| << | Contents | >> |
Irenæus
Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies
[2649] Eusebius, book v. to the twenty-seventh chapter, should be read as an introduction to this author.
[2650] Milman, Hist. Latin Christianity, b. i. pp. 27, 28, and the notes.
[2653] On the authority of St. Jerome. See Guettée, De l’église de France, vol. 1. p. 27.
[2654] The first two books of Irenæus Against Heresies have been translated by Dr. Roberts. The groundwork of the translation of the third book, and that portion of the fourth book which is continued in this volume, has been furnished by the Rev. W. H. Rambaut. An attempt has been made, in rendering this important author into English, to adhere as closely as possible to the original. It would have been far easier to give a loose and flowing translation of the obscure and involved sentences of Irenæus; but the object has been studiously kept in view, to place the English reader, as much as possible, in the position of one who has immediate access to the Greek or Latin text.
[2655] The Greek original of the work of Irenæus is from time to time recovered through the numerous quotations made from it by subsequent writers, especially by the author’s pupil Hippolytus, and by Epiphanius. The latter preserves (Hær. xxxi. secs. 9–32) the preface of Irenæus, and most of the first book. An important difference of reading occurs between the Latin and Greek in the very first word. The translator manifestly read ἐπεί, quatenus, while in Epiphanius we find ἐπί, against. The former is probably correct, and has been followed in our version. We have also supplied a clause, in order to avoid the extreme length of the sentence in the original, which runs on without any apodosis to the words ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, “I have judged it necessary.”
[2656] 1 Tim. i. 4. The Latin has here genealogias infinitas, “endless genealogies,” as in textus receptus of New Testament.
[2657] As will be seen by and by, this fancied being was, in the Valentinian system, the creator of the material universe, but far inferior to the supreme ruler Bythus.
[2658] There are frequent references to Irenæus to some venerable men who had preceded him in the Church. It is supposed that Pothinus, whom he succeeded at Lyons, is generally meant; but the reference may sometimes be to Polycarp, with whom in early life he had been acquainted. [On this matter of quotations from anonymous authors of the apostolic times, not infrequently made by Irenæus, consult the important tractate of Dr. Routh, in his Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. i. 45–68.]
[2659] Comp.Matt. vii. 15.
[2660] The original is ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν, which the Latin translator renders simply, “have not sufficient brains.” He probably followed a somewhat different reading. Various emendations have been proposed, but the author may be understood by the ordinary text to be referring ironically to the boasted subtlety and sublimity of the Gnostics.
[2662] As Cæsar informs us (Comm., i. 1), Gaul was divided into three parts, one of which was called Celtic Gaul, lying between the Seine and the Garonne. Of this division Lyons is the principal city.
[2663] [The reader will find a logical and easy introduction to the crabbed details which follow, by turning to chap. xxiii., and reading through succeeding chapters down to chap. xxix.]
[2664] This term Æon (Αἰών) seems to have been formed from the words ἀεὶ ὤν, ever-existing. “We may take αἰών, therefore,” says Harvey (Irenæus, cxix.), “in the Valentinian acceptation of the word, to mean an emanation from the divine substance, subsisting co-ordinately and co-eternally with the Deity, the Pleroma still remaining one.”
[2665] Sige, however, was no true consort of Bythus, who included in himself the idea of male and female, and was the one cause of all things: comp. Hippolytus, Philosop., vi. 29. There seems to have been considerable disagreement among these heretics as to the completion of the mystical number thirty. Valentinus himself appears to have considered Bythus as a monad, and Sige as a mere nonentity. The two latest Æons, Christ and the Holy Spirit, would then complete the number thirty. But other Gnostic teachers included both Bythus and Sige in that mystical number.
[2666] It may be well to give here the English equivalents of the names of these Æons and their authors. They are as follows: Bythus, Profundity; Proarche, First-Beginning; Propator, First-Father; Ennœa, Idea; Charis, Grace; Sige, Silence; Nous, Intelligence; Aletheia, Truth; Logos, Word; Zoe, Life; Anthropos, Man; Ecclesia, Church; Bythius, Deep; Mixis, Mingling; Ageratos, Undecaying; Henosis, Union; Autophyes, Self-existent; Hedone, Pleasure; Acinetos, Immoveable; Syncrasis, Blending; Monogenes, Only-Begotten; Macaria, Happiness; Paracletus, Advocate; Pistis, Faith; Patricos, Ancestral; Elpis, Hope; Metricos, Metrical; Agape, Love; Ainos, Praise; Synesis, Understanding; Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastical; Macariotes, Felicity; Theletos, Desiderated; Sophia, Wisdom.
[2669] Some omit ἐν πλήθει, while others render the words “a definite number,” thus: “And if there is anything else in Scripture which is referred to by a definite number.”
[2670] Alluding to the Gnostic notion that, in generation, the male gives form, the female substance. Sophia, therefore, being a female Æon, gave to her enthymesis substance alone, without form. Comp. Hippol., Philosop., vi. 30.
[2671] Some render this obscure clause, “lest it should never attain perfection,” but the above seems preferable. See Hippol., vi. 31, where the fear referred to is extended to the whole Pleroma.
[2672] “The reader will observe the parallel; as the enthymesis of Bythus produced intelligent substance, so the enthymesis of Sophia resulted in the formation of material substance.”—Harvey.
[2673] Some propose reading these words in the dative rather than the accusative, and thus to make them refer to the image of the Father.
[2674] The meaning of these terms is as follows: Stauros means primarily a stake, and then a cross; Lytrotes is a Redeemer; Carpistes, according to Grabe, means an Emancipator, according to Neander a Reaper; Horothetes is one that fixes boundaries; and Metagoges is explained by Neander as being one that brings back, from the supposed function of Horos, to bring back all that sought to wander from the special grade of being assigned them.
[2675] The common text has ἀποστερηθῆναι, was deprived; but Billius proposes to read ἀποσταυρωθῆναι, in conformity with the ancient Latin version, “crucifixam.”
[2676] That is, had not shared in any male influence, but was a purely female production.
[2677] Literally, “fruit.” Harvey remarks on this expression, “that what we understand by emanations, the Gnostic described as spiritual fructification; and as the seed of a tree is in itself, even in the embryo state, so these various Æons, as existing always in the divine nature, were co-eternal with it.”
[2678] This is an exceedingly obscure and difficult passage. Harvey’s rendering is: “For, say they, Christ taught them the nature of their copulæ, (namely,) that being cognisant of their (limited) perception of the Unbegotten they needed no higher knowledge, and that He enounced,” etc. the words seem scarcely capable of yielding this sense: we have followed the interpretation of Billius.
[2679] Both the text and meaning are here very doubtful. Some think that the import of the sentence is, that the knowledge that the Father is incomprehensible secured the continued safety of the Æons, while the same knowledge conferred upon Monogenes his origin and form.
[2680] The Greek text inserts ἕν, one, before “Holy Spirit.”
Chapter III.—Texts of Holy Scripture used by these heretics to support their opinions.
[2681] The reading is here very doubtful. We have followed the text of Grabe (approved by Harvey), ἐξ ἀγῶνος σύμπηξις.
[2682] These are all names of the same person: see above, ii. 4. Hence some have proposed the reading ἑξαιώνιος instead of ἐξ ἀγῶνος, alluding to the sixfold appellation of the Æon Horos.
[2683] Billius renders, “from the repentance of the Father,” but the above seems preferable.
[2684] Harvey remarks, “Even in their Christology the Valentinians must have their part and counterpart.”
[2685] Or, “to all the generations of the ages of the age.” See Eph. iii. 21. The apostle, of course, simply uses these words as a strong expression to denote “for ever.”
[2686] Literally, “at the thanksgiving,” or “eucharist.” Massuet, the Benedictine editor, refers this to the Lord’s Supper, and hence concludes that some of the ancient liturgies still extant must even then have been in use. Harvey and others, however, deny that there is any necessity for supposing the Holy Eucharist to be referred to; the ancient Latin version translates in the plural, “in gratiarum actionibus.”
[2689] This opinion is in positive contradiction to the forty days mentioned by St. Luke (Acts i. 3). But the Valentinians seem to have followed a spurious writing of their own called “The Gospel of Truth.” See iii. 11, 8.
[2690] The numeral value of Iota in Greek is ten, and of Eta, eight.
[2693] The Latin reads “filii,” which we have followed. Reference is made in this word to Nous, who was, as we have already seen, also called Son, and who interested himself in the recovery of Sophia. Aletheia was his consort, and was typified by the hem of the Saviour’s garment.
[2694] Her individuality (μορφή) would have been lost, while her substance (οὐσία) would have survived in the common essence of the Æons.
[2695] That is, the “second Christ” referred to above, sec. 1. [It is much to be wished that this second were always distinguished by the untranslated name Soter.]
[2696] Ex. xiii. 2; Luke ii. 23.
[2697] Not as being born of it, but as fecundating it, and so producing a manifold offspring. See below.
[2702] Luke xiv. 27. It will be observed that the quotations of Scripture made by Irenæus often vary somewhat from the received text. This may be due to various reasons—his quoting from memory; his giving the texts in the form in which they were quoted by the heretics; or, as Harvey conjectures, from his having been more familiar with a Syriac version of the New Testament than with the Greek original.
[2706] Hence Stauros was called by the agricultural name Carpistes, as separating what was gross and material from the spiritual and heavenly.
[2708] Gal. vi. 14. The words ἐν μηδενί do not occur in the Greek text.
[2709] Billius renders, “of their opinion.”
[2710] The punctuation and rendering are here slightly doubtful.
[2711] This term, though Tertullian declares himself to have been ignorant of its derivation, was evidently formed from the Hebrew word חָכְמָה—chockmah, wisdom.
[2712] The reader will observe that light and fulness are the exact correlatives of the darkness and vacuity which have just been mentioned.
[2713] As above stated (ii. 3), the Gnostics held that form and figure were due to the male, substance to the female parent.
[2714] The Valentinian Stauros was the boundary fence of the Pleroma beyond which Christ extended himself to assist the enthymesis of Sophia.
[2715] The peculiar gnosis which Nous received from his father, and communicated to the other Æons.
[2716] Probably corresponding to the Hebrew יהוה, Jehovah.
[2717] This sentence is very elliptical in the original, but the sense is as given above. Sophia fell from Gnosis by degradation; Achamoth never possessed this knowledge, her nature being from the first opposed to it.
[2718] “The Demiurge derived from Enthymesis an animal, and not a spiritual nature.”— Harvey.
[2720] “Jesus, or Soter, was also called the Paraclete in the sense of Advocate, or one acting as the representative of others.”—Harvey.
[2721] Both the Father and the other Æons constituting Soter an impersonation of the entire Pleroma.
[2723] That is, as in the case of her mother Sophia, who is sometimes called “the Sophia above,” Achamoth being “the Sophia below,” or “the second Sophia.”
[2724] Thus Harvey renders ἀσώματον ὕλην: so Baur, Chr. Gnos., as quoted by Stieren. Billius proposes to read ἐνσώματον, corporeal.
[2725] Though not actually, for that was the work of the Demiurge. See next chapter.
[2726] “In order that,” says Grabe, “this formation might not be merely according to essence, but also according to knowledge, as the formation of the mother Achamoth was characterized above.”
[2727] Metropator, as proceeding only from his mother Achamoth: Apator, as having no male progenitor.
[2728] Harvey remarks, “The Valentinian Saviour being an aggregation of all the æonic perfections, the images of them were reproduced by the spiritual conception of Achamoth beholding the glory of Σωτήρ. The reader will not fail to observe that every successive development is the reflex of a more divine antecedent.”
[2729] The relation indicated seems to be as follows: Achamoth, after being formed “according to knowledge,” was outside of the Pleroma as the image of Propator, the Demiurge was as Nous, and the mundane angels which he formed corresponded to the other Æons of the Pleroma.
[2730] “Achamoth by these names must be understood to have an intermediate position between the divine prototypal idea and creation: she was the reflex of the one, and therefore masculo-feminine; she was the pattern to be realized in the latter, and therefore was named Earth and Jerusalem.” —Harvey.
[2731] But after the consummation here referred to, Achamoth regained the Pleroma: see below, chap. vii. 1.
[2732] Isa. xlv. 5, 6, Isa. xlvi. 9.
[2733] An account is here given of the infusion of a spiritual principle into mankind. The Demiurge himself could give no more than the animal soul; but, unwittingly to himself, he was made the instrument of conveying that spiritual essence from Achamoth, which had grown up within her from the contemplation of those angels who accompanied the Saviour.
[2735] “The doctrine of Valentinus, therefore,” says Harvey, “as regards the human nature of Christ, was essentially Docetic. His body was animal, but not material, and only visible and tangible as having been formed κατ’ οἰκονομίαν and κατεσκευασμένον ἀῤῥήτῳ τέχνῃ.”
[2736] [That is, carnal; men of the carnal mind, psychic instead of pneumatic. Rom. viii. 6.]
[2737] On account of what they had received from Achamoth.
[2739] Comp. Luke xix. 26.
[2740] Comp.John xvii. 16. The Valentinians, while in the world, claimed to be not of the world, as animal men were.
[2741] Their spiritual substance was received from Achamoth; their animal souls were created by the Demiurge. These are now separated; the spirit enters the Pleroma, while the soul remains in heaven.
[2742] Viz., Achamoth.
[2743] A Syriac fragment here reads, “He spake by the prophets through him.”
[2744] “Thus,” says Harvey, “we may trace back to the Gnostic period the Apollinarian error, closely allied to the Docetic, that the body of Christ was not derived from the blessed Virgin, but that it was of heavenly substance, and was only brought forth into the world through her instrumentality.”
[2745] By thus extending himself through Stauros, who bounded the Pleroma, the Christ above became the type of the Christ below, who was extended upon the cross.
[2746] Billius, following the old Latin version, reads, “They interpret many things, spoken by the prophets, of this seed.”
[2747] Such appears to be the meaning of this sentence, but the original is very obscure. The writer seems to refer to the spiritual, the animal, and the material classes of men, and to imply that the Demiurge supposed some prophecies to be due to one of these classes, and some to the others.
[2748] Matt. viii. 9; Luke vii. 8.
[2749] As was the case at first, in Adam.
Chapter VIII.—How the Valentinians pervert the Scriptures to support their own pious opinions.
[2750] Literally, “reading from things unwritten.”
[2753] 1 Cor. xi. 10. Irenæus here reads κάλυμμα, veil, instead of ἐξουσίαν, power, as in the received text. [An interesting fact, as it betokens an old gloss, which may have slipped into the text of some ancient mss.]
[2757] John xii. 27. The Valentinians seem, for their own purposes, to have added οὐκ οἶδα to this text.
[2774] John i. 3, 4. The punctuation here followed is different from that commonly adopted, but is found in many of the Fathers, and in some of the most ancient mss.
[2777] ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, occurring twice, is rendered both times in the old Latin version, “ab eis.” The reference is to σκοτία, darkness, i.e., all those not belonging to the spiritual seed.
[2778] Comp. John i. 14.
[2779] This is parenthetically inserted by the author, to show the misquotation of Scripture by these heretics.
[2780] These words are wanting in the Greek, but are inserted in the old Latin version.
Chapter IX.—Refutation of the impious interpretations of these heretics.
[2781] It is difficult to give an exact rendering of μελετᾶν in this passage; the old Lat. version translates it by meditari, which Massuet proposes to render “skilfully to fit.”
[2782] Tertullian refers (Præscrip. Hær.) to those Homeric centos of which a specimen follows. We have given each line as it stands in the original: the text followed by Irenæus differs slightly from the received text.
[2783] Literally, “immoveable in himself,” the word ἀκλινῆ being used with an apparent reference to the original meaning of κανόνα, a builder’s rule.
[2784] The meaning of the word ἀπολύτρωσις here is not easily determined; but it is probably a scenic term equivalent to ἀπόλυσις, and may be rendered as above.
[2785] [The Creed, in the sublime simplicity of its fundamental articles, is established; that is, by the impossibility of framing anything to take their place.]
Chapter X.—Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.
[2786] “ Of God” is added from the old Latin
[2790] Probably referring to the Churches in Palestine.
[2791] The text here is ἀρκουμένους τούτους, which is manifestly corrupt. Various emendations have been proposed: we prefer reading ἀρκούμενος τούτοις, and have translated accordingly.
[2793] Irenæus here reads πάντα instead of πάντας, as in Text. Rec. of New Testament.
[2794] εὐχαριστεῖν— this word has been deemed corrupt, as it certainly appears out of keeping with the other verbs; but it may be rendered as above.
[2796] Hos. ii. 23;Rom. ix. 25.
[2797] Isa. liv. 1; Gal. iv. 27.
Chapter XI.—The opinions of Valentinus, with those of his disciples and others.
[2799] That is, the first of the two or three here referred to, not the first of the Gnostic teachers, as some have imagined. [The Gnosticism of one age may be essentially the same in spirit as the Agnosticism of another.]
[2800] Viz., all outside of the Pleroma.
[2801] Corrected from Ecclesia in the text.
[2802] Some have supposed that the name of this teacher was Epiphanes, and that the old Latin mistakenly translates this by clarus; others think that Colorbasus is the teacher in question.
[2803] The Greek text is wanting till the end of this section.
[2804] [1 Kings xviii. 27. “It came to pass that Elijah mocked them,” etc. This reductio ad absurdum of our author is singularly applicable to certain forms of what is called “Modern Thought.”]
Chapter XII.—The doctrines of the followers of Ptolemy and Colorbasus.
[2805] We here follow the Greek as preserved by Hippolytus (Philosoph., vi. 38). The text followed by Epiphanius (Hær., xxxiii. 1) does not so well agree with the Latin.
[2806] The text is here hopelessly corrupt; but the general meaning seems to be that given above.
[2807] This sentence exists only in the Latin version, and we can give only a free translation.
[2808] Iliad, ii. 1, etc.
[2809] These words are found in Epiphanius, but omitted in the old Latin version. The Latin gives “sense” instead of “light.”
[2810] The text is here very uncertain. Some propose to read six Æons instead of all.
[2811] Here again the text is corrupt and obscure. We have followed what seems the most probable emendation.
[2812] Harvey justly remarks, that “one cause of perplexity in unravelling the Valentinian scheme is the recurrence of similar names at different points of the system, e.g., the Enthymesis of Sophia was called Sophia and Spiritus; and Pater, Arche, Monogenes, Christus, Anthropos, Ecclesia, were all of them terms of a double denomination.”
Chapter XIII.—The deceitful arts and nefarious practices of Marcus.
[2813] The Greek text of this section is preserved both by Epiphanius (Hær. xxxiv. 1) and by Hippolytus (Philosoph., vi. 39, 40). Their citations are somewhat discordant, and we therefore follow the old Latin version.
[2814] Pliny, Hist. Nat., xxxv. 15, etc.
[2815] Epiphanius now gives the Greek text verbatim, to which, therefore, we return.
[2816] Probably referring to Sige, the consort of Bythus.
[2817] [Comp. Acts xvi. 16.]
[2818] Literally, “the place of thy mightiness is in us.”
[2819] [Note this manner of primitive “confession;” and see Bingham, Antiquities, book xv. cap. 8]
[2820] We here follow the rendering of Billius, “in iisdem studiis versantes.” Others adhere to the received text, and translate περιπολίζοντες “going about idly.”
[2821] Grabe is of opinion that reference is made in this term to an imprecatory formula in use among the Marcosians, analogous to the form of thanksgiving employed night and morning by the Jews for their redemption from Egypt. Harvey refers the word to the second baptism practised among these and other heretics, by which it was supposed they were removed from the cognizance of the Demiurge, who is styled the “judge” in the close of the above sentence.
[2822] That is, Sophia, of whom Achamoth, afterwards referred to, was the emanation.
[2823] The angels accompanying Soter were the consorts of spiritual Gnostics, to whom they were restored after death.
[2824] The syntax in this long sentence is very confused, but the meaning is tolerably plain. The gist of it is, that these Gnostics, as being the spiritual seed, claimed a consubstantiality with Achamoth, and consequently escaped from the material Demiurge, and attained at last to the Pleroma.
[2825] Rendering the wearer invisible. See Il., v. 844.
Chapter XIV.—The various hypotheses of Marcus and others. Theories respecting letters and syllables.
[2827] This sentence has completely baffled all the critics. [Its banter, or mock gravity, has not been self-evident.] We cannot enter upon the wide field of discussion which it has opened up, but would simply state that Irenæus here seems to us, as often, to be playing upon the terms which were in common use among these heretics. Marcus probably received his system from Colorbasus, and is here declared, by the use of that jargon which Irenæus means to ridicule while so employing it, to have proceeded to develop it in the way described.
[2828] Such appears to be the meaning of ἀνούσιος in this passage. The meaning of οὐσία fluctuated for a time in the early Church, and was sometimes used to denote material substance, instead of its usual significance of being.
[2829] The old Latin preserves ἀρχή untranslated, implying that this was the first word which the Father spoke. Some modern editors adopt this view, while others hold the meaning simply to be, as given above, that that first sound which the Father uttered was the origin of all the rest.
[2830] The letters are here confounded with the Æons, which they represented.
[2833] By this Achamoth is denoted, who was said to give rise to the material elements, after the image of the Divine.
[2834] That is, their names are spelt by other letters.
[2835] The old Latin version renders ἐπίσημον, insigne, illustrious, but there seems to be a reference to the Valentinian notion of the mystic number of 888 formed (10+8+200+70+400+200) by the numerical value of the letters in the word ᾽Ιησοῦς.
[2836] The mutes are π, κ, τ, β, γ, δ, φ, χ, θ.
[2837] The semi-vowels are λ, μ, ν, ρ, σ, ζ, ξ, ψ.
[2838] It seems scarcely possible to give a more definite rendering of this clause: it may be literally translated thus: “And because they receive the outflow of those above, but the turning back again of those below.”
[2839] The ninth letter being taken from the mutes and added to the semi-vowels, an equal division of the twenty-four was thus secured.
[2840] Viz., Pater, Anthropos, and Logos.
[2841] Viz., ζ, ξ, ψ = δς, κς, πς.
[2842] Matt. xvii. 7; Mark ix. 2.
[2843] Moses and Elias being added to the company.
[2844] Referring to the word Χρειστός, according to Harvey, who remarks, that “generally the Ogdoad was the receptacle of the spiritual seed.”
[2845] The Saviour, as Alpha and Omega, was symbolized by the dove, the sum of the Greek numerals, π, ε, ρ, ι, σ, τ, ε, ρ, α (περιστερά, dove), being, like that of Α and Ω, 801.
[2846] That is, the letters ζ, ξ, ψ all contain ς, whose value is six, and which was called ἐπίσημον by the Greeks.
[2847] Referring to Aletheia, which, in Greek, contains seven letters.
[2848] By these seven powers are meant the seven heavens (also called angels), formed by the Demiurge.
[2849] We here follow the text of Hippolytus: the ordinary text and the old Latin read, “So does the soul of infants, weeping and mourning over Marcus, deify him.”
[2852] The text is here altogether uncertain: we have given the probable meaning.
[2853] That is, the name of Soter, the perfect result of the whole Pleroma.
[2854] Manifestly to be so spelt here, as in the sequel Chreistus, for Christus.
[2855] The text is here altogether uncertain, and the meaning obscure.
[2856] The reading is exceedingly doubtful: some prefer the number eighty-eight.
[2857] There were, as Harvey observes, three extraneous characters introduced into the Greek alphabet for the sake of numeration —the three episema for 6, 90, and 900 respectively. The true alphabet, then, as employed to denote number, included eight units, eight tens, and eight hundreds.
[2858] Or, according to the Greek text, “being as the way to the Father;” comp.John xiv. 6.
[2859] The text is here uncertain: we follow that suggested by Grabe.
[2860] [Comp. cap. xi. 4, supra.]
[2861] Comp. Gen. xxxi. 2. —We here follow the punctuation of Scaliger, now generally accepted by the editors, though entirely different from the old Latin.
[2862] [Mosheim thinks this Marcus was a lunatic.]
[2863] [Some think Pothinus.]
Chapter XVI.—Absurd interpretations of the Marcosians.
[2865] All the editors, Grabe, Massuet, Stieren, and Harvey, differ as to the text and interpretation of this sentence. We have given what seems the simplest rendering of the text as it stands.
[2866] Referring to the last of the twelve Æons.
[2868] Meaning the Æon who left the Duodecad, when eleven remained, and not referring to the lost sheep of the parable.
[2869] Harvey gives the above paraphrase of the very obscure original; others propose to read λ´ instead of λόγου.
[2870] Massuet explains this and the following reference, by remarking that the ancients used the fingers of the hand in counting; by the left hand they indicated all the numbers below a hundred, but by the right hand all above that sum.—Comp. Juvenal, Sat., x. 249.
[2874] The Demiurge being the fruit of the abortive conversion of the abortive passion of Achamoth, who, again, was the abortive issue of Sophia.
[2875] i.e., by aiming at what transcends their ability, they fall into absurdity, as a bow is broken by bending it too far.
[2877] Such is the translation which Harvey, following the text preserved by Hippolytus, gives of the above intricate and obscure sentence.
[2878] Literally, “is adorned with.”
Chapter XVIII.—Passages from Moses, which the heretics pervert to the support of their hypothesis.
[2881] One of the senses was thus capriciously cancelled by these heretics.
[2882] See above, chap. xiv. 2.
[2883] Or, rather, perhaps “curtains.” Ex. xxvi. 1.
[2885] Gen. vi. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 20.
[2892] Ex. xxvi. 1, Ex. xxxvi. 8.
[2896] Gen. xxxv. 22, Gen. xlix. 28.
[2897] Ex. xxviii. 2.—There is no mention of the number of the bells in Scripture.
[2905] Ex. xxvi. 8. Numbers appear to have been often capriciously introduced by these heretics to give a colour of support to their own theories.
[2908] Rom. iii. 11; Ps. xiv. 3.
[2910] Dan. xii. 9, 10. The words in the above quotation not occurring in the Hebrew text of the passage, seem to have been interpolated by these heretics.
[2911] [From the Protevangel of Thomas. Compare the curious work of Dominic Deodati, De Christo Græce loquente, p. 95. London, 1843.]
[2916] Taken from some apocryphal writing.
[2917] Luke xix. 42, loosely quoted.
[2919] The translator evidently read τῶν for τήν, in which case the rendering will be “proof of those most high,” but the Greek text seems preferable.
Chapter XXI.—The views of redemption entertained by these heretics.
[2921] Comp. chap. xiii. 6.
[2922] The Latin reads “Christ.”
[2923] Luke xii. 50. The text was probably thus corrupted by the heretics.
[2925] We have given these words as they stand in the Greek text: a very different list, but equally unmeaning, is found in the Latin.
[2926] The Latin reads zonis, “zones,” instead of “lives,” as in the Greek.
[2927] Here, again, are many variations.
[2928] The Greek text, which has hitherto been preserved almost entire, ends at this point. With only brief extracts from the original, now and then, we are henceforth exclusively dependent on the old Latin version, with some Syriac and Armenian fragments recently discovered.
Chapter XXII.—Deviations of heretics from the truth.
[2929] The Latin here begins with the words “cum teneamus,” and the apodosis is found afterwards at “facile arguimus.” But we have broken up the one long sentence into several.
[2932] The text is here uncertain and obscure: eternal things seem to be referred to, not as regarded substance, but the forms assigned them.
[2933] This word would perhaps be better cancelled.
Chapter XXIII.—Doctrines and practices of Simon Magus and Menander.
[2936] Comp. Just. Mart., Apol., i. 26. It is generally supposed that Simon Magus was thus confounded with the Sabine god, Semo Sancus; but see our note, loc. cit. [And mine at end of the First Apology. Consult Orelli’s Inscriptions there noted.]
[2937] A lyric poet of Sicily, said to have been dealt with, as stated above, by Castor and Pollux.
Chapter XXIV.—Doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides.
[2942] The ordinary text reads, “three hundred and seventy-five,” but it should manifestly be corrected as above.
[2943] This sentence is wholly unintelligible as it stands in the Latin version. Critics differ greatly as to its meaning; Harvey tries to bring out of it something like the translation given above. [This name is manufactured from a curious abuse of (קו לקו) Isa. xxviii. 10-13, which is variously understood. See (Epiphanius ed. Oehler, vol. i.) Philastr., p. 38.]
[2944] So written in Latin, but in Greek ᾽Αβρασάξ, the numerical value of the letters in which is three hundred and sixty-five. [See Aug. (ed. Migne), vol. viii. p. 26.] It is doubtful to whom or what this word refers; probably to the heavens.
Chapter XXV.—Doctrines of Carpocrates.
[2945] [I note again this “Americanism.”]
[2946] Such seems to be the meaning of the Latin, but the original text is conjectural.
[2947] [See cap. xxvii. 3.]
[2948] The text is here defective, but the above meaning seems to be indicated by Epiphanius.
[2950] [Isa. v. 20. Horne Tooke derives our word Truth from what any one troweth.]
[2951] The text here has greatly puzzled the editors. We follow the simple emendation proposed by Harvey.
[2952] Matt. v. 25, 26; Luke xii. 58, 59.
[2953] The meaning is here very doubtful, but Tertullian understood the words as above. If sinning were a necessity, then it could no longer be regarded as evil.
[2954] [This censure of images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.]
Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes.
[2955] We here follow the text as preserved by Hippolytus. The Latin has, “a certain man in Asia.”
[2956] [This is disputed by other primitive authorities.]
Chapter XXVII.—Doctrines of Cerdo and Marcion.
[2958] [Comp. cap. xxv. 3.]
[2959] We here follow the amended version proposed by the Benedictine editor.
[2960] A promise never fulfilled: comp. book iii. 12, and Euseb., Hist. Eccl., v. 8.
Chapter XXVIII.—Doctrines of Tatian, the Encratites, and others.
[2962] [The whole casuistical system of the Trent divines, De Matrimonio, proceeds on this principle: marriage is licensed evil.]
[2963] Harvey supposes this name to be derived from two Syriac words, meaning “God in a Tetrad.” Matter again derives it from two Hebrew words, denoting “Daughter of the Lord.”
[2964] Both the text and meaning are here altogether doubtful.
[2965] Harvey refers to the cabbalistic books in explanation of this and the following names, but their meanings are very uncertain.
[2966] Various explanations of this word have been proposed, but its signification remains altogether doubtful.
[2967] Ex. xx. 5; Isa. xlv. 5, 6.
Chapter XXX.—Doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians.
[2968] The punctuation is here difficult and doubtful.
[2969] The probable meaning of this and the following names is thus given by Harvey: Ialdabaoth, Lord God of the Fathers; Iao, Jehovah; Oreus, Light; Astanphæus, Crown; Sabaoth, of course, means Hosts; Adoneus, Lord; and Eloeus, God. All the names are derived from the cabbalistic theology of the Jews.
[2970] Hence their name of Ophites, from ὄφις, a serpent.
[2971] The Latin has evertisse, implying that thus Nous was more degraded.
[2973] That is, from Ialdabaoth, etc. [Philastr. (ut supra), Oehler, i. p. 38.]
[2974] There is constant reference in this section to rabbinical conceits and follies.
[2975] A name probably derived from the Hebrew נערה, girl, but of the person referred to we know nothing.
[2976] We here follow the emendation of Grabe: the defection of Prunicus is intended.
[2977] The Latin here is “ex quibus,” and the meaning is exceedingly obscure. Harvey thinks it is the representative ἐξ ὦν (χρόνων) in the Greek, but we prefer to refer it to “Judæos,” as above. The next sentence seems unintelligible: but, according to Harvey, “each deified day of the week had his ministering prophets.”
[2978] The common text inserts “et incorruptibili Æone,” but this seems better rejected as a glossarial interpolation.
[2979] 1 Cor. xv. 50. The Latin text reads “apprehendunt,” which can scarcely be the translation of κληρονομῆσαι in the Greek text of the New Testament.
[2980] That is, Christ and Jesus.
[2981] The text of this sentence is hopelessly corrupt, but the meaning is as given above.
Chapter XXXI.—Doctrines of the Cainites.
[2982] According to Harvey, Hystera corresponds to the “passions” of Achamoth. [Note the “Americanism,” advocate used as a verb.]
[2983] The text is here imperfect, and the translation only conjectural.
[2984] [Cant. ii. 15; St. Luke xiii. 32.]
[2985] [Let the reader bear in mind that the Greek of this original and very precious author exists only in fragments. We are reading the translation of a translation; the Latin very rude, and the subject itself full of difficulties. It may yet be discovered that some of the faults of the work are not chargeable to Irenæus.]
[2987] [Note this “Americanism.”]
[2988] [Note this “Americanism.”]
[2989] This passage is very obscure: we have supplied “et,” which, as Harvey conjectures, may have dropped out of the text.
[2990] [This noble chapter is a sort of homily on Heb. i.]
[2991] The common text has “ut:” we prefer to read “aut” with Erasmus and others.
[2992] Vossius and others read “primus” instead of “prius,” but on defective ms. authority.
[2993] Harvey here observes: “Grabe misses the meaning by applying to the redeemed that which the author says of the Redeemer;” but it may be doubted if this is really the case. Perhaps Massuet’s rendering of the clause, “that that man might be formed who should know Him,” is, after all, preferable to that given above.
[2995] Ps. xxxiii. 9, Ps. 148:5.
[2997] Eph. iv. 6, differing somewhat from Text. Rec. of New Testament.
[2998] In the barbarous Latin version, we here find utrum … an as the translation of ἤ … ἤ instead of aut … aut.
[2999] We have translated the text as it here stands in the mss. Grabe omits spiritalem et; Massuet proposes to read et invisibilem, and Stieren invisibilem.
[3000] In præsentia: Grabe proposes in præscientia, but without ms. authority. “The reader,” says Harvey, “will observe that there are three suppositions advanced by the author: that the world, as some heretics asserted, was eternal; that it was created in time, with no previous idea of it in the divine mind; or that it existed as a portion of the divine counsels from all eternity, though with no temporal subsistence until the time of its creation,—and of this the author now speaks.” The whole passage is most obscurely expressed.
Chapter IV.—The absurdity of the supposed vacuum and defect of the heretics is demonstrated.
[3001] Literally, “should also possess a vacant substance”
[3002] The text has “reliquis omnibus,” which would refer to the Æons; but we follow the emendation proposed by Massuet, “reliquorum omnium,” as the reference manifestly is to other heretics.
[3003] “Ab eo:” some refer “eo” to the Demiurge, but it is not unusual for the Latin translator to follow the Greek gender, although different from that of the Latin word which he has himself employed. We may therefore here “eo” to “labem,” which is the translation of the neuter noun ὑστέρημα.
[3004] Labem is here repeated, probably by mistake.
[3005] The Latin is fieri eos: Massuet conjectures that the Greek had been ποιεῖσθαι αὐτούς, and that the translator rendered ποιεῖσθαι as a passive instead of a middle verb, fieri for facere.
[3006] See above, chap. i.
[3007] The Latin text here is, “et concludentur tales cum patre suo ab eo qui est extra Pleroma, in quo etiam et desinere eos necesse est.” None of the editors notice the difficulty or obscurity of the clause, but it appears to us absolutely untranslateable. We have rendered it as if the reading were “ab eo quod,” though, if the strict grammatical construction be followed, the translation must be, “from Him who.” But then to what does “in quo,” which follows, refer? It may be ascribed either to the immediate antecedent Pleroma, or to Him who is described as being beyond it.
[3008] Chap. ii., iii., iv.
[3009] This is an extremely difficult passage. We follow the reading æternochoica adopted by Massuet, but Harvey reads æterna choica, and renders, “They charge all other substance (i.e., spiritual) with the imperfections of the material creation, as though Æon substance were equally ephemeral and choic.”
[3010] The common reading is “aut;” we adopt Harvey’s conjectural emendation of “at.”
[3011] The above clause is very obscure; Massuet reads it interrogatively.
[3012] The text has “antiquius,” literally “more ancient,” but it may here be rendered as above.
Chapter VI.—The angels and the Creator of the world could not have been ignorant of the Supreme God.
[3014] Massuet refers this to the Roman emperor.
Chapter VII.—Created things are not the images of those Æons who are within the Pleroma.
[3015] Harvey supposes that the translator here read ἤ quam instead of ᾗ quâ (gloria); but Grabe, Massuet, and Stieren prefer to delete erit.
[3016] Reference is here made to the supposed wretched state of Achamoth as lying in the region of shadow, vacuity, and, in fact, non-existence, until compassionated by the Christ above, who gave her form as respected substance.
[3017] We have literally translated the above very obscure sentence. According to Massuet, the sense is: “There will some time be, or perhaps even now there is, some Æon utterly destitute of such honour, inasmuch as those things which the Saviour, for the sake of honouring it, had formed after its image, have been destroyed; and then those things which are above will remain without honour,” etc.
[3018] The Saviour is here referred to, as having formed all things through means of Achamoth and the Demiurge.
[3019] Massuet deletes quem, and reads nūn as a genitive.
[3021] Dan. vii. 10, agreeing neither with the Greek nor Hebrew text.
[3022] This clause is exceedingly obscure. Harvey remarks upon it as follows: “The reasoning of Irenæus seems to be this: According to the Gnostic theory, the Æons and angels of the Pleroma were homogeneous. They were also the archetypes of things created. But things created are heterogeneous: therefore either these Æons are heterogeneous, which is contrary to theory; or things created are homogeneous, which is contrary to fact.”
[3023] Literally, “from Himself.”
Chapter VIII.—Created things are not a shadow of the Pleroma.
[3024] See above, chap. ii. and v.
[3025] The text has fabricâsse, for which, says Massuet, should be read fabricatam esse; or fabricâsse itself must be taken in a passive signification. It is possible, however, to translate, as Harvey indicates, “that He (Bythus) formed so great a creation by angels,” etc., though this seems harsh and unsuitable.
[3026] Literally, empty: there is a play on the words vacuum and vacui (which immediately follows), as there had been in the original Greek.
[3027] Comp. e.g., Matt. v. 16,Matt. v. 45, Matt. vi. 9, etc.
[3028] See chap xxiii. etc.
[3029] Viz., the Valentinians.
[3033] This clause is unintelligible in the Latin text: by a conjectural restoration of the Greek we have given the above translation.
[3035] Playing upon the doctrines of the heretics with respect to vacuity and shade.
[3036] The text vacillates between “dicemus” and “dicamus.”
[3037] This sentence is confused in the Latin text, but the meaning is evidently that given above.
[3038] It is difficult to see the meaning of “iterum” here. Harvey begins a new paragraph with this sentence.
[3039] ἐνδιάθετος —simply conceived in the mind—used in opposition to προφορικός, expressed.
[3040] Harvey remarks that “the author perhaps wrote Ορον (Horos), which was read by the translator ῞Ολον (totum).”
[3041] Since Soter does not occur among the various appellations of Horos mentioned by Irenæus (i. 11, 4), Grabe proposes to read Stauros, and Massuet Lytrotes; but Harvey conceives that the difficulty is explained by the fact that Horos was a power of Soter (i. 3, 3).
[3042] Irenæus here, after his custom, plays upon the word Bythus (profundity), which, in the phraseology of the Valentinians, was a name of the Propator, but is in this passage used to denote an unfathomable abyss.
Chapter XIII.—The first order of production maintained by the heretics is altogether indefensible.
[3043] This sentence appears to us, after long study, totally untranslateable. The general meaning seems to be, that whatever name is given to mental acts, whether they are called Ennœa, Enthymesis, or by whatever other appellation, they are all but exercises of the same fundamental power, styled Nous. Compare the following section.
[3044] “The following,” says Harvey, “may be considered to be consecutive steps in the evolution of λόγος as a psychological entity. Ennœa, conception; Enthymesis, intention; Sensation, thought; Consilium, reasoning; Cogitationis Examinatio, judgment; in Mente Perseverans, Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος; Emissibile Verbum, Λόγος προφοικός.”
[3045] That is, lest He should be thought destitute of power, as having been unable to prevent evil from having a place in creation.
[3047] The Latin expression is “similimembrius,” which some regard as the translation of ὁμοιόκωλος, and others of ὁμοιομερής; but in either case the meaning will be as given above.
[3048] That is, His Nous, Ennœa, etc., can have no independent existence. The text fluctuates between “emittitur” and “emittetur.”
[3049] That is, in human beings no doubt, thought (Nous) precedes speech (Logos).
[3051] Nothing is known of this writer. Several of the same name are mentioned by the ancients, but to none of them is a work named Theogonia ascribed. He is supposed to be the same poet as is cited by Athenæus, but that writer quotes from a work styled ᾽Αφροδίτης γοναι.
[3052] The Latin is “Cupidinem;” and Harvey here refers to Aristotle, who “quotes the authority of Hesiod and Parmenides as saying that Love is the eternal intellect, reducing Chaos into order.”
[3053] Compare, on the opinions of the philosophers referred to in this chapter, Hippolytus, Philosoph., book i.
[3054] Iliad, xiv. 201; vii. 99.
[3055] The Latin has here exemplum, corresponding doubtless to παράδειγμα, and referring to those ἰδέαι of all things which Plato supposed to have existed for ever in the divine mind.
[3056] [Our author’s demonstration of the essential harmony of Gnosticism with the old mythologies, and the philosophies of the heathen, explains the hold it seems to have gained among nominal converts to Christianity, and also the necessity for a painstaking refutation of what seem to us mere absurdities. The great merit of Irenæus is thus illustrated: he gave the death-blow to heathenism in extirpating heresy.]
[3057] The Latin text reads “sensibilia et insensata;” but these words, as Harvey observes, must be the translation of αἰσθητὰ καὶ ἀναίσθητα, —“the former referring to material objects of sense, the latter to the immaterial world of intellect.”
[3058] This clause is very obscure, and we are not sure if the above rendering brings out the real meaning of the author. Harvey takes a different view of it, and supposes the original Greek to have been, καὶ ἄλλας μὲν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἀρχὰς εἶναι ἄλλας δὲ τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς οὐσίας. He then remarks: “The reader will observe that the word ὑπόστασις here means intellectual substance, οὐσία material; as in V. c. ult. The meaning therefore of the sentence will be, And they affirmed that the first principles of intellectual substance and of sensible and material existence were diverse, viz., unity was the exponent of the first, duality of the second.”
[3059] All the editors confess the above sentence hopelessly obscure. We have given Harvey’s conjectural translation.
[3060] Literally, “antiphrasis.”
[3061] 1 Tim. vi. 20. The text is, “Vocum novitates falsæ agnitionis,” καινοφωνίας having apparently been read in the Greek instead of κενοφωνίας as in Text. Rec.
[3062] Grabe and others insert “vel” between these words.
[3063] It seems necessary to regard these words as parenthetical, though the point is overlooked by all the editors.
[3065] “Decem” is of doubtful authority.
[3066] The text has “qui in labe facti sunt;” but, according to Harvey, “the sense requires πληρώματι instead of ἐκτρώματι in the original.”
[3067] Viz., the “Dii majorum gentium” of the Gentiles.
Chapter XV.—No account can be given of these productions.
[3068] Referring to numbers like 4, 5, 6, which do not correspond to any important fact in creation, as 7 e.g., does to the number of the planets.
[3069] The Latin text is here scarcely intelligible, and is variously pointed by the editors.
[3070] Harvey explains “his” as here denoting “in his,” but we are at a loss to know how he would translate the passage. It is in the highest degree obscure.
[3071] The text is here doubtful: Harvey proposes to read “qui” instead of “quæ,” but we prefer “quod” with Grabe. The meaning is, that three hundred and sixty-five is more than forty-five Ogdoads (45 х 8 = 360).
[3072] “Operositatem.” corresponding to πραγματείαν, lit. manufacture.
[3073] Efficabiliter in the Latin text is thought to correspond to ἐνεργῶς in the original Greek.
[3074] Si is inserted by most of the editors; and although Harvey argues for its omission, we agree with Massuet in deeming it indispensable.
[3076] Comp. i. 2, 2.
[3077] It seems needless to insert an “et” before this word, as Harvey suggests, or, as an alternative, to strike out the first “Nun Propatoris.”
[3078] Some read “cæcutientes” instead of “circumeuntes,” as above.
[3079] John ix. 1, etc.
[3081] “Postgenitum quidem reliquis,” the representative, according to Grabe, of ἀπόγονον μὲν λοιποῖς in the Greek. Harvey remarks that τῶν λοιπῶν would have been better, and proposes to read “progenitum” in the Latin; but we do not see any necessity for change.
[3082] “Incapabilis et incomprehensibilis,” corresponding to ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος in the Greek.
[3083] Literally, “to these knowing,” “his scientibus.”
[3085] It seems necessary to read “se quidem” instead of “si quidem,” as in the mss.
[3086] Although Sophia was a feminine Æon, she was regarded as being the father of Enthymesis, who again was the mother of the Valentinians.
[3087] Stieren refers for this allusion to Meineke’s edition of the Reliquiæ Menan. et Philem., p. 116.
[3088] Matt. xii. 36. [The serious spirit of this remark lends force to it as exposition.]
[3089] Comp. i. 6, 1.
[3090] “Parvum emissum”—a small emission.
[3091] That is, there could be no need for its descending into them that it might increase, receive form, and thus be prepared for the reception of perfect reason.
[3092] Or, “on beholding Him.”
[3093] As Massuet here remarks, we may infer from this passage that Irenæus believed souls to be corporeal, as being possessed of a definite form,—an opinion entertained by not a few of the ancients. [And, before we censure them, let us reflect whether their perceptions of “the carnal mind” as differing from the spirit of a man, may not account for it. 1 Thess. v. 23.]
[3094] Comp.1 Cor. xv. 44; 2 Cor. v. 4. [As a Catholic I cannot accept everything contained in the Biblical Psychology of Dr. Delitzsch, but may I entreat the reader who has not studied it to do so before dismissing the ideas of Irenæus on such topics. A translation has been provided for English readers, by the Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, 1867.]
[3095] The meaning apparently is, that by the high position which all these in common occupied, they proved themselves, on the principles of the heretics, to belong to the favoured “seed,” and should therefore have eagerly have welcomed the Lord. Or the meaning may be, “hurrying together to that relationship,” that is, to the relationship secured by faith in Christ.
[3096] 1 Cor. i. 26, 28, somewhat loosely quoted.
[3097] “Male tractant;” literally, handle badly.
[3098] Or, “from the twelfth number”—the twelfth position among the apostles.
[3099] Acts i. 20, from Ps. 109:8.
[3100] The text is here uncertain. Most editions read “et quæ non cederet,” but Harvey prefers “quæ non accederet” (for “accideret”), and remarks that the corresponding Greek would beκαὶ οὐ τυχόν, which we have translated as above.
[3101] “Corruptum hominem.”
[3102] Ps. lxviii. 18; Eph. iv. 8.
[3103] Luke x. 19; [Mark xvi. 17, 18.]
[3104] Though the reading “substituit” is found in all the mss. and editions, it has been deemed corrupt, and “sustinuit” has been proposed instead of it. Harvey supposes it the equivalent of ὑπέστησε, and then somewhat strangely adds “for ἀπέστησε.” There seems to us no difficulty in the word, and consequently no necessity for change.
[3105] Compare, in illustration of this sentence, book i. 4, 1, and i. 4, 5.
Chapter XXI.—The twelve apostles were not a type of the Æons.
[3109] This passage is hopelessly corrupt. The editors have twisted it in every direction, but with no satisfactory result. Our version is quite as far from being certainly trustworthy as any other that has been proposed, but it seems something like the meaning of the words as they stand. Both the text and punctuation of the Latin are in utter confusion.
[3111] “Si” is wanting in the mss. and early editions, and Harvey pleads for its exclusion, but the sense becomes clearer through inserting it.
[3112] This clause is, of course, an interpolation by the Latin translator.
[3113] The words are loosely quoted memoriter, as is the custom with Irenæus. See Hesiod, Works and Days, i. 77, etc.
[3114] Latin, of course, in the text.
[3115] There is here a play upon the words Λητώ and ληθεῖν, the former being supposed to be derived from the latter, so as to denote secrecy.
[3116] This clause is probably an interpolation by the translator.
[3118] “Cœlet Demiurgo,” such is the reading in all the mss. and editions. Harvey, however, proposes to read “celet Demiurgum;” but the change which he suggests, besides being without authority, does not clear away the obscurity which hangs upon the sentence.
[3119] Comp. Pindar, Olymp., i. 38, etc.
[3120] “Compuncti” supposed to correspond to κεκαυτηριασμένοι: see 1 Tim. iv. 2. The whole passage is difficult and obscure.
[3121] Harvey wishes, without any authority, to substitute “tacitus” for “tacitos,” but there is no necessity for alteration. Irenæus is here playing upon the word, according to a practice in which he delights, and quietly scoffs at the Sige (Silence) of the heretics by styling those Æons silent who were derived from her.
[3128] John v. 1, etc. It is well known that, to fix what is meant by the ἑορτή, referred to in this passage of St. John, is one of the most difficult points in New Testament criticism. Some modern scholars think that the feast of Purim is intended by the Evangelist; but, upon the whole, the current of opinion that has always prevailed in the Church has been in favour of the statement here made by Irenæus. Christ would therefore be present at four passovers after His baptism: (1) John ii. 13; (2) John v. 1; (3) John vi. 4; (4) John xiii. 1.
[3129] John vi. 1, etc.
[3130] John xi. 54, John xii. 1.
[3131] Or, “teacher,” magistri.
[3132] Harvey strangely remarks here, that “the reading audiret, followed by Massuet, makes no sense.” He gives audiretur in his text, but proposes to read ordiretur. The passage may, however, be translated as above, without departing from the Benedictine reading audiret.
[3133] “Neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis.” Massuet would expunge “suam;” but, as Harvey well observes, “it has a peculiar significance, nor abrogating his own law.”
[3134] “Renascuntur in Deum.” The reference in these words is doubtless to baptism, as clearly appears from comparing book iii. 17, 1.
[3135] It has been remarked by Wall and others, that we have here the statement of a valuable fact as to the baptism of infants in the primitive Church.
[3138] [That our Lord was prematurely old may be inferred from the text which Irenæus regards as proof that he literally lived to be old. St. John viii. 56, 57; comp. Isa. liii. 2.]
[3140] The Latin text of this clause is, “Quia autem triginta annorum ætas prima indolis est juvenis” —words which it seems almost impossible to translate. Grabe regarded “indolis” as being in the nominative, while Massuet contends it is in the genitive case; and so regarding it, we might translate, “Now that the age of thirty is the first age of the mind of youth,” etc. But Harvey re-translates the clause into Greek as follows: Ὃτι δὲ ἡ τῶν τριάκοντα ἐτῶν ἡλικία ἡ πρώτη τῆς διαθέσεώς ἐστι νέας— words which we have endeavoured to render as above. The meaning clearly is, that the age of thirty marked the transition point from youth to maturity.
[3141] With respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenæus, Harvey remarks: “The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years; yet here Irenæus states that it included more than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from those who had conversed with an apostle”
[3142] Trajan’s reign commenced a.d. 98, and St. John is said to have lived to the age of a hundred years.
[3144] “Sed veritas”—literally, “the truth.”
[3145] [This statement is simply astounding, and might seem a providential illustration of the worthlessness of mere tradition unsustained by the written Word. No mere tradition could be more creditably authorized than this.]
[3146] Iliad, iv. 1.
[3147] Latin, of course, in the text.
Chapter XXIII.—The woman who suffered from an issue of blood was no type of the suffering Æon.
[3150] The text of this sentence is very uncertain. We follow Massuet’s reading, “negotio Æonum,” in preference to that suggested by Harvey.
Chapter XXIV.—Folly of the arguments derived by the heretics from numbers, letters, and syllables.
[3151] “Sive confusionem” is very probably a marginal gloss which has found its way into the text. The whole clause is difficult and obscure.
[3152] Comp. i. 14, 4.
[3153] Thus: Σωτήρ ( σ = 200, ω = 800, τ = 300, η = 8, ρ = 100 ) = 1408.
[3154] Being written thus, ישו, and the small י being apparently regarded as only half a letter. Harvey proposes a different solution which seems less probable.
[3155] This is one of the most obscure passages in the whole work of Irenæus, and the editors have succeeded in throwing very little light upon it. We may merely state that ישו seems to be regarded as containing in itself the initials of the three words יְהֹוָה, Jehovah; שְמַיִם, heaven; and וְאָרָץ, and earth.
[3156] Nothing can be made of these words; they have probably been corrupted by ignorant transcribers, and are now wholly unintelligible.
[3157] “Literæ sacerdotales,”—another enigma which no man can solve. Massuet supposes the reference to be to the archaic Hebrew characters, still used by the priests after the square Chaldaic letters had been generally adopted. Harvey thinks that sacerdotales represents the Greek λειτουργικά, “meaning letters as popularly used in common computation.”
[3158] The editors have again long notes on this most obscure passage. Massuet expunges “quæque,” and gives a lengthened explanation of the clause, to which we can only refer the curious reader.
[3159] בָרוּךְ, Baruch, blessed, one of the commonest titles of the Almighty. The final ך seems to be reckoned only a half-letter, as being different in form from what it is when accompanied by a vowel at the beginning or in the middle of a word.
[3163] Ex. xxv. 31, etc.
[3164] Only six branches are mentioned in Ex. xxv. 32.
[3170] Ex. xxx. 23, etc.
[3172] Some such supplement as this seems requisite, but the syntax in the Latin text is very confused.
[3173] Matt. xiv. 19, 21; Mark vi. 41, 44; Luke ix. 13, 14; John vi. 9, 10, 11.
[3174] Matt. xxv. 2, etc.
[3176] St. John is here strangely overlooked.
[3179] “Fines et summitates;” comp. Justin Mart., Dial. c. Tryph., 91.
[3180] “Juvenis,” one in the prime of life.
[3181] It has been usual in the Christian Church to reckon four commandments in the first table, and six in the second; but the above was the ancient Jewish division. See Joseph., Antiq., iii. 6.
[3183] Ex. xxvii. 1; “altitudo” in the text must be exchanged for “latitudo.”
[3187] [Note the manly contempt with which our author dismisses a class of similitudes, which seem, even in our day, to have great attractions for some minds not otherwise narrow.]
[3188] 365 (the days of the year)—12 х 30 + 5.
[3189] These hours of daylight, at the winter and summer solstice respectively, correspond to the latitude of Lyons, 45° 45´ N., where Irenæus resided.
[3190] “Alluding,” says Harvey, “to a custom among the ancients, of summing the numbers below 100 by various positions of the left hand and its fingers; 100 and upwards being reckoned by corresponding gestures of the right hand. The ninety and nine sheep, therefore, that remained quietly in the fold were summed upon the left hand, and Gnostics professed that they were typical of the true spiritual seed; but Scripture always places the workers of iniquity of the left hand, and in the Gnostic theory the evil principle of matter was sinistral, therefore,” etc., as above.
[3191] “Levamen,” corresponding probably to the Greek ἀνάπαυσιν.
[3192] ᾽Αγάπη ( α = 1, γ = 3, α = 1, π = 80, η = 8 ) = 93.
[3193] ᾽Αλήθεια ( α = 1, λ = 30, η = 8, θ = 9, ε = 5, ι = 10, α = 1 ) = 64.
[3194] Some read XX., but XXX. is probably correct.
[3195] Harvey proposes “commentitum” instead of “commentatum,” but the alteration seems unnecessary.
[3196] The syntax is in confusion, and the meaning obscure.
[3197] “Regula.”
[3198] “Errantes ab artifice.” The whole sentence is most obscure.
[3199] Alluding to the imaginary Æon Anthropos, who existed from eternity.
Chapter XXVI.—“Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”
[3201] “Aut;” ἤ having been thus mistakenly rendered instead of “quam.”
[3202] [This seems anticipatory of the dialects of scholasticism, and of its immense influence in Western Christendom, after St. Bernard’s feeble adhesion to the Biblical system of the ancients.]
[3205] [Illustrated by the history of modern thought in Germany. See the meritorious work of Professor Kahnis, on German Protestantism (translated). Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1856.]
[3206] “Rationem.”
Chapter XXVII.—Proper mode of interpreting parables and obscure passages of Scripture.
[3207] We read “veritatis corpus” for “a veritate corpus” in the text.
[3208] Some such expression of disapproval must evidently be supplied, though wanting in the Latin text.
[3209] Matt. xxv. 5, etc.
[3210] The text is here elliptical, and we have supplied what seems necessary to complete the sense.
[3211] It is doubtful whether “demonstravimus” or “demonstrabimus” be the proper reading: if the former, the reference will be to book i. 22, or ii. 2; if the latter, to book iii. 8.
[3213] Or, “to that degree.”
[3214] Comp. Clem. Rom. Ep. to Cor., c. xx.; and August, De. Civit Dei, xvi. 9.
[3216] “Permanet firma,”—no doubt corresponding to the μένει of the apostle, 1 Cor. xiii. 13. Harvey here remarks, that “the author seems to misapprehend the apostle’s meaning…. There will be no longer room for hope, when the substance of things hoped for shall have become a matter of fruition; neither will there be any room for faith, when the soul shall be admitted to see God as He is.” But the best modern interpreters take the same view of the passage as Irenæus. They regard the νυνὶ δέ of St. Paul as not being temporal, but logical, and conclude therefore the meaning to be, that faith and hope, as well as love, will, in a sense, endure for ever. Comp., e.g., Alford, in loc.
[3217] The Latin text is here untranslateable. Grabe proposes to read, “una consonans melodia in nobis sentietur;” while Stieren and others prefer to exchange αἰσθήσεται for ἀσθήσεται.
[3218] “Apotelesticos.” This word, says Harvey, “may also refer to the vital energy of nature, whereby its effects are for ever reproduced in unceasing succession.” Comp. Hippol., Philos., vii. 24.
[3219] We here follow Grabe, who understands decet. Harvey less simply explains the very obscure Latin text.
[3220] The Greek term λόγος, as is well known, denotes both ratio (reason) and sermo (speech). Some deem the above parenthesis an interpolation.
[3221] Comp. i. 12, 2.
[3222] “Suffugatur:” some read “suffocatur;” and Harvey proposes “suffragatur,” as the representative of the Greek ψηφίζεται. The meaning in any case is, that while ideas are instantaneously formed in the human mind, they can be expressed through means of words only fractionally, and by successive utterances.
[3223] Thus: Bythus, Nous, Logos.
[3225] Mark xiii. 32. The words, “neither the angels which are in heaven,” are here omitted, probably because, as usual, the writer quotes from memory.
[3226] Comp. Matt. x. 24;Luke xi. 40.
[3231] Massuet proposes to insert these words, and some such supplement seems clearly necessary to complete the sense. But the sentence still remains confused and doubtful.
[3232] [Gen. xl. 8;Deut. xxix. 29; Ps. 131]
[3234] [On the great matter of the περιχώρησις, the subordination of the Son, etc., Bull has explored Patristic doctrine, and may well be consulted here. Defens. Fid. Nicænæ, sect. iv.; see also vol. v. 363]
[3236] “Altitudines,” literally, heights.
[3237] [Wisdom ix. 13, 17. A passage of marvellous beauty.]
Chapter XXIX.—Refutation of the views of the heretics as to the future destiny of the soul and body.
[3238] Comp. i. 7, 1.
[3239] “Refrigerium,” place of refreshment.
[3240] Billius, with great apparent reason, proposes to read “descensio” for the unintelligible “discessio” of the Latin text.
[3241] Grabe and Massuet read, “Si autem animæ perire inciperent, nisi justæ fuissent,” for “Si autem animæ quæ perituræ essent inciperent nisi justæ fuissent,”—words which defy all translation.
[3242] The text is here uncertain and confused; but, as Harvey remarks, “the argument is this, That if souls are saved qua intellectual substance, then all are saved alike; but if by reason of any moral qualities, then the bodies that have executed the moral purposes of the soul, must also be considered to be heirs of salvation.”
[3243] “De impetu:” it is generally supposed that these words correspond to ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς (comp. i. 5, 1), but Harvey thinks ἐξ ὁρμῆς preferable (i. 4, 1).
[3244] The syntax of this sentence is in utter confusion, but the meaning is doubtless that given above.
[3247] Irenæus was evidently familiar with Horace; comp. Ars. Poet., 300.
[3249] The punctuation is here doubtful. With Massuet and Stieren we expunge “vel” from the text.
[3250] Or, “the Scriptures of the Lord;” but the words “dominicis scripturis” probably here represent the Greek κυρίων γραφῶν, and are to be rendered as above.
[3252] “Inciperet fieri;” perhaps for “futurus esset,” was to be.
[3253] “Quartum cœlum;” there still being, according to their theory of seven heavens, a fourth beyond that to which St. Paul had penetrated.
[3254] 2 Cor. xii. 3, defectively quoted.
[3255] This is an exceedingly obscure and difficult sentence. Grabe and some of the later editors read, “uti neque non corpus,” thus making Irenæus affirm that the body did participate in the vision. But Massuet contends strenuously that this is contrary to the author’s purpose, as wishing to maintain, against a possible exception of the Valentinians, that Paul then witnessed spiritual realities, and by omitting this “non” before “corpus,” makes Irenæus deny that the body was a partaker in the vision. The point can only be doubtfully decided, but Massuet’s ingenious note inclines us to his side of the question.
[3256] “Præstat dignis:” here a very ambiguous expression.
[3257] That is, as Massuet notes, all things derive not only their existence, but their qualities, from His will. Harvey proposes to read causa instead of substantia, but the change seems needless.
[3259] That is, Barbelos: comp. i. 29, 1.
[3260] “Tradunt;” literally, hand down.
Chapter XXXI.—Recapitulation and application of the foregoing arguments.
[3261] Qui, though here found in all the mss., seems to have been rightly expunged by the editors.
[3262] The reference probably is to opinions and theories of the heathen.
[3263] Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. [On the sub-apostolic age and this subject of miracles, Newman, in spite of his sophistical argumentation, may well be consulted for his references, etc. Translation of the Abbé Fleury, p. xi. Oxford, 1842.]
[3264] “Perficiatur:” it is difficult here to give a fitting translation of this word. Some prefer to read “impertiatur.”
Chapter XXXII.—Further exposure of the wicked and blasphemous doctrines of the heretics.
[3266] Matt. v. 21, etc.
[3268] Matt. xxv. 41;Mark ix. 44.
[3269] Comp. i. 25, 4.
[3270] “Artificialia.”
[3271] “Pureos investes,” boys that have not yet reached the age of puberty.
[3272] The text has “stillicidio temporis,” literally “ a drop of time” (σταγμῇ χρόνου); but the original text was perhaps στιγμῇ χρόνου, “a moment of time.” With either reading the meaning is the same.
[3273] Some have deemed the words “firmum esse” an interpolation.
[3274] That is, as being done in reality, and not in appearance.
[3275] Harvey here notes: “The reader will not fail to remark this highly interesting testimony, that the divine χαρίσματα bestowed upon the infant Church were not wholly extinct in the days of Irenæus. Possibly the venerable Father is speaking from his own personal recollection of some who had been raised from the dead, and had continued for a time living witnesses of the efficacy of Christian faith.” [See cap. xxxi., supra.]
[3276] Comp. Acts viii. 9, 18.
[3278] Grabe contends that these words imply that no invocations of angels, good or bad, were practised in the primitive Church. Massuet, on the other hand, maintains that the words of Irenæus are plainly to be restricted to evil spirits, and have no bearing on the general question of angelic invocation.
[3279] We follow the common reading, “perfecit;” but one ms. has “perficit,” works, which suits the context better.
[3280] We insert “et,” in accordance with Grabe’s suggestion.
Chapter XXXIII.—Absurdity of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls.
[3281] Harvey thinks that this parenthesis has fallen out of its proper place, and would insert it immediately after the opening period of the chapter.
[3282] It is a mistake of Irenæus to say that the doctrine of metempsychosis originated with Plato: it was first publicly taught by Pythagoras, who learned it from the Egyptians. Comp. Clem. Alex., Strom., i. 15: Herodot., ii. 123.
[3283] “In hominem conversi,” literally, “returning into man.”
[3284] “Possidet.” Massuet supposes this word to represent κυριεύει, “rules over” and Stieren κρατύνει, governs; while Harvey thinks the whole clause corresponds to κρατεῖ καὶ κυριεύει τοῦ σώματος, which we have rendered above.
[3285] Literally, none of things past.
[3286] The Latin text is here very confused, but the Greek original of the greater part of this section has happily been preserved. [This Father here anticipates in outline many ideas which St. Augustine afterwards corrected and elaborated.]
[3287] Grabe refers to Tertullian, De Anima, ch. vii., as making a similar statement. Massuet, on the other hand, denies that Irenæus here expresses an opinion like that of Tertullian in the passage referred to, and thinks that the special form (character) mentioned is to be understood as simply denoting individual spiritual properties. But his remarks are not satisfactory.
[3288] Luke xvi. 19, etc.
[3289] With Massuet and Stieren, we here supply esse.
[3290] Some read resurgeret, and others resurrexerit; we deem the former reading preferable.
[3293] As Massuet observes, this statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenæus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness.
[3294] Luke xvi. 11, quoted loosely from memory. Grabe, however, thinks they are cited from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Egyptians.
[3295] Comp. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph., ch. vi.
[3297] Ex defluxu, corresponding to ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας in the Greek.
[3298] Eloæ here occurs in the Latin text, but Harvey supposes that the Greek had been ᾽Ελωείμ. He also remarks that Eloeuth (אֱלָהוּת) is the rabbinical abstract term, Godhead.
[3299] All that can be remarked on this is, that the Jews substituted the term Adonai (אֲדֹנַי) for the name Jehovah, as often as the latter occurred in the sacred text. The former might therefore be styled nameable.
[3300] The Latin text is, “aliquando autem duplicata litera delta cum aspiratione,” and Harvey supposes that the doubling of the Daleth would give “to the scarcely articulate א a more decidedly guttural character;” but the sense is extremely doubtful.
[3301] Instead of “nec posteaquam insurgere,” Feuardent and Massuet read “ne possit insurgere,” and include the clause in the definition of Addonai.
[3302] The author is here utterly mistaken, and, notwithstanding Harvey’s earnest claim for him of a knowledge of Hebrew, seems clearly to betray his ignorance of that language. The term Sabaoth is never written with an Omicron, either in the LXX. or by the Greek Fathers, but always with an Omega (Σαβαώθ). Although Harvey remarks in his preface, that “It is hoped the Hebrew attainments of Irenæus will no longer be denied,” there appears enough, in the etymologies and explanations of Hebrew terms given in this chapter by the venerable Father, to prevent such a conclusion; and Massuet’s observation on the passage seems not improbable, when he says, “Sciolus quispiam Irenæo nostro, in Hebraicis haud satis perito, hic fucum ecisse videtur.”
[3303] Probably corresponding to the Hebrew term Jehovah (יְהֹוָה)
[3304] Literally, “belong to one and the same name.”
[3305] “Secundum Latinitatem” in the text.
[3306] The words are “apostolorum dictatio,” probably referring to the letters of the apostles, as distinguished from their preaching already mentioned.
[3307] This last sentence is very confused and ambiguous, and the editors throw but little light upon it. We have endeavoured to translate it according to the ordinary text and punctuation, but strongly suspect interpolation and corruption. If we might venture to strike out “has Scripturas,” and connect “his tamen” with “prædicantibus,” a better sense would be yielded, as follows: “But that I may not be thought to avoid that series of proofs which may be derived from the Scriptures of the Lord (since, indeed, these Scriptures to much more evidently and clearly set forth this very point, to those at least who do not bring a depraved mind to their consideration), I shall devote the particular book which follows to them, and shall,” etc.
[3309] See 1 Tim. iii. 15, where these terms are used in reference to the Church.
[3310] On this and similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr. Roberts’s Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are fully criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew’s Gospel maintained.
Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
[3312] This is Harvey’s rendering of the old Latin, in illo qui contra disputat.
[3313] The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
[3314] Polycarp suffered about the year 167, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. His great age of eighty-six years implies that he was contemporary with St. John for nearly twenty years.
[3315] So the Greek. The Latin reads: “which he also handed down to the Church.”
[3317] ἰκανωτάτη. Harvey translates this all-sufficient, and thus paraphrases: But his Epistle is all-sufficient, to teach those that are desirous to learn.
[3319] Latin, “modica quæstione.”
[3320] [The uneducated barbarians must receive the Gospel on testimony. Irenæus puts apostolic traditions, genuine and uncorrupt, in this relation to the primary authority of the written word. 2 Thess. ii. 15, 2 Thess. iii. 6.]
[3321] Literally, “without letters;” equivalent to, “without paper and ink,” a few lines previously.
[3322] The old Latin translation says the eighth bishop; but there is no discrepancy. Eusebius, who has preserved the Greek of this passage, probably counted the apostles as the first step in the episcopal succession. As Irenæus tells us in the preceding chapter, Linus is to be counted as the first bishop.
[3323] It is thought that this does not mean excommunication properly so called, but a species of self-excommunication, i.e., anticipating the sentence of the Church, by quitting it altogether. See Valesius’s note in his edition of Eusebius.
[3343] These words are an interpolation: it is supposed they have been carelessly repeated from the preceding quotation of Isaiah.
[3346] Literally, “In both houghs,” in ambabus suffraginibus.
[3347] The old Latin translation has, “Si unus est Dominus Deus”—If the Lord God is one; which is supposed by the critics to have occurred through carelessness of the translator.
[3348] 1 Kings xviii. 21, etc.
[3349] The Latin version has, “that answereth to-day” (hodie), —an evident error for igne.
[3353] 1 Cor. viii. 4, etc.
[3357] Heb. iii. 5; Num. xii. 7.
[3359] This is according to the reading of the old Italic version, for it is not so read in any of our existing manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.
[3361] This world is not found in the second quotation of this passage immediately following.
[3362] This world is not found in the second quotation of this passage immediately following.
[3367] A word of which many explanations have been proposed, but none are quite satisfactory. Harvey seems inclined to suspect the reading to be corrupt, through the ignorance and carelessness of the copyist. [Irenæus undoubtedly relied for Hebrew criticisms on some incompetent retailer of rabbinical refinements.]
[3386] Isa. lxv. 1. [A beautiful idea for poets and orators, but not to be pressed dogmatically.]
[3388] This is after the version of the Septuagint, οὐ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν: but the word δόξα may have the meaning opinio as well as gloria. If this be admitted here, the passage would bear much the same sense as it does in the authorized version, “He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes.”
[3389] Isa. xi. 1, etc.
[3391] This is according to the Syriac Peschito version.
Chapter X.—Proofs of the foregoing, drawn from the Gospels of Mark and Luke.
[3395] Literally, “that he should place the incense.” The next clause is most likely an interpolation for the sake of explanation.
[3397] Luke i. 15, etc.
[3400] Luke i. 26, etc.
[3404] “Ascriberet Deo”—make the property of God.
[3406] Luke i. 68, etc.
[3408] Harvey observes that the Syriac, agreeing with the Latin here, expresses priority in point of time; but our translation, without reason, makes it the precedence of honour, viz., was preferred before me. The Greek is, πρῶτός μου.
[3409] John i. 29, John i. 15, 16.
[3413] Lam. iv. 20, after LXX.
[3415] Luke ii. 11, etc.
[3416] Thus found also in the Vulgate. Harvey supposes that the original of Irenæus read according to our textus receptus, and that the Vulgate rendering was adopted in this passage by the transcribers of the Latin version of our author. [No doubt a just remark.] There can be no doubt, however, that the reading εὐδοκίας is supported by many and weighty ancient authorities. [But on this point see the facts as given by Burgon, in his refutation of the rendering adopted by late revisers, Revision Revised, p. 41. London, Murray, 1883.]
[3421] Luke ii. 29, etc.
[3423] The text seems to be corrupt in the old Latin translation. The rendering here follows Harvey’s conjectural restoration of the original Greek of the passage.
[3424] The Greek of this passage in St. Mark i. 2 reads, τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ, i.e., His paths, which varies from the Hebrew original, to which the text of Irenæus seems to revert, unless indeed his copy of the Gospels contained the reading of the Codex Bezæ. [See book iii. cap. xii. 3, 14, below; also, xiv. 2 and xxiii. 3. On this Codex, see Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 12, etc., and references.]
[3426] See ii. 35, 3.
[3429] Irenæus frequently quotes this text, and always uses the punctuation here adopted. Tertullian and many others of the Fathers follow his example.
[3431] See ii. 1, etc.
[3438] This evidently refers to 1 Kings xviii. 36, where Elijah invokes God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc.
[3439] Matt. xi. 9; Luke vii. 26.
[3441] The transition here is so abrupt, that some critics suspect the loss of part of the text before these words.
[3446] The reading νεῖκος having been followed instead of νῖκος, victory.
[3447] John i. 49,John vi. 69; Matt. xii. 18.
[3448] Harvey thinks that this is the Hebrew Gospel of which Irenæus speaks in the opening of this book; but comp. Dr. Robert’s Discussions on the Gospels, part ii. chap. iv.
[3449] Literally, “four catholic spirits;” Greek, τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα: Latin, “quatuor principales spiritus.”
[3454] The above is the literal rendering of this very obscure sentence; it is not at all represented in the Greek here preserved.
[3455] The Greek is ὑπέρ: the Latin, “pro.”
[3457] The Greek text of this clause, literally rendered, is, “This Gospel, then, is anthropomorphic.”
[3458] Or, “a sacerdotal and liturgical order,” following the fragment of the Greek text recovered here. Harvey thinks that the old Latin “actum” indicates the true reading of the original πρᾶξιν, and that τάξιν is an error. The earlier editors, however, are of a contrary opinion.
[3459] That is, the appearance of the Gospel taken as a whole; it being presented under a fourfold aspect.
[3460] A portion of the Greek has been preserved here, but it differs materially from the old Latin version, which seems to represent the original with greater exactness, and has therefore been followed. The Greek represents the first covenant as having been given to Noah, at the deluge, under the sign of the rainbow; the second as that given to Abraham, under the sign of circumcision; the third, as being the giving of the law, under Moses; and the fourth, as that of the Gospel, through our Lord Jesus Christ. [Paradise with the tree of life, Adam with Shechinah (Gen. iii. 24, Gen. iv. 16), Noah with the rainbow, Abraham with circumcision, Moses with the ark, Messiah with the sacraments, and heaven with the river of life, seem the complete system.]
[3461] The old Latin reads, “partem gloriatur se habere Evangelii.” Massuet changed partem into pariter, thinking that partem gave a sense inconsistent with the Marcionite curtailment of St. Luke. Harvey, however, observes: “But the Gospel, here means the blessings of the Gospel, in which Marcion certainly claimed a share.”
[3462] John xiv. 16, etc.
[3463] Slighting, as did some later heretics, the Pauline Epistles.
Chapter XII.—Doctrine of the rest of the apostles.
[3466] Acts i. 16, etc.
[3472] The word δῶρον or δώρημα is supposed by some to have existed in the earliest Greek texts, although not found in any extant now. It is thus quoted by others besides Irenæus.
[3475] Acts iii. 6, etc.
[3476] These interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ.
[3477] These interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ.
[3478] These interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ.
[3479] “Et veniant” in Latin text: ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν in Greek. The translation of these Greek words by “when … come,” is one of the most glaring errors in the authorized English version.
[3480] Irenæus, like the majority of the early authorities, manifestly read προκεχειρισμένον instead of προκεκηρυγμένον, as in textus receptus.
[3481] Dispositionis.
[3482] Acts iii. 12, etc.
[3484] Acts iv. 8, etc.
[3486] These words, though not in textus receptus, are found in some ancient mss. and versions; but not the words “our father,” which follow.
[3487] “In hac civitate” are words not represented in the textus receptus, but have a place in all modern critical editions of the New Testament.
[3488] Acts iv. 24, etc.
[3490] The Latin is, “ut convertat se unusquisque.”
[3492] This is following Grabe’s emendation of the text. The old Latin reads “gloria sua,” the translator having evidently mistaken δεξιᾴ for δόξῃ.
[3495] These words have apparently been omitted through inadvertence.
[3500] Quemadmodum capiebat; perhaps, “just as it presented itself to him.”
[3501] Acts viii. 32; Isa. liii. 7, 8.
[3505] Latin translation, tractatur; which Harvey thinks affords a conclusive proof that Irenæus occasionally quotes Scripture by re-translating from the Syriac.
[3506] It will be observed that Scripture is here very loosely quoted.
[3507] Acts xvii. 24, etc.
[3508] Deut. xxxii. 8 [LXX.].
[3512] Book ii. ch. xxx. 2.
[3514] No reference is made to this promised work in the writings of his successors. Probably it never was undertaken.
[3515] Most of the mss. read “intolerabiliorem,” but one reads as above, and is followed by all the editors.
[3518] Acts xv. 15, etc.
[3519] Irenæus manifestly read οὕτως for τούτῳ, and in this he agrees with Codex Bezæ. We may remark, once for all, that in the variations from the received text of the New Testament which occur in our author, his quotations are very often in accordance with the readings of the Cambridge ms.
[3521] This addition is also found in Codex Bezæ, and in Cyprian and others.
[3522] Acts xv. 14, etc.
[3523] Another addition, also found in the Codex Bezæ, and in Tertullian.
[3528] Rom. x. 15; Isa. lii. 7.
[3529] All the previous editors accept the reading Deum without remark, but Harvey argues that it must be regarded as a mistake for Dominum. He scarcely seems, however, to give sufficient weight to the quotation which immediately follows.
[3531] See note 9, p. 436.
[3532] John xiv. 7, 9, 10.
[3536] Some such supplement seems necessary, as Grabe suggests, though Harvey contends that no apodosis is requisite.
[3538] Latin, “Ad horam cessimus subjectioni” (Gal. ii. 5). Irenæus gives it an altogether different meaning from that which it has in the received text. Jerome says that there was as much variation in the copies of Scripture in his day with regard to the passage,—some retaining, others rejecting the negative (Adv. Marc. v. 3).
[3539] Acts xvi. 8, etc.
[3547] In this very important passage of Scripture, Irenæus manifestly read Κυρίου instead of Θεοῦ, which is found in text. rec. The Codex Bezæ has the same reading; but all the other most ancient mss. agree with the received text.
[3548] Acts xx. 25, etc.
[3550] Luke vi. 24, etc.
[3564] Acts xxii. 8, Acts xxvi. 15.
[3566] Latin, “communes et ecclesiasticos:” καθολικούς is translated here “communes,” as for some time after the word catholicus had not been added to the Latin language in its ecclesiastical sense. [The Roman Creed was remarkable for its omission of the word Catholic. See Bingham, Antiquities, book x. cap. iv. sect 11.]
[3567] We here follow the text of Harvey, who prints, without remark, quæruntur, instead of queruntur, as in Migne’s edition.
[3568] Such is the sense educed by Harvey from the old Latin version, which thus runs: “Decipiuntur autem omnes, qui quod est in verbis verisimile, se putant posse discere a veritate.” For “omnes” he would read “omnino,” and he discards the emendation proposed by the former editors, viz., “discernere” for “discere.”
[3569] We here omit since, and insert therefore afterwards, to avoid the extreme length of the sentence as it stands in the Latin version. The apodosis does not occur till the words, “I judge it necessary,” are reached.
[3570] See book i. 12, 4.
[3571] The Latin text has “Christum.” which is supposed to be an erroneous reading. See also book ii. c. xii. s. 6.
[3574] Matt. i. 18. It is to be observed that Irenæus here reads Christ instead of Jesus Christ, as in text. rec., thus agreeing with the reading of the Vulgate in the passage.
[3575] John i. 13, 14. From this, and also a quotation of the same passage in chap. xix. of this book, it appears that Irenæus must have read ὃς … ἐγεννήθη here, and not οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν. Tertullian quotes the verse to the same effect (Lib. de Carne Christi, cap. 19 and 24).
[3580] “Homine.”
[3582] Isa. ix. 6 (LXX.).
[3590] Ex. xvii. 16 (LXX.).
[3593] Luke xxiv. 44, etc.
[3594] Mark viii. 31 and Luke ix. 22.
[3596] 1 John ii. 18, etc., loosely quoted.
[3597] The text here followed is that of two Syriac mss., which prove the loss of several consecutive words in the old Latin version, and clear up the meaning of a confused sentence, showing that the word “autem” is here, as it probably is elsewhere, merely a contraction for “aut eum.”
[3599] “Participare compendii poculo,” i.e., the cup which recapitulates the suffering of Christ, and which, as Harvey thinks, refers to the symbolical character of the cup of the Eucharist, as setting forth the passion of Christ.
[3604] 2 John 7, 8. Irenæus seems to have read αὐτούς instead of ἑαυτούς, as in the received text.
[3605] 1 John iv. 1, 2. This is a material difference from the received text of the passage: “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” The Vulgate translation and Origen agree with Irenæus, and Tertullian seems to recognise both readings (Adv. Marc., v. 16). Socrates tells us (vii. 32, p. 381) that the passage had been corrupted by those who wished to separate the humanity of Christ from His divinity, and that the old copies read, πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι, which exactly agrees with Origen’s quotation, and very nearly with that of Irenæus, now before us. Polycarp (Ep., c. vii.) seems to allude to the passage as we have it now, and so does Ignatius (Ep. Smyr., c. v.). See the question discussed by Burton, in his Ante-Nicene Testimonies [to the Div. of Christ. Another work of Burton has a similar name. See British Critic, vol. ii. (of 1827), p. 265].
[3609] Rom. v. 6-10. Irenæus appears to have read, as does the Vulgate, εἰς τί γάρ, for ἔτι γάρ in text. rec.
[3617] Harvey remarks on this: “The sacrament of baptism is therefore ἡ δύμανις τῆς ἀναγεννήσεως εἰς Θεόν.” [Comp. book i. cap. xxi.]
[3621] Irenæus refers to this woman as a type of the heathen world: for, among the Jews, Samaritan and Idolater were convertible terms.
[3622] Judg. vi. 37, etc.
[3627] “Suum hominem,” i.e., the human race.
[3630] The following period is translated from a Syriac fragment (see Harvey’s Irenæus, vol. ii. p. 439), as it supplies some words inconveniently omitted in the old Latin version.
[3631] Comp. book. i. pref. note 4.
[3632] Again a Syriac fragment supplies some important words. See Harvey, vol. ii. p. 440.
[3633] So the Syriac. The Latin has, “in seipso recapitulavit,” He summed up in Himself. [As the Second Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 47.]
[3645] Gal. iii. 13;Deut. xxi. 23.
[3650] Literally, “supposing Him to be Christ according to the idea of men.”
[3659] “Pro patribus, ἀντὶ τῶν πατρῶν. The reader will here observe the clear statement of the doctrine of atonement, whereby alone sin is done away.”—Harvey.
[3661] The Latin text, “et facere, ut et Deus assumeret hominem, et homo se dederet Deo,” here differs widely from the Greek preserved by Theodoret. We have followed the latter, which is preferred by all the editors.
[3668] The original Greek is preserved here by Theodoret, differing in some respects from the old Latin version: καὶ ἀποστεροῦντας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ἀνόδου καὶ ἀχαριστοῦντας τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν σαρκωθέντι λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος … ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας, καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν, υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. The old Latin runs thus: “fraudantes hominem ab ea ascensione quæ est ad Dominum, et ingrate exsistentes Verbo Dei, qui incarnatus est propter ipsos. Propter hoc enim Verbum Dei homo, et qui Filius Dei est, Filius Hominis factus est … commixtus Verbo Dei, et adoptionem percipiens fiat filius Dei.” [A specimen of the liberties taken by the Latin translators with the original of Irenæus. Others are much less innocent.]
[3673] See above, iii. 6.
[3691] “Provectus.” This word has not a little perplexed the editors. Grabe regards it as being the participle, Massuet the accusative plural of the noun, and Harvey the genitive singular. We have doubtfully followed the latter.
[3693] The punctuation and exact meaning are very uncertain.
[3694] The construction and sense of this passage are disputed. Grabe, Massuet, and Harvey take different views of it. We have followed the rendering by Massuet.
[3699] Grabe remarks that the word πρέσβυς, here translated “senior,” seems rather to denote a mediator or messenger.
[3702] Irenæus quotes this as from Isaiah on the present occasion; but in book iv. 22, 1, we find him referring the same passage to Jeremiah. It is somewhat remarkable that it is to be found in neither prophet, although Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, [chap. lxxii. and notes, Dial. with Trypho, in this volume,] brings it forward as an argument against him, and directly accuses the Jews of having fraudulently removed it from the sacred text. It is, however, to be found in no ancient version of Jewish Targum, which fact may be regarded as a decisive proof of its spuriousness.
[3704] Joel iii. 16;Amos i. 2.
[3705] As Massuet observes, we must either expunge “sciut” altogether, or read “sic” as above.
[3707] This quotation from Habakkuk, here commented on by Irenæus, differs both from the Hebrew and the LXX., and comes nearest to the old Italic version of the passage.
[3709] Epiphanius, in his De Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d. This reference to the version of Theodotion furnishes a note of date as to the time when Irenæus published his work: it must have been subsequently to a.d. 181.
[3710] The Greek text here is, κρατῦναι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, translated into Latin by “possiderent regnum suum,”—words which are somewhat ambiguous in both languages. Massuet remarks, that “regnum eorum” would have been a better rendering, referring the words to the Jews.
[3711] The Greek text of this narrative has been preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v. 8). Grabe considers it to be faulty in this passage; so the Latin translation has been adopted here. Eusebius has ποιήσαντος τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄπερ ἐβούλετο— God having accomplished what He intended.
[3712] [See Justin Martyr, To the Greeks, cap. xiii. The testimony of Justin naturalized this Jewish legend among Christians.]
[3713] The Greek term is ἀνατάξασθαι, which the Latin renders “re memorare,” but Massuet prefers “digerere.”
[3714] This is a very interesting passage, as bearing on the question, From what source are the quotations made by the writers of the New Testament derived? Massuet, indeed, argues that it is of little or no weight in the controversy; but the passage speaks for itself. Comp. Dr. Robert’s Discussions on the Gospels, part i. ch. iv. and vii.
[3718] We here read “non pusillum” for “num pusillum,” as in some texts. Cyprian and Tertullian confirm the former reading.
[3733] Jer. xxii. 28, etc.
[3735] Harvey prefixes this last clause to the following section.
Chapter XXII.—Christ assumed actual flesh, conceived and born of the Virgin.
[3742] In addition to the Greek text preserved by Theodoret in this place, we have for some way a Syriac translation, differing slightly from both Greek and Latin. It seems, however, to run smoother than either, and has therefore been followed by us.
[3749] This seems quite a peculiar opinion of Irenæus, that our first parents, when created, were not of the age of maturity.
[3750] Literally, “unless these bonds of union be turned backwards.”
[3751] It is very difficult to follow the reasoning of Irenæus in this passage. Massuet has a long note upon it, in which he sets forth the various points of comparison and contrast here indicated between Eve and Mary; but he ends with the remark, “hæc certe et quæ sequuntur, paulo subtiliora.”
[3752] Matt. xix. 30,Matt. xx. 16.
[3755] Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20-22.
[3759] The old Latin translation is: “Sed non relictis ipsis patribus.” Grabe would cancel non, while Massuet pleads for retaining it. Harvey conjectures that the translator perhaps mistook οὐκ ἀνειλημμένων for οὐκ ἀναλελειμένων. We have followed Massuet, though we should prefer deleting non, were it not found in all the mss.
[3760] Gen. iii. 16, etc.
[3762] Matt. xxv. 41. This reading of Irenæus agrees with that of the Codex Bezæ, at Cambridge.
[3763] Gen. iv. 7, after LXX. version.
[3764] The old Latin reads “parricidio.” The crime of parricide was alone known to the Roman law; but it was a generic term, including the murder of all near relations. All the editors have supposed that the original word was ἀδελφοκτονία, which has here been adopted.
[3765] Prov. i. 7, Prov. ix. 10.
[3774] An account of Tatian will be given in a future volume with his only extant work.
[3775] His heresy being just a mixture of the opinions of the various Gnostic sects.
[3778] Though unnoticed by the editors, there seems a difficulty in the different moods of the two verbs, erubescant and concertant.
[3779] “Initium et materiam apostasiæ suæ habens hominem:” the meaning is very obscure, and the editors throw no light upon it.
[3780] Literally, “but he did not see God.” The translator is supposed to have read οἶδεν, knew, for εἶδεν, saw.
[3781] Literally, “through the beginnings, the means, and the end.” These three terms refer to the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Church Catholic.
[3782] The Latin is “solidam operationem,” which we know not how to translate, in accordance with the context, except as above.
[3783] This seems to be the meaning conveyed by the old Latin, “quemadmodum aspiratio plasmationi.”
[3786] i.e., the Spirit.
[3787] Literally, “who have a foresight of morals” —qui morum providentiam habent. The meaning is very obscure. [Prov. xxii. 3, Prov. xxvii. 12.]
[3788] The text is here very uncertain, but the above seems the probable meaning.
[3790] Plato, de Leg., iv. and p. 715, 16.
[3791] In Timæo, vi. p. 29.
[3792] The Latin is “collectio eorum;” but what collectio here means, it is not easy to determine. Grabe, with much probability, deems it the representative of σύστασις. Harvey prefers ἐνθύμημα: but it is difficult to perceive the relevancy of his references to the rhetorical syllogism.
[3793] See book i. cap. xvi. note.
[3794] One of the Antiochian Canons probably reflects the current language of an earlier antiquity thus: διὰ τὸ ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει πανταχόθεν συντρέχειν πάντας τοὺς τὰ πράγματα ἔχοντας: and, if so, this συντρέχειν gives the meaning of convenire.
[3795] “Its more potent,” etc., is not a strict rendering: “the more potent,” rather; which leaves the principalitas to the city, not the Church.
[3796] Bishop Wordsworth inclines to the idea that the original Greek was ἱκανωτέραν ἀρχαιότητα, thus conceding that Irenæus was speaking of the greater antiquity of Rome as compared with other (Western) Churches. Even so, he shows that the argument of Irenæus is fatal to Roman pretensions, which admit of no such ideas as he advances, and no such freedom as that of his dealings with Rome.
[3797] Nobody has more forcibly stated the argument of Irenæus than the Abbé Guettée, in his exhaustive work on the Papacy. I published a translation of this valuable historical epitome in New York (Carleton), 1867; but it is out of print. The original may be had in Paris (Fischbacher), No. 33 Rue de Seine.
[3798] [The reader who marvels at the tedious recitals must note this (1) as proof of the author’s practical wisdom, and (2) as evidence of his fidelity in what he exhibits.]
[3801] [The solemnity of the apostolic testimonies against the crop of tares that was to spring up receives great illustration from Irenæus. 1 John ii. 18.]
[3803] [Rev. xii. 9. A little essay, Messias and Anti-Messias, by the Rev. C. I. Black, London (Masters, 1847), is commended to those who need light on this very mysterious subject.]
Chapter I.—The Lord acknowledged but one God and Father.
[3805] See iii. 6, 1.
[3806] [St.John xvii. 3.]
[3812] Matt. xi. 25;Luke x. 21.
[3828] This passage is quoted by Augustine, in his treatise on original sin, written to oppose Pelagius (lib. i. c. ii.), about 400 A.D.
[3829] John xii. 32, John iii. 14.
[3831] Ps. 102:25-28. The cause of the difference in the numbering of the Psalms is that the Septuagint embraces in one psalm—the ninth—the two which form the ninth and tenth in the Hebrew text.
[3834] [Jer. vii. 4. One of the most powerful arguments in all Scripture is contained in the first twelve verses of this chapter, and it rebukes an inveterate superstition of the human heart. Comp. Rev. ii. 5, and the message to Rome, Rom. xi. 21.]
[3837] 2 Sam. v. 7, where David is described as taking the stronghold of Zion from the Jebusites.
[3838] The text fluctuates between “legis dationem” and “legis dationis.” We have followed the latter.
[3841] Matt. iii. 11, etc.
[3844] Isa. xliii. 10, etc.
[3847] Matt. xxii. 29, etc.; Ex. iii. 6.
[3848] In the Septuagint and Vulgate versions, this story constitutes the fourteenth chapter of the book of Daniel. It is not extant in Hebrew, and has therefore been removed to the Apocrypha, in the Anglican canon [the Greek and St. Jerome’s] of Scripture, under the title of “Bel and the Dragon.”
[3857] Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22.
[3858] Not now to be found in Mark’s Gospel.
[3859] Photius, 125, makes mention of Justin Martyr’s work, λόγοι κατὰ Μαρκίωνος. See also Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, book iv. c. 18, where this passage of Irenæus is quoted. [The vast importance of Justin’s startling remark is that it hinges on the words of Christ Himself, concerning His antecedents and notes as set forth in the Scriptures, St. John v. 30-39.]
[3860] [A most emphatic and pregnant text which Irenæus here expounds with great beauty. The reference (St. Matt. xi. 27) seems to have been inadvertently omitted in this place where the repetition is desirable.]
[3861] The ordinary text reads cognoscunt, i.e., do know; but Harvey thinks it should be the future—cognoscent.
[3863] Matt. iv. 3; Luke iv. 3.
[3864] Singula, which with Massuet we here understand in the sense of singularia.
[3865] Some, instead of significantibus, read signantibus, “stamping it as true.”
[3866] Matt. xi. 27;Luke x. 22. Harvey observes here, that “it is remarkable that this text, having been correctly quoted a short time previously in accordance with the received Greek text, ᾧ ἐὰν βούλητας ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι, the translator now not only uses the single verb revelaverit, but says pointedly that it was so written by the venerable author.” It is probable, therefore, that the previous passage has been made to harmonize with the received text by a later hand; with which, however, the Syriac form agrees.
[3868] The text has oculorum, probably by mistake for populorum.
[3869] Luke ii. 29, etc.
[3874] Rom. iv. 12; Gal. iv. 28.
[3879] Massuet here observes, that the fathers called the Holy Spirit the similitude of the Son.
[3880] Matt. xi. 27;Luke x. 22.
[3884] Harvey prefers the singular— “hypocrite.”
[3886] The text here is rather uncertain. Harvey’s conjectural reading of et jam for etiam has been followed.
[3888] This clause is differently quoted by Antonius Melissa and John Damascenus, thus: Πᾶς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει τάξιν, i.e., Every righteous king possesses a priestly order. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. [And with St. Peter’s testimony to the priesthood of the laity, compare the same under the law. Ex. xix. 6. The Western Church has recognised the “Episcopate ab extra” of sovereigns; while, in the East, it has grown into Cæsaropapism.]
[3893] Literally, “the Lord’s Levitical substance”—Domini Leviticam substantiam.
[3894] Literally, “to take food from seeds.”
[3896] Num. xv. 32, etc.
Chapter IX.—There is but one author, and one end to both covenants.
[3902] Isa. xlii. 10, quoted from memory.
[3906] These words of Scripture are quoted by memory from Phil. iii. 12, 1 Cor. iv. 4, and 1 Cor. xiii. 9, 10. It is remarkable that the second is incorporated with the preceding in a similar way, in the ancient Italic version known as the St. Germain copy.
[3911] This is in accordance with Harvey’s text— “Maturescere profectum salutis.” Grabe, however, reads, “Maturescere prefectum salutis;” making this equivalent to “ad prefectam salutem.” In most mss. “profectum” and “prefectum” would be written alike. The same word (“profectus”) occurs again almost immediately, with an evident reference to and comparison with this clause.
[3914] Another variation from the textus receptus borne out by the Codex Bezæ, and some ancient versions.
[3915] Ex. xx. 12, LXX.
[3918] See Gen. xviii. 13 and Gen. xxxi. 11, etc. There is an allusion here to a favourite notion among the Fathers, derived from Philo the Jew, that the name Israel was compounded from the three Hebrew words אִישׁ רָאָה אֵל, i.e., “the man seeing God.”
[3919] Ex. iii. 4, etc.
[3920] Feuardent infers with great probability from this passage, that Irenæus, like Tertullian and others of the Fathers, connected the word Pascha with πάσχειν, to suffer. [The LXX. constantly giving colour to early Christian ideas in this manner, they concluded, perhaps, that such coincidences were designed. The LXX. were credited with a sort of inspiration, as we learn from our author.]
[3921] Latin, “et extremitatem temporum.”
[3923] The Latin is, “lætifici oculi ejus a vino,” the Hebrew method of indicating comparison being evidently imitated.
[3924] Gen. xlix. 10-12, LXX.
[3926] Deut. xxviii. 66. Tertullian, Cyprian, and other early Fathers, agree with Irenæus in his exposition of this text.
[3927] Deut. xxxii. 6. “Owned thee,” i.e., following the meaning of the Hebrew, “owned thee by generation.”
[3930] Matt. xxv. 21, etc.
[3932] Or, “all those who were in the way of David”—omnes qui erant in viâ David, in dolore animæ cognoverunt suum regem.
[3934] The Latin text is ambiguous: “dominabantur eorum, quibus ratio non constabat.” The rendering may be, “and ruled over those things with respect to which it was not right that they should do so.”
[3935] Matt. xxi. 16; Ps. viii. 3.
[3945] Matt. xix. 17, 18, etc.
[3946] Harvey here remarks: “In a theological point of view, it should be observed, that no saving merit is ascribed to almsgiving: it is spoken of here as the negation of the vice of covetousness, which is wholly inconsistent with the state of salvation to which we are called.”
[3948] That is, as Harvey observes, the natural man, as described in Rom. ii. 27.
[3951] Matt. v. 33, etc.
[3971] [Acts vi. 3-7. It is evident that the laity elected, and the apostles ordained.]
[3973] In accordance with the Codex Bezæ.
[3974] Acts vii. 38, etc.
[3982] [Note this stout assertion of the freedom of human actions.]
[3987] Deut. x. 16, LXX. version.
[3988] The Latin text here is: “Sabbata autem perseverantiam totius diei erga Deum deservitionis edocebant;” which might be rendered, “The Sabbaths taught that we should continue the whole day in the service of God;” but Harvey conceives the original Greek to have been, τὴν καθημερινὴν διαμονὴν τῆς περὶ τὸν Θεὸν λατρείας.
[3992] Massuet remarks here that Irenæus makes a reference to the apocryphal book of Enoch, in which this history is contained. It was the belief of the later Jews, followed by the Christian fathers, that “the sons of God” (Gen. vi. 2) who took wives of the daughters of men, were the apostate angels. The LXX. translation of that passage accords with this view. See the articles “Enoch,” “Enoch, Book of,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. [See Paradise Lost, b. i. 323–431.]
[3995] [Hearts and souls; i.e., moral and mental natures. For a correct view of the patristic conceptions of the Gentiles before the law, this is valuable.]
[3996] i.e., the letters of the Decalogue on the two tables of stone.
[4001] [Most noteworthy among primitive testimonies to the catholic reception of the Decalogue.]
[4008] Latin, “aures autem perfecisti mihi;” a reading agreeable to neither the Hebrew nor Septuagint version, as quoted by St. Paul in Heb. x. 9. Harvey, however, is of opinion that the text of the old Latin translation was originally “perforasti;” indicating thus an entire concurrence with the Hebrew, as now read in this passage. [Both readings illustrated by their apparent reference to Ex. xxi. 6, compared with Heb. v. 7-9.]
[4011] Or, “the beauty,” species.
[4015] This passage is not now found in holy Scripture. Harvey conjectures that it may have been taken from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Egyptians. It is remarkable that we find the same words quoted also by Clement of Alexandria. [But he (possibly with this place in view) merely quotes it as a saying, in close connection with Ps. li. 19, which is here partially cited. See Clement, Pædagogue, b. iii. cap. xii.]
[4023] Isa. lviii. 6, etc.
[4029] Grabe has a long and important note on this passage and what follows, which may be seen in Harvey, in loc. See, on the other side, and in connection with the whole of the following chapter, Massuet’s third dissertation on the doctrine of Irenæus, art. vii., reprinted in Migne’s edition.
[4030] Matt. xxvi. 26, etc.
[4032] [One marvels that there should be any critical difficulty here as to our author’s teaching. Creatures of bread and wine are the body and the blood; materially one thing, mystically another. See cap. xviii. 5 below.]
[4033] Rev. v. 8. [Material incense seems to be always disclaimed by the primitive writers.]
Chapter XVIII.—Concerning sacrifices and oblations, and those who truly offer them.
[4036] The text of this passage is doubtful in some words.
[4037] Luke xxi. 4. [The law of tithes abrogated; the law of Acts ii. 44, 45, morally binding. This seems to be our author’s view.]
[4038] Gen. iv. 7, LXX.
[4039] The Latin text is: “ne per assimulatam operationem, magis autem peccatum, ipsum sibi homicidam faciat hominem.”
[4048] The text here fluctuates between quod offertur Deo, and per quod offertur Deo. Massuet adopts the former, and Harvey the latter. If the first reading be chosen, the translation will be, “the Word who is offered to God,” implying, according to Massuet, that the body of Christ is really offered as a sacrifice in the Eucharist; if the second reading be followed, the translation will be as above. [Massuet’s idea is no more to be found, even in his text, than Luther’s or Calvin’s. The crucial point is, how offered? One may answer “figuratively,” “corporally,” “mystically,” or otherwise. Irenæus gives no answer in this place. But see below.]
[4049] Comp. Massuet and Harvey respectively for the meaning to be attached to these words.
[4051] “Either let them acknowledge that the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof, or let them cease to offer to God those elements that they deny to be vouchsafed by Him.” —Harvey.
[4052] That is, according to Harvey, “while we offer to Him His own creatures of bread and wine, we tell forth the fellowship of flesh with spirit; i.e., that the flesh of every child of man is receptive of the Spirit.” The words καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες … ἔγερσιν, which here occur in the Greek text, are rejected as an interpolation by Grabe and Harvey, but defended as genuine by Massuet.
[4053] See Harvey’s long note on this passage, and what immediately follows. [But, note, we are only asking what Irenæus teaches. Could words be plainer,—“two realities,”—(i.) bread, (ii.) spiritual food? Bread— but not “common bread;” matter and grace, flesh and Spirit. In the Eucharist, an earthly and a heavenly part.]
[4054] The text fluctuates between dominationi and donationi.
[4056] Matt. xxv. 34, etc.
[4057] [The Sursum Corda seems here in mind. The object of Eucharistic adoration is the Creator, our “great High Priest, passed into the heavens,” and in bodily substance there enthroned, according to our author.]
[4062] The Latin is, “et universum eum decurrerint.” Harvey imagines that this last word corresponds to κατατρέχωσι but it is difficult to fit such a meaning into the context.
[4065] This quotation is taken from the Shepherd of Hermas, book ii. sim. 1.
[4073] Prov. viii. 22-25. [This is one of the favourite Messianic quotations of the Fathers, and is considered as the base of the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel.]
[4079] Some read “in filium” instead of “in filio,” as above.
[4080] A part of the original Greek text is preserved here, and has been followed, as it makes the better sense.
[4091] Matt. xvii. 3, etc.
[4097] “This text, as quoted a short time ago, indicated ‘the only-begotten Son;’ but the agreement of the Syriac version induces the belief that the present reading was that expressed by Irenæus, and that the previous quotation has been corrected to suit the Vulgate. The former reading, however, occurs in book iii. c. xi. 5.”— Harvey.
[4108] 1 Cor. vii. 14. [But Hosea himself says (Hos. xii. 10), “I have used similitudes;” and this history may be fairly referred to prophetic vision. Dr. Pusey, in his Minor Prophets, in loc., argues against this view, however; and his reasons deserve consideration.]
[4111] The text is here uncertain; and while the general meaning of the sentence is plain, its syntax is confused and obscure.
[4112] Irenæus seems here to have written “three” for “two” from a lapse of memory.
[4114] Gal. iii. 5-9; Gen. xii. 3.
[4115] Massuet would cancel these words.
[4116] Rom. ix. 10-13;Gen. xxv. 23.
[4122] The text of this sentence is in great confusion, and we can give only a doubtful translation.
[4123] [Leah’s eyes were weak, according to the LXX.; and Irenæus infers that Rachel’s were “beautiful exceedingly.” Canticles, i. 15.]
[4126] This spurious quotation has been introduced before. See book iii. 20. 4.
[4128] So Harvey understands the obscure Latin text, “id quod erat inoperatum conditionis.”
[4131] John iv. 35, etc.
[4132] Matt. i. 20, etc.
[4135] Acts viii. 27;Isa. liii. 7.
[4136] Acts ii. 41, Acts iv. 4.
[4138] [A clear note of recognition on the part of our author, that St. Paul’s mission was world-wide, while St. Peter’s was limited.]
[4143] [Note, the Gentile Church was the old religion and was Catholic; in Christ it became Catholic again: the Mosaic system was a parenthetical thing of fifteen hundred years only. Such is the luminous and clarifying scheme of Irenæus, expounding St. Paul (Gal. iii. 14-20). Inferences: (1) They who speak as if the Mosaic system covered the whole Old Testament darken the divine counsels. (2) The God of Scripture was never the God of the Jews only.]
[4144] Gen. xxxviii. 28, etc.
[4147] Jer. ix. 2. [A “remote dwelling-place” rather (σταθμὸν ἔσχατον according to LXX.) to square with the argument.]
[4148] [The touching words which conclude the former paragraph are illustrated by the noble sentence which begins this paragraph. The childlike spirit of these Fathers recognises Christ everywhere, in the Old Testament, prefigured by countless images and tokens in paternal and legal (ceremonial) forms.]
[4151] Harvey cancels “non,” and reads the sentence interrogatively.
[4154] The Latin is “a multis justis,” corresponding to the Greek version of the Hebrew text. If the translation be supposed as corresponding to the Hebrew comparative, the English equivalent will be, “and above (more than) many righteous.”
[4156] The text and punctuation are here in great uncertainty, and very different views of both are taken by the editors.
[4157] Luke xxiv. 26, 47. [The walk to Emmaus is the fountain-head of Scriptural exposition, and the forty days (Acts i. 3) is the river that came forth like that which went out of Eden. Sirach iv. 31.]
[4158] Matt. xiii. 52. [I must express my delight in the great principle of exposition here unfolded. The Old Scriptures are a night-bound wilderness, till Christ rises and illuminates them, glorying alike hill and dale, and, as this author supposes, every shrub and flower, also, making the smallest leaf with its dewdrops glitter like the rainbow.]
[4162] Susanna 56.
[4163] Ibid. ver. 52, etc.; Ex. xxiii. 7.
[4164] Matt. xxiv. 48, etc.; Luke xii. 45.
[4165] [Contrast this spirit of a primitive Father, with the state of things which Wiclif rose up to purify, five hundred years ago.]
[4173] [Note the limitation; not the succession only, but with it (1) pure morality and holiness and (2) unadulterated testimony. No catholicity apart from these.]
[4174] Polycarp, Papias, Pothinus, and others, have been suggested as probably here referred to, but the point is involved in utter uncertainty. [Surely this testimony is a precious intimation of the apostle’s meaning (Rom. ii. 12-16), and the whole chapter is radiant with the purity of the Gospel.]
[4177] 2 Sam. xii. 1, etc.
[4183] Rom. iii. 23. [Another testimony to the mercy of God in the judgment of the unevangelized. There must have been some reason for the secrecy with which “that presbyter’s” name is guarded. Irenæus may have scrupled to draw the wrath of the Gnostics upon any name but his own.]
[4184] Rom. iii. 23. [Another testimony to the mercy of God in the judgment of the unevangelized. There must have been some reason for the secrecy with which “that presbyter’s” name is guarded. Irenæus may have scrupled to draw the wrath of the Gnostics upon any name but his own.]
[4187] 1 Cor. x. 1, etc.
[4201] [Eph. v. 4. Even from the εὐτραπελία which might signify a bon-mot, literally, and which certainly is not “scurrility,” unless the apostle was ironical, reflecting on jokes with heathen considered “good.”]
[4206] [Jon. iv. 11. The tenderness of our author constantly asserts itself, as in this reference to children.]
[4209] Matt. xiii. 11-16;Isa. vi. 10.
[4214] Ex. iii. 22, Ex. xi. 2. [Our English translation “borrow” is a gratuitous injury to the text. As “King of kings” the Lord enjoins a just tax, which any earthly sovereign might have imposed uprightly. Our author argues well.]
[4216] This perplexed sentence is pointed by Harvey interrogatively, but we prefer the above.
[4217] [A touching tribute to the imperial law, at a moment when Christians were “dying daily” and “as sheep for the slaughter.” So powerfully worked the divine command, Luke vi. 29.]
[4219] This is, if he inveighs against the Israelites for spoiling the Egyptians; the former being a type of the Christian Church in relation to the Gentiles.
[4224] As Harvey remarks, this is “a strange translation for ἐκλίπητε” of the text. rec., and he adds that “possibly the translator read ἐκτράπητε.”
[4226] We here follow the punctuation of Massuet in preference to that of Harvey.
[4227] [The Fathers regarded the whole Mosaic system, and the history of the faithful under it, as one great allegory. In everything they saw “similitudes,” as we do in the Faery Queen of Spenser, or the Pilgrim’s Progress. The ancients may have carried this principle too far, but as a principle it receives countenance from our Lord Himself and His apostles. To us there is often a barren bush, where the Fathers saw a bush that burned with fire.]
[4228] See Rev. xv., Rev. xvi.
[4229] [Thus far we have a most edifying instruction. The reader will be less edified with what follows, but it is a very striking example of what is written: “to the pure all things are pure.” Tit. i. 15.]
[4232] “Id est duæ synagogæ,” referring to the Jews and Gentiles. Some regard the words as a marginal gloss which has crept into the text.
[4234] Deut. xxxii. 6, LXX. [Let us reflect that this effort to spiritualize this awful passage in the history of Lot is an innocent but unsuccessful attempt to imitate St. Paul’s allegory,Gal. iv. 24.]
[4238] Comp. Clem. Rom., chap. xi. Josephus (Antiq., i. 11, 4) testifies that he had himself seen this pillar.
[4239] The Latin is “per naturalia,” which words, according to Harvey, correspond to δἰ ἐμμηνοῤῥοίας. There is a poem entitled Sodoma preserved among the works of Tertullian and Cyprian which contains the following lines:—
“Dicitur et vivens, alio jam corpore, sexus
Munificos solito dispungere sanguine menses.”
[4241] The poem just referred to also says in reference to this pillar:—
“Ipsaque imago sibi formam sine corpore servans
Durat adhuc, et enim nuda statione sub æthram
Nec pluviis dilapsa situ, nec diruta ventis.
Quin etiam si quis mutilaverit advena formam,
Protinus ex sese suggestu vulnera complet.”
[That a pillar of salt is still to be seen in this vicinity, is now confirmed by many modern travellers (report of Lieut. Lynch, United States Navy), which accounts for the natural inference of Josephus and others on whom our author relied. The coincidence is noteworthy.]
[4242] Harvey remarks here, that this can hardly be the same presbyter mentioned before, “who was only a hearer of those who had heard the apostles. Irenæus may here mean the venerable martyr Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna.”
[4243] “Quassum et futile.” The text varies much in the mss.
[4247] Eph. iv. 16; Col. ii. 19.
[4248] “Constabit ei.”
[4249] We here read “secundum quos” with Massuet, instead of usual “secundum quod.”
[4250] “Concurvans,” corresponding to συγκάμπτων, which, says Harvey, “would be expressive of those who were brought under the law, as the neck of the steer is bent to the yoke.”
[4251] The Latin is, “per proprium visum.”
[4252] [If this and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.]
[4253] 1 Cor. ii. 15. [The argument of this chapter hinges on Ps. xxv. 14, and expounds a difficult text of St. Paul. A man who has the mind of God’s Spirit is the only judge of spiritual things. Worldly men are incompetent critics of Scripture and of Christian exposition.
[4261] Comp. book iii. 20, 4.
[4265] Matt. iii. 12;Luke iii. 17.
[4266] Harvey points this sentence interrogatively.
[4267] “Temperamentum calicis:” on which Harvey remarks that “the mixture of water with the wine in the holy Eucharist was the universal practice of antiquity … the wine signifying the mystical Head of the Church, the water the body.” [Whatever the significance, it harmonizes with the Paschal chalice, and with 1 John v. 6, and St. John’s gospel John xix. 34, 35.]
[4269] This sentence is very obscure in the Latin text.
[4270] Iliad, ix. 312, 313.
[4271] The text is obscure, and the construction doubtful.
[4272] The Latin here is, “quæ est ex virgine per fidem regenerationem.” According to Massuet, “virgine” here refers not to Mary, but to the Church. Grabe suspects that some words have been lost.
[4275] Matt. xxii. 29;Luke xi. 21, 22.
[4276] Literally, “who was strong against men.”
[4277] In fine; lit. “in the end.”
[4278] In semetipsum: lit. “unto Himself.”
[4279] We here follow the reading “proferant:” the passage is difficult and obscure, but the meaning is as above.
[4281] The Greek text here is σκηνοβατοῦν (lit. “to tabernacle:” comp. ἐσκήνωσεν,John i. 14) καθ’ ἐκάστην γενεὰν ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: the Latin is, “Secundum quas (dispositiones) aderat generi humano.” We have endeavoured to express the meaning of both.
[4282] The following section is an important one, but very difficult to translate with undoubted accuracy. The editors differ considerably both as to the construction and the interpretation. We have done our best to represent the meaning in English, but may not have been altogether successful.
[4283] The Greek is σύστημα: the Latin text has “status.”
[4284] The Latin is, “character corporis.”
[4285] The text here is, “custodita sine fictione scripturarum;” some prefer joining “scripturarum” to the following words.
[4286] We follow Harvey’s text, “tractatione;” others read “tractatio.” According to Harvey, the creed of the Church is denoted by “tractatione;” but Massuet renders the clause thus: [“True knowledge consists in] a very complete tractatio of the Scriptures, which has come down to us by being preserved (‘custoditione’ being read instead of ‘custodita’) without falsification.”
[4287] Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 1; 1 Cor. xiii.
[4288] i.e., the heretics.
[4289] Comp. above, xxxi. 2.
[4291] Comp.1 Pet. iv. 14.
[4295] Luke xviii. 8. There is nothing to correspond with “putas” in the received text.
[4303] Jer. xvii. 9 (LXX.). Harvey here remarks: “The LXX. read אֱנֹושׁ instead of אָנֹושׁ. Thus, from a text that teaches us that the heart is deceitful above all things, the Fathers extract a proof of the manhood of Christ.”
[4304] Isa. viii. 3,Isa. ix. 6, Isa. vii. 14. [A confusion of texts.]
[4308] See III. xx. 4.
[4323] Comp. book iii. cap. xx. 4 and book iv. cap xxii. 1.
[4331] Or “son.”
[4332] Isa. l. 8, 9 (loosely quoted).
[4340] “Ex alia et alia substantia fuisse prophetias.”
[4346] Isa. ii. 3, 4; Mic. iv. 2, 3.
[4348] Book i. p. 327, this volume.
[4349] This is following Harvey’s conjectural emendation of the text, viz., “taleis” for “talis.” He considers the pins here as symbolical of the nails by which our Lord was fastened to the cross. The whole passage is almost hopelessly obscure, though the general meaning may be guessed.
[4351] [If it be remembered that we know Irenæus here, only through a most obscure Latin rendering, we shall be slow to censure this conclusion.]
[4353] Book i. p. 334, this volume.
[4354] Illorum; following the Greek form of the comparative degree.
Chapter XXXVI.—The prophets were sent from one and the same Father from whom the Son was sent.
[4358] Jer. vii. 3;Zech. vii. 9, 10, Zech. viii. 17; Isa. i. 17-19.
[4364] Luke xvii. 26, etc.
[4366] No other of the Greek Fathers quotes this text as above; from which fact Grabe infers that old Latin translator, or his transcribers, altered the words of Irenæus [N.B.—From one example infer the rest] to suit the Latin versions.
[4369] This is Massuet’s conjectural emendation of the text, viz., archetypum for arcætypum. Grabe would insert per before arcæ, and he thinks the passage to have a reference to 1 Pet. iii. 20. Irenæus, in common with the other ancient Fathers, believed that the fallen angels were the “sons of God” who commingled with “the daughters of men,” and thus produced a race of spurious men. [Gen. vi. 1, 2, 3, and Josephus.]
[4370] Jude 7. [And note “strange flesh” (Gr. σαρκὸς ἑτέρας) as to the angels. Gen. xix. 4, 5.]
[4372] Matt. xi. 24;Luke x. 12.
[4373] Matt. xxii. 1, etc.
[4374] Matt. v. 35. Instead of placing a period here, as the editors do, it seems to us preferable to carry on the construction.
[4376] Jer. vii. 25, etc.
[4387] Matt. xx. 1, etc.
[4392] Luke xiii. 34; Matt. xxiii. 37.
[4401] Luke xii. 45, 46; Matt. xxiv. 48-51.
[4402] τὸ αὐτεξούσιον.
[4416] [If we but had the original, this would doubtless be found in all respects a noble specimen of primitive theology.]
Chapter XXXVIII.—Why man was not made perfect from the beginning.
[4420] That is, that man’s human nature should not prevent him from becoming a partaker of the divine.
[4421] Efficeris.
[4423] Matt. xxii. 3, etc.
[4431] Matt. xiii. 34. [Applicable to the origin of heresies.]
[4433] The old Latin translator varies from this (the Greek of which was recovered by Grabe from two ancient Catenæ Patrum), making the clause run thus, that is, the transgression which he had himself introduced, making the explanatory words to refer to the tares, and not, as in the Greek, to the sower of the tares.
[4434] Following the reading of the LXX. αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν.
[4448] Matt. xxv. 41, Matt. xiii. 38.
[4449] Ex ratione universis ostensionibus procedente. The words are very obscure.
[4451] “Initium facturæ,” which Grabe thinks should be thus translated with reference to Jas. i. 18.
[4452] [Compare Clement, cap. 49, p. 18, this volume.]
[4454] In allusion to the mixture of water in the eucharistic cup, as practised in these primitive times. The Ebionites and others used to consecrate the element of water alone.
[4456] Viz., the Son and the Spirit.
[4461] [Again, the carefully asserts that the bread is the body, and the wine (cup) is the blood. The elements are sanctified, not changed materially.]
[4462] The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains here, would give, “and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”
[4467] This is Harvey’s free rendering of the passage, which is in the Greek (as preserved in the Catena of John of Damascus): καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἠνέσχετο ὁ Θεὸς τὴν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἡμῶν ἀνάλυσιν. In the Latin: Propter hoc passus est Deus fieri in nobis resolutionem. See Book iii. cap. xx. 2.
[4469] We have adopted here the explanation of Massuet, who considers the preceding period as merely parenthetical. Both Grabe and Harvey, however, would make conjectural emendations in the text, which seem to us to be inadmissible.
[4470] The ancients erroneously supposed that the arteries were air-vessels, from the fact that these organs, after death, appear quite empty, from all the blood stagnating in the veins when death supervenes.
[4477] The old Latin has “audivimus,” have heard.
[4478] 1 Thess. v. 23. [I have before referred the student to the “Biblical Psychology” of Prof. Delitzsch (translation), T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1868.]
[4486] Ps. xxii. 31, LXX.
[4494] Grabe, Massuet, and Stieren prefer to read, “the face of the living God;” while Harvey adopts the above, reading merely “Domini,” and not “Dei vivi.”
[4495] Eph. i. 13, etc.
[4499] This is adopting Harvey’s emendation of “voluntatem” for “voluntate.”
[4502] Lev. xi. 2;Deut. xiv. 3, etc.
[4505] 1 Cor. ii. 14, 1 Cor. iii. 1, etc.
[4516] Matt. xxiv. 42, Matt. xxv. 13;Mark xiii. 33.
[4521] The Latin has, “sed infusionem Spiritus attrahens.”
[4524] Rom. viii. 10, etc.
[4526] Or, “poisonings.”
[4527] Gal. v. 19, etc.
[4530] 1 Cor. xv. 49, etc.
[4531] Isa. xxv. 8, LXX.
[4539] Following Harvey’s explanation of a somewhat obscure passage.
[4542] Vol. i. pp. 306, 321.
[4543] Mark v. 22. Irenæus confounds the ruler of the synagogue with the high priest. [Let not those who possess printed Bibles and concordances and commentaries, and all manner of helps to memory, blame the Fathers for such mistakes, until they at least equal them in their marvellous and minute familiarity with the inspired writers.]
[4546] The two miracles of raising the widow’s son and the rabbi’s daughter are here amalgamated.
[4550] Phil. iii. 29, etc.
[4551] The original Greek text is preserved here, as above; the Latin translator inserts, “in secunda ad Corinthios.” Harvey observes: “The interpretation of the Scriptural reference by the translator suggests the suspicion that the greater number of such references have come in from the margin.”
[4554] Agreeing with the Syriac version in omitting “the Lord” before the word “Jesus,” and in reading ἀεὶ as εἰ, which Harvey considers the true text.
[4555] 2 Cor. iv. 10, etc.
[4558] The Syriac translation seems to take a literal meaning out of this passage: “If, as one of the men, I have been cast forth to the wild beasts at Ephesus.”
[4559] This is in accordance with the Syriac, which omits the clause, εἴπερ ἄρα νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται.
[4560] 1 Cor. xv. 13, etc.
[4564] Gen. ix. 5, 6, LXX.
[4565] One of the mss. reads here: Sanguis pro sanguine ejus effundetur.
[4566] Matt. xxiii. 35, etc.; Luke xi. 50.
[4567] Col. i. 21, etc.
[4571] Rom. vi. 12, 13, etc.
[4572] “Et sanguine ejus redhibitus,” corresponding to the Greek term ἀποκατασταθείς. “Redhibere” is properly a forensic term, meaning to cause any article to be restored to the vendor.
[4574] Harvey restores the Greek thus, καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπον βεβαίως ἐκδεχόμενος, which he thinks has a reference to the patient waiting for “Christ’s second advent to judge the world.” The phrase might also be translated, and “receiving stedfastly His human nature.”
[4577] Ezek. xxxvii. 1, etc.
[4578] Ezek. xxxvii. 12, etc.
[4593] Matt. ix. 2; Luke v. 20.
[4594] Matt. ix. 2; Luke v. 20.
[4603] The Greek is preserved here, and reads, διὰ τῆς θείας ἐκτάσεως τῶν χειρῶν— literally, “through the divine extension of hands.” The old Latin merely reads, “per extensionem manuum.”
[4605] From this passage Harvey infers that Irenæus held the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son,—a doctrine denied by the Oriental Church in after times. [Here is nothing about the “procession:” only the “mission” of the Spirit is here concerned. And the Easterns object to the double procession itself only in so far as any one means thereby to deny “quod solus Pater est divinarum personarum, Principium et Fons,”—ρίζα καὶ πηγὴ. See Procopowicz, De Processione, Gothæ, 1772].
[4606] Grabe and Harvey insert the words, “quod est conditionis,” but on slender authority.
[4610] John i. 10, etc.
[4612] The text reads “invisiblilter,” which seems clearly an error.
[4616] The text is here most uncertain and obscure.
[4617] [This word patroness is ambiguous. The Latin may stand for Gr. ἀντίληψις, —a person called in to help, or to take hold of the other end of a burden. The argument implies that Mary was thus the counterpart or balance of Eve.]
[4618] The text reads “porro,” which makes no sense; so that Harvey looks upon it as a corruption of the reading “per Horum.”
[4619] “Et eandem figuram ejus quæ est erga ecclesiam ordinationis custodientibus.” Grabe supposes this refers to the ordained ministry of the Church, but Harvey thinks it refers more probably to its general constitution.
[4620] [He thus outlines the creed, and epitomizes “the faith once delivered to the saints,” as all that is requisite to salvation.]
[4622] That is, the private Christian as contrasted with the sophist of the schools.
[4627] τηρήσει and τερέσει have probably been confounded.
[4633] The Latin of this obscure sentence is: Quæ ergo fuit in Paradiso repletio hominis per duplicem gustationem, dissoluta est per eam, quæ fuit in hoc mundo, indigentiam. Harvey thinks that repletio is an error of the translation reading ἀναπλήρωσις for ἀναπήρωσις. This conjecture is adopted above.
[4636] This sentence is one of great obscurity.
[4639] Matt. xii. 29 and Mark iii. 27.
[4654] Matt. iv. 9; Luke iv. 6.
[4661] [Well says Benjamin Franklin: “He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” See Bancroft, Hist. U.S., vol. ix. p. 492.]
[4665] Dan. vii. 8, etc.
[4666] Dan. vii. 23, etc.
[4669] Luke xviii. 2, etc.
[4670] This may refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, Antichrist’s prototype, who offered swine upon the altar in the temple at Jerusalem. The LXX. version has, ἐδόθη ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ἁμαρτία, i.e., sin has been given against (or, upon) the sacrifice.
[4672] Dan. viii. 23, etc.
[4675] The mss. have “præmisit,” but Harvey suggests “promisit,” which we have adopted.
[4676] Rev. xvii. 12, etc.
[4682] The Greek text is here preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 18; but we are not told from what work of Justin Martyr it is extracted. The work is now lost. An ancient catena continues the Greek for several lines further.
[4686] Matt. xxv. 33, etc.
[4692] Rev. xiii. 2, etc.
[4693] Rev. xiii. 11, etc.
[4694] Rev. xiii. 14, etc.
[4697] This is quoted from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, ch. iv. It is found in the two Greek recensions of his works, and also in the Syriac. See pp. 75 and 103 of this volume. The Latin translation is here followed: the Greek of Ignatius would give “the wheat of God,” and omits “of God” towards the end, as quoted by Eusebius.
[4700] ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις This passage is interesting, as showing how very soon the autographs of the New Testament must have perished, and various readings crept into the mss. of the canonical books.
[4701] That is, Ξ into ΕΙ, according to Harvey, who considers the whole of this clause as an evident interpolation. It does not occur in the Greek here preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v. 8).
[4705] Rev. vii. 5-7. [The Danites (though not all) corrupted the Hebrew church and the Levitical priesthood, by image-worship, (Judg. xviii.), and forfeited the blessings of the old covenant.]
[4706] [A very pregnant passage, as has often been noted. But let us imitate the pious reticence with which this section concludes.]
[4707] Massuet here quotes Cicero and Ovid in proof of the sun being termed Titan. The Titans waged war against the gods, to avenge themselves upon Saturn.
[4710] See the note, book iii. xx. 4.
[4719] The five following chapters were omitted in the earlier editions, but added by Feuardentius. Most mss., too, did not contain them. It is probable that the scribes of the middle ages rejected them on account of their inculcating millenarian notions, which had been long extinct in the Church. Quotations from these five chapters have been collected by Harvey from Syriac and Armenian mss. lately come to light.
[4720] Or, “gradually to comprehend God.”
[4721] Rom. viii. 19, etc.
[4724] Acts vii. 5; Heb. xi. 13.
[4730] Gal. iii. 6, etc.
[4735] Matt. xix. 29; Luke xviii. 29, 30.
[4736] Gen. xxvii. 27, etc.
[4741] From this to the end of the section there is an Armenian version extant, to be found in the Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 1, edited by M. Pitra, Paris 1852, and which was taken by him from an Armenian ms. in the Mechitarist Library at Venice, described as being of the twelfth century.
[4742] This word “true” is not found in the Armenian.
[4743] Or, following Arm. vers., “But if any one shall lay hold of an holy cluster.”
[4744] The Arm. vers. is here followed; the old Latin reads, “Et reliqua autem poma.”
[4745] [See pp. 151–154, this volume.]
[4746] Isa. xl. 6, etc.
[4748] Ezek. xxxvii. 12, etc.
[4759] Jer. xxxi. 10, etc.
[4760] See. iv. 8, 3.
[4762] Isa. xxxi. 9,Isa. xxxii. 1.
[4770] The long quotation following is not found in Jeremiah, but in the apocryphal book of Baruch iv. 36, etc., and the whole of Baruch v.
[4785] Lib. iv. 5, 6.
[4787] Thus in a Greek fragment; in the Old Latin, Deus.
[4794] 1 Cor. ii. 9; Isa. lxiv. 4.
[4796] Grabe and others suppose that some part of the work has been lost, so that the above was not its original conclusion.
[4797] This fragment is quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 20. It occurred at the close of the lost treatise of Irenæus entitled De Ogdoade.
[4798] 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.
[4799] Comp. p. 32, this volume, and Phil. iv. 22.
[4800] 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).
[4801] 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 fast preceding it.
[4802] Both reading and punctuation are here subjects of controversy. We have followed Massuet and Harvey.
[4803] “The observance of a day, though not everywhere the same, showed unity, so far as faith in the Lord’s resurrection was concerned.”—Harvey.
[4804] Following the reading of Rufinus, the ordinary text has μετ’ αὐτούς, i.e., after them.
[4805] This practice was afterwards forbidden by the Council of Laodicea [held about a.d. 360].
[4806] 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.
[4807] 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.
[4808] One of the mss. reads here τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God.
[4809] 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.
[4810] 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.
[4811] 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.
[4812] 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.
[4813] 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.
[4815] This sentence in the original seems incomplete; we have followed the conjectural restoration of Harvey.
[4816] “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.
[4817] 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.
[4820] 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.
[4821] 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.
[4824] 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.”
[4825] 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.
[4827] 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.
[4829] 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.
[4833] The conjectural emendation of Harvey has been adopted here, but the text is very corrupt and uncertain.
[4835] From one of the mss. Stieren would insert ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι, in His own body; see 1 Pet. ii. 24.
[4840] 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.
[4843] 2 Kings vi. 6. Comp. book v. chap. xvii. 4.
[4845] Edited by P. Possin, in a Catena Patrum on St. Matthew. See book iii. chap. xi. 8.
[4846] From the same Catena. Compare book v. chap. xvii. 4.
[4848] First edited in Latin by Corderius, afterwards in Greek by Grabe, and also by Dr. Cramer in his Catena on St. Luke.
[4849] Massuet’s Fragment xxxii. is here passed over; it is found in book iii. chap. xviii. 7.
[4850] 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).
[4851] Num. xii. 1, etc.
[4853] 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.
[4854] 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.
[4858] 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.]
[4863] Rom. x. 8; Deut. xxx. 14.
[4865] Harvey’s conjectural emendation, ἐπιπλοκὴ for ἐπιλογὴ, has been adopted here.
[4868] 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.”
[4870] 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.
[4875] 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.
[4876] Taken apparently from the Epistle to Blastus, de Schismate. Compare a similar passage, lib. iv. chap. xxxiii. 7.
[4879] “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.
[4880] 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.
[4884] These words were evidently written during a season of persecution in Gaul; but what that persecution was, it is useless to conjecture.
[4886] That is, when he fled to the rock Etam, he typified the true believer taking refuge in the spiritual Rock, Christ.
[4887] 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.
[4888] 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.
[4889] With the exception of the initial text, this fragment is almost identical with No. xxv.
[4892] From the Catena on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, edited by Dr. Cramer, and reprinted by Stieren.
[4894] 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.
[4896] This fragment commences a series derived from the Nitrian Collection of Syriac mss. in the British Museum.
[4897] The Syriac text is here corrupt and obscure.
[4898] See. No. viii., which is the same as the remainder of this fragment.
[4899] The Syriac ms. introduces this quotation as follows: “From the holy Irenæus Bp. of Lyons, from the first section of his interpretation of the Song of Songs.”
[4900] This extract is introduced as follows: “For Irenæus Bishop of Lyons, who was a contemporary of the disciple of the apostle, Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, and martyr, and for this reason is held in just estimation, wrote to an Alexandrian to the effect that it is right, with respect to the feast of the Resurrection, that we should celebrate it upon the first day of the week.” This shows us that the extract must have been taken from the work Against Schism addressed to Blastus.
[4901] From the same ms. as the preceding fragment. It is thus introduced: “And Irenæus 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.”
[4902] This extract had already been printed by M. Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense, p. 6.
[4911] This extract from the Syriac is a shorter form of the next fragment, which seems to be interpolated in some places. The latter is from an Armenian ms. in the Mechitarist Library at Venice.
[4912] This fragment is thus introduced in the Armenian copy: “From St. Irenæus, bishop, follower of the apostles, on the Lord’s resurrection.”
[4913] The Armenian text is confused here; we have adopted the conjectural emendation of Quatremere.
[4914] From an Armenian ms. in the Library of the Mechitarist Convent at Vienna, edited by M. Pitra, who considers this fragment as of very doubtful authority. It commences with this heading: “From the second series of Homilies of Saint Irenæus, follower of the Apostles; a Homily upon the Sons of Zebedee.”
[4916] That is, the wine which flows from the grapes before they are trodden out.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0428 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page