਀㰀栀㄀㸀䘀爀愀最洀攀渀琀猀 漀昀 䤀爀攀渀愀攀甀猀 椀渀 䔀甀猀攀戀椀甀猀㰀⼀栀㄀㸀

਀吀栀攀 昀漀氀氀漀眀椀渀最 猀攀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀 愀爀攀 攀砀挀攀爀瀀琀攀搀 昀爀漀洀 䬀椀爀猀漀瀀瀀 䰀愀欀攀 椀渀 㰀椀㸀吀栀攀 䔀挀挀氀攀猀椀愀猀琀椀挀愀氀 䠀椀猀琀漀爀礀㰀⼀椀㸀 ⠀䌀愀洀戀爀椀搀最攀㨀 䠀愀爀瘀愀爀搀 唀渀椀瘀攀爀猀椀琀礀 倀爀攀猀猀 ㄀㤀㈀㘀⤀Ⰰ 瘀漀氀甀洀攀 漀渀攀⸀  䤀昀 礀漀甀 挀愀渀渀漀琀 爀攀愀搀 琀栀攀 䜀爀攀攀欀 氀攀琀琀攀爀猀Ⰰ 琀栀攀渀 氀漀漀欀 愀琀 洀礀 㰀愀 栀爀攀昀㴀∀⸀⸀⼀甀渀椀挀漀搀攀⸀栀琀洀氀∀㸀唀渀椀挀漀搀攀㰀⼀愀㸀 眀攀戀 瀀愀最攀 昀漀爀 椀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀漀渀 漀渀 椀渀猀琀愀氀氀椀渀最 琀栀攀 挀漀爀爀攀挀琀 昀漀渀琀⸀

਀㰀栀爀㸀

਀㰀戀㸀㰀椀㸀䔀挀挀氀攀猀椀愀猀琀椀挀愀氀 䠀椀猀琀漀爀礀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 嘀⸀ 堀堀⸀㰀⼀戀㸀 ⠀瀀瀀⸀ 㐀㤀㔀ⴀ㐀㤀㤀⤀

਀䤀渀 漀瀀瀀漀猀椀琀椀漀渀 琀漀 琀栀漀猀攀 椀渀 刀漀洀攀 眀栀漀 眀攀爀攀 搀椀猀挀愀爀搀椀渀最 琀栀攀 猀漀甀渀搀 漀爀搀椀渀愀渀挀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 挀栀甀爀挀栀Ⰰ 䤀爀攀渀愀攀甀猀 挀漀洀瀀漀猀攀搀 瘀愀爀椀漀甀猀 氀攀琀琀攀爀猀⸀  䠀攀 愀搀搀爀攀猀猀攀搀 漀渀攀 琀漀 䈀氀愀猀琀甀猀 㰀椀㸀伀渀 匀挀栀椀猀洀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 愀渀漀琀栀攀爀 琀漀 䘀氀漀爀椀渀甀猀Ⰰ 㰀椀㸀伀渀 琀栀攀 匀漀氀攀 匀漀瘀攀爀攀椀最渀琀礀㰀⼀椀㸀嬀㄀崀 漀爀 㰀椀㸀吀栀愀琀 䜀漀搀 椀猀 渀漀琀 琀栀攀 䄀甀琀栀漀爀 漀昀 䔀瘀椀氀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 昀漀爀 䘀氀漀爀椀渀甀猀 猀攀攀洀攀搀 琀漀 戀攀 搀攀昀攀渀搀椀渀最 琀栀椀猀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀⸀  䘀漀爀 栀椀猀 猀愀欀攀 琀漀漀Ⰰ 眀栀攀渀 栀攀 眀愀猀 愀琀琀爀愀挀琀攀搀 戀礀 琀栀攀 嘀愀氀攀渀琀椀渀椀愀渀 攀爀爀漀爀Ⰰ 愀 眀漀爀欀 眀愀猀 挀漀洀瀀漀猀攀搀 戀礀 䤀爀攀渀愀攀甀猀 㰀椀㸀伀渀 琀栀攀 伀最搀漀愀搀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ嬀㈀崀 椀渀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀攀 愀氀猀漀 椀渀搀椀挀愀琀攀猀 琀栀愀琀 栀攀 栀愀搀 栀椀洀猀攀氀昀 爀攀挀攀椀瘀攀搀 琀栀攀 昀椀爀猀琀 猀甀挀挀攀猀猀椀漀渀 漀昀 琀栀攀 愀瀀漀猀琀氀攀猀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 椀渀 椀琀Ⰰ 愀琀 琀栀攀 攀渀搀 漀昀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀Ⰰ 眀攀 昀椀渀搀 愀 洀漀猀琀 愀挀挀攀瀀琀愀戀氀攀 渀漀琀椀挀攀 昀爀漀洀 栀椀洀 眀栀椀挀栀 眀攀 愀爀攀 漀戀氀椀最攀搀 琀漀 最椀瘀攀渀 椀渀 琀栀椀猀 戀漀漀欀 愀渀搀 椀琀 爀甀渀猀 愀猀 昀漀氀氀漀眀猀㨀 ∀䤀 愀搀樀甀爀攀 琀栀攀攀Ⰰ 眀栀漀 猀栀愀氀琀 挀漀瀀礀 漀甀琀 琀栀椀猀 戀漀漀欀Ⰰ 戀礀 琀栀攀 䰀漀爀搀 䨀攀猀甀猀 䌀栀爀椀猀琀Ⰰ 戀礀 栀椀猀 最氀漀爀椀漀甀猀 愀搀瘀攀渀琀 眀栀攀渀 栀攀 挀漀洀攀猀 琀漀 樀甀搀最攀 琀栀攀 氀椀瘀椀渀最 愀渀搀 琀栀攀 搀攀愀搀Ⰰ 琀栀愀琀 琀栀漀甀 挀漀洀瀀愀爀攀 眀栀愀琀 琀栀漀甀 猀栀愀氀琀 琀爀愀渀猀挀爀椀戀攀 愀渀搀 挀漀爀爀攀挀琀 椀琀 眀椀琀栀 琀栀椀猀 挀漀瀀礀 眀栀攀渀挀攀 琀栀漀甀 愀爀琀 琀爀愀渀猀挀爀椀戀椀渀最Ⰰ 眀椀琀栀 愀氀氀 挀愀爀攀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 琀栀漀甀 猀栀愀氀琀 氀椀欀攀眀椀猀攀 琀爀愀渀猀挀爀椀戀攀 琀栀攀 漀愀琀栀 愀渀搀 瀀甀琀 椀琀 椀渀 琀栀攀 挀漀瀀礀⸀∀  䴀愀礀 栀椀猀 眀漀爀搀猀 戀攀 猀瀀漀欀攀渀 琀漀 漀甀爀 瀀爀漀昀椀琀 愀渀搀 戀攀 渀愀爀爀愀琀攀搀 椀渀 漀爀搀攀爀 琀栀愀琀 眀攀 洀愀礀 欀攀攀瀀 琀栀漀猀攀 瀀爀椀洀椀琀椀瘀攀 愀渀搀 琀爀甀氀礀 猀愀挀爀攀搀 洀攀渀 愀猀 琀栀攀 戀攀猀琀 攀砀愀洀瀀氀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 洀漀猀琀 稀攀愀氀漀甀猀 挀愀爀攀⸀

਀䤀渀 琀栀攀 氀攀琀琀攀爀 琀漀 䘀氀漀爀椀渀甀猀Ⰰ 眀椀栀挀栀 眀攀 栀愀瘀攀 猀瀀漀欀攀渀 漀昀 愀戀漀瘀攀Ⰰ 䤀爀攀渀愀攀甀猀 愀最愀椀渀 洀攀渀琀椀漀渀猀 栀椀猀 椀渀琀攀爀挀漀甀爀猀攀 眀椀琀栀 倀漀氀礀挀愀爀瀀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 猀愀礀猀㨀 ✀吀栀攀猀攀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀猀Ⰰ 伀 䘀氀漀爀椀渀甀猀Ⰰ 琀栀愀琀 䤀 洀愀礀 猀瀀攀愀欀 猀瀀愀爀椀渀最氀礀Ⰰ 搀漀 渀漀琀 戀攀氀漀渀最 琀漀 猀漀甀渀搀 搀漀挀琀爀椀渀攀⸀  吀栀攀猀攀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀猀 愀爀攀 椀渀挀漀渀猀椀猀琀攀渀琀 眀椀琀栀 琀栀攀 挀栀甀爀挀栀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 戀爀椀渀最 琀栀漀猀攀 眀栀漀 戀攀氀椀攀瘀攀 椀渀 琀栀攀洀 椀渀琀漀 琀栀攀 最爀攀愀琀攀猀琀 椀洀瀀椀攀琀礀⸀  吀栀攀猀攀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀猀 渀漀琀 攀瘀攀渀 琀栀攀 栀攀爀攀琀椀挀猀 漀甀琀猀椀搀攀 琀栀攀 挀栀甀爀挀栀 攀瘀攀爀 搀愀爀攀搀 琀漀 瀀爀漀挀氀愀椀洀⸀  吀栀攀猀攀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀猀 琀栀漀猀攀 眀栀漀 眀攀爀攀 瀀爀攀猀戀礀琀攀爀猀 戀攀昀漀爀攀 甀猀Ⰰ 眀栀漀 愀挀挀漀洀瀀愀渀椀攀搀 琀栀攀 愀瀀漀猀琀氀攀猀Ⰰ 搀椀搀 渀漀琀 栀愀渀搀 漀渀 琀漀 礀漀甀⸀  䘀漀爀 眀栀椀氀攀 䤀 眀愀猀 猀琀椀氀氀 愀 戀漀礀 䤀 欀渀攀眀 礀漀甀 椀渀 氀漀眀攀爀 䄀猀椀愀 椀渀 倀漀氀礀挀愀爀瀀✀猀 栀漀甀猀攀 眀栀攀渀 礀漀甀 眀攀爀攀 愀 洀愀渀 漀昀 爀愀渀欀 椀渀 琀栀攀 爀漀礀愀氀 栀愀氀氀 愀渀搀 攀渀搀攀愀瘀漀爀椀渀最 琀漀 猀琀愀渀搀 眀攀氀氀 眀椀琀栀 栀椀洀⸀  䤀 爀攀洀攀洀戀攀爀 琀栀攀 攀瘀攀渀琀猀 漀昀 琀栀漀猀攀 搀愀礀猀 洀漀爀攀 挀氀攀愀爀氀礀 琀栀愀渀 琀栀漀猀攀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀愀瀀瀀攀渀攀搀 爀攀挀攀渀琀氀礀Ⰰ 昀漀爀 眀栀愀琀 眀攀 氀攀愀爀渀 愀猀 挀栀椀氀搀爀攀渀 最爀漀眀猀 甀瀀 眀椀琀栀 琀栀攀 猀漀甀氀 愀渀搀 椀猀 甀渀椀琀攀搀 琀漀 椀琀Ⰰ 猀漀 琀栀愀琀 䤀 挀愀渀 猀瀀攀愀欀 攀瘀攀渀 漀昀 琀栀攀 瀀氀愀挀攀 椀渀 眀栀椀挀栀 琀栀攀 戀氀攀猀猀攀搀 倀漀氀礀挀愀爀瀀 猀愀琀 愀渀搀 搀椀猀瀀甀琀攀搀Ⰰ 栀漀眀 栀攀 挀愀洀攀 椀渀 愀渀搀 眀攀渀琀 漀甀琀Ⰰ 琀栀攀 挀栀愀爀愀挀琀攀爀 漀昀 栀椀猀 氀椀昀攀Ⰰ 琀栀攀 愀瀀瀀攀愀爀愀渀挀攀 漀昀 栀椀猀 戀漀搀礀Ⰰ 琀栀攀 搀椀猀挀漀甀爀猀攀猀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀攀 洀愀搀攀 琀漀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀Ⰰ 栀漀眀 栀攀 爀攀瀀漀爀琀攀搀 栀椀猀 椀渀琀攀爀挀漀甀爀猀攀 眀椀琀栀 䨀漀栀渀 愀渀搀 眀椀琀栀 琀栀攀 漀琀栀攀爀猀 眀栀漀 栀愀搀 猀攀攀渀 琀栀攀 䰀漀爀搀Ⰰ 栀漀眀 栀攀 爀攀洀攀洀戀攀爀攀搀 琀栀攀椀爀 眀漀爀搀猀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 眀栀愀琀 眀攀爀攀 琀栀攀 琀栀椀渀最猀 挀漀渀挀攀爀渀椀渀最 琀栀攀 䰀漀爀搀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀攀 栀愀搀 栀攀愀爀搀 昀爀漀洀 琀栀攀洀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀椀爀 洀椀爀愀挀氀攀猀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀椀爀 琀攀愀挀栀椀渀最Ⰰ 愀渀搀 栀漀眀 倀漀氀礀挀愀爀瀀 栀愀搀 爀攀挀攀椀瘀攀搀 琀栀攀洀 昀爀漀洀 琀栀攀 攀礀攀眀椀琀渀攀猀猀攀猀 漀昀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀搀 漀昀 氀椀昀攀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 爀攀瀀漀爀琀攀搀 愀氀氀 琀栀椀渀最猀 椀渀 愀最爀攀攀洀攀渀琀 眀椀琀栀 琀栀攀 匀挀爀椀瀀琀甀爀攀猀⸀  䤀 氀椀猀琀攀渀攀搀 攀愀最攀爀氀礀 攀瘀攀渀 琀栀攀渀 琀漀 琀栀攀猀攀 琀栀椀渀最猀 琀栀爀漀甀最栀 琀栀攀 洀攀爀挀礀 漀昀 䜀漀搀 眀栀椀挀栀 眀愀猀 最椀瘀攀渀 洀攀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 洀愀搀攀 渀漀琀攀猀 漀昀 琀栀攀洀Ⰰ 渀漀琀 漀渀 瀀愀瀀攀爀 戀甀琀 椀渀 洀礀 栀攀愀爀琀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 攀瘀攀爀 戀礀 琀栀攀 最爀愀挀攀 漀昀 䜀漀搀 搀漀 䤀 琀爀甀氀礀 爀甀洀椀渀愀琀攀 漀渀 琀栀攀洀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 䤀 挀愀渀 戀攀愀爀 眀椀琀渀攀猀猀 戀攀昀漀爀攀 䜀漀搀 琀栀愀琀 椀昀 琀栀愀琀 戀氀攀猀猀攀搀 愀渀搀 愀瀀漀猀琀漀氀椀挀 瀀爀攀猀戀礀琀攀爀 栀愀搀 栀攀愀爀搀 愀渀礀琀栀椀渀最 漀昀 琀栀椀猀 欀椀渀搀 栀攀 眀漀甀氀搀 栀愀瘀攀 挀爀椀攀搀 漀甀琀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 猀栀甀琀 栀椀猀 攀愀爀猀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 猀愀椀搀 愀挀挀漀爀搀椀渀最 琀漀 栀椀猀 挀甀猀琀漀洀Ⰰ ✀伀 最漀漀搀 䜀漀搀Ⰰ 琀漀 眀栀愀琀 琀椀洀攀 栀愀猀琀 琀栀漀甀 瀀爀攀猀攀爀瘀攀搀 洀攀 琀栀愀琀 䤀 猀栀漀甀氀搀 攀渀搀甀爀攀 琀栀椀猀㼀✀  䠀攀 眀漀甀氀搀 栀愀瘀攀 昀氀攀搀 攀瘀攀渀 昀爀漀洀 琀栀攀 瀀氀愀挀攀 椀渀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀攀 眀愀猀 猀攀愀琀攀搀 漀爀 猀琀愀渀搀椀渀最 眀栀攀渀 栀攀 栀攀愀爀搀 猀甀挀栀 眀漀爀搀猀⸀  䄀渀搀 昀爀漀洀 栀椀猀 氀攀琀琀攀爀猀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀攀 猀攀渀琀 攀椀琀栀攀爀 琀漀 琀栀攀 渀攀椀最栀戀漀爀椀渀最 挀栀甀爀挀栀攀猀Ⰰ 猀琀爀攀渀最琀栀攀渀椀渀最 琀栀攀洀Ⰰ 漀爀 琀漀 猀漀洀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀爀攀琀栀爀攀渀Ⰰ 攀砀栀漀爀琀椀渀最 愀渀搀 眀愀爀渀椀渀最 琀栀攀洀Ⰰ 琀栀椀猀 挀愀渀 戀攀 洀愀搀攀 瀀氀愀椀渀⸀∀  匀漀 猀愀礀猀 䤀爀攀渀愀攀甀猀⸀

਀嬀㄀崀 吀栀攀 㰀昀漀渀琀 昀愀挀攀㴀∀䄀爀椀愀氀 唀渀椀挀漀搀攀 䴀匀Ⰰ䌀漀搀攀㈀　　　Ⰰ吀䤀吀唀匀 䌀礀戀攀爀戀椀琀 䈀愀猀椀挀Ⰰ倀愀氀愀琀椀渀漀 䰀椀渀漀琀礀瀀攀Ⰰ䄀琀栀攀渀愀∀㸀밀뼃봃넃섃윃眃넟㰃⼀昀漀渀琀㸀 戀攀挀愀洀攀 琀栀攀 琀攀挀栀渀椀挀愀氀 琀攀爀洀 昀漀爀 琀栀攀 愀猀猀攀爀琀椀漀渀 漀昀 琀栀攀 唀渀椀琀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀 䜀漀搀栀攀愀搀Ⰰ 眀椀琀栀漀甀琀⠀愀猀 椀琀 眀愀猀 琀栀漀甀最栀琀⠀搀甀攀 爀攀最愀爀搀 琀漀 琀栀攀 爀攀愀氀椀琀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀 倀攀爀猀漀渀猀 漀昀 琀栀攀 吀爀椀渀椀琀礀Ⰰ 琀栀漀甀最栀 ∀倀攀爀猀漀渀∀ ⠀漀爀 㰀昀漀渀琀 昀愀挀攀㴀∀䄀爀椀愀氀 唀渀椀挀漀搀攀 䴀匀Ⰰ䌀漀搀攀㈀　　　Ⰰ吀䤀吀唀匀 䌀礀戀攀爀戀椀琀 䈀愀猀椀挀Ⰰ倀愀氀愀琀椀渀漀 䰀椀渀漀琀礀瀀攀Ⰰ䄀琀栀攀渀愀∀㸀儀쀟礃쌟쐃넃쌃뤃숃㰃⼀昀漀渀琀㸀⤀ 眀愀猀 渀漀琀 礀攀琀 甀猀攀搀 椀渀 琀栀椀猀 猀攀渀猀攀⸀

਀嬀㈀崀  匀漀洀攀 䜀渀漀猀琀椀挀猀 爀攀最愀爀搀攀搀 䜀漀搀 愀猀 攀椀最栀琀昀漀氀搀⸀

਀㰀昀漀渀琀 昀愀挀攀㴀∀䄀爀椀愀氀 唀渀椀挀漀搀攀 䴀匀Ⰰ䌀漀搀攀㈀　　　Ⰰ吀䤀吀唀匀 䌀礀戀攀爀戀椀琀 䈀愀猀椀挀Ⰰ倀愀氀愀琀椀渀漀 䰀椀渀漀琀礀瀀攀Ⰰ䄀琀栀攀渀愀∀㸀 Ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας θεσμὸν παραχαραττόντων, Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει, τὴν μὲν ἐπιγραψας Πρὸς Βλάστον περὶ σχίσματος, τὴν δὲ Πρὸς Φλωρῖνον περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν. ταύτης γάρ τοι τῆς γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν· δἰ ὃν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ καὶ τὸ Περὶ ὀγδοάδος συντάττεται τῷ Εἰρηναίῳ σπούδασμα, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐπισημαίνεται τὴν πρώτην τῶν ἀποστόλων κατειληφέναι ἑαυτὸν διαδοχήν· ἔνθα πρὸς τῷ τοῦ συγγράμματος τέλει χαριεστάτην αὐτοῦ σημείωσιν εὑρόντες, ἀναγκαίως καὶ ταύτην τῇδε καταλέξομεν τῇ γραφῇ, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον· " ὁρκιζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψεις καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφω." καὶ ταῦτα δὲ ὠφελίμως ὑπ' ἐκείνου λελέχθω πρὸς ἡμῶν τε ἱστορεἰσθω, ὡς ἂν ἔχοιμεν ἄριστον σπουδαιοτάτης ἐπιμελείας τοὺς ἀρχαίους ἐκείνους καὶ ὄντως ἱεροὺς ἄνδρας ὑπόδειγμα.਀㰀倀㸀 Ἐν ᾗ γε μὴν προειρήκαμεν πρὸς τὼν Φλωρῖνον ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐπιστολῇ αὖθις τῆς ἅμα Πολυκάρπῳ συνουσίας αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει, λέγων· "ταῦτα τὰ δόγματα, Φλωρῖνε, ἵνα πεφεισμένως εἴπω, οὐκ ἔστιν ὑγιοῦς γνώμης· ταῦτα τὰ δόγματα ἀσύμφωνά ἐστιν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ εἰς τὴν μεγίστην ἀσέβειαν περιβάλλοντα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτοῖς· ταῦτα τὰ δόγματα οὐδὲ οἱ ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας αἱρετικοὶ ἐτόλμησαν ἀποφήνασθαί ποτε· ταῦτα τὰ δόγματα οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις συμφοιτήσαντες, οὐ παρέδωκάν σοι. εἶδον γάρ σε, παῖς ἔτι ὤν, ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ παρὰ Πολυκάρπῳ, λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ καὶ πειρώμενον εὐδοκιμεῖν παρ' αὐτῷ. μᾶλλον γὰρ τὰ τότε διαμνημονεύω τῶν ἔναγχος γινομένων (αἱ γὰρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις συναυξουσαι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἑνοῦνται αὐτῇ), ὥστε με δύνασθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸν τόπον ἐν ᾧ καθεζόμενος διελέγετο ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος, καὶ τὰς προόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς εἰσόδους καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ βίου καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν καὶ τὰς διαλέξεις ἃς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν μετὰ Ἰωάννου συναναστροφὴν ὡς ἀπήγγελλεν καὶ τὴν μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἑορακότων τὸν κύριον καὶ ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευεν τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου τίνα ἦν ἃ παρ' ἐκαίνων ἀκηκόει, καὶ περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ λόγου παρειληφὼς ὁ Πολύκαρπος ἀπήγγελλεν πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς. ταῦτα καὶ τότε διὰ τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἐπ' ἐμοὶ γεγονὸς σπουδαίως ἤκουον, ὑπομνηματιζόμενος αὐτὰ οὺκ ἐν χάρτῃ, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ καρδίᾳ· καὶ ἀεὶ διὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ γνησίως αὐτὰ ἀναμαρυκῶμαι, καὶ δύναμαι διαμαρτύρασθαι ἔμπρασθεν τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἀκηκόει ἐκεῖνος ὁ μακάριος καὶ ἀποστολικὸς πρεσβύτερος, ἀνακράξας ἂν καὶ ἐμφράξας τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες αὐτῷ εἰπών 'ὦ καλὲ θεέ, εἰς οἵους με καιροὺς τετήρηκας, ἵνα τούτων ἀνέχωμαι,' πεφεύγει ἂν καὶ τὸν τὸπον ἐν ᾧ καθεζόμενος ἢ ἑστὼς τῶν τοιούτων ἀκηκόει λόγων. καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν δὲ αὐτοῦ ὧν ἐπέστειλεν ἤτοι ταῖς γειτνιώσαις ἐκκλησίαις, ἐπιστηρίζων αὐτάς, ἢ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τισί, νουθετῶν αὐτοὺς καὶ προτρεπόμενος, δύναται φανερωθῆναι." ταῦτα ὁ Εἰρηναῖος.਀㰀⼀昀漀渀琀㸀

਀㰀戀㸀㰀椀㸀䔀挀挀氀攀猀椀愀猀琀椀挀愀氀 䠀椀猀琀漀爀礀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 嘀⸀ 堀堀䤀䤀䤀Ⰰ ㌀ⴀ㐀⸀㰀⼀戀㸀 ⠀瀀⸀ 㔀　㔀⤀

਀吀栀攀爀攀 椀猀 猀琀椀氀氀 攀砀琀愀渀琀 愀 眀爀椀琀椀渀最 漀昀 琀栀漀猀攀 眀栀漀 眀攀爀攀 挀漀渀瘀攀渀攀搀 椀渀 倀愀氀攀猀琀椀渀攀Ⰰ 漀瘀攀爀 眀栀漀洀 瀀爀攀猀椀搀攀搀 吀栀攀漀瀀栀椀氀甀猀Ⰰ 戀椀猀栀漀瀀 漀昀 琀栀攀 搀椀漀挀攀猀攀 漀昀 䌀愀攀猀愀爀攀愀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 一愀爀挀椀猀猀甀猀Ⰰ 戀椀猀栀漀瀀 漀昀 䨀攀爀甀猀愀氀攀洀㬀 愀渀搀 琀栀攀爀攀 椀猀 猀椀洀椀氀愀爀氀礀 愀渀漀琀栀攀爀 昀爀漀洀 琀栀漀猀攀 椀渀 刀漀洀攀 漀渀 琀栀攀 猀愀洀攀 挀漀渀琀爀漀瘀攀爀猀礀Ⰰ 眀栀椀挀栀 最椀瘀攀猀 嘀椀挀琀漀爀 愀猀 戀椀猀栀漀瀀㬀 愀渀搀 琀栀攀爀攀 椀猀 漀渀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀椀猀栀漀瀀猀 漀昀 倀漀渀琀椀甀猀 漀瘀攀爀 眀栀漀洀 倀愀氀洀愀猀 瀀爀攀猀椀搀攀搀 愀猀 琀栀攀 漀氀搀攀猀琀㬀 愀渀搀 漀昀 琀栀攀 搀椀漀挀攀猀攀猀 漀昀 䜀愀甀氀Ⰰ 漀昀 眀栀椀挀栀 䤀爀攀渀愀攀甀猀 眀愀猀 戀椀猀栀漀瀀㬀 愀渀搀 礀攀琀 漀琀栀攀爀猀 漀昀 琀栀漀猀攀 椀渀 伀猀爀栀漀攀渀攀 愀渀搀 琀栀攀 挀椀琀椀攀猀 琀栀攀爀攀㬀 愀渀搀 瀀愀琀爀椀挀甀氀愀爀氀礀 漀昀 䈀愀挀挀栀礀氀氀甀猀Ⰰ 琀栀攀 戀椀猀栀漀瀀 漀昀 琀栀攀 挀栀甀爀挀栀 漀昀 䌀漀爀椀渀琀栀㬀 愀渀搀 漀昀 瘀攀爀礀 洀愀渀礀 洀漀爀攀 眀栀漀 攀砀瀀爀攀猀猀攀搀 漀渀攀 愀渀搀 琀栀攀 猀愀洀攀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀 愀渀搀 樀甀搀最攀洀攀渀琀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 最愀瘀攀 琀栀攀 猀愀洀攀 瘀漀琀攀⸀

਀㰀昀漀渀琀 昀愀挀攀㴀∀䄀爀椀愀氀 唀渀椀挀漀搀攀 䴀匀Ⰰ䌀漀搀攀㈀　　　Ⰰ吀䤀吀唀匀 䌀礀戀攀爀戀椀琀 䈀愀猀椀挀Ⰰ倀愀氀愀琀椀渀漀 䰀椀渀漀琀礀瀀攀Ⰰ䄀琀栀攀渀愀∀㸀 φέρεται δ' εἰς ἔτι νῦν τῶν κατὰ Παλαιστίνην਀쐀뜃봃뤃먃焃됟딃 쌀씃댃먃딃먃섃뼃쐃뜃밃猃봟줃봃 대섃넃옃甃Ⱏ 最봟 쀀섃뼃씃쐃猃쐟넃먃쐃뼃 Θείφιλος τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ παροικίας਀က쀟眃쌟먃뼃쀃뼃숃 먀넃瘃‟鴀焃섟먃뤃쌃쌃뼃숃 쐀옃숟 က봟 㤀딟섃뼃쌃뼃묃笃밟뼃뤃숃Ⰳ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης δ' ὁμοίως ἄλλη περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ਀똀뜃쐃甃밟넃쐃뼃숃Ⰳ က쀟眃쌟먃뼃쀃뼃봃 鈀眃먟쐃뼃섃넃 됀뜃묃뼃쌟넃Ⰳ 쐀봟 쐀딃 κατὰ Πόντον ἐπίσκόπων, ὧν Πάλμας ὡς ἀρχαιότατος਀쀀섃뼃씃쐃猃쐟넃먃쐃뼃Ⰳ 먀넃瘃‟쐀봟 먀넃쐃瀃‟錀넃묃묃眃넟봃 됀爃 παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει, ἔτι τε τῶν਀먀넃쐃瀃‟쐀球봟 䠀쌟섃뼃뜃봃球봟 먀넃瘃‟쐀瀃숟 က먟딃혃쌟딃 쀀礃묟딃뤃숃Ⰳ 먀넃瘃 ἰδίως Βακχύλλου τῆς Κορινθίων ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκόπου,਀먀넃瘃‟쀀묃딃眃쌟쐃줃봃 䔀쌟줃봃 Ѐ묟묃줃봃Ⰳ 뼀㌃‟밀眃넟봃 먀넃瘃‟쐀球봟 αὐτὴν δόξαν τε καὶ κρίσιν ἐξενηνεγμένοι, τὴν਀넀倃쐟球봟 쐀猃렟딃뤃봃쐃넃뤃 저옃옟뼃봃⸃ ਀㰀倀㸀 Ecclesiastical History, V. XXIV, 11-18. (pp. 509-513)਀㰀倀㸀 Among them too Irenaeus, writing in the name of the Christians whose leader he was in Gaul, though he recommends that the mystery of the Lord's resurrection be observed only on the Lord's day, yet nevertheless exhorts Victor suitably and at length not to excommunicate whole churches of God for following a tradition of ancient custom, and continues as follows: "For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast; for some who think that they ought to fast one day, others two, others even more, some count their day as forty hours, day and night.[1] And such variation of observance did not begin in our own time,[2] but much earlier, in the days of our predecessors who, it would appear, disregarding strictness maintained a practice which is simple and yet allows for personal preference, establishing it for the future, and none the less all these lived in peace, and we also live in peace with one another and the disagreement in the fast confirms our agreement in the faith."਀㰀倀㸀 He adds to this a narrative which I may suitably quote, running as follows: "Among these too were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church of which you are now the leader, I mean Anicetus and Pius and Telesphorus and Xystus. They did not themselves observe it,[3] nor did they enjoin it on those who followed them, and though they did not keep it they were none the less at peace with those from the dioceses in which it was observed when they came to them, although to observe it was more objectionable to those who did not do so.[4] And no one was ever rejected for this reason, but the presbyters before you who did not observe it sent the Eucharist from other dioceses who did; and when the blessed Polycarp was staying in Rome in the time of Anicetus, though they disagreed a little about some other things as well, they immediately made peace, having no wish for strife between them on this matter. For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it, inasmuch as he had always done so in company with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he had associated; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to keep the custom of those who were presbyters before him. And under these circumstances they communicated with each other, and in the church Anicetus yielded the celebration of the Eucharist to Polycarp, obviously out of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, for the peace of the whole church was kept both by those who observed and by those who did not."਀㰀倀㸀 And Irenaeus, who deserved his name, making an eirenicon [peace offering - PK] in this way, gave exhortation of this kind for the peace of the church and served as its ambassador, for in letters he discussed the various views on the issue which had been raised, not only with Victor but also with many other rulers of churches.਀㰀倀㸀 [1] It appears to have been some time before the Church adopted the Lenten fast of forty days. Oddly enough, according to the historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl. v. 22) the Greek name for Lent (τεσσαρακοστή=fortieth) is older than the custom of fasting forty days. Forty hours was the traditional interval between the death and resurrection of Jesus. The present limits of Lent appear to have been fixed in the seventh century. See Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v. Lent.਀㰀倀㸀 [2] The construction of the Greek is harsh: γεγονυῖα seems a mistake for γέγονε.਀㰀倀㸀 [3] That is, the Quartodeciman practice; see note on p. 503.਀㰀倀㸀 [4] The meaning appears to be that the previous generation of Romans had not made an issue out of the Quartodeciman practice, even when Asiatics visiting Rome observed it. The difficulty can be seen best if it be remembered that the Quartodeciman practice would someimtes mean that Asiatics traeated Easter day what the Romans regarded as Good Friday.਀㰀倀㸀 ਀က봟 뼀㜃숟 καὶ ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν਀錀넃묃묃眃넟봃  됟딃묃옃봟 က쀟뤃쌃쐃딃眃묟넃숃Ⰳ 쀀넃섃眃쌟쐃넃쐃넃뤃 밀爃봟 쐀 δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς τοῦ਀먀씃섃眃뼟씃  봟넃쌃쐃焃쌟딃줃숃 က쀟뤃쐃딃묃딃혃쌟렃넃뤃 밀씃쌃쐃甃섟뤃뼃봃Ⰳ 쐀 γε μὴν Βίκτορι προσηκόντως, ὡς μὴ ἀποκόπτοι਀䔀묟넃숃 က먟먃묃뜃쌃眃넟숃 렀딃뼃‟ 섟윃넃뤃뼃씃 ᐀렟뼃씃숃 쀀넃섃焃됟뼃쌃뤃봃 ἐπιτηρούσας, πλεῖστα ἕτερα παραινεῖ, καὶ αὐτοῖς਀됀爃‟生밟넃쌃뤃봃 쐀焃됟딃 က쀟뤃묃猃댟줃봃蜃 ∀뼀倃됟爃‟대瀃섟 밀礃봟뼃봃 쀀딃섃瘃 τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστὶν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ਀쐀뼃‟딀㐃됟뼃씃숃 넀倃쐟뼃‟쐀옃숟 봀뜃쌃쐃딃眃넟숃⸃  뼀㄃‟밀爃봟 대瀃섟 뼀㐃뼟봃쐃넃뤃 μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν, οἱ δὲ δύο οἱ਀됀爃‟먀넃瘃‟쀀묃딃眃뼟봃넃숃蜃 뼀㄃‟됀爃‟쐀딃쌃쌃넃섃焃먟뼃봃쐃넃 攀섟넃숃 ℀밟딃섃뤃봃焃숟 τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσιν τὴν ηπμὲραν αὐτῶν.਀먀넃瘃‟쐀뼃뤃넃笃쐟뜃 밀爃봟 쀀뼃뤃먃뤃묃眃넟 쐀봟 က쀟뤃쐃뜃섃뼃笃봟쐃줃봃 뼀倃 νῦν ἐφ' ἡμῶν γεγονυῖα, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον਀က쀟瘃‟쐀봟 쀀섃砃‟℀밟봟Ⰳ 쐀봟 쀀넃섃瀃‟쐀砃‟Ā먟섃뤃눃猃숟Ⰳ 愀숟 딀〃먟礃숟Ⰳ κρατούντων τὴν καθ' ἁπλότητα καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν਀쌀씃봃甃렟딃뤃넃봃 딀〃숟 쐀砃‟밀딃쐃猃쀟딃뤃쐃넃 쀀딃쀃뼃뤃뜃먃礃쐟줃봃Ⰳ 먀넃瘃‟뼀倃됟爃봟 ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν਀쀀섃砃숟  묟묃甃묟뼃씃숃Ⰳ 먀넃瘃‟℀‟됀뤃넃옃줃봃眃넟 쐀옃숟 봀뜃쌃쐃딃眃넟숃 쐀球봟 ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησιν."਀㰀倀㸀 Τούτοις καὶ ἱστορίαν προστίθησιν, ἣν οἰκείως਀쀀넃섃넃렃甃쌟뼃밃넃뤃Ⰳ 쐀뼃쐟뼃봃 ᐀윟뼃씃쌃넃봃 쐀砃봟 쐀섃礃쀟뼃봃蜃 ∀က봟 οἷς καὶ οἱ πρὸ Σωτῆρος πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ προστάντες਀쐀옃숟 က먟먃묃뜃쌃眃넟숃 ✀숟 뼀稃‟봀봟  옟뜃댃윃Ⱏ ࠀ봟眃먟뜃쐃뼃봃 λέγομεν καὶ Πίον Ὑγῖνόν τε καὶ Τελεσφόρον καὶ਀鸀笃쌟쐃뼃봃Ⰳ 뼀吃쐟딃 넀倃쐟뼃瘃‟က쐟甃섟뜃쌃넃봃 뼀吃쐟딃 쐀뼃혃숟 밀딃쐃✃ 넀倃쐟봟 ἐπέτρεπον, καὶ οὐδὲν ελαττον αὐτοὶ μὴ τηροῦντες਀딀〃섟甃봟딃씃뼃봃 쐀뼃혃숟  쀟砃‟쐀봟 쀀넃섃뼃뤃먃뤃봟 က봟 넀㜃숟 က쐟뜃섃딃혃쐟뼃Ⰳ ἐρχομένοις πρὸς αὐτούς· καίτοι μᾶλλον ἐναντίον਀☀봟 쐀砃‟쐀뜃섃딃혃봟 쐀뼃혃숟 밀球‟쐀뜃섃뼃쌟뤃봃⸃  먀넃瘃‟뼀倃됟猃쀟뼃쐃딃 διὰ τὸ εἶδος τοῦτο ἀπεβλήθησάν τινες, ἀλλ' αὐτοὶ਀밀球‟쐀뜃섃뼃봟쐃딃숃 뼀㄃‟쀀섃砃‟쌀뼃‟쀀섃딃쌃눃笃쐟딃섃뼃뤃 쐀뼃혃숟  쀟砃 τῶν παροικιῶν τηροῦσιν ἔπεμπον εὐχαριστίαν, καὶ਀쐀뼃‟밀넃먃넃섃眃뼟씃 ꀀ뼃묃씃먃焃섟쀃뼃씃 က쀟뤃됃뜃밃甃쌟넃봃쐃뼃숃 쐀윃 Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου καὶ περὶ ἄλλων τινῶν μικρὰ਀ꌀ윃礃봟쐃딃숃 쀀섃砃숟  묟묃甃묟뼃씃숃Ⰳ 딀倃렟稃숟 딀〃섟甃봟딃씃쌃넃봃Ⰳ 쀀딃섃瘃 τούτου τοῦ κεφαλαίου μὴ φιλεριστήσαντες εἰς਀ᄀ넟씃쐃뼃笃숟⸃  뼀吃쐟딃 대瀃섟 䄀‟ࠀ봟眃먟뜃쐃뼃숃 쐀砃봟 ꀀ뼃묃笃먟넃섃쀃뼃봃 πεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ τηρεῖν, ἃτε μετὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ਀밀넃렃뜃쐃뼃‟쐀뼃씃 먀씃섃眃뼟씃 ℀밟봟 먀넃瘃‟쐀봟 묀뼃뤃쀃봟  쀟뼃쌃쐃礃묟줃봃 οἷς συνδιέτρυψεν, ἀεὶ τετηρηκότα, οὔτε਀밀球봟 䄀‟ꀀ뼃묃笃먟넃섃쀃뼃숃 쐀砃봟 ࠀ봟眃먟뜃쐃뼃봃 ᐀쀟딃뤃쌃딃봃 쐀뜃섃딃혃봟Ⰳ λέγοντα τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ πρεσβυτέρων਀䀀옟딃眃묟딃뤃봃 먀넃쐃猃윟딃뤃봃⸃  먀넃瘃‟쐀뼃笃쐟줃봃 뼀唃쐟줃숃 က윟礃봟쐃줃봃Ⰳ ἐκοινώνησαν ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία παρεχώρησεν਀䄀‟ࠀ봟眃먟뜃쐃뼃숃 쐀球봟 딀倃윟넃섃뤃쌃쐃眃넟봃 쐀‟ꀀ뼃묃씃먃焃섟쀃줃Ⰳ κατ' ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι, καὶ μετ' εἰρήνης਀ 쀟✃  묟묃甃묟줃봃  쀟뜃묃묃焃댟뜃쌃넃봃Ⰳ 쐀焃쌟뜃숃 쐀옃숟 က먟먃묃뜃쌃眃넟숃 εἰρήνην ἐχόντων, καὶ τῶν τηρούντων καὶ τῶν μὴ਀쐀뜃섃뼃笃봟쐃줃봃⸃∀

਀騀넃瘃‟䄀‟밀爃봟 销〃섟뜃봃넃혃뼟숃 였딃섃紃봟씃밃礃숟 쐀뤃숃 戀봟 쐀윃 προσηγορίᾳ αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνοποιός,਀쐀뼃뤃넃쐟넃 儀쀟爃섟 쐀옃숟 쐀봟 က먟먃묃뜃쌃뤃봟 딀〃섟甃봟뜃숃 쀀넃섃딃먃焃묟딃뤃 τε καὶ ἐπρέσβευεν, ὁ δ' αὐτὸς οὐ μόνῳ τῷ Βίκτορι,਀먀넃瘃‟됀뤃넃옃礃섟뼃뤃숃 됀爃‟쀀묃딃眃쌟쐃뼃뤃숃 Ѐ섟윃뼃씃쌃뤃봃 က먟먃묃뜃쌃뤃봟 τὰ κατάλληλα δι' ἐπιστολῶν περὶ τοῦ κεκινημένου਀똀뜃쐃甃밟넃쐃뼃숃 愀밟眃묟딃뤃⸃ ਀㰀倀㸀 Ecclesiastical History, V. XXVI. (pp. 513-515)਀㰀倀㸀 In addition to the published treatises and to the letters of Irenaeus, there is extant a concise and extremely convincing treatise of his against the Greeks, entitled Concerning Knowledge, and another which he has dedicated to a Christian named Marcian on the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, and a little book of various discourses in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, quoting certain passages from them. Such is the extent of our knowledge of the works of Irenaeus.਀㰀倀㸀 ਀ࠀ묟묃瀃‟대瀃섟 쀀섃砃숟 쐀뼃혃숟  쀟뼃됃뼃렃딃혃쌟뤃봃 销〃섟뜃봃넃眃뼟씃 συγγράμμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς φέρεταί਀쐀뤃숃 넀倃쐟뼃‟쀀섃砃숟 ᴀ묟묃뜃봃넃숃 묀礃댟뼃숃 쌀씃봃쐃뼃밃줃쐃넃쐃뼃숃 καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατος, Περὶ ἐπιστήμης਀က쀟뤃댃딃댃섃넃밃밃猃봟뼃숃Ⰳ 먀넃瘃‟Ѐ묟묃뼃숃Ⰳ 䌀봟  봟넃쐃猃렟딃뤃먃딃봃  됟딃묃옃 Μαρκιανῷ τοὔνομα εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ਀먀뜃섃笃댟밃넃쐃뼃숃Ⰳ 먀넃瘃‟눀뤃눃묃眃뼟봃 쐀뤃 됀뤃넃묃猃븟딃줃봃 됀뤃넃옃礃섟줃봃Ⰳ ἐν ᾧ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῆς਀묀딃댃뼃밃猃봟뜃숃 ꌀ뼃묃뼃밃봟뼃숃 ꌀ뼃옃眃넟숃 밀봃뜃밃뼃봃딃笃딟뤃Ⰳ 뜟쐃焃 τινα ἐξ αὐτῶν παραθέμενος. καὶ τὰ μὲν εἰς਀℀밟딃쐃猃섟넃봃 က묟렃礃봟쐃넃 대봃쌟뤃봃 쐀봟 销〃섟뜃봃넃眃뼟씃 쐀뼃쌃넃쐟넃⸃ ਀㰀倀㸀 Ante-Nicene Fathers਀㰀倀㸀 Above are the references to the works of Irenaeus in Eusebius. There is one more fragment of Irenaeus that is generally regarded as authentic, and that is a fragment of a letter sent by Irenaeus to Pope Victor preserved in a Syriac manuscript. The fragment is introduced: "And Irenaeus 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." Here is the Roberts-Donaldson translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume one (fragment LI).਀㰀倀㸀 "Now, however, inasmuch as the books of these men may possibly have escaped your observation, but have come under our notice, I call your attention to them, that for the sake of your reputation you may expel these writings from among you, as bringing disgrace upon you, since their author boasts himself as being one of your company. For they constitute a stumbling-block to many, who simply and unreservedly receive, as coming from a presbyter, the blasphemy which they utter against God. Just [consider] the writer of these things, how by means of them he does not injure assistants [in divine service] only, who happen to be prepared in mind for blasphemies against God, but also damages those among us, since by his books he imbues their minds with false doctrines concerning God."਀㰀倀㸀 Four fragments published by Pfaff in 1715, numbered XXXVI through XXXIX, have been shown to be forgeries by Funk and Harnack. The other fragments published in Ante-Nicene Fathers are of dubious provenance, but it is worthwhile to mention a couple along with the notes of Roberts-Donaldson on their sources.਀㰀倀㸀 Fragment IV is footnoted: "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."਀㰀倀㸀 Here is fragment IV: "As long as any one has the means of doing good to his neighbours, and does not do so, he shall be reckoned a stranger to the love of the Lord."਀㰀倀㸀 Fragment V is footnoted: "Also quoted by Maximus Turinensis, Op. ii. 152, who refers it to Irenaeus's Sermo de Fide, which work, not being referred bo by Eusebius or Jerome, causes Massuet to doubt the authenticity of the fragment. Harvey, however, accepts it."਀㰀倀㸀 Here is fragment V: "The will and the energy of God is the effective and foreseeing cause of every time and place and age, and of every nature. The will is the reason of the intellectual soul, which [reason] is within us, inasmuch as it is the faculty belonging to it which is endowed with freedom of action. The will is the mind desiring [some object], and an appetite possessed of intelligence, yearning after that thing which is desired."਀㰀倀㸀 Other possible fragments of Irenaeus with footnotes can be found on the CCEL site.਀㰀倀㸀