A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. IRENAEUS.

WE know nothing of the Country of S. Irenaeus a 1.1, but only in general, that he was a Greek. It is probable, that he was at first Educated in the Christian Religion b 1.2, or at * 1.3 least that he made profession thereof even from his Youth, during which he was a Di∣sciple of S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna in Asia, who was then very Old. This induceth me to believe, that this Father could not be born till about the end of the Reign of the Emperor A∣drian, or the beginning of that of Antoninus Pius, some time before the Year 140, after the Nativity of Jesus Christ c 1.4. He was also a Disciple of Papias, if we may believe S. Jerom d 1.5, and perhaps it is he whom he frequently cites in his Work against the Heresies, under the Name of an Elder, that had seen the Successors of the Apostles e 1.6. After he had thus spent the time of his Youth in the School of the most Learned of the Apostles, f 1.7 he went into France; where he was ordained Priest of the Church

of Lyons by Pothinus, who was Bishop of that See g 1.8. And when this Holy Prelate had suffered Mar∣tyrdom in the 90th▪ Year of his Age, being the 17th of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, and the 178th Year of Jesus Christ, Irenaeus was Elected his Successor upon his return from a Voyage that ••e made to Rome h 1.9; having carried several Letters thither written to Pope Eleutherus, by the Ma•••••••••• of Lyons, concerning the new Sect of the Mont••••ists. At the end of this Epistle, these Holy Men re∣commended S. Irenaeus in these words: We have desired our dear Brother and Collegue Irenaeus, to carry this Letter unto you; we commit him unto your Care; and we entreat you to esteem him as a Person that hath very much Zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ; if we believed that his Dignity would add any thing to his worth, we would have recommended him to you in quality of a Priest; but he is much more recom∣mendable for his Zeal and Piety.

S. Irenaeus being constituted Bishop, was not only employed in governing his particular Church with singular prudence, but he applyed himself also to the preserving of all the other Churches in the World from the infection of Heresies, which were then spread abroad in great numbers. And it was on this account i 1.10 that he Composed in Greek k 1.11▪ under the Pontificate of Elutherus l 1.12 five

Books against Heresies, bearing this Tide m 1.13, The Confutation and Subversion of that which is falsely called Knowledge. He wrote likewise at the same time two Epistles to two several Hereticks of Rome, one whereof was directed to Blastus, and the other to Florinus, whom he knew when he was the Di∣sciple of S. Polycarp. In the first of these Letters he treated of Schism, and in the second concerning Monarchy. In the latter he proved, that there was but one God, and that he was not the Author of Evil; for this was at first the principal Error of Florinus, tho' he soon fell into those of the Valenti∣nians, which obbliged S. Irenaeus to dedicate another Work to him, Entituled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was written against the Octonary of the Aeons of the Valentinians.

Not long after, under the Ponficate of Victor the Successor of Eleutherus, the Controversie that arose between the Asiatick Bishops and this Pope, gave occasion to S. Irenaeus to use his utmost endea∣vours to re-establish Peace. The subject of this dispute was to know on what day Easter ought to be observed; The Bishops of Asia, according to their ancient custom, always celebrated that Festival on the 14th of the Moon of March, on whatever day of the week it happened, whereas the Western Churches waited for the Lords-Day before they celebrated it. This difference in point of practice, which seems to be but of little consequence, produced some disturbance among the Churches of the first Ages; and when S. Polycarp came to Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus, these two Bishops ear∣nestly endeavoured to accommodate this matter; but not being able to perswade one another to leave their former Custom, (so jealous have Churches always been of their Ceremonies and Customs) they parted very good Friends, thinking that a difference of so little moment ought not to interrupt their mutual Agreement. But under the Pontificate of Victor, this Contest was revived with greater heat; and had well nigh caused a division in the Catholick Church. For this Pope, incensed because the Bi∣shops of Asia being very far from submitting to the Threats and Penalties which he had denounced a∣gainst them, in case they refused to abolish their own Custom, and to Conform to that of the Western Churches, had procured a large Epistle to be written to him by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in vindi∣cation thereof; took a resolution to drive Polycrates and the Asiatick Bishops out of their Churches, and sent every where Letters (says Eusebius) in which he declared them to be Excommunicated. Where∣upon the other Bishops, and even those that celebrated the Feast of Easter with those of the West, disapproved the proceedings of Victor, and wrote Letters to exhort him to take other Measures more conformable to Peace and Charity. But there was none that performed this with greater efficacy than S. Irenaeus, who wrote an Epistle to him under the name of the Church of France, wherein he de∣clares, that tho' he himself solemnized the Feast of Easter on the Lord's Day according to his manner, yet he could not approve of his undertaking to Excommunicate whole Churches for the observation of a Cu∣stom which they had received from their Ancestors. He advertiseth him, that different Customs have been used in Churches not only in the Celebration of the Festival of Easter, but also of Fasts, and in di∣vers other matters of practice. Lastly, he lays before him, that his Predecessors did not contend with the Asiatick Bishops in this matter; and that S. Polycarp being arrived at Rome, and having holden a Conference with Pope Anicetus touching this affair, they decreed, that mutual Communion and Peace ought not to be broken for a matter of so small importance. It is probable that Victor was convinced by these Reasons; for tho' the Asiaticks did not lay aside their Custom, yet it doth not appear that the Union between them and the Bishops of Rome was thereupon discontinued. This Epistle is pro∣duced by Eusebius, who affirms, that this Father wrote many others of the like nature to other Bishops.

To return to the Works of S. Irenaeus, besides those that we have already mentioned, he wrote a Treatise against the Gentiles very concise and extremely necessary, (says Eusebius) Entituled, Of Knowledge n 1.14, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as also another Tract which he wrote to Marcion, to shew what was the Doctrine that was Preached by the Apostles; and lastly, a Book containing several Dissertations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on different Subjects, wherein (according to the Testimony of Eusebius) he quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. These are all the Works of S. Irenaeus that Eusebius and S. Jerome mention o 1.15, but it is not known when these last were written.

The Death of S. Irenaeus was no less glorious than his Life; for after having governed the Flock which Jesus Christ had committed to his Charge for 24 years, he was not willing to abandon it in the time of the persecution of the Emperor Severus, which was much more cruel in France than in any other part of the World. He suffered Martyrdom at Lyons with all the Christians that were found in that City, and in so great numbers that their Blood ran down through all the Streets, according to the report of Gregory of Tours in the first Book of his History, Chap. 27. We have not any par∣ticular account of his Martyrdom, which happened in the year, 202, or 203, after the Nativity of Jesus Christ.

Of all the Works of this Father, there remains only in our possession a very barbarous Version of those against the Heresies, and some few Greek Fragments of these Books given us by Eusebius, Theodoret, S. Epiphanius, and S. Johannes Damascenus, which are collected in the last Edition of Feu∣ardentius, and in the Writings of Halloixius. There is also a Fragment of his Epistle to Florinus ex∣tant, and a considerable part of that to Victor, and an Advertisement which he had inserted at the end of his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to oblige the Transcribers thereof, faithfully to revise and correct their Copy from his Manuscript. The Version of the five Books concerning the Heresies, tho' Barbarous (as I have hinted already) and full of Faults, yet is a very valuable Fragment; for the Variety which is in it is admirable.

In the First Book, after having described at large the Errors of the Valentinians, in Chap. 1. He opposeth to them in the Second, the Faith of all the Churches in the World, which he comprehends in a kind of Creed; In the Third and fourth Chapters, he proceeds to shew that all the Churches and all Christians agree in this Faith, and that the most Learned cannot add any thing to it, or make any Alterations from it, nor the most simple and ignorant, diminish any part of it. The following Chapters are spent in explaining the absurd Notions of Valentinus and his Disciples. In the 20th he returns to the Source and Original of the Hereticks, and beginning with Simon Magus, he gives an Account successively of all the Heresies that appeared since the time of the Sorcerer, even unto that wherein he wrote. This first Book indeed is extremely tedious, being fill'd with almost nothing else but the wild Conceits, and extravagant Imaginations of the primitive Hereticks: There is a notable passage in it concerning Pennance, upon the occasion of certain Women, who being defiled by a famous Impostor named Mark, afterwards did Pennance, during the remainder of their Lives. In the Se∣cond Book, S. Irenaeus begins to impugn the Errors which he had barely recited in the First: He chiefly makes use of the Principles of the Hereticks in opposing them, and shews that they contradict themselves, and that all their Whimsies are ridiculous and ill laid together. In the Third Book he confutes them by the Authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition: He proves that it is impossible, that all the Churches in the World should agree together, to alter the Apostolical Doctrine; that the Evangelists and Apo∣stles knew but one only God, the Greator of Heaven and Earth, and one Iesus Christ God and Man, who was born of a Virgin, who is not the Son of Joseph, but was really Man, and that he actually suffered, and not in appearance only, as was pretended by the Hereticks. He occasionally refutes the Error of Tatian, concerning the Damnation of Adam, and maintains as a certain truth, that he is saved. In the Fourth Book he continues to demonstrate, that there is but one God; par∣ticularly, he shews against Marcion, that the same God is exhibited in the Old and New Testament; he Answers all the Objections of the Hereticks, and especially those which they took from Scripture; afterwards he alledgeth the Reasons that induce a spiritual Man, that is to say, a Christian, to con∣demn the Pagans, Jews, Hereticks, and Schismaticks. Lastly, he rejects the Opinion of those who affirmed, that Men were naturally good or evil, and proves the Liberty of Mankind. In the last Book, he Treats of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, of the Fall of Man, of the Resurrection of the last Judgment, of Anti-Christ, and of the State of Souls after Death. This is in General the Subject of every one of the Books of S. Irenaeus: and they that peruse them will find several other passages rela∣ting to some weighty Articles of our Religion.

There are for Example, many excellent Paragraphs concerning the Holy Scriptures, and among others, one in Book 2. Chap. 46, and 47. There are very considerable passages touching the Eucharist in Book 3. Chap. 19. Book 4. Chap. 32. and 34. and in Book 5. Chap. 4. Where he proves the Re∣surrection of the Body against the Valentinians, because it is not credible, that being nourished with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it should remain in Corruption: He mentions the Three Persons of the Trinity p 1.16. In many places of his Works, and almost as often as he speaks of the Word he establisheth his Divinity, Eternity q 1.17 and Equality with the Father r 1.18.

In the Second Book s 1.19, he Treats at large ••onccerning the Faculties of the Soul; he conceives that it is distinguished from the Body, and that it is of a different Nature; he there refu••es the Metempsy∣chosi••, or Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another, and proves that those of the just shall subsist Eternally. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s•…•…s to have believed, as well as S. Justin, that they are immortal only through Grace, and that those of the wicked shall cease to be, after they have been tormented for a long time. He maintains also another particular Opinion, that the Souls assume the Figure of their Bodies, but this word Figure may be understood of some peculiar Quality of the Soul.

He Discourseth in many places of the Fall of the first Man, and of the lamentable Consequences of his Sin t 1.20, he teacheth that to repair this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and for the Redemption of Mankind, the Word was made Man, and that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is through Grace, that he hath merited for us by his Passion, that all Men may be saved u 1.21. As for the State of Souls separated from their Bodies, he determined that they were conveyed into an invisible place, where they expected the Resurrection of the Body, and that the Just after having Re••gned with Jesus Christ on Earth, during the space of a Thousand years, and enjoyed temporal Pleasures, should enter into Heaven, to possess Eternal Happiness x 1.22. He imagined also, that our Saviou•• descended into Hell, to preach the Faith there into the Patriarchs, and to the ancient just Men, as well Jews as Gentiles, and that they that believed at his Preaching should be reckoned in the number of the Saints y 1.23. Moreover he maintained some other particular Opinions; he believed for Example, that Jesus Christ lived above Fifty years upon Earth z 1.24, and that as Man. He was ignorant of the Day of Judgment, &c. He approves the Judgment of S. Ju∣stin, that the Devil knew not his Condemnation before the coming of Jesus Christ aa 1.25. He asserts, that the Saints shall und••rst••nd by little and little, those things whereof they had no knowledge in their Entrance into Happiness bb 1.26. Lastly, he imagines that God sent Enoch to the Angels cc 1.27, whom he conceives to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c••rporeal. The ancient Propagators of Christianity ought to be excused for these sorts of Opinions, th•…•… being scarcely one of them that had not admitted some Notions almost like these.

The Style of S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (as far as we can judge by that part of his Works, which as yet remains) is succinct, clear and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but not very sublime: He declares himself in his Preface to the First Book: That the Elegancy of a po••••e Dissertation ought not to be sought for in his Works, because residing among the Celtae, it is impossible but that he should ••nter many barbarous Words; that he did not affect Discourse with Eloquence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ornament, and that he knew not how to perswade by the force of his Expres∣sions, but that he wrote with a vulgar Simplicity. He takes more pains to instruct his Reader, than to divert him, and he endeavours more to convince him by the Matters which he propounded, than by the manner of Expressing them. It cannot be doubted, but that he was a very profound Scho∣lar in all sorts of Knowledge, as well prophane as Sacred; he perfectly understood the Poets, and Philosophers dd 1.28; there was no Heretick of whose Doctrine and Arguments he was ignorant, he had an exquisite knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; he retained an infinite number of things, which the Disciples of the Apostles had taught by word of mouth: Lastly, he was exceeding well versed in History and in the Discipline of the Church, so that nothing can be more literally true, than what is attested of him by Ter••dlian, Irenaeus ••••••niu•• Doctrinarum Cariosissimus explorator. Moreover his Learning was accompanied with a great deal of Prudence, Humility, Efficacy and Charity, and it may be justly affirmed, that he wanted nothing that was necessary for the Qualification of a good Christian, an Accomplished Bishop, and an able Ecclesiastical Writer. However, the Learned Photius had reason to take notice of one defect, which is common to him, with many other ancient Authors; that is, That he weakens and obscures (if we may so term it) the most certain Truths of Religion, by Arguments that are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very solid ee 1.29. It were easie to produce some Instances of this defect, but it seems to me to be more expedient to leave them to the Judgment of the Readers of his Works.

Erasmus first published the ancient Version of the Five Books of S. Irenaeus, which was at first Printed at Basil, in the Year 1526. A Second Edition was likewise set forth at the same place by Fro∣benius in 1528. afterwards in 1533, 1545, 1548, 1554, 1560, in Folio, and in 1571. at Paris in 1528, and 1563. in Octavo by Petit, in a very fair Character, and by the same Printer in 1567, again in

Octavo. These Editions were followed by those of Gallasius Minister of Geneva, in the Year 1570.

Lastly, Feuardentius a Professor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, a Learned Man in his time undertook this Work, and Printed at Paris by Nivellae, in 1575 and 1576, the Five Books of S. Ire∣naeus, Revised and Corrected in many places, from an ancient Manuscript, and Augmented with Five entire Chapters, which were found in his Manuscript at the end of the Fifth Book. He has ad∣ded at the end of every Chapter several Notes, which he judged to be necessary for the better under∣standing of this Author; they are for the most part useful and Learned, but there are some which exceed the due Limits, that a Commentator should prescribe to himself, whose Design ought not to be, to make Ostentation of his Learning, or to Treat of matters of Controversie, but barely to ex∣plain the Sense of his Author. The second Edition of Feu••rdentius, Printed at Colen in the Year 1596, and afterwards in 1630, and at Paris in 1639. is better than the former, because it contains the Greek passages of S. Irenaeus, which are extant in the Works of S. Epiphanius, and some other ancient Writers. To these may be added, those that are Collected by Halloixius from the Writings of S. Jo∣annes Damascenus, in a Manuscript of the Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld. I am of Opinion, that it would be useless to make a new Edition of the Works of S. Irenaeus, at least until the Greek Text shall happen to be found; for to Compose one from the Version, that we now have in our Possession (as Halloixius proposes) would be a Business scarce of any manner of use.

Notes

• a 1.1

  That he was a Greek.] Galesinius and some o∣ther Authors tells us, that he was of Smyrna, but this is barely a Conjecture: 'Tis certain, he was a Greek, and in all probability of Asia.
• b 1.2

  He was at first Educated in the Christian Reli∣gion] He always speaks of the Christian Religion, as if he had never been of any other, and he no where takes notice, that he had ever been a Heathen. Be∣sides it is certain that he was a Christian, and a Di∣sciple of S. Polycarp from his tender years, as he him∣self testifies in his Letter to Florinus, as it is cited by Eusebius, Lib. 5. c. 20. I have seen you, says he, when I was as yet but a Child in Asia with S. Polycarp, I remember it very well because we best retain what we have seen in our Youth, so that I can tell, what kind of a place it was where S. Polycarp lived, what Discourses ••e held, and after what manner he lived. And in the Third Book against Heresies, Ch. 3. Poly∣carp••s ••ut•••••• constitu•••••• ab Apostolis Smyr••is i•• Asiâ Episc••p••••, quem & nostr•• pri••â ••••••te vidimus, mul∣tum enim 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & ••aldè s••••••x▪ Gl••••io••issim••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 N••bilissim•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faci••••s ex••vit è vitâ▪ Which clearly Demonstrates that S. Irenaeus was very young, when he used to go to S. Polycarp, and that on the other hand, S. Polycarp was extreamly old.
• * 1.3

  S. Irenaeus.
• c 1.4

  The Year of our Lord, 140.] 'Tis commonly believed, that he was born towards the end of Tra∣jan's Reign, or in the beginning of Adrian's. But this does not agree with what we have observed con∣cerning him, by which it unde••••ably appears, that he only knew S. Polycarp in his old Age, when he him∣self was e••••eeding young: Besides, S. Ir••naeus lived till the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 202, or 203, wherein he suffered Mar∣••yrdo••, and that he had Strength and Vigor enough still 〈◊〉〈◊〉 under the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Eleutherus, towards the Year of our Lord 178. And this abundantly dis∣covers the Error of those Persons, who have imagi∣ned, that Irenaeus was the Angel of Thyatira, of whom mention is made in the ▪Apocalypse. 'Tis certain, that Book was writ before his Birth, for in his Fifth Book speaking of the Revelations; It is not very long, says he, since it has appeared in the World, almost in our own time, at the end of Dom••i••••'s▪ Reign.

  [Mr. Dodwel has fixed the time when S▪ Irenaeus lived▪ in his Third Dissertation▪ upon this Fathe••▪ in this manner. Irenaeus speaking of S. John's Revelation says (Lib. 5. cap. 30.) Nequ•• enim ante 〈◊〉〈◊〉 t••m∣poris visum est, sed pe••e sub n••stro Seculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii: So that the la••••er end of the Reign of the Emperor Domitian, was very near the time when S. Irenaeus lived. Whence it must follow▪ that he was alive at least under the former part of Tra∣jan's Government. But then the words, Sub nostro seculo, are not so easie; because S••••ulum at that time signified as often the time of the present Emperors Government as any thing else. Irenaeus says also, that when he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he heard S. Polycarp at Smyrna; when he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now S. Po∣lycarp was an old Man in the beginning of Hadrian's Reign, to which time Irenaeus being his Disciple must be referred: For S. Irenaeus in his Letter to Florinus, says, that he saw him when himself was very Young, making a very splendid Figure in the Emperor's Court. Now this can agree to none but Hadrian; who often went about his Empire, staying long in se∣veral places, where their Antiquities and Histories could afford him Entertainment. This of necessity must be about the Year CXXII▪ since no other time can be Assigned in Hadrian's Reign for such a Journey.

  As for the time of his Death it must be carried as much higher as that of his Birth. The common O∣pinion is, that he suffered in the Persecution which Severus raised in Gaul, after he had Conquered Albi∣nus. But that is inconsistent with it self; and it is no ways probable, that Severus should raise Persecu∣tion against those Men, for favouring Alb••••••••••, who as Tertullian assures 〈◊〉〈◊〉, made it a great part of their Justification, that in all these Civil Wars they had ne∣ver declared themselves of any one Faction against the Emperor Severus; and this he appeals to as a thing notoriously known. Besides none of the Ancients within 300 Years of Irenaeus ever mention his being a Martyr, a thing never omitted in those Primitive times, whenever they had just grounds to give a Title, which of all others they thought the most Honoura∣ble. It is plain by the Controversies concerning Easter, and his Letter to Florinus, that he lived to Commo∣du••'•• time. And if he were 25 years old, when he ••aw Florinus at Smyrna about the Year CXXII, he must have been born near or in the Year XCVII. In the Year CLXXXII (the 3d. of Commodus) he wrote against Blastus and Florinus, when by this Ac∣count he himself was 85 years old. The last Contro∣versies concerning the time of observing Easter were in the Year CLXXXIX, in the 10th year of Commodus, when we are sure that S. Irenaeus was alive, because his Opinon▪ was appealed to, and he gave it so ••o∣lemnly as to put an end to their Differences. Then he was by the former Account, in the XCII Year of his Age: After that we have no Memorials, either how long he lived, or what he did.]
• d 1.5

  S. ••erome▪] Ep. 29. ad Theodorum. Refert Irenaeus, vir Apostolicorum temporum, & Papiae au∣ditoris Johannis Evangelistae discipulus.
• e 1.6

  Who had beheld the Successors of the Apostles.] Lib. 4. c. 45. Quemadmodum audivi à Presbytero, qui audierat ab his, qui Apostolos viderant, c. 47. valdè i••sensatos ••stend••bat Presbyter eos. Item c. 49. 50, 52. and Lib. 5. c. 5. and cap. 17. he cites Papias by Name, Lib. 5. c. 33.
• f 1.7

  He went into France.] Gregory of Tours writes, that he was sent thither by S. Polycarp. We don't certainly know what Year, though 'tis probable he did not stay long in Asia.
• g 1.8

  By Pothinus.] Halloixius was of Opinion, that he was ordained Presbyter by S. Polycarp. But there is more Reason to induce u•• to believe, that he was ordained by Pothinus, and therefore S. Jerome calls him the Presbyter of Pothinus.
• h 1.9

  At his return from a Voyage that he made to Rome.] 'Tis certain, that the Martyrs had resolved to send him to Rome to carry their Letter, but we can't certainly tell, whether he went thither or no. Valesius thinks, that though they intended to send him, yet Pothinus's Death preventing him, he was de∣tained there to be his Successor, and so never went to Rome at all. Baronius and Petavius say, that he went to Rome, and that he was not ordained till after his Return. They have the Authority of S. Jerome to support them, who says the same thing in his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the following words. Irenaeus, Pothini Episcopi qui Lugdunensem in Gal∣liâ regebat Ecclesiam Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob quasdem Ecclesiae quaestiones r••gatus Roma•••• Missus, honorificas super nomine suo ad Eleutherum perfert literas, posteà tum Pothino prop•• Nonagenario Martyrio Coronato in locum ejus substituitur. Eusebius also seems to be of the same Opinion, since he menti∣ons a Letter wherein it is said, that he was sent to Rome, without telling us, that his Journey was stopt by the Death of Pothinus. The Conjecture of Valesius is only founded upon the Improbability of the thing, that they would send S. Irenaeus, who was the chief and the best known Member of the Church of Lyons, and who besides was to succeed Pothinus; at a time when that Church stood so much in need of his Assistance▪ But besides that in a Question of Fact, as this is, a Conjecture of this Nature is of little Consequence, so it may be replyed, that he was sent at the beginning of the Persecution, and that he returned before the Death of Pothinus. Feuardentius imagines, that S. I∣renaeus carried Letters also into Asia and Phrygi••▪ which the same Martyrs wrote to their Brethren in those Churches about the same Subject, but this is ve∣ry improbable, and there is nothing in Eusebius to induce us to believe it. All that we Read there, a∣mounts only to this, that the Churches of Vienna and Lyons, after the Death of Pothinus, and the other Martyrs, wrote a long Letter (which in all probabili∣ty was Composed by S. Irenaeus) to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, cited by Eusebius towards the end of which, They passed their Censure upon the Monta∣nists, with a great deal of Piety and Devotion, set∣ting before them (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the Letters which their Martyrs had written, while they were as yet in Chains, as well to the Brethren of Asia and Phrygia, ••s to Eleutherus Bishop of Rome. But he does not say, that those first Letters to the Brethren of Asia and Phrygia, were carried by S. Irenaeus, nor that they were sent at all, till the Letter concerning their Mar∣tyrdom was writ, and it seems to be very improbable that they would send them the second time, if they had been carried thither once before▪ As for what relates to the Ordination of S. Irenaeus it is cer∣tain, that he was only a Presbyter, when he went to Rome, and this appears by the Letter of the Martyrs by Eusebius, and S. Jerome. It is more difficult to know, who ordained him afterwards. Father Ques∣nel in his Dissertations upon S. Leo, pretends that he was ordained by the Pope, and that he went purpose∣ly to Rome upon that Account, others believe that he came back before the Death of Pothinus, and was or∣dained by him. It is more natural and more agree∣able to the Testimony of the Ancients to believe that he was not Elected, and ordained Bishop of Ly••ns, till after the Death of Pothinus; and whereas Father Quesnel pretends, that at that time there was only one Bishop of France, and therefore it was necessary for S. Irenaeus after the Death of Pothinus to go and be ordained at Rome, all this is precarious, and the rather, because it appears that S. Irenaeus was sent thither while Pothinus was living, and upon another occasion.
• i 1.10

  'Twas upon this Account.] He himself tells us in his Preface to the fifth Book, that he Composed these Books to convert the Hereticks, and to preserve the Novices in the Faith, left they should be l•••• aside by those, who would use their utmost Endeavours to pervert them, and sedúce them from the Truth.
• k 1.11

  In Greek.] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 having ••ound this ancient and ••ar••arous Version, a•• first imagined, that these Books were Originally written in Latin, but after∣wards he altered his Opinion, and no body doubts at present, but that they were written in Greek. For first S. Jerome places S. Irenaeus amongst the Greek Authors. Secondly, Eusebius S. Epiphanius, Theodo∣ret, Photius and S. John Damascene, read and quoted him in Greek. Thirdly, This Author was less known to the Latins, than to the Greeks; and Lastly, speak∣ing of the number of the Letters, and the Name of Anti-Christ, Lib. 5. he says several things that could not be said but by an Author that wrote in Greek. We don't know who made this Version; some have attributed it to himself, but this is a foolish Chime∣ra; it was certainly Composed by a Man that under∣stood neither Language as he ought. It was not known in the time of Gregory the Great, who in his 50th Letter to Aetherius tells him, that he had search∣ed a long time after the Writings of S. Irenaeus, with∣out being able to find them. Gesta vel script•• B. Ire∣naei jamdiu est quod sollici••è quae••••oimus, sed hactenus ex eis invenire aliquid non valui. S. Austin ci••es a passage out of S. Irenaeus, Lib. 1. contra Jul. cap. 3. which is of another Version.
• l 1.12

  Eleutherus.] This appears, because in his Cata∣logue of the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter down to his own time, he ends with Eleutherus, who, he says, was then living. Nunc duodecimo loc•• Episcopatum ab Apostolis sortitur Eleutherus, Lib. 3. c. 3.
• m 1.13

  Bearing this Title, &c.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eusebius, Pho∣tius, and others. This agrees with the name which he has given his Books in his Prefaces to Lib. 2, 3, and 4. and in the last Chapter of the 4th as well as the first of the fifth. The Hereticks of those times called their knowledge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and themselves Gnosticks, which was also the name of a particular Sect.
• n 1.14

  Of Knowledge.] St. Jerome distinguisheth this Treatise of Knowledge from that against the Gen∣tiles, for want of having sufficiently minded a pas∣sage in Eusebius, Lib. 5. c. 26.
• o 1.15

  That Eusebius and S. Jerome mention.] S. Je∣rome speaking of the Apocalypse of S. John tells us, that S. Justin and S. Irenaeus have interpreted it, from whence some conclude, that S. Irenaeus composed a Commentary upon it. But S. Jerome's true meaning is, that these two Authors cited and explained some passages of it. Some Authors formerly attributed to him the Book De Universo, which was composed by Caius a Presbyter of Rome, mentioned by Photius, Cod. 48. The Author of the Questions attributed to S. Justin, cites a Book about Easter, Quest. 115 and tells us, that there was an Account, that they did not pray kneeling on Sundays, and that there was menti∣on made of the Pentecost, all which perhaps might be found in the intire Letter of S. Irenaeus to Polycarp, of which Eusebius has only given us a fragment. Eu∣sebius in his fourth Book, ch. 25. speaking of the Book of Philip against Marcion, tells us, that S. Irenaeus and Modestus had likewise wrote against the same Heretick. S. Irenaeus himself, lib. 1. c. 29. promises to write par∣ticularly against that Heretick. We are not assured whether he ever did write against him or no, because neither S. Jerome, nor Eusebius, who have given us a Catalogue of all the Books of S. Irenaeus, mention it. 'Tis probable, that the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons concerning their Martyrs was writ by S. Irenaeus.
• p 1.16

  Of the Trinity.] Lib. 1. c. 2. lib. 3. c. 20. lib. 4. c. 25, 37, and 75. and lib. 5.
• q 1.17

  His Divinity and Eternity.] Lib. 1. c. 19. lib. 2. c. 18, and 48. lib. 3. c. 6. In all these places, and se∣veral others, he says, that the Word is truly God. Lib. 2. c. 43, and 56. and lib. 3. c. 20. he says, that the Word is, and was always co-existent with the Father.
• r 1.18

  And his equality with the Father.] In the fourth Book, ch. 8. he says, that the Son is the measure of the Father, because he comprehends him. He seems to have said something contrary to this lib. 2. where he says, that the Father is greater than the Son, that he knew not of the day of Judgment; And in another place he says, that the Father is invisible and the Son visible. But as to the first passage, there is no more difficulty in it than in that of S. John, and he speaks there of Jesus Christ considered as a Man. And the second ought to be understood after the same manner, as we have explained a like passage of S. Justin. It is yet more favourable to us, because he says that the Son makes the Father visible, Visibile Patris Filius. Which shews, that the Father and the Son are of the same nature.
• s 1.19

  In the second Book.] Lib. 2. c. 51, &c. princi∣pally in the 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64. where he speaks of the Immortality of the Souls of the Just. See likewise Chap. 37. and 73. of the fourth Book, and Lib. 5. c. 32.
• t 1.20

  Of the lamentable consequences of his Sin.] Lib. 3. c. 20, 33, 34, and 35. and in several places of the fifth Book.
• u 1.21

  That all Men may be saved.] Lib. 3. cap. 18, 20, 22, and 33. Lib. 4. chap. 5.
• x 1.22

  To possess eternal happiness.] Lib. 5. c. 31, 32, &c.
• y 1.23

  Number of the Saints.] Lib. 4. c. 39, and 45.
• z 1.24

  Above fifty years upon Earth.] Lib. 1. c. 40. &c.
• aa 1.25

  Before the coming of Jesus Christ.] Lib. 4. c. 78.
• bb 1.26

  Whereof they had no knowledge in their En∣trance into happiness.] Lib. 2. c. 47.
• cc 1.27

  To the Angels.] Lib. 4. c. 30.
• dd 1.28

  The Poets and Philosophers.] It is certain, he understood Homer very well, since he collects several Verses taken out of different places, to describe the carrying away of Cerberus, lib. 1. And as for the Pagan Philosophers, he knew them so very thorough∣ly, that in the second Book, ch. 11. he discovers all that the Valentinians had borrowed from each of them. We need only read over his first Book to be sufficiently persuaded, that he had very particularly applied himself to know all the Opinions of the He∣reticks. One sees by the Histories which he cites as well in his Books, as in his Letter to Victor, how well he was verst in History, and in the Discipline of th•• Church.
• ee 1.29

  Arguments that are not very solid.] Phot. God, 120. Etsi in aliquibus Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum certa veritas spuritis rationibus fuscari videtur.