CHAPTER XXI. ACCOUNT OF THE GNOSTIC TEACHERS AND THEIR TENETS.

Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.

Several writers have speculated upon the sources of the Gnostic errors; but, I believe that the assertion of Irenæus remains uncontradicted, that SIMON MAGUS was the first to give them a definite form(538). We learn from Theodoret(539), Elias Cretensis(540), and Nicetas(541), that he imagined an ogdoad of superior beings, all the rest of whom emanated from the first. He imagined one First Cause, the source of all existence, with whom he joined his Thought (Ἔννοια). Irenæus mentions no more than these(542). Simon taught that this Thought, issuing forth from the Supreme Father, and knowing his intentions, descended from above, and produced the Angels and Powers by whom the world was made, and who were ignorant of the Father: that they, not wishing to acknowledge any author of their existence, detained her, and subjected her to every kind of contumely, to prevent her return to the Father, and caused her to exist in this world in perpetual transmigration from one female form to another.

He taught that he himself was this Supreme Father(543), and a prostitute, named Helena, whom he had purchased at Tyre, and with whom he cohabited, was his Thought, who had been formerly the Trojan Helen: that she was the lost sheep(544), and that he was come down upon earth to rescue her from the bondage in which she was held; and to rescue man by the knowledge of himself from the tyranny they were under to the angels who created the world. This tyranny was obedience to the moral law, which was imposed upon man by the agency of the inspired persons of the old dispensation solely to keep him in subjection: and the deliverance he accomplished for his followers was to bring them to believe that all actions were indifferent in their own nature, and that the will of the Creative Powers was the only thing which made one action more just than another. To do away with this tyranny, he declared that he had transformed himself first into a resemblance to the angels, then into that of man; in which latter form he had appeared in Judæa as the Son, and there apparently suffered; but only apparently(545); that he had afterwards manifested himself to the Samaritans as the Father, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost(546).

Irenæus gives it as his own opinion that the conversion of Simon was only pretended; that he regarded the Apostles as nothing more than impostors or sorcerers of a somewhat deeper skill and subtler knowledge than himself, which he hoped to be initiated into: and that his mortification at the rebuff he met with caused him to set himself in opposition to them, and to dive deeper into magic arts for that purpose; on account of his proficiency in which he was honoured by Claudius Cæsar with a statue(547).

The natural fruits followed from such doctrines and such an example. The priests of his heresy were sorcerers of various degrees of ability, and their lives were very impure. They taught their followers to worship Simon under the form of Jupiter, and Helena under that of Minerva(548).

It is obvious that such a scheme was adapted only to the gross and ignorant, with just enough of mysticism about it to enable its founder to keep up the character of a philosopher with the more refined, and enable him to pass off his lewdness as the result of a philosophical system, rather than the dominion of low propensities. The Emperor Claudius, notorious as a man of weak intellect, was an extremely likely person to be both amused and duped by his magical performances.

We have here the germ of all the Antinomian heresies from that time to the present. However they may have been _espoused_ by refined and virtuous minds, they all originate with persons of impure and unbridled propensities, who are unwilling to avow the real grossness of their characters, and therefore set up for some deeper knowledge or more subtle system than ordinary men.

It will be observed, too, that Irenæus confirms the statement of Justin Martyr respecting the statue erected in honour of Simon(549). The subject is so well taken up by the late Dr. E. Burton, in the 42nd note to his Bampton Lectures, that I do not purpose to enter into it here, further than to remark that Irenæus ought not to be regarded as merely _following_ Justin: for he himself had visited Rome, and was therefore likely to have informed himself personally upon a subject which he thought sufficiently important to bring forward in controversy.

It is likewise a fact deserving notice, that the first instance we have of the worship of images amongst persons recognizing in any degree the gospel, is to be found amongst the followers of Simon Magus. Something of this kind probably suggested St. John’s caution: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

Concerning NICOLAS, the author, whether intentionally or not, of the sect which bears his name(550), he informs us that he was one of the seven deacons, which some have doubted. He gives us no additional information concerning the sect, beyond that furnished by St. John(551). This, however, connects them with the Gnostics in their licentious doctrines, and no further.

The EBIONITES are mentioned by Irenæus, as though he meant to class them with the Gnostics: but all the information he gives respecting them leads to the conclusion that they had nothing in common with them, except their schism. He expressly states that they believed differently from the Gnostics, and agreed with Christians as to the creation of the world; and that they differed from Cerinthus and Carpocrates on the subject of the miraculous conception(552). Tertullian(553) indeed implies that Ebion denied this latter fact; and Eusebius distinctly asserts of the great body of his followers, that they thought, as Carpocrates and Cerinthus did, that Jesus was a mere man, and exalted for his excellence like other men(554): but he states, and Theodoret(555) confirms his statement, that there were Ebionites who believed the miraculous conception.

Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.

The succession of heresy, unlike that of the Church, had not for its object the keeping up of one uniform system of doctrine, but the exhibition of something sufficiently attractive or striking to prevent the minds of men from dwelling upon the truth. It required _leaders_, and therefore persons remarkable for ability of some kind or another. A successor was therefore provided to Simon in the person of MENANDER, a Samaritan like himself(556), and, as Justin informs us, his pupil(557); but whose great qualification was, that he equalled or excelled his master in the knowledge of magic(558). Heresy, likewise, not requiring to be uniform, permitted its successive teachers to improve upon the system of their predecessors; and by this means both satisfied the natural love of mankind for novelty, and kept up the appetite. So Menander differed a little from Simon, at least in expression, in saying that the Supreme Essence was unknown to all men. He likewise introduced another _name_ from the Gospel, representing himself, not as the Supreme Being, either personally or by direct emanation and operation, (as Simon did,) but as the Saviour, _sent_ by the unseen Powers for the salvation of man. He likewise taught his followers, that by the magical practices in which he instructed them, they might even _vanquish_ the Angelic Creators of this lower world, which was somewhat more than Simon promised.

It appears likewise that he initiated his followers by _baptism_, which he represented as the true and only resurrection, and taught them to believe that after receiving it they could neither grow old nor die(559). How he got over the fact that they did both, we are not informed: but this making baptism the same thing as the resurrection, explains St. Paul’s words(560), where he represents some as teaching that “the resurrection is already past.” Hymenæus and Philetus, who spread this error in all probability in Asia Minor, might easily have been disciples of Menander, who made Antioch his head quarters(561).

Menander was succeeded by two of his pupils(562), SATURNINUS and BASILIDES, who, though taking up the same general system, were very different men, and therefore modified it in different ways, and were employed by their invisible master in different parts of _his_ vineyard.

SATURNINUS remained at Antioch, teaching the same general doctrine as his preceptor Menander. He defined the number of the angels by whom the world was made to be seven(563), one of whom was the God of the Jews; and he introduced one of the remaining angels, who had not been concerned in the creation, under the name of Satan, as the opponent of the Creators, and more especially of the God of the Jews(564). He represented the creation of man as having taken place at the suggestion of the Supreme Power, who exhibited to the angels a bright image of himself; which, as he immediately drew it up again to himself, they endeavoured to copy, and thus made man _after its image and likeness_: but not having the power to make him erect, he would have grovelled on the earth like a worm, had not the Supreme Power, taking compassion on this poor copy of himself, sent forth into it a spark of life, which gave it limbs and an erect posture(565). By an unaccountable inconsistency, however, (for having a system to make or improve at pleasure, he might as well have made its parts consistent with each other,) he likewise taught that there were at first created two sorts of men, one of which was not enkindled with the celestial spark: that those alone would be saved who possessed it(566); and that when they died, this heavenly portion of them would ascend to the Powers above, and the other portions of their nature would be dissolved(567).

The cause of the coming of the Saviour, or _Christ_, as they also called him, (who was unborn, incorporeal, and man only in appearance,) he declared to be the conspiracy of all the Angelic Princes, headed by the Jewish God, against the Supreme Father; which obliged him to come down to destroy the God of the Jews, together with demons and wicked men, and to save those who believed in him, that is, those who had received the spark of life. Who these demons were, or whether the whole of the angels were to be destroyed, we are not told(568).

The prophecies of the Old Testament he attributed partly to the Creators and partly to Satan(569).

It is evident that this is merely a modification of the scheme of Simon Magus, with the addition of _Satan_, and _the Jewish God_, and _the spark of life_: but there is another feature of his system which is remarkable, as differing widely from that of his predecessors. Instead of opening the door to unbridled lust, he affected an extraordinary repugnance to every thing carnal, declaring marriage and its natural consequences to be works of Satan; and some of his followers entirely abstain from animal food(570).

BASILIDES(571), the other successor of Menander, settled at Alexandria in Egypt. He was, as I have said, a man of very different character from Saturninus, and followed his master in his addiction to magical practices, and in his licentious doctrines; teaching likewise that meats offered to idols were to be eaten indifferently with others(572).

But that he might have something of his own, he greatly modified and added to the speculative system of his predecessors. He taught that from the Unborn Father was born his Mind, and from him the Word, from him Understanding (Φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power, and from them Excellences, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven. He then introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set derived from the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the author of their own peculiar heaven(573). To all these angels and heavens he gave names(574), and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first of them is called Abraxas, a mystical name containing in it the number 365(575); the last and lowest is the one which we see; the Creators of which made this world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this division the Jewish nation came to the share of the Prince of the Angels; and as he wished to bring all other nations into subjection to his favourite nation, the other angelic Princes and their nations resisted him and his nation(576). The Supreme Father, seeing this state of things, sent his first‐begotten Mind, who is also called Christ, to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the Creators. He accordingly appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds. He did not, however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of Cyrene, and stood by laughing whilst Simon suffered; and afterwards, being himself incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this transformation, Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all times deny him that was crucified, and that they alone who did so understood the providential dealings of the Most High, and by that _knowledge_ were freed from the power of the angels, whilst those who confessed him remained under their power(577). Like Saturninus, however, but in other words, he asserted that the soul alone was capable of salvation, but the body necessarily perishable(578).

He taught, moreover, that they who knew his whole system, and could recount the names of the angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and could pass through and see them, without being seen in return: that they ought likewise to keep themselves individually and personally unknown to common men, and even to deny that they are what they are; that they should assert themselves to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means reveal their mysteries(579). This, of course, and their unscrupulousness as to actions of any kind whatever, would entirely exempt them from persecution.

It appears likewise, from a fragment preserved in Origen’s _Commentary on the Romans_(580), that he taught the transmigration of souls. He affirmed that the martyrs suffered for offences committed at some other time: for he thought it contrary to the divine justice that any innocent person should suffer(581).

In this scheme we find a feature, which was afterwards taken up and amplified, viz., the connection of mystical numbers with Gnosticism.

It is likewise curious to observe how much of the Gospel history and phraseology was interwoven with it, without one single atom of its purity and regenerating influence.

Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.

CARPOCRATES is placed by Irenæus next to Basilides(582): but as there is a general agreement amongst the early writers that Carpocrates was prior to Cerinthus(583), and that the latter flourished in the last years of St. John, it appears most probable that Carpocrates was, if any thing, earlier than Basilides, and more properly coeval with Menander. In favour of this idea there is this internal argument, that his system does not appear to be in any degree an amplification or alteration of that of Basilides, but rather to have been an independent modification of the original scheme of Simon.

He agreed with him, and Menander, and Basilides, in professing magic(584), and in preaching licentious doctrines. He agreed with Simon likewise in teaching the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and adapted it to the support of profligacy, by asserting that every soul is destined to become acquainted with every kind of action, and that it passes from body to body until it has accomplished every thing to which it is predestined(585).

Like all other Gnostics, he asserted that the world and human bodies were made by Angels(586); he agreed with some in teaching that all souls were originally in the same _sphere_ (περιφορὰ) as the Supreme Being(587), but that when once placed in bodies, they continued under the power of the Angels, until they had fulfilled their destined task; that when a person died, his soul was brought before the Prince of the Angels, by the Devil, and if it had not accomplished every thing, was handed over to another Angel, to be inclosed again in a body; but that when it has fulfilled its destiny they have no longer any power over it, but it returns to the Father, from whom it originally came(588).

Unlike Simon, however, or any whom I have yet mentioned, (except, perhaps, Ebion) he taught that Jesus was a mere man, the son of Joseph; that being brought up in the Jews’ religion, remembering what he had been when in the same sphere with the Father, and being of an unusually firm and resolute mind, he looked down upon the Angels, and set at nought bodily suffering(589). But his followers thought that there was no reason why any individual man might not surpass Jesus, and that, in point of fact, many of their sect were superior to the Apostles. Others went so far as to affirm, that the Apostles were not at all inferior to Jesus, and that if any man whatever could attain to a greater degree of contempt for the Creators than Jesus arrived at, he would become superior to him(590).

They affirmed that we are to be saved by faith and love; all actions being good or bad only according to human opinion; and that Jesus taught their system as an esoteric doctrine to the Apostles, who delivered it to those who were worthy(591).

Some branded their followers upon the right ear(592).

I mentioned before that the first worship of images arose amongst heretics: and it is remarkable that heretics again, viz. the Carpocratians, were the first to pay honour to the image of Christ, whom they worshipped equally with Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, with the same kind of honour as that which was customary amongst the heathen(593).

One of the female followers of Carpocrates, by name Marcellina, is said to have visited Rome in the time of Anicetus, and to have seduced many(594).

Respecting CERINTHUS, whom we know from Irenæus to have been a contemporary of St. John(595), the information he furnishes is very slight. He did not attribute the Creation to the Angels in a body, but to some one Power far removed from the Supreme Power. He made Jesus a mere man, but more excellent than other men: he affirmed that the Christ had descended upon him at baptism, and made known to him the unknown Father, and empowered him to work miracles, but that he departed from him before the crucifixion, and left him to suffer alone(596).

Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.

CERDON would seem to be another independent offset from the stock of Simon. He likewise taught a Supreme God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and another inferior deity, who inspired the prophets(597). He joined the church at Rome under Hyginus, its bishop, i. e. about A.D. 141, and appears to have wished by all means to remain in its communion; and accordingly he recanted his error. He could not, however, refrain from spreading it covertly, and being detected, he again recanted; still he kept his heresy, and being at length judged incorrigible, he was withheld from the communion of the Church(598).

MARCION succeeded Cerdon(599), and took up and amplified his doctrine. He likewise made the Creator inferior to the Supreme God, and the author of evil, fond of war, inconsistent, and self‐contradictory; and taught that Jesus was sent by the Supreme God to do away all the operations of the Creator, and especially the Law and the Prophets(600). He agreed with other Gnostics in declaring that the soul alone was capable of salvation, and of souls only those which received his doctrine; but the peculiarity of his system was, that Cain, and the Sodomites, and Egyptians, &c. were saved by believing in Jesus, when he descended into hell; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the good men and prophets of the Old Covenant, having often been deceived by their God, were afraid to trust in Jesus, and consequently remain still in the state of death(601).

Another peculiarity was that, whilst professing to receive portions of the New Testament, such as the Gospel of St. Luke and the Epistles of St. Paul, he rejected every portion of them which he imagined to militate against his hypothesis(602).

Marcion, who, having been originally a Christian, and the son of a Bishop, had been excommunicated for seduction(603), appears to have harmonized with Saturninus in professing extraordinary strictness of habits(604). Hence some of the followers of both formed themselves into a separate sect, called by a name (Ἐγκρατεῖς) of which perhaps PURITANS is the best English Translation. TATIAN, who had been a sincere Christian, was formerly a disciple of Justin, and had written a treatise to set forth the folly of the heathen religion(605), became a leading man amongst them: for they adopted an opinion of his that Adam was not saved. Their most distinguishing characteristics however were, their abstinence from marriage, and from animal food(606).

Marcion taught that Cain and the Sodomites, &c. were saved by believing in Jesus(607). Others went further, and declared that they were agents of the Supreme Power, to oppose the God of this world. They likewise took Judas under their patronage, and declare that he betrayed Jesus, not from treachery or a love of gain, but because, being better instructed than the rest, he was aware that the death of Jesus would be the means of dissolving and breaking up the whole work of the Creator, whom they regarded as in rebellion against the Great Original(608).

Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.

Those of whom I have hitherto spoken have been acknowledged disciples, more or less directly, of Simon Magus. But there were others, who owned no connexion with him, and yet taught a system more or less like his. The BARBELIOTS, for instance, imagined one Supreme Being, and with him another Being of the female sex, but remaining always a virgin, and never growing old, whom they call Barbelo, Ennœa (Thought), &c.

They say that he _willed_ to manifest himself to her, and that she, coming into his presence, called for Foreknowledge, and she came forth. At their request again Incorruption was produced, and then Life Eternal. After this Barbelo herself produced a light like to herself, which the Father saw and anointed with his goodness, and thus made it the Christ. At his request Understanding was sent him as a helpmate, and afterwards the Father added the Word: upon which there were made Pairs, by the union of Thought and the Word, Incorruption and the Christ, Life Eternal and the Will of the Father, Understanding and Foreknowledge; all of whom magnified the Great Light and Barbelo(609).

From Thought and the Word was then sent forth the Self‐existent and the Truth; from the Christ and Incorruption, four Lights to attend upon the Self‐existent; and from Will and Life Eternal, four Beings to wait upon these Lights, namely, Grace, Will, Comprehension (Σύνεσις), and Prudence. These were joined respectively to the four Lights, and made other four Pairs(610).

These two quaternions being settled, the Self‐existent creates a man, in a state of perfection, named the Unconquered, and in union with him Knowledge, likewise perfect. From these were manifested the Mother, the Father, and the Son, and they jointly produced the tree of knowledge, and their enjoyment consists in celebrating the praises of the Great Being(611).

Lastly, Charis, the attendant upon Harmogenes(612), produces the Holy Spirit, called likewise Wisdom and Prunicus. She, seeing herself unmated, stretched herself forth in every direction, and even towards the nether parts, seeking her mate; and in the effort brought forth a production in which appeared presumption and ignorance; which production became the Prime Governor, and Maker of this world, and Creator of Powers and Angels, and being paired with Presumption, he begot malice, and emulation, and jealousy, and fury, and desire: upon which his mother, being grieved, departed and left him alone; whence he imagines that there is none but he, and utters that sentiment by the mouths of the prophets(613).

There was another more intricate and complete hypothesis, which owned no master, but took its denomination variously from two different marked portions of it, which will be noticed in their place(614).

It supposed, like most of its predecessors, an Original, called the First Light, the Father of all, and the First Man; and his Thought, issuing from him, and thence called the Son of Man. Next to them came the Holy Spirit, the first woman, which hovered over the elements, water, darkness, the abyss and chaos. From the Father and Son, impregnating the Spirit, came the Christ, the third man(615). By this impregnation, however, she was filled so superabundantly, that she produced not only the Christ on the right hand, but also another Being, imbued likewise with light, called Wisdom and Prunicus, a hermaphrodite. Upon this the Christ was united with the first Three, and with them formed the true holy Church(616); whilst Wisdom descended upon the waters, and moved them to their lowest depths, and took from them a material body, which had nearly overpowered her; but making a great effort, by the aid of the supernal light within her, she rose aloft, and from her body, by a voluntary expansion, created the heavens(617).

She, moreover, had a son, who knew not his mother, but sent forth from the waters a son of his own, and he another, and so on to the seventh, who, with their mother formed an ogdoad(618); the first of whom was named Jaldabaoth, the second Jao, the third Great Sabaoth, the fourth Adonai, the fifth Eloeus (or Elohei), the sixth Horeus, the seventh Astaphæus. All these for some space of time sat harmoniously in heaven, in due subordination one to the other: but Jaldabaoth, confident in having been the author of the others, took upon him to create angels and archangels, and excellencies, and powers and dominions; envious at which, his posterity rebelled against him: upon which he fixed his desires upon the unformed matter, and from it produced a son in the form of a serpent, called Understanding, (from whom these people derived their name of OPHITES(619),) and subsequently Spirit, Soul, and all earthly things, from which sprang forgetfulness, malice, emulation, jealousy, and death(620).

Jaldabaoth, blindly exulting in his success, exclaimed, _I am Father and God, and besides me there is no other_; but his mother astonished him and his posterity, by exclaiming, _Lie not, Jaldabaoth, for there is above thee the First Man, the Father of all, and Man the Son of Man_. To call off their attention from this intelligence, he invited them to make man in their own image. This idea their mother secretly encouraged, that they might empty themselves of their celestial virtue. Their production, however, although immense in size and length, lay sprawling on the ground, until they brought it to their father, who, to the great satisfaction of Wisdom, breathed into it the breath of life, and thereby emptied himself of his virtue(621). This newly‐created being, therefore, was possessed of _understanding_ and _desire_, and deserting his Creators, gave thanks to the First Man(622).

Jaldabaoth upon this being jealous of him, endeavoured to re‐extract the celestial virtue from him, by creating woman from his desire; but Prunicus, having invisibly taken charge of her, extracted the virtue from her, and the posterity of Jaldabaoth, admiring her beauty, called her Eve, and begot from her angels. The machinations of Prunicus did not end here, for she employed Understanding, the son of Jaldabaoth, who was in the form of a serpent, to seduce the man and woman into disobedience to the commands of Jaldabaoth, by eating the forbidden fruit(623), by which means they became acquainted with the Supreme Virtue, and forsook their Creators(624). Upon this they were ejected from paradise, and being deprived by Prunicus of the divine light they had, that nothing divine might be subjected to curse, they were cast out into this world, together with the serpent, who from the earthly angels begat seven sons, in imitation of Jaldabaoth and his six descendants. These with their parent are always opposing the welfare of the human race(625).

Before Adam and Eve fell they had bright and spiritual bodies; but afterwards their bodies became opaque and heavy, and their souls relaxed and weak; until Prunicus having pity on them, restored to them the savour of the heavenly light, by which means they became aware of their degraded condition. Knowing, however, that the debasement was only temporary, they complied with their condition, ate and drank, and begat Cain and Abel, of whom Cain, being seized on by the serpent, fell into folly and presumption, envy and murder. After this, by the interposition of Prunicus, they begat Seth and Norea, from whom mankind sprung(626), and were seduced by the serpent and his children into every evil; although Prunicus constantly opposed them, and saved the celestial light(627). So likewise when Jaldabaoth, enraged at not being worshipped by mankind, sent the flood upon them, Wisdom saved Noah and his family, for the sake of the tincture of light which was in them. Abraham, however, and the Jews were the chosen people of Jaldabaoth, who with his six descendants chose agents from among them, each for himself, to glorify him as God(628). Moses, therefore, Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk, were the prophets of Jaldabaoth; Samuel, Nathan, Jonah, and Micah of Jao; Elijah, Joel, and Zachariah of Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel of Adonai; Tobias and Haggai of Elohei; Micah and Nahum of Horeus; Ezra and Zephaniah of Astaphæus(629).

But here again Wisdom, or Prunicus, interfered, and turned these prophets into her own instruments, causing them to speak of the Supreme Being, and of the Christ above, who was to descend upon earth. These announcements from the mouth of their own prophets so alarmed the Princes, the posterity of Jaldabaoth, that they left her at liberty to cause him, not knowing what he did, to send forth two men, one, John the Baptist, the other, Jesus(630). For having found no rest below, she had returned in penitence to her mother, the Holy Spirit, the first woman, and called upon her for help. Whereupon the Holy Spirit petitioned the Supreme Father that the Christ might descend to her aid: of which, when she was aware, she inspired the prophets to speak; and likewise prepared John to announce his coming, and Jesus by means of her son Jaldabaoth, the God of this world, to be his receptacle upon earth(631).

The Christ therefore descended through the seven heavens(632), taking upon him the likeness of their children, and drew out from them their virtue, so that all the supernal light with which they were imbued returned to him; and having arrived in this world united himself to Wisdom, his sister, and in union with her descended upon Jesus, who thenceforward begun to work miracles. Upon this Jaldabaoth and his posterity united to kill him; whereupon the Christ and Wisdom left him, and returned to the upper sphere; not however deserting him altogether; for the Christ sent down upon him a power by which he rose again, clothed with a spiritual body(633). But after this, although he remained on earth eighteen months, he wrought no miracle, (as neither did he before his baptism,) being forsaken by the Christ and Wisdom. Yet he was in a certain degree inspired, and taught these things to a few of his disciples(634).

At the end of eighteen months he was taken up into heaven, where the Christ placed him(635) on the right hand of his father Jaldabaoth, though without his knowledge, where his business is to receive the souls of those who know these doctrines, viz. those who are imbued with the heavenly light. By this means Jaldabaoth will by degrees lose the whole of that which he originally possessed, and be left entirely earthly and material; whilst the whole of the light will be withdrawn from the world and its creators; and then will be the consummation of all things (636).

Section VI. Valentinus.

But none of the Gnostic leaders, excepting perhaps Marcion, obtained so high a pre‐eminence as VALENTINUS, who drew out a kind of eclectic system, and thus became the founder of a new school: at least Irenæus represents the matter so completely in this light, that he classes all the others together by the general name of Gnostics(637), in contradistinction to Valentinus and his school.

Report(638) makes him an Ægyptian by birth, and Tertullian expressly informs us(639) that he was originally a Christian; and indeed a person of such eminence in the Church that he aspired to the office of Bishop. But his mind was tinged with the Platonism(640) which was so prevalent in Alexandria, the place of his education: and it did not happen to him as to Justin and Clement, in whom the truth moulded their philosophical notions, and clad them in a Christian garb; for being disappointed in the object of his ambition, he showed how wisely the Church had acted in rejecting him, by giving himself thenceforth, like Arius, to the propagation of error. As he could not be a bishop, he would be a father of heresy.

He took for his foundation, as it would seem(641), the difficulty of explaining the origin of evil consistently with holding the perfection of God. He was thence led to make matter co‐eval with the Creator, and to declare that all the defects of created things arise from that portion of matter which he left untouched in the work of creation, as unfit for his use. This idea he doubtless borrowed from the Platonic philosophy: but how from this he passed into the absurdities of Gnosticism we are not informed. We only learn from Irenæus that he fashioned them into a new system. It is curious, however, that he is said by his followers to have derived his notions from a disciple of St. Paul(642), and that he endeavoured to represent them as perfectly consistent with the Scriptures(643). He had attained such a degree of notoriety before the year 142, in which Justin Martyr offered his First Apology to Antoninus Pius, that Justin therein speaks of having written that book against all the heresies(644), to which Tertullian is believed to refer when he mentions Justin amongst those who had written against Valentinus(645). And this agrees with what Irenæus says(646), that he came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and continued to the time of Anicetus. For whether we take the Chronology of Eusebius(647), who places his coming to Rome in the year 141, or third of Antoninus, or that of Eutychius, favoured by Bishop Pearson(648) who makes Hyginus contemporary with Adrian, this would equally agree with Justin having already written against him in 142: for he made himself known in his own country as an opposer of the truth before he came to Rome(649). Whatever may be thought of the precise year at which he came to that city, he remained there fifteen or twenty years, for he continued to the episcopate of Anicetus, and retained some character for piety and correctness of faith up to that period(650). Thenceforward, however, he cast off all such pretensions, and retiring to Cyprus, taught without disguise all the impieties his system naturally led to(651).

It has so happened that Irenæus did not write directly against him, but against his followers: and as every disciple held himself capable of improving upon the system of his instructor, that which the Bishop of Lyons gives in full detail differs in some particulars from that taught by Valentinus himself. It was in fact more nearly that of Ptolemy, his most noted follower(652): but still Ptolemy had some peculiarities of his own(653). Yet Irenæus has preserved to us the leading features of the scheme as taught by Valentinus, and by their help, and that of a fragment preserved by Epiphanius(654), which corresponds with what Irenæus has told us, (although Bishop Pearson rightly contends that it is not the work of the heretical leader himself). I will endeavour to place it before my readers.

Valentinus then taught, according to Irenæus, that all things sprung from one primeval pair, the Ineffable and Silence(655): the latter being according to the fragment the Thought of the former or his Grace, but called Silence more correctly, because she accomplished every thing by simple _desire_ without utterance. From these, according to Valentinus, sprung another pair, the Father(656) and the Truth: the former of whom the fragment makes to emanate from the Unbegotten Original and Silence, by her desire; the latter from herself and the Father, by some mysterious union of the _lights_ from each; so that their offspring was a _true_ image of herself and thence derived her name. Truth, therefore, by a like mysterious union with her Father, produces a tetrad of two pairs, the Word and the Life, Man and the Church. Subsequently the Holy Spirit was sent forth either by the Truth or by the Church, (for upon that point the Old Translator of Irenæus and Epiphanius differ,) to examine the Æons, and to make them fruitful in the produce of truth(657).

So far Irenæus and the fragment correspond, excepting that the latter places Man and the Church first(658): but from this point there appears nothing more in common, and as henceforth there is a general coincidence between Valentinus and his followers, I shall give the scheme as it appears in the first book of Irenæus, mentioning the variations where they occur.

It may be however proper to notice this radical difference between the heresiarch and his disciples, that he considered all these Æons, as they were called, or Eternal Essences, as merely feelings, affections, and motions of the one unseen, infinite First Cause, whereas they regarded them as so many personal beings(659).

The last mentioned tetrad then, knowing themselves to have been sent forth to the glory of the unbegotten Father, desired to glorify him by their own act. Wherefore the Word and the Truth sent forth ten Æons, called the Profound and Mixture, the Ever‐youthful and Union, the Self‐existent and Pleasure, the Immoveable and Commixture, the Only‐begotten and the Blessed: whilst Man and the Church sent forth twelve, called the Paraclete and Faith, the Paternal and Hope, the Maternal and Charity, Aïnus (the Eternal Mind, or as it is in the Latin Æons, or Praise) and Comprehension, the Ecclesiastical and Blessedness, the Desired and Wisdom(660).

These thirty Æons, consisting of twelve, and ten, and eight, composed what they called the Fulness(661): and Valentinus differed from his followers in placing a barrier between the First Cause and the others(662); which probably is to be explained by his saying that they were not, like him, real beings, but merely qualities or emanations. Irenæus was probably the first person who published their names: for the Valentinians prided themselves on their being a secret, hidden from all but the initiated. The names, however, were differently stated by later Valentinians(663), and were in all probability altered on set purpose whenever they became known.

Of these thirty, the Only‐begotten or Father alone knew the nature of the Great Father of all: the rest desired to know their origin, but knew him not: and although the Only‐begotten was desirous of revealing him to them, Silence restrained him(664). A new state of things, however, arose from the restlessness of the last of the Æons, namely Wisdom; who, under the pretext of affection for the unknown First Parent, but in reality through venturesome curiosity, reached forth into the fathomless height and depth, in a state of extreme excitement and anxiety, and would have been reabsorbed into the original substance, but for the interposition of a power called the Barrier, which prevented her farther progress, and brought her back to herself; but at the same time kept up a perpetual separation between her and the Father, to which she originally belonged(665).

Valentinus then taught that Wisdom, being thus separated from Theletos, became the mother of the Christ, producing him from the remembrance of the better things or superior beings she had left, but with a kind of shadow attached to him, derived from her fallen condition; and by that means emptied herself of her spiritual substance. Whereupon he, having become possessed of it, cut off from him the shadow, and returned aloft into the Fulness, leaving his mother under the shadow he rejected. In this still more degraded condition, Valentinus makes her to have produced a son, who became the Creator, and whom he regards as complete ruler of all things subordinate to him(666).

His followers, however, improved, as they thought, upon this part of his scheme. They personified the longing of Wisdom, making it her offspring, comprising in it all the feelings of admiration and wonder, of sorrow, and fear, and perplexity, under which she had laboured(667). They represent the Barrier personally, as sent down at the intercession of the Word or Only‐begotten, and give him the appellations of the Stake or Cross, the Redeemer, the Limiter, the Reconciler(668). They affirm that by his agency Wisdom was freed from the consequences of her vain search after her original, and restored to her spouse and to the Fulness, whilst her longing was separated from the Fulness(669).

At this crisis, to prevent another commotion amongst the Æons, by the will of the Supreme Father, the Mind or Only‐begotten produced another pair, the Christ and the Holy Spirit; the former of whom gave them fully to understand that it was impossible to comprehend the First Cause, but that what could be comprehended of him was revealed in the Only‐begotten, whom he taught them to contemplate(670); whilst the latter put them all upon an equality with each other, and made them all, according to their sex, Minds, Words, Men, and Christs, or Truths, Lives, Churches, and Spirits. By this means they were reduced to a state of repose, and betook themselves to magnify the Great First Father. In token whereof they all united to produce one perfect being, Jesus, called also the Saviour, the Christ, the Word, and the All, together with angels his attendants(671).

But we must return to the personified Longing of Wisdom, whom we shall have to know henceforth under the name of Achamoth(672), which is merely a corruption of the Hebrew word for wisdom, חכמות, _Chokmoth_, or the same word in some kindred dialect, omitting the aspirate ח. She, it must be remembered, was separated from the Celestial Fulness by Ὅρος, the personal Barrier, the Σταυρὸς or Stake. But the Christ took pity on her, and reaching forth over the Barrier, (διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ ἐπεκταθεὶς, a strange perversion and accommodation of evangelical expressions to their system,) gave her a _natural_ life, and left with her a _savour_ of immortality, but did not communicate to her that knowledge, which in their system is the principle of _spiritual_ life. What he did leave, however, worked its effect. It led her to seek after him who had deposited it in her, and being restrained by the Barrier, she sustained various feelings, sorrow, and fear, and consternation, all accompanied by ignorance of all above her, and a perpetual turning towards him who had given her life, and pleasure in thinking of the glimpse of light which had been permitted to her(673). From the tumult within her sprung various productions; being however in the whole, the Creator of the world and all created things, of which we shall see more hereafter(674).

She had scarcely recovered from this state of perturbation, when the Christ sent down to her the Paraclete; not the offspring of Man and the Church, but that perfect being produced by the Æons conjointly, called likewise the Saviour(675), having power given him over all things below, and accompanied by his angels. He separated her from all the products of her perturbation, and endued her with that knowledge which before she possessed not. He likewise separated her productions definitely into two species of substance, one radically bad, the other capable of being either good or evil; the one material, the other animate; to which she speedily added another, spiritual in its nature, conceived from joyful contemplation of the angel‐attendants of the Saviour(676).

From this period she begins to be herself an active fashioner of her productions. With the _spiritual_ seed she could not meddle, because it was equal to herself: but from the _animate_(677) substance she first formed the actual Creator of all earthly things, called likewise God the Father, the Saviour, the King of all, the Mother’s Father, the Fatherless(678). By him she, or rather the Saviour through her, fashioned all things here below, from the two substances, animate and material: first the seven heavens, who are also seven angels(679), then the earth and man(680), and all the elements and creatures, and lastly the spirits of wickedness, of whom the prince of this world was the chief(681). Of these man was a compound of the animate and the material(682). All these the Creator made, not knowing what he did; and so his mother Achamoth, without his knowledge, infused into the man which he had made, that spiritual seed of which I have before spoken(683), which is the Church, (or rather the Calling, ἐκκλησία,) an image of the Ecclesia above(684).

It is not however to be supposed that all men have a share of this seed of election. It is only partially possessed. Those who have it not may be saved by faith and good works, those who have it are necessarily saved, and are incapable of being corrupted by any action or course of life. To the former class belong Churchmen, (Christians) to the latter Gnostics(685). The natural consequences followed, such as I have detailed before, with more or less of disguise, according to the character or circumstances of the professors of such doctrines. Some did openly whatever they felt inclined to, others went more warily to work: but the result every where was the same, the free indulgence of the sensual passions, with all their lamentable consequences; and those so much the more fatal, as they were accompanied by a profession of superior knowledge and purity(686).

We have mentioned one Jesus already: but they likewise professed to believe in the Jesus of the Gospel. They taught that the Creator produced a son, unspiritual like himself, and that he was sent into the world by the Virgin Mary, as a mere vehicle, such as a water‐pipe is to water; that he was(687) clad in a body different from that of others; that when he was baptized, the Jesus before mentioned descended upon him in the form of a dove; and that he was likewise impregnated by Achamoth with the spiritual seed. Of these four portions of his nature only the two former suffered; the Saviour having quitted him when he was delivered up to Pilate(688).

The winding up of this state of things is to take place when all the spiritual seed has become perfect in knowledge. Then Achamoth and the spiritual portion of every Gnostic will be elevated into the Fulness: the Creator, the animal souls of the Gnostics, with the souls of those who have been saved by faith and good works, will be raised to the intermediate heaven; and then the hidden fire will burst forth from this lower world and consume those souls which have not attained to salvation together with all material things, and with them will be reduced to nothing(689).

The most remarkable feature in the scheme of Valentinus was his treatment of the Scriptures. He did not, like some of his predecessors, speak with contempt of them, as having proceeded from an imperfect Being. He did not like others reject the whole New Testament, as a figment of the “natural men,” as they called the orthodox, and substitute apocryphal writings in their place: nor did he again, like others, reject such portions of the Scriptures as militated strongly against their views. He professed to receive the whole of the Gospels and Apostolical writings, but he accommodated the Scripture to his views. Tertullian indeed(690) uses very different terms; viz. that he did not accommodate the Scripture to his views, but his views to the Scripture. It was certainly his endeavour to _appear_ so to do; and accordingly he adopted Scripture _language_ to a very great extent, and no doubt professed, like all modern teachers of false doctrine, to find all his doctrine in the Scripture: so that I believe we have only one instance of his reading a passage differently from the Church(691). Indeed he reproached the orthodox for not having preserved the true meaning: or rather looked down upon them as being naturally incapable of receiving it; being not spiritual, but natural and carnal.

It was, no doubt, in this way that he kept up that character for faith and piety, of which Epiphanius speaks, and to which Tertullian alludes(692). Irenæus has given us numerous instances in which he and his followers quoted the Scriptures as supporting their own doctrine(693): but they will be found to be either forced accommodations of numbers and names, or violent perversions of the letter of Scripture, or mystical interpretations put upon it in such a way as that it may almost be made to mean anything. The success of such interpretations was of course aided by the equally unnatural accommodations of Scripture customary with the orthodox, at least those of the Alexandrian school. There are, likewise, some fragments of his preserved by Clement of Alexandria(694), which have the same tone as the system generally; but one of these(695), in which he compares the heart occupied by divers evil passions to an inn or caravanserai defiled by travellers, appears at first sight so unobjectionable, that, out of the connection in which it stands, one should hardly suspect any evil meaning. It is however intended to teach the Gnostic tenet, that the heart of the spiritual man is no more a partaker of the evil wrought in it by evil spirits, than a caravanserai in the nuisances committed by every wanton traveller. This is evidently another, and a less offensive way of stating that to the spiritual mind no passion can communicate any permanent pollution, and that the elect are not to be called to account for what they fall into in this world: and its inoffensiveness at first sight is no bad illustration of the habit Irenæus charges them with of teaching their heresies by stealth(696).

Section VII. Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, And Marcus.

Irenæus mentions several successors of Valentinus, some more at length than others.

Respecting SECUNDUS, who was the contemporary and disciple of Valentinus(697), he is very brief, merely informing us that he divided the first ogdoad into two tetrads, the right and the left, which he denominated _light_ and _darkness_: and that he asserted that the Being which erred and was forsaken by the upper powers was not one of the thirty, but one of their productions(698). The latter idea would appear to have for its object to remove the origin of evil further from the First Cause: but the former seems to be a contradiction to it, as it brings darkness into the Pleroma.

EPIPHANES, whose name the old translator has chosen to render by _Clarus_, (probably not understanding it to be a proper name,) was the son of Carpocrates(699), but attached himself to the followers of Secundus(700). He died very young, being according to Clem. Alex. only seventeen at the time of his death, and was honoured as a god by the people of Cephalonia, the birth‐place of his mother and his own place of residence. He is identified with the CLARUS of the old translator of Irenæus; 1. because he is commonly reckoned next to Secundus(701); 2. because _Clarus_ is a literal rendering of Ἐπιφανής; 3. because the doctrines ascribed to Epiphanes are the same as those which are attributed in Irenæus to Clarus(702). He differed from his predecessors in not giving any _name_ (properly speaking) to the First Cause, but in calling him Μονότης, and his companion Ἐνότης, which may perhaps be rendered Soleness and Unity. These, he said, constituted only one being. This duopersonal Being produced, without separation from himself, a beginning of all things, comprehensible, but unbegotten and invisible, called the Monad, and with him another power denominated the One. This was his first tetrad; but in the rest he does not appear to have differed from the other Valentinians(703).

PTOLEMY was a Valentinian, and is said to have been a disciple of Secundus and Epiphanes. It would appear from Irenæus that the system which he states at length, and which I have detailed above, was his actual system(704). Epiphanius indeed, quoting Irenæus(705), makes him say that this heretic and his disciples ascribed two wives to Bythus, Thought and Will, from whom he made the rest of the Æons to proceed. But it is evident from the version of the Ancient Interpreter that the actual words of Irenæus were Οἱ περὶ Πτολεμαῦον, which may mean either Ptolemy or his followers, and as Tertullian ascribes this tenet to his disciples, desirous of improving upon their master, we may safely conclude that Epiphanius does not intend to attribute it distinctly to Ptolemy, but either to him or to his followers.

Of the followers of Ptolemy, Irenæus mentions the tenets of COLORBASUS particularly. He does not indeed name him, but Epiphanes(706) and Theodoret(707) have supplied that defect, nor is there any contradictory statement on the subject. He taught that the first ogdoad of Æons did not spring successively one pair from another, but that the first four after the First Cause and his Thought were created at once when the Forefather determined upon giving forth some being, that became the Father; as what he emitted was true, it was called the Truth: when he wished to manifest himself, then came Man; and those whom he then foresaw were the Church. Then Man spoke the Word, and from Man and the Church came Life(708).

MARCUS is mentioned by Irenæus apparently as a disciple of Ptolemy, or at least as having made his system after him(709): and as Tertullian(710) speaks of him in the same terms, we may safely take that as the sense of Irenæus. We find him first in Asia Minor, recompensing the hospitality of a deacon with whom he lodged by corrupting his wife, who for a good while followed him, but was at length brought back to the Church by the perseverance of the Christians(711). Where his subsequent residence was we do not learn. The circumstance which brought him more particularly under the notice of Irenæus was that his opinions and the consequent depravity of morals had spread to the neighbourhood of Lyons(712). The practical mischief appears first to have attracted his attention, and he was thence led to inquire into the speculative system which produced such fruits. Both the one and the other shall be noticed in their order.

The scheme differed in reality very little in its frame‐work from that of Valentinus, Ptolemy, and Colorbasus; the latter of whom Irenæus represents him as more particularly agreeing with(713); but it was differently dressed up. Instead of making the Fulness a system of personal beings or emanations, he made it the _name_ of the Great First Cause, consisting of thirty letters, instead of as many Æons, divided into four syllables, of which the two first consisted of four letters each, the third of ten, and the fourth of twelve. This name originated in the wish of the Great Father to reveal himself. He therefore opened his mouth, and spoke a Word like himself, which was Ἀρχὴ, the Beginning; (this was the first syllable;) then a second, a third, and a fourth. What the three latter are we are not told: but they have continued to sound on from that day to the present, and will continue so to do, until they all unite in sounding forth together the same letter, when the consummation of all things will take place. About this matter, however, there is some obscurity, the passage not being very intelligible(714).

It would be tedious beyond measure to enter into the application of this particular notion to the general Gnostic scheme: but he held a particular doctrine in regard to Jesus, which it will be proper to mention. He thought that he was the joint production of Man and the Church, the Word and Life; but that in producing him the angel Gabriel took the place of the Word, the Holy Spirit of Life, the Power of the Most High of Man, and the Virgin Mary of the Church: that the Supreme Father chose him in the womb to manifest himself in him by means of the Word, who therefore descended upon him at his baptism in the form of a dove(715).

I come now to the _practice_ of Marcus. He openly pretended supernatural powers, communicated to him by a familiar spirit, which he flattered his followers, chiefly women, by professing to communicate to them(716). The Eucharist he found especially suited to his purpose, and was the first apparently who taught any thing like transubstantiation. He used, like the Church, wine mingled with water, but pretended to bring down into it by his prayers, the blood of the supernal Grace; and accordingly, lengthening out his devotion, that the chemical agents, which he doubtless employed, might have time to act, he at length produced the liquid, of a much deeper colour than when he began his incantations. In another of his tricks he gave his female friends a part. He requested one of them to take the mingled cup, and to offer the prayer of benediction; whereupon he poured the contents of it into a much larger cup, which he himself held, which, as he pronounced the mystical blessing upon the woman he employed, gradually became full with the contents of the smaller, and at length overflowed(717). This again was, in all probability, effected by some chemical agent, deposited in the bottom of the larger cup, and producing a gradual effervescence: but in those days of ignorance it stamped the worker of such wonders as something more than ordinary man.

In communicating, as he pretended, to his devotees a portion of the grace he possessed, he purposely contrived, in the most subtle manner, to inflame their sensual desires, and to direct them towards himself, without using a single word or act to which he could not immediately give a mystical meaning; so that, if his wishes did not succeed, there was nothing with which he could be charged, without subjecting the person who so charged him to the imputation of having put an unholy meaning upon holy things. And if they did succeed, the victim, if not conscience‐seared, would feel self‐corrupted and self‐betrayed. In this way he became master, not only of the persons, but also of the substance of many women of wealth and station(718). To make his arts, however, the more successful, he administered to them inflammatory drugs(719): and still more to guard himself from their defection, under the terror of conscience, and the dread of future judgment, he taught them a form of words, to be addressed to their mother Achamoth, whom he represents as seated with God on his throne, by means of which they would be rendered invisible to the Judge, and pass unhurt to their heavenly spouses the angels(720).

Such a scheme as this was too palatable to human nature not to have many followers; and accordingly it found its way to Lyons, where Irenæus was bishop. The exact nature of it was first learnt by the confessions of his victims and those of his followers, when, recovering from their delusion, they wished to be readmitted to the Church. One particular instance I have already mentioned, of his having seduced the wife of a deacon in Asia Minor, with whom he had lodged. This person remained with him for a long time; but, being at length restored by the unwearied efforts of the Christians, spent the rest of her life bewailing the pollution she had sustained. This was not the only instance of repentance; but most appear to have dreaded the public acknowledgment which was then required in the case of gross transgression, and thus never to have returned(721).

Section VIII. Gnostic Redemption.

There is one feature of the Gnostic scheme common to almost every variety of the Gnostics, which was reserved for a separate detail; and which Irenæus introduces immediately after the account of the Marcosian heresy, having probably been able to obtain a more perfect account of their views on that subject, than of those of any other sect. That feature is their ordinance of _Redemption_(722); which was in fact the initiating rite of their perfect adepts(723), and without denying baptism, threw it into the back ground, and thus virtually annulled it(724). The professed object of this rite was the regeneration of those who underwent it, preparatory to their entering into the Fulness(725). The outward form of it was various, according to the fancy of the mystagogue(726). Some celebrated it as a marriage; others made it a baptism in water, with varying forms of words(727); others again poured a mixture of oil and water upon the head of the person who received it; whilst some declared, that the blessing being purely spiritual, all outward signs were unavailing and impertinent; that knowledge was in fact redemption, and that those, and those alone, who were perfect in knowledge were partakers of it(728).

In most cases the Redemption was effected during the lifetime of those who were made partakers of it; but the dead were not excluded. The rite was administered immediately after death.

In all cases the effect of it was to enable the initiated to escape the power of the Creator and his angels, and, leaving their souls behind them, to enter into the Fulness(729).

Section IX. Reflections Upon Gnosticism.

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.

105 Gregor. Turon. _de Gloria Martyrum_, I. 5. Hic in crypta Basilicæ B. Joannis sub altari est sepultus.

106 I. x. 1. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως περάτων τῆς γῆς διεσπαρμένη.—2. Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα παρειληφυῖα, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλω τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει, ὡς ἕνα οἶκον οἰκοῦσα· καὶ ὀμοίως πιστεύει τούτοις, ὡς μίαν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσα καρδίαν· καὶ συμφώνως ταῦτα κηρύσσει, καὶ διδάσκει, καὶ παραδίδωσιν, ὡς ἓν στόμα κεκτημένη.

107 I. x. 2. Καὶ γὰρ αἱ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον διάλεκτοι ἀνόμοιαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ δύναμις τῆς παραδόσεως μία καὶ ἡ αὐτή· καὶ οὔτε αἱ ἐν Γερμανίαις ἰδρυμέναι Ἐκκλησίαι ἄλλως πεπιστεύκασιν, ἢ ἄλλως παραδιδόασιν, οὔτε ἐν ταῖς Ἰβηρίαις, οὔτε ἐν Κελτοῖς, οὔτε κατὰ τὰς ἀνατολὰς, οὔτε ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, οὔτε ἐν Λιβύῃ, οὔτε αἱ κατὰ μέσα τοῦ κόσμου ἰδρυμέναι.

108 III. xii. 8. Ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς, καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν Βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε· Πιστεύω τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. ὃς καὶ ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὰ κλίματα Αἰθιοπίας, κηρύξων τοῦτο, ὅπερ ἐπίστευσε, Θεὸν μὲν ἕνα, τὸν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυγμένον.—IV. xxiii. 2. Nihil enim aliud deerat ei, qui a Prophetis fuerat præcatechizatus: non Deum Patrem, non conversationis dispositionem, sed solum adventum ignorabat Filii Dei; quem cum breviter cognovisset, agebat iter gaudens, præco futurus in Æthiopia Christi adventus.

109 Frag. iii. p. 45, note 4.

110 I. x. 2, 3. Τῆς οὔσης Ἐκκλησίας πάσης μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν ἐχούσης εἰς πάντα τὸν κόσμον, καθὼς προέφαμεν, κ. τ. λ.

111 I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, κ. τ. λ.

112 III. iii. 1. Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre: et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli, quæ seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes; quibus emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa calamitas.

113 III. iii. 2. Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ, et antiquissimæ, et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet colligunt.

114 See p. 2, note 3.

115 III. iii. 4. Μαρτυροῦσιν τούτοις αἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι, καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον, πολλῷ ἀξιοπιστότερον καὶ βεβαιότερον ἀληθείας μάρτυρα ὄντα Οὐαλεντίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κακογνωμόνων.

116 III. iii. 4. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ Παύλου μὲν τεθεμελιωμένη, Ἰωάννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων, μάρτυς ἀληθής ἐστι τῆς Ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως.

117 III. iii. 1. supra.

118 III. iii. 1. 4.

119 2 Tim. iv. 21.

120 _Anencletus_ is called _Anacletus_ by the ancient translator of Irenæus, and _Cletus_ by Epiphanius (_Hær._ I. § 27.) and the Canon of the Mass. Later writers than Epiphanius make him two persons, but their accounts are contradictory. See Pearson’s Posthumous Works, _Dissert. de Serie et Successione Episcoporum Romanorum_, II. 1; and Nourry, _Apparatus ad Biblioth. Patrum_, VI. v. 5.

121 Clement is mentioned by Tertullian (_De Præscrip. Hær._ 32.) as _ordained by Peter_. It is probable that this might have taken place in the slight interval which elapsed between the death of St. Paul and that of St. Peter, both of which took place in the same persecution.

122 III. iii. 3. Θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται· διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὸν Ἀνέγκλητος. μετὰ τοῦτον καὶ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης, ὁ καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ἀποστόλους, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔτι ἔναυλον τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων, οὐ μόνος· ἔτι γὰρ πολλοὶ ὑπελείποντο τότε ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων δεδιδαγμένοι.—Τὸν δὲ Κλήμεντα τοῦτον διαδέχεται Εὐάρεστος· καὶ τὸν Εὐάρεστον Ἀλέξανδρος· εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἔκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καθίσταται Ξύστος· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Τελεσφόρος, ὃς καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησεν· ἔπειτα Ὕγῖνος, εἶτα Πῖος· μεθ᾽ ὃν Ἀνίκητος. διαδεξαμένου τὸν Ἀνίκητον Σωτῆρος, νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κετέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος. τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει, καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἤτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς.

123 Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

124 III. iii. 4. Καὶ εἴσιν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ἰωάννης, ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητὴς, ἐν τῇ Ἐφέσῳ πορευθεὶς λούσασθαι, καὶ ἰδὼν ἔσω Κήρινθον, ἐξήλατο τοῦ βαλανείου μὴ λουσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειπών· Φύγωμεν, μὴ καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ, ἔνδον ὄντος Κηρίνθου, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροῦ.

125 3 John 10.

126 Frag. ii. See p. 2, note 2.

127 III. iii. 4. Ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῇ Ῥώμῃ, πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μίαν καὶ μόνην ταύτην ἀλήθειαν κηρύξας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παρειληφέναι, τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παραδεδομένην.

128 _Hist. Eccl._ IV. 14.

129 _De Viris Illustribus_, 27.

130 Frag. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

131 III. iii. 4. Καὶ αὐτὸς δε ὁ Πολύκαρπος Μαρκίωνί ποτε εἰς ὄψιν αὐτῷ ἐλθόντι, καὶ φήσαντι, Ἐπιγίνώσκεις ἡμᾶς; ἀπεκρίθη· Ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Τοσαύτην οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτῶν ἔσχον εὐλάβειαν, πρὸς τὸ μηδὲ μέχρι λόγου κοινωνεῖν τινὶ τῶν παραχαρασσόντων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς καὶ Παῦλος ἔφησεν· Ἁἰρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος, καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος.—That it was _at Rome_ rests upon the testimony of Jerome, _De Vir. Ill._ 17.

132 III. iii. 4.

133 III. iii. 4. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὴ Πολυκάρπου πρὸς Φιλιππησίους γεγραμμένη ἱκανωτάτη, ἐξ ἧς καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας, οἱ Βουλόμενοι, καὶ φροντίζοντες τῆς ἐαυτῶν σωτηρίας, δύνανται μαθεῖν.

134 Frag. ii. Καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν δὲ αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἐπέστειλεν ἤτοι ταῖς γειτνιώσαις ἐκκληίαις, ἐπιστηρίζων αὐτὰς, ἢ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τισι, νουθετῶν αὐτοὺς, καὶ προτρεπόμενος, δύναται φανερωθῆναι.

135 _Hist._ III. 15.

136 Phil. iv. 3.

137 III. iii. 3. Ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος στάσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθω γενομένης ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ρώμη ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοις, εἰς εἰρήνην συμβιβάζουσα αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀνανεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει.

138 See p. 5, note 9.

139 III. iii. 2. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab Apostolis Traditio.

140 Prog. _de potentiore Eccl. Rom. principalitate_. Jenæ, 1780. 4to.

141 II. xxx. 9. In translating Eph. i. 21.

142 III. xi. 8.

143 I. ix. 3.

144 V. xxvii. 2.

145 IV. xxxviii. 3.

146 _Pope’s Supremacy_, V. ix. p. 234, edit. 1680. “The faithful who are all about.”

147 _Difficulties of Romanism_, B. I. chap. iii. sect. iv. 2. (4.) “To this Church, on account of the more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church should resort; that is to say, those faithful individuals who are on every side of it. In which Church, by those who are on every side of it, the tradition, which is from the Apostles, has always been preserved.”

148 _De Præscr. Hær._ 36.

149 II. xxxi. 2. Καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀδελφότητι πολλάκις διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, τῆς κατὰ τόπον ἐκκλησίας πάσης αἰτησαμένης μετὰ νηστείας πολλῆς καὶ λιτανείας, ἐπέστρεψε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ τετελευτηκότος, καὶ ἐχαρίσθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ταῖς εὐχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων.—xxxii. 4. Quapropter et in illius nomine, qui vere illius sunt discipuli ab ipso accipientes gratiam, perficiunt ad beneficia reliquorum hominum, quemadmodum unusquisque accepit donum ab eo. Alii enim dæmones excludunt firmissime et vere, ut etiam sæpissime credant ipsi, qui emundati sunt a nequissimis spiritibus, et sint in Ecclesia. Alii autem et præscientiam habent futurorum, et visiones, et dictiones propheticas. Alii autem laborantes aliqua infirmitate per manus impositionem curant, et sanos restituunt. Jam etiam, quemadmodum diximus, et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multis. Et quid autem? Non est numerum dicere gratiarum, quas per universum mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens, in nomine Christi Jesu, crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato, per singulos dies in opitulationem gentium perficit, neque seducens aliquem, nec pecuniam ei auferens. Quemadmodum enim gratis accepit a Deo, gratis et ministrat. 5. ——munde et pure et manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans, virtutes ad utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem, perficit.

150 II. xxxii. 4, supra. V. vi. 1. Καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούομεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, προφητικὰ χαρίσματα ἐχόντων, καὶ παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος γλώσσαις, καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φανερὸν ἀγόντων ἐπὶ τῷ συμφέροντι, καὶ τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκδιηγουμένων.

151 V. vi. 1.

152 Pp. 98‐102.

153 II. xxxi. 3. ——in Ecclesia autem miseratio, et misericordia, et firmitas, et veritas ad opitulationem hominum, non solum sine mercede et gratis perficiatur; sed et nobis ipsis quæ sunt nostra erogantibus pro salute hominum, et ea quibus hi, qui curantur, indigent, sæpissime non habentes, a nobis accipiunt.

154 II. xxxii. 4. See p. 69, note 8.

155 II. xxxi. 2. διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. See p. 69, note 8.

156 Frag. ii. See p. 2. note 2.

157 IV. xxx. 1. Quid autem et hi, qui in Regali aula sunt, fideles, nonne ex eis, quæ Cæsaris sunt, habent utensilia, et his qui non habent, unusquisque eorum secundum virtutem præstat.

158 IV. xxx. 3. Sed et mundus pacem habet per eos, et nos sine timore in viis ambulamus et navigamus quocumque voluerimus.

159 Frag. xiii. Χριστιανῶν γὰρ κατηχουμένων δούλους Ἕλληνες συλλαβόντες, εἶτα μαθεῖν τι παρὰ τούτων δῆθεν ἀπόρῥητον περὶ Χριστιανῶν ἀναγκάζοντες, οἱ δοῦλοι οὗτοι, μὴ ἔχοντες πῶς τὸ τοῖς ἀναγκάζουσι καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἐρεῖν, παρ᾽ ὅσον ἤκουον τῶν δεσποτῶν, τὴν θείαν μετάληψιν αἷμα καὶ σῶμα εἶναι Χριστοῦ, αὐτοὶ νομίσαντες τῷ ὄντι αἷμα καὶ σάρκα εἶναι, τοῦτο ἐξεῖπον τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσι. οἱ δὲ λαβόντες ὡς αὐτόχρημα τοῦτο τελεῖσθαι Χριστιανοῖς, κ.τ.λ.

160 III. xii. 5. After quoting Acts iv. 24, &c. he proceeds thus:—Αὑται φωναὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴν ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς Μητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν.

161 I. x. 1. See p. 55, note.

162 III. iii. 1. See p. 56, note 7.

163 III. xii. 5. supra.

164 III. xxiv. 1. Prædicationem vero Ecclesiæ undique constantem, et æqualiter perseverantem, et testimonium habentem a Prophetis et ab Apostolis, et ab omnibus discipulis, quemadmodum ostendimus per initia, et medietates, et finem, et per universam Dei dispositionem, et eam quæ secundum salutem hominis est solitam operationem, quæ est in fide nostra; quam perceptam ab Ecclesia custodimus, et quæ semper a Spiritu Dei, quasi in vase bono eximium quoddam depositum juvenescens, et juvenescere faciens ipsum vas in quo est. Hoc enim Ecclesiæ creditum est Dei munus, quemadmodum ad inspirationem plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur: et in eo disposita est communicatio CHRISTI, id est, Spiritus sanctus, arrha incorruptelæ, et confirmatio fidei nostræ, et scala ascensionis ad Deum. “In Ecclesia enim,” inquit, “posuit Deus Apostolos, Prophetas, doctores,” et universam reliquam operationem Spiritus: cujus non sunt participes omnes, qui non currunt ad Ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita, per sententiam malam, et operationem pessimam. Ubi enim Ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei; et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia, et omnis gratia: Spiritus autem veritas. Quapropter qui non participant eum, neque a mammillis Matris nutriuntur in vitam, neque percipiunt de corpore CHRISTI procedentem nitidissimum fontem; sed effodiunt sibi lacus detritos de fossis terrenis, et de cœno putidam bibunt aquam, effugientes fidem Ecclesiæ, ne traducantur; rejicientes vero Spiritum, ut non erudiantur.——2. Alienati vero a veritate, digne in omni volutantur errore, fluctuati ab eo, aliter atque aliter per tempora de eisdem sentientes, et nunquam sententiam stabilitam habentes, sophistæ verborum magis volentes esse quam discipuli veritatis: non enim sunt fundati super unam petram, sed super arenam.——V. xx. 2. Fugere igitur oportet sententias ipsorum (of the Gnostics), et intentius observare necubi vexemur ab ipsis; confugere autem ad Ecclesiam, et in ejus sinu educari, et Dominicis scripturis enutriri. Plantata enim est Ecclesia, paradisus in hoc mundo: “ab omni” ergo “ligno paradisi escas manducabitis,” ait Spiritus Dei; id est, ab omni scriptura Dominica manducate.

165 III. xxiv. 1. supra.

166 III. iv. 1. Tantæ igitur ostensiones cum sint, non oportet adhuc quærere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere; cum Apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia quæ sint veritatis: uti omnis quicumque velit, sumat ex ea potum vitæ. Hæc est enim vitæ introitus; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et latrones. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos; quæ autem sunt Ecclesiæ, cum summa diligentia diligere, et apprehendere veritatis Traditionem.

167 III. xxiv. 1. supra.

168 Ibid.

169 IV. viii. 1. Deum, qui in regnum cœlorum introducit Abraham, et semen ejus quod est Ecclesia, per Christum Jesum, cui et adoptio redditur, et hæreditas quæ Abrahæ promissa est.

170 III. Præf. quoted p. 34, note 10.——V. xx. 1. Et Ecclesiæ quidem prædicatio vera et firma, apud quam una et eadem salutis via in universo mundo ostenditur. Huic enim creditum est lumen Dei.... Ubique enim Ecclesia prædicat veritatem; et hæc est ἑπτάμυξος lucerna, Christi bajulans lumen.

171 I. ix. 5. Καὶ ἐκ τούτου γὰρ (the exhibition of the inconsistency of error) ἀκριβῶς συνιδεῖν ἔσται, καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἀποδείξεως, βεβαίαν τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσομένην ἀλήθειαν.—x. 3. cited p. 56, note 5.——III. xii. 7. Ecclesia vero per universum mundum ab Apostolis firmum habens initium, in una et eadem de Deo et de Filio ejus perseverat sententia.

172 I. ix. 4. See p. 56, note 6.

173 IV. xxxiii. 8. Γνῶσις ἀληθὴς, ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων διδαχὴ, καὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἐκκλησίας σύστημα κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου, et character corporis Christi secundum successiones Episcoporum, quibus illi eam, quæ in unoquoque loco est Ecclesiam tradiderunt: quæ pervenit usque ad nos custoditione sine fictione Scripturarum tractatio plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens; et lectio sine falsatione, et secundum Scripturas expositio legitima, et diligens, et sine periculo, et sine blasphemia.

174 V. xx. 2. See p. 75, note 5.

175 III. xxiv. 1. cited ibid.

176 IV. xxxii. 1. Post deinde et omnis sermo ei constabit, si et Scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina.

177 V. xx. 2. See p. 75, note 5.

178 II. ix. 1. Veteribus quidem et in primis a protoplasti traditione hanc suadelam custodientibus, et unum Deum, fabricatorem cœli et terræ hymnizantibus; reliquis autem post eos a prophetis Dei hujus rei commemorationem accipientibus.... Ecclesia autem omnis per universum orbem hanc accepit ab apostolis traditionem.

179 II. xxxii. 4, 5. See p. 69, note 8.

180 II. xxxi. 2. cited ibid.

181 IV. xxxiii. 9. Quapropter Ecclesia omni in loco ob eam quam habet erga Deum dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum in omni tempore præmittit ad Patrem; reliquis autem omnibus non tantum non habentibus hanc rem ostendere apud se, sed nec quidem necessarium esse dicentibus tale martyrium; esse enim martyrium verum sententiam eorum: nisi si unus, aut duo aliquando, per omne tempus ex quo Dominus apparuit in terris, cum martyribus nostris, quasi et ipse misericordiam consequutus, opprobrium simul bajulavit nominis, et cum eis ductus est, velut adjectio quædam donata eis.

182 IV. xxxi. 3. Ecclesia, quæ est sal terræ, subrelicta est in confinio terræ, patiens quæ sunt humana; et, dum sæpe auferuntur ab ea membra integra, perseverat statua salis.

183 See pp. 57, 58.

184 IV. xxvi. 2. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt, Presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus; qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt: reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principali successione, et quocumque loco colligunt, suspectos habere; vel quasi hæreticos, et malæ sententiæ; vel quasi scindentes, et elatos, et sibi placentes; aut rursus ut hypocritas, quæstus gratia et vanæ gloriæ hoc operantes. Omnes autem hi deciderunt a veritate.——3. Qui vero crediti quidem sunt a multis esse presbyteri, serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non præponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, et principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt, et in absconsis agunt mala, et dicunt, “Nemo nos videt,” redarguentur a Verbo.

185 IV. xxvi. 4. Ab omnibus igitur talibus absistere oportet, adhærere vero his qui et apostolorum, sicut prædiximus, doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum et conversationem sine offensa præstant, ad confirmationem et correptionem reliquorum.——5. Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab Apostolis Ecclesiæ successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis constat.

186 See III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7; ibid. 2. p. 58, note 9; ibid. 4. p. 58, notes 2 and 3.

187 III. iii. 2. See pp. 52 and 63.

188 See p. 68.

189 See p. 58, note 9, and p. 63, note 8.

190 See pp. 57‐59, and the passages there adduced.

191 —quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes. See p. 58, note 7.

192 See the Preface to the Ordination Services.

193 IV. xxxviii. 3. Ὁ γεννητὸς καὶ πεπλασμένος ἄνθρωπος κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γίνεται Θεοῦ· τοῦ μὲν Πατρὸς εὐδοκοῦντος καὶ κελεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ Υἱοῦ πράσσοντος καὶ δημιουργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ Πνεύματος τρέφοντος καὺ αὔξοντος.

194 I. xxii. 1. Omnia per ipsum fecit Pater ... non per angelos, neque per virtutes aliquas abscissas ab ejus sententia (nihil enim indiget omnium Deus), sed et per Verbum et Spiritum suum omnia faciens et disponens et gubernans, et omnibus esse præstans.——II. xxx. 9. Hic Pater, hic Deus, hic Conditor, hic Factor, hic Fabricator, qui fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est, per Verbum et per Sapientiam suam, cœlum et terram et maria et omnia quæ in eis sunt.——IV. vii. 4. Hæc enim Filius, qui est Verbum Dei, ab initio præstruebat; non indigente Patre angelis, uti faceret conditionem et formaret hominem ... sed habente copiosum et inenarrabile ministerium: ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, id est Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, Verbum et Sapientia; quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli.

195 V. i. 3. Sic in fine Verbum Patris et Spiritus Dei, adunitus antiquæ substantiæ plasmationis Adæ, viventem et perfectum effecit hominem, capientem perfectum Patrem ... non enim effugit aliquando Adam manus Dei, ad quas Pater loquens, dicit: “Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostrum.”—xxviii. 4. Plasmatus initio homo per manus Dei, id est, Filii et Spiritus, fit secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei.

196 IV. xx. 5. Potens est enim in omnibus Deus; visus quidem tunc per Spiritum prophetiæ, visus autem et per Filium adoptive, videbitur autem et in regno cœlorum paternaliter: Spiritu quidem præparante hominem in Filio Dei, Filio autem adducente ad Patrem, Patre autem incorruptelam donante in æternam vitam, quæ unicuique evenit ex eo quod videat Deum.

197 III. xix. 1. Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ Λόγος ἄνθρωπος, et qui Filius Dei est Filius hominis factus est, commixtus Verbo Dei, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος (i. e. human nature) τὸν Λόγον χωρήσας, καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν, υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ.

198 IV. xx. 6. Per omnia enim hæc Deus Pater ostenditur, Spiritu quidem operante, Filio vero ministrante, Patre vero comprobante, homine vero consummato ad salutem.

199 I. x. 1. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως περάτων τῆς γῆς διεσπαρμένη, παρὰ δὲ τῶν Ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἐκείνων μαθητῶν παραλαβοῦσα τὴν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὸ τὰς θαλάσσας καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, πίστιν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν σαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας· καὶ εἰς Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας καὶ τὰς ἐλεύσεις, καὶ τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γέννησιν, καὶ τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὶς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐν τῇ δοξῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἀναστῆσαι πᾶσαν σάρκα πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος, ἵνα Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν καὶ Θεῷ καὶ σωτήρι καὶ βασιλεῖ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ ἀοράτου, πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, καὶ πᾶσα γλώσσα ἐξομολογήσηται αὐτῷ, καὶ κρίσιν δικαίαν ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι ποιήσηται, τὰ μὲν πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, καὶ ἀγγέλους παραβεβηκότας καὶ ἐν ἀποστασίᾳ γεγονότας, καὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἀδίκους καὶ ἀνόμους καὶ βλασφήμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ πέμψῃ· τοῖς δὲ δικαίοις καὶ ὁσίοις καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τετηρηκόσι, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ αὐτοῦ διαμεμενηκόσι, τοῖς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, τοῖς δὲ ἐκ μετανοίας, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος, ἀφθαρσίαν δωρήσηται, καὶ δόξαν αἰωνίαν περιποιήση.—2. Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα παρειληφυῖα, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει.—A translation of this passage will be found in the chapter _on Creeds_.

200 III. vi. 1. Vere igitur cum Pater sit Dominus, et Filius vere sit Dominus, merito Spiritus Sanctus Domini appellatione signavit eos. Et iterum in eversione Sodomitarum Scriptura ait: “Et pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulfur a Domino de cœlo.” Filium enim hic significat, qui et Abrahæ colloquutus sit, a Patre accepisse potestatem ad judicandum Sodomitas, propter iniquitatem eorum. Similiter habet illud: “Sedes tua, Deus, in æternum; virga directionis, virga regni tui. Dilexisti justitiam, et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus.” Utrosque enim Dei appellatione signavit Spiritus, et eum qui ungitur, Filium, et eum qui ungit, id est, Patrem.—2. Nemo igitur alius, quemadmodum prædixi, Deus nominatur aut Dominus appellatur, nisi qui est omnium Deus et Dominus, qui et Moysi dixit: “Ego sum qui sum: et sic dices filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad vos:” et hujus Filius Jesus Christus Dominus noster, qui filios Dei facit credentes in nomen suum.

201 IV. xxxiii. 4. Πῶς δύνανται σωθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ τὴν σωτηρίαν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐργασάμενος; ἢ πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρωπον?

202 II. xxv. 3. Non enim infectus es, O homo, neque semper coëxsistebas Deo, sicut proprium ejus Verbum.——xxx. 9. Semper autem coëxsistens Filius Patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem, et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus, et omnibus quibus vult revelare Deus.——III. xviii. 1. Ostenso manifeste, quod in principio Verbum exsistens apud Deum, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper aderat generi humano, hunc in novissimis temporibus secundum præfinitum tempus a Patre, unitum suo plasmati, passibilem hominem factum; exclusa est omnis contradictio dicentium: “Si ergo tunc natus est, non erat ergo ante Christus.” Ostendimus enim, quia non tunc cœpit Filius Dei, exsistens semper apud Patrem.

203 Frag. xxxvii. Χριστὸς, ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων κληθεὶς Θεοῦ Υἱός.

204 II. xxviii. 6. Si quis itaque nobis dixerit “Quomodo ergo Filius prolatus a Patre est?” dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam sive generationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus, inerrabilem exsistentem nemo novit.

205 II. ii. 4. Nullius indigens omnium Deus Verbo condidit omnia et fecit; neque angelis indigens adjutoribus ad ea quæ fiunt ... omnia autem quæ facta sunt infatigabili Verbo fecit.——III. xi. 8. Ὁ τῶν ἁπάντων τεχνίτης Λόγος, ὁ καθημένος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβίμ καὶ συνέχων τὰ πάντα.

206 III. vi. 1. p. 91, note 8.

207 IV. xx. 9. Et Verbum quidem loquebatur Moysi, apparens in conspectu.

208 III. xvi. 6. Hujus Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum Patris et caro factus, ipse est Jesus Christus Dominus noster; qui passus est pro nobis, et surrexit propter nos, et rursus venturus in gloria Patris ad resuscitandum universam carnem, et ad ostensionem salutis, et regulam justi judicii ostendere omnibus, qui sub ipso facti sunt.——IV. xxxiii. 11. Οἱ τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου Ἐμμανουὴλ κηρύττοντες, τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ ἐδήλουν.

209 IV. xxxiii. 11. supra.—III. xxi. 4. Diligenter igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus, per ea quæ dicta sunt (Isai. vii. 10, &c.) generationem ejus quæ est ex Virgine, et substantiam, quoniam Deus: Emmanuel enim nomen hoc significat.

210 IV. xxxviii. 2. Συνενηπίαζεν Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τέλειος ὢν, τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, οὐ δι᾽ ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου νήπιον.

211 III. x. 2. Christus Jesus Dominus noster, Filius Dei altissimi, qui per legem et prophetas promisit salutarem suum facturum se omni carni visibilem, ut fieret Filius hominis, ad hoc ut et homo fieret filius Dei.——xvi. 6. supra.

212 II. xxii. 4. Non reprobans, nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens legem in se humani generis, sed omnem ætatem sanctificans per illam, quæ ad ipsum erat, similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit ætatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes: in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes ætatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et justitiæ et subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum ætatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens. Deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit “primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus,” princeps vitæ, prior omnium, et præcedens omnes.

213 III. xvi. 6. supra.—V. xviii. 1. Ipsum Verbum Dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.

214 II. xxx. 9. Hic Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per Verbum suum, qui est Filius ejus, per eum revelatur et manifestatur omnibus quibus revelatur. See also p. 92, note 1.

215 IV. vii. 2. Omnes, qui ab initio cognitum habuerunt Deum et adventum Christi prophetaverunt, revelationem acceperunt ab ipso Filio.

216 IV. vi. 6. Et per ipsum Verbum visibilem et palpabilem factum Pater ostendebatur, etiamsi non omnes similiter credebant ei; sed omnes viderunt in Filio Patrem: invisibile etenim Filii Pater, visibile autem Patris Filius.

217 II. xxviii. 6. Ipse Filius Dei ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem.

218 Ibid 8. Etenim si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est; neque aptabilem magis neque decentiorem, nec sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in præsenti ... ut discamus per ipsum, super omnia esse Patrem.

219 IV. vi. 7. Omnia autem Filius administrans Patri, perfecit ab initio usque ad finem.

220 III. xix. 3. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ Λόγος, ἵνα δοξασθῇ· ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ Λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι et inhonorari καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι.

221 III. xi. 5. Hic (Deus) et benedictionem escæ et gratiam potus in novissimis temporibus per Filium suum donat humano generi, incomprehensibilis per comprehensibilem, et invisibilis per visibilem; cum extra eum non sit, sed in sinu Patris exsistat.

222 II. xxv. 3. Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet quia homo est in infinitum minor Deo, et qui ex parte acceperit gratiam, et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit Factori, et qui omnium experientiam et cogitationem habere non possit, ut Deus: sed in quantum minor est ab eo, qui factus non est et qui semper idem est, ille qui hodie factus est et initium facturæ accepit; in tantum secundum scientiam, et ad investigandum causas omnium, minorem esse eo qui fecit.

223 II. xxviii. 2. Et non est mirum, si in spiritalibus et cœlestibus, et in his quæ habent revelari, hoc patimur nos; quandoquidem etiam eorum quæ ante pedes sunt (dico autem quæ sunt in hac creatura, quæ et contrectantur a nobis et videntur et sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hæc ipsa committimus.—3. Εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς κτίσεως ἔνια μὲν ἀνάκειται τῷ Θεῷ, ἔνια δὲ καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλήλυθε τὴν ἡμετέραν, τί χαλεπὸν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ζητουμένων, ὅλων τῶν γραφῶν πνευματικῶν οὐσῶν, ἔνια μὲν ἐπιλύομεν κατὰ χάριν Θεοῦ, ἔνια δὲ ἀνακείσεται τῷ Θεῷ?

224 II. xxvi. 1. Ἄμεινον καὶ συμφερώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγομαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῖ, ἢ πολυμαθεῖς καὶ ἐμπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήμους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην.... Melius itaque est, sicuti prædixi, nihil omnino scientem quempiam, ne quidem unam causam cujuslibet eorum quæ facta sunt, cur factum sit, credere Deo, et perseverare eos in dilectione, aut (ἢ—rather _quam_) per hujusmodi scientiam inflatos excidere a dilectione, quæ hominem vivificat: nec aliud inquirere ad scientiam, nisi Jesum Christum Filium Dei, qui pro nobis crucifixus est, aut (ἢ) per quæstionum subtilitates et minutiloquium in impietatem cadere.

225 IV. vi. 7. Ab omnibus accipiens testimonium quoniam vere homo et quoniam vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, ab ipsa conditione, ab hominibus, et ab apostaticis spiritibus et dæmoniis et ab inimico et novissime ab ipsa morte.

226 III. xviii. 7. Ἥνωσεν οὖν, καθὼς προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ μή ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὐκ ἂν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων, διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειότητος, εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν.

227 III. xvi. 6. Unus Christus Jesus Dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem, et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans.

228 III. xxi. 3. Natus est enim Dominus noster circa primum et quadragesimum annum Augusti imperii.

229 II. xxii. 6. Responderunt ei: “Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?” Hoc autem consequenter dicitur ei, qui jam xl annos excessit, quinquagesimum autem annum nondum attigit, non tamen multum a quinquagesimo anno absistat. Ei autem, qui sit xxx annorum, diceretur utique: “Quadraginta annorum nondum es.” Qui enim volebant eum mendacem ostendere, non utique in multum extenderent annos ultra ætatem, quam eum habere conspiciebant: sed proxima ætatis dicebant, sive vere scientes ex conscriptione census, sive conjicientes secundum ætatem, quam videbant habere eum super quadraginta; sed ut non quæ esset triginta annorum. Irrationabile est enim omnino, viginti annos mentiri eos, volentes eum juniorem ostendere temporibus Abrahæ. Quod autem videbant, hoc et loquebantur: qui autem videbatur, non erat putativus, sed veritas. Non ergo multum aberat a quinquaginta annis.

230 II. xxii. 3. Et primum quidem ut fecit vinum ex aqua in Cana Galilææ, ascendit in diem festum paschæ ... et post hæc iterum secunda vice ascendit in diem festum paschæ in Hierusalem, quando paralyticum, qui juxta natatoriam jacebat xxxviii annos, curavit.... Deinde, cum Lazarum suscitasset ex mortuis, et insidiæ fierent a Pharisæis, secedit in Ephrem civitatem; et inde “ante sex dies paschæ veniens in Bethaniam” scribitur, et de Bethania ascendens in Hierosolymam, et manducans pascha, et sequenti die passus.

231 IV. x. 1. Et non est numerum dicere in quibus a Moyse ostenditur Filius Dei; cujus et diem passionis non ignoravit, sed figuratim prænuntiavit eum, Pascha nominans: et in eadem ipsa, quæ ante tantum temporis a Moyse prædicata est, passus est Dominus adimplens Pascha.

232 IV. viii. 2. Non enim solvebat sed adimplebat legem, summi sacerdotis operam perficiens, propitians pro hominibus Deum, et emundans leprosos, infirmos curans, et ipse moriens, uti exsiliatus homo exiret de condemnatione, et reverteretur intrepide ad suam hæreditatem.—The allusion is to that provision of the Mosaic law by which those who had been living in the cities of refuge, on the death of the High Priest returned to their inheritance.

233 V. i. 1. Τῷ ἰδίῳ οὖν αἵματι λυτρωσαμένου ἡμᾶς τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων σαρκῶν, κ.τ.λ.

234 V. xiv. 2. “In corpore,” ait, “reconciliati carnis ejus:” hoc, quoniam justa caro, reconciliavit eam carnem quæ in peccato detinebatur, et in amicitiam adduxit Deo.

235 V. i. 1. Et effundente Spiritum Patris in adunitionem et communionem Dei et hominis; ad homines quidem deponente Deum per Spiritum, ad Deum autem rursus imponente hominem per suam incarnationem, et firme et vere in adventu suo donante nobis incorruptelam per communionem quæ est ad eum.

236 V. vii. 1. Christus in carnis substantia surrexit.

237 I. x. 1. supra, p. 91.—III. xvi. 8. Ἕνα καὶ αὐτὸν εἰδὼς Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, ᾧ ἠνοίχθησαν αἱ πύλαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διὰ τὴν ἔνσαρκον ἀνάληψιν αὐτοῦ· ὃς καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ σαρκὶ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἔπαθεν, ἐλεύσεται, τὴν δόξαν ἀποκαλύπτων τοῦ Πατρός.

238 IV. viii. 1.——Deum, qui in regnum cœlorum introducit Abraham et semen ejus, quod est Ecclesia, per Jesum Christum; cui et adoptio redditur et hæreditas quæ Abrahæ promissa est.

239 IV. xx. 3. Et Sapientia, quæ est Spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem constitutionem.

240 See p. 89, note 2.

241 See p. 91, note 8.

242 IV. xxxviii. 1. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὡς νηπίοις ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ Πατρὸς γάλα ἡμῖν ἑαυτὸν παρέσχεν, ὅπερ ἦν ἡ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρουσία· ἵνα ὡς ὑπὸ μασθοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ τραφέντες, καὶ διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης γαλακτουργίας ἐθισθέντες τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κατασχεῖν δυνηθῶμεν.

243 III. xvii. 2. Quem et descendisse Lucas ait post ascensum Domini super discipulos in Pentecoste, habentem potestatem omnium gentium ad introitum vitæ et adapertionem novi testamenti: unde et omnibus linguis conspirantes hymnum dicebant Deo; Spiritu ad unitatem redigente distantes tribus, et primitias omnium gentium offerente Patri.

244 V. vi. 1. Cum autem Spiritus hic commixtus animæ unitur plasmati, propter effusionem Spiritus spiritualis et perfectus homo factus est: et hic est qui secundum imaginem et similitudinem factus est Dei. Si autem defuerit animæ spiritus, animalis vere est, qui est talis, et carnalis derelictus imperfectus est; imaginem quidem habens in plasmate, similitudinem vero non assumens per Spiritum.

245 V. vi. 1. supra.—viii. 2. Qui ergo pignus Spiritus habent, et non concupiscentiis carnis serviunt, sed subjiciunt semetipsos Spiritui, ac rationabiliter conversantur in omnibus, juste Apostolus spirituales vocat, quoniam Spiritus Dei habitat in ipsis. Incorporales autem spiritus non erunt homines spirituales; sed substantia nostra, id est, animæ et carnis adunatio, assumens Spiritum Dei, spiritualem hominem perficit. Eos autem qui abjiciunt quidem Spiritus consilium, carnis autem voluntatibus serviunt, ... hos δικαίως ὁ Ἀπόστολος σαρκικοὺς καλεῖ.

246 V. ix. 2. Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei, hi tales juste homines dicentur et mundi et spirituales et viventes Deo; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in vitam Dei ... et ex utrisque factus est vivens homo; vivens quidem propter participationem Spiritus, homo autem propter substantiam carnis.

247 V. viii. 1. Nunc autem partem aliquam a spiritu ejus sumimus, ad perfectionem et præparationem incorruptelæ; paulatim assuescens capere et portare Deum: quod et pignus dixit Apostolus, hoc est pars ejus honoris qui a Deo nobis promissus est.... Si igitur nunc pignus habentes, clamamus, “Abba, Pater;” quid fiet quando resurgentes facie ad faciem videbimus eum? ... Si enim pignus complectens hominem in semetipsum, jam facit dicere, “Abba, Pater;” quid faciet universa Spiritus gratia, quæ hominibus dabitur a Deo?

248 V. vii. 2. Per Spiritum surgentia, fiunt corpora spiritualia, uti per Spiritum semper permanentem habeant vitam.

249 II. iv. 1. Causa igitur quærenda est hujusmodi dispositionis Dei, sed non fabricatio mundi alteri adscribenda: et ante præparata omnia dicenda sunt a Deo, ut fierent, quemadmodum et facta sunt.——2. Qui enim postea emendat labem, et velut maculam emundat labem, multo prius poterat observare, ne initio in suis fieri talem maculam.——Et si ideo quod benignus sit, in novissimis temporibus misertus est hominum, et perfectum eis dat; illorum primo misereri debuit, qui fuerunt hominum factores (he alludes to the Gnostic notion that man was made by inferior beings) et dare eis perfectum. Sic utique et homines miserationem percepissent, de perfectis perfecti facti.

250 Ibid. 2.

251 IV. xxxvii. 6. Sed oportebat, inquit, eum neque Angelos tales fecisse, ut possent transgredi, neque homines qui statim ingrati exsisterent in eum; quoniam rationabiles, et examinatores, et judiciales facti sunt, et non (quemadmodum irrationabilia, sive inanimalia, quæ sua voluntate nihil possunt facere, sed cum necessitate et vi ad bonum trahuntur, in quibus unus sensus, et unus mos,) inflexibiles, et sine judicio, qui nihil aliud esse possunt, præterquam quod facti sunt. Sic autem nec suave esset eis quod est bonum, neque pretiosa communicatio Dei, neque magnopere appetendum bonum, quod sine suo proprio motu et cura et studio provenisset, sed ultro et otiose insitum: ita ut essent nullius momenti boni, eo quod natura magis quam voluntate tales exsisterent, et ultroneum haberent bonum, sed non secundum electionem; et propter hoc nec hoc ipsum intelligentes, quoniam pulchrum sit quod bonum, neque fruentes eo. Quæ enim fruitio boni apud eos qui ignorant? Quæ autem gloria his qui non studuerunt illud? Quæ autem corona his qui non eam, ut victores in certamine, consequuti sunt?

252 II. xxviii. 7. Similiter autem et causam propter quam, cum omnia a Deo facta sint, quædam quidem transgressa sunt, et abscesserunt a Dei subjectione, quædam autem, immo plurima, perseveraverunt et perseverant in subjectione ejus qui fecit; et cujus naturæ sunt quæ transgressa sunt, cujus autem naturæ quæ perseverant; cedere oportet Deo et Verbo ejus.—Ipsam autem causam naturæ transgredientium neque Scriptura aliqua retulit, nec apostolus dixit, nec Dominus docuit. Dimittere itaque oportet agnitionem hanc Deo, quemadmodum et Dominus horæ et diei: nec in tantum periclitari, uti Deo quidem concedamus nihil, et hæc ex parte accipientes gratiam.

253 IV. xxxvii. 7. Bonus igitur agonista ad incorruptelæ agonem adhortatur nos; uti coronemur, et pretiosam arbitremur coronam; videlicet quæ per agonem nobis acquiritur, sed non ultro coalitam. Et quanto per agonem nobis advenit, tanto est pretiosior: quanto autem pretiosior, tanto eam semper diligamus. Sed οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀγαπᾶται τὰ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου προσγινόμενα τοῖς μετὰ ... σπουδῆς εὐρισκομένοις. Quoniam igitur pro nobis erat plus diligere Deum, cum labore hoc nobis adinvenire Dominus docuit et apostolus tradidit.——Pro nobis igitur omnia hæc sustinuit Dominus (i. e. he endured the existence of evil) uti per omnia eruditi, in omnibus in futurum simus cauti et perseveremus in omni ejus dilectione, rationabiliter edocti diligere Deum.

254 V. xxiv. 4. Sic etiam diabolus, cum sit unus ex angelis his, qui super spiritum aëris præpositi sunt, quemadmodum Paulus apostolus in ea quæ est ad Ephesios manifestavit, invidens homini, apostata a divina factus est lege; invidia enim aliena est a Deo. Et quoniam per hominem traducta est apostasia ejus, et examinatio sententiæ ejus homo factus est, ad hoc magis magisque semetipsum contrarium constituit homini, invidens vitæ ejus, et in sua potestate apostatica volens concludere eum.

255 IV. xl. 3. Ἐκ τότε γὰρ ἀποστάτης ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐχθρὸς, ἀφ᾽ ὅτε ἐζήλωσε τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχθροποιῆσαι αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐπεχείρησε.—V. xxiv. 4. supra.

Tertullian, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem, were of the same opinion. I subjoin the passages.—Tertullian _de Patientia_, 5. Natales impatientiæ in ipso diabolo deprehendo, jam tunc cum Dominum Deum universa opera quæ fecisset, imagini suæ, id est, homini subjecisse impatienter tulit. Nec enim doluisset, si sustinuisset; nec invidisset homini, si non doluisset. Adeo decepit eum, quia inviderat.——Cyprian, _de Zelo et Livore_, p. 223, ed. Potter. Hinc diabolus inter initia statim mundi et petit primus et perdidit. Ille dudum angelica majestate subnixus, ille Deo acceptus et carus, postquam hominem ad imaginem Dei factum conspexit, in zelum malevolo livore prorupit ... stimulante livore homini gratiam datæ immortalitatis eripit.——Cyril. Hierosol. _Catech._ xii. 5. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέγιστον τῶν δημουργημάτων, ἐν παραδείσῳ χορεῦον, φθόνος ἐξέβαλε διαβολικός.

256 III. xxiii. 1. Si enim qui factus fuerat a Deo homo, ut viveret, hic amittens vitam, læsus serpente qui depravaverat eum, jam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum projectus esset morti; victus esset Deus, et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem Dei. Sed quoniam Deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit ad correptionem hominis, et probationem omnium, quemadmodum prædiximus; per secundum autem hominem alligavit fortem, et deripuit ejus vasa, et evacuavit mortem, vivificans eum hominem, qui fuerat mortificatus. Primum enim possessionis ejus vas Adam factus est, quem et tenebat sub sua potestate, hoc est, prævaricationem inique inferens ei, et per occasionem immortalitatis, mortificationem faciens in eum.——8. Et serpens nihil profecit, dissuadens homini, nisi illud quod eum (i. e. se) transgressorem ostendit, initium et materiam apostasiæ suæ habens hominem; Deum enim non vicit.

257 V. xxiv. 4. supra.

258 V. xxiii. 1. Assuetus enim erat jam ad seductionem hominum mentiri adversus Deum.... Ille mentiens adversus Dominum tentavit hominem.

259 IV. Præf. 4. Et tunc quidem apostata angelus per serpentem inobedientiam hominum operatus, existimavit latere se Dominum.——V. xxvi. 2. infra.

260 IV. xl. 3. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν μὲν παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἐπισπείραντα τὸ ζιζάνιον, τουτέστι, τὴν παράβασιν εἰσενεγκόντα, ἀφώρισε τῆς ἰδίας μετουσίας· τὸν δὲ ἀμελῶς μὲν ἀλλὰ κακῶς παραδεξάμενον τὴν παρακοὴν ἄνθρωπον ἐλέησε. καὶ ἀντέστρεψε τὴν ἔχθραν, ἣν ἐχθροποίησε, πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν inimicitiarum auctorem.

261 III. xxiii. 1. supra.

262 IV. xl. 3.

263 III. xxiii. 3. Non homini principaliter præparatus est æternus ignis, sed ei qui seduxit et offendere fecit hominem, et, inquam, qui princeps apostasiæ est, et his angelis qui apostatæ factæ sunt cum eo: quem quidem juste percipient etiam hi, qui, similiter ut illi, sine pœnitentia et sine regressu in malitiæ perseverant operibus.

264 II. xxviii. 7. Quoniam præsciit Deus hoc futurum ... ignem æternum his qui transgressuri sunt præparavit ab initio.—V. xxvi. 2. Omnes qui falso dicuntur esse Gnostici organa Satanæ ab omnibus Deum colentibus cognoscantur esse, per quos Satanas nunc, et non ante, visus est maledicere Deo, qui ignem æternum præparavit omni apostasiæ. Nam ipse per semetipsum nude non audet blasphemare suum Dominum; quemadmodum et initio per serpentem seduxit hominem, quasi latens Deum. Καλῶς ὁ Ἰουστίνος ἔφη, ὅτι πρὸ μὲν τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάκρισιν· quoniam et in parabolis, et allegoriis, a Prophetis de eo sic dictum est. Post autem adventum Domini ex sermonibus Christi et Apostolorum ejus discens manifeste, quoniam ignis æternus ei præparatus est ex sua voluntate abscedenti a Deo, et omnibus qui sine pœnitentia perseverant in apostasia; per hujusmodi homines blasphemat eum Deum, qui judicium importat, quasi jam condemnatus, et peccatum suæ apostasiæ Conditori suo imputat, et non suæ voluntati et sententiæ: quemadmodum et qui supergrediuntur leges, et pœnas dant, queruntur de legislatoribus, sed non de semetipsis. Sic autem et hi diabolico spiritu pleni, innumeras accusationes inferunt Factori nostro, qui et Spiritum vitæ nobis donaverit, et legem omnibus aptam posuerit; et nolunt justum esse judicium Dei.

265 V. xxvi. 2.

266 IV. xxxvi. 4. Et temporibus Noë diluvium inducens, uti extingueret pessimum genus eorum, qui tunc erant homines, qui jam fructificare Deo non poterant, cum angeli transgressores commixti fuissent eis.——xvi. 2. Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo, cum esset homo, legatione ad angelos fungebatur, et conservatur usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei: quoniam angeli quidem transgressi deciderunt in terram in judicium, homo autem placens translatus est in salutem.

The nature of the intercourse or commixture is not indeed stated by Irenæus; but, as Feuardent and Grabe have pointed out in commenting on these passages, he is evidently alluding to the tradition spoken of more fully by Josephus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria, whose words I subjoin.

Joseph. _Antiq._ I. ii. 1. Πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ, γυναιξὶ συμμιγέντες, ὑβριστὰς ἐγέννησαν παῖδας, καὶ παντὸς ὑπερόπτας καλοῦ, διὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ δυνάμει πεποίθησιν· ὅμοια γὰρ τοῖς ὑπο γιγάντων τετολμῆσθαι λεγομένοις ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων καὶ οὗτοι δράσαι παραδίδονται.

Justin M. _Apol._ II. 5. Ὁ Θεός ... τὴν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρόνοιαν ἀγγέλοις, οὓς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔταξε, παρέδωκεν. Οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι, παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν τάξιν, γυναικῶν μίξεσιν ἡττήθησαν, καὶ παῖδας ἐτέκνωσαν, οἱ εἰσιν οἱ λεγόμενοι δαίμονες.

Athenag. _Legat._ 22. Οἱ δὲ (the fallen angels) ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῆς τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καῖ τῇ ἀρχῇ, οὗτός τε (Satan) ὁ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰδῶν ἄρχων καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν περὶ τὸ πρῶτον τοῦτο στερέωμα· ἐκεῖνοι μὲν εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν πεσόντες παρθένων, καὶ ἥττους σαρκὸς εὑρεθέντες, οὗτος δὲ ἀμελήσας καὶ πονηρὸς περὶ τὴν τῶν πεπιστευμένων γενόμενος διοίκησιν. Ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν περὶ τὰς παρθένους ἐχόντων οἱ καλούμενοι ἐγεννήθησαν γίγαντες.

Clem. Alex. _Pædag._ III. 2. § 14. Οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ κάλλος καταλελοιπότες διὰ κάλλος μαραινόμενον.——_Strom._ III. 7. § 59. Ἄγγελοί τινες ἀκρατεῖς γενόμενοι ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἁλόντες οὐρανόθεν δεῦρο καταπεπτώκασιν.

The opinion contained in these quotations has been discountenanced since the time of Cyril of Alexandria; but is it therefore necessarily unfounded?

267 V. xxvi. 2. supra.

268 IV. Præf. 4. Nunc autem, quoniam novissima sunt tempora, extenditur malum in homines, non solum apostatas eos faciens, sed et blasphemos in Plasmatorem instituit multis machinationibus, id est, per omnes hæreticos.

269 See V. xxvi. 2. p. 109, note 2.

270 See p. 103.

271 III. xi. 8. Καὶ γὰρ τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα· καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ζῶον, φησὶ, ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ ἔμπρακτον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν χαρακτηρίζον· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν τάξιν ἐμφαῖνον· τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἔχον πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου, τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν φανερώτατα διαγράφον· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετωμένῳ, τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐφιπταμένου δόσιν σαφηνίζον.—Καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς μὲν πρὸ Μωϋσέως πατριάρχαις, κατὰ τὸ θεïκὸν καὶ ἔνδοξον ὡμίλει· τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ἱερατικὴν et ministerialem τάξιν ἀπένεμεν· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος εἰς πᾶσαν ἐξέπεμψε τὴν γῆν, σκεπάζων ἡμᾶς ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ πτέρυξιν. Ὁποία οὖν ἡ πραγματεία τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοιαύτη καὶ τῶν ζώων ἡ μορφή· καὶ ὁποία ἡ τῶν ζώων μορφὴ, τοιοῦτος καὶ ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Τετράμορφα γὰρ τὰ ζῶα, τετράμορφον καὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ ἡ πραγματεία τοῦ Κυρίου. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες ἐδόθησαν καθολικαὶ διαθῆκαι τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι· μία μὲν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τοῦ Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόξου· δευτέρα δὲ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ, ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείου τῆς περιτομῆς· τρίτη δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωüσέως· τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

272 Ibid.

273 Et propter hoc quatuor data sunt testamenta humano generi; unum quidem ante cataclysmum sub Adam; secundum vero, post cataclysmum sub Noë; tertium vero, legislatio sub Moyse; quartum vero, quod renovat hominem, et recapitulat in se omnia, quod est per Evangelium, elevans et pennigerans homines in cœleste regnum.

274 I. ix. 1. See p. 78, note 1.

275 V. xxiv. 2. Quoniam enim absistens a Deo homo in tantum efferavit, ut etiam consanguineum hostem sibi putaret, et in omni inquietudine et homicidio et avaritia sine timore versaretur, imposuit illi Deus humanum timorem, (non enim cognoscebant timorem Dei,) ut potestati hominum subjecti, et lege eorum adstricti, ad aliquid assequantur justitiæ, et moderentur ad invicem, in manifesto propositum gladium timentes.

276 IV. xiv. 2. Sic et Deus ab initio hominem quidem plasmavit propter suam munificentiam; Patriarchas vero elegit propter illorum salutem; populum vero præformabat, docens indocibilem, sequi Deum; Prophetas vero præstruebat in terra, assuescens hominem portare ejus Spiritum, et communionem habere cum Deo: ipse quidem nullius indigens; his vero qui indigent ejus, suam præbens communionem; et his qui ei complacebant, fabricationem salutis, ut architectus, delineans, et non videntibus in Ægypto a semetipso dans ducationem; et his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem, et his qui in bonam terram introierunt, dignam præbens hæreditatem; et his qui convertuntur ad Patrem, saginatum occidens vitulum, et primam stolam donans; multis modis componens humanum genus ad consonantiam salutis. Et propter hoc Joannes in Apocalypsi ait: “Et vox ejus quasi vox aquarum multarum.” Vere enim aquæ multæ Spiritus, quoniam dives, et quoniam magnus est Pater. Et per omnes illos transiens Verbum, sine invidia utilitatem præstabat eis qui subjecti sibi erant, omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens.——xvi. 3. Cum autem hæc justitia et dilectio, quæ erat erga Deum, cessit in oblivionem, et extincta esset in Ægypto, necessario Deus propter multam suam erga homines benevolentiam semetipsum ostendebat per vocem, et eduxit de Ægypto populum in virtute, uti rursus fieret homo discipulus et sectator Dei; et affligebat indictoaudientes, [dicto non audientes, contumaces] ut non contemnerent eum qui se fecit; et manna cibavit eum, uti rationalem acciperent escam, quemadmodum et Moyses in Deuteronomio ait: “Et cibavit te manna, quod non sciebant patres tui, uti cognoscas, quoniam non in pane solo vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei, quod procedit de ore ejus, vivit homo.” Et erga Deum dilectionem præcipiebat, et eam quæ ad proximum est justitiam insinuabat, ut nec injustus, nec indignus sit Deo; præstruens hominem per Decalogum in suam amicitiam, et eam quæ circa proximum est concordiam; (quæ quidem ipsi proderant homini;) nihil tamen indigente Deo ab homine.

277 IV. xiv. 2.

278 This is the argument of the first twenty chapters of the fourth book, and the quotations are too copious and diffuse to be given at length. A few, therefore, must suffice.

IV. ii. 7. Non enim Lex prohibebat eos credere in Filium Dei, sed et adhortabatur, dicens non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga, nisi credant in eum qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatur a terra, et omnia trahit ad se, et vivificat mortuos.—He alludes to the brazen serpent exhibited on a pole in the wilderness.

v. 4. In Abraham enim prædidicerat et assuetus fuerat homo sequi Verbum Dei. Etenim Abraham secundum fidem suam secutus præceptum Verbi Dei, προθύμως τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ πάντως τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν Υἱὸν θυσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡμετέραν.—5. Propheta ergo cum esset Abraham, et videret in Spiritu diem adventus Domini, et passionis dispositionem, per quem ipse quoque, et omnes qui, similiter ut ipse credidit, credunt Deo, salvari inciperent, exsultavit vehementer.

ix. 1. Pater familias enim Dominus est, qui universæ domui paternæ dominatur: et servis quidem et adhuc indisciplinatis condignam tradens legem, liberis autem et fide justificatis congruentia dans præcepta, et filiis adaperiens suam hæreditatem.—3. Novo enim testamento cognito et prædicato per prophetas, et ille qui illud dispositurus erat secundum placitum Patris prædicabatur; manifestatus hominibus, quemadmodum voluit Deus, ut possint semper proficere credentes in eum, et per testamenta maturescere perfectum salutis. Una enim salus, et unus Deus; quæ autem formant hominem præcepta multa, et non pauci gradus qui ducunt hominem ad Deum.

xiii. 1. Et quia Dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo justificatur, quæ etiam ante legislationem custodiebant, qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo, non dissolvit, sed extendit et implevit; ex sermonibus ejus ostenditur.... Hæc autem non quasi contraria Legi docebat; sed adimplens Legem, et infigens justificationes Legis in nobis. Illud autem fuisset Legi contrarium, si quodcumque Lex vetasset fieri, idipsum discipulis suis jussisset facere. Et hoc autem quod præcepit, non solum vetitis a Lege, sed etiam a concupiscentiis eorum abstinere, non contrarium est, quemadmodum diximus; neque solventis Legem, sed adimplentis et extendentis et dilatantis.

279 IV. xiii. 1.

280 IV. xiii. 4. Quia igitur naturalia omnia præcepta communia sunt nobis et illis, in illis quidem initium et ortum habuerunt, in nobis autem augmentum et adimpletionem perceperunt.

281 IV. xv. 1. Nam Deus primo quidem per naturalia præcepta, quæ ab initio infixa dedit hominibus, admonens eos, id est, per Decalogum (quæ si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem), nihil plus ab eis exquisivit.

282 IV. xvi. 2. Et quia non per hæc justificabatur homo, sed in signo data sunt populo, ostendit, quod ipse Abraham sine circumcisione, et sine observatione sabbatorum, “credidit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est.” Sed et Lot sine circumcisione eductus est de Sodomis, percipiens salutem a Deo. Item Deo placens Noë cum esset incircumcisus, accepit mensuras mundi secundæ generationis. Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo, cum esset homo, legatione ad Angelos fungebatur, et translatus est, et conservatur usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei: quoniam Angeli quidem transgressi deciderunt in terram in judicium; homo autem placens, translatus est in salutem. Sed et reliqua autem omnis multitudo eorum, qui ante Abraham fuerunt justi, et eorum Patriarcharum, qui ante Moysem fuerunt, et sine his quæ prædicta sunt, et sine lege Moysi justificabantur.

283 IV. xiii. 1. supra.—xvi. 3. Quare igitur patribus non disposuit Dominus testamentum? Quia lex non est posita justis; justi autem patres, virtutem decalogi conscriptam habentes in cordibus et animabus suis, diligentes scilicet Deum qui fecit eos, et abstinentes erga proximum ab injustitia: propter quod non fuit necesse admoneri eos correptoriis literis, quia habebant in semetipsis justitiam legis.

284 IV. xvi. 3.

285 IV. xv. 1. At ubi conversi sunt in vituli factionem, et reversi sunt animis suis in Ægyptum, servi pro liberis concupiscentes esse, aptam concupiscentiæ suæ acceperunt reliquam servitutem, a Deo quidem non abscindentem, in servitutis autem jugo dominantem eis.

286 IV. xiv. 3. Sic autem et populo Tabernaculi factionem, et ædificationem Templi, et Levitarum electionem, sacrificia quoque et oblationes, et monitiones, et reliquam omnem Lege statuebat deservitionem. Ipse quidem nullius horum est indigens; est enim semper plenus omnibus bonis, omnemque odorem suavitatis, et omnes suaveolentium vaporationes habens in se, etiam antequam Moyses esset: facile autem ad idola revertentem populum erudiebat, per multas vocationes præstruens eos perseverare, et servire Deo: per ea quæ erant secunda, ad prima vocans, hoc est, per typica, ad vera; et per temporalia, ad æterna; et per carnalia, ad spiritalia; et per terrena, ad cœlestia.

287 IV. xvi. 1. Quoniam autem et circumcisionem non quasi consummatricem justitiæ, sed in signo eam dedit Deus, ut cognoscibile perseveret genus Abrahæ, ex ipsa Scriptura discimus.... In signo ergo data sunt hæc: non autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque otiosa, tanquam quæ a sapiente Artifice darentur; sed secundum carnem circumcisio circumcisionem significabat spiritalem.

288 IV. xii. 5. Quoniam autem Lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum, ipse facit manifestum, ei qui interrogavit eum, quid faciens vitam æternam hæreditaret, sic respondens: “Si vis in vitam introire, custodi præcepta.” Illo autem interrogante, “Quæ?” rursus Dominus: “Non mœchaberis, non occides, non furaberis, non falsum testimonium reddes, honora patrem et matrem, et diliges proximum tanquam teipsum;” velut gradus proponens præcepta Legis introitus in vitam, volentibus sequi eum: quæ uni tum dicens, omnibus dicebat.

289 IV. xii. 4. Non ergo eam Legem, quæ est per Moysem data, incusabat, quam adhuc salvis Hierosolymis suadebat fieri.

290 IV. xiii. 2. Etenim Lex, quippe servis posita, per ea quæ foris erant corporalia, animam erudiebat, velut per vinculum attrahens eam ad obedientiam præceptorum, uti disceret homo servire Deo: Verbum autem liberans animam, et per ipsam corpus voluntarie emundari docuit. Quo facto, necesse fuit auferri quidem vincula servitutis, quibus jam homo assueverat, et sine vinculis sequi Deum; superextendi vero decreta libertatis, et augeri subjectionem quæ est ad regem, ut non retrorsus quis revertens, indignus appareat ei qui se liberavit: eam vero pietatem et obedientiam, quæ est erga patremfamilias, esse quidem eandem et servis et liberis; majorem autem fiduciam habere liberos, quoniam sit major et gloriosior operatio libertatis, quam ea quæ est in servitute obsequentia.—3. Hæc autem, quemadmodum prædiximus, non dissolventis erant Legem, sed adimplentis, et extendentis in nobis: tamquam si aliquis dicat, majorem libertatis operationem, et pleniorem erga Liberatorem nostrum infixam nobis subjectionem et affectionem. Non enim propter hoc liberavit nos, ut ab eo abscedamus; nec enim potest quisquam extra dominica constitutus bona, sibimetipsi acquirere salutis alimenta: sed ut plus gratiam ejus adepti, plus eum diligamus. Quanto autem plus eum dilexerimus, hoc majorem ab eo gloriam accipiemus, cum simus semper in conspectu Patris.

291 IV. xiii. 2.

292 IV. xxxviii. 3. Ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. Quoted from Wisdom vi. 19, 20.

293 IV. xxi. 2. Deus——qui est absconsorum cognitor. Quoted from Daniel xiii. 42. in the Septuagint version.

294 IV. v. 2. Quem et Daniel propheta, cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum, “Quare non adoras Bel?” annunciavit, dicens, “Quoniam non colo idola manufacta, sed vivum Deum, qui constituit cœlum et terram, et habet omnis carnis dominationem.”

295 V. xxxv. 1. Et quotquot ex credentibus ad hoc præparavit Deus ad derelictos multiplicandos in terra, et sub regno sanctorum fieri, et ministrare huic Hierusalem, et regnum in ea, significavit Jeremias propheta; “Circumspice,” dicens, &c.: and then he quotes a passage from the book of Baruch, extending from ch. iv. 36. to the end of ch. v.

296 IV. xx. 2. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ, ἡ λέγουσα· Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. This is quoted from the _first commandment_ in the abovementioned work.

297 Strom. I. xxix. § 181. Θείως τοίνυν ἡ δύναμις ἡ τῷ Ἑρμᾷ κατ᾽ ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα.

298 _De Pudicitia_, 10. Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura _Pastoris_, quæ sola mœchos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi; si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum (he is addressing the Bishop of Rome) inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur.

299 Dissert. III. § 4.

300 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ IV. xxvi. 6. “Ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι. ὧν ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα· Μωüσέως πέντε· Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευïτικὸν, Ἀριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον· Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, Κριταὶ, Ῥούθ· Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο· Ψαλμῶν Δαβὶδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι (ἣ καὶ Σοφία), Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, Ἆσμα ᾀσμάτων, Ἰώβ· προφητῶν, Ἡσαΐου, Ἱερεμίου· τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλω· Δανιὴλ, Ἰεζεκιὴλ, Ἔσδρας.”

301 Some copies, instead of ἣ καὶ Σοφία, read ἡ Σοφία.

302 Euseb. _Hist._ VI. xxv. 1. Τὸν μέντοιγε πρῶτον ἐξηγούμενοσ ψαλμὸν, ἔκθεσιν πεποίηται τοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης καταλόγου, ὦδέ πως γραφῶν κατὰ λέξιν· Οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ᾽ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, δύο καὶ εἴκοσι· ... ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν Γένεσις ἐπιγεγραμμένη, ... Ἔξοδος, Λευïτικὸν, ... Ἀριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον ... Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυῆ, ... Κριταὶ, Ῥοὺθ, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Βασιλειῶν πρώτη, δευτέρα, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἓν, Σαμουὴλ, ... 2. Βασιλειῶν τρίτη, τετάρτη, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Παραλειπομένων πρώτη, δευτέρα, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Ἔσδρας πρῶτος καὶ δευτέρος, ἐν ἑνὶ Ἐζρᾶ, ... βίβλος Ψαλμῶν, ... Σολομῶντος παροιμίαι, ... Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, ... Ἆσμα ᾀσμάτων, ... ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῶν ιβʹ προφητῶν ἕν ἐστιν.... Ἡσαïας, ... Ἱερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Δανιὴλ, ... Ἱεζεκιὴλ, ... Ἰὼβ, ... Ἐσθὴρ, ... Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαïκά.

Here we have Origen distinctly recognizing the Hebrew canon as the true one, only making a mistake in the matter of fact, that the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah belonged to the Hebrew book.

303 _Opera_, tom. ii. pp. 126‐204.

304 _De Pond. et Mens._ tom. ii. ed. Colon. p. 162. § 4, 5. _Hær._ xxix. § 7.

305 Quoted in Beveridge on the Sixth Article of the Church of England, in his _Exposition of the Articles_.

306 _Prolog. Galeat._ and _Epist. ad Paulinum_.

307 Can. 60.

308 See Beveridge, as above cited.

309 _Hær._ 29.

310 III. i. 1. Ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαιος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμη εὐαγγελιζομένων, καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε. καὶ Λουκᾶς δὲ ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέθετο. ἔπειτα Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσὼν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων.——_Frag._ 29. Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ἐγάαφη· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐπεθύμουν πάνυ σφόδρα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ Χριστὸν. ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιθυμίαν, παντοίως ἔσπευδε πληροφορίαν παρέχειν αὐτοῖς, ὡς εἴη ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ ὁ Χριστός· διὸ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἤρξατο.

311 III. i. 1. supra.

312 Ibid.—xi. 1. Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre cum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaïtæ, qui sunt vulsio ejus quæ falso cognominatur scientiæ, ... omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini, et regulam veritatis constituere in ecclesia, ... sic inchoavit in ea quæ est secundum evangelium doctrina: “In principio erat Verbum,” &c.

313 V. xxvi. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de novissimo tempore ... significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi.

314 V. xxx. 3. Ἡμεῖς οὖν οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου, ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς. Εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρῥ’eθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς.

315 III. xx. 4. Et quoniam non solum homo erat, qui moriebatur pro nobis, Esaias ait: “Et commemoratus est Dominus sanctus Israël mortuorum suorum, qui dormierant in terra sepultionis; et descendit ad eos evangelizare salutem quæ est ab eo, ut salvaret eos.” At IV. xxxiii. 1. he ascribes it to Jeremiah, as does Justin Martyr, (_Dial. cum Tryph._ 72.) who gives it in Greek. In IV. xxxiii. 12. and V. xxxi. 1. he quotes it without mentioning the author.

316 _Tryph._ 72.

317 II. xxxiv. 3. Et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis exsistentibus in eum: “Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit vobis?” The same passage is quoted by S. Clement of Rome, _Epist._ II. 8. Λέγει γὰρ Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ· Εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει;——V. xxxiii. 3. Quemadmodum Presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat Dominus, et dicebat: “Venient dies, in quibus vinæ nascentur, singulæ decem millia palmitum habentes, et in una palmite dena millia brachiorum, et in uno vero palmite dena millia flagellorum, et in unoquoque flagello dena millia botruum, et in unoquoque botro dena millia acinorum, et unumquodque acinum expressum dabit vigintiquinque metretas vini. Et cum eorum apprehenderit aliquis sanctorum botrum, alius clamabit: Botrus ego melior sum; me sume; per me Dominum benedic.” Similiter et granum tritici decem millia spicarum generaturum, et unamquamque spicam habituram decem millia granorum, et unumquodque granum quinque bilibres similæ claræ mundæ: et reliqua autem poma, et semina, et herbam secundum congruentiam iis consequentem: et omnia animalia iis cibis utentia, quæ a terra accipiuntur, pacifica et consentanea invicem fieri, subjecta hominibus cum omni subjectione.—4. Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Παπίας Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ, ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ ἐν τῇ τετάρτη τῶν αὐτοῦ βιβλίων. ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλὶα συντεταγμένα. Et adjecit, dicens: “Hæc autem credibilia sunt credentibus.” Et “Juda,” inquit, “proditore non credente, et interrogante: Quomodo ergo tales genituræ a Domino perficientur?” dixisse Dominum: “Videbunt qui venient in illa.”

318 III. xi. 7. Ebionei etenim eo Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthæum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte præsumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quæ adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum exsistentem Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est præferentes Evangelium, cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes, ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum.——xv. 1. Eadem etiam dicimus iterum et his qui Paulum apostolum non cognoscunt.... Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse apostolum.

319 III. xi. 7.‐9. Etenim Marcion totum rejiciens Evangelium, immo vere seipsum abscindens ab Evangelio, pariter gloriatur se habere Evangelium. Alii vero ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quæ est secundum Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit; sed simul et Evangelium, et propheticum repellunt Spiritum. Infelices vere, qui pseudo‐prophetæ quidem esse volunt, propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab Ecclesia: similia patientes his, qui propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communicatione se abstinent.

320 III. xi. 7.

321 III. xi. 9.

322 III. xxi. 2. Πρὸ γὰρ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους κρατύναι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, ἔτι τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν Ἀσίαν κατεχόντων, Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου, φιλοτιμούμενος τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένην βιβλιοθήκην ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ κοσμῆσαι τοῖς πάντων ἀνθρώπων συγγράμμασιν, ὅσα γε σπουδαῖα ὑπῆρχεν, ᾐτήσατο παρὰ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν εἰς τὴν Ἐλληνικὴν διάλεκτον σχεῖν αὐτῶν μεταβεβλημένας τὰς γραφάς. οἱ δὲ (ὑπήκουον γὰρ ἔτι τοῖς Μακεδόσι τότε) τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐμπειροτάτους τῶν γραφῶν, καὶ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν διαλέκτων, ἑβδομήκοντα πρεσβυτέρους ἔπεμψαν Πτολεμαίῳ, ποιήσαντος τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅπερ ἐβούλετο. Ὁ δὲ ἰδίᾳ πεῖραν αὐτῶν λαβεῖν θελήσας, εὐλαβηθείς τε μήτι ἄρα συνθέμενοι, ἀποκρύψωσι τὴν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς διὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἀλήθειαν, χωρίσας αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἐκέλευσε τοὺς πάντας τὴν αὐτὴν ἑρμηνείαν γράφειν· καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν βιβλίων ἐποίησε. Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ, καὶ συναντιβαλόντων ἑκάστου τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἑρμηνείαν, ὁ μὲν Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη, αἱ δὲ γραφαὶ ὄντως θεῖαι ἐγνώσθησαν, τῶν πάντων τὰ αὐτὰ ταῖς αὐταῖς λέξεσι, καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀναγορευσάντων ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τέλους· ὤστε καὶ τὰ παρόντα ἔθνη γνῶναι, ὅτι κατ᾽ ἐπίπνοιαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσιν ἡρμηνευμέναι αἱ γραφαί. καὶ οὐδέν γε θαυμαστὸν, τὸν Θεὸν τοῦτο ἐνηργηκέναι, ὅς γε καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ Ναβουχοδονόσορ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ διαφθαρεισῶν τῶν γραφῶν, καὶ μετὰ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνελθόντων εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν, ἔπειτα ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Ἀρταξέρξου τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως, ἐνέπνευσεν Ἔσδρᾳ τῷ ἱερεῖ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευï, τοὺς τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωσέως νομοθεσίαν.—3. Cum tanta igitur veritate et gratia Dei interpretatæ sint Scripturæ, ex quibus præparavit et reformavit Deus fidem nostram, quæ in Filium ejus est, et servavit nobis simplices Scripturas in Ægypto, in qua adolevit et domus Jacob, effugiens famem quæ fuit in Chanaan; in qua et Dominus noster servatus est, effugiens eam persequutionem quæ erat ab Herode; et hæc earum Scripturarum interpretatio priusquam Dominus noster descenderet, facta sit, et antequam Christiani ostenderentur, interpretata sit.

323 III. xxi. 2, 3.

324 III. xxi. 1. Ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν γραφήν· Ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν· ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος, καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι· οἷς κατακολουθήσαντες οἱ Ἐβιωναῖοι, ἑξ Ἰωσὴφ αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι.

325 V. xxx. 1. Τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, καὶ ἐν πὰσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου κ. τ. λ.

326 III. i. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostræ cognovimus, quam per eos, per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod quidem tunc præconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostræ futurum.——xi. 8. Neque autem plura numero quam hæc sunt, neque rursus pauciora capit esse Evangelia. Ἐπειδὴ enim τέσσαρα κλίματα τοῦ κόσμου, ἐν ᾧ ἐσμὲν, εἰσὶ, καὶ τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα, κατέσπαρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς, στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ Πνεῦμα ζωῆς· εἰκότως τέσσαρας ἔχειν αὐτὴν στύλους, πανταχόθεν πνέοντας τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ ἀναζωπυροῦντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.

327 IV. xxxiii. 8. See p. 77, note 5.

328 Lib. I. II.

329 III. Præf. See p. 34, note 10.

330 III. ii. 1. Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictæ, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant Traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse: “Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos; sapientiam autem non mundi hujus.” Et hanc sapientiam unusquisque eorum esse dicit, quam a semetipso adinvenerit, fictionem videlicet; ut digne secundum eos sit veritas, aliquando quidem in Valentino, aliquando autem in Marcione, aliquando in Cerintho; postea deinde in Basilide fuit, aut et in illo qui contra disputat, qui nihil salutare loqui potuit. Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo perversus, semetipsum, regulam veritatis depravans, prædicare non confunditur.

331 III. v. 1. Traditione igitur, quæ est ab apostolis, sic se habente in ecclesia et permanente apud nos, revertamur ad eam quæ est ex Scripturis ostensionem eorum qui Evangelium conscripserunt Apostolorum, &c.

332 III. ii. 1. Massuet (_Diss._ I. § 24) says, “Hanc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat.” Now, to my apprehension, he does tacitly disapprove the sentiment in the very passage; and however he may acknowledge that there are many _parts_ of Scripture obscure and ambiguous, yet the whole method of his arguing shows incontestably that he thought its voice, on such points as he was discussing with the Gnostics, perfectly unambiguous.

333 II. xxvii. 1. Ὁ ὑγιὴς νοῦς καὶ ἀκίνδυνος καὶ εὐλαβὴς καὶ φιλαληθὴς, ὅσα ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξουσίᾳ δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ὑποτέταχε τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γνώσει, ταῦτα προθύμως ἐκμελετήσει, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς προκόψει, διὰ τῆς καθημερινῆς ἀσκήσεως ῥᾳδίαν τὴν μάθησιν ἑαυτῷ ποιούμενος. Ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα, τά τε ὑπ᾽ ὄψιν πίπτοντα τὴν ἡμετέραν, καὶ ὅσα φανερῶς καὶ ἀναμφιβόλως αὐτολεξεὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς λέλεκται. Et ideo parabolæ debent non ambiguis adaptari: sic enim et qui absolvit, sine periculo absolvit, et parabolæ ab omnibus similiter absolutionem accipient; et a veritate [i. e. per veritatem] corpus integrum, et simili aptatione membrorum, et sine concussione perseverat.—2. Cum itaque universæ Scripturæ et Prophetiæ et Evangelia in aperto et sine ambiguitate et similiter ab omnibus audiri possint, etsi non omnes credunt.——xxviii. 1. Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem, et in aperto positum de Deo testimonium, non debemus per quæstionum declinantes [in] alias atque alias absolutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam: magis autem absolutionem quæstionum in hunc characterem dirigentes, exerceri quidem convenit per inquisitionem mysterii et dispositionis exsistentis Dei; augeri autem in charitate ejus, qui tanta propter nos fecit et facit.

Grabe argues from the first of these passages as though _every_ thing which God would have us know or believe were contained in express words in Scripture, and thus incurs the reprehension of Massuet. (_Diss._ III. § 11.) All that can be gathered from it legitimately is, that the things clearly revealed are expressed in Scripture without ambiguity, and that these are the most important.

334 II. x. 1. Omnis autem quæstio non per aliud quod quæritur habebit resolutionem, nec ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solvetur apud eos qui sensum habent, aut ænigmata per aliud majus ænigma; sed ea quæ sunt talia ex manifestis et consonantibus et claris accipiunt absolutiones.

335 I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰς παραβολὰς ἐπιγνώσεται.—x. 1. See p. 91, note 7.

336 IV. xxxii. 1. See p. 77, note 8.

337 IV. xxvi. 4. See p. 80, note 7.

338 IV. xxvi. 2. See p. 80, note 7.

339 IV. xxxiii. 1. Talis discipulus vere spiritalis recipiens Spiritum Dei, qui ab initio in universis dispositionibus Dei adfuit hominibus, et futura annuntiavit et præsentia ostendit et præterita enarrat, judicat quidem omnes, ipse autem a nemine judicatur. Nam judicat gentes.... Examinabit autem doctrinam Marcionis, &c.

340 III. ii. 1. See p. 136, note 9.

341 III. ii. 1. See supra, p. 136, note 9.—2. Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab Apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos; adversantur traditioni, dicentes se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam Apostolis exsistentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veritatem.... Evenit itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos.

342 Conf. III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7, et i. 1. p. 135, note 5.

343 I. x. 1. See p. 91.

344 III. Præf. p. 34, note 10.

345 III. iii. 1. See p. 57, note 7.

346 Ibid.

347 I. ix. 4. p. 57, note 6.

348 III. iii. 2. p. 63, note 8.

349 III. iii. 4. p. 58, notes 2 & 3.

350 III. iii. 3, 4. p. 62, notes 2 & 6.

351 I. x. 2. Οὓτω καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας πανταχῆ φαίνει, καὶ φωτίζει πάντας ἀνθρώπους τοὺς βουλομένους εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων ἐρεῖ· (οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον·) οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν· μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης, οὔτε ὁ πόλυ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν, ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἠλαττόνησε.

352 I. x. 3. Τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἢ ἔλαττον κατὰ σύνεσιν εἰδέναι τινάς ... γίνεται ... ἐν τῷ τὰ, ὅσα ἐν παραβολαῖς εἴρηται, προσεπεργάζεσθαι καὶ οἰκειοῦν τῇ τῆς πίστεως ὑποθέσει κ. τ. λ.

353 III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7; I. x. 1, 2. p. 91.

354 Thus Irenæus gives two different versions of it (I. x. 1. et III. iv. 2); in one of which he mentions Christ’s ascent into heaven _in the flesh_, and other matters, which are omitted in the other.

355 III. iv. 2. See p. 159, note 3.

356 III. iv. 1. ibid.

357 IV. xxvi. 4. p. 81, note 8.

358 IV. xxvii. 1. Quemadmodum audivi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his qui Apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant, sufficere veteribus, de his quæ sine consilio Spiritus egerunt, eam quæ ex Scripturis esset correptionem.... 2. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea, quæ sunt sub terra, descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum suum.

359 V. v. 1. Διὸ καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ, τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἐκεῖσε μετατεθῆναι· i. e. to Paradise.

360 V. xxxiii. 3. Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis (i. e. those of the new heavens and new earth) docebat Dominus.

361 II. xxii. 6. p. 98, note 1.

362 II. xxii. 6.

363 II. xxii. 6.

364 I. ix. 4. p. 57, note 6.

365 I. x. 1. The Greek of this passage is to be found at p. 91.

366 III. iv. 1. Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de præsenti quæstione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias?—2. Cui ordinationi assentiunt multæ gentes barbarorum, eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes; in unum Deum credentes Fabricatorem cœli et terræ, et omnium quæ in eis sunt, per Christum Jesum Dei Filium: qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem, eam quæ esset ex Virgine generationem sustinuit, ipse per se hominem adunans Deo, et passus sub Pontio Pilato, et resurgens, et in claritate receptus, in gloria venturus Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et Judex eorum qui judicantur, et mittens in ignem æternum transfiguratores veritatis, et contemptores Patris sui et adventus ejus. Hanc fidem qui sine literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt: quantum autem ad sententiam et consuetudinem et conversationem, propter fidem perquam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conversantes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia. Quibus si aliquis annuntiaverit ea, quæ ab hæreticis adinventa sunt, proprio sermone eorum colloquens, statim concludentes aures, longo longius fugient, ne audire quidem sustinentes blasphemum colloquium. Sic per illam veterem Apostolorum Traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt, quodcumque eorum portentiloquium est: nequedum enim congregatio fuit apud eos, neque doctrina instituta.

367 I. iii. 6. Τὴν πίστιν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

368 IV. xxxvii. 1. Illud autem, quod ait: “Quoties volui colligere filios tuos, et noluisti?” veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit: quia liberum eum Deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem, sicut et suam animam, ad utendum sententia Dei voluntarie, et non coactum a Deo. Βία enim Θεῷ οὐ πρόσεστιν· ἀγαθὴ δὲ γνώμη πάντοτε συμπάρεστιν αὐτῷ. Et propter hoc consilium quidem bonum dat omnibus. Posuit autem in homine potestatem electionis, quemadmodum et in angelis (etenim angeli rationabiles); uti hi quidem qui obedissent, juste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a Deo, servatum vero ab ipsis. Qui autem non obedierunt, juste non invenientur cum bono, et meritam pœnam percipient: quoniam Deus quidem dedit benigne bonum, ipsi vero non custodierunt diligenter illud, neque pretiosum arbitrati sunt, sed supereminentiam bonitatis contempserunt. Abjicientes igitur bonum, et quasi respuentes, merito omnes justum judicium incident Dei.... Dedit ergo Deus bonum, ... et qui operantur quidem illud, gloriam et honorem percipient, quoniam operati sunt bonum, cum possint non operari illud; hi autem qui illud non operantur, judicium justum excipient Dei, quoniam non sunt operati bonum, cum possint operari illud.—2. Εἰ φύσει οἱ μὲν φαῦλοι, οἱ δὲ ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασιν, οὐθ᾽ οὗτοι ἐπαινετοὶ, ὄντες ἀγαθοὶ, τοιοῦτοι γὰρ κατεσκευάσθησαν· οὐτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι μεμπτοὶ, οὕτως γεγονότες. Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ οἱ πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσι φύσεως, δυνάμενοί τε κατασχεῖν κὶι πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ δυνάμενοι πάλιν ἀποβαλεῖν αὐτὸ, καὶ μὴ ποιῆσαι· δικαίως καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς εὐνομουμένοις, καὶ πολὺ πρότερον παρὰ Θεῷ, οἱ μὲν ἐπαινοῦνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι μαρτυρίας, τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καθόλου ἐκλογῆς καὶ ἐπιμονῆς· οἱ δὲ καταιτιῶνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι ζημίας, τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀποβολῆς. καὶ διὰ τούτου οἱ προφῆται παρήνουν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δικαιοπραγεῖν, καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐξεργάζεσθαι· ... ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ὄντος τοῦ τοιούτου, καὶ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀμέλειαν εἰς λήθην ἐκπεπτωκότων, καὶ γνώμης δεομένων ἀγαθῆς, ἣν ὁ ἀγαθὸς Θεὸς παρέσχε γινώσκειν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.—3. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἐπιδείκνυσι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τὸ συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ... ἀποτρέποντος μὲν τοῦ ἀπειθεῖν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ μὴ βιαζομένου.—5. Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit Dominus, dicens: “Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi;” propriam fidem hominis ostendens, quoniam propriam suam habet sententiam. Et iterum: “Omnia possibilia sunt credenti;” et, “Vade, sicut credidisti, fiat tibi.” Et omnia talia suæ potestatis secundum fidem ostendunt hominem. Et propter hoc is “qui credit ei, habet vitam æternam; qui autem non credit Filio, non habet vitam æternam, sed ira Dei manebit super ipsum.”——V. xxvii. 1. Si ergo adventus Filii super omnes quidem similiter advenit, judicialis est autem, et discretor credentium et non credentium, quoniam ex sua sententia credentes faciunt ejus voluntatem, et ex sua sententia credentes faciunt ejus voluntatem, et ex sua sententia indictoaudientes non accedunt ad ejus doctrinam: manifestum, quoniam et Pater ejus omnes quidem similiter fecit, propriam sententiam unumquemque habentem, et sensum liberum; respicit autem omnia, et providet omnibus, “solem suum oriri faciens super malos et bonos, et pluens super justos et injustos.”—2. Et ὅσα τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν τηρεῖ φιλίαν, τούτοις τὴν ἰδίαν παρέχει κοινωνίαν. κοινωνία δὲ Θεοῦ, ζωὴ καὶ φῶς, καὶ ἀπόλαυσις τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῶν. ὅσοι autem ἀφίστανται κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτοις τὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χωρισμὸν ἐπάγει.——xxviii. 1. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, οἱ μὲν προστρέχουσι τῷ φωτὶ, καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἑνοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, οἱ δὲ ἀφίστανται τοῦ φωτὸς, καὶ ἀφορίζουσιν ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐκδέχεται ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῖς πᾶσιν ἁρμόζουσαν οἴκησιν ἐπάγων· τοῖς μὲν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ, πρὸς τὸ ἀπολαύειν αὐτοὺς τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀγαθῶν, τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ σκότει, πρὸς τὸ μετέχειν αὐτοὺς τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ μοχθηρίας. Διὰ τοῦτό φησι, τοὺς μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ἀνακαλέσασθαι εἰς τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν, τοὺς δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ πέμψειν· ἑαυτοὺς γὰρ πάντων ἐστέρησαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν.

369 IV. xxxvii. 1, 2. V. xxvii. 1. xxviii. 1.

370 IV. xv. 2. Si autem quidam, propter inobedientes Israëlitas et perditos, infirmum dicunt legis doctorem, invenient in ea vocatione quæ est secundum nos multos quidem vocatos, paucos vero electos; et intrinsecus lupos, a foris vero indutos pelles ovium; et id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servasse Deum et suam exhortationem.——xxxvii. 1.

371 IV. xxxvii. 1, 5. V. xxvii. 2. xxviii. 1.

372 IV. xxxvii. 2.

373 IV. xxxvii. 3.

374 IV. xxxvii. 5. V. xxvii. 1. xxviii. 1.

375 IV. xxxvii. 5.

376 IV. xxxvii. 3.—V. i. 1. Et quoniam injuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam, suos proprios faciens discipulos; potens in omnibus Dei Verbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea: non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens; sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet: ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.

377 IV. xxxvii. 1.

378 IV. xxxvii. 7. See p. 106, note 5.

379 III. xvii. 2. Sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat, sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia.—3. Quapropter necessarius nobis est ros Dei, ut non comburamur, neque infructuosi efficiamur.

380 V. i. 1. Qui nunc nuper facti sumus, a Solo Optimo et bono, et ab eo qui habet donationem incorruptibilitatis, in eam, quæ est ad eum, similitudinem facti, (prædestinati quidem ut essemus, qui nondum eramus, secundum præscientiam Patris, facti autem initium facturæ,) accepimus in præcognitis temporibus secundum ministrationem Verbi, qui est perfectus in omnibus: quoniam Verbum potens, et homo verus, sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt.

381 IV. xli. 3. Quemadmodum enim in hominibus indictoaudientes patribus filii abdicati, natura quidem filii eorum sunt, lege vero alienati sent (non enim hæredes fiunt naturalium parentum), eodem modo apud Deum, qui non obediunt ei, abdicati ab eo, desierunt filii ejus esse.... Cum enim converterentur et pœnitentiam agerent et quiescerent a malitia, filii poterant esse Dei, et hæreditatem consequi incorruptelæ quæ ab eo præstatur.... Verum quando credunt et subjecti esse Deo perseverant et doctrinam ejus custodiunt, filii sunt Dei: cum autem abscesserint et transgressi fuerint, diabolo adscribuntur principi, ei qui primo sibi, tunc et reliquis, causa abscessionis sit factus.

382 IV. xxix. 2. Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credituros Deus, cum sit omnium præcognitor, tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quæ ipsi sibi elegerunt; quid mirum si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaonem, cum his qui cum eo erant, tradidit eos suæ infidelitate?——V. xxvii. 2. Ὅσοι autem ἀφίστανται κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτοις τὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χωρισμὸν [eam quæ electa est ab ipsis, separationem—OLD LATIN VERSION] ἐπάγει. Χωρισμὸς δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ θάνατος· καὶ χωρισμὸς φωτὸς σκότος· καὶ χωρισμὸς Θεοῦ ἀποβολὴ πάντων τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῶν.

383 II. xxxiii. 5. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πληρωθέντος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, οὗ αὐτὸς παρ᾽ αὐτῷ προώρισε, πάντες οἱ ἐγγραφέντες εἰς ζωὴν ἀναστήσονται, ἴδια ἔχοντες σώματα, καὶ ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχὰς, καὶ ἴδια πνεύματα, ἐν οἷς ἐυηρέστησαν τῷ Θεῷ· οἱ δὲ τῆς κολάσεως ἄξιοι ἀπελεύσονται εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχὰς καὶ ἴδια σώματα, ἐν οἷς ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος. Καὶ παύσονται ἑκάτεροι τοῦ γεννᾷν ἔτι καὶ γεννᾶσθαι, καὶ γαμεῖν καὶ γαμεῖσθαι· ἵνα τὸ σύμμετρον φῦλον τῆς προορίσεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπότητος ἀποτελεσθεὶς τὴν ἁρμονίαν τηρήση τοῦ Πατρός.

The same idea is expressed by Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr.

Clem. R. _ad Corr._ I. 2. Ἀγὼν ἦν ὑμῖν ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτὸς ὑπὲρ πάσης τῆς ἀδελφότητος, εἰς τὸ σώζεσθαι μετ᾽ ἐλέους καὶ συνειδήσεως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ.

Justin M. _Apol._ I. 45. Ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁ Πατὴρ τῶν πάντων Θεὸς ... ἔμελλε, καὶ κατέχειν ἕως ἂν πατάξῃ τοὺς ἐχθραίνοντας αὐτῷ δαίμονας, καὶ συντελεσθῇ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν προεγνωσμένων αὐτῷ, ἀγαθῶν γινομένων καὶ ἐναρέτων, δι᾽ οὓς καὶ μηδέπω τὴν ἐπικύρωσιν πεποίηται.

384 “Beseeching thee that it may please thee of thy gracious goodness shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom.”

385 IV. xxxvi. 2. Qui priores, sive primum, per servilem legisdationem vocaverat Deus, hic posteriores, sive postea, per adoptionem assumpsit. Plantavit enim Deus vineam humani generis, primo quidem per plasmationem Adæ et electionem patrum; tradidit autem colonis per eam legisdationem quæ est per Moysem; sepem autem circumdedit, id est, circumterminavit eorum culturam; et turrim ædificavit, Hierusalem elegit; et torcular fodit, receptaculum prophetici Spiritus præparavit.... Non credentibus autem illis, novissime misit Filium suum, (misit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum) quem cum occidissent mali coloni, projecerant extra vineam. Quapropter tradidit eam Dominus Deus non jam circumvallatam, sed expansam in universum mundum aliis colonis, reddentibus fructus temporibus suis, turre electionis exaltata ubique et speciosa: ubique enim præclara est ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum torcular; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt Spiritum.

386 IV. xxxvi. 8. Sed quoniam et patriarchas qui elegit et nos, idem est Verbum Dei, &c.

387 V. i. 1. supra.

388 III. vi. 1. Hæc (Ecclesia) enim est synagoga Dei, quam Deus, hoc est Filius, ipse per semetipsum collegit.

389 IV. xxi. 3. Variæ oves, quæ fiebant huic Jacob merces; et Christi merces, qui ex variis et differentibus gentibus in unam cohortem fidei convenientes fiunt homines.

390 See p. 173.

391 See p. 167, note 1.

392 I. xxi. 1. Καὶ ὅτι μὲν εἰς ἐξάρνησιν τοῦ βαπτίσματος, τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ἀναγεννήσεως, καὶ πάσης τῆς πίστεως ἀπόθεσιν, ὑποβέβληται τὸ εἶδος τοῦτο ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, κ. τ. λ.

393 II. xxii. 4. See p. 94, note 2.

394 V. xv. 3. Et quoniam in illa plasmatione, quæ secundum Adam fuit, in transgressione factus homo indigebat lavacro regenerationis.

395 V. vi. 1. viii. 2. See p. 101, note 8.

396 III. xvii. 2. Unde et Dominus pollicitus est mittere se Paracletum, qui nos aptaret Deo. Sicut enim de arido tritico massa una fieri non potest sine humore, neque unus panis; ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Jesu poteramus, sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat; sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora enim nostra per lavacrum illam, quæ est ad incorruptionem, unitatem acceperunt; animæ autem per Spiritum.

397 III. xvii. 2.

398 V. vi. 1.—vii. 1. Incompositus est enim et simplex Spiritus, et ipse vita est eorum qui percipiunt illum.——ix. 2. Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem, et sublevat in vitam.——xii. 2. Ἕτερόν ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς, ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον· καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν.... διὸ καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς Ἠσαΐας διαστέλλων τὰ προειρημένα φησί· Πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ ἐποίησα· τὸ πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας τοῦ ἐκχέοντος αὐτὸ in novissimis temporibus διὰ τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, τὴν δὲ πνοὴν κοινῶς ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως· καὶ ποίημα ἀναγορεύσας αὐτὴν. ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν τοῦ ποιήσαντος. Ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον. καὶ ἡ μὲν πνοὴ ἀκμάσασα πρὸς βραχὺ, καὶ, καιρῷ τινι παραμείνασα, μετὰ τοῦτο πορεύεται, ἄπνουν καταλιποῦσα ἐκεῖνο, περὶ ὃ ἦν τὸ πρότερον· τὸ δὲ περιλαβὸν ἔνδοθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἅτε ἀεὶ παραμόνιμον, οὐδέποτε καταλείπει αὐτὸν.

399 IV. xxxi. 2. Quando igitur hic vitale semen, id est, Spiritum remissionis peccatorum per quem vivificamur, effudit in humanum genus?

400 V. ii. 3. Πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν;

401 IV. xli. 2. Secundum igitur naturam quæ est secundum conditionem, ut ita dicam, omnes filii Dei sumus, propter quod a Deo omnes facti sumus: secundum autem dictoaudientiam [obedientiam] et doctrinam non omnes filii Dei sunt, sed qui credunt ei et faciunt ejus voluntatem: qui autem non credunt et non faciunt ejus voluntatem filii et angeli sunt diaboli.

402 I. x. 1. ad finem. See p. 91, note 7.——IV. xli. 3. See p. 166, note 5.

403 IV. xxvii. 2. Si enim hi qui præcesserunt nos in charismatibus veteres, propter quos nondum Filius Dei passus erat, delinquentes in aliquo, et concupiscentiæ carnis servientes, tali affecti sunt ignominia (viz. to have their transgressions recorded in the Scripture), quid passuri sunt qui nunc sunt, qui contempserunt adventum Domini, et deservierunt voluptatibus suis? Et illis quidem curatio et remissio peccatorum mors Domini fuit: propter eos vero qui nunc peccant Christus non jam morietur, jam enim mors non dominabitur ejus: sed veniet Filius in gloria Patris, exquirens ab actoribus et dispensatoribus suis pecuniam quam eis credidit cum usuris; et quibus plurimum dedit, plurimum ab eis exiget.

404 V. ii. 2. Vani autem omnimodo, qui universam dispositionem Dei contemnunt, et carnis salutem negant, et regenerationem ejus spernunt, dicentes non eam capacem esse incorruptibilitatis. Si autem non salvetur hæc, videlicet nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos; neque calix Eucharistiæ communicatio sanguinis ejus est, neque panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis ejus est. Sanguis enim non est, nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua quæ est secundum hominem substantia, qua vere factum est Verbum Dei. Sanguine suo redemit nos, quemadmodum et Apostolus ejus ait: “In quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum.” Et ἐπειδὴ μέλη αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ διὰ τῆς κτίσεως τρεφόμεθα, τὴν δὲ κτίσιν ἡμῖν αὐτος παρέχει, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλων καὶ βρέχων καθὼς βούλεται· τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἡμέτερον δεύει αἷμα, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὰ ἡμέτερα αὔξει σώματα.—3. Ὁπότε οὖν καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λύγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ, ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις· πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν; καθὼς ὁ μακάριος Παῦλός φησιν, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ· ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ· οὐ περὶ πνευματικοῦ τινος καὶ ἀοράτου ἀνθρώπου λέγων ταῦτα, (τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα οὔτε ὀστέα, οὔτε σάρκα ἔχει) ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας, τῆς ἐκ σαρκὸς καὶ νεύρων καὶ ὀστέων συνεστώσης· ἥτις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστι τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, τρέφεται, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου, ὁ ἐστι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, αὔξεται. καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ ξύλον τῆς ἀμπέλου κλιθὲν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ἐκαρποφόρησε, καὶ ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθεὶς, πολλοστὸς ἐγέρθη διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ συνέχοντος τὰ πάντα· ἔπειτα δὲ διὰ τῆς σοφίας τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς χρῆσιν ἐλθόντα ἀνθρώπων, καὶ προσλαμβανόμενα τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, εὐχαριστία γίνεται, ὅπερ ἐστὶ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα ἐξ αὐτῆς τρεφόμενα, καὶ τεθέντα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθέντα ἐν αὐτῇ, ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῖς χαριζομένου εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός.

405 Tertullian, who uses this selfsame argument against the Gnostics, expressly calls the bread the _representation_ of Christ’s body; arguing that if Christ had no real body, there could have been no representation or _figure_ of it.—_Contra Marcionem_, IV. 40. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, “Hoc est corpus meum” dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei: figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.... Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit: nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi carnis.—See likewise Bishop Kaye’s _Tertullian_ (p. 454, note 137, of the second edition) for other passages.

406 IV. xviii. 4. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, juste munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum est. Quemadmodum et Paulus Philippensibus ait: “Repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito, quæ a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis, hostiam acceptabilem, placentem Deo.” Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, et in omnibus gratos inveniri Fabricatori Deo, in sententia pura et fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilectione ferventi, primitias earum, quæ sunt ejus, creaturarum offerentes. Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola puram offert Fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. Judæi autem non offerunt: manus enim eorum sanguine plenæ sunt; non enim receperunt Verbum, quod [or _per quod_] offertur Deo. Sed neque omnes hæreticorum synagogæ. Alii enim alterum præter fabricatorem dicentes Patrem, ea quæ secundum nos creata sunt, offerentes ei, cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, et aliena concupiscentem. Qui vero ex defectione et ignorantia et passione dicunt facta ea, quæ sunt secundum nos; ignorantiæ, passionis, et defectionis fructus offerentes, peccant in Patrem suum, contumeliam facientes magis ei, quam gratias agentes. Quomodo autem constabit eis, eum panem in quo gratiæ actæ sint corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi Filium dicant, id est, Verbum ejus, per quod lignum fructificat, et defluunt fontes, et terra dat primum quidem fœnum, post deinde spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica?—5. Πῶς autem τὴν σάρκα λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὸν χωρεῖν, καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην; ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλαξάτωσαν, ἢ τὸ προφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν. Ἡμῶν δὲ σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία rursus βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην nostram: προσφέρομεν δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ ἴδια, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, καὶ ὀμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν. Ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου· οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα.—6. Offerimus enim ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes dominationi ejus, et sanctificantes creaturam.

407 IV. xvii. 5. Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis (non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint), eum, qui ex creatura panis est, accepit, et gratias egit, dicens: “Hoc est corpus meum;” et calicem similiter qui est ex ea creatura quæ est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, et novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem; quam ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo,—ei, qui alimenta nobis præstat, primitias suorum munerum.

408 Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr exhibit the same view. Clem. R. _ad Corr._ I. 40. Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅσα ὁ Δεσπότης ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν· κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι.—And to show what kind of _offering_ is spoken of in connection with the λειτουργία, take the following passage from § 44. Ἁμαρτία γὰρ οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν.

Justin is more express: _Dial. cum Tryph._ 41. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν προσφερομένων αὐτῷ θυσιῶν, τουτέστι τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς εὐχαριστίας. And again § 117. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι τέλειαι μόναι καὶ εὐάρεστοι εἰσὶ τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός φημι· ταῦτα γὰρ μόνα καὶ Χριστιανοὶ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν, καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀναμνήσει δὲ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν ξηρᾶς τε καὶ ὑγρᾶς, ἐν ᾖ καὶ τοῦ πάθους ὃ πέπονθε δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ μέμνηται.

409 _Irenæi Scripta Anecdota_, Frag. 2. p. 29. Διότι καὶ ἑ προσφορὰ τῆς εὐχαριστίας οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὴ ἀλλὰ πνευματικὴ, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ καθαρά. Προσφέρομεν γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ τὸν ἄρτον καὶ τό ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, εὐχαριστοῦντες αὐτῷ, ὅτι τῇ γῇ ἐκέλευσεν ἐκφύσαι τοὺς καρποὺς τούτους εἰς τροφὴν ἡμετέραν. καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν προσφορὰν τελέσαντες ἐκκαλοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅπως ἀποφῄνη τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην καὶ τὸν ἄρτον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τό ποτήριον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἵνα οἱ μεταλάβοντες τούτων τῶν ἀντιτύπων τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου τύχωσιν. Οἱ οὖν ταύτας τὰς προσφορὰς ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἄγοντες οὐ τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων δόγμασι προσέρχονται, ἀλλὰ πνευματικῶς λειτουργοῦντες τῆς σοφίας υἱοὶ κληθήσονται.

410 Judæi autem non offerunt: ... non enim receperunt Verbum _quod offertur_ Deo. See p. 182.

411 ——Verbum, _per quod offertur_ Deo.

412 IV. xvii. 6. Quoniam ergo nomen Filii proprium Patris est, et in Deo omnipotente per Jesum Christum offert Ecclesia, bene ait secundum utraque: “Et in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo et sacrificum purum.” Incensa autem Joannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum.

413 Justin Martyr again: (_Dial._ 117.) Πάντας οὖν οἳ διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου θυσίας ἅς παρέδωκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς γίνεσθαι [προσφέρουσιν must be introduced either here or further on], τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, τὰς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς γῆς γινόμενας ὑπὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, προσλαβῶν ὁ Θεὸς μαρτυρεῖ εὐαρέστους ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ.

414 IV. xviii. 5. See p. 184, note.

415 V. ii. 3.

416 IV. xviii. 5.

417 See the _Fragment_, p. 186, note 6.

418 See p. 72, note 9.

419 Diss. III. § 76. See the passage quoted below, p. 200, note 2.

420 IV. xxvii. 2. Quemadmodum enim illi (the Patriarchs and just men of old) non imputabant nobis incontinentias nostras, quas operati sumus, priusquam Christus in nobis manifestaretur; sic et nos non est justum imputare ante adventum Christi his qui peccaverunt. Omnes enim homines egent gloria Dei; justificantur autem non a semetipsis, sed a Domini adventu, qui intendunt (probably οἱ κατανοούμενοι; see I. ii. 3, where the Old Translator renders κατανοήσασαν by _cum intendisset_) lumen ejus. Et illis quidem curatio et remissio peccatorum mors Domini fuit.—In IV. vi. 5. the opposite to _intendunt lumen_ is _fugiunt lumen_.

421 III. xviii. 7. Oportebat enim eum qui inciperet occidere (ἀποκτανεῖν μέλλῃ—occisurus esset) peccatum, et mortis reum redimere hominem, id ipsum fieri quod erat ille, id est, hominem: qui a peccato quidem in servitium tractus fuerat, a morte vero tenebatur, ut peccatum ab homine interficeretur, et homo exiret a morte. Ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ γῆς ἀνεργάστου πεπλασμένου, ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ, καὶ ἀπέβαλον τὴν ζωήν· οὕτως ἔδει καὶ δι᾽ ὑπακοῆςς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ παρθένου γεγενημένου, δικαιωθῆναι πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπολαβεῖν τὴν σωτηρίαν. Sic igitur Verbum Dei homo factus est.

422 IV. xxvii. 2.

423 Ibid. et V. xvii. 3. Uti quemadmodum per lignum facti sumus debitores Deo, per lignum accipiamus nostri debiti remissionem.

424 IV. v. 5. Propheta ergo cum esset Abraham, et videret in Spiritu diem adventus Domini et passionis dispositionem, per quem ipse quoque et omnes qui, similiter ut ipse credidit, credunt Deo salvari inciperent (σώζεσθαι μέλλωσι—salvandi essent), exsultavit vehementer. Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus Abrahæ, cujus diem concupivit videre: sed neque Pater Domini; didicerat enim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei: quapropter et deputatum est ei ad justitiam a Domino. Fides enim, quæ est ad Deum altissimum, justificat hominem; et propter hoc dicebat: “Extendam manum meam ad Deum altissimum, qui constituit cœlum et terram.”

425 IV. xxvii. 2, supra.

426 IV. xxxvii. 5. Et non tantum in operibus sed etiam in fide liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit Dominus, dicens: “Secundum fidem tuam fiet tibi;” propriam fidem hominis ostendens, quoniam propriam habet sententiam.

427 IV. xiii. 1. See p. 117, note 9.

428 IV. xvii. 1. Deinde ne quis putet, propterea quod irasceretur, eum recusare hæc (i. e. the sacrifices of the Law), infert, consilium ei dans: “Immola Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo vota tua; et invoca me in die tribulationis tuæ, et eripiam te, et glorificabis me:” illa quidem, per quæ putabant peccantes propitiari Deum, abnuens; hæc autem, per quæ justificatur homo et appropinquat Deo, hortatur et admonet.——He elsewhere (IV. vi. 5.) affirms that “to believe in Christ is to do his will.” Et ad hoc Filium revelavit Pater, ut per eum omnibus manifestetur, et eos quidem qui credunt ei justi [justos illos qui ei credunt] in incorruptionem et in æternum refrigerium recipiat (credere autem ei est facere ejus voluntatem); eos autem, qui non credunt, et propter hoc fugiunt lumen ejus, in tenebras quas ipsi sibi elegerint juste recludet.

429 II. xxiv. 4. Unaquæque tabula, quam accepit a Deo, præcepta habebat quinque.

430 _Antiq._ III. vi. 5. Τὰς δύο πλάκας, ἐν αἷς τοὺς δέκα λόγους συγγεγράφθαι συμβεβήκει, ἀνὰ πέντε μὲν εἰς ἑκατέραν.

431 _De Decalogo_, cited by Feuardent in loco.

432 Cited by Feuardent.

433 _Hom._ 8. in cap. xx. Exodi, cited by Massuet in loco.

434 Cited by Feuardent.

435 Cited ibid.

436 _Quæst._ 71. in Exodum, cited ibid.

437 _Antiq._ III. v. 5.

438 IV. xxxiii. 2. Dominus ... accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit.

V. ii. 3. Καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ· ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις.

439 I. xiii. 2. Ποτήρια οἴνῳ κεκραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχαριστεῖν, καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπικλήσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ ἐρυθρὰ ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ· (He is speaking of Marcus, the Gnostic) ὡς δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα Χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν τῷ ἐκείνῳ ποτηρίῳ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ.

440 Ibid.

441 I. iii. 1. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας λέγοντας· Εἰς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων κ. τ. λ.

442 I. xiv. 1.——τὸ Ἀμην ὁμοῦ λεγόντων ἡμῶν κ. τ. λ.

443 Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

444 III. xi. 9. Infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetæ quidem esse volunt, propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab ecclesia; similia patientes his qui, propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communicatione se abstinent.

445 I. xxi. 3. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπιλέγουσιν οἱ αὐτοὶ τελοῦντες· ὁ δὲ τετελεσμένος ἀποκρίνεται· Ἐστήριγμαι καὶ λελύτρωμαι κ. τ. λ.—Ἔπειτα μυρίζουσι τὸν τετελεσμένον τῷ ὀπῷ τῷ ἀπὸ βαλσάμου· τὸ γὰρ μῦρον τοῦτο τύπον τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα εὐωδίας εἶναι λέγουσιν.

446 I. xiii. 5. Ὅτι δὲ φίλτρα καὶ ἀγώγιμα, πρὸς τὸ καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν αὐτῶν ἐνυβρέζειν, ἐμποιεῖ οὗτος ὁ Μάρκος ἐνίαις τῶν γυναικῶν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πάσαις, αὗται πολλάκις ἐπιστρέψασαι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξωμολογήσαντο, καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἠχρειῶσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐρωτικῶς πάνυ αὐτὸν πεφιληκέναι· ὥστε καὶ διακονόν τινα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ τῶν ἡμετέρων, ὑποδεξάμενον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, περιπεσεῖν ταῦτῃ τῇ συμφορᾷ, τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ εὐειδοῦς ὑπαρχούσης, καὶ τὴν γνώμην καὶ τὸ σῶμα διαφθαρείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ μάγου τούτου, καὶ ἐξακολουθησάσης αὐτῷ πολλῷ τῷ χρίνῳ. ἔπειτα, μετὰ πολλοῦ κόπου τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστρεψάντων, αὐτὴ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἐξομολογουμένη διετέλεσε, πενθοῦσα καὶ θρηνοῦσα ἐφ᾽ ἡ ἔπαθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ μάγου διαφθορᾷ.——III. iv. 3. Κέρδων δὲ ὁ πρὸ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ Ὕγίνου, ὃς ἦν ἔνατος ἐπίσκοπος, εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐλθὼν, καὶ ἐξομολογούμενος, οὕτως διετέλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν λαθροδιδασκαλῶν, ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἐξομολογούμενος, ποτὲ δὲ ἐλενχόμενος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐδίδασκε κακῶς, καὶ ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας.

447 Fragm. vii. Τὸ δὲ ἐν Κυριακῇ μὴ κλίνειν γόνυ, σύμβολόν ἐστι τῆς ἀναστάσεως, δι᾽ ἧς τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χάριτι, τῶν τε ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ τοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τεθανατωμένου θανάτου ἠλευθερώθημεν. Ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν δὲ χρόνων ἡ τοιαύτη συνήθεια ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν· καθώς φήσιν ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυρ καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ· ἐν ᾦ μέμνηται καὶ περὶ τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς, ἐν ᾗ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ, ἐπειδὴ ἰσοδυναμεῖ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς Κυριακῆς, κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν περὶ αὐτῆς αἰτίαν. This is a quotation from the _Quæstiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos_, formerly attributed to Justin Martyr, § 115. We learn from Basil the great, (_de Spiritu Sancto_, 27.) that the whole space from Easter to Whitsunday was called _Pentecost_.

448 Frag. iii. Οὐ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστιν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας· οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν· οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ καὶ πλείονας· οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμάραν αὐτῶν. Καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων, οὐ νῦν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν γεγονυῖα, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, τῶν παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς, ὡς εἰκὸς, κρατούντων, τὴν καθ᾽ ἀπλότητα καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετάπειτα πεποιηκότων. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε, καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καὶ ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὀμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι.

449 Beverigii _Annotationes in Canones Apostolicos_. In Can. lxix.

Τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστήν.

Codices quibus usus est Valesius, eodem modo, quo nos jam transcripsimus, legunt atque interpungunt.... Et huic quidem lectioni favit Σύνοψις τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς ἱστορίας, in quam Beatus Rhenanus in præf. ad Ruffinum se incidisse refert, ubi hæc Irenæi verba sic citantur, seu potius explicantur: Οἱ μὲν γὰρ μίαν μόνον ἡμέραν ἐνήστευον, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ πλείονας· οἱ δὲ μʹ ὥρας μόνας ἡμερινὰς καὶ νυκτερινὰς, ὥραν ἀντὶ ἡμέρας, νηστεύοντες. Quod etiam observatum est a doctissimo nostro Petro Gunning jam episcopo Cicestriensi in appendice ad tractatum de paschali jejunio. Verum multa sunt quæ huic lectioni refragantur. Ut alia omittam, quis miri hujus jejunii quadraginta horis commensurati, e veteribus præsertim, meminit? Quadraginta dierum jejunio nihil in antiquis scriptoribus frequentius occurrit; at de quadraginta horarum jejunio altum iis silentium. Porro aliud quoque in his verbis, sic interpunctis, æque si non magis inauditum observare licet, _diem_ viz. _quadraginta horis diurnis ac nocturnis commensuratum_. Quo nihil absurdius excogitari potest: ac proinde Valesius pro ἡμέραν substituendum putat νηστείαν, ut non dies, sed jejunium quadraginta horis commensuretur. Hanc autem violenter introductam verborum commutationem contra unanimem omnium codicum consensum docti nunquam admittent; præcipue cum e verbis ipsis, ut in omnibus codicibus leguntur, et in nonnullis distinguuntur, verior et ecclesiæ primitivæ ritibus magis consonus sensus elucescat: nimirum Johannes Christophorsonus et Henricus Savilius hunc Irenæi locum sic distinxerunt; ... τεσσαράκοντα. ὥρας τε ἡμερινὰς καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. Sic etiam legit et distinxit olim Ruffinus, qui sic vertit: “Quidam enim putant uno tantum die observari debere jejunium, alii duobus, alii vero pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta; ita ut horas diurnas nocturnasque computantes diem statuant.” Quibus verbis nihil aliud indigitatur, quam quod hi uno, illi duobus, alii pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta diebus jejunarunt; omnes autem unamquamque diem, quam jejunii peregerunt, per nocturnas æque ac diurnas horas emensi sunt; ut nulla hora vel diei vel noctis, usque ad numeri dierum, quos sibi constituerant, exitum, jejunium solverent. Contra hanc expositionem H. Valesius duo objicit: primo, quod hinc necessario consequetur, eos qui xl dies jejunabant, toto illo tempore nihil prorsus comedisse, quando quidem horas tam diurnas quam nocturnas jejunio deputabant. Respondeo, nihil minus quam hoc ex dicta expositione consequi: in jejuniis enim celebrandis, præsertim hoc paschali, non ab omni prorsus alimento, ut cuique notum est, sed a carnibus tantum vel aliis fortasse nonnullis ciborum generibus abstinebant; at reliquis vesci licebat. Hoc egregie confirmatur ex concil. Laod. can. 50, quo dicitur δεῖ πᾶσαν τὴν τεσσαρακοστὴν νηστεύειν ξηροφαγοῦντας. Hic enim per totam quadragesimam, ac proinde nocturnas æque ac diurnas horas, jejunare præcipitur; et tamen aridis vesci permittitur; vel potius per istius modi ξηροφαγίαν, sive aridorum esum, totum hoc quadragesimale jejunium celebrari constituitur. Alterum, quod objicit, est, quod cum Irenæus dixerit, alios uno die, alios biduo, alios vero pluribus diebus jejunare, quid necesse est addere alios 40 dies jejunare, cum in eo quod plures dies dixit, quadraginta satis comprehendantur. Respondeo, quod etiamsi nonnullos plures quam duos dies jejunare dixerat, non tamen superfluum erat, eorum etiam, qui xl dies jejunabant, mentionem facere. Cum enim a minimo jejunio, viz. unius diei, inceperit, quidni in maximum quoque expresse desineret, ut maximus viz. dierum numerus, quem quispiam in jejuniis observabat, æque ac minimus innotesceret?

450 _Of Fasting in Lent_, ch. xvi. p. 143.

451 _Discourse of Lent_, Part I. ch. 3.

452 _Catholick Appeal_, II. 24. p. 304.

453 _Ductor Dubitantium_, III. 4. p. 631.

454 _Antiquities_, XXI. i. 2.

455 Post τεσσαράκοντα interpungunt Christophorsonus, Savilius, Strothius, præeunte Ruffino, nulla codicum auctoritate. Totum locum οἱ δὲ ... αὐτῶν uno tenore sine interpunctura legunt C. F. Virgulam post οἱ δὲ, item post νυκτερινὰς, ponunt Steph. A: eandem post ὥρας ponunt B. D. Nicephorus μʹ pro τεσσαράκοντα legit, quod alterutri interpretationi favere posset:—τε post ἡμερινὰς om. Steph. Stroth. A. E:—αἷς post νυκτερινὰς add. M. Grut. Cast.—ὥρας τε legit c.—BURTON in loco, in the last Oxford edition of Eusebius.——C. and E. are of the tenth century.

456 Οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται, &c. Similiter Sæc. III. Dionysius Alexandrinus de jejunii Ante‐Paschalis differentia scripsit in Epistola ad Basilidem. Μηδὲ τὰς ἒξ τῶν νηστείων ἡμέρας ἴσως, μηδὲ ὁμοίως πάντες διαμένουσιν· ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν καὶ πάσας ὑπερτιθέασιν, ἄσιτοι διατελοῦντες, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς, οἱ δὲ τέσσαρας, οἱ δὲ οὐδεμίαν. Et Epiphanius in Expositione fidei Catholicæ, libris contra Hæreses subnexa, postquam de jejunio quartæ et sextæ feriæ, et Quadragesimali dixerat, ad jejunium Ante‐Paschale, quod in Canonibus Timothei Alexandrini vocatur, ἡ νηστεία τοῦ πάσχα, progreditur, aitque fideles per hebdomadam Pascha præcedentem solo pane et aqua vesci ad vesperam, et addit: Ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ σπουδαῖοι διπλᾶς καὶ τριπλᾶς καὶ τετραπλᾶς ὑπερτιθέασι, καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα τινὲς ἄχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κλανγῆς τῆς Κυριακῆς ἐπιφωσκούσης. In quibus ὑπέρθεσις et νηστεία distinguuntur: et jejunare quidem dicuntur, qui post abstinentiam totius diei vespere tenui fruuntur cibo; ὑπερτιθέναι vero, qui nec vespera ullam sumunt refectionem, sed omnino abstinent, sive una, sive pluribus diebus, usque ad terminum jejunii, Paschale scilicet mane, quod a galli cantu incipit.

457 _Antiquities_, XXI. i. 25.

458 _Constit. Apost._ V. 18. Τὴν παρασκευὴν καὶ τὸ σάββατον ὀλόκληρον νηστεύσατε, οἷς δύναμις πρόσεστι τοιαύτη, μηδενὸς γευόμενοι μέχρις ἀλεκτοροφωνίας νυκτός· εἰ δὲ τις ἀδυνατεῖ τὰς δύο συνάπτειν ὁμοῦ, φυλασσέσθω κᾂν τὸ σάββατον.

459 Chrysost. _Contra Judæos_, III. § 4. p. 611. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν νηστεύομέν, φησι, τὰς τεσσαράκοντα ταύτας ἡμέρας; Πολλοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν τοῖς μυστηρίοις προσῄεσαν ἁπλῶς καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, καθ᾽ ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτὰ παρέδωκε. Συνειδότες οὖν οἱ πατέρες τὴν βλάβην τὴν γινομένην ἐκ τῆς ἠμελημένης προσόδου, συνελθόντες ἐτύπωσαν ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα νηστείαις, εὐχῶν, ἀκροάσεως, συνόδων· ἵν᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις καθαρθέντες μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας ἅπαντες καὶ δι᾽ εὐχῶν, καὶ δι᾽ ἐλεημοσύνης, καὶ διὰ νηστείας, καὶ διὰ παννυχίδων, καὶ διὰ δακρύων, καὶ δι᾽ ἐξομολογήσεως, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων, οὕτω κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἡμετέραν μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος προσίωμεν.

460 Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.

461 III. xv. 2. Hi enim ad multitudinem, propter eos qui sunt ab ecclesia, quos communes ecclesiasticos ipsi dicunt, inferunt sermones per quos capiunt simpliciores.

462 Bingham, _Antiquities_, XX. ii. 3. “St. Austin, or whoever was the author of the _Sermons de Tempore_, (_Hom._ 251, _de Tempore_, T. 10, p. 307.) says, ‘The Apostles transferred the observation of the Sabbath to the Lord’s day.’ ”——Clement of Alexandria gives indications of the same idea, where he says that “to all appearance the eighth day is likely to become the proper seventh day, and the seventh the sixth; so that the former will be the proper sabbath, and the seventh a working day.”—Κινδυνεύει γὰρ ἡ μὲν ὀγδοὰς ἑβδομάς εἶναι κυρίως, ἑξὰς δὲ ἡ ἑβδομὰς κατά γε τὸ ἐμφανές· καὶ ἡ μὲν κυρίως εἶναι σάββατον, ἐργάτις δὲ ἡ ἑβδομάς.

463 IV. xvi. 2. See p. 119, note 4. See also Justin Martyr, _Dial. cum Tryph._ 19. 27. 43.

464 _Dial. cum Tryph._ 10. He represents Tryphon charging the Christians with neglecting circumcision, the feasts, and the sabbath; which charge he admits, and argues against the necessity of them.

465 Bingham’s _Antiquities_, XX. iii. 1.

466 Can. 29. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς Ἰουδαΐζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ σχολάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ· τὴν δὲ Κυριακὴν προτιμῶντες, εἴγε δύναιντο, σχολάζειν ὡς Χριστιανοί. εἰ δὲ εὑρεθεῖεν Ἰουδαïσταὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα παρὰ Χριστῷ.

467 Can. 49. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἄρτον προσφέρειν, εἰ μὴ ἐν Σαββάτῳ καὶ Κυριακῇ μόνον.

468 Gen. viii. 10. 12. xxix. 27.

469 See pp. 118, 119.

470 IV. xvi. 1. Hoc idem de sabbatis Ezechiel Propheta ait: “Et sabbata mea dedi eis, ut sint in signo inter me et ipsos, ut sciant quoniam ego Dominus, qui sanctifico eos.” Et in Exodo Deus ait ad Moysem: “Et sabbata mea observabitis: erit enim signum apud me vobis in generationes vestras.” In signo ergo data sunt hæc: non autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque otiosa, tanquam quæ a sapiente Artifice darentur; sed secundum carnem circumcisio circumcisionem significabat spiritalem. Etenim “nos,” ait Apostolus, “circumcisi sumus circumcisione non manufacta.” Et Propheta ait: “Circumcidite duritiam cordis vestri.” Sabbata autem perseverantiam totius diei [i. e. _omni tempore_. See below] erga Deum deservitionis edocebant. “Æstimati enim sumus,” ait Apostolus Paulus, “tota die ut oves occisionis;” scilicet consecrati, et ministrantes omni tempore fidei nostræ, et perseverantes ei, et abstinentes ab omni avaritia, non acquirentes, nec possidentes thesauros in terra. Manifestabatur autem et tanquam de [post] ea quæ facta sunt requietio Dei; hoc est, Regnum, in quo requiescens homo ille qui perseveraverit Deo adsistere, participabit de mensa Dei.

471 V. xxviii. 3. Ὅσαις enim ἡμέραις ἐγένετο ὁ κόσμος, τοσαύταις χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται. καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἡ γραφή· Καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν. καὶ συνετέλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ εʹ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἅ ἐποίησε, καὶ κατάπαυσεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ζʹ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις, καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων προφητεία. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς α͵ ἔτη· ἐν ἓξ οὖν ἡμέραις συντετελέσται τὰ γεγονότα· φανερὸν οὖν, ὅτι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτῶν τὸ δ͵ ἔτος ἐστίν. See the Epistle of Barnabas, § 11. quoted p. 250.

472 V. xxviii. 2. Referring to Luke xiv. 12, 13, and Matt. xix. 29, he says, “Hæc sunt in Regni temporibus, hoc est, in septima die quæ est sanctificata, in qua requievit Deus ab omnibus operibus quæ fecit; quæ est verum justorum sabbatum; in qua non facient omne terrenum opus, sed adjacentem habebunt paratam mensam a Deo, pascentem eos epulis omnibus.”

473 IV. viii. 2. Manifestum est igitur, quoniam eos qui similiter ut Abraham credebant ei, solvit et vivificavit, nihil extra Legem faciens, curans in die sabbatorum. Non enim prohibebat Lex curari homines sabbatis, quæ et circumcidebat eos in hac die, et pro populo jubebat ministeria Sacerdotibus perficere; sed et mutorum animalium curationem non prohibebat. Et Siloa etiam sæpe sabbatis curavit: et propter hoc assidebant ei multi die sabbatorum. Continere enim jubebat eos Lex ab omni opere servili, id est, ab omni avaritia, quæ per negotiationem, et reliquo terreno actu agitur: animæ autem opera, quæ fiunt per sententiam et sermones bonos, in auxilium eorum qui proximi sunt, adhortabatur fieri. Et propter hoc Dominus arguebat eos, qui injuste exprobrabant ei, quia sabbatis curabat. Non enim solvebat, sed adimplebat Legem, summi Sacerdotis operam perficiens, propitians pro hominibus Deum, et emundans leprosos, infirmos curans, et ipse moriens, uti exsiliatus homo exiret de condemnatione, et reverteretur intrepide ad suam hæreditatem.—3. Sed et esurientes accipere sabbatis escam ex his quæ adjacebant, non vetabat Lex: metere autem et colligere in horreum vetabat. Et ideo Dominus his, qui incusabant discipulos ejus, quoniam vellentes spicas manducabant, dixit: “Nec hoc legistis, quod fecit David, cum esurisset, quemadmodum introivit in domum Dei, et panes propositionis manducavit, et dedit eis qui cum eo erant, quos non licebat manducare, nisi solis Sacerdotibus?” per Legis verba suos discipulos excusans, et significans licere Sacerdotibus libere agere. Sacerdos autem scitus fuerat David apud Deum, quamvis Saul persequutionem faceret ei. Πᾶς enim βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει τάξιν. Sacerdotes autem sunt omnes Domini Apostoli, qui neque agros, neque domos hæreditant hic, sed semper altari et Deo serviunt.... Et Sacerdotes in Templo sabbatum prophanabant, et rei non erant. Quare ergo rei non erant? Quia cum essent in Templo, non sæcularia sed Dominica perficiebant ministeria, Legem adimplentes, non autem prætereuntes Legem, quemadmodum is qui a semetipso arida ligna attulit in castra Domini; qui et juste lapidatus est.

474 We have various indications of the observance of the Lord’s day in early writers. Thus Ignatius (_Ad Magnes._ 9.) speaks of “the ancient prophets leading lives in harmony with the Lord’s day.” Μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. Here there is an evident allusion to _some_ way in which that day was spent, in contradistinction to the Jewish Sabbath.—The Epistle of Barnabas, written not far from Apostolical times, speaks of it as a festival: Ἀγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν.—Justin Martyr, again, (_Apol._ II. 67.) describes the practice of assembling for instruction, worship, and communion on that day, and affirms that our Lord, when he appeared to his disciples on Easter day, taught them to observe the day in this manner. Καὶ τῇ μετὰ τὴν Κρονικὴν, ἥτις ἐστιν Ἡλίου ἡμέρα, φανεὶς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ μαθηταῖς, ἐδίδαξε ταῦτα.—A little later Dionysius of Corinth speaks of “celebrating the Lord’s holy day.” Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν.—So Clement, as I showed above (p. 211, note 1), informs us that in his time the Lord’s day appeared likely to be regarded as the proper sabbath.—Further on we find the Council of Laodicea (see p. 213, note 5) directing Christians to rest by preference on the Lord’s day, and not on the Sabbath.—Finally, we may see in Bingham (_Antiq._ XX. ii. 2, 3, 4.) how, as Christianity became established, business, labour, and public sports were forbidden by public authority; which proves of course what had been the practice of Christians themselves before their religion obtained the sanction of the civil power.

475 IV. xxxiv. 4. “Vide enim,” inquit, “quomodo justus perit, et nemo intuetur; et viri justi tolluntur, et nemo excipit corde.” Hæc autem in Abel quidem præmeditabantur, a prophetis vero præconabantur, in Domino autem perficiebantur.

476 Frag. xvii. Ἐν μὲν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ προετυπώθη.

477 IV. xxiv. 1. Primogenitum mortuorum, et principem vitæ Dei, eum qui per extensionem manuum dissolvebat Amalech, et vivificabat hominem de serpentis plaga per fidem, quæ erat in eum.——Justin Martyr (_Tryph._ 90.) expresses the same idea more fully; and remarks as confirmatory of the typical signification of the posture of Moses, that it was altogether unusual as a posture of prayer, and indeed adopted by him on no other occasion, nor by any one since his time.

478 Ibid.

479 IV. xx. 12. Sic autem et Moyses Æthiopissam accipiebat uxorem, quam ipse Israelitidem fecit; præsignificans, quoniam oleaster inseritur in olivam, et participans pinguedinis ejus erit. Quoniam enim is qui secundum carnem natus est Christus, a populo quidem habebat inquiri ut occideretur, liberari vero in Ægypto, id est, in Gentibus, sanctificare eos qui ibi essent infantes, unde et Ecclesiam ibi perfecit; (Ægyptus enim ab initio gentilis, quemadmodum et Æthiopia) propter hoc διὰ τοῦ γάμου Μωüσέως ὁ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ νοητὸς γάμος ἐδείκνυτο, καὶ διὰ τῆς Αἰθιοπικῆς νύμφης, ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐκκλησία ἐδηλοῦτο· ἣν οἱ καταλαλοῦντες, καὶ ἐνδιαβάλλοντες, καὶ διαμωκώμενοι, οὐκ ἔσονται καθαροί. λεπρήσουσι γὰρ, καὰ ἐξαφορισθήσονται τῆς τῶν δικαίων παρεμβολῆς.

480 IV. xxv. 2. Hoc et per alia quidem multa, jam vero et per Thamar Judæ nurum typice ostenditur. Cum enim concepisset geminos, alter eorum prior protulit manum suam: et cum obstetrix putaret eum primogenitum esse, coccinum alligavit signum in manu ejus. Cum hoc autem factum esset, et abstraxisset manum suam, prior exivit frater ejus Phares; sic deinde secundus ille, in quo erat coccinum, Zara: clare manifestante Scriptura eum quidem populum qui habet coccinum signum, id est, eam fidem quæ est in præputio, præostensam quidem primum in Patriarchis, post deinde subtractam, uti nasceretur frater ejus; deinde sic eum, qui prior esset, secundo loco natum, qui est cognitus per signum coccinum, quod erat in eo; quod est passio Justi, ab initio præfigurata in Abel, et descripta a Prophetis, perfecta vero in novissimis temporibus in Filio Dei.

481 IV. xxxi. 1. Quemadmodum et Lot, qui eduxit de Sodomis filias suas, quæ conceperunt de patre suo, et qui reliquit in circumfinio uxorem suam statuam salis usque in hodiernum diem. Etenim Lot non ex sua voluntate, neque ex sua concupiscentia carnali, neque sensum neque cogitationem hujusmodi accipiens, consummavit typum. Quemadmodum Scriptura dicit: “Et intravit major natu, et dormivit cum patre suo illa; et non scivit Lot cum dormiret illa, et cum surgeret:” et in minore hoc idem: “Et non scivit,” inquit, “cum dormisset secum, nec cum surrexisset:” μὴ εἰδότος τοῦ Λὼτ, μηδὲ ἡδονῇ δουλεύσαντος, οἰκονομία ἐπετελεῖτο, δι᾽ ἧς αἱ δύο filiæ, id est, duæ συναγωγαὶ ἀπὸ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς τεκνοποιησάμεναι ἐμηνύοντο ἄνευ σαρκὸς ἠδονῆς. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄλλος οὐδεὶς σπέρμα ζωτικὸν καὶ τέκνων ἐπικαρπίαν δυνάμενος δοῦναι αὐταῖς, καθὼς γέγραπται· “Dixit autem major ad minorem; Pater noster senior est, et nemo est super terram qui intret ad nos, ut oportet omni terræ: veni, potionemus patrem nostrum vino, et dormiamus cum eo, ut suscitemus de patre nostro semen.”—2. Illæ quidem filiæ secundum simplicitatem et innocentiam putantes universos homines perisse, quemadmodum Sodomitas, et in universam terram iracundiam Dei supervenisse, dicebant hæc. Quapropter et ipsæ excusabiles sunt, arbitrantes se solas relictas cum patre suo ad conservationem generis humani, et propter hoc circumveniebant patrem. Per verba autem earum significabatur, neminem esse alterum qui possit filiorum generationem majori et minori synagogæ præstare, quam Patrem nostrum. Pater autem generis humani Verbum Dei; quemadmodum Moyses ostendit dicens: “Nonne hic ipse Pater tuus possedit te, et fecit te, et creavit te?” Quando igitur hic vitale semen, id est, Spiritum remissionis peccatorum per quem vivificamur, effudit in humanum genus? Nonne tunc cum convescebatur cum hominibus, et bibebat vinum in terra? “Venit” enim, inquit, “filius hominis manducans et bibens:” et cum recubuisset, obdormivit, et somnum cepit. Quemadmodum ipse in David dicit: “Ego dormivi et somnum cepi.” Et quoniam in nostra communicatione et vita hoc agebat, iterum ait: “Et somnus meus suavis mihi factus est.” Totum autem significabatur per Lot, quoniam semen patris omnium, id est, Spiritus Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, commixtus et unitus est carni, hoc est, plasmati suo: per quam commixtionem et unitatem duæ synagogæ, id est, duæ congregationes fructificantes ex patre suo filios vivos vivo Deo.

482 Justin Martyr expresses the same sentiment: _Tryph._ 134. Οἰκονομίαι τινὲς μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἐν ἑκάστῃ τινὶ τοιαύτῃ πράξει ἀπετελοῦντο.

483 Justin M. _Tryph._ 134, ad finem, draws the same parallel. Τὸν χρόνον πάντα ἐμισεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ὁ Ἰακώβ· καὶ ἡμεῖς νῦν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν μισεῖται ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπλῶς ἀνθρώπων, ὄντων πάντων τῇ φύσει ἀδελφῶν.

484 Justin, ibid. Ἐδούλευσεν Ἰακὼβ τῷ Λάβαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ῥαντῶν καὶ πολυμόρφων θρεμμάτων· ἐδούλευσε καὶ τὴν μέχρι σταυροῦ δουλείαν ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐκ παντὸς γένους ποικίλων καὶ πολυειδῶν ἀνθρώπων, δι᾽ αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ κτησάμενος αὐτούς.

485 Justin, ibid. Ἀλλὰ Λεία μὲν ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ συναγωγή· Ῥαχὴλ δὲ ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν.

486 Justin, ibid. Εἰς ἀποκατάστασιν ἀμφοτέρων τε τῶν ἐλευθέρων τέκνων καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς δούλων Χριστὸς ἐλήλυθε, τῶν αὐτῶν πάντας καταξιῶν τοὺς φυλάσσοντας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ· ὃν τρόπον καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐλευθέρων καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν δούλων γενόμενοι τῷ Ἰακὼβ πάντες υἱοὶ καὶ ὁμότιμοι γεγόνασι.

487 IV. xxi. 3. Si quis autem et actus qui sunt Jacob addiscat, inveniet eos non inanes, sed plenos dispositionum. Et imprimis in nativitate ejus, quemadmodum apprehendit calcaneum fratris, et Jacob vocatus est, id est, supplantator; tenens, et qui non tenetur; ligans pedes, sed qui non ligatur; luctans, et vincens; tenens in manu calcaneum adversarii, id est, victoriam. Ad hoc enim nascebatur Dominus, cujus typum generationis præstabat, de quo et Joannes in Apocalypsi ait: “Exivit vincens, ut vinceret.” Deinde autem primogenita accipiens, quando vituperavit ea frater ejus: quemadmodum et junior populus eum primogenitum Christum accepit, cum eum repulit populus ætate provectior, dicens: “Non habemus Regem, nisi Cæsarem.” In Christo autem universa benedictio: et propter hoc benedictiones prioris populi a Patre subripuit posterior populus, quemadmodum Jacob abstulit benedictionem hujus Esaü; ob quam causam fratris patiebatur insidias et persecutiones frater suus, sicut et Ecclesia hoc idem a Judæis patitur. Peregre nascebantur XII tribus, genus Israel, quoniam et Christus peregre incipiebat duodecastylum firmamentum Ecclesiæ generare. Variæ oves, quæ fiebant, huic Jacob merces: et Christi merces, qui ex variis et differentibus gentibus in unam cohortem fidei convenientes fiunt homines, quemadmodum Pater promisit ei: “Postula,” dicens, “a me, et dabo tibi Gentes hæreditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terræ.” Et quoniam multitudinis filiorum Domini Prophetæ fiebat Jacob, necessitas omnis fuit ex duabus sororibus eum filios facere; quemadmodum Christus ex duabus Legibus unius et ejusdem Patris: similiter autem et ex ancillis; significans quoniam secundum carnem ex liberis et ex servis Christus statueret filios Dei, similiter omnibus dans munus Spiritus vivificantis nos. Omnia autem ille faciebat propter illam juniorem, bonos oculos habentem, Rachel, quæ præfigurabat Ecclesiam, propter quam sustinuit Christus: qui tunc quidem per Patriarchas suos et Prophetas præfigurans et prænuntians futura, præexercens suam partem dispositionibus Dei, et assuescens hæreditatem suam obedire Deo, et peregrinari in sæculo, et sequi verbum ejus, et præsignificare futura. Nihil enim vacuum, neque sine signo apud Deum.

488 IV. xx. 12. Sic autem et Raab fornicaria semetipsam quidem condemnans, quoniam esset gentilis, omnium peccatorum rea, suscepit autem tres speculatores, qui speculabantur universam terram, et apud se abscondit, Patrem scilicet et Filium cum Spiritu sancto. Et cum universa civitas, in qua habitabat, concidisset in ruinam, canentibus septem tubicinis, in ultimis Raab fornicaria conservata est cum universa domo sua, fide signi coccini: sicut et Dominus dicebat his, qui adventum ejus non excipiebant, Pharisæis scilicet, et coccini signum nullificant, quod erat pascha, redemptio et exodus populi ex Ægypto, dicens: “Publicani et meretrices præcedunt vos in Regno cœlorum.”

The same type is acknowledged by Clement of Rome, in his _First Epistle to the Corinthians_, § 12. Καὶ προσέθεντο αὐτῇ δοῦναι σημεῖον, ὅπως κρεμάσῃ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῆς κόκκινον, πρόδηλον ποιοῦντες ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν.——Likewise by Justin, _Tryph._ 111. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ κοκκίνου σπαρτίου, οὗ ἔδωκαν ... οἱ κατάσκοποι Ῥαὰβ τῇ πόρνῃ, ... ὁμοίως τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδήλου, δι᾽ οὗ οἱ πάλαι πόρνοι καὶ ἄδικοι ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν σώζονται, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν λαβόντες.

489 Frag. xix. Λάβε πρὸς σεαυτὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν Ναυῆ. Ἔδει γὰρ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου Μωüσῆν τὸν λαὸν ἐξαγαγεῖν, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῶν εἰς τὴν κληροδοσίαν εἰσαγαγεῖν· καὶ τὸν μὲν Μωüσῆν, ὡς νόμον, ἀνάπαυλαν λαμβάνειν, Ἰησοῦν δὲ, ὡς Λόγον, καὶ τοῦ ἐνυποστάτου Λόγου τύπον ἀψευδῆ, τῷ λαῷ δημηγορεῖν· καὶ τὸν μὲν Μωüσῆν τὸ μάννα τοῖς πατράσι τροφὴν διδόναι, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν τὸν νέον ἄρτι [rather ἄρτον], τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τῆς ζωῆς, τύπον τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ· καθά φησι καὶ ἡ γραφὴ, ὅτι τότε ἐπαύσατο τὸ μάννα Κυρίου μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν τὸν σῖτον λαὸν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

Clement of Alexandria, _Protrept._ 9. § 85. & _Pædag._ I. 7. § 60, makes Joshua a type of Christ, but draws other parallels than those of Irenæus.

490 Frag. xxiii. Καὶ οὗτος ἐπεβεβήκει ἐπὶ τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ. Ἡ μὲν ὄνος τύπον εἶχε σώματος Χριστοῦ· ἐφ᾽ ὃν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκ καυμάτων ἀναπαυόμενοι, ὡς ὑπὸ ὀχήματος βαστάζονται. τὸ γὰρ φορτίον τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνεδέξατο.

491 Frag. xxvii. Τὸ μὲν οὖν παιδάριον χειραγωγοῦν τὸν Σαμψὼν προτυπωθήσεται εἶς Ἰωάννην τὸν Βαπτιστὴν, ἐπιδεικνύντα τῷ λαῷ τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν. ὁ δὲ οἶκος, εἰς ὃν ἦσαν συνηγμένοι, σημαίνεται εἶναι ὁ κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ κατῴκει τὰ ἀλλόφυλα ἔθνη καὶ ἄπιστα, θυσιάζοντα τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὑτῶν· οἱ δὲ δύο στύλοι, αἱ δύο διαθῆκαι. τὸ οὖν ἐπαναπαυθῆναι τὸν Σαμψὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς στύλους, τὸν διδαχθένται λαὸν ἐπιγνῶναι τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστήριον.

492 Acts ii. 31.

493 Luke xvi. 22. xxiii. 43.

494 Phil. i. 23.

495 1 Pet. iii. 19. iv. 6.

496 IV. ii. 4. Non autem fabulam retulit nobis pauperis et divitis.

497 II. xxxiv. 1. Plenissime autem Dominus docuit, non solum perseverare, non de corpore in corpus transgredientes, animas; sed et characterem corporis, in quo etiam adaptantur, custodire eundem, et meminisse eas operum, quæ egerunt hic, et a quibus cessaverunt, in ea relatione, quæ scribitur de divite et de Lazaro eo, qui refrigerabat in sinu Abrahæ: in qua ait, divitem cognoscere Lazarum post mortem, et Abraham autem similiter, et manere in suo ordine unumquemque ipsorum, et postulare mitti ei ad opem ferendam Lazarum, cui ne quidem de mensæ suæ amicis communicabat: et de Abrahæ responso, qui non tantum ea, quæ secundum se, sed et quæ secundum divitem essent, sciebat; et præcipiebat Moysi assentire et Prophetis eos, qui non mallent pervenire in illum locum pœnæ, et recipientes præconium ejus, qui resurrexerit a mortuis. Per hæc enim manifeste declaratum est, et perseverare animas, et non de corpore in corpus transire, et habere hominis figuram, ut etiam cognoscantur, et meminerint eorum, quæ sint hic; et propheticum quoque adesse Abrahæ, et dignam habitationem unamquamque gentem percipere, etiam ante judicium.

498 V. xxxi. 2. Si ergo Dominus legem mortuorum servavit, ut fieret primogenitus a mortuis, et commoratus usque in tertiam diem in inferioribus terræ; post deinde surgens in carne, ut etiam fixuras clavorum ostenderet discipulis, sic ascendit ad Patrem; quomodo non confundantur, qui dicunt inferos quidem esse hunc mundum, qui sit secundum nos; interiorem autem hominem ipsorum derelinquentem hic corpus, in supercœlestem ascendere locum? Cum enim Dominus “in medio umbræ mortis abierit,” ubi animæ mortuorum erant, post deinde corporaliter resurrexit, et post resurrectionem assumptus est; manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et hæc operatus est Dominus, Αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὸν τόπον invisibilem τὸν ὡρισμένον αὐταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἀκεῖ μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως φοιτῶσι, περιμένουσαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν· ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι τὰ σώματα, καὶ ὀλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτέστι σωματικῶς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέστη, οὕτως ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴς ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. “Nemo enim est discipulus super magistrum: perfectus autem omnis erit sicut magister ejus.” Quomodo ergo Magister noster non statim evolans abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre resurrectionis suæ tempus, (quod et per Jonam manifestatum est,) post triduum resurgens assumptus est; sic et nos sustinere debemus definitum a Deo resurrectionis nostræ tempus, prænuntiatum a Prophetis, et sic resurgentes assumi, quotquot Dominus ad hoc dignos habuerit.——So Clement of Rome (_Ad Corr._ I. 50) affirms that “they who have departed, fully established in love, enjoy the place of the just”—χώραν εὐσεβῶν.

499 V. v. 1. Ὅπουγε Ἐνὼχ εὐαρεστήσας τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν σώματι μετετέθη, τὴν μετάθεσιν τῶν δικαίων προμηνύων· καὶ Ἡλίας, ὡς ἦν, ἐν τῇ τοῦ πλάσματος ὑποστάσει ἀνελήφθη, τὴν ἀνάληψιν τῶν πνευματικῶν προφητεύων, κ.τ.λ. ... Διὸ καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ, τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἐκεῖσε [that is, to paradise] μετατεθῆναι· (δικαίοις γὰρ ἀνθρώποις καὶ πνευματοφόροις ἠτοιμάσθη ὁ παράδεισος, ἐν ᾧ καὶ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος εἰσκομισθεὶς ἤκουσεν ἄρῥητα ῥήματα, ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ παρόντι·) κἀκεῖ μένειν τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἕως συντελείας, προοιμιαζομένους τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν.

500 III. xix. 3. Ut quemadmodum caput resurrexit a mortuis, sic et reliquum corpus omnis hominis, qui invenitur in vita, impleto tempore condemnationis ejus, quæ erat propter inobedientiam, resurgat.

501 V. ix. 2. Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei, hi tales juste homines dicentur, et mundi et spiritales et viventes Deo; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in vitam Dei.... Infirmitas enim carnis absorpta potentem ostendit spiritum; spiritus autem rursus absorbens infirmitatem, hæreditate possidet carnem in se: et ex utrisque factus est vivens homo; vivens quidem propter participationem Spiritus, homo autem propter substantiam carnis.——3. Ubi autem Spiritus Patris ibi homo vivens, sanguis rationalis ad ultionem a Deo custoditus, caro a Spiritu possessa, oblita quidem sui, qualitatem autem spiritus assumens, conformis facta Verbo Dei.

502 V. vii. 1. Et iterum ad Romanos ait: “Si autem Spiritus ejus qui suscitavit Jesum a mortuis habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Christum a mortuis vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra.”——2. Hæc sunt enim corpora mortalia, id est, participantia animæ, quam cum amiserint, mortificantur; deinde per Spiritum surgentia fiunt corpora spiritualia, uti per Spiritum semper permanentem habeant vitam.

503 IV. xxvii. 2. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea, quæ sunt sub terra, descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum suum; remissione peccatorum exsistente his qui credunt in eum. Crediderunt autem in eum omnes qui sperabant in eum, id est, qui adventum ejus prænuntiaverunt, et dispositionibus ejus servierunt, justi et prophetæ et patriarchæ; quibus similiter ut nobis remisit peccata.

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ VI. 6. § 44. Διόπερ ὁ Κύριος εὐηγγελίσατο καὶ τοῖς ἐν Ἅιδου.——45. Φησὶ γοῦν ἡ γραφή· Λέγει ὁ Ἅιδης τῇ ἀπολείᾳ· Εἶδος μὲν αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἴδομεν, φωνὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ ἠκούσαμεν.... Τί δ᾽ οὐχὶ δηλοῦσιν εὐηγγελίσθαι τὸν Κύριον τοῖς τε ἀπολωλόσιν ἐν τῷ κατακλυσμῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ πεπεδημένοις καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ τε καὶ φρουρᾷ συνεχομένοις.——Tertullian _de Anima_, 55. Christus Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secus easdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanæ mortis apud inferos functus; nec ante ascendit in sublimiora cœlorum, quam descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic patriarchas et prophetas compotes sui faceret.—See also Cyril of Jerusalem, _Catech._ xiv. 18, 19.

504 V. xxiv. 4. See p. 107, note 1.

505 Book V. chapter xxv. to the end.

506 The five last chapters of the Fifth Book are wanting in all but two MSS.

507 V. xxv. 1. Et non tantum autem per ea quæ dicta sunt, sed et per ea quæ erunt sub Antichristo, ostenditur, quoniam existens apostata et latro, quasi Deus vult adorari; et cum sit servus, Regem se vult præconari. Ille enim omnem suscipiens diaboli virtutem, veniet non quasi Rex justus, nec quasi in subjectione Dei legitimus; sed impius et injustus et sine lege, quasi apostata et iniquus et homicida, quasi latro, diabolicam apostasiam in se recapitulans: et idola quidem seponens, ad suadendum quod ipse sit Deus; se autem extollens unum idolum, habens in semetipso reliquorum idolorum varium errorem: ut hi qui per multas abominationes adorant diabolum, hi per hoc unum idolum serviant ipsi, de quo Apostolus in epistola, quæ est ad Thessalonicenses secunda, sic ait: “Quoniam nisi venerit abscessio primum, et revelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius perditionis, qui adversatur et extollit se super omne quod dicitur Deus, aut colitur; ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, ostendens semetipsum tanquam sit Deus.” Manifeste igitur Apostolus ostendit apostasiam ejus, et quoniam extollitur super omne quod dicitur Deus, vel quod colitur, hoc est, super omne idolum, (hi enim sunt qui dicuntur quidem ab hominibus, non sunt autem, Dii,) et quoniam ipse se tyrannico more conabitur ostendere Deum.

508 V. xxv. 2. Super hæc autem manifestavit et illud, quod a nobis per multa ostensum est, quoniam in Hierosolymis templum dispositione veri Dei factum est. Ipse enim Apostolus ex sua persona diffinitive templum illud dixit Dei. Ostendimus autem in tertio libro, nullum ab Apostolis ex sua persona Deum appellari, nisi eum qui vere sit Deus, Patrem Domini nostri: cujus jussu hoc, quod est in Hierosolymis, factum est templum, ob eas causas quæ a nobis dictæ sunt: in quo adversarius sedebit, tentans semetipsum Christum ostendere, sicut et Dominus ait: “Cum autem videritis abominationem desolationis, quod dictum est per Danielem Prophetam, stantem in loco sancto, (qui legit, intelligat,) tunc qui in Judæa sunt, fugiant in montes: et qui in tecto est, non descendat tollere quidquam de domo. Erit enim tunc pressura magna, qualis non est facta ab initio sæculi usque nunc, sed neque fiet.”—4. Et Dominus autem hoc item non credentibus sibi dicebat: “Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non recepistis me; cum alius venerit in nomine suo, illum recipietis:” alium dicens Antichristum, qui alienus est a Domino. Et ipse est “iniquus judex,” qui a Domino dictus est, quoniam “Deum non timebat, neque hominem reverebatur,” ad quem fugit vidua oblita Dei, id est, terrena Hierusalem, ad ulciscendum de inimico. Quod et faciet in tempore regni sui: transferet regnum in eam, et in templo Dei sedet [sedebit], seducens eos qui adorant eum, quasi ipse sit Christus. Quapropter ait Daniel iterum: “Et sanctum desolabitur: et datum est in sacrificium peccatum, et projecta est in terra justitia, et fecit, et prospere cessit.”——xxviii. 2. Et propter hoc Apostolus ait: “Pro eo quod dilectionem Dei non receperunt, ut salvi fierent, et ideo mittet eos Deus in operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio, ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.” Illo enim veniente, et sua sententia apostasiam recapitulante in semetipsum, et sua voluntate et arbitrio operante quæcumque operabitur, et in templo Dei sedente, ut sicut Christum adorent illum qui seducentur ab illo; quapropter et juste “in stagnum projicietur ignis:” Deo autem secundum suam providentiam præsciente omnia, et apto tempore eum, qui talis futurus erat, immittente, “ut credant falso, et judicentur omnes, qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.”

509 V. xxv. 4.

510 V. xxv. 3. Daniel autem novissimi regni finem respiciens, (id est, novissimos decem Reges, in quos dividitur regnum illorum, super quos filius perditionis veniet,) cornua dicit decem nasci bestiæ; et alterum cornu pusillum nasci in medio ipsorum, et tria cornua de prioribus eradicari a facie ejus. “Et ecce,” inquit, “oculi quasi oculi hominis in cornu hoc, et os loquens magna, et aspectus ejus major reliquis. Videbam, et cornu illud faciebat bellum adversus sanctos, et valebat adversus eos; quoadusque venit vetustas dierum, et judicium dedit sanctis altissimi Dei, et tempus pervenit, et regnum obtinuerunt sancti.” Postea in exsolutione visionum dictum est ei: “Bestia quarta regnum quartum erit in terra, quod eminebit super reliqua regna, et manducabit omnem terram, et conculcabit eam, et concidet. Et decem cornua ejus, decem Reges exsurgent: et post eos surget alius, qui superabit malis omnes qui ante eum fuerunt, et Reges tres deminorabit, et verba adversus altissimum Deum loquetur, et sanctos altissimi Dei conteret, et cogitabit demutare tempora et Legem: et dabitur in manu ejus, usque ad tempus temporum et dimidium tempus,” hoc est, per triennium et sex menses, in quibus veniens regnabit super terram.——xxvi. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de novissimo tempore, et de his qui sunt in eo decem Regibus, in quos dividetur quod nunc regnat imperium, significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi, edisserens quæ fuerint decem cornua, quæ a Daniele visa sunt, dicens sic dictum esse sibi: “Et decem cornua quæ vidisti decem Reges sunt, qui regnum nondum acceperunt, sed potestatem quasi reges una hora accipient cum bestia. Hi unam sententiam habent, et virtutem et potestatem suam bestiæ dant. Hi cum Agno pugnabunt, et Agnus vincet eos, quoniam Dominus Dominorum est, et Rex Regum.” Manifestum est itaque, quoniam ex his tres interficiet ille qui venturus est, et reliqui subjicientur ei, et ipse octavus in eis; et vastabunt Babylonem, et comburent eam igni, et dabunt regnum suum bestiæ, et effugabunt Ecclesiam: post deinde ab adventu Domini nostri destruentur. Quoniam enim oportet dividi regnum, et sic deperire, Dominus ait: “Omne regnum divisum in se, desolabitur: et omnis civitas vel domus divisa in se, non stabit.” Dividi igitur et regnum, et civitatem, et domum oportet in decem: et propterea jam partitionem et divisionem præfiguravit.

511 V. xxv. 3.

512 V. xxv. 4. Et Gabriel Angelus exsolvens ejus visionem, de hoc ipso dicebat: “Et in novissimo regni ipsorum exsurget Rex improbus facie valde, et intelligens quæstiones; et valida virtus ejus et admirabilis; et corrumpet, et diriget, et faciet, et exterminabit fortes et populum sanctum, et jugum torquis ejus dirigetur: dolus in manu ejus, et in corde suo exaltabitur, et dolo disperdet multos, et ad perditionem multorum stabit, et quomodo ova manu conteret.” Deinde et tempus tyrannidis ejus significat, in quo tempore fugabuntur Sancti, qui purum sacrificium offerunt Domino: “Et in dimidio hebdomadis,” ait, “tolletur sacrificium et libatio, et in Templum abominatio desolationis, et usque ad consummationem temporis consummatio dabitur super desolationem;” dimidium autem hebdomadis tres sunt anni et menses sex.

513 V. xxvi. 1. Et diligenter Daniel finem quarti Regni digitos ait pedum esse ejus imaginis, quæ a Nabuchodonosor visa est, in quos venit lapis sine manibus præcisus; et quemadmodum ipse ait: “Pedes, pars quidem aliqua ferrea, et pars aliqua fictilis; quoadusque abscissus est lapis sine manibus, et percussit imaginem in pedes ferreos et fictiles, et comminuit eos usque ad finem.” Post deinde in exsolutione ait: “Et quoniam vidisti pedes et digitos, partem quidem fictilem, partem autem ferream, regnum divisum erit, et a radice ferrea erit in eo, quemadmodum vidisti ferrum commixtum testæ. Et digiti pedum, pars quidem aliqua ferrea, pars autem aliqua fictilis.” Ergo decem digiti pedum, hi sunt decem Reges, in quibus dividetur regnum: ex quibus quidam quidem fortes et agiles, sive efficaces; alii autem pigri et inutiles erunt, et non consentient: quemadmodum et Daniel ait: “Pars aliqua regni erit fortis, et ab ipsa pars erit minuta. Quoniam vidisti ferrum commixtum testæ, commixtiones erunt in semine hominum, et non erunt adjuncti invicem, quemadmodum ferrum non commiscetur cum testa.” Et quoniam finis fiet, inquit: “Et in diebus Regum illorum excitabit Deus cœli Regnum, quod in æternum non corrumpetur, et Regnum ejus alteri populo non relinquetur. Comminuet et ventilabit omnia regna, et ipsum exaltabitur in æternum. Quemadmodum vidisti, quoniam de monte præcisus est lapis sine manibus, et comminuit testam, ferrum, et æramentum, et argentum, et aurum. Deus magnus significavit Regi, quæ futura sunt post hæc: et verum est somnium, et fidelis interpretatio ejus.”—2. Si ergo Deus magnus significavit per Danielem futura, et per Filium confirmavit; et Christus est lapis, qui præcisus est sine manibus, qui destruet temporalia Regna, et æternum inducet, quæ est justorum resurrectio: “Resuscitabit,” ait, “Deus cœli Regnum, quod in æternum nunquam corrumpetur.” See also xxvi. 1. p. 243, note.

514 V. xxviii. 2. Cujus adventum Joannes in Apocalypsi significavit ita: “Et bestia quam videram, similis erat pardo.... Si quis gladio occiderit, oportet eum in gladio occidi. Hic est sustinentia et fides sanctorum.” Post deinde et de armigero ejus, quem et pseudoprophetam vocat: “Loquebatur,” inquit, “quasi draco, et potestatem primæ bestiæ omnem faciebat in conspectu ejus: et facit terram, et qui habitant in ea, ut adorarent bestiam primam, cujus curata est plaga mortis ejus. Et faciet signa magna, ut et ignem faciat de cœlo descendere in terram in conspectu hominum, et seducet inhabitantes super terram.” Hæc ne quis eum divina virtute putet signa facere, sed magica operatione. Et non est mirandum, si dæmoniis et apostaticis spiritibus ministrantibus ei, per eos faciat signa, in quibus seducat habitantes super terram. “Et imaginem,” ait, “jubebit fieri bestiæ, et spiritum dabit imagini, uti et loquatur imago, et eos qui non adoraverint eam, faciet occidi. Et characterem autem,” ait, “in fronte, et in manu dextra faciet dari, ut non possit aliquis emere vel vendere, nisi qui habet characterem nominis bestiæ, vel numerum nominis ejus; et esse numerum sexcentos sexaginta sex, quod est, sexies centeni, et deni sexies, et singulares sex;” in recapitulationem universæ apostasiæ ejus, quæ facta est in sex millibus annorum.

515 V. xxx. 1. Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ζημία ἐν τῷ ἀποτυχεῖν τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὡς ὂν ὑπολαβεῖν· ἔπειτα δὲ τοῦ προσθέντος ἢ ἀφελόντος τι τῆς γραφῆς, ἐπιτιμίαν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἔχοντος, εἰς αὐτὴν ἐμπεσεῖν ἀνάγκη τὸν τοιοῦτον. ἐπακολουθήσει δὲ καὶ ἕτερος οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν κίνδυνος τοῖς ψευδῶς προειληφόσιν εἰδέναι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ὄνομα· εἰ γὰρ ἄλλο μὲν οὗτοι δοκοῦσιν, ἄλλο δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔχων ἐλεύσεται, ῥᾳδίως ἐξαπατηθήσονται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ· ὡς μηδέπου παρόντος ἐκείνου, ὃν φυλάσσεσθαι προσήκει.

516 V. xxx. 2. Oportet itaque tales discere, et ad verum recurrere nominis numerum; ut non in pseudoprophetarum loco deputentur. Sed scientes firmum numerum qui a Scriptura annuntiatus est, id est, sexcentorum sexaginta sex, sustineant primum quidem divisionem Regni in decem: post deinde, illis regnantibus, et incipientibus corrigere sua negotia et augere suum regnum; qui de improviso advenerit regnum sibi vindicans, et terrebit prædictos, habens nomen continens prædictum numerum, hunc vere cognoscere esse abominationem desolationis. Hoc et Apostolus ait: “Cum dixerint, Pax et munitio, tunc subitaneus illis superveniet interitus.” Hieremias autem non solum subitaneum ejus adventum, sed et tribum, ex qua veniet, manifestavit dicens: “Ex Dan audiemus vocem velocitatis equorum ejus: a voce hinnitus decursionis equorum ejus commovebitur tota terra: et veniet, et manducabit terram, et plenitudinem ejus, et civitatem, et qui habitant in ea.” Et propter hoc non annumeratur tribus hæc in Apocalypsi cum his quæ salvantur.

517 V. xxx. 3. Ἀσφαλέστερον οὖν καὶ ἀκινδυνέτερον, τὸ περιμένειν τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς προφητείας, ἢ τὸ καταστοχάζεσθαι, καὶ καταμαντεύεσθαι ὀνόματος· τυχὸν δὲ ἐπὶ πολλῶν ὀνομάτων εὑρεθῆναι δυναμένου τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, et nihilominus quidem erit hæc eadem quæstio. Εἰ γὰρ πολλά ἐστι τὰ εὑρισκόμενα ὀνόματα, ἔχοντα τὸν αὐτὸν ἀριθμὸν, ποῖον ἐξ αὐτῶν φορέσει ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ζητηθήσεται. Quoniam autem non propter inopiam nominum habentium numerum nominis ejus dicimus hæc, sed propter timorem erga Deum et zelum veritatis: ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ enim nomen habet numerum de quo quæritur: sed nihil de eo affirmamus. Sed et ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ nomen habet sexcentorum sexaginta sex numerum: et valde verisimile est, quoniam novissimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum. Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant: sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur. Sed et ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, prima syllaba per duas Græcas vocales ε et ι scripta, omnium nominum quæ apud nos inveniuntur, magis fide dignum est. Etenim prædictum numerum habet in se, et literarum est sex, singulis syllabis ex ternis literis constantibus, et vetus, et semotum; neque enim eorum Regum, qui secundum nos sunt, aliquis vocatus est Titan; neque eorum, quæ publice adorantur, idolorum apud Græcos et barbaros habet vocabulum hoc: et divinum putatur apud multos esse hoc nomen, ut etiam sol Titan vocetur ab his qui nunc tenent: et ostentationem quandam continet ultionis, et vindictam inferentis, quod ille simulat se male tractatos vindicare. Et alias autem et antiquum, et fide dignum et regale, magis autem et tyrannicum nomen. Cum igitur tantum suasionum habeat hoc nomen Titan, tamen habet verisimilitudinem, ut ex multis colligamus ne forte Titan vocetur, qui veniet. Nos tamen non periclitabimur in eo, nec asseverantes pronuntiabimus, hoc eum nomen habiturum: scientes, quoniam si oporteret manifeste præsenti tempore præconari nomen ejus, per ipsum utique editum fuisset, qui et Apocalypsim viderat.

518 V. xxx. 4. Cum autem vastaverit Antichristus hic omnia in hoc mundo, regnans annis tribus et mensibus sex, et sederit in templo Hierosolymis; tunc veniet Dominus de cœlis in nubibus in gloria Patris, illum quidem et obedientes ei in stagnum ignis mittens; adducens autem justis Regni tempora, hoc est, requietionem, septimam diem sanctificatam; et restituens Abrahæ promissionem hæreditatis: in quo Regno ait Dominus, multos ab Oriente et Occidente venientes, recumbere cum Abraham, Isaac, et Jacob.——Ibid. xxxiii. 2. See p. 215, note 2.

519 V. xxviii. 3. See p. 215, note 1.

The very ancient writer under the name of Barnabas, contemporary at least with Justin Martyr, says, (_Epist._ § 11.) Προσέχετε, τέκνα, τί λέγει τό· Συνετέλεσεν ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις. Τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι συντελεῖ Κύριος ἐν ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσι τὰ πάντα.

520 V. xxx. 4. xxxiii. 2.

521 V. xxxii. 1. Quoniam igitur transferuntur quorundam sententiæ ab hæreticis sermonibus, et sunt ignorantes dispositiones Dei et mysterium justorum resurrectionis et Regni quod est principium incorruptelæ, per quod regnum qui digni fuerint paulatim assuescunt capere Deum; necessarium est autem dicere de illis quoniam oportet justos primos in conditione hac quæ renovatur, ad apparitionem Dei resurgentes, recipere promissionem hæreditatis quam Deus promisit patribus, et regnare in ea; post deinde fieri judicium. In qua enim conditione laboraverunt sive afflicti sunt, omnibus modis probati per sufferentiam, justum est in ipsa recipere eos fructus sufferentiæ.... Oportet ergo et ipsam conditionem, reintegratam ad pristinum, sine prohibitione servire justis.——xxxiii. 4. Hæc ergo tempora prophetans Esaias ait: “Et compascetur lupus cum agno, et pardus conquiescet cum hædo, et vitulus et taurus et leo simul pascentur, et puer pusillus ducet eos. Et bos et ursus simul pascentur, et simul infantes eorum erunt: et leo et bos manducabunt paleas. Et puer infans in cavernam aspidum, et in cubile filiorum aspidum manum mittet; et non male facient, nec poterunt perdere aliquem in monte sancto meo.” Et iterum recapitulans ait: “Tunc lupi et agni pascentur simul, et leo quasi bos vescetur paleis, serpens autem terram quasi panem: et non nocebunt neque vexabunt in monte sancto meo, dicit Dominus.” Non ignoro autem, quoniam quidam hæc in feros, et ex diversis gentibus et variis operibus credentes, et cum crediderint consentientes justis, tentent transferre. Sed etsi nunc hoc sit in quibusdam hominibus, ex variis gentibus in unam sententiam fidei venientibus, nihilominus in resurrectione justorum super iis animalibus, quemadmodum dictum est: dives enim in omnibus Deus. Et oportet conditione revocata, obedire et subjecta esse omnia animalia homini, et ad primam a Deo datam reverti escam, (quemadmodum autem in obedientia subjecta erant Adæ,) fructum terræ. Alias autem et non est nunc ostendere leonem paleis vesci. Hoc autem significabat magnitudinem et pinguedinem fructuum. Si enim leo animal paleis vescitur; quale ipsum triticum erit, cujus palea ad escam congrua erit leonum?

Theophilus _ad Autolycum_, II. 25. Ὁπόταν οὖν πάλιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀναδράμῃ εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν, μηκέτι κακοποιῶν; κακεῖνα (i. e. τὰ θηρία) ἀποκατασταθήσεται εἰς τὴν ἀρχῆθεν ἡμερέτητα.

522 V. xxxii. 2. “Semini tuo dabo terram hanc, a flumine Ægypti usque ad flumen magnum Euphratem.” Si ergo huic [Abraham] promisit Deus hæreditatem terræ non accepit autem in omni suo incolatu; oportet eum accipere cum semine suo, hoc est, qui timent Deum et credunt in eum, in resurrectione justorum. Semen autem ejus Ecclesia, per Dominum adoptionem quæ est ad Deum accipiens.... Neque Abraham neque semen ejus, hoc est, qui ex fide justificantur, nunc sumunt in ea hæreditatem; accipient autem eam in resurrectione justorum.

523 V. xxxiii. 1. Promisit bibere de generatione vitis cum suis discipulis; utrumque ostendens, et hæreditatem terræ in qua bibitur nova generatio vitis, et carnalem resurrectionem discipulorum ejus: quæ enim nova resurgit caro, ipsa est quæ et novum percipit poculum. Neque autem sursum in supercœlesti loco constitutus cum suis potest intelligi bibens vitis generationem; neque rursus sine carne sunt, qui bibant illud: carnis enim proprium est, et non spiritus, qui ex vite accipitur potus.——2. See p. 215, note 2.

524 V. xxxiii. 2. supra.—3. Prædicta itaque benedictio ad tempora Regni sine contradictione pertinet, quando regnabunt justi surgentes a mortuis: quando et creatura renovata, et liberata, multitudinem fructificabit universæ escæ, ex rore cœli, et ex fertilitate terræ.—See p. 131, note 5.

525 V. xxxv. 1. Regnabunt justi in terra, crescentes ex visione Domini, et per ipsum assuescent capere gloriam Dei Patris, et cum sanctis Angelis conversationem et communionem, et unitatem spiritalium in Regno capient: et illos quos Dominus in carne inveniet, exspectantes eum de cœlis, et perpessos tribulationem, qui et effugerint iniqui manus.

526 V. xxxv. 2. In Regni temporibus, revocata terra a Christo, et reædificata Hierusalem, secundum characterem quæ sursum est Hierusalem.

527 V. xxxiii. 4. supra.—xxxv. 1. Si autem quidam tentaverint allegorizare hæc, quæ ejusmodi sunt; neque de omnibus poterunt consonantes sibimetipsis inveniri, et convincentur ab ipsis dictionibus.—2. Et nihil allegorizari potest, sed omnia firma, et vera, et substantiam habentia, ad fruitionem hominum justorum a Deo facta. Quomodo enim vere Deus est, qui resuscitat hominem; sic et vere resurgit homo a mortuis, et non allegorice, quemadmodum per tanta ostendimus. Et sicut vere resurgit, sic et vere præmeditabitur [μελετήσεται—sese exercebit in] incorruptelam, et augebitur, et vigebit in Regni temporibus, ut fiat capax gloriæ Patris. Deinde omnibus renovatis, vere in civitate habitabit Dei.

528 V. xxxv. 2. His itaque prætereuntibus super terram, novam superiorem Hierusalem ait Domini discipulus Joannes descendere, quemadmodum sponsam ornatam viro suo; et hoc esse tabernaculum Dei, in quo inhabitabit Deus cum hominibus. Hujus Hierusalem imago illa, quæ in priori terra, Hierusalem, in qua justi præmeditantur incorruptelam, et parantur in salutem. Et hujus tabernaculi typum accepit Moyses in monte.

529 V. xxxvi 1. Παρελθόντος δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τούτου, καὶ ἀνανεωθέντος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἀκμάσαντος πρὸς τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν, ὥστε μηκέτι δύνασθαι πέρα παλαιωθῆναι, ἔσται ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς, καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή· ἐν τοῖς καινοῖς ἀναμενεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀεὶ καινὸς, καὶ προσομιλῶν τῷ Θεῷ· ... φησὶν γὰρ Ησαΐας· Ὅν τρόπον γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινῆ, ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μένει ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, λέγει Κύριος, οὔτω στήσεται τὸ σπέρμα ὑμῶν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ... ὡς οἱ πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε καὶ οἱ μὲν καταξιωθέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς, ἐκεῖσε χωρήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ τῆς τοῦ παραδείσου τρυφῆς ἀπολαύσουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς πόλεως καθέξουσιν· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁραθήσεται, καθὼς ἄξιοι ἔσονται οἱ ὁρῶντες αὐτόν.

530 V. xxxvi. 3. Ut progenies ejus, primogenitus Verbum, descendat in facturam, hoc est, in plasma, et capiatur ab eo; et factura iterum capiat Verbum, et ascendat ad eum, supergrediens Angelos, et fiet secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei.

531 Justin Martyr, _Dial. cum Tryph._ 80, makes Tryphon ask the question: Εἰπὲ δὲ μοι ἀληθῶς, ὑμεῖς ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι τὸν τόπον Ἰερουσαλὴμ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖτε, καὶ συναχθήσεσθαι τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐφρανθῆναι σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἅμα τοῖς πατριάρχαις καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους ἢ καὶ τῶν προσηλύτων, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ὑμῶν τὸν Χριστὸν, προσδοκᾶτε; And to this Justin replies, Ὡμολόγησα οὖν σοι καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ταῦτα φρονοῦμεν, ὡς καὶ πάντως ἐπίστασθε, τοῦτο γενησόμενον· πολλοὺς δ᾽ αὖ καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης τοῦτο μὴ γνωρίζειν ἐσήμανά σοι. And further on: Ἐγὼ δὲ, καὶ εἰ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοὶ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι ἐπιστάμεθα· καὶ χίλια ἔτη ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἰκοδομηθείσῃ καὶ κοσμηθείσῃ καὶ πλατυνθείσῃ οἱ προφῆται Ἰεζεκιὴλ καὶ Ησαΐας καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ὁμολογοῦσιν.—Perhaps I ought to notice, that some persons have supposed Justin in this last passage to assert, that orthodox Christians in general taught the doctrine of the personal reign, and thence have imagined a discrepancy between the latter statement and that immediately preceding: but a little attention will show, that all he asserts concerning orthodox Christians in general is, that they believe the resurrection of the flesh; and he further adds, that _the prophets_ taught that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, and to remain a thousand years inhabited by the just.

Tertullian. _advers. Marcion._ III. 24. Nam et confitemur in terra nobis regnum repromissum; sed ante cœlum, sed alio statu; utpote post resurrectionem in mille annos, in civitate divini operis Hierusalem cœlo delata.—See also Barnabas and Theophilus, quoted pp. 250 & 252.

532 III. xxii. 4. Maria virgo obediens invenitur, dicens: “Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum:” Eva vero inobediens; non obedivit enim, adhuc cum esset virgo. Quemadmodum illa, virum quidem habens Adam, virgo tamen adhuc existens ... inobediens facta, et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est mortis; sic et Maria habens prædestinatum virum, et tamen virgo, obediens, et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis.... Sic autem et Evæ inobedientiæ nodus solutionem accepit per obedientiam Mariæ: quod enim alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem.

533 Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ III. § 65. Nostræ salutis prima post Filium mediatrix ... mediatricis conciliatricisque cum Deo.

534 And so Justin Martyr puts it in a parallel passage to this of Irenæus: _Tryph._ 100. Παρθένος οὖσα Εὔα, τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε· πίστιν δὲ καὶ χαρὰν λαβοῦσα Μαρία ἡ παρθένος, εὐαγγελιζομένου αὐτῇ Γαβριὴλ ἀγγέλου, ... ἀπεκρίνατο· Γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. Καὶ διὰ ταύτης γεγένηται οὗτος ... δι᾽ οὗ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ὄφιν ... καταλύει, ἀπαλλαγὴν δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ... ἐργάζεται.

535 V. xix. 1. Quemadmodum enim illa per angeli sermonem seducta est, ut effugeret Deum, prævaricata verbum ejus; ita et hæc per angelicum sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum, obediens ejus verbo. Et si ea inobedierat Deo, sed hæc suasa est obedire Deo, uti virginis Evæ virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem; æqua lance disposita, virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam.

536 III. xxii. 4.

537 V. xix. 1. ... ut portaret Deum.

538 I. xxiii. 2. xxvii. 4. II. Præf. 1. III. Præf.

539 _Hær._ I. 1. He calls the Great Original a twofold Fire, hidden and apparent, and he gives the names of the Pairs who proceeded from this Fire, as Νοῦς καὶ Ἐπίνοια, Φωνὴ καὶ Ἔννοια, Λογισμὸς καὶ Ἐνθύμησις.

540 Ad Gregor. Naz. _Orat._ xxiii. The names he gives are Βυθὸς καὶ Σιγὴ, Νοῦς καὶ Ἀλήθεια, Λόγος καὶ Ζωὴ, Ἄνθρωπος καὶ Ἐκκλησία.

541 Ad ejusdem _Orat._ xliv.

542 I. xxiii. 2.

543 I. xxiii. 1. II. ix. 2.

544 I. xxiii. 2.

545 I. xxiii. 1. 3.

546 I. xxiii. 1.

547 I. xxiii. 1.

548 1. xxiii. 4.

549 I. xxiii. 1.

550 Clem. Alex. _Strom._ II. 20. § 118. III. 4. § 25.

551 I. xxvi. 3.

552 I. xxvi. 2.

553 _De Virg. Vel._ 6. _De Carne Christi_, 13.

554 _Hist. Eccl._ III. 27.

555 _Hær._ II. 1. Τὸν δὲ Σωτῆρα καὶ Κύριον ἐκ παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι φησίν.

556 I. xxiii. 5.

557 _Apol._ I. 26.

558 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ III. xxvi. 1.

559 I. xxiii. 5.

560 1 Tim. ii, 17, 18.

561 Justin. _Apol._ I. 26.

562 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ IV. vii. 2. Tertullian, _de Anima_, 23, mentions Saturninus as the pupil of Menander.

563 I. xxiv. 1.

564 Ibid. 2.

565 Ibid. 1.

566 I. xxiv. 2.

567 Ibid. 1.

568 Ibid. 2.

569 Ibid.

570 I. xxiv. 2.

571 Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ VII. 17. § 106, 107.) speaks of Basilides as being a good deal younger than Marcion, and about the same age as Valentinus.

572 I. xxiv. 5.

573 I. xxiv. 3.

574 Ibid. 5.

575 Ibid. 7.

576 The Prophecies, like Simon, he attributed to the Angels in general, but the Law to their Chief. § 5.

577 I. xxiv. 4.

578 Ibid. 5.

579 Ibid. 6.

580 Lib. V. cap. 5. See the Appendix to the Benedictine edition of Irenæus.

581 Clem. Alex. _Strom._ IV. 12. § 83.

582 I. xxv. 1.

583 The writer of the Appendix to Tertull. _de Præscrip. Hær._ 48. Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 2. See also Lampe, _Proleg. in Joan._ II. 3. 2. p. 184, quoted in Burton’s _Bampton Lectures_, note 75.

584 I. xxv. 3.

585 Ibid. 4.

586 At least this is implied in § 4.

587 He said (§ 2) that they were in the same sphere as Jesus, who (§ 1) was from the same as the Father.

588 I. xxv. 4.

589 Ibid. 1.

590 Ibid. 2.

591 Ibid. 5.

592 I. xxv. 6.

593 Ibid.

594 Ibid.

595 III. iii. 4. See p. 60.

596 I. xxvi. 1.

597 I. xxvii. 1. The Author of the Appendix to Tertullian’s Treatise _de Præs._ (§ 51.) makes these two Primary Beings; but Irenæus declares that the former was unknown, the latter known; the former good, the latter merely just.

598 III. iv. 3.

599 Clement of Alexandria mentions Marcion as being in _time_ the successor of Simon Magus, (_Strom._ VII. 17. § 107,) and predecessor of Basilides and Valentinus; contemporary, but older.

600 I. xxvii. 2.

601 Ibid. 3. His opinions concerning Cain became the nucleus of another sect, the Cainites.

602 Ibid. 2. The writer in the name of Tertullian, as quoted above, note 5, asserts that he received only some of St. Paul’s Epistles.

603 Tertull. l. c.

604 I. xxviii. 1.

605 From this treatise, which is still extant, we learn that he was an Assyrian by birth, had been a heathen, and had been initiated into most of the heathen mysteries, but had been converted (a rare instance) by the reading of the Scriptures (§§ 64 & 46). In this treatise he opposes the idea that matter had no beginning, and declares that it was created by the (personal) Word of God (§ 8). Perhaps he may be thought to lean to Gnosticism where he says that the soul is naturally mortal, and that the unenlightened soul perishes with the body. § 21, 22.

606 I. xxviii. 1.

607 See above, note 9.

608 I. xxxi. 1.

609 I. xxix. 1.

610 Ibid. 2.

611 I. xxix. 3.

612 I read _Harmogenes_ for _Monogenes_, because the latter name has not occurred as the name of any of these supposed Beings, and because Harmogenes is the first of them who is said to have an _attendant_, which is the idea implied in _Angelos_, the word used by Irenæus. Massuet suggests _Autogenes_, but gives no reason.

613 I. xxix. 4.

614 See pp. 286, 288.

615 I. xxx. 1.

616 Ibid. 2.

617 Ibid. 3.

618 I. xxx. 4.

619 Some of them said that Wisdom herself took the form of a serpent. § 15.

620 I. xxx. 5.

621 In some degree; for he was totally emptied of it by a different process. See below, p. 291.

622 I. xxx. 6.

623 Those who called Wisdom the serpent, say that she inspired them with knowledge.

624 I. xxx. 7.

625 Ibid. 8.

626 From leaving out Cain as joint progenitor of mankind, and deriving all the human race from _Seth_, they seem to have been called SETHITES.

627 I. xxx. 9.

628 Ibid. 10.

629 Ibid. 11.

630 Ibid.

631 These were, no doubt, Jaldabaoth and his six descendants, who (§ 5) are called _heavens_, and are likewise spoken of as _per ordinem sedentes in cœlo, secundum generationem ipsorum_.

632 I. xxx. 12.

633 Ibid. 12, 13.

634 I. xxx. 14.

635 I imagine this to be the meaning of _Christo sedente_; _sedeo_ being taken in a transitive sense. Ἰδρύομαι was probably the original word.

636 I. xxx. 14.

637 I. xi. 1. bis.

638 Epiphan. _Hær._ xxxi. 2.

639 _Adv. Valent._ 4.

640 Tertull. _de Præscr._ 7. 30. Epiphan. Πεπαιδεῦσθαι τὴν τῶν Ἐλλήνων παιδείαν.

641 This appears from a fragment of his, preserved in a _Dialogue against the Marcionites_, erroneously ascribed to Origen, (see Dupin upon Origen,) in which it is quoted at length by one of the speakers. See the fragment, in the Appendix to the Benedictine edition of Irenæus, or in Grabe’s _Spicilegium_, II. p. 55.

642 Called _Theodas_, by Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ VII. 17. § 106.

643 Tertull. _de Præscr._ 38.

644 _Apol._ I. 26. See Grabe’s _Spicilegium_, II. 44, 45.

645 _Adv. Valent._ 5.

646 III. iv. 3.

647 In his _Canon Chronicus_.

648 Dissert. 2. _de annis primorum Romæ Episcoporum_, cap. 12.

649 Tertull. _adv. Valent._ 4.

650 Epiphan. _Hær._ xxxi. 7.

651 Ibid.

652 I. _Præf._ 2.

653 I. xii. 1.

654 _Hær._ xxxi. 5. It is printed in the Appendix to the best editions of Irenæus.

655 I. xi. 1. The Valentinians against whom Irenæus wrote made the first pair the First Cause, First Father, or Depth, and Thought, Grace or Silence. See I. i. 1.—Ptolemy placed the Depth first, but gave him two consorts, Thought and Will. See I. xii. 1.

656 Called by his followers Mind, Only‐begotten, Father or Beginning of all things.

657 I. xi. 1.

658 As Irenæus tells us some of the Valentinians did.

659 At least this is the account of Tertullian, _adv. Valent._ 4.

660 I. i. 2. The names are Βύθιος, Μίξις, Ἀγήρατος, Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς, Ἡδονὴ, Ἀκίνητος, Σύνκρασις, Μονογενὴς, Μακαρία· Παράκλητος, Πίστις, Πατρικὸς, Ἐλπὶς, Μητρικὸς, Ἀγάπη, Ἀείνους, Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς, Μακαριότης, Θελητὸς, Σοφία.

661 Πλήρωμα, I. i. 3.

662 I. xi. 1.

663 See the fragment above quoted.

664 I. ii. 1.

665 I. ii. 2.

666 I. xi. 1.

667 I. ii. 3.

668 I. ii. 4. Σταυρὸς, Λυτρωτὴς, Καρπιστὴς, Ὁροθέτης, Μεταγωγεύς.

669 I. ii. 4.

670 Ibid. 5.

671 Ibid. 6. It appears that he was likewise called the Paraclete or Comforter (I. iv. 5), and Christ (I. iii. 1).

672 I. iv. 1.

673 I. iv. 1.

674 Ibid. 2.

675 See p. 300, note 5.

676 I. iv. 5. v. 1.

677 The term Irenæus uses (I. v. 1.) is ψυχικός. Its meaning is not easy to express by another word. Valentinus, like the Platonists and several of the early Christian writers, believed in three kinds of substance, πνευματικὴ, ψυχικὴ, σωματικὴ, analogous to the three parts of man, spirit, soul, and body; the first of which he conceived to be naturally and necessarily immortal, the third necessarily perishable, the second capable of either immortality or destruction, but having a kind of life, as long as it existed, which the third had not.

678 I. v. 1.

679 Ibid. 2.

680 Valentinus himself appears to have made man the joint work of the Creator and the other Angels. See a fragment of one of his letters, preserved by Clem. Alex. _Strom._ II. 8. § 36.

681 I. v. 3, 4.

682 Ibid. 5.

683 This was recognised by Valentinus in the fragment above cited.

684 I. v. 6.

685 I. vi. 1, 2.

686 Ibid. 3.

687 Tertull. _de Resur. Carnis_, 2, states this as the opinion of Valentinus, and _de Carne Christi_, 15. In the fragment, (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ III. 7. § 59,) Valentinus says that Jesus attained to divinity by his purity; which was such that his food did not corrupt within him.

688 I. vii. 2.

689 Ibid. 1.

690 _De Præscr._ 38.

691 Matt. xi. 27. See IV. vi. 1. But his followers preferred the Gospel of St. John (III. xi. 7), and some of them forged what they called the _Gospel of the Truth_. Ibid. 9.

692 _De Præscr._ 30.

693 I. i. 3. iii. viii.

694 _Strom._ II. 8. § 36. 20. § 114. III. 7. § 59. IV. 13. § 91. VI. 6. § 52.

695 Ibid. II. 20. § 114.

696 I. Præf. 2.

697 Epiphan. _Hær._ xxxi. 1.

698 I. xi. 2.

699 Clem. Alex. _Strom._ III. ii. § 5.

700 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ I. § 80.

701 Epiphan. xxxi. 1. xxxii. 3. Theodoret. _Hær. Fab._ I. 5.

702 Ibid.

703 I. xi. 3.

704 I. Præf. 2. viii. 5.

705 _Hær._ xxxiii. 1. Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ. The passage he quotes is I. xii. 1.

706 _Hær._ xxxv. 1.

707 _Hær. Fab._ I. 12.

708 I. xii. 3.

709 I. xiii. 1. Magistri emendatorem se esse glorians.

710 _Adv. Valent._ 4.

711 I. xiii. 5. See p. 202, note 9.

712 Ibid.

713 I. xiv. 1.

714 Ibid.

715 I. xv. 3.

716 I. xiii. 3.

717 I. xiii. 2.

718 Ibid. 3.

719 I. xiii. 5. See p. 202, note 9.

720 Ibid. 6.

721 Ibid. 5. 7.

722 I. xxi. 1.

723 Ibid. 2.

724 Ibid. 1.

725 Ibid. 2.

726 Ibid. 1.

727 Ibid. 3.

728 I. xxi. 4.

729 Ibid. 5.

730 Irenæus (I. xxviii. 1) expressly says that they thought marriage to be pollution and whoredom, and (xxiv. 2) that it and its natural consequences were from Satan.

731 I. vi. 1, 2.

732 I. v. 2.

733 I. vi. 4. III. xv. 2.

734 I. vi. 1.

735 I. vi. 1.

736 I. vi. 2, 4.

737 I. vii. 1.

738 I. xxv. 5.

739 I. vi. 2.

740 _Strom._ II. 20. § 114.

741 I. xiii. 2.

742 I. xxv. 6.

743 III. ii. 1.