PREFACE.

much is owed to the man, for he was the first to bring the books of Irenaeus to light; yet it is a pity that he could not provide more, being deprived of better manuscripts. His edition is so full of errors, gaps, and corrupted sentences that one often looks for Irenaeus within Irenaeus himself, and it is difficult to follow his meaning. The second edition was handled by Nicolas des Gallars Latin: Gallasius, a Calvinist minister of Geneva, who published it in Geneva in the year 1570. But although he says that the errors were corrected by him through a comparison of copies, since the same errors occur as in Erasmus, it is plain that no manuscript codices were consulted. Only new brief summaries of chapters were added to the old ones, and Greek passages which Epiphanius transcribed from Irenaeus were inserted, with a new Latin interpretation, and that one not very accurate. Hence, as it seems, the plan of Gallars was not so much that Irenaeus should come forth more polished and corrected, but rather that the opinion of the most holy man might be trapped by long notes from Calvinist doctrine, and the reluctant conqueror of ancient heresies might be dragged toward a new one, or torn apart with insults. Gallars was followed by Johann Jakob Grynaeus of the same sect, who provided a new edition of the books of Irenaeus at Basel in the year 1571, differing nothing from the preceding ones; except that he rashly removed the ancient Latin interpretation of the first chapters of the first book, which Epiphanius reports in Greek, to substitute the version of Janus Cornarius, omitting the Greek text; and he placed new arguments at the start of individual chapters, while keeping the old division. More corrected than all these was the edition which came forth through the work and study of François Feuardent, of the Order of Friars Minor, Doctor in the Sacred Faculty of Paris, at Cologne in the year 1596, and was frequently reprinted there and in Paris thereafter. For the edition that had appeared from the presses of Nivelle in 1575 and 1576 was not yet sufficiently purged of the faults of previous editions. For besides the fact that he restored the Latin text in many places compared against the authority of the Vatican manuscript and another old manuscript of excellent quality, he filled in gaps and increased the work by adding the last five chapters of the fifth book, which had been missing until then. He also added the first eighteen chapters of the first book, once described in Greek from Irenaeus by Epiphanius, and a significant abundance of other Greek fragments rescued from various authors, alongside the Latin words, adding also the most learned observations of Jacques de Billy and Fronton du Duc. But although more perfect than the previous ones, even the Feuardent edition was not finished in every detail: indeed, it suffers from not a few or light faults. To say nothing of the notes—learned indeed, as that age usually allowed, but too long and wandering too far from the purpose, and contributing nothing or very little to the clarification of the text—he restored it in many places unsuccessfully, explained it even more unsuccessfully, and in many places did not even try what he could do. Thus, after the cares of Feuardent, six hundred things remained to which a healing hand needed to be applied. Many of these he could have corrected with easy effort if he had consulted the manuscript codices he used a little more attentively. I omit the aids missing from that edition by which the reader's labor might be lessened and a way paved for him to more easily investigate and grasp the author's meaning.

Finally, in the year 1702 at Oxford in England, a new, more accurate and elegant edition of the works of Irenaeus appeared, by the study and labor of the most celebrated John Ernest Grabe, illustrated with his own notes and those of others, and enriched with new fragments. We can neither hide nor do we wish to hide that we have often profited from his labors. This edition is recommended by the elegance of the printing, a not-indiligence care in searching out and collecting new Greek fragments, and happy conjecture in correcting several places. But every one will recognize that the same thing happened to this famous man which displeased the learned in Feuardent and Gallars. For following their example, although he had often seen and approved better things, he nevertheless followed the worse, embracing faulty or less sound readings, while rejecting the obvious and natural ones into the margin. He did not even attempt to fix, or did so quite unsuccessfully, far more places that were manifest corruptions than he actually corrected. Imitating Gallars, while he studied more zealously the Church of England, to which he joined himself, his primary care seems to have been to join Irenaeus to the Anglican sect, even against his will and reluctantly, rather than to give a more chastened and corrected work. Hence arises the tedious length of so many notes, so that they distort even the most trivial words, very often contributing nothing to the matter. In other places he is more sparing, filling the bottom margins with the notes of Feuardent and others, adopted with no selection and contributing nothing to the understanding of the text. His own notes, if there are any, though learned, since that store of learning contributes little to illustrating the author's meaning, he increased greatly with little benefit to the readers. I will remain silent here—for I shall explain it more conveniently in the second Dissertation—about how the most famous Grabe increased the confusion rather than diminishing it in the Oxford edition. While keeping the old division of chapters (which is much more recent than Irenaeus and altogether inept), he sometimes removed, transferred, or cut up the headings at his own whim. Frequently he heaped several together at once, not without the loss of several chapters already stripped of their headings, or repeated the same ones twice or thrice. Furthermore, the Greek fragments are indeed inserted opportunely in their places, but arranged so inconveniently that the eyes of readers are held in a perpetual circuit wandering through the pages, often uncertain where they should be carried. But this is perhaps the fault of the printers, to whom we must also impute the fact that there is such a scarcity of that edition in overseas regions that since it could only be obtained with the greatest difficulty and at a higher price, booksellers in Paris and Amsterdam were contemplating putting it under their own presses.

Therefore, it seemed to men conspicuous for their learning and piety that a new edition of Irenaeus was not only useful but necessary, one which would be both more accurate and could be read by Catholics without stumbling. They desired that this labor be undertaken by someone from among us; thinking, of course, and not without merit, that Irenaeus—that Apostolic man, As in Theodoret, Dialogue 1, page 33. the light of the Western Gauls, as Theodoret calls him, and a writer of such authority—deserved no less than the others that our industry be employed in an accurate edition of his works. And what has been provided with no regrettable success in other editions that have come forth from our Congregation, we should try to provide in this one too, which is no less laborious than necessary. Therefore, that burden was imposed on me, which I long declined but finally undertook. What I have tried to provide, however, must be explained in a few words. I decided that three things principally must be provided by me: to correct the text and restore it to its pristine beauty, as far as possible; to illustrate the same; and finally to prepare all those aids for readers by which their labor might be lessened. Regarding the first, since the Greek text of Irenaeus has mostly perished long ago through the injury of time, and almost only the Latin remains, now like an archetype; I have brought all my cares to this, so that it might come forth as corrected as possible, wiped clean of the blemishes caused by the fault of unskilled copyists. I have most attentively examined this against three new manuscript codices, reviewed by no one until now. The first, obtained from the library of the Clermont College of the Society of Jesus, was provided for my use by the most learned man, whose kindness I can never sufficiently praise, the Reverend Father Jean Hardouin, prefect of that same library. That codex is of the best quality, and since it was written at least 800 years ago, according to the testimony of the most learned Dom Jean Mabillon of pious memory—the most skilled judge, if ever there was one, of such things—it seems the oldest of all those upon which previous editions were made. Yet it is mutilated; for several of the last leaves having been torn away, the fifth book remains shortened by almost the last ten chapters. Whether this happened by chance, or by the improvident zeal of some half-learned person (who perhaps disliked the error of the Millenarians A belief in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth, which Irenaeus supported but which later became controversial. defended by Irenaeus), is obscure. It is certain that the codex was once complete; since part of the twenty-sixth chapter still remains. The rest from then until the end of the book have perished. Hence it seems manifest that the Clermont codex is different from the Feuardent one; for the latter was complete, but the former much more corrected. I received the variant readings of another codex for the whole of the first book and the first eight chapters of the second book, described by the hand of Passerat on the margin of one copy of the Erasmus edition, from a friend of mine, one of the Reverend Dominican Fathers of the street of Saint Honoré in this city. I have no room to doubt, nor will others who compare them with the readings of praised codices, that they were excerpted from a manuscript codex, and an ancient one of good quality, different from the Feuardent, Clermont, and Vossian codices. Who that codex is, and where it may now be hiding, I have not yet been able to discover. I would not regret its loss so much if Passerat had continued to note the rest of the variant readings on the margin of his book. The third codex which I used, recent and made of paper, does not exceed four hundred years, nor does it contain the last five chapters of the fifth book. It is kept at Rome in the library of the most Eminent Cardinal Ottoboni. Indeed, that best of men, and one who has deserved so well of literature, Dom Bianchini, out of his singular kindness toward us, communicated it with the Reverend Fathers Dom Guillaume La Parre, Procurator General of our Congregation in the Roman Curia, and his associate Dom Claude de Vic, who out of their benevolence deigned to transcribe its variant readings and transmit them to me.

As an aid, those codices were added which both François Feuardent and the most famous John Ernest Grabe used in preparing their editions, whose variant readings they recorded with not-indiligent care (especially Grabe) on the margin of their editions. And indeed, we sought in vain for that ancient one which Feuardent used, and could not know whether it has perished or lies hidden in the shelves of some library. There are those who think it came into the hands of Vossius: but to someone comparing the readings of both, it will immediately appear that they are different. Latinus Latinius cites another codex kept in the Vatican Library, various—