Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Books I–V

Matt. xxv. 41 ; Mark ix. 44 .

Comp. i. 25, 4.

“Artificialia.”

“Pureos investes,” boys that have not yet reached the age of puberty.

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.

Some have deemed the words “firmum esse” an interpolation.

That is, as being done in reality , and not in appearance.

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 .]

Comp. Acts viii. 9, 18 .

Matt. x. 8 .

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.

We follow the common reading, “perfecit;” but one ms. has “perficit,” works , which suits the context better.

We insert “et,” in accordance with Grabe’s suggestion.

Harvey thinks that this parenthesis has fallen out of its proper place, and would insert it immediately after the opening period of the chapter.

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.

“In hominem conversi,” literally, “returning into man.”

“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.

Literally, none of things past .

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.]

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.

Luke xvi. 19 , etc.

With Massuet and Stieren, we here supply esse .

Some read resurgeret , and others resurrexerit ; we deem the former reading preferable.

Ps. cxlviii. 5, 6 .

Ps. xxi. 4 .

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.

Luke xvi. 11 , quoted loosely from memory. Grabe, however, thinks they are cited from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Egyptians.

Comp. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. , ch. vi.

Gen. ii. 7 .

Ex defluxu , corresponding to ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας in the Greek.

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 .

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 .

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.

Instead of “nec posteaquam insurgere,” Feuardent and Massuet read “ne possit insurgere,” and include the clause in the definition of Addonai.

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.”

Probably corresponding to the Hebrew term Jehovah ( יְהֹוָה )

Literally, “belong to one and the same name.”

“Secundum Latinitatem ” in the text.

The words are “apostolorum dictatio,” probably referring to the letters of the apostles, as distinguished from their preaching already mentioned.

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.