Fragments of the Lost Works of St. Irenaeus

2. This distinction ^A of the habitation of those who have brought forth a hundredfold, and those who have brought forth sixty, and those who have brought forth thirty: of whom some shall be assumed into the heavens, others shall pass their time in paradise, others shall inhabit the city; and for this reason the Lord has said, "In my Father's house there are many mansions": for all things are of God, who provides a suitable habitation for all, even as His Word says, that it is distributed by the Father as each is worthy, or shall be. And this is the triclinium, in which those who are invited to the wedding guests recline. This, the presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say is the gradation and disposition of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this kind, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; ^B the Son in turn yielding His work to the Father, even as it was said by the Apostle: "For he must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy shall be destroyed, death." For in the times of the kingdom, the righteous man existing upon the earth will [forget] ^C death. When he shall say, "all things are subjected"; it is manifest, except him who subjected all things. But when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.

3. John, therefore, ^B clearly foresaw the first resurrection of the righteous, and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth: and the prophets prophesied harmoniously concerning it. For the Lord also taught this, promising that He would partake of the new cup in the kingdom with His disciples. And the Apostle also confessed that the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. And in all these things, and through all things, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned man, and promised the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who brought it forth in the resurrection of the just, and fulfills the promises in the kingdom of His Son: afterwards bestowing paternal gifts, which neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man. For truly the one Son, who fulfilled the will of the Father; and the one human race, in which the mysteries of God are fulfilled, which angels desire to look into, and are not able to investigate the wisdom of God, through which His handiwork, fashioned and corporified to the Son, is perfected: that His offspring, the first-begotten Word, might descend into the handiwork, that is, into the fashioned form, and be contained by it; and that the handiwork might again contain the Word, and ascend to Him, passing beyond the angels, and be made according to the image and likeness of God.

ADMONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING FRAGMENTS.

338 Concerning those fragments of Irenaeus which we here bring to light, since we have already dealt with them in the second Dissertation, prefixed to the work, art. 3, little remains to be said. It is worth observing only this, that fragments of a double nature are here exhibited: some are those which Eusebius, or other ancient writers of the same authority, extracted from the works of Irenaeus then existing, and which they cited by name and inserted into their own; others, however, are either attributed to certain more recent writers, or are read in Catenae or other manuscript codices under the name of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. That the former are the undoubted offspring of Irenaeus, cannot be denied. The reliability of the latter is not so secure. For they are usually cited in such a way that the works of Irenaeus themselves, from which they are excerpted, are either not designated by name; or if any are designated, they are those of which Eusebius, Jerome, and others, to whom the genuine works of the holy doctor should have been better known, made no mention whatever. Such is that fragment which Maximus the Abbot and Confessor says he copied from the Sermon on Faith of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, to Demetrius, deacon of Vienne: as also that which Feuardentius edited in Latin as if from the same sermon. Indeed, these sermons on faith seem to have been entirely unknown to Eusebius and Jerome.

Anastasius Sinaita, or whoever is the author of the *Anagogical Contemplations on the Hexaemeron*, book X—or, as the author wrote, *λόγῳ τῷ δεκάτῳ*—records a fragment not to be despised, which, having been observed by no one until now, we bring forward for the first time in Greek with a new Latin interpretation. The Greek text, not yet published, was communicated to us by a friend, having been excerpted from the manuscript code of the Colbertine library 2253, which we ourselves collated. Anastasius writes that the things recorded there were spoken by Irenaeus, who was struggling against the heresy of the impure Ophites: ^A *φάσκει γὰρ κατὰ τῆς τῶν μιαρῶν Ὀφιτῶν αἱρεσιαρχίας ὁπλιζόμενος*. But where Irenaeus specifically struggled against the heresy of the Ophites, we do not know. He narrates their ravings indeed in book I of *Detection and Overthrow*, chapter 30. But in the course of the work, he does not specifically refute them, nor does he struggle against them in any other way than by tearing down the foundations common to all Gnostics, upon which the heresy of those men also rested; nor, finally, do those things occur in those books which Anastasius alleges as if from Irenaeus.

It is even more uncertain whether the fragments which have been transcribed from various Catenas, and from manuscripts, are excerpts from the genuine works of Irenaeus. For they are cited under the name of Irenaeus in such a way that usually no book or treatise of his is designated. Indeed, in unfolding the Catenas of the Royal Library, we discovered that in some cases, after a testimony was sometimes described as that of Irenaeus, with this inscription, *Eirenaiou episkopou Loudounon*, others were subjoined immediately; to these, only *tou autou* was prefixed. In other similar Catenas, however, among the testimonies which are expressly ascribed to Irenaeus, and those which have the inscription *tou autou* prefixed to them, other things are inserted under the name of another author, which prevent *tou autou* from being able to refer back to Irenaeus. These seem to prove that what had been placed immediately after an Irenaean fragment by one compiler of a Catena, but imprudently omitted by another, had given occasion for the erroneous ascription to Irenaeus of those things to which the inscription *tou autou* is prefixed. Furthermore, sometimes—at least in those Catenas which we have inspected—after the fragments which are expressly attributed to Irenaeus, other *anepigrapha* (untitled fragments) follow immediately, the author of which is therefore uncertain; he who would ascribe them to Irenaeus would not have acted correctly. We have observed, however, that this was done by Combefis on page 545. From all these things, the conclusion we wish to reach is that all the things brought forward from the Catenas are not so certain that they deserve to obtain immediate credit. However that may be, we here display all those fragments which were collected both by Feuardentius, Halloix, Sirmond, Combefis, Grabius, and others, as well as by ourselves: yet so that we do not attribute more credit to them than they deserve.

FRAGMENTS OF THE LOST WORKS OF SAINT IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS AND MARTYR.

^A - 1. 339 Clause (9) of the *Book of the Ogdoad* (10), from Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* book V, ch. 20, and Nicephorus, *Hist. eccl.* book IV, ch. 30.

*Adjuro te, qui transcripseris hunc librum, per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et per gloriosum ejus adventum, quo veniet ad judicandum vivos et mortuos; ut conferas quod transcripseris, et diligenter illud emendes ad exemplar, ex quo transcripsisti, utque adjurationem istam similiter describas, et exemplari (tuo) inseras.*

II. Fragment (12) of the *Epistle to Florinus*, from Eusebius and Nicephorus, in the place cited.

*Hæc dogmata, Florine, ut parcissime ac levissime dicam, non sunt sanæ doctrinæ; hæc dogmata Ecclesiæ non sunt consona, et in maximam* ^{B C D}

^A impiety they cast those who assent to them. These dogmas not even the heretics who are placed outside the Church have ever dared to proclaim; these dogmas the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to thee. For I saw thee, while I was still a boy, in lower Asia with Polycarp, behaving brilliantly in the imperial court, and trying to stand well with him. For I remember the events of that time better than those that have happened recently (for the things we learn in childhood, growing with the soul, become one with it); so that I can even describe the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and discoursed, and his comings and departures, and the character of his life, and the appearance of his body, and the discourses that he held to the ^B multitude, and how he would recount his familiar intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, and how he would remember their words; and what things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his teaching, and how Polycarp, having received it from the eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, reported it all in accordance with the Scriptures. These things, even then, through the mercy of God which was bestowed upon me, I heard diligently, recording them, not on paper, but in my heart; and I ever, through the grace of God, truly revolve them in my mind. And I am able to bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out and stopped his ears, ^C and as was his custom, would have said, "O good God, to what times hast thou preserved me, that I should endure these things!" and would even have fled from the place in which he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And this can also be made manifest from his letters, which he sent either to the neighboring Churches, confirming them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.

III.

Epistle to Victor, the Roman Pope, from Eusebius, Book V of his History, ch. 24, and Nicephorus Book IV of his Ecclesiastical History, ch. 39.

For not only is there controversy concerning the day, but also concerning the very form of the fast. For some think that they ought to fast for one day, others for two, others even more, while others compute their day as consisting of forty hours of day and night. And this variety of observance did not originate in our time, but long before in the time of our predecessors, who likely did not hold with strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for those who came after them, which was the result of their own simplicity and individual preference. And yet, all of these lived in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.

^D For not only concerning the day is the blasphemy polluting, to be turned into flight. But Irenæus in Book III *Against Heresies*, chap. 4, no. 2, declares the same custom with these words: "To whom if anyone should announce those things which have been devised by the heretics, speaking in their own language, they would immediately stop their ears and flee a long way off, not even enduring to hear a blasphemous conversation." Moreover, Athanasius in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*: "Who, having heard, would not weep, and perhaps even close his ears, so as not to endure even another speaking?" Jerome, finally, in his book *Against Rufinus*: "Having recently read the letters of Pope Theophilus, in which he expounds the errors of Origen, it is said that he stopped his ears and condemned the author of so great an evil with a clear voice before everyone."

^A even concerning the very form of the fast. For some think that they ought to fast for one day, others for two, others for more, and others for forty days; they measure their day by the day and night hours. And such variety among the observers did not originate in our time, but much earlier, among those before us who, as is likely, were holding to the custom in simplicity and lack of sophistication, and created this practice for those who came after. And yet, nonetheless, all of these lived in peace, and we live in peace with one another; and the disagreement of the fast confirms the concord of the faith. And the elders before Soter ^B who governed the Church, which you now lead—we mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus—neither kept it themselves, nor did they allow those after them to do so. And yet, nonetheless, while they did not keep it, they were at peace with those from the dioceses in which it was being kept, who came to them, although the keeping of it was even more contrary to those who were not keeping it; and never, because of this form of practice, were any rejected. But rather, they themselves, the elders before you who did not keep it, sent the Eucharist to those from the dioceses who were keeping it. ^C And when the blessed Polycarp visited Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they had slight differences regarding some other matters, they immediately made peace, not wishing to quarrel with one another over this point. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to keep it, since he had lived with John the disciple of our Lord...

and with the other apostles with whom he had lived familiarly, and had always kept such a custom. Nor could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to keep it, as Anicetus said that he was bound to hold to the custom of the presbyters who were before him. And when matters stood thus, they communicated with one another, and Anicetus yielded the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, clearly out of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, while the whole Church was at peace, both those who observed [the custom] and those who did not.

IV.

Another dictum from the Epistle to Victor, excerpted in Maximus, sermon 7 on almsgiving, tom. II of his Works, p. 554.

Whoever has it in his power to do good to his neighbors, and does not do it, ^B will be deemed estranged from the love of the Lord.

V.

Fragment of the Sermon of Irenaeus on faith, from the same Maximus, tom. II of his Works, p. 152.

The will and operation of God is the creative and providential cause of all time, space, and age, and of every nature. Will is the rational principle situated within us in the intellectual soul, since it is a faculty of it, possessed of free power. Will is a mind having the power of desiring, and an appetitive reason, inclining toward that which is desired.

VI.

Another fragment of the same Sermon to Demetrium.

God being immense, and the maker of the world, and omnipotent, has indeed made all things, both those which do not fall under our view and those which are subjected to our eyes, by his immense and all-powerful will, and by a new effect, powerfully and efficaciously; so that the entire fullness of the things which were brought into being came into existence, whereas before they did not exist. ^C And thus he contains each individual thing, and leads it to its own proper end, for which they were quickened and born, in no way changed into something other than what it was in its own nature. For this is proper to the operation of God: not only to progress toward an infinity of perception, or to transcend the mind, reason, and discourse, time and place, and every age; but even to exceed substance and fullness, or perfection.

[Notes follow: (54) The presbyters before us. Niceph., the presbyters before us. (55) Anicetus yielded the Eucharist. This honor, Valesius observes, the Roman pontiff Anicetus accorded to the venerable elder Polycarp, that he allowed him to perform [the rite] in the sacred church, and indeed in his own presence, which is to be noted. Thus Irenaeus’s words were understood by Rufinus and the other translators. But Franciscus Florens, an Aurelian predecessor, a learned man, contends that these words of Irenaeus should be understood otherwise, in his *Tractatus ad titulum Decretalium, De translatione episcopi*. For he wishes that Anicetus had merely offered the Eucharist to Polycarp, but had not granted him the right of celebrating the sacred mysteries. But if we understand this ^D passage of Irenaeus in that way, what honor was bestowed upon Polycarp by Anicetus? For Irenaeus clearly notes this, both by that word *parechōrēsen* (*παρεχώρησεν*), which signifies to yield from one’s own right, and by those words which he adds, namely, "out of respect and contemplation," as Rufinus translates. Certainly, if Anicetus had merely offered the Eucharist to Polycarp, he would have bestowed no special honor upon him, since it was common practice for this to be granted to all visiting bishops, that they should communicate with the bishop of the city, as Florens himself writes in the same place. But also in the Council of Arles, canon 20, it is decreed that the right of sacrificing should be given to a visiting bishop. (36) Excerpt from Maximus. The same sentiment of Irenaeus, excerpted from codex E of the Damascene Parallels, tit. 43, was published by Halloixius in his *Vita Irenæi*, p. 499. It exists also, as Grabius testifies, in another Collection of sentences from the Fathers, cod. 143, Barocc., fol. 17, p. 4, and in a codex in the Imperial Library of Vienna. But Maximus alone cites the place from which it is taken, namely, *ek tēs pros Biktōra epistolēs* (*ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Βίκτωρα ἐπιστολῆς*), from the epistle to Victor. (37) Sermon of Irenaeus on faith. So cites Maximus in the aforementioned place: Where Irenaeus is wrongly called a disciple of the apostle and evangelist John. Consult what we have said about this and the following fragment in Dissert. 2, § 60, and in the Admonition prefixed to these fragments.]

VII. Allegation from the book on Pascha in Justin's Responses to the Orthodox on Questions 115.

^A Not to bend the knee on the Lord’s day is a symbol of the resurrection, by which, through the grace of Christ, we have been set free from both our sins and the death that was put to death by Him. Such a custom took its beginning from the apostolic times, just as the blessed Irenaeus, martyr and bishop of Lyons, says in his discourse on Pascha, in which he also makes mention of Pentecost, during which we do not bend the knee, because it is equivalent to the day of the Lord’s day, according to the reason stated regarding it.

VIII. A saying of Irenaeus cited by Leontius in book 1 against Nestorius and Eutyches.

^A For just as the ark (of the Old Testament) was gilded inside and out with pure gold, so also the body of Christ was pure and brilliant; adorned within by the Word, and covered without by the Spirit, so that from both the splendor of the natures might be revealed. ^B

IX. Fragments of other lost treatises of Irenaeus, collected from the Parallels of John Damascene, partly published, partly manuscript.

By blessing those who are worthy, and never cursing the unworthy, we too shall attain the glory and kingdom of God.

X.

It is truly proper and becoming for God to show Himself propitious, to have mercy, and to bring salvation to His works (creatures), even if they are brought to the danger of destruction. For with Him, he says, is propitiation.

XI.

The work of a Christian is nothing other than to meditate on dying.

XII.

We believe, therefore, that bodies also rise. Even if

^A they are corrupted, they do not perish; for the earth preserves their remains, like choice seed mixed with richer soil. Again, like a grain that is sown naked, and by the command of God the Creator grows, it rises clothed and glorious, not until it has died, been dissolved, and mingled with the earth: thus we have not believed in the resurrection of the body in vain. But even if it is dissolved for a time, on account of the disobedience which took place from the beginning, it is established in the earth as in a furnace, to be fashioned anew; not this corruptible body, but a pure one, no longer corruptible; for as the proper soul shall be restored to each body, and clothed in it, it will not grieve, but will rejoice, remaining pure, accompanying a righteous spouse, and not one who is treacherous, having in all things with all... ^B It shall receive them not changed, nor freed from the agitation of the soul or disease, nor will it receive glorious bodies; but as they died in sins or in right actions; and as they were, such shall they put on when they rise again, and such as they were found in unbelief, such shall they be judged faithfully.

XIII. Another fragment from Oecumenius in his Commentary on the Epistle of Peter, chap. iii, p. 498, cited.

When the Greeks had seized the servants of Christians who had been instructed in the divine mysteries, and then applied force, in order that they might learn some secret thing from them concerning the Christians: those servants, not having any way to speak to those applying force in a manner that would please them, beyond what they had heard from their masters, that the divine communion was the blood and body of Christ; thinking themselves that it really was blood and flesh, they answered this to those who inquired. ^C They, indeed, receiving this as if it were actually done by the Christians in reality, manifested this also to other Greeks, and compelled the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it under tortures. To whom Blandina aptly and freely replied, saying: "How would they endure these things, who for the sake of holy discipline do not even eat the permitted meats?"

XIV. Another fragment of Irenaeus cited by Anastasius the Sinaite, book x of the Anagogical Contemplations on the Hexaemeron, tom. IX of the Bibliotheca Patrum, edit. Lugd. 1677, now first published in Greek from the Colbertine manuscript.

"And the serpent said to the woman: Why did God say: You shall not eat of every tree of the paradise? And the woman said to the serpent: Of every tree, etc. And you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." ^D That a sea of meanings, therefore, and an obscure abyss, which exceeds the understanding of those who have already traversed it, is set before us, is not for us to say: for the passage here proposed cries this out. Those who accept this historically rather than spiritually, cleaving to the words, I know not by what reason they can solve the arguments of Irenaeus against them. For he says, contending against the heresiarchy of the impure Ophites: How can it come to pass...

^A that the serpent, by nature irrational and mindless, created by God, should be described as rational and endowed with speech? If he possessed the power of speech, discernment, intelligence, and of answering the things said by the woman of his own accord, then nothing would have prevented any other serpent from doing the same. But if they answer again that by divine will and dispensation he addressed Eve with a human voice, they establish God as the author of sin. But it was not possible for the evil demon to bestow speech upon a nature essentially mute, so that it might become what it was not before; otherwise he would never have ceased having discourse with men through serpents, wild beasts, and birds, and leading them into error. But whence, being a wild beast, did he hear the commandment given by God to man, and to him alone, secretly, without even the woman herself being aware of it? Why did he not rather attack the man than the woman? If you tell me that he attacked her as being the weaker, on the contrary, she appeared stronger, as the helper of the man, in the transgression of the commandment. For she alone resisted the ^B serpent, and after having resisted and contended for some time, she was circumvented by guile and ate of the fruit of the tree; but Adam, without entering into any struggle or contradiction at all, accepted the fruit offered by the woman, which is a proof of utter weakness and a cowardly mind. For the woman, being vanquished by a demon, is worthy of pardon; but Adam, as having been defeated by a woman, will be without excuse, inasmuch as he himself had received the commandment directly from God. For the woman, having heard the commandment from Adam, treated it with contempt—either because she thought God had not deemed her worthy to be spoken to by Himself, or perhaps because she doubted, or even imagined that Adam had imposed the commandment upon her of his own motion. And the serpent, finding her acting alone and apart, was able to converse with her privately. Furthermore, seeing her eating of the fruits of the trees, he presented to her the fruit of the (forbidden) tree, or [if he saw her] not eating; if indeed she was eating, it is evident that she was in a corruptible body; for everything that enters into the mouth passes into the belly. If, therefore, she was corruptible, it is evident that she was also mortal. And if she was mortal, that voice of God which said to the man, "Earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return," was no longer a curse or a sentence, as the truth of things maintains. But if, again, the serpent saw that the woman was not eating, how did he induce her to eat, when she had never eaten? And who informed this murderous, wicked serpent that the sentence of death which God had brought upon them would not take effect, when He said: "In the day that ye eat, ye shall die"? ^C And not only that, but also that being made immortal, their eyes would be opened, which did not see before? By the so-called opening of their eyes, they made an entrance for death. ^D

Various sayings of Irenaeus, collected from the Catenae of the Fathers by Jacques Sirmond, and edited by Halluix in his Life of Irenaeus, page 506 seq.

XV. From the Catena on Numbers.

^A These things Balaam, speaking long ago through parables, did not understand; and now Christ, being present and fulfilling these things, was not believed. Whence, foreseeing and marveling, he says: Alas, alas, who shall live when God shall set these things?

XVI. From the Catena on Deuteronomy.

Expounding the law from the very beginning to the generation which followed those who had fallen in the desert, Moses edits Deuteronomy; not as bringing in another law beyond that which was long ago ordained for their fathers, but recapitulating that very one, so that they, having heard what happened to their fathers, might fear God with all their heart.

XVII. From the same.

From whom Christ was prefigured, and known, and born: in Joseph, indeed, he was prefigured; but from Levi and Judah according to the flesh, as king and priest, he was born; and by Simeon in the temple he was known; further, by Zabulon faith in him was held among the nations, as the prophet says: The land of Zabulon; and finally, by Benjamin, that is, Paul, he was preached to the whole world and glorified.

XVIII. From the Catena on Judges.

And this not in vain; but ^B so that it might be evident from the number of the ten men that he has Jesus with him as a helper, inasmuch as he had entered into a pact with them. And because he did not wish to have anything in common with those who were sacrificing to idols, they transfer the blame to him. For Jerubbaal is called the tribunal of Baal.

Various sayings of Irenaeus, from the Catenae of the Fathers on Numbers, etc., collected by Combefis, and edited in Part 1 of the New Auctarium of the Bibliotheca Patrum, page 298 seq.

XIX.

Take to yourself Jesus, the son of Nave. For it was fitting that Moses should lead the people out of Egypt, but that Jesus (Nave) should lead them into the inheritance; and that Moses, just as the law, should take a rest and cease; but ^C that Jesus, as the Word, and as the true image of the subsistent Word, should be the herald to the people; and that Moses...

should give the manna to the fathers as nourishment, but Jesus should give the grain, just now the first-fruits of life, a type of the body of Christ, as the Scripture also says, that then the manna of the Lord ceased, after the people had eaten the grain from the land. ^A

XX. And he laid his hands upon him. Through the laying on of the hands of Moses, the face of Jesus was glorified; but not in the same way. Therefore it also obtained a partial share of the grace, and he said: And you shall give of your glory upon him. For what is given does not depart from the one who gives it.

XXI. He gives it, however, not by breathing upon him, as Christ did; because he is not the source of the Spirit.

XXII. You shall not go with them, nor shall you curse the people. It is not insinuated about the people; for they were all struck down, but because of the mystery of Christ which was being foretold. For since Christ was to be born of the fathers according to the flesh, the Spirit instructs the man beforehand, so that he might not, by going in ignorance, curse the people. ^B

XXIII. And he was riding upon his ass. The ass indeed had the form of the body of Christ; upon which all people, resting from the heat (the labors), are carried as if by a vehicle. For the Savior took upon Himself the burden of our sins. But the angel who appeared to Balaam was the Word Himself; and he had a sword in his hand, clearly that which he had from above, having authority.

XXIV. God is not as man. He shows ^C that all men are liars, being carried from one thing to another; but God is not so; for He always remains true, accomplishing whatever He wills.

XXV. To take vengeance from the Lord on Midian. For he who no longer speaks in the Spirit of God, but acts against the law of God ^D

^A by establishing another law of fornication, he will be considered not as a prophet, but as a diviner. For he who has not persevered in the commandment of God has received a reward worthy of his own evil contrivance.

XXVI. Know that every man is either empty or full. For if he does not have the Holy Spirit, he does not have the knowledge of the Creator, he has not received Jesus Christ the life, he does not know the Father who is in heaven: if he does not live according to reason, according to the rule of the heavenly law, he is not temperate, he does not practice justice: such a man is empty. But if he has received Him who says: I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, 1 this man is not empty, but full.

XXVII.

Another fragment of Irenæus, from the Royal Library manuscript Catena on the Book of Judges, cod. 1888, fol. 528, now first published.

XXVIII.

Another fragment of Irenæus, from the Royal Library manuscript Catena on the Books of Kings, cod. 2143, fol. 149, now first published.

XXIX.

Two sayings of Irenæus, from Possinus' Catena Patrum on Matthew, in chapters 1 and 3, pages 1 and 39.

XXX.

XXXI.

See, however, how by the grain of mustard in the parable is signified ^A both the heavenly doctrine, sown in this world, as if in a field, having in itself the fiery and austere [quality] of power. For he is proclaimed the judge of the whole world; he who, hidden in the heart of the earth, in the soil, and in the space of three days having grown into a very great tree, extended his own branches to the ends of the earth. From him have sprung forth the twelve apostles, branches having become beautiful and flourishing, and they became a shelter for the nations, as for the birds of the heaven, by which branches those who were overshadowed, as birds gathered into a nest, became partakers of the edible and heavenly food proceeding from them.

XXXII.

Now indeed, just as through the disobedience of the one man, who was first fashioned from unworked earth, the many were made sinners and lost life; so it was necessary also through the obedience of the one man, who was first born of a Virgin, that the many be made righteous ^B and receive salvation.

XXXIII.

Josephus says that when Moses was being brought up in the royal palace, having been appointed general against the Ethiopians, and having become victorious, he married the daughter of that king; since out of love for him she delivered the city to him.

Why, then, of the two who reviled, did she alone receive punishment? First, because the sin of the woman was greater; for both nature and the law subject the female to the male. Or Aaron was receiving a slightly easier pardon, as he was older in age, and honored with the high priesthood. Besides this, since the leper was considered unclean according to the law, while Aaron was the root and foundation of the priests; ^C lest that disgrace pass into the whole race, (God) did not inflict upon him the same punishment, but through the sister He simultaneously frightened and disciplined him. For so did the affliction pain him, that she being the first to receive this, he himself entreated the one who had been wronged to release the calamity by his intercession. And he did not neglect it, but immediately offered up the supplication. Then the philanthropic Lord showed that He had disciplined her not as a judge, but as a Father. For He said: "If her father spitting had spat in her face, should she not be ashamed?"

Seven days she shall be shut out of the camp, and after that she shall come in again ^A.

XXXIV. Another fragment of Irenaeus, from the Bodleian Library codex, last folio. From another book of the writer Irenaeus. Concerning the point that matter is not unbegotten.

Since some, I know not by what impulse moved, deprive God of His creative power in part, claiming He is only the cause of the quality (form) that resides in matter, while asserting that matter itself is unbegotten, come, let us ask them what it is… immovable. Therefore, matter is immovable. If matter is immovable, and what is immovable is not altered according to quality, then the world is not created from it. Wherefore it seems superfluous to them for God to imprint qualities upon matter, since matter admits of no change at all, ^B because it is of itself unbegotten. Further, if matter is unbegotten, it was made with a (determined) certain quality, and one that is immutable; it would no longer be capable of multiple qualities, nor would the world be created from it. If the world is not created therefrom, God becomes entirely alien to the creation of the world.

XXXV. This and the next fragment are read among the Addenda and corrigenda in the edition of D. Massuet, transcribed from the Coislinian Catena on the books of Kings.

"And he baptized himself," he says, "in the Jordan seven times." Naaman, formerly suffering from leprosy, was not baptized in vain when he was cleansed into bodily purity, but to show us the way of salvation: we who have become lepers through the sins we have committed receive freedom from our former vices through holy water and the invocation of the Lord, just as infants newly born are spiritually regenerated, as the Lord said: ^C "Unless one is born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

XXXVI.

If a dead man, when cast into the sepulcher of Elisha, touched his bones and came to life, how much more shall God, having quickened the dead bodies of men, bring them into judgment?

XXXVII.

Irenaeus.

True knowledge is that which is according to Christ ^D…. [index: entries preserved]

^A and understanding, which Paul calls the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which the natural man does not receive; it is the word of the cross, which if anyone tastes, he shall in no wise approach to the contentions and logomachies of those that are puffed up and bloated, those who intrude into things they have not seen. For it is without form, ^B and the word is near thee in thy mouth. [Regarding this matter, the author discusses as is his wont, and spares neither words nor conjectures; but they are Dodwellian conjectures, and whoever reads them marvels that the dissertator has said so much to say so little, and that the reader has read so much to learn nothing. If, however, there is any room for conjecture here, since the manuscript codex from which we extracted these things does not indicate the title of the work, but at least the name of the author, Irenaeus, it seems probable to us that this fragment is from a book of "Various Lectures" (or rather "Disputations," which Sophronius designated by the name *poikilōn homiliōn*), or from a "Word for the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching."

Irenaeus, *Adv. haereses* lib. IV, cap. 33, § 8, where he says: "True knowledge is the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient system of the Church throughout the whole world." But these things, as I judge, are not contrary to those which are placed in our fragment. Furthermore, the ancient heretics designated by the term "knowledge" that science which hands down abstruse mysteries concerning God and His very essence, mysteries not understood, I believe, even by those who composed their system. For what, I ask, is more abstruse than that system of Aeons which the Valentinians composed? These men, indeed, who fabricate such things in order to acquire for themselves the glory of some more divine knowledge, by no means deserve the name of "Gnostics," and they prostitute the Christian religion to the incredulous. For mysteries are not to be added to mysteries, nor should falsehood be added to truth. Whence I judge that Irenaeus opposed these very words to the Gnostics.

^C If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not assent to sound words... is puffed up, and what follows. The most celebrated man, Richard Bentley, that most felicitous restorer of corrupt passages, thinks these words are in error. For thus he says: "Although the sense of the word *proserchetai* is determined by the adjacent words, so that no translation here has erred—for all maintain: 'he does not consent or acquiesce in the sound words of our Lord'—nevertheless, the proper meaning of the word in its origin does not appear, nor has an example of this phrase been given thus far. If, therefore, *prosechetai* or *pros-echetai* were found in some manuscript codex, it adheres to sound words; who, I ask, would be troubled by this variation? But I would have expected rather the verb *prosechei*, because *prosechein logois* is a most common phrase among sacred and profane authors." [See the observations of this most celebrated man in his recent booklet on the freedom of thought, written in the English language, p. 72, 73.] These things are learned and most worthy of such a man. But yet, we judge that the received reading, which the great man does not completely reject, can be defended, especially since the example he desired—nay, even an allegation—exists here in the fragment of Irenaeus, and occurs also in the second fragment which we shall give. Furthermore, I would not think, nor would anyone else, although there have been some both among the ancients and the moderns—principally Seb. Pfochenius, Jo. Vorstius, Lamb. Bos, Horatius Vitringa, and others—who have taken the trouble to do so, that the phrases of the New Testament must be measured by the purity of the Greek language which is seen in profane authors. For that manner of writing which is observed in the books of the New Testament is to be examined according to the genius of the Hebrew and related languages, to which this phrase also pertains. Nay, even to "go into the sentiment" of someone is said in Latin, and the word *prosechein* in this manner expresses the same as "to consent." Still, it is most certain that the word *proseche* would be entirely congruent with the context if it existed in the manuscript codex. For it is most common among sacred writers. The learned Bentley himself cited examples: 1 Pet. 1, 19; Prov. 1, 24; Jerem. 6, 19; Acts 8, 6; 17, 14; Hebr. 1, 1; Tit. 1, 14; 1 Tim. 1, 4. But what we wished for at the end of our dissertation on the various readings of the New Testament, p. 243, 244—that this most learned man might contribute from the most ample treasure of erudition which he possesses to the interpretation of the books of the New Testament and the correction of corrupt readings—we wish to be repeated here absolutely.]

(77) *Of those who intrude.* These things are taken from Coloss. 2, 18. St. Paul, whom Irenaeus here imitates, rebukes those who were offering religious worship to angels and...]

^A in your heart, as the same Apostle says. For He makes us like Christ, if we know the power of His resurrection and the communion of His sufferings (80). For this is the compendium (81) of the apostolic doctrine and the most holy faith (82) delivered to us, which the uneducated (83) receive; and those of little learning (84) have taught, who do not attend to the endless genealogies (85), but rather apply themselves to the correction of their life, so that, not being deprived of the divine Spirit, they may not fail of the kingdom of heaven (86). For the first thing is to deny oneself and to follow Christ, and those who do these things are carried to perfection, fulfilling all the will of the Teacher, becoming children of God through spiritual regeneration, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom.

^B as to I know not what mysteries they were speaking, which they did not understand, invented to win the appearance of sanctity.

(78) *The word is near you.* These are read in Rom. x, 8, taken from Deut. xxx, 14.

(79) *Eum.* The last letter is omitted in the manuscript. But we think it should be read *eumabes* (easily learned).

(80) *The power of... the communion.* See Phil. iii, 10.

(81) *Compendium.* *Epitome* should be read, or if you prefer, *ecloga* (selection) fits perfectly here.

(82) *The most holy faith.* The Apostle Judas marks the faith with this epithet in verse 20, where he says: *Building yourselves up on your most holy faith.*

(83) *Uneducated (idiotae).* By this name are designated the unlearned, the illiterate, the rude. The Apostle Paul himself indeed confesses that he was an *idiota*—not, however, as regards knowledge; for he was a learned man and very well versed in Jewish literature, Acts xxii, 3—but rather as regards the artificial ornamentation of words, which he did not know. For thus he speaks in regard to himself: *But even if I be an "idiota" in speech, yet not in knowledge* (II Cor. xi, 6). And note Acts iv, 13; I Cor. i, 17; ii, 1, 15, 14, 16; II Cor. x, 10. Hence even the Fathers themselves often confess that the Apostles were *idiotas*, because they had not learned to write elegantly. Let Eusebius stand for all, who writes in this manner concerning them: *When they were indeed most chaste in life and morals and adorned with every virtue, but in speech itself were rude and uncultured, relying on the divine and miraculous power granted to them by the Savior, they neither knew how nor attempted to expound the precepts of their Master with the artificial ornamentation of words* (Hist. Eccles. 1. iii, c. 24). Thus *idiota* is not taken here in the sense which is popular today, nor does it denote a defect of intellect, but only of erudition.

(84) *Those of little learning.* Those who should be blushing are many among the learned, who, puffed up by their erudition and swelling with knowledge, wish to force everything to the standard of their own reason and wish to comprehend things that are reserved for the future age, forgetting that those who, acknowledging the weakness of the human intellect, do not dare to enter into mysteries, and admire them with the humility of mind that is fitting, and confess their own ignorance, are far closer to divine faith. And to these should be recommended especially chapter 28, 1, *Adv. haer.*, where § 3, Irenaeus thus speaks: *If even of the things of creation one is reserved for God, while some have come to our knowledge, what harm is there if even of those things sought in the Scriptures, all the Scriptures being spiritual, some we solve by the grace of God, while some will be reserved for God? And not only in the present age, but also in the coming one, so that God may always teach and man may always learn from God.*

(85) *Endless genealogies.* Irenaeus refers to I Tim. i, 4. There are those who think that the Apostle is here rejecting the useless disputes of the Jews concerning the genealogies occurring in the Old Testament. Others think the finger is pointed at the Valentinian system, the foundations of which the heretics had already been able to lay in the time of the Apostles. Cf. the learned Vitringa, *Observ. sacr.* 1. i, c. 2, p. 129 et seqq. And I do not doubt that Irenaeus at least alluded to this. But if this is so, those *endless* genealogies can be accommodated not only to the Valentinians, but also to the Caballa of the Jews itself, which is altogether more ancient than is commonly believed. For the very learned Jo. Franciscus Buddeus thinks that the Gnostics drew their own from here, and Valentine from the Gnostics, in his dissertation *De haeresi Valentiniana*, § 15 et seqq., the hypothesis of which the illustrious Massuet undertook to refute in his dissertation on Irenaeus, art. 1, n. 5, § 1, who derives the *Aeons* of Valentine particularly from Pythagorean and Platonic sources, § 25, where he also names the Egyptian philosophers simultaneously, from whose pits the reverend George Hooper, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his conjectures on the Valentinian heresy published in London three years ago, thinks the Valentinian system proceeded. Moreover, it is not hidden from us that the most learned men look for great mysteries in the cabalistic theology, especially in that system of the Sephiroth. For they are indeed very ingenious, which, after Henry More and Christian Knorr, the most illustrious men, Campegius Vitringa and Jo. Franc. Buddeus, have given to us among the more recent writers on this matter, the former in *Observationes sacrae*, the latter in the most elegant *Introduction* to the philosophy of the Hebrews. But their explanations labor under this great difficulty, that they do not have the Jews in agreement, who go off into all other things. Moreover, Thomas Burnet in *Archaeol. philosoph. 1. i, c. 6* hangs these Cabalistic mysteries with a sneer.

(86) *Fail of the kingdom of heaven.* Irenaeus writes in almost the same manner elsewhere: *Cont. haeres. 1. v, c. 9*. Halloixius published it in the *Life of Irenaeus*, and Basil also has it in *De Spiritu sancto*, ch. 29, noting on p. 503 of Massuet's edition, except that Basil puts *if, because without the Spirit of God we cannot be saved, the Apostle, urging us* through faith and pure conduct to preserve the Spirit of God, so that *we, having become destitute of the Spirit of God, do not fail of the kingdom of heaven, cried out, that the flesh cannot by itself in the blood inherit the kingdom of God*. Cont. haeres. 1. v, c. 9, § 3. This Greek fragment is edited by Damascene in the *Parallel*, and Basil also has it in *De Spiritu sancto* ch. 29, as Massuet notes on p. 503, except that Basil places "of the divine Spirit," which also exists in our texts.

^A And those who do these things are led on to perfection, having fulfilled all the will of the Teacher, becoming sons of God through the spiritual regeneration, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven, which seeking first, they shall not be forsaken. ^A

XXXVIII. Irenaei.

Those who have followed the later institutions ^B of the apostles know that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the New Testament, according to the prophet Malachi. For "from the rising of the sun even unto the going down, my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice," as John also says in the Apocalypse: "The incense is the prayers of the saints." And Paul exhorts us to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing unto God, which is our reasonable service." And again: "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips." These oblations are not according to the Law, whose hand-writing the Lord, blotting it out, took from the midst, but according to the Spirit; for in spirit and in truth must we worship God. Wherefore the oblation of the Eucharist is also not carnal, but spiritual and in this respect pure. For we offer to God the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks to Him that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment; and then, having finished the oblation, we call upon the Holy Spirit, that He may show this sacrifice and the bread to be the body of Christ and the cup the blood of Christ, so that those who partake of these antitypes may obtain the remission of sins and eternal life. Those, therefore, who perform these oblations in the remembrance of the Lord, do not indeed draw near to the ordinances of the Jews, but performing the sacred rites spiritually, they shall be called sons of wisdom. ^C

XXXIX. Irenaei.

The apostles ordained that we ought not to judge... ^D

the sabbaths. Whence, therefore, are these contentions? Whence are the schisms? We hold a feast, but in the leaven of malice and wickedness, 96 rending the Church of God, and we keep the external things, so that we cast away the better things, faith and love. We have heard from the prophetic words that such feasts and fasts are displeasing to the Lord.

[XL.] Of Irenæus 97. Christ, called the Son of God 98 before the ages, appeared in the fulness of time 99, that He might purify us, who were under the yoke of sin, through His own blood, presenting us as sons blameless to the Father, if we show ourselves obedient to the discipline 1 of the Spirit. And at the end of the times He is about 2 to come to destroy all evil and the union ^B of the Church, and through small and lofty causes, cutting and dividing the great and glorious body of Christ, and as much as in them lies, destroying it. [alt-version omitted]

[Scholarly commentary regarding Dodwell and Massuet concerning Irenæus' views on the eternity of punishment follows, as rendered by the text:] ...and without return persist in works of malice. Lib. IV, cap. 27, § 4, proves from various places of Scripture that eternal fire is destined for the impious. In what sense this is to be understood, he explains more clearly in the loc. cit. cap. 28, § 1. For there it says: Since therefore here and there there is the same justice of God in punishing, and there indeed typically and temporally and more moderately; but here truly and always and more austerely... He adds the reason for which the damnation of the impious should be set as eternal, since it would be better for them, according to Scripture, if they had not been born. He continues § 2: The punishment of those who do not believe in the Word of God and despise His coming and turn backward, is amplified; it is made not only temporal but also eternal. For to whomever the Lord shall say: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire; these shall be always damned; and to whomever He shall say: Come, you blessed, etc., these always receive the kingdom and make progress. Add lib. IV, cap. 33, § 11; cap. 39, § 4, where: Those who flee the eternal light, which contains in itself all good things, are themselves the cause that they inhabit eternal darkness, which is repeated in cap. 40, § 1, 2. Nor do those things detain us here, which Irenæus has elsewhere concerning the perseverance of life given only to the elect and good, lib. II, cap. 24, § 3. For it is not from us, he says, nor from our nature that life comes, but it is given according to the grace of God. And therefore he who preserves the gift of life and gives thanks to Him who provided it, shall receive also for the length of eternity the length of days. But he who shall have cast it away and has been ungrateful to the Maker for that which he was made, and has not known Him who provides, deprives himself of perseverance for eternity. ^C These are the things which Henry Dodwell drew to his own side, establishing the natural mortality of the soul, unless it should have been made immortal through baptism. But excellent are the things which the most learned Massuet replies: Let it suffice to have observed one thing, namely, the twofold genus of immortality, which Dodwell nowhere distinguished, but rather so confused, that he took one for the other, which is the fountain of all his errors. For the immortality of souls ^D is twofold: one natural, the other supernatural. The former is proper to substances simple by their own nature and separated from all matter; by the power and efficiency of which no created thing at all can be dissolved and extinguished. The latter is peculiar to blessed souls; through which, living eternally with God and in God, they enjoy a happiness that will never cease. Dissertation 3, article 9, § 104. The same also accurately demonstrates that Irenæus, when he spoke of the eternal punishments of the damned, understood that they would never cease. For thus in the cited place § 106: Here Irenæus opposes the punishment of the damned to the felicity of the blessed; and just as the latter is sempiternal, so also he establishes the former to be sempiternal. Wherefore let anyone who would twist these words, "eternal fire," "eternal punishment," "always damned," to mean only the longest punishments, but such as would eventually cease by the destruction of the damned, take note that neither Ire-

Irenæus nor the other Fathers, indeed nor Scripture itself, use other terms to designate the eternal happiness of the blessed; from which, consequently, the impious, seizing upon this opportunity, might similarly distort it to mean a long-lasting happiness alone, which must eventually end. You may read what the most learned D. Matthæus Petitdidier wrote on this subject in volume II of his *Annotations on the Library of Ecclesiastical Authors*, p. 403 et seqq., Paris edition, 1692.

(5) “To reconcile all things unto himself.” It refers, without doubt, to Colossians 1:20, where it says: “And by him to reconcile all things unto him.” For Irenæus does not deny that a universal reconciliation has already been effected through the death of Christ. Compare Bk. V, ch. 14, § 3. This is, however, the universal [reconciliation] whereby the whole world was reconciled to God, such that the salvation acquired for all might be theirs, yet the particular [reconciliation] has as its prerequisite the repentance of the individual and his obedience to the Gospel, and applies those goods acquired by Christ. II Cor. 5:19, 20. Concerning this, therefore, Irenæus speaks in our fragment, or rather concerning its plenary manifestation and ultimate effect, which shall not appear until the last day. Moreover, along with the passage which exists at Colossians 1:21, 22, the holy man compares another parallel passage, Ephesians 1:10, where it says: “To recapitulate all things in Christ, both those in heaven and those on earth.” This recapitulation, as he calls it, of things celestial and terrestrial, Irenæus says is the conjunction of the divine nature with the human. See the location cited, § 2. Elsewhere he explains this recapitulation as the soul of man joined with the body in the aforementioned place, ch. 20, § 2. Yet all these things are so obscure and intricate that it is difficult to discern clearly what the mind of Irenæus is. ^B Muenter extracted these from manuscripts preserved in the Vatican Library and published them in the book entitled: *Fragmenta Patrum Græcorum*, fasc. 1, Copenhagen 1788. The learned man prefixed this to the Greek context: That an allegorical interpretation, adopted not only by the philosophers of the Greeks, Stoics to be sure and Platonists, in explaining the principal poets, but also by the teachers of the Hellenist Jews, initiated into the broader doctrine of Greek literature, passed also into the Christian Church, is proven by very many and almost all the commentaries of the most ancient Fathers on Holy Scripture. Indeed, since the matter is very well known, I shall not dwell longer on demonstrating it; recalling at least the passages concerning the phoenix, as a type of the resurrection, concerning the salvation of the faithful through the blood of Christ prefigured in the scarlet thread of the harlot Rahab, from the epistle of Clement of Rome, and concerning the name of Christ exhibited in the I-X-TH-U-S in Justin Martyr. But for myself, I must briefly set forth that Irenæus himself, whose fragments I exhibit, loved this same allegorical method of expounding Holy Scripture, from his published books, so that greater faith may be had in the authenticity of our unpublished fragments. For he himself, who throughout the whole volume ^C labored with all his might to overturn and refute the theogonies of the Gnostics, to use the word, and the mystical, ^D allegorical, and hidden senses which they taught were stored within Holy Scripture: nevertheless, from the fourfold face of the Cherubim, Apoc. 4:7, upon which God was borne, he deduces that there must also necessarily be four Gospels, upon which Christ Jesus sits, and four testaments, namely those of Adam, Noah, Moses, and Christ, given by God to the human race (III, 11). Furthermore, he teaches that Moses cast his rod upon the ground before Pharaoh, so that, being incarnate, it might argue against and absolve the entire transgression of the Egyptians, which rose up against the disposition of God (III, 21). [He interprets] the marriage of Moses with the Ethiopian woman as the spiritual nuptials of Christ with the Church; IV, 20; under Rahab and the two spies, the Trinity; and finally, in the same chapter, that by the twin birth of Thamar, both testaments are typically signified (IV, 25). For the rest, let those to whom more such exegetical-allegorical [explanations] of Irenæus are pleasing see III, 10, 18; IV, 38; V, 29, and other passages elsewhere. Nothing certain can be asserted regarding the book from which all these fragments of Irenæus’s commentaries on the Old Testament, some of which were edited by Halloix and from him by Massuet, were drawn. However, all such fragments appear to be remnants of lost homilies, in which, as was the custom for the bishops and presbyters of the ancient Church, he had expounded selected books of Holy Scripture; for fragments of commentaries on various passages of the Pentateuch, Judges, and the Gospels are found in the edition of Massuet. The first and fourth fragments of Pfaff also seem to be referable to the same kind. Moreover, whether those homilies constituted a part of the books which were called *didachai* or *diataxeis*, or whether they were published separately, the state of the location and time—to which, however, let us not here indulge—prevents us from being able to determine, except by conjectures. This fragment is from a commentary on the book of Judges; for this passage is found in the history of Samson, Jud. 15:15. MUENTER.

^A to reconcile all things, that the end of all impurities may be.

XLI. And he found the jawbone of an ass

XLII.

XLIII.

(8) This signifies the persecution of the Church by the nations still remaining in unbelief (9). But he who suffers these things had hope that there would be vengeance against those who wage war. But by what means [is] that vengeance? First, by taking refuge upon the intelligible rock (11); second, by the finding of the jawbone of an ass. The type of the jawbone (12) is the body of Christ.

(13) "Blessing always those who are worthy," and...

(15) "Blessing always those who are worthy," but ill...

[original-script column: see facsimile]

[alt-version omitted]

kingdom of God.

XLIV. Prophecy (14) in these indicated that the people, having become a transgressor, will be bound by the chains of their own sins. And the spontaneous loosening of his bonds signifies that, having repented, he will again be released from the bonds of sin.

XLV. It is not easy to persuade a soul held by error to change its opinion.

XLVI. "And they killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword." For since he no longer speaks in the Spirit of God, but, standing against the law of God, sets up another law of fornication, he will no longer be considered a prophet, but a soothsayer. For not having remained in the command of God, he received a reward worthy of his own perversity.

XLVII. ^C This signifies (17) the persecution against the Church by the nations that still remain in unbelief. But he who suffers these things hoped that there would be vengeance against those waging war. And through what is the vengeance? First, by taking refuge in the intelligible rock (18); second, by finding the jawbone of an ass. The type of the jawbone (19) is the body of Christ.

XLVIII. Prophecy (20) in these indicated that the people, having become a transgressor, will be bound by the chains of their own sins. And the spontaneous loosening of his bonds signifies that, having repented, he will again be released from the bonds of sin. ^D