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 God[392], and ascribes to infants a share in that new birth equally with grown persons[393]. 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 man[394], whom he asserts to be and to remain carnal, until he receives the Spirit of God[395]. The water of baptism is therefore a type of the Holy Spirit[396]; and in baptism our bodies receive the union with God to eternal life, which our souls at the same time receive by the Spirit[397]. 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 soul[398]. This Spirit [pg 174] he elsewhere calls the Spirit of remission of sins[399], 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 Christ[400].
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 God[401]; 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 love[402].
There is one passage[403] 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 book[404], 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 body[405].
Before I attempt to draw out any other of the opinions implied in this passage, I will go to another contained in the fourth book[406]. 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 affirm[407] 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 rest[408].
The same idea appears again in a fragment edited by Pfaff[409]:—
“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 clause[410] 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 reading[411] 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 passage[412], 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 Lord[413].”
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 heavenly[414]” (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 God[415], sometimes to the invocation of God[416], sometimes to the invocation of the Holy Ghost[417]. 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 fragment[418], 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.
Massuet[419] 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 Christ[420], and [pg 195] more explicitly, by the obedience of Christ[421]; whence we may fairly conclude that he would place the meritorious cause of justification in Christ: and as he connects justification with remission of sins[422], and remission of sins with the cross and death of Christ[423], 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 man[424], 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 Christ[425]; 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 own[426], 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 observed[427]; 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 God[428]: 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 tables[429]: but he asserts, conformably to the opinion of Josephus[430] and Philo[431], that [pg 200] each table contained five commandments. On the other hand Hesychius[432], Origen[433], Ambrose[434], and Procopius[435] reckon them as we do. The division into three and five, followed by the Roman Church, does not appear earlier than Augustine[436]. There is however sufficient diversity to prevent our insisting much on our division. It must be observed, however, that Josephus[437] 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 wine[438]; that a form of invocation was used, which the heretics imitated[439]; that the term εὐχαριστέω (to give thanks) had become [pg 201] technical, and signified to consecrate[440]; that the expression for ever and ever occurred in the Eucharistical form[441], which shows that a settled form had become customary in his time; and that Christians sounded Amen all together[442]. The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token of communion and amity[443].
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 time[444].
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 Church[445].
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 voluntary[446].
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 Pentecost[447].
A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration, according to the choice of those who observed it[448]. 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; Beveridge[449], Patrick[450], and Hooper[451] upholding [pg 204] it, and Morton[452], Taylor[453], and Bingham[454] 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 hours[455].
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 Grabe[456] (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 Bingham[457] 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 Christians[458] 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 says[459], 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 bishop[460]. 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 Churchmen[461]. 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 Sabbath[462]. 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 it[463].
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 Sabbath[464], coupled with the well-ascertained fact[465], 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 Jews[466], and at the same time direct the Eucharistic offering to be made on that day as well as on the Lord's day[467]. 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 was[468], 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 it[469], 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 table[470]. 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 earth[471], which will be the true sabbath of the just[472]. 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 Jews[473].
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 appointed[474]. [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 innocently[475]; Joseph[476] 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 Amalek[477]. 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 see[478].
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 camp[479].”
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 God[480].”
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 seed[481].
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 arrangements[482]: 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 Jews[483]. 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 faith[484], 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 Father[485]; 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 Spirit[486]. And he did all for the sake of the younger, Rachel, who typified the Church, for whose sake Christ endured[487].”
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 lost[488].
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 Christ[489].
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 sins[490].
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 Christ[491].
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 descended[492]; and that the just after death go to paradise[493], and are with Christ[494]. 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 confinement[495]. 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 occurrences[496]; 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 judgment[497]. 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 resurrection[498]. [pg 236] And this invisible place he declares to be paradise, to which Enoch and Elias are already translated with their bodies, anticipating immortality[499]. But to those who have died he declares that this state is a state of condemnation, even to those who are found in life[500]. 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 life[501]; 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 was[502].
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 remission[503].
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 Maker[504].
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 things[505]. 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 Church[506].
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, 4[507]; [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 Christ[508]. [pg 242] Irenæus applies to this event the prophecy of Daniel concerning the abomination of desolation, quoted by our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 15, 16[509].
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 Empire[510], 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 High[511].
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 Eucharist[512].
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, 45[513]).
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 666[514].
Respecting this number he enters into a special discussion, in which he first reproves those who hastily endeavoured to interpret it[515], 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 Dan[516]. 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 recommendations[517].
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 Jacob[518].
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 perplexity[519], and then will succeed a thousand of rest and enjoyment[520]. 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 endurance[521]. 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 Euphrates[522]. Then shall Jesus drink the fruit of the vine new with his disciples[523]; 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 earth[524]. Then shall the righteous hold intercourse and communion with Angels[525] in Jerusalem, which shall be then rebuilt[526].
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 difficulties[527].
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 image[528]. 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 paradise[529]; but all [pg 255] will have the continual manifestation of the presence of God, and be changed into his likeness[530].
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 age[531], 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 salvation[532].” 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 Son[533]. 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 Lord[534]. 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 Eve[535].” 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 others[536], 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 God[537].
Chapter XXI. Account of the Gnostic Teachers and Their Tenets.
Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.
Several writers have speculated upon the sources of the Gnostic errors; but, I believe that the assertion of Irenæus remains uncontradicted, that Simon Magus was the first to give them a definite form[538]. We learn from Theodoret[539], Elias Cretensis[540], and Nicetas[541], that he imagined an ogdoad of superior [pg 263] beings, all the rest of whom emanated from the first. He imagined one First Cause, the source of all existence, with whom he joined his Thought (Ἔννοια). Irenæus mentions no more than these[542]. Simon taught that this Thought, issuing forth from the Supreme Father, and knowing his intentions, descended from above, and produced the Angels and Powers by whom the world was made, and who were ignorant of the Father: that they, not wishing to acknowledge any author of their existence, detained her, and subjected her to every kind of contumely, to prevent her return to the Father, and caused her to exist in this world in perpetual transmigration from one female form to another.
He taught that he himself was this Supreme Father[543], and a prostitute, named Helena, whom he had purchased at Tyre, and with whom he cohabited, was his Thought, who had been formerly the Trojan Helen: that she was the lost sheep[544], and that he was come down upon earth to rescue her from the bondage in which she was held; and to rescue man by the knowledge of himself from the tyranny they were under to the angels who created the world. This tyranny was obedience to the moral law, which was imposed upon man by the agency of the inspired persons of the old dispensation solely to keep him in [pg 264] subjection: and the deliverance he accomplished for his followers was to bring them to believe that all actions were indifferent in their own nature, and that the will of the Creative Powers was the only thing which made one action more just than another. To do away with this tyranny, he declared that he had transformed himself first into a resemblance to the angels, then into that of man; in which latter form he had appeared in Judæa as the Son, and there apparently suffered; but only apparently[545]; that he had afterwards manifested himself to the Samaritans as the Father, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost[546].
Irenæus gives it as his own opinion that the conversion of Simon was only pretended; that he regarded the Apostles as nothing more than impostors or sorcerers of a somewhat deeper skill and subtler knowledge than himself, which he hoped to be initiated into: and that his mortification at the rebuff he met with caused him to set himself in opposition to them, and to dive deeper into magic arts for that purpose; on account of his proficiency in which he was honoured by Claudius Cæsar with a statue[547].
The natural fruits followed from such doctrines and such an example. The priests of his heresy [pg 265] were sorcerers of various degrees of ability, and their lives were very impure. They taught their followers to worship Simon under the form of Jupiter, and Helena under that of Minerva[548].
It is obvious that such a scheme was adapted only to the gross and ignorant, with just enough of mysticism about it to enable its founder to keep up the character of a philosopher with the more refined, and enable him to pass off his lewdness as the result of a philosophical system, rather than the dominion of low propensities. The Emperor Claudius, notorious as a man of weak intellect, was an extremely likely person to be both amused and duped by his magical performances.
We have here the germ of all the Antinomian heresies from that time to the present. However they may have been espoused by refined and virtuous minds, they all originate with persons of impure and unbridled propensities, who are unwilling to avow the real grossness of their characters, and therefore set up for some deeper knowledge or more subtle system than ordinary men.
It will be observed, too, that Irenæus confirms the [pg 266] statement of Justin Martyr respecting the statue erected in honour of Simon[549]. The subject is so well taken up by the late Dr. E. Burton, in the 42nd note to his Bampton Lectures, that I do not purpose to enter into it here, further than to remark that Irenæus ought not to be regarded as merely following Justin: for he himself had visited Rome, and was therefore likely to have informed himself personally upon a subject which he thought sufficiently important to bring forward in controversy.
It is likewise a fact deserving notice, that the first instance we have of the worship of images amongst persons recognizing in any degree the gospel, is to be found amongst the followers of Simon Magus. Something of this kind probably suggested St. John's caution: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
Concerning Nicolas, the author, whether intentionally or not, of the sect which bears his name[550], he informs us that he was one of the seven deacons, which some have doubted. He gives us no additional information concerning the sect, beyond that furnished by St. John[551]. This, however, connects [pg 267] them with the Gnostics in their licentious doctrines, and no further.
The Ebionites are mentioned by Irenæus, as though he meant to class them with the Gnostics: but all the information he gives respecting them leads to the conclusion that they had nothing in common with them, except their schism. He expressly states that they believed differently from the Gnostics, and agreed with Christians as to the creation of the world; and that they differed from Cerinthus and Carpocrates on the subject of the miraculous conception[552]. Tertullian[553] indeed implies that Ebion denied this latter fact; and Eusebius distinctly asserts of the great body of his followers, that they thought, as Carpocrates and Cerinthus did, that Jesus was a mere man, and exalted for his excellence like other men[554]: but he states, and Theodoret[555] confirms his statement, that there were Ebionites who believed the miraculous conception.
Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.
The succession of heresy, unlike that of the Church, had not for its object the keeping up of one uniform system of doctrine, but the exhibition of something sufficiently attractive or striking to prevent the minds of men from dwelling upon the truth. It required leaders, and therefore persons remarkable for ability of some kind or another. A successor was therefore provided to Simon in the person of Menander, a Samaritan like himself[556], and, as Justin informs us, his pupil[557]; but whose great qualification was, that he equalled or excelled his master in the knowledge of magic[558]. Heresy, likewise, not requiring to be uniform, permitted its successive teachers to improve upon the system of their predecessors; and by this means both satisfied the natural love of mankind for novelty, and kept up the appetite. So Menander differed a little from Simon, at least in expression, in saying that the Supreme Essence was unknown to all men. He likewise introduced another name from the Gospel, representing himself, not as the Supreme [pg 269] Being, either personally or by direct emanation and operation, (as Simon did,) but as the Saviour, sent by the unseen Powers for the salvation of man. He likewise taught his followers, that by the magical practices in which he instructed them, they might even vanquish the Angelic Creators of this lower world, which was somewhat more than Simon promised.
It appears likewise that he initiated his followers by baptism, which he represented as the true and only resurrection, and taught them to believe that after receiving it they could neither grow old nor die[559]. How he got over the fact that they did both, we are not informed: but this making baptism the same thing as the resurrection, explains St. Paul's words[560], where he represents some as teaching that “the resurrection is already past.” Hymenæus and Philetus, who spread this error in all probability in Asia Minor, might easily have been disciples of Menander, who made Antioch his head quarters[561].
Menander was succeeded by two of his pupils[562], Saturninus and Basilides, who, though taking up the same general system, were very different men, [pg 270] and therefore modified it in different ways, and were employed by their invisible master in different parts of his vineyard.
Saturninus remained at Antioch, teaching the same general doctrine as his preceptor Menander. He defined the number of the angels by whom the world was made to be seven[563], one of whom was the God of the Jews; and he introduced one of the remaining angels, who had not been concerned in the creation, under the name of Satan, as the opponent of the Creators, and more especially of the God of the Jews[564]. He represented the creation of man as having taken place at the suggestion of the Supreme Power, who exhibited to the angels a bright image of himself; which, as he immediately drew it up again to himself, they endeavoured to copy, and thus made man after its image and likeness: but not having the power to make him erect, he would have grovelled on the earth like a worm, had not the Supreme Power, taking compassion on this poor copy of himself, sent forth into it a spark of life, which gave it limbs and an erect posture[565]. By an unaccountable inconsistency, however, (for having a system to make or improve at pleasure, he might as well have made its parts consistent with each other,) he likewise taught that there were at first [pg 271] created two sorts of men, one of which was not enkindled with the celestial spark: that those alone would be saved who possessed it[566]; and that when they died, this heavenly portion of them would ascend to the Powers above, and the other portions of their nature would be dissolved[567].
The cause of the coming of the Saviour, or Christ, as they also called him, (who was unborn, incorporeal, and man only in appearance,) he declared to be the conspiracy of all the Angelic Princes, headed by the Jewish God, against the Supreme Father; which obliged him to come down to destroy the God of the Jews, together with demons and wicked men, and to save those who believed in him, that is, those who had received the spark of life. Who these demons were, or whether the whole of the angels were to be destroyed, we are not told[568].
The prophecies of the Old Testament he attributed partly to the Creators and partly to Satan[569].
It is evident that this is merely a modification of the scheme of Simon Magus, with the addition of Satan, and the Jewish God, and the spark of life: but there is another feature of his system which is remarkable, as differing widely from that of his [pg 272] predecessors. Instead of opening the door to unbridled lust, he affected an extraordinary repugnance to every thing carnal, declaring marriage and its natural consequences to be works of Satan; and some of his followers entirely abstain from animal food[570].
Basilides[571], the other successor of Menander, settled at Alexandria in Egypt. He was, as I have said, a man of very different character from Saturninus, and followed his master in his addiction to magical practices, and in his licentious doctrines; teaching likewise that meats offered to idols were to be eaten indifferently with others[572].
But that he might have something of his own, he greatly modified and added to the speculative system of his predecessors. He taught that from the Unborn Father was born his Mind, and from him the Word, from him Understanding (Φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power, and from them Excellences, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven. He then introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set derived from the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the author of their own peculiar [pg 273] heaven[573]. To all these angels and heavens he gave names[574], and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first of them is called Abraxas, a mystical name containing in it the number 365[575]; the last and lowest is the one which we see; the Creators of which made this world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this division the Jewish nation came to the share of the Prince of the Angels; and as he wished to bring all other nations into subjection to his favourite nation, the other angelic Princes and their nations resisted him and his nation[576]. The Supreme Father, seeing this state of things, sent his first-begotten Mind, who is also called Christ, to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the Creators. He accordingly appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds. He did not, however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of Cyrene, and stood by laughing whilst Simon suffered; and afterwards, being himself incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this transformation, Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all times deny him that was crucified, and that they alone who did so understood the providential dealings of the Most High, and by that knowledge were freed [pg 274] from the power of the angels, whilst those who confessed him remained under their power[577]. Like Saturninus, however, but in other words, he asserted that the soul alone was capable of salvation, but the body necessarily perishable[578].
He taught, moreover, that they who knew his whole system, and could recount the names of the angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and could pass through and see them, without being seen in return: that they ought likewise to keep themselves individually and personally unknown to common men, and even to deny that they are what they are; that they should assert themselves to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means reveal their mysteries[579]. This, of course, and their unscrupulousness as to actions of any kind whatever, would entirely exempt them from persecution.
It appears likewise, from a fragment preserved in Origen's Commentary on the Romans[580], that he taught the transmigration of souls. He affirmed that the martyrs suffered for offences committed at some other time: for he thought it contrary to the divine justice that any innocent person should suffer[581].
In this scheme we find a feature, which was afterwards taken up and amplified, viz., the connection of mystical numbers with Gnosticism.
It is likewise curious to observe how much of the Gospel history and phraseology was interwoven with it, without one single atom of its purity and regenerating influence.
Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.
Carpocrates is placed by Irenæus next to Basilides[582]: but as there is a general agreement amongst the early writers that Carpocrates was prior to Cerinthus[583], and that the latter flourished in the last years of St. John, it appears most probable that Carpocrates was, if any thing, earlier than Basilides, and more properly coeval with Menander. In favour of this idea there is this internal argument, that his system does not appear to be in any degree an amplification [pg 276] or alteration of that of Basilides, but rather to have been an independent modification of the original scheme of Simon.
He agreed with him, and Menander, and Basilides, in professing magic[584], and in preaching licentious doctrines. He agreed with Simon likewise in teaching the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and adapted it to the support of profligacy, by asserting that every soul is destined to become acquainted with every kind of action, and that it passes from body to body until it has accomplished every thing to which it is predestined[585].
Like all other Gnostics, he asserted that the world and human bodies were made by Angels[586]; he agreed with some in teaching that all souls were originally in the same sphere (περιφορὰ) as the Supreme Being[587], but that when once placed in bodies, they continued under the power of the Angels, until they had fulfilled their destined task; that when a person died, his soul was brought before the Prince of the Angels, by the Devil, and if it had not accomplished every thing, was handed over to another Angel, to be inclosed again in a body; but that when it has fulfilled [pg 277] its destiny they have no longer any power over it, but it returns to the Father, from whom it originally came[588].
Unlike Simon, however, or any whom I have yet mentioned, (except, perhaps, Ebion) he taught that Jesus was a mere man, the son of Joseph; that being brought up in the Jews' religion, remembering what he had been when in the same sphere with the Father, and being of an unusually firm and resolute mind, he looked down upon the Angels, and set at nought bodily suffering[589]. But his followers thought that there was no reason why any individual man might not surpass Jesus, and that, in point of fact, many of their sect were superior to the Apostles. Others went so far as to affirm, that the Apostles were not at all inferior to Jesus, and that if any man whatever could attain to a greater degree of contempt for the Creators than Jesus arrived at, he would become superior to him[590].
They affirmed that we are to be saved by faith and love; all actions being good or bad only according to human opinion; and that Jesus taught their system as an esoteric doctrine to the Apostles, who delivered it to those who were worthy[591].
Some branded their followers upon the right ear[592].
I mentioned before that the first worship of images arose amongst heretics: and it is remarkable that heretics again, viz. the Carpocratians, were the first to pay honour to the image of Christ, whom they worshipped equally with Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, with the same kind of honour as that which was customary amongst the heathen[593].
One of the female followers of Carpocrates, by name Marcellina, is said to have visited Rome in the time of Anicetus, and to have seduced many[594].
Respecting Cerinthus, whom we know from Irenæus to have been a contemporary of St. John[595], the information he furnishes is very slight. He did not attribute the Creation to the Angels in a body, but to some one Power far removed from the Supreme Power. He made Jesus a mere man, but more excellent than other men: he affirmed that the Christ had descended upon him at baptism, and made known to him the unknown Father, and empowered him to work miracles, but that he departed from him before the crucifixion, and left him to suffer alone[596].
Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.
Cerdon would seem to be another independent offset from the stock of Simon. He likewise taught a Supreme God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and another inferior deity, who inspired the prophets[597]. He joined the church at Rome under Hyginus, its bishop, i. e. about a.d. 141, and appears to have wished by all means to remain in its communion; and accordingly he recanted his error. He could not, however, refrain from spreading it covertly, and being detected, he again recanted; still he kept his heresy, and being at length judged incorrigible, he was withheld from the communion of the Church[598].
Marcion succeeded Cerdon[599], and took up and amplified his doctrine. He likewise made the Creator [pg 280] inferior to the Supreme God, and the author of evil, fond of war, inconsistent, and self-contradictory; and taught that Jesus was sent by the Supreme God to do away all the operations of the Creator, and especially the Law and the Prophets[600]. He agreed with other Gnostics in declaring that the soul alone was capable of salvation, and of souls only those which received his doctrine; but the peculiarity of his system was, that Cain, and the Sodomites, and Egyptians, &c. were saved by believing in Jesus, when he descended into hell; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the good men and prophets of the Old Covenant, having often been deceived by their God, were afraid to trust in Jesus, and consequently remain still in the state of death[601].
Another peculiarity was that, whilst professing to receive portions of the New Testament, such as the Gospel of St. Luke and the Epistles of St. Paul, he rejected every portion of them which he imagined to militate against his hypothesis[602].
Marcion, who, having been originally a Christian, [pg 281] and the son of a Bishop, had been excommunicated for seduction[603], appears to have harmonized with Saturninus in professing extraordinary strictness of habits[604]. Hence some of the followers of both formed themselves into a separate sect, called by a name (Ἐγκρατεῖς) of which perhaps Puritans is the best English Translation. Tatian, who had been a sincere Christian, was formerly a disciple of Justin, and had written a treatise to set forth the folly of the heathen religion[605], became a leading man amongst them: for they adopted an opinion of his that Adam was not saved. Their most distinguishing characteristics however were, their abstinence from marriage, and from animal food[606].
Marcion taught that Cain and the Sodomites, &c. were saved by believing in Jesus[607]. Others went further, and declared that they were agents of the Supreme Power, to oppose the God of this world. [pg 282] They likewise took Judas under their patronage, and declare that he betrayed Jesus, not from treachery or a love of gain, but because, being better instructed than the rest, he was aware that the death of Jesus would be the means of dissolving and breaking up the whole work of the Creator, whom they regarded as in rebellion against the Great Original[608].
Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.
Those of whom I have hitherto spoken have been acknowledged disciples, more or less directly, of Simon Magus. But there were others, who owned no connexion with him, and yet taught a system more or less like his. The Barbeliots, for instance, imagined one Supreme Being, and with him another Being of the female sex, but remaining always a virgin, and never growing old, whom they call Barbelo, Ennœa (Thought), &c.
They say that he willed to manifest himself to her, and that she, coming into his presence, called for Foreknowledge, and she came forth. At their [pg 283] request again Incorruption was produced, and then Life Eternal. After this Barbelo herself produced a light like to herself, which the Father saw and anointed with his goodness, and thus made it the Christ. At his request Understanding was sent him as a helpmate, and afterwards the Father added the Word: upon which there were made Pairs, by the union of Thought and the Word, Incorruption and the Christ, Life Eternal and the Will of the Father, Understanding and Foreknowledge; all of whom magnified the Great Light and Barbelo[609].
From Thought and the Word was then sent forth the Self-existent and the Truth; from the Christ and Incorruption, four Lights to attend upon the Self-existent; and from Will and Life Eternal, four Beings to wait upon these Lights, namely, Grace, Will, Comprehension (Σύνεσις), and Prudence. These were joined respectively to the four Lights, and made other four Pairs[610].
These two quaternions being settled, the Self-existent creates a man, in a state of perfection, named the Unconquered, and in union with him Knowledge, likewise perfect. From these were manifested the Mother, the Father, and the Son, and they jointly produced the tree of knowledge, [pg 284] and their enjoyment consists in celebrating the praises of the Great Being[611].
Lastly, Charis, the attendant upon Harmogenes[612], produces the Holy Spirit, called likewise Wisdom and Prunicus. She, seeing herself unmated, stretched herself forth in every direction, and even towards the nether parts, seeking her mate; and in the effort brought forth a production in which appeared presumption and ignorance; which production became the Prime Governor, and Maker of this world, and Creator of Powers and Angels, and being paired with Presumption, he begot malice, and emulation, and jealousy, and fury, and desire: upon which his mother, being grieved, departed and left him alone; whence he imagines that there is none but he, and utters that sentiment by the mouths of the prophets[613].
There was another more intricate and complete hypothesis, which owned no master, but took its denomination variously from two different marked [pg 285] portions of it, which will be noticed in their place[614].
It supposed, like most of its predecessors, an Original, called the First Light, the Father of all, and the First Man; and his Thought, issuing from him, and thence called the Son of Man. Next to them came the Holy Spirit, the first woman, which hovered over the elements, water, darkness, the abyss and chaos. From the Father and Son, impregnating the Spirit, came the Christ, the third man[615]. By this impregnation, however, she was filled so superabundantly, that she produced not only the Christ on the right hand, but also another Being, imbued likewise with light, called Wisdom and Prunicus, a hermaphrodite. Upon this the Christ was united with the first Three, and with them formed the true holy Church[616]; whilst Wisdom descended upon the waters, and moved them to their lowest depths, and took from them a material body, which had nearly overpowered her; but making a great effort, by the aid of the supernal light within her, she rose aloft, and from her body, by a voluntary expansion, created the heavens[617].
She, moreover, had a son, who knew not his mother, but sent forth from the waters a son of his [pg 286] own, and he another, and so on to the seventh, who, with their mother formed an ogdoad[618]; the first of whom was named Jaldabaoth, the second Jao, the third Great Sabaoth, the fourth Adonai, the fifth Eloeus (or Elohei), the sixth Horeus, the seventh Astaphæus. All these for some space of time sat harmoniously in heaven, in due subordination one to the other: but Jaldabaoth, confident in having been the author of the others, took upon him to create angels and archangels, and excellencies, and powers and dominions; envious at which, his posterity rebelled against him: upon which he fixed his desires upon the unformed matter, and from it produced a son in the form of a serpent, called Understanding, (from whom these people derived their name of Ophites[619],) and subsequently Spirit, Soul, and all earthly things, from which sprang forgetfulness, malice, emulation, jealousy, and death[620].
Jaldabaoth, blindly exulting in his success, exclaimed, I am Father and God, and besides me there is no other; but his mother astonished him and his posterity, by exclaiming, Lie not, Jaldabaoth, for there is above thee the First Man, the Father of all, and Man the Son of Man. To call off their attention [pg 287] from this intelligence, he invited them to make man in their own image. This idea their mother secretly encouraged, that they might empty themselves of their celestial virtue. Their production, however, although immense in size and length, lay sprawling on the ground, until they brought it to their father, who, to the great satisfaction of Wisdom, breathed into it the breath of life, and thereby emptied himself of his virtue[621]. This newly-created being, therefore, was possessed of understanding and desire, and deserting his Creators, gave thanks to the First Man[622].
Jaldabaoth upon this being jealous of him, endeavoured to re-extract the celestial virtue from him, by creating woman from his desire; but Prunicus, having invisibly taken charge of her, extracted the virtue from her, and the posterity of Jaldabaoth, admiring her beauty, called her Eve, and begot from her angels. The machinations of Prunicus did not end here, for she employed Understanding, the son of Jaldabaoth, who was in the form of a serpent, to seduce the man and woman into disobedience to the commands of Jaldabaoth, by eating the forbidden fruit[623], by which means they became acquainted with [pg 288] the Supreme Virtue, and forsook their Creators[624]. Upon this they were ejected from paradise, and being deprived by Prunicus of the divine light they had, that nothing divine might be subjected to curse, they were cast out into this world, together with the serpent, who from the earthly angels begat seven sons, in imitation of Jaldabaoth and his six descendants. These with their parent are always opposing the welfare of the human race[625].
Before Adam and Eve fell they had bright and spiritual bodies; but afterwards their bodies became opaque and heavy, and their souls relaxed and weak; until Prunicus having pity on them, restored to them the savour of the heavenly light, by which means they became aware of their degraded condition. Knowing, however, that the debasement was only temporary, they complied with their condition, ate and drank, and begat Cain and Abel, of whom Cain, being seized on by the serpent, fell into folly and presumption, envy and murder. After this, by the interposition of Prunicus, they begat Seth and Norea, from whom mankind sprung[626], and were seduced by the serpent and his children into every evil; although Prunicus constantly opposed them, and [pg 289] saved the celestial light[627]. So likewise when Jaldabaoth, enraged at not being worshipped by mankind, sent the flood upon them, Wisdom saved Noah and his family, for the sake of the tincture of light which was in them. Abraham, however, and the Jews were the chosen people of Jaldabaoth, who with his six descendants chose agents from among them, each for himself, to glorify him as God[628]. Moses, therefore, Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk, were the prophets of Jaldabaoth; Samuel, Nathan, Jonah, and Micah of Jao; Elijah, Joel, and Zachariah of Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel of Adonai; Tobias and Haggai of Elohei; Micah and Nahum of Horeus; Ezra and Zephaniah of Astaphæus[629].
But here again Wisdom, or Prunicus, interfered, and turned these prophets into her own instruments, causing them to speak of the Supreme Being, and of the Christ above, who was to descend upon earth. These announcements from the mouth of their own prophets so alarmed the Princes, the posterity of Jaldabaoth, that they left her at liberty to cause him, not knowing what he did, to send forth two men, one, John the Baptist, the other, Jesus[630]. For having found no rest below, she had returned in penitence to her mother, the Holy Spirit, the first [pg 290] woman, and called upon her for help. Whereupon the Holy Spirit petitioned the Supreme Father that the Christ might descend to her aid: of which, when she was aware, she inspired the prophets to speak; and likewise prepared John to announce his coming, and Jesus by means of her son Jaldabaoth, the God of this world, to be his receptacle upon earth[631].
The Christ therefore descended through the seven heavens[632], taking upon him the likeness of their children, and drew out from them their virtue, so that all the supernal light with which they were imbued returned to him; and having arrived in this world united himself to Wisdom, his sister, and in union with her descended upon Jesus, who thenceforward begun to work miracles. Upon this Jaldabaoth and his posterity united to kill him; whereupon the Christ and Wisdom left him, and returned to the upper sphere; not however deserting him altogether; for the Christ sent down upon him a power by which he rose again, clothed with a spiritual body[633]. But after this, although he remained on earth eighteen months, he wrought no miracle, (as neither did he before his baptism,) being forsaken by the Christ and Wisdom. Yet he was in a certain [pg 291] degree inspired, and taught these things to a few of his disciples[634].
At the end of eighteen months he was taken up into heaven, where the Christ placed him[635] on the right hand of his father Jaldabaoth, though without his knowledge, where his business is to receive the souls of those who know these doctrines, viz. those who are imbued with the heavenly light. By this means Jaldabaoth will by degrees lose the whole of that which he originally possessed, and be left entirely earthly and material; whilst the whole of the light will be withdrawn from the world and its creators; and then will be the consummation of all things [636].