269 This is an exceedingly obscure and difficult sentence. Grabe and some of the later editors read, "uti neque non corpus," thus making Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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.
277 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 Abbe Fleury, p. xi. Oxford, 1842.]
289 Harvey here notes: "The reader will not fail to remark this highly interesting testimony, that the divine xarismata bestowed upon the infant Church were not wholly extinct in the days of Irenaeus. 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.]
292 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 Irenaeus are plainly to be restricted to evil spirits, and have no bearing on the general question of angelic invocation.
296 It is a mistake of Irenaeus to say that the doctine 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.
298 "Possidet." Massuet supposes this word to represent kurieuei, "rules over" and Stieren kratunei, governs; while Harvey thinks the whole clause corresponds to kratei kai kurieuei tou swmatoj, which we have rendered above.
300 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.]
301 Grabe refers to Tertullian, De Anima, ch. vii., as making a similiar statement. Massuet, on the other hand, denies that Irenaeus 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.
307 As Massuet observes, this statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness.
) is the rabbinical abstract term, Godhead.
) for the name Jehovah, as often as the latter occurred in the sacred text. The former might therefore be styled nameable.
a more decidedly guttural character;" but the sense is extremely doubtful.
316 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 (Sabawq). Although Harvey remarks in his preface, that "It is hoped the Hebrew attainments of Irenaeus 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 Irenaeo nostro, in Hebraicis haud satis perito, hic fucum ecisse videtur."
321 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 "praedicantibus," 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.