PREFACE
Whoever is not entirely unversed in Christian matters will readily agree with me that there is scarcely any work among all the writings of the holy Fathers more worthy than the works of Irenaeus of the veneration, study, reading, and care of all good men. A For whatever is of chief importance for establishing authority among ecclesiastical writers, all these things commend this most holy bishop of the people of Lyons, the most splendid light once of our Gaul. If we look at antiquity, he was an apostolic man, close to the times of the apostles, and trained by the disciples of the apostles; if we look at doctrine, he proved a most curious explorer of all doctrines, always a most strenuous champion of the right and Catholic doctrine, and, as his writings everywhere proclaim, profoundly versed in the reading of Holy Scripture and the earlier Fathers; if, finally, we look at holiness, he was a man entirely equipped with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and heavenly ornaments, whose writings, to use the words of Erasmus, breathe that ancient vigor of the Gospel, and whose diction proves a heart prepared for martyrdom; whom the most holy martyrs of Lyons commend magnificently in their letters; and whom, finally, the integrity of his morals placed into the position of Pothinus, the first bishop of the people of Lyons. And of the many monuments of doctrine and piety which he left behind, there survive the five books which he wrote against the heresies of the Gnostics, which in his time had already begun to grow rampant in the region of Lyons, over which he presided; these are to be esteemed all the more, both because out of so many and such great works by which he had illustrated the Christian faith, almost nothing else remains; and because they are precious relics of the apostolic age, by which the doctrine that the apostles had handed down to their disciples, and which Irenaeus had received from them, is both easily detected and transmitted to us uncorrupted. B For in them, all the principal dogmas of the Catholic faith which we profess today—concerning the mysteries of the most holy Trinity and the Incarnation, concerning the sacraments, ecclesiastical hierarchy, the divine institution of bishops, the authority of tradition, the supreme dignity and primacy of Peter and his successors, etc.—are so clearly explained and confirmed that not only the ancients, but as many heresies as have emerged from apostolic times down to our own, can therein be rooted out and utterly overturned. For this reason, having been sought long and solicitously by Gregory the Great, and having been handled with such diligent hand by holy Fathers and all pious Catholics, they have been read the more studiously, the more it has been a delight to draw fresh draughts of pure apostolic doctrine from the springs. Hence, ever since the revival of the study of literature in the West, and the concurrent resurgence of love for the lucubrations of Irenaeus, those to whom sacred antiquity has been dear have had no higher priority than to rescue them from the darkness of libraries, commit them to type, and make them public property.
The first edition of all is that which Desiderius Erasmus procured at Basel in the year 1526, from three exemplars: one which Joannes Faber had sent to him having been transcribed at Rome, and two others provided on loan from monasteries. What he further accomplished in this edition is noted in his dedicatory epistle to Bernard von Cles, bishop of Trent, later created cardinal by Pope Clement VII, in the year 1529, which we have taken care to have placed at the end of our edition. But while much is owed to a man otherwise so deserving of letters, for having been the first to bring the books of Irenaeus to light, it is nonetheless to be lamented that, being destitute of better codices, he could not accomplish more. For his edition teems with so many errors, lacunae, and mutilated and corrupted periods that Irenaeus is often sought within Irenaeus himself, and it is difficult to grasp his meaning. Nicolaus Gallasius, a Genevan minister of the Calvinists, oversaw the second, which he published at Geneva in the year 1570. But although he asserts that it was corrected by himself through the collation of exemplars, nonetheless, since the same errors occur as in Erasmus, it is evident that no manuscript codices were consulted. Only new summaries of the chapters were added to the old ones, and there were inserted what
Epiphanius transcribed in Greek from Irenæus, along with a new Latin translation, which was not very accurate. Hence it seems that the intention of Gallasius was not so much to bring forth Irenæus in a more refined and corrected state, as to circumscribe the sentiment of this most holy man with prolix notes drawn from Calvinist doctrine, and to drag the conqueror of the ancient heresies, reluctant as he was, to a new party, or else to have him lacerated by abuse. Gallasius was followed by Joannes Jacobus Grynæus, of the same sect, who in the year 1571 at Basel oversaw a new edition of the books of Irenæus, which was no different from those preceding, except that he rashly removed the old Latin translation of the first chapters of the first book—which Epiphanius reports in Greek—in order to substitute the version of Janus Cornarius, omitting the Greek text, and prefixed new arguments to each chapter while retaining the old division. More corrected than all these was that which was produced at Cologne in the year 1596, through the work and study of Franciscus Feuardentius, a doctor of the Order of Friars Minor in the sacred Faculty of Paris, and which was subsequently reprinted frequently in that same place and in Paris. For that edition, which had been published by the presses of Nivellius in 1575 and 1576, had not yet been sufficiently purged of the errors of the preceding editions. For besides the fact that he restored the Latin text in many places by comparison with the authority of the Vatican manuscript and another old manuscript codex of excellent quality, and supplied lacunae, and added the five final chapters of the fifth book, which until then had been missing—he also added the first eighteen chapters of the first book, which had once been transcribed in Greek from Irenæus by Epiphanius, together with a not inconsiderable supply of other Greek fragments recovered from various authors, into Latin words, while also appending the most learned observations of Jacobus Billius and Fronto Ducæus. But while this Feuardentian edition is more perfect than the preceding ones, it is not itself perfect in every respect; indeed, it suffers from neither few nor minor faults. For to say nothing of the notes—which were indeed quite learned for that age but too prolix, ranging too far from the subject, and contributing little or nothing at all to the elucidation of the text—he neither restored the text happily in many good places nor explained it successfully; in many instances, he did not even know what he could do: so that after the labors of Feuardentius, six hundred points remained which required a healing hand; many of these, however, he could have corrected with ease had he consulted the manuscript codices he used with slightly more attention. I pass over the aids that are missing from that edition, by which the reader's labor might be lessened and the path paved for him to discover and grasp more easily the author’s meaning.
At length, in the year 1702, there appeared at Oxford in England a new, more accurate, and more elegant edition of the works of Irenæus, through the study and labor of that most illustrious man Joannes Ernestus Grabe, illustrated by the notes of various persons and his own, and enriched with new fragments. We can neither deny nor do we wish to deny that we have often profited from his labors. This edition is commended by the elegance of its type, by a not-negligent care in searching for and collecting new Greek fragments, and by some fortunate conjectures in correcting certain passages. Truly, however, everyone will acknowledge that what displeased the learned in Feuardentius and Gallasius also befell this most illustrious man. For although he had often seen and approved of better readings, he nonetheless followed the worse path and embraced vicious or less sound readings, rejecting those that were obvious and native to the margin: and as for locations manifestly corrupt, he did not even attempt to correct them, or did so with complete lack of success, to a far greater extent than he did correct them. Indeed, having imitated Gallasius, while he strove more intensely for the English Church, to which he joined himself, it seems that he cared more that he might join Irenæus—even unwilling and reluctant—to the Anglican sect, than that he might provide the work in a more refined and corrected state. Hence the tiresome prolixity of the notes, such that he twists even the most lightweight words, which very often have nothing to do with the matter at hand; in other places, however, he is more parsimonious, and he fills the lower margins with the notes of Feuardentius and others, adopted without any selection, which contribute nothing to the understanding of the text; and by adding his own—though they be learned—in such a way that those items of erudition contribute little to clarifying the author's meaning, he has increased the volume of the work to the reader's very little profit. I omit here what I shall explain more conveniently in the second Dissertation, namely that in the Oxford edition, although the old division of chapters was kept—which is nevertheless far later than Irenæus—that totally inept sectioning of chapters led the most illustrious Grabe to sometimes remove, move, or dissect the subheadings at his own whim, and by often heapng them together in greater numbers—not without the loss of many already-truncated subheadings—or by repeating the same ones twice or thrice, he has increased the confusion more than he has diminished it. What of the fact that the Greek fragments, although inserted in their proper places, are so inconveniently arranged that the eyes of the readers are kept in a perpetual state of wandering about the pages, often uncertain as to where they should be directed? But perhaps these things are the printer’s...
fault, to whom we must also impute the fact that there is such a scarcity of that edition in overseas regions that, since it could be obtained only with the greatest difficulty and at too high a price, the booksellers of Paris and Amsterdam considered putting it to their own presses.
Accordingly, it seemed to men of conspicuous learning and piety that a new edition of Irenaeus was not only useful but necessary—one that would be more accurate and could be used by Catholics with an unoffending step. They wished for this labor to be undertaken by one of our own; reasonably concluding, and not without cause, that Irenaeus, that Apostolic man, the light of the Western Gauls, as Theodoret calls him, and a writer of such great authority, did not deserve less than others to have our industry applied to an accurate edition of his works. And they hoped that we should strive to perform in this case—a task no less laborious than it is necessary—what we have already performed with not unsuccessfully in other editions that have emerged from our congregation.
This burden, therefore, having been placed upon me, though I declined it for some time, I at length undertook. But what I have endeavored to perform must be explained in a few words. I have deemed that three things were most of all to be performed by me: to correct the text and restore it to its pristinely decorated state, as far as possible; to illustrate the same; and, finally, to provide readers with those aids by which their labor might be diminished.
Concerning the first point: since the Greek text of Irenaeus has, for the most part, long perished by the injury of time, and almost only a Latin one remains, serving now as an archetype, I have applied all my care to this, so that it might appear as corrected as possible, purified from the flaws sprinkled in by the fault of copyists. I have compared this most attentively against three new manuscript codices, which have not heretofore been examined by anyone.
The first, received from the Library of the College of Clermont of the Society of Jesus, was provided for my use by that most learned man, whose kindness we have always experienced, the Reverend Father Jean Hardouin, prefect of that same library. This codex, which is of excellent quality, was written at least 800 years ago, according to the testimony of the most erudite Dom Jean Mabillon, of pious memory, an expert and, if ever there was one, a judge of such matters; it appears to be the most ancient of all those upon which previous editions were made. However, it is mutilated; for, with several of the final leaves torn away, the fifth book remains truncated by nearly the last ten chapters. Whether this happened by accident or by the imprudent zeal of some smatterer (who perhaps took offense at the error of the Millenarians defended by Irenaeus) is obscure. It is certain that the codex was once complete, as a portion of the twenty-sixth chapter still remains. The rest, thereafter, to the end of the book, has perished. Hence it seems manifest that the Clermont codex is different from the Feuardentian: for the latter was complete, while the former is much more emended.
I received the various readings of a second codex, covering the entire first book and the first eight chapters of the second book, described by the hand of Passeratius in the margin of one copy of the edition of Erasmus, from one of the Reverend Dominican Fathers of the Rue Saint-Honoré in this city, a friend of mine. That these readings were extracted from a manuscript codex, and one that is very ancient and of good quality, and different from those of Feuardentius, the Clermont, and the Vossianus, I have no room to doubt, nor will others who compare them with the readings of the aforementioned codices. Who that codex is, and where it now lies hidden, I have not yet been able to discover; I would not take its loss so hard if Passeratius had continued to note the rest of the various readings in the margin of his book.
The third codex I have used is recent and paper, not exceeding four hundred years in age, and it does not contain the latter five chapters of the fifth book. It is preserved at Rome in the library of the most eminent Cardinal Ottoboni. The excellent man and one so well-deserving of letters, Dom Bianchini, for his singular kindness toward us, communicated it to the Reverend Fathers Dom Guillaume La Parre, procurator general of our congregation at the Roman Curia, and his associate Dom Claude de Vic, who, out of their kindness, deigned to transcribe its various readings and transmit them to me.
In aid, there were added those codices which both François Feuardent and the most renowned John Ernest Grabe used in adorning their editions, whose various readings they (especially Grabe) transcribed not indolently in the margin of their own editions. And indeed, we have searched in vain for that ancient one which Feuardent used, and we have not been able to know whether it has perished or lies hidden in the shelves of some library. There are those who think it arrived in the hands of Vossius; but comparing the readings of both, it will immediately appear that they are different. Latinus Latinius cites another codex preserved in the Vatican Library, and reports various readings of it...
and Feuardentius after him; but I have learned that it is now missing from that library, both from those who have searched through it diligently and from the letters of friends. Grabe professes to have used four manuscripts: namely, the one that belonged to Isaac Vossius, the excellent codex praised above, which Dodwell collated most accurately with the copy of Feuardentius, and from which he communicated various collected readings to the same Grabe; the Arundel codex, preserved in the library of the Royal Society of London, which he judges to be four hundred years old; and an apograph of various readings which the same Vossius had given to Dodwell to be described, readings which Grabe says were derived long ago by Josias Mercer from two manuscript codices, though I know not which ones. But neither Grabe, nor Vossius, nor anyone else, except Josias Mercer, says that he has seen those two codices, nor does anyone indicate where they might now be. Yet the various readings of these same texts which Grabe reports from the apograph agree so much with each other in almost everything that they appear to have been excerpted from one and the same codex, or at least from two, of which one was copied from the other; and both, if there are two, are from a recent codex, and one not of very good quality. And unless my conjecture deceives me, I think the Ottobonian codex mentioned above is the very autograph from which the apograph was first transcribed, and from this another, and in truth, when both came into the hands of Josias Mercer, he held them as two distinct codices. For whatever readings from the Ottobonian have been sent to me from Rome are almost the same as those which Grabe alleges from those two Mercer codices. Wherefore, although we bring forward various readings of those codices from Grabe, I would wish to warn readers not to attribute more faith to them than they deserve (though they deserve little). The Arundel codex seems to have been interpolated either by the scribe himself or by someone more recent; a fact that anyone will recognize as most likely who has diligently weighed its readings. Thus, there remains one codex of Vossius, the, faith of which cannot waver. And in truth, having collated its readings with the Claromontane ones and those which Feuardentius reports from his old codex, I have discovered it to be ancient and of good quality; and in this it excels all others that still survive, because, as Grabe testifies, it alone contains the last five chapters of the fifth book. Nor, therefore, have I hesitated, where I had those three—the oldest and best of all—agreeing, to restore the text by their authority, and, spurning the others, to adhere strictly to them, unless they bore clear marks of corruption.
Beyond the manuscript codices, it has not been irksome to consult printed editions, especially the older ones, and sometimes to prefer them where the manuscript codices seemed either depraved or less sound. Thus it has come about that I have corrected the text of Irenaeus, still vitiated in very many places by either the inexperience or the negligence of scribes, or redundant through the boldness of minor scholars, or interpolated; I have added what was missing, excised what was superfluous, and correctly distinguished what was poorly connected, so that very few things now seem to remain for me in which the difficulty of the reading might delay the reader. But where there was a manifest depravity of the copies, I have not hesitated to amend it, either from the Greek words, if there was an abundance of them, or from other parallel passages in which the exact same repeated words occur, or from conjectures that are certain from other sources, having also employed the counsel of very learned men. This, however, has been done rarely, and with such religious care that the vulgate reading, however clearly corrupt, is kept in the margin of the book; then, that license consisted only within individual words, and those corrupted not so much by the fault of the Latin translator as by the copyists; it has never reached to doubtful [passages], much less to complete clauses or entire periods, which I would have thought it a sin to substitute with new ones by the authority of the Greek text or any other parallel passage. But where that [Greek] seemed sounder, I have thought it worth the effort to observe that and to provide a new interpretation, more accurate than the old Latin, yet translated to the bottom margin; so that the old reading might retain its place and authority. Various readings that might be of some importance we have written below, indicating which codices they were taken from. If it seemed that anything should be changed or supplied on their authority, we have not neglected to warn the readers and to bring forward the reasons for the change, with such religious care that it might be feared that our diligence would appear to some too subtle; but it is better here for diligence to be blamed than to be found wanting. Yet, so that we would not be doing what has already been done, we have not thought that all the errors of previous editions, which Feuardentius had already corrected, needed to be recalled: I have deemed that the one Feuardentian edition, which is in everyone's hands...
and which I have decided to restore and amend, is sufficient, provided that those points are observed and evaluated among the various recorded readings which seemed to be the most critical and sound in other editions.
No less care was applied in recognizing that part of the Greek text which is extant, although with less success due to the lack of manuscripts. Indeed, it is scarcely doubted that Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and that an unskilled and barbarous translator converted his books into the Latin tongue which we have now; this has been amply proven in the second Dissertation, which will follow the Preface and to which I refer the reader. But since the entire Greek text perished long ago by the injury of time, it remained that the fragments scattered everywhere should be sought out; this was done with diligence. For whatever the ancients preserved, or the moderns published, or other editions exhibit of Irenaeus's fragments—whether of those works which survive or of those which have perished—and whatever the most distinguished Grabe has brought forth, unearthed from various authors both published and manuscript; this edition of ours also exhibits these, but at times fuller and more emended, with those items added which I myself collected or which friends provided; all of this has been placed and arranged in an order which is far more convenient than that of Feuardentius and Grabe. I have consulted the Greek Catenae of the Royal and Colbertine libraries, and other Greek manuscript codices of the same, which I have noted in their proper places in the notes, and I have taken care to have them examined by diligent friends learned in Greek; everything transcribed from these, whether published by Combefis, by Grabe, or by others, has been reviewed by me, and more than once corrected and restored. As for those excerpts from Epiphanius, I have compared them again after Petavius with a certain paper manuscript codex of the same Royal Library, which was recent and faulty (for a better one was not to be found), and I have purged it of certain errors which had escaped the diligence of that most learned man. And I have omitted nothing that was in my power in order to compare them with the Vatican codex (for I know of no other Greek manuscript codices of Epiphanius's *Panarion*); but no one learned in Greek who would deign to undertake even a little labor—certainly of a few days—could be found at Rome, where, nevertheless, there are many. A However, as for the Greek of Irenaeus transcribed by Epiphanius, which Jacques Billius converted into the Latin language, because he translated far more elegantly and accurately than the old Latin interpreter, I have added his translation—which was already inserted into Feuardentius's Cologne edition of 1596 and subsequently into the Parisian editions—in our edition alongside the old one, so that one might be illustrated by the other. We would also have liked to insert other few Greek fragments of Irenaeus, which Billius likewise translated and which Feuardentius thus translated and inserted into his own edition, into ours as well; but since this version could not be set alongside the ancient one without confusion, we were forced to omit it.
It would have been of little use to purge the text of Irenaeus of errors if it did not proceed correctly distinguished and divided. The usual marks of punctuation serve the distinction, placed as aptly as possible in their proper locations; but a new sectioning of chapters and new headings prefixed to each serve the division. This has been done because the vulgate division and the ancient headings seem most certainly to be attributed not to Irenaeus but to some unskilled person of a later date, as we believe we have sufficiently proven in the second Dissertation; also because the sections of the chapters are often most absurd, no less than the arguments, which obscure rather than represent the opinion of the author. B Nothing, however, has been done except by the counsel of most learned men, and this only in the first four books; for in the fifth, the Feuardentian division and headings have been generally preserved. Indeed, each chapter has been divided into several paragraphs or numbers, with brief summaries affixed to the margin, by which the reader may perceive at a single glance what is the chief point of each. Yet, so that those who are accustomed to the old division for citing chapters might not be disrupted by the new, the Feuardentian division, which is now more common, has been preserved in the margin, with asterisks in the text to designate the beginning and end of the Feuardentian chapters; the complete arguments for these are also presented at the beginning of the work in comparison with the new ones. C
Another thing that I deemed must be done in this edition for the sake of duty concerns the illustration of the text. For since Irenaeus is sometimes most obscure, either from the difficulty of the subject matter discussed or from the incompetence of the Latin translator, it did not seem enough to emend the text and render an account of the emendations unless the darkness cast over the words was also dispelled. Irenaeus himself warns that the mysteries of the Gnostics are most monstrous and most profound.
These he opens and refutes as clearly as could be done, and so attacks them throughout the entire work that he never averts his eyes from them; yet so that those who are moderately versed in these matters, and do not consider the whole aim of the author as well as the hypothesis of his adversaries with sufficient attention, may sometimes hang in suspense, uncertain as to what the rugged and obscure passages mean, though this is, for the most part, the fault of the translator, or an entanglement of speech, or the direction toward which the discourse looks. Since these readers had to be provided for above others, and their weariness and labor spared, I have endeavored to explain every difficult passage in notes placed below the text as briefly as I could, having also taken up the observations of learned men which seemed to lead to an understanding of the author, though always naming the authors themselves.
If, however, the notes seem at times more frequent and more expansive, this is to be attributed to the difficulty of the subject matter, which I could not resolve in fewer words, fearing that while I strove to be brief, I might become obscure. It is added that since Irenaeus brings forward various and many testimonies from the sacred books of both Testaments, which, being from another version, seemed to have some discrepancy, it seemed worth the effort, for the sake of those who study Holy Scripture, to observe this. Those, however, who are learned and do not need notes and observations of this kind, can pass them over, for they can read Irenaeus continuously; as they are placed in the lower margin, they can easily be separated from the text. I have taken care, however, not to burden the margins with notes that relate only to a display of erudition (which is, for me, certainly meager), or to dogmas and controversies of the faith, unless they could be resolved in a few words; judging, and having learned by my own experience, that nothing is more annoying to readers than to be forced to pause at almost every step because of inserted notes. I thought it better to treat those things that required a more expansive and accurate examination, not indeed in the Preface itself, lest it grow immensely to the detriment of a correct method, but in separate Dissertations, in which each matter might be weighed in its own order and in a continuous series.
I have therefore prefixed three works to the whole: in the first, I have discussed as accurately as I could all those things that pertain to the person, age, customs, writings, and dogmas of the heretics against whom Irenaeus writes; I have laid open the fountains from which their impure doctrine flowed; and I have endeavored to uncover what lay hidden beneath the enigmatic bark of their words, having scrutinized their deepest mysteries. In the second, I have studiously collected and, to the best of my ability, explained everything concerning the life and deeds, martyrdom, and writings of Irenaeus, and most especially concerning the five books of the *Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-called* (for I have shown there that this is their genuine title), concerning the intent of this work and its method, and finally everything that occurs in the monuments of the ancients concerning the other lost writings of this holy Doctor. In the third, I have finally unrolled the whole series of the holy bishop's doctrine; I have clarified lighter stumbling blocks, if there were any, so that no one might rashly trip over them; I have illustrated what was more obscure; I have rejected what was alien or falsely attributed; and I have explained, defended, and asserted what had been wickedly twisted and obscured by vain cavils by the heterodox. This, I say, I have placed at the beginning of the work so that the reader might be able to traverse the books of Irenaeus with an unhindered foot.
Perhaps there will be some to whom this great mass of pages prefixed to a work not so very large will be displeasing. I myself found it annoying that the number of printed leaves had increased beyond measure and expectation. But the printers were deceived, being themselves misled by the unevenness of the handwritten pages; otherwise, I would have provided for this inconvenience. Furthermore, a brief and clear analysis of each book is prefixed to it (namely, that which was long ago skillfully prepared by our most learned Dom Nicolas le Nourry and published by him in his *Apparatus to the Great Library of the Ancient Fathers*, with a few things added or changed in accordance with our edition), by which the scope and argument of the book may be surveyed in a single glance.
At the end of the work, besides the Fragments of Irenaeus's lost writings, unearthed from various both printed and manuscript books—some of which are now being published for the first time in Greek, others in both Greek and Latin—there have been added, by way of an appendix, other excerpts from the books of the ancient Gnostics which occur scatteredly among the ancient Fathers; these will bring not a little light to many passages of Irenaeus. From this specimen at least, it will be easy to discern that the things which Irenaeus and other Fathers have written concerning those portents of opinion are not in vain. The most illustrious Grabe had already collected the greater part of them and had inserted them into his *Spicilegium of the Ancient Fathers and Heretics of the First and Second Century*. Certain others from the manuscripts of the Bodleian Library he examined: some he himself…
collated against the manuscripts of the Royal Library. These will be followed by the Prefaces, Prolegomena, notes, and observations of those who have hitherto published or illustrated new editions of Irenaeus; so that scholars may obtain in one volume, and at a lower cost, what they could previously only acquire at the expense of more volumes and greater outlay. And indeed, as regards the notes and observations, I have taken care to edit anew those of Billius, Fronto Ducaeus, and Feuardentius in their entirety, even though I had already excerpted many things from them and inserted them into my own work; for I thought I would do a service to readers if I presented the whole, the parts of which they had already read. From Gallasius I have selected very few, since most contain nothing but empty and inelegant declamations. From Grabe I have taken more, specifically those which Catholic ears can tolerate. I know well that Feuardentius's notes do not please everyone, and indeed displease Protestants greatly. Yet that they are learned for their time, and that the man—pious and learned—rendered excellent service to Irenaeus and to the whole Catholic Church, no one can deny without injustice. He often departs quite far from the argument, and in his treatment of the heterodox, he runs on with a style more bitter than is fitting; but this must be forgiven for the sake of his zeal for the Catholic faith, and for the time *A* in which, amidst fervent controversies and civil wars, the Calvinists assailed Catholics with perpetual invective and calumnies. Anyone who has read the writings of the ministers of that time, and has weighed how shamelessly they slandered Catholics and offered violence to the most brilliant testimonies of the Fathers, *B* will easily excuse Feuardentius. If any of this man’s arguments seem untimely now, the fault is not his, but that of his adversaries, who, being little consistent with themselves, have been forced—as their shifting sails changed their course—to turn back, and to add or subtract many things from their ill-conceived system, according to the exigencies of the times *C* and their arguments. Some recent critics blame the most learned man more sharply than fairly, because he cited not a few adulterated writings as genuine, and attributed to various Fathers books and treatises which are now recognized as supposititious. But this was a common error of those times: for the truth was not yet sufficiently clarified, and the matter had not been weighed according to stricter rules of criticism; *D* it was cited in good faith, and there seemed no room for suspicion. Whoever examines the Magdeburg Centuries themselves, or that famous critic among the Protestants, Andreas Rivetus, will immediately discover that they have lapsed, if not into the same errors, then into others quite as grave, and that they were no more skilled in the art of criticism.
But if Feuardentius committed any error, he who does not fear to reproach a man who confesses his fault and corrects it as soon as possible, commits, in my opinion, a graver one. When he was preparing his first edition of Irenaeus, writing on Book III, chapter 33 (now 22), among the various testimonies of the Fathers that he brought together, he added one as if from Cyril of Alexandria, *Commentary on John*, Book VI, chapter 15: this is not Cyril's, but that of Jodocus Clichtoveus, who inserted four of his own commentaries among the books of Cyril. Once the error was recognized, the good man hastened to correct it; but since the sheet had already been printed by the press, no other remedy remained than to warn the readers in time in an index of errata as to how it might be corrected; which he did. When, however, Francis Suarez, without having read that index, had criticized Feuardentius too harshly, he was worthily punished for his thoughtlessness in the Cologne edition of 1596. Yet observe how some recent critic, without having read either the aforementioned index or the notes added to the cited edition, still strikes at him, relying solely on the authority of Suarez or Theophilus Rainaudus, for an error that had been twice corrected and amended. By what words would Feuardentius respond, if he were alive, to that meticulous censor who does not even deign to leaf through with a diligent hand the very authors he refutes? Be that as it may, I have seen to it that the notes and observations of Feuardentius, such as they appeared in the most recent editions of Irenaeus, be edited again; yet so that I do not wish to stand surety for all his statements and citations (of which I would wish the same to be said regarding others). For it was not to be expected of me that I should weigh every testimony of the authors he puts forward, and if any error crept into his citations, to point it out: that would have been a task of immense labor; and had I undertaken it, I would have produced not Feuardentius’s notes themselves, but new observations upon Feuardentius, with little or no fruit. But since both Feuardentius and others adapted their observations to the old division of chapters which they followed, I have left them so adapted, lest any confusion should arise; I have merely indicated the chapters and pages of the new edition in the margin.
Finally, the third thing I had in mind—namely, to prepare and offer for the reader the aids...