new man will persevere, always conversing with God in a new way. And because these things will always persevere without end, Isaiah says thus, etc. And as the elders say, then those who shall be worthy of the conversation of the heavens shall pass over there, that is, into the heavens; others shall enjoy the delights of paradise; others, however, shall possess the beauty of the city: but God shall be seen everywhere, and as they shall be worthy, will they see Him. But that there is a difference in the habitation of those who have brought forth a hundred-fold, and those who have brought forth sixty, and those who have thirty; of whom some shall be assumed into heaven, others shall be conversant in paradise, others shall inhabit the city; and that on account of this the Lord said that there are many mansions with the Father. A Wonderful are these things, and an unusual explanation of the parable of the sower and of the various mansions in the other life; for the context of the discourse clearly demonstrates that these things are referred to the other life, or to the second resurrection, after the heaven and earth have been made new, and God is clearly seen by the blessed. But these things, as well as others that I have reported, are blemishes which Irenæus contracted from an excessive veneration for those elders whom he cites again and again, and from a too keen zeal for refuting heretics.
123. A long time ago the fable of the earthly Christ faded away, as Jerome calls it. Yet the distinguished Grabius strives to restore it, having awakened it from its ruins; not straight-forwardly, indeed, for he brings forward no arguments for the matter—or who could bring forward any, if not 'straw,' as he himself speaks? But writing out the pious and learned notes of the most erudite Feuardentius, he corrodes them everywhere with a malignant tooth, and implies throughout that the opinion of the Millenarians has by no one as yet been solidly refuted, and that all the arguments by which it is impugned are easily scattered; nay, it is little short of his referring it to Christ Himself and His apostles. Perhaps that B fable seems necessary to Grabius, whereby that new dogma of Calvin and his followers might be propped up, that the saints can neither be invoked, nor ought to be, as those who, not yet dwelling in heaven, cannot hear our prayers. A worthy prop to a fable, indeed, is another fable. Was it the intention of that distinguished man to compensate for the injury he inflicted upon the holy martyr by thrusting so many fictions into his annotations? What a just compensation! Most worthy to place a crowning achievement upon Grabian notes. I would have thought I had wasted my effort if I had undertaken seriously to refute these. They are the little reasonings of the Chiliasts which others, both ancient and more recent, have already thoroughly ground to dust; and if Grabius denies that this has been accomplished by them, he denies it because he either did not deign to read them, or he read them with his mind already wandering in that invisible place of the Chiliasts. Yet that was not to be overlooked by the distinguished man, that the Fathers of the second century, who left behind anything in writings still extant concerning the state of souls after death, had fallen into that opinion in such a way that Justin, in the *Dialogue with Trypho* (p. 306, ed. Morelliana, Paris 1636), and Irenæus (chaps. 31 and 32), candidly warned that many also among the Christians, who are of a pure and pious persuasion, or, as Irenæus says, «some of those who are considered to have believed correctly,» had opposed this C opinion of those who are of a pure and pious Christian mind. Since it has been openly impugned by many thereafter, although defended by some—and not ignoble—Fathers of the Church, that which already holds as dogma in the Catholic Church has always prevailed.
124. But at last an end must be put to this dissertation. I would have wished it to be shorter, had it been permitted. But the intricate difficulties of many passages, which could not conveniently be elucidated in fewer words, have made it longer; as have the importunate cavils of the Protestants, and especially of the recent editor of Irenæus, which it was worth the effort to dissolve, so that they might not continue to grate upon our ears. For since nothing was more ancient to men of that sort than to drag a writer of such authority and antiquity, miserably torn apart, over to their own sides, it was not to be allowed that such injury be done to a learned Doctor. If anything else occurs that should be observed in the doctrine of Irenæus, we have either annotated it in the notes placed below the text, and illustrated it where there was need, or it will be easily explained from those things which we have said thus far.
CHR. GUIL. FR. WALCH'S COMMENTARY
DE AUTHENTIA LIBRORUM IRENÆI ADVERSUS HÆRESES.The plan which I adopted, of disputing more accurately in your presence concerning the faith and authority of Irenæus, I willingly acknowledge had its origin in the efforts of the venerable Johann Salomo Semler to infringe and weaken it. D For the greater is the abundance of most excellent things, which most grave men have testified at almost every time they have learned from the books of Irenæus, and which we ourselves continue to draw from the same source; the more holily
and as it seems to me, the duty of a good man is to place care in this, that we may trust in whether the monuments by which he is inscribed are rightly and by what name assigned to the man, or whether we allow ourselves to be deceived by the impudence of deceivers, and whether it may be established for us and for others by certain and straightforward arguments. No one will deny that it is possible that over a long period of time some works of an ancient writer may be held to be genuine and true, which posterity may be moved to judge as false and unworthy of the author’s talent, doctrine, or age, and to whom they should be ascribed. Therefore, it is right to hear those who, although before them no one has doubted the antiquity or the authorship of books of this kind, now first dare to doubt, and the causes for doubting which they produce should be weighed more considerately and their value estimated with an impartial mind, led by nothing other than the desire to seek the truth. B For the dignity and utility of history rests, as on its foundation, upon the authority and faith of witnesses; and for the memory of past events, it is equally pernicious and poisonous to produce false and suborned witnesses as it is to reject good and religious ones without cause and to cast them out from their company. But in order that we may act candidly and wisely, all things must be diligently sought out, and those things which either confirm or diminish and overturn the reputation of a witness called into suspicion must be clearly proposed, so that they may be rightly understood by others. Although this business may often be arduous and difficult, it is nonetheless so much the more necessary, the more negligent we observe learned men to have been in explaining and proving the causes for why they themselves believe in an ancient writer and wish others to believe, whose authority they did not know to be at any time despised or brought into controversy. The lot of Irenæus was certainly similar. For you will see that all — however much they are divided from one another by disagreements in religion and by the variety of opinions concerning other matters of the older Christian age — do miraculously agree in admitting and extolling his faith with praises, and you will understand that anyone is eager to win for his own opinions and his own faction some honor or ornament from such a great name; yet I know of no one who thinks about collecting and declaring the causes why the testimonies of Irenæus should be believed. Whatever can be said about this matter pertains to the five books against heresies, which you know to be of Irenæus, the prelate of the sacred things of Lugdunum, famous in the second century after Christ was born, [by that name] adorned. Concerning these, I wish to premise a few things which shed light on this dispute. That they were written in Greek, no one in our age will deny, nor will he doubt it, provided that he has ever consulted them with his own eyes and has known other arguments of the matter, which learned men have clearly set forth (a). The Greek [texts] have indeed perished, so that, as far as we know, no codex survives in the libraries of Europe which exhibits them entire; yet they have not perished A entirely, but, as we see, significant parts of the Greek text, sometimes shorter, sometimes longer, have been preserved in the monuments of other Greek writers, which, by a salutary plan, we see were most diligently collected by Grabe and Massuet and placed alongside the Latin. We use, therefore, the opportunity to judge of the books of Irenæus not from their version alone (which some wrongly suspect), but from the very fountains themselves. But that complete version of the whole work has reached our age and is in the hands of everyone. At what time it was finished possesses great uncertainty. Many think it is equal to the age of Irenæus, that is, the end of the second century or the beginning of the third, because Tertullian seems to have read it. But Dodwell (b) contradicted these, and preferred B to refer it to the end of the fourth century, when the sect of Priscillian arose and in Spain and Gaul renewed the ancient errors of the Gnostics, which had been laboriously narrated and refuted in the books of Irenæus; nor did he wrongly admonish that Augustine, famous at that same time, had used those. In our age, the Parisian monks (c) went further and rejected it to the barbarous age of the sixth century, because of the squalid and truly barbarous Latinity by which, whoever he may have been, the interpreter translated the Greek. But I do not agree with these either. I do not deny the barbarity of the language, but I could never believe it to be such as, in the sixth century, the nations that brought the Roman provinces under their power corrupted and debased the Latin language. For everyone ought to feel that the man was a little Greek, C who, after the manner of boys, translated not that language, but individual words, and, since he was mostly stuck on compound words, invented new and unheard-of ones, which, unless they were found in other monuments of the Middle Ages, could not be counted among the specimens of that barbarous Latinity. For my part, I approve of the prudence of those who, since they understand that no historical argument can be rightly asserted concerning the origin of the version and its age without the authority of a witness — for who has ever seen or produced a witness for both? — define nothing, and prefer to confess their own ignorance, not surely peculiar to them, but common to all. It suffices for us that it was made not in a more recent age, but in an ancient one, and that copies of it sufficiently ancient are found. This very interpretation, although it is alien to all elegance, barbaric, and stained with almost any faults of Latin diction, nor can it be denied that, not only by the negligence of librarians but also by their ignorance, it is often seen to be increased by new corruptions, D yet the fidelity of the interpreter in expressing the words of the author is in no way a reason for wanting or calling into suspicion, as is clearly recognized again from the comparison of so many particulars, which are read by us in Greek, with the Latin. He translated ineptly by turns, but never maliciously; never to pervert the mind of the writer,
B or to change the counsel of correcting, increasing, or omitting what he has written here. From this, it follows that which I studiously desire to be observed in this place: that the things which are disputed concerning the faith of Irenaeus should be consistent and equal in all respects, which we now read in these books, whether they survive only in the Latin version, or whether they have been saved from the wreckage by the Greeks.
But truly our author not only wrote his commentaries in Greek, but also sent them to Greeks and for the Greeks. Whoever will have consulted them, it will not escape them that the author undertook and completed a work requested by a friend. It is worth the effort to gather the clear testimonies of the matter and to examine them. In the preface of the first book, which Epiphanius recited in Greek, two things occur; the former of which is expressed thus A: "I thought it necessary, having encountered the commentaries of those who—as they themselves say—are disciples of Valentinus, and having met some of them and grasped their opinion, to make known to you, beloved, the monstrous and deep mysteries which not everyone can contain, since not all have shaken out their brains, so that you too, having learned them, may make them manifest to all who are with you and exhort them to guard against the abyss of folly and of blasphemy against Christ. Yet you will not seek from us, who abide among the Celts and are for the most part occupied with a barbarian dialect, the art of eloquence, which we have not learned; but you will receive with love what has been written with love, and you yourself will increase them within yourself, as you are more capable than us, having received as it were seeds and principles from us, and in the breadth of your mind you will bring forth fruit abundantly from what has been said by us in few words, and you will powerfully set forth to those who are with you things which have been weakly reported by us; and just as we showed zeal long ago, when you asked to learn their opinion, not only to make it clear to you, but also to give you provisions for demonstrating their falsehoods, so too you also will zealously minister to the rest." Similarly, towards the end of the same book C: "Wherefore we endeavoured," he says, "to bring into the open and make manifest through you the structure of this poorly constructed little fox... for it is present both for you and for all who are with you, to be trained upon these things which have been said, and to overthrow their wicked doctrines." Then the beginning of the third book is this D: "You indeed, most beloved, had ordered us that we should bring into the open the opinions which are of Valentinus, which are hidden, as they themselves think, etc."; furthermore of the fourth: "Sending this fourth book to you, most beloved, concerning the work which is on the detection and overthrow of false knowledge, as we promised, we will confirm through the Lord's words the things which I have previously said, so that you, too, just as you requested, may receive from us on all sides occasions for refuting all heretics, etc."; finally of the fifth: "Having been refuted, most beloved, by all heretics in four books... it is fitting both for you and for all who will read this writing to read more intently the things which have been said by us, so that you may know the arguments against which we make contradictions. For thus you will also legitimately contradict them and you will receive from what has been prepared the contradictions against them."
If we will have considered these things, we shall justly gather therefrom: first, that the writer lived at that time among the Gauls, and although he himself was a stranger, he applied such diligence to securing a barbarous language for himself—whether this was Celtic, or, as seems more probable to many, Latin—that he lacked almost all exercise in Greek; next, that he was asked by a friend, whom he addresses as *agapetos* (beloved), and whose excellence in doctrine he attests; nor does he obscurely signify that he held a place among the teachers and was bound by an office to take care, lest any who were with him, that is, his auditors, should be captured by the most grave errors; then, that he asked this friend to draw the hidden discipline of the Valentinians out of the shadows, and thus prepare and fortify a way to overthrow them; finally, that our author fulfilled these requests with this intention, that the friend might both understand those secret dogmas and happily convert them to the use of others. Whether that friend was conspicuous in the dignity of a bishop, I myself do not dare to define, although there is no reason to contradict those who think so; this, however, may more safely be affirmed: that the friend lived in a region which was most menaced by the followers of Valentinus and their arts of drawing others to their parties. Now that the family of Valentinus, although it attempted to place its seats elsewhere as well, flourished most in Egypt and the East, no one is ignorant. In Egypt, there were also the Marcosians; nor is it proven in any way from Irenaeus's commentaries—as some, seduced by a manifest error of Jerome, contend—that Marcus in the same age as Irenaeus scattered his commentaries in Gaul, although he did write that some of his disciples had penetrated there. Similarly, our author confesses that he used some of Valentinus's followers familiarly and learned these opinions from them just as from the books of the Valentinians; but he never said that the same thing happened in Gaul. Indeed, these things openly show that those are significantly mistaken who think this work was intended for the uses of the Gauls or other Latins, and that others wonder without cause why it was accustomed to be in the hands of the Greeks far more frequently than the Latins. For although it was composed in Gaul, it was nevertheless sent into Egypt or Asia Minor, whence it could easily penetrate to other provinces of the Orient, whereas in the West it could remain almost unknown, until, gifted with Latinity, it should return, as it were, to its homeland. After these things in the middle age, that is, one hostile to letters, it happened that
the Greek books written in Greek perished, but their Latin interpretation arrived at our age through the work and diligence of librarians. You know that the same thing happened to the most ancient book of Hermes, adorned with the title *The Shepherd*, so that only the Latin version remains, while the Greek original is thought to have perished A. But he who recalls to memory that in that time Christians dwelling in Asia were bound to the Gauls by a closer bond of friendship and commerce, will certainly not doubt that a man living with the Gauls could have been asked by an Egyptian or Eastern friend to take the trouble of explaining the opinions of heretics, which he knew were understood by him; or that the latter could have rendered to him the duty that was expected of him by that man.
If, therefore, it can be established by suitable arguments that these books were written by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons; then certainly a right judgment may be brought concerning their authority and historical reliability. It is settled by the laws of the critical art that for properly instituting a discussion of this kind, it is required that we search diligently first whether Irenaeus composed books against heresies; next, whether, if he did write any, they are nearly the same as those which we now use.
Whatever is placed in the first rank, since it is among things that were done and came to pass a long time ago, no principles or sources for recognizing the truth about it can be conceived, except the pronouncements of witnesses. B The ancients have recorded that Irenaeus fought diligently and elegantly against those who in his own age strove to corrupt Christian doctrine with errors, and that he refuted them with published writings. Primarily from the consideration of age, Tertullian holds the place, whose statement (c) is sufficiently famous: "Nor shall we be said to have invented the materials ourselves from anywhere, which so many men, already distinguished for holiness and excellence, not only our own predecessors but also contemporaries of the heresiarchs themselves, have both recorded and refuted in most learned volumes, such as Justin the philosopher and martyr, such as Miltiades, the sophist of the Churches, such as Irenaeus, the most curious investigator of all doctrines, such as our Proculus, the dignity of virginal old age and Christian eloquence: whom I would have wished to emulate in every work of faith, just as in this one." That these things were said of our work is gathered not only from the very design of this work, since it was truly opposed to the school of Valentinus, against which Tertullian wrote the little book from which these things were taken; but it is also confirmed especially by the wonderful consensus of those things which Irenaeus and Tertullian recorded regarding the discipline of the Valentinians, so that there is a just cause to conclude that the latter had before his eyes C what the former had written, and that he transcribed no small part of it. In comparing the monuments of both writers and those places in them which are similar to one another, no one applies greater diligence than the venerable Semler (d): yet he added some things not fortified by the authority of witnesses, but by reasoning, which unless they are diluted, the force and value of the testimony stirred up by me ought to be diminished. He accused Tertullian not without injustice of a crime which bears the name of literary plagiarism. For after he ingenuously confessed at the beginning of his own little book that he had learned his own things from the commentaries of four predecessors, whose names he recites and whose praises he celebrates for each, why there should have been a need to repeat the name of Irenaeus everywhere, I myself am so far from understanding any cause, that I fear that, if he had done so, he might have drawn upon himself suspicion of untimely officiousness. D Moreover, after the sources were snatched from our eyes and hands, which besides Irenaeus he used as masters, the monuments of Justin, Miltiades, and Proculus, it is now a very difficult and arduous conjecture from what sources the African derived the individual historical narratives, and which must be placed entirely among them, the dreams of the Valentinians, into their own channels. For it must be well held that clear traces of dissension from Irenaeus are impressed upon Tertullian's book. The two questions which the venerable Semler proposes are easily dispatched. For I marvel at the former, as to how at that time Tertullian used the books of Irenaeus with his eyes and hands, why he cited them but did not prove the matter to be truly *adynaton* [impossible], just as I marvel why he did not remember what had been published by Irenaeus before the end of the century, which could have been read at Carthage after the beginning of the third (e). As to the latter, by what right Tertullian did so, that he might glean his own from the Greek and repeat in Latin what he is believed to have written in Greek, what is rightly to be answered seems to me to be clearly expressed by the very interrogation. For since those four writers of Valentinian matters had all reported the same things in Greek, and the Latin version of Irenaeus had either not yet been completed or not yet been seen by Tertullian, and since he did not want them to be unknown to his fellow citizens, he wisely did the same thing which, to add one example from numberless ones, Cicero did, who in his philosophical books repeated in Latin what he had selected from the Greeks. So far concerning Tertullian.
After him let Eusebius of Caesarea come forward, the most diligent and sincere reporter of things done in the Christian state. Since he spoke very often about our Irenaeus and adorned him with great praises, let it suffice now to collect those passages which he left concerning the work written by him against the heretics. I. After [he spoke] about the errors of Simon Magus from Justin.
A martyr, and had recited some things, he proceeds (a): and Irenaeus also in the first [book] of the *Against Heresies* adds, and says that he is unwilling to repeat the narratives of Irenaeus, because whoever wishes can, with little effort, inspect his book for themselves, in which he has studiously pursued the origins, dogmas, morals, institutions, and similar things of the heresies. II. Elsewhere (b), where he produced trustworthy witnesses that the apostle John attained to the age of Domitian on account of the signs by which they shone, in their zeal to guard and preserve the pure ecclesiastical doctrine, namely Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, there follow these words: "Of whom the former..." and after a few words are put in between: "...in the second of the *Against Heresies* writes in this way word for word, and in the third of the same subject he declares this same thing through these... from the things of Irenaeus it is easy to discern." III. What he briefly disclosed about Menander, he advises, is the same (c). IV. Similarly about Cerinthus (d): "But Irenaeus..." V. Where he transcribed a statement of Irenaeus about Cerdo, he adds (e): "These things..." VI. Furthermore, he testifies that he received from Irenaeus the things he narrated concerning the meeting of Polycarp with Anicetus for the purpose of settling the paschal controversy, and he adds this (f): "...and the same man delivers another account concerning Polycarp... from the third of the *Against Heresies*." VII. When he had narrated that after Pothinus, Irenaeus had been moved to the governing of the church of Lyons, he subjoined these things (g): "This man, having set forth the succession of the bishops in Rome at the time in the third composition of the *Against Heresies*, to Eleutherus..." VIII. Interposing the words of Irenaeus, he proceeds (h): "These things Irenaeus... in which he inscribed, being five in number, of the refutation and overthrow of the falsely-named knowledge, in the second of the same subject, it has been said to the aforementioned subject." And in the fifth, concerning the Revelation of John... B inscriptum (j); III. In the same [books] that Irenaeus not only fought against the enemies of the purer doctrine, but also employed great care in recounting their opinions; IV. That it appears to Eusebius that they were composed at that time when Eleutherus presided over the Roman sacred affairs, because in this the series of the bishops of the City proposed by Irenaeus ends; V. Finally, that in the age of Eusebius these books of Irenaeus were frequently in the hands of others, so that whoever wished could easily obtain a copy to read.
When Basil had set out to review the sentiments of the ancients concerning the Holy Spirit, he made honorable mention of Irenaeus, and wrote that he was near to the apostles, and recited some fragments placed C in the *Against Heresies* (k). In the same way, Cyril of Jerusalem remembers that Irenaeus brought forth the wicked errors of the heretics concerning the Holy Spirit, and warned that it should be studied more fully in the ordinances *Against Heresies* (l).
That Epiphanius drew the greater part of what he recorded in his commentaries concerning the heretics of the second century from the books of Irenaeus, there is no doubt. Indeed, he mentioned his name rarely, but he expressed it in such a way that everyone might believe that he not only read our books, but also that they originated from Irenaeus. Thus, when he treats of Basilides (m), he says: "Amazingly, however, the blessed Irenaeus, the successor of the apostles, while being precise about this, refuted his listlessness and inactivity." Elsewhere D under the beginning of the discussion concerning the Valentinians, he boasts of the consensus of the most holy Irenaeus (n), and brings forward a long oration, taken with the addition: *Irenayon de phemi* (o); but when the same was finished, he pursues Irenaeus with enviable praises, and proclaims that he defended [the faith] in his next, second book and in the others (p).
Contemporary with Epiphanius was Jerome, who is not without cause celebrated both for the diligence which he was the first to employ in seeking out and enumerating the monuments of Christian writers, and for the praise of his zeal in discerning the true from the false. He left behind several testimonies which pertain to this place.
1. About Irenaeus, when he sets forth the works given, he narrates that Irenaeus was a presbyter of Pothinus, who ruled the church in Gaul in Lyons; that this man, having been crowned with martyrdom for Christ when nearly ninety years old, was succeeded by him, and he adds: He wrote five books against...
A heresies (a). II. Elsewhere: "Concerning the heretics and their commentaries," he says, "the apostolic man Irenæus, bishop of Lyons and martyr, writes very diligently, explaining the origins of many heresies (b)."
III. Jerome suffered a human frailty when, in this passage, he understood what Irenæus had said concerning the disciples of Marcus to be concerning Marcus himself, yet he repeated the error, using these words: "Irenæus, a man of apostolic times, bishop of Lyons, relates..." and he finished his sentence with this clause: "this he wrote about three hundred years ago" (here either his memory failed Jerome, or he abused the word "about," for elsewhere he indicated the age of Irenæus quite correctly), and he wrote in those books which he composed against all heresies in a most learned and eloquent style (c).
IV. Finally, when he was praising the studies of philosophical literature and commending them by the examples of illustrious teachers of Christian discipline, he named Irenæus, the successor of the martyr Pothinus, along with others, who explained the origins of each heresy and from what sources of the philosophers they emanated in many volumes (d). I now purposely pass over other statements of Jerome, by which he made mention of Irenæus, and did not obscurely signify that he had that work against heresies in mind. These things are certainly sufficient for us to understand that Jerome not only knew those five books well, but also openly testified that they were published by Irenæus, the prelate of the sacred rites of the Lyonnais after Pothinus.
In this number you will see Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, entirely placed, with his statements recited very often and for the most part at greater length B from the third book of *Those Concerning Heresies* (i), from the fourth book of *Those Concerning Heresies* (j), and from the fifth book of the same work (k). Thus also Theodoret made use of the books against heresies and held Irenæus to be their author; nor was he certainly ignorant of who or what manner of man he was.
Therefore, the opinion that Irenæus of Lyons wrote commentaries against the heretics rests upon the statements of so many and such grave witnesses. Whoever has understood the laws of the critical art, by which the truth of historical events is judged or the reliability of witnesses is estimated, will certainly not deny it, whether he considers the number and excellence of the witnesses—for no one of them will be accused of fraud, or of desire to deceive for the sake of sport and insolence in this place without injustice, nor will any one of them be argued to have taken his own from another—or whether he considers the integrity and clarity of the testimonies which they issued; either it is as I have said, or there is nothing of truth in the memory of ancient times.
Moreover, I affirm without hesitation that, of the ancient writers whose monuments of their own genius we know to have been left, whether they survive or have perished, among the multitude of Greeks and Romans, profane and Christian, if you set aside Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Cicero, Augustine, Chrysostom, and their like, there are very few who have obtained so many and such ancient admirers of the works produced by them. Nor should it be neglected by us that the number of Christian monuments which are referred to the third century is certainly small; that the greater part of them has been lost; that besides the books of Tertullian, nothing of them survives which pertained to the telling of the history of heresies; that the memory of many of the ecclesiastical writers has been commended to posterity by Eusebius alone, indeed by Jerome alone, to whom we all assent. What reason, I ask, is there for us to deny the duty of believing those same and so many other witnesses who testify that Irenæus is the author of the books against heresies?
Finally, let it be allowed to add to these Theodoret, a man of great and varied erudition, who confessed, as becomes a good historian, that he received what he narrated concerning the most ancient heresies C from the old teachers of the Church, Justin the philosopher and martyr (f), and Irenæus, who cultivated the Celtic lands and enlightened the nations, etc. And since he had touched briefly upon what is customarily handed down concerning the disciples, lest anyone suspect that such accusations were invented, he brought forward as a witness Irenæus, who illuminated the West with the light of the Christian religion, an apostolic man, and he prefaced these things to his cited words (g): "This man says in the first book of those written by him concerning heresies..." That the same Theodoret wrote the three surviving dialogues, honored with the name of *Eranistes* (polymorph), although some may have doubted, I have declared elsewhere the reasons by which I allow myself to be moved so that I firmly believe it myself (h). Whoever has read them, however, ought to know that to each dialogue were appended passages of older teachers, by whose authority the opinions concerning the Person D of Christ were confirmed in them.
We proceed to explain the other part of the demonstration of this argument. For here is imposed upon us the necessity of inquiring whether the books against heresies which the writers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries saw, read, and praised, are the same ones as those which we have in our hands. That this is rightly established and affirmed is proven by many and varied kinds of arguments.
A I. Whatever the ancients report concerning the form and appearance of the books of Irenaeus, we observe to be expressed without distinction in that work which we now use. Both of his titles—the one, *Against Heresies*; the other, *Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called*, as the Latin translates the Greek—are mentioned by the ancient writers whose statements I have already brought forward; the latter indeed by Eusebius, the former by Eusebius himself, Cyril, Jerome, and Theodoret. The entire work is divided into five books. Eusebius and Jerome confirm this same partition. Besides these, we have seen the first, second, third, and fifth books enumerated individually by Eusebius; the second by Epiphanius; and the third, fourth, and fifth by Theodoret.
II. Whatever the ancients have testified is contained in the books written by Irenaeus, the same—all and every one—is found in our codices. I do not wish to repeat now what is self-evident from the statements of Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Theodoret, namely that they all read those things which are handed down by Irenaeus, including the narratives concerning the origins, opinions, customs, and institutions—especially the successions of the heretics starting from Simon Magus—and the refutations of the errors which they disseminated; this is to say, all and singular the categories of things which our codices comprise within their ambit. B Yet it is impossible for me to pass over in silence at this point the remarkable diligence of Photius, by which he recorded an accurate description of the books of Irenaeus—such as they were in his own age, that is, in the ninth century—which indeed corresponds wonderfully with our Latin ones. He relates that their author is Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum, a city situated in Gaul; that their number is five; and that they bear this title: *Ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως*, or *Against Heresies*. He proceeds to say that in the first book the discourse begins with Valentinus, then, as it were, retreats to repeat the heresies starting from Simon Magus and proceeding up to Tatian, with the addition of the Gnostics and Cainites; in the second, the impious dogmas of the heretics are overturned; in the third, the testimonies of sacred Scripture are opposed to them; in the fourth, responses are made to those things which they were accustomed to object; finally, in the fifth, appropriate arguments are collected against them from the discourses of Christ and the epistles of the apostles. C But indeed, it is worthwhile not only to examine these items, but also the individual chapters which the ancients allege from the books of Irenaeus. These are of a twofold nature. For the one kind contains passages where the actual words of Irenaeus are recited, of which I shall say a few things afterwards; the other kind is of those where Irenaeus is merely cited as a witness for those things which each of the writers had handed down using his own words. I shall bring forward a few examples of these. We have heard Tertullian testify that Irenaeus had copiously pursued the affairs of the Valentinians; Eusebius, that he expounded the same [matters] concerning Simon Magus, Menander, Cerinthus, and similar [figures]; Epiphanius, concerning Basilides; Cyril, concerning those who corrupted the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
III. Whatever ornaments the ancients seemed to find in the books written by Irenaeus—especially the diligence in collecting the sentiments of others and the variety of reading—neither need these be missed in our own commentaries of Irenaeus, provided you are fair and consider that all things ought to be estimated from the conditions of the age in which they were written and the lot of the author himself. D Tertullian, as we have heard, judged honorably of Irenaeus and decorated him with the distinguished title of a most curious investigator of all doctrines. That this was said most truly, it is fitting that everyone should perceive, provided they have had the leisure to examine the books of Irenaeus with their own eyes. For he not only applied great diligence in investigating so many heretical commentaries and arcane doctrines and institutions; but he also compared the precepts of the ancient philosophers with these. Wherefore Jerome also praised Irenaeus under this name, because he explained from what sources of the philosophers the heresies had flowed; nor has anyone dared to deny that in a similar way he had known the purer dogmas of the Christian religion, for the sake of defending which against slanders and calumnies he had undertaken that work. Wherefore I cannot but agree with Nathan Lardner, who interpreted Tertullian’s phrase "of all doctrines" in such a way that he conjectured the same threefold kind of doctrines which I have mentioned—philosophical, heretical, and the purer Christian—might be signified. Whether he has grasped the opinions of those who think so diversely with a sufficiently right mind and expressed them in words, [and] whether he has always borne a right judgment regarding the origin of heresies, which must be derived from the schools of the philosophers—especially those of Plato and other Greeks—is not, indeed, for us to...
investigate more fully in this place A. For it is sufficiently evident from the books against heresies that their author was certainly such a person as the ancients judged Irenaeus to have been when he wrote against the heretics: that is, one studious of examining the opinions of various factions, both among philosophers and Christians, concerning divine matters and those pertaining to morals. Hence, in the same books, you will see the names of the most celebrated philosophers among the Greeks mentioned, or their sayings invoked, whether to be praised or refuted—for example, those of Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Aristotle, Democritus, Epicurus, Plato, Pythagoras, Thales, and in like manner those of the poets, Hesiod, Homer, Pindar, Menander, Sophocles, Stesichorus, and also Aesop B. But truly, lest I appear not to be speaking the truth, our books are unworthy of the praise given to Irenaeus’ work by Jerome, who claimed he composed it in this most learned and eloquent style. No one, indeed, would miss the abundance of doctrine, yet no one would find elegance of language or oratory in these commentaries; nor does the Latin translation, nor even the Greek sources themselves, as far as we know them, contain anything that one would admire for eloquence or for the richness or beauty of diction, although all agree that the former greatly excels the latter. For this reason, some have indeed taken it upon themselves to defend Jerome's opinion against the noble modesty of the author himself, by which he confessed himself to be unskilled in the art of speaking well and elegantly, and wished on this account to be held excused by his friend C. But since Epiphanius recited this excuse, and it must clearly be understood not of Latin, but of Greek [composition], I prefer to argue that Jerome was imprudent and intemperate in praising Irenaeus too gloriously. Nor does it seem that this can be rightly objected to us, because in this place we do not desire to know the praises of the ancients or judgments of any kind regarding Irenaeus, but historical narratives. Although those may be fallacious, they can nevertheless strictly agree with the truth.
IV. Finally, whatever the ancients, both Greeks and Latins, testify to have described from Irenaeus’ books against heresies—whether the passages be longer or shorter—are found entirely in our Latin codices. Moreover, the multitude of these is so great that it is necessary not only for them to be distributed into certain classes, but also for limits and boundaries to be placed upon my diligence. I therefore purposely omit monuments of a more recent age, such as the books of Anastasius Sinaita, John of Damascus, and various catenae, from which, after Petr. Halloixius, I remember already having announced the efforts of Grabe and Massuet to glean Greek fragments of Irenaeus, and D over a space of centuries from Irenaeus—three continuously.
First, therefore, I will set down the places of Irenaeus, recounted by ancient writers in such a way that they show themselves in clear words to be referring to the selfsame things from Irenaeus’ commentaries against heresies, which are indeed read in our Latin books. 1-2. Passages in Eusebius III, 23; in Irenaeus II, 22; III, 3, no. 5; — 3. in Eusebius III, 39; Irenaeus III, 33, no. 4; — 4. in Eusebius IV, 11; Irenaeus I, 27, no. 1; — 5. in Eusebius IV, 29; Irenaeus I, 28, no. 1; — 6. in Eusebius V, 6; Irenaeus II, 3, no. 3; — 7-8. in Eusebius V, 7; Irenaeus II, 32, no. 4, and V, 6, no. 1; — 9-12. in Eusebius V, 8; Irenaeus I, 1, no. 1; V, 30, no. 1 and 4; V, 20, no. 2; — 13. in Eusebius V, 14; Irenaeus III, 3, no. 4. The single passage in Basil, *De Spiritu S.*, cap. 29, exists in Irenaeus, book V, cap. 8, no. 2. The passage described by Epiphanius, *Haeres.* XXXI, 9-32, is read in the Latin books of Irenaeus, book I, preface, and cap. 1, — cap. 11, no. 1. Two passages in Augustine, *Contra Julian.* book I, cap. 3, are in our Irenaeus, book IV, cap. 2, no. 7, and book V, cap. 19, no. 4. In Theodoret, 1. *Haeret. fabular.* book I, cap. 5; 2-8. dial. I; 9-14. dial. II; 15-17. dial. III, in our work there are 1. book I, cap. 24; 2-8. book II. cap. 11, 27, 31, 32, 20, 21, 19; 9-14. book III, cap. 20, 18, book IV, cap. 7, 59, 66; book V, cap. 1; 15-17. book III, cap. 20, 21; book V, cap. 1.
There remain, therefore, thirty-four passages of Irenaeus in the monuments of the most ancient age, and in these, sufficiently long—nay, a great part of the first book—are in Epiphanius; which, if you set aside the variety of reading or the faults of the translator, wondrously agree with the Latin codices, so that he must be altogether ignorant of the laws of the critical art who would deny that these are the same as those the ancients used. The second kind, I willingly confess, is of less value. For besides these, other sayings are detected in the books of Christian doctors, which it is certain they transcribed not from their own confession, but from conjecture alone—not certain, but probable—from Irenaeus’ commentaries. Thus, I noted above that Tertullian, in his work against the Valentinians, drew many things from Irenaeus’ books as from a fountain into rivulets, and I praised the diligence of the venerable Semler in collecting the narratives of both writers similar to each other. Others observed the same thing happening in the works of Epiphanius and Theodoret on heresies, that you may find notable fragments of Irenaeus repeated by them, even though they made no mention of their leader, their own master, in express words [E]. Nevertheless, it would be a sin that good men should be accused of theft, as they say, for this reason.
A literary men, after they signified clearly that they had read Irenaeus and had learned their own material from his books. Besides these, the utterances of other Fathers are noted in various places, which are very similar to the sayings of Irenaeus; but that they were fraudulently excerpted from him, no one has dared to say (a). With primary right we should add Ephrem the Syrian, concerning whose place these observations of ours are worthy. We owe this to the diligence of Jo. Ern. Grabe, who not only pointed out that a significant and sufficiently long portion of Irenaeus (b), regarding the arts of heretics in abusing the Holy Scripture, is recited by Ephrem (c), but he was also the first to compare it—taken from the Bodleian manuscript—with the Greek text of Irenaeus in Epiphanius, and to add the variety of readings to his own edition of Irenaeus. For at that time the Greek version of Ephrem’s little work had not yet been brought to light. B This was in fact accomplished by the efforts of Edward Thwaites, who collected whatever Greek minor works of Ephrem he could find and ordered them to be produced at Oxford, elegantly transcribed. However, Massuet was unaware of this—indeed, it could scarcely have been otherwise—and therefore repeated Grabe’s observations and added his own, with which he compared the transcribed manuscript in the Colbertine library. After the Oxford edition, Assemanni’s Roman edition appeared, who even enumerated nine Greek manuscripts dispersed in various libraries in which that discourse of Ephrem is contained (d). The name of Irenaeus is not expressed there; but the Syrian had enough in prefixing these words to his own: "Against whom one of the saints pronounced well and greatly, teaching so, and he says." There is indeed no cause for doubt that Irenaeus is the one honored by this name; for no one will doubt that the words of Irenaeus are being recited, provided he compares the dicta of both writers with one another. I would not, however, wish too much authority to be attributed to this testimony. For you know that Ephrem did not use the Greek, but the Syriac language, and that we lack his Syriac minor works for what we read translated into Greek. It is therefore a difficult judgment regarding their Greek interpretations, whether they perfectly agree with their sources, and the Greeks themselves perhaps allowed themselves to add certain things from other writers. A cause for suspecting this occurs to me here because of the excessive agreement of the Greek Irenaeus in Epiphanius and in Ephrem; unless you would prefer to believe that the interpreter knew who that one of the saints was, and did not translate this particle from the Syriac of Ephrem, but copied it from the Greek codex of Irenaeus. Therefore, I do not agree with the conjecture of Seb. Nan. Tillemont (e) that the work was already extant in the age of Ephrem, nor that the complete Syriac version existed, nor that Ephrem, as the Parisian monks (f) suggested for the sake of confuting it, could have used the work of others to understand Greek authors. Moreover, I do not know why we should believe Ephrem to have been utterly ignorant of the Greek tongue, whom it is established cultivated the friendship of Greeks, for example, Basil. Those most noble testimonies of Sozomen and Theodoret, that he lacked the use of Greek learning, why they should be twisted to signify ignorance of the Greek language as well, I indeed do not see. But enough of this ὡς ἐν παρεκβάσει.
I have done what I undertook to do, and I have collected all the passages of ancient writers that remain, from which it is safely concluded that the books of Irenaeus, which those men read and transcribed, are the same as those we use. If arguments of this kind are not apt and suitable for proving the authenticity of ancient monuments, and if it is not the duty of a good man and a true scholar to believe those whose authority rests upon such certain and manifest documents, I truly fear that there would be no faith at all in ancient history; it would have no value. We must, therefore, confess that the faith and authority—which most learned men of every age believed were rightly attributed to Irenaeus, whether in Greek or Latin—are firm and unambiguous, but rest upon reasons which possess the greatest weight, and that there is the greatest power to move us to persuade ourselves that it is so.
Nevertheless, the venerable Semler (g) departed in all other respects and applied remarkable diligence to the argument that those books against heresies did not originate from Irenaeus of Lyons, but from a most ancient society, which fraudulently wrote the books and most studiously divided them among various and different writers (h). From this workshop of impostors, therefore, he thinks the commentaries of Irenaeus emerged, which had been accustomed to compiling new writings from those of the ancients. Concerning this very ancient society, I do not wish to dispute here; for I confess that I am ignorant of the witnesses whose statements could establish when and where or for what purpose this fellowship of deceitful men gathered. But such is the constancy of my mind—which others perhaps might prefer to call stubbornness or obstinacy—that in explaining the memory of past events, I trust in no conjectures of others, however ingenious they may be, but only in testimonies which possess just authority, and I wish for them to be believed by others. Yet the ingenuousness and probity of the venerable man pleases me, which to his own society, and thus to the books of Irenaeus C D
A known to us, have removed that unique and enviable glory of highest antiquity, which, once it has been left to them, I truly do not know what benefit can be expected from this suspicion. But it is pleasing to look into the reasons why he denies, or at least doubts, that that work was composed by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons. Indeed, he has noted three places in Irenaeus (a), which he asserts were taken from the books of Clement of Alexandria, and are so composed that it is scarcely possible for that writer, who has collected these things for his own use—even if not in the most convenient manner or most suited to his purpose—to be far from intended theft and imposture (b). Thus, the most famous man has summarized his reasoning: if in the books which the common opinion is accustomed to attribute to Irenaeus there occur passages which are held in a similar way by Clement of Alexandria, it follows that Irenaeus could not have written them. Let us see concerning this very line of reasoning, whether it contains the power to detract as much from the faith of Irenaeus as Semler desires to detract from it. For the sake of which goal I desire these things to be observed.
I. That in both writers many things are similar to each other is no cause for wonder. For each is engaged very often in explaining one and the same argument, and each pursues the dreams of the Gnostics. Nevertheless, they differ just as often, as high-quality historians are accustomed to differ from each other when they recount the same deeds, for example, Tacitus from Suetonius. Thus, the very noble and widespread controversy among learned men is whether the authority of Irenaeus or of Clement is greater in those things which they handed down concerning Basilides, which are certainly various and discrepant.
II. Eusebius already saw, even in his own age, that Irenaeus and Clement were similar to each other, not only in historical narratives regarding heresies, but also in the treatment or even light touching upon other arguments. When he produced two witnesses, Irenaeus and Clement (c), to the fact that the Apostle John had lasted until the age of Trajan, having observed the order of time, he placed the latter in the second place and the former in the first, nor did he even conceive that the things that are read in Irenaeus had been stolen from Clement by intended and deceitful theft.
III. But if we understand that the same opinions are set forth by two writers and expressed in the same formulas, then indeed the suspicion of theft is easy, but it cannot fall upon any but him who is later in age. But the venerable Semler himself (d) confessed that Clement was younger in age than Irenaeus, rather than Irenaeus than Clement. For if the common opinion is admitted, that Irenaeus died a glorious death under Severus around the second year of the third century, and that Clement departed from this life a little before the death of Caracalla, which is ascribed to the year ccxvii, then it is necessarily written openly that Clement was a survivor of Irenaeus. I confess, however, that the entire narrative concerning the martyrdom of Irenaeus is too suspicious to me, and that the opinion of those who think that Irenaeus finished his life before the beginnings of the third century is more pleasing, although it is safer to confess that we are ignorant of whether he reached that time or not (e).
IV. But these things are too remote from the purpose. We draw closer to investigating what we seek, if we turn our attention to the age of the books of each writer. Indeed, it is certain concerning Irenaeus that he wrote his books against heresies at intervals; from the mention of Eleutherus, the Roman bishop, and the interpretation of the Greek sacred Code, which Theodotion founded, made in the third book, learned men collect that they were published within the years clxxvii, when it is believed that Irenaeus was moved to the governing of the sacred things of Lyons, and clxxxv, when Eleutherus died, or if it pleases some to add a few, cxci (f). There is certainly no cause to progress beyond this span. Clement, however, began to write his Stromata after the death of Commodus, that is, after the year cxc (g). Guided, therefore, by these reasons, I willingly assent to the venerable Semler in denying that the Stromata of Clement were read and seen by Irenaeus, although those difficulties, by which he thinks the contrary opinion is implicated—born not from historical arguments but from reasonings—do not seem to me to be sufficient to prove this opinion.
V. I add, which I find surprising, that it escaped the sagacity of the most famous man that, even if Irenaeus had been ignorant of the works of Clement, Clement could still have read the commentaries of Irenaeus. I learn this fact from Eusebius (h), who mentions a now-lost work of the Alexandrian concerning the Passover, with these added words: B *He makes mention in it of Melito and Irenaeus and some others, of whom he has also set forth the narrations.* From which of Irenaeus's books he took those things that he related, we scarcely know; but since the little book of Clement pertained to the paschal controversy, it is an easy conjecture that these things were said about those epistles sent by Irenaeus both to Victor and to other bishops, which Eusebius (i) lauded elsewhere, just as he did those of Melito.
two books on the Pasch, likewise lauded by Eusebius (a). Since the paschal epistles of Irenaeus were written at the time when Victor not only presided over the Roman rites but had also debated for quite some time with the Quartodecimans of Asia, it follows that they were written after the books against heresies. In the same way, therefore, that Clement used them, they could have come into his hands, especially if one considers that they may have been written for the use of the Orientals or the Egyptians.
VI. These things, indeed, have not been proposed by me with the intention of accusing Clement of theft, but to show by examples how much caution is needed, lest in passing judgment on the monuments of antiquity and their authority we be too suspicious, but rather that we examine all things as is worthy of our observation, and that we not draw conclusions of reasoning in the handling of history with a certain hasty celerity, never so certain that [the opposite] should be referred to as [ἀδύνατα].
Now, mindful of our duty, let us turn our discourse to the very passages which Semler thinks were stolen by Clement and transferred into the books of Irenaeus. He first cites (b) what Irenaeus wrote concerning the comparison of the impious with the animals that are unclean according to the Mosaic discipline (c); and he thinks these things were taken from a similar discourse of Clement (d), using especially this argument, that in the latter all things cohere well with themselves, while in the former they are attached with little convenience or appropriateness. Regarding this passage, the situation is as follows:
I. Before Semler, readers, Potter noted (e) the agreement of Clement and Irenaeus and took care to ascribe the entire discourse of the former to the place of the latter; though he did not doubt to judge that Clement accepted his own work from Irenaeus.
II. That this section is considered to be joined with no links to the preceding material is something that anyone who looks at it must see is without cause. For when he had intended to speak about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by which the pious are prepared for future glory, he passes on to describe the morals of the impious, and says: "But those who cast away the counsel of the Spirit, and serve the pleasures of the flesh, and live irrationally and, unbridled, are cast down into their own desires, since they have no aspiration for the divine Spirit, but live after the manner of pigs and dogs, these the Apostle justly calls carnal, since they think of nothing but carnal things." These words are followed by: "And for this same reason the prophets liken them to irrational animals, on account of their irrational conduct, saying: 'Horses made [to rush] toward females, every one of them neighing after his neighbor's wife' (Jer. v, 8); and again: 'Man, when he was in honor, A was assimilated to the beasts' (Ps. XLIX, 21). This, because he is assimilated to the beasts according to his own cause, emulating an irrational life. But we also, in common parlance, call such men 'unreasonable cattle and beasts'." When he placed these, what, I ask, could have been added to these words more apt, and more accommodated to the author’s plan, than what follows: "The law foretold all these things figuratively regarding animals, delineating man, whatsoever, he says, have a split hoof, etc." After those words, which he seems to have in common with Clement, he continues: "But, as we have said before, they have assumed the life of pigs and dogs, giving themselves over to uncleanness, gluttony, and the rest of their negligence. Justly, therefore, do all such... The Apostle indeed called them carnal and animal; the prophets called them beasts and wild animals; custom has interpreted them as cattle and irrational things; the law has declared them unclean." B Excerpted from all these things that I have brought forward, not even a word is read in Clement. Now, indeed, everyone will easily judge whether these things are sufficient to understand that bond of the section with the preceding and subsequent material and to remove all doubt.
III. Irenaeus's intention in interpreting the laws concerning unclean animals allegorically is very different from the purpose of Clement. The latter wanted these animals to be an image of the vulgar Jews and the heretics, the former of impious men and those addicted to vices; yet on this condition, that neither Irenaeus be silent about the Jews and heretics, nor Clement about those living impiously; Irenaeus indeed makes mention of the pagans, something entirely omitted by the former.
IV. Finally, since the books of Irenaeus are filled with mystical and allegorical interpretations of this kind (f), I for my part do not grasp what reason there might be why the comparison of unclean animals with the various kinds of vicious men could not also be devised by him. But if anyone judges it necessary that one took the matter from the other, then I would certainly believe Potter's suspicion to be more similar to the truth than Semler's. I, however, would not want either to be called to the crime of theft. For the very allegorical exposition of the Mosaic law concerning unclean animals, if you consider its main C points, arises from the schools of the Jews, is read in the little book of Aristeas, which Josephus used, it pleased Aristeas and Philo, it occurs in the epistle of Barnabas, which is certainly older than our Clement. It is repeated here and there by Origen, Eusebius, and others; why could it not be known to both, Clement and Irenaeus, and so commended [to them], that each converted it, dilated upon by his own genius, to his own purpose?
The other passage pertains to the most noble history of the origin of the Greek LXX version, which all know both Irenaeus (g) and Clement (h) ... D
narrated after Aristaeus, Josephus, Philo, and Justin Martyr. Whether they narrated true things it is not our interest to know at this place, but we must inquire into this: whether the things that are handed down in the books of Irenaeus were derived from Clement. Semler rightly notes (a) that no suspicion of that matter has arisen among learned men, nor did he omit in silence that the passage of Irenaeus was repeated by Eusebius (b). Therefore, he was the first who dared to suspect that this was scraped together from Clement by theft and imposture, partly because it seems not to have been placed there very conveniently or with deliberation, and partly because he who has stolen once is readily believed to steal again. I confess I feel otherwise.
I. What Semler believes was added to Irenaeus from Clement, the same Potter again thought Clement learned from Irenaeus; from which we again conclude that other learned men correctly saw the agreement of both writers. Indeed, Potter restrained himself from contending that everything was taken from Irenaeus, but accurately noted the individual particles that appeared to him to be proper to Irenaeus.
II. From the example of Eusebius, who most certainly read the Stromata of Clement, and who recited the Greek of Irenaeus, it is manifest that the ancients did not even think of calling into suspicion the faith of the books of Irenaeus, although they knew that what is read there is also found in Clement.
III. The places of both writers differ quite a bit from one another.
1) Irenaeus writes that that Greek interpretation was composed under Ptolemy Lagus; Clement, under Ptolemy Lagus, or, as others may prefer, under Ptolemy Philadelphus.
2) The oration of Irenaeus is far more copious and richer than that of Clement. Both narrate that that version was undertaken by divine counsel; but Irenaeus alone [narrates] the reasons for the counsel. Both hand down that the labors of the individual translators had been collated with one another; but Irenaeus alone [hands down] that they had for that purpose gathered together to Ptolemy; both hand down that the things and words agreed; but Irenaeus alone [hands down] that the agreement was observed from the beginning to the end, and that the divine work was acknowledged by the Gentiles who were present. Clement says that the holy books of the Jews had been corrupted during the Babylonian exile and that these old ones were renewed by Ezra through inspiration; Irenaeus, however, [says] that Ezra was led by inspiration to bring the prophecies of all the prophets into their own order and restore the Mosaic laws to the people. A
3) Nor are the Greek words everywhere the same. I shall bring forward a few examples. Clement: *Πάσαις γραφαῖς*. Irenaeus: *Πάντων ἀνθρώπων συγγράμμασιν ὅσα με σπουδαῖα ὑπῆρχε*. Clement: *Ἠξίωσε τοὺς Ἱερ.*. Irenaeus: *Ἠτήσατο παρὰ τῶν Ἱερ.*. Clement: *ἑρμηνεύεσθαι*. Irenaeus: *σχεῖν μεταβεβλημένους*. You will observe that Clement is everywhere more elegant than Irenaeus.
IV. But if it is permitted to confess the truth, then certainly Clement seems to have contracted into a brief summary the things which Irenaeus had handed down more copiously, yet with this law, that he also consulted the narrations of others.
Finally, the things which Irenaeus hands down agree excellently with the arguments in which he is engaged. For when he had suspected that Theodotion and Aquila, according to their own opinion, out of hatred for the Christian cause and love for the Judaic, had translated the word of Isaiah not as *parthenos* but as *neanis*, he opposes to them the interpretation of the seventy men, and he commends it both by the name of antiquity and proclaims that it was composed by Jews. Is it possible, I ask, that he could have found a greater opportunity of repeating the story concerning the origin of that [version]? Nor has Semler proved that Irenaeus stole even once, nor is it right to suspect theft everywhere. B
Finally, there remains a third place of Irenaeus, which a distinguished man contends was sought from Clement. It is very true that both recite the same words of Plato (c); Irenaeus (d) [recites them] to show that he was more philosophical to those who would wish to sever the kindness of God from justice; Clement (e) [recites them] to explain the doctrine of Plato concerning happiness. But to free both from the suspicion of theft, I am moved by these arguments. C
I. Irenaeus elsewhere also cited the dogmas and sayings of Plato (f), which he did not receive from Clement.
II. What is more? What you might wonder at is that to the dictum of Plato, which Clement brought in a similar way, he immediately, with no words interposed, conjoined another place of Plato from the Timaeus; Clement, however, subjected other particles which follow in Plato, *De legibus*. Whence did that thief steal the testimony of Plato from the Timaeus; or why did he abstain from purloining the other words of Plato which Clement placed?
III. That place of Plato is indeed lauded by so many other writers, by Aristotle, by Plutarch, by Justin, as Potter warns; must it have been unknown to Irenaeus alone, so that it could not be read in his books unless compiled from Clement?
Since these things are indeed arranged in this way, I believe that no just causes remain for calling the faith and authority of the books of Irenaeus into doubt. D