PG 7 · cols. 1525–1600

Variorum notae in librum secundum S. Irenaei (chiefly Feuardentius and Grabe)

Editors' preface

VARIORUM NOTAE IN LIBRUM SECUNDUM SANCTI IRENAEI.

NOTES OF VARIOUS AUTHORS ON THE SECOND BOOK OF SAINT IRENAEUS.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in praefationem libri secundi.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on the preface of the second book.

Pag. 115. Praefatio secundi libri. Magno studio cavisse hunc sanctissimum martyrem, ne libri isti assuetis haereticorum artibus depravarentur, neve argumentorum aut titulorum adjectione eis opus foret, evidentissimum est, tum ex obtestatione ad scribas initio operis praefixa, tum ex praefationibus singulis librorum principiis appositis; quibus ea, quae in superiore proposuit, et quae in proximo dicturus est, paucis complectitur. Porro secundi libri hujus capita, sive sectiones, dissimiles et plures sunt in veteri nostro exemplari, quam in excusis omnibus, quae interdum magis conveniunt, interdum etiam minus; qua de re lectorem hic monere potius quam quidquam mutare visum fuit, ut et suis locis pro re nata indicabimus. Caeterum, postquam superiore libro portentosas Gnosticorum opiniones, quasi perniciosa monstra, e suis lustris in apertum campum eduxisset; hoc secundo singula acerrime persequitur; quae et propriis illorum placitis, quasi suopte mucrone jugulat, simul et indicat quid quisque illorum ex philosophorum lacunis hauserit; unde veteris philosophiae, atque adeo Gnosticorum deliriorum, quae magna ex parte abolevit divina providentia, parum gnaris, paulo obscurior liber fortasse videbitur. Nos tamen dabimus operam, ut non sine fructu aliquo, aequo et benevolo lectori, idem et simile semper haereticorum ingenium, fraudesque Satanae retegantur, et omnibus patescant.

Page 115. Preface of the second book. That this most holy martyr took care with great zeal lest those books should be corrupted by the accustomed arts of the heretics, and lest they should have need of the addition of summaries or titles, is most evident, both from the adjuration to the scribes prefixed at the beginning of the work, and from the prefaces placed at the beginnings of the individual books; in which he embraces in a few words those things which he set forth in the preceding one, and those which he is about to say in the next. Moreover, the chapters, or sections, of this second book are different and more numerous in our ancient copy than in all the printed editions, which sometimes agree more, and sometimes also less; concerning which matter it seemed best to warn the reader here rather than to change anything, as we shall also point out in their own places as occasion arises. For the rest, after he had in the preceding book led forth the monstrous opinions of the Gnostics, like pernicious monsters, out of their dens into the open field; in this second book he pursues each one most sharply; which he also slays by their own tenets, as if with their own sword, and at the same time points out what each of them drew from the puddles of the philosophers; whence to those little acquainted with ancient philosophy, and indeed with the ravings of the Gnostics, which divine providence has in great part abolished, the book will perhaps seem somewhat more obscure. We, however, shall take pains that, not without some fruit for the fair and benevolent reader, the ever identical and similar disposition of heretics, and the frauds of Satan, may be uncovered and lie open to all.

Qui sunt a Valentino. Id est, Valentini sectatoribus atque discipulis; sicut et alibi frequenter, « qui sunt a Simone, qui sunt a Marcione, » etc., pro « Simoniani et Marcionitae : » quod semel notasse sufficiat.

Those who are from Valentinus. That is, by the followers and disciples of Valentinus; just as elsewhere also frequently, "those who are from Simon, those who are from Marcion," etc., for "Simonians and Marcionites:" which it may suffice to have noted once.

Minutatim perexivimus. Jacobus Billius, vir Graece et Latine doctissimus, ac Gregorii Nazianzeni, Damasceni, Isidori Pelusiotae, primorumque decem et octo libri primi Irenaei capitum interpres fidissimus et lectissimus, tres libros conscripsit, qui post ejus obitum, nomine Sacrarum observationum in lucem prodierunt. In his plurimos hujus sanctissimi martyris librorum locos solerter expendit, feliciter explicavit, ac magna fide correxit. Hujus itaque diligentia et studio (quod semel dictum sufficiat) suffulti, eosdem, et alios multo plures pro viribus emendabimus, ab hoc quem nos signavimus incipientes. « Perexire, inquit, novo, ac Latinis prorsus inusitato more dixit, quod Graeci διεξελθεῖν, id est, commemorare dicunt. »

We have gone through in detail. Jacobus Billius, a man most learned in Greek and Latin, and the most faithful and choice translator of Gregory of Nazianzus, Damascene, Isidore of Pelusium, and the first eighteen chapters of the first book of Irenaeus, wrote three books, which after his death came to light under the name of Sacred Observations. In these he skilfully weighed, felicitously explained, and with great fidelity corrected very many passages of the books of this most holy martyr. Supported therefore by his diligence and study (which it may suffice to have said once), we shall emend to the best of our ability the same passages, and many more others, beginning from this one which we have marked. "Perexire," he says, "he used in a new manner, and one altogether unusual to the Latins, for what the Greeks call διεξελθεῖν, that is, to recount."

Editors' notes and page, col. 1525

Page

running head: 1525 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A Delectatio autem; B Adnotationes Fr.; C acerrime persequitur; D octo libri
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Delectatio autem eorum, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in praefationem libri secundi; full-width title across cols. 1525-1526 (VARIORUM NOTAE / IN LIBRUM SECUNDUM SANCTI IRENAEI.) after paragraph 1: set by QA Q1a at the head of the part (full_width; the right half of the band is cut in the column image, the reading follows the volunteers' note); word split at end of column: ever-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1525/1526 in mid-page: the 4 paragraph(s) above it in col 1526 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 1525 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in praefationem libri secundi.
other: the page-foot note 80 (Lib. de div. nom., cap. 5.) printed under col. 1525 is called in col. 1526 (Dionysius); it is set with col. 1526.

PG 7:1526

Et quia non postremitatis. Capite primo libri primi, retulit eos Demiurgum, id est, hujus mundi Creatorem censere nunc labis, nunc cujusdam extremitatis fructum.

And that not of the last extremity. In the first chapter of the first book, he related that they consider the Demiurge, that is, the Creator of this world, to be the fruit now of a defect, now of a certain extremity.

Quod sit detectio. Ex hoc loco, et primis in quartum librum Praefationis verbis, ejusdemque libri ultima clausula, libri deinde quinti principio, verissimam esse apparet horum librorum inscriptionem, quam libro quinto Histor., cap. septimo, ponit Eusebius his verbis : Ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βιβλία πέντε, id est, ne a veteri interprete discedamus, Detectionis et eversionis falsi nominis scientiae, libri quinque. Et certe videtur vir apostolicus eam sumpsisse ex Apostoli I ad Timoth. verbis, quibus evitandas ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως monet. Praeterea, ad eam respexisse putarim etiam Eusebium, prima statim praefatione Hist. eccles., ubi eadem fere verba, quae hoc titulo habentur, retinet, dum se de his, qui Christi nomine passi sunt, et qui falsas opiniones scriptis suis everterunt, dicturum proponit. De his quaedam adnotavimus initio hujus operis.

Which is the detection. From this passage, and from the first words of the Preface to the fourth book, and the last clause of the same book, and then the beginning of the fifth book, it appears that the truest title of these books is that which Eusebius sets down in the fifth book of his History, seventh chapter, in these words: Ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βιβλία πέντε, that is, not to depart from the ancient translator, Five books of the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called. And certainly the apostolic man seems to have taken it from the words of the Apostle in 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 6:20), in which he warns that the ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως are to be avoided. Moreover, I should think that Eusebius also looked back to it right in the first preface of his Ecclesiastical History, where he retains almost the same words which are contained in this title, while he proposes that he is going to speak of those who suffered in the name of Christ, and who overthrew false opinions by their writings. Concerning these matters we have noted some things at the beginning of this work.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 1.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 1.

Pag. 116. A primo et maximo. Primum et maximum caput appellat, quod est in hac disputatione summum, nempe Deum esse unicum; quod hoc capite concluditur, quibusdam de ejus immensitate praemissis. Siquidem tot deos constituebant fanatici isti homines, quot Aeonas, et Angelos, quotque affectiones, et passiones ipsis inesse somniabant, ut acute deprehendit Clemens Alex. lib. V Strom., quod amplius ex sequentibus patebit.

Page 116. From the first and greatest. He calls the first and greatest head that which is supreme in this disputation, namely, that God is one alone; which is concluded in this chapter, after certain premises concerning His immensity. Since indeed those fanatical men established as many gods as the Aeons and Angels, and as the affections and passions which they dreamed resided in them, as Clement of Alexandria acutely detected in book V of the Stromata, which will appear more fully from what follows.

Cum sit solus Deus. Dictio exclusiva « solus, » etiam quinquies hic repetita, non sejungit Filium, aut Spiritum sanctum a Patre conditore omnium, ut blaterant novi Ariani; quandoquidem trium sit unica voluntas, potestas, atque deitas, ut infra plenius dicetur : sed tantum excludit fictitios Aeones, Bythos, Patricos, Matricos, et Angelos, a quibus omnia facta fuisse hi nebulones fabulabantur. Hoc idem argumentum de immensitate divina pertractant Dionysius lib. De divinis nom., cap. 9; Athanasius Contra gregales Sabellii; Nazianzenus Apologia prima; Augustinus libro primo Confessionum, capite quinto; libro Meditationum, capite vicesimo nono et tricesimo; Damascenus libro primo, capite octavo, etc.

Since He is the only God. The exclusive word "only," even though repeated five times here, does not separate the Son or the Holy Spirit from the Father, the Creator of all things, as the new Arians babble; seeing that of the three there is one single will, power, and deity, as will be said more fully below: but it only excludes the fictitious Aeons, Bythuses, Patrici, Matrici, and Angels, by whom these worthless fellows fabled that all things had been made. This same argument concerning the divine immensity is treated thoroughly by Dionysius, book On the Divine Names, ch. 9; Athanasius, Against the Followers of Sabellius; Nazianzen, First Apology; Augustine, first book of the Confessions, fifth chapter; book of Meditations, twenty-ninth and thirtieth chapters; Damascene, first book, eighth chapter, etc.

Et solus continens omnia. Vult Deum eminenter ac excellenter omnes omnium creatarum rerum perfectiones in seipso comprehendere : quod et ante eum docuit his verbis Dionysius : « Cuncta

And alone containing all things. He means that God eminently and excellently comprehends in Himself all the perfections of all created things: which Dionysius also taught before him in these words: "All

Editors' notes and page, col. 1526

Footnotes

(50) ‹anchor: his verbis Dionysius› · call in col 1526

Lib. de div. nom., cap. 5.

Book On the Divine Names, chapter 5.

(printed under page 771)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1526
marginal letters: A sione falsae; B Et quia; C Christi nomine; D bus omnia
old-edition numerals: 82 before Et solus
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 35, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 1; full-width title across cols. 1525-1526 (VARIORUM NOTAE / IN LIBRUM SECUNDUM SANCTI IRENAEI.) after paragraph 4 not set; words split at column breaks: [ever-]sione, Cun-[cta]
other: the 4 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1525 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word Cuncta was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1527

PG 7:1527

continet Deus secundum super-expansam et simplicem infinitatem suam. » Subscribit Augustinus, libro quarto De Trinitate, capite primo, et tractatu primo in Joannem.

things God contains according to His super-expanded and simple infinity." Augustine subscribes to this, in the fourth book On the Trinity, first chapter, and in the first tractate on John.

Quemadmodum. Primum est argumentum hujus capitis, sumptum ab infinitate divinae naturae, quae sua immensitate omnia permeat, omnibus ubique adest, nullis limitibus definiri potest, sed ipsa continet omnia et ambit. Nihil igitur extra Deum, nec Deus ipse extra quidpiam esse potest. Non multum absimili argumento Tertull. utitur lib. I in Marcionem : « Sicut enim, ait, Creator, ex hoc et Deus, et indubitatus Deus, quia omnia ipsius, nihil extraneum illi; ita et illius idcirco non Deus, quia omnia non ejus, ideoque et extranea. Denique, universitas Creatoris est; jam nec locum video Dei alterius. Plena et occupata sunt omnia suo auctore. Si vacat aliquid spatii alicujus divinitati in creaturis, plane false vacabit, » etc. De hac porro Dei unitate, ante Irenaeum gravissime disserunt Ignatius Epist. ad Philip. et Philadelph.; Clemens in Recognit.; Justinus martyr libro De monarchia, et Oratione ad Graecos; Athenagoras in Legatione; post eum vero Clemens Alex. in Paraenetico; Arnobius Advers. gentes; Cyprianus lib. Quod idola non sunt dii; in primis autem Lactantius libr. I, cap. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Haec tantum subjicio, quae in hanc rem scripsit lib. De ira Dei, cap. 11 : « Non possunt in hoc mundo multi esse rectores, nec in una domo multi domini, nec in navi una multi gubernatores, nec in armento aut grege duces multi, nec in uno examine multi reges; sed nec in coelo multi soles esse poterunt, sicut nec animae plures in uno corpore, » etc. Caeterum illud, « Quemadmodum, » usurpatur hic et infra non raro interrogative, pro « quomodo, » quod semel monuisse sufficiet.

How. This is the first argument of this chapter, taken from the infinity of the divine nature, which by its immensity permeates all things, is present to all things everywhere, can be bounded by no limits, but itself contains and encompasses all things. Nothing therefore can be outside God, nor can God Himself be outside anything. Tertullian uses a not very dissimilar argument in book I Against Marcion: "For just as," he says, "the Creator is from this both God and undoubted God, because all things are His, and nothing is foreign to Him; so also the god of that man is on that account not God, because all things are not his, and therefore are also foreign. Finally, the universe belongs to the Creator; nor do I now see a place for another God. All things are full and occupied by their Author. If any space of anything is vacant for a divinity in created things, plainly it will falsely be vacant," etc. Moreover, concerning this unity of God, before Irenaeus there discourse with the greatest weight Ignatius, in the Epistles to the Philippians and Philadelphians; Clement, in the Recognitions; Justin Martyr, in the book On the Monarchy, and the Oration to the Greeks; Athenagoras, in the Embassy; and after him Clement of Alexandria, in the Exhortation; Arnobius, Against the Pagans; Cyprian, in the book That Idols Are Not Gods; and above all Lactantius, book I, ch. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I subjoin only these words, which he wrote to this purpose in the book On the Wrath of God, ch. 11: "There cannot be many rulers in this world, nor many masters in one house, nor many pilots in one ship, nor many leaders in a herd or flock, nor many kings in one swarm; but neither can there be many suns in heaven, just as there cannot be several souls in one body," etc. For the rest, that word "Quemadmodum" is used here and below not rarely interrogatively, for "quomodo," which it will suffice to have admonished once.

Necessitas est omnis. Graecismus, ut et infra, « necessitas ergo erit. Necessitas est omnino, » ἀνάγκη, subaudito verbo ἐστί· « necessitas est, » pro « necesse est. » Ut apud Platonem ἀνάγκη τὰς αἰτίας πρώτας μεταδιώκειν· quae Tullius vertit : « Necesse est primas causas conquirere. » Et πᾶσα ἀνάγκη, « omnis necessitas : » pro omnino necesse est.

There is every necessity. A Graecism, as also below, "there will therefore be a necessity. There is altogether a necessity," ἀνάγκη, with the verb ἐστί understood: "there is a necessity," for "it is necessary." As in Plato, ἀνάγκη τὰς αἰτίας πρώτας μεταδιώκειν; which Tully translates: "It is necessary to seek out the first causes." And πᾶσα ἀνάγκη, "every necessity:" for it is altogether necessary.

Et Marcionis bonus Deus. Libro primo, cap. 29, recensuit Marcionem duos longe diversos deos constituisse, unum hujus universi, et omnium malorum factorem; alterum autem totius bonitatis fontem, Patremque Domini nostri Jesu Christi. De his et Tertullianus : « Ponticus duos deos affert tanquam duas simplegadas naufragii sui; quem negare non potuit, id est Creatorem, id est nostrum; et quem probare non poterit, id est suum. » Et infra : « Marcion dispares deos constituit, alterum judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum, et tantummodo bonum atque optimum. »

And the good God of Marcion. In the first book, ch. 29, he recounted that Marcion established two widely different gods, the one the maker of this universe and of all evils; the other, however, the fountain of all goodness, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Concerning these Tertullian also says: "The Pontic man brings in two gods like two Symplegades of his own shipwreck; Him whom he could not deny, that is, the Creator, that is, ours; and him whom he will not be able to prove, that is, his own." And below: "Marcion establishes unequal gods, the one a judge, fierce, potent in war; the other mild, placid, and solely good and best."

In quod, etc. Sic legendum existimavimus cum veteri codice, consentientibus quae leguntur libro I, cap. 1 et 13, de Achamoth matre, quam ovem extra Pleroma peregrinatam fingunt. Expunximus « id quod est. »

Into which, etc. Thus we judged it should be read with the ancient manuscript, in agreement with what is read in book I, ch. 1 and 13, concerning the mother Achamoth, whom they feign to be a sheep that wandered outside the Pleroma. We have expunged "that which is."

Cum Pleromate. Aliud est argumentum, quo probat vel duos nusquam esse deos, vel infinitum numerum et deorum, et mundorum necessario constituendum esse, quod omni fide caret. Simile argumentum, sed vi majore torquet in Marcionem Tertullianus : « Veritas Christiana, inquit, districte pronuntiat : Deus si non unus est, non est : quia dignius credimus non esse quodcunque non ita fuerit, ut esse debebit. Deum autem ut scias unum esse debere, quaere quid sit Deus, et non aliter invenies. » Et paulo infra : « Ineluctabilis iste complexus in hoc sententiam constringit, aut negandum Deum esse summum magnum, quod nemo patietur sapiens; aut nulli alii communicandum. Aut quae ratio duo summa magna composuit? Primo enim exigam, cur non plura, si duo, quando locupletiorem

With the Pleroma. This is another argument, by which he proves that either there are nowhere two gods, or an infinite number both of gods and of worlds must necessarily be established, which lacks all credibility. A similar argument, but with greater force, Tertullian hurls against Marcion: "Christian truth," he says, "strictly pronounces: If God is not one, He is not: because we more worthily believe that whatever is not as it ought to be does not exist. Moreover, that you may know that God ought to be one, inquire what God is, and you will not find otherwise." And a little below: "This inescapable dilemma binds the judgement to this: either it must be denied that God is the supreme great, which no wise man will suffer; or it must be shared with no other. Or what reason has put together two supreme greats? For first I shall demand, why not more, if two, when more

Editors' notes and page, col. 1527

Page

running head: 1527 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A cta continet; B tius Epist.; C pro « necesse; D cap. 1 et 13,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cta continet Deus; words split at column breaks: [Cun-]cta, locu-[pletiorem]
other: the word locupletiorem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1528

PG 7:1528

oporteret credi substantiam divinitatis, si competeret ei numerus? Honestior et liberalior Valentinus, qui simul ausus est duos concipere, Bythum et Sigen, cum usque ad 30 Aeonum fetus, tanquam Aeoniae strophae examen divinitatis effudit. » Neque valde dissimilia pro Dei unitate leguntur apud Philonem, Athenagoram, Lactantium et Damascenum, quae scite collegisse videtur Thomas Aquinas libr. I Contra gentes, cap. 43.

abundant ought the substance of divinity to be believed, if number belonged to it? More honourable and more liberal is Valentinus, who at once dared to conceive two, Bythus and Sige, when up to the offspring of 30 Aeons he poured forth a swarm of divinity, as it were of an Aeonian trick." Nor are very dissimilar things for the unity of God read in Philo, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and Damascene, which Thomas Aquinas seems to have skilfully collected in book I Against the Gentiles, ch. 43.

Continebit utraque. Auctoritate vet. cod. delevimus « continebitur aqua. »

Will contain both. On the authority of the ancient manuscript we have deleted "will be contained by water."

Continebuntur. Expunximus « continebantur enim et circumfiniebantur : » paulo post quoque pro « excitante, » reposuimus « excidente, » et pro « aliquantos, aliquando, » ejusdem vet. cod. auctoritate.

Will be contained. We have expunged "for they were contained and bounded around:" a little after also, for "exciting," we have restored "falling away," and for "some, at some time," on the authority of the same ancient manuscript.

Et cum haec sic se habeant. Tertium est argumentum, quo ab unico mundo, ejusque per providentiam administratione, unicum Deum esse ostendit. Idem, sed prolixius, et apertius post Philonem persequitur Lactantius lib. I, cap. 3, evidentibus etiam adhibitis exemplis, de unico in exercitu imperatore, et unica in corpore anima. Cyprianus tractatu Contra idololat. monarchiam divinam probat ex apum rege, et gregis duce.

And since these things are so. This is the third argument, by which from the single world, and its administration through providence, he shows that there is one single God. The same thing, but more at length and more clearly after Philo, Lactantius pursues in book I, ch. 3, employing also evident examples, of a single commander in an army, and a single soul in a body. Cyprian, in the tractate Against Idolatry, proves the divine monarchy from the king of bees and the leader of a flock.

Qui autem ab angelis. Caput 2 signat hic vetus codex. Ostendit vero nec mundum creatum fuisse ab angelis, ut Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides et Carpocrates dicebant, lib. I, cap. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, nec ab alia quadam virtute separata valde, et distante a supremo Deo, ut Marcionem et Cerinthum voluisse scripsit lib. I, cap. 25, 29. Varias autem philosophorum sententias de ortu mundi recenset, et refellit Lactantius lib. De ira Dei, c. 10.

Now those who say by angels. The ancient manuscript marks chapter 2 here. And he shows that the world was neither created by angels, as Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates said, book I, ch. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, nor by some other power greatly separated and distant from the supreme God, as he wrote that Marcion and Cerinthus held, book I, ch. 25, 29. Moreover, Lactantius recounts and refutes the various opinions of the philosophers concerning the origin of the world in the book On the Wrath of God, ch. 10.

Quanto magis Deo? Pro « quanto minus, » Graecorum more.

How much more to God? For "how much less," after the manner of the Greeks.

Post deinde. Dilemma est vehementer eos premens, cujus alterum cornu habes initio capitis secundi, ideoque sectionem veteris codicis convenire magis existimo; sed mutare nolui, ne his sectionibus assuetis negotium facerem.

Afterwards then. It is a dilemma vehemently pressing them, the other horn of which you have at the beginning of the second chapter, and therefore I think the division of the ancient manuscript agrees better; but I was unwilling to make a change, lest I should cause trouble to those accustomed to these divisions.

Ex. Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 1 libri II.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 1 of book II.

Initium. Ἀρχὴ procul dubio fuit in Graeco, quae vox hic non « initium, » sed « principium rerum, » a quo dependent, denotat.

Beginning. Without doubt Ἀρχὴ stood in the Greek, which word here denotes not "beginning," but "first principle of things," on which they depend.

Quem videlicet, et Proonta, et Proarchen vocant. Vid. supra lib. I, cap. 1, ab initio. Caeterum, ex hoc loco et initio cap. 3 hujus libri, ubi « Proarchen » et « Bythum » Valentinianorum, et « bonum Deum » Marcionis auctor noster nominat, haud vane colligitur Marcionem quidem supremum illud ens, quod super Creatorem mundi fingebat, « Deum » appellasse; Valentinianos autem ab hoc nomine abstinuisse. Unde Elias Cretensis in Commentar. ad Gregorii Nazianzeni, orat. 23, varia haereticorum de Bytho et Sige somniantium nomina recensens, inter alia scribit : « Quidam ex ipsis Bythum Deum, alii Silentium Deum esse dicebant, ut Simon et Marcion. » Quasi hi soli Dei titulum usurpassent.

Whomnamely they call both Proon and Proarche. See above, book I, ch. 1, from the beginning. For the rest, from this passage and the beginning of ch. 3 of this book, where our author names the "Proarche" and "Bythus" of the Valentinians, and the "good God" of Marcion, it is not vainly gathered that Marcion indeed called that supreme being, which he feigned above the Creator of the world, "God"; whereas the Valentinians abstained from this name. Whence Elias of Crete, in his Commentary on Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 23, recounting the various names of the heretics dreaming of Bythus and Sige, writes among other things: "Some of them said that Bythus was God, others that Silence was God, as Simon and Marcion." As if these alone had usurped the title of God.

Cum Pleromate. Nescio quid Feuardentio in mentem venerit, ut in sua editione ab his verbis, « Cum pleromate; » non modo cum Eras. et Gallas. novam inchoarit periodum, sed alteram plane, sive novam hujus capitis sectionem fecerit, cum semicolon solum illa distinguat. Quo ipso factum, ut et praecedentia, et sequentia, haud perfectum habeant sensum, ac lectori merae offundantur tenebrae.

With the Pleroma. I do not know what came into the mind of Feuardentius, that in his edition from these words, "With the pleroma," he not only began a new sentence with Erasmus and Gallasius, but made an altogether other, or new section of this chapter, when only a semicolon separates them. By which very thing it has come to pass that both what precedes and what follows do not have a complete sense, and mere darkness is poured over the reader.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 2.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 2.

Si autem in iilius. Est alterum cornu superioris dilemmatis, quo a plurimis absurdis undequaque sequentibus probat, mundum ab alio fabricari nec debuisse, nec potuisse, quam ab unico et vero Deo : quod etiam domesticis exemplis confirmabat.

But if in his. This is the other horn of the preceding dilemma, by which from very many absurdities following on every side he proves that the world neither ought to have been, nor could have been fashioned by another than by the one and true God: which he also confirmed by familiar examples.

Fabricatorem. Veteris codic. auctoritate delevimus « fabricatores : » et paulo ante « erunt, » pro « erant, » posuimus.

Fashioner. On the authority of the ancient manuscript we have deleted "fashioners:" and a little before we have placed "will be," for "were."

Editors' notes and page, col. 1528

Page

running head: RIORUM NOTAE 1528
marginal letters: A pletiorem oporteret; B etiam adhibitis; C magis existimo;; D Marcion. » Quasi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex. Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 1 libri II, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 2; ink blot on right margin of bottom third obscures letters in usurp⟨assent.⟩, ⟨men-⟩tem, ⟨te-⟩nebrae, superi⟨oris⟩; word split at beginning of column: [locu-]pletiorem

PG 7:1529

Quemadmodum in regem. Confirmat mundum a Deo creatum, desumpto exemplo a rege, in cujus laudem aut vituperium omnis exercitus ac belli, cui praeest, successus refertur. Proxima linea, « conditio hujus civitatis, » sumitur pro omni creatione, re creata, hoc universo. Sic namque in his libris frequenter usurpatur, ut cap. 6 « ignis in conditione numeratur, » id est, inter res conditas; et cap. 56, « sunt in coelis spiritales conditiones, » id est, creaturae.

Just as to a king. He confirms that the world was created by God, taking an example from a king, to whose praise or blame the whole success of the army and war over which he presides is referred. In the next line, "the creation of this state" is taken for the whole creation, the created thing, this universe. For thus it is frequently used in these books, as in ch. 6, "fire is reckoned in the creation," that is, among created things; and ch. 56, "there are spiritual creations in the heavens," that is, creatures.

Sic igitur. Concludit solum Deum mundi esse conditorem; non angelos, ut Gnostici contendebant : quod, ut et reliquas haereses, ex philosophorum lacunis hauserant. Siquidem angelos creatores esse corporum nostrorum, et animalium, sententia fuerat Platonis et Porphyrii, quos ea de re acerrime oppugnat Augustinus XII De civit., c. 16. Idem etiam ex Philastrio recitat Proclianitas cum Seleucianis sensisse creatores animarum esse angelos. Sed quaestione 21, lib. II Quaest. in Exod., asserit angelos dici non posse animalium creatores, sicut nec agricolae segetum vel arborum, vel quorumcunque in terra gignentium. Isthaec etiam fusius excutit lib. III De Trinit., cap. 8 et 9; noster quoque Irenaeus lib. IV, cap. 37.

So therefore. He concludes that God alone is the Creator of the world; not angels, as the Gnostics contended: which, like their other heresies also, they had drawn from the puddles of the philosophers. Since indeed that angels are the creators of our bodies, and of animals, had been the opinion of Plato and Porphyry, whom Augustine most sharply attacks on that matter in book XII On the City of God, ch. 16. The same author also recites from Philastrius that the Proclianites with the Seleucians held that angels are the creators of souls. But in question 21, book II of Questions on Exodus, he asserts that angels cannot be called the creators of animals, just as farmers cannot be called the creators of crops or trees, or of whatever things grow in the earth. These matters he also examines more at length in book III On the Trinity, ch. 8 and 9; and our Irenaeus also in book IV, ch. 37.

Hominibus assimilant. Divinam potentiam, vires quascunque creatas superare, nec morem artificum in operibus imitari asserit : quippe quae nullis organis, nullo coadjuvante, nulla denique subjecta materia egeat, ad quorumcunque productionem. De his et Justinus martyr ita in Aristotelem disserit : « Naturae, artique a Deo praescriptum terminum esse novimus; quod si Deus praescriptioni non subest, sed e quodlibet facit quidlibet, nullo termino impediente quominus faciat quae vult : annon exemptus est a necessitate e subjectis creandi? » Athenagoras quoque putat eos pessime in Deum contuemliosos esse, « qui vires humanas et divinas, artifices et Deum inter sese comparant. » Theophilus Antiochenus hinc Dei potestatem innotescere credit, « quod ex his quae non sunt, facit, ut libitum est, quae vult. Quae enim apud homines sunt impossibilia, apud Deum possibilia habentur, » etc. Caeterum vet. cod. auctoritate « qui » transposuimus, et « inopibus » pro « in operibus » legendum proposuimus.

They liken to men. He asserts that the divine power surpasses any created powers whatever, and does not imitate the manner of artisans in its works: inasmuch as it needs no instruments, no helper, and finally no underlying matter, for the production of any things whatever. Concerning these things Justin Martyr also discourses thus against Aristotle: "We know that a limit has been prescribed by God to nature and art; but if God is not subject to prescription, but out of anything makes anything, with no limit hindering Him from doing what He wills: is He not exempt from the necessity of creating out of underlying materials?" Athenagoras also thinks that those are most wickedly insolent towards God, "who compare human and divine powers, artisans and God, with one another." Theophilus of Antioch believes that hence the power of God becomes known, "because out of the things that are not, He makes, as it pleases Him, whatever He wills. For the things that are impossible with men are held possible with God," etc. For the rest, on the authority of the ancient manuscript we have transposed "who," and proposed that "for the needy" should be read instead of "in works."

Qualitatis substantiam. Sic legendum docuit vetus codex, pro « aequalitatis : » ut et paulo supra, « et ignorante Patrem, » pro « Patre. »

Substance of quality. Thus the ancient manuscript taught us to read, instead of "of equality:" as also a little above, "and being ignorant of the Father," with the accusative instead of the ablative.

Proprium enim hoc Dei supereminentiae. Argumentum est sumptum a divina excellentia, et omni sufficientia. Qui suapte natura sufficientissimus est ad omnia, non indiget cujuscunque alterius ope, aut industria, ad condendum quodcunque voluerit. Deus Pater, Filius, ac Spiritus sanctus est istiusmodi, dicentibus Scripturis : « Bonorum meorum non eges; meus est orbis terrae; Deus manibus humanis non colitur indigens aliquo. » Igitur, etc. Vel sic : Deus coaeterno et consubstantiali Verbo atque Spiritu suo potis fuit satis ad omnia condenda, ut voces prophetarum et apostolorum personant, Gen. I, Psal. XXXII et CXXXVIII, Joan. I, Hebr. I. Nullius itaque alterius a seipso indiguit.

For this is proper to the super-eminence of God. The argument is taken from the divine excellence and all-sufficiency. He Who by His own nature is most sufficient for all things does not need the help or industry of any other whatever for founding whatever He wills. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is of this sort, as the Scriptures say: "Thou hast no need of my goods (Ps. 15:2); the world is Mine (Ps. 49:12); God is not worshipped with human hands, as though needing anything (Acts 17:25)." Therefore, etc. Or thus: God with His co-eternal and consubstantial Word and Spirit was sufficiently able to found all things, as the voices of the prophets and apostles resound, Gen. 1, Ps. 32 and 138, John 1, Heb. 1. Therefore He needed no other besides Himself.

Et sine ipso factum est nihil. Ita huic sententiae finem imponit etiam lib. III, cap. 8 et 11, alibique non raro; quod et Tertullianus libris Adv. Hermogenem, Praxean, De resurrectione carnis, et quinto Adv. Marcionem; Cyprianus lib. II Adv. Judaeos, cap. 3; Augustinus, Hieronymus, et Vulgata editio; ex Graecis quoque Origenes, Nazianzenus, Cyrillus Alexand., non illibenter servant; tametsi aliter videatur locus interpungendus Chrysostomo et Theophylacto, quibus nec Irenaeus noster utramque admittens lectionem lib. III, cap. 11, contradicit.

And without Him was made nothing. Thus he puts an end to this sentence also in book III, ch. 8 and 11, and elsewhere not rarely; which Tertullian also in his books Against Hermogenes, Against Praxeas, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the fifth Against Marcion; Cyprian in book II Against the Jews, ch. 3; Augustine, Jerome, and the Vulgate edition; and among the Greeks also Origen, Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria, not unwillingly preserve; although the passage seems to Chrysostom and Theophylact to be punctuated otherwise, whom neither does our Irenaeus contradict, admitting both readings in book III, ch. 11.

Qui est secundum nos mundus. Graeca phrasis,

The world which is according to us. A Greek phrase,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1529

Footnotes

(51) ‹anchor: Bonorum meorum non eges› · call in col 1529

Psal. XV, 2.

Psalm 15 (16):2.

(printed under page 773)

(52) ‹anchor: meus est orbis terrae› · call in col 1529

Psal. XLIX, 12.

Psalm 49 (50):12.

(printed under page 773)

(53) ‹anchor: indigens aliquo› · call in col 1529

Act. XVII, 25.

Acts 17:25.

(printed under page 773)

Page

running head: 1529 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A Quemadmodum in; B gelos. Sed; C divinas, artifices; D bus humanis
old-edition numerals: 83 after in operibus
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Quemadmodum in regem

PG 7:1530

qualis Act. XVII, καθ' ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν εἰρήκασι. Et apud Nazianzenum ἡ καθ' ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένη, « nostra terra habitabilis. » Sic et proxime dicitur, « omnia quae sunt secundum nos, » id est, haec terrena et visibilia.

such as in Acts 17 (Acts 17:28), καθ' ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν εἰρήκασι. And in Nazianzen, ἡ καθ' ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένη, "our habitable earth." Thus also directly afterwards it is said, "all things that are according to us," that is, these earthly and visible things.

Ex Joan. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 2.

From the annotations of Joan. Ern. Grabe on ch. 2.

Pag. 118. Ut is, qui inciperet eum cognoscere, homo fieret. Regeneratio quidem hominis fit per cognitionem Dei; sed qua ratione quis Deum cognoscere incipiens, homo primum creetur et fiat, haud capio.

Page 118. That he who should begin to know Him might become man. The regeneration of man indeed takes place through the knowledge of God; but in what way someone beginning to know God is first created and becomes man, I do not grasp.

Dicit. Sed ubi Scriptura Geneseos dicit, « omnia quae sunt secundum nos, fecisse Deum per Verbum suum? » Respondeo Irenaeum forte respexisse prima Moysis verba, mox ab eo citata : « In principio Deus fecit coelum et terram. » Per « principium » enim mystice « Verbum » sive « Filium Dei, » quidam antiquissimorum Patrum intellexerunt, de quibus vide commentatores in Genesin, et adde quae tom. I Spicilegii Patrum saeculi II, pag. 132, attuli. Vel etiam Irenaeus istud Moysis : « Dixit Deus; » in rerum creatione prolatum ita accepit, quasi Deus per substantiale Verbum, ab aeterno in Patre exsistens, sed tunc quasi ad extra procedens, omnia produxerit. Quomodo et inter alios Tertullianus lib. Contra Praxean, cap. 5, philosophatus est, ita scribens : « Ut primum Deus voluit ea, quae cum Sophiae ratione et Sermone (Λόγῳ) disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit Sermonem ... ut per ipsum fierent universa. » Unde mox citat verba Geneseos, ubi dixit Deus : « Fiat lux, » etc.

He says. But where does the Scripture of Genesis say that "God made all things which are according to us through His Word?" I reply that Irenaeus perhaps looked to the first words of Moses, presently cited by him: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1)." For by "beginning" some of the most ancient Fathers mystically understood the "Word" or "Son of God," concerning whom see the commentators on Genesis, and add what I brought forward in vol. I of the Spicilegium of the Fathers of the Second Century, page 132. Or also Irenaeus took that saying of Moses, "God said,"uttered in the creation of things, in such a way as if God produced all things through the substantial Word, existing from eternity in the Father, but then proceeding as it were outwardly. In which manner among others Tertullian also philosophized in the book Against Praxeas, ch. 5, writing thus: "As soon as God willed to bring forth into their own substances and species those things which He had disposed within Himself with Wisdom's reason and Word (Λόγῳ), He first put forth the Word Himself ... that through Him all things might be made." Whence he presently cites the words of Genesis, where God said: "Let there be light (Gen. 1:3)," etc.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 3.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 3.

Pag. 118. Quoniam autem hic Deus. Concludit ex superioribus, novoque Pauli testimonio, Deum mundi creatorem esse Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi : et confictas ab eis fabulas de Bytho, Pleromate, Aeonibus, et multis diis omnino stare non posse. Caeterum, impurus canis Servetus, et qui ex eo prodierunt Gentiliani, novi Ariani et Samosateniani volunt latratu suo suadere, Irenaeum hoc loco, et aliis aliquot similibus, Filium Dei omni divinitate spoliare, et solum Patrem verum Deum esse profiteri. Sed non attendunt ter quaterque miseri tenebriones, praecipuum beati Patris scopum esse, ut confictos a Valentinianis Aeones, Bythos, Propatores, et mundi labes, a quibus Christum ortum ac missum comminiscebantur, omnino refellat : probet autem econtrario illum verum esse Filium ejus Patris, qui dicitur, et est Deus Israelis, distinctus quidem ab eo secundum personae rationem, sed unius cum eo naturae, atque dominii.

Page 118. Now since this God. He concludes from what precedes, and from a new testimony of Paul, that God the Creator of the world is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: and that the fables fabricated by them concerning Bythus, the Pleroma, the Aeons, and many gods cannot stand at all. For the rest, the impure dog Servetus, and the Gentilians, new Arians, and Samosatenians who sprang from him, wish by their barking to persuade us that Irenaeus in this passage, and in some other similar ones, strips the Son of God of all divinity, and professes the Father alone to be true God. But the thrice and four times wretched skulkers in darkness do not heed that the chief aim of the blessed Father is altogether to refute the Aeons, Bythuses, Propators, and defects of the world fabricated by the Valentinians, from whom they contrived that Christ had sprung and been sent: and on the contrary to prove that He is the true Son of that Father Who is called, and is, the God of Israel, distinct indeed from Him according to the relation of person, but of one nature and dominion with Him.

Instabilis igitur. Vetus codex tertium caput ab hoc loco exorditur, et commodius forsan, cum huic sectioni magis conveniant argumenta capitibus praefixa. Concludit autem Bythum illum, de quo tanta fabulatos fuisse scripsit lib. I, cap. 2, 5 et 19, una cum Pleromate mera somnia esse. Deinde, pluribus affirmat, nec Deo ignorante aliquos condidisse hunc mundum, cum omnia praesciat, et mente complectatur; nec sine blasphemia posse illum labis et ignorantiae fructum existimari. Instabilem porro vocat Bythum, id est figmentum adeo infirmum, et somnium tam vanum, ut nullo modo stare, nullis argumentis stabiliri valeat.

Unstable therefore. The ancient manuscript begins the third chapter from this place, and more conveniently perhaps, since the summaries prefixed to the chapters agree better with this division. Moreover, he concludes that that Bythus, about whom he wrote in book I, ch. 2, 5, and 19, that they had fabled such great things, together with the Pleroma, are mere dreams. Next, he affirms at length both that none founded this world without God's knowledge, since He foreknows all things and embraces them in His mind; and that without blasphemy it cannot be esteemed the fruit of defect and ignorance. Furthermore, he calls Bythus unstable, that is, a figment so weak, and a dream so vain, that it can in no way stand, and can be established by no arguments.

Pag. 119. Nec quidem causam reddere habebunt. Hellenismus, αἰτίαν οὐκ ἕξουσιν ἀποδοῦναι, « non poterunt causam assignare ac donare; » ut ἔχω ειπεῖν, « possum dicere. »

Page 119. Nor indeed will they have a cause to render. A Hellenism, αἰτίαν οὐκ ἕξουσιν ἀποδοῦναι, "they will not be able to assign and give a cause;" like ἔχω ειπεῖν, "I am able to say."

Si autem praescius. Asserit eumdem Deum hunc mundum tandem aliquando perfecisse, qui eum praescientia mentis ab aeterno conceperat.

But if foreknowing. He asserts that the very same God at length brought this world to completion, Who had conceived it from eternity by the foreknowledge of His mind.

Sed aut aeternum. Docet hoc dilemmate, sive aeternum, sive temporalem dixerint esse mundum, semper falsum esse quod dicebant, ab uno quidem

But either eternal. He teaches by this dilemma that whether they say the world is eternal or temporal, what they said is always false, that it was indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 1530

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI 1530
marginal letters: A qualis Act.; B adde quae; C co prodierunt; D pluribus affirmat,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Joan. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 2, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 3

PG 7:1531

mente conceptum, ab alio vero conditum esse; duos deos inde, et mundi fabricatores diversos constituentes.

conceived in mind by one, but founded by another; thereby establishing two gods and different fashioners of the world.

Dignum esse. Marcionitarum quoque blasphemia erat, mundi opus Deo indignum esse. « Narem enim contrahentes, ait Tertullianus, convertuntur ad destructionem Creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus, et Deo dignum mundus! At cum et animalia rides minutiora, quae maximus artifex de industria ingeniis aut viribus ampliavit, sic magnitudinem in mediocritate probari docens, quemadmodum virtutem in infirmitate; imitare, si potes, apis aedificia, formicae stabula, araneae retia, bombycis stamina; sustine, si potes, ipsas lectuli et tegetis tuae bestias, cantaridis venena, muscae spicula, culicis et tubam et lanceam. Qualia erunt majora, cum tam modicis aut juvaris, aut laederis, ut nec in modicis despicias Creatorem? » etc. Hanc haeresim post Irenaeum et Tertullianum, passim carpit Clemens Alexandrinus lib. III et IV Strom. Origenes quoque homil. 2 in diversos, et Rufinus auctor Expositionis symboli apud Cyprianum, inter Manichaeorum insanias annumerant, quod Deum mundi creatorem negarint, ut ad diabolum ejus conditionem referrent.

To be worthy. It was also the blasphemy of the Marcionites that the work of the world was unworthy of God. "For wrinkling their nose," says Tertullian, "they turn to the destruction of the Creator. Doubtless, they say, the world is a grand work, and worthy of God! Yet when you also laugh at the smaller animals, which the greatest Artisan purposely enlarged in cleverness or strength, thus teaching that greatness is proved in mediocrity, just as power is in weakness; imitate, if you can, the buildings of the bee, the stalls of the ant, the nets of the spider, the threads of the silkworm; endure, if you can, the very beasts of your bed and mat, the poisons of the cantharis, the darts of the fly, both the trumpet and the lance of the gnat. What will the greater things be, when by such small ones you are either helped or harmed, so that not even in small things may you despise the Creator?" etc. This heresy, after Irenaeus and Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria censures everywhere in books III and IV of the Stromata. Origen also, in Homily 2 on Diverse Texts, and Rufinus, the author of the Exposition of the Creed in Cyprian, reckon among the madnesses of the Manichaeans that they denied God to be the Creator of the world, so as to refer its creation to the devil.

Emissiones. Expunximus « emissionis, » auct. veteris cod.

Emissions. We have expunged "of emission," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 3.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 3.

Pag. 118. Pater. In nostris Graecis et Vulgatis Latinis Novi Testamenti codicibus legitur : Καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, « et Pater omnium; » quomodo Firmilianus quoque epist. 75 inter Cyprianicas hunc Apostoli locum citavit. Sed in Irenaei codice tam copulativa καί, quam vox πάντων defuisse videtur, quia sine utraque verba S. Pauli allegavit, non modo hic, sed et lib. IV, cap. 37 (alterum enim locum lib. IV, c. 52, corruptum esse, in notis ibi moneo). Neque « omnium » ab auctore nostro lectum fuisse, exinde colligo quia Deum « Patrem » respectu Jesu Christi hic dictum accepit. Et copula καί quidem abest etiam a versione Syriaca, ac Aethiopica, necnon apud Chrysostomum in Comment. ad hunc locum; sed qui vocem « omnium » omiserit, excepto Irenaeo, novi neminem. Quanquam in loco parallelo I Cor. VIII, 6, ipse Apostolus omiserit, simpliciter ponens : Εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα. « Unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia. »

Page 118. Father. In our Greek and Vulgate Latin manuscripts of the New Testament there is read: Καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, "and Father of all (Eph. 4:6);" in which manner Firmilian also in Epistle 75 among those of Cyprian cited this passage of the Apostle. But in the manuscript of Irenaeus both the copulative καί and the word πάντων seem to have been wanting, because without either he alleged the words of St. Paul, not only here, but also in book IV, ch. 37 (for that the other passage in book IV, ch. 52, is corrupt, I warn in the notes there). Nor do I gather that "of all" was read by our author, from the fact that he took God to be called "Father" here with respect to Jesus Christ. And the copula καί indeed is absent also from the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, as well as in Chrysostom in his Commentary on this passage; but of anyone who omitted the word "of all," except Irenaeus, I know none. Although in the parallel passage, 1 Cor. 8:6, the Apostle himself omitted it, simply setting down: Εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα. "One God the Father, of Whom are all things."

Nobis. In Graecis nostris codd. est ὑμῖν. Sed « nobis » praeter Irenaeum hoc aliisque locis ante dictis, habent Firmilianus in citata epistola, Hilarius in Comment. ad hunc locum, scholiastes apud Hieronymum; quamvis ipse Hieronymus in Commentario suo neutrum horum agnoscat, sicut et deest in codice Alexandrino aliisque, quos recenset nunquam sine honoris praefatione a me nominandus doctissimus D. Millius in sua Novi Testamenti editione.

In us. In our Greek manuscripts it is ὑμῖν. But "in us," besides Irenaeus here and in the other passages mentioned before, is held by Firmilian in the cited epistle, Hilary in his Commentary on this passage, and the scholiast in Jerome; although Jerome himself in his Commentary acknowledges neither of these, just as it is also wanting in the Codex Alexandrinus and others, which the most learned Dr. Mill, never to be named by me without a preface of honour, recounts in his edition of the New Testament.

Majus Pleromate. Ita recte editt. Eras. et mss. Voss. ac Merc. 2. Sed Gallasio placuit « majus » in « magis » commutare; hancque lectionem retinuit Feuardentius, et Billius loco citato acriter eam defendit, altera prorsus rejecta. « Hoc enim vult Irenaeus, inquit, Vacuum illud, quod Valentiniani inducebant, stultius adhuc absurdiusque esse Pleromate illo, quod jam confutarat, » cap. scilicet 1 hujus libri. Quae gratis omnino ab eo dicta sunt. Quod enim Irenaeus « ostensum » sive demonstratum dicit, est id : vacuum nempe a Valentinianis confictum, ipso Pleromate majus esse. Ita enim supra cap. 1, pag. 107, col. 1 : « Cum enim sit secundum eos et aliud quid, quod quidem extra Pleroma esse dicunt, in quod et superiorem erraticam virtutem descendisse opinantur (vid. lib. I, cap. 1, § 7), necesse est omni modo, aut continere id quod est extra, contineri autem Pleroma, » etc. At vero « id quod continet, eo quod continetur majus est, » ut paulo ante pag. 106 ait. « Vacuum

Greater than the Pleroma. Thus rightly the editions of Erasmus and the Vossian and second Mercier manuscripts. But it pleased Gallasius to change "greater" into "more;" and Feuardentius retained this reading, and Billius in the passage cited sharply defended it, altogether rejecting the other. "For this is what Irenaeus means," he says, "that that Vacuum, which the Valentinians introduced, is still more foolish and absurd than that Pleroma which he had already confuted," namely in ch. 1 of this book. Which things are said by him altogether gratuitously. For what Irenaeus says has been "shown" or demonstrated is this: namely, that the vacuum fabricated by the Valentinians is greater than the Pleroma itself. For thus above, ch. 1, page 107, col. 1: "For since according to them there is also something else, which indeed they say is outside the Pleroma, into which they also opine that the higher wandering power descended (see book I, ch. 1, § 7), it is necessary in every way that what is outside either contains, while the Pleroma is contained," etc. But indeed "that which contains is greater than that which is contained," as he says a little before on page 106. That the "Va-

Editors' notes and page, col. 1531

Page

running head: 1531 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A mente conceptum,; B carpit Clemens; C exinde colligo; D Voss. ac Merc.
old-edition numerals: 84 after Pleromate illo,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 3; word split at end of column: Va-[cuum]
other: the word Vacuum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1532

PG 7:1532

» itaque « Pleromate » Valentinianorum « majus » hoc loco ab Irenaeo dictum esse, nullum est dubium. Accedit quod a voce « instabilis » nova inchoanda sit periodus, ut mox dicam : ista vero avulsa, lectionem « magis » consistere haud posse, quilibet videt.

cuum" therefore was called by Irenaeus in this passage "greater" than the "Pleroma" of the Valentinians, there is no doubt. Add to this that from the word "unstable" a new sentence is to be begun, as I shall presently say: and when that is detached, anyone sees that the reading "more" cannot stand.

Pag. 119. Aut in praesentia, etc. Dixerat Irenaeus eumdem supremum Deum, qui ideam mundi mente conceperat, ejus structuram ad effectum perduxisse. Veritus autem, ne pertinaces adversarii hanc sequelam haud admitterent, sed alteri Deo ideam, alteri creationem mundi attribuere pergerent, alia quoque via eos aggreditur, et urget, a quocunque tandem mundus statuatur creatus, si tamen secundum ideam in mente summi Dei, ipso praesente, vel praesciente, efformatus fuerit, omnino creaturam pro bona habendam esse, aut omne, quod in eam conjicitur probrum, in ipsum supremum Deum redundare.

Page 119. Or in the presence, etc. Irenaeus had said that the very same supreme God, Who had conceived the idea of the world in His mind, had brought its structure into effect. Fearing, however, lest the obstinate adversaries should not admit this consequence, but should go on to attribute the idea to one God and the creation of the world to another, he attacks them by another way also, and urges that by whomsoever at length the world be held to have been created, if nevertheless it was formed according to the idea in the mind of the supreme God, with Him present or foreknowing, the creature must altogether be held as good, or every reproach that is cast upon it redounds upon the supreme God Himself.

Ex adnotationibus Nicolai Gallasii in cap. 3.

From the annotations of Nicolas Gallasius on ch. 3.

Pag. 119. Sed aut aeternum mundum mente concepit, secundum eos haereticos, Deus, aut temporalem : quae utraque sunt incredibilia. Ut intelligas hunc locum, qui obscurus alioqui et perplexus est, conjunge priorem sententiam, ad quam postrema istius pars referri debet. Nam docet Irenaeus haereticos non posse hoc dilemmate juvari. Nam sive aeternum, sive temporalem dicant esse mundum, utroque modo falsum et incredibile esse quod asserunt, ab eo mente conceptum, ab alio vero factum esse. Nam ita sequeretur duos esse deos, duos conditores, quorum uni, velut architecto, designatio, aut idea; alteri formatio tribueretur. Quoquo igitur modo acciperent, vel aeternum mundum, quod ipsi affirmabant, vel temporalem esse, ut docet Scriptura, neutro modo ipsorum dogma consistere, sed absurdum et impium esse. Quare concludit unum Deum Patrem universorum, ut sua ipsius mente concepit, ita eo tempore quo statuerat, nullius ope adjutum, hunc mundum edidisse.

Page 119. But God conceived the world in His mind either as eternal, according to those heretics, or as temporal: both of which are incredible. That you may understand this passage, which otherwise is obscure and intricate, join the former sentence, to which the latter part of that one ought to be referred. For Irenaeus teaches that the heretics cannot be helped by this dilemma. For whether they say that the world is eternal or temporal, in either way what they assert is false and incredible, that it was conceived in mind by Him, but made by another. For thus it would follow that there are two gods, two creators, to one of whom, as to an architect, the design or idea would be attributed, and to the other the formation. In whatever way therefore they might take it, either that the world is eternal, which they themselves affirmed, or temporal, as Scripture teaches, in neither way does their dogma stand, but it is absurd and impious. Wherefore he concludes that one God the Father of all, just as He conceived it in His own mind, so at the time which He had appointed, helped by no one's aid, brought forth this world.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 4.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 4.

Instabile. « Subbilis » legebant (in capitis hujus argumento) omnes excusi codices, et cum his Vaticanus manuscriptus. At, cum vix dici posset quid sibi vellet haec dictio, putarunt quidam vocem ὑπόχολον ad verbum reddidisse interpretem. Alii legendum putarunt : « Solubile est Pleroma. » Cum vero vetus codex haberet inter summas capitum initio libri positas, « invisibilis est Pleroma, » hic autem « insitabilis, » legendum putavi « instabile. » Accedit, quod cap. 3 lib. hujus habet, « instabilis igitur qui est secundum eos Bythus, et id quod est hujus Pleroma; » et Praefatione in hunc lib. vocat « invisibile Pleroma : » et infra cap. 5, « Pleroma vacuum, indispositum et tenebrosum. »

Unstable. All the printed editions, and with them the Vatican manuscript, read "Subbilis" (in the summary of this chapter). But, since it could scarcely be said what this word meant, some thought that the translator had rendered the word ὑπόχολον word for word. Others thought that there should be read: "The Pleroma is soluble." Since, however, the ancient manuscript had among the summaries of the chapters placed at the beginning of the book, "the Pleroma is invisible," and here "insitabilis," I thought there should be read "unstable." Add to this that ch. 3 of this book has, "unstable therefore is the Bythus which is according to them, and that which is his Pleroma;" and in the Preface to this book he calls it "the invisible Pleroma:" and below in ch. 5, "the Pleroma void, unarranged, and dark."

Pag. 119. Causa igitur. Concludit mundi opificium soli Deo ascribendum esse : Pleroma, Bythum, Sigen et Vacuum, quae Valentinianos confixisse lib. I, cap. 1 et 5, docuerat, una cum professoribus vana esse et inania. Porro hasce fabulas sumpserant ab Orpheo et Hesiodo, qui, ut est apud Theophilum et Lactantium, tradiderunt omnium rerum principium, Chaos, quod isti Bythum, Profundum, Aeona, Proarchen et Propatora appellant. Augustinus autem lib. De Genesi contra Manich. non negat mundum ex ea rudi materia factum, quam Graeci χαός vocant; sed hoc ipsum a Deo ex nihilo conditum his verbis Moysis intelligit : « Terra autem erat informis, » etc.

Page 119. Cause therefore. He concludes that the workmanship of the world is to be ascribed to God alone: and that the Pleroma, Bythus, Sige, and Vacuum, which he had taught in book I, ch. 1 and 5, that the Valentinians had fabricated, are together with their professors vain and empty. Moreover, they had taken these fables from Orpheus and Hesiod, who, as is found in Theophilus and Lactantius, handed down as the first principle of all things Chaos, which these men call Bythus, the Deep, Aeon, Proarche, and Propator. Augustine, however, in the book On Genesis against the Manichaeans, does not deny that the world was made out of that rude matter which the Greeks call χαός; but he understands that this very thing was founded by God out of nothing in these words of Moses: "And the earth was without form (Gen. 1:2)," etc.

Confingenda est. Caeterum unde vacuitas. Quinque has voculas ex vet. cod. inseruimus, quibus longe evidentius efficitur dilemma, quo probat Vacuum quod comminiscebantur, sive a Patre emissum dicant, sive a semetipso generatum, omnino inane et fictitium esse.

Must be fabricated. For the rest, whence the emptiness. We have inserted these five words from the ancient manuscript, by which the dilemma is made far more evident, whereby he proves that the Vacuum which they contrived, whether they say it was emitted by the Father or generated by itself, is altogether empty and fictitious.

Necessitas ergo erit. De hoc Graecismo, et multis similibus dictum est superius.

There will therefore be a necessity. Concerning this Graecism, and many similar ones, it has been spoken above.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1532

Page

running head: ARIORUM NOTAE 1532
marginal letters: A cuum » itaque; B Ex adnotationibus; C concepit, ita; D thum, Sigen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex adnotationibus Nicolai Gallasii in cap. 3, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 4; word split at beginning of column: [Va-]cuum

PG 7:1533

Antiquius autem. Vet. cod. hic quarti capitis initium facit, sed meo judicio incommodius.

More ancient, however. The ancient manuscript makes the beginning of the fourth chapter here, but in my judgement less conveniently.

Ptolemaei et Heracleonis. Ptolemaeum hunc Praefatione in primum librum vocat « flosculum scholae Valentini; » et sub calcem primi capitis, ejus adhuc meminit; ut et capite 40 hujus secundi. Epiphanius illius epistolam prolixam satis, sed venenis haereseos suae scatentem transcripsit contra Ptolemaitas. Heracleonem vero paria cum Valentino sensisse scribit Tertull., at novitate quadam pronuntiationis, alia sentire videri voluisse; eumdem plura subinde scripsisse asserit Clemens Alex. IV Strom. Epiphanius haereses istius 30 loco annumerat, et propria disputatione in eas agit.

Of Ptolemy and Heracleon. This Ptolemy he calls in the Preface to the first book "the little flower of the school of Valentinus;" and towards the end of the first chapter he still makes mention of him; as also in chapter 40 of this second book. Epiphanius transcribed an epistle of his, lengthy enough, but teeming with the poisons of his heresy, against the Ptolemaites. And that Heracleon held the same views as Valentinus, Tertullian writes, but by a certain novelty of expression wished to seem to hold different views; and Clement of Alexandria in Stromata IV asserts that the same man repeatedly wrote several works. Epiphanius reckons the heresies of that man in the 30th place, and deals against them in a special disputation.

Nam necessitas est. Delevimus tria puncta absoluta, ut quinque lineas includeremus parenthesi, quod id sensus omnino postulare videretur; et sententiam interrogatione clausimus.

For there is a necessity. We have deleted three full stops, so that we might include five lines in a parenthesis, because the sense seemed altogether to demand it; and we have closed the sentence with an interrogation.

Sustinens. Delevimus « subsistens, » auctor. vet. cod.

Sustaining. We have deleted "subsisting," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Et velut maculam. Expunximus « vel maculam : » mox quoque « percipere » pro « perficere » reposuimus.

And as it were a spot. We have expunged "or a spot:" presently also we have restored "to perceive" instead of "to perfect."

Ad perfectum. Octo voces adjecimus : delevimus autem quatuor, « aut quem factum dicunt. »

To perfection. We have added eight words: and we have deleted four, "or whom they say was made."

Solvetur autem. Dissolvit figmenta illorum de Vacuo et umbra Pleromatis, ex eo quod intra Patrem et conditorem hujus mundi nihil potest inane, informe, erroneum, aut tenebrosum esse : cum, vel ipsis etiam fatentibus, lumen sit clarissimum.

Moreover, it will be dissolved. He dissolves their figments concerning the Vacuum and the shadow of the Pleroma, from the fact that within the Father and Creator of this world nothing can be void, formless, erroneous, or dark: since, even by their own confession, He is the clearest light.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 4.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 4.

Pag. 119. Aporiati. Ita et paulo post initium cap. 6 hujus libri : « Quid autem si non plorasset, et risisset, et aporiata esset mater ipsorum? » Caeterum « aporiati, » Graece dicti ἀπορούμενοι sive διαπορούμενοι, i. e. « consternati, » sicut supra pag. 20, lin. 16, ἀπορίαν reddidit « consternationem; » et pag. 21, lin. 22, διηπόρει, « consternabatur. »

Page 119. Perplexed. Thus also a little after the beginning of ch. 6 of this book: "But what if their mother had not wept, and laughed, and been perplexed?" For the rest, "aporiati," called in Greek ἀπορούμενοι or διαπορούμενοι, that is, "dismayed," just as above on page 20, line 16, he rendered ἀπορίαν "dismay;" and on page 21, line 22, διηπόρει, "was dismayed."

Nam necessitas est. Haec verba parenthesi recte inclusit Feuardentius, sed eam nimium protendit usque ad, « in tunica maculam : » cum desinat in istis verbis : « non secundum localem sententiam. » Repetit vero Irenaeus in hac parenthesi absurdum, ad quod haereticos jam supra cap. 1 deduxerat : nempe si Bythus vel Pleroma non omnia intra se complecteretur, sed ab aliquo alio exterius contineretur, hoc illo majus fore; quod quidem ab omni veritatis specie alienum necessario ab adversariis admittendum ait; aut dicendum, quod « intus » et « extra, » non de « locali, » verum « intellectuali comprehensione » accipi debeat. Atqui posterius illud tanquam alterum absurdum et improprie dictum haereticis objicit Irenaeus, atque propriis eorum assertis de Jesu, Servatore matris Achamoth, repugnare, sequenti capite ostendit.

For there is a necessity. Feuardentius rightly enclosed these words in a parenthesis, but extended it too far up to "a spot on a garment:" whereas it ends at those words: "not according to a local meaning." Moreover, Irenaeus repeats in this parenthesis the absurdity to which he had already reduced the heretics above in ch. 1: namely, that if Bythus or the Pleroma did not embrace all things within itself, but were contained externally by something else, the latter would be greater than the former; which indeed, though foreign to all appearance of truth, he says must necessarily be admitted by the adversaries; or else it must be said that "within" and "without" ought to be taken not of "local," but of "intellectual comprehension." And yet Irenaeus objects that latter point to the heretics as another absurdity and improperly said, and shows in the following chapter that it is repugnant to their own assertions concerning Jesus, the Saviour of the mother Achamoth.

Pag. 120. Solvetur. Dissolvit figmenta illorum de Vacuo et umbra Pleromatis, ex eo quod intra Patrem et conditorem hujus mundi nihil potest inane, informe, erroneum et tenebrosum esse; cum vel ipsis etiam fatentibus lumen sit clarissimum. FEUARD. Omittere autem debuisset quatuor voces, « et conditorem hujus mundi, » quia Irenaei argumentatio primum solum Patrem atque Pleroma ferit, a quo conditorem hujus mundi distinctum faciebant haeretici.

Page 120. It will be dissolved. "He dissolves their figments concerning the Vacuum and the shadow of the Pleroma, from the fact that within the Father and Creator of this world nothing can be void, formless, erroneous, and dark; since even by their own confession He is the clearest light." FEUARDENTIUS. However, he ought to have omitted the four words, "and Creator of this world," because the argumentation of Irenaeus strikes at the first Father alone and the Pleroma, from whom the heretics made the Creator of this world distinct.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 5.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 5.

Pag. 120. Adversus eos igitur. Deum plane poeticum et ridiculum sibi fingere Valentinianos, toto hoc capite ostendit, ob portentosas absurditates in Deum Patrem, quem servum necessitatis; et Christum Jesum, quem ignorantem dicebant; simul et beatos angelos, quos brutis etiam ipsis deteriores esse, ex illorum propositis sequebatur.

Page 120. Against them therefore. That the Valentinians fashion for themselves a plainly poetical and ridiculous God, he shows throughout this whole chapter, on account of their monstrous absurdities against God the Father, whom they called a slave of necessity; and Christ Jesus, whom they called ignorant; and at the same time the blessed angels, who followed from their premises to be worse even than the brutes themselves.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1533

Footnotes

(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1533 or 1534 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. Praesc.

Book of the Prescription [against heretics].

(printed under page 775)

Page

running head: 1533 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A Antiquius autem.; B cod.; C batur. »; D Vacuo et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 4, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 5

PG 7:1534

Qui est extra Pleroma. Adjecimus duas voces, « est Pleroma, » auctor. vet. cod.

Which is outside the Pleroma. We have added two words, "is the Pleroma," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Et reliqua omnia. Novo dilemmate compellit eos aut fateri aeterna coelestiaque, temporalia et terrena esse, quod secum manifeste pugnat : aut reprobandum esse Pleroma, Christumque ipsorum ignorantiae causam, et in magna fuisse ignorantia dicendum.

And all the rest. By a new dilemma he compels them either to confess that eternal and heavenly things are temporal and earthly, which manifestly conflicts with itself: or to say that the Pleroma must be rejected, and that their Christ was the cause of ignorance, and was in great ignorance.

Pag. 121. Sic enim dicunt, etc. Videlicet, ut sub principium capitis primi lib. I recitavit. Addidimus autem « cum formasset, » et delevimus « eum formasse, » auctor. vet. cod.

Page 121. For thus they say, etc. Namely, as he recited towards the beginning of the first chapter of book I. Moreover, we have added "when he had formed," and deleted "him to have formed," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Et iterum. Caput sextum hic inchoat vetus cod. et minus commode.

And again. The ancient manuscript begins the sixth chapter here, and less conveniently.

Quam enim incusationem. Ostendit omnes illas accusationes, quas nominatim adversus Demiurgum instituerunt, et contra Deum hujus universi parentem unicum recurrere.

For what accusation. He shows that all those accusations which they expressly instituted against the Demiurge recoil also against God, the sole parent of this universe.

In posterioribus. Quinque has voces ex vetere codice adjecimus.

In what follows. We have added these five words from the ancient manuscript.

Non decet autem. Et hic initium capitis 7 constituit vetus, non satis apposite. Concludit porro Irenaeus, Gnosticos suis delirationibus Deum totius libertatis fontem, turpissimae necessitati ac servituti, ut ethnici Jovem suum subjicere. Quam impietatem Hugnostici nunc conantur reparare, post Calvinum et Bezam garrientes, « Deum necessitatis sibi loco esse, nec posse ulla decreta sua revocare : » nec alia multa praestare, de quibus in Dialog. nostris disseruimus. Caeterum, quod superiori linea dicitur, « concedens sistere errorem, » Billius judicat positum, pro « consistere et emergere. » Graece συνίστασθαι : et postea, « de poenitentia eradicare, » idem esse, quod mutare sententiam, ἐκ μεταβολῆς.

Now it is not fitting. Here also the ancient manuscript places the beginning of chapter 7, not aptly enough. Moreover, Irenaeus concludes that the Gnostics by their ravings subject God, the fountain of all liberty, to the most shameful necessity and servitude, as the pagans do their Jupiter. Which impiety the Huguenot-Gnostics now endeavour to renew, chattering after Calvin and Beza that "God is in the place of necessity to Himself, and cannot revoke any of His decrees:" nor perform many other things, concerning which we have discoursed in our Dialogues. For the rest, what is said in the preceding line, "permitting error to stand," Billius judges to be put for "to consist and emerge." In Greek συνίστασθαι: and afterwards, "to eradicate by repentance," is the same as to change one's mind, ἐκ μεταβολῆς.

Excideret. Delevimus « excederet : » et mox « tantam » pro « tantum; » ac « pater » pro « mater, » auctor. vet. cod. reposuimus.

Should fall away. We have deleted "should exceed:" and presently we have restored "so great" (feminine) for "so much;" and "father" for "mother," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Homericus Jupiter. Locus est Iliados primo, quo poeta suum Jovem necessitati et fato servire non dissimulat. « Ast nullo modo, » ait noster Augustinus, « violat corruptio Deum nostrum, nulla voluntate, nulla necessitate, nullo improviso casu, quoniam ipse Deus, et quod sibi vult, bonum est, et ipse est idem bonum. Nec cogeris ad aliquid, quia voluntas tua non est major potentia. »

The Homeric Jupiter. The passage is in the first book of the Iliad, where the poet does not conceal that his Jupiter is subject to necessity and fate. "But in no way," says our Augustine, "does corruption violate our God, by no will, by no necessity, by no unforeseen chance, since He Himself is God, and what He wills for Himself is good, and He Himself is the same good. Nor art Thou compelled to anything, because Thy will is not greater than Thy power."

Pag. 122. Quomodo autem et ignorabant. Arguit errorem, quo dicebant angelos fabricatores mundi Deum omnipotentem penitus ignorasse; tametsi enim possit non videri, propter infinitam eminentiam et incomprehensibilem majestatem : ignorari tamen nequit, propter omnipotentiae ac providentiae cunctos manifestissimos effectus.

Page 122. How then were they also ignorant. He refutes the error whereby they said that the angels, the fashioners of the world, were utterly ignorant of Almighty God; for although He may not be seen, on account of His infinite eminence and incomprehensible majesty: yet He cannot be unknown, on account of all the most manifest effects of His omnipotence and providence.

Invisibilis quidem. Corporeis luminibus Dei majestatem conspici non posse, magno consensu docuerunt Patres, tum qui praecesserunt, tum qui secuti sunt aetatem hujus praeclari martyris. « Si quis dixerit, » ait Dionysius Areopag., « absque ullo medio, quibusdam sanctorum divinas apparitiones contigisse, intelligat ut secretum ipsum Dei, quodcunque tandem illud est, nemo unquam vidit, neque videbit. Caeterum divinae illae apparitiones sanctis viris per signa Deo convenientissima, sacris quibusdam, atque intuentium modo, ac viribus accommodatis, visionibus contigere. » Habet similia idem epist. ad Caium monachum. Quin et Moysen Deum vidisse, idem pernegat lib. De mystica theologia, c. 1. Subscribit Dionys. Justin. in Dial. frequenter affirmans Patrem universorum nemini unquam visum. Reliquos omitto.

Invisible indeed. That the majesty of God cannot be beheld by bodily eyes, the Fathers taught with great consensus, both those who preceded and those who followed the age of this illustrious martyr. "If anyone should say," says Dionysius the Areopagite, "that divine apparitions befell some of the saints without any medium, let him understand that the very secret of God, whatever at length that is, no one has ever seen, nor will see. For the rest, those divine apparitions befell holy men through signs most befitting God, in certain sacred visions accommodated to the measure and powers of the beholders." The same author has similar things in his epistle to the monk Caius. Nay, even that Moses saw God, the same author flatly denies in the book On Mystical Theology, ch. 1. Justin subscribes to Dionysius, in the Dialogue frequently affirming that the Father of all has never been seen by anyone. The rest I omit.

Ignotus autem. Deum ex operibus suis natura omnibus notum esse, et ab imperatore Romano sumpto exemplo paulo post confirmat. Idem post alia non minus ad rem accommodata, paulo ante Irenaeum usurparat Theophilus Antiochenus : « Ut anima, inquit, in humano corpore non videtur,

Unknown, however. That God is by nature known to all from His works, he confirms a little after by an example taken from the Roman emperor. The same thing, after other illustrations no less suited to the matter, Theophilus of Antioch had used a little before Irenaeus: "As the soul," he says, "is not seen in the human body,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1534

Footnotes

(85) ‹anchor: ait noster Augustinus› · call in col 1534

Lib. vii Confes., cap. 4.

Confessions, book 7, chapter 4.

(printed under page 775)

(86) ‹anchor: ait Dionysius Areopag.› · call in col 1534

L. de coelesti hier., cap. 2.

Book On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 2.

(printed under page 775)

(87) ‹anchor: anima, inquit› · call in col 1534

Lib. i ad Autolycum.

To Autolycus, book 1.

(printed under page 775)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1534
marginal letters: A Qui est; B Non decet; C dissimulat. « Ast; D tiones contigisse,
old-edition numerals: 85 after libertatis fontem,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Qui est extra Pleroma

PG 7:1535

invisibilis exsistens, verum ex corporis motu cognoscitur : sic nec Deus humanis et corporeis oculis videri potest; caeterum ex providentia, qua singula ordinat, suisque operibus aspicitur et apprehenditur. Quemadmodum si quis cernat navem, suis armamentis instructam, mare sulcare, et in portum appellere, certe credit aliquem, a quo gubernetur, in ea esse gubernatorem : sic certe nemo sit adeo abjecti animi, quin credat Deum gubernatorem esse omnium, quamvis oculis carnalibus eum non assequamur. » Et paulo post : « Imperator terrestris esse praesumitur, quamvis non ab omnibus videatur, oculos vertenti in leges et imperii administrationem. Praeterea esse cognoscitur, si quis oculos in potentatus et potestates, nec non imagines ejus conjiciat : et Deum ex potentia, et operibus suis cognoscere cunctaris? » Et qui utrumque praecessit Dionysius Areop. creaturarum ordinatissimam dispositionem, ut ab ipso productam, imagines quasdam ac similitudines divinorum exemplarium prae se ferre, ut pro viribus ad Deum scanderemus, et seorsim ab omnibus, et in omnibus agnosceremus, recte affirmavit. Hinc autem concludit Justinus martyr in Apolog. 2, Socratem, Heraclitum, et alios quosdam, qui cum ratione inter Graecos vixerunt, Deum unum et verum ita duce natura cognovisse, ut propemodum Christiani dici possint. Tertull. quoque scribit : « Neminem negare, quia nemo ignorat quod ultro natura suggerit, Deum esse universitatis conditorem. » In Apologet. autem, et lib. De testimonio animae, animam rationalem vocat naturaliter Christianam. In hanc rem disserunt Lactantius lib. I, cap. 3, et August. lib. De spirit. et lit., cap. 12, tractat. 106 in Joannem, lib. VIII, De civit., cap. 6, et serm. 55 de verb. Domini.

being invisible, yet is known from the motion of the body: so neither can God be seen by human and bodily eyes; yet from the providence whereby He orders each thing, and from His works, He is beheld and apprehended. Just as if anyone sees a ship, equipped with its tackle, ploughing the sea and putting into port, he certainly believes that there is a pilot in it by whom it is steered: so certainly let no one be of so abject a mind as not to believe that God is the pilot of all things, although we do not attain to Him with carnal eyes." And a little after: "An earthly emperor is presumed to exist, although he is not seen by all, when one turns one's eyes to the laws and the administration of the empire. Moreover, he is known to exist if one casts one's eyes upon principalities and powers, and also upon his images: and do you hesitate to know God from His power and works?" And Dionysius the Areopagite, who preceded both, rightly affirmed that the most orderly disposition of creatures, as produced by Him, displays certain images and likenesses of the divine exemplars, so that according to our strength we might ascend to God, and recognize Him both apart from all things and in all things. And hence Justin Martyr concludes in Apology 2 that Socrates, Heraclitus, and certain others who lived with reason among the Greeks, so knew the one and true God under the guidance of nature that they may almost be called Christians. Tertullian also writes: "That no one denies, because no one is ignorant of what nature of its own accord suggests, that God is the Creator of the universe." And in the Apologeticum, and the book On the Testimony of the Soul, he calls the rational soul naturally Christian. To this purpose discourse Lactantius, book I, ch. 3, and Augustine, book On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 12, Tractate 106 on John, book VIII On the City of God, ch. 6, and Sermon 55 on the Words of the Lord.

Quomodo dicunt. Cod excus. habebant « quomodo autem. »

How do they say. The printed editions had "how then."

Salvabantur homines. His non vult B. martyr, patres a condito orbe ad Christi adventum, recta in coelum evolasse, quo aperta Dei visione fruerentur : cum infra doceat Christi animam ad inferna descendisse, et tribus diebus conversatam cum animabus defunctorum, quae erant in medio umbrae mortis. Superest ergo, ut de ea salutis specie, quae consistit in remissione peccatorum, profligatione Satanae, et spe in Christum venturum, loquatur : quod apertius explicat lib. IV, cap. 30. Hic quoque non obscure, cum ait : « Salvabantur et a spiritibus nequissimis, » etc. Recte namque Augustinus non uno loco contendit, priscos patres, qui ante adventum Christi vixerunt, non solum in filiis Israel, sed etiam in gentibus, quales fuerunt Job et Melchisedech, per fidem cultumque unius Dei, et futuri mediatoris, a peccatis potuisse mundari atque justificari. Lib. II, De gratia Christi contra Pelag., cap. 24, et lib. I De peccatorum meritis et remissione, cap. 28 et 29.

Men were saved. By these words the blessed martyr does not mean that the fathers from the foundation of the world until the coming of Christ flew straight up into heaven, where they might enjoy the open vision of God: since he teaches below that the soul of Christ descended to the lower regions, and for three days conversed with the souls of the dead who were in the midst of the shadow of death. It remains, therefore, that he speaks of that kind of salvation which consists in the remission of sins, the routing of Satan, and hope in the Christ to come: which he explains more clearly in book IV, ch. 30. Here also not obscurely, when he says: "And they were saved from most wicked spirits," etc. For Augustine rightly contends in more than one place that the ancient fathers who lived before the coming of Christ, not only among the children of Israel, but also among the nations, such as were Job and Melchizedek, could through faith and the worship of the one God, and of the future Mediator, be cleansed from sins and justified. Book II On the Grace of Christ against Pelagius, ch. 24, and book I On the Merits and Remission of Sins, ch. 28 and 29.

Judaei usque nunc. Christianos sive ex gentibus sive ex Judaeis, Irenaei saeculo, daemones corporibus hominum exorcismis frequenter ejecisse, amplissimis testibus Tertulliano, Justino, Theoplilo, et Cypriano, cuivis facile apparet : Judaeos vero mordicus adhuc Moysi addictos, et Christum Messiam respuentes, non ita forsan omnibus. At non modo hic Irenaeum, sed et plerosque gravissimos auctores id asserere comperio. Justinus enim archisynagogum Tryphonem cum comitiva sic alloquitur : « Si daemonia adjuretis per omnia nomina vestrorum regum, prophetarum, patriarcharum, justorumque, nullum non erit contumax : at si quis vestrum adjuret ea per Deum Abraham, Isaac et Jacob, fortassis obsequerentur. Utuntur tamen vestri

The Jews even until now. That Christians, whether from the Gentiles or from the Jews, in the age of Irenaeus frequently cast out demons from the bodies of men by exorcisms, is easily apparent to anyone from those most ample witnesses Tertullian, Justin, Theophilus, and Cyprian: but that the Jews, still tenaciously devoted to Moses and rejecting Christ the Messiah, did so, is perhaps not so apparent to all. Yet I find not only Irenaeus here, but also very many most weighty authors asserting this. For Justin thus addresses Trypho, the ruler of the synagogue, with his company: "If you adjure demons by all the names of your kings, prophets, patriarchs, and righteous men, every one will be stubborn: but if any of you adjures them by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, perhaps they would obey. Yet your

Editors' notes and page, col. 1535

Footnotes

(58) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1535 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. De divin. nom., cap. 7.

Book On the Divine Names, chapter 7.

(printed under page 776)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1535 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. de spectaculis.

Book On the Shows.

(printed under page 776)

(60) ‹anchor: testibus Tertulliano› · call in col 1535

Apol., cap. 25.

Apology, chapter 25.

(printed under page 776)

(61) ‹anchor: Justino› · call in col 1535

In dialog.

In the Dialogue [with Trypho].

(printed under page 776)

(62) ‹anchor: Theophilo› · call in col 1535

Lib. ii ad Autol.

To Autolycus, book 2.

(printed under page 776)

Page

running head: 1535 VARIORUM NOT
marginal letters: A invisibilis exsistens,; B plarium prae; C Salvabantur homines.; D et remissione,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: invisibilis exsistens; word split at end of column: ve-[stri]
other: the word vestri was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1536

PG 7:1536

exorcistae arte hac, sicut et gentes, adhibendo suffitus et alligamenta. » Haec ille. Accedit Josephus, qui Judaeum quemdam nomine Eleazarum, praesente Vespasiano imperat., ejus filiis, tribunis, et universo simul exercitu Romano, curasse eos, qui a daemoniis vexabantur, confirmat, exorcismorum formulis, quas rex Salomon quondam ediderat : ad quas etiam Christum Dominum respexisse putat Hieronymus, cum Judaeis diceret : « Si in Beelzebub ejicio daemonia, filii vestri in quo ejiciunt? » Sed omnem nodum dissolvit Evangelium, quo aperte scribitur apostolos quemdam invenisse, qui ad Christianum contubernium nihil attineret, qui nihilominus in nomine Christi ejiciebat daemonia. His mihi credibilius efficitur, quod ex Talmud Hierosolymitano refert frater Petrus Galatinus : in nomine Jesu Nazareni, quemdam Judaeum, qui mortiferum quid deglutierat, ab alio mox sanatum fuisse, lib. VIII De arcanis fidei, cap. 5.

exorcists use this art, just like the Gentiles also, employing fumigations and amulets." So says he. Add to this Josephus, who confirms that a certain Jew named Eleazar, in the presence of the emperor Vespasian, his sons, the tribunes, and the whole Roman army together, cured those who were tormented by demons, by formulas of exorcisms which King Solomon had formerly composed: to which Jerome thinks Christ the Lord also referred when He said to the Jews: "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out (Matt. 12:27; Luke 11:19)?" But the Gospel unties every knot, where it is openly written that the apostles found a certain man who had nothing to do with the Christian fellowship, who nevertheless cast out demons in the name of Christ (Mark 9:37; Luke 9:49). By these things there is rendered more credible to me what Brother Petrus Galatinus relates from the Jerusalem Talmud: that in the name of Jesus of Nazareth a certain Jew, who had swallowed something deadly, was presently healed by another, book VIII On the Mysteries of the Catholic Truth, ch. 5.

Noluerint. Expunximus « voluerint, » auctor. vet. cod.

They were unwilling. We have expunged "they were willing," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 5.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 5.

Pag. 120. Adversus eos igitur. Repetit Irenaeus dilemma, quo Valentinianos et Marcionitas vexaverat, ac docet, eos necessario absurda proposita incurrere, sive mundum extra Pleroma et sub bono Deo conditum, sive intra Pleroma et sphaeram boni Dei a Demiurgo, vel ab Angelis factum dixerint; illos insuper, dum creaturas intra Pleroma dicerent ignorantiae fructus, universo Pleromati labem ignorantiae aspergere, ac ipsi Christo hujus ignorantiae causam ascribere, si quidem is Matrem rerum omnium, Achamotham scilicet, agnitionis expertem fecerit. Qua occasione obiter praecludit effugium adversariorum, jam praecedenti capite memoratum, nempe « intra » et « extra » Pleroma, non localis subsistentiae, sed « cognitionis » et « ignorantiae » ratione dici, eosque propriis assertis de Jesu Servatore, ad formam cognitionis Matri communicandam, extra Pleroma egresso, fortiter prosternit. Novo posthaec dilemmate veritatis hostes aggreditur, ex accusatione creaturis intra Pleroma conditis intentata concludens, supremum Deum, aut Demiurgo infirmiorem, aut necessitati subjectum fore dicendum, si citra ejus concessionem vel approbationem, intra ejus sphaeram, creaturae cum tanta imperfectione fuissent productae. Tum denique id, quod titulus exhibet, argumentum prolixius prosequitur, angelos, a quibus mundum conditum fingebant haeretici, Deum haud ignorare demonstrans.

Page 120. Against them therefore. Irenaeus repeats the dilemma with which he had harassed the Valentinians and Marcionites, and teaches that they necessarily run into absurd propositions, whether they say that the world was founded outside the Pleroma and under the good God, or made within the Pleroma and the sphere of the good God by the Demiurge or by Angels; and that they moreover, while saying that the creatures within the Pleroma are the fruits of ignorance, bespatter the whole Pleroma with the stain of ignorance, and ascribe the cause of this ignorance to Christ Himself, since He made the Mother of all things, namely Achamoth, devoid of knowledge. On which occasion in passing he cuts off the evasion of the adversaries, already mentioned in the preceding chapter, namely that "within" and "outside" the Pleroma are said not by reason of local subsistence, but of "knowledge" and "ignorance," and he strongly overthrows them by their own assertions concerning Jesus the Saviour going out beyond the Pleroma to communicate the form of knowledge to the Mother. After this he attacks the enemies of the truth with a new dilemma, concluding from the accusation brought against the creatures founded within the Pleroma, that the supreme God must be said to be either weaker than the Demiurge, or subject to necessity, if without His permission or approval, within His sphere, creatures had been produced with so great imperfection. Then finally he pursues more at length the argument which the title sets forth, demonstrating that the angels, by whom the heretics feigned the world to have been founded, are by no means ignorant of God.

Et reliqua omnia, etc. Novo dilemmate compellit eos, aut fateri, aeterna coelestiaque, temporalia et terrena esse, quod secum manifeste pugnat; aut reprobandum esse Pleroma, (quodque) Christus ipsorum ignorantiae causa, et in magna fuisse ignorantia dicendus. FEUARD. Sed prius membrum hujus dilemmatis in Irenaei verbis haud deprehendo : nec video quomodo, stante eo, collectio procedat. Caeterum Feuardentium turbavit vox « aeterna, » quae vel prorsus delenda, vel in aliam est commutanda. Neque enim haeretici choica dicebant aeterna, imo contra diserte docebant : Τὸ χοϊκὸν ἀδύνατον σωτηρίας μετασχεῖν· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι λέγουσιν αὐτοὶ δεκτικὸν αὐτῆς, etc. « Choicum impossibile est salutem percipere : non enim esse illum capacem salutis dicunt, » uti cap. 1, lib. I, pag. 30, l. 4 legimus. Accedit, quod mox p. 122, col. 1, lin. 12 Irenaeus scribat : « quam enim incusationem faciunt... de his, quae facta sunt materialia et temporalia, recurret in Patrem. » Sic itaque conjicio legendum : « Et reliqua omnia, quaecunque sunt conditionis (i. e. quaecunque sunt

And all the rest, etc. "By a new dilemma he compels them either to confess that eternal and heavenly things are temporal and earthly, which manifestly conflicts with itself; or that the Pleroma must be rejected, and that their Christ must be said to be the cause of ignorance, and to have been in great ignorance." FEUARDENTIUS. But I do not find the former member of this dilemma in the words of Irenaeus: nor do I see how, if it stands, the inference proceeds. For the rest, the word "eternal" threw Feuardentius into confusion, which is either to be altogether deleted, or changed into another. For the heretics did not call earthly things eternal, nay, on the contrary they expressly taught: Τὸ χοϊκὸν ἀδύνατον σωτηρίας μετασχεῖν· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι λέγουσιν αὐτοὶ δεκτικὸν αὐτῆς, etc. "It is impossible for the earthly to partake of salvation: for they themselves say that it is not capable of it," as we read in ch. 1, book I, page 30, line 4. Add to this that presently on page 122, col. 1, line 12, Irenaeus writes: "for whatever accusation they make... concerning those things which have been made material and temporal, will recoil upon the Father." Thus therefore I conjecture it should be read: "And all the rest, whatever belongs to creation (that is, whatever has been

Editors' notes and page, col. 1536

Footnotes

(63) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1536 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. viii Antiq., cap. 2.

Antiquities, book 8, chapter 2.

(printed under page 776)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1536 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Matth. XII, 27; Luc. XI, 19.

Matthew 12:27; Luke 11:19.

(printed under page 776)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1536 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

In xii Matth.; Marc. IX, 37; Luc. IX, 49.

On Matthew 12; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:49.

(printed under page 776)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1536
marginal letters: A stri exorcistae; B cap. 5.; C ratione dici,; D rantia dicendus.
old-edition numerals: 86 before enim incusationem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 5; word split at beginning of column: [ve-]stri

PG 7:1537

per creationem producta), quae accusant, quasi temporalia sint, ac terrena (pro aeterna) et choica, » etc., quomodo cap. 7, p. 128, col. 2, lin. 3 (cap. 8, n. 3) « terrena et choica » jungit.

produced through creation), which they accuse, as though they were temporal, and earthly (instead of eternal) and of dust," etc., in the way in which in ch. 7, page 128, col. 2, line 3 (ch. 8, no. 3), he joins "earthly and of dust."

Pag. 121. Haec autem adversus omnes, etc. Intelligit Saturnini, Basilidis, Carpocratis sectatores, aliosque Gnosticos, ut ex cap. 56 hujus libri patet, ubi itidem scribit : « Quanta autem rursus diximus adversus eos, qui dicunt omnia quidem comprehendere Patrem universorum, etc., et adversus eos, qui sunt a Saturnino, et a Basilide et a Carpocrate, et reliquos Gnosticorum, qui eadem similiter dicunt, idem dicetur. »

Page 121. Now these things against all, etc. He understands the followers of Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and the other Gnostics, as is clear from ch. 56 of this book, where he likewise writes: "And all that we have said again against those who say that the Father of all indeed comprehends all things, etc., and against those who are from Saturninus, and from Basilides, and from Carpocrates, and the rest of the Gnostics, who similarly say the same things, the same will be said."

Quam enim incusationem. Ostendit omnes illas accusationes, quas nominatim adversus Demiurgum instituerunt, et contra Deum hujus universi parentem unicum recurrere. FEUARD. Debuisset dicere, « contra Deum Propatorem haereticorum recurrere. »

For what accusation. "He shows that all those accusations, which they expressly instituted against the Demiurge, recoil also against God, the sole parent of this universe." FEUARDENTIUS. He ought to have said, "recoil against the God Propator of the heretics."

Siquidem quemadmodum, etc. « Quemadmodum » pro « quasi, » vel « sicut » hic usurpatum, et Graece ὥσπερ ἐν κοιλίᾳ Πληρώματος scriptum fuisse puto.

Since just as, etc. I think that "Quemadmodum" is used here for "quasi" or "sicut," and that in Greek it was written ὥσπερ ἐν κοιλίᾳ Πληρώματος.

Pag. 122. Apostasia universa. I. e. ab omni grandi peccato, quod hominem a Deo separat. Sic lib. V, cap. 24 : « Dominatus est (diabolus) homini per apostasiam. » Et cap. 29 : « Sexcenti itaque anni Noe, sub quo fuit diluvium propter apostasiam. »

Page 122. The whole apostasy. That is, from every great sin which separates man from God. Thus book V, ch. 24: "He (the devil) exercised dominion over man through apostasy." And ch. 29: "Six hundred years therefore of Noah, under whom was the flood on account of apostasy."

Domini nostri. Jesu Christi scilicet, cui cum omnia subjecta sint, licet non viderint eum, et Dei Patris imperio angelos subditos esse colligit Irenaeus, licet eum intueri nequeant.

Of our Lord. Namely, Jesus Christ, since all things are subject to Him, even though they have not seen Him, Irenaeus gathers that the angels are also subject to the command of God the Father, even though they cannot behold Him.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 6.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 6.

Quomodo immensus. (Argumenti capitis verba sunt.) Isthaec portentosa figmenta de Aeonum ideis, seu imaginibus, Pleromate, Nu et Monogene, quae Gnosticos magna impudentia inculcare lib. I, cap. 1, scripserat, toto hoc capite refellit : unicum evincens esse rerum omnium opificem, qui sine ullius alterius virtutis adminiculo, mundum hunc disposuerit. Haec autem deliria, e Platonicis ideis fabricata fuisse, infra cap. 19 luculenter asserit : quibus subscribit Tertullianus lib. De anima : « In ideis Platonicis, Gnosticorum haeretica semina relucere, quae haereticarum idearum sacramenta » nuncupat. Justinus quoque utroque superior, postquam secum pugnare Platonem ostendit, subjicit : « Scripta Moysis nactus Plato, postquam non pensitavit ita ut debuit (negationem interpres Gelenius omisit), existimavit esse quamdam antiquiorem speciem separatam ab ista, quae sensu percipitur, illam etiam rerum exemplar nominare solitus. » Et paulo post : « Ad eumdem modum de terra, coelo, homine, in errorem lapsus videtur, nam et horum ideas esse putat. » Nec solis tribus his antiquissimis Patribus, sed et Ambrosio lib. IV De fide, cap. 3, et libr. I Hexaem., cap. 1 et 2; Nazianzeno orat. 2 de theologia; August. lib. LXXXIII Quaest., q. 46, et Cyrillo lib. II In Julianum, minus gratam fuisse idearum constitutionem liquet; nec solum Luciani Icaromenippum illas insectari nostri putent. Quanta vero de eis fuerit digladiatio inter summos philosophos Platonem et Aristotelem, et qui deinceps illarum assertores et inficiatores, quibusque rationibus innitantur illi et isti; non paucis referunt earumdem acerrimi propugnatores Jo. Franciscus Picus libro VI Examinis vanitatis gentium et veritatis Christianae, cap. 15, et F. Franciscus Venetus Minor, lib. De harmonia mundi, cantici secundi quinque capitibus.

How immeasurable. (These are the words of the summary of the chapter.) These monstrous figments concerning the ideas or images of the Aeons, the Pleroma, Nous, and Monogenes, which he had written in book I, ch. 1, that the Gnostics inculcate with great impudence, he refutes throughout this whole chapter: demonstrating that there is one single Maker of all things, Who without the aid of any other power disposed this world. Moreover, that these ravings were fabricated out of the Platonic ideas, he clearly asserts below in ch. 19: to which Tertullian subscribes in the book On the Soul: "That in the Platonic ideas glitter the heretical seeds of the Gnostics, which he calls the mysteries of heretical ideas." Justin also, earlier than both, after showing that Plato contradicts himself, subjoins: "Having obtained the writings of Moses, Plato, after he did not weigh them as he ought (the translator Gelenius omitted the negation), supposed that there was a certain more ancient form separate from that which is perceived by sense, being wont also to name it the exemplar of things." And a little after: "In the same way concerning earth, heaven, and man, he seems to have fallen into error, for of these also he thinks there are ideas." Nor is it clear to these three most ancient Fathers alone, but also to Ambrose, book IV On the Faith, ch. 3, and book I of the Hexaemeron, ch. 1 and 2; Nazianzen, Oration 2 on Theology; Augustine, book of 83 Questions, q. 46; and Cyril, book II Against Julian, that the establishment of ideas was less acceptable; nor let our people think that only Lucian's Icaromenippus inveighs against them. And how great a sword-fight there was concerning them between the chief philosophers Plato and Aristotle, and who thereafter were the assertors and deniers of them, and upon what reasons the former and the latter rely, their most keen champions recount at no small length, Jo. Franciscus Picus in book VI of the Examination of the Vanity of the Gentiles and the Truth of the Christian Doctrine, ch. 15, and Friar Franciscus Venetus Minor, in the book On the Harmony of the World, in five chapters of the second canticle.

Pag. 122. Esse autem imagines. Probat merum delirium esse, quod cum tanto supercilio tradebant, nimirum Salvatorem per quasdam ideas et similitudines Pleroma coluisse, etiam Patre id ignorante : quoniam repugnat aliquid consistere extra perfectam Plenitudinem (quam appellant Pleroma) : vel

Page 122. But that there are images. He proves that what they handed down with such great arrogance is mere delirium, namely, that the Saviour honoured the Pleroma through certain ideas and likenesses, even while the Father was ignorant of it: since it is repugnant that anything should subsist outside the perfect Fulness (which they call the Pleroma): or

Editors' notes and page, col. 1537

Footnotes

(66) ‹anchor: ostendit, subjicit› · call in col 1537

Orat. ad Graecos.

Oration to the Greeks.

(printed under page 777)

Page

running head: 1537 IN LIB. II S. IRE
marginal letters: A per creationem; B pro « quasi, »; C alterius virtutis; D lib. II In Julianum,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: per creationem producta, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 6

PG 7:1538

si quidpiam fuerit, tam subito periisse. Insuper, blasphemum esse, Unigenito Dei ignorantiam tribuere, docet.

if anything existed, that it perished so suddenly. Moreover, he teaches that it is blasphemous to attribute ignorance to the Only-begotten of God.

Primum Deum. Delevimus « primam. »

The first God. We have deleted "first" (feminine).

Si autem suave est. Initium est capitis octavi in vet. cod. cui et praefixa est ea summa, quae ibidem infra habetur.

But if it is pleasant. This is the beginning of the eighth chapter in the ancient manuscript, to which is also prefixed that summary which is found in the same place below.

Pag. 123. Honorata. Codices excusi habebant « inhonorata. »

Page 123. Honoured. The printed editions had "dishonoured."

Simile. Expunximus « similis, » auct. vet. cod.

Like (neuter). We have expunged "like" (masculine/feminine), on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Et sine hoc autem. Probat non esse verisimile, tot tamque varias creaturas, ideas esse paucorum atque fictitiorum Aeonum, cum et Aeones dicerent aequales et concordes esse : inferiora vero ista sibi plerumque adversentur, et mutuam necem inferant. Rursum, oportere quosdam Aeones natura malos, feros, terrestres et reprobos esse, ac econtrario; cum tales homines in terris degere non diffiterentur.

And even apart from this. He proves that it is not probable that so many and such varied creatures are the ideas of a few fictitious Aeons, since they also said that the Aeons are equal and harmonious: whereas these lower things for the most part oppose one another, and inflict mutual death. Again, that some Aeons would have to be by nature evil, fierce, earthly, and reprobate, and the converse; since they did not deny that such men live on earth.

Pag. 124. Et quaedam quidem. Undecim dictiones ex veteri codice restituimus : delevimus unicam « innocentia. »

Page 124. And some indeed. We have restored eleven words from the ancient manuscript: we have deleted the single word "innocence."

Et ignis aeternus. Cum ignis aeternus, adeoque ipsa gehenna nullius Aeonum idea sit; falsa est ratio idearum ab eis constituta. Nec angelorum Pleromatis ideae sunt, cum sint specie diversi ac innumerabiles; Aeones vero tantum triginta, ac ejusdem sortis et formae. Denique, cum idearum progressio evadat in infinitum, in unico et vero Deo creatore consistendum, et quiescendum est.

And eternal fire. Since eternal fire, and therefore Gehenna itself, is the idea of none of the Aeons, the system of ideas established by them is false. Neither are there ideas of the angels of the Pleroma, since they are diverse in species and innumerable; whereas the Aeons are only thirty, and of the same lot and form. Finally, since the progression of ideas goes on to infinity, one must stop and rest in the one and true God the Creator.

Primo enim. Vetus codex hac sententia exorditur caput nonum; cui addit idem argumentum, quod infra habetur.

For first. The ancient manuscript begins the ninth chapter with this sentence; to which it adds the same summary that is found below.

Quae enim sunt. Cod. excusi habebant, « Quae cum sint. »

For the things which are. The printed editions had, "Which things, since they are."

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 6.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 6.

Pag. 123. Extremae confusionis, non habentis propriam substantiam. Diu me hic locus torsit, nec potui sensum proposito congruum inde elicere, donec animadverti, interpretem male duos genitivos Graecos in Latino servasse, qui per ablativos reddendi erant hoc modo : « extrema confusione, » quae scilicet in umbra et vacuo erat, « non habente propriam substantiam, » antequam distinctae materiae per passiones matris Achamoth in ea orirentur. De quibus vide supra pag. 21.

Page 123. Of extreme confusion, not having its own substance. For a long time this passage tormented me, nor could I elicit from it a sense agreeable to the purpose, until I noticed that the translator badly preserved two Greek genitives in the Latin, which ought to have been rendered by ablatives in this way: "since the extreme confusion," namely that which was in the shadow and vacuum, "did not have its own substance," before distinct matters arose in it through the passions of the mother Achamoth. Concerning which see above, page 21.

Pag. 124. Dena millia, etc. Haec Danielis verba Graece habentur in S. Clementis Epist ad Corinth., cap. 34 : Λέγει γὰρ ἡ Γραφή· Μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ, καὶ χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ. Atque ita etiam apud Gregorium Nyssenum, homil. 8, in Ecclesiasten, et Cyrillum Alexandrinum, epistola in Symbolum. Ast in illa, quae jam sub nomine LXX interpretum exstat, versione convenienter archetypo legitur inverso ordine : Χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ. Confer de varia hujus loci citatione Cotelerii notas ad laudatam Clementis epistolam.

Page 124. Ten thousand times ten thousand, etc. These words of Daniel (Dan. 7:10) are found in Greek in St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 34: Λέγει γὰρ ἡ Γραφή· Μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ, καὶ χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ. And so also in Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes, and Cyril of Alexandria, in his Epistle on the Creed. But in that version which is now extant under the name of the Seventy translators, agreeably to the original, it is read in inverted order: Χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ. Compare, on the varied citation of this passage, Cotelier's notes on the praised epistle of Clement.

Et manet conditio integra in imagine Pleromatis, etc. Quis horum verborum sit sensus, dictu aliquantum difficile est. Videtur autem Irenaeus ex eo, quod plurimorum Pleromatis angelorum imagines sint innumerabiles Creatoris angeli, inferre, haud necesse esse, ut reliquae creaturae dictos Pleromatis angelos repraesentarent; sed « integram conditionem, quae » scilicet « secundum nos est, » ut alibi loqui amat Irenaeus, id est, omnes visibiles creaturas, reservari « ad Pleromatis imaginem » exprimendam; quam tamen referre nequeant, « triginta Aeonibus non consequentibus, » i. e. non adaequantibus, « multiformem conditionis » sive creaturarum « varietatem. »

And creation remains whole in the image of the Pleroma, etc. What the sense of these words is, is somewhat difficult to say. Irenaeus seems, however, from the fact that the innumerable angels of the Creator are images of the very many angels of the Pleroma, to infer that it is by no means necessary that the remaining creatures should represent the said angels of the Pleroma; but that "the whole creation, which" namely "is according to us," as Irenaeus loves to speak elsewhere, that is, all visible creatures, is reserved for expressing "the image of the Pleroma;" which nevertheless they cannot represent, "since the thirty Aeons do not overtake," that is, do not equal, "the multiform variety of creation" or of creatures.

Bythus ipsorum unde habuit speciem, etc. Fingebant enim haeretici, Demiurgum creaturas efformasse secundum ideam, quam Bythus, « praeformaverat,

Whence did their Bythus have the form, etc. For the heretics feigned that the Demiurge formed creatures according to the idea which Bythus "had preformed

Editors' notes and page, col. 1538

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1538
marginal letters: A si quidpiam; B ex veteri; C nec animadverti,; D Et manet
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 6; word split at end of column: praeforma-[verat]
other: the word praeformaverat, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1539

PG 7:1539

et mente conceperat, » uti supra cap. 3 loquitur Irenaeus.

and conceived in his mind," as Irenaeus speaks above in ch. 3.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 7.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 7.

Pag. 125. Si autem haec. Ostendit inferiora ista, supernarum rerum umbras non esse, cum illa corporea sint, continuoque transeant, haec vere spiritalia et sempiterna; sed nec ea, quae sunt sursum, adumbrare quae deorsum visuntur. Fictitium quoque Bythum illorum, non esse omnium Pleroma; neque extra Deum Patrem ullum Pleroma exsistere. Haec vero somnia ex Democriti et Epicuri insanis opinionibus mutuatos esse Gnosticos, pari vanitate cum illis ineptientes, immutatis tantum nomenclaturis, aperte convincit infra, c. 19. Quod enim illi ἀτόμους, et κενόν, hoc isti Pleroma et Vacuum, sive, ut Irenaeo placet, « ea quae sunt, et id quod non est, » nominarunt. Qui de his plura cupit, consulat Plutarchum lib. I, cap. 5, et lib. II, cap. 4, De placitis philos.; Laertium in Epicuro; Lucretium Velleium Ciceronianum; et ex nostris Augustinum epist. 6. Primum autem ejus argumentum est. Umbrae non sunt, nisi rerum corporearum et opacarum : Aeones, juxta horum sententiam, sunt spiritales; igitur hic nec umbras, nec ideas habent. Deinde, Aeones sunt aeterni; umbra res fugacissima, etc.

Page 125. But if these things. He shows that these lower things are not shadows of supernal things, since the former are corporeal and continually pass away, while the latter are truly spiritual and everlasting; and neither do the things that are above adumbrate the things that are seen below. Also that their fictitious Bythus is not the Pleroma of all things; nor does any Pleroma exist outside God the Father. Moreover, that the Gnostics borrowed these dreams from the insane opinions of Democritus and Epicurus, trifling with equal vanity with them, having changed only the names, he openly proves below, ch. 19. For what those men named ἀτόμους and κενόν, these named the Pleroma and Vacuum, or, as pleases Irenaeus, "the things which are, and that which is not." Whoever desires more concerning these things, let him consult Plutarch, book I, ch. 5, and book II, ch. 4, On the Opinions of the Philosophers; Laertius, on Epicurus; Lucretius; Cicero's Velleius; and among our own, Augustine, Epistle 6. Now his first argument is: There are no shadows save of corporeal and opaque things: the Aeons, according to the opinion of these men, are spiritual; therefore they have neither shadows nor ideas here. Next, the Aeons are eternal; a shadow is a most fleeting thing, etc.

Nulli obscurare possunt. Graeca locutio, pro « nulli caliginem offundere, » τὰ πνευματικὰ μηδενὶ ἐπισκοτεῖν δύναται.

Can obscure nothing. A Greek expression, for "to cast darkness over nothing," τὰ πνευματικὰ μηδενὶ ἐπισκοτεῖν δύναται.

Et non jam transeunt. Septem has voces ex vet. cod. addimus.

And do not now pass away. We add these seven words from the ancient manuscript.

Si quidem. Delevimus « qui, » ut mox pro « ut » posuimus « aut : » deinde « praetermittant » pro « permittant; » et « circumscribatur, » pro « circumscriptura. » Probat autem hoc loco, extra Deum Patrem omnium, nullum Pleroma, nulla saecula, nullosve angelos esse posse.

Since indeed. We have deleted "who," as presently for "that" we have placed "or:" next "pass over" for "permit;" and "be circumscribed" for "about to circumscribe." Moreover, he proves in this passage that outside God the Father of all there can be no Pleroma, no ages, and no angels.

Aut umbram capiet. Id est, neque fieri poterit, ut vacuum, aut umbra sit. Sic cap. 16 : « Et haec quidem in hominibus capit dicere, » Graec. ἐνδέχεται.

Or will admit a shadow. That is, neither will it be possible that there should be a vacuum or a shadow. Thus ch. 16: "And these things indeed among men it admits of saying," in Greek ἐνδέχεται.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 8.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 8.

Pag. 125. Falsus autem. Quod hujus lib. cap. 3 et 4 vacuum et ejus umbram, vana commenta dixerat, et hic rursus confirmat : et infra lib. IV, cap. 38, apud Deum nihil vacuum esse asseverans. Ista autem eos confinxisse putarem, ut Moysis verba haec depravarent : « Terra erat inanis et vacua; » quibus duntaxat terrae molem adhuc inanem, inaspectabilem, et informem tum fuisse docet, cum illum ornatum, quem postea recepit, necdum haberet.

Page 125. False moreover. What he had said in ch. 3 and 4 of this book, that the vacuum and its shadow are vain fabrications, he here again confirms: and below in book IV, ch. 38, strongly asserting that with God nothing is void. And I should think that they fabricated those things in order to corrupt these words of Moses: "The earth was empty and void (Gen. 1:2);" by which he teaches only that the mass of the earth was then still empty, unsightly, and formless, when it did not yet have that adornment which it afterwards received.

Vacui autem et hi. Ludit in ambiguitate vocabuli κενόν, quod initio capitis vacuum significat, hic autem stultum et inane.

And vain are these men also. He plays on the ambiguity of the word κενόν, which at the beginning of the chapter signifies a vacuum, but here foolish and empty.

Pag. 126. Quandoquidem. Initium est capitis 10 in vet. cod. cui praefigitur idem argumentum, quod ibidem infra.

Page 126. Seeing that. This is the beginning of chapter 10 in the ancient manuscript, to which is prefixed the same summary as in the same place below.

Et Dominus hunc Patrem. Nimirum Matth. cap. V, ℣ 16 : « Glorificent Patrem vestrum qui in coelis est. » ℣ 45 : « Ut sitis filii Patris vestri qui in coelis est. » Matth. cap. VI, ℣ 9 : « Pater noster, qui es in coelis, » etc.

And the Lord taught this Father. Namely, Matt. 5:16: "Let them glorify your Father Who is in heaven." Verse 45: "That you may be sons of your Father Who is in heaven." Matt. 6:9: "Our Father, Who art in heaven," etc.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 9.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 9.

Pag. 126. Nunc autem sufficit. In quatuor classes distributis hominibus, horum omnium consensione et fide, probat unicum et solum verum Deum esse universorum opificem. Primam quam ad Moysen usque porrigi puto, asserit Adami traditione et doctrina, unicum Creatorem celebrasse. Etenim ut crassam illam et immanem idololatriam, nonnisi a diluvio, quarta decima videlicet hominum generatione, incepisse affirmant Clemens, Cyrillus, Epiphanius : sic primum hominem fide in promissum

Page 126. But now it suffices. Having distributed men into four classes, by the consensus and faith of all these he proves that the one and only true God is the Maker of all things. The first class, which I think extends up to Moses, he asserts celebrated the one Creator by the tradition and teaching of Adam. For just as Clement, Cyril, and Epiphanius affirm that that gross and monstrous idolatry began only from the flood, namely in the fourteenth generation of men: so that the first man, by faith in the promised

Editors' notes and page, col. 1539

Footnotes

(67) ‹anchor: inanis et vacua› · call in col 1539

Gen. I, 2.

Genesis 1:2.

(printed under page 778)

(68) ‹anchor: Clemens› · call in col 1539

Lib. Recogn.

Book of the Recognitions.

(printed under page 778)

(69) ‹anchor: Cyrillus› · call in col 1539

Lib. iv cont. Jul.

Against Julian, book 4.

(printed under page 778)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1539 or 1540 (UNSURE: call below the rendered area or on the facing column top)

Reuchlin. l. i Cabalae.

Reuchlin, On the Cabala, book 1.

(printed under page 778)

Page

running head: 1539 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A verat, et; B Velleium Ciceronianum;; C haec quidem; D Et Dominus
old-edition numerals: 87 after ut vacuum,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 7, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 8, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 9; versicle sign ℣ printed in Et Dominus hunc Patrem; words split at column breaks: [praeforma-]verat, promis-[sum]
other: the word promissum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1540

PG 7:1540

mulieris semen, et Deum verum, veram religionem verbis et exemplis posteros docuisse, Deo cruentis mactatis hostiis, constanter affirmant Hebraei. Astipulatur non semel Athanasius magnus, cum Abelem, prout a patre didicerat, de primogenitis Deo obtulisse confirmat, epistola, « Quod Nicaena synodus, » etc., et in « Omnia mihi tradita sunt, » etc. Secunda classe eos complectitur Irenaeus, qui legis paedagogia et prophetarum oraculis, a Moyse ad Christum usque, Deum verum agnoverunt et adoraverunt, ut fusius explicat cap. ultimo hujus, et undecimo libri III. Tertia, ethnicos commemorat, qui ex ipsa mundi dispositione, unicum Numen agnoverunt, de quibus cap. 1 et 5 hujus dictum est. Postrema, Ecclesiae jam per totum orbem expansae unanimi voce, omnium evidentissime propositam thesin asseverat.

seed of the woman and in the true God, taught his descendants the true religion by words and examples, sacrificing bloody victims to God, the Hebrews constantly affirm. The great Athanasius agrees more than once, when he confirms that Abel, just as he had learned from his father, offered of the firstlings to God, in the epistle "That the Nicene Synod," etc., and in "All things have been delivered to me," etc. In the second class Irenaeus embraces those who by the pedagogy of the law and the oracles of the prophets, from Moses even unto Christ, acknowledged and adored the true God, as he explains more at length in the last chapter of this book, and the eleventh of book III. In the third, he recounts the pagans, who from the very disposition of the world acknowledged one single Deity, concerning whom it has been spoken in ch. 1 and 5 of this book. In the last, by the unanimous voice of the Church now spread throughout the whole world, he most evidently of all establishes the proposed thesis.

Testimonium. Delevimus « testimonia, » et adjecimus « omnibus » auctor. vet. cod., atque mox pro « sentientibus, » reposuimus « consentientibus. »

Testimony. We have deleted "testimonies," and added "by all" on the authority of the ancient manuscript, and presently for "thinking" we have restored "agreeing."

A Primoplasti traditione. Et paulo post : « Hanc accepit ab apostolis traditionem. » Ex quibus perspicitur quanta sit auctoritas, visque sanctarum traditionum, quam hic constanter opponit cunctis haereticis, etiam in summorum capitum totius Christianae religionis assertationem. Sed de his copiose disseremus in cap. 3 libri III.

From the tradition of the First-formed. And a little after: "It received this tradition from the apostles." From which it is clearly seen how great is the authority and force of the sacred traditions, which he here constantly opposes to all heretics, even for the assertion of the chief heads of the whole Christian religion. But of these things we shall discourse copiously in ch. 3 of book III.

Hymnizantibus. Sic fere semper reddit verbum Graecum ὑμνέουσι vel ὑμνολογοῦσι, pro « hymnis celebrant, laudant. »

Hymnizing. Thus he almost always renders the Greek word ὑμνέουσι or ὑμνολογοῦσι, for "they celebrate with hymns, they praise."

Ipsa enim conditio. Non dubito Irenaeum alludere ad ista Pauli : « Invisibilia enim Dei, a creatura (Irenaeus suo more, conditionem appellat) mundi, per ea quae facta sunt intellecta, conspiciuntur : sempiterna quoque virtus et divinitas, » etc. Nam, ut et Sapiens quoque ait : « A magnitudine et specie creaturae potest Creator videri. » Hinc Augustinus eleganter scribit : « Si quis audiat, dicunt haec omnia : Non ipsa nos fecimus, sed fecit nos qui manet in aeternum. Coelum, terra, et omnia quae in eis sunt, undique mihi dicunt, ut te amem, nec cessant dicere omnibus, ut sint inexcusabiles. Interrogavi terram, et quaecunque in ea sunt; interrogavi mare, abyssos, et reptilia, et responderunt : Non sumus Deus tuus; quaere super nos. Interrogavi auras stabiles, etc.; interrogavi coelum, solem, lunam, et stellas, etc.; responderunt, et clamaverunt voce grandi : Non sumus Deus tuus, sed quae fecit Deus tuus. Interrogavi mundi molem : Dic mihi si tu es Deus meus, an non? Non sum, inquit, ego; sed per ipsum sum ego. Supra me quaere eum, qui fecit et regit me. Interrogatio creaturarum, est profunda consideratio ipsarum, quoniam omnia clamant, Deus nos fecit, » etc. Nec praetermittere possum, quae in hanc rem fertur magnus Antonius respondisse cuidam suadenti illi, ut libris vacaret : « Meus liber, inquit, est natura rerum a Deo conditarum : quae quotiescunque animo libitum sit meo, libros ipsius Dei ad legendum suppeditat. » Ergo apposite dicitur hic ab irenaeo, « creatura ostendere Creatorem, factura factorem, et mundus conditorem atque rectorem suum. »

For creation itself. I do not doubt that Irenaeus alludes to those words of Paul (Rom. 1:20): "For the invisible things of God, from the creation (Irenaeus after his manner calls it conditio) of the world, being understood through the things that are made, are clearly seen: His everlasting power also and divinity," etc. For, as the Wise Man also says (Wisd. 13:5): "From the greatness and beauty of the creature the Creator can be seen." Hence Augustine elegantly writes: "If anyone hears, all these things say: We did not make ourselves, but He made us Who abides for ever. Heaven, earth, and all things that are in them, on every side tell me to love Thee, nor do they cease to tell all men, so that they are without excuse. I asked the earth, and whatever things are in it; I asked the sea, the depths, and the creeping things, and they answered: We are not your God; seek above us. I asked the blowing breezes, etc.; I asked the heaven, the sun, the moon, and the stars, etc.; they answered, and cried out with a loud voice: We are not your God, but the things which your God made. I asked the mass of the world: Tell me whether you are my God, or not? I am not, says it; but through Him I am. Above me seek Him Who made and rules me. The questioning of creatures is the deep consideration of them, since all things cry out, God made us," etc. Nor can I pass over what the great Anthony is related to have answered to this purpose to someone persuading him to devote himself to books: "My book," says he, "is the nature of things founded by God: which, whenever it pleases my mind, supplies the books of God Himself to read." Therefore it is aptly said here by Irenaeus, that "the creature shows the Creator, the work the Maker, and the world its Founder and Ruler."

Disposuit. Excusi codices legebant « deposuit. »

Disposed. The printed editions read "deposited."

Ethnicis pejores. Non solum dicit, sed et probat haereticorum ministros ethnicis deteriores reddere suos auditores; quod et de his, qui hac tempestate per Europam surrexerunt haereticis, evidenter et solide me verissimum esse probantem, aequis animis ferant lectores benevoli.

Worse than the pagans. Not only does he say, but he also proves that the ministers of the heretics render their hearers worse than the pagans; which also concerning those heretics who at this time have arisen throughout Europe, may benevolent readers bear with fair minds as I evidently and solidly prove it to be most true.

Ne quis ergo addubitet hoc ipsum, quod hic contendit vir apostolicus, etiam novissimi hujus aevi Gnosticis, id est, Lutheranis et Calvinianis contigisse, ministrorum de se mutuis testimoniis sic ostendo. Calvini namque judicio, ultima Admonit.

Lest anyone therefore should doubt that this very thing, for which the apostolic man here contends, has also befallen the Gnostics of this latest age, that is, the Lutherans and Calvinists, I thus show it by the mutual testimonies of their ministers concerning themselves. For in the judgement of Calvin, in his last Admonition

Editors' notes and page, col. 1540

Footnotes

(71) ‹anchor: eleganter scribit› · call in col 1540

Lib. ix Confess. cap. 10; l. x, cap. 6, et lib. Soliloq., c. 31.

Confessions, book 9, chapter 10; book 10, chapter 6; and the book of Soliloquies, chapter 31.

(printed under page 778)

(72) ‹anchor: libros ipsius Dei ad legendum suppeditat› · call in col 1540

Socrates, lib. iv, cap. 18.

Socrates [Ecclesiastical History], book 4, chapter 18.

(printed under page 778)

Page

running head: ARIORUM NOTAE. 1540
marginal letters: A sum mulieris; B « sentientibus, »; C cunt haec; D rerum a Deo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sum mulieris semen; word split at beginning of column: [promis-]sum

PG 7:1541

ad Westphalum, « Lutherani sunt bruti homines, qui ne guttam quidem ingenui pudoris retinent, nec Dei, nec angelorum judicium magnopere curant, pleni furioso impetu, nugatoria levitate, caeca temulentia, canina improbitate, diabolica superbia, feroces, omni humanitate spoliati, vertiginosi; Cyclopes, superba factio Gigantum, latratores, phrenetici, protervi, bestiae. » Idem lib. contra Heshusium, Lutheranos appellat « homines improbos, rabiosos, mancipia Satanae, qua diabolus horribili modo fascinaverit. » Item, « canes, nebulones, et impuros spiritus. » Bezae, Heshusius minister Lutheranus, cum suis « est Polyphemus, simia, cothurnatus, vegrandis et pileatus asinus, canis in balneo, asinissimus sophista, impudens nebulo, impudens sycophanta, bellua, larva, asinus bipes, histrio, monstrum mistum ex simiarum et onagrorum specie, animal carnivorum, Cyclops, furens et dignus qui ex tilia pendeat. » Bullingerus Repetitione de Eucharistia, Brentium Lutheri discipulum vocat « aprum Calydonium, qui vineam Domini evertit. » Sturmius Palinodia ad Lucam Osiandrum, illum habet pro « Caio Caligula, et Ulyssis nepote. » Joannes Lascus expertum se queritur « Lutheranos Balticos, Turcis longe crudeliores et inhumaniores. » Erasmus in Defensione Diatribae, scribit « Lutherum nulla maledicentia fuisse saturabilem, Oreste insaniorem, odio lymphatum, philautia temulentum. » Schlusselburgius, ex scriptis Calvinianorum, refert hos doctrinam Lutheranam vocare, « commentum hominum, crassum delirium a diabolo suggestum, absurdum et portentosum dogma, Satanae excrementum, cujus et ipsum Satanam pudeat. Lutheranos vero clamant esse haereticos, asinos, diaboli incantatione excaecatos, a Satanae spiritu motos, et diabolos. » Jezlerus Sacramentarius lib. De diuturnitate belli Eucharistici, pag. 93, fatetur sectae suae propugnatores passim Lutheranos nominare, « Anthropophagos, haematopotas, Thyestas, Christicidas, artolatras, impanati Dei cultores, abnegatores redemptionis per Christum factae, » etc. Annon ergo ethnicis longe deteriores?

to Westphal, "the Lutherans are brutish men, who retain not even a drop of ingenuous shame, nor care greatly for the judgement of God or of angels, full of furious impulse, trifling levity, blind drunkenness, canine wickedness, diabolical pride, fierce, stripped of all humanity, dizzy; Cyclopes, a proud faction of Giants, barkers, frantic, shameless, beasts." The same author, in his book against Heshusius, calls the Lutherans "wicked, rabid men, slaves of Satan, whom the devil has fascinated in a horrible manner." Likewise, "dogs, worthless fellows, and impure spirits." To Beza, Heshusius the Lutheran minister with his followers "is a Polyphemus, an ape, a buskined, overgrown, and capped ass, a dog in a bath, a most asinine sophist, an impudent worthless fellow, an impudent sycophant, a brute beast, a hobgoblin, a two-legged ass, a stage-player, a monster mixed from the species of apes and wild asses, a carnivorous animal, a Cyclops, raving and worthy to hang from a lime-tree." Bullinger, in his Repetition on the Eucharist, calls Brenz, the disciple of Luther, "the Calydonian boar, who overturns the vineyard of the Lord." Sturm, in his Palinode to Lucas Osiander, holds him for "Caius Caligula, and the grandson of Ulysses." John a Lasco complains that he experienced "the Baltic Lutherans to be far more cruel and inhumane than the Turks." Erasmus, in his Defence of the Diatribe, writes that "Luther was satiable by no reviling, more insane than Orestes, frantic with hatred, drunk with self-love." Schlusselburg, from the writings of the Calvinists, relates that they call the Lutheran doctrine "a figment of men, a gross delirium suggested by the devil, an absurd and monstrous dogma, the excrement of Satan, of which even Satan himself would be ashamed. And the Lutherans they cry out are heretics, asses, blinded by the incantation of the devil, moved by the spirit of Satan, and devils." Jezler the Sacramentarian, in his book On the Long Duration of the Eucharistic War, page 93, confesses that the champions of his sect everywhere name the Lutherans "cannibals, blood-drinkers, Thyesteses, Christ-slayers, bread-worshippers, worshippers of an impanate God, deniers of the redemption wrought through Christ," etc. Are they not therefore far worse than the pagans?

Sed quales Calviniani et Sacramentarii, Lutheri et asseclarum suorum censura sint habendi, idem Jezlerus dicat : « Cum haec, inquit, ad aures Lutheranorum pervenerunt, longe duriora verba in adversarios emiserunt : asserendo quod sint mendaces, falsarii, sacramentiperdae, corruptores testamenti Christi, daemoniaci; a diabolis omni ex parte, ante, pone, supra, infra, intus, et extra obsessi, diaboli martyres; annumerandi cum Nestorianis, Arianis, Turcis, et omnium mortalium, quos unquam terra sustinuit, deterrimi. » Lutherus ipse Disput. de Eucharistia, eosdem Sacramentarios nuncupat, « Sues, canes, idololatras, irrationales asinos, tenebriones, larvas diaboli, miseros Swermeros, insanos atque phreneticos moriones, progeniem viperarum, animicidas, hostes Filii Dei, latrones corporum et animarum, lupos rapaces, infernales molossos, Germanicos Turcas, ipsis etiam Turcis deteriores, diabolicos atque infernales lupos, a Satana missos et obsessos, diabolum loco Dei proponentes, Christum minus facientes quam Arius atque Mahomet, quosque diabolus contra Christum moderatur, et additis calcaribus agitat. » Beza, alter horum antistes, apud Schlusselburgium vocatur « atheus, bestia, nugator, impudens rabula, diabolus incarnatus, Beelzebub; » ab Heshusio, « prostitutum scortum; » a Daniele Hoffmanno, « praestigiator, calumniator, conscientiae nullius, blasphemus cavillator, perversus ac detestandus Verbi divini violator. » Schlusselburgius rursum

But as what sort the Calvinists and Sacramentarians are to be held in the censure of Luther and his followers, let the same Jezler say: "When these things," he says, "came to the ears of the Lutherans, they uttered far harsher words against their adversaries: asserting that they are liars, falsifiers, sacrament-destroyers, corrupters of the testament of Christ, demoniacs; beset by devils on every side, before, behind, above, below, within, and without, martyrs of the devil; to be reckoned with the Nestorians, Arians, Turks, and the worst of all mortals whom the earth has ever borne." Luther himself, in his Disputation on the Eucharist, calls the same Sacramentarians "swine, dogs, idolaters, irrational asses, skulkers in darkness, spectres of the devil, wretched Schwärmer, insane and frantic fools, brood of vipers, soul-slayers, enemies of the Son of God, robbers of bodies and souls, ravenous wolves, infernal mastiffs, German Turks, worse even than the Turks themselves, diabolical and infernal wolves, sent and possessed by Satan, setting up the devil in the place of God, making less of Christ than Arius and Mahomet, and whom the devil governs against Christ and drives on with added spurs." Beza, the other leader of these men, is called in Schlusselburg "an atheist, a beast, a trifler, an impudent brawler, an incarnate devil, Beelzebub;" by Heshusius, "a prostituted harlot;" by Daniel Hoffmann, "a juggler, a calumniator, a man of no conscience, a blasphemous caviller, a perverse and detestable violator of the divine Word." Schlusselburg again

Editors' notes and page, col. 1541

Footnotes

(73) ‹anchor: motos, et diabolos› · call in col 1541

Lib. ii, art. 1. Theol. Cal.

Book 2, article 1, Theologia Calvinistarum.

(printed under page 779)

(74) ‹anchor: apud Schlusselburgium› · call in col 1541

Lib. ii, art. 1.

Book 2, article 1.

(printed under page 779)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1541 or 1542 (UNSURE: call outside the rendered area)

Lib. iii, tit. 8. Jo. Schutz lib. Causar., c. 50.

Book 3, title 8. Johann Schütz, book of Causes, chapter 50.

(printed under page 779)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1541 or 1542 (UNSURE: call outside the rendered area)

Lib. ii. Did.

Book 2, Did. [abbreviation not expanded].

(printed under page 779)

Page

running head: 1541 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A ad Westphalum,; B ristia, Brentium; C sticidas, artolatras,; D latrones corporum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ad Westphalum; ink blot on left margin of top third obscures letters in ⟨Pal⟩inodia, ⟨Ca⟩io, La⟨scus⟩, ⟨Turc⟩is, Era⟨smus⟩

PG 7:1542

affirmat, « spiritum Calvinisticum esse spiritum tenebrarum, Satanam per Calvinistas ut per organa sua loqui, Bezam suam Creophagiam, dictante diabolo, concinnasse; Calvinismum denique, Arianismum et Mahometismum esse fratres, sorores, et tres caligas ejusdem panni. » Georgio Richen Rostochiensi ministro, « Sacramentarii sunt diaboli ad aeternam gehennam damnati. » Zarnovius censet eosdem esse « antichristos, illusores mundi, qui Dominum gloriae histrionem faciunt, inimicos Filii Dei, delusos a Satana, Balaami filios, et Mahometanos. » Joannes Schutz Praefatione in lib. Causarum ait : « Sacramentarismus camarina est quaedam, in quam multae haereses confluunt, ultima Satanae ira, quam furiis agitatus contra Christum ejusque Ecclesiam exercet. Qui Sacramentariorum partes sequitur (subjicit ille), is manifestus atque ejuratus est hostis Dei, et fidei quam in baptismate Christi dedit, oblitus, » etc. Manifestum est igitur, Lutheranorum ministrorum multiplici judicio, Sacramentarios omnem ethnicorum impietatem penitus superare.

affirms that "the Calvinistic spirit is the spirit of darkness, that Satan speaks through the Calvinists as through his own organs, that Beza put together his Creophagia at the dictation of the devil; finally, that Calvinism, Arianism, and Mahometanism are brothers, sisters, and three pairs of hose of the same cloth." To Georg Richen, minister at Rostock, "the Sacramentarians are devils damned to eternal Gehenna." Zarnovius judges that the same are "antichrists, mockers of the world, who make the Lord of glory a stage-player, enemies of the Son of God, deluded by Satan, sons of Balaam, and Mahometans." Joannes Schutz, in his Preface to the book of Causes, says: "Sacramentarianism is a kind of Camarina, into which many heresies flow together, the last wrath of Satan, which, driven by the furies, he exercises against Christ and His Church. He who follows the party of the Sacramentarians (he subjoins) is a manifest and foresworn enemy of God, and forgetful of the faith which he gave in the baptism of Christ," etc. It is manifest therefore that, by the manifold judgement of the Lutheran ministers, the Sacramentarians utterly surpass all the impiety of the pagans.

Quid etiam quod quisque istorum haeresiarcharum, suos auditores, discipulos et populares, ex quo novum hoc Evangelium susceperunt, cuntis paganis et Turcis deteriores evasisse palam contestantur? Lutherus profecto quantum ex suo Evangelio Wittembergenses paucis annis profecissent, his satis indicat : « Ex Evangelio, » Lutherano scilicet, « adeo effrenes facti sunt homines, ut quidquid illis libeat, liceat. Non terrentur inferno, etc. Sub papa mansit nomen Christi; sed nostra ingratitudo et securitas merebitur quod Christus non nominabitur, et implebitur illud verbum : « Filius hominis cum veniet, putas inveniet fidem? » « In tota parochia Wittembergensi tantum unus habetur rusticus, qui suam familiam ad verbum Dei et catechismum hortetur. Caeteri omnes recto ad diabolum ire pergunt. » Item in Colloquiis collectis a conviva ejus Aurifabro, conqueritur, « discipulos suos magna ex parte esse Epicureos; et hoc quaerere in concionibus, ut bonos dies habeant; vocari reformatos, cum reipsa potius incarnati daemones esse videantur : vix inter paganos, Judaeos, Turcas, aut alios infideles homines, adeo contumaces reperiri, apud quos omnis honestas, et quidquid est virtutum penitus interierit, neque ullius peccati ratio habeatur, » etc. Quis autem Luthero de suis discipulis et auditoribus non crederet? Spangembergius et ipse Luthero familiaris testatur suos Lutheranos « esse homines tam feros, ut jam nolint Deum agnoscere, nec ullam illius rationem habere; sed facere quidquid diabolus et caro suaserit. » His porro de se suisque tam constanter testificantibus, quis fidem non haberet?

What also of the fact that each of those heresiarchs openly testifies that his own hearers, disciples, and countrymen, since they received this new Gospel, have turned out worse than all pagans and Turks? Luther assuredly indicates sufficiently by these words how much the people of Wittenberg had profited from his Gospel in a few years: "From the Gospel," namely the Lutheran, "men have become so unbridled that whatever pleases them is lawful for them. They are not terrified by hell, etc. Under the pope the name of Christ remained; but our ingratitude and security will merit that Christ will not be named, and that word will be fulfilled: 'When the Son of Man comes, do you think He will find faith (Luke 18:8)?' In the whole parish of Wittenberg there is found only one peasant who exhorts his family to the word of God and the catechism. All the rest go straight on to the devil." Likewise, in the Table Talk collected by his table-companion Aurifaber, he complains that "his disciples are in great part Epicureans; and seek this in sermons, that they may have good days; that they are called reformed, whereas in reality they seem rather to be incarnate demons: that scarcely among pagans, Jews, Turks, or other unbelieving men are there found any so stubborn, among whom all honesty and whatever there is of virtues has utterly perished, nor is account taken of any sin," etc. And who would not believe Luther concerning his own disciples and hearers? Spangenberg, himself also an intimate of Luther, testifies that his Lutherans "are men so wild that they are now unwilling to acknowledge God, or to have any regard for Him; but do whatever the devil and the flesh persuade." Moreover, when these men testify so constantly concerning themselves and their followers, who would not give them credit?

Sed Calvinus fortasse, doctrinae suae professores et discipulos aliquanto meliores esse confirmat. Imo vero cum ipsis in inferno damnatis et cacodaemonibus comparat, praescribens eis ut coenam suscepturi serio profiteantur, « se ad nullum bonum aptos; sed in omne malum propensos, et divinorum praeceptorum perpetuos infractores et contemptores esse; » quod sane diabolorum et perditorum proprium est. Praeterea, de se suisque comministris, satellitibus, senioribus et diaconibus, scribit : « Christum non aspicimus nisi carneis oculis, unde fit ut nihil in ipso magnificum appareat. Vitioso nostro sensu, quidquid in ipso est, ejusque doctrina, pervertimus. Multa falsa arripimus, quae Evangelii contemptum pariunt. » Et rursum : « Experientia ipsa docet nos esse a Deo penitus aversos, ejus odio plenos et infectos, et lucem

But Calvin, perhaps, confirms that the professors and disciples of his doctrine are somewhat better. Nay, indeed, he compares them with the very damned in hell and evil demons, prescribing to them that when about to receive the Supper they should seriously profess "that they are fit for no good; but prone to every evil, and perpetual breakers and despisers of the divine precepts;" which assuredly is proper to devils and the lost. Moreover, concerning himself and his fellow-ministers, attendants, elders, and deacons, he writes: "We do not look upon Christ save with carnal eyes, whence it comes to pass that nothing magnificent appears in Him. By our vicious sense we pervert whatever is in Him, and in His doctrine. We seize upon many false things, which breed contempt of the Gospel." And again: "Experience itself teaches that we are utterly averse from God, full of and infected with hatred of Him, and that we

Editors' notes and page, col. 1542

Footnotes

(77) ‹anchor: his satis indicat› · call in col 1542

Tom. 1 Colloq., pag. 37.

Colloquies, volume 1, page 37.

(printed under page 779)

(78) ‹anchor: Non terrentur inferno› · call in col 1542

Pag. 49.

Page 49.

(printed under page 779)

(79) ‹anchor: putas inveniet fidem› · call in col 1542

Luc. XVIII, 8.

Luke 18:8.

(printed under page 779)

(80) ‹anchor: ad diabolum ire pergunt› · call in col 1542

Pag. 94.

Page 94.

(printed under page 779)

(81) ‹anchor: conqueritur› · call in col 1542

Col. 244. [UNSURE: numeral barely legible]

Column 244.

(printed under page 779)

(82) ‹anchor: caro suaserit› · call in col 1542

Lib. Narrat. benef.

Book of the Narratio beneficiorum.

(printed under page 779)

(83) ‹anchor: cacodaemonibus compara.› · call in col 1542

In Catech.

In the Catechism.

(printed under page 779)

(84) ‹anchor: diaconibus, scribit› · call in col 1542

In cap. vi Joann., v. 41.

On John chapter 6, verse 41.

(printed under page 779)

(85) ‹anchor: Et rursum› · call in col 1542

In c. xiv Joan., v. 14 et 15.

On John chapter 14, verses 14 and 15.

(printed under page 779)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1542
marginal letters: A affirmat, « spiritum; B Lutheranorum ministrorum; C ad diabolum; D vero cum
old-edition numerals: 88 after eosdem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: affirmat, « spiritum
calls 75 and 76 stand in this column (75 after affirmat, at the column head; 76 after Zarnovius); their notes are filed in n1541 (Q2a, noted only)
misprints kept as printed: cuntis (for cunctis); recto (for recte)

PG 7:1543

Evangelii nostris perversis inventionibus obscurare. » Iterumque ut et ipse propheta reputaretur, de sectatorum suorum corruptissimis moribus, barbarie et atheismis ita vaticinatus est in Praef. Catechismi sui, ad ministros suos in orientali Frisia : « De posteritate sic ego anxius sum, ut vix cogitare audeam. Nisi enim mirabiliter Deus e coelo succurrerit, videre mihi videor extremam barbariem impendere orbi. Atque utinam non paulo post sentiant filii nostri fuisse hoc verum potius vaticinium, quam conjecturam, » etc. Quae nimis vera esse, omnibus modis per Calvinianos proculcata in Galliis, Helvetia, Germania, Anglia, Scotia, Hibernia et Belgio religio catholica palam testatur.

obscure the light of the Gospel by our perverse inventions." And again, that he himself also might be reputed a prophet, concerning the most corrupt morals, barbarism, and atheisms of his followers he thus prophesied in the Preface of his Catechism, to his ministers in East Frisia: "Concerning posterity I am so anxious that I scarcely dare to think of it. For unless God wonderfully sends help from heaven, I seem to myself to see extreme barbarism hanging over the world. And would that our children may not a little later feel that this was a true prophecy rather than a conjecture," etc. Which things the Catholic religion, trampled underfoot in every way by the Calvinists in France, Switzerland, Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Belgium, openly testifies to be all too true.

Evicimus ergo ex non suspectis aut dubiis testibus, sed de ministrorum scriptorum fructibus certissimis non solum priores Gnosticos, quod S. martyr Iren. affirmat, sed etiam postremos istos, ethnicis pejores esse, ac discipulos suos efficere.

We have proved, therefore, from witnesses neither suspect nor doubtful, and from the most certain fruits of the writings of their ministers, that not only the earlier Gnostics, as the holy martyr Irenaeus affirms, but also these latest ones, are worse than the pagans, and make their disciples so.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 10.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 10.

Pag. 126. Et qui dicunt semetipsos. Recte colligit ex superioribus, opiniones istorum sua absurditate et impietate ethnicorum paradoxa superare, quantumvis omnia se nosse venditarent; quoniam supra verum Deum, alius quaerendus non est, nec ejus opera alium ostendunt; quidquid de Achamoth somniarent.

Page 126. And those who call themselves. He rightly gathers from what precedes that the opinions of those men surpass by their absurdity and impiety the paradoxes of the pagans, however much they boasted that they knew all things; since above the true God another is not to be sought, nor do His works show another, whatever they might dream concerning Achamoth.

Manifeste nihil. Delevimus « manifestum est; » ut mox « parabolas, » pro « parabolae; » et paulo infra « majus » pro « magis » reposuimus.

Manifestly nothing. We have deleted "it is manifest;" as presently we have restored "parables" (accusative) for "parables" (nominative); and a little below "greater" for "more."

Quia autem parabolas. Vult probationes Gnosticorum sumptas a parabolis de ove errante, operariis, drachma perdita, fermento abscondito, et aliis parabolis evangelicis, de quibus lib. I, cap. 1, 13, 15 et 17, nullius esse ponderis, cum possint in multos et contrarios sensus torqueri; ac ideo in contentionibus non debeant adduci, quandoquidem non sint certae veritatis regulae, ut cap. 46 hujus libri apertius dicitur. Plurimum igitur abest, ut ex his efficere possint, supra Creatorem alium Deum quaerendum esse.

But because parables. He means that the proofs of the Gnostics taken from the parables of the wandering sheep, the labourers, the lost drachma, the hidden leaven, and other evangelical parables, concerning which see book I, ch. 1, 13, 15, and 17, are of no weight, since they can be twisted into many and contrary senses; and therefore ought not to be adduced in controversies, seeing that they are not rules of certain truth, as is said more clearly in ch. 46 of this book. It is very far, therefore, from being the case that they can make out from these that another God is to be sought above the Creator.

Omnis autem quaestio. Id retundit quod importune urgebant : « Quaerite, et invenietis; » ut alium Deum a vero et Creatore investigandum suaderent : de quo dicetur cap. 18 hujus libri.

Moreover every question. He blunts that which they importunately urged: "Seek, and you shall find (Matt. 7:7; Luke 11:9);" in order to persuade men that another God besides the true One and the Creator is to be investigated: concerning which it will be spoken in ch. 18 of this book.

Hi autem. Initium est capitis 11 in vet. cod., in quo adverbium « bis » desideratur; praefixam epigraphen eamdem habet, quae paulo post.

Now these. This is the beginning of chapter 11 in the ancient manuscript, in which the adverb "twice" is wanting; it has the same title prefixed as a little after.

Pag. 127. Sua voluntate et virtute substantia usus. Graece, τῇ οἰκείᾳ βουλήσει οὐσιώσει χρησάμενος, id est, « sola sua voluntate ac potentia pro creatis omnibus rebus. »

Page 127. Having used His own will and power as substance. In Greek, τῇ οἰκείᾳ βουλήσει οὐσιώσει χρησάμενος, that is, "by His own will and power alone instead of all created things."

Quod enim dicunt. Contendit figmenta eorum de Achamoth matre, et productione materiae, potius subsannanda et exsibilanda esse, quam graviori disputatione refellenda; quando constat cuncta ab uno et vero Deo condita esse.

For as to what they say. He contends that their figments concerning the mother Achamoth, and the production of matter, are rather to be derided and hissed off than refuted by a weightier disputation; since it is established that all things were founded by the one and true God.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in can. 10.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 10.

Pag. 126. Alterum Deum fabricaverunt. Tam Valentinianos quam Marcionitas sub universo haereticorum vocabulo ejusdem criminis arguit, ac quod ex obscuris Scripturis ignotum producant Deum, graviter reprehendit Origenes in Comment. ad psalm. XL, tom. I. edit Huetii, pag. 50, sequentibus verbis : Αἱ Γραφαὶ αὐτοῦ μεγάλαι μὲν καὶ πεπληρωμέναι νοημάτων εἰσὶν ἀποῤῥήτων καὶ μυστικῶν καὶ δυσθεωρήτων· σφόδρα δὲ καὶ δυσδιήγητοί εἰσι, καὶ αἴτιαι δοκοῦσι τοῦ τὰς ἀπαιδεύτους πλανᾶσθαι τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ψυχὰς, ἀπερισκέπτως καὶ μετὰ προπετείας, κατηγορούντων τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξ ὧν οὐ νοοῦσι Γραφῶν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐκπιπτόντων ἐπὶ ἀναπλασμὸν ἄλλου Θεοῦ. « Scripturae ejus (Dei) magnis quidem et arcanis, abstrusisque et difficillimae considerationis sententiis refertae sunt, sed et difficillimam habent explicationem, et videntur ansa erroris fuisse

Page 126. They have fashioned another God. He convicts both the Valentinians and the Marcionites, under the general name of heretics, of the same crime; and that they produce an unknown God out of obscure Scriptures is gravely censured by Origen in his Commentary on Psalm 40, vol. I of Huet's edition, page 50, in the following words: "His Scriptures are great, and filled with thoughts unutterable, mystical and hard to contemplate; and they are also exceedingly hard to expound, and they seem to be the cause why the untaught souls of the heterodox go astray, who heedlessly and with rashness accuse God out of the Scriptures they do not understand, and for this reason fall away into the fabrication of another God." "His (God's) Scriptures are indeed filled with great and secret, abstruse thoughts most difficult to contemplate, but they also have a most difficult explanation, and seem to have been an occasion of error

Editors' notes and page, col. 1543

Footnotes

(86) ‹anchor: Quaerite, et invenietis› · call in col 1543

Matth. VII, 7; Luc. XI, 9.

Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9.

(printed under page 780)

Page

running head: 1543 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A Evangelii nostris; B Pag. 126.; C efficere possint,; D Pag. 126.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations (τῇ οἰκείᾳ βουλήσει …; Origen on Psalm XL); editors' matter: Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 10, Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in can. 10
misprints kept as printed: can. (for cap.) in the Grabe heading (Q2a)

PG 7:1544

rudibus heterodoxorum animis, inconsiderate et petulanter Deum ex iis quas non intelligunt Scripturis accusantium, indeque ad alium Deum confingendum prolabentium. »

to the uninstructed souls of the heterodox, who inconsiderately and petulantly accuse God out of the Scriptures which they do not understand, and thence slip into fabricating another God."

Baptismum veritatis. Ita forte baptismum Joannis, quo Jesus tingebatur, vocarunt in oppositione ad typicos et carnales Judaeorum baptismos, de quibus Hebr. XI, 10.

Baptism of truth. Thus perhaps they called the baptism of John, with which Jesus was baptized, in opposition to the typical and carnal baptisms of the Jews, concerning which see Heb. 9:10.

Pag. 127. Sua voluntate et virtute substantia usus. Graece τῇ οἰκείᾳ βουλήσει (καὶ δυνάμει) οὐσιώσει χρησάμενος, id est, « sola sua voluntate ac potentia procreatis rebus omnibus. » FEUARD. ex Bill., lib. I Observ. sacr., cap. 33. Sed explico clarius : « sola sua voluntate ac potentia loco substantiae, » sive materiae, ex qua creaturas formaret, « usus » Confer sequens caput.

Page 127. Having used His own will and power as substance. "In Greek τῇ οἰκείᾳ βουλήσει (καὶ δυνάμει) οὐσιώσει χρησάμενος, that is, all things having been procreated by His own will and power alone." FEUARDENTIUS from Billius, book I of Sacred Observations, ch. 33. But I explain it more clearly: "having used His own will and power alone in the place of substance," or of matter out of which to form creatures. Compare the following chapter.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 11.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 11.

Pag. 117. Attribuere enim. Materiam illam, ex qua cuncta efformata fuerunt, Deum etiam creasse contendit, contra eos, qui vel ex Achamoth prodiisse putabant, ut Gnostici; vel Deo coaeternam, ut Hermogenes, quem unico libro, post Irenaeum mire exagitavit et protrivit Tertullianus. Idem Marcioni quoque acerrimum bellum indixit, quod una cum Valentinianis, materiam nunquam natam opinaretur, libr. Praescript. et lib. V Contra Marc. Eumdem errorem postmodum ab Orco revocasse Seleucianos et Hermianos, Augustinus testis est lib. De haeres.

Page 117. For to attribute. He contends that God also created that matter out of which all things were formed, against those who thought either that it proceeded from Achamoth, like the Gnostics; or that it was co-eternal with God, like Hermogenes, whom after Irenaeus Tertullian wonderfully harassed and crushed in a single book. The same author also declared most fierce war against Marcion, because together with the Valentinians he opined that matter was never born, in the book of Prescriptions and book V Against Marcion. That the Seleucians and Hermians afterwards recalled the same error from Orcus, Augustine is witness in the book On Heresies.

Quoniam homines. Lactantius lib. II, cap. 9, refutat Ciceronem et alios dicentes Deum nihil efficere posse, nisi ex subjecta et parata materia; insuper, non esse probabile materiam rerum a Deo factam : eo quod sic omnipotentem Deum ad imbecillitatem hominum redigerent, nihil aliud quam opificium ei concedentes. Jureque damnat hanc eorum comparationem : ut faber cum quid aedificaturus est, non ipse facit materiam, sed utitur ea quae sit parata, fictorque item cera, etc. Imo vero, respondet Lactantius, « non oportuit. Erit enim Deus minoris potestatis, si ex parato facit quod est hominis, » etc. Caeterum, materiam primam et informem ex qua caetera postea condita sunt, etiam Deum ab initio rerum creasse, post Irenaeum testificantur Athanas. lib. De incarnatione Verbi, et serm. 3 contra Arian.; Eusebius lib. VII De praeparat. evang., cap 8; Ambrosius lib. I Hexaem.; Nyssenus lib. De opificio hominis, cap. 23; Aug. lib. De Genesi ad litt., cap. 14; lib. XX, Contra Faustum, cap. 14, et libr. XII Confes., c. 4.

Since men. Lactantius, book II, ch. 9, refutes Cicero and others who say that God can effect nothing save out of underlying and prepared matter; and moreover, that it is not probable that the matter of things was made by God: because thus they would reduce Almighty God to the weakness of men, granting Him nothing else than workmanship. And rightly does he condemn this comparison of theirs: as a carpenter, when he is about to build something, does not himself make the material, but uses that which is prepared, and a modeller likewise uses wax, etc. "Nay, indeed," replies Lactantius, "it ought not to be so. For God will be of lesser power if He makes out of what is prepared, which is the part of man," etc. For the rest, that God from the beginning of things created also the first and formless matter out of which the other things were afterwards founded, there testify after Irenaeus Athanasius, book On the Incarnation of the Word, and Discourse 3 against the Arians; Eusebius, book VII On the Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 8; Ambrose, book I of the Hexaemeron; Nyssa, book On the Making of Man, ch. 23; Augustine, book On Genesis according to the Letter, ch. 14; book XX Against Faustus, ch. 14, and book XII of the Confessions, ch. 4.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 11.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 11.

Pag. 127. Quoniam homines. Irenaeum hic, nisi fallor, imitatus est Theodoretus lib. V Haeret. fabul., quo summam catholicae doctrinae contra eos exposuit cap. 5, ita scribens : Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πᾶσα τέχνη παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ὕλης ὑποκειμένης προσδεῖται, καὶ κεραμευτικὴ μὲν πηλοῦ, οἰκοδομικὴ δὲ λίθων καὶ πλίνθων, ξύλων δὲ ἡ τεκτονικὴ καὶ ναυπηγικὴ, καὶ ἐρίων ἡ ὑφαντικὴ, καὶ ἡ σκυτοτομικὴ δὲ δερμάτων, καὶ ζωγραφία καὶ γυψοποιητικὴ χρωμάτων, καὶ συλλήβδην εἰπεῖν, ἑκάστη τέχνη τῶν προσφόρων ὑλῶν· ὑπέλαβον οἱ ἀνόητοι καὶ τὸν Θεὸν μὴ δύνασθαι ὕλης δίχα δημιουργεῖν, καὶ οὐ συνεῖδον ὅσον ἀνθρώπου καὶ Θεοῦ τὸ διάφορον, καὶ ὡς οὐχ οἷόν τε τὴν εἰκόνα πάντα ἔχειν ὅσα τὸ ἀρχέτυπον, καὶ ὅτι ἄνθρωπος μὲν, ὡς εἰκὼν, ἐξ ὄντων δημιουργεῖ, Θεὸς δὲ καὶ ἐξ ὄντων καὶ μὴ ὄντων. « Quoniam enim ars omnis apud homines subjecta materia indiget, et figulina luto, et structoria lapidibus et lateribus, lignis fabrilis et navium aedificatrix, et lanis textoria, et pellibus sutoria, et pingendi gypsandique ars coloribus, atque, ut semel dicam, artes singulae materia convenienti; existimarunt stolidi Deum quoque sine materia creare non posse, nec intellexerunt quantum Dei et hominum sit discrimen,

Page 127. Since men. Theodoret, unless I am mistaken, imitated Irenaeus here in book V of Heretical Fables, where he expounded the sum of Catholic doctrine against them in ch. 5, writing thus: "For since every art among men needs underlying matter, the potter's art clay, the builder's stones and bricks, the carpenter's and shipbuilder's timber, the weaver's wool, the shoemaker's skins, and the art of painting and plaster-modelling colours, and, to say it in sum, each art its fitting materials; the foolish men supposed that God also cannot fashion without matter, and did not perceive how great is the difference between man and God, and how it is not possible for the image to have all things that the archetype has, and that man indeed, as an image, fashions out of things that are, whereas God fashions both out of things that are and out of things that are not." "For since every art among men needs underlying matter, both the potter's art clay, and the builder's stones and bricks, the carpenter's and shipbuilder's timber, and the weaver's wool, and the shoemaker's skins, and the art of painting and plastering colours, and, to say it at once, the single arts their fitting matter; the dullards supposed that God also cannot create without matter, nor did they understand how great is the difference between God and men,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1544

Page

running head: ARIORUM NOTAE 1544
marginal letters: A rudibus heterodoxorum; B diisse putabant,; C Imo vero,; D καὶ πλίνθων,
old-edition numerals: 89 before Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii
other: Latin, with Greek printed in the notes (Graece τῇ οἰκείᾳ βουλήσει …; Theodoret, Haeret. fabul. V 5, Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ … μὴ ὄντων); editors' matter: Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 11, Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 11
other: Hebr. XI, 10 as printed; the passage meant is Heb. 9:10 (the English gives it so)

PG 7:1545

et quod fieri non possit, ut omnia habeat imago, quae archetypum, et quod homo quidem, velut imago, ex iis quae exstant, creet; Deus vero et ex iis quae exstant, et ex non exstantibus. »

and that it cannot come to pass that the image should have all things that the archetype has, and that man indeed, as an image, creates out of the things that exist, whereas God creates both out of the things that exist and out of things that do not exist."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 12.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 12.

P. 127. Credentes autem. Hic Carpocratem et sectatores praesertim refellit, qui, ut signavit l. I, c. 24, mundum, et cuncta quae in eo sunt, ab angelis facta dicebant. Caeterum, tametsi Epiphanius contra haeresim Samosateni disputans, fateatur Scripturam nusquam tempus indicare quo creati sint angeli; omnino tamen constat ex eadem creatos esse, non creatores; quoniam et Job, et David, et socii Danielis eos inter res creatas connumerant, et ad celebrandum Creatorem suum invitant. Hinc et Lactantius scribit : « Deus multos genuit operum suorum ministros, quos Graeci ἀγγέλους nominant, » etc. Athanas. serm. 3 contra Arianos de his quoque disserit.

Page 127. Believing moreover. Here he refutes Carpocrates and his followers especially, who, as he noted in book I, ch. 24, said that the world and all things that are in it were made by angels. For the rest, although Epiphanius, disputing against the heresy of the Samosatenian, confesses that Scripture nowhere indicates the time at which the angels were created; yet it is altogether established from the same that they are creatures, not creators; since Job, and David, and the companions of Daniel reckon them among created things, and invite them to celebrate their Creator. Hence Lactantius also writes: "God begat many ministers of His works, whom the Greeks name ἀγγέλους," etc. Athanasius, in Discourse 3 against the Arians, discourses of these also.

Volutantes. Delevimus « voluntatis, » auct. vet. cod., etsi sic cum excusis habeat codex Vaticanus.

Rolling about. We have deleted "of will," on the authority of the ancient manuscript, although the Vatican manuscript has it thus with the printed editions.

Similes Aesopi cani. Hoc eodem apologo utitur Epiphanius contra Cerdonianos : « Contigit, inquit, his canis proverbium, qui umbrae intentus, non continuit quod habebat in ore, et in aquam intuens, et majorem umbram aquae esse putans, quam cibum, quem in ore ferebat, aperto ore etiam eum, quem habebat, amisit. Sic et hi, cum viam repererint, et umbram assequi velint in suspicione eorum obortam, solum cibum, qui in ore ipsorum, ut ita dicam, erat ex Deo donatus, amiserunt : sed etiam perniciem sibi ipsis attraxerunt. » Nos adversus hujus temporis Gnosticos, illo etiam uti jure optimo possumus, qui umbris et metonymiis inhiantes, veri corporis Christi usu excidunt. Nec injuria Lutherus de hujusmodi Sacramentariis scripsit : « Satanas in mundo haud dubie auctor est eis hujus sacramenti eucharistiae labefactandi ac evertendi; contendens plane, epoto ovo, nobis tantum relinquere putamina. Hoc est, Christi corpus et sanguinem e pane et vino tollere, ut praeter simplicem panem a pistore confectum, nihil reliquum remaneat. »

Like Aesop's dog. Epiphanius uses this same fable against the Cerdonians: "There has befallen these men," he says, "the proverb of the dog, which, intent upon the shadow, did not hold fast what it had in its mouth, and looking into the water, and thinking the shadow in the water to be greater than the food which it carried in its mouth, opening its mouth lost even that which it had. So these men also, when they had found the way, and wished to overtake the shadow that arose in their suspicion, not only lost the food which, so to speak, was in their mouth, given by God, but also drew destruction upon themselves." We can also with the best right use that fable against the Gnostics of this time, who, gaping after shadows and metonymies, fall away from the use of the true body of Christ. Nor without reason did Luther write concerning Sacramentarians of this sort: "Satan in the world is doubtless the author for them of shaking and overthrowing this sacrament of the Eucharist; plainly striving, when the egg has been drunk up, to leave us only the shells. That is, to take away the body and blood of Christ from the bread and wine, so that besides the simple bread made by the baker, nothing else remains."

Sed quoniam. Principium est cap. 12 in vet. cod. cum argumento ibidem signato.

But since. This is the beginning of ch. 12 in the ancient manuscript, with the summary marked in the same place.

Ut calumniosi. Prius erat « et calumniosi. » Vaticanus codex : « et quaestionem inferentes, » etc., paulo post legit.

As calumnious. Previously it was "and calumnious." The Vatican manuscript reads a little after: "and bringing in a question," etc.

Bene haec arbitrati sumus. Duobus argumentorum generibus illos urgere constituit : priore, crebris et acutis de ratione figmentorum interrogationibus, quas cum non potuerint solvere, ad metam redargutionis cogantur; quod egregie praestat sequentibus, usque ad 36 capitibus; posteriore, apertissimis firmissimisque Scripturarum testimoniis, quibus postea pugnat.

We have well judged these things. He resolved to press them with two kinds of arguments: by the former, with frequent and acute interrogations concerning the system of their figments, which, when they cannot solve them, may drive them to the goal of refutation; which he excellently performs in the following chapters up to 36; by the latter, with the clearest and firmest testimonies of the Scriptures, with which he fights afterwards.

Ex Joan. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 12.

From the annotations of Joan. Ern. Grabe on ch. 12.

Pag. 127. Docentis autem, et per se attribuentis. Christus et verbo docuit, et per merita sua « tribuit nobis potestatem filios Dei fieri, » quae in veteri testamento nec ita clare revelata, nec isto modo, quo in novo foedere, fidelibus data erat. Judaei enim filii Dei dicebantur, quod a Deo creati essent, quodque Spiritum Dei accepissent, sed servitutis et timoris; nos vero libertatis et dilectionis. Unde Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 14 in Epist. ad Romanos cap. VIII, considerans ista Apostoli verba : « Non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum ad timorem, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis, » comparatione inter Judaeos et Christianos instituta, inter alia ait : Ἐκεῖνοι μὲν εἰ καὶ υἱοὶ ἐκαλοῦντο, ἀλλ' ὡς δοῦλοι· ἡμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἐλεύθεροι γενόμενοι τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἐλάβομεν, καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναμένομεν.... κἀκεῖνοι φόβῳ τιμωρίας πάντα ἔπραττον ἀγόμενοι, οἱ δὲ Πνεύματος ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ πόθῳ. « Illi quidem

Page 127. Teaching moreover, and of Himself bestowing. Christ both taught by word, and through His merits "gave us power to become the sons of God (John 1:12)," which in the Old Testament was neither so clearly revealed, nor given to the faithful in that manner in which it was in the New Covenant. For the Jews were called sons of God because they were created by God, and because they had received the Spirit of God, yet of bondage and fear; whereas we have received the Spirit of liberty and love. Whence John Chrysostom, in Homily 14 on the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 8, considering those words of the Apostle: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15)," having instituted a comparison between the Jews and Christians, says among other things: "They, even if they too were called sons, were called so as slaves; but we, having become free, have received the adoption, and await heaven.... And they did all things driven by fear of punishment, but these by desire and longing for the Spirit." "They indeed,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1545

Footnotes

(87) ‹anchor: Lactantius scribit› · call in col 1545

Libr. ii, cap. 9.

Book 2, chapter 9.

(printed under page 781)

(88) ‹anchor: Sacramentariis scripsit› · call in col 1545

Tomo VII, serm. de euchar.

Volume 7, sermon on the Eucharist.

(printed under page 781)

(89) ‹anchor: filios Dei fieri› · call in col 1545

Joan. I, 12.

John 1:12.

(printed under page 781)

Page

running head: 1545 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A et quod; B Volutantes. Delevimus; C relinquere putamina.; D nobis potestatem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek (ἀγγέλους; Chrysostom on Romans VIII); editors' matter: Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 12, Ex Joan. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 12
page foot: PATROL. GR. VII. (signature line)

PG 7:1546

quanquam filii vocabantur, tamen tanquam servi; nos autem ut liberi facti adoptionem accepimus, et coelum exspectamus.... Illi poenae formidine ducti onmia agebant, hi Spiritus desiderio et amore. » Atqui « omnis qui non amplius sub timore paedagogo degit, sed virtutem propter ipsam eligit, filius Dei est, » ut Origenes scribit lib. I Contra Celsum. Sed de his prolixius dicendi hic non est locus.

although they were called sons, yet were as servants; whereas we, having been made free, have received adoption, and await heaven.... They, led by the dread of punishment, did all things, whereas these do so by the desire and love of the Spirit." And indeed "everyone who no longer lives under fear as a pedagogue, but chooses virtue for its own sake, is a son of God," as Origen writes in book I Against Celsus. But this is not the place to speak of these things more at length.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 13.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 13.

Pag. 128. Primo quidem. Consentit cod. vet. in numero capitis hujus et argumento. Porro, ostendit triginta annos aetatis Domini nullo modo patrocinari fictioni illorum de triacontade, id est triginta Aeonibus, quam descripsit lib. I, cap. 1 et 14. Superstitiosam hanc numerorum applicationem, ex Pythagoricis excerptam, tradit infra cap. 19. Tertullianus ista deliramenta ita suo more irridet : « Hoc erit Pleroma illud Aeonum, divinitatis tricenariae plenitudo. Interim in tricenario fecunditas tota deficit; castrata est vis, et potestas, et libido genitalis Aeonum, quasi non et numerorum tanta adhuc coagula superessent, et nulla alia de paedagogio nomina. Quare enim non et quinquaginta, et centum procreantur? » etc.

Page 128. First indeed. The ancient manuscript agrees in the number of this chapter and in the summary. Moreover, he shows that the thirty years of the Lord's age in no way favour their fiction concerning the Triacontad, that is, the thirty Aeons, which he described in book I, ch. 1 and 14. This superstitious application of numbers, excerpted from the Pythagoreans, he relates below in ch. 19. Tertullian thus derides those ravings after his manner: "This will be that Pleroma of the Aeons, the fulness of a thirtyfold divinity. Meanwhile at thirty all fecundity fails; the force, and power, and genital lust of the Aeons is castrated, as though so many curdlings of numbers did not still remain, and no other names from the schoolroom. For why are not fifty also, and a hundred procreated?" etc.

Triginta annorum. Hoc argumentum Gnosticorum ita convellit Cyrillus Jerosolym. : « Aspice nugas et deliria commentorum. Unde habes probationem triginta saeculorum? Cum, inquit Valent., scriptum sit, quod Jesus baptizatus sit tanquam annorum triginta. Et qualis est haec demonstratio? Nunquid igitur, quia quinque panes divisit in quinque millia, quinque sunt dii? Quia duodecim habuit discipulos, duodecim debent esse dii? » etc.

Of thirty years. Cyril of Jerusalem thus overthrows this argument of the Gnostics: "Behold the trifles and ravings of their fabrications. Whence do you have the proof of thirty ages? Because, says Valentinus, it is written that Jesus was baptized when about thirty years of age. And what sort of demonstration is this? Therefore, because He divided five loaves among five thousand, are there five gods? Because He had twelve disciples, ought there to be twelve gods?" etc.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 14.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 14.

Pag. 128. Quoniam enim. Hoc et proximo capite dissolvit fabulas de triacontade, conjugationibus, et Sophia, quas libro I, capit. 1, recitaverat. Insuper et nugas de Ennoeae, sive Siges emissione; quod perinde impossibile sit Cogitationem et Silentium per se consistere, atque sine humectatione aquam, aut duritia lapidem.

Page 128. For since. In this and the next chapter he dissolves the fables concerning the Triacontad, the syzygies, and Sophia, which he had recited in book I, ch. 1. Moreover also the trifles concerning the emission of Ennoea, or Sige; because it is just as impossible for Thought and Silence to subsist by themselves, as for water to subsist without moisture, or a stone without hardness.

Hoc autem non enumerato. Sophiae vigesimum locum tribuunt in ea Aeonum enumeratione, quae capite 1 adumbratur. Postea dicunt eam aberrasse ab illa Plenitudine, quae Pleroma vocatur; aut igitur incompletum est Pleroma tricenarium, aut Sophia non aberravit.

Now if this is not reckoned. They assign the twentieth place to Sophia in that enumeration of the Aeons which is sketched in chapter 1. Afterwards they say that she wandered away from that Fulness which is called the Pleroma; therefore either the thirtyfold Pleroma is incomplete, or Sophia did not wander away.

Sed viginti et novem. Codices excusi habebant « viginti et octo. »

But twenty-nine. The printed editions had "twenty-eight."

Et qua rursum Nun et Alethiam. « Nun » nostro judicio adjicimus, quandoquidem sic confecta est ab illis secunda conjugatio; et paulo post Irenaeus utrumque copulat. Hanc autem emissionem probat impossibilem, ex eo quod Siges, id est Silentii, nulla sit actio; mentis autem operationes sint immanentes. Paulo post legimus, « ab unita, » pro, « adunita, » auctoritate veter. codic.

And how again Nous and Aletheia. We add "Nous" on our own judgement, seeing that the second syzygy was thus made up by them; and a little after Irenaeus joins both. Moreover, he proves this emission impossible, from the fact that of Sige, that is, Silence, there is no action; while the operations of the mind are immanent. A little after we read "from united," for "united to," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Utrisque exorbitant. Delevimus « utriusque exorbitent. »

In both ways they go astray. We have deleted "of both let them go astray."

Hoc autem sic se habente. Probat emissiones Aeonum indiscretas esse, quandoquidem duos Aeones sibi perpetuo affirment cohaerere.

Now since this is so. He proves that the emissions of the Aeons are undistinguished, seeing that they affirm that two Aeons perpetually cohere with each other.

Et cum haec dicantur. Capitis decimi quarti initium est in veteri codice cum epigraphe ea, quae paulo ante habetur, et aliquanto meo judicio commodius.

And when these things are said. This is the beginning of the fourteenth chapter in the ancient manuscript, with that title which is found a little before, and in my judgement somewhat more conveniently.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 15.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 15.

Pag. 128. De passione enim. Probat conjugationes illas triginta Aeonum disjunctas non esse, quia sejungi non potest Cogitatio a Propatore, nec Mens a Veritate, nec Verbum a Vita. Primigeniam octonationem, et duodecadem, et triacontadem rursus expugnat.

Page 128. For concerning the passion. He proves that those syzygies of the thirty Aeons are not disjoined, because Thought cannot be separated from the Propator, nor Mind from Truth, nor Word from Life. He again overthrows the original Ogdoad, and the Dodecad, and the Triacontad.

Iterum reliquam. Expunximus « derelinquam. »

Again the remaining. We have expunged "I shall forsake."

Quemadmodum gallinae. Tertullianus istiusmodi

Just as hens. Tertullian receives old wives' fables of this sort

Editors' notes and page, col. 1546

Footnotes

(90) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1546 (UNSURE: call outside the rendered area)

Lib. cont. Valent.

Book Against the Valentinians.

(printed under page 781)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1546 (UNSURE: call outside the rendered area)

Catech. 6.

Catechesis 6.

(printed under page 781)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1546
marginal letters: A quanquam filii; B tota deficit;; C consistere, atque; D bitent. »
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 13, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 14, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 15

PG 7:1547

aniles fabulas irrisione pari excipit : « Sophia, inquit, in moerore ex semetipsa sola, nulla opera conjugii concepit, et procreat feminam. Miraris haec? et gallina sortita est de suo parere, sed et vultures feminas tantum parere aiunt, et tamen sine masculo mater. » Addere potuisset equas vento concipere in Cappadocia, ut tradit Augustinus; et in Hispania ad Tagum amnem, si vera scribunt Homerus, Varro, Columella, Plinius et Justinus. Reposuimus autem « gallinae, » pro « gallina. »

with equal derision: "Sophia," he says, "in grief conceived of herself alone, without any work of wedlock, and brings forth a female. Do you wonder at these things? A hen also has obtained the lot of laying of herself, and moreover they say that vultures bring forth only females, and yet she is a mother without a male." He might have added that mares conceive by the wind in Cappadocia, as Augustine relates; and in Spain by the river Tagus, if Homer, Varro, Columella, Pliny, and Justin write true things. Moreover, we have restored "hens" for "hen."

Pag. 129. Post demum. Ostendit incompossibiles ac incompatibiles prorsus esse Aeones octonarii in eodem Pleromate; quoniam Sermo et Silentium simul stare non possunt; sicut lumen et tenebrae simul esse nequeunt.

Page 129. Afterwards at length. He shows that the Aeons of the Ogdoad are altogether incompossible and incompatible in the same Pleroma; since Speech and Silence cannot stand together; just as light and darkness cannot exist together.

Si autem Endiatheton Logon. Billius Graece : ἂν δὲ ἐνδιάθετον Λόγον εἴπωσιν. Id est : « Si autem intus conditum Sermonem dixerint. » Ἐνδιαθέτῳ λόγῳ Graeci opponunt προφορικόν, hoc est, ut cap. 16 vertit interpres, « emissibile Verbum; » vel ut capit. 49, « emissionis Verbum; » vel denique, ut capit. 16, « prolativum, » etc. Vult ergo Irenaeus etiam Sigen internam esse, si Logos sit interior; et ea propter neutrum posse dici emissum.

But if the Endiatheton Logos. Billius in Greek: ἂν δὲ ἐνδιάθετον Λόγον εἴπωσιν. That is: "But if they say the Word stored up within." To the ἐνδιαθέτῳ λόγῳ the Greeks oppose the προφορικόν, that is, as the translator renders it in ch. 16, "the emissible Word;" or as in ch. 49, "the Word of emission;" or finally, as in ch. 16, "the uttered Word," etc. Irenaeus means therefore that Sige also is internal, if the Logos is interior; and on that account neither can be called emitted.

Emissiones. Expunximus « emissionis. »

Emissions. We have expunged "of emission."

Secundum autem id. Ostendit plures quam triginta Aeones numerandos esse, si verae sunt ab eis ordinatae conjugationes. Etenim si Monogenes emisit Horum, postea quoque Christus, et Spiritus sanctus, et Soter prodierunt; jam sunt 34 Aeones in Pleromate, non 30 solum.

According to this, however. He shows that more than thirty Aeons must be numbered, if the syzygies arranged by them are true. For if Monogenes emitted Horus, and afterwards also Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and Soter proceeded; there are already 34 Aeons in the Pleroma, not 30 only.

Emissum enim. Initium est cap. 15 in vet. cod. cum argumento supraposito; quae autem hic refellit, habentur lib. I, cap. 1.

For emitted. This is the beginning of ch. 15 in the ancient manuscript, with the summary placed above; and the things which he here refutes are found in book I, ch. 1.

Hoc enim manifestum. Proverbialis hyperbole, sacris et profanis scriptoribus frequentissima, qua rem apertissimam et omnibus evidentissimam significant. Eusebius Contra Hieroclem : ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τυφλῷ φασὶ δῆλον. « Sed etiam vel caeco perspicuum aiunt esse. » Utuntur quoque eadem Plato in Sophista, Homerus Odyss. octava, Quintil. libro duodecimo, Erasm. in Chiliad.

For this is manifest. A proverbial hyperbole, most frequent in sacred and profane writers, by which they signify a matter most open and most evident to all. Eusebius, Against Hierocles: ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τυφλῷ φασὶ δῆλον. "For they say it is clear even to a blind man." Plato also uses the same in the Sophist, Homer in the eighth Odyssey, Quintilian in his twelfth book, Erasmus in the Chiliades.

Si plus fuerit. Cod. excusi habebant, « ipsius fuerit.

If it be more. The printed editions had, "it be his own."

Quaerant igitur. Caput 16 hic signatur in veter. codic. cum proximo argumento, sed minus commode.

Let them seek therefore. Chapter 16 is marked here in the ancient manuscript with the next summary, but less conveniently.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 15.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 15.

Pag. 129. Haec enim consumptibilia sunt invicem. Σιγῆς et λόγου antithesis omnibus est familiaris. Sic Gregorius Nazianzenus carm. 12, ad episcopos : Θύσω καὶ σιγὴν, ὡς τοπάροιθε λόγον. Et orat. 14, p. 216 : Οἱ του λόγου τοσαύτης ἐσμὲν σιγῆς μεστοί. Confer Pearsonii Vindicias epistolarum S. Ignatii, part. II, cap. 4.

Page 129. For these are mutually destructive of one another. The antithesis of σιγῆς and λόγου is familiar to all. Thus Gregory of Nazianzus, Poem 12, to the bishops: Θύσω καὶ σιγὴν, ὡς τοπάροιθε λόγον. And Oration 14, p. 216: Οἱ του λόγου τοσαύτης ἐσμὲν σιγῆς μεστοί. Compare Pearson's Vindiciae Epistolarum S. Ignatii, part II, ch. 4.

Non est Endiathetos. Haeretici igitur fictitium suum λόγον statuerunt προφορικόν : sed catholici de vero Λόγῳ Filio Dei certa ratione negarunt. Sic Clemens Alexandrinus lib. V Stromat., pag. 547, Ὁ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων Λόγος οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ προφορικὸς, σοφία δὲ καὶ χρηστότης φανερωτάτη τοῦ Θεοῦ. « Verbum enim Patris universorum non est hoc quod profertur, sed sapientia et bonitas Dei manifesta. » Et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus catech. 4 Illuminatorum : Πίστευε ὅτι ἑνὸς Θεοῦ μονογενὴς εἷς ἐστιν Υἱὸς πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων Θεὸς Λόγος, οὐ προφορητικὸς εἰς ἀέρα διαχεόμενος, οὐδὲ λόγοις ἀνυποστάτοις ἐξομοιούμενος. « Crede unigenitum atque unicum unius Dei esse Filium ante omnia saecula Deum Verbum, non prolatitium, inque aera diffusum, neque sermonibus hominum non subsistentibus simile. » Omnino enim tale Verbum naturae Dei haud convenit, uti Joannes Philoponus observavit lib. VI De mundi creatione, cap. 4 scribens : Οὐ γὰρ προφορικὸν λόγον, τὸν ἅμα τῷ προελθεῖν λυό-

He is not Endiathetos. The heretics therefore held their fictitious λόγον to be προφορικόν: whereas Catholics for a sure reason denied this of the true Λόγῳ, the Son of God. Thus Clement of Alexandria, book V of the Stromata, page 547: Ὁ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων Λόγος οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ προφορικὸς, σοφία δὲ καὶ χρηστότης φανερωτάτη τοῦ Θεοῦ. "For the Word of the Father of all is not this which is uttered, but the most manifest wisdom and goodness of God." And Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 4 of the Illuminated: Πίστευε ὅτι ἑνὸς Θεοῦ μονογενὴς εἷς ἐστιν Υἱὸς πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων Θεὸς Λόγος, οὐ προφορητικὸς εἰς ἀέρα διαχεόμενος, οὐδὲ λόγοις ἀνυποστάτοις ἐξομοιούμενος. "Believe that of the one God there is one only-begotten Son before all ages, God the Word, not uttered and diffused into the air, nor likened to non-subsistent words of men." For altogether such a Word by no means befits the nature of God, as John Philoponus observed in book VI On the Creation of the World, ch. 4, writing: Οὐ γὰρ προφορικὸν λόγον, τὸν ἅμα τῷ προελθεῖν λυό-

Editors' notes and page, col. 1547

Footnotes

(92) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1547 or 1548 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. contra Valent.

Book Against the Valentinians.

(printed under page 782)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1547 or 1548 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. xxi De civit., cap. 5.

City of God, book 21, chapter 5.

(printed under page 782)

Page

running head: 1547 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A aniles fabulas; B 49, « emissionis; C aiunt esse. »; D Clemens Alexandrinus
old-edition numerals: 90 after Columella,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 15; word split at end of column: λυό-[μενον]

PG 7:1548

μενον, τῷ Θεῷ περιάπτειν θεμίς. « Neqne enim prolatitium verbum, quod simul ut profertur resolvitur, Deo accommodare fas est. »

μενον, τῷ Θεῷ περιάπτειν θεμίς. "For neither is it right to attach to God an uttered word, which is dissolved as soon as it is uttered."

Quem et Sotera dicunt. Istud Hori cognomen auctor noster lib. I, cap. 1, § 3 et 5, ubi sex ejus appellationes ex instituto recenset, prorsus tacuit; unde in notis ibidem id ex hoc loco addidi. Verumtamen animum subit suspicio, ne forte Graecus Irenaei textus hic corruptus, aut ab interprete haud recte lectus fuerit, voce σταυρόν, quae inter alia Hori cognomina dicto loco exstat, et σωτῆρα inter se commutatis, quod per hujusmodi abbreviationem στρν, indeque unica solum littera α pro ν posita vel lecta, facile fieri potuit. Esto penes lectorem de hac conjectura judicium.

Whom they also call Soter. This surname of Horus our author altogether passed over in silence in book I, ch. 1, § 3 and 5, where he purposely recounts his six appellations; whence in the notes there I added it from this passage. Nevertheless, a suspicion comes into the mind, lest perhaps the Greek text of Irenaeus was corrupt here, or was not rightly read by the translator, the word σταυρόν, which stands among the other surnames of Horus in the said passage, and σωτῆρα having been interchanged with each other, which through an abbreviation of this sort, στρν, and thence only the single letter α having been placed or read for ν, could easily happen. Let the judgement concerning this conjecture rest with the reader.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 16.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 16.

Pag. 129. Et ipsum quidem. Evincit vanam commentationem esse, quod Profundum et Cogitatio Mentem produxerint : cum ipsa cogitatio, quantumvis latens et abdita, potius a mente emittatur; sicut et Enthymesis, quam Intentionem alibi, et Consilium vocat, aliaeque animi affectiones. Impium deinde ostendit, hominum affectus, motus et perturbationes Deo ascribere. Idem facit Lactantius lib. De ira Dei, cap. 15 et 16, quod et antea praestiterat auctor Responsionum ad quaestiones orthodoxorum, apud Justinum martyrem, quaest. 36 et 51.

Page 129. And Himself indeed. He proves that it is a vain fabrication that the Deep and Thought produced Mind: since thought itself, however hidden and abstruse, is rather emitted by the mind; just like Enthymesis also, which elsewhere he calls Intention and Counsel, and the other affections of the mind. Next he shows that it is impious to ascribe the affections, motions, and perturbations of men to God. Lactantius does the same in the book On the Wrath of God, ch. 15 and 16, which the author of the Responses to the Questions of the Orthodox in Justin Martyr had also done previously, questions 36 and 51.

Cap. 12. Nus enim est ipsum. Tertullianus libro De anima, de Nu, seu mente, ait : « Νοῦς apud Graecos, non aliud quid intelligimus, quam suggestum animae ingenitum et insitum et nativitus proprium, quo agit, quo sapit, » etc.

Ch. 12. For Nous is that very thing. Tertullian, in the book On the Soul, says concerning Nous, or mind: "By Νοῦς among the Greeks, we understand nothing else than theequipment of the soul, inborn and implanted and natively its own, whereby it acts, whereby it is wise," etc.

Et fons universi sensus. Codices excusi, « et fons universis. »

And the fountain of all sense. The printed editions had, "and the fountain to all."

Non capit igitur. Graeca phrasis, qua non raro utitur, ut paulo post : « Et haec quidem in hominibus capit dici. » Crebro quoque, qui controversiam Latine scripsit, Tertullianus, verbum ἐνδέχεται, sic imitatur, ut lib. De resurrectione carn., lib. I, III et V Contra Marcionem : « corpus animale capit dici, » id est recipit hanc nomenclaturam, dignum est hoc nomine.

It does not therefore admit. A Greek phrase, which he uses not rarely, as a little after: "And these things indeed among men it admits of being said." Frequently also Tertullian, who wrote controversy in Latin, thus imitates the word ἐνδέχεται, as in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, and books I, III, and V Against Marcion: "it admits of being called an animate body," that is, it receives this nomenclature, it is worthy of this name.

Pag. 130. Incogitatu. Delevimus « incogitate, » ut mox « sensu manente, » pro « sensum a mente, » reposuimus.

Page 130. Unthought. We have deleted "inconsiderately," as presently we have restored "sense remaining," for "sense from mind."

Prima enim motio. Initium est cap. 17 in veteri cod. cum epigraphe sequenti.

For the first motion. This is the beginning of ch. 17 in the ancient manuscript, with the following title.

Haec est autem Enthymesis. Docet porro Enthymesin, seu cogitationem ac intentionem, cum pene eadem sit cum Ennoea, id est sensatione et consilio, et a Nu, id est mente producatur, extra Plenitudinem non emitti. Igitur stare non possunt tam variae Aeonum emissiones.

Now this is Enthymesis. He teaches further that Enthymesis, or thought and intention, since it is almost the same as Ennoea, that is, perception and counsel, and is produced by Nous, that is, mind, is not emitted outside the Fulness. Therefore such varied emissions of Aeons cannot stand.

Et haec quidem. Variae animorum affectiones, prolationesque successivae, et alternantes recte et vere affirmantur de hominibus : Deum his obnoxium confingere, nefas.

And these things indeed. Various affections of minds, and successive and alternating utterances, are rightly and truly affirmed of men: to feign that God is subject to these is impious.

Deum autem. Codices excusi, « Deinde autem, » et paulo post « Patrem » delevimus, et « Patri » reposuimus.

But God. The printed editions had, "Next moreover," and a little after we have deleted "Father" (accusative), and restored "to the Father."

Si autem Scripturas. Locus insignis, quo docet passiones humanas in Deum non cadere : ac proinde Gnosticos turpiter hallucinari, cum his eum subjiciunt. In hanc rem legatur Cyrillus Jerosol. cateches. 8.

But if the Scriptures. A notable passage, in which he teaches that human passions do not fall upon God: and that accordingly the Gnostics shamefully rave when they subject Him to these. To this purpose let Cyril of Jerusalem be read, Catechesis 8.

Et simplex. Affirmat Deum esse omnino simplicem, id est omni compositione, sive ex materia et forma, sive ex genere et differentia, sive ex ente, modis et passionibus ejus, sive ex subjecto et accidente; hoc est, tam physica quam metaphysica carere; quod post Irenaeum latius confirmant Clemens Alexand. lib. I Paedagogi, cap. 8; Origenes lib. VII Contra Celsum; Augustin. lib. VI De Trinitat., cap. 6 et 7 et scholastici omnes. Porro Ὁμοιόκωλον « similimembrium

And simple. He affirms that God is altogether simple, that is, devoid of all composition, whether out of matter and form, or out of genus and difference, or out of being, its modes and passions, or out of subject and accident; that is, devoid both of physical and of metaphysical composition; which after Irenaeus there confirm more at length Clement of Alexandria, book I of the Paedagogus, ch. 8; Origen, book VII Against Celsus; Augustine, book VI On the Trinity, ch. 6 and 7, and all the schoolmen. Moreover, Ὁμοιόκωλον he renders "of like

Editors' notes and page, col. 1548

Page

running head: RIORUM NOTAE 1548
marginal letters: A μενον, τῷ; B Mentem produxerint :; C imitatur, ut; D Deum autem.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 16; words split at column breaks: [λυό-]μενον, si-[milimembrium]
other: the word similimembrium was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1549

PG 7:1549

» reddit pari tralatione, qua Paulus dicitur, « seminiverbius : » Deus enim membra, alterius a seipso rationis et formae, non habet.

members" by a like translation to that whereby Paul is called "a word-sower (Acts 17:18):" for God does not have members of another nature and form than Himself.

Cum sit sensus. Hanc sententiam frequenter inculcat, infra cap. 18 et 47 hujus libri, et lib. III, c. 8 et lib. IV, cap. 6. Indicat vero ea, quae enumerat, non esse facultates, aut ab eisdem productas affectiones quasdam a natura Dei alienas, quemadmodum in creatis rebus. Recte igitur post Irenaeum, VIII De civitat. Dei Augustinus : « Deo non aliud est esse, aliud vivere; nec aliud illi est vivere, aliud intelligere; nec aliud intelligere, aliud beatum esse : sed quod est illi vivere, intelligere, beatum esse, hoc est illi esse. » Et lib. XI : « Deus Pater qui genuit, simplex est; et Filius qui genitus est, pariter simplex est; et hoc est illud de quo genitus est : sed ideo simplex dicitur, quoniam quod habet, hoc est. »

Since He is Mind. He frequently inculcates this thought, below in ch. 18 and 47 of this book, and book III, ch. 8, and book IV, ch. 6. And he indicates that the things which he enumerates are not faculties, or certain affections produced by the same, foreign to the nature of God, as in created things. Rightly therefore after Irenaeus does Augustine say in book VIII On the City of God: "To God it is not one thing to be, another to live; nor is it to Him one thing to live, another to understand; nor one thing to understand, another to be blessed: but what to Him is to live, to understand, to be blessed, this is to Him to be." And in book XI: "God the Father Who begat is simple; and the Son Who was begotten is equally simple; and He is that from which He was begotten: and therefore He is called simple, because what He has, this He is."

Si autem et in reliquis omnibus. Ita vet. cod., delevimus itaque, « et hominibus. »

But if also in all other things. Thus the ancient manuscript; we have therefore deleted "and in men."

Pag. 131. A vivo is. Expunximus « animus; » et mox « motiones » pro « animationes » restituimus.

Page 131. From the living he. We have expunged "mind;" and presently restored "motions" for "animations."

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 16.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 16.

Pag. 130. Verbum rectissime appellabitur. Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος scilicet dicebatur a philosophis, cujus et praecedenti capite fecit mentionem.

Page 130. Will most rightly be called the Word. Namely, it was called λόγος ἐνδιάθετος by the philosophers, of which he also made mention in the preceding chapter.

Ad loquendum eos. Πρὸς τὸ λαλεῖν αὐτοὺς, id est « ut ipsi loquantur, ac verba faciant. » Neque enim ea ex hominum ore procedunt, antequam praecesserit cogitatio, vel ubi res requirit, diuturnior deliberatio ac consultatio.

For their speaking. Πρὸς τὸ λαλεῖν αὐτοὺς, that is, "that they themselves may speak and utter words." For neither do those proceed out of the mouth of men before thought has preceded, or where the matter requires, a longer deliberation and consultation.

Similimembrius. Vocem ὁμοιόκωλος in Graeco fuisse suspicatur Feuard., mihi ὁμοιομερής potius ab Irenaeo dictus videtur Deus, utpote cujus pars, si qua dicenda, et totum prorsus eadem sunt.

Of like members. Feuardentius suspects that the word ὁμοιόκωλος stood in the Greek; to me God seems rather to have been called ὁμοιομερής by Irenaeus, inasmuch as His part, if any is to be spoken of, and the whole are altogether the same.

Sensus. Νοῦς fuit in Graeco, hic et postea saepe, uti colligitur ex cap. 18, pag. 138, col. 1, lin. 26, aliisque locis, praesertim ex lib. I, cap. 6, ubi in hac ipsa sententia ὅλος νοῦς ab interprete redditur, « totus sensus. »

Sense. Νοῦς stood in the Greek, here and often afterwards, as is gathered from ch. 18, page 138, col. 1, line 26, and other passages, especially from book I, ch. 6, where in this very thought ὅλος νοῦς is rendered by the translator, "all sense."

Sensuabilitas. Vox νόησις ab Irenaeo usurpata videtur.

Sensuability. The word νόησις seems to have been used by Irenaeus.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 17.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 17.

Pag. 131. Si enim sensum. Προβολάς istas, id est emissiones, projectiones, vel productiones, quas recensuerat initio capitis primi libri primi, Deo neutiquam convenire ostendit, cum partitionibus non subjaceat : nec Logon seu Verbum emittat, quod a se divulsione quadam naturae separetur. Sic et antea de Filio Dei docuerant sanctissimi alii martyres. Ignatius : Ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος, οὐ ῥητὸς, ἀλλ' οὐσιώδης, οὐ γάρ ἐστι λαλιᾶς ἐνάρθρου φώνημα, ἀλλ' ἐνεργείας θεϊκῆς οὐσία γεννητή. Id est : « Ille est ipsius (Patris) Verbum, non prolatum, sed substantiale : non enim locutionis articulatae vox est, sed divinae efficaciae substantia genita. » Justinus : « Intelligimus Filium e Patre prognatum, sicut lumen e lumine promicans. Nam hac imagine refertur et coaeternitas, et essentiae identitas, et passionis expers nativitas. » Et paulo post : « Non enim decisione, aut defluxu, aut divisione elucescit, sed ex ipsa essentia, sine ulla passione, procedit. » Et Tatianus ejusdem non malus aliquando auditor : « Verbum a Patre genitum » profitetur, « οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν, non per avulsionem, cum genitorem nunquam relinquat. » Accedit Tertullianus Contra Praxean : « Protulit Deus Sermonem, sicut radix fructum, et fons fluvium, et sol radium; nec frutex a radice, nec fluvius a fonte, nec radius a sole discernitur, sicut nec a Deo Sermo. » Origenem cum Valentinianis idem sensisse hac in re, quidam dudum voluerunt; at eos falsos esse, multis ejus allatis scriptis, dilucide evincit

Page 131. For if sense. He shows that those προβολάς, that is, emissions, projections, or productions, which he had recounted at the beginning of the first chapter of the first book, by no means befit God, since He is not subject to partitions: nor does He emit a Logos or Word that is separated from Himself by some rending of nature. Thus also previously other most holy martyrs had taught concerning the Son of God. Ignatius: Ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος, οὐ ῥητὸς, ἀλλ' οὐσιώδης, οὐ γάρ ἐστι λαλιᾶς ἐνάρθρου φώνημα, ἀλλ' ἐνεργείας θεϊκῆς οὐσία γεννητή. That is: "He is His (the Father's) Word, not uttered, but substantial: for He is not the sound of articulate speech, but the begotten substance of divine efficacy." Justin: "We understand the Son begotten from the Father, as light flashing forth from light. For by this image is represented both co-eternity, and identity of essence, and nativity devoid of passion." And a little after: "For He shines forth not by cutting off, or efflux, or division, but proceeds out of the essence itself, without any passion." And Tatian, at one time no bad hearer of the same: professes "the Word begotten from the Father, οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν, not by tearing away, since He never leaves the Begetter." Add to these Tertullian, Against Praxeas: "God put forth the Word, as the root the fruit, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray; nor is the shoot severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun, just as neither is the Word from God." That Origen held the same view as the Valentinians in this matter, some long ago maintained; but that they are false, by adducing many of his writings, there clearly proves

Editors' notes and page, col. 1549

Footnotes

(94) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1549 or 1550 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Cap. 6.

Chapter 6.

(printed under page 783)

(95) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1549 or 1550 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Cap. 10.

Chapter 10.

(printed under page 783)

(96) ‹anchor: martyres. Ignatius› · call in col 1549

Ad Magnes.

To the Magnesians.

(printed under page 783)

(97) ‹anchor: Justinus› · call in col 1549

Lib. de Trin.

Book On the Trinity.

(printed under page 783)

(98) ‹anchor: aliquando auditor› · call in col 1549

Orat. contra Graecos.

Oration against the Greeks.

(printed under page 783)

Page

running head: 1549 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A milimembrium » reddit; B levimus itaque,; C hac ipsa; D tum, sicut
old-edition numerals: 91 after initio capitis
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 16, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 17; word split at beginning of column: [si-]milimembrium

PG 7:1550

Pamphilus martyr, aut potius Eusebius, in Apologia pro eodem. Innumera istiusmodi Patrum testimonia, quibus cum Gnosticis recentiores Ariani convincuntur, consulto praeterimus.

the martyr Pamphilus, or rather Eusebius, in the Apology for the same. Innumerable testimonies of the Fathers of this sort, by which together with the Gnostics the more recent Arians are refuted, we purposely pass over.

Emittentem radios. Delevimus « emittente; » et paulo post « dicant, » pro « dicent, » legendum proposuimus ex vet. cod.

Emitting rays (accusative). We have deleted "emitting" (ablative); and a little after we have proposed that "they say" should be read for "they will say," from the ancient manuscript.

Si autem non emissum. Demonstrat Logon non esse extra Patrem emissum, a definitione emissionis sumpta ratiocinatione. Deinde, si intra Patrem emissus est, nec Patrem ignorare potuit, nec diminutionum passionibus subjacere; quod tamen ab illis affirmabatur. Porro autem, « quemadmodum, » pro « quomodo, » ut alias frequentissime usurpat.

But if not emitted. He demonstrates that the Logos was not emitted outside the Father, taking his reasoning from the definition of emission. Next, if He was emitted within the Father, He could neither be ignorant of the Father, nor be subject to the passions of diminutions; which nevertheless was affirmed by them. Moreover, he uses "quemadmodum" for "quomodo," as very frequently elsewhere.

Jam igitur. Exordium est cap. 18 in veteri codice, quod commodius ostendit argumentum affixum sequenti capiti, cujus priores sententiae ab hoc sejungi non deberent, nisi duobus punctis. Caeterum, « ignorabunt, » pro « ignorabant; » et postea, « similitudine, » pro « similitudinem; » denique, « incidet, » pro « incidit, » vet. cod. auctor. legimus.

Now therefore. This is the beginning of ch. 18 in the ancient manuscript, which more conveniently shows the summary affixed to the following chapter, the earlier sentences of which ought not to be separated from this save by a colon. For the rest, we read "they will be ignorant," for "they were ignorant;" and afterwards, "by likeness," for "likeness" (accusative); finally, "will fall," for "falls," on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 17.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 17.

Pag. 131. Emissio enim.... manifestatio. Hinc S. Patres « missionem » Filii et Spiritus sancti quandoque per « manifestationem » explicant. « Nec Filii, nec Spiritus S. missionem localiter factam quisque debet Christianus intelligere; sed illo missionis nomine, opus intelligamus manifestationis indultae, » ait Fulgentius, lib. II Ad Monimum, cap. 6. Et ante ipsum Severianus in homilia de aeneo serpente, itemque de S. Trinitate, tom. VI Operum Chrysostomi, ex editione Frontonis Ducaei, pag. 58 : Τί οὖν βούλεται τὸ, ἀπεστάλη; ἀντὶ τοῦ, διὰ σαρκὸς ἔλαμψεν. Ἡ γὰρ ἀποστολὴ οὐ τὴν ἀπὸ τόπων εἰς τόπους μετάβασιν σημαίνει, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀοράτου θεότητος εἰς ἐμφανῆ παρουσίαν. « Quid igitur sibi vult illud, Missus est? pro eo, ac si dixisset, conspectus est, in carne apparens nobis affulsit. Legatio enim illa non ullam profectionem de loco in locum significat, sed ex invisibili deitate in aspectabilem praesentiam. »

Page 131. For emission.... manifestation. Hence the holy Fathers sometimes explain the "mission" of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by "manifestation." "Neither the mission of the Son, nor that of the Holy Spirit, ought any Christian to understand as having taken place locally; but by that name of mission, let us understand the work of vouchsafed manifestation," says Fulgentius, book II To Monimus, ch. 6. And before him Severian, in the Homily on the Brazen Serpent, and likewise on the Holy Trinity, vol. VI of the Works of Chrysostom, of Fronton du Duc's edition, page 58: Τί οὖν βούλεται τὸ, ἀπεστάλη; ἀντὶ τοῦ, διὰ σαρκὸς ἔλαμψεν. Ἡ γὰρ ἀποστολὴ οὐ τὴν ἀπὸ τόπων εἰς τόπους μετάβασιν σημαίνει, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀοράτου θεότητος εἰς ἐμφανῆ παρουσίαν. "What then does that word mean, He was sent? Instead of, He shone forth through the flesh. For that sending does not signify a passing from places to places, but a coming from the invisible deity into visible presence."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 18.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 18.

Pag. 131. Quemadmodum. Passiones, ignorantiam, vacuum, et emissiones, in Deum Patrem non cadere rursus confirmat, quod haec mortalium propria sint; Verbi vero divini generatio a prolatione verborum hominum omnium recedat; vitam quoque Dei aliam non esse a mente et essentia ejus. Infert postremo pugnas, quibus inter se more omnium haereticorum digladiabantur, et quasi mutuis caedibus corruebant.

Page 131. Just as. He again confirms that passions, ignorance, vacuum, and emissions do not fall upon God the Father, because these things are proper to mortals; whereas the generation of the divine Word departs from the utterance of the words of all men; and that the life of God also is not other than His mind and essence. Finally he brings in the battles in which after the manner of all heretics they fought with swords among themselves, and collapsed as it were by mutual slaughters.

Sensus emissione. Expunximus « sensu emissionis; » et paulo post, pro « conjuncti sunt in primo, » restituimus « convicti sunt in primo libro, »

By the emission of sense. We have expunged "by the sense of emission;" and a little after, for "they were joined in the first," we have restored "they were convicted in the first book."

Sed quoniam. Refutata prima Aeonum conjugatione ac emissione, qua nugabantur Bythum et Sigen emisisse Nun et Alethiam; nunc secundam coarguit, ostendens passiones ab illis confictas non cadere in Deum, sed hominibus tantum convenire; et Logon non sic emissum a Nu, ut blaterabant. Initium porro capitis decimi noni hic constituit codex manusc. cum infra posito argumento.

But since. Having refuted the first syzygy and emission of the Aeons, whereby they trifled that Bythus and Sige emitted Nous and Aletheia; he now convicts the second, showing that the passions fabricated by them do not fall upon God, but belong to men alone; and that the Logos was not thus emitted by Nous, as they babbled. Moreover, the manuscript codex places the beginning of the nineteenth chapter here, with the summary placed below.

Pag. 132. Et suo verbo. Codices excusi, « et suum verbum; » paulo post quoque « praeponere, » pro « praeparare, » reposuimus.

Page 132. And by his word. The printed editions had, "and his word;" a little after also we have restored "to prefer," for "to prepare."

Peccaverunt autem. Asserit Zoen, id est, vitam Dei non esse sexto loco constituendam in Plenitudine, sed potius primo : nec fingendum extra Deum emissam fuisse, cum ipse sit vita sua. Deinde, sub nomine Dei omnes ejus perfectiones, quales sunt incorruptio, veritas, sapientia, bonitas, etc., cum revera sint ipse Deus, omnino significari et comprehendi. Denique insipientissimorum hominum

Moreover they erred. He asserts that Zoe, that is, the life of God, is not to be placed in the sixth place in the Fulness, but rather in the first: nor is it to be feigned to have been emitted outside God, since He Himself is His own life. Next, that under the name of God all His perfections, such as incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness, etc., since they are in reality God Himself, are altogether signified and comprehended. Finally, that it is the part of most foolish men

Editors' notes and page, col. 1550

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1550
marginal letters: A Pamphilus martyr,; B cidet, » pro; C cum significat,; D gen emisisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 17, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 18

PG 7:1551

esse putare, aut mentem, aut veritatem, aut Verbum Dei aliquo tempore vita caruisse.

to think that either the mind, or the truth, or the Word of God at any time lacked life.

De ea autem. Initium sequentis capitis vigesimi, cum sua epigraphe, hic constituit vetus codex. His autem evertit et eam emissionem, qua dicebant per conjugationem Hominis et Ecclesiae duodecim Aeones prodiisse. Idque facit ex mutuis pugnis et dissidiis Gnosticorum ministrorum, nec in hac re secum, nec cum ipsa veritate convenientium.

Concerning that, moreover. The ancient manuscript places the beginning of the following twentieth chapter, with its title, here. And by these words he overthrows that emission also, whereby they said that through the syzygy of Man and Church twelve Aeons proceeded. And he does this from the mutual battles and dissensions of the ministers of the Gnostics, agreeing neither with themselves in this matter, nor with the truth itself.

Hoc idem et in hujus aevi Gnosticis observandum esse non semel supra notavimus. Hic solum adjicio Tigurinos, in Praefatione apologetica ad Ecclesias Germaniae reformatas, Lutheranis exprobrare, quod inter se nequaquam conveniant de peccato originali, de justificatione, de libero arbitrio, de Evangelio, de lege, de Christi ad inferos descensu, de ipsius persona, de caeremoniis, de filiorum Dei electione ad vitam aeternam, et multis aliis fidei Christianae articulis. Nec injuria exprobrant, quandoquidem sint inter illos, Lutherani alii molles, ut sunt Ienenses, Lipsenses, et Wirtembergenses; alii rigidi, ut Mansfeldenses, Tubingenses, Illyricani. Deinde sunt inter illos Antinomi, Osiandrini, Majoristae, Flacciani, Substantiarii, Accidentarii, Ubiquitarii; qui nullis hactenus colloquiis, nullis principum suorum edictis, nullis exsiliis, nullis denique scriptis potuerunt in concordiam coalescere. Illi iidem Tigurini, in fine Orthodoxi consensus, triginta sententias ex operibus Lutheri citant, de sola eucharistia, quibus probant eum turpiter dissentire ab iis, quae ipsemet alibi scripsit ac docuit. Et ne suspectum sit horum tanquam adversariorum testimonium, aliud Osiandri Lutherani, in confutatione cujusdam scripti Melancthonis, sponte confitentis, viginti discrepantes esse sententias apud solos Confessionistas, de unico justificationis articulo.

That this same thing is to be observed also in the Gnostics of this age, we have noted more than once above. Here I only add that the divines of Zurich, in their Apologetic Preface to the Reformed Churches of Germany, reproach the Lutherans because they by no means agree among themselves concerning original sin, justification, free will, the Gospel, the law, the descent of Christ into hell, His person, ceremonies, the election of the sons of God to eternal life, and many other articles of the Christian faith. Nor do they reproach them without reason, seeing that there are among them some soft Lutherans, as are those of Jena, Leipzig, and Württemberg; others rigid, as those of Mansfeld, Tübingen, and the Flacians. Next there are among them Antinomians, Osiandrians, Majorists, Flacians, Substantiarians, Accidentarians, Ubiquitarians; who by no conferences hitherto, by no edicts of their princes, by no exiles, and finally by no writings have been able to coalesce into concord. Those same divines of Zurich, at the end of the Orthodox Consensus, cite thirty opinions from the works of Luther concerning the Eucharist alone, by which they prove that he shamefully disagrees with those things which he himself wrote and taught elsewhere. And lest the testimony of these men should be suspect as that of adversaries, there is another of Osiander the Lutheran, in his confutation of a certain writing of Melanchthon, willingly confessing that there are twenty discordant opinions among the Confessionists alone concerning the single article of justification.

Ac ne sibi blandiantur Calviniani, quasi secum belle convenirent, initio Dialogorum nostrorum, evicimus Anglicanos a Genevanis quindecim ad minus religionis capitibus palam dissidere; deinde, Calvinum et Bezam plusquam centum locis secum aperte pugnare. Manifestum est omnibus, de unica ista Christi sententia : « Hoc est corpus meum, » octoginta esse inter illos diversas interpretationes; nec unquam inficias ire poterunt, Vermilium a Beza in colloquio Pissiacensi dissensisse. Certe de baptizandis pueris adulterinis, usurpandisque nominibus Trinitatis ac personarum consubstantialium, contraria et pugnantia decernunt Poloni et Genevani. De omnipotentia Dei aliter sentiunt Heidelbergenses et Sabaudi. De descensu Christi ad inferos, de veterum Patrum limbo, voce substantialiter admittenda, et aliis multis Tigurini et Genevani non conveniunt. Et quorsum tot diversae fidei confessiones, ut Tigurina, Genevana, Bezana, Gallica, Belgica, Anglica, in dies cuduntur et recuduntur, si unica est inter eos fides ac religio? Quot quibusque probris sese onerant et traducunt in Anglia Puritani et pseudoepiscopi? etc. Qui plura de his desiderat, consulere poterit Staphylum, Lindani tabulas, Jurgiewicium libro De bello quinti Evangelii, et collectam a Rescio Ministromachiam. Nos his paucis contenti sumus patefecisse, Hugnosticos nunc non minus inter se pugnare atque digladiari in paradoxis suis affirmandis, quam olim parentes eorum Gnostici mutuo dissenserunt.

And lest the Calvinists should flatter themselves, as though they agreed finely with one another, at the beginning of our Dialogues we proved that the Anglicans openly disagree with the Genevans in at least fifteen heads of religion; next, that Calvin and Beza openly conflict with each other in more than a hundred passages. It is manifest to all that concerning that single saying of Christ: "This is My body (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19)," there are eighty diverse interpretations among them; nor will they ever be able to deny that Vermigli disagreed with Beza at the Colloquy of Poissy. Certainly concerning the baptizing of bastard children, and the using of the names of the Trinity and of the consubstantial persons, the Poles and the Genevans decree contrary and conflicting things. Concerning the omnipotence of God those of Heidelberg and those of Savoy think differently. Concerning the descent of Christ into hell, the limbo of the ancient Fathers, the admission of the word "substantially," and many other things, those of Zurich and those of Geneva do not agree. And to what purpose are so many diverse confessions of faith, as that of Zurich, of Geneva, of Beza, the French, the Belgian, the English, daily forged and reforged, if there is one single faith and religion among them? With how many and what reproaches do the Puritans and pseudo-bishops load and traduce one another in England? etc. Whoever desires more concerning these things will be able to consult Staphylus, the tables of Lindanus, Jurgiewicz in his book On the War of the Fifth Gospel, and the Ministromachia collected by Rescius. We are content with these few words to have laid open that the Huguenot-Gnostics now fight and cross swords among themselves no less in affirming their paradoxes than their parents the Gnostics mutually disagreed of old.

Pugnant adversus invicem. Mutuas haereticorum pugnas, tropaea Ecclesiae catholicae ultro parare, alias adnotavimus, fidemque rectam illustrari et confirmari illorum conflictationibus. Nam cum haereses pleraeque, ex incauta alterius haereseos evitatione et insectatione oboriantur, ut de Ario apparet, qui Sabellii personas confundentis odio, in naturae distractionem incidit; et Eutyche, qui Nestorii errorem

They fight against one another. That the mutual battles of heretics of their own accord prepare trophies for the Catholic Church, we have noted elsewhere, and that the right faith is illustrated and confirmed by their conflicts. For since most heresies arise from the incautious avoidance and attacking of another heresy, as appears in the case of Arius, who out of hatred of Sabellius confounding the persons, fell into a severing of the nature; and Eutyches, who fleeing the error of Nestorius,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1551

Footnotes

(99) ‹anchor: Hoc est corpus meum› · call in col 1551

Matth. XXVI, 26; Marc. XIV, 22; Luc. XXII, 19.

Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.

(printed under page 784)

Page

running head: 1551 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A esse putare,; B nenses, Lipsenses,; C nus religionis; D his desiderat,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: esse putare; word split at end of column: er-[rorem]
other: the word errorem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1552

PG 7:1552

fugiens, in naturarum confusionem incurrit; hinc fit, ut cum ingenio, eloquentia, et linguarum peritia aliquando valeant; in ea parte, qua adversam haeresim impugnant et orthodoxam fidem sequuntur, optimam et utilissimam operam navent Ecclesiae. Haec abunde explicat Vigilius martyr libro secundo et quarto Contra Eutychen; et non raro noster Irenaeus.

ran into a confusion of the natures; hence it comes to pass that since they sometimes excel in talent, eloquence, and skill in languages, in that part in which they impugn the opposing heresy and follow the orthodox faith, they render the best and most useful service to the Church. Vigilius the martyr abundantly explains these things in his second and fourth books Against Eutyches; and not rarely our Irenaeus.

Generationes intentionum. Quatuor has voces ex veter. codic. addidimus, expunximus « generationis. »

Generations of intentions. We have added these four words from the ancient manuscript, and expunged "of generation."

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 18.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 18.

Pag. 132. Lationem prolativi hominum verbi, etc. Ad hos haereticos quoque quadrat, quod de aliis ait Origenes tom. I Comment. in Joannem, pag. 24 : οἰόμενοι προφορὰν πατρικὴν, οἱονεὶ ἐν συλλαβαῖς κειμένην εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, « existimantes Filium Dei esse paternam prolationem, quasi in syllabis positam. »

Page 132. The utterance of the spoken word of men, etc. To these heretics also applies what Origen says concerning others in vol. I of his Commentary on John, page 24: οἰόμενοι προφορὰν πατρικὴν, οἱονεὶ ἐν συλλαβαῖς κειμένην εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, "supposing the Son of God to be a paternal utterance, as it were set in syllables."

Transferunt in Dei aeternum Verbum, et prolationis initium donantes, etc. Bene notanda Irenaei sententia de aeternitate Filii Dei, nullum habentis initium, e diametro Arianorum haeresi adversa.

They transfer to the eternal Word of God, bestowing also a beginning of utterance, etc. Well to be noted is the opinion of Irenaeus concerning the eternity of the Son of God, having no beginning, diametrically opposed to the heresy of the Arians.

Imo magis ipse Deus, cum sit Verbum. Hic ὁμοούσιον Verbi sive Filii Dei aperte statuit Irenaeus, et ad Joan. I, 1, alludit.

Nay rather, God Himself, since He is the Word. Here Irenaeus openly establishes the ὁμοούσιον of the Word or Son of God, and alludes to John 1:1.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 19.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardentius on ch. 19.

Pag. 133. Multo verisimilius. Quia malos fures superiori capite Gnosticos vocarat, furta illorum a tredecim philosophorum scriptis, isto fusissime retegit : in quibus nihilominus multo plura rectius tradita esse, quam in haereticorum libris, pronuntiat. Utrumque frequenter et Tertullianus libro Contra Hermogenem, dum « philosophos haereticorum patriarchas » appellat; et libro Praescriptionum : « Haeraeses a philosophia subornantur, inde Aeones, et formae nescio quae, et trinitas hominis apud Valentinum, Platonicus fuerat. Inde Marcionis Deus de tranquillitate, a Stoicis venerat. Et uti anima interire videatur, ab Epicureis observatur. Et ut carnis restitutio negetur, de una omnium philosophorum schola sumitur. Et ubi materia cum Deo aequatur, Zenonis disciplina est. Et ubi de igneo Deo allegatur, Heraclitus intervenit. Eaedem materiae apud haereticos et philosophos volutantur, iidem retractatus implicantur. » Et paulo post idem vetustissimus theologus ita scribit : « Quid Athenis et Jerosolymis? quid academiae et Ecclesiae? quid haereticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Salomonis est, » etc. Idem rursus alibi : Discede ab ethnico, haeretice; redde illi suos sensus, quia nec ille de tuis instruitur. Quid caeco duci inniteris, si vides? quid vestiris a nudo, si Christum induisti? quid alieno uteris clypeo, si ab Apostolo armatus es? » etc.

Page 133. Much more probably. Because in the preceding chapter he had called the Gnostics evil thieves, in this one he uncovers most at length their thefts from the writings of thirteen philosophers: in which nevertheless he pronounces that many more things were handed down more rightly than in the books of the heretics. Both points Tertullian also frequently makes, in his book Against Hermogenes, while he calls "the philosophers the patriarchs of the heretics;" and in the book On Prescriptions: "Heresies are suborned by philosophy; thence the Aeons, and I know not what forms, and the trinity of man in Valentinus—he had been a Platonist. Thence Marcion's tranquil God had come from the Stoics. And that the soul seems to perish is observed from the Epicureans. And that the restoration of the flesh is denied is taken from the one school of all the philosophers. And where matter is made equal with God, it is the teaching of Zeno. And where something is alleged concerning a fiery God, Heraclitus comes in. The same matters are revolved among heretics and philosophers, the same reconsiderations are entangled." And a little after the same most ancient theologian writes thus: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction is from the porch of Solomon," etc. The same author again elsewhere: "Depart from the pagan, O heretic; restore to him his own thoughts, since neither is he instructed from yours. Why do you lean upon a blind guide, if you see? Why are you clothed by a naked man, if you have put on Christ? Why do you use another's shield, if you have been armed by the Apostle?" etc.

Nequaquam tamen putandum vel Irenaeum, vel alios quosvis sanctos ac veteres theologos studia prohibere aut damnare philosophica; cum et ipsi peritisssimi et acutissimi fuerint philosophi, probeque noverint disciplinas liberales ad caeterarum disquisitionem et tractationem necessarias et commodissimas esse : sed hoc in istis coarguunt et vituperant, quod artibus illis abuterentur ad subvertendam et opprimendam veritatem, quibus eam tutari et propagare debuissent. Sic et Paulus eos severe increpat, « qui veritatem Dei in injustitia detinent, et cum cognoverunt Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, » etc. Studia porro philosophica et humaniora impense commendant Clemens in Strom., Basilius epistola ad nepotes, Hieronymus epistola ad Magnum.

Yet by no means is it to be thought that either Irenaeus, or any other holy and ancient theologians, prohibit or condemn philosophical studies; since they themselves also were most skilled and acute philosophers, and well knew that the liberal disciplines are necessary and most serviceable for the investigation and handling of the rest: but this they convict and blame in those men, that they abused those arts for subverting and oppressing the truth, by which they ought to have defended and propagated it. Thus Paul also severely rebukes those "who hold down the truth of God in unrighteousness, and when they knew God, glorified Him not as God (Rom. 1:18)," etc. Moreover, Clement in the Stromata, Basil in his epistle to his nephews, and Jerome in his epistle to Magnus earnestly commend philosophical and humane studies.

Antiphanes. Ejus nominis varios refert Suidas, sed nulli eorum Theogoniae descriptionem tribuit. Oportet igitur vel Antiphanem hunc poetam illum

Antiphanes. Suidas recounts various men of that name, but attributes the composition of a Theogony to none of them. This Antiphanes, therefore, must either be that poet

Editors' notes and page, col. 1552

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Idem rursus alibi› · call in col 1552

Lib. de resur.

Book On the Resurrection [of the Flesh].

(printed under page 784)

(2) ‹anchor: severe increpat› · call in col 1552

Rom. I, 18.

Romans 1:18.

(printed under page 784)

Page

running head: RIORUM NOTAE 1552
marginal letters: A rorem fugiens,; B initium donantes,; C anima interire; D peritisssimi et
old-edition numerals: 92 before Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 18, Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 19; word split at beginning of column: [er-]rorem

PG 7:1553

esse, cujus epigrammata exstant in Florilegio Planudis, et frequentes sententiae apud Athenaeum et Stobaeum; quique natus Olympiade XCIII, comoedias 365, aut, ut alii volunt, 290 scripsisse, terdecies vicisse, atque in Chio obiisse fertur, annos natus 74. Vel certe pro Antiphane, contra omnium codicum fidem, legendum esset Hesiodus, quod Epiphanius indicare videtur de Valentino ita locutus : « Imitator Hesiodi Theogoniae, qui ut fabulosa gentium poesi mundo illusit; sic et Valentinus aliis nominibus in alia transmutatis mundum decipere voluit, Hesiodum habens opinionis suae fundatorem. » Hesiodum certe post Orpheum asseruisse chaos omnium esse rerum principium, ex ejusdem verbis copiose satis probat Eugubinus lib. I, capit. 10, De perenni philosoph. Lactantius scribit : « Homerus nil nobis dare potuit, quod pertineat ad veritatem. Potuit Hesiodus, sed tamen nil dedit; non a Deo conditore sumens exordium, sed a chao; cum explanare ante debuerit chaos ipse unde, quando, quomodo esse coepisset, » etc.

whose epigrams are extant in the Anthology of Planudes, and frequent maxims in Athenaeus and Stobaeus; and who, born in the 93rd Olympiad, is related to have written 365 comedies, or, as others will have it, 290, to have won thirteen times, and to have died in Chios at the age of 74. Or else certainly for Antiphanes, against the authority of all the manuscripts, there would have to be read Hesiod, which Epiphanius seems to indicate when speaking thus of Valentinus: "An imitator of the Theogony of Hesiod, who just as he mocked the world with the fabulous poetry of the Gentiles, so Valentinus also, transmuting some names into others, wished to deceive the world, having Hesiod as the founder of his opinion." That Hesiod certainly after Orpheus asserted that chaos is the first principle of all things, Eugubinus proves copiously enough from his words in book I, ch. 10, On Perennial Philosophy. Lactantius writes: "Homer could give us nothing that pertains to the truth. Hesiod could have, and yet gave nothing; taking his beginning not from God the Creator, but from chaos; whereas he ought first to have explained whence, when, and how chaos itself had begun to be," etc.

Pleroma, Matris. Codices excusi, « Pleromatis. »

The Pleroma, of the Mother. The printed editions had, "of the Pleroma."

Thales. Unus fuit ex sapientibus illis septem, qui eodem tempore in Graecia floruerunt, id est anno mundi 3366, si Hebraeorum supputationi credimus; sin Theophili Alexand., 5035, Olympiade XLIII, quo tempore in Babylonem Judaei captivi, eversa Jerosolyma, abducebantur. Id vero docuisse de rerum principiis, quae hic habet Irenaeus, magno consensu scripserunt Justinus, Eusebius, Lactantius, lib. I, cap. 5; August. VIII De civitat., cap. 2. Thaletis conjecturas affert Plutarchus in Placitis, quod semen omnium animantium humidum sit, nec alimentum sine humido constet, quin et astra ipsa putabat humoribus Oceani vegetari. Putarem ego vel traditione quadam, vel lectione librorum Moysis, aut certe oraculis Sibyllinis, quaedam de rerum creatione illos tenuisse, de qua dicitur : « Spiritus ferebatur super aquas; » et : « Producant aquae reptile. »

Thales. He was one of those seven wise men who flourished at the same time in Greece, that is, in the year of the world 3366, if we believe the computation of the Hebrews; but if that of Theophilus of Alexandria, 5035, in the 43rd Olympiad, at which time the captive Jews, after Jerusalem had been overthrown, were being led away to Babylon. And that he taught concerning the first principles of things what Irenaeus has here, Justin, Eusebius, Lactantius, book I, ch. 5, and Augustine, book VIII On the City of God, ch. 2, have written with great consensus. Plutarch in the Opinions brings forward the conjectures of Thales, that the seed of all living beings is moist, nor does nourishment subsist without moisture, nay, he thought that the stars themselves are invigorated by the vapours of the Ocean. I should think that either by some tradition, or by the reading of the books of Moses, or certainly by the Sibylline oracles, they held certain things concerning the creation of things, of which it is said: "The Spirit was borne upon the waters (Gen. 1:2);" and: "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature (Gen. 1:20)."

Homerus. A caecitate id nomen consecutus est, cum prius Melesigetes diceretur. Patriam illius indicare operosum est, cum septem Graeciae urbes eum sibi certatim vindicent. Colophonii civem suum dicunt, Chii sibi vindicant, Salamini repetunt, Smyrnenses suum esse confirmant. Exstat de ea re distichon hoc apud Gellium :

Homer. From blindness he obtained that name, whereas previously he was called Melesigenes. To point out his native land is a laborious matter, since seven cities of Greece vie with one another in claiming him for themselves. The Colophonians say he is their citizen, the Chians claim him for themselves, the Salaminians demand him back, the Smyrnaeans confirm that he is theirs. There is extant on that matter this distich in Gellius:

Ἑπτὰ πόλεις διερίζουσι περὶ ῥίζαν Ὁμήρου·

Seven cities contend about the root of Homer:

Σμύρνα, Ῥόδος, Κολοφὼν, Σαλαμὶν, Χιός, Ἄργος, Ἀθῆναι.

Smyrna, Rhodes, Colophon, Salamis, Chios, Argos, Athens.

Id est :

That is:

Septem urbes certant de stirpe insignis Homeri,

Seven cities contend concerning the stock of illustrious Homer,

Smyrna, Rhodos, Colophon, Salamin, Chius, Argos, Athenae.

Smyrna, Rhodes, Colophon, Salamis, Chios, Argos, Athens.

Multo minus de aetate ejus conveniunt, cum novem ea de re pugnantes referat sententias Clemens Alexand. primo Stromatωn. Sententiam porro ejus de Oceano mari, praeter superiores auctores, referunt etiam Theophilus Antioch. lib. II Ad Autolycum, et Athenagoras Apologia pro Christianis; ubi et Orpheum hac in re sequens, non amplius quam 400 annis ante se illum vixisse affirmat.

Much less do they agree concerning his age, since Clement of Alexandria in the first book of the Stromata relates nine conflicting opinions on that matter. Moreover, his opinion concerning the Ocean sea, besides the preceding authors, Theophilus of Antioch also relates in book II To Autolycus, and Athenagoras in the Apology for the Christians; where, following Orpheus also in this matter, he affirms that he lived not more than 400 years before himself.

Anaximander. Thaletis auditor, et ejusdem patriae fuit, quo sublato, ut nomine proprio sectam constitueret, multo absurdiora est commentatus; videlicet ipsum infinitum causam esse generationis et corruptionis omnium. « Ex ipso namque, ait, coelos segregatos, caeterosque mundos infinitos, » et alia plura, quae fusius descripserunt Plutarchus et Laertius; ex sacris Eusebius, et Justinus martyr

Anaximander. He was a hearer of Thales, and of the same native city; after whose removal, in order to establish a sect under his own name, he devised much more absurd things; namely, that the infinite itself is the cause of the generation and corruption of all things. "For out of it," he says, "the heavens were separated off, and the other infinite worlds," and many other things, which Plutarch and Laertius have described more at length; and among sacred writers Eusebius, and Justin Martyr

Editors' notes and page, col. 1553

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1553 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. i, cap. 5.

Book 1, chapter 5.

(printed under page 785)

(4) ‹anchor: ferebatur super aquas› · call in col 1553

Gen. I, 2.

Genesis 1:2.

(printed under page 785)

(5) ‹anchor: Producant aquae reptile› · call in col 1553

Ibid., 20.

Ibid., verse 20.

(printed under page 785)

(6) ‹anchor: ex sacris Eusebius› · call in col 1553

Lib. i de Praep., cap. 5, et lib. xiv, cap. 5.

Preparation [for the Gospel], book 1, chapter 5, and book 14, chapter 5.

(printed under page 785)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1553 or 1554 (UNSURE: call outside the rendered area)

Lib. xviii de Civit., cap. 41.

City of God, book 18, chapter 41.

(printed under page 785)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1553 or 1554 (UNSURE: call outside the rendered area)

Lib. xiv de Praep., cap. 5.

Preparation [for the Gospel], book 14, chapter 5.

(printed under page 785)

Page

running head: 1553 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A esse, cujus; B cum explanare; C ferebatur super; D ea de re
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: esse, cujus epigrammata; Stromatωn printed with Greek omega; word split at end of column: mar-[tyr]
other: the reading gave its source paragraphs and their English as runs; paired in order on receipt: check the pairing
other: the word martyr was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1554

PG 7:1554

Oratione ad Graecos, Augustin. VIII De civit., cap. 2.

in the Oration to the Greeks, and Augustine, book VIII On the City of God, ch. 2.

Anaxagoras. Clazomenius fuit, Anaximenis auditor, Socratis et Euripidis praeceptor, Olympiade LXX, cum Xerxes in Graeciam trajecit, genere, divitiis et philosophia clarissimus. Docebat autem, solem candens ferrum esse, Peloponeso majorem, hoc universum ita ex parvis similium partium corporibus compositum, ut aurum ex minutissimis ramentis constat; animantesque primo ex humore, calore, terraque manasse, postea ex invicem natas esse, mares a dextris, feminas a sinistris, ut scribit Laertius, cui post Aristotelem etiam astipulatur Justinus martyr Orat. ad Graecos. Cur vero ἄθεος et irreligiosus nominaretur ab Irenaeo aliquantulum haesi, quod non consentiret vet. cod., quodque Mentem divinam omnia composuisse docuisset, quod atheus non dixisset. At quae subjicit Laertius, nodum solvunt, videlicet, ipsum a Cleone impietatis accusatum, quod solem laminam candentem, vel ut Augustino placet, lapidem ardentem, non Deum esse diceret : ideoque « quia non solem, sed Creatorem solis venerabatur, » addit Eusebius, « parum abfuit, quin sit ab Atheniensibus lapidibus obrutus. » His accedit Plutarchus, qui Euripidem deos gentium, Areopagitarum formidine, inficiari per se non audentem, Sisyphum et Anaxagoram id praestantes recensere fecit. Luciani etiam Timon Jovem fulmina in Anaxagorae caput ejaculatum dicit, quod familiaribus suasisset, nullo pacto esse illos, qui dii vocarentur. His adde Velleium apud Ciceronem De natura deorum, sententiam Anaxagorae istis verbis referentem : « Anaxagoras primus omnium rerum descriptionem et mundum Mentis infinitae vi ac ratione designari et confici dicit; » Platonem denique in Cratylo, justum et pium judicantem, quod Anaxagoras Mentem ex se omnipotentem cuncta condidisse docuerit, etc. Ergo non Irenaei, sed quorumdam ethnicorum aemulorum judicio Anaxagoras ἄθεος nuncupatur.

Anaxagoras. He was of Clazomenae, a hearer of Anaximenes, the preceptor of Socrates and Euripides, in the 70th Olympiad, when Xerxes crossed over into Greece, most illustrious in birth, riches, and philosophy. Now he taught that the sun is glowing iron, larger than the Peloponnese, and that this universe is so composed out of small bodies of like parts as gold consists of the tiniest particles; and that living beings first sprang from moisture, heat, and earth, and afterwards were born from one another, males on the right, females on the left, as Laertius writes, with whom after Aristotle Justin Martyr also agrees in the Oration to the Greeks. Why, however, he was named ἄθεος and irreligious by Irenaeus, I hesitated a little, because the ancient manuscript did not agree, and because he had taught that the divine Mind put all things together, which an atheist would not have said. But what Laertius subjoins unties the knot, namely, that he was accused of impiety by Cleon because he said that the sun is a glowing plate, or as pleases Augustine, a burning stone, not a god: and therefore "because he venerated not the sun, but the Creator of the sun," adds Eusebius, "he came near being overwhelmed with stones by the Athenians." To these is added Plutarch, who states that Euripides, not daring by himself to deny the gods of the nations out of dread of the Areopagites, made Sisyphus and Anaxagoras set this forth. Lucian's Timon also says that Jupiter hurled thunderbolts at the head of Anaxagoras because he had persuaded his intimates that those who were called gods do not exist at all. To these add Velleius in Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, relating the opinion of Anaxagoras in these words: "Anaxagoras first says that the arrangement of all things and the world are designed and fashioned by the power and reason of an infinite Mind;" and finally Plato in the Cratylus, judging it just and pious that Anaxagoras taught that a Mind omnipotent of itself founded all things, etc. Therefore not by the judgement of Irenaeus, but by that of certain pagan rivals, is Anaxagoras called ἄθεος.

Pag. 134. Hoc autem. Gnosticos arguit Irenaeus, quia post philosophos, mundi fabricatorem mundum ipsum ex subjecta materia fecisse, dicerent : quod et ante eum fecerant Theophilus Antioch. eo nomine Platonicos damnans; simul et Justinus, Platonem nominatim reum agens, quod Deum non ποιητήν, id est factorem, sed δημιουργόν, id est conditorem, qui condendi facultatem a materia habuisset, asserebat. Hos secutus Tertullianus, toto orationis impetu, eamdem sententiam amplexantem Hermogenem obruit, materiam illam affirmans ignotam esse prophetis, apostolis, imo et ipsi Christo. His accedit et Eusebius, adductis sententiis Dionysii Alex., Origenis, et Maximi, illos absque scelere non esse pronuntians, qui materiam primam ad fictionem totius, Deo subjiciunt.

Page 134. Now this. Irenaeus convicts the Gnostics because after the philosophers they said that the fashioner of the world made the world itself out of underlying matter: which before him Theophilus of Antioch had also done, condemning the Platonists on that account; and at the same time Justin, expressly arraigning Plato because he asserted that God is not ποιητήν, that is, Maker, but δημιουργόν, that is, fashioner, who had the faculty of fashioning from matter. Following these, Tertullian with the whole force of his speech overwhelmed Hermogenes, who embraced the same opinion, affirming that that matter was unknown to the prophets, the apostles, nay, even to Christ Himself. To these is added Eusebius also, adducing the opinions of Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, and Maximus, pronouncing that those men are not without guilt who subject prime matter to God for the fashioning of the whole.

Contra vero nihil frequentius nunc audiunt theologorum scholae, quam Deum ex materia informi corporea omnia condidisse; in eamque sententiam pedibus et manibus feruntur Dionysius Areop., Tatianus, Lactantius, Augustinus, Theodoretus.

On the other hand, however, the schools of the theologians now hear nothing more frequently than that God founded all corporeal things out of formless matter; and into that opinion Dionysius the Areopagite, Tatian, Lactantius, Augustine, and Theodoret go with hands and feet.

Conciliabuntur autem facile, si materiam illam Deo non esse coaeternam, nec ingenitam, ut cum philosophis Hermogenes volebat, nec ex Achamoth Aeonis errantis commentatione ortam, cum Gnosticis dixeris; sed a Deo opt. max. ex nihilo aliquando creatam, indeque formarum adjectione, omnia ab eodem condita fuisse cum Patribus senseris : quod non obscure indicat Irenaeus cap. 10 et 11 hujus libri.

Yet they will easily be reconciled, if you say that that matter is neither co-eternal with God, nor unbegotten, as Hermogenes with the philosophers held, nor sprung from the contrivance of the wandering Aeon Achamoth, with the Gnostics; but hold with the Fathers that it was at some time created out of nothing by God Most Good, Most Great, and that thence by the addition of forms all things were founded by the same: which Irenaeus indicates not obscurely in ch. 10 and 11 of this book.

Hi qui ex Porticu. Zeno horum princeps nomen Zenoniorum principio sectae dederat; at cum in

Those who are from the Porch. Zeno, their leader, had at first given the name of Zenonians to the sect; but since they

Editors' notes and page, col. 1554

Footnotes

(7) ‹anchor: Augustino placet› · call in col 1554

Lib. xviii de Civit., cap. 41.

City of God, book 18, chapter 41.

(printed under page 785)

(8) ‹anchor: addit Eusebius› · call in col 1554

Lib. xiv de Praep., cap. 5.

Preparation [for the Gospel], book 14, chapter 5.

(printed under page 785)

(9) ‹anchor: Theophilus Antioch.› · call in col 1554

Libr. ii ad Autolycum.

To Autolycus, book 2.

(printed under page 785)

(10) ‹anchor: simul et Justinus› · call in col 1554

Orat. ad Graecos.

Oration to the Greeks.

(printed under page 785)

(11) ‹anchor: accedit et Eusebius› · call in col 1554

Lib. vii de Praep., cap. 8.

Preparation [for the Gospel], book 7, chapter 8.

(printed under page 785)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1554
marginal letters: A tyr Oratione; B Augustino placet; C dicio Anaxagoras; D formi corporea
old-edition numerals: 93 before Pag. 134.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tyr Oratione ad Graecos; word split at beginning of column: [mar-]tyr

PG 7:1555

porticum, quae Graecis στοὰ dicitur, frequentius ad disserendum convenirent, Stoica secta nuncupata est; quam etiam ad tempora B. Pauli durasse, ex Actorum libro certum est, quando concioni illius de resurrectione, Athenis sese opposuerunt. Inter horum paradoxa refert Laertius, quod unum Deum docerent, ipsumque Mentem, et Fatum, et Jovem, variis quoque aliis nominibus appellarent; partes quoque omnia penetrantes haberet, ob idque Graecis Δία vocari, quod in aethere distentum sit imperium ejus; Ἥραν vero, quod in aere; Ἥφαιστον, quod in artificiali igne; Ποσειδῶνα, quod in humore; Δημητράν, quod in terra. Laertio subscribit Euseb. lib. XIV De praepar., cap. 6, et lib. XV, cap. 14. Adversus horum fatalem necessitatem, cui etiam Deum subjectum volebant, disserit Epiphan. contra haeresim quintam; et eo longe antiquior Justinus martyr Apol. 1, et infra non semel Irenaeus.

met more frequently for disputing in the porch, which by the Greeks is called στοὰ, it was called the Stoic sect; which also lasted until the times of Blessed Paul, as is certain from the book of Acts (Acts 17:18), when they opposed themselves at Athens to his discourse concerning the resurrection. Among their paradoxes Laertius relates that they taught one God, and called Him Mind, and Fate, and Jupiter, and by various other names also; and that He had parts penetrating all things, and on that account was called by the Greeks Δία, because His dominion is extended in the ether; Ἥραν, because in the air; Ἥφαιστον, because in artificial fire; Ποσειδῶνα, because in moisture; Δημητράν, because in the earth. Eusebius subscribes to Laertius in book XIV On the Preparation, ch. 6, and book XV, ch. 14. Against their fatal necessity, to which they wished even God to be subject, discourses Epiphanius against the fifth heresy; and long before him Justin Martyr, Apology 1, and below more than once Irenaeus.

Non extra Hesiodi. Hesiodus, libro qui inscribitur Opera et dies, Pandoram fingit omnium primam mulierem, Vulcani artificio, Jovis autem jussione fabricatam; quam singuli dii donis suis ornaverunt, Pallas sapientiae, Venus formae, Apollo musices, Mercurius eloquentiae, indeque Pandoram dictam, quasi omnium donum, vel ab omnibus donatam, vel omnium rerum genere dotatam. Hujus fabulae commentationem eleganter accommodat Nazianzenus adversus mulieres sese ambitiosius excolentes. Perstringit et Fulgentius libro secundo Mythologiarum.

Not outside Hesiod's. Hesiod, in the book which is entitled Works and Days, feigns Pandora to be the first woman of all, fashioned by the workmanship of Vulcan, and by the command of Jupiter; whom the individual gods adorned with their gifts, Pallas with that of wisdom, Venus of beauty, Apollo of music, Mercury of eloquence, and that thence she was called Pandora, as being the gift of all, or gifted by all, or endowed with every kind of thing. Nazianzen elegantly adapts the fiction of this fable against women who adorn themselves too ambitiously. Fulgentius also touches upon it in the second book of his Mythologies.

Pandoron. Ita ex vet. cod. reposuimus; « Pandoram » expunximus.

Pandoron. Thus we have restored from the ancient manuscript; we have expunged "Pandoram."

A Cynicis. Antisthenis sectatores hoc nomine vocati fuerunt, sive a Cynosarge gymnasio; sive a canina mordacitate, qua nec diis, nec hominibus parcebant : aut, ut alii volunt, ab eo, quod canum more in propatulo coire non dubitarent, sicut de Crate et Hipparchia tradit Laertius, qui et Diogenem mulieres communes esse oportere, nihilque iniquum quodvis gustare animal, nec injustum humanis vesci carnibus, asseruisse scribit. Perstringit et Nazianzenus Diogenis helluationes, et Cratetis de matrimoniorum communitate sententiam. Immunditia impudentiae suae, qua naturali verecundiae reluctabantur, Cynicos nuncupatos affirmat quoque August. lib. De nupt. et concup., cap. 22, quos et patronos libidinis vocat lib. IV Contra Julianum Pelag. Gnosticorum porro immunditias retulit Irenaeus, lib. I, c. 1, 8, 9, 20, 23, 24 et 32.

From the Cynics. The followers of Antisthenes were called by this name, either from the gymnasium Cynosarges; or from their canine biting, whereby they spared neither gods nor men: or, as others will have it, from the fact that after the manner of dogs they did not hesitate to copulate in public, as Laertius relates of Crates and Hipparchia, who also writes that Diogenes asserted that women ought to be common, and that it is no wrong to taste any animal whatever, nor unjust to feed on human flesh. Nazianzen also censures the gluttonies of Diogenes, and the opinion of Crates concerning the community of marriages. That they were called Cynics from the uncleanness of their impudence, whereby they struggled against natural modesty, Augustine also affirms in the book On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 22, and calls them patrons of lust in book IV Against Julian the Pelagian. Moreover, Irenaeus related the uncleannesses of the Gnostics in book I, ch. 1, 8, 9, 20, 23, 24, and 32.

Et minutiloquium. « Multiloquium et subtilitatem » habet cod. vet. Aristotelem suis assertionibus, ob subtilitatem, fidem ab omnibus haberi voluisse, et suae eloquentiae plus aequo confisum, omnibus aliis philosophis bellum indixisse, ante Irenaeum Justinus quoque notaverat. Καὶ περὶ τούτων (ait Orat. ad Graecos) πιστεύεται ἑαυτὸν, διὰ δοκιμότητα φράσεως, ἀξιῶν. Queritur et Nazianzenus, « quod artium Aristotelis pravum artificium, et Platonicae eloquentiae praestigiae, ut Aegyptiacae plagae, in Ecclesiam irrepserint. » Orat. de moderatione in disputationibus servanda. Damnat quoque Theodorus presbyter Severum haereticum, quod « eum solum agnosceret praestantissimum theologum, qui scite se exercuisset in Aristotelicis categoriis, et reliqua supellectile externorum a Christo philosophorum. »

And minuteness of speech. The ancient manuscript has "loquacity and subtlety." That Aristotle wished credence to be given by all to his assertions on account of their subtlety, and trusting more than was right in his own eloquence, declared war upon all other philosophers, Justin had also noted before Irenaeus. Καὶ περὶ τούτων (he says in the Oration to the Greeks) πιστεύεται ἑαυτὸν, διὰ δοκιμότητα φράσεως, ἀξιῶν. Nazianzen also complains "that the perverse artifice of the arts of Aristotle, and the juggleries of Platonic eloquence, have crept into the Church like the plagues of Egypt," in his Oration on Preserving Moderation in Disputations. Theodore the presbyter also condemns the heretic Severus, because "he acknowledged him alone as the most eminent theologian, who had skilfully exercised himself in the Aristotelian categories, and the rest of the furniture of the philosophers alien from Christ."

A Pythagoricis. Ante Irenaeum Justinus : « Pythagoras Samius, ait, Mnesarchi filius, arbitratur principium, numeros, et mensuras, et horum concinnitates, elementaque ex utrisque composita : praeterea unitatem, et infinitam dyada. » De his et Laertius fusissime.

From the Pythagoreans. Before Irenaeus, Justin says: "Pythagoras the Samian, the son of Mnesarchus, holds as the first principle numbers, and measures, and the harmonies of these, and the elements composed out of both: moreover unity, and the indefinite dyad." Concerning these things Laertius also treats most at length.

Pag. 135. Dicemus autem. Initium est capitis 22

Page 135. And we shall say. This is the beginning of chapter 22

Editors' notes and page, col. 1555

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1555 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Lib. vii.

Book 7.

(printed under page 786)

(13) ‹anchor: tradit Laertius› · call in col 1555

Lib. vi.

Book 6.

(printed under page 786)

(14) ‹anchor: Perstringit et Nazianzenus› · call in col 1555

Orat. in laudem Heronis.

Oration in praise of Hero.

(printed under page 786)

(15) ‹anchor: Severum haereticum› · call in col 1555

Isagoge in Anastasium Antiochenum.

Introduction to Anastasius of Antioch.

(printed under page 786)

(16) ‹anchor: Ante Irenaeum Justinus› · call in col 1555

Orat. ad Graecos

Oration to the Greeks.

(printed under page 786)

Page

running head: 1555 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A porticum, quae; B tur Opera; C Crate et; D nus, « quod
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: porticum, quae Graecis

PG 7:1556

in vet. cod. cum argumento infra ibidem posito.

in the ancient manuscript, with the summary placed in the same place below.

Cognitio, habere. Vet. cod., « habere gloriam iniquam; » — « cognitionem habere, » legendum censerem, etsi nulli consentiant codices.

Knowledge, to have. The ancient manuscript has, "to have unjust glory;" — I should judge that "to have knowledge" ought to be read, although no manuscripts agree.

Per pithanologiam. Id est suadelam, vimque quamdam alliciendi suadendique.

Through pithanologia. That is, persuasiveness, and a certain power of alluring and persuading.

Reliquarum emissionum. Expunximus « reliquorum » auct. vet. cod.

Of the remaining emissions. We have expunged "of the remaining" (masculine/neuter), on the authority of the ancient manuscript.

Frustra autem, et prout evenit. Billius observat hanc loquendi formam huic auctori frequentem esse, cui haec Graeca respondent, εικὴ δὲ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε. Paulo post, ejusdem judicio, « Ainon » reposuimus, pro « Aeonon. »

In vain, moreover, and as it happened. Billius observes that this form of speaking is frequent in this author, to which these Greek words correspond, εικὴ δὲ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε. A little after, in the judgement of the same, we have restored "Ainon" for "Aeonon."

Et quemadmodum periclitata est perire. Similis locutio Jonae I, 4, « et navis periclitabatur conteri, » καὶ πλοῖον ἐκινδύνευσε τοῦ συντριβῆναι. Hebr , « navis cogitabat conteri, » id est, periculum erat, ne contereretur. Ita et Quintilianus, « periclitatur rumpi. »

And how she was in danger of perishing. A similar expression in Jonah 1:4, "and the ship was in danger of being broken to pieces," καὶ πλοῖον ἐκινδύνευσε τοῦ συντριβῆναι. In Hebrew, "the ship thought to be broken to pieces," that is, there was danger lest it should be broken to pieces. Thus Quintilian also, "is in danger of bursting."

Pag. 136. Duodecim dii ipsorum. De his strictim Lactantius lib. I, cap. 15, et eum secutus August. in Civitate Dei, ex Varrone. Dii majorum gentium vocantur a Cicerone, qui ad imitationem reipublicae Romanae (cui duodecim Patres Romulus praefecerat) Consentes appellantur. Ennius illos versibus istis enumerat :

Page 136. Their twelve gods. Concerning these Lactantius treats briefly in book I, ch. 15, and following him Augustine in the City of God, from Varro. They are called by Cicero the gods of the greater nations, and in imitation of the Roman republic (over which Romulus had set twelve Fathers) they are called Consentes. Ennius enumerates them in these verses:

Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars,

Mercurius, Jovis, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo.

Mercury, Jove, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo.

Conjunxerunt etiam illos per conficta matrimonia, sicut et postea Gnostici suos Aeones, ut hoc modo convenirent : Jupiter et Juno, Mars et Venus, Mercurius et Minerva, etc. Finxerunt enim alios plurimos esse deos ministros et populares, ut tradit Lactantius lib. I, capite tertio et quinto.

They also joined them through fabricated marriages, just as afterwards the Gnostics did their Aeons, so that in this way there came together: Jupiter and Juno, Mars and Venus, Mercury and Minerva, etc. For they feigned that there were very many other ministering and plebeian gods, as Lactantius relates in book I, third and fifth chapters.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 19.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on ch. 19.

Pag. 135. Antiphanes in Theogonia. Sine dubio est Antiphanes iste, cujus Ἀφροδίτης γοναὶ citantur ab Athenaeo pag. 487 et 666 seq.

Page 135. Antiphanes in the Theogony. Without doubt this is that Antiphanes whose Ἀφροδίτης γοναὶ is cited by Athenaeus on pages 487 and 666 ff.

Veterem.... inutilem. Similiter adversus alios haereticos, inveteratarum ac inutilium Judaicarum fabularum sectatores, scribit S. Ignatius Epist. ad Magnesianos, § 8 : Μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις, μηδὲ μυθεύμασι παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσι. « Ne seducamini falsis doctrinis, neque fabulis veteribus, quae inutiles sunt. »

Old.... unprofitable. Similarly against other heretics, followers of antiquated and unprofitable Jewish fables, St. Ignatius writes in his Epistle to the Magnesians, § 8: Μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις, μηδὲ μυθεύμασι παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσι. "Be not led astray by strange doctrines, nor by old fables, which are unprofitable."

Epicuro. Epicurum anno tertio CIX olympiadis, septem annis ab obitu Platonis, natum scribit Laertius, lib. X De vitis philos., et lectis Democriti libris, postmodum philosophiae operam dedisse, librosque De atomis edidisse. « Scripsit etiam, » subjicit Laertius, « infinita volumina, adeo ut illorum multitudine cunctos superarit; inter quae optima ea putat, quae sunt De atomis, et Vacuo. » Laertio subscribunt Justinus Orat. ad Graecos, et August. lib. VIII De civit. Dei, cap. 5. Democritus, quem Irenaeus subjungit, principia, atomos, et inane opinatus est, infinitosque mundos generationi et corruptioni obnoxios. Atomos quoque magnitudine et numero infinitos ferri in toto, ac rotari, atque ita concretiones omnes gignere. Eadem ante Democritum, Leucippum asseruisse tradit Aristoteles I De generat.

From Epicurus. Laertius writes in book X On the Lives of the Philosophers that Epicurus was born in the third year of the 109th Olympiad, seven years after the death of Plato, and having read the books of Democritus, afterwards devoted himself to philosophy, and published books On Atoms. "He also wrote," subjoins Laertius, "infinite volumes, so that by the multitude of them he surpassed all men; among which he thinks those best which are On Atoms, and the Vacuum." Justin in the Oration to the Greeks, and Augustine, book VIII On the City of God, ch. 5, subscribe to Laertius. Democritus, whom Irenaeus subjoins, opined that the first principles are atoms and the void, and that there are infinite worlds subject to generation and corruption. Also that atoms infinite in size and number are borne along in the whole, and whirled round, and thus beget all concretions. That Leucippus asserted the same things before Democritus, Aristotle relates in book I On Generation.

Plato vero rursus materiam dici, etc. Apuleius lib. I De doctrina Platonis : « Initia rerum tria arbitrabatur Plato, Deum et materiam, rerumque formas, quas ἰδέας idem vocat. » Cyrillus lib. II Contra Julianum ante medium : Καὶ πάλιν ὁ μὲν δὴ δεινὸς καὶ διαβόητος Πλάτων τρεῖς ἀρχὰς εἶναι του παντὸς διορίζεται, Θεὸν, καὶ ὕλην, καὶ εἶδος· καὶ Θεὸν μὲν εἶναί φησι τὸν ποιητήν· ὕλην δὲ τὸ ὑποκείμενον· εἶδος δὲ τὸ ἑκάστου τῶν γινομένων παράδειγμα. « Rursus sapiens ille Plato et omnium praedicatione celeberrimus tria principia universi

And Plato again that matter is said, etc. Apuleius, book I On the Doctrine of Plato: "Plato held that the first principles of things are three, God and matter, and the forms of things, which the same philosopher calls ἰδέας." Cyril, book II Against Julian, before the middle: Καὶ πάλιν ὁ μὲν δὴ δεινὸς καὶ διαβόητος Πλάτων τρεῖς ἀρχὰς εἶναι του παντὸς διορίζεται, Θεὸν, καὶ ὕλην, καὶ εἶδος· καὶ Θεὸν μὲν εἶναί φησι τὸν ποιητήν· ὕλην δὲ τὸ ὑποκείμενον· εἶδος δὲ τὸ ἑκάστου τῶν γινομένων παράδειγμα. "Again, that wise Plato, most celebrated by the praise of all,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1556

Page

running head: ARIORUM NOTAE 1556
marginal letters: A in vet.; B Pag. 136.; C tantur ab; D tioni et
old-edition numerals: 94 after praedicatione
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 19
other: the reading gave its source paragraphs and their English as runs; paired in order on receipt: check the pairing

PG 7:1557

constituit : Deum, materiam et ideam. Deum opificem esse asserit; materiam, subjectum; ideam vero, exemplar cujuscunque eorum quae fiunt. » Quae descripsit fere ex Justini martyris Paraenesi ad Graecos, pag. 5 edit. Sylburgii. Confer Menagii Notas ad lib. III Diogenis Laertii, num. 69.

establishes three first principles of the universe: God, matter, and idea. God he asserts to be the Maker; matter, the substrate; and idea, the exemplar of each of the things that are made." Which things he transcribed almost entirely from Justin Martyr's Exhortation to the Greeks, page 5 of Sylburg's edition. Compare Ménage's Notes on book III of Diogenes Laertius, no. 69.

Pag. 134. Propter generositatem. Se « spirituales » a matre Achamoth natos, et « semina electionis » esse gloriabantur insani isti homunciones. Atque haec erat ipsorum « generositas, » Graece εὐγένεια, ut ex veteribus glossis colligo. Eadem vox usurpatur a Tertulliano lib. IV Contra Marcionem, cap. 5, ubi Ecclesias ab apostolis fundatas, per successionem episcoporum, probari docet : « Sic, inquit, et caeterarum (Ecclesiarum) generositas recognoscitur. » Et lib. De carne Christi, cap. 9 : « Quomodo, inquam, contemni et pati posset, sicut dixi, si quid in illa carne de generositate coelesti radiasset. »

Page 134. On account of noble birth. Those insane manikins boasted that they were "spiritual," born from the mother Achamoth, and "seeds of election." And this was their "noble birth," in Greek εὐγένεια, as I gather from the ancient glosses. The same word is used by Tertullian in book IV Against Marcion, ch. 5, where he teaches that the Churches founded by the apostles are proved through the succession of bishops: "Thus," he says, "the noble birth of the remaining (Churches) also is recognized." And in the book On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 9: "How, I say, could He be despised and suffer, as I have said, if anything of heavenly noble birth had radiated in that flesh?"

Cum sint cum eis ejusdem testamenti. Graece διαθήκης, id est συνωμοσίας. Ita enim Hesychius in Lexico : Διαθήκη, συνωμοσία· ἑνικῶς, οὐ πληθυντικῶς τὰς διαθήκας ἔλεγον. « Testamentum, » id est, « conjuratio, » vel sodalitium (nam et Plato lib. II De republ. ξυνωμοσίας καὶ ἑταιρείας jungit). « In singulari, non plurali διαθῆκαι dicuntur; » in hac scilicet significatione.

Since they are of the same covenant with them. In Greek διαθήκης, that is, συνωμοσίας. For thus Hesychius in his Lexicon: Διαθήκη, συνωμοσία· ἑνικῶς, οὐ πληθυντικῶς τὰς διαθήκας ἔλεγον. "Covenant," that is, "conspiracy," or brotherhood (for Plato also in book II On the Republic joins ξυνωμοσίας καὶ ἑταιρείας). "In the singular, not the plural, διαθῆκαι are spoken of;" namely in this signification.

A Pythagoricis. Ante Irenaeum Justinus Orat. ad Graecos : « Pythagoras Samius, ait, Mnesarchi filius, arbitratur principium, numeros, et mensuras, et horum concinnitates, elementaque ex utrisque composita : praeterea unitatem, et infinitam dyada. » De his et Laertius fusissime. FEUARD. Ubi obiter notandum, citata Justini verba, ut et plura, quae praecedunt de variis philosophorum, circa rerum principia, sententiis, ex Plutarchi lib. I De placitis philosophorum, cap. 3, quod est περὶ ἀρχῶν, τί ἐστιν, petita esse. Ita enim hujus verba sonant : Πάλιν δὲ ἀπὸ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου, Σάμιος... ἀρχὰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς, καὶ τὰς συμμετρίας τὰς ἐν τούτοις, ἃς καὶ ἁρμονίας καλεῖ, τὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων στοιχεῖα, καλούμενα δὲ γεωμετρικά. Πάλιν δὲ τὴν μονάδα καὶ ἀόριστον δυάδα ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς. Quae a Justini textu pag. 3 edit. Sylburg. in fine nihil fere discrepant, nisi quod hic συμμετρίας et ἁρμονίας numerorum distinctas faciat, cum Plutarchus ut synonyma ista acceperit.

From the Pythagoreans. "Before Irenaeus, Justin says in the Oration to the Greeks: 'Pythagoras the Samian, the son of Mnesarchus, holds as the first principle numbers, and measures, and the harmonies of these, and the elements composed out of both: moreover unity, and the indefinite dyad.' Concerning these things Laertius also treats most at length." FEUARDENTIUS. Where in passing it is to be noted that the cited words of Justin, as well as several that precede concerning the various opinions of the philosophers about the first principles of things, were taken from Plutarch's book I On the Opinions of the Philosophers, ch. 3, which is περὶ ἀρχῶν, τί ἐστιν. For thus his words sound: Πάλιν δὲ ἀπὸ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου, Σάμιος... ἀρχὰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς, καὶ τὰς συμμετρίας τὰς ἐν τούτοις, ἃς καὶ ἁρμονίας καλεῖ, τὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων στοιχεῖα, καλούμενα δὲ γεωμετρικά. Πάλιν δὲ τὴν μονάδα καὶ ἀόριστον δυάδα ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς. "And again from another principle Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus, the Samian... holds as first principles numbers, and the symmetries in these, which he also calls harmonies, and the elements composed out of both, called geometrical. And again unity and the indefinite dyad among the first principles." Which at the end differ almost nothing from the text of Justin on page 3 of Sylburg's edition, except that the latter makes the συμμετρίας and ἁρμονίας of numbers distinct, whereas Plutarch took them as synonyms.

Et initium ipsorum parem et imparem. Similiter Aristoteles lib I Metaphysicorum, cap. 5, Pythagoreorum sententiam exponit his verbis : Φαίνονται δὲ καὶ οὗτοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν νομίζοντες ἀρχὴν εἶναι..... τοῦ δὲ ἀριθμοῦ στοιχεῖα τὸ ἄρτιον καὶ τὸ περιττόν· τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν πεπερασμένον, τὸ δὲ ἄπειρον. « Videntur etiam isti numerum existimare principium esse... numeri autem elementa par et impar, quorum alterum finitum, alterum infinitum faciunt. » Par scilicet infinitum, finitum vero impar, ut ex mox dicendis patebit.

And the beginning of them even and odd. Similarly Aristotle, book I of the Metaphysics, ch. 5, expounds the opinion of the Pythagoreans in these words: Φαίνονται δὲ καὶ οὗτοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν νομίζοντες ἀρχὴν εἶναι..... τοῦ δὲ ἀριθμοῦ στοιχεῖα τὸ ἄρτιον καὶ τὸ περιττόν· τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν πεπερασμένον, τὸ δὲ ἄπειρον. "These men also seem to consider number to be the first principle... and the elements of number to be the even and the odd, of which they make the one finite, the other infinite." Namely, the even infinite, and the odd finite, as will be clear from what is presently to be said.

Ex quibus et ea, quae sensibilia, et insensata sunt, subjecerunt. Ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰ αισθητὰ, καὶ τὰ ἀναίσθητα ὑπετίθεντο. « Ex quibus tam sensibilia, quam ea quae sub sensum haud cadunt, esse supponunt. » Sensibilia autem sive visibilia ad parem, insensata sive invisibilia ad imparem numerum referenda esse, patet ex verbis Aristotelis lib. III Physicorum, cap. 4, § 4 : « Pythagorei ponunt infinitum in rebus sensibilibus, ἐν τοῖς αισθητοῖς, quia numerum haud statuunt separatum : atque asserunt id quod est extra coelum, esse infinitum, καὶ εἶναι δὲ τὸ ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἄπειρον. » Atqui mox § 5 subdit : Καὶ οἱ μὲν τὸ ἄπειρον εἶναι τὸ ἄρτιον. « Et illi quidem infinitum » aiunt « esse par. » Confer Themistium, Simplicium, Philoponum, aliosque in hunc locum commentatores. Quibus accedit Eustrathius in lib. I Ethic. : Δύο συστοιχίας ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐξέθετο, μίαν μὲν ταύτην πέρας, περιττόν· ἑτέραν δὲ ταύτην ἄπειρον, ἄρτιον. « Duos ordines statuerat

Out of which they also supposed the things which are sensible and insensible. Ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰ αισθητὰ, καὶ τὰ ἀναίσθητα ὑπετίθεντο. "Out of which they suppose both sensible things and those which do not fall under sense to exist." Moreover, that sensible or visible things are to be referred to the even number, and insensible or invisible things to the odd, is clear from the words of Aristotle, book III of the Physics, ch. 4, § 4: "The Pythagoreans place the infinite in sensible things, ἐν τοῖς αισθητοῖς, because they do not hold number to be separate: and they assert that what is outside the heaven is infinite, καὶ εἶναι δὲ τὸ ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἄπειρον." And presently in § 5 he subjoins: Καὶ οἱ μὲν τὸ ἄπειρον εἶναι τὸ ἄρτιον. "And they indeed say that the infinite is the even." Compare Themistius, Simplicius, Philoponus, and the other commentators on this passage. To whom is added Eustratius on book I of the Ethics: Δύο συστοιχίας ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐξέθετο, μίαν μὲν ταύτην πέρας, περιττόν· ἑτέραν δὲ ταύτην ἄπειρον, ἄρτιον. "Pythagoras had set forth two columns,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1557

Page

running head: 1557 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A constituit : Deum,; B θήκης, id est; C Σάμιος... ἀρχὰς; D Ex quibus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: constituit : Deum

PG 7:1558

Pythagoras : unum quidem finitum, impar : alterum vero infinitum, par. » Cum itaque ex Pythagoreorum sententia, par ac infinitum coincidant, infinitum autem in rebus sensibilibus exsistat, ex pari sensibilia, ex impari insensibilia ortum duxerint necesse est.

Pythagoras: the one indeed finite, odd; the other truly infinite, even." Since therefore according to the opinion of the Pythagoreans the even and the infinite coincide, and the infinite exists in sensible things, it is necessary that sensible things derived their origin from the even, and insensible things from the odd.

Ex altera quidem substitutionis initia esse ; altera autem sensationis et substantiae. Locum hunc difficillimum sicco pede transiit Feuardentius, nec hisce obscurissimis ullam attulit lucem : an aliquam afferre queam, tentabo. Per « sensationem » et « substantiam, » designata mihi videtur « materia ; » per « substitutionem » vero, « forma » rerum. Nam, nullo verbo interposito, sequitur : « Ex quibus primis omnia perfecta dicunt, quemadmodum statuam de aeramento et formatione. » Et quidem « materiam » inde « sensationem, atque substantiam » dictam patet, quod ea sit sensibilis et subsistens ; unde vero « formae » nomen « substitutionis? » Posset forte cuipiam hanc rem cogitanti, in mentem venire, quod pro οὐσίᾳ, « substantiam » dixerit interpres, pro ὑποστάσει vero, « substitutionem ; » quodque nomen ὑποστάσεως formae datum sit, quia illa dat esse rei, uti scholastici loquuntur, et rem facit proprie ὑφιστάνειν. Neque enim, ut Alexander in lib. II Aristotelis de anima scribit, ἡ ὕλη αὐτὴ καθ' αὑτὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν δύναται, ὅτι μηδέπω εἶδός ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῇ. Sed huic conjecturae obstat, quod interpres ὑπόστασιν semper voce « substantiae » expresserit, quodque lib. V, cap. 36, haec verba : οὐχ ἡ ὑπόστασις, οὐδὲ ἡ οὐσία τῆς κτίσεως ἐξαφανίζεται, reddiderit : « Non enim substantia, neque materia conditionis exterminatur. » Et hoc igitur loco οὐσίαν ac ὑπόστασιν ita Latine vertere in promptu erat, nec necesse obscuro « substitutionis » vocabulo uti. Alia itaque opus est conjectura. Suppeditat eam vetus Glossarium, quod inspicienti mihi occurrit « substitutio » ὑποκατάστασις, indeque suspicio incidit, in Graeco textu, loco « substantiae, » vocem ὑποστάσεως, loco « substitutionis » vero, ὑποκαταστάσεως exstitisse, ut adeo παρονομασίᾳ luserit Irenaeus, vel secta Pythagoricorum. Formae vero rerum materialium sublunarium Pythagoreis ideo forte ὑποκαταστάσεως nomine appellatae sunt, quod hae expressae ipsis viderentur, secundum speciem supernarum καταστάσεων, id est formarum, sive idearum. Haec enim synonyma sunt, ac proinde Galenus lib. I De crisibus ait, Hippocratem τῶν νοσημάτων καταστάσεις vocasse οἷον τὰς ἰδέας αὐτῶν. Meliora si quis afferat, ea, hisce missis, libenter acceptabo.

That from the one indeed are the beginnings of substitution; but from the other, of sensation and of substance. Feuardent passed over this most difficult passage with a dry foot, nor did he bring any light to these most obscure words: whether I may be able to bring some, I shall attempt. By "sensation" and "substance," "matter" seems to me to be designated; but by "substitution," the "form" of things. For, with no word interposed, there follows: "From which first principles they say all things were perfected, just as a statue from bronze and formation." And indeed it is clear that "matter" is thence called "sensation and substance," because it is sensible and subsisting; yet whence goes the name of "substitution" to "form"? It might perhaps come into the mind of someone pondering this matter that for οὐσίᾳ the translator said "substance," and for ὑποστάσει "substitution"; and that the name of ὑποστάσεως was given to form because it gives being to a thing, as the Scholastics speak, and makes a thing properly ὑφιστάνειν [to subsist]. For neither, as Alexander writes on Book 2 of Aristotle On the Soul, is matter able of itself to have subsistence, because form is not yet in it. But it stands in the way of this conjecture that the translator always expressed ὑπόστασιν by the word "substance," and that in Book 5, chap. 36, he rendered these words: neither the subsistence nor the substance of creation is annihilated, as: "For neither the substance nor the matter of creation is destroyed." And in this passage too, therefore, it was ready to hand so to translate οὐσίαν and ὑπόστασιν into Latin, nor was it necessary to use the obscure word "substitution." There is need, therefore, of another conjecture. An old Glossary supplies it, on inspecting which there met me "substitutio," ὑποκατάστασις, and thence the suspicion arose that in the Greek text, in place of "substance," stood the word ὑποστάσεως, and in place of "substitution," ὑποκαταστάσεως, so that Irenaeus, or the sect of the Pythagoreans, played with a paronomasia. Now the forms of sublunary material things were perhaps called by the Pythagoreans by the name of ὑποκαταστάσεως for this reason, because these seemed to them to be stamped according to the pattern of the supernal καταστάσεων, that is, forms or ideas. For these are synonyms, and accordingly Galen in Book 1 On Crises says that Hippocrates called the constitutions of diseases as it were their ideas. If anyone should bring forward better things, I shall gladly accept them and let these go.

Ex quibus primis. Id est materia et forma, tanquam primis rerum principiis.

From which first principles. That is, matter and form, as the first principles of things.

Hoc autem ii his, qui sunt extra Pleroma, aptaverunt. Haec enim inferiora omnia ex materia et forma componuntur.

Now this they adapted to those things which are outside the Pleroma. For all these lower things are composed of matter and form.

Sensationis autem initia dixerunt, in quem, etc. Textus hoc loco corruptus, ita videtur corrigendus: « Sensationis autem initia dixerunt, in quantum » (Graece ἐφ' ὅσον pro « in quem ; » nam utraque vox eodem fere modo abbreviata in quibusdam mss. occurrit) « sensus intelligens » (omisso « est ; » Graece διάνοια συνιεῖσα) « ejus quod primum assumptum est, quaerit quoadusque defatigatus (pro « defatigata »), ad unum et indivisibile concurrat. » Defatigata autem ex Graeco καταπεπονημένη, vel κεκοπωμένη posuit interpres, velut oblitus, quod praecedentem Graecam vocem διάνοια Latina masculini generis verterit. Caeterum haec Pythagoreorum effata respondere videntur istis haereticorum hypothesibus, quibus originem materiae deducebant ex temeraria inquisitione primi Patris, et inordinata Enthymesi, sive intentione magnitudinem illius comprehendendi, qua Sophia laboravit, extra Pleroma ejecta, et recepta tandem, nihilominus post se pravam istam intentionem reliquit,

And the beginnings of sensation they said, unto whom, etc. The text in this passage is corrupt, and seems to be corrected thus: "And the beginnings of sensation they said, inasmuch as" (in Greek ἐφ' ὅσον for "unto whom"; for each word occurs abbreviated in almost the same way in certain manuscripts) "the understanding sense" (omitting "is"; in Greek διάνοια συνιεῖσα) "of that which was first assumed, seeks until, wearied out (for 'wearied out' [feminine]), it concurs upon the one and indivisible." Now the translator put defatigata [wearied out] from the Greek καταπεπονημένη, or κεκοπωμένη, as if forgetful that he had translated the preceding Greek word διάνοια by a Latin word of the masculine gender. For the rest, these sayings of the Pythagoreans seem to correspond to those hypotheses of the heretics, by which they deduced the origin of matter from the rash inquiry after the first Father, and the disordered Enthymesis, or intention of comprehending His greatness, under which Sophia laboured, cast out outside the Pleroma, and at length received back, nevertheless left behind her that depraved intention,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1558

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE IN LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1558
marginal letters: A Pythagoras : unum; B stitutionis? » Posset; C ὑποκατάστασις, indeque suspicio; D Textus hoc loco
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Pythagoras : unum quidem; ptaverunt printed with missing initial a at line end in Hoc autem ii his; word split at end of column: reli-
other: the word reliquit, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1559

PG 7:1559

ex qua Creatorem mundi, et post eum creaturas ab eo conditas prodiisse insani homines fingebant, uti cap. 1 lib. I prolixe expositum legitur.

from which mad men feigned that the Creator of the world, and after him the creatures made by him, came forth, as is read set forth at length in chap. 1 of Book 1.

Pag. 135. Vocum novitates. An interpres ex Irenaei Graeco καινοφωνίας, vel pro more ex veteri Latina Bibliorum versione « vocum novitates » posuerit, ambiguus haereo. De hac fidem abunde faciunt, post Tertullianum De praescript. adversus haereticos, cap. 16, Ambrosiaster Comment. ad I Timoth. VI ; Augustinus tract. 97 in Joannem, aliique Latini. De Graeco autem tam S. Pauli quam Irenaei textu dubium videri posset. Fuere enim Graeci Patres, qui καινοφωνίας legerunt, interque hos Chrysostomus, de quo OEcumenius et Theophylactus ambo ad hunc locum Pauli scribunt : Ὁ μακάριος Ἰοάννης τὰς νεωτέρας παραινέσεις καινοφωνίας εἶπε, διὰ τῆς αι διφθόγγου τὸ και γράφων, ὡς ἔοικε. « Beatus autem Joannes recentiores admonitiones dixit vocum novitates, legens, ut videtur, καινοφωνίας per αι diphthongum in prima. » Ac licet apud Chrysostomum loco citato, in editis nostris exemplaribus legamus κενοφωνίας, ipsum tamen scripsisse, vel legisse καινοφωνίας, praeter citatos auctores, id plane confirmat, quod in loco parallelo ad II Timoth., cap. II, v. 16, tam in textu quam in Commentario καινοφωνίας expresserit. Fieri igitur potuit, ut et S. Irenaeus ita legerit, scripseritque. Quidquid vero de Irenaeo statuatur, in epistola B. Apostoli genuinam esse lectionem κενοφωνίας, quam post Clementem Alexandrinum, loco mox citando post OEcumenium et Theophylactum, in vulgatis exemplaribus Graecis nos agnoscimus, omnes largientur, puto, qui hunc locum contulerint cum altero Coloss. II, 8 : Βλέπετε μήτις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. Ubi licet in Alexandrino codice iterum καινῆς legatur, per errorem tamen librarii id factum patet ; ex quo, et supra citato in loco variam lectionem ortam esse, mihi nullum est dubium.

Page 135. Novelties of words. Whether the translator put "novelties of words" from Irenaeus's Greek καινοφωνίας, or as usual from the old Latin version of the Bible, I hesitate in doubt. Abundant testimony of this is given, after Tertullian On Prescription against Heretics, chap. 16, by Ambrosiaster Commentary on 1 Timothy 6; Augustine Tractate 97 on John, and other Latins. Concerning the Greek text, however, both of St. Paul and of Irenaeus, there might seem to be doubt. For there were Greek Fathers who read καινοφωνίας, and among these Chrysostom, of whom Oecumenius and Theophylact both write on this passage of Paul: "Blessed John called the newer exhortations καινοφωνίας, writing και with the diphthong αι, as it seems." "Now blessed John called the more recent admonitions novelties of words, reading, as it seems, καινοφωνίας with the diphthong αι in the first syllable." And although in Chrysostom at the place cited, in our printed copies we read κενοφωνίας, yet that he himself wrote or read καινοφωνίας, besides the authors cited, is plainly confirmed by the fact that in the parallel passage on 2 Timothy, chap. 2, v. 16, both in the text and in the Commentary he expressed καινοφωνίας. It could therefore have happened that St. Irenaeus also read and wrote thus. But whatever be determined concerning Irenaeus, that in the epistle of the blessed Apostle the genuine reading is κενοφωνίας, which after Clement of Alexandria, in a passage soon to be cited, and after Oecumenius and Theophylact, we acknowledge in the common Greek copies, all will grant, I think, who compare this passage with the other in Colossians 2:8: Beware lest there shall be anyone carrying you off as spoil through philosophy and empty deceit. Where although in the Alexandrian codex καινῆς is again read, yet it is clear that this happened through an error of the copyist; from which I have no doubt that the variant reading arose in the passage cited above also.

Falsae agnitionis. Irenaeum apostolicam phrasin ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, quam alias in ipso hujus operis titulo expressit, hoc quoque loco retinuisse existimo, licet vetus interpretatio non « falso nominatae, » sed « falsae » agnitionis habeat, quasi ψευδοῦς in Graeco fuisset. Confer Praefationes libri IV et V. Caeterum notatu digna est Clementis Alexandrini observatio lib. I Stromatum, pag. 383, ubi citatis Apostoli verbis haec subdit : Ὑπὸ ταύτης ἐλεγχόμενοι τῆς φωνῆς οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων, τὰς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν Ἐπιστολάς. « Cum ab hac voce redarguantur haeretici, Epistolas ad Timotheum abrogant. » Id quod de Marcione constat ex Tertulliani lib. V adversus hunc haeresiarcham in fine, et Epiphanii haeres. 42. Neque mirum : quippe eum aperte feriebat prophetia Apostoli I Timoth. IV, 1 seqq.

Of false knowledge. I think that Irenaeus retained in this passage also the apostolic phrase ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως [of knowledge falsely so called], which elsewhere he expressed in the very title of this work, although the old translation has not "of falsely named," but "of false" knowledge, as if ψευδοῦς had been in the Greek. Compare the Prefaces of Book 4 and Book 5. For the rest, worthy of note is the observation of Clement of Alexandria in Book 1 of the Stromata, page 383, where after citing the words of the Apostle he adds these things: "Being convicted by this utterance, those from the heresies reject the Epistles to Timothy." "Since the heretics are refuted by this word, they abrogate the Epistles to Timothy." Which fact is established concerning Marcion from the end of Book 5 of Tertullian against this heresiarch, and Epiphanius Heresy 42. Nor is it any wonder: inasmuch as the prophecy of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 4:1 ff. openly struck him.

Ex his, qui in labe facti sunt, AEonibus habuisse substantiam. Atqui, dices, Soter, sive Jesus, ex omnibus AEonibus substantiam habuit ; Christus a Monogene Propatoris originem cepit ; ast sola Sophia, ultimum inter triginta AEones locum tenens, in labe facta est, et poenam inquisitionis incogniti Patris debitam sustinuit : quomodo ergo hic omnes AEones, ipseque Monogenes, in labe facti dicuntur? Responsionem suppeditant, quae leguntur supra pag. 10 (8) : « Quae (passio, qua Sophia laboravit) exorsa fuerat in iis, quae sunt erga Nun et Alethiam ; derivavit autem in hunc AEonem, id est Sophiam. » Confer infra cap. 24. Et Nus itaque cum reliquis AEonibus, hujus passionis sive labis quodammodo participes fuere.

Held their substance from those Aeons who were made in degradation. And yet, you will say, Soter, or Jesus, had his substance from all the Aeons; Christ took his origin from the Monogenes of the Propator; whereas Sophia alone, holding the last place among the thirty Aeons, came to be in degradation, and bore the due punishment of inquiring after the unknown Father: how then are all the Aeons here, and Monogenes himself, said to have been made in degradation? The answer is supplied by the things read above on page 10 (8): "Which (passion, under which Sophia laboured) had begun in those who are around Nus and Alethia; but it drained off into this Aeon, that is, Sophia." Compare below, chap. 24. And thus Nus too, with the rest of the Aeons, were in some measure partakers of this passion or degradation.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 20.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 20.

Pag. 136. Revertamur. Initium est cap. 23 in veteri

Page 136. Let us return. This is the beginning of chap. 23 in the old

Editors' notes and page, col. 1559

Page

running head: 1559 VARIORUM NOTAE
marginal letters: A quit, ex qua; B ut videtur, καινοφωνίας; C nullum est dubium.; D substantiam. Atqui, dices
old-edition numerals: 95 after expressit,
other: Latin with Greek quotations (καινοφωνίας, Oecumenius/Theophylact, Coloss. II, 8, Clement Strom. I); editors' matter: quit, ex qua; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 20.; word split at start of column: reli-quit; word split at end of column: ve-
other: the word veteri was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1560
the page-foot note 17 (In psal. XXXII.) printed under the left column belongs to the call in col 1560 (obsecuti), not to this column
misprints kept as printed: Ἰοάννης (for Ἰωάννης) in the Oecumenius/Theophylact quotation (Q2a)

PG 7:1560

codice cum argumento infra posito. Urget autem crebris percontationibus Gnosticos, ut rationem reddant de AEonum emissionibus, numeris, imaginibus, et partitionibus ; ut vel hujus penuria confusi, conticescant ; vel absurdiora comminiscentes exsibilentur.

codex with the argument placed below. Now he presses the Gnostics with frequent interrogations to render an account of the emissions, numbers, images, and partitions of the Aeons; so that either confounded by the lack of this they may fall silent, or devising more absurd things they may be hissed off.

Et diem duodecim horas. Undecim has voces ex vet. cod. adjecimus.

And the day twelve hours. We have added these eleven words from the old codex.

Prima et archegonos. Quaerit quamobrem octo tantum AEones in principali Pleromatis conjugatione ac emissione constituerint, nec plures, nec pauciores ; cum et numerus ternarius, quinarius, et septenarius suis mysteriis non careant? Deinde, cur non etiam ex conjugatione Logi et Zoes, nec plures nec pauciores quam decem prodierint? Denique, qui fit, ut Anthropos et Ecclesia duodecim tantummodo pepererint? Horum rationes, aut solidas probationes cum afferre non possent, concludit plane anilia esse deliramenta.

First and original. He asks why they established only eight Aeons in the principal conjunction and emission of the Pleroma, neither more nor fewer; since the ternary, quinary, and septenary numbers also do not lack their mysteries? Next, why also from the conjunction of Logos and Zoe neither more nor fewer than ten came forth? Finally, how does it happen that Anthropos and Ecclesia brought forth twelve only? Since they could not bring forward reasons or solid proofs of these things, he concludes that they are plainly old wives' ravings.

Qui sunt conditionis. Hoc nomine hic, et in sequentibus frequentissime, omnes species inferne creatas et visibiles intelligit. Ita et Tertull. libr. De resur. carn. : « Impii ipsam conditionem colunt adversus Creatorem. »

Which belong to creation. By this name here, and most frequently in what follows, he understands all species created below and visible. So also Tertullian in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh: "The ungodly worship the creation itself against the Creator."

Apta est rhythmisatio. Plura de hoc nomine disserit August. lib. III et V Musicae : sed hic tantum voce ea illam superstitiosam AEonum et emissionum enumerationem Irenaeum velle significare puto.

The rhythmizing is fitting. Augustine discusses more things about this name in Books 3 and 5 On Music: but here I think Irenaeus wishes by that word to signify only that superstitious enumeration of Aeons and emissions.

Enarrabunt, vel in eum descendent. Ita legimus ex veter. cod. Delevimus autem « enarrarent » et « descenderent. » Et paulo post, « ejusmodi figurae, » pro, « figura. »

Will declare, or descend into it. Thus we read from the old codex. And we deleted "would declare" and "would descend." And a little after, "figures of that sort," for "figure."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 21.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 21.

Pag. 137. Si autem nulli. Tam frequens Gnosticorum pleroma, ex propria ipsorum dispositione evertit, ad immensas idearum ideas illos adigens : simul Basilidis de coelis 365 mataeologias et commenta, quae lib. I, cap. 22 et 23, enarraverat, quasi per transennam confutat, pie tandem colligens longe tutius et salubrius esse, in unius et solius Dei confessione permanere, quam tanta impietatum examina confingere.

Page 137. But if to none. He overturns the so crowded Pleroma of the Gnostics from their own arrangement, driving them to immense ideas of ideas: at the same time he refutes as if in passing the vain talk and figments of Basilides concerning the 365 heavens, which he had recounted in Book 1, chaps. 22 and 23, piously gathering at length that it is far safer and more wholesome to abide in the confession of the one and only God than to fashion such great swarms of impieties.

Perfecit esse. Codices excusi, « perfecisse. »

Completed to be. The printed codices have "to have completed."

Sicut passus est Basilides. I. e. quod Basilidi accidit.

Just as Basilides suffered. That is, what happened to Basilides.

Quoniam. Quantus sit numerus sphaerarum coelestium, parum inter se conveniunt philosophi et theologi. Unicam vult Chrysostomus ; duas Origenes ; de tribus non ambigit Damascenus ; quosdam quatuor, alios septem, multos octo constituisse, testis est Augustinus, XII De Genesi, cap. 30, nonam addere Ptolemaeo et Alphragano visum est ; Alphonsus, Lignerius, et Regiomontanus experientia et ratione moti, decimam adjiciunt ; magna nunc confidentia theologi his undecimam connectunt ; quam a lucis fulgore, empyreum coelum appellant. Gnosticis propior accedit Aristoteles, qui XII Metaphysices, 47, aut 55, coelestes orbes esse per se motos, totidemque motores admisit. Nos interea dum conciliabuntur, Augustino obsecuti, illuc potius satagemus pervenire.

Because. How great the number of the heavenly spheres is, philosophers and theologians little agree among themselves. Chrysostom will have one only; Origen two; Damascus does not doubt concerning three; that some established four, others seven, many eight, Augustine is witness, On Genesis Book 12, chap. 30; to Ptolemy and Alfraganus it seemed good to add a ninth; Alphonsus, Lignerius, and Regiomontanus, moved by experience and reason, add a tenth; with great confidence now theologians join to these an eleventh, which from the brightness of light they call the empyrean heaven. Closer to the Gnostics comes Aristotle, who in Metaphysics Book 12 admitted 47 or 55 heavenly orbs moved of themselves, and just as many movers. We meanwhile, until they are reconciled, following Augustine, shall rather busy ourselves to arrive thither.

In aliquo uno. Graece, ἐρείδειν τὸν νοῦν, id est, mentem statuere ac figere.

In some one thing. In Greek, ἐρείδειν τὸν νοῦν, that is, to stay and fix the mind.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 22.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 22.

Pag. 137. Etenim hoc quod. Sic legendum docet vetus codex ; quapropter sustulimus, « hi qui. » Initium porro hujus capitis est pars dilemmatis praecedentis. Ideoque a superiore dirimendum non fuisse, cum veter. codic. indicat et epigraphe supra posita. Complectitur autem quid Valentiniani, catholicis ; Basilidis sectatores, Valentinianis ; et utrisque rursus, alii objiciebant. Investigat deinde, uniti, an divisi ; ejusdem substantiae participes, an alterius ; tempore eodem, an diverso ; ejusdem formae, an differentes ; simplices, an compositi

Page 137. For this very thing which. The old codex teaches that it must be read thus; wherefore we removed "those who." Moreover, the beginning of this chapter is part of the preceding dilemma. And therefore that it ought not to have been separated from what goes before, both the old codex and the heading placed above indicate. Now it comprises what the Valentinians objected to the Catholics; the followers of Basilides to the Valentinians; and others again to both. Next he investigates whether united or divided; partakers of the same substance or of another; at the same time or at a different time; of the same form or different; simple or composite

Editors' notes and page, col. 1560

Footnotes

(17) ‹anchor: Augustino obsecuti› · call in col 1560

In psal. xxxii.

On Psalm 32.

(printed under page 788)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1560
marginal letters: A teri codice cum; B Qui sunt conditionis.; C quasi per transennam; D demque motores admisit.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: teri codice cum; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 21.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 22.; word split at start of column: ve-teri

PG 7:1561

emissi fuerint conficti illi AEones ; responsionum partes omnes eadem opera refellens.

those fabricated Aeons were emitted; refuting all parts of the answers by the same effort.

Pag. 138. Perseverant. Ejus igitur. Codices excusi omnes habebant, « perseverant ejus. Igitur quae sunt secundum, » etc.

Page 138. They persevere. Of it therefore. All the printed codices had, "they persevere of it. Therefore the things which are according to," etc.

Hujus rei. Indicat se pii alicujus haud dubie et catholici pastoris precibus, et adhortatione hanc in Gnosticos scribendi provinciam suscepisse ; cujus rei quoque meminit praefatione in librum primum ; et apertius initio libri quinti.

Of this matter. He indicates that he undertook this task of writing against the Gnostics at the prayers and exhortation of some doubtless pious and Catholic pastor; which matter he also mentions in the preface to the first book, and more openly at the beginning of the fifth book.

Et quoniam. Hic signatur caput 24 in vet. cod.

And because. Here chapter 24 is marked in the old codex.

Quaeritur igitur. Jam crebris et acutis interrogationibus Gnosticos urget ; quas cum nequeant solvere, recte concludit inania et exsibilanda esse figmenta, quaecunque de Bytho, Pleromate et conjugationibus AEonum fabulabantur. Caeterum, « utrum, » pro « verum ; » et « partiliter, » pro « pariter, » auct. vet. cod. restituimus.

It is asked therefore. Now he presses the Gnostics with frequent and sharp interrogations; since they cannot solve them, he rightly concludes that whatever tales they told about Bythus, the Pleroma, and the conjunctions of the Aeons are empty figments worthy to be hissed off. For the rest, we have restored "whether" for "but," and "partially" for "equally," on the authority of the old codex.

Jam igitur. C. 25 cum sua epigraphe notat vet. cod.

Now therefore. The old codex marks chap. 25 with its heading.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 23.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 23.

Pag. 138. Si autem velut. Ex ortu, successione, aetate, substantia, et passionibus AEonum, colligit fictitios esse ; proinde, illis omissis ad unum omnium rerum principium redeundum.

Page 138. But if as. From the origin, succession, age, substance, and passions of the Aeons, he gathers that they are fictitious; accordingly, leaving them aside, one must return to the one principle of all things.

Juvenius. Νεώτερον, « recentius, posterius. » Comparativis istiusmodi non raro utitur, ut supra, cap. 19 : « Novius aliquid. » Et proximo capite : « Juvenior aliquis. » Et cap. 33 : « Qui est decorior. » Homini Graeco, Latine scribenti, haec facile condonantur : quanquam etiam apud Columellam lib. IX, cap. 11, legatur « Juvenius examen. »

Younger. Νεώτερον, "more recent, later." He not rarely uses comparatives of that sort, as above, chap. 19: "Something newer." And in the next chapter: "Someone younger." And chap. 33: "Who is more comely." To a Greek man writing in Latin, these things are easily forgiven: although even in Columella Book 9, chap. 11, there is read "a younger swarm."

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 23.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 23.

Pag. 138. Velut a lumine... velut a facula faculae. Eadem similitudine Filii Dei a Patre generationem illustrarunt Justinus martyr in Dialogo cum Tryphone Judaeo, pag. 284 et pag. 358, eumque imitatus est non modo pseudo Justinus in Expositione fidei, pag. 380, sed et genuinus ejus discipulus Tatianus in Oratione ad Graecos, pag. 145, ac Athenagoras in Legatione pro Christianis, pag. 27. Unde nihil novi statuerunt Nicaeni Patres, dum Filium Dei dixerunt, « Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine. » Merito quoque addiderunt ὁμοούσιον Πατρί, perinde ut Irenaeus noster ex eo, quod « AEones a Logo, velut lumina a lumine accensa » dicuntur, collegit, quod « ejusdem substantiae sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum. »

Page 138. As from light... as torches from a torch. By the same similitude Justin Martyr illustrated the generation of the Son of God from the Father in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, page 284 and page 358, and he was imitated not only by Pseudo-Justin in the Exposition of Faith, page 380, but also by his genuine disciple Tatian in the Oration to the Greeks, page 145, and Athenagoras in the Embassy for the Christians, page 27. Whence the Nicene Fathers established nothing new when they called the Son of God "God from God, light from light." Deservedly also they added ὁμοούσιον Πατρί [consubstantial with the Father], just as our Irenaeus, from the fact that "the Aeons are said to be kindled from Logos, as lights from light," gathered that "they are of the same substance with the author of their emission."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 24.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 24.

Pag. 138. Labes igitur ejus. Convincit impia et insana esse deliramenta illa de labe ignorantiae, producta a primo Patre, cum in eum ignorantia non cadat ; simulque de junioris AEonis ementita ab ipsis passione et aporia ; quando ejusmodi passionum Deus sit expers, ejusque Verbum, et Sapientia, ut Deus est ; quin potius ipsi una cum fictitia Matre in profundum ignorationis demerguntur, et suis ipsi verbis blasphemare convincuntur.

Page 138. Its degradation therefore. He proves that those ravings about the degradation of ignorance brought forth from the first Father are impious and insane, since ignorance does not fall upon Him; and at the same time about the passion and perplexity of the younger Aeon feigned by them; seeing that God is devoid of passions of that sort, and His Word, and Wisdom, as God is; nay rather, they themselves together with their fictitious Mother are plunged into the depth of ignorance, and are convicted of blaspheming by their own words.

Pag. 139. Et si quis stellas dicat eos. Auctoritate veter. cod. expunximus, « quas stellas dicant. » Sensus autem est : Etiamsi suos AEones stellas esse dixerint, nihilominus ejusdem erunt genere substantiae : sicque omnes, aut patibiles aut impatibiles, lucidi vel obscuri.

Page 139. And if anyone should call them stars. On the authority of the old codex we expunged "which they call stars." Now the sense is: Even if they should say that their Aeons are stars, nevertheless they will be of the same kind in substance: and thus all either passible or impassible, bright or dark.

Si autem impium. Impietatis eos arguit, quod Deum Patrem omnium passionibus et molestiis subjicerent, quam blasphemiam instaurare conati sunt Patri-passiani ; a quibus nostro saeculo non abhorruit Lutherus, dum lib. De conciliis, refert sibi negotium fuisse cum quibusdam Nestorianis, « eo quod divinitatem Christi (quae a Patre alia non est) pati non posse, adversus seipsum assererent. » Eam igitur pati posse Lutherus volebat, quod Gnosticam impietatem plane redolet.

But if it is impious. He convicts them of impiety because they subjected God the Father of all to passions and troubles, which blasphemy the Patripassians tried to renew; from whom in our age Luther did not shrink, when in his book On the Councils he relates that he had a controversy with certain Nestorians, "because they asserted against himself that the divinity of Christ (which is not other than the Father) cannot suffer." Luther therefore wished that it could suffer, which plainly savours of Gnostic impiety.

Si omnes erant. Expunximus « erunt, » auct. vet. cod.

If all were. We expunged "will be," on the authority of the old codex.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1561

Footnotes

(18) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot images› · call in col 1561 (UNSURE: call above the rendered area)

Tuscul. i, 27.

Tusculan Disputations, book 1, [chapter] 27.

(printed under page 789)

Page

running head: 1561 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A emissi fuerint conficti; B Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii; C in Oratione ad Graecos,; D Pag. 139. Et si quis
old-edition numerals: 96 after non
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: emissi fuerint conficti; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 23.; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 23.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 24.

PG 7:1562

Sed Nus Pater. Lactantius lib. I, cap. 5, Deum puram mentem et esse, et dici etiam ab ethnicis probat ex hoc loco Cic. : « Nec Deus, qui intelligitur a nobis, alio modo intelligi potest, nisi mens soluta quaedam, et libera, segregata ab omni concretione mortali, omnia sentiens et movens. »

But Nus the Father. Lactantius in Book 1, chap. 5, proves that God both is, and is called even by the pagans, pure mind, from this passage of Cicero: "Nor can God, who is understood by us, be understood in any other way than as a certain mind unbound and free, separated from all mortal concretion, perceiving and moving all things."

Non igitur jam Logos. Errorem hunc, quo Filium Dei Patrem ignorare contendebant, Origenem postea amplexum esse, citatis ejus verbis, ait Epiphanius ; quo tamen eum liberare conatur Pamphilus martyr seu Eusebius, in Apol., vultque a sycophantis virus istud in ejus opera effusum, ut tanti hominis famam obscurarent, vel haereses suas latius spargerent.

No longer therefore Logos. This error, whereby they contended that the Son of God was ignorant of the Father, Epiphanius says, citing his words, that Origen afterwards embraced; from which, however, Pamphilus the martyr or Eusebius tries to free him in his Apology, and maintains that that venom was poured into his works by slanderers, in order that they might darken the fame of so great a man, or scatter their own heresies more widely.

Non capit igitur. Οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, id est fieri non potest. Ut et cap. 7 hujus libri, « aut umbram capiet. » Et cap. 16 : « In hominibus capit dici. » Et alibi non raro.

It is not possible therefore. Οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, that is, it cannot happen. As also in chap. 7 of this book, "or will admit of a shadow." And chap. 16: "Among men it admits of being said." And elsewhere not rarely.

Cum sit a tali. Delevimus, « at illi, » auct. vet. cod.

Since he is from such a one. We deleted "but they," on the authority of the old codex.

Praeter has autem. Initium est capitis 26, in vet. cod. cum suo argumento.

And besides these. This is the beginning of chapter 26 in the old codex, with its argument.

Pag. 140. Quacunque. Expunximus, « quandocunque. »

Page 140. In whatever way. We expunged "whenever."

In quem capiunt. Vetus codex, « in quae ; » cui et Graecus B. Petri contextus concordat, εἰς ἃ ; sicque legunt OEcumenius, et alii Graeci omnes. Utramque lectionem Com. nostris in primam D. Petri Epist., unde hoc testimonium sumptum est, amplectimur et explicamus.

Unto whom they desire. The old codex has "into which things"; with which the Greek text of blessed Peter also agrees, εἰς ἃ; and thus read Oecumenius and all the other Greeks. In our Commentaries on the First Epistle of St. Peter, whence this testimony is taken, we embrace and explain both readings.

Et quemadmodum. Perpetuo fere pro, « quomodo. » Docet autem vere deliram et stolidam esse eam prolationem ignorantiae AEonum, quam a caeci nati petebant historia. Insuper, eos omnino perversos et excaecatos esse, qui causam mali ac supinae hominum ignorantiae, divinae tribuerent voluntati.

And just as. Almost perpetually for "how." Now he teaches that that emission of the ignorance of the Aeons, which they sought from the history of the man born blind, is truly crazy and foolish. Moreover, that those are altogether perverse and blinded who would attribute the cause of evil and of the reckless ignorance of men to the divine will.

Inincusabilis erat, qui non poterat. Ita vet. cod. ; excusi habebant, « inexcusabilis erat, quoniam. »

He was unimpeachable, who could not. Thus the old codex; the printed copies had, "he was inexcusable, because."

Per emissionem. Codices excusi, « permissionem. »

Through the emission. The printed codices have "permission."

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 24.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 24.

Pag. 139. Quomodo a sole radios. Eodem inter alia simili, ad declarandam Filii a Deo Patre generationem, usus est Tertullianus lib. Contra Praxean, cap. 8 : « Nec dubitaverim dicere Filium, et radicis fruticem, et fontis fluvium, et solis radium, » etc.

Page 139. As rays from the sun. Tertullian used the same simile among others to declare the generation of the Son from God the Father, in the book Against Praxeas, chap. 8: "Nor would I hesitate to call the Son both the shoot of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun," etc.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 25.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 25.

Pag. 141. Quomodo autem. Ostendit divinam sapientiam nec ignorantiae, nec deminutionibus, nec passionibus ullo pacto expositam esse, cum haec inter se pugnent ; nec Ἐνθύμησιν ejus, quam « excogitationem » vocat Tertullian., vel « intentionem, » ut habet Irenaei interpres, ab ea separari posse. De hac Enthymesi habes supra, lib. I, cap. 1, et lib. II, cap. 10 et 11, infra quoque frequenter.

Page 141. And how. He shows that the divine wisdom is in no way exposed either to ignorance, or to diminutions, or to passions, since these things conflict with one another; nor can her Ἐνθύμησιν, which Tertullian calls "excogitation," or "intention," as Irenaeus's translator has it, be separated from her. Concerning this Enthymesis you have above, Book 1, chap. 1, and Book 2, chaps. 10 and 11, and frequently below as well.

Sophiam passum AEonem. Ita vet. cod. ; excusi, « Sophiam passam AEonem. »

Sophia, the Aeon that suffered. Thus the old codex; the printed copies have, "Sophia, the Aeon that suffered [feminine]."

Quomodo autem. Caput 28 signatur in vet. cod. cum summa, quae infra ascribitur. Docet vero bonam intentionem, seu, ut Tertull. loquitur, « excogitationem, » cum scelerata in eodem animo, et ad idem objectum simul stare non posse. Item, non posse seorsim ab intellectu consistere. Igitur prorsus delirum et impossibile esse illud omne, quod de Enthymesi sunt nugati. Restituimus vero, « ipsa autem, » pro, « ipsum autem : » quoniam de Enthymesi disseritur, quae cum sit accidens, non potest actu esse, nisi in subjecto.

And how. Chapter 28 is marked in the old codex with the summary that is written below. Now he teaches that a good intention, or, as Tertullian speaks, "excogitation," cannot stand at the same time with a wicked one in the same mind and towards the same object. Likewise, that it cannot subsist apart from the intellect. That therefore all that they prated about Enthymesis is altogether crazy and impossible. And we restored "she herself, however," for "it itself, however": because the discussion is about Enthymesis, which, since it is an accident, cannot exist in act except in a subject.

Esset passibile. Codices excusi, « est et passibile ; » et paulo post pro « dictus, discens » reposuimus, vet. cod. auctoritate.

Would be passible. The printed codices have, "is also passible"; and a little after, for "called," we restored "learning," on the authority of the old codex.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 26.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 26.

Pag. 141. Quemadmodum igitur. Probat Enthymesin, id est cogitationem, vel intentionem separatam τὰ πάθη non recipere. Deinde disserit cur

Page 141. Just as therefore. He proves that Enthymesis, that is, a separated thought or intention, does not admit τὰ πάθη [the passions]. Next he discusses why

Editors' notes and page, col. 1562

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1562
marginal letters: A Sed Nus Pater.; B cod. cum suo; C Ex Jo. Ern.; D cum summa, quae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Sed Nus Pater.; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 24.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 25.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 26.

PG 7:1563

Christus dixerit apostolis : « Quaerite et invenietis, » de quo super., infra quoque abundantius c. 28 et 53.

Christ said to the apostles: "Seek and you shall find," concerning which above, and more abundantly below in chaps. 28 and 53.

Quod suasi sint. Ita vetus cod. : excusi, « eo quod ipsa sint. »

Because they are persuaded. Thus the old codex: the printed copies have, "because they themselves are."

Quemadmodum. Ter hoc capite, et alias frequenter, vocabulum istud pro, « quomodo, » vel « quo pacto » usurpat.

Just as. Thrice in this chapter, and frequently elsewhere, he uses that word for "how," or "in what manner."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 27.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 27.

Pag. 141. Quemadmodum. Verba ista jungenda esse superioribus, contextus ipse, cum veter. cod. qui vocem « enim » non habet, non obscure indicat. Contendit juniorem illum AEonem pati non potuisse, quae fingebant, si spiritalis esset substantiae ; quod nonnisi inter similes fuerit diversatus.

Page 141. Just as. That those words are to be joined to what goes before, the context itself, together with the old codex which does not have the word "for," not obscurely indicates. He contends that that younger Aeon could not have suffered the things they feigned, if it was of spiritual substance; because it conversed only among those like itself.

Assueta. Delevimus « assumpta, » auct. vet. cod., ut paulo post, « emissus, » pro « emissum » restituimus.

Accustomed. We deleted "assumed," on the authority of the old codex, as a little after we restored "emitted [masculine]" for "emitted [neuter]."

Apud comicum Menandrum. Hunc a Theophrasto comicum institutum fuisse olympiade CXIV, auctor est Laertius ; mente autem acutum, sed strabum, et insani in mulieres amoris addit Suidas ; octoginta fabulas, comoedias centum et quinque eum edidisse tradit Apollodorus ; antiquorum autem poetarum furem insignem vocant Eusebius et Porphyrius ; cujus rei gratia ab Aristophane admonitus fuit. Multa ex illius scriptis Justinus et Clemens Alexandr. suis interserunt.

In the comic poet Menander. That this comic poet was instructed by Theophrastus in the 114th Olympiad, Laertius is the author; Suidas adds that he was sharp in mind, but squint-eyed, and madly in love with women; Apollodorus hands down that he published eighty plays, a hundred and five comedies; and Eusebius and Porphyry call him a notable thief of the ancient poets, on account of which matter he was admonished by Aristophanes. Justin and Clement of Alexandria weave many things from his writings into their own.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 28.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 28.

Pag. 141. Super haec quoque. Probat AEonis fictitiam esse ac impossibilem passionem ; cum et ipsi super Patrem omnium tam impie quam inaniter inquirentes, perfici se, non pati fateantur.

Page 141. Above these things also. He proves that the passion of the Aeon is fictitious and impossible; since they themselves also, inquiring beyond the Father of all both impiously and vainly, confess that they are perfected, not that they suffer.

Quaerite et invenietis. Locum hunc ambitiosius jactitabant haeretici, indeque apostolis et Ecclesiae non omnia, quae ad salutarem doctrinam spectabant, aperta esse contendebant ; ut quod unusquisque eorum postea somniasset, se juxta Dominicum praescriptum investigasse et comperisse venditaret. De hoc adnotavimus in primum cap. lib. I.

Seek and you shall find. This passage the heretics boasted of rather ostentatiously, and thence contended that not all things which pertained to saving doctrine had been laid open to the apostles and the Church; so that whatever each one of them had afterwards dreamed up, he might pass off as having been investigated and discovered by himself according to the Lord's precept. Concerning this we noted on the first chapter of Book 1.

In passionem recidisse. Per AEonem istum, quem capite primo lib. I Gnostici dixerunt in tantas angustias et consternationes conjectum fuisse, ut a superno lumine derelictus, et ἀπορία, id est desperatione fractus exclamaverit : « Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem, » et : « Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me? » Christum Dominum procul dubio intelligebant. Id luculenter indicant ab illis ea de re adductae Scripturae, quas nullus unquam, nisi Christo convenire, ausus est dicere : indicant, et quae tradita sunt capite vicesimo quinto libri hujus ; ubi AEonem illum Mentem Patris, et Sophiam, et Monogenem vocant. Recte igitur antea adnotavimus recentiores Gnosticos a superioribus istis mutuatos horrendas illas voces, quibus Christum aliquando flammas inferni, suppliciaque desperantium et damnatorum hominum perpessum esse blasphemant.

Fell into passion. By that Aeon, whom in the first chapter of Book 1 the Gnostics said was cast into such great straits and consternations that, forsaken by the supernal light and broken by ἀπορία, that is, despair, he cried out: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death," and: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" without doubt they understood Christ the Lord. This the Scriptures adduced by them on that matter clearly indicate, which no one ever dared to say suited any save Christ: the things also handed down in the twenty-fifth chapter of this book indicate it, where they call that Aeon the Mind of the Father, and Sophia, and Monogenes. Rightly therefore we noted before that the more recent Gnostics borrowed from those earlier ones those dreadful utterances whereby they blaspheme that Christ once endured the flames of hell and the punishments of despairing and damned men.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 28.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 28.

Pag. 141. In passionem dicunt recidisse. Per AEonem, quem in tantas angustias recidisse docuerunt haeretici, non Christum Dominum intellexerunt, uti quidem videtur velle Feuardentius, sed fictitiam suam Sophiam, tam a ficto haereticorum, quam vero catholicorum Christo distinctam. Vide lib. I, cap. 1, § 2 et 5.

Page 141. They say fell into passion. By the Aeon whom the heretics taught fell into such great straits, they did not understand Christ the Lord, as indeed Feuardent seems to wish, but their fictitious Sophia, distinct both from the feigned Christ of the heretics and from the true Christ of the Catholics. See Book 1, chap. 1, §§ 2 and 5.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 29.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 29.

Pag. 142. Vesana. Codices excusi, « vesania. »

Page 142. Insane. The printed codices have "insanity."

Dicentes se esse conceptum. Satanica plane haec est ambitio, qua stemma suum coelestibus illis AEonibus acceptum ferebant. Nec mirum, aut haereticis insuetum, cum eorum parens Simon sese Dei

Saying that they themselves are the conception. Plainly satanic is this ambition, whereby they credited their pedigree to those heavenly Aeons. Nor is it any wonder, or unusual for heretics, since their parent Simon himself of God

Editors' notes and page, col. 1563

Footnotes

(19) ‹anchor: Quaerite et invenietis› · call in col 1563

Matth. VII, 7; Luc. XI, 9.

Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9.

(printed under page 790)

(20) ‹anchor: anima mea usque ad mortem› · call in col 1563

Matth. XXVI, 38; Marc. XIV, 34.

Matthew 26:38; Mark 14:34.

(printed under page 790)

(21) ‹anchor: ut quid dereliquisti me› · call in col 1563

Matth. XXVII, 46; Marc. XV, 34.

Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34.

(printed under page 790)

Page

running head: 1563 VARIORUM NOT
marginal letters: A Christus dixerit apostolis; B et insani in; C hoc adnotavimus in; D Ex Jo. Ern.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with one Greek word (ἀπορία); editors' matter: Christus dixerit apostolis; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 27.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 28.; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 28.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 29.
the page-foot notes 22 and 23 (Tom. II, pag. 28 et 199; Tom. II, p. 149) printed under the left column belong to calls in col 1564
misprints kept as printed: ἀπορία (for ἀπορίᾳ, dative) (Q2a)

PG 7:1564

nomine, et Montanus, Spiritus sancti, venditarint. Manichaeus se apostolum Christi ; Novatus sectatores suos, Puros vocitabat. Pari fastu, nostrae tempestatis Gnostici ambitiosis titulis se et haeresiarchas suos ostentant ; alios Elias secundos, Baptistas et praecursores Domini, quintos evangelistas, alteros Paulos, Gedeones, prophetas, reformatores, Spiritus sancti delicias dictitant. Nam Joannes Aurifaber libro Colloquiorum mensalium Lutheri praeceptoris sui, eumdem appellat, « virum Dei, prophetam Germaniae, tertium Eliam, doctorem Ecclesiae omnium maximum, solum θεολόγων θεολογώτατον, Scripturae verissimum et divinissimum interpretem, sanctum Lutherum, potentem in dictis et factis, Ecclesiae jam olim a Deo per os Pauli et Hussi promissum. » Idem rursus furiosum apostatam ac incestuosum haeresiarcham illum, non modo cunctis sanctis Patribus, martyribus, evangelistis, duodecim apostolis, sed et angelis impudentia plane diabolica praeferens, duobus his versibus extollit :

name, and Montanus that of the Holy Spirit, vaunted themselves. Manichaeus called himself an apostle of Christ; Novatus called his followers the Pure. With equal pride, the Gnostics of our time vaunt themselves and their heresiarchs with ambitious titles; some they style second Eliases, Baptists and forerunners of the Lord, fifth evangelists, others second Pauls, Gideons, prophets, reformers, the darlings of the Holy Spirit. For Johannes Aurifaber, in the book of Table Talk of his teacher Luther, calls the same man "a man of God, the prophet of Germany, the third Elias, the greatest of all doctors of the Church, alone among theologians the most theological, the truest and most divine interpreter of Scripture, holy Luther, mighty in words and deeds, promised long ago to the Church by God through the mouth of Paul and Hus." The same man again, preferring that raging apostate and incestuous heresiarch with plainly diabolical impudence not only to all the holy Fathers, martyrs, evangelists, and the twelve apostles, but even to the angels, extols him in these two verses:

Christus habet primas, habeas tibi, Paule, secundas. Ast loca post illos proxima Luther habet.

Christ holds the first place; keep for yourself, O Paul, the second; But the places next after them Luther holds.

Alius quoque Colloquiorum Lutheri collector Henricus Petrus Rebenstock, refert eumdem Lutherum saepe de seipso dixisse : « Ego Isaias, Philippus Melancthon Jeremias. » Quinetiam de postrema caecitate et amentia suorum sequacium praedixisse : « Nos patimur paroxismum ; oppriment nos nostri usque ad exhalationem animae. Deinde adorabunt nostra stercora, » etc. Vere nunc stercora, imo omni stercore spurciora et foediora mendacia, et damnabiles haereses Lutheri venerantur et adorant Germani, Daci, Suedi, Hungari, etc.

Another collector also of Luther's Table Talk, Heinrich Peter Rebenstock, relates that the same Luther often said of himself: "I am Isaiah, Philip Melanchthon is Jeremiah." Nay more, that concerning the final blindness and madness of his followers he foretold: "We suffer a paroxysm; our own people will press upon us even to the breathing out of our soul. Afterwards they will adore our dung," etc. Truly now the dung, nay, lies filthier and fouler than any dung, and the damnable heresies of Luther, the Germans, Danes, Swedes, Hungarians, etc., venerate and adore.

Et consternationem infecit. Id est, intulit, vel incussit. Gr., ἀπορίαν ἐνεποίησεν. Loquitur enim de affectionibus, in quas AEon ille miser incidit.

And infected consternation. That is, brought in, or struck in. In Greek, ἀπορίαν ἐνεποίησεν. For he speaks of the affections into which that wretched Aeon fell.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 30.

Annotations of the same on chap. 30.

Pag. 142. Qualis est. Vanissima esse ostendit, quaecunque fabulabantur de semine tam suo, quam angelorum, quoniam beatis angelis sunt injuriosa et Deo creatori contumeliosa, denique nulla probatione confirmari possunt.

Page 142. Of what sort it is. He shows that whatever tales they told concerning both their own seed and that of the angels are most vain, since they are injurious to the blessed angels and insulting to God the Creator, and finally can be confirmed by no proof.

Qui sunt erga Salvatorem. Ita vet. cod. ; excusi vero, « qui sunt. Ergo Salvatorem, » etc.

Who are around the Saviour. Thus the old codex; but the printed copies have, "who are. Therefore the Saviour," etc.

Ignorasse fabricatorem. Divinam unitatem Marcion laceravit, Hypostaseon trinitatem Sabellius confudit ; simplicitatem labefactarunt Anthropomorphitae ; omnipotentiae post Alardum detrahunt Sacramentarii ; misericordiae Novatiani ; Ariani et Eunomiani aequalitati ; at divinae majestatis oculos aliquid subterfugere, ignorantiaque Deum laborare, praeter istos, nescio, si quis deperditae adeo mentis unquam fuerit ut id cogitarit. A tanto sacrilegio ethnicos etiam abhorruisse, ex praeclaris versibus Philemonis, Menandri et Euripidis, quos in librum suum De monarchia inseruit Justinus Martyr, clarum est. In hanc impietatem videtur Dionysius Areopag. integro capite septimo libri De divinis nom. disputare. Varia quoque ad hanc rem philosophorum, comicorum et tragicorum testimonia congerit Theophilus Antiochenus, libro secundo Ad Autolycum ; eamdem persequitur acerrime et Irenaeus capitibus proximis.

That the Framer was ignorant. Marcion tore asunder the divine unity, Sabellius confounded the trinity of Hypostases; the Anthropomorphites undermined the simplicity; after Alardus the Sacramentarians detract from the omnipotence; the Novatians from the mercy; the Arians and Eunomians from the equality; but that anything escapes the eyes of the divine majesty, and that God labours under ignorance, besides these men, I know not whether anyone was ever of so lost a mind as to think it. That the pagans also shrank from so great a sacrilege is clear from the noble verses of Philemon, Menander, and Euripides, which Justin Martyr inserted into his book On Monarchy. Against this impiety Dionysius the Areopagite seems to dispute in the whole seventh chapter of the book On the Divine Names. Various testimonies also of philosophers, comic poets, and tragic poets on this matter Theophilus of Antioch gathers together in the second book To Autolycus; and Irenaeus pursues the same most sharply in the next chapters.

Cum sit. Delevimus « sint : » et mox « exsistens » pro « exsistentes » posuimus auctor. vet. cod.

Since he is. We deleted "they are:" and presently we put "existing [singular]" for "existing [plural]" on the authority of the old codex.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 31.

Annotations of the same on chap. 31.

Pag. 142. Demiurgum autem. Contra omnem rationem affirmabant Demiurgum, id est Deum hujus universi effectorem, quaedam ignorasse ; quorum ipsi scientiam profitebantur, sibi ipsis longe potiora tribuentes, quam Deo omnipotenti.

Page 142. Moreover, that the Demiurge. Against all reason they affirmed that the Demiurge, that is, God the Maker of this universe, was ignorant of certain things; the knowledge of which they themselves professed, attributing to themselves things far preferable to those they attributed to God Almighty.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1564

Footnotes

(22) ‹anchor: de seipso dixisse› · call in col 1564

Tom. II, pag. 28 et 199.

Volume 2, pages 28 and 199.

(printed under page 790)

(23) ‹anchor: sequacium praedixisse› · call in col 1564

Tom. II, p. 149.

Volume 2, page 149.

(printed under page 790)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1564
marginal letters: A nomine, et Montanus,; B diabolica praeferens, duobus; C Pag. 142. Qualis; D rum est. In
old-edition numerals: 97 after adorabunt
other: Latin, with a little Greek (θεολόγων θεολογώτατον; ἀπορίαν ἐνεποίησεν); editors' matter: nomine, et Montanus,; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 30.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 31.
other: the two verses (Christus habet primas … / Ast loca post illos …) are printed on two lines, the first ending secundas.
other: the English opens mid-sentence, continuing col. 1563 (… sese Dei | nomine): it renders nomine here; col. 1563's English must end without it.

PG 7:1565

Cum ex eadem substantia. Animam ejusdem esse substantiae cum Deo mundi fabricatore, haeresis fuit Manichaeorum, et Priscillianistarum, ut colligitur ex anathematismis concilii Bracarensis ; quam ex Gnosticorum istorum sentina vides haustam fuisse. Licet enim disputationibus gravissimis aliquando dissenserint Patres de origine animae, ut ex Tertulliani, Apollinaris, Arnobii, Luciferi, Tatiani, Origenis, et Augustini scriptis, omnibus in confesso est : eorum tamen nullus Gnosticorum sententiae subscripsit.

Since from the same substance. That the soul is of the same substance with God the Framer of the world was the heresy of the Manichaeans and Priscillianists, as is gathered from the anathematisms of the Council of Braga; which you see was drawn from the bilge of those Gnostics. For although in most weighty disputations the Fathers sometimes disagreed concerning the origin of the soul, as is acknowledged by all from the writings of Tertullian, Apollinaris, Arnobius, Lucifer, Tatian, Origen, and Augustine: yet none of them subscribed to the opinion of the Gnostics.

Animabus. Expunximus « animae ; » et mox « Deo, » pro « Deus » restituimus auct. vet. cod.

To souls. We expunged "of the soul"; and presently we restored "to God" for "God" on the authority of the old codex.

Adhuc etiam. Initium est capitis vigesimi noni in vet. cod.

Moreover also. This is the beginning of the twenty-ninth chapter in the old codex.

Pag. 143. Ex ignorantia et labe. Delevimus « ignorantiae ; » et paulo post « formationem, » pro « formatione » reposuimus.

Page 143. From ignorance and degradation. We deleted "of ignorance"; and a little after we restored "formation [accusative]" for "formation [ablative]."

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 32.

Annotations of the same on chap. 32.

Pag. 143. Si enim. Ex propositis Gnosticorum sequitur, tenebras utiliores esse lumine : et filiis, perfectionis ac utilitatis fuisse id, quod matri periculosum fuerat ; quod valde est ridiculum. Quae porro hic refutantur, late descripsit et recitavit lib. I, cap. 1.

Page 143. For if. From the premises of the Gnostics it follows that darkness is more useful than light: and that what had been dangerous to the mother was for perfection and utility to the children; which is very ridiculous. Now the things which are refuted here, he described and recited at length in Book 1, chap. 1.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 33.

Annotations of the same on chap. 33.

Pag. 143. Adhuc etiam. Quatuor propositis quaestionibus, adjectisque, juxta eorum mentem totidem responsis, falsa convincit esse quae comminiscebantur de Matre sua, et ejus imagine ; de angelorum imaginibus, Demiurgi, et spiritalis imperfecti emissione ; atque ex his consequi docet, semen illud non angelorum, sed animarum figuras debere prae se ferre.

Page 143. Moreover also. Having propounded four questions, and added just as many answers according to their mind, he proves to be false the things which they devised about their Mother and her image; about the images of the angels, and the emission of the Demiurge and of the imperfect spiritual being; and from these things he teaches that it follows that that seed ought to display the figures not of angels, but of souls.

Pag. 143. Operosius. Id est, ad res gerendas efficacius et aptius.

Page 143. More active. That is, more efficacious and fitter for carrying out affairs.

In eo. Ita vet. cod. ; excusi vero, « eam. » De charactere et figura animarum postea disputabitur, videlicet cap. 63.

In it. Thus the old codex; but the printed copies have, "it [feminine]." Concerning the character and figure of souls there will be a disputation afterwards, namely in chap. 63.

Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 33.

From the annotations of Jo. Er. Grabe on chap. 33.

Pag. 143. Superflua est igitur in homines descensio ejus. Hanc enim eo fine semini isti attribuebant haeretici, ut animabus hominum immissum, ibi « figuretur, et augescat, et paratum fiat ad susceptionem perfectae rationis, » sicuti cap. 31 dictum est. Ast nonnisi ad primam acantilem haec quadrant aetatem ; quam cum semen istud excesserit, utpote jam olim a Matre emissum, frustra dicebatur id in animas hominum demitti.

Page 143. Superfluous therefore is its descent into men. For the heretics attributed this to that seed to the end that, sent into the souls of men, there "it may be fashioned, and grow, and become prepared for the reception of perfect reason," just as was said in chap. 31. Yet these things square only with the first and infantile age; since that seed had passed beyond this, inasmuch as it was emitted long ago by the Mother, in vain was it said to be sent down into the souls of men.

Operosius. Id est, ad res gerendas efficacius et aptius.

More active. That is, more efficacious and fitter for carrying out affairs.

Animalibus. « Animales » intellige homines, Graece ψυχικούς, non « animalia. »

To animal ones. Understand "animal" men, in Greek ψυχικούς, not "animals."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 34.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 34.

Pag. 143. Adhuc autem. Initium est capitis 30 in vet. cod. cum ejusdem argumento. Damnat fabulas illas de semine et conceptione, quas circa medium capitis primi lib. I retulerat.

Page 143. Moreover. This is the beginning of chapter 30 in the old codex with the argument of the same. He condemns those fables about the seed and conception which he had related around the middle of the first chapter of Book 1.

Qui erant in viis mendici. Huic simile est illud Tertull. : « Major pars credentium, simplices, imprudentes, et idiotae. » Item Minutii Felicis in Octavio : « Pars vestrum et major et melior, egetis, algetis, opere, fame laboratis, et Deus patitur, » etc.

Who were beggars in the highways. Similar to this is that saying of Tertullian: "The greater part of believers are simple, unlearned, and common folk." Likewise of Minucius Felix in the Octavius: "The part of you both greater and better are in want, are cold, labour with toil and hunger, and God suffers it," etc.

Pag. 144. Non multi sapientes apud vos. Verba sunt Apostoli, I Cor. I, quae paulo aliter citat, quam habeat aut Vulgata editio, aut contextus Graecus, ὅτι οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα, atque sic ex Graecis legunt Chrysostomus et Theodor., et ex Latinis Ambrosius et Primasius ; sed sensum reddidit Irenaeus.

Page 144. Not many wise among you. They are the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1, which he cites a little differently than either the Vulgate edition or the Greek text has, ὅτι οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα [that not many wise according to the flesh], and thus among the Greeks read Chrysostom and Theodoret, and among the Latins Ambrose and Primasius; but Irenaeus rendered the sense.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1565

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. Call numerals are small and read as 24, 25, 26 (26 is clearest); calls 25 and 26 are not visible in the foot crops. (printed under page 791)

(24) ‹anchor: illud Tertull.› · call in col 1565

Lib. cont. Prax.

Book against Praxeas.

(printed under page 791)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1565-1566 (not visible in foot images)

Æneid. II, vers. 65, 66.

Aeneid II, lines 65, 66.

(printed under page 791)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1565-1566 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. I sacr. Observat.

Book I of the Sacred Observations.

(printed under page 791)

Page

running head: 1565 IN LIB. II S. IRE
marginal letters: A Cum ex eadem; B Pag. 143. Si; C charactere et figura; D Pag. 143. Adhuc
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Cum ex eadem; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 52.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 33.; Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 33.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 34.

PG 7:1566

Nec enim oportet. Elegans plane proverbium, eodem fere sensu usurpatum, quo illud est apud Virgilium :

For neither is it necessary. Plainly an elegant proverb, used in almost the same sense as that in Virgil:

..... Et crimine ab uno, Disce omnes.

... And from one crime, learn all.

Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 34.

From the annotations of Jo. Er. Grabe on chap. 34.

Pag. 144. Nec enim oportet. Huc quadrat istud Athenagorae, in Legatione pro Christianis ante medium pag. 13, edit. Paris. : Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν, μικρὰ ἀπὸ μεγάλων, καὶ ὀλίγα ἀπὸ πολλῶν, ἵνα μὴ ἐπὶ πλεῖον ὑμῖν ἐνοχλοίημεν. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ μέλι καὶ οἶνον δοκιμάζοντες, μικρῷ μέρει τοῦ παντὸς τὸ πᾶν, εἰ καλὸν, δοκιμάζουσιν. « Et haec parva quidem de magnis, pauca de multis retulimus, ne nimium molesti vobis essemus. Nam et qui mel aut vinum explorant, ex exigua parte totius, de toto judicant. »

Page 144. For neither is it necessary. With this squares that saying of Athenagoras, in the Embassy for the Christians before the middle of page 13, Paris edition: "These things, then, small from great, and few from many, that we might not trouble you further. For those also who test honey and wine, by a small part of the whole test the whole, whether it is good." "And these small things indeed from great, few from many we have related, lest we should be too troublesome to you. For those also who test honey or wine judge of the whole from a tiny part of the whole."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 35.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 35.

Pag. 144. Sed quemadmodum. Hanc sententiam revulsam a fine capitis 34, initium 35 constituimus. Asserit vero nec alterum Deum supra fabricatorem hujus universi constituere, nec unicum in persona Christum in plures distrahere licitum esse : quod ipsos tentare supra dixerat, lib. I, capit. 1. Billius porro de hujus capitis initio scribit : « Mihi dubium non est, quin pro, maxima, substituendum sit, maxime. Nam quod in Graeco erat συνεκτικώτατα, id verborum tenacissimus interpres reddidit, maxime continentia ; ego, praecipua ac maximi ponderis. Sic enim clarior est sensus. » Acutiorum judicio haec ego discutienda relinquo.

Page 144. But just as. Having torn this sentence away from the end of chapter 34, we have made it the beginning of 35. Now he asserts that it is lawful neither to establish another God above the Framer of this universe, nor to pull asunder the Christ who is one in person into several: which he had said above, Book 1, chap. 1, that they attempted. Moreover, Billius writes concerning the beginning of this chapter: "There is no doubt in my mind that for maxima [greatest] there should be substituted maxime [most]. For what was in the Greek συνεκτικώτατα, the translator, most tenacious of the words, rendered maxime continentia [most containing]; I render it, chief and of the greatest weight. For thus the sense is clearer." I leave these things to be discussed by the judgement of sharper minds.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 36.

Annotations of the same on chap. 36.

Pag. 144. Illam enim. Caput 32 inchoatur in vet. codic. cum sua epigraphe. Demonstrat autem vanas et futiles esse probationes, quibus AEonis duodecimi passiones et angustias asseverabant, nec per Judae apostasiam ac defectionem ipsas posse confirmari. Demum, variis antithesibus ostendit, passionem Domini nostri nihil commune aut affine habere cum ficta AEonis passione. Quae autem hic refelluntur, habes lib. I, cap. 1, paulo post initium ; et lib. II, cap. 25, 26, 27, 28.

Page 144. For that. Chapter 32 begins in the old codex with its heading. Now he demonstrates that the proofs whereby they asserted the passions and straits of the twelfth Aeon are vain and futile, nor can they be confirmed through the apostasy and defection of Judas. Finally, by various antitheses he shows that the passion of our Lord has nothing in common or akin with the feigned passion of the Aeon. And the things which are refuted here, you have in Book 1, chap. 1, a little after the beginning; and Book 2, chaps. 25, 26, 27, 28.

Uno enim anno. In hac quoque videtur fuisse sententia Tertullian. lib. Advers. Judaeos, cap. 8, et lib. I Advers. Marcionem, cap. 15, quod etiam notat Eusebius in Chron. Eamdem opinionem amplexantur Lactantius lib. IV, cap. 10 ; Julius Africanus lib. De temp. apud Hieronymum Comment. in Danielem ; Clemens Alexand. lib. I Strom. ; Paulus Orosius lib. VII, capite decimo ; quibus accedere videtur Augustinus lib. XVIII De civitat., cap. 54, et lib. XXII, cap. 15, tametsi contrarium tueatur lib. II De doctrina Christiana, capite vigesimo octavo. At vero, hunc Gnosticorum errorem tam acriter cap. 38 et 39 hujus libri refellit Irenaeus, ut in alium inclinare videatur. De hac re ante me scripserunt viri doctissimi et diligentissimi Pamelius in Paradoxis Tertulliani, et Benedictus Pererius Comm. in caput undecimum Danielis. Hos studiosus lector consulat.

For in one year. Of this opinion also Tertullian seems to have been, in the book Against the Jews, chap. 8, and Book 1 Against Marcion, chap. 15, which Eusebius also notes in the Chronicle. The same opinion is embraced by Lactantius Book 4, chap. 10; Julius Africanus in the book On Times in Jerome's Commentary on Daniel; Clement of Alexandria Book 1 of the Stromata; Paulus Orosius Book 7, chapter ten; to whom Augustine seems to accede in Book 18 On the City of God, chap. 54, and Book 22, chap. 15, although he maintains the contrary in Book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter twenty-eight. Yet indeed, Irenaeus refutes this error of the Gnostics so sharply in chaps. 38 and 39 of this book that he seems to incline towards another error. On this matter most learned and diligent men have written before me, Pamelius in the Paradoxes of Tertullian, and Benedictus Pererius in his Commentary on the eleventh chapter of Daniel. Let the studious reader consult these.

Pag. 145. Sed neque. Expunximus « quae ; » et postea « neque in similibus, » pro « ei quae in invisibilibus, » auctor. veter. cod. reposuimus.

Page 145. But neither. We expunged "which"; and afterwards we restored "neither in like things," for "to that which in invisible things," on the authority of the old codex.

Dominus autem noster passus est passionem validam. Id est, non modo sponte et confidenter ad passionem accessit, Judaeisque capiendum, ligandum, conspuendum, denique crucifigendum semetipsum obtulit ; verum etiam illa toti mundo inaudita dolorum tolerantia, homini assumpto omnem gloriam et exaltationem, et generi humano justitiam et salutem aeternam promeruit. Cyprianus martyr hos fructus passionis Christi post Irenaeum

Now our Lord suffered a strong passion. That is, not only did He willingly and confidently approach the passion, and offer Himself to the Jews to be seized, bound, spat upon, and finally crucified; but also by that endurance of pains unheard of by the whole world, He merited for the assumed man all glory and exaltation, and for the human race righteousness and eternal salvation. Cyprian the martyr touches upon these fruits of Christ's passion after Irenaeus

Editors' notes and page, col. 1566

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1566
marginal letters: A Nec enim oportet.; B Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii; C decimi passiones et; D naeus, ut in
old-edition numerals: 98 after Id
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Nec enim oportet.; Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 34.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 35.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 36.

PG 7:1567

sic attingit « Christus Filius hominis esse voluit, ut nos filios Dei faceret ; vulneratus est, ut vulnera nostra sanaret ; servivit, ut ad libertatem servientes extraheret ; mori sustinuit, ut immortalitatem mortalibus exhiberet. »

thus: "Christ willed to be the Son of man, that He might make us sons of God; He was wounded, that He might heal our wounds; He served, that He might draw out to liberty those who were serving; He endured to die, that He might bestow immortality upon mortals."

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 37.

Annotations of the same on chap. 37.

Pag. 145. Illorum autem. Persequitur institutam confutationem fictitiae AEonis passionis, docens Judam illius typum non fuisse, cum duodecimus apostolorum fuerit, AEonem vero trigesimo loco constituerent ; sed neque illius Enthymeseos, cum in Pleroma redierit, hic vero nusquam postea cum apostolis numeratus sit. Tantumdem deinceps facit de duodecim apostolis, septuaginta discipulis, et B. Paulo, ob nullas AEonum emissiones figurandas, electos fuisse a Christo Domino, ostendens. Postremo figmentum de Salvatore, quem τὸ πᾶν nominabant, dissolvit, nihil aliud quam poeticum mendacium esse, confirmans.

Page 145. And of those. He pursues the undertaken refutation of the fictitious passion of the Aeon, teaching that Judas was not a type of it, since he was the twelfth of the apostles, whereas they placed the Aeon in the thirtieth place; nor yet of its Enthymesis, since she returned into the Pleroma, whereas he was nowhere afterwards numbered with the apostles. He does just as much next concerning the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and blessed Paul, showing that they were chosen by Christ the Lord to figure no emissions of Aeons. Lastly he dissolves the figment concerning the Saviour, whom they named τὸ πᾶν [the All], confirming that it is nothing else than a poetic lie.

Irrationabile. Caput 33 signat vet. cod. cum argumento supra scripto. Expunximus, « Inenarrabile. »

Unreasonable. The old codex marks chapter 33 with the argument written above. We expunged "Unutterable."

Pag. 146. Sed neque de Paulo. Vet. cod. hic 34 caput exorditur. Delevimus, « omnium collatio. »

Page 146. But neither concerning Paul. The old codex here begins chapter 34. We deleted "the bringing together of all things."

Hermes. Hic philosophus in AEgypto post Moysen claruit, et Τρισμέγιστος, id est ter maximus, vocatus fuit ; quin et Moysen ipsum Hermetem esse, qui, propter litterarum inventionem, id nomen apud AEgyptios consecutus sit, apud Eusebium lib. I De praepar. evang., cap. 6, putat Eupolemus. Ab ipso conscripta feruntur Pymander, Asclepius, et Jatromathematica. Plura de eodem habet Augustinus VIII De civit., cap. 23, 24, 26. Notandum autem Hesiodum poetam in Operibus, totum istud carmen ad verbum transcripsisse : quo loco Mercurii donum in Pandoram proponit his verbis :

Hermes. This philosopher flourished in Egypt after Moses, and was called Τρισμέγιστος, that is, thrice greatest; nay more, Eupolemus in Eusebius Book 1 On the Preparation for the Gospel, chap. 6, thinks that Moses himself was Hermes, who on account of the invention of letters obtained that name among the Egyptians. There are said to have been written by him the Pymander, Asclepius, and Iatromathematica. Augustine has more things about the same in Book 8 On the City of God, chaps. 23, 24, 26. Now it must be noted that the poet Hesiod in the Works transcribed all that poem word for word: in which place he sets forth the gift of Mercury to Pandora in these words:

Ἐν δ' ἄρα οἱ στήθεσσι διάκτορος Ἀργειφόντης, Ψεύδεά θ' αἱμυλίους τε λόγους καὶ ἐπίκλοπον ἦθος Τεῦξε ....

And in her breast the messenger Argus-slayer fashioned lies and coaxing words and a thievish character...

Mater enim, hoc est Leto. Graecis Λητὼ, Latona dicitur Coei filia ; a Jove dilecta pariter et oppressa, ex quo geminam concepit prolem, Apollinem et Dianam.

For the mother, that is Leto. By the Greeks Λητὼ, Latona is called the daughter of Coeus; loved and likewise ravished by Jupiter, by whom she conceived twin offspring, Apollo and Diana.

Pelope. Pelops Tantali Phrygiae regis filius fuit, cujus pater, cum deos in terris vagantes hospitio et convivio excepisset, ut certo aliquo argumento divinitatem eorum experiretur, Pelopem filium membratim dissectum, illis epulandum apposuit ; a cujus esu cum caeteri dii abhorrerent, sola Ceres humerum dextrum absumpsit : Jupiter vero misertus, utque deitatis suae specimen praeberet, collectis partibus omnibus, fingitur ad vitam illum revocasse. Post Pindarum, hujus rei meminit Orosius libro primo, capite duodecimo, et Tatianus Oratione contra Graecos.

Pelops. Pelops was the son of Tantalus king of Phrygia, whose father, when he had received the gods wandering on the earth with hospitality and a banquet, in order that he might test their divinity by some sure proof, set before them to feast upon his son Pelops cut up limb by limb; while the rest of the gods shrank from eating of him, Ceres alone consumed his right shoulder: but Jupiter, taking pity, and that he might give a proof of his deity, having gathered all the parts together, is feigned to have recalled him to life. After Pindar, Orosius mentions this matter in the first book, chapter twelve, and Tatian in the Oration against the Greeks.

Ex qua et isti compuncti. Billius. Graece, κεκαυτηριασμένοι, id est quasi cauterio inusti : Paulina vox I Tim. IV, 2.

From which these also were branded. Billius: In Greek, κεκαυτηριασμένοι, that is, as it were seared with a branding-iron: a Pauline expression, 1 Tim. 4:2.

Ex Jo. Er. Gr. adnotationibus in cap. 37.

From the annotations of Jo. Er. Grabe on chap. 37.

Pag. 146. Possit ostendere, neque secunda decade. Hic textus est mutilus, neque ullus ms. codex medelam ei suppeditat. Sententia tamen et argumentatio auctoris satis perspicue elucet, eo nimirum tendens, quod vanum sit duodecim Christi apostolos, typos facere duodecim AEonum, ab Homine et Ecclesia proseminatorum, cum haud alii dentur apostoli numero decem et octo, quibus vel decas, vel ogdoas priorum AEonum adumbraretur ; septuaginta enim discipulos a Servatore postea electos huc trahi non posse, utpote numero longe superiores.

Page 146. Could show, nor by the second decad. This text is mutilated, nor does any manuscript codex supply a remedy for it. Yet the meaning and argumentation of the author shines forth clearly enough, tending namely to this, that it is vain to make the twelve apostles of Christ types of the twelve Aeons disseminated by Man and Ecclesia, since there are by no means given other apostles eighteen in number, by whom either the decad or the ogdoad of the earlier Aeons might be shadowed forth; for the seventy disciples afterwards chosen by the Saviour cannot be dragged in here, inasmuch as they are far superior in number.

Hermes. Haec Hesiodi verba, quibus Mercurium, Jovis filium, jussu Patris, virtutem callide persuadendi

Hermes. These words of Hesiod, whereby he says that Mercury, the son of Jupiter, by the command of his Father, put the power of cunningly persuading

Editors' notes and page, col. 1567

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. The first numeral prints only "7" at the foot; its call in the text reads 27. (printed under page 792)

Page

running head: 1567 VARIORUM NOT
marginal letters: A sic attingit « Christus; B Irrationabile. Caput 33; C Ψεύδεά θ' αἱμυλίους; D τηριασμένοι, id est
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sic attingit « Christus; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 37.; Ex Jo. Er. Gr. adnotationibus in cap. 37.; word split at end of column: persua-
other: the word persuadendi was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1568

PG 7:1568

Pandorae donasse asserit, ad hos haereticos applicat Irenaeus, aitque Mercurium αἱμυλίους τε λόγους καὶ ἐπίκλοπον ἦθος his quoque haereticis videri tribuisse, « ad seducendum » vanis sermonibus « stultos hominum, ut credant figmentis eorum. »

upon Pandora, Irenaeus applies to these heretics, and says that Mercury seems to have bestowed coaxing words and a thievish character upon these heretics also, "to seduce" by vain speeches "the foolish among men, that they may believe their figments."

Pelope. Meminit Pelopis Pindarus Olympiorum od. 1, deque eo, inter Latinos poetas, consona prorsus Irenaeo cecinit Ovidius lib. VI Metamorph. 1, 407, 408 :

Pelops. Pindar mentions Pelops in Olympian Ode 1, and concerning him, among the Latin poets, Ovid sang things altogether consonant with Irenaeus in Book 6 of the Metamorphoses, 407, 408:

...... Manibus mox caesa paternis Membra ferunt junxisse deos......

... Soon they say the gods joined together the limbs cut up by his father's hands...

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 38.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 38.

Pag. 146. Quia autem. Trigesimum quintum caput notat vet. cod. cum affixa ibidem epigraphe. Probat Irenaeus, nec triginta AEones illos, quorum de inventione tantopere sibi placebant, alicubi consistere, nec per annum trigesimum, quo Christus adiit baptisma Joannis, eos repraesentari. Locum autem Isaiae, quo perperam probare nitebantur, Dominum mense duodecimo a baptismate passum, religiose explicat de tempore legis evangelicae et gratiae, dieque extremi judicii, quem postea Hieronymus et Cyrillus in Isaiae caput sexagesimum primum sunt imitati. Quae hic refelluntur, enarravit libro primo, capite primo, ubi et aliquid de Tertulliano et Clemente Alex. adnotavimus.

Page 146. Moreover because. The old codex marks the thirty-fifth chapter with the heading affixed in the same place. Irenaeus proves that neither do those thirty Aeons, with the invention of which they were so greatly pleased with themselves, subsist anywhere, nor are they represented by the thirtieth year, in which Christ came to the baptism of John. And the passage of Isaiah, whereby they wrongly strove to prove that the Lord suffered in the twelfth month from His baptism, he religiously explains of the time of the evangelical law and of grace, and of the day of the last judgement, whom afterwards Jerome and Cyril imitated on the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah. The things which are refuted here, he recounted in the first book, chapter one, where we also noted something about Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.

Vocare annum. Cum Septuaginta scripserint καλέσαι, et vetus codex noster « vocare » contineat, hoc ipsum pro « vocate » substituimus. Atque ita legit Cyprianus lib. II Advers. Judaeos, cap. 10.

To call the year. Since the Septuagint wrote καλέσαι, and our old codex contains "to call," we have substituted this very word for "call ye." And thus reads Cyprian in Book 2 Against the Jews, chap. 10.

Plurima. Expunximus « Pleroma. »

Very many things. We expunged "Pleroma."

Pag. 147. Omne tempus. Codices excusi, « omne temporis. »

Page 147. All the time. The printed codices have "all of the time."

Ex Jo. Er. Grab. adnotationibus in cap. 38.

From the annotations of Jo. Er. Grabe on chap. 38.

Pag. 146. Alioquin ipsum primum erunt discernentes, etc. Si enim triginta tantum sunt AEones Pleromatis, Servator, qui praeter istos triginta numeratur, non erit in Pleromate ; quod ipsi indecorum putat Irenaeus. Confer supra pag. 129, col. 1.

Page 146. Otherwise they will be separating Him first, etc. For if there are only thirty Aeons of the Pleroma, the Saviour, who is numbered besides those thirty, will not be in the Pleroma; which Irenaeus thinks unbecoming to Him. Compare above, page 129, col. 1.

Dies retributionis ..... judicium. Ita et Theodoretus ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως, exponit τῆς κρίσεως τὴν ἡμέραν.

The day of retribution ... judgement. Thus Theodoret also expounds ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως [the day of retribution] as τῆς κρίσεως τὴν ἡμέραν [the day of judgement].

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 39.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 39.

Pag. 147. Est autem valde. Trigesimum sextum caput signat vet. cod. cum suo argumento, quod hic certe melius conveniret, cum apertis testimoniis comprobet, Christum plus uno et duobus annis docuisse. Porro, « est valde admirari, » locutio est his similis, « videre est, licet videre. »

Page 147. Now it is very. The old codex marks the thirty-sixth chapter with its argument, which certainly would suit better here, since he proves by open testimonies that Christ taught for more than one and two years. Moreover, "it is very much to be wondered at" is an expression similar to these: "it is to be seen, one may see."

Qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes. Renascentiae nomine, Dominica et apostolica phrasi, baptismum intelligit, aperte confirmans apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum, adversus Anabaptistarum impietatem. Illam vero ante Irenaeum asseruerant Dionysius Areopagita capite ultimo Eccles. hier., Clemens libro sexto Const., capite decimo quinto ; auctor Quaestion. ad orthodox. apud Justinum martyrem, quaestion. 56 ; post Irenaeum, Origenes in cap. VI ad Rom. ; Cyprianus epist. ad Fidum ; Cyrillus Jerosolym. cateches. mystag. 1 ; Nazianzenus orat. in sanctum lavacrum ; Basilius Exhort. ad baptismum ; Chrysostom. homil. ad neophytos ; Hieronymus epist. ad Laetam, Augustinus, Theodoretus, etc.

Infants, who through Him are reborn unto God. By the name of rebirth, in the Lord's and apostolic phrase, he understands baptism, openly confirming the tradition of the apostles concerning the baptism of little infants, against the impiety of the Anabaptists. Now before Irenaeus there had asserted it Dionysius the Areopagite in the last chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Clement in the sixth book of the Constitutions, chapter fifteen; the author of the Questions to the Orthodox in Justin Martyr, question 56; after Irenaeus, Origen on chap. 6 to the Romans; Cyprian in the Epistle to Fidus; Cyril of Jerusalem in Mystagogical Catechesis 1; Nazianzen in the Oration on Holy Baptism; Basil in the Exhortation to Baptism; Chrysostom in the Homily to Neophytes; Jerome in the Epistle to Laeta, Augustine, Theodoret, etc.

Pag. 148. Quia autem. Paulo aliter ex Hippocrate hominis aetates enumerat Philo : « In hominis natura, ait, septem sunt tempora, quae aetates vocant : Infans, puer, adolescens, et reliquae. Infans est, donec intra septennium dentes emittat ; puer, usque ad geniturae excretionem, ad geminatum septennium ; adolescens, usque ad

Page 148. Moreover because. A little differently from Hippocrates Philo enumerates the ages of man: "In the nature of man," he says, "there are seven periods, which they call ages: infant, boy, youth, and the rest. One is an infant until within the seven-year period he puts forth teeth; a boy, until the excretion of seed, to the doubled seven-year period; a youth, until

Editors' notes and page, col. 1568

Footnotes

(27) ‹anchor: apostolica phrasi› · call in col 1568

Joan. III, 5; Tit. III, 5.

John 3:5; Titus 3:5.

(printed under page 792)

(28) ‹anchor: enumerat Philo› · call in col 1568

Lib. de mundi opific.

Book on the Creation of the World (De mundi opificio).

(printed under page 792)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1568
marginal letters: A dendi Pandorae donasse; B cum autem Isaiae,; C Pleromatis, Servator, qui; D vero ante Irenaeum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: dendi Pandorae donasse; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 38.; Ex Jo. Er. Grab. adnotationibus in cap. 38.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 39.; word split at start of column: persua-dendi

PG 7:1569

barbae hirsutiem, ad annum ter septimum ; vir usque ad undequinquagesimum, ad septies septimum. Quidquid vero deinceps sequitur, ad senium pertinet. » Ei subscribit Macrobius lib. I in Somnium Scipionis, cap. 6.

the roughness of the beard, to the thrice seventh year; a man, until the forty-ninth, to the seven times seventh. And whatever follows thereafter pertains to old age." Macrobius subscribes to him in Book 1 on the Dream of Scipio, chap. 6.

Quam habens Dominus. Disertis verbis affirmat Christum ultra quadragesimum, aut etiam quinquagesimum annum docuisse ; idque Scripturis et rationibus, sed imbecillis, confirmare nititur : quod communi Ecclesiae judicio non est receptum. Candide autem de beatissimo martyre sentiendum, quod impetu ipso refellendi Gnosticos, qui annum trigesimum primum illum non excessisse dicebant, in partem contrariam delatus est. Sanctissimis enim et doctissimis hoc non raro contigisse, ipsa luce manifestius est. Itaque hinc apparet, auctorem Methodi ad facilem historiarum cognitionem, quantumvis variae lectionis famam sectetur, Irenaeum nunquam legisse : qui eum ad unum et triginta annos tantum vixisse Christum asserentem facit ; quod tam aperte et pertinaciter adversus Gnosticos oppugnat. Praestitisset hominem eo libro, ne dicam caetera, vel sanctis Patribus saltem pepercisse. At Epiphanius contra haeresim 51 diligenti annorum per consules supputatione, rectissime colligit, passum Christum anno aetatis trigesimo tertio. Quod etiam Ignatius Joannis auditor, testis omni exceptione major, diligenter notaverat Epistola ad Trallianos : « Annos agens triginta, ait, Dominus baptizatus est a Joanne, vere ac non opinione, et tribus annis praedicato Evangelio, ac factis signis et prodigiis, tandem a pseudo Judaeis et Pilato praeside judicatus est, mortuus et sepultus. » Quod vero a senioribus, qui Joannem apostolum audierant, profert argumentum, tanti viri bona venia dixerim, nec Ignatius, nec Polycarpus, nec Evodius, nec Clemens, nec Dionysius, Joannis, Pauli, Petrique auditores istud affirmant : quinimo ex horum scriptis contrarium facile colligitur. Potuit ergo istud audivisse a Papia, Aristionis et Joannis Presbyteri discipulo, qui auctore Eusebio, homo fuit pertenuis ingenii, et res quasdam ab apostolis subobscure et parabolice dictas non satis intellexit. Caeterum, Augustinus libro secundo De doctrina Christiana, capite vigesimo octavo, utrumque forsitan, id est tam Papiam quam Irenaeum, intelligens, refert quosdam dixisse, Christum quadraginta et sex annos vixisse : sed ignorantia historiae lapsos esse affirmat.

Having which the Lord. In express words he affirms that Christ taught beyond the fortieth, or even the fiftieth year; and this he strives to confirm by Scriptures and reasons, though weak ones: which has not been received by the common judgement of the Church. Yet one must judge candidly of the most blessed martyr, that by the very impulse of refuting the Gnostics, who said that He did not pass beyond the thirty-first year, he was carried away to the opposite side. For that this has not rarely happened to the holiest and most learned men is clearer than light itself. Therefore it appears hence that the author of the Method for the Easy Comprehension of Histories, however much he pursues the reputation of varied reading, never read Irenaeus: for he makes him assert that Christ lived to thirty-one years only; which he so openly and persistently combats against the Gnostics. It would have been better for the man in that book, not to mention other things, at least to have spared the holy Fathers. But Epiphanius against Heresy 51, by a diligent computation of the years through the consuls, most rightly gathers that Christ suffered in the thirty-third year of His age. Which also Ignatius, the hearer of John, a witness above all exception, had diligently noted in the Epistle to the Trallians: "Being thirty years old," he says, "the Lord was baptized by John, truly and not in appearance, and having preached the Gospel for three years, and wrought signs and wonders, at length He was judged by the false Jews and Pilate the governor, died, and was buried." Now as for the argument which he brings forward from the elders who had heard John the Apostle, with the good leave of so great a man I would say, neither Ignatius, nor Polycarp, nor Evodius, nor Clement, nor Dionysius, the hearers of John, Paul, and Peter, affirm that: nay rather, from their writings the contrary is easily gathered. He could therefore have heard that from Papias, the disciple of Aristion and of John the Presbyter, who according to Eusebius was a man of very slender wit, and did not sufficiently understand certain things said somewhat obscurely and parabolically by the apostles. For the rest, Augustine in the second book On Christian Doctrine, chapter twenty-eight, understanding perhaps both, that is, both Papias and Irenaeus, relates that some said Christ lived forty-six years: but he affirms that they slipped through ignorance of history.

Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 39.

From the annotations of Jo. Er. Grabe on chap. 39.

Pag. 147. Secunda vice ascendit in diem festum Paschae. Haud recte quidem Irenaeus « diem festum Judaeorum, quo Jesus Jerosolymam ascendisse » dicitur Joan. V, 1, de Paschate accepit ; interim paulo post Joan. VI, quod caput itidem auctor noster citat, vers. 4, expressa alterius Paschatis Judaeorum appropinquantis fit mentio. Unde secundus praedicationis Christi annus optime colligitur.

Page 147. A second time He went up to the feast day of the Passover. Not rightly indeed did Irenaeus take "the feast day of the Jews, on which Jesus is said to have gone up to Jerusalem" in John 5:1, as being of the Passover; meanwhile a little after in John 6, which chapter our author likewise cites, verse 4, express mention is made of another Passover of the Jews drawing near. Whence the second year of Christ's preaching is excellently gathered.

Πάντες. Quod Clementem et Dionysium memorat Feuardentius, ἀπροσδιόνυσον est ; neque enim hi in Asia apud Joannem apostolum commorati leguntur ; ut nihil de supposititiis eorum scriptis dicam. Caeterum praeter Papiam alios fuisse seniores, qui Irenaeum in istam de seniore Christi aetate induxerunt opinionem, pluralis, in quo loquitur, numerus, addita insuper voce πάντες, satis indicat ; licet, quinam isti fuerint, dici nequeat.

All. That Feuardent mentions Clement and Dionysius is nothing to the purpose; for neither are these read to have tarried in Asia with John the Apostle; to say nothing of their supposititious writings. For the rest, that besides Papias there were other elders who led Irenaeus into that opinion concerning the older age of Christ, the plural number in which he speaks, with the word πάντες [all] added besides, sufficiently indicates; although who those men were cannot be said.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 40.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 40.

Pag. 148. Utrumne his. Expunximus « hisne » auctor. veter. cod.

Page 148. Whether to these. We expunged "to these, whether" on the authority of the old codex.

Ne in somniis quidem. Proverbium est sacris et profanis omnibus frequentissimum. Theocritus in Bucolic., μηδ' ἐν ὀνείροις, « neque in somniis. »

Not even in dreams. It is a proverb most frequent among all sacred and profane writers. Theocritus in the Bucolics: μηδ' ἐν ὀνείροις, "not even in dreams."

Editors' notes and page, col. 1569

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. Calls 29, 31, 32 are not visible in the foot crops. (printed under page 793)

(29) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1569-1570 (not visible in foot images)

Cap. 7.

Chapter 7.

(printed under page 793)

(30) ‹anchor: auctore Eusebio› · call in col 1569

Lib. IV Hist., cap. 33.

Book IV of the History, chapter 33.

(printed under page 793)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1569-1570 (not visible in foot images)

Concione 3.

In Discourse 3.

(printed under page 793)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1569-1570 (not visible in foot images)

Cont. hær. 29.

Against Heresies 29.

(printed under page 793)

Page

running head: 1569 IN LIB. II S. IRE
marginal letters: A barbae hirsutiem, ad; B facit ; quod tam; C tuit ergo istud; D Πάντες. Quod Clementem
old-edition numerals: 99 after Evangelio
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: barbae hirsutiem, ad; Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 39.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 40.

PG 7:1570

Plutarchus libello adversus Stoicos : οὐδ' ὀνείρατα, « nec per somnia. » Chrysostomus adversus Judaeos : οὐδ' ὡς ὄναρ. Indicat autem Irenaeus Ptolemaeum haereticum nulla ratione apostolicam doctrinam attigisse.

Plutarch in the little book Against the Stoics: οὐδ' ὀνείρατα, "not even in dreams." Chrysostom Against the Jews: οὐδ' ὡς ὄναρ. Now Irenaeus indicates that Ptolemy the heretic in no way touched upon the apostolic doctrine.

Quinquaginta annos. Chrysostomus legit, « quadraginta annos. » Theophylactus autem tribuit Judaeorum insaniae, quod hominem triginta tres annos ferme natum, quinquagenario compararint. Ex quibus satis patet, Irenaei argumentum ex hoc loco sumptum, valde imbecillum esse.

Fifty years. Chrysostom reads "forty years." And Theophylact attributes it to the madness of the Jews that they compared a man about thirty-three years old to a man of fifty. From which it is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus's argument taken from this passage is very weak.

Irrationabile est enim. Imo vero, quod cum sanctissimi martyris indulgentia dictum sit, Judaei longe atrociora mentiti sunt in eum : utpote quod esset vorator, potator vini, seductor, blasphemus, et in virtute Beelzebub ejiceret daemonia, etc. Indeque patet Irenaeum ex hoc loco nihil probare.

For it is unreasonable. Nay indeed, be it said with the indulgence of the most holy martyr, the Jews lied far more atrocious things against Him: namely that He was a glutton, a drinker of wine, a deceiver, a blasphemer, and cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub, etc. And thence it is clear that Irenaeus proves nothing from this passage.

Homerus poeta. Locus est Iliados Δ, ubi post singulare certamen Menelai et Paridis, deos consilia agitasse, et ordine consedisse fingit.

The poet Homer. The passage is in Iliad 4, where after the single combat of Menelaus and Paris, he feigns that the gods held counsels and sat down in order.

Sed et de illa muliere. Caput 37 hic signat vet. cod.

But also concerning that woman. The old codex here marks chapter 37.

Undecim. Delevimus « duodecim » auct. vet. cod.

Eleven. We deleted "twelve" on the authority of the old codex.

Pag. 149. Satanas. Expunximus « sanatas. »

Page 149. Satan. We expunged "healed."

Negotio eorum. Ita vetus codex ; excusi, « negatio AEonum. »

By their business. Thus the old codex; the printed copies have "the denial of the Aeons."

Jesus enim nomen. Nam plane Hebraicum est, non Graecum, significans, Epiphanio auctore, medicum, curatorem, et salvatorem. Ideo et Cyrillus Jerosolymitanus scribit : « Jesus apud Hebraeos significat salvatorem ; in lingua vero Graeca medicum sonat ; quandoquidem et corporum medicus est, et animarum curator. » De numero autem qui ex litteris ejus nominis consurgit, ait Ven. Beda : « Hujus sacrosancti nominis Jesu non tantum etymologia, sed et ipse, qui litteris comprehenditur numerus, perpetuae salutis nostrae mysteria redolet. Sex quippe litteris apud Graecos scribitur Ἰησοῦς, quarum numeri sunt X, et VIII, et CC, et LXX, et CCCC, et CC, qui fiunt simul DCCCLXXXVIII, qui profecto numerus figuram resurrectionis adauget. Octavus enim numerus in sacris litteris resurrectionis gloriae convenit ; quia Dominus octava die, hoc est post septimam Sabbati resurrexit. Et ipsi, post sex saeculi aetates, et septimam Sabbati animarum, quae nunc interim in alia vita geritur, quasi octavo tempore surgemus. » Ferunt etiam Sibyllam Cumanam hujus nominis litterarum et numeri meminisse. Quinetiam Constantinus Magnus in Oratione quam Eusebius libris de vita ejus adjunxit, deinde Augustinus lib. XIX De civit., cap. 23, referunt oraculum Sibyllae Erythreae de Christo, acrostichis versibus ita concinnatum, ut initiis litterarum initialium legantur haec verba : ἸΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΕΙΣΤΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ. JESUS CHRISTUS DEI FILIUS SALVATOR. De numeris autem, et potestate elementorum ejusmodi nominum dictum est supra.

For the name Jesus. For it is plainly Hebrew, not Greek, signifying, according to Epiphanius, physician, healer, and saviour. Therefore Cyril of Jerusalem also writes: "Jesus among the Hebrews signifies saviour; but in the Greek tongue it sounds as physician; seeing that He is both the physician of bodies and the healer of souls." And concerning the number which arises from the letters of His name, the Venerable Bede says: "Not only the etymology of this sacrosanct name Jesus, but also the very number which is comprised by the letters, savours of the mysteries of our perpetual salvation. For among the Greeks Ἰησοῦς is written with six letters, the numbers of which are 10, and 8, and 200, and 70, and 400, and 200, which together make 888, which number assuredly enhances the figure of the resurrection. For the eighth number in sacred literature suits the glory of the resurrection; because the Lord rose on the eighth day, that is, after the seventh of the Sabbath. And we ourselves, after the six ages of the world, and the seventh of the Sabbath of souls, which is now meanwhile carried on in the other life, shall rise as it were in the eighth time." They say also that the Cumaean Sibyl mentioned the letters and number of this name. Nay more, Constantine the Great in the Oration which Eusebius subjoined to the books on his life, and next Augustine in Book 19 On the City of God, chap. 23, relate the oracle of the Erythraean Sibyl concerning Christ, so put together in acrostic verses that from the beginnings of the initial letters are read these words: ἸΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΕΙΣΤΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ. JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD THE SAVIOUR. Concerning the numbers, however, and the power of the elements of names of that sort, we have spoken above.

DCCCLXXXVIII. Ita vetus codex manuscriptus ; excusi « Dat. XXXVIII. »

888. Thus the old manuscript codex; the printed copies have "Gives 38."

Ex adnotationibus Nicolai Gallasii in cap. 41.

From the annotations of Nicolas des Gallars on chap. 41.

Pag. 149 seqq. Ostendit Irenaeus falli haereticos, sibique et aliis impudentissime imponere, cum ex litteris nominis Ἰησοῦς, supputationem suam deducunt. Id enim prorsus inane est, nec ulla ratione constare potest, propterea quod nomen hoc Graecum non sit, sed Hebraeum. Verum in declaranda hujus nominis origine, et propria significatione, quos auctores secutus sit Irenaeus, plane ignoro. Satis enim conspicuum est, et docti fatentur omnes, deduci a ישע « Jascha, » unde הישוע, quod significat « salvavit ; » id quod ipsius angeli Gabrielis interpretatio aperte demonstrat. Nam cum jubet hoc nomen Christo imponi, rationem subjungit :

Page 149 ff. Irenaeus shows that the heretics are deceived, and most impudently impose upon themselves and others, when they deduce their computation from the letters of the name Ἰησοῦς. For that is altogether empty, nor can it stand by any reason, because this name is not Greek, but Hebrew. Yet in declaring the origin of this name and its proper signification, what authors Irenaeus followed, I am plainly ignorant. For it is conspicuous enough, and all the learned confess, that it is deduced from ישע "Jascha," whence הישוע, which signifies "he saved"; which fact the interpretation of the angel Gabriel himself openly demonstrates. For when he commands this name to be given to Christ, he subjoins the reason:

Editors' notes and page, col. 1570

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: Jerosolymitanus scribit› · call in col 1570

Catech. 10.

Catechesis 10.

(printed under page 793)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1570
marginal letters: A Plutarchus libello adversus; B agitasse, et ordine; C cccc, et cc,; D cusi « Dat. XXXVIII. »
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Plutarchus libello adversus; Ex adnotationibus Nicolai Gallasii in cap. 41.

PG 7:1571

« ipse enim salvabit populum suum a peccatis ipsius. » Qui ergo a יש « Iesch » potius quam a ישע deducunt, necesse est cum angelo, id est cum Deo ipso, cujus jussu ita locutus est angelus, disputare. Verum de hac origine aut significatione, nullum prorsus fit verbum ab Irenaeo. Ac sane videtur, tum in hac dictione, tum in aliis, veterem aliquam Hebraeorum cabbalam secutus. Quid enim affine habet nomen « Jesu, » cum nomine coeli ? ישוע cum שמים. Terram etiam, quae nomine ארץ vocatur, eodem nomine « Jesu » comprehendi, qua ratione probari potest ? Apud quos etiam « Sura usser » dicatur, nescio. Vestigia quidem nonnulla apparent nominis « Arets, » verum inversi et repetiti ; sed ita legisse aut scripsisse nullos audio. Cum de his dubitarem, doctos viros, atque in litteris tum Hebraicis, tum Chaldaicis exercitatos consului ; qui aut a cabbala quadam ignota id ortum esse, aut ab ignorantia et corruptione linguae profectum esse censuerunt. Idem de nomine « Sion, » de quo paulo post ait in nomine Jesu comprehendi. Dimidias vero litteras existimant esse י et ו, non quod imperfectae sint, sed quod caeteris omnibus minores sint ac breviores ; atque ex his etiam reliquas omnes factas esse, Hebraeorum plerique autumant. Nulla enim est littera, quae ex his duabus strui et concinnari non possit. Ideoque decem primas litteras ab א usque ad י, praecipuas esse dictas, quod caeterae ex illis, aut ad earum similitudinem efformatae sint. Nomen « Barneth, » quod Deo tribuit, videtur ductum a רב « Bara, » id est « creavit. »

"for He Himself shall save His people from their sins." Those therefore who deduce it from יש "Iesch" rather than from ישע must needs dispute with the angel, that is, with God Himself, by whose command the angel spoke thus. Yet concerning this origin or signification, no word at all is made by Irenaeus. And indeed he seems, both in this word and in others, to have followed some ancient cabbala of the Hebrews. For what affinity has the name "Jesus" with the name of heaven? ישוע with שמים. By what reason also can it be proved that the earth, which is called by the name ארץ, is comprised in the same name "Jesus"? Among whom also it is called "Sura usser," I know not. Some traces indeed appear of the name "Arets," though inverted and repeated; but I hear of none having read or written thus. When I was in doubt concerning these things, I consulted learned men, practised in both Hebrew and Chaldaic letters; who judged either that this arose from some unknown cabbala, or proceeded from ignorance and corruption of the language. The same holds concerning the name "Sion," of which he says a little after that it is comprised in the name of Jesus. Now they think that the half-letters are י and ו, not because they are imperfect, but because they are smaller and shorter than all the rest; and that from these all the remaining letters also were made, most of the Hebrews suppose. For there is no letter which cannot be built and put together out of these two. And therefore the first ten letters from א as far as י were called principal, because the rest were fashioned out of them or after their likeness. The name "Barneth," which he attributes to God, seems to be derived from רב "Bara," that is, "created."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 41.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 41.

Pag. 149. Haec autem in nullo communicant. Scopus Irenaei in hoc capite est, ut ostendat Gnosticos turpiter hallucinari, et aliis impudenter imponere, cum ex nominis Graeci Ἰησοῦς syllabis, litteris, et numeris ipsis respondentibus confirmare figmenta sua nitebantur ; propterea quod nomen illud Hebraeum sit, cujus litterae Hebraicae non conveniunt cum litteris Graecis, neque cum earumdem numero ; atque hoc unum praecipue considerandum et discendum hoc capite existimo.

Page 149. Now these things communicate in nothing. The aim of Irenaeus in this chapter is to show that the Gnostics shamefully blunder and impudently impose upon others, when from the syllables, letters, and numbers corresponding to them of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς they strove to confirm their figments; because that name is Hebrew, the Hebrew letters of which do not agree with the Greek letters, nor with their number; and this one thing chiefly I think is to be considered and learned in this chapter.

Caeterum, quae de nominis « Jesu » Hebraicis litteris, origine, et significatione scribit, ipsum videlicet esse duarum litterarum et dimidiae, coelumque significare ; non satis assequor. Etenim certissimum est « Jesu » Hebraeum esse, deductum a ישע « Iascha, » quod est, « salvavit : » et sic scribi ישוע quatuor litteris, quae numerum 386 faciunt. Nam ratione arithmetica, י iod continet 10, ש schin 300, ו vau 6, ע aiin 70. Ἰησοῦς autem Graecorum supputatione 888 reddit ; quandoquidem, ι, 10, η, 8, σ, 200, ο, 70, υ, 400, ς, 200 continet. Ut vero significet Dominum coeli et terrae, oportet illud, more veterum, per tres litteras scribere ישו et per notaricon, id est ex singulis litteris integras dictiones sic colligere, ut iod, quae prima littera est τοῦ τετραγραμμάτου יהוה quod Dominum, sive Κύριον reddunt LXX, « Dominum » nobis exprimat. Deinde ש prima sit littera vocis שמים, quae « coelum » significat. Postremo, ו sit initium וארץ, quod est, « et terra ; » adeo tres litterae illius nominis, iod, schin, vau, simul per notaricon reductae, indicent Dominum coeli et terrae.

For the rest, what he writes concerning the Hebrew letters, origin, and signification of the name "Jesus," namely that it is of two letters and a half, and signifies heaven, I do not sufficiently grasp. For it is most certain that "Jesus" is Hebrew, deduced from ישע "Iascha," which is, "he saved": and thus is written ישוע with four letters, which make the number 386. For by arithmetical reckoning, י iod contains 10, ש schin 300, ו vau 6, ע aiin 70. Whereas Ἰησοῦς by the computation of the Greeks yields 888; seeing that ι contains 10, η 8, σ 200, ο 70, υ 400, ς 200. But that it may signify Lord of heaven and earth, one must, after the manner of the ancients, write it with three letters ישו and by notaricon, that is, out of the single letters gather whole words thus, that iod, which is the first letter of the tetragrammaton יהוה which the Septuagint render Lord, or Κύριον, may express for us "Lord." Next, let ש be the first letter of the word שמים, which signifies "heaven." Lastly, let ו be the beginning of וארץ, which is, "and earth"; so that the three letters of that name, iod, schin, vau, reduced together by notaricon, may indicate the Lord of heaven and earth.

Sed non satis video, quo pacto nomen « Sion » in nomine « Jesu » comprehendatur. Nullo etiam idiomate « Sura Usser, » sive « User » dicitur terra. Oportet igitur vel ab aliqua cabala mihi adhuc ignota, haec desumpsisse Irenaeum : vel quod magis mihi probatur, a quibusdam Judaeorum rabbinis, quos consuluerit, deceptum fuisse, veluti initio capitis subindicare videtur, dum scribit : « Sicut

But I do not sufficiently see in what manner the name "Sion" is comprised in the name "Jesus." In no idiom also is the earth called "Sura Usser," or "User." Irenaeus therefore must either have taken these things from some cabbala hitherto unknown to me: or, what is more approved to me, have been deceived by certain rabbis of the Jews whom he consulted, just as at the beginning of the chapter he seems to hint when he writes: "As

Editors' notes and page, col. 1571

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot. In note 36 the book numeral reads "I" at this resolution (Augustine treats Enoch in De civ. XV, 23); set as seen. (printed under page 794)

Page

running head: 1571 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A « ipse enim; B ptione linguae profectum; C numeris ipsis respondentibus; D teris integras dictiones
old-edition numerals: 100 after nomine
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: « ipse enim; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 41.

PG 7:1572

periti eorum dicunt. » Pro suo enim odio in Christum, et nos, qui ejus censemur nomine, solent impuri verpi illi multa confingere, et audacter obtrudere, quibus fidem nostram obscurent ; quod facile colligas ex locis Isaiae, Jeremiae, Davidis, Esdrae, audaci sacrilegio obtruncatis et mutilatis ab illis, uti probat et convincit Justinus martyr in Dialogo.

their experts say." For out of their hatred against Christ, and us, who are enrolled under His name, those impure circumcised men are wont to fashion many things, and boldly thrust them forward, whereby they may darken our faith; which you may easily gather from the passages of Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, and Esdras, truncated and mutilated with bold sacrilege by them, as Justin Martyr proves and demonstrates in the Dialogue.

Superior porro ex singulis litteris integra nomina colligendi ratio, quam cabalae auctores sequuntur, reperitur etiam in oraculis Sibyllinis, lib. II :

Moreover, the aforesaid method of gathering whole names out of single letters, which the authors of the cabbala follow, is found also in the Sibylline Oracles, Book 2:

Nimirum Deus is finxit tetragrammaton ADAM Qui primus fuit, et qui nomine complet Ortus, occasus, austrum, Boreamque rigentem.

Assuredly that God fashioned the four-lettered ADAM, Who was the first, and who by his name fills the East, the West, the South, and the freezing North.

Istud clarius explicatur apud Cyprianum, tractatu de montibus Sina et Sion, et Augustinum tractat. 9 et 10 in Joan. Oriens Graecis vocatur ἀνατολὴ, occidens δύσις, septentrio Ἄρκτος, meridies μεσημβρία : harum dictionum si litteras initiales simul junxeris, efficies nomen Α Δ Α Μ. Rationem hujus assignat Cyprianus, quod Dominus ex quatuor cardinibus orbis terrarum pugno comprehendit terram, et finxit hominem ex omni limo terrae : sed de hac re non disputo.

That is explained more clearly in Cyprian, in the treatise On the Mountains Sinai and Sion, and Augustine in Tractates 9 and 10 on John. The east is called by the Greeks ἀνατολὴ, the west δύσις, the north Ἄρκτος, the south μεσημβρία: if you join together the initial letters of these words, you will make the name Α Δ Α Μ. Cyprian assigns the reason of this, that the Lord from the four quarters of the world grasped the earth in His fist, and fashioned man out of all the clay of the earth: but concerning this matter I do not dispute.

Pag. 150. Episemi eorum. Ἐπίσημον proprie significat umbilicum clypei, notam, signum, maculam : sed his in locis accipitur pro nota numerali, quae sex indicat.

Page 150. Of their episemon. Ἐπίσημον properly signifies the boss of a shield, a mark, a sign, a spot: but in these passages it is taken for the numeral mark which indicates six.

Et dimidiam. Dimidiam litteram appellat י iod, quod caeteris brevior sit ac minor ; atque ex illa reliquas omnes factas esse plerique Hebraeorum opinantur.

And a half. He calls י iod a half-letter, because it is shorter and smaller than the rest; and most of the Hebrews opine that out of it all the remaining letters were made.

Sion. Dictionem istam ignorat penitus codex ; nec facile apparet quid sibi hoc loco velit.

Sion. The codex is utterly ignorant of that word; nor does it easily appear what it means in this passage.

Ruit ergo. Veteris codicis aliquantum diversa est lectio hoc pacto : « Corruit ergo numerus calculi, quem MDCCCLXXXVIII, et per omnia, » etc.

Falls therefore. The reading of the old codex is somewhat different in this way: "There collapses therefore the number of the reckoning, which 1888, and through all things," etc.

Antiquiores. Hebraicas litteras reliquas omnes inventione et usu praecessisse, variis conjecturis permotus, post Irenaeum, asserit Eusebius. Suidas illarum, sicuti aliarum omnium artium, inventores facit Adamum, Sethumque filium ipsius. Sethi filios rerum coelestium disciplinas in columnis scripsisse testatur Josephus. Enoch deinde quasdam prophetias litteris commendasse non ambigunt Augustinus, Origenes, Tertullianus. Libros de maleficiis et necromanticis artibus Chamo filio Noe tribuunt Comestor, et Joan. Cassianus collationis octavae cap. 21. Sibyllae Erythreae ascripta oracula in fidei suae confirmationem recitavit Constantinus Magnus Orat. ad sanctorum coetum. Hos autem omnes Cadmi, Phoenicum regis, Palamedis, Simonidis, et Carmentae, quos aliarum litterarum repertores volunt, aetate multis saeculis superare nullus nescit.

More ancient. That the Hebrew letters preceded all the rest in invention and use, Eusebius after Irenaeus asserts, moved by various conjectures. Suidas makes Adam, and his son Seth, the inventors of them, just as of all other arts. Josephus testifies that the sons of Seth wrote down the disciplines of heavenly things on pillars. That Enoch next committed certain prophecies to letters, Augustine, Origen, and Tertullian do not doubt. Books concerning sorceries and necromantic arts Comestor, and John Cassian in chapter 21 of the eighth Conference, attribute to Ham the son of Noah. Constantine the Great, in the Oration to the Assembly of the Saints, recited the oracles ascribed to the Erythraean Sibyl in confirmation of his faith. And that all these surpass by many centuries in age Cadmus king of the Phoenicians, Palamedes, Simonides, and Carmenta, whom they will have to be the discoverers of the other letters, no one is ignorant.

Decem quidem. Illae decem sunt ab א aleph usque ad י iod ; quae ideo primae et praecipuae dicuntur, quod caeterae ex illis, aut ad illarum similitudinem efformatae sint : et numeri digiti ex ipsis conficiantur.

Ten indeed. Those ten are from א aleph as far as י iod; which are called first and principal for this reason, because the rest were fashioned out of them or after their likeness: and the digit numbers are made up out of them.

Secundum subsequentiam. Id est a sinistra in dexteram more Graecorum et Latinorum. Eo autem modo scribunt Hebraei, dum alienis characteribus suas voces exprimunt : vel alii ab ipsis Hebraice quidpiam exarantes, ut de Pilato fertur, qui cum titulum crucis Christi componeret, Hebraicas litteras Latino more collocaverit.

According to sequence. That is, from left to right after the manner of the Greeks and Latins. Now the Hebrews write in that way when they express their words in foreign characters: or others than themselves writing down something in Hebrew, as is reported of Pilate, that when he composed the title of the cross of Christ, he arranged the Hebrew letters in the Latin manner.

Barneth. Vetus codex « Baruch, » quod Philoni, Hieronymo et Pagnino benedictum significat « Barneh » Chaldaica vox est ejusdem significationis. In codice Vaticano deest adverbium « Hebraice. »

Barneth. The old codex has "Baruch," which to Philo, Jerome, and Pagninus signifies blessed. "Barneh" is a Chaldaic word of the same signification. In the Vatican codex the adverb "in Hebrew" is wanting.

Etenim ex lege. Initium est capitis 39 in vet. cod.

For from the law. This is the beginning of chapter 39 in the old codex.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1572

Footnotes

(34) ‹anchor: asserit Eusebius› · call in col 1572

Lib. X de præp. evang., cap. 2.

Book X of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 2.

(printed under page 794)

(35) ‹anchor: testatur Josephus› · call in col 1572

Lib. I Antiq., cap. 2.

Book I of the Antiquities, chapter 2.

(printed under page 794)

(36) ‹anchor: ambiguu: Augustinus› · call in col 1572

Lib. I de civit., cap. 23.

Book I of the City of God, chapter 23.

(printed under page 794)

(37) ‹anchor: Origenes› · call in col 1572

Homil. 28 in Numer.

Homily 28 on Numbers.

(printed under page 794)

(38) ‹anchor: Tertullianus› · call in col 1572

Lib. de habitu mul.

Book on the Dress of Women (De habitu muliebri).

(printed under page 794)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1572
marginal letters: A periti eorum dicunt.; B occidens δύσις, septentrio; C Antiquiores. Hebraicas litteras; D ad י iod ;
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: periti eorum dicunt.

PG 7:1573

cum argumento quod eidem superius affixum est, et multo commodius, meo judicio.

with the argument which is affixed to the same above, and much more suitably, in my judgement.

Et altitudo. Sex has voces hactenus desiderarant omnes excusi codices.

And the height. All the printed codices had hitherto lacked these six words.

Haec ante. Codices exc., « Haec autem ; » deinde « significativam » pro « significantiam ; » et paulo post « reliqui » pro « reliquis » restituimus.

These things before. The printed codices have, "Now these things"; next we restored "significative" for "significance"; and a little after "the rest [nominative]" for "the rest [ablative]."

Calamiscos. Καλαμίσκος significat, praeter alia, parvulam arundinem et fistulam : et quia harum formam habebant tres cannae illae, ex candelabri Mosaici medio stipite prodeuntes, hic Graeca voce καλαμίσκους eas appellat.

Little reeds. Καλαμίσκος signifies, besides other things, a tiny reed and pipe: and because those three reeds coming forth from the middle stem of the Mosaic candlestick had the form of these, here he calls them by the Greek word καλαμίσκους.

Smyrnae. Σμύρνα arbuscula est Arabiae, cujus cortice inciso, liquor quidam pinguis effluit, qui stacte medicis appellatur. Vide Dioscoridem lib. I, c. 78 ; Theophr. lib. IX De hist. plant. ; Plinium lib. XII, cap. 15 et 16.

Of myrrh. Σμύρνα is a shrub of Arabia, from the cut bark of which there flows out a certain fatty liquid, which is called stacte by physicians. See Dioscorides Book 1, chap. 78; Theophrastus Book 9 On the History of Plants; Pliny Book 12, chaps. 15 and 16.

Ireos D. Iris multa significat : sed hic herba suaviter olens et aromatica est ; de qua Dioscor. lib I ; Theophrast. De hist. plant. ; Plinius lib. XXI, cap. 7.

Of iris 500. Iris signifies many things: but here it is a sweetly smelling and aromatic herb; concerning which see Dioscorides Book 1; Theophrastus On the History of Plants; Pliny Book 21, chap. 7.

Cinamomi CCL. Nomen cinamomi, aut cinnamomi in multa scinditur, quae legendo notes licet. Hic species fruticis odori esse videtur, de quo Plin. lib. XII, cap. 19 ; Theophrast. lib. XIX, cap. 47 ; Dioscor. lib. I. Dicitur autem cinamomum, quia in modum cannae, subtiles et replicatos habet calamos, cinerei vel nigri coloris, qui fracti, visibile spiramentum reddunt ; et subtile quidem carum, grossum vero vile et despectum.

Of cinnamon 250. The name of cinamomum, or cinnamomum, is split into many meanings, which you may note in reading. Here it seems to be a species of fragrant shrub, concerning which see Pliny Book 12, chap. 19; Theophrastus Book 19, chap. 47; Dioscorides Book 1. Now it is called cinnamon because after the manner of a reed it has slender and folded stalks, of an ashy or black colour, which when broken yield a visible breath; and the slender indeed is dear, but the thick is cheap and despised.

Calamisci CCL. Exodi XXX Septuaginta legunt καὶ καλάμου εὐώδους, id est calami odoriferi. Calamus igitur, a quo calamiscus, hic frutex est in Arabia, India, et Syria, juxta Libanum montem proveniens, aspectu similis arundini, casiae sapore, tactu mollis ; et cum frangitur, locum suavissimo replet odore. Vide Plinium lib. XII, cap. 20 et alios.

Of sweet reed 250. In Exodus 30 the Septuagint read καὶ καλάμου εὐώδους, that is, of fragrant reed. Calamus therefore, from which comes calamiscus, is here a shrub growing in Arabia, India, and Syria, near Mount Lebanon, similar in appearance to a reed, with the taste of cassia, soft to the touch; and when it is broken, it fills the place with a most sweet odour. See Pliny Book 12, chap. 20 and others.

De stacte. Στακτή Graecis vocatur succus quidam, sive lacryma, emanans inciso cortice myrrhae, de qua supra. Consule Plinium, lib. XII, cap. 6 et 14 ; Dioscor., lib. I, cap. 75 et 78. De illa rabbi David in lib. Radicum ita scribit : « Dicunt quod Nataph sit Zari, hoc est gutta sive stacte ; sic appellata, quod stillet ex arboribus Ketaph, sicut dixerunt rabbini nostri (benedictae memoriae). Zari nihil aliud est, nisi succus qui stillat ex arboribus Ketaph, et vulgo balsamum dicitur. » De balsami ortu, irrigationibus, et interitu, si plura desideras, consule Petrum Martyrem, lib. III De legatione Babylonica.

Of stacte. Στακτή is called by the Greeks a certain juice, or tear, oozing from the cut bark of myrrh, concerning which above. Consult Pliny, Book 12, chaps. 6 and 14; Dioscorides, Book 1, chaps. 75 and 78. Concerning it Rabbi David in the Book of Roots writes thus: "They say that Nataph is Zari, that is, a drop or stacte; so called because it drips from the trees Ketaph, as our rabbis (of blessed memory) have said. Zari is nothing else than the juice which drips from the trees Ketaph, and is commonly called balsam." Concerning the origin, irrigations, and perishing of balsam, if you desire more things, consult Peter Martyr, Book 3 On the Babylonian Legation.

Et ungula. Rabbi Salomon in cap. XXX Exodi, Paulo Fagio interprete, putat radicem esse candentem, tersam, ac puram, in morem unguis. Rabbi Davidi eodem loco, est aroma quod in Mischnach (sic vocant textum Thalmudicum) Zipporen, id est onyx, sive unguis vocatur, et est lene et lucens, ut unguis. Propertius :

And onycha. Rabbi Solomon on chap. 30 of Exodus, with Paul Fagius as translator, thinks it is a shining, clean, and pure root, after the manner of a nail. To Rabbi David on the same passage, it is an aromatic which in the Mishnah (so they call the Talmudic text) is called Zipporen, that is, onyx, or nail, and is smooth and shining like a nail. Propertius:

Et cronico nares murrheus ungat onyx.

And let the myrrh-scented onyx anoint the nostrils with saffron ointment.

Mihi verisimilius, et huic loco convenientius id esse videtur, quod de onycha, seu ungula habet Dioscorides lib. II, cap. 10 : Ὄνυξ ἐστὶ, inquit, πῶμα κογχυλίου, ὅμοιον τῷ τῆς πορφύρας, εὑρισκόμενον ἐν τῇ Ἰνδίᾳ ἐν ταῖς ναρδοφόροις λίμναις. Διὸ καὶ ἀρωματίζει, νεμομένων κογχυλίων τὸν νάρδον. Id est : « Unguis conchylii tegmen est, haud ei absimile, quo purpura contegitur, quod in Indiae nardiferis lacubus reperitur. Proin etiam odorem spirat, quoniam conchylia nardum pascantur. » Vide etiam Plinium lib. XXXII, cap. 10.

To me there seems more probable, and more suitable to this passage, what Dioscorides has concerning onycha, or ungula, in Book 2, chap. 10: "Ὄνυξ is," he says, "the lid of a shellfish, like that of the purple-fish, found in India in the nard-bearing lakes. Wherefore also it smells aromatic, since the shellfish feed upon the nard." That is: "Unguis is the cover of a shellfish, not unlike that with which the purple-fish is covered, which is found in the nard-bearing lakes of India. Accordingly it also breathes an odour, because the shellfish feed upon nard." See also Pliny Book 32, chap. 10.

Et galbano. Galbanum inter alia, liquor est cujusdam plantae, similis ferulae, nascentis in Syria, medicis frequens. Dioscor. lib. I, cap. 7 ; Theophr. lib. IX De hist plantarum, cap. 1 et 7 ; Plin. lib. XII,

And galbanum. Galbanum, among other things, is the liquid of a certain plant, like giant fennel, growing in Syria, frequent among physicians. Dioscorides Book 1, chap. 7; Theophrastus Book 9 On the History of Plants, chaps. 1 and 7; Pliny Book 12,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1573

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. A small call reading 39 is printed after "De legatione Babylonica" in col 1573, but note 39's content is the Propertius verse quoted a few lines later; the anchor is uncertain. Calls 40 and 41 are not visible in the foot crops (their content fits the galbanum note at the foot of col 1573). (printed under page 795)

(39) ‹anchor: Babylonica (? or Propertius)› · call in col 1573

Lib. III, eleg. 8, v. 22.

Book III, elegy 8, line 22.

(printed under page 795)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1573 (not visible in foot images)

Georg. IV, 264.

Georgics IV, 264.

(printed under page 795)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1573 (not visible in foot images)

Phars. IX, 916.

Pharsalia IX, 916.

(printed under page 795)

Page

running head: 1573 IN LIB. II S. IRE
marginal letters: A cum argumento quod; B cap. 7.; C qua supra. Consule; D Et cronico nares
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cum argumento quod

PG 7:1574

cap. 25 et 48, lib. XXIV, cap. 5 et 13. De hoc Virgilius :

chaps. 25 and 48, Book 24, chaps. 5 and 13. Concerning this Virgil says:

Hinc jam galbaneos suadebo incendere odores.

Henceforth I shall advise to burn galbanum odours.

Et Lucanus :

And Lucan:

Hic ebulum stridet, peregrinaque galbana sudant.

Here dwarf-elder hisses, and foreign galbanums sweat.

De illo item rabbi Kimhi in c. XXX Exod. ait : « Galbanum aroma est, cujus odor gravis est, et est succus arboris, quae invenitur in urbibus Graeciae, estque ut mel nigrum, et lingua Arabica dicitur Miah. »

Concerning it likewise Rabbi Kimhi on chap. 30 of Exodus says: "Galbanum is an aromatic, the odour of which is heavy, and it is the juice of a tree which is found in the cities of Greece, and it is like black honey, and in the Arabic tongue is called Miah."

Et hedyosmo. Ἡδύοσμον suavis odor, mentha nominatur ; de qua Luc. XI, ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον, id est, solvitis et datis decimas ex mentha. Dioscorides vocat ἡδύοσμον ἄγριον, menthastrum herbam. Vide Plinii lib. XIX, cap. 8, et alios.

And mint. Ἡδύοσμον, sweet odour, is named mint; concerning which in Luke 11: ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον, that is, you pay and give tithes of mint. Dioscorides calls ἡδύοσμον ἄγριον [wild mint] the herb menthastrum. See Pliny Book 19, chap. 8, and others.

Et thure. Thus, aut tus nomen tritum, sacris suffimentis succensis ignibus maxime conveniens, et jampridem usitatum. Ovidius, XIV Metam., v. 128 :

And frankincense. Thus, or tus, is a worn word, most suitable for sacred fumigations when fires are kindled, and long since in use. Ovid, Metamorphoses 14, v. 128:

Templa tibi statuam ; solvam tibi thuris honores.

I shall build you temples; I shall pay you the honours of frankincense.

Et Tibullus lib. I, eleg. 3, v. 34 :

And Tibullus Book 1, Elegy 3, v. 34:

Redderet antiquo menstrua thura Lari.

Might render monthly frankincense to the ancient Lar.

Porro ut thuris, sive incensi suffumigationes in sacris Hebraeorum divina jussione frequentes erant, sic ejusdem benedictio, et usus in sacris Christianorum, ex apostolorum traditione, summaque Graecarum et Latinarum Ecclesiarum consensione, religiose observatur, ut videre est ex Ruperto, lib. I De divinis offic., cap. 29 et 36, et lib. VI, cap. 31 et 32 ; Stephano Eduensi lib. De sacramento altar., cap. 12, Germano Constantinop. in Rerum ecclesiast. cons. ; Augustino serm. 98 de tempore ; Tertulliano lib. De coron. mil. ; Dionysio Areop. lib. Eccl. hier., cap. 3 ; Jacobo fratre Domini in Liturgia ; canone 3 seu 4 apostolorum. Si praeter hos auctores, alios adhuc desideras, ritumque hunc accurate et diligenter comprobatum, consule librum quem adversus anatomen missae edidit, vir in evolvendis sacris auctoribus paucis comparandus D. Jacobus Faber, doctor theologus, praeceptor mihi perpetuo observandus, hinc tibi abunde satisfactum iri puto. Caeterum, cum Gnostici horum omnium suffimentorum species, quantitates, commistionesque ad confirmationem suorum placitorum detorquere non possent, quod vel maxime necessum fuisset ; argute concludit Irenaeus illos, quosdam alios legis veteris ritus insulse et stolide adduxisse, ut his sua deliria asseverarent.

Moreover, just as fumigations of frankincense or incense were frequent by divine command in the sacred rites of the Hebrews, so the blessing and use of the same in the sacred rites of Christians, from the tradition of the apostles and with the highest agreement of the Greek and Latin Churches, is religiously observed, as may be seen from Rupert, Book 1 On the Divine Offices, chaps. 29 and 36, and Book 6, chaps. 31 and 32; Stephen of Autun in the book On the Sacrament of the Altar, chap. 12; Germanus of Constantinople in the Contemplation of Ecclesiastical Matters; Augustine in Sermon 98 on the Season; Tertullian in the book On the Soldier's Crown; Dionysius the Areopagite in the book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chap. 3; James the brother of the Lord in the Liturgy; canon 3 or 4 of the Apostles. If besides these authors you desire still others, and this rite accurately and diligently proved, consult the book which Dr. Jacques Lefèvre, doctor of theology, a man comparable to few in unrolling sacred authors and a teacher ever to be revered by me, published against the Anatomy of the Mass; hence I think you will be abundantly satisfied. For the rest, since the Gnostics could not twist the kinds, quantities, and mixtures of all these fumigations to the confirmation of their own tenets, which would have been most necessary of all, Irenaeus acutely concludes that they foolishly and stupidly adduced certain other rites of the old law in order to assert their own ravings by them.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 41.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 41.

Pag. 149. Jesus... litterarum est duarum et dimidiae. Sciendum, veteres dixisse « Jesu, » et Hebraice ישו pro « Jesua : » inde manasse puto scripturam Graecam Ἰησοῦς. Nam a « Jesua » diceremus « Jesuas. » Hoc posito, cum dicat hoc nomen litterarum esse duarum et dimidiae, quid aliud arbitremur, quam per « dimidiam » ipsum litterarum ioth intellexisse? Quippe is ejus litterae character est, ut vix ad medium aliarum litterarum attingat ; et quidem si cum illis conferatur, pro dimidia littera jure haberi possit. Haec Drusius centuria 1 Miscellaneorum, cap. 44, ubi et de interpretatione nominis Jesu, qua « Dominum eum, qui continet coelum et terram, » significare traditur, eadem dixit, quae Feuardentius.

Page 149. Jesus... is of two letters and a half. It must be known that the ancients said "Jesu," and in Hebrew ישו for "Jesua": thence I think flowed the Greek spelling Ἰησοῦς. For from "Jesua" we would say "Jesuas." This being posited, when he says that this name is of two letters and a half, what else should we think than that by "a half" he understood the letter ioth itself? Inasmuch as such is the character of that letter that it scarcely reaches to the middle of the other letters; and indeed, if it be compared with them, it could rightly be held for half a letter. Thus Drusius in Century 1 of the Miscellanea, chap. 44, where also concerning the interpretation of the name Jesus, whereby it is handed down that it signifies "that Lord who contains heaven and earth," he said the same things as Feuardent.

Pag. 150. Et sacerdotales nuncupatae. In Graeco forte ἱερουργικαί, vel similis exstitit vox, qua usus Hebraicarum litterarum in sacro Bibliorum codice est, quam interpres perperam vertit « sacerdotales. »

Page 150. And called sacerdotal. In the Greek perhaps stood ἱερουργικαί [sacred], or a similar word, whereby is meant the use of the Hebrew letters in the sacred codex of the Bible, which the translator wrongly translated "sacerdotal."

Decem quidem sunt numero. Legendum conjicio, « XXduae quidem, » etc., quot litteras apud Hebraeos esse notum est.

Are ten indeed in number. I conjecture that it must be read, "twenty-two indeed," etc., which is the number of letters known to be among the Hebrews.

Scribuntur autem quaeque per quindecim, novissima littera copulata primae. Haec quid sibi velint,

And each is written by fifteen, the last letter being coupled to the first. What these words mean,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1574

Footnotes

(40) ‹anchor: De hoc Virgilius› · call in col 1574

Georg. IV, 264.

Georgics IV, 264.

(printed under page 795)

(41) ‹anchor: Et Lucanus› · call in col 1574

Phars. IX, 916.

Pharsalia IX, 916.

(printed under page 795)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1574
marginal letters: A cap. 25 et; B Templa tibi statuam; C vendis sacris auctoribus; D tellexisse? Quippe is
old-edition numerals: 101 after quem
other: Latin, with Greek words and a Hebrew word printed; editors' matter: cap. 25 et; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 41.

PG 7:1575

diu multumque cogitavi, sed excogitare haud potui. Textum sane corruptum esse cod. Voss. indicat, cujus diversam lectionem notavi.

I have thought long and much, but could by no means think out. That the text is certainly corrupt the Vossian codex indicates, whose different reading I have noted.

Duas et dimidiam habet litteras. ך finale pro dimidia littera ח accipitur.

Has two and a half letters. Final ך is taken for half of the letter ח.

Pag. 151. Et Hedyosmo. Nota Irenaeum Exod. XXX, 34, non legisse χαλβάνην ἡδυόσμου, uti nunc in LXX versione exstat, sed χαλβάνην, ἡδύοσμον ; adeo ut juxta hanc lectionem sacrum thymiama, perinde ut sacrum unguentum, « ex quinque commistionibus subsistat. »

Page 151. And mint. Note that Irenaeus in Exodus 30:34 did not read χαλβάνην ἡδυόσμου [galbanum of sweet fragrance], as now stands in the Septuagint version, but χαλβάνην, ἡδύοσμον [galbanum, mint]; so that according to this reading the sacred incense, just like the sacred ointment, "subsists out of five mixtures."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 42.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 42.

Pag. 151. Quia autem. Caput 40 hic signat vet. cod. Contendit Gnosticos nihil somniorum suorum asserere posse ex numero quinario, quantumvis frequenter in sacris occurrat.

Page 151. Moreover because. The old codex here marks chapter 40. He contends that the Gnostics can assert nothing of their dreams from the quinary number, however frequently it occurs in sacred things.

Ipse habitus crucis. Piam admodum habes figurae crucis, adeoque imaginis eidem affixae speculationem, quam et saepe, et libenter imitatur Augustinus, verba ista Apostoli : « Ut possitis comprehendere quae sit longitudo, et latitudo, et sublimitas, et profundum, scire etiam supereminentem scientiae charitatem Christi ; » ad sacramentum crucis referens, « ut in latitudine accipiatur transversum lignum, quo extenduntur manus, propter operum significationem ; in longitudine ab ipso usque in terram, ubi totum corpus crucifixum stare videtur, quod significat persistere ; in altitudine ab ipso transverso ligno sursum, versus quod ad caput eminet, propter exspectationem supernorum ; in profundo autem, pars illa ligni, quae in terrae abdito defixa latet. » Haec Augustinus epistola 112 cap. 12, epistol. 119 cap. 41, et epist. 120 cap. 26, quibus imaginis Crucifixi considerationem sanctissimis Patribus longe gratiorem fuisse perspicimus, quam neotericis Gnosticis.

The very fashion of the cross. You have a very pious contemplation of the figure of the cross, and thus of the image affixed to the same, which Augustine both often and gladly imitates, referring those words of the Apostle: "That you may be able to comprehend what is the length, and breadth, and height, and depth, to know also the charity of Christ which surpasses knowledge," to the mystery of the cross, "so that in the breadth may be understood the transverse wood whereon the hands are stretched out, on account of the signification of works; in the length, from that same down to the earth, where the whole crucified body seems to stand, which signifies to persevere; in the height, from that same transverse wood upwards, towards that which juts out at the head, on account of the expectation of supernal things; and in the depth, that part of the wood which lies hidden fixed down in the secret place of the earth." Thus Augustine in Epistle 112 chap. 12, Epistle 119 chap. 41, and Epistle 120 chap. 26, from which we perceive that the contemplation of the image of the Crucified was far more pleasing to the most holy Fathers than to our modern Gnostics.

Observandum porro quinque extremitates, seu fines Dominicae cruci hic aperte tribui : ac de quatuor, omnibus constat ; de quinta, ubi requiescere dicitur affixi corpus, non ita. Non enim clare dicitur, an pedibus tanquam subjecto scabellulo, quiesceret, an vero media corporis parte quodammodo sederet. Verum, Gregorius Turonensis disertis verbis de tabella (alii suppedaneum vocant) in qua et pedes innixi et fixi fuerint, hoc intelligendum tradit : « In stipite erecto, inquiens, foramen manifestum est : super hanc vero tabulam, tanquam stantis hominis sacrae affixae sunt plantae. » His fere similia sensisse videtur Justinus martyr in Dialogo ; Tertullianus libro tertio Advers. Marc., capit. decimo octavo, et decimo nono ; et Venerabilis Beda in Collectaneis, affirmans eamdem crucem ex quatuor diversorum lignorum generibus compactam fuisse : quarto haud dubie suppedaneum illud intelligens. Istud denique plurimum confirmant vetustissimae crucifixi Domini nostri in templis servatae imagines, quas etiam eodem anno quo hoc scribimus 1595, multis in locis conspeximus, cum dicto scabellulo, in quo pedes etiamnum distincti secretique duobus clavis affiguntur ; nimirum, Virduni, in majori eademque vetustissima aede, unam ; et monasterio, quod a divo Paulo nomen habet, alteram. Treveri ejusdem formae vidimus in majori templo, duas ; in aede B. Virginis, tres ; Sancti Simeonis, duas ; Sancti Paulini, unam ; et S. Mariae alteram. Confluentiae, in templis diversis, tres. Coloniae Agrippinae, etiam ejusdem formae imagines, id est pedibus disjunctis, atque duobus clavis in subjecta tabella confixis, plurimas conspeximus. In summo templo, tres ; ad S. Severinum, tres ; ad S. Cunibertum, tres ; ad S. Gereonem, unam ; ad

Moreover, it must be observed that five extremities, or ends, are here openly attributed to the Lord's cross: and concerning four, it is agreed by all; concerning the fifth, where the body of Him who was affixed is said to rest, not so. For it is not clearly said whether He rested with His feet as upon a little footstool placed beneath, or sat in some manner with the middle part of the body. However, Gregory of Tours hands down in express words that this is to be understood of the little board (others call it the suppedaneum) on which the feet both rested and were fastened: "In the upright stake," he says, "a hole is manifest: and upon this board, as of a man standing, His sacred soles were affixed." Things almost similar to these Justin Martyr seems to have thought in the Dialogue; Tertullian in the third book Against Marcion, chapters eighteen and nineteen; and the Venerable Bede in the Collectanea, affirming that the same cross was compacted out of four kinds of different woods: by the fourth doubtless understanding that footstool. Finally, this is very greatly confirmed by the most ancient images of our crucified Lord preserved in churches, which even in the same year in which we write this, 1595, we have beheld in many places, with the said little footstool, on which the feet, still distinct and separate, are affixed with two nails; namely, at Verdun, in the greater and most ancient church, one; and in the monastery which takes its name from St. Paul, another. At Trier we saw of the same form in the greater church, two; in the church of the Blessed Virgin, three; of St. Simeon, two; of St. Paulinus, one; and of St. Mary, another. At Koblenz, in different churches, three. At Cologne, we also beheld very many images of the same form, that is, with the feet separated and fastened with two nails on a little board placed beneath: in the cathedral church, three; at St. Severin, three; at St. Kunibert, three; at St. Gereon, one; at

Editors' notes and page, col. 1575

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in three lines. Numerals are small; read as 42–50 continuing from page 795. In note 45 the page prints "L." before the numeral ("L. ⁴⁵ III Antiq."); set here at the head of note 45. Calls other than 43 and 44 are not visible in the foot crops. (printed under page 796)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

Ephes. III, 18, 19.

Ephesians 3:18, 19.

(printed under page 796)

(43) ‹anchor: intelligendum tradit› · call in col 1575

Lib. de Glor. martyrum, cap. 6.

Book on the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 6.

(printed under page 796)

(44) ‹anchor: illud intelligens› · call in col 1575

Molan., libr. de sacr. pict.; Lipsius lib. de Cruce.

Molanus, book on sacred pictures; Lipsius, book on the Cross.

(printed under page 796)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

L. III Antiq., c. 6 et 8.

Book III of the Antiquities, chapters 6 and 8.

(printed under page 796)

(46) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

L. de Decalogo.

Book on the Decalogue.

(printed under page 796)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

In cap. VI Ephes.

On chapter 6 of Ephesians.

(printed under page 796)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. de decem chordis.

Book on the Ten Strings (De decem chordis).

(printed under page 796)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

Conc. 1 in psal. XXXII.

Discourse 1 on Psalm 32.

(printed under page 796)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1575-1576 (not visible in foot images)

Quæst. 71 in Exod.

Question 71 on Exodus.

(printed under page 796)

Page

running head: 1575 VARIORUM NOT
marginal letters: A diu multumque cogitavi,; B nem, quam et; C fines Dominicae cruci; D imagines, quas etiam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: diu multumque cogitavi,; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 42.

PG 7:1576

XII Apostolos, duas ; ad S. Pantaleonem, unam ; ad S. Ursulam, unam ; ad S. Mariam de Capitolio, unam ; in coemeterio S. Georgii, unam ; ad Indulgentias, unam ; ad S. Mauritium, unam ; ad Clarissas, unam ; in quodam xenodochio, unam ; audivimusque in aliis sacris locis multas tales servari : quibus superior nostra conjectura non mediocriter roboratur.

the Twelve Apostles, two; at St. Pantaleon, one; at St. Ursula, one; at St. Mary of the Capitol, one; in the cemetery of St. George, one; at the Indulgences, one; at St. Maurice, one; at the Poor Clares, one; in a certain hospice, one; and we have heard that in other sacred places many such are preserved: by which our aforesaid conjecture is not moderately strengthened.

Quatuor certe clavis confixum cruci Christum fuisse, non tantum ex historica inventionis sanctae crucis narratione, satis aperte mihi colligi posse videtur : sed etiam ex certissimis Patrum testimoniis. Cyprianus namque serm. de Passione, plurali numero dicit : « Clavis sacros pedes terebrantibus. » Et supra laudatus antistes Turonensis apertius scribit : « Clavorum Dominicorum quod quatuor fuerint, haec est ratio : duo sunt affixi in palmis, et duo in plantis. » Eadem quoque est sententia lib. I, cap. 10 S. Brigidae Revelationum, quas etiam summi pontifices probaverunt.

That Christ was fastened to the cross with four nails seems to me capable of being gathered openly enough not only from the historical narrative of the finding of the holy cross, but also from the most certain testimonies of the Fathers. For Cyprian in the Sermon on the Passion says in the plural number: "With nails boring through His sacred feet." And the bishop of Tours praised above writes more openly: "That there were four nails of the Lord, this is the reckoning: two were affixed in the palms, and two in the soles." The same also is the opinion of Book 1, chap. 10 of the Revelations of St. Bridget, which the supreme pontiffs have also approved.

Pag. 152. Unaquaeque tabula. Diversae fuerunt sententiae Hebraeorum, Graecorum, et Latinorum, quot praecepta in quaque tabella reponantur. Josephus et Philo, quos hic imitatur Irenaeus, quinque in qualibet collocant. Ex Graecis Origenes, Procopius, et Hesychius cap. XX Exodi narrantes, et Clemens Alex. VI Strom., quatuor in priore, sex in posteriore annumerant, quibus ex Latinis astipulatur Ambrosius. Latinis fere omnibus valde probatur Augustini partitio, qua tria tantum in prima constituit, quibus Dei cultus explicatur ; septem in alia, quibus proximi dilectio jubetur.

Page 152. Each table. Diverse were the opinions of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins as to how many commandments are placed on each table. Josephus and Philo, whom Irenaeus here imitates, place five on either one. Among the Greeks, Origen, Procopius, and Hesychius expounding chap. 20 of Exodus, and Clement of Alexandria in Stromata 6, reckon four on the former and six on the latter, with whom among the Latins Ambrose agrees. By almost all the Latins the partition of Augustine is highly approved, whereby he establishes only three on the first, by which the worship of God is explained; and seven on the other, by which the love of one's neighbour is commanded.

Quis enim concedat. Contendit nec dies, nec menses, nec annos praeterlabentes confictos a se Pleromatis AEones significare : ac idcirco desumpta ab his argumenta nihil omnino concludere.

For who would grant. He contends that neither days, nor months, nor years gliding by signify the Aeons of the Pleroma fabricated by them: and therefore the arguments taken from these conclude nothing at all.

Praefinitive. Ita vet. cod. ; delevimus « praefinitione »

Determinately. Thus the old codex; we deleted "by determination."

Adhuc autem. Caput 41 signatur in vet. cod. cum hac epigraphe : « De Amen et nonaginta novem ovibus, ex quibus una periit et inventa est. » Caeterum, « sinistra, » pro « sinistram » substituimus ex superioribus, quibus quaedam dextra, alia vero sinistra, ex Achamoth Matre producta garriunt.

Moreover. Chapter 41 is marked in the old codex with this heading: "Concerning Amen and the ninety-nine sheep, of which one perished and was found." For the rest, we have substituted "left [neuter plural]" for "left [feminine singular]" from what goes before, where they prate that some things right, and others left, were brought forth from the Mother Achamoth.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 42.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 42.

Pag. 151. Ipse habitus crucis, etc. A Justino martyre haec sane accepisse videtur Irenaeus, utpote qui in Dial. cum Tryphone, pag. 318, crucem his descripsit verbis : Ὄρθιον γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἓν ξύλον (arrectarius stipes) ἀφ' οὗ ἐστι τὸ ἀνώτατον μέρος εἰς κέρας ὑπηρμένον (vertex cui impingitur titulus aut causa mortis), ὅταν τὸ ἄλλο ξύλον προσαρμοσθῇ, καὶ ἑκατέρωθεν ὡς κέρατα τῷ ἑνὶ κέρατι παρεζευγμένα τὰ ἄκρα φαίνηται (transversum lignum, quod quasi brachia crucis facit), καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ πηγνύμενον, ὡς κέρας καὶ αὐτὸ ἐξοχόν ἐστιν, ἐφ' ᾧ ἐποχοῦνται οἱ σταυρούμενοι. Quae ultima verba Scaliger in Animadversionibus ad Euseb., p. 118, ita Latine transtulit : « et quod in medio stipite impactum est, ipsum quoque instar cornu eminet, cui insidunt et vectantur ii qui cruci affiguntur. » Unde plura de crucis structura et partibus commentatur : contra quae tamen disputat Fullerus lib. IV Miscellaneorum sacrorum, cap. 12, prolixe ex ipsa Justini martyris et Irenaei collatione probans, istud, in quo insidere dicuntur, qui supplicium dant, non esse distinctum a scabello, cui pedes inniti et infigi solebant.

Page 151. The very fashion of the cross, etc. From Justin Martyr Irenaeus certainly seems to have received these things, inasmuch as in the Dialogue with Trypho, page 318, he described the cross in these words: "For the one piece of wood is upright" (the upright stake) "from which the topmost part is raised up into a horn" (the top to which is fastened the title or cause of death), "when the other piece of wood is fitted to it, and on either side the ends appear as horns yoked to the one horn" (the transverse wood, which makes as it were the arms of the cross), "and that which is fixed in the middle, itself also juts out like a horn, upon which those who are crucified ride." Which last words Scaliger in his Animadversions on Eusebius, p. 118, translated thus into Latin: "and that which is driven into the middle of the stake, itself also juts out like a horn, upon which sit and are borne those who are affixed to the cross." Whence he comments at length on the structure and parts of the cross: against which, however, Fuller disputes in Book 4 of the Sacred Miscellanea, chap. 12, proving at length from the very comparison of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus that that upon which those who suffer punishment are said to sit is not distinct from the footstool on which the feet were wont to rest and be fastened.

Pag. 152. Columnas habebat quinque. « Quatuor » solum Exod. XXVI, 32, memorantur columnae velaminis, quibus sanctum sanctorum a sancto distinguebatur ; sed ibid., vers. 37, « quinque » dicuntur columnae ante quas ducebatur velum, quod in introitu

Page 152. Had five pillars. "Four" pillars only of the veil, whereby the holy of holies was separated from the holy place, are mentioned in Exodus 26:32; but in the same place, verse 37, "five" pillars are spoken of before which was drawn the veil that was at the entrance

Editors' notes and page, col. 1576

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1576
marginal letters: A XII Apostolos, duas ;; B summi pontifices probaverunt.; C hae epigraphe : « De; D in Animadversionibus ad
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: XII Apostolos, duas ;; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 42.

PG 7:1577

tabernaculi erat. Illud igitur, pro hoc, accepit Irenaeus memoria lapsus.

of the tabernacle. Irenaeus therefore, slipping in memory, took the former for the latter.

Altitudo. « Longitudinem » vel « latitudinem » ponere debuisset Irenaeus, quae utraque « erat quinque cubitorum, per quadrum, » uti locis supra citatis describitur ; altitudo autem « trium » erat cubitorum.

Height. Irenaeus ought to have put "length" or "breadth," each of which "was of five cubits, foursquare," as is described in the passages cited above; whereas the height was of "three" cubits.

Sinistrae manus levamen. Molestum mihi fuit hoc « sinistrae manus levamen, » nec facile est istud dextre interpretari. Nisi me conjectura fallit, « levamen » hic dicitur a « levare, » id est furari, furto abducere : in qua significatione hoc verbum usurpatum legitur a Gallicis praecipue scriptoribus, qualem Irenaei interpretem quoque fuisse vero est simillimum. Sic Sidonius Apollinaris lib. VII, epist. 2, scribit : « Levat divitem conjugem pauper adamatus, » id est furto abducit. In quem locum commentans doctissimus Savaro, plura ex Gregorio Turonensi aliisque attulit. Quid si itaque « sinistrae manus levamen » interpretemur, id quod a dextra ad sinistram manum subductum est, indeque perditum ? Integer sane contextus hanc expositionem bene admittere videtur, eamque haud parum confirmat, quod in « dextra » opponantur « oves, quae non perierunt, sed in ovili permanserunt, » non furtiva manu raptae, vel perditae.

Theft of the left hand. Troublesome to me was this "levamen of the left hand," nor is it easy to interpret that skilfully. Unless my conjecture deceives me, "levamen" is here spoken of from "levare," that is, to steal, to carry off by theft: in which signification this word is read used chiefly by Gallic writers, such as it is most probable that the translator of Irenaeus also was. Thus Sidonius Apollinaris in Book 7, Epistle 2, writes: "The poor man, fallen in love with, steals [levat] a rich wife," that is, carries her off by stealth. Commenting on which passage, the most learned Savaron brought forward more examples from Gregory of Tours and others. What if therefore we interpret "levamen of the left hand" as that which has been filched from the right to the left hand, and thence lost? The whole context certainly seems to admit this exposition well, and confirms it not a little by the fact that on the "right" are opposed "the sheep which did not perish, but remained in the fold," not snatched away by a thieving hand, or lost.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 43.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 43.

Pag. 153. Si quis autem. Praeoccupatione usus dissolvit argumenta, quae poterant ab his objici : docetque ex solis numeris, litteris et syllabis, non esse temere de rebus divinis pronuntiandum ; quandoquidem incertum et superstitiosum sit.

Page 153. But if anyone. Using anticipation, he dissolves the arguments which could be objected by them: and teaches that from numbers, letters, and syllables alone one must not rashly pronounce concerning divine things; seeing that it is uncertain and superstitious.

Et apostolorum. Cod. excusi, « nec apostolorum. »

And of the apostles. The printed codices have "nor of the apostles."

Qui autem varia. Initium est cap. 42, in vet. cod.

And who various. This is the beginning of chap. 42 in the old codex.

Non enim infectus. Gravis sententia, qua hominem cum Filio Dei comparat, quod ille factus sit, id est ex nihilo, cum prius non fuisset, productus : hic autem non factus, cum sit homoousios et coaeternus Patri. Isthaec postmodum sancti alii Patres apertius concluserunt in Nicaena synodo adversus Arii blasphemias, ut ex Symbolo liquet. Athanasius quoque dicit : « Filius a Patre solo est, οὐ ποιητὸς, οὐ κτιστὸς, non factus, non creatus. » Fusius et accuratius oratione 2 et 3 contra Arianos, negotium persequitur : ut et Basilius lib. II Contra Eunomium. Augustinus ser. 193 : « Factum vel creatum Dei Verbum dici omnino non potest, per quod facta sunt omnia, » etc.

For not unmade. A weighty sentence, whereby he compares man with the Son of God, in that the former was made, that is, brought forth out of nothing when previously he had not been: whereas the latter was not made, since He is consubstantial and coeternal with the Father. These things afterwards the other holy Fathers more openly concluded in the Nicene Synod against the blasphemies of Arius, as is clear from the Creed. Athanasius also says: "The Son is from the Father alone, οὐ ποιητὸς, οὐ κτιστὸς, not made, not created." More at length and more accurately he pursues the matter in Orations 2 and 3 against the Arians: as does Basil also in Book 2 Against Eunomius. Augustine in Sermon 193: "The Word of God, through whom all things were made, cannot at all be called made or created," etc.

Proprium. Expunximus, « proximum ; » et ultima lin. « ignarus, » pro « ignarum, » reposuimus auct. vet. cod.

Own. We expunged "nearest"; and in the last line we restored "ignorant [nominative]" for "ignorant [accusative]" on the authority of the old codex.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 43.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 43.

Pag. 153. Numero XX. Quid numerus XX sibi velit, dicere nequeo, indeque suspicor, vel XXX, vel nullum numerum legendum esse. Sed mss. codices hic nos destituunt.

Page 153. By the number 20. What the number 20 means, I cannot say, and thence I suspect that either 30 or no number at all is to be read. But the manuscript codices fail us here.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 44.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 44.

Pag. 158. Non enim transibilis est. Sic lego, pro, « transibilis es, » tum quia finis praecedentis capituli, tum inscriptio istius id aperte docet : et mox scribitur, « indeterminabilis est, » etc. Tradit porro manifestam insaniam esse, supra Deum conditorem hujus mundi, mentem extollere, ut quid eo majus et superius exquiratur : cum adeo immensus ac natura infinitus sit, ut nullo intellectu pro dignitate capi possit. Etenim « habitat lucem inaccessibilem, » I Tim. VI, 16.

Page 158. For He is not passable. Thus I read, for "Thou art passable," both because the end of the preceding chapter and the heading of this one openly teach it: and presently it is written, "He is indeterminable," etc. Moreover, he hands down that it is manifest madness to lift up the mind above God the Founder of this world, so as to seek out something greater and higher than He: since He is so immense and infinite by nature that He can be grasped worthily by no intellect. For "He dwells in light inaccessible," 1 Tim. 6:16.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 45.

Annotations of the same on chap. 45.

Pag. 154. Melius ergo. Non ignaviae imperitorum patrocinatur, sed jactantiae et supercilio Gnosticorum occurrit, qui vana persuasione encyclopaediae omnium disciplinarum inflati, simplicibus petulanter

Page 154. Better therefore. He does not patronize the sloth of the unskilful, but meets the boasting and arrogance of the Gnostics, who, puffed up with a vain persuasion of the encyclopaedia of all disciplines, petulantly

Editors' notes and page, col. 1577

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. Numerals read 50, 51, 52, 53 (52 and 53 fixed by their calls). The first numeral, 50, duplicates the last number assigned on page 796; the small numerals on 796 need re-checking at higher zoom. Calls 50 and 51 are not visible in the foot crops. (printed under page 797)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1577-1578 (not visible in foot images)

In regula monac.

In the monastic rule.

(printed under page 797)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1577-1578 (not visible in foot images)

De moder. in disput. servanda.

On the moderation to be kept in disputation.

(printed under page 797)

Page

running head: 1577 IN LIB. II S. IRE
marginal letters: A tabernaculi erat. Illud; B subductum est, indeque; C aeternus Patri. Isthaec; D Pag. 158. Non
old-edition numerals: 102 before Sinistrae
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tabernaculi erat. Illud; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 43.; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 43.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 44.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 45.; word split at end of column: petulan-
other: the word petulanter was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1578

PG 7:1578

insultabant. Non dissimilia scribit August. serm. 20, de verbis Apostol. : « Melior est fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia. » Et Hieron. : « Melius est aliquid nescire, quam cum periculo discere. » Ignavus esse mavult Nazianzenus, quam plus aequo curiosus ; ac nimis timidus, quam nimis audax. Corruptos quorumdam mores, qui se humanarum disciplinarum apices conscendisse putabant, post Tullium et Senecam graviter persequitur Lactantius, lib. III, capite 15.

insulted the simple. Not dissimilar things writes Augustine in Sermon 20 on the Words of the Apostle: "Better is faithful ignorance than rash knowledge." And Jerome: "It is better not to know something than to learn it with danger." Nazianzen prefers to be sluggish rather than more curious than is right; and too timid rather than too bold. The corrupt manners of certain men who thought that they had climbed the summits of human disciplines, Lactantius, after Tully and Seneca, severely pursues in Book 3, chapter 15.

Melius itaque est. Memorabiles istiusmodi sunt apud Augustinum et plures sententiae, ut libr. V Confess., cap. 4 : « Infelix homo qui scit omnia, te autem nescit. Beatus autem qui te scit, etiamsi illa nesciat. » Et lib. Medit., cap. 5 : « Abs te sapere, est desipere ; te vero nosse, est perfecte scire. » Ad finem porro praecedentis sententiae legimus, « praestiterit » ex vet. cod., sublato « praeceperit. »

It is better therefore. Memorable sentences of that sort and many in number are in Augustine, as in Book 5 of the Confessions, chap. 4: "Unhappy is the man who knows all things, but knows not Thee. And blessed is he who knows Thee, even if he knows not those things." And in the book of Meditations, chap. 5: "To be wise apart from Thee is to be foolish; but to know Thee is to know perfectly." Moreover, at the end of the preceding sentence we read "has furnished" from the old codex, having removed "has commanded."

Quae hominem vivificat. Recte vitam spiritalem, id est hominis justificationem, tribuit charitati ; non soli fidei, quemadmodum imponunt ei Centuriatores.

Which quickens man. Rightly he attributes the spiritual life, that is, the justification of man, to charity; not to faith alone, as the Centuriators falsely impute to him.

Quid enim. Cap. 43 signat vet. cod. cum epigraphe, quae huic cap. 45 ascripta est. Legendum autem proponimus ex vet. cod. : « Quid enim si super hos, » expuncto « per ; » et paulo post, « Aut iterum si quis » pro « cur. »

For what. The old codex marks chap. 43 with the heading which is ascribed to this chap. 45. Now we propose that it should be read from the old codex: "For what if above these," having expunged "through"; and a little after, "Or again if anyone" for "why."

Quia nihil omnino horum. Docte ac pie cuncta Dei providentia et consilio gubernari, adversus Gnosticam ac Epicuream perfidiam, defendit ; nihilque, aut ejus scientiam fugere, aut praeter ejus voluntatem in orbe fieri : « quandoquidem attingat a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponat omnia suaviter. » Hoc et Justinus martyr ex eo confirmat, quod non frustra, pro rebus humanis, diu noctuque Deum precamur. Et beatus Areopagita scribit : « Deitas prospicit cuncta providentia, bonitateque mirabili, » lib. De divinis nom., cap. 12. Caetera videre licet apud Theophilum Ant., Lactantium, Augustinum, etc.

Because none at all of these things. Learnedly and piously he defends against Gnostic and Epicurean perfidy that all things are governed by the providence and counsel of God; and that nothing either escapes His knowledge or happens in the world beside His will: "seeing that she reaches from end to end mightily, and disposes all things sweetly." This Justin Martyr also confirms from the fact that not in vain do we pray to God day and night for human affairs. And the blessed Areopagite writes: "The Deity provides for all things by a wonderful providence and goodness," in the book On the Divine Names, chap. 12. The rest may be seen in Theophilus of Antioch, Lactantius, Augustine, etc.

Ut arenam enumeret. Quatuor his paroemiis eleganter ostendit, inanes non minus et ridiculos esse horum conatus, quam si scyatho mare exhaurire, pondus montium scrutari, flatum venti mensurare, ignem ponderare, et diem, quae praeteriit, revocare molirentur. Similes enim superioribus sunt hae, a quibus sacrae Litterae non abhorrent.

So as to number the sand. By these four proverbs he elegantly shows that the efforts of these men are no less empty and ridiculous than if they were to endeavour to drain the sea with a ladle, to search out the weight of the mountains, to measure the blast of the wind, to weigh fire, and to recall the day that has passed. For similar to the foregoing are these, from which the sacred Scriptures do not shrink.

Pag. 155. Fulmine percussus. Videtur exprimere Graecum verbum ἐμβρόντητος. Simili quoque proverbiali voce postea utitur cap. 53.

Page 155. Thunderstruck. It seems to express the Greek word ἐμβρόντητος. He uses a similar proverbial word afterwards also in chap. 53.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 46.

Annotations of the same on chap. 46.

Pag. 155. Sensus autem. Commodius praecedenti capiti haec prima sententia jungeretur, ut cum argumento indicat vetus cod.

Page 155. Now the sense. This first sentence would be joined more suitably to the preceding chapter, as the old codex together with the argument indicates.

Sunt autem. Caput 44 in vet. cod. cum epigraphe ea, quae capiti 43 supra affixa est. Observandum quam honorifice de sacris Litteris sentiat quas attente legit, ad eas alios ablegat, ut fontem, quo pietatem hauriant universam. Harum studio et energia Justinus martyr et Tatianus permoti, sectis omnibus philosophorum eodem saeculo valedixerunt, ut Christi placitis sese consecrarent. Earumdem oracula consulere Autolycum hortatur Theophilus, si poenas evadere et bona perpetua consequi voluerit. Ea denique omnium scriptorum antiquissima et verissima esse non semel postea confirmat lib. II et III Ad eumdem Autolycum.

Now there are. Chapter 44 in the old codex, with that heading which is affixed above to chapter 43. It must be observed how honourably he thinks of the sacred Scriptures, which he reads attentively, and to which he sends others as to a fountain whence they may draw all piety. Moved by the study and energy of these, Justin Martyr and Tatian in the same century bade farewell to all the sects of the philosophers, in order to consecrate themselves to the teachings of Christ. Theophilus exhorts Autolycus to consult the oracles of the same, if he wishes to escape punishments and obtain perpetual goods. Finally, that they are the most ancient and truest of all writings he confirms more than once afterwards in Books 2 and 3 To the Same Autolycus.

Posita sunt. Ita vet. cod. ; delevimus « positae, » et mox negationem « non » praeposuimus « ambiguis. »

Are set down. Thus the old codex; we deleted "set down [feminine]," and presently we prefixed the negation "not" to "ambiguous."

Sine periculo absolvit. Absolvere parabolas, Graece ὑπολύειν, dissolvere, explicare.

Unfolds without danger. To unfold parables, in Greek ὑπολύειν, to loose, to explain.

Oppugnantes se. Vet. cod. : « Tantae videbuntur veritates pugnantes semet invicem. »

Fighting against themselves. The old codex has: "So great truths will seem to be fighting against one another."

Editors' notes and page, col. 1578

Footnotes

(52) ‹anchor: omnia suaviter› · call in col 1578

Sap. VIII.

Wisdom 8.

(printed under page 797)

(53) ‹anchor: confirmat› · call in col 1578

Dialog.

Dialogue (with Trypho).

(printed under page 797)

Page

running head: IN LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1578
marginal letters: A ter insultabant. Non; B id est hominis; C tium, Augustinum, etc.; D pietatem hauriant universam.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ter insultabant. Non; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 46.; word split at start of column: petulan-ter

PG 7:1579

Itaque, secundum hanc rationem. Iterum docet non esse petendam a parabolis certam constantemque regulam fidei nostrae, sed in apertis Scripturis, quae nonnisi repugnanter possunt in varios diversosque sensus torqueri.

Therefore, according to this method. Again he teaches that a sure and constant rule of our faith is not to be sought from parables, but in the open Scriptures, which cannot save repugnantly be twisted into various and diverse senses.

Nulla. Expunximus « nulli ; » postea « ad eum, » pro « ab eo, » vet. cod. auct. reposuimus.

None. We expunged "to none"; afterwards we restored "to him" for "by him," on the authority of the old codex.

Cum itaque. Non vult omnes Scripturas adeo apertas, et cuivis obvias esse, ut nulla sit in eis obscuritas, cum hoc alibi frequenter affirmet ; sed eas adeo perspicue et constanter, unum et solum Deum mundi creatorem, et rectorem praedicare, ut nemo qui his attenderit, ignorare possit. Quid enim apertius, quam istud : Audi, Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est ? » et : « Non habebis deos alienos coram me ? » Et sexcenta talia.

Since therefore. He does not mean that all Scriptures are so open and obvious to anyone that there is no obscurity in them, since he frequently affirms this elsewhere; but that they so clearly and constantly preach the one and only God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, that no one who attends to them can be ignorant of it. For what is more open than that saying: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God"? and: "You shall not have strange gods before Me"? And six hundred such passages.

Quia enim. Cap. 45 signat vet. cod. cum summa quae supra tribuitur capiti 44.

For because. The old codex marks chap. 45 with the summary which is attributed above to chapter 44.

Ipsa dictione, neque. Tres has voculas desiderat veter. cod. ; quae vero hic refellit, partim cap. 1 lib. I, partim cap. 16, 17 et 23 recensuit.

By the expression itself, nor. The old codex lacks these three little words; and the things which he refutes here, he recounted partly in chap. 1 of Book 1, partly in chaps. 16, 17, and 23.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 47.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 47.

Pag. 156. Habentes itaque regulam. Docet quaestionibus vanis et curiosis de Bytho, Propatore, ac AEonibus non esse incumbendum, cum Scriptura perfecte constanterque affirmet unum esse verum Deum, qui omnia fecit et administrat. Porro « exerceri, » pro « exercere, » ex veter. cod. legimus.

Page 156. Having therefore the rule. He teaches that one must not apply oneself to vain and curious questions about Bythus, Propator, and the Aeons, since Scripture perfectly and constantly affirms that there is one true God, who made and administers all things. Moreover, we read "to be exercised" for "to exercise," from the old codex.

Qua manifestissime. Ita vet. cod. ; excusi, « quae manifestissime. »

Whereby most manifestly. Thus the old codex; the printed copies have "which most manifestly."

Si autem omnium. Sacra scripta, ut a Verbo Dei, et Spiritu ejus profecta, omnibus numeris perfecta esse, ideoque magna religione ipsis adhaerendum rectissime asserit : sed nec minus pie evincit, ea tantis mysteriis abundare, ut ad eorum intelligentiam revelatione opus sit, cum tanta sit animi nostri caligo, ut ad ea, quae ante pedes sunt, crebro caecutiamus, sicut exemplis propositis confirmat. Errant igitur toto coelo, qui sacras Litteras adeo claras, apertas, et omnibus pervias clamitant, ut quibusvis liceat illotis pedibus et manibus, ad eas tractandas accedere. « Ratio divina, » ait Tertullianus, « in medulla est, non in superficie, et plerumque aemula manifestis : nec haereses esse possent si non et perperam Scripturae intelligi possent. » Multis etiam in locis per obscuras Scripturas « provisum esse non dubitat » Augustin. « ad edomandam labore superbiam, et intellectum a fastidio revocandum, cui facile investigata, plerumque vilescunt ; » lib. II De doct. Chr., cap. 6. Et lib. Contra Adimantum : « Aliquando aperte ponitur in Scripturis ipsa divina auctoritas, aliquando autem occultatur, ut et manifestis lector instruatur, et exerceatur obscuris, » cap. 17. Non possum hoc loco non monere, rem istam fusius a Procopio, Gazaeo, Praefat. in Isa., elegantissime et gravissime tractari, quam Latinam factam percurrendam mihi aliquando dedit Joannes Curterius, cujus anima pace fruatur, qui totum Commentarium jam edidit in Ecclesiae utilitatem.

But if of all things. He most rightly asserts that the sacred writings, as proceeding from the Word of God and His Spirit, are perfect in all respects, and that therefore we must cleave to them with great reverence: yet no less piously does he prove that they abound in such great mysteries that for the understanding of them there is need of revelation, since so great is the darkness of our mind that we are frequently blind to the things that are before our feet, as he confirms by the examples propounded. They err therefore by the whole heaven who cry out that the sacred Scriptures are so clear, open, and passable to all, that anyone is permitted to approach to handle them with unwashed feet and hands. "The divine reason," says Tertullian, "is in the marrow, not on the surface, and for the most part at variance with what is manifest: nor could there be heresies if the Scriptures could not also be wrongly understood." Augustine also does not doubt that in many places through obscure Scriptures "provision has been made for taming pride by labour, and recalling the intellect from disdain, to which things easily investigated for the most part grow cheap," Book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chap. 6. And in the book Against Adimantus: "Sometimes the divine authority itself is openly set down in the Scriptures, and sometimes it is hidden, so that the reader may both be instructed by what is manifest and exercised by what is obscure," chap. 17. I cannot forbear to point out in this place that this matter is treated more at length, most elegantly and weightily, by Procopius of Gaza in his Preface to Isaiah, which Jean Courtier, may whose soul enjoy peace, once gave me rendered into Latin to read through, and who has now published the whole Commentary for the benefit of the Church.

Quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu. Quando Spiritum sanctum, simul cum Filio Dei, sacrarum Scripturarum auctorem asserit, plane eum esse natura Deum, omniscium, et omnipotentem agnoscit. Quod paulo post sequitur : « Non est mirum si in spiritalibus et coelestibus, et his quae habent revelari, hoc patimur nos, » etc., duplicem continet Hellenismum. Priorem, « habent revelari, » pro, « revelatione opus habent ; » vel, « suo tempore revelabuntur : » posteriorem, « hoc patimur nos, » pro, « hoc nobis usu venit. »

Inasmuch as by the Word of God and the Spirit. Since he asserts that the Holy Spirit, together with the Son of God, is the author of the sacred Scriptures, he plainly acknowledges that He is by nature God, omniscient and omnipotent. What follows a little after: "It is no wonder if in spiritual and heavenly things, and those which have to be revealed, we suffer this," etc., contains a twofold Hellenism: the former, "have to be revealed," for "have need of revelation," or "will be revealed in their own time"; the latter, "we suffer this," for "this happens to us."

Quid enim. De Nili incrementis et eluvionibus

For what. Concerning the risings and inundations of the Nile,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1579

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in three lines. Calls 54, 55, 56 and 57 stand in col 1579 (Q2b, read on the column images); calls 58 and 59 are not visible in col 1579 and stand in col 1580. (printed under page 798)

(54) ‹anchor: ignorare possit› · call in col 1579

Lib. II, c. 47, et lib IV, cap. 45.

Book II, chapter 47, and Book IV, chapter 45.

(printed under page 798)

(55) ‹anchor: Deus unus est› · call in col 1579

Deut. VI, 4.

Deuteronomy 6:4.

(printed under page 798)

(56) ‹anchor: deos alienos coram me› · call in col 1579

Exod. XX, 3; Deut. V, 7.

Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7.

(printed under page 798)

(57) ‹anchor: ait Tertullianus› · call in col 1579

lib. de resurrect. carn.

Book on the Resurrection of the Flesh.

(printed under page 798)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1579-1580 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. III De plac. phil.

Book III of On the Opinions of the Philosophers (De placitis philosophorum).

(printed under page 798)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1579-1580 (not visible in foot images)

Psal. XCII, 4; LXIV, 8.

Psalm 92:4; 64:8 (Vulgate numbering).

(printed under page 798)

Page

running head: 1579 VARIORUM NOTA
marginal letters: A Itaque, secundum hanc; B veter. cod. ; quae; C Errant igitur toto; D pace fruatur, qui
old-edition numerals: 103 after illotis
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Itaque, secundum hanc; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 47.
other: in col 1579 the quotation "Audi, Israel ..." is printed without an opening guillemet; set as printed

PG 7:1580

septem diversas philosophorum opiniones recitat Plutarchus lib. IV De plac. philosoph. Easdem examinat Plin. lib. V, cap. 9. Diodorus octo etiamnum refert, quarum postremam solummodo probat, lib. I, cap. 4. Suas conjecturas proponit Herodotus in Euterpe, quem in his garrire putat Strabo in XVII. Nec unde crescere incipiat Nilus, nec incrementi ejus causas inveniri, omnium, meo judicio, rectissime scripsit Senec. lib. IV Natur. quaest.

Plutarch recites seven different opinions of the philosophers in Book 4 On the Opinions of the Philosophers. Pliny examines the same in Book 5, chap. 9. Diodorus relates eight even now, of which he approves only the last, Book 1, chap. 4. Herodotus propounds his conjectures in Euterpe, whom Strabo in Book 17 thinks prates in these things. That neither whence the Nile begins to rise, nor the causes of its rising are found out, Seneca wrote most rightly of all, in my judgement, in Book 4 of the Natural Questions.

Sed et volantium. De hirundinum recessu intelligit, quas viciniora loca petere, et apricos montium sequi recessus putat Plin., ubi nudas et deplumes frequenter inventas fuisse asserit, lib. X, cap. 24. Exprobrat Dominus Hebraeis stupiditatem, qua judicia sua non advertebant, propositis ciconiis, turturibus, gruibus et hirundinibus, quae stata tempora recessus sui sagaciter nota nec antevertunt, nec praetereunt, Jerem. VIII, 7.

And of flying creatures also. He understands this of the retreat of swallows, which Pliny thinks seek nearer places and follow the sunny recesses of the mountains, where he asserts that they have frequently been found naked and featherless, Book 10, chap. 24. The Lord reproaches the Hebrews with the stupidity whereby they did not heed His judgements, setting before them the storks, turtle-doves, cranes, and swallows, which neither anticipate nor pass by the appointed times of their retreat sagaciously known to them, Jer. 8:7.

Quid autem possumus. Plutarchus quinque diversas sententias de Oceani fluxu et refluxu referens, satis innuit, quam frigide rei nodum solverint philosophi. Illos soli et lunae tribuit Plin. lib. II, cap. 97, quod et Aristoteli placuerat lib. II Meteor. Sacrae Litterae isthaec omnia divinae providentiae ascribunt : quae mirabiles elationes maris excitat, turbatque profundum, et sonum fluctuum ejus. Reliqua, quae subjiciuntur, exempla, ex Jobi cap. XXXVIII desumpta videntur.

And what can we. Plutarch, relating five different opinions concerning the ebb and flow of the Ocean, sufficiently hints how feebly the philosophers loosed the knot of the matter. Pliny attributes them to the sun and moon in Book 2, chap. 97, which had also pleased Aristotle in Book 2 of the Meteorology. The sacred Scriptures ascribe all these things to divine providence: which stirs up the wonderful swellings of the sea, and troubles the deep, and the noise of its waves. The remaining examples which are subjoined seem to be taken from chap. 38 of Job.

Si ergo et in rebus. Cap. 46 signat vet. cod. Colligit autem non solum sacrarum Scripturarum verba, dialectos, phrases, et dicendi varias figuras obscuras esse, verum etiam res quae in his continentur et significantur : quod et post Irenaeum etiam approbant Origen. lib. VII Contra Celsum ; Ambrosius epistola 44 ; Hieronymus epistola ad Paulinum ; Augustinus lib. III Confessionum, cap. 5, lib. XI, cap. 2, ac epist. 3 et 119. Hoc ipsum quoque haeresiarcharum ministris tot commentariis secum dissidentibus, adversus propriam de perspicuitate utriusque Testamenti jactantiam, contestantibus.

If therefore even in things. The old codex marks chap. 46. Now he gathers that not only the words, dialects, phrases, and various figures of speech of the sacred Scriptures are obscure, but also the things which are contained and signified in them: which after Irenaeus is also approved by Origen in Book 7 Against Celsus; Ambrose in Epistle 44; Jerome in the Epistle to Paulinus; Augustine in Book 3 of the Confessions, chap. 5, Book 11, chap. 2, and Epistles 3 and 119; the ministers of the heresiarchs themselves also testifying to this very thing by so many commentaries disagreeing with one another, against their own boasting concerning the perspicuity of both Testaments.

Pag. 157. Semper enim fides. Fidem etiam in futuro saeculo permanere, non solus hic Irenaeus affirmat, sed et Tertull. his verbis : « Exhauriuntur linguae, scientiae, prophetiae, permanent fides, spes, dilectio, » etc. Memineris fidem duo involvere : primo eam obscuritatem, quam Patres scholastici vocarunt « latentiam objecti ; » secundo inconcussam eam certitudinem, quae omnem dubitationem procul repellit : hanc conditionem posteriorem in beatis spiritibus permanere, recte volunt hi auctores ; priorem vero minime. Vel remanet quoad habitum et ornatum ; non quoad actus et exercitium.

Page 157. For faith always. That faith abides even in the world to come, not Irenaeus alone here affirms, but Tertullian also in these words: "Tongues, knowledge, prophecies are exhausted; faith, hope, love abide," etc. You will remember that faith involves two things: first, that obscurity which the Scholastic Fathers called "the latency of the object"; secondly, that unshaken certainty which drives far away all doubt: this latter condition these authors rightly mean abides in the blessed spirits; but the former by no means. Or it remains as to habit and ornament; not as to acts and exercise.

Si ergo secundum. Cap. 47 signat. vet. cod.

If therefore according to. The old codex marks chap. 47.

Et sine periculo. Quatuor has voces habebat vet. cod., excusi omnes desiderabant.

And without danger. The old codex had these four words; all the printed copies lacked them.

Antequam. Origenes lib. III De principiis, testatur ethnicos hac quaestione Christianos exercuisse : Si coepit mundus ex tempore, quid faciebat Deus antequam mundus fieret? Otiosam enim dicere naturam Dei, otiosum simul est et absurdum, vel putare quod bonitas aliquando nihil fecerit, et omnipotentia aliquando non egerit potentatum, etc. Postea vero concludit, eum alios fecisse invisibiles mundos antequam hunc visibilem conderet : quod Judaeorum fabulas Talmudicas omnino resipit. Scribunt enim illic, Deum exercuisse se in exstruendis variis mundis ; quos ubi condiderat, illico destruebat, atque iterum instaurabat, quoad hunc, quem nunc habemus, mundum facere didicisset. Augustinus rectius censet, quaestionem velut responsione

Before. Origen in Book 3 On First Principles testifies that the pagans plied the Christians with this question: If the world began in time, what was God doing before the world was made? For to call the nature of God idle is at once idle and absurd, or to think that goodness at some time did nothing, and omnipotence at some time did not exercise dominion, etc. Afterwards, however, he concludes that He made other invisible worlds before He founded this visible one: which altogether savours of the Talmudic fables of the Jews. For they write there that God exercised Himself in building various worlds; which when He had founded, He straightway destroyed, and restored again, until He had learned to make this world which we now have. Augustine more rightly judges that the question, as

Editors' notes and page, col. 1580

Footnotes

(60) ‹anchor: Tertull. his verbis› · call in col 1580

Lib. de Pat.

Book on Patience.

(printed under page 798)

(61) ‹anchor: facere didicisset› · call in col 1580

Talmud, trac. 4, distinct. 3.

Talmud, tractate 4, distinction 3.

(printed under page 798)

(62) ‹anchor: Augustinus› · call in col 1580

Lib. II Confess., cap. 12.

Book II of the Confessions, chapter 12.

(printed under page 798)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1580
marginal letters: A septem diversas philosophorum; B versas sententias de; C riis secum dissidentibus,; D Antequam. Origenes lib.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: septem diversas philosophorum; word split at end of column: re-
other: the word responsione was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1581

PG 7:1581

indignam, potius eludendam, ut cuidam illam proponenti respondit : « Alta scrutantibus gehennam parabat. » Serio tamen dici potest : Dei summam bonitatem et potestatem nunquam obtorpuisse cessando. Semper enim Divinitas extra omnem locum, in seipsa manens, sui contemplatione perpetuo beata, aeterna, immutabilique intellectus ac voluntatis actione operabatur ; et mundum, quem mente concipiebat, conspiciens, intelligentia pertractans, et voluntate deliberans, eum ipsum in tempore opportuno condere decernebat, atque condidit cum voluit, etc.

unworthy of an answer, ought rather to be parried, as he answered someone propounding it: "He was preparing Gehenna for those who pry into lofty things." Seriously, however, it can be said: that the supreme goodness and power of God never grew torpid by ceasing. For always the Divinity, outside every place, abiding in itself, perpetually blessed in the contemplation of itself, was working by an eternal and immutable action of intellect and will; and beholding the world which it conceived in mind, treating it thoroughly by intelligence, and deliberating by will, decreed to found that same world in the opportune time, and founded it when it willed, etc.

Apotelestos. Id est, omnibus numeris absolutus atque perfectus, quantum videlicet ad species (quae duntaxat de essentia ejus sunt) attinet. Inde autem voluerunt Aristot. et Plin. κόσμον a Graecis appellari, id est ornatum.

Finished. That is, complete and perfect in all respects, so far namely as pertains to the species (which alone belong to its essence). And thence Aristotle and Pliny maintained that it was called κόσμον by the Greeks, that is, ornament.

Cogitare. Cap. 48 habet vet. cod. « Haec autem ; » cap. 49 vet. cod. : « Deus autem, » caput est 50 in vet. cod.

To think. The old codex has chap. 48 at "Now these things"; chap. 49 in the old codex: "Now God," is chapter 50 in the old codex.

Labis fructum. Billius Graece : ὑστερήματος καρπὸν καὶ ἀγνοίας προβολὴν ἀποφαίνεσθαι, id est, ignorantiae fetum, vel, ab ignorantia productum. Id enim eos opinatos esse recensuit libro primo, capite primo. Paulo post, « capit dicere, » vere dici possunt.

The fruit of degradation. Billius in Greek: ὑστερήματος καρπὸν καὶ ἀγνοίας προβολὴν ἀποφαίνεσθαι, that is, to pronounce it the offspring of ignorance, or brought forth from ignorance. For that they opined this, he recounted in the first book, chapter one. A little after, "it admits of saying," they can truly be called.

Aliud enim est. Existimo eum velle, quoddam esse verbum internum, quod solo animo concipitur et retinetur : aliud externum, quod ore profertur ac emittitur. Hinc enim Lactantius scribit lib. IV, c. 9 : « Melius Graeci Λόγον dicunt, quam nos Verbum. Λόγος enim et sermonem significat, et rationem. » Et Hieronymus ait, λόγον Graecis significare verbum, orationem, sermonem, rationem, modum, supputationem : nonnunquam et pro libro usurpari, a verbo λέγω, quod est, dico, sive colligo. Paulo post « quod excogitat, » pro « eo excogitat ; » denique « propter spiritale, » loco « per spiritale, » ex vet. cod. substituimus.

For it is one thing. I think he means that there is a certain internal word, which is conceived and retained by the mind alone: another external, which is uttered and emitted by the mouth. For hence Lactantius writes in Book 4, chap. 9: "Better do the Greeks say Λόγον than we Verbum [Word]. For Λόγος signifies both speech and reason." And Jerome says that λόγον to the Greeks signifies word, discourse, speech, reason, manner, computation: and that sometimes it is also used for a book, from the verb λέγω, which is, I say, or I gather. A little after we substituted "which thinks out" for "by it thinks out"; and finally "on account of the spiritual" in place of "through the spiritual," from the old codex.

Non de semel, sed per partes. Graece, οὐκ εἰς ἅπαξ, καθάπαξ, vel ἀφ' ἅπαξ, videtur legisse, id est non una vice, non cuncta simul. Gallice, tout en un coup.

Not all at once, but by parts. In Greek, he seems to have read οὐκ εἰς ἅπαξ, καθάπαξ, or ἀφ' ἅπαξ, that is, not at one time, not all things together. In French, tout en un coup [all at one stroke].

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 47.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on chap. 47.

Pag. 158. Quidve de his, quae ultra eum sunt, enuntiare? Sic Hilarius in finem psalm. LXVIII ait, quod « mare profunda, infinitaque sui obice mentem humanae opinionis excedat, ut neque quid extra se, neque quid intra sit, sensu persequente capiamus. » Intellexit vero Irenaeus per ea, quae ultra Oceanum sunt, « eos, qui post ipsum sunt, mundos, » quos memorat Clemens Romanus in Epist. ad Corinth., § 20. In quem locum plura notavit Cotelerius, inter alios Irenaeum nostrum allegans.

Page 156. Or to declare concerning those things which are beyond it? Thus Hilary on the end of Psalm 68 says that "the sea by its deep and infinite barrier exceeds the mind of human opinion, so that by pursuing sense we can grasp neither what is outside it nor what is within." Now Irenaeus understood by those things which are beyond the Ocean, "the worlds which are beyond it," which Clement of Rome mentions in the Epistle to the Corinthians, § 20. On which passage Cotelier noted many things, alleging our Irenaeus among others.

Pag. 157. Velocitati enim sensus hominum, etc. His gemina iterum habet Cyrillus catech. 6, pag. 46 : Ἡ μὲν διάνοια ὀξύτατα νοεῖ· ἡ δὲ γλῶσσα ῥημάτων δεῖται καὶ διηγήσεως πολλῆς τῶν μεταξὺ λόγων· ἅμα μὲν γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸς χορὸν ἄστρων παραλαμβάνει πολύν· ἀλλ' ὅταν τὸ καθ' ἕκαστον διηγήσασθαι βουληθῇ τις, τί μέν ἐστι φωσφόρος, τί δὲ τὸ ἕσπερος, τί δὲ τὸ καθ' ἓν, πολλῶν ἐπιδεῖται τῶν ῥημάτων, etc. « Mens quidem velocissime cogitat ; lingua vero multis verbis opus habet, et multa intermediorum sermonum enumeratione. Simul enim numerosum siderum chorum oculus comprehendit ; verum si quis singula narrare velit, quid lucifer, quid hesperus, quid unumquodque, longa opus est ratione. »

Page 157. For to the swiftness of the sense of men, etc. Things twin to these again has Cyril in Catechesis 6, page 46: "The mind indeed thinks most swiftly; but the tongue stands in need of words and of a long narration of intermediate speeches: for at once indeed the eye takes in a great choir of stars; but when someone wishes to narrate each one severally, what the morning star is, and what the evening star, and what each one is, he stands in need of many words," etc. "The mind indeed thinks most swiftly; but the tongue has need of many words, and of a long enumeration of intermediate speeches. For at once the eye comprehends a numerous choir of stars; yet if anyone wishes to narrate the single stars, what Lucifer is, what Hesperus, what each one is, there is need of a long account."

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 48.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on chap. 48.

Pag. 157. Deus autem. Hanc sententiam non semel repetit. Vult autem hoc capite, Deum, cum sit spiritalis, infinita et supercoelestis substantia, omnino simplicem, nullaque ratione compositum esse, quod et supra notatum est. Eos vero, qui

Page 157. Now God. This sentence he repeats more than once. Now he means in this chapter that God, since He is a spiritual, infinite, and supercelestial substance, is altogether simple, and in no way composite, which was also noted above. And that those who

Editors' notes and page, col. 1581

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. (printed under page 799)

Page

running head: 1581 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A sponsione indignam, potius; B Labis fructum. Billius; C Non de semel,; D λαμβάνει πολύν· ἀλλ'
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sponsione indignam, potius; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 47.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 48.; word split at start of column: re-sponsione

PG 7:1582

Ennoeam, Nun, et Logon, id est mentem, cogitationem et Verbum ejus nunc secernebant ab eo, mox conjungebant, hisque diversas emissiones ascribebant, compositioni illum subjicere, quod impium et insanum est.

now separated Ennoea, Nus, and Logos, that is, His mind, thought, and Word, from Him, and presently joined them together, and ascribed diverse emissions to them, subject Him to composition, which is impious and insane.

Qui ergo dicit. Caput 51 signat vetus codex cum hoc argumento : « Ostensio quoniam Nus Logos, et Logos Nus ; et Nus ipse est pater omnium. »

He therefore who says. The old codex marks chapter 51 with this argument: "Demonstration that Nus is Logos, and Logos is Nus; and Nus Himself is the Father of all."

Generationem ejus. Ex vetere codice, « enarrabit, » pro « enarravit ; — « hominum, » pro « hominis ; » et « nobis ipsis, » pro « vobis ipsis, » restituimus. Hoc porro Isaiae testimonium Athanasius ad Epictetum, Alexander ad Alexandrum Constantinop., et alii multo plures ad aeternam ineffabilemque Christi generationem referunt : alii ad temporalem, qua, sine viro, ex sanctiss. Virgine natus est. Hieronymus sapientissime ad utramque his verbis : « Aut enim de Divinitate intelligendum est, quod impossibile sit divinae nativitatis nosse mysteria : aut de partu Virginis, quod difficulter possit exponi. » Plurima in hanc rem tradunt Eusebius libro quinto Demonstrationis, cap. 1 ; Ephrem lib. advers. eos qui naturam Filii Dei scrutari volunt ; Nazianzenus orat. 3 de theologia ; Basilius orat. de martyre Mamante ; Hilarius libro II De Trinitate. Ambrosius denique libro De fide ad Gratianum ait : « Mihi impossibile est hujus generationis scire secretum. Mens deficit, vox silet, non mea tantum, sed et angelorum. Licet scire quod Filius natus sit ; non licet discutere quomodo natus sit. Illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quaerere metus est. »

His generation. From the old codex we have restored "shall declare" for "has declared"; "of men" for "of man"; and "to ourselves" for "to yourselves." Moreover, this testimony of Isaiah Athanasius To Epictetus, Alexander To Alexander of Constantinople, and many others refer to the eternal and ineffable generation of Christ: others to the temporal, whereby without a man He was born of the most holy Virgin. Jerome most wisely refers it to both in these words: "For either it is to be understood of the Divinity, because it is impossible to know the mysteries of the divine nativity: or of the birth from the Virgin, because it can with difficulty be expounded." Very many things on this matter are handed down by Eusebius in the fifth book of the Demonstration, chap. 1; Ephrem in the book against those who wish to pry into the nature of the Son of God; Nazianzen in Oration 3 on Theology; Basil in the Oration on the Martyr Mamas; Hilary in Book 2 On the Trinity. Finally, Ambrose in the book On the Faith to Gratian says: "To me it is impossible to know the secret of this generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent, not mine only, but that of the angels also. It is permitted to know that the Son was born; it is not permitted to discuss how He was born. The former I am not permitted to deny; the latter it is a fear to seek."

Pag. 158. Irrationabiliter. Caput 52 signat codex vetus, cum hac epigraphe : « Quomodo Dominus quaedam concedit Patri, et quae causa est, propter quam dicit horam a nemine altero cognosci, nisi a solo Patre. »

Page 158. Unreasonably. The old codex marks chapter 52 with this heading: "How the Lord grants certain things to the Father, and what the cause is on account of which He says that the hour is known by no other, save by the Father alone."

De die autem illa. De hoc dicemus proximo capite.

But of that day. Concerning this we shall speak in the next chapter.

Si quis itaque. Gnosticorum impudentem temeritatem in scrutanda Verbi aeterna generatione, quanto potest rationum et sententiarum pondere, reprimit, quibus et ii absterreri deberent, qui de eadem, non Scripturis, sed Aristotelicis ratiocinationibus nixi audacter disserunt, colligunt, definiunt, quae Christiano silentio adorare praestaret. Longe majore religione sacrum hunc montem attigerunt antiquioris et sincerioris theol. antistites. « De supersubstantiali secretissimaque deitate, » ait Dionys. Areopag., « neque dicere quidquam, neque cogitare praesumendum est aliter, quam sacra eloquia pie, admodumque caste nobis tradiderunt. » Et expositor Symboli apud Cyprianum : « Quomodo Pater genuerit Filium, nolo discutias, nec te curiosius inseras in profundi hujus arcanum ; ne forte dum inaccessae lucis fulgorem pertinacius perscrutaris, exiguumque ipsum, qui mortalibus divino munere concessus est, perdas aspectum. » Ac, ut paucis multa contraham, Clemens epist. 1 ad Jacobum ; Justinus in Dial. ; Chrysostom. hom. 4 in Matthaeum ; Cyrillus libr. I Thesauri, cap. 5 ; Venantius in Symbolum, post hunc nostrum Irenaeum, angelicis etiam mentibus inaspectabile et incomprehensibile mysterium istud omnes constanter affirmant : quod plumbei, et vere σκοτεινοὶ homunciones quidam explorasse se et explicasse sibi videntur.

If anyone therefore. With all the weight of reasons and sentences that he can, he represses the impudent rashness of the Gnostics in prying into the eternal generation of the Word, by which those also ought to be deterred who, relying not on the Scriptures, but on Aristotelian reasonings, boldly discuss, gather, and define concerning the same, things which it would be better to adore in Christian silence. With far greater reverence did the prelates of the older and purer theology touch this sacred mountain. "Concerning the supersubstantial and most secret Deity," says Dionysius the Areopagite, "one must presume neither to say nor to think anything otherwise than the sacred oracles have piously and very chastely handed down to us." And the expositor of the Creed in Cyprian: "How the Father begat the Son, I would not have you discuss, nor thrust yourself too curiously into the secret of this deep; lest perchance, while you pry too persistently into the brightness of inaccessible light, you lose even that tiny sight which has been granted to mortals by the divine gift." And, that I may contract many things into a few words, Clement in Epistle 1 to James; Justin in the Dialogue; Chrysostom in Homily 4 on Matthew; Cyril in Book 1 of the Thesaurus, chap. 5; Venantius on the Creed, after this our Irenaeus, all constantly affirm that that mystery is unsearchable and incomprehensible even to angelic minds: which certain leaden and truly darkling [σκοτεινοὶ] manikins seem to themselves to have explored and explained.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 49.

Annotations of the same on chap. 49.

Pag. 158. Non ergo magnum. Colligit nec ingenii, nec reconditi mysterii esse humanas emissiones Deo tribuere ; materiam omnium a Deo conditam ; multaque divinae sapientiae commendanda esse. Multa porro ex vet. cod. restituimus, quae (ut alibi fere semper) virgulis inclusimus. Caeterum hoc loco praetermittere nec potui, nec debui, Philippum Melanchthonem a Schlusselburgio, aliisque Lutheranis

Page 158. No great thing therefore. He gathers that it belongs neither to genius nor to a hidden mystery to attribute human emissions to God; that the matter of all things was founded by God; and that many things must be commended to the divine wisdom. Moreover, we have restored many things from the old codex, which (as almost always elsewhere) we have enclosed in quotation marks. For the rest, in this place I neither could nor ought to pass over that Philip Melanchthon is traduced by Schlüsselburg and other Lutheran

Editors' notes and page, col. 1582

Footnotes

(63) ‹anchor: ait Dionys. Areopag.› · call in col 1582

Lib. de divin. Nom., cap. 1.

Book on the Divine Names, chapter 1.

(printed under page 799)

(64) ‹anchor: a Schlusselburgio› · call in col 1582

Lib. II Theol. Calv., art. 6.

Book II of the Theology of the Calvinists, article 6.

(printed under page 799)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1582
marginal letters: A Ennoeam, Nun, et; B quod difficulter possit; C tatem in scrutanda; D epist. 1 ad
old-edition numerals: 104 after generationem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ennoeam, Nun, et; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 49.; word split at end of column: Luthe-
other: the word Lutheranis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1583

PG 7:1583

symmistis traduci, quod Basilidis, Marcionis, et reliquorum veterum haereticorum, quos Irenaeus superioribus duobus cap. atque praesenti coarguit, stultissima adversus aeternam Filii Dei generationem somnia reparare nisus fuerit, scribens in Misnico corpore doctrinae, pag. 310 « illum esse natum cogitatione Patris. » Non potest Ecclesia, inquiunt, hanc opinionem pro articulo fidei tolerare : 1° Quia nullum manifestum Scripturae testimonium pro ea re habetur. 2° Quia est somnium non tantum stultae rationis ac philosophiae, sed etiam veterum haereticorum. 3° Quia in primitiva Ecclesia hic error est gravissime damnatus, ut ex Irenaeo apparet. 4° Quia non procul discedit a Samosateni et Serveti impia speculatione, qui dixerunt, Verbum Patris esse cogitationem evanescentem. 5° Ex hoc sequuntur multa impia. Nam si cogitatio Patris est ὑπόστασις separata, cur non et Filii et Spiritus sancti. 6° Si separes a Patris persona ejus substantiales cogitationes, quid in persona remanebit, nisi inane nomen? 7° Humana ratio non potest certo statuere, quomodo culex aut pulex generetur : quae est ergo temeritas de aeterno Dei Filio sic statuere? Hactenus illi, nec admodum male. Atque utinam sic tam Lutheri sui, quam ejusdem Philippi reliquos omnes errores ad sanctissimae antiquitatis regulam et primitivae Ecclesiae trutinam diligenter et fideliter examinarent : ita enim et seipsos et innumeros alios a foedissimis haeresibus eluerent, et ab aeternis suppliciis, quae pro certo cunctis haereticis et schismaticis parata sunt, liberarent.

fellow-ministers because he strove to renew the most foolish dreams against the eternal generation of the Son of God of Basilides, Marcion, and the rest of the ancient heretics whom Irenaeus refutes in the two preceding chapters and the present one, writing in the Meissen Corpus of Doctrine, page 310, "that He was born by the thought of the Father." The Church cannot, they say, tolerate this opinion for an article of faith: 1st, Because no manifest testimony of Scripture is had for that matter. 2nd, Because it is a dream not only of foolish reason and philosophy, but also of the ancient heretics. 3rd, Because in the primitive Church this error was most severely condemned, as appears from Irenaeus. 4th, Because it does not depart far from the impious speculation of Paul of Samosata and Servetus, who said that the Word of the Father is a vanishing thought. 5th, From this follow many impious things. For if the thought of the Father is a separate ὑπόστασις [hypostasis], why not also that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? 6th, If you separate from the person of the Father His substantial thoughts, what will remain in the person save an empty name? 7th, Human reason cannot determine with certainty how a gnat or a flea is generated: what rashness is it therefore to determine thus concerning the eternal Son of God? Thus far they, and not badly at all. And would that they would thus diligently and faithfully examine all the remaining errors both of their Luther and of the same Philip by the rule of most holy antiquity and the balance of the primitive Church: for so they would both wash themselves and innumerable others clean from the foulest heresies, and free them from the eternal punishments which are assuredly prepared for all heretics and schismatics.

Hunc quasi ipsi. Ita vetus cod. ; excusi habebant, « hunc quasi ipsum obstetricaverint primi, et generationis ejus, » etc.

Him as if they themselves. Thus the old codex; the printed copies had, "as if they first midwifed Him himself, and of His generation," etc.

Fantasmari. Locus iste hactenus plurimos torsit, aliis « fastos mori, » aliis « factos morti, » legendum suspicantibus : restitutam nunc puto ex vet. cod. germanam lectionem : « Neque nos fantasmari oportet ex opinionibus propriis : » sic enim vetus interpres Graecum φαντάζεσθαι reddere studuit. Expunximus « fastos mori, exponi omnibus. »

To form phantasies. This passage has hitherto tortured very many, some suspecting that it should be read "proud to die," others "made for death": I think the genuine reading has now been restored from the old codex: "Neither ought we to form phantasies out of our own opinions": for thus the old translator studied to render the Greek φαντάζεσθαι. We expunged "proud to die, to be exposed to all."

Suppedaneum. Sic legit etiam Cyprianus lib. II Adversus Judaeos, capite vigesimo sexto, Gr. ὑποπόδιον.

Footstool. Thus reads Cyprian also in Book 2 Against the Jews, chapter twenty-six, in Greek ὑποπόδιον.

Et divisiones. Expunximus « divisio nos. »

And divisions. We expunged "division us."

Post deinde. Quae hic refellit de numeris, litteris et syllabis, recitavit libro primo, capite decimo et undecimo. Docet autem nullum exstare in Scripturis testimonium, quo possint affirmare figmenta sua per litteras, syllabas, vel numeros ex his deductos. Paulo post, « est autem quando, » etc., dicitur Graeca phrasi, pro « interdum autem. »

Afterwards next. The things which he refutes here concerning numbers, letters, and syllables, he recited in the first book, chapters ten and eleven. Now he teaches that there is no testimony extant in the Scriptures whereby they can affirm their figments through letters, syllables, or numbers deduced from these. A little after, "and there is when," etc., is said in the Greek phrase for "and sometimes."

Etenim si quis exquirat. Existimarunt nonnulli, his verbis, beatum Irenaeum Christo Domino ignorantiam simpliciter tribuere, qui certe lapsus esset, magis condonandus ei, qui ardore retundendae impietatis Gnosticorum, qua supra Patres, apostolos, prophetas, imo et Christum ipsum sapere sese jactabant, hoc minus caute dixisset, quam procaciter et odiose exagitandus. At mihi longe aliud videtur. Qui enim fieret, ut Christo nunc ignorantiam affingeret, qui toties in superioribus Gnosticos impietatis reos egit, quod Sophiam et Monogenem Patris ignorantiae passionibus subjicerent? Aut quomodo hic ignorationis tenebris involveret eum, quem tanto fervore Deum deorum, et Dominum omnium, Patri omnino aequalem et coaeternum, plusquam Salomonem et Jonam, vivorum et mortuorum judicem passim inculcat?

For if anyone should inquire. Some have thought that by these words blessed Irenaeus simply attributes ignorance to Christ the Lord, which slip indeed would rather have to be pardoned to one who, in the ardour of beating back the impiety of the Gnostics, whereby they boasted that they were wise above the Fathers, the apostles, the prophets, nay even Christ Himself, had said this less cautiously, than insolently and odiously harassed. But to me it seems far otherwise. For how could it happen that he should now fasten ignorance upon Christ, who so many times in what goes before arraigned the Gnostics as guilty of impiety because they subjected Sophia and the Monogenes of the Father to the passions of ignorance? Or how should he here wrap in the darkness of ignorance Him whom with such great fervour he everywhere inculcates as God of gods, and Lord of all, altogether equal and coeternal with the Father, more than Solomon and Jonas, the Judge of the living and the dead?

Ergo tantum vult Christum diei postremi notitiam, de qua agitur, ad Patrem referre : sicut opera, vitam, imo et deitatem ipsam ab eodem aeterna generatione accepisse palam profitetur ; ut sapere nos

Therefore he only means that Christ refers the knowledge of the last day, which is in question, to the Father: just as He openly professes that He received His works, His life, nay even His deity itself from the same by eternal generation; that He may teach us to be wise

Editors' notes and page, col. 1583

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in four lines. Calls 65–70 are not visible in the foot crops. References are set as printed even where they sit loosely to the words they are called from (73 at "ante omnes", 74 at "reconciliari"). (printed under page 800)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1583-1584 (not visible in foot images)

Ser. 4 contra Arian.

Sermon (Oration) 4 against the Arians.

(printed under page 800)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1583-1584 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. IX de Trin.

Book IX on the Trinity.

(printed under page 800)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1583-1584 (not visible in foot images)

Hom. 19 in Luc.

Homily 19 on Luke.

(printed under page 800)

(68) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1583-1584 (not visible in foot images)

Conjectura 4 de fine mundi.

Conjecture 4 on the end of the world.

(printed under page 800)

(69) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1583-1584 (not visible in foot images)

Hom. 112 in Marc.

Homily 112 on Mark.

(printed under page 800)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1583-1584 (not visible in foot images)

In Harmon.

In the Harmony (of the Gospels).

(printed under page 800)

Page

running head: 1583 VARIORUM NOT
marginal letters: A ranis symmistis traduci,; B nomen? 7° Humana; C smari oportet ex; D procaciter et odiose
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ranis symmistis traduci,; word split at start of column: Luthe-ranis

PG 7:1584

doceat ad sobrietatem, neque erubescamus difficilium quaestionum labyrinthos Deo reservare. Hanc Irenaei mentem esse, mecum, arbitror, judicabit, quisquis pie, accurate, et nullis errorum passionibus in transversum acto animo superiora ejus scripta cum praesentibus expenderit.

unto sobriety, and that we may not blush to reserve the labyrinths of difficult questions to God. That this is the mind of Irenaeus, anyone, I think, will judge with me who weighs his earlier writings with the present ones piously, accurately, and with a mind driven awry by no passions of errors.

Caeterum, sententiam eam, qua videtur Marcus horam et diem judicii Christum aeque ac angelos latere voluisse, Ariani olim torquebant, ut ipsum creaturam esse, et neutiquam Patri homoousion assererent, quemadmodum Athanasius et Hilarius referunt. Photinus quoque apud Vigilium martyrem, Christum pernegat Deum esse, quod diem judicii se ignorare fateretur. Agnoitas quosdam haereticos inde nominatos tradit Isidorus, quod Christo diei judicii ignorantiam impingerent. Ne vero a superioribus Gnosticis latum unguem discederent posteriores, Calvinianos eo impietatis progressos legit aetas nostra, ut Christo Jesu, Deo et homini, Salvatori nostro, ignorantiam rerum multarum tribuant. « Ipsum enim ut corpore, sic et animo adolevisse » vult Brentius. « Fabrum idiotam » Osiander vocat. « Communi hominum ignorantiae » subjicit Rodolphus Gualtherus. « Non habuisse omnem scientiam ab initio (ut somniant papistae) sed per gradus, » blatterat Molinaeus. « Ita ignorasse, ut disceret ipse, atque erudiretur more hominum, » non erubuit scribere Gallasius, Adnotationibus in hunc Irenaei locum.

For the rest, that sentence whereby Mark seems to have meant that the hour and day of judgement was hidden from Christ equally as from the angels, the Arians of old twisted in order to assert that He is a creature, and by no means consubstantial with the Father, as Athanasius and Hilary relate. Photinus also, in Vigilius the Martyr, flatly denies that Christ is God, because He confessed that He was ignorant of the day of judgement. Isidore hands down that certain heretics were thence named Agnoitae, because they fastened upon Christ ignorance of the day of judgement. And lest the later Gnostics should depart a nail's breadth from the earlier ones, our age reads that the Calvinists have advanced to such a pitch of impiety as to attribute ignorance of many things to Christ Jesus, God and man, our Saviour. "For that He grew in mind just as in body," Brenz maintains. Osiander calls Him "an unlearned carpenter." Rudolf Gwalther subjects Him to "the common ignorance of men." "That He did not have all knowledge from the beginning (as the papists dream), but by degrees," babbles Du Moulin. "That He was so ignorant that He Himself learned and was instructed after the manner of men," des Gallars did not blush to write in his Annotations on this passage of Irenaeus.

Annon hoc est ῥᾳδιούργημα illud, id est fallax et suppositum commentum Gnosticorum, quo somniabant Christum sub ferula praeceptoris alphabetum didicisse, ut lib. I, cap. 17, Irenaeus retulit? Sed praestat haec viperarum genimina telis iis conficere, quibus olim Arianos Hilarius : « An credibile, ait, ut aliquid ex omnibus nesciat, qui omnibus ad id quod sunt, atque erunt, auctor est? Si omnia per Christum, et in Christo, et ita per ipsum, ut omnia in ipso sint, id quod neque extra eum, neque non per eum est, quomodo non etiam in scientia ejus sit? Cogitationes humanas, non tantum praesenti motu incitatas, sed etiam instinctu futurae voluntatis agitandas, Christus non ignorat, Evangelio testante : « Sciebat Jesus ab initio qui essent non credentes, et qui esset traditurus eum. » De eo scriptum meminerimus : « Omnia per ipsum, et in ipso creata sunt, et ipse est ante omnes. » Et illud : « Quia in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabitare, et omnia in ipso reconciliari. » Christus aderit, et adventus sui diem ignorat? Dies suus est, secundum Apostolum, et ignoratione ejus detineri intelligendus est? Humanae naturae, quod agere definiunt, praesciunt, et sequitur gerendorum conditio voluntatem agendi : Deus vero natus, quod in se, et per se est, nescit? Non patitur in nobis doctor gentium Paulus hanc impii erroris professionem, ut ignorasse aliquid unigenitus Deus existimetur ; ait enim : « In eo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi. »

Is not this that ῥᾳδιούργημα, that is, the deceitful and supposititious figment of the Gnostics, whereby they dreamed that Christ learned the alphabet under the rod of a schoolmaster, as Irenaeus related in Book 1, chap. 17? But it is better to dispatch these broods of vipers with those darts wherewith Hilary of old dispatched the Arians: "Is it credible," says he, "that He should be ignorant of anything out of all things, who is to all things the author of what they are and shall be? If all things are through Christ, and in Christ, and so through Him that all things are in Him, how should that which is neither outside Him nor not through Him not also be in His knowledge? Human thoughts, not only stirred up by a present motion, but even to be agitated by the impulse of a future will, Christ is not ignorant of, as the Gospel testifies: 'Jesus knew from the beginning who were they that did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.' Let us remember that it is written of Him: 'All things were created through Him, and in Him, and He is before all.' And that saying: 'Because in Him it pleased all fullness to dwell, and all things to be reconciled in Him.' Shall Christ be present, and is He ignorant of the day of His coming? Is the day His own, according to the Apostle, and is He to be understood to be held back by ignorance of it? Human natures foreknow what they determine to do, and the condition of things to be done follows the will of doing: and does the begotten God not know what is in Him and through Him? Paul the teacher of the Gentiles does not suffer in us this profession of impious error, that the only-begotten God should be thought to have been ignorant of anything; for he says: 'In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.'"

His Hilarii verbis addo gravissimum Augustini judicium : « Ignorantiam, » inquit, « nullo modo crediderim fuisse in infante illo, in quo Verbum caro factum est, ut inhabitaret in nobis : nec illam ipsius animi infirmitatem in Christo parvulo fuerim suspicatus, quam videmus in parvulis. »

To these words of Hilary I add the most weighty judgement of Augustine: "Ignorance," he says, "I would in no way believe to have been in that infant in whom the Word was made flesh that He might dwell in us: nor would I suspect in the little child Christ that infirmity of the mind itself which we see in little children."

Latinis duobus totidem Graeci aetate superiores, nec pietate aut doctrina inferiores, accedant. Justinus martyr aperte scribit : Προσάπτειν τῷ Χριστῷ ἄγνοιαν, ἐστὶν ἀσεβές, « Christo ignorantiam tribuere, impium est. » Et Clemens Alexand. : « Christus hodie regeneratus, jamne est perfectus,

To the two Latins let just as many Greeks, superior in age and not inferior in piety or learning, be added. Justin Martyr openly writes: Προσάπτειν τῷ Χριστῷ ἄγνοιαν, ἐστὶν ἀσεβές, "To attribute ignorance to Christ is impious." And Clement of Alexandria: "Christ regenerated today, is He already perfect,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1584

Footnotes

(65) ‹anchor: quemadmodum Athanasius› · call in col 1584

Ser. 4 contra Arian.

Discourse 4 against the Arians.

(printed under page 800)

(66) ‹anchor: et Hilarius› · call in col 1584

Lib. IX de Trin.

Book IX on the Trinity.

(printed under page 800)

(67) ‹anchor: vult Brentius› · call in col 1584

Hom. 19 in Luc.

Homily 19 on Luke.

(printed under page 800)

(68) ‹anchor: Osiander vocat› · call in col 1584

Conjectura 4 de fine mundi.

Conjecture 4 on the end of the world.

(printed under page 800)

(69) ‹anchor: Rodolphus Gualtherus› · call in col 1584

Hom. 112 in Marc.

Homily 112 on Mark.

(printed under page 800)

(70) ‹anchor: blatterat Molinaeus› · call in col 1584

In Harmon.

In the Harmony.

(printed under page 800)

(71) ‹anchor: Arianos Hilarius› · call in col 1584

Lib. IX de Trin.

Book IX on the Trinity.

(printed under page 800)

(72) ‹anchor: traditurus eum› · call in col 1584

Joan. VI, 65.

John 6:65.

(printed under page 800)

(73) ‹anchor: ante omnes› · call in col 1584

Joan. I, 3.

John 1:3.

(printed under page 800)

(74) ‹anchor: in ipso reconciliari› · call in col 1584

Coloss. I, 16.

Colossians 1:16.

(printed under page 800)

(75) ‹anchor: secundum Apostolum› · call in col 1584

1 Thess. V, 2.

1 Thessalonians 5:2.

(printed under page 800)

(76) ‹anchor: scientiæ absconditi› · call in col 1584

Coloss. II, 3.

Colossians 2:3.

(printed under page 800)

(77) ‹anchor: Augustini judicium› · call in col 1584

Lib. II de pec. merit. et remiss., cap. 29.

Book II on the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 29.

(printed under page 800)

(78) ‹anchor: aperte scribit› · call in col 1584

Quæst. 58 ad orthod.

Question 58 to the Orthodox.

(printed under page 800)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1584
marginal letters: A doceat ad sobrietatem,; B et homini, Salvatori; C ut omnia in; D enim : « In
old-edition numerals: 105 after ignorasse
other: Latin, with Greek quoted (ῥᾳδιούργημα; Justin); editors' matter: doceat ad sobrietatem,

PG 7:1585

an, quod est absurdissimum, ei aliquid deest? Sed si ita est, ut aliquid disceret opus fuit. Sed eum, cum Deus esset, nihil didicisse fuit consentaneum. » Lib. I Paedag., cap. 6 et 11.

or, what is most absurd, is something wanting to Him? But if it is so, there was need that He should learn something. Yet since He was God, it was fitting that He learned nothing." Book 1 of the Paedagogus, chaps. 6 and 11.

Superest igitur ut cum beato Petro, apud Clementis Recogn. credamus, Christum ideo se diem et horam nescire professum, ut totum revocaret ad Patrem. Aut cum Hilario, eo sensu quo, ut clamorem Sodomae et Gomorrhae resciret, descendisse dudum dixerat. Aut cum Augustino et Basilio intelligamus, quia hoc utiliter occultabat discipulis, nescientem se dixit, quia non conferret hominibus tunc judicii tempus audire, quos nescientes occultando faciebat. Hieronymus particulam, « neque Filius, » in quibusdam exemplaribus Latinis additam fuisse, eamque Graeca, maxime Pierii et Adamantii ascriptam non habere testatur, Commentar. in XXIV Matth., quae ne ab Arianis adjecta fuerit, multis non levem suspicionem forte injiciat. Lutheranis porro hunc errorem propugnantibus ipsum Lutherum oppono, M. Stifel de hoc percunctanti respondentem : « Christum etiam secundum humanitatem bene novisse tempus judicii. Nescire autem debere ad aperiendum hominibus, quoniam non ideo missus erat. » Haec refert Rebenstock tom. I Colloquiorum, pagina 50. Calvinianis secum repugnantem objeci Calvinum, dialogo 4.

It remains therefore that with blessed Peter, in the Recognitions of Clement, we believe that Christ professed that He knew not the day and hour for this reason, that He might refer the whole to the Father. Or with Hilary, in that sense in which He had said long ago that He went down to know the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or that with Augustine and Basil we understand that, because He usefully hid this from the disciples, He called Himself ignorant, since it was not profitable for men then to hear the time of judgement, whom He made ignorant by hiding it. Jerome testifies in his Commentary on Matthew 24 that the clause "neither the Son" was added in certain Latin copies, and that the Greek copies, especially those of Pierius and Adamantius, do not have it written in; which may perhaps cast no slight suspicion upon many lest it was added by the Arians. Moreover, to the Lutherans who champion this error I oppose Luther himself, answering M. Stifel inquiring about this: "That Christ even according to His humanity knew well the time of judgement. But that He ought to be ignorant of it as to laying it open to men, because He was not sent for that purpose." Rebenstock relates these things in Vol. 1 of the Table Talk, page 50. To the Calvinists I have objected Calvin disagreeing with himself, in Dialogue 4.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 50.

Annotations of the same on chap. 50.

Pag. 159. Revertamur. Vetus codex hic signat caput 53, cum hoc argumento : « De natura animae. » Quae vero refellit, recensuit libro primo, non longe a medio capitis primi. Tradit autem mera figmenta esse, quae de Matre in Pleroma redeunte, et animali Demiurgo nugabantur.

Page 159. Let us return. The old codex here marks chapter 53, with this argument: "Concerning the nature of the soul." And the things which he refutes, he recounted in the first book, not far from the middle of the first chapter. Now he hands down that the things they prated about the Mother returning into the Pleroma, and the animal Demiurge, are mere figments.

Justorum autem animas. Docet animas justorum non salvari, propterea quod sunt spirituales substantiae, pari etenim jure omnes servarentur, nullaeque aeternis ignibus adjudicarentur. Salvabuntur autem propter fidem, justitiam et operas justas : quae quoniam cum corporibus et per corpora sua iis incubuerunt, et ipsa quoque servari necesse est, dicente Filio Dei : « Qui bona fecerunt, procedent in resurrectionem vitae. » Errat itaque, ut pie docet Augustinus, qui putat, quando ad judicium Dominus venerit, non judicari hominem secundum opera sua, qui jam per aetatem uti potuit libero voluntatis arbitrio. Ait enim Scriptura : « ira et indignatio, tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum : gloria autem et honor, et pax omni operanti bonum. Referet unusquisque propria corporis sui, prout gessit, sive bonum, sive malum, » etc. Haec, rogo, diligenter observent solius fidei assertores.

And the souls of the righteous. He teaches that the souls of the righteous are not saved because they are spiritual substances, for by equal right all would be saved, and none would be adjudged to eternal fires. But they will be saved on account of faith, righteousness, and righteous works: and since they applied themselves to these with their bodies and through their bodies, it is necessary that the bodies themselves also be saved, as the Son of God says: "They that have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life." He errs therefore, as Augustine piously teaches, who thinks that when the Lord comes to judgement, a man who by reason of age has already been able to use the free choice of the will is not judged according to his works. For Scripture says: "Wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that works evil: but glory and honour and peace to every one that works good. Every one shall receive the proper things of his body, according as he has done, whether good or evil," etc. Let the assertors of faith alone, I pray, diligently observe these things.

Superflua autem et discessio. Billius : « Hoc loco excuti mihi non potest, quin pro, « discessio, » reponendum sit, « descensio, κάθοδος. » Hoc enim vult Irenaeus : Si non ob virtutem, sed ob substantiam salus animis humanis comparetur, nihil esse necesse, quamobrem quispiam fidem suscipiat : imo etiam nullam causam fuisse, cur Christus in terram descenderet : cum et citra fidem, et citra Christi descensum, salutem omnes animae consecuturae sint, cum sint unius ejusdemque substantiae omnes, etc. Infra multa sunt ita aegra, ut nisi melioris exemplaris adjumento sanari vix possint.

Superfluous also the departure. Billius: "In this passage it cannot be shaken from my mind that for 'departure' [discessio] there must be restored 'descent' [descensio], κάθοδος." For Irenaeus means this: If salvation is procured for human souls not on account of virtue, but on account of substance, there is no necessity why anyone should receive faith: nay more, there was no cause why Christ should descend to the earth: since both without faith and without the descent of Christ all souls would obtain salvation, seeing that they are all of one and the same substance, etc. Below, many things are so corrupt that they can scarcely be healed without the help of a better copy.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 51.

Annotations of the same on chap. 51.

Pag. 160. Quia enim. Corpora sanctorum eumdem cum animis locum refrigerii participatura ostendit, eo quod justitiae operibus et ipsa participarint. Idem argumentum sequitur Tertullianus, ut fusiore, sic vehementiore stylo : « Dum caro nostra, inquit, ministra et famula animae deputatur,

Page 160. For because. He shows that the bodies of the saints will partake of the same place of refreshment with their souls, because they themselves also partook in the works of righteousness. Tertullian follows the same argument, in a style both more diffuse and more vehement: "While our flesh," he says, "is accounted the minister and handmaid of the soul,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1585

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in three lines. Calls 79–81 are not visible in the foot crops but stand in col 1585 (Q2b, read on the column images). In note 80 the chapter numeral is unclear (22 or 23) at this resolution. (printed under page 801)

(79) ‹anchor: Clementis Recogn.› · call in col 1585

Lib. X.

Book X.

(printed under page 801)

(80) ‹anchor: cum Augustino› · call in col 1585

Lib. I de Gen. cont. Manic., cap. 22.

Book I on Genesis against the Manichaeans, chapter 22.

(printed under page 801)

(81) ‹anchor: et Basilio› · call in col 1585

Lib. IV contr. Eunom.

Book IV against Eunomius.

(printed under page 801)

(82) ‹anchor: resurrectionem vitæ› · call in col 1585

Joan. V, 29.

John 5:29.

(printed under page 801)

(83) ‹anchor: docet Augustinus› · call in col 1585

Epist. 47.

Letter 47.

(printed under page 801)

(84) ‹anchor: operanti bonum› · call in col 1585

Rom. II, 9, 10.

Romans 2:9, 10.

(printed under page 801)

(85) ‹anchor: sive malum› · call in col 1585

II Cor. V, 10.

2 Corinthians 5:10.

(printed under page 801)

(86) ‹anchor: inquit› · call in col 1585

Lib. de resurr. carn.

Book on the Resurrection of the Flesh.

(printed under page 801)

Page

running head: 1585 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A an, quod est; B therum oppono, M.; C autem propter fidem,; D tiam salus animis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: an, quod est; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 50.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 51.; word split at end of column: depu-
other: the word deputatur, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1586
other: the quotation of Rom. II, 9 opens with a lower-case "ira" as printed; the quotation of Rom. II, 10 has no closing guillemet before "Referet"

PG 7:1586

consors et cohaeres invenitur ; si temporalium, cur non et aeternorum? » etc. Usum porro hujus loci aperit his verbis Cyrillus Jeros. catech. 4 : « Modeste ut tractes corpus hoc te moneo : et cognosce quod cum corpore resurges ad judicium. »

it is found a consort and coheir; if of temporal things, why not also of eternal?" etc. Moreover, Cyril of Jerusalem opens up the use of this passage in these words in Catechesis 4: "I admonish you to treat this body modestly: and know that with the body you shall rise again to judgement."

Emerget. Ita vetus cod. ; excusi, « et integer, » quod expunximus.

Will emerge. Thus the old codex; the printed copies have "and whole," which we expunged.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 52.

Annotations of the same on chap. 52.

Pag. 160. Hi autem. Caput 54 habet vet. cod. cum hac epigraphe : « Quoniam secundum illorum sermonem, cum animae serventur, necesse est corpora participare salutem. » Quae vero hoc capite arguit, habentur lib. I, cap. 1.

Page 160. Now these. The old codex has chapter 54 with this heading: "That according to their discourse, since souls are saved, it is necessary that bodies partake of salvation." And the things which he refutes in this chapter are found in Book 1, chap. 1.

Quid autem est. Caput est 55 in vet. cod. cum argumento cap. 51.

And what is. This is chapter 55 in the old codex with the argument of chap. 51.

Quid ergo adhuc. Capitis 56 initium est in vet. cod. cum argumento cap. 52.

What therefore still. This is the beginning of chapter 56 in the old codex with the argument of chap. 52.

Ad quem. Delevimus, « atque, » auct. vet. cod. consentiente Bibliorum contextu : ut circa initium capitis pro « quando » reposuimus « primum quod. »

To whom. We deleted "and," on the authority of the old codex with the text of the Bible agreeing: as near the beginning of the chapter for "when" we restored "first that."

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 53.

Annotations of the same on chap. 53.

Pag. 160. Et universae. Colo tantum dirimenda a calce superioris capitis mihi videtur prior haec sententia.

Page 160. And of the whole. This former sentence seems to me that it should be separated by a colon only from the end of the preceding chapter.

Super eos qui fabulis referuntur gigantes. Gigantes quidem fuisse convenit inter sacros et profanos universos auctores : sed quia de illorum ortu et proceritate magna est dissensio, paulo altius repetita haec adnotare libuit. Fabulatur Hesiodi Theogonia, illos e terra Urani sanguine respersa natos, cum ei Saturnus filius verenda abscidisset ; cui assentit Diodor. libro quarto. Homines patres eosdem non habuisse, tradere librum nomine Enoch evulgatum, ob idque supposititium recte a prudentibus judicatum fuisse, XV De civit. Dei, cap. 23, docet Augustin. « Igitur secundum Scripturas canonicas, » subjicit idem, « Hebraeas atque Christianas, multos gigantes ante diluvium fuisse, terrigenae societatis hominum cives, dubium non est. Nec mirandum quod de filiis Seth nasci potuerint, cum hinc ostendere vellet Creator, non solum pulchritudines, sed et magnitudines corporum, non magni pendendas esse sapienti. » Et quaest. 4 in Genes. facile creditu scribit, grandes et fortes ex mulieribus nasci potuisse, « quia et post diluvium quidem tales reperti fuerint, et quod quaedam corpora virorum et feminarum ad incredibilem modum ingentia saeculo suo exstiterint. » His adjicit Cyrillus, deformitate illa vultus et vastitate monstrosa corporis, iram divinam scelera hominum vindicasse. Theodoretus audiens Scripturam divinam dicentem de Enach, quod a gigantibus oriundus erat ; et Og ferreum cubile novem cubitorum longitudinem, et latitudinem quatuor habere ; exploratores item narrantes instar locustarum se fuisse in conspectu illorum, et dicentem Dominum : « Tradiderunt Amorrhaeum, cujus altitudo erat tanquam cedri, et robustus ut quercus : » optimo jure opinatur fuisse quosdam pergrandes homines. Nec puto aberrare Josephum, cum propter corporum magnitudines atque formas, in nullo aliis hominibus proximas, caeteris ultra modum admirabiles illos exstitisse scribit, libro quinto Antiq. Hebraei alii eos « Nephilim, » id est cadentes, dictos putant, quod homines illorum conspectu timore oppressi caderent : vel quia in diluvio (quod propter eorum exsecrabiles et nefarias libidines immissum recte asserit Berosus) ceciderunt, ut de illis dicat Job cap. XXVI : « Gigantes gemunt sub aquis ; » vel quod ruina magna caderent ob staturae proceritatem. Atque haec de ortu et proceritate eorum.

Above those giants who are related in fables. That there were giants indeed is agreed among all sacred and profane authors: but because there is great disagreement concerning their origin and tallness, it has pleased me to note these things traced a little further back. The Theogony of Hesiod fables that they were born from the earth sprinkled with the blood of Uranus, when his son Saturn had cut off his privy parts; with whom Diodorus agrees in the fourth book. That the book published under the name of Enoch hands down that those same did not have men as fathers, and on that account was rightly judged supposititious by prudent men, Augustine teaches in Book 15 On the City of God, chap. 23. "Therefore according to the canonical Scriptures," the same subjoins, "both Hebrew and Christian, there is no doubt that there were many giants before the flood, citizens of the earthborn society of men. Nor is it to be wondered at that they could be born from the sons of Seth, since the Creator wished hence to show that not only beauties, but also bulkinesses of bodies, are not to be highly valued by a wise man." And in Question 4 on Genesis he writes that it is easy to believe that tall and strong men could be born from women, "because even after the flood indeed such were found, and because certain bodies of men and women huge to an incredible degree existed in his own age." To these things Cyril adds that by that deformity of countenance and monstrous vastness of body the divine wrath avenged the crimes of men. Theodoret, hearing the divine Scripture saying of Enach that he was sprung from the giants; and that the iron bedstead of Og had a length of nine cubits and a breadth of four; the spies likewise relating that they were like locusts in their sight, and the Lord saying: "They delivered up the Amorite, whose height was as the cedar, and he was strong as an oak": with the best right opines that there were certain very tall men. Nor do I think Josephus wanders from the truth when he writes in the fifth book of the Antiquities that on account of the bulkinesses and shapes of their bodies, in nothing approaching other men, they were beyond measure admirable to the rest. Other Hebrews think that they were called "Nephilim," that is, falling, because men overwhelmed with fear at the sight of them fell down: or because they fell in the flood (which Berosus rightly asserts was sent on account of their execrable and nefarious lusts), as Job says of them in chap. 26: "The giants groan under the waters"; or because they fell with a great ruin on account of the tallness of their stature. And so much concerning their origin and tallness.

Caeterum, conatus illorum narrant profani scriptores fuisse, ut tres maximos montes Olympum, Ossam, Pelion aggererent, sperantes se hoc modo

For the rest, profane writers relate that their efforts were to pile up the three greatest mountains, Olympus, Ossa, and Pelion, hoping that in this way they

Editors' notes and page, col. 1586

Footnotes

(87) ‹anchor: adjicit Cyrillus› · call in col 1586

Lib. III in Genes. et IX contra Jul.

Book III on Genesis, and Book IX against Julian.

(printed under page 801)

(88) ‹anchor: Theodoretus› · call in col 1586

Quæst. 48 in Genes.

Question 48 on Genesis.

(printed under page 801)

(89) ‹anchor: ut quercus› · call in col 1586

Amos II, 9.

Amos 2:9.

(printed under page 801)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1586
marginal letters: A tatur, consors et; B capitis pro « quando »; C mirandum quod de; D aberrare Josephum, cum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tatur, consors et; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 52.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 53.; word split at start of column: depu-tatur

PG 7:1587

facile sibi viam munituros, qua ad aetheream sublimitatem evaderent, superis bellum inferrent, Jovemque coelo deturbarent : sed misso fulmine ipsos periisse. Inde natum proverbium : Γιγάντων ἀπόνοια, Gigantum arrogantia, in eos qui temere res non tentandas, ut adversus Deum pietatem, jus et aequum, moliuntur, quod inauspicato semper illis recidit. His igitur admodum apposite Gnosticos similes dicit Iren. ac deinceps haereticos omnes, qui Deo rebelles gaudent errore suo, et tunc gloriantur, quando Ecclesiae contumeliam fecerint, Origen. homil. 7 in Num., et Hieronym. in XXIV Isaiae.

would easily build a road for themselves whereby they might climb out to the ethereal height, wage war upon the gods above, and hurl Jupiter down from heaven: but that when a thunderbolt was sent they perished. Thence arose the proverb: Γιγάντων ἀπόνοια, the madness of the Giants, against those who rashly attempt things not to be attempted, as against God, piety, right, and equity, which always turns out ill for them. Very appositely therefore does Irenaeus call the Gnostics like to these, and thereafter all heretics, who, rebellious against God, rejoice in their error, and then glory when they have done insult to the Church, Origen Homily 7 on Numbers, and Jerome on Isaiah 24.

Vana. Ita pro « vani » supposuimus auctor. veter. codic.

Vain [neuter plural]. Thus we have substituted for "vain [masculine plural]" on the authority of the old codex.

Elleborum. Ellebori duo genera faciunt Plin. et Dioscor. : candidum, quo vomitiones cientur, stomachus et superior venter purgantur ; et nigrum quo alvus inferior diluitur. Utrumque autem adversus melancholiam remedium efficax habere, capitis mentisque levare vitia, antiquis persuasum fuit, indeque insanientes menteque parum constantes, ἐλλεβόρου δεῖσθαι, id est elleboro opus habere, dicti sunt.

Hellebore. Pliny and Dioscorides make two kinds of hellebore: the white, whereby vomitings are stirred up and the stomach and upper belly are purged; and the black, whereby the lower bowel is washed out. Now the ancients were persuaded that each has an efficacious remedy against melancholy, and relieves the defects of the head and mind, and thence madmen and those little steady in mind were said ἐλλεβόρου δεῖσθαι, that is, to have need of hellebore.

Meliorem enim. Cap. 57 signat cod. vetus, cujus auctoritate « melior » delevimus.

For a better. The old codex marks chap. 57, on the authority of which we deleted "better [nominative]."

Pag. 161. Ab operibus itaque. Jure optimo non tantum Demiurgo inferiores, sed ne digni quidem, qui apostolicorum calceorum corrigiam solverent, eos esse coarguit, cum nec vitae puritate, nec operatione miraculorum ullo modo eorum dogma fulciretur. Eodem pacto conficit illos postea Tertullian. : « Probent se, ait, novos apostolos, eadem signa edant. Volo igitur et virtutes eorum proferre, nisi quod agnoscam et maximam virtutem illorum, qua in perversum apostolos aemulantur. Illi enim de mortuis vivos faciebant ; isti de vivis mortuos faciunt. » Hoc pacto et Augustin. Manichaeos alloquitur : « Sic nec Scripturarum auctoritatis antiquitas, nec miraculorum potestas, nec morum sanitas, nec rationis veritas vos asserit : abite confusi, et redite confessi, » etc. De miraculis posteriorum Gnosticorum id tantum adjicere visum est, quod anno Domini 1526 scripsit Erasm. Roter. in diatriba De lib. arb. : « Apostoli, ait, quoniam excutiebant viperas, sanabant aegrotos, excitabant mortuos, imposita manu dabant dona linguarum : ita demum creditum est, et vix creditum est illis paradoxa docentibus. Nunc cum juxta communem opinionem afferant pene paradoxotera, nullus illorum adhuc exstitit, qui vel equum claudum sanare potuerit. » De his rursus cap. 56.

Page 161. From their works therefore. With the best right he proves that they are not only inferior to the Demiurge, but not even worthy to loose the latchet of the apostles' shoes, since their dogma was in no way supported either by purity of life or by the working of miracles. In the same manner Tertullian afterwards dispatches them: "Let them prove themselves," he says, "to be new apostles, let them put forth the same signs. I wish therefore to bring forward their mighty works also, save that I acknowledge their greatest mighty work, whereby they perversely emulate the apostles. For those made the dead alive; these make the living dead." In this manner Augustine also addresses the Manichaeans: "Thus neither the antiquity of the authority of the Scriptures, nor the power of miracles, nor soundness of morals, nor truth of reason maintains you: depart confounded, and return having confessed," etc. Concerning the miracles of the later Gnostics it has seemed good to add only that which in the year of the Lord 1526 Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote in his Diatribe on Free Will: "The apostles," he says, "since they shook off vipers, healed the sick, raised the dead, and by the laying on of hands gave the gifts of tongues: so at length were they believed, and scarcely believed, when teaching paradoxes. Now, although according to the common opinion these men bring forward things almost more paradoxical, none of them has yet appeared who could heal even a lame horse." Concerning these things again in chap. 56.

Eduxerunt. Expunximus « adduxerunt, » auct. vet. cod.

Brought out. We expunged "brought to," on the authority of the old codex.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 54.

Annotations of the same on chap. 54.

Pag. 161. Erant enim. Caput 58 habet cod. vetus ; quae vero hic refellit, recensuerat lib. I, cap. 1. Salse autem eos ridet, quod jactarent se conceptionem spiritalem esse illorum AEonum, qui ad Pandorae formationem sua contulerant, supra cap. 37, cum potius essent abortivi projecti, ad nihil prorsus utiles aut commodi.

Page 161. For they were. The old codex has chapter 58; and the things which he refutes here, he had recounted in Book 1, chap. 1. Now he wittily laughs at them because they boasted that they were the spiritual conception of those Aeons who had contributed their shares to the formation of Pandora, above in chap. 37, whereas they were rather cast-out abortions, useful or serviceable for nothing at all.

Matri. Delevimus « matris, » et infra pro « si, » reposuimus « sic, » auct. vet. cod.

To the Mother. We deleted "of the mother," and below for "if" we restored "thus," on the authority of the old codex.

Sic autem et hi. Subsannat eos, eo quod dicerent se feminas esse, quae supra Demiurgum, id est hujus mundi creatorem Deum, ascendere possent ad angelos viros suos.

And thus these also. He derides them because they said that they were women who could ascend above the Demiurge, that is, God the Creator of this world, to the angels their husbands.

Si autem contenderint. Dilemmate probat Bythum nihil prorsus terrenorum aut coelestium condidisse ; sed solum Deum omnipotentem. Interim, tam hic quam paulo superius enumerantur septem ordines angelorum : quibus si addas cherubim et seraphim, novem comperies.

But if they should contend. By a dilemma he proves that Bythus founded nothing at all of earthly or heavenly things; but God Almighty alone. Meanwhile, both here and a little above are enumerated seven orders of angels: to which if you add the cherubim and seraphim, you will find nine.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 55.

Annotations of the same on chap. 55.

Pag. 162. Quoniam autem. Caput 59 signat vetus

Page 162. Moreover since. The old

Editors' notes and page, col. 1587

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. Call 90 is not visible in the foot crops. (printed under page 802)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1587-1588 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. XXV, c. 5.

Book XXV, chapter 5.

(printed under page 802)

(91) ‹anchor: ait› · call in col 1587

Lib. Præscript.

Book of the Prescription (De praescriptione haereticorum).

(printed under page 802)

(92) ‹anchor: allo-quitur› · call in col 1587

Lib. XIII contra Faust., cap. 6.

Book XIII against Faustus, chapter 6.

(printed under page 802)

Page

running head: 1587 VARIORUM NOT
marginal letters: A facile sibi viam; B indeque insanientes menteque; C tantum asseritur, unicum; D cum potius essent
old-edition numerals: 106 before Meliorem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: facile sibi viam; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 54.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 55.

PG 7:1588

cod. cum epigraphe hic affixa. Expunximus autem tres dictiones, « quoniam » pro « qui, » — « spiritales conditiones, » pro « spiritalis conditionis, » reponentes auctor. vet. cod., et significat « quoniam, » idem quod ὅτι apud Graecos.

codex marks chapter 59 with the heading affixed here. Now we expunged three words, restoring "since" for "who," and "spiritual creations" for "of spiritual creation," on the authority of the old codex; and "since" [quoniam] signifies the same as ὅτι [that] among the Greeks.

Tradit autem spiritales creaturas, ut puta novem angelorum ordines, innumerosque alios beatos spiritus (Apoc. VII) in coelis esse, Paulumque in raptu audivisse arcana coelestia ; universa porro illa subesse Creatori, seu Demiurgo. Itaque non esse super eum quaerendam aliam rerum spiritalium dispositionem vel plenitudinem. Aut si esset aliqua, Paulus procul dubio ad ejus contemplationem raptus et admissus fuisset.

Now he hands down that spiritual creatures, as for instance the nine orders of angels, and innumerable other blessed spirits (Rev. 7) are in the heavens, and that Paul in his rapture heard heavenly secrets; and moreover that all those things are subject to the Creator, or Demiurge. Therefore another disposition or fullness of spiritual things is not to be sought above Him. Or if there were any, Paul without doubt would have been caught up and admitted to the contemplation of it.

Jam et ipse subjectus Salvatori, ut dicunt. Sic legimus cum veteri codice. Expunximus vero, « subjectis salvationi dicunt. »

Already himself also subject to the Saviour, as they say. Thus we read with the old codex. And we expunged "to those subject to salvation they say."

Et haec cum interior homo. Graeco ritu dicitur, « et haec, » pro « idque. »

And these things when the inner man. After the Greek manner "and these things" is said for "and that."

Pag. 163. Et vere est. Confirmat nec Demiurgum esse animalem, qui coelestes spiritus coelestiaque corpora perfecerit : nec Gnosticos esse spiritales, aliis vi majore praeditos, quippe qui nec quidem muscam aut culicem possent efformare.

Page 163. And truly He is. He confirms that neither is the Demiurge animal, who perfected the heavenly spirits and the heavenly bodies: nor are the Gnostics spiritual, endowed with greater power than others, inasmuch as they could not fashion even a fly or a gnat.

Si autem animalis. Caput 60 habet cod. vet.

But if animal. The old codex has chapter 60.

Qui nullius operationis. Id est « in eorum potestate non est quidquam operari. » Graece, οὐδενὸς ἔργου κύριοί εἰσι. Sic etiam infra : « Et est substantia hominum voluntas ejus : » pro, « Sola ipsius voluntate homines in ortum producti sunt. » BILLIUS.

Who of no working. That is, "it is not in their power to work anything." In Greek, οὐδενὸς ἔργου κύριοί εἰσι. So also below: "And the substance of men is His will:" for, "By His will alone men were brought forth into origin." BILLIUS.

Hic est qui. Vetus cod. : « Hic qui est. »

This is He who. The old codex has: "This who is."

Quem prophetae praeconiant. Κηρύττουσιν, « praedicant. » Sic enim κῆρυξ, id est « praeco, » deducitur a verbo κηρύττω, « praedico, praecono. » Caeterum, veteribus Gnosticis longe se deteriorem et nequiorem praebuit Valentinus gentilis, quando ex hoc Irenaei loco nisus est Filio Dei coaeternam unicamque cum Patre divinitatem suffurari. Hic enim tantum asseritur, unicum esse Deum creatorem omnium, utriusque Testamenti auctorem, qui per Christum cunctis innotuit. Tantum abest vero ut Filii divinitas infirmetur ; ut e contrario evidenter et constanter confirmetur, quando omnia per ipsum facta et aptata esse, ut per virtutem et sapientiam Patris, ex Paulo probatur ; et semper coexstitisse eidem Patri, verbis clarissimis praedicatur : quibus efficitur Filium esse eumdem natura cum Patre Deum aeternum et consubstantialem. Virtus namque et sapientia Patris non est ei accidens, quod cum tempore contigerit ; sed Deus ipse, cui juxta August. non est aliud sapere, posse et intelligere, quam esse. Vox autem « solus, » aliquoties repetita, excludit fictitios AEones, Bythos, Achamothas, etc., non Filium aut Spiritum sanctum, ut cuivis legenti pervium est.

Whom the prophets herald. Κηρύττουσιν, "preach." For thus κῆρυξ, that is, "herald," is deduced from the verb κηρύττω, "I preach, I herald." For the rest, Valentine Gentile showed himself far worse and more wicked than the ancient Gnostics, when from this passage of Irenaeus he strove to steal away from the Son of God His coeternal and single divinity with the Father. For here it is only asserted that there is one only God the Creator of all things, the Author of both Testaments, who through Christ became known to all. And so far is the divinity of the Son from being weakened, that on the contrary it is evidently and constantly confirmed, when it is proved from Paul that all things were made and fitted together through Him, as through the Power and Wisdom of the Father; and in the clearest words it is preached that He always coexisted with the same Father: whereby it is established that the Son is the same eternal and consubstantial God by nature with the Father. For the Power and Wisdom of the Father is not an accident to Him, which happened to Him with time; but God Himself, to whom according to Augustine to be wise, to be able, and to understand is not other than to be. And the word "alone," repeated several times, excludes the fictitious Aeons, Bythuses, Achamoths, etc., not the Son or the Holy Spirit, as is plain to anyone reading.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 56.

Annotations of the same on chap. 56.

Pag. 163. Destructis itaque. Cap. 61 signat vetus cod. Porro elegantissima ἀνακεφαλαιώσει ea fere omnia perstringit, quae hactenus toto hoc secundo libro effuse disseruit, nominatim contra Valentinianos ; eadem in reliquos etiam haereticos dici posse confirmans.

Page 163. Having destroyed therefore. The old codex marks chap. 61. Moreover, in a most elegant recapitulation [ἀνακεφαλαιώσει] he touches upon almost all those things which he has hitherto discussed at large in this whole second book, by name against the Valentinians; confirming that the same things can be said against the remaining heretics also.

Pag. 164. Avertes et confundes. Expunximus « avertens et confundens, » auct. vet. cod.

Page 164. You will turn away and confound. We expunged "turning away and confounding," on the authority of the old codex.

Nec enim caecis. Non levis est disputatio inter theologos, an haeretici aliquando vera miracula edere possint, quod hic diserte negat Irenaeus. Auctor Quaestionum apud Justinum, quaestione 100, aperte negat, per haereticos vivos aut mortuos, gratiam divinam donis illis fungi. Simoni Mago praestigias ostentanti sic respondentem Petrum apost. facit Clemens Rom. lib. III Recogn. : « Ut magi Pharaonem dementabant, arte daemonum Moysi resistentes

For neither to the blind. Not slight is the disputation among theologians, whether heretics can ever put forth true miracles, which Irenaeus here expressly denies. The author of the Questions in Justin, Question 100, openly denies that through heretics alive or dead the divine grace discharges those gifts. Clement of Rome in Book 3 of the Recognitions makes the Apostle Peter answer Simon Magus, displaying his juggling tricks, thus: "As the magicians drove Pharaoh mad, resisting Moses by the art of demons:

Editors' notes and page, col. 1588

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1588
marginal letters: A cod. cum epigraphe; B Pag. 163. Et; C tantum asseritur, unicum; D Pag. 163. Destructis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cod. cum epigraphe; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 56.; word split at end of column: resi-
other: the word resistentes was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1589

PG 7:1589

: ita et tu mihi. Sed vera miracula semper hominibus prosunt, ut dum curantur infirmi : falsa vero tantum ostentui sunt, ut canes aeneos latratus edere. Malignus autem miracula, quae hominibus prosunt, facere non potest, nisi in fine mundi tantum. » Manichaeis exprobrat Augustinus : « Miracula non facitis, quae si faceretis, etiam ipsa in vobis caveremus, per instruentem nos Dominum et dicentem : « Exsurgent multi pseudo-Christi, et facient signa et prodigia. »

so do you also resist me. But true miracles always profit men, as when the sick are cured: whereas false ones are only for show, as for brazen dogs to utter barkings. Now the Evil One cannot work miracles that profit men, save only at the end of the world." Augustine reproaches the Manichaeans: "You do not work miracles; which even if you did work, we would beware of those very things in you, through the Lord instructing us and saying: 'Many false Christs shall arise, and shall work signs and wonders.'"

Ferunt quosdam conatos esse miracula edere, ut his errores suos comprobarent : sed Deo impietatem eorum reprobante et patefaciente illorum consilia, in confusionem et perniciem auctorum conversa sunt ; sicuti ministrorum Baalis, et magorum Pharaonis, et filiis Scevae, ut in sacris refertur. Simon Magus enitens in coelos volando conscendere, sic in terram allisus est, ut fractis cruribus jam ambulare non posset. Polychronius coram Constantinop. synodo in Trullo coacta, recipiens se mortuum suscitaturum, cum multis horis id frustra tentasset, a cunctis explosus est. Manes pollicitus se regis Persarum filium lethali morbo correptum sanitati restituere posse, eodem exstincto, graves, dignas tamen poenas exsolvit. Ariani filium imperatoris Valentis infirmitate gravi decumbentem relevare non potuerunt. Cirola pseudoepiscopus eorumdem Arianorum, hominem 50 aureis inescatum, ut caecum simularet, et publice ab eo sanari posceret, cum id facere tentavit, magno sui et aliorum Arianorum dedecore, penitus excaecavit. Simile facinus, parique fraude tentavit et alius Arianus episcopus, regis Lewildi inductus imperio, sed eodem prorsus eventu, haereticis ignominioso, piis vero ridiculo.

They say that certain men tried to put forth miracles in order to prove their errors by them: but as God reproved their impiety and laid open their counsels, they were turned to the confusion and destruction of their authors; just as happened to those of the ministers of Baal, and of the magicians of Pharaoh, and to the sons of Sceva, as is related in the sacred Scriptures. Simon Magus, striving to climb up into the heavens by flying, was so dashed against the earth that with his legs broken he could no longer walk. Polychronius, before the Synod of Constantinople assembled in Trullo, undertaking that he would raise a dead man, when he had tried this in vain for many hours, was hissed off by all. Manes, having promised that he could restore to health the son of the king of the Persians seized with a mortal disease, when the same died, paid a heavy, yet worthy penalty. The Arians could not relieve the son of the Emperor Valens lying ill with a grievous sickness. Cirola, the false bishop of the same Arians, having baited a man with fifty gold pieces to feign himself blind and publicly demand to be healed by him, when he tried to do this, to the great disgrace of himself and the other Arians, utterly blinded him. A similar deed, and with equal fraud, another Arian bishop also attempted, induced by the command of King Leovigild, but with altogether the same outcome, ignominious to the heretics, and laughable to the pious.

Veteribus exemplis haec nova jungamus, ut idem divinum judicium adversus easdem fraudes diaboli atque ministrorum ejus observemus. Scribunt Lindanus et Surius, Lutherum in Albi flumine submersum quemdam Wilhelmum Nesenum ad vitam revocare voluisse : sed omnino frustra. Refert Fredericus Staphylus, se eidem Luthero tum adfuisse, 1545, cum daemoniacam puellam e Misnia Wittembergam sibi ad curandum perductam, exorcismis a se confictis sanare tentavit. Daemon autem cedere nolens, Lutherum in eas redegit angustias, ut via vi eidem patefacienda fuerit, ut e sacrario seipsum cum asseclis fugiendo servaret. Testatur etiam Bredembachius cum Surio, Lutheranae doctrinae ministros Augustae Vindelicorum, anno 1563, tentasse daemonium e corpore cujusdam puellae, Michaelis Rossimanni civis Augustani filiae, in confirmationem verbi sui expellere ; sed pari cum praeceptore suo dedecore ac infelicitate. Et ut Lutheranis Calvinianos subjiciamus, Hieronymus Bolsecus in Vita Calvini scribit, eumdem Calvinum non aspernanda pecuniae summa Burlaeo cuidam Ostunensi persuasisse, ut mortuum se simularet, ut ex composito per Calvinum suscitaretur : sed divina ultione, cum id tentaretur, exstinctus est, et haeresiarcha spe sua delusus. Turrianus perdoctus sane et gravis auctor est, quid simile accidisse in Polonia cuidam Matthaeo egenti, qui spe lucri a ministro inductus in eamdem simulationem, in ipso conatu infelicem exhalavit animam. Genebrardus denique refert, alium ministrum in oppido Picardiae Chalnico (Gallice, Chaugny) hominem a daemone possessum, sacco inclusum, in Isarae fluvium abjecisse ac demersisse, cum malignum spiritum ab eodem abigere nequivisset : quod in perpetuam Calvinianorum ignominiam cessit. Patet igitur haereticos, nec caecos illuminare, nec daemones e corporibus obsessorum,

To the ancient examples let us join these new ones, that we may observe the same divine judgement against the same frauds of the devil and his ministers. Lindanus and Surius write that Luther wished to recall to life a certain Wilhelm Nesen drowned in the river Elbe: but altogether in vain. Friedrich Staphylus relates that he was present with the same Luther in 1545, when he tried to heal with exorcisms fabricated by himself a demoniac girl brought to him from Meissen to Wittenberg to be cured. But the demon, refusing to yield, reduced Luther to such straits that a way had to be broken open for him by force, that he might save himself with his followers by fleeing out of the sacristy. Bredenbach also with Surius testifies that the ministers of the Lutheran doctrine at Augsburg, in the year 1563, tried to expel a demon from the body of a certain girl, the daughter of Michael Rossimann, a citizen of Augsburg, in confirmation of their word; but with equal disgrace and ill success as their teacher. And that to the Lutherans we may subjoin the Calvinists, Jerome Bolsec in the Life of Calvin writes that the same Calvin by a not despicable sum of money persuaded a certain Bruneau of Autun to feign himself dead, that by prearrangement he might be raised to life by Calvin: but by divine vengeance, when this was attempted, he died, and the heresiarch was cheated of his hope. Turrianus, a very learned and weighty author indeed, is witness that something similar happened in Poland to a certain needy Matthew, who, led by a minister through hope of gain into the same pretence, in the very attempt breathed out his unhappy soul. Finally, Genebrard relates that another minister in the town of Chauny in Picardy (in French, Chaugny) cast and plunged into the river Oise a man possessed by a demon, shut up in a sack, when he had been unable to drive away the evil spirit from him: which turned to the perpetual ignominy of the Calvinists. It is clear therefore that heretics can neither give sight to the blind, nor expel demons from the bodies of the

Editors' notes and page, col. 1589

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in five lines. The numbering runs to 99 and then restarts at 1. Note 96 is printed without a verse after "Actor. XIX,". Calls 93–99, 1 and 7 are not visible in the foot crops. (printed under page 803)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Exod. VII, 11; II Tim. III, 8.

Exodus 7:11; 2 Timothy 3:8.

(printed under page 803)

(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. XIII cont. Faust. cap. 5.

Book XIII against Faustus, chapter 5.

(printed under page 803)

(95) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Matth. XXIV, 24.

Matthew 24:24.

(printed under page 803)

(96) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Actor. XIX, Exod. VII, III Reg. XVIII.

Acts 19; Exodus 7; 1 Kings 18 (3 Kings in the Vulgate).

(printed under page 803)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Epiph. contr. hæres. 21.

Epiphanius, Against Heresies 21.

(printed under page 803)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Con. Act. 15.

Council, Acts 15.

(printed under page 803)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Cyril. Jeros., catech. 6.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 6.

(printed under page 803)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Sozom., lib. VI, cap. 16.

Sozomen, Book VI, chapter 16.

(printed under page 803)

(2) ‹anchor: pils vero ridiculo› · call in col 1589

Gregor. Tur., lib. II Histor. Franc., cap. 3, et lib. II De gloria sanct., cap. 12 et 13.

Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks Book II, chapter 3, and On the Glory of the Saints Book II, chapters 12 and 13.

(printed under page 803)

(3) ‹anchor: Testatur etiam Bredembachius› · call in col 1589

Lib. VII Collat.

Book VII of the Collations.

(printed under page 803)

(4) ‹anchor: cum Surio› · call in col 1589

Lib. de reb. per orbem gestis.

Book on events throughout the world.

(printed under page 803)

(5) ‹anchor: gravis auctor est› · call in col 1589

Lib. I de dog. charact.

Book I on the marks of doctrine (De dogmatum characteribus).

(printed under page 803)

(6) ‹anchor: Genebrardus denique refert› · call in col 1589

Lib. IV Chron. vol. anno 1560.

Book IV of the Chronicle, volume for the year 1560.

(printed under page 803)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1589-1590 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. de resurrect.

Book on the Resurrection.

(printed under page 803)

Page

running head: 1589 IN LIB. II S. IREN
marginal letters: A stentes : ita; B multis horis id; C vocare voluisse : sed; D cum id tentaretur,
old-edition numerals: 107 after accidisse
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: stentes : ita; word split at start of column: resi-stentes; word split at end of column: ob-
other: the word obsessorum, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1590

PG 7:1590

praeter eos forsan, qui, ut ait Irenaeus, ab ipsis immitterentur, expellere, nec alia vera miracula perficere posse. Et de hac parte negante, quae mihi certe magis probatur, hactenus.

possessed, except those perhaps which, as Irenaeus says, were sent in by themselves, nor perform other true miracles. And concerning this negative side, which certainly is more approved to me, thus far.

Qui partem oppositam defendunt, secum sentire Tertullianum lib. III Contra Marcionem, volunt : ubi solam speciem per documenta virtutum Christo ad testimonium competiisse negat, quam et ipse postmodum exauctorarit : « Siquidem, ait ille, edicens multos venturos et signa facturos, et virtutes magnas edituros, temerariam signorum et virtutum fidem ostendit, ut etiam apud pseudochristos facillimarum. » Nec parum causae suae patrocinari putant, quae historiis suis prodiderunt Sozomenus lib. I, cap. 14, et Socrates lib. VII, cap. 17 et 18, de miraculis quorumdam Novatianorum. Neque absurdius arbitrantur haereticos, qui tantum aliquot articulis a nobis dissident, vera miracula edere posse, quam Judaeos, quos ex Josephi libr. VIII Antiq., cap. 2, et Irenaei lib. II, cap. 5, constat, vexatos a daemonibus curasse. A se quoque stare Augustinum, libr. II De serm. Domini in monte, cap. 40, et fusissime omnium libro LXXXIII Quaest., q. 79, non leviter contendunt. Quibus vero magis adhaerendum sit, pronuntiet Ecclesia. Vide annot. in cap. 8 libri primi.

Those who defend the opposite side maintain that Tertullian agrees with them in Book 3 Against Marcion: where he denies that the mere appearance through proofs of mighty works belonged to Christ for a testimony, which He Himself also afterwards deprived of authority: "Seeing that," says he, "proclaiming that many would come and work signs, and put forth great mighty works, He showed the faith of signs and mighty works to be rash, as being most easy even among false Christs." Nor do they think that small support is given to their cause by the things which Sozomen in Book 1, chap. 14, and Socrates in Book 7, chaps. 17 and 18, have handed down in their histories concerning the miracles of certain Novatians. Nor do they think it more absurd that heretics, who dissent from us only in some articles, should be able to put forth true miracles, than the Jews, who, as is established from Josephus Book 8 of the Antiquities, chap. 2, and Irenaeus Book 2, chap. 5, cured those vexed by demons. They also contend not lightly that Augustine stands on their side, in Book 2 On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, chap. 40, and most diffusely of all in the book of Eighty-Three Questions, q. 79. Now to which side one ought rather to adhere, let the Church pronounce. See the annotation on chap. 8 of the first book.

Esse autem resurrectionem. Explicatius Tertullianus : « Resurrectionem mortuorum manifeste annuntiatam, in imaginariam significationem distorquent, asseverantes mortem etiam ipsam spiritaliter intelligendam. Non enim hanc esse dissidium corporis et animi, sed ignorantiam Dei, per quam homo mortuus Deo non minus in errore jacuerit, quam in sepulcro. Itaque et resurrectionem eam vindicandam, qua quis adita veritate redanimatus et revivificatus Deo, ignorantiae morte discussa, velut de sepulcro veteris hominis eruperit. Hoc denique ingenio, etiam in colloquiis saepe nostros decipere consueverunt, quasi et ipsi resurrectionem admittant. Vae, inquiunt, qui in hac carne non resurrexerit. Tacite autem sentiunt : Vae qui non, dum in hac carne est, cognoverit arcana haeretica ; hoc est enim apud illos resurrectio. »

And that the resurrection is. More explicitly Tertullian says: "The resurrection of the dead, manifestly proclaimed, they twist into an imaginary signification, asserting that death itself also is to be understood spiritually. For that this is not the separation of body and soul, but ignorance of God, through which a man dead to God lay no less in error than in a sepulchre. And that therefore that resurrection also is to be claimed, whereby anyone, having approached the truth, reanimated and made alive again to God, with the death of ignorance dispelled, has burst forth as it were from the sepulchre of the old man. By this device, finally, they have often been wont to deceive our people even in conversations, as though they themselves also admitted the resurrection. Woe, they say, to him who has not risen again in this flesh. But tacitly they mean: Woe to him who has not, while he is in this flesh, come to know the heretical secrets; for this among them is the resurrection."

Quapropter etiamsi observaverit quis. Magnam esse κοινωνίαν inter haereticos et cacodaemonas, adnotavimus in caput primum libri primi : hic tantum addere libet quae Tertullianus habet : « Notata sunt etiam commercia haereticorum cum magis quampluribus, cum circulatoribus, cum astrologis, cum philosophis curiositati deditis. Adeo et de genere conversationis qualitas fidei aestimari potest : doctrina index disciplinae est, etc.

Wherefore even if anyone should observe. That there is great fellowship [κοινωνίαν] between heretics and evil demons, we have noted on the first chapter of the first book: here it pleases us only to add what Tertullian has: "The dealings also of heretics have been noted with very many magicians, with mountebanks, with astrologers, with philosophers devoted to curiosity. So true is it that even from the kind of their company the quality of their faith can be estimated: doctrine is the index of discipline," etc.

Pag. 165. Nihil esset. Expunximus « esse ; » et mox « opinione, » pro « opinioni » restituimus, auct. vet. cod.

Page 165. Would be nothing. We expunged "to be"; and presently we restored "by opinion" for "to opinion," on the authority of the old codex.

Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 56.

From the annotations of Jo. Er. Grabe on chap. 56.

Pag. 164. Ea quae sunt extra veritatem transferentes ad characterem suae doctrinae. Graece, τὰ ἔξω τῆς ἀληθείας μετενέγκαντες εἰς χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλίας ἑαυτῶν. Intelligit vero per « ea quae sunt extra veritatem, » mathematicas, vel alias philosophicas a doctrina Christiana alienas hypotheses, uti patet de Basilidianis ex superiori pag. 99, col. 2, lin. 7 (pag. 102, col. 2, l. 18), seqq. Ita etiam mox pag. seq. ait : « quae sunt veritatis, » id est quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinent, vel ex S. Scripturis sunt petita.

Page 164. Transferring the things which are outside the truth to the character of their own doctrine. In Greek, τὰ ἔξω τῆς ἀληθείας μετενέγκαντες εἰς χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλίας ἑαυτῶν. Now he understands by "the things which are outside the truth," mathematical or other philosophical hypotheses foreign to Christian doctrine, as is clear concerning the Basilidians from the preceding page 99, col. 2, line 7 (page 102, col. 2, l. 18) ff. So also presently on the following page he says: "the things which are of the truth," that is, which pertain to sacred doctrine, or are sought from the Holy Scriptures.

Draconis. Antichristum venturum in dicto Apocalypseos loco intellexit Irenaeus, quem et alii postea Patres sunt secuti.

Of the dragon. By the dragon in the said passage of the Apocalypse Irenaeus understood the Antichrist to come, whom other Fathers afterwards also followed.

Pag. 165. Non solum qui moechatur, etc. Gemina

Page 165. Not only he who commits adultery, etc. Twin

Editors' notes and page, col. 1590

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: Tertullianus habet› · call in col 1590

L. Præscript.

Book of the Prescription (De praescriptione haereticorum).

(printed under page 803)

Page

running head: LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1590
marginal letters: A sessorum, praeter eos; B Antiq., cap. 2,; C rectionem admittant. Vae,; D θείας μετενέγκαντες εἰς
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sessorum, praeter eos; Ex Jo. Er. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 56.; word split at start of column: ob-sessorum; column ends mid-sentence: Gemina

PG 7:1591

prorsus docuit non modo Justinus martyr Apolog. 2 (1), pro Christianis, pag. 62 seq., sed et Basilides haeresiarcha lib. XXIII Commentariorum in Evangelium, cujus verba vide tom. I Spicilegii haereticorum saeculi II, p. 40.

not only did Justin Martyr altogether teach in his Second (First) Apology for the Christians, p. 62 ff., but also Basilides the heresiarch in Book 23 of his Commentaries on the Gospel, for whose words see vol. 1 of the Spicilegium of the Heretics of the Second Century, p. 40.

Sine causa. Ex hoc loco et lib. IV, cap. 31, forte an colligeret quispiam, Irenaeum Matth. V, 21 legisse εἰκῆ, quod aliqui ex Latina versione, in qua jam Cypriani aevo lectum fuisse ex scriptis ejus colligitur, in sacrum N. T. codicem irrepsisse putant. Obstat tamen huic argumento, quod auctor noster lib. IV, cap. 27, scribat : « Dominus praecepit pro eo quod est : Non occides, neque irasci quidem. » Unde et aliis in locis Latino Irenaeo ab interprete vel scriba quodam istud, « sine causa, » insertum videri posset. Sed vix quidpiam certi citra temeritatis notam affirmari potest, neque plura hac de re dicere est hujus loci.

Without cause. From this passage and Book 4, Chapter 31, someone might perhaps gather that Irenaeus in (Matt. 5:21) read εἰκῆ ("without cause"), which some think crept into the sacred codex of the New Testament from the Latin version, in which it is gathered from his writings to have been read already in the age of Cyprian. Yet it stands against this argument that our author in Book 4, Chapter 27, writes: "The Lord commanded instead of that which is: You shall not kill, not even to be angry." Whence also in other places in the Latin Irenaeus that phrase, "without cause," might seem to have been inserted by the translator or by some scribe. But scarcely anything certain can be affirmed short of the mark of rashness, nor does it belong to this place to say more on this matter.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 57.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on Chapter 57.

Pag. 165. Eversio. (Prima argumenti vox.) Expunximus, « Conversio » vet. cod. auctoritate. Quae vero hoc capite refelluntur, recitaverat lib. I, cap. 24, de Carpocratis sectatoribus loquens : simul et cap. 35 de Ophitis, et Cainaeis. Ostendit autem, veteres Gnosticos enixissime laborasse, ut omni specie libidinis se commacularent; at bonis artibus, seu liberalibus, seu mechanicis, aut etiam virtutibus nullam operam collocasse.

Page 165. Subversion. (The first word of the summary.) We have expunged "Conversion" on the authority of the ancient codex. Now the things that are refuted in this chapter he had recited in Book 1, Chapter 24, speaking of the followers of Carpocrates, and at the same time in Chapter 35 concerning the Ophites and Cainites. Moreover, he shows that the ancient Gnostics laboured most earnestly to defile themselves with every kind of lust, while they bestowed no effort upon good arts, whether liberal or mechanical, or even upon virtues.

Vacant. Delevimus « vocant » auctor vet. codicis.

They attend to. We have deleted "they call" on the authority of the ancient codex.

Non Jesum. Vetus codex caret negatione, sed affirmative legit : « Jesum magistrum gloriantur ; » dolet enim B. martyr, sub nomine beato tam infelicia monstra latere.

Not Jesus. The ancient codex lacks the negation, and reads affirmatively: "They boast of Jesus as master;" for the blessed martyr grieves that under the blessed name such wretched monsters lie hidden.

Dicentes autem se. Collatione operum illorum cum operibus D. N. Jesu Christi retundit perversam eorum jactantiam, evincitque illos magis similes esse Simoni Mago, nebuloni perditissimo, quam Domino, cui tamen se praeferebant.

But saying that they. By a comparison of their works with the works of our Lord Jesus Christ, he beats back their perverse boasting, and proves that they are more like Simon Magus, a most abandoned scoundrel, than the Lord, to Whom nevertheless they preferred themselves.

Pag. 166. Sed Simoni Mago. Hujus praestigias attigit lib. I, cap. 20, sed eas fusius antea descripserunt Abdias lib. I Histor. apost., et Clemens Rom. lib. III Recog., ut isthaec ex illis videatur Irenaeus desumpsisse.

Page 166. But to Simon Magus. He touched upon his juggleries in Book 1, Chapter 20, but Abdias in Book 1 of the Apostolic History, and Clement of Rome in Book 3 of the Recognitions, had described them more at length beforehand, so that Irenaeus seems to have taken these things from them.

Si autem et Dominum. Etiam locum hunc transcripsit Eusebius, usque ad illud infra : « Nec invocationibus angelicis, » etc. Porro quatuor Spiritus sancti charismata enumerat, quibus tum temporis floruit Ecclesia ; de his quoque multa, et ea praeclara, leguntur in illius saeculi et sequentis scriptoribus, quae paucis perstringere non erit inutile. De daemonum ejectione Justinus scribit : « Vim Christi nominis timent daemonia trementia ; et hodie adjurata per nomen crucifixi Jesu Christi sub Pontio Pilato Judaeae praeside, imperata faciunt. » Idem rursus priore Apolog. : « Multos arreptitios per totum orbem, et in hac ipsa civitate (Romana), multi ex nostris Christianis, adjuratos per nomen Jesu Christi sub Pontio Pilato crucifixi, sanarunt : quos nec adjuratores alii, nec incantatores, expiatoresve sanare potuerant. » Pulchra hac de re habet et Tertullianus cap. 23 Apol., quae consulto omittimus.

But if also the Lord. Eusebius also transcribed this passage, down to that phrase below: "Nor by angelic invocations," etc. Furthermore, he enumerates four charisms of the Holy Spirit with which the Church flourished at that time; concerning these also many things, and noble ones, are read in the writers of that century and the following, which it will not be useless to touch upon briefly. Concerning the casting out of demons Justin writes: "The trembling demons fear the power of the name of Christ; and today, adjured by the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, they do what is commanded." The same writer again in his First Apology: "Many demon-possessed persons throughout the whole world, and in this very city (of Rome), many of our Christians have healed by adjuring them through the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, whom neither other exorcists, nor enchanters, nor purifiers had been able to heal." Fine things on this subject Tertullian also has in Chapter 23 of his Apology, which we purposely omit.

Donum autem prophetiae maximum illum Quadratum Athen. habuisse, testis est Eusebius lib IV Histor. Revelationes et visiones de futuris rebus frequenter factas Polycarpo et Cypriano, ipsi sibi idonei testes sunt. Sed et B. Carpo visionem plane mirabilem contigisse scribit Dionysius Areop. epistol. 8. Mortuum eo saeculo suscitatum fuisse, Papiae testimonio confirmat Eusebius lib. III Histor., cap. 39.

That the great Quadratus of Athens had the gift of prophecy, Eusebius is witness in Book 4 of his History. That revelations and visions concerning future things were frequently made to Polycarp and Cyprian, they themselves are sufficient witnesses for themselves. Moreover, Dionysius the Areopagite writes in Epistle 8 that a manifestly wonderful vision befell the blessed Carpus. That a dead person was raised in that century, Eusebius confirms by the testimony of Papias in Book 3 of his History, Chapter 39.

Perficiunt. Virtutes videlicet curationum, de quibus scribit Apostolus I Cor. XII, 10.

They perform. Namely, miraculous powers of healings, concerning which the Apostle writes in (1 Cor. 12:10).

Editors' notes and page, col. 1591

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in two lines. Call 12 is not visible in the foot crops; call 13 is at the cut top edge of col 1592. (printed under page 804)

(9) ‹anchor: transcripsit Eusebius› · call in col 1591

Lib. V Histor., cap. 7.

Book V of the History, chapter 7.

(printed under page 804)

(10) ‹anchor: Justinus scribit› · call in col 1591

In Dialog.

In the Dialogue.

(printed under page 804)

(11) ‹anchor: Polycarpo et Cypriano› · call in col 1591

Ser. de mort.

Sermon on Mortality (De mortalitate).

(printed under page 804)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1591-1592 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. III, cap. 18.

Book III, chapter 18.

(printed under page 804)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE
marginal letters: A prorsus docuit non; B ximus, « Conversio »; C esse Simoni Mago,; D per totum orbem,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: prorsus docuit non; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 57.

PG 7:1592

Non est numerum dicere. Hellenismus, pro « gratiarum numerus iniri nequit. »

It is not possible to tell the number. A Hellenism for "the number of the graces cannot be reckoned."

Nec invocationibus angelicis. Malignorum videlicet spirituum, quos Simoniani, Marcitae, Carpocratiani aliique malefici ad suas praestigias exercendas in opem evocabant. Bonos porro angelos, ut coram Deo patronos, pie invocandos esse plurimis ostendimus, Appendice contra haereses, titulo Angelus ; et Com. in libr. Esther, digress. de oratione, art. 6.

Nor by angelic invocations. Namely, of malignant spirits, whom the Simonians, Marcites, Carpocratians, and other sorcerers called to their aid to practise their juggleries. That good angels, however, as patrons before God, are piously to be invoked, we have shown at length in the Appendix against Heresies, under the title Angel; and in the Commentary on the Book of Esther, digression on prayer, article 6.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 58.

Annotations of the same on Chapter 58.

Pag. 167. De corpore. Caput 62 signat vet. cod. Caeterum, quam hic refellit metempsychosin, asseruerunt Simon Magus, Carpocrates, horumque sectatores, ut scripsit libro primo, capite vigesimo et vigesimo quarto.

Page 167. From body. The ancient codex marks Chapter 62. For the rest, the metempsychosis which he here refutes was asserted by Simon Magus, Carpocrates, and their followers, as he wrote in the first book, twentieth and twenty-fourth chapters.

Hanc porro animarum transmigrationem Lactantius acceptam fert Pythagoricis et Stoicis. Qui cum timerent argumentum illud Epicureorum, quo concludebant, necesse esse ut occiderent animae cum corporibus, quia cum corporibus nascuntur : dixerunt, non nasci animas, sed insinuari potius in corpora, et de his in alia et alia migrare. Lactantio subscribit Nicetas libro primo Thesauri orthodoxiae, capite quarto. Est quoque in Phaedone Platonis manifesta hujus assertio. Justinus martyr in Dialogo, tradit Judaeos in hunc tandem errorem incidisse. Nec injuria sane ; nam in Talmud, ordine quarto, tractatu secundo, affirmant animam Abelis migrasse in Seth, et hanc postea in Moysem. Hieronymus quoque sentit, Judaeos illos qui opinabantur Christum esse aut Jeremiam, aut Eliam, etc., eodem fuisse errore detentos : adeoque ipsum Herodem existimantem, illum esse Joannem, quem decollaverat, etc. Illa vero multis exploditur etiam a Luciano, aliquot in locis, praesertim in Gallo. Ab ecclesiasticis vero scriptoribus post Irenaeum, coarguitur a Tertulliano in Apolog. et libro De anima ; Tatiano Orat. advers. gentes ; Clemente Alexandrino libro quarto Strom ; Origene libro primo Contra Celsum ; Lactantio libro III, capite 18, et libro VII, capite 23 ; Hieronymo Adversus Ruffinum ; Augustino libro X De civitate, capite 30 ; Cyrillo Alexandrino libro VII Contra Julianum, etc.

Furthermore, Lactantius credits this transmigration of souls to the Pythagoreans and the Stoics. Since they feared that argument of the Epicureans by which they concluded that it was necessary that souls perish with bodies because they are born with bodies, they said that souls are not born, but rather are insinuated into bodies, and migrate from these into others and others. Nicetas agrees with Lactantius in the first book of the Treasury of Orthodoxy, fourth chapter. There is also in Plato's Phaedo a manifest assertion of this. Justin Martyr in the Dialogue hands down that the Jews at length fell into this error. And not unjustly indeed; for in the Talmud, in the fourth order, second tractate, they affirm that the soul of Abel migrated into Seth, and this afterwards into Moses. Jerome also holds that those Jews who supposed Christ to be either Jeremiah, or Elijah, etc., were held fast by the same error, and so too Herod himself, thinking Him to be John, whom he had beheaded, etc. Moreover, that doctrine is rejected at length even by Lucian in several places, especially in The Cock. And by ecclesiastical writers after Irenaeus, it is refuted by Tertullian in the Apology and the book On the Soul; by Tatian in the Oration against the Greeks; by Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of the Stromata; by Origen in the first book Against Celsus; by Lactantius in Book 3, Chapter 18, and Book 7, Chapter 23; by Jerome Against Rufinus; by Augustine in Book 10 On the City of God, Chapter 30; by Cyril of Alexandria in Book 7 Against Julian, etc.

Fierent. Expunximus « erunt ; » et statim « uti, » pro « ut in » reposuimus auct. vet. cod.

Would become. We have expunged "will be;" and immediately after we have restored "that" in place of "that in" on the authority of the ancient codex.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 58.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on Chapter 58.

Pag. 167. Subvertamus ex eo, etc. Eodem argumento metempsychosin subvertit Clemens Alex. in Eclogis propheticis, § 17, scribens : Ἐχρῆν γὰρ καὶ εἰδέναι ἡμᾶς ὅπου ἦμεν, εἰ προῆμεν. « Nam scire quoque oportebat ubi eramus, si ante fuissemus. »

Page 167. We may overthrow from the fact that, etc. By the same argument Clement of Alexandria overthrows metempsychosis in the Prophetic Eclogues, § 17, writing: Ἐχρῆν γὰρ καὶ εἰδέναι ἡμᾶς ὅπου ἦμεν, εἰ προῆμεν. "For we ought also to have known where we were, if we had existed before."

Et maxime ad hoc venientes. Hoc comma ad proxime praecedentia non quadrat, ideoque referendum videtur ad illa : « uti ea, quae deerant, implerent, et non circa eadem semper volutantes continuatim, miserabiliter laborarent ; » ita ut intermedia, quasi in parenthesi posita, sint accipienda. Eo enim fine animas ad alia corpora venire docebant Carpocratiani, ut quod deest flagitii, ab ipsis ante non perpetratum, dehinc operarentur, sicque pensum suum plene absolverent.

And coming especially for this. This clause does not square with what immediately precedes, and therefore seems to be referable to those words: "that they might fulfil the things that were lacking, and not, always rolling about the same things continually, toil wretchedly;" so that the intervening words are to be taken as if placed in parenthesis. For the Carpocratians taught that souls come to other bodies for this end, that whatever outrage is lacking, not perpetrated by them before, they might henceforth work out, and thus fully complete their allotted task.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 59.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on Chapter 59.

Pag. 167. Ad haec. Caput 63 notat vet. cod. Quod vero asserit, Platonem primum induxisse μετεμψύχωσιν, parum convenit cum Epiphanio et Lactantio, qui Pythagoram, ante Platonem, eamdem asseruisse scribunt. Plutarchus hanc etiam Empedocli tribuit, tractat. secundo De esu carnium. Mercurium Trismegistum emigrationes hujusmodi poetico ritu descripsisse ; quin et Zoroastrum omnibus his antiquiorem, in libro cui titulus est, Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ Ζωροάστρου μάγων, illam ipsam docuisse, testis est Rhodiginus libro IX,

Page 167. Besides these things. The ancient codex marks Chapter 63. As for what he asserts, that Plato first introduced metempsychosis, it agrees little with Epiphanius and Lactantius, who write that Pythagoras asserted the same before Plato. Plutarch attributes this also to Empedocles, in the second tractate On the Eating of Flesh. That Mercury Trismegistus described migrations of this sort in poetic fashion, nay, that Zoroaster also, more ancient than all these, in the book whose title is Magical Oracles of the Magi from Zoroaster, taught that very thing, Rhodiginus is witness in Book 9,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1592

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: quoque sentit (top edge)› · call in col 1592

Com. in Matth.

Commentary on Matthew.

(printed under page 804)

(14) ‹anchor: cum Epiphanio› · call in col 1592

Contra hæres. 7.

Against Heresies 7.

(printed under page 804)

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1592
marginal letters: A Non est numerum; B concludebant, necesse esse; C et libro De anima;; D miserabiliter laborarent; »
old-edition numerals: 108 after opinabantur
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Non est numerum; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 58.; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 58.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 59.

PG 7:1593

cap. 21. Ergo vel apud Athenienses, vel recens excogitatis rationibus, Platonem primum eamdem invexisse, intellige. « Atheniensis » pro « adveniens » restituimus auctor. vet. cod.

Chapter 21. Understand, therefore, that Plato first brought in the same doctrine either among the Athenians, or by newly devised arguments. We have restored "Athenian" in place of "arriving" on the authority of the ancient codex.

Potantur oblivione. Platonicum hoc somnium acerrime post Irenaeum impugnant Tertullian. libro De anima, capit. adversus Platonis μαθήσεις καὶ ἀναμνήσεις ; Augustinus libro XII De Trinitate, cap. 15, et lib. I Retractation., capite 4, et libro VII De Genesi ad litt., cap. 9, 10, 11, et lib. X, cap. 4. Denique et Lactantius libro VII, cap. 22. Letheum porro fluvium vocant, quod ἡ λήθη oblivionem significet. Est enim, ut idem Plato censuit, τῆς μνήμης ἔξοδος. De eodem flumine canit Virgilius in VI Aeneidos : explicat vero ejusdem mythologiam Macrobius lib. I De somnio Scipionis.

Are given oblivion to drink. After Irenaeus, this Platonic dream is most sharply attacked by Tertullian in the book On the Soul, in the chapter against Plato's learnings and recollections; by Augustine in Book 12 On the Trinity, Chapter 15, and Book 1 of the Retractations, Chapter 4, and Book 7 On Genesis Literally, Chapters 9, 10, 11, and Book 10, Chapter 4; and finally by Lactantius in Book 7, Chapter 22. Moreover, they call the river Lethean because ἡ λήθη signifies "oblivion." For it is, as the same Plato held, τῆς μνήμης ἔξοδος ("the departure of memory"). Of the same river Virgil sings in the sixth book of the Aeneid, while Macrobius explains the mythology of the same in Book 1 On the Dream of Scipio.

Et latuit semetipsum. Graecismus, pro, « imprudens in alteram majorem difficultatem incidit. »

And escaped his own notice. A Graecism for "unawares he fell into another greater difficulty."

Si enim oblivionis poculum potata est. Alius rursum Graecismus, pro, « oblivionis poculo potata est. »

For if it has been given the cup of oblivion to drink. Again another Graecism for "has been given to drink with the cup of oblivion."

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 60.

Annotations of the same on Chapter 60.

Pag. 167. Adversus autem eos. Refellit eorum sententiam, qui volebant ipsum corpus humanum causam oblivionis esse : cum e contrario ejusdem organis ac ministeriis memoria sensilis potius nascatur et foveatur, prout etiam somnia rerum praeteritarum, quas oculorum, vel aurium beneficiis novimus, recordatio satis arguit. Denique, prophetae cum vere in corpore versarentur, coelestium visionum memores, aliis quoque patefecerunt. Non est ergo corpus nostrum praecisa rerum oblivio. Qui prolixam de memoria humana disputationem requirit, consulat August. libr. X Confess., a capite octavo usque ad vigesimum.

Page 167. But against those. He refutes the opinion of those who wished the human body itself to be the cause of oblivion, whereas on the contrary by its organs and ministries sensible memory is rather born and fostered, just as the remembrance even of dreams of past things, which we have known through the services of the eyes or ears, sufficiently proves. Finally, when the prophets truly dwelt in the body, mindful of heavenly visions, they made them known to others also. Our body, therefore, is not an absolute oblivion of things. Whoever seeks an extended disputation concerning human memory may consult Augustine, Book 10 of the Confessions, from the eighth to the twentieth chapter.

Sed simul. Duas has voces, « oculis auferretur, » quae nihil ad rem faciebant, veteris cod. auctoritate delevimus, ut sit apertior et planior lectio.

But at the same time. These two words, "would be taken away from the eyes," which contributed nothing to the matter, we have deleted on the authority of the ancient codex, so that the reading may be clearer and plainer.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 61.

Annotations of the same on Chapter 61.

Pag. 168. Non enim est fortius. Probat ab effectis animae, ipsam corpori dominari, habereque rationem artificis : ipsum autem organi. Hinc vero Cyrillus Jerosolymitanus animam sic describit : « Cognosce animam esse sui juris, seu voluntatis liberae, opus Dei pulcherrimum, secundum factoris imaginem immortale. » Et facta corporis altera descriptione subjicit : « Cum ergo non peccat per se corpus, sed per illud anima peccat ; instrumentum quoddam est animae corpus, et tanquam vestis et stola animae, » etc. Catech. 4.

Page 168. For it is not stronger. He proves from the effects of the soul that it rules over the body and has the character of an artisan, whereas the body itself has that of an instrument. Hence indeed Cyril of Jerusalem thus describes the soul: "Know that the soul is of its own right, or of free will, the fairest work of God, immortal according to the image of its Maker." And having made another description of the body, he adds: "Since therefore the body does not sin of itself, but the soul sins through it, the body is a kind of instrument of the soul, and as it were a garment and robe of the soul," etc., Catechesis 4.

Corpus enim. Initium est cap. 65 in vet. cod. Locum vero hunc illustrat similis Cypriani : « Corpore sic nititur anima, sicut faber malleo, vel incude, in qua format omnium turpitudinum idola, et fabricantur quaelibet quarumcunque voluptatum simulacra. » De hoc abundantius habes apud Augustinum XXIV De civit., cap. 3.

For the body. This is the beginning of Chapter 65 in the ancient codex. Now a similar passage of Cyprian illustrates this place: "The soul relies upon the body just as a smith upon a hammer or an anvil, on which he fashions idols of all basenesses, and any images whatever of all sorts of pleasures are forged." On this you have more abundantly in Augustine, Book 24 On the City of God, Chapter 3.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 62.

Annotations of the same on Chapter 62.

Pag. 168. Si itaque. Cap. 66 notat vet. cod. Transmigrationes porro animarum sensus evertit ex eo quod, quemadmodum unusquisque proprio corpore donatus est, sic et propria anima : ac in utroque resurgent omnes, ut recipiant, prout gesserunt, sive bonum, sive malum.

Page 168. If therefore. The ancient codex marks Chapter 66. Moreover, the sense overthrows transmigrations of souls from the fact that, just as each person is endowed with his own body, so also with his own soul; and in both all shall rise again, that they may receive according as they have done, whether good or evil.

Plenissime autem. Caput 67 habet vet. cod. Quae vero hic, et proxime sequenti cap. tradit, de charactere et figura animarum, quae jam corpora posuerunt, referenda sunt ad inclinationem eam, qua pronae sunt ad ea olim resumenda : nisi id sensisse quis voluerit, quod postea Tertullianus apertius dixit : Animam scilicet non omnino materiae et corporeae compositionis expertem esse, ideoque effigiem humanam ejus corporis, quod unaquaeque circumtulit, servare lineas corporales, coloremque aerium et lucidum ; libro De anima, capite de effigie

But most fully. The ancient codex has Chapter 67. Now what he hands down here and in the immediately following chapter concerning the character and figure of souls which have already laid aside their bodies must be referred to that inclination whereby they are disposed to resume them hereafter; unless someone should wish that he meant what Tertullian afterwards said more openly: namely, that the soul is not altogether devoid of matter and bodily composition, and therefore preserves the human likeness of that body which each carried about, the bodily outlines, and an aerial and luminous colour; in the book On the Soul, in the chapter on the likeness

Editors' notes and page, col. 1593

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in one line. The only call visible in the foot crops stands after "Cyrillus Jerosolymitanus animam sic describit" in col 1593 and reads as 15, although note 15's content fits the Cyprian quotation a few lines below ("Corpore sic nititur anima…", from De cardinalibus operibus Christi); the anchor is uncertain. Calls 16 and 17 are not visible. (printed under page 805)

(15) ‹anchor: sic describit (? or similis Cypriani)› · call in col 1593

Lib. de card. Christi op.

Book on the Cardinal Works of Christ (De cardinalibus operibus Christi).

(printed under page 805)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1593-1594 (not visible in foot images)

Sermone de mort.

In the Sermon on Mortality.

(printed under page 805)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1593-1594 (not visible in foot images)

Epist. 6.

Letter 6.

(printed under page 805)

Page

running head: 1593 IN LIB. II S. IRENAEI.
marginal letters: A cap. 21. Ergo vel; B sum Graecismus, pro,; C Pag. 168. Non enim; D Pag. 168. Si itaque.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cap. 21. Ergo vel; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 60.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 61.; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 62.; effi- split at column break

PG 7:1594

animae. Quod autem, ex narratione de Lazaro et divite, asserit spiritus hinc discedentes eorum meminisse, quae hic egerunt, et a quibus recesserunt, constans est Patrum sententia. Cyprianus tradit, magnum nos charorum numerum in coelis exspectare, parentum, fratrum, filiorum, copiosam turbam nos desiderare, de sua incolumitate securam, de nostra adhuc sollicitam. Augustinus viduam Italicam consolaturus, in coelo conjugem suum notissimum ei fore audet polliceri. Hieronymus hoc solatio adversus mortis duritiem et crudelissimam necessitatem nos erigi pie existimat, quod brevi visuri sumus eos, quos dolemus absentes ; epist. ad Theodoram.

of the soul. Moreover, what he asserts from the narrative concerning Lazarus and the rich man, that spirits departing hence remember the things that they did here and those from whom they have withdrawn, is the constant opinion of the Fathers. Cyprian hands down that a great number of our loved ones awaits us in heaven, that an abundant crowd of parents, brothers, and children longs for us, secure of their own safety, still solicitous for ours. Augustine, about to console the widow Italica, dares to promise that in heaven her husband will be thoroughly known to her. Jerome piously judges that we are cheered against the harshness and most cruel necessity of death by this solace, that we shall shortly see those whom we grieve for as absent; Epistle to Theodora.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 62.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on Chapter 62.

Pag. 168. Ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχάς. Nota, Irenaeum reprobis hominibus solam cum corpore animam tribuere, non spiritum. Qua de re lege lib. V, cap. 8.

Page 168. Having their own souls. Note that Irenaeus attributes to reprobate men only a soul with a body, not a spirit. On this matter read Book 5, Chapter 8.

In ea enarratione, quae scribitur de divite et Lazaro. Similiter Clemens Alexandrinus in Excerptis ex Theodoto et Orientali Valentinianorum Didascalia, pag. 792, col. 1, A : Ἀντικρὺς δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ πλουσίου διὰ τῶν σωματικῶν μελῶν σῶμα εἶναι δείκνυται ἡ ψυχή. Eodem argumento utitur quoque Tertullianus lib. De anima, cap. 7.

In that narrative which is written concerning the rich man and Lazarus. Similarly Clement of Alexandria in the Excerpts from Theodotus and the Eastern Teaching of the Valentinians, p. 792, col. 1, A: "And expressly from Lazarus and the rich man, through the bodily members, the soul is shown to be a body." Tertullian also uses the same argument in the book On the Soul, Chapter 7.

Ex adnotationibus Nicolai Gallasii in cap. 63.

From the annotations of Nicolas des Gallars on Chapter 63.

Pag. 168. Animas habere hominis figuram, ut etiam cognoscantur. Cum figuram tribuit animae Irenaeus, videtur etiam iis aliquid corporeum affingere. Nec enim figuram aut formam concipere possumus, nisi in iis quae sub aspectum cadunt. At spirituales creaturae a nobis non cernuntur, nec qualis sit earum figura, a nobis dici, aut cogitari potest. Habent quidem suam ut hypostasim atque essentiam, ita qualitates et accidentia. Sed de iis, ut de corporibus imaginari, aut eadem illis, quae corporibus tribuere, a ratione alienum et absurdum est. Expendamus ergo quid sibi velit Irenaeus. Propositum illi est ostendere unicuique homini propriam a Deo animam datam esse, ita ut etiam post mortem non minus distingui animae possint aliae ab aliis, propriisque et peculiaribus notis secerni solutae a corporibus, quam cum iis induta erant. Quod certe verum est. Nisi enim anima Judae discerneretur ab anima Petri, anima Lazari ab anima divitis epulonis, non dignosceretur diversa utriusque conditio. Si vero ex aliquo corpore decedens in aliud corpus migraret, ut fanatici illi asserebant, nihilo magis hujus, quam illius anima dici posset. Ergo decedens ex hac vita habebit proprium characterem, ita ut illius, cujus antea fuit, etiam postea esse sciatur. Quod igitur vocat Irenaeus eumdem characterem corporis, ne tamen putemus corporeum, sed ad totum hominem, hoc est, ad individuum ipsum, cujus charactere anima etiam post mortem insignietur, referamus.

Page 168. That souls have the figure of a man, so that they may also be recognized. When Irenaeus attributes a figure to the soul, he seems also to fashion something bodily for them. For we cannot conceive a figure or form except in those things which fall under sight. But spiritual creatures are not seen by us, nor can it be said or thought by us what sort their figure is. They have indeed both their own hypostasis and essence, and their qualities and accidents. But to imagine concerning them as concerning bodies, or to attribute to them the same things as to bodies, is foreign to reason and absurd. Let us therefore weigh what Irenaeus means. His purpose is to show that to each man his own soul has been given by God, so that even after death souls loosened from their bodies can no less be distinguished from one another, and separated by their own peculiar marks, than when they were clothed with them. Which is certainly true. For unless the soul of Judas were discerned from the soul of Peter, the soul of Lazarus from the soul of the rich feaster, the diverse condition of each would not be recognized. But if departing from some body it migrated into another body, as those fanatics asserted, it could no more be called the soul of this man than of that man. Therefore, departing from this life it will have its own character, so that it may be known even afterwards to belong to him whose it was before. What Irenaeus therefore calls the same character of the body, let us nevertheless not think to be bodily, but let us refer it to the whole man, that is, to the individual himself, with whose character the soul will be marked even after death.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 63.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on Chapter 63.

Pag. 168. Per haec enim. Brevissimum hoc caput plurima observatione dignissima ex superiori Lazari ac epulonis evangelica relatione comprehendit. Primum, animas de corporum humanorum ergastulis emigrantes non evanescere, sed in altero saeculo immortales perseverare, ut Abrahae, Lazari, ac epulonis, qui jam hic vivere desierant, certissimis exemplis demonstratur. Idem comprobat Justinus martyr in Dial. ex anima Samuelis, quae post suam e corpore migrationem cum Saule rege collocuta est. His addere potuissent Moysis ac Eliae spiritus in transfiguratione Domini ; insuper, Jeremiae ac Oniae animas, a Juda summo Judaeorum pontifice ac duce conspectas, innumerasque sanctis postea viris factas spirituum, postquam hinc discesserant, apparitiones ab Eusebio, Nysseno, Basilio, Metaphraste, Nicephoro, Theodoreto,

Page 168. For through these things. This very brief chapter comprises very many things most worthy of observation from the preceding evangelical account of Lazarus and the feaster. First, that souls departing from the prison-houses of human bodies do not vanish away, but persevere immortal in the other world, as is demonstrated by the most certain examples of Abraham, Lazarus, and the feaster, who had already ceased to live here. Justin Martyr proves the same thing in the Dialogue from the soul of Samuel, which after its departure from the body conversed with King Saul. To these could have been added the spirits of Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration of the Lord; moreover, the souls of Jeremiah and Onias, seen by Judas the high priest and leader of the Jews, and innumerable apparitions of spirits after they had departed hence, made afterwards to holy men, related by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Metaphrastes, Nicephorus, Theodoret,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1594

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: Cyprianus tradit› · call in col 1594

Sermone de mort.

In the Sermon on Mortality.

(printed under page 805)

(17) ‹anchor: Augustinus viduam› · call in col 1594

Epist. 6.

Epistle 6.

(printed under page 805)

Page

running head: IN LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1594
marginal letters: A gie animae. Quod autem,; B zaro. Similiter Clemens; C positum illi est; D Pag. 168. Per haec
old-edition numerals: 109 after epulonis
other: Latin, with Greek quoted (Ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχάς; Clement's Excerpta); editors' matter: gie animae. Quod autem,; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 62.; Ex adnotationibus Nicolai Gallasii in cap. 63.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 63.; gie broken from effi- in col. 1593

PG 7:1595

Ambrosio, Orosio, Hieronymo, Gregorio, Augustino, aliisque summis viris relatas : quibus animarum nostrarum immortalitas adversus veteres novosque Sadducaeos, Epicureos, et Satanicos animicidas constanter asseritur.

Ambrose, Orosius, Jerome, Gregory, Augustine, and other greatest men: by which the immortality of our souls is constantly asserted against the old and new Sadducees, Epicureans, and Satanic soul-slayers.

Novos appello Sadducaeos plurimos Lutheranos, qui cum in Lutheri commentariis legant : « Mortuos sic dormire, ut nihil prorsus sciant, nihil sentiant ; » vel Brentio illius commilitone teste : « tam inter pocula, quam sobrii in familiaribus colloquiis dicunt : Animam hominis simul cum corpore interire. » Novos appello Epicureos magnam Calvinianorum turbam, quae a Calvino et novis suis ministris quotidie audiens : « Beatos omnes spiritus esse mortuos, larvas, et umbras, quibuscum nobis nulla est communio ; » palam exclamant, etiam referente Calvino : « Dicamus animam cum corpore exstingui, et statim sublatum erit purgatorium, cum missa et Romano pontifice. » Novos animicidas appello, ex Lutheranis et Calvinianis tandem procreatos, Anabaptistas, qui anno Domini 1586 theses Cracoviae impressas per Poloniam vulgaverunt, quarum decima est : « Negamus aliquam animam post mortem manere ; sed illud dicimus excogitatum ab Antichristo, ad stabiliendam suam culinam per fictum purgatorium et invocationem sanctorum. » Quorum quoque unus minister Domanowski, publica cum P. societatis Poloniae habita disputatione 1589, mense Octobri, publice asseruit, « animam cum corpore interire : » alter Budnaeus nomine, de hac re interrogatus quid sentiret respondit : « Rem esse dubiam, et sub judice adhuc litem pendere. » Haec de Polonia sua refert Andreas Jurgiewicius, vir aeque diligens ac eruditus, in libello, cui nomen dedit, Bellum quinti evangelii, cap. 10. Hic, hic profecto jure omnium optimo exclamaret Polycarpus Irenaei nostri praeceptor : « O bone Deus, in quae me tempora servasti, ut ista patiar? » De his rursum libr. V, cap. 7. Sed ad notas meas redeo.

I call new Sadducees very many Lutherans, who, since they read in Luther's commentaries: "That the dead sleep in such a way that they know nothing at all, feel nothing;" or as Brenz his fellow-soldier witnesses: "both over their cups and sober in familiar conversations they say: The soul of man perishes together with the body." I call new Epicureans the great crowd of Calvinists, which, hearing daily from Calvin and his new ministers: "That all blessed spirits are dead, ghosts, and shades, with whom we have no communion;" openly exclaim, as Calvin himself also relates: "Let us say that the soul is extinguished with the body, and immediately purgatory will be done away with, along with the Mass and the Roman pontiff." I call new soul-slayers the Anabaptists, begotten at length from the Lutherans and Calvinists, who in the year of the Lord 1586 published throughout Poland theses printed at Kraków, the tenth of which is: "We deny that any soul remains after death; but we say that this was devised by Antichrist to establish his kitchen through a fictitious purgatory and the invocation of saints." One of their ministers also, Domanowski, in a public disputation held with a Father of the Society in Poland in 1589, in the month of October, publicly asserted "that the soul perishes with the body;" another, Budny by name, when asked what he thought about this matter, replied: "That the matter is doubtful, and the case is still pending before the judge." These things concerning his native Poland are reported by Andreas Jurgiewicius, a man equally diligent and learned, in the little book to which he gave the name War of the Fifth Gospel, Chapter 10. Here, here assuredly with the best right of all would Polycarp, the teacher of our Irenaeus, exclaim: "O good God, unto what times hast Thou kept me, that I should suffer these things?" On these matters again in Book 5, Chapter 7. But I return to my notes.

Secundum, quod notatu dignum existimo, est, animas hinc recedentes, non de corpore in corpus transire, seu hominum, seu brutorum, ut cum Pythagoricis et Platonicis senserunt Simoniani, Carpocratiani, et alii, de quibus hic disseritur, et paulo superius diximus.

The second thing which I think worthy of note is that souls departing hence do not pass from body to body, whether of men or of beasts, as the Simonians, Carpocratians, and others held along with the Pythagoreans and Platonists, concerning whom it is discussed here and we spoke a little above.

Tertium, animas corporibus exutas nominum retinere figuram : hoc est (quantum pie judico) instar hominum aliquando apparuisse ; sicque describi per Scripturas, ut in narratione Lazari ac epulonis, per anthropopathiam cum oculis, lingua et digitis figurantur : quanquam reipsa corporeis organis careant, tantumque spiritalibus facultatibus suis ad videndum et audiendum, id est intelligendum, utantur.

The third, that souls stripped of bodies retain the figure of men: that is (so far as I piously judge), that they have sometimes appeared after the likeness of men; and are thus described through the Scriptures, as in the narrative of Lazarus and the feaster they are figured by anthropopathy with eyes, tongue, and fingers: although in reality they lack bodily organs, and use only their spiritual faculties for seeing and hearing, that is, understanding.

Quartum, hujusmodi animas in alio saeculo se invicem nosse ac discernere, ut epulonis anima eas novit, quae fuerant Abrahae et Lazari, et vicissim ab Abrahami spiritu cognita fuit. De hoc diximus ad finem superioris capitis.

The fourth, that souls of this sort in the other world know and discern one another, as the soul of the feaster knew those which had been Abraham's and Lazarus's, and in turn was recognized by the spirit of Abraham. Of this we spoke at the end of the preceding chapter.

Quintum, easdem meminisse, atque sic probe nosse, quae hic geruntur : atque hoc satis indicasse spiritum Abrahae, referentem epulonem in superiori vita recepisse bona, Lazarum vero mala, id est adversa : insuper, divitis fratres habere Moysem et prophetas : eumdem praeterea epulonem fratrum suorum memorem, et quodam, vel commodi, vel naturae affectu, pro eis intercedentem, ne secum venirent in locum tormentorum : insuper, propheticum donum inesse Abrahae, asserenti, nec pios ad damnatorum sortem, nec reprobos in locum consolationis unquam venturos.

The fifth, that the same remember, and thus know well, the things that are done here: and that the spirit of Abraham sufficiently indicated this when recounting that the feaster in his former life received good things, but Lazarus evil things, that is, adverse things; moreover, that the rich man's brothers have Moses and the prophets; besides, that the same feaster was mindful of his brothers, and by a certain affection either of advantage or of nature interceded for them, lest they should come with him into the place of torments; moreover, that the prophetic gift was in Abraham, asserting that neither would the pious ever come to the lot of the damned, nor the reprobate into the place of consolation.

Postremum, animas etiam ante postremum diem, dignam operibus suis, aut felicitatis, aut miseriae

Last, that souls even before the last day receive a habitation of eternal happiness or misery worthy of their works,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1595

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek); the footnotes run across the page foot in two lines. No calls are visible in the foot crops. Numerals are small; 23 and 24 are read from the sequence. (printed under page 806)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

In cap. VI Ecclesiastes.

On chapter 6 of Ecclesiastes.

(printed under page 806)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

In c. XX Luc.

On chapter 20 of Luke.

(printed under page 806)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. III Instit.

Book III of the Institutes.

(printed under page 806)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

Lib. adv. Valent. Gent.

Book against Valentinus Gentilis.

(printed under page 806)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

Orat. contra gentes.

Oration against the Gentiles.

(printed under page 806)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

I Tim. VI, 16.

1 Timothy 6:16.

(printed under page 806)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1595-1596 (not visible in foot images)

Matth. XXIV, 15.

Matthew 24:15.

(printed under page 806)

Page

running head: 1595 VARIORUM NOTAE
marginal letters: A Ambrosio, Orosio, Hieronymo,; B tandem procreatos, Anabaptistas,; C patiar? » De his; D ab Abrahami spiritu
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Ambrosio, Orosio, Hieronymo,

PG 7:1596

sempiternae habitationem percipere, quando semel hinc discesserint. Quae omnia certe hominis Christiani, praesertim theologi, consideratione digna esse nemo negabit.

once they have departed hence. All of which things certainly no one will deny to be worthy of the consideration of a Christian man, especially a theologian.

Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 64.

Annotations of the same on Chapter 64.

Pag. 168. Si qui autem. Caput 68 notat cod. vet. Nihil vero absurdi habet, quod toto capite contendit animam rationalem beneficio Dei perdurare, vitamque ex sese non habere : quandoquidem ut ejus essentia, sic et jugis immortalitas a divina voluntate perpetuo dependet, quae ut eam ex nihilo produxit, sic et in nihil redigere valeret, si opportunum videretur : atque hoc sensu interpretandas esse Tatiani et Arnobii toto sexto libro Adversus gentes, sparsas ea de re sententias existimo.

Page 168. But if any. The ancient codex marks Chapter 68. Now it contains nothing absurd that throughout the whole chapter he maintains that the rational soul endures by the kindness of God and does not have life of itself: since, just as its essence, so also its continual immortality perpetually depends upon the divine will, which, as it produced it out of nothing, would likewise have the power to reduce it to nothing if it seemed opportune; and in this sense I judge that the statements scattered on this matter by Tatian and by Arnobius throughout the whole sixth book Against the Heathen are to be interpreted.

Pag. 169. Solus est Deus. His primum docet, Deum esse prorsus immutabilem ; deinde, hoc adeo illi proprium esse, ut nulli omnino rei creatae conveniat : quod et Augustinus comprobat ex eo, quod de Deo scribat Apostolus : « Qui solus habet immortalitatem ; » id est immutabilitatem (Lib. I De Trinit., cap. 1, et lib. III Contra Maximinum, cap. 12).

Page 169. God alone is. By these words he first teaches that God is altogether immutable; next, that this is so proper to Him that it belongs to no created thing at all: which Augustine also proves from the fact that the Apostle writes concerning God: "Who alone has immortality;" that is, immutability (Book 1 On the Trinity, Chapter 1, and Book 3 Against Maximinus, Chapter 12).

Perseverantiam. Billius notat perseverantiam hic accipi pro permanentia et perennitate : et non ut in illo Evangelii loco : « Qui perseveraverit usque in finem, » etc.

Perseverance. Billy notes that perseverance is here taken for permanence and perpetuity, and not as in that passage of the Gospel: "He who shall persevere unto the end," etc.

Participatur. Expunximus « participavit : » deinde « capiunt animae, » pro « capit et animas, » reposuimus auct. vet. cod.

Is participated in. We have expunged "participated;" then we have restored "souls receive" in place of "receives also souls" on the authority of the ancient codex.

Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 64.

From the annotations of Jo. Ern. Grabe on Chapter 64.

Pag. 169. Ut sint. Id est, ut exsistant atque durent per aliquod tempus, sicut ex antecedentibus et consequentibus patet.

Page 169. That they may be. That is, that they may exist and endure for some time, as is clear from what precedes and what follows.

Si in modico fideles, etc. Haec verba tanquam ipsius Servatoris, ab Irenaeo prolata, in nostris Evangeliis ita non leguntur ; referuntur tamen eodem fere modo ab auctore epist. 2, S. Clementi Romano vulgo ascriptae, ubi Graeca ita sonant : Λέγει γὰρ Κύριος ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ· Εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει ; λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ, καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν. Ex Evangelio autem secundum Aegyptios ea deprompta conjicio, quia alia quoque inde allegavit illius epistolae, vel homiliae Clementinae auctor, de quibus vide Spicilegium Patrum saeculi I, pag. 35. Accedit quod istis gemina habeantur in Evangelio S. Lucae, cap. XVI, 10 seq. Atque hoc illi secundum Aegyptios hinc inde consonare nihil est mirum, si vera sunt quae in dicto Spicilegio, pag. 32 seqq. dixi. Nolui tamen ibidem haec verba, una cum aliis inter fragmenta Evangelii secundum Aegyptios referre, quod res incerta sit, ac fieri potuerit, ut ex ipsius S. Lucae codice paulisper mutato pseudo-Clemens pariter ac Irenaeus illa citaverit. Unde et Lucae XVI, 11, supra signare placuit.

If faithful in a little, etc. These words, brought forward by Irenaeus as those of the Saviour Himself, are not read thus in our Gospels; yet they are reported in almost the same way by the author of the Second Epistle commonly ascribed to St. Clement of Rome, where the Greek runs thus: Λέγει γὰρ Κύριος ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ· Εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει ; λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ, καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν ("For the Lord says in the Gospel: If you did not keep that which is small, who will give you that which is great? For I say to you that he who is faithful in very little is faithful also in much"). Now I conjecture that they were drawn from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, because the author of that Clementine epistle or homily alleged other things also from there, concerning which see the Spicilegium of the Fathers of the First Century, p. 35. Add to this that twin sayings to these are found in the Gospel of St. Luke, (Luke 16:10) ff. And that the Gospel according to the Egyptians agrees here and there with this is no wonder, if the things that I said in the aforesaid Spicilegium, p. 32 ff., are true. Nevertheless, I did not wish to include these words there along with others among the fragments of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, because the matter is uncertain, and it could have happened that pseudo-Clement as well as Irenaeus cited them from the codex of St. Luke itself slightly altered. Whence also it pleased me to mark (Luke 16:11) above.

Anima ipsa quidem non est vita, etc. Haec descripsisse videtur e Justini M. Dial. cum Tryph., p. 224, ubi de anima ait : Οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς. Ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ Θεὸς βούλεται. « Anima non quod vita sit, vivit ; sed quod vitae particeps sit. Aliud vero est, quod participat quidquam, ab eo unde participat. Vitam vero anima participat, quoadusque eam Deus vult vivere. »

The soul itself indeed is not life, etc. He seems to have copied these things from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, p. 224, where he says concerning the soul: Οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς. Ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ Θεὸς βούλεται. "The soul lives, not because it is life, but because it is a partaker of life. Now that which partakes of anything is something other than that of which it partakes, since God wills it to live."

Propheticus sermo. Iterum imitatur Justini M. phrasin Apol. 2, p. 93 : Διὰ Μωϋσέως προεμήνυσε τὸ προφητικὸν πνευμα.

The prophetic word. Again he imitates the phrasing of Justin Martyr, Second Apology, p. 93: Διὰ Μωϋσέως προεμήνυσε τὸ προφητικὸν πνευμα ("Through Moses the prophetic Spirit foretold").

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 65.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on Chapter 65.

Pag. 169. Basilides. Caput 79 notat vet. cod. Quae vero hic refelluntur, descripserat lib. I, cap. 25, et lib. II, cap. 21. Nimirum, ex deflexu primi coeli nasci secundum ; et secundi, tertium ; et

Page 169. Basilides. The ancient codex marks Chapter 79. Now the things that are here refuted he had described in Book 1, Chapter 25, and Book 2, Chapter 21: namely, that from the declination of the first heaven is born the second; and from that of the second, the third; and

Editors' notes and page, col. 1596

Page

running head: VARIORUM NOTAE 1596
marginal letters: A sempiternae habitationem percipere,; B veniat : quod et; C dem fere modo; D psisse videtur e
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sempiternae habitationem percipere,; Ejusdem adnotationes in cap. 64.; Ex Jo. Ern. Grabii adnotationibus in cap. 64.; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 65.

PG 7:1597

tertii, quartum ; sicque consequenter. Nam ita pergeretur in infinitum, quod manifeste absurdum et insanum est. Restituimus porro ex vet. cod. « secundi, » pro « secundum : » et « aliud, » pro « illud. » De Basilidis impietatibus lege Eusebium lib. IV Hist., cap. 7 ; Clementem Alexandr. lib. III et IV Strom. ; Tertull. lib. Praes. ; Iren. lib. I, cap. 23 ; Ignatium, Epist. ad Trallianos.

from that of the third, the fourth; and so on consequently. For thus one would proceed to infinity, which is manifestly absurd and insane. Moreover, from the ancient codex we have restored "of the second" in place of "the second;" and "another" in place of "that." Concerning the impieties of Basilides read Eusebius, Book 4 of the History, Chapter 7; Clement of Alexandria, Books 3 and 4 of the Stromata; Tertullian, the book On Prescription; Irenaeus, Book 1, Chapter 23; Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians.

Ex adnotationibus Nic. Gallasii in cap. 66.

From the annotations of Nicolas des Gallars on Chapter 66.

Pag. 174. Eloae secundum vocem Judaicam. Aperta est hujus vocis significatio. Sed in aliis divinatione utendum fuit. Qua in re usus sum judicio doctissimi viri, et in his linguis valde exercitati, B. B. Cornelii professoris linguae Hebraicae in ista academia Genevensi. Mihi certe videtur Irenaeus Judaicam linguam accipere pro genuina illa et incorrupta Hebraea qua Vetus Testamentum scriptum est : nam et ita vocatur ab Ezra, Nehem. XIII, 24, et Isa. XXXVI, 11 et 13. Hebraicam vero, ut passim apud evangelistas, pro vulgari, qua populus utebatur, quae Chaldaica, seu Syriaca primum fuit, sed postea Jerosolymitana dicta est, cum aliae linguae, Syra, Arabica, Persica, Graeca et Latina illi permistae fuerunt. Quod igitur attinet ad alteram expositionem vocis « Eloae, » quam ille Hebraicam vocat, vix certe adhuc bene constat apud grammaticos Hebraeos de etymo nominis אלה. Nec vero procul petitum erit, si illud derivemus ab אלה, quod est « dejeravit, » interposita videlicet imprecatione. Nam antiquitus ita usurpabatur nomen Dei in concipiendo jurejurando, ut etiam illa formula prae aliis fuerit usitata : « Hoc mihi Deus faciat, et addat. » Atque ex hoc usu, qui etiam lege praescriptus erat, hoc nomen ita dictum fuisse videri possit. אולי certe apud Hebraeos dictio est consignificativa, quae affirmanti tribuitur, sed dubitanti, et sonat fortasse, אולם, id est « profecto, omnino : » affirmat. Hinc fieri potuit, ut vel haeretici in nominibus mysteria et res perscrutantes, vel etiam Judaei ipsi sub posteriora tempora, quibus jam vigebat dialectus Jerosolymitana, nomen « Eloae » pro « vero » sumpserint, quod Deus sit verax, et acerrimus vindex veritatis.

Page 174. Eloae according to the Jewish expression. The signification of this word is plain. But in the others guesswork had to be used. In this matter I have made use of the judgement of a most learned man, and one very practiced in these languages, B. B. Corneille, professor of the Hebrew language in this Academy of Geneva. To me certainly Irenaeus seems to take the Jewish language for that genuine and uncorrupted Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written: for so too it is called by Ezra, (Neh. 13:24), and (Isa. 36:11, 13); whereas he takes the Hebrew, as everywhere in the evangelists, for the vernacular which the people used, which at first was Chaldaic or Syriac, but afterwards was called Jerusalemite, when other languages, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Greek, and Latin, were mingled with it. As far, therefore, as concerns the second exposition of the word "Eloae," which he calls Hebrew, there is certainly scarcely any good agreement as yet among Hebrew grammarians concerning the etymology of the noun אלה. Yet it will not be far-fetched if we derive it from אלה, which is "he swore solemnly," namely with an imprecation interposed. For in antiquity the name of God was so employed in framing an oath that even that formula was customary above others: "May God do so to me, and more also." And from this usage, which was also prescribed by the law, this name might seem to have been so called. אולי certainly among the Hebrews is a consignificative particle which is attributed to one affirming, yet doubting, and means "perhaps," whereas אולם, that is, "assuredly, altogether," affirms. Hence it could have happened that either the heretics, searching out mysteries and realities in names, or even the Jews themselves in later times, when the Jerusalemite dialect already flourished, took the name "Eloae" for "true," because God is true and the keenest avenger of truth.

« Elloeuth, » ut habeat significationem, quae hic designatur, explicandum est ex Arabum idiomate. Nisi quis malit nomen divinum apud illos אללה esse ab Hebraeo אלה. Potest autem compositum dici ex articulo Arabico « al, » quod est « ὁ, » et ex pronomine « lah, » id est « ei ; » quasi sit « cujus, » subaudi « sunt omnia, » ut etiam ipsi Septuaginta legentes apud Moysem Gen. XLIX, 10, pro שילה, « fetus ejus, » שלו, « cujus, » idem ferme subaudierunt. Nam habent ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα, « ille cui reposita sunt » (omnia). Nisi malis dicere, eos ita ex vulgari Dei attributo designare voluisse Christum Deum futurum. Huc etiam pertinere videtur quod Deut. XXXIII, 27, Deus vocatur מעונה « Mehonah, » et מעון aliquot locis in Psalmis, id est « habitatio, » et apud rabbinos המקום, id est « locus, » quod, ut interpretantur Hebraei, ipse omnia, ut locus, complectatur, et omnem locum impleat, a nullo vero contineatur.

"Elloeuth," in order that it may have the signification which is designated here, must be explained from the idiom of the Arabs; unless someone prefers that the divine name אללה among them is from the Hebrew אלה. Now it can be said to be compounded from the Arabic article "al," which is ὁ ("the"), and from the pronoun "lah," that is, "to him;" as if it were "whose," supply "are all things," just as the Septuagint themselves, reading in Moses, (Gen. 49:10), in place of שילה, "his offspring," שלו, "whose," supplied almost the same thing. For they have ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα, "he for whom are laid up" (all things). Unless you prefer to say that from a common attribute of God they wished thus to designate that Christ would be God. To this also seems to pertain the fact that in (Deut. 33:27), God is called מעונה "Mehonah," and מעון in several places in the Psalms, that is, "habitation," and among the rabbis המקום, that is, "place," because, as the Hebrews interpret, He Himself, like a place, embraces all things and fills every place, but is contained by none.

« Adonae » vocat « nominabile, » quod substituatur ab Hebraeis loco nominis « Jehova, » quod non solent nominare. Quod addit etiam exponi posse « admirabile, » ex eo forsitan ortum est, quod dicitur ab angelo Jud. XIII, 18 : « Cur quaeris nomen meum, quod est admirabile ? »

"Adonae" he calls "nameable," because it is substituted by the Hebrews in place of the name "Jehova," which they are not accustomed to utter. What he adds, that it can also be expounded "wonderful," perhaps arose from what is said by the angel in (Judg. 13:18): "Why do you ask my name, which is wonderful?"

« Addonei » vero, quo « praefinientem » significari dicit, videri possit deduci a דון « Don, » quod significat « decernere, dirimere litem, » aut « determinare : » et componi cum nomine Dei, qui

And "Addonei," by which he says "predefining" is signified, might seem to be derived from דון "Don," which signifies "to decree, to decide a dispute," or "to determine;" and to be compounded with the name of God, Who

Editors' notes and page, col. 1597

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek). One footnote, printed at the foot of col 1597; its call is in col 1598. (printed under page 807)

Page

running head: 1597 IN LIB. II S. IRENAEI.
marginal letters: A tertii, quartum ; sicque; B batur, quae Chaldaica,; C retici in nominibus; D quod Deut. XXXIII, 27,
old-edition numerals: 110 after de
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tertii, quartum ; sicque; Ex adnotationibus Nic. Gallasii in cap. 66.

PG 7:1598

omnia statuit, dirimit, separat, et dirigit in ordinem. Sed cum agatur de aqua disterminanda a terris, videri etiam possunt auctores istius interpretationis allusisse ad illud Jobi XXXVIII, 6 : « Super quod » אדניה, id est « bases ejus defixae sunt : » ita ut Deum auctorem harum basium, disterminantium terram ab aquis, אדוני « Adonai, » dictum accipiant ab אדן id est « basis. »

establishes, decides, separates, and directs all things into order. But since it is a question of bounding off the water from the lands, the authors of this interpretation can also seem to have alluded to that passage of (Job 38:6): "Upon what" אדניה, that is, "have its bases been fastened:" so that they take God, the author of these bases bounding off the earth from the waters, to be called אדוני "Adonai" from אדן, that is, "base."

« Sabaoth » per ω. Cum nullum sit ω apud Hebraeos, oportet intelligi cholem plenum quod respondet ei pronuntiationi. Ut autem « Sabaoth voluntarium » significet, necesse est deduci non a צבא, sed a צבה, id est « percupivit. » Quae radix in ipso primitivo Chaldaeis usitatissima est in hac significatione ; Hebraeis autem in ipsis derivatis.

"Sabaoth" with ω. Since there is no ω among the Hebrews, one must understand full holem, which corresponds to that pronunciation. Moreover, in order that "Sabaoth" may signify "voluntary," it must be derived not from צבא, but from צבה, that is, "he eagerly desired." Which root in the primitive itself is most customary among the Chaldeans in this signification, and among the Hebrews in the derivatives themselves.

« Sabaoth, primum coelum. » Certe hoc nomen pro coelo nusquam reperitur. Sed quia insignis ille et illustris ordo stellarum exercitus vocatur in Scripturis, et militia coeli, ideo coelum, in quo numerus ille infinitus stellarum, praeclaro ordine, ut in exercitu, locatus est, « Sabaoth, » id est « exercitum » vocatum esse verisimile est. Primum autem coelum vocat, non nostri respectu, ut astrologi, quoniam alii coeli sunt nobis propinquiores : sed summum, a quo reliqui omnes altitudine et magnitudine superantur.

"Sabaoth, the first heaven." Certainly this noun is nowhere found for heaven. But because that distinguished and illustrious order of the stars is called an army in the Scriptures, and the host of heaven, therefore it is likely that the heaven in which that infinite number of stars is placed in noble order, as in an army, was called "Sabaoth," that is, "army." Now he calls it the first heaven, not with respect to us, as the astronomers do, since other heavens are nearer to us, but the highest, by which all the rest are surpassed in height and magnitude.

« Jaoth » primum, simplex dici potest, ita ut sit a Chaldaico יאות, vel יאות, id est « congruentia, decentia, decorum, » seu modus bene observatus, ut fuerat praescriptus : et, ut adverbialiter aliquando sumitur, « optime, et ex modo praescripto. » Compositum etiam dici potest ex יאה, « congruens, » et אות, id est « signum, » quasi sit signum convenienter praescriptum. Ut autem significet « fugam malorum, » oportet deduci a יעה, quod significat « mundare, purgare, quod malum et noxium est tollere. »

"Jaoth" first can be called simple, so that it is from the Chaldaic יאות, or יאות, that is, "congruity, decency, comeliness," or a measure well observed, as it had been prescribed; and, as it is sometimes taken adverbially, "best, and according to the prescribed measure." It can also be called compounded from יאה, "congruous," and אות, that is, "sign," as if it were a fittingly prescribed sign. Moreover, in order that it may signify "flight of evils," it must be derived from יעה, which signifies "to cleanse, to purge, to take away what is evil and harmful."

Haec sunt, quae solertis et periti illius viri perspicacia adjutus, de his nominibus conjicere potui : quae nisi pio lectori satisfaciant, solertiam tamen ipsius ad rem indagandam nonnihil excitabunt. Quanquam sufficit praecipuum auctoris tenere scopum, qui demonstrat diversis unius Dei nominibus diversos tamen deos non notari.

These are the things that, aided by the perspicacity of that skilful and learned man, I have been able to conjecture concerning these names: which, even if they do not satisfy the pious reader, will nevertheless stir up his own ingenuity somewhat to investigate the matter. Although it suffices to hold fast the chief aim of the author, who demonstrates that by diverse names of the one God diverse gods are nevertheless not denoted.

Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 66.

Annotations of Fr. Feuardent on Chapter 66.

Pag. 170. Et reliqui. Vet. cod. cap. 70 habet ; confutat vero, quae recensuerat libro primo, capit. 22, 23 et 34. Ostendit autem veteres prophetas ab uno eodemque Deo afflatos et missos fuisse ; nec propter varia illius nomina, seu Hebraica, seu Graeca sint, plures deos confingendos esse. Caeterum, quia Nicetas Choniates hoc Irenaei caput brevioribus et apertioribus verbis expressit, ea subjicio : « Quoniam vecordes illi, nominum divinorum interpretationem ignorantes, Adonai, Eloi et Sabaoth diversos esse deos arbitrati sunt, operae pretium mihi facturus video, si rudibus et ignaris aperiam, quid hoc nominum unumquodque Graecis et Latinis auribus sonet. Eloth itaque Θεόν, Deum interpretantur ; Eloi autem, ὁ Θεός μου, Deus meus ; El quoque si tenui spiritu proferatur, Θεὸν, Deum ; si aspero, ἰσχυρὸν, fortem significat ; Adonai autem Κύριον, Dominum. Caeterum, Dominum Sabaoth, idem sonat quod Κύριος δυνάμεων, Dominus virtutum ; vel Κύριος στρατιῶν, Dominus exercituum ; Saddai porro ἱκανὸν καὶ δυνατὸν, idoneum et potentem. Aia vero τὸν ὄντα, eum qui est, significat ; quod nomen ineffabile quoque ab Hebraeis censebatur. »

Page 170. And the rest. The ancient codex has Chapter 70; now he refutes the things that he had recounted in the first book, Chapters 22, 23, and 34. And he shows that the ancient prophets were inspired and sent by one and the same God; and that on account of His various names, whether they be Hebrew or Greek, several gods are not to be fashioned. For the rest, because Nicetas Choniates expressed this chapter of Irenaeus in briefer and clearer words, I subjoin them: "Since those senseless men, ignorant of the interpretation of the divine names, supposed Adonai, Eloi, and Sabaoth to be diverse gods, I see that I shall do something worthwhile if I lay open to the unlearned and ignorant what each one of these names sounds to Greek and Latin ears. Eloth, therefore, they interpret Θεόν, God; Eloi, ὁ Θεός μου, my God; El also, if uttered with a smooth breathing, signifies Θεὸν, God, and if with a rough breathing, ἰσχυρὸν, strong; and Adonai, Κύριον, Lord. Moreover, Lord Sabaoth means the same as Κύριος δυνάμεων, Lord of powers, or Κύριος στρατιῶν, Lord of hosts; Saddai, furthermore, ἱκανὸν καὶ δυνατὸν, sufficient and mighty. And Aia signifies τὸν ὄντα, Him Who is; which name was also accounted ineffable by the Hebrews."

Demonstrabimus. Delevimus « demonstravimus » auct. vet. cod.

We shall demonstrate. We have deleted "we have demonstrated" on the authority of the ancient codex.

Si autem quidam. Caput 71 et ultimum signat vet. cod. Vaticanus cod. paulo post legit, « diversae dictionis positas. »

But if some. The ancient codex marks Chapter 71 and last. The Vatican codex reads a little after, "placed of diverse expression."

Quod enim dicitur Eloae secundum Judaicam vocem.

For what is called Eloae according to the Jewish expression.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1598

Footnotes

(25) ‹anchor: verbis expressit› · call in col 1598

Lib. II Orthodoxiæ, c. 15.

Book II of the Orthodoxy (Thesaurus of Orthodoxy), chapter 15.

(printed under page 807)

Page

running head: IN LIB. II S. IRENAEI. 1598
marginal letters: A omnia statuit, dirimit,; B merus ille infinitus; C quae nisi pio; D interpretantur ; Eloi autem,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: omnia statuit, dirimit,; Adnotationes Fr. Feuardentii in cap. 66.; vo- split at column break

PG 7:1599

Judaicam vocem hic mihi accipere videtur Irenaeus pro germana illa et incorrupta lingua, qua Vetus Testamentum scriptum fuit ; quandoquidem ita vocatur Isaiae XXXVI, IV Reg. XVIII, et Nehemiae paulo supra, et non ita multum post, Hebraicam linguam nominat, quando de « Eloae » loquitur. Caeterum אלה « Eloah, » sive Chaldaice אלהא « Elaha, » inter decem Dei nomina, tertium ordine collocat D. Hieronymus, Deumque significat, et per metathesim litterarum in cabala idem est quod אהל « Ohel, » id est tabernaculum : dicuntque secretiores, nomen Eloha eodem modo se habere ad nomen tetragrammaton יהוה, quod est nomen essentiae, sicut se habet luna ad solem.

Here Irenaeus seems to me to take the Jewish expression for that genuine and uncorrupted language in which the Old Testament was written; since it is so called in (Isa. 36), (2 Kgs. 18), and Nehemiah a little above, and not so much later he names the Hebrew language when he speaks of "Eloae." For the rest, St. Jerome places אלה "Eloah," or in Chaldaic אלהא "Elaha," third in order among the ten names of God, and it signifies God, and by metathesis of the letters in the Cabala it is the same as אהל "Ohel," that is, tabernacle: and the more esoteric teachers say that the name Eloha stands in the same relation to the tetragrammaton name יהוה, which is the name of essence, as the moon stands to the sun.

Et Eloae Verum. אלהי « Elohae » idem quod « Eloha. » Fieri autem potuit, ut nomen « Elohae, » pro « Vero » sumpserit, quod Deus sit verax et tam severus veritatis vindex, ut Veritas frequenter in sacris nominetur. Aut certe ad vocem affirmantem אולם quae « profecto, omnino, » significat, alludere voluit.

And Eloae, True. אלהי "Elohae" is the same as "Eloha." Now it could have happened that he took the name "Elohae" for "True," because God is true and so strict an avenger of truth that He is frequently named Truth in sacred Scripture. Or certainly he wished to allude to the affirmative word אולם, which signifies "assuredly, altogether."

Et Elloeuth. אלהות « Elohut, » sive אלהות « Elahut, » rabbinis et Chaldaeis commune est, et significat proprie numen seu divinitatem. Ut autem habeat significationem, quae hic designatur, fortasse desumetur ex Arabico articulo « Al, » id est ὁ, et pronomine « Lah » id est « ei : » quasi sit, « ille cujus, » subaudi, « sunt omnia. »

And Elloeuth. אלהות "Elohut," or אלהות "Elahut," is common to the rabbis and the Chaldeans, and properly signifies deity or divinity. Moreover, in order that it may have the signification which is designated here, perhaps it will be taken from the Arabic article "Al," that is, ὁ ("the"), and the pronoun "Lah," that is, "to him:" as if it were, "he whose," supply, "are all things."

Quod autem ait Adonai. אדוני « Adonai, » cui septimum locum inter divina nomina tribuit D. Hieronymus, significat « dominos meos : » a singulari אדון « Adon, » id est « dominus, herus. » Asserit autem, illud significare « nominabile, » fortassis quod ab Hebraeis substituatur loco nominis « Jehova, » quod non solent nominare : et « mirabile, » quia angelus divinam majestatem referens dixerit, Jud. XIII, 18 : « Cur quaeris nomen meum quod est mirabile ? »

And what he calls Adonai. אדוני "Adonai," to which St. Jerome assigns the seventh place among the divine names, signifies "my lords:" from the singular אדון "Adon," that is, "lord, master." Now he asserts that it signifies "nameable," perhaps because it is substituted by the Hebrews in place of the name "Jehova," which they are not accustomed to utter: and "wonderful," because the angel representing the divine majesty said, (Judg. 13:18): "Why do you ask my name, which is wonderful?"

Aliquando autem duplicata littera delta. « Addonai, » quo « praefinientem » significari dicit, forsan a דון Ddon, quod est judicare, et lites judicio dirimere ; et cum nomine Dei componit : quod ipse cunctis elementis et speciebus rerum creatarum locum, ordinemque praefinierit, constituerit et decreverit.

And sometimes with the letter delta doubled. "Addonai," by which he says "predefining" is signified, is perhaps from דון Ddon, which is to judge, and to decide disputes by judgement; and he compounds it with the name of God: because He Himself predefined, established, and decreed the place and order for all the elements and species of created things.

Ne possit aqua insurgere in eam. Ita hunc locum emendavimus, id sensu postulante : expunximus autem « nec postea quam, » quod erat in omnibus tam impressis quam manuscriptis, etiam Vaticanis codicibus. Sic et superiori linea pro « perfinientem, praefinientem » reposuimus.

Lest the water be able to rise up against it. Thus we have emended this passage, the sense demanding it: and we have expunged "nor after which," which was in all the codices, both printed and manuscript, even the Vatican ones. So too in the line above we have restored "predefining" in place of "thoroughly defining."

Sabaωth, per ω. Hoc quartum inter nomina Dei Hieronymus enumerat : intelligit autem Irenaeus vau cholem, per ω, quod pronuntiatio similis sit utriusque. Notum est vero vel mediocriter in lingua sancta versatis, nomen צבאות « Tshebaoth »

Sabaωth, with ω. Jerome enumerates this fourth among the names of God: now Irenaeus understands vav holem by ω, because the pronunciation of both is similar. And it is known even to those moderately versed in the sacred tongue that the noun צבאות "Tshebaoth"

plurale esse, a singulari צבא quod « exercitum, virtutem, militiam, cuneum militum » significat. Deduxit autem Irenaeus a radice צבה, quae maxime Syriace, significat « velle, desiderare ; » unde verbale Hebraicum צבי « desiderium, voluntas ; » quin et lingua Chaldaica, sive Syra « Zeva » et « Zove » significant « bene placere et gratum esse. »

is plural, from the singular צבא, which signifies "army, host, soldiery, wedge of soldiers." Now Irenaeus derived it from the root צבה, which, especially in Syriac, signifies "to will, to desire;" whence the Hebrew verbal noun צבי, "desire, will;" nay, in the Chaldaic or Syriac language also "Zeva" and "Zove" signify "to please well and to be acceptable."

Ut puta. Expunximus « ut a, » auctoritate vet. cod.

As for instance. We have expunged "as from" on the authority of the ancient codex.

Primum coelum manifestat. Quia insignis ille et concinnus ordo planetarum, stellarum et coelestium orbium per ordines suos dispositus, solisque, instar regis, splendore illustratus, exercitus et militia dicitur in sacris Litteris, Deut. XVII ; IV Reg. XVII ; Nehemiae IX ; Isa. XXIV et XXXIV ; Jer. XIX ; Sophon. I ; ideo firmamentum, in quo praeclarum illum ordinem maxime conspicimus « Sabaoth, » id est « exercitum, » vocare potuit. Nam Hebraei exercitus appellant stellas fixas ; unde Dominum exercituum exponunt uno sensu, Dominum stellarum.

Manifests the first heaven. Because that distinguished and harmonious order of planets, stars, and heavenly spheres disposed through their ranks, and illumined by the splendour of the sun like a king, is called an army and host in sacred Scripture, (Deut. 17); (2 Kgs. 17); (Neh. 9); (Isa. 24, 34); (Jer. 19); (Zeph. 1); therefore he was able to call the firmament, in which we chiefly behold that noble order, "Sabaoth," that is, "army." For the Hebrews call the fixed stars armies; whence they expound Lord of hosts in one sense as Lord of the stars.

Eodem modo et Jaωth. Vaticanus cod., « Jacob. » Caeterum, « Jaoth » licet habeat terminationem Hebraicam pluralis numeri, venit nihilominus a radice Babylonica יאי « Jae, » quae « pulchrum, speciosum, » et « elegantem » significat : et impersonaliter יאות « Jeth, convenit, congruit, decet. » יאות « Jauth » autem est « pulchritudo, elegantia, decor ; » et aliquando adverbialiter ponitur pro « congrue, decenter, ornate et bene. » Ut autem juxta Irenaeum significet « Fugam malorum, » oportet deduci a יעה, id est « mundare et purgare ; » a quo יעים quod Hebraei pro scopis exponunt. Hoc autem est mala et noxia tollere, ac sordes procul ablegare. Haec peritissimis viris communicavi, quibus si meliora afferantur, mihi ac studiosis bene consultum fuerit. Interim satis erit id observare, quod, ut diximus, admodum evincere nititur Irenaeus, diversitatem nominum, sive Hebraeorum, sive Graecorum, sive Latinorum, quibus Deum nuncupamus, perfectiones, proprietates, et innumera circa nos beneficia, at nunquam plures deos designare. Hieronymus, epist. ad Marcellam, decem nomina divina explicat, sed plures deos pernegat. Dionysius Areopag. triginta duabus nomenclaturis Deo convenientibus enumeratis, infert et nominis privationem, et omnia subsistentium nomina Deo unico congruere. Augustinus postquam octoginta epithetis Deum interpellavit capit. 29 libr. Meditationum, subjicit : « Si totum mundum libri repleant, tua scientia inenarrabilis explicari non potest ; quoniam vere indicibilis es, » etc.

In the same way also Jaωth. The Vatican codex reads "Jacob." For the rest, although "Jaoth" has the Hebrew termination of the plural number, it comes nonetheless from the Babylonian root יאי "Jae," which signifies "beautiful, handsome," and "elegant;" and impersonally יאות "Jeth, it is fitting, congruous, becoming." And יאות "Jauth" is "beauty, elegance, comeliness;" and is sometimes put adverbially for "congruously, decently, ornately, and well." Moreover, in order that according to Irenaeus it may signify "Flight of evils," it must be derived from יעה, that is, "to cleanse and to purge;" from which comes יעים, which the Hebrews expound as brooms. Now this is to take away evil and harmful things, and to banish filth far away. I have communicated these things to most learned men; if better ones be brought forward by them, good service will have been done to me and to students. Meanwhile it will be enough to observe what, as we have said, Irenaeus strives earnestly to prove, that the diversity of names, whether of the Hebrews, or of the Greeks, or of the Latins, by which we call upon God, designates His perfections, properties, and innumerable benefits towards us, but never several gods. Jerome, in the Epistle to Marcella, explains ten divine names, but utterly denies several gods. Dionysius the Areopagite, having enumerated thirty-two appellations fitting for God, infers both the privation of name and that all names of existing things belong to the one God. Augustine, after calling upon God with eighty epithets in Chapter 29 of the book of Meditations, adds: "If books should fill the whole world, Thy unutterable knowledge cannot be unfolded; since Thou art truly unspeakable," etc.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1599

Footnotes

Note: this page is wholly editors' notes in Latin (no facing Greek). The Book II notes end mid-page and the Variorum notes on Book III begin below a rule. One footnote, printed at the foot of col 1599; its call is in col 1600. (printed under page 808)

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: unico congruere› · call in col 1600

Cap. 2 De divin. nom.

Chapter 2 of On the Divine Names.

(printed under page 808)