PG 7 · cols. 381–404

Chr. Guil. Fr. Walch, Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses

Editors' preface

PG 7:381

CHR. GUIL. FR. WALCHII

CHRISTIAN WILHELM FRANZ WALCH'S

COMMENTATIO

COMMENTARY

DE ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΑ LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADVERSUS HAERESES.

ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS OF IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES.

Consilium, quod cepi, de fide auctoritateque Irenaei paulo accuratius coram vobis disputandi, natum esse lubens fateor ex vener. Joann. Salom. Semleri infringendi eam labefactandique studiis.

The design which I have formed of disputing somewhat more accurately before you concerning the trustworthiness and authority of Irenaeus has arisen, I willingly confess, from the efforts of the venerable Johann Salomo Semler to impair and undermine it.

Editors' notes and page, col. 381

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: COMMENTATIO› · call in the title band across cols 381/382 (after COMMENTATIO)

Haec commentatio, a doctissimo Walchio in Societate Regia scientiarum Gottingensi recitata d. VI Aug. MDCCLXXIV, typis expressa est in Novis commentariis Societatis Regiae scientiarum Gotting., tom. V, Gotting. 1775. Edit.

This commentary, read by the most learned Walch before the Royal Society of Sciences at Göttingen on 6 August 1774, was printed in the Novi commentarii of the Royal Society of Sciences at Göttingen, vol. V, Göttingen 1775. Editors.

(printed under page 197, beginning under col 381 and ending under col 382)

Page

running head: 381 FR. WALCHII DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORU
marginal letters: A bus novus; B plicatio ; haec; C Feuardentii notas; D Consilium, quod
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio III (concluded on col. 382) and Walch's Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses; three full-width lines across cols. 381-382 (CHR. GUIL. FR. WALCHII / COMMENTATIO (a) / DE ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΑ LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADVERSUS HAERESES. — the title prints ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΑ in Greek capitals) after line 42; line 42 continues at top of col. 382; word split at column break: qui-bus
other: a full-width band stands across cols 381/382 in mid-page: the 2 paragraph(s) above it in col 382 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 381 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its three title lines) is now SET at the head of this part, full_width, read from the page images of cols 381 and 382 (QA Q1); the footnote call (a) after COMMENTATIO is left out of the source as apparatus
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at the title band above Consilium, quod cepi

PG 7:382

Quo major enim est rerum praestantissimarum copia, quas ex Irenaei libris se didicisse omni fere tempore gravissimi viri testati sunt, quasve nos ipsi ex eodem fonte haurire pergimus; eo sanctius

For the greater the abundance of most excellent things which men of the greatest weight in almost every age have testified that they learned from the books of Irenaeus, or which we ourselves continue to draw from the same fountain, the more sacred

Editors' notes and page, col. 382

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: COMMENTATIO› · call in col 382 (title set across the full page width)

This dissertation, read by the most learned Walch before the Royal Society of Sciences at Göttingen on 6 August 1774, was printed in the Novi commentarii of the Royal Society of Sciences of Göttingen, vol. V, Göttingen 1775. Editor.

(printed under page 197)

Page

running head: NTIA LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 382
marginal letters: A Irenaei errores; B phone pag.; C stantium, ac; D Quo major
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertatio III (concluded) and Walch's Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses; three full-width lines across cols. 381-382 (CHR. GUIL. FR. WALCHII / COMMENTATIO / DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADVERSUS HAERESES.) after line 41 not set (cut off at left edge)
other: the 2 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 381 (reading order, moved on receipt)

PG 7:383

mihi esse videtur viri boni officium in eo justam collocandi curam, ut num recte viro et quibus nomen ejus inscribi soleat monimentis credamus, an fraudatorum fortasse impudentia decipi nos patiamur, et nobis et aliis constet argumentis certis et expeditis. Fieri posse nemo inficiabitur, ut per longum tempus veteris scriptoris opera nonnulla habeantur germana et vera, quae ut falsa esse et cui ascribantur, auctoris aut ingenio et doctrina, aut aetate indigna judicent, posteri commoveantur. Fas igitur est, audiri eos, qui licet ante eos nemo de hujus generis librorum vetustate aut scriptore dubitaverit, primi nunc dubitare audent, et quas proferunt dubitandi causas expendi consideratius harumque pretium animo candido, neque ullis nisi verum exquirendi studiis ducto, aestimari. Omnis enim historiae dignitas utilitasque nititur, tanquam suo fundamento, auctoritate et fide testium, rerumque gestarum memoriae perinde perniciosum est et pestiferum, falsos et subornatos producere testes, ac bonos religiososque sine causa repudiare et ad illorum gregem abjicere. Ut vero candide et cordate agamus, omnia sedulo conquirenda, et, ut ab aliis rite intelligantur, perspicue proponenda sunt, quae testis in suspicionem vocati existimationem aut confirmant, aut minuunt et convellunt. Hoc negotium licet arduum saepe sit et difficile, eo magis tamen necessarium est, quo negligentiores observamus viros doctos fuisse in explicandis comprobandisque, cur veteri scriptori et ipsi credant et alios velint credere, causis, cujus auctoritatem nesciebant unquam contemni aut adduci in controversiam. Similis certe fuit Irenaei sors. Omnes enim, quamvis de religione dissidiis aliarumque de rebus antiquioris aevi Christianis sententiarum varietate a se invicem sint disjuncti, in admittenda laudibusque extollenda ejus fide mirifice videbis consentire, quemlibet intelliges honoris quid aut ornamenti suis opinionibus suaeque factioni ex tanto nomine conciliandi esse studiosum; neminem tamen novi de colligendis declarandisque causis cogitare, cur testimoniis Irenaei sit credendum.

seems to me to be the duty of a good man to bestow due care thereon, so that it may be established both for ourselves and for others by sure and ready arguments whether we rightly give credit to the man and to the monuments on which his name is wont to be inscribed, or whether we are perhaps suffering ourselves to be deceived by the shamelessness of impostors. No one will deny that it can happen that for a long time certain works of an ancient writer are accounted genuine and true, which posterity is moved to judge spurious and unworthy either of the talent and learning or of the age of the author to whom they are ascribed. It is right, therefore, that those should be heard who, although no one before them doubted concerning the antiquity or the author of books of this kind, now first dare to doubt, and that the grounds for doubting which they bring forward should be weighed thoughtfully, and their value estimated with a candid mind led by no other zeal than that of inquiring into the truth. For all the dignity and utility of history rests, as upon its foundation, upon the authority and trustworthiness of witnesses; and it is equally pernicious and pestilential to the memory of past events to produce false and suborned witnesses, and without cause to reject good and conscientious ones and cast them away into the herd of the former. Now in order that we may act candidly and sensibly, all things must be diligently sought out and—so that they may be rightly understood by others—perspicuously set forth, which either confirm or diminish and shake the credit of a witness called into suspicion. Although this task is often arduous and difficult, yet it is all the more necessary the more negligent we observe learned men to have been in explaining and establishing the reasons why both they themselves believe an ancient writer and wish others to believe him, when they did not know that his authority was ever despised or brought into controversy. Such assuredly has been the lot of Irenaeus. For although all are divided from one another by dissensions concerning religion and by a variety of other opinions concerning the Christian affairs of a more ancient age, you will see them marvellously agree in admitting and extolling with praises his trustworthiness, and you will perceive that everyone is eager to win some honour or ornament for his own opinions and his own party from so great a name; yet I know of no one who has thought of collecting and setting forth the reasons why credit should be given to the testimonies of Irenaeus.

Quaecunque hac de re dici possunt, pertinent ad quinque contra haereses libros, quos nostis Irenaei, Lugdunensium sacrorum praesulis saeculo a Christo nato secundo clari, nomine ornari. De his pauca, quae huic disputationi lucem spondent, praemonere libet. Graece eos scriptos esse, nemo nostra aetate negabit, nec dubitabit quidem, modo si oculis suis illos unquam usurpaverit, et alia rei argumenta habuerit cognita, quae docti viri luculenter exposuerunt.

Whatever can be said on this matter pertains to the five books Against Heresies, which you know are adorned with the name of Irenaeus, bishop of the church of Lyons, famous in the second century after the birth of Christ. Concerning these it pleases me to premise a few remarks which promise light for this discussion. That they were written in Greek no one in our age will deny, or even doubt, provided only he has ever beheld them with his own eyes and become acquainted with the other arguments for the fact, which learned men have lucidly set forth.

Perierunt quidem Graeca, ita ut, quantum novimus, nullus in Europae bibliothecis supersit codex, qui eadem exhibeat integra; nec tamen perierunt

The Greek original has perished indeed, so that, so far as we know, no manuscript survives in the libraries of Europe which exhibits it entire; yet it has not perished

Editors' notes and page, col. 383

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: viri luculenter exposuerunt› · call in col 383

Cf. Henr. Dodwellum, diss. V in Iren., § 1, p. 391; Renat. Massuetum diss. II praev. in Iren., § 51, p. 226; Remig. Ceillerium in Histoire des auteurs sacr. et ecclésiast., t. II, p. 197, et Benedictinos Maurianos in Histoire littéraire de la France, t. I, part. I, p. 334.

Compare Henry Dodwell, Dissertation V on Irenaeus, § 1, p. 391; René Massuet, Preliminary Dissertation II on Irenaeus, § 51, p. 226; Rémi Ceillier in the Histoire des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, vol. II, p. 197; and the Benedictines of Saint-Maur in the Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, part I, p. 334.

(printed under page 198)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 383 or 384 (call above the rendered foot)

Lib. c. p. 397 seqq.

Book cited [sic; read "Place cited"], p. 397 and following.

(printed under page 198)

Lcc. cit., p. 335.

Place cited [printed "Lcc."], p. 335.

(printed under page 198)

Page

running head: 383 FR. WALCHII
marginal letters: A mihi esse; B verum exquirendi; C alios velint; D nato secundo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Walch's Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses (continued)

PG 7:384

omnia, sed in aliorum scriptorum Graecorum monimentis servatae sunt insignes Graeci textus partes, modo breviores modo longiores, quas salutari consilio a Grabio et Massueto diligentissime collectas et Latinis appositas videmus. Utimur ergo opportunitate de Irenaei libris non ex sola eorum versione, quod perperam nonnulli suspicantur, sed ex fontibus ipsis judicandi.

all things, but in the monuments of other Greek writers there have been preserved notable parts of the Greek text, now shorter, now longer, which by a salutary design we see most diligently collected by Grabe and Massuet and placed beside the Latin. We therefore make use of the opportunity of judging concerning the books of Irenaeus not from their version alone, as some wrongly suspect, but from the very sources themselves.

Totius vero operis versio illa integra ad nostram pervenit aetatem et in manibus omnium versatur. Quonam tempore eadem confecta sit, magnam habet dubitationem. Multi eam aetati Irenaei, hoc est, saeculi secundi fini, vel tertii initiis, putant esse aequalem, quod legisse eam Tertullianus illis videtur. Sed his contradixit Dodwellus, maluitque eam referri ad exitum saeculi quarti, quo Priscilliani secta orta est et in Hispania Galliaque priscos Gnosticorum errores renovavit, in Irenaei libris operose enarratos et convulsos; nec male monuit, Augustinum eodem tempore clarum illa esse usum. Nostra aetate monachi Parisienses ulterius progressi sunt rejeceruntque eam ad barbarum saeculi VI aevum, ob squalidam et vere barbaram Latinitatem, qua quisquis ille fuerit interpres Graeca donaverit. At nec his assentior. Barbariem orationis non nego, sed talem esse nunquam crediderim, quali saeculo sexto gentes, quae Romanas provincias in suam redegerunt potestatem, Latinam linguam corruperunt et depravarunt. Omnes enim sentire oportet, graeculum fuisse hominem, qui puerorum more non sermonem illum, sed verba singula transferret, et cum in compositis maxime haereret, nova et inaudita fingeret, quae, nisi in aliis medii aevi monimentis deprehendantur, inter barbarae illius Latinitatis specimina numerari nequeunt.

Now that complete version of the whole work has come down to our age and is in the hands of all. At what time the same was made involves great doubt. Many think it to be contemporary with the age of Irenaeus, that is, the end of the second century, or the beginnings of the third, because Tertullian seems to them to have read it. But Dodwell contradicted these, and preferred that it be referred to the end of the fourth century, when the sect of Priscillian arose and in Spain and Gaul renewed the ancient errors of the Gnostics, laboriously recounted and overthrown in the books of Irenaeus; nor did he badly point out that Augustine, famous at that same time, made use of it. In our age the Parisian monks have gone further and pushed it back to the barbarous age of the sixth century, on account of the squalid and truly barbarous Latinity with which that translator, whoever he was, clothed the Greek. Yet neither do I assent to these. The barbarism of the style I do not deny, but I could never believe it to be such as that with which in the sixth century the nations that reduced the Roman provinces into their own power corrupted and depraved the Latin tongue. For everyone must perceive that he was a petty Greek fellow who, after the manner of schoolboys, translated not the discourse itself, but the individual words, and since he stuck fast above all in compound words, coined new and unheard-of ones, which, unless they be detected in other monuments of the Middle Ages, cannot be reckoned among the specimens of that barbarous Latinity.

Mihi quidem placet eorum prudentia, qui cum sine testis auctoritate nihil historici argumenti recte dici intelligant de origine versionis ejusque aetate — quisnam enim unquam vidit aut produxit de utraque testem? — nihil definiunt, suamque ignorantiam illis certe non propriam sed cum omnibus communem fateri malunt. Sufficit nobis, eam non recentiore aetate, sed vetere esse factam et codices ejus satis antiquos inveniri. Haec ipsa interpretatio licet ab omni elegantia sit aliena, barbara et quibusvis fere dictionis Latinae vitiis inquinata, nec negari possit, librariorum non modo negligentia sed inscitia etiam eamdem saepenumero videri novis corruptelis auctam; fidelitatem tamen interpretis in auctoris verbis exprimendis nullam esse causam desiderandi aut vocandi in suspicionem, denuo ex tot particularum, quae Graece a nobis leguntur, cum latinis comparatione luculenter cognoscitur. Subinde transtulit inepte: sed nunquam malitiose; nunquam pervertendi scriptoris mentem,

To me indeed the prudence of those is pleasing who, since they understand that without the authority of a witness nothing of historical argument can rightly be said concerning the origin of the version and its age — for who has ever seen or produced a witness concerning either? — define nothing, and prefer to confess their own ignorance, certainly not peculiar to themselves, but common with all. It suffices for us that it was made not in a more recent age, but in an ancient one, and that sufficiently ancient manuscripts of it are found. Although this very translation is foreign to all elegance, barbarous, and stained with almost every fault of Latin diction, nor can it be denied that by the copyists' not only negligence, but also ignorance, the same often seems augmented with new corruptions; nevertheless, that there is no reason to miss or to call into suspicion the fidelity of the translator in expressing the words of the author is again clearly recognized from the comparison of so many passages, which are read by us in Greek, with the Latin ones. Repeatedly he translated ineptly: yet never maliciously; never with the design of perverting the mind of the writer,

Editors' notes and page, col. 384

Page

running head: FR. WALCHII 384
marginal letters: A omnia, sed in aliorum; B eam referri ad exitum; C more non sermonem illum,; D pretatio licet ab omni
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued, begins omnia, sed in aliorum)

PG 7:385

aut quae hic scripserit corrigendi, augendi, omittendi consilio. Ex quo consequens id est, quod hoc loco studiose cupio observari, ut quae de fide Irenaei disputantur aequabilia sint et paria inter omnia, quae nunc legimus in his libris, sive in sola versione Latina supersint, sive tanquam tabulae e naufragio a Graecis fuerint servata.

or of correcting, augmenting, or omitting what he wrote here. From which this follows, which I earnestly wish to be observed in this place, that the things which are disputed concerning the trustworthiness of Irenaeus are uniform and equal among all the things that we now read in these books, whether they survive in the Latin version alone, or have been preserved by the Greeks like planks from a shipwreck.

At vero noster non modo Graece suos commentarios scripsit, sed etiam Graecis eosque ad Graecos misit. Quicunque eos consuluerint, eos haud fugiet, suscepisse et perfecisse auctorem opus ab amico expetitum. Operae pretium est colligere et secum contendere luculenta rei testimonia. In praefatione libri primi, quam Epiphanius Graece recitavit, occurrunt bina; quorum prius ita expressum est: Ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν, ἐνίοις δ' αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μηνῦσαί σοι, ἀγαπητὲ, τὰ τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα μυστήρια, ἃ οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὴν ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν, ὅπως καὶ σὺ μαθὼν αὐτὰ, πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ φανερὰ ποιήσῃς καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας καὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν βλασφημίας· alterum vero: Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ' ἡμῶν, τῶν ἐν Κελτοῖς διατριβόντων καὶ περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων, λόγων τέχνην, ἣν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν..... ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα, μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺ προσδέξῃ, καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ, ἅτε ἱκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρ' ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις τὰ δι' ὀλίγων ὑφ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένα, καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς ὑφ' ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα· καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐφιλοτιμήθημεν πάλαι, ζητοῦντός σου μαθεῖν τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μὴ μόνον σοι ποιῆσαι φανερὰν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφόδια δοῦναι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτῶν ψεύδη· οὕτω δὴ καὶ σὺ φιλοτίμως τοῖς λοιποῖς διακονήσεις. Simili modo sub finem ejusdem libri: Quapropter conati sumus nos, inquit, universum male compositae vulpeculae hujus corpusculum in medium producere et per te facere manifestum,.... adest enim et tibi et omnibus, qui tecum sunt, ad haec, quae praedicta sunt, exerceri et evertere nequam ipsorum doctrinas. Tertii deinde libri hoc est initium: Tu quidem, dilectissime, praeceperas nobis, ut eas, quae a Valentino sunt, sententias absconditas, ut ipsi putant, in manifestum proderem, etc.; porro quarti: Hunc quartum librum, dilectissime, transmittens tibi, operis quod est de detectione et eversione falsae cognitionis, quemadmodum promisimus, per Domini sermones ea, quae praediximus, confirmabimus, uti et tu, sicut postulasti, undique a nobis accipias occasiones ad confutandos omnes

Moreover, our author not only wrote his commentaries in Greek, but also for Greeks, and sent them to Greeks. Whoever consults them, it will by no means escape them that the author undertook and completed a work requested by a friend. It is worthwhile to collect and compare with one another the clear testimonies of the matter. In the preface of the first book, which Epiphanius recited in Greek, two occur; of which the former is thus expressed: I deemed it necessary, having met with the commentaries of the, as they themselves say, disciples of Valentinus, and having also conversed with some of them and apprehended their mind, to make known to you, beloved, the monstrous and deep mysteries, which not all grasp, since not all have spat out their brain, so that you also, having learned them, may make them manifest to all those with you and exhort them to guard against the abyss of folly and of blasphemy against Christ; and the other: And you will not demand from us, who dwell among the Celts and are for the most part occupied with a barbarous dialect, an art of words which we did not learn..... but what has been written to you with love, simply and truly and in a plain style, you will receive with love, and you yourself will increase them with yourself, as being more capable than we, taking as it were seeds and beginnings from us, and in the breadth of your mind you will bear fruit abundantly from the things said by us in brief, and will powerfully set before those with you the things weakly reported by us; and as we were ambitious long ago, since you sought to learn their mind, not only to make it manifest to you, but also to give supplies towards demonstrating their falsehoods; so indeed you also will ambitiously minister to the rest. In a similar manner towards the end of the same book: Wherefore we have endeavoured, he says, to bring forth into the midst the whole badly put-together little body of this little fox and through you to make it manifest,.... for it is at hand both for you and for all who are with you to be exercised in these things which have been foresaid and to overthrow their wicked doctrines. Next, this is the beginning of the third book: You indeed, most beloved, had enjoined upon us that I should bring forth into the open those hidden opinions, as they themselves think, which are from Valentinus, etc.; furthermore of the fourth: Transmitting to you, most beloved, this fourth book of the work which is on the detection and overthrow of false knowledge, just as we promised, we shall confirm through the words of the Lord those things which we have foresaid, so that you also, just as you requested, may on all sides receive from us occasions for refuting all

Editors' notes and page, col. 385

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 385 (call above the rendered foot)

N. 2, p. 3, edit. Massueti.

No. 2, p. 3, of Massuet's edition.

(printed under page 199)

(b) ‹anchor: alterum vero› · call in col 385

N. 3, p. 4.

No. 3, p. 4.

(printed under page 199)

Cp. 34, n. 4, p. 113.

Chapter 34, no. 4, p. 113.

(printed under page 199)

(d) ‹anchor: libri hoc est initium› · call in col 385

P. 173.

(printed under page 199)

(e) ‹anchor: porro quarti› · call in col 385

P. 227.

(printed under page 199)

(f) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 385 or 386 (call above the rendered foot)

P. 291.

(printed under page 199)

(g) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 385 or 386 (call above the rendered foot)

Conf. Dodwellum, p. 393.

Compare Dodwell, p. 393.

(printed under page 199)

Page

running head: 385 DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IREN
marginal letters: A aut quae hic scripserit; B Ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς; C χάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ; D quam ipsorum doctrinas. Tertii
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:386

haereticos, etc., denique quinti: Traductis, dilectissime, omnibus haereticis in quatuor libris... oportebit et te et omnes lecturos hanc scripturam impensius legere ea, quae a nobis praedicta sunt, ut et argumenta scias, adversus quae contradictiones facimus. Sic enim et legitime eis contradices et de praeparato accipies adversus eos contradictiones. Quae si consideraverimus, jure inde colligemus: primum, scriptorem eo tempore vixisse inter Gallos, et cum ipse esset homo peregrinus, ad comparandam sibi linguae barbarae, sive haec Celtica fuerit, sive, quod probabilius multis videtur, Latina, eam contulisse diligentiam, ut Graecae exercitatione fere omni careret; deinde rogatum eum fuisse ab amico, quem ἀγαπητόν, dilectissimum, compellat, eumque et doctrina se praestare testatur; neque obscure significat, tenuisse inter doctores locum et officio fuisse obstrictum, cavendi, ne qui cum illo essent, hoc est ejus auditores, gravissimis caperentur erroribus; tum rogasse hunc amicum, ut absconditam Valentinianorum maxime disciplinam erueret e tenebris, sicque convellendi eos viam pararet et communiret; denique nostrum his precibus eo consilio satisfecisse, ut et amicus arcana illa dogmata intelligeret et in aliorum usus feliciter converteret. Num amicus ille episcopi honore fuerit conspicuus, ego quidem definire non audeo, licet nec causa adsit contradicendi illis, qui ita sentiunt; hoc tamen tutius affirmare licet, vixisse amicum in regione, quae a Valentini sectatoribus eorumque artibus, alios ad suas partes deducendi, maxime metuebat. Valentini familiam vero, licet alibi quoque sedes suas collocare tentaverit, maxime in Aegypto et Oriente floruisse, nemo ignorat. In Aegypto et Marcosiani fuerunt; nec ullo modo ex Irenaei commentariis probatur, quod manifesto Hieronymi errore seducti nonnulli contendunt, Marcum eadem cum Irenaeo aetate in Gallia sua sparsisse commenta, licet nonnullos ex ejus discipulis in eam penetrasse scripserit. Simili modo fatetur noster, usum se esse nonnullis Valentini asseclis familiariter et ex illis perinde ac ex libris Valentinianorum horum sententias didicisse; sed in Gallia idem contigisse nunquam dixit. Haec quidem aperte docent, insigniter falli, qui opus hoc putant Gallorum aut aliorum Latinorum usibus fuisse destinatum, alios vero sine causa mirari, longe frequentius illud in Graecorum manibus versari consuevisse, quam Latinorum. Quamvis enim in Gallia fuerit compositum, missum tamen fuit in Aegyptum aut Asiam minorem, unde in alias Orientis provincias facile penetrare, in occidentalibus vero quasi ignorari potuit, donec Latinitate donatum in patriam quasi rediret. Post haec aevo medio, id est litteris infesto, accidit, ut

the heretics, etc., and finally of the fifth: Since all the heretics have been exposed, most beloved, in four books... it will behove both you and all who shall read this writing to read more attentively those things which have been foresaid by us, so that you may know the arguments against which we make contradictions. For thus you will both legitimately contradict them and receive from what is prepared the contradictions against them. Which things if we consider, we shall rightly gather from them: first, that the writer at that time lived among the Gauls, and since he himself was a foreigner, he devoted such diligence to acquiring for himself the barbarous tongue, whether this was Celtic, or, what seems more probable to many, Latin, that he lacked almost all practice of the Greek; next, that he was asked by a friend, whom he addresses as ἀγαπητόν, most beloved, and testifies that he excels him even in learning; nor does he obscurely signify that he held a place among teachers and was bound by duty to beware lest those who were with him, that is his hearers, should be caught by most grievous errors; then, that this friend had asked that he should draw forth out of darkness the hidden teaching of the Valentinians above all, and thus prepare and fortify a way of overthrowing them; finally, that our author satisfied these prayers with this design, that the friend might both understand those secret dogmas and happily turn them to the uses of others. Whether that friend was conspicuous with the honour of a bishop, I indeed do not dare to define, although neither is there a reason present for contradicting those who think so; yet this may more safely be affirmed, that the friend lived in a region which was most afraid of the followers of Valentinus and their arts of drawing others over to their party. Now that the school of Valentinus, although elsewhere also it attempted to establish its seats, flourished above all in Egypt and the East, nobody is ignorant. In Egypt the Marcosians also were; nor is it in any way proved from the commentaries of Irenaeus, what some, seduced by a manifest error of Jerome, contend, that Marcus in the same age with Irenaeus scattered his figments in Gaul, although he wrote that some of his disciples had penetrated into it. In a similar manner our author confesses that he associated familiarly with some followers of Valentinus and from them just as from the books of the Valentinians learned the opinions of these men; but that the same thing happened in Gaul he never said. These things indeed openly teach that those are notably deceived who think this work to have been destined for the uses of the Gauls or of other Latins, while others without cause wonder that it was accustomed to be far more frequently in the hands of the Greeks than of the Latins. For although it was composed in Gaul, yet it was sent into Egypt or Asia Minor, whence it could easily penetrate into the other provinces of the East, whereas in the western ones it could be as it were unknown, until, clothed in Latinity, it returned as it were into its fatherland. After these things, in the Middle Ages, that is an age hostile to letters, it happened that

Editors' notes and page, col. 386

Footnotes

(h) ‹anchor: qui ita sentiunt› · call in col 386

V. Histoire littér. de la France, t. I, p. 330.

See the Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, p. 330.

(printed under page 199)

(i) ‹anchor: sua sparsisse commenta› · call in col 386

Conf. Haeresiologiae a me editae t. I, p. 380, 394 seqq.

Compare the Haeresiologia edited by me, vol. I, p. 380, and p. 394 and following.

(printed under page 199)

Page

running head: IBRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 386
marginal letters: A haereticos, etc., denique quinti; B et doctrina se praestare; C bus, alios ad suas; D insigniter falli, qui opus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:387

inter Graecos libri Graece scripti interirent, Latina vero eorum interpretatio librariorum opera et diligentia ad nostram aetatem perveniret. Idem nostis antiquissimo Hermae libro, Pastoris titulo ornato, accidisse, ut sola supersit versio Latina, Graecum vero exemplum periisse censeatur. Qui vero in memoriam revocaverit, ista tempestate arctiori amicitiae et litterarum commercii vinculo cohaesisse Christianos Asiam colentes cum Gallis, is certe ne dubitabit quidem, potuisse ab homine Aegyptio aut orientali rogari amicum cum Gallis viventem, ut enarrandis haereticorum opinionibus, quas noverat huic perspectas esse, daret operam; aut hunc quod ab eo exspectabatur illi tribuere officium.

among the Greeks the books written in Greek perished, while the Latin translation of them came down by the labour and diligence of copyists to our age. You know that the same thing happened to the most ancient book of Hermas, adorned with the title of The Shepherd, so that only the Latin version survives, while the Greek original is deemed to have perished. But whoever recalls to memory that at that time the Christians inhabiting Asia were joined with the Gauls by a closer bond of friendship and of literary intercourse, he certainly will not even doubt that a friend living with the Gauls could be asked by an Egyptian or Eastern man to devote his labour to recounting the opinions of the heretics, which he knew to be well examined by him; or that the latter could render to him the service that was expected of him.

Hos igitur libros si vere ab Irenaeo Lugdunensi episcopo scriptos esse, idoneis argumentis potest confici; tum certe de eorum auctoritate et historica fide rectum fertur judicium. Criticae artis legibus expeditum est, ad hujus generis disputationem apte instituendam hoc requiri, ut sedulo disquiramus primum, num Irenaeus composuerit adversus haereses libros; deinde, num si quos conscripserit, iidem fere sint cum his, quibus nunc utimur.

If therefore it can be established by suitable arguments that these books were truly written by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons; then certainly a right judgement is passed concerning their authority and historical trustworthiness. By the laws of the critical art it is settled that, in order aptly to institute a disputation of this kind, this is required, that we diligently inquire first, whether Irenaeus composed books against heresies; next, whether, if he wrote any, they are substantially the same as these which we now use.

Quod primo loco positum est, cum in rerum, quae factae sunt et longo abhinc tempore contigerunt, numero sit, de eo quidem recte cognoscendi nulla cogitari possunt principia, nulli fontes, nisi testium effata. Commemorarunt veteres, Irenaeum contra eos, qui sua aetate doctrinam Christianam erroribus corrumpere studuerunt, sedulo et eleganter pugnasse editisque scriptis eos confutasse. Primum ex aetatis ratione locum tenet Tertullianus, cujus satis celebre est hoc effatum: nec undique dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias, quas tot jam viri sanctitate et praestantia insignes, nec solum nostri antecessores sed ipsorum haeresiarcharum contemporales, instructissimis voluminibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt, ut Justinus philosophus et martyr, ut Miltiades, Ecclesiarum sophista, ut Irenaeus, omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator, ut Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas: quos in omni opere fidei, quemadmodum in isto, optaverim assequi. Dicta haec esse de nostro opere, non solum ex ipso hujus consilio colligitur, vere enim oppositum fuit Valentini scholae, contra quam Tertullianus scripsit libellum, unde haec desumpta sunt; sed maxime etiam mirifico eorum, quae Irenaeus et Tertullianus de Valentinianorum disciplina prodiderunt, consensu confirmatur, ita ut hunc, quae ille scripserat, ante suos oculos habuisse neque exiguam eorum partem transcripsisse, justa sit statuendi causa. In comparandis

As to what is placed in the first place, since it is in the number of things that were done and happened a long time ago, no principles of rightly knowing concerning it can be thought of, no sources, except the utterances of witnesses. The ancients have recorded that Irenaeus diligently and elegantly fought against those who in his age strove to corrupt Christian doctrine with errors, and refuted them in published writings. The first place by reason of age is held by Tertullian, of whom this utterance is sufficiently famous: nor shall we on all sides be said to have fashioned for ourselves the materials which already so many men distinguished for sanctity and excellence, not only our predecessors, but contemporaries of the heresiarchs themselves, have both disclosed and beaten back in most well-furnished volumes, such as Justin, philosopher and martyr, such as Miltiades, the sophist of the Churches, such as Irenaeus, the most curious explorer of all doctrines, such as our Proculus, the dignity of virgin old age and of Christian eloquence: whom in every work of faith, just as in this one, I could wish to equal. That these things were said of our work is gathered not only from its very design, for it was truly opposed to the school of Valentinus, against which Tertullian wrote the treatise whence these things are taken; but above all also it is confirmed by the wonderful agreement of the things that Irenaeus and Tertullian handed down concerning the teaching of the Valentinians, so that there is just cause for determining that the latter had before his eyes what the former had written and transcribed no small part of them. In comparing

Editors' notes and page, col. 387

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: censeatur› · call in col 387

Eleganter id monuit Dodwellus. p. 408.

Dodwell has pointed this out neatly, p. 408.

(printed under page 200)

(b) ‹anchor: cum Gallis› · call in col 387

Conf. Theod. Ruinarti Act. martyr. p. 54, edit. Venet.; Histoire littér. de la France, t. I, p. 228, 290, et Paulini de Lumina Histoire de l'Eglise de Lyon, t. I, p. 39.

Compare Thierry Ruinart's Acts of the Martyrs, p. 54, Venice edition; the Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, pp. 228, 290; and Paulin de Lumina's Histoire de l'Église de Lyon, vol. I, p. 39.

(printed under page 200)

Advers. Valent. cap. 5, t. III Oper. p. 143, edit. Halens.

Against the Valentinians, ch. 5, vol. III of the Works, p. 143, Halle edition.

(printed under page 200)

(d) ‹anchor: not in col 387› · call in col 388 (no (d) call in col 387's text; set here once, not duplicated in n388)

Diss. I in Tertullian. adjecta vol. V, § 12, p. 300.

Dissertation I on Tertullian, appended to vol. V, § 12, p. 300.

(printed under page 200)

Page

running head: 387 FR. WALCHII
marginal letters: A inter Graecos libri Graece; B episcopo scriptos esse, idoneis; C corrumpere studuerunt, sedulo et; D opere, non solum ex
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: UNSURE (QA Q2): in the Tertullian quotation, "sed ipsorum" looks like "sea ipsorum" at lean resolution (likely a broken italic d); kept "sed"; check at full resolution

PG 7:388

utriusque scriptoris monimentis et quae in his sibi similia sunt, locis congerendis neminem novi majorem collocare diligentiam ven. Semlero; idem tamen nonnulla non testium auctoritate, sed ratiocinatione munita adjecit, quae nisi diluantur, excitati a me testimonii vim et pretium imminui oportet. Non sine injuria Tertullianum insimulavit criminis, quod plagii litterarii nomen fert. Postquam enim sub initio sui libelli ingenue confessus est, se sua ex quatuor antecessorum, quorum nomina recitat singulorumque laudes praedicat, commentariis didicisse, cur opus fuerit ubivis repetere Irenaei nomen, ego quidem tantum abest ut ullam intelligam causam, ut verear, ne, si fecisset, intempestivae sedulitatis contraxerit sibi suspicionem. Accedit, postquam oculis manibusque nostris erepta sunt, quibus praeter Irenaeum usus est magistris, Justini, Miltiadis et Proculi monimenta, admodum difficilem et arduam nunc esse conjecturam, ex quibus fontibus singulas narrationes historicas, et qui in his omnino reponi debent, Valentinianorum somnia in suos rivulos deduxerit Afer. Probe enim tenendum est, Tertulliani libello manifesta impressa esse vestigia dissensus ab Irenaeo. Quaestiones binae, quas proponit venerandus Semlerus, facile expediuntur. Priorem enim, quomodo isto jam tempore Tertullianus Irenaei libros oculis et manibus suis usurpaverit, cur protulerit, nec probaverit, rem vere esse ἀδύνατον, aeque miror, ac cur non recordatus sit, quae ante saeculi II exitum ab Irenaeo edita fuerint, potuisse post initium tertii Carthagine legi. Ad posteriorem, quo jure sic fecerit Tertullianus, ut ex Graeco sublegeret sua, et Latine repeteret, quae ille creditur scripsisse Graece, quid recte respondeatur, id quidem ipsa interrogatione videtur mihi luculenter esse expressum. Cum enim quatuor illi rerum Valentinianorum scriptores ad unum omnes Graece easdem retulissent, Latina autem Irenaei versio vel nondum confecta vel a Tertulliano nondum visa fuisset, hic vero illas nollet a civibus suis ignorari, sapienter idem fecit, quod, ut ex innumeris unum exemplis adjiciam, Cicero fecit, qui in libris philosophicis Latine repetiit, quae ex Graecis selegerat. Hactenus de Tertulliano.

the monuments of both writers and bringing together the passages that are similar to each other in them, I know no one to have bestowed greater diligence than the venerable Semler; yet the same man added some things fortified not by the authority of witnesses, but by reasoning, which unless they be refuted, the force and value of the testimony cited by me must be diminished. Not without injustice did he accuse Tertullian of the crime which bears the name of literary plagiarism. For after he frankly confessed near the beginning of his treatise that he had learned his material from the commentaries of four predecessors, whose names he recites and proclaims the praises of each, why there should have been need everywhere to repeat the name of Irenaeus, I indeed am so far from understanding any reason, that I fear lest, if he had done so, he would have drawn upon himself the suspicion of unseasonable officiousness. Added to this is the fact that, after the monuments of Justin, Miltiades, and Proculus, the teachers whom he used besides Irenaeus, have been snatched away from our eyes and hands, it is now a very difficult and arduous conjecture from what sources the African drew off into his own streams the individual historical narratives and the dreams of the Valentinians, which must altogether be placed among them. For it must rightly be held that manifest traces of disagreement with Irenaeus are stamped upon the treatise of Tertullian. The two questions which the venerable Semler proposes are easily dispatched. For as to the former, how at that time already Tertullian used the books of Irenaeus with his own eyes and hands, why he brought it forward and did not prove that the thing was truly ἀδύνατον [impossible], I equally wonder, as why he did not remember that what had been published by Irenaeus before the end of the second century could be read at Carthage after the beginning of the third. To the latter, by what right Tertullian acted thus, that he should gather his material secretly from the Greek, and repeat in Latin what the former is believed to have written in Greek, what may rightly be answered seems to me indeed to be clearly expressed by the very question itself. For since those four writers of the affairs of the Valentinians had one and all related the same in Greek, while the Latin version of Irenaeus either had not yet been made or had not yet been seen by Tertullian, and he did not wish them to be unknown by his fellow citizens, he wisely did the same thing that, to add one out of innumerable examples, Cicero did, who in his philosophical books repeated in Latin what he had selected from the Greeks. Thus far concerning Tertullian.

Post hunc prodeat Eusebius Caesareensis, diligentissimus et sincerus rerum in Christiana civitate gestarum pronuntiator. Is vero cum saepissime de Irenaeo nostro locutus est eumque magnis ornavit laudibus, sufficiat ea nunc colligere, quae de opere adversus haereticos ab illo scripto reliquit, loca. I. Postquam de Simonis Magi erroribus ex Justino

After him let Eusebius of Caesarea come forth, the most diligent and sincere chronicler of the things done in the Christian commonwealth. Now since he spoke very often of our Irenaeus and adorned him with great praises, let it suffice now to collect those passages which he left concerning the work against heretics written by him. I. After he had recited some things concerning the errors of Simon Magus from Justin

Editors' notes and page, col. 388

Footnotes

(e) ‹anchor: initium tertii› · call in col 388

Conf. ven. Jo. Aug. Noesselt De aetate ac doctrina script. Tertulliani, p. 89.

Compare the venerable Johann August Nösselt, On the Age and Learning of Tertullian's Writings, p. 89.

(printed under page 200)

Page

running head: FR. WALCHII 388
marginal letters: A utriusque scriptoris monimentis et; B picionem. Accedit, postquam oculis; C ror, ac cur non; D gerat. Hactenus de Tertulliano.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:389

martyre nonnulla recitaverat, ita pergit: συνάδει δ' αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐν πρώτῳ τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις, adjicitque, se nolle Irenaei repetere narrationes, quod quicunque velint, facili negotio ipsi inspicere queant ejus librum, quo haeresium origines, dogmata, mores, instituta et his similia studiose sit persecutus. II. Alibi ubi Joannem apostolum Domitiani aetatem attigisse testes produxit fide dignos ob insignia, quibus enitebant, ecclesiasticam doctrinam tuendi et conservandi puram studia, alterum Irenaeum, alterum Clementem Alexandrinum, sequuntur haec verba: ὧν ὁ μὲν πρότερος ἐν δευτέρῳ τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις ὧδέ πως γράφει κατὰ λέξιν, et paucis interpositis: καὶ ἐν τρίτῳ δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως ταὐτὸ τοῦτο δηλοῖ διὰ τούτων. III. Quae breviter de Menandro prodidit, eadem, monet, ἐκ τῶν Εἰρηναίου διαγνῶναι ῥᾴδιον. IV. Similiter de Cerintho: Ὁ δὲ Εἰρηναῖος ἀποῤῥητοτέρας δή τινας τοῦ αὐτοῦ ψευδοδοξίας ἐν πρώτῳ συγγράμματι τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις προθεὶς, ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ καὶ ἱστορίαν.... παρέδωκεν. V. Ubi de Cerdone exscripsit Irenaei effatum, addit: Ταῦτα δέ φησιν ἐν τρίτῳ τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις. VI. Porro ex Irenaeo testatur se accepisse, quae de congressu Polycarpi cum Aniceto ad paschalem controversiam componendam narravit, haecque adjicit: Καὶ ἄλλην δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς περὶ τοῦ Πολυκάρπου παραδίδωσι διήγησιν,.... ἀπὸ τοῦ τρίτου τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις Εἰρηναίου. VII. Cum Irenaeum post Pothinum sacris Lugdunensibus gubernandis admotum fuisse narrasset, subjecit haec: Οὗτος τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμῃ τὴν διαδοχὴν ἐπισκόπων ἐν τρίτῃ συντάξει τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις παραθέμενος, εἰς Ἐλεύθερον.... ὡς ἂν δὴ κατ' αὐτὸν σπουδαζομένης αὐτῷ τῆς γραφῆς, τὸν κατάλογον ἵστησι. VIII. Interpositis Irenaei verbis, pergit: Ταῦτα ὁ Εἰρηναῖος... ἐν οἷς ἐπέγραψε, πέντε οὖσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν, ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, ἐν δευτέρῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως, κ. τ. λ. IX. Cum, quae Irenaeus de libris Novi Foederis reliquit, testimonia diligenter percensuit, expressis verbis dixit: Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐν τρίτῳ τῆς εἰρημένης ὑποθέσεως τῷ προδηλωθέντι εἴρηται. Ἐν δὲ τῷ πέμπτῳ περὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου Ἀποκαλύψεως.... διαλαμβάνει. Colligamus nunc ex Eusebii effatis, quae de Irenaei libris ei fuerunt cognita. Quae quidem haec sunt: I. scripsisse Irenaeum Lugdunensem libros adversus haereses quinque, ex quibus singulatim primum bis, secundum totidem, tertium sexies, quintum semel notavit; II. titulum ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως iis fuisse

the Martyr, he proceeds thus: and Irenaeus also agrees with him in the first of the books against the heresies, and he adds that he is unwilling to repeat the narratives of Irenaeus, because whoever wishes may with easy trouble themselves inspect his book, in which he has studiously pursued the origins, dogmas, customs, institutions of the heresies, and things similar to these. II. Elsewhere, where he produced witnesses worthy of credit — on account of the distinguished zeal with which they shone for defending and preserving pure the ecclesiastical doctrine — that John the Apostle reached the age of Domitian, the one Irenaeus, the other Clement of Alexandria, there follow these words: of whom the former in the second of the books against the heresies writes word for word somewhat thus, and with a few words interposed: and in the third also of the same work he shows this very same thing through these words. III. The things which he briefly handed down concerning Menander, the same, he advises, it is easy to discern from the writings of Irenaeus. IV. Similarly concerning Cerinthus: And Irenaeus, having set forth in the first treatise of the books against the heresies some more secret false opinions of the same man, in the third also handed down a history.... V. Where concerning Cerdo he copied out the utterance of Irenaeus, he adds: And these things he says in the third of the books against the heresies. VI. Furthermore, he testifies that he received from Irenaeus what he narrated concerning the meeting of Polycarp with Anicetus for settling the paschal controversy, and adds these words: And the same man hands down another narrative also concerning Polycarp,.... from the third of the books against the heresies of Irenaeus. VII. When he had narrated that Irenaeus after Pothinus was advanced to governing the sacred affairs of Lyons, he subjoined these words: This man, having set down the succession of the bishops at Rome in the third treatise of the books against the heresies, stops the catalogue at Eleutherus.... as though the writing were being worked at by him in his time. VIII. Having interposed the words of Irenaeus, he proceeds: These things Irenaeus... in the books which he entitled, being five in number, of the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called, in the second of the same work, etc. IX. When he diligently reviewed the testimonies which Irenaeus left concerning the books of the New Covenant, in express words he said: Now these things have been said by the aforesaid man in the third of the mentioned work. And in the fifth he treats concerning the Apocalypse of John.... Let us now gather from the utterances of Eusebius what things concerning the books of Irenaeus were known to him. Which indeed are these: I. that Irenaeus of Lyons wrote five books against heresies, out of which in particular he noted the first twice, the second as many times, the third six times, the fifth once; II. that the title of the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called was

Editors' notes and page, col. 389

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 (call above the rendered foot)

Hist. eccles. lib. II, cap. 13, p. 57, edit. Taurin.

Ecclesiastical History, book II, ch. 13, p. 57, Turin edition.

(printed under page 201)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 (call above the rendered foot)

Lib. II, cap. 23, p. 98.

Book II, ch. 23, p. 98.

(printed under page 201)

Lib. III, cap. 26, p. 106.

Book III, ch. 26, p. 106.

(printed under page 201)

(d) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 (call above the rendered foot)

Lib. III, cap. 27, p. 108.

Book III, ch. 27, p. 108.

(printed under page 201)

(e) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 (call above the rendered foot)

Lib. IV, cap. 11, p. 133.

Book IV, ch. 11, p. 133.

(printed under page 201)

(f) ‹anchor: haecque adjicit› · call in col 389

Lib. IV, cap. 14, p. 137.

Book IV, ch. 14, p. 137.

(printed under page 201)

(g) ‹anchor: subjecit haec› · call in col 389

Lib. V, cap. 5, p. 187.

Book V, ch. 5, p. 187.

(printed under page 201)

(h) ‹anchor: Irenaei verbis, pergit› · call in col 389

Lib. V, cap. 7, p. 187.

Book V, ch. 7, p. 187.

(printed under page 201)

(i) ‹anchor: expressis verbis dixit› · call in col 389

Lib. V, cap. 8, p. 189.

Book V, ch. 8, p. 189.

(printed under page 201)

(j) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 or 390 (call above the rendered foot)

Convenienter haec et Irenaei praefationibus, quatuor libris posterioribus praemissis et aliorum testimoniis et codicibus adeo Latinis, scripsisse Eusebium, docet Massuetus diss. II, § 46.

Massuet shows, Dissertation II, § 46, that Eusebius wrote this in agreement both with Irenaeus's prefaces set before the last four books and with the testimony of others and even with the Latin manuscripts.

(printed under page 201)

(k) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 or 390 (call above the rendered foot)

De Spiritu sancto cap. 29, t. III Oper. p. 61, edit. Benedict.

On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, vol. III of the Works, p. 61, Benedictine edition.

(printed under page 201)

(l) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 389 or 390 (call above the rendered foot)

Catech. XVI ad illum., num. 6, p. 246, edit. Toutaei.

Catechesis XVI to the Illuminated, no. 6, p. 246, Touttée's edition.

(printed under page 201)

Page

running head: 389 DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IREN
marginal letters: A martyre nonnulla recitaverat, ita; B dem, monet, ἐκ τῶν; C rasset, subjecit haec :; D quae de Irenaei libris
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:390

inscriptum; III. in iisdem Irenaeum non modo contra purioris doctrinae hostes pugnasse, sed etiam in enarrandis eorum opinionibus multam posuisse curam; IV. Eusebio videri eos compositos eo tempore, quo Eleutherus Romanis sacris praefuit, quod in hoc desinat episcoporum Urbis series ab Irenaeo proposita; V. Eusebii denique aetate hos Irenaei libros frequentes in aliorum manibus fuisse, ita ut quicunque voluerint, facile copiam eos legendi nancisci possent.

inscribed upon them; III. that in these same books Irenaeus not only fought against the enemies of purer doctrine, but also bestowed much care in recounting their opinions; IV. that to Eusebius they seemed composed at that time when Eleutherus presided over the Roman sacred affairs, because the series of bishops of the City proposed by Irenaeus ends in him; V. finally, that in the age of Eusebius these books of Irenaeus were frequent in the hands of others, so that whoever wished could easily obtain the opportunity of reading them.

Basilius cum veterum de Spiritu sancto sententias recensere instituisset, honorificam Irenaei fecit mentionem, eumque ab apostolis prope abfuisse scripsit, et nonnullas particulas ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις λόγῳ positas recitavit.

When Basil had undertaken to review the opinions of the ancients concerning the Holy Spirit, he made honourable mention of Irenaeus, and wrote that he was near to the apostles, and recited some passages placed ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις λόγῳ [in the discourse against the heresies].

Pari modo Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus haereticos commemorat de Spiritu sancto nefarios protulisse errores, idque ex Irenaeo ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασι τοῖς πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις fusius disci monuit.

In like manner Cyril of Jerusalem records that the heretics put forward nefarious errors concerning the Holy Spirit, and advised that this is learned more at length from Irenaeus ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασι τοῖς πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις [in the ordinances against the heresies].

Epiphanium magnam eorum, quae de haereticis saeculi secundi in suos commentarios retulit partem, ex Irenaei libris hausisse, nullam habet dubitationem. Nomen quidem ejus expressit rarius, expressit tamen ita, ut eum non modo nostros libros legisse, sed eosdem etiam ab Irenaeo profectos credidisse quisque sentiat. Sic ubi de Basilide agit: Θαυμαστῶς δὲ, inquit, ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ τῶν ἀποστόλων διάδοχος, περὶ τούτου λεπτολογῶν, διήλεγξε τούτου τὴν ἀβελτηρίαν καὶ ἀδράνειαν. Alibi sub initio disputationis de Valentinianis, de consensu sanctissimi Irenaei gloriatur, longamque affert orationem, sumptam ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς, δούλου Θεοῦ, cum additamento: Εἰρηναῖον δέ φημι; eadem vero finita, invidendis laudibus prosequitur Irenaeum, eumque ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς δευτέρῳ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις confutasse praedicat.

That Epiphanius drew from the books of Irenaeus a great part of the things which he related in his commentaries concerning the heretics of the second century involves no doubt. His name indeed he expressed more rarely, yet he expressed it in such a way that everyone perceives that he not only read our books, but also believed the same to have proceeded from Irenaeus. Thus where he treats of Basilides: And wonderfully, he says, the blessed Irenaeus, the successor of the apostles, discussing subtly concerning this man, refuted his silliness and impotence. Elsewhere, near the beginning of the disputation concerning the Valentinians, he boasts of the agreement of the most holy Irenaeus, and brings forward a long discourse, taken from the writings of the aforesaid man, the servant of God, with the addition: I mean Irenaeus; and when the same is finished, he honours Irenaeus with enviable praises, and proclaims that he refuted them in his next second book and the others.

Cum Epiphanio aetate conjunctus fuit Hieronymus, qui et diligentiae, quam in conquirendis enumerandisque scriptorum Christianorum monimentis primus collocavit, et ex his vera a falsis discernendi studii laude non sine causa celebratur. Reliquit vero plura, quae ad hunc locum pertinent testimonia.

Joined in age with Epiphanius was Jerome, who not without cause is celebrated both for the praise of the diligence which he first bestowed in searching out and enumerating the monuments of Christian writers, and of his zeal for discerning the true from the false among them. And he left several testimonies that pertain to this place.

I. De Irenaeo cum data opera exponit, eum Pothini, qui Lugdunensem in Gallia regebat Ecclesiam, presbyterum; hoc vero prope nonagenario ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum ejus substitutum fuisse, narrat et addit: Scripsit quinque adversus

I. When he purposely sets forth concerning Irenaeus, he narrates that he was a presbyter of Pothinus, who ruled the Church of Lyons in Gaul; and that when the latter, nearly ninety years old, was crowned with martyrdom on account of Christ, he was substituted in his place, and adds: He wrote five books against

Editors' notes and page, col. 390

Footnotes

(m) ‹anchor: de Basilide agit› · call in col 390

Haeres. XXIV, § 8.

Heresy XXIV, § 8.

(printed under page 201)

(n) ‹anchor: sanctissimi Irenaei› · call in col 390

Haeres XXXI, § 3.

Heresy XXXI, § 3.

(printed under page 201)

(o) ‹anchor: δέ φημι› · call in col 390

§ 9.

(printed under page 201)

(p) ‹anchor: confutasse praedicat› · call in col 390

§ 33.

(printed under page 201)

Page

running head: BRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 390
marginal letters: A inscriptum ; III. in; B Pari modo Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus; C sub initio disputationis de; D testimonia.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations, no facing Greek column; adver- split at end of column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: the word adversus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 391

PG 7:391

haereses libros. II. Alibi: De haereticis eorumque commentis, inquit, diligentissime vir apostolicus scribit Irenaeus, episcopus Lugdunensis et martyr, multarum origines explicans haereseon.

heresies. II. Elsewhere: Concerning the heretics and their figments, he says, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and martyr, an apostolic man, writes most diligently, explaining the origins of many heresies.

III. Humani quid passus est Hieronymus, cum hoc loco, quae Irenaeus de Marci discipulis dixerat, de Marco intelligeret, repetiit tamen errorem, his usus verbis: Refert Irenaeus, vir apostolicorum temporum, episcopus Lugdunensis, et finivit orationem hac clausula: hoc ille scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos (hic Hieronymum aut fefellit memoria, aut vocula circiter abusus est, alibi enim aetatem Irenaei satis recte significavit), et scripsit in iis libris, quos adversus omnes haereses doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone composuit. IV. Denique cum litterarum philosophicarum studia laudaret et exemplis illustrium Christianae disciplinae magistrorum commendaret, Irenaeum, Pothini martyris successorem, cum aliis nominavit, qui origines haereseon singularum et ex quibus philosophorum fontibus emanaverint, multis voluminibus explicarunt. Consulto nunc praetermitto alia Hieronymi effata, quibus Irenaei fecit mentionem, neque obscure se opus illud adversus haereses in mente habuisse significavit. Sufficiunt certe haec, ut intelligamus, Hieronymum non solum libros illos quinque bene cognovisse, sed etiam aperte esse testatum, editos eosdem fuisse ab Irenaeo, Lugdunensium sacrorum post Pothinum praesule.

III. Jerome suffered something human when in this place he understood of Marcus what Irenaeus had said of the disciples of Marcus; yet he repeated the error, using these words: Irenaeus relates, a man of the apostolic times, bishop of Lyons, and finished the discourse with this clause: this he wrote about three hundred years ago (here either memory failed Jerome, or he misused the little word about, for elsewhere he signified the age of Irenaeus rightly enough), and wrote in those books which he composed against all heresies in most learned and most eloquent language. IV. Finally, when he praised the studies of philosophical letters and commended them by the examples of illustrious masters of Christian discipline, he named along with others Irenaeus, the successor of the martyr Pothinus, who explained in many volumes the origins of the individual heresies and out of what fountains of the philosophers they emanated. On purpose I now pass over other utterances of Jerome in which he made mention of Irenaeus and not obscurely signified that he had in mind that work against heresies. These things certainly suffice for us to understand that Jerome not only knew well those five books, but also openly testified that the same were published by Irenaeus, ruler of the sacred affairs of the people of Lyons after Pothinus.

His denique unicum addere liceat Theodoretum, magnae et variae eruditionis virum, qui quae de vetustissimis haeresibus enarraverit, accepisse se, ut decet bonum historicum, confessus est ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων, Ἰουστίνου τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος, καὶ Εἰρηναίου τοῦ τὰ Κελτικὰ καὶ γεωργήσαντος καὶ φωτίσαντος ἔθνη, κ. τ. λ. Cum somnia et flagitia, quae de Carpocrate ejusque asseclis tradi solent, strictim attigisset, ne fingi hujusmodi criminationes quis suspicetur, testem excitavit Irenaeum, qui Occidentem Christianae religionis luce collustraverit, virum apostolicum, ejusque excitatis verbis haec praemisit: Λέγει δὲ οὗτος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ βιβλίῳ τῶν εἰς τὰς αἱρέσεις συγγραφέντων αὐτῷ. Eumdem Theodoretum scripsisse qui supersunt dialogos tres, Ἐρανιστοῦ ἢ πολυμόρφου nomine insignitos, licet nonnulli dubitaverint; ut tamen ipse firmiter credam, quibus causis commoveri me patiar, alibi declaravi. Quisquis vero illos legerit, nosse eum oportet, singulis dialogis subjecta fuisse antiquiorum doctorum loca, quorum auctoritate sententiae de persona

To these finally let it be permitted to add solely Theodoret, a man of great and varied erudition, who confessed, as befits a good historian, that what he recounted concerning the most ancient heresies he had received from the ancient teachers of the Church, Justin the philosopher and martyr, and Irenaeus, who both cultivated and enlightened the Celtic nations, etc. When he had touched briefly upon the dreams and shameful deeds which are wont to be handed down concerning Carpocrates and his followers, lest anyone should suspect that accusations of this sort are fabricated, he cited as witness Irenaeus, who illuminated the West with the light of the Christian religion, an apostolic man, and having cited his words premised these: And this man says in the first book of those written by him against the heresies. That the same Theodoret wrote the three dialogues that survive, distinguished by the name of Eranistes or Polymorphus, although some have doubted; yet by what causes I suffer myself to be moved so that I myself firmly believe it, I have declared elsewhere. Now whoever has read them, he must know that to the individual dialogues there were subjoined passages of more ancient teachers, by whose authority the opinions concerning the person

Editors' notes and page, col. 391

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 391 (call above the rendered foot)

Catal. viror. illustr. cap. 35, t. II Oper., p. 873, edit. Vallarsii.

Catalogue of Illustrious Men, ch. 35, vol. II of the Works, p. 873, Vallarsi's edition.

(printed under page 202)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 391 (call above the rendered foot)

In Isa. LXIV, t. IV Oper., p. 761.

On Isaiah 64, vol. IV of the Works, p. 761.

(printed under page 202)

Epist. ad Theodor. Martian. L. III, Vallars. LXXV, n. 3, t. I Oper., p. 447.

Letter to Theodora, Martianay's [numbering] 53 [printed "L. III"], Vallarsi's 75, no. 3, vol. I of the Works, p. 447.

(printed under page 202)

(d) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 391 (call above the rendered foot)

Epist. ad Magn. Martian. LXXXIV, Vallars. LXX, p. 426.

Letter to Magnus, Martianay's [numbering] 84, Vallarsi's 70, p. 426.

(printed under page 202)

(e) ‹anchor: confessus est› · call in col 391

Praef. Haeret. fabul., t. IV Oper., p. 280, edit. Schulzii.

Preface to the Compendium of Heretical Fables, vol. IV of the Works, p. 280, Schulze's edition.

(printed under page 202)

(f) ‹anchor: φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος› · call in col 391

Justinum reliquisse contra omnes haereses libros nunc deperditos, norunt omnes. Hinc quale Irenaei opus Cyrensis laudet, tuto concluditur.

Everyone knows that Justin left books against all heresies which are now lost. From this one may safely infer what kind of work of Irenaeus the bishop of Cyrrhus is praising.

(printed under page 202)

(g) ‹anchor: haec praemisit› · call in col 391

Haeretic. fabul., lib. I, cap. 5, p. 294.

Heretical Fables, book I, ch. 5, p. 294.

(printed under page 202)

(h) ‹anchor: alibi declaravi› · call in col 391

Hist. haeres., vol. VI, p. 521.

History of the Heresies, vol. VI, p. 521.

(printed under page 202)

(i) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 391 or 392 (call above the rendered foot)

Dial. I, p. 51, dial. II, p. 128; dial. III, p. 231, laudati operum Theodoreti tomi.

Dialogue I, p. 51; Dialogue II, p. 128; Dialogue III, p. 231, of the volume of Theodoret's works cited above.

(printed under page 202)

(j) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 391 or 392 (call above the rendered foot)

Dial. II, p. 129.

Dialogue II, p. 129.

(printed under page 202)

(k) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 391 or 392 (call above the rendered foot)

Dial. III, p. 232.

Dialogue III, p. 232.

(printed under page 202)

Page

running head: 391 FR. WALCHI
marginal letters: A sus haereses libros .; B cum litterarum philosophicarum studia; C magnae et variae eruditionis; D scripsisse qui supersunt dialogos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations, no facing Greek column; begins with fragment sus from 390 (adversus); editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:392

Christi in iis propositae confirmentur. In horum numero omnino repositum videbis Irenaeum, episcopum Lugdunensem, recitataque ejus effata quamplurima et magnam partem longiora ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου λόγου τῶν εἰς τὰς αἱρέσεις, ἐκ τοῦ τετάρτου λόγου τῶν εἰς τὰς αἱρέσεις, et ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου λόγου τῆς αὐτῆς πραγματείας. Sic et Theodoretus usus est libris adversus haereses, eorumque auctorem habuit Irenaeum; neque ignoravit certe quis qualisve is fuerit.

of Christ proposed in them might be confirmed. In the number of these you will see altogether placed Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and very many utterances of his recited, and in great part longer ones, from the third book of those against the heresies, from the fourth book of those against the heresies, and from the fifth book of the same treatise. Thus Theodoret also made use of the books against heresies, and held Irenaeus to be their author; nor certainly was he ignorant who or of what sort he was.

In tot igitur tamque gravium testium effatis innititur opinio, Irenaeum Lugdunensem exarasse adversus haereticos commentarios. Quisquis criticae artis leges, quibus rerum gestarum veritas dijudicetur aut testium fides aestimetur, habuerit perspectas, is certe non inficiabitur, sive testium, quos produxi, numerum et praestantiam, — nemo enim eorum fraudis, aut per jocum petulantiamque fallendi alios libidinis hoc loco sine injuria insimulabitur, neque ullus eorum sua ex altero sumpsisse arguetur, — sive testimoniorum, quae ediderunt, integritatem et perspicuitatem consideraverit, aut ita esse, uti dixi, aut nihil veri inesse veterum temporum memoriae. Accedit, quod sine haesitatione affirmo, ex scriptorum veterum, quos sui ingenii monimenta reliquisse scimus, sive haec supersint, sive interierint, tam Graecorum, quam Romanorum, tam profanorum, quam Christianorum multitudine, si ab Homero, Herodoto, Platone, Cicerone, Augustino, Chrysostomo hisque similibus discesseris, qui tot tamque antiquos operum ab illis conditorum laudatores nacti essent, admodum paucos esse. Neque id negligi a nobis debet, exiguum certe esse monimentorum Christianorum, quae ad saeculum tertium referuntur, numerum; maximam eorum partem esse perditam; praeter Tertulliani libellos nihil eorum superesse, qui ad historiam haeresium enarrandam pertinebant; multorum ex scriptoribus ecclesiasticis memoriam a solo Eusebio, imo a solo Hieronymo posteris fuisse commendatam, quibus omnes assentimur. Quid quaeso est causae, cur iisdem totque aliis credendi officium denegemus testantibus, Irenaeum auctorem esse contra haereses librorum?

Upon the utterances therefore of so many and such weighty witnesses rests the opinion that Irenaeus of Lyons penned the commentaries against heretics. Whoever has thoroughly examined the laws of the critical art, by which the truth of things done is judged or the trustworthiness of witnesses is estimated, he certainly will not deny, whether he considers the number and excellence of the witnesses whom I have produced — for none of them will in this place without injustice be accused of fraud, or of a desire of deceiving others through jest and wantonness, nor will any of them be proved to have taken his material from another — or the integrity and perspicuity of the testimonies which they put forth, that either it is so, as I have said, or there is nothing of truth in the memory of ancient times. Added to this is what without hesitation I affirm, that out of the multitude of ancient writers whom we know to have left monuments of their genius, whether these survive or have perished, both of Greeks and of Romans, both of profane and of Christian writers, if you depart from Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Cicero, Augustine, Chrysostom, and those similar to these, there are very few who have obtained so many and such ancient citers of the works founded by them. Nor ought this to be neglected by us, that the number of Christian monuments which are referred to the third century is certainly small; that the greatest part of them is lost; that besides the treatises of Tertullian nothing of those survives which pertained to recounting the history of heresies; that the memory of many of the ecclesiastical writers was commended to posterity by Eusebius alone, nay, by Jerome alone, to whom we all assent. What reason, I ask, is there why we should deny the duty of believing to the same men and to so many others when they testify that Irenaeus is the author of the books against heresies?

Progredimur ad alteram demonstrationis hujus argumenti partem explicandam. Hac vero inquirendi imposita nobis est necessitas, num iidem sint Irenaei adversus haereses libri, quos viderunt, legerunt, laudaverunt scriptores saeculi III, IV, V, cum his, quos in manibus nostris habemus. Recte id statui et affirmari, multis variique generis constat

We proceed to explain the second part of the demonstration of this argument. And in this the necessity of inquiring is imposed upon us, whether the books of Irenaeus against heresies which the writers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries saw, read, and cited are the same as these which we have in our hands. That this is rightly established and affirmed is proved by many arguments of varied kind,

Editors' notes and page, col. 392

Page

running head: FR. WALCHII 392
marginal letters: A Christi in iis propositae; B spectas, is certe non; C rone, Augustino, Chrysostomo hisque; D Progredimur ad alteram demonstrationis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations, no facing Greek column; con- split at end of column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: the word constat was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 393

PG 7:393

argumentis, quae in suas classes distribui, operae est pretium.

which, since it was worth the effort, I have distributed into their classes.

I. Quaecunque veteres de forma et specie librorum Irenaei referunt, eadem sine discrimine in opere illo, quo nunc utimur, expressa observamus. Utraque ejus inscriptio, altera: Adversus haereses, altera: Detectio et eversio falsi nominis agnitionis, uti Latinus Graeca vertit, a priscis scriptoribus, quorum effata jam protuli, commemoratur; posterior quidem ab Eusebio, prior ab eodem Eusebio, Cyrillo, Hieronymo, Theodoreto. In quinque libros universum opus est divisum. Eamdem partitionem confirmant Eusebius et Hieronymus. Praeter haec singulatim vidimus enumerari ab Eusebio librum primum, secundum, tertium, quintum; ab Epiphanio secundum; a Theodoreto, tertium, quartum et quintum.

I. Whatever things the ancients relate concerning the form and outward appearance of the books of Irenaeus, the same without difference we observe expressed in that work which we now use. Both of its titles, the one: Against Heresies, the other: Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called, as the Latin translator rendered the Greek, are recorded by the ancient writers whose utterances I have already brought forward; the latter indeed by Eusebius, the former by the same Eusebius, Cyril, Jerome, and Theodoret. The whole work is divided into five books. The same partition Eusebius and Jerome confirm. Besides these things, in particular we have seen enumerated by Eusebius the first, second, third, and fifth book; by Epiphanius, the second; by Theodoret, the third, fourth, and fifth.

II. Quaecunque veteres libris ab Irenaeo scriptis contineri testati sunt, eadem ad unum omnia in nostris codicibus inveniuntur. Nolo jam repetere, quae ex dictis ab Eusebio, Epiphanio, Hieronymo, Theodoreto per se patent, eos omnes et narrationes de originibus, opinionibus, moribus et institutis, maxime successionibus haereticorum, inde a Simone Mago deducendis, et errorum, quos illi disseminarunt, confutationes legisse ab Irenaeo traditas, hoc est, omnia et singula rerum genera, quae nostri codices suo ambitu comprehendunt. Fieri vero nequit, ut hoc loco silentio praeteream insignem Photii diligentiam, qua accuratam librorum Irenaei, quales sua aetate, hoc est saeculo nono fuerint, Graecorum certe descriptionem consignavit, nostris licet Latinis mirifice convenientem. Auctorem eorum esse narrat Irenaeum, Lugduni, urbis in Gallia sitae, episcopum, eodem esse numero quinque, et prae se ferre hanc inscriptionem: ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, sive contra haereses. Pergit, primo libro initium fieri orationis a Valentino, deinde eamdem quasi regredi et a Simone Mago haereses repetere et usque ad Tatianum procedere, additis Gnosticis et Cainitis; secundo convelli impia haereticorum dogmata; tertio opponi iisdem Scripturae sacrae testimonia; quarto fieri responsa ad ea, quae illi objicere consueverint; quinto denique ex sermonibus Christi et apostolorum epistolis colligi contra eos argumenta apta. At vero non modo haec

II. Whatever things the ancients testified to be contained in the books written by Irenaeus, the same one and all are found in our manuscripts. I do not wish now to repeat the things that are self-evident from what has been said by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Theodoret, that all of them read both the narratives concerning the origins, opinions, customs, and institutions, above all the successions of the heretics to be traced down from Simon Magus, and the refutations of the errors which they disseminated, handed down by Irenaeus, that is, all and each of the kinds of matters that our manuscripts comprehend within their compass. Yet it cannot be that in this place I should pass over in silence the notable diligence of Photius, with which he recorded an accurate description of the Greek books of Irenaeus, such as they were in his age, that is the ninth century, wonderfully agreeing, however, with our Latin ones. He narrates that their author is Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, a city situated in Gaul, that the same are five in number, and that they bear before them this title: ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως [of the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called], or against heresies. He proceeds, that in the first book the beginning of the discourse is made from Valentinus, then that the same as it were goes back and traces the heresies from Simon Magus and proceeds right down to Tatian, with the Gnostics and Cainites added; in the second, the impious dogmas of the heretics are overthrown; in the third, testimonies of sacred Scripture are opposed to the same; in the fourth, replies are made to those things which they were accustomed to object; in the fifth, finally, from the discourses of Christ and the epistles of the apostles apt arguments are collected against them. Moreover, not only these

Editors' notes and page, col. 393

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: Latinis mirifice convenientem› · call in col 393

Biblioth. cod. CXX.

Bibliotheca, codex 120.

(printed under page 203)

(b) ‹anchor: eos argumenta apta› · call in col 393

Si quis nolit Irenaei libros comparare cum Photii descriptione, eum rogamus, ut recentiorum consulat de rebus in illis traditis narrationes, aut saltem praefationes singulis praemissas inspiciat. Ex illis vero principatum tenere arbitror celeberrimum virum, Joann. Matthiam Schroeckhium, Christliche Kirchengeschichte, part. III, p. 196 seqq.

If anyone does not wish to compare Irenaeus's books with Photius's description, we ask him to consult the accounts more recent writers give of what those books contain, or at least to look at the prefaces set before each of them. Among those writers I judge the first place to belong to that most celebrated man Johann Matthias Schröckh, Christliche Kirchengeschichte, part III, p. 196 and following.

(printed under page 203)

Vide Irenaeum, lib. I, cap. 1—21.

See Irenaeus, book I, chs. 1–21.

(printed under page 203)

(d) ‹anchor: not in col 393› · call in col 394

Lib. I, cap. 23.

Book I, ch. 23.

(printed under page 203)

(e) ‹anchor: not in col 393› · call in col 394

Lib. I, cap. 23.

Book I, ch. 23.

(printed under page 203)

(f) ‹anchor: not in col 393› · call in col 394

Lib. I, cap. 26.

Book I, ch. 26.

(printed under page 203)

(g) ‹anchor: not in col 393› · call in col 394

Lib. I, cap. 24.

Book I, ch. 24.

(printed under page 203)

Page

running head: 393 DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IREN
marginal letters: A stat argumentis, quae in; B nio secundum; a Theodoreto,; C gnem Photii diligentiam, qua; D objicere consueverint; quinto denique
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotation, no facing Greek column; begins with fragment stat from 392 (constat); editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: page foot also carries the signature line PATROL. GR. VII. under the left column (printer's signature, not set)

PG 7:394

universe dicta rem comprobant; sed singula etiam capita, quae ex Irenaei libris veteres allegant. Horum duplex est genus. Alterum enim loca continet, ubi ipsa Irenaei verba recitantur, de quo postea nonnulla dicam; alterum vero eorum est, ubi testis modo laudatur Irenaeus eorum, quae quisque scriptorum suis verbis usus tradiderat. Horum pauca afferam exempla. Tertullianum audivimus testari, Irenaeum copiose res Valentinianorum esse persecutum; Eusebium, eumdem exposuisse de Simone Mago, de Menandro, de Cerintho et similibus; Epiphanium, de Basilide; Cyrillum, de iis, qui doctrinam de Spiritu sancto depravarunt.

things said in general prove the matter; but also the individual heads which the ancients allege from the books of Irenaeus. Of these the kind is twofold. For the one contains passages where the very words of Irenaeus are recited, of which I shall say some things afterwards; while the other is of those where Irenaeus is cited only as a witness of the things which each of the writers had handed down using his own words. Of these I shall bring forward a few examples. We have heard Tertullian testify that Irenaeus copiously pursued the affairs of the Valentinians; Eusebius, that the same set forth concerning Simon Magus, concerning Menander, concerning Cerinthus and the like; Epiphanius, concerning Basilides; Cyril, concerning those who depraved the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

III. Quaecunque in Irenaei libris veteres invenisse sibi visi sunt ornamenta, diligentiae maxime in colligendis aliorum sententiis et lectionis variae, neque haec in nostris Irenaei commentariis desideraveris, modo aequus sis et omnia ex aevi, quo scripti sunt, rationibus et auctoris ipsius sorte aestimari debere cogitaveris. Tertullianus, uti audivimus, honorifice de Irenaeo judicavit eumque insigni elogio omnium doctrinarum curiosissimi exploratoris condecoravit. Quod quam vere sit dictum, omnes sentire oportet, quibus modo Irenaei libros oculis suis inspicere libuerit. Non solum enim magnam diligentiam in investigandis tot haereticorum commentis arcanisque doctrinis et institutis collocavit; sed etiam veterum philosophorum praecepta cum his contulit. Quare etiam Hieronymus Irenaeum hoc nomine laudavit, quod ex quibus philosophorum fontibus haereses manaverint explicaverit; nec negare quis ausus est, simili modo eum puriora Christianae religionis dogmata habuisse cognita, quae ab obtrectationibus et calumniis vindicandi causa opus illud susceperat. Quare non possum, quin Nathan. Lardnero assentiar, qui Tertulliani vocem omnium doctrinarum ita est interpretatus, ut eadem triplex quod commemoravi doctrinarum genus, philosophicarum, haereticarum et Christianarum puriorum significari, conjecturam faceret. Num satis recte tot tamque diversa sentientium opiniones conceperit animo verbisque expresserit, num semper rectum tulerit judicium de origine haeresium, ex philosophorum, Platonis maxime aliorumque Graecorum scholis deducenda, nostra quidem non interest,

III. Whatever ornaments the ancients seemed to themselves to have found in the books of Irenaeus, above all of diligence in collecting the opinions of others and of varied reading, neither will you miss these in our commentaries of Irenaeus, provided only you be fair and reflect that all things ought to be estimated from the conditions of the age in which they were written and the lot of the author himself. Tertullian, as we have heard, judged honourably of Irenaeus and adorned him with the notable eulogy of the most curious explorer of all doctrines. How truly this was said, all must perceive who have onlybeen pleased to inspect the books of Irenaeus with their own eyes. For not only did he bestow great diligence in investigating the figments and secret doctrines and institutions of so many heretics; but he also compared the precepts of the ancient philosophers with these. Wherefore Jerome also praised Irenaeus on this account, because he explained out of what fountains of the philosophers the heresies flowed; nor has anyone dared to deny that in like manner he was acquainted with the purer dogmas of the Christian religion, for the sake of vindicating which from disparagements and calumnies he had undertaken that work. Wherefore I cannot but assent to Nathaniel Lardner, who interpreted the expression of Tertullian, of all doctrines, in such a way as to make the conjecture that by the same is signified the threefold kind of doctrines which I have mentioned, philosophical, heretical, and purer Christian. Whether he rightly enough conceived in mind and expressed in words the opinions of so many men thinking such diverse things, whether he always passed a right judgement concerning the origin of the heresies as to be traced from the schools of the philosophers, of Plato above all and of the other Greeks, it certainly does not concern

Editors' notes and page, col. 394

Footnotes

(h) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 394 (call above the rendered foot)

V. c. de Valentinianis, lib. I, cap. 2, n. 5.

See the chapter on the Valentinians, book I, ch. 2, no. 5.

(printed under page 203)

(i) ‹anchor: tot haereticorum commentis› · call in col 394

Legatur Renati Massueti dissertatio prima (supra), qua haereticorum, quorum dogmata Irenaeus enarravit, exhibet censum studiose factum et illustratum.

Let René Massuet's first dissertation (above) be read, in which he gives a carefully made and annotated register of the heretics whose doctrines Irenaeus set out.

(printed under page 203)

(j) ‹anchor: conjecturam faceret› · call in col 394

In Credibility of the G. H., part. II, vol. I, pag. 346, ubi recitato Tertulliani effato haec adscripsit: He means it is likely, that Irenaeus had well studied the sentiments of the heathen philosophers, and of heretics, as well as the principles of the Christian religion. Adde vener. Jo. Frid. Cottae Versuch einer Kirchenhistorie, t. II, p. 798.

In The Credibility of the Gospel History, part II, vol. I, p. 346, where, after quoting Tertullian's saying, he added: "He means it is likely, that Irenaeus had well studied the sentiments of the heathen philosophers, and of heretics, as well as the principles of the Christian religion." Add the venerable Johann Friedrich Cotta, Versuch einer Kirchenhistorie, vol. II, p. 798.

(printed under page 203)

Page

running head: LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 394
marginal letters: A universe dicta rem comprobant;; B III. Quaecunque in Irenaei; C rum praecepta cum his; D rectum tulerit judicium de
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; in- split at end of column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: the word interest, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 395

PG 7:395

hoc loco uberius inquirere. Satis enim est, ex libris adversus haereses luculenter cognosci, talem eorum certe fuisse auctorem, qualem sua aetate Irenaeum contra haereticos scriptorem fuisse veteres judicarunt, hoc est, variarum inter philosophos et Christianos factionum de rebus divinis et ad mores pertinentibus sententias explorandi studiosum. Hinc in iisdem commemorari celeberrimorum apud Graecos philosophorum nomina videbis, aut excitari, modo laudari, modo reprehendi dicta, v. c. Anaxagorae, Anaximandri, Aristotelis, Democriti, Epicuri, Platonis, Pythagorae, Thaletis, et pari ratione poetarum, Hesiodi, Homeri, Pindari, Menandri, Sophoclis, Stesichori, item Aesopi. At vero ne quid veri non dicere videar, nostri libri indigni omnium fere judicio sunt laude illa, qua Irenaei opus Hieronymus cohonestavit, composuisse eum hoc doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone. Doctrinae quidem copiam nemo desideraverit, at eloquentiam orationisque elegantiam aeque nemo in his commentariis invenerit; nec modo Latina Interpretatio, sed ipsi etiam Graeci fontes, quantum eos novimus, nihil continent, quod ob facundiam et dictionis ubertatem aut venustatem admireris, licet hos illam egregie antecellere omnes consentiant. Propter hanc causam nonnulli quidem Hieronymi sententiam contra ipsius auctoris nobilem illam modestiam tuendam sibi sumpserunt, qua artis bene eleganterque dicendi expertem se esse confessus est seque hoc nomine voluit ab amico haberi excusatum. At hanc excusationem cum Epiphanius recitaverit, adeoque aperte non de Latinis, sed de Graecis capiendam, malo Hieronymum imprudentiae et in laudando justo gloriosius Irenaeo intemperantiae argui. Neque id nobis recte objici posse videtur, quod hoc loco non veterum laudationes aut cujuscunque sint generis de Irenaeo judicia, sed narrationes historicas scire cupimus. Quamvis illa fallant, hae tamen veritati apprime possunt esse consentaneae.

us to inquire more fully in this place. For it is enough that from the books against heresies it is clearly recognized that their author was certainly such a one as the ancients judged Irenaeus the writer against heretics to have been in his age, that is, zealous in exploring the opinions of the various factions among philosophers and Christians concerning divine things and things pertaining to morals. Hence in the same you will see recorded the names of the most celebrated philosophers among the Greeks, or their sayings cited, now praised, now rebuked, for example of Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Aristotle, Democritus, Epicurus, Plato, Pythagoras, Thales, and in like manner of the poets, Hesiod, Homer, Pindar, Menander, Sophocles, Stesichorus, likewise Aesop. Yet lest I should seem to fail to speak anything of the truth, our books in the judgement of almost all are unworthy of that praise with which Jerome honoured the work of Irenaeus, that he composed it in most learned and most eloquent language. Abundance of learning indeed nobody will miss, but eloquence and elegance of style equally nobody will find in these commentaries; and not only the Latin Translation, but even the Greek sources themselves, so far as we know them, contain nothing that you could admire for eloquence and richness or grace of diction, although all agree that the latter excellently surpass the former. For this reason some indeed have taken it upon themselves to defend the opinion of Jerome against that noble modesty of the author himself, whereby he confessed himself to be devoid of the art of speaking well and elegantly and wished on this account to be held excused by his friend. But since Epiphanius recited this excuse, and therefore openly to be understood not of the Latin, but of the Greek, I prefer that Jerome be accused of imprudence and of intemperance in praising Irenaeus more gloriously than is just. Nor does it seem that this can rightly be objected to us, because in this place we desire to know not the eulogies of the ancients or their judgements of whatever kind concerning Irenaeus, but historical narratives. Even though the former deceive, yet the latter can be in the highest degree agreeable to truth.

IV. Quaecunque denique veteres, Graeci et Latini, ex Irenaei contra haereses libris se descripsisse testantur loca modo longiora modo breviora, omnino in nostris codicibus Latinis inveniuntur. Horum vero tanta est multitudo, ut necesse sit non modo eadem in certas distribui classes, sed poni etiam fines et terminos meae diligentiae. Consulto igitur omitto monimenta recentioris, aevi, v. c. libros Anastasii Sinaitae, Joannis Damasceni, varias catenas, ex quibus post Petr. Halloixium decerpendi Graecas Irenaei particulas studia Grabii et Massueti jam praedicare me memini, meque intra

IV. Finally, whatever passages, now longer, now shorter, the ancients, Greek and Latin, testify that they copied out from the books of Irenaeus against heresies, are altogether found in our Latin manuscripts. Now of these the multitude is so great that it is necessary not only that the same be distributed into certain classes, but also that bounds and limits be set to my diligence. On purpose therefore I omit the monuments of a more recent age, for example the books of Anastasius of Sinai, of John of Damascus, the various catenae, the zeal of Grabe and Massuet after Pierre Halloix for plucking out the Greek passages of Irenaeus from which I remember that I have already proclaimed, and I shall confine myself

Editors' notes and page, col. 395

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 395 (call above the rendered foot)

Legas tamen Jac. Bruckeri Hist. critic. phil., vol. III, p. 408.

Yet read Jakob Brucker, Critical History of Philosophy, vol. III, p. 408.

(printed under page 204)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 395 (call above the rendered foot)

Irenaei loca, ubi haec aliorumque nomina occurrunt, more suo notavit Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Biblioth. graec., vol. V, p. 70 sq.

The places in Irenaeus where these and other names occur were noted, in his usual way, by Johann Albert Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. V, p. 70 f.

(printed under page 204)

Conf. Dodwellum diss. V, § 3, p. 394; Massuetum, diss. II, § 3, p. 74, et Histoire littér. de France, tom. I, p. 337.

Compare Dodwell, Dissertation V, § 3, p. 394; Massuet, Dissertation II, § 3, p. 74; and the Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, p. 337.

(printed under page 204)

(d) ‹anchor: haberi excusatum› · call in col 395

Praef. lib. I, num. 3.

Preface to book I, no. 3.

(printed under page 204)

Page

running head: 395 FR. WALCHII
marginal letters: A terest, hoc loco uberius; B nostri libri indigni omnium; C voluit ab amico haberi; D Horum vero tanta est
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins with fragment terest from 394 (interest); in- split at end of column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: the word intra was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 396

PG 7:396

spatium saeculorum ab Irenaeo trium continebo.

within the space of three centuries from Irenaeus.

Primum igitur ponam loca Irenaei, a priscis scriptoribus ita recitata, ut se eadem ex Irenaei contra haereses commentariis referre apertis verbis proderent, quae in nostris libris Latinis vere leguntur.

First, therefore, I shall set down the passages of Irenaeus so recited by ancient writers that they disclosed in open words that they were relating the same from the commentaries of Irenaeus against heresies, which are truly read in our Latin books.

1-2. Loca ap. Euseb. III, 23, ap. Iren. II, 22; III, 3, n. 5; — 3. ap. Euseb. III, 39, Iren. III, 33, n. 4; — 4. ap. Euseb. IV, 11, Iren. I, 27, n. 1; — 5. ap. Euseb. IV, 29, Iren. I, 28, n. 1; — 6. ap. Euseb. V, 6, Iren. III, 3, n. 3; — 7-8. ap. Euseb. V, 7, Iren. II, 32, n. 4, et V, 6, n. 1; — 9-12. ap. Euseb. V, 8, Iren. III, 1, n. 1; V, 30, n. 1 et 4; V, 20, n. 2; — 13. ap. Euseb. V, 14, Iren. III, 3, n. 4.

1-2. The passages in Eusebius III, 23, in Irenaeus II, 22; III, 3, no. 5; — 3. in Eusebius III, 39, Irenaeus III, 33, no. 4; — 4. in Eusebius IV, 11, Irenaeus I, 27, no. 1; — 5. in Eusebius IV, 29, Irenaeus I, 28, no. 1; — 6. in Eusebius V, 6, Irenaeus III, 3, no. 3; — 7-8. in Eusebius V, 7, Irenaeus II, 32, no. 4, and V, 6, no. 1; — 9-12. in Eusebius V, 8, Irenaeus III, 1, no. 1; V, 30, no. 1 and 4; V, 20, no. 2; — 13. in Eusebius V, 14, Irenaeus III, 3, no. 4.

Locus unicus apud Basilium De spiritu S., cap. 29, exstat apud Irenaeum libr. V, cap. 8, num. 2.

The single passage in Basil On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, is extant in Irenaeus bk. V, ch. 8, no. 2.

Locus ab Epiphanio descriptus haeres. XXXI, § 9-32, legitur in Irenaei Latinis libris, lib. I, praefat., et cap. 1, — cap. 11, num. 1.

The passage copied out by Epiphanius, Heresy 31, §§ 9-32, is read in the Latin books of Irenaeus, bk. I, preface, and ch. 1 — ch. 11, no. 1.

Bina loca apud Augustinum Contra Julian. lib. I, cap. 3, apud nostrum Irenaeum sunt lib. IV, cap. 2, num. 7, et lib. V, cap. 19, num. 1.

The two passages in Augustine Against Julian, bk. I, ch. 3, in our Irenaeus are bk. IV, ch. 2, no. 7, and bk. V, ch. 19, no. 1.

Apud Theodoretum 1. Haeret. fabular. lib. I, cap. 5; 2—8. dial. I; 9—14. dial. II; 15—17. dial. III, apud nostrum sunt 1. lib. I, cap. 24; 2—8. lib. III, cap. 11, 27, 31, 32, 20, 21, 19; 9—14. lib. III, cap. 20, 18, lib. IV, cap. 7, 59, 66; lib. V, cap. 1; 15—17. lib. III, cap. 20, 21; lib. V, cap. 1.

In Theodoret, 1. Compendium of Heretical Fables, bk. I, ch. 5; 2—8. Dialogue I; 9—14. Dialogue II; 15—17. Dialogue III, in our author are 1. bk. I, ch. 24; 2—8. bk. III, ch. 11, 27, 31, 32, 20, 21, 19; 9—14. bk. III, ch. 20, 18, bk. IV, ch. 7, 59, 66; bk. V, ch. 1; 15—17. bk. III, ch. 20, 21; bk. V, ch. 1.

Triginta quatuor igitur supersunt in monimentis antiquissimae aetatis loca Irenaei, et in his satis longa, imo magna pars primi libri apud Epiphanium; quae, si a varietate lectionis discesseris aut a vitiis interpretis, cum codicibus Latinis mirifice consentiunt, ita ut criticae artis leges prorsus ignorare eum oporteat, qui hos cum illis, quos veteres usurpaverint, eosdem esse negaverit.

Thirty-four passages of Irenaeus therefore survive in the monuments of the most ancient age, and among these sufficiently long ones, nay, a great part of the first book in Epiphanius; which, if you depart from variety of reading or from the faults of the translator, wonderfully agree with the Latin manuscripts, so that he must be altogether ignorant of the laws of the critical art who denies that these are the same as those which the ancients used.

Alterum genus minoris esse pretii, lubens fateor. Etenim praeter haec, alia in doctorum Christianorum libris effata deprehenduntur, quae eos ex Irenaei commentariis transcripsisse, non sua confessione, sed conjectura tantum, non certa sed probabili constat. Sic supra monui, Tertullianum in suum contra Valentinianos opusculum multa ex Irenaei libris tanquam ex fonte in rivulos deduxisse, laudavique diligentiam ven. Semleri in colligendis utriusque scriptoris narrationibus sibi similibus positam. Idem alii observarunt in Epiphanii et Theodoreti de haeresibus operibus contigisse, ut insignes Irenaei particulas ab his repetitas invenias, licet expressis verbis sui ducis, sui magistri nullam fecerint mentionem. Nefas tamen foret hoc nomine bonos viros insimulari furti, uti dicunt,

That the other kind is of lesser value, I willingly confess. For besides these, other utterances are detected in the books of Christian teachers which it is established, not by their own confession, but by conjecture only, not certain but probable, that they transcribed from the commentaries of Irenaeus. Thus above I pointed out that Tertullian into his treatise against the Valentinians drew off many things from the books of Irenaeus as if from a fountain into streams, and I praised the diligence of the venerable Semler bestowed in collecting the narratives of both writers similar to one another. Others have observed that the same thing happened in the works of Epiphanius and Theodoret concerning heresies, so that you may find notable passages of Irenaeus repeated by them, although in express words they made no mention of their leader, their master. Yet it would be wrong on this account for good men to be accused of theft, as they call it,

Editors' notes and page, col. 396

Footnotes

(e) ‹anchor: fecerint mentionem› · call in col 396

Ne fides a me dictis desit, pauca hujus generis loca ex utroque scriptore notabo. Quae Epiphanius habet de Epiphane haeres. XXXII, § 5, sumpta esse videntur ex Irenaei lib. I, cap. 11, n. 3; de aliis Valentinianorum familiis haeres. XXX, § 7, ex eod. cap. n. 5; de Ptolomaei sectatoribus haeres. XXXIII, § 1, ex lib. I, cap. 12, n. 1; de Colarba- (continues)

So that what I have said may not lack credit, I shall note a few places of this kind from each writer. What Epiphanius has about Epiphanes, Heresy XXXII, § 5, seems to be taken from Irenaeus book I, ch. 11, no. 3; about the other families of the Valentinians, Heresy XXX [so printed], § 7, from the same chapter, no. 5; about the followers of Ptolemy, Heresy XXXIII, § 1, from book I, ch. 12, no. 1; about Colarba- (continues)

(printed under page 204)

Page

running head: FR. WALCHII 396
marginal letters: A tra spatium saeculorum ab; B 29, exstat apud Irenaeum; C antiquissimae aetatis loca Irenaei,; D laudavique diligentiam ven. Semleri
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins with fragment tra from 395 (intra); editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:397

litterarii, postquam se legisse Irenaeum et ex ejus libris sua didicisse luculenter significarunt. Praeter hos aliorum Patrum effata passim notantur, quae Irenaei dictis simillima sunt; at ex illo fraude exscripta esse ea, nemo dicere ausus est. Praecipuo jure addere libet Ephraemum Syrum de cujus loco digna haec sunt nostra observatione. Diligentiae Jo. Ern. Grabii acceptum id ferimus, quod insignem et satis longam Irenaei particulam, de haereticorum Scriptura sacra abutendi artibus, ab Ephraemo recitari non modo monuit, sed eamdem etiam Graecam ex codice Bodleiano sumptam primus cum Graeco Irenaei textu apud Epiphanium contulit lectionisque varietatem suae Irenaei editioni ascripsit. Eo enim tempore Graeca Ephraemi opusculi versio nondum in lucem publicam erat producta. Quod quidem opera Eduardi Twaitsii contigit, qui quaecunque nancisci potuit, Graeca Ephraemi opuscula collegit et elegantissime descripta Oxonii prodire jussit; ignoravit tamen Massuetus, imo vix potuit fieri quin ignoraret, ideoque Grabii observationes repetiit suasque adjecit, quibus librum scriptum Colbertinae bibliothecae comparavit. Post Oxoniensem editionem accessit Assemanni Romana, qui etiam novem enumeravit codices Graecos in variis bibliothecis dispersos, quibus Ephraemi ille sermo continetur. Irenaei nomen ibi non est expressum; sed satis habuit Syrus, verbis ejus haec praemittere: Πρὸς οὓς καλῶς καὶ μεγάλως ἀπεφήνατό τις τῶν ἁγίων, οὕτως διδάξας καί φησι. Nulla quidem est dubitandi causa, nomine hoc ornari Irenaeum; nemo enim dubitabit, recitari Irenaei verba, modo si utriusque scriptoris dicta secum invicem contulerit; nolim tamen huic testimonio nimiam tribui auctoritatem. Nostis enim Ephraemum non Graeca sed Syriaca lingua esse usum, et quae Graece translata legimus, ejus opusculis Syriacis nos carere. Arduum ergo est de Graecis eorum interpretationibus judicium, num perfecte consentiant cum suis fontibus, nec Graeculi fortasse sibi nonnulla additamenta ex aliis scriptoribus adjungere permiserint. Suspicandi id hoc loco causam mihi affert nimia Graecorum Irenaei apud Epiphanium et Ephraemum convenientia; nisi malis credere, interpretem cognovisse, quisnam sit ille unus ex sanctis, nec hanc particulam ex Syriacis Ephraemi, convertisse, sed ex Irenaei codice Graeco descripsisse. Quare nec assentior Seb. Nan. Tillemontii conjecturae, Ephraemi aetate operis nostri

literary, after they clearly signified that they had read Irenaeus and learned their material from his books. Besides these, utterances of other Fathers are noted here and there which are very similar to the sayings of Irenaeus; yet that these were fraudulently copied out from him, nobody has dared to say. By special right it is pleasing to add Ephrem the Syrian, concerning whose passage these things are worthy of our observation. We owe it to the diligence of Johann Ernst Grabe that he not only pointed out that a notable and sufficiently long passage of Irenaeus, concerning the arts of the heretics in abusing sacred Scripture, is recited by Ephrem, but also first compared the same in Greek, taken from a Bodleian manuscript, with the Greek text of Irenaeus in Epiphanius and appended the variety of reading to his edition of Irenaeus. For at that time the Greek version of the treatise of Ephrem had not yet been brought forth into the public light. Which indeed happened through the labour of Edward Thwaites, who collected whatever Greek treatises of Ephrem he could obtain and ordered them, most elegantly transcribed, to come forth at Oxford; yet Massuet was ignorant of it, nay, it could scarcely happen that he should not be ignorant of it, and therefore he repeated the observations of Grabe and added his own, in which he compared a manuscript book of the Colbertine library. After the Oxford edition came the Roman one of Assemani, who also enumerated nine Greek manuscripts dispersed in various libraries, in which that discourse of Ephrem is contained. The name of Irenaeus is not expressed there; but the Syrian deemed it sufficient to premise these words to his words: Against whom one of the saints finely and nobly declared, having taught thus, and says. There is indeed no cause for doubting that Irenaeus is adorned with this name; for nobody will doubt that the words of Irenaeus are recited, provided only he compares the sayings of both writers with each other; yet I should not wish too much authority to be attributed to this testimony. For you know that Ephrem used not the Greek, but the Syriac tongue, and that of the things which we read translated in Greek, we lack his Syriac treatises. Arduous therefore is the judgement concerning the Greek translations of them, whether they perfectly agree with their sources, and whether the petty Greeks did not perhaps permit themselves to adjoin some additions from other writers. Cause for suspecting this in this place is brought to me by the excessive agreement of the Greek words of Irenaeus in Epiphanius and Ephrem; unless you prefer to believe that the translator knew who that one of the saints was, and did not translate this passage from the Syriac of Ephrem, but copied it out from a Greek manuscript of Irenaeus. Wherefore neither do I assent to the conjecture of Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont, that in the age of Ephrem there existed a complete Syriac version of our work,

Editors' notes and page, col. 397

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: nemo dicere ausus est› · call in col 397

Sic Cyrilli Hierosolymitani nonnulla effata cum Irenaei testimoniis recte comparari jussit Ant. Augustin. Touttaeus, Observat. in Cyrill. p. 87, 91 cet.

So Antoine-Augustin Touttée, Observations on Cyril, p. 87, 91 etc., rightly directed that some sayings of Cyril of Jerusalem be compared with the testimony of Irenaeus.

(printed under page 205)

(b) ‹anchor: longam Irenaei› · call in col 397

Lib. I, cap. 8, n. 1.

Book I, ch. 8, no. 1.

(printed under page 205)

Cap. 8, De virtute, p. 155, edit. Oxon., et tom. I oper. Graeco-Latin., p. 224 edit. Romanae.

Ch. 8, On Virtue, p. 155, Oxford edition, and vol. I of the Greek-Latin works, p. 224, Roman edition.

(printed under page 205)

(d) ‹anchor: sermo continetur› · call in col 397

Vid. Assemanni prolegom. laudati tomi, p. 197.

See Assemani's prolegomena to the volume cited, p. 197.

(printed under page 205)

(e) ‹anchor: Seb. Nan. Tillemontii› · call in col 397

Mémoir. pour servir à l'H. E., t. III, p. 77 sqq.

Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, vol. III, p. 77 and following.

(printed under page 205)

(f) ‹anchor: not in col 397› · call in col 398 (col 397's text carries only the calls (a) to (e))

Histoir. littér. de France, tom. I, p. 336.

Histoire littéraire de la France, vol. I, p. 336.

(printed under page 205)

Page

running head: 397 DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IRE
marginal letters: A litterarii, postquam se legisse; B sculi versio nondum in; C Nulla quidem est dubitandi; D unus ex sanctis, nec
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotation, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: the page foot opens with the tail of a footnote continued from the previous page ("sianis haeres. xxxv ..."); it belongs to that page's note, not set here
other: UNSURE (QA Q2): "aliorum Patrum" (line 3) looks like "alicrum" at lean resolution (likely a broken o); kept "aliorum"; check at full resolution

PG 7:398

versionem Syriacam integram exstitisse, nec Parisiensibus monachis ad illam confutandam monentibus, potuisse Ephraemum aliorum opera ad intelligendos Graecos auctores uti. Nescio praeterea cur Ephraemum linguae Graecae prorsus ignarum fuisse credamus, quem constat Graecorum, v. c. Basilii amicitiam coluisse. Nobilissima illa Sozomeni et Theodoreti testimonia, caruisse eum τῆς παιδείας Ἑλληνικῆς usu, cur ad linguae etiam Graecae ignorantiam significandam contorquenda sint, ego quidem non video. Sed haec ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ.

nor to the Parisian monks when, to refute that conjecture, they point out that Ephrem could have used the help of others for understanding Greek authors. Besides, I do not know why we should believe Ephrem to have been altogether ignorant of the Greek tongue, when it is established that he cultivated the friendship of Greeks, for example of Basil. Why those most famous testimonies of Sozomen and Theodoret, that he lacked the use τῆς παιδείας Ἑλληνικῆς [of Greek education], should be twisted to signify ignorance of the Greek tongue also, I indeed do not see. But these things ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ [by the way].

Ita feci, quod facere recepi, et collegi quaecunque supersunt veterum scriptorum loca, ex quibus tuto concluditur, vere Irenaei libros, quos legerunt illi et descripserunt, cum his quibus nos utimur eosdem esse. Nisi hujus generis argumenta ad comprobandam veterum monimentorum αὐθεντίαν apta sint et idonea, nisi his, quorum auctoritas tam certis tamque expeditis documentis nititur, credendi sit officium boni viri verique studiosi, vereor sane, ne nulla sit veteris historiae omnis fides, nullum pretium. Fateamur igitur necesse est fidem auctoritatemque, quam Irenaeo, sive Graeco sive Latino, recte tribui omni tempore eruditissimi viri crediderunt, firmam esse neque ambiguam, sed rationibus fulciri, quibus summum inest pondus, nosque ut ita esse nobis persuadeamus commovendi vis maxima.

Thus I have done what I undertook to do, and have collected whatever passages of ancient writers survive, from which it is safely concluded that the books of Irenaeus which they read and copied out are truly the same as these which we use. Unless arguments of this kind are apt and suitable for proving the αὐθεντίαν [authenticity] of ancient monuments, unless it is the duty of a good man and one zealous for the truth to believe these, whose authority rests upon such certain and such ready documents, I truly fear lest all trustworthiness of ancient history be nothing, its value nothing. It is necessary, therefore, that we confess that the trustworthiness and authority which the most learned men at every time have believed to be rightly attributed to Irenaeus, whether Greek or Latin, is firm and not ambiguous, but supported by reasons in which there is the greatest weight and the greatest force for moving us to persuade ourselves that it is so.

Nihilomninus in alia omnia discessit ven. Semlerus et insignem diligentiam in eo collocavit, ut libros illos adversus haereses non ab Irenaeo Lugdunensi profectos esse, sed ab antiquissima societate, quae fraudulenter libros scripserit et studiosissime eos variis et diversis scriptoribus diviserit. Ex hac ergo officina impostorum prodiisse putat Irenaei commentarios, qui ex veteribus novas compilare consuevissent scriptiones. De hac ipsa societate antiquissima nolo hoc loco disputare; ignorare enim me fateor testes, quorum effatis, quando et ubi aut quo consilio coiverit dolosorum hominum sodalitium, constet; ea vero est animi mei constantia, quam alii fortasse pertinaciam, aut obstinationem vocare malint, ut in explicanda rerum gestarum memoria nullis aliorum, licet ingeniosissimi sint, conjecturis, sed solis testimoniis, quibus justa inest auctoritas, credam et ab aliis credi cupiam. Placet vero venerandi viri ingenuitas et probitas, quae suae societati adeoque Irenaei libris

Nevertheless, the venerable Semler went over into entirely different views and bestowed notable diligence upon showing that those books against heresies did not proceed from Irenaeus of Lyons, but from a most ancient society which fraudulently wrote books and most studiously distributed them to various and diverse writers. From this workshop of impostors, therefore, who were accustomed to compile new writings out of ancient ones, he thinks the commentaries of Irenaeus came forth. Concerning this very most ancient society I do not wish to dispute in this place; for I confess that I am ignorant of the witnesses by whose utterances it is established when and where or with what design the fellowship of deceitful men came together; but such is the constancy of my mind, which others perhaps may prefer to call pertinacity or obstinacy, that in explaining the memory of things done I believe no conjectures of others, even though they be most ingenious, but only testimonies in which there is just authority, and desire them to be believed by others. Yet the candour and probity of the venerable man is pleasing, which for his society and therefore for our books of Irenaeus

Editors' notes and page, col. 398

Footnotes

(g) ‹anchor: ven. Semlerus› · call in col 398

Licet in aliis ingenii sui monimentis suspicionem prodiderit vir celeberrimus, diligentius tamen nullibi eam explicavit, quam in dissertat. I in Tertullianum supra laudata.

Although that most celebrated man has put forward his suspicion in other works of his talent, he has nowhere set it out more carefully than in Dissertation I on Tertullian, cited above.

(printed under page 205)

(h) ‹anchor: scriptoribus diviserit› · call in col 398

P. 262.

(printed under page 205)

Page

running head: LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 398
marginal letters: A versionem Syriacam integram exstitisse,; B et descripserunt, cum his; C lerus et insignem; D simi sint, conjecturis, sed
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek words, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:399

nostris noluit auferri summae antiquitatis gloriam unicam illam et invidendam, quae ubi illis relicta fuerit, nescio sane, quidnam emolumenti ex hac suspicione exspectari queat. At de causis dispicere libet, cur opus illud ab Irenaeo, Lugdunensi episcopo, conditum fuisse aut neget aut saltem dubitet. Tria quippe notavit loca Irenaei, quae ex Clementis Alexandrini libris desumpta esse autumat, atque ita comparata, ut a destinato furto atque impostura vix abesse possit ille scriptor, qui ista in suam rem corraserit, licet non commodissima, aut consilio maxime apta. Ita ergo suas rationes celeberrimus vir subduxit: Si in libris, quae Irenaeo tribuere consuevit vulgus, loca occurrunt, quae apud Clementem Alexandrinum simili modo habentur, sequitur, ut illos Irenaeus scribere non potuerit. Videamus de hac ipsa ratiocinatione, num insit ea vis de Irenaei fide tantum detrahendi, quantum detrahi cupit de illa Semlerus. Quem quidem in finem haec observari cupio.

was unwilling that that unique and enviable glory of the highest antiquity should be taken away, which when it has been left to them, I truly do not know what advantage can be expected from this suspicion. But it is pleasing to consider the causes why he either denies or at least doubts that that work was founded by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. For he noted three passages of Irenaeus which he asserts to have been taken from the books of Clement of Alexandria, and so framed that that writer who scraped those things together for his own purpose, although not very convenient or most apt for his design, can scarcely be free from deliberate theft and imposture. Thus therefore the most celebrated man reckoned up his reasons: If in the books which the common crowd has been accustomed to attribute to Irenaeus passages occur which are held in a similar manner in Clement of Alexandria, it follows that Irenaeus could not have written them. Let us see concerning this very reasoning whether there is in it that force of detracting so much from the trustworthiness of Irenaeus as Semler desires to be detracted from it. To which end indeed I desire these things to be observed.

I. In utroque scriptore multa inesse sibi similia, nulla est mirandi causa. Uterque enim versatur saepissime in uno eodemque argumento explicando, uterque Gnosticorum somnia persequitur. Nihilominus toties a se differunt, uti alias a se discrepare solent historici optimae notae, qui easdem res gestas enarrant, v. c. Tacitus a Suetonio. Sic nobilissima est et pervagata doctorum hominum controversia, num Irenaei an Clementis sit major auctoritas in iis, quae de Basilide tradiderunt, varia certe et discrepantia.

I. That in both writers there are many things similar to one another is no cause for wondering. For each is very often engaged in explaining one and the same subject, each pursues the dreams of the Gnostics. Nevertheless, so many times do they differ from each other, as historians of the best note who recount the same events are elsewhere wont to disagree with each other, for example Tacitus from Suetonius. Thus most famous and widespread is the controversy of learned men, whether the authority of Irenaeus or of Clement is greater in the things that they handed down concerning Basilides, which are certainly varied and discrepant.

II. Non solum in narrationibus historicis de haeresibus, sed etiam aliis argumentis tractandis vel leviter attingendis sibi similes esse Irenaeum et Clementem, vidit jam sua aetate Eusebius. Joannem apostolum usque ad Trajani aetatem pervenisse, duos produxit testes, Irenaeum et Clementem, servatoque temporis ordine hunc secundo, illo [illum?] primo loco posuit, nec cogitavit quidem, quae apud Irenaeum leguntur, eadem furto destinato et doloso Clementi ablata fuisse.

II. That not only in historical narratives concerning heresies, but also in treating or lightly touching upon other arguments, Irenaeus and Clement are similar to each other, Eusebius saw already in his own age. That John the Apostle lived right down to the age of Trajan, he produced two witnesses, Irenaeus and Clement, and observing the order of time placed the latter in the second place, the former in the first place, and did not even think that the things which are read in Irenaeus had been taken away from Clement by a deliberate and deceitful theft.

III. Quod si a binis scriptoribus easdem sententias proferri iisdemque formulis exprimi intelligimus, tum certe facilis est furti suspicio, sed nequit cadere nisi in eum, qui posterior est aetate. At Clementem potius Irenaeo, quam Irenaeum Clemente aetate fuisse minorem, ipse ven. Semlerus confessus

III. Now if we understand the same opinions to be put forward by two writers and expressed in the same formulas, then certainly the suspicion of theft is easy, yet it cannot fall except upon him who is later in age. But that Clement was younger in age than Irenaeus, rather than Irenaeus than Clement, the venerable Semler himself

Editors' notes and page, col. 399

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 399 (call above the rendered foot)

P. 343-365

Pp. 343–365.

(printed under page 206)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 399 (call above the rendered foot)

P. 357.

(printed under page 206)

H. E., lib. III, cap. 23.

Ecclesiastical History, book III, ch. 23.

(printed under page 206)

(d) ‹anchor: ven. Semlerus› · call in col 399

P. 365.

(printed under page 206)

(e) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 399 or 400 (call above the rendered foot)

Postquam omnia circumspecte legi et consideratius expendi, quae ad defendendam illam narrationem, martyris honorem consecutum esse Irenaeum, diligentissime disputarunt Dan. Papebrochius in Act. sanct., tom. V Jun., p. 335; Renat. Massuetus diss. I, praev., p. 208 sqq. huj. edit.; Domin. de Colonia, Hist. littér. de Lyon, p. 52, 94; Paul. de Lumina, Hist. ecclés. de Lyon, p. 41 sqq., aliique; non possum a me impetrare, ut veram illam, hoc est, certis fideque dignis testimoniis comprobatam esse statuam. At, licet ponamus, martyrem factum esse Irenaeum, tamen sub Severo id contigisse et ad ann. CCII referendum nullis rationibus, Turonensi enim Gregorio quis hoc loco soli credat? sed ratiocinationibus et conjecturis probari solet, quae historicum vera sectantem prorsus dedecent.

Having circumspectly read and weighed with some care everything that Daniel Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum, vol. V of June, p. 335, René Massuet in Preliminary Dissertation I, p. 208 and following of this edition, Dominique de Colonia, Histoire littéraire de Lyon, pp. 52, 94, Paulin de Lumina, Histoire ecclésiastique de Lyon, p. 41 and following, and others have most diligently argued in defence of the account that Irenaeus gained the honour of a martyr, I cannot bring myself to hold that it is true, that is, proved by certain and trustworthy testimony. And even if we grant that Irenaeus was made a martyr, that it happened under Severus and is to be assigned to the year 202 is proved by no reasons (for who would trust Gregory of Tours alone on this point?), but by inferences and conjectures, which wholly misbecome a historian who pursues the truth.

(printed under page 206)

Page

running head: 399 FR WALCHII
marginal letters: A nostris noluit auferri summae; B bentur, sequitur, ut illos; C ctoritas in iis, quae; D cadere nisi in eum,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; con- split at end of column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)
other: the word confessus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 400

PG 7:400

est. Quod si enim admittatur communis opinio, Irenaeum sub Severo circa annum saeculi tertii secundum gloriosam mortem obiisse, Clementem vero paulo ante Caracallae obitum, qui anno CCXVII ascribitur, vita decessisse, Clemens Irenaeo ut superstes fuerit, necesse esse aperte scripsit. Fateor tamen, nimis suspectam mihi esse omnem de Irenaei martyrio narrationem magisque placere eorum sententiam, qui Irenaeum ante initia saeculi tertii vitam finivisse putant, licet tutius sit, confiteri, nos ignorare, num attigerit eadem, necne.

confessed. For if the common opinion be admitted, that Irenaeus died a glorious death under Severus around the second year of the third century, while Clement departed from life a little before the death of Caracalla, which is ascribed to the year 217, he openly wrote that it is necessary that Clement survived Irenaeus. Yet I confess that the whole narrative concerning the martyrdom of Irenaeus is too suspicious to me, and that the opinion of those is more pleasing who think that Irenaeus ended his life before the beginnings of the third century, although it is safer to confess that we do not know whether he reached the same or not.

IV. At haec nimis a proposito sunt remota. Propius accedimus ad id investigandum, quod exquirimus, si ad aetatem librorum utriusque scriptoris animum advertimus. De Irenaeo quidem constat scripsisse eum libros suos adversus haereses per intervalla: ex mentione Eleutheri, Romani episcopi, et interpretationis Codicis sacri Graecae, quam Theodotion condidit, libro tertio facta colligunt viri docti, intra ann. CLXXVII, quo creditur Irenaeus sacris Lugdunensibus gubernandis admotus esse, et ann. CLXXXV, quo Eleutherus diem obiit, aut si nonnullos addere libuerit, CXCII eosdem fuisse editos. Nulla certe subest causa, ultra hoc spatium progrediendi. Clemens vero Stromata scribere coepit post Commodi obitum, hoc est post ann. CXCII. His igitur rationibus ductus, lubens assentior ven. Semlero neganti, Clementis Stromata ab Irenaeo lecta et visa esse, licet huic sententiae comprobandae haud sufficere mihi videantur illae difficultates, quibus implicatam esse arbitratur contrariam opinionem, denuo non ex historicis argumentis, sed ex ratiocinationibus natae.

IV. But these things are too remote from our purpose. We come nearer to investigating what we are inquiring into if we turn our mind to the age of the books of both writers. Concerning Irenaeus indeed it is established that he wrote his books against heresies at intervals: from the mention, made in the third book, of Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, and of the Greek translation of the sacred Codex which Theodotion made, learned men gather that the same were published between the year 177, in which Irenaeus is believed to have been advanced to governing the sacred affairs of Lyons, and the year 185, in which Eleutherus died, or if one should be pleased to add a few years, 192. Certainly there is no underlying reason for proceeding beyond this span. Clement, however, began to write the Stromata after the death of Commodus, that is after the year 192. Led therefore by these reasons, I willingly assent to the venerable Semler when he denies that the Stromata of Clement were read and seen by Irenaeus, although for proving this opinion those difficulties in which he thinks the contrary opinion is entangled, arising once more not from historical arguments, but from reasonings, seem to me by no means to suffice.

V. Addo, quod miror, celeberrimi viri solertiam effugisse, licet Irenaeus Clementis opera ignoraverit, legere tamen potuisse Clementem Irenaei commentarios. Id vero ex Eusebio disco, qui perditum nunc Alexandrini opus de Paschate commemorat, his additis verbis: Μέμνηται δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ Μελίτωνος καὶ Εἰρηναίου καί τινων ἑτέρων, ὧν καὶ τὰς διηγήσεις τέθειται. Ex quibusnam Irenaei libris sumpserit illa, quae retulit, fere nescimus; cum vero ad paschalem controversiam pertinuit [pertinuerit?] libellus Clementis, facilis est conjectura, dicta haec esse de epistolis illis, ab Irenaeo cum ad Victorem tum ad alios episcopos missis, quas alibi Eusebius laudavit, perinde ac de Melitonis

V. I add what I wonder escaped the shrewdness of the most celebrated man, that although Irenaeus was ignorant of the works of Clement, yet Clement could have read the commentaries of Irenaeus. And this I learn from Eusebius, who records the now lost work of the Alexandrian on the Pasch, with these words added: And he makes mention in it of Melito and Irenaeus and certain others, whose narratives also he has set down. Out of which books of Irenaeus he took those things which he related, we scarcely know; but since the treatise of Clement pertained to the paschal controversy, the conjecture is easy that these things were said of those epistles sent by Irenaeus both to Victor and to other bishops, which Eusebius cited elsewhere, just as of Melito's

Editors' notes and page, col. 400

Footnotes

(f) ‹anchor: eosdem fuisse editos› · call in col 400

Conf. Massuetum diss. II, praev., § 47 contra Dodwellum disputantem et Lardnerum, loc. cit., p. 223 huj. edit. sqq.

Compare Massuet, Preliminary Dissertation II, § 47, arguing against Dodwell, and Lardner, place cited, p. 223 and following of this edition.

(printed under page 206)

(g) ‹anchor: post ann. CXCII› · call in col 400

Vid. Nicol. Nourrium, Apparat. ad biblioth. max. patr., t. I, p. 658, et Jo. Alb. Fabricium B. Gr., vol. V, p. 106.

See Nicolas Le Nourry, Apparatus to the Bibliotheca maxima patrum, vol. I, p. 658, and Johann Albert Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. V, p. 106.

(printed under page 206)

(h) ‹anchor: ex Eusebio› · call in col 400

H. E., lib. VI, cap. 13.

Ecclesiastical History, book VI, ch. 13.

(printed under page 206)

(i) ‹anchor: Eusebius› · call in col 400

Lib. V, cap. 24, p. 213, 217.

Book V, ch. 24, pp. 213, 217.

(printed under page 206)

Page

running head: FR WALCHII 400
marginal letters: A fessus est. Quod si; B scripsisse eum libros suos; C probandae haud sufficere mihi; D dicta haec esse de
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotation, no facing Greek column; begins with fragment fessus from 399 (confessus); editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:401

binis de paschate libris, itidem ab Eusebio laudatis. Cum Irenaei epistolae paschales scriptae fuerint eo tempore, quo Victor non modo Romanis sacris praefuit, sed diutius etiam cum Quartodecimanis Asiae pugnaverat, consequens est, ut eaedem exaratae fuerint post libros adversus haereses. Eodem ergo modo, quo illas usurpavit Clemens, potuerunt hi in manus ejus pervenire, maxime ubi eos in usus Orientalium aut Aegyptiorum scriptos fuisse cogitaveris.

two books on the Pasch, likewise cited by Eusebius. Since the paschal epistles of Irenaeus were written at that time when Victor not only presided over the Roman sacred affairs, but had also fought for a rather long time with the Quartodecimans of Asia, it follows that the same were penned after the books against heresies. In the same way, therefore, in which Clement used those epistles, these books could have come into his hands, above all when you reflect that they were written for the uses of the Easterners or Egyptians.

VI. Quae quidem non eo animo a me proposita sunt ut Clementem furti accusem, sed ut exemplis constet, quanta cautione opus sit, ne in ferendis de vetustatis monimentis eorumque auctoritate judiciis nimis suspiciosi simus, sed omnia circumspiciamus, quae nostra observatione sint digna, nec praecipiti quadam celeritate ex his deducamus conclusiones rationis in tractanda historia nunquam tam certas, ut id quod contrarium sit inter ἀδύνατα referatur.

VI. Which things indeed have been proposed by me not with this mind, that I should accuse Clement of theft, but that it may be established by examples how much caution is needed, lest in passing judgements concerning the monuments of antiquity and their authority we be too suspicious, instead looking around at all things that are worthy of our observation, and not with a certain headlong speed deducing from them conclusions of reason, which in treating history are never so certain that what is contrary is to be reckoned among ἀδύνατα [impossibilities].

Nunc officii memores convertamus orationem ad loca ipsa, quae furto Clementi subrepta et in Irenaei libros translata fuisse, ven. Semlerus putat:

Now, mindful of our duty, let us turn our discourse to the passages themselves which the venerable Semler thinks were stolen by theft from Clement and transferred into the books of Irenaeus:

Primum excitat quae Irenaeus de impiis cum animalibus ex Mosaica disciplina immundis comparandis scripsit; haecque putat ex Clementis simili oratione desumpta, hoc maxime usus argumento, quod omnia apud hunc bene secum cohaereant, in illo vero parum commode aut opportune assuta sint. De hoc loco sic habe:

First he cites what Irenaeus wrote concerning comparing the impious with the animals that are unclean according to the Mosaic discipline; and he thinks that these things were taken from a similar discourse of Clement, using above all this argument, that in the latter all things cohere well with one another, whereas in the former they are stitched on with little convenience or opportuneness. Concerning this passage hold thus:

I. Ante Semlerum, lectores, consensum Clementis et Irenaei notavit Potterus et integram hujus orationem illius loco ascribendam curavit; haud dubitanter tamen judicavit Clementem sua Irenaeo ferre accepta.

I. Before Semler, readers, Potter noted the agreement of Clement and Irenaeus and took care that the entire discourse of the latter should be appended to the passage of the former; yet without hesitation he judged that Clement owed his material to Irenaeus.

II. Sine causa hanc particulam nullis vinculis cum antecedentibus copulatam haberi, quisquis videat necesse est. Cum enim de donis Spiritus sancti, quibus ad futuram gloriam pii praeparentur, verba facere instituisset, transit ad describendos impiorum mores, et: Eos autem, inquit, qui abjiciunt quidem spiritus consilium, carnis autem voluptatibus serviunt et irrationabiliter vivunt et ineffrenati dejiciuntur in sua desideria, quippe nullam habentes aspirationem divini Spiritus, sed porcorum et canum more vivunt, hos juste Apostolus carnales vocat, quoniam nihil quam carnalia sentiunt. Haec excipiunt verba: Et prophetae autem propter hanc eamdem causam irrationabilibus animalibus assimilant eos, propter irrationalem conversationem ipsorum, dicentes: « Equi furentes ad feminas facti sunt, unusquisque ipsorum hinniens ad uxorem proximi (Jer. V, 8); » et rursus: « Homo cum in honore esset,

II. That without cause this passage is held to be joined by no bonds with what precedes, everyone must see. For when he had undertaken to speak concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereby the pious are prepared for future glory, he passes over to describing the habits of the impious, and: Now those, he says, who cast away indeed the counsel of the Spirit, but serve the pleasures of the flesh and live irrationally and unbridled are cast down into their own desires, inasmuch as having no breath of the divine Spirit, but live after the manner of swine and dogs, these the Apostle justly calls carnal, because they mind nothing else than carnal things. These words follow: And the prophets also for this selfsame cause compare them to irrational animals, on account of their irrational way of life, saying: "They are become mad horses towards females, each one of them neighing after his neighbour's wife" (Jer. 5:8); and again: "Man, when he was in honour,

Editors' notes and page, col. 401

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 401 (call above the rendered foot)

Lib. IV, cap. 26, p. 161.

Book IV, ch. 26, p. 161.

(printed under page 207)

(b) ‹anchor: Primum excitat› · call in col 401

P. 354.

(printed under page 207)

Lib. V, cap. 8, p. 301.

Book V, ch. 8, p. 301.

(printed under page 207)

(d) ‹anchor: ex Clementis› · call in col 401

Stromat., lib. VII, cap. 18, p. 900, edit. Potteri.

Stromata, book VII, ch. 18, p. 900, Potter's edition.

(printed under page 207)

(e) ‹anchor: notavit Potterus› · call in col 401

Not. ad h. l.

Note on this passage.

(printed under page 207)

Page

running head: 401 DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IRE
marginal letters: A binis de paschate libris,; B ciis nimis suspiciosi simus,; C reant, in illo vero; D frenati dejiciuntur in sua
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek word, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:402

assimilatus est jumentis. » (Psal. XLIX, 21.) Hoc quia secundum suam causam assimilatur jumentis, irrationabilem aemulans vitam. Sed et nos in consuetudine hujusmodi homines « jumenta et pecora » irrationabilia dicimus. Haec cum posuit [posuerit?], quid quaeso his dictis magis aptum, consilioque auctoris magis accommodatum adjici potuisset, quam quae sequuntur: Praedixit autem figuraliter omnia haec lex de animalibus, delineans hominem, quaecunque, inquit, duplicem ungulam habent, etc. Post verba illa, quae communia habere videtur cum Clemente, pergit: Sed, quemadmodum praediximus, porcorum et canum assumpserunt vitam, immunditiae, gulae et reliquae incuriae semetipsos tradentes. Juste igitur tales omnes.. Apostolus quidem carnales et animales vocavit; prophetae autem jumenta et feras dixerunt; consuetudo autem pecora et irrationabilia interpretata est; lex autem immundos enuntiavit. Ex his omnibus, quae attuli, ne verbulum quidem apud Clementem legitur. Num vero haec non sufficiant ad nexum illum particulae cum antecedentibus et subsequentibus intelligendum et omni dubitationi eximendum, quisque facile judicabit.

was compared to senseless beasts." (Ps. 48:21.) This because according to his own cause he is compared to beasts, emulating an irrational life. But we also in custom call men of this sort irrational "beasts and cattle." When he has set down these things, what, I ask, more apt to these sayings and more suited to the design of the author could have been added than the things that follow: Now the law figuratively foretold all these things from animals, delineating man: whatsoever, it says, have a double hoof, etc. After those words which he seems to have in common with Clement, he proceeds: But, as we have foresaid, they have taken up the life of swine and dogs, giving themselves over to uncleanness, gluttony, and the rest of carelessness. Justly therefore all such men.. the Apostle indeed called carnal and animal; the prophets called beasts and wild animals; custom interpreted as cattle and irrational creatures; and the law pronounced unclean. Out of all these things that I have brought forward, not even a single little word is read in Clement. Now whether these things do not suffice for understanding that connexion of the passage with what precedes and what follows and exempting it from all doubt, everyone will easily judge.

III. Dissimillimum est Irenaei consilium, leges de animalibus immundis allegorice interpretandi, a proposito Clementis. Hic ista animalia Judaeorum vulgarium et haereticorum, ille hominum impiorum vitiisque deditorum imaginem esse voluit; hac tamen lege, ut nec Irenaeus de Judaeis et haereticis, nec Clemens de impie viventibus taceant; Irenaeus vero et ethnicorum faciat mentionem, ab illo prorsus omissam.

III. Most dissimilar is the design of Irenaeus in allegorically interpreting the laws concerning unclean animals from the purpose of Clement. The latter wished those animals to be the image of common Jews and heretics, the former of impious men and those given over to vices; yet under this condition, that neither is Irenaeus silent concerning Jews and heretics, nor Clement concerning those living impiously; whereas Irenaeus also makes mention of the Gentiles, altogether omitted by the other.

IV. Denique Irenaei libri cum referti sint interpretationibus hujus generis mysticis et allegoricis, quid causae sit, cur nec comparatio animalium immundorum cum variis vitiosorum hominum generibus ab illo excogitari potuerit, ego quidem non capio. Quod si vero necesse quis judicaverit, ut alter ex altero rem sumpserit, tum certe Potteri suspicionem veri esse similiorem quam Semleri crederem. Ego tamen neutrum velim in furti crimen vocari. Ipsa enim allegorica legis Mosaicae de animalibus immundis expositio, si praecipua ejus capita consideraveris, ex Judaeorum scholis prodiit, legitur in Aristaei libello, quo Josephus usus est, placuit huic et Philoni, occurrit in epistola Barnabae, quae certe Clemente nostro est antiquior, repetitur passim ab Origene, Eusebio, aliisque; cur nec utrique, Clementi et Irenaeo, innotescere et ita commendari potuit, ut uterque eam dilatatam ingenio suo in suam rem converteret?

IV. Finally, since the books of Irenaeus are filled with mystical and allegorical interpretations of this kind, what reason there is why a comparison of unclean animals with various kinds of vicious men could not also have been devised by him, I indeed do not grasp. But if anyone should judge it necessary that the one took the matter from the other, then certainly I should believe the suspicion of Potter to be more like the truth than that of Semler. Yet I should wish neither to be called into a charge of theft. For the allegorical exposition itself of the Mosaic law concerning unclean animals, if you consider its chief heads, came forth from the schools of the Jews, is read in the treatise of Aristeas which Josephus used, pleased him and Philo, occurs in the epistle of Barnabas, which is certainly more ancient than our Clement, and is repeated here and there by Origen, Eusebius, and others; why could it not have become known to both, Clement and Irenaeus, and be so commended to them that each, having enlarged it by his own genius, turned it to his own purpose?

Alter locus pertinet ad nobilissimam de origine Graecae LXX Interpretum versionis historiam, quam omnes norunt et Irenaeum et Clementem,

The second passage pertains to the most famous history concerning the origin of the Greek version of the Seventy Translators, which all know that both Irenaeus and Clement,

Editors' notes and page, col. 402

Footnotes

(f) ‹anchor: mysticis et allegoricis› · call in col 402

V. c. lib. II, cap. 24, p. 150; lib. III, cap. 21, p. 217; lib. IV, cap. 20, p. 257, cap. 21, p. 258.

See, for example, book II, ch. 24, p. 150; book III, ch. 21, p. 217; book IV, ch. 20, p. 257, ch. 21, p. 258.

(printed under page 207)

(g) ‹anchor: et Irenaeum› · call in col 402

Lib. III, cap. 21.

Book III, ch. 21.

(printed under page 207)

(h) ‹anchor: et Clementem› · call in col 402

Lib. I Stromat., cap. 22, p. 409 sq.

Stromata book I, ch. 22, p. 409 f.

(printed under page 207)

Page

running head: LIBRORUM IRENAEI ADV. HAERES. 402
marginal letters: A assimilatus est jumentis. »; B et animales vocavit; prophetae; C vero et ethnicorum faciat; D diit, legitur in Aristaei
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:403

post Aristaeum, Josephum, Philonem, Justinum Martyrem enarrasse. Num vera narraverint, hoc loco scire nostra non interest, sed de hoc est inquirendum, num quae in Irenaei libris tradita sunt, ex Clemente derivata sint. Nullam suspicionem viris eruditis de ea re subnatam fuisse, recte monet Semlerus, nec silentio praetermisit, Irenaei locum ab Eusebio fuisse repetitum. Primus ergo suspicari est ausus, hunc ex Clemente per furtum et imposturam esse corrasum, partim quod denuo non commodissime aut consilio ei positus esse videtur, partim quod qui semel furatus sit, facilius iterum furari credatur. Secus me sentire lubens fateor.

after Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and Justin Martyr, recounted. Whether they narrated true things, it does not concern us to know in this place, but into this we must inquire, whether the things that are handed down in the books of Irenaeus were derived from Clement. That no suspicion arose among learned men concerning that matter, Semler rightly points out, nor did he pass over in silence that the passage of Irenaeus was repeated by Eusebius. He first therefore dared to suspect that this passage was scraped together from Clement through theft and imposture, partly because again it seems to him not to be placed very conveniently or with design, partly because he who has stolen once is more easily believed to steal again. That I think otherwise, I willingly confess.

I. Quae Irenaeo ex Clemente adjecta fuisse credit Semlerus, eadem denuo Potterus putavit Clementem ex Irenaeo didicisse; unde denuo concludimus, bene vidisse alios viros doctos convenientiam utriusque scriptoris. Temperavit vero sibi Potterus, quominus omnia ex Irenaeo sumpta esse contenderet, sed accurate singulas particulas notavit, quae Irenaeo viderentur esse propriae.

I. The things which Semler believes to have been added to Irenaeus from Clement, the same Potter again thought that Clement had learned from Irenaeus; whence we again conclude that other learned men saw well the agreement of both writers. Yet Potter restrained himself from contending that all things were taken from Irenaeus, and accurately noted the individual clauses that seemed to be peculiar to Irenaeus.

II. Eusebii, qui certissime Clementis Stromata legit, qui Irenaei Graeca recitavit, exemplo patet, veteres de fide librorum Irenaei in suspicionem vocanda ne quidem cogitasse, licet noverint, quae ibi legantur, etiam apud Clementem haberi.

II. By the example of Eusebius, who most certainly read the Stromata of Clement, and who recited the Greek words of Irenaeus, it is plain that the ancients did not even think of calling into suspicion the trustworthiness of the books of Irenaeus, although they knew that the things which are read there are also held in Clement.

III. Loca utriusque scriptoris admodum a se invicem discrepant.

III. The passages of the two writers disagree very much with each other.

1) Irenaeus Graecam illam interpretationem scribit conditam esse sub Ptolomaeo Lagi; Clemens, sub Ptolemaeo Lagi, aut, quod alii malint, sub Ptolemaeo Philadelpho.

1) Irenaeus writes that that Greek translation was made under Ptolemy the son of Lagus; Clement, under Ptolemy the son of Lagus, or, what others prefer, under Ptolemy Philadelphus.

2) Irenaei oratio longe est copiosior et uberior quam Clementis. Divino consilio eam versionem susceptam esse, narrat uterque; sed consilii rationes solus Irenaeus. Collatos secum fuisse singulorum interpretum labores, tradit uterque; eosdem vero apud Ptolemaeum eo consilio congressos esse, solus Irenaeus; consensisse res et verba, uterque tradit; sed ab initio ad finem consensum observatum et divinum opus a gentilibus praesentibus fuisse agnitum, solus Irenaeus. Sub exsilio Babylonico corruptos fuisse sacros Judaeorum libros et veteres hos ab Esdra per inspirationem renovatos, Clemens ait; Irenaeus vero per inspirationem Esdram ductum fuisse, ut in suum ordinem redigeret omnium prophetarum vaticinia et redderet populo Mosaicas leges.

2) The discourse of Irenaeus is far more copious and fuller than that of Clement. That that version was undertaken by divine counsel, each narrates; but the reasons of the counsel, Irenaeus alone. That the labours of the individual translators were compared with one another, each hands down; but that the same met together before Ptolemy with that design, Irenaeus alone; that the matters and words agreed, each hands down; but that agreement was observed from beginning to end and that the divine work was recognized by the Gentiles present, Irenaeus alone. That under the Babylonian exile the sacred books of the Jews were corrupted and that these ancient books were renewed by Esdras through inspiration, Clement says; whereas Irenaeus says that Esdras was led through inspiration to restore to their own order the prophecies of all the prophets and to restore to the people the Mosaic laws.

Editors' notes and page, col. 403

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 403 (call above the rendered foot)

P. 357.

(printed under page 208)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 403 or 404 (call above the rendered foot)

Lib. V, cap. 8.

Book V, ch. 8.

(printed under page 208)

Page

running head: 403 FR. VALCHII DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORU
marginal letters: A post Aristaeum, Josephum, Philonem,; B Semlerus, eadem denuo Potterus; C 1) Irenaeus Graecam illam; D corruptos fuisse sacros Judaeorum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Fr. Walchii De authentia librorum Irenaei (continued)

PG 7:404

3) Nec verba Graeca ubivis eadem sunt. Pauca afferam exempla. Clemens: Πάσαις γραφαῖς· Irenaeus: Πάντων ἀνθρώπων συγγράμμασιν ὅσα γε σπουδαῖα ὑπῆρχε· Clemens: Ἠξίωσε τοὺς Ἱερ. Irenaeus: Ἠτήσατο παρὰ τῶν Ἱερ. Clemens: Ἑρμηνεῦσθαι, Irenaeus: Σχεῖν μεταβεβλημένους. Ubivis elegantiorem Irenaeo observabis Clementem.

3) Nor are the Greek words everywhere the same. I shall bring forward a few examples. Clement: Πάσαις γραφαῖς [All writings]; Irenaeus: Πάντων ἀνθρώπων συγγράμμασιν ὅσα γε σπουδαῖα ὑπῆρχε [The compositions of all men, as many at least as were serious]; Clement: Ἠξίωσε τοὺς Ἱερ. [He requested the Hier(osolymitans)]; Irenaeus: Ἠτήσατο παρὰ τῶν Ἱερ. [He asked from the Hier(osolymitans)]. Clement: Ἑρμηνεῦσθαι [To be translated], Irenaeus: Σχεῖν μεταβεβλημένους [To have them rendered]. Everywhere you will observe Clement to be more elegant than Irenaeus.

IV. Quod si vera fateri licet, tum certe Clemens videtur ea in brevem summam contraxisse, quae Irenaeus copiosius tradiderat, hac tamen lege, ut aliorum quoque narrationes consuleret.

IV. Now if it is permitted to confess the truth, then certainly Clement seems to have contracted into a brief summary those things which Irenaeus had handed down more copiously, yet under this condition, that he consulted the narratives of others also.

Optime denique conveniunt, quae Irenaeus tradit, cum argumenti in quo versatur rationibus. Cum enim Theodotionem et Aquilam ex sua sententia odio rei Christianae et Judaicae amore, in loco Isaiae vocem עלמה non παρθένος sed νεᾶνις vertisse, suspicatus esset, opponit illis interpretationem LXX virorum, eamque et antiquitatis nomine commendat, et quod a Judaeis condita sit, praedicat. Num quaeso majorem opportunitatem repetendi illam de origine illius fabulam potuisset nancisci? Neque Irenaeum semel furatum esse, comprobavit Semlerus, nec fas est ubivis furtum suspicari.

Finally, the things that Irenaeus hands down agree excellently with the reasons of the argument in which he is engaged. For since he suspected that Theodotion and Aquila according to their own opinion, out of hatred of the Christian cause and love of the Jewish, had in the passage of Isaiah translated the word עלמה [almah] not παρθένος [virgin], but νεᾶνις [young woman], he opposes to them the translation of the Seventy men, and commends it both on the score of antiquity, and proclaims that it was made by Jews. Could he, I ask, have obtained a greater opportunity of repeating that story concerning its origin? Neither has Semler proved that Irenaeus stole even once, nor is it right everywhere to suspect theft.

Tertius denique superest Irenaei locus, quem ex Clemente petitum fuisse vir cel. contendit. Verissimum est utrumque eadem recitare verba Platonis: Irenaeum, ut philosophum magis sapuisse iis ostenderet, qui benignitatem Dei a justitia divelli vellent; Clementem, ut Platonis de felicitate doctrinam explicaret. At furti suspicione utrumque ut liberem, his argumentis commoveor.

Finally, there remains the third passage of Irenaeus, which the celebrated man contends was sought from Clement. It is most true that each recites the same words of Plato: Irenaeus, in order to show that the philosopher was wiser than those who wished the benignity of God to be torn away from His justice; Clement, in order to explain the doctrine of Plato concerning happiness. But to free both from the suspicion of theft, I am moved by these arguments.

I. Irenaeus alibi etiam excitavit Platonis dogmata et dicta, quae ex Clemente non accepit.

I. Irenaeus elsewhere also cited dogmas and sayings of Plato which he did not receive from Clement.

II. Quid? quod mireris, Platonis effato, quod Clemens simili modo attulit, nullis interpositis verbis statim subjunxit alium Platonis locum ex Timaeo; Clemens vero subjecit alias particulas, quae apud Platonem, De legibus, sequuntur. Undenam furatus est ille latro Platonis testimonium ex Timaeo; aut cur abstinuit se a subripiendis caeteris Platonis verbis, quae Clemens posuit?

II. What more? What you may wonder at, to the utterance of Plato which Clement brought forward in a similar manner, with no words interposed he immediately subjoined another passage of Plato from the Timaeus; whereas Clement subjoined other clauses which follow in Plato, On the Laws. Whence did that robber steal the testimony of Plato from the Timaeus; or why did he abstain from purloining the remaining words of Plato which Clement set down?

III. Platonis vero iste locus a tot aliis scriptoribus, ab Aristotele, a Plutarcho, a Justino monente Pottero laudatur; numne a solo Irenaeo ignorari debuit, ut ne in ejus libris legi posset, nisi ex Clemente compilatus?

III. Moreover, that passage of Plato is cited by so many other writers, by Aristotle, by Plutarch, by Justin, as Potter points out; ought it to have been unknown by Irenaeus alone, so that it could not be read in his books unless compiled from Clement?

Haec quidem cum ita sunt [sint?] comparata, nullas credo superesse causas justas, fidem et auctoritatem librorum Irenaei vocandi in dubitationem.

Now since these things are so constituted, I believe that no just causes remain for calling into doubt the trustworthiness and authority of the books of Irenaeus.

Editors' notes and page, col. 404

Footnotes

Lib. IV De legibus.

Laws, book IV.

(printed under page 208)

(d) ‹anchor: Irenaeum› · call in col 404

Lib. III, cap. 25, p. 224.

Book III, ch. 25, p. 224.

(printed under page 208)

(e) ‹anchor: Clementem› · call in col 404

Lib. II Stromat., cap. 22, p. 499.

Stromata book II, ch. 22, p. 499.

(printed under page 208)

(f) ‹anchor: et dicta› · call in col 404

Lib. II, cap. 14, num. 3, p. 133; cap. 33, num. 2, p. 167.

Book II, ch. 14, no. 3, p. 133; ch. 33, no. 2, p. 167.

(printed under page 208)