Appendix to Irenaeus's Books Against Heresies, Containing Fragments of the Gnostics Mentioned by the Holy Martyr

XLIX. ^A The God of this age, who is named God to those who have no faith, that is Satan.

L. ^B John, having been born, loosens the silence for Zacharias. For indeed, the voice did not appease the father who had proceeded from silence; but as it had bound his tongue because he did not believe, so it gave back freedom to the father once it had been manifested, for whom it was also announced and he was born. And he is the voice and the lamp of the Word and the forerunner of the light.

LI. ^C For what purpose, moreover, is the mention of the city of David added, if not in order to announce the fulfillment of that which was promised to David by God: that from the fruit of his belly an eternal king would come forth?

APPENDIX TO THE BOOKS OF IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES, CONTAINING FRAGMENTS OF THE GNOSTICS WHOM THE HOLY MARTYR MENTIONS.

FRAGMENTS OF THE COMMENTARIES OF BASILIDES.

Fragment of book XIII. — From the Disputation of Archelaus and Manes, p. 101 et seq.

349 The thirteenth book of his ^D (Basilides's) *Treatises* is extant, the beginning of which is as follows: "As we were writing the thirteenth book of the *Treatises*, a necessary and abundant discourse provided a saving statement. Through the small nature of the rich man and the poor man, coming upon things without root and without place, he indicates whence it grew. But the book contains only this head..." But returning to the matter, Basilides, after inserting more or less five hundred lines, says: "Desist from vain and curious variety; rather, let us seek what even the barbarians have inquired about regarding good and evil, and what they [the Gnostics] gazed at in the light, as if desire for a better thing had been taken up, and they were eager to mingle them." For some of these have said that there are two beginnings of all things, to which they have associated good and evil, saying that the beginnings themselves are without beginning and unbegotten: that is, that in the beginning there was light and darkness, which were from themselves, not things that were said to exist. Since these were by themselves, each of them lived its own life, as it wished and as it suited itself; for to everyone, that which is its own is friendly, and nothing seems evil to itself. But after each reached the realization of the other, and the darkness...

^A

GNOSTIC FRAGMENTS. Fragment of Book XXIII. — From Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book IV, p. 506.

Basilides, in the twenty-third book of his Exegetica, concerning those who are punished for testimony, expresses himself in these very words: "I say, indeed, that whoever falls into the aforementioned afflictions, even if they have unwittingly fallen into other sins, they are led to this good by the kindness of Him who leads them; but they are called to account for a completely different reason, lest they suffer as those condemned for acts which are known to be evil; nor because they have an evil reputation like an adulterer or a murderer, but because they happen to be Christians; a fact which will comfort them ^B so that they need not even appear to suffer. If, however, someone who has not sinned at all happens to fall into suffering—which is indeed rare—even he will not suffer anything from the machinations prepared by the magistrate, but he will suffer just as the infant suffers who is thought to have committed no sin."

Then, continuing below, he adds again: "As, therefore, an infant who has not sinned before, or at least has not committed any sin in act, possesses within itself the potentiality for sinning—when it is subjected to suffering, it is benefited, as one who gains many difficult things—so also, if a perfect man who has perhaps not sinned by act happens to suffer, he has suffered similarly to the infant; having within himself the potentiality for sinning, but not having taken the opportunity to sin, he has not sinned. So that it is not to be reckoned to him that he did not sin. For as he who wishes to commit adultery is an adulterer, even if he does not attain the act of adultery, and he who wishes to commit murder is a murderer, even if he cannot kill; so also, if I see him whom I call sinless suffering, even if he has done nothing evil, I will call him evil for the reason that he wishes to sin. For I would say anything rather than call Providence evil."

Then, continuing below, he speaks directly even of the Lord, as if of a man: ^C "If, however, leaving aside all these arguments, you come to put me to shame by bringing forward specific persons, saying, for instance: 'Such a one sinned, for such a one suffered,' if you allow me, I will say: 'He did not sin, but was like the infant who was suffering.' If, however, you press the argument more vehemently, I will say: 'Whatever man you name, he is a man, but God is just.' For no one is pure from defilement, as someone has said."

Another fragment of Basilides. — From Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book V, Chap. V, Vol. II, p. 530, Basle Edition 1571.

"I," says the Apostle (Paul), "was dead": for it began ^D to be reckoned to me as sin. But Basilides, not perceiving that this ought to be understood of the natural law, dragged the apostolic discourse into foolish and impious fables, attempting to prove from this saying of the Apostle a Pythagorean dogma: that is, that souls are transferred into different bodies. For he said, as the Apostle says, "because I lived at one time without the law": that is, before I came into this body, I lived in that form of body which would not be under the law, namely, of a beast or a bird. But he did not look at what follows, that is: "But when the commandment came, sin revived," etc.

FRAGMENTS OF EPIPHANES. From the book De Justitia, in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III, p. 428 and following.

He (Epiphanes) says in the book De Justitia, that justice...

is a certain communion with equality. ^A Indeed, the heaven is stretched out equally on every side, and encompasses the whole earth in its circuit; and night likewise shows the stars to all. And the sun, the author of day and the father of light, God has poured out from above equally upon the earth for all who are able to see; and all see him in common; for it (the light) does not distinguish the rich, or the poor, or the ruler of the people, the foolish and the wise, females, males, free, slaves; nor does it do otherwise among the brute beasts. But when He has poured out this common light equally from above upon all living things, good and evil alike, ^B He establishes a firm and solid justice, since no one can have more, nor take away from his neighbor, so that he himself might have the latter’s light doubled. The sun causes food to spring up in common for all living things, with common justice equally given to all: and with regard to things of this kind, the race of oxen is the same as the oxen, and that of swine as the swine, and of sheep as the sheep, and all the rest. For in them, communion appears as justice. Then, according to communion, all things are sown alike according to their kind; and common nutriment is permitted to all beasts feeding upon the ground, and to all equally, as it is circumscribed by no law, but justice is present to all in harmony with the bounty of Him who gives and commands. Nor do those things which pertain to generation have a written law—for it would have been abolished—but all sow and generate equally, having an innate communion from justice. The Creator and Father of all, establishing justice by His own will, ^C provided the eye equally to all for seeing, not distinguishing female from male, nor him who is a participant of reason from him who is devoid of reason, and to say it once, no one from another; but distributing the faculty of sight equally and in common, He has granted it to all by one command. But the laws, he says, being unable to punish the ignorance of men, taught them to break the law: for the peculiarity of the laws cut up and eroded the communion of the divine law, not understanding the saying of the Apostle, who says: "Through the law I recognized sin" [*] (Rom. vii, 7). And he says that "mine and thine" entered in through the laws, so that it is no longer permitted for them to use in common those things which are common, namely the earth, ^D possessions, and marriage itself. For He made vines common to all, which reject neither the sparrow nor the thief: and wheat similarly, and other fruits. But the violated communion and equality gave birth to the thief of flocks and fruits. When, therefore, God had made all things common for man, and had joined female with male in common, and had bound together all living things in like manner, He demonstrated that justice is communion with equality. But those who were born thus have denied their origin, by which communion is brought about. And he says: "If one has taken a wife, let him have her; since all can be in common, as He has shown the rest of the animals." Having said these things word for word, he again adds in these very words: "For He instilled into the males a desire, vigorous and intense, for the preservation of their kind, which neither law, nor custom, nor anything else of existing things can destroy; for it is God's decree."

*And a little later, page 430.*

^A Those who fight against God, whether Carpocrates or Epiphanes, in that highly celebrated book of his, *On Justice*, say, just as Epiphanes says verbatim: "As if it were ridiculous for the lawgiver to have said this command, 'You shall not covet,' to say, more ridiculously, 'your neighbor's [wife],' for he who gives the desire, as one that sustains the things of generation, commands it to be taken away, removing it from no animal. And that [command] concerning the neighbor's wife, by compelling [her] to a private communion, is even more ridiculous." And these things, indeed, the noble Carpocratians dogmatize.

FRAGMENTS OF ISIDORUS

*From the book On the Adnate Soul, in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book II, page 409.*

^B Isidorus, the son of Basilides, in his book *On the Adnate Soul*, agreeing with the doctrine, as if accusing himself, writes verbatim: "For if you persuade someone that the soul is not simple, but that it becomes the victim of the passions of worse things through the violence of its attachments, the wicked of men will have no small pretext for saying: 'I was compelled, I was led astray, I did it against my will, I acted without wishing to,' by accusing the desire of evils itself, and not fighting against the violence of the attachments. But it is necessary, having become stronger by the rational part, that we be found to be masters of the lesser creation within us."

*From the Morals of Isidorus, in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III, page 427.*

^C Patiently endure, he says, in these words, Isidorus in *Morals*, a disobedient wife, that you may not lose the grace of God; and when you have cast out with the seed of lust the flame, you may pray with a good conscience. When, however, he says, your thanksgiving begins to decline into petition, and you have already prayed not so much that you may act rightly, as that you may not fall, marry a wife. But if someone is young, or poor, or in ill health, and does not want to marry according to reason, let him not be separated from the brotherhood, saying: "I have entered into the holy things, I can suffer nothing." But if he has a suspicion about himself, let him say: "Brother, lay your hand upon me, that I may not sin," and he will receive help, both that which can be perceived by the mind, and that which is sensible. Let him only wish to perform what is good, and he will obtain his desire. Sometimes, however, we say with our mouth: "We do not wish to sin," but our thought is entangled in sin. One who is of such a kind, on account of fear does not do what he wishes, so that punishment may not be brought upon him. Human nature, however, has certain things that are necessary, and certain things that are only natural: that one be clothed, this is necessary and natural; the sexual act, however, is natural, but not necessary.

*From Book I and II of the Exegesis of the Prophet Parchor, in Clement, Stromata, Book VI, page 641 and following.*

^D Isidorus, son of Basilides and disciple, in the first book of the *Exegesis of the Prophet Parchor*, also writes verbatim: "The Attics say..."

that something was signified to Socrates by the demon that accompanied him." Aristotle also says that all men use demons that accompany them from the time they put on a body. Having received this teaching from the prophets and having put it into his own books, he nevertheless does not confess whence he had received this doctrine. And again, in the second book of the same work, he writes thus: "And let no one think that what we say is the property of the elect was predicted by some philosophers; for this is not their invention, but having taken it from the prophets, they attributed it to him whom they do not consider wise." And again in the same: "Indeed, it seems to me that those who claim to pursue philosophy, in order to learn what the winged oak is ^A and the speckled cloak upon it, and all the things that Pherecydes allegorized while discoursing on divine matters, ought to learn that he drew them from the prophecy of Ham."

FRAGMENTS OF VALENTINUS

Valentinus also seems in a certain epistle to have apprehended such matters in his mind; for he writes in these very words: "And just as fear existed among the angels at that creation, when it uttered things greater than what was appropriate for the creation, because of Him who had invisibly placed in it the seed of the substance from above, and acting with boldness: so also in the generations of worldly men, the works of men caused fear to their authors, such as statues and images, and all that hands fashion in the name of God. For Adam, having been fashioned in the name of man, ^B caused fear to the pre-existing man, as though he himself were constituted within him; and they were struck with amazement, and quickly caused the work to disappear."

From the same, Book II of the *Stromata*, page 409.

Furthermore, Valentinus writes to some in these words concerning the appendages: "There is one good, whose presence the manifestation that takes place through the Son exhibits. And through Him alone can the heart become clean, with every evil spirit cast out from the heart. For many spirits dwelling in it do not allow it to be clean; but each of them performs its own works, often insulting it with improper desires. And it seems to me that the heart suffers something similar to an inn; for that too is pierced and dug through, ^C and is often filled with dung, for men dwell in it indecently and take no care at all of the place, as though it were another's. In the same way the heart also, so long as no care is taken of it, is unclean, and is a dwelling-place of many demons. But after the only good Father has visited it, it is sanctified, and shines with light; and thus he who has such a heart is blessed, because he shall see God." ^D

^A Valentinus, in his letter to Agathopus, says: "Having endured all things, he was continent; Jesus acquired divinity for himself. He ate and drank in a peculiar manner, not giving back his food. So great was the power of continence in him, that even the food within him was not corrupted, since he himself was not subject to corruption."

Fragments of the Homilies of Valentinus from Clement of Alexandria, Book IV Stromat., p. 509.

Valentinus writes in a certain homily in these words: "From the beginning you are immortal, and you are children of eternal life. And you desired to distribute death among yourselves, so that you might consume and abolish it, and that death might die in you and through you. For when you dissolve the world, and you yourselves are not dissolved, you have dominion over the creation and over all corruption."

And a little after.

Pag. 641.

Jam vero ^C And now, the leader of those who advocate communion, Valentinus, writes in his homily concerning friends, word for word: "Many of the things that are written in public books are found written in the Church of God. For these, which proceed from the heart, are the empty words; the Law written in the heart—this is the people of the Beloved, who is loved and who loves Him."

A dissertation by Valentinus, On the Origin of Evil, recognized and emended by the noble Grabe from two Bodleian library manuscripts, 2040 and 2584, Spicileg. hæret. Sec. II, pag. 55. From the Dialogue against the Marcionites, ascribed to Origen, sect. 4, at the beginning.

Thinking that I was doing well, I withdrew to my own house. But on the following day, that is today, having come, I saw two kinsmen—I mean people—contending and abusing one another, one against the other; and yet again each was attempting to bloody and slaughter his own neighbor. Indeed, some were even starting to dare things more terrible than these; for one was harassing a dead man, and was exposing to the sun again the body already buried in the earth, and was insulting the image like himself in such a way that he left the dead man as food for dogs. Then, unsheathing his sword, he rushed upon the other man, who was like himself. And while the one sought to provide for his own safety by flight, the other did not cease from pursuing, nor did he wish to restrain his anger. And why need I relate more—

he rushed upon him and immediately struck him with his sword. The suppliant stood near his neighbor, stretching out his hands in entreaty, willing to give up his garment, requesting only that his life be spared. But the other did not break his anger, nor was he touched with pity for his kinsman; nor did he wish to behold himself in the image of the other, but like a wild beast he began to devour him with his sword; and soon he brought his own body to the level of the other’s, so great was his rage. For it was possible to see the one wronged, and the other despoiling ^A the rest, and not even covering the body with earth, but stripping it naked of its clothing. Besides this, another approached who wished to deceive his neighbor’s wife, lying in wait for another’s marriage bed, and urged him who had married the wife to invade an illicit bed, not wishing to become a lawful father. ^B From this point I began to believe in tragedies, and this is the reason why they seemed to me to be truly enacted. I believe also in the drunken desire of Oenomaus, and I do not think the contention of brothers with the sword to be incredible. Being, therefore, a spectator of so many and such things, I began to inquire whence these things originated; what was the beginning of their movement? And who was it that devised so many things against men? Whence was the discovery of them? And who was their teacher? To call God the creator of these things, I was not able to venture.

^C But neither did I judge that they had their substance or the consistency of their essence from Him. For how could such things be thought concerning God? For He is good and is the creator of the best things; but there is nothing of base things in Him; nor is it natural for Him to rejoice in such things, but He forbids their generation; and those who rejoice in these things He casts away, but those who flee from them He receives. And how is it not absurd to call God the maker of these things, when He rejects them? For He would not have wished them not to be, if He Himself were their primary author and creator. For He wishes those who come to Him to become His imitators. Wherefore it seemed to me contrary to all reason to attribute these things to Him; either as if they were made by Him, or ^D (even if I should grant it is possible for something to be made from things that are not) that He Himself also created evils. For He who had made those things to have being out of what is not, would by no means take them away again from being so that they should not exist; or, if this must necessarily be said, as if there were once a time when God delighted in evils; but now, to say this concerning God—which seems to me to be impossible—is to attribute to Him that which is alien to His divine nature.

Wherefore it seemed to me that there coexists with Him that which is named Matter: from which He created the things that are, distinguishing them with wise skill and adorning them beautifully; from which also evils seem to exist. For since it was neither made nor formed, and furthermore was also carried about in a disordered way, and stood in need of God’s skill—He, not being envious,

did not begrudge it, nor did He wish it to be left forever to be carried about so, but applied His hand to the creation, and wished to distinguish the most beautiful parts from the worst: and accordingly He built it thus. Whatever things in it, while He was creating, were dreggy, these, because they were unfit for the workmanship, He left as they were, since they were in no way convenient to Him. From which, as it seems to me, evils now flow into men.

FRAGMENT OF A CERTAIN VALENTINIAN BOOK

These things are for the wise. But for the animal, for the carnal, for the worldly, and for those of an exaggerated soul, is the Nous that never ceases, [bringing] salvation to the perpetual and never-ceasing. Indeed, I shall make mention to you of those things which can neither be named nor explained by speech, which are even superior to the celestial beings themselves: which neither Principalities, nor Powers, nor those things subject to them, nor anything else can attain by intelligence, and which are revealed only to the knowledge of Him who is Immutable. For in the beginning of all things, when He who is Father through Himself contained all things in Himself, obscure and unknown (whom some call the Aeon lacking old age, always young, male-female, who always contains all things and is not contained by anything): ^B then that Nous which was in Him willed (for some call it Nous, others by its proper name Grace, because it expended the treasures of the Greatness upon those who were from the Greatness; but it is better called Silence by others, since the Greatness perfected all things by thought alone without the use of speech); 356 therefore, as I said, this incorrupt female from the number of the Aeons, wishing to free herself from bonds, swayed the Greatness with the enticements of desire toward familiarity with herself. From whom the Father of Truth was procreated, whom those who are perfect call properly the Man, because he reflects the likeness of Him who is prior and unbegotten by any. Then Sige, producing a natural unity of light with the Man (the conjunction of whom was perfected by will alone), brought forth Truth, who is deservedly called by that name by the perfect, because she was in reality similar to her Mother Sige; ^C who, from the divisions of the lights, both male and female, wished the [result] to be equal: so that the lights expressed to the senses might be dispersed, and through those very things, and in them, might reveal themselves to those who are from Him and in Him. Afterward, Truth, bringing forth her maternal Prunicus, drew her parent toward love of herself. Wherefore both were mingled in an incorruptible coupling and a never-aging conjunction. Whence a spiritual quaternion of males and females proceeded, similar to the other prior one, which consisted of these four: Bythos, Sige, Father, and Truth. But that subsequent one, produced from the Father and Sige, is this: Man, Ecclesia, Logos, Vita. Then, by the will of the Bythos who contains all things, ^D the Man and the Ecclesia, mindful of the words of the Father, came together, and reveal a Dodecad of Prounici, male and female. The males, therefore, are: Paraclete, Patricos, Metricus, Ainous, Theletos, which is Light, and Ecclesiasticus. The females are: Pistis, Elpis, Agape, Synesis, Macaria, Sophia. Afterward, Logos and Vita, and

these same ones, performing also the task of praise, were associated with one another. This association, indeed, was accomplished by will alone. Therefore, having mingled among themselves, they brought forth a Decad of Prunicus, consisting equally of males and females. The males of this ^A are: Bythius, Ageratus, Autophyes, Unigena, Immobilis. These bestowed upon themselves the appellation pertaining to the glory of Him who contains all things. The females are: Mistio, Unio, Temperatio, Unitas, Voluptas; these likewise usurped terms pertaining to the honor of Sige.

When, therefore, the Tricenarius of the parent of Truth was perfected in this manner (which earthly men count, and when they arrive at it, finding no further number, they recount it again in circular fashion. It is as follows: Bythus, Sige, Pater, Veritas, Homo, Ecclesia, Sermo, Vita, Paternus, Maternus, Paracletus, Ainous, Theletus, Ecclesiasticus, Fides, Spes, Charitas, Intelligentia, Fortunata, Sapientia, Bythius, Ageratus, Autophyes, Unigena, Immobilis, Mistio, Cognitio, Temperatio, Unitas, Voluptas), then He who contains all things by a wisdom that is beyond compare, having decreed that another Ogdoad be called [so] in place of the prior and primary Ogdoad—which remains in the number of the Tricenarius (for the spirit of [the] Greatness did not permit itself to be constrained by any number)—substituted other males in place of the males, [namely] the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh; and as many females, [namely] Dyad, Tetrad, Hexad, Octonary. This, therefore, is the Ogdoad which transferred to itself the name of the superior Ogdoad: of Bythus, of Pater, of Homo, of Logos, and of Sige, of Veritas, of Ecclesia, of Vita. This [Ogdoad] was united to the lights, and the Tricenarius became perfected, and the prior Ogdoad was resting, when Bythus departed from the Greatness ^B to be united by a support to the Tricenarius; this was [it]. For in truth, both the Father of Truth came together with the Ecclesia, and the Maternus had Vita, and the Paracletus had the Unitas, and the Unitas was united to the Father of Truth, and the Father of Truth was with Sige. But the spiritual Sermo communed with the Spirit, and by an incorrupt mingling, producing the end of the Automytor, brought about his own unceasing and uninterrupted rest.

Wherefore, when the Tricenarius had fulfilled those profound mysteries, that is, the marriages among the incorrupt, it brought forth likewise incorrupt lights, which are called sons of the Unitas, and which were devoid of form. They lay, therefore, almost destitute of all intelligence, and dwelt without any notion of mind. For whatever is done by anyone, unless he understands it universally, nothing is done by him. In this manner, with the lights having been procreated—the multitude of which it is not necessary to recount by numbering, but it is necessary to comprehend by the mind (for the world [omitted part of source text]) ^{C D}

^A and everything that belongs to it has been woven together from the same substances). And its intellectual will was the Holy Spirit, who is in the midst of the holy Churches. Having, therefore, sent this ^B into the second Ogdoad, it persuaded it also to be united with it. A marriage, therefore, was being consummated in the parts of the Ogdoad, the Holy Spirit being united to the Monad, and the Dyad to the Third, and the Third to the Hexad, and the Ogdoad to the Seventh, and the Seventh to the Dyad, and the Hexad to the Fifth. The whole Ogdoad came together with joy and an ageless and incorruptible union. For there was no separation from one another; but there was a commingling with undefiled joy, and it (the Gnostic system) revealed a Pentad of undefiled Prunicus, whose names are these: Carpistes, Horothetes, Charisterios, Aphetus, Metagogeus; these were named the sons of the Mediety. But I wish you to know Ampsu, Auran, Cucua, Thardou, Ubouchoua, Thardedin, ^B Merexa, Atar, Barba, Udouka, Kesten, Odouach, Eslen, Amphe, Naisoumen, Ouananin, Lametarde, Athamessoumen, Allora, Coubiatha, Naddaria, Damma, Oren, Lanaphek, Oudankhech, Enphoithibhoche, Barra, Assionach, Belim, Dexarichem, Masem.

PTOLEMAEUS TO FLORA

The law imparted through Moses, my good sister Flora, because many have not grasped it, ^C neither knowing its foundation nor its ordinances accurately, I think it will be easy for you also to understand, once you have learned the conflicting opinions concerning it. For some say that it was ordained by God and the Father. Others, however, taking the opposite path to these, assert that it was set down by the adversary, the destructive devil, to whom they also attribute the creation of the world, calling him Father and Maker. But in this, they have erred from the whole of the truth, having handed this down to one another, and both of them falling short of the truth lying before them among themselves; for it does not appear that it was set down by the perfect God and Father (for it is consequent [to something else], being imperfect, and lacking in its own fulfillment, ^D and containing commandments alien to the nature and mind of such a God); nor again, on the other hand, is it right to attribute the law to the injustice of the adversary, if one considers the things hereafter and what has been spoken by the Savior. For "a house or a city divided against itself cannot stand," our Savior declared. Furthermore, he says that the creation of the world is his own, inasmuch as "all things were made through him, and without him not one thing was made," the Apostle having anticipated and refuted the groundless wisdom of the liars, and not of some destructive God, but...

^A of God, who is just and the enemy of all wickedness. But such are the judgments of reckless men, neither understanding the causes of the Creator’s providence, nor appearing to be held captive with the eyes not only of the soul, but also of the body. How greatly, therefore, they depart from the truth, you may know abundantly from what has been said. But each of them has fallen into this specifically: the former because they are ignorant of the God of justice, the latter because they are ignorant of the Father of all, whom He alone, having come, who alone knows Him, has revealed. It remains for us, having been deemed worthy of the knowledge of both, to disclose and make accurate for you both the law itself—of what sort it is—and the lawgiver by whom it was established, setting forth the proofs for you from the words of our Savior, through whom alone it is possible to be guided without stumbling to the perception of things that are.

Of the just and enemy-of-wickedness God

First, then, one must learn that the whole of that law which is contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not legislated by one being—I mean, not by God alone—but there are some commands among them that were set down also by men; and the words of the Savior teach us that this law is divided in three ways. ^B For it is divided into that which relates to God Himself and His legislation; and it is divided into that which relates to Moses—not as though God was legislating through him, but as Moses himself, being moved by his own understanding, legislated certain things; and it is divided into the Elders of the people, and they are found to be the first to have inserted certain precepts of their own. How this, being so, is shown from the words of the Savior, you shall learn now. For the Savior, discoursing somewhere to those who were disputing with Him about the writ of divorce—which was permitted by the permission of the law—spoke to them thus: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives. But from the beginning it was not so." For God, he says, joined this union together. And: "What God has joined together," he said, "let no man put asunder." Here he points out one law, that of God, which forbids a wife to be separated from her husband, and another, that of Moses, which allows this couple to be separated on account of the hardness of the heart. And indeed, in this, Moses legislates in opposition to God; for it is contrary to [the command] not to divorce. If, however, we should also examine the mind of Moses, by which he legislated this, it will be found that he did not do this by his own choosing, but by necessity, on account of the weakness of those for whom he was legislating. ^C For since they were unable to keep the counsel of God—in that it was not permitted for them to cast out their wives, with whom they lived unpleasantly, and they were in danger, from this, of turning more to injustice, and from this to destruction—Moses, wishing to cut away this unpleasantness of theirs, through which they were even in danger of perishing, legislated for them a second law, as a lesser evil substituted by circumstance in place of a greater—the law of divorce—by his own authority; so that, if ^D they were unable to keep that [previous] one, even this one...

^A they might retain, and not turn aside into debaucheries and crimes, through which a most complete destruction was about to follow for them. Such was his intention, according to which he is found to be legislating in opposition to God. But that another law, besides that of God, is demonstrated here to be of Moses himself, is beyond controversy, even if we have pointed this out now by only one example. And that there are also traditions of the elders intermingled in the law, this the Saviour also indicates. For God, he says, said, Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you. But you, he says, addressing the elders, have said: It is a gift to God, whatever benefit you might have received from me; and you have made void the law of God for the sake of the tradition of your elders. This ^B Isaiah proclaimed, saying: This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines, the commandments of men. Clearly, then, from these things, that entire law is shown to be divided into three parts. For we have found in it the legislation of Moses himself, and of the elders, and of God Himself. This, then, is the division of that whole law, divided thus for us, which has revealed the truth within it.

Again, the one part, the law of God Himself, is divided into three things: into the pure legislation, ^C unmingled with evil, which is also properly called law, which the Saviour did not come to abolish, but to fulfil. For that which he fulfilled was not alien to him, since it did not have the perfect. And into that which is mingled with the worse, and with injustice, which the Saviour abolished, being innate to its own nature. And it is also divided into the typical, and the symbolic, that which was legislated according to the image of those things that differ; which the Saviour transferred from the sensible and apparent to the spiritual and invisible. And the law of God that is pure and unmingled with the worse is indeed that Decalogue, those ten words, those which are divided into the two tables, both for the abolition of things that should not be spoken and for the command of things that should be done, which, although they had the legislation pure, ^D not having the perfect, stood in need of the fulfilment by the Saviour. And that which is mingled with injustice, this is that which was laid down according to the retribution and repayment of those who had previously offended, commanding an eye to be cut out for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and to seek vengeance for a murder with a murder. For none the less does the second one act unjustly, only changing in order, doing the same act. Yet this command was and is otherwise just, because of the weakness of those who were legislated for, having being placed in a digression from the pure law; but it is alien to the nature and goodness of the Father of all; perhaps this is appropriate, but it was rather a necessity. For he who, not wishing even that one murder be committed, by saying, You shall not kill, commanded that the murderer be killed in return, legislating a second law, and rewarding with two what he had forbidden as one, he unknowingly

stumbled under necessity. And therefore the Son, sent by Him, abolished that part of the law, although He also confessed that it was given by God. ^A And among other things, those words which God decreed also pertain to the ancient heresy: *Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death.*[*] But to that kind which is called "typical," everything belongs which contains the figures of spiritual and excellent things; of this sort are the ceremonies of offering sacrifices, circumcision, the Sabbath, fasting, the Passover, unleavened bread, and other such things prescribed by the law. Since all these were nothing else but figures and images, once the truth was revealed, they were translated; or rather, as far as the external species and bodily use are concerned, they were abolished, but they have been retained in a certain spiritual sense. For while the same names still remain, a change in the things themselves has occurred. For the Lord indeed commanded us to offer sacrifices; but not those of irrational animals or those kinds of incense: rather, of spiritual praise, and preaching, and thanksgiving; and then, of liberality and beneficence toward the human race. He likewise commands that we be circumcised, not of the body, but of the foreskin of the heart and mind. And that the Sabbath be kept, in that He wishes us to rest from evil works. Furthermore, when He commands us to fast, He does not wish us to fast that bodily fast, but the spiritual one, in which there is an abstinence from all evil things. The fast according to external appearance is kept, however, among our people, since it is able to contribute something to the soul when it is done with reason; whenever it is not done for the sake of imitating anyone, nor for custom, nor for the day, as if this were a day chosen for it; but at the same time also for the remembrance of the true fast, so that those who are not yet able to fast in that way may, being reminded by the exterior fast, remember the other. ^B Similarly, that the Passover and the unleavened bread were certain figures, Paul the Apostle himself declares: *Our Passover,* he says, *Christ has been sacrificed,* and: *That you may be,* he says, *unleavened, not having leaven* (for by leaven he now means malice), *but are a new lump.*

So, therefore, the Law itself, which all confess to have proceeded from God, is divided in a threefold way: into that part which the Savior fulfilled. For all these: *You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not perjure yourself*; are contained in these words: *You shall not be angry, you shall not covet.* And into that which is entirely abolished. For those precepts: *An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth*; since they are mixed with injustice, and carry with them something of it, they are abrogated by the Savior through contrary laws: for contrary things destroy one another. *For I say to you,* He says, *not to resist the evil one entirely; but if someone should strike you on the cheek, offer him the other also.* Which indeed, with respect to the imaging forth of excellent things, is established and, being translated and changed from bodily to spiritual things, is expounded through allegory.

For images and symbols ^A served to declare other things ^B only so long as the truth had not yet shone forth. But when the truth has arrived, it is fitting to perform the things of the truth, not the things of the image. This, both His disciples and the Apostle Paul have shown: the one concerning images, as we have already said, he demonstrated through the Passover and the Unleavened Bread for our sake; the other, concerning the law entangled with injustice, he speaks of, when he says the law of commandments in ordinances was abolished; ^C and ^D the third, which is free from what is worse, he says: "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

Wherefore I think it has briefly been shown to you sufficiently, that the laws which crept in by the authority of men have been declared, and that the very law of God is divided into three parts. It remains to say who this God is who established the law. But I think this too has been demonstrated to you from what has been argued thus far, if you have listened attentively. For if this law was neither established by the perfect God Himself, as we have taught, nor indeed by the devil (which it is even impious to say), then this one who established the law must be someone else besides these. ^B And this one is the creator and maker of this whole world, and of the things in it, being of a different nature from these, and standing in the midst of them, and he may justly have the name of "the middle." And if the perfect God is good according to His own nature, as indeed He is (for our Savior declared that there is only one good God, His own Father, whom He Himself revealed), and there is also one who is evil and wicked of the opposite nature, characterized by injustice; then, standing in the middle of these, and being neither good nor evil, nor unjust, he might specifically be called "just," being the dispenser of the justice that belongs to him. And this God will be ^C inferior to the perfect God, and less than His justice, inasmuch as he is created and not unbegotten. For the Father is one, unbegotten, from whom are all things, and all things depend on Him. But he will be greater and more powerful than the adversary, having a nature and essence different from the essence of either of these. For the essence of the adversary is corruption and darkness—for he is material and manifold—whereas the essence of the Father of all, the Unbegotten, is incorruption and light itself, one, simple, and uniform. ^D Now their essence brought forth a twofold power, and he himself is an image of the better one. And do not let this now trouble you, desiring as you do to learn how, from one Principle of all that is—which we confess and believe to be unbegotten, incorruptible, and good—these natures also came into existence, namely, that of corruption and that of the middle state, these being of a different essence; since it belongs to the nature of the good to beget and bring forth things similar to itself and of the same essence. For you shall learn, God granting, the beginning and genesis of this one hereafter, being deemed worthy of the apostolic tradition, which by succession we also—

^A have received; and moreover, by bringing all things into conformity with the Savior's teaching. These things, my sister Flora, spoken to you in few words, have not grown weak, and I have prefaced the rule of brevity; at the same time I have sufficiently set forth what was proposed. And this will contribute to your future progress in the greatest matters, if indeed, like good and fertile soil, having received the fertile seeds, you show forth the fruit through them. ^B

FRAGMENTA HERACLEONIS

Fragments of Heracleon's Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Luke, from Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book IV, p. 502.

Exponounding this passage, Heracleon, who was held in the highest esteem in the school of Valentinus, says in these words: "There is one confession, that which is in faith and conduct, and another by voice. The confession by voice is indeed made even before the authorities; which alone, he says, the many suppose to be confession, not ^B rightly; for even hypocrites can make this confession. But neither will this discourse, taken generally, be found true. For not all who are saved have used that confession which is made by voice, and departed—of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others. It follows that the confession which is made by voice is not universal, but particular; but the general one, of which the Savior now speaks, is that which is made by deeds and actions corresponding to the faith in him. This confession is followed also by the particular one, which is made before the authorities, if there be need and if the word suggests it. For he will correctly confess also with the voice, having first confessed ^C with his disposition. And well, concerning those who confess, he said, 'in me,' but concerning those who deny, he added simply 'me.' For these, even if they confess him with the voice, deny him by not confessing him in their actions. But only those confess in him who live in the confession and action which is in him; in whom he also confesses, being contained by them and held by them. Wherefore he can never deny himself. But they deny him who are not in him. For he did not say 'whoever shall deny in me,' but 'me'; for no one who is ever in him denies him. But 'before men' is understood of the confession which is made before those who are saved, ^D just as before the gentiles; among some indeed by conduct, but among others also by voice. Wherefore they can never deny him; but they deny him who are not in him."

From the Prophetic Eclogues of Clement of Alexandria, before the middle, p. 202, of the New Supplement to the Library of the Fathers by Combefis.

"But some, as Heracleon says, marked with fire the ears of those who received the seal of baptism, thus understanding the Apostolic saying."

Fragments of the Commentary of Heracleon on the Gospel of St. John, from the Tomes of Origen on the said Gospel. Revised and corrected by the celebrated Grabe from the MS codices of the Bodleian Library, *Spicileg. hæret.*, century II, page 85 et seqq. — From Tome II, page 60.

I think Heracleon, who is said to be an associate of Valentinus, ^A explains the saying, "All things were made by him," in a strained manner, and without citing any witness, interprets it as referring to the whole world and what is in it; and by the word "all," according to his hypothesis, he has excluded those things that are in the world and the things pertaining to those in it. For he says that neither the aeon nor the things in the aeon were made through the Word, since he thinks they existed before the Word. And standing even more impudently against the words, "And without him was made not even one thing" (not fearing the saying, "Add not to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar"), he adds to "not even one thing," "of those in the world and in the creation." And because it is manifest that what he says is extremely strained and contradictory to the power of what is proclaimed—if the things he considers divine are excluded from "all," and those which, as he thinks, are entirely corruptible, are properly called "all"—we must not delay in refuting these things which appear absurd by themselves. Such is the assertion he makes when the Scripture says: "And without him was made not even one thing," and he adds, without the authority of Scripture, "of those that are in the world and in the creation"; a statement he makes without any probability and yet thinks himself worthy to be believed just like the prophets ^B or the Apostles, who with authority and irrefutably left behind saving writings for those of their own time and those after them. Furthermore, he has interpreted the words, "All things were made by him," in a peculiar way, saying that it was the Word that provided the cause for the creation of the world to the Creator, taking the "by whom" not as "from whom" or "under whom," but as the one "by whom"—interpreting the written word according to the common manner of speaking. For if the truth of the matters were as he thinks, it should have been written that all things were made through the Word by the Creator, and not conversely, through the Word under the Creator. And we, indeed, by using "by whom" in accordance with common usage, have not left our interpretation without witness; but he, in order not to rely on valid support from the divine Scriptures for his own opinion, appears both to have suspected the truth and yet impudently looked ^C against it. For he says that the Word did not act as if someone else were working (so that "by him" might be understood as "through him"), but that when the Word was working, someone else was doing the acting.

From Tome III, page 68.

But Heracleon, coming to this passage in a very strained manner, interprets "That which was made, in him was life," ^D as referring to the spiritual humans: as if he supposed the Word and the spiritual humans to be the same thing, although he has not said this clearly. And as if providing the cause, he says: For he himself provided them the first formation, the one according to generation, leading and showing them to be his own, having brought them to form, and to illumination, and to his own proper designation, those things which had been neglected by another for form.

^A Heracleon does not rightly suspect that those words, *No man hath seen God at any time*, and what follows, were said not by the disciple, but by the Baptist.

^B Heracleon, speaking more reproachfully concerning John and the prophets, says that the Word is the Saviour; that by "the voice" is understood John; and that the "sound" is the entire order of the prophets. I know not how he asserts, without any proof, that the voice, being nearer to the Word, becomes the Word, as if a woman were changed into a man. Furthermore, as if possessing the power to establish dogmas, and to acquire faith for himself, and to progress, he says: "It shall be that sound shall be changed into voice," setting the voice that passes into the Word in the place of the disciple, and in place of the servant, the sound that passes into the voice.

And after a few words: Furthermore, when the Saviour calls him a prophet and Elias, he says, He does not declare him to be the one, but the things that are about him; but when [he calls him] greater than the prophets, and than those born of women, then he distinguishes John himself. And John himself, says he, being asked about himself, answers, not concerning the things which are about him.

^C And page 117. Heracleon, approving the saying of the Pharisees as rightly spoken, that Christ, and Elias, and every prophet ought to baptize, says in these very words: "To whom alone it pertains to baptize."

Beginning of tom. VIII, page 122. Indeed, Heracleon thinks that John answers those who had been sent by the Pharisees according to what he himself wished, not to that which they had asked; not noticing that he accuses the prophet of ignorance, if, being asked one thing, he answers another.

And page 129 et seqq. Heracleon interprets "There stands one in the midst of you" as: ^D "He is already present, and is in the world, and among men, and is already visible to you all." It is not without reason said by him that the words, *He who comes after me*, declare that John is the forerunner of Christ; for truly, just as a servant runs before the Lord, so [does he]. But he interpreted those words, *I am not worthy that I should unloose his shoe-latchet*, much more simply; as though the Baptist confesses in these words that he is not even worthy to perform the lowliest services for Christ. Yet, after this exposition, he has added, quite plausibly: "I am not fit that for my sake he should descend from"

magnitude, and receive flesh, like a sandal, of which I am unable to render an account, or to narrate, or to solve the dispensation concerning it. ^A But the same Heracleon, more boldly and magniloquently, taking the "sandal" to be the world, shifted to a more impious assertion, that all these things must also be heard regarding the person understood through John; for he imagines that the Creator of the world, being inferior to Christ, confesses this through these words, which is the most impious thing of all. For the Father who sent him, the God of the living, as Jesus himself testifies, of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, and for this reason the Lord of heaven and of earth, because He has made them, this One is both alone good and greater than the one sent. But even if, as we have previously stated, it has been understood more boldly, and the whole world is, for Heracleon, the sandal of Jesus, yet I do not think one ought to agree with him.

^B Coming to this passage, Heracleon, without any proofs or comparison of testimonies, declares that "Agnus Dei," as a prophet, John says; but "The one taking away the sin of the world," as more than a prophet. And he thinks the former is said concerning his body, but the latter concerning the one who is in the body, because the lamb is imperfect in the genus of sheep; and thus also is the body by comparison to the one dwelling in it. But if he wished, he says, to attribute perfection to the body, he would have called the one about to be sacrificed a "ram."

Heracleon indeed, himself explaining "After this he went down to Capharnaum," says that the beginning of another dispensation is indicated, the word "went down" not being spoken in vain. And he says that Capharnaum signifies these extremities of the world, these material things, to which he went down; and because the place was unsuitable, he says, it is not said that he either did or spoke anything in it.

^C Heracleon says: "This is the great feast," for it was a type of the passion of the Savior, because not only was the sheep being slaughtered, but when eaten it also provided rest. And in being sacrificed, it signified the passion of the Savior which is in the world; but in being eaten, the rest that is in the marriage.

^D Let us look at the words of Heracleon, who says that the "ascent to Jerusalem" signifies the ascent from material things to the psychic place, being an image of Jerusalem, the ascent of the Lord. And he does not think that "he found in the temple" is said concerning the realms above, so that we might not understand the calling to be alone, [the one] without the Spirit, [as being] aided by the Lord. For he considers the temple

to be the Holy of Holies, into which only the high priest entered, and thither I think he says the spiritual [men] go; but the vestibule, where also the Levites were, he considers to be a symbol of the psychical [men] who are outside the Pleroma, yet are found in salvation. ^A In addition to this, he explains that those found in the temple selling oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the money-changers sitting there, are spoken of in contrast to those who do not give anything by grace, but think that the entry of strangers into the temple is a matter of trade and gain, supplying sacrifices for the worship of God for the sake of their own profit and avarice. Further, he explains in his own way that the scourge which Jesus made from cords, not taking it from anyone else, is an image of the power and operation of the Holy Spirit, driving out the evil ones. And he asserts that the scourge, the flax, the linen, and other such things are an image of the power and operation of the Holy Spirit. ^B Afterward, he adds to this something that is not written, namely that the scourge was bound to a piece of wood; and interpreting this wood as a figure of the cross, he says that by this wood the gamblers, merchants, and all malice were consumed and destroyed. I do not know how he can trifingly say that the scourge was prepared from these two things, investigating what was done by Jesus: for he says that he did not make it out of dead skin, so that he might make the Church no longer a den of thieves and merchants, but the house of his Father.

*And at the very end of Volume XI, page 183.*

Heracleon thinks that the saying, "The zeal of thy house has eaten me up," ^C is spoken from the perspective of the powers that were cast out and consumed by the Saviour, not being able to preserve the sequence of the prophecy in the psalm. For if these things are understood to be said from the perspective of the cast-out and consumed powers, it follows, according to his opinion, that those words in the same psalm are also spoken of them: "They gave me gall in my meat." But, as is likely, the word "ate" troubled him, as if it could not be said by Christ, [he] not seeing the custom of the Scriptures, which attribute human affections to God and Christ.

*From Volume XII, page 187.*

Heracleon says "in three" instead of "on the third [day]," ^D without investigating (although he noted the word "three") how the resurrection is accomplished in three days. And furthermore, he calls the third day the spiritual [day], in which they think the Church's resurrection is signified. It follows from this that he calls the first day the earthly one, and the second the animal [or psychical] one, the Church's resurrection not having taken place in them.

*And a little later, page 189.*

Heracleon, not even having examined the history, says

that Solomon built the temple in forty-six years, representing an image of the Savior. He refers the number six to matter, that is to say the plasma; but the number forty (for he says the quaternary is a number that is not entangled) to the breath, and the seed which is in the breath.

From volume XIII, page 205 et seqq.

^B Let us see also the statements of Heracleon upon this passage, who says that that spring was weak, and temporary, and a failing life, and glory according to it; for it was worldly, he says: and he thinks he is offering proof that the worldly life is signified by the spring, because the flocks of Jacob drank from it. And if indeed he had received that weak, and temporary, and failing knowledge, which is in part—namely, that knowledge which comes from the Scriptures by the comparison of ineffable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter, all the knowledge which now comes through a glass and in a riddle, which shall be done away when that which is perfect comes—we would by no means have blamed that. But if he does this in order to disparage the things of old, he would deserve blame. ^C But what he says, that the water which the Savior gives is from the Spirit and from His power, he speaks truly. And concerning "He shall not thirst forever," he has interpreted it in these words, saying: Eternal is His life, and never corrupting, as indeed that first water which is from the well, but remaining; for the gift and grace of our Savior is inseparable, and not consumed, nor corrupted in him who has become a partaker of it. But when he supposed the first life to be corruptible, if indeed he spoke of that which is according to the letter, seeking that which arises from the removing of the veil, and which is according to the Spirit, and finding it, he would have spoken rightly. But if he accuses the ancients of being wholly corrupt, it is clear that he does this as one who does not see that those goods have the shadow of things to come. ^D Not without persuasiveness, however, did he expound the "leaping up," and those who receive abundantly of that which is given from above, that they themselves also pour out onto the eternal life of others the things which were given to them. But he also praises the Samaritan woman, as having shown a faith which was undistracted and appropriate to her own nature, not being swayed by the things He was saying to her. If, therefore, he accepted her choice, hinting nothing about nature as though it were different, we also would have agreed; but if he refers the cause of her assent to natural constitution, as though it were not present to all, his argument must be overturned. I do not know, however, how Heracleon, taking up that which is not written, says concerning, "Give me this water," that, having been briefly stimulated by the Word, she henceforth hated even the place of that man called Jacob’s well. Furthermore, concerning that, "Give me this water, that I might not thirst, nor come hither to draw," he says that the woman says these things indicating the toilsome, and difficult-to-procure, and non-nourishing, nature of that water. For from where is he able to show that the water of Jacob is non-nourishing? Moreover, Heracleon concerning these things...

like this: If you wish to receive this water, go, call your husband; and he thinks that the husband, whom the Savior says belongs to the Samaritan woman, is her Pleroma, so that having gone with him to the Savior, she might be able to obtain from Him the power, and the union, and the commingling with her Pleroma. For he says ^B He was not speaking to her about an earthly husband, so that she might call him, since He was not ignorant that she had no lawful husband. But clearly here he exerts force in saying that the Savior said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here," indicating the spouse from the Pleroma; for if it were so, it would have been necessary for Him to say the husband, and the manner in which he was to be called, in order that she might go with him to the Savior. But since, as Heracleon states, according to the spiritual understanding she ^C was ignorant of her own husband, but according to the simple understanding she was ashamed to say that she had an adulterer, and not a husband, how will He not have commanded in vain, saying: "Go, call your husband, and come here"? Then to the point: "You have said truly, that you have no husband," he says: Because in the world the Samaritan woman had no husband, for her husband was in the Aeon. We indeed have read: "You have had five husbands"; but in Heracleon we find: "You have had six husbands." And he interprets the whole material wickedness as being declared by the six husbands, to which she had implicated herself ^D and drawn near, fornicating against reason, and insulted, and rejected, and abandoned by them. But it must be said to him, that if the spiritual one was fornicating, the spiritual one was sinning; and if the spiritual one was sinning, that spiritual one was not a good tree. For according to the Gospel, "a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruits"; therefore, that which they have fashioned clearly perishes for them.

*Pag. 209 and seqq.*

Heracleon, on these words (*Our fathers worshipped in this mountain*), says that the Samaritan woman honestly confessed what Jesus had said to her. For, he says (Heracleon), it belongs to a prophet alone to see all things: he lies in both respects. For both angels are able to see such things, and a prophet does not see all things: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part," whether we prophesy or whether we know. After these things he praises the Samaritan woman as having acted in a manner becoming to her nature, for she neither lied nor openly confessed her own uncleanness; and being persuaded, he says, that He was a prophet, she questioned Him, at the same time showing the cause on account of which she had fornicated, because she had neglected the knowledge of God and the worship according to God, and all things necessary for her life, and otherwise was always failing in her life.

ad fornicated, because she had neglected the knowledge of God and the worship according to God, and all things necessary for her life, and otherwise was always failing in her life. For, he says, she would not have come to the well which happened to be outside the city if she were leading a different life. He adds to these points that, desiring to learn how and in what manner she might find favor[ ^A ] and worship God and thereby be freed from fornication, she says: *Our fathers worshipped in this mountain*, and so forth. But these statements are very easily refuted; for whence is it evident that she desires to learn in what manner she might find favor and be freed from fornication? Jesus says to her: *Believe me, woman, that the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem.* When Heracleon seemed to have observed most plausibly in these matters that, in the preceding [part of the conversation], it had not been said to her, "Believe me, woman," but now this was enjoined upon her; then he muddled a not implausible observation, [ ^B ] saying that by "mountain" the devil is meant, or his world: "Since," he says, "the devil was one part of the whole of matter, but the world is the sum of malice, a mountain, a desolate dwelling place of beasts, which all before the Law and the Gentiles worshipped; but by 'Jerusalem' is understood the creation, or the Creator, whom the Jews worshipped." But he also hypothesized a second time that the "mountain" was the creation, which the Gentiles worshipped; and "Jerusalem" [was] the Creator, whom the Jews served. "You, therefore," he says, "as if you were spiritual, will worship neither the creation nor the World-Creator, but the Father of Truth." And he indeed includes her, he says, as already a believer and numbered among those who worship in truth.

Excerpts of Heracleon on the Gospel of John

^C Sane, regarding the words *We worship*, Heracleon thinks this means him who is in the Aeon, and those who came with him. "For these," he says, "knew whom they worship, worshipping in truth." But what of the [words]: *For salvation is from the Jews*? Because in Judea, he says, he was born, but not among them; since he did not have his disposition toward all of them, and because from that nation salvation and the Word went forth into the inhabited world. But according to the spiritual understanding, he narrates that salvation was made from the Jews because these [people] are thought to be images of those who are in the Pleroma. But it was necessary for him and his followers to show how each one of those who are devoted to true religion is a likeness of those in the Pleroma, provided they do not say this with their voice alone, but also sincerely believe it. Furthermore, explaining [the passage] that God must be worshipped in spirit and truth, he says [ ^D ] that the former worshippers worshipped in flesh and error him who was not the Father; wherefore, for the same reason, all who worshipped the World-Creator were deceived. And Heracleon adds that they served the creature, and not him who was the Creator in truth, who is Christ, since *all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.* For the Father indeed seeks such worship

for if the Father seeks, He seeks through the Son, who has come to seek and to save that which was lost. By purifying these people and instructing them with the Word and with sound doctrines, He makes them true worshippers. ^A Yet Heracleon says that what belonged to the Father had perished in the deep matter of error—that which is sought, so that the Father might be worshipped by His own. If he had seen the discourse regarding the loss of the sheep, and of the son who had fallen away from the Father’s goods, we would have accepted his interpretation. But since I know not what in the world they clearly teach—those who follow his fables regarding the loss of a spiritual nature—offering us nothing clear about the times or ages before its loss (for neither can they clarify their own discourse), for this reason we have voluntarily passed them over, having questioned them thus far.

^B And on page 217 et seq.

Regarding the words, *God is Spirit*, Heracleon says: for His divine nature is immaculate, and pure, and invisible. But when he has said these things, I do not know if he has taught us how God is Spirit. And as for the part, *those who worship must worship in spirit and truth*, thinking he is explaining it, he says: according to the dignity of Him who is worshipped, spiritually, not carnally. For they themselves, existing of the same nature as the Father, are spirit, who worship according to truth and not according to error, in the way that the Apostle also teaches, calling such piety “reasonable service.” But let us consider if it is not highly impious to say that those who worship God in spirit are of the same essence as that unbegotten and altogether blessed nature—those who, a short while before, Heracleon himself had said had fallen, when he said that the Samaritan woman, being of a spiritual nature, had committed fornication. But if, indeed, the spiritual nature, which is of the same essence as the divine and altogether blessed nature, as they themselves hand down, has admitted fornication, then profane, and impious, and irreligious opinions about God follow from their own views regarding God.

^C Furthermore, page 220.

See what Heracleon says: for he says that the Church awaited Christ, and was persuaded about Him, that He alone knows all things.

Page 221.

And Heracleon says regarding the words, *I am who speak to you*, that he says to the Samaritan woman—because she had been persuaded that Christ, when He had come, would announce all things to her—*Know that He whom you expect, I am who speak to you*. And when He had confessed Himself to be the one who was expected to come, the disciples came to Him, he says, for whose sake He had come into Samaria.

And toward the end of this tome, page 223.

Heracleon supposes the water-jar to be an affection and conception capable of receiving life, as also its power

^A proceeding from the Savior: "Which," he says, "leaving with Him," that is, having with the Savior such a vessel, in which she had come to draw the living water, "she returned to the world," evangelizing the presence of Christ to those who were to be called. For through the Spirit and by the Spirit, the soul is led to the Savior. Consider, then, if this water-jar can be found worthy of praise, being left behind entirely; for he says, "The woman left her water-jar," and it is not added that she left it with the Savior. But how is it not absurd that she, having abandoned the disposition capable of receiving life, and the conception of the power flowing from the Savior, and the vessel in which she had come to receive the living water, should have departed into the world without these things, to evangelize the presence of Christ to those who are to be called? ... Moreover, regarding the words, "And they went out from the city," he explained this as referring to their first conversion, which was worldly: they came, he says, by faith to the Savior.

Sub initium tomi XV, pag. 224 et seq. Heracleon says that the disciples wished to share with Him what they had bought and brought from Samaria. He mentions these things, that some... five foolish virgins... from the bridegroom. How, I suppose... to have... to whom, being closed against the foolish virgins, it is worth the effort to see those things which contain the accusation of the disciples, in the same way as the ^B foolish virgins who were asleep. This, however, should have the same ratio of light to food as drink has to food... to accuse and criticize the interpretation. Although, for his part, he ought to have made clear what he says, and to have taught with more [arguments], confirming his own interpretation.

371 Et pag. 227. "The disciples therefore said among themselves: Has anyone brought Him something to eat?" Even if Heracleon thinks these words were spoken by the disciples carnally, as though they were still disposed in a lower way, imitating the Samaritan woman who said, "You have no drawing-vessel, and the well is deep," it is worthy for us to see if, perhaps, regarding something more divine, the disciples say among themselves: "Has anyone brought Him something to eat?" etc.

Pag. 230. Heracleon, through the words, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me," says ^C that the Savior is declaring to the disciples that this was that which He was discussing with the woman, His own proper food, calling the will of the Father His own food and rest and power. He said that the will of the Father was that men should know the Father and be saved, which was the work of the Savior, for whose sake He had been sent into Samaria—that is, into the world.

Ulterius pag. 233. And Heracleon, no differently than many, sticks to the letter, thinking that it does not admit an anagogical sense. He says, therefore, that He speaks of the harvest of the produce, as ^D

^A though this harvest had a determined span of four months, which he himself said was already at hand. And I do not know how he also interpreted the harvest with regard to the souls of believers, saying that they are already ripe and ready for harvest, and fit to be gathered into the barn—that is, through faith into rest—insofar as they are ready; for not all are ready. For some, he says, were already ready, others were about to prepare themselves, others still were to be sown, and others were already being sown. These things, then, that man said.

Ex tomo XVI, pag. 236 seq.

Heracleon will say, and perhaps some churchman ^B following along with this interpretation might also say, that these words were spoken in the same sense in which it is said: "The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few," in that there were those ready for the harvest and fit to be brought into the barn—that is, into rest through faith—and were fit for salvation and for the reception of the Word: according to Heracleon, because they were so created and had such a nature; but according to the churchman, because of a certain preparation of the most excellent part of the soul, prepared for perfection, ^C so that it might also be reaped.

Et pag. 238.

Heracleon thinks it is said: "He who reaps receives a wage," since the Savior calls Himself the reaper, and he supposes the wage of our Lord to be the salvation and restoration of those who are reaped, as He rests in them. But that, "He gathers fruit unto eternal life," he thinks was said either because that which is gathered is the fruit of eternal life, or because the gathering itself is also eternal life. But I think his interpretation ^D is forced in this place, as he says that the Savior receives a wage, and confuses the wage and the gathering of the fruit into one, while the Scripture manifestly sets these forth as two different things, as we have shown above.

Ulterius pag. 242.

Heracleon explained these words: "That he who sows may rejoice together with him who reaps," as follows: "He who sows," he says, "rejoices both because he sows, and because certain species of his seeds are being gathered, having the same hope also for the rest. And he who reaps likewise reaps something; but ^D the first one began by sowing, the second by reaping. For it was not possible for both to begin at the same time; for it was necessary that it first be sown, then reaped. Therefore, when the sower has ceased from sowing, then the reaper shall reap; in the present, however, both working at their own proper task rejoice together, considering their joy to be the perfection of the seeds." And moreover, regarding that saying: "In this is the word true, that one is he who sows, and another he who reaps," he says: "For one, who is the Son ^D of man, sows above the place; but the Savior, being Himself also the Son of man, reaps, and sends laborers, namely"

the angels who are understood through the disciples, each to his own soul." He did not explain very clearly who the two sons of man are, who they are, of whom the one sows and the one reaps.

^A Heracleon says that "not through them, nor by them were these seeds sown" (he means the apostles). Those who have labored ^B are the angels of the economy, through whom as mediators it was sown and nourished. And regarding the statement: "You have entered into their labors," he explained these things thus: "For the labor of those who sow and those who reap is not the same. For the former, in cold and water and with labor, dig and sow the earth, and throughout the whole winter they busy themselves weeding and pulling out the woods; but those who have entered into the ready fruit in summer gladly reap."

Heracleon took the word "from the city" to mean "from the world"; and "because of the word of the woman," to mean, he says, "because of the spiritual Church." He also notes the word "many," as if there were many psychics; but he says the one is the incorruptible nature of the election, and uniform, and singular.

^C Heracleon says these things concerning these places: "He stayed among them, and not in them; and two days, that is, the present age and the coming time in the marriage, or the time before His passion and the time after the passion; having spent that time among them, and having converted many more to faith through his own word, He was separated from them."

Heracleon, having explained the words: "No longer do we believe because of your speech," more simply, says that the word "only" is missing. And further, regarding the words: "For we ourselves have heard and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world," he says: "For men at first, being led by men, believe the Savior; but when they encounter His words, these no longer believe because of human testimony alone, but because of the truth itself."

^D Heracleon seems to call the Creator a *regulus* (petty king), since he himself also ruled over those under him; but because his kingdom was small and temporary, he was named *regulus*, as it were a certain small king, appointed by the universal king over a small kingdom; and he interprets his son in Capharnao as being the one who is in the lower part of the intermediate realm, toward the sea, that is, toward the part which is joined to matter, and he says that his own man is weak, that is, not having [a state] according to nature, in ignorance and...

in sins ^A he was. Then the phrase, "from Judea into Galilee," he explains as "from the supernal Judea." I do not know, however, how, regarding the words "he was about to die," he thinks that the opinion of those who posit that the soul is immortal is subverted, supposing that both soul and body are cast into the same [destruction], and perish in Gehenna. And Heracleon does not even consider the soul to be immortal, but rather fit for salvation, calling it "that which is corruptible, which puts on incorruptibility, and that which is mortal, which puts on immortality," when its death has been swallowed up in victory. Furthermore, regarding the words, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe," he says that this is spoken appropriately to such a person, who by nature is so constituted as to be persuaded by works and sense, and not to believe through reason. ^B "Come down, before my son dies," he thinks was spoken because death is the end of the Law, which kills through sins. Before, therefore, [he] is totally put to death according to sins, the Father of the only Savior is needed, so that he may bring aid to the Son—that is, to such a nature as this. In addition to this, the [words], "Your son lives," he has interpreted as being spoken by the Savior out of modesty, since he did not say, "Let him live," nor did he show that he himself had provided life to him. He says that when he had descended to him who was infirm, and had freed him from his infirmity—that is, from sins—and had made him alive through remission, he said: "Your son lives." He also adds to these words, "The man believed," [noting] that even the maker of the world is easy to believe, and that the Savior is able to heal even when not present. ^C He has interpreted the servants of the nobleman as the angels of the maker of the world, reporting to them with the words: "Your son lives," because he is in an appropriate state and order, no longer doing things that are alien [to him]. And for this reason, he thinks the servants report to the nobleman those things which pertained to his son's salvation, since he thinks the angels are the first to see the actions of men who are in the world, to see if they conduct their lives forcefully and sincerely from the time when the Savior arrived. Furthermore, he says that the seventh hour signifies the nature of the one who was healed. Above all [else], the [statement], "He himself believed, and his whole house," he interprets as being said of the angelic order and of those men conjoined to it. ^D He also says that it is asked regarding certain angels whether they will be saved or not—namely, regarding those who descended to the daughters of men. Moreover, he thinks that the destruction of the men of the maker of the world is declared by this saying: "The sons of the kingdom will go out into the outer darkness," and that Isaiah prophesies regarding these [when he says]: "I have begotten and exalted sons; but they have rejected me," whom he calls "alien sons, and a wicked and lawless seed," and [a vine] that has produced thorns. And these, indeed, are the commentaries of Heracleon.

*From Volume XIX, page 275.* Heracleon on this saying: "Where I go, you cannot [come]"

^A in saying: "How can those who are in ignorance, and in unbelief, and in sins become incorruptible?"—nor is he consistent with himself in this. For if those who are in ignorance, and in unbelief, and in sins cannot become incorruptible, how have the apostles, who were once in ignorance, and in unbelief, and in sins, become incorruptible? Therefore, those who are in ignorance, and in unbelief, and in sins can become incorruptible, if they should change; and it is possible for them to change.

*And further, page 280.* Heracleon, therefore, as if this were said more simply: "Will he kill himself?" he says, ^B that the Jews were saying these things while reasoning maliciously, and showing themselves to be greater than the Savior, and supposing that they themselves would depart to God into eternal rest, but the Savior to corruption and to death, by laying hands on himself, where they did not consider that they themselves would go. And he says in the very same words, that the Jews understood the Savior to be saying: "I am about to depart, by laying hands on myself, to corruption, where you cannot come."

*From Volume XXI, page 293.* Let those who introduce natures be questioned by us, who in this context: "Because my word has no place in you," interpret [it] according to Heracleon, that for this reason it has no place in you, because they are by nature or by disposition incapable. How [could] those who are incapable by nature have heard from the ^C Father?

*Page 308.* Heracleon suspects that the reason is being given why they cannot hear the word of Jesus, nor know his speech, by that [verse]: "You are of your father the devil." He says in these very words: "Why can you not hear my word? Is it because you are of your father the devil,"—that is, "of the essence of the devil"—revealing to them henceforth their nature, and having refuted them, that they are neither children of Abraham—for they would not have hated him—nor of God, for which reason they did not love him. And if he had interpreted that, "You are of your father the devil," as we explained in the preceding [chapters], and he had said, "Because you are still of the devil, you cannot hear my word," we would have accepted his interpretation; but now he openly says that certain humans are of the same substance as the devil, ^D which is of a different substance, as his own followers think, from those whom they call psychic or spiritual.

*Page 312.* On these things Heracleon says: "Those to whom the word is addressed were of the essence of the devil; just as if the substance of the devil were different from the essence of the rational [beings], the saints."

^A Heracleon, in regard to this saying, "You desire to do the desires of your father," argues by saying that the devil does not have a will (voluntas), but desires (desideria). The absurdity of this statement is apparent in itself, since it is confessed by all that he [the devil] wills evil. You yourself may also gather (even if it is not at hand for us at present, that which we might bring forward) whether the word "to will" is used anywhere in Scripture regarding the devil. Heracleon further states that these things were said, not to those who are by nature children of the devil, the earthly ones, but to those who are animal, made children of the devil by position; from among whom some can, by nature and by position, be called children of God. He says, moreover, that these become children of the devil because they have loved and do the desires of the devil, although they are not of such a nature. For he argues that the term "children" is to be understood in a threefold sense: first, by nature; second, by will; third, by dignity. By nature, he says, is that which is begotten by some begetter, which is also properly called a child. By will, when someone, by doing the will of another through the judgment of his own mind, is called a child of him whose will he does. Finally, by dignity, according to which some are called children of Gehenna, and of darkness, and of iniquity, and a brood of serpents and vipers. For, he says, these do not beget such things by their own nature—since they are rather destructive, consuming those who have fallen into them—but because they have done their works, they are called their children.

^C We, indeed, understand this saying, "In the truth he stood not," not as indicating such a nature, nor as teaching that it was impossible that he should have stood in the truth. Heracleon, however, says of this: "His nature is not from the truth, but from that which is contrary to the truth; namely, from error and ignorance." Wherefore, he says, he could neither stand in the truth, nor can he have truth in himself, having falsehood as a property from his own nature, being naturally unable ever to speak the truth. He says, moreover, that not only is he himself a liar, but so is his father, interpreting "his father" specifically in relation to his nature, since he consists of error and falsehood.

^D Sub finem tomi XXVI.

Heracleon does not refer that saying, "There is one who seeks and judges," to the Father, for he says: "The one who seeks and judges is he who vindicates me, a minister ordained for this purpose, who does not bear the sword in vain, the avenger of the king. And this is Moses, just as he said to them above (Jesus), saying: 'In whom you have hoped.' " Afterwards he subjoins: "He who judges and punishes is Moses, that is, the legislator himself." After this, Heracleon raises a doubt against himself, saying: "How then does he say that all judgment has been handed over to him?" And he exists...

to solve the objection, says: He speaks well; for a judge, as a servant, judges while doing the will of this one [Christ], just as it appears to happen among men also. But how he attributes judgment to another as to an inferior Savior (namely, as he himself thinks, to the Demiurge and creator of the world), he cannot even thus prove, when it is clearly written: *For neither does the Father judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son.* And that: *He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man.*

PREFACES, PROLEGOMENA, NOTES, AND OBSERVATIONS OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE EITHER PUBLISHED OR ILLUSTRATED NEW EDITIONS OF IRENAEUS.

THE DEDICATORY EPISTLE OF DESIDERIUS ERASMUS

In which he explains what he has accomplished in editing the books of Irenaeus.

^A 1 To the most Reverend Father in Christ and Lord, D. BERNARD, Bishop of Trent, Desiderius ERASMUS of Rotterdam, S.D.

Under your auspices, most distinguished Prelate, we bring to light that great champion of the Church, and Irenaeus, who, by the very omen of his name, is a defender of ecclesiastical peace. For *Eirene* sounds "peace" to the Greeks, and in the Gospel the Lord pronounces the peacemakers blessed, *eirenopoious*, that is, because, he says, they shall be called sons of God. For God is not the author of dissension, but of peace, who through His Son has reconciled things in heaven and things on earth. On the contrary, those who shake the world with dissensions reflect their [true] parent, who first sowed discord between God and man and corrupted the life-giving harvest of evangelical doctrine by secretly sowing tares: a nocturnal work fit for the prince of darkness. Would that in these tumults of the Church—than which we do not read in the annals that any ever arose more serious or more widely scattered, although the Arian heresy had spread most widely—there might arise some Irenaeuses who, with an evangelical spirit, might bring the world back to concord. For the books that now fly about on both sides are generally of such a kind that they excite a new fire rather than extinguish the old one. But the Lord will do this through Christian princes, after we have turned to better things and He begins to be propitious to us, having been angry. I return to my Irenaeus. For why should I not call him "mine," whom I have restored to the light, having wiped away the dust as much as I was able, when he was almost buried—a man truly unworthy to have perished in perpetual oblivion? For his writings breathe that ancient vigor of the Gospel, and his phrasing reveals a heart prepared for martyrdom. For martyrs have their own peculiar diction, serious, strong, and ^B masculine. He was close to the times of the apostles, when the Church was still flourishing with the triumphs of martyrs. For as a boy he heard Polycarp in Asia: but Polycarp was a disciple of John the Evangelist, from whom he was also appointed bishop for the Smyrneans, known as well to other apostles and disciples who had seen and heard the Lord, from whose relation he was accustomed to recount many things that have not been committed to writing. The conversations of this man concerning Christ and the disciples of Christ, Irenaeus imbibed with most avid ears as a boy, and inscribed them deeply upon his heart; so that even as an old man he retained a vivid and present memory of them all, just as he himself testifies in many words in those things which he wrote to Florinus. These are recounted in the fifth book of the *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter twenty. In that age there remained manifest traces of the ancient charisms of the Church, since he himself relates in the fifth book that he had heard many brothers in the Church who possessed the gift of prophecy, who would recount the mysteries of God, who spoke in all kinds of tongues, who would bring forth the secrets of men, not for display, but for utility. And elsewhere he teaches that there were those who, by invoking the name of Jesus, would cast out diseases and demons. You have here the commendation of Irenaeus from antiquity. Receive now the testimonies of his piety and integrity, which are indeed all the more splendid because they happened in that age which attained this praise mostly at the cost of tortures and deaths. Now, the profession of the Christian name is a delicate matter, when there is no danger from a persecutor to either property or bodies. Irenaeus, therefore, a presbyter of the Church of Lyons, is sent to Rome to settle the dissension of the Church, where Eleutherus was then presiding: he is sent, moreover, magnificently commended by the letters of the martyrs, and that which

^A excelled in evangelical zeal, and because he responded to the dignity of the presbyterate with integrity of character; whence he was deemed worthy to be appointed as the successor to Photinus, or Pottinus (for the codices vary in the name), the prelate of the Church of Lyons, who died a martyr at nearly ninety years of age. He was so studious of ecclesiastical concord that, when Victor, the Roman pontiff, had cut off many Churches from communion because they maintained a custom different from the Roman one in the celebration of the Paschal day and in the observation of fasts, he reproved Victor with great liberty, for being so ready, contrary to the example of those to whom he had succeeded, to cut off Churches that dissented not in faith, but in certain rites. The fifth book of the *Ecclesiastical History*, in the twenty-fourth chapter, relates these things more fully. Thus Irenaeus, while even now certain followers of Ptolemaeus stir up calumny regarding heresies and schisms based on the most trivial trifles. But from where shall I bring forth a more certain argument of his piety than from his own writings, which breathe an evangelical heart and a candidate (if I may so speak) for martyrdom?

Now, receive a few words regarding his doctrine. He himself, in his preface to the first book, professes that he is neither a student of eloquence nor skilled in it. And yet, I could hardly believe that it was feigned by him; that it was not affected, the very progress of his discourse makes me believe, which in matters so thorny and perplexed—nay, even full of disgust—is clear, digested, and coherent, unless it be that it is not yet sufficiently clear to me whether he wrote in Greek or in Latin; I am inclined to think he wrote in Latin, though he was skilled in the Greek tongue. And so, he uses Greek figures as if by his own right while speaking Latin, such as *noceri* for *lædi*, just as the Greeks say βλάπτεσθαι; or *exontes*, that is, "having," for "being able" (*valentes*); of which kind we have noted a few in the margins, so that the reader might not be offended by them. Certainly, it is evident that he was most skilled in all liberal disciplines. For Tertullian, in the book he wrote against the Valentinians, indicating whom he had followed in that work, speaks in this manner: as Justin the philosopher and martyr, as Miltiades the sophist of the Churches, as Irenaeus ^B, the most curious explorer of all doctrines. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea, in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Writers* who illustrated the Church of God by life and writings around the age of Soter, when he comes to Irenaeus, says: "And especially Irenaeus, from whom the most excellent monuments of apostolic faith and sound doctrine have been handed down to us." They flourished most especially in the times of Commodus.

But since the order calls upon us to say something about the writings of so excellent a man, a certain grief overcomes my mind, because from so many most praiseworthy monuments, this work alone, as it seems, has remained unscathed. For he wrote a book to Blastus ^C *On Schism*, another to Florinus, a presbyter who had fallen away from the Church, *On Monarchy*, or that God is not the creator of evils. For Blastus seemed to be held by the same error, who was previously a disciple of Polycarp, but later fell into the Valentinian heresy. He wrote also a book *On the Ogdoad*, which the divine Jerome highly approves. This is the one to which he affixed an adjuration to the scribes, which we also have prefixed to this work. Only these had Eusebius seen. Jerome adds a short volume *Against the Gentiles*, and again another *On Discipline*. Likewise to Marcianus the brother, *On Apostolic Preaching*. Finally, a book of *Various Tracts*. Of these so many of the man's lucubrations, the envy of the ages has willed that only this one, which we now provide, should remain. Would that it had been possible to provide it just as it was produced by him! The first and second books, since they are almost entirely occupied with recounting the monstrous things of the heretics and their terms and opinions, have troubled us in some places, and no one could peruse them without weariness unless he had a patient stomach. We have been assisted by three exemplars: one which the distinguished patron of studies, Joannes Faber, sent to us ^D from Rome, having been transcribed there; and two from the monasteries, provided to us on loan. We have restored a few things from Tertullian, for there was even more depravity in the words there; we have attained not a few by conjecture, which, if they seemed less certain, we have noted only in the margin.

He fights against the swarm of heretics solely with the bulwarks of the Scriptures, of whom the leader was that Simon the Samaritan, skilled in magic, who dared to preach that he was the supreme God, and persuaded his harlot Selene that she was the supreme Mind: and this impostor earned a statue at Rome with this inscription: *To Simon the Holy God*. His disciple Menander baptized not in the name of Jesus, but in his own name, denying with Simon that this world was created by God, but by angels: which error he seems to have drawn from the philosophy of Plato. After him, Saturninus of Antioch said that this world was created not by the supreme God, but by seven angels. Following these, Basilides the Alexandrian erupted into greater madness, beyond other monstrous dogmas, bringing in a certain supreme God, and imposing a fictitious name equally absurd, *Abraxas*, who seems to have provided the seed-plot of madness to Valentinus. For those whom he called heavens, this one called *æons*. Then Nicolas, the doctor of turpitude, along with those above, denies that this world was created by God. Nay, even the Ophites produced certain monstrous dreams about the *æons*, and about Jaldaboth, their chief. Succeeding these was Carpocrates, the author of the Gnostics, openly practicing magic and boasting of attendant demons (*parhedroi*), such as we read of Socrates. Following these was Cerinthus, denying that the world was created by God, lying that Christ was born from the seed of Joseph, and that the Law was given not by God, but by angels. Contrary to him, Ebion so asserts the Law as to subvert the Gospel.

To such monsters succeeded Valentinus, the most monstrous of all, a follower of the Platonic philosophy, a man otherwise powerful in doctrine, and equally in eloquence. He coveted the dignity of a bishop, but, bearing badly that another was preferred to him, who had confessed the name of the Lord under torture, he turned his genius to the disturbance of the Church, dragging the whole Christian doctrine into fabled and perplexed stories. To his impious inventions Ptolemaeus and Secundus added not a little, having increased the number of the *æons*, yet so that they dissented from him in some things. Heracleon taught the same things as Valentinus, but strove to seem to hand down different things by the novelty of his presentation. After him, Marcus and Colarbasus, otherwise not degenerating from Valentinus, invented a thing wondrously ridiculous, dragging all the mysteries of the faith into the Greek alphabet. Succeeding these was Cerdo, dragging with him a sea of impieties. For he feigned two gods, one good, the other cruel, and that the world was created by the cruel one. He repudiated the Law entirely: he accepted only the Gospel of Luke, and not even that in its entirety; he did not approve of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, neither all of them nor in their entirety. Rejecting the *Acts of the Apostles* and the *Apocalypse* as false, he taught that Christ, the Son of the good God, had come only in a phantom, and had not truly suffered, nor been truly born, approving the resurrection of the soul, but denying that of the flesh. While he sometimes confessed his error, and again testified secretly, and sometimes openly taught impious things, he was finally convicted, and as a lost limb was cut off from the communion of the brethren.

Succeeding in his impiety was Marcion, a Pontian by birth, a student of the Stoic philosophy, the son of a bishop, ejected from the Church for having defiled a virgin, who nevertheless afterwards forbade marriage to Christians. A certain Lucanus received the blasphemous doctrine of Cerdo and Marcion, obscure for this reason, that he innovated nothing from the doctrine of those whom he followed. But Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, in order to make himself the author of a new faction, refuted many of his master's dogmas, but in such a way that he substituted nothing more sound. He alleged to us a girl named Philumene, to whom he claimed a prophetic spirit was present, whom, however, Augustine wrote was initiated by a certain Severus,

^A I do not know what he followed: for Eusebius and Tertullian agree in what I relate. Amidst these portents lurked Potitus and Basiliscus, who, following Marcion, handed down two principles of things. Syrenus, even more delirious, introduced three principles, or three natures. Tatian, who followed all of these, becoming a heretic from a disciple of Justin, recalled the pestiferous dogmas of Valentinus and Marcion: he had Calistio as a disciple. Into so long a series did that detestable plague, which proceeded from Simon Magus, extend itself, and it is wonderful to say how with difficulty it ceased. For the name of Valentinus was already extinct, although there lacked not those who were Valentinians. Nor did there seem to be an end at all, unless Montanus had come, who abrogated authority to all the rest, proclaiming himself to be the Holy Spirit promised by Christ, who would lead into all truth. Although Manichaeus also appears to have drawn some error from Basilides. But there happens here what is accustomed to occur in a fever that is vehemently tenacious, which is now more remiss, now more sharp, now turns itself into this or that species, nor can it cease, until it comes out into frenzy or some other more immediate evil. Against these portents wrote Justin, whom Irenaeus cites sometimes; Miltiades, Proculus, and Tertullian: whose most learned books, which he wrote against the Valentinians and Marcion, and besides concerning heresies and the prescriptions of heretics, if anyone is not burdened to read, he will understand these books of Irenaeus more rightly.

Now I seem to myself to have sufficiently prefaced, most ornamental prelate, as far as the account of this work is concerned, and it was time to put an end to the prologue: which indeed I will do, if I have revealed in a few words what thought entered my mind while dwelling on this subject. For I cannot sufficiently admire the inscrutable counsel of God, who in wondrous ways has vindicated, purged, instructed, raised up, and illustrated his spouse, the Church, in all of which there is nothing that is not most foreign to human counsels, just as he himself speaks to men through Isaiah: *For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor my ways, your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted from the earth, so are my ways exalted from your ways, and my thoughts from your thoughts* (Isa. LV, 8, 9). ^B Just as therefore the Lord himself, descending from the heavens, opened a way into the heavens, and having accepted the form of a servant, purged for himself the dominion of all things which are in the heavens, and which are on the earth, and through the highest ignominy obtained eternal glory, by suffering conquered the enemy, and by death merited immortality: so he advances his little and weak flock by defenses most foreign to the way of the world: by the unskilled he confounded the wisdom of the world, by a few he subdued all the nations of the world, by the weak he prostrated the power of tyrants, by the un-warlike he stormed every fortification lifting itself up against God, by the unknown and humble he obscured the whole glory of the world, by sheep he tamed lions, by doves he drove away serpents. And indeed he suffered Satan and this world to rise up against his little sheep with all their arts and powers; but by his secret counsels he turned all evils into good for his elect. For he alone, the King of kings, knows how to use both good things and to abuse bad things for his own glory and the salvation of the Church. The zeal of the Jews, the arrogance of the Pharisees, the authority of the priests, then the power armed with the laws of kings and with troops, ^C and the machinations of magicians, raged against the few and humble disciples of Christ. But with the Lord tempering the attempts and actions of men, the Church grew and prevailed through punishments and deaths; evangelical philosophy was confirmed by the barking of impious philosophers; the prestiges of magicians illustrated the divine virtue of Christ operating in the disciples; the machinations of schismatics joined the concord of the pious more closely, and brought them back as if into a phalanx; the impious dogmas of heretics compelled them to scrutinize the secret scriptures. And so it happened that, while the Jews, through zeal for the law, but not according to knowledge, fight against the Gospel, we have known more certainly that the shadows of the law have been antiquated, and the glory of the Gospel has been illustrated. Again, while the persecutor endeavors to extinguish the faith in Christ with ignominies, tortures, and deaths, he increased the faith, kindled charity, rendered hope firmer, and illustrated the tolerance of the pious while he exercised it. Finally, while it is agitated by the arguments of heretics, it has learned more ^D to use the armor of the divine scriptures, and the impugned truth has been confirmed. The first engagement of the Church was with the Jews, of whom would that their remnants did not exist even today! Here the apostle Paul proved himself a strenuous defender of evangelical liberty. Peter cast down the prince of magic. The second was with the philosophers and heretics, who fought against the Gospel almost with the defenses of philosophy. After the apostles, men excelling in doctrine and eloquence received their impressions. Nor for that reason is the sober knowledge of philosophy to be condemned, because almost all heresies were born from philosophers, since by philosophers they have also been oppressed. The philosopher Valentinus had attacked the Church, but the philosopher Justin and the philosopher Irenaeus defended it. The philosopher Marcion assailed the truth, but the philosopher Tertullian finished off the enemy. The philosopher Celsus vomited blasphemies against Christ, but Origen, a better philosopher, illustrated the glory of Christ from his blasphemies. The sophist Libanius defended idolatry, but the more eloquent Chrysostom asserted the true worship of God. The orator Symmachus did the same as Libanius, but the more powerful orator Prudentius confuted him. Therefore a certain good hope holds my mind, that the Lord will turn this tempest of the Church by his inscrutable counsel into good outcomes, and will stir up for us a few Irenaeuses who, having settled dissensions, may restore peace to the world. In the meantime, you will deign, most excellent prelate, to accept this Irenaeus as if in the place of a lucky omen with a joyful brow, appearing into the light under the auspices of your name. That I should do this was persuaded not so much by anything singular, but by your favor towards me, which, as it is gratuitous, so it is perpetual, and by the integrity of your character proclaimed by the mouths of all, conjoined with admirable prudence and equal humanity. But no praise is more worthy of a bishop than that you everywhere strive for the peace and concord of the Christian people. And these virtues in you are the more admirable because, in your flourishing age, you present a certain Nestor, so to speak, both to the most illustrious prince Ferdinand and to the Church of Christ. Nor do I proclaim your gifts, for they are not unknown, but for the gifts conferred upon you, we both give thanks to God and congratulate ourselves. May he from whom alone true happiness proceeds increase your greatness for us all. Given at Basel on the sixth of the Kalends of September. In the year MDXXVI.

The Argument of the same for the second book of Irenaeus

^A of salvation had come, it was fitting that he should accept the duration of all ages; for after the fortieth year, a man verges toward old age. He brings forward the authority from the Gospel of John: *Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?* From this he infers that the Lord had passed that time of the fortieth year, but had not yet reached the fiftieth. He confirms this by the testimony of the disciples who had lived in Asia with John the Evangelist, who declared that they had heard these things not only from John himself, but also from the other apostles. This opinion differs greatly from that which the Church follows now. Let the reader consider this.

Argument of the same regarding the third book of Irenaeus.

This most holy man Irenaeus seems to have taken care ^B that there should be no need for commentaries or arguments; so diligently does he collect the sum of the matter in the titles of the chapters, and in each book he recounts in order what he said in the previous book, proposing what he is about to say in the next. If anyone, however, wishes to know more fully about these things, let him read the five books of Tertullian *Against Marcion*, in which he imitates Irenaeus. There are small things, however, that we have noted, and they are few. Ch. 38 recites from Genesis: *And he shall crush thy head;* so that "he" is not referred to the woman, but to the seed of the woman, which is Christ. Ch. 21 says the Son of man was admixed with the Word of God; in a pious sense, indeed, but with a word the ears of theologians now reject, though Augustine did not shrink from the terms of "permixing" and "mixing" in his third epistle: although what Augustine said is harsher than this utterance ^C of Irenaeus. For he says, since God was admixed to man; Irenaeus says, man was admixed to God. But it pleases the schools now to use only the term of "uniting," as there is no word more impious, unless we interpret it kindly. I mention these things because of those who stir up strange tragedies over little words, the emphasis of which they sometimes do not understand. In the same place, holy Irenaeus says that Christ was adopted according to his human nature, so that he might become the Son of God. His words are thus: *And he who is the Son of God became the Son of man, admixed with the Word of God, that by receiving adoption he might become the Son of God.* Ch. 12, referring to the passage from the Acts of the Apostles xv, when he posits things sacrificed to idols, blood, and fornication, he does not mention the strangled, and, if I am not mistaken, Ambrose refers to it in this way in some place; the remaining points are too trivial to be worth mentioning.

Argument of the same regarding the fourth book of Irenaeus.

Here Irenaeus, as if having escaped from rough and difficult places, enters a more open field, explaining many passages of the Scriptures which the heretics had twisted. In this book, as in the fifth, he frequently asserts free will, to which he attributes that both the angels fell, and man collapsed into death, and the impious are cast down daily. And he does this not in one place. I will transcribe one passage from ch. 71: *And on account of this, he says, God indeed gives good counsel to all; but he placed in man the power of choice, just as in the angels, etc.* And elsewhere he says that man was created in this state in the likeness of God, because free will was permitted to him. He frequently mentions the Eucharist, but with that reverence with which the ancients were accustomed to speak of this mystery: for instance, ch. 32 of this book calls the Eucharist the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, having received from the apostles, offers in the whole world. Regarding transubstantiation, he says nothing openly, except that Christ, as he records, said the bread made from grain was his body, and confessed the wine to be his blood. Again in chapter 54, he speaks thus: *How then do they say that the flesh comes to corruption, and does not partake of life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord.* And soon after: *As the bread which is from the earth, receiving the calling of God, is now no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly.* And he frequently uses the word of offending. Such was the reverence of the most holy men in speaking of divine things, before the Church pronounced more explicitly on such mysteries. I think for that reason also the ancient doctors spoke more sparingly and coveredly of many things, lest if they had cast that which is holy to the dogs, they might provide an opportunity for blasphemy to the heathen and the Jews. But you will learn better from Irenaeus himself.

Argument of the same regarding the fifth book.

In this fifth book, while many passages of the Scriptures are diligently explained, some things are nevertheless present which, unless one interprets them conveniently, do not seem to accord sufficiently with those dogmas which the Church prescribes at this time. ^D For he approves the opinion of Justin Martyr, who said that Satan never dared to utter blasphemy against God before the Lord had arrived on earth, because he did not yet know his own condemnation. In another place he seems to believe that souls stripped of the body do not immediately enjoy the glorifying vision of God, but are kept hidden until the day of the resurrection: there is no mention of purgatory. Nay rather, he seems to believe in a double resurrection; first of souls, then soon after of bodies. For he speaks thus at the end of the work: *For when the Lord departed into the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were, then afterward he rose bodily, and after his resurrection was assumed: it is manifest that also the souls of his disciples, on account of whom the Lord also did these things, will go to the invisible place destined for them by God, and there will remain until the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection: after receiving their bodies again and rising perfectly, that is, bodily, just as the Lord rose, so will they come to the sight of God.* Thus far Irenaeus, in which, when he says: *After receiving their bodies again, and rising perfectly,* he suggests some imperfect resurrection of souls before the bodies are received. Again when he says: *So will they come to the sight of God,* he signifies that souls are not received into heavenly glory before the resurrection of the bodies: in which error Pope John XXII seems to have been, who was compelled by the work of the Parisian theologians to recant before Philip, King of the French, not without a trumpet blast; which John Gerson indicates in his sermon on Easter. Nay, Jerome also testifies somewhere.

^A that he held the same opinion as the Chiliasts, both elsewhere, and when explaining the thirty-sixth chapter of Ezekiel. But in such matters, those ancients must be read with candor, and sometimes with indulgence, because these things had not yet come into question at that time, or if they had, the Church had not yet pronounced its judgment on them with a clear voice after the Scriptures had been examined. In our first Preface indeed we doubted whether Irenæus had written in Greek, or in Latin, nor do we yet have anything certain, except that Jerome, in the passage I just cited, testifies that he was a Greek: though here too it is permitted to doubt whether he meant him to be a Greek by nationality, or a Greek writer. But it appears ^B that he meant in terms of the writing, when he couples him with Apollinaris, who is known to have written in Greek. The words of Jerome are as follows: "Which even many of our own, and especially the book of Tertullian which is inscribed *On the hope of the faithful*, and the seventh volume of the *Institutions* of Lactantius promises, and the frequent expositions of Victorinus, Bishop of Petovium, and recently our Severus in the dialogue to which he gave the name *Gallus*; and, to name Greeks, and to join the first to the last, Irenæus and Apollinaris." Such is Jerome. Greek book titles support this opinion. The only thing that objects to this is that we see some Greek verses mixed into his books, which is done customarily by an author, but not by a translator: and also that no one has indicated the name of the translator. Farewell, reader.

DEDICATORY EPISTLE OF NICOLAS GALLASIUS

To Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London, in which he explains the plan for his edition of Irenæus.

I send to you, most accomplished man, some fruit of my labor: and receive at the same time the occasion for publishing it at this time, and the storm which recently drove me from Geneva. When recently in Gaul, under the pretext of a specious peace, our churches were so cruelly vexed, so that their condition was far more miserable than when they were openly afflicted before by open war and dire persecutions, I, foreseeing the sad outcome in my mind, thought of coming to England to you: where the way seemed to me both more level, and the crossing shorter, and the management of my affairs more convenient. But suddenly sedition arose at Orleans, which the papists had been planning for a long time, in order to slaughter our people with impunity; with many killed, and the building in which they used to gather consumed by fire, I not only had to change my plan, but every way and method had to be sought, and whatever little crack observed, by which it might be permitted to escape immediately from such great danger. For I had often undergone the danger of life: the fury of the people was inflamed, the ministers were demanded for slaughter, and the gates of the city ^C were in fact watched so diligently that no one could get out. Therefore, in such grave danger, whatever opportunity of exiting was offered, had to be used. Nor indeed did the Lord desert me, and some colleagues, in that very moment with His aid. For sent out by night from Orleans, we were led by indirect paths through the middle of the forests as far as Montargis. There, having greeted the most illustrious Duchess, who bound us to herself so much with every duty and piety, that we can neither ever satisfy her, nor sufficiently proclaim her virtues, I took up the plan of proceeding further: and by her own fervent favor and guidance, after long hardships, I arrived at this city. Then resting a little, when I had communicated about public and private affairs with my beloved and sweetest brother Theodore Beza, he asked me what I now had on my hands. Then I replied that I was thinking only of refreshing my mind and relaxing from those cares by which it had long been vexed. It is not, indeed, your role, he said, to indulge in languor and sloth: and I certainly know that you cannot pass this time, which is given to you free from business, in idleness. Therefore, having exhorted me to sermons and lectures, he added at the same time that he had long been meditating on something in which my labor could not uselessly be placed, if it seemed so. You know well enough, he said, how useful is the reading of the ancient doctors, which however most people neglect, both because of the obscurity, and also because of some impurity, which those times, sliding into a fall, brought to Christian doctrine. A remedy ^D can easily be provided for both impediments, if first, to the distinct chapters of the books, summaries of the matters and opinions are prefixed, by which, once concept and perceived in the mind, the reader will easily grasp what each contains: and that principal labor having been overcome, he will easily exhaust the rest, and even having been enticed by the taste of doctrine, he will collect the latent fruit. Then one easily occurs to the impurity, if at the end of each work an admonition or censure is added, by which those things which are less consistent with pure and sound doctrine are shown, and misplaced or intricate and involved scriptural passages are explained by a true and genuine interpretation. Then he advised that, the matter having been diligently weighed, I should judge whether the matter were worthy, to which labor and effort might be expended; and, he incited me to apply my hand to it in that leisure of his. When I had considered it more attentively, I fully agreed. I made a trial from the thing itself, and clearly recognized the work to be worthy, to which many learned men and those exercised in divine things might direct their mind: for scarcely one would suffice for the turning of so many volumes of the ancients, and for annotating and reviewing them. It seemed good, therefore, to make a beginning from him who is considered the most ancient among the Latins, namely from Irenæus, whose writings were as obscure, so also in most places corrupt and depraved. Although, however, I do not think he should be numbered among the Latins (for the phrasing is clearly Greek), yet because he has not yet appeared clothed in his natural habit and adornment, I leave to him the place which he has hitherto held among the Latins. Some pious and learned men testify that they have read the Greek in the Venetian library: where, when inquiry was made by the same people afterward, the place was found empty. Others also report it to have been seen in the Vatican. Those who steal such monuments from the Church, or begrudge them, are worthy to be tortured forever by the horrendous furies of envy and by the dire wound of conscience. That Irenæus wrote in Greek is testified by many pages, which we found transcribed in Epiphanius. We have inserted these, however, into this book, and opposed them to the version, so that the pious reader might easily judge about this matter. But if anyone should object, that Irenæus could have written in both tongues, and turned into Latin what he had first edited in Greek, although it does not seem likely to me, I 5 however do not labor greatly, nor indeed do I think it should be contended. It is enough for me that he is a Greek, and wrote in Greek; which the titles of the books, the verses of Homer and Hesiod interwoven, likewise the very frequent [Greek: ἀνακόλουθα καὶ ἀναπόδοτα] sufficiently show. Besides, the expressions, phrases, and forms of speaking are less customary to the Latins: such as the name *conditionis* for creation, *ægrimonia* for *ægritudine*, *deminoratio* for *diminutione*, *habere* for *posse*, *quemadmodum* for *quomodo*, *Deus non bene sensit in illis* for *non acquievit*, or *vel acceptos illos non habuit*, and six hundred of such kind: which the diligent reader will easily be able to notice. And the best evaluator and judge of this matter indeed is Jerome, who constantly numbers him among the Greek writers. But here there is need of attention and diligence, so that the matters and opinions are comprehended. For besides that the matter which he treats is obscure, the style is harsher and more remote from the custom of the Latin language. But the summaries of each chapter will render all things easier.

^A I have distinguished everything by numbers. I noted the places of Scripture which he cites in the margin; and I corrected the errors that occurred, by collating the copies and the passages of the author himself. I followed the sectioning of the chapters of the ancients in four books, which certainly I do not believe were thus divided by the author, nor were the summaries prescribed for them by him. For the readings are very often shorter and interrupted, or even longer; and the summaries sometimes either do not touch upon the matter, or omit that which is most important. Furthermore, I have divided the fifth book, which no one had hitherto divided, into chapters, to which, as to the others, I have added summaries of the contents and arguments. For me, indeed, all things had to be carefully weighed and frequently reread and examined, that I might make it clear now what the heretics meant in those great labyrinths of errors, now by what arguments this holy man refuted their dogmas. Those who cannot devour the tedium of investigating this, if they are not very diligent in the reading of this and similar authors, will not advance much, nor will they eat the kernel, because they do not break the nut. But the fruit of his labor has never stood firm for any studious person, except for him who has persevered in it assiduously and constantly. For me, certainly, the labor has been most pleasing, because by collecting those things which are the chief points, and reducing them into summary chapters, I have hoped that I might thus relieve the reader of trouble, so that neither obscurity nor difficulty could now deter or retard him. Nor does the expectation deceive me, as I think, among those who will attend more closely and will judge candidly and sincerely. Irenaeus testifies abundantly how much trouble was exhibited to him in investigating and bringing forth into the light the errors which the Valentinians were hiding and covering so astutely that few knew what they were putting forward and on what arguments they relied. Now, therefore, it is no wonder that after the errors have been abolished and many centuries have passed, we also should labor somewhat in understanding those things which so great a man unearthed and brought to light with great labor. But we must imitate his zeal, vigilance, and skill. He certainly applied such diligence and sagacity in tracking the footprints and steps of ^B beasts of this kind, that he not only discovered their hiding places, but also threw them out from their lairs and thickets into the fields and into the open light, and so brought them forth that they could neither lie hidden nor cause harm any longer to the unwary. By this example, he admonishes us how carefully bishops and pastors ought to guard their flocks, that they be not infected with the pestilential venom of such serpents. For they are mightily deceived who think that the description and refutation of those ancient heresies have nothing to do with us or our times. And in vain do they allege that those errors were so absurd and monstrous that no one now would adhere to them. For neither less absurd, nor less portentous, are the dogmas which in our time certain fanatical men have introduced, nor with less astuteness have they seduced the illiterate and simple, nor with less stubbornness have they resisted the truth. Do we not see daily what fallacies and frauds Satan uses to renew heresies, and to interpolate them with a certain specious pretense, so that they seem as if they had never existed? Who does not see that those who today oppose now the divine, now the human nature of Christ, have drunk their dregs from the same pools and sewers? Moreover, the sect of the Anabaptists of our time, how much it has in common,1 both in doctrine and in rites, with those ancient heretics, whom, however, it perhaps does not even know by name! But the ancient serpent who long ago vexed the Church of God with such instruments, and retarded the course of the Gospel, is no less crafty and cunning now than he was formerly in inciting such champions and masters of the games, by whom he might supplant those who render themselves unworthy of the longed-for light of the Gospel. Who would ever think that men would degenerate into brute beasts, or rather, be turned into monsters who would surpass all the savagery, filth, and uncleanness of beasts? For by what name shall we call those who thus extinguish the use of reason so as to remove the distinction between good and evil? And although they are most impure and wicked, yet they deny that they are guilty of any impurity or wickedness; who attribute their heinous desires, lusts, crimes, and sins to God: and when they have most fully indulged the affections of the flesh, and have wallowed in the mire of all vices, they boast that they are spiritual and perfect: but those who study sobriety, continence, and purity, they treat with sneers and mockery and trample upon as if they were simple and unlearned? But such [men] have existed in our time (would that they did not still exist!) such as Irenaeus describes in the first book, chapter one, nine, twenty-three, and thirty-five. For what has Satan not attempted, with the Gospel being reborn, to turn aside or retard its course? ^C But by what arms and machines it must be resisted, this holy bishop and other ancient doctors have taught us by their example. For they fight only with the doctrine of Christ and the apostles, to which they evaluate all dogmas, traditions, and rites. For what the heretics boasted, as the supporters and patrons of superstitions do today, that they had received their inventions and ravings from the apostles, is immediately refuted easily from their writings. This I think ought also to be done by us against all who defile the Christian religion. That you have experienced this quite often, most illustrious man, you have proven by the very fact, as often as you had business with fanatical and headstrong men who were assiduously disturbing your churches. This I can testify to a great extent, I who was present, saw, and perceived with what care and vigilance you consulted for the peace of the churches, over which you preside: with how much zeal you purged them both of ungodly rites and of the errors of the Anabaptists which had crept in: with what diligence you pacified the disturbances and dissensions, whether they had arisen among your own people or among outsiders. For as much as was in your power, the churches of foreigners which were gathered in London by the benefit of Queen Elizabeth, you not only kept safe and sound on the outside, but also rendered them immune within from fear, dissension, and division. You restrained rash men and those greedy for new things; you repressed the insolent and headstrong; you subdued the proud; you protected the innocent; you stilled the quarrels and disputes, ^D and finally, you showed yourself truly an Irenaeus and a promoter of tranquility. I could not omit this in silence, nor pass it over without the vice of an ungrateful mind: since the greatest fruit of those hardships which you once endured for the sake of our countrymen has returned to me. For both with the foreign churches having been purged of errors by your labor, and with the disturbances which many had incited having been stilled, we have enjoyed greater quiet and more liberal peace among you. Rightly, therefore, I compare you to Irenaeus, whom you have diligently imitated in the same affairs, and with the best right I offer to you our vigils and nightly studies upon his book, which may be witnesses of my mind, grateful and mindful toward you. For since you have shown yourself a patron and guardian of our churches against the deceits of Satan and pestilential men, who were then plotting their ruin, it is just that thanks be given to you in my name and in the name of our countrymen, and also to your Londoners, whose humanity, beneficence, and liberality, which we have known to be practiced subsequently in this kingdom, happily prove.

^A And my zeal for our countrymen, and the dangers which constantly threaten them, make me anxious, and compel me to ask this again and again. I also ask this, that you accept the sentiment of my heart toward you, with which I offer you this prelude and specimen of a greater work (if the Lord grants it), and that you do not think I have looked to anything other than to show myself mindful and grateful to you. 6 Very many excellent men who have now received aid pray well for you, and in the first place our Beza greets you, by whose company and benevolence I am so refreshed that this exile has now been rendered lighter for me. Fare well, most excellent and observant man. May the Lord Jesus Christ favor you perpetually, keep you safe for a long time, and bless your labors and cares. Geneva, on the day before the Kalends of February, 1569.

THE DEDICATORY EPISTLE OF JOHANN JACOB GRYNÆUS

to Bernard Brand, Chief Tribune of the Republic of Basel, in which he renders an account of his edition of Irenæus.

Although there were most grave causes, for which learned antiquity received with great applause and consent, and approved, that elegant apophthegm: Γνῶθι σεαυτόν [Know thyself]; and the Amphictyons, as Plato testifies, judged that it should be inscribed before the doors of the Delphic temple, because it seemed to remind each mortal of his own goods and evils, to heal pride and despair equally, to remove immoderate self-love and confidence, and to exhort all to modesty: nevertheless, there are no less grave reasons why we should not only add to it another, so cognate to it that neither can be rightly understood without the other, but also embrace it with both hands and with our whole heart, namely: Γνῶθι τὸν Θεόν [Know God]. For true and solid wisdom ^B is placed in the knowledge of God the best and greatest, and of man created in His image; and that the former is not full without the latter can be gathered from this, which the divine scriptures attest: that we men were created and redeemed by God, so that we might truly know and invoke God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the only-begotten Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and celebrate Him not only in the warfare of this life, but also in all eternity. Therefore, there is no doubt that Origen Adamantius in the third book *Against Celsus* truly pronounced concerning wisdom, that it is the knowledge of divine and human things and their causes, or, as the holy Scripture defines it, the breath of the divine power, the pure emanation of the omnipotent glory, the splendor of the eternal light, the most pure mirror of the virtue of God, and the express image of His goodness.

Some philosophers, however, appear to have observed some things—as the apostle Paul says, the invisible things of God, that is, His eternal power and divinity, and other things which are understood by His works from the creation of the world—more correctly than the common run of men, although their minds were occupied by the dense fog of ignorance of the true doctrine concerning the essence and will of God, nor was anything clear to them concerning the fall of the first parents and the most sad corruption of human nature; yet they were nevertheless of the opinion that the knowledge of God and of oneself was absolutely necessary for the candidates of wisdom. I do not wish at this time to heap up many testimonies to this effect, since that one thing is sufficient for sensible men, which Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus adduces in the eleventh book of the *Evangelical Preparation*. He tells that a certain gymnosophist from India, having come to the Attic city, conferred with Socrates about the study of wisdom; when in that colloquy the Indian had asked by what reason one could become wise? Socrates answered, if by any reason a man ^C should live, he should consider himself. The Indian, smiling slightly, received this with this elegant sentiment: Μὴ δύνασθαί τινα τὰ ἀνθρώπινα κατιδεῖν, ἀγνοοῦντά γε τὰ θεῖα [No one can rightly perceive and know human things while being ignorant of divine ones]. For he judged that ethical doctrine was a vain amusement of wits, and a *sophon pharmakon* [wise medicine] full of hypocrisy, if it were not joined with the clear recognition of God and sincere worship. For in truth, admonitions about man’s duty, about the beauty of virtues, about the baseness of vices, and finally about all the tasks and parts of human life, are idle and useless if in the meantime the mind, ignorant of God and His will, admires and worships itself as if it were some deity, and does not seriously consider both that there is a God and what He is like, namely, omnipotent, good, chaste, merciful, just, an avenger of crimes; and that this God also wills that we ourselves be good, chaste, kind, just, and haters of crimes.

Therefore, in the instruction of a Christian man, the first and chief care ought to be that tender minds be imbued with these *axiomata* [axioms] and as it were principles. The first is that men were created and redeemed so that they might know and worship God the Father, together with the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The second is that concerning God and His will it is to be so decided, just as He has manifested Himself and His will by illustrious testimonies and explicit word. For thus the eternal God has manifested Himself to us, that according to the sentiment of the great Basil, we ought to be baptized as we have received; to believe as we are baptized; and to glorify, as we believe, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since these things were dear to the prophets and apostles, they thought and wrote most correctly and gravely about wisdom, that is, about the true God and about man. Insisting on their footsteps, our Irenæus also, in these five books, handed down to writing and memory many things excellently concerning the one and triune God, concerning the origin, fall, corruption, and restitution of man. ^D There exists, however, in the first book of Irenæus a symbol (by this word the ancient Church was accustomed to call a brief and orthodox confession concerning God and man), which I am pleased not only to ascribe to him, so that the reader may have it *full* to compare with chapter 2 book 1, but also because from it one can gather that the doctrine of our churches, received and handed down by us in this faded old age of the world, was also handed down of old in the churches of Germany, Gaul, and Spain, in the age of Irenæus, that is, about the year 185 after the birth of Christ, with great consensus. His words are these: 'H μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, etc. Moreover, it will be an act not without value to place before the eyes in the vestibule of this work a brief antithesis of sound and orthodox doctrine, and of human comments and heretic-

heretical ^A deceivers turning away from the truth, against whom our Irenaeus strove with all his might. For the comparison of doctrine brings much light, as the old proverb advises: "The purple [Gk: H πορφύρα παρὰ τὴν πορφύραν διακρίτεια] is distinguished by the side of the purple"; and the consideration of these things causes a pious mind, while contemplating the most sorrowful religious conflicts of our own age, not to cast aside the profession of truth nor to give place to doubt [Gk: καὶ ἀκαδημαϊκῇ], but to reflect on the grave saying of Paul: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Cor. xi, 19).

Concerning the eternal God, together with the holy Fathers, prophets, apostles, and orthodox doctors of the apostolic Church, Irenaeus constantly, piously, and truly teaches that there is one God, if you consider the essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and a Trinity, if you consider the persons and their peculiar properties. ^B Although this mystery concerning God and the three persons exceeds in many ways the grasp and wisdom of all angels and men, yet it is fitting that we religiously assent to it; because, as I have warned above, one must think and decide concerning God according to the norm and prescription of his revelation. Irenaeus rightly and copiously teaches that this God is one and the same author of the Old and New Testament, good and just, creator of heaven and earth, of angels and men, and of all things that are contained in this most ample system and theater of the whole world, who by his providence beholds and governs things past, present, and future. Irenaeus also discerns from one another the three persons in the sacrosanct divinity, which the Greeks have called by the illustrious name of [Gk: ὑποστάσεις]; and he admonishes that the first person in the divine is the Father, who by beholding himself from eternity ^C in an ineffable manner begat the Son, who is the image and character of his substance; but that the second person is the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, who in respect of his divine nature is called and is the Word, Wisdom, and [Gk: ἀμήτωρ]; but in respect of his human nature is said to be and is the son of Abraham and David, [Gk: ἀπάτωρ], like to his brethren, sin excepted; the third person, however, is the Holy Spirit, who, proceeding from the will of the Father and the Son, is sent into the hearts of believers so that he may regenerate, sanctify, and vivify them, and be the [Gk: ἀρραβών] and pledge of our inheritance.

On the other hand, the Valentinians raged and impiously contended that there were many and almost innumerable gods, because it seemed strange and incredible to them that there should be only one God in that eternal solitude. They also denied that there was one and the same God of the Old and New Testament; and because the God of the Old Testament seemed to exist as severe, the vindicator and avenger of crimes, they thought he should be called just, but not good; but the God of the New Testament, because by setting aside [Gk: τὸ ἀκριβοδικαίον], that is, strict justice, he had promulgated and granted evangelical [Gk: ἐπιείκειαν] and gratuitous mercy to those who repent and believe, they called good, but not just. They also blustered loudly about the Demiurge, the creator of this world, about the syzygies of aeons and errors, and about other monsters of absurd opinions, by all of which Satan, the father of lies of this kind, wickedly attempted to destroy and obliterate from the minds of men the true doctrine concerning God and the three persons. ^D

Furthermore, concerning man, Irenaeus, reverently subscribing to the same prophets, evangelists, and apostles, piously teaches that man was created by God and endowed with many and most beautiful ornaments of soul and body, and with good things, so that he might be the temple and image of the creator, serving him in all eternity; that he, however, circumvented by the fraud of Satan, fell into sin, death, and [Gk: εἰς ἔσχατα ἐσχάτων] evils, with all his posterity, who for this reason are concluded under sin, so that God might have mercy on all. And since by nature all the children of the first Adam are children of wrath, he denies that any hope of salvation has come or remains, except in Christ Jesus, who came into this world for this reason, that he might seek what was lost and make sinners safe; and therefore, those who, repenting of their sins, believe that the Son of God came into this world for their sake are to be restored to wholeness by the gratuitous benefit of Christ, who, having assumed human nature, became a victim suffering in the flesh for them, to expiate; and to take away the sins of the world, dying for their sins, and resurrected for their justification. And these, indeed, Irenaeus says are the people of God, [Gk: βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα], the holy Church, to which has been committed the treasure of the oracles of God, comprised in the prophetic and apostolic books; for this assembly, which embraces the entire and incorrupt doctrine of the Law and the Gospel, the Son of God has exhibited and instituted the sacraments of the eternal covenant as visible symbols and arguments of divine grace and other celestial things which Christ promised he would give us along with himself, and the ministry of the word, that is, the most faithful dispensation of the mysteries of God, and other salutary gifts and offices; so that nothing might be lacking to the Church of those things which make for its growth, adornment, and preservation. Concerning the immortality of the souls and the resurrection of bodies, and the salvation of the whole man, or his eternal destruction, Irenaeus professes the apostolic doctrine as incorrupt, and confutes the Platonic and Pythagorean ravings concerning the departure of souls into other and yet other bodies.

Conversely, the Valentinians clamored that men are either evil by nature, [Gk: ὑλικοὺς καὶ χοϊκούς], who, even if they were most desirous of conversion and salvation, could neither be converted to God nor be saved: or they are good by nature, who, even if they sin most gravely, are nevertheless to be deemed to be doing right. Regarding souls, and their transmigration into other and other bodies, according to the reason of merits and expiations, they asserted many things most audaciously, so that they might establish the comments of Pythagoras, [Gk: μετεμψυχώσει καὶ μετενσωματώσει]. Some denied outright the resurrection of the bodies. They distorted the divine Scripture, for the most part twisting it, as they say, by the neck to build up their own dreams; in part, they exhibited it to the heathens truncated and miserably mangled with their own corruptions. They disturbed the concord of the Church with their dissensions and schisms. They profaned the sacraments with impure and detestable rites, as one may see in the narrative of Irenaeus concerning a certain Gnostic, a magician, and a pest of the human race, named Marcus.

But the thing itself teaches that he did not impose a single error on these Gnostics, but especially these. The first is that, concerning God and his will, they did not judge according to divine revelations delivered in the word, but thought they were to be judged and determined according to their own dreams and figments. The second is that they do not heed the word of God, but [Gk: τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς φρόνημα], when they discuss the origin, powers, fall, and restitution of man. The third is that, being ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God, they valued the dreams of Pythagoras, Plato, and their own more than the Gospel of Christ; and fascinated by their own opinions, they measured the Scriptures by the leaden rule of their own dogmas. But against the Gnostics, those fanatical men, and, to use the Pauline expression, speaking [Gk: διεστραμμένα], Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp (he who was a hearer of John the evangelist) and bishop of Lugdunum, wrote the famous volume [Gk: ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως], which alone among the many writings of that man survives, and is a sufficiently great argument that Tertullian spoke not so cleverly as truly concerning Irenaeus: that he was the most curious explorer of all doctrines. For in the first book he recounts at length the foul and diabolical errors of the Valentinians concerning the Gods, concerning the syzygies of signs, errors, and number. He subjoins

^A in the second book the proofs concerning God the one, eternal, true, omnipotent, and omniscient, whose name is absolutely beyond all, beside whom there is no other God, nor any divinity at all. He also shows that it was not some fictitious Demiurge, nor angels, but the eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his only-begotten Son (whom Irenaeus presently calls the *Word* [Logos], so that you may recognize him as a diligent student of the doctrine of John the Evangelist) and the Holy Spirit, who created and brought forth from nothing this most vast theatre of the world, angels, men, and other creatures of lower order. He then appends a refutation of the dogmas which were handed down by the Gnostics concerning the origins of the world, concerning the Demiurge, or the artificer and architect of the universe, concerning the orders of the aeons, concerning [the] movement of change and re-embodiment [metempsychosis]. Irenaeus proves that souls are not only immortal but also possess their own character, and he disrupts and crushes the Platonic dreams concerning the causes of the soul's ignorance, namely, the cup of Lethe and the human body. In the third book, which is partly polemical and partly historical, at the beginning he convicts and refutes the heretics of an inexpiable crime—namely, the corruption and mutilation of the Holy Scripture; he then clearly demonstrates the perpetual consensus of the prophets and the apostles concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, as God and man. In the fourth book, he first proves with clear and solid arguments that there is one God, the author of both Testaments, I mean the old and the new, who, by the revealed doctrine of the Law and the Gospel, made known to the whole human race himself and his own will, and that arcane divine decree concerning the restoration and salvation of men repenting through the Lord and high priest Jesus Christ. Then, indeed, he discourses at length concerning human powers and our imperfection, and other matters related to these things of which I have spoken. And finally in the fifth book, when he has repeated and proven very many things from the foregoing, he proceeds to refute the Gnostic empty-headedness concerning the perpetual exile of human bodies: for they introduced a total destruction of bodies. Irenaeus therefore warns and proves at length and wisely that Christ will not only resurrect the bodies during his second and glorious advent, but that the bodies of the saints will also be temples of God in eternal life, and are to be saved together with their souls. And it has seemed ^C good to mention these things briefly and more clearly, so that discerning readers might see that there are two principal heads of Irenaeus's disputations, namely God and man, and what must be determined concerning these matters by pious minds, to whom the most weighty judgments of the prelates of the ancient Church concerning such great matters have been accustomed to be most welcome. Although, however, there are not lacking in these studies of our Irenaeus some rough patches and blemishes concerning the free will of man, concerning the time when Christ, while visibly conversing among men, taught, and concerning devils and a few other things; yet, since Erasmus has most gravely admonished the readers concerning these things in the arguments of the books with his characteristic wisdom, it is not my intention to sing the Iliad after Homer and to pedantically quibble over the errors of Irenaeus. It is sufficient to mention this: that there were great reasons why, after Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, a man of the highest judgment, I myself also took into my hands the books of Irenaeus to be cleansed and, according to my ability, to be illuminated. Erasmus performed work worthy of himself, that is to say, work that was by far the greatest, in Irenaeus just as in many other writers. He first broke the ice, overcame the difficulties, and like the Syrtes and reefs, he opened a path for us—yet in such a way that he was not yet satisfied with himself: and when he was somewhat doubtful about the language in which Irenaeus had written, since it was not very ^A certain which variant was necessary, since a Greek specimen is not extant, we use the Latin version in later books, for the reason that it [the latter] was both obscure and swarmed everywhere with unnecessary hellenisms. But it came to pass by the singular benefit of God and by the zeal of certain good and learned men that, after Erasmus began to dwell among those above, there came to light the exceptional work of Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, against eighty heresies, in which, since many things were written out word for word from the books of Irenaeus, it was possible for us to restore the greater part of the first book from Epiphanius and to use the much better version of Janus Cornarius. Furthermore, since the most inept and usually nonsensical summaries, which were of no relevance to the text, were prefixed to the books and chapters, being indicators of errors rather than of the subject matter, these have been for the most part removed, and I have added brief summaries of the chapters, so that I might remind readers of the plan of Irenaeus and the states of his disputations. Finally, I have compared the whole work, which I have reviewed and redeemed from no few errors, with other copies, noted the variant reading in the margin, and strove to render more clear the monstrous and tangled-in-schemes ^B mania concerning thirty aeons. Those who will consider these things attentively, and will not be reluctant to compare this edition of ours with others, will easily, I believe, grant that—both without prejudice to the Erasmian name and with some fruit for candidates of theology—the recognition of Irenaeus's writings has been undertaken and, as they commonly say, brought to the hub.

To the most excellent Bernard Brande

Thinking, however, and wondering to whom at length, as an outstanding patron of virtues and learning, and as an arbiter, I might offer this noble volume of Irenaeus, that most ancient writer, not so much to be defended (for Irenaeus has no need of defense, as no good man can fail to love him, and no wicked person can harm one resting in Christ, though they might wish to), as to be read, it happened conveniently that a most distinguished man, Dr. Isaac Keller, of your college of physicians and especially an ornament of your city, meeting me very religiously for the sake of a certain kindness, and having been made aware of the edition of Irenaeus's books, exhorted me by all means, in order to attest my zeal for your excellence, to dedicate this noble work of Irenaeus to you, D. Bernard Brande, most excellent man. Having therefore followed his advice, I offer and specifically consecrate to you the confession of the ancient and apostolic Church, as it were, written by Irenaeus and opposed to the lies and errors of the Gnostics, not only so that I might satisfy the judgment and will of a most excellent and friendly man, but also that I might present to you a beautiful deposit, that is, an *egregium depositum* and a form of sound words, which I do not doubt you, for your excellent piety and prudence, can read through with discernment and apply to use. I knew that in this book were contained the judgments and thoughts of the ancient Church concerning God, man, baptism, the Eucharist, the sacred scriptures, eternal life, and other heads of heavenly doctrine, the knowledge of which is welcome and salutary to pious minds. I also judged your virtues to be most worthy of the congratulation, applause, and public testimonials of all good men of that kind, which, even though they should proceed from many who are superior in authority, talent, and wisdom—and there have not been wanting such to your excellence hitherto—so that our *external discourses* might seem not altogether necessary: yet nothing prevents me from also bearing witness how highly our men value you, they who are by no means alien to the Muses and the Graces, how much they congratulate themselves and promise themselves much from your virtue and wisdom. Since the principal duties of a man who is truly noble and born for the benefit of his country are to govern the republic with counsel, to administer it with true fortitude of spirit, and to aid in protecting the studies of learning against the ignorant, the *misomousous* [haters of learning], to promote and nourish the pious studies of those teaching and learning; you, to the most ample republic of Basel (in which, with great...

^A fruit, you possess tribunitial power and authority over the Church and the republic), are never wanting in vigilance, faith, counsel, industry, true magnanimity, and constancy. For you have acquired for yourself the Academy of Basel—the eternal and incomparable ornament of the queen of your city—in whose bosom and embrace you gained knowledge of the liberal disciplines, ancient history, languages, and civil law, and great experience therein, after you began to manage the helm of the republic, with your love and patronage, and you pursue the professors of all orders and faculties with that benevolence and liberality of which men most excellent in genius, virtues, wisdom, and every kind of ornament are worthy. This is indeed the reason why, just as they say the Persian king Darius once wished for as many Zopyruses as there are grains to be seen in a pomegranate, so all the best men, both among you and in the vicinity of your illustrious city, pray to the eternal God for many Theodores and Bernard Brands for your Basel, and congratulate themselves that those who in previous years departed from the Basel republic—upon the death of that father of the fatherland and most prudent consul, the noble Theodore ^B Brand—have been replaced by his son, both a singular gift of God and heir not only to the faculties but also to the virtues of his father, in whom they understand all those qualities to be abundantly compensated; and they praise God, best and greatest, because through your works and those of other very grave men, and especially your kinsman Mr. Heinrich Petri, a man most deserving of your republic and of the world of letters, he deigns to foster, regulate, and protect not only *eunomia* [good order], political society and tranquility, judgments, laws, concord of citizens, the honor and liberty of the city, but also the most holy studies and best arts in which pleasing fame about God is spread—as a sort of illustrious Sparta, worthy of being adorned by the labor of good men, to be transmitted to posterity. May our Lord Jesus Christ grant that these goods and ornaments of the republic and the Church may be long-lasting, and common to other polities, academies, and Churches of Christ. Fare well, eternal ornament of your fatherland, and receive Irenæus, an excellent writer, into your family and trust [εὐτυχῶς] and with a serene countenance. Written on the Kalends of April, 1571.

JACOBUS BILLIUS, his Admonition concerning his translation of the first 18 (21) chapters of Irenæus, and his scholia on the same.

Although the ancient translators ^C of the Greek theologians, for the most part, while they strive to render word for word, do not express what they wish with enough elegance, and indeed for the most part fail to grasp the Greek, yet I have always judged that they should not be utterly rejected or despised for this one reason: that I have very often found that the countless specks that the negligence of printers has brought upon even the best authors can be most promptly effaced by those same learned men. If he who not long ago rendered these first eighteen chapters of Irenæus into Latin had been of this same opinion, he would not have stumbled so shamefully and disgracefully in so many places; and he would have striven rather to correct the corrupted Greek from emended Latin, than to correct the emended Latin from corrupted Greek. Since he neglected to do this, at the request of a certain friend of mine that I should re-translate them, I could not deny this work, such as it is. I have also added very brief scholia, from which it will be easy, if I am not mistaken, to understand that I do not rashly interpret many things a little differently than they are found in Epiphanius. Farewell, Christian reader, and enjoy these.

FRANCISCUS FEUARDENTIUS, his Warning to the readers of his edition of the five books of Irenæus.

We issue here the five books of the most blessed Father and martyr Irenæus, newly collated, emended, and enriched in a new edition, for the public utility of students. Although some may still doubt that they were elegantly written in Greek by the author fourteen hundred years ago, and published for the benefit of the entire Catholic Church, we do not doubt that this will be persuaded to everyone who attentively considers the many long and excellent fragments which have been taken verbatim from the author by Epiphanius, Eusebius, Theodoret, and others, once inserted into their own writings, and now ^D restored by us in the appropriate places as if by postliminy. There is added the most grave testimony of St. Jerome, who, with the Greek inscriptions of the books published by the author and approved by the Fathers before him—*Ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βιβλία πέντε*, "Five books of the apprehension and eversion of the falsely-named knowledge"—moved by this and other reasons, numbers him among Greek writers and does not doubt that he wrote in Greek. Added to this is the phrase, which is plainly Greek, countless expressions, and forms of speech not used by the Latins; Greek authors, both divine and human, are very often cited verbatim, but never Latin ones; just as he is frequently cited by the Greeks, but rarely by the Latins. Finally, some pious and learned men testify that they have seen a Greek copy in the Venetian library; others say it has been seen in the Vatican, though those have since been sought there in vain.

It is not yet sufficiently clear to me who the first translator of these books was, since no one has pointed him out to this day. If it were permitted to hazard an opinion on a matter so uncertain and obscure, I would willingly affirm, without giving offense to anyone, that the author and the translator are one and the same: who, having written first in Greek most elegantly and knowledgeably, then rendered it in Latin—though perhaps not with the same felicity and charm of speech—to the Latins among whom he was living. Why not, when Tertullian, being roughly his contemporary, exercised his style in both Greek and Latin? Or Athanasius and very many other leaders of our religion, who published quite a few things in both languages? For thus the authority of these books will waver in no part; but it will always be more august and firmer: and what he says of himself—that while living among the Celts, he devoted much labor to a barbarian language (for only Greek was his native and proper tongue)—will become more apparent. And this opinion is not a little confirmed by two passages cited by St. Augustine from this author, in almost the same very ancient translation that has appeared until now. Or truly Irenæus had some presbyter at hand who, at his command, translated it word-for-word, neglecting the splendor and artifice of Latin oratory.

^A And if anyone, by producing stronger conjectures or more certain testimonies, indicates another as the first translator, he will find us grateful and beholden to him for a great benefit. And let these things suffice concerning the kind of language and the translator: now, receive what has been accomplished in this recent edition.

We have taken care to publish in print the first eighteen chapters of the first book, which were formerly transcribed word-for-word from Irenæus into Greek by Epiphanius; then twenty-two fragments from Eusebius; fourteen from Theodoret; two from Basil; the same number from Melissa; and finally, some from Anastasius the Sinaite in their proper places in Greek, just as they were first described by Irenæus, and hence praised by these Fathers. Then, at the end of the work, we have added in Greek other fragments from diverse works of this same Irenæus, collected from the author of *Questions and Answers to the Orthodox* in Justin Martyr, and from Eusebius and Demetrius the Deacon; and we have arranged these—as well as those in the greater part rendered into Latin by the most praiseworthy Jacobus Billius, and the rest by the most learned translators Christophorson, Hervetus, Erasmus, and Faber—in as suitable an order as was possible. The same Billius added scholia to those first eighteen Greek chapters of the first book, and then the Rev. Fr. Fronto Ducæus, a theologian of the Society of Jesus as pious as he is learned, compared them with the Greek codices of Epiphanius, corrected them, and illustrated them with his own notes. We ourselves have added not only to those, but also to every chapter of the books and the newly added fragments, most copious annotations, in which we provide the reasons for our corrections, explain many places that are obscure and ambiguous, and many phrases that are Greek and less common in Latin, and whatever we could discover that pertains to confirming the doctrine, hierarchy, rites, and faith of the Catholic Church, and to refuting ancient and new heresies; finally, we retain and observe what has been expunged or changed by us, lest some complain that anything has been unjustly removed. Our edition also includes a new collation with the Vatican manuscript, by which, ^B especially through the more attentive reading and meditation of the codex kindly lent to us some time ago by the learned Mr. John Sant-André, canon of the Church of Paris, we have rendered more than six hundred places more accurately. Additions of two clauses, and sometimes a single one, are marked with a certain number; various other readings are marked with asterisks in the margin. In addition, we have placed in a convenient location five fragments of the most blessed and truly apostolic man Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and martyr, not to be disregarded, cited eleven hundred years ago by Victor of Capua and rendered into Latin, but which we discovered and transcribed in a very ancient codex. We have prefixed to the beginning of the work, after the life of the author which we have faithfully collected from his own writings as well as from other writings and ecclesiastical history, the encomia of our Irenæus collected from the holy Fathers; just as at the end of the whole work we have taken care to append most copious indices for the more convenient use of readers. Finally, we have judged that the *Conflict of Arnobius the Catholic with Serapion the Egyptian*, which we discovered in Liège in the monastery dedicated to the memory of St. James, and which we have corrected and annotated as best we could, and which had never before been published in print, should be shared for the common benefit of students. I confess that it will be possible to find many expressions and phrases that are less Latin, sentences and periods that are still disjointed, and also quite a few places in both authors that are still corrupt, imperfect, and obscure: this is partly because we were deprived of the help of more and better codices, and partly because it was a matter of religious awe to rashly lay hands on such ancient and holy Fathers. For the rest, we have woven this together solely by the light of day, and, what is far more troublesome, confined to our library and museum, helped only by books borrowed now from these people and now from those during our travels, and we release it for the public use of students; and I ask and beseech candid readers that, when they have received it and enjoyed these labors of ours, such as they are, they may not refuse to favor our studies well, and especially to commend our salvation in their prayers to our common Savior and Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Antidotes of the same against the reproaches and impious accusations by which the latest heretics of this time attempt to lacerate the most illustrious fame of the Blessed Irenæus, and to either diminish or undermine his authority.

That ancient and eternal hatred with which Satan rages against all the saints, he now pours out more fully, and renews with greater force the war against them that was undertaken from the beginning; he persuades these latest Gnostic ministers and his satellites to rage and revel with all manner of insults and curses, especially against those whom they know best to oppose their heretical opinions. Nor is this done without a cunning counsel, which fits their frauds very well. For just as criminals dragged before tribunals are accustomed not only to weary the plaintiffs, but even the judges themselves with invented accusations, so that they might either diminish the credibility of these, or avoid judgment; so too do these people fear the writings, testimonies, and most equitable decrees of the ancient Fathers and doctors, and are so completely terrified of them, that they have thought nothing more prudent or beneficial to their cause than to assail them with every kind of curse, and to vex and tear them with reproaches, so that they might leave them to be spurned by the ignorant and by the crowds they have previously seduced. We have reported these jeers and insults in many places. But these frauds and deceits do little for their authors, since by these arts they only make their own cause suspect and hateful to all pious people; and the sons of perdition, intending to wage war with the saints, clearly show themselves to be the forerunners and scouts of their camp who blaspheme those who dwell in heaven. Finally, what usually happens to those furious and mad people who throw things or spit into the heavens, happens to these. So far are they from harming or staining them, that on the contrary they themselves are destroyed by the spears falling back upon them, and are defiled by their own spittle: so too do these, with their curses, do no harm to the holy servants of God, but on the contrary, they incite all the pious even more to celebrate their praises and proclaim their virtues. Therefore, to repel the insults and vituperations cast by the heretics upon the most blessed doctor of the Church and most valiant martyr of Christ, Irenæus, we shall take our beginning from the Calvinists.

The Calumnies of the Calvinists.

In a book that is not common, but which they have called the *Shield of their Faith*, and which they had already published in print six times in the French language, they do not hesitate to assert these things regarding the Blessed Irenæus, rendered word-for-word into Latin: "He never read the Holy Scriptures; nor did he understand the Apostles' Creed. He brought forth many pestiferous things against Christ, which are impious and to be rejected by all. He altered many things rashly, and strayed from the true apostolic doctrine."*

"* ^A With these few, but most impudent words, five in number, he accuses him of a crime, though he neither proves one of them, nor will he ever be able to prove them. We, on the contrary—calling even all the ministers and professors of the Calvinist school who still retain some sound mind to the reading of Irenaeus—dare to expect from them a rightful censure of this shameful behavior and falsehood of their fellow-minister. For he refutes heresies and proves Christian dogmas—especially in the last four books—so densely and appropriately using the holy Scriptures of both Testaments, that in this regard he yields to none of the ancient doctors, but surpasses the majority; clearly showing that he had read through, weighed, and learned them with every zeal and attention from his infancy.

Concerning the Apostles' Creed, that garrulous Calvinist minister prattles, clearly a man of most foolish mind, who never read anything in Irenaeus’s books attentively. For he, at the end of the first chapter of the first book, calls this Symbol the "immovable rule of truth" received through baptism: because (as is the opinion of Clement and other ancients [*]) it was handed down to catechumens to be learned and professed first, as we have shown in its proper place. This same belief he records in chapter 2 of the same book in its entirety, and confidently opposes it to all heresies, as the sum of Christian faith handed down by the apostles to the Church throughout the world. Again, in chapter 19 of the same book, he calls it the "Rule of Truth": which Tertullian, Augustine, and Chrysostom had learned from him and inserted into their own writings. And would he not have understood it? Could so great a doctor and bishop not have grasped these rudiments of faith in his mind and thought? Away with such madness and insanity.

^B But what are these things, so many, pestiferous, profane, and to be rejected by all, that he brought forth against Christ, for whose name and glory he so holily and constantly laid down this life? The Calvinist minister should have produced at least one out of so many. Irenaeus surely everywhere preaches Christ as true God and man, the redeemer and judge of this world, and that all things which the ancient prophets announced about Him, the apostles preached in the whole world, the evangelists wrote, and the Catholic Church has believed until now. Are these pestiferous to the Calvinists? Are they nefarious? Are they to be rejected by all, so that they may be initiated into Mahometan impieties with Sylvanus, Neuser, and not a few other ministers of this sect? Far be such a crime, heinous and detestable even in its mere mention.

He adds in the fourth place that Irenaeus rashly altered many things. Tell me in what places, in what articles of apostolic dogma; *And you will be a great Apollo to me.* This alteration is passed over in deep silence; no voice is raised about specific passages; the accusation is mute as to the facts; the points of doctrine alleged to have been altered are not touched upon: because in reality there were none. The accusation is therefore impious, even by the testimony of Calvin, ^C the author of this sect [*], who admitted that for four hundred years nothing had been altered in apostolic doctrine throughout all the Churches, but that it had been kept sincere and intact by the unanimous consent of the Fathers until the times of Augustine, who was more than three hundred years after blessed Irenaeus.

Finally, the troublesome accuser writes that this apostolic man shamefully strayed from the true apostolic doctrine. If it is enough to accuse, who is innocent? Simon, Nicolaus, Ebion, and many others strayed from it: but they were soon marked with coal by the Fathers, publicly reproved, condemned, and for that reason removed from the Christian mysteries. But concerning blessed Irenaeus, who ever even dreamed of anything of the kind? Who ever counted him among the number of heretics or deserters of the faith? ^D Who among the ancient writers branded him with the most shameful stain, besides this furious and sordid minister of Calvinist calumny? But this is, as Jerome says, the last defense of heretics, when they see their own cause is about to be condemned, they begin to spew poison with a serpentine tongue; and when they see themselves defeated, they bristle with insults.

Lutheran criminations

Hence they accuse him because he speaks more rarely about the Holy Spirit [*]. Yet he does speak several times, and according to the doctrine of Christ and the apostles he speaks of Him, as you tacitly admit; which ought to be enough for all pious men, that he may be freed from the curses of your people in this matter. He speaks, I say, so rightly and piously about the divinity of the Holy Spirit, that Basil the Great, a thousand two hundred years ago, studiously and willingly approved his sentiments against the enemies, as we indicate in their places. He speaks again, and more often, when in more than ten chapters he demonstrates that He is true and omnipotent God from divine works such as creation, justification, and our salvation, as we have indicated passim, but especially in chapter 9 of the third book. But let us pretend with you that he spoke of Him more rarely. What follows from that? He speaks even more rarely about the eternal election, predestination, and reprobation of men: therefore did he err in these? He speaks more rarely about the creation, orders, fall, and duties of both good and evil angels: therefore is he to be carped at and pinched for this? He speaks more rarely about baptism, its form, matter, and effects: therefore is he to be blotted out among the guilty? Who does not see your conclusions here to be simultaneously most inept and most wicked?

But you can wonder at this in Irenaeus alone, say these people, that he does not seem to call the Holy Spirit God anywhere explicitly [*]. Let us grant that it is so. Nor do Moses, David, Isaiah, and other prophets do so very explicitly and singularly; nor does Paul in his many epistles; nor the evangelists, or other apostles; until the Macedonians denied His eternal divinity. Therefore did they too, and Irenaeus with them, sin by their silence against the Holy Spirit, or provide an opportunity for his opponents? Far from it! It was enough for those holy men, in the common appellation of God for the three persons, to call and signify the Holy Spirit as God as often as they mentioned Him indeterminately: especially since there had not yet arisen in the world,

which later brought his personal and divine majesty into question. But I would not easily concede to them what they charge; since immediately, in the second chapter of the first book, Irenaeus writes that the Catholic Church received from the Apostles that faith which is in one God, the Father Almighty, to be sure; and in one Jesus Christ His Son; and in the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets; ^A regarding the Spirit, as well as the Father and the Son, he comprehends, calls, and professes in the name of God. Then, attributing all of God’s works to the same, as we have said, and especially the most divine mystery of the incarnation of the Word, he recognizes and preaches Him quite clearly and constantly as God.

Then, as a point of accusation against Irenaeus, they set forth: He uses the word *Verbum*, or *τοῦ λόγου* (the Word), so obscurely and perplexingly that he appears not to distinguish clearly between the substantial Word and the vocal or oral word. It seems so to you, whom malice has blinded and the madness of slandering has driven to the precipice. But to pure minds, on the contrary, he appears specifically to refute the Gnostics, because they attributed *τοῦ λόγου*—that is, the internal conception of human speech and word, which he calls suffocation, and its successive utterance, evanescence, and other very many imperfections—to the Word of God; whereas He, being God, is simple, incomposite, and devoid of all accidents; He is entirely mind, entirely Word, thinking the same thing that He speaks, and speaking what He thinks. He concludes, however: "You who divine the generation (of the divine Word) and transfer the utterance of human words made by the tongue to the Word of God are justly convicted, because you know neither human nor divine things." And a little later, to those who ask: "How was the Son brought forth from the Father?" he wisely answers: "No one knows His ineffable generation, not Valentinus, not Marcion, not angels, not archangels, except only the Father who begat and the Son who was born." Has he not with these things sufficiently, clearly, and distinctly distinguished the Word, who is God and subsists substantially of Himself, from the word of human mouth, which immediately vanishes into the air? It is added that he frequently professes that the Word who is God was not created or made, but has always coexisted with God the Father, and created all things with Him: by which he sufficiently separates the substantial, divine, and permanent Word from our fleeting and perishable word.

Now, approaching their own parent, that is, the spirit of blasphemy, they say: Irenaeus thinks that the devil only began to fall when he seduced man. For so he seems to think in book IV, ch. 78. But indeed, from the very words of Irenaeus it is clear that you are truly *διαβόλους*, that is, calumniators and wicked informers. For he does not say that he only began to fall when he seduced man, as you falsely assert; but that he became an apostate and enemy from the time he envied the handiwork of God. Furthermore, he envied and begrudged the happiness of man, who was fashioned and created by God, before he attacked him and cast him down by his persuasions. Therefore, in the opinion of Irenaeus, the devil had fallen away from God and was a wicked and condemned spirit before he invaded man and seduced him through the woman.

But he thought, they add, that this was also the first time he was cursed and cast down, namely when, after the fall of man, God said: "The seed of the woman shall bruise thy head." Item: "Cursed shalt thou be, etc." For so he seems to think in book IV, ch. 78. Nor did Irenaeus hold or teach these things at any time, as you concoct; but he intended only that the deceits, crimes, counsels, and consequently the curse and condemnation of the devil were then for the first time manifested to us by the Word of God, when it is related that he was cursed and proscribed by God. For nothing of these had been revealed or related by Moses before the fall of man. Which is so true and certain that even the heresiarchs themselves, and others elsewhere in their common places, voluntarily admit it.

^B They immediately add: It is something of this kind that the same Irenaeus, in book V, from the tradition of Justin (which Eusebius also indicates in book V, ch. 18), feels: that the devil, before the coming of Christ, had not dared to blaspheme God because he did not yet know his own condemnation. Not only Justin and Irenaeus, two most valiant martyrs, but also Clement, Origen, and Epiphany, and many other most illustrious and ancient ecclesiastical writers, have felt and taught this, as we have recorded in book V, ch. 26: and since the Catholic Church has not yet condemned their opinion (that I remember), neither ought we to condemn it. For many divine judgments were hidden from the demons, and they always dreaded the eternal punishments destined for them in the places of the underworld more than can be expressed, as their cries indicate: "Why have you come before the time to torment us? If you cast us out, send us into the swine." They begged Him not to command them to go into the abyss. And Peter openly says that the demons are reserved for punishment. Who has perfectly penetrated such hidden judgments? Finally, very many things are still being inquired into and variously disputed among learned men concerning the sins, fall, knowledge, ignorance, and punishments of the demons: which, since they do not pertain to the already defined heads of the Catholic faith, those who may have thought otherwise before should not be condemned.

They pursue their accusations thus: Irenaeus said, not without error, in book IV, ch. 73, that man was not created perfect by God. And later: He seems to think of man as if he were not created perfect by God. Irenaeus constantly preaches that man possessed from the beginning all essential perfection, which consists in the union of body and rational soul, from God; but he truly denies that accidental perfection was so given that it would be impious to think or say otherwise. For he proves by open Scriptures, examples, and reasons, that not only man, but every creature, since it is infinitely distant from the Creator, is from the beginning surrounded and implicated in many and very great imperfections. And to speak of man alone, he was fashioned from the vilest clay of the earth, capable of being tempted, overcome, sinning, dying, being damned: which are undoubtedly the greatest imperfections. Nor do these things clash (as you pretend) with these words of creation: "God saw all things that He had made, and they were very good": since these were said of the natural and gratuitous goods with which man abounded, created in justice, innocence, and the knowledge of all things: they do not remove the imperfections of his animal life, or the freedom of the mind toward good and evil and the flexible state in which he was established. Therefore, the blessed Irenaeus does not err when he thinks this, but you, through a wicked madness of slandering, dwell in dark errors when you gnaw at these and similar things in the holy Fathers of the Church in your consistories, when you tear them in pamphlets and carp at them everywhere, so that you alone may appear to be wise.

They say again: Irenaeus thought that man was not created in the image of God. This is a great and impudent lie, seeing that he writes: "Adam did not escape the hands of God, to whom the Father, speaking, says: 'Let us make man in our image and likeness.'" And again: "And for this reason, in the end, not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands fashioned the living man, so that Adam might become according to the image and likeness of God." And a little later: "Christ restored to His handiwork what was said: 'In the beginning man was made according to the image and likeness of God.'"