This volume, containing the equivalent of three volumes of the Edinburgh series of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, will be found a library somewhat complete in itself. The Apostolic Fathers and those associated with them in the third generation, are here placed together in a handbook, which, with the inestimable Scriptures, supplies a succinct autobiography of the Spouse of Christ for the first two centuries. No Christian scholar has ever before possessed, in faithful versions of such compact form, a supplement so essential to the right understanding of the New Testament itself. It is a volume indispensable to all scholars, and to every library, private or public, in this country.
The American Editor has performed the humble task of ushering these works into American use, with scanty contributions of his own. Such was the understanding with the public: they were to be presented with the Edinburgh series, free from appreciable colour or alloy. His duty was (1) to give historic arrangement to the confused mass of the original series; (2) to supply, in continuity, such brief introductory notices as might slightly popularize what was apparently meant for scholars only, in the introductions of the translators; (3) to supply a few deficiencies by short notes and references; (4) to add such references to Scripture, or to authors of general repute, as might lend additional aid to students, without clogging or overlaying the comments of the translators; and (5) to note such corruptions or distortions of Patristic testimony as have been circulated, in the spirit of the forged Decretals, by those who carry on the old imposture by means essentially equivalent. Too long have they been allowed to speak to the popular mind as if the Fathers were their own; while, to every candid reader, it must be evident that, alike, the testimony, the arguments, and the silence of the Ante-Nicene writers confound all attempts to identify the ecclesiastical establishment of “the Holy Roman Empire,” with “the Holy Catholic Church” of the ancient creeds.
In performing this task, under the pressure of a virtual obligation to issue the first volume in the first month of the new year, the Editor has relied upon the kindly aid of an able friend, as typographical corrector of the Edinburgh sheets. It is only necessary to add, that he has bracketed all his own notes, so as to assume the responsibility for them; but his introductions are so separated from those of the translators, that, after the first instance, he has not thought it requisite to suffix his initials to these brief contributions. He regrets that the most important volume of the series is necessarily the experimental one, and comes out under disadvantages from which it may be expected that succeeding issues will be free. May the Lord God of our Fathers bless the undertaking to all my fellow-Christians, and make good to them the promise which was once felicitously chosen for the motto of a similar series of publications: “Yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers.”
A. C. C.
January, 6, 1885.
The Ante-Nicene Christian Library is meant to comprise translations into English of all the extant works of the Fathers down to the date of the first General Council held at Nice in a.d. 325. The sole provisional exception is that of the more bulky writings of Origen. It is intended at present only to embrace in the scheme the Contra Celsum and the De Principiis of that voluminous author; but the whole of his works will be included should the undertaking prove successful.
The present volume has been translated by the
Editors. This refers to
the first volume only of the original series.
Edinburgh, 1867.
[a.d. 100–200.] The Apostolic Fathers are here understood as filling up the second century of our era. Irenæus, it is true, is rather of the sub-apostolic period; but, as the disciple of Polycarp, he ought not to be dissociated from that Father’s company. We thus find ourselves conducted, by this goodly fellowship of witnesses, from the times of the apostles to those of Tertullian, from the martyrs of the second persecution to those of the sixth. Those were times of heroism, not of words; an age, not of writers, but of soldiers; not of talkers, but of sufferers. Curiosity is baffled, but faith and love are fed by these scanty relics of primitive antiquity. Yet may we well be grateful for what we have. These writings come down to us as the earliest response of converted nations to the testimony of Jesus. They are primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Disappointment may be the first emotion of the student who comes down from the mount where he has dwelt in the tabernacles of evangelists and apostles: for these disciples are confessedly inferior to the masters; they speak with the voices of infirm and fallible men, and not like the New Testament writers, with the fiery tongues of the Holy Ghost. Yet the thoughtful and loving spirit soon learns their exceeding value. For who does not close the records of St. Luke with longing; to get at least a glimpse of the further history of the progress of the Gospel? What of the Church when its founders were fallen asleep? Was the Good Shepherd “always” with His little flock, according to His promise? Was the Blessed Comforter felt in His presence amid the fires of persecution? Was the Spirit of Truth really able to guide the faithful into all truth, and to keep them in the truth?
And what had become of the disciples who were the first-fruits of the apostolic ministry? St. Paul had said, “The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” How was this injunction realized? St. Peter’s touching words come to mind, “I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” Was this endeavour successfully carried out? To these natural and pious inquiries, the Apostolic Fathers, though we have a few specimens only of their fidelity, give an emphatic reply. If the cold-hearted and critical find no charm in the simple, childlike faith which they exhibit, ennobled though it be by heroic devotion to the Master, we need not marvel. Such would probably object: “They teach me nothing; I do not relish their multiplied citations from Scripture.” The answer is, “If you are familiar with Scripture, you owe it largely to these primitive witnesses to its Canon and its spirit. By their testimony we detect what is spurious, and we identify what is real. Is it nothing to find that your Bible is their Bible, your faith their faith, your Saviour their Saviour, your God their God?” Let us reflect also, that, when copies of the entire Scriptures were rare and costly, these citations were “words fitly spoken,—apples of gold in pictures of silver.” We are taught by them also that they obeyed the apostle’s precept, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing,” etc. Thus they reflect the apostolic care that men should be raised up able to teach others also.
Their very mistakes enable us to attach a higher value to the superiority of inspired writers. They were not wiser than the naturalists of their day who taught them the history of the Phœnix and other fables; but nothing of this sort is found in Scripture. The Fathers are inferior in kind as well as in degree; yet their words are lingering echoes of those whose words were spoken “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” They are monuments of the power of the Gospel. They were made out of such material as St. Paul describes when he says, “Such were some of you.” But for Christ, they would have been worshippers of personified Lust and Hate, and of every crime. They would have lived for “bread and circus-shows.” Yet to the contemporaries of a Juvenal they taught the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount. Among such beasts in human form they reared the sacred home; they created the Christian family; they gave new and holy meanings to the names of wife and mother; they imparted ideas unknown before of the dignity of man as man; they infused an atmosphere of benevolence and love; they bestowed the elements of liberty chastened by law; they sanctified human society by proclaiming the universal brotherhood of redeemed man. As we read the Apostolic Fathers, we comprehend, in short, the meaning of St. Paul when he said prophetically, what men were slow to believe, “The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men … But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.”
A. C. C.
December, 1884.
A co-presbyter with Linus and Cletus, he succeeded them
in the government of the Roman Church. I have reluctantly adopted the
opinion that his Epistle was written near the close of his life, and not
just after the persecution of Nero. It is not improbable that Linus and
Cletus both perished in that fiery trial, and that Clement’s
immediate succession to their work and place occasions the chronological
difficulties of the period. After the death of the apostles, for the
Roman imprisonment and martyrdom of St. Peter seem historical, Clement
was the natural representative of St. Paul, and even of his companion,
the “apostle of the circumcision;” and naturally he wrote the
Epistle in the name of the local church, when brethren looked to them for
advice. St. John, no doubt, was still surviving at Patmos or in Ephesus;
but the Philippians, whose intercourse with Rome is attested by the visit
of Epaphroditus, looked naturally to the surviving friends of their great
founder; nor was the aged apostle in the East equally accessible. All
roads pointed towards the Imperial City, and started from its
Milliarium Aureum. But, though Clement doubtless wrote the letter,
he conceals his own name, and puts forth the brethren, who seem to have
met in council, and sent a brotherly delegation (Chap. lix.). The entire
absence of the spirit of Diotrephes (
Clement fell asleep, probably soon after he despatched
his letter. It is the legacy of one who reflects the apostolic age in all
the beauty and evangelical truth which were the first-fruits of the
Spirit’s presence with the Church. He shares with others the
aureole of glory attributed by St. Paul (
The plan of this publication does not permit the
restoration, in this volume, of the recently discovered portions of his
work. It is the purpose of the editor to present this, however, with
other recently discovered relics of primitive antiquity, in a
supplementary volume, should the
The following is the Introductory Notice of the original editors and translators, Drs. Roberts and Donaldson:—
The first Epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to us in a single manuscript only. Though very frequently referred to by ancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of Western Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrian manuscript. This ms. of the Sacred Scriptures (known and generally referred to as Codex A) was presented in 1628 by Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now preserved in the British Museum. Subjoined to the books of the New Testament contained in it, there are two writings described as the Epistles of one Clement. Of these, that now before us is the first. It is tolerably perfect, but there are many slight lacunæ, or gaps, in the ms., and one whole leaf is supposed to have been lost towards the close. These lacunæ, however, so numerous in some chapters, do not generally extend beyond a word or syllable, and can for the most part be easily supplied.
Who the Clement was to whom these writings are
ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined. The general
opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by
St. Paul (
The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chap. i.) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated about a.d. 97.
This Epistle was held in very great esteem by the early
Church. The account given of it by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16)
is as follows: “There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement
(whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and
admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church
at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are
aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both
in old times, and also in our own day.” The Epistle before us thus
appears to have been read in numerous churches, as being almost on a
level with the canonical writings. And its place in the Alexandrian ms., immediately after the
inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned it in the
primitive Church. There does indeed appear a great difference between it
and
[N.B.—A sufficient guide to the recent literature of the Clementine mss. and discoveries may be found in The Princeton Review, 1877, p. 325, also in Bishop Wordsworth’s succinct but learned Church History to the Council of Nicæa, p. 84. The invaluable edition of the Patres Apostolici, by Jacobson (Oxford, 1840), with a critical text and rich prolegomena and annotations, cannot be dispensed with by any Patristic inquirer. A. C. C.]
In the only known ms. of this Epistle, the title is thus given at the close.
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive
calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have
been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting
which you consulted us;
[Note the fact that the Corinthians asked this of their brethren,
the personal friends of their apostle St. Paul. Clement’s own name
does not appear in this Epistle.] Literally, “is greatly
blasphemed.”
Literally, “did not prove your all-virtuous and firm
faith.”
Moreover, ye were all distinguished by humility, and
were in no respect puffed up with pride, but yielded obedience rather
than extorted it,
Literally, “ye embraced
it in your bowels.” [Concerning the complaints of Photius (ninth
century) against Clement, see Bull’s Defensio Fidei Nicænæ,
Works, vol. v. p. 132.]
So, in the ms., but many have suspected that
the text is here corrupt. Perhaps the best emendation is that which
substitutes συναισθήσεως,
“compassion,” for συνειδήσεως,
“conscience.”
Literally,
“enlargement” It seems necessary to refer αὐτοῦ to
God, in opposition to the translation given by Abp. Wake and
others. Literally, “Christ;” comp.
Literally, “those who have been athletes.” Some fill up the lacuna here found in the ms. so as to read, “have
come to a grievous death.”
Literally, “good.” [The martyrdom of St. Peter is all that is
thus connected with his arrival in Rome. His numerous labours were
restricted to the Circumcision.] Seven imprisonments of
St. Paul are not referred to in Scripture. Archbishop Wake here reads
“scourged.” We have followed the most recent critics in
filling up the numerous lacunæ in this chapter. Some think Rome, others
Spain, and others even Britain, to be here referred to.
[See note at end.] That is, under
Tigellinus and Sabinus, in the last year of the Emperor Nero; but some
think Helius and Polycletus are referred to; and others, both here and in the
preceding sentence, regard the words as denoting simply the
witness borne by Peter and Paul to the truth of the gospel before
the rulers of the earth.
Some suppose
these to have been the names of two eminent female martyrs under Nero;
others regard the clause as an interpolation. [Many ingenious conjectures
might be cited; but see Jacobson’s valuable note, Patres
Apostol., vol. i. p. 30.] Literally, “have reached to the stedfast course of
faith.”
Some insert “Father.”
Comp. These words are not found in Scripture,
though they are quoted again by Clem. Alex. (Pædag., i. 10) as
from Ezekiel.
Some read ματαιολογίαν,
“vain talk.”
So Joseph., Antiq., i. 11, 4; Irenæus, Adv.
Hær., iv. 31. Literally, “become a judgment and sign.”
Others of the
Fathers adopt the same allegorical interpretation, e.g., Justin Mar.,
Dial. c. Tryph., n. 111; Irenæus, Adv. Hær., iv. 20. [The
whole matter of symbolism under the law must be more thoroughly studied
if we would account for such strong language as is here applied to a
poetical or rhetorical figure.]
Comp.
These words within brackets
are not found in the ms.,
but have been inserted from the Septuagint by most editors.
The Latin of
Cotelerius, adopted by Hefele and Dressel, translates this clause as
follows: “I will set free the wicked on account of His sepulchre,
and the rich on account of His death.” The reading of the ms. is τῆς πληγῆς, “purify,
or free, Him from stripes.” We have adopted the emendation of
Junius. Wotton reads, “If He make.” Or, “fill Him with understanding,” if
πλῆσαι should be read
instead of πλάσαι, as Grabe
suggests.
Some fill up the lacuna which here
occurs in the ms. by
“Israel.”
This is not
found in Scripture. [They were probably in Clement’s version. Comp.
Or, as some render, “to whom.” Or, “when Thou judgest.” Literally, “in my inwards.” Literally, “bloods.”
Literally,
“Becoming partakers of many great and glorious deeds, let us return
to the aim of peace delivered to us from the beginning.” Comp.
Or,
“collections.”
Or, “stations.”
Comp. Or, “the
presbyters.” Some read, “by their
silence.” Comp.
Some translate, “who turn to Him.”
Or, as some render, “neither let us
have any doubt of.” Some
regard these words as taken from an apocryphal book, others as derived
from a fusion of
Comp. Comp.
This fable respecting the phœnix is mentioned by
Herodotus (ii. 73) and by Pliny (Nat. Hist., x. 2) and is used as
above by Tertullian (De Resurr., §13) and by others of the
Fathers.
Literally, “the mightiness of His promise.” Comp.
Comp.
Or,
“majesty.”
Comp. Literally,
“If the heavens,” etc.
Literally, “abominable lusts of evil
deeds.”
Literally
“has made us to Himself a part of election.” Literally,
“sowed abroad.” Formed apparently from
Some translate, “youthful
lusts.”
Literally, “what are the ways of His blessing.” Literally, “unroll.” Comp. Some translate, “knowing what was
to come.”
So Jacobson: Wotton reads, “fleeing from his
brother.”
The meaning is here
very doubtful. Some translate, “the gifts which were given to Jacob
by Him,” i.e., God. MS. αὐτῶν,
referring to the gifts: we have followed the emendation αὐτοῦ, adopted by most
editors. Some refer the word to God, and not Jacob.
Comp.
Or, “commandment.” Or, “in addition to all.” Or, “let us consider.”
Or, “labourer.” The
text here seems to be corrupt. Some translate, “He warns us with
all His heart to this end, that,” etc.
Some
translate, “in liberty.” Or, “of the
ages.”
The reading is doubtful: some have ἀφιλοξενίαν,
“want of a hospitable spirit.” [So Jacobson.] Literally, “didst run
with.” Literally, “didst
weave.”
Or, “layest a snare for.”
Literally,
“that which saves us.” Or,
“rejoices to behold.” Or, “knowledge of immortality.”
Some render, “to the Son.”
Some read, “who oppose their own will to that of
God.”
Literally, “in these there is
use.” Literally, “all breathe
together.” Literally,
“use one subjection.”
Literally,
“according as he has been placed in his charism.” Comp.
The ms. is here slightly
torn, and we are left to conjecture. Comp.
Literally,
“and silly and uninstructed.” Literally, “a breath.” Or, “has perceived.” Some render, “they perished at the
gates.”
Some join κατά καιροὺς τεταγμένους,
“at stated times.” to the next sentence. [
Literally, “to His will.” [Comp.
Or,
“consider.” [This chapter has been cited to prove the earlier
date for this Epistle. But the reference to Jerusalem may be an ideal
present.]
Or,
“by the command of.” Or, “by the command of.”
Literally, “both things were done.” Or, “confirmed by.” Or, “having tested them in
spirit.” Or,
“overseers.” Or,
“servants.”
Literally, “every tribe being
written according to its name.” See
Literally,
“on account of the title of the oversight.” Some understand
this to mean, “in regard to the dignity of the episcopate;”
and others simply, “on account of the oversight.” The meaning of this passage
is much controverted. Some render, “left a list of other approved
persons;” while others translate the unusual word ἐπινομή, which causes the difficulty, by “testamentary direction,” and many
others deem the text corrupt. We have given what seems the simplest
version of the text as it stands. [Comp. the versions of Wake,
Chevallier, and others.] i.e., the apostles. Or, “oversight.” Literally, “presented
the offerings.”
Or, “Ye perceive.” Or,
“For.” Literally, “worshipped.” Literally, “serve.” Or, “lifted
up.”
Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we
should follow;
Literally, “To such examples it is right that we should
cleave.” Not found
in Scripture. Literally, “be.” Or, “thou wilt overthrow.”
Or, “war.” Comp. Comp.
This clause is wanting in the text. This
clause is wanting in the text. Comp.
Literally, “in the beginning of the Gospel.”
[Comp. Or,
“spiritually.” Or, “inclinations for one above
another.” Literally,
“of conduct in Christ.” Or, “aliens from us,” i.e., the
Gentiles.
Literally
“remove.” Literally,
“becoming merciful.”
Comp. [Comp. Irenæus, v. 1; also Mathetes, Ep. to Diognetus,
cap. ix.]
Ye see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing is
love, and that there is no declaring its perfection. Who is fit to be
found in it, except such as God has vouchsafed to render so? Let us pray,
therefore, and implore of His mercy, that we may live blameless in love,
free from all human partialities for one above another. All the
generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who,
through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a
place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation Literally,
“visitation.” Or, “good.”
Or, “look to.” Or,
“righteously.”
The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He
desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him. For,
says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord; and that will
please Him more than a young bullock that hath horns and hoofs. Let the
poor see it, and be glad.” Or, “sacrifice.”
Or, “mighty.” Literally,
“be wiped out.”
Literally, “the multitude.” [Clement here puts words into the
mouth of the Corinthian presbyters. It has been strangely quoted to
strengthen a conjecture that he had humbly preferred Linus and Cletus
when first called to preside.]
Or, “receive.”
Literally, “and having received
their prices, fed others.” [Comp.
Literally, “there shall be to them a fruitful and
perfect remembrance, with compassions both towards God and the
saints.”
Or, “they unite.” Literally, “hand.” Literally, “err”
or “sin.”
Literally, “to be found
small and esteemed.” Literally, “His hope.” [It has been
conjectured that ἔλπιδος should be
ἔπαύλιδος, and
the reading, “out of the fold of his people.” See
Chevallier.] Junius (Pat. Young), who examined the ms. before it was bound into its
present form, stated that a whole leaf was here lost. The next letters
that occur are ιπον, which have been
supposed to indicate εἶπον or ἔλιπον. Doubtless
some passages quoted by the ancients from the Epistle of Clement, and not
now found in it, occurred in the portion which has thus been lost.
Comp.
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these
our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with
Fortunatus: that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony
we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more
quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. Literally,
“an eternal throne.” Literally,
“From the ages to the ages of ages.” [Note St. Clement’s
frequent doxologies.] [N.B.—The language of Clement concerning
the Western progress of St. Paul (cap. v.) is our earliest postscript to
his Scripture biography. It is sufficient to refer the reader to the
great works of Conybeare and Howson, and of Mr. Lewin, on the Life and
Epistles of St. Paul. See more especially the valuable note of Lewin
(vol. ii. p. 294) which takes notice of the opinion of some learned men,
that the great Apostle of the Gentiles preached the Gospel in Britain.
The whole subject of St. Paul’s relations with British Christians
is treated by Williams, in his Antiquities of the Cymry, with
learning and in an attractive manner. But the reader will find more ready
to his hand, perhaps, the interesting note of Mr. Lewin, on Claudia and
Pudens (
ἀποστόλων
γενόμενος μαθητης. Cap. xi.
Mathetes was possibly a catechumen of St. Paul or of one of the apostle’s associates. I assume that his correspondent was the tutor of M. Aurelius. Placed just here, it fills a lacuna in the series, and takes the place of the pseudo (second) Epistle of Clement, which is now relegated to its proper place with the works falsely ascribed to St. Clement.
Altogether, the Epistle is a gem of purest ray; and, while suggesting some difficulties as to interpretation and exposition, it is practically clear as to argument and intent. Mathetes is, perhaps, the first of the apologists.
The following is the original Introductory Notice of the learned editors and translators:—
The
following interesting and eloquent Epistle is anonymous, and we have no
clue whatever as to its author. For a considerable period after its
publication in 1592, it was generally ascribed to Justin Martyr. In
recent times Otto has inserted it among the works of that writer, but
Semisch and others contend that it cannot possibly be his. In dealing
with this question, we depend entirely upon the internal evidence, no
statement as to the authorship of the Epistle having descended to us from
antiquity. And it can scarcely be denied that the whole tone of the
Epistle, as well as special passages which it contains, points to some
other writer than Justin. Accordingly, critics are now for the most part
agreed that it is not his, and that it must be ascribed to one who lived
at a still earlier date in the history of the Church. Several internal
arguments have been brought forward in favour of this opinion. Supposing
chap. xi. to be genuine, it has been supported by the fact that the
writer there styles himself “a disciple of the apostles.” But
there is great suspicion that the two concluding chapters are spurious;
and even though
The names of Clement of Rome and of Apollos have both been suggested as those of the probable author. Such opinions, however, are pure fancies, which it is perhaps impossible to refute, but which rest on nothing more than conjecture. Nor can a single word be said as to the person named Diognetus, to whom the letter is addressed. We must be content to leave both points in hopeless obscurity, and simply accept the Epistle as written by an earnest and intelligent Christian to a sincere inquirer among the Gentiles, towards the close of the apostolic age.
It is much to be regretted that the text is often so very doubtful. Only three mss. of the Epistle, all probably exhibiting the same original text, are known to exist; and in not a few passages the readings are, in consequence, very defective and obscure. But notwithstanding this drawback, and the difficulty of representing the full force and elegance of the original, this Epistle, as now presented to the English reader, can hardly fail to excite both his deepest interest and admiration.
[N.B.—Interesting speculations concerning this precious work may be seen in Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 188. The learned do not seem convinced by this author, but I have adopted his suggestion as to Diognetus the tutor of M. Aurelius.]
Literally, “trusting in what God, etc., they look down.” Or, “life.” Some read, “that you by
hearing may be edified.”
Or, “purified.”
Literally, “which is deceiving.” Literally, “of what substance, or of what
form.” Some make this and the
following clauses affirmative instead of interrogative. The text is here corrupt. Several attempts at emendation
have been made, but without any marked success.
Some read, “Who of you would tolerate these things?” etc.
The text is here uncertain, and the sense obscure. The meaning seems to
be, that by sprinkling their gods with blood, etc., they tended to prove
that these were not possessed of sense.
The
text here is very doubtful. We have followed that adopted by most
critics.
But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and
their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about
circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which
are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,—I do not Otto, resting on ms. authority, omits the
negative, but the sense seems to require its insertion.
Literally, “lessening.” Comp. This
seems to refer to the practice of Jews in fixing the beginning of the
day, and consequently of the Sabbath, from the rising of the stars. They
used to say, that when three stars of moderate magnitude appeared, it was
night; when two, it was twilight; and when only one, that day had not yet
departed. It thus came to pass (according to their night-day
(νυχθήμερον)
reckoning), that whosoever engaged in work on the evening of Friday, the
beginning of the Sabbath, after three stars of moderate size were
visible, was held to have sinned, and had to present a trespass-offering;
and so on, according to the fanciful rule described. Otto supplies the lacuna which here
occurs in the mss. so as to
read καταδιαιρεῖν. The great festivals of the Jews are here
referred to on the one hand, and the day of atonement on the other.
Literally, “paradoxical.” Literally,
“cast away fœtuses.” Otto omits “bed,” which is an emendation,
and gives the second “common” the sense of
unclean. Comp.
Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Comp.
Literally, “keeps together.” Literally,
“keeps together.” Literally,
“incorruption.” Or,
“though punished, increase in number daily.”
Literally,
“mysteries.” Literally, “elements.” The word “sun,” though omitted
in the mss., should
manifestly be inserted.
Literally, “has received to observe.” Literally, “one of
men.” “God” here refers to the person sent. [Comp.
Literally, “these things are the marvels and
error.” Or, “known
Him.” Comp.
Literally,
“in a mystery.”
Literally, “all things.” The sense is here very
obscure. We have followed the text of Otto, who fills up the
lacuna in the ms. as
above. Others have, “to see, and to handle Him.”
Literally, “economically.”
Otto refers for a like
contrast between these two times to The
reading and sense are doubtful. Both the text and rendering are here somewhat doubtful,
but the sense will in any case be much the same. Many variations here occur in
the way in which the lacuna of the mss. is to be supplied. They do
not, however, greatly affect the meaning. In the ms.
“saying” is here inserted, as if the words had been regarded
as a quotation from [See Bossuet, who quotes it as from Justin Martyr (Tom.
iii. p. 171). Sermon on Circumcision.] That is, before Christ appeared.
Comp.
Thus Otto supplies the
lacuna; others conjecture somewhat different supplements. So Böhl. Sylburgius and Otto read,
“in the earth.”
Some render, “nor do I rashly seek
to persuade others.” Some propose to read, “and becoming
a friend to the Word.” It has been proposed to
connect this with the preceding sentence, and read, “have known the
mysteries of the Father, viz., for what purpose He sent the
Word.” [Comp.
Or, “esteemed.” Or, “given.”
Literally, “bringing
forth.” That is, in
Paradise. Literally
“revealing life.” Or, “deprived of it.” Literally, “knowledge without the
truth of a command exercised to life.” See The ms. is
here defective. Some read, “on account of the love of
life.” Or, “true word,”
or “reason.” Or, “reap.” The meaning seems to be, that
if the tree of true knowledge and life be planted within you, you shall
continue free from blemishes and sins. [This looks like a reference to the Apocalypse,
Here Bishop
Wordsworth would read κλῆροι, cites
[Note the Clement-like doxology.]
Irenæus will tell us more concerning him, his visit to Rome, his rebuke of Marcion, and incidental anecdotes, all which are instructive. The expression which he applied to Marcion is found in this Epistle. Other facts of interest are found in the Martyrdom, which follows in these pages. His death, in extreme old age under the first of the Antonines, has been variously dated; but we may accept the date we have given, as rendered probable by that of the Paschal question, which he so lovingly settled with Anicetus, Bishop of Rome.
The Epistle to the Philippians is the more interesting as denoting the state of that beloved church, the firstborn of European churches, and so greatly endeared to St. Paul. It abounds in practical wisdom, and is rich in Scripture and Scriptural allusions. It reflects the spirit of St. John, alike in its lamb-like and its aquiline features: he is as loving as the beloved disciple himself when he speaks of Christ and his church, but “the son of thunder” is echoed in his rebukes of threatened corruptions in faith and morals. Nothing can be more clear than his view of the doctrines of grace; but he writes like the disciple of St. John, though in perfect harmony with St. Paul’s hymn-like eulogy of Christian love.
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
The
authenticity of the following Epistle can on no fair grounds be
questioned. It is abundantly established by external testimony, and is
also supported by the internal evidence. Irenæus says (Adv.
Hær., iii. 3): “There is extant an Epistle of Polycarp written
to the Philippians, most satisfactory, from which those that have a mind
to do so may learn the character of his
Of Polycarp’s life little is known, but that little is highly interesting. Irenæus was his disciple, and tells us that “Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3; Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iv. 14). There is also a very graphic account given of Polycarp by Irenæus in his Epistle to Florinus, to which the reader is referred. It has been preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v. 20).
The Epistle before us is not perfect in any of the Greek mss. which contain it. But the chapters wanting in Greek are contained in an ancient Latin version. While there is no ground for supposing, as some have done, that the whole Epistle is spurious, there seems considerable force in the arguments by which many others have sought to prove chap. xiii. to be an interpolation.
The date of the Epistle cannot be satisfactorily determined. It depends on the conclusion we reach as to some points, very difficult and obscure, connected with that account of the martyrdom of Polycarp which has come down to us. We shall not, however, probably be far wrong if we fix it about the middle of the second century.
The title of this Epistle in most of the mss. is, “The Epistle of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and holy martyr, to the Philippians.”
Or, “Polycarp, and those
who with him are presbyters.”
I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus
Christ, because ye have followed the example Literally, “ye have received the
patterns of true love.”
Comp.
Comp.
Comp. Or, “who do not obey him.” Comp
Comp. The form is plural, but
one Epistle is probably meant. [So, even in English,
“letters” may be classically used for a single letter, as we
say “by these presents.” But even we might speak of St. Paul
as having written his Epistles to us; so the Epistles to
Thessalonica and Corinth might more naturally still be referred to
here]. Comp.
“But the love of money is the root of all
evils.” Comp.
Comp. Some here read, “altars.”
Knowing, then, that “God is not
mocked,”
Some read, “God in Christ.” Comp.
Comp. Πολιτευσώμεθα,
referring to the whole conduct; comp.
Some read,
ἀνακύπτεσθαι,
“to emerge from.” [So Chevallier, but not Wake nor Jacobson.
See the note of latter, ad loc.]
Literally, “the
martyrdom of the cross,” which some render, “His suffering on
the cross.” [The original, perhaps, of
Eusebius (Hist. iv. cap. 14). It became a common-place expression
in the Church.] Comp.
Comp. Comp.
Some read, “we glorify
Him.” Comp.
Comp.
This and the two following chapters are preserved only in a Latin version. [See Jacobson, ad loc.]
Comp.
Comp.
Some think
that incontinence on the part of the Valens and his wife is
referred to. [For many reasons I am glad the translators have preferred
the reading πλεονεξίας. The next
word, chaste, sufficiently rebukes the example of Valens. For once
I venture not to coincide with Jacobson’s comment.] Some think that incontinence on the part of the
Valens and his wife is referred to. [For many reasons I am glad the
translators have preferred the reading πλεονεξίας. The next
word, chaste, sufficiently rebukes the example of Valens. For once
I venture not to coincide with Jacobson’s comment.] Some
read, “named;” comp.
Comp.
This passage is very obscure. Some render
it as follows: “But at present it is not granted unto me to
practise that which is written, Be ye angry,” etc. Some read, “believes.”
Comp.
Comp. Ep. of Ignatius to Polycarp, chap.
viii. Or, “letters.” Reference is here made to the two letters
of Ignatius, one to Polycarp himself, and the other to the church at
Smyrna. Henceforth, to the
end, we have only the Latin version. The Latin version
reads “are,” which has been corrected as above. Polycarp was aware of the death of Ignatius (chap. ix.),
but was as yet apparently ignorant of the circumstances attending it.
[Who can fail to be touched by these affectionate yet entirely calm
expressions as to his martyred friend and brother? Martyrdom was the
habitual end of Christ’s soldiers, and Polycarp expected his own;
hence his restrained and temperate words of interest.]
These things I have written to you by Crescens, whom up
to the present Some read,
“in this present Epistle.”
Others read, “and in favour with all yours.”
That this Epistle has been interpolated can hardly be
doubted, when we compare it with the unvarnished specimen, in Eusebius.
As for the “fragrant smell” that came from the fire, many
kinds of wood emit the like in burning; and, apart from Oriental warmth
of colouring, there seems nothing incredible in the narrative if we
except “the dove” (chap. xvi.), which, however, is probably a
corrupt reading, See an
ingenious conjecture in Bishop Wordsworth’s Hippolytus and the
Church of Rome, p. 318, C.
Bishop Jacobson assigns more than fifty pages to this martyrology, with a Latin version and abundant notes. To these I must refer the student, who may wish to see this attractive history in all the light of critical scholarship and, often, of admirable comment.
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
The
following letter purports to have been written by the Church at Smyrna to
the Church at Philomelium, and through that Church to the whole Christian
world, in order to give a succinct account of the circumstances attending
the martyrdom of Polycarp. It is the earliest of all the Martyria, and
has generally been accounted both the most interesting and authentic. Not
a few, however, deem it interpolated in several passages, and some refer
it to a much later date than the
Some read,
“Philadelphia,” but on inferior authority. Philomelium was a
city of Phrygia. The word in the original is
ποροικίαις, from which
the English “parishes” is derived.
Literally, “who are more
pious.” The account now returns to the illustration
of the statement made in the first sentence.
For the devil did indeed invent many things against
them; but thanks be to God, he could not prevail over all. For the most
noble Germanicus strengthened the timidity of others by his own patience,
and fought heroically Or,
“illustriously.” Or, “said to him.”
Literally, “the nobleness of the God-loving and God-fearing race of
Christians.”
Comp.
But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard
[that he was sought for], was in no measure disturbed, but resolved to
continue in the city. However, in deference to the wish of many, he was
persuaded to leave it. He departed, therefore, to a country house not far
distant from the city. There he stayed with a few [friends], engaged in
nothing else night and day than praying for all men, and for the Churches
throughout the world, according to his usual custom.
It was the duty of the Irenarch to
apprehend all seditious troublers of the public peace. Some think that those magistrates bore
this name that were elected by lot.
His pursuers then, along with horsemen, and taking the
youth with them, went forth at supper-time on the day of the
preparation That is, on
Friday. Comp.
Or,
“in.” Some read
“the Lord” Comp. Or,
“diligence.” Jacobson
reads, “and [marvelling] that they had used so great diligence to
capture,” etc. Or, “be
silent.”
Jacobson deems these words an
interpolation. Or, “Cæsar is
Lord,” all the mss.
having κύριος instead of
κύριε, as usually
printed. Or, “terrible.” Or, “cast him
down” simply, the following words being, as above, an
interpolation. Or, “sprained his ankle.” Or, “not turning back.”
Referring the words to the heathen, and not to the Christians, as was
desired.
Or,
“an account of Christianity.” Comp. Or,
“of my making any defence to them.”
The proconsul then said to him, “I have wild
beasts at hand; to these will I cast thee, except thou repent.” But
he answered, “Call them then, for we are not accustomed to repent
of what is good in order to adopt that which is evil; Literally, “repentance from things
better to things worse is a change impossible to us.” That
is, to leave this world for a better.
While he spoke these and many other like things, he was
filled with confidence and joy, and his countenance was full of grace, so
that not merely did it not fall as if troubled by the things said to him,
but, on the contrary, the proconsul was astonished, and sent his herald
to proclaim in the midst of the stadium thrice, “Polycarp has
confessed that he is a Christian.” This proclamation having been
made by the herald, the whole multitude both of the heathen and Jews, who
dwelt at Smyrna, cried out with uncontrollable fury, and in a loud voice,
“This is the teacher of Asia, Some read, “ungodliness,” but the above
seems preferable. The Asiarchs were those who superintended all
arrangements connected with the games in the several provinces. Literally, “the baiting of
dogs.”
This, then, was carried into effect with greater speed
than it was spoken, the multitudes immediately gathering together wood
and fagots out of the shops and baths; the Jews especially, according to
custom, eagerly assisting them in it. And when the funeral pile was
ready, Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle,
sought also to take off his sandals,—a thing he was not
accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager
who should first touch his skin.
Literally, “good behaviour.”
Some think this implies that Polycarp’s skin was believed to
possess a miraculous efficacy.
Comp. Literally, “in a fat,” etc.,
[or, “in a rich”]. Literally, “the not false and true God.” Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iv. 15) has
preserved a great portion of this Martyrium, but in a text considerably
differing from that we have followed. Here, instead of “and,”
he has “in the Holy Ghost.”
Literally, “a great flame shining forth.” Literally,
“breathing.”
At length, when those wicked men perceived that his
body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to
go near and pierce him through with a dagger. Eusebius omits all mention of
the dove, and many have thought the text to be here corrupt. It
has been proposed to read ἐπ’ ἀριστερᾷ,
“on the left hand side,” instead of περιστερά,
“a dove.”
Literally, “greatness.” The Greek, literally translated, is, “and to have
fellowship with his holy flesh.” This clause is omitted by Eusebius: it was probably
interpolated by some transcriber, who had in his mind Literally,
“unsurpassable.” Literally,
“fellow-partakers.”
Or, “him.” Or, “more
tried.” Literally,
“the birth-day.” Literally, “been
athletes.”
This, then, is the account of the blessed Polycarp,
who, being the twelfth that was martyred in Smyrna (reckoning those also
of Philadelphia), yet occupies a place of his own Literally, “is alone
remembered.” Several additions
are here made. One ms. has,
“and the all-holy and life-giving Spirit;” while the old
Latin version reads, “and the Holy Spirit, by whom we know all
things.”
Since, then, ye requested that we would at large make
you acquainted with what really took place, we have for the present sent
you this summary account through our brother Marcus. When, therefore, ye
have yourselves read this Epistle, Literally, “having learned these
things.”
Literally, “gift.”
Now, the blessed Polycarp suffered martyrdom on the
second day of the month Xanthicus just begun, The translation is here very doubtful.
Wake renders the words μηνὸς ἱσταμένου,
“of the present month.” Great obscurity hangs over the
chronology here indicated. According to Usher, the Smyrnæans began the
month Xanthicus on the 25th of March. But the seventh day before the
Kalends of May is the 25th of April. Some, therefore, read ᾽Απριλλίων instead of
Μαίων. The great
Sabbath is that before the passover. The “eighth hour” may
correspond either to our 8 a.m.
or 2 p.m. Called before (chap. xii.) Asiarch.
Literally, “according as.”
These things What follows is, of course, no part of the original
Epistle.
And I again, Pionius, wrote them from the previously
written copy, having carefully searched into them, and the blessed
Polycarp having
Had not the plan of this series been so exclusively that of a mere revised reprint, the writings of Ignatius themselves would have made me diffident as to the undertaking. It seems impossible for any one to write upon the subject of these precious remains, without provoking controversy. This publication is designed as an Eirenicon, and hence “few words are best,” from one who might be supposed incapable of an unbiased opinion on most of the points which have been raised in connection with these Epistles. I must content myself therefore, by referring the studious reader to the originals as edited by Bishop Jacobson, with a Latin version and copious annotations. That revered and learned divine honoured me with his friendship; and his precious edition has been my frequent study, with theological students, almost ever since it appeared in 1840. It is by no means superannuated by the vigorous Ignatian literature which has since sprung up, and to which reference will he made elsewhere. But I am content to leave the whole matter, without comment, to the minds of Christians of whatever school and to their independent conclusions. It is a great thing to present them in a single volume with the shorter and longer Epistles duly compared, and with the Curetonian version besides. One luxury only I may claim, to relieve the drudging task-work of a mere reviser. Surely I may point out some of the proverbial wisdom of this great disciple, which has often stirred my soul, as with the trumpet heard by St. John in Patmos. In him, indeed, the lions encountered a lion, one truly begotten of “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” Take, then, as a specimen, these thrilling injunctions from his letter to Polycarp, to whom he bequeathed his own spirit, and in whom he well knew the Church would recognize a sort of survival of St. John himself. If the reader has any true perception of the rhythm and force of the Greek language, let him learn by heart the originals of the following aphorisms:—
Does not this
seem a pointed allusion to
Στῆθι ὡς ἄκμων τυπτόμενος.
Ignatius so delighted in his name Theophorus
(sufficiently expounded in his own words to Trajan or his official
representative), that it is worth noting how deeply the early Christians
felt and believed in (
Ignatius has been censured for his language to the Romans, in which he seems to crave martyrdom. But he was already condemned, in law a dead man, and felt himself at liberty to glory in his tribulations. Is it more than modern Christians often too lightly sing? —
So the holy martyr adds, “Only let me attain unto Jesus Christ.”
The Epistle to the Romans is utterly inconsistent with
any conception on his part, that Rome was the see and residence of a
bishop holding any other than fraternal relations with himself. It is
very noteworthy that it is devoid of expressions, elsewhere made
emphatic, See To the
Tralliaus, cap. 13. Much might have been made, had it been found
here, out of the reference to Christ the High Priest (Philadelphians,
cap. 9).
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church. As is evident to every reader on the very first glance at these writings, they contain numerous statements which bear on points of ecclesiastical order that have long divided the Christian world; and a strong temptation has thus been felt to allow some amount of prepossession to enter into the discussion of their authenticity or spuriousness. At the same time, this question has furnished a noble field for the display of learning and acuteness, and has, in the various forms under which it has been debated, given rise to not a few works of the very highest ability and scholarship. We shall present such an outline of the controversy as may enable the reader to understand its position at the present day.
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnæans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.
But after the question has been thus simplified, it
still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are
acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two
Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other
of these exhibits a corrupt text, and
Before this date, however, there had not been wanting some who refused to acknowledge the authenticity of these Epistles in either of the recensions in which they were then known to exist. By far the most learned and elaborate work maintaining this position was that of Daillé (or Dallæus), published in 1666. This drew forth in reply the celebrated Vindiciæ of Bishop Pearson, which appeared in 1672. It was generally supposed that this latter work had established on an immoveable foundation the genuineness of the shorter form of the Ignatian Epistles; and, as we have stated above, this was the conclusion almost universally accepted down to our own day. The only considerable exception to this concurrence was presented by Whiston, who laboured to maintain in his Primitive Christianity Revived (1711) the superior claims of the longer recension of the Epistles, apparently influenced in doing so by the support which he thought they furnished to the kind of Arianism which he had adopted.
But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): “have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. … But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question.”
This expression of uncertainty was repeated in substance by Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmüller (1795), Neander (1826), and many others; some going so far as to deny that we have any authentic remains of Ignatius at all, while others, though admitting the seven shorter letters as being probably his, yet strongly suspected that they were not free from interpolation. Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was, until recently, accepted without much opposition, and chiefly in dependence on the work of Bishop Pearson above mentioned, as exhibiting the genuine form of the Epistles of Ignatius.
But a totally different aspect was given to the
question by the discovery of a Syriac version of three of these Epistles
among the mss. procured
from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the desert of Nitria, in
Egypt. In the years 1838, 1839, and again in 1842, Archdeacon Tattam
visited that monastery, and succeeded in obtaining for the English
Government a vast number of ancient Syriac manuscripts. On these being
deposited in the British Museum,
As the result of this discovery, Cureton published in 1845 a work, entitled, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to Polycarp, the Ephesian, and the Romans, etc., in which he argued that these Epistles represented more accurately than any formerly published what Ignatius had actually written. This, of course, opened up the controversy afresh. While some accepted the views of Cureton, others very strenuously opposed them. Among the former was the late Chev. Bunsen; among the latter, an anonymous writer in the English Review, and Dr. Hefele, in his third edition of the Apostolic Fathers. In reply to those who had controverted his arguments, Cureton published his Vindiciæ Ignatianæ in 1846, and his Corpus Ignatianum in 1849. He begins his introduction to the last-named work with the following sentences: “Exactly three centuries and a half intervened between the time when three Epistles in Latin, attributed to St. Ignatius, first issued from the press, and the publication in 1845 of three letters in Syriac bearing the name of the same apostolic writer. Very few years passed before the former were almost universally regarded as false and spurious; and it seems not improbable that scarcely a longer period will elapse before the latter be almost as generally acknowledged and received as the only true and genuine letters of the venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down to our times, or were ever known in the earliest ages of the Christian Church.”
Had the somewhat sanguine hope thus expressed been
realized, it would have been unnecessary for us to present to the English
reader more than a translation of these three Syriac Epistles. But the
Ignatian controversy is not yet settled. There are still those who hold
that the balance of argument is in favour of the shorter Greek, as
against these Syriac Epistles. They regard the latter as an epitome of
the former, and think the harshness which, according to them, exists in
the sequence of thoughts and sentences, clearly shows that this is the
case. We have therefore given all the forms of the Ignatian letters which
have the least claim on our attention. The other Epistles, bearing the name of Ignatius, will
be found in the Appendix; so that the English reader possesses in this
volume a complete collection of the Ignatian letters.
Literally, “before the ages.” These
words may agree with “glory,” but are better applied to the
“Church.”
Literally, “before the ages.” These
words may agree with “glory,” but are better applied to the
“Church.” Some read, as in the shorter
recension, “grace.”
Literally,
“imitators;” comp. Comp. in the Greek, This is wanting in the Greek. Literally, “since
therefore,” without any apodosis. Or, “unspeakably
beloved.”
Literally,
“imitators;” comp. Comp. in the Greek,
This is wanting in the
Greek. Or, “unspeakably beloved.”
Or, “our
most blessed deacon in all things pertaining to God.” Literally,
“pattern.” Comp.
Comp.
Literally, “pattern.” Comp. Comp. Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Literally, “according to God.” Literally, “receiving a union to God
in oneness.”
Or, “already.”
Some read, “mixed up
with.” Literally, “in the assembly of
sacrifices.”
Or, “believeth
not” (
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping
silence, That is,
“showing forbearance.” Comp. Or, “heresy.”
The more, therefore, you see the bishop silent, the
more do you reverence him. For we ought to receive every one whom the
Master of the house sends to be over His household, Comp.
This clause is wanting in the Greek, and has been supplied from the
ancient Latin version.
Or,
“before the ages.”
It is difficult to translate περίψημα in
this and similar passages; comp. Literally, “and the.”
Comp. Comp. Literally, “according to the other
life.”
Literally, “permit.” The verb is here omitted in
the original. Comp.
Literally,
“let nothing become you.”
I know both who I am, and to whom I write. I am a
condemned man, ye have been the objects of
Literally,
“ye are the passage of.” Literally,
“footsteps.”
I know both who I am, and to whom I write. I am the
very insignificant Ignatius, who have my lot with Literally, “am like to.”
Literally, “his
destruction.” Literally,
“of heavenly and earthly things.”
Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks
to God, and show forth His praise.
Literally, “being in unity.” Comp.
Literally, “there is not now the work of
profession.”
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Literally,
“before the ages.”
Again, περίψημα, translated
“offscouring,” Comp. Or, “economy,” or
“dispensation.” Comp.
Literally, “before the ages.”
Literally, “of noise.” Or, “in the silence of God”—divine
silence. Literally, “to the
ages.”
Literally, “of noise.” Some read,
“bond.” Literally, “opinion.” Literally, “bareness.”
Literally, “truth.” Literally,
“an economy.”
Or, “that which was perfect received a beginning from
God.”
If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your
prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I
will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the
dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new
man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in
His resurrection. Especially [will I do this The punctuation and meaning are here
doubtful. Literally, “by
name.”
Literally, “by
name.”
Some render, “May I, in
my turn, be the means of refreshing you and those,” etc. Literally, “to be found
for.”
Some render, “May I, in
my turn, be the means of refreshing you and those,” etc. Some read, “even as.” Some omit, “Grace [be with
you].”
Literally,
“according to God.” Literally, “of the most God-becoming name,”
referring either to the appellation “Theophorus,” or to that
of “martyr” or “confessor.”
Literally,
“according to God.”
Comp.
The apodosis is here wanting
in the original, but must evidently be supplied in some such way as
above.
Literally,
“worthy of God.” Literally,
“worthy of God.” Literally, “whom may I enjoy.” The apodosis is here wanting in the
original, but must evidently be supplied in some such way as above.
Literally, “to use the age of your
bishop.” Literally,
“according to.”
Literally, “youthful condition.” Literally, “to flesh.”
Sheba is referred to under this name: see
Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things
are simultaneously set before us—death and life; and every one
shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one
of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special
character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The apodosis is wanting in the original,
and some prefer finding it in the following sentence. Or, “after the likeness of His passion.”
Or, “after the likeness of His passion.”
Literally, “in harmony of
God.” Literally,
“before the ages.” Literally, “receiving the like
manners of God.” The meaning is here doubtful.
Literally, “in harmony
of God.” Literally, “before the
ages.”
Or,
“contrary to his judgment.”
Some have argued that the Gnostic
Σιγή, silence,
is here referred to, and have consequently inferred that this epistle
could not have been written by Ignatius.
Some read ὑποστήσαντι,
“that gave Him His hypostasis, or substance.”
Literally, “in old
things.” Or, “newness
of.” Or,
“according to.” Literally, “we have received to
believe.” Comp.
If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient
Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as
the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye
would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;” Reference is here made to well-known Jewish opinions and
practices with respect to the Sabbath. The Talmud fixes 2000 cubits as
the space lawful to be traversed. Philo (De Therap.) refers to the
dancing, etc.
Literally, “whirlpools of wealth.”
Literally, “according
to Christianity.” Some read, “to
name.”
Literally, “believe into,” merge into.
Or,
“enemy.”
i.e., addicted to the error of Judaizing.
i.e.,
addicted to the error of Judaizing.
Some read, “of you.”
May I enjoy you in all respects, if indeed I be worthy!
For though I am bound, I am not worthy to be compared to any of you that
are at liberty. Literally, “are
reverent.”
May I enjoy you in all respects, if indeed I be worthy!
For though I am bound, I am not worthy to be compared to one of you that
are at liberty. Literally, “are
reverent.”
Some read, “Jacob.”
Literally,
“well-woven.”
Knowing as I do that ye are full of God, I have but
briefly exhorted you. Literally, “of being sprinkled with
dew.”
Knowing as I do that ye are full of all good, I have
but briefly exhorted you in the love of Jesus Christ. Literally, “of being fed as by a
shepherd.”
Some render, “in the resurrection
which is by Him.” Either,
“the whole members of the Church,” or, “in the fulness
of blessing.” Either,
“as an apostle,” or, “in the apostolic form.”
Either, “the whole members of the Church,”
or, “in the fulness of blessing.” Either, “as an apostle,” or, “in the
apostolic form.”
Literally,
“not according to use, but according to nature.”
Literally,
“not for use, but for a possession.”
It is doubtful
whether this exhortation is addressed to the deacons or people; whether
the former are urged in all respects to please the latter, or the latter
in all points to be pleased with the former.
Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for
“he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to
God.”
In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an
appointment Literally,
“commandment.” The text, which is faulty in the ms., has been amended as above by
Smith. Literally, “no Church
is called.” Or,
“pattern.” Literally, “great
instruction.” Some here follow a text
similar to that of the longer recension. Both the text and meaning are
here very doubtful; some follow the reading of the longer recension.
And do ye reverence them as Christ Jesus, of whose
place they are the keepers, even as the bishop is the representative of
the Father of all things, and the presbyters are the sanhedrim of God,
and assembly Or,
“conjunction.” Or, “pattern.”
Literally, “I
know many things in God.” A different
turn altogether is given to this passage in the longer recension.
Or,
“confirmed.”
Omitted in the ms.
Or, “stations.” Literally, “passing by this;” but both text
and meaning are very doubtful.
ἐβουλόμην
apparently by mistake for ἐδυνάμην.
Literally, “their force.”
Or, “varieties of.”
The ellipsis in
the original is here very variously supplied. Literally,
“interweave.” Or,
“sweetly.” The construction is here
difficult and doubtful.
Literally,
“Christ-sellers.” Literally, “sweet address.” Apost.
Constitutions, vi. 13. Supplied from the
old Latin version.
Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons.
Literally,
“unseparated from.”
This clause is inserted from the ancient Latin version. The text has “deacon.”
Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons, that
ye admit not of a snare for your own souls. And act so that your life
shall be without offence to all men, lest ye become as “a snare
upon a watch-tower, and as a net which is spread out.”
Some render, “being a resemblance according to the power of
Christ.” Some read, “imitators of Christ,
ministering to the bishop, as Christ to the Father.”
Literally, “taking up.” Or,
“renew yourselves.”
Now I write these things unto you, not that I know
there are any such persons among you; nay, indeed I hope that God will
never permit any such report to reach my ears, He “who spared not
His Son for the sake of His holy Church.” Literally,
“making you drink beforehand what will preserve you.” Or,
“from which disease.” Literally, “taking up.” Comp. Comp.
Literally, “apart from.”
Literally, “apart from.”
Literally, “hedge,” or “fence.” Some read, “He was taken down from
the cross, and laid in a new tomb.”
Literally, “to fight with.”
Some read this and the following clause affirmatively, instead of
interrogatively. The meaning is, that is they
spoke the truth concerning the phantasmal character of Christ’s
death, then Ignatius was guilty of a practical falsehood in suffering for
what was false.
Literally, “to fight with.” The meaning
is, that if they spoke the truth concerning the phantasmal character of
Christ’s death, then Ignatius was guilty of a practical falsehood
in suffering for what was false.
Comp.
i.e., the cross. Both text and meaning here are
doubtful.
i.e., Satan’s. Literally,
“loud, confused noise.” The Ebionites, who denied the divine
nature of our Lord, are here referred to. It seems to be
here denied that Nicolas was the founder of this school of heretics.
I salute you from Smyrna, together with the Churches of
God which are with me, who have refreshed me in all things, both in the
flesh and in the spirit.
I salute you from Smyrna, together with the Churches of
God which are with me, whose rulers have refreshed me in every respect,
both in the flesh and in the spirit.
i.e., the least. The shorter
recension reads ἁγνίζετε, and the
longer also hesitates between this and ἀσπάζεται.
With the former reading the meaning is very obscure: it has been
corrected as above to ἁγνίζηται.
i.e., the
least. The shorter recension reads ἁγνίζετε, and the
longer also hesitates between this and ἀσπάζεται.
With the former reading the meaning is very obscure: it has been
corrected as above to ἁγνίζηται.
Or,
“most holy.”
Or as in the
shorter recension. Or, “most
holy.”
Some read, “since I have,”
leaving out the following “for,” and finding the apodosis in
“I hope to salute you.” Literally, “worthy of
God.” Some read, “which I much desired to do.” Literally, “to receive.” He probably refers
here, and in what follows, to the influence which their earnest prayers
in his behalf might have with God.
Literally, “worthy of
God.” Literally, “to
receive.”
He probably refers here, and in what follows, to the influence which
their earnest prayers in his behalf might have with God. Some read
γε instead of μή, and translate as
in shorter recension.
Some translate as in longer recension, but there is in
the one case ὑμῖν, and in the other
ὑμᾶς. Literally, “have to be inscribed to.” Literally, “to be found and sent for.”
Literally, “have to be inscribed
to.” Literally, “to be found and sent
for.” The text is here
in great confusion. Literally,
“beautiful.” Some read, “it is good,” etc.
Some read,
“good.” Or,
“in.” Literally, “work.”
Literally, “work.” The meaning is here doubtful.
i.e., by the teeth of the wild
beasts. “Free,” probably from human infirmity.
i.e., by the
teeth of the wild beasts.
“Free,” probably from human infirmity.
Comp.
Probably the soldiers received gifts from the Christians, to treat
Ignatius with kindness. In the shorter recension there is ζηλώσῃ, and in the
longer ζηλῶσαι; hence the
variety of rendering, but the translation is by no means certain. Some deem this and the following word
spurious. Literally,
“evil.”
Comp.
Probably the soldiers received gifts from the Christians, to treat
Ignatius with kindness. In the shorter recension there is ζηλώσῃ, and in the
longer ζηλῶσαι; hence the
variety of rendering, but the translation is by no means certain.
Literally, “this
age.” Literally, “into.”
Literally, “to die.”
Literally, “this age.” Literally, “to
die.”
Some
understand by love in this passage, Christ Himself; others
regard it as referring to the natural desires of the heart.
Literally, “desiring material.” The text and meaning are here doubtful.
We have followed Hefele, who understands by the water the Holy
Spirit, and refers to
Some
understand by love in this passage, Christ Himself; others
regard it as referring to the natural desires of the heart. Comp.
I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and
my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. Be ye willing, then, that ye
also may have your desires fulfilled. I entreat you in this brief letter;
do ye give credit to me. Jesus Christ will reveal these things to you,
[so that ye shall know] that I speak truly. He Some refer this to Ignatius himself.
I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and
my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. “I am crucified with
Christ: nevertheless I live; yet no longer I, since Christ liveth in
me.”
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now
has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee
it, and your love [will also regard it]. But as for me, I am ashamed to
be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very
last of them, and one born out of due time. Comp.
Some refer this to the jurisdiction of Ignatius. i.e., the outward road he had to
travel. Or, “have sent me forward;” comp.
Remember in your prayers the Church which is in Syria,
which, instead of me, has now for its shepherd the Lord, who says,
“I am the good Shepherd.” And He alone will oversee it, as
well as your love towards Him. But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted
one of them; for I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one
born out of due time. But I have obtained mercy to be somebody, if I
shall attain to God.
Now I write these things to you from Smyrna by the
Ephesians, who are deservedly most happy. There is also with me, along
with many others, Crocus, one dearly beloved by me. Literally, “the name desired to
me.” This clause is evidently an explanatory
gloss which has crept into the text.
Or,
“inseparably.”
Or,
“inseparably.” Comp.
Which
bishop, The bishop
previously referred to. Comp. Literally,
“all.”
Having
beheld your bishop, I know that he was not selected to undertake the
ministry which pertains to the common [weal], either by himself or by
men, Comp.
Comp.
Wherefore, as children of light and truth, avoid the
dividing of your unity, and the wicked doctrine of the heretics, from
whom “a defiling influence has gone forth into all the
earth.”
Comp. Comp.
i.e., heretical.
i.e.,
heretical. Comp. Comp.
Literally, “into.”
There was a
prevalent opinion among the ancient Christian writers, that all these
holy men lived a life of [chaste] celibacy. Or,
“it is not because, etc., that I have mentioned these.”
Literally, “have proclaimed in reference to the
Gospel.” In Christ.
Literally,
“people-deceiving.” Comp. Literally,
“teaching.” Or, “wrought.”
Literally,
“Judaism.” Literally,
“oppressed.” Or, “will.” Some render, “come together into
the same place.” Apparently by
attempting to impose the yoke of Judaism.
Comp. John viii
44. Literally,
“beneath.” Comp. John viii
44. Comp. the reading sanctioned
by the ancient authorities, From a Hebrew word meaning
“poor.” Or,
“these things.” Literally,
“the end of happiness.” Comp.
Literally,
“oppressed.” Some
render, “come together into the same place.”
For though some would have deceived me according to the
flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows
both whence it comes and whither it goes, Some translate, “as foreseeing the
division to arise among you.” Literally, “did not
know from human flesh.” Literally, “your
flesh.” Comp.
For though some would have deceived me according to the
flesh, yet my spirit is not deceived; for I have received it from God.
For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes, and detects the
secrets [of the heart]. For when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a
loud voice—the word is not mine, but God’s—Give
heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. But if ye suspect
that I spake thus, as having learned beforehand the division caused by
some among you, He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I
learned nothing of it from the mouth of any man. But the Spirit made an
announcement to me, saying as follows: Do nothing without the bishop;
keep your bodies
Literally, “your flesh.”
I therefore did what belonged to me, as a man devoted
to Literally,
“prepared for.” Literally, “to the assembly of the
bishop.” The meaning here
is very doubtful. Some read ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, as
translated above; others prefer ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις, as in
the longer recension. i.e., the system of Christian
doctrine.
I therefore did what belonged to me, as a man devoted
to unity; adding this also, that where there is diversity of judgment,
and wrath, and hatred, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, God
grants forgiveness, if they with one consent return to the unity of
Christ, and communion with the bishop. Literally, “to the assembly of the
bishop.” Comp.
Or, “the archives of the Spirit are not exposed to
all.”
i.e., the Jewish priests. Literally, “proclaimed as to him.” The meaning is doubtful. Comp.
i.e., the Jewish priests.
Literally, “the hedge.”
Literally, “for the name of.”
Literally, “for the name of.”
Literally,
“bidding farewell to.” Or, “for
the sake of honour.”
Literally, “bidding farewell to.” Comp. The ms. has “Burgus.” Or,
“for the sake of honour.”
Literally, “holy-bearing.”
Literally,
“holy-bearing.”
I Glorify
God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. Theodoret, in quoting this passage, reads, “the
Godhead and power.”
i.e., the cross, “fruit” being put for
Christ on the tree.
I Glorify
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you
such wisdom.
Literally, “we are.”
Or, “seeing that they
are phantasmal and diabolical,” as some render, but the above is
preferable.
Literally, “in the flesh.” Literally, “demon.” According to Jerome,
this quotation is from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Comp. Literally, “above death.”
Literally, “demon.” According to Jerome, this quotation is
from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Comp.
Or, “mark.”
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye
also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I
Comp. Comp.
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from these beasts in the shape of men, from whom you must not only turn away, but even flee from them. Only you must pray for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance. For if the Lord were in the body in appearance only, and were crucified in appearance only, then am I also bound in appearance only. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] I endure all things for Christ, not in appearance only, but in reality, that I may suffer together with Him, while He Himself inwardly strengthens me; for of myself I have no such ability.
Or, “foolishly.” i.e., As they
imagine Christ to have suffered only in appearance, so they believe that
we suffer in vain.
Literally, “a flesh-bearer.” Literally,
“a death-bearer.”
Literally, “a
flesh-bearer.”
Let no man deceive himself.
Literally, “the glory of the angels.” Literally, “judgment is
to them.”
Literally, “the whole
is.”
Let no man deceive himself.
Theodoret,
in quoting this passage, reads προσφοράς,
“offering.” Literally, “die
disputing.” Literally, “to love.” Some think there is a
reference to the agapæ, or love-feasts. The reading is περί in the
one case, and μετά in the
other, though the latter meaning seems preferable. Most of the mss. of the longer recension read
περί, as in the
shorter. Literally,
“perfected.”
Literally, “drove Adam out of.”
The reading is περί in the one case,
and μετά in the
other, though the latter meaning seems preferable. Most of the mss. of the longer recension read
περί, as in the
shorter.
Or, “command.” Or, “firm.” Or,
“firm.”
Or,
“firm.” Some refer
the words to the Lord’s Supper.
Or, “finally.” Literally,
“to know.”
Comp. Or, “great.”
Ye have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus
Agathopus as servants
Or, “deacons.” Comp. Epistle of Ignatius to
Ephesians, chap. xxi.; to Polycarp, chap. ii. vi.
Ye have done well in receiving Philo, and Gaius, and
Agathopus, who, being the servants Or, “deacons.” Comp. Epistle of
Ignatius to Ephesians, chap. xxi.; to Polycarp, chap. ii. vi.
Literally, “most becoming of
God.” Or,
“from any conscience.” Literally,
“God-ambassador.” Or,
“having received.” Literally, “body.” Literally, “may glorify with him.” Or, “think
of.”
Or, “from
any conscience.” Literally,
“God-ambassador.” Literally,
“body.” Or, “think
of.”
Or, “the
ministry.” Literally, “worthy of
God.” Literally, “most becoming of
God.” Literally, “in the union of God and
of you.”
I salute the families of my brethren, with their wives
and children, and the virgins who are called widows. The deaconesses seem to have been
called widows.
Literally, “the name desired of me.”
I salute the families of my brethren, with their wives
and children, and those that are ever virgins, and the widows. Literally, “the name
desired of me.”
Having
obtained good proof that thy mind is fixed in God as upon an immoveable
rock, I loudly glorify [His name] that I have been thought worthy [to
behold] thy blameless face, i.e., to make personal acquaintance with one esteemed so
highly. Or,
“tolerate.” Comp. Some read,
“according to thy practice.”
Having
obtained good proof that thy mind is fixed in God as upon an immoveable
rock, I loudly glorify [His name] that I have been thought worthy to
behold thy blameless face, i.e., to make personal acquaintance with one esteemed so
highly. Or,
“tolerate.” Comp. Some read,
“according to thy practice.”
If thou lovest the good disciples, no thanks are due to
thee on that account; but rather seek by meekness to subdue the more
troublesome. Every kind of wound is not healed with the same plaster.
Mitigate violent
Literally,
“paroxysms by embrocations.” Literally, “flatter.”
Some refer this to the mysteries of God and others to things yet
future. Comp.
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chap. xxi., etc.
If thou lovest the good disciples, no thanks are due to
thee on that account; but rather seek by meekness to subdue the more
troublesome. Every kind of wound is not healed with the same plaster.
Mitigate violent attacks [of disease] by gentle applications. Literally, “paroxysms
by embrocations.” Comp. Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chap. xxi.,
etc.
Let not those who seem worthy of credit, but teach
strange doctrines, Comp.
Literally, “great.”
Let not those who seem worthy of credit, but teach
strange doctrines, Comp.
Literally, “great.”
The word
in the original (φροντιστής) denotes
one who thinks or cares for another. Some refer the words to more
frequent meetings, and others to these meetings being more
numerous; no comparison is necessarily implied.
i.e., so as to bring them out to the public assembly. Or, “act the part of slaves.”
Some refer
the words to more frequent meetings, and others to these meetings
being more numerous; no comparison is necessarily implied. i.e., so as to bring them out to the public
assembly. Or, “act the part of slaves.”
Some insert μή, and render,
“rather do not even speak of them.”
i.e., in celibacy. Some render, “to the honour of the
flesh of the Lord,” as in the longer recension. Comp.
i.e., in celibacy. Literally,
“if he be known beyond the bishop.” Comp.
As this Epistle, though sent to the bishop, was meant to
be read to the people, Ignatius here directly addresses them. Comp. chap. ii. etc. Or, “assessors.” A military reference, simply
implying the idea of faithful effort leading to future reward. Comp. Ignatius’ Epistle to the
Ephesians, chap. ii.
As this Epistle, though sent to the bishop, was meant to
be read to the people, Ignatius here directly addresses them. Comp. chap. ii. etc. Or, “assessors.” Literally, “worthy of
God.” Comp.
Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. ii.
Literally,
“in freedom from care of God.” Some read, “in the resurrection.” Literally,
“most befitting God.” Literally, “God-runner.” Literally, “at leisure for.” Literally, “to Him.”
Literally,
“in freedom from care of God.” Literally, “most befitting God.” Literally, “God-runner.” Literally, “at
leisure for.”
Inasmuch as I have not been able to write to all the
Churches, because I must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis, as the
will Some suppose the
reference to be to the soldiers, or perhaps to God Himself. Or, “as
possessed of the judgment.” Literally, “men on foot.” Some
have the plural “ye” here. Literally,
“an eternal work.” Some propose to
read, “and of the bishop.”
Literally, “name desired by me.”
Inasmuch, therefore, as I have not been able to write
to all Churches, because I must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis, as
the will Some suppose
the reference to be to the soldiers, or perhaps to God Himself. Or,
“as possessed of the judgment.”
Literally, “an eternal work.” Literally, “name desired by me.”
See the
extraordinary passage and note in his Hippolytus, vol. i. p. 58,
etc.
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named α by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as β, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as γ, has no date, but, as he tells us, “belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier.” It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original.
[N.B.—Bunsen is forced to allow the fact that the discovery of the lost work of Hippolytus “throws new light on an obscure point of the Ignatian controversy,” i.e., the Sige in the Epistle to the Magnesians (cap. viii.); but his treatment of the matter is unworthy of a candid scholar.]
The inscription varies in each of the three Syriac mss., being in the first, “The Epistle of my lord Ignatius, the bishop;” in the second, “The Epistle of Ignatius;” and in the third, “The Epistle of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch.”
Because
thy mind is acceptable to me, inasmuch as it is established in God, as on
a rock which is immoveable, I glorify God the more exceedingly that I
have been counted worthy of [seeing] thy face, which I longed after in
God. Now I beseech thee, by the grace with which thou art clothed, to add
[speed] to thy course, and that thou ever pray for all men that they may
be saved, and that thou demand For “vindicate thy place” in the Greek. Literally, “draw out thy
spirit.”
If thou lovest the good disciples only, thou hast no
grace; [but] rather subdue those that are evil by gentleness. All [sorts
of] wounds are not healed by the same medicine. Mitigate [the pain of]
cutting Cureton observes,
as one alternative here, that “the Syrian translator seems to have
read παράξυσμα for
παροξυσμούς.” Or,
“flatter,” probably meaning to “deal gently
with.” Thus the Syriac renders ἀντίψυχον in the
Greek.
Let not those who seem to be somewhat, and teach
strange doctrines, strike thee with apprehension; but stand thou in the
truth, as an athlete The
Greek has ἄκμων, “an
anvil.”
Let not the widows be overlooked; on account of The Greek has μετά,
“after.” Or,
“constant,” “regular.”
Flee wicked arts; but all the more discourse regarding
them. i.e., “in celibacy.” Or, “corrupted himself.”
Look ye to the bishop, that God also may look upon you.
I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the bishop,
and the presbyters, and the deacons; with them may I have a portion in
the presence of God! Labour together with one another, act as
athletes Literally,
“make the contest.”
Literally, “sons of His house.”
The Christian has not power over himself, but is [ever]
ready to be subject to God. These are the only parts of chaps. vii. and viii. in the
Greek that are represented in the Syriac.
These are the only
parts of chaps. vii. and viii. in the Greek that are represented in the
Syriac.
Another inscription is, “Epistle the Second, which is to the Ephesians.”
Literally, “separated.”
Inasmuch
as your name, which is greatly beloved, is acceptable to me in God, [your
name] which ye have acquired by nature, through a right and just will,
and also by the faith and love of Jesus Christ our Saviour, and ye are
imitators of God, and are fervent in the blood of God, and have speedily
completed a work congenial to you; [for] when ye heard that I was
bound, Literally,
“bound from actions.” Cureton renders, “have
received your abundance,” probably referring the words to gifts
sent by the Ephesians to Ignatius. Literally,
“be in his image.” There is no Apodosis, unless it be found
in what follows.
The following clause is the whole of chap. iii. in the Greek, which is represented in the Syriac.
But inasmuch as love does not permit me to be silent in regard to you, on this account I have been forward to entreat of you that ye would be diligent in the will of God.
Chaps. iv. v. vi. vii. of the Greek are totally omitted in the Syriac.
For, so long as there is not implanted in you any one
lust which is able to torment you, behold, ye live in God. I rejoice in
you, and offer supplication Thus Cureton renders the words, referring in
confirmation to the Peshito version of
Pray for all men; for there is hope of repentance for them, that they may be counted worthy of God. By your works especially let them be instructed. Against their harsh words be ye conciliatory, by meekness of mind and gentleness. Against their blasphemies do ye give yourselves to prayer; and against their error be ye armed with faith. Against their fierceness be ye peaceful and quiet, and be ye not astounded by them. Let us, then, be imitators of our Lord in meekness, and strive who shall more especially be injured, and oppressed, and defrauded.
Chaps. xi. xii. xiii. of the Greek are totally wanting in the Syriac, and only these few words of chaps. xiv. and xv. are represented.
The work is not of promise, The meaning seems to be that mere
profession, without continuous practice, is nothing.
It is better that a man should be silent while he is something, than that he should be talking when he is not; that by those things which he speaks he should act, and by those things of which he is silent he should be known.
Chaps. xvi. and xvii. of the Greek are totally wanting in the Syriac.
My spirit bows in adoration to the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those who do not believe, but is to you for salvation and eternal life.
Literally, “the mysteries of the
shout.” The meaning is here confused and obscure. See the
Greek. Chaps. xx. and xxi. of the Greek are altogether wanting
in the Syriac. [N.B.—See spurious Epistle to Philippians, cap. 4,
infra. This concealment from Satan of the mystery of the
incarnation is the explanation, according to the Fathers, of his tempting
the Messiah, and prompting His crucifixion. Also, Christ the more
profoundly humbled himself, “ne subtilis ille diaboli oculus
magnum hoc pietatis deprehenderet sacramentum” (St. Bernard,
opp. ii. 1944). Bernard also uses this opinion very strikingly (opp. ii.
1953) in one of his sermons, supposing that Satan discovered the secret
too late for his own purpose, and then prompted the outcry, Come down
from the cross, to defeat the triumph of the second Adam. (Comp. St.
Another inscription is, “The Third Epistle.”
From of old have I prayed to God, that I might be counted worthy to behold your faces which are worthy of God: now, therefore, being bound in Jesus Christ, I hope to meet you and salute you, if it be the will [of God] that I should be accounted worthy to the end. For the beginning is well arranged, if I be counted worthy to attain to the end, that I may receive my portion, without hindrance, through suffering. For I am in fear of your love, lest it should injure me. As to you, indeed, it is easy for you to do whatsoever ye wish; but as to me, it is difficult for me to be accounted worthy of God, if indeed ye spare me not.
For there is no other time such as this, that I should
be accounted worthy of God; neither will ye, if ye be silent, [ever] be
found in a better work than this. If ye let me alone, I shall be the word
of God; but if ye love my flesh, again am I [only] to myself a voice. Ye
cannot give me anything more precious than this, that I should be
sacrificed to God, while the altar is ready; that ye may be in one
concord in love, and may praise God the Father through Jesus Christ our
Lord, because He has deemed a bishop worthy to be God’s, having
called him from the east to the west. It is good that I should set from
the world in God, that I may rise in Him to life. Literally, “in life.”
Ye have never envied any man. Ye have taught others.
Only pray ye for strength to be given to me from within and from without,
that I may not only speak, but also may be willing, and that I may not
merely be called a Christian, but also may be found to be [one]; for if I
am found to be [so], I may then also be called [so]. Then [indeed] shall
I be faithful, when I am no longer seen in the world. For there is
nothing visible that is good. The work is not [a matter The meaning is probably similar to that
expressed in chap. xiv. of the Epistle to the Ephesians.
I write to all the Churches, and declare to all men,
that I willingly die for the sake of God, if so be that ye hinder me not.
I entreat of you not to be [affected] towards me with a love which is
unseasonable. Leave me to become [the prey of] the beasts, that by their
means I may be accounted worthy of God. I am the wheat of God, and by the
teeth of the beasts I shall be ground, Literally, “I am ground.” Literally, “with provoking,
provoke.”
Literally, “they are who are.”
From Syria, and even unto Rome, I am cast among wild
beasts, by sea and by land, by night and by day, being bound between ten
leopards, which are the band of soldiers, who, even when I do good to
them, all the more do evil unto me. I, however, am the rather instructed
by their injurious treatment; Literally, “by their injury.” Literally, “and not as that which is afraid of
some other men.” So Cureton translates, but remarks that the
passage is evidently corrupt. The reference plainly is to the fact that
the beasts sometimes refused to attack their intended victims. See the
case of Blandina, as reported by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v.
1.). Cureton renders interrogatively, “What is
expedient for me?” and remarks that “the meaning of the
Syriac appears to be, ‘I crave your indulgence to leave the
knowledge of what is expedient for me to my own conscience.’
” Literally, “nothing.”
Literally, “and.”
The pains of the birth stand over against me. The Latin version translates
the Greek here, “He adds gain to me.”
And my love is crucified, and there is no fire in me for another love. I do not desire the food of corruption, neither the lusts of this world. I seek the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ; and I seek His blood, a drink which is love incorruptible.
Chap. viii. of the Greek is entirely omitted in the Syriac.
The
following passage is not found in this Epistle in the Greek recensions,
but forms, in substance, chaps. iv. and v. of the Epistle to the
Trallians. Diverse views are held by critics as to its proper place,
according to the degree of authority they ascribe to the Syriac version.
Cureton maintains that this passage has been transferred by
the forger of the Epistle to the Trallians, "to give a fiar colour to the
fabrication
by introducing a part of the genuine writing of Ignatius; while Hefele
asserts that it is bound by the “closest connection” to the
preceding chapter in the Epistle to the Trallians. Or, as in the Greek,
“Fare ye well, to the end.”
Here end the three Epistles of Ignatius, bishop and
martyr. [N.B.—The
aphoristic genius of Ignatius seems to be felt by his Syrian abbreviator,
who reduces whole chapters to mere maxims.]
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch.
We cannot tell when or by whom these Epistles were fabricated. They have been thought to betray the same hand as the longer and interpolated form of the seven Epistles which are generally regarded as genuine. And some have conceived that the writer who gave forth to the world the Apostolic Constitutions under the name of Clement, was probably the author of these letters falsely ascribed to Ignatius, as well as of the longer recension of the seven Epistles which are mentioned by Eusebius.
It was a considerable time before editors in modern times began to discriminate between the true and the false in the writings attributed to Ignatius. The letters first published under his name were those three which exist only in Latin. These came forth in 1495 at Paris, being appended to a life of Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Some three years later, eleven Epistles, comprising those mentioned by Eusebius, and four others, were published in Latin, and passed through four or five editions. In 1536, the whole of the professedly Ignatian letters were published at Cologne in a Latin version; and this collection also passed through several editions. It was not till 1557 that the Ignatian Epistles appeared for the first time in Greek at Dillingen. After this date many editions came forth, in which the probably genuine were still mixed up with the certainly spurious, the three Latin letters, only being rejected as destitute of authority. Vedelius of Geneva first made the distinction which is now universally accepted, in an edition of these Epistles which he published in 1623; and he was followed by Archbishop Usher and others, who entered more fully into that critical examination of these writings which has been continued down even to our own day.
The reader will have no difficulty in detecting the
internal grounds on which these eight letters
But though the additional Ignatian letters here given
are confessedly spurious, we have thought it not improper to present them
to the English reader in an appendix to our first volume. [Spurious writings, if they can
be traced to antiquity, are always useful. Sometimes they are evidence of
facts, always of opinions, ideas and fancies of their date; and often
they enable us to identify the origin of corruptions. Even interpolations
prove what later partisans would be glad to find, if they could, in early
writers. They bear unwilling testimony to the absence of genuine
evidence in favour of their assumptions.]
From
Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts: not that I am devoured by brute
beasts, for these, as ye know, by the will of God, spared Daniel, but by
beasts in the shape of men, in whom the merciless wild beast himself lies
hid, and pricks and wounds me day by day. But none of these hardships
“move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself,”
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan
have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born
[only Some omit this.
That is, as appears afterwards from chap. v., so as to have no
personality distinct from the Father. The translation is here somewhat
doubtful.
Mindful of him, do ye by all means know that Jesus the
Lord was truly born of Mary, being made of a woman; and was as truly
crucified. For, says he, “God forbid that I should glory, save in
the cross of the Lord Jesus.”
And [know ye, moreover], that He who was born of a
woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the
first-born of every creature,”
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the
Father, but His Son, He [shows when He] says, “I ascend unto my
Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”
Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things
were made; for “all things were made by Him.”
Some insert here
Literally, “coming also
to the appetite of those things after eating.” The text is
doubtful.
May I have joy of you in the Lord! Be ye sober.
Ye husbands, love your wives; and ye wives, your
husbands. Ye children, reverence your parents. Ye parents, “bring
up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
Literally, “of the
Philippians.”
Comp.
The Lord
has rendered my bonds light and easy since I learnt that you are in
peace, that you live in all harmony both of the flesh and spirit.
“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, Literally, “in the Lord.”
For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said,
“The Lord thy God is one Lord,”
The ms. has “Lord.”
The prophets also, when they speak as in the person of
God, [saying,] “I am God, the first [of beings], and I am also the
last, Literally,
“after these things.”
The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one
Father was “the only true God,”
Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one
God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, Comp. Or, “that cannot be
known.” Comp.
These things I write to you, thou new olive-tree of
Christ, not that I am aware you hold any such opinions, but that I may
put you on your guard, as a father does his children. Beware, therefore,
of those that hasten to work mischief, those “enemies of the cross
of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose glory is in their
shame.”
The text is here doubtful. Literally,
“fox-like thoes,” lynxes being perhaps intended.
Ye have been the disciples of Paul and Peter; do not
lose what was committed to your trust. Keep in remembrance Euodias, Some think that this is the
same person as the Euodias referred to by St. Paul,
Comp. Comp.
Ye presbyters, “feed the flock which is among
you,”
Comp.
Ye masters, do not treat your servants with
haughtiness, but imitate patient Job, who declares, “I did not
despise Literally,
“If I did despise.” Or, “judgment.”
Let no one addicted to idleness eat, Comp.
Literally, “the name desirable to me,” referring to Hero the
deacon. A class of
persons connected with the Church, whose duty it was to bury the bodies
of the martyrs and others. Such as
voluntarily confessed Christ before Gentile rulers. Some insert here a
clause referring to widows.
I salute Cassian and his partner in life, and their
very dear children. Polycarp, that most worthy bishop, who is also deeply
interested in you, salutes you; and to him I have commended you in the
Lord. The whole Church of the Smyrnæans, indeed, is mindful of you in
their prayers in the Lord. Onesimus, the pastor of the Ephesians, salutes
you. Damas, Or, as some
read, “Demas.”
I write this letter to you from Philippi. May He who is
alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit and in the flesh,
through Him who was begotten before time Literally, “before ages.”
I Exhort
thee in God, that thou add [speed] to thy course, and that thou vindicate
thy dignity. Have a care to preserve concord with the saints. Bear [the
burdens of] the weak, that “thou mayest fulfil the law of
Christ.”
Literally, “having leisure
for.” Literally, “cast thyself down.”
Comp. Literally,
“athlete.”
Every one that teaches anything beyond what is
commanded, though he be [deemed] worthy of credit, though he be in the
habit of fasting, though he live in continence, though he work miracles,
though he have the gift of prophecy, let him be in thy sight as a wolf in
sheep’s clothing,
Comp.
“Honour widows that are widows
indeed.”
The term ἱερουργέω, which
we have translated as above, is one whose signification is disputed. It
occurs once in the New Testament ( Specifically, assemblies for
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Be not ashamed of servants, for we possess the same
nature in common with them. Do not hold women in abomination, for they
have given thee birth, and brought thee up. It is fitting, therefore, to
love those that were the authors of our birth (but only in the Lord),
inasmuch as a man can produce no children without a woman. It is right,
therefore, that we should honour those who have had a part in giving us
birth. “Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without
the man,”
Flee from haughtiness, “for the Lord resisteth
the proud.”
Keep thyself pure as the habitation of God. Thou art
the temple of Christ. Thou art the instrument of the Spirit. Thou knowest
in what way I have brought thee up. Though I am the least of men, do thou
seek to follow me, be thou an imitator of my conduct. I do not glory in
the world, but in the Lord. I exhort Hero, my son; “but let him
that glorieth, glory in the Lord.”
Keep God in remembrance, and thou shalt never sin. Be
not double-minded Comp.
Comp. Epistle to the Antiochians, chap. xii.
Comp.
Salute Cassian, my host, and his most serious-minded
partner in life, and their very dear children,
Being
mindful of your love and of your zeal in Christ, which ye have manifested
towards us, we thought it fitting to write to you, who display such a
godly and spiritual love to the brethren, Literally, “to your brother-loving spiritual love
according to God.”
Literally, “course in Christ.”
Literally, “which is given unto the
death of the Lord.”
i.e.,
“Advocate” or “Comforter;” comp.
Comp. Athanasian Creed.
For there is but One that became incarnate, and that
neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only, [who became so]
not in appearance or imagination, but in reality. For “the Word
became flesh.”
[This is the idea worked out by St. Bernard. See my note (supra)
suffixed to the Syriac Epistle to Ephesians.] The
various Gnostic sects are here referred to, who held that matter was
essentially evil, and therefore denied the reality of our Lord’s
incarnation.
The ms. has μαγείας, “of
magic;” we have followed the emendation proposed by Faber.
Literally, “heretical in respect to phantasy.” Literally, is “various,” or
“manifold.”
Reference seems to be made to obscene heathen
practices.
i.e., so as to have no separate personality from the Father. Comp.
Epistle to the Tarsians, chap. ii. Literally, “and taking
away Christ from being born.” Literally, “double.”
According to
many of the Fathers, Satan was in great ignorance as to a multitude of
points connected with Christ. [See my note at end of the Syriac Epistle
to Ephesians, supra.]
Literally, “thou wast dizzy in the
head.” Literally, “on account of the
paltry things.” Literally,
“small.” Or, “the belly.”
Some
insert, “corruptible.”
Comp.
Or, “belly.” Or,
“that always needs whipping.”
But the Lord is long-suffering, and does not reduce to
nothing him who in his ignorance dares [to utter] such words, but meekly
replies, “Get thee hence, Satan.”
These things, brethren, out of the affection which I entertain for you, I have felt compelled to write, exhorting you with a view to the glory of God, not as if I were a person of any consequence, but simply as a brother. Be ye subject to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons. Love one another in the Lord, as being the images of God. Take heed, ye husbands, that ye love your wives as your own members. Ye wives also, love your husbands, as being one with them in virtue of your union. If any one lives in chastity or continence, let him not be lifted up, lest he lose his reward. Do not lightly esteem the festivals. Despise not the period of forty days, for it comprises an imitation of the conduct of the Lord. After the week of the passion, do not neglect to fast on the fourth and sixth days, distributing at the same time of thine abundance to the poor. If any one fasts on the Lord’s Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ.
Let your prayers be extended to the Church of Antioch, whence also I as a prisoner am being led to Rome. I salute the holy bishop Polycarp; I salute the holy bishop Vitalius, and the sacred presbytery, and my fellow-servants the deacons; in whose stead may my soul be found. Once more I bid farewell to the bishop, and to the presbyters in the Lord. If any one celebrates the passover along with the Jews, or receives the emblems of their feast, he is a partaker with those that killed the Lord and His apostles.
Comp.
Nothing can be said with certainty as to the place here referred to. Some have conceived that the ordinary reading, Maria Cassobolita, is incorrect, and that it should be changed to Maria Castabalitis, supposing the reference to be to Castabala, a well-known city of Cilicia. But this and other proposed emendations rest upon mere conjecture.
Some propose to read, “always.”
Or,
“wonderfully.” The ms.
has, “and.” The ms. has ᾽Ημελάπης, which
Vossius and others deem a mistake for ἡμεδαπῆς, as
translated above. The same as Azarbus (comp. Epist. to
Hero, chap. ix.).
But as to those whom we have named being young men, do
not, thou blessed one, have any apprehension. For I would have you know
that they are wise about the flesh, and are insensible to its passions,
they themselves glowing with all the glory of a hoary head through their
own Literally, “in
themselves.” Literally, “in recent newness of
priesthood.” Literally, “call
up.” Literally, “know.”
Moreover, the wise Daniel, while he was a young man,
passed judgment on certain vigorous old men, The ancient Latin version translates
ὠμογέροντας
“cruel old men,” which perhaps suits the reference
better. Comp. for similar
statements to those here made, Epistle to the Magnesians (longer), chap.
iii. Literally, “understood the great question of the
ignorance of the women respecting their children.” Literally, “out of
herself.”
Josiah also, beloved of God, when as yet he could
scarcely speak articulately, convicts those who were possessed of a
wicked spirit as being false in their speech, and deceivers of the
people. He also reveals the deceit of the demons, and openly exposes
those that are no gods; yea, while yet an infant he slays their priests,
and overturns their altars, and defiles the place where sacrifices were
offered with dead bodies, and throws down the temples, and cuts down the
groves, and breaks in pieces the pillars, and breaks open the tombs of
the ungodly, that not a relic of the wicked might any longer exist.
But time would fail me if I should endeavour to
enumerate Literally,
“to trace up.” Literally, “measure” or
“limits.”
Sight
indeed is better than writing, inasmuch as, being one Literally, “a part.” Literally,
“all-wise.”
But I, O thou blessed woman, not being now so much my
own master as in the power of others, am driven along by the varying
wills of many adversaries, Literally, “by the many wills of the
adversaries.”
I have gladly acted as requested in thy letter, Literally, “I have
gladly fulfilled the things commanded by thee in the letter.” Literally, “by a judgment of God.”
Now it occurs to me to mention, that the report is true
which I heard of thee whilst thou wast at Rome with the blessed
father The original is
πάπᾳ,
[common to primitive bishops.]
Avoid those that deny the passion of Christ, and His
birth according to the flesh: and there are many at present who suffer
under this disease. But it would be absurd to admonish thee on other
points, seeing that thou art perfect in every good work and word, and
able also to exhort others in Christ.
Literally, “of vices.” Some mss. and editions seem with
propriety to omit this word. Literally,
“a nature of angelic purity is allied to human nature.”
Literally, “his own.”
Some omit this word. Literally, “of
herself.” Some read, instead of “de se,”
“deorum,” when the translation will be, “the
true God of gods.” Or, “face.” Some omit the word. Or,
“good.”
Literally, “his own.” [Mary is here called χριστοτόκος, and not θεοτόκος, which suggests a Nestorian forgery.]
The
learned dissertation of Pearson, on the difficulties of reconciling the
supposed year of the martyrdom with the history of Trajan, etc., is given
entire in Jacobson (vol. ii. p. 524), against the decision of Usher for
a.d. 107. Pearson accepts
a.d. 116. Consult also the
preface of Dr. Thomas Smith, He published an edition of Ignatius, Oxford, 1709.
The following is the Introductory Notice of the translators:—
The
following account of the martyrdom of Ignatius professes, in several
passages, to have been written by those who accompanied him on his voyage
to Rome, and were present on the occasion of his death (chaps. v. vi.
vii.). And if the genuineness of this narrative, as well as of the
Ignatian Epistles, be admitted, there can be little doubt that the
persons in question were Philo and Agathopus, with Crocus perhaps, all of
whom are mentioned by Ignatius (Epist. to Smyr., chap. x.; to
Philad., chap. xi.; to Rom., chap. x.) as having attended him
on that journey to Rome which resulted in his martyrdom. But doubts have
been started, by Daillé and others, as to the date and authorship of this
account. Some of these rest upon internal considerations, but the
weightiest objection is found in the fact that no reference to this
narrative is to be traced during the first six centuries of our era. [A most remarkable statement.
“References” may surely be traced, at least in
Eusebius (iii. 36) and Irenæus (Adv. Hæres. v. 28), if not in
Jerome, etc. But the sermon of St. Chrysostom (Opp. ii. 593) seems
almost, in parts, a paraphrase.] [See on
this matter Jacobson’s note (vol ii. p. 262), and reference to
Pearson (Vind. Ignat., part ii. cap. 12). The false accentuation
(Θεόφορος) occurs in
some copies to support the myth of the child Ignatius as the
God-borne instead of the God-bearing; i.e., carried by
Christ, instead of carrying the Spirit of Christ within.] [But see the
note in Jacobson, vol. ii. p.557.]
The date of Trajan’s
accession was a.d. 98. The text here is somewhat
doubtful. Literally, “any of the
faint-hearted and more guileless.”
This word is of doubtful authority.
The numeral is
uncertain. In the old Latin version we find “the fourth,”
which Grabe has corrected into the nineteenth. The choice lies between
“ninth” and “nineteenth,” i.e., a.d. 107 or a.d. 116. Literally, “would choose to submit
to.” Some read,
“fear compelled.” Literally,
“evil-dæmon.” Literally, “art zealous.” Or, “one who carries God.” Literally, “the dæmons.” The Latin version reads, “Him who
bore my sin, with its inventor, upon the cross.”
Literally, “with.” Or, “beast-like.” [Better, “like the noble leader,” etc.;
remitting κριὸς to the margin,
as an ignoble word to English ears.]
It is doubtful if this clause
should be referred to Polycarp. Or, “received.” Literally, “a
portion of.”
The Latin version has,
“that he was to.” [But compare the martyr’s Epistle to
the Romans (cap. 5); “yet am I not thereby justified,”
—a double reference to St. Paul’s doctrine, The punctuation and
construction are here doubtful. Or, “should
prevent him from hastening to the Lord.”
(See the Epistle as formerly given.)
Or,
“corrected.” Comp.
Literally,
“the ship being driven onwards from the stern.” Literally, “declaring happy.”
[Of which we shall learn more when we come
to Hippolytus. Trajan had just improved the work of Claudius at this
haven, near Ostia.] Literally, “for the.” Literally, “boiling and
saying.” Or, “in spirit.” i.e., in his
Epistle to the Romans.
The Saturnalia were then celebrated. Literally, “they came
together zealously.” The amphitheatre itself was sacred to several of the
gods. [But (παρὰ τῷ ναῷ) the original
indicates the cella or shrine, in the centre of the amphitheatre
where the image of Pluto was exhibited. A plain cross, until the late
excavations, marked the very spot.] Or, “deposited.”
[The Greeks celebrate this martyrdom, to this day, on the twentieth of
December.] To the effect,
viz., that the martyrdom of Ignatius had been acceptable to God. Literally, “the visions of the
dreams.”
Discourse (p. 148) to his Genuine
Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers. Philadelphia, 1846. Works, ii. 250, note; and iv.
128.
On the Canon, vol. ii. p. 431. To those who may
adhere to the older opinion, let me commend the eloquent and instructive
chapter (xxiii.) in Farrar’s Life of St. Paul.
The Maccabæan spirit of the Jews never burned more
furiously than after the destruction of Jerusalem, and while it was
kindling the conflagration that broke out under Barchochebas, and blazed
so terribly in the insurrection against Hadrian. Hadrian’s purpose to rebuild their
city seems to be pointed out in chap. xvi.
It is interesting as a specimen of their conflicts with
a persistent Judaism which St. Paul had defeated and anathematized, but
which was ever cropping out among believers originally of the
Hebrews. M. Renan may be
read with pain, and yet with profit, in much that his Gallio-spirit
suggests on this subject. Chap. v., St. Paul, Paris, 1884.
It is to be observed that this writer sometimes speaks
as a Gentile, a fact which some have found it difficult to account for,
on the supposition that he was a Hebrew, if not a Levite as well. But so,
also, St. Paul sometimes speaks as a Roman, and sometimes as a Jew; and,
owing to the mixed character of the early Church, he writes to the
But the subject thus opened is vast; and “the Epistle of Barnabas,” so called, still awaits a critical editor, who at the same time shall be a competent expositor. Nobody can answer these requisitions, who is unable, for this purpose, to be a Christian of the days of Trajan.
But it will be observed that this version has great advantages over any of its predecessor, and is a valuable acquisition to the student. The learned translators have had before them the entire Greek text of the fourth century, disfigured it is true by corruptions, but still very precious, the rather as they have been able to compare it with the text of Hilgenfeld. Their editorial notes are sufficient for our own plan; and little has been left for me to do, according to the scheme of this publication, save to revise the “copy” for printing. I am glad to presume no further into such a labyrinth, concerning which the learned and careful Wake modestly professes, “I have endeavoured to attain to the sense of my author, and to make him as plain and easy as I was able. If in anything I have chanced to mistake him, I have only this to say for myself: that he must be better acquainted with the road than I pretend to be, who will undertake to travel so long a journey in the dark and never to miss his way.”
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following Epistle. The writer’s name is Barnabas, but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to the illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul. External and internal evidence here come into direct collision. The ancient writers who refer to this Epistle unanimously attribute it to Barnabas the Levite, of Cyprus, who held such an honourable place in the infant Church. Clement of Alexandria does so again and again (Strom., ii. 6, ii. 7, etc.). Origen describes it as “a Catholic Epistle” (Cont. Cels., i. 63), and seems to rank it among the Sacred Scriptures (Comm. in Rom., i. 24). Other statements have been quoted from the fathers, to show that they held this to be an authentic production of the apostolic Barnabas; and certainly no other name is ever hinted at in Christian antiquity as that of the writer. But notwithstanding this, the internal evidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this opinion. On perusing the Epistle, the reader will be in circumstances to judge of this matter for himself. He will be led to consider whether the spirit and tone of the writing, as so decidedly opposed to all respect for Judaism—the numerous inaccuracies which it contains with respect to Mosaic enactments and observances —the absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture which it suggests—and the many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges—can possibly comport with its ascription to the fellow—labourer of St. Paul. When it is remembered that no one ascribes the Epistle to the apostolic Barnabas till the times of Clement of Alexandria, and that it is ranked by Eusebius among the “spurious” writings, which, however much known and read in the Church, were never regarded as authoritative, little doubt can remain that the external evidence is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas the Apostle.
The date, object, and intended reader of the Epistle
can only be doubtfully inferred from some statements which it contains.
It was clearly written after the destruction of Jerusalem,
Until the recent discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by
Tischendorf, the first four and a half chapters were known only in an
ancient Latin version. The whole Greek text is now happily recovered,
though it is in many places very corrupt. We have compared its readings
throughout, and noted the principal variations from the text represented
in our version. We have also made frequent reference to the text adopted
by Hilgenfeld in his recent edition of the Epistle (Lipsiæ, T. O.
Weigel, 1886).
The Codex Sinaiticus has simply “Epistle of Barnabas” for title; Dressel gives, “Epistle of Barnabas the Apostle,” from the Vatican ms. of the Latin text.
The Cod. Sin. has simply, “the Lord.”
Seeing that the divine fruits Literally, “the judgments of God
being great and rich towards you;” but, as Hefele remarks, δικαίωμα seems here to
have the meaning of righteousness, as in This appears to be the meaning of the
Greek, and is confirmed by the ancient Latin version. Hilgenfeld,
however, following Cod. Sin., reads “thus,” instead of
“because,” and separates the clauses. The Latin reads,
“spirit infused into you from the honourable fountain of
God.” This sentence is entirely omitted in the Latin. The Latin text is here quite
different, and seems evidently corrupt. We have followed the Cod. Sin.,
as does Hilgenfeld. Literally, “in the hope of His
life.” The Greek is here totally unintelligible:
it seems impossible either to punctuate or construe it. We may attempt to
represent it as follows: “The doctrines of the Lord, then, are
three: Life, Faith, and Hope, our beginning and end; and Righteousness,
the beginning and the end of judgment; Love and Joy and the Testimony of
gladness for works of righteousness.” We have followed the ancient
Latin text, which Hilgenfeld also adopts, though Weitzäcker and others
prefer the Greek. Instead of
“knowledge” (γνώσεως), Cod. Sin.
has “taste” (γεύσεως). Literally, “we ought more richly and loftily to
approach His fear.” Instead of, “to Him with fear,” the reading
of Cod. Sin., the Latin has, “to His altar,” which Hilgenfeld
adopts.
The Latin
text is literally, “the adversary;” the Greek has, “and
he that worketh possesseth power;” Hilgenfeld reads, “he that
worketh against,” the idea expressed above being intended.
Or, “while these things continue, those which respect the Lord
rejoice in purity along with them—Wisdom,” etc.
Thus in the Latin. The Greek reads,
“might not have a man-made oblation.” The Latin text seems
preferable, implying that, instead of the outward sacrifices of the law,
there is now required a dedication of man himself. Hilgenfeld
follows the Greek. So the Greek. Hilgenfeld, with the Latin, omits
“not.” Literally, “sling us
out.”
The original here is χειροτονίαν, from the
LXX. Hefele remarks, that it may refer to the stretching forth of the
hands, either to swear falsely, or to mock and insult one’s
neighbour. The Greek is here unintelligible: the
Latin has, “that we should not rush on, as if proselytes to their
law.”
Or it might be rendered, “things
present.” Cotelerius reads, “de his instantibus.”
The Latin reads, “Daniel” instead of “Enoch;”
comp. We here follow the Latin text
in preference to the Greek, which reads merely, “the covenant is
ours.” What follows seems to show the correctness of the Latin, as
the author proceeds to deny that the Jews had any further interest in the
promises.
Literally, “in hope of His faith.” The Greek is here incorrect and unintelligible; and as
the Latin omits the clause, our translation is merely conjectural.
Hilgenfeld’s text, if we give a somewhat peculiar meaning to
ἐλλιπεῖν, may be
translated: “but as it is becoming in one who loves you not to fail
in giving you what we have, I, though the very offscouring of you, have
been eager to write to you.” So the Cod. Sin. Hilgenfeld
reads, with the Latin, “let us take.” The Latin here departs
entirely from the Greek text, and quotes as a saying of “the Son of
God” the following precept, nowhere to be found in the New
Testament: “Let us resist all iniquity, and hold it in
hatred.” Hilgenfeld joins this clause to the former sentence.
An exact quotation from
The Cod. Sin. reads, “neither would men have been
saved by seeing Him.” Cod. Sin. has, “their
prophets,” but the corrector has changed it as above. A very loose
reference to Cod. Sin. omits
“and,” and reads, “when they smite their own shepherd,
then the sheep of the pasture shall be scattered and fail.” Cod.
Sin. inserts “and.” These are inaccurate and
confused quotations from
The Latin omits “since,” but it is found in
all the Greek mss. Cod. Sin. has
“believe.” Comp.
Cod. Sin. reads, “What says the other prophet
Moses unto them?”
The original word is “Gnosis,” the knowledge
peculiar to advanced Christians, by which they understand the mysteries
of Scripture. Not
found in Scripture. Comp. The Greek is here very
elliptical and obscure: “His Spirit” is inserted above, from
the Latin. Cod. Sin. has “our fair
formation.” Cod. Sin. inserts,
“the Lord says.” Cod. Sin. has
“I make.” Not in Scripture, but comp.
Cod. Sin. inserts “Himself;”
comp. Comp. Comp. Cod. Sin. omits
“He says.” Cod.
Sin. omits “in the midst.” Cod. Sin. has
“But we said above.” These are specimens of the
“Gnosis,” or faculty of bringing out the hidden spiritual
meaning of Scripture referred to before. Many more such interpretations
follow.
Cod. Sin. reads “temple,”
which is adopted by Hilgenfeld.
Not to be found in Scripture, as is the case also with what follows.
Hefele remarks, that “certain false traditions respecting the
Jewish rites seem to have prevailed among the Christians of the second
century, of which Barnabas here adopts some, as do Justin (Dial. c.
Try. 40) and Tertullian (adv. Jud. 14; adv. Marc. iii.
7).” Cod. Sin. has “by them.” Cod. Sin.
reads, “what commanded He?” Cod. Sin. reads, “one as
a burnt-offering, and one for sins.” Cod. Sin. reads, “type of God,” but it has
been corrected to “Jesus.” In Cod. Sin. we find “Rachel.” The
orthography is doubtful, but there is little question that a kind of
bramble-bush is intended. Thus the
Latin interprets: others render “shoots.” Cod. Sin. has “thus” instead of
“this.”
Literally, “was.” The text is here in great confusion,
though the meaning is plain. Dressel reads, “For how are they
alike, and why [does He enjoin] that the goats should be good and
alike?” The Cod. Sin. reads, “How is He like Him? For this
that,” etc. Cod. Sin. here
inserts “the goat.” Cod. Sin. reads,
“for as he who … so, says he,” etc. Comp.
Literally, “men in whom sins are perfect.”
Of this, and much more that follows, no mention is made in Scripture. Cod. Sin. has
“upon sticks,” and adds, “Behold again the type of the
cross, both the scarlet wool and the hyssop,”—adopted by
Hilgenfeld. Cod. Sin. has,
“the law is Christ Jesus,” corrected to the above. The Greek
text is, “then no longer [sinful] men, no longer the glory of
sinners,” which Dressel defends and Hilgenfeld adopts, but which is
surely corrupt. Literally, “in witness
of the tribes.” “In witness of.” Thus the sense
seems to require, and thus Dressel translates, though it is difficult to
extract such a meaning from the Greek text.
Cod. Sin. has “Lord.” In proof of the spiritual meaning of
circumcision; but Hilgenfeld joins the words to the preceding
sentence. Cod.
Sin. reads, “it is the voice,” corrected, however, as
above. Cod. Sin.
has, “that we might hear the word, and not only believe,”
plainly a corrupt text. Cod. Sin., at
first hand, has “slew them,” but is corrected as above.
The meaning is here very obscure, but the above rendering and punctuation
seem preferable to any other. Cod. Sin., with several other mss., leaves out
“new.” This contrast seems to be
marked in the original. Cod. Sin. has, “Behold, receive
again.”
Dressel and Hilgenfeld read, “their
covenant,” as does Cod. Sin.; we have followed Hefele. Cod. Sin. has
“children of love,” omitting “richly,” and
inserting it before “looking forward.” Literally,
“doctrines.” Not found in Scripture: but comp.
Cod. Sin. inserts, “and
then making a pause.” This sentence is altogether omitted by
inadvertence in Cod. Sin.
Some mss. here read,
“and further:” the above is the reading in Cod. Sin., and is
also that of Hefele. This is
rendered in the Latin, “the more profound gift,” referring,
as it does, to the Gnosis of the initiated. The same word is used
in chap. i. Literally, “has learned a more germane (or
genuine) word from me,” being an idle vaunt on account of the
ingenuity in interpreting Scripture he has just displayed.
Cod.
Sin. has “portion,” corrected, however, as above. See
Literally, “in spirit.” Cod. Sin.
inserts, “and gaze about for some way of escape on account of their
greediness, even as these birds alone do not procure food for themselves
(by labour), but sitting idle, seek to devour the flesh of others.”
The text as above seems preferable: Hilgenfeld, however, follows the
Greek. Cod. Sin. has,
“condemned already.” Dressel has a note upon this passage, in
which he refers the words we have rendered, “corrupters of
boys,” to those who by their dissolute lives waste their fortunes,
and so entail destruction on their children; but this does not appear
satisfactory. Comp. Clem. Alex. Pædag. ii. 10. We have left τρύπας untranslated.
[Cavities, i.e., of conception]. Cod. Sin. has, “with the body through
uncleanness,” and so again in the last clause. Cod. Sin. inserts, “having received.” Literally, “of the
pestilent.” Cod. Sin. reads, “perfectly,”
instead of “perfect,” as do most mss.; but, according to Dressel,
we should read, “have a perfect knowledge concerning the
food.” Hilgenfeld follows the Greek. Or,
“resting upon Him.” Cod. Sin. here
has the singular, “one who ruminates.” Literally, “holy age.” Cod. Sin. inserts again, “rightly.”
Literally, “should
build.” Cod. Sin. has, “confine
still more,” corrected to “tremble still more.” Cod.
Sin. has, “have dug a pit of death.” See Comp.
Literally, “dark.” Cod. Sin. has, “of
darkness.” Cod. Sin. entirely
omits the question given above, and joins “the water is sure”
to the former sentence.
Cod. Sin. has, “what
meaneth?”
Omitted in Cod. Sin.
Cod. Sin. refers this to God, and
not to the prophet. From some unknown apocryphal
book. Hilgenfeld compares Cod. Sin. reads,
“He speaks to Moses.” Cod. Sin. omits
“and.” Cod. Sin. reads
πυγμῆς, which must
here be translated “heap” or “mass.” According to
Hilgenfeld, however, πυγμή is here
equivalent to πυγμαχία, “a
fight.” The meaning would then be, that “Moses piled weapon
upon weapon in the midst of the battle,” instead of
“hill” (πήγης), as above. Thus standing in the form of a cross. Or, as some read, “in
the cross.” Cod. Sin. has,
“and He shall make him alive.” Literally, “the sign.” Comp. Instead of ἐν
δοκῷ, “on a
beam,” Cod. Sin. with other mss. has ἐνδόξως,
“manifestly,” which is adopted by Hilgenfeld. Cod. Sin. simply reads,
“offer supplication.” Comp. Cod. Sin. has the imperative, “Put on him;”
but it is connected as above. Cod. Sin. closes the sentence with
Jesus, and inserts, “Moses said therefore to
Jesus.”
Comp. That is,
merely human: a reference is supposed to the Ebionites. Cod. Sin. corrects “to Cyrus,” as LXX. Cod. Sin. has, “he has taken
hold.”
That is,
“Christians.” Cod. Sin. reads each time
“Ephraim,” by a manifest mistake, instead of Manasseh. Cod. Sin.
reads each time “Ephraim,” by a manifest mistake, instead of
Manasseh.
Or, “of whom
he willed.” Cod. Sin. has,
“when alone believing,” and is followed by Hilgenfeld to this
effect: “What, then, says He to Abraham, when, alone believing, he
was placed in righteousness? Behold,” etc.
Cod. Sin. absurdly repeats “to give.”
Cod. Sin.
reads, “for themselves.” Comp.
Cod. Sin. and other mss. read, “through Him who
inherited.” Cod. Sin. refers
this to Christ. Cod. Sin. reads,
“be prepared.” Hilgenfeld follows Cod. Sin. so far, and
reads, “For it is written how the Father commanded Him who was to
redeem us from darkness (αὐτῷ—λυτρωσάμενος) to
prepare a holy people for Himself.”
Cod. Sin. has, “we
know.”
Cod. Sin. reads “because,” but this is
corrected to “moreover.”
Cod. Sin. reads
“signifies.” Cod.
Sin. adds, “to me.” Cod. Sin. reads,
“The day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years.” Cod. Sin. seems properly to
omit “of the wicked man.” Cod. Sin. places stars before moon. Cod. Sin.
reads “again,” but is corrected as above. The meaning
is, “If the Sabbaths of the Jews were the true Sabbath, we should
have been deceived by God, who demands pure hands and a pure
heart.”—Hefele. Cod. Sin.
has, “But if not.” Hilgenfeld’s text of this confused
passage reads as follows: “Who then can sanctify the day which God
has sanctified, except the man who is of a pure heart? We are deceived
(or mistaken) in all things. Behold, therefore,” etc. Cod. Sin.
reads, “resting aright, we shall sanctify it, having been
justified, and received the promise, iniquity no longer existing, but all
things having been made new by the Lord.” Cod. Sin. reads, “Shall
we not then?”
“Barnabas here bears testimony to the observance of the
Lord’s Day in early times.”—Hefele. We here follow the
punctuation of Dressel: Hefele places only a comma between the clauses,
and inclines to think that the writer implies that the ascension of
Christ took place on the first day of the week.
That is, “they
worshipped the temple instead of Him.”
Comp. Cod. Sin.
omits this.
Comp. Cod. Sin. reads, “the
calling.” Cod. Sin. gives the clauses of this sentence separately,
each occupying a line. That is, the
man who is engaged in preaching the Gospel. Such is the
punctuation adopted by Hefele, Dressel, and Hilgenfeld.
As far as was possible, and could be done with
perspicuity, I cherish the hope that, according to my desire, I have
omitted none Cod. Sin.
reads, “my soul hopes that it has not omitted anything.” Cod. Sin.,
“about things present or future.” Hilgenfeld’s text of
this passage is as follows: “My mind and soul hopes that, according
to my desire, I have omitted none of the things that pertain to
salvation. For if I should write to you about things present or
future,” etc. Hefele gives the text as above, and understands the
meaning to be, “points bearing on the present
argument.”
Comp.
Cod. Sin.
reads, “of the present time of iniquity.”
Cod. Sin. inserts,
“Thou shalt fear Him that formed thee.” Cod. Sin. adds,
“in all things.” Literally, “shalt not give
insolence to thy soul.” “That is, while
proclaiming the Gospel, thou shalt not in any way be of corrupt
morals.”—Hefele.
Comp.
Cod. Sin. has “thy name,” but this is corrected as above. Cod.
Sin. corrects to, “as thine own soul.” Cod. Sin. has, “of God.”
“Difficulties,” or “troubles.” Cod.
Sin. adds, “knowing that without God nothing happens.” Cod. Sin. has,
“talkative,” and omits the following clause. Cod. Sin. has, “Thou
shalt be subject (ὑποταγήσῃ—
untouched by the corrector) to masters as a type of God.” Inserted in Cod. Sin. Cod. Sin. has, “they should not.” Comp. Comp. Cod. Sin. has, “and not call.” Cod. Sin.
has, “in that which is incorruptible.” Cod. Sin. has, “in
things that are subject to death,” but is corrected as above. Or, “the
persons of the saints.” Cod. Sin. omits this clause, but it is
added by the corrector. The text is here confused in
all the editions; we have followed that of Dressel. Cod. Sin. is
defective. Hilgenfeld’s text reads, “Thou shalt seek out
every day the faces of the saints, either labouring by word and going to
exhort them, and meditating to save a soul by the word, or by thy hands
thou shalt labour for the redemption of thy sins”—almost
identical with that given above. Cod. Sin. omits this
quotation from Cod. Sin. has, “hate evil.” Cod. Sin. inserts
“and.” Cod. Sin. omits this clause: it is
inserted by a corrector.
Literally,
“of the Black One.” Cod. Sin. joins “eternal” with way,
instead of death. Cod. Sin. reads “transgressions.” Cod. Sin. omits “magic,
avarice.”
Cod. Sin. omits
“therefore.” The things condemned in the previous chapter. Cod.
Sin. has “resurrections,” but is corrected as above. Cod. Sin. has,
“lawgivers of good things.” Cod. Sin. omits the
preposition. Cod. Sin. omits this. Cod. Sin. reads, “that ye may be found in the day
of judgment,” which Hilgenfeld adopts.
Literally, “While yet the good vessel is with you,” i.e., as
long as you are in the body. Cod. Sin. reads,
“fail not in any one of yourselves,” which is adopted by
Hilgenfeld. Corrected in Cod. Sin. to, “it is
worthy.” Cod. Sin. omits this clause, but it is inserted by the
corrector. Cod. Sin. omits
“Amen,” and adds at the close, “Epistle of
Barnabas.”
See Lardner, ii. p. 119. Against
Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. See the prudent note of Canon
Robertson (History of the Christ. Church, vol. i. p. 116).
Papias has the credit of association with Polycarp, in the friendship of St. John himself, and of “others who had seen the Lord.” He is said to have been bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, and to have died about the same time that Polycarp suffered; but even this is questioned. So little do we know of one whose lost books, could they be recovered, might reverse the received judgment, and establish his claim to the disputed tribute which makes him, like Apollos, “an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures.”
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
The principal information in regard to Papias is given in the extracts made among the fragments from the works of Irenæus and Eusebius. He was bishop of the Church in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia, in the first half of the second century. Later writers affirm that he suffered martyrdom about a.d. 163; some saying that Rome, others that Pergamus, was the scene of his death. He was a hearer of the Apostle John, and was on terms of intimate intercourse with many who had known the Lord and His apostles. From these he gathered the floating traditions in regard to the sayings of our Lord, and wove them into a production divided into five books. This work does not seem to have been confined to an exposition of the sayings of Christ, but to have contained much historical information.
Hist. Eccl., iii. 39. Ibid. [Where the fragments with learned
annotations and elucidations fill forty-four pages.]
This fragment is found in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
[The
writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these
are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes
mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following
words: “Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by
Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of
Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by
him.” Thus wrote Irenæus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the
introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a
hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he
received the truths of our religion Literally, “the things of faith.”
But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my
interpretations, Papias
states that he will give an exact account of what the elders said; and
that, in addition to this, he will accompany this account with an
explanation of the meaning and import of the statements. Literally, “commandments belonging to
others,” and therefore strange and novel to the followers of
Christ.
Given to faith has been variously understood. Either not stated in
direct language, but like parables given in figures, so that only the
faithful could understand; or entrusted to faith, that is, to those who
were possessed of faith, the faithful. Which things: this is
usually translated, “what Aristion and John say;” and the
translation is admissible. But the words more naturally mean, that John
and Aristion, even at the time of his writing, were telling him some of
the sayings of the Lord.
This fragment is found in the Scholia of Maximus on the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.
Literally, “a guilelessness according to
God.”
This fragment is found in Œcumenius.
Literally,
“great.” Literally,
“were emptied out.” Theophylact, after quoting this passage,
adds other particulars, as if they were derived from Papias. [But see
Routh, i. pp. 26, 27.] He says that Judas’s eyes were so swollen
that they could not be seen, even by the optical instruments of
physicians; and that the rest of his body was covered with runnings and
worms. He further states, that he died in a solitary spot, which was left
desolate until his time; and no one could pass the place without stopping
up his nose with his hands.
From Irenæus, Hær., v. 32. [Hearsay at second-hand, and handed about among many, amounts to nothing as evidence. Note the reports of sermons, also, as they appear in our daily Journals. Whose reputation can survive if such be credited?]
[See Grabe, apud Routh, 1. 29.]
This fragment is found in Irenæus, Hær., v. 36; but it is a mere guess that the saying of the presbyters is taken from the work of Papias.
In
the future state. The new Jerusalem on earth.
Commentators suppose that the reference
here is to
From Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 39.
[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he
received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and
he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter
John. [A certain
presbyter, of whom see Apost. Constitutions, vii. 46, where he is
said to have been ordained by St. John, the Evangelist.] “In his day” may mean “in the days of
Papias,” or “in the days of Philip.” As the narrative
came from the daughters of Philip, it is more likely that Philip’s
days are meant. [Again, note the reduplicated hearsay. Not
even Irenæus, much less Eusebius, should be accepted, otherwise than as
retailing vague reports.]
Rufinus supposes this story to be the same as that now found in the
textus receptus of Gospel of
This extract is made from Andreas Cæsariensis, [Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappodocia, circiter, A.D. 500].
Papias thus speaks, word for word: To some of
them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He
commissioned them to exercise their dominion well. And he says,
immediately after this: but it happened that their arrangement came
to nothing. That is, that
government of the world’s affairs was a failure. An ancient writer
takes τάξις to mean the
arraying of the evil angels in battle against God.
This also is taken from Andreas Cæsariensis. [See Lardner, vol. v. 77.]
This fragment, or rather reference, is taken from Anastasius Sinaita. Routh gives, as another fragment, the repetition of the same statement by Anastasius.
Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantænus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.
This fragment was found by Grabe in a ms. of the Bodleian Library, with the inscription on the margin, “Papia.” Westcott states that it forms part of a dictionary written by “a mediæval Papias. [He seems to have added the words, “Maria is called Illuminatrix, or Star of the Sea,” etc, a middle-age device.] The dictionary exists in ms. both at Oxford and Cambridge.”
And this is the epoch which forced this great truth upon the attention of contemplative minds. It was more than a hundred years since the angels had sung “Good-will to men;” and that song had now been heard for successive generations, breaking forth from the lips of sufferers on the cross, among lions, and amid blazing faggots. Here was a nobler Stoicism that needed interpretation. Not only choice spirits, despising the herd and boasting of a loftier intellectual sphere, were its professors; but thousands of men, women, and children, withdrawing themselves not at all from the ordinary and humble lot of the people, were inspired by it to live and die heroically and sublimely, —exhibiting a superiority to revenge and hate entirely unaccountable, praying for their enemies, and seeking to glorify their God by love to their fellow-men.
And in spite of Gallios and Neros alike, the gospel was
dispelling the gross darkness. Of this, Pliny’s letter to Trajan is
decisive evidence. Even in Seneca we detect reflections of the daybreak.
Plutarch writes as never a Gentile could have written until now. Plato is
practically surpassed by him in his thoughts upon the “delays See Amyot’s translation,
and a more modern one by De Maistre (Œuvres, vol. ii. Paris,
1833). An edition of The Delays (the original, with notes by
Professor Hackett) has appeared in America (Andover, circ., 1842),
and is praised by Tayler Lewis.
He quotes
Plato’s reference, e.g., to the X.; but the Orientals delighted in
such conceits. Compare the Hebrew critics on the ה (in
He wore his philosopher’s gown after his
conversion, as a token that he had attained the only true philosophy. And
seeing, that, after the conflicts and tests of ages, it is the only
philosophy that lasts and lives and triumphs, its discoverer deserves the
homage of mankind. Of the philosophic gown we shall hear again when we
come to Tertullian. It
survives in the pulpits of Christendom—Greek, Latin, Anglican,
Lutheran, etc.—to this day, in slightly different forms.
The residue of Justin’s history may be found in The Martyrdom and other pages soon to follow, as well as in the following Introductory Note of the able translators, Messrs. Dods and Reith:—
Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, the modern Nablous. The date of his birth is uncertain, but may be fixed about a.d. 114. His father and grandfather were probably of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity he studied in the schools of the philosophers, searching after some knowledge which should satisfy the cravings of his soul. At last he became acquainted with Christianity, being at once impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death, and with the grandeur, stability, and truth of the teachings of the Old Testament. From this time he acted as an evangelist, taking every opportunity to proclaim the gospel as the only safe and certain philosophy, the only way to salvation. It is probable that he travelled much. We know that he was some time in Ephesus, and he must have lived for a considerable period in Rome. Probably he settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. While he was there, the philosophers, especially the Cynics, plotted against him, and he sealed his testimony to the truth by martyrdom.
The principal facts of Justin’s life are gathered from his own writings. There is little clue to dates. It is agreed on all hands that he lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and the testimony of Eusebius and most credible historians renders it nearly certain that he suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The Chronicon Paschale gives as the date 165 a.d.
The writings of Justin Martyr are among the most important that have come down to us from the second century. He was not the first that wrote an Apology in behalf of the Christians, but his Apologies are the earliest extant. They are characterized by intense Christian fervour, and they give us an insight into the relations existing between heathens and Christians in those days. His other principal writing, the Dialogue with Trypho, is the first elaborate exposition of the reasons for regarding Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and the first systematic attempt to exhibit the false position of the Jews in regard to Christianity.
Many of Justin’s writings have perished. Those works which have come to us bearing his name have been divided into three classes.
The second class consists of those works which are regarded by some critics as Justin’s, and by others as not his. They are: 1. An Address to the Greeks; 2. A Hortatory Address to the Greeks; 3. On the Sole Government of God; 4. An Epistle to Diognetus; 5. Fragments from a work on the Resurrection; 6. And other Fragments. Whatever difficulty there may be in settling the authorship of these treatises, there is but one opinion as to their earliness. The latest of them, in all probability, was not written later than the third century.
The third class consists of those that are unquestionably not the works of Justin. These are: 1. An Exposition of the True Faith; 2. Replies to the Orthodox; 3. Christian Questions to Gentiles; 4. Gentile Questions to Christians; 5. Epistle to Zenas and Serenus; and 6. A Refutation of certain Doctrines of Aristotle. There is no clue to the date of the two last. There can be no doubt that the others were written after the Council of Nicæa, though, immediately after the Reformation, Calvin and others appealed to the first as a genuine writing of Justin’s.
There is a curious question connected with the Apologies of Justin which have come down to us. Eusebius mentions two Apologies,—one written in the reign of Antoninus Pius, the other in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Critics have disputed much whether we have these two Apologies in those now extant. Some have maintained, that what is now called the Second Apology was the preface of the first, and that the second is lost. Others have tried to show, that the so-called Second Apology is the continuation of the first, and that the second is lost. Others have supposed that the two Apologies which we have are Justin’s two Apologies, but that Eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus Aurelius; and others maintain, that we have in our two Apologies the two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and that our first is his first, and our second his second.
Literally, “the opinions of the
ancients.”
But lest any one think that this is an unreasonable and
reckless utterance, we demand that the charges against the Christians be
investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as
they deserve; [or rather, indeed, we ourselves will punish them.] Thirlby regarded the clause in
brackets as an interpolation. There is considerable variety of opinion as
to the exact meaning of the words amongst those who regard them as
genuine. Plat. Rep., v. 18. That is to say, if the Christians refused or neglected
to make their real opinions and practices known, they would share the
guilt of those whom they thus kept in darkness.
By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided,
either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and
indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of,
we are most excellent people. Justin avails himself here of the similarity in sound of
the words Χριστὸς (Christ) and
χρηστὸς (good, worthy,
excellent). The play upon these words is kept up throughout this
paragraph, and cannot be always represented to the English reader. [But
Justin was merely quoting and using, ad hominem, the popular
blunder of which Suetonius (Life of Claudius, cap. 25) gives us an
example, “impulsore Chresto.” It will be observed
again in others of these Fathers.]
[ The word
δαίμων means in Greek
a god, but the Christians used the word to signify an evil spirit. Justin
uses the same word here for god and demon. The connection which Justin
and other Christian writers supposed to exist between evil spirits and
the gods of the heathens will be apparent from Justin’s own
statements. The word διάβολος, devil,
is not applied to these demons. There is but one devil, but many
demons. The word δαίμων means in Greek
a god, but the Christians used the word to signify an evil spirit. Justin
uses the same word here for god and demon. The connection which Justin
and other Christian writers supposed to exist between evil spirits and
the gods of the heathens will be apparent from Justin’s own
statements. The word διάβολος, devil,
is not applied to these demons. There is but one devil, but many
demons.
Hence are we called atheists. This is the literal and obvious
translation of Justin’s words. But from c. 13, 16, and 61, it is evident
that he did not desire to inculcate the worship of angels. We are
therefore driven to adopt another translation of this passage, even
though it be somewhat harsh. Two such translations have been proposed:
the first connecting “us” and “the host of the other
good angels” as the common object of the verb “taught;”
the second connecting “these things” with “the host
of,” etc., and making these two together the subject taught. In the
first case the translation would stand, “taught these things to us
and to the host,” etc.; in the second case the translation would
be, “taught us about these things, and about the host of the others
who follow Him, viz. the good angels.” [I have ventured to insert
parenthetic marks in the text, an obvious and simple resource to suggest
the manifest intent of the author. Grabe’s note in loc.
gives another and very ingenious exegesis, but the simplest is best.]
But some one will say, Some have ere now been arrested
and convicted as evil-doers. For
i.e., according to Otto, “not on
account of the sincere Christians of whom we have been speaking.”
According to Trollope, “not on account of (or at the instigation
of) the demons before mentioned.” Or, “as a Christian who has done no
wrong.” Compare the
Rescript of Adrian appended to this Apology.
Literally, “persuaded God.”
[
What sober-minded man, then, will not acknowledge that
we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and
declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of
blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our
power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith
we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is
worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being
for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and
with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns πομπὰς
καὶ ὕμνους. “Grabe,
and it should seem correctly, understands πομπὰς
to be solemn prayers. … He also remarks, that the ὕμνοι were either
psalms of David, or some of those psalms and songs made by the primitive
Christians, which are mentioned in Eusebius, H. E., v. 28.”
—Trollope.
Literally,
“would not use the same hearth or fire.” See the end of
chap. xii.
The reader will
notice that Justin quotes from memory, so that there are some slight
discrepancies between the words of Jesus as here cited, and the same
sayings as recorded in our Gospels.
διγαμίας ποιούμενοι, lit.
contracting a double marriage. Of double marriages there are three kinds:
the first, marriage with a second wife while the first is still alive and
recognised as a lawful wife, or bigamy; the second, marriage with a
second wife after divorce from the first, and third, marriage with a
second wife after the death of the first. It is thought that Justin here
refers to the second case.
i.e., Christian neighbours.
φόρους καὶ εἰσφοράς. The
former is the annual tribute; the latter, any occasional assessment. See
Otto’s Note, and Thucyd. iii. 19.
For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding
kings, how they died the death common to all, which, if it issued in
insensibility, would
ἓρμαιον, a piece
of unlooked-for luck, Hermes being the reputed giver of such gifts:
vid. Liddell and Scott’s Lex.; see also the
Scholiast, quoted by Stallbaum in Plato’s Phæd., p. 107, on
a passage singularly analogous to this. Boys and girls, or even children prematurely taken from
the womb, were slaughtered, and their entrails inspected, in the belief
that the souls of the victims (being still conscious, as Justin is
arguing) would reveal things hidden and future. Instances are abundantly
cited by Otto and Trollope. This form of
spirit-rapping was familiar to the ancients, and Justin again (Dial.
c. Tryph., c. 105) uses the invocation of Samuel by the witch of
Endor as a proof of the immortality of the soul. Valesius (on
Euseb. H. E., iv. 7) states that the magi had two kinds of
familiars: the first, who were sent to inspire men with dreams which
might give them intimations of things future; and the second, who were
sent to watch over men, and protect them from diseases and misfortunes.
The first, he says, they called (as here) ὀνειροπομπούς, and the
second παρέδρους. Justin is not the only author in ancient
or recent times who has classed dæmoniacs and maniacs together; neither
does he stand alone among the ancients in the opinion that dæmoniacs
were possessed by the spirits of departed men. References will be found
in Trollope’s note. [See this matter more fully illustrated in
Kaye’s Justin Martyr, pp. 105–111.] See the Odyssey, book
xi. line 25, where Ulysses is described as digging a pit or trench with
his sword, and pouring libations, in order to collect around him the
souls of the dead.
And to any thoughtful person would anything appear more
incredible, than, if we were not in the body, and some one were to say
that it was possible that from a small drop of human seed bones and
sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such as we see? For let this now
be said hypothetically: if you yourselves were not such as you now are,
and born of such parents [and causes], and one were to show you human
seed and a picture of a man, and were to say with confidence that from
such a substance such a being could be produced, would you believe before
you saw the actual production? No one will dare to deny [that such a
statement would surpass belief]. In the same way, then, you are now
incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again. But as at
first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be
produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so
also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after
they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in
God’s appointed time rise again and put on incorruption. For what
power worthy of God those imagine who say, that each thing returns to
that from which it was produced, and that beyond this not even God
Himself can do anything, we are unable to conceive; but this we see
clearly, that they would not have believed it possible that they could
have become such and produced from such materials, as they now see both
themselves and the whole world to be. And that it is better to believe
even what is impossible to our own nature and to men, than to be
unbelieving like the rest of the world, we have learned; for we know that
our Master Jesus Christ said, that “what is impossible with men is
possible with God,”
The Sibylline Oracles are now
generally regarded as heathen fragments largely interpolated by
unscrupulous men during the early ages of the Church. For an interesting
account of these somewhat perplexing documents, see Burton’s
Lectures on the Ecclesiastical History of the First Three
Centuries, Lect. xvii. The prophecies of Hystaspes were also commonly
appealed to as genuine by the early Christians. [See (on the Sibyls and
Justin M.) Casaubon, Exercitationes, pp. 65 and 80. This work is a
most learned and diversified thesaurus, in the form of strictures
on Card. Baronius. Geneva, 1663.]
i.e.,
first-born. διαφορὰν καὶ προτροπήν. The irony
here is so obvious as to make the proposed reading (διαφθορὰν
καὶ παρατροπήν, corruption
and depravation) unnecessary. Otto prefers the reading adopted above.
Trollope, on the other hand, inclines to the latter reading, mainly on
the score of the former expressions being unusual. See his very sensible
note in loc.
The Benedictine editor, Maranus, Otto, and
Trollope, here note that Justin in this chapter promises to make good
three distinct positions: 1st, That Christian doctrines alone are true,
and are to be received, not on account of their resemblance to the
sentiments of poets and philosophers, but on their own account; 2d, that
Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God, and our teacher; 3d, that before
His incarnation, the demons, having some knowledge of what He would
accomplish, enabled the heathen poets and priestis in some points to
anticipate, though in a distorted form, the facts of the incarnation. The
first he establishes in chap. xxiv-xxix.; the second in chap. xxx.-liii.;
and the third in chap. liv. et sq. We have here
followed the reading and rendering of Trollope. [But see reading of
Langus, and Grabe’s note, in the edition already cited, 1. 46.]
ἐν γραφαῖς στεφάνους. The
only conjecture which seems at all probable is that of the Benedictine
editor followed here. [Grabe after Salmasius reads ἐν ῥαφαῖς and quotes
Martial, Sutilis aptetur rosa crinibus. Translate,
“patch-work garlands.”]
i.e., on account of the assistance gained
for him by Thetis, and in return for it.
And, thirdly, because after Christ’s ascension
into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they
themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but
even deemed worthy of honours. It is very generally supposed
that Justin was mistaken in understanding this to have been a statue
erected to Simon Magus. This supposition rests on the fact that in the
year 1574, there was dug up in the island of the Tiber a fragment of
marble, with the inscription “Semoni Sanco Deo,” etc., being
probably the base of a statue erected to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus.
This inscription Justin is supposed to have mistaken for the one he gives
above. This has always seemed to us very slight evidence on which to
reject so precise a statement as Justin here makes; a statement which he
would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every
person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy. If, as is supposed, he
made a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other writers
would not have so frequently repeated the story as they have done. See
Burton’s Bampton Lectures, p. 374. [See Note in Grabe (1.
51), and also mine, at the end.]
See chap. vii. Which were commonly charged against the
Christians.
Thirlby remarks
that the serpent was the symbol specially of eternity, of power, and of
wisdom, and that there was scarcely any divine attribute to which the
heathen did not find some likeness in this animal. See also
Hardwick’s Christ and other Masters, vol. ii. 146 (2d
ed.). [Note how he retaliates upon
the calumny (cap. xxvi.) of the “upsetting of the lamp.”]
Literally, “For He foreknows some about to be saved by repentance,
and some not yet perhaps born.” Those things which concern the salvation of man; so
Trollope and the other interpreters, except Otto, who reads τούτων masculine, and
understands it of the men first spoken of. [See Plato (De Legibus,
opp. ix. p. 98, Bipont., 1786), and the valuable edition of Book X. by
Professor Tayler Lewis (p. 52. etc.). New York, 1845.]
For a sufficient account of the infamous history here
alluded to and the extravagant grief of Hadrian, and the servility of the
people, see Smith’s Dictionary of Biography:
“Antinous.” [Note, “all were prompt, through
fear,” etc. Thus we may measure the defiant intrepidity of this
stinging sarcasm addressed to the “philosophers,” with whose
sounding titles this Apology begins.]
Some attribute this blunder in
chronology to Justin, others to his transcribers: it was Eleazar the high
priest to whom Ptolemy applied.
Grabe
would here read, not σπέρμα, but
πνεῦμα, the spirit;
but the Benedictine, Otto, and Trollope all think that no change should
be made.
θεοφοροῦνται, lit. are
borne by a god—a word used of those who were supposed to be
wholly under the influence of a deity.
These
predictions have so little reference to the point Justin intends to make
out, that some editors have supposed that a passage has here been lost.
Others think the irrelevancy an insufficient ground for such a
supposition. [See below, cap. xl.]
ἄκτων. These Acts
of Pontius Pilate, or regular accounts of his procedure sent by Pilate to
the Emperor Tiberius, are supposed to have been destroyed at an early
period, possibly in consequence of the unanswerable appeals which the
Christians constantly made to them. There exists a forgery in imitation
of these Acts. See Trollope. The reader will notice that
these are not the words of Zephaniah, but of Zechariah (ix. 9), to whom
also Justin himself refers them in the Dial. Tryph., c. 53. [Might
be corrected in the text, therefore, as a clerical slip of the pen.]
And that this too may be clear to you, there were
spoken from the person of the Father through Isaiah the prophet, the
following words: “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his
master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, and My people hath not
understood. Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed,
children that are transgressors, ye have forsaken the Lord.”
Comp.
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting
things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: “For out of
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And
He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.” Eurip., Hipp., 608.
A chronological error, whether of the copyist or of
Justin himself cannot be known.
Or, “but were made so.” The
words are, ἀλλὰ
τοῦτο γενόμενος and the
meaning of Justin is sufficiently clear.
Plato, Rep. x. [On this remarkable passage refer to Biog. Note above.
See, also, brilliant note of the sophist De Maistre, Œuvres, ii.
p. 105. Ed. Paris, 1853.] [On the Orphica and Sibyllina, see Bull, Works, vol. vi.
pp. 291–298.]
So, Thirlby,
Otto, and Trollope seem all to understand the word κατέχειν; yet it
seems worth considering whether Justin has not borrowed both the sense
and the word from Or, “before
the morning star.”
But lest some should, without reason, and for the
perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born
one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the
time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out
against us as though all men who were born before Him were
irresponsible--let let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. μετὰ
λόγου, “with
reason,” or “the Word.” [This remarkable passage on the
salvability and accountability of the heathen is noteworthy. See, on St.
[Ad hominem, referring to the cruel
decree of Hadrian, which the philosophic Antonines did not annul.]
And that the Spirit of prophecy might signify to us
that He who suffers these things has an ineffable origin, and rules His
enemies, He spake thus: “His generation who shall declare? because
His life is cut off from the earth: for their transgressions He comes to
death. And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His
death; because He did no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.
And the Lord is pleased to cleanse Him from the stripe. If He be given
for sin, your soul shall see His seed
This prophecy occurs not in Jeremiah, but in
Though we could bring forward many other prophecies, we
forbear, judging these sufficient for the persuasion of those who have
ears to hear and understand; and considering also that those persons are
able to see that we do not make mere assertions without being able to
produce proof, like those fables that are told of the so-called sons of
Jupiter.
The following
words are found, not in Isaiah, but in
In the ms.
the reading is οἶνον (wine); but as
Justin’s argument seems to require ὄνον (an
ass), Sylburg inserted this latter word in his edition; and this reading
is approved by Grabe and Thirlby, and adopted by Otto and Trollope. It
may be added, that ἀναγράφουσι
is much more suitable to ὄνον than to οἶνον.
From [The Orientals delight in such refinements, but the
“scandal of the cross” led the early Christians thus to
retort upon the heathen; and the Labarum may have been the fruit
of this very suggestion.]
[See cap. xxvi. above, and note p. 187, below.]
Comp.
Literally, “that which is treated physiologically.” He impressed him as a χιασμα, i.e., in the
form of the letter χ upon the universe.
Plato is speaking of the soul of the universe. [Timæus, Opp., vol. ix.
p. 314. And see note of Langus (p. 37) on p. 113 of Grabe. Here crops out
the Platonic philosopher speaking after the fashion of his
contemporaries, perhaps to conciliate his sovereign. See Professor
Jowett’s Introduction to the Timæus, which will aid the
students.]
Τὰ δὲ τρίτα περὶ τὸν τρίτον.
Chap. xliv.
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
Thirlby conjectures that Justin here
confused in his mind the histories of Moses and Jacob.
[Rather,
“of your empire.”]
Chap.
lix. And therefore
caused her to preside over the waters, as above.
The kiss of charity, the kiss
of peace, or “the peace” (ἡ εἰπήνη), was enjoined by the
Apostle Paul in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and
Romans, and thence passed into a common Christian usage. It was continued
in the Western Church, under regulations to prevent its abuse, until the
thirteenth century. Stanley remarks (Corinthians, i. 414),
“It is still continued in the worship of the Coptic
Church.” τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν. This
expression may quite legitimately be translated, “to that one of
the brethren who was presiding.”
Literally, thanksgiving. See
This passage is claimed alike by Calvinists, Lutherans,
and Romanists; and, indeed, the language is so inexact, that each party
may plausibly maintain that their own opinion is advocated by it. [But
the same might be said of the words of our Lord himself; and, if such
widely separated Christians can all adopt this passage, who can be
sorry?] The expression, “the prayer of His word,” or of the
word we have from Him, seems to signify the prayer pronounced over the
elements, in imitation of our Lord’s thanksgiving before breaking
the bread. [I must dissent from the opinion that the language is
“inexact:” he expresses himself naturally as one who believes
it is bread, but yet not “common bread.” So Gelasius, Bishop
of Rome (a.d. 490),
“By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and
yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in
them,” etc. (See original in Bingham’s Antiquities,
book xv. cap. 5. See Chryost., Epist. ad. Cæsarium, tom. iii. p.
753. Ed. Migne.) Those desirous to pursue this inquiry will find the
Patristic authorities in Historia Transubstantionis Papalis, etc.,
Edidit F. Meyrick, Oxford, 1858. The famous tractate of Ratranin
(a.d. 840) was published at
Oxford, 1838, with the homily of Ælfric (a.d. 960) in a cheap
edition.]
τῇ τοῦ ῾Ηλίου λεγομένη ἡμέρᾳ. ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ,—a phrase
over which there has been much contention, but which seems to admit of no
other meaning than that given above. [No need of any
“contention.” Langus renders, Pro virili suâ, and
Grabe illustrates by reference to Apost. Const., lib. viii. cap.
12. Our own learned translators render the same phrase (cap. xiii.,
above) “to the utmost of our power.” Some say this favours
extemporary prayers, and others object. Oh! what matter either way? We
all sing hymns, “according to our ability.”] Or, of the eucharistic
elements.
And if these things seem to you to be reasonable and true, honour them; but if they seem nonsensical, despise them as nonsense, and do not decree death against those who have done no wrong, as you would against enemies. For we forewarn you, that you shall not escape the coming judgment of God, if you continue in your injustice; and we ourselves will invite you to do that which is pleasing to God. And though from the letter of the greatest and most illustrious Emperor Adrian, your father, we could demand that you order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we have made this appeal and explanation, not on the ground of Adrian’s decision, but because we know that what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of Adrian’s epistle, that you may know that we are speaking truly about this. And the following is the copy:—
Addressed to Minucius Fundanus. [Generally credited as genuine.]
[Regarded as spurious.]
That is, if any one accuses a Christian
merely on the ground of his being a Christian.
[Spurious, no doubt; but the literature of the subject is very rich. See text and notes, Milman’s Gibbon, vol. ii. 46.]
Literally, “fiery.” In 1851 I recognised this stone in the
Vatican, and read it with emotion. I copied it, as follows: “Semoni The explanation is possibly
this: Simon Magus was actually recognised as the God Semo, just as
Barnabas and Paul were supposed to be Zeus and Hermes ( Note II. (The
Thundering Legion.) The bas-relief on the column
of Antonine, in Rome, is a very striking complement of the story, but an
answer to prayer is not a miracle. I simply transcribe from the American
Translation of Alzog’s Universal Church History the
references there given to the Legio Fulminatrix: “Tertull.,
Apol., cap. 5; Ad Scap., cap. 4; Euseb., v. 5; Greg. Nyss. Or., II in
Martyr.; Oros., vii. 15; Dio. Cass. Epit.: Xiphilin., lib. lxxi. cap. 8;
Jul. Capitol, in Marc. Antonin., cap. 24.”]
Sanco
Deo Fidio
Sacrvm
Sex. Pompeius. S. P. F. Col. Mussianvs.
Quinquennalis Decur Bidentalis Donum Dedit.”
Literally,
“both yesterday and the day before.”
[See Grabe’s note on the conjecture of Valesius that this prefect
was Lollius Urbicus, the historian (vol. i. p. 1. and notes, p. 1).] [He has addressed them as “Romans,” because
in this they gloried together,—emperor, senate, soldiers, and
citizens.]
ἀκολασταίνοντι,
which word includes unchastity, as well as the other forms of
intemperance. [As we say, dissolute.]
ῥεπούδιον, i.e.,
“repudium,” a bill of repudiation. [Rather,
“to thee, autocrat:” a very bold apostrophe, like that of
Huss to the Emperor Sigismund, which crimsoned his forehead with a blush
of shame.] i.e., Ptolemæus. On this passage, see Donaldson’s Critical
History, etc., vol. ii. p. 79.
Words resembling
“philosopher” in sound, viz. φιλοψόφου
καὶ φιλοκόμπου. [This
passage is found elsewhere. See note, cap. viii., in the text preferred
by Grabe.] φιλόδοξος, which may
mean a lover of vainglory. See Plato, Rep., p. 595.
This is Dr.
Donaldson’s rendering of a clause on which the editors differ both
as to reading and rendering.
Literally, “becoming (γινόμενον) both
through the parts and through the whole in every wickedness.”
[Here, in Grabe’s text, comes in the passage about
Crescens.]
These words can be taken of
the Logos as well as of the right reason diffused among men by Him.
Plato, Rep.,
x. c. i. p. 595. Plat., Timæus, p. 28,
C. (but “possible,” and not “safe,” is the word
used by Plato). [Certainly the author of this chapter, and others like
it, cannot be accused of a feeble rhetoric.]
Another reading is πρὸς τὰς ὄψεις, referring to
the eyes of the beholder; and which may be rendered, “speedily
fascinating to the sight.” Καὶ φευκτοῦ θανάτου may also
be rendered, “even of death which men flee from.”
Alluding to the common accusation against the
Christians. Literally, “with a
tragic voice,”—the loud voice in which the Greek tragedies
were recited through the mask [persona].
The word disseminated among men. [St.
Literally, dimly seen at a distance.
And we therefore pray you to publish this little book, appending what you think right, that our opinions may be known to others, and that these persons may have a fair chance of being freed from erroneous notions and ignorance of good, who by their own fault are become subject to punishment; that so these things may be published to men, because it is in the nature of man to know good and evil; and by their condemning us, whom they do not understand, for actions which they say are wicked, and by delighting in the gods who did such things, and even now require similar actions from men, and by inflicting on us death or bonds or some other such punishment, as if we were guilty of these things, they condemn themselves, so that there is no need of other judges.
[Simon Magus appears to be one with whom Justin is
perfectly familiar, and hence we are not to conclude rashly that he
blundered as to the divine honours rendered to him as the Sabine
God.] [Another apostrophe, and a home thrust for “Pius
the philosopher” and the emperor.]
This Xystus, on the authority of Euseb. (iv. 18), was at
Ephesus. There, Philostratus mentions, Appolonius was wont to have
disputations.—Otto.
And he replied, “I was instructed,” says he
“by Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, that I ought not to despise or
treat with indifference those who array themselves in this dress Euseb. (iv. 11): “Justin,
in philosopher’s garb, preached the word of God.”
“But who are you, most excellent man?” So I
replied to him in jest. In
jest, no doubt, because quoting a line from Homer, Il., vi. 123.
τίς δὲ σύ ἐσσι, φέριστε, καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Then he told me frankly both his name and his family.
“Trypho,” says he, “I am called; and I am a Hebrew of
the circumcision, [i.e.,
“A Hebrew of the Hebrews” ( The war instigated by Bar
Cochba.
“And in what,” said I, “would you be profited by philosophy so much as by your own lawgiver and the prophets?”
“Why not?” he replied. “Do not the philosophers turn every discourse on God? and do not questions continually arise to them about His unity and providence? Is not this truly the duty of philosophy, to investigate the Deity?”
“Assuredly,” said I, “so we too have
believed. But the most The
opinions of Stoics.—Otto. The Platonists.
And he, smiling gently, said, “Tell us your opinion of these matters, and what idea you entertain respecting God, and what your philosophy is.”
ὧ some omit,
and put θεῷ of prev. cl. in
this cl., reading so: “Philosophy is the greatest possession, and
most honourable, and introduces us to God,” etc. Maranus thinks that those who are different
from the masters of practical philosophy are called Theoretics. I
do not know whether they may be better designated Sceptics or
Pyrrhonists.—Otto. Julian,
Orat., vi., says: “Let no one divide our philosophy into
many parts, or cut it into many parts, and especially let him not make
many out of one: for as truth is one, so also is
philosophy.” Either Flavia Neapolis is
indicated, or Ephesus.—Otto. Narrating his progress in the study of
Platonic philosophy, he elegantly employs this trite phrase of
Plato’s.—Otto.
“And he said, ‘Do you know me?’
“I replied in the negative.
“ ‘Why, then,’ said he to me, ‘do you so look at me?’
“ ‘I am astonished,’ I said, ‘because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.’
“And he says to me, ‘I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere. But why are you here?’ said he to me.
“ ‘I delight,’ said I, ‘in such
walks, where my attention is not distracted, for converse with myself is
uninterrupted; and such places are most fit for philology.’ Philology, used here to denote
the exercise of reason.
“ ‘Are you, then, a
philologian,’
Philology, used here to denote the exercise of speech. The two-fold
use of λόγος—
oratio and ratio—ought to be kept in view. The old
man uses it in the former, Justin in the latter, sense.
“ ‘What greater work,’ said I, ‘could one accomplish than this, to show the reason which governs all, and having laid hold of it, and being mounted upon it, to look down on the errors of others, and their pursuits? But without philosophy and right reason, prudence would not be present to any man. Wherefore it is necessary for every man to philosophize, and to esteem this the greatest and most honourable work; but other things only of second-rate or third-rate importance, though, indeed, if they be made to depend on philosophy, they are of moderate value, and worthy of acceptance; but deprived of it, and not accompanying it, they are vulgar and coarse to those who pursue them.’
“ ‘Assuredly,’ I said, ‘and it alone.’
“ ‘What, then, is philosophy?’ he says; ‘and what is happiness? Pray tell me, unless something hinders you from saying.’
“ ‘But what do you call God?’ said he.
“ ‘That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things —that, indeed, is God.’ So I answered him; and he listened to me with pleasure, and thus again interrogated me:—
“ ‘Is not knowledge a term common to different matters? For in arts of all kinds, he who knows any one of them is called a skilful man in the art of generalship, or of ruling, or of healing equally. But in divine and human affairs it is not so. Is there a knowledge which affords understanding of human and divine things, and then a thorough acquaintance with the divinity and the righteousness of them?’
“ ‘Assuredly,’ I replied.
“ ‘What, then?
“ ‘By no means,’ I replied.
“ ‘You have not answered me correctly, then,’ he said; ‘for some [branches of knowledge] come to us by learning, or by some employment, while of others we have knowledge by sight. Now, if one were to tell you that there exists in India an animal with a nature unlike all others, but of such and such a kind, multiform and various, you would not know it before you saw it; but neither would you be competent to give any account of it, unless you should hear from one who had seen it.’
“ ‘Certainly not,’ I said.
“ ‘How then,’ he said, ‘should the philosophers judge correctly about God, or speak any truth, when they have no knowledge of Him, having neither seen Him at any time, nor heard Him?’
“ ‘But, father,’ said I, ‘the Deity cannot be seen merely by the eyes, as other living beings can, but is discernible to the mind alone, as Plato says; and I believe him.’
“ ‘Is there then,’ says he, ‘such and so great power in our mind? Or can a man not perceive by sense sooner? Will the mind of man see God at any time, if it is uninstructed by the Holy Spirit?’
“ ‘Plato indeed says,’ replied I, ‘that the mind’s eye is of such a nature, and has been given for this end, that we may see that very Being when the mind is pure itself, who is the cause of all discerned by the mind, having no colour, no form, no greatness—nothing, indeed, which the bodily eye looks upon; but It is something of this sort, he goes on to say, that is beyond all essence, unutterable and inexplicable, but alone honourable and good, coming suddenly into souls well-dispositioned, on account of their affinity to and desire of seeing Him.’
“ ‘What affinity, then,’ replied he,
‘is there between us and God?
“ ‘Assuredly,’ I said.
“ ‘And do all the souls of all living beings comprehend Him?’ he asked; ‘or are the souls of men of one kind and the souls of horses and of asses of another kind?’
“ ‘No; but the souls which are in all are similar,’ I answered.
“ ‘Then,’ says he, ‘shall both horses and asses see, or have they seen at some time or other, God?’
“ ‘No,’ I said; ‘for the majority of men will not, saving such as shall live justly, purified by righteousness, and by every other virtue.’
“ ‘It is not, therefore,’ said he, ‘on account of his affinity, that a man sees God, nor because he has a mind, but because he is temperate and righteous?’
“ ‘Yes,’ said I; ‘and because he has that whereby he perceives God.’
“ ‘What then? Do goats or sheep injure any one?’
“ ‘No one in any respect,’ I said.
“ ‘Therefore these animals will see [God] according to your account,’ says he.
“He rejoined, ‘If these animals could assume speech, be well assured that they would with greater reason ridicule our body; but let us now dismiss this subject, and let it be conceded to you as you say. Tell me, however, this: Does the soul see [God] so long as it is in the body, or after it has been removed from it?’
“ ‘So long as it is in the form of a man, it is possible for it,’ I continue, ‘to attain to this by means of the mind; but especially when it has been set free from the body, and being apart by itself, it gets possession of that which it was wont continually and wholly to love.’
“ ‘Does it remember this, then [the sight of God], when it is again in the man?’
“ ‘It does not appear to me so,’ I said.
“ ‘What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?’
“ ‘I cannot tell,’ I answered.
“ ‘And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?’ said he.
“ ‘They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.’
“ ‘Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin?’
“ ‘I do not think so.’
“ ‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.’
“ ‘No indeed.’
“ ‘Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you,’ said he.
“ ‘You are right,’ I replied.
“ ‘These philosophers know nothing, then, about these things; for they cannot tell what a soul is.’
“ ‘It does not appear so.’
“ ‘Nor ought it to be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is plainly unbegotten.’
“ ‘It is both unbegotten and immortal, according to some who are styled Platonists.’
“ ‘Do you say that the world is also unbegotten?’
“ ‘Some say so. I do not, however, agree with them.’
“ ‘You are right; for what reason has one for supposing that a body so solid, possessing resistance, composite, changeable, decaying, and renewed every day, has not arisen from some cause? But if the world is begotten, souls also are necessarily begotten; and perhaps at one time they were not in existence, for they were made on account of men and other living creatures, if you will say that they have been begotten wholly apart, and not along with their respective bodies.’
“ ‘This seems to be correct.’
“ ‘They are not, then, immortal?’
“ ‘No; since the world has appeared to us to be begotten.’
“ ‘But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.’
“ ‘Is what you say, then, of a like nature
with that which Plato in Timæus hints about the world, when he
says that it is indeed subject to decay, inasmuch as it has been created,
but that it will neither be dissolved nor meet with the fate of death on
account of the will of God? Does it seem to you the very same can be said
of the soul, and generally of all things? “Beside.” Otto says: If
the old man begins to speak here, then ἔχει must be read
for ἔχειν. The
received text makes it appear that Justin continues a quotation, or the
substance of it, from Plato.
“ ‘It makes no matter to me,’ said
he, ‘whether Plato or Pythagoras, or, in short, any other man held
such opinions. For the truth is so; and you would perceive it from this.
“ ‘Should any one, then, employ a teacher?’ I say, ‘or whence may any one be helped, if not even in them there is truth?’
“When he had spoken these and many other things,
which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding
me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame
was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who
are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my
mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and
for this reason, I am a philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that all,
making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from
the words of the Saviour. For they possess a terrible power in
themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the
path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who
make a diligent practice of them. If, then, you have any concern for
yourself, and if you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you
believe in God, you may—since you are not indifferent to the
matter According to one
interpretation, this clause is applied to God: “If you believe in
God, seeing He is not indifferent to the matter,” etc. Maranus says
that it means: A Jew who reads so much of Christ in the Old Testament,
cannot be indifferent to the things which pertain to Him. Literally:
having become perfect. Some refer the words to perfection of character;
some initiation by baptism.
When I had said this, my beloved friends Latin version, “beloved
Pompeius.”
Then again those who were in his company laughed, and
shouted in an unseemly manner. Then I rose up and was about to leave; but
he, taking hold of my garment, said I should not accomplish that According to another reading,
“I did not leave.”
“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this: have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?”
“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations.”
Editors suppose that Justin inserts a long parenthesis
here, from “for” to “Egypt.” It is more natural
to take this as an anacoluthon. Justin was going to say, “But now
we trust through Christ,” but feels that such a statement requires
preliminary explanation.
According to the LXX,
Not in Jeremiah; some would insert, in place of
Jeremiah, Isaiah or John. [St.
Three times in Justin, not in LXX. Deviating slightly from LXX., omitting a clause. LXX. “not
as,” etc. LXX. “not
as,” etc.
ἱμάτια; some read
ἰάματα, as in
LXX., “thy health,” the better reading probably.
See Apol., i. 47. The Jews [By Hadrian’s recent edict] were
prohibited by law from entering Jerusalem on pain of death. And so Justin
sees in circumcision their own punishment.
For He appeared distasteful to you when He cried among
you, ‘It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but ye have
made it a den of thieves!’ This and following quotation taken
promiscuously from
“For since you have read, O Trypho, as you
yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think
that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the
prophetic statements. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away
iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be
circumcised with the true circumcision.
“It is this about which we are at a loss, and with reason, because, while you endure such things, you do not observe all the other customs which we are now discussing.”
[They did not Sabbatize; but Justin does not deny what is implied
in many Scriptures, that they marked the week, and noted the seventh day.
νεκριμαῖον, or
“dieth of itself;” com. reading was ἐκριμαῖον, which
was supposed to be derived from ἐκρίπτω, and to
mean “which ought to be cast out:” the above was suggested by
H. Stephanus. ἄὸικος καὶ παράνομος. “The reasoning of St. Justin is not
quite clear to interpreters. As we abstain from some herbs, not because
they are forbidden by law, but because they are deadly; so the law of
abstinence from improper and violent animals was imposed not on Noah, but
on you as a yoke on account of your sins.”—Maranus.
The man he
met by the sea-shore.
Other edd. have,
“with us.” Otto
reads: “Thy works which Thou shalt do to those who wait for
mercy.” Some suppose the correct
reading to be, “our glorious institutions [manners, customs,
or ordinances] have,” etc., ἔθη for ἔθνη.
And Trypho remarked, “What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?”
συσσεισμόν, “a
shaking,” is the original reading; but LXX has σύσσημον, a standard
or signal, and this most edd. adopt.
And I replied, “I have passed them by, my
friends, not because such prophecies were contrary to me, but because you
have understood, and
Various passages strung
together; comp.
And Trypho replied, “We heard you adducing this consideration a little ago, and we have given it attention: for, to tell the truth, it is worthy of attention; and that answer which pleases most —namely, that so it seemed good to Him—does not satisfy me. For this is ever the shift to which those have recourse who are unable to answer the question.”
So in A.V., but
supposed to be Idumæa.
“Let us glorify God, all nations gathered
together; for He has also visited us. Let us glorify Him by the King of
glory, by the Lord of hosts. For He has been gracious towards the
Gentiles also; and our sacrifices He esteems more grateful than yours.
What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by
God? What need have I of that other baptism, who
[This striking claim of the
Old Testament Scriptures is noteworthy.]
Or, “repentance of the Father;” πατρός for πνεύματος. Maranus
explains the confusion on the ground of the similarity between the
contractions for the words, πρς and πνς.
Literally,
“And the ten horns, ten kings shall arise after them.”
Then I replied to him, “If, sirs, it were not
said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was
inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the
rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and
that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that
there would be two advents of His,—one in which He was pierced by
you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your
tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men
apart,—then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things.
But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and
prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in
the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which
has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal
salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be
plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the
blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the
Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of
all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right
hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from
the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose
again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and
he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and
an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and
daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long
he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the
‘time’ as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man
of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in
order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel—
‘and times’—to be two times only. All this I
have said to you in digression, in order that you at length may be
persuaded of what has been declared against you by God, that you are
foolish sons; and of this, ‘Therefore, behold, I will proceed to
take away this people, and shall take them away; and I will strip the
wise of their wisdom, and will hide the understanding of their prudent
men;’
πληρώσει πτώματα; Lat. version,
implebit ruinas. Thirlby suggested that an omission has taken
place in the mss. by the
transcriber’s fault.
πεπήρωνται. Maranus
thinks πεπώρωνται more
probable, “hardened.”
[A striking
passage in De Maistre (Œuvres, vol. vi. p. 275) is worthy of
comparison.]
And Trypho said, “I believe, however, that many
of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat
meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in
consequence.” And I replied, “The fact that there are such
men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified
Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but
those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true
and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in
the hope announced by Him. For what things He predicted would take place
in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight.
For he said, ‘Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in
sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’
”
Then he replied, “Let these things be so as you say—namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made.”
Maranus remarks from Thirlby: “As
Justin wrote a little before, ‘and is called Jacob in
parable,’ it seems to convince us that Justin wrote, ‘thy
face, O Jacob.’ ” [The meaning in this latter case becomes
plain, if we observe that “O Israel” is equivalent to, and
means, “O house of Jacob:” an apostrophe to the Church of the
ancient people.]
“For” wanting in both Codd.
And Trypho said, “Sir, it were good for us if we obeyed our teachers, who laid down a law that we should have no intercourse with any of you, and that we should not have even any communication with you on these questions. For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped.”
Then I answered, “I know that, as the word of God
says, this great wisdom of God, the Maker of all things, and the
Almighty, is hid from you. Wherefore, in sympathy with you, I am striving
to the utmost that you may understand these matters which to you are
paradoxical; but if not, that I myself may be innocent in the day of
judgment. For you shall hear other words which appear still more
paradoxical; but be not confounded, nay, rather remain still more zealous
hearers and investigators, despising the tradition of your teachers,
since they are convicted by the Holy Spirit of inability to perceive the
truths taught by God, and of preferring to teach their own doctrines.
[Hebrew and Greek, “a good
word,” i.e., the Logos.] Or, “God, thy God.” στακτή. Literally, “garments of gold,
variegated.”
Literally, “of a
hard-hearted opinion.”
To this Trypho said to me, “I wish you knew that you are beside yourself, talking these sentiments.”
And I said to him, “Listen, O friend, ὦ οὑτος. [Or, Look you,
listen!] Literally,
“carry us captive.”
Contrasting
either Catholics with heretics, or Christians with Jews. [Note this word
Catholic, as here used in its legitimate primitive sense.]
And Trypho replied, “Now, then, render us the proof that this man who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by means of the Scriptures previously quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, every kingdom being made subject to Him: now show us that this man is He.”
And I replied, “It has been already proved, sirs, to those who have ears, even from the facts which have been conceded by you; but that you may not think me at a loss, and unable to give proof of what you ask, as I promised, I shall do so at a fitting place. At present, I resume the consideration of the subject which I was discussing.
Some think this particularly refers to
the paschal lamb, others to any lamb which is roasted.
Literally, “cords.” Chap. xv.
Literally, “overthrowing with a perfect overthrow.” Chap. xxviii. Or, “being the first.”
Chap. xiii. ἐκκλησία Lat.
vers. has conventus.
Literally, “to the discourse in order.”
Chap. xiii. Or, “was I
led.” Literally, “He was in
the world, being born.” See Chap. lxvi. Literally, “disobeys evil” (ἀπειθεῖ πονηρά).
Conjectured: ἀπωθεῖ, and
ἀπειθεῖ πονηρία. The mss. of Justin read, “shall
be taken:” καταληφθήσεται. This
is plainly a mistake for καταλειφθήσεται; but
whether the mistake is Justin’s or the transcribers’, it
would be difficult to say, as Thirlby remarks. The rendering of
this doubtful: literally, “from the face of the two kings,”
and the words might go with “shall be forsaken.”
i.e., of Abraham’s seed. Justin distinguishes between
such essential acts as related to God’s worship and the
establishment of righteousness, and such ceremonial observances as had a
mere temporary significance. The recognition of this distinction he
alleges to be necessary to salvation: necessary in this sense, that
justification must be placed not on the latter, but on the former; and
without such recognition, a Jew would, as Justin says, rest his hopes on
his noble descent from Abraham. More probably, “or on account
of,” etc. In Bible, “Job;” Maranus prefers
“Jacob,” and thinks the mention of his name very suitable to
disprove the arrogant claims of Jacob’s posterity.
Some refer this
to Christ’s baptism. See Cyprian, Adv. Jud. i. 24.—
Otto.
And I replied, “Ask whatever you please, as it occurs to you; and I shall endeavour, after questions and answers, to resume and complete the discourse.”
Then he said, “Tell me, then, shall those who lived according to the law given by Moses, live in the same manner with Jacob, Enoch, and Noah, in the resurrection of the dead, or not?”
I replied to him, “When I quoted, sir, the words
spoken by Ezekiel, that ‘even if Noah and Daniel and Jacob were to
beg sons and daughters, the request would not be granted them,’ but
that each one, that is to say, shall be saved by his own righteousness, I
said also, that those who regulated their lives by the law of Moses would
in like manner be saved. For what in the law of Moses is naturally good,
and pious, and righteous, and has been prescribed to be done by those who
obey it; It, i.e., the
law, or “what in the law,” etc. Those who live after Christ.
And I replied, “Let us consider that also together, whether one may now observe all the Mosaic institutions.”
And he answered, “No. For we know that, as you said, it is not possible either anywhere to sacrifice the lamb of the passover, or to offer the goats ordered for the fast; or, in short, [to present] all the other offerings.”
And I said, “Tell [me] then yourself, I pray,
some things which can be observed; for you will be persuaded that, though
a man does not keep or has not performed the eternal “Eternal,” i.e., as the Jew
thinks.
Then he replied, “To keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, and to be washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses, or after sexual intercourse.”
And I said, “Do you think that Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Noah, and Job, and all the rest before
And Trypho answered, “Were not Abraham and his descendants circumcised?”
And I said, “I know that Abraham and his
descendants were circumcised. The reason why circumcision was given to
them I stated at length in what has gone before; and if what has been
said does not convince you, Literally, “put you out of countenance.”
And he replied, “We know it, and admit that they are saved.”
Then I returned answer, “You perceive that God by
Moses laid all such ordinances upon you on account of the hardness of
your people’s hearts, in order that, by the large number of them,
you might keep God continually, and in every action, before your eyes,
and never begin to act unjustly or impiously.
Literally,
“importuning.”
And Trypho again inquired, “But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved?”
I said, “In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men, —I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so. This you did yourself at the commencement of the discourse, when you declared that I would not be saved unless I observe these institutions.”
Then he replied, “Why then have you said,
‘In my opinion, such an one will be saved,’ unless there are
some “Or, Are
there not some,” etc.
“There are such people, Trypho,” I
answered; “and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or
to extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them. But
if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as
were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we
believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s
hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the
eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live
with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them
either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to
observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join
ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and
brethren. But if, Trypho,” I continued, “some of your race,
who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in
this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses,
or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do
not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been
persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their
confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold,
further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet
who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have
denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall
by no means be saved. Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham
who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before
death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those who have
anathematized and do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues, and
everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance
of fire. The text seems
to be corrupt. Otto reads: “Do anathematize those who put their
trust in this very Christ so as to obtain salvation,” etc. [Comp. St.
And Trypho said, “We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”
And I replied to this, “I know that the statement
does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are
ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but
[ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Comp. Or, “such a
man.” Some read, “of your
race,” referring to the Ebionites. Maranus believes the
reference is to the Ebionites, and supports in a long note the reading
“our,” inasmuch as Justin would be more likely to associate
these Ebionites with Christians than with Jews, even though they were
heretics. Langus translates: “Nor would,
indeed, many who are of the same opinion as myself say so.” [Note this emphatic testimony of primitive faith.]
And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have
been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have
become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold
those opinions which you express.
Then I inquired of him, “Does not Scripture, in
the book of Zechariah,
And he answered, “Certainly.”
“If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place,—one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the fore-cited passages,—shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?”
“Certainly,” he answered.
“And, accordingly, our Lord in His
teaching,” I continued, “proclaimed that this very thing
would take place, saying that Elijah would also come. And we know that
this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from
heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah
preceded as herald in [the person of] John, a prophet among your nation;
after whom no other prophet appeared among you. He cried, as he sat by
the river Jordan: ‘I baptize you with water to repentance; but He
that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in
His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and will gather the
wheat into the barn; but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable
fire.’
Literally, “cousin.”
And Trypho said, “This statement also seems to me paradoxical; namely, that the prophetic Spirit of God, who was in Elijah, was also in John.”
To this I replied, “Do you not think that the
same thing happened in the case of Joshua the son of Nave (Nun), who
succeeded to the command of the people after Moses, when Moses was
commanded to lay his hands on Joshua, and God said to him, ‘I will
take of the spirit which is in thee, and put it on him?’
”
And he said, “Certainly.”
“As therefore,” I say, “while Moses
was still among men, God took of the spirit which was in Moses and put it
on Joshua, even so God was able to cause [the spirit] of Elijah to come
upon John; in order that, as Christ at His first coming appeared
inglorious, even so the first coming of the spirit, which remained always
pure in Elijah The
meaning is, that no division of person took place. Elijah remained the
same after as before his spirit was shed on John. Literally,
“fruit.”
And Trypho said, “You seem to me to have come out of a great conflict with many persons about all the points we have been searching into, and therefore quite ready to return answers to all questions put to you. Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show, [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin.”
I replied, “Give me permission first of all to quote certain passages from the prophecy of Isaiah, which refer to the office of forerunner discharged by John the Baptist and prophet before this our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“I grant it,” said he.
Chap. xxv. “Are willing.”
[ Or, “in comparison
of.”
ἀφ’ οὗ; many translated
“under whom,” as if ἐφ’ οὗ. This would be
erroneous. Conjectured also ἔφυγε for
ἔπαθεν.
Literally,
“inquired into.”
And Trypho answered, “We shall remember this your
exposition, if you strengthen [your solution of] this difficulty by other
arguments: but now resume the discourse, and show us that the Spirit of
prophecy admits another God besides the Maker of all things, taking care
not to speak of the sun and moon, which, it is written, Or,
“misusing.”
And I replied, “I would not bring forward these
proofs, Trypho, by which I am aware those who worship these [idols] and
such like are condemned, but such [proofs] as no one could find any
objection to. They will appear strange to you, although you read them
every day; so that even from this fact we Com. reading, “you;” evidently wrong. Literally, “for.” Two
constructions, “which” referring either to Scriptures as
whole, or to what he records from them. Last more probable.
And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things.
Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you,
since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say,
that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject
to Some,
“besides;” but probably as above.
He said, “Assuredly.”
“Was He one of those three,” I said, “whom Abraham saw, and whom the Holy Spirit of prophecy describes as men?”
He said, “No; but God appeared to him, before the
vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were
angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful
tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent,
and having accomplished his errand, went away.” Or, “going away,
departed.”
“How then,” said I, “does the one of
the three, who was in the tent, and who said, ‘I shall return to
thee hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son,’
I replied again, “If I could not have proved to
you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called
Angel, Or,
“Messenger.” [The “Jehovah-angel” of the
Pentateuch, passim.] In the various passages in which Justin
assigns the reason for Christ being called angel or messenger, Justin
uses also the verb ἀγγέλλω, to
convey messages, to announce. The similarity between ἄγγελος and
ἀγγέλλω
cannot be retained in English, and therefore the point of Justin’s
remarks is lost to the English reader.
“Assuredly,” he said, “for up to this moment this has been our belief.”
Then I replied, “Reverting to the Scriptures, I
shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to
Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct
from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not [distinct]
in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done Some supply, “or said.”
And Trypho said, “Prove now that this is the case, that we also may agree with you. For we do not understand you to affirm that He has done or said anything contrary to the will of the Maker of all things.”
Then I said, “The Scripture just quoted by me
will make this plain to you. It is thus: ‘The sun was risen on the
earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom
sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities
and all the neighbourhood.’ ”
Then the fourth of those who had remained with Trypho
said, “It Or,
“We must of necessity think, that besides the one of the two angels
who came down to Sodom, and whom the Scripture by Moses calls Lord, God
Himself appeared to Abraham.” This passage is rather confused: the translation is
necessarily free, but, it is believed, correct. Justin’s friend
wishes to make out that two distinct individuals are called
Lord or God in the narrative.
“It is not on this ground solely,” I said,
“that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called
Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all
things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is
said] by David. For there is written by him: ‘The Lord says to my
Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool,’
And Trypho said, “Prove this; for, as you see,
the day advances, and we are not prepared for such perilous replies;
since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into,
or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation,
had you not referred everything to the Scriptures: [Note again the fidelity of Justin to
this principle, and the fact that in no other way could a Jew be
persuaded to listen to a Christian.
Then I replied, “You are aware, then, that the
Scripture says, ‘And the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh,
saying, Shall I truly conceive? for I am old. Is anything impossible with
God? At the time appointed shall I return to thee according to the time
of life, and Sarah shall have a son.’ Literally, “is
multiplied.”
Comp. Note 2, p. 223.
Literally, “I have admired thy face.”
I answered, “It is written that they ate; and if
we believe Literally,
“hear.”
And Trypho said, “It is possible that [the question] about the mode of eating may be thus explained: [the mode, that is to say,] in which it is written, they took and ate what had been prepared by Abraham: so that you may now proceed to explain to us how this God who appeared to Abraham, and is minister to God the Maker of all things, being born of the Virgin, became man, of like passions with all, as you said previously.”
Then I replied, “Permit me first, Trypho, to collect some other proofs on this head, so that you, by the large number of them, may be persuaded of [the truth of] it, and thereafter I shall explain what you ask.”
And he said, “Do as seems good to you; for I shall be thoroughly pleased.”
Then I continued, “I purpose to quote to you
Scriptures, not that I am anxious to make merely an artful display of
words; for I possess no such faculty, but God’s grace alone has
been granted to me to the understanding of His Scriptures, of which grace
I exhort all to become partakers freely and bounteously, in order that
they may not, through want of it, Literally, “for this sake.” [Note here and
elsewhere the primitive rule as to the duty of all men to search the
Scriptures.]
And Trypho said, “What you do is worthy of the worship of God; but you appear to me to feign ignorance when you say that you do not possess a store of artful words.”
I again replied, “Be it so, since you think so;
yet I am persuaded that I speak the truth. Or, “speak otherwise.”
“Proceed,” said he.
And I continued: “It is again written by Moses,
my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is
called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand
Him to be minister to the Father of all things, as you have already
admitted, and may remain firm, persuaded by additional arguments. Literally, “in the
place of God.”
Some read, “a man.” Literally, “the face of
God.”
Or,
“Beersheba.” So, LXX. and N.T.; Heb.
“Haran.” Literally,
“was set up.”
Some conjecture
“Jacob,” others insert “Jacob” after
“Isaac.” [
Then Trypho said, “We do not perceive this from the passage quoted by you, but [only this], that it was an angel who appeared in the flame of fire, but God who conversed with Moses; so that there were really two persons in company with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision.”
I again replied, “Even if this were so, my friends, that an angel and God were together in the vision seen by Moses, yet, as has already been proved to you by the passages previously quoted, it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but it will be He who has been proved to you to have appeared to Abraham, ministering to the will of the Maker of all things, and likewise carrying into execution His counsel in the judgment of Sodom; so that, even though it be as you say, that there were two—an angel and God—he who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth.”
And Trypho said, “Since it has been previously proved that He who is called God and Lord, and appeared to Abraham, received from the Lord, who is in the heavens, that which He inflicted on the land of Sodom, even although an angel had accompanied the God who appeared to Moses, we shall perceive that the God who communed with Moses from the bush was not the Maker of all things, but He who has been shown to have manifested Himself to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob; who also is called and is perceived to be the Angel of God the Maker of all things, because He publishes to men the commands of the Father and Maker of all things.”
And I replied, “Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall
show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an
Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. For the
Scripture says thus: ‘The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a
flame of fire from the bush; and he sees that the bush burns with fire,
but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside and see
this great sight, for the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that
he is turning aside to behold, the Lord called to him out of the
bush.’
Literally,
“judgment.”
Or, “in the beginning,
before all creatures.” [Justin’s reference to The act of will or
volition is on the part of the Father. Or, “Do we not
see,” etc. The word,
λόγος translated
“word,” means both the thinking power or reason which
produces ideas and the expression of these ideas. And Justin passes here
from the one meaning to the other. When we utter a thought, the utterance
of it does not diminish the power of thought in us, though in one sense
the thought has gone away from us. The mss. of Justin read
“sleeping,” but this is regarded as the mistake of some
careless transcriber.
Justin, since he is of opinion that the
Word is the beginning of the universe, thinks that by these words,
“in the beginning,” Moses indicated the Word, like many other
writers. Hence also he says in
Heresy or sect. Or, “among us.”
Maranus pronounces against this latter reading for the following reasons:
(1.) The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the
Christian heresies, especially to Menander and Saturninus. (2.) The sect
which Justin here refutes was of opinion that God spoke to angels. But
those angels, as Menander and Saturninus invented, “exhorted
themselves, saying, Let us make,” etc. (3.) The expression διδάσκαλοι suits
the rabbins well. So Justin frequently calls them. (4.) Those teachers
seem for no other cause to have put the words in the angels’ mouths
than to eradicate the testimony by which they proved divine persons.
I answered, “This, too, has been already
demonstrated
Note this beautiful rendering, Or, “to us.” ἄνωθεν; in Lat.
vers. antiquitus, which Maranus prefers. Literally,
“garments of gold, variegated.” The incarnation,
etc. “Being so,” literally.
Here Trypho said, “Let Him be recognised as Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures declare, by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been all called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same [Christ], do not require to confess or worship Him.”
To this I replied, “If I were to be quarrelsome
and light-minded like you, Trypho, I would no longer continue to converse
with you, since you are prepared not to understand what has been said,
but only to return some captious answer; Literally, “but only sharpen yourselves to say
something.” [Or, “this
one.”] Or, “to judge,” as in chap.
xxxiv.
Literally, “importuned.”
And I answered, “If you spoke these words,
Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent,
neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must
be forgiven; but if [you have done so] because you imagined that you
could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the
Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not
venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which
appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a
pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am
entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit
rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to
persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be
rather of the same opinion as myself. With what intent, then, you have
brought forward the difficulty, God knows. But I shall remind you of what
the passage says, in order that you may recognise even from this very
[place] that God gives glory to His Christ alone. And I shall take up
some short passages, sirs, those which are in connection with what has
been said by Trypho, and those which are also joined on in consecutive
order. For I will not repeat those of another section, but those which
are joined together in one. Do you also give me your attention. [The
words] are these: ‘Thus saith the Lord, the God that created the
heavens, and made
Literally, “fixed.” Or,
“ye islands which sail on it;” or without
“continually.”
Then Trypho answered, “We have perceived this also; pass on therefore to the remainder of the discourse.”
Chap. xliii.
ἣν, which is in chap.
xliii., is here omitted, but ought to be inserted without doubt.
Then I said to this, “Trypho, I wish to persuade you, and all men in short, of this, that even though you talk worse things in ridicule and in jest, you will not move me from my fixed design; but I shall always adduce from the words which you think can be brought forward [by you] as proof [of your own views], the demonstration of what I have stated along with the testimony of the Scriptures. You are not, however, acting fairly or truthfully in attempting to undo those things in which there has been constantly agreement between us; namely, that certain commands were instituted by Moses on account of the hardness of your people’s hearts. For you said that, by reason of His living conformably to law, He was elected and became Christ, if indeed He were proved to be so.”
And Trypho said, “You admitted We have not seen that Justin admitted
this; but it is not to be supposed that the passage where he did admit it
has been lost, as Perionius suspected; for sometimes Justin refers to
passages at other places, which he did not relate in their own place.
—Maranus.
And I replied, “I have admitted it, and do admit it: yet I have admitted that He endured all these not as if He were justified by them, but completing the dispensation which His Father, the Maker of all things, and Lord and God, wished Him [to complete]. For I admit that He endured crucifixion and death, and the incarnation, and the suffering of as many afflictions as your nation put upon Him. But since again you dissent from that to which you but lately assented, Trypho, answer me: Are those righteous patriarchs who lived before Moses, who observed none of those [ordinances] which, the Scripture shows, received the commencement of [their] institution from Moses, saved, [and have they attained to] the inheritance of the blessed?”
“Likewise I again ask you,” said I, “did God enjoin your fathers to present the offerings and sacrifices because He had need of them, or because of the hardness of their hearts and tendency to idolatry?”
“The latter,” said he, “the Scriptures in like manner compel us to admit.”
“Likewise,” said I, “did not the Scriptures predict that God promised to dispense a new covenant besides that which [was dispensed] in the mountain Horeb?”
This, too, he replied, had been predicted.
Then I said again, “Was not the old covenant laid on your fathers with fear and trembling, so that they could not give ear to God?”
He admitted it.
“What then?” said I: “God promised that there would be another covenant, not like that old one, and said that it would be laid on them without fear, and trembling, and lightnings, and that it would be such as to show what kind of commands and deeds God knows to be eternal and suited to every nation, and what commandments He has given, suiting them to the hardness of your people’s hearts, as He exclaims also by the prophets.”
“To this also,” said he, “those who are lovers of truth and not lovers of strife must assuredly assent.”
Then I replied, “I know not how you speak of persons very fond of strife, [since] you yourself oftentimes were plainly acting in this very manner, frequently contradicting what you had agreed to.”
And Trypho said, “You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing; [namely], that God endured to be born and become man.”
“If I undertook,” said I, “to prove
this by doctrines or arguments of man, you should not bear with me.
And Trypho said, “Look, my friend, you made
yourself master of these [truths] with much labour and toil. [Note the courteous admission
of Trypho, and the consent of both parties to the duty of searching the
Scriptures.]
Then I said to this, “I do not ask you not to strive earnestly by all means, in making an investigation of the matters inquired into; but [I ask you], when you have nothing to say, not to contradict those things which you said you had admitted.”
And Trypho said, “So we shall endeavour to do.”
I continued again: “In addition to the questions I have just now put to you, I wish to put more: for by means of these questions I shall strive to bring the discourse to a speedy termination.”
And Trypho said, “Ask the questions.”
And Trypho replied, “How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?”
Then I again said, “I must ask you this also,
that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that
which you admitted some time ago.” τέως: Vulg.
παρὰ Θεῷ, vitiose.
—Otto.
He replied, “It is not, sir.”
Then again I, “Since you certainly admit these things, and since Scripture says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ ought you not now to suppose that He is not the seed of a human race?”
And Trypho said, “How then does the Word say to David, that out of his loins God shall take to Himself a Son, and shall establish His kingdom, and shall set Him on the throne of His glory?”
And I said, “Trypho, if the prophecy which Isaiah uttered, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ is said not to the house of David, but to another house of the twelve tribes, perhaps the matter would have some difficulty; but since this prophecy refers to the house of David, Isaiah has explained how that which was spoken by God to David in mystery would take place. But perhaps you are not aware of this, my friends, that there were many sayings written obscurely, or parabolically, or mysteriously, and symbolical actions, which the prophets who lived after the persons who said or did them expounded.”
“Assuredly,” said Trypho.
“If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of
Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not
in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, who venture
to assert that the explanation which your
The text is corrupt, and
various emendations have been proposed. Or,
“and to be worshipped as God.”
Or, “an
ass.” The ass was sacred to Bacchus; and many fluctuate between
οἶνον and ὄνον.
The text
here has ταῦτα ποιῆσαι ὁμοίως. Maranus
suggests ᾽Ησαίου for ποιῆσαι; and so we
have translated. Justin says that the priests of Mithras imitated all the
words of Isaiah about to be quoted; and to prove it, is content with a
single example, namely, the precepts of righteousness, which they were
wont to relate to him, as in these words of Isaiah: “He who walks
in righteousness,” etc. Justin omitted many other passages, as easy
and obvious. For since Mithras is the same as fire, it manifestly answers
to the fire of which Isaiah speaks. And since Justin reminded them who
are initiated, that they are said to be initiated by Mithras himself, it
was not necessary to remind them that the words of Isaiah are imitated in
this: “You shall see the King with glory.” Bread and water
are referred to by Isaiah: so also in these mysteries of Mithras, Justin
testifies that bread and a cup of water are placed before them (Apol.
i.).—Maranus. i.e.,
the devils.
i.e., the priests of Mithras. Literally, “to do,” ποιεῖν. [The horrible
charge of banqueting on blood, etc., constantly repeated against
Christians, was probably based on the Eucharist. See Kaye’s
Illustrations from Tatian, Athenagorus, and Theoph. Antioch., cap.
ix. p. 153.]
Literally, “to do,” ποιεῖν. [The horrible
charge of banqueting on blood, etc., constantly repeated against
Christians, was probably based on the Eucharist. See Kaye’s
Illustrations from Tatian, Athenagorus, and Theoph. Antioch., cap.
ix. p. 153.]
Or,
“profess.”
Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the
statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the
passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to
the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have
understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a
standard, and Or,
“even if we.” It is not known where this passage comes
from. This
is wanting in our Scriptures: it is cited by Iren., iii. 20, under the
name of Isaiah, and in iv. 22 under that of Jeremiah.—Maranus.
These words were not taken away by the Jews, but added
by some Christian.—Otto. [A statement not
proved.] It is strange
that “from the wood” is not added; but the audacity of the
copyists in such matters is well known.—Maranus.
Here Trypho remarked,
“Assuredly,” said I, “it does seem
incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when
satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to
demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But,” said I,
“you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said
they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough
to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by
us, Many think,
“you.”
Then Trypho said, “We know that you quoted these because we asked you. But it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ.”
In
text, “you.” Maranus suggests, as far better,
“we.” Something is here wanting; the suggested
reading of Maranus has been adopted. [As to omissions between this
chapter and the next, critics are not agreed. The Benedictine editors see
no proofs of them.] Literally, “for
food.” The first
conference seems to have ended hereabout. [It occupied two days. But the
student must consult the learned note of Kaye (Justin Martyr, p.
20. Rivingtons, London. 1853).]
[ Or,
“so many.”
[ Not in all
edd. Justin
puts “sun and moon” instead of “Lucifer.”
[
Then Trypho said, “I admit that such and so great
arguments are sufficient to persuade one; but I wish [you] to know that I
ask you for the proof which you have frequently proposed to give me.
Proceed then to make this plain to us, that we may see how you prove that
that [passage] refers to this Christ of yours. For we assert that the
prophecy relates to Hezekiah.” And I replied, “I shall do as
you wish.
Text
has, by “them;” but Maranus says the artifice lay in the
priest’s compelling the initiated to say that Mithras himself was
the initiator in the cave.
Literally, “spoiled.”
Justin thinks the “spoils of Samaria” denote spoils of Satan;
Tertull. thinks that they are spoils of Christ. Literally, “add.”
And I, wishing to get him to listen to me, answered in
milder tones, thus: “I admire, sir, this piety of yours; and I pray
that you may entertain the same disposition towards Him to whom angels
are recorded to minister, as Daniel says; for [one] like the Son of man
is led to the Ancient of days, and every kingdom is given to Him for ever
and ever. But that you may know, sir,” continued I, “that it
is not our audacity which has induced us to adopt this exposition, which
you reprehend, I shall give you evidence from Isaiah himself; for he
affirms that evil angels have dwelt and do dwell in Tanis, in Egypt.
These are [his] words: ‘Woe to the rebellious children! Thus saith
the Lord, You have taken counsel, but not through Me; and [made]
agreements, but not through My Spirit, to add sins to sins; who have
sinned LXX. “who
walk,” πορευόμενοι for
πονηρευόμενοι. In E. V.
“Zoan.” ἐκδεξάμενος;
in chap. cxv. inf. it is ἐκλεξάμενος. Maranus suggests the insertion of
ἐποίησαν or
ἐπείρασαν before
ἐξισοῦσθαι.
Then I answered, “I am not so miserable a fellow,
Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you
formerly, Justin made no
previous allusion to this point, so far as we know from the writing
preserved. Or, “so as to believe
thoroughly that such will take place” (after
“opinion”). [A hint of the origin of this work. See Kaye’s
Note, p. 18]. i.e.,
resurrection. Maranus says, Hieron. thinks the Genistæ were so
called because they were sprung from Abraham (γένος)
the Meristæ so called because they separated the Scriptures.
Josephus bears testimony to the fact that the sects of the Jews differed
in regard to fate and providence; the Pharisees submitting all things
indeed to God, with the exception of human will; the Essenes making no
exceptions, and submitting all to God. I believe therefore that the
Genistæ were so called because they believed the world to be in
general governed by God; the Meristæ, because they believed that
a fate or providence belonged to each man. Otto says,
the author and chief of this sect of Galilæans was Judas
Galilæus, who, after the exile of king Archelaus, when the Romans wished
to raise a tax in Judæa, excited his countrymen to the retaining of
their former liberty.—The Hellenists, or rather
Hellenæans. No one mentions this sect but Justin; perhaps
Herodians or Hillelæans (from R. Hillel). We have
translated the text of Justin as it stands. Commentators make the sense,
“and that there will be a thousand years in Jerusalem,” or
“that the saints will live a thousand years in
Jerusalem.”
Literally, “time.” Literally, “the son of an hundred
years.” Literally,
“the son of an hundred years.” Or, as in margin
of A. V., “they shall make the works of their toil continue
long,” so reading παλαιώσουσιν for
πλεονάσουσιν:
thus also LXX. These words are not found in the mss.
Literally, “make.” [A very noteworthy passage, as a primitive
exposition of
“For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even
to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts]
formerly among your nation have been transferred to us. And just as there
were false prophets contemporaneous with your holy prophets, so are there
now many false teachers amongst us, of whom our Lord forewarned us to
beware; so that in no respect are we deficient, since we know that He
foreknew all that would happen to us after His resurrection from the dead
and ascension to heaven. For He said we would be put to death, and hated
for His name’s sake; and that many false prophets and false Christs
would appear in His name, and deceive many: and so has it come about. For
many have taught godless, blasphemous, and unholy doctrines, forging them
in His name; have taught, too, and even yet are teaching, those things
which proceed from the unclean spirit of the devil, and which were put
into their hearts. Therefore we are most anxious that you be persuaded
not to be misled by such persons, since we know that every one who can
speak the truth, and yet speaks it not, shall be judged by God, as God
testified by Ezekiel, when He said, ‘I have made thee a watchman to
the house of Judah. If the sinner sin, and thou warn him not, he himself
shall die in his sin; but his blood will I require at thine hand. But if
thou warn him, thou shalt be innocent.’
ἐπί, but
afterwards εἰς. Maranus thinks
that ἐπί is the
insertion of some copyist. Or
better, “His.” This quotation from This last clause
is thought to be an interpolation.
Or, “why was it.”
Chap. lxxvi. κατάδεσμοι, by
some thought to be verses by which evil spirits, once expelled, were kept
from returning. Plato (Rep.) speaks of incantations by which
demons were summoned to the help of those who practised such rites; but
Justin refers to them only as being expelled. Others regard them as
drugs.
Then one of those who had come with them on the second day, whose name was Mnaseas, said, “We are greatly pleased that you undertake to repeat the same things on our account.”
And I said, “Listen, my friends, to the Scripture
which induces me to act thus. Jesus commanded [us] to love even [our]
enemies, as was predicted by Isaiah in many passages, in which also is
contained the mystery of our own regeneration, as well, in fact, as the
regeneration of all who expect that Christ will appear in Jerusalem, and
by their works endeavour earnestly to please Him. These are the words
spoken by Isaiah: ‘Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at
His word. Say, our brethren, to them that hate you and detest you, that
the name of the Lord has been glorified. He has appeared to your joy, and
they shall be ashamed. A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the
temple, In both mss. “people.”
[Myrrh. Christ the (Anointed) Rock is also referred to by Jacob
( In chap. lxiii. probably,
where the same Psalm is quoted. The Red Sea, not the Jordan.
[ Literally, “a
tree.”
Then I replied, “You have inquired most
discreetly and most prudently, for truly there does seem to be a
difficulty; but listen to what I say, that you may perceive the reason of
this also. He, that is, the Spirit. The following “He”
is Christ. Or, “wrought
out amongst His people.” So Otto. Literally, “He said
accordingly.”
[The Shechinah probably attended
the descent of the Holy Spirit, and what follows in the note seems a
gratuitous explanation. The Ebionite corruption of a truth need not be
resorted to. See chap. cxxviii: The fire in the bush.] Justin learned
this either from tradition or from apocryphal books. Mention is made of a
fire both in the Ebionite Gospel and in another publication called
Pauli prædicatio, the readers and users of which denied that the
rite of baptism had been duly performed, unless quam mox in aquam
descenderunt, statim super aquam ignis appareat. Literally, “sat.”
The
repetition seems quite superfluous.
Then Trypho remarked, “Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the the son of Nave (Nun) was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law.”
I replied to him, “If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not foretold that He would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be dishonoured and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare, then you would have good cause to wonder. But if these are to be characteristic of Him and mark Him out to all, how is it possible for us to do anything else than believe in Him most confidently? And will not as many as have understood the writings of the prophets, whenever they hear merely that He was crucified, say that this is He and no other?”
“Bring us on, then,” said [Trypho],
“by the Scriptures, that we may also be persuaded by you; for we
know that He should suffer and be led as a sheep. But prove to us whether
He must be crucified and die so disgracefully and so dishonourably by the
death cursed in the law.
[This intense abhorrence of the cross made it worth while to show that
these similitudes existed under the law. They were ad hominem
appeals, and suited to Jewish modes of thought.]
“You know,” said I, “that what the prophets said and did they veiled by parables and types, as you admitted to us; so that it was not easy for all to understand the most [of what they said], since they concealed the truth by these means, that those who are eager to find out and learn it might do so with much labour.”
They answered, “We admitted this.”
“Listen, therefore,” say I, “to what follows; for Moses first exhibited this seeming curse of Christ’s by the signs which he made.”
“Of what [signs] do you speak?” said he.
“And God by Moses shows in another way the force
of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith
Joseph was blessed,
There is a variety of reading
here: either ἀβύσσου πηγῶν κάτωθεν καθαρῶν: or, ἀβύσσου πηγῶν κάτωθεν, καὶ καθ’ ὥραν γεννημάτων,
κ.τ.λ., which we
prefer. The
translation in the text is a rendering of the Septuagint. The mss. of Justin read: “Being
glorified as the first-born among his brethren.”
[A clumsy
exposition of St.
Or, “ashes,” σποδῶν for
σπονδῶν. We have adopted
the parenthesis inserted by Maranus. Langus would insert before it,
τί ἕξετε ἀποκρίνασθαι;
“What will you have to answer?”
We have supplied this phrase twice above. Literally,
salvation along with Christ, that is, salvation by the aid of Christ.
ἀνδρομανία is
read in mss. for ἀνδροφονία.
On this, another of those who came on the second day said, “You have spoken truly: we cannot give a reason. For I have frequently interrogated the teachers about this matter, and none of them gave me a reason: therefore continue what you are speaking; for we are paying attention while you unfold the mystery, on account of which the doctrines of the prophets are falsely slandered.”
[
We read ἐπισταμένων
for ἐπιστάμενον.
Otherwise to be translated: “God foretold that which you did not
know,” etc. λεγομένων for
γενομένων.
That is,
Probably should be “Thy.”
[Jewish computation of the evening as part of the
succeeding day.]
Ibid.
[Note this testimony to Mary’s descent from
David.] The text is,
αὐτὸν τὸν ᾽Αβραὰμ πατέρα. Thirlby
proposed αὐτὸν τὸυ ᾽Αδὰμ: Maranus
changed this into αὐτοῦ τὸν ᾽Αδὰμ πατέρα. It
is not easy, says Maranus, to say in what Scripture Christ is so called.
[Clearly he refers to the Dayspring (St.
The text is
corrupt, and the meaning doubtful. Otto translates: naribus inter se
certantes.
Not found in mss.
καὶ τῶν διδασκάλων,
adopted instead of κατὰ τὴν διδασκαλίαν,
“according to their instructions.” ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους. Justin seems to
have supposed that the Jews came on Christ from some point of the hill
while He was in the valley below. ᾽Επὶ τοῦ ὄρους and ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος have been
suggested. Literally, “said.” Maranus says it is hardly to be doubted that Justin
read, “I am poured out like water,” etc. [Breast,
rather. The (κοίλη) cavity of the
nobler viscera.] Justin refers to the opinion of the Docetes, that Christ
suffered in appearance merely, and not in reality.
See note on chap. xcviii. Ibid. This demonstration is not given. [It
could not be. The woman was herself frightened by the direct
interposition of God. Sylburg proposed δικαίους
γίνεσθαι for δἰ οὔς γίν, “to strive
earnestly to become righteous, and at death to pray.”
[Or, “Dayspring.”]
In the
LXX. only three days are recorded, though in the Hebrew and other
versions forty. The parenthetic clause is probably the work of a
transcriber. Read κικυῶνα for σικυῶνα.
Chap. xvii.
Read μαθόντα for
παθόντα. Literally, “people shall place a
river in it.”
“But you, expounding these things in a low [and
earthly] manner, impute much weakness to God, if you thus listen to them
merely, and do not investigate the force of the words spoken. Since even
Moses would in this way be considered
According to the LXX.,
Σάρα was altered
to Σάῤῥα, and
Ἄβραμ to Ἀβραάμ. Or,
“resurrection of the saints.” Justin seems
to mean that the renewal of heaven and earth dates from the incarnation
of Christ. [St.
“For the Holy Spirit sometimes brought about that
something, which was the type of the future, should be done clearly;
sometimes He uttered words about what was to take place, as if it was
then taking place, or had taken place. And unless those who read perceive
this art, they will not be able to follow the words of the prophets as
they ought. For example’s sake, I shall repeat some prophetic
passages, that you may understand what I say. When He speaks by Isaiah,
‘He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb before the
shearer,’
Literally, “the operation of His words.” Editors have changed
τῶν λόγων into τὸν λόγον or τοῦ λόγου: but there is no
need of change.
“But you ought to believe Zechariah when he shows
in parable the mystery of Christ, and announces it obscurely. The
following are his words: ‘Rejoice, and be glad, O daughter of Zion:
for, lo, I come, and I shall dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord.
And many nations shall be added to the Lord in that day. And they shall
be my people, and I will dwell in the midst of thee; and they shall know
that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee. And the Lord shall inherit
Judah his portion in the holy land, and He shall choose Jerusalem again.
Let all flesh fear before the Lord, for He is raised up out of His holy
clouds. And He showed me Jesus (Joshua) the high priest standing before
the angel [of the Lord
Omitted by Justin in this place.
The reading suggested by
Maranus, εἰ μὲν ἦν. [Noteworthy as to prophetic vision.]
“Indeed, I wondered,” continued I, “why a little ago you kept silence while I was speaking, and why you did not interrupt me when I said that the son of Nave (Nun) was the only one of contemporaries who came out of Egypt that entered the Holy Land along with the men described as younger than that generation. For you swarm and light on sores like flies. For though one should speak ten thousand words well, if there happen to be one little word displeasing to you, because not sufficiently intelligible or accurate, you make no account of the many good words, but lay hold of the little word, and are very zealous in setting it up as something impious and guilty; in order that, when you are judged with the very same judgment by God, you may have a much heavier account to render for your great audacities, whether evil actions, or bad interpretations which you obtain by falsifying the truth. For with what judgment you judge, it is righteous that you be judged withal.
Maranus changed ἀποσπᾷ into
ἀποσπᾶν, an
emendation adopted in our translation. Otto retains the reading of the
ms. “out of which
Jesus the Son of God again snatches us. He promised that He would clothe
us with,” etc. Justin either confuses Joshua son of
Josedech with Hosea the prophet, or he refers to the Jewish tradition
that “filthy garments” signified either an illicit marriage,
or sins of the people, or the squalor of captivity. [
“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the
sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ
enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup,
and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world,
bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects
those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And
I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of
the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says);
but ye profane it.’ Or, “God of God.” [Note this testimony to the
catholicity of the Church in the second century. And see Kaye (compare
with Gibbon), cap. vi. 112.] εἶτα δὲ for εἰδότες.
The mss. read “them.”
Otto has changed it to “Him.”
“And in repeating this, [Let this apology be noted.]
Then he replied, “You do well; and though you repeat the same things at considerable length, be assured that I and my companions listen with pleasure.”
Then I said again, “Would you suppose, sirs, that
we could ever have understood these matters in the Scriptures, if we had
not received grace to discern by the will of Him whose pleasure it was?
in order that the saying of Moses Literally, “in the time of Moses.”
See chap. cx.
[Note this
important point. He forbears to cite the New Testament.] The Apology, i. chap. xxvi.; ii.
chap. xv.
So Justin concludes from
“You think that these words refer to the
stranger Γηόρα or Γειόρα. Found in LXX.,
Then some of those who had come on the second day cried out as if they had been in a theatre, “But what? does He not refer to the law, and to those illumined by it? Now these are proselytes.”
“No,” I said, looking towards Trypho,
“since, if the law were able to enlighten the nations and those who
possess it, what need is there of a new covenant? But since God announced
beforehand that He would send a new covenant, and an everlasting law and
commandment, we will not understand this of the old law and its
proselytes, but of Christ and His proselytes, namely us Gentiles, whom He
has illumined, as He says somewhere: ‘Thus saith the Lord, In an
acceptable time have I heard Thee, and in a day of salvation have I
helped Thee, and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, to
establish the earth, and to inherit the deserted.’
Literally, “a native of the land.”
“What, then?” says Trypho; “are you Israel? and speaks He such things of you?”
“If, indeed,” I replied to him, “we
had not entered into a lengthy [I cannot forbear to note this “Americanism”
in the text.] LXX. ἀναλάμψει,
as above. The reading of the text is ἀναληψει.
In the text there is certainly no
distinction given. But if we read ὡς ἄνθρωπος
(כְּאָדָם), “as a
man,” in the first quotation we shall be able to follow
Justin’s argument.
The reading
here is ἐπίσταμαι αὐτός,
which is generally abandoned for ἀπατᾶν
ἑαυτούς. [On
Justin’s Hebrew, see Kaye, p. 19.]
[By
Isaiah. “Counsellor” in English version.]
ὅταυ πον instead of
ὅταν μου.
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of
God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory
of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed
on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.”
“And now I shall again recite the words which I
have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord
rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word
indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it
says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also
is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His
power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records
that God said in the beginning, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one
of Us,’
The reading is, “and calls them by the same name.” But the
whole argument shows that the Jews and Gentiles are distinguished by
name. [But that Gentiles are also called (Israel) by the same name is the
point here.]
[Another Americanism.
Greek, θεάσασθαι.] The
anacoluthon is in the original. See Or, “by the power of
the name.” [
Literally, “provoked.” Literally, “turned away.”
And as they kept silence, I continued: “My
friends, I now refer to the Scriptures as the Seventy have interpreted
them; for when I quoted them formerly as you possess them, I made proof
of you [to ascertain] how you were disposed. [Justin’s varied quotations of the
same text seem to have been of purpose. But consult Kaye’s most
useful note as to the text of the LXX., in answer to objections of
Wetstein, p. 20. ff.]
[But Justin goes on to show
that it was prophetic foresight only: the curse cleaves only to wicked
descendants, the authors of idolatry. It was removed by Christ. St.
“Hence also Jacob, as I remarked before, being
himself a type of Christ, had married the two handmaids of his two free
wives, and of them begat sons, for the purpose of indicating beforehand
that Christ would receive even all those who amongst Japheth’s race
are descendants of Canaan, equally with the free, and would have the
children fellow-heirs. And we are such; but you cannot comprehend this,
because you cannot drink of the living fountain of God, but of broken
cisterns which can hold no water, as the Scripture says.
Literally,
“limbs.” Chap. lxxxviii, cii.
When I had said this, dearest Marcus Pompeius, I came to an end.
Then Trypho, after a little delay, said, “You see that it was not intentionally that we came to discuss these points. And I confess that I have been particularly pleased with the conference; and I think that these are of quite the same opinion as myself. For we have found more than we expected, and more than it was possible to have expected. And if we could do this more frequently, we should be much helped in the searching of the Scriptures themselves. But since,” he said, “you are on the eve of departure, and expect daily to set sail, do not hesitate to remember us as friends when you are gone.”
“For my part,” I replied, “if I had remained, I would have wished to do the same thing daily. But now, since I expect, with God’s will and aid, to set sail, I exhort you to give all diligence in this very great struggle for your own salvation, and to be earnest in setting a higher value on the Christ of the Almighty God than on your own teachers.”
After this they left me, wishing me safety in my
voyage, and from every misfortune. And I, praying for them, said,
“I can wish no better thing for you, sirs, than this, that,
recognising in this way that intelligence is given to every man, you may
be of the same opinion as ourselves, and believe that Jesus is the Christ
of God.” The last
sentence is very dubious. For παντὶ ἀνθρώπινον
νοῦν read παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ τὸν νοῦν. For ποιήσητε read πιστεύσητε. And
lastly, for τὸ ἡμῶν read τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν. [But there is no doubt
about the touching beauty of this close; and truly Trypho seems
“not far from the kingdom of God.” Note the marvellous
knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, which Justin had acquired, and
which he could use in conversation. His quotations from the Psalms,
memoriter, are more accurate than others. See Kaye, p. 141.]
[Translated by the Rev. M. Dods, M.A.]
Potter
would here read λιπαροῦ,
“elegant” [ironically for effeminate]; but the above reading
is defended by Sylburg, on the ground that shepherds were so greatly
despised, that this is not too hard an epithet to apply to Paris. Of the
many attempts to amend this clause, there seems to be none
satisfactory. Or, won the reputation of the virtue of wisdom by the
vice of deceit. That is, the manner in which he
did it, stopping his companions’ ears with wax, and having himself
bound to the mast of his ship.
Or, Saturn son of Heaven. In the
mysteries of Eleusis, the return of Proserpine from the lower world was
celebrated. Apollo accidentally killed Hyacinthus by striking him on
the head with a quoit.
Τριέσπερον, so
called, as some think, [from his origin: “ex concubitu trium
noctium.”] Thyestes seduced
the wife of his brother Atreus, whence the tragic career of the
family. There is no
apodosis in the Greek. Not, as the editors dispute, either the
tongue of the buckle with which he put out his eyes, nor the awl with
which his heels were bored through, but the goad with which he killed his
father.
Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμῶν. [He
seems to quote [N. B.
—It should be stated that modern critics consider this work as not
improbably by another author.]
[Translated by the Rev. M. Dods, M.A.]
Literally, “former.”
Iliad, xiv. 302.
And then we must also remind you of what he further
says of him whom ye consider the first of the gods, and whom he often
calls “the father of gods and men;” for he said: Iliad, xix. 224.
Indeed, he says that he was not only the dispenser of
war to the army, but also the cause of perjury to the Trojans, by means
of his daughter; That is,
Venus, who, after Paris had sworn that the war should be decided by
single combat between himself and Menelaus, carried him off, and induced
him, though defeated, to refuse performance of the articles agreed
upon. Iliad, xvi. 433. Sarpedon was a son
of Zeus.
And at another time concerning Hector: Iliad, xxii. 168.
And what he says of the conspiracy of the other gods
against Zeus, they know who read these words: Iliad, i. 399, etc. Iliad, xiv. 315. (The passage is
here given in full from Cowper’s translation. In Justin’s
quotation one or two lines are omitted.)
It is fit that we now mention what one can learn from
the work of Homer of the other gods, and what they suffered at the hands
of men. For he says that Mars and Venus were wounded by Diomed, and of
many others of the gods he relates the sufferings. For thus we can gather
from the case of Dione consoling her daughter; for she said to her: Iliad, v. 382 (from Lord
Derby’s translation).
But if it is right to remind you of the battle of the
gods, opposed to one another, your own poet himself will recount it,
saying: Iliad, xx.
66 (from Lord Derby’s translation).
These and such like things did Homer teach you; and not Homer only, but also Hesiod. So that if you believe your most distinguished poets, who have given the genealogies of your gods, you must of necessity either suppose that the gods are such beings as these, or believe that there are no gods at all.
i.e., these teachers. Literally, “those who knew.”
μονάδα καὶ τὴν ἀόριστον δυάδα. One, or
unity, was considered by Pythagoras as the essence of number, and also as
God. Two, or the indefinite binary, was the equivalent of evil. So
Plutarch, De placit. philosoph., c. 7; from which treatise the
above opinions of the various sects are quoted, generally
verbatim. ἀμέτοχα
κενοῦ: the void being
that in which these bodies move, while they themselves are of a different
nature from it.
Or, accord and discord, attraction and repulsion.
Or, “is
of a fiery nature.” See the
Republic, x. 2. By the Platonic doctrine, the ideas of things in
the mind of God were the realities; the things themselves, as seen by us,
were the images of these realities; and poetry, therefore, describing the
images of realities, was only at the third remove from nature. As Plato
puts it briefly in this same passage, “the painter, the bed-maker,
God—these three are the masters of three species of
beds.” Iliad, xv. 192. i.e.,
from Homer; using Homer’s words as suggestive and confirmatory of
his doctrine.
Iliad, xiv. 246.
May not Thales, then, very fairly say to him, “What is the reason, Aristotle, why you give heed to Homer, as if he spoke truth, when you wish to demolish the opinions of Plato; but when you promulgate an opinion contrary to ours, you think Homer untruthful?”
τὸ λογικόν τὸ θυμικόν, τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν,
—corresponding to what we roughly speak of as reason, the heart,
and the appetites. ἐντελέχεια,
—the completion or actuality to which each thing, by virtue of its
peculiar nature (or potentiality, δύναμις), can
arrive.
Literally,
“unbegotten.” Or,
“liable to destruction.”
Literally, “the art of
words.” Literally, “clean,” free from
other influences. [The diversities of Christian theology are
to be regretted; but Justin here shows the harmony and order of truths,
such as are everywhere received by Christians, to be an inestimable
advantage.]
The incongruity in this sentence is
Justin’s. [Autochthones]. That is, sprung from the
soil; and hence the oldest inhabitants, the aborigines. Literally, archæology. Unfortunately,
Justin here mistook Menes for Moses. [But he may have so read the name in
his copy. See Grabe’s note on Diodorus, and the quotation following
in another note.] This sentence must be so completed from the context in
Diodorus. See the note of Maranus.
[Consult the ponderous learning of Warburton’s Divine Legation, passim.]
Since, therefore, you think that the truth can be learned from your oracles, when you read the histories and what has been written regarding the life of Moses by those who do not belong to our religion, and when you know that Moses and the rest of the prophets were descended from the race of the Chaldæans and Hebrews, do not think that anything incredible has taken place if a man sprung from a godly line, and who lived worthily of the godliness of his fathers, was chosen by God to be honoured with this great gift and to be set forth as the first of all the prophets.
Literally, “without,” not
belonging to the true faith. C.
3.
[Doubtless
Justin relates the tradition as he received it. Consult Dr.
Selwyn’s full account of the fables concerning the LXX., in
Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, iii. p. 1203 ff.]
It is therefore necessary, ye Greeks, that you
contemplate the things that are to be, and consider the judgment which is
predicted by all, not only by the godly, but also by those who are
irreligious, that ye do not without investigation commit yourselves to
the error of your fathers, nor suppose that if they themselves have been
in error, and have transmitted it to you, that this which they have
taught you is true; but looking to the danger of so terrible a mistake,
inquire and investigate carefully into those things which are, as you
say, spoken of even by your own teachers. For even unwillingly they were
on your account forced to say many things by the Divine regard for
mankind, especially those of them who were in Egypt, and profited by the
godliness of Moses and his ancestry.
And when he swears he says:—
What does he mean by “I adjure thee by the Father’s voice, which first He uttered?” It is the Word of God which he here names “the voice,” by whom heaven and earth and the whole creation were made, as the divine prophecies of the holy men teach us; and these he himself also paid some attention to in Egypt, and understood that all creation was made by the Word of God; and therefore, after he says, “I adjure thee by the Father’s voice, which first He uttered,” he adds this besides, “when by His counsel He established the whole world.” Here he calls the Word “voice,” for the sake of the poetical metre. And that this is so, is manifest from the fact, that a little further on, where the metre permits him, he names it “Word.” For he said:—
Then elsewhere thus:—
And again somewhere else:—
These are the Sibyl’s words.
Iliad, ix. 445. Iliad, ii. 204.
Thus, then, Sophocles.
Has no fellow.
Or, “uncreated.” ὁ ὢν, “He who is;
the Being.”
Literally, “with the not-beings.” Literally, “between the God being and
not-beings.”
That is, “is not produced or created; has no
birth.” Or, “are
born and die.” κατὰ ταὐτά “according to the same things,”
i.e., in eternal immutability. Or, “demiurge or maker.”
That is, “my will to the
contrary.” See Plato, Tim., p. 41 [cap 13].
Iliad, ix. 497. That is, by the challenge of
the chain introduced—Iliad, viii. 18. Iliad, ix. 238.
Iliad, i. 526.
But Plato, as it seems, unwillingly entered not these
strange dissertations concerning the gods, for he feared those who were
attached to polytheism.
Plato, Tim., p. 53 D, [cap. 20]. Pind., Fr., 233, a
fragment preserved in this place. Plato,
Rep., p. 330 D.
Plato, Rep., p. 615, [lib. x. p. 325. Ed. Bipont,
1785.] The bellowing of the mouth of
the pit.
Odyssey, xi, 576 (Pope’s
translation, line 709).
Odyssey, iv. 221; [Milton’s Comus, line 675]. Iliad, xviii. 483.
And he contrived also that the garden of Alcinous
should preserve the likeness of Paradise, and through this likeness he
represented it as ever-blooming and full of all fruits. For thus he
wrote: Odyssey,
vii. 114 (Pope’s translation, line 146.).
Do not these words present a manifest and clear
imitation of what the first prophet Moses said about Paradise? And if any
one wish to know something of the building of the tower by which the men
of that day fancied they would obtain access to heaven, he will find a
sufficiently exact allegorical imitation of this in what the poet has
ascribed to Otus and Ephialtes. For of them he wrote thus: Odyssey, xi. 312
(Pope’s translation, line 385).
And the same holds good regarding the enemy of mankind
who was cast out of heaven, whom the Sacred Scriptures call the
Devil, The false accuser;
one who does injury by slanderous accusations. ᾽Ατη, the
goddess of mischief, from whom spring all rash, blind deeds and their
results. Iliad, xix.
126.
Iliad,
xxii.
And again, somewhere else, Iliad, vii. 99.
resolving them in his violent rage into their original and pristine formation from earth. These things Homer and Plato, having learned in Egypt from the ancient histories, wrote in their own words.
Literally, “those without.”
The time, then, ye men of Greece, is now come, that ye,
having been persuaded by the secular histories that Moses and the rest of
the prophets were far more ancient than any of those who have been
esteemed sages among you, abandon the ancient delusion of your
forefathers, and read the divine histories of the prophets, and ascertain
from them the true religion; for they do not present to you artful
discourses, nor speak speciously and plausibly—for this is the
property of those who wish to rob you of the truth—but use with
simplicity the words and expressions which offer themselves, and declare
to you whatever the Holy Ghost, who descended upon them, chose to teach
through them to those who are desirous to learn the true religion. Having
then laid aside all false shame, and the inveterate error of mankind,
with all its bombastic parade and empty noise, though by means of it you
fancy you are possessed of all advantages, do you give yourselves to the
things that profit you. For neither will you commit any offence against
your fathers, if you now show a desire to betake yourselves to that which
is quite opposed to their error, since it is likely enough that they
Literally, “sacred men.” [A noteworthy
apology for early Christian writers.]
This
is now supposed to be fable. Literally,
“sacred men.”
[In Grabe’s edition consult notes of Lang and Kortholt, ii. p. 45.]
[Travellers must recognise the
agreement of Justin’s story with the traditional cave still shown
in this region.]
But since, ye men of Greece, the matters of the true
religion lie not in the metrical numbers of poetry, nor yet in that
culture which is highly esteemed among you, do ye henceforward pay less
devotion to accuracy of metres and of language; and giving heed without
contentiousness to the words of the Sibyl, recognise how great are the
benefits which she will confer upon you by predicting, as she does in a
clear and patent manner, the advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ; [The fascinating use made of
this by Virgil must not be overlooked:— “Ultima Cumæi venit jam carminis ætas,”
etc. Ecl., iv. (Pollio) 4.] [Hermes Trismegistus. Milton
(Penseroso, line 88,) translates this name.]
Θεοῦ is omitted in mss., but μοναρχία of itself implies it.
[Translated by the Rev. G. Reith, M.A.]
i.e., the doctrine that God
only is to be worshipped. Literally, “history.”
Grotius supposes this to be
Æschylus the younger in some prologue.
This may also be translated: “expounding the set of opinions
prevalent in his day.”
He speaks indeed as if he had been an eyewitness of
God’s greatness. And Pythagoras “Pythagorei cujusdam fetus.”—Otto, after Goezius.
[Langus
compares
Some propose to insert these three lines in the centre of the next quotation from Philemon, after the line, “Nay, there’s an eye,” etc.
Some say Diphilus.
Grotius joins these lines to the
preceding. Clement of Alexandria assigns them, and the others, which are
under the name of Euripides, to Diphilus.
Some attribute these lines to Menander, others regard
them as spurious.
Again, Plato, in Timæus, P. 68, D, [cap. 30.] The mss. are corrupt here. They seem
to read, and one actually does read, “all” for
“many.” “Many” is in Plato, and the clause in
brackets is taken from Plato to fill up the sense.
The same Menander, in the Sacerdos, says:—
Again, the same Menander, stating his opinion about those who are received as gods, proving rather that they are not so, says:—
And in the Depositum:—
The same also in Hippolytus:—
And in Ion:—
κακά in Euripedes, καλά in text.
[See Warburton’s Divine Legation (book ii. § 4), vol. ii. p. 20. Ed. London, 1811.]
And in Archelaus:—
And in Bellerophon:—
And again in the same:—
And Menander in Diphilus: These lines are assigned to Diphilus.
The same also in the Piscatores:—
The words from “but” to “all” are assigned by Otto to Justin, not to Menander.
The same in the Fratres:—
And in the Tibicinæ:—
In Philoctetes:—
In Hecuba:—
and,—
Here, then, is a proof of virtue, and of a mind loving
prudence, to recur to the communion of the unity, See chap. i., the opening sentence.
Odyssey, xxii. 347.
though he is a mortal. Æsculapius and Apollo are
taught to heal by Chiron the Centaur,—a very novel thing indeed,
for gods to be taught by a man. What need I speak of Bacchus, who the
poet says is mad? or of Hercules, who he says is unhappy? What need to
speak of Mars and Venus, the leaders of adultery; and by means of all
these to establish the proof which has been undertaken? For if some one,
in ignorance, should imitate the deeds which are said to be divine, he
would be reckoned among impure men, and a stranger to life and humanity;
and if any one does so knowingly, he will have a plausible excuse for
escaping vengeance, by showing that imitation of godlike deeds of
audacity is no sin. But if any one should blame these deeds, he will take
away their well-known names, and not cover them up with specious and
plausible words. It is necessary, then, to accept the true and invariable
Name, not proclaimed by my words only, but by the words of those who have
introduced us to the elements of learning, in order that we may not, by
living idly in this present state of existence, not only as those who are
ignorant of the heavenly glory, but also as having proved ourselves
ungrateful, render our account to the Judge. [N. B.—This tractate is probably
the genuine work of Justin.]
[Translated by the Rev. M. Dods, M.A.]
That is to say, their lives are a protest
against entering into marriage for any other purpose than that of
begetting children. i.e., to the devil. [St.
Odyssey, ii. 304.
i.e., by actually happening under our
observation. ἔξωθεν,
“without” or “outside,” to which reference is
made in the next clause, which may be translated, “because nothing
is outside God,” or, “because to God nothing is
‘without.’ ” κοσμικῶν, arguments
drawn from the laws by which the world is governed.
τὸ κενόν, the void of
space in which the infinity of atoms moved.
But the proof of the possibility of the resurrection of
the flesh I have sufficiently demonstrated, in answer to men of the
world. And if the resurrection of the flesh is not found impossible on
the principles even of unbelievers, how much more will it be found in
accordance with the mind of believers! But following our order, we must
now speak with respect to those who think meanly of the flesh, and say
that it is not worthy of the resurrection nor of the heavenly
economy, Or,
“citizenship.” This might also be rendered,
“and the things in the world, on account of which he was
made;” but the subsequent argument shows the propriety of the above
rendering.
Quite true, say they; yet the flesh is a sinner, so
much so, that it forces the soul to sin along with it. And thus they
vainly accuse it, and lay to its charge alone the sins of both. But in
what instance can the flesh possibly sin by itself, if it have not the
soul going before it and inciting it? For as in the case of a yoke of
oxen, if one or other is loosed from the yoke, neither of them can plough
alone; so neither can soul or body alone effect anything, if they be
unyoked from their communion. And if it is the flesh that is the sinner,
then on its account alone did the Saviour come, as He says, “I am
not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
We must meet, therefore, those who say, that even though it be the special handiwork of God, and beyond all else valued by Him, it would not immediately follow that it has the promise of the resurrection. Yet is it not absurd, that that which has been produced with such circumstance, and which is beyond all else valuable, should be so neglected by its Maker, as to pass to nonentity? Then the sculptor and painter, if they wish the works they have made to endure, that they may win glory by them, renew them when they begin to decay; but God would so neglect His own possession and work, that it becomes annihilated, and no longer exists. Should we not call this labour in vain? As if a man who has built a house should forthwith destroy it, or should neglect it, though he sees it falling into decay, and is able to repair it: we would blame him for labouring in vain; and should we not so blame God? But not such an one is the Incorruptible,—not senseless is the Intelligence of the universe. Let the unbelieving be silent, even though they themselves do not believe.
But, in truth, He has even called the flesh to the
resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life. For where He promises
to save man, there He gives the promise to the flesh. For what is man but
the reasonable animal composed of body and soul? Is the soul by itself
man? No; but the soul of man. Would the body be called man? No, but it is
called the body of man. If, then, neither of these is by itself man, but
that which is made up of the two together is called man, and God has
called man to life and
Migne proposes to
read here καὶ οὐ σὺν αὐτῇ,
“without the flesh,” which gives a more obvious meaning. The
above reading is, however, defensible. Justin means that the flesh was
not merely partaking of the soul’s faith and promise, but had
rights of its own. It is supposed that a part of the treatise has been here
dropped out.
Comp.
The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which
died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a
soul it cannot live. The body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the
body is the house of the soul; and the soul the house of the spirit.
These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning
faith in God, will be saved. Considering, therefore, even such arguments
as are suited to this world, and finding that, even according to them, it
is not impossible that the flesh be regenerated; and seeing that, besides
all these proofs, the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is
salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving
and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we
listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the
body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear
from Pythagoras and Plato,
[N.B.—These fragments are probably
genuine.]
[Translated by the Rev. A. Roberts, D.D.]
[See, on the Resurrection, cap. vi.; and compare,
— Milton, Pens., line 93.]
And Justin of Neapolis, a man who was not far separated from the apostles either in age or excellence, says that that which is mortal is inherited, but that which is immortal inherits; and that the flesh indeed dies, but the kingdom of heaven lives.—From Methodius On the Resurrection, in Photius.
Neither is there straitness with God, nor anything that is not absolutely perfect.—From manuscript of the writings of Justin.
We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.
The unskilfulness of the teacher proves destructive to his disciples, and the carelessness of the disciples entails danger on the teacher, and especially should they owe their negligence to his want of knowledge.
The soul can with difficulty be recalled to those good
things from which it has fallen, and
See
By that which took place in the running Literally,
“living.”
For this reason, consequently, he ordered that the scarlet should be dipped at the same time in the water, thus predicting that the flesh should no longer possess its natural [evil] properties. For this reason, also, were there the two birds, the one being sacrificed in the water, and the other dipped both in the blood and in the water and then sent away, just as is narrated also respecting the goats.
The Gentiles are here referred
to, who saw no necessity for the incarnation.
As it is inherent in all bodies formed by God to have a shadow, so it is fitting that God, who is just, should render to those who choose what is good, and to those who prefer what is evil, to every one according to his deserts.—From the writings of John of Damascus.
He speaks not of the Gentiles in foreign lands, but
concerning [the people] who agree with the Gentiles, according to that
which is spoken by Jeremiah: “It is a bitter thing for thee, that
thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord thy God, that of old thou hast
broken thy yoke, and torn asunder thy bands, and said, I will not serve
Thee, but will go to every high hill, and underneath every tree, and
there shall I become dissolute in my fornication.”
Neither shall light ever be darkness as long as light exists, nor shall the truth of the things pertaining to us be controverted. For truth is that than which nothing is more powerful. Every one who might speak the truth, and speaks it not, shall be judged by God.—Manuscript and works of John of Damascus.
Sound doctrine does not enter into the hard and disobedient heart; but, as if beaten back, enters anew into itself.
As the good of the body is health, so the good of the soul is knowledge, which is indeed a kind of health of soul, by which a likeness to God is attained.—From the writings of John of Damascus.
To yield and give way to our passions is the lowest slavery, even as to rule over them is the only liberty.
The greatest of all good is to be free from sin, the next is to be justified; but he must be reckoned the most unfortunate of men, who, while living unrighteously, remains for a long time unpunished.
Animals in harness cannot but be carried over a precipice by the inexperience and badness of their driver, even as by his skilfulness and excellence they will be saved.
The end contemplated by a philosopher is likeness to God, so far as that is possible.—From the writings of Antonius Melissa.
[The words] of St. Justin, philosopher and martyr, from
the fifth part of his Apology: It is doubtful if these words are really Justin’s,
or, if so, from which, or what part, of his Apologies they are
derived.
It escapes them apparently, that he who has by a true faith come forth from error to the truth, has truly known himself, not, as they say, as being in a state of frenzy, but as free from the unstable and (as to every variety of error) changeable corruption, by the simple and ever identical truth.—From the writings of John of Damascus.
Crescens, a cynic, has the ill-renown of stirring up the persecution in which Justin and his friends suffered for Christ. The story that he died by the hemlock seems to have originated among the Greeks, who naturally gave this turn to the sufferings of a philosopher. The following Introductory Notice of the translator supplies all that need be added.
Though
nothing is known as to the date or authorship of the following narrative,
it is generally reckoned among the most trustworthy of the Martyria. An
absurd addition was in some copies made to it, to the effect that Justin
died by means of hemlock. Some have thought it necessary, on account of
this story, to conceive of two Justins, one of whom, the celebrated
defender of the Christian faith whose writings are given in this volume,
died through poison, while the other suffered in the way here described,
along with several of his friends. But the description of Justin given in
the following account, is evidently such as compels us to refer it to the
famous apologist and martyr of the second century. [See Cave, Lives of the Fathers, i.
243. Epiphanius, by fixing the martyrdom under the prefecture of
Rusticus, seems to identify this history; but, then, he also connects it
with the reign of Hadrian. Ed. Oehler, tom ii. 709. Berlin, 1859.]
[Translated by the Rev. M. Dods, M.A.]
i.e., the emperors. Μετὰ δόγματος ὀρθοῦ, orthodoxy. That is, that a prophetic inspiration is
required to speak worthily of Christ.
Rusticus the prefect said, “Where do you assemble?” Justin said, “Where each one chooses and can: for do you fancy that we all meet in the very same place? Not so; because the God of the Christians is not circumscribed by place; but being invisible, fills heaven and earth, and everywhere is worshipped and glorified by the faithful.” Rusticus the prefect said, “Tell me where you assemble, or into what place do you collect your followers?” Justin said, “I live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath; and during the whole time (and I am now living in Rome for the second time) I am unaware of any other meeting than his. And if any one wished to come to me, I communicated to him the doctrines of truth.” Rusticus said, “Are you not, then, a Christian?” Justin said, “Yes, I am a Christian.”
The prefect says to Justin, “Hearken, you who are
called learned, and think that you know true doctrines; if you are
scourged and beheaded, do you believe you will ascend into heaven?”
Justin said, “I hope that, if I endure these things, I shall have
His gifts. Another reading
is δόγματα, which may be
translated, “I shall have what He teaches [us to
expect].” This passage admits of another
rendering. Lord Hailes, following the common Latin version, thus
translates: “It was our chief wish to endure tortures for the sake
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so to be saved.”
Rusticus the prefect pronounced sentence, saying,
“Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to yield
to the command of the emperor be scourged, [This wholesale sentence implies a great indifference to
the probable Roman citizenship of some of them, if not our heroic martyr
himself; but
[a.d.
120–202.] This
history introduces us to the Church in her Western outposts. We reach the
banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have
flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a
brisk trade, and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early
date as its evangelist. He had fixed his see at Lyons, when Irenæus
joined him as a presbyter, having been his fellow-pupil under Polycarp.
There, under the “good Aurelius,” as he is miscalled (a.d. 177), arose the terrible
persecution which made “the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne” so
memorable. It was during this persecution that Irenæus was sent to Rome
with letters of remonstrance against the rising pestilence of heresy; and
he was probably the author of the account of the sufferings of the
martyrs which is appended to their testimony. Eusebius, book v. to the twenty-seventh
chapter, should be read as an introduction to this author.
Milman, Hist. Latin Christianity, b. i. pp. 27, 28, and the
notes.
Returning to Lyons, our author found that the venerable Pothinus had closed his holy career by a martyr’s death; and naturally Irenæus became his successor. When the emissaries of heresy followed him, and began to disseminate their licentious practices and foolish doctrines by the aid of “silly women,” the great work of his life began. He condescended to study these diseases of the human mind like a wise physician; and, sickening as was the process of classifying and describing them, he made this also his laborious task, that he might enable others to withstand and to overcome them. The works he has left us are monuments of his fidelity to Christ, and to the charges of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, whose solemn warnings now proved to be prophecies. No marvel that the great apostle, “night and day with tears,” had forewarned the churches of “the grievous wolves” which were to make havoc of the fold.
If it shocks the young student of the virgin years of
Christianity to find such a state of things, let him reflect that it was
all foretold by Christ himself, and demonstrates the malice and power of
the adversary. “An enemy hath done this,” said the Master.
The spirit that was then working
That the intolerable absurdities of Gnosticism should
have gained so many disciples, and proved itself an adversary to be
grappled with and not despised, throws light on the condition of the
human mind under heathenism, even when it professed
“knowledge” and “philosophy.” The task of
Irenæus was twofold: (1) to render it impossible for any one to confound
Gnosticism with Christianity, and (2) to make it impossible for such a
monstrous system to survive, or ever to rise again. His task was a
nauseous one; but never was the spirit enjoined by Scripture more
patiently exhibited, nor with more entire success.
The Episcopate of Irenæus was distinguished by
labours, “in season and out of season,” for the
evangelization of Southern Gaul; and he seems to have sent missionaries
into other regions of what we now call France. In spite of Paganism and
heresy, he rendered Lyons a Christian city; and Marcus seems to have
retreated before his terrible castigation, taking himself off to regions
beyond the Pyrenees. On
the authority of St. Jerome. See Guettée, De l’église de
France, vol. 1. p. 27.
The Introductory
Notice of the learned translators The first two books of Irenæus Against Heresies
have been translated by Dr. Roberts. The groundwork of the translation of
the third book, and that portion of the fourth book which is continued in
this volume, has been furnished by the Rev. W. H. Rambaut. An attempt has
been made, in rendering this important author into English, to adhere as
closely as possible to the original. It would have been far easier to
give a loose and flowing translation of the obscure and involved
sentences of Irenæus; but the object has been studiously kept in view,
to place the English reader, as much as possible, in the position of one
who has immediate access to the Greek or Latin text.
In the prosecution of this plan, the author divides his work into five books. The first of these contains a minute description of the tenets of the various heretical sects, with occasional brief remarks in illustration of their absurdity, and in confirmation of the truth to which they were opposed. In his second book, Irenæus proceeds to a more complete demolition of those heresies which he has already explained, and argues at great length against them, on grounds principally of reason. The three remaining books set forth more directly the true doctrines of revelation, as being in utter antagonism to the views held by the Gnostic teachers. In the course of this argument, many passages of Scripture are quoted and commented on; many interesting statements are made, bearing on the rule of faith; and much important light is shed on the doctrines, held, as well as the practices observed, by the Church of the second century.
It may be made matter of regret, that so large a portion of the work of Irenæus is given to an exposition of the manifold Gnostic speculations. Nothing more absurd than these has probably ever been imagined by rational beings. Some ingenious and learned men have indeed endeavoured to reconcile the wild theories of these heretics with the principles of reason; but, as Bishop Kaye remarks (Eccl. Hist. of the Second and Third Centuries, p. 524), “a more arduous or unpromising undertaking cannot well be conceived.” The fundamental object of the Gnostic speculations was doubtless to solve the two grand problems of all religious philosophy, viz., How to account for the existence of evil; and, How to reconcile the finite with the infinite. But these ancient theorists were not more successful in grappling with such questions than have been their successors in modern times. And by giving loose reins to their imagination, they built up the most incongruous and ridiculous systems; while, by deserting the guidance of Scripture they were betrayed into the most pernicious and extravagant errors.
Accordingly, the patience of the reader is sorely tried, in following our author through those mazes of absurdity which he treads, in explaining and refuting these Gnostic speculations. This is especially felt in the perusal of the first two books, which, as has been said, are principally devoted to an exposition and subversion of the various heretical systems. But the vagaries of the human mind, however melancholy in themselves, are never altogether destitute of instruction. And in dealing with those set before us in this work, we have not only the satisfaction of becoming acquainted with the currents of thought prevalent in these early times, but we obtain much valuable information regarding the primitive Church, which, had it not been for these heretical schemes, might never have reached our day.
Not a little of what is contained in the following pages will seem almost unintelligible to the English reader. And it is scarcely more comprehensible to those who have pondered long on the original. We have inserted brief notes of explanation where these seemed specially necessary. But we have not thought it worth while to devote a great deal of space to the elucidation of those obscure Gnostic views which, in so many varying forms, are set forth in this work. For the same reason, we give here no account of the origin, history, and successive phases of Gnosticism. Those who wish to know the views of the learned on these points, may consult the writings of Neander, Baur, and others, among the Germans, or the lectures of Dr. Burton in English; while a succinct description of the whole matter will be found in the “Preliminary Observations on the Gnostic System,” prefixed to Harvey’s edition of Irenæus.
The great work of Irenæus, now for the first time
translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the
original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with
the exception of the greater part of the first book, which has been
preserved in the original Greek, through means of copious quotations made
by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, both Latin
After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.
Irenæus had manifestly taken great pains to make himself acquainted with the various heretical systems which he describes. His mode of exposing and refuting these is generally very effective. It is plain that he possessed a good share of learning, and that he had a firm grasp of the doctrines of Scripture. Not unfrequently he indulges in a kind of sarcastic humour, while inveighing against the folly and impiety of the heretics. But at times he gives expression to very strange opinions. He is, for example, quite peculiar in imagining that our Lord lived to be an old man, and that His public ministry embraced at least ten years. But though, on these and some other points, the judgment of Irenæus is clearly at fault, his work contains a vast deal of sound and valuable exposition of Scripture, in opposition to the fanciful systems of interpretation which prevailed in his day.
We possess only very scanty accounts of the personal history of Irenæus. It has been generally supposed that he was a native of Smyrna, or some neighbouring city, in Asia Minor. Harvey, however, thinks that he was probably born in Syria, and removed in boyhood to Smyrna. He himself tells us (iii. 3, 4) that he was in early youth acquainted with Polycarp, the illustrious bishop of that city. A sort of clue is thus furnished as to the date of his birth. Dodwell supposes that he was born so early as a.d. 97, but this is clearly a mistake; and the general date assigned to his birth is somewhere between a.d. 120 and a.d. 140.
It is certain that Irenæus was bishop of Lyons, in France, during the latter quarter of the second century. The exact period or circumstances of his ordination cannot be determined. Eusebius states (Hist. Eccl., v. 4) that he was, while yet a presbyter, sent with a letter, from certain members of the Church of Lyons awaiting martyrdom, to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome; and that (v. 5) he succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons, probably about a.d. 177. His great work Against Heresies was, we learn, written during the episcopate of Eleutherus, that is, between a.d. 182 and a.d. 188, for Victor succeeded to the bishopric of Rome in a.d. 189. This new bishop of Rome took very harsh measures for enforcing uniformity throughout the Church as to the observance of the paschal solemnities. On account of the severity thus evinced, Irenæus addressed to him a letter (only a fragment of which remains), warning him that if he persisted in the course on which he had entered, the effect would be to rend the Catholic Church in pieces. This letter had the desired result; and the question was more temperately debated, until finally settled by the Council of Nice.
The full title of the principal work of Irenæus, as
given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v. 7), and
As has been already stated, the first printed copy of our author was given to the world by Erasmus. This was in the year 1526. Between that date and 1571, a number of reprints were produced in both folio and octavo. All these contained merely the ancient barbarous Latin version, and were deficient towards the end by five entire chapters. These latter were supplied by the edition of Feuardent, Professor of Divinity at Paris, which was published in 1575, and went through six subsequent editions. Previously to this, however, another had been set forth by Gallasius, a minister of Geneva, which contained the first portions of the Greek text from Epiphanius. Then, in 1702, came the edition of Grabe, a learned Prussian, who had settled in England. It was published at Oxford, and contained considerable additions to the Greek text, with fragments. Ten years after this there appeared the important Paris edition by the Benedictine monk Massuet. This was reprinted at Venice in the year 1724, in two thin folio volumes, and again at Paris in a large octavo, by the Abbé Migne, in 1857. A German edition was published by Stieren in 1853. In the year 1857 there was also brought out a Cambridge edition, by the Rev. Wigan Harvey, in two octavo volumes. The two principal features of this edition are: the additions which have been made to the Greek text from the recently discovered Philosophoumena of Hippolytus; and the further addition of thirty-two fragments of a Syriac version of the Greek text of Irenæus, culled from the Nitrian collection of Syriac mss. in the British Museum. These fragments are of considerable interest, and in some instances rectify the readings of the barbarous Latin version, where, without such aid, it would have been unintelligible. The edition of Harvey will be found constantly referred to in the notes appended to our translation.
1. Inasmuch The Greek original of the work of Irenæus
is from time to time recovered through the numerous quotations made from
it by subsequent writers, especially by the author’s pupil
Hippolytus, and by Epiphanius. The latter preserves (Hær. xxxi.
secs. 9–32) the preface of Irenæus, and most of the first book. An
important difference of reading occurs between the Latin and Greek in the
very first word. The translator manifestly read ἐπεί,
quatenus, while in Epiphanius we find ἐπί,
against. The former is probably correct, and has been followed in
our version. We have also supplied a clause, in order to avoid the
extreme length of the sentence in the original, which runs on without any
apodosis to the words ἀναγκαῖον
ἡγησάμην,
“I have judged it necessary.” As will be seen by and by, this
fancied being was, in the Valentinian system, the creator of the material
universe, but far inferior to the supreme ruler Bythus.
2. There
are frequent references to Irenæus to some venerable men who had
preceded him in the Church. It is supposed that Pothinus, whom he
succeeded at Lyons, is generally meant; but the reference may sometimes
be to Polycarp, with whom in early life he had been acquainted. [On this
matter of quotations from anonymous authors of the apostolic times, not
infrequently made by Irenæus, consult the important tractate of Dr.
Routh, in his Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. i. 45–68.] Comp.
The original is ἐγκέφαλον
ἐξεπτύκασιν,
which the Latin translator renders simply, “have not sufficient
brains.” He probably followed a somewhat different reading. Various
emendations have been proposed, but the author may be understood by the
ordinary text to be referring ironically to the boasted subtlety and
sublimity of the Gnostics.
3. As Cæsar informs us (Comm., i. 1), Gaul was
divided into three parts, one of which was called Celtic Gaul, lying
between the Seine and the Garonne. Of this division Lyons is the
principal city. [The
reader will find a logical and easy introduction to the crabbed details
which follow, by turning to chap. xxiii., and reading through succeeding
chapters down to chap. xxix.]
1.
2.
3. Such are the thirty Æons in the erroneous system of
these men; and they are described as being wrapped up, so to speak, in
silence, and known to none [except these professing teachers]. Moreover,
they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is
tripartite, being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And
for this reason they affirm it was that the “Saviour”—
for they do not please to call Him “Lord”—did no work
in public during the space of thirty years,
Some omit ἐν πλήθει, while others
render the words “a definite number,” thus: “And if
there is anything else in Scripture which is referred to by a definite
number.”
1. They proceed to tell us that the Propator of their
scheme was known only to
2.
3. But others of them fabulously describe the passion
and restoration of Sophia as follows: They say that she, having engaged
in an impossible and impracticable attempt, brought forth an amorphous
substance, such as her female nature enabled her to produce. Alluding to the Gnostic notion
that, in generation, the male gives form, the female substance. Sophia,
therefore, being a female Æon, gave to her enthymesis substance alone,
without form. Comp. Hippol., Philosop., vi. 30. Some render this
obscure clause, “lest it should never attain perfection,” but
the above seems preferable. See Hippol., vi. 31, where the fear referred
to is extended to the whole Pleroma. “The reader will observe the
parallel; as the enthymesis of Bythus produced intelligent substance, so
the enthymesis of Sophia resulted in the formation of material
substance.”—Harvey.
4. Some propose
reading these words in the dative rather than the accusative, and thus to
make them refer to the image of the Father. The meaning of these terms is
as follows: Stauros means primarily a stake, and then a
cross; Lytrotes is a Redeemer; Carpistes, according to Grabe,
means an Emancipator, according to Neander a Reaper;
Horothetes is one that fixes boundaries; and Metagoges is
explained by Neander as being one that brings back, from the
supposed function of Horos, to bring back all that sought to wander from
the special grade of being assigned them. The common text
has ἀποστερηθῆναι,
was deprived; but Billius proposes to read ἀποσταυρωθῆναι,
in conformity with the ancient Latin version,
“crucifixam.” That is, had not shared in any male
influence, but was a purely female production. Literally,
“fruit.” Harvey remarks on this expression, “that what
we understand by emanations, the Gnostic described as spiritual
fructification; and as the seed of a tree is in itself, even in
the embryo state, so these various Æons, as existing always in the
divine nature, were co-eternal with it.”
5. After this substance had been placed outside of the
Pleroma of the Æons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction,
they tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent
forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely
Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the Æons should fall into a
calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and
strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number
of the Æons. Christ then instructed them as to the nature of their
conjunction, and taught them that those who possessed a comprehension of
the Unbegotten were sufficient for themselves. This is an exceedingly obscure and
difficult passage. Harvey’s rendering is: “For, say they,
Christ taught them the nature of their copulæ, (namely,) that being
cognisant of their (limited) perception of the Unbegotten they needed no
higher knowledge, and that He enounced,” etc. the words seem
scarcely capable of yielding this sense: we have followed the
interpretation of Billius. Both the text and meaning are here very doubtful. Some
think that the import of the sentence is, that the knowledge that the
Father is incomprehensible secured the continued safety of the Æons,
while the same knowledge conferred upon Monogenes his origin and
form.
6. But the Holy Spirit The Greek text inserts ἕν,
one, before “Holy Spirit.”
1. The reading is here very doubtful. We have
followed the text of Grabe (approved by Harvey), ἐξ
ἀγῶνος σύμπηξις. These are all
names of the same person: see above, ii. 4. Hence some have proposed the
reading ἑξαιώνιος instead
of ἐξ ἀγῶνος, alluding
to the sixfold appellation of the Æon Horos.
Billius renders, “from the repentance of the Father,” but the
above seems preferable. Harvey remarks, “Even in
their Christology the Valentinians must have their part and
counterpart.” Or, “to all the
generations of the ages of the age.” See Literally, “at the thanksgiving,” or
“eucharist.” Massuet, the Benedictine editor, refers this to
the Lord’s Supper, and hence concludes that some of the ancient
liturgies still extant must even then have been in use. Harvey and
others, however, deny that there is any necessity for supposing the Holy
Eucharist to be referred to; the ancient Latin version translates in the
plural, “in gratiarum actionibus.”
2. This opinion is in
positive contradiction to the forty days mentioned by St. Luke
( The numeral
value of Iota in Greek is ten, and of Eta, eight.
3. The Latin reads
“filii,” which we have followed. Reference is made in this
word to Nous, who was, as we have already seen, also called Son,
and who interested himself in the recovery of Sophia. Aletheia was his
consort, and was typified by the hem of the Saviour’s garment. Her individuality (μορφή) would have been
lost, while her substance (οὐσία) would have
survived in the common essence of the Æons.
4. They moreover affirm that the Saviour That is, the “second
Christ” referred to above, sec. 1. [It is much to be wished that
this second were always distinguished by the untranslated name
Soter.] Not as being born of it, but
as fecundating it, and so producing a manifold offspring. See below.
5. They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom
they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,—the one of
supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and
sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he
is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this
twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said,
“Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me,
cannot be my disciple;”
Hence Stauros was called by the agricultural name
Carpistes, as separating what was gross and material from the spiritual
and heavenly.
6. Billius renders, “of their opinion.” The punctuation and rendering are here slightly
doubtful.
1. This term, though Tertullian
declares himself to have been ignorant of its derivation, was evidently
formed from the Hebrew word חָכְמָה—chockmah,
wisdom. The reader will observe that light and
fulness are the exact correlatives of the darkness and
vacuity which have just been mentioned.
As above stated (ii. 3), the Gnostics held that form and figure were due
to the male, substance to the female parent. The Valentinian Stauros was the boundary
fence of the Pleroma beyond which Christ extended himself to assist the
enthymesis of Sophia. The peculiar gnosis
which Nous received from his father, and communicated to the other
Æons. Probably corresponding to the Hebrew
יהוה, Jehovah. This sentence
is very elliptical in the original, but the sense is as given above.
Sophia fell from Gnosis by degradation; Achamoth never possessed
this knowledge, her nature being from the first opposed to it.
2. “The Demiurge derived
from Enthymesis an animal, and not a spiritual nature.”—
Harvey.
3. Now what follows from all this? No light tragedy
comes out of it, as the fancy of every man among them pompously explains,
one in one way, and another in another, from what kind of passion and
from what element being derived its origin. They have good reason, as
seems to me, why they should not feel inclined to teach these things to
all in public, but only to such as are able to pay a high price for an
acquaintance with such profound mysteries. For these doctrines are not at
all similar to those of which our Lord said, “Freely ye have
received, freely give.”
4. I feel somewhat inclined myself to contribute a few hints towards the development of their system. For when I perceive that waters are in part fresh, such as fountains, rivers, showers, and so on, and in part salt; such as those in the sea, I reflect with myself that all such waters cannot be derived from her tears, inasmuch as these are of a saline quality only. It is clear, therefore, that the waters which are salt are alone those which are derived from her tears. But it is probable that she, in her intense agony and perplexity, was covered with perspiration. And hence, following out their notion, we may conceive that fountains and rivers, and all the fresh water in the world, are due to this source. For it is difficult, since we know that all tears are of the same quality, to believe that waters both salt and fresh proceeded from them. The more plausible supposition is, that some are from her tears, and some from her perspiration. And since there are also in the world certain waters which are hot and acrid in their nature, thou must be left to guess their origin, how and whence. Such are some of the results of their hypothesis.
5. They go on to state that, when the mother Achamoth
had passed through all sorts of passion, and had with difficulty escaped
from them, she turned herself to supplicate the light which had forsaken
her, that is, Christ. He, however, having returned to the Pleroma, and
being probably unwilling again to descend from it, sent forth to her the
Paraclete, that is, the Saviour. “Jesus, or Soter, was also called the Paraclete in
the sense of Advocate, or one acting as the representative of
others.”—Harvey. Both the Father and the other Æons constituting Soter
an impersonation of the entire Pleroma. That is, as in the case of her
mother Sophia, who is sometimes called “the Sophia above,”
Achamoth being “the Sophia below,” or “the second
Sophia.” Thus Harvey renders ἀσώματον ὕλην: so Baur, Chr.
Gnos., as quoted by Stieren. Billius proposes to read ἐνσώματον,
corporeal. Though not
actually, for that was the work of the Demiurge. See next chapter.
1. These three kinds of existence, then, having,
according to them, been now formed,—one from the passion, which
was matter; a second from the conversion, which was animal; and the
third, that which she (Achamoth) herself brought forth, which was
spiritual,—she next addressed herself to the task of giving these
form. But she could not succeed in doing this as respected the spiritual
existence, because it was of the same nature with herself. She therefore
applied herself to give form to the animal substance which had proceeded
from her own conversion, and to bring forth to light the instructions of
the Saviour. “In
order that,” says Grabe, “this formation might not be merely
according to essence, but also according to knowledge, as
the formation of the mother Achamoth was characterized above.” Metropator, as proceeding only from his mother Achamoth:
Apator, as having no male progenitor. Harvey remarks, “The Valentinian
Saviour being an aggregation of all the æonic perfections, the images of
them were reproduced by the spiritual conception of Achamoth beholding
the glory of Σωτήρ. The reader will
not fail to observe that every successive development is the reflex of a
more divine antecedent.” The relation indicated seems to be as follows: Achamoth,
after being formed “according to knowledge,” was outside of
the Pleroma as the image of Propator, the Demiurge was as Nous, and the
mundane angels which he formed corresponded to the other Æons of the
Pleroma.
2.
3. “Achamoth by these names must be
understood to have an intermediate position between the divine prototypal
idea and creation: she was the reflex of the one, and therefore
masculo-feminine; she was the pattern to be realized in the
latter, and therefore was named Earth and Jerusalem.”
—Harvey. But after the consummation
here referred to, Achamoth regained the Pleroma: see below, chap. vii.
1.
4.
5.
6. An account
is here given of the infusion of a spiritual principle into mankind. The
Demiurge himself could give no more than the animal soul; but,
unwittingly to himself, he was made the instrument of conveying that
spiritual essence from Achamoth, which had grown up within her from the
contemplation of those angels who accompanied the Saviour.
1. “The doctrine of Valentinus, therefore,”
says Harvey, “as regards the human nature of Christ, was
essentially Docetic. His body was animal, but not material,
and only visible and tangible as having been formed κατ’ οἰκονομίαν and
κατεσκευασμένον
ἀῤῥήτῳ τέχνῃ.”
2. Animal men, again, are instructed in animal things;
such men, namely, as are established by their works, and by a mere faith,
while they have not perfect knowledge. We of the Church, they say, are
these persons. [That is,
carnal; men of the carnal mind, psychic instead of
pneumatic. On account of what they had
received from Achamoth.
3.
4. And committing many other abominations and
impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against
sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant
persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and
the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use,
wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they
themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has
descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable
conjunction; and on this account more will be given them. Comp. Comp.
1. Their spiritual substance was received from Achamoth;
their animal souls were created by the Demiurge. These are now separated;
the spirit enters the Pleroma, while the soul remains in heaven. Viz., Achamoth.
2. A Syriac fragment here reads, “He spake by the
prophets through him.” “Thus,” says Harvey, “we may trace
back to the Gnostic period the Apollinarian error, closely allied to the
Docetic, that the body of Christ was not derived from the blessed Virgin,
but that it was of heavenly substance, and was only brought forth into
the world through her instrumentality.” By thus
extending himself through Stauros, who bounded the Pleroma, the Christ
above became the type of the Christ below, who was extended upon the
cross.
3. They maintain, moreover, that those souls which
possess the seed of Achamoth are superior to the rest, and are more
dearly loved by the Demiurge than others, while he knows not the true
cause thereof, but imagines that they are what they are through his
favour towards them. Wherefore, also, they say he distributed them to
prophets, priests, and kings; and they declare that many things were
spoken Billius, following
the old Latin version, reads, “They interpret many things, spoken
by the prophets, of this seed.”
4. The Demiurge, while ignorant of those things which
were higher than himself, was indeed excited by the announcements made
[through the prophets], but treated them with contempt, attributing them
sometimes to one cause and sometimes to another; either to the prophetic
spirit (which itself possesses the power of self-excitement), or to [mere
unassisted] man, or that it was simply a crafty device of the lower [and
baser order of men]. Such
appears to be the meaning of this sentence, but the original is very
obscure. The writer seems to refer to the spiritual, the animal, and the
material classes of men, and to imply that the Demiurge supposed some
prophecies to be due to one of these classes, and some to the others.
5. They conceive, then, of three kinds of men,
spiritual, material, and animal, represented by Cain, Abel, and Seth.
These three natures are no longer found in one person, As was the case at first, in Adam.
1. Literally, “reading from things
unwritten.”
2. Then, again, as to those things outside of their
Pleroma, the following are some specimens of what they attempt to
accommodate out of the Scriptures to their opinions. They affirm that
3. And they teach that He pointed out the three kinds
of men as follows: the material, when He said to him that asked
Him, “Shall I follow Thee?”
4. Moreover, that Achamoth wandered beyond the Pleroma,
and received form from Christ, and was sought after by the Saviour, they
declare that He indicated when He said, that He had come after that sheep
which was gone astray.
5.
ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, occurring
twice, is rendered both times in the old Latin version, “ab
eis.” The reference is to σκοτία,
darkness, i.e., all those not belonging to the spiritual seed. Comp. This is parenthetically
inserted by the author, to show the misquotation of Scripture by these
heretics. These words are wanting in
the Greek, but are inserted in the old Latin version.
1.
2. The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man, this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,—these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma. Thus it is that, wresting from the truth every one of the expressions which have been cited, and taking a bad advantage of the names, they have transferred them to their own system; so that, according to them, in all these terms John makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. For if he has named the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia, according to their hypothesis, he has, by thus speaking, referred to the primary Ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus, and no Christ, the teacher of John. But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the Æons], and was of later date than the Word.
3. Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered
for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any
other of the Æons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been
probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father
who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the
Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of
the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does
not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting
our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not
originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an
animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an
unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But
flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the
dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. Thus
is their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad brought to nought. For, since
Logos, and Monogenes, and Zoe, and Phōs, and Soter, and Christus,
and the Son of God, and He who became incarnate for us, have been proved
to be one and the same, the Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls
to pieces. And when this is destroyed,
4. Then, again, collecting a set of expressions and
names scattered here and there [in Scripture], they twist them, as we
have already said, from a natural to a non-natural sense. It
is difficult to give an exact rendering of μελετᾶν
in this passage; the old Lat. version translates it by meditari,
which Massuet proposes to render “skilfully to fit.” Tertullian refers (Præscrip. Hær.) to those
Homeric centos of which a specimen follows. We have given each line as it
stands in the original: the text followed by Irenæus differs slightly
from the received text.
“Thus saying, there sent forth from his house
deeply groaning.”—Od., x. 76.
“The hero
Hercules conversant with mighty deeds.”—Od., xxi.
26.
“Eurystheus, the son of Sthenelus, descended from
Perseus.”—Il., xix. 123.
“That he might
bring from Erebus the dog of gloomy Pluto.”—Il.,
viii. 368.
“And he advanced like a mountain-bred lion
confident of strength.”—Od., vi. 130.
“Rapidly through the city, while all his friends followed.”
—Il., xxiv. 327.
“Both maidens, and youths, and
much-enduring old men.”—Od., xi. 38.
“Mourning for him bitterly as one going forward to death.”
—Il., xxiv. 328.
“But Mercury and the blue-eyed
Minerva conducted him.”—Od., xi. 626.
“For she knew the mind of her brother, how it laboured with
grief.”—Il., ii. 409.
Now, what simple-minded man, I ask, would not be led
away by such verses as these to think that Homer actually framed them so
with reference to the subject indicated? But he who is acquainted with
the Homeric writings will recognise the verses indeed, but not the
subject to which they are applied, as knowing that some of them were
spoken of Ulysses, others of Hercules himself, others still of Priam, and
others again of Menelaus and Agamemnon. But if he takes them and restores
each of them to its proper position, he at once destroys the narrative in
question. In like manner he also who retains unchangeable Literally, “immoveable
in himself,” the word ἀκλινῆ being used
with an apparent reference to the original meaning of κανόνα, a
builder’s rule.
5. But since what may prove a finishing-stroke The meaning of the word
ἀπολύτρωσις here
is not easily determined; but it is probably a scenic term equivalent to
ἀπόλυσις, and may
be rendered as above. [The Creed, in the sublime simplicity of its fundamental
articles, is established; that is, by the impossibility of framing
anything to take their place.]
1. “ Of God” is added from the
old Latin
2. As I have already observed, the Church, having
received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the
whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.
She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one
soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches
them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only
one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet
the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which
have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything
different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the
East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been
established in the central regions Probably referring to the Churches in Palestine.
3. It does not follow because men are endowed with
greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore
change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of
some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of
this universe, (as if He were not sufficient The text here is ἀρκουμένους
τούτους, which is
manifestly corrupt. Various emendations have been proposed: we prefer
reading ἀρκούμενος
τούτοις, and have
translated accordingly. Irenæus here reads πάντα instead of
πάντας, as in
Text. Rec. of New Testament. εὐχαριστεῖν—
this word has been deemed corrupt, as it certainly appears out of keeping
with the other verbs; but it may be rendered as above.
1. That is, the
first of the two or three here referred to, not the first of the Gnostic
teachers, as some have imagined. [The Gnosticism of one age may be
essentially the same in spirit as the Agnosticism of another.] Viz., all outside of the
Pleroma. Corrected from
Ecclesia in the text.
2. Secundus again affirms that the primary Ogdoad consists of a right hand and a left hand Tetrad, and teaches that the one of these is called light, and the other darkness. But he maintains that the power which separated from the rest, and fell away, did not proceed directly from the thirty Æons, but from their fruits.
3. There is another, Some have supposed that the name of this teacher was
Epiphanes, and that the old Latin mistakenly translates this by
clarus; others think that Colorbasus is the teacher in
question.
4. The Greek text is wanting till the end of
this section.
[
5. Others still, however, have called their primary and
first-begotten Ogdoad by the following names: first,
1. We here
follow the Greek as preserved by Hippolytus (Philosoph., vi. 38).
The text followed by Epiphanius (Hær., xxxiii. 1) does not so
well agree with the Latin. The text is here hopelessly corrupt; but the general
meaning seems to be that given above.
2. This sentence exists only in the Latin
version, and we can give only a free translation. Iliad, ii. 1, etc. These words are found in Epiphanius, but omitted
in the old Latin version. The Latin gives “sense” instead of
“light.”
3. The text is here very uncertain. Some propose to read
six Æons instead of all. Here again the
text is corrupt and obscure. We have followed what seems the most
probable emendation.
4. Harvey justly
remarks, that “one cause of perplexity in unravelling the
Valentinian scheme is the recurrence of similar names at different points
of the system, e.g., the Enthymesis of Sophia was called Sophia and
Spiritus; and Pater, Arche, Monogenes, Christus, Anthropos, Ecclesia,
were all of them terms of a double denomination.”
1. The Greek text of this
section is preserved both by Epiphanius (Hær. xxxiv. 1) and by
Hippolytus (Philosoph., vi. 39, 40). Their citations are somewhat
discordant, and we therefore follow the old Latin version. Pliny, Hist. Nat., xxxv. 15,
etc.
2. Pretending Epiphanius now gives the Greek text verbatim, to
which, therefore, we return. Probably referring to Sige,
the consort of Bythus.
3. [Comp. Literally, “the place of thy
mightiness is in us.”
4. But already some of the most faithful women, possessed of the fear of God, and not being deceived (whom, nevertheless, he did his best to seduce like the rest by bidding them prophesy), abhorring and execrating him, have withdrawn from such a vile company of revellers. This they have done, as being well aware that the gift of prophecy is not conferred on men by Marcus, the magician, but that only those to whom God sends His grace from above possess the divinely-bestowed power of prophesying; and then they speak where and when God pleases, and not when Marcus orders them to do so. For that which commands is greater and of higher authority than that which is commanded, inasmuch as the former rules, while the latter is in a state of subjection. If, then, Marcus, or any one else, does command,— as these are accustomed continually at their feasts to play at drawing lots, and [in accordance with the lot] to command one another to prophesy, giving forth as oracles what is in harmony with their own desires,—it will follow that he who commands is greater and of higher authority than the prophetic spirit, though he is but a man, which is impossible. But such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well-compacted faith which they received at first through the Church.
5. Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and
love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if
not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God—
a thing which frequently occurs—have acknowledged, confessing,
too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a
burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case
of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus)
into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim
both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled
about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had
converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public
confession, [Note this
manner of primitive “confession;” and see Bingham,
Antiquities, book xv. cap. 8]
6. Some of his disciples, too, addicting
themselves We here
follow the rendering of Billius, “in iisdem studiis
versantes.” Others adhere to the received text, and translate
περιπολίζοντες
“going about idly.”
Grabe is of opinion that reference is made in this term to an imprecatory
formula in use among the Marcosians, analogous to the form of
thanksgiving employed night and morning by the Jews for their redemption
from Egypt. Harvey refers the word to the second baptism practised
among these and other heretics, by which it was supposed they were
removed from the cognizance of the Demiurge, who is styled the
“judge” in the close of the above sentence. That is, Sophia, of
whom Achamoth, afterwards referred to, was the emanation. The angels accompanying Soter were the consorts of
spiritual Gnostics, to whom they were restored after death. The syntax
in this long sentence is very confused, but the meaning is tolerably
plain. The gist of it is, that these Gnostics, as being the spiritual
seed, claimed a consubstantiality with Achamoth, and consequently escaped
from the material Demiurge, and attained at last to the Pleroma. Rendering the
wearer invisible. See Il., v. 844.
1. This sentence has
completely baffled all the critics. [Its banter, or mock gravity, has not
been self-evident.] We cannot enter upon the wide field of discussion
which it has opened up, but would simply state that Irenæus here seems
to us, as often, to be playing upon the terms which were in common use
among these heretics. Marcus probably received his system from
Colorbasus, and is here declared, by the use of that jargon which
Irenæus means to ridicule while so employing it, to have proceeded to
develop it in the way described. Such appears to be the meaning of ἀνούσιος in this
passage. The meaning of οὐσία fluctuated for a
time in the early Church, and was sometimes used to denote material
substance, instead of its usual significance of being. The old Latin preserves ἀρχή
untranslated, implying that this was the first word which the Father
spoke. Some modern editors adopt this view, while others hold the meaning
simply to be, as given above, that that first sound which the Father
uttered was the origin of all the rest. The letters are here confounded with the Æons, which
they represented. [
2. Those names of the elements which may be told, and
are common, he has called Æons, and words, and roots, and seeds, and
fulnesses, and fruits. He asserts that each of these, and all that is
peculiar to every one of them, is to be understood as contained in the
name Ecclesia. Of these elements, the last letter of the last one uttered
its voice, and this sound By this Achamoth is denoted, who was said to give rise
to the material elements, after the image of the Divine. That is, their names are spelt by other letters.
3.
4. When she (the Tetrad) had spoken these things,
Aletheia looked at him, opened her mouth, and uttered a word. That word
was a name, and the name was this one which we do know and speak of,
viz., Christ Jesus. When she had uttered this name, she at once relapsed
into silence. And as Marcus waited in the expectation that she would say
something more, the Tetrad again came forward and said:—Thou hast
reckoned as contemptible that word which thou hast heard from the mouth
of Aletheia. This which thou knowest and seemest to possess, is not an
ancient name. For thou possessest the sound of it merely, whilst thou art
ignorant of its power. For Jesus (᾽Ιησοῦς) is a name
arithmetically The old
Latin version renders ἐπίσημον,
insigne, illustrious, but there seems to be a reference to the
Valentinian notion of the mystic number of 888 formed
(10+8+200+70+400+200) by the numerical value of the letters in the word
᾽Ιησοῦς.
5. Know, then, that the four-and-twenty letters which
you possess are symbolical emanations of the three powers that contain
the entire number of the elements above. For you are to reckon thus
—that the nine mute The mutes are π, κ, τ, β, γ, δ, φ, χ, θ. The
semi-vowels are λ, μ, ν, ρ, σ, ζ, ξ, ψ. It seems scarcely possible to give a more definite
rendering of this clause: it may be literally translated thus: “And
because they receive the outflow of those above, but the turning back
again of those below.” The ninth letter being taken
from the mutes and added to the semi-vowels, an equal division of the
twenty-four was thus secured. Viz., Pater,
Anthropos, and Logos. Viz., ζ, ξ, ψ = δς, κς, πς.
6. He asserts that the fruit of this arrangement and
analogy has been manifested in the likeness of an image, namely, Him who,
after six days, ascended
Moses
and Elias being added to the company. Referring to the
word Χρειστός, according to
Harvey, who remarks, that “generally the Ogdoad was the receptacle
of the spiritual seed.” The Saviour, as Alpha and Omega, was
symbolized by the dove, the sum of the Greek numerals, π, ε, ρ, ι, σ, τ, ε, ρ, α (περιστερά,
dove), being, like that of Α and Ω, 801. That is, the letters ζ, ξ, ψ all contain ς, whose value is
six, and which was called ἐπίσημον by the
Greeks.
7. He employed as his instrument, as the Sige of Marcus
declares, the power of seven letters, Referring to Aletheia, which, in Greek, contains
seven letters. By these seven powers are meant the seven heavens (also
called angels), formed by the Demiurge.
8. He instances, in proof of this, the case of infants
who have just been born, the cry of whom, as soon as they have issued
from the womb, is in accordance with the sound of every one of these
elements. As, then, he says, the seven powers glorify the Word, so also
does the complaining soul of infants. We here follow the text of Hippolytus: the ordinary text
and the old Latin read, “So does the soul of infants, weeping and
mourning over Marcus, deify him.”
The
text is here altogether uncertain: we have given the probable
meaning.
9. Thus it is, that in regard to the whole name, That is, the name of Soter,
the perfect result of the whole Pleroma.
1. Manifestly to be so spelt here, as in the sequel
Chreistus, for Christus. The text is here altogether uncertain, and the meaning
obscure.
2. The reading is exceedingly doubtful: some
prefer the number eighty-eight. There were, as Harvey observes, three extraneous
characters introduced into the Greek alphabet for the sake of numeration
—the three episema for 6, 90, and 900 respectively. The
true alphabet, then, as employed to denote number, included eight units,
eight tens, and eight hundreds. Or, according to
the Greek text, “being as the way to the Father;” comp.
3. As to the Æons, they proceeded from the Tetrad, and
in that Tetrad were Anthropos and Ecclesia, Logos and Zoe. The text is here
uncertain: we follow that suggested by Grabe.
4. Such ravings, we may now well say, go beyond Iu,
Iu, Pheu, Pheu, and every kind of tragic exclamation or utterance of
misery. [Comp. cap. xi.
4, supra.] Comp.
5. But who will tolerate thy nonsensical Sige, who
names Him that cannot be named, and expounds the nature of Him that is
unspeakable, and searches out Him that is unsearchable, and declares that
He whom thou maintainest to be destitute of body and form, opened His
mouth and sent forth the Word, as if He were included among organized
beings; and that His Word, while like to His Author, and bearing the
image of the invisible, nevertheless consisted of thirty elements and
four syllables? It will follow, then, according to thy theory, that the
Father of all, in accordance with the likeness of the Word, consists of
thirty elements and four syllables! Or, again, who will tolerate thee in
thy juggling with forms and numbers,—at one time thirty, at
another twenty-four, and at another, again, only six,—whilst thou
shuttest up [in these] the Word of God, the Founder, and Framer, and
Maker of all things; and then, again, cutting Him up piecemeal into four
syllables and thirty elements; and bringing down the Lord of all who
founded the heavens to the number eight hundred and eighty-eight, so that
He should be similar to the alphabet; and subdividing the Father, who
cannot be contained, but contains all things, into a Tetrad, and an
Ogdoad, and a Decad, and a Duodecad; and by such multiplications, setting
forth the unspeakable and inconceivable nature of the Father, as thou
thyself declarest it to be? And showing thyself a very Dædalus for evil
invention, and the wicked architect of the supreme power, thou dost
construct a nature and substance for Him whom thou callest incorporeal
and immaterial, out of a multitude of letters, generated the one by the
other. And that power whom thou affirmest to be indivisible, thou dost
nevertheless divide into consonants, and vowels, and semi-vowels; and,
falsely ascribing those letters which are mute to the Father of all
things, and to His Ennœa (thought), thou hast driven on all that place
confidence in thee to the highest point of blasphemy, and to the grossest
impiety. [Mosheim thinks
this Marcus was a lunatic.]
6. With good reason, therefore, and very fittingly, in
reference to thy rash attempt, has that divine elder [Some think Pothinus.]
Such are the words of the saintly elder. And I shall
endeavour to state the remainder of their mystical system, which runs out
to great length, in brief compass, and to bring to the light what
1.
All the
editors, Grabe, Massuet, Stieren, and Harvey, differ as to the text and
interpretation of this sentence. We have given what seems the simplest
rendering of the text as it stands. Referring to the last of the
twelve Æons.
Meaning the Æon who left the
Duodecad, when eleven remained, and not referring to the lost sheep of
the parable.
2. I will not, however, weary thee by recounting their
other interpretations, that you may perceive the results everywhere. They
maintain for instance, that the letter Eta (η) along with the
Episemon (ς) constitutes an
Ogdoad, inasmuch as it occupies the eighth place from the first letter.
Then, again, without the Episemon, reckoning the number of the
letters, and adding them up till we come to Eta, they bring out
the Triacontad. For if one begins at Alpha and ends with
Eta, omitting the Episemon, and adds together the value of
the letters in succession, he will find their number altogether to amount
to thirty. For up to Epsilon (ε) fifteen are formed;
then adding seven to that number, the sum of twenty-two is reached. Next,
Eta being added to these, since its value is eight, the most
wonderful Triacontad is completed. And hence they give forth that the
Ogdoad is the mother of the thirty Æons. Since, therefore, the number
thirty is composed of three powers [the Ogdoad, Decad, and Duodecad],
when multiplied by three, it produces ninety, for three times thirty are
ninety. Likewise this Triad, when multiplied by itself, gives rise to
nine. Thus the Ogdoad generates, by these means, ninety-nine. And since
the twelfth Æon, by her defection, left eleven in the heights above,
they maintain that therefore the position of the letters is a true
coordinate of the method of their calculation Harvey gives the above paraphrase of the
very obscure original; others propose to read λ´ instead
of λόγου. Massuet explains this and the
following reference, by remarking that the ancients used the fingers of
the hand in counting; by the left hand they indicated all the numbers
below a hundred, but by the right hand all above that sum.—Comp.
Juvenal, Sat., x. 249.
3. I well know, my dear friend, that when thou hast
read through all this, thou wilt indulge in a hearty laugh over this
their inflated wise folly! But those men are really worthy of being
mourned over, who promulgate such a kind of religion, and who so frigidly
and perversely pull to pieces the greatness of the truly unspeakable
power, and the dispensations of God in themselves so striking, by means
of Alpha and Beta, and through the aid of numbers. But as many as
separate from the Church, and give heed to such old wives’ fables
as these, are truly self-condemned; and these men Paul commands us,
“after a first and second admonition, to avoid.”
The Demiurge being the fruit of the
abortive conversion of the abortive passion of Achamoth, who, again, was
the abortive issue of Sophia. i.e., by aiming
at what transcends their ability, they fall into absurdity, as a bow is
broken by bending it too far.
1. Such is the translation which Harvey, following the text
preserved by Hippolytus, gives of the above intricate and obscure
sentence.
Literally, “is adorned with.”
2. In addition to these things, they declare that the
Demiurge, desiring to imitate the infinitude, and eternity, and
immensity, and freedom from all measurement by time of the Ogdoad above,
but, as he was the fruit of defect, being unable to express its
permanence and eternity, had recourse to the expedient of spreading out
its eternity into times, and seasons, and vast numbers of years,
imagining, that by the multitude of such times he might imitate its
immensity.
1.
One of the
senses was thus capriciously cancelled by these heretics. See above, chap. xiv. 2.
2. Again, they assert that the sun, the great
light-giver, was formed on the fourth day, with a reference to the number
of the Tetrad. So also, according to them, the courts Or, rather, perhaps
“curtains.”
3. Further, they declare that the arrangement made with
respect to the ark in the Deluge, by means of which eight persons were
saved,
4. As to the Duodecad, in connection with which the
mystery of the passion of the defect occurred, from which passion they
maintain that all things visible were framed, they assert that is to be
found strikingly and manifestly everywhere [in Scripture]. For they
declare that the twelve sons of Jacob,
1.
2. For they falsely hold, that the Creator was seen by
the prophets. But this passage, “No man shall see God and
live,” they would interpret as spoken of His greatness unseen and
unknown by all; and indeed that these words, “No man shall see
God,” are spoken concerning the invisible Father, the Maker of the
universe, is evident to us all; but that they are not used concerning
that Bythus whom they conjure into existence, but concerning the Creator
(and He is the invisible God), shall be shown as we proceed. They
maintain that Daniel also set forth the same thing when he begged of the
angels explanations of the parables, as being himself ignorant of them.
But the angel, hiding from him the great mystery of Bythus, said unto
him, “Go thy way quickly, Daniel, for these sayings are closed up
until those who have understanding do understand them, and those who are
white be made white.”
1. [From the
Protevangel of Thomas. Compare the curious work of Dominic
Deodati, De Christo Græce loquente, p. 95. London, 1843.]
2.
Taken from some apocryphal writing.
3. But they adduce the following passage as the highest
testimony, The
translator evidently read τῶν for τήν, in which case the
rendering will be “proof of those most high,” but the Greek
text seems preferable.
1. Comp. chap. xiii. 6.
2. They maintain that those who have attained to
perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which
is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within
the Pleroma, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into
the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was
for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ
who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the
former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was
proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus The Latin reads
“Christ.”
3. We
have given these words as they stand in the Greek text: a very different
list, but equally unmeaning, is found in the Latin. The Latin reads
zonis, “zones,” instead of “lives,” as in
the Greek. Here, again, are many variations.
4. But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam. Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body. These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. For since both defect and passion flowed from ignorance, the whole substance of what was thus formed is destroyed by knowledge; and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption.
5. Others still there are who continue to redeem
persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and
water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time
the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become
incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and
that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if
their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul
is sent forward to the Demiurge. And they instruct them, on their
reaching the principalities and powers, to make use of these words:
“I am a son from the Father—the Father who had a
pre-existence, and a son in Him who is pre-existent. I have come to
behold all things, both those which belong to myself and others,
although, strictly speaking, they do not belong to others, but to
Achamoth, who is female in nature, and made these things for herself. For
I derive being from Him who is pre-existent, and I come again to my own
place whence I went forth.” And they affirm that, by saying these
things, he escapes from the powers. He then advances to the companions of
the Demiurge, and thus addresses them:—“I am a vessel more
precious than the female who formed you. If your mother is ignorant of
her own descent, I know myself, and am aware whence I am, and I call upon
the incorruptible Sophia, who is in the Father, and is the mother of your
mother, who has no father, nor any male consort; but a female springing
from a female formed you, while ignorant of her own mother, and imagining
that she alone existed; but I call upon her mother.” And they
declare, that when the companions of the Demiurge hear these words, they
are greatly agitated, and upbraid their origin and the race of their
mother. But he goes into his own place, having
The Greek text, which has
hitherto been preserved almost entire, ends at this point. With only
brief extracts from the original, now and then, we are henceforth
exclusively dependent on the old Latin version, with some Syriac and
Armenian fragments recently discovered.
1. The Latin here
begins with the words “cum teneamus,” and the apodosis is
found afterwards at “facile arguimus.” But we have broken up
the one long sentence into several.
The text is here uncertain
and obscure: eternal things seem to be referred to, not as regarded
substance, but the forms assigned them. This word would perhaps be better
cancelled.
2. Since, therefore, it is a complex and multiform task to detect and convict all the heretics, and since our design is to reply to them all according to their special characters, we have judged it necessary, first of all, to give an account of their source and root, in order that, by getting a knowledge of their most exalted Bythus, thou mayest understand the nature of the tree which has produced such fruits.
1.
Comp. Just. Mart., Apol., i. 26.
It is generally supposed that Simon Magus was thus confounded with the
Sabine god, Semo Sancus; but see our note, loc. cit. [And mine at
end of the First Apology. Consult Orelli’s Inscriptions
there noted.]
2. Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of
heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following
materials:— A lyric poet of Sicily, said to have been
dealt with, as stated above, by Castor and Pollux.
3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.
4.
5.
1.
2. He has also laid it down as a truth, that the
Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by
supposition, a visible man; and he maintained that the God of the Jews
was one of the angels; and, on this account, because all the powers
wished to annihilate his father, Christ came to destroy the God of the
Jews, but to save such as believe in him; that is, those who possess the
spark of his life. This heretic was the first to affirm that two kinds of
men were formed by the angels,—the one wicked, and the other
good. And since the demons assist the most wicked, the Saviour came for
the destruction of evil men and of the demons, but for the salvation of
the good. They declare also, that marriage and generation are from
Satan. [
3. The ordinary text reads,
“three hundred and seventy-five,” but it should manifestly be
corrected as above.
4. Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that,
namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the
world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those
nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be
the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other
nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other
princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at
enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name,
perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous
(he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that
believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared,
then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought
miracles.
This sentence is wholly unintelligible as it stands in
the Latin version. Critics differ greatly as to its meaning; Harvey tries
to bring out of it something like the translation given above. [This name
is manufactured from a curious abuse of (קו לקו)
6. He, then, who has learned [these things], and known all the angels and their causes, is rendered invisible and incomprehensible to the angels and all the powers, even as Caulacau also was. And as the son was unknown to all, so must they also be known by no one; but while they know all, and pass through all, they themselves remain invisible and unknown to all; for, “Do thou,” they say, “know all, but let nobody know thee.” For this reason, persons of such a persuasion are also ready to recant [their opinions], yea, rather, it is impossible that they should suffer on account of a mere name, since they are like to all. The multitude, however, cannot understand these matters, but only one out of a thousand, or two out of ten thousand. They declare that they are no longer Jews, and that they are not yet Christians; and that it is not at all fitting to speak openly of their mysteries, but right to keep them secret by preserving silence.
7.
So written in Latin, but in Greek ᾽Αβρασάξ, the
numerical value of the letters in which is three hundred and sixty-five.
[See Aug. (ed. Migne), vol. viii. p. 26.] It is doubtful to
whom or what this word refers; probably to the heavens.
1.
[I note again this “Americanism.”] Such seems to be
the meaning of the Latin, but the original text is conjectural.
2. The soul, therefore, which is like that of Christ can despise those rulers who were the creators of the world, and, in like manner, receives power for accomplishing the same results. This idea has raised them to such a pitch of pride, that some of them declare themselves similar to Jesus; while others, still more mighty, maintain that they are superior to his disciples, such as Peter and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, whom they consider to be in no respect inferior to Jesus. For their souls, descending from the same sphere as his, and therefore despising in like manner the creators of the world, are deemed worthy of the same power, and again depart to the same place. But if any one shall have despised the things in this world more than he did, he thus proves himself superior to him.
3.
[See cap. xxvii. 3.]
The text is here defective, but the above meaning seems to be indicated
by Epiphanius.
4. [ The text
here has greatly puzzled the editors. We follow the simple emendation
proposed by Harvey.
5. And thus, if ungodly, unlawful, and forbidden
actions are committed among them, I can no longer find ground for
believing them to be such. The meaning is here very doubtful, but Tertullian
understood the words as above. If sinning were a necessity, then
it could no longer be regarded as evil.
6. [This censure of images as a Gnostic
peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.]
1. We here follow
the text as preserved by Hippolytus. The Latin has, “a certain man
in Asia.”
2.
3. [This is disputed by other primitive
authorities.]
1.
2.
3. Salvation will be the attainment only of those souls
which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from
the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation. In addition to his
blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as
with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition
to the truth,—that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites,
and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations
who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His
descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they
welcomed Him into their kingdom. But the serpent [Comp. cap. xxv. 3.]
We here follow the amended version proposed by the Benedictine
editor.
4. A promise never fulfilled: comp. book
iii. 12, and Euseb., Hist. Eccl., v. 8. [
1. Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already
been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the
fact that numbers of them—indeed, we may say all—desire
themselves to be teachers, and to break off from the particular heresy in
which they have been involved. Forming one set of doctrines out of a
totally different system of opinions, and then again others from others,
they insist upon teaching something new, declaring themselves the
inventors of any sort of opinion which they may have been able to call
into existence. [The
whole casuistical system of the Trent divines, De Matrimonio,
proceeds on this principle: marriage is licensed evil.]
2. Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth.
1. Harvey
supposes this name to be derived from two Syriac words, meaning
“God in a Tetrad.” Matter again derives it from two Hebrew
words, denoting “Daughter of the Lord.” Both the text and meaning are here altogether
doubtful.
2. Harvey refers to the cabbalistic books in
explanation of this and the following names, but their meanings are very
uncertain.
3. All these, then, being thus settled, Autogenes moreover produces a perfect and true man, whom they also call Adamas, inasmuch as neither has he himself ever been conquered, nor have those from whom he sprang; he also was, along with the first light, severed from Armogenes. Moreover, perfect knowledge was sent forth by Autogenes along with man, and was united to him; hence he attained to the knowledge of him that is above all. Invincible power was also conferred on him by the virgin spirit; and all things then rested in him, to sing praises to the great Æon. Hence also they declare were manifested the mother, the father, the son; while from Anthropos and Gnosis that Tree was produced which they also style Gnosis itself.
4. Next they maintain, that from the first angel, who
stands by the side of Monogenes, the Holy Spirit has been sent forth,
whom they also term Sophia and Various explanations of this
word have been proposed, but its signification remains altogether
doubtful.
1.
2. The father and son thus both had intercourse with
the woman (whom they also call the mother of the living). When,
however, The punctuation
is here difficult and doubtful.
3. They teach, however, that the power which proceeded
from the woman by ebullition, being besprinkled with light, fell downward
from the place occupied by its progenitors, yet possessing
4. They declare, moreover, that her son had also himself a certain breath of incorruption left him by his mother, and that through means of it he works; and becoming powerful, he himself, as they affirm, also sent forth from the waters a son without a mother; for they do not allow him either to have known a mother. His son, again, after the example of his father, sent forth another son. This third one, too, generated a fourth; the fourth also generated a son: they maintain that again a son was generated by the fifth; and the sixth, too, generated a seventh. Thus was the Hebdomad, according to them, completed, the mother possessing the eighth place; and as in the case of their generations, so also in regard to dignities and powers, they precede each other in turn.
5. The probable
meaning of this and the following names is thus given by Harvey:
Ialdabaoth, Lord God of the Fathers; Iao, Jehovah; Oreus,
Light; Astanphæus, Crown; Sabaoth, of course, means
Hosts; Adoneus, Lord; and Eloeus, God. All the names
are derived from the cabbalistic theology of the Jews. Hence
their name of Ophites, from ὄφις, a
serpent. The Latin has
evertisse, implying that thus Nous was more degraded.
6. On this account, Ialdabaoth, becoming uplifted in
spirit, boasted himself over all those things that were below him, and
exclaimed, “I am father, and God, and above me there is no
one.”
7. That is, from Ialdabaoth, etc.
[Philastr. (ut supra), Oehler, i. p. 38.]
8. Ialdabaoth, however, through that oblivion in which
he was involved, and not paying any regard to these things, cast Adam and
Eve out of Paradise, because they had transgressed his commandment. For
he had a desire to beget sons by Eve, but did not accomplish his wish,
because his mother opposed him in every point, and secretly emptied Adam
and Eve of the light with which they had been sprinkled, in order that
that spirit which proceeded from the supreme power might participate
neither in the curse nor opprobrium [caused by transgression]. They also
teach that, thus being emptied of the divine substance, they were cursed
by him, and cast down from heaven to this world. There is constant reference in this
section to rabbinical conceits and follies.
9. Adam and Eve previously had light, and clear, and as
it were spiritual bodies, such as they were at their creation; but when
they came to this world, these changed into bodies more opaque, and
gross, and sluggish. Their soul also was feeble and languid, inasmuch as
they had received from their creator a merely mundane inspiration. This
continued until Prunicus, moved with compassion towards them, restored to
them the sweet savour of the besprinkling of light, by means of which
they came to a remembrance of themselves, and knew that they were naked,
as well as that the body was a material substance, and thus recognised
that they bore death about with them. They thereupon became patient,
knowing that only for a time they would be enveloped in the body. They
also found out food, through the guidance of Sophia; and when they were
satisfied, they had carnal knowledge of each other, and begat Cain, whom
the serpent, that had been cast down along with his sons, immediately
laid hold of and destroyed by filling him with mundane oblivion, and
urging into folly and audacity, so that, by slaying his brother Abel, he
was the first to bring to light envy and death. After these, they affirm
that, by the forethought of Prunicus, Seth was begotten, and then
Norea, A name probably
derived from the Hebrew נערה, girl, but of
the person referred to we know nothing. We here follow
the emendation of Grabe: the defection of Prunicus is intended.
10. Ialdabaoth, again, being incensed with men, because
they did not worship or honour him as father and God, sent forth a deluge
upon them, that he might at once destroy them all. But Sophia opposed him
in this point also, and Noah and his family were saved in the ark by
means of the besprinkling of that light which proceeded from her, and
through it the world was again filled with mankind. Ialdabaoth himself
chose a certain man named Abraham from among these, and made a covenant
with him, to the effect that, if his seed continued to serve him, he
would give to them the earth for an inheritance. Afterwards, by means of
Moses, he
The
Latin here is “ex quibus,” and the meaning is exceedingly
obscure. Harvey thinks it is the representative ἐξ
ὦν (χρόνων) in the Greek,
but we prefer to refer it to “Judæos,” as above. The next
sentence seems unintelligible: but, according to Harvey, “each
deified day of the week had his ministering prophets.”
11. Moreover, they distribute the prophets in the
following manner: Moses, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Amos, and
Habakkuk, belonged to Ialdabaoth; Samuel, and Nathan, and Jonah, and
Micah, to Iao; Elijah, Joel, and Zechariah to Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel,
Jeremiah, and Daniel, to Adonai; Tobias and Haggai to Eloi; Michaiah and
Nahum to Oreus; Esdras and Zephaniah to Astanphæus. Each one of these,
then, glorifies his own father and God, and they maintain that Sophia,
herself has also spoken many things through them regarding the first
Anthropos (man), The
common text inserts “et incorruptibili Æone,” but this seems
better rejected as a glossarial interpolation.
12.
13. They affirm that many of his disciples were not
aware of the descent of Christ into him; but that, when Christ did
descend on Jesus, he then began to work miracles, and heal, and announce
the unknown Father, and openly to confess himself the son of the first
man. The powers and the father of Jesus were angry at these proceedings,
and laboured to destroy him; and when he was being led away for this
purpose, they say that Christ himself, along with Sophia, departed from
him into the state of an incorruptible Æon, while Jesus was crucified.
Christ, however, was not forgetful of his Jesus, but sent down a certain
energy into him from above, which raised him up again in the body, which
they call both animal and spiritual; for he sent the mundane parts back
again into the world. When his disciples saw that he had risen, they did
not recognise him—no, not even Jesus himself, by whom he rose
again from the dead. And they assert that this very great error prevailed
among his disciples, that they imagined he had risen in a mundane body,
not knowing that “flesh
14. They strove to establish the descent and ascent of
Christ, by the fact that neither before his baptism, nor after his
resurrection from the dead, do his disciples state that he did any mighty
works, not being aware that Jesus was united to Christ, and the
incorruptible Æon to the Hebdomad; and they declare his mundane body to
be of the same nature as that of animals. But after his resurrection he
tarried [on earth] eighteen months; and knowledge descending into him
from above, he taught what was clear. He instructed a few of his
disciples, whom he knew to be capable of understanding so great
mysteries, in these things, and was then received up into heaven, Christ
sitting down at the right hand of his father Ialdabaoth, that he may
receive to himself the souls of those who have known them, That is, Christ and
Jesus.
15. Such are the opinions which prevail among these
persons, by whom, like the Lernæan hydra, a many-headed beast has been
generated from the school of Valentinus. For some of them assert that
Sophia herself became the serpent; on which account she was hostile to
the creator of Adam, and implanted knowledge in men, for which reason the
serpent was called wiser than all others. Moreover, by the position of
our intestines, through which the food is conveyed, and by the fact that
they possess such a figure, our internal configuration The text of this sentence is hopelessly
corrupt, but the meaning is as given above.
1.
2. I have also made a collection of their writings in
which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera. According to Harvey, Hystera
corresponds to the “passions” of Achamoth. [Note the
“Americanism,” advocate used as a verb.] The text is here
imperfect, and the translation only conjectural.
3. It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drawn away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance. They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them.
4. Wherefore I have laboured to bring forward, and make
clearly manifest, the utterly ill-conditioned carcase of this miserable
little fox.
[ [Let the reader bear in mind that the Greek of this
original and very precious author exists only in fragments. We are
reading the translation of a translation; the Latin very rude, and the
subject itself full of difficulties. It may yet be discovered that some
of the faults of the work are not chargeable to Irenæus.]
1. In the
first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing “knowledge
falsely so called,”
[Note this “Americanism.”] [Note this
“Americanism.”] This passage is very obscure: we have
supplied “et,” which, as Harvey conjectures, may have dropped
out of the text.
1.
2. For how can there be any other Fulness, or
Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity
that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things
in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? But if there is
anything beyond Him, He is not then the Pleroma of all, nor does He
contain all. For that which they declare to be beyond Him will be wanting
to the Pleroma, or, [in other words,] to that God who is above all
things. But that which is wanting, and falls in any way short, is not the
3. Now, since there exists, according to them, also something else which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, into which they further hold there descended that higher power who went astray, it is in every way necessary that the Pleroma either contains that which is beyond, yet is contained (for otherwise, it will not be beyond the Pleroma; for if there is anything beyond the Pleroma, there will be a Pleroma within this very Pleroma which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, and the Pleroma will be contained by that which is beyond: and with the Pleroma is understood also the first God); or, again, they must be an infinite distance separated from each other —the Pleroma [I mean], and that which is beyond it. But if they maintain this, there will then be a third kind of existence, which separates by immensity the Pleroma and that which is beyond it. This third kind of existence will therefore bound and contain both the others, and will be greater both than the Pleroma, and than that which is beyond it, inasmuch as it contains both in its bosom. In this way, talk might go on for ever concerning those things which are contained, and those which contain. For if this third existence has its beginning above, and its end beneath, there is an absolute necessity that it be also bounded on the sides, either beginning or ceasing at certain other points, [where new existences begin.] These, again, and others which are above and below, will have their beginnings at certain other points, and so on ad infinitum; so that their thoughts would never rest in one God, but, in consequence of seeking after more than exists, would wander away to that which has no existence, and depart from the true God.
4. These remarks are, in like manner, applicable against the followers of Marcion. For his two gods will also be contained and circumscribed by an immense interval which separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose a multitude of gods separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one another, and ending in one another. Thus, by that very process of reasoning on which they depend for teaching that there is a certain Pleroma or God above the Creator of heaven and earth, any one who chooses to employ it may maintain that there is another Pleroma above the Pleroma, above that again another, and above Bythus another ocean of Deity, while in like manner the same successions hold with respect to the sides; and thus, their doctrine flowing out into immensity, there will always be a necessity to conceive of other Pleroma, and other Bythi, so as never at any time to stop, but always to continue seeking for others besides those already mentioned. Moreover, it will be uncertain whether these which we conceive of are below, or are, in fact, themselves the things which are above; and, in like manner, [it will be doubtful] respecting those things which are said by them to be above, whether they are really above or below; and thus our opinions will have no fixed conclusion or certainty, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, and gods that cannot be numbered.
5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety.
[This noble chapter is a sort of homily on
1.
2. Next let them tell us whether these things have been
formed within the limits which are contained by Him, and in His proper
territory, or in regions belonging to others, and lying beyond Him? But
if they say [that these things were done] beyond Him, then all the
absurdities already mentioned will face them, and the Supreme God will be
enclosed by that which is beyond Him, in which also it will be necessary
that He should find His end. If, on the other hand, [these things were
done] within His own proper territory, it will be very idle to say that
the world was thus formed within His proper territory against His will by
angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if
either He Himself did not behold all things which take place among His
own possessions, or The
common text has “ut:” we prefer to read “aut”
with Erasmus and others.
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not
against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of
these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that
may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the
will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the
angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be
regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its
formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long
succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the
Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the
cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him
who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as
regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those
things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation
of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials
for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought
about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood,
or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the
man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this
purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by
which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice,
therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of
all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor
any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its
Author, and had formerly
Vossius and others read “primus” instead of
“prius,” but on defective ms. authority.
4. This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or
persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human
beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form
anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend.
Harvey
here observes: “Grabe misses the meaning by applying to the
redeemed that which the author says of the Redeemer;” but it may be
doubted if this is really the case. Perhaps Massuet’s rendering of
the clause, “that that man might be formed who should know
Him,” is, after all, preferable to that given above.
5.
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] “There is one
God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us
all.”
1. In
the barbarous Latin version, we here find utrum … an
as the translation of ἤ … ἤ instead of
aut … aut.
2. Let them cease, therefore, to affirm that the world
was made by any other; for as soon as God formed a conception in His
mind, that was also done which He had thus mentally conceived. For it was
not possible that one Being should mentally form the conception, and
another actually produce the things which had been conceived by Him in
His mind. But God, according to these heretics, mentally conceived either
an eternal world or a temporal one, both of which suppositions
cannot be true. Yet if He had mentally conceived of it as eternal,
spiritual, We have
translated the text as it here stands in the mss. Grabe omits spiritalem
et; Massuet proposes to read et invisibilem, and Stieren
invisibilem.
In præsentia: Grabe proposes in præscientia, but without
ms. authority. “The
reader,” says Harvey, “will observe that there are three
suppositions advanced by the author: that the world, as some heretics
asserted, was eternal; that it was created in time, with no previous idea
of it in the divine mind; or that it existed as a portion of the divine
counsels from all eternity, though with no temporal subsistence until the
time of its creation,—and of this the author now speaks.”
The whole passage is most obscurely expressed.
1. Literally, “should also possess a vacant
substance” The text has
“reliquis omnibus,” which would refer to the Æons; but we
follow the emendation proposed by Massuet, “reliquorum
omnium,” as the reference manifestly is to other heretics.
2. But if, driven to despair in regard to these points,
they confess that the Father of all contains all things, and that there
is nothing whatever outside of the Pleroma (for it is an absolute
necessity that, [if there be anything outside of it,] it should be
bounded and circumscribed by something greater than itself), and that
they speak of what is without and what within in reference
to knowledge and ignorance, and not with respect to local distance; but
that, in the Pleroma, or in those things which are contained by the
Father, the whole creation which we know to have been formed, having been
made by the Demiurge, or by the angels, is contained by the unspeakable
greatness, as the centre is in a circle, or as a spot is in a garment,
—then, in the first place, what sort of a being must that Bythus
be, who allows a stain to have place in His own bosom, and permits
another one to create or produce within His territory, contrary to His
own will? Such a mode of acting would truly entail [the charge of]
degeneracy upon the entire Pleroma, since it might from the first have
cut off that defect, and those emanations which derived their origin from
it, “Ab
eo:” some refer “eo” to the Demiurge, but it is not
unusual for the Latin translator to follow the Greek gender, although
different from that of the Latin word which he has himself employed. We
may therefore here “eo” to “labem,” which is the
translation of the neuter noun ὑστέρημα. Labem is here repeated, probably by
mistake.
3. Their talk also about shadow and vacuity, in which
they maintain that the creation with which we are concerned was formed,
will be brought to nothing, if the things referred to were created within
the territory which is contained by the Father. For if they hold that the
light of their Father is such that it fills all things which are inside
of Him, and illuminates them all, how can any vacuum or shadow possibly
exist within that territory which is contained by the Pleroma, and by the
light of the Father? For, in that case, it behoves them to point out some
place within the Propator, or within the Pleroma, which is not
illuminated, nor kept possession of by any one, and in which either the
angels or the Demiurge formed whatever they pleased. Nor will it be a
small amount of space in which such and so great a creation can be
The Latin is fieri eos: Massuet conjectures that
the Greek had been ποιεῖσθαι αὐτούς, and that the
translator rendered ποιεῖσθαι as a passive
instead of a middle verb, fieri for facere.
1. See above, chap. i.
The Latin text here is, “et concludentur tales cum patre suo ab eo
qui est extra Pleroma, in quo etiam et desinere eos necesse est.”
None of the editors notice the difficulty or obscurity of the clause, but
it appears to us absolutely untranslateable. We have rendered it as if
the reading were “ab eo quod,” though, if the strict
grammatical construction be followed, the translation must be,
“from Him who.” But then to what does “in
quo,” which follows, refer? It may be ascribed either to the
immediate antecedent Pleroma, or to Him who is described as
being beyond it. Chap. ii., iii., iv. This is an extremely difficult passage. We
follow the reading æternochoica adopted by Massuet, but Harvey
reads æterna choica, and renders, “They charge all other
substance (i.e., spiritual) with the imperfections of the material
creation, as though Æon substance were equally ephemeral and
choic.” The common reading is “aut;”
we adopt Harvey’s conjectural emendation of “at.”
2. Moreover, if they explain being within and without the Pleroma as implying knowledge and ignorance respectively, as certain of them do (since he who has knowledge is within that which knows), then they must of necessity grant that the Saviour Himself (whom they designate All Things) was in a state of ignorance. For they maintain that, on His coming forth outside of the Pleroma, He imparted form to their Mother [Achamoth]. If, then, they assert that whatever is outside [the Pleroma] is ignorant of all things, and if the Saviour went forth to impart form to their Mother, then He was situated beyond the pale of the knowledge of all things; that is, He was in ignorance. How then could He communicate knowledge to her, when He Himself was beyond the pale of knowledge? For we, too, they declare to be outside the Pleroma, inasmuch as we are outside of the knowledge which they possess. And once more: If the Saviour really went forth beyond the Pleroma to seek after the sheep which was lost, but the Pleroma is [co-extensive with] knowledge, then He placed Himself beyond the pale of knowledge, that is, in ignorance. For it is necessary either that they grant that what is outside the Pleroma is so in a local sense, in which case all the remarks formerly made will rise up against them; or if they speak of that which is within in regard to knowledge, and of that which is without in respect to ignorance, then their Saviour, and Christ long before Him, must have been formed in ignorance, inasmuch as they went forth beyond the Pleroma, that is, beyond the pale of knowledge, in order to impart form to their Mother.
3. These arguments may, in like manner, be adapted to
meet the case of all those who, in any way, maintain that the world was
formed either by angels or by any other one than the true God. For the
charges which they bring against the Demiurge, and those things which
were made material and temporal, will in truth fall back on the Father;
if indeed the The above
clause is very obscure; Massuet reads it interrogatively.
4. It is not seemly, however, to say of Him who is God
over all, since He is free and independent, that He was a slave to
necessity, or that anything takes place with His permission, yet against
His desire; otherwise they will make necessity greater and more kingly
than God, since that which has the most power is superior The text has
“antiquius,” literally “more ancient,” but it may
here be rendered as above.
1.
2. And on this account all things have been [by general
consent] placed under the sway of Him who is styled the Most High, and
the Almighty. By calling upon Him, even before the coming of our Lord,
men were saved both from most wicked spirits, and from all kinds of
demons, and from every sort of apostate power. This was the case, not as
if earthly spirits or demons had seen Him, but because they knew of the
existence of Him who is God over all, at whose invocation they trembled,
as there does tremble every creature, and principality, and power, and
every being endowed with energy under His government. By way of parallel,
shall not those who live under the empire of the Romans, although they
have never seen the emperor, but are far separated from him both by land
and sea, know very well, as they experience his rule, who it is that
possesses the principal power in the state? How then could it be, that
those angels who were superior to us [in nature], or even He whom they
call the Creator of the world, did not know the Almighty, when even dumb
animals tremble and yield at the invocation of His name? And as, although
they have not seen Him, yet all things are subject to the name of our
Lord, Massuet refers this
to the Roman emperor.
3. If, then, they shrink from affirming that the angels are more irrational than the dumb animals, they will find that it behoved these, although they had not seen Him who is God over all, to know His power and sovereignty. For it will appear truly ridiculous, if they maintain that they themselves indeed, who dwell upon the earth, know Him who is God over all whom they have never seen, but will not allow Him who, according to their opinion, formed them and the whole world, although He dwells in the heights and above the heavens, to know those things with which they themselves, though they dwell below, are acquainted. [This is the case], unless perchance they maintain that Bythus lives in Tartarus below the earth, and that on this account they have attained to a knowledge of Him before those angels who have their abode on high. Thus do they rush into such an abyss of madness as to pronounce the Creator of the world void of understanding. They are truly deserving of pity, since with such utter folly they affirm that He (the Creator of the world) neither knew His Mother, nor her seed, nor the Pleroma of the Æons, nor the Propator, nor what the things were which He made; but that these are images of those things which are within the Pleroma, the Saviour having secretly laboured that they should be so formed [by the unconscious Demiurge], in honour of those things which are above.
1. Harvey supposes that the translator here
read ἤ quam instead
of ᾗ quâ (gloria);
but Grabe, Massuet, and Stieren prefer to delete erit. Reference is here made to the
supposed wretched state of Achamoth as lying in the region of shadow,
vacuity, and, in fact, non-existence, until compassionated by the Christ
above, who gave her form as respected substance.
2. Alas for the honour of vainglory which at once
passes away, and no longer appears! There will be some We have literally translated the above
very obscure sentence. According to Massuet, the sense is: “There
will some time be, or perhaps even now there is, some Æon utterly
destitute of such honour, inasmuch as those things which the Saviour, for
the sake of honouring it, had formed after its image, have been
destroyed; and then those things which are above will remain without
honour,” etc. The Saviour is
here referred to, as having formed all things through means of Achamoth
and the Demiurge. Massuet deletes quem, and reads
nūn as a genitive.
3. Apart from this, however, how can those things which
belong to creation, various, manifold, and innumerable as they are, be
the images of those thirty Æons which are within the Pleroma, whose
names, as these men fix them, I have set forth in the book which precedes
this? And not only will they be unable to adapt the [vast] variety of
creation at large to the [comparative] smallness of their Pleroma, but
they cannot do this even with respect to any one part of it, whether
[that possessed by] celestial or terrestrial beings, or those that live
in the waters. For they themselves testify that their Pleroma consists of
thirty Æons; but any one will undertake to show that, in a single
department of those [created beings] which have been mentioned, they
reckon that there are not thirty, but many thousands of species. How then
can those things, which constitute such a multiform creation, which are
opposed in nature to each other, and disagree among themselves, and
destroy the one the other, be the images and likenesses of the thirty
Æons of the Pleroma, if indeed, as they declare, these being possessed
of one nature, are of equal and similar properties, and exhibit no
differences [among themselves]? For it was incumbent, if these things are
images of those Æons,—inasmuch as they declare that some men are
wicked by nature, and some, on the other hand, naturally good,—to
point out such differences also among their Æons, and to maintain that
some of them were produced naturally good, while some were naturally
evil, so that the supposition of the likeness of those things might
harmonize with the Æons. Moreover, since there are in the world some
creatures that are gentle, and others that are fierce, some that are
innocuous, while others are hurtful and destroy the rest; some have their
abode on the earth, others in the water, others in the air, and others in
the heaven; in like manner, they are bound to show that the Æons possess
such properties, if indeed the one are the images of the others. And
besides; “the eternal fire which the Father has prepared for the
devil and his angels,”
4. If, however, they say that these things are the
images of the Enthymesis of that Æon who fell into passion, then, first
of all, they will act impiously against their Mother, by declaring her to
be the first cause of evil and corruptible images. And then, again, how
can those things which are manifold, and dissimilar, and contrary in
their nature, be the images of one and the same Being? And if they say
that the angels of the Pleroma are numerous, and that those things which
are many are the images of these—not in this way either will the
account they give be satisfactory. For, in the first place, they are then
bound to point out differences among the angels of the Pleroma, which are
mutually opposed to each other, even as the images existing below are of
a contrary nature among themselves. And then, again, since there are
many, yea, innumerable angels who surround the Creator, as all the
prophets acknowledge,—[saying, for instance,] “Ten thousand
times ten thousand stood beside Him, and many thousands of thousands
ministered unto Him,” This clause is exceedingly
obscure. Harvey remarks upon it as follows: “The reasoning of
Irenæus seems to be this: According to the Gnostic theory, the Æons and
angels of the Pleroma were homogeneous. They were also the archetypes of
things created. But things created are heterogeneous: therefore either
these Æons are heterogeneous, which is contrary to theory; or things
created are homogeneous, which is contrary to fact.”
5. Still further, if these things [below] were made
after the similitude of those [above], after the likeness of which again
will those then be made? For if the Creator of the world did not form
these things directly from His own Literally, “from Himself.”
6. But, again, how can these things [below] be images of those [above], since they are really contrary to them, and can in no respect have sympathy with them? For those things which are contrary to each other may indeed be destructive of those to which they are contrary, but can by no means be their images—as, for instance, water and fire; or, again, light and darkness, and other such things, can never be the images of one another. In like manner, neither can those things which are corruptible and earthly, and of a compound nature, and transitory, be the images of those which, according to these men, are spiritual; unless these very things themselves be allowed to be compound, limited in space, and of a definite shape, and thus no longer spiritual, and diffused, and spreading into vast extent, and incomprehensible. For they must of necessity be possessed of a definite figure, and confined within certain limits, that they may be true images; and then it is decided that they are not spiritual. If, however, these men maintain that they are spiritual, and diffused, and incomprehensible, how can those things which are possessed of figure, and confined within certain limits, be the images of such as are destitute of figure and incomprehensible?
7. If, again, they affirm that neither according to configuration nor formation, but according to number and the order of production, those things [above] are the images [of these below], then, in the first place, these things [below] ought not to be spoken of as images and likenesses of those Æons that are above. For how can the things which have neither the fashion nor shape of those [above] be their images? And, in the next place, they would adapt both the numbers and productions of the Æons above, so as to render them identical with and similar to those that belong to the creation [below]. But now, since they refer to only thirty Æons, and declare that the vast multitude of things which are embraced within the creation [below] are images of those that are but thirty, we may justly condemn them as utterly destitute of sense.
1.
2. If, however, they maintain that the shadow spoken of does not exist as being produced by the shade of [those above], but simply in this respect, that [the things below] are far separated from those [above], they will then charge the light of their Father with weakness and insufficiency, as if it cannot extend so far as these things, but fails to fill that which is empty, and to dispel the shadow, and that when no one is offering any hindrance. For, according to them, the light of their Father will be changed into darkness and buried in obscurity, and will come to an end in those places which are characterized by emptiness, since it cannot penetrate and fill all things. Let them then no longer declare that their Bythus is the fulness of all things, if indeed he has neither filled nor illuminated that which is vacuum and shadow; or, on the other hand, let them cease talking of vacuum and shadow, if the light of their Father does in truth fill all things.
3. Beyond the primary Father, then—that is, the
God who is over all—there can neither be any Pleroma into which
they declare the Enthymesis of that Æon who suffered passion, descended
(so that the Pleroma itself, or the primary God, should not be limited
and circumscribed by that which is beyond, and should, in fact, be
contained by it); nor can vacuum or shadow have any existence, since the
Father exists beforehand, so that His light cannot fail, and find end in
a vacuum. It is, moreover, irrational and impious to conceive of a place
in which He who is, according to them, Propator, and Proarche, and Father
of all, and of this
See above, chap. ii. and v. The text has fabricâsse, for which,
says Massuet, should be read fabricatam esse; or fabricâsse
itself must be taken in a passive signification. It is possible, however,
to translate, as Harvey indicates, “that He (Bythus) formed so
great a creation by angels,” etc., though this seems harsh and
unsuitable. Literally,
empty: there is a play on the words vacuum and vacui
(which immediately follows), as there had been in the original Greek.
1. Comp. e.g.,
2. This God, then, being acknowledged, as I have said,
and receiving testimony from all to the fact of His existence, that
Father whom they conjure into existence is beyond doubt untenable, and
has no witnesses [to his existence]. Simon Magus was the first who said
that he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his
angels. Then those who succeeded him, as I have shown in the first
book, See chap xxiii.
etc. Viz., the Valentinians.
1.
2. But these [heretics], while striving to explain
passages of Scripture and parables, bring forward another more important,
and indeed impious question, to this effect, “Whether there be
really another god above that God who was the Creator of the
world?” They are not in the way of solving the questions [which
they propose]; for how could they find means of doing so? But they append
an important question to one of less consequence, and thus insert [in
their speculations] a difficulty incapable of solution. For in order that
they may This clause is
unintelligible in the Latin text: by a conjectural restoration of the
Greek we have given the above translation.
3. For, when they tell us that all moist substance proceeded from the tears of Achamoth, all lucid substance from her smile, all solid substance from her sadness, all mobile substance from her terror, and that thus they have sublime knowledge on account of which they are superior to others,—how can these things fail to be regarded as worthy of contempt, and truly ridiculous? They do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish. But they do believe that their Mother, whom they style a female from a female, produced from her passions aforesaid the so vast material substance of creation. They inquire, too, whence the substance of creation was supplied to the Creator; but they do not inquire whence [were supplied] to their Mother (whom they call the Enthymesis and impulse of the Æon that went astray) so great an amount of tears, or perspiration, or sadness, or that which produced the remainder of matter.
4. For, to attribute the substance of created things to
the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and
acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said
regarding such a belief, that “the things which are impossible with
men are possible with God.”
1.
Playing upon the doctrines of the heretics with respect to vacuity
and shade.
1. The text vacillates between
“dicemus” and “dicamus.”
2. Next, with respect to the first production Ennœa,
whom they also term Sige, from whom again they describe Nous and Aletheia
as having been sent forth, they err in both particulars. For it is
impossible that the thought (Ennœa) of any one, or his silence (Sige),
should be understood apart from himself; and that, being sent forth
beyond him, it should possess a special figure of its own. But if they
assert that the (Ennœa) was not sent forth beyond Him, but continued one
with the Propator, why then do they reckon her with the other Æons
—with those who were not one [with the Father], and are on this
account ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let us
take this also into consideration), there is then an absolute necessity,
that from this united and inseparable conjunction, which constitutes but
one being, there This
sentence is confused in the Latin text, but the meaning is evidently that
given above.
3. It is
difficult to see the meaning of “iterum” here. Harvey begins
a new paragraph with this sentence.
4. If, however, they impudently maintain, in order to preserve from ruin their vain imaginations, that the rest of the conjunctions also were disjoined and separated from one another on account of this latest conjunction, then [I reply that], in the first place, they rest upon a thing which is impossible. For how can they separate the Propator from his Ennœa, or Nous from Aletheia, or Logos from Zoe, and so on with the rest? And how can they themselves maintain that they tend again to unity, and are, in fact, all at one, if indeed these very conjunctions, which are within the Pleroma, do not preserve unity, but are separate from one another; and that to such a degree, that they both endure passion and perform the work of generation without union one with another, just as hens do apart from intercourse with cocks.
5. Then, again, their first and first-begotten Ogdoad
will be overthrown as follows: They must admit that Bythus and Sige, Nous
and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, do individually
dwell in the same Pleroma. ἐνδιάθετος
—simply conceived in the mind—used in opposition to
προφορικός,
expressed.
6. Let them not then declare that the first and principal Ogdoad consists of Logos and Sige, but let them [as a matter of necessity] exclude either Sige or Logos; and then their first and principal Ogdoad is at an end. For if they describe the conjunctions [of the Æons] as united, then their whole argument fails to pieces. Since, if they were united, how could Sophia have generated a defect without union with her consort? If, on the other hand, they maintain that, as in production, each of the Æons possesses his own peculiar substance, then how can Sige and Logos manifest themselves in the same place? So far, then, with respect to defect.
7. But again, their Triacontad is overthrown as to
excess by the following considerations. They represent Horos (whom they
call by a variety of names which I have mentioned in the preceding book)
as having been produced by Monogenes just like the other Æons. Some of
them maintain that this Horos was produced by Monogenes, while others
affirm that he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own image.
They affirm further, that a production was formed by Monogenes—
Christ and the Holy Spirit; and they do not reckon these in the number of
the Pleroma, nor the Saviour either, whom they also declare to be
Totum Harvey
remarks that “the author perhaps wrote Ορον
(Horos), which was read by the translator ῞Ολον
(totum).” Since Soter
does not occur among the various appellations of Horos mentioned by
Irenæus (i. 11, 4), Grabe proposes to read Stauros, and Massuet
Lytrotes; but Harvey conceives that the difficulty is explained by
the fact that Horos was a power of Soter (i. 3, 3).
8. Since, therefore, their Triacontad is thus brought
to nought, as I have shown, both with respect to defect and excess (for
in dealing with such a number, either excess or defect [to any extent]
will render the number untenable, and how much more so great
variations?), it follows that what they maintain respecting their Ogdoad
and Duodecad is a mere fable which cannot stand. Their whole system,
moreover, falls to the ground, when their very foundation is destroyed
and dissolved into Bythus, Irenæus here, after his custom, plays upon the word
Bythus (profundity), which, in the phraseology of the
Valentinians, was a name of the Propator, but is in this passage used to
denote an unfathomable abyss.
1. This
sentence appears to us, after long study, totally untranslateable. The
general meaning seems to be, that whatever name is given to mental acts,
whether they are called Ennœa, Enthymesis, or by whatever
other appellation, they are all but exercises of the same fundamental
power, styled Nous. Compare the following section.
2. For the first exercise of that [power] respecting
anything, is styled Ennœa; but when it continues, and gathers strength,
and takes possession of the whole soul, it is called Enthymesis. This
Enthymesis, again, when it exercises itself a long time on the same
point, and has, as it were, been proved, is named Sensation. And this
Sensation, when it is much developed, becomes Counsel. The increase,
again, and greatly developed exercise of this Counsel becomes the
Examination of thought (Judgment); and this remaining in the mind is most
properly termed Logos (reason), from which the spoken Logos (word)
proceeds. “The
following,” says Harvey, “may be considered to be consecutive
steps in the evolution of λόγος as a
psychological entity. Ennœa, conception; Enthymesis,
intention; Sensation, thought; Consilium, reasoning;
Cogitationis Examinatio, judgment; in Mente Perseverans, Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος;
Emissibile Verbum, Λόγος προφοικός.”
3. These things may properly be said to hold good in
men, since they are compound by nature, and consist of a body and a soul.
But those who affirm that Ennœa was sent forth from God, and Nous from
Ennœa, and then, in succession, Logos from these, are, in the first
place, to be blamed as having improperly used these productions; and, in
the next place, as describing the affections, and passions, and mental
tendencies of men, while they [thus prove themselves]
That is, lest He should be thought destitute of power,
as having been unable to prevent evil from having a place in
creation. The Latin expression is
“similimembrius,” which some regard as the translation of
ὁμοιόκωλος, and others
of ὁμοιομερής; but in
either case the meaning will be as given above.
4. He is, however, above [all] these properties, and
therefore indescribable. For He may well and properly be called an
Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is not [on that
account] like the understanding of men; and He may most properly be
termed Light, but He is nothing like that light with which we are
acquainted. And so, in all other particulars, the Father of all is in no
degree similar to human weakness. He is spoken of in these terms
according to the love [we bear Him]; but in point of greatness, our
thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions. If then, even in the
case of human beings, understanding itself does not arise from emission,
nor is that intelligence which produces other things separated from the
living man, while its motions and affections come into manifestation,
much more will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never by any
means be separated from Himself; nor can anything That is, His Nous, Ennœa, etc., can have
no independent existence. The text fluctuates between
“emittitur” and “emittetur.”
5. For if He produced intelligence, then He who did thus produce intelligence must be understood, in accordance with their views, as a compound and corporeal Being; so that God, who sent forth [the intelligence referred to], is separate from it, and the intelligence which was sent forth separate [from Him]. But if they affirm that intelligence was sent forth from intelligence, they then cut asunder the intelligence of God, and divide it into parts. And whither has it gone? Whence was it sent forth? For whatever is sent forth from any place, passes of necessity into some other. But what existence was there more ancient than the intelligence of God, into which they maintain it was sent forth? And what a vast region that must have been which was capable of receiving and containing the intelligence of God! If, however, they affirm [that this emission took place] just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so [by such reasoning] they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from himself to a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from, God, into which He sent forth this ray?
6. If, again, they affirm that that [intelligence] was
not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in
the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at
all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the
Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted,
beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this [intelligence] being
sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the
Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos.
These, then, cannot in such a case be ignorant of the Father, since they
are within Him; nor, being all equally surrounded by the Father, can any
one know Him less [than another] according to the descending order of
their emission. And all of them must also in an equal measure continue
impassible, since they exist in the bosom of their Father, and none of
them can ever sink into a state of degeneracy or degradation. For with
the Father there is no degeneracy, unless perchance as in a great circle
a smaller is contained, and within this one again a smaller; or unless
they affirm of the Father, that, after the manner of a sphere or a
square, He contains within Himself on all sides the likeness of a sphere,
or the production of the rest of the Æons in the form of a square, each
one of these being surrounded by that one who is above him in greatness,
and surrounding in turn that one who is after him in smallness; and that
on this account, the smallest and the last of all, having its place in
the centre, and thus being far separated from the Father, was really
ignorant of the Propator. But if they maintain any such hypothesis, they
must shut up their Bythus within
7. Further, they must also confess either that He is mere vacuity, or that the entire universe is within Him; and in that case all will in like degree partake of the Father. Just as, if one forms circles in water, or round or square figures, all these will equally partake of water; just as those, again, which are framed in the air, must necessarily partake of air, and those which [are formed] in light, of light; so must those also who are within Him all equally partake of the Father, ignorance having no place among them. Where, then, is this partaking of the Father who fills [all things]? If, indeed, He has filled [all things], there will be no ignorance among them. On this ground, then, their work of [supposed] degeneracy is brought to nothing, and the production of matter with the formation of the rest of the world; which things they maintain to have derived their substance from passion and ignorance. If, on the other hand, they acknowledge that He is vacuity, then they fall into the greatest blasphemy; they deny His spiritual nature. For how can He be a spiritual being, who cannot fill even those things which are within Him?
8. Now, these remarks which have been made concerning
the emission of intelligence are in like manner applicable in opposition
to those who belong to the school of Basilides, as well as in opposition
to the rest of the Gnostics, from whom these also (the Valentinians) have
adopted the ideas about emissions, and were refuted in the first book.
But I have now plainly shown that the first production of Nous, that is,
of the intelligence they speak of, is an untenable and impossible
opinion. And let us see how the matter stands with respect to the rest
[of the Æons]. For they maintain that Logos and Zoe were sent forth by
him (i.e., Nous) as fashioners of this Pleroma; while they conceive of an
emission of Logos, that is, the Word after the analogy of human feelings,
and rashly form conjectures respecting God, as if they had discovered
something wonderful in their assertion that Logos was I produced by Nous.
All indeed have a clear perception that this may be logically affirmed
with respect to men. That
is, in human beings no doubt, thought (Nous) precedes
speech (Logos).
9. They have fallen into error, too, respecting Zoe, by maintaining that she was produced in the sixth place, when it behoved her to take precedence of all [the rest], since God is life, and incorruption, and truth. And these and such like attributes have not been produced according to a gradual scale of descent, but they are names of those perfections which always exist in God, so far as it is possible and proper for men to hear and to speak of God. For with the name of God the following words will harmonize: intelligence, word, life, incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness, and such like. And neither can any one maintain that intelligence is more ancient than life, for intelligence itself is life; nor that life is later than intelligence, so that He who is the intellect of all, that is God, should at one time have been destitute of life. But if they affirm that life was indeed [previously] in the Father, but was produced in the sixth place in order that the Word might live, surely it ought long before, [according to such reasoning,] to have been sent forth, in the fourth place, that Nous might have life; and still further, even before Him, [it should have been] with Bythus, that their Bythus might live. For to reckon Sige, indeed, along with their Propator, and to assign her to Him as His consort, while they do not join Zoe to the number,—is not this to surpass all other madness?
10. Again, as to the second production which proceeds
from these [Æons who have been mentioned],—that, namely, of Homo
and Ecclesia,—their very fathers, falsely styled Gnostics, strive
among themselves, each one seeking to make good his own opinions, and
thus convicting themselves of being wicked thieves.
1. Nothing is
known of this writer. Several of the same name are mentioned by the
ancients, but to none of them is a work named Theogonia ascribed.
He is supposed to be the same poet as is cited by Athenæus, but that
writer quotes from a work styled ᾽Αφροδίτης γοναι. The Latin is “Cupidinem;” and Harvey here
refers to Aristotle, who “quotes the authority of Hesiod and
Parmenides as saying that Love is the eternal intellect, reducing Chaos
into order.”
2. And not only are they convicted of bringing forward,
as if their own [original ideas], those things which are to be found
among the comic poets, but they also bring together the things which have
been said by all those who were ignorant of God, and who are termed
philosophers; and sewing together, as it were, a motley garment out of a
heap of miserable rags, they have, by their subtle manner of expression,
furnished themselves with a cloak which is really not their own. They do,
it is true, introduce a new kind of doctrine, inasmuch as by a new sort
of art it has been substituted [for the old]. Yet it is in reality both
old and useless, since these very opinions have been sewed together out
of ancient dogmas redolent of ignorance and irreligion. For instance,
Thales Compare, on the
opinions of the philosophers referred to in this chapter, Hippolytus,
Philosoph., book i. Iliad, xiv.
201; vii. 99.
3. Again, adopting the [ideas of] shade and vacuity
from Democritus and Epicurus, they have
The Latin has
here exemplum, corresponding doubtless to παράδειγμα, and
referring to those ἰδέαι of all
things which Plato supposed to have existed for ever in the divine
mind.
4. This opinion, too, that they hold the Creator formed
the world out of previously existing matter, both Anaxagoras, Empedocles,
and Plato expressed before them; as, forsooth, we learn they also do
under the inspiration of their Mother. Then again, as to the opinion that
everything of necessity passes away to those things out of which they
maintain it was also formed, and that God is the slave of this necessity,
so that He cannot impart immortality to what is mortal, or bestow
incorruption on what is corruptible, but every one passes into a
substance similar in nature to itself, both those who are named Stoics
from the portico (στοὰ), and indeed
all that are ignorant of God, poets and historians alike, make the same
affirmation. [Our
author’s demonstration of the essential harmony of Gnosticism with
the old mythologies, and the philosophies of the heathen, explains the
hold it seems to have gained among nominal converts to Christianity, and
also the necessity for a painstaking refutation of what seem to us mere
absurdities. The great merit of Irenæus is thus illustrated: he gave the
death-blow to heathenism in extirpating heresy.]
5. Moreover, as to their saying that the Saviour was formed out of all the Æons, by every one of them depositing, so to speak, in Him his own special flower, they bring forward nothing new that may not be found in the Pandora of Hesiod. For what he says respecting her, these men insinuate concerning the Saviour, bringing Him before us as Pandoros (All-gifted), as if each of the Æons had bestowed on Him what He possessed in the greatest perfection. Again, their opinion as to the indifference of [eating of] meats and other actions, and as to their thinking that, from the nobility of their nature, they can in no degree at all contract pollution, whatever they eat or perform, they have derived it from the Cynics, since they do in fact belong to the same society as do these [philosophers]. They also strive to transfer to [the treatment of matters of] faith that hairsplitting and subtle mode of handling questions which is, in fact, a copying of Aristotle.
6. The Latin text reads “sensibilia et
insensata;” but these words, as Harvey observes, must be the
translation of αἰσθητὰ καὶ ἀναίσθητα,
—“the former referring to material objects of sense, the
latter to the immaterial world of intellect.” This clause is
very obscure, and we are not sure if the above rendering brings out the
real meaning of the author. Harvey takes a different view of it, and
supposes the original Greek to have been, καὶ ἄλλας μὲν τῆς ὑποστάσεως
ἀρχὰς
εἶναι ἄλλας δὲ τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς οὐσίας. He then
remarks: “The reader will observe that the word ὑπόστασις here means
intellectual substance, οὐσία material;
as in V. c. ult. The meaning therefore of the sentence will be,
And they affirmed that the first principles of intellectual substance
and of sensible and material existence were diverse, viz., unity was
the exponent of the first, duality of the second.” All the editors confess the above sentence hopelessly
obscure. We have given Harvey’s conjectural translation.
7. But I will merely say, in opposition to these men
—Did all those who have been mentioned, with whom you have been
proved to coincide in expression, know, or not know, the truth? If they
knew it, then the descent of the Saviour into this world was superfluous.
For why [in that case] did He descend? Was it that He might bring that
truth which was [already] known to the knowledge of those who knew it?
If, on the other hand, these men did not know it, then how is it
that, while you express yourselves in the same terms as do those who knew
not the truth, ye boast that yourselves alone possess that knowledge
which is above all things, although they who are ignorant of God
[likewise] possess it? Thus, then, by a complete perversion Literally,
“antiphrasis.” Grabe and
others insert “vel” between these words. It seems necessary to regard these words as
parenthetical, though the point is overlooked by all the editors.
8. Thus far, then, by means of [ascribing to their
Æons] human feelings, and by the fact that they largely coincide in
their language with many of those who are ignorant of God, they have been
seen plausibly drawing a certain number away [from the truth]. They lead
them on by the use of those [expressions] with which they have been
familiar, to that sort of discourse which treats of all things, setting
forth the production of the Word of God, and of Zoe, and of Nous, and
bringing into the world, as it were, the [successive] emanations of the
Deity. The views, again, which they propound, without either plausibility
or parade, are simply lies from beginning to end. Just as those who, in
order to lure and capture any kind of animals, place their accustomed
food before them, gradually drawing them on by means of the familiar
aliment, until at length they seize it, but, when they have taken them
captive, they subject them to the bitterest of bondage, and drag them
along with violence whithersoever they please; so also do these men
gradually and gently persuading [others], by means of their plausible
speeches, to accept of the emission which has been mentioned, then bring
forward things which are not consistent, and forms of the remaining
emissions which are not such as might have been expected. They declare,
for instance, that [ten]
“Decem” is of doubtful authority.
9. The passions and error of this Sophia, and how she
ran the risk of perishing through her investigation [of the nature] of
the Father, as they relate, and what took place outside of the Pleroma,
and from what sort of a defect they teach that the Maker of the world was
produced, I have set forth in the preceding book, describing in it, with
all diligence, the opinions of these heretics. [I have also detailed
their views] respecting Christ, whom they describe as having been
produced subsequently to all these, and also regarding Soter, who,
[according to them,] derived his being from those Æons who were formed
within the Pleroma. The
text has “qui in labe facti sunt;” but, according to Harvey,
“the sense requires πληρώματι instead of
ἐκτρώματι in the
original.” Viz., the “Dii majorum gentium” of the
Gentiles.
1.
2. And then, again, with reference to the entire
Pleroma, what reason is there that it should be divided into these three
—an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad—and not into some
other number different from these? Moreover, with respect to the division
itself, why has it been made into three parts, and not into four,
or five, or six, or into some other number among those which have no
connection with such numbers Referring to numbers like 4, 5, 6, which do not
correspond to any important fact in creation, as 7 e.g., does to the
number of the planets. The Latin text is here
scarcely intelligible, and is variously pointed by the editors.
3. The account which we give of creation is one
harmonious with that regular order [of things prevailing in the world],
for this scheme of ours is adapted to the Harvey explains “his” as here denoting
“in his,” but we are at a loss to know how he would translate
the passage. It is in the highest degree obscure.
1.
2. This difficulty presented itself to Basilides after he had utterly missed the truth, and was conceiving that, by an infinite succession of those beings that were formed from one another, he might escape such perplexity. When he had proclaimed that three hundred and sixty-five heavens were formed through succession and similitude by one another, and that a manifest proof [of the existence] of these was found in the number of the days of the year, as I stated before; and that above these there was a power which they also style Unnameable, and its dispensation—he did not even in this way escape such perplexity. For, when asked whence came the image of its configuration to that heaven which is above all, and from which he wishes the rest to be regarded as having been formed by means of succession, he will say, from that dispensation which belongs to the Unnameable. He must then say, either that the Unspeakable formed it of himself, or he will find it necessary to acknowledge that there is some other power above this being, from whom his unnameable One derived such vast numbers of configurations as do, according to him, exist.
3. How much safer and more accurate a course is it, then, to confess at once that which is true: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him—He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made—than that, after wearying ourselves with such an impious and circuitous description, we should be compelled, at some point or another, to fix the mind on some One, and to confess that from Him proceeded the configuration of things created.
4. As to the accusation brought against us by the
followers of Valentinus, when they declare that we continue in that
Hebdomad which is below, as if we could not lift our minds on high, nor
understand those things which are above, because we do not accept their
monstrous assertions: this very charge do the followers of Basilides
bring in turn against them, inasmuch as they (the Valentinians) keep
circling about those things which are below, [going] as far as the first
and second Ogdoad, and because they unskilfully imagine that, immediately
after the thirty Æons, they have discovered Him who is above all things
Father, not following out in thought their investigations to that Pleroma
which is above the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, which The text is here doubtful:
Harvey proposes to read “qui” instead of “quæ,”
but we prefer “quod” with Grabe. The meaning is, that three
hundred and sixty-five is more than forty-five Ogdoads (45 ×
8 = 360). “Operositatem.” corresponding
to πραγματείαν, lit.
manufacture.
1.
2. I ask, then, in what manner were the rest of the
Æons produced? Was it so as to be united with Him who produced them,
even as the solar rays are with the sun; or was it actually Efficabiliter in the
Latin text is thought to correspond to ἐνεργῶς in the
original Greek.
3. If each of them was produced, after the manner of
men, actually and according to its own generation, then either those thus
generated by the Father will be of the same substance with Him, and
similar to their Author; or if Si is inserted by most of the editors; and
although Harvey argues for its omission, we agree with Massuet in deeming
it indispensable.
4.
5. The defect, therefore, of that passion which has
regard to ignorance, will either attach alike to their whole Pleroma,
since [all its members] are of the same substance; and the Propator will
share in this defect of ignorance—that is, will be ignorant of
Himself; or, on the other hand, all those lights which are within the
Pleroma will alike remain for ever impassible. Whence, then, comes the
passion of the youngest Æon, if the light of the Father is that from
which all other lights have been formed, and which is by nature
impassible? And how can one Æon be spoken of as either younger or older
among themselves, since there is but one light in the entire Pleroma? And
if any one calls them stars, they will all nevertheless appear to
participate in the same nature. For if “one star differs from
another star in glory,”
6. The same conclusion will follow, although they
affirm that the production of Æons sprang from Logos, as branches from a
tree, since Logos has his generation from their Father. For all [the
Æons] are formed of the same substance with the Father, differing from
one another only in size, and not in nature, and filling up the greatness
of the Father, even as the fingers complete
7. If, again, they declare that their Æons were sent
forth just as rays are from the sun, then, since all are of the same
substance and sprung from the same source, all must either be capable of
passion along with Him who produced them, or all will remain impassible
for ever. For they can no longer maintain that, of beings so produced,
some are impassible and others passible. If, then, they declare all
impassible, they do themselves destroy their own argument. For how could
the youngest Æon have suffered passion if all were impassible? If, on
the other hand, they declare that all partook of this passion, as indeed
some of them venture to maintain, then, inasmuch as it originated with
Logos, Comp. i. 2, 2. It seems needless to insert an
“et” before this word, as Harvey suggests, or, as an
alternative, to strike out the first “Nun Propatoris.”
8. It cannot therefore longer be held, as these men teach, that Logos, as occupying the third place in generation, was ignorant of the Father. Such a thing might indeed perhaps be deemed probable in the case of the generation of human beings, inasmuch as these frequently know nothing of their parents; but it is altogether impossible in the case of the Logos of the Father. For if, existing in the Father, he knows Him in whom he exists—that is, is not ignorant of himself—then those productions which issue from him being his powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant of him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the sun. It is impossible, therefore, that the Sophia (wisdom) of God, she who is within the Pleroma, inasmuch as she has been produced in such a manner, should have fallen under the influence of passion, and conceived such ignorance. But it is possible that that Sophia (wisdom) who pertains to [the scheme] of Valentinus, inasmuch as she is a production of the devil, should fall into every kind of passion, and exhibit the profoundest ignorance. For when they themselves bear testimony concerning their mother, to the effect that she was the offspring of an erring Æon, we need no longer search for a reason why the sons of such a mother should be ever swimming in the depths of ignorance.
9. I am not aware that, besides these productions
[which have been mentioned], they are able to speak of any other; indeed,
they have not been known to me (although I have had very frequent
discussions with them concerning forms of this kind) as ever setting
forth any other peculiar kind of being as produced [in the manner under
consideration]. This only they maintain, that each one of these was so
produced as to know merely that one who produced him, while he was
ignorant of the one who immediately preceded. But they do not in this
matter go forward [in their account] with any kind of demonstration as to
the manner in which these were produced, or how such a thing could take
place among spiritual beings. For, in whatsoever way they may choose to
go forward, they will feel themselves bound (while, as regards the truth,
they depart Some read
“cæcutientes” instead of “circumeuntes,” as
above.
“Postgenitum quidem
reliquis,” the representative, according to Grabe, of ἀπόγονον μὲν λοιποῖς in the Greek.
Harvey remarks that τῶν λοιπῶν would have been
better, and proposes to read “progenitum” in the Latin; but
we do not see any necessity for change.
11. Since therefore, as soon as He so pleased, He did
become known not only to the Æons, but also to these men who lived in
these latter times; but, as He did not so please to be known from the
beginning, He remained unknown—the cause of ignorance is,
according to you, the will of the Father. For if He foreknew that these
things would in future happen in such a manner, why then did He not guard
against the ignorance of these beings before it had obtained a place
among them, rather than afterwards, as if under the influence of
repentance, deal with it through the production of Christ? For the
knowledge which through Christ He conveyed to all, He might long before
have imparted through Logos, who was also the first-begotten of
Monogenes. Or if, knowing them beforehand, He willed that these things
should happen [as they have done], then the works of ignorance must
endure for ever, and never pass away. For the things which have been made
in accordance with the will of your Propator must continue along with the
will of Him who willed them; or if they pass away, the will of Him also
who decreed that they should have a being will pass away along with them.
And why did the Æons find rest and attain perfect knowledge through
learning [at last] that the Father is altogether “Incapabilis et
incomprehensibilis,” corresponding to ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος
in the Greek.
Literally, “to these knowing,” “his
scientibus.”
1.
2. And, again, how could her Enthymesis, going forth
[from her] along with the passion, have become a separate existence? For
Enthymesis (thought) is understood in connection with some person, and
can never have an isolated existence by itself. For a bad Enthymesis is
destroyed and absorbed by a good one, even as a state of disease is by
health. What, then, was the sort of Enthymesis which preceded that of
passion? [It was this]: to investigate the [nature of] the Father, and to
consider His
3. How then could the Enthymesis separately conceive
passions, which themselves also were her affections? For affection is
necessarily connected with an individual: it cannot come into being or
exist apart by itself. This opinion [of theirs], however, is not only
untenable, but also opposed to that which was spoken by our Lord:
“Seek, and ye shall find.” It seems necessary to read “se quidem”
instead of “si quidem,” as in the mss.
4. Since, therefore, the Enthymesis herself could not exist separately, apart from the Æon, [it is obvious that] they bring forward still greater falsehood concerning her passion, when they further proceed to divide and separate it from her, while they declare that it was the substance of matter. As if God were not light, and as if no Word existed who could convict them, and overthrow their wickedness. For it is certainly true, that whatsoever the Æon thought, that she also suffered; and what she suffered, that she also thought. And her Enthymesis was, according to them, nothing else than the passion of one thinking how she might comprehend the incomprehensible. And thus Enthymesis (thought) was the passion; for she was thinking of things impossible. How then could affection and passion be separated and set apart from the Enthymesis, so as to become the substance of so vast a material creation, when Enthymesis herself was the passion, and the passion Enthymesis? Neither, therefore, can Enthymesis apart from the Æon, nor the affections apart from Enthymesis, separately possess substance; and thus once more their system breaks down and is destroyed.
5. But how did it come to pass that the Æon was both
dissolved [into her component parts], and became subject to passion? She
was undoubtedly of the same substance as the Pleroma; but the entire
Pleroma was of the Father. Now, any substance, when brought in contact
with what is of a similar nature, will not be dissolved into nothing, nor
will be in danger of perishing, but will rather continue and increase,
such as fire in fire, spirit in spirit, and water in water; but those
which are of a contrary nature to each other do, [when they meet,] suffer
and are changed and destroyed. And, in like manner, if there had been a
production of light, it would not suffer passion, or recur any danger in
light like itself, but would rather glow with the greater brightness, and
increase, as the day does from [the increasing brilliance of] the sun;
for they maintain that Bythus [himself] was the image of their
father Although Sophia
was a feminine Æon, she was regarded as being the father of Enthymesis,
who again was the mother of the Valentinians. Stieren refers
for this allusion to Meineke’s edition of the Reliquiæ Menan.
et Philem., p. 116.
6. Moreover, to meditate how to search into [the nature
of] the perfect Father, and to have a desire to exist within Him, and to
have a comprehension of His [greatness], could not entail the stain of
ignorance or passion, and that upon a spiritual Æon; but would rather
[give rise to] perfection, and impassibility, and truth. For they do not
say that even they, though they be but men, by meditating on Him who was
before
7. Absurd is such presumption, and truly an opinion of men totally destitute of the truth. For, that this Æon is superior to themselves, and of greater antiquity, they themselves acknowledge, according to their own system, when they affirm that they are the fruit of the Enthymesis of that Æon who suffered passion, so that this Æon is the father of their mother, that is, their own grandfather. And to them, the later grandchildren, the search after the Father brings, as they maintain, truth, and perfection, and establishment, and deliverance from unstable matter, and reconciliation to the Father; but on their grandfather this same search entailed ignorance, and passion, and terror, and perplexity, from which [disturbances] they also declare that the substance of matter was formed. To say, therefore, that the search after and investigation of the perfect Father, and the desire for communion and union with Him, were things quite beneficial to them, but to an Æon, from whom also they derive their origin, these things were the cause of dissolution and destruction, how can such assertions be otherwise viewed than as totally inconsistent, foolish, and irrational? Those, too, who listen to these teachers, truly blind themselves, while they possess blind guides, justly [are left to] fall along with them into the gulf of ignorance which lies below them.
1.
2. Then, in the next place, as to their saying that the
Creator was ignorant of that deposit of seed which took place into him,
and again, of that impartation of seed which was made by him to man,
their words are futile and vain, and are in no way susceptible of proof.
For how could he have been ignorant of it, if that seed had possessed any
substance and peculiar properties? If, on the other hand, it was without
substance and without quality, and so was really nothing, then, as a
matter of course, he was ignorant of it. For those things which have a
certain motion of their own, and quality, either of heat, or swiftness,
or sweetness, or which differ from others in brilliance, do not escape
the notice even of men, since they mingle in the sphere of human action:
far less can they [be hidden from] God, the Maker of this universe. With
reason, however, [is it said, that] their seed was not known to Him,
since it is without any quality of general utility, and without the
substance requisite for any action, and is, in fact, a pure nonentity. It
really seems to me, that, with a view to such opinions, the Lord
expressed Himself thus: “For every idle word that men speak, they
shall give account on the day of judgment.” Comp. i. 6, 1.
4. Further, it is also a most absurd and groundless
thing for them to say that the seed was, by being thus deposited, reduced
to form and increased, and so was prepared for all the reception of
perfect rationality. For there will be in it an admixture of matter
—that substance which they hold to have been derived from
ignorance and defect; [and this will prove itself] more apt and useful
than was the light of their Father, if indeed, when born, according to
the contemplation of that [light], it was without form or figure, but
derived from this [matter], form, and appearance, and increase, and
perfection. For if that light which proceeds from the Pleroma was the
cause to a spiritual being that it possessed neither form, nor
appearance, nor its own special magnitude, while its descent to this
world added all these things to it, and brought it to perfection, then a
sojourn here (which they also term darkness) would seem much more
efficacious and useful than was the light of their Father. But how can it
be regarded as other than ridiculous, to affirm that their mother ran the
risk of being almost extinguished in matter, and was almost on the point
of being destroyed by it, had she not then with difficulty stretched
herself outwards, and leaped, [as it were,] out of herself, receiving
assistance from the Father; but that her seed increased in this same
matter, and received a form, and was made fit for the reception of
perfect rationality; and this, too, while “bubbling up” among
substances dissimilar and unfamiliar to itself, according to their own
declaration that the earthly is opposed to the spiritual, and the
spiritual to the earthly? How, then, could “a little
particle,”
“Parvum emissum”—a small emission.
5. But further, and in addition to what has been said,
the question occurs, Did their mother, when she beheld the angels, bring
forth the seed all at once, or only one by one [in succession]? If she
brought forth the whole simultaneously and at once, that which was thus
produced cannot now be of an infantile character: its descent, therefore,
into those men who now exist must be superfluous. That is, there could be no need for its
descending into them that it might increase, receive form, and thus be
prepared for the reception of perfect reason.
6. Why was it, too, that, beholding the angels along
with the Saviour, she did indeed conceive their images, but not
that of the Saviour, who is far more beautiful than they? Did He
not please her; and did she not, on that account, conceive after His
likeness? Or, “on
beholding Him.” As Massuet here remarks, we
may infer from this passage that Irenæus believed souls to be corporeal,
as being possessed of a definite form,—an opinion entertained by
not a few of the ancients. [And, before we censure them, let us reflect
whether their perceptions of “the carnal mind” as differing
from the spirit of a man, may not account for it. Comp.
7. Still more manifestly is that talk of theirs
concerning their seed proved to be false, and that in a way which must be
evident to every one, by the fact that they declare those souls which
have received seed from the Mother to be superior to all others;
wherefore also they have been honoured by the Demiurge, and constituted
princes, and kings, and priests. For if this were true, the high priest
Caiaphas, and Annas, and the rest of the chief priests, and doctors of
the law, and rulers of the people, would have been the first to believe
in the Lord, agreeing as they did with respect The meaning apparently is, that by the
high position which all these in common occupied, they proved themselves,
on the principles of the heretics, to belong to the favoured
“seed,” and should therefore have eagerly have welcomed the
Lord. Or the meaning may be, “hurrying together to that
relationship,” that is, to the relationship secured by faith in
Christ.
8. As to the point, then, that their system is weak and
untenable as well as utterly chimerical, enough has been said. For it is
not needful, to use a common proverb, that one should drink up the ocean
who wishes to learn that its water is salt. But, just as in the case of a
statue which is made of clay, but coloured on the outside that it may be
thought to be of gold, while it really is of clay, any one who takes out
of it a small particle, and thus laying it open reveals the clay, will
set free those who seek the truth from a false opinion; in the same way
have I (by exposing not a small part only, but the several heads of their
system which are of the greatest importance) shown to as many as do not
wish wittingly to be led astray, what is wicked, deceitful, seductive,
and pernicious, connected with the school of the Valentinians, and all
those other heretics who promulgate “Male tractant;” literally, handle
badly.
9. For who that has any intelligence, and possesses only a small proportion of truth, can tolerate them, when they affirm that there is another god above the Creator; and that there is another Monogenes as well as another Word of God, whom also they describe as having been produced in [a state of] degeneracy; and another Christ, whom they assert to have been formed, along with the Holy Spirit, later than the rest of the Æons; and another Saviour, who, they say, did not proceed from the Father of all, but was a kind of joint production of those Æons who were formed in [a state of] degeneracy, and that He was produced of necessity on account of this very degeneracy? It is thus their opinion that, unless the Æons had been in a state of ignorance and degeneracy, neither Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor Horos, nor the Saviour, nor the angels, nor their Mother, nor her seed, nor the rest of the fabric of the world, would have been produced at all; but the universe would have been a desert, and destitute of the many good things which exist in it. They are therefore not only chargeable with impiety against the Creator, declaring Him the fruit of a defect, but also against Christ and the Holy Spirit, affirming that they were produced on account of that defect; and, in like manner, that the Saviour [was produced] subsequently to [the existence of] that defect. And who will tolerate the remainder of their vain talk, which they cunningly endeavour to accommodate to the parables, and have in this way plunged both themselves, and those who give credit to them, in the profoundest depths of impiety?
1. That they improperly and illogically apply both the
parables and the actions of the Lord to their falsely-devised system, I
prove as follows:
2.
Or, “from the twelfth number”—the twelfth position
among the apostles.
3. But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither
similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar
circumstances. For the Æon underwent a passion of dissolution and
destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being
destroyed. But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a
merely The text is here
uncertain. Most editions read “et quæ non cederet,” but
Harvey prefers “quæ non accederet” (for
“accideret”), and remarks that the corresponding Greek would
be
καὶ οὐ τυχόν, which we have
translated as above. “Corruptum
hominem.”
Though the reading “substituit” is found in
all the mss. and editions,
it has been deemed corrupt, and “sustinuit” has been proposed
instead of it. Harvey supposes it the equivalent of ὑπέστησε, and then
somewhat strangely adds “for ἀπέστησε.”
There seems to us no difficulty in the word, and consequently no
necessity for change.
4. Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering Æon, nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and inharmonious. This is the case not only as respects the points which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number. For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel. But this Æon is not the twelfth, but the thirtieth; for, according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve Æons only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent forth the twelfth in order: they reckon her, [on the contrary,] as having been produced in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas, the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that Æon who occupies the thirtieth place?
5. But if they say that Judas in perishing was the
image of her Enthymesis, neither in this way will the image bear any
analogy to that truth which [by hypothesis] corresponds to it. For the
Enthymesis having been separated from the Æon, and itself afterwards
receiving a shape from Christ, Compare, in illustration of this sentence, book i. 4, 1,
and i. 4, 5.
1. This passage is hopelessly corrupt. The
editors have twisted it in every direction, but with no satisfactory
result. Our version is quite as far from being certainly trustworthy as
any other that has been proposed, but it seems something like the meaning
of the words as they stand. Both the text and punctuation of the Latin
are in utter confusion.
“Si” is wanting in the mss. and early editions, and
Harvey pleads for its exclusion, but the sense becomes clearer through
inserting it.
2. Moreover we must not keep silence respecting Paul,
but demand from them after the type of what Æon that apostle has been
handed down to us, unless perchance [they affirm that he is a
representative] of the Saviour compounded of them [all], who derived his
being from the collected gifts of the whole, and whom they term All
Things, as having been formed out of them all. Respecting this being
the poet Hesiod has strikingly expressed himself, styling him Pandora
—that is, “The gift of all”—for this reason,
that the best gift in the possession of all was centred in him. In
describing these gifts the following account is given: Hermes (so This clause is, of course, an
interpolation by the Latin translator. The words are loosely quoted
memoriter, as is the custom with Irenæus. See Hesiod, Works
and Days, i. 77, etc. Latin, of course, in the text. There is here a
play upon the words Λητώ and ληθεῖν, the former
being supposed to be derived from the latter, so as to denote
secrecy. This
clause is probably an interpolation by the translator. “Cœlet Demiurgo,” such is
the reading in all the mss.
and editions. Harvey, however, proposes to read “celet
Demiurgum;” but the change which he suggests, besides being without
authority, does not clear away the obscurity which hangs upon the
sentence. Comp. Pindar, Olymp., i. 38, etc.
“Compuncti” supposed to correspond to κεκαυτηριασμένοι:
see
1. I have shown that the number thirty fails
them in every respect; too few Æons, as they represent them, being at
one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond
with that number]. Harvey
wishes, without any authority, to substitute “tacitus” for
“tacitos,” but there is no necessity for alteration. Irenæus
is here playing upon the word, according to a practice in which he
delights, and quietly scoffs at the Sige (Silence) of the heretics
by styling those Æons silent who were derived from her.
2.
3. But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come
to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of
God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His
baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in
accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and
every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and
there celebrate the feast of the passover. First of all, after He had
made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of
the passover, on which occasion it is written, “For many believed
in Him, when they saw the signs which He did,”
4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized,
and then possessing the full age of a Master, Or, “teacher,”
magistri.
Harvey strangely remarks here, that “the reading audiret,
followed by Massuet, makes no sense.” He gives audiretur in
his text, but proposes to read ordiretur. The passage may,
however, be translated as above, without departing from the Benedictine
reading audiret.
“Neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis.” Massuet
would expunge “suam;” but, as Harvey well observes, “it
has a peculiar significance, nor abrogating his own
law.” “Renascuntur in Deum.” The reference in
these words is doubtless to baptism, as clearly appears from comparing
book iii. 17, 1. It has been remarked by Wall and others,
that we have here the statement of a valuable fact as to the baptism of
infants in the primitive Church. [That our Lord was prematurely old
may be inferred from the text which Irenæus regards as proof that he
literally lived to be old. St.
5. They, however, that they may establish their false
opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one
year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,]
they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work,
and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more
honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which
also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had
disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He
had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had
not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about
thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has
expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty
years old,”
The Latin text of this clause is,
“Quia autem triginta annorum ætas prima indolis est juvenis”
—words which it seems almost impossible to translate. Grabe
regarded “indolis” as being in the nominative, while Massuet
contends it is in the genitive case; and so regarding it, we might
translate, “Now that the age of thirty is the first age of the mind
of youth,” etc. But Harvey re-translates the clause into Greek as
follows: Ὃτι δὲ ἡ τῶν τριάκοντα
ἐτῶν ἡλικία ἡ πρώτη τῆς διαθέσεώς
ἐστι νέας—
words which we have endeavoured to render as above. The meaning clearly
is, that the age of thirty marked the transition point from youth to
maturity. With
respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenæus, Harvey remarks:
“The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of
tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon
the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external
testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but
little over three years; yet here Irenæus states that it included more
than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from
those who had conversed with an apostle” Trajan’s reign commenced a.d. 98, and St. John is said to
have lived to the age of a hundred years.
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed
with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing.
For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him,
“Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen
Abraham?”
“Sed veritas”—literally, “the
truth.” [This statement is simply astounding, and might seem a
providential illustration of the worthlessness of mere tradition
unsustained by the written Word. No mere tradition could be more
creditably authorized than this.]
Iliad, iv. 1.
which we may thus render into English: Latin, of course, in the text.
1.
2. And not only in the case of this woman have the
years of her infirmity (which they affirm to fit in with their figment)
been mentioned, but, lo! another woman was also healed, after suffering
in like manner for eighteen years; concerning whom the Lord said,
“And ought not this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound
during eighteen years, to be set free on the Sabbath-day?” The text of this sentence is very uncertain. We follow
Massuet’s reading, “negotio Æonum,” in preference to
that suggested by Harvey.
1. “Sive
confusionem” is very probably a marginal gloss which has found its
way into the text. The whole clause is difficult and obscure. Comp. i. 14, 4. Thus: Σωτήρ ( σ = 200, ω = 800, τ = 300, η = 8, ρ = 100 ) = 1408.
2. Being written thus, ישו, and the small
י being apparently
regarded as only half a letter. Harvey proposes a different solution
which seems less probable. This is one of the most obscure passages in the whole
work of Irenæus, and the editors have succeeded in throwing very little
light upon it. We may merely state that ישו seems to be
regarded as containing in itself the initials of the three words יְהֹוָה, Jehovah;
שְמַיִם, heaven;
and וְאָרָץ, and
earth. Nothing can be made of these words; they have probably
been corrupted by ignorant transcribers, and are now wholly
unintelligible. “Literæ
sacerdotales,”—another enigma which no man can solve.
Massuet supposes the reference to be to the archaic Hebrew characters,
still used by the priests after the square Chaldaic letters had
been generally adopted. Harvey thinks that sacerdotales represents
the Greek λειτουργικά,
“meaning letters as popularly used in common
computation.” The editors have again long notes on this most obscure
passage. Massuet expunges “quæque,” and gives a lengthened
explanation of the clause, to which we can only refer the curious
reader. בָרוּךְ, Baruch,
blessed, one of the commonest titles of the Almighty. The final
ך seems to be reckoned
only a half-letter, as being different in form from what it is when
accompanied by a vowel at the beginning or in the middle of a word.
3. For, choosing out of the law whatever things agree
with the number adopted in their system, they thus violently strive to
obtain proofs of its validity.
Only six
branches are mentioned in
4. Some such supplement as this seems
requisite, but the syntax in the Latin text is very confused. St. John is here
strangely overlooked.
“Fines et summitates;” comp.
Justin Mart., Dial. c. Tryph., 91.
“Juvenis,” one in the prime of life. It has been usual in the Christian Church
to reckon four commandments in the first table, and six in the second;
but the above was the ancient Jewish division. See Joseph.,
Antiq., iii. 6. [Note the
manly contempt with which our author dismisses a class of similitudes,
which seem, even in our day, to have great attractions for some minds not
otherwise narrow.]
5. 365 (the days of the year)—12
× 30 + 5. These hours of
daylight, at the winter and summer solstice respectively, correspond to
the latitude of Lyons, 45° 45´ N., where Irenæus resided.
6. But further, as to their calling material substances
“on the left hand,” and maintaining that those things which
are thus on the left hand of necessity fall into corruption, while they
also affirm that the Saviour came to the lost sheep, in order to transfer
it to the right hand, that is, to the ninety and nine sheep which were in
safety, and perished not, but continued within the fold, yet were of the
left hand,
“Alluding,” says Harvey, “to a custom among the
ancients, of summing the numbers below 100 by various positions of the
left hand and its fingers; 100 and upwards being reckoned by
corresponding gestures of the right hand. The ninety and nine sheep,
therefore, that remained quietly in the fold were summed upon the left
hand, and Gnostics professed that they were typical of the true spiritual
seed; but Scripture always places the workers of iniquity of the left
hand, and in the Gnostic theory the evil principle of matter was
sinistral, therefore,” etc., as above. “Levamen,” corresponding probably to the
Greek ἀνάπαυσιν. ᾽Αγάπη
( α = 1, γ = 3, α = 1, π = 80, η = 8 ) = 93. ᾽Αλήθεια ( α = 1, λ = 30, η = 8, θ = 9, ε = 5, ι = 10, α = 1 ) = 64.
1. Some read XX., but XXX. is
probably correct.
Harvey proposes “commentitum” instead of
“commentatum,” but the alteration seems unnecessary. The syntax is in confusion, and the meaning obscure.
“Regula.”
2. But since created things are various and numerous,
they are indeed well fitted and adapted to the whole creation; yet, when
viewed individually, are mutually opposite and inharmonious, just as the
sound of the lyre, which consists of many and opposite notes, gives rise
to one unbroken melody, through means of the interval which separates
each one from the others. The lover of truth therefore ought not to be
deceived by the interval between each note, nor should he imagine that
one was due to one artist and author, and another to another, nor that
one person fitted the treble, another the bass, and yet another the tenor
strings; but he should hold that one and the same person [formed the
whole], so as to prove the judgment, goodness, and skill exhibited in the
whole work and [specimen of] wisdom. Those, too, who listen to the
melody, ought to praise and extol the artist, to admire the tension of
some notes, to attend to the softness of others, to catch the sound of
others between both these extremes, and to consider the special character
of others, so as to inquire at what each one aims, and what is the cause
of their variety, never failing to apply our rule, neither giving up the
[one “Errantes ab
artifice.” The whole sentence is most obscure.
3. If, however, any one do not discover the cause of
all those things which become objects of investigation, let him reflect
that man is infinitely inferior to God; that he has received grace only
in part, and is not yet equal or similar to his Maker; and, moreover,
that he cannot have experience or form a conception of all things
Alluding to the imaginary Æon
Anthropos, who existed from eternity.
4. Preserve therefore the proper order of thy knowledge, and do not, as being ignorant of things really good, seek to rise above God Himself, for He cannot be surpassed; nor do thou seek after any one above the Creator, for thou wilt not discover such. For thy Former cannot be contained within limits; nor, although thou shouldst measure all this [universe], and pass through all His creation, and consider it in all its depth, and height, and length, wouldst thou be able to conceive of any other above the Father Himself. For thou wilt not be able to think Him fully out, but, indulging in trains of reflection opposed to thy nature, thou wilt prove thyself foolish; and if thou persevere in such a course, thou wilt fall into utter madness, whilst thou deemest thyself loftier and greater than thy Creator, and imaginest that thou canst penetrate beyond His dominions.
1. “Aut;” ἤ having been thus
mistakenly rendered instead of “quam.” [This seems anticipatory of the dialects of
scholasticism, and of its immense influence in Western Christendom, after
St. Bernard’s feeble adhesion to the Biblical system of the
ancients.]
2. For how would it be, if any one, gradually elated by
attempts of the kind referred to, should, because the Lord said that
“even the hairs of your head are all numbered,” [Illustrated by the history of modern thought in
Germany. See the meritorious work of Professor Kahnis, on German
Protestantism (translated). Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1856.]
3. But if any one should ask us whether every number of
all the things which have been made, and which are made, is known to God,
and whether every one of these [numbers] has, according to His
providence, received that special amount which it contains; and on our
agreeing
“Rationem.”
1. We read “veritatis corpus” for “a
veritate corpus” in the text. Some such expression of disapproval must
evidently be supplied, though wanting in the Latin text.
2. According to this course of procedure, therefore,
man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected
the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom The text is here
elliptical, and we have supplied what seems necessary to complete the
sense. It is
doubtful whether “demonstravimus” or
“demonstrabimus” be the proper reading: if the former, the
reference will be to book i. 22, or ii. 2; if the latter, to book iii.
8.
1.
2. If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all
those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation,
yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who
really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave
things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured
that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the
Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and
later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very
account Or, “to
that degree.” Comp. Clem.
Rom. Ep. to Cor., c. xx.; and August, De. Civit Dei, xvi.
9.
3. If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there
are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others
which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there
for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the
Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of
God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of
God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to
come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn
the things taught him by God? “Permanet
firma,”—no doubt corresponding to the μένει of the
apostle, The Latin text is here untranslateable.
Grabe proposes to read, “una consonans melodia in nobis
sentietur;” while Stieren and others prefer to exchange
αἰσθήσεται for
ἀσθήσεται.
“Apotelesticos.” This word, says Harvey, “may also
refer to the vital energy of nature, whereby its effects are for ever
reproduced in unceasing succession.” Comp. Hippol., Philos.,
vii. 24. We here follow Grabe, who understands decet.
Harvey less simply explains the very obscure Latin text.
4. For consider, all ye who invent such opinions, since
the Father Himself is alone called God, who has a real existence, but
whom ye style the Demiurge; since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge
Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as
His own Father, and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words,
—when ye style this very Being the fruit of defect, and the
offspring of ignorance, and describe Him as being ignorant of those
things which are above Him, with the various other allegations which you
make regarding Him,—consider the terrible blasphemy [ye are thus
guilty of] against Him who truly is God. Ye seem to affirm gravely and
honestly enough that ye believe in God; but then, as ye are utterly
unable to reveal any other God, ye declare this very Being in whom ye
profess to believe, the fruit of defect and the offspring of ignorance.
Now this blindness and foolish talking flow to you from the fact that ye
reserve nothing for God, but ye wish to proclaim the nativity and
production both of God Himself, of His Ennœa, of His Logos, and Life,
and Christ; and ye form the idea of these from no other than a mere human
experience; not understanding, as I said before, that it is possible, in
the case of man, who is a compound being, to speak in this way of the
mind of man and the thought of man; and to say that thought (ennœa)
springs from mind (sensus), intention (enthymesis) again from thought,
and word (logos) from intention (but which logos? The Greek term λόγος, as is
well known, denotes both ratio (reason) and sermo (speech).
Some deem the above parenthesis an interpolation. Comp. i. 12, 2.
“Suffugatur:” some read “suffocatur;” and Harvey
proposes “suffragatur,” as the representative of the Greek
ψηφίζεται. The meaning
in any case is, that while ideas are instantaneously formed in the human
mind, they can be expressed through means of words only fractionally, and
by successive utterances.
5. But God being all Mind, and all Logos, both speaks
exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His
thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is
the Father Himself. He, therefore, who speaks of the mind of God, and
ascribes to it a special origin of its own, declares Him a compound
Being, as if God were one thing, and the original Mind another. So,
again, with respect to Logos, when one attributes to him the third Thus: Bythus, Nous,
Logos.
6. But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom],
ye presumptuously maintain that ye are acquainted with the unspeakable
mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that
the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly
declares, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither
the Son, but the Father only.” Comp.
7. But we shall not be wrong if we affirm the same
thing also concerning the substance of matter, that God produced it. For
we have learned from the Scriptures that God holds the supremacy over all
things. But whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture
anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in
accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning
God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself. In
like manner, also, we must leave the cause why, while all things were
made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of
submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and
do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them, and
also of what nature those are who sinned, and of what nature those who
persevere,—[we must, I say, leave the cause of these things] to
God and His Word, to whom alone He said, “Sit at my right hand,
until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
Massuet proposes to insert
these words, and some such supplement seems clearly necessary to complete
the sense. But the sentence still remains confused and doubtful. [
8. Moreover, they possess no proof of their system,
which has but recently been invented by them, sometimes resting upon
certain numbers, sometimes on syllables, and sometimes, again, on names;
and there are occasions, too, when,
[On the great matter of the
περιχώρησις, the
subordination of the Son, etc., Bull has explored Patristic doctrine, and
may well be consulted here. Defens. Fid. Nicænæ, sect. iv.; see
also vol. v. 363]
9. But if any lover of strife contradict what I have
said, and also what the apostle affirms, that “we know in part, and
prophesy in part,”
“Altitudines,”
literally, heights. [
1. Comp. i. 7,
1. “Refrigerium,”
place of refreshment. Billius, with great apparent reason, proposes to read
“descensio” for the unintelligible “discessio” of
the Latin text. Grabe and Massuet read,
“Si autem animæ perire inciperent, nisi justæ fuissent,”
for “Si autem animæ quæ perituræ essent inciperent nisi justæ
fuissent,”—words which defy all translation. The text is here uncertain and confused;
but, as Harvey remarks, “the argument is this, That if souls are
saved qua intellectual substance, then all are saved alike; but if
by reason of any moral qualities, then the bodies that have executed the
moral purposes of the soul, must also be considered to be heirs of
salvation.”
2. For it is manifest that those acts which are deemed righteous are performed in bodies. Either, therefore, all souls will of necessity pass into the intermediate place, and there will never be a judgment; or bodies, too, which have participated in righteousness, will attain to the place of enjoyment, along with the souls which have in like manner participated, if indeed righteousness is powerful enough to bring thither those substances which have participated in it. And then the doctrine concerning the resurrection of bodies which we believe, will emerge true and certain [from their system]; since, [as we hold,] God, when He resuscitates our mortal bodies which preserved righteousness, will render them incorruptible and immortal. For God is superior to nature, and has in Himself the disposition [to show kindness], because He is good; and the ability to do so, because He is mighty; and the faculty of fully carrying out His purpose, because He is rich and perfect.
3. But these men are in all points inconsistent with
themselves, when they decide that all souls do not enter into the
intermediate place, but those of the righteous only. For they maintain
that, according to nature and substance, three sorts [of being] were
produced by the Mother: the first, which proceeded from perplexity, and
weariness, and fear—that is material substance; the second from
impetuosity “De
impetu:” it is generally supposed that these words correspond to
ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς (comp.
i. 5, 1), but Harvey thinks ἐξ ὁρμῆς preferable (i.
4, 1). The syntax of this sentence is in utter
confusion, but the meaning is doubtless that given above.
1. Irenæus was evidently
familiar with Horace; comp. Ars. Poet., 300.
2. The superior person is to be proved by his deeds. In
what way, then, can they show themselves superior to the Creator (that I
too, through the necessity of the argument in hand, may come down to the
level of their impiety, instituting a comparison between God and foolish
men, and, by descending to their argument, may often refute them by their
own doctrines; but in thus acting may God be merciful to me, for I
venture on these statements, not with the view of comparing Him to them,
but of convicting and overthrowing their insane opinions)—they,
for whom many foolish persons entertain so great an admiration, as if,
forsooth, they could learn from them something more precious than the
truth itself! That expression of Scripture, “Seek, and ye shall
find,”
3. What work, then, will they point to as having been accomplished through themselves by the Saviour, or by their Mother, either greater, or more glorious, or more adorned with wisdom, than those which have been produced by Him who was the disposer of all around us? What heavens have they established? what earth have they founded? what stars have they called into existence? or what lights of heaven have they caused to shine? within what circles, moreover, have they confined them? or, what rains, or frosts, or snows, each suited to the season, and to every special climate, have they brought upon the earth? And again, in opposition to these, what heat or dryness have they set over against them? or, what rivers have they made to flow? what fountains have they brought forth? with what flowers and trees have they adorned this sublunary world? or, what multitude of animals have they formed, some rational, and others irrational, but all adorned with beauty? And who can enumerate one by one all the remaining objects which have been constituted by the power of God, and are governed by His wisdom? or who can search out the greatness of that God who made them? And what can be told of those existences which are above heaven, and which do not pass away, such as Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, and Powers innumerable? Against what one of these works, then, do they set themselves in opposition? What have they similar to show, as having been made through themselves, or by themselves, since even they too are the Workmanship and creatures of this [Creator]? For whether the Saviour or their Mother (to use their own expressions, proving them false by means of the very terms they themselves employ) used this Being, as they maintain, to make an image of those things which are within the Pleroma, and of all those beings which she saw waiting upon the Saviour, she used him (the Demiurge) as being [in a sense] superior to herself, and better fitted to accomplish her purpose through his instrumentality; for she would by no means form the images of such important beings through means of an inferior, but by a superior, agent.
4. For, [be it observed,] they themselves, according to
their own declarations, were then existing, as a spiritual conception, in
consequence of the contemplation of those beings who were arranged as
satellites around Pandora. And they indeed continued useless, the Mother
accomplishing nothing through their instrumentality, The punctuation is here doubtful. With
Massuet and Stieren we expunge “vel” from the text.
5. It is as if there were two iron tools, or
instruments, the one of which was continually in the workman’s
hands and in constant use, and by the use of which he made whatever he
pleased, and displayed his art and skill, but the other of which remained
idle and useless, never being called into operation, the workman never
appearing to make anything by it, and making no use of it in any of his
labours; and then one should maintain that this useless, and idle, and
unemployed tool was superior in nature and value to that which the
artisan employed in his work, and by means of which he acquired his
reputation. Such a man, if any such were found, would justly be regarded
as imbecile, and not in his right mind. And so should those be judged of
who speak of themselves as being spiritual and superior, and of the
Creator as possessed of an animal nature, and maintain that for this
reason they will ascend on high, and penetrate within the Pleroma to
their own husbands (for, according to their own statements, they are
themselves feminine), but that God [the Creator] is of an inferior
nature, and therefore remains in the intermediate place, while all the
time they bring forward no proofs of these assertions: for the better man
is shown by his works, and all works have been accomplished by the
Creator; but they, having nothing worthy of reason to point to as having
been produced by themselves, are
6.
Or, “the Scriptures of the Lord;” but the words
“dominicis scripturis” probably here represent the Greek
κυρίων γραφῶν, and are to be
rendered as above.
7. “Inciperet
fieri;” perhaps for “futurus esset,” was to
be. “Quartum
cœlum;” there still being, according to their theory of seven
heavens, a fourth beyond that to which St. Paul had
penetrated.
This is an exceedingly
obscure and difficult sentence. Grabe and some of the later editors read,
“uti neque non corpus,” thus making Irenæus affirm
that the body did participate in the vision. But Massuet contends
strenuously that this is contrary to the author’s purpose, as
wishing to maintain, against a possible exception of the Valentinians,
that Paul then witnessed spiritual realities, and by omitting this
“non” before “corpus,” makes Irenæus deny that
the body was a partaker in the vision. The point can only be doubtfully
decided, but Massuet’s ingenious note inclines us to his side of
the question.
8. “Præstat dignis:” here a
very ambiguous expression.
9. Justly, therefore, do we convict them of having
departed far and wide from the truth. For if the Saviour formed the
things which have been made, by means of him (the Demiurge), he is proved
in that case not to be inferior but superior to them, since he is found
to have been the former even of themselves; for they, too, have a place
among created things. How, then, can it be argued that these men indeed
are spiritual, but that he by whom they were created is of an animal
nature? Or, again, if (which is indeed the only true supposition, as I
have shown by numerous arguments of the very clearest nature) He (the
Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and
finished them, and His will is the substance That is, as Massuet notes, all things
derive not only their existence, but their qualities, from
His will. Harvey proposes to read causa instead of
substantia, but the change seems needless.
That is, Barbelos:
comp. i. 29, 1. “Tradunt;” literally, hand
down.
1.
Qui, though here found in all the mss., seems to have been rightly
expunged by the editors. The reference
probably is to opinions and theories of the heathen.
2. Comp.
3. Since, therefore, there exist among them error and
misleading influences, and magical illusions are impiously wrought in the
sight of men; but in the Church, sympathy, and compassion, and
stedfastness, and truth, for the aid and encouragement of mankind, are
not only displayed
“Perficiatur:” it is difficult here to give a fitting
translation of this word. Some prefer to read
“impertiatur.”
1.
2. When they further maintain that it is incumbent on
them to have experience of every kind Comp. i. 25, 4. “Artificialia.”
3. Again, while they assert that they possess souls
from the same sphere as Jesus, and that they are like to Him, sometimes
even maintaining that they are superior; while [they affirm that they
were] produced, like Him, for the
“Pureos
investes,” boys that have not yet reached the age of puberty. The text has “stillicidio temporis,”
literally “ a drop of time” (σταγμῇ
χρόνου); but the
original text was perhaps στιγμῇ χρόνου, “a
moment of time.” With either reading the meaning is the same.
Some have deemed the words “firmum esse” an
interpolation.
4. That is, as being done in reality, and not in
appearance. Harvey here
notes: “The reader will not fail to remark this highly interesting
testimony, that the divine χαρίσματα bestowed
upon the infant Church were not wholly extinct in the days of Irenæus.
Possibly the venerable Father is speaking from his own personal
recollection of some who had been raised from the dead, and had continued
for a time living witnesses of the efficacy of Christian faith.”
[See cap. xxxi., supra.] Comp.
5. Grabe contends that these words imply
that no invocations of angels, good or bad, were practised in the
primitive Church. Massuet, on the other hand, maintains that the words of
Irenæus are plainly to be restricted to evil spirits, and have no
bearing on the general question of angelic invocation. We follow the common reading, “perfecit;”
but one ms. has
“perficit,” works, which suits the context better. We insert “et,”
in accordance with Grabe’s suggestion.
1. Harvey
thinks that this parenthesis has fallen out of its proper place, and
would insert it immediately after the opening period of the chapter.
2. With reference to these objections, Plato, that
ancient Athenian, who also was the first It is a mistake of Irenæus to say that the doctrine of
metempsychosis originated with Plato: it was first publicly taught by
Pythagoras, who learned it from the Egyptians. Comp. Clem. Alex.,
Strom., i. 15: Herodot., ii. 123.
3. In opposition, again, to those who affirm that the
body itself is the drug of oblivion, this observation may be made: How,
then, does it come to pass, that whatsoever the soul sees by her own
instrumentality, both in dreams and by reflection or earnest mental
exertion, while the body is passive, she remembers, and reports to her
neighbours? But, again, if the body itself were [the cause of] oblivion,
then the soul, as existing in the body, could not remember even those
things which were perceived long ago either by means of the eyes or the
ears; but, as soon as the eye was turned from the things looked at, the
memory of them also would undoubtedly be destroyed. For the soul, as
existing in the very [cause of] oblivion, could have no knowledge of
anything else than that only which it saw at the present moment. How,
too, could it become acquainted with divine things, and retain a
remembrance of them while existing in the body, since, as they maintain,
the body itself is [the cause of] oblivion? But the prophets also, when
they were upon the earth, remembered likewise, on their returning to
their ordinary state of mind, “In hominem conversi,” literally,
“returning into man.”
4. For the body is not possessed of greater power than
the soul, since indeed the former is inspired, and vivified, and
increased, and held together by the latter; but the soul possesses “Possidet.”
Massuet supposes this word to represent κυριεύει,
“rules over” and Stieren κρατύνει,
governs; while Harvey thinks the whole clause corresponds to
κρατεῖ καὶ κυριεύει τοῦ σώματος, which we have
rendered above.
5. If, therefore, the soul remembers nothing Literally, none of things
past. The Latin text is here very confused, but the Greek
original of the greater part of this section has happily been preserved.
[This Father here anticipates in outline many ideas which St. Augustine
afterwards corrected and elaborated.]
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that
souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but
that they preserve the same form Grabe refers to Tertullian, De Anima, ch. vii.,
as making a similar statement. Massuet, on the other hand, denies that
Irenæus here expresses an opinion like that of Tertullian in the passage
referred to, and thinks that the special form (character)
mentioned is to be understood as simply denoting individual
spiritual properties. But his remarks are not satisfactory. With Massuet and
Stieren, we here supply esse. Some read
resurgeret, and others resurrexerit; we deem the former
reading preferable.
2. But if any persons at this point maintain that those souls, which only began a little while ago to exist, cannot endure for any length of time; but that they must, on the one hand, either be unborn, in order that they may be immortal, or if they have had a beginning in the way of generation, that they should die with the body itself—let them learn that God alone, who is Lord of all, is without beginning and without end, being truly and for ever the same, and always remaining the same unchangeable Being. But all things which proceed from Him, whatsoever have been made, and are made, do indeed receive their own beginning of generation, and on this account are inferior to Him who formed them, inasmuch as they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards.
3. For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament,
the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur,
although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and
continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God,
so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in
fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray,
inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were
formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an
existence and continuance. The prophetic Spirit bears testimony to these
opinions, when He declares, “For He spake, and they were made; He
commanded, and they were created: He hath established them for ever, yea,
forever and ever.”
As Massuet observes, this statement is to
be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenæus that the
wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not annihilation, but to
deprivation of happiness.
4. But as the animal body is certainly not itself the
soul, yet has fellowship with the soul as long as God pleases; so the
soul herself is not life, Comp. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph., ch. vi.
1. Moreover, in addition to what has been said,
Basilides himself will, according to his own principles, find it
necessary to maintain not only that there are three hundred and
sixty-five heavens made in succession by one another, but that an immense
and innumerable multitude of heavens have always been in the process of
being made, and are being made, and will continue to be made, so that the
formation of heavens of this kind can never cease. For if from the
efflux Ex
defluxu, corresponding to ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας in the
Greek.
2.
3.
Eloæ here occurs in the Latin text, but Harvey supposes that the
Greek had been ᾽Ελωείμ. He also
remarks that Eloeuth (אֱלָהוּת) is the
rabbinical abstract term, Godhead. All that can be remarked on this is, that the Jews
substituted the term Adonai (אֲדֹנַי) for the name
Jehovah, as often as the latter occurred in the sacred text. The
former might therefore be styled nameable. The Latin text is, “aliquando autem
duplicata litera delta cum aspiratione,” and Harvey supposes that
the doubling of the Daleth would give “to the scarcely articulate
א a more decidedly
guttural character;” but the sense is extremely doubtful. Instead of “nec posteaquam insurgere,”
Feuardent and Massuet read “ne possit insurgere,” and include
the clause in the definition of Addonai. The
author is here utterly mistaken, and, notwithstanding Harvey’s
earnest claim for him of a knowledge of Hebrew, seems clearly to betray
his ignorance of that language.
Probably corresponding to the Hebrew term Jehovah (יְהֹוָה) Literally, “belong to one and the same
name.”
“Secundum Latinitatem” in the text.
4. Now, that the preaching of the apostles, the
authoritative teaching of the Lord, the announcements of the prophets,
the dictated utterances of the apostles, The words are “apostolorum dictatio,”
probably referring to the letters of the apostles, as
distinguished from their preaching already mentioned. This last sentence is very confused and ambiguous, and
the editors throw but little light upon it. We have endeavoured to
translate it according to the ordinary text and punctuation, but strongly
suspect interpolation and corruption. If we might venture to strike out
“has Scripturas,” and connect “his tamen” with
“prædicantibus,” a better sense would be yielded, as
follows: “But that I may not be thought to avoid that series of
proofs which may be derived from the Scriptures of the Lord (since,
indeed, these Scriptures to much more evidently and clearly set forth
this very point, to those at least who do not bring a depraved mind to
their consideration), I shall devote the particular book which follows to
them, and shall,” etc.
Thou hast
indeed enjoined upon me, my very dear friend, that I should bring to
light the Valentinian doctrines, concealed, as their votaries imagine;
that I should exhibit their diversity, and compose a treatise in
refutation of them. I therefore have undertaken—showing that they
spring from Simon, the father of all heretics—to exhibit both
their doctrines and successions, and to set forth arguments against them
all. Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is
in many points but one work, I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of
which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits
their customs, and the character of their behaviour. In the second,
again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such
as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third
book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind
in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou
didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and
vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood. For
the love of God, being rich and ungrudging, confers upon the suppliant
more than he can ask from it. Call to mind then, the things which I have
stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with
them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the
heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in
defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has
received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all
gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have
known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also
did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that
despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”
1. See On this and
similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr.
Roberts’s Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are
fully criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew’s Gospel
maintained.
2.
1. This is Harvey’s rendering of the old
Latin, in illo qui contra disputat.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.
1.
2. The Latin text of this difficult but important clause
is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem
necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning
have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with
certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem
principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that
the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of
anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to
find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which
is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more
potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those
who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever,
by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition
which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.)
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who
resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic
World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own
light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note
at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap.
xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of
Rome.
3.
4.
Polycarp suffered about the year 167, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
His great age of eighty-six years implies that he was contemporary with
St. John for nearly twenty years.
So the Greek. The Latin reads: “which he also handed down to the
Church.” ἰκανωτάτη. Harvey
translates this all-sufficient, and thus paraphrases: But his
Epistle is all-sufficient, to teach those that are desirous to
learn.
1. Latin,
“modica quæstione.”
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who
believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by
the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient
tradition, [The
uneducated barbarians must receive the Gospel on testimony. Irenæus puts
apostolic traditions, genuine and uncorrupt, in this relation to
the primary authority of the written word. Literally, “without letters;”
equivalent to, “without paper and ink,” a few lines
previously.
3. The old Latin translation says
the eighth bishop; but there is no discrepancy. Eusebius, who has
preserved the Greek of this passage, probably counted the apostles as the
first step in the episcopal succession. As Irenæus tells us in
the preceding chapter, Linus is to be counted as the first bishop. It is thought that this does not mean excommunication
properly so called, but a species of self-excommunication, i.e.,
anticipating the sentence of the Church, by quitting it altogether. See
Valesius’s note in his edition of Eusebius.
1.
2.
3. This is also made clear from the words of the Lord,
who did truly reveal the Son of God to those of the circumcision—
Him who had been foretold as Christ by the prophets; that is, He set
Himself forth, who had restored liberty to men, and bestowed on them the
inheritance of incorruption. And again, the apostles taught the Gentiles
that they should leave vain stocks and stones, which they imagined to be
gods, and worship the true God, who had created and made all the human
family, and, by means of His creation, did nourish, increase, strengthen,
and preserve them in being; and that they might look for His Son Jesus
Christ, who redeemed us from apostasy with His own blood, so that we
should also be a sanctified people,—who shall also descend from
heaven in His Father’s power, and pass judgment upon all, and who
shall freely give the good things of God to those who shall have kept His
commandments. He, appearing in these last times, the chief cornerstone,
has gathered into one, and united those that were far off and those that
were near;
1.
2.
3.
These words are
an interpolation: it is supposed they have been carelessly repeated from
the preceding quotation of Isaiah.
Literally, “In both houghs,”
in ambabus suffraginibus. The old Latin translation has, “Si
unus est Dominus Deus”—If the Lord God is
one; which is supposed by the critics to have occurred through
carelessness of the translator. The
Latin version has, “that answereth to-day” (hodie),
—an evident error for igne.
4. Wherefore I do also call upon thee, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.
1.
2. This is according to the reading of the
old Italic version, for it is not so read in any of our existing
manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. This world is not
found in the second quotation of this passage immediately following. This world is not
found in the second quotation of this passage immediately following.
1.
A word of which many explanations have been proposed,
but none are quite satisfactory. Harvey seems inclined to suspect the
reading to be corrupt, through the ignorance and carelessness of the
copyist. [Irenæus undoubtedly relied for Hebrew criticisms on some
incompetent retailer of rabbinical refinements.]
2. But also, when He spoke of the devil as strong, not
absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself
under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in
no other way “spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first
bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his
house.”
3. For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels,
or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is
God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he
had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added,
“All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made.”
1.
2. Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel,
says, “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in
sleep.”
3. This is after the
version of the Septuagint, οὐ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν: but the word
δόξα may have the
meaning opinio as well as gloria. If this be admitted here,
the passage would bear much the same sense as it does in the authorized
version, “He shall not judge after the sight of His
eyes.”
This is according to
the Syriac Peschito version.
1. Literally, “that he should place the
incense.” The next clause is most likely an interpolation for the
sake of explanation.
2. And again, speaking in reference to the angel, he
says: “But at that time the angel Gabriel was sent from God, who
did also say to the virgin, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour
with God.”
“Ascriberet Deo”—make
the property of God.
Harvey observes that the Syriac, agreeing with the Latin here, expresses
priority in point of time; but our translation, without reason, makes it
the precedence of honour, viz., was preferred before me. The Greek
is, πρῶτός μου.
3. And the angel of the Lord, he says,
Thus found also in the
Vulgate. Harvey supposes that the original of Irenæus read according to
our textus receptus, and that the Vulgate rendering was adopted in
this passage by the transcribers of the Latin version of our author. [No
doubt a just remark.] There can be no doubt, however, that the reading
εὐδοκίας is supported
by many and weighty ancient authorities. [But on this point see the facts
as given by Burgon, in his refutation of the rendering adopted by late
revisers, Revision Revised, p. 41. London, Murray, 1883.]
4. And still further does Luke say in reference to the
Lord: “When the days of purification were accomplished, they
brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him before the Lord, as it is
written in the law of the Lord, That every male opening the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord; and that they should offer a sacrifice, as it is
said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young
pigeons:”
The text seems to be corrupt in the old Latin
translation. The rendering here follows Harvey’s conjectural
restoration of the original Greek of the passage.
5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of
Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the
prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall
prepare Thy way. The
Greek of this passage in St. See ii. 35, 3.
1. Irenæus frequently quotes this text, and always uses
the punctuation here adopted. Tertullian and many others of the Fathers
follow his example. See ii. 1,
etc.
2. John, however, does himself put this matter beyond
all controversy on our part, when he says, “He was in this world,
and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto
His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not.”
3. But, according to these men, neither was the Word
made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from
[the joint contributions
4. And that we may not have to ask, Of what God was the
Word made flesh? he does himself previously teach us, saying,
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came
as a witness, that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that
Light, but [came] that he might testify of the Light.” This evidently refers to
5. That wine, The transition here is so abrupt, that some critics
suspect the loss of part of the text before these words.
6. For “no man,” he says, “hath seen
God at any time,” unless “the only-begotten Son of God, which
is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].” The reading νεῖκος
having been followed instead of νῖκος, victory.
7. Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel:
that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also
announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of
the law,—[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the
ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves
bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of
them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the
Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel Harvey thinks that this is the Hebrew Gospel of which
Irenæus speaks in the opening of this book; but comp. Dr. Robert’s
Discussions on the Gospels, part ii. chap. iv.
8.
Literally, “four catholic spirits;” Greek, τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα: Latin,
“quatuor principales spiritus.”
The above is the literal rendering of this very obscure sentence; it is
not at all represented in the Greek here preserved. The Greek is ὑπέρ:
the Latin, “pro.”
The
Greek text of this clause, literally rendered, is, “This Gospel,
then, is anthropomorphic.” Or, “a sacerdotal and liturgical
order,” following the fragment of the Greek text recovered here.
Harvey thinks that the old Latin “actum” indicates the true
reading of the original πρᾶξιν, and that
τάξιν is an
error. The earlier editors, however, are of a contrary opinion. That is, the appearance of the Gospel
taken as a whole; it being presented under a fourfold aspect.
A portion of the Greek has been preserved here, but it differs materially
from the old Latin version, which seems to represent the original with
greater exactness, and has therefore been followed. The Greek represents
the first covenant as having been given to Noah, at the deluge, under the
sign of the rainbow; the second as that given to Abraham, under the sign
of circumcision; the third, as being the giving of the law, under Moses;
and the fourth, as that of the Gospel, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Paradise with the tree of life, Adam with Shechinah
(
9. The old Latin reads, “partem gloriatur se habere
Evangelii.” Massuet changed partem into pariter,
thinking that partem gave a sense inconsistent with the Marcionite
curtailment of St. Luke. Harvey, however, observes: “But the
Gospel, here means the blessings of the Gospel, in which
Marcion certainly claimed a share.”
Slighting, as did some later heretics, the Pauline Epistles.
1.
2. For Peter said, “Ye men of Israel, hear my
words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by powers, and
wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye
yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and
foreknowledge of God, by the hands of wicked men ye have slain, affixing
[to the cross]: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of
death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of them. For
David speaketh concerning Him,
The word δῶρον or δώρημα is supposed by
some to have existed in the earliest Greek texts, although not found in
any extant now. It is thus quoted by others besides Irenæus.
3. Again, when Peter, accompanied by John, had looked
upon the man lame from his birth, before that gate of the temple which is
called Beautiful, sitting and seeking alms, he said to him, “Silver
and gold I have none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. And immediately his legs and
his feet received strength; and he walked, and entered with them into the
temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.” These interpolations are also
found in the Codex Bezæ. These
interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ. These interpolations are also found in
the Codex Bezæ. “Et veniant” in Latin text: ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν in Greek.
The translation of these Greek words by “when … come,”
is one of the most glaring errors in the authorized English version. Irenæus,
like the majority of the early authorities, manifestly read προκεχειρισμένον
instead of προκεκηρυγμένον,
as in textus receptus. Dispositionis.
4. For this reason, too, when the chief priests were
assembled, Peter, full of boldness, said to them, “Ye rulers of the
people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined by you of the
good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he has been made whole;
be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name
of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the
dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the
stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the
head-stone of the corner. [Neither is there salvation in any other: for]
there is none other name under heaven, which is given to men, whereby we
must be saved:”
5. They were confounded, therefore, both by this
instance of healing (“for the man was above forty years old on whom
this miracle of healing took place” These words, though not in
textus receptus, are found in some ancient mss. and versions; but not the
words “our father,” which follow. “In hac civitate” are words not represented
in the textus receptus, but have a place in all modern critical
editions of the New Testament.
The
Latin is, “ut convertat se unusquisque.” This is following Grabe’s emendation of the text.
The old Latin reads “gloria sua,” the translator having
evidently mistaken δεξιᾴ for
δόξῃ.
6. But as some of these men impudently assert that the
apostles, when preaching among the Jews, could not declare to them
another god besides Him in whom they (their hearers These words have apparently been omitted
through inadvertence.
7. From the words of Peter, therefore, which he
addressed in Cæsarea to Cornelius the centurion, and those Gentiles with
him, to whom the word of God was first preached, we can understand what
the apostles used to preach, the nature of their preaching, and their
idea with regard to God. For this Cornelius was, it is said, “a
devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, giving much alms
to the people, and praying to God always. He saw therefore, about the
ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying,
Thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. Wherefore send to
Simon, who is called Peter.”
Quemadmodum capiebat; perhaps, “just as it presented itself
to him.”
8. But again: Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of
the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias
the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of
whom the prophet spoke: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the mouth?”
“But who shall declare His nativity? for His life shall be taken
away from the earth.”
9. Paul himself also—after that the Lord spoke
to him out of heaven, and showed him that, in persecuting His disciples,
he persecuted his own Lord, and sent Ananias to him that he might recover
his sight, and be baptized—“preached,” it is said,
“Jesus in the synagogues at Damascus, with all freedom of speech,
that this is the Son of God, the Christ.”
Latin translation, tractatur;
which Harvey thinks affords a conclusive proof that Irenæus occasionally
quotes Scripture by re-translating from the Syriac. It will be observed that Scripture is
here very loosely quoted.
10. And still further, Stephen, who was chosen the
first deacon by the apostles, and who, of all men, was the first to
follow the footsteps of the martyrdom of the Lord, being the first that
was slain for confessing Christ, speaking boldly among the people, and
teaching them, says: “The God of glory appeared to our father
Abraham, … and said to him, Get thee out of thy country, and from
thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee; … and
He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And He gave him none
inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet He promised
that He would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.
… And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a
strange land, and should be brought into bondage, and should be
evil-entreated four hundred years; and the nation whom they shall serve
will I judge, says the Lord. And after that shall they come forth, and
serve me in this place. And He gave him the covenant of circumcision: and
so [Abraham] begat Isaac.”
11. And that the whole range of the doctrine of the
apostles proclaimed one and the same God, who removed Abraham, who made
to him the promise of inheritance, who in due season gave to him the
covenant of circumcision, who called his descendants out of Egypt,
preserved outwardly by circumcision—for he gave it as a sign,
that they might not be like the Egyptians—that He was the Maker
of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He
was the God of glory,—they who wish may learn from the very words
and acts of the apostles, and may contemplate the fact that this God is
one, above whom is no other. But even if there were another god above
Him, we should say, upon [instituting] a comparison of the quantity [of
the work done by each], that the latter is superior to the former. For by
deeds the better man appears, as I have already remarked; Book ii. ch. xxx. 2.
12. For all those who are of a perverse mind, having
been set against the Mosaic legislation, judging it to be dissimilar and
contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, have not applied themselves to
investigate the causes of the difference of each covenant. Since,
therefore, they have been deserted by the paternal love, and puffed up by
Satan, being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have
apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they
have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another
god; and [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still
somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves
are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles.
Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to
mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books
No reference is made to this promised
work in the writings of his successors. Probably it never was
undertaken. Most of the mss. read
“intolerabiliorem,” but one reads as above, and is followed
by all the editors.
13. But that both the apostles and their disciples thus
taught as the Church preaches, and thus teaching were perfected,
wherefore also they were called away to that which is perfect—
Stephen, teaching these truths, when he was yet on earth, saw the glory
of God, and Jesus on His right hand, and exclaimed, “Behold, I see
the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
God.”
14. This is shown in a still clearer light from the
letter of the apostles, which they forwarded neither to the Jews nor to
the Greeks, but to those who from the Gentiles believed in Christ,
confirming their faith. For when certain men had come down from Judea to
Antioch—where also, first of all, the Lord’s disciples were
called Christians, because of their faith in Christ—and sought to
persuade those who had believed on the Lord to be circumcised, and to
perform other things after the observance of the law; and when Paul and
Barnabas had gone up to Jerusalem to the apostles on account of this
question, and the whole Church had convened together, Peter thus
addressed them: “Men, brethren, ye know how that from the days of
old God made choice among you, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear
the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, the Searcher of the heart,
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as to us; and put no
difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now
therefore why tempt ye God, to impose a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we
believe that, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are to be
saved, even as they.” Irenæus
manifestly read οὕτως for τούτῳ, and in this he
agrees with Codex Bezæ. We may remark, once for all, that in the
variations from the received text of the New Testament which occur in our
author, his quotations are very often in accordance with the readings of
the Cambridge ms. This addition is also found in Codex
Bezæ, and in Cyprian and others. Another addition, also found in the Codex Bezæ, and in
Tertullian.
15. Neither [in that case] would they have had such a
tenor with regard to the first covenant, as not even to have been willing
to eat with the Gentiles. For even Peter, although he had been sent to
instruct them, and had been constrained by a vision to that effect, spake
nevertheless with not a little hesitation, saying to them: “Ye know
how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company with,
or to come unto, one of another nation; but God hath shown me that I
should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore came I without
gainsaying;”
1. With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege
that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was
manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says,
that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the
circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles.
All the previous editors
accept the reading Deum without remark, but Harvey argues that it
must be regarded as a mistake for Dominum. He scarcely seems,
however, to give sufficient weight to the quotation which immediately
follows.
See note 9, p. 436.
2. And again, the Lord replied to Philip, who wished to
behold the Father, “Have I been so long a time with you, and yet
thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that sees Me, sees also the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and
the Father in Me; and henceforth ye know Him, and have seen
Him.”
Some such supplement seems necessary, as Grabe suggests,
though Harvey contends that no apodosis is requisite.
3. But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who
summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been
raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without
reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them,
he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Then,
fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking
also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that
Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles.” Latin,
“Ad horam cessimus subjectioni” (
1.
2. But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew,
not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard
him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters
who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in
Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe
Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must
happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: “I know that ye shall see my
face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure
from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the
counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the
flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the
Church of the Lord, In
this very important passage of Scripture, Irenæus manifestly read
Κυρίου instead of
Θεοῦ, which is found
in text. rec. The Codex Bezæ has the same reading; but all the
other most ancient mss.
agree with the received text.
3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not
know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of
which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become
acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for
instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of
the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the
angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna
and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was
left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the
Lord’s years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar. And in His office of teacher this is
what He has said to the rich: “Woe unto you that are rich, for ye
have received your consolation;”
4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion’s followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].
1.
2. Latin, “communes et
ecclesiasticos:” καθολικούς is
translated here “communes,” as for some time after the word
catholicus had not been added to the Latin language in its
ecclesiastical sense. [The Roman Creed was remarkable for its omission of
the word Catholic. See Bingham, Antiquities, book x. cap.
iv. sect 11.] We here follow the text of Harvey, who
prints, without remark, quæruntur, instead of queruntur,
as in Migne’s edition. Such is the sense
educed by Harvey from the old Latin version, which thus runs:
“Decipiuntur autem omnes, qui quod est in verbis verisimile, se
putant posse discere a veritate.” For “omnes” he would
read “omnino,” and he discards the emendation proposed by the
former editors, viz., “discernere” for
“discere.”
3. But let us revert to the same line of argument [hitherto pursued]. For when it has been manifestly declared, that they who were the preachers of the truth and the apostles of liberty termed no one else God, or named him Lord, except the only true God the Father, and His Word, who has the pre-eminence in all things; it shall then be clearly proved, that they (the apostles) confessed as the Lord God Him who was the Creator of heaven and earth, who also spoke with Moses, gave to him the dispensation of the law, and who called the fathers; and that they knew no other. The opinion of the apostles, therefore, and of those (Mark and Luke) who learned from their words, concerning God, has been made manifest.
1. We here omit since,
and insert therefore afterwards, to avoid the extreme length of
the sentence as it stands in the Latin version. The apodosis does not
occur till the words, “I judge it necessary,” are
reached. See book i. 12, 4. The Latin text has
“Christum.” which is supposed to be an erroneous reading. See
also book ii. c. xii. s. 6.
2. That John knew the one and the same Word of God, and
that He was the only begotten, and that He became incarnate for our
salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the
word of John himself. And Matthew, too, recognising one and the same
Jesus Christ, exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin,
3. Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this
very point: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto
the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy
Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David
according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power
through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our
Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Homine.”
4.
5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples
after the resurrection, “O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?”
6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although
they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools
of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another; The text here followed is that of two
Syriac mss., which prove
the loss of several consecutive words in the old Latin version, and clear
up the meaning of a confused sentence, showing that the word
“autem” is here, as it probably is elsewhere, merely a
contraction for “aut eum.”
7. “Participare compendii
poculo,” i.e., the cup which recapitulates the suffering of
Christ, and which, as Harvey thinks, refers to the symbolical character
of the cup of the Eucharist, as setting forth the passion of Christ.
8. All, therefore, are outside of the [Christian]
dispensation, who, under pretext of knowledge, understand that Jesus was
one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another, from whom again
is the Word, and that the Saviour is another, whom these disciples of
error allege to be a production of those who were made Æons in a state
of degeneracy. Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear
to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we
do; but inwardly they are wolves. Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring
up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but
lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against
whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his
Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says:
“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have
wrought.”
9. Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to
the Romans, declares: “Much more they who receive abundance of
grace and righteousness for [eternal] life, shall reign by one, Christ
Jesus.”
1.
Harvey remarks on this:
“The sacrament of baptism is therefore ἡ δύμανις τῆς ἀναγεννήσεως
εἰς Θεόν.” [Comp.
book i. cap. xxi.]
2. This Spirit did David ask for the human race,
saying, “And stablish me with Thine all-governing
Spirit;”
Irenæus refers to this woman
as a type of the heathen world: for, among the Jews, Samaritan and
Idolater were convertible terms.
3.
“Suum hominem,” i.e., the human race.
4. The Spirit, therefore, descending under the
predestined dispensation, and the Son of God, the Only-begotten, who is
also the Word of the Father, coming in the fulness of time, having become
incarnate in man for the sake of man, and fulfilling all the conditions
of human nature, our Lord Jesus Christ being one and the same, as He
Himself the Lord doth testify, as the apostles confess, and as the
prophets announce,—all the doctrines of these men who have
invented putative Ogdoads and Tetrads, and imagined subdivisions [of the
Lord’s person], have been proved falsehoods. These The following period is translated from a
Syriac fragment (see Harvey’s Irenæus, vol. ii. p. 439), as
it supplies some words inconveniently omitted in the old Latin
version. Comp.
book. i. pref. note 4.
1.
Again a Syriac fragment supplies some important words. See Harvey, vol.
ii. p. 440. So the
Syriac. The Latin has, “in seipso recapitulavit,” He
summed up in Himself. [As the Second Adam,
2. For as it was not possible that the man who had once
for all been conquered, and who had been destroyed through disobedience,
could reform himself, and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was also
impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the
power of sin,—the Son effected both these things, being the Word
of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low,
even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation, upon
whom [Paul], exhorting us unhesitatingly to believe, again says,
“Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring down Christ; or
who shall descend into the deep? that is, to liberate Christ again from
the dead.”
3. But who is it that has had fellowship with us in the
matter of food?
4. The Lord Himself, too, makes it evident who it was
that suffered; for when He asked the disciples, “Who do men say
that I, the Son of man, am?” Literally,
“supposing Him to be Christ according to the idea of
men.”
5. If, however, He was Himself not to suffer, but
should fly away from Jesus, why did He exhort His disciples to take up
the cross and follow Him,—that cross which these men represent
Him as not having taken up, but [speak of Him] as having relinquished the
dispensation of suffering? For that He did not say this with reference to
the acknowledging of the Stauros (cross) above, as some among them
venture to expound, but with respect to the suffering which He should
Himself undergo, and that His disciples should endure, He implies when He
says, “For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; and
whosoever will lose, shall find it.” And that His disciples must
suffer for His sake, He [implied when He] said to the Jews,
“Behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some
of them ye shall kill and crucify.”
6.
“Pro patribus, ἀντὶ
τῶν πατρῶν. The reader
will here observe the clear statement of the doctrine of atonement,
whereby alone sin is done away.”—Harvey.
7. Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man
(human nature) to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man
had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately
vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given
salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had
been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of
incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and
men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and
concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man. The Latin text, “et
facere, ut et Deus assumeret hominem, et homo se dederet Deo,” here
differs widely from the Greek preserved by Theodoret. We have followed
the latter, which is preferred by all the editors.
1. The original Greek is preserved here by
Theodoret, differing in some respects from the old Latin version:
καὶ ἀποστεροῦντας
τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ἀνόδου καὶ ἀχαριστοῦντας
τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν σαρκωθέντι
λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος …
ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας, καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν, υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. The old Latin
runs thus: “fraudantes hominem ab ea ascensione quæ est ad
Dominum, et ingrate exsistentes Verbo Dei, qui incarnatus est propter
ipsos. Propter hoc enim Verbum Dei homo, et qui Filius Dei est, Filius
Hominis factus est … commixtus Verbo Dei, et adoptionem percipiens
fiat filius Dei.” [A specimen of the liberties taken by the Latin
translators with the original of Irenæus. Others are much less
innocent.]
2. For this reason [it is, said], “Who shall
declare His generation?”
See above,
iii. 6.
3.
1.
2.
“Provectus.” This word has
not a little perplexed the editors. Grabe regards it as being the
participle, Massuet the accusative plural of the noun, and
Harvey the genitive singular. We have doubtfully followed the
latter.
The punctuation
and exact meaning are very uncertain.
3. On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, The construction and sense of
this passage are disputed. Grabe, Massuet, and Harvey take different
views of it. We have followed the rendering by Massuet.
4. Grabe remarks that the word πρέσβυς, here
translated “senior,” seems rather to denote a mediator
or messenger.
Irenæus quotes this as from Isaiah on the present occasion; but in book
iv. 22, 1, we find him referring the same passage to Jeremiah. It is
somewhat remarkable that it is to be found in neither prophet, although
Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, [chap. lxxii. and notes,
Dial. with Trypho, in this volume,] brings it forward as an argument
against him, and directly accuses the Jews of having fraudulently removed
it from the sacred text. It is, however, to be found in no ancient
version of Jewish Targum, which fact may be regarded as a decisive proof
of its spuriousness.
As Massuet
observes, we must either expunge “sciut” altogether, or read
“sic” as above.
This quotation from
Habakkuk, here commented on by Irenæus, differs both from the Hebrew and
the LXX., and comes nearest to the old Italic version of the passage.
1. Epiphanius, in his De
Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his
version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his
translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d. This reference to the
version of Theodotion furnishes a note of date as to the time when
Irenæus published his work: it must have been subsequently to a.d. 181.
2.
The Greek text here is, κρατῦναι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, translated into
Latin by “possiderent regnum suum,”—words which are
somewhat ambiguous in both languages. Massuet remarks, that “regnum
eorum” would have been a better rendering, referring the
words to the Jews. The Greek text
of this narrative has been preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v.
8). Grabe considers it to be faulty in this passage; so the Latin
translation has been adopted here. Eusebius has ποιήσαντος
τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄπερ ἐβούλετο—
God having accomplished what He intended. [See Justin Martyr, To the
Greeks, cap. xiii. The testimony of Justin naturalized this Jewish
legend among Christians.] The Greek term is ἀνατάξασθαι,
which the Latin renders “re memorare,” but Massuet prefers
“digerere.”
3. This is a very interesting
passage, as bearing on the question, From what source are the quotations
made by the writers of the New Testament derived? Massuet, indeed, argues
that it is of little or no weight in the controversy; but the passage
speaks for itself. Comp. Dr. Robert’s Discussions on the
Gospels, part i. ch. iv. and vii.
4. We here read
“non pusillum” for “num pusillum,” as in some
texts. Cyprian and Tertullian confirm the former reading.
5. And when He says, “Hear, O house of
David,”
6. But what Isaiah said, “From the height above,
or from the depth beneath,”
7.
8.
9. But besides, if indeed He had been the son of
Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For
Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew
sets forth in his pedigree.
Harvey prefixes
this last clause to the following section.
10. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered,
and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one
man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify
in those persons who in times past were dead.
1.
2. In
addition to the Greek text preserved by Theodoret in this place, we have
for some way a Syriac translation, differing slightly from both
Greek and Latin. It seems, however, to run smoother than either, and has
therefore been followed by us.
3. Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which
traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two
generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it
is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam
downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam
himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul “the figure of
Him that was to come,”
4. This seems quite a peculiar opinion of Irenæus, that
our first parents, when created, were not of the age of maturity. Literally, “unless these bonds of union be turned
backwards.” It is very
difficult to follow the reasoning of Irenæus in this passage. Massuet
has a long note upon it, in which he sets forth the various points of
comparison and contrast here indicated between Eve and Mary; but he ends
with the remark, “hæc certe et quæ sequuntur, paulo
subtiliora.”
Comp.
1.
2. But this is Adam, if the truth should be told, the
first formed man, of whom the Scripture says that the Lord spake,
“Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness;” The old Latin translation is: “Sed non relictis
ipsis patribus.” Grabe would cancel non, while Massuet
pleads for retaining it. Harvey conjectures that the translator perhaps
mistook οὐκ ἀνειλημμένων
for οὐκ ἀναλελειμένων.
We have followed Massuet, though we should prefer deleting non,
were it not found in all the mss.
3. It was for this reason, too, that immediately after
Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture relates, He pronounced no curse
against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his
works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: “God
did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in
man.”
4. The old Latin reads
“parricidio.” The crime of parricide was alone known to the
Roman law; but it was a generic term, including the murder of all
near relations. All the editors have supposed that the original word was
ἀδελφοκτονία,
which has here been adopted.
5. The case of Adam, however, had no analogy with this,
but was altogether different. For, having been beguiled by another under
the pretext of immortality, he is immediately seized with terror, and
hides himself; not as if he were able to escape from God; but, in a state
of confusion at having transgressed His command, he feels unworthy to
appear before and to hold converse with God. Now, “the fear of the
Lord is the beginning of wisdom;”
6.
7.
8. An account of Tatian will be given in a
future volume with his only extant work. His heresy
being just a mixture of the opinions of the various Gnostic sects. Though unnoticed by the editors, there seems a
difficulty in the different moods of the two verbs, erubescant and
concertant. “Initium et materiam apostasiæ
suæ habens hominem:” the meaning is very obscure, and the editors
throw no light upon it. Literally,
“but he did not see God.” The translator is supposed
to have read οἶδεν, knew,
for εἶδεν, saw.
1. Thus, then, have all these men been exposed, who
bring in impious doctrines regarding our Maker and Framer, who also
formed this world, and above whom there is no other God; and those have
been overthrown by their own arguments who teach falsehoods regarding the
substance of our Lord, and the dispensation which He fulfilled for the
sake of His own creature man. But [it has, on the other hand, been
shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and
continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets,
the apostles, and all the disciples—as I have proved—
through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end, Literally, “through the
beginnings, the means, and the end.” These three terms refer to the
Prophets, the Apostles, and the Church Catholic. The Latin is
“solidam operationem,” which we know not how to translate, in
accordance with the context, except as above. This seems
to be the meaning conveyed by the old Latin, “quemadmodum aspiratio
plasmationi.”
2. Alienated thus from the truth, they do deservedly
wallow in all error, tossed to and fro by it, thinking differently in
regard to the same things at different times, and never attaining to a
well-grounded knowledge, being more anxious to be sophists of words than
disciples of the truth. For they have not been founded upon the one rock,
but upon the sand, which has in itself a multitude of stones. Wherefore
they also imagine many gods, and they always have the excuse of searching
[after truth] (for they are blind), but never succeed in finding it. For
they blaspheme the Creator, Him who is truly God, who also furnishes
power to find [the truth]; imagining that they have discovered another
god beyond God, or another Pleroma, or another dispensation. Wherefore
also the light which is from God does not illumine them, because they
have dishonoured and despised God, holding Him of small account, because,
through His love and infinite benignity, He has come within reach of
human knowledge (knowledge, however, not with regard to His greatness, or
with regard to His essence—for that has no
i.e., the Spirit.
1. Literally, “who have a foresight of morals”
—qui morum providentiam habent. The meaning is very
obscure. [
2.
3. Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into
two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on
both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he
be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no
God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power,
suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character
of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not
assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who
tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and
justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just
conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is
executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will
excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and
Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and
merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert
Him in the exercise of justice, The text is here very uncertain, but the above seems the
probable meaning.
4. The God, therefore, who does benevolently cause His
sun to rise upon all,
5. Plato, de Leg., iv. and p. 715,
16. In Timæo, vi. p. 29.
6. Well may their Mother bewail them, as capable of
conceiving and inventing such things for they have worthily uttered this
falsehood against themselves, that their Mother is beyond the Pleroma,
that is beyond the knowledge of God, and that their entire multitude
became The Latin is
“collectio eorum;” but what collectio here means, it
is not easy to determine. Grabe, with much probability, deems it the
representative of σύστασις. Harvey
prefers ἐνθύμημα: but it
is difficult to perceive the relevancy of his references to the
rhetorical syllogism. See book i. cap.
xvi. note.
7. We do indeed pray that these men may not remain in the pit which they themselves have dug, but separate themselves from a Mother of this nature, and depart from Bythus, and stand away from the void, and relinquish the shadow; and that they, being converted to the Church of God, may be lawfully begotten, and that Christ may be formed in them, and that they may know the Framer and Maker of this universe, the only true God and Lord of all. We pray for these things on their behalf, loving them better than they seem to love themselves. For our love, inasmuch as it is true, is salutary to them, if they will but receive it. It may be compared to a severe remedy, extirpating the proud and sloughing flesh of a wound; for it puts an end to their pride and haughtiness. Wherefore it shall not weary us, to endeavour with all our might to stretch out the hand unto them. Over and above what has been already stated, I have deferred to the following book, to adduce the words of the Lord; if, by convincing some among them, through means of the very instruction of Christ, I may succeed in persuading them to abandon such error, and to cease from blaspheming their Creator, who is both God alone, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
That our learned translators have unaccountably admitted a very inaccurate translation of the crucial paragraph in book iii. cap. iii. sect. 2, I have shown in the footnote at that place. It is evident, (1) because they themselves are not satisfied with it, and (2) because I have set it side by side with the more literal rendering of a writer who would have preferred their reading if it could have borne the test of criticism.
Now, the authors of the Latin translation One of the Antiochian Canons
probably reflects the current language of an earlier antiquity thus:
διὰ τὸ ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει πανταχόθεν συντρέχειν
πάντας τοὺς τὰ πράγματα ἔχοντας: and, if
so, this συντρέχειν gives
the meaning of convenire.
For he thus renders it:—
1. In this Church, “ever, by those who are on
every side, has been preserved that tradition
2. “For to this Church, on account of more potent
principality,
“Its more potent,” etc., is not a strict rendering:
“the more potent,” rather; which leaves the
principalitas to the city, not the Church.
The Latin, thus translated by a candid Roman Catholic, reverses the whole system of the Papacy. Pius IX. informed his Bishops, at the late Council, that they were not called to bear their testimony, but to hear his infallible decree; “reducing us,” said the Archbishop of Paris, “to a council of sacristans.”
Sustaining these views by a few footnotes, I add (1) a
literal rendering of my own, and then (2) a metaphrase of the same,
bringing out the argument from the crabbed obstructions of the Latin
text. This, then, is what Irenæus says: (a) “For it is necessary
for every Church (that is to say, the faithful from all parts) to meet in
this Church, on account of the superior magistracy; in which Church, by
those who are from all places, the tradition of the apostles has been
preserved.” Or, more freely rendered: (b) “On account of the
chief magistracy Bishop
Wordsworth inclines to the idea that the original Greek was ἱκανωτέραν
ἀρχαιότητα, thus
conceding that Irenæus was speaking of the greater antiquity of
Rome as compared with other (Western) Churches. Even so, he shows that
the argument of Irenæus is fatal to Roman pretensions, which admit of no
such ideas as he advances, and no such freedom as that of his dealings
with Rome. Nobody has more forcibly stated the argument of Irenæus
than the Abbé Guettée, in his exhaustive work on the Papacy. I published
a translation of this valuable historical epitome in New York (Carleton),
1867; but it is out of print. The original may be had in Paris
(Fischbacher), No. 33 Rue de Seine.
1. By transmitting to thee, my very dear friend, this fourth book of the work which is [entitled] The Detection and Refutation of False Knowledge, I shall, as I have promised, add weight, by means of the words of the Lord, to what I have already advanced; so that thou also, as thou hast requested, mayest obtain from me the means of confuting all the heretics everywhere, and not permit them, beaten back at all points, to launch out further into the deep of error, nor to be drowned in the sea of ignorance; but that thou, turning them into the haven of the truth, mayest cause them to attain their salvation.
2. The man, however, who would undertake their
conversion, must possess an accurate knowledge of their systems or
schemes of doctrine. For it is impossible for any one to heal the sick,
if he has no knowledge of the disease of the patients. This was the
reason that my predecessors—much superior men to myself, too
—were unable, notwithstanding, to refute the Valentinians
satisfactorily, because they were ignorant of these men’s
system; [The reader who
marvels at the tedious recitals must note this (1) as proof of the
author’s practical wisdom, and (2) as evidence of his fidelity in
what he exhibits.]
3. For their system is blasphemous above all [others],
since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have
shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy,
also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ,
and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the
Word from the Only-begotten. And since they allege that the Creator
originated from a defect or apostasy, so have they also taught that
Christ and the Holy Spirit were emitted on account of this defect, and
that the Saviour was a product of those Æons who were produced from a
defect; so that there is nothing but blasphemy to be found among them. In
the preceding book, then, the ideas of the apostles as to all these
points have been set forth, [to the effect] that not only did they,
“who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the
word” [The solemnity
of the apostolic testimonies against the crop of tares that was to spring
up receives great illustration from Irenæus.
4. For as the serpent beguiled Eve, by promising her
what he had not himself,
[ [
1. See iii. 6, 1.
2. Now to whom is it not clear, that if the Lord had
known many fathers and gods, He would not have taught His disciples to
know [only] one God, [St.
1.
2. Again, our Lord Jesus Christ confesses this same
Being as His Father, where He says: “I
3. But since the writings (literæ) of Moses are
the words of Christ, He does Himself declare to the Jews, as John has
recorded in the Gospel: “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have
believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings,
neither will ye believe My words.”
4. Now, He has not merely related to us a story
respecting a poor man and a rich one; but He has taught us, in the first
place, that no one should lead a luxurious life, nor, living in worldly
pleasures and perpetual feastings, should be the slave of his lusts, and
forget God. “For there was,” He says, “a rich man, who
was clothed in purple and fine linen, and delighted himself with splendid
feasts.”
5. Of such persons, too, the Spirit has spoken by
Esaias: “They drink wine with [the accompaniment of] harps, and
tablets, and psalteries, and flutes; but they regard not the works of
God, neither do they consider the work of His hands.”
6. For they do not receive from the Father the
knowledge of the Son; neither do they learn who the Father is from the
Son, who teaches clearly and without parables Him who truly is God. He
says: “Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s
throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem,
for it is the city of the great King.”
7. But neither will these men be able to maintain that
such words were uttered in an ironical manner, since it is proved to them
by the words themselves that they were in earnest. For He who uttered
them was Truth, and did truly vindicate His own house, by driving out of
it the changers of money, who were buying and selling, saying unto them:
“It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but
ye have made it a den of thieves.”
8. But as many as feared God, and were anxious about
His law, these ran to Christ, and were all saved. For He said to His
disciples: “Go ye to the sheep of the house of Israel, This passage is quoted by Augustine, in his treatise on
original sin, written to oppose Pelagius (lib. i. c. ii.), about 400
A.D.
1.
1. [
2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it
terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to
fulfil it: wherefore “the law and the prophets were” with
them “until John.” The text
fluctuates between “legis dationem” and “legis
dationis.” We have followed the latter.
3. But why do we speak of Jerusalem, since, indeed, the
fashion of the whole world must also pass away, when the time of its
disappearance has come, in order that the fruit indeed may be gathered
into the garner, but the chaff, left behind, may be consumed by fire?
“For the day of the Lord cometh as a burning furnace, and all
sinners shall be stubble, they who do evil things, and the day shall burn
them up.”
1.
2. In the
Septuagint and Vulgate versions, this story constitutes the fourteenth
chapter of the book of Daniel. It is not extant in Hebrew, and has
therefore been removed to the Apocrypha, in the Anglican canon [the Greek
and St. Jerome’s] of Scripture, under the title of “Bel and
the Dragon.”
3. And teaching this very thing, He said to the Jews:
“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day; and he saw
it, and was glad.”
4. Righteously also the apostles, being of the race of
Abraham, left the ship and their father, and followed the Word.
Righteously also do we, possessing the same faith as Abraham, and taking
up the cross as Isaac did the wood,
5.
1. Not now to be found in Mark’s Gospel.
2. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have
existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did
remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for [the wants
of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His
creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that
another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so
great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of
investigation. For it is fitting that no such question should arise, and
gather such strength, that it would indeed both change God, and destroy
our faith in that Creator who supports us by means of His creation. For
as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a
firm and immoveable love towards the Father. Photius, 125,
makes mention of Justin Martyr’s work, λόγοι
κατὰ Μαρκίωνος. See also
Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, book iv. c. 18, where
this passage of Irenæus is quoted. [The vast importance of
Justin’s startling remark is that it hinges on the words of Christ
Himself, concerning His antecedents and notes as set forth in the
Scriptures, St.
3. [A most
emphatic and pregnant text which Irenæus here expounds with great
beauty. The reference (St.
4. But this [Father] is the Maker of heaven and earth,
as is shown from His words; and not he, the false father, who has been
invented by Marcion, or by Valentinus, or by Basilides, or by
Carpocrates, or by Simon, or by the rest of the “Gnostics,”
falsely so called. For none of these was the Son of God; but Christ Jesus
our Lord [was], against whom they set their teaching in opposition, and
have the daring to preach an unknown God. But they ought to hear [this]
against themselves: How is it that He is unknown, who is known by them?
for, whatever is known even by a few, is not unknown. But the Lord did
not say that both the Father and the Son could not be known at all (in
totum), for in that case His advent would have been superfluous. For
why did He come hither? Was it that He should say to us, “Never
mind seeking after God; for He is unknown, and ye shall not find
Him;” as also the disciples of Valentinus falsely declare that
Christ said to their Æons? But this is indeed vain. For the Lord taught
us that no man is capable of knowing God, unless he be taught of God;
that is, that God cannot be known without God: but that this is the
express will of the Father, that God should be known. For they shall
know The ordinary text
reads cognoscunt, i.e., do know; but Harvey thinks it should be
the future—cognoscent.
5. And for this purpose did the Father reveal the Son,
that through His instrumentality He might be manifested to all, and might
receive those righteous ones who believe in Him into incorruption and
everlasting enjoyment (now, to believe in Him is to do His will); but He
shall righteously shut out into the darkness which they have chosen for
themselves, those who do not believe, and who do consequently avoid His
light. The Father therefore has revealed Himself to all, by making His
Word visible to all; and, conversely, the Word has declared to all the
Father and the Son, since He has become visible to all. And therefore the
righteous judgment of God [shall fall] upon all who, like
6. For by means of the creation itself, the Word
reveals God the Creator; and by means of the world [does He declare] the
Lord the Maker of the world; and by means of the formation [of man] the
Artificer who formed him; and by the Son that Father who begat the Son:
and these things do indeed address all men in the same manner, but all do
not in the same way believe them. But by the law and the prophets did the
Word preach both Himself and the Father alike [to all]; and all the
people heard Him alike, but all did not alike believe. And through the
Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown
forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the
Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the
Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ
when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God. Yea, even the
demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son: “We know Thee who Thou art,
the Holy One of God.”
7. For it was fitting that the truth should receive
testimony from all, and should become [a means of] judgment for the
salvation indeed of those who believe, but for the condemnation of those
who believe not; that all should be fairly judged, and that the faith in
the Father and Son should be approved by all, that is, that it should be
established by all [as the one means of salvation], receiving testimony
from all, both from those belonging to it, since they are its friends,
and by those having no connection with it, though they are its enemies.
For that evidence is true, and cannot be gainsaid, which elicits even
from its adversaries striking Singula, which with Massuet we here understand in
the sense of singularia. Some,
instead of significantibus, read signantibus,
“stamping it as true.”
1. The text has oculorum,
probably by mistake for populorum.
2. For not alone upon Abraham’s account did He
say these things, but also that He might point out how all who have known
God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have
received the revelation from the Son Himself; who also in the last times
was made visible and passible, and spake with the human race, that He
might from the stones raise up children unto Abraham, and fulfil the
promise which God had given him, and that He might make his seed as the
stars of heaven,
3. He is therefore one and the same God, who called
Abraham and gave him the promise. But He is the Creator, who does also
through Christ prepare lights in the world, [namely] those who believe
from among the Gentiles. And He says, “Ye are the light of the
world;”
4. Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not
receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart]
by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being
ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham,
Massuet here observes, that
the fathers called the Holy Spirit the similitude of the Son.
1.
2. For the Lord vindicated Abraham’s posterity by
loosing them from bondage and calling them to salvation, as He did in the
case of the woman whom He healed, saying openly to those who had not
faith like Abraham, “Ye hypocrites, Harvey prefers the singular—
“hypocrite.”
The text here is rather uncertain. Harvey’s
conjectural reading of et jam for etiam has been
followed.
3. This clause is differently quoted by Antonius Melissa
and John Damascenus, thus: Πᾶς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει τάξιν, i.e.,
Every righteous king possesses a priestly order. Comp.
Literally, “the
Lord’s Levitical substance”—Domini Leviticam
substantiam. Literally,
“to take food from seeds.”
1.
2. These words
of Scripture are quoted by memory from
3. For the new covenant having been known and preached
by the prophets, He who was to carry it out according to the good
pleasure of the Father was also preached, having been revealed to men as
God pleased; that they might always make progress through believing in
Him, and by means of the [successive] covenants,
This is in accordance with Harvey’s text—
“Maturescere profectum salutis.” Grabe, however, reads,
“Maturescere prefectum salutis;” making this equivalent to
“ad prefectam salutem.” In most mss. “profectum” and
“prefectum” would be written alike. The same word
(“profectus”) occurs again almost immediately, with an
evident reference to and comparison with this clause. Another
variation from the textus receptus borne out by the Codex Bezæ,
and some ancient versions.
1.
See Feuardent infers with great probability
from this passage, that Irenæus, like Tertullian and others of the
Fathers, connected the word Pascha with πάσχειν, to
suffer. [The LXX. constantly giving colour to early Christian ideas
in this manner, they concluded, perhaps, that such coincidences were
designed. The LXX. were credited with a sort of inspiration, as we learn
from our author.] Latin, “et extremitatem
temporum.”
2. And already he had also declared His advent, saying,
“There shall not fail a chief in Judah, nor a leader from his
loins, until He come for whom it is laid up, and He is the hope of the
nations; binding His foal to the vine, and His ass’s colt to the
creeping ivy. He shall wash His stole in wine, and His upper garment
The Latin is,
“lætifici oculi ejus a vino,” the Hebrew method of
indicating comparison being evidently imitated.
1.
2. And in this respect God differs from man, that God
indeed makes, but man is made; and truly, He who makes is always the
same; but that which is made must receive both beginning, and middle, and
addition, and increase. And God does indeed create after a skilful
manner, while, [as regards] man, he is created skilfully. God also
is truly perfect in all things, Himself equal and similar to Himself, as
He is all light, and all mind, and all substance, and the fount of all
good; but man receives advancement and increase towards God. For as God
is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always go on
towards God. For neither does God at any time cease to confer benefits
upon, or to enrich man; nor does man ever cease from receiving the
benefits, and being enriched by God. For the receptacle of His goodness,
and the instrument of His glorification, is the man who is grateful to
Him that made him; and again, the receptacle of His just judgment is the
ungrateful man, who both despises his Maker and is not subject to His
Word; who has promised that He will give very much to those always
bringing forth fruit, and more [and more] to those who have the
Lord’s money. “Well done,” He says, “good and
faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful in little, I will
appoint thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy
Lord.”
3. As, therefore, He has promised to give very much to
those who do now bring forth fruit, according to the gift of His grace,
but not according to the changeableness of “knowledge;” for
the Lord remains the same, and the same Father is revealed; thus,
therefore, has the one and the same Lord granted, by means of His advent,
a greater gift of grace to those of a later period, than what He had
granted to those under the Old Testament dispensation. For they indeed
used to hear, by means of [His] servants, that the King would come, and
they rejoiced to a certain extent, inasmuch as they hoped for His coming;
but those who have beheld Him actually present, and have obtained
liberty, and been made partakers of His gifts, do possess a greater
amount of grace, and a higher degree of exultation, rejoicing because of
the King’s arrival: as
Or, “all those
who were in the way of David”—omnes qui erant in
viâ David, in dolore animæ cognoverunt suum regem.
The Latin text is ambiguous: “dominabantur eorum,
quibus ratio non constabat.” The rendering may be, “and ruled
over those things with respect to which it was not right that they should
do so.”
4. If, therefore, the self-same person is present who was announced by the prophets, our Lord Jesus Christ, and if His advent has brought in a fuller [measure of] grace and greater gifts to those who have received Him, it is plain that the Father also is Himself the same who was proclaimed by the prophets, and that the Son, on His coming, did not spread the knowledge of another Father, but of the same who was preached from the beginning; from whom also He has brought down liberty to those who, in a lawful manner, and with a willing mind, and with all the heart, do Him service; whereas to scoffers, and to those not subject to God, but who follow outward purifications for the praise of men (which observances had been given as a type of future things,—the law typifying, as it were, certain things in a shadow, and delineating eternal things by temporal, celestial by terrestrial), and to those who pretend that they do themselves observe more than what has been prescribed, as if preferring their own zeal to God Himself, while within they are full of hypocrisy, and covetousness, and all wickedness,— [to such] has He assigned everlasting perdition by cutting them off from life.
1.
2. But that this is the first and greatest commandment,
and that the next [has respect to love] towards our neighbour, the Lord
has taught, when He says that the entire law and the prophets hang upon
these two commandments. Moreover, He did not Himself bring down [from
heaven] any other commandment greater than this one, but renewed this
very same one to His disciples, when He enjoined them to love God with
all their heart, and others as themselves. But if He had descended from
another Father, He never would have made use of the first and greatest
commandment of the law; but He would undoubtedly have endeavoured by all
means to bring down a greater one than this from the perfect Father, so
as not to make use of that which had been given by the
3.
4. The Lord, too, does not do away with this [God],
when He shows that the law was not derived from another God, expressing
Himself as follows to those who were being instructed by Him, to the
multitude and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in
Moses’ seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do
not. For they bind heavy burdens, and lay them upon men’s
shoulders; but they themselves will not so much as move them with a
finger.”
5. Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the
necessity of following Christ, He does Himself make manifest, when He
replied as follows to him who asked Him what he should do that he might
inherit eternal life: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments.”
Harvey here remarks:
“In a theological point of view, it should be observed, that no
saving merit is ascribed to almsgiving: it is spoken of here as the
negation of the vice of covetousness, which is wholly inconsistent with
the state of salvation to which we are called.”
1. That is, as
Harvey observes, the natural man, as described in
2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is converted should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.
3. And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that
[commandment], “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” forbid even
concupiscence; and instead of that which runs thus, “Thou shalt not
kill,” He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the
giving of tithes, [He told us] to share
4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common
to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and
origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield
assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and
one’s neighbour as one’s self (now man is neighbour to man),
and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like
nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same
God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance
certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were
subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: “I
will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord
doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard
from My Father I have made known.”
1.
2. Thus it was, too, that God formed man at the first,
because of His munificence; but chose the patriarchs for the sake of
their salvation; and prepared a people beforehand, teaching the
headstrong to follow God; and raised up prophets upon earth, accustoming
man to bear His Spirit [within him], and to hold communion with God: He
Himself, indeed, having need of nothing, but granting communion with
Himself to those who stood in need of it, and sketching out, like an
architect, the plan of salvation to those that pleased Him. And He did
Himself furnish guidance to those who beheld Him not in Egypt, while to
those who became unruly in the desert He promulgated a law very suitable
[to their condition]. Then, on the people who entered into the good land
He bestowed a noble inheritance; and He killed the fatted calf for those
converted to the Father, and presented them with the finest robe.
3. Thus, too, He imposed upon the [Jewish] people the
construction of the tabernacle, the building of the temple, the election
of the Levites, sacrifices also, and oblations, legal monitions, and all
the other service of the law. He does Himself truly want none of these
things, for He is always full of all good, and had in Himself all the
odour of kindness, and every perfume of sweet-smelling savours, even
before Moses existed. Moreover, He instructed the people, who were prone
to turn to idols, instructing them by repeated appeals to persevere and
to serve God, calling them to the things of primary importance by means
of those which were secondary; that is, to things that are real, by means
of those that are typical; and by things temporal, to eternal; and by the
carnal to the spiritual; and by the earthly to the heavenly; as was also
said to Moses, “Thou shalt make all things after the pattern of
those things which thou sawest in the mount.”
1.
[ In accordance with the Codex
Bezæ.
2. And not only so, but the Lord also showed that
certain precepts were enacted for them by Moses, on account of their
hardness [of heart], and because of their unwillingness to be obedient,
when, on their saying to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a
writing of divorcement, and to send away a wife?” He said to them,
“Because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted these things
to you; but from the beginning it was not so;”
[Note this stout assertion of the freedom of human
actions.]
1.
The
Latin text here is: “Sabbata autem perseverantiam totius diei erga
Deum deservitionis edocebant;” which might be rendered, “The
Sabbaths taught that we should continue the whole day in the service of
God;” but Harvey conceives the original Greek to have been,
τὴν καθημερινὴν διαμονὴν τῆς περὶ τὸν Θεὸν λατρείας.
2. And that man was not justified by these things, but
that they were given as a sign to the people, this fact shows,—
that Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of
Sabbaths, “believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.” Massuet remarks here that Irenæus makes
a reference to the apocryphal book of Enoch, in which this history is
contained. It was the belief of the later Jews, followed by the Christian
fathers, that “the sons of God” (
3. Why, then, did the Lord not form the covenant for
the fathers? Because “the law was not established for righteous
men.” [Hearts and souls; i.e.,
moral and mental natures. For a correct view of the patristic conceptions
of the Gentiles before the law, this is valuable.] i.e., the letters of the Decalogue
on the two tables of stone.
4.
[Most noteworthy among primitive testimonies to the catholic reception of
the Decalogue.]
5. The laws of bondage, however, were one by one
promulgated to the people by Moses, suited for their instruction or for
their punishment, as Moses himself declared: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to
teach you statutes and judgments.”
1. Latin, “aures autem perfecisti
mihi;” a reading agreeable to neither the Hebrew nor Septuagint
version, as quoted by St. Paul in
Or, “the beauty,”
species.
2. For it was not because He was angry, like a man, as
many venture to say, that He rejected their sacrifices; but out of
compassion to their blindness, and with the view of suggesting to them
the true sacrifice, by offering which they shall appease God, that they
may receive life from Him. As He elsewhere declares: “The sacrifice
to God is an afflicted heart: a sweet savour to God is a heart glorifying
Him who formed it.” This passage is not now found in holy Scripture. Harvey
conjectures that it may have been taken from the apocryphal Gospel
according to the Egyptians. It is remarkable that we find the same words
quoted also by Clement of Alexandria. [But he (possibly with this place
in view) merely quotes it as a saying, in close connection with
3. And again, when He points out that it was not for
this that He led them out of Egypt, that they might offer sacrifice to
Him, but that, forgetting the idolatry of the Egyptians, they should be
able to hear the voice of the Lord, which was to them salvation and
glory, He declares by this same Jeremiah: “Thus saith the Lord; Collect together your
burnt-offerings with your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I spake not unto
your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of
Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this word I
commanded them, saying, Hear My voice, and I will be your God, and ye
shall be My people; and walk in all My ways whatsoever I have commanded
you, that it may be well with you. But they obeyed not, nor hearkened;
but walked in the imaginations of their own evil heart, and went
backwards, and not forwards.”
4.
5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer
to God the first-fruits
Grabe has a long and important note on this passage and what follows,
which may be seen in Harvey, in loc. See, on the other side, and
in connection with the whole of the following chapter, Massuet’s
third dissertation on the doctrine of Irenæus, art. vii., reprinted in
Migne’s edition. [One marvels
that there should be any critical difficulty here as to our
author’s teaching. Creatures of bread and wine are the body and the
blood; materially one thing, mystically another. See cap. xviii. 5
below.]
6. But what other name is there which is glorified
among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is
glorified, and man also? And because it is [the name] of His own Son, who
was made man by Him, He calls it His own. Just as a king, if he himself
paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness his own,
for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and
because it is his own production; so also does the Father confess the
name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the
Church, to be His own, both because it is that of His Son, and because He
who thus describes it gave Him for the salvation of men. Since,
therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the
omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says
well on both these grounds, “And in every place incense is offered
to My name, and a pure sacrifice.” Now John, in the Apocalypse,
declares that the “incense” is “the prayers of the
saints.”
1.
The text of this passage is doubtful in
some words.
2. And the class of oblations in general has not been
set aside; for there were both oblations
3. The Latin text is: “ne
per assimulatam operationem, magis autem peccatum, ipsum sibi homicidam
faciat hominem.”
4. Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with
single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God.
As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received
from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” The text here fluctuates between quod
offertur Deo, and per quod offertur Deo. Massuet adopts the
former, and Harvey the latter. If the first reading be chosen, the
translation will be, “the Word who is offered to God,”
implying, according to Massuet, that the body of Christ is really offered
as a sacrifice in the Eucharist; if the second reading be followed, the
translation will be as above. [Massuet’s idea is no more to be
found, even in his text, than Luther’s or Calvin’s. The
crucial point is, how offered? One may answer
“figuratively,” “corporally,”
“mystically,” or otherwise. Irenæus gives no answer in this
place. But see below.] Comp. Massuet and Harvey respectively for
the meaning to be attached to these words.
5. “Either let them acknowledge that the earth is
the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof, or let them cease to offer
to God those elements that they deny to be vouchsafed by Him.”
—Harvey.
That is, according to Harvey, “while we offer to Him His own
creatures of bread and wine, we tell forth the fellowship of flesh with
spirit; i.e., that the flesh of every child of man is receptive of the
Spirit.” The words καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες …
ἔγερσιν, which
here occur in the Greek text, are rejected as an interpolation by Grabe
and Harvey, but defended as genuine by Massuet. See Harvey’s long note on this passage, and what
immediately follows. [But, note, we are only asking what Irenæus
teaches. Could words be plainer,—“two
realities,”—(i.) bread, (ii.) spiritual food? Bread—
but not “common bread;” matter and grace, flesh and Spirit.
In the Eucharist, an earthly and a heavenly part.]
6. Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood
in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, The text fluctuates between
dominationi and donationi. [The Sursum Corda seems here in mind. The object
of Eucharistic adoration is the Creator, our “great High Priest,
passed into the heavens,” and in bodily substance there enthroned,
according to our author.]
1.
2. To these persons one may with justice say (as
Scripture itself suggests), To what distance above God do ye lift up your
imaginations, O ye rashly elated men? Ye have heard “that the
heavens are meted out in the palm of [His] hand:”
3. But if man comprehends not the fulness and the
greatness of His hand, how shall any one be able to understand or know in
his heart so great a God? Yet, as if they had now measured and thoroughly
investigated Him, and explored Him on every side, The Latin is, “et universum eum
decurrerint.” Harvey imagines that this last word corresponds to
κατατρέχωσι but
it is difficult to fit such a meaning into the context.
1.
2. Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says,
“First This
quotation is taken from the Shepherd of Hermas, book ii. sim.
1.
3. I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word,
namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which
is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation, He
declares by Solomon: “God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by
understanding hath He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths
burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.”
4. There is therefore one God, who by the Word and
Wisdom created and arranged all things; but this is the Creator
(Demiurge) who has granted this world to the human race, and who, as
regards His greatness, is indeed unknown to all who have been made by Him
(for no man has searched out His height, either among the ancients who
have gone to their rest, or any of those who are now alive); but as
regards His love, He is always known through Him by whose means He
ordained all things. Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in
the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to
the beginning, that is, man to God. Wherefore the prophets, receiving the
prophetic gift from the same Word, announced His advent according to the
flesh, by which the blending and communion of God and man took place
according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Word of God foretelling
from the beginning that God should be seen by men, and hold converse with
them upon earth, should confer with them, and should be present with His
own creation, saving it, and becoming capable of being perceived by it,
and freeing us from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every
spirit of wickedness; and causing us to serve Him in holiness and
righteousness all our days,
5. These things did the prophets set forth in a
prophetical manner; but they did not, as some allege, [proclaim] that He
who was seen by the prophets was a different [God], the Father of
Some read “in filium” instead of “in
filio,” as above. A part of the original Greek
text is preserved here, and has been followed, as it makes the better
sense.
6. Men therefore shall see God, that they may live,
being made immortal by that sight, and attaining even unto God; which, as
I have already said, was declared figuratively by the prophets, that God
should be seen by men who bear His Spirit [in them], and do always wait
patiently for His coming. As also Moses says in Deuteronomy, “We
shall see in that day that God will talk to man, and he shall
live.”
7.
8.
9. And the Word spake to Moses, appearing before him,
“just as any one might speak to his friend.”
10. The prophets, therefore, did not openly behold the
actual face of God, but [they saw] the dispensations and the mysteries
through which man should afterwards see God. As was also said to Elias:
“Thou shalt go forth tomorrow, and stand in the presence of the
Lord; and, behold, a wind
great and strong, which shall rend the mountains, and break the rocks in
pieces before the Lord. And
the Lord [was] not in the
wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord [was] not in the earthquake;
and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord [was] not in the fire; and
after the fire a scarcely audible voice” (vox auræ
tenuis).
11. If, then, neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel,
who had all many celestial visions, did see God; but if what they did see
were similitudes of the splendour of the Lord, and prophecies of things
to come; it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also
the Lord said, “No man hath seen God at any time.”
“This text, as quoted a short time ago, indicated ‘the
only-begotten Son;’ but the agreement of the Syriac version induces
the belief that the present reading was that expressed by Irenæus, and
that the previous quotation has been corrected to suit the Vulgate. The
former reading, however, occurs in book iii. c. xi. 5.”—
Harvey.
12. However, it was not by means of visions alone which
were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works,
that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might
prefigure and show forth future events beforehand. For this reason did
Hosea the prophet take “a wife of whoredoms,” prophesying by
means of the action, “that in committing fornication the earth
should fornicate from the Lord,”
The text is here uncertain; and while the general
meaning of the sentence is plain, its syntax is confused and obscure. Irenæus seems here to have written
“three” for “two” from a lapse of memory.
1.
2. Massuet would cancel these
words.
3. The text of this sentence is in great confusion, and we
can give only a doubtful translation. [Leah’s eyes were
weak, according to the LXX.; and Irenæus infers that
Rachel’s were “beautiful exceedingly.” Canticles, i.
15.]
1. Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time
of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself “wash away
the filth of the daughters of Zion,” This spurious quotation has been introduced before. See
book iii. 20. 4. So Harvey
understands the obscure Latin text, “id quod erat inoperatum
conditionis.”
2.
1.
2. For this reason, also, Philip, when he had
discovered the eunuch of the Ethiopians’ queen reading these words
which had been written: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
and as a lamb is dumb before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth: in
His humiliation His judgment was taken away;”
1.
2. But they were bound to teach the Gentiles also this
very thing, that works of such a nature were wicked, prejudicial, and
useless, and destructive to those who engaged in them. Wherefore he who
had received the apostolate to the Gentiles, [A clear note of recognition on the part
of our author, that St. Paul’s mission was world-wide, while St.
Peter’s was limited.]
1.
[Note, the Gentile Church was the old religion and was Catholic; in
Christ it became Catholic again: the Mosaic system was a parenthetical
thing of fifteen hundred years only. Such is the luminous and
clarifying scheme of Irenæus, expounding St. Paul (
2.
3. For it was requisite that certain facts should be
announced beforehand by the fathers in a paternal manner, and others
prefigured by the prophets in a legal one, but others, described after
the form of Christ, by those who have received the adoption; while in one
God are all things shown forth. For although Abraham was one, he did in
himself prefigure the two covenants, in which some indeed have sown,
while others have reaped; for it is said, “In this is the saying
true, that it is one ‘people’ who sows, but another who shall
reap;”
[The touching words which conclude the
former paragraph are illustrated by the noble sentence which begins this
paragraph. The childlike spirit of these Fathers recognises Christ
everywhere, in the Old Testament, prefigured by countless images
and tokens in paternal and legal (ceremonial) forms.]
1. Harvey cancels “non,” and reads the sentence
interrogatively. The Latin
is “a multis justis,” corresponding to the Greek version of
the Hebrew text. If the translation be supposed as corresponding to the
Hebrew comparative, the English equivalent will be, “and above
(more than) many righteous.”
The text and
punctuation are here in great uncertainty, and very different views of
both are taken by the editors.
2.
3.
Ibid. ver. 52, etc.;
4. [Contrast this spirit of a
primitive Father, with the state of things which Wiclif rose up to
purify, five hundred years ago.]
5. Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom
also the prophet says: “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy
bishops in righteousness.” [Note the limitation; not the succession
only, but with it (1) pure morality and holiness and (2) unadulterated
testimony. No catholicity apart from these.]
1. Polycarp, Papias, Pothinus, and others, have been
suggested as probably here referred to, but the point is involved in
utter uncertainty. [Surely this testimony is a precious intimation of the
apostle’s meaning (
2. [
3. Thou wilt notice, too, that the transgressions of
the common people have been described in like manner, not for the sake of
those who did then transgress, but as a means of instruction unto us, and
that we should understand that it is one and the same God against whom
these
4. Since therefore, beyond all doubt and contradiction,
the apostle shows that there is one and the same God, who did both enter
into judgment with these former things, and who does inquire into those
of the present time, and points out why these things have been committed
to writing; all these men are found to be unlearned and presumptuous,
nay, even destitute of common sense, who, because of the transgressions
of them of old time, and because of the disobedience of a vast number of
them, do allege that there was indeed one God of these men, and that He
was the maker of the world, and existed in a state of degeneracy; but
that there was another Father declared by Christ, and that this Being is
He who has been conceived by the mind of each of them; not understanding
that as, in the former case, God showed Himself not well pleased in many
instances towards those who sinned, so also in the latter, “many
are called, but few are chosen.”
1.
2. For as, in the New Testament, that faith of men [to
be placed] in God has been increased, receiving in addition [to what was
already revealed] the Son of God, that man too might be a partaker of
God; so is also our walk in life required to be more circumspect, when we
are directed not merely to abstain from evil actions, but even from evil
thoughts, and from idle words, and empty talk, and scurrilous
language:
[
3. For the self-same heretics already mentioned by us
have fallen away from themselves, by accusing the Lord, in whom they say
that they believe. For those points to which they call attention with
regard to the God who then awarded temporal punishments to the
unbelieving, and smote the Egyptians, while He saved those that were
obedient; these same [facts, I say,] shall nevertheless repeat themselves
in the Lord, who judges for eternity those whom He doth judge, and lets
go free for eternity those whom He does let go free: and He shall [thus]
be discovered, according to the language used by these men, as having
been the cause of their most heinous sin to those who laid hands upon
Him, and pierced Him. For if He had not so come, it follows that these
men could not have become the slayers of their Lord; and if He had not
sent prophets to them, they certainly could not have killed them, nor the
apostles either. To those, therefore, who assail us, and say, If the
Egyptians had not been afflicted with plagues, and, when pursuing after
Israel, been choked in the sea, God could not have saved His people, this
answer may be given;—Unless, then, the Jews had become the
slayers of the Lord (which did, indeed, take eternal life away from
them), and, by killing the apostles and persecuting the Church, had
fallen into an abyss of wrath, we could not have been saved. For as they
were saved by means of the blindness of the Egyptians, so are we, too, by
that of the Jews; if, indeed, the death of the Lord is the condemnation
of those who fastened Him to the cross, and who did not believe His
advent, but the salvation of those who believe in Him. For the apostle
does also say in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians: “For we
are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them which are saved, and in
them which perish: to the one indeed the savour of death unto death,
[
1.
2. If, therefore, in the present time also, God,
knowing the number of those who will not believe, since He foreknows all
things, has given them over to unbelief, and turned away His face from
men of this stamp, leaving them in the darkness which they have
themselves chosen for themselves, what is there wonderful if He did also
at that time give over to their unbelief, Pharaoh, who never would have
believed, along with those who were with him? As the Word spake to Moses
from the bush: “And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let
you go, unless by a mighty hand.”
1.
2. Up to that time the people served the Egyptians in
the most abject slavery, as saith the Scripture: “And the Egyptians
exercised their power rigorously upon the children of Israel; and they
made life bitter to them by severe labours, in mortar and in brick, and
in all manner of service in the field which they did, by all the works in
which they oppressed them with rigour.” This perplexed
sentence is pointed by Harvey interrogatively, but we prefer the
above.
3. If, however, a comparison be instituted between us
and them, [I would ask] which party shall seem to have received [their
worldly goods] in the fairer manner? Will it be the [Jewish] people, [who
took] from the Egyptians, who were at all points their debtors; or we,
[who receive property] from the Romans and other nations, who are under
no similar obligation to us? Yea, moreover, through their instrumentality
the world is at peace, and we walk on the highways without fear, and sail
where we will. [A
touching tribute to the imperial law, at a moment when Christians were
“dying daily” and “as sheep for the slaughter.”
So powerfully worked the divine command,
This is, if he inveighs against the Israelites for spoiling the
Egyptians; the former being a type of the Christian Church in relation to
the Gentiles.
As Harvey remarks, this is “a strange translation
for ἐκλίπητε”
of the text. rec., and he adds that “possibly the translator
read ἐκτράπητε.”
4. As a matter of course, therefore, these things were
done beforehand in a type, and from them was the tabernacle of God
constructed; those persons justly receiving them, as I have shown, while
we were pointed out beforehand in them,—[we] who should
afterwards serve God by the things of others. For the whole exodus of the
people out of Egypt, which took place under divine guidance, We here follow the
punctuation of Massuet in preference to that of Harvey. [The
Fathers regarded the whole Mosaic system, and the history of the faithful
under it, as one great allegory. In everything they saw
“similitudes,” as we do in the Faery Queen of Spenser,
or the Pilgrim’s Progress. The ancients may have carried
this principle too far, but as a principle it receives countenance from
our Lord Himself and His apostles. To us there is often a barren bush,
where the Fathers saw a bush that burned with fire.] See
1. When
recounting certain matters of this kind respecting them of old time, the
presbyter [before mentioned] was in the habit of instructing us, and
saying: “With respect to those misdeeds for which the Scriptures
themselves blame the patriarchs and prophets, we ought not to inveigh
against them, nor become like Ham, who ridiculed the shame of his father,
and so fell under a curse; but we should [rather] give thanks to God in
their behalf, inasmuch as their sins have been forgiven them through the
advent of our Lord; for He said that they gave thanks [for us], and
gloried in our salvation. [Thus far we have a most edifying instruction. The
reader will be less edified with what follows, but it is a very striking
example of what is written: “to the pure all things are
pure.”
“Id est duæ synagogæ,” referring to the
Jews and Gentiles. Some regard the words as a marginal gloss which has
crept into the text.
2. Thus, after their simplicity and innocence, did
these daughters [of Lot] so speak, imagining that all mankind had
perished, even as the Sodomites had done, and that the anger of God had
come down upon the whole earth. Wherefore also they are to be held
excusable, since they supposed that they only, along with their father,
were left for the preservation of the human race; and for this reason it
was that they deceived their father. Moreover, by the words they used
this fact was pointed out—that there is no other one who can
confer upon the elder and younger church the [power of] giving birth to
children, besides our Father. Now the father of the human race is the
Word of God, as Moses points out when he says, “Is not He thy
father who hath obtained thee [by generation], and formed thee, and
created thee?”
3. And while these things were taking place, his wife
remained in [the territory of] Sodomm, no longer corruptible flesh, but a
pillar of salt which endures for ever; Comp. Clem. Rom., chap. xi. Josephus (Antiq., i.
11, 4) testifies that he had himself seen this pillar.
The Latin is “per naturalia,” which words, according to
Harvey, correspond to δἰ ἐμμηνοῤῥοίας.
There is a poem entitled Sodoma preserved among the works of
Tertullian and Cyprian which contains the following lines:— The poem just referred to also says in reference to this
pillar:— [That a pillar of salt is
still to be seen in this vicinity, is now confirmed by many modern
travellers (report of Lieut. Lynch, United States Navy), which accounts
for the natural inference of Josephus and others on whom our author
relied. The coincidence is noteworthy.]
1. Harvey remarks here, that this can hardly be the same
presbyter mentioned before, “who was only a hearer of those who had
heard the apostles. Irenæus may here mean the venerable martyr Polycarp,
bishop of Smyrna.” “Quassum et futile.” The text
varies much in the mss.
“Constabit
ei.”
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed
two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same
God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose We here read “secundum
quos” with Massuet, instead of usual “secundum
quod.”
“Concurvans,” corresponding to συγκάμπτων,
which, says Harvey, “would be expressive of those who were brought
under the law, as the neck of the steer is bent to the yoke.” The Latin is, “per proprium visum.” [If this
and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such
testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy
Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.]
1.
Comp. book iii. 20, 4.
2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine
Harvey points this sentence
interrogatively. “Temperamentum calicis:” on which Harvey
remarks that “the mixture of water with the wine in the holy
Eucharist was the universal practice of antiquity … the wine
signifying the mystical Head of the Church, the water the body.”
[Whatever the significance, it harmonizes with the Paschal chalice, and
with
3. [This spiritual man] shall also judge all the
followers of Valentinus, because they do indeed confess with the tongue
one God the Father, and that all things derive their existence from Him,
but do at the same time maintain that He who formed all things is the
fruit of an apostasy or defect. [He shall judge them, too, because] they
do in like manner confess with the tongue one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, but assign in their [system of] doctrine a production of his own
to the Only-begotten, one of his own also to the Word, another to Christ,
and yet another to the Saviour; so that, according to them, all these
beings are indeed said [in Scripture to be], as it were, one; [while they
maintain], notwithstanding, that each one of them should be understood
[to exist] separately [from the rest], and to have [had] his own special
origin, according to his peculiar conjunction. [It appears], then This sentence is very obscure
in the Latin text.
Iliad, ix. 312, 313.
[This spiritual man] shall also judge the vain speeches of the perverse Gnostics, by showing that they are the disciples of Simon Magus.
4. He will judge also the Ebionites; [for] how can they
be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or
how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? And
how shall he (man) escape from the generation subject to death, if not by
means The text is
obscure, and the construction doubtful. The Latin
here is, “quæ est ex virgine per fidem regenerationem.”
According to Massuet, “virgine” here refers not to Mary, but
to the Church. Grabe suspects that some words have been lost.
Literally,
“who was strong against men.” In fine; lit. “in the
end.” In semetipsum:
lit. “unto Himself.”
We here follow the reading
“proferant:” the passage is difficult and obscure, but the
meaning is as above.
6. He shall also judge false prophets, who, without having received the gift of prophecy from God, and not possessed of the fear of God, but either for the sake of vainglory, or with a view to some personal advantage, or acting in some other way under the influence of a wicked spirit, pretend to utter prophecies, while all the time they lie against God.
7. He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms,
who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special
advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling
reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and
divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies,
[positively] destroy it,—men who prate of peace while they give
rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. The Greek text here is
σκηνοβατοῦν (lit.
“to tabernacle:” comp. ἐσκήνωσεν,
8. True knowledge The following section is an important one, but very
difficult to translate with undoubted accuracy. The editors differ
considerably both as to the construction and the interpretation. We have
done our best to represent the meaning in English, but may not have been
altogether successful. The Greek is σύστημα: the
Latin text has “status.” The Latin is,
“character corporis.” The text here
is, “custodita sine fictione scripturarum;” some prefer
joining “scripturarum” to the following words. We follow Harvey’s
text, “tractatione;” others read “tractatio.”
According to Harvey, the creed of the Church is denoted by
“tractatione;” but Massuet renders the clause thus:
[“True knowledge consists in] a very complete tractatio of
the Scriptures, which has come down to us by being preserved
(‘custoditione’ being read instead of
‘custodita’) without falsification.” Comp.
9. Wherefore the Church does in every place, because of
that love which she cherishes towards God, send forward, throughout all
time, a multitude of martyrs to the Father; while all others i.e., the heretics.
Comp. above, xxxi. 2. Comp.
10.
11. For some of them, beholding Him in glory, saw His
glorious life (conversationem) at the Father’s right
hand;
See III. xx. 4.
12. Some of them, moreover—[when they predicted
that] as a weak and inglorious man, and as one who knew what it was to
bear infirmity,
Comp. book iii. cap. xx. 4 and book iv. cap xxii. 1.
13. Those of them, again, who spoke of His having
slumbered and taken sleep, and of His having risen again because the Lord
sustained Him,
Or
“son.”
14. And those of them who declare that God would make a
new covenant
15. And all those other points which I have shown the
prophets to have uttered by means of so long a series of Scriptures, he
who is truly spiritual will interpret by pointing out, in regard to every
one of the things which have been spoken, to what special point in the
dispensation of the Lord is referred, and [by thus exhibiting] the entire
system of the work of the Son of God, knowing always the same God, and
always acknowledging the same Word of God, although He has [but] now been
manifested to us; acknowledging also at all times the same Spirit of God,
although He has been poured out upon us after a new fashion in these last
times, [knowing that He descends] even from the creation of the world to
its end upon the human race simply as such, from whom those who believe
God and follow His word receive that salvation which flows from Him.
Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts,
and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their
opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves
most righteous judgment.
“Ex alia
et alia substantia fuisse prophetias.”
1.
2. But the servants would then have been proved false,
and not sent by the Lord, if Christ on His advent, by being found exactly
such as He was previously announced, had not fulfilled their words.
Wherefore He said, “Think not that I have come to destroy the law
or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you, Until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall
not pass from the law and the prophets till all come to pass.”
3.
4. If any one, however, advocating the cause of the
Jews, do maintain that this new covenant consisted in the rearing of that
temple which was built under Zerubbabel after the emigration to Babylon,
and in the departure of the people from thence after the lapse of seventy
years, let him know that the temple constructed of stones was indeed then
rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables
of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law
until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord’s advent, the new
covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone
forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion
shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He
shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into
ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no
longer learn to fight.” Book i. p. 327,
this volume. This is following Harvey’s conjectural emendation
of the text, viz., “taleis” for “talis.” He
considers the pins here as symbolical of the nails by which
our Lord was fastened to the cross. The whole passage is almost
hopelessly obscure, though the general meaning may be guessed.
5. Such are the arguments proper [If it be remembered that we know
Irenæus here, only through a most obscure Latin rendering, we shall be
slow to censure this conclusion.]
1.
2. But if, when the Saviour came to this earth, He sent
His apostles into the world to proclaim with accuracy His advent, and to
teach the Father’s will, having nothing in common with the doctrine
of the Gentiles or of the Jews, much more, while yet existing in the
Pleroma, would He have appointed His own heralds to proclaim His future
advent into this world, and having nothing in common with those
prophecies originating from the Demiurge. But if, when within the
Pleroma, He availed Himself of those prophets who were under the law, and
declared His own matters through their instrumentality; much more would
He, upon His arrival hither, have made use of these same teachers, and
have preached the Gospel to us by their means. Therefore let them not any
longer assert that Peter and Paul and the other apostles proclaimed the
truth, but that it was the scribes and Pharisees, and the others, through
whom the law was propounded. But if, at His advent, He sent forth His own
apostles in the spirit of truth, and not in that of error, He did the
very same also in the case of the prophets; for the Word of God was
always the self-same: and if the Spirit from the Pleroma was, according
to these men’s system, the Spirit of light, the Spirit of truth,
the Spirit of perfection, and the Spirit of knowledge, while that from
the Demiurge was the spirit of ignorance, degeneracy, and error, and the
offspring of obscurity; how can it be, that in one and the same being
there exists perfection and defect, knowledge and ignorance, error and
truth, light and darkness? But if it was impossible that such should
happen in the case of the prophets, for they preached the word of the
Lord from one God, and proclaimed the advent of His Son, much more would
the Lord Himself never have uttered words, on one occasion from above,
but on another from degeneracy below, thus becoming the teacher at once
of knowledge and of ignorance; nor would He have ever glorified as Father
at one time the Founder of the world, and at another Him who is above
this one, as He does Himself declare: “No man putteth a piece of a
new garment upon an old one, nor do they put new wine into old
bottles.”
3. But from what source could the offspring of their
mother derive his knowledge of the mysteries within the Pleroma, and
power to discourse regarding them? Suppose that the mother, while beyond
the Pleroma, did bring forth this very offspring; but what is beyond the
Pleroma they represent as being beyond the pale of knowledge, that is,
ignorance. How, then, could that seed, which was conceived in ignorance,
possess the power of declaring knowledge? Or how did the mother herself,
a shapeless and undefined being, one cast out of doors as an abortion,
obtain knowledge of the mysteries within the Pleroma, she who was
organized outside it and given a form there, and prohibited by Horos from
entering within, and who remains outside the Pleroma till the
consummation [of all things], that is, beyond the pale of knowledge?
Then, again, when they say that the Lord’s passion is a type of the
extension of the Christ above, which he effected through Horos, and so
imparted a form to their mother, they are refuted in the other
particulars [of the Lord’s passion], for they have no semblance of
a type to show with regard
4. They affirm that certain things still, besides
these, were spoken from the Pleroma, but are confuted by those which are
referred to in the Scriptures as bearing on the advent of Christ. But
what these are [that are spoken from the Pleroma] they are not agreed,
but give different answers regarding them. For if any one, wishing to
test them, do question one by one with regard to any passage those who
are their leading men, he shall find one of them referring the passage in
question to the Propator—that is, to Bythus; another attributing
it to Arche—that is, to the Only-begotten; another to the Father
of all—that is, to the Word; while another, again, will say that
it was spoken of that one Æon who was [formed from the joint
contributions] of the Æons in the Pleroma; Book i. p. 334, this volume. Illorum; following the Greek
form of the comparative degree.
1.
2. Whom these men did therefore preach to the
unbelievers as Lord, Him did Christ teach to those who obey Him; and the
God who had called those of the former dispensation, is the same as He
who has received those of the latter. In other words, He who at first
used that law which entails bondage, is also He who did in after times
[call His people] by means of adoption. For God planted the vineyard of
the human race when at the first He formed Adam and chose the fathers;
then He let it out to husbandmen when He established the Mosaic
dispensation: He hedged it round about, that is, He gave particular
instructions with regard to their worship: He built a tower, [that is],
He chose Jerusalem: He digged a winepress, that is, He prepared a
receptacle of the prophetic Spirit. And thus did He send prophets prior
to the transmigration to Babylon, and after that event others again in
greater number than the former, to seek the fruits, saying thus to them
(the Jews): “Thus saith the Lord, Cleanse your ways and your
doings, execute just judgment, and look each one with pity and compassion
on his brother: oppress not the widow nor the orphan, the proselyte nor
the poor, and let none of you treasure up evil against his brother in
your hearts, and love not false swearing. Wash you, make you clean, put
away evil from your hearts, learn to do well, seek judgment, protect the
oppressed, judge the fatherless (pupillo), plead for the widow;
and come, let us reason together, saith the Lord.”
3. And therefore did the Lord say to His disciples, to
make us become good workmen: “Take heed to yourselves, and watch
continually upon every occasion, lest at any time your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and
that day shall come upon you unawares; for as a snare shall it come upon
all dwelling upon the face of the earth.”
No other of the Greek Fathers quotes this
text as above; from which fact Grabe infers that old Latin translator, or
his transcribers, altered the words of Irenæus [N.B.—From one
example infer the rest] to suit the Latin versions.
4. Since the Son of God is always one and the same, He
gives to those who believe on Him a well of water This is Massuet’s conjectural
emendation of the text, viz., archetypum for arcætypum.
Grabe would insert per before arcæ, and he thinks the
passage to have a reference to
5. If, however, what I have stated be insufficient to
convince any one that the prophets were sent from one and the same
Father, from whom also our Lord was sent, let such a one, opening the
mouth of his heart, and calling upon the Master, Christ Jesus the Lord,
listen to Him when He says, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a
king who made a marriage for his son, and he sent forth his servants to
call them who were bidden to the marriage.” And when they would not
obey, He goes on to say, “Again he sent other servants, saying,
Tell them that are bidden, Come ye, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen
and all the fatlings are killed, and everything is ready; come unto the
wedding. But they made light of it, and went their way, some to their
farm, and others to their merchandize; but the remnant took his servants,
and some they treated despitefully, while others they slew. But when the
king heard this, he was wroth, and sent his armies and destroyed these
murderers, and burned up their city, and said to his servants, The
wedding is indeed ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go
out therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, gather in
to the marriage. So the servants went out, and collected together as many
as they found, bad and good, and the wedding was furnished with guests.
But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man not
having on a wedding garment; and he said unto him, Friend, how camest
thou hither, not having on a wedding garment? But he was speechless. Then
said the king to his servants, Take him away, hand and foot, and cast him
into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For
many are called, but few are chosen.”
6. Still further did He also make it manifest, that we
ought, after our calling, to be also adorned with works of righteousness,
so that the Spirit of God may rest upon us; for this is the wedding
garment, of which also the apostle speaks, “Not for that we would
be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up by
immortality.”
7.
8. Then, in the case of the publican, who excelled the
Pharisee in prayer, [we find] that it was not because he worshipped
another Father that he received testimony from the Lord that he was
justified rather [than the other]; but because with great humility, apart
from all boasting and pride, he made confession to the same God.
1.
2.
3. For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your
light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify
your Father who is in heaven.”
τὸ αὐτεξούσιον.
4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the
Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not
expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit
what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and
mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to
me, but all things are not expedient;”
5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God
preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying,
“According to thy faith
6. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature “material,” as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. “But He should not,” say they, “have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not [formed] as things irrational or of a [merely] animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage, working mechanically in one groove (inflexibiles et sine judicio), who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created.” But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study, but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing, nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?
7. On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the
kingdom of heaven was the portion of “the violent;” and He
says, “The violent take it by force;” [If we but had the original,
this would doubtless be found in all respects a noble specimen of
primitive theology.]
1.
2. And on this account does Paul declare to the
Corinthians, “I have fed you with milk, not with meat, for hitherto
ye were not able to bear it.”
3.
4. Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they
who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of
their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being
insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have
also been created—men subject to passions; but go beyond the law
of the human race, and before that they become men, they wish to be even
now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason
than dumb animals [insist] that there is no distinction between the
uncreated God and man, a creature of to-day. For these, [the dumb
animals], bring no charge against God for not having made them men; but
each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been
created. For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods
from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;
although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no
one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares,
“I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the
Highest.”
That is, that
man’s human nature should not prevent him from becoming a partaker
of the divine.
1.
2. How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet
been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?
How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature
Efficeris.
3.
4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. For those persons who shun rest shall justly incur punishment, and those who avoid the light shall justly dwell in darkness. For as in the case of this temporal light, those who shun it do deliver themselves over to darkness, so that they do themselves become the cause to themselves that they are destitute of light, and do inhabit darkness; and, as I have already observed, the light is not the cause of such an [unhappy] condition of existence to them; so those who fly from the eternal light of God, which contains in itself all good things, are themselves the cause to themselves of their inhabiting eternal darkness, destitute of all good things, having become to themselves the cause of [their consignment to] an abode of that nature.
1.
3. The Lord, indeed, sowed good seed in His own
field;
The old Latin translator varies from this (the Greek of
which was recovered by Grabe from two ancient Catenæ Patrum),
making the clause run thus, that is, the transgression which he had
himself introduced, making the explanatory words to refer to the
tares, and not, as in the Greek, to the sower of the
tares. Following the reading of the LXX.
αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν.
1.
2. Since, therefore, all things were made by God, and
since the devil has become the cause of apostasy to himself and others,
justly does the Scripture always term those who remain in a state of
apostasy “sons of the devil” and “angels of the wicked
one” (maligni).
3. For as, among men, those sons who disobey their
fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of
nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of
their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God,—those
who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His
sons. Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says,
“Sinners are alienated from the womb; their anger is after the
likeness of a serpent.”
4. Inasmuch as the words of the Lord are numerous, while they all proclaim one and the same Father, the Creator of this world, it was incumbent also upon me, for their own sake, to refute by many [arguments] those who are involved in many errors, if by any means, when they are confuted by many [proofs], they may be converted to the truth and saved. But it is necessary to subjoin to this composition, in what follows, also the doctrine of Paul after the words of the Lord, to examine the opinion of this man, and expound the apostle, and to explain whatsoever [passages] have received other interpretations from the heretics, who have altogether misunderstood what Paul has spoken, and to point out the folly of their mad opinions; and to demonstrate from that same Paul, from whose [writings] they press questions upon us, that they are indeed utterers of falsehood, but that the apostle was a preacher of the truth, and that he taught all things agreeable to the preaching of the truth; [to the effect that] it was one God the Father who spake with Abraham, who gave the law, who sent the prophets beforehand, who in the last times sent His Son, and conferred salvation upon His own handiwork —that is, the substance of flesh. Arranging, then, in another book, the rest of the words of the Lord, which He taught concerning the Father not by parables, but by expressions taken in their obvious meaning (sed simpliciter ipsis dictionibus), and the exposition of the Epistles of the blessed apostle, I shall, with God’s aid, furnish thee with the complete work of the exposure and refutation of knowledge, falsely so called; thus practising myself and thee in [these] five books for presenting opposition to all heretics.
In the
four preceding books, my very dear friend, which I put forth to thee, all
the heretics have been exposed, and their doctrines brought to light, and
these men refuted who have devised irreligious opinions. [I have
accomplished this by adducing] something from the doctrine peculiar to
each of these men, which they have left in their writings, as well as by
using arguments of a more general nature, and applicable to them
all. Ex ratione universis
ostensionibus procedente. The words are very obscure.
1.
“Initium facturæ,” which Grabe thinks
should be thus translated with reference to [Compare Clement, cap. 49, p. 18, this volume.]
2.
3.
In allusion to the mixture of water in the
eucharistic cup, as practised in these primitive times. The Ebionites and
others used to consecrate the element of water alone. Viz., the
Son and the Spirit.
1. And vain likewise are those who say that
2.
[Again, the
carefully asserts that the bread is the body, and the
wine (cup) is the blood. The elements are sanctified, not
changed materially.]
3. The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains
here, would give, “and the Eucharist becomes the body of
Christ.”
This is Harvey’s free rendering of the passage,
which is in the Greek (as preserved in the Catena of John of Damascus):
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἠνέσχετο ὁ Θεὸς τὴν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἡμῶν ἀνάλυσιν. In
the Latin: Propter hoc passus est Deus fieri in nobis resolutionem. See
Book iii. cap. xx. 2.
1. We have adopted here the explanation of
Massuet, who considers the preceding period as merely parenthetical. Both
Grabe and Harvey, however, would make conjectural emendations in the
text, which seem to us to be inadmissible.
2. The ancients erroneously supposed that the
arteries were air-vessels, from the fact that these organs, after
death, appear quite empty, from all the blood stagnating in the veins
when death supervenes.
3. The flesh, therefore, is not destitute [of
participation] in the constructive wisdom and power of God. But if the
power of Him who is the bestower of life is made perfect in weakness
—that is, in the flesh—let them inform us, when they
maintain the incapacity of flesh to receive the life granted by God,
whether they do say these things as being living men at present, and
partakers of life, or acknowledge that, having no part in life whatever,
they are at the present moment dead men. And if they really are dead men,
how is it that they move about, and speak, and perform those other
functions which are not the actions of the dead, but of the living? But
if they are now alive, and if their whole body partakes of life, how can
they venture the assertion that the flesh is not qualified
1.
2.
1.
2. If, however, any one imagine it impossible that men
should survive for such a length of time, and that Elias was not caught
up in the flesh, but that his flesh was consumed in the fiery chariot,
let him consider that Jonah, when he had been cast into the deep, and
swallowed down into the whale’s belly, was by the command of God
again thrown out safe upon the land.
1.
The old Latin has “audivimus,”
have heard.
2.
1.
2. But what is that which, like a grain of wheat, is
sown in the earth and decays, unless it be the bodies which are laid in
the earth, into which seeds are also cast? And for this reason he said,
“It is sown in dishonour, it rises in glory.”
Grabe, Massuet, and Stieren prefer to read, “the
face of the living God;” while Harvey adopts the above, reading
merely “Domini,” and not “Dei vivi.”
1.
This is adopting
Harvey’s emendation of “voluntatem” for
“voluntate.”
3. For the same reason, too, do the prophets compare
them to irrational animals, on account of the irrationality of their
conduct, saying, “They have become as horses raging for the
females; each one of them neighing after his neighbour’s
wife.”
4.
1.
2. On the other hand, as many as fear God and trust in
His Son’s advent, and who through faith do establish the Spirit of
God in their hearts,—such men as these shall be properly called
both “pure,” and “spiritual,” and “those
living to God,” because they possess the Spirit of the Father, who
purifies man, and raises him up to the life of God. For as the Lord has
testified that “the flesh is weak,” so [does He also say]
that “the spirit is willing.”
3. The flesh, therefore, when destitute of the Spirit
of God, is dead, not having life, and cannot possess the kingdom of God:
[it is as] irrational blood, like water poured out upon the ground. And
therefore he says, “As is the earthy, such are they that are
earthy.”
4. If, however, we must speak strictly, [we would say
that] the flesh does not inherit, but is inherited; as also
the Lord declares, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess
the earth by inheritance;”
1.
2. But as the engrafted wild olive does not certainly
lose the substance of its wood, but changes the quality of its fruit, and
receives another name, being now not a wild olive, but a fruit-bearing
olive, and is called so; so also, when man is grafted in by faith and
receives the Spirit of God, he certainly does not lose the substance of
flesh, but changes the quality of the fruit [brought forth, i.e.,] of his
works, and receives another name, The Latin has, “sed infusionem Spiritus
attrahens.”
1. Or,
“poisonings.”
2. Since, therefore, in that passage he recounts those
works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon
their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with
what he had already declared, “And as we have borne the image of
him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from
heaven. For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God.”
1.
2.
3.
4. But the apostle himself also, being one who had been
formed in a womb, and had issued thence, wrote to us, and confessed in
his Epistle to the Philippians that “to live in the flesh was the
fruit of [his] work;”
Following Harvey’s explanation of a somewhat obscure passage.
5. And that he, the apostle, was the very same person
who had been born from the womb, that is, of the ancient substance of
flesh, he does himself declare in the Epistle to the Galatians:
“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s
womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might
preach Him among the Gentiles,” Vol. i. pp. 306,
321.
6. For the Maker of all things, the Word of God, who did also from the beginning form man, when He found His handiwork impaired by wickedness, performed upon it all kinds of healing. At one time [He did so], as regards each separate member, as it is found in His own handiwork; and at another time He did once for all restore man sound and whole in all points, preparing him perfect for Himself unto the resurrection. For what was His object in healing [different] portions of the flesh, and restoring them to their original condition, if those parts which had been healed by Him were not in a position to obtain salvation? For if it was [merely] a temporary benefit which He conferred, He granted nothing of importance to those who were the subjects of His healing. Or how can they maintain that the flesh is incapable of receiving the life which flows from Him, when it received healing from Him? For life is brought about through healing, and incorruption through life. He, therefore, who confers healing, the same does also confer life; and He [who gives] life, also surrounds His own handiwork with incorruption.
1. Let our opponents—that is, they who speak
against their own salvation—inform us [as to this point]: The two miracles of raising the widow’s son and
the rabbi’s daughter are here amalgamated.
2. Vain, therefore, and truly miserable, are those who
do not choose to see what is so manifest and clear, but shun the light of
truth, blinding themselves like the tragic Œdipus. And as those who are
not practised in wrestling, when they contend with others, laying hold
with a determined grasp of some part of [their opponent’s] body,
really fall by means of that which they grasp, yet when they fall,
imagine that they are gaining the victory, because they have obstinately
kept their hold upon that part which they seized at the outset, and
besides falling, become
3. For thus they will allege that this passage refers
to the flesh strictly so called, and not to fleshly works, as I have
pointed out, so representing the apostle as contradicting himself. For
immediately following, in the same Epistle, he says conclusively,
speaking thus in reference to the flesh: “For this corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So, when
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass
the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death,
where is thy sting? O death, where is thy victory?”
The original Greek text is preserved here, as above; the
Latin translator inserts, “in secunda ad Corinthios.” Harvey
observes: “The interpretation of the Scriptural reference by the
translator suggests the suspicion that the greater number of such
references have come in from the margin.”
4. That he uses these words with respect to the body of
flesh, and to none other, he declares to the Corinthians manifestly,
indubitably, and free from all ambiguity: “Always bearing about in
our body the dying of Jesus, Agreeing with the Syriac version in omitting “the
Lord” before the word “Jesus,” and in reading ἀεὶ as εἰ, which Harvey
considers the true text. The Syriac
translation seems to take a literal meaning out of this passage:
“If, as one of the men, I have been cast forth to the wild beasts
at Ephesus.” This is in
accordance with the Syriac, which omits the clause, εἴπερ ἄρα νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται.
5. In all these passages, therefore, as I have already
said, these men must either allege that the apostle expresses opinions
contradicting himself, with respect to that statement, “Flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;” or, on the other hand,
they will be forced to make perverse and crooked interpretations of all
the passages, so as to overturn and alter the sense of the words. For
what sensible thing can they say, if they endeavour to interpret
otherwise this which he writes: “For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality;”
1. One of the mss. reads here: Sanguis pro
sanguine ejus effundetur.
2. But if the Lord became incarnate for any other order
of things, and took flesh of any other substance, He has not then summed
up human nature in His own person, nor in that case can He be termed
flesh. For flesh has been truly made [to consist in] a transmission of
that thing moulded originally from the dust. But if it had been necessary
for Him to draw the material [of His body] from another substance, the
Father would at the beginning have moulded the material [of flesh] from a
different substance [than from what He actually did]. But now the case
stands thus, that the Word has saved that which really was [created,
viz.,] humanity which had perished, effecting by means of Himself that
communion which should be held with it, and seeking out its salvation.
But the thing which had perished possessed flesh and blood. For the Lord,
taking dust from the earth, moulded man; and it was upon his behalf that
all the dispensation of the Lord’s advent took place. He had
Himself, therefore, flesh and blood, recapitulating in Himself not a
certain other, but that original handiwork of the Father, seeking out
that thing which had perished. And for this cause the apostle, in the
Epistle to the Colossians, says, “And though ye were formerly
alienated, and enemies to His knowledge by evil works, yet now ye have
been reconciled in the body of His flesh, through His death, to present
yourselves holy and chaste, and without fault in His sight.”
3. If, then, any one allege that in this respect the
flesh of the Lord was different from ours, because it indeed did not
commit sin, neither
4. If, therefore, flesh and blood are the things which
procure for us life, it has not been declared of flesh and blood, in the
literal meaning (proprie) of the terms, that they cannot inherit
the kingdom of God; but [these words apply] to those carnal deeds already
mentioned, which, perverting man to sin, deprive him of life. And for
this reason he says, in the Epistle to the Romans: “Let not sin,
therefore, reign in your mortal body, to be under its control: neither
yield ye your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield
yourselves to God, as being alive from the dead, and your members as
instruments of righteousness unto God.” “Et sanguine ejus redhibitus,” corresponding
to the Greek term ἀποκατασταθείς.
“Redhibere” is properly a forensic term, meaning to
cause any article to be restored to the vendor. Harvey restores the Greek thus, καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπον βεβαίως ἐκδεχόμενος,
which he thinks has a reference to the patient waiting for
“Christ’s second advent to judge the world.” The phrase
might also be translated, and “receiving stedfastly His human
nature.”
1.
2. And for this reason did the Lord most plainly
manifest Himself and the Father to His disciples, lest, forsooth, they
might seek after another God besides Him who formed man, and who gave him
the breath of life; and that men might not rise to such a pitch of
madness as to feign another Father above the Creator. And thus also He
healed by a word all the others who were in a weakly condition because of
sin; to whom also He said, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no
more, lest a worse thing come upon thee:”
3. Now, that the Word of God forms us in the womb, He
says to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee;
and before thou wentest forth from the belly, I sanctified thee, and
appointed thee a prophet among the nations.”
4. All the followers of Valentinus, therefore, lose
their case, when they say that man was not fashioned out of this earth,
but from a fluid and diffused substance. For, from the earth out of which
the Lord formed eyes for that man, from the same earth it is evident that
man was also fashioned at the beginning. For it were incompatible that
the eyes should indeed be formed from one source and the rest of the body
from another; as neither would it be compatible that one [being]
fashioned the body, and another the eyes. But He, the very same who
formed Adam at the beginning, with whom also the Father spake, [saying],
“Let Us make man after Our image and likeness,”
1.
2. And then, again, this Word was manifested when the
Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to
Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become
precious to the Father.
3. And not by the aforesaid things alone has the Lord
manifested Himself, but [He has done this] also by means of His passion.
For doing away with [the effects of] that disobedience of man which had
taken place at the beginning by the occasion of a tree, “He became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;”
1.
2. And therefore, when He had healed the man sick of
the palsy, [the evangelist] says, “The people upon seeing it
glorified God, who gave such power unto men.”
3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal
man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can
forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men,
it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man,
receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was
man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us,
so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in
which we were made debtors to God our Creator. And therefore David said
beforehand, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed
sin;”
4. The Greek is preserved here, and reads, διὰ τῆς θείας ἐκτάσεως
τῶν χειρῶν—
literally, “through the divine extension of hands.” The old
Latin merely reads, “per extensionem manuum.”
1.
2. For the Father bears the creation and His own Word
simultaneously, and the Word borne by the Father grants the Spirit to all
as the Father wills.
From this passage Harvey infers that Irenæus held the procession of the
Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son,—a doctrine denied by the
Oriental Church in after times. [Here is nothing about the
“procession:” only the “mission” of the Spirit is
here concerned. And the Easterns object to the double procession itself
only in so far as any one means thereby to deny “quod solus Pater
est divinarum personarum, Principium et Fons,”—ρίζα καὶ πηγὴ. See Procopowicz,
De Processione, Gothæ, 1772]. Grabe and Harvey insert the words, “quod est
conditionis,” but on slender authority.
3.
The text reads “invisiblilter,” which seems clearly an
error.
1. The text is
here most uncertain and obscure. [This word patroness is ambiguous.
The Latin may stand for Gr. ἀντίληψις,
—a person called in to help, or to take hold of the other end of a
burden. The argument implies that Mary was thus the counterpart or
balance of Eve.]
2. The
text reads “porro,” which makes no sense; so that Harvey
looks upon it as a corruption of the reading “per Horum.”
1. “Et eandem figuram ejus quæ est
erga ecclesiam ordinationis custodientibus.” Grabe supposes this
refers to the ordained ministry of the Church, but Harvey thinks it
refers more probably to its general constitution. [He thus outlines the creed, and epitomizes “the
faith once delivered to the saints,” as all that is requisite to
salvation.]
2. Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the
Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking
into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man,
even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. That is, the private
Christian as contrasted with the sophist of the schools.
1. τηρήσει and τερέσει have
probably been confounded.
2. Now the Lord would not have recapitulated in Himself
that ancient and primary enmity against the serpent, fulfilling the
promise of the Creator (Demiurgi), and performing His command, if
He had come from another Father. But as He is one and the same, who
formed us at the beginning, and sent His Son at the end, the Lord did
perform His command, being made of a woman, by both destroying our
adversary, and perfecting man after the image and likeness of God. And
for this reason He did not draw the means of confounding him from any
other source than from the words of the law, and made use of the
Father’s commandment as a help towards the destruction and
confusion of the apostate angel. The
Latin of this obscure sentence is: Quæ ergo fuit in Paradiso repletio
hominis per duplicem gustationem, dissoluta est per eam, quæ fuit in hoc
mundo, indigentiam. Harvey thinks that repletio is an error of the
translation reading ἀναπλήρωσις for
ἀναπήρωσις. This
conjecture is adopted above. This sentence
is one of great obscurity.
3. Who, then, is this Lord God to whom Christ bears
witness, whom no man shall tempt, whom all should worship, and serve Him
alone? It is, beyond all manner of doubt, that God who also gave the law.
For these things had been predicted in the law, and by the words
(sententiam) of the law the Lord showed that the law does indeed
declare the Word of God from the Father; and the apostate angel of God is
destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colours, and vanquished
by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God. For as in the beginning
he enticed man to transgress his Maker’s law, and thereby got him
into his power; yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy, and
with these he bound man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, it was
necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound
with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man,
being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those
bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan
is bound, man is set free; since “none can enter a strong
man’s house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong
man himself.”
1.
2. He taught by His commandment that we who have been
set free should, when hungry, take that food which is given by God; and
that, when placed in the exalted position of every grace [that can be
received], we should not, either by trusting to works of righteousness,
or when adorned with super-eminent [gifts of] ministration, by any means
be lifted up with pride, nor should we tempt God, but should feel
humility in all things, and have ready to hand [this saying], “Thou
shall not tempt the Lord
thy God.”
1.
2.
1.
2. For since man, by departing from God, reached such a
pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged
without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice;
God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the
fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and
kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of
justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword
suspended full in their view, as the apostle says: “For he beareth
not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for
wrath upon him who does evil.” And for this reason too, magistrates
themselves, having laws as a clothing of righteousness whenever they act
in a just and legitimate manner, shall not be called in question for
their conduct, nor be liable to punishment. But whatsoever they do to the
subversion of justice, iniquitously, and impiously, and illegally, and
tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish; for the just
judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective.
Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of
nations, [Well says
Benjamin Franklin: “He who shall introduce into public affairs the
principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the
world.” See Bancroft, Hist. U.S., vol. ix. p. 492.]
3. As, then, “the powers that be are ordained of
God,” it is clear that the devil lied when he said, “These
are delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give them.” For
by the law of the same Being as calls men into existence are kings also
appointed, adapted for those men who are at the time placed under their
government. Some of these [rulers] are given for the correction and the
benefit of their subjects, and for the preservation of justice; but
others, for the purposes of fear and punishment and rebuke: others, as
[the subjects] deserve it, are for deception, disgrace, and pride; while
the just judgment of God, as I have observed already, passes equally upon
all. The devil, however, as he is the apostate angel, can only go to this
length, as he did at the beginning, [namely] to deceive and lead astray
the mind of man into disobeying the commandments of God, and gradually
4. Just as if any one, being an apostate, and seizing
in a hostile manner another man’s territory, should harass the
inhabitants of it, in order that he might claim for himself the glory of
a king among those ignorant of his apostasy and robbery; so likewise also
the devil, being one among those angels who are placed over the spirit of
the air, as the Apostle Paul has declared in his Epistle to the
Ephesians,
1.
2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this
which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by
the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his
own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in
the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking
for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by
whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for
those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the
enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also
declares: “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy
place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea
flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not
come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be
great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world
until now, nor ever shall be.”
3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last
kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men
shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come,
declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another
little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the
former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: “And, behold,
eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great
things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and
this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until
the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high
God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.”
4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not
believe in Him: “I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have
not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will
receive,”
This may
refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, Antichrist’s prototype, who offered
swine upon the altar in the temple at Jerusalem. The LXX. version has,
ἐδόθη ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ἁμαρτία, i.e.,
sin has been given against (or, upon) the sacrifice.
5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not
merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who
concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one
and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made
manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has
been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, “When ye shall see the
abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the
prophet”
The mss. have
“præmisit,” but Harvey suggests “promisit,”
which we have adopted.
1.
2. The Greek text is here preserved by
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 18; but we are not told from what work
of Justin Martyr it is extracted. The work is now lost. An ancient catena
continues the Greek for several lines further.
1.
2.
1.
2. And for this reason the apostle says: “Because
3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so
many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the
Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and
all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day
the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all
His works.”
4. And therefore throughout all time, man, having been
moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of
the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff,
indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is,
those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the
barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are
saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and
sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire [for
purification], they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man
of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his
testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am
ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure
bread of God.”
This is quoted from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, ch. iv. It is
found in the two Greek recensions of his works, and also in the Syriac.
See pp. 75 and 103 of this volume. The Latin translation is here
followed: the Greek of Ignatius would give “the wheat of
God,” and omits “of God” towards the end, as quoted by
Eusebius.
1.
2. And there is therefore in this beast, when he comes, a recapitulation made of all sorts of iniquity and of every deceit, in order that all apostate power, flowing into and being shut up in him, may be sent into the furnace of fire. Fittingly, therefore, shall his name possess the number six hundred and sixty-six, since he sums up in his own person all the commixture of wickedness which took place previous to the deluge, due to the apostasy of the angels. For Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge came upon the earth, sweeping away the rebellious world, for the sake of that most infamous generation which lived in the times of Noah. And [Antichrist] also sums up every error of devised idols since the flood, together with the slaying of the prophets and the cutting off of the just. For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Mishaell, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men. Thus, then, the six hundred years of Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred because of the apostasy, and the number of the cubits of the image for which these just men were sent into the fiery furnace, do indicate the number of the name of that man in whom is concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years, and unrighteousness, and wickedness, and false prophecy, and deception; for which things’ sake a cataclysm of fire shall also come [upon the earth].
1. ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις
This passage is interesting, as showing how very soon the autographs of
the New Testament must have perished, and various readings crept into the
mss. of the canonical
books. That is, Ξ into ΕΙ, according to
Harvey, who considers the whole of this clause as an evident
interpolation. It does not occur in the Greek here preserved by Eusebius
(Hist. Eccl., v. 8).
2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is
the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that
they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number
declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them
await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in
the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their
affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to
acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and
shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name
containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.
This, too, the apostle affirms: “When they shall say, Peace and
safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them.”
3. It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to
await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and
casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many
names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question
will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found
possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the
coming man bear. [A very pregnant passage, as
has often been noted. But let us imitate the pious reticence with which
this section concludes.] Massuet here quotes Cicero and Ovid in proof of the sun
being termed Titan. The Titans waged war against the gods, to
avenge themselves upon Saturn.
4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that
when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name,
however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by
the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist)
might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as “he was, and
is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into
perdition,”
1. See the note, book iii. xx.
4.
2.
The five following chapters were omitted in the earlier
editions, but added by Feuardentius. Most mss., too, did not contain them.
It is probable that the scribes of the middle ages rejected them on
account of their inculcating millenarian notions, which had been long
extinct in the Church. Quotations from these five chapters have been
collected by Harvey from Syriac and Armenian mss. lately come to light.
1. Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain
[orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both
ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the
resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the
commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall
be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature
(capere Deum Or,
“gradually to comprehend God.”
2. Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to
Abraham, remains stedfast. For thus He said: “Lift up thine eyes,
and look from this place where now thou art, towards the north and south,
and east and west. For all the earth which thou seest, I will give to
thee and to thy seed, even for ever.”
1. For this reason, when about to undergo His
sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad
tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, [Christ], after He had
given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to
the disciples, said to them: “Drink ye all of it: this is My blood
of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of
sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of
this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my
Father’s kingdom.”
2. And for this reason the Lord declared, “When
thou makest a dinner or a supper, do not call thy friends, nor thy
neighbours, nor thy kinsfolk, lest they ask thee in return, and so repay
thee. But call the lame, the blind, and the poor, and thou shall be
blessed, since they cannot recompense thee, but a recompense shall be
made thee at the resurrection of the just.”
3.
From this to the end of the section there is an Armenian version extant,
to be found in the Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 1, edited by M. Pitra,
Paris 1852, and which was taken by him from an Armenian ms. in the Mechitarist Library at
Venice, described as being of the twelfth century. This word “true” is not found in the
Armenian. Or, following
Arm. vers., “But if any one shall lay hold of an holy
cluster.” The Arm. vers. is here followed; the old Latin reads,
“Et reliqua autem poma.”
4. [See pp.
151–154, this volume.]
1.
2. That the whole creation shall, according to
God’s will, obtain a vast increase, that it may bring forth and
sustain fruits such [as we have mentioned], Isaiah declares: “And
there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every prominent hill,
water running everywhere in that day, when many shall perish, when walls
shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,
seven times that of the day, when He shall heal the anguish of His
people, and do away with the pain of His stroke.”
3. Now, that the promises were not announced to the
prophets and the fathers alone, but to the Churches united to these from
the nations, whom also the Spirit terms “the islands” (both
because they are established in the midst of turbulence, suffer the storm
of blasphemies, exist as a harbour of safety to those in peril, and are
the refuge of those who love the height [of heaven], and strive to avoid
Bythus, that is, the depth of error), Jeremiah thus declares: “Hear
the word of the Lord, ye
nations, and declare it to the isles afar off; say ye, that the Lord will scatter Israel, He will
gather him, and keep him, as one feeding his flock of sheep. For the Lord
hath redeemed Jacob, and rescued him from the hand of one stronger than
he. And they shall come and rejoice in Mount Zion, and shall come to what
is good, and into a land of wheat, and wine, and fruits, of animals and
of sheep; and their soul shall be as a tree bearing fruit, and they shall
hunger no more. At that time also shall the virgins rejoice in the
company of the young men: the old men, too, shall be glad, and I will
turn their sorrow into joy; and I will make them exult, and will magnify
them, and satiate the souls of the priests the sons of Levi; and my
people shall be satiated with my goodness.” See. iv. 8, 3.
4. Then again, speaking of Jerusalem, and of Him
reigning there, Isaiah declares, “Thus saith the Lord, Happy is he who hath seed
in Zion, and servants in Jerusalem. Behold, a righteous king shall reign,
and princes shall rule with judgment.”
1.
The long quotation following
is not found in Jeremiah, but in the apocryphal book of
2. Now all these things being such as they are, cannot
be understood in reference to super-celestial matters; “for
God,” it is said, “will show to the whole earth that is under
heaven thy glory.” But in the times of the kingdom, the earth has
been called again by Christ [to its pristine condition], and Jerusalem
rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above, of which the prophet
Isaiah says, “Behold, I have depicted thy walls upon my hands, and
thou art always in
1.
Lib. iv. 5, 6. Thus in a Greek
fragment; in the Old Latin, Deus.
2.
3. John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first
“resurrection of the just,” Grabe and others
suppose that some part of the work has been lost, so that the above was
not its original conclusion.
I adjure
thee, who shalt transcribe this book, This fragment is quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.,
v. 20. It occurred at the close of the lost treatise of Irenæus entitled
De Ogdoade.
This interesting extract we also owe to
Eusebius, who (ut sup.) took it from the work De Ogdoade,
written after this former friend of Irenæus had lapsed to
Valentinianism. Florinus had previously held that God was the author of
evil, which sentiment Irenæus opposed in a treatise, now lost, called
περὶ μοναρχίας. Comp. p. 32, this
volume, and
See pp. 31 and 312, of this
volume. We are indebted again to Eusebius for this valuable fragment from
the Epistle of Irenæus to Victor Bishop of Rome (Hist. Eccl., v.
24; copied also by Nicephorus, iv. 39). It appears to have been a
synodical epistle to the head of the Roman Church, the historian saying
that it was written by Irenæus, “in the name of (ἐκ προσώπου) those
brethren over whom he ruled throughout Gaul.” Neither are these
expressions to be limited to the Church at Lyons, for the same authority
records (v. 23) that it was the testimony “of the dioceses
throughout Gaul, which Irenæus superintended” (Harvey). According to Harvey, the early paschal controversy
resolved itself into two particulars: (a) as regards the precise
day on which our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated;
(b) as regards the custom of the fast preceding it. Both reading and punctuation
are here subjects of controversy. We have followed Massuet and
Harvey. “The observance of a day,
though not everywhere the same, showed unity, so far as faith in the
Lord’s resurrection was concerned.”—Harvey. Following the reading of Rufinus, the ordinary text has
μετ’ αὐτούς, i.e., after
them. This practice was afterwards forbidden by the Council of
Laodicea [held about a.d.
360]. It was perhaps in reference to this pleasing episode in
the annals of the Church, that the Council of Arles, a.d. 314, decreed that the holy
Eucharist should be consecrated by any foreign bishop present at its
celebration.
As
Quoted by Maximus Bishop of Turin, a.d. 422, Serm. vii. de
Eleemos., as from the Epistle to Pope Victor. It is also found in
some other ancient writers. One of the mss. reads here τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God.
The
Also quoted by Maximus Turinensis, Op. ii. 152, who refers it to
Irenæus’s Sermo de Fide, which work, not being referred to
by Eusebius or Jerome, causes Massuet to doubt the authenticity of the
fragment. Harvey, however, accepts it.
We owe this fragment also to Maximus, who quoted it from
the same work, de Fide, written by Irenæus to Demetrius, a deacon
of Vienne. This and the last fragment were first printed by Feuardentius,
who obtained them from Faber; no reference, however, being given as to
the source from whence the Latin version was derived. The Greek of the
Fragment vi. is not extant.
Taken from a work (Quæs.
et Resp. ad Othod.) ascribed to Justin Martyr, but certainly written
after the Nicene Council. It is evident that this is not an exact
quotation from Irenæus, but a summary of his words. The
“Sunday” here referred to must be Easter Sunday.
Massuet’s emendation of the text has been adopted, ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ for ἐπ’ αὐτῶν.
Cited by Leontius of
Byzantium, who flourished about the year a.d. 600; but he does not mention
the writing of Irenæus from which it is extracted. Massuet conjectures
that it is from the De Ogdoade, addressed to the apostate
Florinus.
Ever,
This fragment and the next three are from the Parallela of John of
Damascus. Frag. ix. x. xii. seem to be quotations from the treatise of
Irenæus on the resurrection. No. xi. is extracted from his
Miscellaneous Dissertations, a work mentioned by Eusebius,
βιβλίον τι διαλεξέων
διαφόρων.
It is indeed proper to God, and befitting His
character, to show mercy and pity, and to bring salvation to His
creatures, even though they be brought under danger of destruction.
“For with Him,” says the Scripture, “is
propitiation.”
The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν).
This sentence in the original seems incomplete; we have
followed the conjectural restoration of Harvey.
“This extract is found
in Œcumenius upon
From the Contemplations of Anastasius Sinaita,
who flourished a.d. 685.
Harvey doubts as to this fragment being a genuine production of Irenæus;
and its whole style of reasoning confirms the suspicion.
The Greek reads the barbarous
word ἀθριξίᾳ, which
Massuet thinks is a corruption of ἀθανασίᾳ,
immortality. We have, however, followed the conjecture of Harvey, who
would substitute ἀπληξίᾳ,
which seems to agree better with the context.
This and the eight following fragments may
be referred to the Miscellaneous Dissertations of our author; see
note on Frag. ix. They are found in three mss. in the Imperial Collection
at Paris, on the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.
Compare the
statement of Clemens Romanus (page 6 of this volume), where, speaking of
St. Paul, he says: “After preaching both in the east and west
… having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the
extreme limit of the west.”
And this was not without meaning; but that by means of
the number of the ten men, See
Harvey conceives the reading
here (which is doubtful) to have been τὸν νέον σῖτον, the new wheat;
and sees an allusion to the wave-sheaf of the new corn offered in the
temple on the morning of our Lord’s resurrection.
“And Massuet seems to more than doubt the genuineness of this
fragment and the next, and would ascribe them to the pen of Apollinaris,
bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a contemporary of Irenæus. Harvey
passes over these two fragments.
But he does not give, as Christ did, by means of breathing, because he is not the fount of the Spirit.
The conjectural
emendation of Harvey has been adopted here, but the text is very corrupt
and uncertain.
From one of the
mss. Stieren would insert
ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι, in His own
body; see
It is not certain from what work of
Irenæus this extract is derived; Harvey thinks it to be from his work
περὶ ἐπιστήμης, i.e.,
concerning Knowledge.
The
Edited by P. Possin, in a Catena Patrum on St. Matthew. See book
iii. chap. xi. 8.
From the same Catena. Compare book v. chap. xvii. 4.
First edited in Latin by Corderius,
afterwards in Greek by Grabe, and also by Dr. Cramer in his Catena
on St. Luke.
Massuet’s Fragment xxxii. is here passed over; it is found in book iii. chap. xviii. 7.
See Josephus’ Antiquities, book ii. chap.
x., where we read that this king’s daughter was called Tharbis.
Immediately upon the surrender of this city (Saba, afterwards called
Meroë) Moses married her, and returned to Egypt. Whiston, in the notes to
his translation of Josephus, says, “Nor, perhaps, did St. Stephen
refer to anything else when he said of Moses, before he was sent by God
to the Israelites, that he was not only learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians, but was also mighty in words and in deeds”
(
Harvey considers this fragment to be a
part of the work of Irenæus referred to by Photius under the title De
Universo, or de Substantiâ Mundi. It is to be found in Codex
3011 of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
This and the next fragment first appeared
in the Benedictine edition reprinted at Venice, 1734. They were taken
from a ms. Catena on
the book of Kings in the Coislin Collection.
If the corpse of Elisha raised a dead man,
This extract and the next three were discovered in the year 1715 by
[Christopher Matthew] Pfaff, a learned Lutheran, in the Royal Library at
Turin. The mss. from which
they were taken were neither catalogued nor classified, and have now
disappeared from the collection. It is impossible to say with any degree
of probability from what treatises of our author these four fragments
have been culled. For a full account of their history, see
Stieren’s edition of Irenæus, vol. ii. p. 381. [But, in all
candor, let Pfaff himself be heard. His little work is full of learning,
and I have long possessed it as a treasure to which I often recur.
Pfaff’s Irenæi Fragmenta was published at The Hague,
1715.]
Harvey’s
conjectural emendation, ἐπιπλοκὴ for
ἐπιλογὴ, has been
adopted here.
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary
(i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, ταῖς δευτέραις
τῶν ἀποστόλων
διατάξεσι. Harvey
thinks that these words imply, “the formal constitution, which the
apostles, acting under the impulse of the Spirit, though still in a
secondary capacity, gave to the Church.”
Harvey explains
this word ἀντιτύπων as
meaning an “exact counterpart.” He refers to the word where
it occurs in Contra Hæreses, lib. i. chap. xxiv. (p. 349, this
vol.) as confirmatory of his view.
The
Taken apparently from the Epistle to Blastus, de Schismate.
Compare a similar passage, lib. iv. chap. xxxiii. 7.
Christ,
“From the same collection at Turin. The passage seems to be of
cognate matter with the treatise De Resurrec. Pfaff referred it
either to the διαλέξεις
διάφοροι or to
the ἐπίδειξις
ἀποστολικοῦ
κηρύγματος.”
—Harvey.
This and the four following fragments are
taken from mss. in the
Vatican Library at Rome. They are apparently quoted from the homiletical
expositions of the historical books already referred to.
This
These words were evidently written during a season of persecution in
Gaul; but what that persecution was, it is useless to conjecture.
That is, when he fled to the rock Etam, he typified the true believer
taking refuge in the spiritual Rock, Christ.
Speaking always well of the worthy, but never ill of the unworthy, we also shall attain to the glory and kingdom of God.
In Most
probably from a homily upon the third and fourth chapters of Ezekiel. It
is found repeated in Stieren’s and Migne’s edition as
Fragment xlviii. extracted from a Catena on the Book of
Judges.
It We
give this brief fragment as it appears in the editions of Stieren, Migne,
and Harvey, who speculate as to its origin. They seem to have overlooked
the fact that it is the Greek original of the old Latin, non facile
est ab errore apprehensam resipiscere animam,—a sentence
found towards the end of book iii. chap. ii.
“And With the exception of the initial text, this fragment is
almost identical with No. xxv.
“The From the Catena on St. Paul’s Epistles to
the Corinthians, edited by Dr. Cramer, and reprinted by Stieren.
The
Extracted from a ms. of
Greek theology in the Palatine Library at Vienna. The succeeding fragment
in the editions of Harvey, Migne, and Stieren, is omitted, as it is
merely a transcript of book iii. ch. x. 4.
As
This fragment commences a series derived from the Nitrian Collection of
Syriac mss. in the British
Museum. The Syriac text
is here corrupt and obscure. See. No. viii.,
which is the same as the remainder of this fragment.
Now
The Syriac ms. introduces
this quotation as follows: “From the holy Irenæus Bp. of Lyons,
from the first section of his interpretation of the Song of
Songs.”
For
This extract is introduced as follows: “For Irenæus Bishop of
Lyons, who was a contemporary of the disciple of the apostle, Polycarp
Bishop of Smyrna, and martyr, and for this reason is held in just
estimation, wrote to an Alexandrian to the effect that it is right, with
respect to the feast of the Resurrection, that we should celebrate it
upon the first day of the week.” This shows us that the extract
must have been taken from the work Against Schism addressed to
Blastus.
Now,
From the same ms. as the
preceding fragment. It is thus introduced: “And Irenæus Bp. of
Lyons, to Victor Bp. of Rome, concerning Florinus, a presbyter, who was a
partisan of the error of Valentinus, and published an abominable book,
thus wrote.”
This extract had already been printed by
M. Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense, p. 6.
This extract from the Syriac is a shorter
form of the next fragment, which seems to be interpolated in some places.
The latter is from an Armenian ms. in the Mechitarist Library at
Venice.
This fragment is thus introduced in the
Armenian copy: “From St. Irenæus, bishop, follower of the
apostles, on the Lord’s resurrection.” The
Armenian text is confused here; we have adopted the conjectural
emendation of Quatremere.
“Then From an Armenian ms. in the Library of the
Mechitarist Convent at Vienna, edited by M. Pitra, who considers this
fragment as of very doubtful authority. It commences with this heading:
“From the second series of Homilies of Saint Irenæus, follower of
the Apostles; a Homily upon the Sons of Zebedee.”
“Then drew near.” Sometimes virtue excites
our admiration, not merely on account of the display which is given of
it, but also of the occasion when it was manifested. I may refer, for
example, to the premature fruit of the grape, or of the fig, or to any
fruit whatsoever, from which, during its process [of growth], no man
expects maturity or full development; yet, although any one may perceive
that it is still somewhat imperfect, he does not for that reason despise
as useless the immature grape when plucked, but he gathers it with
pleasure as appearing early in the season; nor does he consider whether
the grape is possessed of perfect sweetness; nay, he at once experiences
satisfaction from the thought that this one has appeared before the rest.
Just in the same way does God also, when He perceives the faithful
possessing wisdom though still imperfect, and but a small degree of
faith, overlook their defect in this respect, and therefore does not
reject them; nay, but on the contrary, He kindly welcomes and accepts
them as premature fruits, and honours the mind, whatsoever it may be,
which is stamped with virtue, although not yet perfect. He makes
allowance for it, as being among the harbingers of the vintage, That is, the wine which flows
from the grapes before they are trodden out.
And that their virtue was thus accepted by God, as the
first-fruits of the produce, hear what He has Himself declared: “As
a grape,” He says, “I have found Israel in the wilderness,
and as first-ripe figs your fathers.”
These things the Saviour told in reference to His sufferings and cross; to these persons He predicted His passion. Nor did He conceal the fact that it should be of a most ignominious kind, at the hands of the chief priests. This woman, however, had attached another meaning to the dispensation of His sufferings. The Saviour was foretelling death; and she asked for the glory of immortality. The Lord was asserting that He must stand arraigned before impious judges; but she, taking no note of that judgment, requested as of the judge: “Grant,” she said, “that these my two sons may sit, one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in Thy glory.” In the one case the passion is referred to, in the other the kingdom is understood. The Saviour was speaking of the cross, while she had in view the glory which admits no suffering. This woman, therefore, as I have already said, is worthy of our admiration, not merely for what she sought, but also for the occasion of her making the request.
She did indeed suffer, not merely as a pious person, but also as a woman. For, having been instructed by His words, she considered and believed that it would come to pass, that the kingdom of Christ should flourish in glory, and walk in its vastness throughout the world, and be increased by the preaching of piety. She understood, as was [in fact] the case, that He who appeared in a lowly guise had delivered and received every promise. I will inquire upon another occasion, when I come to treat upon this humility, whether the Lord rejected her petition concerning His kingdom. But she thought that the same confidence would not be possessed by her, when, at the appearance of the angels, He should be ministered to by the angels, and receive service from the entire heavenly host. Taking the Saviour, therefore, apart in a retired place, she earnestly desired of Him those things which transcend every human nature.