Part 67

§ 91.5. =The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.=--The earlier predestinarian controversy (§ 53, 5), was, so far from being brought to a conclusion, that all the gradations of doctrinal views, from that of Semi-Pelagianism to a doctrine of predestination to condemnation that went far beyond Augustine, could find representatives among the teachers of the church. In the 9th century the controversy broke out in a passionate form. =Gottschalk=, the son of Berno, a Saxon count, had been placed by his parents when a child in the monastery of Fulda. A Synod at Mainz in A.D. 829 allowed him to go forth, but the abbot of Fulda at that time, Rabanus Maurus, got Louis the Pious to annul this dispensation. Transferred to the monastery of Orbais, in the diocese of Soissons, Gottschalk sought comfort in the study of the writings of Augustine, and was an enthusiastic defender of the doctrine of absolute predestination. In one point he even went beyond Augustine himself, for he taught a two-fold predestination (_Gemina prædestinatio_), a predestination to salvation and a predestination to condemnation, while Augustine had spoken of the latter mostly as a giving over to deserved condemnation. He took advantage of two journeys into Italy in A.D. 840 and A.D. 847 for spreading his doctrine. Impelled with a vehement desire to make converts, he made an attempt upon bishop Noting of Verona. Through him Rabanus, from A.D. 847 archbishop of Mainz, obtained information thereof, and issued to Noting, as well as to Count Eberhard of Friaul, with whom Gottschalk was living, threatening letters which distorted Gottschalk’s doctrine in many particulars, and drew from it unfair consequences, making the _Prædestinatio ad damnationem_ a _Prædestinatio ad peccatum_. Rabanus’s own doctrine distinguished prescience and predestination, and placed the condemnation of the wicked under the former point of view. At the same time, in A.D. 848, he convened a Synod at Mainz, before which Gottschalk stated his doctrine without reserve, in the joyous conviction that it was in accordance with the doctrine of the church. But the Council excommunicated him, and assigned him for punishment to his metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims. Hincmar had him anew condemned at the Synod of Quiersy in A.D. 849, then, because he steadily refused to recant, had him savagely scourged and consigned to imprisonment for life in the monastery of Hautvilliers. Gottschalk offered to prove the justice of his cause by submitting to an ordeal; but Hincmar, though in other instances a defender of the ordeal, denounced this as the proposal of a second Simon Magus. The inhuman treatment of the poor monk, and the rejection of the doctrine of Augustine by two church leaders, occasioned a mighty commotion in the Frankish church, which was mainly directed against Hincmar. At first, bishop Prudentius of Troyes took the condemned monk’s part. Then Charles the Bald asked the opinions of Ratramnus of Corbie and the abbot Servatus Lupus of Ferrières. Both of these took the side of Gottschalk. Hincmar’s position threatened to become very serious. He looked out for supporters, and succeeded in finding champions in the deacon Florus of Lyons, the priest Amalarius of Metz, and the learned Joannes Scotus Erigena. But the latter’s advocacy was almost more dangerous to the metropolitan than the charges of his accusers. For the speculative Irishman founded his objections to the doctrine of predestination on the position, unheard of before in the West, that evil is only a μὴ ὄν, and condemnation therefore not a positive punishment of God, but consisting only in the consciousness of a defect. Hincmar’s position was now worse than ever, for his opponents made him responsible for the heresies of Scotus. And not only an old objector, Prudentius of Troyes in his _De prædest. c. Joh. Scotu_, but even archbishop Wessilo of Sens and the deacon Florus of Lyons, who had hitherto supported him, now put on their armour against him. But Charles the Bald took the part of the sorely-beset metropolitan, and summoned the national Synod of Quiersy of A.D. 853, where in four articles (_Capitula Carisiaca_), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting the _gemina prædestinatio_, was set forth as the orthodox faith. The Neustrian objectors were now compelled to keep silence, but archbishop Remigius of Lyons set a Lothringian national Synod of Valence of A.D. 855 over against the Neustrian Synod. This Synod expressly condemned the decisions of the Synod of Quiersy, together with the Scottish mixture (_pultus Scotorum_), and laid down six conflicting articles as the standard of orthodoxy. Finally the rulers of the West Franks combined their forces and called an Imperial Synod at Savonnières, a suburb of Toul, in A.D. 859. But harmony was not yet secured, and they were likely to part with bitter feelings, when Remigius made the proposal to reserve decision for a subsequent assembly to be convened in a less agitated time, and meanwhile to maintain the peace. This was agreed upon, and so the controversy put out of view, for the proposed assembly was never brought about. Gottschalk, left in the lurch by his former friends, now turned for help to the powerful pope Nicholas I. The pope ordered Hincmar to answer before the papal plenipotentiaries for his proceedings against the monk at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 (§ 82, 7). Hincmar preferred not to comply to this demand, and to his delight the pope himself annulled the decisions of the Synod because his legates had been bribed. Moreover the metropolitan succeeded by intercession and well-planned letters in winning over the pope. Thus then Gottschalk was cheated out of his last hope. For twenty years he languished in prison, but with his latest breath he rejected every proposal of recantation. He died in A.D. 868, and by Hincmar’s orders was buried in unconsecrated earth.

§ 91.6. =The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.=--From his prison Gottschalk had accused his metropolitan of a second heresy. Hincmar had removed from a church hymn, _Te trina Deitas unaque poscimus_, the expression, =trina Deltas=, as favouring Arianism, and substituted the words, _sancta Deitas_. His opponents therefore charged him with Sabellianism, and Ratramnus made this accusation in a controversial tract no longer extant. Ratramnus, on the other hand, to whom Hincmar applied, supported the change, but would not commit himself to a written approval of it, whereupon Hincmar himself undertook a defence of the expression substituted in his treatise, _De una et non trini Deitate_.[262]

§ 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION.

The independence which Charlemagne gave to the German church first awakened in it the consciousness of its vocation as a reformer. This consciousness was maintained throughout the Middle Ages, though hampered indeed by much narrowness, one-sidedness, and error. Charlemagne himself stood first in the series of reformers with his energetic protest against image worship. Louis the Pious too persevered in this same direction, and encouraged Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of Turin when they contested similar forms of ecclesiastical superstition.

§ 92.1. =The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship, A.D. 790-825.=--On the occasion of an embassy of the emperor Constantinus Copronymus (§ 66, 2) Pepin the Short convened a Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767 (§ 91, 2) where the question of image worship was dealt with. We have no further information, as the acts of this Synod have been lost. Then in A.D. 790 Hadrian I. sent to Charlemagne the acts of the 7th occasional Synod of Nicæa (§ 66, 3). Charles, as emperor-elect, regarded himself as grievously wronged by the assumption of the Greeks, who, without consulting the German court, sought to enact laws that were wholly antagonistic to the Frankish practice. He published under his own name a state paper in 4 bks., the so-called _Libri Carolini_, in which the Byzantine proceedings were censured in strong terms, the synodal acts refuted one by one, every form of image worship denounced as idolatry, while at the same time the position of the iconoclasts was repudiated and, with reference to Gregory the Great (§ 57, 4), the usefulness of images in quickening devotion, instructing the people and providing suitable decoration for sacred places was admitted. Veneration of saints, relics, and the cross is, on the other hand, permitted. Charlemagne sent this writing to the pope, who in the most courteous language wrote a refutation, which, however, made no impression upon Charlemagne. On the contrary he now hastened preparations for calling a great œcumenical Synod of all German churches that would outdo the Synod of the Byzantine court. Alcuin utilized his visit to England for securing a representation at this Synod of the Anglo-Saxon church. The Synod met at Frankfort in A.D. 794 and confirmed the positions of the Caroline books. The pope found it prudent to yield to the times and the people. Under Louis the Pious the matter was brought forward anew on the occasion of an embassy from the iconoclast emperor Michael Balbus. A national Synod at Paris in A.D. 825 condemned image worship sharply, in opposition to Hadrian I., and affirmed the positions of the Caroline books. Pope Eugenius II. kept silent on this subject. In the Frankish empire down to the 10th century no recognition was given to the 2nd Nicene Council, and official opposition was continued against image worship.

§ 92.2. Soon after the Parisian council of A.D. 825, =Agobard of Lyons= made his appearance with a powerful polemic: _Contra superstitionem eorum, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum adorationis obsequiem deferendum putant_. He goes much further than the Caroline books, for not only does he regard it as advisable, on account of the inevitable misuse on the part of the people, to banish images entirely, but with image worship he also rejects all adoration of saints, relics, and angels. Man should put his trust in the omnipotent God alone, and worship and reverence only the one Mediator, Christ. He comes forward also as a reformer of the liturgy. He finds fault with all sensuous additions to Divine service, would banish from it all non-Biblical hymns, urges to earnest study of Scripture, contends against the folly of the ordeal (_De Divinis Sententiis_), the popular superstitions about witchcraft and weather omens (_Contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis_), and the idea that by presents to churches a stop can be put to epidemics and pestilences. Also on inspiration he entertained very liberal opinions (§ 90, 9). No one thought on account of these views to charge him with heresy. =Claudius of Turin= went still further than Agobard. By the help of Augustine he was able to grasp more profoundly than any of his contemporaries the essential core of saving truth, that man without any merit of works is justified and saved by the grace of God in Christ alone. Louis the Pious appointed him to the bishopric of Turin with the express injunction that he should contend against image worship in his Italian diocese. He found there image worship along with an extravagant devotion to relics, crosses and pilgrimages carried on to such a degree that he felt himself constrained reluctantly because of the condition of affairs to cast images and crosses out of the churches altogether. The popular excitement over this proceeding rose to the utmost pitch, and his life was saved and his office retained only through dread of the Frankish arms. When pope Paschalis intimated to him his displeasure, he said the pope is only to be honoured as apostolic, when he does the works of an apostle, otherwise Matt. xxiii. 2-4 applies to him. Against the views of his early scholar and friend the abbot Theodemir, regarding monastic psalmody, he vindicated himself in A.D. 825 in his controversial tract _Apologeticus_, which is now known only from the replies of his opponents. A Scotchman, Dungal, teacher at Pavia, entered the lists against him and accused him before the emperor, who, however, contented himself with calling upon bishop Jonas of Orleans to refute the apologetical treatise. This refutation appeared only after the death of Claudius. It assumed the position of the Frankish church on the question of image worship, as also Dungal had done.

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.

FOOTNOTES.

[1] Dowling, “Introduction to Study of Eccl. Hist.; its Progress and Sources.” Lond., 1838. Smedt, “Introd. generalis ad Hist. Eccl. critice tractandam.” Gandavi, 1876.

[2] See Sermon on The Pharisees in Mozley’s “Univ. Sermons.” Lond., 1876; also Schürer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 1-43, “Pharisees and Sadducees.”

[3] See Lightfoot, _Ep. to the Col._, 5th ed., Lond., 1880, Diss. on “Essenes, their Name, Origin, and Relation to Christianity.” pp. 349-419; also Schürer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 188-218, “The Essenes.”

[4] Nutt, _Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and Literature_. Lond., 1874.

[5] On Philo, see Schürer, Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 321-381.

[6] J. Bannerman, “The Church of Christ.” 2 vols., Edin., 1868. Jacob, “Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament.” Lond., 1871. Hatch, “The Organization of the Early Chr. Churches.” Lond., 1881; 2nd ed., 1883. D. D. Bannerman, “The Doctrine of the Church.” Edin., 1887. Hodge, “The Church and its Polity.” Edin., 1879. Binnie, “The Church.” Edin., 1882. Pressensé, “Life and Pract. of Early Church.” Lond., 1879. Lightfoot, “Comm. on Philip.” “Essay on Christian Ministry.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881, pp. 181-269.

[7] Mommsen, “De collegiis et sodaliciis Rom.” Kiel, 1843. Foucart, “Les associat. relig. chez les Grecs.” Paris, 1873. Hatch, “Organization of Early Chr. Churches.” pp. 26-39.

[8] Lightfoot, “Epistle to Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881, p. 95. Detached notes on the synonyms “bishop” and “presbyter.” “Diss. on Christian Ministry.” pp. 187-200.

[9] Blondel, “Apologia pro sententia Hieron. de episcop. et presbyt.” Amst., 1646.

[10] The φίλημα ἅγιον of Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.

[11] Of these we probably find fragments in Eph. ii. 14; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13; and perhaps also in 1 Tim. iii. 1, 16; Jas. i. 17; Rev. i. 4; iv. 11; v. 9; xi. 15; xv. 3; xxi. 1; xxii. 10.

[12] Acts ii. 4, 6; xx. 7.

[13] John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10.

[14] Acts ii. 39; xvi. 33; 1 Cor. vii. 14.

[15] Acts viii. 17; vi. 6; xiii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14.

[16] On the subject of this section consult: Pressensé, “Early Years of Christianity.” Vol. 2, “Apostolic Age.” Lond., 1879, pp. 361-381. Lechler, “Apostolic and Post Apostolic Times.” 2 vols., Edin., 1886; Vol. i., pp. 37-67, 130-144.

[17] Burton, “Heresies of the Apostolic Age.” Oxford, 1829.

[18] As authorities for this period consult: Moshemii, “Commentarii de reb. Christianor. ante Constant.” Helmst., 1753. Baur, “First Three Centuries of the Christian Church.” Lond., 1877. Milman, “Hist. of Chr. to Abol. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1840. Pressensé, “Early Years of Christianity.” 4 vols., Lond., 1879.

[19] Consult: Killen, “The Ancient Church.” Edin., 1859; “The Old Catholic Church.” Edin., 1871. Lechler, “Apost. and Post-Apost. Times.” 2 vols., Edin., 1886; Vol. ii., pp. 260-379. Robertson, “Hist. of Chr. Church.” Vol. i., (A.D. 64-590), Lond., 1858.

[20] Although the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages are sharply enough distinguished from one another in point of time and of contents along many lines of historical development, and are rightly partitioned off from each other, so that they might seem to require treatment as independent periods; yet, on the one hand, passing over from the one to the other is so frequent and is for the most part of so liquid and incontrollable a nature, while on the other hand, the opposition of and the distinction between these two periods and the œcumenical Catholic Imperial Church that succeeds are so thorough-going, that we prefer to embrace the two under one period and to point out the boundary lines between the two wherever these are clearly discernible.

[21] Inge, “Society in Rome under the Cæsars.” Lond., 1887.

[22] Uhlhorn, “Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism.” Steere, “Account of the Persecutions of the Church under the Roman Emperors.”

[23] Renan, “Antichrist.” Lond., 1874. Merivale, “Hist. of Rom. Emp.” Vols. v. vi., Lond., 1856, 1858. Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity.” Lond., 1884; Bk. I., pp. 1-44. Mommsen, “Hist. of Rome.” 6 vols., Lond., 1875 ff.

[24] Renan, “Marcus Aurelius.” Lond., 1883. Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1885.

[25] Lightfoot, “Ignatius.” Vol. i., pp. 469-476.

[26] “Kirchengesch. v. Dtschl.” I. 94.

[27] Mason, “The Persecution of Diocletian.” Cambridge, 1876.

[28] Cotterill, “Peregrinus Proteus.” Edin., 1879; Engl. Transl. of Lucian’s works, by Dr. Francklin, 4 vols., Lond., 1781.

[29] Baur, “Christian Church in First Three Centuries.” Lond., 1877. “Celsus and Origen.” in vol. iv. of Froude’s “Short Studies.”

[30] Philostratus, “Life of Apollonius of Tyana.” First 2 bks., Transl. by Blount, Lond., 1680. Newman, “Hist. Sketches.” Vol. i., chap. ii., “Apollonius of Tyana.”

[31] The works of Plotinus consist of 54 treatises arranged in 6 Enneads, “Opera Omnia.” ed. Creuzer, 3 vols., Oxon., 1835. Several of the treatises transl. into English by H. Taylor, Lond., 1794 and 1817.

[32] Zeller, “History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy.” Lond., 1831. Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” Lond., 1872; Vol. i., pp. 240-252.

[33] “Narratio orig. rituum et error. Christianor. S. Joannis.” Rom., 1652.

[34] Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Lond., 1886; Vol. viii., p. 120.

[35] In de Sacy’s “Chrestom. Arabe.” 2 ed., I. 333.

[36] 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 19; Gal. ii. 9.

[37] Burton, “Heresies of the Apostolic Age.” Oxford, 1829. Zeller, “Acts of the Apostles.” 2 vols., London, 1875, 1876. Pressensé, “Apostolic Age.” London, 1879, pp. 66-73; 318-330.

[38] Neander’s “First Planting of Christianity and Antignostikus.” (Bohn), 2 vols., Lond., 1851. Mansel, “Gnostic Heresies of First and Second Centuries.” Ed. by Bishop Lightfoot, Lond., 1875. King, “Remains of the Gnostics.” Lond., 1864; new ed., 1887. Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i., pp. 280-290.

[39] These are published among the works of Origen. Recently Caspari discovered an admirable Latin translation of them made by Rufinus, and published it in his “Kirchenhist. Anecdota.” I., (Christ., 1883).

[40] Lipsius, “Valentinus and his School.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Biography.” Vol. iv., Lond., 1887.

[41] In Cureton’s “Spicil. Syr.” Lond., 1855.

[42] In its extant Coptic form, ed. by Petermann, Brl., 1851. In a Latin transl. by Schwartze, Brl., 1853. In English transl. in King’s “Remains of the Gnostics.” Lond., 1887.

[43] Yet the school of Baur regard this Gospel of Marcion as the original of Luke. Hilgenfeld thinks that both our Luke and Marcion drew from one earlier source. Hahn has sought to restore the Marcionite Gospel in Thilo’s “Cod. Apoc. N.T.” I. 401. Sanday, “Gospels in the Second Century.” London, 1876.

[44] Salmon, “Introd. to the N.T.” London, 1885, pp. 242-248. Reuss, “Hist. of N.T.” Edin., 1884, §§ 291, 246, 362, 508.

[45] Lightfoot, “Comm. on Galatians.” Camb., 1865; Diss. “St. Paul and the Three.”

[46] Lechler, “Apost. and Post-Apostol. Times.” Vol. ii., p. 263 ff. Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Lond., 1886, Vol. viii., p. 152.

[47] Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Vol. viii., p. 122.

[48] We possess this work in the original Greek. The first complete edition was that of Cotelerius in his “Pp. Apost.” The latest and most careful separate ed., is by Lagarde, Lps., 1865; Eng. transl. in Ante Nicene Lib., Edin., 1871.

[49] Existing only in the Latin transl. of Rufinus. Published in Cotelerius, “Pp. Apost.” Separate ed. by Gersdorf, Lps., 1838; Eng. transl. Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1867.

[50] See de Sacy, “Mem. sur diverses antiqu. de la Perse.” Par., 1794. The most important of these Arabic works are the Literary History of An-Naddim, Kitab al Fihrist, ed. Flügel and Roediger, Lps., 1871; then Al-Shurstani’s “Hist. of relig. and phil. sects.” ed. Cureton, Lond., 1842; and Al-Biruni’s “Chron. d. Orient Völker.” ed. Sachau, Lps., 1878.

[51] Among the Mandeans _mana rabba_ means one of the highest æons, and is thus perhaps identical with the name Paraclete borrowed from the Christian terminology, which Manes assumed.

[52] Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i., pp. 290-325. Patristic. Phil. down to Council of Nicæa.

[53] Donaldson, “Apostolic Fathers.” Lond., 1874. Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome.” 2 vols., Lond., 1869, 1877; Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 vols., Lond., 1885. Sanday, “The Gospels in the Second Century.” Lond., 1876.

[54] Luke i. 1; § 32, 4; 36, 7; 59, 1.

[55] “Patrum Apost. Opera.” Ed. Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn, 3 vols., Lps., 1876 ff. “Apostolic Fathers.” Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Library, Edin., 1867. Donaldson, “Apostolic Fathers.” Edin., 1874.

[56] At Constantinople, 1875.

[57] Comp. Lightfoot, “St. Clement of Rome, An Appendix.” etc., Lond., 1877.

[58] Donaldson, “History of Christian Literature.” Vol. i., Lond., 1864. Cunningham, “Dissertation on Epistle of St. Barnabas.” Lond., 1877.

[59] “Hermæ Pastor.” ed. Hilgenfeld, 2 ed., Lps., 1881. Down to the middle of the 19th century it was known only in a Latin translation, but since then the Greek original has been accessible in two recensions, as well as in an ancient Ethiopic translation (ed. d’Abbadie, Lps., 1860). One of the Greek recensions almost complete was found in the monastery of Athos; and an older, but less perfect one, was found in the _Codex Sinaiticus_. Schodde, “Hermâ Nabî; The Ethiopic version of Pastor Hermæ examined.” Lps., 1876.

[60] Comp. Harnack in _Expositor_ for March, 1886, pp. 185-192. Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” Lond., 1885, vol. ii., pp. 433-470.

[61] Cureton, “Corpus Ignatianum.” (Rom., Eph., and Ep. to Polyc.), Lond., 1819.

[62] Against their genuineness: Dallæus, “De scrr. quæ sub Dionysii et Ignatii nom. circumfer.” Gen., 1666. Killen, “Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious.” Edin., 1886.

In favour: Pearson, “Vindiciæ St. Ignat.” Cantab., 1672. Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1885.

[63] Salmon, “Introd. to the New Testament.” Lond., 1885, pp. 104-126. Sanday, “Gospels in Second Century.” Lond., 1876.

[64] Schaff, “The Oldest Church Manual.” Edin., 1886. Hitchcock and Brown, “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” New York, 1884. Taylor, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles with Illus. from the Talmud.” Cambr., 1886. _Expositor_, April and June, 1886, pp. 319 f. and 401 ff.; Nov., 1887, pp. 359-371.

[65] Donaldson, “Hist. of Chr. Lit. from death of App. to Nic. Council.” 3 vols., Lond., 1864, Vols. ii. and iii., “The Apologists.”

[66] The Syriac translation of a treatise of Melito’s given in Cureton’s “Spicileg. Syr.” Lond., 1853, which gives itself out as an address delivered before Antoninus Cæsar, is not identical with his Apology to Antoninus Pius, of which Eusebius has preserved three fragments, as these passages are not found in it.

[67] The fragments of Melito’s works are collected by Routh, “Reliquiæ Sacr.” L., Oxon., 1814.

[68] “Opera.” ed. Otto, 3 vols., Jena, 1876; Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Library, Edin., 1867. Semisch, “Just. Mart.” 2 vols., Edin., 1843. Kaye, “Writings and Opin. of Just. Mart.” Lond., 1853.

[69] Salmon, “Introd. to New Test.” On Tatian, pp. 96-104. Wace on “Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron.” in _Expositor_ for Sept. and Oct., 1882.

[70] Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.” Bampton Lect. for 1886, Oxf., 1886. Kingsley, “Alexandria and her Schools.” Camb., 1854.

[71] “Opera.” ed. Harvey, Cantab., 1857; Introd. II. “Life and Wr. of Irenæus.” Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1868, 1869. Lightfoot, “Churches of Gaul.” in _Contemp. Review_, Aug. 1876. Lipsius, “Irenæus.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” III., pp. 253-279.

[72] Many works ascribed to him have been lost; whatever fragments of these exist have been collected by Fabricius and Lagarde. These were: _Exeget._, a Com. on Daniel; _Apolog._, Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους; _Polem._, against Gnostics and Monarchians, against the Asiatic Observance of Easter (§ 37, 2); _Dogmat._, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάντος οὐσίας, Περὶ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου, Περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως (§ 22, 4), Περὶ χαρισμάτων; Hist.-chron., Chronicle, and Easter-Canon. On Philosophoumena: Döllinger, “Hippolytus and Callistus.” Edin., 1876.

[73] “Opera.” ed. Dindorf, 4 vols., Oxon., 1868. “Supplementum Clementinum, in Zahn’s Forsch.” Vol. iii., Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1867. Bigg, “Chr. Plat. of Alex.” Lectt. II. III., Oxf., 1886. Kaye, “Clement of Alexandria.” London, 1855. Reuss, “Hist of Canon.” Edin., 1884, pp. 112-116.