blood?" For those, therefore, who deny that our Lord is the Son of the Fashioner of the world, and the only-begotten Word of the Father, it cannot be consistent that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord. How could that be consistent for those who take away from our Lord a true body and blood?

81. Sic adversus haereticos, velint nolint recentiores haeretici, argumentatur Irenaeus, vel certe nihil prorsus efficit. Itaque tum haereticis impugnatis, tum Irenaeo impugnanti, utrinque certum erat, in Eucharistia contineri verum ac substantiale corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri, et panem ac vinum in ea vere converti et transmutari. Nisi enim id certum et exploratum utrique parti fuisset, frustra et ridicule argumentum ab Eucharistia petiisset Irenaeus, eoque argumentandi genere insulsius nihil fuisset. Nam si tum Irenaeus, tum Marcionitae et Valentiniani nihil aliud in Eucharistia agnoverint, praeter meram corporis et sanguinis Christi figuram, aut efficacem illam, quam commenti sunt recentiores ministri, virtutem e corpore et sanguine Christi manantem; sic procedat necesse est Irenaei argumentum : Negantibus haereticis Dominum nostrum esse mundi fabricatoris Filium, id est Verbum ejus unigenitum, constare non potest Eucharistiam esse figuram, aut virtutem corporis ejus et sanguinis. Si enim Dei Filius veram carnem, verumque humanum corpus ex materia a mundi opifice condita conflatum non suscepit, nec hylicum quidquam sibi ascivit, sed « a dispositione circumdedit » sibi « corpus » quoddam « paratum inenarrabili arte, » ut asserebant Valentiniani; nullam sui corporis figuram aut virtutem in Eucharistia exhibere potest. Haereticis igitur Christo materiale corpus adimentibus constare non potest, Eucharistiam esse figuram aut virtutem corporis ejus. Sic argumentatum fuisse Irenaeum fingant necesse est Protestantes. Atqui ejusmodi argumentum delirantis hominis esse, nec proinde Irenaeo, sine gravi injuria, tribui posse, sobrius quisque fatebitur. Quasi vero, quod Christus hylicum nihil susceperit, et materiale corpus non assumpserit, inde consequatur nullam spiritalioris illius corporis, « parati inenarrabili arte, » quod sibi circumdedit, figuram aut virtutem in Eucharistiae mysterio exhibere posse? Imo potius haereticis hinc maxime constitisset, Eucharistiam esse figuram aut virtutem corporis Domini sui. Ex quo enim ambo haec haereticis constitissent, ut constare sibi contendebant : 1° Christum, nullum

81. Thus does Irenaeus argue against the heretics, whether more recent heretics will or no, or else he certainly accomplishes nothing at all. Accordingly, both to the heretics who were attacked and to Irenaeus who attacked them, it was certain on both sides that in the Eucharist are contained the true and substantial body and blood of our Lord, and that the bread and wine in it are truly converted and transmuted. For unless this had been certain and established for both sides, in vain and ridiculously would Irenaeus have drawn an argument from the Eucharist, and nothing would have been more absurd than that kind of argumentation. For if both Irenaeus and the Marcionites and Valentinians acknowledged nothing else in the Eucharist save a mere figure of the body and blood of Christ, or that efficacious virtue flowing from the body and blood of Christ which more recent ministers have devised, the argument of Irenaeus must needs proceed thus: Since the heretics deny that our Lord is the Son of the Fashioner of the world, that is, His only-begotten Word, it cannot be consistent that the Eucharist is the figure or the virtue of His body and blood. For if the Son of God did not take true flesh and a true human body formed from matter created by the Maker of the world, nor take to Himself anything material (hylic), but "clothed Himself from the dispensation with a certain body prepared with unutterable art," as the Valentinians asserted, He can exhibit no figure or virtue of His body in the Eucharist. For the heretics who take away a material body from Christ, therefore, it cannot be consistent that the Eucharist is the figure or virtue of His body. Thus the Protestants must needs feign that Irenaeus argued. Yet every sober man will confess that an argument of this sort is that of a madman, and consequently cannot without grave injury be attributed to Irenaeus. As though indeed, because Christ took nothing material and did not assume a material body, it followed thence that He could exhibit in the mystery of the Eucharist no figure or virtue of that more spiritual body, "prepared with unutterable art," wherewith He clothed Himself! Nay rather, from this above all it would have been established for the heretics that the Eucharist is the figure or virtue of the body of their Lord. For once both these points had been established for the heretics, as they contended that they were established for them—first, that Christ assumed no

Editors' notes and page, col. 329

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor: asserebant Valentiniani› · call in col 329

Iren., lib. I, c. 6, n. 1.

Irenaeus, book I, chapter 6, no. 1.

(printed under page 171)

Page

running head: 329 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A stantia, a; B tiores haeretici,; C mentum : Negantibus; D tatum fuisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: sub-stantia

PG 7:330

ex inferiori materia conflatum corpus assumpsisse; 2° Christum tamen panem et vinum, corpus et sanguinem suum esse dixisse; iisdem illico veluti quiddam ex ambobus necessario consequens constitisset, panem et vinum non alia ratione Christi corpus et sanguinem esse posse, quam quia Christi corporis et sanguinis aut figura sunt, aut virtutem continent. Frustraque id negasset Irenaeus; nam statim reposuissent adversarii, nihil repugnare, eum qui nullum sibi ex rebus inferioribus creatis corpus ascivit, in iisdem spiritalioris illius, quod gestavit, corporis figuram et virtutem repraesentare. Unde tantum abest ut hoc argumento ab Eucharistia petito catholicam causam juvasset S. doctor, quin potius arma haereticis ministrasset, quibus catholicos ipsos confodissent. Argumentum enim invicte retorquentes dixissent : Si quod corpus humanum et materiale ex rebus inferioribus creatis assumere sibi potuisset Dei Filius, ex iis maxime sibi confecisset, quae ipse corpus et sanguinem suum esse dixit : atqui tamen, ipsis fatentibus catholicis, ea ipsa quae consecrando corpus et sanguinem suum esse dixit, panis videlicet et vinum, non fiunt verum ejusdem corpus verusque sanguis, sed meram corporis et sanguinis figuram et virtutem exhibent et continent : ergo Christus verum corpus humanum non assumpsit, sed meram corporis humani figuram et virtutem, qua in hominum sensus ageret, idque efficeret, quod verum corpus humanum efficere potuisset. Econtrario vero si supponamus, quod verissimum est, et Irenaeo et adversariis ejus certum et indubitatum fuisse, panem et vinum in Eucharistia converti in verum Domini nostri corpus et sanguinem; argumento ab Eucharistia petito nihil ad opprimendos haereticos validius erit. Qui enim, dixerit Irenaeus, panem et vinum, res materiales creatas, in veram proprii corporis et sanguinis substantiam convertit, et verum corpus et sanguinem suum esse palam asseruit; is, si verax est, et vera loquitur, verum corpus humanum, ex inferiori materia, perinde atque nostrum, compositum habuerit necesse est; « sanguis enim, » ut recte advertit lib. V, c. 11, n. 2, « non est nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua, quae est secundum hominem, substantia. » Atqui, ut ipsimet fatentur adversarii, Dominus noster, ipsa veritas, panem et vinum, res materiales creatas, in veram proprii corporis et sanguinis substantiam convertit, ac convertisse se dixit : ergo verum corpus humanum ex inferiori materia compositum, nostroque consubstantiale habuit : ergo mundi creatoris Filius est, et Verbum ejus.

body formed from lower matter; secondly, that Christ nevertheless said that the bread and wine were His body and blood—it would immediately have been established for them, as something necessarily following from both premises, that bread and wine can be the body and blood of Christ in no other way than because they either are the figure or contain the virtue of the body and blood of Christ. And in vain would Irenaeus have denied this; for the adversaries would immediately have replied that there is nothing repugnant in Him Who took to Himself no body from lower created things representing in those same things the figure and virtue of that more spiritual body which He bore. Whence so far would the holy doctor have been from helping the Catholic cause by this argument drawn from the Eucharist, that he would rather have furnished the heretics with weapons wherewith to stab the Catholics themselves. For retorting the argument invincibly, they would have said: If the Son of God could have assumed to Himself any human and material body from lower created things, He would above all have made it for Himself out of those things which He Himself said were His body and blood; yet, as the Catholics themselves confess, those very things which in consecrating He said were His body and blood, namely bread and wine, do not become His true body and true blood, but exhibit and contain a mere figure and virtue of His body and blood; therefore Christ did not assume a true human body, but a mere figure and virtue of a human body, whereby He might act upon the senses of men, and effect that which a true human body could have effected. On the contrary, however, if we suppose—what is most true—that it was certain and undoubted both to Irenaeus and to his adversaries that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are converted into the true body and blood of our Lord, nothing will be stronger for crushing the heretics than the argument drawn from the Eucharist. For He, Irenaeus will say, Who converted bread and wine, created material things, into the true substance of His own body and blood, and openly asserted that they are His true body and blood, if He is truthful and speaks the truth, must needs have had a true human body, composed, just like ours, of lower matter; "for blood," as he rightly observes in Book 5, Chapter 11, n. 2, "is only from veins and flesh, and from the rest of the substance which belongs to man." Now, as the adversaries themselves confess, our Lord, the very Truth, converted bread and wine, created material things, into the true substance of His own body and blood, and said that He had so converted them: therefore He had a true human body composed of lower matter, and consubstantial with ours; therefore He is the Son of the Creator of the world, and His Word.

82. Erit forte e Calvinianis quispiam, qui respondeat, Irenaeo satis fuisse probare Eucharistiam esse corporis et sanguinis Christi figuram, ut inde conficeret Dominum nostrum verum corpus et sanguinem assumpsisse : nam, ut ait Tertullianus, lib. IV

82. There will perhaps be someone among the Calvinists who may reply that it was enough for Irenaeus to prove that the Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Christ, in order to establish thence that our Lord assumed a true body and blood: for, as Tertullian says in Book 4

Editors' notes and page, col. 330

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 330
marginal letters: A ex inferiori; B fodissent. Argumentum; C tuisset. Econtrario; D hominem, substantia.
old-edition numerals: CXLII before materia,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:331

cont. Marcion. c. 4, « vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. » Sed vanissimam responsionem jam occupavimus. Nec enim Irenaeo probandum duntaxat erat, Christum verum habuisse corpus; id quippe non absolute negabant ii, quos hic refellit, haeretici; sed id praesertim demonstrandum erat, Dominum nostrum corpus sibi ex inferiori materia a mundi fabricatore condita sumpsisse, nostro consubstantiale. Atqui id certe hoc argumento non demonstrasset. Statim enim regessisset Valentinianus, ideo Christum assumpsisse panem et vinum, ut iis corporis et sanguinis, quae mortalium sensibus objecerat, figuram constitueret; ac proinde sicuti eo corpore quod, in terris agens, hominum sensus affecerat, meram corporis humani speciem, non verum corpus humanum objecerat; sic pane et vino non verum corpus, sed corporis materialis phantasma significare voluisse : imo eo demonstrare voluisse, nullam sibi veram corporis humani materiam et substantiam, sed speciem duntaxat inesse. Quod autem addidisset Irenaeus, omni figurae veritatem aliquam respondere debere, illico dissolvisset Valentinianus, reponens, utrique figurae, naturali scilicet et Eucharisticae, respondere verum illud corpus paratum inenarrabili arte, quod a dispositione sibi circumdedit Christus, sed quod ex inferiori materia concretum non sit. Sicque cito ruisset tota Irenaei argumentatio.

Against Marcion, Chapter 4, "an empty thing, which is a phantom, could not admit of a figure." But we have already forestalled this most vain reply. For Irenaeus did not have to prove merely that Christ had a true body—since the heretics whom he refutes here did not absolutely deny that—but he had to demonstrate above all that our Lord took to Himself a body from lower matter created by the Fashioner of the world, consubstantial with ours. Now this he certainly would not have demonstrated by this argument. For a Valentinian would immediately have retorted that Christ assumed bread and wine to the end that by them He might constitute a figure of the body and blood which He had presented to the senses of mortals; and that consequently, just as by that body wherewith while dwelling on earth He had affected the senses of men, He had presented a mere appearance of a human body, and not a true human body, so by the bread and wine He willed to signify not a true body, but the phantom of a material body—nay, that He willed thereby to demonstrate that there was in Him no true matter and substance of a human body, but only the appearance. And as to what Irenaeus might have added, that some truth must answer to every figure, the Valentinian would immediately have refuted it by replying that to each figure, namely the natural and the Eucharistic, there answers that true body prepared with unutterable art wherewith Christ clothed Himself from the dispensation, but which was not formed from lower matter. And thus the whole argumentation of Irenaeus would quickly have collapsed.

83. Idem argumentum ab Eucharistia petitum confirmat et instaurat Irenaeus, ut alterum haereticorum, carnis resurrectionem negantium, errorem configat. Verba Latine recitabo, iis duntaxat ex Graeco additis, quae in interpretatione Latina omissa sunt. « Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, et non percipere vitam, quae corpore Domini et sanguine alitur? Ergo aut sententiam mutent, aut abstineant offerendo quae praedicta sunt. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, et Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei quae sunt ejus, congruenter communicationem et unitatem (Graece κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν, communionem et unionem) praedicantes (suppl. Verbi divini cum corpore et sanguine Domini; tum adde, juxta Graecum, καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, et confitentes resurrectionem carnis et spiritus). Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti : sic et corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. » Hic carnis nostrae resurrectionem ex duplici propositione infert Irenaeus, nimirum : Ea caro in corruptionem devenire non potest, quae percipit vitam; ea caro

83. Irenaeus confirms and renews the same argument drawn from the Eucharist in order to pierce the other error of the heretics, who denied the resurrection of the flesh. I shall recite the words in Latin, adding from the Greek only those things which were omitted in the Latin translation: "And how again do they say that the flesh passes into corruption, and does not partake of life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord? Therefore either let them change their opinion, or let them abstain from offering the things that have been spoken of. But our opinion is in harmony with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him the things that are His, fittingly proclaiming the communication and unity (in Greek κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν, communion and union; supply: of the divine Word with the body and blood of the Lord; then add, according to the Greek, καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, and confessing the resurrection of the flesh and spirit). For just as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection." Here Irenaeus infers the resurrection of our flesh from a twofold proposition, namely: That flesh cannot pass into corruption which partakes of life; that flesh

Editors' notes and page, col. 331

Footnotes

(69) ‹anchor: omissa sunt› · call in col 331

Iren., lib. IV, c. 18, n. 5.

Irenaeus, book IV, chapter 18, no. 5.

(printed under page 172)

Page

running head: 331 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A cont. Marcion.; B poris humani; C 83. Idem; D cum corpore
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:332

percipit vitam, quae corpore et sanguine Domini alitur. Nam addita altera propositione : Atqui caro nostra corpore et sanguine Domini alitur, fluit hinc ex se conclusio : ergo caro nostra in corruptionem devenire non potest. Priores propositiones probare supervacaneum fuisset; patent quippe ex ipsis Christi verbis Joan. VI, 54, 55 : Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. Assumptionem vero, quamvis et ipsa satis aperte ex iis Domini verbis : Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus, demonstraretur, explicat, probat et confirmat Irenaeus. Ac primo quidem observat, haereticorum sententiam cum ipsa sacrificii eucharistici fide, quam tamen eamdem cum catholicis profitebantur, sic repugnare, ut ab offerendo sacrificio abstinendum eis esset, aut mutanda sententia : catholicorum vero sententiam cum Eucharistia mire adeo consentire, ut hinc novum ei robur accederet. Offerimus enim, inquit, Deo quae sunt ejus, propria ipsius bona, ab eo condita et creata, panem videlicet et vinum, quae consecratione ac benedictione ministrorum Ecclesiae fiunt Christi Domini, Filii Dei unigeniti ac Verbi corpus et sanguis, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, concinne praedicantes communionem et unionem; quarum rerum, nisi earum, de quibus paulo ante sermonem fecit, Verbi scilicet divini cum humano Christi corpore et sanguine, tum naturali, tum sacramentali? καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, et confitentes resurrectionem carnis et spiritus. Tum demum ad causam propius accedens, addit : « Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, » etc., quibus manifeste alludit (nec diffitetur Grabius) ad solemnem illam verborum formulam, quae in antiquis omnibus liturgiis Orientalibus occurrit, quamque Graeci cum Irenaeo κατ' ἐξοχὴν vocant ἐπίκλησιν, invocationem. Ea est qua Deus oratur ut mittat Spiritum sanctum, qui suo in dona proposita illapsu, efficacissimaque operatione faciat ea corpus et sanguinem Christi; simulque fidelibus ea suscipientibus ita per gratiam suam superveniat, et illabatur eorum cordibus, ut eadem mysteria prosint illis ad remissionem peccatorum, gratiae augmentum, et vitam aeternam. Ad eamdem ἐπίκλησιν, invocationem, ipso fatente Grabio, pariter respiciebat Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, ut plures alios omittam Graecos Patres, scribens Catech. 1, « ἐπικλήσεως γενομένης, invocatione facta, panem fieri corpus Christi. » Et Catech. 5 : « Rogamus, inquit, Deum misericordem, ut sanctum Spiritum mittat super proposita, et faciat panem quidem corpus Christi, vinum autem sanguinem Christi. » Sic autem ad eam allusisse

partakes of life which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord. For when the minor premise is added: Now our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, the conclusion flows hence of itself: Therefore our flesh cannot pass into corruption. To prove the former propositions would have been superfluous, since they are clear from the very words of Christ in John 6:54-55: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. The minor premise, however, although it too was demonstrated clearly enough from those words of the Lord, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed (John 6:56), Irenaeus explains, proves, and confirms. And first indeed he observes that the opinion of the heretics is so repugnant to the very faith of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which they nevertheless professed in common with the Catholics, that they ought either to abstain from offering the sacrifice or change their opinion; whereas the opinion of the Catholics agrees so wonderfully with the Eucharist that it gains new strength therefrom. For we offer to God, he says, the things that are His, His own proper goods, founded and created by Him, namely bread and wine, which by the consecration and blessing of the ministers of the Church become the body and blood of Christ the Lord, the only-begotten Son of God and the Word, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, harmoniously proclaiming the communion and union—of what things, save of those of which he spoke a little before, namely of the divine Word with the human body and blood of Christ, both natural and sacramental?—καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, and confessing the resurrection of the flesh and spirit. Then at length, coming closer to the case, he adds: "For just as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God," etc., by which words he manifestly alludes (nor does Grabe deny it) to that solemn formula of words which occurs in all the ancient Eastern liturgies, and which the Greeks with Irenaeus call κατ' ἐξοχὴν (par excellence) the ἐπίκλησις, invocation. This is that prayer whereby God is entreated to send the Holy Spirit, Who by His descent upon the gifts set forth, and by His most efficacious operation, may make them the body and blood of Christ; and at the same time may so come through His grace upon the faithful who receive them, and descend into their hearts, that the same mysteries may avail them unto the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and everlasting life. To the same ἐπίκλησις, invocation, as Grabe himself confesses, Cyril of Jerusalem likewise looked, to omit several other Greek Fathers, when writing in Catechesis 1 that "ἐπικλήσεως γενομένης, when the invocation has been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ." And in Catechesis 5: "We beseech," he says, "the merciful God to send the Holy Spirit upon the gifts set forth, that He may make the bread indeed the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ." Now that [Cyril] so alluded to it as

Editors' notes and page, col. 332

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: fatente Grabio› · call in col 332

Not. in lib. V, cap. 2.

Note on book V, chapter 2.

(printed under page 172)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 332
marginal letters: A percipit vitam,; B confirmat Irenaeus.; C Verbi scilicet; D suam superveniat,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin text with Greek words and phrases quoted inline (no facing Greek column); editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:333

Cyrillum, ut proposita dona Spiritus sancti illapsu, et efficacissima operatione transmutari vellet, non moraliter tantum, sed vere, realiter et substantialiter in ipsum Christi corpus et sanguinem, aperte confitetur Grabius, ut postea dicemus; confitebitur et alius quisquis ex aequo et bono agere voluerit. Eodem proinde spectare Irenaei allusionem fateatur necesse est. Et certe ea invocatio liturgica, quam tum Irenaeus, tum Cyrillus, tum alii Patres tam saepe memorant, cujuscunque alterius sacrorum donorum transmutationis, quam realis et substantialis in ipsum Christi corpus et sanguinem, sensum procul excludit. Rogatur quippe Spiritus sanctus ut descendat, non tantum in fidelium corda, ea sanctificaturus; sed et in ipsa sacra dona, divina sua et efficacissima operatione in ea immediate acturus, et insigne aliquod miraculum editurus. Quid vero aliud miraculi plenum in ipsa sacra dona agere potest Spiritus sanctus, nisi vera transmutatione efficere ea aliquid esse quod prius non erant, corpus videlicet et sanguinem Christi, ut in omnibus Liturgiis legitur, μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ, ut habent Basilii et Chrysostomi Liturgiae? Tropos, figuras et virtutem, nescio quam, hic comminiscantur Protestantes : perspicuam verborum sententiam falsis interpretationibus circumvenire nunquam poterunt. Duplex enim aperte distinguitur Spiritus sancti illapsus, duplexque utriusque finis, alter ab altero diversus : alter in ipsam materiam, id est in sacra dona, ut fiant aliquid, quod prius non erant, nimirum corpus et sanguis Christi; alter in corda fidelium, ut omnes qui sacramentum percepturi sunt, fructum remissionis peccatorum, gratiaeque augmentum consequantur. Cum igitur negant Protestantes aliam transmutationem invocatione postulari, quam moralem : hoc est, ut in ipsa sacramenti perceptione fidelibus sacra dona cum fide percipientibus fiant corpus et sanguis Christi, negent consequenter alium longe ante communionem postulari Spiritus sancti illapsum in ipsa sacra dona, ut ea efficiat corpus et sanguinem Christi, sicque duplicem eum illapsum confundant, perspicuis verbis vim apertam inferentes, necesse est. Et, quaeso, si is sit invocationis sensus; cur Ecclesia Spiritum sanctum precata quidem, ut suo in aquam baptismalem, vel chrisma illapsu, virtutem suam, vimque sanctificandi iis impertiat, Christi sanguinis virtute ea repleat ac fecundet, etc., nunquam tamen eum rogavit, ut efficacissima sua operatione ea efficeret ipsum Christi sanguinem, aut Spiritum sanctum? Nodum hunc solvere, quidquid rhetoricentur Protestantes, nunquam poterunt. Ex ea ergo invocatione quae fit super terrenum panem, recte concludit Irenaeus carnem nostram corpore Domini et sanguine ali : quia qui est a terra panis, ex quo semel percepit invocationem Dei, desinit esse panis communis, sed fit Eucharistia, id est ipsius Verbi incarnati verum corpus, verusque sanguis. Hoc

to mean that the gifts set forth are transmuted by the descent and most efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit, not morally only, but truly, really, and substantially into the very body and blood of Christ, Grabe openly confesses, as we shall say afterwards; and anyone else who is willing to act fairly and honestly will confess it too. He must needs confess, accordingly, that the allusion of Irenaeus looks to the same point. And certainly that liturgical invocation which Irenaeus, Cyril, and the other Fathers so often mention far excludes the sense of any other transmutation of the sacred gifts than a real and substantial one into the very body and blood of Christ. For the Holy Spirit is besought to descend, not only into the hearts of the faithful, in order to sanctify them, but also upon the sacred gifts themselves, in order to act immediately upon them by His divine and most efficacious operation, and to work some signal miracle. Now what else full of miracle can the Holy Spirit work upon the sacred gifts themselves, save by a true transmutation to make them be something which they were not before, namely the body and blood of Christ, as is read in all the Liturgies—μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ (having transmuted them by Thy Holy Spirit), as the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom have it? Let the Protestants devise tropes, figures, and I know not what virtue here: they will never be able to circumvent the clear meaning of the words by false interpretations. For a twofold descent of the Holy Spirit is openly distinguished, and a twofold end of each, the one distinct from the other: the one upon the matter itself, that is, upon the sacred gifts, that they may become something which they were not before, namely the body and blood of Christ; the other into the hearts of the faithful, that all who are about to receive the sacrament may obtain the fruit of the remission of sins and the increase of grace. When the Protestants, therefore, deny that any other transmutation is asked for by the invocation than a moral one—that is, that in the very reception of the sacrament the sacred gifts become the body and blood of Christ to the faithful who receive them with faith—they must needs consequently deny that another descent of the Holy Spirit upon the sacred gifts themselves is asked for long before the communion, in order to make them the body and blood of Christ, and thus confound that twofold descent, doing open violence to clear words. And, I ask, if that were the sense of the invocation, why has the Church, while praying indeed to the Holy Spirit that by His descent upon the baptismal water or the chrism He may impart to them His virtue and the power of sanctifying, and fill and make them fruitful with the virtue of the blood of Christ, etc., nevertheless never besought Him that by His most efficacious operation He would make them the very blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit? This knot, whatever rhetoric the Protestants may use, they will never be able to untie. From that invocation, therefore, which is made over the earthly bread, Irenaeus rightly concludes that our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord: because the bread which is from the earth, once it has received the invocation of God, ceases to be common bread, and becomes the Eucharist, that is, the true body and true blood of the incarnate Word Himself. This

Editors' notes and page, col. 333

Page

running head: 333 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A Cyrillum, ut; B sacra dona,; C alter in; D tionis sensus;
old-edition numerals: CXLIII before et
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:334

ipsum est quod paulo enucleatius explicare vult, cum statim addit, « Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus constare, terrena et coelesti. » Perspicua quidem verba, nisi tricis suis caliginem iis offundere studuissent Calviniani.

is the very thing that he wishes to explain a little more distinctly when he immediately adds that "the Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly." Clear words indeed, had not the Calvinists striven to cast darkness over them by their subtleties.

84. Hanc tamen facile discutiet qui tum ad haereticorum, qui hic refelluntur, hypothesim, tum ad totius argumentationis Irenaei seriem attendere voluerit. Paulo ante dixit S. doctor, alium esse, ex haereticorum sententia, a supremo Patre fabricatorem mundi; Dominum vero nostrum non esse Filium, nec Verbum ejus, quia verum corpus humanum ex terrena substantia a mundi opifice creata conflatum non assumpsit, nec sibi univit Verbum divinum. Eumdem vero errorem hic summatim perstringens, ac simul resurrectionem carnis probans, ostendit terrenum panem ideo, post invocationem Dei, communem panem esse desinere, quia fit « Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti. » Quae autem res illa terrena, ex qua constat Eucharistia, nisi corpus et sanguis Domini, quibus ali carnem nostram mox dixerat Irenaeus? Ea vero rem terrenam vocat, ut hinc haereticos confutet, negantes Christum quidquam sibi terreni corporis ascivisse : terrenam, inquam, quia ex terreno pane et vino, in Christi corporis et sanguinis substantiam vere conversis et transmutatis fit verum Domini corpus, verusque sanguis. Ex quo sequitur, Christum sibi corpus ex terrena materia concretum et factum, veramque carnem ac verum sanguinem assumpsisse; quod inficiabantur haeretici. Quae vero res illa coelestis, ex qua etiam constare Eucharistia dicitur, nisi ea, cujus paulo ante facta mentio est, Verbum scilicet divinum, Filius Patris unigenitus, quem creatae Jesu Domini nostri naturae vere ac substantialiter unitum fuisse nolebant haeretici? Recte igitur asserit Irenaeus, Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus constare, terrena et coelesti; his enim catholicam sententiam adversus haereticorum blasphemias egregie munit; probatque ex Eucharistia, quam corpus et sanguinem esse Domini fatebantur illi, Christum Dominum ut verum hominem, sic et verum Deum, Filium Dei et Verbum Patris unigenitum exstitisse; Verbumque humanam Christi naturam, corpus et sanguinem vere ac substantialiter univisse sibi. Perinde est ac si dixisset : Quod corpus, qui sanguis carni nostrae vitam impertiuntur, eamque a corruptione vindicant, ut sint terrenum corpus, terrenusque sanguis, ex terrenis rebus concreta et facta, esse tamen non possunt merum terrenum corpus, merus terrenus sanguis, seu meri hominis corpus et sanguis; nam merum corpus humanum suapte natura mortale, et corruptioni obnoxium, vitam aliis praestare non potest. Atqui Domini nostri corpus et sanguis in Eucharistia, ex terrenis rebus, pane et vino, per veram eorumdem conversionem facta, carni nostrae vitam impertiuntur. Igitur non sunt mera res terrena, merique hominis corpus et sanguis,

84. Yet anyone will easily dispel this darkness who is willing to attend both to the hypothesis of the heretics who are refuted here, and to the train of Irenaeus's whole argumentation. A little before, the holy doctor said that according to the opinion of the heretics the Fashioner of the world is other than the supreme Father; and that our Lord is not His Son, nor His Word, because the divine Word did not assume or unite to Himself a true human body formed from earthly substance created by the Maker of the world. Touching summarily upon the same error here, and at the same time proving the resurrection of the flesh, he shows that the earthly bread ceases after the invocation of God to be common bread for this reason, that it becomes "the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly." Now what is that earthly thing of which the Eucharist consists, save the body and blood of the Lord, whereby Irenaeus had just said that our flesh is nourished? And he calls them an earthly thing in order thereby to refute the heretics, who denied that Christ took to Himself anything of an earthly body: earthly, I say, because from earthly bread and wine, truly converted and transmuted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, are made the true body and true blood of the Lord. From which it follows that Christ assumed to Himself a body formed and made from earthly matter, and true flesh and true blood; which the heretics denied. And what is that heavenly thing of which also the Eucharist is said to consist, save that of which mention was made a little before, namely the divine Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, Whom the heretics would not have to be truly and substantially united to the created nature of Jesus our Lord? Rightly, therefore, does Irenaeus assert that the Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; for by these words he admirably fortifies the Catholic opinion against the blasphemies of the heretics, and proves from the Eucharist, which they confessed to be the body and blood of the Lord, that Christ the Lord was both true man and true God, the Son of God and the only-begotten Word of the Father, and that the Word truly and substantially united to Himself the human nature, the body and blood of Christ. It is just as if he had said: That body and that blood which impart life to our flesh, and deliver it from corruption, although they are an earthly body and an earthly blood, formed and made from earthly things, yet cannot be a mere earthly body and a mere earthly blood, or the body and blood of a mere man; for a mere human body, being by its own nature mortal and subject to corruption, cannot bestow life upon others. Now the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist, made from earthly things, bread and wine, through a true conversion of the same, impart life to our flesh. Therefore they are not a mere earthly thing, nor the body and blood of a mere man,

Editors' notes and page, col. 334

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 334
marginal letters: A ipsum est; B perstringens, ac; C sanguinem assumpsisse ;; D manam Christi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: san-
other: the word sanguis, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 335

PG 7:335

sed his unita sit necesse est res coelestis, sempiterna et immortalis, ipsa vita, uno verbo Filius Dei unigenitus et Verbum Patris. Simili prorsus argumento Nestorianos non semel impugnavere tum Cyrillus Alexandrinus, tum alii Patres qui adversus eos scripserunt, probaveruntque Christi corpus, quo pascimur in Eucharistia, non puri hominis corpus es⟨s⟩e, sed ipsius Verbi incarnati; quod puri hominis caro vitam impertire non possit. Hoc vero eo felicius adversus Gnosticos utitur Irenaeus, quo simul et unionem hypostaticam Verbi divini cum vera Christi humana natura, et carnis nostrae resurrectionem astruit. Pascimur, inquit, in Eucharistia, corpore et sanguine Domini; et hinc vitam percipit caro nostra. Neque enim is, qui nobis in Eucharistia porrigitur, sacer cibus, spectandus est ut panis communis; erat quidem ante invocationem Dei; sed semel prolatis super eum consecrationis verbis, desinit esse panis communis, et fit Eucharistia. Porro Eucharistia constat ex duabus rebus, terrena et coelesti, corpore videlicet et sanguine Domini, e terrena materia concretis; nec iis solis, sed et ex ipso Verbo divino huic corpori et sanguini hypostatice unito. Ex quo sequitur « corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, » eaque pasta et nutrita, non nuda meri hominis carne terrena, sed ipsius Verbi divini incarnati, ipsius proinde vitae, corpore et sanguine, « jam non esse corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia; » nec aeternum perire posse, quae tam coelesti cibo recreantur. Sic fit, ait Irenaeus, ut sententia nostra mire consonet Eucharistiae, et Eucharistia vicissim confirmet sententiam nostram. Offerimus siquidem Deo Patri, non aliena, non res ab alio creatas, sed quae sunt ejus, quaeque ipse condidit, panem videlicet et vinum, quae percipientia invocationem Dei fiunt verum ac proprium ipsius Filii Dei corpus et sanguis; congruenter communionem et unionem Verbi divini cum carne praedicantes, et confitentes nostrae carnis resurrectionem.

but there must needs be united to them a heavenly thing, everlasting and immortal, Life itself, in a word, the only-begotten Son of God and Word of the Father. By an altogether similar argument both Cyril of Alexandria and the other Fathers who wrote against them more than once attacked the Nestorians, and proved that the body of Christ wherewith we are fed in the Eucharist is the body not of a mere man, but of the incarnate Word Himself, because the flesh of a mere man cannot impart life. And Irenaeus uses this argument against the Gnostics all the more felicitously because thereby he establishes at the same time both the hypostatic union of the divine Word with the true human nature of Christ, and the resurrection of our flesh. We are fed, he says, in the Eucharist with the body and blood of the Lord, and hence our flesh partakes of life. For that sacred food which is reached out to us in the Eucharist is not to be regarded as common bread; it was so indeed before the invocation of God, but once the words of consecration have been pronounced over it, it ceases to be common bread, and becomes the Eucharist. Furthermore, the Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, namely the body and blood of the Lord, formed from earthly matter; and not of these alone, but also of the divine Word Himself hypostatically united to this body and blood. From which it follows that "our bodies, receiving the Eucharist," and fed and nourished by it—not by the bare earthly flesh of a mere man, but by the body and blood of the incarnate divine Word Himself, and consequently of Life itself—"are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection," and that those bodies which are refreshed with such heavenly food cannot perish for ever. Thus it comes to pass, says Irenaeus, that our opinion harmonizes wonderfully with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to God the Father, not things belonging to another, not things created by another, but the things that are His and that He Himself created, namely bread and wine, which, receiving the invocation of God, become the true and proper body and blood of the Son of God Himself; fittingly proclaiming the communion and union of the divine Word with the flesh, and confessing the resurrection of our flesh.

85. Hic Irenaeo nihil alienum affingimus, sed Irenaeum ex Irenaeo, et ipsius Irenaei verbis, scopo, consilio et argumento explicamus. Frustra vero hic solitam Christi corporis figuram ac virtutem opponent Protestantes : nisi prius Irenaeum penitus insaniisse probent, nulli sobrio persuadebunt, eum mera corporis Christi figura, vel virtute, Gnosticorum errores hic confutare aut potuisse aut voluisse. Nae, praeclarum argumentum, quod a figura aut virtute duxisset! Ea caro, dixisset, percipit vitam, nec proinde in corruptionem devenire potest, quae Domini nostri corporis et sanguinis figura aut virtute alitur. Eccui, nisi deliranti, in mentem venire unquam potuit, carnem nostram ali et nutriri, vel, ut alibi loquitur Irenaeus, membra nostra augeri figura, similitudine, imagine aut virtute? Quid, quaeso, Christi corporis figura, nisi mera relatio, ut loquuntur in Scholis, panis ad Christi corpus? Quid ea virtus, nisi, ut explicat cl.

85. Here we impute nothing foreign to Irenaeus, but explain Irenaeus from Irenaeus, and from Irenaeus's own words, aim, design, and argument. In vain will the Protestants here oppose to us their usual figure and virtue of the body of Christ: unless they first prove that Irenaeus was utterly out of his mind, they will persuade no sober man that he either could or would refute the errors of the Gnostics here by a mere figure or virtue of the body of Christ. Truly a splendid argument that he would have drawn from a figure or a virtue! That flesh, he would have said, partakes of life, and consequently cannot pass into corruption, which is nourished by the figure or virtue of the body and blood of our Lord. Into whose mind, save that of a madman, could it ever have entered that our flesh is fed and nourished, or, as Irenaeus says elsewhere, that our members are increased by a figure, a likeness, an image, or a virtue? What, I ask, is the figure of the body of Christ save a mere relation, as they say in the Schools, of the bread to the body of Christ? What is that virtue save, as the illustrious

Editors' notes and page, col. 335

Page

running head: 335 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A guis, sed; B Eucharistia porrigitur,; C num perire; D opponent Protestantes :
old-edition numerals: CXLIV after perire
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: san-guis

PG 7:336

Grabius, Spiritus sancti gratia? Ergone alitur et nutritur caro nostra, augenturque membra nostra relationibus, aut Spiritus sancti gratia? Quin similiter tum Irenaeus, tum alii Patres, qui carnis resurrectionem probantes, argumenta petierunt ab Eucharistia; ea ducentes a manna, a petra deserti, ab agno paschali, etc., quae et ipsa Christi corporis figurae erant, hinc confecerint, tam efficacia fuisse veteri populo remedia corruptionis, quam novo? Nullos tamen reperias qui sic argumentati fuerint. Quin potius, et forte etiam consultius, dixissent carnem nostram aeternum perire non posse, quae salutari baptismatis lavacro abluta et regenerata, ac sacro chrismate uncta et roborata fuerit? Haec enim (nec minus pane et vino in Eucharistia, si vera sit Calvinianorum sententia) Spiritus sancti gratia et virtute, imo Christi ipsius sanguine fecundata et repleta esse saepe asseruerunt. Nullus tamen occurrit, qui ejusmodi argumento carnis resurrectionem astruxerit. Quod quidem vel solum demonstrat, Patres aliud quidpiam in Eucharistiae mysterio agnovisse, praeter nudam Christi corporis et sanguinis figuram, aut virtutem. Sed caeteras argumenti Irenaei propositiones expendamus. Igitur, si Calvinianos audiamus, ex eo contenderit Irenaeus carnem nostram percipere vitam, nec proinde in corruptionem abire posse, quod Christi corporis et sanguinis figura aut virtute alatur. Hanc vero propositionem ex eo probaverit, quod is, qui est a terra, panis percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non communis panis sit. Quid ergo, si quidem in Christi corpus non convertitur, nec substantiam mutat? Eucharistia est ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti. Si vero quaeras a Calvinianis quae sint res illae, terrena et coelestis; consentiunt quidem omnes, terrenae rei nomine panem intelligi : de re vero coelesti dissentiunt. Alii quippe intelligunt virtutem, nescio quam, a corpore Christi manantem, ab eo tamen separatam, et pani inditam. Alii fictitiam ejusmodi virtutem merito deridentes, rem per panem significatam intelligunt, nimirum Christi corpus, absens utique. Sed utraque explicatio tot absurdis scatet, ut mirum sit ab aliquo proponi potuisse. Non omnia hic prosequi animus est : id abunde praestitere eruditissimi auctores libri De perpetuitate fidei Ecclesiae catholicae circa Eucharistiam, tom. III, lib. I, c. 2, et tom. II, lib. V, c. 10, 11 et seqq. Pauca duntaxat observare pro instituto sufficiat. Ac ut a posteriori exordiar, pari jure dici poterit agnum paschalem duabus rebus constare, animali quodam et transitu, seu si mavis, Christi corpore; petram deserti, lapide constare et Christo; marmoream Caesaris imaginem constare marmore et Caesare, etc. Nempe insulsus sit quisquis asseruerit totum illud, quod connotativum vocant, rem videlicet in se unam, quae tamen ad aliam refertur, eamque significat, duabus constare partibus, quarum una sit res significans, altera res significata. Nulla res, quae totum

Grabe explains, the grace of the Holy Spirit? Is our flesh, then, fed and nourished, and are our members increased by relations, or by the grace of the Holy Spirit? Why did not both Irenaeus and the other Fathers who, in proving the resurrection of the flesh, drew arguments from the Eucharist, similarly draw them from the manna, from the rock of the desert, from the paschal lamb, etc., which were themselves also figures of the body of Christ, and conclude thence that there were remedies against corruption as efficacious for the old people as for the new? Yet you will find none who argued thus. Why did they not rather, and perhaps even more advisedly, say that our flesh cannot perish for ever which has been washed and regenerated in the saving laver of baptism, and anointed and strengthened with sacred chrism? For they often asserted that these elements (no less than the bread and wine in the Eucharist, if the opinion of the Calvinists were true) are made fruitful and filled with the grace and virtue of the Holy Spirit, nay, with the blood of Christ Himself. Yet no one occurs who established the resurrection of the flesh by an argument of this sort. And this alone demonstrates that the Fathers acknowledged something else in the mystery of the Eucharist besides a bare figure or virtue of the body and blood of Christ. But let us weigh the remaining propositions of Irenaeus's argument. According to the Calvinists, if we listen to them, Irenaeus contended that our flesh partakes of life, and consequently cannot pass into corruption, because it is nourished by the figure or virtue of the body and blood of Christ. And he proved this proposition from the fact that the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread. What is it, then, if indeed it is not converted into the body of Christ, and does not change its substance? It is the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly. Now if you ask of the Calvinists what those two things are, the earthly and the heavenly, they all agree indeed that by the name of the earthly thing is understood the bread; but concerning the heavenly thing they disagree. For some understand I know not what virtue flowing from the body of Christ, yet separated from it and imparted to the bread. Others, rightly deriding a fictitious virtue of this sort, understand the thing signified by the bread, namely the body of Christ, absent of course. But each explanation teems with so many absurdities that it is wonderful that it could have been proposed by anyone. It is not my intention to pursue all of them here: the most learned authors of the work On the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist have abundantly done this in Vol. III, Book 1, Chapter 2, and Vol. II, Book 5, Chapters 10, 11 et seqq. Let it suffice for our purpose to observe only a few points. And to begin with the latter explanation, with equal right it will be possible to say that the paschal lamb consists of two things, a certain animal and the Passing-over, or if you prefer, the body of Christ; that the rock of the desert consists of a stone and Christ; that a marble statue of Caesar consists of marble and Caesar, etc. Namely, anyone would be absurd who should assert that what they call a connotative whole—that is, a thing one in itself, which nevertheless refers to another thing and signifies it—consists of two parts, of which the one is the thing signifying, the other the thing signified. No thing which is not

Editors' notes and page, col. 336

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 336
marginal letters: A Grabius, Spiritus; B charistia, si; C quod is,; D qui animus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: to-
other: the word totum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 337

PG 7:337

collectivum non sit, quod certe Eucharistia non est, altera re tanquam parte constare dicitur, quae absens, et extra ipsam sit.

a collective whole—which the Eucharist certainly is not—is said to consist of another thing as a part which is absent and outside itself.

86. Nec minus absurda altera explicatio, quam asciscere sibi cl. Grabio placuit. Praeterquam quod enim commentitia illa virtus, a recentioribus excogitata ministris, toti retro antiquitati ignota semper fuit, ac ne vel levissimum quidem habet fundamentum in Scriptura et Patribus; praeterquam quod absurdum est asserere corpora nostra ali, nutriri et augeri virtute quadam a Christi corpore separata; ea stare nulla ratione potest cum Irenaei scopo et argumento, superius expositis; nec hinc inferre unquam potuit S. doctor tum unionem hypostaticam Verbi divini cum humana Christi natura, tum corporum nostrorum resurrectionem. « Nostra, inquit, sententia consonans est Eucharistiae, et Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim Deo quae sunt ejus, » res videlicet ab eo conditas, « congruenter communionem et unionem praedicantes; » quarum rerum, quaeso? An spiritus, seu animae humanae cum carne? Sed harum rerum unionem et communionem non negabant Gnostici. An virtutis Christi corporis cum pane? Sed quid haec ad Irenaei scopum, ex Eucharistiae fide confirmantis, quod antea probaverat, Christum esse ipsius mundi fabricatoris filium, id est Verbum ejus? Ergone quia virtus Christi corporis unitur cum pane, hinc confici potest Verbum cum corporea Christi natura substantialiter unitum fuisse? Imo potius contrarium intulerit Gnosticus, et dixerit : quemadmodum Christi corpus in Eucharistia cum pane unitur efficacia tenus, non re, sic Verbum divinum cum Domino nostro unitum fuisse efficientia tenus et virtute, non substantia; quae ipsa erat impiorum hominum sententia, quam bene cum Eucharistiae fide consentire merito contendissent. Igitur nisi haec fuisset Irenaei et catholicorum omnium fides, Verbum divinum in Eucharistia substantialiter uniri cum iis quae a Deo condita sunt, pane scilicet et vino, non quidem in propria substantia panis et vini remanentibus, sed vere transmutatis in Christi corpus et sanguinem, pessime catholicorum causam egisset Irenaeus. Sic, addit vir sanctus, offerimus Deo quae sunt ejus, ut etiam resurrectionem carnis et spiritus confiteamur, haecque nostra sententia ex Eucharistia confirmetur. Cur ita? An quod Christus corporis sui virtutem pani, qui nobis in Eucharistia porrigitur, impertiat? Sed tantum abest ut hinc probetur carnis nostrae resurrectio, ut potius eam acrius impugnare potuerit haereticus. Quemadmodum enim, dixerit, Christus in Eucharistia sui corporis virtutem communicans pani, hunc tamen propria sibi panis substantia non exuit; et quemadmodum, licet suum esse corpus confiteatur, in proprium tamen corpus transmutare non potest, quod nihil sibi ex vitiata et corruptioni obnoxia materia asciscere possit; sic corpora nostra,

86. No less absurd is the other explanation, which the illustrious Grabe was pleased to adopt for himself. For besides the fact that that fictitious virtue, devised by more recent ministers, was always unknown to all past antiquity, and has not even the slightest foundation in Scripture and the Fathers; besides the fact that it is absurd to assert that our bodies are fed, nourished, and increased by some virtue separated from the body of Christ; it can in no way stand with the aim and argument of Irenaeus set forth above, nor could the holy doctor ever have inferred thence either the hypostatic union of the divine Word with the human nature of Christ, or the resurrection of our bodies. "Our opinion," he says, "is in harmony with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to God the things that are His," namely things created by Him, "fittingly proclaiming the communion and union"—of what things, I ask? Of the spirit, or human soul, with the flesh? But the Gnostics did not deny the union and communion of these things. Or of the virtue of the body of Christ with the bread? But what is this to the aim of Irenaeus, who confirms from the faith of the Eucharist what he had proved before, that Christ is the Son of the Fashioner of the world Himself, that is, His Word? Because the virtue of the body of Christ is united with the bread, can it be established thence that the Word was substantially united with the corporeal nature of Christ? Nay rather, a Gnostic would have inferred the contrary, and said: Just as the body of Christ in the Eucharist is united with the bread in efficacy only, and not in reality, so the divine Word was united with our Lord in efficiency and virtue only, and not in substance—which was the very opinion of those impious men, and which they would rightly have contended agreed well with the faith of the Eucharist. Therefore, unless this had been the faith of Irenaeus and of all Catholics, that the divine Word in the Eucharist is substantially united with the things that were created by God, namely bread and wine—not indeed remaining in their own substance of bread and wine, but truly transmuted into the body and blood of Christ—Irenaeus would have pleaded the cause of the Catholics very badly. Thus, adds the holy man, we offer to God the things that are His, so that we also confess the resurrection of the flesh and spirit, and this opinion of ours is confirmed by the Eucharist. Why so? Is it because Christ imparts the virtue of His body to the bread which is reached out to us in the Eucharist? Yet so far is the resurrection of our flesh from being proved hence, that a heretic could rather have attacked it more sharply therefrom. For just as Christ in the Eucharist, he would have said, while communicating the virtue of His body to the bread, nevertheless does not divest it of its own proper substance of bread, and just as, although He confesses that it is His body, He nevertheless cannot transmute it into His own body, because He can take nothing to Himself from corrupted matter subject to corruption; so our bodies,

Editors' notes and page, col. 337

Page

running head: 337 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A tum collectivum; B ra, tum; C test Verbum; D sunt ejus,
old-edition numerals: CXLV after ristia
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: to-tum

PG 7:338

quamvis corporis Christi virtutem per communicatum sibi sacrum panem accipiant, ea tamen ab insita sibi corruptela eximi non possunt, nec minus proinde peritura. Sic vanis effugiis suis arma ministrant Calviniani haereticis omnium profligatissimis, et Ecclesiae Patres insanorum hominum more cum iis dimicantes campo inferunt.

although they receive the virtue of the body of Christ through the sacred bread communicated to them, nevertheless cannot be exempted from the corruption implanted in them, and will consequently perish none the less. Thus by their vain evasions the Calvinists furnish weapons to the most profligate of all heretics, and bring the Fathers of the Church into the field fighting with them after the manner of madmen.

87. Quam vero efficax illud argumenti genus, et merito quidem, existimaret Irenaeus, demonstrat quod eo saepius adversus Gnosticos utatur, illosque ad Eucharistiam non semel provocet, eorum errores hoc telo confixurus. Eodem lib. IV, c. 33, n. 2, jam cit., Marcionitas refellens, qui duos deos fingebant, alterum bonum, Patrem Domini nostri, alterum malum, mundi opificem, probat quod nisi Dominus ipsius mundi conditoris Filius sit, « injuste hujus conditionis, quae est secundum nos, accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit. » Quo quidem argumento vel nihil prorsus efficit, vel illud certissime demonstrat, Christum ita panem suum esse corpus, et vinum suum esse sanguinem confessum esse et confirmasse, ut ex altero sibi verum corpus, ex altero verum sanguinem, vera utriusque conversione et transmutatione fecerit; et inde injustum fore, quod res ab alio conditas, et sub alterius ditione positas, suas esse dicat et efficiat. Si enim eo duntaxat sensu Christus panem corpus suum esse dixerit, quod ei corporis sui virtutem impertire voluerit; non magis panem ab alio creatum sibi tribuit, suumque facit, quam princeps alterius principis typo signatae monetae, in gratiam subditorum ea utentium, pretium statuens, imo majus esse jubens, quam sit in ea regione in qua cusa sit, illam sibi vindicat usurpatque. Quasi vero, quod quis signum quoddam pro arbitrio instituat, quo excitatus quidpiam conferat utentibus, hinc inferri possit eum rem illam, quam in signum instituit, sibi vindicare? Sed illud praeterea observatu dignissimum est, Irenaeum, quotiescunque Eucharistiae meminit, non simpliciter affirmare Christum, panem suum corpus, vinum suum sanguinem esse dixisse; sed iis vocibus studio et semper uti, « panem suum corpus esse, vinum suum sanguinem esse confessus est, confirmavit, » et, ut Graece loquitur lib. V, c. 11, τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον, αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον, ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο, « eum calicem, qui est a creatura » (non « suum » duntaxat, ut vertit interpres, sed ἴδιον) « proprium sanguinem confessus est, et eum panem, qui est a creatura, proprium corpus confirmavit, » asseveravit, certiores nos fecit. Qua quidem loquendi ratione perspicue indicat Irenaeus rem creditu difficillimam, quaeque fidem non obtineret, nisi Christus, ipsa veritas, omnem dubitationis ansam clare et aperte loquendo praecideret; ipse vero sanctus doctor dubitationem illam, quae ex ipsa rei, mentium humanarum captum

87. Now how efficacious—and rightly indeed—Irenaeus judged that kind of argument to be, is demonstrated by the fact that he uses it repeatedly against the Gnostics, and appeals to the Eucharist more than once in order to pierce their errors with this weapon. In the same Book 4, Chapter 33, n. 2, already cited, refuting the Marcionites, who feigned two gods, the one good, the Father of our Lord, the other evil, the Maker of the world, he proves that unless the Lord is the Son of the Creator of the world Himself, "unjustly, taking bread of this creation which belongs to us, did He confess that it was His body, and affirm the mixture of the cup to be His blood." By which argument either he accomplishes nothing at all, or he most certainly demonstrates this: that Christ so confessed and affirmed that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood that out of the one He made for Himself a true body, and out of the other true blood, by a true conversion and transmutation of both; and that thence He would be unjust in saying and making to be His own things created by another and placed under another's dominion. For if Christ said that the bread is His body only in this sense, that He willed to impart to it the virtue of His body, He no more attributes to Himself and makes His own bread created by another than a prince who fixes the value of coin stamped with the die of another prince for the benefit of his subjects who use it—nay, orders it to be of greater value than it is in the country in which it was struck—claims and usurps that coin as his own. As though indeed, because someone institutes at his pleasure a certain sign whereby he may be moved to bestow something upon those who use it, it could be inferred thence that he claims as his own that thing which he instituted as a sign! Moreover, this too is most worthy of observation, that Irenaeus, as often as he mentions the Eucharist, does not simply affirm that Christ said that the bread is His body and the wine His blood, but studiously and always uses these expressions: "He confessed, He affirmed that the bread is His body, and the wine His blood;" and, as he says in Greek in Book 5, Chapter 11, τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον, αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον, ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο, "that cup which is from the creation" (not merely "His," as the translator renders it, but ἴδιον) "He confessed to be His own blood, and that bread which is from the creation He affirmed," protested, assured us "to be His own body." By which manner of speaking Irenaeus clearly indicates a matter most difficult to believe, and one which would not obtain credence unless Christ, the very Truth, cut off every handle for doubt by speaking clearly and openly; and the holy doctor himself strives to remove that doubt which arises from the very difficulty of a thing so far surpassing the capacity

Editors' notes and page, col. 338

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 338
marginal letters: A quamvis corporis; B quod nisi; C xerit, quod; D nem suum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: cap-
other: the word captum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 339

PG 7:339

tam longe superantis, difficultate nascitur, iterum atque iterum inculcando Christi verba tollere nititur. Quasi dixisset, quod postea dixit Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catech. IV, Mystag.: « Cum igitur Christus ipse sic affirmet, atque dicat de pane : Hoc est corpus meum; quis deinceps audeat dubitare? Ac eodem quoque confirmante, βεβαιωσαμένου, Hic est sanguis meus : quis, inquam, dubitet, et dicat non esse illius sanguinem? » Et Chrysostomus, hom. 83 in Matth. : « Credamus itaque ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei, etiamsi sensui et cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit... Nam verbis ejus defraudari non possumus, sensus vero noster deceptu facillimus est : illa falsa esse non possu⟨n⟩t, hic saepius atque saepius fallitur. Quoniam ergo ille dixit : Hoc est corpus meum, nulla teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus, et oculis intellectus id perspiciamus. » Porro nisi Christi verba ad litteram intelligenda esse censuisset Irenaeus, et ita intellexissent fideles omnes, ridicule omnino dubiis omnibus opposuisset ea verba ex quibus orta fuissent : insulsius adhuc dixisset, Christum asseverasse, confessum esse, confirmasse, certiores nos fecisse, panem esse proprium corpus, et vinum proprium sanguinem. Explicanda fuissent Christi verba, si figurate et metaphorice accipi debuissent, non iterum atque iterum inculcanda. Quis enim ferat eum qui dicat, Spiritum sanctum confessum esse, et confirmasse, petram deserti esse Christum, nec proinde dubitandum esse quin petra sit ipse Christus, vere ac proprie Christus? Quis unquam asseruit bibere nos in baptismate ipsummet ac proprium Christi sanguinem; baptisma esse proprium Christi corpus, ipsummet ejus sanguinem; baptisma cum recipimus, ali nos proprio Christi corpore, et ipso ejus sanguine potari, quod illius virtus applicetur catechumenis, cum baptizantur?

of human minds by inculcating the words of Christ again and again. It is as though he had said what Cyril of Jerusalem said afterwards in Mystagogical Catechesis 4: "Since, therefore, Christ Himself thus affirms, and says concerning the bread: This is My body, who would henceforth dare to doubt? And when the Same also confirms and assures us, βεβαιωσαμένου, This is My blood, who, I say, would doubt, and say that it is not His blood?" And Chrysostom, in Homily 83 on Matthew: "Let us therefore everywhere believe God, and not gainsay Him, even though what He says may seem absurd to our sense and thought... For by His words we cannot be deceived, whereas our sense is most easily deceived: the former cannot be false, the latter is deceived again and again. Since, therefore, He said: This is My body, let us be held by no ambiguity, but let us believe, and behold it with the eyes of the understanding." Furthermore, unless Irenaeus had judged that the words of Christ are to be understood literally, and all the faithful had so understood them, it would have been altogether ridiculous for him to oppose to all doubts the very words from which they had arisen; and still more absurdly would he have said that Christ protested, confessed, affirmed, and assured us that the bread is His own body, and the wine His own blood. The words of Christ would have had to be explained if they were to be taken figuratively and metaphorically, not inculcated again and again. For who would bear with one who should say that the Holy Spirit confessed and affirmed that the rock of the desert was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), and that consequently it must not be doubted that the rock is Christ Himself, truly and properly Christ? Who ever asserted that in baptism we drink the very own blood of Christ; that baptism is the own body of Christ, His very own blood; and that when we receive baptism, we are fed with the own body of Christ, and given to drink of His very blood, because the virtue thereof is applied to catechumens when they are baptized?

88. Cavillatur quidem hic pro more Grabius, eaque urget Patrum loca, quae alii dudum objecerant Calviniani, quibus nimirum asserunt sancti doctores, Ecclesiam esse proprium Christi corpus nosque membra proprii corporis. Plura alia similia accumulare facile potuisset; sed omnia a proposito esse aliena cum invicte probaverint eruditissimi auctores Perpetuitatis fidei, t. II, lib. IV, c. 8, ad hos et Grabium et lectores remitto. Grabio, si aequum bonumque dicere velit, quaerenda sunt exempla, non propositionum metaphoricarum, qualis est ista : « Ecclesia est verum ac proprium Christi corpus, » in quibus tropus afficit propositionis attributum; sed propositionum figuratarum, qualem esse eam propositionem : Hoc est corpus meum, volunt ministri; in quibus tropus afficiat verbum, Est. Probet igitur exemplis, si possit, recte dici posse, imaginem Caesaris esse vere Caesarem, ipsum Caesarem, proprium Caesaris corpus,

88. Grabe indeed cavils here after his custom, and urges those passages of the Fathers which other Calvinists had long ago objected, namely those in which the holy doctors assert that the Church is the own body of Christ, and that we are members of His own body. He could easily have accumulated many other similar passages; but since the most learned authors of the Perpetuity of the Faith, Vol. II, Book 4, Chapter 8, have invincibly proved that all of them are foreign to the purpose, to them I refer both Grabe and my readers. If Grabe wishes to speak what is fair and right, he must seek examples, not of metaphorical propositions, such as this: "The Church is the true and own body of Christ," in which the trope affects the predicate of the proposition, but of figurative propositions, such as the ministers maintain this proposition to be: This is My body, in which the trope affects the verb, Is. Let him therefore prove by examples, if he can, that it can rightly be said that a statue of Caesar is truly Caesar, Caesar himself, the own body of Caesar,

Editors' notes and page, col. 339

Page

running head: 339 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A tum tam; B fallitur. Quoniam; C esse Christum,; D proposito esse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: cap-tum, cor-
other: the word corpus, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 340

PG 7:340

etc.; petram deserti, esse ipsum Christum, proprium Christi corpus, etc. Quod quandiu non praestiterit, quaestionis statum ne leviter quidem attigerit.

etc.; that the rock of the desert is Christ Himself, the own body of Christ, etc. So long as he has not done this, he will not even lightly have touched the state of the question.

89. Sed ut ad Irenaei argumentationem nostra redeat oratio, vir sanctus lib. V, c. 11, Gnosticorum erroribus Eucharistiam iterum opponens, duo haec sibi simul demonstranda suscipit : 1. Deum incarnatum in propria venisse, vereque hominem factum esse; alias « non justum » fore « adventum ejus, qui secundum eos, venit in aliena, neque vere redemisse nos sanguine suo, si non vere homo factus est. » 2. Carnem « capacem esse incorruptibilitatis, » nec proinde aeternum perituram esse. Utrumque vero hoc argumento conficit : « Si, » inquit, « non salvetur » caro, « nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, » quia verum sanguinem non habuerit, non vere homo factus; sequitur « neque calicem Eucharistiae communicationem sanguinis ejus esse, neque panem, quem frangimus, communicationem corporis ejus esse. » At, mox subsumit, calix Eucharistiae communicatio sanguinis Christi est, et panis, quem frangimus, communicatio corporis ejus est. Unde merito concludit, carnem servari, et Dominum sanguine suo redemisse nos. Hoc Irenaei argumentum duplici propositione niitur : 1a, eaque bipertita, quod si nec servetur caro, nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, sequitur neque calicem Eucharistiae communicationem sanguinis ejus esse, neque panem, quem frangimus, communicationem corporis ejus esse. Altera, calicem Eucharistiae communicationem sanguinis Domini esse, et panem, quem frangimus, communicationem corporis ejus esse. Prioris propositionis secundam partem sic demonstrat S. doctor, alteram mox probaturus : Qui sanguine suo non redemit nos, quod verum sanguinem non habuerit, non vere factus homo; is certe verum sanguinem, verumque corpus sistere praesentia in Eucharistia non potuit. Verus enim « sanguis non est, nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua, quae est secundum hominem, substantia. » Qui igitur sanguinem nobis in calice Eucharistiae communicat, is sanguinem praebere debet, qui sit « a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua, quae est secundum hominem, substantia; » is enim solus verus sanguis est : ergo si verum sanguinem nobis praestet in Eucharistia Christus, habuit venas et carnes, et reliquam, quae est secundum hominem, substantiam. Vera igitur humana substantia « vere factum est Verbum Dei; » ac proinde « sanguine suo redemit nos, quemadmodum et Apostolus ejus ait : In quo habemus redemptionem, per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum. » Hactenus argumentum, quod certissime Irenaei est, male habet Calvinianos omnes. Hoc enim fundamento positum nititur, quod Christus in Eucharistia verum sanguinem

89. But that our discourse may return to the argumentation of Irenaeus, the holy man in Book 5, Chapter 11, again opposing the Eucharist to the errors of the Gnostics, undertakes to demonstrate these two points at once: first, that God incarnate came unto His own, and was truly made man, otherwise "the coming of Him Who according to them came unto another's would not be just, nor did He truly redeem us by His blood if He was not truly made man;" secondly, that the flesh "is capable of incorruptibility," and consequently will not perish for ever. And he establishes both points by this argument: "If," he says, the flesh "be not saved, neither did the Lord redeem us by His blood"—because He did not have true blood, not having been truly made man—it follows that "neither is the cup of the Eucharist the communication of His blood, nor is the bread which we break the communication of His body (1 Cor. 10:16)." Now, he presently subsumes, the cup of the Eucharist is the communication of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break is the communication of His body. Whence he rightly concludes that the flesh is saved, and that the Lord redeemed us by His blood. This argument of Irenaeus rests upon a twofold proposition: the first, and that a two-part one, that if the flesh is not saved, and the Lord did not redeem us by His blood, it follows that neither is the cup of the Eucharist the communication of His blood, nor is the bread which we break the communication of His body; the second, that the cup of the Eucharist is the communication of the blood of the Lord, and the bread which we break is the communication of His body. The second part of the former proposition the holy doctor demonstrates thus, being about to prove the other part presently: He Who did not redeem us by His blood, because He did not have true blood, not having been truly made man, certainly could not make true blood and a true body present in the Eucharist. For true "blood is only from veins and flesh, and from the rest of the substance which belongs to man." He, therefore, Who communicates blood to us in the cup of the Eucharist must furnish blood which is "from veins and flesh, and from the rest of the substance which belongs to man;" for that alone is true blood: therefore, if Christ furnishes true blood to us in the Eucharist, He had veins and flesh, and the rest of the substance which belongs to man. "The Word of God," therefore, "was truly made" of true human substance; and consequently "redeemed us by His blood, even as His Apostle also says: In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins (Col. 1:14)." Thus far the argument, which is most certainly that of Irenaeus, sorely troubles all the Calvinists. For it rests upon this foundation, that Christ in the Eucharist furnishes to us true

Editors' notes and page, col. 340

Footnotes

(71) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 340 (probable; not seen)

N. 1.

No. 1.

(printed under page 176)

(72) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 340 (probable; not seen)

N. 2.

No. 2.

(printed under page 176)

(73) ‹anchor: remissionem peccatorum› · call in col 340

Col. I, 14.

Colossians 1:14.

(printed under page 176)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 340
marginal letters: A pus, etc.;; B conficit : «; C nicationem sanguinis; D « a venis
old-edition numerals: CXLVI after argumento
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: cor-pus, san-
other: the word sanguinem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 341

PG 7:341

nobis praebeat, qui proinde sit a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua humana substantia : unde infertur, venas et carnes, et reliquam humanam substantiam habuisse, vereque hominem factum fuisse Verbum Dei, ac sanguine suo redemisse nos. Si enim meram sanguinis figuram, efficacem licet, praestitisset nobis in calice eucharistico Christus, idque sensisset Irenaeus, aranearum telis citius dissolvendum proposuisset adversariis argumentum. Nam statim excepisset Marcionita quivis, Christum ideo voluisse vinum sanguinis sui figuram esse, quod cum verum sanguinem non haberet, quem porrigeret, imaginarium duntaxat, et ejus similem quem hominum oculis objiciebat, praestiterit. Sicque vel levissimo flatu concussum illico ruisset totum aedificium.

blood, which is consequently from veins and flesh, and from the rest of human substance: whence it is inferred that the Word of God had veins and flesh, and the rest of human substance, and was truly made man, and redeemed us by His blood. For if Christ had furnished to us in the Eucharistic cup a mere figure of blood, however efficacious, and Irenaeus had thought so, he would have proposed to his adversaries an argument more quickly broken than cobwebs. For any Marcionite would immediately have replied that Christ willed the wine to be a figure of His blood for this reason, that since He did not have true blood to reach out, He furnished an imaginary blood only, and one like that which He presented to the eyes of men. And thus, shaken by even the lightest breath, the whole edifice would immediately have collapsed.

90. Alteram partem prioris propositionis, nimirum quod si non servetur caro, neque calix Eucharistiae communicatio Christi sanguinis est, neque panis, quem frangimus, communicatio corporis ejus est; his rationibus persuadet Irenaeus : Si Eucharistia sit verum ac proprium Christi corpus, verus et proprius ejus sanguis, impossibile est carnem quae iis nutritur et augetur, hacque ratione arctius cum Christo cohaeret, « et membrum ejus est, » sic dissolvi ut nunquam reviviscat. Qui enim fieri posset ut caro, ipsius vitae corpore et sanguine pasta, et nutrita, « capax non sit donationis Dei, quae est vita aeterna? » Quod vero « carnis nostrae substantia » ipso ac proprio Christi sanguine nutriatur et augeatur, quae secunda totius argumenti propositio est, sic planum facit S. doctor : Capitis est ea membris suis alimenta praebere, quae tum ad eorum naturam, tum ad finem, ad quem destinantur, accommodata sint. « Quoniam » igitur « membra Christi sumus, et quemadmodum beatus Apostolus ait, in ea, quae est ad Ephesios, Epistola : Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus, de carne ejus, et de ossibus ejus; » et ita a natura comparati sumus, ut rebus creatis vescamur, necesse fuit ut « creaturam ipse nobis praestaret, solem suum oriri faciens, et pluens, quemadmodum vult. » Quia vero res creata corporea ex se corruptioni obnoxia est, nec proinde Christi membra ad aeternam vitam destinata a corruptela eximere potuisset; decebat eam rem creatam ab insito sibi corruptionis statu, in alium transferri, quo ipsa vita et vivificans facta, vitam vescentibus impertiretur. Itaque Christus, pro divina bonitate, « eum calicem, qui est a creatura, proprium sanguinem confessus est » (sic enim Graeca sonant), « ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem; et eum panem, qui est a creatura, proprium corpus confirmavit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. » Tum demum concludit S. doctor : « Quando ergo et mistus calix et factus panis percipit verbum Dei, » id est per verbum Dei consecratur, « et fit Eucharistia sanguis et corpus

90. The other part of the former proposition—namely, that if the flesh be not saved, neither is the cup of the Eucharist the communication of the blood of Christ, nor is the bread which we break the communication of His body—Irenaeus establishes by these reasons: If the Eucharist is the true and own body of Christ, His true and own blood, it is impossible that the flesh which is nourished and increased by them, and in this way coheres more closely with Christ "and is His member," should be so dissolved as never to live again. For how could it come to pass that flesh fed and nourished by the body and blood of Life itself "should not be capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life"? And that "the substance of our flesh" is nourished and increased by the very own blood of Christ—which is the second proposition of the whole argument—the holy doctor makes plain thus: It belongs to the head to furnish to its members such nourishment as is suited both to their nature and to the end for which they are destined. "Since," therefore, "we are members of Christ, and as the blessed Apostle says in the Epistle to the Ephesians: Because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (Eph. 5:30);" and since we are so constituted by nature as to feed upon created things, it was necessary that "He Himself should furnish creation to us, making His sun to rise, and sending rain, according as He wills (Matt. 5:45)." Because, however, a corporeal created thing is of itself subject to corruption, and consequently could not exempt the members of Christ destined for eternal life from corruption, it was fitting that that created thing should be transferred from its innate state of corruption into another, whereby, having become life itself and life-giving, it might impart life to those who feed upon it. Accordingly Christ, out of His divine goodness, "confessed that cup which is from the creation to be His own blood" (for so the Greek reads), "whereby He increases our blood; and affirmed that bread which is from the creation to be His own body, whereby He increases our bodies." Then at length the holy doctor concludes: "When, therefore, both the mingled cup and the made bread receive the word of God," that is, are consecrated through the word of God, "and the Eucharist becomes the blood and body

Editors' notes and page, col. 341

Footnotes

(74) ‹anchor: de ossibus ejus› · call in col 341

Ephes. V, 30.

Ephesians 5:30.

(printed under page 177)

(75) ‹anchor: quemadmodum vult› · call in col 341

Matth. V, 45.

Matthew 5:45.

(printed under page 177)

Page

running head: 341 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A guinem nobis; B tum aedificium.; C substantia »; D tam destinata
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: san-guinem

PG 7:342

Christi » (sic fert textus Graecus), « ex quibus augetur et consistit carnis nostrae substantia; quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei, quae est vita aeterna, quae sanguine et corpore Christi nutritur, et membrum ejus est? »

of Christ" (so the Greek text runs), "from which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists, how do they deny that the flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, which is nourished by the blood and body of Christ, and is His member?"

91. Ad totius argumenti confirmationem aliud addit Irenaeus, et quidem maxime ponderosum. « Quemadmodum, » ait, « lignum vitis depositum in terram, suo fructificat tempore; et granum tritici decidens in terram, et dissolutum, multiplex surgit per Spiritum Dei, qui continet omnia, quae deinde per sapientiam Dei (sic in Graeco) in usum hominis veniunt, et percipientia verbum Dei Eucharistia fiunt, quod est corpus et sanguis Christi; sic et nostra corpora ex ea nutrita, et reposita in terram, et resoluta in ea, resurgent in suo tempore, Verbo Dei resurrectionem eis donante, in gloriam Dei Patris, » etc. Hic comparatio instituitur inter eas quae tritico (idem dic proportione servata, de vite), ut Eucharistia fiat, et eas, quae carni, ut resurgat, mutationes accidunt. Mandatur tritici granum terrae, ibi dissolvitur, deinde per Spiritum Dei, quo fecundatur natura, multiplex surgit; postea, ut in usum hominis veniat, mutatur in panem; tum denique panis per verbum Dei mutatur in corpus Christi. Sic etiam caro in terram defossa, in terram resolvitur, ac postea vivificante Verbo Dei, terrena forma deposita, pristinam accipit. Quemadmodum igitur ea mutatio, quae resurgenti carni accidit, substantialis est; sic et ea, quae pani, ut fiat corpus Christi, contingit, substantialis est, veraque transsubstantiatio, non minus quam ea, quae fit in tritico, ut in panem convertatur. Haec enim secum confert Irenaeus, imo sic confert, ut ex substantiali conversione, quae fit tum in tritico, ut panis evadat; tum in pane, ut in corpus Christi transeat, alteram substantialem transmutationem, qua terra, in quam resoluta fuit caro, in carnem iterum transitura est, aliquando futuram esse probet. Si, inquit, dissolutum jam triticum, fecundante Dei Spiritu, qui continet omnia, multiplex surgere possit; si divina dirigente sapientia homines triticum, ut in eorum usum veniret, in panem convertere potuerunt; si denique panis, id efficiente verbo Dei, deposita panis natura, potuerit in Christi corpus transmutari : an fidem superabit, corpora nostra, Christi corpore nutrita, tum in terram resoluta, Verbo Dei resurrectionem eis donante, eam, quam corrupta induerunt, terrae naturam exuere, ut in pristinam carnis naturam transmutentur, iterumque redeant? Qui enim potest corruptum jam triticum excitare et multiplicare, triticum in panem convertere, et, quod majus est, panem in Christi corpus transmutare; is certe potest corruptum jam corpus sic excitare, ut terram, in cujus naturam transierat, iterum in carnis naturam convertat; alterum siquidem

91. In confirmation of the whole argument Irenaeus adds another point, and a most weighty one indeed. "Just as," he says, "the wood of the vine, planted in the earth, bears fruit in its own season; and a grain of wheat, falling into the earth and being dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, Who upholds all things, which afterwards through the wisdom of God (so in the Greek) come into the use of man, and receiving the word of God become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, nourished by it, and laid in the earth, and dissolved therein, shall rise in their own time, the Word of God granting them resurrection unto the glory of God the Father," etc. Here a comparison is instituted between the changes which happen to the wheat (say the same, in due proportion, of the vine) in order that the Eucharist may be made, and those which happen to the flesh in order that it may rise again. A grain of wheat is committed to the earth, is dissolved there, and afterwards through the Spirit of God, whereby nature is made fruitful, rises manifold; afterwards, that it may come into the use of man, it is changed into bread; then finally the bread through the word of God is changed into the body of Christ. So also the flesh buried in the earth is resolved into earth, and afterwards, when the Word of God gives it life, laying aside its earthly form, receives its former one. Just as that change which happens to the rising flesh is substantial, therefore, so also that which happens to the bread in order that it may become the body of Christ is substantial, and a true transubstantiation, no less than that which takes place in the wheat in order that it may be converted into bread. For Irenaeus compares these things with one another—nay, so compares them that from the substantial conversion which takes place both in the wheat, that it may become bread, and in the bread, that it may pass into the body of Christ, he proves that the other substantial transmutation, whereby the earth into which the flesh was resolved is to pass again into flesh, will one day take place. If, he says, wheat already dissolved can rise manifold when made fruitful by the Spirit of God, Who upholds all things; if under the guidance of divine wisdom men have been able to convert wheat into bread so that it might come into their use; if finally bread, through the efficacy of the word of God, laying aside the nature of bread, has been able to be transmuted into the body of Christ: will it surpass belief that our bodies, nourished by the body of Christ and then resolved into earth, when the Word of God grants them resurrection, put off that nature of earth which they put on when corrupted, so as to be transmuted and return again into their former nature of flesh? For He Who can raise up and multiply wheat already corrupted, convert wheat into bread, and, what is greater, transmute bread into the body of Christ, can certainly so raise up a body already corrupted as to convert the earth, into whose nature it had passed, back again into the nature of flesh; for the one

Editors' notes and page, col. 342

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 342
marginal letters: A Christi »; B in terram,; C genti carni; D efficiente verbo
old-edition numerals: CXLVII before efficiente
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: siqui-
other: the word siquidem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 343

PG 7:343

altero Dei omnipotentiae difficilius non est. Ex quibus perspicuum est, Irenaeum ex certissimis transmutationibus et transsubstantiationibus, quas tum ratio, tum fides, omnes tunc temporis Christianos docebant, gradatim procedere, ut alteram inferat, quae a Gnosticis in controversiam vocabatur. Naturalis quippe conversio tritici dissoluti in triticum multiplex, et ejusdem praesertim in panem, ad alteram, quam sola fides docet, panis videlicet in Christi corpus, ascensum parat : utraque vero fit gradus ad terrae, in quam corpora nostra resoluta sunt, conversionem in pristinam carnis naturam : ut nimirum hisce gradibus viam haereticis sternat Irenaeus ad resurrectionis fidem, faterique cogat non magis Deo impossibile esse corpus in terram jam conversum, in carnem iterum convertere, quam panem in Christi corpus transmutare; et quidem illud eo magis possibile esse, quo caro Christi corpore nutrita immortalitatis semen in seipsa gerat : « ut sciamus, » concludit vir sanctus, « et quid Deus potest, et quid homo beneficii accipit. » Ubi certe, si Irenaeus nullum in pane eucharistico conversionis substantialis genus agnovisset, sed Christi corporis figuram effici, aut ejusdem corporis virtute imbui, manente semper eadem panis substantia, voluisset, absurdius nihil ejus argumento fingi posset. Hoc enim esset : Qui potuit panem Christi corporis figuram efficere, aut pani Christi corporis virtutem impertiri, manente semper eadem panis substantia, is potest corpora jam in terram conversa iterum in carnem convertere. Prius potuit Deus; potest igitur et posterius. Absurdissimum, si quod sit, argumentandi genus. Imo vero, statim excepisset haereticus, qui panem sui corporis figuram efficiens, huicve corporis sui virtutem impertiens, suumque corpus esse palam asserens, eum tamen non potuit in proprium et substantiale corpus convertere; nec certe poterit corpora nostra jam in terram conversa iterum in carnem convertere, quamlibet iis viventibus corporis sui virtutem per consecratum panem impertierit; nec enim Christi corporis virtus efficacior esse potest ad transmutanda corrupta jam corpora, quam ad convertendum panem fuerit. At, fatentibus catholicis, tantum non potuit Verbum Dei, ut prius efficeret, quamvis id efficere prima fronte Christus significare videatur : nec igitur posterius efficere potest. Sic facili negotio totum Irenaei molimen infringeret haereticus.

is no more difficult to the omnipotence of God than the other. From which it is clear that from most certain transmutations and transubstantiations which both reason and faith taught all Christians at that time, Irenaeus proceeds step by step to infer another which was called in question by the Gnostics. For the natural conversion of dissolved wheat into manifold wheat, and especially of the same into bread, prepares the ascent to another which faith alone teaches, namely that of bread into the body of Christ; and both become a step to the conversion of the earth into which our bodies have been resolved into their former nature of flesh: so that by these steps Irenaeus may pave the way for the heretics to faith in the resurrection, and compel them to confess that it is no more impossible for God to convert a body already turned into earth back again into flesh than to transmute bread into the body of Christ; and indeed that the former is all the more possible inasmuch as flesh nourished by the body of Christ bears within itself the seed of immortality: "that we may know," concludes the holy man, "both what God can do, and what benefit man receives." Where assuredly, if Irenaeus had acknowledged no kind of substantial conversion in the Eucharistic bread, but had meant that it is made a figure of the body of Christ, or imbued with the virtue of the same body, while the same substance of bread always remains, nothing more absurd than his argument could be imagined. For it would be this: He Who was able to make bread the figure of the body of Christ, or to impart to bread the virtue of the body of Christ, while the same substance of bread always remains, is able to convert bodies already turned into earth back again into flesh. God was able to do the former; therefore He can do the latter also—a most absurd kind of argumentation, if ever there was one. Nay rather, a heretic would immediately have replied, He Who, while making bread the figure of His body, or imparting to it the virtue of His body, and openly asserting that it is His body, nevertheless was not able to convert it into His own and substantial body, certainly will not be able to convert our bodies already turned into earth back again into flesh, however much He may have imparted to them while living the virtue of His body through the consecrated bread; for the virtue of the body of Christ cannot be more efficacious for transmuting bodies already corrupted than it was for converting the bread. Now, as the Catholics confess, the Word of God could not do so much as to effect the former, although at first sight Christ seems to signify that He effects it: therefore neither can He effect the latter. Thus with easy trouble would a heretic shatter the whole effort of Irenaeus.

92. Longissimis non pepercit adnotationibus cl. Grabius, ut omnia haec Irenaei tum loca, tum argumenta detorqueret infirmaretque. Sed verba perdit. Eo quippe redeunt omnia, panem et vinum haud alia ratione, ex Irenaei sententia, fieri Christi corpus et sanguinem, quam quia Christi corporis et sanguinis virtute imbuuntur. Quod quidem effugium cum hactenus praecluserimus, demonstraverimusque absurdius nihil fingi potuisse, et quod cum Irenaei scopo, consilio, verbis et argumento

92. The illustrious Grabe has not spared the longest notes in order to twist and weaken all these passages and arguments of Irenaeus. But he wastes his words. For everything comes back to this, that according to the opinion of Irenaeus bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in no other way than because they are imbued with the virtue of the body and blood of Christ. And since we have thus far precluded this evasion, and have demonstrated that nothing could have been devised more absurd, and more at variance with the aim, design, words, and argument of Irenaeus,

Editors' notes and page, col. 343

Page

running head: 343 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A dem altero; B in terram; C in terram; D tentibus catholicis,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: siqui-dem

PG 7:344

magis pugnaret; nihil necesse est Grabium in communia controversiarum loca excurrentem, eaque veterum Patrum loca, dissimulatis catholicorum responsionibus, aeque fidenter objicientem, ac si tum primum objicerentur, caeterasque ministrorum argutiolas, a catholicis millies, et non ita pridem a doctissimis auctoribus Perpetuitatis fidei penitus dissolutas, replicantem, cum lectorum taedio insequi. Satius Grabio fuisset in id unum probandum incumbere, Albertinum aliquem exstitisse Irenaeo vetustiorem, e cujus cerebro nata jam prodiisset commentitia illa Christi corporis virtus, in cujus arce, licet lacera, omnia tum causae, tum salutis suae praesidia constituere se posse misere deceptus putat. Quod quandiu non praestiterit, imperitis quidem fucum, intricatis ac longis verborum ambagibus, facere poterit : ei vero, cujus mentem non prorsus infuscaverint praejudicia, portento simile videbitur, Irenaeum, qui tam saepe, et tam clare ac perspicue dixit, panem et vinum per invocationem ac verbum Dei fieri et esse proprium corpus et sanguinem Christi, ipsum Salvatorem asseverasse, confessum esse, confirmasse, rem ita esse; iisque argumentis utitur, quae ex sese eo inclinare fatebitur cordatus quisque, ut suadeant Christi verba ad litteram intelligenda esse; nullibi tamen vel levissimam figurae, aut virtutis Christi corporis mentionem injecisse, qua duriora ex sese verba emolliret, omnemque errandi ansam rudioribus adimeret. An adeo imperitus, aut improvidus erat Irenaeus, ut cum plures aliae sese ultro offerrent voces, quibus catholicam fidem clarius, simplicius, melius et facilius exponeret; iis tamen uteretur, quae omnium ineptiores, obscuriores et intricatiores essent, rudioribusque errorem ex sese objicerent? An quemlibet e ministris eodem prorsus modo disputantem atque loquentem ferrent Calviniani? Periculum faciat quisquis e pulpito turpiter dejectum se velit, et ab irata multitudine cito discerptum.

there is no need to pursue Grabe to the weariness of our readers as he runs out into the commonplaces of controversies, objects those passages of the ancient Fathers—dissembling the replies of Catholics—as confidently as if they were then being objected for the first time, and repeats the other petty subtleties of the ministers, which have been thoroughly refuted a thousand times by Catholics, and not so long ago by the most learned authors of the Perpetuity of the Faith. It would have been better for Grabe to apply himself to proving this one point: that there existed some Aubertin older than Irenaeus, from whose brain that fictitious virtue of the body of Christ had already sprung forth, in whose citadel, shattered though it is, he, wretchedly deceived, thinks that he can place all the defences both of his cause and of his salvation. So long as he has not done this, he will indeed be able to impose upon the unskilful by intricate and long circumlocutions of words; but to anyone whose mind prejudices have not utterly darkened, it will seem like a portent that Irenaeus, who so often, and so clearly and perspicuously said that bread and wine through the invocation and word of God become and are the own body and blood of Christ, and that the Saviour Himself protested, confessed, and affirmed that the matter is so, and who uses those arguments which every sensible man will confess incline of themselves to persuade us that the words of Christ are to be understood literally, nevertheless nowhere threw in even the slightest mention of a figure or of the virtue of the body of Christ, whereby he might soften words harsh of themselves, and take away every handle for error from the simpler sort. Was Irenaeus so unskilful or improvident that when many other expressions offered themselves of their own accord whereby he might set forth the Catholic faith more clearly, simply, better, and more easily, he nevertheless used those which were the most unsuitable, obscure, and intricate of all, and which of themselves suggested error to the simpler sort? Would the Calvinists bear with any of their ministers arguing and speaking in altogether the same manner? Let anyone make the trial who wishes to see himself disgracefully cast down from the pulpit and quickly torn to pieces by an angry multitude.

93. Unum tamen aut alterum est, quod a Grabio confidentius longe quam par sit propositum, paucis a nobis expendendum est, ut vel hinc pateat quam irritis ictibus catholicam fidem petant ejus adversarii. Contendit igitur vir cl., posita semel transsubstantiatione, omnia Irenaei argumenta in nihilum abire; imo in argumentantis caput recidere. Marcionitae etenim et Valentiniani, inquit, quos ex Eucharistiae mysterio refellit Irenaeus, respondere potuissent : illi quidem, ideo sacramentalia panis et vini symbola transsubstantiari, quod Deus Novi Testamenti ista, tanquam ab alterius legis Deo creata, acceptare nolit; illi vero, panem et vinum esse quidem ignorantiae, et passionis, et defectionis fructus, nec tamen se in iis offerendis in Patrem suum peccare, eique contumeliam facere, uti Irenaeus objectat; quod eorum substantia, illico, mediante consecratione, intereat, ut alia melior substituatur, quo sacrificium purum ac Deo acceptum

93. There are one or two points, however, advanced by Grabe far more confidently than is fitting, which must be weighed by us in a few words, so that even from this it may be clear with what ineffectual blows the adversaries of the Catholic faith attack it. The illustrious man contends, then, that once transubstantiation is posited, all the arguments of Irenaeus come to naught, nay recoil upon the head of the arguer. For the Marcionites and Valentinians, he says, whom Irenaeus refutes from the mystery of the Eucharist, could have replied: the former indeed, that the sacramental symbols of bread and wine are transubstantiated for this reason, that the God of the New Testament refuses to accept them, as having been created by the God of another law; and the latter, that bread and wine are indeed the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, and yet in offering them they do not sin against their Father or do Him dishonour, as Irenaeus objects, because their substance immediately perishes by means of the consecration, so that another better substance may be substituted, whereby the sacrifice may become pure and acceptable to God.

Editors' notes and page, col. 344

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 344
marginal letters: A magis pugnaret ;; B dem fucum,; C naeus, ut; D adversarii. Contendit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:345

fiat. Sed praeterquam quod exceptiones istae praecipuum Irenaei argumentum, ex eo ductum quod haereticis negantibus Dominum nostrum esse mundi Conditoris Filium constare non possit Eucharistiam esse corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri, ne quidem leviter attingunt, has iisdem haereticis affingere non potest Grabius, nisi prorsus insaniisse supponat. Quam belle philosopharetur Marcionita respondens, « ideo sacramentalia panis et vini symbola transsubstantiari, quod Deus Novi Testamenti ista acceptare nolit! » Ubi enim vera transsubstantiatio est, ibi fit transitus ab una substantia in aliam, ejusdem prorsus generis et materiae, atque ea est, quae desiit. Sic lignum transmutatur in ignem, cibi in carnem et sanguinem, terrae succi in plantas, arbores, fructus, etc., omnia ejusdem omnino generis et materiae, atque ea corpora, ex quibus facta sunt. Itaque si dicat Marcionita, panem et vinum in Christi corpus transmutari; fateatur necesse est, corpus Christi ex pane et vino per veram utriusque conversionem factum, ejusdem generis esse et materiae, atque ipsum panem et vinum; ac proinde ex ea materia concretum esse, quam condidit mundi opifex. Et hinc Deus Novi Testamenti alieni cupidus prodetur, qui sibi panem et vinum ab alio creata offerri velit, ut ex iis in Christi corpus transmutatis fiat novae legis sacrificium. Aliam ergo responsionem Marcionitae suggerat Grabius, qua inclinatae suae et illius causae tutius consulat. Nec melius Valentinianum ab Irenaei telis tuetur. Ille, ait, regerere potuit, panis et vini substantiam illico, mediante consecratione, interire, ut alia melior substituatur. Ita quidem, si deliramenta loqui voluerit; sin minus, haec nunquam regesserit. Ecquod novum et hactenus inauditum philosophandi genus huc invehit vir doctissimus? Una substantia interit, alia melior, alterius proinde generis, nec ignorantiae aut labis fructus substituitur; et hoc transsubstantiationem vocat? Ea fuit hactenus omnium seu philosophorum, seu theologorum animis insita transsubstantiationis notio, esse conversionem seu transitum unius substantiae in aliam; desinente quidem priori, quae transmutatur, substantia, quatenus talis substantia est, lignum v. g., panis, etc., sed non in nihilum abeunte; nova vero, quae huic succedit, non de novo creata, sed ex mutatione prioris exsurgente. Si quid ergo sanae philosophiae, imo et rationis reliqui fuerit Valentinianis, hanc sibi transsubstantiationis ideam cogitatione informare debuerunt, ac proinde fateri sic panem et vinum in corpus et sanguinem Christi transmutari, ut haec ex illis fiant. Quo semel admisso, uti non admittere non poterant de transsubstantiatione cum catholicis consentientes, jam Irenaei argumentorum vim declinare nullatenus possunt. Sequitur enim, Christi corpus ex materia, ignorantiae et defectionis fructu, concretum Deo offerri in Eucharistia; impuram proinde oblationem, quae ei contumeliam faciat, non honorem afferat.

But besides the fact that these replies do not even lightly touch the principal argument of Irenaeus—drawn from the fact that for heretics who deny that our Lord is the Son of the Creator of the world it cannot be consistent that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord—Grabe cannot impute them to those same heretics unless he supposes them to have been utterly out of their minds. How finely would a Marcionite philosophize in replying that "the sacramental symbols of bread and wine are transubstantiated for this reason, that the God of the New Testament refuses to accept them!" For where there is a true transubstantiation, there takes place a passage from one substance into another of altogether the same genus and matter as that which ceased to be. Thus wood is transmuted into fire, food into flesh and blood, the juices of the earth into plants, trees, fruits, etc., all of altogether the same genus and matter as those bodies out of which they were made. Accordingly, if a Marcionite should say that bread and wine are transmuted into the body of Christ, he must needs confess that the body of Christ, made out of bread and wine through a true conversion of both, is of the same genus and matter as the bread and wine themselves, and consequently is formed from that matter which the Maker of the world created. And hence the God of the New Testament will be betrayed as covetous of another's property, since He wills bread and wine created by another to be offered to Him, so that out of them, when transmuted into the body of Christ, the sacrifice of the new law may be made. Let Grabe, therefore, suggest another reply to the Marcionite, whereby he may more safely consult his own tottering cause and that of the Marcionite. Nor does he any better protect the Valentinian from the darts of Irenaeus. The latter, he says, could have retorted that the substance of the bread and wine immediately perishes by means of the consecration, so that another better substance may be substituted. Yes indeed, if he wished to talk nonsense; otherwise he would never have made this retort. What new and hitherto unheard-of kind of philosophizing does the most learned man bring in here? One substance perishes, and another better one, consequently of another genus, and not the fruit of ignorance or fall, is substituted; and he calls this transubstantiation? The notion of transubstantiation implanted hitherto in the minds of all, whether philosophers or theologians, has been this: that it is the conversion or passage of one substance into another, the former substance which is transmuted ceasing indeed to be, insofar as it is such a substance—for example, wood, bread, etc.—yet not passing into nothingness; while the new substance which succeeds it is not created anew, but arises out of the change of the former. If the Valentinians had any sound philosophy, nay even any reason left, therefore, they had to form in thought this idea of transubstantiation, and consequently confess that bread and wine are so transmuted into the body and blood of Christ that the latter are made out of the former. Once this is admitted—as they could not fail to admit it when agreeing with the Catholics concerning transubstantiation—they can now in no way evade the force of Irenaeus's arguments. For it follows that the body of Christ, formed from matter which is the fruit of ignorance and apostasy, is offered to God in the Eucharist—an impure oblation, consequently, which does Him dishonour, and does not bring Him honour.

Editors' notes and page, col. 345

Page

running head: 345 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A fiat. Sed; B succi in; C naei telis; D te ; nova
old-edition numerals: CXLVIII after potest
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:346

94. Ea vero quae pro resurrectione carnis argumenta Irenaeo gratis affingere Grabio placet, non morabor. Quam vana sint, S. doctore indigna, ejusque scopo, consilio et verbis repugnantia, satis patet ex antedictis, et me etiam tacente facile deprehendet quisquis rem aequis ponderibus examinare voluerit. Sed mirari satis non possum quod tam fidenter proponit vir cl. ut probet, Irenaeum a transsubstantiationis doctrina penitus alienum exstitisse. Nam, inquit, « iterum iterumque repetit, carnem nostram corpore et sanguine Domini ali, sive nutriri, imo ex iis augeri ac consistere carnis nostrae substantiam. Atqui hoc nudis accidentibus panis tribuere, absurdum est; coelesti autem et glorioso Christi corpori, impium. » Bona verba, quaeso. Ac primo quidem quod hic et alibi supponit Grabius, accidentia, quae vocant absoluta, id est a subjecto re separata, a catholicis omnibus ut quid fide certum et indubitatum admitti; gratis omnino supponit, et paulo fidentius quam virum candidum decebat. Quaestio est in Scholis duntaxat ultro citroque agitata, nusquam vero ab Ecclesia definita. Id tantum catholica fides docet, consecratione peracta remanere panis et vini species : quid sint vero eae species, litigant inter se tum philosophi, tum theologi : judicium vero suum nundum interposuit Ecclesia. Sed si quae sit absurditas, aut impietas asserere carnem nostram corpore et sanguine Domini ali, sive nutriri, etc., quanta quanta est in Irenaeum igitur conferenda. Nec enim simpliciter asseruit carnem nostram ali et augeri corpore et sanguine Domini, sed proprio corpore et sanguine Domini : quae non nisi ridicule et inepte ad Christi corporis et sanguinis figuram aut virtutem separatam detorqueri posse ostendimus. Sed viderit ipse, qui haec objectat, ne majoris se absurditatis reum prodat, figuram aut virtutem Christi corporis hic obtrudens. An enim rationi valde consentaneum putat, carnis nostrae substantiam ali, nutriri, et augeri figura, et virtute spiritali? Quis haec ferat? Nondum, puto, plane et aperte fateri statuerat Grabius, Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum, Gregorium Nyssenum, Joannem Damascenum, « aliosque fortasse plures, » ut mox referemus, persuasos fuisse, ipsam panis substantiam in veram ac propriam Christi carnem transformari. Nec enim hi Irenaeo minus asseruere, nos sumpto Christi corpore et sanguine fieri unum cum Christo corpus et sanguinem, ac, ut ita dicam, Christo concorporeos et consanguineos, Χριστοῦ συσσώμους καὶ συναίμους, ut loquitur Cyrillus Hieros. Catech. IV Myst.; Christi corpus et sanguinem per esum et potionem admitti intra viscera hominis, et per illa distribui in universum corpus, commisceri et contemperari corporibus credentium, etc., ut unione cum eo quod est immortale, fiat homo particeps incorruptionis, quemadmodum ait Gregorius Nyss. orat. Catech. c. 37; corpus ac sanguinem Christi, ad animae et corporis nostri incolumitatem, ad nostram

94. I shall not dwell upon those arguments for the resurrection of the flesh which Grabe is pleased gratuitously to impute to Irenaeus. How vain they are, unworthy of the holy doctor, and repugnant to his aim, design, and words, is clear enough from what has been said above, and even if I remain silent anyone who is willing to examine the matter with fair weights will easily perceive it. But I cannot sufficiently wonder at what the illustrious man so confidently advances in order to prove that Irenaeus was an utter stranger to the doctrine of transubstantiation. For, he says, "again and again he repeats that our flesh is fed or nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, nay that from them the substance of our flesh is increased and consists. Now to attribute this to the bare accidents of bread is absurd; while to attribute it to the heavenly and glorious body of Christ is impious." Softly, I pray! And first indeed, as to what Grabe supposes here and elsewhere—that what they call absolute accidents, that is, separated in reality from a subject, are admitted by all Catholics as something certain by faith and undoubted—he supposes this altogether gratuitously, and a little more confidently than became a candid man. It is a question debated to and fro only in the Schools, and nowhere defined by the Church. Catholic faith teaches this alone, that when the consecration has been completed the appearances (species) of bread and wine remain: what those appearances are, both philosophers and theologians dispute among themselves, while the Church has not yet interposed her judgement. But if there is any absurdity or impiety in asserting that our flesh is fed or nourished, etc., by the body and blood of the Lord, all of it, however great it is, must consequently be laid upon Irenaeus. For he did not simply assert that our flesh is fed and increased by the body and blood of the Lord, but by the own body and blood of the Lord: expressions which we have shown cannot save ridiculously and absurdly be twisted to mean a figure or separate virtue of the body and blood of Christ. But let him who objects these things see to it lest he betray himself guilty of a greater absurdity by obtruding here a figure or virtue of the body of Christ. Does he think it very agreeable to reason that the substance of our flesh is fed, nourished, and increased by a figure and a spiritual virtue? Who could bear this? Grabe had not yet, I think, resolved plainly and openly to confess that Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, John Damascene, "and perhaps many others," as we shall presently relate, were persuaded that the very substance of the bread is transformed into the true and own flesh of Christ. For no less than Irenaeus did these Fathers assert that when we have received the body and blood of Christ we become one body and blood with Christ, and, so to speak, concorporeal and consanguineous with Christ, Χριστοῦ συσσώμους καὶ συναίμους, as Cyril of Jerusalem says in Mystagogical Catechesis 4; that the body and blood of Christ through eating and drinking are admitted within the bowels of man, and through them distributed into the whole body, mingled and blended with the bodies of believers, etc., so that by union with that which is immortal man may become a partaker of incorruption, even as Gregory of Nyssa says in his Catechetical Oration, Chapter 37; that the body and blood of Christ tend to the safety of our soul and body, to our

Editors' notes and page, col. 346

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 346
marginal letters: A 94. Ea; B quaeso. Ac; C pliciter asseruit; D propriam Christi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: no-
other: the word nostram was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 347

PG 7:347

substantiam et conservationem tendere, ac per ea nos corpori Domini, ipsiusque spiritui uniri, et Christi corpus ac Christo concorporeos effici, ut asserit Joannes Damascenus lib. IV, De fide orthod. c. 14. Quae quid ab Irenaei verbis differant, ne quidem Grabius ipse dixerit. Et tamen sanctissimis Patribus, acerrimis, ipso fatente viro cl., transsubstantiationis propugnatoribus, haec neque absurda, neque impia videbantur.

substance and preservation, and that through them we are united to the body of the Lord and His Spirit, and are made the body of Christ and concorporeal with Christ, as John Damascene asserts in Book IV On the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 14. How these expressions differ from the words of Irenaeus, not even Grabe himself could say. And yet to those most holy Fathers—the keenest champions, as the illustrious man himself confesses, of transubstantiation—these things seemed neither absurd nor impious.

95. Si quae sit catholica de transsubstantiatione fides satis exploratum Grabio fuisset, a puerilibus ejusmodi objectationibus temperasset. Corpus Christi ore manducari, hoc carnem nostram ali, nutriri, augeri, etc., tam vere, quam pie affirmare potuerunt sancti Patres, potuerunt et negare, pro diversis quas praedictis vocibus subjiciebant, notionibus. Cum Christi corpus vere quidem et substantialiter praesens in Eucharistia nobis exhibeatur, non tamen sub ea sensibili carnis humanae forma, quam gestavit in terris degens, sed alienis speciebus contectum; hoc a nobis manducari, hoc caro nostra ali et nutriri recte dicitur, quatenus sub speciebus istis latens ore corporis excipitur, in stomachum trajicitur, atque in ipsa symbola et species, quibus Christi corpus tegitur, corporeae actiones, quae manducationis intellectu continentur, hancque consequuntur, vim suam exerunt. Ex quo enim id tanquam fide certum, uti revera est, supponitur, panem sic in Christi corpus converti, ut tamen maneant semper eaedem panis species, eodemque prorsus modo sensus afficiantur ac si panis reipsa adesset; necesse est, quemadmodum oculis exhibetur idem color, qui prius erat panis, sic et os, dentes, linguam, palatum et stomachum eadem ratione affici, ac affecisset panis, si mansisset; ac proinde eas omnes actiones, quae manducationem comitantur aut consequuntur, in species ipsas exerceri, perinde ac in panem ipsum exercerentur si superesset. Hoc siquidem stupendi illius divinae potentiae simul atque bonitatis miraculi pars magna est. Quia vero Christi corpus speciebus illis conjunctum est; quod non fit nisi in species et sacra symbola, in ipsum tamen Christi corpus sub iis latens fieri dicitur : quamvis in hoc alia ratione non exerceatur, quam quia in symbola exercetur, quibus tegitur. Sic qui hominis vestimenta tetigit, hominem tetigisse dicitur, quamvis ipsam hominis carnem vestibus contectam immediate non tetigerit. Eo sensu Joannes Chrysost., quem cum bona Grabii venia nostris etiam adjungemus, scribit homil. 83 in Matth. Christum ipsum in Eucharistia tangi, videri, et manducari. « Quot modo dicunt, inquit, vellem formam et speciem ejus, vellem vestimenta ipsa, vellem calceamenta videre? Ipsum vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis. Vestimenta ejus desideras videre? ipse vero se ipsum tibi tradit, ut non

95. If Grabe had sufficiently ascertained what the Catholic faith concerning transubstantiation is, he would have refrained from childish objections of this sort. That the body of Christ is eaten with the mouth, and that our flesh is fed, nourished, increased, etc., by it, the holy Fathers could affirm both truly and piously, and could also deny, according to the different notions which they attached to the aforesaid words. Since the body of Christ is presented to us truly indeed and substantially present in the Eucharist, yet not under that sensible form of human flesh which He bore while dwelling on earth, but covered by foreign appearances; it is rightly said that it is eaten by us, and that our flesh is fed and nourished by it, inasmuch as lying hidden under those appearances it is received by the mouth of the body and passed into the stomach, and the bodily actions which are contained in the notion of eating, and which follow upon it, exert their force upon the very symbols and appearances wherewith the body of Christ is covered. For once it is supposed as certain by faith, as it truly is, that the bread is so converted into the body of Christ that the same appearances of bread nevertheless always remain, and that the senses are affected in altogether the same manner as if the bread were really present, it is necessary that just as the same colour which previously belonged to the bread is presented to the eyes, so also the mouth, teeth, tongue, palate, and stomach should be affected in the same way as the bread would have affected them if it had remained; and consequently that all those actions which accompany or follow eating should be exercised upon the appearances themselves, just as they would be exercised upon the bread itself if it survived. For this is a great part of that stupendous miracle of divine power and goodness at once. Because, however, the body of Christ is joined to those appearances, that which takes place only upon the appearances and sacred symbols is nevertheless said to take place upon the very body of Christ lying hidden under them, although it is exercised upon the latter in no other way than because it is exercised upon the symbols wherewith it is covered. Thus he who has touched a man's garments is said to have touched the man, although he has not immediately touched the very flesh of the man covered by the garments. In that sense John Chrysostom—whom with Grabe's kind permission we shall also join to our side—writes in Homily 83 on Matthew that Christ Himself in the Eucharist is touched, seen, and eaten. "How many now say," says he, "'I would fain see His form and figure, I would fain see His garments themselves, I would fain see His shoes!' You see Himself, you touch Himself, you eat Himself. Do you desire to see His garments? Nay, He gives Himself to you, not only that you may

Editors' notes and page, col. 347

Page

running head: 347 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A stram substantiam; B diversis quas; C species, eodemque; D hoc alia
old-edition numerals: CXLIX before stomachum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: no-stram

PG 7:348

videas solum, verum etiam ut tangas, et in te habeas. » Et postea : « Multae matres post partum aliis nutricibus infantes dederunt; quod ipse facere noluit, sed proprio corpore nos alit, et sibi conjungit, atque conglutinat. » Alii vero Patres, attendentes ad eum carnalem manducandi modum, quem sibi Capharnaitae fingebant, quo caro dentibus secatur, gustatur, et in stomachum trajecta digeritur, interdum negarunt Christi corpus a nobis ore manducari; et merito quidem, ut abjectas vilesque Capharnaitarum ideas e fidelium animis evellerent. Imo iidem Patres modo asserunt, modo negant, Christi corpus comedi; nec tamen vel secum, vel cum aliis pugnant, nisi apud Protestantes, qui monstra sibi confingere gestiunt, quibus terreant imperitos.

see Him, but also that you may touch Him, and have Him within you." And afterwards: "Many mothers after childbirth have given their infants to other nurses; which He Himself was unwilling to do, but feeds us with His own body, and joins and cements us to Himself." Other Fathers, on the other hand, attending to that carnal manner of eating which the Capharnaites imagined to themselves, whereby flesh is cut with the teeth, tasted, and when passed into the stomach digested, sometimes denied that the body of Christ is eaten by us with the mouth; and rightly indeed, in order to pluck the base and vile ideas of the Capharnaites out of the minds of the faithful. Nay, the very same Fathers now assert and now deny that the body of Christ is eaten; and yet they neither contradict themselves nor others, save among the Protestants, who delight in fashioning monsters for themselves wherewith to terrify the unskilful.

96. Duo sunt tamen quae cl. Grabio gratulari debeamus. Alterum est, quod ingenue confessus sit in notis ad lib. IV Irenaei cap. 17 et 18, al. 32 et 34, certum esse, Irenaeum, ac omnes, quorum scripta habemus, Patres, apostolis sive coaevos, sive proxime succedentes, sacram Eucharistiam pro vero ac proprie dicto novae legis sacrificio habuisse; nec eorum verba, Irenaei praesertim, ad sacrificia spiritualia cordis contriti, orationis, laudis, gratiarum actionis, et beneficentiae, quae omni aetati et legi communia fuerunt, detorqueri posse; sed de nova Novi Testamenti, eaque externa oblatione, quam legalibus externis opponit Irenaeus, intelligenda esse, quod verissimum. Et hinc Lutheri et Calvini errorem insectatur, qui adversus publicam, ut recte probat, universalis Ecclesiae doctrinam atque praxim, quam illa ab apostolis, apostoli ab ipso Christo edocti acceperunt, insurgentes, perspicuasque ac nullis sophistarum artibus eludendas Patrum, et Irenaei inprimis sententias, aut insolentius contemnentes, aut misere obscurantes, verum ac unicum novae legis sacrificium concutere nituntur. Integras cl. viri notas ad calcem operis reperies. Sed utinam et hoc veritati testimonium ingenue dare voluisset, eosdem Patres, qui tam diserte affirmant Eucharistiam esse verum ac proprie dictum novae legis sacrificium, non minus expresse asserere eamdem victimam, quae in ara crucis mactata est, « pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacrae oblationis immolari. Ejus quippe ibi corpus sumitur, ejus caro in populi salutem partitur, ejus sanguis, non jam in manus infidelium, sed in ora fidelium funditur. Hoc esse illud corpus clavis confixum, et flagris caesum, hoc corpus in crucem actum, hoc esse illud corpus, quod fuit cruentatum, quod lancea percussum, et salutares emisit fontes universo orbi terrarum, unum quidem sanguinis, alterum vero aquae : id quod est in calice, esse id quod fluxit e latere. » Et sexcenta alia ejusmodi, quibus sibi facile persuadeat quotusquisque veritati sincere

96. There are two things, however, on which we ought to congratulate the illustrious Grabe. The one is that in his notes on Irenaeus Book 4, Chapters 17 and 18, formerly 32 and 34, he has frankly confessed that it is certain that Irenaeus, and all the Fathers whose writings we possess, whether contemporary with the apostles or immediately succeeding them, regarded the sacred Eucharist as the true and properly so-called sacrifice of the new law; and that their words, especially those of Irenaeus, cannot be twisted to mean the spiritual sacrifices of a contrite heart, prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and beneficence, which were common to every age and law, but must be understood of the new and external oblation of the New Testament, which Irenaeus opposes to the external legal sacrifices—which is most true. And hence he inveighs against the error of Luther and Calvin, who, rising up against the public doctrine and practice, as he rightly proves, of the universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and the apostles as taught by Christ Himself, and either insolently despising or wretchedly obscuring the clear declarations of the Fathers, and of Irenaeus above all, which cannot be eluded by any arts of sophists, strive to shake the true and only sacrifice of the new law. You will find the entire notes of the illustrious man at the end of the work. Yet would that he had been willing frankly to bear this witness also to the truth: that the same Fathers who so expressly affirm that the Eucharist is the true and properly so-called sacrifice of the new law, no less expressly assert that the same victim which was slain upon the altar of the cross "is offered again for us in this mystery of the sacred oblation. For there His body is received, His flesh is divided for the salvation of the people, His blood is poured forth, no longer into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of the faithful (Gregory the Great, Dialogues, Book 4, Chapter 58). That this is that body pierced with nails and scourged with whips, this the body driven upon the cross, this is that body which was stained with blood, which was pierced with the lance, and sent forth saving fountains for the whole world, the one of blood, the other of water; that that which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side (Chrysostom, Homily 24 on 1 Cor.)." And six hundred other passages of this sort, whereby anyone who sincerely studies the truth may easily persuade himself

Editors' notes and page, col. 348

Footnotes

(76) ‹anchor: mactata est› · call in col 348

Greg. Mag., l. IV Dial., cap. 58. Chrysost., Hom. 24 in I Cor.

Gregory the Great, Dialogues book IV, chapter 58. Chrysostom, Homily 24 on 1 Corinthians.

(printed under page 180)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 348
marginal letters: A videas solum,; B quibus terreant; C naeus, intelligenda; D mam, quae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: sin-
other: the word sincere was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 349

PG 7:349

studeat, quam certum est antiquis omnibus Patribus Eucharistiam esse verum sacrificium, tam iisdem liquidum et exploratum esse, idem illud corpus quod cruci affixum est, vere ac substantialiter sub speciebus panis et vini praesens, in eo sacrificio offerri ac incruenta ratione immolari.

that just as it is certain to all the ancient Fathers that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, so it is equally clear and established to them that that very same body which was fastened to the cross, truly and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, is offered in that sacrifice and immolated in an unbloody manner.

97. Alterum quod Grabio gratulari debeamus, est quod Albertino Claudio aliisque Calvinianis candidior, plane et aperte fateatur, catholicam de praesentia reali et transsubstantiatione doctrinam longe antiquiorem esse, ac majoris et vetustioris auctoritatis patrociniis gloriari, quam fingerent illi. Cl. viri verba observatione singulari dignissima cum sint, integra referam, prout edita leguntur in Adnotationibus in Irenaei lib. V, cap. 2, edit. Oxon., pag. 399 : « Quaenam igitur Irenaei, nec non haereticorum ejus aevi sententia fuerit, ex iis, quae hic et praecedentibus adnotationibus edisserui, satis clare patet, ac certissime constat, illum haud minus, quam dictum est, de tremendo Eucharistiae mysterio credidisse, » scilicet panem consecratum, virtute carnis Christi praeditum esse, sicque reapse carnem Christi esse. « Ulterius vero progressum Irenaeum, ac eidem, quam Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Gregorius Nyssenus, Joannes Damascenus, aliique fortasse plures tenuere, sententiae addictum fuisse, non puto. Hi quippe persuasi erant, Spiritum sanctum coelitus descendentem, pani non modo virtutem corporis Christi communicare, sicque eumdem ratione qualitatum mutare; sed et divina potentia ipsam ejus substantiam in carnem transmutare, quae Christi caro sit, et cum illa, quae ex B. Virginis utero prodiit, ac cruci suffixa, indeque in coelum sublata sit, eadem fiat per ἐπαύξησιν, quodque eumdem spiritum vitae in se habeat; sicuti panis, quem Servator in terris comedit, vi naturalis caloris in carnem ejus vertebatur, et noster panis quotidianus in substantiam corporis nostri transit : quod corpus a nobis hodie gestatum idem dicitur cum illo, in quo ante plures annos versati sumus, quoniam eadem anima vegetatur, licet particulae ejus prorsus sint diversae, et nulla forte ex prioribus superstes exsistat. Lege post Cyrilli Catechesim IV Mystagogicam, Gregorii Nysseni Orationem Catecheticam magnam, cap. 37, et Damasceni lib. IV de Orthodoxa fide cap. 14, ejusque epistolam ad Zachariam Doarorum episcopum. Joannis Damasceni verba, eaque Latine versa solum, brevitatis causa, dabo : « Quemadmodum naturaliter panis per cibum, et vinum et aqua per potum in comedentis ac bibentis corpus et sanguinem immutantur, nec corpus alterum fiunt, atque a priore ipsius corpore diversum : sic propositionis panis, ac vinum et aqua per sancti Spiritus invocationem et adventum, mirabili modo in Christi corpus et sanguinem vertuntur, nec sunt duo, sed unum et idem. » Rursus in epist. ad. Zachariam episcopum

97. The other thing on which we ought to congratulate Grabe is that, more candid than Aubertin, Claude, and other Calvinists, he plainly and openly confesses that the Catholic doctrine concerning the real presence and transubstantiation is far more ancient, and glories in the patronage of greater and older authority, than they feigned. Since the words of the illustrious man are most worthy of special notice, I shall quote them in full, as they are read published in his Notes on Irenaeus Book 5, Chapter 2, Oxford edition, p. 399: "What the opinion of Irenaeus, as well as of the heretics of his age, was, is clear enough from the things which I have set forth here and in the preceding notes, and it is most certainly established that he believed no less than has been said concerning the tremendous mystery of the Eucharist," namely that the consecrated bread is endowed with the virtue of the flesh of Christ, and thus is in reality the flesh of Christ. "That Irenaeus went further, however, and was devoted to the same opinion which Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, John Damascene, and perhaps many others held, I do not think. For these Fathers were persuaded that the Holy Spirit descending from heaven not only communicates to the bread the virtue of the body of Christ, and thus changes it in respect of qualities, but also by divine power transmutes its very substance into flesh, which is the flesh of Christ, and becomes by ἐπαύξησις (accretion) the same with that flesh which came forth from the womb of the Blessed Virgin, and was fastened to the cross, and thence taken up into heaven, and that it has the same spirit of life in itself; just as the bread which the Saviour ate on earth was turned into His flesh by the force of natural heat, and our daily bread passes into the substance of our body: which body borne by us today is called the same with that in which we lived many years ago, because it is animated by the same soul, although its particles are altogether different, and perhaps none of the former ones survives. Read after Cyril's fourth Mystagogical Catechesis Gregory of Nyssa's Great Catechetical Oration, Chapter 37, and Damascene's Book 4 On the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 14, and his letter to Zacharias, Bishop of Doara. I shall give the words of John Damascene, and those translated into Latin only, for the sake of brevity: 'Just as naturally bread through eating, and wine and water through drinking, are changed into the body and blood of him who eats and drinks, and do not become another body diverse from his former body; so the bread of the table of proposition, and the wine and water, through the invocation and coming of the Holy Spirit, are wonderfully turned into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two, but one and the same.' Again, in the letter to Zacharias, Bishop

Editors' notes and page, col. 349

Page

running head: 349 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A cere studeat,; B pag. 399 :; C sicque eumdem; D Gregorii Nysseni
old-edition numerals: CL before « Quemadmodum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: sin-cere, episco-
other: the word episcopum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 350

PG 7:350

: « Hoc dilectioni tuae significamus, duo Christi corpora nos dicere non posse; sed unum est ipsius corpus. Et sicut infans ex muliere natus, perfectus est; edens autem et bibens augescit naturali facultate, et licet augescat, non tamen duo efficiuntur corpora, sed unum est : multo magis superventu Spiritus sancti panis et vinum in superaugmentationem, εἰς ἐπαύξησιν, corporis Christi unum fit corpus, et non duo. » Atque ita et in capitulo dictae epistolae suffixo hac de re loquitur. Istam igitur sententiam Irenaei fuisse haud existimo, quod quaedam transsubstantiationi panis in totum personale et glorificatum Christi corpus, coelitus in altare descendens, qualem Romana Ecclesia credit, supra p. 327, seq. opposita, et alteram substantialem mutationem, licet a priori multum diversam, excludere videantur, quodque in nullius Irenaeo coaevi, aut Nicaeno concilio antiquioris Patris monumentis aperte tradita legatur : sicuti nec postea universaliter in Ecclesia fuit recepta; sed ab aliis Patribus, praesertim Africanis, contrarium assertum patet, prout theologi Protestantium abunde probarunt. » Hactenus Grabius, ex cujus verbis certissime constat, praesentiae realis et transsubstantiationis doctrinam posterioris aevi fetum non esse, sed jam saltem concilii Nicaeni temporibus natam et agnitam, non ab uno deinceps aut altero, sed a Cyrillo Hierosolymitano, Gregorio Nysseno, Joanne Damasceno « aliisque fortasse pluribus » Patribus propugnatam fuisse. An tam aperta cl. Grabii testificatio caeteris Protestantibus probetur, haud scio. Id unum scio, hac semel admissa suppositione, ab imis fundamentis succussam funditus ruere eam hypothesim, quam tot machinationibus, artibus et laboribus exstructam erigere conati fuerant Albertinus, Claudius, aliique recentiores ministri : dogma de corporali Christi praesentia in Eucharistiae sacramento, et transsubstantiatione, apud Latinos primum et a Paschasio Radberto excogitatum nono saeculo, sub ejusdem saeculi finem animos fidelium pervadere coepisse, ac tandem decimo saeculo ubique in Ecclesia Latina obtinuisse; Graeca interim in veteri et avita Calvinistica fide perseverante. Si enim Grabium audiamus, vel ipsis concilii Nicaeni temporibus, vel paulo post, lucem aspexit doctrina praesentiae realis et transsubstantiationis, priusque Graecis nota, quam Latinis, ab illis ad hos manasse videtur. Jam igitur cismarini Calvinistae novam esse eam, quam tuemur, sententiam objectent, totam Ecclesiam per priora octo saecula in Calviniana fide concordem jactitent, societates omnes Orientales nulla etiamnum hac in parte novitatis labe contaminatas audacter affirment; vanissimum commentum pro nobis et nobiscum Cyrilli Hierosolymitani, Gregorii Nysseni, Damasceni, (qualium, quantorumque virorum!) aliorumque fortasse plurium certa et inconcussa auctoritate

[of Doara]: 'This we signify to your charity, that we cannot say two bodies of Christ, but His body is one. And just as an infant born of a woman is complete, and by eating and drinking grows by natural faculty, and although he grows, yet two bodies are not made, but there is one; much more by the coming of the Holy Spirit do the bread and wine unto the superaugmentation, εἰς ἐπαύξησιν, of the body of Christ become one body, and not two.' And thus also he speaks of this matter in the chapter subjoined to the said letter. I do not think, therefore, that this was the opinion of Irenaeus, because certain things which were opposed above, p. 327 et seq., to the transubstantiation of the bread into the whole personal and glorified body of Christ descending from heaven upon the altar, such as the Roman Church believes, seem also to exclude the other substantial change, although it is much different from the former, and because it is not read as openly handed down in the monuments of any Father contemporary with Irenaeus or older than the Council of Nicaea; just as neither was it afterwards universally received in the Church, but it is clear that the contrary was asserted by other Fathers, especially the African, as Protestant theologians have abundantly proved." Thus far Grabe, from whose words it is most certainly established that the doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation is not the offspring of a later age, but was already born and acknowledged at least in the times of the Council of Nicaea, and was championed thenceforth not by one or two only, but by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, John Damascene, "and perhaps many other" Fathers. Whether so open a testimony of the illustrious Grabe is approved by the rest of the Protestants, I do not know. This one thing I know, that once this supposition is admitted, that hypothesis which Aubertin, Claude, and other more recent ministers had endeavoured to rear, built up with so many contrivances, arts, and labours, is shaken from its deepest foundations and utterly collapses: namely, that the dogma concerning the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and transubstantiation, was first devised among the Latins and by Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century, began to pervade the minds of the faithful towards the end of the same century, and finally prevailed everywhere in the Latin Church in the tenth century, while the Greek Church meanwhile persevered in the ancient and ancestral Calvinistic faith. For if we listen to Grabe, either in the very times of the Council of Nicaea, or a little after, the doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation saw the light, and having been known to the Greeks earlier than to the Latins, seems to have flowed from the former to the latter. Now therefore let the Calvinists on this side of the sea object that the opinion which we defend is new, let them boast that the whole Church throughout the first eight centuries was unanimous in the Calvinistic faith, let them boldly affirm that all the Eastern communions are even now uncontaminated in this respect by any stain of novelty; this most vain figment Grabe, with us and on our behalf, will explode by the certain and unshaken authority

Editors' notes and page, col. 350

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 350
marginal letters: A pum : «; B sita , et; C sceno « aliisque; D Grabium audiamus,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: episco-pum, au-

PG 7:351

dissipabit recentior Calviniani dogmatis assecla Grabius.

of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Damascene (what men, and how great!), and perhaps many others, Grabe, a more recent follower of the Calvinistic dogma.

98. Sed vereor ne vir cl. pedem paulo longius forte quam voluisset protulisse se dolens, tandem aliquando referre velit. Haec enim unica salutis aeternae spes, hoc solum Grabii fidei columen, « quod in nullius Irenaeo coaevi, aut Nicaeno concilio antiquioris Patris monumentis aperte tradita legatur Romana de praesentia reali, et transsubstantiatione doctrina, sicut nec postea universaliter in Ecclesia fuit recepta, sed ab aliis Patribus, praesertim Africanis, contrarium assertum pateat. » Sed quid si falsa sit ea suppositio? Nec enim adeo fidenter proponere videtur Grabius, ut extra omnem dubitationis aleam positam esse putet; quod satis indicant ea, quibus utitur, verba : « ulterius progressum Irenaeum non puto : istam sententiam Irenaei fuisse haud existimo; » quae hominem privatas opiniones, sed paulo timidius proferentem nonnihil olere videntur. Quid si Irenaeus, quid si Justinus Martyr, aliique concilio Nicaeno antiquiores, idem cum Cyrillo Hierosolymitano, Gregorio Nysseno, et aliis senserint? De Irenaeo rem certissimam esse cordato cuivis persuadebunt ea, quae superius adduximus, argumenta. Et quidquid cavilletur Grabius, tanta saltem, ut puto, non erit illius fiducia, ut asserere audeat ea, quae ipse in contrarium profert, illum certitudinis gradum attigisse, qui omnem prorsus dubitationem eximat. Ut igitur demus (absit ut concedamus) suam Grabianis argumentis constare probabilitatem, an una probabilitate niti potest homo salutis suae amans, ut in re maximi ad salutem aeternam momenti, a communi totius orbis doctrina desciscat, quam ipse antiquissimorum, non unius, aut alterius, sed plurium, eorumque non infimi nominis, Patrum auctoritate fultam agnoscit; aliis saltem Patribus, aut non aperte contradicentibus, aut ea affirmantibus, quae non ita difficili negotio ab iis, qui uni student veritati, explicari queant? Certum est enim nulla Patrum testimonia adeo aperta, clara et perspicua afferri posse a Protestantibus, atque nos afferimus. Auctoritate quidem Africanorum Patrum, id est Tertulliani, Augustini, et Facundi Hermianensis gloriatur Grabius; sed si legere non pigeat tomum III Perpetuitatis fidei, Gallice scriptum (Gallice quippe scit vir doctus), si quis animi candor sit, vanam esse gloriationem cito animadvertet.

98. Yet I fear lest the illustrious man, grieving that he has perhaps advanced his foot a little further than he would have wished, may at length wish to draw it back. For this is the sole hope of eternal salvation, this the only pillar of Grabe's faith: "that the Roman doctrine concerning the real presence and transubstantiation is not read as openly handed down in the monuments of any Father contemporary with Irenaeus or older than the Council of Nicaea, just as neither was it afterwards universally received in the Church, but it is clear that the contrary was asserted by other Fathers, especially the African." But what if that supposition be false? For Grabe does not seem to advance it so confidently as to think that it is placed beyond all hazard of doubt; which the words that he uses sufficiently indicate: "that Irenaeus went further, I do not think; I do not think that this was the opinion of Irenaeus"—expressions which seem to savour somewhat of a man advancing private opinions, and that rather timidly. What if Irenaeus, what if Justin Martyr, and others older than the Council of Nicaea, held the same view as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and others? As for Irenaeus, the arguments which we have adduced above will persuade any sensible man that the matter is most certain. And whatever cavils Grabe may raise, his confidence will at least not be so great, I think, that he will dare to assert that the things which he himself advances to the contrary have reached that degree of certitude which removes all doubt whatsoever. Granting, therefore (though far be it from us to concede it), that Grabe's arguments have their own probability, can a man who loves his own salvation rely upon a single probability so as to depart, in a matter of the greatest moment for eternal salvation, from the common doctrine of the whole world, which he himself acknowledges to be supported by the authority of the most ancient Fathers—not of one or two only, but of many, and those of no mean name—while the other Fathers at least either do not openly contradict it, or affirm things which can without much difficulty be explained by those who study truth alone? For it is certain that no testimonies of the Fathers can be brought forward by the Protestants so open, clear, and perspicuous as those which we bring forward. Grabe boasts indeed of the authority of the African Fathers, that is, of Tertullian, Augustine, and Facundus of Hermiane; but if he does not begrudge reading Volume III of the Perpetuity of the Faith, written in French (for the learned man knows French), if he has any candour of mind, he will quickly perceive that the boasting is vain.

99. Interim vero Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum et Gregorium Nyssenum cum Justino et Irenaeo conferat, et quo alii ab illis differant dicat ipse, si possit. Quemadmodum enim asserunt illi, « panem et vinum Eucharistiae, ante sacram invocationem adorandae Trinitatis, panem esse et vinum merum; peracta vero invocatione, panem quidem

99. Meanwhile, however, let him compare Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa with Justin and Irenaeus, and say himself, if he can, wherein the one group differs from the other. For just as the former assert that "the bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the sacred invocation of the adorable Trinity, are mere bread and wine, whereas when the invocation has been completed, the bread indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 351

Footnotes

(77) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 351 (probable; not seen)

Cyrill. Hierosol., Catech. 1 Mystag.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis 1.

(printed under page 182)

(78) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 351 (probable; not seen)

Greg. N., Orat. cath., cap. 37.

Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration, chapter 37.

(printed under page 182)

(79) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 351 (probable; not seen)

Justin. M., Apol. I.

Justin Martyr, First Apology.

(printed under page 182)

(80) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 351 (probable; not seen)

Iren., l. V, c. 2, n. 3.

Irenaeus, book V, chapter 2, no. 3.

(printed under page 182)

Page

running head: 351 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A ctoritate dissipabit; B tet ; quod; C concedamus) suam; D Tertulliani, Augustini
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: au-ctoritate

PG 7:352

fieri corpus Christi, vinum autem sanguinem Christi : Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei Verbi corpus transmutari : » sic hi affirmant, « eam, in qua per orationem verbi a Christo profecti gratiae sunt actae, alimoniam, incarnati illius Jesu et carnem et sanguinem esse : mistum calicem, et factum panem percipientia verbum Dei, fieri Eucharistiam, sanguinem et corpus Christi. » Quemadmodum illi pronuntiant, panem et vinum consecratione peracta, « spectanda non esse tanquam panem nudum, et vinum nudum; corpus enim esse et sanguinem Christi, secundum ipsius Domini verba; panem sanctificatum per verbum Dei et orationem, statim Verbi in corpus transmutari, sicut dictum est a Verbo : Hoc est corpus meum : » sic et hi palam enuntiant, « eum, in quo gratiae actae sunt, panem, vinum, et aquam, non ut communem panem, neque communem potum sumi, sed ut incarnati Jesu carnem et sanguinem; » eum, « qui a terra est panis, percipientem invocationem Dei, jam non communem panem esse, sed Eucharistiam, ex duabus rebus constantem, terrena et coelesti, » corpore videlicet Christi e terrena materia concreto, et Verbo Dei huic hypostatice unito. Sicut illi docent, « Christo ipso sic affirmante, atque dicente de pane : Hoc est corpus meum, neminem deinceps audere dubitare : eodem quoque confirmante et dicente : Hic est sanguis meus, nullum fore qui dubitet, et dicat non esse illius sanguinem : qui aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum, in Cana Galilaeae, dignum esse cui credamus, quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit; qui ad nuptias corporeas invitatus stupendum miraculum operatus est, multo magis corpus et sanguinem suum filiis sponsi dedisse confitendum esse : quare cum omni certitudine corpus et sanguinem Christi sumendum esse; nam sub specie, ἐν τύπῳ, panis datur corpus, et sub specie vini datur sanguis : quamvis sensus contrarium suggerat, fidem tamen confirmare debere, ex gustu rem judicandam non esse, quin potius certissima fide, et citra dubitationem credendum esse, Christi corpus et sanguinem nobis dari; » quemadmodum « corpus Christi, Dei Verbi inhabitatione ad divinam transmutatum est dignitatem; recte nunc quoque Dei verbo sanctificatum panem credere nos in Dei Verbi corpus transmutari, et in illud transelementari eorum, quae apparent, naturam. » Sic et hi praedicant, « quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factus Jesus Christus Servator noster, et carnem et sanguinem salutis nostrae causa habuit; ita quoque eam, in qua per orationem verbi ab ipso profecti gratiae sunt actae alimoniam, incarnati illius Jesu et carnem et sanguinem esse edoctos nos esse; » Christum, « calicem, qui est ex ea creatura, quae est secundum nos,

becomes the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ; that the bread sanctified by the word of God is transmuted into the body of the Word of God:" so the latter affirm that "that food over which thanks have been given through the prayer of the word that proceeded from Christ is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus; that the mingled cup and the made bread, receiving the word of God, become the Eucharist, the blood and body of Christ." Just as the former pronounce that when the consecration has been completed the bread and wine "are not to be regarded as bare bread and bare wine, for they are the body and blood of Christ, according to the words of the Lord Himself; that the bread sanctified through the word of God and prayer is immediately transmuted into the body of the Word, as was spoken by the Word: This is My body:" so also the latter openly declare that "that bread, wine, and water over which thanks have been given are not taken as common bread or common drink, but as the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus;" that "the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly," namely the body of Christ formed from earthly matter, and the Word of God hypostatically united to it. Just as the former teach that "when Christ Himself thus affirms and says concerning the bread: This is My body, no one henceforth dares to doubt; and when the Same also confirms and says: This is My blood, there will be no one who will doubt and say that it is not His blood; that He Who once changed water into wine in Cana of Galilee is worthy to be believed by us when He has transmuted wine into blood; that it must be confessed that He Who when invited to bodily nuptials wrought a stupendous miracle much more gave His body and blood to the children of the bridegroom; wherefore the body and blood of Christ must be received with all certitude; for under the appearance, ἐν τύπῳ, of bread is given the body, and under the appearance of wine is given the blood; and although sense suggests the contrary, yet faith ought to confirm us, and the matter must not be judged by taste, but rather it must be believed with most certain faith and without doubt that the body and blood of Christ are given to us;" and that just as "the body of Christ by the indwelling of the Word of God was transmuted to divine dignity, so now also we rightly believe that the bread sanctified by the word of God is transmuted into the body of the Word of God, and that the nature of the things which appear is transelemented into it:" so also the latter proclaim that "just as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh through the word of God, had both flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation, so also we have been taught that that food over which thanks have been given through the prayer of the word that proceeded from Him is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus;" that Christ, "the cup, which is from that creation which belongs to us,

Editors' notes and page, col. 352

Footnotes

(77) ‹anchor: sanguinem Christi› · call in col 352

Cyrill. Hierosol., Catech. 1 Mystag.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis 1.

(printed under page 182)

(78) ‹anchor: corpus transmutari› · call in col 352

Greg. N., Orat. cath., cap. 37.

Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration, chapter 37.

(printed under page 182)

(79) ‹anchor: sanguinem esse› · call in col 352

Justin. M., Apol. I.

Justin Martyr, First Apology.

(printed under page 182)

(80) ‹anchor: corpus Christi.› · call in col 352

Iren., l. V, c. 2, n. 3.

Irenaeus, book V, chapter 2, no. 3.

(printed under page 182)

(81) ‹anchor: Domini verba› · call in col 352

Cyrill. Hierosol., Catech. IV Myst.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis 4.

(printed under page 182)

(82) ‹anchor: corpus meum :› · call in col 352

Greg. N., cit.

Gregory of Nyssa, in the place cited.

(printed under page 182)

(83) ‹anchor: carnem et sanguinem;› · call in col 352

Justin., cit.

Justin, in the place cited.

(printed under page 182)

(84) ‹anchor: terrena et coelesti› · call in col 352

Iren., l. IV, c. 18, n. 5.

Irenaeus, book IV, chapter 18, no. 5.

(printed under page 182)

(85) ‹anchor: nobis dari› · call in col 352

Cyrill. Cat. IV.

Cyril, Catechesis 4.

(printed under page 182)

(86) ‹anchor: quae apparent, naturam› · call in col 352

Greg. N. cit.

Gregory of Nyssa, in the place cited.

(printed under page 182)

(87) ‹anchor: edoctos nos esse› · call in col 352

Justin. cit.

Justin, in the place cited.

(printed under page 182)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 352
marginal letters: A fieri corpus; B corpus meum :; C fore qui; D tatione ad
old-edition numerals: CLI before rebus
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)
other: QA Q1c: the calls of notes 77–80 are printed in this column (seen on the page); n351 also carries 77–80 as "probable" col 351 calls, and those four entries are to be removed from n351

PG 7:353

suum sanguinem confessum esse : constare eum panem, in quo gratiae actae sint, corpus esse Domini nostri, et calicem sanguinis ejus » esse calicem : « Dominum, qui se Filium hominis confitebatur, panem suum corpus esse confessum esse, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmasse : eum calicem, qui est creatura, proprium sanguinem confessum esse, et eum panem, qui est a creatura, proprium corpus asseverasse : quemadmodum granum tritici decidens in terram, et dissolutum, multiplex surgit per spiritum Dei; deinde per sapientiam Dei » convertitur in panem, ut « in usum hominis veniat, » ac demum « percipiens verbum Dei Eucharistia fit, quod est corpus et sanguis Christi; sic et corpora nostra ex ea nutrita, et reposita in terram, et resoluta in ea, » iterum transmutata in carnem « resurrectura in suo tempore, Verbo Dei resurrectionem eis donante; ut sciamus et quid Deus potest, et quid homo beneficii accipit. » Denique Cyrillus et Gregorius aiunt, « Christi corpus et sanguinem in membra nostra distribui, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου μέλη, » nosque ea ratione « fieri unum cum Christo corpus et sanguinem, » ac « Christophoros : » Christi « corpus immortale per esum et potionem misceri visceribus nostris, per carnem inseri omnibus credentibus, commistum et contemperatum corporibus credentium. » Justinus et Irenaeus dicunt « ex ea in qua gratiae sunt actae, alimonia, incarnati Jesu carne et sanguine, sanguinem et carnes nostras per mutationem ali : carnem » nostram « corpore Domini et sanguine ali : eo calice, quem proprium sanguinem confessus est, augeri nostrum sanguinem, et eo pane, quem proprium corpus confirmavit, nostra augeri corpora, consistere carnis nostrae substantiam, nutriri, etc. » Omnia haec adeo similia sunt, adeo eadem, eaedem omnino sententiae, et tantum non eadem verba, ut quisquis unaquaeque ex aequitatis norma aestimare, nec iniquis momentis ponderare voluerit, oppido fateatur ovum ovo similius esse non posse. Si igitur Cyrilli et Gregorii dictis fictitia illa solutio figurae efficacis, et virtutis Christi corporis aptari, ipsomet ultro concedente Grabio, non potest; qui Justini et Irenaei verbis, illaesis rectae rationis legibus, poterit? Potuisset et eadem comparatio institui inter Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum, Gregorium Nyssenum et alios omnes Patres, invicteque demonstrari, hos, ipsos etiam Africanos, nihil minus illis dixisse ac sensisse : posset et Grabius ea molestissima quaestione urgeri : cur Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus et Gregorius Nyssenus, quos primos omnium fuisse supponere videtur, qui insolens illud de corporali Christi in Eucharistia praesentia et transsubstantiatione, prioribus tribus saeculis inauditum dogma, in orbem

to be His blood (Irenaeus, Book 4, Chapter 17, n. 5); that it is established that that bread over which thanks have been given is the body of our Lord, and the cup the cup of His blood (ibid., Chapter 18, n. 4); that the Lord, Who confessed Himself to be the Son of man, confessed that the bread is His body, and affirmed the mixture of the cup to be His blood (ibid., Chapter 33, n. 2); that He confessed that cup which is a creature to be His own blood, and protested that that bread which is from the creation is His own body; and that just as a grain of wheat, falling into the earth and being dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, and afterwards through the wisdom of God" is converted into bread, so that "it may come into the use of man," and finally, "receiving the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, nourished by it, and laid in the earth, and dissolved therein," transmuted again into flesh, "shall rise in their own time, the Word of God granting them resurrection, that we may know both what God can do, and what benefit man receives (ibid., Book 5, Chapter 2, nn. 2-3)." Finally, Cyril and Gregory say that "the body and blood of Christ are distributed into our members, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου μέλη," and that in this way we "become one body and blood with Christ," and "Christ-bearers (Christophori) (Cyril, loc. cit.);" that the "immortal body of Christ through eating and drinking is mingled with our bowels, and through the flesh is implanted in all believers, mingled and blended with the bodies of believers (Gregory, loc. cit.)." Justin and Irenaeus say that "from that food over which thanks have been given, the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, our blood and flesh are nourished by change (Justin, loc. cit.);" that our "flesh is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord; that by that cup which He confessed to be His own blood our blood is increased, and by that bread which He affirmed to be His own body our bodies are increased, and the substance of our flesh consists and is nourished, etc. (Irenaeus, locis cit.)." All these things are so similar, so identical—altogether the same thoughts, and all but the same words—that whoever is willing to estimate each of them by the rule of equity, and not to weigh them in unfair scales, will forthwith confess that one egg cannot be more like another. If, therefore, that fictitious solution of an efficacious figure and of the virtue of the body of Christ cannot be fitted to the sayings of Cyril and Gregory, as Grabe himself willingly concedes, how will it be able, without violating the laws of right reason, to be fitted to the words of Justin and Irenaeus? The same comparison could also have been instituted between Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and all the other Fathers, and it could have been invincibly demonstrated that the latter, even the Africans themselves, said and thought nothing less than the former; and Grabe could also be pressed with this most troublesome question: why Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa—whom he seems to suppose to have been the first of all to bring into the Christian world that strange dogma concerning the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation, unheard of in the first three centuries—

Editors' notes and page, col. 353

Footnotes

(88) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 353 (probable; not seen)

Iren., l. IV, c. 17, n. 5.

Irenaeus, book IV, chapter 17, no. 5.

(printed under page 183)

(89) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 353 (probable; not seen)

Ibid. cap. 18, n. 4.

Same book, chapter 18, no. 4.

(printed under page 183)

(90) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 353 (probable; not seen)

Ibid. cap. 33, n. 2.

Same book, chapter 33, no. 2.

(printed under page 183)

(91) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 353 (probable; not seen)

Ibid. l. V, cap. 2, n. 2 et 3.

Same work, book V, chapter 2, nos. 2 and 3.

(printed under page 183)

(92) ‹anchor: ac Christophoros› · call in col 353

Cyrill. cit.

Cyril, in the place cited.

(printed under page 183)

(93) ‹anchor: corporibus credentium› · call in col 353

Greg. cit.

Gregory, in the place cited.

(printed under page 183)

(94) ‹anchor: per mutationem ali› · call in col 353

Justin., cit.

Justin, in the place cited.

(printed under page 183)

(95) ‹anchor: nutriri, etc.› · call in col 353

Iren., locis cit.

Irenaeus, in the places cited.

(printed under page 183)

Page

running head: 353 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A suum sanguinem; B posita in; C tiae sunt; D Grabio, non
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:354

Christianum invexerint, id tam paucis verbis, styloque simplici ac sedato, exposuerint; nullosque eo in saeculo, quo tum sanctitatis et eruditionis laude florebat Ecclesia, ea in re experti fuerint adversarios, ne quidem Arianos ipsos, infensissimos eorum hostes; nullos demum qui portentosum errorem, quo trium priorum saeculorum fides, plurimis quarti saeculi Patribus probe nota, tam foede labefactabatur, data opera confutarint, avitaeque fidei desertores simul et eversores in conciliis tum temporis frequentissimis damnari curaverint? Sed vereor ne extra praescriptos limites excurreret dissertatio.

set it forth in so few words, and in a simple and calm style; and why in that century, when the Church flourished in the praise both of holiness and of learning, they met with no adversaries in that matter, not even the Arians themselves, their most bitter enemies—none, in fine, who purposely refuted a monstrous error whereby the faith of the first three centuries, well known to very many Fathers of the fourth century, was so foully undermined, and who took care that those who were at once deserters and subverters of the ancestral faith should be condemned in the councils so frequent at that time? But I fear lest our dissertation should run out beyond its prescribed limits.

100. Si quid autem cl. Grabio gratulati sumus, quod suis aequior ingenue confessus fuerit Eucharistiam esse verum novae legis sacrificium, ac Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum, Gregorium Nyssenum; pluresque Patres credidisse Christi corpus et sanguinem in eadem Eucharistia per veram et realem panis et vini transmutationem sisti corporaliter et substantialiter praesentia; unum est quod justissimam apud omnes reprehensionem mereatur, quod nimirum praeter jus et fas Irenaeo intolerandum errorem affingat. Occasione siquidem eorum S. Doctoris verborum, quae leguntur lib. IV, c. 8, n. 3, al. cap. 20 : « Omnes justi sacerdotalem habent ordinem, » scribit in notis, « Irenaeum in eadem fere cum Tertulliano sententia fuisse videri, quod omnes fideles sint sacerdotali ordine ac potestate praediti, ejusque exercitium, ubi necessitas requirit, obire queant; licet ordinaria functio nonnisi ordinatis ad sacra munia ministris competat. » Tum decantatum illum Tertulliani locum ex lib. De exhortat. castit., c. 7, allegat, pluraque addit nec admodum consulta, nec ad rem facientia. Sic forte scripsisset Puritanus quispiam, obvia quaeque Patrum loca temere corradens, ut desperatam causam fulciat; sed quod is, qui Anglorum episcopalium doctrinam profitetur, ecclesiasticamque hierarchiam sartam tectam esse vult, Irenaeum ejusdem hostibus gratis omnino, et obtorto collo tradat; id mirum, et Anglis ipsis iniquum forsitan videbitur. Irenaeus eo loco probat, veterem legem a Christo abrogatam fuisse, non quod mala esset, et a malo Deo lata, sed quod jam impleta ab illo fuisset. Si vero idem Christus Sabbatis curaverit, « nihil extra legem fecisse; non enim prohibuisse legem curari homines Sabbatis, quae et circumcidebat eos in hac die, et pro populo jubebat ministeria sacerdotibus perficere. » Ideo vero sacerdotalia ministeria lege licita erant, quia spiritalia opera erant et bona : legem autem a servilibus quidem operibus abstinere jussisse, non autem a spiritualibus et bonis, quae ut sacerdotibus, sic et caeteris omnibus licita erant. Et hinc concludit Irenaeus, Christum aegrotis opem ferentem, « non solvisse, sed adimplevisse

100. If, however, we have congratulated the illustrious Grabe to some extent because, fairer than his own party, he frankly confessed that the Eucharist is the true sacrifice of the new law, and that Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and many Fathers believed that the body and blood of Christ are made corporally and substantially present in the same Eucharist through a true and real transmutation of the bread and wine; there is one thing that deserves the most just reprehension among all, namely that contrary to all right and justice he imputes an intolerable error to Irenaeus. For on the occasion of those words of the holy doctor which are read in Book 4, Chapter 8, n. 3, formerly Chapter 20: "All the righteous have the priestly order," he writes in his notes that "Irenaeus seems to have been of almost the same opinion as Tertullian, that all the faithful are endowed with the priestly order and power, and can discharge the exercise thereof when necessity requires, although the ordinary function belongs only to ministers ordained for sacred duties." Then he alleges that oft-repeated passage of Tertullian from the book On Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter 7, and adds several things neither very well-advised nor relevant to the matter. Thus perhaps some Puritan might have written, rashly scraping together whatever passages of the Fathers came in his way in order to prop up a desperate cause; but that he who professes the doctrine of the episcopal English, and wishes the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be kept safe and sound, should hand Irenaeus over to the enemies of the same altogether gratuitously and by force—this will seem wonderful, and perhaps unfair to the English themselves. In that passage Irenaeus proves that the old law was abrogated by Christ, not because it was evil and enacted by an evil God, but because it had now been fulfilled by Him. And if the same Christ healed on the Sabbath days, "He did nothing outside the law; for the law did not forbid men to be healed on the Sabbath days, seeing that it also circumcised them on that day, and commanded the offices to be performed by the priests for the people (Irenaeus, Book 4, Chapter 8, n. 2)." Now priestly offices were lawful by the law for this reason, that they were spiritual and good works; and the law commanded men to abstain indeed from servile works, but not from spiritual and good works, which were lawful for all others as well as for the priests. And hence Irenaeus concludes that Christ, in bringing help to the sick, "did not destroy, but fulfilled

Editors' notes and page, col. 354

Footnotes

(96) ‹anchor: sacerdotibus perficere› · call in col 354

Iren., lib. IV, c. 8, n. 2.

Irenaeus, book IV, chapter 8, no. 2.

(printed under page 183)

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 354
marginal letters: A Christianum invexerint,; B stiam esse; C ejusque exercitium,; D sed quod
old-edition numerals: CLII after Christum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:355

legem; » quia « summi sacerdotis operam perficiebat, propitians pro hominibus Deum, emundans leprosos et infirmos curans. » Hanc autem summi sacerdotis operam, non utique servilem, sed spiritalem et bonam, si caeteris hominibus, laicis etiam, perficere fas fuit; a fortiori, Christo Domino. Tum occurrens alteri objectioni, ex eo petitae quod Salvatoris discipuli, ipso probante, spicas vellerent die Sabbati; respondet, « metere » quidem « et colligere in horreum » legem « vetuisse; » non autem « esurientes accipere Sabbatis escam ex his quae adjacebant. Et ideo, » inquit, « Dominus his, qui incusabant discipulos ejus, quoniam vellentes spicas manducabant, dixit : Nec hoc legistis, quod fecit David cum esuriisset, quemadmodum introivit in domum Dei, et panes propositionis manducavit, et dedit eis qui cum eo erant, quos non licebat manducare, nisi solis sacerdotibus? per legis verba discipulos suos excusans, et significans licere sacerdotibus libere agere. Sacerdos autem scitus fuerat David apud Deum, quamvis Saul persecutionem faceret ei. Omnes enim justi sacerdotalem habent ordinem. Sacerdotes autem sunt omnes Domini apostoli, qui neque agros, neque domos haereditant hic, sed semper altari et Deo deserviunt. » Quibus probat Irenaeus, Christum verbis suis significasse sacerdotes lege interdum solutos fuisse, libereque agere potuisse; quia, ut postea addit, Dominiea ministeria perficiebant; ac proinde ex his qui adjacebant panibus propositionis, esurientes escam accipere potuisse. Atqui, ait, sacerdos fuerat David, non stirpe, non munere, non apud homines, sed scitus apud Deum, qui spiritum legis ab ejusdem littera probe secernens, ea sibi licere, urgente necessitate, jure existimabat, quae lex sacerdotibus permittebat; quia et ipse fuga sibi salutem petens, Dominica ministeria perficiebat. Omnes enim justi sacerdotalem habent ordinem : Dominica quippe ministeria perficiunt, ac proinde libere agere possunt, et ea, premente saltem necessitate, operari, quae spiritui legis consentanea sunt. Quod si vero sacerdos fuerit scitus apud Deum David, si omnes justi eadem ratione sacerdotalem habent ordinem; quis negabit sacerdotes esse omnes Domini apostolos, qui perinde ac Aaronici neque agros, neque domos haereditant hic, sed semper altari et Deo serviunt; et proinde discipulis leviticam substantiam habentibus licuisse esurientibus, quod veteribus levitis et sacerdotibus licebat, videlicet « a seminibus accipere escam, dignus est enim operarius esca sua? » Si « sacerdotes, » addit Irenaeus, « in templo Sabbatum profanabant, et rei non erant; qui cum essent in templo, non saecularia, sed Dominica perficiebant ministeria, legem adimplentes, non autem praetereuntes legem; » nec discipuli Domini, et ipsi ejusdem conditionis cum sacerdotibus vellentes spicas die Sabbati,

the law;" because "He performed the work of the high priest, propitiating God for men, cleansing lepers, and healing the infirm." Now if it was lawful for other men, even laymen, to perform this work of the high priest—not a servile work,assuredly, but a spiritual and good one—much more was it lawful for Christ the Lord. Then, meeting another objection drawn from the fact that the disciples of the Saviour, with His approval, plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day, he replies that the law "forbade" indeed "reaping and gathering into the barn," but not "that the hungry should take food on the Sabbath days from the things that lay at hand. And therefore," says he, "the Lord said to those who accused His disciples because they plucked ears of corn and ate: Have you not read this either, what David did when he was hungry, how he went into the house of God, and ate the loaves of proposition, and gave to those who were with him, which it was not lawful to eat, save for the priests alone (Luke 6:3–4)? excusing His disciples by the words of the law, and signifying that it is lawful for priests to act freely. Now David had been known to be a priest before God, although Saul persecuted him. For all the righteous have the priestly order. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who inherit here neither fields nor houses, but ever serve the altar and God." By which words Irenaeus proves that Christ signified by His words that the priests were sometimes free from the law, and could act freely, because, as he afterwards adds, they performed the Lord's offices, and consequently when hungry could take food from the loaves of proposition which lay at hand. Now David, he says, had been a priest, not by lineage, not by office, not before men, but known as such before God, who, rightly distinguishing the spirit of the law from the letter of the same, justly judged that under pressing necessity those things were lawful for him which the law permitted to the priests, because he too, while seeking safety for himself by flight, performed the Lord's offices. For all the righteous have the priestly order: since they perform the Lord's offices, and consequently can act freely, and work, at least under pressing necessity, those things which are agreeable to the spirit of the law. Now if David was known to be a priest before God, and if all the righteous in the same way have the priestly order, who will deny that all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who, just like the priests of Aaron's line, inherit here neither fields nor houses, but ever serve the altar and God; and that consequently it was lawful for the disciples, who had the Levitical maintenance, when hungry, to do what was lawful for the ancient Levites and priests, namely "to take food from the seeds, for the workman is worthy of his food (Matt. 10:10)"? If "the priests," adds Irenaeus, "profaned the Sabbath in the temple, and were not guilty, because when they were in the temple they performed not secular, but the Lord's offices, fulfilling the law, and not transgressing the law," neither can the disciples of the Lord, being themselves also of the same condition with the priests, when plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath day,

Editors' notes and page, col. 355

Footnotes

(97) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 355 (probable; not seen)

N. 3.

No. 3.

(printed under page 184)

(98) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 355 (probable; not seen)

Luc. VI, 3, 4.

Luke 6:3–4.

(printed under page 184)

Page

running head: 355 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A legem ; »; B troivit in; C tes escam; D que agros,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:356

violatae legis argui possunt : Dominica quippe, non saecularia, perficiebant ministeria.

be accused of violating the law: since they performed the Lord's offices, and not secular ones.

101. Hoc Irenaei argumentum est, quod totum eo principio nititur, quod cuilibet homini die Sabbati, et in aliis quibusdam occasionibus certa quadam ratione licuerit, quod sacerdotibus ipsis, permittente lege, licebat; hos vero si ideo lege non tenerentur, quia Dominica ministeria perficiebant, quae bona erant opera, pia, honesta et spiritalia, non saecularia et servilia; nec alios homines eadem lege constrictos fuisse, cum bona opera perficiebant, pia et spiritalia; quia Dominica ministeria sunt, nec lege verita, respectu quorum quilibet homo sacerdos est. Et hinc Christum Dominum Sabbatis curantem non violasse legem, quia summi sacerdotis operam perficiebat. Hinc Davidem panibus propositionis urgente fame pastum, contra legem non commisisse; quia sacerdos scitus fuerat apud Deum, cui libere agere licebat. Hinc denique discipulos vellentes spicas die Sabbati, legem non perfregisse; quia sacerdotes erant, in hoc leviticis similiores, quod Leviticam duntaxat substantiam haberent. Omnes enim justi justa et bona opera perficientes, sacerdotalem habent ordinem; quia ad sacerdotalem ordinem pertinet Dominica ministeria libere perficere; at opera in se bona, honesta et licita, Dominica ministeria sunt. Quatenus valeat istud Irenaei argumentum, nunc non inquirimus; sed quid S. doctor senserit. Viderit jam cl. Grabius quid haec Puritanorum, quibus patrocinatur, causam juvent; viderit, et ipse judicet, qua aequitate insanum illud dogma Irenaeo affingere potuerit, « fideles omnes sacerdotali ordine et potestate praeditos esse, ejusque exercitium, ubi necessitas requirit, obire posse. » Si enim id ex Irenaei verbis inferri posse putat, eodem certe et tam aequo jure alius quivis intulerit, Christum Dominum fuisse summum veteris legis sacerdotem; Davidem, apostolos, discipulos Domini, omnesque antiqui Testamenti justos, fuisse veros ejusdem Testamenti sacerdotes, ac proinde, necessitate urgente, potuisse victimas et sacrificia in templo offerre, aliaque obire ministeria, quae solis Aaronicis sacerdotibus licebant; nam de veteri lege hic agitur omnino; de novae autem legis sacerdotio ne κατ' ὄναρ quidem cogitavit Irenaeus. Quod etiam apertissime liquet ex lib. V, c. 24, n. 3, ubi ea respiciens quae libro IV citato scripsit, ait : « Ostendimus in superiori libro, quoniam levitae et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes Domini; qui et Sabbatum in templo profanabant et sine culpa sunt. » Tam facile possent a Grabii criminationibus vindicari Tertullianus, et Ambrosiaster in Comment. ad Ephes. IV, 2, quos in Puritanae causae defensionem allegat, nisi diutius in rebus Eucharisticis immorari taederet. Legi possunt liber singularis eruditissimi

101. This is the argument of Irenaeus, which rests wholly upon this principle: that on the Sabbath day, and on certain other occasions, there was in a certain way lawful for any man what was lawful for the priests themselves by permission of the law; and that if the latter were not bound by the law for this reason, that they performed the Lord's offices, which were good, pious, honourable, and spiritual works, not secular and servile ones, neither were other men bound by the same law when they performed good, pious, and spiritual works, because such works are the Lord's offices, and not forbidden by the law, in respect of which every man is a priest. And hence it follows that Christ the Lord, in healing on the Sabbath days, did not violate the law, because He performed the work of the high priest. Hence it follows that David, when fed with the loaves of proposition under pressing hunger, did not offend against the law, because he had been known to be a priest before God, for whom it was lawful to act freely. Hence finally it follows that the disciples, when plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath day, did not break the law, because they were priests, and in this respect all the more like the Levitical priests because they had only the Levitical maintenance. For all the righteous, in performing righteous and good works, have the priestly order, because it belongs to the priestly order to perform the Lord's offices freely; and works good, honourable, and lawful in themselves are the Lord's offices. How far that argument of Irenaeus holds good, we do not now inquire, but what the holy doctor meant. Let the illustrious Grabe now see how far these things help the cause of the Puritans, whom he patronizes; let him see, and judge himself, with what fairness he could impute to Irenaeus that mad dogma that "all the faithful are endowed with the priestly order and power, and can discharge the exercise thereof when necessity requires." For if he thinks that this can be inferred from the words of Irenaeus, with the same and just as fair a right could anyone else infer that Christ the Lord was a high priest of the old law, and that David, the apostles, the disciples of the Lord, and all the righteous of the Old Testament were true priests of the same Testament, and consequently under pressing necessity could offer victims and sacrifices in the temple, and discharge the other offices which were lawful for the priests of Aaron's line alone; for the question here is altogether about the old law, whereas of the priesthood of the new law Irenaeus did not think even in a dream (κατ' ὄναρ). And this is also most clearly evident from Book 5, Chapter 24, n. 3, where, looking back to what he wrote in the cited Book 4, he says: "We have shown in the preceding book that all the disciples of the Lord are Levites and priests, who also profaned the Sabbath in the temple, and are without blame." Just as easily could Tertullian and Ambrosiaster in his Commentary on Ephesians 4:2, whom he alleges in defence of the Puritan cause, be vindicated from the charges of Grabe, were it not tedious to dwell longer on Eucharistic matters. One may read the special treatise of the most learned

Editors' notes and page, col. 356

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 356
marginal letters: A violatae legis; B sacerdotis operam; C bius quid; D omnino ; de
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:357

Albaspinaei De Eucharistiae sacrificio, Gallice scriptus, in quo Tertullianum a Puritanorum calumniis egregie tuetur, et doctissimi Petavii Diatriba de eodem argumento, cum ejusdem lib. III De eccles. hierarch. Ad eas ab Ambrosiastro depellendas sufficiat ipsum locum citatum legere.

of Aubespine, On the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, written in French, in which he excellently defends Tertullian from the calumnies of the Puritans, and the Diatribe of the most learned Petau on the same subject, together with Book III of his On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. To repel them from Ambrosiaster, it is enough to read the passage cited itself.

ARTICULUS VIII.

ARTICLE VIII.

De angelorum natura, ordinibus, peccato et poenis.

On the nature, orders, sin and punishments of the angels.

102. Pauca de angelorum natura habet Irenaeus. Quaedam duntaxat aliquibus in locis inseruit, ex quibus quid senserit utcunque colligi potest. Scribit lib. III, cap. 20, num. 4, « sine carne angelos esse; » quo quidem angelos eximit a carnis, crassiorisque corporis mole; non autem ab aethereo ac subtiliori, quod nihil, quominus spiritus appellentur, prohibere posset. Hoc enim posterius corporis genus angelis tribuerunt ex antiquis Patribus non pauci. In eamdem vero sententiam concessisse Irenaeum ex eo erui posse videtur, quod scribit tum lib. IV, c. 16, n. 2, et c. 30, n. 4; tum lib. V, c. 29, n. 2, « Angelos transgressos decidisse in terram in judicium, » id est in peccati poenam praecipites e coelo in terram actos, ibique hominibus commistos, hoc est, mulierum captos specie cum iis stupri consuetudinem habuisse, e quorum satu natum pessimum hominum genus, quos ultricibus diluvii aquis delevit Deus: propterea Enochum ad stupratores illos angelos, et ad homines ab iis in idololatriam, foedamque vitiorum colluviem demersos, tanquam Dei legatum atque prophetam accessisse, divinum judicium denuntiaturum. Eadem fere sententia fuit Justini Martyris, Athenagorae, Clementis Alexandrini, Tertulliani, Lactantii, aliorumque non paucorum; quibus omnibus, ut in notis ad citata Irenaei loca exposuimus, erroris occasio fuit, tum quod Gen. VI de filiorum Dei congressu cum filiabus hominum legitur, tum apocryphus Enochi liber. In eo tamen ab horum opinione discedisse videtur Irenaeus, quod ex istis plerique velint, mulierum speciem ac consuetudinem angelis, iis saltem qui diabolo inferiores sunt, ruinae causam fuisse: cum econtrario supponere videatur Irenaeus, eos nonnisi jam coelo in peccati poenam pulsos, mulieres stuprasse. Falsissima quidem haec et Irenaei et aliorum opinio est; ostendit tamen corporeos ab illo constitutos esse angelos; absurdum quippe est naturam corporis expertem, aut corporum illecebris tentari, aut cum corporibus misceri.

102. Irenaeus has little on the nature of the angels. He inserted only some things in a few places, from which what he thought can be gathered after a fashion. He writes in Book III, chapter 20, number 4, "that the angels are without flesh"; by which he exempts the angels from the mass of flesh and of a grosser body, but not from an ethereal and subtler one, which could in no way prevent their being called spirits. For not a few of the ancient Fathers attributed this latter kind of body to the angels. And that Irenaeus came over to the same opinion seems to be deducible from what he writes, both in Book IV, chapter 16, number 2, and chapter 30, number 4, and in Book V, chapter 29, number 2, that "the transgressing angels fell to the earth unto judgement," that is, were driven headlong from heaven to earth in punishment of their sin, and there mingled with men, that is, being captivated by the beauty of women, had shameful intercourse with them, from whose seed was born that most wicked race of men whom God destroyed by the avenging waters of the flood; and that on this account Enoch went, as God's envoy and prophet, to those defiling angels, and to the men plunged by them into idolatry and a foul cesspool of vices, to announce the divine judgement. Almost the same was the opinion of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius and not a few others; to all of whom, as we have explained in the notes on the passages of Irenaeus cited, the occasion of error was both what is read in Genesis 6 about the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men, and the apocryphal book of Enoch. Yet in this Irenaeus seems to have departed from their opinion, that most of them would have it that the beauty of women and intercourse with them was the cause of the angels' fall, at least of those who are inferior to the devil; whereas Irenaeus seems on the contrary to suppose that they defiled women only when they had already been driven from heaven in punishment of their sin. This opinion, both of Irenaeus and of the others, is indeed most false; yet it shows that the angels were held by him to be corporeal; for it is absurd that a nature devoid of body should either be tempted by the allurements of bodies or be mingled with bodies.

Editors' notes and page, col. 357

Footnotes

(99) ‹anchor: no call in col 357 (whole column read, Q3b); probably in the §103 quotations at the top of col 358› · call in col 358 (probable; not seen)

Iren., lib. III, c. 23, n. 3.

Irenaeus, book III, chapter 23, no. 3.

(printed under page 185)

(1) ‹anchor: no call in col 357 (whole column read, Q3b); probably in the §103 quotations at the top of col 358› · call in col 358 (probable; not seen)

Lib. IV, c. 41, n. 2.

Book IV, chapter 41, no. 2.

(printed under page 185)

Page

running head: 357 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A Albaspinaei De; B tribus non; C Clementis Alexandrini,; D dum quippe
old-edition numerals: CLIII after posterius
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); two full-width lines across cols. 357-358 (ARTICULUS VIII. / De angelorum natura, ordinibus, peccato et poenis.) after line 3 not set (cut off at right edge); line 3 continues at top of col. 358
other: a full-width band stands across cols 357/358 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 358 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 357 (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: 357 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 358
marginal letters: A ‹Albaspinaei De Eucharistiae› / ‹eodem argumento›; B ‹tribus non pauci› / ‹docet. « Extunc›; C ‹fere sententia fuit Justini› / ‹Sinaita existimasse›; D ‹dum quippe est naturam› / ‹suas habentes animas› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CLIII after ‹posterius›
other: page 185 set in reading order: this file holds the three upper lines of col 357 and the three of col 358 (the end of a paragraph from the preceding page), the heading band of Art. VIII across both columns, and section 102 (lower col 357). Sections 103 and 104 are in c358_a.md. "jam coelo" printed so (no "e").
other (Q3b): footnotes 99 and 1 are kept here as received, but no call to them stands in col 357; they belong with col 358's notes (n358), to be moved by the col 358 pass

PG 7:358

103. Dixi non eam fuisse Irenaei sententiam, angelis diabolo inferioribus mulieres ruinae occasionem fuisse. Quamvis enim quidam e veteribus diaboli, rebellium angelorum principis, causam a reliquis sejungant, illumque invidia, hos libidine exstimulante excidisse velint; nuspiam tamen ita distinxisse reperitur Irenaeus: imo diabolum sic apostasiae principem vocat, ut rebelles « angelos apostatas factos esse cum eo; diabolum sibi et reliquis factum esse abscessionis causam; » denique « unum esse ex angelis his, qui super spiritum aeris praepositi, » a Deo defecerunt, diserte asserit. Quibus significare videtur, unum omnium peccatum fuisse. Porro primum diaboli peccatum invidiam, qua flagrabat in humanum genus, fuisse docet. « Extunc, » inquit, « apostata factus est angelus, et inimicus, ex quo zelavit plasma Dei. » Et alibi: « Diabolus, cum sit unus ex angelis his, qui super spiritum aeris praepositi sunt..... invidens homini, apostata a divina factus est lege; invidia enim aliena est a Deo. » Quae vero fuerit istius invidiae causa, non explicat auctor noster: si quid tamen conjecturis indulgere liceat, crediderim vel eum cum Gregorio Nysseno et Cypriano sensisse, diabolum super spiritum aeris, et terrenarum rerum administrationi praepositum, aegre tulisse quod homo, tam prae se contemptum opificium, suoque praesertim imperio subjectum, ad imaginem Dei factus et expressus esset: vel cum Anastasio Sinaita existimasse, diabolum ferre non potuisse quod homini collatus esset a Deo terrenarum omnium rerum dominatus, quem ipse ambiebat.

103. I have said that it was not the opinion of Irenaeus that women were the occasion of the fall for the angels inferior to the devil. For although some of the ancients separate the cause of the devil, the prince of the rebel angels, from that of the rest, and would have it that he fell through envy, they through the spur of lust, yet Irenaeus is nowhere found to have so distinguished: on the contrary, he calls the devil the prince of the apostasy in such a way that he expressly asserts that the rebel "angels became apostates with him; that the devil became the cause of departure for himself and the rest"; and finally that he is "one of those angels who are set over the spirit of the air" and who fell away from God. By which he seems to indicate that the sin of all was one. Further, he teaches that the devil's first sin was envy, with which he burned against the human race. "From that time," he says, "he became an apostate angel and an enemy, from when he envied God's handiwork." And elsewhere: "The devil, since he is one of those angels who are set over the spirit of the air..... envying man, became an apostate from the divine law; for envy is foreign to God." But what the cause of that envy was our author does not explain; yet, if one may indulge in conjectures, I should believe either that he thought with Gregory of Nyssa and Cyprian that the devil, set over the spirit of the air and over the administration of earthly things, took it ill that man, a handiwork so contemptible in comparison with himself and subject above all to his own rule, had been made and fashioned to the image of God; or that he judged with Anastasius of Sinai that the devil could not bear that dominion over all earthly things, which he himself coveted, had been conferred by God on man.

104. Quamvis autem Irenaeus angelos, quod et idem de animabus humanis dicendum, ut postea explicabitur, corpore praeditos constituerit; utramque tamen substantiam natura sua immortalem esse perspicue docuit. Lib. II, c. 35, assertam a Gnosticis metempsychosin refellens, scribit n. 5, « adimpleto numero, quem Deus apud se ante definiit, omnes, quicunque sunt scripti in vitam, resurrecturos, sua corpora et suas animas habentes, et suos spiritus, in quibus placuerunt Deo; qui autem poena sunt digni, abituros in eam, et ipsos suas habentes animas, et sua corpora, in quibus abstiterunt a Dei bonitate. » Et cap. seq. allata divitis epulonis et Lazari parabola, concludit: « per haec manifestissime declaratum esse, et perseverare animas, et non de corpore in corpus transire. » Sed clarius lib. V, c. 4, eosdem Gnosticos confutans, qui corporum resurrectionem negabant, sic argumentatur n. 1: « Cum dicant ea quae omnibus sunt manifesta, quoniam perseverant immortalia

104. But although Irenaeus held the angels to be endowed with a body (and the same is to be said of human souls, as will be explained later), yet he plainly taught that both substances are by their nature immortal. In Book II, chapter 35, refuting the metempsychosis asserted by the Gnostics, he writes in number 5 that "when the number is fulfilled which God fixed beforehand with Himself, all who are written down for life will rise again, having their own bodies and their own souls and their own spirits, in which they pleased God; but those who are worthy of punishment will go away into it, they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood apart from the goodness of God." And in the following chapter, having adduced the parable of the rich banqueter and Lazarus, he concludes "that by these things it is most manifestly declared both that souls endure and that they do not pass from body to body." But more clearly in Book V, chapter 4, confuting the same Gnostics, who denied the resurrection of bodies, he argues thus in number 1: "When they say that the things which are manifest to all, those which endure immortal,

Editors' notes and page, col. 358

Footnotes

(**) ‹anchor: factos esse cum eo› · call in col 358 Iren., lib. III, c. 23, n. 3.

Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 23, no. 3.

(printed under page 185; the call is printed as two raised marks, read as **; the last numeral read as 3 at low resolution, UNSURE (possibly 5); added by QA Q6b)

(1) ‹anchor: abscessionis causam› · call in col 358

Lib. IV, c. 41, n. 2.

Book IV, chapter 41, no. 2.

(printed under page 185; added by QA Q6b)

(2) ‹anchor: aeris praepositi› · call in col 358

Lib. V, cap. 24, n. 4.

Book V, chapter 24, no. 4.

(printed under page 185)

(3) ‹anchor: zelavit plasma Dei› · call in col 358

Lib. IV, c. 40, n. 3.

Book IV, chapter 40, no. 3.

(printed under page 185)

(4) ‹anchor: aliena est a Deo› · call in col 358

Lib. V, cap. 24, n. 4.

Book V, chapter 24, no. 4.

(printed under page 185)

(5) ‹anchor: cum Gregorio Nysseno› · call in col 358

Orat. Catech., c. 6.

Catechetical Oration, chapter 6.

(printed under page 185)

(6) ‹anchor: et Cypriano› · call in col 358

Lib. de Zel. et Liv.

Book On Jealousy and Envy.

(printed under page 185)

(7) ‹anchor: cum Anastasio Sinaita› · call in col 358

In Ὁδηγῷ, c. 4.

In the Hodegos (Guide), chapter 4.

(printed under page 185)

Page

running head: IO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 358
marginal letters: A eodem argumento,; B docet. «; C Sinaita existimasse,; D suas habentes
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); two full-width lines across cols. 357-358 (ARTICULUS VIII. / De angelorum natura, ordinibus, peccato et poenis.) after line 3, cut off at the left edge in this column's image, are set in col 357's file; word split at column break: immor-talia, set whole here (col 359 opens "ut puta"; QA Q6b), with the English phrased to run on into col 359's
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 357 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: "Lib. II, c. 35" read so on the page at low resolution; the passage is AH II.33.5, so the printed numeral may be 33, UNSURE (QA Q6b)
running head: 357 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 358
marginal letters: A ‹Albaspinaei De Eucharistiae› / ‹eodem argumento›; B ‹tribus non pauci› / ‹docet. « Extunc›; C ‹fere sententia fuit Justini› / ‹Sinaita existimasse›; D ‹dum quippe est naturam› / ‹suas habentes animas› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PG 7:359

ut puta spiritus et anima, et quae sunt talia, quoniam vivificantur a Patre; aliud autem, quod non alias vivificatur, nisi illi Deus praestet, vita derelinqui; aut impotentem et infirmum ostendit Patrem ipsorum, aut invidum et lividum. Demiurgo enim et hic vivificante mortalia corpora nostra, et resurrectionem eis per prophetas promittente, quemadmodum ostendimus; quis potentior, et fortior, et vere bonus ostenditur? Utrum Demiurgus, qui totum vivificat hominem, an falso cognominatus ipsorum Pater; qui ea quidem quae sunt natura immortalia, quibus a sua natura adest vivere, fingit se vivificare; quibus autem opus est ab eo adjutorium, ut vivant, non vivificans illa benigne, sed relinquens illa negligenter in mortem? » Hic Irenaeus diserte affirmat, omnibus esse manifestum, spiritum et animam, et quae sunt talia, id est spirituales omnes substantias, quales sunt angeli, et animae humanae, perseverare immortales, esse natura sua immortales, iisque a natura sua adesse vivere, indeque Gnosticorum Patrem aut impotentiae, aut invidentiae arguit : quod ea, quae natura sua sunt immortalia, vivificare se fingat; quibus autem adjutorio opus est ut vivant, vitam neget. Et cap. 7, n. 1, eamdem corporum resurrectionem his Apostoli verbis Rom. VIII, 11, astruens : Si autem Spiritus ejus, qui suscitavit Jesum a mortuis, nabitat in vobis; qui suscitavit Christum a mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra; ostendit, mortalia illa corpora esse « plasma, id est carnem; » non certe animas, quae quod flatus vitae sint insufflatus a Deo in faciem hominis, « incorporales sunt, quantum ad comparationem corporum, nec » proinde « mortales possunt dici. » Et propter hoc, inquit, « David ait : Et anima mea illi vivet; tanquam immortali substantia ejus exsistente. » Denique cap. 13, num. 3, scribit carnem, « cum sit mortalis et corruptibilis, immortalem fieri et incorruptibilem; non secundum propriam substantiam, sed secundum Domini operationem : animam vero mortalem non esse, » nempe secundum propriam substantiam, et in hoc differre a carne. Omnia haec Irenaei aevo, et Irenaeo ipsi, et omnibus aliis manifesta erant : at Dodwello obscura visa sunt. Eo enim ipso loco, quem modo adduximus ex lib. V, cap. 4, n. 1, abutitur, ut recens illud ac impium commentum confirmet; animas scilicet humanas spiritales non esse, nec proinde natura sua aliter immortales, nisi quatenus a corporibus separatae aliquandiu superstites manent, quandiu nimirum Deus superstites manere voluerit : easque solas perpetua immortalitate donari, Dei gratia et

such as the spirit and the soul, and suchlike things, are quickened by the Father, whereas another thing, which is not quickened otherwise than if God grant it to it, is forsaken by life; this shows their Father to be either powerless and weak, or envious and grudging. For since the Demiurge even here quickens our mortal bodies, and promises them resurrection through the prophets, even as we have shown, who is shown to be more powerful, and stronger, and truly good? Whether the Demiurge, Who quickens the whole man, or their falsely so-called Father, who feigns that he quickens those things indeed which are immortal by nature, to which living belongs by their own nature, while as for those things which have need of help from him in order that they may live, he does not kindly quicken them, but negligently leaves them unto death?" Here Irenaeus expressly affirms that it is manifest to all that the spirit and the soul, and suchlike things—that is, all spiritual substances, such as angels and human souls—endure immortal, are immortal by their own nature, and that living belongs to them by their own nature; and thence he convicts the Father of the Gnostics either of powerlessness or of envy, because he feigns that he quickens those things which are immortal by their own nature, while he denies life to those things which have need of help in order that they may live. And in Chapter 7, n. 1, establishing the same resurrection of bodies by these words of the Apostle in Romans 8:11: But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; He that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, he shows that those mortal bodies are "the handiwork, that is, the flesh;" certainly not the souls, which, because they are the breath of life breathed by God into the face of man, "are incorporeal in comparison with bodies, and" consequently "cannot be called mortal." And on this account, says he, "David says: And my soul shall live to Him (Ps. 21:31); as though its substance were immortal." Finally, in Chapter 13, n. 3, he writes that the flesh, "whereas it is mortal and corruptible, becomes immortal and incorruptible, not according to its own substance, but according to the operation of the Lord; whereas the soul is not mortal," namely according to its own substance, and in this differs from the flesh. All these things were manifest in the age of Irenaeus, both to Irenaeus himself and to all others; but to Dodwell they have seemed obscure. For he abuses that very passage which we have just adduced from Book 5, Chapter 4, n. 1, in order to confirm that recent and impious figment: namely, that human souls are not spiritual, and consequently are not immortal by their own nature otherwise than insofar as when separated from bodies they remain surviving for some time, namely so long as God wills them to remain surviving; and that those souls alone are endowed with perpetual immortality, by the grace and

Editors' notes and page, col. 359

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: at Dodwello› · call in col 359

An Epistolary discourse, etc., in-8, 1706. Id., A preliminary defence of the Epistolary discourse, etc., 1707. Id., The Scripture's account of the eternal rewards or punishments, etc., in-8, 1708.

An Epistolary Discourse, etc., octavo, 1706. The same author, A Preliminary Defence of the Epistolary Discourse, etc., 1707. The same author, The Scripture's Account of the Eternal Rewards or Punishments, etc., octavo, 1708.

(printed under page 186)

Page

running head: 359 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A talia, ut; B Hic Irenaeus; C non certe; D ex lib.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: immor-talia

PG 7:360

beneficio, quae Spiritum sanctum in baptismo acceperint; caeteras omnes, quae evangelicae legis sacramento caruerint, aliquando dissolvendas, et in nihilum abituras. Quod tamen ex Irenaeo extundere non potest, nisi verba ejus et adulterina versione, et contorta explicatione foede corrumpendo. Irenaeus Latine loquens, perspicuis verbis asserit, « ea omnibus esse manifesta, quoniam perseverant immortalia, utputa spiritus et anima; et quae sunt talia, quoniam vivificantur a Patre, ea, » spiritum videlicet, animam et similia, « esse natura immortalia, iis a sua natura adesse vivere, etc. » Irenaeus vero Anglice a Dodwello redditus simpliciter scribit, « ea vivificari a Patre, quae fatentur omnes perseverare in sua exsistentia post mortem, qualia sunt spiritus, anima et similia; ea, » nempe spiritum, animam et similia, « natura sua superesse suae a corporibus dissolutioni, et a natura sua comparata esse, ut separatim vivant; » non utique semper et in perpetuum, ut explicat Dodwellus, sed quandiu Creatori secundum consuetas et ordinarias Providentiae suae leges agenti placuerit. Quasi animam esse natura sua immortalem, ei a natura sua adesse vivere, nihil aliud significet, quam eam post corporis mortem aliquandiu superstitem manere, et separatim ab eo vivere posse. Et tamen fidi interpretis officio functum se esse gloriatur Dodwellus, depravatique Irenaei inique postulatum se conqueritur; qua de re lectores appellat judices. Exspectabimus quale futurum sit Anglicanae, ut vocant, Ecclesiae, cujus res agitur, de abnormi illa theologia judicium. Eam qui solidis rationibus impugnaret, vereor ne statim illi Terentianum illud impingeretur : « Nihilo plus agas, quam si des operam, ut cum ratione insanias. » Unum observasse sufficiat, scilicet duplex immortalitatis genus, quod Dodwellus nusquam distinxit, sed potius ita confudit, ut alterum pro altero habuerit, fontem errorum omnium illius esse. Immortalitas quippe animarum, alia naturalis, alia supernaturalis. Prior substantiis natura sua simplicibus, et ab omni materia segregatis propria est; qua nullius omnino creatae rei vi et efficientia dissolvi et exstingui possunt. Posterior animabus beatis peculiaris est; qua Deo et cum Deo aeternum viventes, felicitate nunquam desitura fruuntur in coelis. Utramque quidem Dei gratiam esse dici potest, sed diversa prorsus ratione; posteriorem, Dei ut auctoris gratiae ac bonorum supernaturalium, promissisque suis, quia summe verax est, inviolate stantis; priorem, Dei ut auctoris naturae, qui ut res creatas libere condidit, sic

benefit of God, which have received the Holy Spirit in baptism, while all the rest, which have lacked the sacrament of the evangelical law, will one day be dissolved and pass into nothingness. Yet he cannot extort this from Irenaeus save by foully corrupting his words both by a spurious translation and by a distorted explanation. Irenaeus, speaking in Latin, asserts in clear words "that those things which are manifest to all, since they endure immortal, such as the spirit and the soul, and suchlike things, are quickened by the Father; and that those things," namely the spirit, the soul, and the like, "are immortal by nature, and that living belongs to them by their own nature, etc." But Irenaeus as rendered into English by Dodwell simply writes "that those things are quickened by the Father which all confess to continue in their existence after death, such as the spirit, the soul, and the like; and that those things," namely the spirit, the soul, and the like, "by their own nature survive their dissolution from their bodies, and are constituted by their own nature to live separately;" not indeed always and in perpetuity, as Dodwell explains, but so long as it pleases the Creator acting according to the accustomed and ordinary laws of His Providence. As though for the soul to be immortal by its own nature, and for living to belong to it by its own nature, signified nothing else than that after the death of the body it remains surviving for some time, and is able to live separately from it! And yet Dodwell boasts that he has discharged the office of a faithful translator, and complains that he has been unjustly accused of corrupting Irenaeus; on which matter he appeals to his readers as judges. We shall await what the judgement of the Anglican Church, as they call it, whose affair is at stake, will be concerning that abnormal theology. Should anyone attack it with solid reasons, I fear lest that saying of Terence would immediately be cast in his teeth: "You would accomplish no more than if you took pains to be mad with reason (Eunuchus, I, 1, 16-18)." Let it suffice to have observed one point, namely that the twofold kind of immortality, which Dodwell nowhere distinguished, but rather so confounded as to take the one for the other, is the source of all his errors. For the immortality of souls is one natural, another supernatural. The former is proper to substances simple by their own nature and separated from all matter, whereby they cannot be dissolved and extinguished by the force and efficiency of any created thing whatsoever. The latter is peculiar to blessed souls, whereby, living for ever unto God and with God, they enjoy a happiness that will never cease in heaven. Both indeed can be called the grace of God, but for an altogether different reason: the latter, of God as the Author of grace and of supernatural goods, Who stands inviolably by His promises because He is supremely truthful; the former, of God as the Author of nature, Who, just as He freely created created things, so

Editors' notes and page, col. 360

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: gloriatur Dodwellus› · call in col 360

Ibid., pag. 184 et seqq.

The same work, page 184 and following.

(printed under page 186)

(a) ‹anchor: call above the page foot, not visible in the foot images› · call in col 360 (probable; not seen)

For when they say, That those things are quickened by the Father, which all agree to continue in their existence after death, such as the spirit, and the soul, and the like things, etc. Who (the Maker of the World) pretends to enliven those things, which by their own nature survive their dissolution from their bodies, and are capable, by their own nature, of living separately, etc. The Scripture's account, pag. 186.

[Printed in English in Migne; set as printed.] For when they say, That those things are quickened by the Father, which all agree to continue in their existence after death, such as the spirit, and the soul, and the like things, etc. Who (the Maker of the World) pretends to enliven those things, which by their own nature survive their dissolution from their bodies, and are capable, by their own nature, of living separately, etc. The Scripture's Account, page 186.

(printed under page 186)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 360
marginal letters: A beneficio, quae; B post mortem,; C turum sit; D animabus beatis
old-edition numerals: CLIV before Quod
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:361

sapientissimis legibus a se constitutis immutabiliter affixus, libere tamen, conservat, eo modo quo conservari postulat ea, quam singulis indidit natura. Posterior nulli magis debita est, quam ipsa gratia supernaturalis per quam acquiritur : prior etsi absolute loquendo non magis debita sit, quam ipsa creatio; hac tamen semel supposita, sic animabus vi legum a Deo constitutarum debita est, ut iisdem legibus immortalitate donentur, quibus conduntur; adeo ut ea frustrari nunquam possint, nisi Deus legibus suis naturalibus deesse, et imperitus artifex, sibique parum constans esse supponatur. Eo sensu ratio animabus indita et naturalis est, et Dei gratia : gratia quidem, quia Deus animas facultate cognoscendi praeditas sponte ac libere, nullaque necessitate adactus creare voluit; naturalis vero, quia ea est animarum natura, ut nulla esse possit, quae ratione praedita non sit. Sic facile explicantur varia sanctorum Patrum testimonia, quorum alia animas gratia, alia natura immortales esse statuunt. Ut enim omittam, plura non de alia, quam de beata immortalitate intelligi posse; utrumque verum est, sensu mox explicato : perinde atque verum est animas natura simul et gratia facultate cognoscendi praeditas esse. Quemadmodum autem ex eo quod Deus ut auctor naturae cognoscendi facultatem libere et beneficii loco animabus indiderit, inferri non potest, eam animabus humanis naturalem non esse; quia animam aliquam esse repugnat, quae cogitare non possit; sic pariter licet Deus ut auctor naturae animas nostras immortalitate libere donet, ex eo concludi non potest, eam non esse animarum naturam ut immortales sint, quia prorsus repugnat animam aliquam facultate cognoscendi praeditam esse, quae spiritalis non sit, simplex atque immortalis.

preserves them freely indeed, yet immutably attached to the most wise laws established by Himself, in the manner in which that nature which He has implanted in each demands to be preserved. The latter is no more due to anyone than the supernatural grace itself through which it is acquired; the former, although speaking absolutely it is no more due than creation itself, yet once creation is supposed, is so due to souls by force of the laws established by God that they are endowed with immortality by the very same laws whereby they are created, so that they can never be frustrated of it unless God is supposed to fail His own natural laws, and to be an unskilful artificer and inconsistent with Himself. In that sense reason implanted in souls is both natural and the grace of God: grace indeed, because God willed of His own accord and freely, and compelled by no necessity, to create souls endowed with the faculty of knowing; natural, however, because such is the nature of souls that there can be none which is not endowed with reason. Thus the various testimonies of the holy Fathers, some of which declare that souls are immortal by grace, others by nature, are easily explained. For not to mention that many of them can be understood of no other than blessed immortality, both statements are true in the sense just explained, just as it is true that souls are endowed with the faculty of knowing at once by nature and by grace. Now just as from the fact that God as the Author of nature freely and by way of a benefit implanted the faculty of knowing in souls it cannot be inferred that that faculty is not natural to human souls, because it is a contradiction for there to be any soul which cannot think; so in like manner, although God as the Author of nature freely endows our souls with immortality, it cannot be concluded from this that it is not the nature of souls to be immortal, because it is an utter contradiction for any soul to be endowed with the faculty of knowing which is not spiritual, simple, and immortal.

105. Quod igitur Irenaeus lib. II, c. 34, n. 2, 3 et 4, statuit, animas et spiritus « perseverare et extendi in longitudinem saeculorum secundum voluntatem factoris Dei, perseverare quoadusque ea Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit, » iisque vitam dari, « non ex natura, sed secundum Dei gratiam, » supra dictis non repugnat. Etenim occupans objectionem, quae sibi a Gnosticis proponi potuisset, « non posse animas eas, quae paulo ante esse coeperint, in multum temporis perseverare, sed oportere eas aut innascibiles esse, ut sint immortales; vel si generationis initium acceperint, cum ipso corpore mori; » respondet id discriminis inter Dei et animarum ac spirituum immortalitatem interesse, quod Deus solus immortalitatem habeat a se ipso, nec eam cuiquam alteri debeat, qui hanc ei, si velit, auferre possit; solus immortalitatem habeat immutabilem, nullique vicissitudini obnoxiam; caetera vero quaecunque creata sunt, si immortalia sint, immortalitatem Dei beneficio sortita esse, eaque, licet perseverent in aeternum, non tamen ita perseverare, nisi quia Deus perseverare

105. What Irenaeus states in Book 2, Chapter 34, nn. 2, 3, and 4, therefore—that souls and spirits "endure and are extended into a length of ages according to the will of God the Creator, and endure so long as God wills them both to be and to endure," and that life is given to them "not from their own nature, but according to the grace of God"—is not repugnant to what has been said above. For anticipating an objection which might have been proposed to him by the Gnostics, "that those souls which began to exist a little while before cannot endure for a long time, but must either be unborn in order to be immortal, or if they have received a beginning of generation, must die with the body itself," he replies that there is this difference between the immortality of God and that of souls and spirits: that God alone has immortality of Himself, and does not owe it to any other who could take it away from Him if he wished, and alone has an immutable immortality, subject to no vicissitude; whereas all other created things whatsoever, if they are immortal, have obtained immortality by the benefit of God, and although they endure for ever, nevertheless do not so endure save because God wills them to endure—

Editors' notes and page, col. 361

Page

running head: 361 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A sapientissimis legibus; B bere, nullaque; C possit ; sic; D jectionem, quae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:362

vult : uno verbo rerum creatarum immortalitatem precariam esse, a Deo acceptam, et uni Dei voluntati acceptam referendam, in nihilum rediturarum, unde initio ortum acceperunt, nisi Dei ope, eo, quo supra explicuimus, modo conservarentur : quanquam eaedem ipsae natura immortales, incorruptaeque sint, si legum ab auctore naturae constitutarum ratio habeatur, et cum efficiente re comparentur, quae nulla est, a qua possint exstingui. « Discant, ait, quoniam sine initio et sine fine, vere et semper idem et eodem modo se habens, solus est Deus, qui est omnium Dominus. Quae autem sunt ab illo omnia, quaecunque facta sunt, et fiunt, initium quidem suum accipiunt generationis, et per hoc inferiora sunt ab eo, qui ea fecit, quoniam non sunt ingenita; perseverant autem et extenduntur in longitudinem saeculorum, secundum voluntatem factoris Dei : ita ut sic initio fierent, et postea, ut sint, eis donat. Deo itaque vitam et perpetuam perseverantiam donante, capit et animas (idem de spiritibus paulo ante dixit) primum non exsistentes dehinc perseverare, cum eas Deus et esse et subsistere voluerit. Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas Dei; reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse, et in servitium dedita. » Eadem omnino repetit lib. IV, c. 38, n. 3.

in a word, that the immortality of created things is precarious, received from God, and to be set down to the account of the sole will of God, since they would return into nothingness, whence they originally took their rise, unless they were preserved by the help of God in the manner which we have explained above; although those very same things are by nature immortal and incorruptible if account be taken of the laws established by the Author of nature, and if they be compared with any efficient cause, of which there is none by which they can be extinguished. "Let them learn," says he, "that God alone, Who is Lord of all, is without beginning and without end, truly and ever the same, and continuing in the same state. But all things that are from Him, whatsoever have been made and are made, receive indeed their own beginning of generation, and in this respect are inferior to Him Who made them, seeing that they are not unbegotten; yet they endure and are extended into a length of ages according to the will of God the Creator: so that He grants it to them both to be made thus in the beginning, and afterwards to exist. Since God, therefore, bestows life and perpetual endurance, it is possible for souls also" (he said the same of spirits a little before), "which at first did not exist, henceforth to endure, since God has willed them both to exist and to subsist. For the will of God ought to hold the chief place and bear rule in all things, while all other things ought to yield to it, and be subject to it, and be devoted to its service." He repeats altogether the same things in Book IV, chapter 38, n. 3.

106. Nec negotium cuiquam facessere debet, quod lib. II cit., cap. 34, n. 3, innuere videtur, a Patre omnium donari « in saeculum saeculi perseverantiam his qui salvi fiunt, » quasi in nihilum abituri essent spiritus et animae peccatorum. « Non enim ex nobis, ait, neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam Dei datur. Et ideo qui servaverit datum vitae, et gratias egerit ei, qui praestitit, accipiet et in saeculum saeculi longitudinem dierum. Qui autem abjecerit eam, et ingratus exstiterit factori, ob hoc quod factus est, et non cognoverit eum qui praestat, ipse se privat in saeculum saeculi perseverantia. » His enim significat Irenaeus, ut ex toto contextu sermonis liquet, impios, « qui in modica temporali vita ingrati exstiterunt Deo, qui eam praestitit, juste non recepturos ab eo in saeculum saeculi longitudinem dierum, quae secundum gratiam Dei datur, » quaeque sola vera immortalitas est; sed aeternam sibi mortem, sempiternam videlicet a Deo, beataque vita separationem accersituros. Ubi enim disseruit Irenaeus de naturali angelorum et animarum immortalitate, ad alteram immortalitatis speciem, quae per supernaturalem Dei gratiam acquiritur, iisque duntaxat a Patre omnium donatur, qui salvi fiunt, transit, ad priorem iterum num. sequenti mox rediturus. Id autem esse utrique commune merito statuit, quod utraque Dei voluntati accepta referenda sit; prior quidem, Dei ut auctoris naturae, posterior Dei ut auctoris gratiae : cum hoc tamen discrimine, quod prior immortalitas, si sempiternae felicitatis sit exsors, mors potius quam vita sit censenda. Nam, ut ootime ait lib. IV, c. 20, n. 5 : « Quoniam vivere

106. Nor ought it to cause difficulty to anyone that in Book II cited, chapter 34, n. 3, he seems to intimate that "endurance for ever and ever" is bestowed by the Father of all "upon those who are saved," as though the spirits and souls of sinners were to pass into nothingness. "For life," says he, "is not from ourselves, nor from our own nature, but is given according to the grace of God. And therefore he who has preserved the gift of life, and given thanks to Him Who bestowed it, shall receive length of days for ever and ever also. But he who has cast it away, and proved ungrateful to the Creator because he was made, and has not acknowledged Him Who bestows it, deprives himself of endurance for ever and ever." For by these words Irenaeus signifies, as is clear from the whole context of the discourse, that the ungodly, "who in this brief temporal life have proved ungrateful to God Who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever, which is given according to the grace of God," and which alone is true immortality, but shall bring upon themselves eternal death, namely everlasting separation from God and the blessed life. For after Irenaeus has discoursed concerning the natural immortality of angels and souls, he passes to the other kind of immortality, which is acquired through the supernatural grace of God, and is bestowed by the Father of all upon those only who are saved, being about to return presently to the former again in the following number. Now he rightly states that this is common to both, that both must be set down to the account of the will of God—the former indeed of God as the Author of nature, the latter of God as the Author of grace—yet with this difference, that if the former immortality be devoid of everlasting happiness, it is to be accounted death rather than life. For, as he excellently says in Book IV, chapter 20, n. 5: "Since to live

Editors' notes and page, col. 362

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 362
marginal letters: A vult : uno; B niam non; C perseverantiam his; D immortalitas est ;
old-edition numerals: CLV before 106.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)
misprint kept as printed: ootime (for optime), "ut ootime ait lib. IV" (QA Q1c)
other: QA Q1c UNSURE: "lib. IV, c. 38, n. 3" — the numeral may be printed 5 at this scan's resolution; check on the rescan

PG 7:363

sine vita impossibile est, subsistentia autem vitae de Dei participatione evenit, participatio autem Dei est videre Deum et frui benignitate ejus; homines igitur videbunt Deum et vivent, per visionem immortales facti. » Nec tamen sentire propterea potuit, penitus interituros seu angelos seu homines malos, qui lib. II, cap. 33, n. 5, tam diserte scripsit, « adimpleto numero, quem Deus apud se ante definiit, omnes, quicunque sunt scripti in vitam, resurrecturos, sua corpora et suas habentes animas, et suos spiritus, in quibus placuerunt Deo. Qui autem, » addit, « poena sunt digni, abibunt in eam, et ipsi suas habentes animas, et sua corpora in quibus abstiterunt a Dei bonitate. » Non igitur in nihilum abituri sunt angeli mali, et animi impiorum, qui in die judicii cedent in poenam sempiternam. Sempiterna quippe esse damnatorum supplicia tam clare quam frequenter pronuntiat. « Quoniam, ait eodem lib., c. 28, n. 7, transgressoribus ignis aeternus praeparatus est, et Dominus manifeste dixit, et reliquae demonstrant Scripturae. » Et lib. III, c. 23 : « Dominus in Evangelio his, qui a sinistris inveniuntur, ait : Abite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, quem praeparavit Pater meus diabolo et angelis ejus; significans quoniam non homini principaliter praeparatus est aeternus ignis, sed ei, qui seduxit, et offendere fecit hominem, ei, inquam, qui princeps apostasiae est, et his angelis qui apostatae facti sunt cum eo; quem quidem juste percipient etiam hi, qui similiter ut illi sine poenitentia, et sine regressu in malitiae perseverant operibus. » Sed nihil clarius iis quae habet lib. IV, c. 28, n. 2, ubi probans majorem Novi Testamenti gratiam, majorem etiam a nobis perfectionem exigere : « Poena, inquit, eorum qui non credunt Verbo Dei, et contemnunt ejus adventum, et convertuntur retrorsum, adampliata est; non solum temporalis, sed et aeterna facta. Quibuscunque enim dixerit Dominus : Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum; isti erunt semper damnati; et quibuscunque dixerit : Venite, benedicti Patris mei, percipite haereditatem regni, quod praeparatum est vobis in sempiternum; hi semper percipient regnum, et proficient. » Hic damnatorum poenam opponit Irenaeus beatorum felicitati; et quemadmodum haec sempiterna est, sic et alteram sempiternam esse statuit. Ubi qui has voces, aeternus ignis, aeterna poena, semper damnati, detorserit ad longissima duntaxat supplicia, sed damnatorum interitu tandem aliquando desitura; advertat, nec Irenaeum, caeterosque Patres, imo nec ipsam Scripturam aliis vocibus designare sempiternam beatorum felicitatem; quas proinde impii, arrepta hinc occasione, similiter detorquere possent ad longam duntaxat felicitatem, aliquando tamen finiendam. Sed uti posteriorem hanc sententiam nullus, si sanus sit, Irenaeo ascripserit; sic nec posteriorem unquam tribuerit,

without life is impossible, and the subsistence of life comes from participation in God, and participation in God is to see God and to enjoy His kindness; men therefore shall see God and shall live, having been made immortal through the vision." Yet he could not on that account think that either wicked angels or wicked men will utterly perish, seeing that in Book 2, Chapter 33, n. 5, he wrote so expressly that "when the number which God predetermined with Himself has been filled up, all who are inscribed unto life shall rise again, having their own bodies, and their own souls, and their own spirits, in which they pleased God. While those," he adds, "who are worthy of punishment shall depart into it, they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood aloof from the goodness of God." The wicked angels and the souls of the ungodly, therefore, who in the day of judgement shall depart into everlasting punishment, will not pass into nothingness. For that the punishments of the damned are everlasting he pronounces as clearly as he does frequently. "That eternal fire is prepared for transgressors," he says in the same book, Chapter 28, n. 7, "both the Lord has manifestly declared, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate." And in Book 3, Chapter 23: "The Lord in the Gospel says to those who are found on the left hand: Depart, ye cursed, into eternal fire, which My Father has prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41); signifying that eternal fire was not prepared principally for man, but for him who seduced and caused man to offend, for him, I say, who is the chief of the apostasy, and for those angels who became apostates with him; which fire indeed those also shall justly receive who, like them, without repentance and without return persevere in the works of malice." But nothing is clearer than what he has in Book 4, Chapter 28, n. 2, where, proving that the greater grace of the New Testament requires a greater perfection from us also, he says: "The punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His coming, and turn back, is increased; having been made not only temporal, but also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say: Depart from Me, ye cursed, into eternal fire, these shall be damned for ever; and to whomsoever He shall say: Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you for ever (Matt. 25:34), these shall receive the kingdom for ever, and shall advance." Here Irenaeus opposes the punishment of the damned to the happiness of the blessed; and just as the latter is everlasting, so he states that the other is everlasting also. Where let anyone who would twist these expressions, eternal fire, eternal punishment, damned for ever, to mean punishments that are only very long, but will at length one day cease through the destruction of the damned, observe that neither Irenaeus, nor the rest of the Fathers, nay nor Scripture itself, designates the everlasting happiness of the blessed by any other expressions; which the ungodly, seizing the occasion hence, could consequently twist in like manner to mean a happiness that is only long, yet will one day come to an end. But just as no one, if he be in his senses, would ascribe this latter opinion to Irenaeus, so neither would anyone ever attribute the other to him,

Editors' notes and page, col. 363

Footnotes

(10) ‹anchor: diabolo et angelis ejus› · call in col 363

Matth. XXV, 41.

Matthew 25:41.

(printed under page 188) (10*) ‹anchor: vobis in sempiternum› · call in col 363 Ibid., 34.

Ibid., verse 34.

(printed under page 188)

(11) ‹anchor: not in col 363 (whose only calls are 10 and 10*)› · call in col 364

I Cor. XIII, 13.

1 Corinthians 13:13.

(printed under page 188)

Page

running head: 363 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN I
marginal letters: A sine vita; B animi impiorum,; C tia, et; D beatorum felicitati ;
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: tri-
other: the word tribuerit, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 364
misprint kept as printed: "sic nec posteriorem unquam tribuerit" — the second "posteriorem" stands for "priorem" (the sense requires the earlier opinion); the English renders the sense ("the other")

PG 7:364

nisi is qui aut Irenaeum nunquam legerit, aut apertissima quaeque Patrum dicta, invitis licet ac reluctantibus auctoribus, obscurare gestit, ut iis invidiam faciat. Legesis quae eo de argumento scripsit eruditissimus D. Matthaeus Petitdidier. t. II Adnotationum in Bibliothecam auctorum ecclesiasticorum, pag. 403, et seqq., edit. Paris. 1692.

save one who either has never read Irenaeus, or delights in obscuring the clearest sayings of the Fathers against the will and resistance of their authors, in order to bring odium upon them. Read, if you please, what the most learned Dom Matthieu Petitdidier has written on that subject in Vol. II of his Remarks on the Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, p. 403 et seqq., Paris edition, 1692.

107. Quod autem Irenaeus loco proxime citato dixit, « beatos semper percipere regnum Dei, et proficere, » in memoriam revocat quod lib. II, c. 28, n. 3, scribit, obscura quaedam exstare in Scripturis, quae Deo commendanda sint, « non solum in hoc saeculo, sed et in futuro; ut semper quidem Deus doceat, homo autem semper discat quae sunt a Deo. Sicut et Apostolus dixit, reliquis partibus destructis, haec tunc perseverare, quae sunt fides, spes, et charitas. » Quam sententiam reprehendit Scultetus, cui consentit et Gallasius, quasi inde sequatur, « in vita aeterna nos aliquid edocendos; in qua sola vigebit charitas, non fides, non spes, non in doctrina quotidiana accessio. » Sed iniqua est censura. Quod enim S. doctor beatorum scientiam novis augeri posse velit incrementis, a communi theologorum doctrina, cui etiam suffragatur ratio, non recedit; quibus ut constat sanctos, aeternae felicitatis compotes, divinam essentiam, et ea omnia, quae cum ea necessario conjuncta sunt, clare contueri; sic pariter certum est, non perfecto aliquo notitiae genere videre, quo quidquid in Deo, ejusque vi ac potentia continetur, eave omnia, quae ex sola et libera Dei voluntate pendent, omnino percipiant. Cum igitur cum infinita omnipotentiae illius amplitudine intelligentiam ac scientiam non adaequent suam; quid vetat ex iis quae Deus extra se libere aut facit, aut facere potest, novam subinde beatorum scientiae accessionem, cum Deus aperire voluerit, fieri posse? Sic Daniel. X futuri perinde, ac divinae voluntatis incerti altercantur invicem angeli; quibus etiam extremi judicii diem ignotum esse Christus affirmat; quem proinde, cum aliquando Deo revelante noverint, scientia eorum novum capiet incrementum. Quod autem addit Irenaeus, fidem et spem in altera vita mansuras, non moror; palam enim est cordato cuique, fidem et spem hic accipi, non quatenus altera obscuritatem, altera absentiam objecti habet adjunctam; sed quatenus duntaxat altera firmus est rebus cognitis assensus, altera certa in Deum fiducia. Sed haec obiter dicta sint, ad depellendas malevolorum hominum criminationes.

107. Now what Irenaeus said in the passage just cited, that "the blessed ever receive the kingdom of God, and advance," recalls to memory what he writes in Book 2, Chapter 28, n. 3, that there are certain obscure things in the Scriptures which must be left to God, "not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, so that God may ever teach, while man ever learns the things that are from God. Even as the Apostle also has said (1 Cor. 13:13) that when the rest of the things have been destroyed, these then abide, which are faith, hope, and charity." Which opinion Scultetus censures, with whom Des Gallars also agrees, as though it followed thence "that in eternal life we are to be taught something; whereas in it charity alone will flourish, not faith, not hope, not a daily increase in learning." But the censure is unfair. For in holding that the knowledge of the blessed can be increased by new additions, the holy doctor does not depart from the common doctrine of theologians, which reason also supports: to whom, just as it is established that the saints who are partakers of eternal happiness clearly behold the divine essence and all those things which are necessarily connected with it, so it is equally certain that they do not see it by any exhaustive kind of knowledge whereby they wholly perceive whatever is contained in God and in His power and might, or all those things which depend upon the sole and free will of God. Since, therefore, they do not equal the infinite amplitude of His omnipotence with their understanding and knowledge, what prevents a new addition from being made from time to time to the knowledge of the blessed out of those things which God freely either does or can do outside Himself, when God wills to disclose them? Thus in Daniel 10 the angels, uncertain alike of the future and of the divine will, contend with one another; and Christ affirms that to them the day of the last judgement is also unknown (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32); so that when they come to know it one day by God's revelation, their knowledge will receive a new increase. And as to what Irenaeus adds, that faith and hope will remain in the other life, I do not dwell upon it; for it is plain to every sensible man that faith and hope are taken here, not insofar as the one has obscurity and the other the absence of its object joined to it, but only insofar as the one is a firm assent to things known, and the other a sure confidence in God. But let these things be said in passing, in order to repel the charges of ill-disposed men.

108. Ad malorum angelorum poenas ut redeam, sentit Irenaeus eos sic ad aeternum ignem damnatos justa Dei sententia fuisse, ut eo tamen ante extremum judicii diem excruciandi non sint. Eapropter lib. I, cap. 10, n. 3, Deum commendat, quod magnanimus exstiterit in transgressorum angelorum apostasia. Quod tamen sic explicat Feuardentius,

108. To return to the punishments of the wicked angels, Irenaeus holds that they have been condemned to eternal fire by the just sentence of God in such wise that they are nevertheless not to be tormented by it before the last day of judgement. On that account in Book 1, Chapter 10, n. 3, he commends God because He showed Himself long-suffering in the apostasy of the transgressing angels. Yet Feuardent explains this

Editors' notes and page, col. 364

Page

running head: PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 364
marginal letters: A buerit, nisi; B partibus destructis,; C eave omnia,; D cordato cuique,
old-edition numerals: CLVI before 108.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: tri-buerit, Feuar-
other: the word Feuardentius, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 365

PG 7:365

quasi ex S. antistitis mente malis angelis post peccatum concessa fuerit ad resipiscendum, si voluissent, aliquanta temporis mora. Hanc quidem sententiam veterum aliquot fuisse scribit Nemesius philosophus Christianus, lib. I De hominis opific., cap. 1. In eamdem abire videntur Damascenus lib. II, c. 4, et Rupertus Tuitiensis lib. I De victoria Verbi Dei, cap. 21, et lib. III De glorific. Trinit. cap. 9 et 10. Nec alia Cassiani fuit opinio, qui Collat. 8, c. 10, duplex in daemonibus peccatum exstitisse vult, superbiam scilicet et invidiam, ac nonnisi post secundum esse dejectos. Sed tam improbabilem sensum, quem caeteri Patres rejiciunt, nec admittit ratio, solus in Irenaei mox allegatis verbis animadvertit Feuardentius : nullus alius, nisi vim iisdem inferat, perspiciet. Longe certius, Irenaeum existimasse, in hoc eluxisse Dei patientiam, quod daemonas ante novissimum judicii diem vindice illo igne cremari noluerit. Quin enim haec sit auctoris nostri sententia, negari non potest : eam siquidem conceptis verbis in Justino probat lib. V, c. 26, n. 2, imo cum eodem asserit Satanam, ante Christi adventum, de sempiterna damnatione sua non adeo certum fuisse, quin adhuc spes aliqua obtinendae per illum salutis affulgeret, atque idcirco nondum immanitati suae, et in Deum proterviae frena laxasse. « Bene, inquit, Justinus dixit, quoniam ante Domini adventum nunquam ausus est Satanas blasphemare Deum, quippe nondum sciens damnationem suam; quoniam et in parabolis, et allegoriis, a prophetis de eo sic dictum est. Post autem adventum Domini, ex sermonibus Christi et apostolorum ejus discens manifeste quoniam ignis aeternus ei praeparatus est, ex sua voluntate abscedenti a Deo, et omnibus qui sine poenitentia perseverant in apostasia; per hujusmodi homines (Gnosticos) blasphemat eum Deum, qui judicium importat, quasi jam condemnatus, et peccatum suae apostasiae conditori suo imputat, et non suae voluntati et sententiae, » etc. Citata quidem ab Irenaeo Justini verba, in iis quae supersunt hujus operibus, non exstant : at daemonas ignis poenas nondum experiri tradit in utraque Apologia. Nec ea sententia Irenaei duntaxat et Justini propria fuit, sed inter SS. Patres, quorum testimonia refert Petavius lib. III De angelis cap. 4, maxime communis exstitit. Nimirum his verbis, a Christo judice in novissimo die proferendis, innixi : Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis ejus; sentiunt aeterna quidem jam parata esse daemonibus incendia, iis tamen illos nondum excruciari, sed in exspectatione adhuc esse, dum judicii dies adveniat.

as though according to the mind of the holy prelate some space of time was granted to the wicked angels after their sin in order to repent if they had wished. That this was the opinion of some of the ancients is written indeed by Nemesius the Christian philosopher in Book 1 On the Nature of Man, Chapter 1. Damascene in Book 2, Chapter 4, and Rupert of Deutz in Book 1 On the Victory of the Word of God, Chapter 21, and Book 3 On the Glorification of the Trinity, Chapters 9 and 10, seem to incline to the same view. Nor was the opinion of Cassian any different, who in Conference 8, Chapter 10, maintains that there was a twofold sin in the demons, namely pride and envy, and that they were cast down only after the second. But so improbable a sense, which the rest of the Fathers reject and reason does not admit, Feuardent alone has perceived in the just-cited words of Irenaeus; no one else will perceive it unless he does violence to them. It is far more certain that Irenaeus thought that the patience of God shone forth in this, that He was unwilling that the demons should be burned with that avenging fire before the last day of judgement. For that this is the opinion of our author cannot be denied, since he approves it in express terms in Justin in Book 5, Chapter 26, n. 2, nay asserts with him that Satan before the coming of Christ was not so certain of his everlasting damnation that some hope of obtaining salvation through Him did not still shine upon him, and that therefore he had not yet loosened the reins to his ferocity and shamelessness against God. "Well," says he, "did Justin say that before the coming of the Lord Satan never dared to blaspheme God, as not yet knowing his damnation, because it was spoken concerning him in parables and allegories by the prophets also. But after the coming of the Lord, learning manifestly from the discourses of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire is prepared for him, departing of his own will from God, and for all who without repentance persevere in apostasy, through men of this sort (the Gnostics) he blasphemes that God Who brings in judgement, as being already condemned, and imputes the sin of his apostasy to his Creator, and not to his own will and mind," etc. The words of Justin cited by Irenaeus do not exist indeed in the extant works of the latter; yet in both Apologies he hands down that the demons do not yet experience the punishments of fire. Nor was that opinion peculiar to Irenaeus and Justin only, but it was most common among the holy Fathers, whose testimonies Petau cites in Book 3 On the Angels, Chapter 4. Relying namely upon these words to beuttered by Christ the Judge at the last day: Depart from Me, ye cursed, into eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41), they hold that eternal fires are indeed already prepared for the demons, yet that they are not yet tormented by them, but are still in expectation until the day of judgement comes.

109. Haec autem « veterum opinio, » ait doctissimus Petavius eodem libro et capite, § 19, 20 et 21, « etsi hoc tempore recepta non est; quia daemones damnationis suae poenas omnes expendere, quae

109. "Now although this opinion of the ancients," says the most learned Petau in the same book and chapter, §§ 19, 20, and 21, "is not received at the present time, because theologians generally hold that the demons suffer all the punishments of their damnation which

Editors' notes and page, col. 365

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: diabolo et angelis ejus› · call in col 365

Matth. XXV, 41.

Matthew 25:41.

(printed under page 189)

Page

running head: 365 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENA
marginal letters: A dentius, quasi; B alius, nisi; C dum sciens; D pria fuit,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: Feuar-dentius

PG 7:366

quidem essentiales vocantur, theologi fere sentiunt; non est tamen erroris, nedum haeresis accusandus, qui asserat diabolum, et ejus angelos, nondum extremo ac summo supplicio cruciari, sive ignis efficientiam experiri, in qua damnationis illorum, quod ad sensum, et perpessionem attinet, summa consistit. » Hinc S. Thomas I p., q. 64, art. 4, ad 4, cum eam commemorasset opinionem, non probat quidem; sed ei nullam imponit erroris notam. Probat vero Cajetanus, et amplectitur, in Commentariis ad cap. II secundae Epistolae S. Petri. « Quam Cajetani sententiam, » addit Petavius, « Catholicae fidei contrariam non esse, certum est. Nam neque Scriptura, neque concilium ullum hactenus docuit, daemones extrema illa supplicia perpeti, quae parata iis esse judex ipse dicit. » Viderit ergo cl. Grabius, an vel eruditum, vel sinceri candoris hominem deceret, in suis ad lib. I Irenaei cap. 10, al. 4, Adnotationibus, Romanam Ecclesiam reprehendere, quod, inquit, « ut in aliis, ita et in hoc, a SS. Patrum, ipsorumque sui fundatorum, Petri et Pauli sententia discesserit. » Crederet quivis haec legens, mox expositae veterum sententiae, aperte suffragatos esse Petrum et Paulum, eamque a Romana Ecclesia aperte damnatam fuisse, vel solemnibus conciliorum ejus decretis comprobatam hodiernam plerorumque theologorum sententiam : quod quam abhorreat a vero, evidenter demonstrant quae modo diximus; vidit et ipse Grabius, qui parum sibi constans, ad cap. 26, lib. V, adnotationem Feuardentii asserentis, eam veterum sententiam a nullo concilio hactenus proscriptam fuisse, refert et silentio suo probat.

are called essential, nevertheless he is not to be accused of error, much less of heresy, who should assert that the devil and his angels are not yet tormented with the last and highest punishment, or experiencing the efficacy of fire, wherein consists the sum of their damnation as regards sense and suffering." Hence St. Thomas in Part I, q. 64, art. 4, ad 4, after mentioning that opinion, does not approve it indeed, yet affixes to it no mark of error. Cajetan, however, approves and embraces it in his Commentary on Chapter 2 of the Second Epistle of St. Peter. "Which opinion of Cajetan," adds Petau, "is certainly not contrary to the Catholic faith. For neither Scripture nor any council has hitherto taught that the demons are enduring those extreme punishments which the Judge Himself says are prepared for them." Let the illustrious Grabe see, therefore, whether it became either a learned man or a man of sincere candour to censure the Roman Church in his Notes on Irenaeus Book 1, Chapter 10, formerly 4, because, says he, "as in other things, so in this also, she has departed from the opinion of the holy Fathers, and of her own founders themselves, Peter and Paul." Anyone reading these words would believe that Peter and Paul openly supported the opinion of the ancients just set forth, and that it was openly condemned by the Roman Church, or that the present opinion of most theologians was approved by the solemn decrees of her councils: how far this is from the truth, what we have just said evidently demonstrates; and Grabe himself saw it, who, little consistent with himself, at Chapter 26 of Book 5 cites and by his silence approves the note of Feuardent asserting that that opinion of the ancients has hitherto been proscribed by no council.

110. Ejusdem iniqui animi aliud in eo ipso, quod nunc pertractamus, argumento de angelis, specimen edit Grabius. Scribit Irenaeus lib. II, c. 32, n. 5, Ecclesiam « nec invocationibus angelicis facere aliquid, nec incantationibus, nec reliqua prava curiositate; sed munde, et pure, et manifeste orationes dirigentem ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocantem, virtutes ad utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem perficere. » Quisquis totum hoc caput, ac praecedens attente legerit, advertet hic Ecclesiae miracula haereticorum praestigiis opponi : aliaque puris et mundis orationibus, et invocationi nomini Domini nostri Jesu Christi tribui; alia vero daemonum invocationibus, incantationibus et magicis artibus. Hoc ipsum est quod cap. praecedenti fusius exposuerat, a Simonianis et Carpocratianis, « et si qui alii virtutes operari dicuntur, non in virtute Dei, neque in veritate, sed in perniciem et errorem, per magicas elusiones, et universa fraude apud eos errorem, et seductionem, et magicam phantasiam in speculatu hominum impie fieri : eos fraude universa, et adinspiratione apostatica, et operatione daemoniaca, et phantasmate idololatriae per omnia

110. In the very subject of the angels which we are now treating, Grabe gives another specimen of the same unfair mind. Irenaeus writes in Book 2, Chapter 32, n. 5, that the Church "does nothing either by angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curiosity; but directing her prayers cleanly, purely, and openly to the Lord Who made all things, and invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she works miracles for the benefit of men, and not for seduction." Whoever reads attentively the whole of this chapter and the preceding one will observe that here the miracles of the Church are opposed to the juggleries of the heretics, and that the one set is attributed to pure and clean prayers and to the invocation of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, while the other is attributed to invocations of demons, incantations, and magic arts. This is the very point that he had set forth more at large in the preceding chapter, that by the Simonians and Carpocratians, "and if there are any others who are said to work miracles, they do not perform them in the power of God, nor in truth, but unto destruction and error, through magical delusions, and with all fraud there are impiously wrought among them error, and seduction, and magical illusion before the eyes of men; and that they are wholly filled with all fraud, and apostate inspiration, and demoniacal working, and the phantasm of idolatry;"

Editors' notes and page, col. 366

Page

running head: III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 366
marginal letters: A quidem essentiales; B peti, quae; C bius, qui; D cula haereticorum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:367

repletos esse; » quae omnia satis superque confirmantur ex iis quae tum ipse scripsit libro primo de Marcosiis, Simonianis, Carpocratianis, aliisque ejusmodi pestibus, tum Epiphanius, aliique de iisdem edisseruerunt: « in Ecclesia autem miserationem, et misericordiam, et firmitatem, et veritatem ad opitulationem hominum perfici, » etc. Ecce tamen Grabius his voculis, « invocationibus angelicis, » in transversum actus, observat, « bonos angelos ab Ecclesia ad virtutem miraculorum edendam in auxilium vocatos nuspiam legi: « imo, inquit, id non factum esse ex hoc ipso Irenaei loco haud inepte colligitur. » Imo inepte colligitur, et inepte scribitur in Indice generali, hunc ipsum Irenaei locum indigitando, « angelorum invocationes in Ecclesia inusitatas fuisse. » Malignos spiritus hic intelligi certo certius est, eos nimirum quos mundi hujus regimini praepositos arbitrabantur Gnostici, quos, ne nocerent, impense colebant, et quos ad suas praestigias exercendas in opem frequenter evocabant. Quod igitur, Irenaeo teste, ejusmodi spirituum invocationibus nihil faciat Ecclesia, hinc intulerit Grabius bonorum angelorum invocationes in Ecclesia inusitatas fuisse? Praeclarum argumentandi genus: Magicis artibus non studet Ecclesia, daemones ad exercendas praestigias non evocat: ergo bonos angelos non invocat. At ii sunt Protestantes plerique, ut arma eis ministrent obvia quaeque SS. Patrum dicta. Angelicis invocationibus Ecclesiam nihil facere scribit Irenaeus; satis est: bonos an malos angelos intelligat, nihil interest: illico, velut opportunam occasionem nactus, monebit editor, angelorum invocationes in veteri Ecclesia inusitatas fuisse.

were filled"; all of which is more than sufficiently confirmed from what both he himself wrote in the first book about the Marcosians, Simonians, Carpocratians and other pests of that kind, and Epiphanius and others set forth about the same: "but in the Church compassion and mercy and steadfastness and truth are brought to completion for the help of men," etc. Yet see how Grabe, driven off course by these little words, "angelic invocations," observes that "good angels are nowhere read to have been called to her aid by the Church for the working of miracles: indeed," he says, "that this was not done is not ineptly gathered from this very passage of Irenaeus." On the contrary, it is ineptly gathered, and ineptly written in the general Index, pointing to this very passage of Irenaeus, "that invocations of angels were unused in the Church." That evil spirits are meant here is more certain than certain, namely those whom the Gnostics believed to be set over the governance of this world, whom they worshipped assiduously lest they should do harm, and whom they frequently called up to their aid in practising their conjuring tricks. Because, then, on the testimony of Irenaeus, the Church does nothing by invocations of such spirits, is Grabe to infer from this that invocations of good angels were unused in the Church? A splendid kind of argument: the Church does not pursue magic arts, she does not call up demons to practise conjuring tricks; therefore she does not invoke good angels. But most Protestants are such that any sayings of the holy Fathers that come to hand furnish them with weapons. Irenaeus writes that the Church does nothing by angelic invocations; that is enough: whether he means good or bad angels makes no difference: at once, as if he had found an opportune occasion, the editor will advise that invocations of angels were unused in the ancient Church.

ARTICULUS IX.

ARTICLE IX.

De hominis perfectione ac libero arbitrio, ejusque ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei creatione. De peccato originali, et gratiae divinae necessitate.

On the perfection and free will of man, and his creation to the image and likeness of God. On original sin, and the necessity of divine grace.

111. Inter varios, quibus Irenaei doctrinam infuscari putant, naevos, Centuriatores Magdeburgenses et Scultetus hunc notant: quod non sine errore dixerit, Hominem non esse conditum a Deo perfectum, et artificem Deum in veteri plasmate quidpiam praetermisisse, quod postea Verbum impleverit. Sed insontem vexat malevolorum hominum censura, quibus, ut et Gallasio, displicuit, ut aperte profitentur, quod Irenaeus hominem liberi arbitrii facultate praeditum esse tam diserte pronuntiet, et tam invicte probet, ut nullus effugiis locus sit. Haec enim calumniae causa; quod explicandum.

111. Among the various blemishes by which they think the doctrine of Irenaeus is darkened, the Magdeburg Centuriators and Scultetus note this one: that he said, not without error, that man was not created perfect by God, and that God the Craftsman left out something in the old handiwork which the Word afterwards filled up. But it is the censure of malevolent men that harasses the innocent man; it displeased them, as also Gallasius, as they openly profess, that Irenaeus pronounces so expressly, and proves so invincibly, that man is endowed with the faculty of free will that there is no room for evasions. For this is the cause of the calumny; which must be explained.

Editors' notes and page, col. 367

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: Centuriatores Magdeburgenses› · call in col 367

Cent. ii, c. 4.

Centuries, [Century] II, chapter 4.

(printed under page 190)

Page

running head: 367 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A repletos esse ;; B inusitatas fuisse.; C perfectum, et; D malo circumscripta
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); three full-width lines across cols. 367-368 (ARTICULUS IX. / De hominis perfectione ac libero arbitrio, ejusque ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei / creatione. De peccato originali, et gratiae divinae necessitate.) after line 17 not set (cut off at right edge); line 17 continues at top of col. 368
other: a full-width band stands across cols 367/368 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 368 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 367 (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: 367 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 368
marginal letters: A ‹repletos esse; » quae omnia› / ‹regimini praepositos›; B ‹inusitatas fuisse. » Malignos› / ‹tor, angelorum invocationes›; C ‹perfectum, et artificem Deum› / ‹testatem electionis›; D ‹malo circumscripta ac definita› / ‹electionis, quam homini› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CLVII after ‹exercendas› (col 368)
other: page 190 set in reading order: this file holds the upper text of col 367 (17 lines, to "mundi hujus") and of col 368 ("regimini praepositos" to "inusitatas fuisse."), one paragraph, then the heading band of Art. IX, then section 111 (col 367 below the band). Section 112 (col 367 below 111, "Gnosticorum" to "procul excludit,", marked * on the page, then the lower text of col 368) is in c368_a.md (Q4b, 2026-11-03: the band stands after paragraph 1 on the page, so Art. IX opens at section 111 as set).
other: Q4b UNSURE: in section 112 (set in c368_a.md) the page seems to print "flatigioso" where the file has "flagitioso"; the lean image is too coarse to be sure. Check at higher resolution; if printed so, set it as printed and list it in misprints.tsv.

PG 7:368

112. Gnosticorum hoc erat effatum, ut alibi diximus, homines quosdam natura bonos, quosdam natura malos, a Deo conditos fuisse: quo flagitioso principio ab imo ruebat omnis prorsus eligendi potestas, fatalique necessitate sic constringebatur humana voluntas, ut uno duntaxat, sive bono, sive malo circumscripta ac definita, oppositum velle non posset. Exitiosam doctrinam identidem toto opere refellit Irenaeus. Sed eam demum libri quarti cpp. 37 et 39, ab ipsis radicibus convellere aggreditur, ubi principio probandum sibi suscipit, quod « liberum hominem Deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem, sicut et suam animam, ad utendum sententia Dei voluntarie, et non coactum a Deo. Vis enim, inquit, a Deo non fit, sed bona sententia adest illi semper. » Neque putes hic tantum elidi vim externam, quae extrinsecus adhibetur; omnem prorsus a voluntate necessitatem procul excludit, qua ita ad unum determinaretur, ut alterius volendi potestas adimeretur, ac proinde necessitatem etiam quae simplex dicitur. Eam enim in homine libertatem esse merito contendit Irenaeus, quae potestatem electionis includat, ita ut cum in unum sponte propendet voluntas, possit, si velit, eo repudiato, in oppositum ferri. « Posuit, inquit, Deus in homine potestatem electionis, quemadmodum et in angelis (etenim angeli rationabiles): uti hi quidem qui obedissent, juste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a Deo, servatum vero ab ipsis. Qui autem non obedierunt, juste non invenientur cum bono, et meritam poenam percipient; quoniam Deus quidem dedit benigne bonum, ipsi vero non custodierunt diligenter illud, neque pretiosum arbitrati sunt, sed supereminentiam bonitatis contempserunt. Abjicientes igitur bonum, et quasi respuentes, merito omnes justum judicium incident Dei, » etc. Tum postea clarius adhuc explicans potestatem illam electionis, quam homini tribuit, et in indifferentia ad utrumlibet sitam esse demonstrans, addit: « Dedit ergo Deus bonum, quemadmodum et Apostolus testificatur; et qui operantur quidem illud, gloriam et honorem percipient, quoniam operati sunt bonum, cum possint non operari illud; hi autem qui illud non operantur, judicium justum excipient Dei, quoniam non sunt operati bonum, cum possint operari illud. » Hanc vero voluntatis indifferentiam, etiamnum in homine perseverantem, subinde probat omnibus argumentis, quibus uti solent, ad haereticos refellendos, Catholici doctores; puta quod

112. This was the dictum of the Gnostics, as we have said elsewhere, that some men were created by God good by nature and some evil by nature: by which shameful principle all power of choosing whatever collapsed from its foundation, and the human will was so constrained by a fatal necessity that, circumscribed and determined to one thing only, whether good or evil, it could not will the opposite. Irenaeus refutes this ruinous doctrine again and again throughout the work. But at length in chapters 37 and 39 of the fourth book he sets about tearing it up by its very roots, where at the outset he undertakes to prove that "God made man free from the beginning, having his own power, as also his own soul, to make use of God's counsel voluntarily, and not compelled by God. For force," he says, "is not exercised by God, but good counsel is always present with Him." And do not think that only external force, which is applied from outside, is here struck down; he excludes far from the will every necessity whatever by which it would be so determined to one thing that the power of willing the other would be taken away, and therefore even the necessity which is called simple. For Irenaeus rightly contends that the freedom in man is one which includes the power of choice, so that when the will inclines of its own accord to one thing, it can, if it wishes, reject that and be borne to the opposite. "God," he says, "placed in man the power of choice, as also in the angels (for the angels are rational), so that those who obeyed might justly possess the good, given indeed by God but kept by themselves. But those who did not obey will justly not be found with the good, and will receive the punishment they deserved; because God indeed gave the good kindly, but they did not guard it diligently, nor did they consider it precious, but despised the surpassing greatness of His goodness. Casting away the good, then, and as it were spitting it out, they will all deservedly fall under the just judgement of God," etc. Then afterwards, explaining still more clearly that power of choice which he attributes to man, and showing that it lies in an indifference towards either alternative, he adds: "God, then, gave the good, as the Apostle also testifies; and those who work it will receive glory and honour, because they have worked the good when they could have not worked it; but those who do not work it will receive the just judgement of God, because they have not worked the good when they could have worked it." And this indifference of the will, still persisting in man, he proves from time to time by all the arguments which Catholic doctors are accustomed to use for refuting heretics; for instance, that

Editors' notes and page, col. 368

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 368
marginal letters: A regimini praepositos; B tor, angelorum; C testatem electionis; D electionis, quam
old-edition numerals: CLVII after exercendas
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); three full-width lines across cols. 367-368 (ARTICULUS IX. / De hominis perfectione ac libero arbitrio, ejusque ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei / creatione. De peccato originali, et gratiae divinae necessitate.) after line 17 not set (cut off at left edge)
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 367 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 367 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 368
marginal letters: A ‹repletos esse; » quae omnia› / ‹regimini praepositos›; B ‹inusitatas fuisse. » Malignos› / ‹tor, angelorum invocationes›; C ‹perfectum, et artificem Deum› / ‹testatem electionis›; D ‹malo circumscripta ac definita› / ‹electionis, quam homini› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: page 190 set in reading order: this file holds section 112, from the lower text of col 367 ("112. Gnosticorum" to "procul excludit,") into the lower text of col 368 ("qua ita ad unum" to "puta quod"). A stray point printed before the numeral 112 is not set. "cpp." printed so (for capp.), kept.
other: QA Q6b checked the page: section 111 (Inter varios) stands below the Art. IX band in col 367, so Art. IX opens at section 111 as read.

PG 7:369

si ineluctabili necessitate ferrentur homines in bonum aut malum, nec laudi nec vitio tribui posset, quod alii boni, alii mali essent : quod frustra mandata, consilia, monita hominibus daret Deus : quod nulla essent bonorum operum merita, eo quod nullum amplius certamen et corona certaminis superesset : quod incassum bonum a malo discernendi facultatem accepisset a Deo homo, nisi facta utriusque comparatione alterum alteri sua voluntate et electione praeferre posset; et alia ejusmodi, quae malim apud auctorem nostrum legi.

if men were borne by an inescapable necessity to good or evil, it could be imputed neither to praise nor to blame that some were good and others evil; that in vain would God give commandments, counsels, and admonitions to men; that there would be no merits of good works, because no contest and crown of the contest would any longer remain; that in vain would man have received from God the faculty of discerning good from evil unless after comparing both he could by his own will and choice prefer the one to the other; and other arguments of that sort, which I would rather have read in our author himself.

113. Sed interim vulgatae huic impiorum querelae satisfacit, Quid angelos aut homines condiderit omnipotens Deus tales, qui statim ab eo deficerent; cum satius longe fuisset, ut peccare nullo modo possent? « Sed oportebat eum neque angelos tales. fecisse, ut possent transgredi, neque homines, qui statim ingrati exsisterent in eum. » Respondet Irenaeus, quod si homines, belluarum more, « inflexibiles, et sine judicio, cum necessitate et vi traherentur ad bonum, sic nec suave esset eis quod est bonum, neque pretiosa communicatio Dei, neque magnopere appetendum bonum, quod sine suo proprio motu, et cura, et studio provenisset, sed ultra et otiose insitum; ita ut essent nullius momenti boni, eo quod natura magis, quam voluntate tales exsisterent, et ultroneum haberent bonum, sed non secundum electionem; et propter hoc nec hoc ipsum intelligentes, quoniam pulchrum sit quod bonum, neque fruentes eo; » satius ergo fuisse, Deique providentiam magis decuisse, ut tales crearentur homines, qui bonum libera electione prosequerentur, et ad illud cum labore et exercitatione contenderent, ne « esset videlicet nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum, ut et pretiosam arbitremur coronam, quae per agonem nobis acquiritur, sed non ultro coalitam; et quanto per agonem nobis advenit, tanto sit pretiosior; quanto autem pretiosior, tanto eam semper diligamus; » inde quidem evenire, ut nobis ipsis nostraeque electioni permissi interdum labamur, et a Deo deficiamus : at malum illud ex eo compensari, quod propriis lapsibus erudiamur, factaque « comparatione lucis et tenebrarum, vitae et mortis, per omnia erudiamur; ut in omnibus in futurum simus cauti, et perseveremus in omni Dei dilectione, rationabiliter edocti diligere Deum : Deo quidem magnanimitatem praestante in apostasia hominis; homine autem erudito per eam, » etc.

113. Meanwhile, however, he answers this common complaint of the ungodly: Why did almighty God create angels or men such as would immediately revolt from Him, when it would have been far better that they should in no way be able to sin? "Nay, He ought neither to have made the angels such that they could transgress, nor men such as would immediately prove ungrateful towards Him." Irenaeus replies (Book 4, Chapter 37, n. 6) that if men, after the manner of beasts, "inflexible and without judgement, were drawn to the good with necessity and force, then neither would that which is good be sweet to them, nor the communion of God precious, nor would the good be greatly to be desired which had come without their own motion, care, and zeal, but implanted of itself and idly; so that they would be good of no account, because they would be such by nature rather than by will, and would possess the good spontaneously, and not according to choice; and on this account neither understanding this very fact, that what is good is fair, nor enjoying it;" that it was better, therefore, and morefitting to the providence of God, that men should be created such as would pursue the good by free choice, and strive after it with labour and exercise, namely lest "our good should be unperceived because unexercised, and that we may also account precious the crown which is acquired for us through the contest, and not grown of itself; and that the more it comes to us through the contest, the more precious it may be, and the more precious it is, the more we may ever love it;" that hence indeed it comes to pass that when left to ourselves and our own choice we sometimes slip and fall away from God; yet that evil is compensated by this, that we are instructed by our own falls, and after making "a comparison of light and darkness, of life and death, are instructed in all things, so that in all things we may be cautious for the future, and persevere in all love of God, having been reasonably taught to love God: God indeed showing long-suffering in the apostasy of man, while man is instructed through it," etc.

114. Ex ea autem responsione oritur altera quaestio, quam statim sibi proponit Irenaeus, quaeque Centuriatorum et Sculteti criminationi ansam dedit : « Si, ait, hoc dicat aliquis : Quid enim? Non poterat ab initio Deus perfectum fecisse hominem? » Quisquis ad ea quae praecesserunt, quaeque modo compendio retulimus, attenderit, e vestigio deprehendet, non de ea perfectione sermonem hic

114. Now out of that reply arises another question, which Irenaeus immediately proposes to himself (Chapter 38, n. 1), and which gave a handle to the charge of the Centuriators and Scultetus: "What if someone should say this: Why then? Could not God have made man perfect from the beginning?" Whoever attends to what has preceded, and what we have just related in summary, will immediately perceive that the discourse here is not about that perfection

Editors' notes and page, col. 369

Footnotes

(14) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 369 (call above the cropped area; column inferred from print order)

Lib. iv, cap. 37, n. 6.

Book IV, chapter 37, number 6.

(printed under page 191)

(15) ‹anchor: proponit Irenaeus› · call in col 369

C. 38, n. 1.

Chapter 38, number 1.

(printed under page 191)

Page

running head: 369 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A si ineluctabili; B possent ? «; C neque fruentes; D mur ; ut
old-edition numerals: CLVIII after compendio
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:370

esse, quae naturalis sit, et in ordine naturae haereat; sed de ea duntaxat quae superioris ordinis, et a Deo, quatenus auctor gratiae est, exspectanda sit. Uno verbo totius orationis contextus demonstrat, eo spectare quaestionem : Ecquid ab initio Deus talem condiderit hominem, qui coronam sibi tanto cum labore et ancipiti ac operoso agone comparatam adipisceretur; et non potius qui ad videndum et capiendum Deum statim maturus, huic eo perfectius adhaereret, quo justitiae immutabiliter affixus, ab omni versatilis indifferentiae perverso usu peccandique periculo tutus esset? Id etiam ex subjecta responsione manifeste colligitur. Regerit enim Irenaeus, « Deo quidem, cum semper sit idem, et innatus, quantum ad ipsum est, omnia possibilia » esse. « Quae autem facta sunt ab eo, secundum quod postea facturae initium habuerunt, secundum hoc et minora esse oportuisse eo, qui se fecerit; nec enim poterant infecta esse, quae nuper facta sunt. Propter quod autem non sunt infecta, propter hoc et deficiunt a perfecto. » Unde concludit, Deum ipsum quidem « potentem fuisse homini praestare perfectionem ab initio, hominem autem, » habita ratione sapientissimarum a divina providentia statutarum legum, « impotentem fuisse percipere illam : infans enim fuit. » Debuit igitur homo certis quibusdam gradibus, certa quadam « ordinatione » et « convenientia » pervenire ad visionem Dei, qua fiat immortalis, et ea ratione perfectus ac Deo proximus. « Oportuerat hominem primo fieri, et factum augeri, et auctum corroborari, et corroboratum multiplicari, et multiplicatum convalescere, convalescentem vero glorificari, et glorificatum videre suum Dominum. Deus enim est, qui habet videri : visio autem Dei efficax est incorruptelae : incorruptela vero proximum facit esse Deo. » Quae omnia persuadent, quod dixi, de ea tantum perfectione hic agi, quam consequitur homo in altera vita, Deum intuitive videndo; quamque legitimo versatilis ad utrumlibet indifferentiae usu eum sibi mereri decebat : adeo ut ea non esset naturae suae praerogativa, sed laboris et exercitationis praemium ac virtutis merces. Quod etiam magis ac magis confirmatur ex iis quae addit cap. sequenti, ubi n. 2 ait : « Quemadmodum igitur erit Deus, qui nondum factus est homo? quomodo autem perfectus, nuper effectus, qui in natura mortali non obedivit factori? » Tum addit hunc a Deo constitutum ordinem esse, ut prius « praebeamus ei cor nostrum molle et tractabile, ac tradamus ei quod est nostrum, id est fidem in eum et subjectionem; » tum vero « ascensuros nos ad perfectum, et fore perfectum opus Dei. Si autem, ait, non credideris ei, et fugeris manus ejus, erit causa imperfectionis in te, qui non obedisti, sed non in illo, qui vocavit. » At illud meriti genus, et ea, quae huic necessario praesupponitur, indifferentia libertatis, Magdeburgensibus

which is natural and inheres in the order of nature, but only about that which is of a higher order, and is to be looked for from God insofar as He is the Author of grace. In a word, the context of the whole discourse demonstrates that the question looks to this: Did God from the beginning create man such that he should win for himself a crown procured with so much labour and a hazardous and toilsome contest, and not rather such that, immediately ripe for seeing and comprehending God, he should cleave to Him all the more perfectly the more he was immutably attached to righteousness, safe from all perverse use of a versatile indifference and from all danger of sinning? This is also manifestly gathered from the subjoined reply. For Irenaeus retorts that "to God indeed, since He is ever the same and unbegotten, all things are possible as far as concerns Himself. But the things that were made by Him, insofar as they afterwards had a beginning of their making, in that respect also had to be inferior to Him Who made them; for things that have recently been made could not be unmade. And because they are not unmade, on that account they also fall short of the perfect." Whence he concludes that God Himself indeed "was able to bestow perfection upon man from the beginning, whereas man," account being taken of the most wise laws established by divine providence, "was unable to receive it; for he was an infant." Man therefore had to arrive by certain steps, and by a certain "order" and "fitness," at the vision of God, whereby he becomes immortal, and in that way perfect and nigh unto God. "It was necessary that man should first be made, and having been made should grow, and having grown should be strengthened, and having been strengthened should be multiplied, and having been multiplied should gain vigour, and having gained vigour should be glorified, and having been glorified should see his Lord. For it is God Who is to be seen; and the vision of God is productive of incorruptibility; and incorruptibility makes one to be nigh unto God." All of which persuades us of what I have said, that the question here is only about that perfection which man attains in the other life by seeing God intuitively, and which it was fitting that he should merit for himself by the legitimate use of his versatile indifference to either side: so that it should not be a prerogative of his own nature, but the prize of labour and exercise and the reward of virtue. And this is confirmed more and more from what he adds in the following chapter, where in n. 2 he says: "How then shall he be a god who has not yet been made a man? Or how shall he be perfect, having recently been made, who in his mortal nature has not obeyed his Creator?" Then he adds that this is the order established by God, that first "we should offer to Him our heart soft and tractable, and yield to Him what is ours, that is, faith in Him and subjection;" and that then "we shall ascend to the perfect, and shall be a perfect work of God. But if, says he, you do not believe Him, and flee from His hands, the cause of imperfection will be in you who did not obey, and not in Him Who called." Now because that kind of merit, and that indifference of liberty which is necessarily presupposed for it, were displeasing to the Magdeburg

Editors' notes and page, col. 370

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: Deo proximus.› · call in col 370

Ibid., n. 3.

Ibid., number 3.

(printed under page 191)

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 370
marginal letters: A esse, quae; B possibilia »; C Deo proximus.; D ubi n.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: Magdebur-
other: English across the break: "were displeasing" renders "cum displicerent", printed at the top of col 371; the col 371 English carries the rest of the clause (Q4b, 2026-11-03).
other: Q4b UNSURE: the page seems to print "angeri" (turned u) where the file has "augeri" ("et factum augeri"); the lean image is too coarse to be sure. Check at higher resolution; if printed so, set it as printed and list it in misprints.tsv.

PG 7:371

cum displicerent, struendae Irenaeo calumniae occasio fuerunt.

Centuriators, they were the occasion of contriving a calumny against Irenaeus.

115. Nec tamen merita bonorum operum ita libero arbitrio vindicat S. doctor, ut gratiae divinae necessitatem excludat. Imo tantam esse naturae humanae peccato originali vitiatae corruptionem jure merito contendit, ut nullum boni operis fructum usquam editura sit, nisi Christi gratia sanetur et ad agendum roboretur. Lib. III, c. 22, n. 4, scribit, « Evam inobedientem factam, et sibi, et universo generi humano causam factam esse mortis, » non temporalis modo, sed et aeternae, ut ex altero comparationis membro perspicue patet : « Mariam » autem « obedientem, et sibi, et universo generi humano causam factam esse salutis. » Addit postea, quod « primogenitus mortuorum natus Dominus, et in sinum suum recipiens pristinos patres, regeneravit eos in vitam Dei, ipse initium viventium factus, quoniam Adam initium morientium factus est. » Tum lib. V, c. 1, n. 3, docet, « Patrem omnium operatum esse incarnationem Filii sui, et novam ostendisse generationem : uti quemadmodum per priorem generationem mortem haereditavimus, sic per generationem hanc haereditaremus vitam. » Quod et in fine capitis repetit. Et cap. 14, n. 1, 2 et 3, Christum Dominum « salvasse in semetipso in fine illud quod perierat in principio in Adam. Justam carnem reconciliavisse eam carnem, quae in peccato detinebatur, et in amicitiam adduxisse Deo. » Per Christum « reconciliatum fuisse Deo, quod per transgressionem factum fuerat inimicum. » Quibus omnibus gemina sunt quae scribit, tum lib. IV, c. 2, n. 7 : « Non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga, nisi credant in eum, qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatur a terra, et omnia trahit ad se, et vivificat mortuos : » tum quae lib. V, c. 16, n. 2, ait, « Deum in primo quidem Adam nos offendisse, non facientes ejus praeceptum; in secundo autem Adam reconciliatos nos fuisse, obedientes usque ad mortem factos. Neque enim alteri cuidam eramus debitores, sed illi cujus et praeceptum transgressi fueramus ab initio; » tum cap. 34, n. 2, « percussum esse hominem initio in Adam inobedientem; » tum denique, ne longior sim, cap. 19, n. 1 : « Quemadmodum astrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem : aequa lance disposita, virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam. Adhuc enim protoplasti peccatum per correptionem primogeniti emendationem accipiens, et serpentis prudentia devicta in columbae simplicitate, vinculis autem illis resolutis, per quae alligati eramus morti. » Quem posteriorem locum, ut et eum quem ex lib. IV, c. 11, modo adduximus, allegavit Augustinus lib. I cont. Julian, c. 3, ut ex constanti Patrum traditione probaret contra Pelagianos, nasci omnes Adae posteros peccati originalis

115. Yet the holy doctor does not so vindicate the merits of good works for free will as to exclude the necessity of divine grace. Nay, he rightly and deservedly contends that so great is the corruption of human nature vitiated by original sin that it will never bring forth any fruit of a good work anywhere unless it be healed by the grace of Christ and strengthened for action. In Book 3, Chapter 22, n. 4, he writes that "Eve, having become disobedient, became the cause of death both to herself and to the whole human race"—not of temporal death only, but also of eternal, as is clearly evident from the other member of the comparison: whereas "Mary, being obedient, became the cause of salvation both to herself and to the whole human race." He adds afterwards that "the Lord, having been born the First-begotten of the dead, and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, regenerated them unto the life of God, having Himself been made the beginning of the living, since Adam was made the beginning of the dying." Then in Book 5, Chapter 1, n. 3, he teaches that "the Father of all wrought the incarnation of His Son, and showed forth a new generation: so that just as through the former generation we inherited death, so through this generation we might inherit life." Which he also repeats at the end of the chapter. And in Chapter 14, nn. 1, 2, and 3, he says that Christ the Lord "saved in Himself at the end that which had perished in the beginning in Adam; that righteous flesh reconciled that flesh which was held fast in sin, and brought it into friendship with God;" and that through Christ "that was reconciled to God which through transgression had been made hostile." Twin to all these are the things that he writes both in Book 4, Chapter 2, n. 7: "Men are not saved otherwise from the ancient wound of the serpent than by believing in Him Who according to the likeness of the flesh of sin is lifted up from the earth on the wood of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and quickens the dead;" and what he says in Book 5, Chapter 16, n. 2, that "in the first Adam indeed we offended God, not doing His commandment, whereas in the second Adam we have been reconciled, having been made obedient unto death. For we were debtors to no other, but to Him Whose commandment also we had transgressed from the beginning;" and in Chapter 34, n. 2, that "man, being disobedient in the beginning, was smitten in Adam;" and finally, not to be too long, in Chapter 19, n. 1: "Just as the human race was bound fast to death through a virgin, it is saved through a virgin: virginal disobedience having been balanced in an equal scale by virginal obedience. For the sin of the first-formed man still receives amendment through the correction of the First-begotten, and the subtilty of the serpent is vanquished in the simplicity of the dove, while those bonds are loosed through which we had been bound fast to death." Which last passage, as also that which we have just adduced from Book 4, Chapter 11, Augustine alleged in Book 1 Against Julian, Chapter 3, in order to prove from the constant tradition of the Fathers against the Pelagians that all the posterity of Adam are born stained with the blemish of original

Editors' notes and page, col. 371

Footnotes

(16*) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 371 or 372 (call above the cropped area; column not determinable) Joan ix, 11.

John 9:11.

(printed under page 192)

Page

running head: 371 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A gensibus cum; B quod «; C Deo. »; D tum denique,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: Magdebur-gensibus, origina-
other: the word originalis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 372

PG 7:372

labe maculatos. Viderint ergo qui tam disertis Irenaei testimoniis vim apertam inferentes, ea sic eludere student, ut Irenaeum aliosque trium priorum saeculorum Patres meminisse quidem peccati originalis poenarum, sed non ejusdem reatus et culpae, temere contendant; viderint an clarius vel ab ipso Augustino asseri potuisset peccati originalis reatus et macula. Quid quod idem Irenaeus hinc cum Augustino concludat, baptismum omnibus hominibus, et ipsis parvulis et infantibus necessarium esse, ut per eum regeniti pristinae generationis sordes abluant? « Omnes, ait lib. II, c. 22, venit per semetipsum salvare Christus : omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. » Et lib. V, c. 15, n. 3 : « Et quoniam in illa plasmatione, quae secundum Adam fuit, in transgressione factus homo, indigebat lavacro regenerationis; postquam linivit (Christus) lutum super oculos ejus (caeci nati) dixit ei : Vade in Siloam, et lavare, simul et plasmationem, et eam, quae est per lavacrum, regenerationem restituens ei. Et propter hoc lotus venit videns, ut et suum cognosceret plasmatorem, et disceret homo eum, qui donavit ei vitam. » Diserta est ea ratio : Indiget lavacro regenerationis homo, quia in transgressione factus seu genitus est. Ad id ergo necessarium esse baptismum existimavit Irenaeus, ut per eum liberetur homo a transgressionis reatu, quem in Adam contraxit.

sin. Let those see to it, therefore, who, doing open violence to such express testimonies of Irenaeus, strive to evade them in such wise as rashly to contend that Irenaeus and the other Fathers of the first three centuries made mention indeed of the punishments of original sin, but not of the guilt and fault of the same; let them see whether the guilt and stain of original sin could have been asserted more clearly even by Augustine himself. What of the fact that the same Irenaeus concludes hence with Augustine that baptism is necessary for all men, even for little ones and infants themselves, in order that, regenerated through it, they may wash away the filth of their former generation? "Christ came to save all through Himself," he says in Book II, chapter 22: "all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God: infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and those of older age." And in Book V, chapter 15, n. 3: "And because in that formation which was according to Adam man, having been made in transgression, stood in need of the laver of regeneration, after He (Christ) had smeared the clay upon his eyes (those of the man born blind), He said to him: Go to Siloam, and wash, restoring to him at once both his formation and that regeneration which is through the laver. And on this account when washed he came seeing, so that he might both know his Fashioner, and man might learn Him Who bestowed life upon him." Express is that reason: Man stands in need of the laver of regeneration because he was made or begotten in transgression. Irenaeus judged that baptism is necessary for this end, therefore, that through it man may be freed from the guilt of transgression which he contracted in Adam.

116. Consequens erat, ut qui hominem in Adamo mortuum, miserae addictum servituti, vinculis constrictum, ac lethali vulnere sauciatum agnoverat, gratiae divinae, quam per Christi redemptoris, ac liberatoris nostri merita nobis impertitur Deus, qua instauremur, sanemur, et ad obtinendam per bona opera vitam aeternam vires capiamus, necessitatem sentiret, praedicaretque. Eapropter toties asserit necessariam fuisse Verbi divini incarnationem, « ut hominis antiquam plasmationem in se recapitularet, occideret peccatum, evacuaret mortem, et vivificaret hominem. » Id siquidem lex, licet bona et spiritualis, praestare non potuerat; utpote quae « manifestaverit tantummodo peccatum, non interemerit. » Hinc monet hominem, ut « cognoscat semetipsum quoniam mortalis et infirmus est; » et quod « gloria hominis, Deus; operationis (sic lego) vero Dei, et omnis sapientiae ejus, et virtutis receptaculum, homo. Quemadmodum, addit, medicus in his, qui aegrotant, probatur; sic et Deus in hominibus manifestatur. Quapropter et Paulus ait : Conclusit autem Deus omnia in incredulitate, ut omnium misereatur, non de spiritualibus Aeonibus dicens hoc, sed de homine, qui fuit inobediens Deo, et projectus de immortalitate, dehinc misericordiam consecutus est, per Filium Dei eam, quae est ad ipsum, percipiens adoptionem. » Hinc infirmitatis humanae

116. It was a consequence that he who had recognized man as dead in Adam, given over to a wretched slavery, bound fast in chains, and wounded with a deadly wound, should feel and proclaim the necessity of the divine grace which God imparts to us through the merits of Christ our Redeemer and Deliverer, whereby we may be restored, healed, and receive strength to obtain eternal life through good works. On that account he so often asserts that the incarnation of the divine Word was necessary, "in order that He might sum up in Himself the ancient formation of man, might slay sin, abolish death, and quicken man." For this the law, though good and spiritual, had been unable to accomplish, inasmuch as it "only manifested sin, and did not destroy it." Hence he admonishes man "to know himself, that he is mortal and weak," and that "the glory of man is God, while the receptacle of the working" (so I read) "of God, and of all His wisdom and power, is man. Just as, he adds, the physician is proved in those who are sick, so also is God manifested in men. Wherefore Paul also says: For God has concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all, saying this not concerning spiritual Aeons, but concerning man, who was disobedient to God, and cast out from immortality, and afterwards obtained mercy, receiving through the Son of God that adoption which brings him unto Him." Hence, conscious of human weakness,

Editors' notes and page, col. 372

Footnotes

(16*) ‹anchor: et lavare› · call in col 372 Joan. IX, 11.

John 9:11.

(printed under page 192)

(17) ‹anchor: toties asserit› · call in col 372

Iren., lib. iii, c. 18, n. 7.

Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 18, number 7.

(printed under page 192)

(18) ‹anchor: Hinc monet hominem› · call in col 372

Ibid., cap. 20, n. 2.

Ibid., chapter 20, number 2.

(printed under page 192)

(19) ‹anchor: et Paulus ait› · call in col 372

Rom. XI, 32.

Romans 11:32.

(printed under page 192)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 372
marginal letters: A lis labe; B c. 15,; C [CLIX] 116.; D hominem, ut
old-edition numerals: CLIX before 116.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: origina-lis
other: QA Q1c: note 16* (call after "lavare", seen in this column) added here; if n371 also carries it, remove it there

PG 7:373

conscius docet, Dominum esse « qui salvat nos. Et propter hoc, inquit, Paulus infirmitatem hominis annuntians, ait : Miser ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus? Deinde infert liberatorem : Gratia Jesu Christi Domini nostri.... Hoc, quoniam non a nobis, sed a Dei adjumento habuimus salvari. » Hinc denique docet missum a Christo Spiritum sanctum, « qui nos aptaret Deo. Sicut enim de arido tritico massa una fieri non potest sine humore, neque unus panis : ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Jesu poteramus, sine aqua, quae de coelo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat; sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora enim nostra per lavacrum illam, quae est ad incorruptionem, unitatem acceperunt; animae autem per Spiritum. Unde et utraque necessaria, cum utraque proficiunt in vitam Dei, miserante Domino nostro, » etc. Et postea : « Quapropter necessarius nobis est ros Dei, ut non comburamur, neque infructuosi efficiamur, et ubi accusatorem habemus, illic habeamus et paracletum : commendante Domino Spiritui sancto suum hominem, qui inciderat in latrones, cui ipse misertus est, et ligavit vulnera ejus, dans duo denaria regalia, ut per Spiritum imaginem et inscriptionem Patris et Filii accipientes, fructificemus creditum nobis denarium, multiplicatum Domino annumerantes. »

he teaches that it is the Lord "Who saves us. And on this account, says he (Irenaeus, Book 3, Chapter 18, n. 3), Paul, declaring the weakness of man, says (Rom. 7:24–25): Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Then he brings in the Deliverer: The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord... This he says because we had it not from ourselves, but from the help of God, to be saved." Hence, finally, he teaches that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ (Irenaeus, Book 3, Chapter 17, n. 2), "to fit us for God. For just as from dry wheat one mass cannot be made without moisture, nor one loaf, so neither could we, being many, be made one in Christ Jesus without the water which is from heaven. And just as dry earth, if it does not receive moisture, does not bring forth fruit, so we also, being at first a dry tree, would never bring forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received through the laver that unity which leads to incorruption, while our souls have received it through the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both profit unto the life of God, through the mercy of our Lord," etc. And afterwards (ibid., n. 3): "Wherefore the dew of God is necessary for us, that we may not be burned up, nor made unfruitful, and that where we have an accuser, there we may have an Advocate also: the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit His own man, who had fallen among robbers, on whom He Himself had compassion, and bound up his wounds, giving two royal pence, so that, receiving through the Spirit the image and superscription of the Father and the Son, we may make the penny entrusted to us bear fruit, counting it out multiplied to the Lord."

117. Quod hic dicit Irenaeus, per Spiritum imaginem et inscriptionem Patris et Filii accepisse nos, ex iis lucem accipit, quae habet initio capitis sequentis, « Filium Dei hominem factum, longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulasse; ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est, secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus. » Id nimirum constituit Irenaeus, quod ab aliis Patribus deinceps affirmatum non semel legimus, imaginem et similitudinem Dei, homini primum insculptam, deinde vero peccati labe deformatam et corruptam, a Filio Dei instauratam et refectam fuisse; et ideo eum, qui est imago Patris, et character substantiae illius, carnem suscepisse, ut ad instaurandam Dei effigiem ipsum adhiberetur archetypum et exemplar, cujus imitatione pristinum in statum per eadem lineamenta reduceretur. Hoc planissime explicat auctor noster lib. V, c. 16, n. 1 et 2, ubi dicit, eamdem Dei manum, Verbum scilicet divinum, per quam ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei conditi sumus, « ab initio usque in finem formare nos, et coaptare in vitam, et adesse plasmati suo, et perficere illud secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei. Tunc autem hoc Verbum ostensum est, » id est visibiliter apparuit, « quando homo Verbum Dei factum est, semetipsum homini, et hominem sibimetipsi assimilans : ut per eam, quae est ad Filium similitudinem, pretiosus

117. What Irenaeus says here, that through the Spirit we have received the image and superscription of the Father and the Son, receives light from what he has at the beginning of the following chapter: that "the Son of God, having been made man, summed up in Himself the long line of men, so that what we had lost in Adam, namely to be according to the image and likeness of God, this we might recover in Christ Jesus." That is to say, Irenaeus establishes what we read affirmed more than once thereafter by other Fathers: that the image and likeness of God, first engraved upon man, and afterwards deformed and corrupted by the stain of sin, was restored and refashioned by the Son of God; and that therefore He Who is the image of the Father and the figure of His substance took flesh in order that for restoring the likeness of God the very archetype and model might be employed, by imitation of which it might be brought back to its former state along the same lines. Our author explains this most plainly in Book 5, Chapter 16, nn. 1 and 2, where he says that the same hand of God, namely the divine Word, through which we were created after the image and likeness of God, "from the beginning even to the end forms us, and fits us for life, and is present with His handiwork, and perfects it after the image and likeness of God. Now this Word was manifested," that is, visibly appeared, "at that time when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself: so that through that likeness which is to the Son, man may become precious

Editors' notes and page, col. 373

Footnotes

(20) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 373 or 374 (call above the cropped area; column not determinable)

Iren., lib. iii, cap. 18, n. 3.

Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 18, number 3.

(printed under page 193)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 373 or 374 (call above the cropped area; column not determinable)

Rom. VII, 24, 25.

Romans 7:24–25.

(printed under page 193)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 373 or 374 (call above the cropped area; column not determinable)

Iren., lib. iii, cap. 17, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 17, number 2.

(printed under page 193)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 373 or 374 (call above the cropped area; column not determinable)

Id. ibid., n. 3.

The same, ibid., number 3.

(printed under page 193)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 373 or 374 (call above the cropped area; column not determinable)

Cent. ii, cap. 4.

Centuries, [Century] II, chapter 4.

(printed under page 193)

Page

running head: 373 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A conscius docet,; B pora enim; C 117. Quod; D beretur archetypum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued)

PG 7:374

homo fiat Patri. In praeteritis enim temporibus, dicebatur quidem secundum imaginem Dei factum esse hominem, non autem ostendebatur : » quia videlicet oculis non exhibebatur ipsum archetypum et exemplar, nempe Verbum divinum imago Patris, et character substantiae ejus, ad cujus, ac proinde ad ipsius Patris, imitationem conditus fuerat homo, ut mox exponit Irenaeus. « Adhuc enim, subdit, invisibile erat Verbum, cujus secundum imaginem factus fuerat. Propter hoc autem et similitudinem facile amisit. Quando autem caro Verbum Dei factum est, utraque confirmavit; et imaginem enim ostendit veram, ipse hoc fiens quod erat imago ejus, et similitudinem formans restituit, consimilem faciens hominem invisibili Patri per visibile Verbum. » Cujus loci sensum haudquaquam assecuti Magdeburgenses, misere implicant. Ut enim Irenaei calumniandi ansam habeant, fingunt ipsum dixisse, 1° « Hominem non esse conditum ad imaginem Dei; sed oportuisse fieri secundum imaginem Dei, accepta cognitione boni et mali. » Cujus quidem criminationis absurditas simul et falsitas vel ex eo ipso, quem ad marginem citant loco, cap. videlicet 38, alias 76, n. 4, perspicue demonstratur, ubi diserte asseritur, Deum « similes sibi suae potestatis homines fecisse, » et, « oportuisse fieri hominem secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei, agnitione accepta boni et mali; » id est, ut ipse eadem periodo, et toto eo capite explicat, priusquam intima Dei visione, immortalis et impeccabilis fieret homo, oportuisse ut in eo ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei conderetur, quod agnitione accepta boni et mali, liber ac suae potestatis esset. « Deinde » fingunt « et de imagine admodum periculose Irenaeum loqui, cum affirmat illud dictum, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, pertinuisse ad Christum, qui certo tempore homo fieri, illamque imaginem repraesentare debuerit. Ante lapsum igitur, hominem quidem dictum esse imaginem Dei, sed non ostensum; quia Filius Dei nundum homo factus fuerit. » Tum locum proferunt, quem paulo ante adduximus. Atqui nec eo loci, nec uspiam alibi scribit Irenaeus, illud dictum : Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, pertinuisse ad Christum; nec eo loci, nec uspiam alibi dixit, ante lapsum, hominem quidem dictum esse imaginem Dei, sed non ostensum.

to the Father. For in times past man was said indeed to have been made after the image of God, but was not shown to be so:" namely because there was not exhibited to the eyes the archetype and model itself—that is, the divine Word, the image of the Father and the figure of His substance, in imitation of Whom, and consequently of the Father Himself, man had been created, as Irenaeus presently explains. "For as yet," he subjoins, "the Word, after Whose image he had been made, was invisible. And on this account he also easily lost the likeness. But when the Word of God was made flesh, He confirmed both: for He both showed the image truly, Himself becoming that which was His image, and restored the likeness securely, making man like unto the invisible Father through the visible Word." Having by no means grasped the sense of this passage, the Magdeburg Centuriators (Century II, Chapter 4) wretchedly entangle it. For in order to have a handle for calumniating Irenaeus, they pretend that he said: 1. "That man was not created after the image of God, but had to become after the image of God by receiving the knowledge of good and evil." Now the absurdity as well as the falsehood of this charge is clearly demonstrated from the very passage which they cite in the margin, namely Chapter 38, formerly 76, n. 4, where it is expressly asserted that God "made men like unto Himself, in their own power," and that "man had to be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil;" that is, as he himself explains in the same sentence and throughout that whole chapter, before man should become immortal and impeccable by the intimate vision of God, he had to be created after the image and likeness of God in this respect, that having received the knowledge of good and evil, he should be free and in his own power. "Next," they pretend "that Irenaeus also speaks very dangerously concerning the image when he affirms that that saying, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), pertained to Christ, Who at a certain time was to become man and represent that image; and that before the fall, therefore, man was called indeed the image of God, but was not shown to be so, because the Son of God had not yet been made man." Then they bring forward the passage which we have adduced a little before. Yet neither in that passage nor anywhere else does Irenaeus write that that saying, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness, pertained to Christ; nor did he say in that passage or anywhere else that before the fall man was called indeed the image of God, but was not shown to be so.

118. Verum quidem est, Irenaeum, cum veterum non paucis, inter imaginem Dei in homine, ac similitudinem distinxisse; quasi alia sit imaginis, alia similitudinis ratio. Imaginem autem collocat in carne, seu, ut loqui amat, in plasmate. « Caro, » inquit lib. V, c. 6, n. 1, est plasmata secundum imaginem Dei. » Et postea : « Si defuerit animae Spiritus, animalis est vere, qui est talis; et carnalis derelictus, imperfectus erit, imaginem quidem habens

118. It is true indeed that Irenaeus, with not a few of the ancients, distinguished between the image of God in man and the likeness, as though the nature of the image were one thing and that of the likeness another. Now he places the image in the flesh, or, as he loves to speak, in the handiwork (plasma). "The flesh," says he in Book 5, Chapter 6, n. 1, "was fashioned after the image of God." And afterwards: "If the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is truly animal, and being left carnal, will be imperfect, having indeed the image

Editors' notes and page, col. 374

Footnotes

(25) ‹anchor: similitudinem nostram› · call in col 374

Gen. I, 26.

Genesis 1:26.

(printed under page 193)

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 374
marginal letters: A homo fiat; B Patri per; C eo capite; D minem ad
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: ha-
other: the word habens was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 375

PG 7:375

in plasmate, similitudinem vero non assumens per Spiritum, » etc. Quod vero hic carnem, seu carnalem et animalem hominem secundum imaginem Dei conditum dicit, id cap. 16 paulo ante citato clarius explicans, hominem factum vocat secundum imaginem Verbi, non quatenus carnem assumpsit, et Christus est, sed quatenus Verbum est, et Filius Dei, ut ex supra relatis verbis liquet. Quod posterius haudquaquam repugnat prioribus. Cum enim Verbum sit substantialis imago Patris, hominem ad imaginem Verbi conditum esse, est hominem secundum imaginem Dei factum esse, ut jam diximus. Porro in iis omnibus locis imaginem Dei sic carne definit Irenaeus, ut tamen animam non excludat, ut ex ipsa lectione patet; sed nimirum id vult, quamvis homini propter animam potissimum conveniat esse imaginem Dei, esse tamen et in corpore proprium quiddam, cujus gratia dicatur ad imaginem Dei esse fictum. Quid autem illud sit, fuse explicat toto libro V, ubi demonstrat, corpus a Verbo instauratum, seu, ut passim loquitur, in Verbum recapitulatum, a morte et corruptione, cui, primi hominis peccato, obnoxium erat, sic vindicatum iri, ut perenni vita, incorruptela et gloria in resurrectione donatum, Dei immortalitatem quodammodo referat. « Si, ait c. 7, n. 1, nunc pignus habentes clamamus, Abba, Pater; quid fiet quando resurgentes facie ad faciem videbimus eum; quando omnia membra affluenter exsultationis hymnum protulerint, glorificantia eum, qui suscitaverit ea ex mortuis, et aeternam vitam donaverit? Si enim pignus complectens hominem in semetipsum, jam facit dicere : Abba, Pater; quid faciet universa Spiritus gratia, quae hominibus dabitur a Deo? Similes nos ei efficiet, et perficiet voluntate Patris; efficiet enim hominem secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei. » Similia alia loca passim occurrunt. Et his illustrantur ea quae scribit, cap. 16, n. 2, ante Verbi divini incarnationem, hominem quidem secundum imaginem Dei conditum dici, non tamen ostendi, donec « Verbum caro factum, fiens quod erat imago ejus, imaginem ostenderet veram. » Quamvis enim homo ab initio secundum imaginem Dei factus fuerit, ea tamen imaginis ratio post incarnationem longe clarius effulsit, quam ante : Verbo quippe carnem assumente, quae aliquando resurrectura erat, nec in corruptionem cessura, eo veritas imaginis manifestius comprobata est, quo certissima jam spes fuit nostram carnem, illius carni qui primogenitus fuit in multis fratribus, et primitiae dormientium atque resurgentium factus est, consubstantialem, et ipsam aliquando per eum a corruptione vindicandam esse, ac immortalitatem consecuturam : « ut cum apparuerit, similes ei simus, » ut loquitur Joannes apostolus.

in the handiwork, but not receiving the likeness through the Spirit," etc. Now what he says here—that the flesh, or the carnal and animal man, was created after the image of God—he explains more clearly in Chapter 16 cited a little before, calling man made after the image of the Word, not insofar as He assumed flesh and is Christ, but insofar as He is the Word and the Son of God, as is clear from the words related above. And this latter statement is by no means repugnant to the former ones. For since the Word is the substantial image of the Father, for man to be created after the image of the Word is for man to be made after the image of God, as we have already said. Furthermore, in all these passages Irenaeus so defines the image of God by the flesh as nevertheless not to exclude the soul, as is evident from the reading itself; but he means, namely, that although it belongs to man chiefly on account of the soul to be the image of God, yet there is in the body also something proper to it on account of which it is said to be fashioned after the image of God. Now what that is, he explains at large throughout the whole of Book 5, where he demonstrates that the body, restored by the Word, or, as he everywhere speaks, summed up in the Word, will be so delivered from death and corruption, to which it was subject through the sin of the first man, that, endowed with perennial life, incorruptibility, and glory in the resurrection, it will in a manner reflect the immortality of God. "If," says he in Chapter 7, n. 1, "now having the pledge we cry, Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15); what shall it be when rising again we shall see Him face to face; when all the members shall abundantly pour forth a hymn of exultation, glorifying Him Who raised them up from the dead and bestowed eternal life? For if the pledge, embracing man into itself, already makes him say: Abba, Father; what shall the universal grace of the Spirit do, which shall be given to men by God? It will make us like unto Him, and will perfect us by the will of the Father; for it will make man after the image and likeness of God." Other similar passages occur everywhere. And by these is illustrated what he writes in Chapter 16, n. 2, that before the incarnation of the divine Word man was said indeed to have been created after the image of God, yet was not shown to be so, until "the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and becoming that which was His image, showed the image truly." For although man was made from the beginning after the image of God, yet that character of the image shone forth far more clearly after the incarnation than before: since when the Word assumed flesh which was one day to rise again and not give way to corruption, the truth of the image was all the more manifestly established the more certain the hope now was that our flesh, being consubstantial with the flesh of Him Who was the First-born among many brethren and was made the first-fruits of them that sleep and rise again, will itself also one day be delivered by Him from corruption and attain immortality: "that when He shall appear, we may be like to Him," as John the Apostle speaks (1 John 3:2).

119. Quod attinet ad similitudinem Dei in homine,

119. As regards the likeness of God in man,

Editors' notes and page, col. 375

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: clamamus, Abba, Pater› · call in col 375

Rom. VIII, 15.

Romans 8:15.

(printed under page 194)

(27) ‹anchor: Verbum caro factum› · call in col 375

Joan. I, 14.

John 1:14.

(printed under page 194)

(28) ‹anchor: loquitur Joannes apostolus› · call in col 375

I Joan. III, 2.

1 John 3:2.

(printed under page 194)

Page

running head: 375 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A bens in; B rum id; C citaverit ea; D ginis ratio
old-edition numerals: CLX after conditum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); words split at column breaks: ha-bens, homi-
other: the word homine, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 376

PG 7:376

quam ab imagine distinguit Irenaeus, illam utique in anima reponit, vel, ut verius, accuratiusque loquar, in homine ipso, quatenus tali forma illius natura constituitur; sed non eadem ubique ratione. Cum enim duplex hominis status spectari possit, naturalis videlicet, et supernaturalis; pro diversa utriusque ratione, diversam etiam similitudinis rationem assignavit auctor noster. Donec hominis statum naturalem respexit, ejus cum Deo similitudinem in cognoscendi vi, et libere quidvis eligendi facultate sitam esse docuit, ut lib. IV, c. 4, n. 2, et cap. 37, n. 4. Cum vero hominem in statu supernaturali consideravit, hujus cum Deo similitudinem posuit in ea perfectione, quam accipit a Spiritu sancto in se inhabitante, per quam fit spiritualis homo, mundus, Deo vivens, et a cupiditate carnis, terrenarumque rerum affectu, quantum humana fragilitas sinit, liber et purus. De ea hominis perfectione fuse disserit lib. V, c. 6, et seqq., ubi ostendit tria ad supernaturalem hominis perfectionem ita requiri, ut si unum desit, perfectus homo esse non possit : carnem videlicet, animam et Spiritum sanctum. « Per manus Patris, » inquit n. 1, id est, « per Filium et Spiritum fit homo secundum similitudinem Dei, sed non pars hominis. Anima autem et Spiritus pars hominis esse possunt, homo autem nequaquam : perfectus autem homo, commistio et adunatio est animae assumentis Spiritum Patris, et admista ei carni, quae est plasmata secundum imaginem Dei. Propter quod et Apostolus ait : Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos; perfectos dicens eos, qui perceperunt Spiritum Dei, et omnibus linguis loquuntur per Spiritum Dei, quemadmodum et ipse loquebatur. » Et postea : « Si substantiam tollat aliquis carnis, id est plasmatis, et nude ipsum solum spiritum intelligat, jam non spiritualis homo est, quod est tale, sed spiritus hominis, aut Spiritus Dei. Cum autem Spiritus hic commistus animae unitur plasmati, propter effusionem Spiritus, spiritualis et perfectus homo factus est; et hic est, qui secundum imaginem et similitudinem factus est Dei. Si autem defuerit animae Spiritus, animalis est vere, qui est talis, et carnalis derelictus imperfectus erit : imaginem quidem habens in plasmate, similitudinem vero non assumens per Spiritum, » etc. Ubi quod Spiritum sanctum partem hominis vocat, difficultatem habere non potest. Neque enim, ut orationis contextus aperte demonstrat, de homine in statu naturali, seu de iis quibus essentia hominis, quatenus homo est, constituitur, hic disserit auctor noster; sed de iis duntaxat, quae necessaria sunt ut spiritalis ac perfectus in genere supernaturali fiat. Neque in id absurditatis genus delapsus est, ut existimaret hominem istum ex ipsa Spiritus sancti substantia tanquam ex parte proprie dicta componi, perinde atque ex corpore et anima componitur, qui Spiritus sancti

which Irenaeus distinguishes from the image, he places it assuredly in the soul, or, to speak more truly and accurately, in man himself insofar as his nature is constituted by such a form; yet not everywhere in the same way. For since a twofold state of man can be considered, namely the natural and the supernatural, according to the different character of each our author has also assigned a different character of likeness. So long as he looked to the natural state of man, he taught that his likeness to God lies in the power of knowing and the faculty of freely choosing anything, as in Book 4, Chapter 4, n. 2, and Chapter 37, n. 4. But when he considered man in the supernatural state, he placed his likeness to God in that perfection which he receives from the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, through which he becomes a spiritual man, clean, living unto God, and free and pure from the lust of the flesh and the affection for earthly things, so far as human frailty permits. Concerning this perfection of man he discourses at large in Book 5, Chapter 6 et seqq., where he shows that three things are so required for the supernatural perfection of man that if one be wanting, he cannot be a perfect man: namely the flesh, the soul, and the Holy Spirit. "By the hands of the Father," says he in n. 1, that is, "through the Son and the Spirit, man, and not a part of man, is made after the likeness of God. Now the soul and the Spirit can be a part of man, but by no means the man: whereas the perfect man is the mingling and union of the soul receiving the Spirit of the Father, and mingled with that flesh which was fashioned after the image of God. Wherefore the Apostle also says: We speak wisdom among the perfect (1 Cor. 2:6); calling those perfect who have received the Spirit of God, and speak with all tongues through the Spirit of God, even as he himself also spoke." And afterwards: "If anyone take away the substance of the flesh, that is, of the handiwork, and understand bare spirit alone, what is such is no longer a spiritual man, but the spirit of man, or the Spirit of God. But when this Spirit, mingled with the soul, is united to the handiwork, on account of the outpouring of the Spirit a spiritual and perfect man is made; and this is he who has been made after the image and likeness of God. Whereas if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is truly animal, and being left carnal will be imperfect: having indeed the image in the handiwork, but not receiving the likeness through the Spirit," etc. Where the fact that he calls the Holy Spirit a part of man can occasion no difficulty. For as the context of the discourse openly demonstrates, our author is not discoursing here concerning man in his natural state, or concerning those things whereby the essence of man, insofar as he is man, is constituted, but only concerning those things which are necessary in order that he may become spiritual and perfect in the supernatural order. Nor did he fall into that kind of absurdity as to think that that man is composed of the very substance of the Holy Spirit as a part properly so called, just as he is composed of body and soul, seeing that he manifestly signifies that he understands the grace and gifts of the Holy

Editors' notes and page, col. 376

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: loquimur inter perfectos› · call in col 376

I Cor. II, 6.

1 Corinthians 2:6.

(printed under page 194)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 376
marginal letters: A ne, quam; B tualis homo,; C cundum imaginem; D bens in
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: homi-ne

PG 7:377

gratiam et dona intelligere se manifeste significat; quae quidem si partem hominis spiritalis appellet, non alia ratione partem esse vult, quam qua charitas, justitia, etc., justi hominis partes esse dicuntur; partes scilicet improprie dictae, quia his qualitatibus completur homo ac perficitur. Hinc Irenaeus quod initio capitis proposuerat, paulo enucleatius deinde explicans, carnem quidem et animam partes hominis vocat; non autem Spiritum sanctum. « Si quis, ait, tollat imaginem, et spernat plasma, jam non hominem intelligere potest, sed aut partem aliquam hominis, vel aliud aliquid praeter hominem. Neque enim plasmatio carnis ipsa secundum se homo perfectus est; sed corpus hominis, et pars hominis. Neque enim et anima ipsa secundum se homo; sed anima hominis, et pars hominis. Neque Spiritus homo; Spiritus enim et non homo vocatur. » Ubi Spiritum jam non hominis partem appellat, sed aliud aliquid praeter hominem, Spiritum scilicet. Tum quid per Spiritum intelligat, clarius adhuc exponens, addit: « Perfecti igitur, qui et Spiritum in se perseverantem habuerint Dei, et animas et corpora sine querela servaverint; Dei, id est illam quae est ad Deum, fidem servantes, et eam quae est ad proximum justitiam custodientes. » Et adhuc clarius cap. 9, n. 1: « Sunt tria, inquit, ex quibus, quemadmodum ostendimus, perfectus homo constat, carne, anima, et Spiritu: et altero quidem salvante et figurante, qui est Spiritus; altero quod unitur et formatur, quod est caro: id vero quod inter haec est duo, quod est anima: quae aliquando quidem subsequens Spiritum, elevatur ab eo; aliquando autem consentiens ca⟨r⟩ni, decidit in terrenas concupiscentias. Quotquot ergo id quod salvat et format, et unitatem non habent, hi consequenter erunt et vocabuntur caro et sanguis, quippe qui non habent Spiritum Dei in se... Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei; hi tales juste homines dicentur, et mundi, et spirituales; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in vitam Dei. » Quae nisi de Spiritus sancti gratia et donis intelligi non possunt.

he plainly indicates that he means grace and gifts; and if he calls these a part of the spiritual man, he means them to be a part in no other way than that in which charity, justice, etc., are said to be parts of the just man; parts, that is, improperly so called, because by these qualities man is completed and perfected. Hence Irenaeus, explaining a little more precisely afterwards what he had proposed at the beginning of the chapter, calls the flesh and the soul parts of man, but not the Holy Spirit. "If anyone," he says, "takes away the image and spurns the handiwork, he can no longer understand a man, but either some part of a man or something else besides man. For neither is the formation of the flesh, in itself, a perfect man, but the body of a man and a part of a man. Nor is the soul, in itself, a man, but the soul of a man and a part of a man. Nor is the Spirit a man; for He is called Spirit and not man." Where he no longer calls the Spirit a part of man, but something else besides man, namely the Spirit. Then, setting out still more clearly what he understands by the Spirit, he adds: "Perfect, therefore, are those who have both the Spirit of God abiding in them and have kept their souls and bodies without complaint; keeping the faith of God, that is, that which is towards God, and guarding the justice which is towards their neighbour." And more clearly still in chapter 9, number 1: "There are three things," he says, "of which, as we have shown, the perfect man consists, flesh, soul and Spirit: one of them saving and shaping, which is the Spirit; another which is united and formed, which is the flesh; and that which is between these two, which is the soul, which sometimes, following the Spirit, is lifted up by it, and sometimes, consenting to the flesh, falls into earthly desires. As many, then, as have not that which saves and forms, and the unity, these will consequently be and be called flesh and blood, since they have not the Spirit of God in them... But as many as fear God and believe in the coming of His Son, and through faith establish the Spirit of God in their hearts, such as these will rightly be called men, and pure, and spiritual; because they have the Spirit of the Father, Who cleanses man and raises him up into the life of God." These words cannot be understood except of the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

ARTICULUS X.

ARTICLE X.

De animarum natura et statu post mortem.

On the nature of souls and their state after death.

Editors' notes and page, col. 377

Page

running head: 377 DISSERTATIO III, DE IREN
marginal letters: A gratiam et; B ipsa secundum; C 120. Cum; D homo, carnem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); two full-width lines across cols. 377-378 (ARTICULUS X. / De animarum natura et statu post mortem.) after line 23 not set (cut off at right edge); line 23 continues at top of col. 378
other: a full-width band stands across cols 377/378 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 378 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 377 (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: 377 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 378
marginal letters: A ‹gratiam et dona intelligere› / ‹querela servaverint›; B ‹ipsa secundum se homo› / ‹timent Deum›; C ‹120. Cum angeli› / ‹animas, corpori in quo sunt›; D ‹homo, carnem solam› / ‹racterem, post suam› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CLXI after ‹inter› (col 378)
other: page 195 set in reading order: this file holds the upper text of col 377 (23 lines, to "corpora sine") and of col 378 (22 lines, "querela servaverint" to "possunt."), one paragraph, then the heading band of Art. X across both columns. Sections 120 and 121 (lower text of both columns) are in c378_a.md. "consentiens casni": the r is damaged, set ca⟨r⟩ni.

PG 7:378

120. Cum angeli et animae humanae eadem fere sit ratio, de utriusque natura idem sensit Irenaeus. Quemadmodum enim angelos ex materia subtilissima concretos esse existimavit; sic et animas humanas ex eadem materia compositas esse voluit. Illas quidem spiritus et incorporales non semel vocat, lib. praesertim V, c. 6 et 7, sed quo sensu, statim ipse explicat: « Incorporales animae, ait c. 7, n. 1, quantum ad comparationem mortalium corporum; » quibus manifeste significat, animas, si quidem cum corporibus conferantur, incorporales esse, quia illorum materia crassior, harum subtilior est; re tamen et absolute incorporeas non esse. Quod et sequentia confirmant, quibus probat ex iis omnibus quibus aut constituitur, aut perficitur homo, carnem solam mortalem esse, non animam: « flatus est enim vitae, ac proinde immortalis; » neque etiam Spiritum sanctum, quo completur homo, ut spiritalis fiat; « incompositus est enim et simplex spiritus, qui resolvi non potest, et ipse vita est eorum, qui percipiunt illum. » Ubi latissimum discrimen inter Spiritum et animam ponit: illum immortalem esse probat, quod incompositus sit et simplex, nec resolvi possit: hujus vero immortalitatem non ea ratione fulcit, quae tamen genuina spirituum, in genere spectatorum, incorruptibilitatis ratio est, sed aliunde petit; ex eo nimirum, quod flatus vitae sit. Et hinc forte est quod lib. II, c. 19, n. 7, et cap. 34, n. 1, scribat, animas, corpori in quo sunt, sic aptari, ut ejusdem habeant figuram; imo et post mortem « characterem corporis, in quo etiam adaptantur, custodiant eumdem, habeantque hominis figuram, ut etiam cognoscantur. » Quanquam tamen, ut in notis ad posteriorem hunc locum diximus, nihil absolute cogat haec de certa quadam figura, corporeisque notis animabus impressis interpretari. Tenues quidem materiales substantias, quales animas esse credidit Irenaeus, ad eorum, quibus insunt, corporum figuram sese componere, quemadmodum aqua vasis, in quod infunditur, figuram induit (quae S. doctoris comparatio est) facile intelligitur: at easdem substantias, nullius ex sese figurae tenaces, certam tamen figuram, certumque corporeum characterem, post suam a corpore separationem, constanter retinere posse, qui sibi in animum inducere potuerit Irenaeus, vir acris judicii, haud facile percipiet quisquam. Mallem ergo eum animarum characterem et figuram explicare de certo quodam ordine et habitu ad corpus, quem post mortem servant, et quo a substantiis angelicis, ad informandum corpus haudquaquam destinatis, distinguantur. Consule notas in hunc locum.

120. Since the account of the angels and of human souls is almost the same, Irenaeus held the same view about the nature of both. For as he thought that the angels are formed of a most subtle matter, so too he would have it that human souls are composed of the same matter. He calls them indeed spirits and incorporeal more than once, especially in Book V, chapters 6 and 7, but in what sense he himself at once explains: "Souls are incorporeal," he says in chapter 7, number 1, "in comparison with mortal bodies"; by which he plainly indicates that souls, if they are compared with bodies, are incorporeal, because the matter of bodies is grosser and that of souls subtler; yet that in reality and absolutely they are not incorporeal. This the following words also confirm, in which he proves that, of all the things by which man is either constituted or perfected, the flesh alone is mortal, not the soul: "for it is the breath of life, and therefore immortal"; nor yet the Holy Spirit, by Whom man is completed so as to become spiritual; "for He is an uncompounded and simple spirit, Who cannot be dissolved, and is Himself the life of those who receive Him." Where he places the widest difference between the Spirit and the soul: he proves the former to be immortal because He is uncompounded and simple and cannot be dissolved; but the immortality of the latter he does not support by that reason, which is nevertheless the genuine reason for the incorruptibility of spirits considered as a class, but seeks it from elsewhere, namely from the fact that it is the breath of life. And hence perhaps it is that in Book II, chapter 19, number 7, and chapter 34, number 1, he writes that souls are so fitted to the body in which they are as to have its shape; and indeed that even after death "they keep the same character of the body to which they are also adapted, and have the shape of a man, so that they may even be recognized." Yet, as we said in the notes on this latter passage, nothing absolutely compels us to interpret these words of some definite shape and of bodily marks impressed upon souls. That thin material substances, such as Irenaeus believed souls to be, adapt themselves to the shape of the bodies in which they are, as water takes on the shape of the vessel into which it is poured (which is the holy doctor's comparison), is easily understood; but how Irenaeus, a man of keen judgement, could have persuaded himself that these same substances, holding of themselves to no shape, can yet constantly retain a definite shape and a definite bodily character after their separation from the body, no one will easily perceive. I should prefer, therefore, to explain that character and shape of souls of a certain order and disposition towards the body, which they keep after death, and by which they are distinguished from the angelic substances, which are in no way destined to inform a body. Consult the notes on this passage.

121. Quin Irenaeus in iis quae tum de angelorum, tum de animarum humanarum natura sensit, a sanae et philosophiae et theologiae legibus aberraverit, negari non potest. Sed error est, ut pluribus antiquis Patribus communis, sic omnibus eo facilius

121. That Irenaeus, in what he held both about the nature of the angels and about that of human souls, strayed from the laws of sound philosophy and theology cannot be denied. But it is an error which, as it is common to many ancient Fathers, so is the more easily

Editors' notes and page, col. 378

Page

running head: O III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 378
marginal letters: A querela servaverint ;; B timent Deum,; C animas, corpori; D racterem, post
old-edition numerals: CLXI after inter
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); two full-width lines across cols. 377-378 (ARTICULUS X. / De animarum natura et statu post mortem.) after line 22 not set (cut off at left edge); word split at column break: faci-
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 377 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word facilius was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 379
running head: 377 DISSERTATIO III, DE IRENAEI DOCTRINA. 378
marginal letters: A ‹gratiam et dona intelligere› / ‹querela servaverint›; B ‹ipsa secundum se homo› / ‹timent Deum›; C ‹120. Cum angeli› / ‹animas, corpori in quo sunt›; D ‹homo, carnem solam› / ‹racterem, post suam› (letters in the gutter)
old-edition numerals: CLXI after inter (upper col 378, in the paragraph set under col 377)
other: page 195 set in reading order: this file holds section 120 (lower col 377 from "120. Cum angeli" to "scribat," and lower col 378 from "animas, corpori" to "locum.") and section 121 (col 378). The column ends with "faci-" split at the break; col 379 opens at "condonandus" with the tail not restored there, so the word is set whole here as facilius and the English ends "the more easily", continuing into col 379's "to be pardoned" (Q7, 2026-11-03; Q8 2026-11-03: the tail "lius" is printed at the top of col 379 and is correctly not restored there; English checked across the break).
other: Q7 2026-11-03: lower col 377 (section 120 to "scribat,") stands in this file, not under col 377's rail after the band as the --fullwidth reading order sets it; left as received for the settle step.

PG 7:379

condonandus, quo quaestione non adeo accurate priori, atque posteriori aevo discussa, judicium suum nondum interposuerat Ecclesia. Idem fere dicendum de altero, quo cum veteribus non paucis deceptus est, errore de statu animarum sanctarum, corporis vinculis solutarum, quas statim divino conspectu fruituras in coelum recipi negavit. Eum quidem ab hoc errore purgare nixus est Bellarminus, lib. I De sanct. beatitud. c. 4, sed prorsus infeliciter : tam aperta siquidem Irenaei opinio est, posterioribus sex libri quinti capitibus, ut eam ad receptam hodie in tota Ecclesia catholica sententiam revocare velle, laterem crudum lavare sit. Eapropter Hieronymus, qui Irenaei scripta sedula manu versaverat, cuique perspecta erat S. doctoris mens, eum inter Chiliastas tum in Prologo in lib. XVIII in Isaiam, tum alibi recensere non dubitat. Et revera ingenue fateri debemus, Irenaeum, dum acrius insectatur Gnosticos, fingentes spiritalium suorum animas, statim ut a corpore discesserint ire ad matrem, vel ad eum, quem comminiscebantur Patrem, carne interim aeternum dissolvenda, in alteram ipsum extremam sententiam abire. Negat quippe justorum animas statim post suum corpore discessum divino conspectu frui; sed « abire » vult « in invisibilem locum definitum eis a Deo, et ibi usque ad resurrectionem commorari, sustinentes resurrectionem; post recipientes corpora, et perfecte resurgentes, hoc est, corporaliter, quemadmodum et Dominus resurrexit, sic venturas in conspectum Dei. » Imo, quod paulo magis stupendum, eos etiam e catholicis, qui secus sentiebant, erroris arguere non dubitat, quasi qui « supergrederentur ordinem promotionis justorum, et motus meditationis » (id est, exercitationis) « ad incorruptelam ignorarent, haereticos sensus in se habentes. » Quos ex eo refellit, quod minime deceat Christi discipulos prius in coelum conscendere quam magister ipse ascenderit. « Quo modo ergo magister noster non statim evolans abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre resurrectionis suae tempus, post triduum resurgens assumptus est : sic et nos sustinere debemus definitum a Deo resurrectionis nostrae tempus, et sic resurgentes assumi, quotquot Dominus ad hoc dignos habuerit. » Tres proinde animarum sanctarum veluti stationes distinguit Irenaeus : primam in loco quodam invisibili, in quo detineri eas contendit ad resurrectionis usque tempus; alteram in terrena Hierusalem instaurata et renovata, vel in paradiso terrestri; in quibus sub imperio et gubernatione Christi, in summa quiete, ac secundarum rerum affluentia degentes « crescentesque ex visione Domini, per ipsum assuescent capere gloriam Dei Patris; » tertiam demum in regno coelorum, in quo ipsius Patris conspectu aeternum fruentur. Ea vero omnia Irenaeus congestis undique Scripturae sacrae testimoniis, pro virili sua probare nititur.

to be pardoned in them all because, the question not having been discussed so accurately in the earlier as in the later age, the Church had not yet interposed her judgement. Almost the same must be said of the other error wherein he was deceived together with not a few of the ancients, concerning the state of holy souls loosed from the bonds of the body, which he denied to be received into heaven so as immediately to enjoy the divine vision. Bellarmine indeed strove to clear him from this error in Book I On the Beatitude of the Saints, chapter 4, but altogether unsuccessfully: for so open is the opinion of Irenaeus in the last six chapters of the fifth book, that to wish to reduce it to the view received today in the whole Catholic Church is to wash an unbaked brick. On that account Jerome, who had turned over the writings of Irenaeus with a diligent hand, and to whom the mind of the holy doctor was well known, does not hesitate to reckon him among the Chiliasts both in the Prologue to Book XVIII on Isaiah and elsewhere. And in truth we must frankly confess that while Irenaeus sharply attacks the Gnostics, who feigned that the souls of their spiritual ones, immediately upon departing from the body, go to their Mother, or to that Father whom they devised, while the flesh is meanwhile to be dissolved for ever, he himself goes off into the opposite extreme view. For he denies that the souls of the righteous enjoy the divine vision immediately after their departure from the body, and maintains that they "depart into an invisible place appointed for them by God, and tarry there until the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection; and afterwards, receiving their bodies, and rising again perfectly, that is, bodily, even as the Lord also rose again, shall thus come into the presence of God." Nay, what is a little more astonishing, he does not hesitate to accuse of error even those among Catholics who held otherwise, as though they "overstepped the order of the promotion of the righteous, and were ignorant of the movements of meditation" (that is, of exercise) "unto incorruptibility, having heretical notions in themselves." And he refutes them from the consideration that it is by no means fitting that the disciples of Christ should ascend into heaven before their Master Himself ascended. "Just as our Master, therefore, did not immediately fly away and depart, but awaiting the time of His resurrection appointed by the Father, rose again after three days and was taken up, so we also ought to await the time of our resurrection appointed by God, and thus rising again be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this." Accordingly, Irenaeus distinguishes as it were three stations of holy souls: the first in a certain invisible place, in which he contends that they are detained until the time of the resurrection; the second in the earthly Jerusalem restored and renewed, or in the earthly paradise, in which, living under the rule and government of Christ in supreme peace and an abundance of prosperous things, and "growing by the vision of the Lord, through Him they shall become accustomed to receive the glory of God the Father;" the third, finally, in the kingdom of heaven, in which they shall enjoy the vision of the Father Himself for ever. And all these things Irenaeus strives to prove to the best of his power by testimonies of sacred Scripture heaped together from every quarter.

122. Quatuor tamen hic observari velim.

122. Yet I would have four things observed here.

Editors' notes and page, col. 379

Page

running head: 379 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A lius condonandus,; B ris mens,; C in conspectum; D quot Dominus
old-edition numerals: CLXII before 122.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: faci-lius

PG 7:380

Primum est, Irenaeum sic ad Millenariorum sententiam accessisse, ut a Cerinthi impietate procul recesserit. Hic quippe Millenariorum coryphaeus effutiebat, Eusebio teste, lib. III Hist. c. 28, post humanae carnis resurrectionem futurum terrenum Christi regnum, et Hierosolymis homines carnis cupiditatibus, ac voluptatum illecebris servientes, mille annos in nuptiarum festis et celebritate consumpturos. Quam impietatem exhorruere semper Ecclesiae Patres; non ita vero dogma alterius Millenariorum antesignani Papiae, Joannis, ut scribit Irenaeus, « auditoris, Polycarpi autem contubernalis, » qui Cerinthi deliria sic recoxit, recuditque, ut tempus illud mille annorum transigendum esset in deliciis spiritalibus, qualibus affici justos ac puros homines decet. Quamvis hic Papias vir esset, ut ait Eusebius lib. III Hist., c. 39, « σφόδρα σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν, mediocri admodum ingenio, ut ex scriptis illius conjicere licet, » qui male intellectis apostolorum narrationibus, nec iis, quae arcano quodam sensu et exempli causa ab illis dicebantur, satis animadversis, plura fabulis propiora libris suis inseruit, terrenumque illud Christi regnum commentus est; quod tamen a Joanne Apostolo institutus esset, pluribus post ipsum ecclesiasticis scriptoribus, hominis auctoritatem plus aequo reveritis, ac Irenaeo in primis, ejusdem erroris occasionem praebuit. Alios quosdam presbyteros, Joannis discipulos, ejusdem opinionis propugnatores, sed ejusdem ponderis homines, memorat Irenaeus. 2° Horum sententiae calculum sic adjecit S. doctor, ut terreni illius Christi regni tempus nuspiam definierit, nec mille, aut certo aliquo annorum numero circumscripserit; imo ne semel quidem protulerit vulgatum illum Apocalypseos locum : « Erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi, et regnabunt cum illo mille annis; » quo tamen, ceu fundamento, potissimum nitebatur Millenariorum sententia. 3° Id discriminis constituere videtur inter martyrum, aliorumque justorum animas, ut illae singulari praerogativa statim ascendant ad Patrem, ac proinde in coelum recipiantur; aliae vero omnes ad invisibilia loca abeant, corporum resurrectionem exspectantes. « Ecclesia, inquit lib. IV, c. 33, n. 9, omni in loco, ob eam quam habet erga Deum dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum in omni tempore praemittit ad Patrem. » Si martyres praemittuntur ad Patrem, caeteris ergo justis praeeunt, qui prius illuc non perveniunt, quam in terreno Christi regno « ex visione Domini, per ipsum » paulatim « assueverint capere gloriam Patris. » 4° Demum caeteris omnibus gravius est, quod significare videtur Irenaeus, non omnes beatos in coelo futuros, sed aliquos in coelo, aliquos in paradiso, alios in civitate nova Hierusalem; omnes tamen, ubicunque fuerint, Dei conspectu fruituros. « Praetereunte, ait, figura hac, et renovato homine, et vigente ad incorruptelam, ut non possit jam veterascere, erit coelum novum, et terra nova, in quibus

The first is that Irenaeus acceded to the opinion of the Millenarians in such wise as to depart far from the impiety of Cerinthus. For this ringleader of the Millenarians babbled, as Eusebius witnesses in Book 3 of his History, Chapter 28, that after the resurrection of human flesh there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that in Jerusalem men serving the lusts of the flesh and the allurements of pleasures would spend a thousand years in marriage feasts and festivity. This impiety the Fathers of the Church always abhorred; not so, however, the dogma of the other leader of the Millenarians, Papias, who, as Irenaeus writes, was "a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp," and who soboiled down and reshaped the ravings of Cerinthus that that period of a thousand years was to be spent in spiritual delights, such as it becomes righteous and pure men to experience. Although this Papias was a man, as Eusebius says in Book 3 of his History, Chapter 39, "σφόδρα σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν, of very mediocre intelligence, as one may conjecture from his writings," who, having misunderstood the narratives of the apostles, and not having sufficiently perceived the things that were spoken by them in a certain mystical sense and by way of example, inserted into his books many things nearer to fables, and devised that earthly kingdom of Christ; yet because he had been instructed by John the Apostle, he furnished the occasion of the same error to several ecclesiastical writers after him, who revered the authority of the man more than was right, and to Irenaeus in particular. Irenaeus mentions certain other presbyters, disciples of John, champions of the same opinion, but men of the same weight. Secondly, the holy doctor added his vote to their opinion in such wise that he nowhere defined the time of that earthly kingdom of Christ, nor circumscribed it by a thousand or any other definite number of years; nay, he did not even once adduce that well-known passage of the Apocalypse: "They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years (Rev. 20:6);" upon which nevertheless, as upon a foundation, the opinion of the Millenarians chiefly rested. Thirdly, he seems to establish this difference between the souls of martyrs and those of other righteous men, that the former by a singular prerogative ascend immediately to the Father, and consequently are received into heaven, while all the others depart to invisible places, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies. "The Church in every place," says he in Book 4, Chapter 33, n. 9, "on account of that love which she has towards God, sends forward a multitude of martyrs in every time to the Father." If the martyrs are sent forward to the Father, they therefore precede the rest of the righteous, who do not arrive thither before in the earthly kingdom of Christ "by the vision of the Lord, through Him" they have gradually "become accustomed to receive the glory of the Father." Fourthly and finally, what is graver than all the rest is that Irenaeus seems to signify that not all the blessed will be in heaven, but some in heaven, some in paradise, and others in the new city of Jerusalem; yet that all, wherever they may be, will enjoy the vision of God. "When this fashion passes away," says he (Book 5, Chapter 36, n. 1), "and man has been renewed, and flourishes unto incorruptibility, so that he can no longer grow old, there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, in which

Editors' notes and page, col. 380

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 380
marginal letters: A Primum est,; B justos ac; C pugnatores, sed; D lib. IV,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio III (continued); word split at column break: qui-
other: the word quibus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 381

PG 7:381

novus perseverabit homo, semper nova confabulans Deo. Et quoniam haec semper perseverabunt sine fine, Isaias ait sic, etc. Et quemadmodum presbyteri dicunt, tunc qui digni fuerint coelorum conversatione, illuc transibunt, id est, in coelos; alii tute paradisi deliciis utentur; alii autem speciositatem civitatis possidebunt : ubique autem Deus videbitur, et quemadmodum digni erunt videntes eum. Esse autem distantiam hanc habitationis eorum qui centum fructificaverunt, et eorum qui sexaginta, et eorum qui triginta; quorum quidam in coelum assumentur, alii in paradiso conversabuntur, alii in civitate inhabitabunt; et propter hoc dixisse Dominum, multas esse apud Patrem mansiones. » Mira haec et insolita parabolae seminantis, et variarum in altera vita mansionum explicatio; haec enim referri ad alteram vitam, seu ad resurrectionem secundam, postquam innovatis jam coelo et terra Deus manifeste videbitur a beatis, orationis contextus perspicue demonstrat. Sed ista, ut et alia quae retuli, naevi sunt, quos contraxit Irenaeus ex nimia in seniores illos, quos identidem citat, veneratione, et acriori haereticos impugnandi studio.

the new man shall abide, ever conversing in a new way with God. And that these things shall ever abide without end, Isaiah says thus, etc. And as the presbyters say, then those who are worthy of the abode of heaven shall pass thither, that is, into the heavens; others shall safely enjoy the delights of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city: yet everywhere God shall be seen, and according as those who see Him shall be worthy. And they say that this is the difference of the habitation of those who have brought forth fruit a hundredfold, and of those who have brought forth sixtyfold, and of those who have brought forth thirtyfold: of whom some shall be taken up into heaven, others shall dwell in paradise, and others shall inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said that in His Father's house there are many mansions." Strange and unusual is this explanation of the parable of the sower and of the various mansions in the other life; for that these things refer to the other life, or to the second resurrection, after heaven and earth have already been renewed and God shall be manifestly seen by the blessed, the context of the discourse clearly demonstrates. But these things, like the others that I have related, are blemishes which Irenaeus contracted from an excessive veneration for those elders whom he repeatedly cites, and from a too eager zeal for attacking heretics.

123. Dudum exsolevit ea terreni Christi fabula, ut vocat Hieronymus. Hanc tamen suis e ruderibus excitatam instaurare nititur cl. Grabius; non directe quidem, nulla siquidem argumenta eam in rem profert : ecqui proferre posset, nisi straminea, ut ipse loquitur? Sed pias et eruditas doctissimi Feuardentii notas exscribens, eas ubique maligno dente corrodit, insinuatque passim a nullo solide confutatam hactenus fuisse eam Millenariorum sententiam, facileque difflari ea omnia, quibus impugnatur, argumenta; imo parum abest quin eam ipsi Christo et apostolis ejus acceptam referat. Forte necessaria Grabio videtur ea fabula, qua fulciatur novum illud Calvini et asseclarum ejus dogma, sanctos invocari nec posse, nec debere, utpote qui in coelo nondum degentes preces nostras audire nequeant. Dignum certe fabulae fulcrum altera fabula est. An cl. viro animus erat veros

123. Long ago that fable of an earthly kingdom of Christ, as Jerome calls it, died out. Yet the illustrious Grabe strives to raise it up from its ruins and restore it—not directly indeed, since he brings forward no arguments for that purpose: and how could he bring any forward, save arguments of straw, as he himself speaks? But copying out the pious and learned notes of the most learned Feuardent, he gnaws at them everywhere with a malicious tooth, and insinuates throughout that that opinion of the Millenarians has hitherto been solidly refuted by no one, and that all the arguments whereby it is attacked are easily blown away; nay, he comes little short of attributing it to Christ Himself and His apostles. Perhaps that fable seems necessary to Grabe in order to prop up that novel dogma of Calvin and his followers, that the saints neither can nor ought to be invoked, inasmuch as, not yet dwelling in heaven, they cannot hear our prayers. Assuredly one fable is a worthy prop for another fable! Or was it the illustrious man's intention, by approving the true

Irenaei errores probando, eam, quam S. martyri intulit injuriam, tot fictitios in adnotationibus suis impingendo compensare? Quam aequa compensatio! dignissima, quae Grabianis notis coronidem imponeret. Operam lusisse me putarem, si has serio refellendas susciperem. Chiliastarum ratiunculae sunt quas alii tum veteres, tum recentiores jam penitus contriverunt; et si id ab eis praestitum neget Grabius, ideo negat, quia vel legere piguit, vel animo jam invisibili illo Chiliastarum loco oberrante legit. Id tamen a cl. viro dissimulandum non erat, sic in eam abiisse sententiam saeculi secundi Patres, qui de statu animarum post mortem quidquam scriptis adhuc superstitibus reliquerunt, ut candide monuerint Justinus in Dialogo cum Tryphone pag. 306, edit. Morellianae Paris. 1636, et Irenaeus capp. 31 et 32, huic repugnasse πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων χριστιανῶν γνώμης, « multos etiam e Christianis, qui purae piaeque sunt sententiae; » vel, ut loquitur Irenaeus, « quosdam ex his qui putantur recte credidisse. » A pluribus deinceps aperte impugnata cum fuerit, licet a quibusdam, nec ignobilibus Ecclesiae Patribus propugnata, praevaluit semper id quod jam in Ecclesia catholica obtinet dogma.

errors of Irenaeus, to compensate for the injury which he did to the holy martyr by fastening so many fictitious errors upon him in his notes? How fair a compensation! Most worthy to put the finishing touch to Grabe's notes! I should think that I had wasted my labour if I undertook to refute these seriously. They are petty arguments of the Chiliasts which others, both ancient and modern, have already thoroughly crushed; and if Grabe denies that this has been accomplished by them, he denies it for this reason, that either he begrudged reading them, or he read them with his mind already wandering in that invisible place of the Chiliasts. Yet the illustrious man ought not to have concealed this fact, that the Fathers of the second century who have left anything in writings still extant concerning the state of souls after death inclined to that opinion only in such wise that Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, p. 306 of Morel's Paris edition of 1636, and Irenaeus in Chapters 31 and 32, candidly admonished us that it was opposed by πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων χριστιανῶν γνώμης, "many even of those Christians who are of pure and pious opinion," or, as Irenaeus speaks, "some of those who are accounted to have believed rightly." And since it was thereafter openly attacked by many, although defended by certain and those not ignoble Fathers of the Church, the dogma which now obtains in the Catholic Church always prevailed.

124. Sed tandem huic dissertationi finis imponendus. Breviorem esse voluissem, si licuisset. At longiorem fecerunt tum intricatae locorum multorum difficultates, quae paucioribus verbis elucidari commode non poterant; tum importunae Protestantium, ac in primis nuperi Irenaei editoris cavillationes, quas, ne nostris auribus obstrepere pergerent, dissolvere operae pretium fuit. Cum enim ejusmodi hominibus antiquius nihil fuerit, quam ut tantae auctoritatis antiquitatisque scriptorem misere discerptum ad partes suas traherent, ut tanta S. doctori fieret injuria, sinendum non fuit. Si quid aliud in Irenaei doctrina observandum occurrat, vel id in notis textui subjectis adnotavimus, et ubi opus fuit illustravimus, vel ex iis quae hactenus diximus facile explicabitur.

124. But at length an end must be put to this dissertation. I could have wished it to be briefer, had that been possible. But both the intricate difficulties of many passages, which could not conveniently be elucidated in fewer words, and the persistent cavils of the Protestants, and above all of the recent editor of Irenaeus, which it was worth while to refute lest they should continue to din in our ears, have made it longer. For since men of that sort held nothing more important than to drag over to their own side, wretchedly torn in pieces, a writer of such great authority and antiquity, it could not be suffered that so great an injury should be done to the holy doctor. Should anything else occur to be observed in the doctrine of Irenaeus, either we have noted it in the notes subjoined to the text and illustrated it where there was need, or it will easily be explained from what we have hitherto said.

Editors' notes and page, col. 381

Page

running head: 381 FR. WALCHII DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORU
marginal letters: A bus novus; B plicatio ; haec; C Feuardentii notas; D Consilium, quod
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio III (concluded on col. 382) and Walch's Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses; three full-width lines across cols. 381-382 (CHR. GUIL. FR. WALCHII / COMMENTATIO / DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADVERSUS HAERESES.) after line 42 not set (cut off at right edge); line 42 continues at top of col. 382; word split at column break: qui-bus
other: a full-width band stands across cols 381/382 in mid-page: the 2 paragraph(s) above it in col 382 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 381 (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 continues with Consilium, quod cepi (another unit); not set here

PG 7:382

Editors' notes and page, col. 382

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: COMMENTATIO› · call in col 382 (in the full-width title of Walch's Commentatio, printed over the right-hand column; the note itself runs from col 381 into col 382)

Haec commentatio, a doctissimo Walchio in Societate Regia scientiarum Gottingensi recitata d. vi Aug. MDCCLXXIV, typis expressa est in Novis commentariis Societatis Regiae scientiarum Gotting., tom. V, Gotting. 1775. Edit.

This commentatio, read by the most learned Walch in the Royal Society of Sciences at Göttingen on 6 August 1774, was printed in the Novi commentarii of the Royal Society of Sciences at Göttingen, volume V, Göttingen 1775. Editor.

(printed under page 197)

Page

running head: NTIA LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 382
marginal letters: A Irenaei errores; B phone pag.; C stantium, ac; D Quo major
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio III (concluded) and Walch's Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses; three full-width lines across cols. 381-382 (CHR. GUIL. FR. WALCHII / COMMENTATIO / DE AYΘENTIA LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADVERSUS HAERESES., printed so, AYΘENTIA for AUTHENTIA) after line 41 not set here (they open the next unit; printed whole across the page, not cut off)
other: the 2 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 381 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the text of this column below the full-width band belongs to the next unit; not set here (rail-only part)
other: QA Q1c: the col 382 text set under col 381 (Irenaei errores … facile explicabitur) checked against the page word by word, source and English; no corrections