Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus

Irenaeus of Lyons

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus

About this work

Passages preserved from works of Irenaeus now otherwise lost, touching biblical interpretation, theological controversy, church teaching, and traditions remembered by later Christian writers across several sources.

Author: Irenaeus of Lyons
Date: Late 2nd century
Origin: Lyons, Gaul
Genre: Fragments

Individual fragments differ in provenance and certainty of attribution.

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus

I.

I adjure thee, who shalt transcribe

Opening the library…

These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church’s pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in—his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God’s mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God’s grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: “O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things?” And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.

handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which thou dost now rule—I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus—did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.

of God to the man given to him alone, and in secret, not even the woman herself being aware of it? Why also did it not prefer to make its attack upon the man instead of the woman? And if thou sayest that it attacked her as being the weaker of the two, [I reply that], on the contrary, she was the stronger, since she appears to have been the helper of the man in the transgression of the commandment. For she did by herself alone resist the serpent, and it was after holding out for a while and making opposition that she ate of the tree, being circumvented by craft; whereas Adam, making no fight whatever, nor refusal, partook of the fruit handed to him by the woman, which is an indication of the utmost imbecility and effeminacy of mind. And the woman indeed, having been vanquished in the contest by a demon, is deserving of pardon; but Adam shall deserve none, for he was worsted by a woman,—he who, in his own person, had received the command from God. But the woman, having heard of the command from Adam, treated it with contempt, either because she deemed it unworthy of God to speak by means of it, or because she had her doubts, perhaps even held the opinion that the command was given to her by Adam of his own accord. The serpent found her working alone, so that he was enabled to confer with her apart. Observing her then either eating or not eating from the trees, he put before her the fruit of the [forbidden] tree. And if he saw her eating, it is manifest that she was partaker of a body subject to corruption. “For everything going in at the mouth, is cast out into the draught.” If then corruptible, it is obvious that she was also mortal. But if mortal, then there was certainly no curse; nor was that a [condemnatory] sentence, when the voice of God spake to the man, “For earth thou art, and unto earth shall thou return,” as the true course of things proceeds [now and always]. Then again, if the serpent observed the woman not eating, how did he induce her to eat who never had eaten? And who pointed out to this accursed man-slaying serpent that the sentence of death pronounced against them by God would not take [immediate] effect, when He said, “For in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die?” And not this merely, but that along with the impunity [attending their sin] the eyes of those should be opened who had not seen until then? But with the opening [of their eyes] referred to, they made entrance upon the path of death.

Notes

1
This fragment is quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 20. It occurred at the close of the lost treatise of Irenæus entitled De Ogdoade.
2
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.
3
Comp. p. 32, this volume, and Phil. iv. 22.
4
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).
5
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 feast preceding it.
6
Both reading and punctuation are here subjects of controversy. We have followed Massuet and Harvey.
7
“The observance of a day, though not everywhere the same, showed unity, so far as faith in the Lord’s resurrection was concerned.”—Harvey.
8
Following the reading of Rufinus, the ordinary text has μετ’ αὐτούς, i.e., after them.
9
This practice was afterwards forbidden by the Council of Laodicea [held about a.d. 360].
10
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.
11
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.
12
One of the mss. reads here τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God.
13
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.
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
Ps. cxxx. 7.
19
This sentence in the original seems incomplete; we have followed the conjectural restoration of Harvey.
20
“This extract is found in Œcumenius upon 1 Pet. c. iii. p. 198; and the words used by him indicate, as Grabe has justly observed, that he only condensed a longer passage.”—Harvey.
21
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.
22
Matt. xv. 17.
23
Gen. iii. 19.
24
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.
25
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.
26
Num. xxiv. 23.
27
Isa. ix. 1.
28
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.”
29
See Judg. vi. 27. It is not very clear how Irenæus makes out this allegory, but it is thought that he refers to the initial letter in the name ᾽Ιησοῦς, which stands for ten in the Greek enumeration. Compare the Epistle of Barnabas, cap. ix. p. 143, of this volume.
30
Num. xxvii. 18.
31
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.
32
Josh. v. 12.
33
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.
34
Num. xxvii. 23.
35
Num. xxvii. 20.
36
Num. xxii. 12.
37
The conjectural emendation of Harvey has been adopted here, but the text is very corrupt and uncertain.
38
Num. xxii. 22, 23.
39
From one of the mss. Stieren would insert ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι, in His own body; see 1 Pet. ii. 24.
40
Num. xxiii. 19.
41
Num. xxxi. 3.
42
Num. xxxi. 16.
43
Num. xxxi. 8.
44
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.
45
Lev. xxvi. 12.
46
Judg. xvi. 26.
47
2 Kings vi. 6. Comp. book v. chap. xvii. 4.
48
Matt. xxvii. 52.
49
Edited by P. Possin, in a Catena Patrum on St. Matthew. See book iii. chap. xi. 8.
51
Matt. iii. 10.
52
First edited in Latin by Corderius, afterwards in Greek by Grabe, and also by Dr. Cramer in his Catena on St. Luke.
54
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” (Acts vii. 22).
55
Num. xii. 1, etc.
56
Num. xii. 14.
57
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.
58
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.
59
2 Kings v. 14.
60
John iii. 5.
61
2 Kings xiii. 21.
62
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.]
63
1 Cor. ii. 14.
64
1 Pet. ii. 3.
65
1 Tim. vi. 4, 5.
66
Col. ii. 18.
67
Rom. x. 8; Deut. xxx. 14.
68
Phil. iii. 10.
69
Harvey’s conjectural emendation, ἐπιπλοκὴ for ἐπιλογὴ, has been adopted here.
70
Jude 3.
71
1 Tim. i. 4.
72
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.”
73
Mal. i. 11.
74
Rev. v. 8. The same view of the eucharistic oblation, etc., is found in book iv. chap. xvii.: as also in Justin Martyr; see Trypho, cap. xli. supra in this volume.
75
Rom. xii. 1.
76
Heb. xiii. 15.
77
Col. ii. 14.
78
John iv. 24.
79
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.
80
Taken apparently from the Epistle to Blastus, de Schismate. Compare a similar passage, lib. iv. chap. xxxiii. 7.
81
Col. ii. 16.
82
Isa. i. 14.
83
“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.
84
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.
85
Judg. xv. 15.
86
Judg. xiv. 6–19.
87
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
88
These words were evidently written during a season of persecution in Gaul; but what that persecution was, it is useless to conjecture.
89
Judg. xv. 11.
90
That is, when he fled to the rock Etam, he typified the true believer taking refuge in the spiritual Rock, Christ.
91
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.
92
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.
93
With the exception of the initial text, this fragment is almost identical with No. xxv.
94
Num. xxxi. 8.
95
Rev. ii. 14.
96
From the Catena on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, edited by Dr. Cramer, and reprinted by Stieren.
97
2 Cor. iv. 4.
98
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.
99
John v. 35.

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus

I.

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

XXVII.

XXVIII.

XXIX.

XXX.

XXXI.

XXXII.

XXXIII.

XXXIV.

XXXV.

XXXVI.

XXXVII.

XXXVIII.

XXXIX.

XL.

XLI.

XLII.

XLIII.

XLIV.

XLV.

XLVI.

XLVII.

XLVIII.

Notes