[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

Dedication.

To the Memory

Of

Edward Burton, D.D.

Late Regius Professor Of Divinity In The University Of Oxford,

By Whose Advice And Encouragement

The Author Of This Work

Was First Led To Study, With Care And Attention,

The Writings Of

This Father and Martyr.

It Is Now Dedicated And Inscribed;

As A Humble Acknowledgement Of His Extensive Learning,

His Remarkable Singleness Of Mind,

And The Cordial Assistance He Ever Rendered

To Younger Travellers

In The Same Path Which He Himself Pursued.

Preface.

It was, perhaps, somewhat presumptuous in a person occupying so humble a station in the sacred ministry to offer to the Church a work which would necessarily induce comparisons between itself and the similar productions of a Prelate of the Church—a Divine of the highest rank and character. The author can, however, at least say, that it was no foolish ambition which led to his employing himself on such a work. Having been led by circumstances to a repeated perusal and study of the writings of S. Irenæus, he saw the great value of his testimony to the leading principles and doctrines of the Church of England. He had himself derived much benefit from the works of Bishop Kaye on others of the Fathers; he thought that if he could do nothing more than to draw out the substance of the doctrine and opinions of Irenæus for the use of the student in theology, in a more accessible form than that in which he himself had to look for it, accompanied by the text of the portions from which he had formed his statements, [pg vi] and with a little illustration of the meaning in passages liable to misunderstanding,—he should have rendered a service to his younger brethren: and if it should so happen that that distinguished Prelate or any other writer did anticipate him, it would be so much clear gain to himself to have been so employed. When he had completed his first preparations, and had learnt by proper inquiry that the Illustrator of Justin, Clement, and Tertullian was not engaged on Irenæus, he endeavoured to put the work somewhat into form: and being afterwards encouraged by one upon whose judgment and acquirements public opinion had set its stamp, and who had seen portions of the work, to believe that it possessed a certain degree of value,—he ventured to bring it into public notice in the only way which appeared open to him.

He desires here to record his sense of the most kind and most hearty encouragement he has met with from persons of all ranks and classes, capable of appreciating a work of this description, or of aiding in its publication: more especially of that afforded him by her Majesty The Queen Dowager, by the Most Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates who have honoured him with their support, by the many persons distinguished either for station or for literary eminence, whose names will be found in the subjoined list, and by the warm-hearted friends, both of the clergy and of the laity, with whom he is either locally or personally connected.

His work, such as it is, he now sends forth, trusting that, through the blessing of the Divine Head of the Church, it may be available to the great ends of the [pg vii] ministry to which he has been called, and may tend to the unity, the strength, and the stability of the Church.

Before, however, he takes his leave of his readers, he wishes to add a few words on the Right Use of the Writings of the Fathers.

1. We use them as we do the writings of secular authors, to ascertain the facts of the history of their own or of preceding times; principally as concerning the Church, and secondarily as concerning the world. To this use of them no objection in principle can be raised; and in so doing, we treat them exactly as we do ordinary writers.

2. We use them, as evidence of the state of the Church, in their own and preceding ages, as regards either discipline or morals. In regard to the former, as it is a thing not in its nature liable to hasty alteration,—discipline established in one age continuing on, for the most part, into the next,—their testimony will avail for the immediately preceding generation, as well as for their own. In regard to the latter, it can scarcely be received for any thing anterior to their own age, unless where they record the observations of some older person. In both, moreover, it requires to be noted whether they are writing controversially or historically: because we all know that through the imperfection of our nature we are apt to overstate our own case, and to understate that of our opponents. And if that is the case now, when a more extended and more accurate education has disciplined the minds of writers to impartiality, how much more must it have been so in an earlier stage of controversial writing, when there had been no opportunity [pg viii] for any such discipline. It is necessary, therefore, in the perusal of their controversial writings to be on our guard, and to notice, in any particular case, whether the mind of the writer is likely to have been influenced in his statements by any such bias. It must be remembered, moreover, that no individual author can be considered as evidence for the state of the universal Church, unless we have sufficient proof that he had means of knowing the condition of the whole Church, and unless we can gather that, being so qualified, he intends to speak thus largely.

Again, when not writing controversially, if we are aware that they laboured under any particular prejudice or bias, either towards any particular opinion or state of feeling, or against any particular class or individual, which is liable to affect their statements,—then likewise we must view them with caution.

On the other hand, when we have no evidence of any circumstance likely to pervert their perceptions, or to exaggerate their statements, it is obvious that they must be taken at their full value.

3. We use the Fathers as evidence of the doctrine which was taught by the Church, in their own and preceding ages. And here some of the remarks just made will apply again. The Fathers, like all other writers, sometimes state their own individual opinions, or the views of doctrine which prevailed in the sect or party to which they were attached, or in the particular part of the Church in which they were placed, or in the age in which they lived: at other times, and more frequently, the doctrines of the whole Church, in [pg ix] their own and all preceding ages. Now, where a writer states that what he is saying is held by the whole Church, unless we know any thing to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that it was the case; because we know that the tradition of doctrine was, for the most part, jealously kept up by the perpetual intercourse and communication between the bishops of the several churches. And so again, where a writer affirms that any particular doctrine has been handed down from the beginning, unless we have opposing evidence, it is reasonable to take his word; because we know that it was the custom and practice of the whole Church to require every new bishop to confess the doctrine already received, and to teach its doctrines to new converts as already received. And, at all events, such a statement is conclusive evidence, that such doctrine had come down from a generation or two preceding that of the writer; unless (as was said before) we have proof to the contrary.

But, as has been already stated, it is possible for an individual to be led away by controversy, or prejudice, or party bias; and therefore, when he is manifestly under any such influence, it is well to be on our guard. For that and other reasons, in any matter of serious doubt, it is impossible to rest upon the word of any single writer; but we use him as a link in the chain of evidence as to the doctrine taught from the beginning by the united universal Church.

4. We use them to aid us in interpreting the text of Scripture. For many of them quote very largely from the Sacred Volume; and as some lived near apostolical times, and many wrote in the language in which the New Testament was written, whilst others were persons of great [pg x] inquiry and learning, and lived nearer to the localities of the sacred events than we do,—they had advantages which we do not possess. When, therefore, several or many of them concur in giving one uniform meaning to particular passages of Scripture, the evidence becomes very strong that they had the right interpretation: and even where only one writer gives any assistance upon any particular text, we shall frequently see reason for accepting his acceptation of it in preference to more modern suggestions. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind, that most of them knew nothing of the original language of the Old Testament; and that they are often only applying passages according to the prevalent habit (countenanced indeed by our Lord and his Apostles, but carried to various degrees of excess by most of the early writers) of seeking for mystical accommodations: and we must distinguish between application and interpretation.

Now these methods of employing the writings of the Fathers are à priori so obvious and so unobjectionable, that few writers of any credit object to the principle: but as the results of the application of the principle are highly inconvenient to those who have rejected the doctrine or discipline universally upheld in the primitive ages of the Church, two lines of argument have been taken to nullify this application. And as they have been lately revived in various ways, and particularly by the re-publication of the work from which most of them have been derived, viz. Daillé's Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers, I have thought proper to notice them in that brief manner which the limits of a preface permit. Some, indeed, of the objections brought forward ought to be considered as simply [pg xi] cautions to the inquirer, and as such I have already treated them; the chief remaining ones I now proceed to mention.

(1.) Some contend that, however reasonable in the abstract this sort of appeal to the Fathers may appear, it is beset with such difficulties, that it is useless in practice: that we have so few early writings, that those we have are so adulterated, that we have so many forgeries in the names of early writers, that the writings of the Fathers are so difficult to understand, that they so often give the opinions of others without any intimation that they are not their own, that they so constantly altered their views as they grew older, and that it so frequently happened that the men who are now of most note were in a minority of their contemporaries,—that it is practically useless to attempt to apply the Fathers to modern use.

Now I do not deny that there is something in these difficulties; otherwise they would not have been brought forward at all. No doubt we have but few writings of sub-apostolical times: but then we must use such as we have, and illustrate their sense by such methods as are in our power; and we shall find that they give a clear and consistent testimony to several important matters, both of doctrine and of discipline. It might be true, when Daillé first wrote, that the very important epistles of S. Ignatius were much adulterated: but it is not so now; the genuine copies having become known to the world in his time: neither is it true to any considerable extent of subsequent writers; and when it is, it simply presents a difficulty, which must be surmounted as we best can, or must cast a doubt over any particular writing. Sermons [pg xii] and popular treatises of writers of note were often altered in transcribing; just as we, in these days, re-publish popular books with omissions and alterations suited to the change of times, or to the shade of difference between our own views and those of the writer: and for that reason works of that description, however useful for devotional reading and instruction, must be brought forward in controversy with more caution than others, and sometimes set aside altogether. In short there is need of judgment and discrimination in the use of the Fathers; and that is the whole amount of this difficulty. With regard to the difficulty of understanding them, that is of course a matter of degree, dependent upon the acquaintance of the student with the original languages, as used in the age and country of the writers, upon his acquaintance with Church history and the state of controversy, upon the degree of prejudice or false doctrine with which his own mind is imbued: but I do not think that they present nearly so much difficulty as the Platonical writers, which many persons study with great interest. As to the Fathers giving the opinions of others without intimating that they are so, that is no more than St. Paul himself does; and it very seldom occurs. So no doubt, like all other persons, they modify their views and occasionally change them, as they grow older: but that is, for the most part, only in subordinate matters, and it is very rarely that the circumstance presents any practical difficulty. Finally, that men whose name has become great amongst posterity were in a minority in their own age, is no doubt true in some instances: but when it is so, it can be ascertained, and must be allowed for; and when it cannot be ascertained it must not be surmised. And even where they were so, as in the case of Athanasius, they may be [pg xiii] connected with a majority in preceding and subsequent ages.

So that these objections are partly such difficulties as occur in every study, (but stated with much exaggeration,) and partly flimsy unpractical cavils, not worth dwelling upon.

(2.) But supposing that the writings of the Fathers are intelligible upon many points, another class of objections arises. It is asserted that they were themselves often mistaken, that they even contradict one another, and in short that no class or party is really willing to abide by their decision.

Here again, if they were mistaken, let it be shown by undoubted testimony (of Holy Writ or otherwise) that they were mistaken: but let no one take for granted that because they differ from the received notions of our own age, they were therefore in error. It should never be forgotten that every age has its errors: and it may be, possibly, that wherein we differ from them the error is our own. No doubt each eminent writer then, as each eminent writer now, was in some respects mistaken. It is the simple condition of humanity to be liable to error. But as that does not cause us to refuse the testimony of our contemporaries, or their aid in the pursuit of truth, so it need not cause us to turn a deaf ear to the earlier writers. The circumstance that in some respects each was in error only renders their combined testimony to truth more weighty. It has indeed been asserted that they were all in error upon certain points: [pg xiv] but that assertion the Author has elsewhere1 shown to be totally destitute of truth. Again, with regard to their contradictions of each other, where they do occur they should of course be noted; but the cases will be found to be of little practical importance; and their differences upon some points only place in a clearer light their agreement where they do agree. Lastly, as to the alleged fact that no class or party heartily accepts even the combined evidence of the Fathers, it is certainly true of two opposite parties; viz. the Roman Church and those Protestants who have rejected the Apostolical succession,—both setting up modern opinions to oppose or to explain away primitive doctrine: but it is not true of the Church of England, which (as has been frequently shown) both formally recognizes the consent of Catholic Doctors, and does in point of fact, in her public acts and documents, agree substantially in doctrine and discipline with that consent, so far as it has yet been ascertained; whatever instances have been brought forward to the contrary being mistakes in matter of fact.

5. But besides this use of the Fathers as evidence, many persons attribute to them a certain degree of authority; and greater objection is felt to appealing to them as authority, than to using them as testimony. There are, however, very different ways of treating them as authority.

Now to quote sentences of the Fathers, as we do texts of Holy Writ, as being infallibly conclusive, (which has been [pg xv] done by writers of the Roman Church, especially before Daillé's time,) can only be done in ignorance or in bad faith; because every person acquainted with them knows that, like all uninspired writers, they differ from each other and from themselves. But if we simply quote them as persons whose opinion or testimony ought to have with us very great weight, either for what they were in themselves, or for the age in which they lived, this is a quite different matter; it is constantly done in the Homilies of the Church; and there surely can be no valid objection to it. We do not hesitate to appeal to the judgment of the great lights of our own Church, and to regard their dicta as not to be lightly questioned, partly for their own learning, judgment, and piety, (as Hooker, Sanderson, Wilson, Waterland,) partly for the era in which they flourished, (as Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel:) we give them authority over our own minds, and in deciding controversies between ourselves; and what valid objection can be raised to our giving corresponding weight to the worthies of more ancient times? And as the earliest writers conversed either with Apostles, or with those who had heard the Apostles, it is natural to attribute greater weight to their words than to those of subsequent writers. And what if they do show whilst writing, that they had no anticipation of being guides to posterity? what if they caution us against trusting them implicitly, and recommend us to search the Scriptures for ourselves? what if they were sometimes in error? Do not all these circumstances apply to those more modern authors whom we do not hesitate to recognize as, in themselves, authorities? and why then should we be reluctant to yield to the more ancient that authority, as individuals, which all subsequent time has [pg xvi] accorded to them? Authority may be great without being infallible. Authority may have weighty influence upon the judgment without directly binding the conscience.

These remarks and arguments are capable of being stated much more fully, and of being illustrated by instances throughout; but to do so would require a separate treatise; and it has been thought better to produce them thus nakedly than to omit them altogether.

It is proper to state that the editions of Irenæus and of other Fathers referred to are chiefly the Benedictine: Clement of Alexandria is quoted in the edition of Klotz, and Eusebius in that of Zimmermann.

Subscribers' Names.

Her Majesty Adelaide The Queen Dowager.

The Most Reverend William Howley, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, 2 copies.

The Most Reverend Edward Harcourt, D.C.L., Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England.

The Most Reverend John George Beresford, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland.

The Right Reverend Edward Maltby, D.D., Lord Bishop of Durham.

The Right Reverend John Kaye, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Right Reverend Christopher Bethell, D.D., Lord Bishop of Bangor.

The Right Reverend Edward Coplestone, D.D., Lord Bishop of Llandaff.

The Right Reverend Richard Bagot, D.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford.

The Right Reverend Joseph Allen, D.D., Lord Bishop of Ely.

The Right Reverend Charles Thomas Longley, D.D., Lord Bishop of Ripon.

The Right Reverend Edward Denison, D.D., Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

The Right Reverend James Bowstead, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

The Right Reverend Connop Thirlwall, D.D., Lord Bishop of St. David's.

Acland, Sir T. Dyke, Bart., M.P., Killerton, Devon.

Allen, Rev. Henry, Vicar of St. Mary-le-Wigford, Lincoln.

Anderson, Rev. J. S. M., Perpetual Curate of St. George's, Brighton.

Andrews, Mr., Bookseller, Durham.

Andrews, Rev. W., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.

Anson, Very Rev. Frederic, D.D., Dean of Chester.

Anson, Rev. Frederic, Rector of Sudbury, Derbyshire.

Arnold, Rev. T. K., Rector of Lyndon, Rutland.

Associates of the late Rev. Dr. Bray, 4 copies.

Atkinson, Rev. William, Rector of Gateshead Fell, Durham.

Austen, Rev. J. T., Vicar of Aldworth, Berkshire.

Bagot, G. T., Esq., Exeter College, Oxford.

Bagot, Lady Harriet, Cuddesden Palace, Oxfordshire.

Bagot, Rev. Charles, Rector of Islip, Oxfordshire.

Bagot, Hon. and Rev. Hervey C., Blithfield, Staffordshire.

Bagot, Rev. Lewis F., Rector of Castle Rising, Norfolk.

Baker, Rev. R. B., Incumbent of Hilderstone, Staffordshire.

Bamford, William, Esq., Rugeley, Staffordshire.

Barrow, Rev. John, Tutor of Queen's College, Oxford.

Bellett, Rev. George, Perpetual Curate of Bridgenorth, Salop.

Berens, Rev. E., Archdeacon of Berks, 2 copies.

Bickersteth, Rev. E., Rector of Watton, Hertfordshire.

Bill, John, jun., Esq., Farley Hall, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Blackburn, Rev. Peter.

Blagg, J. M., Esq., Solicitor, Cheadle, Staffordshire.

Bloxam, Rev. J. R., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Blunt, Rev. J. J., B.D., Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, 2 copies.

Bonney, Ven. H. K., D.D., Archdeacon of Bedford.

Bowen, Rev. J., Rector of West Lynn, Norfolk.

Bridges, Rev. T. E., D.D., President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Brooks, H., Esq., Brazenose College, Oxford.

Broughton, Rev. B. S., Rector of Washington, Durham, 2 copies.

Broughton, Rev. C. F., Rector of Norbury and Vicar of Uttoxeter, Staffordshire.

Brown, Mrs., Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Browne, Rev. T. P., Rector of Gratwich and Perpetual Curate of Kingston, Staffordshire.

Browne, Mrs. Anne.

Bruges, W. H. Ludlow, Esq., M.P., Seend, Wiltshire.

Buckmaster, Nevill, Esq.

Buckston, Mrs., Ashbourne, Derbyshire, 2 copies.

Budd, Miss, Croscombe, Somerset.

Burns, Mr., Publisher, 17, Portman-street, Portman-square, London.

Butt, Rev. T., Rector of Kinnersley and Perpetual Curate of Trentham, Staffordshire.

C., F.

Cambridge, Ven. G. O., Archdeacon of Middlesex, 2 copies.

Cambridge, Mrs.

Chaffers, Rev. Thomas, Fellow and Tutor of Brazenose College, Oxford.

Chamberlain, Rev. T. Student of Christ Church, Oxford.

Chandler, Very Rev. George, D.C.L., F.R.S., Dean of Chichester.

Charlewood, Rev. C. B., Oak Hill, Staffordshire.

Cheetham Library, Manchester.

Christie, A. J., Esq., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.

Churton, Rev. E., Rector of Crayke, Durham.

Clerke, Ven. C. C., Archdeacon of Oxford, and Rector of Milton, Berks.

Collinson, Rev. John, Rector of Bolden, Durham.

Collinson, Rev. R., Perpetual Curate of Usworth, Durham.

Combe and Crossley, Messrs., Booksellers, Leicester, 2 copies.

Copeland, Rev. W. J., Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.

Corfe, Rev. A. T., Vice Principal of Elizabeth College, Guernsey, and Minister of Bethel Chapel in that Island.

Corfe, Rev. Joseph, Priest Vicar of Exeter Cathedral.

Cornish, Rev. C. L., Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.

Cotton, Mrs., Adderbury, Oxfordshire, 2 copies.

Craufurd, Mrs. R., Dawlish, Devonshire, 2 copies.

Craufurd, Rev. R. G., Curate of Portishead, Gloucestershire.

Crawley, Rev. Richard, Vicar of Steeple Ashton, Wiltshire, 2 copies.

Crouch, Mrs., Narborough, Leicestershire, 2 copies.

Crowther, H., Esq.

Dalton, Rev. C. B., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn, 2 copies.

Dansey, Rev. W., M.A., Rector of Donhead St. Andrew, Wilts.

Dashwood, Rev. J., Barton-under-Needwood, Staffordshire.

Davis, J., Esq., Fisherton-de-la-Mere House, Wilts, 2 copies.

Davies, Rev. W. L., Principal of Elizabeth College, Guernsey.

Dean, Rev. Thomas, Perpetual Curate of Little Malvern, Warwickshire, and Master of Colwall Grammar School.

Disney, General Sir Moore, Manor House, East Acton.

Dodsworth, Rev. W., Incumbent of Christ Church, Regent's Park, London.

Douglas, Rev. H., Rector of Whickham, Durham.

Eccles, John, Esq., M.D., Birmingham.

Elrington, Rev. C. R., D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin.

Faber, Rev. G. S., B.D., Master of Sherborn Hospital, Durham, and Prebendary of Salisbury.

Ferard, Joseph, Esq., Temple, London.

Fisher, Joseph, Esq., Englefield, Berkshire.

Forester, J., Esq., Winfield, Berkshire.

Fortescue, ——, Esq.

Fox, William, Esq., Woodseat, Staffordshire.

Fox, Mrs., Woodseat.

Fox, Mrs. Sarah.

Frere, P., Esq., Fellow and Tutor of Downing College, Cambridge.

Frith, ——, Esq.

Frowd, John Speed, Esq., M.D., Croscombe, Somersetshire.

Fulford, Rev. Francis, Rector of Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

Garbett, Rev. John, Rector of St. George's, Birmingham.

Gepp, Rev. George Edward, Head-Master of the Grammar School, Ashbourne, Derbyshire.

Gibbons, Rev. John, Rector of Brasted, Kent.

Goode, Rev. Alexander, Vicar of Caverswall, Staffordshire.

Goodenough, Joseph, Esq., Nether Cerne, Dorset, 2 copies.

Goodenough, Rev. W. S., Rector of Yate, Gloucestershire, 4 copies.

Granville, Rev. Court, Vicar of Mayfield, Staffordshire.

Grayson, Rev. Anthony, D.D., Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford.

Greenhill, W. A., Esq., M.D., Oxford.

Gresley, Rev. William, Prebendary of Lichfield and Lecturer of St. Mary's.

Hale, Ven. W. H., Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Canon Residentiary of St. Paul's.

Hannaford, Mr., Bookseller, Exeter, 4 copies.

Hart, Thomas, Esq., Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Hart, Mrs., Uttoxeter, 2 copies.

Hart, Miss, Uttoxeter, 2 copies.

Hassells, Rev. Charles S., Foxearth, Staffordshire.

Haweis, Rev. J. O. W., Sydenham Grove, Norwood.

Haynes, Rev. Robert, Curate of Kingsley, Staffordshire.

Hayter, W. G., Esq., M.P., 11, Hyde Park Terrace, 2 copies.

Hendrickson, Rev. William, Perpetual Curate of Oakamoor, Staffordshire.

Hessey, Rev. J. A., Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford.

Higton, Rev. W., Perpetual Curate of Croxden, Staffordshire.

Hill, Rev. Charles, Rector of Bromesberrow, Gloucestershire.

Hill, Rev. John, Vice-Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford.

H., Miss.

Hoare, Ven. C. James, Archdeacon and Prebendary of Winton, and Vicar of Godstone, Surrey.

Hoare, G. M., Esq., The Lodge, Morden, Surrey.

Hoare, Charles H., Esq., Morden Lodge.

Hoare, Henry James, Esq., Morden Lodge.

Hoare, Rev. Richard Peter, Rector of Stourton, Wilts.

Hoare, Mrs. Peter, Kilsey Park, Kent.

Hoare, Miss.

Hodson, Ven. George, Archdeacon of Stafford, and Vicar of Colwich.

Hoon, Mr., Bookseller, Ashbourne.

Hornby, Rev. R., Minister of Walton-le-Dale, Lancashire.

Howell, Rev. Hinds, Curate of Shobrooke, Devon.

Howman, Rev. E. J., Rector of Hookering and Bexwell, Norfolk.

Hutchinson, Rev. W., Rector of Checkley, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Jacobson, Rev. William, Vice-Principal of Magdalen Hall, Oxford.

James, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Sibbertoft, Northamptonshire.

Jelf, George, Esq., Manor House, East Acton.

Jelf, Mrs.

Jenkins, Rev. H., Professor of Greek in the University of Durham.

Johnson, Rev. Wilbraham W., Collegiate Church, Manchester.

Kempe, Rev. A. A., Curate of Dilhorne, Staffordshire.

Kennaway, Rev. C., Incumbent of Christ Church, Cheltenham.

Kennedy, Rev. Rann, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's, Birmingham.

Kenrick, G. C., Esq., Surgeon, Melksham, Wilts.

King, Rev. Charles, Close, Salisbury.

King, Hon. Mr. Locke, Woburn.

Kinsey, Rev. W. M., B.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, and Assistant Minister of St. John's Church, Cheltenham, 2 copies.

Kynnersley, Thomas Sneyd, Esq., Loxley Park, Staffordshire.

Kynnersley, Mrs. C. Sneyd, Highfields, Staffordshire.

Kynnersley, Thomas C. Sneyd, Highwood, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Kynnersley, Rev. E. C. Sneyd, Rector of Draycott, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Langham, Dowager Lady, 2 copies.

Law, Hon. and Rev. W. T., Chancellor of Wells Cathedral, Rector of East Brent, Somerset.

Lawton, Rev. E., Curate of Elmswell, Suffolk.

Le Hunt, Peter Bainbrigge, Esq., Ashbourne.

Lendon, Rev. Charles, Curate of Kensington.

Levett, Rev. Walter, Vicar of Bray, Berkshire.

Lloyd, Thomas, Esq., Bronwydd, Cardiganshire.

Lloyd, James, Esq., Bronwydd.

Lloyd, T. D., Esq., Bronwydd.

Lonsdale, Rev. J., B.D., Principal of King's College, London.

Lowe, Very Rev. J. H., D.D., Dean of Exeter.

Ludlow, Rev. Edward, Vicar of Winterbourne St. Martin, Dorsetshire.

M'All, Rev. Edw., Rector of Brixton, Isle of Wight.

M'Ewen, Rev. A., Curate of Semington, Wiltshire.

Mackenzie, L. M., Esq., Exeter College, Oxford.

Madan, Rev. Spencer, Canon Residentiary of Lichfield, and Vicar of Batheaston and Twiverton, Somersetshire.

Mair, Rev. Henry, Donhead Lodge, Wilts.

Marriott, Rev. C., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.

Marshall, Rev. A., M.A., Curate of Charlton, Wilts.

Merewether, Rev. Francis, Rector of Coleorton, Leicestershire.

Molesworth, Rev. J. E. N., D.D., Vicar of Rochdale.

Monkhouse, Mrs. Adderbury, Oxfordshire.

Moore, Rev. Henry, Vicar of Eccleshall, Staffordshire.

Morice, Rev. H., Rural Dean and Vicar of Ashwell, Herts.

Moseley, Rev. Thomas, Rector of St. Martin's, Birmingham.

Newman, Rev. J. H., B.D., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary's.

Noel, Rev. B., Walthamstowe, Essex.

Norris, A., & Son, Booksellers, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 4 copies.

Norris, Rev. H. H., Rector of South Hackney, and Prebendary of St. Paul's, London.

Nunns, Rev. Thomas, Perpetual Curate of St. Bartholomew's, Birmingham.

Ogilvie, Rev. C. A., Rector of Ross, Herefordshire, 2 copies.

Paget, Rev. F. E., Rector of Elford, Staffordshire.

Parsons, John, Esq., Oxford.

Philips, Robert, Esq., Heybridge, Staffordshire.

Philips, Mrs. R., Heybridge.

Pinder, Rev. John H., Professor of Theology in the Wells Diocesan College.

Pinfold, Rev. C. J., Rector of Bromshall, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Porcher, Charles, Esq., Cliff House, Dorsetshire.

Preston Clerical Book Society.

Prevost, Rev. Sir George, Perpetual Curate of Stinchcombe, Gloucestershire.

Prichard, Rev. J. C., Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford.

Pulleine, Rev. Robert, Curate of Spennithorne, Yorkshire.

Pusey, Rev. E. B., D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Regius Professor of Hebrew.

Radcliffe, Rev. G., Rector of St. Edmund's, Salisbury.

Rawle, Rev. Richard, Rector of Cheadle, Staffordshire.

Ray, Rev. Henry, Curate of Hunston, Suffolk.

Redstone, Mr., Bookseller, Guernsey.

Reed, Rev. John, Vicar of Newburn, Northumberland, and Lecturer of St. Nicholas, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Rham, Rev. W. H., Vicar of Winkfield, Berkshire.

Richards, Rev. J. L., D.D., Rector of Exeter College, Oxford.

Rickards, Rev. Samuel, Rector of Stowlangtoft, Suffolk.

Riggs, Rev. George, Fellow and Tutor of Queen's College, Oxford.

Risley, Rev. W. Cotton, Vicar of Deddington, Oxfordshire.

Robinson, Frederick, Esq., 2 copies.

Rowden, Rev. E., Vicar of Highworth, Wiltshire.

Royds, Rev. C. S., Rector of Haughton, Staffordshire.

Russell, Jesse Watts, Esq., Ilam Hall, Staffordshire, 10 copies.

St. Edmund Hall, Library of, Oxford.

Sandars, Joseph, Esq., Johnson Hall, Shropshire.

Seagrave, Mrs., Bromshall Rectory.

Sewell, Rev. William, Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.

Shaw, Rev. E. B., Rector of Narborough, Leicestershire.

Sheppard, Sir Thomas Cotton, Bart., Crakemarsh Hall, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Smyth, Rev. C., Vicar of Houghton, Northamptonshire, 2 copies.

Smythe, Rev. P. M., Curate of Tamworth, Warwickshire.

Sneyd, Rev. Henry, Perpetual Curate of Wetley Rocks, Staffordshire.

Soames, Rev. Henry, Rector of Stapleford Tawney, Essex.

Spreat, Mr., Bookseller, Exeter.

Stevenson, Mr., Bookseller, Cambridge.

Talbot, Rev. G., Vicar of Evercreech, Somerset.

Taylor, Herbert, Esq., M.D., Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Thynne, Rev. Lord Charles, Vicar of Longbridge Deverill, Wiltshire.

Todd, Rev. James H., D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and Treasurer of Patrick's Cathedral.

Tonyn, Rev. J. F., Rector of Alvechurch, Worcestershire.

Townsend, Rev. George, Prebendary of Durham.

Townsend, Rev. G. F., Curate of St. Margaret's, Durham.

Trevelyan, Rev. J. T., Vicar of Milverton, Somersetshire.

Tripp, H., Esq., Scholar of Worcester College, Oxford.

Tritton, Rev. Robert, Rector of Morden, Surrey.

Tritton, Miss, Morden.

Trollope, Rev. Arthur, Curate of St. Mary-le-Bow, London.

Vaux, Rev. Bowyer, Hethersett, Norfolk.

Vaux, Rev. W. B.D., Prebendary of Winchester.

Vernon, Hon. Mrs. H. V., Mayfield, Staffordshire.

Vickers, Ven. W., Archdeacon of Salop, and Rector of Chetton, Salop.

Vincent, Rev. O. P., Curate of Devizes, Wilts.

Waite, Rev. Thomas, D.D., Rector of Great Chart, Kent, 2 copies.

Ward, Rev. W. H. P., Rector of Compton Vallence, Dorsetshire.

Walker, Rev. R., Wadham College, Oxford.

Walters, Mr., Bookseller, Rugeley, 4 copies.

Wells, Rev. E. Cornish, Perpetual Curate of Ixworth, Suffolk.

Whieldon, Rev. E., Rector of Burslem, and Perpetual Curate of Bradley, Staffordshire, 2 copies.

Wickens, Rev. Henry, 35, Mortimer-street, Cavendish-square, 2 copies.

Wickens, J. Esq., 35, Mortimer-street, Cavendish-square, 2 copies.

Wickens, John, Esq., 7, New-square, Lincoln's Inn, 2 copies.

Wilberforce, Ven. Samuel, Archdeacon of Surrey, Canon of Winchester, and Chaplain to H. R. H. Prince Albert.

Williams, Robert, Esq., M.P., Bridehead House, Dorsetshire.

Wilson, Rev. J. P., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Wilson, Rev. W., Curate of St. Chad's, Rochdale.

Wolley, Rev. T. L., Rector of Portishead, and Prebendary of Wells.

Woodhouse, Rev. G. W., Vicar of Albrighton, Salop.

Wright, Rev. T. P., Hackney, 2 copies.

Chapter I. Life of S. Irenæus, and General Account Of His Writings.

If Polycarp is an object of great interest, as the disciple of St. John, and the hearer both of him and of other contemporaries of our Lord; if Justin is so, as having been the first man of eminent learning who came over from the walks of heathen philosophy to submit his mind to the doctrine of Christ; Irenæus, again, has claims upon our attention scarcely less, as having been brought up in the Christian faith under the eye of Polycarp; having, therefore, no previous tinge of Judaism or heathen philosophy, but imbued with Christian principles almost, if not quite, from his cradle, and at the same time displaying equal vigour of mind, if not equal knowledge of heathen learning, with either Justin or Clement of Alexandria2. To these circumstances we are no doubt to attribute it, that there appear in his writings a [pg 002] greater justness of reasoning, and a more unexceptionable use of scripture, than is to be found in the writers of the Alexandrian school.

With regard to the time of his birth we know nothing certain. We find him still a lad, παῖς ὢν ἔτι3, listening to the Christian instruction of Polycarp, not long, as it would appear, before the death of that martyr. For, after saying4 that he had seen Polycarp [pg 003] in the early part of his life, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡλικίᾳ,—in order to account for what might appear improbable, viz., his being the contemporary of that martyr at all,—he says, that Polycarp lived to a very advanced age; ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γεραλέος ... ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου. This makes it evident that it must have taken place towards the very close of Polycarp's life; and yet not so near to it but that he had had time to mark5 his manner of life, and the discourses he made to the people, and remembered his account of his familiar intercourse with the apostle John, and the survivors of those who had seen the Lord, and his rehearsals of their sayings, and of their accounts of the discourses and miracles of the Lord. All this would require, one should suppose, at least five or six years. Then, again, we are to bear in mind that he would not have been capable of marking things of such a nature, (so as to remember them, as he tells us he did, perfectly,) when a young child, nor until his mind had in some degree begun to expand. So that we can scarcely suppose him younger than sixteen at the time of Polycarp's martyrdom, and the expression παῖς would admit of his being some years older.

Dodwell6, indeed, has endeavoured to arrive at greater accuracy, and thinks that, by another casual expression of Irenæus, in his letter to Florinus, he is enabled to fix the date absolutely. Irenæus remarks [pg 004] that he had seen Florinus, when himself still a lad, in the company of Polycarp, in Lower Asia; when at the same time Florinus was getting on very prosperously at the court of the emperor: λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ. Taking it for granted that Irenæus intends to say that he was an actual witness of the prosperity of his friend, and consequently that the imperial court must have been at that very time sojourning in Lower Asia, and having ascertained that Adrian is the only emperor who appears to have remained any time there, he fixes upon the year 122 as the probable year in which Adrian might have been there, and thus imagines that he has established at least one date with certainty. Now the stress of the observation of Irenæus does not lie upon the success of Florinus at court, but upon his having associated with Polycarp, and having endeavoured to gain his good opinion; that, so far as appears, is the only thing which Irenæus witnessed. The imperial court may therefore have been at some other place, and Florinus may have been only on a visit at Smyrna, at the time when Irenæus saw him there.

There is another objection to this hypothesis of Dodwell, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp, which took place a.d. 166-7. We have seen above that Irenæus could not have known him for many years before his death, [pg 005] whereas Dodwell's notion would require him to have been acquainted with him forty years before, when it is impossible Polycarp could have been very old, to say nothing of Irenæus' implication as to its having been towards the close of his life. If we suppose, then, that he was acquainted with him for six or eight years, and that he was about eighteen at the time of his martyrdom, it will make the birth of Irenæus to have taken place about the year 150. This, at all events, is the latest date we can assign to it. Dupin7 and Massuet8 place it a.d. 140; Tillemont9 twenty years earlier; and Dodwell is desirous of carrying it up ten or twenty years earlier still. Perhaps Massuet's date may be nearest the truth. But exactness in these particulars is of the less moment, as we have, established by his own mouth, the main circumstance on account of which it is of importance to ascertain it: for the chief, if not the only, reason for desiring to fix the date of his birth is, that we may judge what kind of witness he is likely to have been of apostolical tradition. Now we have seen him expressly affirming that he had heard Polycarp recount the narratives and doctrines of St. John and other contemporaries of Christ; and he likewise informs us he paid diligent attention to him, and that he remembered him so minutely that he [pg 006] could10 point out the place where he sat, and trace the walks he was accustomed to take; and moreover, that he not only heard his words, but treasured them up in his memory, and was continually refreshing his remembrance of them by meditation upon them. The testimony of such a witness must be more than ordinarily valuable.

Upon the death of Polycarp, it is probable that he put himself under the guidance of Papias, as he is called by Jerome11 his disciple. Certain it is, that he several times quotes that pious but too credulous writer, and that with evident approbation. There is likewise a person, whom he does not name, but whom he often mentions12, from whom he appears to [pg 007] have learnt much, and who was a contemporary of the apostolical generation. Some have conjectured him to have been the same as Papias13. Dodwell thinks him to have been Pothinus14, the predecessor of Irenæus in the see of Lyons; yet, if he had been either one or the other of them, there appears no reason why he should not have named him; for he does mention Papias by name more than once, and Pothinus was likewise a person of sufficient eminence to have been quoted by name. The probability appears to be, that he was a person of no great note, but who had the advantage of being a hearer of those who had seen the Lord15.

How long Irenæus continued to reside in Asia Minor we know not; but we find him next at Lyons16, [pg 008] a priest of the church there, under Pothinus17, its venerable bishop. What led him there we are not informed. The place lay a good way up the Rhone, near the mouth of which was Marseilles, a Greek colony from Phocæa in Asia Minor18, with which commercial intercourse had been kept up ever since b.c. 600. Business or relationship might have taken [pg 009] him thither, or even to Lyons itself. For although this latter was a Roman colony, and its name, Lugdunum, sufficiently evinces that it was not of Greek foundation, yet the number of Greek names19 amongst the Christians there shows that there must have been many of that race residing there. Indeed, the circumstance that the Montanist heresy, which arose in Phrygia, spread in no long time to Lyons, and that the Lyonnese wrote to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, both to give an account of the persecution, and to discountenance the opinions of Montanus, clearly prove that there was some reason for frequent intercourse and sympathy between Lyons and Asia Minor.

There is no reason, therefore, to conjecture any extraordinary mission or other conjuncture to bring him into that part of the world. He may have been ordained priest after he arrived there; but we cannot argue that with any certainty from his being called by Jerome20 a priest of Pothinus; for even when church discipline attained its greatest strictness, and every bishop regarded an ecclesiastic ordained by himself as his subject, there was nothing to prevent a bishop from transferring one of his clergy to the jurisdiction [pg 010] of another bishop, whose subject he thenceforward became. So that the epithet made use of by Jerome only proves—what we know from Eusebius21—that Irenæus was a priest of the diocese of Lyons when Pothinus was bishop.

It is the more necessary to remark this, as there appears to be a disposition gaining ground to take the slightest evidence as absolute proof. Undoubtedly a sceptical disposition is a great mischief; but a credulous temper, although less injurious to the possessor, is no slight evil, from its natural tendency to produce scepticism by an unavoidable reaction.

But wheresoever Irenæus first entered into the priesthood, he had abode so long at Lyons in the year 17722, that he had gained the character of a person zealous for the gospel of Christ23, and recommended [pg 011] more by his intrinsic excellence than by his sacred office; and was so relied upon as to be chosen by the martyrs of Lyons, then in prison, as a fit person to send to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, with their testimony against the Montanists. It is, indeed, barely said by Eusebius24, that their epistles were written for the purpose of promoting the peace of the churches (τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες); but connecting them, as he does in his narrative, with the mention of the Montanist heresy, and of the dissensions occasioned by it (διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ τῶν δεδηλωμένων), it is unavoidable to conclude that they had reference to it. Some light may be thrown upon the subject by the assertion of Tertullian25, that [pg 012] a bishop of Rome had admitted the Montanists to communion by giving them letters of amity. Who the bishop was he gives no hint; and as he connects the matter with the account of the dissemination of the heresy of Praxeas, some, as Dupin26 and Tillemont27, have concluded that it could not have been an earlier bishop than Victor, because Praxeas did not appear as a heretic at an earlier period. This, however, as Massuet justly argues28, is not conclusive; for the throwing together two things in a narrative by no means proves that they closely followed each other; and this visit of Praxeas to Rome may, with greater probability, be assumed to have been when he was a catholic. A sufficient space of time had evidently elapsed between the visit of Praxeas to Rome, under the bishop who had granted communicatory letters to the Montanists, and the time when Tertullian was writing29, to allow of his becoming tinged with the Patripassian heresy, of his disseminating it secretly, of his avowing it openly, of his being convinced of his error, and being reconciled to the church; finally, of his relapsing, and ultimately quitting the church. All this would take up many [pg 013] years, and allow ample time for the supposition that Eleutherus was the bishop alluded to; not to say that a bishop of Rome was little likely to have listened to him when an avowed heretic. And then the letter of the martyrs has a well-defined object, viz., to dissuade him from contributing to rend the church in pieces by countenancing a set of men who had been excommunicated by the churches by whom they were surrounded, and by those in Gaul with which they were in some degree connected; and thoroughly explains the expression of Eusebius, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

There is another circumstance, which, so far as I know, has not been adverted to: viz., that the Montanists appear not to have differed from the other Christians of Asia Minor in the observance of Easter; and as we know that Victor excommunicated those Churches for differing from him, he is not likely to have patronized a sect who also differed from him in a matter he regarded as so important.

As we know that the Church of Lyons sent these letters to Eleutherus, with one of their own, preserved in part by Eusebius30, giving an account of the martyrdoms, it has been supposed by some that Irenæus actually wrote this letter; and the idea is confirmed [pg 014] by the circumstance, that Œcumenius, in his Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter, (cap. 3. p. 498.) has preserved a fragment of a writing of Irenæus, concerning Sanctus and Blandina. Now, these two persons are mentioned particularly in the letter of the Church of Lyons31; of which, therefore, this fragment (numbered xiii. in the Benedictine edition) is probably another remnant. There is no ground for doubting that Irenæus did really visit Rome; the more especially, as two of his subsequent compositions were occasioned by errors of priests of that Church—viz. Florinus and Blastus32.

Pothinus died in this persecution, as really a martyr as others who have been regarded as more truly such. Being upwards of ninety years old, suffering under infirmity both of age and sickness, dragged to the tribunal, and back again to prison, without any regard to his weakness and age, beaten, [pg 015] kicked, and assailed with every missile that came to hand, it is more wonderful that he did not breathe his last under their hands, than that he lingered out two days in the prison33. Irenæus succeeded him34; and if we may judge of him by the ability, learning, zeal, and sound judgment displayed in his writings, and by the Christian temper he evinced on the occasion of the paschal controversy, we may safely conclude that he was a more than worthy successor.

Before I proceed further, I will observe a little upon the visit of Irenæus to Rome, which appears to have been the third application made to Rome from any distant Church; the first being from Corinth, under St. Clement, the second by Polycarp, to Anicetus. The first was not unnatural, when we consider that Clement had been the companion of St. Paul, and that the Church of Corinth was under pecuniary obligations to that of Rome. The second was a consultation, as between equals. The third was a deputation from the Churches of an adjacent country, (civilly subject to Rome, and therefore in the habit of visiting the city,) to expostulate with the then bishop upon an injudicious step he had taken. They were evidently led to it by their sympathy with the Asiatic Churches, from whence they [pg 016] drew their own origin, whose divisions and errors they deplored: and they were afraid of the mischief likely to accrue to the Christian world from the sanction given to the Montanist errors by the head of a Church so important as that of Rome, to which, from its being the common resort of Christians from all quarters, they had been in the habit of looking as the depository of their common traditions, and whose example therefore must be tenfold more hurtful than that of any other Church, if given on the side of error. It was, moreover, in all probability, an expostulation with him for having committed the actual error of countenancing what the whole catholic Church, from first to last, has declared to be delusion and heresy; and the object of it was, to entreat him to recant his error. How contrary is this whole matter to the notion of these Churches being subject to that of Rome, or to their looking up to the bishop of it as an authorized director in cases of doubt and difficulty! And even if we do not admit that Eleutherus was the actual bishop who gave his letters of peace to the Montanists, yet it has always been acknowledged that the letters of the martyrs, thus sent by the public authority of the Gaulish Churches, were intended to caution him against entertaining them, and that either he or Victor did countenance them. And how inconsistent is such a state of things with the idea of a Church privileged to be free from error or delusion, watching [pg 017] over others, instead of being watched over by them!

One other point about this visit remains to be noticed. It has been supposed35 that Irenæus went to Rome to be consecrated to the Church of Lyons, or that he was consecrated there. That he went there for any such purpose is contrary to all the evidence we have, which specifies another cause for his journey, and does not hint at this. Massuet, indeed, argues, from Jerome's relating his visit to Rome immediately before his ordination, as successor to Pothinus36, that the two must have an explicit connexion with each other; but the very connecting term postea, and the reason given with it, that Pothinus had suffered martyrdom, would rather appear to separate the journey with its circumstances, from the ordination with its reason. He likewise relies upon the request of the martyrs to Eleutherus, ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει37; which he chooses to translate, ut ipsum cæteris anteponas. So very much to be drawn from one word, reminds one of Dodwell's theories. The expression might, indeed, possibly have a force, which it is rather surprising that Massuet has overlooked. It might mean “place [pg 018] him by thy side,” which, if it had occurred to the French divine, he would probably have translated, “Elatum eum fac in eundem quem ipse tenes ordinem:” “Make him a bishop like thyself.” But when we take it in connexion with the concluding clause, ἐν πρώτοις ἂν παρεθέμεθα, the phrase would appear to signify nothing more than, “Treat him with all respect.”

That he may have been consecrated when there, if Pothinus died in the interim, is not impossible; for it has not been unusual, in all ages of the Church, for a bishop elect to be consecrated in the place where he happened to be at the time of his election. But there is no evidence for this; nothing, in short, but the presumption, that there was no other bishop in Gaul but the bishop of Lyons. And if there were, as is not improbable, bishops of Autun, of Arles, and of Vienne, at this time, then there was no motive whatever for having recourse to the bishop of Rome, at a period when, as is well known, the neighbouring bishops always filled up a vacancy, with the consent of the clergy and people, without having recourse to any higher or ulterior authority. But supposing that he was consecrated at Rome, it makes nothing whatever for the supremacy of that see. I am willing to grant to it a much higher rank and authority than such a circumstance would vindicate for it. Ignatius, when going to martyrdom, besought Polycarp [pg 019] to appoint a bishop in his place; and yet no one has thought fit, on that ground, to claim for Polycarp the title even of primate of the East; whilst I readily admit that the bishop of Rome was long looked up to, not only as primate of the West, but as the first bishop in rank, and governing the first Church in authority, in the whole Christian world.

But whatever may be doubtful, one thing is certain, that Irenæus did succeed Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. Of his conduct in his own particular Church we have no means of judging, for no record has survived to tell us of anything he did there. It appears certain, from the expression of Eusebius38, ἐπεσκόπει τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν, that he was primate, or, at least, had influence over several dioceses in Gaul; as παροικία in the early writers commonly signifies a diocese39. This idea is farther confirmed by the use of a parallel expression40, to describe the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. It is well known that, in the time of Athanasius, the number of dioceses under him was near a hundred41; of these, between seventy and eighty were in Egypt, and sixteen within seventy miles of Alexandria, and in the same civil province of Ægyptus Prima. Over all these, the bishop of Alexandria exercised a control more complete [pg 020] than that of any other patriarch of those times. I mention these circumstances to show that, at the time to which Eusebius refers, his archiepiscopal province must have been considerable. And as the ecclesiastical station of Irenæus is described in the same terms, it almost amounts to demonstration, that he held a similar pre-eminence. The only difference is, that Irenæus is said to have ruled the παροικιῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν, and the bishop of Alexandria those κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν. But this expression only shows that the Churches in Egypt emanated from Alexandria, and were permanently dependent upon it; whilst those in Gaul emanated from no point within the country, nor were permanently dependent upon any one church. If any one should suppose that the term παροικία is used with regard to Alexandria in its modern sense of parish, and that Eusebius is speaking of the extent of the single diocese of Alexandria, I will only say, that that whole diocese contained only fourteen pastors, that the city contained sixteen churches42; and that Socrates, who wrote more than one hundred years after Eusebius, when describing the distinction of the pastoral charges in the diocese of Alexandria, merely says43, that they were like παροικίαι: so that this word had retained its meaning of diocese even to that period.

Massuet, indeed, argues at great length44 against the idea that there was any other bishop in Gaul than the bishop of Lyons; but all his arguments resolve themselves into the one, that there is no mention made in any early writer of any other. On this ground one might, with equal reason, conclude that there were no bishops in Britain before the council of Arles, when they are first mentioned. But until it can be shown that there is an instance in any writer anterior to Eusebius, or of his time, of the use of the term παροικία to signify a parochial church or parish, the simple use of this word by him is sufficient evidence against all negative arguments whatever. What the author of the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Saturninus says45 of the fewness of churches in Gaul in his time is really no contradiction to this opinion; for if there were at that time as many as twenty or thirty, it would be extremely few, considering the extent of the country.

I have said that we have no record of the operations of Irenæus as bishop of Lyons. I mean, that we know of nothing which he did in that particular church. He bore, in a general way, the character of “the light of the western46 Gauls,” and is said to [pg 022] have “cultivated and enlightened the Celtic nations47.” And in consonance with this there is a tradition48, though of comparatively recent date, that he sent a priest and deacon as missionaries to Besançon, and a priest and two deacons to Valence, in Dauphiné. The circumstance is very probable in itself, and [pg 023] is in agreement with the traditions of those Churches.

We now come to a more remarkable period of his life. We have seen that the Christians of that age looked with peculiar anxiety to Rome, as the Church where, from the constant meeting together of Christians from the provinces, the traditions of the catholic Church were most accurately preserved. Any departure of that Church from purity of doctrine would be of more serious consequence than the deflexion of one of less influence. Irenæus had been taught to exercise this feeling by his mission from the martyrs; and had no doubt learnt to feel it more deeply on the spot, when he trode the ground consecrated by the martyrdom of the two great apostles with whose joint superintendence and instruction that Church was so long favoured, and when he observed how every heretic likewise resorted to Rome, as a more important theatre than any other. Nor can we suppose that he had left that Church without forming some bond of union with individual members of it. His heart, therefore, returned no doubt to it, and caused him to indite those several epistles Eusebius mentions49, occasioned by the dissensions he heard of as prevailing there. The first mentioned by the historian is that addressed to Blastus on the subject of schism. What it was which led [pg 024] him into schism is variously related by ancient writers. Eusebius simply says50 that he indulged in speculations of his own at variance with truth. Theodoret51 stated that he was entangled in the errors of Marcion and Valentinus; but if he had been so at that time, it appears most probable that Irenæus would have noticed the errors themselves even more prominently than the schism which accompanied them. A more probable account is that given by the ancient author whose addition to one of Tertullian's works is commonly printed with it52, that “he wished covertly to introduce Judaism;” and in particular, that “he insisted on the observance of the paschal season on the fourteenth day of the moon, according to the law of Moses;” with which agrees what Pacian says53, “that he was a Greek, and that he adhered to the Montanists;” for the Montanists, having arisen in Asia Minor, celebrated that season at the same time as the other Christians of that country, i. e. with the Jews. So that his schism probably consisted in this, that having come from Asia, he wished to raise a party favourable to the Asiatic practice, or, at least, declined to conform to that of Rome. And we can imagine how earnestly Irenæus would press him to conform to the usages of the Church in which he sojourned; a thing he could do with so much greater authority, inasmuch [pg 025] as, being himself of Asiatic birth, and brought up in the very church of Polycarp, he had conformed to the Western usage.

Whether it was before or after this time that Blastus left the communion of the Church we know not. Eusebius, however, relates54, (at least so Massuet55, with great probability, apprehends his meaning,) that he was deposed from the priesthood, and that he detached many from the Church to follow speculations of his own, at variance with the truth. Theodoret's statement may therefore be substantially correct, although at a period subsequent to that at which Irenæus wrote the letter Περὶ Σχίσματος.

The next letter Eusebius mentions is that to Florinus. This person was likewise a priest of the Church at Rome, and had been known to Irenæus in early life56, when they were both pupils of Polycarp, and Florinus was high in the court of the reigning emperor. But he had forsaken civil life, and entered holy orders, from which he was now ejected, as being the head of a party holding novel and peculiar [pg 026] opinions57. His peculiarity is distinctly specified, viz. that he taught that God was the author of evil. To avoid this conclusion, Marcion had taught two first principles—the one of good, the other of evil. It was probably in combating this error that Florinus had insisted on the unity of God, and of his providential government, which he had expressed by the term μοναρχία, and, from opposing one heresy with zeal too ardent for his judgment, had fallen into the opposite one. Irenæus, upon hearing of the fall of his former acquaintance, felt an earnest desire to restore him, and accordingly wrote to him, endeavouring, as it would appear, to explain the true notion of the μοναρχία of God, and especially to combat his peculiar error. A fragment of this letter is preserved by Eusebius58, and printed59 at the end of the best editions of the works of Irenæus. In it Irenæus represents to him how much at variance his opinions were with those of the Church; how impious in their tendency; how far beyond what any excommunicated heretic had ever taught; how much opposed to apostolical tradition: and he appeals to him from his own remembrance of the teaching of Polycarp (whom they had mutually reverenced), and from his published epistles, how shocked that blessed martyr would have been if he had heard such blasphemies.

But Irenæus, as it would appear, succeeded only so far with the unstable Florinus as to drive him from his position, that God was the author of evil. From this he went into the Valentinian speculations, by which they endeavour to escape the great difficulty of the origin of evil60. From them he learnt to believe in an ogdoad of emanations from the Supreme Being, from one of the later of whom, by a species of accident, evil sprung. Irenæus could not give up his ancient friend, but composed for his use a treatise61 upon this portion of the Gnostic theory. Of this, however, we have not a fragment left which can throw any light upon its structure. There is only the concluding sentence preserved62, in which he adjures the transcriber of it to compare it most carefully with the original, and to append the adjuration itself to his transcript. We might wonder, perhaps, at the solemnity of the adjuration, did we not consider how important it was that Irenæus himself should not be represented, by any error of the copyist, as holding opinions at variance with the truth he was so anxious to maintain. [pg 028] But although we have no distinct remains of this particular treatise, it is highly probable that it formed the germ of that great work which has, in some sort, remained entire, and upon which the reputation of Irenæus, as a controversial writer, altogether rests. To that I will now direct my attention.

The Gnostic theories had risen in the East, and from thence had early spread to Rome; whither came, in succession, most of their eminent teachers. It is not my purpose to give a full account of them. This has been done by the late Dr. E. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, “On the heresies of the apostolical age,” and the notes appended to them. I shall, however, give in detail Irenæus's account of them in a subsequent part of this work. The general principle of them all was to escape making God the author of evil, by making it to spring, by a species of chance, from some emanation indefinitely removed from the great First Cause. For this purpose, they imagined certain spiritual beings, more or less numerous, the first pair produced by the Supreme Being, in conjunction with an emanation from himself; the rest emanating, for the most part, successively from each preceding pair, and becoming more and more liable to infirmity as they were further distant from the One Original. From one of the most distant they imagined the author of evil to have sprung, whom they also made the creator of the world, and the god [pg 029] of the Jews. They professed to believe in Jesus, but regarded him either as not truly man or as not truly united with the Godhead; and Christ, as well as the Only-begotten, the Saviour, and the Life, they looked on as distinct from him.

The great charm of these theories was, that they professed to unravel a great secret, which no previous philosophy had reached, and which Christianity itself had left untouched. We may wonder, indeed, that any Christian should have found anything to tempt him in hypotheses so subtile and intricate, and so palpably at variance with the known truths of the Gospel. But we must bear in mind that when they first arose, no part of the New-Testament scripture was written; that consequently the poison had time to mix itself with the current of opinion everywhere, before an antidote of general application was provided; that the minds of all inquiring men in those times were peculiarly given to subtilties, and to the notion of inventing schemes selected from all prevailing opinions; and that, to recommend themselves to Christians, they professed to be the depositories of that “hidden wisdom” which St. Paul was known to have affirmed that he had imparted to those who were capable of receiving it. It is, therefore, not much to be wondered at, that they prevailed amongst the speculative for their very subtilty, and with the vain and weak-minded by their affectation of superior wisdom.

There was another feature of the scheme, which served a further purpose. They pretended that the minds which inhabit human bodies are of two kinds, spiritual and carnal; that the carnal alone are the work of the Creator of this world, whilst the spiritual are emanations from the highest and purest order of spiritual beings: that the carnal are readily contaminated by the flesh and the world, and thence require restraint and law; whilst the spiritual are only placed in bodies for a time, that they may know everything, but incapable of contamination, and destined, after a period of exercise, to be taken up into the Supernal Fulness. By this theory the abstracted and mystical were flattered with the idea of spiritual superiority to their fellow-men; whilst the worldly and sensual might keep up the highest pretensions, and yet wallow in the most revolting profligacy. It was under this latter phase that Gnosticism first showed itself amongst the half-civilized, semi-Roman inhabitants of southern Gaul. In its more abstract and refined form it would have had no attraction for them; for the European mind is too plain and common-sense to follow subtilties. But its practical licentiousness found a fit nidus in the accompanying sensual disposition which marked the Romans of that age, and all who were tinged with their blood. It worked its way for some time in silence, till the attention of the bishop of Lyons was drawn to it by the seduction of Christian matrons, and by the influx of extraordinary impurity throughout [pg 031] that region63. He was thus led to trace the mischief to its cause; and finding this to be his old enemy, under its then prevailing form of Valentinianism, which thus appeared to be rearing its head everywhere, and had now come to assail him on his own ground, he set himself to understand its system thoroughly, that, by refuting it both in its principle and in its details, he might completely disabuse the Christian world, do away with the divisions, and impurities, and calumnies, arising from it, and thus afford the freer scope for the power of truth upon the hearts and practice of men.

He was the more determined upon doing this by [pg 032] the solicitations of a friend, who appears to have lived more in the heart of the mischief than himself64. Who he was we are not told. That he had some pastoral charge is most probable, from the concluding portion of the preface to the first book, in which Irenæus speaks to his friend as having spiritual care of others, and as able, both by his station and by his abilities, to turn to the best account the hints he was able to furnish him. That the native, or at least customary, language of his friend was Greek, may be inferred from the work being in that language, and by the apology made for the imperfections of the style; and altogether, it seems most probable that he was a bishop of one of the Greek colonies of southern Gaul.

In the accomplishment of this work he no doubt [pg 033] made use of the treatise of Justin Martyr against the Marcionites, now lost to us, because superseded by the completer work of Irenæus. But he derived the greatest help from the writings of the Gnostics themselves, from which he learnt their scheme without any possibility of doubt or gainsaying, and thus was enabled, by the mere statement, in open light, of its fantastic puerilities, to unclothe it of the mystery which was one of its chief recommendations, to demonstrate more clearly its self-contradictions, and to contrast it in its naked folly with the simplicity of acknowledged truth65.

To the ascertaining of the date of this composition we have but two certain guides. One is, the list of bishops of Rome given in the beginning of the third book66. The catalogue closes with the name of Eleutherus, and thus shows that that book, at least, was begun, and most probably published, under his pontificate, [pg 034] which began about a.d. 177. The other is, that in the same book the author mentions the translation of the Old Testament by Theodotion67. Now that translation was not made till about a.d. 18468. Irenæus would not become acquainted with it immediately; so that we are driven towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus, who died a.d. 192, for the publication of the third book. The work appears to have grown upon the hands of the writer, and to have become more than twice as voluminous as when it was first planned69. The books were written separately, as he found his matter arrange itself, and the two first apparently sent first70, [pg 035] followed by the three others at distinct intervals71.

The general object of the first book is to give a full exposition of the Gnostic doctrines72. The first [pg 036] seven chapters contain a detailed account of the system of Valentinus, who was at that time the most fashionable teacher of those doctrines. The eighth gives the Valentinian explanation of numerous passages of Scripture, which they brought forward as corroborative of the truth of their system, although they did not pretend to rest it upon them; and the ninth refutes those explanations. The tenth points out the unity of Catholic doctrine, and the remaining chapters are occupied in exhibiting the discrepancies of the various Gnostic sects and teachers.

The object of the second book is to overthrow the system, both in its principle and in its details, by demonstrating its contradictoriness and impossibility73. The first nineteen chapters are occupied in the destruction of the system; the next five are a fuller refutation of their arguments in support of it than he had given in chapter nine of the first book; and the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth [pg 037] lay down certain rules for the proper study of the Scriptures. The rest of the book is taken up with a fuller consideration and refutation of particular opinions held by Gnostics.

Irenæus himself states it to be the object of the third book to confute the heretical system by Scripture, as containing in writing the undoubted doctrine of those apostles through whose preaching the economy of salvation was originally revealed, and from whom the Church received the doctrine she preached74. But since the heretics appealed to tradition as interpreting Scripture, he likewise appeals to it in the second, third, and fourth chapters75; and having shown that it is totally adverse to the heretical doctrine, he returns to the argument from Scripture76, and carries it on by quotations briefly from the Old Testament, and more fully from the words of the evangelists and apostles, showing, to the end of the fifteenth chapter, that they knew but one God, and from thence to the end of the twenty-second chapter, that they taught but one Jesus Christ, truly God and truly man. The twenty-third is a refutation of Tatian's opinion, that Adam was not saved; and the two last contain sundry general reflections.

Our author had confined himself in the third book for the most part to the testimony of evangelists and apostles; he informs us, that his object in the fourth is to show that our Lord himself testified of only one God, his Father, the maker and governor of the world, the author of the old and new covenants, and the judge of all mankind77. He does not carry on his argument with much regularity, and it would be difficult to give any useful analysis of it. But he discusses, towards the end, in chapters thirty-seven, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine, the great question of the accountability of man, and the freedom of the will.

In the preface to the fifth book78, he announces his intention of carrying on the argument by quotations from the writings of the apostle Paul, to show that the same God who had spoken to Abraham and given the law had in the latter days sent his Son to give salvation to human flesh; which he pursues in [pg 039] the first eighteen chapters, dwelling particularly on the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh (chap. 7-14), and corroborating S. Paul's doctrine from other parts of Scripture. He is thence led to the object and end of the scheme of salvation by Christ, and the opposition to it by Satan (chap. 19-24), especially the great opposition to it through the agency of antichrist (chap. 24-30), and passes from the notice of the state of departed souls (chap. 31) to exhibit and confirm his opinion of the terrestrial reign of Christ and the righteous (chap. 32-35), concluding with the consummation of all things in the eternal felicity of the just.

It will be seen by this slight sketch that the former part of the treatise is by far the most regular; and for this sufficient reason, that it was more completely studied and digested before it was written. In the latter books, he adheres but imperfectly to the intention announced in the preface, and introduces much matter which was evidently suggested casually as he was writing, by some word or expression he found himself using.

The work, as I have said, was written in Greek; but the greater portion of the original has been lost. What remains has been preserved by various authors in the form of quotations. In this way two-thirds of [pg 040] the first book have come down to us; a few detached fragments in the latter half of the second; considerably larger and more numerous portions of the third; very little of the fourth, but copious extracts from the fifth, especially near the beginning. The whole, however, existed in the ninth century, as we learn from the testimony of Photius79. But, although we have lost the greater part of the original, an ancient Latin translation of the whole work has been preserved to us. The precise antiquity of this version we are unable to ascertain; but the closeness with which Tertullian appears to follow it in many passages80, and in particular his making the very same [pg 041] mistakes as the interpreter, (as for instance, in regard to the name of the heretic Epiphanes, which they [pg 042] have both rendered by an epithet, and others instanced by Massuet,) almost amounts to a demonstration [pg 043] that he had read that version. That it existed in the time of S. Augustin, is certain, as he quotes it at least twice, almost word for word81.

The effect of this great work appears to have been decisive, for we hear no more of any eminent person who held the Gnostic opinions. They prevailed to a certain degree for the greater part of another century, but they did not make head again. The name, indeed, continued to have so great a charm, that Clement of Alexandria took it from the heretics, and applied it to an intelligent Christian, whom he depicts as the only true Gnostic. But the system, as a whole, became so entirely extinct that scarce a trace of its influence remains, except in the writings of those who had to combat it.

In his opposition to the Gnostics, Irenæus had to combat a heresy; the next circumstance which brought him forward was, a schism which threatened to separate a portion of the Christian world from the communion of its most influential Church. There had been a variation in very early times, and indeed from the beginning, between the Churches of Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia on the one hand, and the rest of the Christian world on the other, in regard to the keeping of Easter;—other Churches uniting in keeping Easter-day on a Sunday, whilst the Christians of those countries kept it at the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week it happened to fall82. The inconvenience had been felt in the time of S. Polycarp, who sojourning in Rome in the time of its bishop Anicetus, they endeavoured [pg 045] each to persuade the other to embrace the practice he followed. But their conferences were without any other effect than to cause both parties to agree to differ in peace83. But Victor, who succeeded Eleutherus in the see of Rome, viewed the matter in a different light. He had no doubt felt the inconvenience of this diversity of practice when Blastus endeavoured to raise a schism in Rome on this very point84. He therefore conceived the idea of using his influence, as the bishop of the principal Church [pg 046] in the world, to bring all Christians to one uniform rule. For this purpose he wrote to certain85 leading bishops in Asia, requesting them to convene synods of the neighbouring bishops, in order to come to an agreement; which was done accordingly; and they all, with the exception of the Churches above mentioned, wrote circular letters to the whole catholic Church, affirming that with them the apostolical tradition was, not to break their paschal fast until the Sunday. Eusebius particularly mentions86 the dioceses in Gaul under the superintendence of [pg 047] Irenæus as having agreed upon such a synodical letter, which he asserts was in existence in his time. So far, Victor was successful; and, probably upon the strength of the almost universal agreement of the Churches, he appears to have held out some threat to those of Asia Minor87, unless they thought proper to conform to the general practice. This, however, they absolutely refused to do; maintaining that their region abounded with relics of apostles and martyrs, and that they preserved a tradition purer than that of any other Church, and more consonant with the Scriptures. This reply so incensed Victor, that he forthwith issued letters, announcing that the Asiatic brethren were cut off from the common unity of Christians88. Here, however, he was not followed by those who had previously agreed with him; and Irenæus in particular, in the name of the Christians in Gaul under his jurisdiction, wrote both to Victor and to various other bishops89, strongly [pg 048] pressing milder measures, and reminding the Roman prelate of the example of Anicetus, one of his predecessors, who paid Polycarp the highest honour, even when assured that he would not conform to the Western custom, and regarded his own as more apostolical.

What the immediate result of these letters was we are not informed by any contemporary writer. Anatolius, indeed, (if the Latin version of his Treatise on the Paschal Cycle, published by Bucherius, is to be relied on,) asserts that Victor did not persist in his excommunication90; and we know subsequently91 [pg 049] that many Churches in Asia adhered to the Jewish reckoning, and yet were not on that account regarded with any aversion by their brethren; and it was not until the council of Nice that their bishops there assembled agreed to follow the general custom92,—to which, however, many persons did not conform in the time of Chrysostom.

The part which the bishop of Rome took in this matter requires perhaps a more explicit notice. It has, no doubt, been felt that Victor acted in a manner which countenances the claims set up by the popes of later days; but when we come to examine, we shall find that whatever claims he advanced, beyond what we should allow, were discountenanced by the then catholic Church. He did, or attempted to do, two things: first, to bring the whole Church [pg 050] to one practice in the observance of the feast of Easter; secondly, when he did not succeed with some Churches, to excommunicate the dissentients.

The first was laudable; inasmuch as Christians who travelled upon business, or removed their residence from one part of Christendom to another, had their feelings disturbed by finding their brethren celebrating so important a festival on a different day from that to which they were accustomed; and some weak or factious minds were thus tempted to make divisions in Churches to which they removed. This had been particularly the case in the Church of Rome, as being a place of general resort; and therefore Victor, both on that account, and as bishop of the principal Church in the world, very rightly exerted himself to bring about uniformity. The course he took was also a good one. He wrote to the principal bishops in various countries, to request them to call synods of the neighbouring bishops, that thus he might ascertain the sense of the catholic Church. Nothing could be more prudent or temperate; nor was anything apparently better calculated to persuade the minority, than to find one consenting custom in so many Churches, in countries separated so entirely from each other.

Now so far we have no claim set up inconsistent [pg 051] with the station of influence and dignity which we readily concede to have appertained to the Roman bishops from very early times; and which, if not most grossly abused, would never have been denied to them. Some93 have supposed that he, with his letters, issued a threat of excommunicating those Churches which refused to comply with the western custom; but that is opposed to the sequel of the history, from which we learn that such a threat would have called forth remonstrances, of which in this stage of the business we hear nothing.

Having received letters from every quarter except from Asia Minor, stating that the traditional custom was the same as that of Rome, he then, instead of proceeding by persuasion, immediately conceived the idea of compelling the dissentient Churches to comply with his wishes, by threatening to cut them off from communion if they declined. His threat had no effect, and he proceeded to put it into execution, nothing doubting that the Churches who had been with him hitherto would still stand by him. And this is the point at which we encounter something like the modern papal claims; for he declared the Churches of Asia Minor cut off, not only from his communion, but from the common unity94. Some might argue that he must have had some foundation [pg 052] for this claim; but till something of the kind can be shown, we have no need to suppose any ground but a strong desire of a rash and determined mind to carry the point he had undertaken. Be the ground what it may, the Catholic Church negatived his claim; those who agreed with him in the desire of bringing about unity of practice95 would not unite with him in excommunicating their brethren, but rebuked him sharply96; and Irenæus in particular represented to him the difference between his spirit and that of his predecessors. And so entirely abortive was his attempt, that, as we have seen, about sixty years after, Firmilian, in his letter to Cyprian97, expressly asserted that the peace and unity of the Catholic Church had never been broken by differences about the observance of Easter or other religious rites: and that, in alluding to the conduct of Stephen, bishop of Rome, who had quarrelled with the African bishops because their custom differed from the Roman on the subject of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics; which would necessarily have brought to mind any schism produced by Victor, a previous bishop of Rome, if any such had been produced.

Here, then, we have the most satisfactory evidence [pg 053] that the Catholic Church, so near to the Apostles' times, had decided against the power of the bishop of Rome to cut off whom he might think fit from the common unity; not that they knew nothing of such a claim, but that it was practically made and decided against.

We have now brought to a close all the circumstantial part of the public life of Irenæus. Eusebius98 (who is followed by Jerome99) has preserved to us the names of others of his writings, which we have now lost. Of these he mentions first, A Discourse to the Gentiles, which he characterizes as very brief, and very necessary, or cogent, and informs us that the title of it was Περὶ Ἐπιστήμης, which Jerome, in his Catalogue, translates De Disciplina, and supposes it to be different from the Discourse. Another tract he wrote, dedicated to one Marcianus, On the Preaching of the Apostles. The last Eusebius mentions is a volume of miscellaneous tracts or discussions, of which the ninth fragment is probably a remnant.

The Discourse concerning Easter, quoted by the author of the Questions to the Orthodox100, formerly ascribed to Justin Martyr, may have been his letter to Victor on that subject. Maximus101 cites some Discourses on Faith, addressed to Demetrius, a deacon of Vienne, of which we have two fragments, whether genuine or not, (numbered IV. and V.) in the best editions of his Remains. Although forty-two fragments, attributed to Irenæus, have been collected, chiefly from Catenas, we have no clue for appropriating the greater part of them to the writings of which they formed a portion. One of them (the last in the Benedictine edition) is said to pertain to a discussion on the Eternity of Matter; but whether belonging to a separate treatise, or a remnant of his Discourse to the Gentiles, we have no means of judging.

We have no account of the death of Irenæus upon which we can absolutely depend. Jerome in one passage102 calls him a martyr, and so does the author of the Questions and Answers above cited; but no other early writer gives him that appellation; neither have we any notice of his death by any [pg 055] earlier author than Gregory of Tours103, who wrote towards the end of the sixth century, and who asserts that he died a martyr in a bloody persecution, which the martyrologists Usuard and Ado104 assert took place under Severus. In fact all the martyrologists, both Latin and Greek, make him a martyr. The tradition, therefore, appears a highly probable one. But in whatever way he quitted this world, we may rest assured that his name is written in the book of life. His body is said105 to rest in the crypt under the altar of the Church of St. John at Lyons.

Chapter II. Testimony of Irenæus to Certain Facts of Church History.

There are two circumstances which must prevent us from expecting that the writings of Irenæus should add largely to our stores of historical knowledge; one, that his remains are not very considerable in extent, and the other, that they are chiefly occupied in doctrinal controversy. What, however, he does tell us, is important. He asserts that the Church in his time was spread throughout the world106; and particularly specifies the Churches in Germany, Iberia, (i. e. Spain), amongst the Celts (i. e. in Gaul), in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia, and in the centre of the [pg 057] world, by which he no doubt means Palestine107. He likewise incidentally shows that the Gospel had been preached in Ethiopia108. He furnishes no evidence concerning the first missionaries, except in the case of Ethiopia, to which he informs us the eunuch baptized by Philip was sent; but he declares explicitly that all the Churches through the world, although differing in usage109, had but one faith110, which was delivered to them at baptism111.

He speaks of the Churches in general as having been settled by the Apostles112, and particularly specifies [pg 058] that the Church of Rome was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, who appointed its first bishop Linus113; that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by Apostles114, and that the succession from him had been kept up to the time of his writing115; and that S. John watched over the Church of Ephesus down to the time of Trajan116. He informs us that the successors [pg 059] of the first bishops might be reckoned up in many Churches down to his own time117, particularly specifies the Churches of Rome and Smyrna118, and gives a catalogue of the bishops of Rome as follows:—Linus, mentioned by S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy119; Anencletus120; Clement121, who had seen and conferred with the Apostles; Evarestus; Alexander; Xystus, or Sixtus; Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom; Hyginus; Pius; Anicetus; Soter; Eleutherius122: and we have a fragment of a letter of [pg 060] his own to Victor, the successor of Eleutherius123. He has preserved an anecdote of St. John, viz. that upon one occasion entering a bath, and seeing Cerinthus there, he withdrew precipitately, saying that he was afraid lest the building should fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, was in it124. This anecdote is indeed at variance with the notion of Christian charity current at the present day, but it rests upon the testimony of Polycarp, who knew St. John well; and it is strictly in accordance with the spirit of the directions he himself gave to “the elect lady,” not to receive heretical teachers into her house, or bid them God speed125.

We are likewise indebted to Irenæus for some particulars respecting Polycarp. He states that he had been favoured with familiar intercourse with St. [pg 061] John and the rest who had seen Jesus, and had heard from them particulars respecting him and his miracles and teaching126. He mentions his having spent some time in Rome in the days of Anicetus127. He does not, indeed, state the cause of his visit; but Eusebius128 and Jerome129 distinctly say that it was on account of the Paschal controversy. This subject, amongst others, our author states to have been discussed between them, and that Polycarp rested his adherence to the Jewish practice upon his having always kept Easter in that way with St. John and the other Apostles, and consequently declined to change it; whereupon, to show that this inflexibility had produced no breach of amity, Anicetus thought proper to request Polycarp to officiate for him, and to take his place at the holy communion130. During his stay there131 he met Marcion, who inquired if he [pg 062] recognised him. His reply was, “I recognise the first-born of Satan.” This severity (or bigotry, as it would now be called) does not appear to have operated in his disfavour; for he was instrumental in recovering to the Church many who had been led away by the Gnostic delusions132. Irenæus likewise mentions Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians133, and other epistles to other Churches and individuals134.

Respecting Clement, whom Eusebius135 identifies with the companion of S. Paul136, he states that he wrote a very effectual letter to the Corinthians, to allay the dissensions which had arisen amongst them, and to restore the integrity of their faith137. This is, of course, the first epistle of S. Clement, to the genuineness [pg 063] of which his mention of it is a powerful testimony.

He speaks of the Church of Rome not only as having been founded and settled under its first bishop by St. Peter and St. Paul, but as being one of the greatest and most ancient, well known to all men138, preserving the true doctrine by the resort of persons from all quarters, and possessing from this circumstance a more powerful pre-eminence; and states that all Churches must on that account resort to it139. It is well known that this is a passage upon which Romanists very much rely, as establishing the claim of their Church to be the mistress of controversies to all Christendom; and I have chosen to give it the utmost force of which it is fairly capable, in order to avoid the charge of slurring it over, and in order to show that even thus it states nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church of England respecting the present Church of Rome. I will therefore give a translation of the passage, which appears below, and make some remarks upon that translation:—“For every Church (that is, the faithful who are on all sides,) must on account of its more powerful [pg 064] pre-eminence resort to this Church, in which the apostolical tradition is preserved by those who are on all sides.”

There are several words in this passage which must influence the sense of it. The first I shall notice is the word potentiorem, the more especially as there is a various reading upon it. One MS. (the Clermont) of considerable value, reads potiorem; but Massuet, who examined it, says that it had been written pontiorem (but altered to potiorem,) which is almost certainly a contraction for the common reading. We must therefore, I conclude, sit down with the common reading; although Massuet, in the Benedictine edition, and J. J. Griesbach, in some remarks upon this passage140, prefer the other. But what Greek word potentiorem represents must be matter of conjecture; and no one who is acquainted with the manner in which the translator has rendered Greek words will be inclined to lay much stress upon it. It may have been put for ἱκανωτέραν, or κρείττονα; or, in short, the comparative of any adjective which admits of being rendered potens. We then come to the word principalitatem. This we know that the ancient translator of Irenæus uses to signify ἀρχή141. Putting these two together, Griesbach [pg 065] has rendered κρείττονα ἀρχὴν, potiorem initium, and thus got rid of the idea of authority altogether. But there is no need of this. Principalis is used by the translator as the rendering of ἡγεμονικός142; principaliter, of προηγουμένως143, and προηγητίκως144; principalitatem habeo, of πρωτεύω145. We know that all the apostolical sees had a kind of principality or pre-eminence above the surrounding Churches; a more powerful pre-eminence than other Churches equally ancient with themselves. Nay, we know that the Church of Rome had at that time, in point of fact, a more powerful pre-eminence than any other Church.

The next word to be considered is convenire, which may be rendered either resort or agree; and I confess I should have been disposed, with Massuet, to render it agree, were it not for a perfectly parallel passage in the 32d Oration of Gregory of Nazianzum, delivered at the first council of Constantinople. Speaking of Constantinople, he says, εἰς ἣν τὰ πανταχόθεν ἄκρα συντρέχει, καὶ ὅθεν ἄρχεται ὡς ἐμπορίου κοινοῦ τῆς πίστεως. Here Constantinople is spoken of then under the very same terms as Rome by Irenæus, as the common repository of the faith: other parts of the Christian world are said to [pg 066] be governed (ἄρχεται) by it; and distant Churches are said to resort from all quarters: συντρέχει πανταχόθεν. Are not these words an exact parallel to the convenire and undique of the translator of Irenæus? I therefore feel bound to give convenire the sense of resort. The next word to be noticed is undique, the application of which is disputed; some, as Barrow146 and Faber147, applying it only to the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, i. e. Italy and the adjacent parts of Gaul; others, and of course the Romanists, to the whole Christian Church. According to the former plan, the clause “hoc est ... fideles” is a limitation of the expression “omnem ecclesiam,” confining it to the Churches immediately surrounding Rome; and consequently the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome would be equally narrowed by this interpretation of undique. I am far from contending that this interpretation is not correct; and the very fact of the passage admitting it, without any force whatever, shows how little the papal cause can be made to rest upon it. But as Gregory, in the parallel [pg 067] passage I have quoted, uses the term πανταχόθεν, I am disposed to take undique as its representative; the more especially as we have seen that, whatever influence it gives to Rome, the selfsame influence had Constantinople in an after age.

There are one or two more words still to be mentioned. Necesse est is one of them. It may imply that it is the duty of every Church to resort to Rome; but its more natural and usual meaning is, that, as a matter of course, Christians from all parts, and not strictly the Churches themselves, were led to resort thither by the superior eminence of that Church.

I have hitherto taken this passage as though it must be applied definitely to the Church of Rome. But this is by no means necessary; for it may be a general observation applicable to all the most eminent Churches, as may be seen by the following translation and arrangement of it:—“For every Church, (that is, the faithful all around,) must necessarily resort to that Church in which the apostolical tradition has been preserved by those on all sides of it, on account of its more powerful pre-eminence;” that is, Christians must have recourse each to the most ancient and most eminent Church in his neighbourhood. And this agrees with a passage of [pg 068] Tertullian148, in which he refers southern Greeks to Corinth, northern to Philippi and Thessalonica, Asiatics to Ephesus, Italians and Africans to Rome. The only objection which occurs to me lies in the word hanc, which, if the passage is to be taken in this application, must be translated that; but as it was in all probability the representative of ταύτην, this word can scarcely present any difficulty.

I will close this whole discussion with two remarks; first, that unless we could recover the Greek text of this passage, it is plainly impossible to ascertain its true sense; and secondly, that the strongest sense we can attach to it, consistently with history, is, that Christians of that period from all parts of Christendom must, if they wish to ascertain traditions, have recourse to the Church of Rome, because, as the first Church in Christendom, the common traditions were preserved there by the resort of Christians from all quarters. This twofold reason for resorting thither has long ceased to exist, and consequently this passage of Irenæus can afford no support to the claims of modern Rome, until it can be proved that those portions of the Christian world which are not in communion with her are no part of the Catholic Church.

There is another subject which has caused much discussion, which is adverted to by Irenæus, viz. the miraculous powers of the Church. He declares that in his time powers of this kind were possessed by Christians, such as raising the dead149, and casting out devils, and healing the sick; that they likewise had the gift of prophecy150, and spoke with tongues, and [pg 070] revealed secret things of men and mysteries of God151. It is well known that Gibbon and Middleton have thrown doubt upon the miraculous powers of the primitive Church; and one of their chief arguments is that the early writers, such as Irenæus, content themselves with general statements, but bring no specific instance. The subject has been very fully entered into by the present highly learned and amiable bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, in his work on Tertullian152; and in the general I am disposed to acquiesce in the theory adopted by the bishop, that those powers were conferred only by apostolical hands, and that of course they would continue till all that generation was extinct who were contemporary with St. John, the last of the Apostles. That would admit of Irenæus having known instances; and not having any idea that the power was to be extinct, he would think that it still remained, even if he had not known any recent instances. It is necessary to remark, however, that he speaks of the gifts of tongues and the revealing of secrets and mysteries, not as a thing coming under his own knowledge, but heard of from others; and it does not appear that he intends to say that they continued to his own time. And I will venture to observe that it appears rather unfair to Irenæus to set [pg 071] aside his testimony by saying that he brings no specific instance of those things which he speaks of as still done. He might feel that the thing was so notorious, that those who were not convinced by the notoriety of such occurrences would cavil at any particular case he might select; and his mentioning that some of those who had been delivered from evil spirits had become converts, that some of those who had been raised from the dead, being poor, had been assisted with money153, and that some had lived many years after154, surely indicates that he was speaking from a knowledge of individual cases. One should indeed have expected that every one who owed his deliverance from Satanic possession to the miraculous power possessed by Christians would have embraced the faith of those who exercised it; and the circumstance that Irenæus affirms this of some only gives a greater air of probability to his whole statement. Besides this, we must distinguish between the cases of persons healed by the direct agency of an individual, and those in which it pleased God to hear the joint prayers of several; for it is observable that our author attributes the raising of the dead only to [pg 072] the united prayers and fasting of a whole Church, and confines it to cases of great urgency155.

The testimony which Irenæus bears to the relation between the Church and the empire is but slight. He mentions a Christian as having been in his own youth high in the imperial court, at the same time that he was a follower or admirer of Polycarp156; he speaks of Christians in the imperial palace deriving an income from the heathen, and able to assist their poorer brethren157; and he acknowledges the general advantages which Christians derived from the supremacy of the Romans, in common with their other subjects, in the prevalence of peace and the freedom from individual outrage158. But he mentions very distinctly the persecutions at another time Christians suffered (particularly alluding to those which took place at Lyons), and notices that slaves were compelled to inform against their masters; and that in this way the calumny that Christians fed upon human flesh arose, from a misunderstanding of the nature of the holy Eucharist159; the slaves having heard their [pg 073] masters speak of feeding on the body and blood of Christ, and taking it in a literal sense.

Chapter III. On The Nature, Office, Powers, and Privileges Of The Church.

The proper aspect to view the Church in is a matter of so much practical importance at all times, that it can never be uninteresting to know the light in which it was regarded in the subapostolical age, of which Irenæus is a very unobjectionable evidence.

We shall find then that this writer considered the Church to be an ascertainable society, planted first at Jerusalem160, and thence spread to the limits of the habitable globe161; planted by the Apostles, and kept up by and in the elders or bishops their successors162. It is, however, divided into separate Churches, which are to regard that of Jerusalem as their mother [pg 075] Church163. The whole Church, moreover, is to its individual members as a mother to her children164: [pg 076] she is appointed for the quickening of creation165, and in her is the way of life166, which those who keep aloof from her do not possess167; in her is the Holy Spirit, which is not to be found out of her168. She possesses the adoption and inheritance of Abraham, and her members are consequently the seed of Abraham169. Being thus appointed for the quickening of the world, by being the way of life to its members, she has for that purpose received the faith from the Apostles, which it is her business to distribute to her children170. She is therefore the appointed preacher of the faith, or the truth, which is not variable and [pg 077] changeable, but one, and only one171; not merely a quality infused into the heart, but a form of truths embodied or summed up in words, and delivered to her members when they are initiated into her172. Her ancient system is therefore the guide to truth173, and those who wish to know it must have recourse to her, and be brought up in her bosom174. Her testimony, moreover, is confirmed by the Apostles and Prophets175, whose writings are kept in the custody of her elders176, with which, moreover, those must [pg 078] expect to be fed who come to her177. She has succeeded to the office of the ancient Jewish Church of being the great witness of the unity of the Godhead178.

To show that she is commissioned from above, she wrought continual miracles for the good of the world by prayer and invocation of the name of Jesus179; she even raised the dead by means of fasting and prayer180; and she alone produced persons who sealed their own sincerity and the truth of their faith by their blood181.

Finally, although not exempt from weakness, and [pg 079] capable of losing whole members, she, as a body, remains imperishable182.

It is remarkable how strictly this notion of an external, visible, ascertainable body, consisting of individuals, and under the government of individual officers, having a personal succession in distinct localities183, is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England; and how totally opposed it is to the notions held amongst dissenters, and by individuals within the Church in modern times. According to Irenæus, moreover, the different classes of sectaries would be regarded as having neither spiritual life nor the Holy Spirit, except so far as they might be supposed to be in communion with the body governed by elders or bishops descended from the Apostles. If in any way or to any degree they can be supposed to be in communion with them, to that extent they would be thought to have the Holy Ghost, and to be in the way of life, but no further. I am not now discussing whether he was right or wrong; I am merely pointing out the contrariety between his views of the Church and those which appear to be most popular at present. I doubt if most Protestants would not pronounce his doctrine to be gross [pg 080] bigotry; for very many of those who would go so far with him as to acknowledge the Church to be a visible society, would be very far from restricting the grace of the Holy Spirit to the communion of the bishops in succession from the Apostles.

I must, however, direct more particular attention to one part of his system which did not require to be brought out prominently. We have seen that he thought it possible for the Church to lose whole members. In fact, although he thought that the truth was kept up by the succession of bishops throughout the Church, and that it was a mark of truth to be so kept up, he still believed that presbyters or bishops might, through pride, or other evil motives, make schisms in the Church184; and he taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, [pg 081] keep the Apostles' doctrine, and lead good lives185; implying, of course, that some who were in the succession might depart from the Apostles' doctrine. The succession was not, therefore, in his opinion, an infallible test of truth in the individual Church. Any individual Church, or even a considerable number or collection of Churches, might fall into heresy, and thus become cut off from the Church; but it is evident that he did not think this possible to happen to the great body of the Church.

It is manifest from this that he thought the private Christian must sometimes pass judgment upon his bishop, and might be called upon to separate from him, and to adhere to those who were more orthodox. In what cases this was requisite, or what was to be the extent of the alienation, he does not give any hint; but this clearly establishes that he thought private judgment upon religious controversy to be sometimes a duty: for without the exercise of private judgment upon the part of the layman, it would be in some cases impossible for him to show his preference for those bishops who adhered to the Apostles' doctrine.

We find no trace in Irenæus of any authority in the Church of Rome to decide controversies for the rest of the Church. On the contrary, he taught Christians to have recourse to any ancient apostolical Church, or rather collection of Churches186, if they wished to ascertain the traditional system of the Church. He indeed quotes that Church as being in his time a more important witness to the truth than any other individual Church, because, through the continual concourse of Christians thither, in consequence of its more powerful pre-eminence, the traditions of the universal Church were there collected as it were into a focus187; but, as I have pointed out elsewhere188, he recognises no authority in that Church to claim to decide controversies. With him it is not any individual Church that is commissioned to preserve the truth, not even the Church of Jerusalem, which he calls the mother of all Churches (a title which has been since arrogated by the Roman Church), but the Catholic Church, truly so called, by the mouth of her pastors throughout the world; for although he mentions the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome in his day as a matter of fact, he does not [pg 083] state it to be a matter of right; nor does he ground any thing upon it but the further fact that it followed, of course, that Christians resorted to it from all quarters, as they did afterwards to Constantinople. He gives no hint as to the source of that pre-eminence, other than its having been settled by the two Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and honoured with being the scene of their martyrdom189. And his appeal to it he builds, not on any authority residing in it, but upon the fact that at that time the confluence from all parts of the Church caused the tradition of the whole Church to be best preserved there, as was afterwards the case at Constantinople, and has since been no where. So that his appeal to Rome is not in fact an appeal to that Church, but to the Church universal; and since Rome has ceased to be the place of resort to the universal Church, the ground for appealing to her has ceased likewise.

On the subject of the Bishops of the primitive Church several questions have arisen, and it is of course highly desirable to know whether Irenæus furnishes any evidence on either side of them. It is not to be expected that we can discuss any of them fully by the aid of any single writer; but such indications as we meet with may with propriety be drawn out.

That which first demands our notice is whether Bishops existed, as a distinct order from Presbyters, from the beginning.

Now Irenæus does undoubtedly call the same persons by the name of Bishops and Presbyters interchangeably. But it has been long ago pointed out that the circumstance of the same name being borne by persons holding two different offices, proves nothing. It is unsafe to infer from the circumstance that bishops are called presbyters, or presbyters bishops, that therefore there was not a permanent officer set over the other presbyters, and endued with functions which they could not exercise, although not at first distinguished by a specific name.

On the other hand, we learn from him that there were to be found in every part of the Christian world bishops or presbyters placed at the head of Churches, which from their importance, must have had other presbyters in them, and which we know from other sources to have had other presbyters in them; that there was only one of these at one and the same time; that they were intrusted with the government of the Churches, and called the Bishops of those Churches; that the authority of the office was handed down from individual to individual; and that the individuals who filled this office, and by consequence [pg 085] the office itself, were appointed by inspired apostles190. All these facts are irreconcileable with the hypothesis that all presbyters were equal in authority and function.

The question whether these bishops and presbyters might not have been simply pastors of independent congregations, is answered by finding that they had other presbyters under them, (as Irenæus under Pothinus, and Florinus and Blastus under the Bishops of Rome,) and that in places such as Rome, where there were probably more congregations than one.

There is nothing in Irenæus to favour the idea that the subject-presbyters were not properly clergymen; on the contrary, the letter of the martyrs to Eleutherius would appear to speak of Irenæus as a clergyman, when we at the same time know him to have been a presbyter: and it does appear in the highest degree improbable that the flourishing Church of Rome, which we know to have been the place of residence of two Apostles at once, should have been left, down to Irenæus's time, with only a single clergyman in it, which must have been the case upon this theory; to say nothing of Smyrna, which, according to the same scheme, must have [pg 086] been left destitute of spiritual superintendence during Polycarp's visit to Rome, which S. Irenæus has recorded.

But granting the existence of Bishops such as we have them now, and their appointment by Apostles, another question arises, first suggested, so far as we know, by S. Jerome, whether the powers now exclusively reserved to Bishops, such as ordination and government, were so exclusively delegated to them by the Apostles, as that those powers exercised by other presbyters are invalid. The question does not appear to have occurred to Irenæus: but we have no hint in him of other presbyters having the same authority as the bishops of the Churches; on the other hand, he expressly states that the Apostles committed the Churches to the government and teaching of individual bishops or presbyters in each, making them their successors, and giving them their own office191. And the very circumstance of their committing the Churches to those individuals did (by what appears to me inevitable consequence) exclude all others from the same place to which those individuals were appointed, and constitute them an order by themselves. And that the universal Church understood the appointment in that sense is proved by the fact, recorded by Irenæus, that the succession of authority [pg 087] was kept up in individuals down to his time; the evident implication being that it was so in all Churches.

The evidence, therefore, supplied by Irenæus, although not enabling us, by itself, to discuss the whole question fully, is in support of the discipline of the Church of England, which refuses to recognize the ordinations of any but bishops, properly so called, and having their authority in succession from the Apostles192.

Chapter IV. On The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

The controversy which Irenæus carried on with the Gnostics being directly and explicitly on the subject of the Divine Nature, led him to treat distinctly of the divinity and humanity of Christ and his incarnation, of the providential government of God, and his various manifestations. He is thus led, almost of necessity, to enunciate the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity in various aspects, but most especially in regard to the twofold nature of Christ.

In direct reference to the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, he describes the agency of the three Persons in the creation of man; the Father willing and commanding, the Son ministering and forming, the Spirit sustaining and nourishing him193. So again he declares that God made all things by his Word [pg 089] or Son, and Wisdom or Spirit, using the terms personally; and that this was the same thing as making them by himself194, because they are his hands195. And again, in explaining God's dispensations in regard to man, he affirms196 that God was seen under the Old Testament by the Spirit of prophecy, that he was seen subsequently by means of the Son, adoptively, [pg 090] i. e. adopting human nature into the divine197, and that he will be seen in his character of Father in the kingdom of heaven; and that in this way the Spirit in the Son prepares man, and the Son brings him to the Father, and the Father grants to him immortality: and so again in the work of man's redemption198, the Spirit operates, the Son supplies, the Father approves, and man is perfected to salvation. He likewise gives two statements of the substance of the Creed, in which the three Persons of the Trinity are spoken of in the same manner as in the Nicene Creed, both of which will be given in a subsequent chapter.

These are all the passages, so far as I have been able to discover, which speak of the three Persons of the most Holy Trinity together; but the doctrine is implied throughout.

On the twofold nature of Christ, and especially on his divinity, he is more full. Indeed it would take more space than I can spare to introduce all the passages which bear upon the subject.

Very near the beginning of his treatise, in rehearsing the faith of the Church, he speaks of “Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King199;” further on he quotes many passages of Scripture to show that he was spoken of absolutely and definitely as God and Lord200, and asks the question, [pg 092] How would men be saved, if He who wrought out their salvation upon earth was not God201?

He asserts that the Word was with God from everlasting202, and that Jesus was the Son of God before the creation203, that no man knows the mode of his [pg 093] generation204, and that God made all things by his indefatigable Word, who is the Artificer of all things, and sitteth upon the cherubim, and preserves all things205. He declares that the Lord who spake to Abraham was the Son206, and that it was the Word that appeared to Moses207.

This Divine Word, then, was united with his creature208, (which union is expressed by the name Emmanuel209,) and humbled himself to take upon him [pg 094] the infant state of man210, and thus having become Son of man211, went through all the ages of man212, and finally hung upon the cross213. He asserts, moreover, that although the angels knew the Father solely by the revelation of the Son214, and indeed all [pg 095] from the beginning have known God by the Son215, so that the Father is the Son invisible, and the Son the Father visible216, yet that the Son knew not the day of judgment217; and that this was so ordered, that we may learn that the Father is above all218, and that the Son ministers to the Father219: finally, that when Jesus was tempted and suffered, the Word in him restrained his energy220. But he declares likewise that Christ remained in the bosom of the Father, even when upon earth221.

These mysteries in the nature of Christ Irenæus does not attempt to explain, fully holding the eternal and unchangeable Divinity of the Son, even when made flesh, and his strict personal union with that flesh, and at the same time asserting his subordination to the Father, even in his divine nature; feeling that when we cannot discover the reason of every thing, we should consider the immeasureable difference between us and God222; that if we cannot explain earthly things, we cannot expect to explain heavenly things, and that what we cannot explain we must leave to God223; and in short that it [pg 097] is much better to know nothing but Christ crucified, than by subtil inquiries to fall into impiety224.

This Jesus, then, who has been testified of by all things that he was truly God and truly man225, being related to both God and man, and thus having the indispensable qualification for his office, became the Mediator between them226; he came in every dispensation, [pg 098] and summed up all things in himself227. He was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus228; when not full thirty he was baptized, but he did not begin to teach till past forty229. His ministry extended through three passovers230, and [pg 099] he suffered on the day of the passover231. He is our High Priest232; he gave his soul for our souls, and his flesh for ours 233; his righteous flesh has reconciled to God our sinful flesh 234; and he brings us into union and communion with God235. He rose again in the flesh236, and in the flesh he ascended into heaven, and [pg 100] will come again to judgment237; and he introduces his Church into the kingdom of heaven238.

Respecting the Holy Ghost, Irenæus declares that he was with God before all created things239, and (as we have seen) that he was the Wisdom of God, whose operation was the operation of God240; that he is rightly called Lord241; and he affirms that the bread of eternal life, which is the Word, is also the Spirit of the Father242. He speaks of him as coming with power to give entrance unto life to all nations, and to open to them the new Covenant, and as offering to the Father on the day of Pentecost the first fruits of all nations243.

He affirms that man, at his creation, had the image of God in the flesh, the likeness in the soul by the communication of the Divine Spirit244. He implies that, since the fall, man has lost the Spirit, and consequently the life of his soul; he asserts that he remains carnal until he recovers the Spirit of God245, and then he becomes again a living soul, and has in him the seed of eternal life246; that the Spirit [pg 102] we receive here is a pledge of a fuller portion247; and that at the resurrection the souls and bodies of the just will be quickened by the Spirit in union with them, and their bodies become spiritual bodies248, and capable of immortality.

This is the substance of the doctrine of Irenæus on the Trinity, and it will be seen that it is identical with that of the Church of England, and that his way of carrying it out throws light on important passages of Holy Writ; and if there had been nothing of interest to us in this Treatise beyond these clear and direct testimonies to the belief of the Church of that age on the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, we might well be glad that it was written and handed down to our times.

Chapter V. The Origin of Evil.

This being the subject out of which the Gnostic theories appear to have arisen (there being so many attempts to account for it, without in any wise bringing it into connexion with the Supreme Being), it might, perhaps, have been expected that Irenæus should have endeavoured to throw some light upon it. He has, however, taken a much wiser course. He has altogether declined making it clear, and thereby escaped the danger of inventing another heresy.

He grants, indeed, that there is sufficient ground for inquiring why God has allowed evil and imperfection to exist; but he declares that all things were intended by the Almighty to be created in the very state and with the very qualities with which they were created249. He will not allow that subsequent [pg 104] dispensations were really intended to remedy the imperfections of prior ones, because that would be to accuse God himself of not understanding at first the effects of his works250.

He asserts, moreover, that supposing angels and men to have a proper voluntary agency, to be endued with reason and the power of examining and deciding upon examination, they must, in the very nature of things, be capable of transgressing; and that, indeed, otherwise excellence would not have been either pleasant or an object of desire, because they would not have known its value, neither would it have been capable of reward, or of being enjoyed when attained; nor would intercourse with God have been valued, because it would have come without any impulse, choice, care, or endeavour of their own251. This is the only approach to a solution of [pg 105] the difficulty which all the study of philosophers and divines has ever discovered.

But when we come to inquire why some of God's creatures transgressed, and some continued in obedience, this, he says, is a mystery which God has reserved to himself, and which it is presumption for us to inquire into; and that we ought to consider what it has pleased him to reveal as a favour, and leave to him that which he has not thought proper to make known252.

He notwithstanding suggests this practical good arising out of the existence of evil, that the love of God will be more earnestly cherished for ever by those who have known by experience the evil of sin, and have obtained their deliverance from it not without their own exertion; and therefore that this may be regarded as a reason why God permitted evil253.

The sobriety of these views is so obvious, that it appears unnecessary to dwell further upon them.

Chapter VI. The Evil Spirits.

Although Irenæus does not think proper to discuss the subject of the origin of evil, properly so called, he speaks agreeably to the Scriptures as to its introduction into this lower world, and in some degree fills up their outline. Thus he describes Satan as having been originally one of the angels who had power over the air254. He attributes the beginning of his overt acts of rebellion to his envy towards man255, because he had been made in the image of [pg 108] God, i. e. immortal256; whom through envy he stirred up to rebellion likewise257, and that by falsehood258, [pg 109] putting on the form of the serpent, that he might escape the eye of God259: wherefore, although God had pity upon man, as having fallen through weakness260, and because otherwise Satan would have frustrated the Divine purpose261, he totally cut off from himself the apostate angels262, and doomed them and their Prince to the eternal fire263, which he had from the beginning prepared for obstinate transgressors264, [pg 110] although he did not make known to them at that time that their lot was irremediable265.

The next act of the apostate spirits was to mingle themselves with human nature by carnal copulation with women, and thus to cause the total corruption of the old world and its inhabitants (notwithstanding the preaching of Enoch to these fallen spirits), and consequently their destruction266.

Irenæus makes none but very general allusions to the agency of the fallen spirits from the fall of man till the coming of Christ. He declares that, up to that time267, they had not ventured upon blaspheming God; but that then, becoming aware that everlasting fire was the appointed recompense of those who continued [pg 112] in rebellion without repentance, they felt themselves already condemned, and waxing desperate, charged all the sin of their rebellion on their Maker, by inspiring the Gnostics with their impious tenets268. It seems to be implied that sentence is not yet pronounced upon the fallen angels269.

Chapter VII. The Divine Dispensations.

After the introduction of evil into creation, and the agency by which it is propagated in the world, we have next to notice the Divine plans for its counteraction and removal; and as Irenæus was opposing the Gnostic notion that the whole government of the world, prior to the Gospel, was in the hands of beings adverse to the Supreme Being, he was naturally led to show that, on the contrary, the whole history of mankind has been a series of dispensations emanating from one and the same Supreme and only God.

We have already270 seen him stating that the whole of these dispensations were planned from the beginning; and he states them to have been carried into execution by God the Son exhibiting himself to mankind under four different aspects, figured by the [pg 114] four faces of the cherubim; first to the Patriarchs, in a kingly and divine character; secondly, under the law, in a priestly and sacrificial aspect; thirdly, at his nativity, as a man; fourthly, after his ascension, by his Spirit271.

Again, he represents God as having made four covenants with mankind; one with Noah, of which the rainbow was the sanction; a second with Abraham, by circumcision; a third of the law, by Moses; a fourth of the Gospel, by Christ272. At least this is [pg 115] the enumeration made in the Questions and Answers of Anastasius, and in the Theoria Rerum Ecclesiasticarum of Germanus, where the Greek of Irenæus is transcribed, and from which it was first published by Grabe. But the old Latin version makes a different enumeration, reckoning the first covenant before the deluge with Adam, and the second after that event with Noah273.

He thinks that the knowledge of God was kept up amongst the patriarchs by tradition from Adam, and amongst the Jews by the prophets; whilst in heathen nations the tradition has been lost, and men are left to find it out by reason274: that human governments were providentially ordained to restrain the ferocity and rapacity of mankind after they had given up the fear of God275; that the law of Moses was given [pg 116] by way of discipline, to recover the Israelites back to that sense of justice, and responsibility, and feeling of love to God and man which they had lost276; that [pg 117] the prophets were inspired in order to accustom man by degrees to bear God's Spirit and to have communion with him277: and thus in various ways God prepared mankind for salvation, providing for them laws suited to their various states of preparation.

In opposing the notions of the Gnostics, Irenæus had to defend the position that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New; that they both emanated from the same God acting differently under different circumstances. The abolition of the law, he contended, was no proof of a change of mind, but only of a change of circumstances; the law being in its nature symbolical and preparatory, when the Gospel, the reality and the end, was revealed, the office of the law ceased278.

He distinguishes, however, between what he calls the natural portions of the law and the rest. As they were kept by good men before the law279, so he conceives them to be binding on us ever since280. It [pg 119] is not at first sight clear what he means by that term, but he expressly informs us that he comprises in it the whole decalogue281. And yet there is every appearance that he would exclude the fourth commandment, which he expressly asserts not to have been observed before the giving of the law282.

But although the precepts of the moral law are equally binding at all times, he thought that they were not formally given to the just men of old, because they observed them voluntarily, being a law unto themselves283. But when God's people forgot [pg 120] them in the land of Egypt, then it became necessary distinctly to enact them, to prepare man for the fuller duties of love to God and goodwill to man284. And when they did not obey the moral law, he added to it the ceremonial285, that, by types, their servile and childish natures might be trained up to the apprehension of realities; by temporal things, of eternal; by carnal, of spiritual; by earthly, of heavenly286. Some of their ordinances had a twofold use; as circumcision was intended, equally with their rites and ceremonies, to keep them distinct from the heathen, and also to signify the circumcision of the soul287.

To show that the moral law was preparatory to the Gospel, he alleges the fact that Jesus taught its precepts as the way of life to the young lawyer who came to inquire of him; not supposing that these were sufficient in themselves, but that they were steps to the knowledge of Christ288.

He, however, thought that our Lord wished that the whole ceremonial law should be observed as long as Jerusalem stood289.

But although he appears to think that the law, as a whole and in the letter, is no longer binding to Christians, he does not think that this leaves us at liberty to do as we like. If we are not tied down [pg 122] to the letter, like slaves, that is because it was intended that the law of liberty should be of wider range, and our obedience extend itself beyond the letter, and that our subjection to our Heavenly King should be more hearty and thoroughgoing than ever; and therefore, if we wish to remain in the way of salvation through Christ, we must voluntarily adopt the precepts of the decalogue, and, giving them a completer meaning, endeavour to realize in our conduct all the fulness of their enlarged application290.

It is almost unnecessary to point out the exact agreement of these sentiments with the seventh and fourteenth articles of the Church of England, and how impossible it must be for a person holding them to think that we can do any thing whatever beyond what Christ has a right to expect from us. It is manifest that he would not have thought that any degrees of Christian holiness are really at our option, whether we shall seek them or not; but that every person who, having any degree of perfection, or any means of advancement placed before him, knowingly neglects it, becomes thereby unworthy of him who has given him liberty291, and hazards his salvation: in short, that “to whom much is given, of him will much be required.”

Chapter VIII. On The Canon, Genuineness, Versions, Use, And Value Of Holy Scripture.

Unnatural as it may appear, it is notwithstanding true that we find much less clear ideas in regard to the canon of Holy Scripture in the earlier ages than in the later. The word scripture was used, as we shall see, in a latitude with which no church or party in later times has used it.

Irenæus quotes all the books which we of the Church of England esteem canonical, except Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. But the mere circumstance of his not citing them cannot, of course, imply any doubt as to their inspiration or canonicity. He had no occasion to do so for the purposes of his argument. It is only wonderful that he thought himself obliged to quote so largely upon such a subject.

But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which we reject from the [pg 125] canon. He not only repeats sentiments from them, as when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom292, or the story of Susanna293, without, however, mentioning the books themselves; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon294 as truly relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch295 as truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures; and he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books contained in that version. But if so, that does not prove (as we shall see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical.

But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of the books of the Apocrypha; and that is, that he quotes, under the express name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious—I mean the Shepherd of Hermas296. It is true that he is not singular in so speaking; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to Hermas297. And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement, affirms298 that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared his book apocryphal.

I argue thus on the supposition that his single authority is appealed to. If he is adduced, with other writers of his age, to show that the Church acknowledged the apocryphal books as canonical, then one reply is, that even if this were true of the [pg 127] Church of that age, we are not bound by the decision of a single age. Massuet, indeed299, reasons as though the canonicity of the books the Church of Rome receives were established by the authority of “all churches, or at least the greater part of them, and those of distinguished rank.” Now it so happens that we have quite a chain of evidence on the opposite side. Melito300, contemporary with Irenæus, after diligent inquiry in Palestine, reckons up, as canonical, the same books of the Old Testament which we acknowledge, and no others: for the Σοφία301, which (according to one reading) comes in after the Proverbs, is merely another name for that book; and Ezra, it is well known, included Nehemiah and Esther. Origen302, in the middle of the third century, [pg 128] and Athanasius303, Epiphanius304, Gregory of Nazianzum305, and Jerome306, successively in the fourth—and what is more, the council of Laodicea307, in the third century, whose acts were recognised by the sixth synod of Constantinople and Pope Adrian308—all agree in receiving a canon of the Old Testament much more like ours than like that of Rome. It is true that Origen adds the Maccabees, but he states that they are not in the canon. Athanasius, Epiphanius, and the Council of Laodicea reckon Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah; Athanasius and the Council add the epistle of Jeremiah; Athanasius alone reckons Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. On the other hand, they all, together with Gregory of Nazianzum, Jerome, and Ruffinus, who entirely [pg 129] agree with us, reject all the other books which the Church of Rome has since admitted into the canon. Epiphanius309 says that Christians and Nazoræi agreed in receiving the Jewish books, so that he could not have been aware that the Jews did not admit Baruch. So that how many soever may agree in quoting the apocryphal books, the weight of authority is clearly against their reception as canonical.

From all that has been said, it must be clear that we can make but little use of Irenæus in settling the canon of Scripture. But from the number of books and of passages which he has quoted, he is of great value in establishing the genuineness of our present copies; all the passages bearing as near a resemblance to the corresponding parts of our MSS. as can be expected from a writer who evidently quotes from memory.

He likewise bears direct testimony to the authenticity of the four Gospels and the Revelation of St. John; affirming that St. Matthew wrote his in Hebrew for the use of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St. Paul conjointly were preaching and establishing the Church at Rome310; that after their [pg 130] departure, St. Mark committed to writing what he had heard from St. Peter, and St. Luke what he had heard from St. Paul311; that St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, to oppose the errors of Cerinthus312, and that he was likewise the author of the Revelation which bears his name313, the visions of which he saw towards the close of the reign of Domitian314.

It is curious that Irenæus quotes a passage as written either by Isaiah or Jeremiah, which does not appear in our present copies315. Justin Martyr had quoted it before him, and asserted that it had been wilfully erased by the Jews from the Hebrew copies316. Now, however, it does not appear even in the Septuagint. He likewise records a saying or two as our Lord's which do not appear in the New Testament317: [pg 132] the latter of which indeed few persons will believe to have been spoken by our Lord.

He informs us that the Ebionites use only St. Matthew's Gospel, and reject St. Paul318; that Marcion curtailed St. Luke, and in effect the whole Gospel319; that Cerinthus used St. Mark, and the Valentinians [pg 133] St. John320, and invented a Gospel of their own; and that the Montanists reject St. John's Gospel and St. Paul321. It appears, however, that the Gnostics did in fact quote, at least when arguing with Christians, the self-same books which we now have; for all the passages of Scripture which Irenæus brings forward as perverted by them correspond with our present copies.

Irenæus was of opinion that the whole of the sacred books of the Old Testament were lost during the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them by divine inspiration322.

He likewise fully believed the fable of Aristeas concerning the translation of the Septuagint by the direction of one of the Ptolemies, whom he names the son of Lagus323. He does not relate it with all the particularity of Josephus; but he relates the separation of the seventy interpreters from each other, and their miraculous agreement in the same words and phrases from beginning to end. It is [pg 135] clear, therefore, that he believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, so far as it is a translation of the Hebrew; and no wonder that he was unable to avoid extending the same feeling to the other books which commonly accompany the translated portion.

He likewise mentions Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes, as having wrongly translated Isaiah vii. 14324. Theodotion was the contemporary of Irenæus, and must have published his version so recently, that it is wonderful that Irenæus should have seen it.

Lastly, he mentions and distinguishes between the genuine and ancient copies of the Scriptures and the incorrect ones325.

Having noticed all the external matter, let us come to the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the use and value of the holy Scriptures, and the method of understanding them. Although here his example is more forcible than his precepts, it is satisfactory that he speaks very definitely, and to the purpose.

For instance, he informs us that, after the Apostles had preached the Gospel orally, they took care that the substance of their preaching should be put in writing, to be the ground and pillar of our faith326. It is very remarkable that he should use this very phrase in speaking of the Gospel, which St. Paul had used in speaking of the Church itself; showing apparently that it was by the custody of the Scriptures that the Church was to sustain its office. Indeed he expresses this in so many words in another passage, when he says that the truth is preserved by the keeping and reading of the Scripture, and preaching consistently with it327.

His own practice is perfectly consistent with his principles. When he enters into controversy, his first appeal, indeed, in the particular case in hand, was to common sense, as showing the extreme absurdity and glaring contradiction of the Gnostic [pg 137] theories328. But as they claimed revelation for their authority, he then goes to the Scripture, as the only authentic record of revelation329; and it is evident that, on his own account, he would never have appealed to any other authority in support of the great and leading doctrines he has to deal with. When he does bring in tradition as an independent and collateral witness of revelation, he does so because the Gnostics themselves appealed to tradition330 as something more certain than Scripture. And having met them upon this ground, he goes on331, in the large remaining portion of his treatise, to refute their systems by the induction of passages from the successive portions of the Old and New Testaments.

Clearly, therefore, his disposition, where the question was what God had revealed, would be to go, first of all, and entirely, if possible, to Scripture; for whereas the heretics held that the inspired volume was obscure and uncertain332, he maintained that there were truths contained in it without any doubt or obscurity, and that those were the things in which the sound-minded and pious would chiefly meditate333. [pg 139] And with regard to those things which are obscure and doubtful, he taught that we should endeavour to explain them by those parts which are unambiguous334.

There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted335. It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible.

A third aid was to be found in the assistance of the elders of the Church, who preserve the doctrine of the Apostles336, and, with the order of the priesthood, keep sound discourse and an inoffensive life337, who have the succession from the Apostles, and, together with the episcopal succession, have received the sure gift of truth338. He who in this way studies the Scriptures will judge (or condemn) all who are in error339.

It is obvious that he means the bishops of the Churches, who were the chief preachers of those times. And it is observable that he does not think the succession a perfect guarantee of the truth being preserved, otherwise he would not have added the qualifications of sound discourse and a holy life. He does not therefore support the idea that the truth is necessarily preserved in any one Church by the succession, or that any one bishop of any particular Church (the Bishop of Rome, for instance,) is capable of deciding the sense of Scripture authoritatively. [pg 141] And, in point of fact, it is only upon fundamentals that he recommends an appeal to the bishops, as sure to guide the inquirer into truth.

It is obvious, moreover, that, although no doubt God will aid and bless his ordinance of the ministry at all times to the faithful soul, yet that the aid of one's own particular pastor or bishop must be much less capable of settling the mind now that Christ's true pastors are opposed to each other, than in the time of Irenæus, when they held all together. In his time no such thing had occurred as a bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, or Constantinople, acknowledged by general consent to have fallen into great and important error.

In short, we have no approach in Irenæus to the idea of an interpreter so infallible as shall take away from the private Christian all responsibility but that of ascertaining him and following his decisions. He points out means of arriving at truth; but he does not speak of them as unfailing, except in the case of those foundation truths which are now acknowledged by the body of every ancient Church under heaven.

Chapter IX. On The Nature And Use of Primitive Tradition.

It was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument: from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures; for in the preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work, he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from Scripture, without mentioning tradition; but since they demurred to its authority, asserting340 that it was imperfect and [pg 143] self-contradictory, and, in short, that it was impossible for any to learn the truth from it but those who possessed the true tradition, (which they contended was preserved amongst themselves, having been communicated to them orally, and being, in fact, that hidden wisdom which had been imparted by the Apostles only to the perfect,) Irenæus likewise appeals to tradition.

I cannot take leave of this passage without noticing the extraordinary comments made upon it by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in the second of his prefatory dissertations, art. iii. § 14.

He says, “Ex quibus hæc liquido sequuntur; 1, ipsos omnium hæreticorum pessimos agnovisse et confessos fuisse, Scripturas varie dictas esse, id est, interdum obscuras esse, variosque iis subesse sensus: 2, obscurorum locorum sensum a traditione petendum esse, non ea, quæ per literas tradita sit, sed per vivam vocem: hæc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat, ut mox videbitur: 3, traditionem latius patere scripturis, et ab iis distingui, utpote quæ earum sit interpres; quod et hæc Irenæi conclusio demonstrat: Evenit itaque, neque scripturis jam neque traditioni consentire eos.”

I will take his conclusions in their order:—

1. So far is Irenæus from applauding the Gnostics for admitting (not the variety of senses which the Scripture may afford, but) the inconsistency of different Scriptural statements, that it is evident that he is blaming them for wishing to escape from the obvious meaning of Scripture under this pretence. I am not saying that he would have denied that various senses of particular passages may appear equally natural; but that is not the case as between Irenæus and the Gnostics. He is evidently asserting what he believes to be written throughout the Scriptures as with a sunbeam, and brings in tradition, not to explain the Scripture, but to confirm his view of it.

2. It is very true that Irenæus would evidently have gone to tradition to explain the obscurities of Scripture, if in any point it could be so explained; but that does not appear from this passage: on the contrary, it is the heretics who are here for appealing to it, and not to such a tradition as he approved, but to one which was capable of no proof that it was apostolical. And with regard to the tradition he appealed to being an unwritten tradition; in the first place, he does appeal to written tradition when he can, viz. to the epistles of St. Clement and St. Polycarp; and in regard to the unwritten tradition which he adduces, the only tradition of that kind to which both he and the Romanist writers agree to appeal is [pg 145] the Baptismal Creed (as will be shown presently); for on two of the other points on which he adduces a different kind of unwritten tradition, viz. the millenium and the age of Christ at his crucifixion, his views are rejected by the Roman Church.

3. That primitive tradition must originally have been wider than Scripture (at least upon points not of faith), must be true from the very nature of the case. But this does not by any means follow from Irenæus's distinguishing between Scripture and tradition, because what he means is simply this, that the Gnostic tenets were at variance with apostolical truth, whether gathered from Scripture or handed down by tradition. The traditional truth he brings forward against them is identical with what he deduces from the written word.

Having shown, then, that really apostolical tradition unequivocally opposed the Gnostic tenets, he returns again to the Scriptures, and goes on in the large remaining portion of his work (which, contrary to his intention, spread itself into a fourth, and even a fifth book,) to show how inconsistent they were with the Scriptures, first of the Old, and afterwards of the New Testament, and how important to our salvation those verities were which they impugned.

It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the mind of [pg 146] Irenæus naturally went to Scripture, either to prove doctrine or to refute error; and that he regarded it as being, to all orthodox Christians, the natural standard of appeal. With regard to the Gnostics, he evidently thought that they were past conviction from either reason, tradition, or Scripture; because, whatever criterion was produced, they had something to say against it or to turn it aside341: but to single-minded Christians he felt that the written word must be the great authority, and arguments drawn from it the most perfectly conclusive. He speaks of some things in it as admitting no doubt; he points to an obvious aid to the interpretation of ambiguities, by calling in plainer things to explain the doubtful; he speaks of the New Testament as the ground and pillar of our faith; and he declares that the truth is preserved by the keeping, reading, and consistent exposition of the Scriptures.

In what way, then, does he appeal to tradition? In this part of his work he calls it in as establishing the same general views, which he confirms more at length from Scripture; as preparing the mind to [pg 147] believe that the view he takes of Scripture is the true one; as a separate and independent witness to the selfsame truths which he is preparing to confirm by an adduction of multiplied passages of Holy Writ. He does not bring it forward to establish any thing not hinted at in the Bible; neither, on the other hand, does he bring it forward to show what others had gathered out of the Scriptures; but he adduces it as a separate testimony, emanating originally from the same source as the Scriptures342, and therefore, so far as it went, a fitting criterion of their meaning.

I have chosen to adduce the opening of the third book first of all, because Irenæus enters more professedly there into his motives for appealing to tradition; but he had made the appeal, as may have been seen, in an early part of the first book343. The manner of the appeal is somewhat different in the two places: in the first book he appeals to it to show the strong contrast between the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Gnostics and the unity and consistency of catholic teaching; in the latter, to confirm his own views of Scripture. It is true that in both these cases the appeal is in some sense of a negative character, i. e. it is for the purpose of proving that such and such doctrines are not to be [pg 148] received; but in other cases he makes a directly positive use of it, viz. to prove particular doctrines which do not appear to have been explicitly disputed.

What, then, is the tradition to which Irenæus assigns this important function? It is that faith which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributes to her children344; which may be seen in every Church345; which is handed down by the bishops in all the several Churches346; which is taught to every person when he is baptized347; which was in his time preserved in the Church of Rome, in particular, by the confluence of the faithful from every side348; in the Church of Smyrna by S. Polycarp and his successors; in the Church of Ephesus, founded by St. Paul, and watched over by St. John; and in the rest of the Asiatic Churches349; which may likewise be learnt in the first epistle of S. Clement, and in the epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians350; which was one and the same throughout the Churches, so that ability cannot increase its efficacy, nor weakness diminish it; so that knowledge may add to it the explanation of difficulties, but cannot [pg 149] change the faith351; and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it352.

It is obvious, from these quotations, that the particular tradition which Irenæus adduces against the Gnostics is the substance of the baptismal creed; and thence, perhaps, it may be inferred that he would confine tradition altogether to the creed. But it must be remembered that, in declining to go to Gnostic tradition, and choosing in preference that which is truly apostolical, the principle of his appeal is this: that the Apostles delivered the doctrines of the Gospel by preaching, &c. to the different Churches, and by individual instruction to the particular persons whom they made bishops of the Churches; that the bishops had delivered down the same mass of truths to the Churches they presided over, and to their successors; and that the truth might be ascertained by discovering what was universally received in all the apostolical sees353. But [pg 150] this truth was not confined to the creed, for there are other truths as certain as those in the creed, which are not specified in it; and the very creed itself was variable, or rather was variously stated at different times354.

But we are not left to inference alone to learn the views of Irenæus; he instances the epistles of Clement and Polycarp as containing true traditions, and they exhibit other truths beyond those of the creed. Again, the faith, which, if the Apostles had left no writings, he affirms must have been kept up by tradition, and which was, in fact, kept up in barbarous nations without the aid of writing355, must have been something more extensive than the mere elementary points of belief. Nay, his assertion that when we are in doubt, even upon trifling points, it is a duty to have recourse to the most ancient Churches356, shows at once that the province of tradition, in his mind, was far wider than the transmission of simply fundamental points; it was a great system of doctrine, discipline, and practice, which such an observation looked at; and there can be but little doubt that, although his subject in his great [pg 151] Treatise leads him to adduce it formally, only on the subject of doctrine, that he found himself bound by it upon all points which appeared to be thus universally handed down in the Churches.

But then it must be confessed that Irenæus stood in a position with regard to this tradition very different from that in which we stand. It was a thing which lived about him in all the daily intercourse of life, and respecting which there was scarcely a possibility of a doubt; whereas to us it is a thing which has to be established by evidence, which does not come to our minds unsought. It was a thing then which the most unlearned knew thoroughly; for it was the very atmosphere in which he breathed: to us learning is required, and actual application to the subject. The Church then testified directly to the individual: now we have to ascertain the Church's testimony by the further testimony of individuals. It is impossible, therefore, that apostolical tradition should have the same evidence to men's minds now which it had then; although we may think it ought to be reverently followed, wherever and by whomsoever it can be ascertained.

Again, we have seen that the medium through which Irenæus believed pure tradition to be transmitted was the bishops of the Churches; but it does not follow that he thought every bishop, or the [pg 152] bishops of any particular Church, an unerring depository of such tradition. He supposed the case of a bishop who was in the succession, but yet did not hold fast the Apostles' doctrine357, and he evidently implies that such a person was not to be adhered to; it is, therefore, not any individual bishop, or the bishop of any particular see, that he would appeal to, but the aggregate of the bishops of the universal Church.

It is remarkable how strong is the resemblance between the positions occupied by the Gnostics and Irenæus respectively, and those taken up by Romanists and the Church of England. Both that ancient father and ourselves think Scripture perfectly clear upon the fundamental points to the singleminded, go first and last to Scripture upon all doctrinal points, and make tradition only auxiliary and subordinate to it. Both the Gnostics and the Romanists complain of the insuperable difficulties of the Scripture without tradition, and thus make tradition practically set aside Scripture; and the tradition they appeal to turns out, when examined, to be nothing more nor less than their own teaching.

But besides this public tradition, extant throughout all the Churches, there is another kind of tradition [pg 153] he brings forward, viz. that kept up by a direct line from the Apostles by the testimony of individuals. This he brings forward under various forms of expression, as “I have heard from an elder, who had heard from those who had seen and been instructed by the Apostles;” “Wherefore the elders, who are disciples of the Apostles, say,” &c.; “As the elders, who saw John, the Lord's disciple, remember that they heard of him;” “And all the elders, who associated with John, the Lord's disciple, testify that John taught them this; for he remained with them down to the time of Trajan.” He appeals to it on the subject of Christ's descent into hell358, which did not enter into the earliest creeds; on the place of the saints departed359; on the millennium360; as well as on the fact that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of age361.

It is evident that such testimony, carried down in one chain, unchecked by any other similar chain, must be liable to great deterioration. An instance of this may be seen in the last-mentioned case in which he quotes this kind of evidence; viz. his idea that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of age362. All other writers who speak on the subject are agreed that Irenæus, or some person through whom this assertion came, must have made some mistake; that our Lord, in fact, began his teaching shortly after his baptism, and continued it through three passovers, and no more. And yet we have apparently very strong evidence for the assertion of Irenæus; for he declares that all the elders who companied with John the Apostle affirmed it, and that some of them declared that they had it from other Apostles. The probability is, that Irenæus, who was quite a youth when acquainted with these persons, had misunderstood what he had heard in their conversations with each other, or remembered it incorrectly after a long lapse of years, being biassed by his own view of a passage of Scripture which he quotes in confirmation363, and which may be the real foundation of the opinion in question.

It is likewise evident that this tradition in regard to mere facts not connected with any important doctrine, [pg 155] and depending upon the correctness of the memory of an individual, is of very different character from that of important facts and doctrines, and points of discipline, kept up publicly in all Christian Churches and witnessed to by him as actually subsisting in his own day or at the very time of his writing. At the same time they may be received, as we receive other historical facts, when not contradicted by other evidence.

And something of the same degree of uncertainty must in like manner hang about the transmission of doctrines or opinions by such a channel. And it is to be remembered that Irenæus, when he testifies of these, is not in the same position as when he speaks of public doctrine, discipline, or customs. There he is the witness of the combined teaching of many lines of apostolical succession; here, for all that appears, of only one: and that one requires to be checked or confirmed by other evidence before it can gain our full assent. If what is gained in this way fall in with Scripture, or explains or carries out more fully the meaning of Scripture in a manner not inconsistent with other Scripture, then we may feel that it is to be treasured up, as being in all probability a fragment of apostolical tradition. If, again, it is confirmed by other sufficient testimony, it may be looked upon in the same light, in proportion to the degree of evidence: for although Irenæus unquestionably [pg 156] quoted these latter traditions as undoubted truths, it is impossible that they should, upon his single testimony, appear so to our minds.

There is, however, one general remark which applies to all the various instances in which he appeals to tradition, and that is, that he does not appear to have known any thing of a transmitted comment on the text of Scripture. The only way in which he applies tradition to the interpretation of Scripture is, by laying down certain facts of our Lord's history, which were universally acknowledged or handed down by sufficient testimony, or certain doctrines of religion or general principles which were universally received as of apostolical authority, and bringing them forward in confirmation of the views which he himself deduced from a comparison and accumulation of texts.

Chapter X. On The Creed.

The Baptismal Creed having been mentioned in the two previous chapters, in the one as a guide in the interpretation of Scripture, in the other as embodying (to a certain extent) Primitive Tradition, it appears natural to bring forward in the next place such notices of it as Irenæus furnishes.

We find, then, that it was customary at baptism to rehearse to every person the rule of faith held throughout the Catholic Church; in other words, the Creed364. This, indeed, was not uniform in language, but the same points appear to have been adhered to, and to have been stated in much the same order. Irenæus, indeed, does not distinctly copy any creed: but he rehearses all the chief points of it in two different passages, which I will give at [pg 158] length; these being the first clear traces we have of the primitive creed.

The first is as follows365:—

“For the Church, although spread throughout the world, even to the utmost bounds of the earth, and having received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the seas, and all that in them is: and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation: and in one Holy Ghost, who through the prophets preached the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth of a Virgin, and the Passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to gather together all things in one, and to raise from the dead all flesh of all mankind; that according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee may bow to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and every tongue may confess to him; and that he may execute just judgment upon them all, and send into eternal fire the spirits [pg 159] of wickedness, and the angels that sinned and were in rebellion, and the ungodly and unjust and lawless and blasphemous amongst men; and bestowing life upon the just and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and remained in his love, some from the beginning and some after repentance, might give them incorruption and clothe them with eternal glory: having received this preaching and this faith, as we said before, the Church, though dispersed throughout the world, keeps it diligently,” &c.

This passage strikes us at once as containing fragments of a creed the same as that of Nice, repeated in portions in the same order, although the general arrangement of the creeds is departed from.

The other passage is this366:—

“But what if the Apostles had not left us any writings? must we not have followed the order of [pg 160] that tradition which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? Which order is assented to by those many barbarous tribes who believe in Christ, who have salvation written by the Spirit in their hearts without paper and ink, and diligently keep the old tradition; believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that in them is, by Christ Jesus the Son of God: who for his most exceeding love toward his own handywork, submitted to be born of the Virgin, himself by himself uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius [pg 161] Pilate, and rose again, and was received up in glory, and will come again to be the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are judged, and sendeth into eternal fire those who pervert the truth, and despise his Father and his coming.”

The order of the creed is better preserved in this than in the other, but it is not so full in its statements.

There is one other allusion to the opening words of the creed367.

Chapter XI. Freewill, Predestination, And Election.

No controversy had arisen amongst Christians in the time of Irenæus on the subject of predestination, but heathen Stoics believed in an irresistible fate, and the Gnostics taught a natural and essential difference between the soul of one man and that of another, by virtue of which the former was of course raised at death to an intimate union with the Supreme Essence, whilst the latter could never hope for such an elevation, although he might be raised to a higher state than that of earthly existence.

Both these notions Irenæus combatted. He taught that man is endued with freewill368, having good [pg 163] and evil set before him, and having the power to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act [pg 164] accordingly369; that God has always treated men as having the power to act for themselves370, rewarding [pg 165] or punishing them371, praising or blaming372 them according to the nature of their choice; and that this proves that we have freewill373: that in fact the circumstance that our faith is called our own, and is rewarded374, proves that we are free agents375. In conformity with this opinion, he teaches that men are redeemed, not by compulsion, but by persuasion376; that each person has a portion of divine light given him, and will be recompensed according as he keeps or rejects it377; and that as each man's salvation thus depends upon his own exertion, and cannot be attained without it, so our reward will be the more valued for having been gained by exertion378.

We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the salvation of the elect was [pg 166] accomplished by the mere will of God concerning the individuals, either in opposition to their own will or by constraining their wills; although he asserted very fully the necessity of divine grace to cause our freewill to take a right direction379.

And yet he was a believer in divine predestination. He believed that some were predestined to have the gift of incorruptibility imparted to them, (which we have seen to mean the Divine Spirit, by which we become the adopted children of God,) and thus to have life in the sight of God, whereas they were originally in a state of death380. But he no where implies that they could not lose this gift, but the contrary381. So again he teaches that God intentionally [pg 167] delivers some men over to unbelief without a trial. But who are they? Those who, he foresees, will not believe382. He was of opinion that there is a predestined number of those who shall be saved eternally, and that when that number is completed, the end of the world will come383: the very [pg 168] idea embodied in our burial service384. But he no where hints that the individuals were predestined, as well as the number, or that those who were predestined to have the gift of immortality, were all in the number of those who should be saved eternally: so that the more we examine, the more clear does it become that he would have been opposed to Calvinistic predestination.

Who, then, are those who are predestined to the gift of immortality? The manner in which he speaks of election will enable us to answer this question. In explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says,385 that, after the first set of husbandmen had been cast out, the vineyard was “no longer fenced in, but opened to all the world, and [pg 169] the tower of the election exalted every where, beautiful to look on; for,” said he, “the Church is every where distinctly visible, and every where is there a winepress dug, and every where are those who receive the Spirit.” Here we find election commensurate with the visible Church (indeed he knows no other): and so he proceeds further on386 to speak of “the Word of God, who elected the patriarchs and us;” just as in the passage before cited387 he had said, “We who were not as yet were predestined to be;” that is, spiritually, through redemption. And so in another place he speaks of the Church as “the congregation of God; which God, that is the Son, has himself collected by himself388;” and in another passage, [pg 170] “the wages of Christ are men collected out of various and differing nations into one company of faith389.”

All these passages reflect light upon each other, and exhibit the all-wise God as planning from eternity the last dispensation, by which He chooses, through the Divine Word, to gather out of the world men of all nations, and to restore to them the lost gift of immortality, by adopting them for his own children, and bestowing on them his Spirit, and thus uniting them in the one body of his Church; so that those who believe, and continue in obedience to Him, and hold fast his teaching, continue his children; whilst those who do not obey Him are cut off from Him, and cease to be his children. And as baptism is the sign and means of our union with God and the reception of the Holy Spirit390, so baptism is the sign and pledge of this predestination and election.

There is another question as to this election, upon which Irenæus throws but little light; that is, whether God has elected into his Church upon foreseen faith or not. He expressly declares391 that God leaves [pg 171] in darkness and unbelief those who, He foresees, will not believe; but what is the precise application of that declaration, whether to those to whom God vouchsafes no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Gospel, or to those who, living in the hearing of the Gospel, do not receive his grace, is by no means clear. And it would be unsafe, therefore, to argue that Irenæus believed that God predestines men to grace from foreseen faith. The two things may appear to us correlative; but we must remember that there had been no controversy on the subject, and therefore he cannot be supposed to have weighed his language as we should perhaps do at present.

Chapter XII. On Baptism.

The doctrine of the Church in regard to baptism has afforded less dispute than almost any other down to the very times in which we live. It was fully recognized by Irenæus, and appears scattered up and down in various parts of his writings.

He asserts in direct terms that baptism is our new birth to God392, and ascribes to infants a share in that new birth equally with grown persons393. There is no room for any equivocal meaning in these passages. It is not merely that he speaks, as a thing of course, of infants being baptized, (which, by the plain force of words, he manifestly does,) but he directly ascribes to them also the new birth, which he asserts to be baptism. This testimony in favour of infant [pg 173] baptism and infant regeneration is very valuable from one who lived so near the apostolical times.

The necessity of the laver of regeneration he states to arise from the original corruption of man394, whom he asserts to be and to remain carnal, until he receives the Spirit of God395. The water of baptism is therefore a type of the Holy Spirit396; and in baptism our bodies receive the union with God to eternal life, which our souls at the same time receive by the Spirit397. In receiving the Holy Spirit, therefore, the soul of man receives that which it had not by nature since the fall; it becomes a living soul; for the Spirit of God is the life of the soul398. This Spirit [pg 174] he elsewhere calls the Spirit of remission of sins399, and declares that we are quickened by it. In connexion with what he says of our flesh being united to God in baptism, we may take what he elsewhere says, that our flesh is a member of Christ400.

If we inquire for his opinion of the actual spiritual state of the Christian body, we shall find him declaring that those only are the children of God who do the will of God401; that some remain thus in the [pg 175] love of God, even from the time of their baptism; others fall away, and cease to be his children; and of those who fall, some by repentance recover their relation to Him, and remain thenceforward in his love402.

There is one passage403 in which he appears at first sight to deny forgiveness to those who sin since the coming of Christ, and thence to give some countenance to the idea that wilful sin of Christians cannot be forgiven. What he really does say is simply this; that whereas the ancients who sinned before the coming of Christ did, when they had the Gospel preached to them in the regions below, and believed, receive remission of sins, there is no such hope awaiting those who now commit sin. If they die in sin, there is no further sacrifice remaining for them to be preached to them in the regions of the dead.

We can scarcely avoid remarking the strict correspondence between the doctrine of Irenæus upon this subject and that contained in the formularies of the Church of England, particularly in the Baptismal [pg 176] Service and the 16th and 27th Articles. And it is the more valuable, because it does not appear directly in the form of a precise statement, but indirectly, as in the Scriptures themselves; showing that it pervaded the whole practical system with which his mind was imbued. The difficulty in the Scriptures unquestionably is, that regeneration is no where in so many words affirmed respecting infants, and that there is language, as in St. John's first epistle, appearing to restrict it to persons capable of actual obedience. Now in Irenæus we find that omission supplied, and yet he uses without scruple the same kind of language as St. John; showing that in the system he inherited, and that by an interval of only one descent from St. John himself, the two things which, with our prejudices, are apt to appear inconsistent, were parts of one and the same doctrine.

Chapter XIII. The Eucharist.

Irenæus has expressed himself so much more fully on the subject of the holy Eucharist than any other writer near his time, that it is not wonderful that his opinions should be appealed to by those who have entered into the various discussions on the subject. And his language has just so much of ambiguity about it as to allow of hanging upon it a more exact and positive meaning than he ever thought of. Every sentence, and almost every word therefore, requires to be well weighed, that we may come at his real meaning. And we must bear in mind that he wrote hundreds of years before any controversy had arisen on the subject, and consequently is not to be judged of as though he had written since.

There are two or three important passages which bear directly on the subject, and I do not know how to do justice to it without giving them at length.

The first I shall take is that in the fifth book404, where he is combating the Gnostic notion that the flesh is incapable of salvation. His words are as follows:—

“And altogether absurd are they who despise the whole of the divine arrangement, and deny the salvation of the flesh, and reject its regeneration, saying that it is not capable of immortality. But if it is not saved, then the Lord did not redeem us by his blood; nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of his body. For there is no blood, except from veins and flesh, and the rest of man's substance, in which the Word of God was truly made. With his blood he redeemed us; as also his apostle saith: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins. And since we are his members, and are nourished by the creature, and he [pg 179] himself gives us the creature, making his sun to rise and sending rain as it pleaseth him, he has recognised the cup of the creature for his own blood, with which he tinges (δεύει) our blood, and the bread of the creature he has ordained to be his own body, by which he strengthens our body.

“Since, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and body of Christ, and by these the substance of our flesh gains strength and subsists, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, when it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is his member? As St. Paul saith: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: not saying these things of some spiritual and invisible man (for the spirit has neither flesh nor [pg 180] bones); but concerning the divine work in the real man, consisting of flesh and veins and bones; which is also nourished from his cup, which is his blood, and is strengthened by the bread, which is his body. And as the wood of the vine, bent down into the earth, in its proper season bears fruit, and the grain of wheat, falling into the earth and becoming dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, which takes in all things; and then, through the wisdom of God, having come to the use of men, and having received the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and being deposited in the earth and dissolved in it, will rise again in due season, the word of God granting to them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father.”

In the beginning of this passage we have an explicit [pg 181] acknowledgment that it is in some way or another in the real body and blood of Christ that we communicate in the Eucharist; and I am willing to grant that the whole passage, on a cursory reading, might be taken to imply that the bread and wine was changed into the literal body and blood of Christ; for he appears to speak of our corporeal frames being literally sustained by the body and blood of our Lord. But when we find him speaking of the necessity of our bodily frames being sustained by himself, arising out of the fact that we, even our bodies, are his members, we see immediately that, as we cannot be literally and corporeally his members, so the change of the bread into his body, and that of the wine into his blood, in order to nourish our bodies with himself, cannot be a literal and corporeal change. And so he does not say that Jesus effected any such change, but simply that he recognized the cup for his blood, and ordained the bread to be his body405.

Before I attempt to draw out any other of the opinions implied in this passage, I will go to another contained in the fourth book406. It is this:—

“Since, therefore, the Church offers with singleness of heart, its sacrifice is rightly accounted pure with God. As also Paul saith to the Philippians: For I am filled with those things which I have received from Epaphroditus, which were sent by you, a sweet savour, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. For it is our duty to make an offering to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, offering to him the first fruits of his creatures with a pure mind and unfeigned faith, in hope unshaken, in fervent charity. And this oblation the Church alone offers pure to the Creator, offering to him of his own work with giving of thanks. But the Jews [pg 183] do not offer it; for their hands are full of blood; for they did not receive the Word, who is offered to God [or through whom the offering is made to God], neither indeed do all the assemblies of the heretics.... How, indeed, can they feel assured that the bread over which thanksgiving is made, is the body of their Lord, and the cup that of his blood, if they do not call himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the wood bears fruit, and the springs gush forth, and the earth affords first the blade, after that the ear, then the full corn in the ear?

“And how, again, can they say that the flesh, which is sustained by the body of the Lord and by his blood, turns to corruption, and partakes not of life? Either let them alter their view, or let them [pg 184] decline to offer the before-mentioned gifts. But our view harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist again confirms our view: and we offer to him his own, making a corresponding profession of communion and union, and acknowledging the resurrection of flesh and spirit. For as the bread which comes from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. For we offer to him, not as though he needed, but giving thanks to his Divine Majesty, and sanctifying the work of his hands.”

To understand this passage more completely, it will be necessary to go back a little. Irenæus is showing, contrary to the Gnostic doctrine, that the [pg 185] Old and New Covenants emanate from one and the same God, adopting different methods at different periods of the world. He points out, therefore, that the offerings of the law of Moses were not intended to be permanent, and that, even under the law, God undervalued sacrifice as compared with obedience. He then goes on to affirm407 that the prophecy of Malachi that sacrifices should cease, and that notwithstanding a pure offering should throughout the world be offered to the name of God, was fulfilled in the Eucharist; for he informs us that Jesus, “instructing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures (not as though he needed, but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful), took the created thing, bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body;’ and likewise the cup of the earthly creature he acknowledged as his blood, and taught them the new offering of the New Testament; which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God,—to him [pg 186] who affords us our sustenance, the first fruits of his gifts.”

Here we see very distinctly what is the offering which the Church offers in the Lord's Supper, viz. the creatures or elements of bread and wine, presented as the first fruits of his gifts, and as a thank-offering to him for the rest408.

The same idea appears again in a fragment edited by Pfaff409:—

“For we offer to God the bread and the cup of [pg 187] blessing, giving thanks to him, because he hath commanded the earth to bring forth fruits for our use; and then having performed the offering, we invoke the Holy Spirit that he would render this sacrifice, even the bread, the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ; so that those who partake of these figures may obtain remission of sins and eternal life. Those, therefore, who bring these offerings with remembrance of the Lord, make no approach to the opinions of the Jews, but, performing a spiritual service, shall be called children of wisdom.”

There is something more definite in this passage than in the allusions in the Treatise against the Heresies, but the spirit is precisely similar; and it is remarkable,—more remarkable than where he is not professing to give details, that there is no mention of more than one offering, namely, that of the elements, which, and which alone, are called by the name of θυσία.

When, however, we come back to the second passage I have translated, we find one clause410 in which there is a various reading, where those which are acknowledged to be the best MSS. speak of the Word (i. e. the personal Word, Jesus Christ regarded especially in his divine nature,) as offered to God in the Eucharist, and the Jews are affirmed to be incapable of offering the oblation in it because they did not receive him. Now it is no doubt possible that Irenæus may have intended to speak of a spiritual offering up of our Lord with the oblation, i. e. of an offering of it in and through him; but that is all that can be implied, for there is no hint whatever of the repetition of the sacrifice of atonement for the remission of sins. The only offering is before the invocation of the Holy Ghost; and it is only after that invocation that the elements are to be regarded as the body and blood of Christ, capable of communicating remission of sins. If, therefore, according to him, there is any offering up of our Lord, it must be with the oblation of the material elements, to render that thank-offering acceptable.

But there is another reading411 which is more consonant with other passages, and therefore probably to be preferred; viz. that which represents “the [pg 189] Word” as the Mediator or Propitiation through whom the oblation is made. We have that idea distinctly expressed in a former passage412, in which he speaks, in reference to this very text of Malachi, of the Church as offering through Jesus Christ; and it is implied in the Fragment, in which he speaks of our offering these things “with remembrance (ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει) of the Lord413.”

But whichever reading we take, there is no foundation for the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ under the figure and appearance of the consecrated elements.

Both this latter quotation from the “Heresies” and the Fragment are opposed to the notion of any substantial change in the elements. The former speaks of the bread after consecration as “not common bread,” implying that it is still bread, although [pg 190] adapted to a sacred and mysterious use; and as “consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly414” (meaning probably the elements themselves and the body and blood of Christ), whereas the notion of transubstantiation requires that there should be nothing of the earthly really left after the consecration. The fragment still more explicitly calls them figures at the very time that we partake of them. It is true that the view of Irenæus differs equally from ordinary Protestant notions, and indeed is more positive than that of the English Church; but we are to bear in mind that the Fathers did not always speak with logical accuracy. Their language has been brought forward in support of the theory of transubstantiation, and therefore it has become necessary to show that they did not write on that theory. It is not equally requisite that we should be able to construct a theory which shall explain all the figurative and imaginative language in which they expressed their faith in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Irenæus certainly taught this doctrine, and that is enough for us of the Church of England, who do not concern ourselves to explain the manner of his presence. Some of us may agree with his manner of expressing it, but we do not require of others that they should agree with him.

We cannot complete our view of the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the Eucharist without adverting to his ideas on the consecration of the elements. This he describes in various ways, sometimes attributing it to the word of God415, sometimes to the invocation of God416, sometimes to the invocation of the Holy Ghost417. But all these may be reconciled, if we consider them to be allusions to various portions of the consecration prayer. There is such a form left in the Apostolical Constitutions, with which all the four ancient liturgies exhibited by Brett and Palmer coincide, viz. the Roman, the Oriental, the Egyptian, and the Gallican. Now all these forms contain a recital of the words of institution, which may not unfitly be called the word of God, and an invocation of God to send down his Holy Spirit upon the gifts, to consecrate them to be the body and blood of Christ, which may be called either an invocation of God or an invocation of the Holy Ghost. Is it not therefore most probable that Irenæus alludes to this prayer, which must have been used in very early ages, for its leading features to be found thus spread throughout the world? The expressions, therefore, which he uses, though various and distinct, are not contrary or contradictory: they allude to various portions of the same form.

It is worthy of observation, however, that this attributing of the consecration to these different things is contrary to the modern doctrine of transubstantiation, which attributes it to one and one only, viz. the recital of the words of institution: This is my body, This is my blood.

There is another passage which proves that no transubstantiation was then thought of; viz. the fragment418, which appears likely to have been a part of the account of the persecutions at Lyons. We there read that the heathen tortured the slaves of some Christians, in order to extort from them something which might serve as a colour for the severities they exercised upon them; and that the slaves, “not knowing what to say to please their tormentors, except what they had heard from their masters, that the Holy Communion was the blood and body of Christ, and thinking that it was really flesh and blood, told this to those who were questioning them.” Now it appears very clear that language such as this could scarcely have been used by a person who thought that the sacred elements had become really flesh and blood, which is the doctrine of transubstantiation; although it might be employed with perfect consistency by those who believed in a real mysterious presence of them in the Holy Communion, [pg 193] without any change in the nature of the elements.

Massuet419 brings forward, in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the fact that the Marcosians pretended, by magical rites, to effect a change of the wine into blood. As they professed to produce a substantial change, he infers that the Church must have really produced such a change. But the inference is far from being a sound one; for as magical rites are invented to pander to the appetite of the ignorant for something supernatural, so it is most probable that a pretender of this description, who wished to set up for something superior to the clergy, should profess to do something more wonderful than they; that whereas they effected none but a mystical change, he should pretend to a literal one. And this no doubt is the history of transubstantiation. It is the attempt of unspiritual minds to raise the wonder of the sacred mysteries to the highest pitch, forgetful meanwhile of the spiritual objects of them. The doctrine is eminently a carnal doctrine.

Chapter XIV. On Justification.

Those scholastical discussions on the nature of justification with which we have become familiar had not arisen when Irenæus wrote, and consequently we cannot expect him to speak with the precision to which we are accustomed. Still there are some principal points upon which, simply following the Scriptures, he is practically clear.

He teaches, for instance, that men are not justified in themselves, but by the coming of Christ420, and [pg 195] more explicitly, by the obedience of Christ421; whence we may fairly conclude that he would place the meritorious cause of justification in Christ: and as he connects justification with remission of sins422, and remission of sins with the cross and death of Christ423, he would no doubt trace our justification to the death of Christ on the cross.

In the same general manner he teaches that faith justifies man424, speaking particularly of Abraham, to [pg 196] whom he attributes faith in Christ. He appears likewise to express faith, in another passage, by attending to the light of Christ425; but as the passage does not exist in the Greek, we cannot be quite certain what is its real meaning. Now although he says here that faith justifies, and elsewhere that our faith is our own426, because it springs from our own will and choice, yet it is plain, from the previous paragraph, that he simply means that faith is the qualification for justification.

Again, where Irenæus says that man is justified by the moral law, which those who were justified by faith before the giving of the Law observed427; and again, quoting the text: “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me;” declares that God rejected the sacrifices and ceremonies by which the Jews thought to obtain remission of sins, and taught them these things (contained [pg 197] in that text) by which man is justified, and draws nigh to God428: in these passages Irenæus no doubt intends to say nothing more or less than St. James does where he declares that man is justified by works. If any one regards Irenæus as contradicting the true doctrine of justification by faith, he must conceive that St. James equally contradicts it; and the same considerations which explain St. James will equally explain Irenæus.

I may remark, moreover, in a matter confessedly not admitting of absolute demonstration, that Irenæus appears to use justification in what is commonly called the forensic sense, and as taking its date from the act of the soul, by which it receives and embraces the divine light, and as being kept up and renewed by acts of thanksgiving and calling upon [pg 198] God and dependence upon him, and observance of the moral law. But I have no wish to insist controversially upon these conclusions.

Chapter XV. On Ceremonies, Usages, And Forms Of Words.

The object of the Great Treatise of Irenæus, which is almost the whole that remains to us of his writings, being to refute doctrinal error, things of a ceremonial and ritual nature can be introduced only incidentally. It is interesting however to trace those fragments of the external system of the Church which have dropped from the pen of the writer whilst thinking chiefly of other matters.

We find then that he alludes to the commandments of God as being ten in number, and as being divided into two tables429: but he asserts, conformably to the opinion of Josephus430 and Philo431, that [pg 200] each table contained five commandments. On the other hand Hesychius432, Origen433, Ambrose434, and Procopius435 reckon them as we do. The division into three and five, followed by the Roman Church, does not appear earlier than Augustine436. There is however sufficient diversity to prevent our insisting much on our division. It must be observed, however, that Josephus437 and (I believe) Philo reckon the commandments individually exactly as we do, and not as the Romanists.

We have several allusions to the form observed at the Holy Communion. We find that the cup contained water mixed with wine438; that a form of invocation was used, which the heretics imitated439; that the term εὐχαριστέω (to give thanks) had become [pg 201] technical, and signified to consecrate440; that the expression for ever and ever occurred in the Eucharistical form441, which shows that a settled form had become customary in his time; and that Christians sounded Amen all together442. The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token of communion and amity443.

We find, too, that the same pharisaical spirit, which now keeps many from communion, because others come to it in hypocrisy, had the selfsame effect in his time444.

There seems, in some of the practices of the Gnostics, to have been an imitation of the anointing at baptism or confirmation practised in the Church445.

There are several allusions to the practice of public [pg 202] confession and penance, as a customary and established part of discipline. In some cases it was voluntary446.

It was the established custom not to kneel in prayer on the Lord's day, or during the whole season from Easter to Whitsuntide, which was called Pentecost447.

A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration, according to the choice of those who observed it448. The passage of Irenæus has been introduced into the great controversy between those who assert the apostolical antiquity of the forty days' season of abstinence, and those who deny it. In this country our great divines have taken different sides; Beveridge449, Patrick450, and Hooper451 upholding [pg 204] it, and Morton452, Taylor453, and Bingham454 denying it. This passage might appear to be decisive, [pg 205] if we could be sure of the punctuation, but unhappily Ruffinus pointed it differently from all the MSS. of Eusebius and, I believe, Nicephorus: for he introduces a stop after τεσσαράκοντα, which makes Irenæus distinctly affirm that in his time some fasted forty days, whereas the common reading makes them fast only forty successive hours455.

It would be impossible to do justice to the subject without entering fully into the arguments on both sides; and therefore I will confine myself to an observation or two on the text of Irenæus. Let us then look at the passage according to the two methods of punctuation; and we shall find Irenæus affirming according to one that those who fasted any number of days, from one to forty, reckoned the hours both of day and of night into their day; or according to the other that some fasted one day, some two, some more; and that some reckoned forty hours of day and night into their day. Now that any persons could fast forty successive days, both day and night, abstaining from food all the time, cannot be imagined: and if they did not abstain from food all the time of their fast, the mention of its continuance day and night would be unmeaning.

To this argument the reply of Beveridge, as may be seen in note 3, is, that no fast was kept strictly throughout the twenty-four hours by total abstinence from food: and he quotes the 50th Canon of Laodicea [pg 207] to show that the Lent fast was nothing more than abstaining from flesh, &c. and living upon dry food. But, with deference to so great a name, this is but begging the question. The Canon of Laodicea only shows what the Church required, not what individuals practised. And Grabe456 (on this passage) has proved that there were anciently two kinds of strict fasts observed in the last week of Lent; one of abstinence from all food till the evening, and then eating nothing but bread and salt accompanied with pure water; the other, practised by the more zealous, of holding over one, two, three, four, or six days, till the cock-crowing on Easterday. [pg 208] Both Grabe and Bingham457 agree (what indeed appears self-evident) that there is no meaning in words, if these persons did not remain in total abstinence during this whole time; for what extraordinary zeal could there be in their practice, if they broke their fast in the evening, as others did.

If, on the other hand, we suppose the fast to have been one of forty hours, commencing from the hour in which Jesus gave up the ghost, and terminating with that of his resurrection, there is then a sufficient reason for mentioning that the fast continued day and night; it becomes a thing within the reach of probability; and the period is a very natural one for those persons to choose who felt themselves equal to it. At the time in which the Apostolical Constitutions were written, it was enjoined on Christians458 to fast the Friday and Saturday, if possible; if not, at least on the Saturday: and in either case it appears that they were not to break their fast till the first cock-crowing; i. e. in all probability, on Easter day.

Leaving, then, other sources of controversy on [pg 209] either side, the text itself appears to supply the strongest evidence in favour of the punctuation of the MSS. How that of Ruffinus arose, we are not absolutely concerned to say: but when the practice of the more lengthened fast had become established in the Church, it might easily lead to understanding the words of Irenæus in such a manner as to give it primitive authority.

But even supposing the fast of forty days to have been kept by some persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it. Chrysostom indeed expressly says459, that the fast of forty days was not ordained [pg 210] until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the Communion on Easter day.

Very little more remains to be observed under this head.

Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a bishop460. And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely, that of Churchmen461. And that was perfectly natural, for the Church had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of Catholicism or Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and heresies, was not observed till afterwards; and therefore the name of Catholic was posterior to that of Churchman.

Chapter XVI. On The Sabbath.

One of the greatest difficulties to modern readers in the history of the primitive Church is the state of feeling and opinion on the subject of the Sabbath. We have been in the habit of arguing from the primitive institution of a holy day (which we have called a sabbath), and of viewing the Lord's day as answering to it; and if we may judge by the language of the earliest writers, they did not consider the Lord's day as intended to be a sabbath in itself, although some of them regarded it as being appointed instead of the Sabbath462. Irenæus certainly [pg 212] viewed the institution of the Sabbath as entirely Mosaical, and thought that Abraham and the patriarchs before the Law did not keep it463.

It must not, however, be thence hastily concluded that he believed that Abraham and the patriarchs knew nothing of the seventh day as a day of divine worship. The primary and leading idea of a sabbath, properly so called, is (not holiness but) rest; that is, abstinence from any employment that can be construed into labour. Now Irenæus might very well deny that the Patriarchs kept a day of rest from all employment, without in any degree intending to deny that they devoted the seventh day especially to religious worship.

An illustration of my meaning will be found in the admission of Justin Martyr, that Christians did not keep the Sabbath464, coupled with the well-ascertained fact465, that a very large proportion of them [pg 213] indeed were in the habit of attending divine service on the seventh day. Perhaps a still closer illustration is seen in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, which expressly forbid Christians to keep the Sabbath like Jews466, and at the same time direct the Eucharistic offering to be made on that day as well as on the Lord's day467. If then many of the early Christians devoted a portion of the Saturday statedly to public religious exercises, and yet did not consider themselves as keeping a sabbath, it would be very unsafe to infer from the assertion that the Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath, that therefore they had no day of religious worship. In fact it seems scarcely possible that the division and numbering of the days by sevens could have been kept up, as we know it was468, before the giving of the Law, without some religious observance connected with it.

Although, then, Irenæus did not regard the Mosaical Sabbath as being observed before the giving of the Law, and consequently regarded it as abolished with the Law, yet as he has asserted that the moral [pg 214] law or decalogue was observed before Moses, and implies that we are not at liberty to reject it469, it is very certain that he must have conceived the fourth commandment to be in some sense or other a directory to Christians: and it may therefore be inquired what he conceived ought to be learnt from it. This may in some degree be gathered from his saying that the Sabbath, like the whole Jewish Law, was symbolical, and that it was intended to teach men to serve God every day, and to typify the kingdom of God, when whosoever has persevered in godliness shall partake of his table470. For he believed that the world was destined to endure in [pg 215] its present state as many thousands of years as the days of creation, and that then God's kingdom would be set up on earth471, which will be the true sabbath of the just472. But he regarded our Lord's apparent relaxation of the stringency of the sabbath, not as a direct instruction to Christians, but as an explanation of the proper meaning of the fourth commandment as addressed to the Jews473.

I think it would appear from these passages that Irenæus was not in the habit of regarding the Christian practice of hallowing the Lord's day as the explicit fulfilment of the fourth commandment. He lived so near the apostolical times that he no doubt observed it in obedience to Christ's institution, without considering whether it was contemplated by the [pg 217] original institution of a holy day or not. But in common with other Christian writers, he did not think that the fulfilment of the fourth commandment lay in devoting any particular portion of time to the service of God; but in serving him continually as much as possible; and therefore, as a matter of course, in observing those times of sacred repose and divine worship which either the institution of Christ, or the common custom of Christians, or the rules of the Church, might have appointed474. [pg 218] According to such a feeling, therefore, whilst no particular portion of time would be kept with Jewish superstition, as though it were an end of itself, whatever time was kept would be so kept as to ensure the ends proposed by its observance.

And, if we revert to what has been before observed as to Irenæus's view of the law of liberty, we shall see that he would be so far from supposing that this Christian freedom authorized us to dispense with devoting one day in seven to God's service, that he would feel that it ought to lead those who had it in their power to devote even a larger portion. And such in fact was the practice of the Christians of those times. They assembled together not only on the morning and evening of the Sunday, but also throughout the east on the morning and evening of Saturday, and on the morning of Wednesday and Friday. When, therefore, there was so much zeal for the service of God, and the commandment was kept so amply in its spirit without thinking of the letter of it,—the warm feeling of Christians making them a law to themselves,—there was nothing to lead them to inquire critically how much the commandment actually required of them; and to have [pg 219] instituted such an inquiry would have appeared like putting a restriction upon the ardour of Christian love, and returning to the spirit of the Law of Moses.

The true question, then, to ask is, not why the first Christians did not put the Lord's day upon the footing of the paradisiacal sabbath, but why we are called upon to do so in these latter days? And the true answer will be found in the fact that the great body of us have abused the law of liberty, as the Israelites of old had done, and therefore, like them, have need, in the providential dealings of God, to be put back under rules and restrictions again, until we are become fitted to act as children of God: and when we are so, we have no wish to shake off such restrictions, but of our own accord go beyond them.

In connection with this subject it is very remarkable that the Church of England in her catechism has not thought proper to connect the Lord's day in particular with the fourth commandment; although most of our writers for the last three hundred years have found it necessary so to do. It is true that we have done no more than our duty by pointing out to our people that God from the beginning has hallowed one day in seven, in order to prevent them from relapsing into absolute heathenism;—the error has been that we have too much omitted to show [pg 220] that this was the least he would be satisfied with. We have too much written as though those who fully observed one day in seven had done their duty, instead of leading them to feel that they cannot be possessed of the spirit of true Christian obedience so long as they confine themselves to the letter of the law, and do not of their own accord embrace every means of grace and spiritual improvement.

Chapter XVII. On The Typical Interpretation Of Scripture.

The writers of the primitive Church, taking the lead from the inspired writers, and probably preserving in many cases the traditional interpretations of the Apostles, were in the habit of seeing types in many things which to us appear to have none but a literal meaning. It is, however, certain that there was a great tendency amongst the Hellenistic Jews to make the whole of the Old Testament typical; and no doubt some Christians early followed them, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (which were early writings, whether spurious or not) abundantly show: and this tendency continued to increase until the time of Origen, by whom it was pushed to such extremes, that, from that time, it became less popular.

Irenæus, however, is far from being a fanciful writer, and was more directly connected with the Apostles than most of the Fathers, and therefore the [pg 222] types which he recognises are worthy of much more attention than those of Origen.

With him, then, Abel was a type of Christ, as having suffered innocently475; Joseph476 was a type of Christ, though in what way we are not told, probably in the same sense as Abel; Moses was a type of him when he spread forth his hands, and by that sign conquered Amalek477. That the brazen serpent was a type of healing man from the bite of the old serpent by faith, the words of Christ himself led him to see478.

There were other points in which Moses was a type of Christ. “He took an Ethiopian woman to wife, whom he thereby made an Israelitess; foreshowing that the wild olive is grafted into the olive, [pg 223] and partakes of its fatness. For since that Christ, who was born according to the flesh, was to be sought out for destruction, and to be delivered in Egypt, that is, amongst the Gentiles, to sanctify the infants there, whence also he made a Church there; (for Egypt was from the beginning a gentile nation, as was also Æthiopia;) for this reason by the marriage of Moses was shown the marriage of the Word, and by the Æthiopian wife the Gentile Church is pointed out: and those who speak against it, and inveigh against and deride it, shall not be clean; for they shall be leprous and cast out of the camp479.”

He declares that the re-appearance of justification by faith, after it had been for some time cast out of sight by the Law of Moses, was typified by the circumstances of the birth of the sons of Thamar. For as Zarah put forth his hand first, and had the [pg 224] scarlet thread bound upon it, and then retiring gave way to his brother Pharez, and thus was born after him; by this the Scripture declared “that people which has the scarlet sign, viz. faith in uncircumcision, which was shown first in the patriarchs, and afterwards withdrawn when its brother was born; and that in consequence that which was first was born second, being known by the scarlet mark upon it, which is the suffering of the Just One, foreshown in Abel, written by the Prophets, and accomplished in the last times in the Son of God480.”

Irenæus was of opinion that some of the apparent misdeeds of the old Patriarchs were not really sins, but circumstances brought upon them by divine Providence, with some mystical and typical end. Thus the cohabitation of Lot and his daughters is with [pg 225] him providential and typical, signifying that from one Father the Word, by means of the life-giving Spirit, the two sister synagogues, the Jewish and the Christian, have brought forth a spiritual seed481.

St. Paul has taught us that Jacob and Esau were types of the elder and younger Churches; but Irenæus has much amplified the figure, and brought in other parallelisms. “And if any one would study the acts of Jacob, he will find them not empty, but full of providential arrangements482: and first in his birth, as he caught hold of the heel of his brother, and was called Jacob, that is, the supplanter; holding and not holden; fettering but not fettered; struggling and conquering; holding in his hand the heel of his adversary, i. e. the victory: to this end was the Lord born, whose birth he typified, concerning whom John saith in the Revelation, He went forth conquering, to conquer. Moreover, in taking the birthright when his brother disdained it; as also the younger people accepted Christ the first-born, when the elder people rejected him, saying, We have no [pg 227]king but Cæsar. And in Christ was the whole blessing; and for this reason the latter people stole from the Father the blessing of the former people, as Jacob took away the blessing from Esau. For which cause his brother suffered from the lying in wait and persecutions of a brother, as also the Church suffers from the Jews483. The twelve tribes, the children of Israel, were born in a foreign country, as Christ began at a distance from his home to lay the twelve-pillared foundation of the Church. The spotted sheep were the wages of Jacob; and Christ's reward is the assemblage of men from differing nations into the one bond of the faith484, as the Father promised him: ‘Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.’ And as to Jacob, the Lord's prophet, it consisted of a multitude of children, it was necessary that he should have children from two sisters; as also Christ from two laws of one and the same Father485; and likewise of two maid-servants, [pg 228] signifying that Christ should make sons of God out both of those who in the flesh were free and of slaves, granting to all alike the gift of the life-giving Spirit486. And he did all for the sake of the younger, Rachel, who typified the Church, for whose sake Christ endured487.”

Rahab the harlot, again, who was a heathen and a great sinner, and received the three spies, and by reliance upon the scarlet thread, (which meant the same thing as the passover,) was saved, whilst the city in which she lived was destroyed, is a type of sinners in all future ages, who, revering the Trinity, and by faith in Christ our passover, are saved, whilst the world of those who rejected him are lost488.

Joshua, again, he makes a type of Christ, bringing his people into their eternal inheritance, as Moses brought them out of captivity; and he further declares that as Moses, representing the law, rested, in prefiguration of the cessation of the law, so Joshua, as representing the Gospel, and a perfect type of the personal Word, discoursed to the people; and that as Moses gave the manna, so Joshua gave the new bread, the first-fruits of life, a figure of the body of Christ489.

He finds a very humble parallel to our Lord in [pg 231] the ass of Balaam: for as all men rest from toil by mounting on a beast of burden, so Christ gives us repose from the toil of our souls by bearing the burden of our sins490.

The last specimens of types which I shall bring forward are to be found in the history of Samson. The temple in which he found his death, filled with Philistines, St. Irenæus supposes to represent the world of the ungodly; Samson himself is God's true people; the two pillars are the two covenants; and the lad who conducted Samson to the pillars is John the Baptist, leading God's people to know the mystery of Christ491.

These types will, of course, bring with them to the mind various degrees of probability. The Scripture itself teaches us the principle of typical application; and no person who considers the manner in which [pg 232] the various books of the New Testament were written, their occasional nature, so to speak, will suppose that the whole of the types are developed in it. We must therefore be left to ourselves, in some degree, to discover the other types; and yet it cannot be supposed that all the resemblances our mind can strike out were absolutely intended. But it must be some recommendation of any typical application, to say the least, to find it struck out in that early age, when those who had conversed with apostolical men were living: and where we find a number of writers agreeing to adopt any one type, (as, for instance, Clement of Rome, Justin and Irenæus, make Rahab's scarlet line typical,) it will, I suppose, appear to most minds to have a very high probability. And it is only by noticing the types in each early writer, that we can arrive at this species of authority for any one particular type.

Chapter XVIII. On The Intermediate State.

Persons sometimes ask, What is the advantage of studying the Fathers? why cannot we be contented with the light of Scripture? Those who study them reply, that one use at least is, that by their help the obscure parts of Scripture, where some truths are but hinted at or supposed, are brought forth into light and clear outline.

An instance of this, and a very unobjectionable one, is to be found in the doctrine of Irenæus, and not of him alone, as to the intermediate state. We know from Scripture that there is an unseen state to which Christ descended492; and that the just after death go to paradise493, and are with Christ494. If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is taken literally, it seems to be implied that the good and bad are [pg 234] separated in that state, and yet that they are capable of holding intercourse with each other; and there seems to be a hint that the state of the dead is, in some sense, a state of confinement495. Beyond this we have little, if any thing.

Our views, however, such as they are, become confirmed and acquire definiteness, as we find the same subjects treated of or alluded to by Irenæus.

He treats the parable I have spoken of, as not strictly a parable, but a relation of real occurrences496; and asserts that it shows us that the soul, in a state of separation from the body, retains its individuality, so that disembodied souls may know each other, and hold mutual intercourse; and that each class of persons has its appropriate habitation even before the day of judgment497. Accordingly he affirms that [pg 235] Christ observed the law of the dead, and departed into the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were. And conformably he teaches us that the souls of his disciples will at death depart into the invisible place destined for them by God, and there remain, waiting for the resurrection498. [pg 236] And this invisible place he declares to be paradise, to which Enoch and Elias are already translated with their bodies, anticipating immortality499. But to those who have died he declares that this state is a state of condemnation, even to those who are found in life500. For he believed that the souls of the just, although in death and consequent condemnation, would retain the Spirit of God, and consequently the seed and pledge of a new life501; and [pg 237] that by means of this same Spirit they would rise again at the last day, being quickened by the Spirit, even as their Lord was502.

There is another branch of this subject; viz. the employment of our Saviour while in the intermediate state. Irenæus thought, as did other Fathers, that our Lord went and preached the Gospel to those who were dead, there being forgiveness to whosoever would believe in him, so preaching to them; and that those who in old times had hoped in him, and foretold his coming, did then believe in him and obtain remission503.

Here again we have a definite meaning given to passages of Holy Writ, respecting which we may discuss and have discussed endlessly, resting in the mere light of Scripture. And that being the case, it appears more rational to accept the interpretation furnished by early writers, who are in all probability in this and other cases giving us views which had come down from the Apostles themselves.

Chapter XIX. On Unfulfilled Prophecy.

It was the opinion of the Gnostics that the Tempter was either the same as the God of the Old Testament, acting in opposition to the Supreme Being, or a creature and agent of this God. In contradiction to this notion, Irenæus lays down, and confirms from various portions of Scripture, that he was one of the angels, attendants upon the Supreme Being, who rebelled against him, who consummated his rebellion by seducing man from his allegiance, and who is always setting himself up as a rebel against his Maker504.

Having proved this from the past history of the world, he continues the proof by adducing the prophecies concerning Antichrist, the Millennium, and the consummation of all things505. In this way he is [pg 240] led to develope his own views upon those subjects: and as his opinions on the Millennium are different from those which have prevailed subsequently, with almost universal consent in the Western Church, that portion of his Treatise is rarely found complete in our present MSS., the copyists not thinking it proper or worth their while to copy what was generally disapproved by the Church506.

Irenæus, then, regards Antichrist as a direct agent of Satan, in and by means of whom he will fulfil the great object of his rebellion, of procuring himself to be owned by mankind as their king, and worshipped as their God; by whom he will abolish all idols, and set himself up as the one idol, uniting in himself all the delusion of all the false gods who have ever existed. In him, therefore, will be literally fulfilled the prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4507; [pg 241] for he will literally enthrone himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and by oppressive methods will endeavour to exhibit himself as God, and Christ508. [pg 242] Irenæus applies to this event the prophecy of Daniel concerning the abomination of desolation, quoted by our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 15, 16509.

He likewise applies to him what is said by Daniel of the little horn, in Dan. vii. 8. 20-26; conceiving the ten horns to be ten kings of different portions of the Roman Empire510, and consequently believing [pg 243] that Antichrist will be a power, who will overthrow and kill three of the kings of those divisions, and reign for a space of three years and a half; during [pg 244] which time he will trample under foot the saints of the Most High511.

He affirms that he is the other, mentioned by our Lord, (John v. 43,) who will come in his own name; and the unjust judge, who feared not God nor regarded men, to whom the widowed Jerusalem will come for redress against her enemy; in consequence of which he will transfer the seat of his dominion thither.

He declares him to be the wicked king of Daniel, (viii. 23-25,) who for three years and a half will put down the pure offering which the saints offer to God, i. e. the Holy Eucharist512.

He finds him under the Beast of the Revelation of [pg 245] St. John, (xvii. 11-14,) who will drive the Church into the wilderness, and finally be vanquished by our Lord. He identifies the ten kings who will give their kingdom to the beast with the ten divisions of Daniel's fourth kingdom, (Dan. ii. 33,) of whom three will be killed by Antichrist; and the rest, submitting to him, will assist him in conquering Babylon, and burning it with fire: and he makes the stone cut out without hands to be Christ, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and set up an eternal one, (Dan. ii. 44, 45513).

Irenæus again sees Antichrist in the beast (Rev. xiii. 2-18) whose head was wounded, who has a mouth given to him speaking great things, and receives power for forty and two months; who has an armour-bearer, called the false prophet, who will work great miracles by magical power, through the aid of evil spirits; the number of whose name is 666514.

Respecting this number he enters into a special discussion, in which he first reproves those who hastily endeavoured to interpret it515, and then endeavours to lay down correct principles of interpretation for it. He suggests that we must wait till the other signs of Antichrist begin to be fulfilled, such as the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts, and the sudden coming of another power to their discomfiture. We must also remark, he tells us, that Jeremiah (viii. 16) has foretold that he will be of the tribe of Dan516. We must not be rash in applying [pg 248] the number to any particular individual or power, for many names will correspond with it, such as Εὐάνθας, Λατεῖνος, (which he thinks very probable, as being the name of the last of the four empires,) and Τειτὰν, for which he suggests many, to his apprehension, plausible recommendations517.

This is the sum of what he tells us on the subject of Antichrist; and he declares that when he has reigned, sitting in the temple of Jerusalem, for three years and a half, then the Lord will come to judgment, and to introduce the times of the kingdom of heaven, and the true Sabbath, in which many shall come from the east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob518.

It is foreign to my purpose to enter into the probability or improbability of these interpretations: but two things strike me as remarkable: first, the decided identification of the ten horns of the beast with the Roman Empire in a state of division; and secondly, the admission of the mystical meaning of days in the prophecy of Daniel (viii. 27) as signifying years, coupled with the literal interpretation of time in other passages; as, for instance, Dan. vii. 25, and Rev. xiii. 5.

When the short reign of Antichrist ceases, the undisputed reign of Christ (according to Irenæus) will begin, and will continue a thousand years. For as the days of creation were six, and the day of rest one; as moreover one day is with the Lord a thousand years; this world is destined to endure six thousand years in this state of turmoil and perplexity519, and then will succeed a thousand of rest and enjoyment520. When that time arrives, the world will be restored to its pristine state; the very animals will all associate together in peace; the just [pg 251] will rise with their bodies, and upon this very earth, upon which they suffered, will receive the reward of their endurance521. Then shall Abraham receive, [pg 252] fully and literally, the promise made to him and to his seed, i. e. the Church, and shall really enjoy his inheritance from the river of Egypt to the great Euphrates522. Then shall Jesus drink the fruit of the vine new with his disciples523; for there shall be no more labour, but there shall be a continual table prepared by a creative hand, by the incredible productiveness [pg 253] of the fruits of the earth524. Then shall the righteous hold intercourse and communion with Angels525 in Jerusalem, which shall be then rebuilt526.

This state of things he believed, as I have said, would last a thousand years; and he adopted this view, not for want of knowing that there was an allegorical interpretation, but because he thought it forced and unnatural, and labouring under irremediable difficulties527.

And when the thousand years were ended, he believed that the great day of judgment would come, and the general resurrection, when the New Jerusalem would descend from heaven, of which the former Jerusalem, in which the just were prepared for immortality, would have been but an image528. Then will there be new heavens and a new earth, in which man will for ever converse with God. But there will not be only one abode of the righteous: some will ascend into heaven above the angels; others will enjoy the delights of a paradise529; but all [pg 255] will have the continual manifestation of the presence of God, and be changed into his likeness530.

This, I believe, is a correct view of the opinions of Irenæus as to certain departments of unfulfilled prophecy. I offer upon them no opinion of my own; but it is right to say that he was by no means singular in his own age531, and that there is no writer [pg 256] of any importance, down to the time of Origen, who impugned the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth. After that time, that doctrine became more and more unpopular in the Church at large; although many, from time to time, have advocated views more or less in accordance with those of the primitive millenarians.

Chapter XX. The Virgin Mary.

There are two passages of Irenæus, in which the name of the Blessed Virgin is introduced, which would not have called for any particular remark, were it not for the manner in which they are perverted by Romanist writers, and especially by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in support of the blasphemous honour they bestow on her. When, however, we have examined them, we shall perceive that, although they may, no doubt, to those whose minds are imbued with superstitious prejudice, at first sight appear to countenance that prejudice, they do not really favour it.

The first of these passages affirms that “as Eve, having Adam for her husband, but being still a virgin ... being disobedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of death; so also Mary, having her destined husband and yet [pg 258] a virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation532.” There seems no difficulty in granting all this, and yet the conclusion by no means follows that the Blessed Virgin is to be regarded as a mediatrix and intercessor with God, next after her Son533. Eve was certainly the cause of death to the whole human race, because through her transgression Adam was made to transgress; and in him all mankind are made sinners. But it does not appear that original sin came to all mankind directly from Eve, or that she was any otherwise the cause of death to our race, except by bringing Adam into the transgression: otherwise we must suppose that our Lord, being born of a woman, must have inherited a sinful nature; for even Massuet does not make the Virgin sinless. As the transgression of Eve therefore, although [pg 259] no doubt her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our condemnation, so the obedience of the Virgin Mary, although her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our salvation, that is, by leading to the incarnation and birth of our Lord534. And if so, there is no foundation whatever for making her a mediatrix and intercessor with God.

But still stronger reliance appears to be placed upon the next passage, in which the Virgin Mary is called “the advocate of the Virgin Eve535.” And yet that very passage supplies a proof that this term cannot be taken otherwise than in a figurative and [pg 260] improper sense: for Irenæus therein asserts that “as the human race was condemned to death through a virgin, so it is saved through a virgin;” i. e. as he himself explains it, through her submission to the angelic announcement of the will of God, that his Son should be born of her. Now it would be clear blasphemy to ascribe our salvation to the Virgin otherwise than in a figurative sense, as being an instrument in the divine hand for its accomplishment by becoming the mother of the real Saviour; and so, in the same figurative sense she was the advocate of Eve, by becoming the mother of him who was really her advocate. The figure is, no doubt, rather bold, but still it is evidently but a figure.

This interpretation indeed is so obvious, that to us, who have no such prejudices as the members of the Roman Church, it would have been unnecessary to insist upon it, were it not for the violent perversion of the passage by their writers. It is, perhaps, worthy of more distinct indication, that Irenæus, by declaring that the Blessed Virgin was the cause of salvation to herself, as well as to others536, directly contradicts the idea held by some in the Roman Church, (and I believe in the Greek likewise,) that she was entirely sinless. On the other [pg 261] hand, he undoubtedly countenances (although he does not use) the appellation given to her by many, of the mother of God537.

Chapter XXI. Account of the Gnostic Teachers and Their Tenets.

[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected.]