36 This clause is exceedingly obscure. Harvey remarks upon it as follows: "The reasoning of Irenaeus seems to be this: According to the Gnostic theory, the Aeons and angels of the Pleroma were homogeneous. They were also the archetypes of things created. But things created are heterogeneous: therefore either these Aeons are heterogeneous, which is contrary to theory, or things created are homogeneous, which is contrary to fact."
39 The text has fabricasse, for which, says Massuet, should be read fabricatam esse; or fabricasse 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.
55 Since Soter does not occur among the various appellations of Horos mentioned by Irenaeus (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).
56 Irenaeus 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.
57 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 Ennæa, Enthymesis, or by whatever other appellation, they are all but exercises of the same fundamental power, styled Nous. Compare the following section.
58 "The following," says Harvey, "may be considered to be consecutive steps in the evolution of logoj as a psychological entity. Ennoea, conception; Enthymesis, intention; Sensation, thought; Consilium, reasoning; Cogitationis Examinatio, judgment; in Mente Perseverans, Logoj endiaqetoj; Emissibile Verbum, Logoj profoikoj."
65 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 Athenaeus, but that writer quotes from a work styled 'Afrodithj gonai.
70 [Our author's demonstration of the essential harmony of Gnosticism with the old mythologies, and the philodophies 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 Irenaeus is thus illustrated: he gave the death-blow to heathenism in extirpating heresy.]
71 The Latin text reads "sensibilia et insensata;" but these words, as Harvey observes, must be the translation of aisqhra kai anaisqhta,-"the former referring to material objects of sense, the latter to the immaterial world of intellect."
72 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 vies of it, and supposes the original Greek to have been, kai allaj men thj upostasewj arxaj einai allaj de thj aisqhsewj kai thj ousiaj. He then remarks: "The reader will observe that the word upostasij here means intellectual substance, ousia 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."