^{page 253 note 1} He accounts for his vivid recollection of Polycarp's teaching by saying that (Eus. H. E. v.20) αἱ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις grow with the soul and become identified with it. This adverbial phrase indicates the early days of boyhood, say about twelve : and it seems safer to suppose that Irenaeus is here using the words in their ordinary sense than that he is referring to his own very arbitrary classification into five ages(Ir. ii. 22, 4; ii. 24, 4), where he deserts the old classification of seven ages (adopted by Philo i. 26, from Hippocrates) and substitutes one that seemed to harmonize with a favourite belief of his —that Christ lived to the age of nearly fifty. The age of twelve seems not an unlikely one for a in the early period of boyhood (comp. Lk. ii. 43, viii. 51, 54). Note that in the Refutation (iii. 3, 4) Irenaeus does not claim to have been a pupil of Polycarp, or to have learned from him, but merely to have ‘seen’ him. This accords with his habitual distinction between those who had ‘seen,’and those who had ‘heard,’ or ‘learned from,’ the Apostles. In the Refutation, wheu he quotes Polycarp, it is from the reports of others (iii. 3, 4): ‘There are those (prob. Pothinus) who have heard from him {i.e. Polycarp) how John, &c.’

^{page 254 note 1} ‘For I saw thee, when I was still a boy, in Lower Asia in company with (παρὰ) Polycarp.’

^{page 254 note 2} The phrase seems intended to mean that a boy so young (but for God's special ‘ mercy’) could hardly be expected to take in the discourses.

^{page 254 note 3} We do not know the birth-place of Irenaeus. It is quite possible that his stay at Smyrna may have been brief. It is generally assumed (without authority stated) that he was born in Asia Minor; but Eusebius contains no proof of this. Possibly he was born in Syria and stayed at Smyrna for a time while his father was moving to Gaul.

^{page 254 note 4} An unfavourable opinion also seems implied in Eusebius' (S. E. v. 8) summary of Irenaeus' testimonies as to miracles and scriptures. It begins with a ὅτι δή (‘according to his account’), introducing a statement about the raising up of many dead saints; it ends with his statement that Ezra was inspired to reunite the Law and the Prophets; it gives at full length his testimonies to the Apocalypse (against which Eusebius has a strong feeling); and there is not a word of praise of his knowledge, accuracy, or insight. He simply says—and lie could not well say less—that he has promised to set down the sayings of the ancient ecclesiastical elders and historians, and‘ since Irenacus, too, was of their number, come, let us set down his sayings.’ It is hardly fanciful to discern a tract of disparagement in so grudging a statement, especially when compared with the praise he freely bestows on other writers. The only praise he gives Irenaeus indicates (H.E. v. 20, 3) admiration for his carefulness as a scribe.

^{page 255 note 1} ‘ Parvulus’ and ‘puer’ seem to have been transposed; or could ‘parvulus’ be an erroneous rendering of μειράκι∘ν (‘stripling’)?

^{page 255 note 2} See below.

^{page 255 note 3} This is a good specimen of I.'s loose generalities. Those who treat his statements seriously, argue that a ‘generation’ may mean thirty (or even occasionally forty) years, so that the phrase might apply to anything happening thirty (or forty) years before a man's birth. But of course a man's ‘generation’ may be prospective as well as respective, so that it might apply to anything happening thirty (or forty) years after a man's birth. It follows that the phrase covers a period of sixty (or eighty) years ! If only he could have condescended to say ‘thirty-five years (or whatever the number might be) before I was born’!

^{page 255 note 4} whereas Jn. xiv. 2 has The two quotations differ both in this and in the sense of μ∘ναί. Jn. apparently means that ‘in the palace of the Father there are many chambers or abiding-places,’without any notion of transference from one to another. But the tradition quoted by Irenaeus uses μ∘νή in the sense of ‘halting-place’ or ‘station (on a journey)’ (as in Pausanias x. 31, 7) : ‘in my Father's realm there are many stations on the road that leads to His presence.’ This difference should have been clearly slated. For in fact the Elders and the Gospel appear to be not quoting either from the other, but to be independently and differently interpreting a common tradition. Lightfoot, on p. 60, translates ‘In my Father's abode,’ but on p. 67 he refers back to it as ‘In my Father’s house

^{page 256 note 1} The commencement of Lightf.'s remark about this elder is printed thus (B. E. p. 59): ‘An “Elder of a bygone generation” (de antiguis prcsbyter), a “primitive character” (iv. 31, 1), an “elder and disciple of the Apostles” (iv. 32, 1), or, as he is elsewhere more precisely described, “an elder who had heard from those who had seen the Apostles and from those who had learnt” [ab his qui didicerunt, i.e. from personal disciples of the Lord (iv. 27, 1)].’ It was hardly fair to Lightfoot's memory to print this. The first words are printed thus in the Leipsic (1878) annotated edition of the Irenaean fragments :‘ talia quaedam enarraus de antiquis presbyter reficiebat nos,’ indicating that the editors rendered ‘de antiquis’ about the old (dispensation).’ They notice no alternative rendering, and no alternative is possible in the context: and the bishop's two renderings (‘ an Elder of a bygone generation’ and ‘a primitive character’) indicate that he himself was doubtful about the passage, which he would certainly have corrected on revision. Again, the three references should manifestly have been printed in their order, and then it would have appeared how naturally the short incorrect form supplanted the longer correct one. Also ‘didicerunt’ is a misprint for ‘didicerant.’ Lastly, to translate ‘ab his qui didicerant’ ‘from personal disciples of the Lord’ is inadmissible. It has been so translated (see note in ed. above quoted); but such a translation is contrary to the usage of Irenaeus and should have been at least justified by examples, or mentioned as doubtful. (The brackets apparently indicate that this addition is made by those who edited Lightfoot's MS.) Far more probable than such a rendering would be the hypothesis that ‘ab his’ had dropped out (‘ab his qui [ab his] didicerant’) as being a repetition : but the Latin may very well represent . The distinction between those who had ‘seen’ the Apostles (as Irenaeus had ‘seen’ Polycarp) and those who had ‘heard’ i.e. received instruction from them, is a very natural one.

^{page 256 note 2} The words ‘from thirty…young’ could hardly have been intended by Lightf. to be printed as a quotation, the original being ‘Quia autem triginta aunorum aetas prima indolis est juvenis, et extenditur usque ad quadragesimum annum, omnis quilibet confitetur’: and would Lightf., on revision, have accepted ‘young’ as a rendering of ‘juvenis’ ?

^{page 256 note 3} Probably, too, Lightf. wrote ‘this account,’ not ‘his account’ .

^{page 257 note 1} Lightf.'s ‘which was the case with our Lord’ implies, not that the Lord ‘had (reached) older age’ but that He was ‘from his fortieth and fiftieth year declining into older age.’ The question arises, Why did Irenaeus insert ‘and fiftieth’? Perhaps to cover the extreme exaggeration of his special pleading. He begins by arguing, ‘Old age commences from forty—or, say fifty,’ and then urges that Jesus was probably nearly fifty. It is hardly necessary to call attention to the reckless looseness of such language.