Joannes Ernestus Grabe, Prolegomena de vita et scriptis Irenaei, ipsorumque variis editionibus, et novissimae hujus ratione

JOHN ERNEST GRABE'S

PROLEGOMENA

On the life and writings of Irenaeus, and on the various editions of them, and on the method and plan of this newest one.

SECTION I.

Concerning the time of the birth and death of Irenaeus, and also the manner of his death.

§ 1. All the things that pertain to the life and writings of Irenaeus the most illustrious Master Henry Dodwell has set forth so learnedly and at such length in Dissertations III, IV, V and VI on Irenaeus, that there is scarcely anything that can be added. And since the use of those Dissertations is ready at hand to all the learned, especially here in England, there would have been need of almost no words upon this matter, did not a doubt concerning some points, and a different opinion concerning others, reside in my mind. With the leave and indulgence therefore of my most learned friend and patron, most highly to be revered by me on account of the very aids kindly afforded to this edition of Irenaeus, which are to be named in their proper place, I shall set forth both my doubts and the different opinions of myself or others; so that the studious reader of Irenaeus may weigh them in an even balance. That Irenaeus was born when Trajan was emperor, the illustrious gentleman in Dissertation III, § 3, excellently gathered from the very words of the holy Father, wherein he wrote on page 449, line 21, of this edition always hereafter to be cited by me (now Book V, Chapter 30, num. 3, end), that what had happened towards the end of Domitian's reign took place almost in his own generation (γενεᾷ). Moreover, in order that it might be more distinctly perceived whether Irenaeus was born near the beginning, or about the middle, or the end of Trajan's reign, he took for consideration in § 5 other words of his, in which [he says that], while still a boy and in his first age (ἡλικίᾳ), he [saw] Saint Polycarp in old age

far advanced, and with him Florinus faring splendidly in the royal court, in Lower Asia, and heard them, as he related in Book III Against Heresies, Chapter 3, and in the Epistle to Florinus. Since therefore Irenaeus in Book 2, Chapter 39, marking out the different ages of men, names infants, little ones, boys, young men, and elders, and places the beginning of youthful age at the thirtieth year; the illustrious gentleman conjectures in § 6 that the age of boyhood therefore extends from the twentieth to the thirtieth year, and presently in § 8 demonstrates that the first age also falls upon the twenty-first, or rather the twenty-fifth year. This year therefore Irenaeus seems to him to have been passing when he beheld Polycarp and Florinus with his eyes in Lower Asia. Moreover, about to investigate the year of Christ corresponding to it, he supposes further in § 10 that by the royal court, in which Florinus then lived splendidly, is to be understood not a kingly, but the imperial court. To confirm which hypothesis it will not be out of place to add a parallel passage from Book 4 Against Heresies, Chapter 49: And what of those faithful who are in the royal court, do they not have utensils from the things which are Caesar's? Now that the words of Irenaeus to Florinus are to be understood of no other than the Emperor Hadrian, and indeed coming for the second time into Asia, he clearly proves in the same place, and that it could not have happened that he came for the second time into Asia before the year of Christ 122. Comparing this year therefore with the twenty-fifth year of the age of Irenaeus, he concludes that he was born in the year

of Christ 97 under Nerva, or in the following year under Trajan.

§ 2. As I was considering this reasoning, there presented themselves to me indeed the words of Irenaeus himself in Book 2, Chapter 42: Mankind passes through five ages; first an infant, next a boy, next a little one, and after this a young man, and so next an elder. Where, since the boy is placed before the little one, the age of boyhood might seem to have to be placed between the tenth and the twentieth year. Yet the words there seem to have been transposed by a copyist, and the former order, wherein the little one precedes the boy, seems altogether preferable; especially since with the latter agrees better the Greek term helikia, which did not begin before the twentieth year. Dismissing that objection therefore, I shall set forth other points which persuade me that Irenaeus was born somewhat later, namely in the common year of Christ 108 (the true year 106). This indeed is agreed, that the Emperor Hadrian did not come for the second time into Asia before the year of Christ 122; yet it is not necessary to suppose that this took place precisely in that year. Nay rather, that the second coming of Hadrian into Asia was rightly assigned by Baronius to the year 129 (127), his adversary in very many things, Pagi himself, confesses, and the coins adduced by him for the years 127, 128, and 129 sufficiently prove. The same thing is also confirmed by the words of Irenaeus to Florinus concerning Polycarp adduced by Master Dodwell himself in § 12: And I can protest in the sight of God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard anything of the sort, he would certainly have cried out, and stopping his ears according to his custom would have said: Good God, unto what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things! Having cited which words, he excellently subjoins: Plainly Irenaeus here hints at that rise of the more recent heretics under Hadrian whereby Polycarp was stirred to so great indignation; that rise, I say, which fell upon the advanced old age of Polycarp. For he who complains that he has been reserved even unto those times, thereby hinted at the same time that he had already passed even the ordinary limits of old age. And because he says that this was customary with Polycarp, it is therefore not to be understood of one heresiarch only. Irenaeus therefore means that while he was a disciple of Polycarp, many heresiarchs arose repeatedly: and as often as new ones arose, so often was that exclamation of Polycarp repeated. Now there came forth from the school of Menander first of all under Hadrian, Basilides and Saturninus; there followed afterwards, though at a brief interval as it seems, Valentinus and Cerdon. Finally Marcion followed Cerdon, a little more recent than the preceding ones. Of all these therefore, except Marcion, I would believe those so often repeated exclamations of Polycarp are to be understood. Now that Valentinus as well as Cerdon coming to Rome under Hyginus began to scatter their heretical venom, Irenaeus himself teaches in Book 1, Chapter 28, and Book 3, Chapter 4. Moreover, Hyginus according to the calculations of Pearson was made Bishop of Rome in the year of Christ 122, after the 9th of August, or according to the opinion of Master Dodwell himself in the year 123. Somewhat later therefore, when the sect of Valentinus and Cerdon had already arisen, Polycarp must have begun to exclaim thus; and consequently the year 127 suits that custom of the martyr excellently. More advanced also was his age at that time, namely of 66 years, if according to the calculations of Pearson approved by Master Dodwell he died by martyrdom in the year of Christ 147; whereas on the contrary in the year 121 he was passing his sixty-first year, at which he could scarcely be said to have surpassed the ordinary limits of old age.

§ 3. Moreover, the history of Irenaeus himself also persuades us to assign his first age to the year of Christ 127 rather than 122, and thence to determine that he was born later than the year 97. For it is agreed that after the persecution of Marcus Aurelius had begun, he was sent by the Church of Lyons to Rome with letters to Pope Eleutherius. Irenaeus would therefore have been an octogenarian at that time, if the said persecution fell in the year of Christ 177, according to the reckoning of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History; or at least a septuagenarian, if according to the opinion of Master Dodwell himself it be referred to the year 167.

Yet that the people of Lyons compelled so old a man to so troublesome a journey, I could scarcely believe. And what is to be said of his books? Those five Against Heresies he must certainly have written at least in the eightieth year of his age, and several others, such as On the Ogdoad, Against Florinus, Against Blastus, and also those which pertained to the Paschal controversy, partly about, partly after his ninetieth year, if he had been born in the year of Christ 97. Now who would easily persuade himself that when so old he at length put his hand to writing, and when already decrepit elaborated so many and so great books? And these considerations also cause me to understand the first age, in which Irenaeus says that he saw Polycarp, of his twenty-first rather than his twenty-fifth year: for that it can also be understood of that year is altogether plain from what the most illustrious gentleman said in § 8. Added to this finally is the fact that our author could with better right boast of his memory of the sayings of Polycarp, and of his appearance and habit, etc., if he saw him when a little younger, namely in his 21st year. And if this fell in the year of Christ 129 (127) according to what has been said before, Irenaeus will have been born in the year of Christ 108 (106).

§ 4. When Master Dodwell had treated at sufficient length concerning the birth of the holy Father, afterwards in § 21 he begins to investigate the time and manner of his death. Indeed it has hitherto been handed down by the generality of chronologers and historians that he underwent martyrdom in that most well-known persecution of the Emperor Severus, which began in his tenth year, or according to others in his fifth, when having joined battle near Lyons he defeated Albinus, and having thence captured the city dealt most cruelly with the citizens, especially the Christians. However, in the place cited I see so great arguments opposed to the martyrdom of Irenaeus, that I would not affirm that for certain. Yet neither would I dare obstinately to deny it, on account of the words both of Jerome on Chapter 64 of Isaiah, and of Justin inserted above on pages 3 and 4 among the testimonies of the ancients; the former of whom wrote those things two hundred, the latter not beyond three hundred years after Irenaeus. For I cannot safely trust the suspicions adduced against the passage of Jerome until the authority of some manuscript codex supports them. This however is certain, and is asserted by the most illustrious gentleman himself in § 20, that Irenaeus in the year of Christ 189, the 10th of the Emperor Commodus, being still alive, presided over a synod held in Gaul on account of the Paschal controversy, and consequently died very old, as he himself wrote of Polycarp.

SECTION II.

Concerning the five books of Irenaeus against all heresies and their translation, and other lost writings of the same author.

§ 1. That Irenaeus wrote the five books Against Heresies first of all his works, the most illustrious Dodwell in Dissertation 4, § 1, ingeniously gathered after Feuardent from their preface. He confesses, however, that those words which seem to indicate this, neither the skill of a writer, which we have not practised, and consequently also the preceding words, nor accustomed to writing, can be understood of simplicity of style. And that I should so understand them, and believe that if not several, at least one treatise had previously been elaborated by Irenaeus, I am induced by his own words in Book 3, Chapter 7: If anyone according to the custom of Paul, as we have shown from many examples elsewhere also, shall so read him using hyperbata, etc. Yet concerning this frequent use of hyperbata he has not even a word in what precedes: it is necessary therefore that he treated of this matter in another treatise written previously.

§ 2. That the said five books were not published at one stroke, but that the first two were sent separately to a friend, the most illustrious gentleman in §§ 4 and 6 rightly teaches from the preface of Book 3. Nay, that the following three also came forth singly, the prefaces of the fourth and fifth books hint. Nevertheless, that Irenaeus already had in mind the arguments of these later books, drawn from the words of the apostles and of Christ, when he wrote the earlier ones, he himself testifies in Book 2, Chapter 3, in these words: Now we have already shown that there is one

God; and from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord we shall show it further. And in Chapter 8: The Lord teaches that this (Creator) is the Father Who is in heaven, and not another, as we shall show as our discourse proceeds. Compare page 131, col. 1, line 19, and col. 2, line 14, and page 175, col. 1, line 19 (Book 2, Chapter 11, n. 1, 2), and in the last chapter of this second book, where he expressly names the following books. And truly without these the overthrow of falsely so-called knowledge, which he promised by the very title of this work, would have been altogether incomplete. For the rest, to determine the time at which those books were written is most difficult. In the cited 4th Dissertation, § 2, and at the end of the same, it is determined that this was done about the year of Christ 177, the eightieth year of the age of Irenaeus, and the ninth or tenth of his episcopate. There are not wanting arguments, however, which seem to prove that the volume Against Heresies was elaborated partly after, partly before that time. For the former part militates the mention of the version of Theodotion made in Book 3, Chapter 24, which nevertheless Epiphanius referred to the times of Commodus, and following him the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle assigned to the sixth year of that emperor. To which Master Dodwell in his separate Dissertation On the Succession of the Roman Pontiffs, Chapter 14, § 17, replied that those words concerning Theodotion were perhaps absent from the earlier copy of Irenaeus, and were afterwards inserted by himself. Another reply, which pleases me more, he gave in Dissertation 4 on Irenaeus, § 39 seq., where he contends against the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle that the version of Theodotion had already come forth under Marcus. And truly the authority neither of this writer, nor of Epiphanius, whom he alleges, ought to be so great in chronological matters that we should suffer ourselves to be disturbed by their era, when a surer reckoning is available to us from elsewhere. Now when that scruple has been shaken off, there occurs to me another argument for the other side, whereby I am almost persuaded that Irenaeus, while still a presbyter, published the entire refutation of the heretics before the year 177. This is deduced from the rise of the sect of the Cataphrygians, which harassed the Churches of Phrygia and Asia: which Eusebius in his Chronicle assigned to the 17th year of Marcus, the year of Christ 171; whereas the illustrious Dodwell makes it more ancient. At whatever time it fell, however, that the first two books of Irenaeus preceded it I gather from the fact that in them he made no mention of this sect, but mentioned the heresy of Tatian as the newest; whereas he would not have omitted the former if it had already at that time begun to trouble Asia, into which he was sending these books. On the contrary, in Books 3 and 4, page 223, col. 1, line 25 (Book 3, Chapter 2, n. 8), and page 349, col. 1, line 10 (Book 4, Chapter 33, n. 6), he lightly touches upon those false prophets; whence he must have written those books a little after the disturbances stirred up by them: for no long interval intervened between the earlier and the later books. Whence also it is gathered that Irenaeus published this work when not so old, and not yet a bishop, but a presbyter; namely before he was sent by the martyrs of Lyons to Rome to Eleutherius for the purpose of repressing that sect, together with commendatory letters wherein he is praised as a presbyter of the Church and a zealous follower of the covenant of Christ, in Eusebius, Book 5, Chapter 4. Deservedly indeed, if he had already pleaded the cause of God and of Christ against the heretics so strenuously in so many written books. Moreover, suitable to the order of a presbyter, and not to the episcopal dignity, are the words wherewith the preface of Book 3 begins: You indeed, most beloved, had commanded us, etc., as well as those which are extant in the preface of Book 5: As you requested of us, obeying your command; since we are placed in the ministry of the word. For no one would have dared to command Irenaeus when already a bishop to sharpen his pen against the heretics: scarcely also would Irenaeus have professed himself obedient to a command; and besides, he would have said that he was placed in the presidency of the Church rather than in the ministry of the word, if he had already at that time been the chief priest of the Church of Lyons. By Irenaeus therefore while still a presbyter the books Against Heresies seem to have been elaborated, between the year of Christ 170 and 174, if in that interval

of time the sect of the Cataphrygians sprang up, and if the other era also of the persecution of Marcus, which Eusebius fixed in his Ecclesiastical History, stands firm. But if we follow the arguments of Master Dodwell referring the said persecution to the year 167, it would be necessary to make the books of Irenaeus more ancient also: which however the mention of the heresy of Tatian and other things do not permit.

§ 3. That this volume Against Heresies was written in the Greek tongue, the most learned gentleman in Dissertation 5, § 1 to 6, has proved by so many and so great arguments that there is no need to add more. In that in § 6, however, he thinks that the Latin translation of them is more recent than Tertullian, and was made only at the end of the 4th century, some periods of Tertullian in his book Against the Valentinians, Chapter 10, compel me to dissent, wherein he seems plainly to have imitated the Latin translator of Irenaeus. For concerning Mother Sophia he says that she first indeed was grieved on account of the inconsummation of generation; and lastly feared lest the end also should press upon her. Which words agree exactly with the Latin version; whereas from the Greek text they differ to some extent. For in Book 1, Chapter 1, § 3, page 2 (Chapter 2, n. 3), the translator says in the same words that she was grieved on account of the inconsummation of generation: and afterwards feared lest this very thing should have an end. Whereas the Greek words in the same place are these: First indeed that she was grieved on account of the incompleteness of the generation, and next feared lest even existence itself should fail to be held completely. Where note that the incompleteness of the generation is rendered by both as inconsummationem generationis; and that Tertullian in the latter clause, leaving the Greek Irenaeus, follows in the footsteps of the translator. Tertullian continues in the place cited, relating that Sophia was confirmed and restored to her consort: and that she herself indeed remained in the roll of the Pleroma; while her Enthymesis, and that appendix passion, was banished by Horus, and crucified, and put outside the age (from the version of Irenaeus restore: outside him), etc. If you compare these words again with the Latin translation on page 12 near the end (num. 4), which sounds likewise: that Sophia was confirmed, and restored to her consort; for when the intention (enthymesis) had been separated from her, with the appendix passion, she herself indeed persevered below (within) the Pleroma; while her concupiscence (enthymesis) with the passion was separated by Horus, and crucified, and put outside him; you will scarcely doubt that these words were before the eyes of Tertullian when he wrote those things. For to say nothing of the agreement of the rest, he says remained in the roll of the Pleroma, just as the translator says persevered, whereas the Greek has to be, not to remain; and the supervening passion both rendered as appendicem passionem: which could not have happened unless the one had taken it from the other. That Saint Cyprian also drew what he wrote in Epistle 74 to Pompeius concerning the heretic Cerdon from the end of Chapter 28 and the beginning of Chapter 29 of Book 1 of Irenaeus, I have noted below on page 103, num. 5. Yet the holy martyr nowhere in his epistles or treatises, so far as I remember, betrayed any knowledge of the Greek tongue: whence he seems to have used the Latin version of Irenaeus, just like his master Tertullian. At the end of the second century therefore, while Irenaeus was still alive or lately deceased, I would believe that these books of his were translated into Latin speech, and that a barbarous one; and indeed by some minister of the Church of Lyons, or of another Church in Gaul, because certain words occur in that version which are scarcely used by any other than Gallican writers. See below page 168 (152), note 5 (on these words sinistrae manus... levamen), and elsewhere passim. As for those who make Irenaeus himself his own translator, truly they must assert that so great a man was ignorant of the very thoughts of his own mind, or expressed them wrongly. For that the Latin version is repeatedly different from the sense of the Greek text is plain from very many examples, each noted in its proper place.

§ 4. The title prefixed by the author to this work was The Detection and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge, as has been handed down to memory by Eusebius

in Book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History, Chapter 7, supported by Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse, Sermon 6, Chapter 18; Damascene in his manuscript Parallels passim; Photius; Oecumenius on the Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter 3, page 543, and on the Epistle of Jude, page 628. Nay, Irenaeus himself is a witness of this matter in the preface of Book 2, where he says: Wherefore, because it is the detection and overthrow of their opinion, we have so titled the composition of this work; and in the preface of Book 4, which begins: Sending to you, most beloved, this fourth book of the work which is concerning the detection and overthrow of false knowledge. Similarly at the end of this book he calls it the work of the reproof and overthrow of falsely so-called knowledge; and in the preface of Book 5, the work concerning the exposure and overthrow of falsely so-called knowledge. And indeed elenchos, detection or exposure, regards the first book, wherein he recounted the errors of the heretics; while anatrope, overthrow, regards the following four, wherein he refuted them both by reasonings and by the sayings of Sacred Scripture. And hence not only are they called by Eusebius in very many places, for the sake of brevity of words, the Books Against Heresies, and by Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechesis 16, the Institutions Against Heresies; but in the ancient codices of the Latin version also they are so entitled; in the ancient codex of Feuardent: Five Books Against All Heresies; and in the manuscript copy of Vossius: Books Five in Number Against All Heretics (or Heresies). Which title is supported by those words wherewith Irenaeus closes Book 4: Exercising both ourselves and you in five books unto the contradiction of all heretics. For the rest, to what Master Dodwell in Dissertation 5, § 12, has discoursed concerning the titles of the individual chapters, and the division both of these and of the books themselves, out of a study of brevity I add nothing, save that the Greek text of Irenaeus also was already of old divided into chapters, and indeed smaller ones than those which are in the Latin version; as I gather from the Commentary of Procopius of Gaza on Chapter 3 of Genesis, page 76, where what our author teaches in Book 3, Chapter 37, concerning Adam's garment of skins, he alleges as said in Chapters 59 and 65 of the same book.

§ 5. For the rest, concerning the codices of the said five books which we use, some things remain to be said. We have no Greek manuscript codex in the whole world, even mutilated, says the most illustrious Dodwell in Dissertation 5, § 11. Indeed Feuardent, in the Admonition to the Readers prefixed to his edition, relates that there were some who testified that they had read a Greek copy in the library at Venice, and that others said it had been seen in the Vatican; he adds, however, that they were sought there in vain. And that a Greek Irenaeus is not now found in the Vatican library, its most worthy prefect, Master Lorenzo Alessandro Zaccagni, has informed me by letter; while an opportunity of inquiring exactly concerning the library at Venice has been wanting to me. By a mutilated Greek codex of Irenaeus, however, the afore-praised gentleman doubtless understood the greatest part of Book 1, preserved in Greek in the Panarion of Epiphanius against heresies, as well as several other fragments excerpted by Eusebius, Theodoret, etc., and especially by John Damascene in the books which he entitled Parallels, or by the interpolator of these. For that those sayings of Irenaeus which are extant in the Clermont parchments were inserted by John Damascene himself, I now doubt, because they are found neither in the Latin version of those Parallels published by Billy, nor in the Vatican Greek manuscript codex, if you except certain brief sentences. Added to this is the fact that in the passage concerning the name of Antichrist in Book 5, Chapter 30, in place of the last appellation Teitan, which all the copies of Irenaeus have and the entire context confirms, in the Clermont codex is read Papiskos. Now this indeed was the name of an Alexandrian Jew whom Aristo of Pella represented disputing with Jason a Christian (concerning whom see the Spicilegium of the Fathers of the 2nd Century, page 127 seq.), and consequently suitable enough for Antichrist, who according to the unanimous opinion of the Fathers will likewise be a Jew and the fiercest enemy of Christians. Nevertheless I can find no

reason why this name rather, the other name Titan having been rejected, should have been received and reckoned with the other, Lateinos; unless perhaps some more recent Greek, opining that the Roman Pontiff either had become or would be Antichrist, thought that the diminutive of the name of pope, Papeiskos, should be applied to him. Which conjectures of mine concerning the interpolation of the Clermont codex of the Parallels I wished to set forth in this place, because in the notes, so far as I remember, I always ascribed the collection of those Greek fragments of Irenaeus to Damascene himself. From whosesoever hand they proceeded, however, to him we certainly owe many thanks, because he has preserved for us in Greek almost the fifth part of Book 5 of Irenaeus, to say nothing of the fragments of Books 2 and 4.

§ 6. Finally, if you look at the Latin copies, that which is preserved among the manuscript books of Isaac Vossius, and which is said to be the same as the ancient codex of Feuardent, though I on account of certain variant readings judge it to be different, the most learned gentleman in the place cited a little before holds as complete and mutilated in no part. And concerning the first four books indeed this is most true, except perhaps for a single passage on page 219, col. 2, line 26 (page 109, col. 2, line 5). But that Book 5 is in great part mutilated at the end, its preface and the conclusion of Book 4 do not suffer me to doubt. For the former sounds thus: Having made manifest (in Book 4) very many things which were both said and done by the Lord through parables, in this fifth book... from the remaining teachings of the Lord, and from the apostolic Epistles, we shall endeavour to make proofs. The latter consists of the following words: Arranging therefore in another book the remaining discourses of the Lord, which He taught concerning the Father not indeed through parables, but simply in the expressions themselves, and the exposition of the Epistles of the blessed Apostle Paul, we shall furnish you with the entire work. Those discourses of the Lord, namely, he wished to oppose to the heretics, which announce one and the same Father as the Maker of this world, as he writes a little before. Similarly from the Epistles of Saint Paul he proposed to himself to demonstrate that he taught one God the Father, Him Who spoke to Abraham, Who gave the law, Who sent the prophets beforehand, Who sent His Son, bestowing salvation upon His workmanship, which is the substance of the flesh. And the salvation of the flesh indeed, that is, the resurrection and eternal life, Irenaeus demonstrates by various arguments and by the very sayings of the Apostle Paul, and explains at length from Chapter 2 of Book 5 down to Chapter 15 the sentence of 1 Cor. 15 objected to the contrary by the heretics: Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, and herein proves from the Sacred Scriptures that the Demiurge is the author of the resurrection and incorruption of the flesh; so that having changed his plan, I know not why, what he had proposed to treat at the end of Book 5, he performed in the former part of the same. The promised demonstration, however, from the words of Christ uttered without the wrapping of parables, concerning one God, the Creator of the world and the same the Father of our Saviour, he at length enters upon in Chapter 21, and from the citation of the Mosaic law against the temptations of the devil deduces the first argument, which is also the last: seeing that from the words of the most wicked spirit: All these things will I give Thee, if falling down Thou wilt adore me, etc., he took occasion to digress at greater length, discoursing first concerning the lies of the devil and his endeavour whereby he strives to be adored in the place of God; and next from Chapter 25 down to the end of our text pursuing at length the doctrine concerning Antichrist, and the millennial kingdom of Christ to follow his destruction. The remaining demonstrations therefore, drawn from the words of Christ and the writings of the Apostle Paul, of one and the same God in the Old and New Testaments have perished, because the copyists were unwilling to transcribe further the doctrine of the millennial kingdom, which had become odious in a later age, and therefore broke off the thread.

§ 7. Concerning the other works of our author it is treated at length in Dissertation 6 on Irenaeus. Yet to observe one or two points concerning those writings whose fragments are subjoined below will not be out of place. First in line there stands the closing clause of the book On the Ogdoad, which I do not indeed think was written to Florinus after the manner of an epistle; nevertheless

on account of him, carried away by the error of Valentinus, or for the refutation of him, I believe it was elaborated by Irenaeus, as has been expressly handed down by Eusebius in Book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History, Chapter 20. For the rest, that in Jerome's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers that treatise, as Eusebius calls it, is read entitled Concerning the Ogdoasts, seems to have been a mistake of more recent copyists or editors who followed Sophronius, the Greek translator, and not of Jerome himself. For in the handwritten codices of the Bodleian library, as well as in that which Freculphus used in the 9th century, it is written De octava. Thus therefore I think Jerome turned the title Peri Ogdoados into Latin; yet not even so well: since he ought rather with the ancient translator of Irenaeus to have rendered it Octonationem, or in better Latin to have said On the Octonary Number of the Aeons. Next there follows in the said place a fragment of the Epistle to Florinus On the Monarchy, or That God is Not the Author of Evils, De monarchia sive quod Deus non sit conditor malorum; as Eusebius in the cited Book 5, Chapter 20, expressed the title or summary of this writing. Whence Valesius in his Notes wrongly gathered that Florinus introduced two principles, and cleaved to the dogmas of Marcion and Cerdon: and affirmed the one to be the author of good things, the other of evil. For against this stand the words of Irenaeus himself, reproaching Florinus: These dogmas not even the heretics placed outside the Church ever dared to put forward. Different therefore from the error of Marcion or of any other heretic, and more impious, was the dogma of Florinus; and he seems so to have asserted the monarchy of the Creator of the world, as the supreme God, against the Marcionites and other heretics, as to make the Same the author and cause of evils: which truly not even the heretics themselves of that age had hitherto dared to do. Irenaeus therefore, the strenuous defender of the goodness of the supreme God, demonstrated to Florinus that His monarchy, another god as the principle of evils having been rejected, must be held in such wise that He Himself is nevertheless by no means made the author of evils, or the author of the crimes which are committed by men; than which nothing more impious can be said. Read the most illustrious Dodwell in § 2. Furthermore, the epistle of Irenaeus to Victor, two fragments of which I have subjoined in their proper place, and the discourse On Easter, which I have likewise noted as alleged by Justin, the most learned gentleman in § 21 holds for one and the same writing. But since I remember an epistle to be denoted by the word logos by no writer, I interpret the logon peri Pascha rather as a homily On Easter delivered on this very feast, and I think that this was one of the various discourses of which Eusebius makes mention in Book 5, Chapter 26, and Jerome On Ecclesiastical Writers, who calls them various treatises, that is, sermons delivered to the people in church; in which way Sophronius also took it, rendering it a book of various homilies. And from thence also I think was drawn the sentence concerning the meditation of death transcribed on page 468 from the Parallels of Damascene, where it is cited thus: of Saint Irenaeus from the 4th of the Lexeis. For I do not doubt that we must read Dialexeon: which conjecture did not occur to me when I was writing annotation 4 on page 468. Thus one day teaches another, and will perhaps hereafter teach more things concerning these and other writings of Irenaeus.

SECTION III.

Concerning the various editions of the five books of Irenaeus against heresies, and the plan and design of this newest edition.

§ 1. The most ancient Latin version of the five books of Irenaeus Against Heresies Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam first published in folio, with this title: The most learned work of Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, digested into five books, wherein he admirably uncovers and confutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies, emended, so far as was possible, from the collation of most ancient codices, by the labour of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, and now for the first time published by the labour of Johann Froben. Added

is an index of matters worthy to be known. At renowned Basel in the year 1526 with Imperial grace and privilege. He dedicated that work to Bernard, at that time Bishop of Trent, and the dedicatory epistle addressed to him can be read not only at the beginning of that volume, but also in the collection of the epistles of Erasmus, printed at London in the year 1612, Book XXVIII, no. 5. The dedicatory epistle is followed by the adjuration of Saint Irenaeus to the scribes: I adjure you, etc., appended by him not indeed to these books Against Heresies, but to another treatise On the Ogdoad. Immediately follows the text of Irenaeus, with certain variant readings, and interpretations of both the Greek words which the translator retained and the less usual Latin words placed in the margin. Moreover, he prefixed to the four earlier books the ancient titles of the individual chapters, and to the four later ones his own prefaces or arguments, as he calls them.

§ 2. Two years later, namely in the year 1528, another edition in folio came forth from the Frobenian press at Basel, soon reprinted in the year 1534, in the title of which after the words, emended by the labour of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, there follows: and now revised by the labour of the same, those things having been corrected which had previously escaped notice; so that Erasmus himself by a second care seems to have removed certain faults. For the rest, nothing new was added to that edition, except that the preface of Book V is fuller. For after those words: Of purgatory there is no mention, he thus proceeds: Nay rather it seems, etc.

In the same year 1534, Du Pin records in his New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors that Irenaeus came forth to the light at Paris; but it has not fallen to my lot to see that edition. I have, however, seen another Parisian edition of 1545 not named by him, in octavo form, the title of which indeed professes that the books of Irenaeus have been given to the light far more corrected than heretofore. But I impute this to the fraud of the bookseller, because I detect no emendations there. For the rest, the Basel editions of 1545, 1548, 1554, which Du Pin enumerates, I confess are unknown to me: nor yet do I bear that ill, because a more recent Basel edition of 1560 in folio was at hand to me; in nothing, however, excelling the preceding ones, except that in place of the bare adjuration of Irenaeus, whereby he adjured the scribes, it has the entire words of Jerome about Irenaeus in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, which I have inserted in their proper place among the testimonies of the ancients, and that the index of matters is fuller, as is clear even from the first letter A. And from that Basel edition the Parisian ones in octavo of 1563 and 1567 differ in nothing.

§ 3. After these things Nicolas des Gallars, professor of Sacred Theology, caused these books of Irenaeus to be printed at Geneva in 1570, dedicated to Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London; having premised a preface to the reader on the design of the whole work, and on the profit to be gathered from the reading of the ancient doctors, together with an alphabetical series of the Greek words which occur in Irenaeus explained in Latin, and the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome on the life and writings of Irenaeus. Next, almost all the Greek words which Epiphanius cited from Book I of Irenaeus he placed alongside, together with a new Latin version, retaining at the same time the old one; which indeed he says he gives accurately emended by the collation of copies, namely the editions of Erasmus, many times reprinted: for it is clear that he used no manuscript codices. Furthermore, the fifth book, which no one hitherto had divided into sections, he himself distinguished into chapters: to which, as also to the other chapters of the four earlier books, he prefixed summaries of the matters and sentiments: and in the margin he placed for the most part the passages of Scripture alleged by Irenaeus; finally, at the end of the work he added certain annotations, most of which are of no great moment, and contribute almost nothing towards emending or explaining the text of Irenaeus. In the next following year Johann Jakob Grynaeus published at Basel the work of Irenaeus Against Heresies, which he calls most learned, [furnished] with a new translation of the first book, with arguments of the individual chapters and with [the noting] of variant

readings, and revised, just as the title of the book sounds. Which the following words, which he has in the dedicatory epistle to Bernhard Brand, chief tribune of the people of the republic of Basel, declare more plainly: It came to pass by the singular kindness of God, and the zeal of certain good and learned men, that after Erasmus began to dwell among those above, there came forth into the light the excellent work of Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, against eighty heresies, in which, since many things copied word for word from the books of Irenaeus were extant, it was permitted to us to restore the greatest part of Book 1 from Epiphanius, and to use the much better version of Janus Cornarius. Next, since most absurd summaries, for the most part nothing to the purpose, prefixed both to the books and to the chapters, pointers to errors rather than to the aim, were extant in this work, having removed those for the greatest part, I added brief summaries of the chapters, that I might remind the readers of the design of Irenaeus and the states of the disputations. Lastly, having revised the whole work, and freed it from not a few faults, I collated it with other copies, noted the variant reading in the margin, and strove to render clearer the monstrous opinion-madness concerning the 30 Aeons wrapped in figure. And that he altogether cast aside the old version indeed and the ancient summaries, was ill done by him; while the last thing of which he boasts, I think altogether unaccomplished: for I find no variant readings in the margin.

§ 4. Finally François Feuardent, doctor of theology of Paris, cared for the publishing of the five books of Irenaeus Against Heresies, emended in very many places from an ancient manuscript codex of Master Jean de Saint-André, canon of the Church of Paris, and augmented by five chapters at the end of the fifth book, at the press of Nivelle at Paris in the year 1575 and 1576, as I learned from the illustrious Du Pin's New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors: for I myself could not find this edition in our Oxford libraries, or at London. Yet that matters little: since the later edition printed at Cologne in the year 1596, and reprinted in the same place in the year 1625, as well as at Paris in 1639, and thereafter, is better than the earlier one, as Du Pin himself noticed, because it has the Greek passages of Irenaeus inserted from various writers. But let us rather hear Feuardent himself speaking in his preface both of this and of the other additions to his later edition:

The first eighteen chapters of the first book, formerly transcribed in Greek word for word from Irenaeus by Epiphanius, then twenty-two fragments from Eusebius, fourteen (read sixteen) from Theodoret, two from Basil, just as many from Melissa, one from Anastasius of Nicaea, we cared to have published in print in Greek in their proper places, just as they were first written down by Irenaeus and hence praised by these Fathers. Next, at the end of the work we subjoined in Greek six other fragments from diverse works of the same Irenaeus, collected from the author of the Questions and Responses to the Orthodox in Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Demetrius Diacopus (the deacon): and both those and these, rendered into Latin for the greater part by the most praised man Jacques de Billy, and the rest by the most learned translators John Christopherson, Hervet, Erasmus, and Faber, we arranged in as fitting an order as could be done. The aforesaid eighteen Greek chapters of the first book the same Billy with scholia, and then the Reverend Father Fronton du Duc, of the Society of Jesus, a theologian as pious as he is learned, with his notes collated against the Greek copies of Epiphanius, emended, and illustrated. We also added most copious annotations not only to those, but to the individual chapters of the books and the newly adjoined fragments, in which we render the reasons of the emendations, explain very many more obscure and ambiguous passages, and many Greek phrases less usual to Latins, etc. For the rest, to the latest edition of Feuardent were added at the end the Greek passages of Irenaeus, which Halloix had published in the Life of Irenaeus, chap. 15, copied chiefly from the Clermont codex of the Parallels of Damascene.

§ 5. As regards this edition of ours (of the undertaking of which my first adviser was the same who was my chief Maecenas in England, the Reverend Master Dr Henry Aldrich, Dean of Christ Church, most highly to be revered by me), it presents the most ancient Latin version, reprinted according to the copy of Feuardent, but by the help of 4 manuscript codices, sometimes also of Erasmus and Gallasius, as well as of the Greek copies, with our own conjectures and those of others not seldom applied, emended in nearly two hundred places, and more rightly distinguished than had hitherto been done by commas, colons, parentheses, periods, and chapters. It sets forth nearly the half part of the Greek text (if you take away the cited passages of Scripture), and fragments sought out from all sides both by Feuardent and Halloix, and by Combefis, and finally collected by myself from printed and manuscript Catenae, as they call them, of the Fathers and other codices indicated in their proper place, and those more emended, and inserted each in its proper place; with the addition moreover of several not to be despised particles and sentences of lost treatises of Irenaeus, gathered as if from a shipwreck. It contains the choicer annotations of Gallasius, Feuardent, Billy, Fronton du Duc, Leopardi, Scaliger, Petavius, Halloix, Valesius, Isaac Vossius, Cotelier, Dodwell, and others, and mine moreover subjoined to the text, as well as the variant readings of the said copies noted below. Furthermore, it seemed necessary to compile two most copious indexes, the one of passages of Holy Scripture, the other of matters occurring in the text of Irenaeus. These are followed by a threefold glossary: Latin-Greek, which recounts in order the Greek words of Irenaeus which correspond to the Latin words of the ancient translator; Greek-Latin, which presents the Greek words and phrases of rarer use; and finally Latin, whereby the unusual and more obscure words of the Latin translator are explained by usual and clearer ones. Lastly, lest anything should seem to be wanting for the illustration of our Irenaeus, Jean de Croï's Specimen of Conjectures and Observations on Irenaeus, Epiphanius, etc., has been reprinted on account of the rarity of copies, and added by way of an appendix.

§ 6. But before I make an end of speaking by way of preface, I publicly render due thanks to the friends who have deserved well of me and my Irenaeus. The first of these is the afore-praised most celebrated Master Dodwell, who, having long ago meditated a new edition of the works of Irenaeus, with that design most accurately collated the best manuscript codex of Isaac Vossius with the copy of Feuardent, and out of his singular affection towards me and all students of ecclesiastical antiquity most gladly communicated all the variant readings collected thence, as also a transcript of the variant readings which, formerly dug out by Josias Mercier from two manuscript codices, I know not which, the same Vossius had given to Master Dodwell himself to be copied. The Arundel codex now preserved in the library of the Royal Society at London, which I judge to be four hundred years old, I myself indeed three years ago diligently collated with the edition of Feuardent; inasmuch as that humane man beyond measure, Dr Woodward, doctor of medicine and fellow of the said society, had most kindly obtained the use of it for me. Nevertheless, since the Reverend Master Battely, canon of Canterbury, afterwards of his own accord transmitted to me his own copy of Irenaeus, in which he had noted a great part of the variant readings of the said codex, I was unwilling to pass over in silence this his benevolence, especially as I have made use of one and another observation of his written on the margin. The fragment from the codex of the Vienna library on the last page of this edition the most illustrious Master Edmund Gibson, chaplain and librarian to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, out of his singular humanity transmitted to me: although I had previously copied it at London from the papers of the most learned Master Abednego Seller. Moreover, I give many thanks to a man most beloved by me for his extraordinary candour and no less erudition, Master John Potter, fellow

of Lincoln College, who at my request did not grudge to compile almost the entire Greek glossary, because the narrowness of the appointed time compelled me to write the prolegomena. For the rest, throughout this whole work, where at times I stuck in doubt, especially concerning certain passages of Scripture cited by Irenaeus a little otherwise than we read them, I consulted my most honoured patron Dr John Mill, most learned professor of Sacred Theology, by whose

admonitions and most learned annotations on the New Testament I gratefully profess that I have profited not a little. Among foreigners there is only one to be named by me, the Reverend Father Michel Le Quien, theologian of Paris of the Order of Preachers; to whose extraordinary alacrity in aiding my own and every literary undertaking I owe all things whatsoever I have given copied or emended from Gallican codices. Make use of these things, therefore, benevolent reader, and pray to God for my salvation.