R. Massuet, O.S.B., Praefatio

Preface.

Out of all the works of the holy Fathers, anyone not altogether unacquainted with Christian affairs will readily confess with me that scarcely any are more worthy of the veneration, studies, reading, and care of all good men than the writings of Irenaeus. For whatever things are chief in procuring authority for ecclesiastical writers, all of them commend this most holy bishop of the people of Lyons, and once the most splendid light of our Gaul. If we look at antiquity, he was an apostolic man, near to the times of the apostles, and instructed by the disciples of the apostles; if at doctrine, he was a most inquisitive explorer of all doctrines, a most strenuous champion of what is always the right and Catholic doctrine, and, as his writings everywhere proclaim, exceedingly well versed in the reading of Sacred Scripture and of the earlier Fathers; if finally at sanctity, he was a man altogether furnished with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and with heavenly ornaments, whose writings, to use the words of Erasmus, breathe that ancient vigour of the Gospel, and whose phrasing proves a breast prepared for martyrdom; whom the most holy martyrs of Lyons magnificently commend in their epistles; whom finally integrity of morals supplied in the place of Pothinus, the first bishop of the people of Lyons. Of the many monuments of doctrine and piety which he had left behind, there survive the five books which he wrote against the heresies of the Gnostics, which in his time had already begun to rage in the region of Lyons, over which he presided; all the more to be esteemed, both because out of so many and so great works with which he had illustrated the Christian faith almost nothing else remains, and because they are precious relics of the apostolic age, whereby that doctrine which the apostles had handed down to their disciples, and which Irenaeus had received from them, is both easily grasped and transmitted uncorrupted to us. For in them all the chief dogmas of the Catholic faith which we profess to this day, concerning the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the divine institution of bishops, the authority of tradition, the supreme dignity and primacy of Peter and his successors, and so forth, are so expressly explained and confirmed that not only the ancient heresies, but as many as have emerged from apostolic times right down to our own, can from this source be rooted out from the bottom and utterly overthrown. Wherefore they were long and anxiously sought after by Gregory the Great, and turned with so diligent a hand by the holy Fathers and all pious Catholics, and read through all the more studiously the more delightful it was to draw the pure waters of apostolic doctrine fresh from the fountains. Hence, ever since the studies of good letters were reborn in the West, as love for the labours of Irenaeus revived at the same time, those who had sacred antiquity at heart held nothing more urgent than to rescue them from the darkness of libraries, commit them to print, and make them public property.

The first edition of all is that which Desiderius Erasmus produced at Basel in the year 1526 from three copies: one, copied at Rome, which Johann Faber sent to him, and two others lent from monasteries. What he achieved besides in this edition he states in his dedicatory epistle to Bernhard von Cles, bishop of Trent, afterwards created cardinal by Pope Clement VII in the year 1529, which we have taken care to place again at the end of our edition. Yet just as very much is owed to a man otherwise so well deserving of letters, because he was the first to give the books of Irenaeus to the light, so it is to be lamented that, destitute of better codices, he was unable to achieve more. For his edition abounds with so many faults, lacunae, and mutilated and corrupted periods that Irenaeus is often sought in Irenaeus himself, and it is difficult to grasp his meaning. The second was overseen by Nicolas des Gallars, minister of the Calvinists at Geneva, who published it at Geneva in the year 1570. But although he says that the errors were emended by him after collating copies, nevertheless, since the very same ones occur as in Erasmus, it is clear that no manuscript codices were consulted. Only new short chapter summaries were added to the old ones, and there were inserted the things which

Epiphanius transcribed in Greek from Irenaeus, with a new Latin translation, and that a far from accurate one. Whence the design of des Gallars, as it seems, was not so much that Irenaeus should come forth more polished and more emended, as that by prolix notes drawn from Calvinist doctrine the meaning of the most holy man might be circumvented, and the conqueror of the ancient heresies might be dragged against his will to the new one, or torn with revilings. Des Gallars was followed by Johann Jakob Grynaeus of the same sect, who oversaw a new edition of the books of Irenaeus at Basel in the year 1571, differing in nothing from the preceding ones, except that he rashly removed the ancient Latin translation of the earlier chapters of the first book, which Epiphanius reports in Greek, in order to substitute the version of Janus Cornarius, omitting the Greek text, and prefixed new arguments to each chapter while preserving the old division. More emended than all these was that which came forth by the work and study of François Feuardent, of the Order of Minors, doctor in the sacred Faculty of Paris, at Cologne in the year 1596, and was thereafter often reprinted there and at Paris. For that which had come forth from the press of Nivelle in the years 1575 and 1576 had not yet been sufficiently purged of the faults of the earlier editions. For besides restoring in many places the Latin text collated according to the authority of the Vatican manuscript codex and of another old one of the best quality, supplying lacunae, and augmenting it with the last five chapters of the fifth book hitherto wanting, he adjoined to the Latin words the first eighteen chapters of the first book, formerly copied out in Greek from Irenaeus by Epiphanius, and a not inconsiderable abundance of other Greek fragments unearthed from various authors, subjoining also the most learned observations of Jacques de Billy and Fronton du Duc. Yet though more complete than the earlier ones, neither is this edition of Feuardent itself perfect in every respect; indeed, it labours under neither few nor slight faults. For to say nothing of the notes—learned indeed, as that age bore, but overly prolix and running too far from the purpose, and contributing nothing or very little at all to the elucidation of the text—he restored it unsuccessfully in very many places, explained it still more unsuccessfully, and in several did not even try what he could do; so that after the labours of Feuardent there remained hundreds of passages to which a healing hand needed to be applied, not a few of which, however, he would have emended with easy trouble had he consulted a little more attentively the manuscript codices which he used. I pass over the aids wanting in that edition whereby the labour of the reader might be lessened and a way paved for him to investigate and attain the author's meaning more easily.

There came forth at length in the year 1702, at Oxford in England, a new, more accurate, and more elegant edition of the works of Irenaeus, by the study and work of the most distinguished man Johann Ernst Grabe, illustrated with the notes of various scholars and his own, and enriched with new fragments. That we have often profited from his labours we neither can nor wish to conceal. This edition is commended by the elegance of the type, a not undiligent care in seeking out and collecting new Greek fragments, and a happy conjecture in emending several passages. Yet what displeased the learned in Feuardent and des Gallars, everyone will recognize to have happened to this most distinguished man as well. For following the example of the former, though he had often seen and approved better readings, yet following the worse he embraced faulty or less sound readings, casting the obvious and genuine ones into the margin; and far more manifestly corrupt passages than he emended he did not even attempt, or did so quite unsuccessfully. Imitating des Gallars, moreover, while he is overly zealous for the Anglican Church to which he joined himself, his stronger care seems to have been to join Irenaeus, even unwilling and reluctant, to the Anglican sect, rather than to give the work in a more chastened and emended form. Hence the tedious prolixity of so many notes, so that he twists all the slightest words, very often having nothing to do with the matter; in other places, however, more sparing, he stuffs the lower margins with the notes of Feuardent and others, taken up without any selection and contributing nothing to the understanding of the text; his own, if there are any, learned though they be, yet since that furniture of erudition pertains little to illustrating the author's meaning, he enlarged to a great degree with slight profit to the readers. Here I pass over in silence what I shall set forth more conveniently in the second Dissertation, that in the Oxford edition, having preserved the old—yet far more recent than Irenaeus—and altogether inept division of chapters, the most distinguished Grabe sometimes removed, transposed, and cut up the headings at will, and by not rarely heaping several together at once, not without the loss of several chapters now truncated of their headings, or by repeating the same ones twice or thrice, increased rather than lessened the confusion. What of the fact that the Greek fragments, though opportunely inserted in their proper places, are yet so inconveniently arranged that the eyes of the readers are forced to wander as if in a perpetual circuit through the pages, often uncertain whither they ought to be carried? But this perhaps is the fault of the print-

ers, to whom we must also impute the fact that there is so great a scarcity of that edition in overseas regions that, since it could not be procured without the greatest difficulty and a higher price, the booksellers of Paris and Amsterdam were contemplating putting it under their presses.

Accordingly, it seemed to men conspicuous for learning and piety that a new edition of Irenaeus was not only useful, but necessary, one which would both be more accurate and could be run through by Catholics with an unoffended foot. They desired that this labour should be undertaken by someone of our congregation; judging, namely, and not undeservedly, that Irenaeus, that Apostolic man, the light of the Western Gauls, as Theodoret calls him, and a writer of so great authority, deserved no less than the rest that our industry should be employed in an accurate edition of his works; and that what had been achieved with no regrettable success in other editions which had come forth from our congregation, we should endeavour to achieve in this one also, no less laborious than necessary. This burden, therefore, laid upon me, though declined for a good while, I at length underwent. What I have endeavoured to achieve must be explained in a few words. Three things above all I considered I had to achieve: to emend the text and restore it, so far as can be done, to its pristine beauty; to illustrate the same; and finally to prepare for readers all those aids whereby their labour may be lessened. As regards the first, since the Greek text of Irenaeus has for the greatest part long since perished through the injury of time, and almost the Latin alone survives, now in the stead of an archetype, upon this I bestowed all my care, that it might come forth as thoroughly emended as could be done, and wiped clean of the blemishes sprinkled over it through the fault of copyists. This I most attentively examined against three new manuscript codices, hitherto collated by no one. The first, received from the Library of the Clermont College of the Society of Jesus, was lent to me for my use by that most learned man, whose kindness we have never failed to experience, the Reverend Father Jean Hardouin, prefect of the same Library. This codex is of the best quality, and since it was written at least 800 years ago, as witnessed by the most learned Dom Jean Mabillon of pious memory, an expert judge of such matters if ever there was one, seems to be the most ancient of all those according to which the earlier editions were made. Nevertheless it is mutilated; for several of the last leaves having been torn away, the fifth book remains curtailed of almost the last ten chapters. Whether this happened by chance, or through the improvident zeal of some smatterer (whom the error of the Millenarians championed by Irenaeus perhaps displeased), is obscure. It is certain that the codex was once entire, since part of the twenty-sixth chapter still survives. The rest thereafter to the end of the book has perished. Hence it seems manifest that the Clermont codex is different from that of Feuardent: for the latter was entire, whereas the former is much more emended. The variant readings of a second codex, written out by the hand of Passerat for the whole first book and the first eight chapters of the second book on the margin of a copy of the edition of Erasmus, I received from a friend of mine, one of the Reverend Dominican Fathers of the street of St Honoré of this city. That they were excerpted from a manuscript codex, and that a very ancient one and of good quality, and different from those of Feuardent, Clermont, and Vossius, there is no room for doubt to me, nor will there be to others who compare them with the readings of the aforesaid codices. What that codex is, and where it now lies hidden, I have hitherto not been able to discover; I would not bear its loss so hard if Passerat had gone on to note the rest of the variant readings on the margin of his book. The third codex which I used, recent and of paper, does not exceed four hundred years, nor does it contain the last five chapters of the fifth book. It is preserved at Rome in the Library of the most eminent Cardinal Ottoboni; which indeed that best of men, and so well deserving of letters, Signor Bianchini, out of his singular kindness towards us, communicated to the Reverend Fathers Dom Guillaume La Parre, procurator general of our Congregation in the Roman curia, and his companion Dom Claude de Vic, who out of their goodness deigned to transcribe its variant readings and transmit them to me.

As an aid there were added those codices which both François Feuardent and the most distinguished Johann Ernst Grabe used in preparing their editions, whose variant readings they not undiligently (Grabe especially) noted down on the margin of their edition. And indeed that old one which Feuardent used we sought in vain, nor were we able to know whether it has perished or lies hidden in the shelves of some library. There are some who think that it came into the hands of Vossius; but to anyone comparing the readings of both, it will immediately appear that they are different. Another codex preserved in the Vatican Library is cited by Latino Latini, and its variant

readings he reports, and after him Feuardent; but that it is now wanting in that Library I have learned both from those who have diligently surveyed it and from the letters of friends. Grabe professes that he used four manuscript codices, as I have said: namely, that which belonged to Isaac Vossius, the best codex praised above, which Dodwell collated most accurately with the copy of Feuardent and communicated the variant readings collected thence to the same Grabe; the Arundel codex, now preserved in the Library of the Royal Society at London, which he judges to be of four hundred years; and a transcript of variant readings which, unearthed formerly by Josias Mercier from two manuscript codices, I know not which, says Grabe, the same Vossius had given to Dodwell to be transcribed. Yet neither Grabe, nor Vossius, nor anyone else besides Josias Mercier says that he saw those two codices, nor indicates where they now exist. Moreover, the variant readings of the same which Grabe reports from the transcript agree so much with one another in almost all respects that they seem to have been excerpted from one and the same codex, or at least from two, one of which was transcribed from the other; and both, if there are two, from a recent codex, and that of not very good quality. And unless my conjecture deceives me, I think that the Ottoboni codex mentioned above is the very original from which the first transcript was copied, and from this the second; and when both came into the hands of Josias Mercier, he regarded them as so many different codices. For whatever readings have been transmitted to me from Rome out of the Ottoboni codex are almost the same as those which Grabe alleges from those two codices of Mercier. Wherefore, although the variant readings of those codices are adduced by us from Grabe, yet I would wish readers to be warned not to attribute more credit to them than they deserve (and they deserve very little). The Arundel codex seems to have been interpolated either by the copyist himself or by some more recent hand, which anyone who diligently weighs its readings will recognize to be most probable. Whence there remains the single codex of Vossius, whose trustworthiness cannot waver. And in fact, having collated its readings with those of Clermont and those which Feuardent reports from his old codex, I found it to be ancient and of good quality, and to excel all the rest that now survive in this, that it alone, as Grabe witnesses, contains the last five chapters of the fifth book. Nor accordingly did I hesitate, wherever I had those three, more ancient and better than all, in agreement, to restore the text by their authority, and, spurning the others, to adhere to them strictly, unless they displayed manifest marks of corruption.

Besides manuscript codices, I did not begrudge consulting printed copies, especially the older ones, and sometimes preferring them where the manuscript codices seemed either depraved or less sound. Thus it came about that I corrected the text of Irenaeus, in very many places still either vitiated through the unskilfulness of scribes, or mutilated through their carelessness, or redundant or interpolated through the boldness of smatterers; adding what was wanting, cutting away what was superfluous, rightly punctuating what cohered badly: so much so that few passages now seem to me to remain in which difficulty of reading could delay the reader. Where, however, the depravation of the copies was manifest, I did not hesitate to emend it either from the Greek words, if an abundance of them was available, or from other parallel passages in which the exact same repeated words occur, or from conjectures certain on other grounds, taking also the counsel of most learned men. Yet this was done more rarely, and with such scruple that the common reading, however openly corrupt, is preserved in the margin of the book; and further, that this licence stopped within single words, and those depraved not so much by the fault of the Latin translator as by that of copyists; it never extended to doubtful words, much less to entire clauses or entire periods, for which I would have considered it wrong to substitute new ones on the authority of the Greek text or of any other parallel passage whatsoever. But where that text seemed sounder, it seemed worthwhile to note this and to give a new translation, more accurate than the old Latin one, yet transferred to the lower margin, so that the old reading might retain its place and authority. Variant readings that were of any moment we have noted below, indicating the codices whence they were taken. If anything seemed on their authority to require changing and supplying, we did not neglect to advise the readers and to adduce the reasons for the change, with such scruple that there is reason to fear lest our diligence seem overly subtle to some; yet here it is better that diligence be blamed than found wanting. Lest, however, we should do what was already done, we did not think that all the errors of the earlier editions which Feuardent had already corrected ought to be recalled: only the edition of Feuardent, which was held in everyone's

hands, did we judge should be emended, observing and recounting among the variant readings only those things which in other editions seemed of chief importance and sounder.

No less care was applied in revising that part of the Greek text which is extant, although, as manuscripts were lacking, with less success. That Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and that some unskilful and barbarous translator turned his books into the Latin speech which we now have, is scarcely doubted; that has been abundantly proved in the second Dissertation, which will follow the Preface, to which I refer the reader. Since, however, the entire Greek text has long since perished through the injury of time, it remained that the fragments scattered on all sides should be sought out, which was also sollicitously done. For whatever fragments of Irenaeus either the ancients preserved, or more recent scholars published, or other editions present, whether of his works that survive or of those that have perished, and the new ones which the most distinguished Grabe brought forth, unearthed from various authors both printed and manuscript, this our edition also presents, yet sometimes fuller and more emended, with the addition of those which I myself collected or friends supplied, all placed and arranged in an order far more convenient than that of Feuardent and of Grabe. I consulted the Greek Catenae of the Royal and Colbertine Libraries, and other Greek manuscript codices of the same, each of which I have indicated in its proper place in the notes, and took care to have them examined by diligent friends learned in Greek; and the things transcribed from them, whether published by Combefis, or by Grabe, or by others, have all been revised by me, and more than once corrected and restored. Those things, moreover, which were excerpted from Epiphanius I collated anew after Petau with a single paper codex of the same Royal Library, and that a recent and faulty one (for no better occurred), and purged of certain errors which had escaped the diligence of that most learned man. In order that they might also be collated with the Vatican codex (for I know of no other Greek manuscript codices of the Panarion of Epiphanius), I omitted nothing that lay in my power; but no one learned in Greek who would deign to undertake so small a labour, certainly of a few days, could be found at Rome, where nevertheless there are many. For the rest, since Jacques de Billy turned into Latin speech the Greek passages of Irenaeus copied out by Epiphanius far more elegantly and accurately than the old Latin translator, we have adjoined his translation, already inserted in Feuardent's Cologne edition of the year 1596 and in the Paris editions thereafter, in our edition also over against the old one, that the one may be illustrated by the other. A few other Greek fragments of Irenaeus, which Billy likewise translated, and which thus translated Feuardent inserted in his edition, we would have wished to be inserted in ours as well; but since this version could not be set together with the old one without confusion, we were compelled to omit it.

It would have been too little to purge the text of Irenaeus of faults unless it came forth rightly punctuated and divided. For the punctuation, the customary marks of punctuation, each aptly replaced in its proper place so far as was possible, provide; for the division, a new sectioning of chapters, and new headings prefixed to each. This was done both because the common division and the ancient headings seem most certainly to be attributed not to Irenaeus, but to some unskilful more recent hand, as we think has been sufficiently proved in the second Dissertation, and because the sections of the chapters are often most absurd, no less than the arguments, which obscure rather than represent the author's meaning. Yet nothing was done save by the counsel of most learned men, and that in the first four books only; for in the fifth, the division and headings of Feuardent have been almost preserved. Moreover, the individual chapters have been divided into several paragraphs or numbers, with brief summaries affixed to the margin, whereby the reader may see as if at a single glance what chief point each comprises. Lest, however, those who are accustomed to the old division in citing chapters should be disturbed by the new, that of Feuardent, which is now more common, has been preserved in the margin, with asterisks in the text whereby the beginning and end of the chapters of Feuardent are marked; the entire arguments of which are also presented at the beginning of the work compared with the new ones.

The second thing which in accordance with my duty I considered I had to do in this edition concerns the illustration of the text. For since, either from the difficulty of the subject treated or from the unskilfulness of the Latin translator, Irenaeus is sometimes most obscure, it did not seem to be enough to emend the text and give an account of the emendations, unless the darkness spread over the words were also dispelled. Irenaeus himself warns that the mysteries of the Gnostics are most portentous and most deep,

which not all grasp. These indeed, as clearly as could be done, he lays open and refutes, and so pursues throughout the whole work that he never turns his eyes away from them; yet in such a way that those who are moderately versed in these matters, and do not consider with sufficient attention the whole scope of the author as well as the hypothesis of his adversaries, are sometimes in suspense of mind, uncertain either what the rugged and obscure windings of speech—though for the most part through the fault of the translator—signify, or whither the discourse tends. Since regard had to be paid to these above others, and their weariness and labour spared, I have endeavoured to explain all the difficult passages as briefly as I could in notes subjoined to the text, taking in also the observations of learned men, whatever seemed to conduce to the understanding of the author, yet always citing the name of the authors. If, however, the notes sometimes seem more frequent and more extended, that must be attributed to the difficulty of the subject, which I was unable to dispatch in fewer words, fearing lest, while studying to be brief, I should become obscure. Added to this is the fact that since Irenaeus brings forward varied and numerous testimonies from the sacred codices of both Testaments, which, being from another version, seemed to have some difference, it seemed worthwhile to note this for the sake of students of Sacred Scripture. Those learned men, however, who do not need notes and observations of this kind can pass them by and read Irenaeus continuously; for being placed in the lower margin, they can easily be separated from the text. Nevertheless, I did not allow myself to burden the margins with those notes which pertain merely to the display of erudition (in me certainly slight), or to dogmas and controversies of faith, except when they could be dispatched in a few words; judging, namely, and taught by my own experience, that nothing is more troublesome to readers than to be compelled to halt at almost every step through interposed delays. I considered it better to treat thoroughly those things which needed a fuller and more accurate examination, not indeed in the Preface itself, lest it should grow to an immense size at the expense of right method, but in separate Dissertations, in which each matter might be weighed in its own order and in a continuous series. Three, therefore, I have prefixed to the work: in the first I have discussed as accurately as I could all those things which pertain to the person, age, morals, writings, and dogmas of the heretics against whom Irenaeus writes; I have laid open the fountains from which the impure doctrine flowed forth; and having searched into their deepest mysteries, I have endeavoured to uncover what lay hidden beneath the enigmatic rind of the words. In the second, whatever occurs in the monuments of the ancients concerning the life and deeds of Irenaeus, his martyrdom, his writings, and chiefly concerning the five books of the Detection and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge (for I have shown there that this is their genuine title), concerning the design and method of this work, and finally whatever occurs concerning the other lost writings of the holy Doctor, I have studiously collected and explained to the best of my ability. In the third, finally, I have unfolded the whole series of the holy bishop's doctrine; the slighter stumbling-blocks, if there are any, I have laid open, lest anyone should rashly strike against them; what was more obscure, I have illustrated; what was foreign and badly fastened on, I have rejected; what was perversely twisted by the heterodox and obscured by vain cavils, I have explained, vindicated, and asserted. These things, I say, I have prefixed to the beginning of the work, that the reader might be able to run through the books of Irenaeus with an unoffended foot. There will perhaps be someone whom this great mass of sheets prefixed to a work not so huge will displease. I too bore it ill that the number of printed leaves grew beyond measure and expectation. But the printers deceived me, being themselves also deceived by the inequality of the handwritten pages; otherwise I would have provided against this inconvenience. Furthermore, to each book is prefixed a brief and clear analysis of each (namely, that which was long ago skilfully put together by our most learned Dom Nicolas Le Nourry and published by him in the Apparatus to the Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, with a few things added or changed in accordance with our edition), whereby the scope and argument of the book may be surveyed as if at a single view.

At the end of the work, besides the Fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus, unearthed from various books both printed and manuscript, some of which now appear for the first time in Greek, others in Greek and Latin, there have been added by way of an appendix other excerpts from the books of the ancient Gnostics, which occur scattered among the ancient Fathers, and which will bring no little light to several passages of Irenaeus: from this specimen at least it will easily be perceived that the things which both Irenaeus and other Fathers wrote concerning those monsters of opinions are by no means vain. The greatest part the most distinguished Grabe had already collected and inserted into his Spicilegium of the ancient Fathers and heretics of the first and second centuries. Some he revised against the manuscript codices of the

Bodleian Library; some I myself also examined against the manuscript codices of the Royal Library. These will be followed by the Prefaces, Prolegomena, notes, and observations of those who have hitherto published or illustrated new editions of Irenaeus, so that students may thus obtain comprised in a single volume and at smaller expense what previously they could procure for themselves only in several volumes and at greater cost. And indeed, so far as concerns the notes and observations, I have taken care that those of Billy, Fronton du Duc, and Feuardent should be published anew in their entirety, although I had already plucked out several things from them and inserted them into my own, judging that I would do a welcome service to readers if I presented the whole of that of which they had previously read parts. From des Gallars I have selected very few, since most contain nothing but vain and witless declamations. From Grabe more, namely those which Catholic ears can bear. That the notes of Feuardent do not please everyone, and indeed displease Protestants very much, I well know. Yet that they are learned for their time, and that the pious and learned man deserved exceedingly well of Irenaeus and of the whole Catholic Church, no one can deny without injustice. Often indeed he departs rather far from the subject, and runs out against the heterodox in a sharper style than was fitting; but this must be pardoned to his zeal for the Catholic faith, and to the time when, amid raging controversies and civil wars, the Calvinists assailed Catholics with perpetual revilings and calumnies. Whoever reads the writings of the ministers of that time, and weighs how shamelessly they brought calumny against Catholics and did violence to all the clearest testimonies of the Fathers, will easily excuse Feuardent. If, however, any of his arguments now seem unseasonable, it is the fault not of himself, but of his adversaries, who, little consistent with themselves, shifting their tack again and again, have been forced to retreat and either to add several things to, or take them away from, an ill-constructed system, according to the exigencies of times and arguments. More sharply, though not more fairly, certain more recent writers reprove the most learned man because he alleged not a few spurious writings as genuine, and attributed to several Fathers those Books and Treatises which are now recognized to be supposititious. But this was the common error of those times: for since the truth had not yet been sufficiently strained out and the matter weighed according to the stricter rules of criticism, that was cited in good faith concerning which there seemed to be no room for suspicion. Whoever examines the Magdeburg Centuriators themselves, and that famous critic among the Protestants, André Rivet, will straightway discover that they slipped more gravely, if not in the same things, yet in others, and were no more skilled in the art of criticism. Yet after all, if Feuardent sinned in anything, he sins more gravely, in my judgement at least, who does not shrink from casting up again a fault against one who confesses it and emends it as soon as possible. While he was preparing his first edition of Irenaeus, writing on chapter 33, now 22, of the third book, among various testimonies of the Fathers which he heaps together, he added one as if from Cyril of Alexandria, Book VI on John, Chapter 15, which is not Cyril's, but Josse Clichtove's, who inserted four books of his own Commentaries among those of Cyril. Recognizing the error immediately, the good man hastened to emend it; but since the sheet had already been printed off by the printers, no other remedy remained save that he should seasonably warn the readers in the index of errata in what way it was to be corrected; which he also did. When, however, Francisco Suárez, not having read that index, had censured Feuardent rather sharply, he was worthily chastised for his thoughtlessness in the Cologne edition of the year 1596. Yet behold, a certain more recent critic, without having read either the aforesaid index or the notes added in the cited edition, on the sole credit of Suárez or of Théophile Raynaud, still fastens upon him an error twice corrected and emended. With what words would Feuardent now receive, if he were alive, that accurate censor who does not deign to turn over even with a sluggish hand the authors whom he refutes? However that may be, the notes and observations of Feuardent, such as they came forth in the latest editions of Irenaeus, I have taken care to have published again just so; yet in such a way that I would not wish to vouch for all his sayings and allegations (which I would wish to be said of the others as well). For it was not to be expected of me that I should weigh all the testimonies of authors which he brings forward, and indicate if any error crept in while citing them: that would have been a work of immense labour, and had I undertaken it, I would have given not now the notes of Feuardent himself, but new observations upon Feuardent, with no or slight fruit. Since, moreover, both Feuardent and the others accommodated their observations to the old division of chapters which they followed, I have left them thus accommodated, lest any confusion should arise: I have only indicated in the margin the chapters and pages of the new edition.

The third thing, finally, which I had in mind, namely to prepare and offer to the reader those aids

by which his labour may be lessened, I have carried out as follows. Besides the three Dissertations mentioned above, and all those notes and observations by which I have tried to elucidate the difficult passages of Irenaeus; and a new division of the chapters, and new headings and brief summaries, by which the author's aim and argument are set before the eyes, in all of which there may perhaps be some help for some readers; besides these, I say, four Indexes have been added, fuller and richer than any that have appeared hitherto. The first is a Glossary, or Lexicon, of the Greek words; the second, of the more difficult Latin words and those further removed from common use, whose meanings are either peculiar to Irenaeus or to his translator, or are not so obvious. The third is of the testimonies of sacred Scripture, all those that Irenaeus brings forward, with a note also of the variation, if any occurs at times, in citing one and the same testimony, so that by this means students of sacred Scripture may easily compare Irenaeus's sacred books with ours, and observe what difference (a very slight one, certainly) lies between the two. The fourth, finally, is of all the principal matters that occur both in Irenaeus himself and in our Dissertations and notes; with another Index also added at the end for the notes of others.

These are the things which it seemed good to say by way of preface concerning this new edition of Irenaeus. The plan of my whole design having now been set out, I shall for the rest detain the reader no further from discerning for himself whether the work answers to the wishes and endeavours. And if it does, I would have this be the one reward of my labour: to have deserved somewhat of the Church; to whose judgement I willingly submit whatever has come forth from me, ready to correct and retract all those things which she shall bid me correct and retract.