Early Church Fathers
56 "Sermone:" he said "Verbum" before.
57 In defectione fuisse.
58 Cf. adv. Valent. cc. x. xiv. [Routh says that this IAO (see note 8) is wanting in the older editions. It was borrowed from the Adv. Valentin. to eke out a defect.]
59 Such appears to be the meaning of this sentence as Oehler gives it. But the text is here corrupt; and it seems plain there must either be something lost relating to this "Achamoth," or else some capital error in the reading, or, thirdly, some gross and unaccountable confusion in the writer: for the sentence as it stands is wholly irreconcilable with what follows. It evidently makes "Achamoth" identical with "the thirtieth Aeon" above-named; and yet, without introducing any fresh subject, the writer goes on to state that this despondent Oeon, who "conceived and bare," was itself the offspring of despondency, and made an infirm world out of the infirm matierials which "Achamoth" supposed it with. Now it is apparent from other sources-as, for instance, from Tert. adv. Valentin, above referred to-that the "thirtieth Aeon" was supposed to be female, Sophia (Wisdom) by name, and that she was said to be the parent of "Achamoth," or "Enthymesis" (see adv. Valentin. cc. ix. x. xi. xiv. xxv.), while "Achamoth" herself appears by some accounts to be also called ka/tw Sofi/a. The name "Achamoth" itself, which Tertullian (adv. Valentin. c. xiv. ad init.) calls an "uninterpretable name," is believed to be a representation of a Hebrew word meaning "wisdom;" and hence, possibly, some of the confusion may have arisen,-from the promiscuous use, namely, of the titles "Achamoth" and "Sophia," Moreover, it would appear that some words lower down as to the production by "Achamoth" of "Demiurgus," must have dropped out. Unless these two omissions be supplied, the passage is wholly unintelligible. Can the fact that the Hebrew word which "Achamoth" represents is a fem. pl. in any way explain this confused medley, or help to reconcile conflicting accounts? The a!nw and ka/tw Sofi/a seem to point in some degree to some such solution of some of the existing difficulties. "Iao," again, is a word which has cause much perplexity. Can it possibly be connected with i0a/omai, "to heal?" [See note 8.]
61 Oehler's suggestion is to vary the pointing so as to give this sense: "The resurrection of this flesh he denies. But of a sisterLaw and prophets," etc. But this seems even more harsh than the other.
62 "Alter," i.e., perhaps another of the same class.
63 It seems almost necessary to supply some word here; and as "Monade" follows, it seemed simple to supply "Monada."
64 See Rev. i. 7, xxi. 6, xxii. 13.
65 Denique Jesum Christum decendisse. So Oehler, who does not notice any conjectural emendation, or various reading, of the words. If correct, his reading would refer to the views of a twofold Jesus Christ-a real and a phantasmal one-held by docetic Gnostics, or to such views as Velentine's, in whose system, so far as it is ascertainable from the confused and discrepant account of it, there would appear to have been one Aeon calle Christ, another called Jesus, and a human person calle dJesus and Christ, with whom the true Jesus associated Himself. Some such jumble of ideas the two heretics now under review would seem to have held, if Oehler's be the true reading. But the difficulties are somewhat lessened if we accept the very simple emendation which naturally suggests itself, and which, I see, Semler has proposed and Routh inclines to receive, "in Jesum Christum decendisse," i.e. "that Christ descended on Jesus."
66 See Matt. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; Luke iii. 21-22; John i. 29-34.
67 Habere secum numerum DCCCI. So Oehler, after Jos. Scaliger, who, however, seems to have read "secum hunc numerum," for the ordinary readnig, "habere secundum numerum," which would mean, "represnts, in the way of numerical value, DCCCI."
68 Initia duo.
71 "Ponticus genere," lit. "a Pontic by race," which of course may not necessarily, like our native, imply actual birth in Pontus. [Note-"son of a bishop:" an index of early date, though not necessarily Ante-Nicene. A mere forgery of later origin would have omitted it.]
72 Rig., with whom Oehler agrees, reminds us that neither in the de Proescr. nor in the adv. Marc., nor, apparently, in Irenaeus, is any such statement brought forward.
73 See Matt. vii. 17.
74 See de Proescr. c. xxx., and comp. with it what is said of Marcion above.
77 "Aëream," i.e., composed of the air, the lower air, or atmosphere; not "aetheream," of the upper air, or ether.
78 Phaneroseis. Oehler refers to de Proescr. c. xxx. q. v.
79 filoume/nh, "loved one."
80 Salvi. Perhaps if it be questionable whether this word may be so rendered in a correct Latinist, it may be lawful to render it so in so incorrect a one as our present author.
81 i.e. followers of Proclus.
82 i.e. followers of Aeschines. So this writer takes "Cataphryges" to mean followers of the Phrygians."
83 Negavit. See de Idol. c. xxiii. note 1.
84 Hominem solitarium atque nudum. The words seems to mean, destitute of anything superhuman.
85 Et ipsum hominem Christum tantummodo. I rather incline to read, as ni the preceding sentence, "et ipse": "and himself affirms Christ to have been merely human, conceived alike," etc.
86 See Ps. cx. 4, and the references there.
87 The Latin here, is very careless, unless, with Routh, we suggest "et" for "eo," and render: "and that what Christ does," etc., "Melchizedek does," etc.
88 See Heb. vii. 1-3.
89 Who he is, no one knows. Oehler (following the lead of Fabricius on Philaster, cap. 49, p. 102) believes the name to be a mistake for Victor, a bishop of Rome, who (see Adv. Prax. c. i.) had held the episopate when Praxeas was there. His successor was Zephyrinus; and it is an ingenious conjecture of Oehler, that these two names, the one written as a correction of the other, may have been confused: thus, Victor/Zephrynus; and thus of the two may have been made Victorinus.
90 The form and order of the words here used are certainly remarkably similar to the expressions and order of the "Apostles' Creed."
1 [We pass from the polemical class of our author's writings to those of a practical and ethical character. This treatise on Penitence is the product of our author's best days, and may be dated A.D. 192.]
2 "Offensa senteniae pejoris;" or possibly, "the miscarriage of some," etc.
4 Saeculo. [Erasmus doubted the genuineness of this treatise, partly because of the comparative purity of its style. See Kaye, p. 42.]
5 Saeculi dote. With which he had been endowed. Comp. Gen. i. 28, Ps. viii. 4-8.
6 i.e., man.
9 Comp. Matt. iii. 1, 2; Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 4-6.
10 i.e., man's salvation.
11 See the latter part of c. i.
13 Or, "defending."
14 [Without reference to Luthor's theory of justification, we must all adopt this as the test of "a standing or falling church," viz. "How does it deal with sin and the sinner."]
15 Luke xxii. 61.
16 Or, "briefly to lay down the rule."
17 i.e., in the judgment-day. Compare the phrase "that day and that hour" in Scripture.
19 Praevaricatorem: comp. ad Ux. b. ii. c. ii. ad init.
20 Matt. v. 27, 28; comp. de Idol. ii.
21 Comp. Ezek. xviii. 30, 32.
22 The substance of this is found in Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
23 Compare 1 Tim. i. 16.
24 Comp. c. xii. sub fin. [Ut naufragus alicuius tabulae fidem; this expression soon passed into Theological technology, and as "the plank after shipwreck" is universally known.]