PG 7 · cols. 431–432

Prologus ad libros contra haereses (editor's; author not named in the digest)

Editors' preface

PG 7:431

AD LIBROS CONTRA HAERESES

To the Books Against Heresies.

PROLOGUS

Prologue.

AUCTORE, UT VIDETUR, FLORO LUGDUNENSI DIACONO.

Its author, as it seems, Florus, Deacon of Lyons.

(Spicilegium Solesmense, complectens sanctorum Patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, publici juris facta curante Domno J. B. PITRA, O. S. B. monacho e congregatione Gallica. Parisiis, ap. Firmin Didot fratres, MDCCCLII. Tom. I, p. 8. — « Praefatiuncula haec, inquit doctissimus editor Spicilegii Solesmensis (Proleg. p. IX), in codice Arundeliano (Mus. Britan., n. 87, plut. CLXIV, F, fol. 1) nullo auctoris nomine inscribitur: quominus autem Floro Lugdunensi restituenda sit, vix dubitare sinit exigua notula Sirmondi ad Aviti fragmentum, quam rescribere non piget: In alio, inquit, codice ejusdem bibliothecae (Carthusiae Majoris) operibus Irenaei praefixa est Flori Praefatio cum epistola Agobardi. Sane Prologus noster Flori dictionem sapit nec illius aevo abludit; satis aperte sub finem intuetur acerrimas Flori cum Joanne Scoto disceptationes. »)

(Spicilegium Solesmense, comprising hitherto unpublished works of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, made public under the care of Dom J. B. Pitra, Benedictine monk of the French Congregation. Paris, Firmin Didot Brothers, 1852. Volume I, page 8. — "This short preface," says the most learned editor of the Spicilegium Solesmense (Prolegomena, page IX), "is inscribed with no author's name in the Arundel codex (British Museum, no. 87, shelf CLXIV, F, fol. 1); yet that it should be restored to Florus of Lyons a brief note of Sirmond on a fragment of Avitus scarcely allows us to doubt, which it is no trouble to transcribe: In another codex, says he, of the same library (of the Grande Chartreuse) there is prefixed to the works of Irenaeus a Preface of Florus with an epistle of Agobard. Certainly our Prologue savours of the diction of Florus and does not differ from his age; towards the end it looks openly enough at the sharpest disputes of Florus with John Scotus.")

ARGUMENTUM. — Inquiritur primum quis sit Irenaeus, aut qua mente scripserit; II. deinde quae contineantur quinque ejus libris; III. tum ex quintuplici deducitur causa cur denuo hi libri edantur.

Argument. — First it is inquired who Irenaeus is, or with what purpose he wrote; II. next, what things are contained in his five books; III. then from a fivefold reason it is deduced why these books are published anew.

I. Hyrenaeus, episcopus civitatis Lugdunensis, instructus a Polycarpo discipulo Johannis apostoli, scripsit quinque libros cuidam episcopo, rogatus ab eo, Contra haereticos, valde necessarios; in quibus, ut sapiens architectus et providus medicus, perfecte nos instruit de haeresibus et haeresiarchis; primum detegens eorum prava dogmata et perversa opera, ne quis incidat in idipsum incredulitatis exemplum. Nam, sicut medicus aegrum curare non potest, nisi causam morbi prius agnoscat, sic necesse fuit eum haereticas pestes, cum suis causis, prius agnoscere, ut postmodum competenti medicina posset eis efficacius contraire.

I. Irenaeus, bishop of the city of Lyons, instructed by Polycarp the disciple of John the apostle, wrote five very necessary books Against the Heretics to a certain bishop, having been asked by him; in which, like a wise architect and a provident physician, he thoroughly instructs us concerning the heresies and the heresiarchs, first detecting their depraved dogmas and perverse works, lest anyone fall into the same example of unbelief. For just as a physician cannot cure a sick man unless he first recognizes the cause of the disease, so it was necessary that he should first recognize the heretical plagues with their causes, so that afterwards by a fitting medicine he might more efficaciously counter them.

II. In primis ergo, ipsas haereses explicat, singulis assignans suas originales causas, scilicet a quibus acceperunt materiam existendi. Inter quod agendum, ponit et ignota nomina fictarum rerum, quas ipsi Virtutes appellabant, et quasi deos venerati sunt. De quorum scilicet nominum multitudine illatum tibi, o lector, taedium patienter sustine, tandem philosophicarum rationum et divinarum auctoritatum copiosa dulcedine compensandum. Postea ipsos haeresiarchas nominatim commemorat, et quid vel quantum, unde cujusque discipuli suorum magistrorum adinventionibus addiderint, consequenter annectit. Dein, singulas haereses singillatim aggrediens, et, probatissimi more philosophi, assumptis de rerum naturis peremptoriis rationibus, verum a falso discernit; sanctitatis amictum, pravitati superductum, violenter abstrahit; ubi in melle venenum, ubi in columbae specie vulpes lateat, curiosa discussione perquirit. Hoc modo sordidissimis phantasiis haereticae dolositatis solertissime deprehensis, et fidelium oculis patenter expositis, ad ultimum venenosos surculos, adulterina plantatione insertos, multiplici f[alce di]vinarum auctoritatum exstirpat, abjicit et conculcat. Ejusdem quoque intentionis occasione, non solum quae ab haereticis corrupta sunt corrigit, sed insuper multa de novo Testamento, ad munimentum verae fidei, fideliter et luculenter exponit.

II. First of all, therefore, he explains the heresies themselves, assigning to each its original causes, namely from which they received the matter of their existence. In doing which, he also sets down the unknown names of fictitious things, which they themselves called Virtues and venerated as gods. The weariness brought upon you, O reader, from the multitude of these names, patiently endure, to be compensated at length by the copious sweetness of philosophical reasons and divine authorities. Afterwards he commemorates the heresiarchs themselves by name, and consequently annexes what or how much, and whence, the disciples of each added to the inventions of their masters. Then, attacking the individual heresies one by one, and after the manner of a most approved philosopher taking peremptory reasons from the natures of things, he discerns the true from the false; he violently strips off the cloak of sanctity drawn over depravity; by a careful examination he searches out where poison lurks in the honey, where the fox lurks in the guise of a dove. In this way, the most filthy phantasies of heretical deceitfulness having been most skilfully caught and openly exposed to the eyes of the faithful, at the last with the manifold sickle of the divine authorities he roots out, casts away, and tramples underfoot the poisonous shoots ingrafted by an adulterous planting. On the occasion of the same purpose also, he not only corrects the things that have been corrupted by the heretics, but moreover faithfully and lucidly expounds many things from the New Testament for the defence of the true faith.

III. Sunt autem quinque causae, quae sumtum et laborem hujus libri transcribendi non sinunt, ut putamus, aestimari superfluum. Prima, quod perrarus est, haeresium silentio, quod nunc solito vehementius interruptum est, neminem impellente. Secunda, quod auctor ejus antiquus, et apostolicis temporibus vicinus exstitit, et ideo fide dignus. Tertia, quod quae de haereticis scribit, non omnia per famam didicit, sed plurima de his praesenter ab eis audivit doceri, et vidit exerceri, utpote eorum σύγχρονος, id est, contemporaneus et comprovincialis. Quarta, quod de haeresibus illius temporis nemo plenius, sive planius noscitur disputasse. Quinta, quod arma militantis Ecclesiae, aliquantae pacis occasione neglecta, resarciri plus solito necesse est, quia, defensore tam raro, tyrannis haeretica in eam tanto crudelius quanto impunius incipit efferari.

III. Now there are five causes which do not allow the expense and labour of transcribing this book, as we think, to be esteemed superfluous. The first, because it is very rare, since the silence of heresies—which has now been broken more violently than usual—was impelling no one. The second, because its author was ancient and near to the apostolic times, and therefore worthy of credit. The third, because what he writes concerning the heretics he did not learn wholly by rumour, but heard very many of these things taught by them in person and saw them practised, as being their contemporary, that is, of the same time and of the same province. The fourth, because no one is known to have disputed more fully or more plainly concerning the heresies of that time. The fifth, because the arms of the Church militant, neglected on the occasion of some measure of peace, need to be repaired more than usual, since, with a defender so rare, heretical tyranny begins to rage against her all the more cruelly the more it does so with impunity.

Editors' notes and page, col. 431

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: cuidam episcopo› · call in col 431-432 (text set full width)

Constanter id asseritur, quod vix conjecerat D. Massuetus, nec nisi subdubitans innuerat: « Quis fuerit amicus ille, tacente Irenaeo, dici non potest... Episcopum fuisse suspicor, aut aliquem in clero conspicuum qui plebem curae suae concreditam haberet. » Diss. praev. p. xcv.

This is asserted firmly, though Dom Massuet had barely conjectured it and only hinted at it with some doubt: "Who that friend was cannot be said, since Irenaeus is silent... I suspect he was a bishop, or someone prominent among the clergy who had a people entrusted to his care." Preliminary Dissertations, p. xcv.

(printed under page 222)

(b) ‹anchor: hujus libri› · call in col 431-432 (text set full width)

Tibi cod.

The manuscript reads "Tibi" ("to you").

(printed under page 222)

Hinc Flori, ni fallor, indoles et aetas maxime innotescit.

From this, unless I am mistaken, the character and date of Florus become especially clear.

(printed under page 222)

(d) ‹anchor: utpote eorum σύγχρονος› · call in col 431-432 (text set full width)

Codex habet syncronon. Abs re non sit advertere, scriptoribus aevi Carolini συνήθως id moris fuisse vocabula graeca suis passim inspergere commentariis, nec Florum abstinuisse se omnino ab hujuscemodi graecanica consuetudine.

The manuscript has "syncronon". It is not beside the point to observe that writers of the Carolingian age customarily made a habit of sprinkling Greek words here and there through their commentaries, and that Florus did not wholly refrain from this Greek-flavoured habit.

(printed under page 222)

Prologus ad libros contra haereses (editor's; author not named in the digest)

Footnotes

Page

Page