n. For details see below.]

[Footnote 495: It would seem from some passages as if faith and
theological knowledge were according to Irenaeus simply related as the
"is" and the "why." As a matter of fact, he did express himself so
without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for
faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason
and aim of God's ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are
therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenaeus merely
sought for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it
in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to
heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge,
contributed a great deal to the transformation of that faith into a
monistic speculation.]

[Footnote 496: See 1. 10. 2: [Greek: Kai oute ho panu dunatos en logo
ton en tais ekklesiais proestoton touton] (scil. than the regula sidei)
[Greek: epei oudeis gar uper ton didaskalon oute ho asthenes en to logo
elattosei ten paradosin. Mias gar kai tes autes pisteos ouses oute ho
polu peri autes dunamenos eipein epleonasen, oute ho to oligon
elattonese].]

[Footnote 497: See Bohringer's careful reviews of the theology of
Irenaeus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st
section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739).]

[Footnote 498: To the proof from prescription belong the arguments
derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic
doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original
source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de praescr. 7; Apolog.
47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenaeus'
criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenaeus,
Leipzig, 1891. p. 8 ff.]

[Footnote 499: See Irenaeus II. 1. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc.
I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar,
nor two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15.]

[Footnote 500: See Irenaeus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very
appropriately defined the aeons of Ptolemy as "personales substantias
extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut
sensus et affectus motus incluserat."]

[Footnote 501: See Irenaeus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book,
Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenaeus still
treated the first 8 Ptolemaic aeons with