Second Dissertation

we have attempted to do, by recalling to the genuine fountains, namely, the Platonic philosophies. To most, the Gnostic fables, which hitherto have seemed inextricable, wrapped in the torn and foully mutilated coverings of the Scriptures and the dogmas of the Christian religion, ^A will appear to have been most poorly dressed in our eyes; perhaps it will also be evident to others, if they have deigned to attend to what has been said thus far and to investigate the matter still more deeply. Nor do the limits prescribed to us allow us to expatiate more widely in that field; we would have wished, had it been permitted, to expatiate a little less.

SECOND DISSERTATION.

FIRST ARTICLE.

[LXXVII.] What may have been Irenæus’s native land, what his race, and in what year he was brought into the light, is nowhere written among the ancients whose works are extant. Yet this seems certain, that he was a Greek; his name itself is clearly Greek, and his education suggests as much. For the holy man narrates in his letter to Florinus, a fragment of which Eusebius recites, that he was still a boy, παῖς ὢν ἔτι, or, as he speaks in the work *Against Heresies*, in his first stage of life, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ, and that he heard Polycarp, who was already very old, πάνυ γηραλέον, and was imbued by him with the first precepts of the Christian religion. That Polycarp was then residing at Smyrna, of which he was bishop, cannot be doubted, and Irenæus seems to suggest this in the place just cited. From which one may infer that he was born not far from that city, and consequently ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ, in lower Asia, as he has it in the cited letter. For it would exceed belief that a boy of tender age was sent there from distant regions. Yet Irenæus was not so much a boy of tender age that he did not listen to Polycarp eagerly, as he himself writes, and store up deeply in his heart those things which were taught by him, and constantly revolve them with a studious mind. Therefore, it is necessary that he was then plus or minus twelve years old; for such words could scarcely fall to one younger than twelve or ten. But far be it from me to believe with the learned Dodwell that he had then exceeded his twentieth year, and was near his thirtieth, when he heard Polycarp. ^B It is a complete monstrosity that one should be called a boy and in his first stage of life who has attained his twenty-fifth year. Nor does it help Dodwell that Irenæus, in enumerating the ages of men, makes mention of infants, little ones, boys, youths, and elders, and places boys immediately before youths, omitting adolescents; it is nothing. It was not Irenæus’s intention there to enumerate all human ages one by one and to define them exactly: it was sufficient for his purpose to prove that Christ conferred holiness upon all ages by running through each one, so as to conclude from that (which was his scope) that He also arrived at an elderly age, and consequently had exceeded his fortieth year. Hence, having mentioned infants, little ones, boys, youths, and elders, he adds: *Therefore He came through every age, and to infants He became an infant, sanctifying infants; among little ones a little one, sanctifying those who have this very age... among youths a youth, becoming an example to youths, and sanctifying them for the Lord. So also an elder among elders, etc.* Where he omits the boys mentioned before, because they are in no way to be distinguished from the little ones. But although Irenæus might have taken boys here to mean adolescents—which kind of paradox Dodwell will never persuade any sober man of—certainly it could not be concluded that he was older than twenty when he heard Polycarp: for he does not say that he existed then merely as a boy, but in his first stage of life, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ. Who, indeed, could bear that the first stage of life should extend up to the twenty-fifth year? If Irenæus had only advanced in age that far, there is no reason why all the things that ^D concerning him are deemed fabled by Dodwell.

2. It is therefore certain that Irenæus, at the time he heard Polycarp, could not have been older than twelve. But since Polycarp was already at that time ^A *πάνυ γηραλέος*, a very old man, and consequently nearer to martyrdom, Irenæus could not have remained for a long time under the discipline of such a great master, for he is believed to have ended his life with a glorious death in the year of Christ 166. We shall not, therefore, be far from the truth if we say that Irenæus was born around the year 140, at the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius. Others, and among them the very learned Tillemont, wish him to have been born twenty years sooner; but I fear that Polycarp, in the year 132, when he would have had to instruct Irenæus, could hardly be called a very old man, especially as the same most clear-seeing man confesses that he did not die until thirty-four years after that. This weighs all the more strongly against Dodwell, who thinks that Irenæus’ birth should be placed under Trajan, and perhaps even going back to the beginning of Trajan’s reign. If this were true, Irenæus would have heard Polycarp around the year 125, which the noble man readily admits. But he relies on a futile conjecture, among many others: that Irenæus, writing to Florinus, asserts that he saw him in lower Asia with Polycarp, when he was acting with splendor at the imperial court, ^C *λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ*. From which it seems to follow to Dodwell that the emperor, in whose court Florinus lived, was present in proconsular Asia at the same time that Irenæus heard Polycarp as a boy; and certainly no other than Hadrian, who set out for Asia around the year 122. But whether an emperor could be discovered from Irenæus’ words to have been staying in Asia at that time, only Dodwell could see; anyone else would merely infer from this that Florinus was some kind of courtier who possessed great favor with the emperor, and nothing more. There are those who make Irenæus a disciple of the Apostle John, like Paradinus and Severtius, relying on the authority of a certain diploma document, to which Pope Gregory V, King Henry of Burgundy, and Hugo, Archbishop of Lyon, are said to have subscribed. But whatever may be the case regarding the diploma, all the ancients disagree, asserting that Irenæus was a disciple of Polycarp, ^D not of John; Irenæus himself disagrees, who indeed boasts more than once that he learned many things from the elders who had seen and heard the apostles and their disciples, but never from the apostles themselves; which he would never have omitted, had it happened, as it would have added no small weight to the arguments brought against the heretics. And as for John’s Apocalypse, he writes that it was seen not long ago, almost in our own age, ^A *σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς*, toward the end of the reign of Domitian. By these words he acknowledges that he lived not far from John’s times, but he denies that he was his contemporary.

3. But even though he may not have heard John himself, he is to be called a man of saintly instruction, who, having been trained by his disciples, progressed so much in their school that he is deservedly numbered by all the ancients among the apostolic men, the witnesses of apostolic doctrine, and the first channels of it. For since it was not permitted to frequent the school of the most holy old man for a long time due to the death of Polycarp, he approached Papias, another disciple of John, and gave himself to his discipline, as Jerome is the author. He affirms more than once in his books against heresies that he heard other *seniores* (elders), disciples of the apostles and of apostolic men, and among them a certain eminent one. But who that elder so frequently praised by him might be, whether it was Papias himself or another, remains unknown to this day. From such great and holy men, he drank to the marrow the purest streams of holier doctrine, a deeper understanding of the sacred scriptures, and at the same time the holiness of life and the zeal for defending the faith, which it is likely he had imbibed along with his mother’s milk; and subsequently he poured them forth abundantly in his own writings. For he was not a sluggish and idle listener, nor did he allow what he had received to slip from his memory: but rather, from his very childhood, when it is barely permitted for others of such tender age to attend to serious matters, Irenæus zealously collected whatever was brought forth by the mouths of those most holy first teachers of the Christian religion, like precious pearls of the Gospel, and comparing them to himself—spurning all others—he stored them in the innermost recess of his heart, to be brought forth in due time. That he was so affected when he lived under the discipline of Polycarp, he boasts by his own right, and he sets it before the eyes of Florinus, his former fellow-disciple under such a great teacher, who later miserably lapsed into heresy, so that the memory of their shared master might recall him from his wandering to the pristine faith. We have provided the words, both in Greek and Latin, among the fragments at the end of the work. And in order that the memory of Polycarp in particular might remain more deeply fixed in his heart, he is himself believed to have transcribed the epistle of the Church of Smyrna, in which the story of his martyrdom is related; as can be inferred from the note which Ussher found at the end of that epistle in manuscript codices.

4. Yet, he does not intend his pursuit of sacred letters to mean that he thought the *humaniores* (classical studies) were to be neglected by him. The most sharp-sighted man knew well that such studies contribute not a little not only to cultivating and strengthening the intellect; but also that they are absolutely necessary for those who, about to refute pagans and heretics, [need] the knowledge of hollow theology and profane superstition from the very sources, the poets…

and philosophers' books. As for the rivals and persecutors of Christian truth, they should be convicted by their own instrument, and of error in themselves, and of iniquity against us. Hence, he applied himself indefatigably to unrolling the books of profane authors: which is clearly evident from the testimonies of old poets and philosophers that he frequently cites; so that not undeservedly did Tertullian call him the most inquisitive explorer of all doctrines. Nor, in truth, does he do this inopportunely, or as is done by many who seek after the praise ^A of manifold literature, sprinkling flowers plucked from the ancients into his works; but whenever he does so, he does it opportunely and appositely to the argument; whether to scrape away the ridiculous ravings of the heretics with festive witticisms; or to open the impure pools from which they had received them; or to strike the enemies of the Church with their own swords. And on this account Jerome, performing an apologetic for philosophical study and demonstrating its utility, seeks his argument from the example of Irenæus and certain others who explained in many volumes the origins of individual heresies and from what philosophical sources they emanated. Therefore, the most humble and modest Father was less than fair to himself, when he tries to persuade a friend that he had neither learned the art of words, nor labored in comparing the force of a writer; and that he was empty and ignorant of the ornaments of diction and the power of persuasion. Less fair also to Irenæus are those who complain of his somewhat humble style. The most fair judges of such matters, Tertullian, praised a little before, and Jerome, felt otherwise, who does not hesitate to assert that his books against all heresies were composed in a most learned and eloquent style: which anyone who reads them attentively easily notices, and which is proven by the sublime sharpness of his perspicacious intellect, the firmness of his very keen judgment, the wonderful abundance in devising arguments, his skill in selecting them, his ease in proposing them, and the force and dexterity in refuting adversaries—qualities which flash forth repeatedly even among the rough patches of an unhealthy Greek text and a barbaric Latin version; for the elegant comparisons, taken from the nature of the matter, soften the bristling thorns of the most troublesome argument and bring light to the more obscure places, and the discourse, seasoned at times with salt and witticisms, pleasantly recreates the reader's spirit. ^B 5. How much time he spent in the East after Irenæus passed from his youth, or what he did there, whether he discharged sacred functions or undertook the duties of teaching, cannot be said, as the ancients are silent. Halloixius indeed asserts that he was admitted among the sacred ministers and honored with the office of deacon, and even of presbyter, by Polycarp; but he relies on no testimony of antiquity. One who might have heard Polycarp, already very old, as a boy, does not seem to have been able to dwell with him long enough that he could have been placed by him in the ranks of the clergy ^B or as bishop of the Church of Thyatira, designated in John’s Apocalypse. But if anyone were nonetheless to contend that Irenæus was previously ordained as a deacon by some Eastern bishop before he was sent into the Gauls, I would not strongly object; for I could hardly believe that a layman would have been destined for that place to illuminate those regions with the light of the Gospel. But I stop within the bounds of conjecture, thinking that nothing should be rashly affirmed without the faith of historical monuments. This much is certain, that Irenæus departed for the Gauls and came to Lugdunum: but when, by whom, and on what occasion he was sent is altogether uncertain. Gregory of Tours writes that he was sent by St. Polycarp: which event Halloixius thinks occurred about the year 157, at the time when Polycarp was staying in Rome, whither he had come in the times of Anicetus. But Irenæus seems to have been too young then, [LXXIX] though he could have been sent. I therefore think he was sent later, although in what year, and by whom, I dare not say, nor can I. 6. That he was ordained as a presbyter by St. Pothinus, bishop of Lugdunum, can be inferred from the words of Jerome; for he calls him the presbyter of Pothinus, who was ruling the Church in Gaul at Lugdunum. These things seem to signify that Pothinus, according to a custom that long flourished in the Church, had claimed and consigned Irenæus to himself and his Church through the imposition of hands; on which account Eusebius calls him a presbyter ^C of the Church of Lugdunum. These things show the conjecture of certain recent writers to be vain, [namely] that Irenæus is that angel of the Church of Thyatira designated in John’s Apocalypse; not to repeat what I proved above, that he was born only many years after the Apocalypse was written and after the very death of John. How excellently he conducted himself in the office of presbyter is sufficiently proven by those things by which the words of the martyrs of Lugdunum commend his piety and his most ardent zeal for protecting and amplifying the Christian law—words brief in truth, but most efficacious, in the epistles which they write to Pope Eleutherus, which they had handed over to Irenæus to be carried. "We pray that you may fare well in the Lord in all respects and perpetually, Father Eleutherus. We have urged our brother and colleague Irenæus to carry these letters to you. Him, indeed, we ask that you hold in recommendation, as a zealot for the testament of Christ. But if we knew that anyone could confer justice upon another, we would have commended him to you in the first place as a presbyter of the Church (for he holds this rank)." So they. Blondellus denies that these epistles were written by the martyrs themselves, ^D but rather by the clergy of Lugdunum, because, he says, in the 7th year of the reign of Marcus, Christ 167, when the martyrdom of Pothinus and the Lugdunenses occurred, Soter was ruling the Roman Church, not Eleutherus. But for him to achieve this, it is necessary first that he overturn the faith of Eusebius, who [says] those epistles...

were written by the martyrs while they were still in prison, and that they suffered under Eleutherus in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius. Hence, Blondel ought rather to have concluded that they suffered martyrdom at least in the year 170—the year in which he wishes Eleutherus to have entered upon his pontificate (though I should think he entered it later)—than to rely on vain conjectures and refer it to the year 167. Certainly, the occasion of the writing demonstrates that those epistles were composed after the year 167, and indeed after 170.

7. Besides the external storms that were being cast about while the Church was being persecuted by Marcus Aurelius, the spouse of Christ was groaning, shaken by internal agitations and burning with the civil discords which the dissension of spirits had brought forth. Circa the year 170, the Cataphrygians, under the leadership of Montanus, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, ^B moved and instigated by a demon, were deceiving many of the unwary with certain new deceits and false prophecies. The fall into error was the more facile in that, as Irenaeus bears witness, the glory of true miracles still shone in the Church, and the gifts of heavenly graces frequently glittered in many places. Hence came the dissension of spirits: some, whom the feigned appearance of holiness of these pseudo-prophets deceived, as well as an austere way of living that shunned all luxury and pleasure, opined that Montanus and his cohorts were preeminent in the spirit of prophecy, and they accepted and marveled at them as prophets; others, as was the case, believed them to be inspired by an evil spirit, and as conjurers and instruments of the devil, condemned and fought them. Meanwhile, the heat of persecution was boiling over in Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, and many of the faithful—laity as well as clergy—together with Pothinus of Lyons, were apprehended and cast into dismal prisons, where they displayed an outstanding and manifold example of Christian constancy in enduring tortures. Consulted in this most miserable state of affairs by the Churches of Asia and Phrygia as to what they thought of the new prophets, the people of Lyons and Vienne sent a special epistle. The martyrs themselves, situated in prison, whom the disturbance of the Oriental Churches troubled more than their own calamity, when asked for their opinion, spoke in private epistles which the clergy ^C added to their own, so as to strengthen their judgment with the authority of the martyrs. Eusebius, who had read all the epistles, asserts that they were, above all, religious and in agreement with the true faith, and consequently, as was fitting, opposed to the pseudo-prophets. Truly, they were far from the cruelty of those Montanists who closed the doors of the Church to sinners; those who were puffed up neither with pride nor arrogance against the lapsed, nor did they bring grief to the mother or schism and war to the brethren, but leaving joy, peace, harmony, and charity to all, showed favor to those who had disowned the faith and called back to life the members of the Church who were already dead; and who had persuaded one of their companions, S. Alcibiades, to temper himself from that harsh and squalid way of living which the new prophets ^D sought, because God had revealed to Attalus that Alcibiades acted neither rightly nor in order, since he would by no means use the creatures of God and became an example of scandal to others. But because in all ecclesiastical affairs the role of the Roman bishops is primary, the clergy and martyrs rightly judged that nothing of such great moment should be defined without consulting him. Wherefore, fulfilling as it were a legation for the peace of the Churches, they wrote letters to Eleutherus, requesting that, by virtue of the supreme authority he held in the Church, he should apply himself with all his might to settling the movements that had arisen in Asia and to restoring peace.

8. There could have been another cause for writing to Eleutherus. Perhaps the pontiff's mind was inclining toward the new prophets, deceived by their arts; indeed, he had already given them letters of peace. For if it be true, as Tertullian writes at the beginning of his book *Against Praxeas*, that the same Praxeas, when he had come to Rome, at that time compelled the Roman bishop—who was already recognizing the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and was from that recognition conferring peace upon the Churches of Asia and Phrygia—to revoke the letters of peace already issued and to desist from the purpose of receiving the charisms, by asserting false things about them and their Churches (thus was he caught in the snares of the Montanists) and by defending the authorities of his predecessors. It did not please Tertullian to designate that Roman bishop by his proper name, whence some understand Anicetus, others Victor, others another. But all things seem to square better with Eleutherus, and what is narrated here agrees perfectly with the circumstances of the letters of Lyons and Vienne. It is certain that these things happened at the very beginnings of the Montanists, when they had not yet broken out into open schism and were striving to circumvent the bishops of the Catholic Church, especially the Roman, so that by his authority they might fortify their pseudo-prophecies and spread them more safely. The people of Lyons and Vienne had heard, perhaps warned by the Asians, that Eleutherus had been deceived and had granted ill-timed peace to the fanatics; that from this the faithful were being troubled and the dissensions of the Churches were being increased. Thinking it to be in their own interest to root out the opinion conceived in the mind of the pontiff, they wrote to him and sent the epistles of the martyrs; they exhorted him to align his own judgment with the opinion of the invincible athletes of Christ, whose weight was so great in the Church; and by revoking what he had done too precipitously, to settle the dissensions that had arisen and to restore peace in the Church by the authority of his judgment. Meanwhile, it happened conveniently that Praxeas, coming to Rome from the East, revealed to Eleutherus the frauds of the Montanists, which were well known to him, and warned him that the prophecy had already been repudiated by his predecessors, namely by Soter. Thus, with the knowledge of facts added to the epistles of the people of Lyons, Eleutherus changed his mind, revoked the letters of peace already sent, and checked the discord that had arisen.

9. All these things cohere aptly together, and mutually...

^A lend light to one another, both in Tertullian and Eusebius. This conjecture is certainly more probable than all others. It had long since been proposed by Henri Valois, and Tillemont of good memory inclined sufficiently toward it; yet one thing stood in the way of that most learned man embracing it. He says that the history which Tertullian narrates—of the Roman Pontiff changing his mind at the warning of Praxeas—is so closely linked to the heresy of that same Praxeas that both appear to have happened at the same time. But it is certain that Praxeas did not emerge until after both Theodotuses, of whom the elder was first seen under Victor. Therefore, Praxeas could have warned no other Roman bishop than Victor. Thus the distinguished man. It is indeed true that these things are reported consecutively by Tertullian; yet I do not think it can be inferred from this that they happened at the very same time; rather, the whole series of Tertullian’s narrative ^B suggests the opposite. For it is certain that when Praxeas arrived in Rome from Asia, and advised the Roman bishop to revoke the letters of peace given to the Montanists, he at least feigned the Catholic faith, even if he did not hold it, and was not detected as a heretic until after several years. For the perfidious heresiarch would not have obtained faith so easily from the Pontiff had it been known that he was eager to stir up discord in the Church. But lest I seem to indulge in conjectures here, let us listen to Tertullian himself: "The Praxean tares had sprouted," he says, "having been sown here also while many slept in the simplicity of doctrine: having been brought out then by whom God willed, they seemed even to have been rooted up. In short, the former teacher had guarded against his own amendment; and the written record remains with the Psychics, among whom the deed was done; since then, silence. And as for us, the later recognition of the Paraclete, and the defense of it, separated us from the Psychics." Thus, Praxeas first sowed the barren tares, as Tertullian speaks with Virgil, or false doctrine, not openly indeed, but secretly, while many slept in the simplicity of doctrine and did not notice the unhappy darnel. So little did the faithful guard themselves against him that the tares were already sprouting—that is, perverse dogmas were occupying and infecting the minds of many—until at length the evil seed was brought to light by whom God willed, namely, as it seems, by Tertullian himself, who had not yet lapsed from the Catholics, as he says; and Praxeas recanted his views. No one could persuade himself that all these things happened together at the same time; it is necessary that many years passed between the sowing of the tares, their sprouting, their exposure, and the recantation of Praxeas. Now, therefore, if we say that Praxeas revealed the evil arts of the Montanists to Eleutherus in the year 177, in which the martyrs of Lyons suffered; then, that for about twenty years he simulated the Catholic faith, secretly disseminated the heresy, and that it was already ripening and spreading more widely ^C and was finally rooted out when the author recanted, while Victor was governing the Church, and both Theodotuses had emerged—I think we shall have affirmed nothing that is repugnant to Tertullian, or to the certain historical monuments of the Church, or to the rationale of the times. Scholars, however, to whose judgment we willingly entrust our conjectures, will decide. But let us return to the letters of the people of Lyons and Vienne.

10. Since the martyrs had written letters to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia in part, and in part to Pope Eleutherus in Rome, they requested Irenaeus not to disdain to carry those which were being directed to Eleutherus, and to labor with all his might for peace among the Churches. When the most holy presbyter had willingly accepted this commission, the martyrs commended him to the Pontiff, as we have seen above. Truly, what the reason was that both the clergy and the martyrs chose Irenaeus above the rest to carry their letters to Rome is, first of all, obscure. For at first sight, that legation ^D appears altogether untimely. Be it that it was of very great moment to treat of the peace of the Churches before the Supreme Pontiff; yet the business could have been entrusted to another; at least it did not seem to press so urgently that it could not have been deferred more conveniently to another time. For in such an adverse condition of the times, with persecution raging against the flock of Christ, and all the clergy either thrown into chains or forced to seek hiding places, it was not opportune that Irenaeus, the ornament and pillar of the Church, whose presence was so very necessary to his own, should be sent so far away. Moved by these reasons, the illustrious Henri Valois admits that Irenaeus was indeed designated by Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, as well as by the clergy and the martyrs, to perform the legation before the Supreme Pontiff, and that he was commended by the martyrs; but he denies that the legation was completed, suggesting that, upon the subsequent death of Pothinus, it was entrusted to another, so that the Church, widowed soon of its pastor, might not be deprived of its chief light in the midst of such great difficulty of circumstances. François Feuardent and Halloix think that Irenaeus undertook the legation not only to Eleutherus, but also to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia: yet with this difference, that the former would have him go while Pothinus was still among the living, the latter after his death and that of the other martyrs. Finally, Baronius concludes that Irenaeus was sent to Pope Eleutherus and actually performed that legation; but he is completely silent about a journey to Asia. The opinion of the latter is embraced by the very learned man who provided the new edition of the works of Pope St. Leo, and he deems it more probable that Irenaeus departed before the death of Pothinus and the martyrs. May we be permitted to state what we ourselves think about this matter.

^A That it was sent by the Christians of Lyons and Vienne, or that he had migrated anywhere into those regions, is asserted quite gratuitously and without any weight of historical records. Eusebius indeed affirms that various letters were written by the martyrs while they were still held in chains concerning the peace of the Churches, both to the brethren who were in Asia and Phrygia and to Pope Eleutherus; but that after the martyrs were dead, the surviving faithful added those letters to that longer and distinguished epistle, which many believe to have been written by Irenaeus himself in the Greek tongue (and the child is certainly not unworthy to be attributed to such a man), in which the struggles of the martyrs were described, and at the end of which they offered their judgment concerning the new prophets; yet neither Eusebius nor any other of the ancients mentions that these were entrusted to Irenaeus, or that he was ever requested to carry them to the East.

A far different view must be taken of those letters which were written to Pope Eleutherus. The martyrs themselves, in their letters of recommendation written to the same Eleutherus in favor of Irenaeus, testify in express terms that they asked Irenaeus to carry them to Rome. That Irenaeus complied with this and carried the letters to Rome is explicitly asserted by Jerome: to whom greater credence is to be given in this matter, the more he lingered for a very long time in Rome, as the most learned editor of Leo rightly notes, and having become a participant in the apostolic archives, he was able to learn this partly from the tradition of the city and partly from records still extant. Nor does Eusebius dissent: nay, he sufficiently signifies by his silence that the requested mission was fulfilled; for if it had not achieved its effect, he would undoubtedly not have passed it over. However, we must not permit ourselves to depart from the opinion of writers of such authority, unless we are swayed by very serious reasons, which are certainly absent here.

But, says Valesius, it is not credible that Irenaeus would have wished to desert, or could have deserted, the Church of Lyons, which was weakening under the bitterness of persecution and was widowed of its pastor. But if it is credible, in those circumstances of the times, when the clergy and the martyrs were already cast into chains—to whom a capital sentence pronounced against them was soon to be declared—with Pothinus having been either arrested or dead, and the other clerics having been either captured or driven into flight, that Irenaeus, so necessary to the terrified and afflicted Church, was chosen to carry the letters to Rome; why should it surprise us that he actually did carry them? Whatever is supposed to have been an obstacle to the embassy being fulfilled, the same ought to have been an obstacle to it being decreed. Since, therefore, the clergy and the martyrs decreed this in the very heat of the persecution, it cannot be doubted that Irenaeus fulfilled it, out of the highest devotion he bore toward the unconquered athletes of Christ, even though the persecution was raging.

^B If the question had merely been, as Valesius supposes, to carry to Rome the opinion of the Lyonnese and the Viennese concerning the prophecies of Montanus, it might perhaps have had no weight. For it does not seem to have been of such importance, nor did the business press so urgently, that it could not be deferred to a more convenient time, or at least committed easily to someone other than Irenaeus. Whence the fact that in such difficult times for the Churches of Lyons and Vienne such a man, and one of such importance, was asked to approach Pope Eleutherus, undoubtedly demonstrates that the cause for approaching him was far different and of greater moment; and that some present danger needing to be warded off by these Churches had hastened the journey.

What the matter actually was can be gathered, if I am not mistaken, not obscurely from the history of the martyrs, from Eusebius himself, and from Jerome. At the very beginning of the persecution, Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, was arrested, and having been inhumanly dragged by the soldiers and subjected to countless blows, was cast into prison nearly lifeless, and two days later, being more than ninety years old, had exhaled his soul from the wounds he had received. If the Church had been left for longer, widowed of its overseer in those straits of time, there would have been a danger that the Christian cause in Gaul—already not a little shaken by the fury of the persecutors—would have collapsed utterly. Wherefore, Irenaeus is chosen by the common vote of both clergy and martyrs to succeed Pothinus.

But because they were either in very short supply or altogether missing in Gaul, there being no bishops (at least, Eusebius mentions none in those times, not even among the Viennese) who could lay hands on the elected one, it was necessary to implore the aid of the Roman Pontiff, both on account of his vicinity and on account of his more powerful "principalitas," as Irenaeus puts it, so that he might bring aid to the Church widowed of its pastor through the consecration of the same Irenaeus. He was, therefore, to be sent to Rome, and, as the laws of the Church required, his faith, piety, and merits were to be proved to Eleutherus.

To this aim point the letters of recommendation which the martyrs wrote to the Pontiff, in which they proclaim Irenaeus's singular zeal for the testament of Christ, and exhort him to prefer him to others, ^C *ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει* [to have him in your recommendation]: lest he should hesitate to raise an otherwise unknown presbyter to the episcopal dignity. Thus I interpret Eusebius with the learned editor of Leo; but I dissent from him in that he thinks it more probable that Irenaeus set out for Eleutherus before the death of Pothinus and the martyrs. For I cannot bring myself to believe that the martyrs, while their own bishop was still among the living, sent to Rome to have someone take over a see that was not yet vacant. For, besides that it was contrary to the laws of the Church, the Acts of the martyrs themselves, which Eusebius records, ^D sent to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, testify that Pothinus was arrested at the very beginning of the persecution and ended his life through martyrdom; and the whole series of Eusebius's narrative sufficiently insinuates this, so that to think of sending Irenaeus to Rome was...

delayed until the death of his bishop had already occurred, so that this might be shown to have preceded him. If, however, Eusebius, after having mentioned in chapter 4 the legation of Irenaeus, treats again of the death of Pothinus and the substitution of Irenaeus in his place, it is not an argument that this was prior to his death; but since Eusebius had proposed to himself the transcription of the letters of the clergy and the martyrs, in which all these things are recounted in the same order as I have stated, which he follows in the first four chapters of the fifth book, he had to defer what he was about to say in his own words regarding Irenaeus to the sixth chapter, so as not to break the thread of the narrative. Jerome does not depart from Eusebius, who, in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, speaks thus of Irenaeus: "Irenaeus, a presbyter of Pothinus the bishop, who governed the Church of Lugdunum [Lyons] in Gaul, was sent to Rome as a legate by the martyrs of the same place concerning certain questions of the Church, and he carried honorable letters to Bishop Eleutherius regarding his name (that is, responding to his name, which sounds ‘peaceful’)." Afterwards, when Pothinus had already been crowned with martyrdom for Christ at nearly ninety years of age, he was substituted in his place. 82 By which words he does not obscurely signify that there was a twofold purpose to the legation of Irenaeus: the one, and that less primary, which we have already mentioned, that he should act before the pontiff concerning certain questions of the Church, namely those which concerned the "new prophecies"; the other, far more important, that he should be substituted in the place of the deceased Pothinus; and for that reason he had carried honorable letters regarding his name. Having performed the former duty of the legation, Irenaeus afterwards accomplished the second, being substituted in the place of Pothinus, who had been crowned with martyrdom for Christ. By whom? If not by Eleutherius, to whom he had carried the honorable letters regarding his name. That "afterwards," therefore, does not signify some long delay of time, as if Irenaeus, having returned to the Gauls after the letters were carried to Rome, had been substituted in the place of Pothinus; but it signifies the series of events, of which some preceded others by a few days: namely, that Irenaeus first sought the peace of the Churches before Eleutherius, and then finally was consecrated bishop by him in place of the deceased Pothinus.

13. There remains what might perchance cast a scruple upon anyone: namely, that which I have said, that there were very few, or perhaps none at all, bishops in the Gauls at that time, from whom Irenaeus could have received the laying on of hands. It is not indeed my intention here to call the most celebrated question concerning the first apostles of the Gauls into a new examination: let it suffice to assert this, which seems to have been explored from certain and indubitable monuments, that in the times of Marcus Aurelius the Christian religion had not yet taken deep and firm roots in the Gauls, and that very few episcopal sees had been established there in the age of Pothinus and Irenaeus. It is certain, nor do the keenest supporters of the apostolic missions in the Gauls deny, that the beginnings of the Church of Lugdunum were owed to Pothinus the bishop, who first cast the foundations of the Gospel in that city. But if the Christian religion had then been spread far and wide in Gaul, and many episcopal sees had already been constituted in those regions since the times of Peter and Paul; how could it be that no minister of the Gospel had reached Lugdunum, one of the primary cities of Gaul, conspicuous for its metropolitan dignity, most celebrated for its trade, the frequency of its people, and the habitation and residence of the leading Roman magistrates, and near to Italy, and that no one had founded a Church there and ordained a bishop who might devote his efforts to the conversion of so vast a city? Vienna, Narbona, Arelate, Tolosa, etc., are not so far distant from Lugdunum. If, therefore, those cities had already enjoyed the light of the Gospel before Pothinus, and had their own prelates, the first care of these—if any zeal for the spreading of religion had quickened their breasts—ought to have been to lead a Christian colony to Lugdunum, from which such great utility might have flowed into the Church; nor would it have been necessary to send Pothinus, Irenaeus, and other ministers of the Gospel from the East to convert that city and the neighboring regions to Christ. Certainly, if any city should have had its own bishop in the age of Pothinus, it was most especially Vienna, in which it is clearly revealed by the cited letter of the martyrs that a Church had been constituted. But it is a wonder that in that whole letter, written in the name of the Viennenses just as the Lugdunenses, the name of the bishop of Lugdunum is found, while that of the bishop of Vienna is not even mentioned in the slightest. And yet one of the number of the martyrs is not omitted, Sanctus, a deacon of Vienna. But concerning the bishop of Vienna, there is the deepest silence everywhere. The Lugdunenses and Viennenses write that the most excellent of each Church, and those by whose labor and industry affairs had been constituted there, were all seized together. If all the most excellent from each Church were seized together, the bishop of Vienna ought to have been included with Pothinus, and his name not omitted. While, however, they recount the names of those most excellent ones, they do not remain silent about the bishop of Lugdunum; of the Viennenses, they do not make mention even by a word. The most learned Tillemont wishes him to be contained, at least implicitly, among those most excellent ones whom the letter narrates were seized from each Church. But I wonder at this again and again, that the diligence of the Lugdunenses and Viennenses was so accurate toward the bishop of Lugdunum that, not at all content with an implicit mention, they judged that he should be called by his own name; yet they had so failed in that diligence that, with the explicit mention of the deacon of Vienna made, it was enough to have made implicit mention of the bishop, his name and rank being left totally in silence, as if he were a man of obscure name or a matter of no moment. Gregory of Tours and likewise Ado of Vienna, who had read the entire letter, especially...

^A caring for the Church, and being at the head of those whose names are listed, and whose number is determined: not a word is said about a bishop of Vienna. Moreover, what the learned man adds after Valesius, that at that time a Church had been established in Vienna, and that it was already perfect and fully formed, carries no weight. For if by "perfect and fully formed Church" he understands one that possesses its own bishop, we shall deny, or at the very least doubt, that such a one existed in Vienna. If, however, he understands any assembly of the faithful, he will gain nothing: since in many places there were Churches in that sense, which nevertheless were not episcopal. For it is certain from Athanasius in *Apologeticus* 11, that in the region of Mareotis there were several Churches; and yet there was never any bishop in it, not even a chorepiscopus; but all the Churches of that region, he says, were subject to the bishop of Alexandria. And individual presbyters have their own districts, and these very large, or several of them. What if, then, the number of the faithful at Vienna at that time was so small that one bishop of Lugdunum, neighboring that city, was more than enough to rule the little flock? Especially when there was still such a scarcity of episcopal men that they could not be set over individual cities. And perhaps for that reason the faithful who were arrested in Vienna were taken to Lugdunum, brought to trial before the Lugdunensian presiding officer, interrogated by him, and condemned to the ultimate punishments. Certainly, Lugdunum and Vienna belonged to different provinces; the latter to the Narbonensis, the former to the Celtica, of which it was the capital. Each province had its own prefect, and indeed one of a different kind from the other. The Celtica, which was under the jurisdiction of the Emperor, was governed by a proprætor; the Narbonensis, which was under the jurisdiction of the Senate, by a proconsul. Since, therefore, the Lugdunensian proprætor could exercise no jurisdiction in Vienna, he could not by law claim for himself the cognizance of the case of the Viennese faithful. Why, then, does he order them to be brought before his own tribunal at Lugdunum, and their case to be debated? This one thing comes to my mind, that the proprætor had received instructions to destroy the Church of Lugdunum root and branch. And because he had heard that the Viennese belonged to the Lugdunensian Church [LXXXIII] and were governed by the bishop of Lugdunum; for that reason he ordered them to be arrested according to his mandates, and to be brought before him. I do not think matters can be explained differently up to this point. For the most learned Valesius, who thinks that Lugdunum and Vienna at that time obeyed one and the same Roman governor, does not seem to deserve a hearing; for he asserts this gratuitously, without proving it. ^C

15. Furthermore, it is very well known what Sulpicius Severus writes, that under Aurelius, the son of Antoninus, the fifth persecution was agitated: and at that time martyrdoms were first seen within the Gauls, the religion of God having been accepted later beyond the Alps. It is also very well known what is read in the sincere Acts of the highest quality of the holy martyr Saturninus, the first apostle of the Tolosates, which Gregory of Tours saw and cited, made and corrected for public law by our most learned Ruinart: "In the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is, in the year of Christ 250, rare Churches were rising in certain cities (of Gaul) through the devotion of a few Christians, and in all places frequently, due to the miserable error of the gentiles, temples were smoking with foul odors." If the religion of God was accepted later beyond the Alps; if in the year of Christ 250 Churches were still rare and only in certain cities of Gaul, and those composed of very few Christians; if in all places the temples of the gentiles were frequently smoking with foul odors; ^D any prudent estimator of things will judge that episcopal sees were founded later in the Gauls, and must have been very rare in the year 250. But if such was the state of Christian affairs beyond the Alps at that time, and if there were very few bishops in the Gauls; then the number of bishops there must have been much worse and also much smaller in the year 177, in which Pothinus, bishop of Lugdunum, suffered. For if religion had then and before flourished in many places in Gaul, if Churches had already been established in many cities, which were ruled by their own bishops; then martyrdoms should not have been seen for the first time within the Gauls under Aurelius, the son of Antoninus, but long before; and they should have been seen not only at Lugdunum, but also at Vienna, Arelate, Narbona, Lutetia Parisiorum, and whatever other cities possessed Churches and their own bishops. For why would Trajan and Hadrian have spared our Churches more than those of the Orientals and Italians; and why should Marcus Aurelius have raged only against Lugdunum and not against others? I do not see; and I do not think anyone else can see, that he had withdrawn himself from the fury of the persecutors, nor that he had been arrested among the most prominent members of his Church (a wonder if he could have withdrawn himself; so great was their diligence in searching out the leaders of the Christians!), at least he would be presented, either by Eusebius or by the martyrs, as one solicitous for the flock of Christ, and as one afflicted...

^A by the heavy devastation which the fury of the Gentiles had soon brought upon the Church of Lyons. But how happily he acquitted himself in this, Gregory of Tours teaches. The most blessed Irenaeus, he says, the successor of this martyr (Pothinus), who was sent to this city (Lyons) by the blessed Polycarp, shone with admirable virtue: for in a short space of time, he rendered the city almost entirely Christian by his preaching. Whence, in the other persecution that occurred under Severus, and which sent Irenaeus to heaven, the same Gregory asserts that such a multitude of Christians was slain on account of their confession of the Lord's name, that rivers of Christian blood flowed through the streets, of whom, he says, neither the number nor the names could be gathered.

16. That Irenaeus himself governed the Lyonese Church after the death of Pothinus, seems to be able to be gathered from Eusebius. For as often as he speaks of affairs in Gaul, whether concerning the foundation of Churches, or thevexation of the Gentiles, or the controversies that arose in the Church and were debated in Gaul, he mentions one Lyonese bishop, and never another. Indeed, in recounting the dispute that flared up between Pope Victor and the Asiatics regarding the celebration of Easter, he presents Irenaeus twice as if he were the only one who then ruled the Churches of the Gauls by episcopal right ^B. Among those who rebuke Victor because he had cut the Asiatic Churches off from his communion, he says: *Irenaeus, on behalf of those brethren in Gaul whom he ruled, wrote to him*, etc. Irenaeus could not have presided over the brethren living in Gaul by any other right than the episcopal, certainly not by the metropolitan, and much less by the exarchial or patriarchal. For, as the renowned author of the new edition of the works of St. Leo the Great argues learnedly in the dissertation cited, in the second century of the Church, when the foundations of the Christian faith had scarcely been laid across the Alps, when the nascent Church in those regions was not even allowed to whisper, and finally, when that city of Gaul which appears to have been the first to receive the faith scarcely possessed another bishop besides Pothinus, one can scarcely demonstrate that such a form of hierarchy had already been-introduced into the few ^C Churches arising there, as would subject bishops to metropolitans, and metropolitans to exarchs. Indeed, if in the very middle of the third century, when Saturninus arrived at Toulouse, the Churches in our regions were still so rare—and the Christians just as few—who would believe that at the end of the second century they were so numerous that Irenaeus presided over many bishops by metropolitan or exarchial right? To this, add that the ancients were not accustomed to designate bishops by the name of "Brethren," but rather the Christian ^D people. But if that passage of Eusebius appears doubtful to anyone, perhaps what he premised earlier will seem clearer. Indeed, in reviewing various synods and conventions of bishops, συνόδους δὴ καὶ συγκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων, that were convened against the Asiatics, he mentions the Roman, the Palestinian, the Pontic, the Osrhoenian, and the Corinthian. All of these, with the exception of the Osrhoenian, he expressly calls synods of bishops, and what was defined in them, decrees of bishops; nor does he omit the bishops who presided over these synods. But when he relates the decree issued by the Churches of Gaul concerning the same controversy, he no longer mentions "synods of bishops," but a decree τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει, of the parishes of Gaul, whose bishop Irenaeus was, or which he administered as bishop. By which he designates Irenaeus as the sole bishop of Gaul. For if Eusebius had considered that decree to have been issued in a council of many Gallic bishops, he would have thought it just as worthy of note as he thought the decree of the Palestinians—issued by those bishops over whom Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided—or that of the Italians, by those over whom Victor presided; of the Pontics, by those over whom Palmas presided; or finally of the Achaians, by those over whom Bacchylus presided. Since, therefore, he does not speak of the Churches of Gaul in the same way as he does of the others, but in a way far different, he suggests, not obscurely, that the condition of our Churches at that time was far different, and that they were still in their infancy, not yet widely diffused, and that they scarcely had any other bishop than Irenaeus. At least, that no other can be produced, or extracted from the indubitable records of ecclesiastical history, is admitted by Tillemont, a most learned investigator of ecclesiastical antiquity, who here opposes us. Nor do I delay over the *Synodicon*, in which a twofold council is shown to have been held under Irenaeus; one of twelve, another of thirteen bishops; for its credibility is altogether weak in matters of such antiquity. But of these things, enough and more than enough for our purpose.

^A number, nor were we able to collect their names. This is also confirmed by Usuard and other martyrology writers, when they recount that Irenæus was crowned with glorious martyrdom along with almost all the people of his city. These are outstanding proofs of the zeal with which the most holy bishop burned for the promotion of the Christian religion among his own. But it was too great to be contained within the narrower limits of the city of Lugdunum: it spread itself into all of Gaul, and indeed into the whole Church. For it was his care to cultivate disciples in the precepts of Christian life and doctrine, who would subsequently serve the whole Church well by their words, writings, and examples. Such a person was, as Photius bears witness, Saint Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, who flourished among the Fathers of the third century for his reputation for holiness and learning. Such also was Caius the priest, a writer of the same century who was not undistinguished, at least if one grants any credit to what is written in the manuscript codices at the end of the Acts of Saint Polycarp the martyr, which are said to have been described by Caius, who associated with Irenæus, from an apograph of Irenæus himself, a disciple of Polycarp.

18. Since he fulfilled the office of an apostle in Gaul, and had taken upon himself that part of the Lord's vineyard to cultivate, it was fitting that he should provide greater proofs of his zeal there. Therefore, he held nothing more urgent than to send necessary laborers into those parts which were in need of new cultivators. From the Acts of the holy martyrs Ferreolus the priest and Ferutio the deacon, and of Felix the priest and the deacons Fortunatus and Achilleus, disciples of Saint Irenæus, ^B we learn that the first two were sent by him to Vesontio, and the latter three to Valentia, so that they might lay the foundations of divine worship throughout those places. Although these acts may not appear entirely sincere, such that we might grant them full and undoubted credence in all points, there is nothing, however, which can cast doubt upon the mission of those holy men, since we have the tradition of those Churches in most harmonious agreement. ^C And for this reason, Irenæus was justly and deservedly called by the ancients the apostle of the Gauls and the light of the Western Gauls, as one who cultivated and illuminated the Celtic peoples. And from this, what we said a little before is not a little confirmed, that Christian Churches in Gaul were rare at that time, and bishops even rarer; since Valentia and Vesontio, cities of no obscure name or lowest rank, and not so far distant from Lugdunum, had not yet heard the faith of Christ, nor do we read that their own primary apostles were notable for episcopal dignity. But since we read of all these things in authors without any chronological markers, we cannot define in what year they occurred. But this is certain, that while Eleutherus was still pontiff, at least the first three of the five books against the fables of the Gnostics were written. For it was not enough for Irenæus to extend the borders of Christ's kingdom as far and wide as he could, unless he also protected peace within it, and ^D endeavored to break the onsets of domestic enemies—whose evil arts, and the Valentiniani who had long since emerged in the East, followed shortly after by the Marcosians, the followers of Simon Magus, and the evil progeny of other Gnostics—for as much as they stood in their defense with all their might. These men, bearing a mind more than heathen whilst under a Christian name, by incredible monsters of errors and atrocious crimes, were casting the utmost stain of infamy upon the holiness of the Christian religion. The poison was creeping the more dangerously for being the more hidden: and it had already pervaded the region of Lugdunum, having infected many, especially women, whose minds it had led away not merely from the faith, but almost from every sense of reason. Irenæus, keeping watch for Christ's flock, when he sensed the evil, and having sufficiently explored its entire gravity from the books and sermons of the heretics, applied himself to writing, so that he might bring their wicked trifles, deceits, and manners out into the open and utterly overturn them. But we shall discuss the books and writings of the holy bishop more fully and accurately later. That the Valentinians, Marcionites, and other ancient heretics were condemned by Irenæus in the synod which he held at Lugdunum, at which twelve bishops were present, is reported by the already cited *Libellus synodicus*; but we have already warned that in matters of this kind, this booklet, published in the ninth century, can have no authority.

19. How studious Irenæus was of fostering peace in the Church, [LXXXV] appeared nowhere more clearly than in the controversy which raged between Pope Victor and the Asiatics. Hitherto, there had not been one and the same discipline among all the Churches in celebrating Easter. The Churches of Asia Minor contended that the feast day of the Lord’s Easter and Resurrection, and the end of the fasts, must be observed on the fourteenth moon after the vernal equinox, on whatever day of the week it might fall. The Roman Church, however, lest it seem to imitate Jewish rites, thought it should be celebrated on the Lord's Day which would next follow the fourteenth moon, and that the fasts were to be extended until that time. All the Westerns agreed with the Roman Church, as did the Churches of Alexandria, Phoenicia, Pontus, Achaia, and Osrhoene. As to whether the Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia did so as well, there is room for doubt. Indeed, it is clear from Athanasius in his book *De Synodis*, that before the Council of Nicaea, *οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας, καὶ Κιλικίας, καὶ Μεσοποταμίας, ἐχώλευον περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐποιοῦντο Πάσχα*, the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians stumbled regarding the feast, and celebrated Easter with the Jews. The synodal epistle of the council itself also records, *πάντας τοὺς τῆς Ἑῴας ἀδελφούς*, that all the brethren of the East, who previously dissented from the Romans, Alexandrians, and other nations regarding the feast of Easter, had now come to agreement with them. Moreover, the head of the East and of Syria is Antioch. That the discipline of the Asian Churches concerning Easter formerly prevailed even in that city, until the Council of Nicaea recalled all Churches to concord, is not to be doubted.

^A Indeed, the clear authority of St. John Chrysostom, a citizen and presbyter of Antioch, forbids us to think otherwise, in the sermon which he delivered against some of his own people, who, mindful of the old rite, did not cease to celebrate Easter on the 14th day of the moon even after the Nicene Synod. He admits, indeed, that this had been the custom of the Antiochians before the synod, but that afterwards, harmony of times was preferred. From the other side, the authority of Eusebius makes us pause. For he asserts in express terms that, beside the Asian and other neighboring Churches, the Churches dispersed throughout the rest of the world agreed with the Roman [Church] concerning Easter. ^B By these, he seems to include the Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, just as he does many others of which he makes no express mention. The most learned Tillemont cut this knot rather than solved it, writing that they indeed had celebrated Easter in the Roman manner on the Lord’s day in the time of Victor, but afterwards had fallen away from the pristine rite so that at the time of the Nicene Council they observed Easter with the Jews on the 14th day of the moon. That certain Churches, which had resisted Pope Victor more sharply, might have returned to the common usage of almost all other Churches—having adopted a sounder counsel and departed from their ancient rites—will seem to no one at all surprising. And it is sufficiently probable that many Churches of Asia did this; since the Emperor Constantine, among those which at the time of the Nicene Council celebrated Easter with the Roman [Church], enumerates the diocese of Asia; and Anatolius, who was writing around the year 276, says that "to this day the bishops of Asia celebrated Easter on the 14th day of the moon after the equinox," by which he seems to imply that they then ceased to celebrate it [in that way]. But who and why those Churches—which for almost two hundred years not only had observed Easter on the Lord’s day, but even towards the end of the second century, while the dispute about this matter was more acute, contended vehemently that it should be so observed—should, about a hundred years later, be found so tenacious of a different discipline from the one they had fought for, and which they knew was repugnant to the customs of almost the whole world, no one will easily say, nor will anyone have assigned a cause for so unexpected a change. But, says the most famous man, there is no doubt that Mesopotamia had abandoned the ancient rite at the beginning of the fourth century. For at the end of the second century Osrhoena was in agreement with the Roman Church. Now Osrhoena is taken for Mesopotamia in daily speech. ^C But what the most learned man assumes as if it were certain, that authors are accustomed to use Mesopotamia and Osrhoena indiscriminately, will seem at least doubtful to others. Certainly Ammianus Marcellinus distinguishes the one from the other; and because, he says, all the tracts of Mesopotamia were accustomed to be frequently troubled, they were guarded by bulwarks and agrarian stations, and by a path turned to the left he had settled in Osrhoena: he says in the Alamundar speech, "Of Mesopotamia and the region which is called Osrhoene." In the Notitiae of the empire and the Church, Osrhoene and Mesopotamia properly so-called are also distinguished from one another, and of the latter the capital is established as Amida, of the former as Edessa. Finally, Anthemusia, which is almost Osrhoena, is, by the testimony of Strabo, a portion of Mesopotamia itself, namely of Mesopotamia taken in a wider sense. These things prove that Osrhoena is commonly distinguished by authors from Mesopotamia, either as a part from the whole, or as a part from another part. But even if some have used both indiscriminately, yet, unless I am mistaken, it can be demonstrated by no argument that Eusebius understood it that way. Therefore, whether we take Mesopotamia for the huge tract of lands which includes many provinces, or for a certain province of that same tract, it seems far more probable that the customs of Osrhoena and the customs of the other Churches of Mesopotamia were always different. Therefore, when Eusebius says that certain Churches neighboring the Asian Churches agreed in the discipline of Easter, I would not believe that he intended to force the meaning of his words by adding to them the Churches of Cilicia, of Seleucis (whose capital is Antioch), and at least the province of Mesopotamia. Concerning Cilicia, there is hardly any difficulty, since it was then counted among the provinces of Asia Minor; nor is there greater [difficulty] concerning Seleucis, bordering on it. However, Constantine enumerates Cilicia among those Churches which, in the age of the Nicene Council, celebrated Easter with the Roman [Church]. But lest he be in open conflict with Athanasius, lauded above, it must necessarily be explained as referring to some part of Cilicia. Be that as it may.

20. A contention arose among the litigants the more serious, the more important the points that each brought forward for themselves. ^D For both sides relied upon apostolic tradition: not that, as Socrates says, any of the apostles had laid down a law on this matter; but that the disciples venerated their example as if it were a law laid down for them. The Asians brought forward as authors of their institution the Apostle John, Philip one of the first seven deacons, Polycarp the martyr, Melito, and other most excellent men, who, when they lived among them, celebrated their Easter in the manner of the 14th day of the moon. The Romans, on the contrary, asserted that Peter and Paul, when they were in Rome, had never acted otherwise than on the Lord’s day. And indeed, before Pope Victor, peace had always stood between the Churches, however much they were dissimilar to each other in this matter: each living according to its own custom, allowed the other to live according to its own. Other pontiffs had only taken care, lest restless spirits should corrupt the sound and sincere custom of their Church with the foreign customs of the Asians. And when some Blastus, a presbyter of the Roman Church, had presumed to do this, [he...]

^A Irenaeus, who was no less concerned for the preservation of peace than for the antiquity and tradition of the Churches, restrained him by writing an epistle against him, which he entitled *On Schism*. Yet those pontiffs—namely Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus—as Irenaeus himself bears witness, although they neither celebrated the Pasch on the same day as the Asians, nor permitted their own followers to celebrate it on that day, nevertheless zealously cultivated peace and communion with them, and for the sake of the custom of those times, sent them the holy Eucharist. Indeed, when Polycarp had come to Rome in the time of Anicetus, there was a slight dispute between the two concerning other, lesser matters, and an even lesser one regarding the Pasch. Anicetus, for his part, tried to persuade Polycarp to adopt Roman rites, while Polycarp tried to persuade Anicetus to adopt the Asian ones; but since neither yielded to the other, peace was quickly established, so much so that the Roman pontiff, out of reverence, granted the administration of the celebration of the Eucharist to the Smyrnean.

21. They were in that place when Victor undertook the governance of the Church. Being a little more fervent than his predecessors and bearing the diversity of rites impatiently, he labored with more ardent zeal, so that he might recall the entire Church to one and the same practice. Jerome writes in his *Catalogue* that this happened under the Emperor Severus; in his *Chronicle*, however, he assigns it to the fourth year of his reign, 196 A.D. Therefore, Victor wrote to the principal bishops of the entire Church, [urging them] to convoke synods in their provinces and to discuss the question in them, and to settle it according to the wishes and discipline of the Roman Church; he threatened excommunication to the Asians if they did not consent. Councils were held at Rome, in Palestine, in Pontus, in Osrhoene, in Achaia, and in many other places, and with one consensus ^B and judgment, they transmitted the ecclesiastical rule to all the faithful through synodal letters—namely, that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead should never be celebrated on any day other than the Lord’s Day. The opinion of the Churches of Gaul, over which Irenaeus presided as bishop, was the same. But Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, having convened a council of the bishops of Asia, was not at all moved by the threatening letters of Victor and did not think that he should depart from the ancient custom of his Church. Therefore, in the name of his council, he wrote back to the pontiff; he set forth the tradition of the Churches of Asia; he showed that from the times of John the evangelist unto his own age, the Pasch had been celebrated by everyone, as many as had flourished in Asia in holiness and doctrine, on no other day than the 14th moon; and that it was wicked, therefore, to depart from their customs. He added that he was not at all disturbed by the things put forward to terrify him, since he had learned from his elders that one must obey God rather than men. Having received this letter, Victor, *ametra termatheis* ("having reached the limit beyond measure"), says Socrates, inflamed with anger beyond measure, cut off from communion all the Churches of Asia that celebrated the Pasch on the fourteenth day of the month. ^C

22. Valesius interprets the words of Eusebius thus, thinking that it could be inferred from them that the threats of excommunication were indeed issued, but that the excommunication itself was not actually launched. But others fear that the most illustrious man did not sufficiently notice that the pontiff had indeed threatened prior to the Ephesian council, but that he had held back the weapon; however, upon receiving the decree of the council, he was exasperated and released it. Nor does it stand in the way, they say, that the same Eusebius asserts that Victor had attempted to cut off the Churches of Asia from the common unity. For it is one thing for those Churches to be cut off from the proper communion of the pontiff, and another to be cut off from the common unity of the whole Church. Victor did the former, and they contend that this is most clearly indicated by Eusebius; but in order to obtain the latter, he marked the Asians with written letters, and issued an edict forbidden by holy law, so that the rest should abstain from their communion. But, writes Jerome, in that opinion, those who disagreed with them did not give their hand to Victor; and his severity, according to Eusebius, *ou pasi ge tois episkopois areketo* ("was not pleasing to all the bishops"); nay, it displeased the majority. For although they did not at all approve of the opinion and discipline of the Asians, they nevertheless bore with greater annoyance the fact that so many Churches were being severed ^D from the body of the Church on account of a question that pertained in no way to the faith; anticipating that from the very diversity of customs a worse evil of schism would erupt due to the overly ardent zeal of the pope. Therefore, many rebuked him rather sharply in letters, and seriously warned him that, as one studious of fostering peace, charity, and concord, he should temper his immoderate severity, from which there would be little profit and a great deal of detriment to the whole Church. But before all others, Irenaeus, beautifully responding to the name he bore (*Eirenaios*, which in Greek signifies a "lover of peace" in Latin), had nothing more at heart than to prove himself a promoter of peace by his manner of acting. Therefore, he challenged Victor in writing, and in the name of the brethren over whom he presided in Gaul, he firmly and gravely [addressed] his rather fervent heat.

He also wrote other letters on the same subject to various bishops, in which he urged them to restore the peace of the Church that had been disturbed, [letters] which have perished due to the injurious passing of time; but Eusebius preserved a fragment of the letters to Victor, which is not to be disdained, and which we have taken care to have printed at the end of this work. He urges the pontiff in it to maintain peace with the Asiatics, in the manner of his predecessors—whom he enumerates—and not to take it ill that they firmly adhere to ancient customs which they had received from the evangelist John and from apostolic men and most holy people, and which Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus had not deemed of such moment that the state of the Church should be thrown into confusion on their account.

23. He further ^B teaches that this is a question which, if it brings in many others, is not to be decided quickly or easily, and thus the whole Church is not to be plunged deeper into a chasm of nearly infinite quarrels, from which it could scarcely emerge. For if those who dissent from the Roman Church regarding the Paschal feast are to be provoked, then a struggle must consequently be waged against those who observe the fast which precedes the feast in a way differently than the Romans do. But it is better to listen to him himself, and to elucidate the difficulties—which are neither few nor light—here, since an opportune occasion presents itself. "For the dispute is not only about the day, but also about the form of the fast. For some think they ought to fast one day, others two, others even more, others forty. And they compute their day according to diurnal and nocturnal hours." ^C For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the form of the fast itself. For some think that they must fast for one day, others for two, others for several more, and others for forty. They measure their day by calculating diurnal and nocturnal hours. These words have set the most learned men against one another, as they agree neither on the reading nor on the sense. H. Valesius, along with Grabius and many others, thinks that after removing the mark of punctuation after the word τεσσαράκοντα (forty), the text should be read in one and the same flow: "And others measure their day by [calculating] forty diurnal and nocturnal hours." Many others measure their day by forty hours, having calculated the diurnal and nocturnal ones. But since Valesius noticed that a day of forty hours appeared to be something absurd, in order to avert that [absurdity], he attempted to change the words of Irenaeus, and to substitute νηστείαν (fast) for ἡμέραν (day), even though all manuscripts, both printed and handwritten, are against it, so that the sense might be that some measure the Lenten fast in such a way that they fast for forty continuous hours. He says that the scribes, by transferring the word from the line above to this place, corrupted the text. But others, to whom it pleases not to place any mark of punctuation between τεσσαράκοντα (forty) and ὥρας (hours), and who retain ἡμέραν (day), interpret that day of XL hours as being from the time that elapsed from the third hour after midday of the Parasceve [Good Friday] until about the sixth hour of the following Sunday, which many passed *astitoi* [fasting], tasting absolutely nothing of food or drink. But others rightly object to this, both regarding the reading and the interpretation. For a day of sixty hours, however it may be explained, is a marvel unheard of in all ecclesiastical antiquity, for which neither track nor footprint occurs in any of the former authors, even those to whom either Eusebius or Irenaeus was more familiar; and it could never have entered the mind of any man, if he were in his right mind, to finish his day from forty hours. But suppose that in the age of Irenaeus there existed some who, devising for themselves a reckoning of time alien to the common usage of all men and nations, had measured their day in such a way, why did Irenaeus add that they had computed the diurnal as well as the nocturnal hours? That is altogether childish and insipid. As if any day could consist of forty hours without the nocturnal and diurnal hours being calculated together! Furthermore, if, as some wish, there were some Christians who passed only the final forty hours which immediately preceded the resurrection of Christ as *astitoi* [fasting], it would be necessary that they had not begun the fast of the day of the Parasceve, on which the Lord was crucified, before the very time of the crucifixion. But that is opposed to Tertullian, who at the end of the book *De Oratione*, which he wrote while he was still a Catholic, clearly asserts that the day of the Pascha—by which name everyone admits he understands the day of the crucifixion—is one of public fasting. But would there have been a public religious fast on that day, if some had begun the fast only at the third hour after midday, and had thought it free for them to indulge in feasts during the rest of the day? You would certainly find none among those who were departing from the discipline of the Quartodecimans who believed it was permitted for them to break the fast on that day before sunset. Nay, Dionysius of Alexandria, the *Apostolic Constitutions*, Epiphanius, and others testify that not only the day of the Parasceve but also the fast of the other five days of the Great Week was observed by Christians with such religion that some, each according to his own strength and piety, would pass the two days, or three, or four, and others even the whole week until the cockcrow of the following Sunday, without food; but all, during those six days, considered it a sin to eat any food other than *xerophagiae* [dry foods]—that is to say, only bread, with salt and water—and that, too, only before evening.

24. To avert this absurdity, the illustrious Grabius entered upon a path different from Valesius, but with no more successful outcome. He indeed spared the words of Irenaeus, but did violence to the sense. He retains the word *hēmeran*, "day," at the end of the second period; but not only here, but also in the first verse of the fragment, "For the dispute is not only about the day," etc., he interprets *hēmeran* as "time," and specifically "the time of the fast": the usage of which meaning, he adds, you may read proved by several examples, if you please, in [the work of] Psochenius.

^A I have not yet read Psochenius's Diatribe nor Vorstius's Dissertation, but I hold it as certain that all the examples they bring forward, even if there were six hundred, would contribute nothing to the present case and could not establish Grabius's interpretation. For if it were valid, Irenæus's discourse would necessarily be laboring under the most shameful ambiguity. He uses the word *hemera* (day) five times in two very brief periods, explicitly and implicitly. It is, however, most certain in these words: "For some think they ought to fast one day; others two [supply 'days'], others more [supply 'days']," that the word *hemera* is understood as nothing else than the space of twenty-four hours. Irenæus ought therefore, unless he wanted to deceive his readers, to have taken the same word, which immediately precedes and follows, in exactly the same sense. Truly, one would be an insipid writer who, playing upon one and the same word, first twists it from its common meaning without warning the reader, and then immediately returns to the common meaning, only to jump from there to an alien one! If Grabius has persuaded anyone that this was Irenæus's method of writing, he has certainly persuaded no sober man. What the learned man adds, in order to avoid the absurdity of counting forty night-hours together with the day-hours, it is wonderful how that could ever have come into his mind. "Whoever," he says, "objects that the mention of forty night-hours together with the day-hours is made here unsuitably, they must of necessity object also against Matt. iv. 2, where the Savior is said to have fasted forty not only days, but also nights." When Christ had fasted forty days and as many nights, the sacred writer, reporting the fact, ought not to have omitted the nights, from which the harshness of Christ's fast is so greatly lauded. For it is one thing to fast for forty days only, and another to add nights to the days; the latter is far harder and more burdensome than the former, nor is he who is said to have done one thing understood to have done the other unless it is explicitly mentioned. So far is it, therefore, from being the case that the mention of night hours was made here [LXXXVIII] unsuitably; rather, it was necessarily to be made. But what affinity this example has with a fast of forty hours, I certainly do not ^B see, nor will any other person perhaps see it. When someone is said to have passed forty hours without food, it is sufficiently understood that one part of that time refers to day hours, and the other to night hours. Therefore, the mention of night hours together with day hours would be brought in here not only unsuitably, but in a way that is utterly ridiculous and childish.

25. It is wonderful into what entanglements learned men throw themselves, which they could have avoided without any effort. Reading and distinguishing Irenæus's words in the way we have written above, his discourse now has nothing objectionable. Indeed, a single small mark of punctuation placed between *tessarakonta* (forty) and *horas* (hours) removes the obstacle which arises from two words being wrongly joined. Thus they read, and thus Christophorson and Savilius distinguish. But, says Valesius, the manuscript codices stand against this, in which no mark of distinction is inserted between the two words. But that most learned man had studied the manuscript codices longer and more carefully, so that he knew there could be no or very little trust in the marks of distinction which they usually either exhibit or omit; forasmuch as scribes, whether by their own judgment, or out of ignorance, or out of inadvertence, often added or omitted them, to the detriment of both the author and the sense. If it be permitted to appeal to manuscript codices, in order to omit those which Christophorson and Savilius used, those which Rufinus had before his eyes while he was adorning the Latin version of Eusebius were older than all those which exist at present. That the mark of distinction we have mentioned occurred in them is openly gathered from his own interpretation, which is this: "For some think the fast ought to be observed for one day only, others for two, others indeed for more; some even for forty, so that calculating the diurnal and nocturnal hours, they establish the day." I indeed know that Rufinus has often fallen short of the office of a good interpreter; but the perfect agreement of the Greek words with the Latin proves that he was accurate here.

26. But since the text is distinguished, all things cohere most aptly, both in themselves and in the history of the times. We have said that the question between the Asians and the Romans was whether the Pasch ought to be celebrated on the fourteenth moon of the first month, or whether the solemn fasts ought to be ended [at that time]; or indeed whether they ought to be postponed until the next Lord's Day. Pope Victor, who asserted the latter, had hurled, or was prepared to hurl, the thunderbolt of excommunication against the Asians who refused. Irenæus, indignant that so many and such great churches were being excluded from sacred communion over a question that pertained in no way to the dogmas of the faith, strives to recall the pontiff from his precipitate decision. He warns him in the first place that it is better to suppress the question with prudent silence than to agitate it with such great tumult, lest perchance one controversy might supply the fuel for many others. For neither, he says, is the controversy only about the day on which the fast is to be ended, but also about the form of the fast itself. Observe, I pray, that the controversy was not about the fast itself, nor even about the number of the fast days. For it was agreed at that time among the Orientals and the Westerners, and thus among all the churches of that century, that several days of fasting at least should precede the Paschal feast: otherwise, there could not have been such contention among the churches about their end, if one or two days of fasting had sufficed; nor would it have seemed so indecorous that on the same days some should be free for fasting, while others were carrying on feastings; and after the days of the Pasch, some should be occupied with feasts and the relaxation of spirits, and others give themselves over to prescribed fasts; to say nothing of what is evident from Dionysius of Alexandria, who flourished no more than sixty years after Irenæus, and from the Apostolic Constitutions 63 lauded above.

27. But what is the point of searching for a knot in a bulrush, when Irenæus asserts that the controversy was περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας, concerning the very form of the fast, that is, concerning the species, mode, and manner of the fast; in what way, or by what rite the fast was to be observed? What, you ask, is the status of this controversy? Irenæus himself reveals it shortly after. Namely, although all the faithful observed a fast for many days before Easter, there was not one single manner of observing it among them all. *Καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων, οὐ νῦν ἐφ' ἡμῶν γεγονυία, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, τῶν παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς, ὡς εἰκὸς, κρατούντων, τὴν καθ' ἁπλότητα, καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετέπειτα πεποιηκότων.* Which words, being a little intricate, I think should be translated into Latin thus: And this variety among those who observe the fasts did not first arise in our own age, but took its origin long before among our ancestors; who, perhaps not accurately retaining the form of the fast, brought into later use the custom which had its origin in simplicity and lack of knowledge. ^A Musculus and H. Valesius have altogether poorly translated the word κρατούντων as those who held the reins of power, or those who preside. For, as the renowned Beveridge well observes, the word κρατεῖν, when posited simply, never signifies to preside or to dominate, unless at least that object is added over which one is said to dominate, as *κρατεῖν τῆς θαλάσσης*, *κρατεῖν τῶν θηρίων*. However, Irenæus in this passage is not speaking of the presidents or prelates of the Church (who are never called *κρατοῦντες*), but *περὶ τοῦ εἴδους τῆς νηστείας*, concerning the form of the fast, which he says some, out of simplicity and ignorance—hence more unlearned and private men, ^B *ἰδιώτας*, certainly not *ἄρχοντας*—had not observed or retained *παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς*, according to accuracy. From this, therefore, arose the controversy, or the complaint of many, that because many held a more lax form of fasting, which the incompetence of some had brought in, they had departed from the accurate form. But what the accurate form of fasting was, we cannot indeed learn from Irenæus himself, but we are permitted to elicit it from the ancients already cited. Dionysius of Alexandria in his epistle to Basilides writes that the six final days of the pre-Paschal fasts, although they were not passed by all in the same manner, were nevertheless transmitted by most in his own age in such a way that some spent all six days without food, others four, others three, others two. Which form of fasting of pious men, although it cannot be drawn into a law common to all, yet it is clearly gathered from it that that custom had already obtained in the Church, so that the fast of those six days was observed more rigidly than the rest. ^C Epiphanius further reveals that same custom of the Church a little more clearly, and at the same time intimates that it was not recently introduced in his own age, but was considered very ancient, inasmuch as it had struck deep roots in the whole Church. *Τὴν δὲ τεσσαρακοστὴν, τὴν πρὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγίου Πάσχα ὡσαύτως φυλάττειν εἴωθεν Ἐκκλησία, ἐν νηστείαις διατελοῦσα· τὰς δὲ Κυριακὰς οὐδ' ὅλως, οὔτε ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ. Τὰς δὲ ἓξ ἡμέρας τοῦ Πάσχα ἐν ξηροφαγίᾳ διατελοῦσι πάντες οἱ λαοί· φημὶ δὲ ἄρτῳ, καὶ ἁλὶ, καὶ ὕδατι τότε χρώμενοι πρὸς ἑσπέραν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ σπουδαῖοι διπλᾶς, καὶ τριπλᾶς, καὶ τετραπλᾶς ὑπερτίθενται, καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα τινὲς ἄχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κλαγγῆς τῆς Κυριακῆς ἐπιφωσκούσης.* ^D The Church is accustomed to observe in like manner the Quadragesima, which precedes the seven days of the holy Pascha, by persevering in fasts. But on Sundays it is not the custom to fast, not even in the Quadragesima itself. Furthermore, all the peoples pass the six days of the Pascha in xerophagies; that is, taking food then only in the evening, consisting of bread, salt, and water. But those who zealously pursue piety extend their fasts up to the second, third, or fourth day; some even spend the entire week without food until the cock-crow of the following Sunday. Epiphanius clearly distinguishes here three forms of fast: the one for that part of the Quadragesima which precedes the seven days of the Pascha, or the Great Week: this was more moderate, as being free from the law of xerophagies; the other for the Great Week, the first more strict and bound to xerophagies.

And finally, one more severe than both, where a part of this week, or indeed the whole of it, was passed without any food at all. The first and second were customary for the whole Church and for all peoples, and therefore had the force of law; the latter was only for those who pursued piety more zealously than others, and it was a mere counsel, not a command. Hence, the same Epiphanius calls the Great Week ^A *xerophagias hebdomada*, a week of dry eating. And for this reason he rightly rebukes the Aerians, because during the days of Pascha—at which time, he says, Catholics were accustomed to mortify the body and soul by lying on the ground, observing chastity, and through prayers, vigils, fasts, the use of dry foods, and other afflictions of that kind—they themselves were not ashamed to eat meat, celebrate feasts, and rejoice excessively. The *Apostolic Constitutions*—falsely so called, though older than Epiphanius—agree with Epiphanius: “In the days of Pascha, therefore, fast, beginning from the second day until the Friday and Saturday, partaking only of bread, salt, vegetables, and the drink of water. And abstain from wine and meat during these days; for they are days of mourning, not of festival.” Therefore, fast during the days of Pascha, beginning from the second day up to the Friday, and on the Saturday, for six days using only bread, salt, vegetables, and the drinking of water. But abstain from wine and meat on these days; for they are days of mourning, not festive ones.

28. Such, therefore, was the form of the fast amongst the majority of the churches in the earlier centuries, that the first part of the Quadragesima ^B was consecrated by a fast that was indeed slightly more remiss, but the latter part by one far more severe. If, therefore, there was any controversy in Irenaeus’s time regarding the form of the fast, if there was any discrepancy among the churches, it seems to have consisted in this: that some fasted during the last six days of the Quadragesima more softly than was proper and than the more common custom of the churches allowed, and did not partake of xerophagies. And this is exactly what Irenaeus represents here. For he says that some think they ought to fast for a single day, namely, according to the strict form of the fast; others for two, others for several more; while others, whose piety is greater, have progressed farther and spend all forty days in xerophagies. However, this was common to all: that with both day and night hours calculated, they measured their day—that is, those days which they set aside for fasting were not artificial, but natural or civil, which include the hours of both night and day. ^C This Irenaeus added not in vain, but quite prudently, lest anyone imagine that these people, while the sun was shining, made use of thin food, and then at night indulged in more luxurious feasts, after the manner of the Jews. Moreover, all these things are most true and in prime agreement with ancient monuments. For the Council of Laodicea, in canon 50, decrees: “It is necessary for the whole Quadragesima to fast by eating dry foods.” From this, the custom of certain churches is established—having been to eat dry foods not only for the last six days, but for all forty days. From another side, Socrates bears witness that the faithful, while keeping the pre-Paschal fasts, differed among themselves not only as to the number of days, but even in the matter of food abstinence. For some, he says, abstain completely from living creatures; others eat only fish; some eat birds as well as fish, affirming that they too were created from the waters, as is in Moses. ^D Some abstain from all fruit of trees and from eggs. Some eat6 only bread; others do not use even this. Some fast until the ninth hour and thereafter eat any kind of food whatsoever without discrimination. Others fast in another manner, etc. By these testimonies, Irenaeus’s words are greatly illustrated and those things which we have already said are confirmed: namely, that some had receded from the strict form of the fast to such a degree that they fasted by eating dry foods for only one day, others for two, etc., in the way that was proper.

29. Irenaeus says that Victor, the Pope, and all others always maintained peace among themselves. And we, he says, retain it; and thus, a differing manner of fasting commends the concord of faith. Whence it was easy to conclude [XC] that if no disturbance was raised against those who did not keep the form of fasting prescribed by the Roman Church, then none ought to be raised against those who disagreed with it on the day of Pascha; because both can vary according to place and time—neither held any relation to the faith, which remained the same and unshaken in all churches. That all these arguments are of the greatest weight, and most worthy of Irenaeus’s piety, prudence, and erudition, no one will deny. That he prevailed so much with Victor that he revoked the overly hasty step he had taken regarding their way of life, and restored peace to the Oriental churches, is gathered from the fact that Firmilian, writing about sixty years later, says that amidst the diverse customs of the Roman Church and other regions, the peace and unity of the Catholic Church had always stood unharmed. But Anatolius, who wrote about twenty years after Firmilian, asserts in explicit words that with Irenaeus as the mediator and reconciler of peace, the controversies of the opposing parties were settled in such a way that it was safe and free for everyone to retain their ancestral customs. And indeed, although the Orientals did not depart from the manner of celebrating Pascha which they had received from their ancestors, we do not read that they were troubled thereafter by the successors of Victor, until the custom of the Roman Church, sanctioned by the decree of the Nicene Council, was received and approved by the common consent of all other nations. This, then, was the praise of Irenaeus: that he reconciled the dissenting churches, which were soon to be torn apart by broken sacred bonds; hence, among both sides, it was never enough to praise him according to his merit.

30. Irenaeus did not survive this noble labor for long. Scarcely had he extinguished the internal wars by which the churches were being agitated, when he groaned over those devastated more bitterly by external forces. I refer to that cruel and savage war which Severus brought upon the Christian cause in the tenth year of his reign, which is the year of Christ 202, a war for none more harmful than for that of Lugdunum. Gregory of Tours shows us with what immense slaughter of the faithful he ravaged it, and how he sprinkled the blood of the shepherd, who was fighting bravely for Christ along with his flock, upon the ground. "When the persecution came," he says, "the devil practiced such wars there through the tyrant, and such a multitude of Christians was slaughtered there on account of their confession of the Lord’s name, that rivers of Christian blood ran through the streets; of these, we have been able to collect neither the number nor the names. For the Lord inscribed them in the book of life." He dedicated blessed Irenaeus, having been subjected to various torments in the presence of his executioner, to Christ the Lord through martyrdom. Ado and Notker agree with Gregory, when they narrate that Irenaeus was crowned with glorious martyrdom with almost the entire populace of his city. Otherwise, we do not know the circumstances of such a precious death. For those which Severtius, Halloixius, and Theophilus Raynaldus say they have unearthed from certain ancient manuscripts of the Church of Lugdunum, I consider to be of little reliability. One should only have faith in these ancient ^B monuments to the extent that they count Irenaeus among the martyrs of Christ. For they have in agreement with them on this point Jerome, and the author of the *Questions to the Orthodox* among the works of Justin Martyr, who call Irenaeus a martyr in explicit terms, as well as the most ancient codes of the Martyrologies, both published and in manuscript—the one commonly called the Hieronymian, published by Florentinius, and those of Bede, Usuard, etc., and the Greek Menaia themselves. There exists in our Saint-Germain Library a vellum codex in-4°, no. 264, containing many treatises of Isidore, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, etc., which the very form of the script proves to be most ancient and more than a thousand years old. In the middle, one can see two quaternions, written perhaps not by the same hand, but at least in the same age, of which part is written in common characters and part in Merovingian, so that in one and the same short work, indeed even on the same folio, one can read both styles: which demonstrates the great antiquity of the codex. Furthermore, at the beginning is prefixed a very brief Calendar, written by the same hand as the rest of the work, in which it is read thus: *IV. Kal. Jul. Lugduno Gallia Pas. S. Herenei Ep.* It is to be lamented that the sincere and authentic Acts of his passion have perished. It is long since they were lost; for Gregory the Great complains that the deeds and writings of blessed Irenaeus could not be found, ^A even though he had sought them out from long ago. Baronius affirms in his notes to the Roman Martyrology, and in the *Ecclesiastical Annals* at the year 205, n. 28, that a fragment was found by him—perchance the same one which the aforementioned Severtius described as having been extracted from an ancient Lugdunum codex; for the history of Irenaeus's death which Baronius narrates accords sufficiently with that of Severtius. But our most learned D. Theodericus Ruinart found the Acts themselves intact (which the Eminent Cardinal had obtained on a single mutilated page) in a manuscript codex of the Cistercian arch-monastery; yet, because they do not seem to reach the age of Irenaeus, he did not deem them worth presenting. Be that as it may regarding the acts, the testimonies which we have drawn from ancient monuments make it plain that at least from the fifth century the opinion has spread among all nations that Irenaeus ended his life by martyrdom.

51. But lo, the recent author Dodwell arises against the opinion hitherto received and handed down by so many ancients, and strives to pluck the laurel of martyrdom from Irenaeus’s head. It would be strange if he, who from tender years has been most hostile to the multitude of martyrs, had spared the star of Gaul. But by what arguments does he erase the Lugdunum bishop from the roll of martyrs? By those, specifically, in which he delights more than is just: by vain and infinite conjectures and by negative arguments; which, if they have any weight here, then nothing in all ecclesiastical antiquity will be so certain that it cannot be easily shaken by the hands of the audacious. And first, he refutes those who think Irenaeus was slaughtered in the year that Severus overcame Albinus in battle at the city of Lugdunum; with the city taken in that same onslaught, and a most immense slaughter wrought upon its citizens, especially the Christians. That year was the 197th of Christ, the 5th of Severus. But if you except the author of the Acts of St. Irenaeus, whose trustworthiness is entirely doubtful, there are very few who feel this way. For indeed in that year, as attested by Jerome in his *Chronicle*, the Paschal controversy between Pope Victor and the Asians was then first emerging, or at least strengthening, which was subsequently composed with Irenaeus as mediator. Scholars therefore readily concede that the bishop of Lugdunum had prolonged his life until the persecution came—as Gregory of Tours says, indeed that one which Severus stirred up five ^D years later—and cut down the shepherd with the greater part of his flock. In what year they obtained the crown of martyrdom, it is not clear; it is certain that they could not have obtained it until after the year 202, nor is Raynaldus's conjecture improbable, that it should be deferred until the year 208, in which Severus, having traveled through the Gauls, set out for Greater Britain. Dodwell does not even lightly touch upon these things; nor do the arguments he offers against them carry much weight with the authors of the primary opinion.

52. ^A But, he says, such was the authority of the martyrs among the ancients that they thought the mention of a martyr should never be made without an encomium of his martyrdom; why is it that no one among the ancients, even when a witness is adduced, even when he is read joined with other martyr-witnesses, has nevertheless called Irenaeus a martyr? Dodwell asserts this quite confidently. Or will he expunge from the catalogue of the ancients Jerome, the author of the *Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos*, and Gregory of Tours? And yet, they call Irenaeus a martyr in clear words, and the first two do so precisely when they cite him as a witness. Dodwell attempts to either diminish their credibility or weaken their testimony, but with empty cavils, which we shall discuss later. To these must be added the most ancient writers of Martyrologies and Calendars, who have most consistently enrolled Irenaeus in the ranks of the martyrs; and this not by their own authority, not by futile conjectures, or by rash guessing, but from the ancient monuments of the Churches which they consulted and had before their eyes. If Dodwell calls these men fabricators again, let him bear in mind that our most learned and piously remembered D. Thierry Ruinart has long since met such accusations with the words that he, having been driven to an impasse, has not hitherto been able to defend his desperate cause. ^B Indeed, he says, while no one can affirm that books of this kind are completely immune from every fault (for this is the singular prerogative of the sacred books), it does not follow from this that they were written in bad faith, or rashly, or lightly; on the contrary, it is certain that the Martyrologies were collected by grave men from older monuments and the Calendars of particular Churches: which, when they had been approved by the bishops, were read publicly in ecclesiastical assemblies; so that if the feasts of all the saints could not be celebrated, at least some commemoration of them might be made, both as a token of the communion which ought to be maintained among catholic Churches, and so that by that means some honor at least might be shown to foreign martyrs. Moreover, the Fathers of the Trullan Council, in canon 63, order that falsely fabricated martyr-histories be consigned to the fire, and they forbid their being read in Church; and they subject those who admit them to anathema. This shows with what caution and religious care the name of someone was entered by our ancestors into the album of the martyrs, and that it was not permitted for just anyone to enter names at will. ^C The second canon of the First Council of Carthage under Gratus, in the time of Pope Julius, was published regarding this matter. Nor is it hidden from anyone that Lucilla, that factious woman who gave the beginning to the Donatist schism, was rebuked by the ministers of the Church because she had shown certain honors to a certain dead man, who was indeed a martyr, but not yet vindicated. It is so certain—that I might omit many other arguments which could be brought forward—that the rulers of the Churches were always solicitous that no one should be rashly inscribed in the number of the martyrs.

3. ^D Defending the case for his own side, Dodwell cites Athanasius, Theodoret, and others; they indeed never call Irenaeus a martyr; but nothing else can be concluded from their silence at most, except that the Acts of his martyrdom did not reach their notice, or they did not know he had been a martyr. Yet, from the fact that the Acts of some Western martyr did not reach the notice of Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and certain other Oriental writers, to confidently deny that he was a martyr seems entirely contrary to reason. For in order for this to be rightly inferred, it must be supposed that they were perfectly acquainted with all Western martyrs and that the history of their martyrdom could not have been hidden from them; how absurd a notion that is, no one fails to see. And if, indeed, Irenaeus had suffered in those regions, or not far from those in which the aforementioned writers actually spent their lives, an argument repeated from their silence might have some weight. But the fact that they did not know that a bishop who had shed his blood in the most remote parts of the West, and in a nascent Church, not yet of great name, nor widely diffused, was a martyr, is not something we should wonder at so much. Certainly, it is so well established that Saturninus of Toulouse, Dionysius the bishop of Paris, with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, Patroclus of Troyes, Fructuosus of Tarragona, and many others who dyed various parts of the West with their blood were martyrs, that not even those are able to deny it who are more fiercely agitated by the itch to reduce the number of the martyrs. However, you would look in vain for mention of them in Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and other writers of Oriental affairs. But to strike closer at the jugular vein of the case: Eusebius, whose silence Dodwell pushes so hard, makes mention of Hippolytus not once, he weaves a catalogue of his works, he says he was a bishop; but nowhere does he say he was a martyr. Yet it must be considered most certain even to Dodwell himself that his life ended in martyrdom; for in those very places which he himself brings forward against the martyrdom of Irenaeus, he is called a martyr. And he is called so by Jerome not once. What could Dodwell now answer if someone, denying that Hippolytus was a martyr, were to turn his own words against him and say: that Eusebius would not have been silent about this, no doubt, if he had truly known it; nor would he have been ignorant of it, if he had found any monuments of his martyrdom to be included in his collection of martyrs? Nothing else, if he were wise, would occur to him to answer, other than this: that Eusebius indeed did not know that Hippolytus had been a martyr, nor had he found the monuments of his martyrdom; his silence, however, can neither prevail against, nor ought it to prevail against, the explicit testimonies of other ancients who assert that he was a martyr. Let him therefore take it in good part if we, putting forward the same things, contend for the explicit testimonies of Jerome, who was a peer of Eusebius, contemporary with Epiphanius, and older than Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria; and those of the author of the *Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos*, who approached the age of…

^A Gregory of Tours, and other Western writers whose testimonies are of far greater weight than the silence of Eusebius and other Orientals. Certainly, if it is a rule confirmed by the consensus of all nations that in historical matters native witnesses are to be heard before foreigners, then this is valid most of all, or it is valid nowhere, when the former speak and the latter are silent. For what sane man could persuade himself that the historical monuments of any region could be better known to foreigners than to the inhabitants themselves? Would any most illustrious Italian endure someone who arrogated to himself as great a knowledge of British affairs as the English themselves possess, or who contended that these men were not as well instructed in the documents pertaining to the history of the English as the Italians are?

34. Dodwell is aware of this argument; yet, lest he succumb defeated, he strives to weaken the testimonies of the author of the *Quaestiones ad Orthodoxos*, of Jerome, and of Gregory of Tours. It is certain, he says, that the author of the *Quaestiones ad Orthodoxos*, whoever he may be, is later than the times of the received Christianity in the Empire; consequently, in historical causes, even those of the fourth or fifth century, he is not to be heard safely unless the testimony of genuine authors is interposed. An excellent response, indeed! Which has the advantage of being able to easily shake from the very foundations the troublesome authority of any of the ancients, if they bear testimony concerning the affairs of the first three centuries. Are, therefore, only those to be heard safely who existed in the times of the received Christianity in the Empire or were older, and are all other authors of the late fourth or fifth century to be rejected? If it is so, why does Dodwell bring forward Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria in defense of his own cause? They were all indeed later than the times of the received Christianity in the Empire. The laws he wishes to impose on others so contradict common sense that he himself cannot bear the yoke. If indeed an author of the fifth century were to affirm something while fourth-century authors denied it, I admit he would not be safe to hear; but if he is not safe to hear when he affirms something while they are silent, which others before and after him have affirmed, and indeed those to whom the monuments of the matter should have been better perceived and explored, then the common laws of history are to be abolished.

35. Those to whom Dodwell yields, whom he endeavors to shake Jerome, he tries [to refute]. I fear, he says, lest what is read in him concerning the martyrdom of Irenaeus may have crept from the margin (as often used to happen) into the text, noted by some studious person of a later age. Thus do sagacious men never stick in a difficulty. If anything troublesome occurs in authors that cannot easily be distorted, in other matters more confident, in this with a more timid mind, they fear lest it has crept from the margin into the text. But what place is there here for fear? Behold, indeed, in all both published and manuscript codices, Jerome in chapter LXIV of Isaiah expressly calls Irenaeus bishop and martyr: these [words] do not even in the smallest degree ^A contradict the preceding and following [context], nor do they disturb the sense, nor break the series of the discourse; they are most certain proofs of a sincere and uninterpolated text. Yet Dodwell fears that these words, *Et martyr*, may have crept from the margin into the text: indeed, he is not far from pronouncing confidently, with fear cast aside, that Jerome not only did not write these, but that he could not even have written them. Why so? Because if Jerome had known of Irenaeus the martyr, where, I ask, do we have in the *Catalogus*, where it was to be expected, even the slightest mention of his martyrdom? Why, whenever he adduces a witness to others, does he adorn them with encomiums, while omitting that one of all the most worthy of martyrdom? This argument of Dodwell's, which some other person of timid mind, in Dodwellian fashion, could easily turn back upon the very head of the author. I fear, he would say, that the martyrdom of Irenaeus might have dropped out of the text of the *Catalogus* through the negligence of scribes, which was wont to happen often; for there are other things that justly make us suspect that Jerome did not so omit the words *et martyr*, that he could not even have omitted them. Who could persuade himself that a man, to whom it is evident that it had been most certainly established that Irenaeus was a martyr—as is plain from the *Commentaries on Isaiah*—made no mention, even the slightest, of the martyrdom in the *Catalogus* where it was to be expected? etc. Since the reasons for fearing are equal on either side, it is necessary for Dodwell to admit that either his own fear is vain, or that the other is grave. Certainly, he can neither deny, nor does he dare to deny, that Hippolytus was a martyr, and was acknowledged and called a martyr by Jerome. Yet Jerome, who in his letter to Damasus written before the year 384—as our learned Martianay proves in his Prolegomena to the second volume of the Hieronymian edition—called Hippolytus a martyr long before the *Catalogus* was published, and called him [so] afterwards when writing a preface to Matthew; yet he inserts no mention, even the slightest, of [his] martyrdom in the *Catalogus* where it was to be expected. Is it therefore permitted to infer from hence that the text which is read concerning the martyrdom of Hippolytus, both in the cited letter to Damasus and in the Prologue to Matthew, crept from the margin into the text, and that Jerome not only did not write these, but could not even have written them? Let Dodwell infer [this], if he likes, but no one else. It was Jerome's intent to review accurately the writings which had been brought to light by illustrious men, but not their deeds. Therefore, nothing can be gathered from the silence of the *Catalogus* against the martyrdom of Irenaeus which may not be gathered with better right against the martyrdom of Hippolytus. But even if Jerome prudently omitted the martyrdom of Irenaeus while he was writing the *Catalogus*, or even if he did not know [it] then; he made up for the loss later, perhaps having become more learned when, having read the monuments of the martyrdom, he expounded the prophecy of Isaiah. For the commentaries he published on it were edited about twenty years after the *Catalogus* was written. For this indeed was written, if we believe Jerome himself, in the fourteenth year of the Emperor Theodosius, [the year of] Christ 392, while the others [were written] thirty years after he had been [taught] at Constantinople by the most eloquent man Gregory Nazianzen, then bishop of the same city, [and] the holy...

^A studied in the study of the Scriptures; and consequently his translation of Rufinus may be considered freer; yet it was produced around the year of Christ 410. For Gregory Nazianzen governed the Constantinopolitan Church in the years 380 and 381.

36. Remaining from those ^B harassed by Dodwell is Gregory of Tours; since he seems more troublesome than the others, because the fable of the words rashly inserted from the margin into the text cannot be repeated here, Dodwell brings his entire conjectural industry to bear so as to detract from all his authority and credibility. He contends that Gregory of Tours believed in Irenaeus as a martyr in such a way that he thought he was crowned in no other persecution than that of the people of Lyons and Vienne in which Pothinus was crowned. If you ask Dodwell from where Gregory could have imbibed such an enormous error, he will reply that he drew it from the same source from which, ignorantly, recent martyrologies collected the number of XLVIII martyrs from the Latin words of Rufinus’s Eusebius—those whom the persecution at Lyons sent to heaven—having rashly cast into the count whatever names occurred in the epistles of those of Vienne and Lyons. It is by this rashness, he says, that Zacharias the priest was brought into the number of the martyrs. For Rufinus had turned ^C πρεσβύτην . . . Ζαχαρίαν, "the priest Zacharias," failing to notice that the people of Vienne and Lyons were speaking of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and not of some other priest Zacharias. By a similar error, adds Dodwell, Gregory counted Irenaeus among the martyrs, because in the same history of the persecution he had found a mention of Irenaeus in the epistle of the martyrs to Eleutherus. There were, moreover, things in that same epistle which, by readers who were impostors like them, might easily be understood in that sense if they were not very attentive. The martyrs call Irenaeus ἀδελφὸν καὶ κοινωνόν (brother and partner). It was easy for those who greedily seized any opportunity to discover new martyrs to interpret that κοινωνίαν as a fellowship in suffering for Christ’s cause. And although Irenaeus did not shed his blood for Christ, that παθημάτων κοινωνίᾳ, or "communion of sufferings," could suffice for the title of martyrdom, in the sense in which the ancients of that age understood that term. Thus entirely in his own way, always like himself, does Dodwell strive to batter the huge number of martyrs with which the Catholic Church glories using his frivolous conjectures; although for that very reason he was long ago handled by our Ruinart in such a way that at the first encounter he collapsed and yielded, defeated.

37. He truly supposes many things here that are diametrically opposed to right reason. And first, indeed, it is an empty fabrication that he asserts, namely that the number of XLVIII martyrs was collected by more recent, as he calls them, martyrologies from the Latin of Rufinus’s Eusebius. For how could they have collected that number from Rufinus’s translation of Eusebius, of which neither the footprint nor the trace appears therein? ^D Lugdunensium martyrum nomina, aliumve nume- rum non exhibet, quam Christophorsoniana, Valesiana et aliæ. Ex illa proinde, quascunque rationes ducat Dodwellus, aut alius quivis, geminato etiam numero, aut temere conjectis in censum quæcunque occurrerint nominibus, XLVIII nunquam eruet. Hallucinatus quidem Rufinus Zachariam, Joannis Baptistæ patrem, presbyterum Christianum perperam arbitratus est; sed hunc martyrem fuisse ne verbo quidem dixit. Qui ergo designato Zachariæ presbyteri supplicio securi percussum asserunt, et XLVII Lugdunensibus martyribus adjungunt, Gregorius Turonensis, Ado, Notkerus, et alii; necesse est et Zachariæ illius, quem presbyterum nuncupant, martyrium, et XLVII sociorum nomina ac numerum aliunde collegerint, quam ex Rufiniana Lugdunensium et Viennensium epistolarum interpretatione. Unde vero, nisi ex ipsis epistolis, quarum non Eusebiana modo fragmenta, sed et integra exemplaria legerant? In iis quippe accurate recensita fuisse et martyrum nomina, et varia quibus interiere suppliciorum genera certum est ex Eusebio. Quid opus est, inquit, expressum in supradicta epistola catalogum martyrum hic recensere, quorum alii securi percussi, alii feris objecti, alii in carcere exanimati sunt? Atqui laudati auctores non tantum martyrum catalogum recensent, sed etiam qui securi percussi, qui feris objecti, qui in carcere exanimati sunt, accurate distinguunt, et eodem prorsus modo et ordine, atque epistolas fecisse narrat Eusebius. Ut vel cæcis ipsis hinc appareat, ex eo solo fonte, non ex Rufino, apud quem ea frustra requiras, manare potuisse quæ de martyrum nominibus et suppliciis referunt illi.

38. Graviter quidem in iis omnibus offendit Dodwellus; sed longe gravius in eo quod confidenter asseverat, Gregorium Turonensem non alia quam Lugdunensium illa Viennensiumque persecutione, qua coronatus est Pothinus, et nostrum quoque coronatum credidisse Irenæum. Si Gregorium usquam legerit, caligantibus oculis legerit. Is enim eam persecutionem quæ Pothinum absumpsit, ab ea qua coronatus est Irenæus, clarius secernere non poterat. In Galliis, ait, multi pro Christi nomine sunt per martyrium gemmis cœlestibus coronati; quorum passionum historiæ apud nos fideliter usque hodie retinentur. Ex quibus et ille primus Lugdunensis Ecclesiæ Photinus (sic scribit) episcopus fuit, qui plenus dierum diversis affectus suppliciis, pro Christi nomine passus est. Beatissimus vero Irenæus hujus successor martyris, qui a beato Polycarpo ad hanc urbem directus est, admirabili virtute enituit; qui in modici temporis spatio, prædicatione sua maxime in integro civitatem reddidit Christianam. Sed veniente persecutione talia ibidem diabolus bella per tyrannum exercuit, et tanta ibi multitudo Christianorum ob confes...

confessionem Dominici nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano; quorum nec numerum, nec nomina colligere potuimus. Dominus enim eos in libro vitæ conscripsit. Beatum Irenæum diversis in sua carnifex præsentia pœnis affectum, Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit. Nec eo loci duntaxat ita loquitur Gregorius, sed et alibi, semper sibi constans, post recensita XLVIII martyrum nomina, et supplicia postremumque omnium memoratum Pothinum, paucis interjectis de eorum reliquiis et sepultura, subjungit [*]: Igitur martyrio consummatus gloriosus Photinus, qui Lugdunensi præfuit urbi sacerdos, per certaminis nobilis meritum invectus est cœlo. Cui et merito et sanctitate condignus Irenæus successit episcopus, per martyrium et ipse finitus. ^B Clarissima hæc, nec Dodwelli conjecturarum nebulis usquam obscuranda. In ea persecutione, qua multi in Galliis pro Christi nomine sunt per martyrium coronati, Lugdunensis episcopus Photinus passus est. Beatissimum vero Irenæum hujus successorem martyris factum fuisse tradit Gregorius. Qui igitur credere potuit eadem persecutione, quæ si Lugduni multos dies, non certe menses efferbuit, coronatum utrumque fuisse? Nisi forte fingat Dodwellus, eam fuisse Gregorii sententiam, Irenæum paucis admodum diebus Lugdunensem Ecclesiam rexisse. At ita sentire non potuit Gregorius, qui Irenæum asserit tam naviter pastorali functum officio, ut in modici temporis spatio, prædicatione sua in integro civitatem reddiderit Christianam? Tantum igitur temporis spatium Pothino superstitem fuisse Irenæum existimavit, quantum saltem necessarium erat ut illata per primam persecutionem Ecclesiæ Lugdunensi dispendia resarciret. Dum vero hæc ageret Irenæus, veniens persecutio, addit Gregorius, quæ tot et tantorum martyrum sanguine Lugduni plateas inundavit, ut nec nomina, nec numerus colligi potuerit, sanctissimum occupat episcopum, ac Christo Domino per martyrium dedicat. An clarius exprimi et designari potuisset nova persecutio, a priori et tempore et circumstantiis procul diversa? In priori tantam multitudinem Christianorum ob confessionem Dominici nominis Lugduni jugulatam esse, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano, ^C nullibi legimus; sed nec scribere unquam potuit Gregorius, se nec numerum, nec nomina martyrum, qui in priori passi sunt Lugduni, colligere potuisse; qui alibi et numerum [XCIV] et nomina tam accurate collegit, ut recenseat, et quo quisque supplicii genere affectus sit referre non omittat. Hæc Dodwello legenda erant, aut si quæ fides, dissimulanda non fuerant. Id si fecisset, nunquam certe commisisset, ut scripsisset, proclive Gregorio Turonensi fuisse Irenæum inter martyres Lugdunenses recensere, quod in eadem persecutionis historia Irenæi mentionem reperisset in epistola martyrum ad Eleutherum; et quidem eo magis, quo Irenæum martyres ἀδελφὸν et κοινωνὸν appellant. Itane, quæso, plumbeus et hebes exstiterit Gregorius, ut in Lugdunensium et Viennensium martyrum historiis, quas apud suam cæterasque Gallicanas Ecclesias fideliter usque hodie retineri dicit; et in iis tum cleri, tum Lugdunensium et Viennensium martyrum epistolis, quas legisse cum fatetur Dodwellus, ea distinguere non potuerit, quæ vel Londinensium bajulorum aut nautarum stupidissimus quisque nunquam permisceret? Ecce, martyres in sua ad Eleutherum epistola scribunt Irenæum Romam se mittere, qui litteras eorum perferat; hunc profecturum pontifici commendant, debitisque ornant encomiis; hunc fratrem laborumque consortem vocant, quem Christianum et presbyterum esse, martyresque in carcere detentos consilio, monitis, eleemosynis, pro virili sua, non certe citra capitis discrimen, sublevasse, constabat; et Gregorius imprudens hinc arrepta turpissimæ hallucinationis occasione, eum ipsum quem itineri sese committentem, aut mox commissurum legebat, inter illos recensuerit, qui in ea persecutione, quæ delegationi ansam præbuit, vitam pro Christo profuderint? Quis credat?

39. Sed, inquit Dodwellus, descripto Irenæi martyrio statim addit Gregorius: Post hunc et quadraginta octo martyres passi sunt, ex quibus primum fuisse legimus Vettium Epagatum. Constat autem illos XLVIII martyres, quorum primus fuerit Vettius Epagatus, non in alia persecutione passos fuisse, quam illa Lugdunensium Viennensiumque, qua coronatus est Pothinus. Si ergo post Irenæum passos fuisse crediderit Gregorius, illam in eadem persecutione coronatum fuisse existimaverit necesse est. Ita quidem scriptum legi in hodierno Gregorii textu non diffiteor. Sed fidentior hic evasit Dodwellus. Quin hic contigisse vereatur, quod supra Hieronymiano textui accidisse inanis suadebat timor; ne videlicet mox citata verba e margine (quod sæpe evenire solet) a studioso aliquo recentiore libro [I] De gloria martyrum collecta, in textum, sed incommodo loco irrepserint, vel ab imperito aliquo aut festinante scriba loco perperam mota, in capitis finem male translata fuerint? ^D Quin addat, esse alioqui alia quæ merito faciant ut suspicemur, verba illa adeo non scripsisse Gregorium, ut ne quidem scribere potuerit? Fortasse non abs re veritus, suspicatusve fuisset. Quomodo enim fieri potuit, ut is qui Lugdunensium ac Viennensium Martyrum passionum historias in ipsis fontibus legerat, et apud Gallos fideliter ad suam usque ætatem retineri dicit; qui Irenæum Pothino, quem XLVIII martyribus alibi annumerat, successisse scribit, diuque post eum, et in alia longe diversa persecutione martyrium subiisse diserte asserit; sui

forgotten the forty-eight martyrs themselves, of whose number Pothinus, Irenæus's predecessor, was one, and wishes them to have been crowned after him? This is so monstrously contrary to right reason that it can in no way be attributed to a writer as very serious as Gregory was. Certainly, there is a legitimate suspicion—if there ever is one—that the text has been badly interpolated, when those things are read in any author which abhor from his opinion known elsewhere, and which openly contradict his own most clear and perspicuous words; which is what occurs here. For whoever is a fair evaluator of things, having put aside all prejudices for a time, if he should wish to compare these later words of chapter 27 (new ed.), "After this also forty-eight martyrs, etc.," with the former parts, and with those things which are read in book 1 *De gloria mart.*, ch. 49 and 50, he will by no means be able to reconcile them. Not to be despised, therefore, is the conjecture of those who, believing that what is read in Gregory concerning these later martyrs has been wrongly transposed, are of the opinion that it should be joined with what is written at the beginning of the chapter concerning Pothinus, in this manner: "From among whom also that first bishop of the Church of Lyons, Pothinus, who, full of days, affected by diverse tortures, suffered for the name of Christ. After him also forty-eight martyrs suffered, of whom we read Vettius Epagatus to have been the first. But the most blessed Irenæus, the successor of this martyr, etc." Thus conjectures that most distinguished man who adorned the new edition of the works of Leo the Great; but I cannot concede to his opinion that the whole end of the chapter should be excised from these words, "But the most blessed Irenæus, etc.," on the ground that the whole of that chapter is lacking in certain manuscripts. However, lest I repeat what has already been done, let him who is caught by a scruple in this matter read the Preface prefixed to the new edition of Gregory of Tours, art. 5, in which our Theodoric Ruinart, of pious memory, easily removed such scruples, according to the erudition in which he excelled. But however it may be concerning the proposed conjecture, suppose Gregory wrote what is read concerning the forty-eight martyrs after Irenæus's martyrdom, it will be a slip of memory, and a serious one at that. But is a writer who has slipped in memory in some instance to have a foreign opinion immediately ascribed to him, which he himself expressly rejects? Or because Gregory appended a few intricate words at the end of the chapter, are other things which are clear and open to be explained from those obscure ones, and to be violently twisted toward them, while the author himself is reluctant and unwilling? If it be so, let Dodwell establish new rules of criticism for the ancient ones of antiquity.

40. What has been said thus far demonstrates that the opinion had already become prevalent throughout the whole world by the fifth century that Irenæus was killed while fighting for the Christian faith, and that this belief rests on support that is far from secure, which can only be sought from futile arguments and frivolous conjectures. All the Latins consecrate June 28th as the solemn day for the memory of this martyrdom, but the Greeks August 23rd. His body was resting, most celebrated for miracles in the age of Gregory of Tours, buried in the crypt of the basilica of Saint John under the altar; having Epipodius buried on one side, and on the other the martyr Alexander. But the Calvinists in the year 1562, having captured Lyons, driven by maddened frenzy, vilely violated the martyr's sepulcher; and with the bones scattered, the cranium, after it had been a laughingstock for quite a while, lay ignominiously thrown in the middle of the square for so long, until, rescued from there, it is today religiously preserved at Lyons.

ARTICLE II. ON THE FIVE BOOKS OF IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES

[XCV] 41. Having gathered and explained with all the zeal we could command those things which pertain to the life and deeds of our Irenæus, it is worth the effort to discuss, as accurately as possible, his writings. The apostolic man left behind many monuments of the genius, piety, and zeal with which he burned for the defense of the Catholic faith. But none was held in greater esteem by all the ancients, and more often cited by them, than that excellent work divided into five books, which he labored to produce against the heresies of the Gnostics, and which alone has remained safe from the gnawing tooth of time thus far. It is the common opinion that this was the first fruit of Irenæus; for he himself testifies in the Preface of the first book that he was not practiced in the art of writing, nor had he cultivated the art of speaking; which argues a man who had brought nothing, or little, into the light thus far. It seems possible, however, to gather with the famous Grabe, in his Prolegomena, that Irenæus had written something else before from book 2, chapter 7, n. 1. For he says that he had shown in many places and elsewhere that it is Paul’s custom to use hyperbata. But he does not treat even a word of that frequent use of Pauline hyperbata in the two preceding books, nor indeed in those that follow. It seems, therefore, that he published some other treatise first, in which he had dealt with these things as the set subject.

42. There was a double cause for the writing of the aforementioned work against heresies. The other was to comply with the habit of a certain friend, who had urged him with entreaties to make manifest to him, and to explain sufficiently, the hidden mysteries of the disciples of Valentinus, not yet explained by anyone.

^A at the same time to provide the arms by which these monstrosities of error might be pierced. Who that friend was, Irenaeus being silent, cannot be said. I conjecture, however, that he was a Greek, because he wrote in Greek; whereas Irenaeus, as I shall prove below, would otherwise have written in Latin, had he been writing for the sake of a Latin. Add that the plague of Valentinus and the other Gnostics was always far more infested in Greek regions than in Latin ones. I suspect also that he was a bishop, or someone prominent in the clergy, who had a flock entrusted to his care. At the very least, it seems this can be drawn from the fact that Irenaeus says he complied with the friend’s request in order that, knowing he himself also possessed the most portentous and most profound mysteries, he might make them manifest to all those who were with him—*πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ*—and might charge them to keep themselves from the depth of senselessness and from that which is blasphemy against God. Hence, he later warns the same man that, according to the learning he possesses, he should powerfully assert those things that have been invalidly reported to those who are with him; and that he should effectively administer to the others the provision given to him by the Lord, according to the grace given to him, so that men might no longer be drawn away by the persuasion of the Valentinians. And in the Preface to Book IV, he promises that he will provide his friend with opportunities to refute all heretics from every side, so that, being completely repulsed, he might not allow them to fall any further into the depth of error, nor to be smothered in the sea of ignorance, but by converting them to the port of truth, might cause them to perceive their own salvation. These things can scarcely apply to anyone other than a bishop, who, as our author says in Book III, chapter 17, n. 4, had entrusted the care of writing to his friend Irenaeus. ^B There are those who think that friend was Turibius of Toledo, a bishop, the successor of a certain Patruinus, relying on the authority of Pseudo-Dexter, who asserts this for the year of Christ 185; but there is no credibility to this fabulist. The other reason for writing was to meet the heresy of the Marcosians, a scion of the Valentinian heresy, which had surreptitiously invaded Celtic, or Rhodanensian, regions, and to stifle the evil at its very birth. It was the more dangerous in that it offered greater temptations to the greed and curiosity of women especially, and it was the more difficult for the unlearned to distinguish the sheep from the wolves, since they imitated the voice and fleece of the former everywhere. For those old deceivers busied themselves especially around women, particularly the wealthiest ones, many of whom they had already seduced, deceived by the vain hope of prophecy and a more sublime knowledge. The most saintly man, therefore, fearing lest a sex by its own nature more imbecile, and by its innate disposition more curious, might be swept away with its own sin, and along with it and through it certain simpler ones who were as sheep among wolves—ignorant of them because of the outer covering of a sheep's fleece, against whom the Lord warned us to be on our guard, as they speak things like us but think things unlike us—deemed it necessary to tear the mask from the disguised sheep ^C so that the revealed wolfish face might strike the truthful with horror.

43. The work undertaken by Irenaeus was indeed difficult, one which many until now had attempted, but with little success. For they, whether by applying themselves to it with insufficient diligence, or broken by the labor, or destitute of keenness of intellect, had not been able to penetrate the most monstrous and deep mysteries of iniquity, but had remained almost at the very threshold. For, he says, it behooves one who wishes to convert heretics to know their rules, or arguments, diligently. Nor is it possible for anyone to cure those who are ailing if he is ignorant of the condition of those who are unwell. Wherefore, those who were before us, and indeed were much better than us, were nevertheless not able to sufficiently contradict those who are of Valentinus, because they were ignorant of their rule. And no wonder: it was most obscure, and passable only to those who possessed such acuity of intellect as to be able to detect the twisted error beneath the double-edged bark of words. Irenaeus, however, approached that work instructed with such diligence, sagacity, knowledge of heretical doctrines, and other gifts, by which he might bring it to a happy conclusion. For, having sought out the commentaries and books of the disciples of Valentinus, he unrolled them accurately, and compared notes with some of them, and accomplished so much by arduous labor and indefatigable study that, having dissipated the shadows which learned men—pestiferous, having poured forth their opinions by the artifice of simulation—had cast in order to deceive the unwary, he perceived it, and once perceived, finally brought it to light. It was enough to utterly overthrow it. For, as he himself says, addressing his friend, the victory against them is the manifestation of their own opinions. Therefore, we have endeavored to bring into the middle the whole body of this poorly composed fox, and through you to make it manifest. For there will no longer be need of many words to overthrow their doctrine, which has been made manifest to all. He illustrates this with an excellent similitude. Just as, when a certain beast is hidden in the woods, and charges from there and ravages many, whoever separates and clears the woods and brings the beast itself into view, no longer labors to capture it, as those who see that the beast is a beast are present: for it is for them, seeing it, to guard against its charges, and to shoot from all sides, and to wound and kill that ravaging beast. So it is for us, when we have brought their hidden and, to them, secret mysteries into the open, it will no longer be necessary to destroy their opinion with many words. Yet, not content with these, the holy doctor agitated it with a more diffuse style and subverted it thoroughly. Indeed, he suppressed it with arguments gathered from every side and plucked either from reason itself or from divine authority: with such success that the ancients thought, and recent ones—whoever reads Irenaeus with the attention of soul and equity that is due—think, that they could not praise him enough according to his merit. Everywhere, indeed, they look up to a man of excellent genius and perfect learning.

Scripture knowledge, and the acquaintance with venerable tradition, left him second to none; a man, as Epiphanius says, utterly instructed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and, if I may so speak, anointed with heavenly ornaments for the contest. Having struck down and overturned all the lies of the heretics with the bulwarks of sincere faith and knowledge; in a word, an apostolic man, full of the spirit, faith, and charity of the apostles, he poured forth in his writings the pure waters of sacred doctrine, which he had drawn from the very sources almost; and this with such abundance that it is a marvel that so many and such great things, and things besprinkled with such manifold erudition, could be comprised in so small a volume. ^A

44. It happens, however, I confess, that while Irenaeus sets forth doctrines, he sometimes becomes obscure. But so are fertile minds constituted by nature: when they hasten to bring forth what they have abundantly conceived in their spirit, words often do not correspond to the conceptions. Another cause of obscurity, and indeed the principal one, arises from the difficulty and sublimity of the matters of which he was discoursing. He is entirely occupied in probing the secrets of the Gnostics and in unearthing their more recondite meanings; he is entirely occupied in dispelling the most empty subtleties of minds running riot with captious arguments, and in explaining divine things, than which nothing more abstruse and sublime can be imagined. Scarcely, however, could it happen that he who was engaged in such rugged arguments, which had been attempted by no one hitherto except unsuccessfully, could treat them in such a way as not to create a burden for unaccustomed readers by the very novelty of the argument and the inherent difficulty of the matter. To say nothing here of the barbarous Latin translation, which often casts most dense darkness over sentiments that are in themselves clear—the fault, not of the author himself, but of the unskilled interpreter. If anyone, however, undeterred by the thorns of the first book, reads it carefully, and attentively meditates upon the Gnostic ^B doctrines exposed therein (perhaps our notes on this book, as well as the dissertation which we are bringing to light concerning the Gnostic hypothesis, will alleviate the difficulty), the fruit of labor will be manifest to him, so that he will experience little or no difficulty in unfolding and understanding the rest; nay, more, from the weight of the thoughts, the force and efficacy of the arguments, and the sublimity and piety of so many and such noble words, he will derive no small pleasure and deem the work worthwhile. For many are deceived by this, thinking that they can easily abstain from reading the first book—since the exposition of so many most absurd doctrines only brings weariness—and they hasten to read the others skipping this part: if, however, they stick where they often do, they lay the blame on the author, when it lies entirely with them. How can the meaning of a polemical book appear plain and easy to one whom it has wearied to taste of the sentiment and hypothesis of those whom the author has undertaken to confute? For since he is perpetually alluding to it, and assumes it to be already known; it is no wonder if words clearer than light itself become so many enigmas to readers in this ^C matter, and seem foreign. Whoever desires to reach Irenaeus, let him tread in Irenaeus's footsteps, and read his books in the order in which they were written, it is necessary.

45. For indeed, in subduing the heretics against whom the holy doctor was taking up arms, it seemed necessary to him—and rightly so—to proceed in order and to expose their opinions more accurately than had been done before. He took his beginning from the Valentinians, and he applied himself most of all to this, that he might give an explanation of their hypothesis with greater care than for the others, both because these were the wishes of his friend, and because the filth of all other heresies had flowed into that heresy as into a sewer; and for this reason he turned almost all his strength toward this one, thinking that once this was well known and prostrate, the others could not stand. But since the Valentinians easily held all the first places both in the number of their followers, and in the indigestible farrago of all sorts of dogmas poorly cohering ^D with one another, and in the sheer audacity and rashness of those who propagated them, Ptolemaeus and Marcos, and these had begun to infest the Lyonnais territory over which Irenaeus presided; he delayed for a longer time in explaining their hypothesis, as it were, upon which the whole weight of the war was required to rest. But because all the Valentinians, with the shameful names of their ancestors craftily concealed, arrogantly claimed that Gnosticism for themselves; in order that Irenaeus might chastise their impudence and at the same time root out the heresy from its foundations, he shows that the common parent of all was Simon Magus, that monster of impiety rather than a man, from whose name even all Christians recoiled; and this he demonstrates invincibly from the continuous succession of that Magus's disciples up to the Valentinians, and the agreement of all in the same dogmas and most corrupt morals: with this difference only, that the later ones, in explaining the commentaries of the ancients, while contending among themselves, had invented others still more absurd. Since it is therefore, he says, that the detection and conviction against all heretics is varied and manifold, and it is our purpose to contradict all of them according to their own characters; we deemed it necessary first to recount their source and root, so that, knowing the most sublime Bythos of their own, you may understand the tree from which such fruits have flowed. Then, having explained the heresy of Simon, he concludes, that from the Simonians the "falsely-named knowledge" took its beginnings, as is to be learned from their very assertions. And at the end of the first book, after having recounted the dogmas of the ancient Gnostics, he adds: From such mothers, and fathers, and ancestors are those who are from Valentinus, as their very sentiments and rules show them to be; it was necessary to refute them manifestly, and to bring their dogmas into the light.

46. Therefore, since he wished to pierce through all the Gnostics, he inscribed the title to his work, Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so called. This he himself testifies in clear terms in his Preface.

^A For what is the detection and overthrow of their opinion? We have thus titled the composition of this work. And in the Preface of book IV: Sending you, beloved, this fourth book of the work which is on the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called, etc. And at the end of the same book: Therefore, the remaining sayings of the Lord, which He taught not by parables but simply in the very words concerning the Father, and the interpretation of the Epistles of the blessed Apostle, by arranging them in another book, we shall provide for you, God willing, the whole work of reprobation and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called. Finally, in the Preface of the fifth book, he calls this book the fifth book of the entire work, which is On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called. The translator rendered this as *traductionem* [refutation], just as a little earlier he rendered it *exprobrationem* [reproach], and elsewhere *detectionem* [detection], because the word ἔλεγχος, which Irenaeus used, happily carries all these meanings; but *Detectio* [Detection] fits the author’s aim much better, as is clear from what we have already said. Therefore, there can be no doubt that this is the genuine title of Irenaeus's books, which we were just speaking of and which we restored at the beginning of the work. Eusebius cites Irenaeus's books under this title in *History*, book V, ch. 7: ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως; Andreas of Caesarea also cites them in *Apocalypse*, sermon 6, ch. 18; Damascenus in his *Parallelis* (MS); Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, cod. 120; and Oecumenius, in II Peter III, and in the Epistle of Jude. Indeed, even older manuscript codices—such as the Claromontanus, the old Feuardentius, the Vossius, and the Arundel—although they bear the more recent inscription on their front, *Contra haereticos, vel haereses* [Against heretics, or heresies], nevertheless retain the old one when they present the chapter headings of the second and fourth books. For they read thus: *These things are contained in the second book of the reprobation and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called. These things are in the fourth book of the reprobation and overthrow of false knowledge.* From which it is evidently demonstrated that this is the inscription that was read in the autographs themselves, or in the earlier codices from which the later ones were copied, but was wrongly omitted by later scribes who were intent on brevity. It seems that Eusebius himself provided the occasion for this omission, for he sometimes calls Irenaeus's books, for the sake of brevity, *Books against heresies*, and Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and many others, both old and new, followed him in this, so that they have omitted the genuine title entirely (which surely should not have been omitted) and have retained only this abbreviated one, giving others an opportunity to retain it. Photius, observing that both inscriptions were commonly used, proposed and retained both. The later one also seems to have been given an opportunity by those words of Irenaeus which we just quoted: *Since, therefore, there is a detection and conviction against all heretics that is varied and manifold, and it is proposed to us to contradict them all according to their own character*, etc. And those words with which he concludes book IV: *And ourselves, and you, for the contradiction of all heretics, exercising ourselves in five books.* And hence, in certain manuscripts, such as the Vossius and Feuardentius, this title is read prefixed to the books of Irenaeus: *Against all heretics, or heresies*. But Irenaeus never prefixed this title, which has prevailed among the more recent writers, to his books; he wrote only [the other one], ^B ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως: and it fits the author's scope far better. For, as he himself notes in the prefaces of his books, he proposed to perform two things for himself: one, to *detect* (ἐλέγχειν)—to uncover—the opinions of the Valentinians and all the Gnostics, which had been hidden until that time; and second, to *overthrow* (ἀνατρέπειν) them. He accomplished the former in the first book, in which he accurately reviews the dogmas of all the Valentinians and Gnostics; the latter he accomplished in the books that follow. And indeed, in the second book he subverts them with arguments; in the third, he brought the Scriptures and Tradition to bear; in the fourth, he disputed primarily from the Old Testament; in the fifth, from the remaining doctrines of our Lord, and from the apostolic epistles, just as he promises he will do in the Prefaces.

47. Although it is very difficult to define precisely the time when these books were written, ^C nevertheless, he would not be far from the truth who asserted that they were published towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus, or partly under Eleutherus and partly under Victor. And indeed, it is manifest that the first book could not have been written before the year 172; for mention is made in it of Tatian and the Encratites, who, if we are to trust the *Chronicon* of Eusebius, emerged in the 12th year of Marcus Aurelius, or the year 172 of Christ; although it is probable that they erupted somewhat earlier. It is established that the third book was published while Eleutherus was already ruling the Church; for in it Irenaeus, ^D compiling a catalogue of the Roman pontiffs, carries it up to Eleutherus, whom he clearly says was sitting in Rome at that time: νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλήρον Ἐλεύθερος, "Now Eleutherus holds the episcopate from the apostles in the twelfth place." In chapter 11, n. 8 of the same book, he quite openly attacks the Montanists, though he does not name them; they could hardly have been known to Irenaeus before the year 177. But the thing that seems to demonstrate that this book was not written until near the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus is that Irenaeus mentions in it the interpretation of Theodotion. For he, as Epiphanius and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle testify, translated the sacred Bible when Commodus was already emperor, in the consulship of Marullus (for so I think it should be read, not Marcellus).

And so it follows that Irenaeus wrote some years after the publication of Theodotion’s translation, and therefore not far from the year 192, when Eleutherus departed this life, he who had assumed the government of the Church in about the year 177.

48. Nor do I linger here over the conjectures of Dodwell, who, in order to prove more quickly than I said—that is, about the year of Christ 177—that the books of Irenaeus were written, contends in his singular Dissertation on the Succession of the Roman Pontiffs, ch. 14, § 17, that those things which are read in Irenaeus concerning Theodotion were perhaps absent from his prior manuscript, and were inserted by him afterwards. By conjecturing in such a way, that most subtle man easily cuts through any difficult knots. But such trifles might perhaps please boys; adults would certainly laugh at them. He initiated another path in his Dissertations on Irenaeus. In order to achieve his end in whatever way possible, that Theodotion’s translation was older than the emperor Commodus, and had been composed under Marcus Aurelius, he attempts to disparage the authority of the Alexandrian Chronicle. For he says that the author of that Chronicle derived the time of Theodotion from Epiphanius’ *On Weights and Measures*, whose chronological reasonings concerning the interpreters of the Scriptures are both scarcely consistent with themselves, and are, moreover, very faulty where they are consistent. A brief statement indeed, which relies solely on the authority of Dodwell—[XCVIII] which, however, has not yet sufficiently prevailed among the learned so that we should swear by the words of such a master. Certainly, it is a wonder if the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle derived a certain epoch of time from Epiphanius, which does not appear in him at all. For Epiphanius, even by Dodwell’s own admission, does not designate the consuls, as the author of the Chronicle does. ^B Therefore it is necessary that he derived it from elsewhere. But, says Dodwell, he derived it by most false reasonings. The reasonings which it pleased him to attribute to the author of the Chronicle are indeed very false; but that these were the reasonings of the latter, it had to be proven from the very beginning by arguments other than frigid conjectures. Until Dodwell has demonstrated this, it will be permissible for us, to whom it is not granted to be so perceptive, out of his kindness, to agree with the author of the Chronicle.

49. Through another argument, by which he tries, as it were, to persuade, the illustrious Grabe strives in his Prolegomena to Irenaeus to prove that he had published the entire refutation of heretics while he was still a presbyter, before the year 177, when he was sent to Rome by the martyrs of Lyons. This is deduced from the rise of the sect of the Cataphrygians, which vexed the Churches of Phrygia and Asia; an event which Eusebius inscribed in his Chronicle in the 17th year of Marcus, the year of Christ 171. He says that it is gathered that two of Irenaeus’s first books preceded this, because in them he makes no mention of this sect, but does mention the heresy of Tatian as the most recent: he would not have omitted the former if it had already begun to disturb Asia, to which he was sending these books. On the contrary, in books III and IV he touches lightly upon these pseudoprophets; ^C from which it is necessary that he wrote them after the troubles stirred up by them; nor did a long interval pass between the earlier and later books. But this is so far from helping Grabe’s cause that it rather overturns it entirely. For if Irenaeus touches upon the Cataphrygians in books III and IV, and if no long interval passed between the earlier and later books of Irenaeus; then Grabe must admit that if they could not have been written before the year 177, the earlier ones could scarcely have been written earlier. For although the Cataphrygians had already emerged from the year 171, yet not until the year 177, when the martyrs had already been thrown into prison, did the fame of their sect reach the ears of the people of Lyons. Certainly, if it had arrived sooner, the martyrs would have written sooner what they thought about the new prophets; intending to act at a more convenient time than the most difficult one of all. But that Irenaeus made no mention of the Cataphrygians in the first book is no wonder. His intent was to set forth the opinion of the disciples of Valentinus, and, in order to repeat the matter from the head, to report their source and root; namely, to argue that the Valentinians had received their origin from Simon and the ancient Gnostics, as their fathers and ancestors, and to bring into the middle their dogmas, as we saw above. But what did the mention of the Cataphrygians contribute to this plan of Irenaeus? They had received nothing at all from the Gnostics and Valentinians; they were not attacking any Catholic dogma of that time, they were only rending the unity of the Church. Therefore, Irenaeus would have undeservedly ranked among the Gnostics and Valentinians men who had nothing in common with that knowledge falsely so called, which he had proposed to himself to detect and overturn. Nor are those things more favorable to Grabe’s cause where Irenaeus begins the Preface of book III with the words: *You, indeed, most beloved, had instructed us,* etc., and also those which exist in the Preface of book V: *Since you requested of us, who obey your precept; since we have been placed in the administration of the word:* from which he thinks he can elicit that Irenaeus was then a presbyter, and not yet a bishop: for certainly no one would instruct a bishop to sharpen his pen against heretics; nor would Irenaeus, obeying a precept, hardly even profess it, etc. For to omit the fact that even among friends, counsels and requests are held to be precepts; the most learned man urges the word *præcipio* [I instruct/command] more than is fair, which the translator of Irenaeus used. I gather that Irenaeus had used the Greek verb *παραινέω* because in the Preface of the first book, exhorting a friend, that he might disclose to all those who associate with him, when he has learned the mysteries of the Valentinians from himself, he adds, *καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας*, which the translator renders: *and that you instruct them to keep themselves from the depth of senselessness.* Where he renders *παραινέσῃς* as *præcipias* [you instruct/command]; although, however, *παραινέω* in Latin does not properly signify *præcipio*, but rather *hortor* [I exhort], *suadeo* [I advise], *consilium do* [I give counsel], etc. From which it is permissible to conjecture that the same verb, used by Irenaeus in the cited locations, was used in the same manner.

^A been rendered by an unskilled translator. But whatever word or voice Irenaeus may have used, or in what sense his friend may have instructed him, and in what sense he himself may have obeyed, he clearly declares in the same Preface, when he says that he would attempt, with the exertion of love, to expound the doctrine of the Valentinians to both his friend and all who are with him. And later: "What has been written to you with love, you shall receive with love." For this reason he says he is conducting himself as a friend, because love urges and compels him, openly signifying that he is constrained by the law of charity alone. And certainly, if Irenaeus had recognized the one for whom he was writing as his superior, he would never have permitted himself to address him with the term "most beloved," as he always does, and to use him with such familiarity, as the prefaces to the books demonstrate. That simple presbyters conducted themselves with bishops in that manner will be proved by no examples. To whom, I ask, do those words of the Preface to Book V, which Grabe abuses—"since we are placed in the administration of the Word"—belong by a better and stronger right than to a bishop? But, says that most learned man, Irenaeus would have said he was placed in the *prostasia* of the Church rather than in the "administration of the Word," had he already been the supreme priest of the Lugdunensian Church at that time. On the contrary, he was manifestly saying that he was placed in the *prostasia* of the Church in those times, by signifying that he was established in the administration of the Word. For it is invincibly demonstrated from Cyprian’s Epistle 56, from Optatus at the end of his work against the Donatists, from the Life of St. Hilary of Arles written by his disciple Cyprian, from Possidius in the Life of St. Augustine, and from many other monuments of those times, that in the first four centuries the administration of the Word in the West was entrusted to none other ^B than bishops, if that were of any worth.

50. It must therefore be held as certain and proven, whatever Dodwell and Grabe may say, that the five books of the *Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called* were written by Irenaeus when he was already a bishop. But did they all appear at once and at the same time, or at intervals? This is another difficulty, which I explain briefly as follows. In the first place, Irenaeus had determined in his mind to write a certain brief work, in which, by uncovering the dogmas of the Valentinians, he would append certain arguments opportune for overthrowing them, having not yet sufficiently explored the difficulty of the matter and the magnitude of the labor. "As much power as is currently ours," he says in the Preface to the first book, "we shall show, in summary and manifest fashion, the opinion of those who now teach otherwise—I speak, that is, of those who are around Ptolemy—and we shall give to others, according to our mediocrity, opportunities to overthrow it." Hence, he afterward urges his friend that those things which were written to him simply, and truly, and naively, he should himself develop within himself, so that, taking these as seed and beginnings, he might be more capable, and in the breadth of his own understanding might fructify abundantly those things which in few words have ^A been said. But he had scarcely set his hand to the labor when, with a wider field for disputation opening up than he had supposed, he changed his plan and applied himself to a work of greater scale. He signifies this at the end of the first book when he says: "Since, therefore, these things are so, according to my promise, we shall provide, to the best of our ability, their overthrow, contradicting all of them in the following book; for the narrative proceeds to a great length, as you see." For it seems that the first hope was to append the overthrow to the detection in the same book. On that account, in the Preface to the third book, he says to his friend that it would happen unexpectedly that, with the bulk of the work increasing, he would receive from him arguments greater and more ample than he had hoped and requested for the overthrow of the heretics. But in this third (book) he says: "We shall bring forth proofs from the Scriptures, so that nothing of what you had asked may be lacking to you from us; but also, beyond what you had supposed, you may receive from us opportunities to argue against and overthrow those who teach evil in any way whatsoever." For the charity that is in God, existing rich and without envy, bestows more than anyone asks of it. Therefore, having adopted the counsel of a greater work, by which all the vain sophistications of the heretics would be more fully and richly refuted in five books, he hastened to complete the first two; inasmuch as with these, for the time being and for the desires of his friend, he might expose and overthrow the knowledge falsely so-called. He sent them to his friend immediately, while in the meantime he was bringing the other three, which he already had in mind, to their conclusion; these, as each one was finished, were sent immediately, without waiting for the next. All these things are established both from the Prefaces prefixed to the three later books, and from the end of each book, and from Book II, cap. 2, n. 6; cap. 8, n. 3; cap. 11, n. 2, and cap. 28, n. 4, in which he expressly promises the following books. From all these it becomes highly probable, as I have already said, that the entire work was written partly under Pope Eleutherus and partly under Victor.

51. The arguments demonstrating that these books were written in the Greek language are so certain that it is a wonder how any doubt on that matter could have entered the mind of Erasmus and of certain other learned men. Eusebius records several fragments of Irenaeus inserted in his History in Greek; he nowhere, however, warns that these had been translated by him from Latin into Greek, as he does when he cites Tertullian and certain other Latin authors. And as many as there are among the Greek writers who cite Irenaeus (and they cite him frequently), they certainly read him in Greek; nor does Photius, who reviews hardly anyone other than Greek authors in his *Bibliotheca*, signify at all clearly that he had read his books written in any other language. Furthermore, Jerome, although a Latin, who had read the books of Irenaeus accurately and therefore knew well in what language they had been written, clearly excludes him from the number of Latins in order to count him among the Greeks. For, commemorating the authors who had favored the error of the Chiliasts: "Of the Latins," he says, "Ter-

^Atullian, Victorinus, Lactantius; of the Greeks, however, to omit others, I shall make mention only of Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons." And elsewhere, recalling those who favored the same error, he names Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus of Pettau, and Severus: "And to name the Greeks," he adds, "and to join the first and the last, Irenæus and Apollinarius." But, says Erasmus in his dedicatory epistle which he prefixed to the edition of Irenæus he had adorned, "It is permitted to doubt whether Jerome called him a Greek by nation or a Greek writer." Indeed, there is no place for doubting that Jerome called Irenæus a Greek in the same sense and for the very same reason that he called Apollinarius a Greek, and Tertullian, Victorinus, and Lactantius Latins; to whose nation he was certainly not paying attention, but merely to their writings. Did nations have anything to do with Jerome’s purpose here? His intent was not to separate nations from nations, but writers from writers, and to review and distinguish those who, among those who had written in Latin, and among those who had written in Greek, had strayed into the opinion of the Chiliasts. Furthermore, even the title itself prefixed to the books of Irenæus proves they were written in Greek. We have shown above that this is the genuine one: *On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called*. Which indeed, as represented in Greek by Eusebius and Photius, is not inelegant; thus in Latin it sounds something so barbarous and obscure that anyone writing in Latin who had tasted the first rudiments of the Latin language would easily have prefixed to his work not this, but any other more appropriate, clearer, and more Latin title. But also, the diversity of the writing itself proves that it was translated from Greek into Latin; for sometimes it is written "on the detection," at other times "on the refutation," "on the reproach," or "on the exposure of knowledge falsely so-called," or "of false knowledge," "of knowledge falsely termed," etc., which variety of writing has undoubtedly arisen from the diverse interpretation of the terms ἐλέγχου and ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Moreover, you will find no such variety among the Greeks. Eusebius, Photius, and Damascenus write the title in exactly the same way: Περὶ ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. A certain argument that it was written in Greek, not in Latin. 3° Jerome, an excellent judge of style, testifies in his letter to the widow Theodora that Irenæus’ books against heresies were composed in a most learned and eloquent style. But unless Jerome were altogether unskilled in the Latin language, he could neither think nor assert this regarding the Latin books of Irenæus. For the style is barbarous, unpolished, harsh, and rugged, teeming with solecisms, and in many places expressing the author’s mind either not sufficiently or quite poorly. On the contrary, the Greek text that remains is elegant, polished, and grave, and consists of words that are propre, significant, and most accommodating both to the matters themselves and to the mind and purpose of Irenæus. Who, however, would believe that Irenæus, a man most learned in Greek and of the sharpest judgment, would, because of his native idiom, have lacked the ability to express his thoughts, but that on the other hand a Greek translator, reading the Latin books written so barbarously and obscurely, would attain the sense of the author more easily and successfully than the author himself could explain it in words? But, you will say, Irenæus himself, in the Preface to the first book, offers the excuse that his style is simple and common, destitute of all verbal artifice and ornament of diction, because, having stayed among the Celts, he was mostly engaged in a barbarous language. It is so; but so far are our arguments from being weakened by this—nay, rather, new strength is added to them. For if Irenæus had written in Latin, the excuse of the Celtic language would seem no more tolerable than if any Gaul, writing in Latin among the Dutch or English, were to apologize for an inelegant and unpolished discourse with this excuse: that, by staying among the Dutch or English, he was mostly engaged in a foreign language. The excuse of this Gaul would indeed be valid if, writing in his native tongue, he were to plead disuse; but it is entirely inept if the discourse is about Latin, which is as familiar to the Dutch and English as it is to the Gauls. Thus, although Irenæus was living among the Celts and sometimes spoke the Celtic language, he would yet not be excusable for doing so in a crude and inarticulate manner while writing in Latin; because the Latin language was familiar to the people of Lyons at that time, and much more familiar than it is to us. Whoever—even one moderately skilled in Greek—casts his eyes upon the Latin text of Irenæus will easily perceive that it is in reality a Greek discourse in which some trace of Latin occasionally appears. For the mode of expression, the diction, the structure of the words, the phrasing, the syntax, etc., betray a man who, having the Greek before his eyes, translated it into Latin, but so unskillfully and servilely that he rendered word for word, preserving the order, gender, and government of the Greeks. Irenæus was Greek, and unrefined in the Latin tongue; yet was he so dull, and so lacking in Latin words, that while ignoring those which are common everywhere—easy, known to everyone, and hackneyed even to schoolboys—he would substitute for them Hellenisms that are far-fetched, obscure, and difficult, most harsh to Latin ears, and almost impervious to the mind? Was it more difficult to write *Nus* or *a Nu geniti* (Mind, or of Mind sprung), *Valentinus, Ptolemæus*, or *Valentini* or *Ptolemæi discipuli*; than *qui sunt circa vel erga Nun, Ptolemæum, Valentinum*; *ostendere posse* rather than *habere ostendere*; *creatio* or *creatura* rather than *conditio*; *principium* rather than *initium*; ablatives absolute rather than genitives, and six hundred of such things which we have not failed to note in their proper places? Ammianus Marcellinus was a Greek, learned in Greek far more than in Latin, and for that reason sometimes obscure in what he wrote in Latin; yet he abstained from such harsh Hellenisms. What of the fact that Latin words are assigned meanings that Greek, while indeed easily admitting them, the Latin words themselves absolutely reject? *Pertransiens* is written in some place for *legendo percurrens*,

[230, A] *perexivimus* for *enarravimus*, *incipio hoc facere* for *passim pro hoc facturus sum*, *principalis* for *antiquus*, *aliquid* for *partim*, etc. Who, in these and other terms of this kind, would not discern a Latin translator? Who, rather, would not here recognize a Latin translator, yet one who is unskilled and of no judgment—one who, having the Greek text before his eyes and seeing in it the words *dierchomenos* (διερχόμενος), *diexelthomen* (διεξήλθομεν), *mellō touto poiein* (μέλλω τοῦτο ποιεῖν), *archaios* (ἀρχαῖος), etc., consults lexicons in a puerile manner and imprudently accepts whichever meaning among the various ones subjoined to each word happens to be the first one to come to hand? What, finally, of the fact that the author of the Latin text, having failed to grasp Irenaeus's meaning, often invents alien ones? Or was Irenaeus not sure of his own mind? Surely there could be no other cause for this error than that the translator either used a faulty Greek codex, or was deceived by the similarity of words and read them wrongly, or, deviating from the sense of the Greeks, substituted his own.

We have observed six hundred examples of this kind in our notes. Thus, sometimes he reads *phylla* (φύλλα) for *phyta* (φυτά), *genesis* (γένεσιν) for *physis* (φύσιν), *hoti* (ὅτι) for *hoti* (ὅτι), *eschatou* (ἐσχάτου) for *hekastou* (ἑκάστου), *topō* (τόπῳ) for *tropō* (τρόπῳ), *hē* (ἤ) for *hē* (ᾖ), *hexēs* (ἑξῆς) for *ex hēs* (ἐξ ἧς), and 888 for *Iēsous* (Ἰησοῦς), as if the single letters of this word were so many arithmetic marks, and many other things of this sort. But the hallucination of that Latin translator regarding the name *Epiphanēs* (᾽Επιφανής) must not be omitted here. Thinking it was an appellative, he translated it *clarus* ("clear"), whereas it is certain that it is the proper name of the heretic whose opinion Irenaeus reports in Book 1, c. 11, n. 3. Such a monstrous error cannot be attributed to Irenaeus himself, who certainly knew well the name of the man he was attacking, since it is exactly the same in Greek and Latin. It is necessary, therefore, to lay the blame on the unskilled translator.

5. If Irenaeus had written in Latin and for the benefit of the Latins, he would have cited Latin authors rather than Greek; yet you will not find any, whether sacred or profane, praised by him except Greeks. Thus, to pass over many things, in Book 1, chapter 9, he weaves a centon from the verses of Homer. Surely, anyone who had written in Latin would have chosen Virgil or some other poet more familiar to the Latins in order to construct a centon from him. Finally, in Book V, chapter 30, while disputing the names of the Antichrist, which will contain the number 666, he brings forward those that are so Greek that they do not add up unless written in Greek. Such are *EUANTHAS*, *LATEINOS*, *TEITAN* (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ, ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ, ΤΕΙΤΑΝ), which, if you write them in Latin, the number will no longer correspond to the name. Who would believe that someone writing in Latin would search so far for Greek names, when many Latin ones could have been fashioned so easily, from which the same number could have been derived?

52. I do not dwell on Erasmus's other minor objection, [230, B] that we see some Greek verses mixed into the books of Irenaeus, and that no one has indicated the translator's name. For it is at the discretion of translators—if they are offended by any Greek lines of the poets—to relate them either in Latin alone, or, for the sake of greater *energeia* (ἐνεργείας), in both Greek and Latin, especially if they are few and elegant. The examples are obvious. In the same way, the translator of Irenaeus conducted himself. Should more verses occur, [he renders them] in Latin only; if one or another, in Greek and Latin, and that in two places only, he wrote. Regarding the name of the translator, Erasmus did not notice that the objection is equally applicable to those who believe the Greek text is a mere translation; for it is no easier for them to indicate the name of the Greek translator than for others to indicate the Latin one.

But since I have heard this objection made by various most learned men with a show of slightly greater difficulty—that it is hardly credible that Irenaeus, who was living at Lyons, where there was no use for the Greek language, and who was writing for the benefit of his fellow citizens of Lyons, whose territories the Marcosian plague had already reached, would write in a language that no one would have understood—they presuppose exactly what lies at the very threshold of being proven: namely, that this was the primary plan of Irenaeus, to write for the benefit of the people of Lyons. The prefaces prefixed to every single book demonstrate that he wrote in order to comply with the requests of a certain friend. Moreover, it seems far more probable that this friend was a Greek, not a man of Lyons. For he was not inquiring of Irenaeus what was the opinion of the Marcosians, who alone infested the Gauls, but rather that of the Ptolemaeans, as is evident from the Preface to the first book. However, it is certain that the Eastern provinces [230, C] were vexed by the heresy of the Ptolemaeans, the Valentinians, and indeed of the Marcosians themselves and other Gnostics—the very heresies Irenaeus had undertaken to explain and refute—far more bitterly than the Western provinces: so much so that Irenaeus wished to provide a remedy in his writing for those [Easterners] rather than for these [Westerners], whom he could easily have cured in person and by word of mouth. But be it so, that the friend lived among the Latins; I do not think that this will profit the cause of the adversaries. For what if he, though living among the Latins, happened to be some Greek from among the number of those who had come into the West with Pothinus or Irenaeus? The entire necessity of writing in Latin, which is being imagined, falls. For Irenaeus had proposed only this to himself at first, as he declares in the Preface to the first book, that he might send to him brief commentaries and a sort of memorial booklet, in which, with the opinion of the Valentinians explained in a few words, he might suggest certain arguments to overthrow it: that he, recognizing the most monstrous and lofty mysteries of the heretics, might make them manifest to all who were with him, and might charge them to keep themselves from the depth of senselessness and of that which is blasphemy against God. Hence, he later urges him to amplify, with the erudition he possessed, the seeds and beginnings he had received, and to explain more fully and assert more openly to those who were with him the things that had been said briefly and weakly. And at the end of the first book, dealing with the same heresy: We have endeavored, he says, to bring into the light the entire body of this poorly composed fox, and through you to make it manifest. Now there will be no need of many words to overthrow their doctrine, since it is made manifest to all... For there is also present [230, D] and the opportunity to suggest… that he, recognizing monstrous and most lofty heretical mysteries, might make them manifest to all who were with him, and might charge them to observe themselves from the depth of senselessness, and of that which is blasphemy against God. From here he later encourages him, that from the erudition which he possessed, he might amplify the seeds and beginnings received, and might explain more copiously those things which had been said in few and weak terms, and [might] assert them more openly to those who were with him. And at the end of the first book, acting concerning the same heresy: We have endeavored, he says, to bring into the middle the whole body of this poorly composed little fox, and through you to make it manifest. Now there will be no need of many words to overthrow their doctrine [which is] made manifest to all... For there is present also and

^Asome person rather rude in the Latin language and not of very keen judgment, who out of good Greek made bad Latin, and once or twice has fastened alien meanings upon his author. But whoever he may have been, it is established that the Latin version is most ancient, and was published either while Irenæus himself was still alive, or shortly after he had been taken from us. For that Tertullian, who wrote a little later, had it before his eyes while he labored on his book against the Valentinians, cannot be denied, unless by Dodwell alone. Whoever else compares the Latin Irenæus with Tertullian will immediately perceive that the latter so closely follows the footprints of the former, and so adheres to the very words, the figures of the words, and the order, that he seems to have proposed nothing to himself but to condense in fewer words—often retaining the same words—yet with the addition, according to his custom, of sarcastic quips which the other had set forth more at length. Thus Irenæus, book 1, chap. 11, n. 3, reporting the opinion of Epiphanes, writes: "There is indeed before all Proarche, proanennoetos, and inenarrable, and innominable, which I call monotete. With this monotete is a virtue, which I also call henotete. These henotes and monotes, although they are one, have sent forth, while having sent forth nothing, the principle of all things, noeton, and agenneton, and aoraton, which the discourse calls monad. With this monad is a virtue of the same substance as it, which I also call hen. These virtues, that is, monotes and henotes, and monas, and hen, have sent forth the remaining emissions of the Æons." Tertullian, however, chap. 37: "There is," he says, "before all things Proarche, ^Binexcogitable and inenarrable, which I call monotete. With this was another virtue, which I also call henotete. Monotes and henotes, that is, solitas and unitas [solitude and unity], while they were one, brought forth, not bringing forth, the intellectual beginning of all things, innascible, invisible, which the discourse called monad. With this is present a consubstantial virtue, which he calls unio [union]. These virtues, therefore, solitas, singularitas, unitas, unio, propagated the remaining prolations of the Æons." Where the same words (except that certain Greek terms are translated into Latin), the same barbarity of style appear as in the interpreter of Irenæus. Here n. 5: "Others again have named their first and archegonon octonary with these names: first Proarchen, then Anennoeton, thirdly Arrheton, and fourthly Aoraton. And from the first, indeed, Proarche, there has been sent forth in the first and fifth place Archen, from the second, Anennoeto, in the second and sixth place Acatalepton, and from the third, Arrheto, in the third and seventh place Anonomasion, and from Aorato, in the fourth and eighth place Agenneton." Tertullian, chap. 25, in as many words: "For first they constitute Proarchen, secondly Anennoeton, thirdly Arrheton, fourthly Aoraton. From Proarche, therefore, there proceeded in the first and fifth ^C place Archen; from Anennoeto, in the second and sixth place Acatalepton; from Arretho, in the third and seventh place Anonomaston; from the Invisible, in the fourth and eighth place Agenneton." Certainly, if he had copied immediately from the Greek...

he would have translated these many names; and it could not have happened by mere chance and accident that his naming agreed with the interpreter of Irenaeus. ^B In chapter 12, n. 3, he explains the hypothesis of the Colorbasians thus: "When the Forefather (Propator) thought to emit something, he was called Father; but when the things he emitted were true, this was called Alethia (Truth). Therefore, when he wished to manifest himself, this was called Anthropos (Man). Moreover, the things he had forethought, after he emitted them, this was called Ecclesia (Church). Anthropos spoke Logos (Word), this is the firstborn Son. Zoe follows Logos, and thus the first Ogdoad is complete." In chapter 36, he says: "When, they say, he thought to bring forth, this was called Father. When he brought forth, because he brought forth true things, this was called Veritas (Truth). When he wished to prove himself, this was called Homo (Man). But the things he had forethought, when he brought them forth, then it was called Ecclesia. Homo sounded the Sermo (Word), and this is the firstborn Son, and to the Sermo was added Vita (Life); and the first Ogdoad was concluded." Many other similar things occur throughout Tertullian. But that which finally shows that he took what he relates not from the Greek, but from the interpreter of Irenaeus, is that where the interpreter slipped, wrongly rendering the Greek, Tertullian also slipped. The former, as I have already said, thinking the name *Epiphanes* to be an appellative, translated it entirely wrongly as "famous." Tertullian, following the one erring in a similar way, wrote "more illustrious." In chapter 2, n. 3, Irenaeus, recounting the perturbation of Sophia, writes that when she had brought forth an unformed fetus, she was "first indeed saddened because of the inconsummation of the generation, then afterwards, ^C *phobethenai me kai auto telos sche*,"—at least, so the interpreter reads; for he translated, "to have feared lest this itself should have an end," whereas *telos* should have been translated as "perfection," not "end," as we have said in our notes to this passage. Nor did Tertullian do better in chapter 10: "first indeed to be saddened on account of the inconsummation of the generation, and lastly to fear lest an end should also follow." Where he similarly translated *to ateles tes genneseos* as "inconsummation of the generation"; and, leaving aside the Greek Irenaeus, following the Latin interpreter, he wrote, "lest an end should also follow." In the same chapter, n. 4, Irenaeus reports that the Father through Monogenes emitted Horos in his image, *asuygon, athelunton*, where the interpreter, reading wrongly *asuzogo, athelunto*, or, as others wish, *arrhenothelei*, translated it wrongly as "without spouse male-female." The same fault is held by Tertullian in the cited chapter: "The Father through Monogenes Nun, whom we said above was Horos, brings forth into this in his image female-male." Indeed, both refer that to the image, which right reason demonstrates can apply only to Horos. Tertullian would not have sustained this blame if he had consulted the Greek text here rather than the interpreter. A little later, when Irenaeus had said that Sophia was cleansed and confirmed by Horos, and restored to her conjugation, he adds: "For having been separated from her, with the appendix of passion, she herself indeed remained within the Pleroma; but the ^D *enthymesin autes sun to pathei hypo tou Horou a-pothisthai kai apostaurothenai*. Which the interpreter rendered thus: "For having been separated by intention from her, with the appendix of passion, she herself indeed remained within the Pleroma; but her concupiscence with passion separated by Horos, and crucified, and made outside him, etc.," where he sins in two ways: first, that he translated *sun to epiginomeno pathei* as "with the appendix of passion"; it should have been translated, "with the passion which had supervened." Second, that he translated *apostaurothenai* as "crucified"; here it signifies as if surrounded by a wall and separated from the Pleroma. Tertullian sins altogether in the same way, writing: "Her Enthymesis and that appendix of passion relegated by Horos and crucified." These and many other things, which I have observed time and again in the notes, prove invincibly, if I am not mistaken, that Tertullian, although he read the Greek Irenaeus (which I do not deny), yet often departed from him, so that he would follow the footprints of the Latin interpreter, and one who was indeed sometimes erroneous.

54. It seems that Cyprian also had before his eyes the same Latin translation, but already vicious, when, in epist. 74 (edit. Oxon.) to Pompeius, he writes concerning Cerdon and Marcion: "Whose (Marcion's) master Cerdon came to Rome under Bishop Hyginus, who was the ninth in the City; whom Marcion followed, and with additions to the crime, began to blaspheme more impudently than others and more abruptly against God the Father Creator." These things are found in almost the same words in lib. 1, c. 27, n. 1 and 2, except that Cyprian, having used a corrupted codex, read "ninth" instead of "eighth." But that Cyprian was learned in Greek does not appear from any argument: so much so that it is more probable that he read the Latin interpreter, just as his master Tertullian had read him. Augustine also read him: for he drew two testimonies from him, and cited them against Julian the Pelagian, lib. 1, c. 3 and 7, which even now exist in almost the same words in the Latin Irenaeus, lib. iv, cap. 2, n. 7, and lib. v, c. 19, n. 1. You will find few among the Latins thereafter, even from among those who studiously collected the testimonies of the ancient Fathers,, weaving together, as it were, "centones" and "catenas," as they call them, who quoted Irenaeus. The scarcity of Latin copies, already by the seventh or the end of the sixth century, was such that when Ætherius the bishop of Lyons could not obtain any among the Lyons (inhabitants) themselves, he went to Gregory the Great, so that he might receive from him the deeds or writings of the blessed Irenaeus. To whom Gregory responds: "The deeds or writings of the blessed Irenaeus we have searched for diligently for a long time now; but until now nothing could be found from them." And the cause of such a great scarcity seems to be that, with the heresies already extinguished that had been refuted by Irenaeus, and others emerging daily, which had nothing in common with those ancient ones; and with the barbarity of the style, and the difficulty of the argument, both readers and copyists were deterred—the former from taking them up, the latter from transcribing them—so that the use of an excellent work had almost perished. Yet some copies always remained; but which...

in the age of Gregory the Great, were hidden away in the shelves of libraries, and only in these most recent centuries, by the grace of God, were brought forth and beheld the new light. But the crudity of style and the difficulty of the subject matter, mentioned as I said, caused them not to reach us in a very sound state, as scribes often understood little of what they were writing. Such too was the rashness of certain bold individuals that, by cutting off the final chapters of the fifth book, in which the error of the Millenarians is asserted, they published a mutilated version: so that it is possible to find very few manuscript codices in which it appears entire, as I have said in the Preface. Nay, the most learned Grabe believes, in his Prolegomena to Irenaeus, sect. II, § 6, that book five is still mutilated at the end by a great part. He thinks he can prove this from the fact that Irenaeus, both at the end of book four and in the Preface to book five, promises that he will attempt to make demonstrations from the remaining teachings of the Lord and from the apostolic epistles, namely that the Father, the maker of this world, is one and the same, He who spoke to Abraham, who made the Law, who sent the prophets, who sent His Son, bestowing salvation upon His own handiwork, which is the substance of the flesh. ^C But, says Grabe, while Irenaeus had proved the resurrection of the flesh with many arguments, and had also finally undertaken, from the words of Christ brought forth without the shroud of parables, the demonstration concerning the one God, the creator of the world, and the Father of our Savior himself, in chapter 21; because he immediately wandered far from there, the remaining demonstrations of one and the same God in the Old and New Testament, sought from the words of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul, perished; because copyists in a later age, loathing the doctrine of the millennial reign, did not wish to transcribe further, and therefore broke off the thread. So he says. But one is struck with wonder that, after that loathed doctrine of the millennial reign had been described, and Irenaeus’s lengthy argumentation on that subject, which already seemed absolute, had been finished, a preposterous scruple should suddenly seize all the copyists, such that they did not wish to transcribe further what appeared to pertain nothing or little to that doctrine. Certainly, the most learned man did not heed that Irenaeus's goal in this fifth book was not, and could not have been, to demonstrate generally from the words of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul that the Creator of the world is one God, and the same as the Father of our Savior, lest he be repeating what had been done in the previous books. He declares this himself at the end of book IV: For, he says, while many of the Lord's discourses announce one and the same Father, the maker of this world; it was incumbent upon us, for the sake of those who are held in many errors, to refute them through many arguments, if by any means they could, being refuted by many, be converted to the truth and be saved. What, therefore, remained to be done? These two things: 1st, after the Lord's discourses, to add also Paul's doctrine, and to examine his sentiment, and to expound the Apostle, and to explain whatever interpretations the heretics—who do not understand at all what was said by Paul—received differently, and to show the madness of their lack of sense: and from the same Paul, from whom they draw questions for us, to manifest them to be indeed liars, and that the Apostle was a herald of truth, and that he taught all things consonant with the proclamation of truth, that God the Father is one, He who spoke to Abraham, who made the Law, who sent the prophets, who in the latest times sent His Son and bestows salvation upon His own handiwork, which is the substance of the flesh. Therefore, this was what Irenaeus first proposed to himself: to refute the perverse explanations which the heretics attached to the words of the Apostle: and not only this, but also to show that the Apostle taught—not, indeed, as Grabe wrongly surmised, that the Father who spoke to Abraham, etc., is one God, for that he had already abundantly accomplished in the third book, where, as he says himself in the Preface to book five, the doctrine of the apostles had been explained; but that one and the same God the Father, He who had already been demonstrated to have spoken to Abraham and to have made the Law, had sent His Son in the latest times, that He might bestow salvation upon His own handiwork, which is the substance of the flesh. For this subject, as he had not yet sufficiently discoursed upon it, he had reserved to be handled more fully in book five. And he handled it extensively from the beginning up to chapter 17. The second thing that remained for Irenaeus to do was to arrange the remaining discourses of the Lord, which indeed He taught not through parables, but simply in the very wording concerning the Father. This he accomplished from chapter 17 up to 25, from which point he begins to discourse upon the Antichrist, then upon the millennial reign of Christ, until the end of the book. Therefore, since Irenaeus has achieved his goal and liberated the faith, Grabe contends in vain that the fifth book is in large part mutilated.

55. Regarding the Latin manuscripts of Irenaeus that survive, I have already discoursed in the Preface. There is nothing I can say about the Greek ones; for none, at least that are known, survive today. Feuardentius, in the Commonition to the readers prefixed to his edition, testifies that some pious and learned men have said that they read a Greek exemplar in the Venetian library; others also claim to have seen it in the Vatican; which nevertheless, he adds, were sought there afterward in vain. It is certain that no Greek manuscript codex of Irenaeus exists in the Vatican library, indeed not even a Latin one any longer. But if by chance one were in Venice, which I do not think, it would lie forever buried in its own dust. For the codices of that library are not permitted to see the light. Thus it has come to pass that that archetypal Greek text, far more elegant and held in greater value by the ancients than the Latin, was transcribed, worn, and cited by Greeks far more often, longer, and by more people, than the Latin interpretation ever was by the Latins—which in the age of Gregory the Great was so rare that no codices of it could be found, yet it survived and remains while the other perished. For not only in the age of Gregory, but long after, frequent codices of that Greek text existed, as is evident from Germanus of Constantinople, Photius, John of Damascus, and many others, who cited it: although, however, I do not think that they all...

^A Greek fragments of Irenaeus, which are read as inserted into the Claromontane manuscript of John of Damascus, were transcribed by John of Damascus himself. They seem to have been collected by a more recent Greek. But he who adorned the new edition of the works of St. John of Damascus, a man of singular erudition and no less conspicuous for his humanity, the Revered Father Michael Lequien, of the Order of Preachers, discourses on this more fully in volume II of that same edition. There are those who think, not without probability, that beyond the Latin interpretation of Irenaeus' five books, another Syriac one existed. For Ephrem the Deacon of Edessa, who did not know Greek, transcribed an entire passage from Book I, ch. 8, n. 1, and inserted it into chapter 8 of his *Treatise on Virtue*; which treatise is commonly ascribed to him, nor is there anything to contradict that it should be ascribed to him.

56. It was, indeed, common to both texts, the Greek and the Latin, that it appeared divided into five books, but without any chapters or chapter arguments. Irenaeus himself indicates the division into five books at the end and beginning of each book, where, in addition, having briefly repeated those things which he had treated in the preceding book, he lucidly and briefly opens up the subject matter of the following one. But thereafter the thread of the discourse proceeds continuously, and the context is such that no traces of any partition at all reveal themselves, no transitions, or anything else which might prove the end and beginning of a single chapter, or an interrupted style. Hence, of the ancients who quoted Irenaeus—Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine, and others—they often specify the book, but never the chapter or any other type of division. Hence also in all Latin manuscript codices, the fifth book proceeds with a continuous and uninterrupted style from beginning to end, and no chapters or chapter arguments appear. [CIV] Gallasius and Feuardentius were the first of all to cut this into chapters, although not in the same way, prefixing an argument to each chapter. For previously Erasmus and Grynaeus had edited this book as the manuscript codices presented it. Hence, finally, the manuscript codices do not agree with each other in the other books either, especially in the second, in which one division after another occurs; in these, there are longer chapters, in those, shorter; in these, a larger number of chapters, in those, a smaller. Even the division which more recent Greeks introduced into their own codices differed far from the Latin; for their chapters were more minute than those of the latter, as the most learned Grabe skillfully infers from the commentary of Procopius of Gaza on chapter III of Genesis, where he quotes those things which Irenaeus teaches in Book II, ch. 23 (alias 38), n. 5, regarding the leather garment of Adam, as if from chapters 59 and 65. From all of which it is concluded that Irenaeus had not even thought of dividing the text into certain chapters, nor indeed had his ancient interpreter. The authors of this division were some more recent persons, whether scribes or anyone else; but they were so unskilled and destitute of judgment that, mixing everything up and down, and rashly and wrongly breaking the thread of the discourse, they generally cut it where ^B they ought to have joined it to what followed, and where the words were scarcely to be distinguished from the preceding ones by a colon. In a word, they miserably lacerated the text, rather than divided it. Proof of this can be found in all the editions of Irenaeus that have been produced until now. They were fashioned with the same maturity of judgment and diligence as the arguments which are found prefixed to each of the chapters of the first four books. They are indeed for the most part founded on the words of the old interpreter, yet they are not rarely newly fabricated, as if there had been a contest over the barbarism of the language; but they are so insipidly and ineptly disposed that they very often present to the readers either nothing less than the goal and purpose of the subject chapter, or they present it wrongly, or only a very slight particle of it, and that not the most important. I would not deny that they are very ancient, as they occur in all the oldest manuscript codices, although arranged in one way or another. But however ancient they may be, since it is certain that Irenaeus himself is not the author of them, and that they are rather a trouble than a help to readers, they are to be regarded no otherwise than as the work of some unskilled person wrongly added to that of Irenaeus.

57. Learned men have long ago judged that the mistake regarding the division and the still more inept arguments should be corrected. John Jacob Grynaeus had already provided for the latter in his edition of Irenaeus; for, having for the most part removed the old ones, he added new and more suitable *periochae* (summaries) of the chapters. The plan displeased Feuardentius, for he restored the old summaries; on that account, I think, because they were ancient: as if antiquity added authority and value to absurd things. It also displeased Grabe, who openly declares that it was poorly done by Grynaeus. But was it done better by Grabe himself? Let the judgment rest with the readers. For he restored the old arguments in such a way that, spurning the authority of the codices—on which alone he thought they should be retained—he arranged and transposed them according to his own whim, sometimes having dissected one and the same [argument] into many parts, sometimes having combined many into one. From which it has happened that at times the same argument, at times none at all, and at times one that fits nothing or very little, is prefixed to many chapters. Perhaps he would have extricated himself more safely from all these inconveniences who, recalling the matter to Irenaeus' own intent, would have published his text distinguished by no chapters or arguments. And this was the opinion of some learned men, whom we consulted, but only a few. Others, however, and these by far the majority, thought otherwise; and their judgment prevailed, relying especially on this reasoning, that a reader, already accustomed to division and arguments, can derive no small utility from them, if only they are made correctly. Wherefore, with a new and more convenient institution of chapter division, we have prefixed new arguments to each one of them, by which the scope and purpose of each is outlined for the eyes of the reader, as we have already said in the Preface.

ARTICLE III. ON OTHER WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS.

58. Irenaeus illustrated the Christian and Catholic faith through many other excellent works, but because of the ravages of time, these have perished, and only those fragments remain which ancient Fathers preserved in their own writings. He wrote a letter against Florinus, a remarkable fragment of which Eusebius transcribed ^A and which we ourselves have published at the end of this work. Florinus, as Irenaeus testifies, while living in splendor at the imperial court, had held some office in lower Asia at the time when Polycarp was flourishing there with the reputation of sanctity and learning. Moved by the fame of such a man, he had entrusted himself to his instruction, and had done everything to prove himself worthy of it. Later, having been made a presbyter of the Roman Church and then having lapsed into error—soliciting the faith of others in order to make them guilty of that same error—he was removed from his rank. Irenaeus ^B, grieving for the fall of a fellow-student whom he had seen and known under Polycarp, and desiring to call him back from his error, wrote a letter against him On the Monarchy, or that God is not the creator of evils. "For he seemed," adds Eusebius, "to be defending this opinion." H. Valesius explains this as if Florinus, adhering to the dogmas of Marcion and Cerdo, had introduced two principles, one the author of good things, the other of evil. But Irenaeus objects, writing that the dogmas of Florinus were such that not even heretics placed outside the Church had ever dared to assert them. ^C The error of Florinus was, therefore, graver than that of Cerdo and Marcion; and for that reason, he seems to have been situated in this: that he did not, like them, invent a double God, one the author of good and one of evil, but rather cast all evils and sins upon one and the same God as their cause: something which, in truth, no heretic had hitherto dared to put forward. Whence, although he might contend with the Catholics against the Marcionites for the monarchy, or the unity of principle, he nonetheless violated it worse than they did, while contaminating it with all evils. Irenaeus, however, contended ^D as truly as he did piously that the monarchy must be retained, yet not stained by the blemish of evils. And he sets before his eyes how alien he had been from the pestiferous doctrine of Florinus, and how he had abhorred the wicked dogma, as even Polycarp, whom he had long before heard as his teacher, had done: so that he might more effectively lead one deviating back to the path of Catholic truth by the memory of so great a teacher. Philastrius mentions certain "Florian" heretics, but identifies them as a sprout of the Carpocratians. Gennadius, however, blames Florinus for believing that the flesh was the cause of evil. These views, if both understood our Florinus, do not entirely agree with Eusebius and Irenaeus, whose testimony carries more weight. Whatever the case, Florinus, defeated by the arguments and reasonings of Irenaeus, yet not convinced, and fearing lest he make God Himself the author of evil, and on the other hand, failing in the monarchy which he had hitherto defended, introduced a double God with Cerdo and Marcion. Embracing, as it seemed to him, a middle ground between both extremes, he adopted the opinion of Valentinus, preferring to be insane with him rather than to be wise with the Catholics. Wherefore Irenaeus, always solicitous for his salvation and striving to rescue him from that new abyss into which he had headlong cast himself, wrote the book On the Ogdoad, or, as Jerome has it in his Catalog, On the Eighth, of which Eusebius reports only the end. I wish at least that he had exhibited the subject matter of that small work, or, as he calls it, his *spoudasma*. It seems to have been intended to overthrow, in a short writing and with selected arguments, the famous ogdoad of the Valentinians—that original octonary of Aeons, the root of all others—which he had already attacked with a more extensive style, or was then attacking in that longer work titled On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called. For it is not clear to me whether this work had already been brought to completion. Theodoret indeed writes (though he does not affirm it, saying "they report") that Irenaeus, lamenting the malady of Florinus, wrote against Valentinus. But it is uncertain whether he meant the five books of the Detection and Overthrow or that brief little work On the Ogdoad. For both seem to have been written against Valentinus.

59. Irenaeus wrote another letter against Blastus, which he titled On Schism. This man, also a presbyter of the Roman Church, had been involved in a fall similar to that of Florinus—not, as Valesius erroneously translates, "implicated in a similar error with Florinus," but that he had received similar judgment of deposition with him. To both indeed this was common: that they drew many away from the bosom of the Church, leading them into their own opinion, and adulterated the sincere law of the Church. But furthermore, the *heteros*—the other, namely Florinus, not both, as Valesius here also incorrectly rendered—labored to introduce a new doctrine separately against the truth of the faith. That both had fallen into the heresy of Valentinus...

^A can be said by none of the ancients; it is permitted to the most sagacious Dodwell, however, to say so, who, according to his custom, disputes at length concerning these matters, sparing neither words nor conjecture. But these are Dodwellian conjectures; and he who reads them wonders both that the dissertator has said so much to say nothing, and that the reader has read so much to learn nothing. Irenæus did promise, and not once, that he would specifically refute Marcion, and Eusebius mentions this promise of his. But that the faith was delivered by Irenæus is sufficiently signified by this same Eusebius, when he lists him among those who refuted Marcion with excellent works.

Maximus the Abbot and Confessor cites certain "Sermons on the Faith" by Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, to Demetrius, the Deacon of Vienne, the beginning and some of the sentiments of which he also cites in Greek. A further fragment from the sermon to Demetrius was published by Feuardent; but this in Latin only, which he indeed says he received from N. Faber; but whence the latter received it, he omitted to say. If the Greek were present, it might perhaps appear in a more amended state. But since sermons of this kind were unknown to Eusebius and Jerome, it is doubtful whether they are genuine offspring of Irenæus. ^B I think one must think slightly otherwise concerning those things which Ecumenius attributes to Irenæus in his *Commentary on the First Epistle of Peter*, chapter iii. I would not doubt that they are drawn from the famous letter of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, which I have said it is highly probable was written by Irenæus himself, and this passage of Ecumenius confirms it. For here he says that he has taken these things from that which Irenæus wrote "On Sanctus and Blandina"; not, indeed, word for word, but making a summary of the words: "As it is possible to set forth these things briefly." And in truth, the things which Ecumenius recites there concerning Sanctus and Blandina square sufficiently with those things which are related in the cited epistle of the Lyons martyrs, so that they do not appear to have been taken from elsewhere.

60. Concerning other letters which Irenæus wrote at that time to Pope Victor and to others regarding the feast of Easter, we have discussed in his *Life*. From one of these letters, it seems, is drawn that which the author of the *Questions and Answers to the Orthodox*, among the works of Justin, cites from Irenæus (Quest. 115): that one should not bend the knee, neither on the Lord's Day, nor in those 50 days which follow Easter. ^C Eusebius mentions that the same Irenæus published "A most concise and most necessary discourse, inscribed *On Knowledge*," or rather a book, or Sermon, or Oration against the Greeks, or, as others translate, "Against the Gentiles." Jerome wrongly grasped the meaning of this, and gave others the opportunity to grasp it wrongly, when he says in his *Catalogue* that one short volume was written by Irenæus against the Gentiles, and another *On Discipline*, as if the little work against the Gentiles had been something different from his *On Discipline* or *Knowledge*. Both mention another of Irenæus's sermons, addressed to his brother Marcianus, which contained a demonstration of the apostolic preaching, and a book of *Varied Disputations*, or, as Jerome translates, *Varied Tractates*, in which he made mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon, and brought forward certain sentiments from those books. But what the scope or the design of the author was in all these little works or books cannot be said by the ancients.

61. Jerome reports in his *Catalogue* that Irenæus concerned himself with John's Apocalypse: "which," he says, "Justin Martyr and Irenæus interpret." Yet from this I do not think it can be gathered that entire commentaries on the Apocalypse were published by Irenæus; nor does that seem to have been Jerome's meaning. Jerome was looking back to the various places in the Apocalypse which Irenæus explains in his five books, and especially in the fifth, towards the end of which, discussing the millenary reign of Christ and the Antichrist, he interprets many testimonies of this sacred book and adapts them to his design. Some, by the testimony of Photius, attributed to Irenæus a book which has the title, *On the Universe*, or *On the Substance of the World*. But it is more probable that it is the work of Caius, a Roman presbyter and disciple of Irenæus. ^D Concerning the other fragments of Irenæus which we have published at the end, we have spoken in their proper place. These are the things which we had to say concerning the writings of such a great man. Now, the discourse must be directed toward the various chapters of his doctrine.

THIRD DISSERTATION. ON THE DOCTRINE OF IRENAEUS.

^A 1. It is the prerogative of the supreme Divinity alone to be neither deceived nor capable of deceiving: the lot and condition of all mortals, unless by the singular favor of God granted to sacred writers alone, is such that error sometimes leads them astray from the truth. Therefore, no work is so polished and perfect in all its parts that it is not sprinkled with some blemishes—more or fewer, greater or lesser—according to the greater or lesser diligence and erudition of the writer. Neither of these was lacking to Irenaeus; yet he did not always guard himself so well as never to stumble, though it was usually only slightly. But where he stumbled somewhat more seriously, the error is the more to be pardoned, in that, as certain heads of Christian doctrine had not yet been sufficiently explored and brought to light, it could hardly happen that preconceived and common opinions of earlier centuries would not cast clouds even over attentive minds. But as Irenaeus is not to be excused where he has slipped, so neither is he to be rashly blamed where there is no fault, nor should dogmas ^B which he rejects be attributed to him. For there are men to whom all the statements of authors seem to require excuse; and there are others who, with hostile tooth, carp at whatever they do not understand; and finally there are others who, when reading the ancient Fathers of the Church, think they see what they desire to see, so that they may have companions in error. That we may not strike upon the same rocks, it has seemed best to run through, as briefly as possible, each of the principal heads of the doctrine of Irenaeus; and if he has slipped in anything, to note it; but if anything foreign is attributed to him, to repel it.

2. Photius observes that in some of Irenaeus's writings, the certain truth of ecclesiastical dogmas is darkened by spurious arguments. At least, this is the interpretation of the Greek: *“Even if in some of their (writings and letters) the precision of the truth regarding ecclesiastical dogmas is counterfeited by spurious arguments.”* Whether Photius had his finger on the writings and the specific passages of Irenaeus is uncertain. But if that is the sense of the words of Photius, that sometimes weak arguments are used by Irenaeus to prove certain truths of the faith, this is a very light sort of fault, common to almost all writers, and one which anyone can the more difficultly avoid the more studiously he attacks his adversaries and strives to overwhelm them with arguments of every kind. For what author is so strong that all the arguments by which he refutes his adversaries are so many demonstrations? It can hardly happen that, especially if there are many arguments on one and the same matter, some are not more effective than others ^C and appear weaker. Furthermore, if we apply judgment as to the weight and efficacy of any arguments, the rule of equity demands that we attend to that at which the author was primarily aiming. For if many of Irenaeus's reasonings are viewed precisely in themselves and apart from the author's purpose, they will appear weak; but it is otherwise if his intent is taken into account. Because there were no supports for the most vain dogmas of the heretics in the plain words of the Scriptures, they endeavored to procure for themselves other supports in parables and allegories, which they interpreted according to their own whim. Irenaeus rightly contends that these are empty and futile. For, he says, parables must not be adapted to ambiguous things. For it is most absurd to link things that are not clearly spoken, nor placed before the eyes, to the solutions of parables which everyone invents as he pleases. But that the heretics might not glory in this, however weak, support, and trick the unlearned, he undertakes specifically in his fourth book to prove that their desperate cause is not helped by parables, and that if this kind of argument has any force, it entirely redounds to the ruin of their perverse dogmas. Whoever, therefore, complains that arguments are sometimes brought by Irenaeus from parables and allegories to prove truths of the faith which seem to have little strength, let him remember that the holy doctor was not unaware of what and how much such arguments were worth when viewed in themselves, yet he used them by his own right, because those whom he was refuting had been the first to give the example of using them. Whence the arguments were as if directed *ad hominem*, and were taken from the principles and confessions of the adversaries, which derived their efficacy from them alone. For from the fact that they used parables and allegories against the Catholics, they were the less able to decline the weight of the arguments drawn from them, as they themselves had been the first to judge that such methods were to be used to settle the dispute. If Gallasius had noticed this, he would have refrained from the foolish and inept censure with which he vexes Irenaeus, because in this parable of Christ: *Therefore every scribe learned in the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder* [Matthew XIII, 52] *who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old*, he uses it to prove that there is one and the same God who is the author of both Testaments. For, to say nothing of the fact that Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hilary, Jerome, and many others have followed the exposition of Irenaeus, as Feuardentius correctly notes; even if such an argument might not have been valid against other heretics, it was especially valid against the Valentinians, ^D

who believed that effectiveness could be sought from parables: and therefore, to refute them, it was sufficient for the parable to be explained in a sense that did not conflict with the words and teaching of Christ. Irenaeus well knew that there were clearer sayings of Christ from which arguments could be drawn; but he reserved these for the fifth book, as he himself confesses at the beginning of that book and at the end of the fourth. I would wish the same to be said of the various combinations of numbers, by which our author sometimes seems to be taken more than is reasonable. A later age did indeed disdain such subtleties; but sound reason does not allow our own to measure the things which Irenaeus wrote and his customs by our own. This allegorical kind of philosophizing, accepted from the Pythagoreans and Platonists, was held in the highest esteem among the pagans, and indeed even among the Jews themselves: it was necessary for the ancient Fathers to conform themselves to this, both to win over proud spirits more easily, once they were persuaded that the Christian religion did not shrink from the correct method of philosophizing; and to pierce them with their own weapons, whenever the occasion should arise. And this was, indeed, used by Irenaeus with all the more right, in that the Gnostics, as I have shown elsewhere, were imbued with the principles of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, set great store by numbers, and constructed no small stronghold for their cause in their various combinations. Therefore, he composes himself to their philosophemes ^A with the intention of turning back upon their own heads that which they supposed could be drawn from the parables. Wherefore, one must always have before one's eyes the age of the proponent, the aim, the adversaries, and the hypothesis of the disputants, so that what and how much such arguments are worth may be weighed in an even balance: and whoever pays regard to these with an equitable mind will not doubt that the holy Fathers did what the right reason of their times and the circumstances of their disputes demanded of them. But how little Irenaeus trusted in such reasonings and combinations of numbers is clearly evident from what he discusses in Book II, chapters 25 and 26. For there he proves expressly that the works of God, divine matters, reason, and the arguments of truth should not be measured by numbers; but rather that numbers should be measured by divine matters, reason, and the arguments of truth; and that that curious investigation of numbers, and the arguments drawn from them, are weak and for the most part vain and dangerous. I would not, however, deny what has been said so far, that some spurious reasonings occur in Irenaeus, by which the truth of ecclesiastical dogmas is obscured rather than illustrated; such as those which he draws from the age of Christ and the millenarian kingdom; but with these and a few other exceptions, as for all the rest, if they are examined in the scales of equity and measured by the author’s aim and intention, their value and robustness will be established. But let us now see what and how much the Catholic faith can be helped by his doctrine.

ARTICLE FIRST. On the divinity, canon, and translations of the sacred Scriptures.

3. That the sacred Scriptures have God himself as their author, and that they were written forth at the inspiration of his Spirit, Irenaeus ^B so openly and frequently confesses that to observe this is almost like wasting one's time. The Scriptures, he says, are perfect, as having been spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit. And lest I stay longer than is necessary on so manifest a matter, Irenaeus is entirely concerned in the third and fourth books to prove that one and the same God and Father is the author of both Testaments, namely the New and the Old; and that it was he, and no other, who, through his own Word and Spirit, wrote down all those things which the Church has brought into the Canon, through the agency of the sacred writers, both the prophets, and the apostles and evangelists.

4. But how broadly the sacred Canon extended for Irenaeus, and which books he embraced, is not quite so easy to say. It is indeed certain that the following books of the Old Testament are acknowledged by the holy Doctor as sacred and canonical ^C and as having authority, being cited by him as from books of divine authority: the Pentateuch of Moses, Joshua, Judges; the four books of Kings; the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon; the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi. The index of the passages of holy Scripture which we have compiled at the end of this work demonstrates what testimonies he brings forth from these books. He cites this one, once as from Isaiah, but many times as from the prophecy of Jeremiah: And the Lord holy one of Israel remembered his dead, who slept in the earth of burial: and he descended to them to preach salvation, which is from him, that he might save them. He also cites this, as if from Jeremiah, complaining furthermore that the Jews, through their hatred of the Christians, had erased this opinion and many others from the sacred Bibles. ^D From which it is gathered...

that at that time it existed in certain copies of the Christian Bibles, but in very few; for one can scarcely find others, besides Justin and Irenaeus, by whom it is cited. Now it appears nowhere in the sacred books.

That Irenaeus counted Jeremiah’s Threni, or Lamentations, among the canonical Scriptures cannot be doubted. For, in order to prove from these very Scriptures that Christ is the Son of God, and salvation, and the Saviour, and truly to be called and to be "salutary," he brings forward these words from Lam. iv, 20: *The spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord*, among other things taken from the sacred books, though without naming the book from which they are sought, but indicating it only generally, as he is often wont, he says it is Scripture, with this word: For, he says, *The spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord.*

The same must be said of the book of Baruch, which he praises as prophetic and sacred, though not under the name of Baruch, but either under the general name of ^B the prophet or under that of Jeremiah. In Book IV, chap. 29, n. 4, proving that there is one God, who by Word and Wisdom made and fitted all things, who according to his magnitude indeed is unknown to all who were made by him, but according to his love is known always through him by whom he established all things—namely, through his Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made man among men, that he might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God—he says: “And for this reason the prophets, receiving the prophetic charisma from the same Word, preached his advent according to the flesh, through which [CVIII] the commixture and communion of God and man according to the pleasure of the Father was made, from the beginning the Word of God announcing that God would be seen by men and would converse with them upon the earth, etc.” With these last words he manifestly alludes to those in Baruch III, 38: *Afterwards he was seen on earth, and conversed with men.* But in Book V, chap. 35, n. 1, he clearly and in the very words refers to the end of the fourth chapter and the whole fifth chapter ^C of the same Baruch, as if from the prophet Jeremiah: “Signified,” he says, “the prophet Jeremiah, ‘Look round about,’ saying, ‘towards the east of Jerusalem, and behold the joy,’ etc.” From this citation of the books of Baruch by Irenaeus and other Fathers, Feuardentius in his notes on this passage of Irenaeus rightly collects its canonical authority altogether.

Yet see, Grabe rises up against Feuardentius in his notes, and pronounces him to be gravely hallucinating. “For who knows not,” he says, “that apocryphal writings are frequently alleged by the Fathers?” And content with this maxim he trusts that his adversary will be laid prostrate. Therefore, because apocryphal writings are occasionally alleged by the Fathers, must it be immediately pronounced that he who collects from their citation that some book is canonical is hallucinating? If that were so, let some impious person now appear against Grabe who would strike from the whitelist of the Scriptures some one of the four Gospels, or some of the Epistles of Paul or of other apostles; by what argument will this most illustrious man refute him? Or will he think that he can prove by the continuous citation of Fathers and Councils that these sacred ^D writings have always been held by all churches, or by the majority, as canonical? To others, indeed, the argument is invincible, but to Grabe it is utterly weak and useless. For the impious man will straightway counter, and by this single Grabean response—that apocryphal writings are frequently alleged by the Fathers—he will easily break the whole force of the argument and reduce Grabe himself to a standstill. It does not follow, therefore, from the fact that some Fathers have occasionally alleged apocryphal writings, that their credit is to be immediately disparaged when they cite some book as canonical. If indeed so many and such great men had cited some apocryphal writing as long and in as continuous a series as they allege a canonical book, the Grabean difficulty might perhaps press hard. But it is very far from the case that the moments on either side are equal. Those who cited an apocryphal book as sacred are few, nor did their opinion prevail; nay rather, with the majority of the churches prevailing, it became obsolete in the passage of time. On the contrary, when some book which the Church subsequently acknowledged as sacred was alleged by the Fathers, although at the beginning many doubted because the apostolic tradition concerning the matter was a little obscure; yet that, in the passage of time, by a more accurate examination of the matter, and by consulting those churches in which there was a most well-known and continuous succession of bishops from the apostles, having been disclosed, and the truth at length explored to the bottom, the entire Church added its vote to the ancients. So immense and so open a distinction Grabe could easily have perceived, had not the anticipated opinions of the Calvinists and Lutherans blinded him. But of his vain little objection, so often crushed by Catholics, enough has been said. That much, to return to Irenaeus, I might add: if he praised the prophecy of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, he did not do so alone. For indeed in the same manner did Clement of Alexandria allege it, lib. I Pædag., c. 2, and lib. II, c. 3; Cyprian, lib. II Testimon. ad Quirin. and in lib. De oratione Domin.; Eusebius, in the books De demonst. evang.; Basil, lib. IV cont. Eunom., and others both Greek and Latin. The reason is known to all, because Baruch was certainly the disciple of Jeremiah, and his prophecy was joined to the book of his master.

5. Of the books of Tobias, Judith, Esther, Paralipomenon, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Ecclesiasticus, Job, Abdias, Nahum, Sophonias, Aggeus, and the Machabees, nowhere, unless my memory fails me, does mention occur in the books of Irenaeus that are extant. However, that Tobias even then held a place among the prophets in many churches by the same right as Moses, Josue, Amos, Habacuc, Joel, Zacharias, Isaias, Ezechiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Aggeus, Micheas, Nahum, Esdras, and Sophonias, seems to be able to be collected from this, that Irenaeus, in Book I, chapter 30, describing the ravings of the Sethians and Ophites, says in n. 10 that they had thus divided the prophets among the seven Angels, the rulers of the world, who would broadcast predictions in their name and by their inspiration, so that they ascribed Tobias and Aggeus to their Elozi. The histories of Susanna and Bel,

as are referred to in Daniel, chapters XIII and XIV, are read by Irenaeus not only as described in his own copies of the Bible, but he recognizes them as certain, indubitable, sacred, and canonical, and as written by the prophet Daniel; and he cites them in Book IV, ch. 5, n. 2, and ch. 26, n. 3. Eusebius ^A observes that Irenaeus, in the little book he wrote entitled *On Divers Discourses*, made mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon. And acting earlier regarding the books *Against Heresies*, he says: "And he also uses certain sayings from the Wisdom of Solomon, almost saying: The vision of God produces immortality; and immortality makes one to be near to God." He also uses sentiments drawn from the Wisdom of Solomon, saying approximately: "The vision of God brings forth incorruption, and incorruption makes those near to God." Irenaeus uses this sentiment of Wisdom, as it is alleged here by Eusebius, in Book IV, ^B ch. 38, n. 3, in such a way, however, that he neither names the book nor indicates verbatim that it is taken from Scripture: rather, he makes the words of Wisdom so much his own that he conveys partly the sense and partly the very words. For in Wisdom 6:18-19, which passage Irenaeus had before his eyes, it does not read: "The vision of God produces immortality," etc., but: "The attention to laws is the confirmation of immortality; and immortality makes one to be near to God." However, the keeping of the laws is the consummation of incorruption; and incorruption makes one to be near to God. The holy doctor seems to have acknowledged the four books of Esdras; for it does not appear that what he writes in Book III, ch. 21, n. 2, concerning the sacred books corrupted at the time of the Babylonian captivity and afterwards restored by Esdras, God inspiring him, was drawn from any other source than from Book IV, ch. 14 of that work. So much for the Old Testament books mentioned and cited by Irenaeus.

6. As far as the codices of the New Testament are concerned, what he thinks about the four Gospels he reveals immediately from the beginning of the Third Book. After he shows that the evangelists were already endued with the power of the Holy Spirit coming down from on high, and being filled with all things, and possessing perfect knowledge, had applied their minds to writing the Gospel, he adds: "Matthew, indeed, produced a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the Church. But after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also delivered to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel that was preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined upon His breast, himself produced a Gospel while abiding at Ephesus in Asia." Many difficulties occur in these words, which, when we have weighed them in the notes to this passage, it is better to refer the reader there than to detain them longer here. Truly, it was so certain to Irenaeus ^C regarding the number of the four Gospels that, according to him, he would not admit that there could be more in number than these, nor, in turn, fewer. Yet these words are not to be pressed as if it were necessary that there be four Gospels, so that God could neither add to nor subtract from this number. That is not the sense of the holy doctor; he only desires to say that it was established by the most wise providence of God that there should be four Gospels, no more and no fewer. Of this providence, indeed, he brings forward many reasons, taken from the four regions and corners of the world, the four principal winds, the four chief pillars by which every building is supported, the four animals of Ezekiel, etc. — certainly mystical reasons, not demonstrations by which he contends to prove that the matter had to be so, and could not be otherwise (for such an absurd thought could never have entered the mind of Irenaeus), but by which he explains the matter as already done, and shows it to have been ordained by the most wise counsel of God. ^D Moreover, the whole discourse of Irenaeus tended to correct the insane audacity of the Gnostics, who, without any consideration of the counsels of God, whose wisdom they prove so much, increased or diminished the number of the Gospels at their own whim. These things being thus, he says: "They are all vain, and led astray, and moreover bold, who frustrate the appearance of the Gospel, and bring forward either more, or, in turn, fewer persons of the Gospel than those which have been stated; some that they may seem to have discovered more than what is truth; others, however, that they may reject the dispositions of God." It is also permitted to call them vain and ignorant who, like Gallasius and Scultetus, having not even in the smallest degree grasped the mind of Irenaeus, spurn as futile and weak the mystical reasons he brings forward concerning the number of the Gospels. Alas! the most squeamish men of fastidiousness, who have been seized by a satiety for that thing which was so approved by Anastasius Sinaita, Germanus of Constantinople, Jerome, and so many others, that the former transcribed this whole passage of Irenaeus, and the others embraced his reasons. It is better, to use the words of Irenaeus, to be unwise with religious "idiots" of this sort than to be wise with blasphemous and impudent sophists.

7. Regarding other parts of the New Testament, there is only this to be observed: in all the writings of Irenaeus that survive, no mention of the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon occurs; which is not so surprising, because the whole argument of this Epistle contributed nothing to the purpose of Irenaeus. He does indeed occasionally allude to the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet neither that nor its author is cited by name. Thus in Book II, ch. 30, n. 9, he says that God the Father alone made all things by the Word of His power; to which he alludes to that [passage] Heb. 1:3, "upholding all things by the word of His power." And in Book IV, ch. 11, n. 4, he says that the external purifications of the Law were delivered as a figure of things to come, as if the Law were making a description of a certain shadow: which seem to be taken from that Heb. 10:1: "The Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things." Nor

does he otherwise cite the Catholic Epistles of James and Jude, and ^A the second of Peter, unless by inserting certain words of his own, while omitting the place and the author from whence they are taken, as will be clear to anyone who deigns to consult the locations designated in the Index. A different judgment must be made concerning the second Epistle of John, which he recognizes and cites as the Epistle of John the disciple of the Lord (lib. 1, ch. 16, n. 3, and lib. 1, ch. 16, n. 8). He also explicitly ascribes the Apocalypse to John the disciple of the Lord, and cites it under his name (lib. IV, ch. 20, n. 11; lib. V, ch. 35, n. 2, and elsewhere). Neither should it be omitted that Irenæus praises the Shepherd of Hermas as if it were canonical Scripture (lib. IV, ch. 20, n. 2). "Well, therefore," he says, "did the Scripture proclaim, which says: First of all believe that God is one, etc.," which words are taken from the second book of the Shepherd, Mandate 1. But in the same way, many other Greek Fathers cited it, whose testimonies the most learned Cotelerius collected and prefixed to the books of the Shepherd edited by him. To the Latins, however, this Shepherd of Hermas was not held in such high regard: wherefore it was later expunged from the number of sacred books by all the Churches.

8. Among all the versions of sacred Scripture that the Church has used, none seemed more venerable to Irenæus than that which is called the Septuagint. He deemed it almost equal in authority to the Hebrew source itself, as one which he believed to have been made through the inspiration of God. He held the opinion that the seventy men, who are called the Interpreters, possessed something like the role of prophets, who, with the Holy Spirit breathing upon and directing them, composed their version. Irenæus therefore believes that Ptolemy, son of Lagus, when it was his desire to adorn the library he had built at Alexandria with books of every kind, sent envoys to seek from the Jerusalemites both their Scriptures and men skilled in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, who might translate the same from Hebrew into Greek. The Jerusalemites, who were then subject to the Macedonians, doing the king’s will, sent seventy chosen elders, the most skilled in the Scriptures and in both languages. Ptolemy, fearing that the interpreters, by mutual agreement, might be unwilling to divulge the mysteries of the Scriptures and would produce an imitation with a spurious and adulterated translation, separating them from one another, ordered all of them to translate the same Scripture; and he did this for all the books; ^D that is, he ordered that they should all translate the same book of Scripture at the same time. However, upon their meeting together in one place before Ptolemy, and comparing their translations, God was glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine, since all confirmed them by reciting the same things, in the same words, and with the same names, from beginning to end: so that even the Gentiles might know that the Scriptures were translated through the inspiration of God. As for whether the matter is credible, Irenæus adds that it is no wonder if the same God who once inspired Ezra to restore the sacred Scriptures similarly inspired the LXX Interpreters when they translated the same into the Greek tongue. For the Scriptures having been corrupted at the time of the Babylonian captivity, God, in the times of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, inspired Ezra the priest of the tribe of Levi to restore all the oracles of the ancient prophets, and to restore to the people the law that was given through Moses. From all of which he concludes (which was his purpose) that those heretics are truly shameless and bold who, in order to fortify their heresy with the authority of the Scriptures, dare to bring forth other interpretations of Scripture besides that most ancient one, which was produced in such miraculous ways; for the apostles, being more ancient than all the heretics, confirm the aforementioned interpretation, and the interpretation conforms to the tradition of the apostles; since they announced all prophetic matters in the way that the interpretation of the Elders contains. This is how Irenæus argued, in order to prove that those words of Isaiah, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son," were corrupted by Theodotion and Aquila, when they translated the word *almah*, virgin, as *neanis*, young woman; lest, of course, from that passage of Isaiah it might be inferred that Christ was born of a Virgin.

9. It is not our purpose here to examine the history of the LXX version: as that has been done extensively by many, and those most learned men. It suffices to note only a few things regarding our Irenæus’s account. First, it was not Irenæus alone who valued the version of the LXX Interpreters so highly: it was held in the same honor by all the Fathers of the first four centuries, among whom that opinion had prevailed, that the Interpreters had performed the duty and office of prophets. The source from which this common estimation of the ancients flowed was the history of Aristæas, whether it be true or false; a witness, as he himself loves to be believed, of eyes, which Josephus (lib. XII of the Antiquities, ch. 2) and Philo (lib. II, De vita Mosis) reported in summary, and which all, both the ancient Jews and the earlier Christians, received with unanimous consent; then the oft-repeated opinion that the seventy Interpreters were enclosed in as many separate cells by Ptolemy, and were so inspired by God that, when the versions were compared one with another, all were found to have agreed in the same meanings, words, and names. Aristæas, indeed, does not mention this circumstance: the first to mention it before Irenæus was Justin Martyr in his Exhortation to the Gentiles; but both received the tradition partly from Philo, and partly from other Jews, who chose to adorn the history of Aristæas with new miracles. 2. That Ptolemy, during whose reign and by whose order the Scriptures were translated from Hebrew into Greek, was, in the opinion of Irenæus, not Philadelphus, as Aristæas, Josephus, Philo, Tertullian in his Apology, and most other Fathers think, but the son of Lagus; which was the same opinion held by Clement of Alexandria (lib. 1 Strom., p. 341 et seqq.). This is indeed burdened by grave difficulties, and can scarcely, if at all, be reconciled with the history of Aristæas, once its authority has been established. Nevertheless, they attempt to reconcile it, those who, under the leadership of Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, whose fragment Eusebius quotes...

(Hist. eccl. VII, 32), believe that the version of the LXX Interpreters, if not then made, was at least decreed, and an embassy to the Jews for the purpose of acquiring the sacred codices was sent at the time when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, had admitted Philadelphus, his son, into partnership in the kingdom; so that it could be ascribed to both. But I fear that Aristaeas would not admit this method of reconciliation. In my judgment, those cut the knot who, having examined the authority of that Aristaeas, believe it to be certain that the Scriptures were translated into Greek by select and learned Jews, either during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, or Philadelphus, or perhaps during the reign of both and at the command of both; and that all the rest was fabricated by Aristaeas, a Hellenistic Jew, and other more recent Jews, in accordance with the genius of their nation, so that the matter might have a sense of wonder. But these things we remit to the critics: it is enough for us that Irenaeus cannot be accused of vain credulity, as he adopted a view which, in his time—the matter not yet having been subjected to critical laws—all Christians defended with the more confidence, in that, as the Jews of that time were malignantly disparaging the version of the LXX Interpreters, which provided the Christian Church with weapons against them, it could not enter into the suspicion of the holy Fathers that the book of Aristaeas had been fabricated by a Jew.

3° The confidence that Christ the Lord, in citing the testimonies of the Old Testament, disregarded the Hebrew text and took account only of said version, did not a little, among Christians, bestow authority upon the version of the Seventy. Such, indeed, was the opinion of many of the Fathers, though not of Irenaeus. At least, I do not think it can be derived from his words, as I showed in the notes to this place. He seems to derive the authority for this version from him for this reason alone (which is the genuine foundation of his authority), that in all the testimonies of the Old Testament cited by the apostles, nothing occurs that is repugnant to the version of the Seventy; nay, all apostolic testimonies agree with the aforementioned interpretation, and the interpretation agrees with the apostolic preaching; and the apostles announced all the prophetic things in the same way that the interpretation of the Elders contains them. And for this argument to hold, it is not necessary that all the testimonies brought forth by the apostles respond to the Greek of the Seventy; but the sincerity and fidelity of these is sufficiently proven ^B if they agree with the apostolic testimonies in terms of meaning.

4° Irenaeus seems to hold that not only the Pentateuch, but also all the canonical Scriptures of the Jews were translated into the Greek language by the order of King Ptolemy. For he always uses the indefinite word "Scriptures," nor does he add anything that would restrict this to the Pentateuch. Indeed, that which he writes—both that Ptolemy had asked the Jerusalemites to have their Scriptures translated, and that he had ordered the same interpreters, separated from one another, to translate the same Scripture, and that they had done this for all the books—sufficiently indicates that all the books which were sacred to the Jews were translated. For since Irenaeus thought that Ptolemy wanted to adorn his library with writings worthy of all men, he ought consequently to have believed that the oracles of the prophets were not neglected by him, since they are writings certainly worthy to adorn the royal library. In short, if, according to Irenaeus, the apostles announced all the prophetic things in the same way that the interpretation of the Elders contains them: therefore, the Elders interpreted all the prophetic things, not only the Pentateuch, in the opinion of our author—which was the same as that of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others.

5° Finally, that Irenaeus thinks the sacred Scriptures were corrupted at the time of the Babylonian captivity and subsequently restored by Ezra under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, seems drawn, as I have already said, from the apocryphal book IV Esdras, chapter 14, where the author relates that five men, at the dictation of Ezra, wrote many books of things revealed to him. Be that as it may, I do not think it can be inferred from the words of Irenaeus that the Scriptures had perished entirely at the time of the captivity. For he does not say that the Scriptures had been lost, but corrupted; nor that, through Ezra's efforts, they had been entirely resurrected and brought to light again, but that God inspired Ezra the priest to *ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους* (to set in order the preceding words of the prophets) and *ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωϋσέως νομοθεσίαν* (and to restore to the people the legislation given through Moses), i.e., to arrange all the utterances of the old prophets in order and to restore to the people the law that was given through Moses. Irenaeus, therefore, only means this: that the Scriptures had been corrupted by both the ignorance and the negligence of the Jews; that they were received and recognized—and purified from the errors that had crept in—by Ezra under divine inspiration; and that the books of the prophets, while lying in confusion and in a disturbed order, had been restored to their pristine order, and finally that the law, as if buried by long oblivion, had been promulgated anew and proposed to the people. Thus Irenaeus does not depart from the common opinion of the other Fathers and interpreters. ^C

10. In the same place, Irenaeus mentions other versions of the Old Testament, namely those of Theodotion the Ephesian and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes; but only in passing, and on the occasion of that testimony of Isaiah: *Behold a virgin shall conceive*, which he rightly complains was corrupted by them in their evil interpretation. And taking the occasion from this, he commends the faith and authority of the version of the LXX, in the manner we have said, and prefers it by far to all others. In citing the places of the Old Testament, he generally follows this one. But if he sometimes seems to depart from it, a threefold cause for this can be offered: 1° That sometimes he cites not from the codex, but from memory; and this is evident from the fact that, often bringing forth the same testimonies in different places, he does not always write them in the same way, but here added to with certain words, there abridged, as memory suggested and the occasion offered. 2° That not all the codices of the Seventy agreed with one another in all things. How great a diversity was among those codices ^D in the age of Origen, and how much Origen had to labor to reconcile them one with another, or...

by cutting out those which had been wrongly added through the negligence or audacity of librarians, or by adding those which had been wrongly omitted, he himself teaches in book 15 of his Commentary on Matthew. Since, therefore, the codices of the version of the Seventy were not the same everywhere, it is no wonder if the things which Irenaeus brings forth from it do not always agree exactly with our own. For the codices that remain to us are fewer in number; far more were in circulation in the age of Irenaeus; ^A if these still existed, we should be able to judge more certainly of those which he used. 3. That the Latin interpreter of Irenaeus sometimes translated less accurately the Scripture testimonies which the holy doctor cites, or did not translate them from the Greek itself, but, sparing himself labor, inserted into the text of Irenaeus the readings as they were found in the common Latin versions. And the same reasons hold good, not only for the places of the Old Testament, but also for the New Testament passages which Irenaeus cited. For he did not always produce them from the codex, but sometimes from memory; and the diversity between the codices of the New Testament was no less than among those of the Old, as Jerome often complained, and as is sufficiently evident from all those Greek ones that still survive today: nor was the carelessness of the interpreter of Irenaeus in translating them any less. This is gathered especially from the fact that he followed the old Vulgate ^B Italic version word for word, not rarely, as I have observed in many places. There is, however, no need for me to warn that such a great variety never existed among all the codices, whether of the Old or New Testament, which the Church used, and which Irenaeus read, that the sense suffered any loss: the matter itself speaks for itself, and to him who would wish to compare all the passages alleged either by our author or by the ancient Fathers with our own modern copies of holy Scripture, it will immediately become clear that the whole difference lies in certain words, while the sense always remains unimpaired. I only wish to be gathered from what has been said so far that hardly anything certain can be established about the codices, especially of the New Testament, which Irenaeus used: so much so that, from the passages of Scripture which he alleges, one cannot conclude anything certain and indubitable, as in such and such a way the codices of Irenaeus absolutely held; but that such arguments must be proposed soberly, and must remain within the limits of conjecture. If the illustrious Grabe had attended to these things, he would not have pronounced so confidently that this or that existed in the ancient codices of the Church, or was absent from them. Whoever is prudent, and even slightly versed in the reading of the Fathers, abstains from such judgments, lest he incur the mark of rashness.

ARTICLE II.

On the perspicuity and obscurity of the Scriptures.

11. That the holy Scriptures are clear and perspicuous, and that their sense is easy and obvious to any attentive and studious reader, is a common error of the Protestants, which it is a wonder if they did not attribute to Irenaeus, a Father of such great authority. Although the illustrious Grabe insinuates this a little more sparingly in his notes, he inculcates it more solicitously in the general Index under the word Scripture. Holy Scripture, he says, proposes all things that we ought to know openly and without the covering of parables. When it is read by the Jews, it is obscure and like a fable, but to Christians it is perspicuous. But if you compare the passages indicated there, you will marvel that nothing less than what the Index promises occurs. And the illustrious man was no more accurate, not to say sincere, in the note which he added in book 2, chapter 46, of his edition, page 172 (but in ours, chapter 27, no. 2, page 155). Indeed, on the occasion of those words of Irenaeus: "Since, therefore, all the Scriptures, both the Prophecies and the Gospels, can be heard in the open, and without ambiguity, and likewise by all," etc., Feuardentius had warned as intelligently as he did truly: "He does not mean," he says, "that all the Scriptures are so open, and obvious to anyone, that there is no obscurity in them; since he frequently affirms the contrary elsewhere," etc. But that they so perspicuously and constantly preach the one and only God, the creator and ruler of the world, that no one, who ^C attends to this, can be ignorant of it. Grabe truly adds: "Nevertheless, on the preceding page he says universally, openly and without ambiguity, in the very words placed in the Scriptures, what indeed God gave into the power of men, and submitted to our knowledge, as he speaks there: that is, what God wished to be known, or believed, by us." It is true indeed that Irenaeus asserts at the beginning of the chapter that some things are placed in the Scriptures openly and without ambiguity, in the very words; but that this proposition of Irenaeus is universal, and that by it the holy doctor wished to embrace all those things which God wished to be known or believed by us, Grabe's commentaries are diametrically opposed to the text itself. Indeed, after Irenaeus, in the preceding chapter, refuted the insane curiosity of the Gnostics, who searched the Scriptures rashly, and, delighted with insipid questions and commentaries on God and divine things, were puffed up with pride under the name of knowledge: then at the beginning of the following chapter (in which he proposes to himself to demonstrate that from parables, under which a manifold sense may lie, obscure things are not to be explained, but from those things which are placed clearly and openly in the ^D Scriptures) he subjoins, that the healthy sense, and that which is without danger, and religious, and a lover of the truth, which indeed God gave into the power of men,

and ^A subjected to our knowledge, to meditate upon these things readily, and to progress in them, making the knowledge of them easy through long study. But he indicates immediately what those things are, which God gave into the power of men, and subjected to our knowledge: "They are these, however," he adds, "which occur before our eyes, and whatsoever are set forth openly and without ambiguity in the very words of the Scriptures." But does anyone who speaks in this way—that "whatever is set forth openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures" are all the things which God gave into the power of men, and subjected to our knowledge; that is, whatever God willed to be known or believed by us—read Irenæus with bleary eyes if he concludes thus? The holy doctor intends that there are some things, the investigation of which God has permitted to us, and which He has subjected to our knowledge; and that these are: 1. Things which occur before our eyes, namely natural things; certainly not all those things which are contained in the Scriptures, since no one of sound mind would say that these things occur before our eyes. And so, while God may have permitted to our knowledge and investigation whatsoever are set forth openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures, it does not follow from this, except by a childish sophism, that all things which God willed to be known or believed by us are set forth openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures. Otherwise, by the same right, it could be concluded that all things which God willed to be known or believed by us occur before our eyes, that is, fall under our sight; for Irenæus does not separate the one from the other; a conclusion which would, however, be most absurd. For these propositions are indeed far different: "Whatsoever things occur before our eyes, and are set forth openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures, all these God gave into the power of men, and subjected to our knowledge"; and: "All those things which God willed to be known or believed by us are set forth openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures." The first proposition is Irenæus’s; the second is that of Grabius alone, certainly not that of the holy doctor.

12. So far is he from saying that all things which are contained in the Scriptures are set forth openly and without ambiguity in the very words, that, on the contrary, after he shows that the clear and perspicuous words of Scripture are not to be explained by obscure parables, he subjoins that it is foolish and absurd to join what has not been stated openly in the Scriptures, nor set before our eyes, to the solutions of parables, which everyone invents as he pleases. Therefore, besides the parables, to which a manifold sense may underlie, other things occur in the Scriptures which are not stated openly; and are therefore obscure, and not easily permeable to everyone, but which stand in need of explanation and an interpreter. Yet those things, ^B even if they are obscure, God surely willed to be believed, if not to be known by us. But if you inquire of Irenæus what those things are which are stated openly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures, he will answer: not universally, as Grabius wrongly assumes, but individually, and as far as it pertained to the present argument, namely that there is one and only God, the creator and ruler of the world. "When, therefore," he says, "all the Scriptures, and the Prophecies, and the Gospels, can be heard by all in the open, and without ambiguity, even if not all believe, that they preach one and only God, to the exclusion of others, to have made all things through His Word, whether visible or invisible, etc., and the creature itself, in which we are, through the things which come into sight, testifying to this very thing, that there is one who made it and rules it: they will appear very dull who against so clear an indication blind their eyes, etc." How many things very obscure are in the Scriptures, which cannot be explained by us, he teaches more fully in the following chapter, where he proves that many difficulties occur in them which cannot be solved by us, but whose solution ought to be committed to God alone with humble faith: that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, as being inspired by the Word of God and His Spirit; but that they abound in such great mysteries that for the understanding of them there is need of revelation: since indeed the limits of our mind are so narrow, that it grows blind even in natural things themselves, of which we have constant use, and which we see and handle daily. The words can be read in the author in n. 2 and 3, since they are passages too long to be transcribed here. And in lib. IV, cap. 26, n. 1 (where Grabius also abuses the passage), he teaches that Christ is the treasure hidden in the Scriptures, revealed by the advent and cross of the same Christ. That all prophecies, before they have their efficacy, are enigmas and ambiguities to men: but when the time has come, and that which was prophesied has happened, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And ^C for this reason indeed, when the Law is read in this present time, it is like a fable to the Jews; for they do not have the exposition of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, who is according to man; but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure hidden in a field, but revealed and explained by the cross of Christ. The reason is, because Christians have the exposition of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son. But from whom do they have it? From those who are presbyters in the Church, whom therefore it becomes us to obey, those namely who have the succession from the apostles; who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain charisma of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. ^D For where the charismata of the Lord are, there it behooves one to learn the truth, among whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and it consists of that which is sound and irreproachable in conversation, and unadulterated and incorruptible in speech. For they both guard our faith, which is in the one God who made all things; and they increase that love which is in the Son of God... and explain the Scriptures to us without danger. The rest

who depart from the principal succession, and assemble in any place whatsoever, are to be held as suspect, either as heretics and of evil opinion; or as those who cause schisms, and are puffed up and please themselves; or again as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of profit and vainglory. But all these have fallen away from the truth. ^A

13. Let the learned Grabius now see whether these words of Irenaeus, to which he himself refers, favor his own cause. Let him see whether, in the opinion of the holy doctor, the Scriptures are so clear and open that they stand in no need of an interpreter. Let him see whether their interpretation is permitted to the judgment of any private individual. Finally, let him see and seriously ponder whether that society—either the one in which he was born, or the one to which he has joined himself—nurtures such presbyters as Irenaeus describes here, who have the succession from the apostles; who, along with the episcopal succession, have received the certain charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father; and who also guard the apostolic doctrine ^B and provide a sound discourse and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of the rest, etc. Let him, to speak with Tertullian, bring forth the origins of his churches; let him unfold the order of his bishops, so running down by successions from the beginning that that first bishop may have had as his author and predecessor someone from among the apostles, or from those apostolic men who, however, persisted with the apostles. Let him contrive whatever he pleases; if he wishes to act candidly and sincerely, when he arrives at Matthew Parker in England, Luther in Germany, Calvin in Gaul, and other such recent leaders and founders of sects, he will discover that they have either inverted the apostolic succession by a ludicrous and sacrilegious ordination, or have utterly overturned it by spurning all ordination. But enough of these.

ARTICLE III. On the authority and foundation of Tradition.

14. That the sacred Scriptures are indeed the words of God, and a certain and immutable rule of truth, to which it is permitted to add nothing nor take anything away, Irenaeus most rightly holds. Yet, that all words of God are not contained therein explicitly, but that the apostles, as Christ’s legates and heralds, taught more things than they consigned to writing, he no less openly proclaims. For when he is about to refute heretics by the authority of Tradition, he shows ^C already at the beginning of the third book that such is the perversity of these impious men that, when they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn into an accusation of the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct, nor from authority, and because they are interpreted variously, and because the truth cannot be found from them by those who do not know Tradition; for it was not handed down by letters, but by the living voice... But when we challenge them to that tradition again, which is from the apostles, which is preserved in the Church by the successions of presbyters; they oppose the tradition, saying that they themselves, being wiser not only than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, have found the sincere truth. It results, therefore, that they agree with neither the Scriptures nor tradition. From which these things follow liquidly: 1. That heretics confessed the Scriptures to be spoken of in various ways, that is, that they are sometimes obscure, and that various meanings underlie them. 2. That the meaning of obscure passages is to be sought from tradition, not that which was handed down by letters, but by the living voice. Irenaeus does not rebuke these points; rather, in what follows, he proves them, as will soon be seen. 3. That Tradition is more extensive than the Scriptures, and is distinguished by them, as it is their interpreter; and this conclusion of Irenaeus demonstrates: It results, therefore, that they agree with neither the Scriptures nor tradition. And after he has discoursed at greater length on apostolic tradition, now putting an end to the argument, and about to return to that which he had sought from the Scriptures, he begins chapter 5 thus: "By the tradition, therefore, which is from the apostles, thus existing in the Church, and remaining among us, let us return to that demonstration which is from the Scriptures, of those who wrote the Gospel, the apostles, etc." Where he transparently distinguishes the tradition of the apostles from their writings. But I cannot but rebuke here, in passing, the bad faith of Gallasius, who, since he could not adulterate these clear words of Irenaeus in the text, dared to corrupt them in his summaries: "The tradition," he says, "of the apostles agrees with their writings, to which we must always return." Whether that is the sense of Irenaeus’s words, let anyone judge who has eyes, and let him not hereafter put trust in the authors of such new editions. In that age of Irenaeus, therefore, it was certain that it was not enough for Catholic faith that one should agree with ^D the Scriptures, unless he also agreed with Tradition: that which was handed down by the apostles not by letters, but by the living voice, and which is preserved in the Church through the successions of presbyters, that is, of bishops. And hence also it was confessed by all that not the Scriptures only, but Tradition also, was the rule of our faith; for neither were the heretics challenged merely to the Scriptures, as more recent heterodox thinkers wish to be challenged, but also to Tradition, as to the most certain [rule] of the Christian.

^A And the rule of catholic truth: by this, as our author says in the following chapter, all those who—whether out of self-satisfaction, vainglory, blindness, or perversity of opinion—gathered things other than they ought, were confounded. But if any did not consent to the tradition, there was a struggle against them, and the Church Fathers considered that they must be resisted on all sides.

15. But as to why the holy doctors wish the tradition and the catholic faith to be guarded with such great weight, the reason from Irenæus is at hand: because tradition is from the apostles. Naturally, the apostles did not commit to writings all the things which they taught; rather, they delivered many things by the oracle of the living voice, especially to those to whom they committed the Churches; and these through the successions of the bishops have come down even to us. Therefore, the tradition of the apostles, he says (chap. 3, n. 1), is manifest in the whole world, and it is available for all who wish to see the truth to look upon it in every Church; and we are able to number those who were appointed bishops by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors down to our own time, who neither taught nor knew any such thing as those people deliriously imagine. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught the perfect separately and secretly from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were committing the very Churches. For they wished those whom they left as their successors, handing over their own position of authority to them, to be truly perfect and irreprehensible in all things, so that by their acting uprightly, great benefit would be achieved, but if they failed, the greatest calamity would result. ^B Therefore, that argument is most firm and ineluctable. When any dogma is proposed in the Church that cannot be sufficiently supported or impugned by the Scriptures, it must be measured against the tradition of the Churches; if it agrees with it, it must be referred to the apostles themselves as accepted; if it dissents, it must be immediately rejected and condemned. For since all the Churches were founded either by the apostles themselves, or by the disciples or successors of the apostles; and the bishops who were first appointed to rule those Churches approached them well-instructed in the knowledge of all things that the apostles had taught and explained, which they had received and accepted from Christ—for the apostles wished those whom they left as successors, handing over their own position of authority to them, to be truly perfect and irreprehensible in all things—these successors of the apostles, in turn, delivered and entrusted what they had received from the apostles to their own successors, and these to others, until we ourselves received the apostolic tradition and doctrine, which has arrived even to us through the successions of the bishops. From which it is evidently clear that what Irenæus and other holy Fathers call the tradition of the apostles is the very doctrine of the apostles, which they delivered and entrusted by living voice both to the Churches founded by themselves and to those whom they appointed as bishops; for this, as I have already said, Irenæus openly distinguishes from the Scriptures. No less ^C of authority, therefore, is this, than the apostolic writings themselves, since both are the words of God and of Christ Himself. For whether the apostles taught, by living voice or by writing, anything that necessarily pertains to faith or morals, it is Christ’s doctrine, revealed and accepted by Christ, which they delivered while the Holy Spirit was breathing upon and guiding them: it is therefore the word of God, to be referred to God Himself as acceptable. For this reason our author opposes tradition to the heretics so anxiously in the first chapters of the third book, and often elsewhere, and rightly wishes its weight to be such that whoever thinks wrongly is overwhelmed by it. Therefore, those who either despise or violate the tradition must be resisted on all sides, and he warns that they are to be avoided as thieves and robbers. It is necessary, he says, to avoid them indeed; but one must love the things that belong to the Church with the greatest diligence, and apprehend the tradition of truth. Therefore, finally, he attributes so much to tradition that even if the apostles had left us no Scriptures, it would still be necessary to follow the order of the tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches. Which is so true, he adds, that many barbarian nations, of those who believe in Christ, assent to this ordinance, having salvation written in their hearts through the Spirit without paper and ink (that is, without Scriptures), and diligently keeping the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, etc. These who have believed without letters are barbarians, as far as our language is concerned; but as regards knowledge, custom, and conversation, they are most wise because of the faith, and they please God, living in all justice, chastity, and wisdom. Demanding that all new things proposed by heretics be tested against this one norm of tradition, these barbarians at once closing their ears would flee very far away, not even enduring to hear the blasphemous discourse. Thus, by that ancient apostolic tradition, they do not even admit into the conception of their mind whatever is the portentous speech of the heretics. Behold what, and how great, was the authority of tradition among the ancient Fathers of the Church and apostolic men.

16. Moreover, that by which the apostolic tradition has flowed down to us uncorrupted, as though through a canal, is the succession of the bishops ^D legitimately ordained in the catholic Church. For the apostles did not appoint or permit anyone to be put in charge of the Churches unless he was first well-versed in all things that necessarily pertain to faith and morals, and had been skillfully imbued with the knowledge of all things that they had proposed for the Church to believe and do: so that, to be sure, he might transmit the same knowledge to those who came after. And hence Irenæus urges this succession of bishops so sharply and so frequently against the heretics, believing, clearly, that nothing is more effective for beating back all heretical obstinacy. For it is not necessary, he says, to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to take from the Church: since the apostles, as if in

a rich storehouse, deposited most fully into her all things that are of the truth, so that every man, whosoever wishes, may take from her the drink of life. Moreover, the custodians of that rich storehouse, into which the apostles have most fully deposited everything that is of the truth, are those whom God Himself has established in His Church as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God; namely, the bishops, who have been ordained and consecrated in the Catholic Church through the legitimate imposition of hands by the apostles and their successors. For this reason, our author says, if there were any ^A dispute about some small question, would it not be necessary to recur to the most ancient churches, in which the apostles conversed, and from them to take what is certain and clear regarding the present question? The reason is that not only did the apostles converse in those most ancient churches and deposit into them most fully all things that are of the truth; but they also set over them bishops, who would succeed them in their government; whom they wished to be very perfect and irreproachable in all things; for if they had known deep mysteries, they would have handed them down especially to those to whom they were committing the churches themselves.

17. Irenæus therefore rightly appeals to the succession of bishops against the heretics, because that succession is a most certain, undoubted, and to all manifest, argument of apostolic tradition and doctrine; by it, the true is discerned from the false, and it is transmitted to us sincere and undefiled. The tradition of the apostles, he says, manifested in the whole world, is present for all who wish to see the truth to behold in every Church. Why so? Because, he adds, we are able to enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and the custodians and stewards of that tradition, and their successors down to us, who have taught or known nothing of the kind of which the heretics rave. But because it would be long, as he himself says ^B, to enumerate the successions of all the churches; he thinks it enough, and indeed rightfully and deservedly so, if the tradition which it has from the apostles and the faith announced to men, coming down to us through the successions of bishops, be indicated for the most important and more renowned, and first of all for the greatest and most ancient, and known to all, and founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, that all may be confounded, who, in any way, whether by gathering elsewhere than is proper, that is, by acting contrary to right and justice, hold gatherings. For in that Church the tradition which is from the apostles has always been preserved. Which he forthwith proves from the continuous succession of the Roman bishops from Peter down to Eleutherus, who in his own time was ruling the Roman Church; and having enumerated this, he concludes ^C: By this ordination and succession, the tradition in the Church which is from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, has reached down to us. And this is a most full demonstration, that it is one and the same life-giving faith, which in the Church from the apostles even until now, has been preserved and handed down in truth.

18. He adds to the tradition of the Roman Church the ^D tradition of the Asian churches, especially of Smyrna and Ephesus, which he proves likewise from the succession of bishops. For in that which is in Smyrna, the Church of Polycarp, instructed by the apostles and having conversed with many of those who saw our Lord, having been appointed bishop in Asia by the apostles, always taught those things which he had learned from the apostles, which he also handed down to the Church, and which alone are true. The churches that are in Asia, and those who have succeeded Polycarp even until now, bear witness to these things... But also the Church which is at Ephesus, founded indeed by Paul, but with John remaining among them up to the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the apostles' tradition. And hence he most correctly concludes 60, that it is right to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who have the succession from the apostles; who with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father [CXV]; but to treat the rest, who depart from the principal succession, and in whatsoever place they gather, as suspects, or as heretics and of evil doctrine; or as schismatics, and proud, and self-pleasing; or, on the other hand, as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vain glory. And 61 that it is necessary to learn the truth among those with whom is that succession which is from the apostles for the Church, and that which is sound and irreproachable in manner of life, and unadulterated and incorrupt in speech, abides. For they keep our faith, which is in one God, who made all things; and they increase that love which is in the Son of God, who performed such dispensations on our account: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger. Hence, finally, he rightly infers 62, that through the successions of bishops, to whom the apostles handed down the Church which is in each place, there has reached down to us the most full handling of the Scriptures with a keeping without fiction, receiving neither addition nor subtraction; and reading without falsification; and a legitimate and diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, and without danger, and without blasphemy; and the special privilege of love, etc.

19. From all these things it follows that the succession of bishops is the most certain argument, by which it is demonstrated that the apostolic tradition has been always preserved pure and unblemished in the Church; and that, undefiled, it has reached us through the bishops, who have succeeded one another from the times of the apostles down to our own; provided only that the bishops have been ordained legitimately and according to the laws of the Church, and have not fallen away from the unity of the Church. For, as our author says 63, the true tradition and doctrine of the apostles is God's gift to the Church.

which he confers, just as inspiration is given to his creation, so that all the members who receive it may be vivified. And as we have already said, quoting the same Irenæus: "It is not worth seeking the truth from others when it is easy to take it from the Church, since the apostles, as into a rich repository, deposited everything that belongs to the truth in her, most fully." Therefore, whoever has fallen away from the unity of the Church, being alienated from that rich repository of the Spirit of God and the truth, does not share in its part. The reason is that from the moment any bishop—albeit ordained according to the rite of the Catholic Church and maintaining the order of succession—has withdrawn from unity, if he should fall into error, he has already deprived himself of all the means by which he might be reclaimed. It is of the highest importance to test one’s private opinion against the traditions of other Churches, primarily the Roman Church, which is the center of unity, and to seek from them the legitimate sense of the Scriptures. If, therefore, anyone refuses to listen to them, he has, beyond any doubt, blocked off for himself the approach to the truth. ^B

20. It follows, then, that only in the Church is the tradition that is from the apostles preserved; that only from those presbyters is the truth to be learned; that only by them is our faith guarded, and the Scriptures expounded to us without risk—that only through them has a most full treatment of the Scriptures reached us, preserved without fiction, receiving neither addition nor subtraction, and a reading without adulteration, and a legitimate, diligent, risk-free, and blasphemy-free exposition according to the Scriptures, among whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles; for they, with the succession of the episcopate, have also received the sure charisma of truth, according to the pleasure of the Father. But all the rest, who stand apart from the principal succession and who, in whatever place they organize meetings or hold assemblies, are to be held as suspects; for they have all fallen away from the truth, which can be found only in that Church in which the order of apostolic succession is maintained. Furthermore, it is in the Roman Church alone (by which name I here understand all those Churches which, with the Roman—the greatest, most ancient, known to all, and the center of unity, according to Irenæus—are linked by the bond of communion) that the legitimate order of apostolic succession is found; it consists in this: that the first bishop of each Church, having been called, ordained, and constituted bishop by the apostles, or their disciples and successors, has received the mission and authority to found, govern, and preach the Word of God to the flock committed to his charge, to administer the sacraments, and to ordain other ministers, both superior and inferior, who will perpetuate the ecclesiastical ministry within the Church. Outside the Roman Church, it is impossible to assign such a legitimate succession of bishops ^C who can refer the mission and authority they received back to the apostles through intermediate successors. In vain, therefore, would you seek outside the Roman Church that tradition which is from the apostles, in vain would you seek the truth and the legitimate, diligent, risk-free, and blasphemy-free exposition of the Scriptures, etc. Irenæus rightly trusted that he could overwhelm all the heretics and schismatics of his own time with the weight of this argument; the same argument has been used to crush later heretics by the Holy Fathers who followed him: Tertullian, Cyprian, Optatus, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others throughout.

21. But what seemed most effective and irrefutable to the Holy Fathers for confounding all the heretics and schismatics of their time must be no less effective for the downfall of the heretics of our time—the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and all others who have made a secession from the Roman Church. Indeed, since they, no less than the ancient heretics, have withdrawn from the principal succession, they are convicted by this very fact of having fallen away from the truth just as they did. Therefore, we can say to the architects, leaders, and standard-bearers of their sects—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others—the same things that Tertullian said to those ancients: "Who are you? When and whence have you come? What are you doing in my house, since you are not mine? By what right, Zwingli, do you cut down my forest? By what license, Calvin, do you divert my springs? By what power, Luther, do you move my boundaries? The possession is mine: I have possessed it from of old, I possess it first, I have firm origins from the very authors whose the property was. I am the heir of the apostles." I desire, therefore, that Luther, Calvin, etc., show me by what authority they have come forth... If they dare to insert their heresies into the apostolic age... we can say: "Let them produce the origins of their Churches: let them unroll the order of their bishops, so running down by successions from the beginning that that first bishop had as his author and predecessor some one of the apostles or of the apostolic men who indeed persevered with the apostles." For in this way the apostolic Churches present their records; just as the Church of the Smyrnæans reports that it has Polycarp, placed there by John: just as the Romans set forth Clement, ordained by Peter: so, too, the others show those whom, having been constituted in the episcopate by the apostles, they possess as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics of today invent something of the sort. They certainly cannot invent it, who have turned all order of apostolic succession upside down, who have overturned ecclesiastical hierarchy from its very foundations, who have violated through supreme crime the legitimate, ancient, and apostolic law of ordaining sacred ministers, and who, having received no mission or authority from those who derived their own from the apostles themselves through legitimate succession, have taken upon themselves the honor and, not being called by God as was Aaron, have usurped the ecclesiastical ministry. To these, as well as to the ancient heretics, apply those words of the same Tertullian: "Their ordinations are rash, light, inconstant;

^A now appointing neophytes, now men bound by secular ties, now our apostates, so that they may retain them by the honor they bestow, since they cannot retain them by the truth. Nowhere does one make progress more easily than in the camps of the rebels, where to be there is enough to be worthy. Thus, one is a bishop today, another tomorrow; one is a deacon today, who is a reader tomorrow; one is a priest today, who is a layman tomorrow. For they enjoin priestly duties even upon laymen. Indeed, those who first laid the foundations of the new religion, having foully trampled upon all ancient canons, were either simple priests, and those apostates, excommunicated by the Roman Church, and destitute of legitimate and canonical authority and power, who arrogated to themselves the office of teaching, of administering the sacraments, and of ordaining other ministers; and who, even if they had been canonically ordained as bishops in the Catholic Church, yet from the time they departed from it through apostasy, heresy, and schism, had fallen from the legitimate authority which they had received; and consequently could not beget others than those resembling themselves—apostates, that is, and sons of perdition—certainly not true ministers of the Church. ^B

22. This most annoying argument, taken from the continuous succession of bishops, especially of the Romans, which it is not part of our present design to pursue more fully, the renowned Grabe strives to weaken in more than one place. "Now," he says in his notes to chapter 3 of book III, "that kind of argument is less valid, after the Roman popes have added to the tradition received from the Apostles other articles, partly uncertain, partly false; the explicit profession of which, as long as they strictly require of all, they use that argument in vain against others who are divided from their communion." But if that kind of argument is less valid now, it must be concluded from Grabe’s own reply that it was never valid, and that the ancient Fathers labored in vain when they so confidently opposed it to the heretics and schismatics of their own time. For if Grabe contends with any right that later Roman pontiffs have added to the tradition received from the Apostles other articles, partly uncertain, partly false; the ancient heretics could certainly contend in the same way that the tradition received from the Apostles had been similarly adulterated by earlier Roman pontiffs. Come, let someone from the flock of the Gnostics step forward against Irenaeus, and let him use Grabe’s reply to break the force of that argument. Let Grabe now test its strength; I am certain that the Gnostic, mocking the vain efforts of that man, would remain safe from all his weapons; it would be little indeed if he did not easily pierce the adversary himself with those very same weapons. But if it does not please Grabe to test how much and what he can do against the Gnostic, let him remember how unsuccessfully his own have fought hitherto against domestic heretics, the Socinians. Scarcely, when the question is about the meaning of the Scriptures, do they bring forward tradition, than, neither able nor daring to defend it with the customary arguments of the Fathers taken from the continuous succession of bishops, they are immediately forced to retreat, defeated. Let, therefore, the renowned Grabe—a man otherwise candid and learned—be ashamed of such vain evasions, which so often and so invincibly ^C the Catholics have blocked, and by which the Christian faith, having been brought into open peril, would easily lie exposed to the insults of the most corrupt heretics.

23. That same Pope of Rome, he who asserted that other articles, partly uncertain, partly false, had been added to the tradition received from the Apostles. A statement quickly made: but however quickly and easily it is asserted, it is just as quickly and easily denied. But if you were to press Grabe to support these assertions with credit, what articles, I ask, will he name? Either the false expositions of Catholic doctrine, concocted gratuitously and by calumny by ministers, but condemned by Catholics; or certain superstitions of the ignorant masses, disapproved and rejected by all sober and pious pastors; or private opinions of certain theologians, which others contradict; or articles that pertain to discipline, and have nothing to do with faith; or if he presents any articles whose explicit profession is strictly required of all, he will be immediately convicted of the fact that they have been delivered by the Apostles themselves from the continuous and uninterrupted faith of all the centuries. It would certainly be surprising and akin to a portent if the Roman pontiffs had mixed other articles—both false and uncertain—into the Apostolic tradition, and had strictly required their explicit profession from all; while other Churches, which themselves had preserved the Apostolic tradition unblemished among them through the continuous succession of bishops, and had at times sharply resisted the Roman pontiffs in matters pertaining to discipline, and had complained that their own rights were violated by foreign customs; yet had not complained that the Apostolic faith and tradition had been adulterated by them, nor openly refused to submit to the yoke of a new and hitherto unheard-of profession imposed upon them. Scarcely did Pope Liberius subscribe to the Sirmian Formula, scarcely did Honorius, deceived by the wicked arts of Sergius of Constantinople, incautiously permit himself to be hoodwinked by that old trickster, than the whole Church immediately rose up against both, and disapproved and condemned both: nor did the Roman pontiffs who followed treat them any more gently. How, then, could it have happened that they subsequently fell away so far from the ancestral faith and tradition of their predecessors that, with no one protesting, no one resisting, they drew the whole Church with them into the agreement and profession of the same error? ^D Or, when the enemy sowed tares in the field of Christ, were all the householders so fast asleep that no one perceived it at all, and no one endeavored to root out the tares? Where, then, are the promises of Christ, that He would never be absent from His Church, that the Church would never fail, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it?

24. But suppose (far be it from me to concede) that the Roman Church has adulterated the Apostolic tradition, and its doctrine has fallen away from the Apostolic, if Protestants deny its truth, they ought to prove that it is also a heresy, defeated in the same manner by which they themselves are refuted, from the tradition and consent of the ancients and of the Apostolic Churches, and to show at the same time where

^A truth should be sought, and where the true Church of Christ is. If the Roman Church was to be deserted, it was necessary to flee to some other which had preserved the uncorrupted tradition along with the apostolic succession; one would have to adhere to this, and the error hitherto defended would have to be condemned before it and rejected [CXVII], and a profession of the Catholic faith would have to be issued: for in this way have repentant heretics been reconciled in every age, nor has the true Church ever allowed them to be reconciled in any other way. Now then, let Grabius prove, if he can, that the heresy of the Roman Church, as his party calls it, is refuted by the same form by which they themselves are refuted: let him say where the architects of the new religion sought the truth and the Church, and to which Church they fled when they departed from the Roman. Certainly not to other Western ones, inasmuch as they felt and communicated with the Roman; nor to the Eastern ones, with whom they have never been bound by any bond of communion. What then? They built for themselves a new faith, a new religion, a new Church, from the foundations. A monstrous crime! The very novelty of these almost daily Churches betrays its atrocity. But, says the learned Grabius, in his notes to book iv, ch. 26, Irenaeus teaches that one must withdraw from the wicked, and from those who do not conduct themselves rightly in Christian conversation, and must adhere to those who, with the order of the presbyterate, provide sound speech and blameless conversation. That is indeed true; but it should not have been concealed that those wicked ones, and those who do not conduct themselves rightly in Christian conversation, are those who had withdrawn from the ^B principal succession, and were gathering in whatever place they chose; that is, heretics and those of erroneous opinion, schismatics, the arrogant, those pleasing themselves, and hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vain glory, all of whom had fallen away from the truth. After Irenaeus has discoursed upon all these individually, and by name concerning those false pastors who are thought by many to be presbyters, but who serve their own pleasures and do not set the fear of God before them in their hearts, but treat others with contumely, and are puffed up with the pride of their principal position, and do evil in secret, he concludes that it is necessary to withdraw from all such; but to adhere to those who both keep the doctrine of the apostles, and with the order of the presbyterate, provide sound speech and blameless conversation for the confirmation and correction of others. And where one finds such, he at once indicates, from the apostle Paul, that is, in the Church: Such, he says, the Church nurtures as presbyters. Which Church? Surely that in which is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles. It is in vain, therefore, to seek presbyters such as Irenaeus described in any other society. It is in vain, accordingly, to seek them among all modern sectarians; among whom, since there occur no bishops ordained by those who refer their ordination back to the apostles themselves, there exists not that ^C succession of the Church that is from the apostles. You will search in vain in the present-day Anglican Church itself, to which it has now pleased Grabius to join himself. It truly prides itself on Episcopal order and succession: but it holds merely the shadow and phantom of it, which may deceive the unskilled, but certainly not the reality. For it is certain that the ordination and succession of the bishops of the English of today flowed, as from a head and fountain, from Matthew Parker, who intruded himself into the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. It has, therefore, only as much validity as Parker’s ordination had. But that this ordination was a farce, performed by the spurious bishop John Scory (a) (whom, in the times of Edward VI, the Zwinglians and Puritans had ordained as a bishop according to the form of the new Anglican Ritual), in violation of all the canons of the Church, and with the traditionally accepted matter and form despised, the Catholics have demonstrated so invincibly that the heterodox have hitherto been able to oppose to their arguments nothing but vain cavils. Let the learned Grabius see to it, therefore, and seriously weigh whether among the ministers of the modern Anglican Church there be that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, the most certain mark of the true Church, and consequently whether that Church, which has stood so far removed from the principal succession, could have kept the doctrine of the apostles and exhibited sound speech and blameless conversation. Let the most learned man himself finally see what must be answered to the question he has proposed at the end of the note cited above. But what is to be done then, when all things are full of errors, schisms, and vices? To say that, he says, is neither easy nor is this the place for it. Nay, it was most easy to say that it is a chimera born from the Protestant brain; for it is impossible that all things should be full of errors, schisms, and vices, as long as, by the promises of Christ, there is to be in the world a true Church, a guardian of that rich depositary, to speak with Irenaeus, into which the apostles most fully conferred all things that are of the truth. That Church is to exist as long as there are to be presbyters who have succession from the apostles, who with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. ^D Such presbyters the Roman Church certainly nurtures, in which, through the successions of bishops, that which is the tradition from the apostles has always been preserved by those who are everywhere, and the true doctrine of Christ has come down even to us. But no Protestant society can show such ones; among whom, since there is not that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and the true ministry such as Christ instituted, it is manifest that even that which is sound and irreproachable in conversation, and unadulterated and incorruptible in speech, is lacking.

25. Finally, it follows from the doctrine of Irenaeus explained thus far, and from the description of his testimony, that the apostles, in the Churches which they founded, instituted individual bishops ^A to preside over them as their successors; and that these were therefore superior to presbyters by divine right and by the very institution of Christ. We have, he says, to enumerate those who were instituted as bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our time. Accordingly, a list of these successions of bishops, one after another, existed in the archives of all the Churches in the age of Irenaeus. But because, as he himself says, it would have been too lengthy to recount all those successions, he provides a specimen of them in the single Roman Church, which surpasses the others; while the others are mentioned only in summary: The blessed apostles, he says, founding and building up the Roman Church, committed the office of the episcopate for the administration of the Church to Linus. Anacletus succeeds him; after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtains the episcopate. He enumerates the others in succession down to Eleutherus, who, he says, now holds the episcopate in the twelfth place from the apostles. Therefore, individual moderators and pastors, by the name and title of bishops, presided over the Roman Church by apostolic institution. This is as certain in Irenaeus as is the tradition itself, the authority of which he was establishing in that place against the heretics. Indeed, the succession ought to have been more manifest and better known than the tradition, or rather, the tradition of the succession should be more manifest than that of dogma and doctrine: since the tradition of doctrine is approved by another succession. If this is true—and it is true not only at Rome but in other cities as well,, ^B where, by the authority of the apostles, the same form of governing the Churches was established—then the fiction of the Puritans is truly false, that it was only after the death of the apostles, and in the middle of the second century, that there was a bishop set over each Church; whereas up until that time they were allegedly governed by many, that is, by the whole presbytery or college of presbyters, with equal right and authority. For why would Irenaeus, a man of the apostolic times, write that individual bishops were instituted by the apostles in individual Churches, and that upon their deaths other individuals were substituted in such a way that the series of those successions and the catalog was preserved in each Church? Why was the memory of one succeeding another so studiously recorded, if all presbyters were equal, in title just as in dignity, and no one was superior to others by divine right? Why is this one inscribed in the catalog rather than that one, if all are equal? Where is that which Salmasius writes, that the apostles never set individual bishops over the Churches which they founded; ^C when Irenaeus testifies that he is able to recount in detail the successions of those individual bishops who were instituted by the apostles? It is a knot that neither Blondel, nor Daillé, nor Salmasius could ever untie or cut. But since most learned men, both Catholic and Anglican episcopal, have thoroughly treated this argument, and have defended it against the quibbles of the Puritans, I decline to say more. I will observe here only this: that Irenaeus has long since occupied the argument which the Puritans seek from those words of Acts XX:17: *Paul sending from Miletus to Ephesus, called the elders of the Church, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. And when they had come to him and were gathered together, he said to them... Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops to rule the Church of God.* As if Paul were here calling "bishops" those whom he had immediately before called "elders," or presbyters of the Ephesian Church. Irenaeus expressly asserts ^D that those presbyters whom Paul had summoned to Miletus were both simple presbyters and bishops, and that both had been summoned not from Ephesus alone, but also from the neighboring cities of Asia. *In Miletus,* he says, *having summoned the bishops and presbyters who were from Ephesus and from the other neighboring cities, because he himself was hastening to Jerusalem to keep Pentecost, testifying many things to them, and saying what must befall him at Jerusalem, he added: I know that you shall see my face no more, etc.* These things are clear, nor are they to be obscured by any mists of the Puritans. Therefore, those whom the Apostle calls bishops placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God were not Ephesian presbyters, but the bishop of that same city and the bishops of the other neighboring cities.

ARTICLE IV.

26. Since it is impossible to obtain salvation outside the true Church of Christ, it was consistent with the divine goodness that it should, like the sun, diffuse most clear rays on all sides, by which it could most easily be recognized; or that it should be marked by certain sure and perspicuous signs and characteristics, by which it could be distinguished from every false religion and from other spurious and adulterous societies. But the holy Fathers, and Catholic theologians, have enumerated many marks of the true Church. But they are all easily reduced to these four, which the Council of Constantinople inserted into its Creed: *And one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.* Therefore, whatever is the true Church of Christ, it must be recognized by these marks, that it is, namely, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Such was

the body of which Irenaeus was a member, whose faith and doctrine he defended, and from which he ^A irreproachably demonstrated that those he was combating, the heretics, had departed. He himself marked it with these characteristics more than once, and wished it to be distinguished from any other heretical or schismatic society.

27. That this mark of unity is singular and proper to the Catholic Church alone, whereby it is discerned from all heretics and schismatics, was so certain to Irenaeus that he establishes this as the safest bastion for the defense of the faith and takes from it the beginning of his argument. "This preaching," he says, "and this faith, as we have said, the Church, although (in Greek, *kaiter*, although) disseminated throughout the whole world, guards diligently, as if inhabiting one house: and she believes in these things in like manner, as if having one soul and one heart: and she preaches, and teaches, and hands down these things consonantly, as if possessing one mouth." As if to say: ^B This is the mark of the true Church, this is its character. Although it has been spread far and wide through the whole world, for the unity of the faith it is as if it inhabited one house. For the faith and doctrine which it has accepted, entrusted to it by the apostles, it guards with the same effort and the same care everywhere; and as if it had one soul, one heart, and one mouth, it believes, preaches, teaches, and hands down what it has received in the same way everywhere. For, he adds, even if the languages of the world are different between themselves, yet the power of the tradition is one and the same everywhere; nor do those Churches which have been established in Germany, the Spains, the Gauls, in the Orient, in Egypt, or elsewhere among the nations, believe otherwise or hand down otherwise; but just as the sun, created by God, is one and the same in the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, ^C and illuminates all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth. And although the gifts of the leaders of the Churches are not the same for all, and some are more skilled and more eloquent than others; yet the doctrine of all is the same. "For since faith is one and the same, neither does he who is able to say much about it amplify it; nor does he who says less diminish it." "The path," he says elsewhere, "of those who are of the Church, going around the whole world, as it holds firm the tradition from the apostles, and grants us to see that the faith is one and the same for all, all confessing one and the same Father, and believing the same disposition of the incarnation of the Son of God, and knowing the same gift of the Spirit, and meditating on the same precepts, and guarding the same form of that which is toward the Church, ^D of the ordination (that is, the same form of ecclesiastical government), and expecting the same advent of the Lord, and maintaining the same salvation of the whole man, that is, of soul and body. And indeed the preaching of the Church is true and firm, with which the one and the same way of salvation is shown to the whole world. For it has been entrusted to it the light of God, etc."

28. This faith of apostolic men, innate in their minds and accepted from the apostles and as it were sealed, is the notion of the true Church. Away then with that spurious and monstrous notion of the Church which the more recent Protestant ministers have invented, which embraces all sects, both heretical and schismatic, which agree in those articles of faith which they are pleased to call fundamental—though they have never clearly or openly defined them—even if they disagree in all other matters, and, fighting as if in a civil war, miserably rend and tear themselves with the mutual wounds of anathemas. Nothing could be imagined more foreign to that unity of soul, heart, and mouth which Irenaeus says is the character of the true Church. Indeed, so far is the Church, as described by Irenaeus, from embracing any heretical sects in its bosom, that he rather contends that it is distinguished from heretics in this, that "its preaching is everywhere constant and perseveres equally," agreeing with itself everywhere in the world; but they are never constant, always and everywhere fighting with themselves, moved by every wind of doctrine, and tossed as if by the alternating and succeeding waves of various opinions. "We," he says, "following the one and only true God as teacher, and having his words as the rule of truth, all say the same things always about the same matters." But they "not holding good opinions, meanwhile argue against themselves, not agreeing on the same words." And elsewhere: "We have thought it good to show first in what respects the fathers of this fable themselves disagree against one another, as if they were from various spirits of error. And from this indeed it is possible to learn diligently, and from the showing (in Greek, *kai pro tes apodeixeos*, 'with no arguments yet brought forward,' as Billius translates better), that truth which is preached by the Church, and that false-speaking which is feigned by them." Then, having exposed the wonderful consensus of all the Churches in one faith and doctrine; he adds: "Let us see now also the inconsistent opinion of these men, since there are two or three, just as they do not say the same things about the same matters, but respond with things contrary in both names and realities." Having described the theories of the principal disciples of Valentinus, which fight against each other, he concludes: "But since they disagree among themselves, both in doctrine and in tradition, and those who are recognized as the more recent among them affect to invent something new every day, and to bring forth fruit which no one ever imagined, it is difficult to describe all their opinions." But if you ask what is the cause of such widespread license for opinion among heretics; Irenaeus will assign it: "because," forsooth, they are not founded upon the one rock, but upon the sand which has in itself many stones; many from...

among themselves even wish to be teachers, and withdrawing, indeed, from the heresy in which they were, they go on to compose one dogma from one opinion and then another from yet another, and insist on teaching something new, boasting themselves the inventors of the opinion, whatever it may be that they have put together. For having once shaken off the yoke of the authority of the Church, and having repudiated the rule of truth, being now unable to be restrained by any bridle, they easily concede to whatever opinions they may encounter. They stand convicted, therefore, of being disciples not of the apostles, but of their own bad opinion. On account of this, there are also various opinions for each one of them, as each receives error in the way he is able to grasp it. Therefore, he very rightly warns that one ought not to seek the truth from others—that is, from heretics—which it is easy to take from the Church; since the apostles, as into a rich repository, most fully deposited into it all things that belong to the truth, so that every one, whoever wills, may take from it the drink of life. For this is the entrance to life; but all others are thieves and robbers. For this reason, one must avoid them; but as for those things which belong to the Church, one must with the greatest diligence love and apprehend the tradition of the truth. Therefore, truth is to be sought only in the Church: to this alone the truth was entrusted by the apostles, to this alone was entrusted the light of God, to this alone was entrusted the gift of God, the faith, even as the inspiration for the formation of man, so that all members partaking of it might be vivified; from this alone the drink of life is to be taken; this alone is the entrance to life. And what is that Church? It is, of course, that which Irenaeus has now described, which, propagated throughout the whole world, has one soul, one heart, one mouth, one and the same form of ecclesiastical government, through the continuous succession of bishops from the apostles, whose one faith, doctrine, and method of teaching is consistent. So far is he from thinking that heretics belong to this Church, that he rather explicitly excludes them from it, as thieves and robbers, among whom there is no life nor any truth to be sought.

^B 29. They say, among the members of that very Church which boasts so much of its unity, there sometimes arise the gravest contentions and fiercest controversies. That is indeed true: but having intentionally omitted many things that could be answered (for I would not wish to introduce more into the field of controversies than our Irenaeus allows), I will observe only this one thing; namely, that the true Church of Christ is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever in this: that in them there is no rule for ending controversies; but in the former, there is a certain means for settling any contentions, namely, the authority of the Church itself, either speaking through its bishops or in general councils, or by judging and defining, or by approving or rejecting something by unanimous consent. For since the apostles entrusted the Churches to bishops, as Irenaeus so often asserts, and entrusted to them the repository that was to be guarded—that rich deposit into which they had most fully brought all things that are of the truth—it is impossible, so long as the true Church shall stand, and Christ shall not be wanting to His promises (can any Christian suspect that he will ever be wanting?), for all the bishops, and every individual Church governed by them, to conspire in error. Wherefore, as something certain and indubitable, and on which the unity of the Church hangs bound, Irenaeus proposes and frequently inculcates: that "it is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church," and "from them to learn the truth," and that "the genuine exposition of the Scriptures is to be sought." The reason is that "with the succession of the episcopate they have received the sure charism of truth, according to the pleasure of the Father." And although there sometimes arise presbyters who are indeed believed by many, "but who serve their own pleasures and do not set the fear of God before them in their hearts; it is certain, nevertheless, that such presbyters always nourish the Church," who both keep the doctrine of the apostles, and with the order of the presbyterate provide sound speech and a conversation without offense, for the confirmation and correction of the rest; to whom, therefore, one ought to adhere.

30. But so that unity among bishops and so many individual Churches so far distant from each other might be cherished, and the consensus of all might be more easily explored, nor would all be forced in the event of any controversies arising to meet together in one place to their own great burden: it was necessary that some primary Church be constituted among all, which might preside over all others, watch over the others by right, and be as it were a center of unity, into which all flowing, might be bound together in the bond of the same faith and communion. The opinion of this primary Church being known, therefore, that of all the others would most for the most part be known; for there is one faith and doctrine of all with that Church; ^C this is the head of the others, to which all are held most tightly to adhere. That this is the privilege of the one Roman Church, so that it holds the first place of honor, dignity, and authority among all the others, and has all others as inferior to itself, Irenaeus teaches so clearly and openly, that a man would have to be blind in the midday light if he were to dare to deny it. About to draw arguments against heretics from the authority of apostolic tradition and the consensus of all Churches; he establishes this as the starting point: that the apostolic tradition has been one and the same, pure and unblemished, preserved in all Churches, and that it is open to all who are studious of the truth. "The tradition of the apostles therefore manifested in the whole world, is present for all to see in every Church who wish to see the truth." This proposition he proves from the fact that since in every apostolic Church, from the first bishop who was instituted by the apostles, there has always been a continuous succession, and never anywhere... ^D

^A an uninterrupted series of bishops succeeding one another, who have handed down, as it were from hand to hand, to those in their care and to the peoples committed to them, that which had been delivered by the apostles; if in any dogma all Churches are found to be in agreement, it is an invincible argument that it originated from the apostles themselves. "We have to reckon those who were instituted by the apostles as bishops in the Churches, and their successors down to us, who have taught no such thing, nor have they known what is so wildly imagined by these men. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they taught privately and secretly to the perfect, they would have handed them down most especially to those to whom they were committing the Churches themselves, etc." The whole force of this argument depends on a double proposition; first, that in each of the apostolic Churches a continuous succession of bishops from the apostles has always persevered; second, that all those Churches conspire to the same sentiment. As Irenæus did not think it necessary for himself to approach each individual Church in order for him to prove both at once, that he might unfold the catalogues of succession preserved in their archives and explore the sentiment of each one—this would have been too long and subject to many difficulties; he proceeds by a faster and shorter way. He deemed it sufficient to consult the tradition of the one Roman Church, preserved in it through the continuous succession of bishops, so as to confound all heretics; judging rightly and deservedly that, once it was known, the tradition, sentiment, and doctrine of all other Churches would be known forthwith. For since the Roman Church is the prince, the head, and the first of all, the greatest of all, the most ancient, and the most known, founded by the glorious prince of the apostles, Peter, and his associate Paul, which for its own right presides over and dominates all others, and with which it is necessary that all the faithful everywhere should be linked by ties of one and the same faith and communion; it is thence clearly evident that there cannot be another tradition and faith for the other Churches than the faith and tradition of the Roman Church. And so, with the catalogues of the bishops of the Churches of the whole world passed over, it is sufficient to recount the continuous succession of bishops of that one Church, and to declare the tradition of the apostles which has flowed through this as if through a channel down to us; so that from the common sentiment and tradition of all the Churches, which ought to consent with the Roman, all heretics may be defeated. "But since," he says, "it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the Churches; we, indicating that tradition which the greatest and most ancient and most known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, has from the apostles, and the faith announced to men, coming down to us through the successions of bishops, confound all those who in any way—whether by self-pleasing, or vainglory, or by blindness and evil sentiment—gather what they should not." For to this Church, on account of ^B its more powerful pre-eminence, it is necessary that every Church should resort, that is, those who are from everywhere, the faithful, in which the tradition which is from the apostles has always been preserved by those who are from everywhere.

31. In these words several things must be observed: 1. That the Roman Church in the age of Irenæus was already esteemed the greatest of all, far less in the number of the faithful, regarding which some other Churches could have contended with it at that time, than in the amplitude of its authority. 2. "Most ancient of all"; and if this is referred to the time of foundation, it will be most false; for the apostles had long before founded the Hierosolymitan, the Antiochene, and others. It must therefore necessarily be referred to dignity, that the Roman Church is called the most ancient of all because it is the prince and chief of all. Wherefore I scarcely doubt that Irenæus wrote in Greek, ἀρχαιοτάτης, which the interpreter poorly translated as "most ancient"; whereas it should have been translated here as "chief and princely." 3. Irenæus asserts that it is known to all, inasmuch as all other Churches looked up to and venerated it—as more sublime and excellent than the rest—as their head and first. 4. He says it was founded and constituted by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul; by which collapses that absurd fiction of certain recent heretics who, with all antiquity crying out against them, dared to deny that Peter ever came to Rome. 5. That it is necessary for every Church, or all the faithful dispersed throughout the whole world, to resort to this Church: not that those who were the faithful from everywhere were held strictly to go thither; that would have been the most absurd thing even to think; but because, as Salmasius ^C himself is forced to admit, it was necessary to coincide and agree in matters of faith with the Roman Church. For in Greek, he says, Irenæus had spoken, *συμβαίνειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίαν*; furthermore, *συμβαίνειν πρός τινα* is as customary to the Greeks as *συμβαίνειν τινί*; but the former, indeed, can be referred here to nothing but agreement and concord, and to twist it to mean any kind of pilgrimage can only be done most insipidly. Moreover, the reason why it is necessary that every Church should agree with the Roman Church is offered here by Irenæus, "on account of its more powerful pre-eminence." Salmasius himself rightly agrees with us that the Latin interpreter wrote thus: yet he thinks that what was written in Greek by Irenæus was *διὰ τὸ ἐξαίρετον αὐτῆς πρωτεῖον*; we think it is more probably *διὰ τὸ ὑπέρτερον πρωτεῖον*. But whichever our author wrote, he intended to signify that all Churches are held to agree with the Roman; because although the others may rightly rejoice in a primacy over the faithful subject to them, each in its own boundaries, yet the one which Rome holds is by far more powerful; inasmuch as it dominates all by the right of a principate and primacy, presides over all, and has all subject to it. 6. Finally, in that Church has always been preserved by those who are from everywhere, that ^D which is the tradition from the apostles.

For since all the faithful who are from everywhere are bound to adhere to this opinion and doctrine, the apostolic tradition could be preserved much more safely and easily in it, entrusted to so many bishops, priests, and clerics, and to so many myriads of the faithful, and stored in their inmost hearts, than in other Churches viewed separately, the boundaries of whose jurisdiction did not extend so far and wide.

32. This passage of Irenæus is troublesome to all those who, «through blindness and a malicious interpretation, beyond what is fitting, have gathered»—that is to say, those who have thrown off the yoke of the catholic faith and simultaneously of the obedience which they were bound to show to the Roman Church—so that they might establish for themselves, at their own whim, separate conventicles. Wherefore, lest they incur the most repulsive stain of schism and heresy, the Protestants move no stone left unturned to avoid the weight of this most importunate passage. But they are as inconsistent in explaining this as they are in the dogmas of the faith. Salmasius, unable to close his eyes to the radiance of such clear light, was forced, as I have said, to confess that the meaning of Irenæus’s words is that «it is necessary for every Church to agree and concur in matters of faith and doctrine with the Roman Church.» This is the very same thing that all Catholics infer from this passage of Irenæus. Therefore, Salmasius must necessarily admit that every Church which differs and dissents from the Roman Church in matters of faith and doctrine is, by that very fact, held guilty of schism and heresy. Let the followers of Salmasius, therefore—all the Calvinists and whoever else dissents from the Roman Church in matters of faith—see how they may rid themselves of this guilt. For what Salmasius admits was necessary in the second century of the Church is no less necessary in these later centuries. As to what he adds here—that Irenæus wishes the Roman Church, as the principal one, that is, the first and the most pure of all, to be a type and example to others for the preservation of the sincerity of doctrine and apostolic tradition—in this, what he confesses is true: that Irenæus intends for the Roman Church to be the principal one and the first of all. Let him wish it or not, it follows that by the right of headship and primacy it presides over and dominates all others; and therefore, all those who refuse its authority cannot absolve themselves of the crime of open rebellion. But if Salmasius wishes the Roman Church to be first and principal only in the sense that, being the most pure of all, it ought to be a type and example to others of the sincerity of doctrine and the preservation of apostolic tradition, he is trifling, and he wishes Irenæus to trifle with him. For, to pass over more things here—which I shall speak of shortly when I examine Grabius’s opinion—if the Roman Church were principal and first for that reason alone, the Church of Smyrna and the Church of Ephesus, which Irenæus frequently mentions, could have rightfully and deservedly contended with it for the primacy and headship. For even they, at that time, were no less pure than the Roman Church, nor less capable of being proposed to the others as a type and example of the preservation of the purity of doctrine and apostolic tradition. Therefore, Irenæus would have asserted in vain and ridiculously a more powerful principal status for the Roman Church alone, which other Churches, founded in like manner by the apostles and governed by their most holy successors, could have claimed for themselves with the same right. He would have argued in vain that it is necessary for every Church to agree and concur in matters of faith and doctrine with the Roman Church on account of its more powerful principal status. For if other Churches are not bound to obey this opinion in matters of faith, there is no greater necessity to agree with that Church than with the Antiochene, the Ephesian, the Smyrnæan, and the others.

33. How poorly Salmasius handled the cause of the Protestants is well understood by the learned Grabius. Wherefore, rejecting his interpretation, he thought he should hold a different view, and he attempted to prop up the sagging cause with other commentaries: not new ones, indeed, but those which Chamier had long since written to obscure this passage of Irenæus. I shall not dwell on the Greek which he attributes to Irenæus, and which he fabricates as he pleases: they are empty conjectures of a luxuriant imagination, which are as easily denied as they are gratuitously proposed. Nor shall I dwell on the fact that, regarding the Latin text of Irenæus, he thinks one should read *potentiorem principalitatem* (more powerful principal status), as all published texts and most manuscripts have hitherto maintained, rather than *potiorem* (superior/preferable status), as we restored from the Claromontane manuscript, the most ancient of all; for although this latter reading squares better with the mind and words of Irenæus, yet the other squares well too; wherefore, I consider it the same to the sense whichever one is retained. But I come to the point. Grabius therefore contends that by the "concurrence of the whole Church"—that is, of those who are the faithful from everywhere—to the Roman Church, on account of its *more powerful principal status*, one must understand the influx of those who were sent to Rome from every Church to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, whose principal status—that is, supreme power—was more powerful. Because of the more powerful principal status of the Romans, he says, it happened that the faithful from all churches everywhere flocked to the Roman city, and consequently to its Church, to undertake the defense of their faith and Church. But he claims that Irenæus wrote this passage about this gathering at the location of the city and Church of Rome, not about communion of faith and charity with it, and much less about subjection of obedience. Thus Grabius.

34. But that this explanation of Irenæus’s words is supposed to be—if one assumes he was completely delirious—cannot fit in any way. 1° If one is to understand the influx of those who were sent to Rome from every Church to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, the meaning will be that it was necessary for the whole Church—that is, those faithful who are from everywhere—to come to Rome to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors. And yet, so far was that from being necessary, that even before Irenæus’s time...

^A one could not prove by a single example that this had happened, as Grabius tries to do. We read indeed of several Apologies of the Christians presented to the emperors, by Quadratus, Aristides, Melito, Apollinaris, Athenagoras, and Justin; but that they were sent by the Roman Churches to Rome to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors is most false; indeed, we read nowhere that most of them—even Athenagoras himself, whose Apology Grabius misuses because of the title *Legatio*—left their homeland to present their Apologies. If any, like Justin, presented them at Rome, they were already dwelling there for a long time, and had not come hither for that purpose. And, I ask, what necessity was there for Christians to approach pagan emperors, from whom they could hope for nothing but the violation of all justice and law? 2. Irenæus writes that it is necessary for the faithful to convene to the ^B Roman, not city, but Church. Why, then, by forcibly imposing a meaning on his words, does Grabius wish for “City” to be understood by “Church”? “To the Roman city,” he says, “and consequently the Church, the faithful convened from all the Churches everywhere.” As if the Roman city and the Roman Church sounded exactly the same, and as if anyone who approached the city should be said to have immediately to convene to the Church! Behold, Irenæus has not yet mentioned the Roman city, the court, or the emperors by even a word, but only the Roman Church; and yet are these words, *on account of the more powerful preeminence* (if one is to believe Grabius), to be referred not to the Church, concerning which he is professedly instituting his argument, but to the city, the court, or the emperors, of whom there is no mention? What stomach could bear digesting these absurdities? Who does not see that that *more powerful preeminence*, as the illustrious man likes to read it, pertains to that Church to which all the faithful ought thus to convene, so that the whole method of convening is the very *more powerful preeminence* of that same Church? 3. Finally (and this is the hinge of the case), Grabius neither can nor dares deny that the scope of Irenæus in this entire chapter is to prove that there is one and the same apostolic tradition and faith in every Church, by which all heretics are confounded; and that it had flowed pure and undefiled through the continuous succession of bishops down to his own age. But because it would have been too long and burdensome to enumerate the episcopal successions of all and each of the Churches, he judged it sufficient if the succession of the one Roman Church, through which the apostolic tradition had reached down to that age, were enumerated, because the faith and tradition of all other Churches is the same as the Roman. Wherefore, having enumerated the succession of the Roman bishops, he concludes: *By this ordination and succession, that tradition which is from the apostles in the Church, and the preaching of the truth, has reached down to us.* And this is a most full demonstration that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved and handed down in truth in the Church from the apostles until now. Now, Irenæus proves that the faith and tradition of other Churches are the same as the Roman by the fact that to the Roman Church, on account of a more powerful preeminence ^C it is necessary for every Church to convene. If, therefore, we admit the Grabian explanation, and suppose it, it must be said that Irenæus argued as follows: The faith and tradition of those Churches, whose faithful it is necessary to come to Rome to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, is the same as the Roman, whose preeminence or supreme power is more influential. But it is necessary that the faithful from all the Churches come to Rome to plead the cause of the Christians before the emperors, whose preeminence is more influential. Therefore, the faith and tradition of all the Churches is the same as the Roman. I challenge Grabius himself to be the judge: who, unless he were delirious, would argue thus? Let us assume, on the contrary, that Irenæus argues in the way I demonstrated above; the argument will proceed thus: The faith and tradition of those Churches is one and the same as the Roman, which it is necessary to agree with, owing to the Roman Church being appointed by God as the head, leader, and prince, for the directing of all things in matters of faith and doctrine. But it is necessary that all Churches, or which is the same thing, all the faithful, from whatever place, region, or nation they be, agree with the Roman Church, which is the head, leader, and prince of all, appointed by God for the directing of all things. Therefore, the faith and tradition of all the Churches is the same as the Roman; and hence, since all heretics and schismatics are confounded by the tradition of this Church, it necessarily follows that they are confounded by the consent of all the Churches. Let any fair appraiser of matters judge, and compare this latter argument, which the Catholics rightly contend is Irenæus’s, with that which Grabius attributes to the most holy martyr: unless he wishes to be voluntarily blind, he must admit how much the latter conflicts with Irenæus, and how much the former is in full agreement with him, and wonderfully squares with Irenæus’s scope, doctrine, and antecedents. 35. But, says Grabius, it is so far from the truth that Irenæus considered himself and other faithful to be so restricted [by the Roman Church] that he considered a public act to the contrary. For when Pope Victor had cut off the Asian Churches from communion because they refused to celebrate Easter according to the custom of the Roman Church, Irenæus did not rebuke the Asian prelates because they refused to follow the custom of the pontiff, nor did he exhort them to have no reason to allow themselves to be ^D severed from the communion of the Roman Church; but rather he rebuked Victor himself because he had cut off entire Churches, which were keeping the custom handed down to them from their ancestors, from communion, as we ourselves have related above from Eusebius and others. It is indeed to be lamented that Grabius allows himself to be deluded by such futile arguments. What comparison can be instituted between matters that pertain to faith and those that pertain to the discipline of the Church? Who does not know that that whole question concerning the celebration of Easter pertained solely to discipline, and in no way to faith, and could always be agitated among those disputing while the faith remained intact? Both sides indeed supported their own opinion with apostolic tradition; but it does not escape even the novice that there are other apostolic traditions, which to

^A matters of faith or customs pertain, others to discipline; the former are always and everywhere the same, exposed to no change at any time; the latter, however, may vary according to the diversity of places and times. Of this latter kind was the apostolic tradition concerning the celebration of Easter. For the rule of conduct of the apostles could have been one thing in the East, and another in the West, wise in both places and grounded in charity; but from both, different disciplines arose here and there, which it was free to follow for as long as the universal Church did not introduce a contrary practice in her councils. Furthermore, when we say that it is necessary for every Church to agree with the Roman, we are speaking of matters of faith; we do not contend, however, nor do the Roman pontiffs themselves contend, that the discipline of all Churches must be the same as the Roman. And many contended that Pope Victor sinned in this, in that he, departing from the prudent economy of his predecessors, had wished to bind the Asiatic Churches to the custom and discipline of Rome: contrary to what previous Roman pontiffs had thought and done, as well as other prelates of the whole West, who had judged that no dispute should be moved against the Asiatics in this matter. Whence, having been decently admonished by Irenaeus, as Eusebius relates, he immediately ceased from his undertaking, restored peace to the Asiatics, and thought it no longer necessary to trouble them. But however unsuccessfully Grabe sought an argument from that history, the same could just as successfully be retorted against him. For unless jurisdictional authority over the Eastern Churches had belonged to Pope Victor, he certainly would never have presumed to command them, and to order them to follow the custom of his own Church. For why should the Roman bishop wish to have the Ephesian, and not the Ephesian the Roman, subject and obedient to him in this matter? Why does the Roman bishop presume to excommunicate the Ephesian, and not the Ephesian the Roman? But why, if he had no authority over him, does the latter not deride the man’s insane arrogance and pride? The Ephesian bishop indeed denies, as do the other Asiatics, that the authority of the Roman pontiff extends so far that he can constrain others to the private discipline of his own Church; but they are so far from denying the authority itself ^C that they rather, when he commanded that the bishops should hold synods throughout the whole of the East, immediately complied, and informed their pontiff of what they had defined in their councils with the reverence that was owed. Indeed, Irenaeus himself, although he did not approve of Victor’s somewhat too ardent zeal, nevertheless did not rebuke the fact that he arrogated to himself some authority over the Easterners: but he only admonished him, and that decently and reverently, not to abuse that authority on the present occasion by excommunicating innocent Churches from communion. So certain is it that not even those with whom the Roman Church had most serious controversies dared to deny its primacy, its authority, and its jurisdiction.

36. Indeed, as I have said, that there is one Church ^D that was able to be bound together with others in the bonds of one and the same communion, scattered through the world; which could not happen except through the intervention of one Church, which, like a center of unity, would bind all others both to itself and to each other. Whoever is truly spiritual will adhere immovably to this one Church, nor will he suffer himself to be torn away from the center of unity by any reason: indeed, with Irenaeus as witness 85, he «will judge» and «will condemn» those who work schisms, who are empty, not having the love of God, and considering their own advantage rather than the unity of the Church: and for small and trivial causes, they tear and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and, as much as in them lies, do put it to death: speaking peace, and working war: truly straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. For no such correction can be made by them as there is the bane of schism. These last words are most to be pondered: «No such correction can be made by schismatics, or by all those who have withdrawn from the one chair, as there is the bane of schism.» Whatever correction, therefore, empty men might boast of having made, it can never equal the bane of schism, nor compensate for the loss of charity they have caused. 86 For he who departs from unity, falls from charity, and loses that «preeminent» gift of «love, which is more precious than recognition, more glorious than prophecy, and more preeminent than all other charisms.» Furthermore, that precious gift of the one body of Christ, namely of that Church in which there is one chair and a center of unity, is its character. «Wherefore,» adds Irenaeus 87, «the Church in every place, because of the love which it has toward God, sends forward a multitude of martyrs in every time to the Father; while all the others do not have this thing to show among themselves... for the reproach of those who suffer persecution for justice's sake, and endure all pains, and are put to death for that love which is toward God, and for the confession of His Son, the Church alone purely sustains.»

37. From this the holy character of the Church is made manifest, namely its sanctity. For that which is rooted and founded in charity, which possesses by its own right that precious gift of God, more preeminent than all other charisms, cannot but be holy. It must be holy, of which the Word of God Himself is the head. For, as our author says 88, the Father is indeed over all, and He Himself is the head of Christ; but the Word is through all, and He Himself is the head of the Church; inasmuch as the Word is man recapitulating all things in Himself: so that as He is the prince of the Word of God in heavenly, spiritual, and invisible things; so also in visible and corporeal things He may have the principality, assuming the principality into Himself, and setting Himself as head of the Church, [recapitulating] all things.

^A and [from those] who are said to work wonders by Simon and Carpocrates, and if there are any others, they do not do so by the power of God, nor in truth, nor for the benefit of men; but to their destruction and error, through magical delusions and every kind of fraud; harming those who believe in them more than they provide them any benefit, because they deceive them. For they can neither give sight to the blind, nor hearing to the deaf, nor drive away all demons, except those which are sent in by themselves, if indeed they even do that. ^B Furthermore, he proves that even in his own age, often in the brotherhood, because of some necessity in the Church in whatever place it may be, when the whole Church has besought it through much fasting and supplication, the spirit of the dead person has returned, and the man has been granted to the prayers of the saints; and that [CXXIV] many dead have thus been raised, so that they have remained with us for many years. He says that demons are driven out everywhere from the bodies of the possessed, that the sick are cured by the laying on of hands, and restored to health, and that many in the Church are seen who are conspicuous for the foreknowledge of future events, by visions, by prophetic utterances, and by charisms, the gift of tongues, etc. And what then? There is no numbering the graces which the Church, receiving from God throughout the whole world, performs in the name of Christ Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, day by day for the benefit of the nations; nor does it deceive anyone, nor take money from him... but purely and manifestly directing prayers to God, who made all things, and calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. From all of which he rightly infers, that the truth should be learned only there where the charisms of the Lord are placed, namely among those in whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles.

40. And how certain it is, how Irenaeus recognized that the Church is one and holy, it is just as certain that it is also catholic and apostolic. All those things which we have brought forth from the text itself demonstrate this evidently. For nothing is more efficacious, as we have already said, to crush the obstinacy of the heretics—who are divided into various sects and fight against one another ^D than to oppose to them the unanimous consensus of the whole Church throughout the whole world, propagated far and wide, and to reject and overthrow their wicked dogmas. Hence he perpetually urges, as we have seen, that the Church is "sown throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, disseminated throughout the whole world; dispersed throughout Germany, the Spains, the Gauls, the Orient, Egypt, Libya, and Judea; and established among many barbarian nations and throughout the whole world," encircling the entire world; and finally, as a vineyard "no longer hedged around, but expanded throughout the whole world," whose faith, doctrine, and tradition, however, were one.

^A one soul, one heart, one mouth, one and the same preaching, and form of ecclesiastical government. Let him laugh, therefore, or indeed let him be of unsound mind, whoever denies that the Church, so widely and broadly propagated, is visible and conspicuous, and reduces it to some fictitious and invisible gathering of the chosen. Who could remain hidden, whose light—the preaching of the truth—shines everywhere and illuminates all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth? How could that be unknown, which "everywhere preaches the truth," in which one and the same way of salvation is shown in the whole world, and which is "planted as a paradise in this world," and which is everywhere clear? Who, finally, can be invisible, which "is a seven-branched lamp, carrying the light of Christ; to which the light of God is entrusted; and for this reason the wisdom of God, by which He saves all men, is sung in the exit, but behaves confidently in the streets, is preached on the highest walls, and speaks constantly in the gates of the city?"

41. Our author also considered that there is nothing more valid for confounding those who either have wrong opinions, or assemble in a way other than is proper, than to oppose to them the apostolic Church. Hence he so often and so constantly inculcates, as we have shown, that this same Church received its faith, doctrine, and tradition from the apostles themselves, that it was founded and ordered by them, and that bishops were appointed by them, in whose hands in every Church was the supreme authority, by whom, ^B succeeding one another, it was perpetually governed and administered; and that by this continuous succession of bishops, never to cease, one and the same apostolic, pure, and undefiled faith and tradition flows down even to us. Hence he desires that in that succession the most certain character of the body of Christ, or the Church, be placed, by which it is distinguished from the conventicles of infidels, heretics, and ^C schismatics. "The character," he says, "of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, to whom they have handed down that Church which is in every place." Where the most illustrious Grabius wrongly contends, and proves with no certain argument, that here the "character" denotes not so much a sign or mark as the form or figure of the Church. Even if he were to obtain this, he would still poorly serve his own cause. For it will be evident from Irenaeus, whether he likes it or not, that that form in the body of Christ, or the Church, was established by the apostles themselves according to the successions of bishops; and therefore by that form will the true Church of Christ, founded by the apostles, always be known and distinguished from any other society; because in that form exists the legitimate succession of bishops, which is missing in those others. Hence those who are from the Church, the same figure of it which pertains to the Church of ordination, that is, the same form of ecclesiastical government which the ^D apostles founded, our author asserts they must always maintain.

Hence, finally, he rightly and deservedly infers that the true Church is more ancient than any heretical or schismatic sects whatsoever, inasmuch as it refers its origin to the apostles, nay, to Christ Himself, its Head: "For all heretics are much later than the bishops, to whom the apostles handed down the Churches." For among the barbarians, the faith which the Church preached had already obtained; to whom, however, the sects of the heretics were not known even by name, much less were their opinions: "for neither had the congregation of heretics yet existed among them, nor had their doctrine been established." Then, that the beginnings of each heresy, and their first parents and architects, could easily be assigned; for they are of recent memory: but the beginnings of the Catholic Church can be traced back to Christ alone and His apostles. For before Valentinus there were not those who are from Valentinus, nor before Marcion were there those who are from Marcion; nor were there at all the other malignant thoughts, which we enumerated above, before their initiators and the inventors of their perversity came into being. For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus; he grew under Pius, and extended the time until Anicetus. Moreover, Cerdon, who lived before Marcion, and he too lived under Hyginus... Moreover, Marcion, succeeding him, prevailed under Anicetus... The rest, however, who are called Gnostics, appeared from Menandrus, the disciple of Simon, just as we have shown, that each of them received their beginnings, from whom the principality of the opinion, from him both the father and the leader appeared. But all these rose up into their apostasy much later, in the already intervening times of the Church.

42. With these most certain characteristics having been explained, Irenaeus defines that Church, whose faith and tradition he defended against the heretics, and distinguishes it from any other society, and desires it to be so distinguished. And whoever has heard Irenaeus speaking will not doubt which that Church was, for he says that it is necessary for every Church, if it wishes to be a member and part of the true Church, to agree with the Roman Church, that is, as we have demonstrated above, to agree with it in faith, tradition, and doctrine, and to adhere to its communion: and whoever remembers that the most holy disciple of the apostolic men [CXXV] always persevered, bound to that Church in an individual society of communion, until his death. Moreover, if the Roman Church was therefore the true Church of Christ in the second century, because it alone was marked by the aforesaid characters and signs of the true Church, it is necessary that it be the same and the only true Church of Christ even in these last centuries, since those characters meet in it alone. For whoever, having set aside prejudices for a time, wishes to run through all the sects that now miserably lacerate the body of Christ, will immediately discover the Church

^A alone to be that which is of one faith, one doctrine, one mouth and one lip, and which agrees with itself everywhere on matters of faith and morals as defined by the common judgment of pastors; whereas all other sects are divided into almost as many opinions as there are heads, and are tossed about by the alternating waves of various dogmas according to the requirements of the times, of emotions, and of advantage or disadvantage. He will discover that the Roman Church alone is holy, not because all its members are immune from sin—for in the Lord's field, tares are indeed mixed with the wheat—but because, since it alone teaches and commands nothing but what is holy, the Holy Spirit, the source of all graces and charisms, resides in it alone, who has led many, even in our own days, to an exceptional degree of sanctity and has glorified them with the splendor of true miracles; while all other sects, having long since fallen away from the true praise of holiness, can apply no restraint to sinners, and teach dogmas full of absurdity by which the holiness of faith and morals is utterly overthrown. Such is that [doctrine] that sinners can attain true justice by faith alone, and that no one can ever fall from the true justice he has once attained—which were the very same most destructive principles of the Gnostics, through which, as we have shown elsewhere, a very wide path is opened to all kinds of wickedness. He will discover that the Roman Church alone is apostolic, derived from the apostles by a continuous succession of its bishops and pastors, and has preserved intact the faith and tradition which it received from them; while all other sects, having rashly broken the apostolic ^B succession, have founded new churches for themselves, of which they are the new authors and founders. Finally, he will discover that the Roman Church alone is catholic and universal, propagated throughout the whole world, everywhere conspicuous and distinguished, and enjoying such wonderful fecundity that it daily gives birth to new children for itself and for Christ its Spouse, through those pastors and teachers it sends to the most remote nations; whereas all other sects are confined to a corner of the world and within the borders of certain regions, and are far less concerned with begetting new children for Christ than with perverting the old ones.

43. Concerning this, and especially the amplitude of the Roman Church, the most learned Feuardentius, of happy memory, has frequently inculcated it both truly and piously in his notes, and has confirmed it with other ^D sentiments of the Fathers. Grabius, in his notes to Irenaeus, book IV, chapter, formerly LXX, now XXXVI, has tried with all his might to elude his very troublesome arguments and to make Irenaeus and Augustine—whose authority Feuardentius also cited—favorable to himself. Thus, he confesses that Augustine, in his struggle with the Donatists, was much concerned to assert universality, and the very name "Catholic," as the proper character of the true Church, by which it might be distinguished from the false congregations of heretics and schismatics which adhere to a part of the world and have derived their name from it or from their own authors. And that this is how the matter generally stood in his age and before him. But [Grabius] really holds a different opinion regarding the succeeding and nearly final age of the world, and concerning that time (so often sung of by Calvinist and Lutheran ministers) of the great harlot, of which mention is made in the Apocalypse, chapters XVII, XVIII, and XIX. "Which," he says, "are not explained by Saint John alone, but even in this last age of the world, [they are explained] by the Papists themselves, and indeed by most theologians of the Society of Jesus in their commentaries on the holy Apocalypse, and they admit of no other exposition." Then, indeed, he adds, "if a man, led by the universality and amplitude of that corrupt Church, which turned from a virgin into a harlot, has embraced it, he has surely deceived himself most miserably." So says the renowned Grabius. To whom I say: Surely he rather deceives himself and others most miserably who, led by such frivolous little arguments, offers violence to the most evident testimonies of the holy Fathers, and so weakens their most efficacious arguments that all heretics and schismatics have always been able to blow them away with the slightest breeze. Nothing is more certain than that Irenaeus, Optatus, Augustine, and other holy Fathers objected to the amplitude and universality of the Church. But if this amplitude and universality is not an essential and perpetual character of the Church, there is nothing weaker than an argument drawn from that amplitude. For by what right does Grabius think he can respond to this, that while it might have been valid in previous centuries, back when the Church was still a virgin, it is not valid in this last age of the world, when that virgin has turned into a harlot? Any Gnostic, Sabellian, Arian, Nestorian, Donatist, etc., could have replied in exactly the same way. If the Church has already so fallen away from its pristine sanctity and faith that whoever, led by the universality and amplitude of that corrupt Church, which has turned from a virgin into a harlot, embraces it, is miserably deceiving himself—and consequently, if the most learned man thinks himself safe from the missiles of the Catholics by this response, and that he is a member of the true Church of Christ reduced to narrower limits—he must necessarily confess that he could rightfully use this same shield to protect any most wicked heretics, both ancient and recent, and that they could glory in the title of members of the true Church. Most unhappy, certainly, is Grabius, who provides weapons in his responses to all heretics whatsoever, whose strike he himself has no art to avoid.

44. But since I am forced to act here again, I will ask only one thing of Grabius: whether in this last age of the world any society survives on earth which can rightfully be called the true Church of Christ? He will not deny that it survives, I think, if he has faith in the oracles of the prophets and the words of Christ himself and the Gospel, by which it is foretold that the Church will never perish. Furthermore, if any true Church now survives on earth, it must necessarily be such, and marked by those same characters with which Christ wished it to be conspicuous and by which He willed it to be known. But from the prophetic and evangelical Scriptures it is most certain that universality and amplitude are a proper, essential, and therefore perpetual [character] of that Church, such as Christ established it,

^A a character which Saint Augustine demonstrates so clearly, efficiently, and invincibly in his book *On the Unity of the Church*, and, not to cite others, in what he wrote against the Donatists, so that the mouth of those who speak wickedly is completely stopped. After having produced and weighed the voices of the Scriptures of both Testaments, the holy doctor concludes in § 32: "The Church has been evangelized to us to be throughout the whole world." [CXXVI] The Lord Himself testified that this was foretold in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms; He who predicted that it would begin at Jerusalem and would continue through all nations, and who, when He was about to ascend into heaven, announced that they would be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the whole earth. These words were followed by the deeds. How it began at Jerusalem, and then proceeded into Judea and Samaria, and from there into the whole earth, where the Church still grows, until it obtains even the remaining nations to the very end—where it is not yet—is shown consequently by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures: whoever evangelizes something else, let him be anathema. Now, he who says that the Church has perished from the rest of the world, and has remained—as he claims—in the part of Donatus in Africa alone (it must now be said: has remained in the part of Calvin and Luther in England, Belgium, and Germany alone), evangelizes something else. Therefore, let him be anathema. Let him read this to me from the holy Scriptures, and let him not be anathema.

45. Modern Donatists will strongly answer as those ancients did in Augustine, § 33: "We believe these things, and we confess that they have been fulfilled; but afterwards the world apostatized, and the communion of Donatus (of Calvin and of Luther) alone remained." But we will immediately reply with Augustine: "Let them read this to us, and we will offer no resistance. But if they do not read those things from the holy Scriptures, but try to persuade us by their squabbles, I believe those things which are read in the holy Scriptures; I do not believe those things which are said by vain heretics." Truly a most equitable condition proposed by Augustine. For since it is most manifest, and, to use the words of Augustine (§ 56), the testimonies of the canonical Scriptures which commend ^C the Church as consisting in the communion of the whole world "stand in need of no interpreter;" whoever asserts that this amplitude and universality will not be a perpetual mark of the true Church, must bring forward testimonies of the Scriptures as clear and open by which he may prove his assertion. For, unless God has willed to deceive us—which heaven forbid that we should even think—having commended and designated His Church everywhere as a certain society which, before all others, would be distinguished by its amplitude and universality, He ought, in His goodness, to have warned, at least somewhere in such explicit words, that this amplitude would be a temporary mark of the Church only, destined to cease in the last age of the world; and that it would finally come to pass that the Church, which in previous centuries possessed ^D the whole world, would, in the last age of the world, be enclosed by narrower limits and be restricted by a smaller part of the world. Hence Augustine ^B § 72, 75, whose words Grabe might think were addressed to himself, and whoever is miserably deceived with him, errs so monstrously. "You have heard," he says, "the voice of the shepherd, most manifest, not only through his Law, and the prophets and psalms, but also through his own mouth commending his future Church. And you see by reading how those things which he foretold followed in order, in the Acts and Letters of the Apostles, which complete the canon of the divine Scriptures. It is not an obscure question in which you are deceived by those whom the Lord Himself predicted would come and say: 'Behold, here is Christ,' or 'there,' or 'in the desert,' as if where there is not a frequency of the multitude; 'behold, in the inner rooms,' as if in secret traditions and doctrines. You have the Church spread everywhere (and not only that, but) also growing until the harvest, that is, until the extreme day of judgment. You have the city of which He Himself, who founded it, says: 'A city set on a hill cannot be hid.' It is, therefore, the one that is not in any part of the earth, but is most well-known everywhere... But you, relying on so many most evident testimonies of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Lord Himself, and the Apostles regarding the holy Church diffused throughout the whole world, demand of these people that they show some manifest testimonies from the canonical books regarding Africa (now regarding England, etc.), as far as pertains to the party of Donatus (now Calvin and Luther). For it could in no way happen, as I have already said, that the Church, as they say—and God forbid—would so quickly perish from so many nations, and that there would be silence about that which they want to be their own, which they contend was to remain until the end. Therefore, let Grabe and his followers search the Scriptures (and here again are the words of Augustine, § 42), and against so many testimonies by which it is shown that the Church of Christ is diffused throughout the whole world, let them bring forward even one as certain and as manifest as those are, by which they demonstrate that the Church of Christ has perished from the rest of the nations and has remained in England alone... But since they are not permitted even to look for something by which they might prove that it was predicted that, with the other nations failing from the Christian faith, the Church would remain in 'England' alone: let them attend to that which I have often recalled, that both grow until the harvest, and the field is the world, the harvest is the end of the age, not according to us, but according to the Lord Himself interpreting His own parable... Therefore, let them cease to look for what they will not be able to find, not because it is hidden, but because it does not exist. For there are still some nations in which the Gospel has not yet been preached; but it is necessary that all things which have been predicted concerning Christ and the Church be fulfilled: therefore it must also be preached in them."

46. But then Grabe, we read in the Apocalypse, would be the great harlot, with whom the kings of the earth will commit fornication and be drunk who inhabit...

concerning the earth, the wine of her prostitution, etc., which are explained by the pontiffs themselves with regard to the last age of the world. But again, with Augustine § 9, I shall answer that "those things must be set aside which are placed obscurely and are wrapped in the veils of figures (such as are almost all things read in the Apocalypse), and which can be interpreted both according to us and according to them." It is, indeed, for sharp-minded men to judge and discern who interprets them more probably; but we do not wish to commit our disputation to these contentions of wits in this cause that holds the peoples... Let the open truth cry out, let it shine, let it burst into stopped ears, let it strike the eyes of those who feign ignorance; let no one seek in these hiding-places a place for his own false opinion; let it confound every attempt at contradiction, let it crush every face of the impudent. If Grabius has such places of Scripture, let him produce them; but let him commit the interpretation of the Apocalypse to God alone, and let him remember how unhappily it turned out for some of his own ^A. However, if it were permitted to search into the mysteries of this holy prophecy, we could much more easily turn whatever is foretold concerning that great harlot upon the Protestants themselves, and accommodate the corruptions which they have brought into faith and morals to them, than they can transfer them to the Roman Church. But setting aside these figures of things, concerning which, as Augustine says again § 10, "because they even seek an interpreter, I do not wish our talents to be compared," let us conclude: since in the Scriptures that [Church] which Christ established is designated by this mark of universality and amplitude, and it does not appear anywhere that this mark will ever cease; if there is any true Church surviving in the world today, it is the only one which is extended more widely and broadly than other societies; and therefore, it is the only Roman one. "For those individuals are not found in many nations where this one is; but this one, which is everywhere, is found even where they are." ^B

ARTICLE V. On the mystery of the most holy Trinity.

[CXXVII] 47. Augustine handed down, in a very few words, the whole faith that the Catholic Church holds concerning the sacred mystery of the Trinity, in his book *De Civit. Dei* c. 24: "We believe," he says, "and we hold, and we faithfully preach, that the Father begat the Word, that is, the Wisdom through whom all things were made, the only-begotten Son, one [begotten] from one, the eternal from the eternal, the supremely good from the equally good; and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, and is substantial and co-eternal with both: and that this whole is both Trinity on account of the Trinity of persons, and one God on account of the inseparable divinity, just as he is one omnipotent on account of the inseparable omnipotence. So that even when one asks about each, it is answered that each of them is God and omnipotent; but when one asks about all together, not three gods, or three omnipotents, but one God omnipotent: so great is the inseparable unity there in the three, which thus willed to be preached." This, I say, is the sum of the catholic faith, from which the Socinians calumniate Irenæus for having widely departed—men to whom it was of the greatest interest to drag a man of such authority to their side, even against his will. ^C That he thought less correctly of it, some among the Catholics have complained more imprudently than malignantly. The illustrious George Bull, an English presbyter, in his *Defensio fidei Nicænæ*, and our most learned lord Nicolaus Le Nourry, in his *Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam veterum Patrum*, t. II of the former edition, in the year 1697, dissert. VI, cap. 6, § 2 et seqq., have strenuously defended him against the accusations of both; to whose labors, if I have been able to add nothing, I may perhaps have sprinkled at least some light.

48. That the mind of Irenæus may be explored more certainly, the safest path of all is to look deeply into what his goal was, what the hypothesis of the adversaries whom he was opposing was, and what, in the end, he undertook to prove against them? Let anyone, therefore, who will not have been reluctant to read our first dissertation, and especially art. 1, § 5 et seqq., recall to mind that all the Gnostics and Valentinians, whom Irenæus was refuting, had utterly destroyed the entire faith of the mystery of the SS. Trinity with their profane and Platonic figments: so much so that it flowed from these most impure fountains ^D which subsequently infected the Christian religion, the Sabellian and Arian heresy. Unable to lift their mind up to the Trinity of divine persons, of whom one and the same was the nature and divine substance, they posited a God, whom they called the first and supreme Father, solitary through immense intervals of ages, and one, as in nature, so also in person, silently thinking with himself, and content and occupied with his one thought. But when he had decided in his mind to reveal himself exteriorly, by founding the world, he erupted into an act which would be the seedbed, principle, form, and archetype of all things: and this they called *Noun*, the Mind or sense, and the only-begotten Son of the Father, and said that he was perfectly similar and equal to his parent.

and it was so arranged that he alone could comprehend the magnitude of the Father, as one who was not in any way distinct from the Father in substance or person, being nothing other than the Father himself perceiving and beginning, as it were, to pour forth externally. From *Noun*, they said, the Word was produced, who was the principle, author, and former of spiritual things, namely of the superior angels, being himself an Angel, but far distant from the Father and his *Noun* in substance and person: for it was not granted to him, as it was to the Only-Begotten, to comprehend the magnitude of the Father. ^A From the Word other Æons or angels were emitted, from whom in turn others were generated; and from all of them conspiring together was produced the Savior, who was to direct the inferior angel, the creator of this visible world. But when the last Æon had rashly scrutinized the magnitude of the supreme Father and had nearly perished, lest the same fate should befall others, another pair of Æons, or angels, was emitted by the Only-Begotten, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit, by whom the Pleroma was to be supported and fortified. The sum, therefore, as far as the present matter is concerned, comes to this: that the Father existed for long myriads of ages before the Word and the Holy Spirit; that that Only-Begotten, whom they called the Son, was a mere *ἐνέργεια* of the Father, an efficiency, act, or property *ἀνυπόστατον* (without individual subsistence), not a person distinct from him; but that the Word, the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the Savior were so many distinct spiritual natures and persons, of the angelic order, distinct from one another and created in time, and far inferior to the divine or paternal; and finally, that the Demiurge, or maker of the world, was himself also an angel, but more ignoble than the preceding; who had no place in the Pleroma, the seat of the others, and was born wrapped in the denser shadows of ignorance. These are the heretical fictions which Irenæus undertook to confute, and which he refutes throughout his entire work.

49. And first, because the heretics abused the various names which appear throughout the Scriptures—Christ, Word, Only-Begotten Son, Christ, Jesus, Savior, and Demiurge—and wrongly distinguished between them, a practice upon which the greatest part of the Valentinian system rested, Irenæus proves it to be vain, first by the authority of the Gospel of John; having explained which, he concludes in lib. 1, cap. 9, n. 3: ^B ‹That the Word, and the Only-Begotten, and *Zoë*, and *Phôs*, and the Savior, and Christ the Son of God, who was incarnate for us, are shown to be one and the same.› And in lib. 2, cap. 13, he demonstrates by many arguments that the distinction which the heretics interposed between the Father, *Noun*, and the Word, conflicts with right reason and the order of emissions they invented. Especially since *Noun*, or Mind, is the very thing that is principal and supreme, and is as the principle and fountain of all sense and thought—in a word, the essential and substantial Mind of the Father, and the Father himself—it must be most absurd to say that he was emitted, lest God himself and the Father be separated from himself, and as if one thing were emitted from another. Then, if such a series of emissions as the heretics invented is admitted in God, so that the Father existed long before he emitted his Word, and this is so far distant from him, it necessarily follows that the nature of composite men, existing of body and soul, and the affections and intentions of the mind, whilst they think, are transferred to God himself. For such is the condition of men, that a word is not emitted from their mind except after a certain series and succession of acts. ^C But in Him who is God over all, since He is simple, non-composite, similar in all his parts, and entirely like to himself, and equal—since he is all *Noun*, and all *Logos*, [CXXVIII] all sense, all *ennoia*, and all reason; and since there is nothing older or later in him, nor does he contain anything of another, but is entirely equal, similar, and enduringly one—such an emission of this kind of ordination does not follow. And in cap. 17, n. 7: ‹For the Father of all is not a composite being of some kind, apart from *Noun*, as we have demonstrated before; but *Noun* is Father, and Father is *Noun*. It is necessary, therefore, that he who is from him, the *Logos*, or rather *Noun* himself (since he is *Logos*), should be perfect and impassible; and that those emissions which are from him, since they are of the same substance as he is, should remain perfect, impassible, and always similar to him who emitted them.›

50. These are the arguments by which Irenæus ^D impugned the Valentinians. 1. As something most certain, based on the Catholic faith and the Gospel, he supposed that the Only-Begotten, the Word, the Savior, and Christ the Son of God, who was incarnate for us, were one and the same, or one and the same person, of whom these were merely diverse names. Then, he agreed with the heretics on this point (which the Catholic faith also approved), not that the Only-Begotten was a mere *ἐνέργεια* of the Father, as they wished, but that the Only-Begotten, through whom he asserted all things were made (with John), was consubstantial with the Father himself, perfectly similar to him, and perfectly comprehending the magnitude of the Father. From which he concluded that the Word himself is also consubstantial with the Father, perfectly similar to him, and comprehending his magnitude. 3. Because the heretics held that the Word was far distant from the Father, both in nature and in the order of generation, and was subject to ignorance and passion, he refuted this blasphemy by the same foundation. Indeed, *Logos* is *Noun* itself, and *Noun* is *Logos*; therefore, the substance, nature, and perfection of both are the same. Moreover, it is necessary that those emissions which are from *Noun* be of the same substance as *Noun* himself, and that they remain perfect, impassible, and always similar to him who emitted them. But *Noun* of the Father, by the admission of the heretics themselves, emitted the Word. It is necessary, therefore, that the Word be of the same substance as the *Noun* of the Father, perfect, impassible, and always similar to him. 4. ‹Much

^A The Father is far removed from all these things that proceed from men, from affections and passions. But these are human affections and passions, such that their word has a beginning of prolation, and, in a mind that thinks, has a later origin in time. Since, therefore, the Word of God infinitely surpasses the human word, it could have neither a beginning of prolation nor an origin in time. Finally, whatever is in God, is God himself: for he has nothing in himself that is older or later, or that is another person’s, or different from himself; but he is wholly simple, and not composite; he is wholly equal, and similar, and remains one. Yet the Word and the Holy Spirit are in God, and they are the Word and Holy Spirit of God; for God himself is the Word, he is entirely Spirit, entirely Logos, entirely Mind, etc. Therefore ^B the Word and the Holy Spirit are of the same substance and nature as God, of the same antiquity and eternity as he, coeval and consubstantial with him; in a word, they are God himself. That these are the very arguments of Irenaeus, no one who has attended to the testimonies just cited and to his whole scope will deny: they are certainly the same arguments that the holy Fathers later used against the Arians and Macedonians, and which theologians even now use to refute the impiety of the Socinians. Consequently, there is the same faith in both regarding the mystery of the most holy Trinity. Nor, however, is the most holy martyr content with these things; he either explains the same things at greater length or brings forward other things in succession, by which it is demonstrated more and more how rightly and catholically he thought.

^C 51. Because, as I have said, the heretics denied the eternity of the Word of God, and they imagined that this visible world was not created immediately by the Father himself, nor by his Word, but by some Power far inferior to him and ignorant of the Father; Irenaeus, refuting this fiction in Book II, chap. 2, shows in n. 4 and 5 that men, although they are needy and "cannot immediately manufacture anything from what is ready, need many instruments for the fabrication of any thing." But "it is the distinctive mark of the supereminence of God to have no need of other instruments for the condition of those things" (for the creating of those things) "which are made; nor to have need of angels as assistants for the things which are made, nor of any Power far inferior to him and ignorant of the Father; but that his own Word is ^D fit and sufficient for the formation of all things, just as John the disciple of the Lord says of him: All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing. In all things, however, is this world also which is according to us. And this too, therefore, was made by the Word, etc." Summing this up again in chap. 30, he says that through his own power he both disposed and perfected all things, and that the substance of all things is his will: "The sole one God," he adds, "is the framer, he who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: this is the Father, this is God, this is the creator, this is the factor, who made them through himself, this is through his Word and his Wisdom, the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them: this is the just one, this is the good one, etc., this is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, etc., this is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ through his Word, who is his Son, through whom he is revealed and manifested to all, etc." These things, therefore, are certain and demonstrated in Irenaeus: that one God created absolutely all things, both visible and invisible, and that he is the one who is above every Principality, Power, Dominion—in a word, above all angels—and is the Father of all; that he created them, I say, not through organs and instruments diverse from himself and of a different nature from him, but through himself, that is, through his Word, his Son, and his Wisdom, that is, the Holy Spirit, as he himself explains in Book IV, c. 20, n. 1: "For he did not," he says, "need these (the angels) to make what he had predetermined to be made, as if he did not himself have his own hands. For the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, are always present with him, through whom and in whom he made all things freely and spontaneously, and to whom also he speaks, saying: Let us make man in our image and likeness; taking from himself the substance of creatures, and the pattern of the things made, and the figure in the world of the ornaments." On account of this, he calls the Word and the Holy Spirit the hands of God, not only here, but also in the Preface of the same book, and in Book III, c. 21, n. 10. But since he opposes these hands to other instruments and to an inferior Power, from this it follows manifesty that the Word and the Holy Spirit are indeed distinct from the Father, inasmuch as he has counsel with them, when he says: *Let us make man in our image and likeness*; yet that they are not of an inferior nature, nor of a nature different from his: just as, proportion being preserved, a man’s hands do not differ in nature and substance from the body whose hands they are. Nay, Irenaeus himself explains himself manifestly when he says that one God made all things through himself, that is, he adds, through his Word and his Wisdom. The Word, therefore, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same God with the Father, one and the same substance and nature with him.

[CXXIX] 52. From these things, Irenaeus concludes that the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit, not only pre-existed all created things, but also always co-existed with the Father himself, and were coeternal. For God always had his own hands: for the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, are always present with him. And in Book II, chap. 30, n. 9: "But the Son, being ever coexistent with the Father, from of old and from the beginning always reveals the Father, both to angels, and archangels, and Powers, and Virtues, and to all to whom God wills to reveal him." And in chap. 25, n. 8, bringing forward the reason why there are many things which surpass the grasp of the human mind, and which therefore should not be investigated by us too curiously and anxiously; he teaches that of God alone, from whom all things were made,

it is the proper thing to know all things; man, however, is infininitely less than God; and in as far as he is less than He who was not made, and who is always the same, by so much, in respect to knowledge and the investigation of the causes of all things, is he less than He who made him. For, he says, you, O man, were not unbegotten, nor did you always exist together with God, as did His own Word; but on account of His eminent goodness, now receiving the beginning of your creation, you learn gradually from the Word the dispensations of God, who made you. Therefore, the knowledge of man is finite and contracted within narrow limits because it received the beginning of its creation, and is infinitely less than God; but the knowledge of the Word of God is infinite, because He is unbegotten, and always coexisted with God. The same reasoning he brings forward in Book IV, c. 13, n. 4, to prove that the divine Word, which has always provided for the salvation of men, and desired as it were to reconcile to Himself the friendship of Abraham, did not do so out of necessity. But neither did the Word of God assume the friendship of Abraham on account of necessity, being perfect from the beginning: Before Abraham was, I am, He says; but that He might grant to Abraham himself eternal life, being from the beginning good, since the friendship of God is a bestower of immortality to those who attain it. The Word of God, therefore, is in need of nothing, because He exists perfect and good from the beginning, and [is] the fons of all good things; and because God is [good] by nature, He grants eternal life and immortality to His friends. And hence Irenæus infers at the beginning of the following chapter, that in the beginning God did not fashion Adam as if He were in need of man, but that He might have one on whom to bestow His benefits. For not only before Adam, but even before all creation, He was glorifying His Word the Father, remaining in Him; and He Himself was being glorified by the Father, just as He Himself says: Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with You, before the world was 16. Finally, in chapter 20, n. 3, proving what he had said in n. 1, that the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, were always present with the Father, through whom and in whom He made all things freely and spontaneously; he has this: And that the Word, that is the Son, was always with the Father, I have shown by many things. But that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was with Him before all constitution, He says through Solomon: The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, but He prepared the heaven by prudence 18, etc. And again: The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works 19, etc. One God, therefore, who by His Word and Wisdom made and fitted all things, etc. The Son, therefore, and the Holy Spirit were thus with God the Father before all constitution—not only of visible things, but also of invisible [things] and of the Æons which the heretics imagined—such that they were always present with the Father, coeternal and coeval with Him, the Word, Wisdom, and the hands of the Father, of which He could never be in need, even though He could always easily have been without the angels or any inferior Virtues whatsoever. ^A 53. Nor was it enough for Irenæus to have proven the eternity of the Word and the Holy Spirit, but, striking at the throat of the cause, he asserts and demonstrates throughout that both are consubstantial with the Father, [and] of the same nature and substance with Him: although this follows sufficiently clearly from what has been said thus far. For from the principles of the holy doctor, whatever is unbegotten, and without beginning, is truly and substantially God. By this most certain principle he proves in Book II, cap. 8, n. 2 and 3, that nothing of those things which were constituted, and are in subjection, and therefore neither Angels, Archangels, etc., constituted and made by God through His Word, and through the Spirit of His mouth, by whom the heavens were established, and all their host, can be compared to their Author. For those things which were constituted are infinitely distant from Him who constituted [them], and those things which were made from Him who made [them]. For He Himself is unbegotten, and without beginning, and without end, in need of no one, He Himself is self-sufficient, and further, [is the one] providing for all other things that they might exist; but those things which were made by Him, took their beginning. And whatsoever things took their beginning, and can perceive dissolution, and are subject, and are in need of Him who made them: it is necessary in every way that they have a different name, even among those ^B who have even a slight sense in discerning such things: so that indeed He who made all things, with His Word, is justly called God and Lord alone; but those things which were made, are no longer capable of the same name, nor should they rightly receive that name, which is specific to the Creator. These things, therefore, are most certain in Irenæus: He who is unbegotten, and without beginning, and without end, in need of nothing, and Himself self-sufficient, is truly, properly, and justly called God and Lord alone: he who is the author, founder, and maker of all things is unbegotten and without beginning. But it is no less certain in Irenæus that the Word and the Holy Spirit did not have a beginning, that they were always present with the Father, and coexisted with Him; that the Word and the Holy Spirit with the Father made all things; whence it must necessarily be concluded that the Word and the Holy Spirit, according to Irenæus, are rightly said to be, and are, one God and Lord with the Father, and that the nature and substance of the three is one. But I return to my stated task. ^C 54. Heretics, as I said, used to invent that there was one supreme Father, [and] another Demiurge, or creator of all inferior and visible things: [and that] he was the author of the old law, celebrated only in it, and only known and adored by the Jews; but that the other remained unknown always, until, when the Gospel was shining, and Jesus (as the Christ, upon whom [the Spirit] descended, breathing [into him]) revealing [it], he became known, [and] established and promulgated a new law. This most ruinous dogma, the source of all evils, Irenæus, about to overthrow in his entire first book, proves that there is one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and the author of both laws, and that this [one] is the supreme Father Himself, and His Word, and ^D the Holy Spirit, and no other.

^A that there were preachers, and apostles of liberty, if not the one true God the Father and His Word, who has the primacy in all things; it is manifestly shown that He is the maker of heaven and earth, who spoke with Moses, and gave him the disposition of the Law, who called the Fathers, confessed them as Lord God, and knew no other. What is clearer? The Father and the Word, the Father and this His Son, are one and the same God preached by the prophets and announced by the Gospel; the only true God and Lord, the maker of heaven and earth, who spoke with Moses and gave him the disposition of the Law, etc.

55. Renewing the same argument throughout almost the whole of book IV, and approaching even more closely to the cause, Irenæus proves from the Scriptures, and especially from the very discourses of our Lord, that there is one and the same God the author of both laws, who created all things, who gave the old law, who spoke with Moses and the other Fathers and prophets, and who through His Word—not that fictitious one of the ^B heretics, but His only-begotten Son, and the one and true God with Him, most perfect and omniscient—made Himself known in both Testaments. On this matter he brings forward in chapter 5, n. 2, those words of Christ in Matt. XXII, 29 ff. to the Sadducees: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said by God, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" and He added: "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to Him." Then Irenæus adds: "By these things indeed He made it manifest that He who spoke to Moses from the bush, and manifested Himself to be the God of the Fathers, this is the God of the living. For who is the God of the living, unless He who is God, above whom there is no other God?" ^C Whom also the prophet Daniel, when Cyrus, king of the Persians, said to him: "Why do you not worship Bel?" announced, saying: "Because I do not worship idols made by hands, but the living God, who created heaven and earth, and has dominion over all flesh." Again he said: "I will worship the Lord my God, because this is the living God." Therefore, the living God who was worshipped by the prophets is the God of the living, and His Word, who also spoke to Moses, and who also rebuked the Sadducees, and who also granted the resurrection: showing both to those who are blind, that is, the resurrection and God. With this demonstrated, he concludes: "Christ Himself, therefore, with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was manifested to the fathers." ^D Thus with one and the same bolt did Irenæus strike down the double error of the Gnostics at once: both that which they fabricated, that the Word was inferior to the Father, and that the Father was not accessible to Himself; and that which they feigned, that He who spoke to the prophets was the Demiurge himself, far other and distinct from the supreme Father. Indeed, He who spoke to Moses from the bush, and manifested Himself to be the God of the fathers, whom

^A the prophets call the living God, and whom they worshipped as the living God, is this very God of the living, a God above whom there is no other God, in a word, the supreme God. Now the Father and His Word, Christ, are together that same Being who spoke to Moses, who also was manifested to the fathers, and was worshipped and addressed by the prophets as the living God. Therefore, Christ, together with the Father, is the God of the living, the God above whom there is no other God, and the supreme God. What, I ask, could be brought forward more clearly to vindicate the faith of Irenæus and to establish the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father? Nothing more clear or more express will occur even in Athanasius himself. Other similar testimonies and arguments will occur throughout the fourth book and elsewhere passim.

56. Because the Valentinians were abusing the words of Christ in Matt. xi, 27, and Luke x, 22, and describing them thus: "No one has known the Father, except the Son, and neither has anyone known the Son, except the Father, and he to whom the Son shall wish to reveal Him"—but they interpreted it in this way, says Irenæus in ch. 6, n. 1, "as if the true God were known by no one before the coming of our Lord; and they said that this God, who was announced by the prophets, was not the Father of Christ"—the holy martyr demonstrates throughout that whole chapter both that their reading of the words is adulterated, and that their explanation of them is most false. For when the Lord says: "No one knows the Son, except the Father; nor the Father, except the Son, and to whomsoever the Son shall have revealed Him"; the genuine reading of which words is: "He shall have revealed," ^B it is not spoken solely of the future, as if the Word only then began to manifest the Father when He was born of Mary; but it is put generally for the whole of time. For from the beginning, the Son, assisting His own handiwork, reveals the Father to all to whom He wills, and when He wills, and as the Father wills. For the Son executes the good pleasure of the Father: for the Father sends, while the Son is sent and comes. Hence, in every age and always, and in many ways, the Word has revealed Himself, so that He might at the same time reveal the Father. The reason is that "the invisible of the Son is the Father; but the visible of the Father is the Son." And although the Father be invisible and indeterminable, as far as we are concerned; yet the recognition of the Father is the manifestation of the Son: for all things are manifested through the Word. The recognition of the Father is the Son; but the recognition of the Son is revealed in the Father and through the Son. From all these things Irenæus concludes: "Therefore it was not one who was known, and another who said: 'No one knows the Father'; but one and the same [God], ^C with the Father subjecting all things to Him, and He receiving testimony from all, that He is truly man and that He is truly God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from the angels, etc. And because of this, in all things, and through all things, there is one God the Father, and one Word the Son, and one Spirit; and one salvation for all who believe in Him." The Father, therefore, and the Word, by the testimony of Irenæus, are not one God and another God; this is the invisible of the Son, the Father; but the visible ^D of the Father, the Son—namely, that the divine and invisible nature of the Father is that same nature which belongs also to the Son; and by that same nature by which the Son is seen and known, the Father also is known, because the Son is the image of the Father, and the figure or character of His substance: the Word made flesh, so that as He is truly man, so also He is truly God: finally, in all things and through all things, one God the Father, one Word, and one Spirit; a unity in three, one nature in three. What is clearer? As for what Irenæus says, that the recognition of the Father is the Son, and the recognition of the Son is in the Father, and that it is revealed through the Son, this is the very same thing that he had said in lib. II, c. 6, n. 2: "That the Son is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself." It is the same thing, too, which he had said in lib. IV, c. 4, n. 2. He is, of course, responding to the vain cavils of the Gnostics, who, because of the destruction of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, and the abrogation of the old law, inferred that there was one author and God of the Old Testament and another of the New; he shows that both for Jerusalem and for the old law, there was a time measured and determined by God; that both were destined to cease upon the coming of the new law; and that this was done by the most wise and most orderly counsel of God. "For," he says, "God does all things by measure and order, and there is nothing not measured with Him, since there is nothing uncomposed." That this last point—namely, that there is nothing not measured with God—to prove it, he praises some ancient or coeval ecclesiastical writer, whose name he keeps silent, but whose words he approves: "And well did he speak who said that the immeasurable Father Himself is measured in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also contains Him." By these words he shows that God is so much a lover of order, proportion, and measure, that He did not wish to lack a measure of His own; for the Son is the measure of the Father, who takes, contains, and as it were circumscribes in Himself the entire immensity, infinity, and substance of the Father. That is the περιχώρησις, the circumincession of the divine persons, from which the holy Fathers so frequently and so happily drew arguments against the Arians, to prove that the Son is ὁμοούσιον with the Father. For they are in one another, the Father and the Son, and the Father is no less in the Son than He is in Himself, nor is the Son less in the Father than He is in Himself; to the extent that they mutually exist in one another and, so to speak, mingle with and penetrate one another, and are therefore distinguished from one another, and yet agree in one and the same nature and substance without any difference.

57. But from the way and sense in which Irenæus so often and solicitously inculcates throughout the fourth book and elsewhere (which was not infrequent among other Fathers before and after him) that the Father always remained invisible, and was never seen by anyone, not even in an external appearance and sensible form; and that He could not be seen at all; but that of the divine persons, only the divine Word appeared to the ancient patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament, in order that...

^A He might introduce the knowledge of God and the Father to men, through which He might preserve their life, which cannot exist without the knowledge of God; and that it is the Son who made Himself seen to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, and to others, and who spoke with Moses, and who finally, as Irenæus says, "showed the prophetic visions, and the divisions of the charisms, and His ministries, and the glorification of the Father, consistently and composedly to the human race, at the fitting time, for the benefit of men, for whose sake He performed such great dispensations; while guarding the invisibility of the Father, so that man might never become a contemner of God, and might always have something to advance toward; but, on the other hand, showing God as visible to men through many dispensations, so that man, not utterly failing, might not cease to be from God." In one word, it is He who says to Moses: "Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have descended to deliver them"; having been accustomed from the beginning to have the Word of God ascend and descend, for the salvation of those who were faring ill. Irenæus discusses these things at length from almost chapter 5 to chapter 20, but especially in this place. All these things aim at the same point. For since the holy doctor had undertaken to prove that there is one and the same author of both Testaments, he shows that one and the same God had always consulted and provided for the salvation of men; that one and the same God was worshipped by the ancients and by us; that the faith of the ancients and ours was the same; that all the prophecies and figures of the Old Testament converged into one and the same Christ, the mediator of the New Testament, and that consequently there is one and the same God and Father, whom He himself announced, and made known to men, and not another and different from Him whom the prophets announced, who foretold His advent: hence, indeed, that the Father had always been invisible, and that it was never given to any mortal to see His magnitude and wonderful glory; for He is "incapable" and incomprehensible and invisible; but that it is wrongly inferred by the heretics from thence that He had always been unknown until Christ came. "Since He who works all things in all is God, such as He is and as great as He is, He is invisible and unutterable to all things which have been made by Him; but by no means unknown. The reason is because all things learn through His Word, because there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and grants to all to exist, as it is written in the Gospel: No man hath seen God at any time, except the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." Therefore, the Son declares the Father from the beginning, since He who is from the beginning is with the Father. But why does Irenæus assign this task to the Word alone, that He should make Himself and His Father known? Why does he affirm so constantly that one Word made Himself seen, while the Father always remained invisible? Is it because he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father, or that he thought Him, by His own nature, to be approachable, rather than the other? But he refutes this ^B clearly. And as to the Father being invisible and indeterminable, He knows His own Word; and though He is unutterable, He Himself declares Him; but again, the Father alone knows His own Word. Therefore, His Word Himself is not less invisible, and indeterminable, and unutterable—"as far as we are concerned"—than the Father, since He is known as far as He is, by the Father alone: for "the Father of the Son is invisible," as he says a little later; for what the nature of the Father is, the same is the nature of the Son; each, according to his own nature, is invisible. And in chapter 24, n. 2, he openly teaches: "There is one God, who is over every principality, and dominion, and power, [CXXXII] and every name that is named: and His Word, naturally indeed invisible, [has condescended] to be palpable and visible among men, and even unto the death of the cross." If, therefore, the divine Word showed Himself as one to be seen, surely it was not in His own divine and invisible nature, but only in strange and assumed forms and species. He proves this at length in chapter 20, n. 9 and following, where he weighs the words of the divine Word to Moses, with whom He was speaking: "Stand in the high place of the rock, and I will cover thee with my hand. But when my glory shall pass, then thou shalt see the things that are behind me; but my face shall not be seen by thee; for no man shall see my face, and live"; he says that both are signified by these, "that it is both impossible for man to see God, and that through the Wisdom of God, in the last times, man will see Him in the height of the rock, that is, in that advent of His which is according to man." He thinks, therefore, that only then was the divine Word seen face to face, when He assumed a human nature for Himself and made it His own. Hence he concludes that the prophets did not see the very face of God in a manifest way, but [saw] dispensations and mysteries, through which man might begin to see God, so that man might gradually accustom himself to seeing Him who has become flesh. And afterwards: "If therefore neither Moses saw God, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, who saw many things of the heavenly realm; but the things which were seen by them were likenesses of the glory of the Lord, and prophecies of things to come: it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom the Lord also said: No man hath seen God at any time: but His Word, as He Himself willed, and for the benefit of those who believe, showed the glory of the Father, and set forth the dispensations... He was not seen by those who saw Him in one figure, nor in one character, but according to the causes and efficacy of His dispensations." As if he were to say: If neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, nor the prophets with whom He dealt familiarly, saw the divine Word, and yet did not see the very essence of God, but only likenesses of the glory of the Lord; it is manifest that neither is the Father visible according to His own nature in this mortal life; nor is His Word to be discerned in His essence.

^A but presented Himself in varying figures, and not in one character, according to the causes and efficacy of His dispensations.

58. If, then, Irenæus wishes (and this is the scope of both his own assertions and those of other Fathers who agree with him) to point out that the Father, since He is the origin and fountain of the entire most Holy Trinity, from whom the other persons flow and are sent, is Himself sent by no one; it was less fitting that those frequent *epiphanies* of God which occurred of old should have taken place. For it was always fitting for God’s goodness to make Himself known to men, and to offer Himself to be seen so far as they are able to grasp it; since «the vision of God is the life of man.» But it was more fitting that the Son, rather than the Father, should undertake this duty. For that knowledge of God which was to be instilled into the minds of men, and those frequent visions of God, looked toward the *economy* and were brought about for the benefit of fallen men, and were so many preludes to the future incarnation. Furthermore, just as it was fitting that the Son—because He has His necessary and eternal origin from the Father, because He was born of the Father, is sent by the Father, and is His image, the figure of His substance, and, as Irenæus says, the *recognition*—should take on flesh rather than the Father, who, since He is the first person, neither originates from nor is sent by any other; so it was more fitting for the Son than the Father to prelude His future incarnation with those frequent apparitions, and to concern Himself from the beginning with the salvation of those whom He was later to redeem with His blood. For He did not take up this care only then, when He came in mortal flesh, as we have more than once heard Irenæus saying, but from the beginning and from the fall of man. Therefore, from the beginning the Son was solicitous for the salvation of men, and went forth, as it were, so often to manifest both the Father and Himself in public, because such was the will of the Father. «The Son, administering all things, accomplishes [them] for the Father from the beginning to the end, and without Him no one can know God;» and «the Son performs the good pleasure of the Father.» But if you should ask of Irenæus why the Son administers all things for the Father and performs the Father’s good pleasure, he would offer this reason, common to all Catholics: «For the Father sends, while the Son is sent and comes.» The Father sends the Son, because He is the principle of the Son, and begets Him; but the Son is sent, because He proceeds from the Father as from a principle, and is begotten by Him. Furthermore, just as it is honorable for the Father to beget and to send the Son, so it is no less honorable for the Son to be sent and to be begotten; and this mission implies no disparity of substance in either. «For (says Augustine, lib. 3 *cont. Maxim.*, c. 14) it was not the begetter who ought to have been sent by him whom he begat, but the begotten by the begetter; but this is not an inequality of substance, but an order of nature; not that one was prior to the other, but that one was from the other.»

59. From the things said, it is also easy to collect in what sense Irenæus has more than once said ^D that the Father commanded His Word to create the world, and that the Son and the Spirit ministered to the Father in the founding of things; that man was made with the Father indeed well-pleasing and commanding, with the Son indeed ministering and commanding; and with the Spirit nourishing, and increasing, and other things of this sort. Certainly, the Father commands and orders the Son and the Holy Spirit, not as a superior and Lord to inferiors and subjects, but as an equal to equals, consubstantial to consubstantial, coeternal to coeternals, without whom He can do nothing; nay, the Father commands the Son and the Holy Spirit as He would Himself. For He does not distinguish the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Father in any other way than by person and subsistence, certainly not by nature and substance, which He acknowledges and confesses to be one and the same in the three. He demonstrates this clearly and without ambiguity in lib. 2, c. 30, n. 9, and in other places already cited by us. But that ministry which the Son and the Holy Spirit performed for the Father—how far it is removed from Him, in that it has not even the smallest shadow of subjection and servitude attached to it—the holy doctor demonstrates in lib. 4, c. 7, n. 4, where he calls it «a copious and ineffable ministry.» «For there ministers to Him (he adds) His progeny and His *figuration*, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject.» Thus, therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit minister to the Father, so that that ministry is ineffable, and removes by an infinite interval all the ideas which it has attached to it in human affairs. They minister in such a way that the one is the very progeny of the Father, and the other the *figuration* and image of the Son (for I refer this word, *his figuration*, to the Son, as I have explained in the notes to this passage); therefore not as servants to a master, but as progeny from the principle from which it proceeds, and of the same dignity as He. Finally, they minister in such a way that the angels serve them and are subject to them. But the angels serve the Son and the Holy Spirit for the very reason that they were created by them, as the author explains in lib. 2, c. 8, n. 3, and are therefore infinitely lesser than them.

60.

-^Aoperating, not unwillingly, not constrained by any necessity, but knowing and willing, He made all things freely and spontaneously; not from elsewhere, not outside Himself, but He Himself from Himself, in His will, in His Word and His Wisdom, taking the substance of creatures, and the pattern of things made, and the figure of the ornaments in the world, as he speaks in Book IV, c. 20, n. 1. All those things are sufficiently evident from the testimonies of Irenaeus hitherto adduced, so that there is no need to repeat them here.

61. One thing remains to be considered—whether Irenaeus attributed ignorance of the final judgment to the Son of God. And indeed, this is ascribed to the most holy martyr, but altogether wrongly. Rebuking the Gnostics, he writes in Book II, c. 28, n. 6: "But you, puffed up, say that you know the mysteries of God; since the Lord himself, the Son of God, conceded that only the Father knows the day and hour of judgment, saying plainly: 'But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the Son, but the Father only' [Mark xiii, 32]. If therefore the Son did not blush to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, but said what is true, let us not blush either to reserve to God those things which are in our questions [which are] greater than us. For no one is above his master." Here the author at first sight seems to ascribe ignorance to the Son of God Himself: so much so that the solution of George Bull is shallow, by which he contends that Irenaeus attributed ignorance to Christ the man only—for here he speaks expressly of the Son of God. Although, indeed, Bull defends, together with many Protestants, that ignorance could be ascribed to Christ the man, and strives to explain Irenaeus in that sense, he casts another blemish upon him. But dismissing this controversy, which is outside our scope, I confidently assert that whoever reads the present chapter, which we are now engaged in, with the attention of mind that is proper, and notices the series and scope of Irenaeus’s whole argument, will immediately discover that no ignorance at all is here attributed to Christ the Lord.

62. Irenaeus, as I have said, chastises the impudence of the Gnostics, who, seeking the praise of vain knowledge, assumed the license to discourse insanely on all things—even the deeper mysteries of the Christian religion, such as the generation of the divine Word—and to frame at will new systems of things both divine and human. But when he has proven that there is a certain rule of truth in the divine Scriptures, to which the questions that religion permits to be agitated concerning divine things must be so exigently applied that one may not depart from it anywhere, he nevertheless shows that there are many things in the Scriptures, though they are perfect in themselves, which far exceed the narrow limits of our mind, and which therefore, since they cannot be known by us, must be humbly committed to God, and not rashly scrutinized. Nor is it a wonder if we are blind in spiritual and celestial matters, which can be perceived by faith alone, when natural things themselves, placed before our eyes, mostly escape our knowledge. Hence ^B he concludes that those heretics are insane who tried to investigate and explain the eternal generation of the divine Word and other such profound mysteries: and that they erred so gravely in this, that, puffed up by the pride of haughtiness, they would reserve nothing to God, but sought to scrutinize all things rashly. Moreover, in order to confound the madness of the heretics more and more, he seeks an argument from the example of Christ the Son of God himself, from the greater to the less. If, says the Lord, the Son of God himself conceded that only the Father knows the day and hour of judgment, and the Son did not blush to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father: why should we, who are infinitely lesser than the Son of God, blush to reserve to God things that are greater than us in our questions? For no one is above his master. By this method of arguing, the holy doctor intends to establish one thing: that Christ, for the sake of the economy, conceded that only the Father knows the day and hour of judgment; not that He Himself did not know it, but that He willed that such knowledge should be referred to the Father, from whom He Himself had received it with His divinity, and that the notification of that day should be expected from Him alone. For although He Himself possessed it, yet He did not wish to communicate it to others, nor to explain it, because the Father (from whom He spoke, and from whom He had received the mandate, what He should say and what He should speak, as John xii, 49 states) had willed that it be kept silent: so that, to be sure, by His example He might teach that some things must be humbly reserved to God, and that those things which God willed to be hidden must not be rashly explained by us. Thus our author explains the mind a little later, namely in n. 8: "If anyone, he says, should inquire the cause why, while the Father communicates to the Son in all things, He has been manifested by the Lord as alone knowing the hour and the day; no other cause, more fitting or more decent, nor without danger, could he find at present (for the Lord is the only truthful master): than that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all. For 'the Father,' He says, 'is greater than I' [John xiv, 28]. And thus, according to [this] acknowledgment, the Father was announced by our Lord as being set before [all], to this end: that we too, in as much as we are in the figure of this world, may concede perfect knowledge and such questions to God; and lest by chance, seeking to investigate the height of the Father, we fall into such danger as to ask whether there is another God above God." Observe 1° that Irenaeus nowhere asserts simply that only the Father knows the day and hour, but that it was manifested by the Lord that only the Father knows the day and hour; that the Lord conceded that only the Father knows the day and hour of judgment, etc. 2° That the holy doctor openly professes that in all things the Father communicates to the Son. He who says he communicates in all things excludes nothing at all, not even the knowledge of the day and hour of the final judgment. 3° That it was not the intent of our author to treat this question professedly—whether in reality only the Father knew the day and hour of the final judgment, and the Son truly ^D

absolute did not know it; but to treat of it only so far as sufficed for the present, or so far as was conducive to the present argument. Yet the present argument was to inquire into the cause [CXXXIV] for which the Father, whilst communicating to the Son the knowledge of all things, and indeed of all things whatsoever, and of the day of judgment, nevertheless, as manifested by the Lord, alone knew the day and hour. For how could the Lord, the truthful Teacher, saying what is true, refer this to the Father alone, when yet He possesses it in common with the Father? To which question he replies that no better reason can be adduced for the present than that this was done by Christ for the sake of the economy and as an example, "that we might learn through Him that the Father is over all, and that perfect knowledge and such questions ought to be conceded to God, lest, searching to investigate the loftiness of the Father, we should fall into danger." For the Father, Christ Himself says, is greater than I; and according to knowledge, the Father has been declared by the Lord to be set before the Son: not that the Father is greater in nature, or that the Son's knowledge is less; for the Spirit of the Savior, which is in Him, searches all things, even the depths of God; and His own Word, always coexisting with God, possesses the experience and thought of all things, and infinite knowledge, as God Himself, and perfectly knows His Father, and is His measure, since He comprehends Him, as we have heard Irenæus saying above; but because the Father is prior in order and origin, being the first of all, and the Principle of the Son Himself; to whom the Son refers back all things, as well His nature as His knowledge, as received; to whom, finally, He yields all things as to His author, desiring to do or say or reveal nothing whatever beyond His will: to the end that we too, being infinitely less than God, might learn by Christ’s example that perfect knowledge, and abstruse questions, should be left to God, nor rashly to scrutinize those things which He has willed should remain hidden from us. In one word, the sum of Irenæus’s whole argumentation returns to this: If the Lord Himself, the Son of God, the Word of the Father, to whom the Father communicates in all things, whose Spirit which is in Him, that is, the divine intellect, searches all things, even the depths of God itself, whom therefore it cannot escape what the Father has determined concerning the day and hour of the last judgment; yet He referred the knowledge of that day to the Father, and conceded it to Him, and would not explain or reveal what the will of the Father did not permit to be revealed: then a fortiori we who dwell upon the earth, to whom are given only "divisions of graces, and divisions of ministries, and divisions of operations," and who "know in part and prophesy in part," ought to concede all questions to Him who grants us grace in part, as he said a little before, and not attempt to explain or investigate that which God has willed to lie hidden in the treasuries of His own wisdom. How catholic this kind of argument is, and how far removed from Arian impiety, any fair judge of things easily sees. ^B 63. Now, I believe, no one—unless he be a Socinian of brazen front—will deny that Irenæus's faith regarding the divinity of the Word and the Holy Spirit, and their consubstantiality with the Father, agrees to the highest degree with the Nicene and Constantinopolitan faith. Nor, henceforth, will anyone read with indignation in the Magdeburg Centuriators that Irenæus "uses the word Word, or tou Logou, so obscurely and perplexedly that he seems not clearly to distinguish between the substantial Word, and the vocal word, or that of the mouth." Truly, those who wrote these things either never read Irenæus’s books, or read them with bleared eyes. To refute this calumny and to vindicate Irenæus’s faith, all the things which we have said thus far are more than sufficient. We could have expatiated still more broadly, and sought many arguments from those things which our author discusses at length in Book III, c. 16, and following. For in those passages he is entirely occupied with proving against the Gnostics that Jesus Christ is one and the same, the only-begotten Son of God, true God and true man, where, among the first things he uses to accomplish this, he employs that testimony of the Apostle, Rom. IX, 5: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever." But perhaps this would have resulted in weariness for the readers: therefore we have preferred that Irenæus himself be read. There is another point of which the cited Centuriators complain: "that Irenæus speaks more rarely of the Holy Spirit." Indeed, he speaks somewhat more rarely of the Holy Spirit than of the Word: judging, clearly, it to be enough, as he himself professes in Book I, c. 9, if the perverse distinction which the Valentinians interposed between the Only-Begotten, the Word, the Savior, Christ, etc., were fundamentally overturned—that first ogdoad of theirs, upon which, as if linked, the whole mass of the Valentinian Pleroma hung; for this being overturned, the whole hypothesis must necessarily fall. Whence upon this distinction to be shaken, and the identity of the Word with the Only-Begotten to be established, and the same nature and divinity of His with the Father, with the distinction of persons preserved, the whole mass of his arguments rests. Yet he does not speak so rarely of the Holy Spirit but that it clearly appears, from those things which he discusses again and again, that he is reckoned by him to be true God, coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These things which we have reported above, the places and arguments of the most holy martyr, demonstrate clearly. Hence he calls Him the hand of God, and thence concludes that He always coexisted with the Father, and existed before all things were created; which he also proves from the book of Proverbs. Hence he associates Him with the Father and the Son in the work of creation. And he believes, by just merit, that the work of creation is so divine, and proper to God alone, that from the fact that all things were established through the Word, he infers that not only are angels, archangels, and other created things infinitely distant from the Word; but also that He is unmade, without beginning, without end, and alone, with the Father, that He is justly called God and Lord: [believing that] all other things, from the fact that they are created, had a beginning.

be subjected, nor can it justly take the name of God, which belongs to the Creator. This argument either proves nothing at all, or it proves invincibly that the Holy Spirit, according to Irenaeus’s opinion, is no less true God, unbegotten, without beginning, without end, subject to no one, etc., than the Word himself: seeing that He was no less the hand of the Father, and contributed no less effort to the creation of things, than the Word himself. But for those to whom the aforesaid things shall not seem to suffice, let them read what Irenaeus writes in Book V, c. 12, n. 2. I trust that this whole category of objection will be precluded. There, Irenaeus distinguishes between the breath of life, which makes man an animal being, and the vivifying Spirit, which makes man a spiritual being. ^A “And for this reason,” he says, “Isaiah says: Thus saith the Lord, who hath made the heavens and hath established them, who hath formed the earth, and the things that are therein; and hath given breath to the people who are upon it, and spirit to them who walk upon it.” He says that the breath is given commonly to everyone who is upon the earth, but the Spirit [is given] properly to those who trample upon (that is, tread down) earthly desires. For which reason, again, the same Isaiah, distinguishing what was said, says: “For the spirit shall go forth from me, and I have made every breath.” He assigns the Spirit properly in God (πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ; it should have been translated here as *in Deum*, "into God"), whom ^B in the last times He poured forth through the adoption of sons upon the human race, but indicates that the breath is common to creation and to the thing made. But what has been made is one thing, and He who made it is another. The breath, therefore, is temporal; but the Spirit is eternal, etc. Here, from the words of Isaiah, Irenaeus proves that a very wide distinction must be placed between the Spirit and the breath: that “the Spirit” is assigned by Isaiah properly to God—^B *πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας, τοῦ ἐκχέοντος αὐτό*—that is, it is constituted in the same order, rank, dignity, and nature as He who poured it forth, God; but that “the breath” is assigned by him commonly to the creation, “and is shown to be a created thing;” and that the breath differs from the Spirit as much as that which is made differs from Him who made it; and consequently that the breath is temporal, had a beginning, and was created; but that the Spirit is eternal, without beginning, the Creator, and true God. There will perhaps be one who might contend that the passages of Isaiah were less successfully explained by Irenaeus; but here we are not discussing the genuine sense of Isaiah; we only contend with just cause and merit that the prophet was so expounded by our author that, from his words, he inferred that the Holy Spirit is true God, consubstantial with Him from whom He has been poured forth upon the human race.

ARTICLE VI.

64. Someone might think that it would take a long dissertation to demonstrate that Irenaeus’s doctrine on the mystery of the Incarnation is sound and orthodox. For his writings speak for themselves, and whoever reads them, especially what the author discusses in his third book, from chapter 16 to 24, will admit that he wrote no less accurately than if he had lived after the times of Paul of Samosata, Photinus, Nestorius, and Eutyches. The heretics with whom he contended denied that Jesus Christ our Lord is true God and true man; but, impiously dividing Jesus from Christ, some blasphemed that He was merely a phantasm of a man, which had passed through Mary as if through a channel; others, that He had been begotten of the seed of Joseph and Mary in the manner of other men: but that [the Christ] had flown into Him when He was about to be baptized, and would soon fly away again when He was to be crucified. Irenaeus, in order to refute these monsters of errors in the cited chapters, is entirely ^C of God, who is “in the beginning existing with God, through whom all things were made, who also was always present to the human race, and who in the last times, according to the time predetermined by the Father, united to his own handiwork, became a passible man:” so that “all contradiction is excluded for those who say: If He was then born, then Christ did not exist before; for the Son of God did not then begin, existing always with the Father; but when He was incarnate and made man, he recapitulated in Himself the long exposition of men, providing us with salvation in a summary, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, to be according to the image and likeness of God, this we might receive back in Christ Jesus.” Truly God ^D Christ, the Son of the living God, is the same “and the son of man.” For we have demonstrated from the Scriptures that no one among the sons of Adam is called God or named Lord in a total sense in the same way as Him. But since He himself, beyond all those who were then men, is uniquely preached as God, and Lord, and eternal King, and the only-begotten, and the incarnate Word, both by the prophets, and the apostles, and by Himself

in the Spirit, is evident to all who have attained even a little of the truth. These things the Scriptures would not testify concerning Him, if He had been merely a man as all others. But because He had an excellent generation beyond all others, which is from the Most High Father, and because He also performed the excellent generation which is from the Virgin, both of these the divine Scriptures testify concerning Him; and because He was a man without glory, and subject to suffering, and sitting upon the foal of an ass, and given vinegar and gall to drink, and was despised among the people, and descended even unto death: and because the Lord is holy, and a wonderful counselor, and beautiful in appearance, and the strong God, coming upon the clouds as the judge of all, the Scriptures prophesied all things concerning Him... This, therefore, is the Son of God, our Lord, existing as the Word of the Father, and the son of man: because He was born of Mary, who had her descent from men, and who was herself a human being, He had a generation according to man, and was made the son of man. These things are clear, and are not to be eluded by the vain evasions of heretics. Christ is both the true Son of God and the true son of man: true God, on account of His eternal generation from the Most High Father; true man, on account of His temporal, yet excellent, generation from the Virgin; in whom, therefore, there was a double nature, corresponding to the double generation, but a single person so affecting and coupling both natures that one and the same is the Son of God and the son of man, one incarnate Word. Hence He urges the union of the natures against the heretics so strongly that he sometimes asserts, "The Word, who is always present to the human race, was united and commingled with His own creature, and became flesh; and man was commingled with the Word of God." These things, however, we have shown in their proper places to have been said in a catholic sense, and always with the distinction of the natures preserved.

65. And hence Irenæus commends the dignity of Mary, that she, remaining a virgin, gave birth to the true Emmanuel, who in substance is God, and that she begot Him as true man and thus also as true God; and he dissipates the vain attempts of Theodotion, Aquila, and other impious men, who, by perverse interpretations of the Scriptures, opposed the virginity of Mary. Hence, from that chief glory of Mary, he also draws this, that having become the Mother of God, she emerged as the first mediatrix of our salvation after the Son: and he asserts that through her faith and obedience we have attained salvation and redemption; which are the roles of a mediatrix and reconciler with God. "Just as that one (Eve), while having a husband, Adam, yet remaining a virgin... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both to herself and to the entire human race: so also Mary, having a destined husband, and being nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation both to herself and to the entire human race." And afterwards: "That which the virgin Eve bound by incredulity, this the virgin Mary unloosed by faith." And in book V, ch. 19: "Just as that one (Eve) ^B was seduced by the word of an angel, that she might flee from God, having transgressed His word: so this one (Mary) was evangelized by the angelic word, so that she might bear God, being obedient to His word. And if she had disobeyed God; yet this one was persuaded to obey God, so that the virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just as the human race had been bound to death through a virgin, it is saved through a virgin: a balance being struck [CXXXVI], virginal disobedience by virginal obedience. For the sin of the protoplast was now receiving amendment through the correction of the first-born, and the prudence of the serpent was being overcome by the simplicity of the dove, and those chains were being loosed by which we were bound to death." Which latter words, [and] "just as it was bound to death," etc., Augustine transcribed in lib. 1 cont. Julian, cap. 3.

66. The Magdeburgenses ^C think these things poorly said. Gallasius is more insolent than they; in his annotations on the final passage of Irenæus, he rages against Irenæus himself, other Fathers, and the entire Catholic Church. The more moderate learned Grabe spares the person of Irenæus, but attempts to force the words. "Although," he says, "he might signify here an advocate as a patroness, who intercedes for another, yet nothing would compel her to accept this from the Blessed Mary now deceased." Why not? If Mary, while moving on earth, discharged the office of mediatrix and patroness out of the charity with which she burned for the human race, and interceded for men; would that charity—which, as the Apostle bears witness, never fails—have so failed when she is dead, but living to God, reigning with God, and, as it were, immersed more deeply in God himself, the fountain of charity, that she has utterly forgotten those for whom she formerly had pity, and deigns to pour forth no prayers for them? Assuredly, that all the ancient Fathers and the Churches have thought far otherwise is proven by the consensus of all the most ancient Liturgies, Greek and Latin—to say nothing of others—which Grabe himself esteems worthy of veneration; in which the Church implores the help of the Blessed Mary, and strives to obtain through her merits and prayers the remission of sins and other benefits. Wherefore, feeling the vanity of this little argument, the most clear man adds: "Even if it be granted that she now intercedes for the living faithful considered in general—a thing which the more moderate Protestant doctors rightly admit—from that fact alone her invocation by individuals could not be proven; for it is uncertain, not to say false, whether she hears or can hear the supplications of so many thousands of men simultaneously." But if the more moderate Protestant doctors, as Grabe testifies, rightly admit that Mary and the other saints now intercede for the living faithful considered in general; they must, therefore, admit that—no injury being done to the one mediator of God and men—others besides Christ can be secondary [mediators].

whose protection, as being solicitous for our salvation, it is permissible to implore, so that through them access to the principal Mediator may lie open.

67. But, Grabius says, the blessed Virgin cannot hear so many thousands of human supplications at once. How sagacious a man, whose mental acuity is such that, penetrating most deeply into the innermost feelings of the hearts of the blessed, it is able to define the fixed limits of their capacity for hearing and knowing! Such was not the sagacity of the Church disseminated throughout the whole world and through all time, which has judged that the saints can both pray for us and be invoked by us; holding it as certain that our prayers are heard and perceived by them. The ancient Fathers, who confidently asserted that most of the things that happen here are known to the blessed, did not possess such acuteness of wit. Certainly, this objection is not fresh from Grabius, but rather from Calvin and Pierre du Moulin. This was long ago proposed by Severianus of Gabala, and solved by him in *Sermon 6 on the Creation of the World* (vol. VI of the Works of Chrysostom, p. 639). Indeed, when he had said, that St. Mary had most truly affirmed of herself: "All generations shall call me blessed," he immediately poses this objection to himself: "And what does that benefit her, you ask, when she does not hear?" To which he replies: ^B "Nay, rather she hears most truly, because she is in a place that is splendid, the Mother of salvation, the fountain of sensible light." Basil, in his book *On True Virginity*, admonishes a virgin consecrated to God to revere not only the angels, but also the spirits of holy men and Fathers. "And why do I recount individual things," he says, "the innumerable multitudes of angels, and with them the holy spirits of the Fathers? For there is none of them who does not look everywhere: since, though not seen with the eyes of the body, he yet embraces all things in his knowledge with an incorporeal vision." Augustine, in *Sermon 516* (alias 94), *De diversis*, speaking of Paul and Stephen, says: "Both," he says, "you see there, both you hear our discourse at this moment, both pray for us." Theodoret, in book VIII *On Curing Greek Affections*, where he treats of the martyrs, refutes the error of those who believed that the martyrs "have no perception of what is done on earth," which he refutes by the fact "that they are established in a certain divine and most blessed lot." Finally, to make an end of citing the Fathers, Gregory the Great, refuting the same error in *Moralia*, book XI, ch. 19, proves by the same argument that the souls, participating in divine light and happiness, do not avoid the knowledge of human affairs which it is their interest to know; because those who behold within the brightness of almighty God, it is not to be believed that they ignore anything that is outside. Such were the sentiments of those good "simpletons," unlearned in Christian simplicity and humility; such they believed, and such they endeavored to persuade others. But if Grabius argues their ignorance, he should remember the dictum of Irenæus: "Those who leave the proclamation of the Church, reprove the ignorance of the ^D holy presbyters"; not contemplating how much more a religious simpleton is worth than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Such, however, are all heretics, and those who think they find something more than the truth, "always searching, and never finding the truth." It is safer, therefore, to be "ignorant" with those religious simpletons, and not to inquire too curiously how it comes to pass that the saints hear our prayers, than to be wise with vain sophists who are always searching and never finding the truth. Let it suffice that the matter is certain, and has always been established in the Church; the mode of explaining it is to be committed to God: although, however, one may consult Augustine on this matter in his book *On the Care to be Had for the Dead*, chapters 15 and 16, whose modesty in solving such questions every upright and prudent man will praise and imitate.

68. That the things just mentioned are slight, the distinguished Grabius, sensing well enough, sought to prepare something else for himself, yet neither better nor safer than the others. "Advocate," he says, from the Greek *paraklētos*, has clearly in this place the signification of consoling, not of interceding; which he tries to prove from certain testimonies, not of Irenæus himself, but of Tertullian. Whence he concludes that the Blessed Virgin is called by Irenæus "advocate," that is, comforter of Eve and of the whole human race, because she, obedient to God, bore the Savior to the world, the second Adam; just as that one, lending her ears to the devil, seduced the first Adam, and thence was the cause of destruction to his posterity. But why does Grabius assume so confidently that Irenæus wrote in Greek, *paraklētos*? *Paraklētos*, he says, clearly has in this place the signification of consoling, not of interceding. You would say that the man had the Greek of Irenæus before his eyes. What if I contend that Irenæus wrote something else, which signifies a suppliant, a mediatrix, and an intermediary? By what argument will Grabius refute this conjecture? But suppose Irenæus did write *paraklētos*, I will not disagree. But why does he seek the meaning of this word from Tertullian, and not rather from Irenæus himself? If that most holy martyr had used that word only once, it might perhaps be tolerated. But since he has used the same word in other places, why did not his editor compare them, so as to seek the genuine meaning of the word from Irenæus himself, and explain Irenæus from Irenæus? In book III, ch. 18, n. 7, he writes that the Gnostics, who imagined that Christ existed as a man only in appearance, were still under the old condemnation, "providing an advocacy for sin," that is, protection, patronage, defense. In the same sense he says in book IV, ch. 34, n. 4: "If any one, providing an advocacy for the Jews, calls that the new Testament—the erection of the temple, which took place under Zorobabel after they had migrated into Babylon, and the schism of the people, which took place after seventy years—let him realize," etc. So also in book III, ch. 23, n. 8: "Those who contradict the salvation of Adam... show themselves to be advocates of the serpent and of death—"

69. Before, however, I depart from the Blessed Virgin, it is worth the effort to refute here the unjust accusation of Grabe, by which he attempts to cast a stain upon both Mary’s sanctity and Irenaeus’s doctrine. For in Book II, ch. 16, n. 7, demonstrating that Christ performed all things at their proper time, as they had been preordained by the Father, he adds: "Because of this, Mary, hastening to the admirable sign of the wine (at the wedding at Cana of Galilee) and wishing to partake before the time of the cup of the shortcut, the Lord, repelling her untimely haste, said: 'What is it to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come,' awaiting that hour which was foreknown by the Father." ^C From here, Grabe, having most eagerly seized the occasion, concludes that Irenaeus acknowledged the imperfection of human nature, the mother of venial sins, in the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is an observation unjust from every part. Whoever is a fair judge of things will have extracted this one point from Irenaeus’s words: that the Blessed Virgin was ignorant of the hour foreknown and predestined by the Father, at which Christ was to perform His miracles openly and publicly, and that she wished to obtain something from the Son before the time. She indeed knew that the Son would finally at some point come forth openly, and would illuminate the world by the sanctity of His life, His teaching, and His miracles; she had seen that He had already begun to exercise a public office and to collect disciples; wherefore, thinking also that the time and hour for public miracles had arrived, she gave notice of the lack of wine, so that He might divinely provide for those laboring. And this is what Irenaeus calls "untimely haste"—not that Mary’s mind was precipitous or stimulated by vain glory, but because, not knowing the hour preordained by the Father, yet thinking it had arrived, moved by the poverty of the poor, she wished a miracle to be performed at that place and time by which the will of the Father permitted Christ to issue forth signs of His omnipotence that were public and manifest to all. Wherefore Christ does not absolutely refuse the miracle, but performs it as it were secretly and hiddenly. If, therefore, Mary was ignorant of the divine decrees, she was certainly not guilty of any moral imperfection.

70. But if up to this point Irenaeus is to be judged, he does not seem excusable in what he writes in Book II, ch. 22, that Christ was already an old man, that is, as he himself explains, older than forty, indeed nearly fifty, when He suffered and died; and you might be the more surprised at this because many of the ancients wished for the Savior to have been much younger when He suffered than He truly was and than the Gospel shows. For most establish that He came to baptism at about the age of 29, and then died the following year, so that they interpose hardly more than a span of one year between baptism and death; when nevertheless it is known from the Gospel that Christ celebrated at least three Passovers from His baptism, and performed them, which proves an interval of at least three years. But on this occasion, those words of Isaiah were what made many less attentive to the Gospels than they should have been: "The Lord sent me to preach an acceptable year," etc., which was indeed rightly understood, but less happily explained, as if it followed therefrom that Christ would preach for only one year. Only Chrysostom, in Homily 54 on the ninth chapter of St. John, seems to have approached more closely to Irenaeus’s opinion. Indeed, regarding those words of the Jews to Christ, which Irenaeus also tries to drag in to confirm his own opinion: "You are not yet fifty years old," etc., thinking that "forty" should be read instead of "fifty," he concludes that Christ was already near forty years old.

71. Moreover, the fact that the ancients improperly explained the testimony of Isaiah in more than one instance gave the Gnostics the opportunity for error, or rather, for confirming their preconceived error. For so that they might in any way whatsoever bolster the figments of their Aeons, they feigned ^D that "the Savior came to baptism at the age of thirty so that He might show their thirty silent Aeons... But in the twelfth month they said that He suffered, so that He had been preaching for one year since His baptism: and they attempted to confirm this very thing from the prophet; for it is written: 'To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution.'" Our author, intending to refute this error, rightly indeed proves that it is not the meaning of Isaiah’s words. Then he states that Christ came to baptism at the age of thirty; and finally that the Lord ascended to Jerusalem after His baptism for the third Passover time, and there celebrated the feast day of Passover. Anyone from these things could conclude that Christ suffered at the age of 33 or 34. Yet Irenaeus infers nothing less; but by many arguments, which can be read in him, he tries to prove that the Savior had already died while declining into old age, and that He had taught past his fortieth year and close to his fiftieth. That these arguments are weak will be immediately obvious to the reader. Nor is that which he repeats from the authority of the elders who saw the apostles any more valid than the rest. For—

[The beginning of this page follows the immediately preceding portion of the dissertation.]

aside from the fact that nothing concerning the name and authority of those elders is established, and it comes perhaps from Papias alone, a man of very slight intellect, as Eusebius says, [CXXXVIII] who did not always grasp the meaning of what he had heard from the apostles, yet to whose faith Irenæus attributed more than he ought, he could have received what he relates. He had heard only this from those elders, whoever they may have been, that Christ did not suffer at about the age of fifty, but had died when he was already declining into old age; which elderly age, proceeding perhaps a little further from the opinion of the heretics than was proper, out of arbitrariness and the heat of argument, he subsequently interpreted.

72. It is therefore most true that which Augustine observes in Book II *De doct. Christ.*, ch. 28, perhaps pointing his finger at our Irenæus: that "ignorance of the consulship in which the Lord was born and in which he suffered has compelled some to err, so as to think that the Lord suffered at the age of forty-six." Yet it is immediately surprising how Irenæus, to whom it was established that Christ received baptism at the age of thirty, and to whom it was certain from the Gospels that he celebrated only three Passovers from the time of his baptism, could bring himself to believe that he had suffered when he had already exceeded his fortieth year and was nearly reaching his fiftieth. For if that were true, he must necessarily have thought that Christ had kept not three, but more than twelve Passovers from the time of his baptism. The only thing that seems able to be answered is that Irenæus believed that Christ did not undertake the office of teaching immediately after his baptism, but persisted in lurking in hiding and living a private life until he had reached the perfect age of a master; and that he only then began to step forward publicly and act as a master when he had reached his forty-third or fourth year. This seems to be the sense of those words: "Existing as thirty years old when he came to baptism, then having the perfect age of a master he came to Jerusalem, so that he might justly be heard as a master by all." Indeed, he seems here to distinguish between the time of baptism and the time of teaching, and to separate the one from the other by a space of not a few years. Jesus indeed came to baptism being thirty years old, that is, in the sense of Irenæus, still a youth; for "thirty years of age," as he says, "is the first stage of youth." But he did not come to Jerusalem to celebrate the first Passover—not from the time he had received baptism, but from the time he had begun to teach publicly—until he had the perfect age of a master and was already declining into old age, that is, as he explains later, until he exceeded the fortieth year of age. Those three Passovers, therefore, which Christ celebrated after he had been baptized, ^A he proves to have been conducted from the Gospels, not from the time of his baptism, but only from that time when he began to perform the office of a teacher. But I do not see what could have led Irenæus to so unusual an opinion, one diametrically opposed to the Gospels, such that he separated the time of Christ’s preaching from his baptism by such a span of years, nor does anything occur to me by which an opinion so far diverging from the truth can be softened. The most learned Antonius Pagi attempted to cut, rather than untie, this knot in his *Critica Historico-Chronologica in Annales Baronii*, vol. I, p. 24, Antwerp ed. 1705, but unsuccessfully. For he believes that all those things which are read in Irenæus concerning the elder age of Christ are corrupt and spurious. But that would have to be proven by other arguments than mere conjectures, aside from the facts that the entire discourse is so consistent with itself that no part can be torn away without the whole dissolving; and that the style, which is certainly Irenæus’s, and the words which Eusebius quotes from him in Book III *Hist.*, ch. 23 (those, of course, where Irenæus confesses that he received his opinion from the disciples of John), remove every suspicion of interpolation, ^B and are very weak indeed if they were to be used for proof.

73. But our author deserves praise who writes in Book V, ch. 31, n. 1, that after his death Christ spent three days where the dead were, as he says, "the Prophet speaks concerning him: The Lord remembered his holy dead, those who had slept before in the land of burial, and he descended to them, to fetch them out and save them." And none the less clearly in Book IV, ch. 27, n. 2: "The Lord descended into the regions under the earth, preaching to them [the ancients who had already departed from the living] his advent; remission of sins existing for those who believe in him, that is, those who foretold his advent and served his plans, the just and the prophets and patriarchs: to whom he likewise remitted sins as he did to us, which we ought not to impute to them, if we do not despise the grace of God." Finally, in c. 22, n. 1 of the same book: "The passion of Christ is the awakening of sleeping disciples, for whose sake he also descended into the lower parts of the earth, to see with his eyes that which was inactive in creation, of whom he also said to the disciples: Many prophets and just men desired to see and hear what you see and hear." Where he explicitly teaches that Christ descended to the underworld, so that to the souls of the saints and just who were active in the subterranean places until heaven was opened through the Savior's death, he might announce his advent, and the price of our redemption having been paid by him, might draw them out from there and bestow upon them eternal happiness. ^{C D}

ARTICLE VII.

74. That it is very ancient in the Church that the use of confession—by which each and every thing after baptism...

^A deadlier sins, are declared distinctly and individually before those who preside over the Church—is something the Protestants themselves are forced to admit, and indeed the illustrious Grabius admits it in his observations on Irenæus, Book 1, ch. 13, alt. 9. And if anyone were to deny it, Irenæus would immediately refute the error, demonstrating by his own words that both sacramental confession and expiatory penalties—greater or lesser according to the gravity of the offenses, and repeated by the delinquents publicly or privately—had already begun to be used from the very apostolic age, and consequently by the law and institution of Christ, as necessary remedies for washing away sins. In Book 1, ch. 6, n. 3, he recounts that certain of the followers of Valentinus secretly corrupted those women who learned this doctrine from them: just as, he says, many women, often persuaded by them, after they were converted to the Church of God, confessed not only their other errors but also this [corruption]. Behold, women corrupted by heretics—not openly, but secretly, with no mortals as witnesses or confidants except the guilty parties themselves—whose crime, therefore, if any other was so, was hidden: yet, having converted to the Church, they confessed it along with their remaining error. Why? If it were not because they understood, from the faith and doctrine of the Church, that such a confession was necessary for them to wash away the stain of their sins? Grabius certainly denies that this can be gathered from the words of Irenæus, but he denies it wrongly and entirely without grounds. For what else would have impelled women, whom shame affects more than others, to uncover hidden crimes [CXXXIX] with such loss of reputation and honor? Was it merely the utility of confession? But surely that is a lighter incentive than to be able by it to break through those barriers installed by nature’s innate modesty, especially if crimes could be safely washed away by some other, less burdensome method. I call upon Grabius himself as a witness, since in those regions in which, having shaken off the heavy yoke of confession (as they call it), only its utility is commended, while its necessity is denied: has he ever heard of any women of his sect, having been secretly corrupted, approaching ministers to reveal and confess that hidden scandal, known to no one else? He will not be able to produce even one example, if he wishes to confess the truth candidly. Perhaps the ministers might call this a shorter and more expeditious way of obtaining an easing of debts; yet, once they reveal another way by which one might safely consult one's reputation as well as one’s salvation, men, being what they are, will follow the latter, toward which they lean, and none will follow the former.

75. But that which perhaps was never once done among the Protestants was done everywhere in the Church in the times of Irenæus. It is certainly an unassailable argument that there was some other cause that impelled men to the confession of hidden crimes than the mere utility of it. For the holy doctor recounts in the same book, ch. 13, n. 5, that Marcus the impostor had laid traps for women with love potions and other seductive arts, and had eventually brought dishonor upon the bodies of many. These women, very often once they had turned to the Church of God, made confessions, and were following the destruction of their bodies by him, just as if by passion, and having been greatly inflamed, they had loved him; so that even a certain deacon of these [heretics], who are ours in Asia, taking him into his house, fell into a calamity of this kind. For when his wife was beautiful, and having been corrupted in both her resolve and body by that magician, had followed him for a long time, then afterward, when the brethren had with great labor converted her, she spent all her time in *exhomologesis*, weeping and lamenting the corruption she had suffered from this magician. Those women confess not only the hidden crime, but also reveal the most secret circumstances of the same crime, namely that they had been desperately in love with Marcus, and they strive to wash this away through public penance imposed on them by the priests. This same fact is confirmed by those things which Irenæus adds at n. 7, [saying] that the disciples of Marcus ^B had seduced many women in the region of Lugdunum, who, having cauterized consciences, some indeed perform open *exhomologesis*, but others, revering this very thing, withdraw themselves slowly in silence, despairing of the life of God; some indeed have departed entirely; others, however, waver between the two, and have suffered what the proverb says, existing neither inside nor outside, having this fruit of the seed of the children of the [Gnostic] *gnosis*. From this passage the most learned men of blessed memory, Billius and Feuardentius, justly gather that public penance was in use in the early Church. But I, says the illustrious Grabius, think that public confession, when it was performed, is demonstrated from this. Others had thought so, and rightly indeed; for this [private confession] was referred to that [public outcome], as everyone knows; but private confession preceded both, by which a person, having made an enumeration of sins, both hidden and public—if there were any—before the legitimate pastor or priest assigned to this office, only thereafter confessed publicly those things which the priest had judged, according to the laws of prudence and charity, could and should be published without any disadvantage to the one confessing. But both confessions, whether private or public, were sacramental: both were followed by the canonical penance imposed on the delinquents, and the latter by absolution from sins and the faculty of receiving the body of Christ. I touch upon these things lightly, because they are well-worn and familiar to everyone. But it was not so free for sinners to confess either privately or publicly that, as Irenæus testifies, some among those women who had cauterized consciences, when they were ashamed to reveal a hidden ulcer, and the remedy of penance or *exhomologesis* terrified them, despairing miserably, would fall away from the Church, or, hanging in spirit between hope and fear, would exist neither within nor without. Certainly, if those women had thought they could help themselves by any other remedy; if confession made to God alone and penance undertaken privately of one's own accord had been sufficient to expiate their crimes, why were they hesitant? Why did they fall away from the Church, or waver in their minds between defection and reconciliation? Why rather did they not consult for themselves through such an easy remedy?

^A Let Grabe resolve this knot if he can, and see whether such shame or anxiety ever tormented the minds of sinners among his own followers. They took careful precautions so that they might never be entangled in such labyrinths, having completely cut away and removed the cause of so many troubles. But such an easy way to salvation was not yet known in the age of Irenaeus.

76. As to what Irenaeus thought about the sacrament of the Eucharist, he explains it clearly in many places, which are soon to be mentioned. And first, we must recall what we showed in Dissertation 1 regarding the deceptions of Marcus: that it was so deeply fixed in the hearts of all who in any way gloried in the Christian name that the Eucharist was the true body and blood of Christ, and that bread and wine, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the sacred words, were truly converted by that kind of conversion which is called transubstantiation into the very body and blood of Christ—that even the most profligate of all heretics, the Marcosians, attempted to display this before their own very eyes by their deceptions. For since Marcus was well aware that he had no power of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that this belonged only to those who had been consecrated as priests through the legitimate imposition of hands; yet, in order to persuade his followers that he had been divinely gifted with this by Achamoth, the mother of the seed of election, he pretended in a way as impious as it was ridiculous that he accomplished by magic arts and in a visible manner what the true priests of Christ performed in reality and truth, though in an invisible way. For, pretending to consecrate cups mixed with white wine by pouring forth prayers, he would transform them into a purple and reddish color, so that he might hold them up as blood to the eyes of the spectators—the very blood of supreme virtue, which he boasted it to be—and which, therefore, those standing by, deceived by the trickster, were eager to taste. If Marcus departed far from the apostolic formula of celebrating the Eucharist and brought forth his own delusions, as Grabe maintains, I do not deny what may be concluded from that; yet even he will admit it is most certain that, if anyone lays aside his prejudices for a moment and surveys all things, he would see that no man could ever have brought himself to deceive others with such an insolent prodigy unless he held to the preconceived doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation, as we proved in the referenced location.

77. Not only among the Marcosians, but among all the Gnostics, this was the opinion, and that all agreed with the Catholics on this point—that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, except that they imprudently overturned with other destructive principles what they asserted with their lips—is clearly evident from Irenaeus. For after he had, in Book IV, chapter 9 and following, proven at great length that the one and same God was the author of both laws, the Mosaic and the Evangelical, and that the old was not therefore abrogated because it was evil, but because it had been given only for a time, so that it might pave the way for the new law and true holiness, which of itself it could not provide; then at last in chapters 17 and 18, he shows that God commanded the old sacrifices to be offered to Him by the Jews, not because He needed them, but because He had judged that these ought to be granted to their infirmity, so that they might not decline into idolatry; not because he deemed that by them true righteousness was imparted to those offering, but because He wished to signify the New Testament, and the true and pure sacrifice and oblation of that same Testament. Thus, therefore, the old sacrifices had to be abrogated, so that the entire genus might be preserved, but the species merely changed. For in each Testament there had to be sacrifices, but in one case they were shadows and figures, in the other the very truth itself; one belonged to servants, the other to the free; one was crude and devoid of true holiness, the other clean and pure, by which God is worshipped in spirit and truth, and man attains true righteousness. Therefore, since God had already signified most clearly through the prophecy of Malachi (ch. 1, 10, 11), that the former people would cease to offer to God, but that in every place a sacrifice would be offered to him, and this a pure one, Christ, fulfilling this prophecy, taught the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout the whole world. Indeed, giving counsel to his disciples to offer the first-fruits of His creatures to God, not as if He were in need, but so that they themselves might neither be unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took that which is from the creature of bread, and gave thanks, saying: This is my body. And likewise the cup, which is from that creature which is according to us, He confessed to be His blood. ^B And this is the oblation of the Church which the Lord taught should be offered throughout the whole world; this is the pure sacrifice which the Church offers with simplicity. For we ought to make an oblation to God, and be found in all things grateful to God the Creator, in a pure mind and faith without hypocrisy, in firm hope, and in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of those things which are His creatures. Therefore, that very sacrifice which Christ offered to God the Father on the day before he suffered, by consecrating bread and wine and confessing it to be His blood, the Church itself offers in all the world, following the example of Christ its master, to God the Creator. This is His sacrifice, this this oblation, a pure sacrifice, an oblation clean and undefiled. Thus in the age of Irenaeus the Church felt, thus it acted, thus it believed: it offered bread and wine as the first-fruits of those things which are God's creatures, and blessed and consecrated them; but once the consecration was done, it did not regard them as common bread and common wine, as Irenaeus will soon explain, but confessed them to be the very body and blood of Christ. This, I say, was the faith of the Catholic Church of the second century throughout the entire world.

78. What, then, was the feeling of those [heretics] of that time? Were they fighting against the faith of the Eucharistic sacrifice, or were they denying that it contained and offered the true body and blood of Christ? Indeed, the Jews, or ^{C D}

^A even those who are cited in book v by Irenaeus, are shown to fight against the faith of the Eucharist, and of the flesh of the divine Word, in which they were clothed and which they crucified, because their hands are full of blood. Since, therefore, they have not received the incarnate Word, which is offered to God the Father in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, what, once that true sacrifice of the new law has been repudiated by those wretches, can possibly remain for them except a vain and impure shadow of sacrifice? Heretics indeed did offer the Eucharist, but because it could not be in honest opinion and faith without hypocrisy, their offering could not be pure; for they themselves did not receive the Word that is offered to God. And although they proclaimed with their mouths that the Eucharist is the body of their Lord and the chalice of his blood, this could not be consistent with their position. "How," says Irenaeus, "will it be consistent for them that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the chalice the chalice of his blood? ... Therefore, let them either change their opinion, or abstain from offering those things that have been mentioned." The heretics, therefore, offered bread and wine, they consecrated both, and they confessed it to be the body of their Lord and the chalice of his blood. Nor did they think wrongly in this. But they sinned in this alone, that, fighting against themselves, they held concerning the Word of God that which utterly overthrew the faith of the Eucharist. From which it followed that, although they openly asserted that the bread over which thanks had been given was the body of their Lord, yet by no reasoning could this be consistent for them.

79. That the reader may the more easily grasp this, let him observe, I pray, that the Marcionites and Valentinians are refuted here, and later more fully in book v, chapter 11, by arguments drawn from the mystery of the Eucharist. Moreover, the error of both was such, as we explained in dissertation 1, while dealing with their heresy, that this visible world was not created by the supreme God and Father; but was either from some other power, as Marcion blasphemed; or was the fruit of an Aeon that had lapsed through error and ignorance, as the Valentinians ranted. Hence a twofold further error flowed: 1° that the flesh, being the work either of an evil principle or the fruit of ignorance, was so subject to destruction that once dissolved it could never rise again; 2° that Christ Jesus had not received true flesh from Mary; for he only took to himself that which he was about to save: but he could not bestow salvation upon flesh. Therefore, he bore that which was in some sense a material body—not truly human and made of flesh, but so refined and purified from all coarser matter, and wrought with such skillful art, that it had nothing in common with it, but was in a way spiritual in comparison to it. And from this also flowed another of their blasphemies, that the divine Word was neither the son of the creator of the world, nor had truly become man, but had only been united to Christ Jesus for a time, and that only to the extent of an efficacy, and by that kind of union which was far removed from the hypostatic and substantial. These are the ravings of madmen, which then here, ^B and in book v, as cited, Irenaeus shows to be at odds with the faith of the Eucharist.

80. In the first place, he lays it down that in the Catholic Church alone is the pure Eucharistic offering made to the Creator; because she alone, in honest opinion and faith without hypocrisy, offers to him with thanksgiving from his creation; that is, she alone, believing that God the Father is the maker of this world, offers and consecrates to him, with thanksgiving and mindful of the benefits received from him, the gifts which are truly his and pertain to him by right of creation—namely bread and wine, taken from created things. Then he brings forward that no pure offering is made by the Jews; both because their hands are full of blood; and because they have not received the incarnate Word, "which is offered to God" in the sacrifices of Christians, and which, now that the sacrifices of the old law are abolished, is the sole and only host of the new law. He adds that "neither do all the synagogues of the heretics" offer a pure sacrifice. For although they make the Eucharist from bread and wine, yet their offering is impure, and affects God with reproach rather than honor. He proves this by a twofold argument, corresponding to the twofold error of the heretics which he is refuting. The first is drawn from the fact that the heretics, by denying that God the Father is the maker of this world, "by offering to him the things which are created according to us," either "show him to be greedy for what is alien and craving what is another's," or "by offering the fruits of ignorance, passion, and defect, they sin against him," and consequently bring insult upon him. For whoever feigns that God the Father wishes to have offered to him things which he himself did not create, nor which pertain to him by right of creation, he shows the Father to be greedy for the things of another: and whoever dares to offer to God the Father the fruits of error and ignorance, he does him an injury with these polluted and impure gifts ^C rather than giving thanks. The second argument is repeated from this: that since the heretics denied that our Lord Jesus Christ was the son ^D of the very creator of the world, that is, his only-begotten Word, it could not be consistent for them that that bread over which thanks had been given was the body of their Lord, and the chalice was the chalice of his blood. For those heretics who denied that our Lord was the son of the creator of the world and the only-begotten Word of the Father, they consequently denied that the Word had become incarnate and had been made true man, and that our Lord had assumed true flesh and a true body. But for him who denies that the Word has assumed a true body, it cannot then be consistent that the Eucharist is the body of our Lord. Because whoever denies that our Lord had a true human body, consubstantial with ours, and fashioned from matter created by the maker of the world; he must accordingly deny that our Lord has and makes for himself a true body in the Eucharist. Since he cannot convert bread and wine, things created by the maker of the world, into the true and proper substance of his own body, he who maintains no substance from material...

^A from an inferior source has assumed a body; 2° yet, in that Christ said bread and wine are his body and blood, there would immediately have followed for them, as if by necessity from both, that bread and wine could be the body and blood of Christ in no other way than because they are either a figure of Christ’s body and blood or contain their virtue. And Irenaeus would have denied this in vain; for the adversaries would have immediately replied that there was no contradiction in him who assumed no body for himself from inferior created things representing in the same things the figure and virtue of that more spiritual body which he bore. Whence, so far would the holy doctor be from having helped the Catholic cause with this argument drawn from the Eucharist, that he would rather have furnished arms to the heretics with which they could have run through the Catholics themselves. For, invincibly retorting the argument, they would have said: If the Son of God could have assumed for himself any human and material body from inferior created things, he would most of all have formed for himself from those things which he himself said were his body and blood: but yet, by the confession of the Catholics themselves, those very things which he said were his body and blood by consecrating them, namely, bread and wine, do not become his true body and his true blood, but exhibit and contain the mere figure and virtue of the body and blood; therefore, Christ did not assume a true human body, but the mere figure and virtue of a human body, by which he might act upon the senses of men, and effect that which a true human body could have effected. But on the contrary, if we suppose, which is most true, that it was certain and indubitable to both Irenaeus and his adversaries that bread and wine are converted in the Eucharist into the true body and blood of our Lord, then no argument drawn from the Eucharist will be more valid for suppressing the heretics. For who, Irenaeus would say, converts bread and wine, created material things, into the true substance of his own body and blood, and openly asserted that they are his true body and blood; he, if he is truthful and speaks the truth, must have had a true human body compounded from inferior [CXLII] matter, just as ours is; ‹for blood,› as he rightly notes in lib. v, c. III, n. 2, ‹is not except from veins and flesh, and from the rest of the substance that is according to man.› And yet, as the adversaries themselves admit, our Lord, the very truth, converted bread and wine, created material things, into the true substance of his own body and blood, and said that he had converted them: therefore he possessed a true human body composed of inferior matter, and consubstantial with ours: therefore he is the Son of the creator of the world, and his Word.

81. Against the heretics, whether modern heretics wish it or not, Irenaeus argues, or surely he accomplishes nothing at all. Therefore, both when the heretics are being attacked and when Irenaeus is attacking, it was certain to both sides that the true and substantial body and blood of our Lord are contained in the Eucharist, and that bread and wine are truly converted and transmuted in it. For unless this had been certain and explored by either party, Irenaeus would have sought an argument from the Eucharist in vain and ridiculously, and there would have been nothing more insipid than that kind of arguing. For if both Irenaeus and the Marcionites and Valentinians recognized nothing else in the Eucharist ^B except the mere figure of the body and blood of Christ, or that efficacious virtue which more recent ministers have invented as emanating from the body and blood of Christ; then Irenaeus’s argument must proceed thus: For heretics denying that our Lord is the Son of the maker of the world, that is, his only-begotten Word, it cannot be consistent that the Eucharist is a figure or virtue of his body and blood. For if the Son of God did not receive true flesh and a true human body fashioned from matter created by the maker of the world, nor took to himself any hylic element, but ‹clothed› himself with a certain ‹body prepared by ineffable art,› as the Valentinians asserted, he can exhibit no figure or virtue of his body in the Eucharist. Therefore, for heretics who take away from Christ a material body, it cannot be consistent that the Eucharist is a figure or virtue of his body. Protestants must necessarily pretend that Irenaeus argued thus. But every sober person will admit that such an argument is that of a delirious man, and cannot therefore be attributed to Irenaeus without grave injury. As if, indeed, because Christ took nothing hylic and did not assume a material body, it follows thence that he could not exhibit in the mystery of the Eucharist any figure or virtue of that more spiritual body, ‹prepared by ineffable art,› which he clothed himself with! Nay rather, from this it would most of all have been consistent for the heretics that the Eucharist is a figure or virtue of our Lord's body. For from the point when both these things would have been consistent for the heretics, as they contended it was consistent for them: 1° Christ, having no body ^C formed from inferior matter, [did assume a body]; 2° Yet that Christ said bread and wine were his body and blood; from these two at once, as if by necessity following from both, it would have been established that bread and wine could not be the body and blood of Christ in any other way than because they are the figure of Christ's body and blood, or contain their virtue. And Irenaeus would have denied this in vain; for the adversaries would have immediately replied that there was no contradiction in him who assumed no body for himself from inferior created things representing in the same things the figure and virtue of that more spiritual body which he bore. Whence, so far would the holy doctor be from having helped the Catholic cause with this argument drawn from the Eucharist, that he would rather have furnished arms to the heretics with which they could have run through the Catholics themselves.

82. And perhaps some Calvinist might respond that it was sufficient for Irenaeus to prove that the Eucharist is a figure of the body and blood of Christ, in order to conclude from there that our Lord assumed a true body and blood; for, as Tertullian says, lib. iv

^A cont. Marcion. c. 4, “a void thing, which is a phantom, could not receive a figure.” But we have already occupied ourselves with this most empty response. For it was not merely incumbent upon Irenaeus to prove that Christ had a true body; indeed, those heretics whom he refutes here did not absolutely deny this; but it was especially necessary to demonstrate that our Lord had taken a body for Himself from inferior matter created by the Creator of the world, consubstantial with our own. Now, certainly, he would not have demonstrated this by that argument. For Valentinian would have immediately retorted that Christ had therefore assumed bread and wine, in order to constitute a figure of those things, body and blood, which He had presented to the senses of mortals; and consequently, just as by that body which, while dwelling on earth, had affected the senses of men, He had presented a mere appearance of a human body, not a true human body; so by bread and wine He had intended to signify not a true body, but a phantom of a material body: nay, that by this He had intended to demonstrate that no true matter and substance of a human body was in Him, but only an appearance. But whatever Irenaeus might have added, that some truth must correspond to every figure, Valentinian would have immediately dissolved this, replying that to both figures, namely the natural and the Eucharistic, there corresponds that true body prepared by ineffable art, which Christ had surrounded Himself with by His arrangement, but which was not formed from inferior matter. And thus the whole argument of Irenaeus would have fallen quickly.

83. Irenaeus confirms and restores the same argument drawn from the Eucharist in order to refute another error of the heretics, who deny the resurrection of the flesh. I shall recite the words in Latin; with only those things added from the Greek which were omitted in the Latin translation. “How then again do they say that the flesh departs into corruption, and does not partake of life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord? Therefore, let them either change their opinion, or abstain from offering those things which have been mentioned. But our opinion is consonant with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him what is His, appropriately proclaiming the communion and union (in Greek κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν, communion and union) (suppl. of the divine Word with the body and blood of the Lord; then add, according to the Greek, καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, and confessing the resurrection of the flesh and ^C of the spirit). For as bread, which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly: so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection.” Here Irenaeus infers the resurrection of our flesh from a double proposition, namely: That flesh cannot depart into corruption which receives life; that flesh ^D is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord. For once the other proposition is added: But our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, there follows from this of itself the conclusion: Therefore our flesh cannot depart into corruption. It would have been superfluous to prove the earlier propositions; for they are manifest from the very words of Christ himself, John vi, 54, 55: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.” Irenaeus explains, proves, and confirms the assumption, although it also is demonstrated quite openly from those words of the Lord, “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” And first, he observes that the opinion of the heretics is so repugnant to the very faith of the Eucharistic sacrifice—which, however, they professed to be the same as the Catholics—that they must either abstain from offering the sacrifice, or change their opinion: whereas the opinion of the Catholics is so wondrously in agreement with the Eucharist that new strength is added to it from this. For we offer, he says, to God what is His, His own proper goods, created and fashioned by Him, namely bread and wine, which by the consecration and blessing of the ministers of the Church become the body and blood of Christ the Lord, the Son of God the Only-begotten and the Word, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, neatly proclaiming the communion and union; of what things, if not of those concerning which he spoke a little before, namely of the divine Word with the human body and blood of Christ, both natural and sacramental? καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, and confessing the resurrection of the flesh and of the spirit. Then at last, approaching more closely to the cause, he adds: “For as bread, which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, etc.,” by which he clearly alludes (nor does Grabe deny it) to that solemn formula of words which occurs in all the ancient Oriental liturgies, and which the Greeks with Irenaeus call by way of excellence ἐπίκλησιν, invocation. It is that by which God is prayed to send the Holy Spirit, who, by His descent upon the proposed gifts and most efficacious operation, may make them the body and blood of Christ; and simultaneously, as the faithful receive them, He may so come upon them through His grace, and settle into their hearts, that the same mysteries may profit them for the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and eternal life. To the same ἐπίκλησιν, invocation, as Grabe himself admits, Cyril of Jerusalem likewise referred, to omit many other Greek Fathers, writing in Catech. 1: “ἐπικλήσεως γενομένης, invocation being made, [the] bread becomes the body of Christ.” And Catech. 5: “We ask,” he says, “the merciful God to send the Holy Spirit upon the proposed [gifts], and to make the bread indeed the body of Christ, but the wine the blood of Christ.” Since he had thus alluded to it

^A one must admit that Irenæus has the same thing in view. And certainly that liturgical invocation, which Irenæus, Cyril, and other Fathers so often mention, excludes from any sense any other transmutation of the sacred gifts than a real and substantial one into the very body and blood of Christ. For the Holy Spirit is asked to descend, not only into the hearts of the faithful, to sanctify them, but also into the sacred gifts themselves, in order to act immediately upon them by His divine and most efficacious operation, ^B and to produce some signal miracle. But what other thing, full of miracle, can the Holy Spirit perform upon the sacred gifts themselves, if not by a true transmutation to cause them to be something they were not before, namely, the body and blood of Christ, as is read in all the Liturgies, [Gk: μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ], as the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom have it? Here Protestants might imagine I know not what tropes, figures, and virtues: they will never be able to circumvent the clear meaning of the words with false interpretations. For a double descent of the Holy Spirit is openly distinguished, and a double end for each, differing one from the other: one upon the matter itself, that is, upon the sacred gifts, so that they become something which they were not before, namely, the body and blood of Christ; the other into the hearts of the faithful, so that all who are about to receive the sacrament may obtain the fruit of the remission of sins and an increase of grace. Since, therefore, Protestants deny that any other transmutation than a moral one is asked for by the invocation—that is, that in the act of the reception of the sacrament, the sacred gifts become the body and blood of Christ for the faithful who receive them with faith—they must consequently deny that a descent of the Holy Spirit into the sacred gifts themselves is asked for long before communion, in order to make them the body and blood of Christ; and thus, by confounding this double descent, they bring an open violence to clear words. And, I ask, if that is the meaning of the invocation, why has the Church indeed prayed for the Holy Spirit, ^D that by His descent into the baptismal water, or into the chrism, He might impart His virtue and the power of sanctifying to them, and replenish and make them fruitful with the virtue of Christ’s blood, etc., yet never asked Him to cause them, by His most efficacious operation, to become the very blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit Himself? This knot, whatever rhetoric the Protestants may use, they will never be able to untie. From that invocation, therefore, which is made over the earthly bread, Irenæus rightly concludes that our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord: because the bread which is from the earth, having once received the invocation of God, ceases to be common bread, but becomes the Eucharist, that is, the true body and true blood of the incarnate Word Himself. ^C This is what he wishes to explain somewhat more clearly when he immediately adds, “The Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly one.” Words clear enough, had the Calvinists not striven to cast a fog over them with their own complexities.

84. However, anyone who wishes to attend to the hypothesis of the heretics who are being refuted here, as well as to the entire series of Irenæus's argumentation, will easily grasp this. A little earlier, the holy doctor said that, according to the opinion of the heretics, there was a creator of the world apart from the supreme Father; and that our Lord was not the Son, nor His Word, because He did not assume a true human body formed from the earthly substance created by the artificer of the world, nor did the divine Word unite Himself to it. By here summarizing that same error, and at the same time proving the resurrection of the flesh, he shows that earthly bread, after the invocation of God, therefore ceases to be common bread, because it becomes the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly one. But what is that earthly thing of which the Eucharist consists, if not the body and blood of the Lord, by which Irenæus had said just before that our flesh is nourished? He calls it an earthly thing, in order to refute the heretics from this, who deny that Christ assumed anything of an earthly body for Himself: earthly, I say, because from earthly bread and wine, truly converted and transmuted into the substance of Christ's body and blood, comes the true body of the Lord, and His true blood. From which it follows that Christ assumed to Himself a body fashioned and made from earthly matter, and truly flesh and true blood; which the heretics denied. But what is that heavenly thing of which the Eucharist is also said to consist, if not that which was mentioned a little before, namely the divine Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, whom the heretics were unwilling to acknowledge as having been truly and substantially united to the created nature of our Lord Jesus? Rightly, therefore, does Irenæus assert that the Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly one; for by these he strengthens the Catholic opinion against the blasphemies of the heretics; and he proves from the Eucharist, which they confessed to be the body and blood of the Lord, that Christ the Lord existed as true man, and so also as true God, the Son of God and the only-begotten Word of the Father; and that the Word truly and substantially united to Himself the human nature of Christ, His body and blood. It is just as if he had said: The body and blood which impart life to our flesh, and rescue it from corruption, so that they may be an earthly body and earthly blood, concreted and made from earthly things, can nevertheless not be a mere earthly body and mere earthly blood, or the body and blood of a mere man; for a mere human body by its own nature is mortal and subject to corruption, and cannot provide life to others. Yet the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist, made from earthly things—bread and wine—through their true conversion, impart life to our flesh. Therefore, they are not a mere earthly thing, or the body and blood of a mere man.

^A Grabius, the grace of the Holy Spirit? Is our flesh therefore fed and do our members grow by relations, or by the grace of the Holy Spirit? Why, in like manner, did Irenaeus, and other Fathers who, proving the resurrection of the flesh, sought arguments from the Eucharist—deriving them from the manna, from the rock of the desert, from the paschal lamb, etc., which were themselves figures of Christ’s body—conclude from this that these were as effective remedies against corruption for the old people as for the new? Yet you will find none who have argued thus. Nay, rather, and perhaps more wisely, would they have said that our flesh cannot perish eternally, which has been washed and regenerated by the saving laver of baptism and anointed and strengthened by sacred chrism? For they have often asserted that these (no less than the bread and wine in the Eucharist, if the opinion of the Calvinists be true) have been fecundated and filled by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, or even by the very blood of Christ itself. Yet no one occurs who has proven the resurrection of the flesh by such an argument. Which fact alone demonstrates that the Fathers acknowledged something else in the mystery of the Eucharist beyond a mere figure or power of Christ’s body and blood. But let us weigh the other propositions of Irenaeus’s argument. Therefore, if we listen to the Calvinists, Irenaeus would have contended from this that our flesh receives life, and therefore cannot pass into corruption, because it is nourished by the figure or power of Christ’s body and blood. He would have proven this proposition from the fact that he who is from the earth, the bread receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread. What then, if indeed it is not converted into the body of Christ, nor changes its substance? The Eucharist consists of two things, earthly and heavenly. But if you ask the Calvinists what those things are, the earthly and the heavenly, they all indeed agree that by the name of the earthly thing, bread is understood; but they disagree about the heavenly thing. For some understand a certain power, I know not what, flowing from the body of Christ, yet separated from it and put into the bread. Others, deservedly deriding such a fictitious power, understand the thing signified by the bread, namely the body of Christ, certainly absent. But both explanations teem with so many absurdities that it is a wonder they could have been proposed by anyone. It is not my intention to pursue everything here: the most learned authors of the book *De perpetuitate fidei Ecclesiae catholicae circa Eucharistiam* (vol. III, lib. 1, ch. 2, and vol. II, lib. v, ch. 10, 11 et seqq.) have abundantly performed that task. Let it suffice to observe a few things for our purpose. And that I may begin from the latter, it could with equal right be said that the paschal lamb consists of two things—a certain animal and the passing over, or if you prefer, the body of Christ; that the rock of the desert consists of stone and Christ; that the marble image of Caesar consists of marble and Caesar, etc. Indeed, let anyone who asserts that that whole [entity], which they call connotative—namely, a thing in itself one, which nevertheless relates to another and signifies it—consists of two parts, of which one is the signifying thing and the other the signified thing, be considered foolish. No thing, which...

is not collective, as the Eucharist certainly is not, is said to consist of another thing as a part, which is absent and outside of it.

86. No less absurd is the other explanation, which the distinguished Grabe was pleased to adopt for himself. For besides the fact that this fictitious virtue, devised by more recent ministers, has been unknown to all antiquity for all time, and does not have even the slightest foundation in Scripture and the Fathers; besides the fact that it is absurd to assert that our bodies are nourished, fed, and increased by a certain virtue separated from the body of Christ; it cannot in any way accord with Irenæus's scope and argument, which were explained above; nor could the holy Doctor ever infer from this the hypostatic union of the divine Word with the human nature of Christ, nor the resurrection of our bodies.

“Our opinion,” he says, “is consonant with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our opinion. For we offer to God what is His,”—namely, the things created by Him—“fittingly declaring the communion and union;” of which things, I ask? Is it of the spirit, or of human souls with flesh? But the Gnostics did not deny the union and communion of these things. Is it of the virtue of Christ's body with the bread? But what does this have to do with the scope of Irenæus, who, from the faith of the Eucharist, confirms what he had previously proven—that Christ is the Son of the Fashioner of this very world, that is, His Word? Therefore, because the virtue of Christ's body is united with the bread, can it be concluded from this that the Word was substantially united with the corporeal nature of Christ? Nay, the Gnostic would rather have inferred the contrary and said: just as Christ's body in the Eucharist is united with the bread only in efficacy and not in reality, so was the divine Word united with our Lord only in efficacy and virtue, and not in substance; which was the very opinion ^C of these impious men, which they would have deservedly contended was in good agreement with the faith of the Eucharist. Therefore, if this had not been the faith of Irenæus and of all Catholics, that the divine Word is substantially united in the Eucharist with those things which were created by God, namely bread and wine—not indeed remaining in their own substance of bread and wine, but being truly transmuted into Christ's body and blood—Irenæus would have pleaded the cause of the Catholics very poorly. “Thus,” the holy man adds, “we offer to God what is His, in order that we may also profess the resurrection of flesh and spirit, and that this opinion of ours may be confirmed from the Eucharist [CXLV].” Why so? Is it because Christ imparts the virtue of His body to the bread which is offered to us in the Eucharist? But so far is the resurrection of our flesh from being proven by this, that the heretic could rather have attacked it more sharply. For, he would have said, just as Christ, while communicating the virtue of His body to the bread in the Eucharist, does not, however, strip it of its own substance of bread; and just as, although He confesses it to be His body, He cannot however transmute it into His own proper body, because it can take nothing for itself from matter that is vitiated and subject to corruption; so our bodies, although ^D they may receive the sacred bread, cannot for all that be set free from the corruption inherent in them, and are therefore no less destined to perish. Thus, with their vain evasions, the Calvinists provide weapons for the most profligate of all heretics, and, in the manner of insane men, bring the Fathers of the Church onto the field to fight along with them.

87. How truly efficacious that class of argument is, and deservedly so, Irenæus might think, is demonstrated by the fact that he uses it quite often against the Gnostics, and challenges them not once to the Eucharist, intending to pierce their errors with this dart. In the same book iv, c. 33, n. 2, already cited, refuting the Marcionites, who imagined two gods—the one good, the Father of our Lord, the other evil, the maker of the world—he proves that unless the Lord is the Son of the Creator of the world itself, He was unjustly confessing that the bread of this creation, which is according to us, was His own body, and He confirmed the mixture of the cup to be His own blood. By this argument indeed, he either effects nothing at all, or most certainly demonstrates that Christ so confessed and confirmed that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood, that He made them from the other into His true body and His true blood by a true conversion and transmutation of each; and therefrom [it would be] unjust that He should say and make things created by another, and placed under another's jurisdiction, to be His own. For if Christ had said that the bread was His body only in that sense that He wished to impart to it the virtue of His body, He no more attributes to Himself the bread created by another and makes it His own, than a prince claims and usurps for himself the coin of another prince, marked with a type, by establishing its value—nay, ordering it to be of greater value than it is in the region where it was minted—for the sake of the subjects using it. As if, forsooth, because someone should institute a certain sign at his own pleasure, by which he might bestow something upon the users, it could be inferred from this that he claims for himself the thing which he instituted as a sign! But it is, furthermore, most worthy of observation that Irenæus, as often as he mentions the Eucharist, does not simply affirm that Christ said the bread was His body and the wine was His blood; but he uses these words studiously and always that “He confessed and confirmed that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood,” and, as he speaks in Greek in lib. v, c. 11, *τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον, αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον, ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο*, “he confessed the cup, which is from the creature (not merely ‘his own,’ as the interpreter translates, but *ἴδιον*) to be his own blood, and confirmed the bread, which is from the creature, to be his own body,” he asserted, and made us more certain. By this manner of speaking Irenæus clearly indicates that the matter is most difficult to believe, and which would not obtain faith unless Christ, the Truth itself, should cut away every handle for doubt by speaking clearly and openly; but the holy doctor himself [addressed] that doubt, which from the very nature of the thing, [seizes] the capacity of human minds.

^A Indeed, it arises from the difficulty of a matter that is so far-reaching, as he strive to remove it by inculcating the words of Christ again and again. As if he had said what Cyril of Jerusalem later said in his *Catecheses Mystagogicae* iv: "Since therefore Christ himself so affirms, and says of the bread: *This is my body*; who from then on would dare to doubt? And with him also confirming, *bebaiousamenou*, *This is my blood*; who, I ask, would doubt, and say that it is not his blood?" And Chrysostom, hom. 83 on Matthew: "Let us therefore believe God everywhere, and not oppose him, even if that which he says seems absurd to our sense and thought... For we cannot be defrauded by his words, but our sense is most easily deceived: the former cannot be false, the latter is mistaken again and again. Since therefore he said: *This is my body*, let us be held by no ambiguity, but let us believe, and let us perceive this with the eyes of the intellect." Furthermore, if Irenaeus had not judged that the words of Christ were to be understood literally, and that all the faithful had so understood them, he would have very ridiculously opposed those words, from which all doubts had arisen, to all the doubts: he would have spoken even more foolishly if he had said that Christ had asserted, confessed, and confirmed, and assured us, that the bread is his own body, and the wine his own blood. The words of Christ would have had to be explained, if they were to be accepted figuratively and metaphorically, not inculcated again and again. For who could bear him who says that the Holy Spirit confessed and confirmed that the rock of the desert was Christ, and that therefore it should not be doubted that the rock itself is Christ, truly and properly Christ? Who ever asserted that we drink in baptism the very own and proper blood of Christ; that baptism is the proper body of Christ, his very own blood; that when we receive baptism, we are nourished by the proper body of Christ, and given to drink of his very blood, because its power is applied to the catechumens when they are baptized? ^B 88. Grabe indeed cavils here after his custom, and urges the passages of the Fathers, which others had long since objected, being Calvinists, by which the holy doctors undoubtedly assert that the Church is the proper body of Christ, and we are members of his proper body. He could easily have accumulated many other similar things; but since the most learned authors of the *Perpetuity of the Faith*, Vol. II, Book IV, ch. 8, have invincibly proved all things to be alien to the purpose, I refer Grabe and the readers to them. Grabe, if he wishes to speak that which is fair and good, must seek examples, not of metaphorical propositions, such as is this: *The Church is the true and proper body of Christ*, in which the trope affects the predicate of the proposition; but of figurative propositions, such as the ministers want that proposition to be: *This is my body*; in which the trope [they claim] affects the verb, *Is*. Let him therefore prove by examples, if he can, that it can rightly be said that the image of Caesar is truly Caesar, the Caesar himself, the proper body of Caesar, etc. As long as he does not accomplish this, he has not even lightly touched the state of the question.

89. But let our argument of Irenaeus return, the holy man, book v, ch. 2, 1. Opposing the Eucharist again to the errors of the Gnostics, he undertakes to demonstrate these two things at once: 1. That God came incarnate into his own, and was truly made man; otherwise his advent would not be just, he who, according to them, came into that which was another's, nor did he truly redeem us by his blood, if he was not truly made man. 2. That flesh is capable of incorruptibility, and therefore will not eternally perish. He concludes both from this argument [CXLVI]: "If," he says, "the flesh is not saved, neither did the Lord redeem us with his blood," because he would not have had true blood, nor truly been made man; "it follows that neither is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor is the bread, which we break, the communion of his body." But, he soon subsumes, the cup of the Eucharist is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread, which we break, is the communion of his body. Whence he deservedly concludes that the flesh is saved, and that the Lord has redeemed us with his blood. This argument of Irenaeus leans on a double proposition: 1st, and that bipartite, that if flesh is not saved, nor has the Lord redeemed us with his blood, it follows that neither is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor is the bread, which we break, the communion of his body. The second, that the cup of the Eucharist is the communion of the blood of the Lord, and the bread, which we break, is the communion of his body. The holy doctor demonstrates the second part of the former proposition in this way, being about to prove the other presently: "He who has not redeemed us with his blood, because he would not have had true blood, was not truly made man; he certainly could not present true blood and a true body by his presence in the Eucharist. For it is not true blood, unless it be from veins and flesh, and the rest which is human substance." He therefore who communicates his blood to us in the Eucharistic cup must provide blood which is "from veins and flesh, and the rest which is human substance;" for that alone is true blood: therefore, if Christ provides true blood for us in the Eucharist, he had veins and flesh, and the rest of the substance which is according to man. Therefore the true human substance "was truly made the Word of God"; and therefore "he has redeemed us with his blood, just as his Apostle also says: In whom we have redemption, through his blood, the remission of sins." Thus far the argument, which is most certainly that of Irenaeus, troubles all Calvinists. For it rests, placed upon this foundation, that Christ in the Eucharist [provides] true blood...

^A to us, which consequently is from his veins and flesh, and from the rest of human substance: whence it is inferred that he had veins and flesh, and the rest of human substance; and that the Word of God was truly made man, and redeemed us by his blood. For if Christ had presented to us in the Eucharistic cup a mere likeness of blood, even if it were an effective one, and Irenaeus had thought this, he would have proposed an argument to his adversaries that was easier to dissolve than a spider's web. For any Marcionite would immediately have objected that Christ wished the wine to be a figure of his blood for this reason: because, not having true blood to offer, he presented a merely imaginary one, and one similar to what he displayed to the eyes of men. And thus, shaken by even the slightest breath, the whole structure of the argument would have collapsed at once.

90. The other part of the former proposition, namely that if flesh is not preserved, neither is the Eucharistic cup a communion of the blood of Christ, nor the bread which we break a communion of his body; by these reasonings Irenaeus persuades us: If the Eucharist be the true and proper body of Christ, and his true and proper blood, it is impossible that the flesh which is nourished and increased by these, and for this reason adheres more closely to Christ, and is a member of him, should be so dissolved that it will never revive again. For who could bring it about that flesh, fed and nourished by his own life-giving body and blood, should be ^B incapable of the gift of God, which is eternal life? But that the substance of our flesh is nourished and increased by the very own blood of Christ, which is the second proposition of the whole argument, the holy doctor makes plain thus: It is the duty of the Head to provide for its members nourishment which is accommodated both to their nature and to the end for which they are destined. "Since, therefore, we are members of Christ, and as the blessed Apostle says, in the Epistle to the Ephesians: 'For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones' (Ephes. v, 30); and we are so constituted by nature that we feed on created things, it was necessary that He should provide the creation for us himself, 'making his sun to rise, and sending rain, as he wills' (Matth. v, 45). But because a corporeal created thing is of itself subject to corruption, and consequently could not exempt the members of Christ, destined for eternal life, from corruption; it was fitting that that created thing should be transferred from the state of corruption inherent in it into another, whereby, having become life-giving and living, it might impart life to those who feed upon it. Therefore Christ, in his divine goodness, confessed that cup, which is from the creation, to be his own blood (for so the Greek words sound), from which he increases our blood; and confirmed that bread, which is from the creation, to be his own body, from which he increases our bodies." Then at last the holy doctor concludes: "When, therefore, the mingled cup and the made bread receives the word of God, that is, is consecrated by the word of God, and the Eucharist of the body ^C and blood of Christ is made (so the Greek text has it), from which the substance of our flesh attains and consists; how do they deny that the flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, which is nourished by the body and blood of Christ, and is his member?"

91. Irenaeus adds another [argument] for the confirmation of the whole contention, and indeed a most weighty one. "Just as," he says, "the wood of the vine planted in the earth bears fruit in its season; and the grain of wheat falling into the earth, and dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, who contains all things, which then by the wisdom of God (so in the Greek) come to the use of man, and receiving the word of God become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, nourished from it, and laid in the earth, and dissolved in it, shall rise in their time, the Word of God bestowing resurrection upon them, to the glory of God the Father, etc." Here a comparison is instituted between the changes which occur to those things which are made into the Eucharist (the same may be said proportionally regarding the vine), and those which occur to flesh, in order that it may rise. The grain of wheat is committed to the earth, where it is dissolved; then, through the Spirit of God, by which nature is made fruitful, it rises manifold; afterwards, that it may come to the use of man, it is changed into bread; then finally, by the word of God, the bread is changed into the body of Christ. So also, the flesh being buried in the earth, is dissolved in the earth; and afterwards, the life-giving Word of God vivifying it, having laid aside its earthly form, it receives its pristine one. As, therefore, that change which occurs to the rising flesh is substantial; so that which happens to the bread, that it may become the body of Christ, is substantial, and a true transubstantiation, no less than that which takes place in the wheat, that it may be converted into bread. For Irenaeus compares these things with one another; indeed, he compares them in such a way that, from the substantial conversion which occurs both in the wheat, that it may turn out to be bread, and in the bread, that it may pass into the body of Christ, he proves that another substantial transmutation is eventually to occur, by which the earth, into which the flesh was dissolved, is to pass back into flesh. If, he says, the wheat already dissolved can, with the fructification of the Spirit of God who contains all things, rise manifold; if by divine controlling wisdom men have been able to convert wheat into bread, that it might come to their use; if, finally, the bread, by the efficient word of God ^D [CXLVII]—the nature of the bread being laid aside—could be transmuted into the body of Christ: shall it exceed belief that our bodies, nourished by the body of Christ, and then dissolved into the earth, the Word of God bestowing resurrection upon them, should cast off that nature of earth which they assumed when corrupted, so that they may be transmuted into the pristine nature of flesh, and return again? For who can quicken and multiply now-corrupted wheat, convert wheat into bread, and, what is greater, transmute bread into the body of Christ; he certainly can so quicken the now-corrupted body, that he may convert the earth, into whose nature it had passed, back into the nature of flesh.

^A From these things it is clear that Irenaeus proceeds gradually from the most certain transmutations and transubstantiations, which both reason and faith taught all the Christians of that time, to introduce the other, which was called into question by the Gnostics. For the natural conversion of wheat scattered into multiple grains of wheat, and especially that of the same into bread, prepares for the other, which faith alone teaches, namely the ascension of bread into the body of Christ. Both, however, serve as a step toward the conversion of the earth, into which our bodies have been resolved, into the original nature of flesh: so that, surely, by these steps Irenaeus may pave the way for heretics toward the faith of the resurrection, and force them to admit that it is no more impossible for God to convert a body already turned into earth back into flesh ^B than it is to transmute bread into the body of Christ; and indeed that the former is the more possible, as the flesh of Christ, nourished by his body, bears within itself the seed of immortality: "so that we may know," concludes the holy man, "what God can do, and what benefit man receives." Here, certainly, if Irenaeus had acknowledged no kind of substantial conversion in the eucharistic bread, but had held that it is made a figure of Christ’s body, or is imbued with the virtue of the same body while the substance of the bread always remains, no argument could be devised more absurd than his. For this would mean: "He who was able to make bread the figure of Christ’s body, or to impart to bread the virtue of Christ’s body, while the substance of the bread always remains, is able to convert bodies already turned to earth back into flesh." The former, God could do; therefore, he can do the latter. A most absurd kind of argument, if there is one. ^C But in truth, the heretic would immediately have retorted: "He who made bread the figure of his own body, or imparted to it the virtue of his own body, and openly asserts it to be his own body, nevertheless could not convert it into his own proper and substantial body; nor surely will he be able to convert our bodies, now turned into earth, back into flesh, however much he may have imparted the virtue of his own body to those who are alive through the consecrated bread; for the virtue of Christ’s body cannot be more effective in transmuting bodies now corrupted than it was in converting bread." But, as the Catholics admit, the Word of God could not do the latter, although at first glance Christ seems to signify that he could: nor, therefore, can he do the former. Thus, the heretic would have infringed the whole effort of Irenaeus with an easy task.

92. Long ago Grabius spared no annotations to distort and weaken all these places and arguments of Irenaeus. But he wastes his words. All things return, of course, to this: that according to the opinion of Irenaeus, bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ in no other way than because they are imbued with the virtue of Christ's body and blood. Since we have already precluded this excuse, and have demonstrated that nothing more absurd could have been devised, and that it is inconsistent with Irenaeus's purpose, intention, words, and argument ^D more boldly than is right is proposed their purpose, it must be weighed by us in a few words, so that even from this it may be apparent with how vain blows his adversaries attack the Catholic faith. The distinguished scholar contends, therefore, that once transubstantiation is posited, all of Irenaeus's arguments vanish into nothing—nay, fall back upon the head of the one arguing. For the Marcionites and Valentinians, he says, whom Irenaeus refutes by the mystery of the Eucharist, could have answered him that, indeed, the sacramental symbols of bread and wine are transubstantiated because the God of the New Testament does not wish to accept those things, as being created by the God of another law; but they, that bread and wine are indeed the fruits of ignorance, passion, and defection, yet that they do not sin in offering them to their own Father, nor do they do him an injury, as Irenaeus objects, because their substance immediately, by means of consecration, departs, so that another, better substance is substituted, whereby a pure sacrifice acceptable to God [is prepared].

^A As for the arguments which Grabius is pleased to attribute gratuitously to Irenaeus, I shall not dwell upon them. How vain they are, unworthy of the holy Doctor, and repugnant to his scope, intent, and words, is sufficiently clear from what has been said before; even if I were silent, anyone who wishes to weigh the matter with balanced scales will easily detect it. But I cannot wonder enough at how confidently the learned man proposes to prove that Irenaeus was entirely alien to the doctrine of transubstantiation. For he says, "He repeats again and again that our flesh is fed by the body and blood of the Lord, or rather is nourished, and indeed grows and consists in the substance of our flesh from them. But to attribute this to the bare accidents of bread is absurd; to the heavenly and glorious body of Christ, it is impious." Softly, I pray. ^B And first of all, as for what Grabius supposes here and elsewhere—that accidents which they call absolute, that is, separated from the subject, are admitted by all Catholics as something certain and indubitable in faith—he assumes this entirely gratuitously, and a little more confidently than became an honest man. The question is one agitated back and forth only in the Schools, but nowhere defined by the Church. The Catholic faith teaches only this: that once the consecration is finished, the species of bread and wine remain; but as for what those species truly are, both philosophers and theologians contend among themselves; indeed, the Church has not yet interposed its judgment. But if there is any absurdity or impiety in asserting that our flesh is fed or nourished, etc., by the body and blood of the Lord, then whatever there is of it must be attributed to Irenaeus. For he did not assert simply that our flesh is fed and grows by the body and blood of the Lord, but by the true body and blood of the Lord: which we have shown can only be distorted in a ridiculous and inept way ^C to refer to the figure or separate virtue of Christ’s body. But let him look to himself, he who voices these objections, lest he prove himself guilty of a greater absurdity by thrusting upon us here the figure or virtue of Christ’s body. For does he think it very consistent with reason that the substance of our flesh should be fed, nourished, and grow by a figure or a spiritual virtue? Who can bear such things? I do not think Grabius had yet resolved to confess, clearly and openly, that Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus, and perhaps many others—as we shall soon relate—were persuaded that the very substance of bread is transformed into the true and proper flesh of Christ. For they asserted no less than Irenaeus that we, by partaking of the body and blood of Christ, become one body and blood with Christ, and, if I may say so, ^D "co-corporeal" and "co-sanguineous" with Christ—*Χριστοῦ συσσώμους καὶ συναιμούς*, as Cyril of Jerusalem says in his *Catech. IV Myst.*—that the body and blood of Christ are received into the viscera of man through eating and drinking, and are distributed through them into the whole body, mixed and tempered with the bodies of believers, etc., so that by union with that which is immortal, man becomes a partaker of incorruption, as Gregory of Nyssa says in his *Orat. Catech. c. 37*; that the body and blood of Christ are for the health of our soul and body and for...

our preservation; and that by them we are united to the body of the Lord and to his Spirit, and that we become the body of Christ and are made co-corporeal with Christ, as John Damascene asserts in *De fide orthodoxa*, lib. iv, c. 14. How these things differ from the words of Irenaeus, not even Grabe himself would venture to say. And yet, to the most holy Fathers—who were, by the admission of that learned man himself, the fiercest champions of transubstantiation—these things seemed neither absurd nor impious. ^A

95. If the Catholic faith regarding transubstantiation had been sufficiently explored by Grabe, he would have refrained from such childish objections. That the body of Christ is eaten by the mouth, and that this nourishes, feeds, and increases our flesh, etc., the holy Fathers could both affirm as truly and piously as they could deny, depending on the diverse notions they attached to the aforementioned words. Since the body of Christ is indeed truly and substantially present and set forth to us in the Eucharist, yet not under that sensible form of human flesh which He bore while living on earth, but covered by other species; it is rightly said that this is eaten by us, and that our flesh is fed and nourished by it, in so far as it is received by the mouth of the body while lying hidden under these species, is passed into the stomach, and in these symbols and species themselves, under which the body of Christ is covered, those corporeal actions which are understood by the term "eating," and which follow from it, exert their power. For since it is assumed as certain in faith, as it truly is, that the bread is converted into the body of Christ in such a way that the same species of bread always remain, and that the senses are affected in exactly the same way as if the bread were there in reality; it is necessary that, just as the same color which formerly belonged to the bread is shown to the eyes, so also the mouth, teeth, tongue, palate, and stomach are affected in the same way as they would have been affected had the bread remained. Consequently, all those actions that accompany or follow eating are exercised upon those species themselves, just as they would be exercised upon the bread itself if it still existed. This, indeed, is a great part of the miracle of that stupendous divine power and goodness. But because the body of Christ is joined to those species—which happens only because it is said to become that for the body of Christ hidden under them—it is said to be done upon the body of Christ itself; although it is not exercised upon it in any other way than because it is exercised upon the symbols by which it is covered. Thus, someone who touches the garments of a man is said to have touched the man, although he did not immediately touch the very flesh of the man which is covered by the garments. In that sense, John Chrysostom—whom, with Grabe’s kind permission, we shall also add to our witnesses—writes in *Homily 83 on Matthew* that Christ Himself is touched, seen, and eaten in the Eucharist. "How many," he says, "say: I would like to see His form and appearance, I would like to see His very garments, I would like to see His sandals? You see Him, you touch Him, you eat Him. You desire to see His garments? He, indeed, delivers Himself to you, so that you ^B may not only see, but also touch, and have Him within you." And afterwards: "Many mothers have given their infants to other nurses after childbirth; but He did not wish to do this, but feeds us with His own body, and joins us to Himself, and conglutinates us." But other Fathers, attending to that carnal mode of eating which the Capharnaites imagined for themselves—by which flesh is cut by teeth, tasted, and, once passed into the stomach, is digested—sometimes denied that the body of Christ is eaten by our mouth; and deservedly so, in order to uproot the base and vile ideas of the Capharnaites from the minds of the faithful. Indeed, the same Fathers sometimes assert and sometimes deny that the body of Christ is eaten; yet they do not contend either with themselves or with others, except in the opinion of Protestants, who delight in fashioning for themselves monsters by which to terrify the unlearned.

96. There are, however, two things for which we must be grateful to the learned Grabe. The first is that he candidly confessed in his notes to Irenaeus' *Lib. v*, ch. 17 and 18 (al. 32 and 34), that it is certain that Irenaeus and all the Fathers whose writings we possess, whether they were contemporary with the apostles or followed immediately after them, held the sacred Eucharist to be a true and properly so-called sacrifice of the New Law; and that their words, especially those of Irenaeus, cannot be distorted toward the spiritual sacrifices of a contrite heart, of prayer, of praise, of thanksgiving, and of beneficence, which have been common to every age and law; but that they must be understood of that new, New Testament, and external oblation, which Irenaeus contrasts with external legal sacrifices—which is most true. And hence he inveighs against the error of Luther and Calvin, who, rising up against the public doctrine and practice of the universal Church—which that Church received from the apostles, and the apostles from Christ Himself, as he rightly proves—and either insolently scorning or miserably obscuring the clear testimonies of the Fathers, and especially of Irenaeus, which cannot be eluded by any of the sophists' arts, strive to shake the true and singular sacrifice of the New Law. You will find the learned man’s complete notes at the end of the work. But I wish he had also been willing to give this testimony to the truth candidly: that the same Fathers, who so eloquently affirm the Eucharist to be a true and properly so-called sacrifice of the New Law, no less expressly assert that the same victim, which was immolated ^C on the altar of the cross, is once again immolated in this mystery of the sacred oblation for us. For His body is taken there, His flesh is distributed for the salvation of the people, His blood is poured out, not now into the hands of the unfaithful, but into the mouths of the faithful. This is that body pierced with nails and beaten with lashes, this is the body fixed to the cross, this is that body which was bloodied, which was pierced by the lance, and sent forth saving fountains for the whole world, one indeed of blood, but the other of water: for that which is in the chalice is that which flowed from His side. And there are six hundred other things of this kind, by which anyone who wishes to do so may easily ^D persuade himself regarding the truth.

97. Another thing for which we ought to be grateful to Grabe is that he is more candid than Albertinus, Claude, and other Calvinists, in that he plainly and openly confesses that the Catholic doctrine regarding the Real Presence and transubstantiation is far older, and relies upon the patronage of greater and more ancient authorities, than they would pretend. Since the words of this distinguished man are worthy of singular observation, I shall provide them in their entirety, as they are printed in the *Annotations on Irenæus*, bk. V, ch. 2, edit. Oxon., p. 599: ^A "What, therefore, was the opinion of Irenæus and of the heretics of his age? This is sufficiently clear from what I have discoursed upon here and in the preceding annotations. It is most certainly established that he believed no less than what has been stated concerning the tremendous mystery of the Eucharist—namely, that the consecrated bread is endowed with the virtue of Christ’s flesh, and thus truly is the flesh of Christ. But I do not believe that Irenæus went further, or that he was addicted to that opinion which Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssen, John Damascene, and perhaps many others held. For they were persuaded that the Holy Spirit, descending from heaven, did not ^B only communicate the virtue of Christ’s body to the bread, and so change it in respect of its qualities; but that by divine power He transmuted its very substance into flesh—which is the flesh of Christ, and becomes the same as that which came forth from the womb of the Blessed Virgin, was fixed to the cross, and was thence raised into heaven—by means of an *ἐπαύξησις* ['increase'], and that it possesses the same spirit of life within it. Just as the bread which the Savior ate on earth was turned into His flesh by the force of natural heat, and our daily bread passes into the substance of our body—which body of ours, carried today, is said to be the same as that in which we lived many years ago, since it is quickened by the same soul, although its particles are entirely different and perhaps none of the former ones remain—so, in the same way, the bread... [Wait] after the Fourth Mystagogical Catechesis of Cyril, ^C the Great Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssen, ch. 57, and the work of Damascene, bk. IV *On the Orthodox Faith*, ch. 14, and his epistle to Zacharias, bishop of the Doari. For the sake of brevity, I shall provide the words of John Damascene, and those only translated into Latin: 'Just as bread is naturally changed into the body of him who eats, and wine and water into his blood, through food and drink, so that they become another body, different from the prior body, so the bread of the proposition, and the wine and water, through the invocation and advent of the Holy Spirit, are miraculously turned into the body and blood of Christ, and they are not two, but one and the same.' Again, in the epistle to Zacharias, bishop: 'We signify to your love that we cannot say there are two ^D bodies of Christ; but it is one body. And just as the infant born of woman is perfect—yet eating and drinking it grows by natural faculty, and although it grows, there are not two bodies made, but it is one—so much the more, by the supervention of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine become one body in *superaugmentation* (*ἐπαύξησις*), the body of Christ, and not two.' And likewise, he speaks of this matter in the chapter attached to said epistle." I do not believe that this was the opinion of Irenæus, because it seems to exclude—or is opposed to, see p. 327 seq.—the doctrine which the Roman Church believes regarding the transubstantiation of bread into the whole personal and glorified body of Christ descending from heaven in the altar, and another substantial mutation (though much different from the former), and because it is not read as having been openly handed down in the monuments of any Father contemporary with Irenæus or older than the Council of Nicaea—just as it was not later universally received in the Church. Rather, it is clear that the contrary was asserted by other Fathers, especially the Africans, as the theologians of the Protestants have abundantly proved.

So far Grabe, from whose words it is most certainly established that the doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation is not a product of a later age, but was born and recognized at least by the times of the Council of Nicaea, and was championed not by one or two men successively, but by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssen, John Damascene, and perhaps several other Fathers. Whether such an open testimony of the distinguished Grabe is approved by other Protestants, I do not know. This one thing I do know: that once this supposition is admitted, the hypothesis which Albertinus, Claude, and other recent ministers had labored, with so many machinations, arts, and labors, to construct, collapses utterly from its very foundations. They claimed that the dogma of the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist and of transubstantiation was first devised among the Latins by Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century, that it began to permeate the minds of the faithful toward the end of that same century, and finally prevailed everywhere in the Latin Church in the tenth century; while the Greek Church meanwhile persisted in the old and ancestral Calvinist faith. For if we listen to Grabe, the doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation appeared in the light either at the very times of the Council of Nicaea or shortly thereafter, and it seems to have been known to the Greeks before the Latins, and to have passed from the former to the latter. Now, therefore, let the Cisalpine Calvinists object that the opinion we maintain is new; let them boast that the whole Church was concordant in the Calvinian faith for the first eight centuries; let them boldly affirm that all the Oriental societies are even now unstained by any spot of novelty in this regard; this most vain fiction is dissipated by the certain and unshakable authority of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssen, Damascene (what great men they are!), and perhaps many others, for us and with us.

^A 98. I fear that Grabe, a recent follower of the Calvinist dogma, has strayed somewhat further than he intended, though he seems at last to wish to retract it. For this is the only hope of eternal salvation, this is the only pillar of Grabe’s faith: ‹that in the monuments of no contemporary of Irenaeus, nor of any Father older than the Nicene Council, is the Roman doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation openly taught, just as it was not later universally received in the Church, but rather the contrary is shown to have been asserted by other Fathers, especially the Africans.› But what if that supposition is false? For Grabe does not seem to propose it as confidently as one who thinks it is placed beyond all risk of doubt; this is sufficiently indicated by the words he uses: ‹I do not think Irenaeus went further; I do not believe this was the opinion of Irenaeus;› which seem to smack somewhat of a man offering not private opinions, but doing so a bit timidly. What if Irenaeus, what if Justin Martyr and others older than the Nicene Council thought the same as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssen, and others? The arguments we brought forward above will persuade any sensible person that the matter regarding Irenaeus is most certain. And whatever cavil Grabe may raise, he will not, I think, have such confidence as to dare to assert that the arguments he brings to the contrary have reached such a degree of certainty as to remove every doubt completely. Therefore, even if we grant (far be it from us to concede it) that his arguments possess some probability, can a man who is mindful of his own salvation rely on a single probability in a matter of the greatest moment for eternal salvation, such that he breaks away from the doctrine of the whole world, which he himself acknowledges to be supported by the authority of the most ancient Fathers—not just one or two, but many, and those not of the lowest standing; while other Fathers either do not openly contradict it, or affirm things that can be explained without great difficulty by those who study truth alone? For it is certain that no testimonies of the Fathers as open, clear, and perspicuous can be brought forward by the Protestants as we bring forward. Grabe indeed boasts of the authority of the African Fathers, that is, Tertullian, Augustine, and Facundus of Hermiane; but if one does not mind reading the third volume of the *Perpetuity of the Faith*, written in French (the learned man certainly knows French), if one is of a candid mind, he will quickly perceive that this boasting is in vain.

99. In the meantime, let him compare Gregory of Nyssen with Justin and Irenaeus, and let him say himself, if he can, how the others differ from them. For just as those assert that the bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the sacred invocation of the adorable Trinity, are mere bread and wine; but once the invocation is completed, the bread in truth ^{B C} is made the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ 82 83: 77 78; sanctified by the word of God into the Body of the Word of God 79: 78; so these affirm: ‹that in which graces have been given through the prayer of the Word that came from Christ, is the nourishment, and is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus 83 80;› and that the mingled chalice, and the bread having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, the Blood and Body of Christ 80. Just as they announce that, the consecration having been performed, the bread and wine are ‹not to be looked upon as naked bread and naked wine; for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s own words 81; bread sanctified by the word of God and prayer, being at once transmuted into the Body of the Word, as it was said by the Word: *This is my body*;› so also these openly announce: ‹that in which thanks have been given—bread, wine, and water—is not received as common bread, nor as a common drink, but as the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus;› that [CLI] which is bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is now no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly 84, namely, the Body of Christ concrete from earthly matter, and the Word of God hypostatically united to it. As they teach, with Christ Himself thus affirming and saying concerning the bread: *This is my body*, let no one thereafter dare to doubt: the same also confirming and saying: *This is my blood*, let there be no one who doubts and says it is not His blood: He who once changed water into wine in Cana of Galilee is worthy that we should believe that He changed the wine into blood; He who, invited to corporeal nuptials, performed a stupendous miracle, is much more to be confessed to have given His Body and Blood to the children of the bridegroom: wherefore with all certainty the Body and Blood of Christ are to be received; for under the species, ἐν τύπω, of bread the Body is given, and under the species of wine the Blood is given: although sense suggests the contrary, faith however ought to confirm it, that the matter is not to be judged by taste, but rather with most certain faith, and without doubt, it is to be believed that Christ’s Body and Blood are given to us 88;› just as the Body of Christ, by the indwelling of the Word of God, has been transmuted to divine dignity ^D; so now rightly do we believe that the bread sanctified by the word of God is transmuted into the Body of the Word of God, and is transelemented into that of the nature of those things which appear 86. Thus too these preach: ‹just as through the word of God Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh, and had both flesh and blood for the sake of our salvation; so also we have been taught that the nourishment in which thanks have been given through the prayer of the word that came from Him is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus 87;› who is from that creature, Christ, ‹and the chalice, which is according to us,›

› confesse ^A that He has confessed His own blood: that it is consistent that the bread, over which thanks have been given, is the body of our Lord, and the chalice is the chalice of His blood: «The Lord, who confessed Himself to be the Son of man, confessed the bread to be His body, and affirmed the mingling of the chalice to be His blood: that chalice, which is a creature, He has confessed to be His own blood, and that bread, which is from a creature, He has affirmed to be His own body: just as the grain of wheat falling into the ground, and having been dissolved, rises multiple through the spirit of God; then through the wisdom of God it is converted into bread, that ‹it may come into the use of man.› And finally, ‹receiving the word of God, it becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, nourished by it and deposited in the earth, and resolved in it,› shall rise again in their own time, the Word of God granting them resurrection; that we may know both what God can do, and what benefit man receives º¹.» Finally, Cyril and Gregory say, «Christ's body and blood are distributed into our members, τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου μέλη, and we for that reason ‹become one body and blood with Christ,› and the Christ-bearers ⁹²: ‹Christ’s body, immortal through eating and drinking, is mingled with our inward parts, is inserted through the flesh into all believers, commingled and tempered to the bodies of the believers ⁹³.» Justin and Irenaeus say ‹from that over which thanks have been given, as nourishment, by the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, our blood and flesh are fed by change: our flesh ‹is fed by the Lord’s body and blood: that by that chalice, which He confessed to be His own blood, our blood is increased, and by that bread, which He confirmed to be His own body, our bodies are increased, the substance of our flesh consists, is nourished, etc. ⁹⁵› All these things are so similar, so much the same, the sentiments entirely the same, and the words all but the same, that whoever wishes to judge each one by the standard of equity, and not weigh them on biased scales, must surely confess that one egg cannot be more like another. If, therefore, that fictitious solution of an efficacious figure and the virtue of Christ’s body cannot be applied to the sayings of Cyril and Gregory, as Grabe himself readily concedes; who could do so with the words of Justin and Irenaeus, while preserving the laws of right reason? The same comparison could have been established between Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssen, and all the other Fathers, and it could have been invincibly demonstrated that these men, even the Africans themselves, said and thought nothing less than the others: Grabe could also be urged with that most troublesome question: why does Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssen, whom he seems to suppose to have been the first of all to bring into the world that strange ^B dogma of the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist and transubstantiation, which was unheard of in the first three centuries, if they had brought a Christian [into the world], have expounded that in so few words, with such a simple and calm style; and have found no adversaries in that century, in which the Church was flourishing with praise for both sanctity and erudition, in that matter, not even the Arians themselves, their most bitter enemies; in short, have found none who, by industrious effort, refuted that portentous error, by which the faith of the first three centuries, well known to many Fathers of the fourth century, was being so foully shaken, and have taken care to have the deserters and destroyers of the ancestral faith condemned in the very frequent councils of that time? But I fear lest the dissertation should wander outside the prescribed limits.

100. If, however, we are grateful to the learned Grabe, ^C because being more fair to his own, he has ingenuously confessed that the Eucharist is the true sacrifice of the new law, and that Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssen, and many other Fathers believed that the body and blood of Christ are present in the same Eucharist corporally and substantially through a true and real transmutation of bread and wine; there is one thing that deserves the most just reproach among all, which is that, beyond what is right and just, he attributes an intolerable error to Irenaeus. For indeed, on the occasion of the words of the holy Doctor, which are read in bk. IV, c. 8, n. 3, al. cap. 20: «All the just possess the priestly order,» he writes in his notes: «Irenaeus seems to have been of almost the same opinion as Tertullian, that all the faithful are endowed with priestly order and power, and can perform its exercise whenever necessity requires; although the ordinary function pertains to none but those ordained to sacred ministries.» Then he alleges that oft-cited passage of Tertullian from the book *De exhortat. castit.*, c. 7, and adds many things neither well-considered nor relevant. Thus, perhaps, some Puritan might have written, rashly scraping together any ordinary passage of the Fathers to bolster a desperate cause; but that he, who professes the doctrine of the English episcopalians and wishes the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be kept whole and intact, should deliver Irenaeus to its enemies entirely for free, and perforce, that is a wonder, and perhaps it will seem unjust to the English themselves. Irenaeus in that place proves that the old law was abrogated by Christ, not because it was evil or given by an evil God, but because it had already been fulfilled by Him. If, however, the same Christ performed cures on the Sabbath, He did nothing outside the law; for the law did not forbid men to be cured on the Sabbath, which even required them to be circumcised on that day, and commanded the priests to perform ministries for the people ⁹⁶. Therefore, the priestly ministries were lawful by law because they were spiritual and good works: but the law commanded to abstain from servile works, however, not from spiritual and good ones, which were as lawful for the others as they were for the priests. And from this Irenaeus concludes that Christ, ^D bringing help to the sick, did not break, but fulfilled

^A the law; for he was performing the work of the high priest, propitiating God for men, cleansing the lepers, and healing the infirm. And this work of the high priest, being certainly not servile, but spiritual and good, if it was lawful for other men, even for laymen, to perform, then it was so a fortiori for Christ the Lord. Then, meeting another objection taken from the fact that the Savior's disciples, with his approval, plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath, he replies: "To reap, indeed, and to gather into the barn, the law forbade; but to take food on the Sabbath from those things which were at hand for the hungry it did not forbid." And therefore, he says, the Lord said to those who were accusing his disciples because they ate while plucking the ears, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the loaves of the presence, and gave to those who were with him, which it was not lawful to eat except for the priests alone?"—excusing his disciples by the words of the law, and signifying that it is lawful for priests to act freely. David, however, had been accounted a priest by God, even though Saul was persecuting him. For all the just have a priestly order. Now the priests are all the apostles of the Lord, who inherit neither fields nor houses here, but always serve at the altar and God. By these he proves that Irenaeus intended to signify by his words that priests were sometimes released from the law and were able to act freely, because, as he adds later, they were performing the Lord's ministries; and therefore, from those things which were at hand with the loaves of the presence, the hungry were able to take food. Yet, he says, David had been a priest, not by lineage, not by office, not among men, but accounted such before God, who, properly distinguishing the spirit of the law from its letter, judged by right that those things were lawful for him in urgent necessity which the law permitted to the priests; because he too, seeking safety for himself in flight, was performing the Lord's ministries. For all the just have a priestly order: for they perform the Lord's ministries, and therefore they can act freely, and, at least under the pressure of necessity, perform those things which are in accordance with the spirit of the law. But if David was indeed a priest accounted as such by God, if all the just have a priestly order by the same reasoning, who will deny that all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who just like the Aaronic ones do not inherit fields or houses here, but always serve the altar and God; and therefore, since the disciples had the Levitical substance, it was lawful for them in their hunger, to do what was lawful for the ancient Levites and priests, namely to accept food from the crops, for the laborer is worthy of his food. "If," adds Irenaeus, "priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath and were not guilty, for while they were in the temple they were not performing secular, but the Lord's ministries, fulfilling the law, and not transgressing the law; ^B then the disciples of the Lord, they too being of the same condition as the priests while plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath, cannot be accused of having violated the law: for the Lord's ministries, not secular ones, they were performing."

101. This is the argument of Irenaeus, which rests entirely upon the principle that for any man on the Sabbath, and on other occasions for certain causes, it was lawful in a certain way to do that which was lawful for the priests themselves, by the permission of the law; and if these were not held by the law because they were performing the Lord's ministries, which were good works, pious, honest, and spiritual, not secular and servile, then neither were other men restricted by the same law when they were performing good works, pious and spiritual, because they are the Lord's ministries, not forbidden by the law, in respect to which any man is a priest. And from this, Christ the Lord, healing on the Sabbath, did not violate the law because he was performing the work of the high priest. Hence David, fed by the loaves of the presence when hunger urged him, did not commit an offense against the law; because he had been accounted a priest by God, to whom it was lawful to act freely. Hence, finally, the disciples plucking ears on the Sabbath did not break the law; because they were priests, in this more similar to the Levitical ones, in that they had only the Levitical substance. For all the just, performing just and good works, have a priestly order; because it pertains to the priestly order to perform the Lord's ministries freely; and works good, honest, and lawful in themselves are the Lord's ministries. How much this argument of Irenaeus is worth, we do not now inquire: but rather what the holy doctor meant. Let the illustrious Grabe see now how these things aid the cause of the Puritans, whose patron he is; let him see, and let him judge for himself, with what equity he could attribute that insane dogma to Irenaeus, ^C that "all the faithful are endowed with priestly order and power, and can exercise it where necessity requires." For if he thinks that this can be inferred from the words of Irenaeus, certainly by the same and an equally just right any other person could infer that Christ the Lord was the supreme priest of the Old Law; that David, the apostles, the disciples of the Lord, and all the just of the Old Testament, were true priests of that same Testament, and therefore, when necessity urged, could offer victims and sacrifices in the temple, and perform other ministries which were allowed to Aaronic priests alone; for it is of the old law that he is treating here, not of the Lord; but of the priesthood of the New Law, Irenaeus did not think even in the slightest. Which is also most openly clear from Book V, c. 24, n. 3, where, looking back to those things which he wrote in the cited Book IV, he says: "We have shown in the previous book, that all the disciples of the Lord are Levites and priests; who also profaned the Sabbath in the temple and are without blame." So easily could Tertullian and Ambrosiaster in his Commentary on Ephesians IV, 2, whom he alleges in defense of the Puritan cause, be vindicated from the accusations of Grabe, were it not tedious to dwell longer on Eucharistic matters. One may read the singular book of the most learned

Albaspinæus’s *De Eucharistia sacrificio*, written in French, in which he excellently defends Tertullian against the calumnies of the Puritans, and the very learned Petavius’s *Diatriba* on the same subject, with his third book *De ecclesiastica hierarchia*. To refute the arguments brought against them by Ambrosiaster, it suffices to read the cited passage itself.

ARTICLE VIII.

On the nature, orders, sin, and punishments of angels.

102. Irenæus says but little on the nature of angels. He has inserted only a few things in certain places, from which what his sentiment was can be gathered in some way. He writes in Book III, chapter 20, no. 4, that "angels are without flesh;" by which he indeed excludes angels from the mass of flesh and a grosser body; but not from an ethereal and subtler one, which nothing could prevent from being called a spirit. For not a few of the ancient Fathers attributed this latter kind of body to angels. And that Irenæus ^B seems to have conceded to this same opinion can be inferred from what he writes in Book IV, ch. 16, no. 2, and ch. 30, no. 4; and then in Book V, ch. 29, no. 2, that "the transgressing angels fell to the earth for judgment," that is to say, they were cast down from heaven to earth as a punishment for their sin, and there mingled with men, which is to say that, captivated by the appearance of women, they had intercourse with them, from whose seed was born a very wicked race of men, whom God destroyed with the avenging waters of the flood; and that for this reason Enoch came to those lecherous angels, and to the men who were submerged by them into idolatry and a foul quagmire of vices, as God’s legate and prophet, to denounce the divine judgment. The sentiment of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, and not a few others was almost the same; for all of whom, as we have explained in our notes to these cited passages of Irenæus, the occasion for error was both what is read in Gen. vi about the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men, and the apocryphal book of Enoch. In this, however, Irenæus seems to have departed from their opinion, in that most of them mean that the appearance and association of women was the cause of the ruin of the angels, at least of those who are inferior to the devil, whereas Irenæus seems to suppose that they only debauched women after they had already been cast from heaven as a punishment for their sin. This opinion—both of Irenæus and of others—is indeed most false; it shows, however, that he considered angels to be corporeal; for it is absurd to suppose that a nature devoid of a body, or that possesses its own soul and its own body, could be tempted by the enticements of bodies ^C or be mingled with bodies.

103. I said that this was not Irenæus’s opinion, that women were the occasion of ruin for the angels inferior to the devil. For although some among the ancients wish to separate the cause of the devil, the prince of the rebellious angels, from the rest—desiring to say that he fell through envy, while they fell through being stimulated by lust—yet nowhere is Irenæus found to have made such a distinction: nay, he calls the devil the prince of apostasy in such a way that he says the rebellious "angels were made apostates with him;" that the devil was made the cause of defection for himself and the rest; finally, he expressly asserts that "one of these angels, who were set over the spirit of the air, has fallen from God." By which he seems to signify that there was only one sin for all of them. Furthermore, he teaches that the first sin of the devil was envy, with which he was inflamed against the human race. "From that time," he says, "the angel became an apostate and an enemy, from the time he envied the handiwork of God." And elsewhere: "The Devil, since he is one of these angels who were set over the spirit of the air... envying man, became an apostate from divine law; for envy is alien to God." But what was the cause of this envy, our author does not explain: if, however, it is permissible to indulge in conjectures, I would believe that he agreed with Gregory of Nyssa and Cyprian, that the devil, set over the spirit of the air and the administration of earthly things, took it ill that man, a creature so despised compared to him, and especially one subject to his own rule, had been made and fashioned in the image of God: or, with Anastasius of Sinai, he thought that the devil could not bear that the dominion over all earthly things had been conferred upon man by God, which he himself coveted. ^D

104. Although Irenæus, moreover, as will be explained later, established that angels—and the same is to be said of human souls—are endowed with a body, he nevertheless taught clearly that each substance is immortal by its own nature. In Book II, chapter 35, refuting the metempsychosis asserted by the Gnostics, he writes in no. 5: "when the number which God predetermined with Himself is completed, all who are written into life will rise again, having their own bodies and their own souls, and their own spirits, in which they pleased God; but those who are worthy of punishment will go into it, and they themselves have departed from the goodness of God." And the following chapter, bringing in the parable of the rich glutton and Lazarus, he concludes: "It is most manifestly declared by these things that souls persist, and do not pass from body to body." But more clearly in Book V, chapter 4, refuting the same Gnostics who denied the resurrection of the body, he argues thus in no. 1: "Since they say things that are manifest to all, that they persist immortal..."

such as the spirit and the soul, and things of that kind, because they are quickened by the Father; but that another thing, which is not otherwise quickened unless God grants it life, is abandoned; he shows their Father to be either impotent and weak, or envious and malicious. For if the Demiurge also, in this place, is shown to quicken our mortal bodies and promises them resurrection through the prophets, as we have shown; who is shown to be the more potent, and stronger, and truly good? Is it the Demiurge, who quickens the whole man, or their falsely named Father, who feigns that he is quickening those things which are by nature immortal, to whom life belongs by their own nature; but who does not kindly quicken those things which need help from him in order to live, but negligently leaves them to death?" Here Irenæus clearly affirms that it is manifest to all that the spirit and the soul, and such like things—that is, all spiritual substances, such as angels and human souls—persist immortal, and are by their nature immortal, and that life belongs to them by their nature, ^B and from this he argues that the Father of the Gnostics is either lacking in power or lacking in benevolence: because he pretends to quicken those things which are by nature immortal; but denies life to those which need help to live. And in chap. 7, no. 1, strengthening this same resurrection of bodies with these words of the Apostle, Rom. viii, 11: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies"; he shows that these mortal bodies are the "plasma," that is, the flesh; not, certainly, the souls, which, because they are breath of life breathed by God into the face of man, are incorporeal in comparison to bodies, nor consequently can they be called mortal. And for this reason, he says, "David says: And my soul shall live for him, as its substance existing as immortal." Finally, chap. 13, num. 3, he writes that flesh, while it is mortal and corruptible, is made immortal and incorruptible; not according to its own substance, but according to the operation of the Lord; but that the soul is not mortal, that is, according to its own substance, and in this it differs from flesh. All these things were manifest in Irenæus’s age, both to Irenæus himself and to all others; but to Dodwell they appeared obscure. For he abuses that very passage which we have just cited from lib. v, cap. 4, n. 1, to confirm that new and impious fabrication: namely, that human souls are not spiritual, nor consequently immortal by their own nature, except insofar as they remain surviving for some time separated from their bodies, as long, indeed, as God has willed them to survive; and that these alone are gifted with perpetual immortality by the grace of God ^A and by the benefit of the Holy Spirit, which they have received in baptism; while all others, who have lacked the sacrament of the evangelical law, are eventually to be dissolved and to go into nothingness. [CLIV] Which, however, he cannot extract from Irenæus, unless by basely corrupting his words with an adulterous version and a twisted explanation. Irenæus, speaking in Latin, asserts in clear words: "These things are manifest to all, since they persist immortal, such as the spirit and the soul, and such like things, because they are quickened by the Father; that is, the spirit, the soul, and such like things are by nature immortal; to them life belongs from their own nature, etc." But Irenæus, as rendered into English by Dodwell, writes simply (a): "Those things are quickened by the Father, which all agree to continue in their existence after death, such as the spirit, the soul, and such like things; that is (namely, the spirit, the soul, and such like things), they by their own nature survive their dissolution from their bodies, and are by their own nature capable of living separately; not, indeed, always and in perpetuity," as Dodwell explains, "but as long as it pleases the Creator acting according to the accustomed and ordinary laws of His Providence." As if the soul being immortal by its own nature, and life belonging to it by its own nature, meant nothing other than that it remains surviving for some time after the death of the body, and can live separately from it. And yet Dodwell boasts that he has performed the office of a faithful interpreter, and complains that he is unjustly accused of depraving Irenæus; regarding which he calls upon the readers as judges. We shall await what the judgment of the Anglican Church, as they call it, whose business is at stake, will be concerning that abnormal theology. Should one dare to impugn it with solid arguments, I fear that they would straightaway throw at him that line from Terence: "You do nothing more than if you take pains to be mad with reason." It suffices to have observed one thing: namely, the double genus of immortality, which Dodwell never distinguished, but rather so confused that he took one for the other, which is the source of all his errors. For the immortality of souls is twofold: one natural, the other supernatural. The former is proper to substances that are simple by their nature and segregated from all matter; by which they cannot, by the force and efficacy of any created thing at all, be dissolved and extinguished. The latter is peculiar to blessed souls; through which, living eternally in God and with God, they enjoy a happiness that will never cease in the heavens. Both can indeed be called the grace of God, but for an altogether different reason: the latter as the grace of God the author of supernatural gifts and His promises, which, because He is supremely truthful, stands inviolable; the former as that of God the author of nature, who, as He created created things freely, so...

^A He preserves them, yet freely, in the way which that nature, imparted to each individual, demands to be preserved. The latter is owed to none, no more than the supernatural grace itself through which it is acquired: although, strictly speaking, the former is no more owed than creation itself; yet, this once supposed, it is owed to souls by virtue of the laws established by God, so that they may be endowed with immortality by the same laws by which they are founded; to such an extent that they can never be frustrated of it, unless one were to suppose that God is lacking to His own natural laws, and an unskilled artisan, and little consistent with Himself. In this sense, reason is both imparted and natural to souls, and a grace of God: a grace, indeed, because God willed to create souls endowed with the faculty of knowing, spontaneously and freely, and induced by no necessity; but natural, because it is the nature of souls that none can exist which is not endowed with reason. Thus, the various testimonies of the holy Fathers are easily explained, some of which determine that souls are immortal by grace, others by nature. For, to omit many things, that they can be understood as referring to nothing other than blessed immortality; both are true, in the sense presently explained, just as it is true that souls are endowed with the faculty of knowing by nature and by grace combined. Just as, however, from the fact that God as author of nature has freely, and in place of a benefit, imparted the faculty of knowing to souls, it cannot be inferred that it is not natural to human souls; because it is self-contradictory for any soul to exist which cannot think; so likewise, although God as author of nature freely endows our souls with immortality, it cannot be concluded from this that it is not the nature of souls to be immortal, because it is utterly self-contradictory for any soul to exist endowed with the faculty of knowing, which is not spiritual, simple, and immortal. ^C

105. Therefore, what Irenaeus states in Bk. II, ch. 54, n. 2 and 3, that souls and spirits “continue and extend to the length of the ages according to the will of the Creator God, and continue as long as God wills them both to be and to continue,” and that life is given to them, “not by nature, but according to the grace of God,” is not opposed to the things said above. For, anticipating the objection which could have been proposed to him by the Gnostics, ^D “that those souls which began to exist a little while ago cannot continue for a long time, but that they ought either to be unbegotten, to be immortal; or if they received a beginning of generation, to die with the body itself,” he answers that this distinction exists between the immortality of God and that of souls and spirits: that God alone has immortality from Himself, and owes it to no other, who could, if He willed, take it away from Him; He alone has an immutable immortality, and one subject to no vicissitude; while all other things that are created, if they are immortal, have attained immortality by the benefit of God, and they, although they continue forever, yet do not continue except because God wills: in one word, that the immortality of created things is precarious, received from God, and to be attributed to the sole will of God, to return into nothingness, from whence they received their beginning at the outset, unless they were preserved by the aid of God, in the manner we explained above: although these same things are by nature immortal and incorruptible, if account is taken of the laws established by the author of nature, and they are compared with the efficient cause, which is none, by which they could be extinguished. “Let them learn,” he says, “since without beginning and without end, truly and always the same and in the same way existing, is God alone, who is the Lord of all. But whatever things are from Him, all things whatsoever that have been made, and are made, receive indeed their own beginning of generation, and through this are inferior to Him who made them, since they are not unbegotten; but they continue and are extended to the length of the ages, according to the will of the Creator God: so that thus they were created and subsequently, that they may exist, He grants them.” Since God therefore grants life and perpetual perseverance, he holds that souls (the same he said earlier concerning spirits) at first not existing, thereafter continue, since God willed them both to be and to subsist. For the will of God ought to hold sway and dominate in all things; but all other things ought to yield to this and be subject to it, and be given over to service. He repeats exactly the same thing in Book IV, ch. 38, n. 5. [CLV]

106. Nor should it cause trouble to anyone, that in the aforementioned book II, ch. 34, n. 3, he seems to hint that “perseverance is granted by the Father of all unto the age of the age to those who are saved,” as if the spirits and souls of sinners were about to pass into nothingness. “For life,” he says, “is not from us, nor from our nature; but it is given according to the grace of God. And therefore he who has preserved the gift of life, and has rendered thanks to Him who bestowed it, shall receive also the length of days for the age of the age. But he who has cast it away, and has been ungrateful toward his Creator, for this that he was created, and has not acknowledged Him who bestows it, he deprives himself of perseverance for the age of the age.” By these words Irenaeus signifies, as is clear from the whole context of the discourse, that the impious, who in their short temporal life have been ungrateful toward God who bestowed it, will not justly receive from Him the length of days for the age of the age, which is given according to the grace of God, and which alone is true immortality; but will bring upon themselves eternal death, that is, a separation from God and from the blessed life. For where Irenaeus has discoursed concerning the natural immortality of angels and souls, he proceeds to the other species of immortality, which is acquired through the supernatural grace of God, and is granted by the Father of all only to those who are saved, about to return soon to the former. But he fittingly establishes that this is common to both, that both are to be attributed to the will of God; the former, indeed, as God being the author of nature, the latter as God being the author of grace: with this difference, however, that the former immortality, if it is devoid of eternal happiness, is to be considered death rather than life. For, as he excellently says in Bk. IV, ch. 20, n. 5: “Since to live...

without life is impossible, but the subsistence of life comes from the participation of God, and the participation of God is to see God and enjoy his goodness; ^A therefore, men will see God and live, having been rendered immortal through the vision.” Yet he could not therefore have supposed that either wicked angels or wicked men would perish entirely, having written so clearly in Bk. II, ch. 33, n. 5: “The number being completed, which God beforehand determined with himself, all those who are written into life will rise again, having their own bodies and their own souls, and their own spirits, in which they pleased God. But those,” he adds, “who are worthy of punishment will go into it, and they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood apart from the goodness of God.” Therefore, evil angels and the souls of the impious, who on the day of judgment will yield to eternal punishment ^B will not go into nothingness. Indeed, he proclaims that the punishments of the damned are eternal as clearly as he proclaims them frequently. “For,” he says in the same book, ch. 28, n. 7, “the eternal fire is prepared for the transgressors, as the Lord has manifestly said, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate.” And in Bk. III, ch. 23: “The Lord in the Gospel says to those who are found on the left: ‘Depart, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. xxv, 41); signifying that the eternal fire was not prepared primarily for man, but for him who seduced and caused man to offend—for him, I say, who is the prince of apostasy, and for those angels who became apostates with him; which, indeed, they shall justly receive, even those who, like them, without repentance and without return, persist in the works of malice.” But nothing is clearer than what he has in Bk. IV, ch. 28, n. 2, where, proving that the greater grace of the New Testament requires from us also greater perfection: “The punishment,” he says, “of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise his coming, and turn backward, is amplified; it is made not only temporal, but also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say: ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire’; these shall be punished forever; and to whomsoever he shall say: ‘Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the beginning’ (Matt. xxv, 34); these shall always receive the kingdom, and will make progress.” Here Irenaeus opposes the punishment of the damned to the happiness of the blessed; and just as he established the latter as eternal, so too he established the former as eternal. Wherefore, let anyone who would twist these phrases—eternal fire, eternal punishment, punished forever—to mean merely the longest possible punishments, but such as will eventually cease through the destruction of the damned, take note that neither Irenaeus, nor the other Fathers, nor indeed Scripture itself, uses any other words to designate the eternal happiness of the blessed; words which the impious, having seized upon this as an opportunity, could similarly twist to mean merely a long happiness that would eventually come to an end. But just as no one, if he be sane, would attribute this latter view to Irenaeus, so neither should he attribute the former. ^C And he who acts otherwise, unless he is one who has never read Irenaeus, or one who desires to obscure even the clearest sayings of the Fathers, even against the will and resistance of the authors, in order to load them with infamy—let him read what the most learned D. Matthæus Petitdidier has written on this subject in his *Adnotationes in Bibliothecam auctorum ecclesiasticorum*, vol. II, p. 403, and following, Paris edition, 1692.

107. But that Irenaeus, at the place just cited, says, “the blessed always receive the kingdom of God, and make progress,” recalls to memory what he writes in Bk. II, ch. 28, n. 3: that there are certain obscure points in the Scriptures which are to be commended to God, “not only in this age, but also in the coming one; so that God may indeed always teach, and man may always learn the things that are of God.” Just as the Apostle also said, that when other parts are destroyed, these remain: faith, hope, and charity. This opinion is reprobated by Scultetus, whom Gallasius also follows, as if it followed therefrom that “in eternal life we are to be taught something; in which alone charity will flourish, not faith, not hope, nor any addition in daily doctrine.” But the censure is unjust. For that the holy doctor wishes the knowledge of the blessed to be capable of growth by new increments does not depart from the common doctrine of theologians, which is also supported by reason; from which it is certain that the saints, possessed of eternal happiness, clearly behold the divine essence and all those things which are necessarily conjoined with it; yet it is likewise certain that they do not see it with any perfect kind of knowledge, in such a way that they perceive entirely everything which is contained in God and his power and capacity, or all those things which depend solely upon the free will of God. Since, therefore, they do not equal their own understanding and knowledge with the infinite amplitude of his omnipotence; what forbids that from those things which God freely does outside of himself, or can do, a new accession of knowledge for the blessed may occur from time to time, when God wills to reveal it? Thus Daniel x, the angels dispute among themselves regarding future events just as much as they do regarding the divine will; which Christ confirms to be unknown even to them regarding the day of the final judgment; which, therefore, when they shall one day know by God’s revelation, their knowledge will take on a new increment. As for what Irenaeus adds, that faith and hope will remain in the other life, I do not dwell upon it; for it is plain to any person of good sense that they are taken here, not as having ^D obscurity or absence of object adjoined to them, but only insofar as the one is a firm assent to things known, and the other is a certain trust in God. But let these things be said in passing, to repel the calumnies of malicious men.

[CLVI] 108. To return to the punishments of the evil angels: Irenaeus believes that they were condemned by a just sentence of God to the eternal fire in such a way that they were not, however, to be tormented therein before the final day of judgment. Therefore, in Bk. I, ch. 10, n. 3, he commends God because he has been magnanimous in the apostasy of the transgressing angels. Which, however, Feuardent explains thus:

that they are called essential, as theologians generally hold; yet he is not to be accused of error, much less of heresy, who asserts that the devil and his angels are not yet being tormented by the supreme and final punishment, or experiencing the efficacy of the fire in which, as far as feeling and suffering go, the sum of their condemnation consists. Hence, St. Thomas, 1 p., q. 64, art. 4, ad 4, when he had mentioned this opinion, does not indeed approve of it, but he imposes on it no mark of error. Cajetan, however, approves and embraces it in his Commentaries on chapter 1 of the second Epistle of St. Peter. "Regarding this opinion of Cajetan," Petavius adds, "it is certain that it is not contrary to the Catholic faith. For neither Scripture, nor any council as yet, has taught that demons undergo those extreme punishments which the Judge himself says are prepared for them." Let the illustrious Grabius consider, therefore, whether it befitted either a learned man or a man of sincere candor to criticize the Roman Church in his Annotations on Bk. I of Irenaeus, ch. 10, al. 4, because, he says, "as in other things, so also in this, she has departed from the opinion of the Holy Fathers and of her own founders, Peter and Paul." Anyone reading this would believe that Peter and Paul had openly supported the opinion of the ancients just expounded, and that this opinion had been openly condemned by the Roman Church, or that the current opinion of most theologians had been approved by solemn decrees of her councils: how far this is from the truth, the things we have just said evidently demonstrate; Grabius himself even saw this, for, being little consistent with himself, when he reaches the annotation of Feuardent in Bk. V, ch. 26—which asserts that this opinion of the ancients has not yet been proscribed by any council—he refers to it and approves it by his silence.

110. Regarding this same narrow-mindedness, another instance appears in the very same work, where Grabius, regarding the angels, produces a specimen. Irenaeus writes in Bk. II, c. 32, n. 5, that the Church "does nothing by angelic invocations, nor by incantations, nor by other perverted curiosity; but purely, clearly, and openly directing prayers to the Lord, who made all things, and invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, performs [these] virtues for the benefit of men, but not for their seduction." Whoever reads this whole chapter and the preceding one attentively will notice that here the miracles of the Church are opposed to the prestidigitations of the heretics: and that some things are attributed to pure and clean prayers and the invocation of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; while others are attributed to the invocations of demons, incantations, and magic arts. This is the very thing which he had set forth more fully in the preceding chapter, concerning the Simonians and Carpocratians, "and if any others are said to perform virtues, they do not do so in the power of God, nor in truth, but for destruction and error, through magical elusions, and by all fraud among them, error and seduction and magical phantasm are impiously brought about in the speculation of men: they do so by all fraud, and by apostatic inspiration, and by demonic operation, and by the phantasm of idolatry in all things.

to be replete; all of which is confirmed sufficiently and more than sufficiently by those things which he himself wrote in book one concerning the Marcosians, the Simonians, the Carpocratians, and other such pests, and by what Epiphanius and others have discussed concerning them: but that in the Church commiseration, mercy, firmness, and truth are brought about for the help of men, etc. See, however, how Grabius, led astray by these little words, "angelic invocations," observes: "I have nowhere read that good angels were called upon by the Church as a help for the performing of miracles; and," he says, "that this was not done is not ineptly gathered from this very passage of Irenaeus." Indeed, it is ineptly gathered, and it is ineptly written in the General Index, by pointing to this very Irenaean passage, that angelic invocations were unused in the Church. It is certain that here malevolent spirits are to be understood, namely those whom the Gnostics considered to be the rulers of this world, and whom they intensely cultivated so they would not harm them, and whom they frequently invoked for help to exercise their sorceries. Since, therefore, Irenaeus testifies that the Church does nothing with such invocations of spirits, from what source did Grabius conclude that invocations of good angels were unused in the Church? A brilliant genre of argumentation: the Church does not study magic arts, it does not evoke demons to exercise sorceries: therefore, it does not invoke good angels. But those are most Protestants, in order that they may arm themselves with every simple saying of the Holy Fathers. Irenaeus writes that the Church does nothing with angelic invocations; that is enough: it makes no difference whether he understands good or evil angels: immediately, just as if he had found a convenient opportunity, the editor will advise that angelic invocations were unused in the ancient Church.

ARTICLE IX. On the perfection of man and free will, and his creation according to the image and likeness of God. On original sin, and the necessity of divine grace.

111. Among the various things concerning which they think Irenaeus’ doctrine is flawed, the Magdeburg Centuriators and Scultetus note this: that he said, not without error, that man was not created perfect by God, and that God as an artisan had omitted something in the old formation, which the Word later fulfilled. But he suffers the censure of malevolent men, to whom, as even to Gallasius, it was displeasing, as they openly profess, that Irenaeus so clearly pronounces and so invincibly proves that man is endowed with the faculty of free will, such that there is no place for evasions. For this is the cause of calumny; which must be explained.

112. This was the statement of the Gnostics, as we said elsewhere, that some men were created by God by nature good, others by nature evil: by which flagitious principle all power of choosing was utterly ruined from the bottom, and the human will was so constricted by fatal necessity that, circumscribed and defined by one thing alone, whether good or evil, it could not wish for the opposite. Irenaeus refutes this destructive doctrine again and again throughout his work. But he sets out to pull it up from the very roots, finally, in chapters 37 and 39 of book four, where he undertakes to prove at the beginning that God made man free from the beginning, having his own power, just as he has his own soul, to use the judgment of God voluntarily, and not forced by God. For force, he says, does not come from God, but a good judgment is always present to him. Nor should you think that only external force is eliminated here, which is applied from the outside; he excludes far from the will every necessity whatsoever, by which it would be determined to one thing, so that the power of willing the other would be taken away, and consequently even the necessity which is called simple. For Irenaeus rightly contends that there is that liberty in man which includes the power of election, so that when the will inclines of its own accord toward one thing, it can, if it so wishes, that being put aside, be carried to the opposite. He placed, he says, God in man the power of election, just as in the angels (for the angels are rational): so that those of them who obeyed, might justly possess the good, indeed given by God, but preserved by themselves. But those who did not obey, will justly not be found with the good, and will receive the merited punishment; since God indeed gave the good benignly, they themselves did not keep it diligently, nor did they esteem it precious, but despised the supereminence of goodness. Abandoning therefore the good, and as it were rejecting it, they all justly fall under the just judgment of God, etc. Then, explaining still more clearly afterwards that power of election, which he attributes to man, and demonstrating that it is situated in indifference toward either side, he adds: "God therefore gave the good, just as the Apostle also testifies; and those who indeed perform it, will receive glory and honor, because they have performed the good, when they could not have performed it; but those who do not perform it, will receive the just judgment of God, because they have not performed the good, when they could have performed it." And he proves this indifference of the will, which even now persists in man, one after another with all the arguments which Catholic doctors are accustomed to use to refute heretics; for instance, that

if men were carried toward good or evil by an unavoidable necessity, neither praise nor blame could be attributed to those who were good or evil. That God would have given commands, counsels, and warnings to men in vain; that there would be no rewards for good deeds, because no further struggle and no crown for the struggle would remain; that man would have received from God the faculty of distinguishing good from evil to no purpose, unless, by making a comparison of both, he could prefer one to the other by his own will and choice; and other things of this kind, which I would prefer to have read in our author himself.

113. ^A But he answers this common complaint: Why did almighty God create such angels or men who would immediately fall away from Him, when it would have been far better if they could not sin in any way? "But it was necessary that He should not have made angels of such a kind that they could transgress, nor men who would immediately be ungrateful toward Him." ^B Irenæus replies that if men, like beasts, "inflexible and without judgment, were dragged to good by necessity and force, then that which is good would not be sweet to them, nor would the communion of God be precious, nor would the good be greatly sought after, which had come about without their own movement, care, and study, but had been implanted from outside and idly; thus they would be of no importance as good people, because they would exist as such more by nature than by will, and would have possessed the good spontaneously, but not according to choice; and on account of this, they would not even understand that what is good is beautiful, nor would they enjoy it. Therefore it would have been better, and it would have befitted the providence of God more, that men should be created such as would pursue good by free choice, and would strive toward it with labor and exercise, lest, ^C as he says, "it should be our senseless good, which would be unexercised, so that we might deem precious the crown which is acquired for us through the struggle, but not spontaneously grown together; and the more it comes to us through the struggle, the more precious it is; and the more precious it is, the more we shall always love it." From this it happens that, being left to ourselves and our own choice, we sometimes slip and fall away from God; yet that evil is compensated by the fact that we are instructed by our own falls, and having made "a comparison of light and darkness, of life and death, we are instructed in all things; so that in the future we may be cautious in all things, and may persevere in all love for God, rationally taught to love God: God indeed showing magnanimity in the apostasy of man; but man being instructed through it," etc.

114. From that response arises another question, which Irenæus immediately proposes to himself, and which gave occasion for the accusation of the Centuriators and Scultet: "If," he says, "anyone should say this: 'Why not? Could not God have made man perfect from the beginning?'" Whoever attends to those things which have gone before, and which we have just summarized, will immediately perceive that the discussion here is not about that perfection ^A which is natural and exists in the order of nature; but solely about that which is of a higher order, and which is to be expected from God, in so far as He is the author of grace. In a word, the context of the whole discourse demonstrates that the question aims at this: Did God create such a man from the beginning who would attain a crown won for himself with such labor and with a doubtful and arduous struggle; and not rather one who, mature at once to see and grasp God, would adhere to Him all the more perfectly the more he was immutably fixed in justice, and safe from every perverse use of free-choice and the danger of sinning? That this is so is also clearly gathered from the subjoined response. For Irenæus replies, "To God indeed, since He is always the same and unbegotten, as far as He is concerned, all things are possible. But the things that have been made by Him, according to the fact that they had a beginning of being made later, ^B must on that account also be smaller than Him who made them; for those things which have been made recently could not be unbegotten. And because they are not unbegotten, on this account they also fall short of the perfect." From this he concludes that God Himself was indeed able to bestow perfection upon man from the beginning, but man, "having regard for the most wise laws established by divine providence, was unable to receive it: for he was an infant." Therefore, man had to arrive, by certain degrees, through a certain order and "convenience," at the vision of God, by which he becomes immortal and by that reason perfect and close to God. "It was necessary for man to be made first, and being made to grow, and having grown to be strengthened, and being strengthened to multiply, and having multiplied to prevail, and indeed having prevailed to be glorified, and having been glorified to see his Lord. For it is God who is to be seen; the vision of God is effective of incorruption: but incorruption makes one close to God." All of which persuades me of what I said, that there is only a question here of that perfection which man attains in the other life by seeing God intuitively; and which it was fitting that he should merit for himself by the legitimate use of free-choice between one thing and another: so that it was not a prerogative of his nature, but a reward of labor and exercise and the wages of virtue. This is also more and more confirmed from those things which he adds in the following chapter, ^D where in n. 2 he says: "How, therefore, will he be God, who has not yet been made man? How, moreover, perfect, who has been made recently, who in mortal nature did not obey the Maker?" Then he adds that this order established by God is such that "first we provide Him with our heart, soft and tractable, and deliver to Him what is ours, that is faith in Him and subjection; then indeed we shall ascend to the perfect, and we shall be the perfect work of God. But if, he says, you will not believe in Him, and you will flee His hands, the cause of imperfection will be in you, who did not obey, but not in Him who called." But that kind of merit, and the indifference of liberty which is necessarily presupposed to this, Magdeburgers — [index: entries preserved]

when these displeased the Gentiles, they became an occasion for constructing calumnies against Irenaeus.

115. Yet the holy Doctor does not so vindicate merit for good works as to exclude the necessity of divine grace. Indeed, he rightly and deservedly contends that the corruption of human nature, vitiated by original sin, is so great that it could never produce any fruit of good works anywhere, unless it were healed by the grace of Christ and strengthened to act. In Book III, c. 22, n. 4, he writes: "Eve having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both to herself and to the whole human race," not temporally only, but also eternally, as is clearly evident from the other member of the comparison: "But Mary, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation both to herself and to the whole human race." He adds later that "the Lord, born as the firstborn of the dead, and receiving into his bosom the ancient fathers, regenerated them into the life of God, He Himself having become the beginning of the living, just as Adam had become the beginning of the dying." ^B Then, in Book V, c. 1, n. 3, he teaches: "That the Father of all had wrought the incarnation of His Son, and had shown a new generation: so that just as we had inherited death through the former generation, we might thus inherit life through this one." This he repeats at the end of the chapter. And in c. 14, n. 1, 2, and 3, he says that "Christ the Lord had saved in Himself in the end that which had perished in the beginning in Adam. That He had reconciled to God that flesh which was held captive in sin, and had brought it into friendship. That through Christ it had been reconciled to God, which through transgression had been turned into an enemy." Similar to all these are the things he writes, both in Book IV, c. 2, n. 7: "Men cannot otherwise be saved from the ancient wound of the serpent, unless they believe in Him who, according to the likeness of the flesh of sin, is lifted up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and gives life to the dead"; and in Book V, c. 16, n. 2, he says: "God in the first Adam indeed offended us, not keeping His commandment; but in the second Adam we were reconciled, having been made obedient even unto death. For we were not debtors to any other, but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed from the beginning"; and in c. 34, n. 2, "man was struck in the beginning in the disobedient Adam"; and finally, that I may not be long, in c. 19, n. 1: "Just as the human race was bound to death through a virgin, it is saved through a virgin, with an equal balance adjusted, virginal disobedience being undone by virginal obedience. For the sin of the protoplast, receiving correction by the amendment of the Firstborn, and the serpent's prudence being defeated in the simplicity of the dove, those chains were resolved by which we had been bound to death." This latter passage, ^C as well as the one we just adduced from Book IV, c. 11, was cited by Augustine in Book I *against Julian*, c. 5, to prove from the constant tradition of the Fathers against the Pelagians that all the descendants of Adam are born stained ^D by the contagion of original sin. Let those, therefore, who offer open violence to such clear testimonies of Irenaeus, and who study to evade them by contending rashly that Irenaeus and the other Fathers of the first three centuries indeed remembered the punishments of original sin, but not its guilt and culpability; let them see if the guilt and stain of original sin could have been asserted more clearly even by Augustine himself. What if the same Irenaeus concludes from this with Augustine that baptism is necessary for all men, even for infants and little children, so that by it those reborn may wash away the filth of their former generation? "Christ," he says, Book II, c. 22, "came to save all through Himself: all, I say, who through Him are reborn into God, infants, and little children, and boys, and youths, and old men." And in Book V, c. 15, n. 3: "And because in that formation which was according to Adam, man was made in transgression, he needed the laver of regeneration; after He (Christ) had spread clay upon his eyes (the man born blind) He said to him: Go to Siloam, and wash, restoring to him at once the formation and that which is through the laver, the regeneration. And for this reason he who was washed came seeing, so that he might both recognize his maker, and man might learn of Him who granted him life." That reasoning is clear: man needs the laver of regeneration because he was made, or born, in transgression. Therefore, Irenaeus considered baptism necessary for this: that through it man might be freed from the guilt of transgression which he contracted in Adam.

[CLIX] 116. It was a necessary consequence that one who had recognized man as dead in Adam, addicted to miserable slavery, bound by chains, and wounded by a lethal wound, should feel and preach the necessity of divine grace, which God imparts to us through the merits of Christ our Redeemer and Liberator, by which we are restored, healed, and gain the strength to obtain eternal life through good works. ^A For this reason he so often asserts the necessity of the incarnation of the divine Word, in order that He might recapitulate in Himself the ancient formation of man, slay sin, empty death, and give life to man. This, indeed, the law, although good and spiritual, could not provide; inasmuch as it only manifested sin, it did not kill it. Hence he warns man ^B so that he may know himself, ^C that he is mortal and infirm; and that the glory of man is God; but that man is the receptacle of God's operation (so I read), and of all His wisdom and virtue. Just as, he adds, the physician is proven in those who are ill; so also is God manifested in men. Wherefore Paul also says: "For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all," not saying this of spiritual Aeons, but of man, who was disobedient to God, and cast out from immortality, and from there obtained mercy, receiving through the Son of God that adoption which is toward Him. Hence, regarding human infirmity ^D

^A its author teaches that it is the Lord who saves us. And on account of this, he says, Paul, announcing human infirmity, says: "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" Then he introduces the deliverer: "The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord...." This, because we have been able to be saved not from ourselves, but by the help of God. Hence, finally, he teaches that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ, "who might fit us for God. For just as a lump of dough cannot be made one from dry wheat without moisture, nor one loaf, so neither could we, who are many, be made one in Christ Jesus without water, which is from heaven. And just as dry earth, if it does not receive moisture, does not bear fruit; so also we, being initially dry wood, would never bear the fruit of life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity for that incorruption through the washing; but our souls through the Spirit. Whence both are necessary, since both contribute to the life of God, our Lord having had mercy," etc. And afterwards: "Therefore the dew of God is necessary for us, that we be not consumed, nor rendered unfruitful, and that where we have an accuser, there we may also have an advocate: the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit His own man, who had fallen into the hands of robbers, whom He Himself pitied, and bound up his wounds, giving two royal denarii, so that through the Spirit, receiving the image and inscription of the Father and the Son, we might bear fruit, counting the denarius entrusted to us, multiplied, to the Lord."

417. What Irenaeus says here, that through the Spirit we have received the image and inscription of the Father and the Son, receives light from those things which he has at the beginning of the following chapter: "The Son of God having become man, he recapitulated in Himself the long exposition of men; so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, to be according to the image and likeness of God, we might recover in Christ Jesus." This, indeed, Irenaeus establishes, which we read has been affirmed not once by other Fathers thereafter: that the image and likeness of God, first inscribed upon man, then deformed and corrupted by the stain of sin, was restored and refashioned by the Son of God; and for that reason He, who is the image of the Father and the character of His substance, took on flesh, so that He might be used as the archetype and exemplar to restore the effigy of God, by the imitation of which the original state might be reduced to the same lineaments. Our author explains this most clearly in Book V, c. 16, n. 1 and 2, where he says that the same hand of God, namely the divine Word, by which we were created according to the image and likeness of God, "from the beginning even to the end forms us, and adapts us for life, and is present to His own creature, and perfects it according to the image and likeness of God. But then this Word was displayed, that is, visibly appeared, when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man and man to Himself: so that through the likeness which is toward the Son, the precious image and inscription of the Father and the Son, [man] might become [the image] of the Father." ^B For in past times, indeed, it was said that man was made according to the image of God, but he was not shown: because, of course, the very archetype and exemplar was not exhibited to the eyes, namely the divine Word, the image of the Father, and the character of His substance, to whose imitation, and consequently to that of the Father Himself, man had been created, as Irenaeus soon explains. "For still," he adds, "the Word was invisible, according to whose image [man] had been made. On account of this, however, he also easily lost the likeness. But when the Word of God was made flesh, He confirmed both; and He showed the true image, Himself becoming what was His image, and restored the likeness, making man similar to the invisible Father through the visible Word." The Magdeburgians, having by no means grasped the sense of this passage, miserably entangle it. For, in order to have an opportunity to slander Irenaeus, they imagine him to have said, 1. That man was not created according to the image of God; but that it was necessary that he be made according to the image of God, once knowledge of good and evil had been received. The absurdity and falsity of which charge indeed is clearly demonstrated even from that very place which they cite in the margin, namely cap. 38, alias 76, n. 4, where it is expressly asserted that God "made men similar to Himself and of His own power," and, "it was necessary for man to be made according to the image and likeness of God, once the knowledge of good and evil had been received"; that is, as he himself explains in the same period and in that whole chapter, before man became immortal and impeccable through the intimate vision of God, it was necessary that he be created in Him according to the image and likeness of God, so that through the knowledge of good and evil having been received, he might be free and of his own power. ^C "Then" they imagine "that Irenaeus speaks very dangerously about the image, when he affirms that dictum, 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness,' to have pertained to Christ, who surely had to become man at a certain time, and to represent that image. Before the fall, therefore, man was indeed called the image of God, but not shown; because the Son of God had not yet become man." Then they bring forth the passage which we adduced a little before. But neither in that place, nor anywhere else, does Irenaeus write that dictum: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," to have pertained to Christ; nor in that place, nor anywhere else, did he say that, before the fall, man was indeed called the image of God, but not shown.

418. But it is true that Irenaeus, among not a few of the ancients, distinguished between the image of God in man and the likeness; as if the nature of the image were one thing, and that of the likeness another. He locates the image, however, in the flesh, or, as he loves to speak, in the creature (*plasmate*). "Flesh," he ^D says in book V, c. 6, n. 1, "is the creature (*plasmata*) according to the image of God." And afterwards: "If the Spirit is lacking to the soul, he is truly animal who is such; and left as carnal, he will be imperfect, having indeed the image..."

in the molded clay, but not assuming the likeness through the Spirit," etc. But as for the fact that he here calls the flesh, or the carnal and animal man, created in the image of God [CLX], this he explains more clearly in chapter 16, cited a little earlier, when he calls man created in the image of the Word, not insofar as He assumed flesh and is Christ, but insofar as He is the Word and the Son of God, as is clear from the words quoted above. This latter point in no way contradicts the former ones. For since the Word is the substantial image of the Father, to be created in the image of the Word is to be made in the image of God, as we have already said. Furthermore, in all these places Irenaeus defines the image of God as including the flesh, yet in such a way that he does not exclude the soul, as is evident from the reading itself; but his meaning surely is that, although it is fitting for man to be the image of God primarily on account of his soul, there is nevertheless something proper in the body as well, by reason of which it is said to have been molded in the image of God. What that is, he explains at length throughout Book V, where he demonstrates that the body, restored by the Word—or, as he often says, "recapitulated" in the Word—will be delivered from death and corruption, to which it was subject by the sin of the first man, in such a way that, gifted in the resurrection with perennial life, incorruptibility, and glory, it may in some manner reflect the immortality of God. "If," he says in ch. 7, n. 1, "we now, having the pledge, cry out, 'Abba, Father'; what will happen when, rising, we shall see Him face to face; when all our limbs shall abundantly pour forth a hymn of exultation, glorifying Him who raised them from the dead and granted them eternal life? For if the pledge, taking man into itself, already makes him say: 'Abba, Father,' what will the whole grace of the Spirit do, which shall be given to men by God? It will make us like Him, and will perfect us by the will of the Father; for it will make man in the image and likeness of God." Similar places occur elsewhere. And by these are illustrated the things he writes in ch. 16, n. 2: that before the incarnation of the divine Word, man was indeed said to be created in the image of God, yet this was not shown until the Word was made flesh, becoming what was His image, and showing the true image. For although man was from the beginning made in the image of God, the reason for that image shone forth ^D much more clearly after the incarnation than before; for by the Word assuming flesh, which was one day to rise again and not to yield to corruption, the truth of the image was manifested all the more clearly, as there was now the most certain hope that our flesh—consubstantial with the flesh of Him who was the firstborn among many brethren and became the firstfruits of those who sleep and rise again—would one day be delivered by Him from corruption and would attain immortality: "that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him," as the apostle John says.

^A the likeness, which Irenaeus distinguishes from the image, he places in the soul, or rather, to speak more accurately, in man himself, insofar as his nature is constituted by such a form; but not in the same way in every instance. For since the twofold state of man may be considered, namely the natural and the supernatural, our author has assigned a different reason for the likeness according to the different character of each. As long as he looked to man's natural state, he taught that his likeness to God consisted in the power to know and the faculty to choose whatever he wishes freely, as in bk. IV, c. 4, n. 2, and c. 37, n. 4. But when he considered man in the supernatural state, he placed this likeness to God in that perfection which he receives from the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, through whom he becomes a spiritual man, pure, living for God, and free, as much as human frailty allows, from the desire of the flesh and the affection of earthly things. He discusses this perfection of man at length in bk. V, c. 6, et seqq., where he shows that three things are so required for the supernatural perfection of man that if one is lacking, he cannot be a perfect man: namely flesh, soul, and Holy Spirit. "By the hands of the Father," he says in n. 1, that is, "through the Son and the Spirit, man is made according to the likeness of God, but not a part of man. For the soul and the Spirit can be parts of man, but the whole man certainly is not; but a perfect man is the commingling and union of the soul assuming the Spirit of the Father, and mingled with that flesh which was molded according to the image of God." For which reason the Apostle also says: "We speak wisdom among the perfect"; calling those perfect who have received the Spirit of God, and speak in all tongues by the Spirit of God, just as he himself spoke. And afterwards: "If anyone should take away the substance of the flesh, that is, of the molded clay, and understand by it only the Spirit alone, it is no longer a spiritual man that is such, but the spirit of man, or the Spirit of God. But when this Spirit, mingled with the soul, is united to the molded clay, by the outpouring of the Spirit a spiritual and perfect man has been made; and this is he who has been made according to the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit is lacking to the soul, he is truly animal who is such; and left as carnal, he will be imperfect, having indeed the image in the molded clay, but not assuming the likeness through the Spirit," etc. Where his calling the Holy Spirit a part of man cannot be a difficulty. For our author is not, as the context of his discourse clearly demonstrates, arguing here about man in the natural state, or about those things of which the essence of man, insofar as he is man, is constituted; but only about those things which are necessary so that he may become spiritual and perfect in the supernatural order. Nor has he fallen into that kind of absurdity as to think that this man is composed out of the very substance of the Holy Spirit as if from a part properly so called, in the same way as he is composed of body and soul, who [is] of the Holy Spirit.

manifestly signifies that he intends the grace and gifts; and if indeed he calls this the spiritual part of man, he does not intend it as a part for any other reason than that by which charity, justice, etc., are said to be parts of a just man; that is, parts spoken of improperly, because by these qualities man is completed and perfected. Hence Irenaeus, explaining a little more clearly what he had proposed at the beginning of the chapter, calls flesh and soul parts of man, but not the Holy Spirit. "If anyone," he says, "takes away the likeness and despises the formation, he can no longer understand a man, but only some part of a man, or something else besides a man. For neither is the fashioning of the flesh of itself a perfect man; but [his] is the body of a man, and a part of a man. Nor is the soul itself of itself a man; but it is the soul of a man, and a part of man. Nor is the Spirit a man; for the Spirit is called neither a man." ^B Where he no longer calls the Spirit a part of man, but something else besides man, namely, the Spirit. Then, explaining still more clearly what he understands by the Spirit, he adds: "Those, therefore, who have the Spirit of God remaining in them, and who keep the souls and bodies blameless ^A from the complaint; keeping their faith in God, that is, that which is towards their neighbor, and observing the justice which is towards their neighbor." And still more clearly in chap. 9, n. 1: "There are three things, he says, from which, as we have shown, a perfect man consists: flesh, soul, and Spirit; one of which saves and forms, which is the Spirit; another which is united and formed, which is flesh; while that which is between these two is the soul, which sometimes follows the Spirit and is raised by it; and sometimes, consenting to the flesh, falls into earthly concupiscences. As many, therefore, as do not have that which saves and forms, and union, these consequently shall be and be called flesh and blood, since they do not have the Spirit of God in themselves... But as many as fear God, and believe in the coming of His Son, and through faith establish the Spirit of God in their hearts; these such shall be justly called men, and pure, and spiritual; because they have the Spirit of the Father, who cleanses man and raises him up to the life of God." Which cannot be understood except of the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Article X. On the nature of souls and their state after death.

120. Since Irenaeus held the same view regarding the nature of both angels and human souls, as he believed angels to be concreted from the most subtle matter, so he wished human souls to be composed of the same matter. He calls them spirits and incorporeal not once, especially in lib. v, ch. 6 and 7, but in what sense, he explains himself: "Incorporeal are souls," he says, ch. 7, n. 1, "in comparison with mortal bodies; by which," he clearly signifies, "that souls, if indeed they are compared with bodies, are incorporeal, because the matter of the latter is crasser, and that of the former more subtle; but in reality, and absolutely, they are not incorporeal." What follows confirms this, by which he proves from all those things by which man is either constituted or perfected, that flesh alone is mortal, not the soul: "for it is the breath of life, and therefore immortal;" nor even the Holy Spirit, by which man is completed, so that he may become spiritual; "for He is an uncompounded and simple spirit, who cannot be dissolved, and He Himself is the life of those who perceive Him." Where he places a very wide distinction between the Spirit and the soul: he proves the former to be immortal because it is uncompounded and simple, and cannot be dissolved; the immortality of the latter, however, he does not support by that reason, which nevertheless is the genuine ground of incorruptibility for spirits, considered in the generic sense, but seeks it elsewhere: namely, from the fact that it is the breath of life. And hence it is perhaps that in lib. ii, ch. 19, n. 7, and ch. 34, n. 1, he writes that they have a figure; nay, even after death, they preserve the character of the body in which they are also adapted, and hold the same form of man, so that they may even be recognized. Although, however, as we have said in the notes to this latter place, nothing absolutely compels these things to be interpreted concerning a certain figure and corporeal marks impressed upon souls. That subtle material substances, such as Irenaeus believed souls to be, accommodate themselves to the figure of the bodies in which they reside, just as water assumes the figure of the vessel into which it is poured (which is the holy doctor's comparison), is easily understood: but that the same substances, tenacious of no figure of their own, can nevertheless constantly retain a certain figure and a certain corporeal character after their separation from the body, whoever might be able to impress this upon his mind, Irenaeus, a man of keen judgment, will not easily perceive. I would prefer, therefore, to explain that character and figure of souls concerning a certain order and habit towards the body, which they preserve after death, and by which they are distinguished from angelic substances, which are by no means destined to inform a body. Consult the notes on this place.

121. Furthermore, that Irenaeus, in those things which he then thought regarding the nature of human souls, wandered from the laws of both sound philosophy and theology, cannot be denied. But the error is, just as it is common to many ancient Fathers, so it is the more easily...

to be pardoned, since the Church had not yet interposed its judgment on this question, which has been debated not so accurately in an earlier and a later age. Much the same must be said of the other error, in which he was misled, along with not a few of the ancients, concerning the state of holy souls freed from the bonds of the body, which he denied would be received into heaven to enjoy the divine vision immediately. ^A Bellarmine indeed, in book I *De sanct. beatitud.*, c. 4, strove to purge him of this error, but quite unsuccessfully: for Irenæus’s opinion is so open in the latter six chapters of the fifth book, that to wish to recall it to the opinion received today in the whole Catholic Church would be to wash a sun-dried brick. Wherefore Jerome, who had searched the writings of Irenæus with a diligent hand, and to whom the mind of the holy doctor was well known, does not hesitate to count him among the Chiliasts, both in his Prologue to book XVIII on Isaiah, and elsewhere. And in truth, we must ingenuously admit that Irenæus, while he attacks the Gnostics more sharply—men who pretend that the souls of their "spiritual" ones, immediately upon departing the body, go to the Mother, or to the Father whom they invented, while the flesh is meanwhile to be dissolved for eternity—he goes over into the other precise extreme. For he denies that the souls of the just, immediately after their departure from the body, enjoy the divine vision; but he wants them ^B to "go away into an invisible place determined for them by God, and there to dwell until the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection; then receiving their bodies, and rising perfectly—that is to say, corporally—just as the Lord rose, so they are to come into the presence of God." Indeed—what is a little more astounding—he does not hesitate to rebuke even those among the Catholics who thought otherwise, as if those who "transgressed the order of the promotion of the just, and were ignorant of the movement of meditation (that is, of exercise) toward incorruption," were harboring heretical senses within themselves. He refutes them on the grounds that it is by no means fitting that the disciples of Christ should ascend to heaven before the Master himself has ascended. "How then," he asks, "did our Master not depart by flying away immediately, but, awaiting the time of his resurrection determined by the Father, rose after three days and was assumed? So we must also await the time of our resurrection determined by God, and thus, rising, be assumed, as many as the Lord shall have deemed worthy of this." Irenæus therefore distinguishes, as it were, three stations for holy souls: ^C the first, in a certain invisible place, in which he contends they are detained until the time of the resurrection; the second, in the earthly Jerusalem, restored and renewed, or in the earthly paradise; in these, living under the empire and government of Christ in supreme quiet and an abundance of secondary things, and growing from the vision of the Lord, they will become accustomed "through him to take in the glory of God the Father"; the third, finally, in the kingdom of heaven, in which they will enjoy the sight of the Father himself for eternity. All these things, indeed, Irenæus strives to prove with all his might by gathering testimonies of Holy Scripture from every side. [CLXII] 122. Four things, however, I would wish to be observed here. ^A The first is that Irenæus approached the opinion of the Millenarians in such a way that he receded far from the impiety of Cerinthus. For this leader of the Millenarians, as Eusebius testifies, *Hist.* lib. III, c. 28, used to vent the claim that after the resurrection of human flesh there would be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ, and in Jerusalem men serving the desires of the flesh and the allurements of pleasures would spend a thousand years in wedding feasts and celebrations. The Fathers of the Church have always shuddered at this impiety; but not so at the dogma of another leader of the Millenarians, Papias, a disciple of John (as Irenæus writes) and an associate of Polycarp, who reheated and reworked the ravings of Cerinthus in such a way that that time of a thousand years had to be spent in spiritual delights, such as befit just and pure men. Although this Papias was a man, as Eusebius says in *Hist.* lib. III, c. 39, ‹σφόδρα σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν› "being very small in intellect," of very moderate ability (as may be inferred from his writings), who, having poorly understood the narrations of the apostles and not having sufficiently marked those things which were said by them in a certain mystical sense and by way of example, inserted into his books many things closer to fables, and invented that terrestrial kingdom of Christ; which, however, because he had been a disciple of the Apostle John, ^B provided an occasion for the same error to many ecclesiastical writers after him who revered the man’s authority more than was right, and to Irenæus in the first place. Irenæus mentions certain other presbyters, disciples of John, as proponents of the same opinion, but men of the same weight. 2. The holy doctor tempered the weight of their opinion in such a way that he nowhere defined the time of that terrestrial kingdom of Christ, nor circumscribed it by a thousand or any certain number of years; ^C indeed, he did not even once bring forward that common passage of the Apocalypse: "They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him for a thousand years," which, however, as a foundation, the opinion of the Millenarians relied upon most of all. 3. He seems to establish this distinction between the souls of the martyrs and those of other just men, that the former by a singular prerogative ascend immediately to the Father, and consequently are received into heaven; whereas all others go away to invisible places, awaiting the resurrection of bodies. The Church, he says, *lib.* IV, c. 33, n. 9, "in every place, because of the love which it has toward God, sends the multitude of martyrs in every time ahead to the Father." If the martyrs are sent ahead to the Father, then they precede the other just, who do not arrive there before they have gradually become accustomed "through him, from the vision of the Lord," in the earthly kingdom of Christ "to take in the glory of the Father." 4. Finally, it is more serious than all the rest that Irenæus seems to signify that not all the blessed will be in heaven, but some in heaven, some in paradise, others in the new city of Jerusalem; yet all, wherever they are, will enjoy the sight of God. "Passing over," he says, "this figure, and [with] man renewed and flourishing toward incorruption, so that he can no longer grow old, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, in whi-