Chapter XXX: Section IX: Reflections Upon Gnosticism (1)

Gnosticism is now well‐nigh forgotten, or noticed only by those who are led to an acquaintance with it either by its connexion with certain passages in the New Testament, or by a systematic study of the early Fathers of the Church. And yet it existed in the world, and spread over the civilized portions of it as a system of philosophy at a time when heathen speculation had attained its highest refinement, and Christianity had introduced certainty to take the place of speculation. But that it should have taken hold on the minds of men to such an extent and at such a time, is surely one of the most unaccountable facts in the history of the human mind. To us, even the Platonic system would appear so much more rational and intelligible, and the Christian doctrine so much more simple and natural, and, if I may so say, manly, that in their presence one wonders what there could have been to recommend Gnosticism. The Grecian schemes were so many efforts of unassisted reason to find out truth by simple speculation. They could therefore never be propounded as certainties, but only as probabilities. They accordingly rested on their probability, and struck out many truths. They bear about them the air of the conclusions of men searching after truth, and having in some degree attained it. Christianity, on the other hand, professed to be a revelation from above. It did not pretend to speculate or to reason; it taught its doctrines as infallible truths, and supported its teaching by miracles, and an appeal to fulfilled prophecy. Gnosticism was like neither. It was in fact gratuitous speculation, founded upon nothing but the fact of a great difficulty, which human reason had never yet solved, the causation of evil; but it claimed no support from reason; it propounded no proofs; but put itself forward as the revealed solution of this difficulty. It wrought miracles, indeed, which might have served where the Christian miracles were unknown, but poor and weak indeed to put in competition with them, for they were mere juggles. They answered no beneficial end; they were over in a few minutes; they submitted themselves to no daily and hourly proof; and although professing to support a higher and purer God than was ever before thought of, they were of the same nature as those practised by heathen sorcerers. But to have solved this great difficulty, the system ought at least to have been uniform, or at most progressive. No teacher should have contradicted another, however much he might improve upon him. And yet this was far from being the case. The various successive teachers not only pulled down what their predecessors had set up, but even contemporary leaders contradicted each other. This would have been perfectly consistent if they had set up as mere speculators; but they claimed a sort of inspiration; nay, whilst setting aside the Gospel, they claimed support from the Gospel; whilst making higher pretensions than they allowed the Apostles, they professed to have a tradition received from the Apostles; whilst utterly overthrowing the religion of Christ, they appealed to his words and teaching as supporting them.

But although borrowing support from Christianity, it was not itself in any sense a religion. It taught no present devotion towards any superior being. It had no offerings, no prayers, still less any expiations. Although some of its teachers practised rites borrowed from the eucharist, they had no religious object. They were mere juggles. Although the _idea_ of glorifying the beings above entered into the system, yet it affected only the beings above man, or man after he quitted this state. It had no place on earth. This was a place of discipline, or training, for a state in which he was to glorify the great First Cause; but he had nothing to do with glorifying him here. The great object of man here was _knowledge_. In this respect it was analogous to the Grecian philosophies; for they had no connection with religion, but were rather antagonists to it. They tended to overthrow the heathen superstitions, but they furnished nothing to replace them. They taught, it may be, moral duties; but it was not upon any principles of religion, but rather of social benefit. They attained to better notions on the unity and nature of God than were entertained by their compatriots, but they led not to a purer worship of him. At best they refined and mysticized the mythology and religious observances of the old religions. In this respect, then, of being unconnected with religion, it was like the philosophical systems of its own and former times; but it went further than they in being essentially _irreligious_, by placing the perfection of man in _knowledge_, and that only. By this means the necessity of religion of any kind was totally done away. Curiosity was substituted for devotion, and unbounded liberty for duty, whether to God or to man.

Curiosity being thus canonized, it is remarkable that the Gnostic system had baits for almost every description of it. It is curiosity, the desire of knowing what others know, fully as much as passion and appetite, which leads men into the various descriptions of vice; and this species of curiosity was not only allowed, but even sanctioned and stimulated. Men were told that it was the express destiny of every one who was to be perfect, to know everything that could be known in this world; and not only that, but that if a person failed of acquiring the requisite knowledge in one lifetime, his soul must pass into another and another body, until it had arrived at the necessary degree of information. It is true that this implied, in its literal meaning, the knowledge of good as well as of evil. But it requires little acquaintance with human nature to tell us in what sense it would be most commonly taken. And if any scruples still remained, they were removed by the doctrine that all actions were naturally indifferent, and that nothing but human opinion, or the arbitrary will of a tyrannical being, the Jewish God, had ever made any such thing as moral distinctions. Thus a vicious curiosity became a _duty_, if such a term had been allowable in Gnosticism; or, at all events, that man who did not foster and indulge it to the utmost, was fighting against his own interest.

There is another kind of curiosity, which has governed many in all ages, and which is not even yet extinct, and that is, a desire to be acquainted with future or unknown circumstances, or to possess a power beyond the reach of ordinary men. There have been always those who have professed themselves possessors of this supernatural knowledge, and of course others who have desired either to possess it or to witness and profit by its exercise. From this desire has arisen the whole of magic from the beginning, and the science of astrology in particular. Accordingly, this was a marked feature in many of the Gnostic teachers, that they laid claim to magical powers; and herein they differed from the heathen philosophers, and became the antagonists of the Christian apostles. Simon Magus, for instance, who is generally reckoned the first Gnostic leader, was a magician, and there is great reason to suspect that his faith was more a reliance on the Apostles, on the supposition of their having some deeper art than his own, than the faith of the heart in the principles of the Gospel.

But there is another class of persons who could neither be imposed on by the pretensions to supernatural power, nor the seductions of evil appetites, whose cast of character is altogether intellectual, and whose temptations must therefore be intellectual. The attention of such persons had in all ages been directed to the unseen things of creation, the invisible springs of all earthly motions and actions, the secret agencies of nature, the nature of the Great Original of all things, the methods of his providential government, the time and manner of the creation, the origin of evil, the future state of mankind after their departure from this earthly scene. Questions of this kind had engaged the curiosity of minds of the higher order ever since civilization began, and no system could find acceptance with them which offered no solution of such questions. Gnosticism accordingly furnished food for the curiosity of these, and that in greater abundance than any other system yet invented.

Besides the Gentile speculatists, there was also the philosophical Jew, who had become acquainted with the Grecian learning, and had thus come to endeavour to account, upon new principles, for the economy of the divine government under the law; partly for his own satisfaction, partly to render it palatable to his heathen friends. Two points in his law would present difficulty: first, the endless forms and ceremonies considered with reference to God, who, being a spirit, would require a spiritual worship, (for this is a truth which this class of Jews were fully sensible of,) together with the prohibitions of various animals; and secondly, the severities which God himself exercised and taught their forefathers to exercise against idolaters. And no doubt many Jews of this class were become practically unbelievers by speculating upon points which their forefathers implicitly received and devoutly practised.

There was again another class; viz. Christians by birth and education, brought up in leisure, and given to study, who, never having received the Gospel humbly and practically, became infected with the unsettled spirit of speculative inquiry. These would see the apparent incongruities between the law and the Gospel, especially in the spirit in which each was administered; and instead of being contented to be ignorant of that which had not been revealed, would endeavour to form some system independent of revelation, by which to account for these incongruities. To these two classes we shall see that Gnosticism also adapted itself; and indeed to the latter it would be specially adapted in the licentiousness of its morals. For being brought up without their own choice in a system of great strictness, at which their nature perhaps rebelled, and which they had themselves never heartily embraced; and yet not liking to renounce it on the distinct avowal of a love of vice, they would gladly close with a scheme which gave unbounded license the character of superior wisdom, and even of duty itself.

We see then what there was in the character of the times to prepare men for such a system as Gnosticism. But it did not grow up at once into all its completeness. It developed itself by degrees, as men were prepared for it; and when we have considered it in its leading features, we can scarcely fail to acquiesce in the view of it taken by the Christian writers contemporary with it; viz. that it was a scheme specially concocted by the author of evil, as antagonist to Christianity.

Simon Magus, as all agree, was the first teacher of Gnosticism; and when he first appeared in that character in Samaria, it is obvious that he could have known but little of the Gospel, and this may account for the little notice taken of it in his system. He came as the great power of God, that is, as God manifested on earth; and he wrought pretended miracles in confirmation of his pretensions. It is remarkable that none of his successors made any such pretension as this, although they too, at least some of them, professed miraculous power. He was therefore the antagonist of Christ; strictly _Antichrist_, in a higher sense than any other. He taught that the God of the Jews was not truly God, but only, like the Jupiter of heathenism, one of a set of angelic powers; that the Supreme God had nothing to do with the origination of evil further than that he had created those angelic powers from whom it had sprung; nay, that he had not created them directly, but by his _thought_, which, taking a personal character, was the actual Creator of these; that therefore the Supreme Being had nothing to do with anything in this world, excepting in so far as he had interfered to remedy the mischief occasioned by the angels. It was in this way that he endeavoured to reconcile the imperfections of this world with the perfection of God. But he went further than this; for by making the Creator of this world and the God of the Old Testament an imperfect being, he in reality denied God, whilst professing to know more of him than other men.

This part of the system only accounted for physical evil, and such moral evils as oppression and violence: but moral evil, as we commonly understand it, he treated in quite a different way; i. e. by denying that it was evil at all; for he asserted that it was so only through the tyrannical imposition of the angels. Nay, he even went so far as to assert that he himself was God, come down from above to rescue men from their thraldom by teaching them the truth of things; and thus to restore them to their rightful liberty, by showing them that they might do whatever they listed, and indeed ought to do so to vindicate his authority, which had been usurped by the angels. A more plausible scheme of blasphemy and licentiousness could scarcely have been concocted for the philosophizing Jew, or the heathen who had looked into Judaism merely as a rival system of barbarian philosophy. It recognised all the facts of the Old Testament; but it totally neutralized them, and destroyed altogether the religion with which they would have appeared to be inseparably blended.

When Christianity began to spread, and Jesus was believed on by multitudes, and reverenced by many who did not receive him, it became politic to recognise the Gospel in the same manner in which the Law had been recognised. Accordingly, the external facts of the life of Jesus were not disputed, but a new spirit was given to them. Jesus was a manifestation of the Supreme God, as Simon was; come upon the same errand, to destroy the Jewish law; and thence an object of hatred to the Jews, who triumphed so far as to crucify the external body in which he appeared, but had no power over him who had inhabited it. Here there was just enough of truth to impose upon a person brought up to believe the Gospel without really loving it, and falsehood enough altogether to prevent its reception.

The sketch which I have now traced is the nucleus of Gnosticism. Simon’s dignifying his paramour with the title of the Thought of the First Cause, and his figment of her having been in a perpetual state of transmigration, was no doubt an after thought to cover the grossness which prying minds might fancy in the great empiric; an end which might not be sufficiently accomplished by his doctrine that all actions were indifferent.

Whether Simon really invented the first ogdoad of pure emanations from the Great Father may be doubted; for the testimony to that fact does not appear sufficiently early, and those who assert it contradict each other in the names of them. But that he taught that there were Excellences and Powers, as well as angels, appears from Irenæus. Yet as that author undertakes to tell the share which Simon had in forming the system, and certainly attributes the regularity of it to his successors, it appears most probable that he defined nothing as to the number or functions of those celestial beings.

The sketch, however, of Simon, to whatever extent he went, was sufficiently filled up by his successors. In his system of angelic beings they defined their number, and to a certain extent fixed their functions. There was at last a body of these formed between the Supreme Being and the authors of this world, perfect in holiness and obedience. The defection of one of these was made as much as possible the work of accident. She was made, according to various schemes, sometimes to be totally excluded from this perfect society, sometimes to be restored to it again, leaving an imperfect offspring behind her. From her or her offspring, sprang the Creator, who is sometimes represented as the chief of seven angels, sometimes as a peculiar being having the angels under him. The creation of man is represented as the work of this imperfect being, but the spark of heavenly life in him as an emanation, more or less direct, from the First Cause. In this way the scheme became more definite; but from the same cause it became a set of schemes more or less inconsistent with each other, but all aiming at having a succession of mysteries to be communicated by degrees. In this way the minds of men were amused and tantalized, and prevented from a serious search after truth; whilst if one scheme was searched to the bottom, and its stock of mysteries exhausted, there was still another and another refinement to lure him away from the real truth. There was, however, the uniform tendency to remove the government of this world from the cognizance of the Supreme Being, and to represent the author of the law and the prophets as an imperfect, self‐ contradictory, cruel being. There was the same mode of rendering null the distinction between moral good and evil, by attributing it to opinion, or custom, or the ordinance of the God of this world. There was the same attempt to nullify the Gospel, by doing away with the Christian idea of the incarnate Son of God, and representing the advent of Jesus as a portion of the Gnostic scheme. For whether Jesus was considered as only _apparently_ a man, or as _merely_ a man; whether the Saviour dwelt in him or made use of him; whether it were the Saviour, or the Christ, or the Only‐begotten, or the Jesus above, who interested himself for the redemption of the spiritual seed, it all amounted to the same thing in the end. It abolished the real salvation of the soul; it took away the incarnation and atonement; it made the Gospel of no effect.

The nature of the _redemption_ it preached was likewise everywhere the same. It was not a redemption from the dominion of sin, but by denying that there was any such thing as sin. Whether it taught that the simple practical knowledge of this fact was all the redemption necessary, or that some initiatory rite was requisite to give that knowledge, or that a full knowledge of the Gnostic theory was to be superadded to qualify for _eternal_ redemption,—whether it led its votaries to defy the God of the Old Testament, or taught them mystic forms by which to elude him when sitting in judgment, it all amounted to the same thing. Lewdness of the grossest kind was denied to be any sin. There were, indeed, some who embraced the general theory, and with it believed that the flesh, as being the work of the Creator, was to be denied and mortified in every way, and who therefore decried marriage(730) itself, and forbad to eat flesh; but they were the few. The opposite use of the undervaluing of the flesh was the more popular and the more prevalent.

Hitherto, perhaps, there has appeared but little in common with our own times; but there were other features of Gnosticism, in which it will appear to have been the parent of Antinomianism, even that of the most recent days. If any one is at all familiar with the high Calvinism of Toplady and his school, he will have found that it strongly resembled the Gnosticism of the age of Irenæus. It is of the essence of strict Calvinism to teach that _individuals_ are _inevitably_ destined to salvation; and so it was in Gnosticism. The spiritual seed must all be brought back again from earthly degradation; none can fail of being so, first or last. It may be destined to numerous transmigrations; but the spirit must finally be wafted upward to the eternal Fulness(731). Again, the spiritual pride and presumption of the genuine Antinomian is a very observable trait: his speaking of all as carnal who do not adopt his scheme; his placing religion not in holiness, but in _knowing_ the truth; his assumption of superior illumination; his declarations that none but those specially favoured _are capable_ of knowing the truth; all this is merely a repetition of Gnosticism. The Gnostic called himself spiritual, and the Churchman carnal(732); he was the elect and perfect, and the orthodox the ignorant and simple(733); he derived his very name from his making _knowledge_ paramount to all other things(734); he declared that none were capable of receiving his scheme but the spiritual seed(735); that to others good works were necessary and useful(736), but that their lot, however praiseworthy, could never be the same as that of the elect(737). So, again, the abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith is as early as those times. They declared that faith and love was the sum of their religion(738); that the law might be a restraint suited to inferior natures, but that to them it would be a degradation to submit their minds to its yoke; and that, in fact, whatever acts they might commit, it was impossible for them either to be polluted by those acts or to fail of salvation(739). Who would not suppose that the modern ultra‐Calvinist was the speaker? So again, at that time, as in these days these tenets were not always taken up as a cloak for licentiousness. Saturninus and Tatian were extremely correct in their lives; and Valentinus was not accused of any peculiar immorality: indeed, he long continued nominally a member of the Church, which, if his conduct had been flagitious, he could not have done. If they despised the restraints of the moral law, they probably supposed, like Toplady and others, that they had higher principles, which would lead them to greater heights of purity: or they were men of a speculative turn, who took up Gnosticism as a theory, without any disposition to make that practical use of it which others did, merely because they were not persons of warm passions. Indeed, if we may judge from a fragment preserved by Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus was rather a mystic in his religion(740).

There are two or three features in which the Gnostics were the forerunners of a very different class of errors. Transubstantiation no doubt arose in time by a natural depravation of the true doctrine of the Eucharist, through the desire of defining that which Scripture and primitive tradition had left undefined. But it is curious that a hint of it should have been struck out by Marcus, one of the magical Gnostics, who, amongst other arts of legerdemain, hit upon the idea of bringing down into the wine and water _the blood of the supernal grace_, by means of an invocation(741). It is equally curious to read in the account of Carpocrates and his disciples, that they asserted that Pilate had procured a likeness of Jesus Christ to be taken, and that they set his image amongst those of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle and the rest, and decked it with chaplets, and paid to it the selfsame honours which the heathen paid to their idols(742). Nor is it less remarkable that the Gnostics in general, when refuted by the Scriptures, should have spoken in disparagement of them (as I have already pointed out) in terms singularly corresponding with those sometimes made use of by Roman controversialists: “They turn to accuse the Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor of authority; and say that they are at variance with themselves, _neither can the truth be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of_ THEIR _tradition_(743).” Coincidences of this kind are at least curious; and the further we search the more clearly will it appear that the germs of all subsequent errors appeared in very early times.

[Transcriber’s Note: Obvious printer’s errors have been corrected.]

FOOTNOTES

1 In his “Doctrine of Scripture and of the Primitive Church upon
Religious Celibacy,” in reply to the author of “Antient
Christianity.”

2 Tertullian (_adv. Valent._ 5.) calls him _omnium doctrinarum
curiosissimus explorator_.

3 _Epist. ad Florinum._ Εῖδον γάρ σε, παῖς ὢν ἔτι ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ παρὰ
τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ, καὶ πειρώμενον
εὐδοκιμεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Μᾶλλον γὰρ τὰ τότε διαμνημονεύω τῶν ἔναγχος
γινομένων· αἱ γὰρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις, συναύξουσαι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἐνοῦνται
αὑτῇ· ὥστε με δύνασθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾦ καθεζόμενος
διελέγετο ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος, καὶ τὰς προόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς
εἰσόδους, καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ βίου, καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν, καὶ
τὰς διαλέξεις ἃς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν μετὰ Ἰωάννου
συναναστροφὴν ὡς ἀπήγγελλε, καὶ τὴν μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἑωρακότων
τὸν Κύριον· καὶ ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευε τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ
Κυρίου τίνα ἧν ἂ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ἠκηκόει· καὶ περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ
καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζώης τοῦ Λόγου
παρειληφὼς ὁ Πολύκαρπος ἀπήγγελλε, πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς. Ταῦτα
καὶ τότε διὰ τὸ ἕλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ γεγονὸς σπουδαίως ἤκουον,
ὑπομνηματιζόμενος αὐτὰ οὐκ ἐν χάρτῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ καρδίᾳ· καὶ ἀεὶ
διὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνήσιως αὐτὰ ἀναμαρυκῶμαι.

4 _Adv. Hær._ III. iii. 4. Καὶ Πολύκαρπος δὲ οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων
μαθητευθεὶς, καὶ δυναναστραφεὶς πολλοῖς τοῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἑωρακόσιν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ
ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ·
(ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γηραλέος, ἐνδόξως καὶ ἐπιφανέστατα
μαρτυρήσας, ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου)· κ. τ. λ.

5 _Ep. ad Flor._

6 _Diss. in Irenæum_, III. § 10, 11.

7 _Auteurs Ecclésiastiques_, tom. i. S. Irenée.

8 The Benedictine Editor: _Dissert. Præv._ II. § 2.

9 _Mémoires_, tom. iii. S. Irenée, art. ii.

10 _Ep. ad Flor._ supra.

11 _Epist._ 53. al. 29. _ad Theodoram viduam_. Refert Irenæus, vir
Apostolicorum temporum, et Papiæ, auditoris Evangelistæ Joannis,
discipulus, Episcopus Ecclesiæ Lugdunensis, quod Marcus quidam, de
Basilidis Gnostici stirpe descendens, primum ad Gallias venerit, et
eas partes, per quas Rhodanus et Garumna fluunt, suâ doctrinâ
maculaverit, maximeque nobiles fœminas, quædam in occulto mysteria
repromittens, hoc errore seduxerit, magicis artibus et secretâ
corporum voluptate amorem sui concilians: inde Pyrenæum transiens,
Hispanias occuparit; et hoc studii habuerit, ut divitum domos, et in
ipsis fœminas maxime appeteret, quæ ducuntur variis desideriis,
semper discentes, et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes.
Hoc ille scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos; et scripsit in iis
libris, quos adversus omnes hæreses doctissimo et eloquentissimo
sermone composuit.

12 _Adv. Hær._ I. Præf. 2. xv. 6. III. xvii. 4. xxiii. 3. IV. xxvii. 1.

13 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ II. § 3.

14 _Diss. in Iren._ IV. 3.

15 Irenæus (IV. xxvii. 1.) calls him _quendam presbyterum qui audierat
ab his qui apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant_.

16 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. iii. 2. Καὶ δὴ διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ τῶν
δεδηλωμένων [sc. Montanus and his disciples] αὖθις οἱ κατὰ τὴν
Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοὶ τὴν ἰδίαν κρίσιν καὶ περὶ τούτων εὐλαβῆ καὶ
ὀρθοδοξοτάτην ὑποτάττουσιν· ἐκθέμενοι καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς
τελειωθέντων μαρτύρων διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς, ἃς ἐν δεσμοῖς ἔτι
ὑπάρχοντες τοῖς ἐπ᾽ Ἀσίας καὶ Φρυγίας ἀδελφοῖς διεχάραξαν· οὐ μὴν
ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἐλευθέρῳ τῷ τότε Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπῳ, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν
εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

iv. 1. Οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ μάρτυρες καὶ τὸν Εἰρηναῖον, πρεσβύτερον τότ᾽ ὅντα
τῆς ἐν Λουγδούνῳ παροικίας, τῷ δηλωθέντι κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐπισκόπῳ
συνίστων, πλεῖστα τῷ ἀνδρὶ μαρτυροῦντες, ὡς αἱ τοῦτον ἔχουσαι τὸν
τρόπον δηλοῦσι φωναί.

17 Jerome, _Catalog._ Irenæus Pothini Episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in
Gallia regebat ecclesiam, Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob
quasdam Ecclesiæ quæstiones legatus Romam missus, honorificas super
nomine suo ad Eleutherium Episcopum perfert literas. Postea jam
Pothino prope nonagenario ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum
ejus substituitur. Constat autem Polycarpi, cujus supra fecimus
mentionem, sacerdotis et martyris, hunc fuisse discipulum. Scripsit
quinque _adversus Hæreses_ libros, et _contra Gentes_ volumen breve,
et _de Disciplina_ aliud, et ad Marcianum fratrem _de Apostolica
prædicatione_, et librum _Variorum tractatuum_, et ad Blastum _de
Schismate_, et ad Florinum _de Monarchia_, sive, quod Deus non sit
conditor malorum, et _de Octava_ egregium commentarium, in cujus
fine significans se Apostolicorum temporum vicinum fuisse, sic
subscripsit:

“Adjuro te qui transcribis librum istum, per Dominum Jesum Christum,
et per gloriosum ejus adventum, quo judicaturus est vivos et
mortuos, ut conferas postquam transcripseris, et emendes illum ad
exemplar, unde scripsisti, diligentissime: hanc quoque obtestationem
similiter transferas, ut invenisti in exemplari.” Feruntur ejus et
aliæ ad Victorem Episcopum Romæ _de quæstione Paschæ_ epistolæ, in
quibus commonet eum, non facile debere unitatem collegii scindere:
siquidem Victor multos Asiæ et Orientis Episcopos, qui decimaquarta
luna cum Judæis pascha celebrabant, damnandos crediderat; in qua
sententia hi qui discrepabant ab illis, Victori non dederunt manus.
Floruit maxime sub Commodo principe, qui Marco Antonino Vero in
imperium successerat.

18 Athen. _Deipnosoph._ xiii. 5. Justin, xliii. 3.

19 Pothinus, the bishop, Attalus, (Περγαμηνὸς τῷ γένει· Euseb. V. i.
7.) Alcibiades, Biblias, Alexander, (Φρὺξ τὸ γένος· ibid. 21.) all
mentioned by Eusebius, besides others recorded in the martyrologies.

20 See note 7, p. 8.

21 _Hist. Eccl._ V. v. 3. Ποθεινοῦ δὴ ἐφ᾽ ὅλοις τῆς ζωῆς ἔτεσιν
ἐνενήκοντα σὺν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασι τελειωθέντος, Εἰρηναῖος
τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον, ἧς ὁ Ποθεινὸς ἡγεῖτο παροικίας, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν
διαδέχεται. Πολυκάρπου δὲ τοῦτον ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν νέαν
ἐμανθάνομεν ἡλικίαν.

22 Tillemont, _Mémoires_, Note 1. Sur les Martyrs de Lion.

23 See the Epistle of the Martyrs to Eleutherus; Euseb. V. iv. 1.
Χαίρειν ἐν Θεῷ σε ἐν πᾶσιν εὐχόμεθα καὶ ἀεὶ, πάτερ Ἐλεύθερε. Ταῦτά
σοι τὰ γράμματα προτρεψάμεθα τόν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ κοινωνὸν Εἰρηναῖον
διακόμισαι· καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει, ζηλωτὴν
ὄντα τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 2. Εἰ γὰρ ᾕδειμεν τόπον τινὶ
δικαιοσύνην περιποιεῖσθαι, ὡς πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐπ᾽
αὐτῷ, ἐν πρώτοις ἃν παρεθέμεθα.

24 _Hist. Eccl._ V. iii. 2. See note 6, p. 7.

25 Tertull. _adv. Praxean_, i. Nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus
perversitatis intulit Romæ.... Nam idem tunc Episcopum Romanum,
agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscæ, Maximillæ, et ex ea
agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiæ et Phrygiæ inferentem, falsa de ipsis
prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando, et præcessorum ejus
auctoritates defendendo, coëgit et literas pacis revocare jam
emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Ita
duo negotia diabolo Praxeas Romæ procuravit: prophetiam expulit (we
must remember that Tertullian was a Montanist), et hæresin intulit:
Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit. Fructicaverant avenæ
Praxeanæ, hic quoque superseminatæ, dormientibus multis in
simplicitate doctrinæ; traductæ dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam
evulsæ videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione
sua; et manet chirographum apud Psychicos (the orthodox), apud quos
res tunc gesta est. Exinde silentium.... Ita aliquamdiu per
hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit.

26 In his account of Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas.

27 Tom. ii. Note 4. Sur les Montanistes.

28 _Dissertationes Præv._ II. § 8, 9.

29 See Tertullian in loco.

30 _Hist. Eccl._ V. i. 1.

31 Euseb. V. i. 7.

32 Euseb. V. xx. 1. Ἐξεναντίας τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας
θεσμὸν παραχαραττόντων, Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει· τὴν
μὲν ἐπιγράψας πρὸς Βλάστον περὶ σχίσματος· τὴν δὲ πρὸς Φλωρῖνον περὶ
μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἑἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν· ταύτης γάρ
τοι τῆς γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν· δι᾽ ὂν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον
τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ, καὶ τὸ περὶ ὀγδοάδος συντάττεται τῷ
Εἰρηναίῳ σπούδασμα· ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐπισημαίνεται τὴν πρώτην τῶν ἀποστόλων
κατειληφέναι ἑαυτὸν διαδοχήν.——ἐν ᾗ γε μὴν προειρήκαμεν πρὸς τὸν
Φλωρῖνον ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐπιστολῇ αὗθις τῆς ἅμα Πολυκάρπῳ συνουσίας
αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει λέγων· Τὰ δόγματα, κ. τ. λ.

33 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. i. 14.

34 Ibid. V. v. 3, supra.

35 By Quesnel (see Tillemont, tom. iii. just at the end of his account
of Irenæus); and by Massuet, _Dissert. Præv._ II. § 12.

36 See note 7, p. 8.

37 See note 4, p. 10.

38 V. xxiii. 2.

39 Bingham, IX. ii. 1.

40 Euseb. V. 22. Τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν παροικῶν.

41 Athanas. _Apol._ 2. p. 788. Paris, 1527.

42 Bingham, IX. ii. 6.

43 _Hist._ I. 27. Εἰσὶν ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ πόλιν ὡς παροικίαι.

44 _Dissert._ II. § 13‐16.

45 Ruinart. _Act. Mart._ p. 110. cited by Massuet, _Diss._ II. § 15.

46 So called to distinguish them from the inhabitants of Galatia.
Theodoret. Dial. i. p. 33. ed. Sirmond:—Εἰρηναῖος τῆς Πολυκάρπου
διδασκαλίας ἀπήλαυσεν· ἐγεγόνει δὲ φωστὴρ Γαλατῶν τῶν ἐσπερίων.

47 Id. _Hær. Fab._ p. 189. Τοὺς μέντοι τῶν παλαιῶν αἱρέσεων μύθους ἐκ
τῶν παλαιῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων συνέλεξα, Ἰουστίνου τοῦ
φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος, καὶ Εἰρηναίου τοῦ τὰ Κέλτικα καὶ
γεωργήσαντος καὶ φωτίσαντος ἔθνη.

48 Anonymus auctor _martyrii S. Ferreoli presbyteri, et Ferruccionis
diaconi, ac sociorum ejus_, apud Surium, tom. viii. ad diem 16.
Junii. Eodem tempore quo summus Sacerdos et Martyr Ecclesiæ
Lugdunensis, S. Irenæus Episcopus Christi, lumen æternum et splendor
justitiæ, publice suam prædicationem in Galliis dederat, et assidue
verbum Domini nostri Jesu Christi gentibus declarârat, Sanctum
Ferreolum Presbyterum, et Ferruccionem Diaconum ad Vesunsensem
civitatem vere ut fundamentum fortissimum ad fundandam supra petram
Christi Ecclesiam misit: et sicut angularis lapis sponsi cœlestis,
et ut margaritæ resplendentes fulgebant, per quos nomen æternum et
splendor gloriæ gentibus, quæ in tenebris jacebant, coruscaret; ut
eorum prædicatione ad Baptismatis gratiam convolarent in quibus erat
mira virtus Christi. In verbo enim et sapientia strenui, vultum
angelicum et Domini servitutibus aptum manifeste populis
demonstrabant. Augebatur Catholica fides, lætabantur de confuso et
victo diabolo quotidie Christiani; qui derelinquentes idola,
sequebantur Christi vestigia. Similiter Sanctus Irenæus Felicem
Presbyterum, Fortunatum, et Achilleum Diaconos, ex suo latere ante
gloriosum martyrium suum Valentiam dirigit in urbem: quibus
ingressis, talem Dominus athletis suis contulit gratiam, ut illa
Paganorum multitudo, quæ in tenebris jacebat, eos plenissimo affectu
diligeret.

49 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xx. 1.

50 Ibid. 15.

51 _Hær. Fab._ I. 23.

52 Tertull. _de Præscript._ 53.

53 _Epist._ 1.

54 _Hist. Eccl._ V. 15. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκμαζον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Φλωρῖνος,
πρεσβυτερίου τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσὼν, Βλάστος τε σὺν τούτῳ
παραπλησίῳ, πτώματι κατεσχημένος· οἳ καὶ πλείους τῆς ἐκκλησίας
περιέλκοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ σφῶν ὑπῆγον Βούλημα· θάτερος ἰδίως περὶ τὴν
ἀλήθειαν νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος.

55 _Diss._ II. § 59.

56 _Epist. ad Florinum_, supra, p. 2.

57 Euseb. V. 15.

58 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xx. 2‐4.

59 Fragm. ii.

60 Euseb. V. xx. 1.

61 Περὶ Ὀγδοάδος.

62 Euseb. V. xx. 2, and Fragm. i. of the Benedictine edition. Ὀρκίζω σε
τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἦς ἔρχεται κρῖναι
ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ
πρὸς ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὄθεν μετεγράψω, ἐπιμελῶς· καὶ τὸν ὅρκον
τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφω.

63 _Adv. Hær._ I. v. 3. οἱ δὲ καὶ ταῖς τῆς σαρκός ἡδοναῖς κατακόρωσ
δουλεύοντες, τὰ σαρκικὰ τοῖς σαρκικοῖς, καὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ τοῖς
πνευματικοῖς ἀποδίδοσθαι λέγουσι. Καὶ οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν λάθρα τὰς
διδασκομένας ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην γυναῖκας διαφθείρουσιν, ὡς
πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ ἐνίων αὐτῶν ἐξαπατηθεῖσαι, ἔπειπα ἐπιστρέψασαι γυναῖκες
εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺν τῇ λοιπῇ πλάνῃ καὶ τοῦτο
ἐξωμολογήσαντο. οἱ δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸ φανερὸν ἀπερυθριάσαντες, ὧν ἂν
ἐρασθῶσι γυναικῶν, ταύτας ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἀποσπάσαντες, ἰδίας γαμετὰς
ἡγήσαντο. ἄλλοι δὲ αὖ πάλιν σεμνῶς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς, ὡς μετὰ ἀδελφῶν
προσποιούμενοι συνοικεῖν, προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου ηλέγχθησαν, ἐγκύμονος
τῆς ἀδελφῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γενηθείσης.

Ib. xiii. 7. Τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγοντες καὶ πράττοντες, καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽
ἡμᾶς κλίμασι τῆς Ῥοδανουσίας, πολλὰς ἐξηπατήκασι γυναῖκας, αἵτινες
κεκαυτηριασμέναι τὴν συνείδησιν, αἱ μὲν καὶ εἰς φανερὸν
ἐξομολογοῦνται, αἱ δὲ δυσωπούμεναι τοῦτο, ἡσυχῆ δέ πως ἑαυτὰς,
ἀπηλπικυῖαι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔνιαι μὲν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἀπέστησαν,
ἔνιαι δὲ ἐπαμφοτερίζουσι, καὶ τὸ τῆς παροιμίας πεπόνθασι, μήτε ἔξω,
μήτε ἔσω οὖσαι, ταύτην ἔχουσαι τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν
τέκνων τῆς γνώσεως.

64 _Adv. Hær._ I. Præf. 3. Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐκ Κελτοῖς
διατριβόντων, καὶ περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων,
λόγων τέχνην, ἣν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν, οὔτε δύναμιν συγγράφεως, ἣν οὐκ
ἠσκήσαμεν, οὔτε καλλωπισμὸν λέξεων, οὔτε πιθανότητα, ἧν οὐκ οἴδαμεν·
ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς, καὶ ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα,
μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺ προσδέξῃ· καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ, ἅτε
ἰκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν,
καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις τὰ δι᾽ ὀλίγων
ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰρημένα, καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς
ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα. καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐφιλοτιμήθημεν, πάλαι ζητοῦντός
σου μαθεῖν τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μὴ μόνον σοι ποιῆσαι φανερὰν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἐφόδια δοῦναι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ· οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὺ
φιλοτίμως τοῖς λοιποῖς διακονήσεις, κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ
Κυρίου σοὶ δεδομένην, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι παρασύρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ
τῆς ἐκείνων πιθανολογίας, οὔσης τοιαύτης.

65 I. Præf. 2. Ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἰτίαν συναρπάζωνταί τινες,
ὡς πρόβατα ὑπὸ λύκων, ἀγνοοῦντες αὐτοὺς, διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν τῆς
προβατείου δορᾶς ἐπιβουλὴν, οὓς φυλάσσειν παρήγγελκεν ἡμῖν Κύριος,
ὅμοια μὲν λαλοῦντας, ἀνόμοια δὲ φρονοῦντας· ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην,
ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν,
ἐνίοις δ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν,
μήνυσαί σοι, ἀγαπητὲ, τὰ τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα μυστήρια, ἃ οὐ πάντες
χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν· ὅπως καὶ σὺ
μαθὼν αὐτὰ, πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ φανερὰ ποιήσῃς, καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς
φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας, καὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν βλασφημίας.

66 III. iii. 1. given at length in ch. II. of this work.

67 III. xxi. 1. given at length in the chapter _on the Canon, &c. of
Holy Scripture_.

68 See Epiphan. _de Pond. et Mens._ § 17. and the _Alexandrian
Chronicle_, quoted by Massuet, _Diss._ II. § 47.

69 Book I. xxxi. 4. Cum igitur hæc sic se habeant, quatenus promisi,
secundum nostram virtutem inferemus eversionem ipsorum, omnibus eis
contradicentes in sequenti libro: (enarratio enim in longum pergit,
ut vides:) et viatica quoque dabimus ad eversionem ipsorum,
occurrentes omnibus sententiis secundum narrationis ordinem: ut
simus non tantum ostendentes, sed et vulnerantes undique bestiam.

70 III. Præf. Misimus tibi libros, ex quibus primus quidem omnium
illorum sententias continet, et consuetudines, et characteres
ostendit conversationis eorum. In secundo vero destructa et eversa
sunt quæ ab ipsis male docentur, et nudata, et ostensa sunt talia
qualia et sunt. In hoc autem tertio ex Scripturis inferemus
ostensiones, ut nihil tibi ex his, quæ præceperas, desit a nobis;
sed et, præterquam opinabaris, ad arguendum et evertendum eos, qui
quolibet modo male docent, occasiones a nobis accipias. Quæ enim est
in Deo charitas, dives et sine invidia exsistens, plura donat quam
postulet quis ab ea. Memento igitur eorum quæ diximus in prioribus
duobus libris; et hæc illis adjungens, plenissimam habebis a nobis
adversus omnes hæreticos contradictionem, et fiducialiter ac
instantissime resistes eis pro sola vera ac vivifica fide, quam ab
Apostolis Ecclesia percepit, et distribuit filiis suis. Etenim
Dominus omnium dedit Apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii, per quos
et veritatem, hoc est, Dei Filii doctrinam cognovimus; quibus et
dixit Dominus: Qui vos audit, me audit: et qui vos contemnit, me
contemnit, et eum qui me misit.

71 Ib. & IV. Præf. 1. Hunc quartum librum, dilectissime, transmittens
tibi, operis quod est de detectione et eversione falsæ cognitionis,
quemadmodum promisimus, per Domini sermones ea, quæ prædiximus,
confirmabimus.——V. Præf. Traductis, dilectissime, omnibus hæreticis
in quatuor libris, qui sunt tibi ante hunc a nobis editi, et
doctrinis ipsorum manifestatis; eversis quoque his, qui irreligiosas
adinvenerunt sententias, aliquid quidem ex propria uniuscujusque
illorum doctrina, quam in suis conscriptis reliquerunt; aliquid
autem ex ratione, universis ostensionibus procedente; et veritate
ostensa, et manifestato præconio Ecclesiæ, quod Prophetæ quidem
præconaverunt, quemadmodum demonstravimus, perfecit autem Christus,
Apostoli vero tradiderunt, a quibus Ecclesia accipiens, per
universum mundum sola bene custodiens, tradidit filiis suis;
quæstionibusque omnibus solutis, quæ ab hæreticis nobis proponuntur;
et Apostolorum doctrina explanata, et manifestatis pluribus, quæ a
Domino per parabolas et dicta sunt et facta: in hoc libro quinto,
operis universi, quod est de traductione et eversione falso
cognominatæ agnitionis, ex reliquis doctrinæ Domini nostri, et ex
Apostolicis epistolis, conabimur ostensiones facere.

72 I. Præf. 2. Καὶ, καθὼς δύναμις ἡμῖν, τήν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν
παραδιδασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, ἀπάνθισμα οὖσαν τῆς
Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, συντόμως καὶ σαφῶς ἀπαγγελοῦμεν.

73 II. Præf. 2. In hoc autem libro instruemus quæ nobis apta sunt, et
quæ permittit tempus, et evertemus per magna capitula omnem ipsorum
regulam: quapropter, quod sit detectio et eversio sententiæ ipsorum,
operis hujus conscriptionem ita titulavimus. Oportet enim
absconditas ipsorum conjugationes, per manifestarum conjugationum
indicium et eversionem, Bythum dissolvere; et quoniam neque fuerit
aliquando, neque sit, accipere ostensionem.

74 See note 10 above, p. 34.

75 See III. ii. 1. quoted in the chapter on _Tradition_.

76 III. v. 1.

77 See IV. Præf. 1. quoted above, p. 35. and i. 1. Cum sit igitur hoc
firmum et constans, neminem alterum Deum et Dominum a Spiritu
prædicatum, nisi eum qui dominatur omnium Deus, cum Verbo suo, et
eos qui adoptionis Spiritum accipiunt, hoc est, eos qui credunt in
unum et verum Deum, et Christum Jesum Filium Dei; similiter et
Apostolos neminem alium a semetipsis Deum appellasse, aut Dominum
cognominasse; multo autem magis Dominum nostrum, qui et nobis
præcepit neminem Patrem confiteri, nisi eum qui est in cœlis, qui
est unus Deus, et unus Pater.

78 See V. Præf. quoted above, p. 35.

79 _In Bibliotheca_, cod. 120.

80 Massuet, _Diss._ II. §. 53. Quisquis Irenæum Latinum cum Tertulliano
contulerit, e vestigio deprehendet adeo hunc vestigia illius
premere, adeo verbis ipsis, verborumque figuris et ordini adhærere,
ut id unum sibi proposuisse videatur, paucioribus contrahere, iisdem
sæpe servatis verbis, immixtis tamen pro more dicteriis, quæ ille
fusioribus exsequutus est. Sic Irenæus, lib. I. cap. xi. n. 3.
Epiphanis sententiam referens, scribit: “Est quidem ante omnes
Proarche, proanennoëtos, et inenarrabilis, et innominabilis, quam
ego monotetem voco. Cum hac monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco
henotetem. Hæc henotes et monotes, cum sint unum, emiserunt, cum
nihil emiserint, principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoraton,
quam archem sermo monada vocat. Cum hac monade est virtus ejusdem
substantiæ ei, quam et eam voco hen. Hæ autem virtutes, id est,
monotes et henotes, et monas, et hen, emiserunt reliquas emissiones
Æonum.” Tertullianus vero cap. 37. “Est,” inquit, “ante omnia
Proarche, inexcogitabile et inenarrabile, quod ego nomino monoteta.
Cum hac erat alia virtus, quam et ipsam appello henoteta. Monotes et
henotes, id est, solitas et unitas, cum unum essent, protulerunt,
non proferentes, initium omnium intellectuale, innascibile,
invisibile, quod sermo monada vocavit. Huic adest consubstantiva
virtus, quam appellat unio. Hæ igitur virtutes, solitas,
singularitas, unitas, unio, cæteras prolationes Æonum propagarunt.”
Ubi eadem verba, (nisi quod Græca quædam Latine vertuntur,) eadem
styli barbaries, atque apud Irenæi interpretem occurrunt. Hic n. 5.
“Alii rursus ipsorum primam et archegonon octonationem his nominibus
nominaverunt: primum Proarchen, deinde Anennoëton, tertiam autem
Arrheton, et quartam Aoraton. Et de prima quidem Proarche emissum
esse primo et quinto loco Archen; ex Anennoëto secundo et sexto loco
Acatalepton; et de Arrheto tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston; de
Aorato autem quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Tertullianus, cap.
25. totidem verbis: “Primo enim constituunt Proarchen, secundo
Anennoëton, tertio Arrheton, quarto Aoraton. Ex Proarche itaque
processisse primo et quinto loco Archen; ex Anennoëto, secundo et
sexto loco Acatalepton; ex Arrheto, tertio et septimo loco
Anonomaston; ex Invisibili, quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Certe
si e Græco immediate exscripsisset omnia hæc Tertullianus, tot
nomina Græca Latine vertisset; nec fortuito et casu fieri potuit ut
hoc illi cum Irenæi interprete convenerit. Hic cap. xii. n. 3.
Colorbaseorum hypothesim sic exponit. “Quando cogitavit aliquid
emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est; at ubi quæ emisit, vera
fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum
ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. Quos autem præcogitaverat
posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Loquutus est Anthropos
Logon, hic est primogenitus Filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoe, et
sic prima octonatio completa est.” Ille cap. 36. “Quum, inquiunt,
cogitavit proferre, hoc Pater dictus est; quum protulit, quia vera
protulit, hic Veritas appellata est. Quum semetipsum voluit probari,
hoc Homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem præcogitavit, cum protulit,
tunc Ecclesia nuncupata est. Sonuit Homo Sermonem, et hic est
primogenitus Filius: et Sermoni accessit Vita, et ogdoas prima
conclusa est.” Plura alia similia passim occurrunt apud
Tertullianum. Sed quod demum ostendit hunc non e Græco, sed ex
interprete Irenæi sumpsisse quæ refert, illud est, quod ubi lapsus
est interpres Græca perperam reddens, lapsus est et Tertullianus.
Ille, ut jam dixi, nomen Ἐπιφανὴς appellativum esse putans, male
omnino vertit “clarus.” Tertullianus similiter errantem sequutus
scripsit, “insignior.” Irenæus, cap. ii. n. 3. Sophiæ perturbationem
enarrans, scribit eam, fœtum informem cum peperisset, “primo quidem
contristatam propter inconsummationem generationis, post deinde,
φοβηθῆναι μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τέλος ἔχῃ.” Sic saltem legit interpres; vertit
enim, “timuisse ne hoc ipsum finem habeat;” ubi τέλος
“perfectionem,” non “finem” vertendum erat, ut in notis ad hunc
locum diximus. Nec melius Tertullianus, cap. 10. “primo quidem
contristari propter inconsummationem generationis, et metuere
postremo, ne finis quoque insisteret.” Ubi similiter τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς
γεννήσεως vertit “inconsummationem generationis;” et relicto Irenæo
Græco, Latinum interpretem sequutus scripsit, “ne quoque finis
insisteret.” Eodem cap. n. 4. refert Irenæus, quod Pater per
Monogenem emiserit Horon in imagine sua, ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον: ubi
interpres perperam legens ἀσυζύγῳ, ἀθηλύντῳ, vel, ut alii volunt,
ἀῥῥενοθήλει, perperam et vertit, “sine conjuge masculo‐fœmina.”
Eadem culpa tenetur et Tertullianus, cap. cit. “Pater per Monogenem
Nun, quem supra diximus Horon, in hæc promit in imagine sua fœmina‐
mare.” Nempe uterque id ad imaginem refert, quod Horo soli convenire
posse recta ratio demonstrat. Culpam hanc non sustineret
Tertullianus, si textum Græcum hic potius quam interpretem
consuluisset. Paulo post, Sophian ab Horo mundatam et confirmatam,
ac suæ restitutam conjugationi cum dixisset Irenæus, addit:
Χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει,
αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς Πληρώματος μεῖναι· τὴν δὲ ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ
πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι. Quæ sic reddidit
interpres: “Separata enim intentione ab ea, cum appendice passione,
ipsam quidem infra Pleroma perseverasse: concupiscentiam vero ejus
cum passione ab Horo separatam, et crucifixam, et extra cum factam
esse, &c.” ubi duo peccat, primum quod, σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει,
vertit, “cum appendice passione;” vertendum erat, “cum passione quæ
supervenerat.” Secundum, quod ἀποσταυρωθῆναι vertit, “crucifixam;”
hic significat, quasi “vallo cinctam et disjunctam” a Pleromate.
Eadem omnino peccat et Tertullianus, scribens: “Enthymesin ejus et
illam appendicem passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifixam.” Hæc et
plura alia, quæ identidem in notis observavi, invicte, ni fallor,
probant, Tertullianum, ut Græcum Irenæum legerit, (quod non nego) ab
eo tamen sæpe defecisse, ut Latini interpretis, et quidem interdum
errantis, vestigia sectaretur.

81 _Contra Julianum Pelagianum_, I. c. 3. he has quoted the last clause
of IV. ii. 7; and c. 7. the last paragraph of V. xvii. 1.

82 Eusebius indeed says (V. xxiii. 1) that the Churches of _all Asia_
were united in differing from the rest of the world; but it is
evident, from chap. xxv. that he means Asia Minor; for he mentions
the bishops of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Tyre, and Ptolemais, as asserting
that the Church of Alexandria agreed with them in their present
practice, which was the same as that of the West.

Τῆς Ἀσίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας, σελήνης
τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην ᾥοντο δεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς
παραφυλάττειν, ἐν ᾗ θύειν τὸ πρόβατον Ἰουδαίοις προηγόρευτο· ὡς δέον
ἐκπαντὸς κατὰ ταύτην, ὁποίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἑβδομάδος περιτυγχάνοι,
τὰς τῶν ἀσιτιῶν ἐπιλύσεις ποιεῖσθαι· οὐκ ἔθους ὄντος τοῦτον
ἐπιτελεῖν τὸν τρόπον ταῖς ἀνὰ τήν λοιπὴν ἄπασαν οἰκουμένην
ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως τὸ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο κρατῆσαν ἔθος
φυλαττούσαις· ὡς μηδ᾽ ἑτέρᾳ προσήκειν παρὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ
Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέραν τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι.

83 As appears by the following Fragment of Irenæus’s Epistle to Victor,
quoted by Euseb. V. xxiv. 5. Καὶ οἱ πρὸ Σωτῆρος πρεσβύτεροι οἱ
προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἧς νῦν ἀφηγῇ, Ἀνίκητον λέγομεν καὶ Πίον,
Ὕγῖνόν τε καὶ Τελεσφόρον, καὶ Ξύστον, οὔτε αὐτοὶ ἐτήρησαν, οὔτε τοῖς
μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπέτρεπον. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον αὐτοὶ μὴ τηροῦντες,
εἰρήνευον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν, ἐν αἷς ἐτηρεῖτο, ἐρχομένοις πρὸς
αὐτοὺς, καίτοι μᾶλλον ἐνάντιον ἦν τὸ τηρεῖν τοῖς μὴ τηροῦσι· καὶ
οὐδέποτε διὰ τὸ εἶδος τοῦτο ἀπεβλήθησάν τινες. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ μὴ
τηροῦντες, οἱ πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι, τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν τηροῦσιν
ἔπεμπον εὐχαριστίαν. Καὶ τοῦ μακαρίου Πολυκάρπου ἐπιδημήσαντος τῇ
Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων τινῶν μικρὰ σχόντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους,
εὐθὺς εἰρήνευσαν, περὶ τούτου τοῦ κεφαλαίου μὴ φιλεριστήσαντες
ἑαυτούς. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ Ἀνίκητος τὸν Πολύκαρπον πεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ
τηρεῖν, ἅτε μετὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ μαθητοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ λοιπῶν
ἀποστόλων οἷς συνδιέτριψεν, ἀεὶ τετηρηκότα· οὔτε μὴν ὁ Πολύκαρπος
τὸν Ἀνίκητον ἔπεισε τηρεῖν, λέγοντα τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν πρὸ αὑτοῦ
πρεσβυτέρων ὀφείλειν κατέχειν. καὶ τούτων οὔτως ἐχόντων, ἐκοινὼνησαν
ἑαυτοῖς· καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παρεχώρησεν ὁ Ἀνίκητος τὴν εὐχαριστίαν
τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, κατ᾽ ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι, καὶ μετ᾽ εἰρήνης απ‘ ἀλλήλων
ἀπηλλάγησαν, πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰρήνην ἐχόντων, καὶ τῶν τηρούντων
καὶ τῶν μὴ τηρούντων.

84 See p. 23. above.

85 We know that he wrote to Polycrates of Ephesus, and therefore
probably to the rest. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. xxiv. 3.—Ἐδυνάμην δὲ τῶν
ἐπισκόπων τῶν συμπαρόντων μνημονεῦσαι, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἠξιώσατε
μετακληθῆναι ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ μετεκαλεσάμην.

86 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xxiii. 2. Σύνοδοι δὴ καὶ συγκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων ἐπὶ
ταὐτὸν ἐγίνοντο. πάντες τε μιᾷ γνώμῃ δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν
δόγμα τοῖς πανταχόσε διετυποῦντο, ὡς ἂν μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῃ ποτε τῆς
Κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου
μυστήριον, καὶ ὄπως ἐν ταύτῃ μόνῃ τῶν κατὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστειῶν
φυλαττοίμεθα τας ἐπιλύσεις. Φέρεται δ᾽ εἰσέτι νῶν τῶν κατὰ
Παλαιστίνην τηνικάδε συγκεκροτημένων γραφὴ, ὧν προὐτέτακτο Θεέφιλος
τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ παροικίας ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ Νάρκισσος τῆς ἐν
Ἱεροσολύμοις· καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης δὲ ὁμοίως ἄλλη περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ
ζητήματος, ἐπίσκοπον Βίκτορα δηλοῦσα· τῶν τε κατὰ Πόντον ἐπισκόπων,
ὧν Πάλμας ὡς ἀρχαιότατος προὐτέτακτο· καὶ τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν δὲ
παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει· ἔτι δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ὀσροηνὴν καὶ
τὰς ἐκεῖσε πόλεις· καὶ ἰδίως Βακχύλλου τῆς Κορινθίων ἐκκλησίας
ἐπισκόπου, καὶ πλείστων ὅσων ἄλλων, οἱ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτην δόξαν τε
καὶ κρίσιν ἐξενεγκόμενοι, τὴν αὐτὴν τέθεινται ψῆφον.... 24. Τῶν δὲ
ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπισκόπων τὸ πάλαι πρότερον αὐτοῖς παραδοθὲν
διαφυλάττειν ἔθος χρῆναι διϊσχυριζομένων ἡγεῖτο Πολυκράτης.

87 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xxiv. 2. Ἐγὼ οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἑξήκοντα καὶ πέντε ἔτη
ἔχων ἐν Κυρίῳ, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀδελφοῖς, καὶ
πᾶσαν ἁγίαν γραφὴν διεληλυθὼς, οὐ πτύρομαι ἐπὶ τοῖς
καταπλησσομένοις.

88 Euseb. V. xxiv. 3. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ,
ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσας ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας
ἀποτέμνειν, ὡς ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται· καὶ
στηλιτεύει γε διὰ γραμμάτων, ἀκοινωνήτους ἄρδην πάντας τοὺς ἐκεῖσε
ἀκακηρύττων ἀδελφούς.

89 Ibid. Ἀλλ᾽ οὺ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτ᾽ ἠρέσκετο·
ἀντιπαρακελεύονται δῦτα αὐτῷ, τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς
πλησίον ἑνώσεως καὶ ἀγάπης φρονεῖν. Φέρονται δὲ καὶ αἱ τούτων φωναὶ,
πληκτικώτερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίκτορος· ἐν οἷς καὶ ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ
προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, παρίσταται
μὲν τῷ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου
ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι μυστήριον· τῷ γε μὴν Βίκτορι προσηκόντως, ὡς
μὴ ἀποκόπτοι ὅλας ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἀρχαίου ἔθους παράδοσιν
ἐπιτηρούσας, πλεῖστα ἕτερα παραινεῖ, καὶ αὐτοῖς δὲ ῥήμασι τάδε
ἐπιλέγων· Then follows the fragment Οὐ γὰρ μόνον ... συνίστησι,
extracted in the chapter _on the Forms and Ceremonies of the
Church_, and that quoted above, p. 45, note 4.—Ibid. xxiv. 6. Ὁ δ᾽
αύτὸς οὐ μόνον τῷ Βίκτορι, ἀλλὰ και διαφόροις πλείστοις ἄρχουσιν
ἐκκλησιῶν, τὰ κατάλληλα δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν περὶ τοῦ κεκινημένου ζητήματος
ὡμίλει.

90 Anatolius, apud Bucher. _de Cycl. Vict._ p. 444. ed. Antwerp, 1633.

91 Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, in a letter addressed to
Cyprian, preserved amongst those of Cyprian (_Epist._ 75. ed.
Potter. p. 220.), says, in reference to the diversity of customs
“circa celebrandos dies paschæ, et circa multa alia divinæ rei
sacramenta,” “Nec tamen propter hoc ab ecclesiæ Catholicæ pace atque
unitate aliquando discessum est.”

Athanasius, (_de Synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ_, § 5.), says, that
before the Council of Nice, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας καὶ Κιλικίας καὶ
Μεσοποταμίας ἐχώλευον περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων
ἐποιοῦντο πάσχα.

Chrysostom, in his _Discourses against the Jews_, in that one in
which he dissuades the Christians of Antioch from joining in their
observances, (tom. v. _Hom._ 55. p. 608. ed. Benedict.) reminds them
that the Church of Antioch once universally kept the ante‐paschal
fast with the Jews, although they had, since the Council of Nice,
given up that practice: Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἐνηστεύομεν πρότερον, ἀλλ᾽
ὄμως προετιμήσαμεν τὴν συμφωνίαν τῆς τῶν χρόνων παρατηρήσεως.

92 Theodoret. _Hist._ I. 9. Euseb. _de Vit. Const._ 19.

93 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ II. § 21.

94 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. xxiv. 3. quoted p. 47, note 9.

95 Jerome in _Catal._ quoted p. 8, note 7.

96 Euseb. as quoted p. 47, note 1.

97 See note 3, p. 48.

98 _Hist. Eccl._ v. 26. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ πρὸς τοῖς ἀποδοθεῖσιν Εἰρηναίου
συγγράμμασι καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, φέρεταί τις αὐτοῦ πρὸς Ἕλληνας
λόγος συντομώτατος καὶ ταμάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατος, Περὶ ἐπιστήμης
ἐπιγεγραμμένος· καὶ ἄλλος, ὃν ἀνατέθεικεν ἀδελφῷ Μαρκιανῷ τοὔνομα,
εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος· καὶ βιβλίον τι Διαλέξεων
διαφόρων, ἐν ᾧ τῆς πρὸς Ἐβραίους ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας
Σολωμῶντος μνημονεύει, ῥητά τινα ἐξ αὐτῶν παραθέμενος.

99 See p. 2, note 7.

100 In the _Answer_ to _Question_ 115. Ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυρ
καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ κ. τ. λ.

101 Tom. II. p. 152, ed. Combefis.

102 On Isaiah, lxiv. 4, 5. in vol. iv. p. 761 of his Works.

103 _Hist. Franc._ x. 27. Veniente persecutione, talia ibidem diabolus
bella per tyrannum exercuit, et tanta ibi multitudo Christianorum ob
confessionem divini nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina
currerent de sanguine Christiano; quorum nec numerum nec nomina
colligere potuimus: Dominus enim eos in libro vitæ conscripsit.
Beatum Irenæum, diversis in sua carnifex præsentia pœnis affectum,
Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit.

104 Tillemont, _Mémoires_, tom. iii. part. 1. S. Irenée, Art. x.