An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr / Intended to Illustrate the Doctrine, Discipline, Practices, and History of the Church, and the Tenets and Practices of the Gnostic Heretics During the Second Century

by James Beaven

Subscribers' Names.

Her Majesty Adelaide The Queen Dowager.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrews, Mr., Bookseller, Durham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bagot, Lady Harriet, Cuddesden Palace, Oxfordshire.

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

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

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

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

Bamford, William, Esq., Rugeley, Staffordshire.

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

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

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

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

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

Blackburn, Rev. Peter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Browne, Mrs. Anne.

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

Buckmaster, Nevill, Esq.

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

Budd, Miss, Croscombe, Somerset.

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

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

C., F.

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

Cambridge, Mrs.

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

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

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

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

Cheetham Library, Manchester.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crowther, H., Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferard, Joseph, Esq., Temple, London.

Fisher, Joseph, Esq., Englefield, Berkshire.

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

Fortescue, ——, Esq.

Fox, William, Esq., Woodseat, Staffordshire.

Fox, Mrs., Woodseat.

Fox, Mrs. Sarah.

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

Frith, ——, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hart, Mrs., Uttoxeter, 2 copies.

Hart, Miss, Uttoxeter, 2 copies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H., Miss.

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

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

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

Hoare, Henry James, Esq., Morden Lodge.

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

Hoare, Mrs. Peter, Kilsey Park, Kent.

Hoare, Miss.

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

Hoon, Mr., Bookseller, Ashbourne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jelf, Mrs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

King, Rev. Charles, Close, Salisbury.

King, Hon. Mr. Locke, Woburn.

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

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

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

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

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

Langham, Dowager Lady, 2 copies.

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

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

Le Hunt, Peter Bainbrigge, Esq., Ashbourne.

Lendon, Rev. Charles, Curate of Kensington.

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

Lloyd, Thomas, Esq., Bronwydd, Cardiganshire.

Lloyd, James, Esq., Bronwydd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mair, Rev. Henry, Donhead Lodge, Wilts.

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

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

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

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

Monkhouse, Mrs. Adderbury, Oxfordshire.

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

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

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

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

Noel, Rev. B., Walthamstowe, Essex.

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

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

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

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

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

Parsons, John, Esq., Oxford.

Philips, Robert, Esq., Heybridge, Staffordshire.

Philips, Mrs. R., Heybridge.

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

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

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

Preston Clerical Book Society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redstone, Mr., Bookseller, Guernsey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robinson, Frederick, Esq., 2 copies.

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

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

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

St. Edmund Hall, Library of, Oxford.

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

Seagrave, Mrs., Bromshall Rectory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spreat, Mr., Bookseller, Exeter.

Stevenson, Mr., Bookseller, Cambridge.

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

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

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

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

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

Townsend, Rev. George, Prebendary of Durham.

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

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

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

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

Tritton, Miss, Morden.

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

Vaux, Rev. Bowyer, Hethersett, Norfolk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

If Polycarp is an object of great interest, as the disciple of St. John, and the hearer both of him and of other contemporaries of our Lord; if Justin is so, as having been the first man of eminent learning who came over from the walks of heathen philosophy to submit his mind to the doctrine of Christ; Irenæus, again, has claims upon our attention scarcely less, as having been brought up in the Christian faith under the eye of Polycarp; having, therefore, no previous tinge of Judaism or heathen philosophy, but imbued with Christian principles almost, if not quite, from his cradle, and at the same time displaying equal vigour of mind, if not equal knowledge of heathen learning, with either Justin or Clement of Alexandria[2]. To these circumstances we are no doubt to attribute it, that there appear in his writings a [pg 002] greater justness of reasoning, and a more unexceptionable use of scripture, than is to be found in the writers of the Alexandrian school.

With regard to the time of his birth we know nothing certain. We find him still a lad, παῖς ὢν ἔτι[3], listening to the Christian instruction of Polycarp, not long, as it would appear, before the death of that martyr. For, after saying[4] that he had seen Polycarp [pg 003] in the early part of his life, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡλικίᾳ,—in order to account for what might appear improbable, viz., his being the contemporary of that martyr at all,—he says, that Polycarp lived to a very advanced age; ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γεραλέος ... ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου. This makes it evident that it must have taken place towards the very close of Polycarp's life; and yet not so near to it but that he had had time to mark[5] his manner of life, and the discourses he made to the people, and remembered his account of his familiar intercourse with the apostle John, and the survivors of those who had seen the Lord, and his rehearsals of their sayings, and of their accounts of the discourses and miracles of the Lord. All this would require, one should suppose, at least five or six years. Then, again, we are to bear in mind that he would not have been capable of marking things of such a nature, (so as to remember them, as he tells us he did, perfectly,) when a young child, nor until his mind had in some degree begun to expand. So that we can scarcely suppose him younger than sixteen at the time of Polycarp's martyrdom, and the expression παῖς would admit of his being some years older.

Dodwell[6], indeed, has endeavoured to arrive at greater accuracy, and thinks that, by another casual expression of Irenæus, in his letter to Florinus, he is enabled to fix the date absolutely. Irenæus remarks [pg 004] that he had seen Florinus, when himself still a lad, in the company of Polycarp, in Lower Asia; when at the same time Florinus was getting on very prosperously at the court of the emperor: λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ. Taking it for granted that Irenæus intends to say that he was an actual witness of the prosperity of his friend, and consequently that the imperial court must have been at that very time sojourning in Lower Asia, and having ascertained that Adrian is the only emperor who appears to have remained any time there, he fixes upon the year 122 as the probable year in which Adrian might have been there, and thus imagines that he has established at least one date with certainty. Now the stress of the observation of Irenæus does not lie upon the success of Florinus at court, but upon his having associated with Polycarp, and having endeavoured to gain his good opinion; that, so far as appears, is the only thing which Irenæus witnessed. The imperial court may therefore have been at some other place, and Florinus may have been only on a visit at Smyrna, at the time when Irenæus saw him there.

There is another objection to this hypothesis of Dodwell, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp, which took place a.d. 166-7. We have seen above that Irenæus could not have known him for many years before his death, [pg 005] whereas Dodwell's notion would require him to have been acquainted with him forty years before, when it is impossible Polycarp could have been very old, to say nothing of Irenæus' implication as to its having been towards the close of his life. If we suppose, then, that he was acquainted with him for six or eight years, and that he was about eighteen at the time of his martyrdom, it will make the birth of Irenæus to have taken place about the year 150. This, at all events, is the latest date we can assign to it. Dupin[7] and Massuet[8] place it a.d. 140; Tillemont[9] twenty years earlier; and Dodwell is desirous of carrying it up ten or twenty years earlier still. Perhaps Massuet's date may be nearest the truth. But exactness in these particulars is of the less moment, as we have, established by his own mouth, the main circumstance on account of which it is of importance to ascertain it: for the chief, if not the only, reason for desiring to fix the date of his birth is, that we may judge what kind of witness he is likely to have been of apostolical tradition. Now we have seen him expressly affirming that he had heard Polycarp recount the narratives and doctrines of St. John and other contemporaries of Christ; and he likewise informs us he paid diligent attention to him, and that he remembered him so minutely that he [pg 006] could[10] point out the place where he sat, and trace the walks he was accustomed to take; and moreover, that he not only heard his words, but treasured them up in his memory, and was continually refreshing his remembrance of them by meditation upon them. The testimony of such a witness must be more than ordinarily valuable.

Upon the death of Polycarp, it is probable that he put himself under the guidance of Papias, as he is called by Jerome[11] his disciple. Certain it is, that he several times quotes that pious but too credulous writer, and that with evident approbation. There is likewise a person, whom he does not name, but whom he often mentions[12], from whom he appears to [pg 007] have learnt much, and who was a contemporary of the apostolical generation. Some have conjectured him to have been the same as Papias[13]. Dodwell thinks him to have been Pothinus[14], the predecessor of Irenæus in the see of Lyons; yet, if he had been either one or the other of them, there appears no reason why he should not have named him; for he does mention Papias by name more than once, and Pothinus was likewise a person of sufficient eminence to have been quoted by name. The probability appears to be, that he was a person of no great note, but who had the advantage of being a hearer of those who had seen the Lord[15].

How long Irenæus continued to reside in Asia Minor we know not; but we find him next at Lyons[16], [pg 008] a priest of the church there, under Pothinus[17], its venerable bishop. What led him there we are not informed. The place lay a good way up the Rhone, near the mouth of which was Marseilles, a Greek colony from Phocæa in Asia Minor[18], with which commercial intercourse had been kept up ever since b.c. 600. Business or relationship might have taken [pg 009] him thither, or even to Lyons itself. For although this latter was a Roman colony, and its name, Lugdunum, sufficiently evinces that it was not of Greek foundation, yet the number of Greek names[19] amongst the Christians there shows that there must have been many of that race residing there. Indeed, the circumstance that the Montanist heresy, which arose in Phrygia, spread in no long time to Lyons, and that the Lyonnese wrote to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, both to give an account of the persecution, and to discountenance the opinions of Montanus, clearly prove that there was some reason for frequent intercourse and sympathy between Lyons and Asia Minor.

There is no reason, therefore, to conjecture any extraordinary mission or other conjuncture to bring him into that part of the world. He may have been ordained priest after he arrived there; but we cannot argue that with any certainty from his being called by Jerome[20] a priest of Pothinus; for even when church discipline attained its greatest strictness, and every bishop regarded an ecclesiastic ordained by himself as his subject, there was nothing to prevent a bishop from transferring one of his clergy to the jurisdiction [pg 010] of another bishop, whose subject he thenceforward became. So that the epithet made use of by Jerome only proves—what we know from Eusebius[21]—that Irenæus was a priest of the diocese of Lyons when Pothinus was bishop.

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

But wheresoever Irenæus first entered into the priesthood, he had abode so long at Lyons in the year 177[22], that he had gained the character of a person zealous for the gospel of Christ[23], and recommended [pg 011] more by his intrinsic excellence than by his sacred office; and was so relied upon as to be chosen by the martyrs of Lyons, then in prison, as a fit person to send to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, with their testimony against the Montanists. It is, indeed, barely said by Eusebius[24], that their epistles were written for the purpose of promoting the peace of the churches (τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες); but connecting them, as he does in his narrative, with the mention of the Montanist heresy, and of the dissensions occasioned by it (διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ τῶν δεδηλωμένων), it is unavoidable to conclude that they had reference to it. Some light may be thrown upon the subject by the assertion of Tertullian[25], that [pg 012] a bishop of Rome had admitted the Montanists to communion by giving them letters of amity. Who the bishop was he gives no hint; and as he connects the matter with the account of the dissemination of the heresy of Praxeas, some, as Dupin[26] and Tillemont[27], have concluded that it could not have been an earlier bishop than Victor, because Praxeas did not appear as a heretic at an earlier period. This, however, as Massuet justly argues[28], is not conclusive; for the throwing together two things in a narrative by no means proves that they closely followed each other; and this visit of Praxeas to Rome may, with greater probability, be assumed to have been when he was a catholic. A sufficient space of time had evidently elapsed between the visit of Praxeas to Rome, under the bishop who had granted communicatory letters to the Montanists, and the time when Tertullian was writing[29], to allow of his becoming tinged with the Patripassian heresy, of his disseminating it secretly, of his avowing it openly, of his being convinced of his error, and being reconciled to the church; finally, of his relapsing, and ultimately quitting the church. All this would take up many [pg 013] years, and allow ample time for the supposition that Eleutherus was the bishop alluded to; not to say that a bishop of Rome was little likely to have listened to him when an avowed heretic. And then the letter of the martyrs has a well-defined object, viz., to dissuade him from contributing to rend the church in pieces by countenancing a set of men who had been excommunicated by the churches by whom they were surrounded, and by those in Gaul with which they were in some degree connected; and thoroughly explains the expression of Eusebius, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

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

As we know that the Church of Lyons sent these letters to Eleutherus, with one of their own, preserved in part by Eusebius[30], giving an account of the martyrdoms, it has been supposed by some that Irenæus actually wrote this letter; and the idea is confirmed [pg 014] by the circumstance, that Œcumenius, in his Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter, (cap. 3. p. 498.) has preserved a fragment of a writing of Irenæus, concerning Sanctus and Blandina. Now, these two persons are mentioned particularly in the letter of the Church of Lyons[31]; of which, therefore, this fragment (numbered xiii. in the Benedictine edition) is probably another remnant. There is no ground for doubting that Irenæus did really visit Rome; the more especially, as two of his subsequent compositions were occasioned by errors of priests of that Church—viz. Florinus and Blastus[32].

Pothinus died in this persecution, as really a martyr as others who have been regarded as more truly such. Being upwards of ninety years old, suffering under infirmity both of age and sickness, dragged to the tribunal, and back again to prison, without any regard to his weakness and age, beaten, [pg 015] kicked, and assailed with every missile that came to hand, it is more wonderful that he did not breathe his last under their hands, than that he lingered out two days in the prison[33]. Irenæus succeeded him[34]; and if we may judge of him by the ability, learning, zeal, and sound judgment displayed in his writings, and by the Christian temper he evinced on the occasion of the paschal controversy, we may safely conclude that he was a more than worthy successor.

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

One other point about this visit remains to be noticed. It has been supposed[35] that Irenæus went to Rome to be consecrated to the Church of Lyons, or that he was consecrated there. That he went there for any such purpose is contrary to all the evidence we have, which specifies another cause for his journey, and does not hint at this. Massuet, indeed, argues, from Jerome's relating his visit to Rome immediately before his ordination, as successor to Pothinus[36], that the two must have an explicit connexion with each other; but the very connecting term postea, and the reason given with it, that Pothinus had suffered martyrdom, would rather appear to separate the journey with its circumstances, from the ordination with its reason. He likewise relies upon the request of the martyrs to Eleutherus, ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει[37]; which he chooses to translate, ut ipsum cæteris anteponas. So very much to be drawn from one word, reminds one of Dodwell's theories. The expression might, indeed, possibly have a force, which it is rather surprising that Massuet has overlooked. It might mean “place [pg 018] him by thy side,” which, if it had occurred to the French divine, he would probably have translated, “Elatum eum fac in eundem quem ipse tenes ordinem:” “Make him a bishop like thyself.” But when we take it in connexion with the concluding clause, ἐν πρώτοις ἂν παρεθέμεθα, the phrase would appear to signify nothing more than, “Treat him with all respect.”

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

But whatever may be doubtful, one thing is certain, that Irenæus did succeed Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. Of his conduct in his own particular Church we have no means of judging, for no record has survived to tell us of anything he did there. It appears certain, from the expression of Eusebius[38], ἐπεσκόπει τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν, that he was primate, or, at least, had influence over several dioceses in Gaul; as παροικία in the early writers commonly signifies a diocese[39]. This idea is farther confirmed by the use of a parallel expression[40], to describe the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. It is well known that, in the time of Athanasius, the number of dioceses under him was near a hundred[41]; of these, between seventy and eighty were in Egypt, and sixteen within seventy miles of Alexandria, and in the same civil province of Ægyptus Prima. Over all these, the bishop of Alexandria exercised a control more complete [pg 020] than that of any other patriarch of those times. I mention these circumstances to show that, at the time to which Eusebius refers, his archiepiscopal province must have been considerable. And as the ecclesiastical station of Irenæus is described in the same terms, it almost amounts to demonstration, that he held a similar pre-eminence. The only difference is, that Irenæus is said to have ruled the παροικιῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν, and the bishop of Alexandria those κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν. But this expression only shows that the Churches in Egypt emanated from Alexandria, and were permanently dependent upon it; whilst those in Gaul emanated from no point within the country, nor were permanently dependent upon any one church. If any one should suppose that the term παροικία is used with regard to Alexandria in its modern sense of parish, and that Eusebius is speaking of the extent of the single diocese of Alexandria, I will only say, that that whole diocese contained only fourteen pastors, that the city contained sixteen churches[42]; and that Socrates, who wrote more than one hundred years after Eusebius, when describing the distinction of the pastoral charges in the diocese of Alexandria, merely says[43], that they were like παροικίαι: so that this word had retained its meaning of diocese even to that period.

Massuet, indeed, argues at great length[44] against the idea that there was any other bishop in Gaul than the bishop of Lyons; but all his arguments resolve themselves into the one, that there is no mention made in any early writer of any other. On this ground one might, with equal reason, conclude that there were no bishops in Britain before the council of Arles, when they are first mentioned. But until it can be shown that there is an instance in any writer anterior to Eusebius, or of his time, of the use of the term παροικία to signify a parochial church or parish, the simple use of this word by him is sufficient evidence against all negative arguments whatever. What the author of the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Saturninus says[45] of the fewness of churches in Gaul in his time is really no contradiction to this opinion; for if there were at that time as many as twenty or thirty, it would be extremely few, considering the extent of the country.

I have said that we have no record of the operations of Irenæus as bishop of Lyons. I mean, that we know of nothing which he did in that particular church. He bore, in a general way, the character of “the light of the western[46] Gauls,” and is said to [pg 022] have “cultivated and enlightened the Celtic nations[47].” And in consonance with this there is a tradition[48], though of comparatively recent date, that he sent a priest and deacon as missionaries to Besançon, and a priest and two deacons to Valence, in Dauphiné. The circumstance is very probable in itself, and [pg 023] is in agreement with the traditions of those Churches.

We now come to a more remarkable period of his life. We have seen that the Christians of that age looked with peculiar anxiety to Rome, as the Church where, from the constant meeting together of Christians from the provinces, the traditions of the catholic Church were most accurately preserved. Any departure of that Church from purity of doctrine would be of more serious consequence than the deflexion of one of less influence. Irenæus had been taught to exercise this feeling by his mission from the martyrs; and had no doubt learnt to feel it more deeply on the spot, when he trode the ground consecrated by the martyrdom of the two great apostles with whose joint superintendence and instruction that Church was so long favoured, and when he observed how every heretic likewise resorted to Rome, as a more important theatre than any other. Nor can we suppose that he had left that Church without forming some bond of union with individual members of it. His heart, therefore, returned no doubt to it, and caused him to indite those several epistles Eusebius mentions[49], occasioned by the dissensions he heard of as prevailing there. The first mentioned by the historian is that addressed to Blastus on the subject of schism. What it was which led [pg 024] him into schism is variously related by ancient writers. Eusebius simply says[50] that he indulged in speculations of his own at variance with truth. Theodoret[51] stated that he was entangled in the errors of Marcion and Valentinus; but if he had been so at that time, it appears most probable that Irenæus would have noticed the errors themselves even more prominently than the schism which accompanied them. A more probable account is that given by the ancient author whose addition to one of Tertullian's works is commonly printed with it[52], that “he wished covertly to introduce Judaism;” and in particular, that “he insisted on the observance of the paschal season on the fourteenth day of the moon, according to the law of Moses;” with which agrees what Pacian says[53], “that he was a Greek, and that he adhered to the Montanists;” for the Montanists, having arisen in Asia Minor, celebrated that season at the same time as the other Christians of that country, i. e. with the Jews. So that his schism probably consisted in this, that having come from Asia, he wished to raise a party favourable to the Asiatic practice, or, at least, declined to conform to that of Rome. And we can imagine how earnestly Irenæus would press him to conform to the usages of the Church in which he sojourned; a thing he could do with so much greater authority, inasmuch [pg 025] as, being himself of Asiatic birth, and brought up in the very church of Polycarp, he had conformed to the Western usage.

Whether it was before or after this time that Blastus left the communion of the Church we know not. Eusebius, however, relates[54], (at least so Massuet[55], with great probability, apprehends his meaning,) that he was deposed from the priesthood, and that he detached many from the Church to follow speculations of his own, at variance with the truth. Theodoret's statement may therefore be substantially correct, although at a period subsequent to that at which Irenæus wrote the letter Περὶ Σχίσματος.

The next letter Eusebius mentions is that to Florinus. This person was likewise a priest of the Church at Rome, and had been known to Irenæus in early life[56], when they were both pupils of Polycarp, and Florinus was high in the court of the reigning emperor. But he had forsaken civil life, and entered holy orders, from which he was now ejected, as being the head of a party holding novel and peculiar [pg 026] opinions[57]. His peculiarity is distinctly specified, viz. that he taught that God was the author of evil. To avoid this conclusion, Marcion had taught two first principles—the one of good, the other of evil. It was probably in combating this error that Florinus had insisted on the unity of God, and of his providential government, which he had expressed by the term μοναρχία, and, from opposing one heresy with zeal too ardent for his judgment, had fallen into the opposite one. Irenæus, upon hearing of the fall of his former acquaintance, felt an earnest desire to restore him, and accordingly wrote to him, endeavouring, as it would appear, to explain the true notion of the μοναρχία of God, and especially to combat his peculiar error. A fragment of this letter is preserved by Eusebius[58], and printed[59] at the end of the best editions of the works of Irenæus. In it Irenæus represents to him how much at variance his opinions were with those of the Church; how impious in their tendency; how far beyond what any excommunicated heretic had ever taught; how much opposed to apostolical tradition: and he appeals to him from his own remembrance of the teaching of Polycarp (whom they had mutually reverenced), and from his published epistles, how shocked that blessed martyr would have been if he had heard such blasphemies.

But Irenæus, as it would appear, succeeded only so far with the unstable Florinus as to drive him from his position, that God was the author of evil. From this he went into the Valentinian speculations, by which they endeavour to escape the great difficulty of the origin of evil[60]. From them he learnt to believe in an ogdoad of emanations from the Supreme Being, from one of the later of whom, by a species of accident, evil sprung. Irenæus could not give up his ancient friend, but composed for his use a treatise[61] upon this portion of the Gnostic theory. Of this, however, we have not a fragment left which can throw any light upon its structure. There is only the concluding sentence preserved[62], in which he adjures the transcriber of it to compare it most carefully with the original, and to append the adjuration itself to his transcript. We might wonder, perhaps, at the solemnity of the adjuration, did we not consider how important it was that Irenæus himself should not be represented, by any error of the copyist, as holding opinions at variance with the truth he was so anxious to maintain. [pg 028] But although we have no distinct remains of this particular treatise, it is highly probable that it formed the germ of that great work which has, in some sort, remained entire, and upon which the reputation of Irenæus, as a controversial writer, altogether rests. To that I will now direct my attention.

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

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

There was another feature of the scheme, which served a further purpose. They pretended that the minds which inhabit human bodies are of two kinds, spiritual and carnal; that the carnal alone are the work of the Creator of this world, whilst the spiritual are emanations from the highest and purest order of spiritual beings: that the carnal are readily contaminated by the flesh and the world, and thence require restraint and law; whilst the spiritual are only placed in bodies for a time, that they may know everything, but incapable of contamination, and destined, after a period of exercise, to be taken up into the Supernal Fulness. By this theory the abstracted and mystical were flattered with the idea of spiritual superiority to their fellow-men; whilst the worldly and sensual might keep up the highest pretensions, and yet wallow in the most revolting profligacy. It was under this latter phase that Gnosticism first showed itself amongst the half-civilized, semi-Roman inhabitants of southern Gaul. In its more abstract and refined form it would have had no attraction for them; for the European mind is too plain and common-sense to follow subtilties. But its practical licentiousness found a fit nidus in the accompanying sensual disposition which marked the Romans of that age, and all who were tinged with their blood. It worked its way for some time in silence, till the attention of the bishop of Lyons was drawn to it by the seduction of Christian matrons, and by the influx of extraordinary impurity throughout [pg 031] that region[63]. He was thus led to trace the mischief to its cause; and finding this to be his old enemy, under its then prevailing form of Valentinianism, which thus appeared to be rearing its head everywhere, and had now come to assail him on his own ground, he set himself to understand its system thoroughly, that, by refuting it both in its principle and in its details, he might completely disabuse the Christian world, do away with the divisions, and impurities, and calumnies, arising from it, and thus afford the freer scope for the power of truth upon the hearts and practice of men.

He was the more determined upon doing this by [pg 032] the solicitations of a friend, who appears to have lived more in the heart of the mischief than himself[64]. Who he was we are not told. That he had some pastoral charge is most probable, from the concluding portion of the preface to the first book, in which Irenæus speaks to his friend as having spiritual care of others, and as able, both by his station and by his abilities, to turn to the best account the hints he was able to furnish him. That the native, or at least customary, language of his friend was Greek, may be inferred from the work being in that language, and by the apology made for the imperfections of the style; and altogether, it seems most probable that he was a bishop of one of the Greek colonies of southern Gaul.

In the accomplishment of this work he no doubt [pg 033] made use of the treatise of Justin Martyr against the Marcionites, now lost to us, because superseded by the completer work of Irenæus. But he derived the greatest help from the writings of the Gnostics themselves, from which he learnt their scheme without any possibility of doubt or gainsaying, and thus was enabled, by the mere statement, in open light, of its fantastic puerilities, to unclothe it of the mystery which was one of its chief recommendations, to demonstrate more clearly its self-contradictions, and to contrast it in its naked folly with the simplicity of acknowledged truth[65].

To the ascertaining of the date of this composition we have but two certain guides. One is, the list of bishops of Rome given in the beginning of the third book[66]. The catalogue closes with the name of Eleutherus, and thus shows that that book, at least, was begun, and most probably published, under his pontificate, [pg 034] which began about a.d. 177. The other is, that in the same book the author mentions the translation of the Old Testament by Theodotion[67]. Now that translation was not made till about a.d. 184[68]. Irenæus would not become acquainted with it immediately; so that we are driven towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus, who died a.d. 192, for the publication of the third book. The work appears to have grown upon the hands of the writer, and to have become more than twice as voluminous as when it was first planned[69]. The books were written separately, as he found his matter arrange itself, and the two first apparently sent first[70], [pg 035] followed by the three others at distinct intervals[71].

The general object of the first book is to give a full exposition of the Gnostic doctrines[72]. The first [pg 036] seven chapters contain a detailed account of the system of Valentinus, who was at that time the most fashionable teacher of those doctrines. The eighth gives the Valentinian explanation of numerous passages of Scripture, which they brought forward as corroborative of the truth of their system, although they did not pretend to rest it upon them; and the ninth refutes those explanations. The tenth points out the unity of Catholic doctrine, and the remaining chapters are occupied in exhibiting the discrepancies of the various Gnostic sects and teachers.

The object of the second book is to overthrow the system, both in its principle and in its details, by demonstrating its contradictoriness and impossibility[73]. The first nineteen chapters are occupied in the destruction of the system; the next five are a fuller refutation of their arguments in support of it than he had given in chapter nine of the first book; and the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth [pg 037] lay down certain rules for the proper study of the Scriptures. The rest of the book is taken up with a fuller consideration and refutation of particular opinions held by Gnostics.

Irenæus himself states it to be the object of the third book to confute the heretical system by Scripture, as containing in writing the undoubted doctrine of those apostles through whose preaching the economy of salvation was originally revealed, and from whom the Church received the doctrine she preached[74]. But since the heretics appealed to tradition as interpreting Scripture, he likewise appeals to it in the second, third, and fourth chapters[75]; and having shown that it is totally adverse to the heretical doctrine, he returns to the argument from Scripture[76], and carries it on by quotations briefly from the Old Testament, and more fully from the words of the evangelists and apostles, showing, to the end of the fifteenth chapter, that they knew but one God, and from thence to the end of the twenty-second chapter, that they taught but one Jesus Christ, truly God and truly man. The twenty-third is a refutation of Tatian's opinion, that Adam was not saved; and the two last contain sundry general reflections.

Our author had confined himself in the third book for the most part to the testimony of evangelists and apostles; he informs us, that his object in the fourth is to show that our Lord himself testified of only one God, his Father, the maker and governor of the world, the author of the old and new covenants, and the judge of all mankind[77]. He does not carry on his argument with much regularity, and it would be difficult to give any useful analysis of it. But he discusses, towards the end, in chapters thirty-seven, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine, the great question of the accountability of man, and the freedom of the will.

In the preface to the fifth book[78], he announces his intention of carrying on the argument by quotations from the writings of the apostle Paul, to show that the same God who had spoken to Abraham and given the law had in the latter days sent his Son to give salvation to human flesh; which he pursues in [pg 039] the first eighteen chapters, dwelling particularly on the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh (chap. 7-14), and corroborating S. Paul's doctrine from other parts of Scripture. He is thence led to the object and end of the scheme of salvation by Christ, and the opposition to it by Satan (chap. 19-24), especially the great opposition to it through the agency of antichrist (chap. 24-30), and passes from the notice of the state of departed souls (chap. 31) to exhibit and confirm his opinion of the terrestrial reign of Christ and the righteous (chap. 32-35), concluding with the consummation of all things in the eternal felicity of the just.

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

The work, as I have said, was written in Greek; but the greater portion of the original has been lost. What remains has been preserved by various authors in the form of quotations. In this way two-thirds of [pg 040] the first book have come down to us; a few detached fragments in the latter half of the second; considerably larger and more numerous portions of the third; very little of the fourth, but copious extracts from the fifth, especially near the beginning. The whole, however, existed in the ninth century, as we learn from the testimony of Photius[79]. But, although we have lost the greater part of the original, an ancient Latin translation of the whole work has been preserved to us. The precise antiquity of this version we are unable to ascertain; but the closeness with which Tertullian appears to follow it in many passages[80], and in particular his making the very same [pg 041] mistakes as the interpreter, (as for instance, in regard to the name of the heretic Epiphanes, which they [pg 042] have both rendered by an epithet, and others instanced by Massuet,) almost amounts to a demonstration [pg 043] that he had read that version. That it existed in the time of S. Augustin, is certain, as he quotes it at least twice, almost word for word[81].

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

In his opposition to the Gnostics, Irenæus had to combat a heresy; the next circumstance which brought him forward was, a schism which threatened to separate a portion of the Christian world from the communion of its most influential Church. There had been a variation in very early times, and indeed from the beginning, between the Churches of Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia on the one hand, and the rest of the Christian world on the other, in regard to the keeping of Easter;—other Churches uniting in keeping Easter-day on a Sunday, whilst the Christians of those countries kept it at the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week it happened to fall[82]. The inconvenience had been felt in the time of S. Polycarp, who sojourning in Rome in the time of its bishop Anicetus, they endeavoured [pg 045] each to persuade the other to embrace the practice he followed. But their conferences were without any other effect than to cause both parties to agree to differ in peace[83]. But Victor, who succeeded Eleutherus in the see of Rome, viewed the matter in a different light. He had no doubt felt the inconvenience of this diversity of practice when Blastus endeavoured to raise a schism in Rome on this very point[84]. He therefore conceived the idea of using his influence, as the bishop of the principal Church [pg 046] in the world, to bring all Christians to one uniform rule. For this purpose he wrote to certain[85] leading bishops in Asia, requesting them to convene synods of the neighbouring bishops, in order to come to an agreement; which was done accordingly; and they all, with the exception of the Churches above mentioned, wrote circular letters to the whole catholic Church, affirming that with them the apostolical tradition was, not to break their paschal fast until the Sunday. Eusebius particularly mentions[86] the dioceses in Gaul under the superintendence of [pg 047] Irenæus as having agreed upon such a synodical letter, which he asserts was in existence in his time. So far, Victor was successful; and, probably upon the strength of the almost universal agreement of the Churches, he appears to have held out some threat to those of Asia Minor[87], unless they thought proper to conform to the general practice. This, however, they absolutely refused to do; maintaining that their region abounded with relics of apostles and martyrs, and that they preserved a tradition purer than that of any other Church, and more consonant with the Scriptures. This reply so incensed Victor, that he forthwith issued letters, announcing that the Asiatic brethren were cut off from the common unity of Christians[88]. Here, however, he was not followed by those who had previously agreed with him; and Irenæus in particular, in the name of the Christians in Gaul under his jurisdiction, wrote both to Victor and to various other bishops[89], strongly [pg 048] pressing milder measures, and reminding the Roman prelate of the example of Anicetus, one of his predecessors, who paid Polycarp the highest honour, even when assured that he would not conform to the Western custom, and regarded his own as more apostolical.

What the immediate result of these letters was we are not informed by any contemporary writer. Anatolius, indeed, (if the Latin version of his Treatise on the Paschal Cycle, published by Bucherius, is to be relied on,) asserts that Victor did not persist in his excommunication[90]; and we know subsequently[91] [pg 049] that many Churches in Asia adhered to the Jewish reckoning, and yet were not on that account regarded with any aversion by their brethren; and it was not until the council of Nice that their bishops there assembled agreed to follow the general custom[92],—to which, however, many persons did not conform in the time of Chrysostom.

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

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

Now so far we have no claim set up inconsistent [pg 051] with the station of influence and dignity which we readily concede to have appertained to the Roman bishops from very early times; and which, if not most grossly abused, would never have been denied to them. Some[93] have supposed that he, with his letters, issued a threat of excommunicating those Churches which refused to comply with the western custom; but that is opposed to the sequel of the history, from which we learn that such a threat would have called forth remonstrances, of which in this stage of the business we hear nothing.

Having received letters from every quarter except from Asia Minor, stating that the traditional custom was the same as that of Rome, he then, instead of proceeding by persuasion, immediately conceived the idea of compelling the dissentient Churches to comply with his wishes, by threatening to cut them off from communion if they declined. His threat had no effect, and he proceeded to put it into execution, nothing doubting that the Churches who had been with him hitherto would still stand by him. And this is the point at which we encounter something like the modern papal claims; for he declared the Churches of Asia Minor cut off, not only from his communion, but from the common unity[94]. Some might argue that he must have had some foundation [pg 052] for this claim; but till something of the kind can be shown, we have no need to suppose any ground but a strong desire of a rash and determined mind to carry the point he had undertaken. Be the ground what it may, the Catholic Church negatived his claim; those who agreed with him in the desire of bringing about unity of practice[95] would not unite with him in excommunicating their brethren, but rebuked him sharply[96]; and Irenæus in particular represented to him the difference between his spirit and that of his predecessors. And so entirely abortive was his attempt, that, as we have seen, about sixty years after, Firmilian, in his letter to Cyprian[97], expressly asserted that the peace and unity of the Catholic Church had never been broken by differences about the observance of Easter or other religious rites: and that, in alluding to the conduct of Stephen, bishop of Rome, who had quarrelled with the African bishops because their custom differed from the Roman on the subject of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics; which would necessarily have brought to mind any schism produced by Victor, a previous bishop of Rome, if any such had been produced.

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

We have now brought to a close all the circumstantial part of the public life of Irenæus. Eusebius[98] (who is followed by Jerome[99]) has preserved to us the names of others of his writings, which we have now lost. Of these he mentions first, A Discourse to the Gentiles, which he characterizes as very brief, and very necessary, or cogent, and informs us that the title of it was Περὶ Ἐπιστήμης, which Jerome, in his Catalogue, translates De Disciplina, and supposes it to be different from the Discourse. Another tract he wrote, dedicated to one Marcianus, On the Preaching of the Apostles. The last Eusebius mentions is a volume of miscellaneous tracts or discussions, of which the ninth fragment is probably a remnant.

The Discourse concerning Easter, quoted by the author of the Questions to the Orthodox[100], formerly ascribed to Justin Martyr, may have been his letter to Victor on that subject. Maximus[101] cites some Discourses on Faith, addressed to Demetrius, a deacon of Vienne, of which we have two fragments, whether genuine or not, (numbered IV. and V.) in the best editions of his Remains. Although forty-two fragments, attributed to Irenæus, have been collected, chiefly from Catenas, we have no clue for appropriating the greater part of them to the writings of which they formed a portion. One of them (the last in the Benedictine edition) is said to pertain to a discussion on the Eternity of Matter; but whether belonging to a separate treatise, or a remnant of his Discourse to the Gentiles, we have no means of judging.

We have no account of the death of Irenæus upon which we can absolutely depend. Jerome in one passage[102] calls him a martyr, and so does the author of the Questions and Answers above cited; but no other early writer gives him that appellation; neither have we any notice of his death by any [pg 055] earlier author than Gregory of Tours[103], who wrote towards the end of the sixth century, and who asserts that he died a martyr in a bloody persecution, which the martyrologists Usuard and Ado[104] assert took place under Severus. In fact all the martyrologists, both Latin and Greek, make him a martyr. The tradition, therefore, appears a highly probable one. But in whatever way he quitted this world, we may rest assured that his name is written in the book of life. His body is said[105] to rest in the crypt under the altar of the Church of St. John at Lyons.

---

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

There are two circumstances which must prevent us from expecting that the writings of Irenæus should add largely to our stores of historical knowledge; one, that his remains are not very considerable in extent, and the other, that they are chiefly occupied in doctrinal controversy. What, however, he does tell us, is important. He asserts that the Church in his time was spread throughout the world[106]; and particularly specifies the Churches in Germany, Iberia, (i. e. Spain), amongst the Celts (i. e. in Gaul), in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia, and in the centre of the [pg 057] world, by which he no doubt means Palestine[107]. He likewise incidentally shows that the Gospel had been preached in Ethiopia[108]. He furnishes no evidence concerning the first missionaries, except in the case of Ethiopia, to which he informs us the eunuch baptized by Philip was sent; but he declares explicitly that all the Churches through the world, although differing in usage[109], had but one faith[110], which was delivered to them at baptism[111].

He speaks of the Churches in general as having been settled by the Apostles[112], and particularly specifies [pg 058] that the Church of Rome was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, who appointed its first bishop Linus[113]; that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by Apostles[114], and that the succession from him had been kept up to the time of his writing[115]; and that S. John watched over the Church of Ephesus down to the time of Trajan[116]. He informs us that the successors [pg 059] of the first bishops might be reckoned up in many Churches down to his own time[117], particularly specifies the Churches of Rome and Smyrna[118], and gives a catalogue of the bishops of Rome as follows:—Linus, mentioned by S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy[119]; Anencletus[120]; Clement[121], who had seen and conferred with the Apostles; Evarestus; Alexander; Xystus, or Sixtus; Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom; Hyginus; Pius; Anicetus; Soter; Eleutherius[122]: and we have a fragment of a letter of [pg 060] his own to Victor, the successor of Eleutherius[123]. He has preserved an anecdote of St. John, viz. that upon one occasion entering a bath, and seeing Cerinthus there, he withdrew precipitately, saying that he was afraid lest the building should fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, was in it[124]. This anecdote is indeed at variance with the notion of Christian charity current at the present day, but it rests upon the testimony of Polycarp, who knew St. John well; and it is strictly in accordance with the spirit of the directions he himself gave to “the elect lady,” not to receive heretical teachers into her house, or bid them God speed[125].

We are likewise indebted to Irenæus for some particulars respecting Polycarp. He states that he had been favoured with familiar intercourse with St. [pg 061] John and the rest who had seen Jesus, and had heard from them particulars respecting him and his miracles and teaching[126]. He mentions his having spent some time in Rome in the days of Anicetus[127]. He does not, indeed, state the cause of his visit; but Eusebius[128] and Jerome[129] distinctly say that it was on account of the Paschal controversy. This subject, amongst others, our author states to have been discussed between them, and that Polycarp rested his adherence to the Jewish practice upon his having always kept Easter in that way with St. John and the other Apostles, and consequently declined to change it; whereupon, to show that this inflexibility had produced no breach of amity, Anicetus thought proper to request Polycarp to officiate for him, and to take his place at the holy communion[130]. During his stay there[131] he met Marcion, who inquired if he [pg 062] recognised him. His reply was, “I recognise the first-born of Satan.” This severity (or bigotry, as it would now be called) does not appear to have operated in his disfavour; for he was instrumental in recovering to the Church many who had been led away by the Gnostic delusions[132]. Irenæus likewise mentions Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians[133], and other epistles to other Churches and individuals[134].

Respecting Clement, whom Eusebius[135] identifies with the companion of S. Paul[136], he states that he wrote a very effectual letter to the Corinthians, to allay the dissensions which had arisen amongst them, and to restore the integrity of their faith[137]. This is, of course, the first epistle of S. Clement, to the genuineness [pg 063] of which his mention of it is a powerful testimony.

He speaks of the Church of Rome not only as having been founded and settled under its first bishop by St. Peter and St. Paul, but as being one of the greatest and most ancient, well known to all men[138], preserving the true doctrine by the resort of persons from all quarters, and possessing from this circumstance a more powerful pre-eminence; and states that all Churches must on that account resort to it[139]. It is well known that this is a passage upon which Romanists very much rely, as establishing the claim of their Church to be the mistress of controversies to all Christendom; and I have chosen to give it the utmost force of which it is fairly capable, in order to avoid the charge of slurring it over, and in order to show that even thus it states nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church of England respecting the present Church of Rome. I will therefore give a translation of the passage, which appears below, and make some remarks upon that translation:—“For every Church (that is, the faithful who are on all sides,) must on account of its more powerful [pg 064] pre-eminence resort to this Church, in which the apostolical tradition is preserved by those who are on all sides.”

There are several words in this passage which must influence the sense of it. The first I shall notice is the word potentiorem, the more especially as there is a various reading upon it. One MS. (the Clermont) of considerable value, reads potiorem; but Massuet, who examined it, says that it had been written pontiorem (but altered to potiorem,) which is almost certainly a contraction for the common reading. We must therefore, I conclude, sit down with the common reading; although Massuet, in the Benedictine edition, and J. J. Griesbach, in some remarks upon this passage[140], prefer the other. But what Greek word potentiorem represents must be matter of conjecture; and no one who is acquainted with the manner in which the translator has rendered Greek words will be inclined to lay much stress upon it. It may have been put for ἱκανωτέραν, or κρείττονα; or, in short, the comparative of any adjective which admits of being rendered potens. We then come to the word principalitatem. This we know that the ancient translator of Irenæus uses to signify ἀρχή[141]. Putting these two together, Griesbach [pg 065] has rendered κρείττονα ἀρχὴν, potiorem initium, and thus got rid of the idea of authority altogether. But there is no need of this. Principalis is used by the translator as the rendering of ἡγεμονικός[142]; principaliter, of προηγουμένως[143], and προηγητίκως[144]; principalitatem habeo, of πρωτεύω[145]. We know that all the apostolical sees had a kind of principality or pre-eminence above the surrounding Churches; a more powerful pre-eminence than other Churches equally ancient with themselves. Nay, we know that the Church of Rome had at that time, in point of fact, a more powerful pre-eminence than any other Church.

The next word to be considered is convenire, which may be rendered either resort or agree; and I confess I should have been disposed, with Massuet, to render it agree, were it not for a perfectly parallel passage in the 32d Oration of Gregory of Nazianzum, delivered at the first council of Constantinople. Speaking of Constantinople, he says, εἰς ἣν τὰ πανταχόθεν ἄκρα συντρέχει, καὶ ὅθεν ἄρχεται ὡς ἐμπορίου κοινοῦ τῆς πίστεως. Here Constantinople is spoken of then under the very same terms as Rome by Irenæus, as the common repository of the faith: other parts of the Christian world are said to [pg 066] be governed (ἄρχεται) by it; and distant Churches are said to resort from all quarters: συντρέχει πανταχόθεν. Are not these words an exact parallel to the convenire and undique of the translator of Irenæus? I therefore feel bound to give convenire the sense of resort. The next word to be noticed is undique, the application of which is disputed; some, as Barrow[146] and Faber[147], applying it only to the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, i. e. Italy and the adjacent parts of Gaul; others, and of course the Romanists, to the whole Christian Church. According to the former plan, the clause “hoc est ... fideles” is a limitation of the expression “omnem ecclesiam,” confining it to the Churches immediately surrounding Rome; and consequently the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome would be equally narrowed by this interpretation of undique. I am far from contending that this interpretation is not correct; and the very fact of the passage admitting it, without any force whatever, shows how little the papal cause can be made to rest upon it. But as Gregory, in the parallel [pg 067] passage I have quoted, uses the term πανταχόθεν, I am disposed to take undique as its representative; the more especially as we have seen that, whatever influence it gives to Rome, the selfsame influence had Constantinople in an after age.

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

I have hitherto taken this passage as though it must be applied definitely to the Church of Rome. But this is by no means necessary; for it may be a general observation applicable to all the most eminent Churches, as may be seen by the following translation and arrangement of it:—“For every Church, (that is, the faithful all around,) must necessarily resort to that Church in which the apostolical tradition has been preserved by those on all sides of it, on account of its more powerful pre-eminence;” that is, Christians must have recourse each to the most ancient and most eminent Church in his neighbourhood. And this agrees with a passage of [pg 068] Tertullian[148], in which he refers southern Greeks to Corinth, northern to Philippi and Thessalonica, Asiatics to Ephesus, Italians and Africans to Rome. The only objection which occurs to me lies in the word hanc, which, if the passage is to be taken in this application, must be translated that; but as it was in all probability the representative of ταύτην, this word can scarcely present any difficulty.

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

There is another subject which has caused much discussion, which is adverted to by Irenæus, viz. the miraculous powers of the Church. He declares that in his time powers of this kind were possessed by Christians, such as raising the dead[149], and casting out devils, and healing the sick; that they likewise had the gift of prophecy[150], and spoke with tongues, and [pg 070] revealed secret things of men and mysteries of God[151]. It is well known that Gibbon and Middleton have thrown doubt upon the miraculous powers of the primitive Church; and one of their chief arguments is that the early writers, such as Irenæus, content themselves with general statements, but bring no specific instance. The subject has been very fully entered into by the present highly learned and amiable bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, in his work on Tertullian[152]; and in the general I am disposed to acquiesce in the theory adopted by the bishop, that those powers were conferred only by apostolical hands, and that of course they would continue till all that generation was extinct who were contemporary with St. John, the last of the Apostles. That would admit of Irenæus having known instances; and not having any idea that the power was to be extinct, he would think that it still remained, even if he had not known any recent instances. It is necessary to remark, however, that he speaks of the gifts of tongues and the revealing of secrets and mysteries, not as a thing coming under his own knowledge, but heard of from others; and it does not appear that he intends to say that they continued to his own time. And I will venture to observe that it appears rather unfair to Irenæus to set [pg 071] aside his testimony by saying that he brings no specific instance of those things which he speaks of as still done. He might feel that the thing was so notorious, that those who were not convinced by the notoriety of such occurrences would cavil at any particular case he might select; and his mentioning that some of those who had been delivered from evil spirits had become converts, that some of those who had been raised from the dead, being poor, had been assisted with money[153], and that some had lived many years after[154], surely indicates that he was speaking from a knowledge of individual cases. One should indeed have expected that every one who owed his deliverance from Satanic possession to the miraculous power possessed by Christians would have embraced the faith of those who exercised it; and the circumstance that Irenæus affirms this of some only gives a greater air of probability to his whole statement. Besides this, we must distinguish between the cases of persons healed by the direct agency of an individual, and those in which it pleased God to hear the joint prayers of several; for it is observable that our author attributes the raising of the dead only to [pg 072] the united prayers and fasting of a whole Church, and confines it to cases of great urgency[155].

The testimony which Irenæus bears to the relation between the Church and the empire is but slight. He mentions a Christian as having been in his own youth high in the imperial court, at the same time that he was a follower or admirer of Polycarp[156]; he speaks of Christians in the imperial palace deriving an income from the heathen, and able to assist their poorer brethren[157]; and he acknowledges the general advantages which Christians derived from the supremacy of the Romans, in common with their other subjects, in the prevalence of peace and the freedom from individual outrage[158]. But he mentions very distinctly the persecutions at another time Christians suffered (particularly alluding to those which took place at Lyons), and notices that slaves were compelled to inform against their masters; and that in this way the calumny that Christians fed upon human flesh arose, from a misunderstanding of the nature of the holy Eucharist[159]; the slaves having heard their [pg 073] masters speak of feeding on the body and blood of Christ, and taking it in a literal sense.

---

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

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

We shall find then that this writer considered the Church to be an ascertainable society, planted first at Jerusalem[160], and thence spread to the limits of the habitable globe[161]; planted by the Apostles, and kept up by and in the elders or bishops their successors[162]. It is, however, divided into separate Churches, which are to regard that of Jerusalem as their mother [pg 075] Church[163]. The whole Church, moreover, is to its individual members as a mother to her children[164]: [pg 076] she is appointed for the quickening of creation[165], and in her is the way of life[166], which those who keep aloof from her do not possess[167]; in her is the Holy Spirit, which is not to be found out of her[168]. She possesses the adoption and inheritance of Abraham, and her members are consequently the seed of Abraham[169]. Being thus appointed for the quickening of the world, by being the way of life to its members, she has for that purpose received the faith from the Apostles, which it is her business to distribute to her children[170]. She is therefore the appointed preacher of the faith, or the truth, which is not variable and [pg 077] changeable, but one, and only one[171]; not merely a quality infused into the heart, but a form of truths embodied or summed up in words, and delivered to her members when they are initiated into her[172]. Her ancient system is therefore the guide to truth[173], and those who wish to know it must have recourse to her, and be brought up in her bosom[174]. Her testimony, moreover, is confirmed by the Apostles and Prophets[175], whose writings are kept in the custody of her elders[176], with which, moreover, those must [pg 078] expect to be fed who come to her[177]. She has succeeded to the office of the ancient Jewish Church of being the great witness of the unity of the Godhead[178].

To show that she is commissioned from above, she wrought continual miracles for the good of the world by prayer and invocation of the name of Jesus[179]; she even raised the dead by means of fasting and prayer[180]; and she alone produced persons who sealed their own sincerity and the truth of their faith by their blood[181].

Finally, although not exempt from weakness, and [pg 079] capable of losing whole members, she, as a body, remains imperishable[182].

It is remarkable how strictly this notion of an external, visible, ascertainable body, consisting of individuals, and under the government of individual officers, having a personal succession in distinct localities[183], is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England; and how totally opposed it is to the notions held amongst dissenters, and by individuals within the Church in modern times. According to Irenæus, moreover, the different classes of sectaries would be regarded as having neither spiritual life nor the Holy Spirit, except so far as they might be supposed to be in communion with the body governed by elders or bishops descended from the Apostles. If in any way or to any degree they can be supposed to be in communion with them, to that extent they would be thought to have the Holy Ghost, and to be in the way of life, but no further. I am not now discussing whether he was right or wrong; I am merely pointing out the contrariety between his views of the Church and those which appear to be most popular at present. I doubt if most Protestants would not pronounce his doctrine to be gross [pg 080] bigotry; for very many of those who would go so far with him as to acknowledge the Church to be a visible society, would be very far from restricting the grace of the Holy Spirit to the communion of the bishops in succession from the Apostles.

I must, however, direct more particular attention to one part of his system which did not require to be brought out prominently. We have seen that he thought it possible for the Church to lose whole members. In fact, although he thought that the truth was kept up by the succession of bishops throughout the Church, and that it was a mark of truth to be so kept up, he still believed that presbyters or bishops might, through pride, or other evil motives, make schisms in the Church[184]; and he taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, [pg 081] keep the Apostles' doctrine, and lead good lives[185]; implying, of course, that some who were in the succession might depart from the Apostles' doctrine. The succession was not, therefore, in his opinion, an infallible test of truth in the individual Church. Any individual Church, or even a considerable number or collection of Churches, might fall into heresy, and thus become cut off from the Church; but it is evident that he did not think this possible to happen to the great body of the Church.

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

We find no trace in Irenæus of any authority in the Church of Rome to decide controversies for the rest of the Church. On the contrary, he taught Christians to have recourse to any ancient apostolical Church, or rather collection of Churches[186], if they wished to ascertain the traditional system of the Church. He indeed quotes that Church as being in his time a more important witness to the truth than any other individual Church, because, through the continual concourse of Christians thither, in consequence of its more powerful pre-eminence, the traditions of the universal Church were there collected as it were into a focus[187]; but, as I have pointed out elsewhere[188], he recognises no authority in that Church to claim to decide controversies. With him it is not any individual Church that is commissioned to preserve the truth, not even the Church of Jerusalem, which he calls the mother of all Churches (a title which has been since arrogated by the Roman Church), but the Catholic Church, truly so called, by the mouth of her pastors throughout the world; for although he mentions the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome in his day as a matter of fact, he does not [pg 083] state it to be a matter of right; nor does he ground any thing upon it but the further fact that it followed, of course, that Christians resorted to it from all quarters, as they did afterwards to Constantinople. He gives no hint as to the source of that pre-eminence, other than its having been settled by the two Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and honoured with being the scene of their martyrdom[189]. And his appeal to it he builds, not on any authority residing in it, but upon the fact that at that time the confluence from all parts of the Church caused the tradition of the whole Church to be best preserved there, as was afterwards the case at Constantinople, and has since been no where. So that his appeal to Rome is not in fact an appeal to that Church, but to the Church universal; and since Rome has ceased to be the place of resort to the universal Church, the ground for appealing to her has ceased likewise.

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

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

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

On the other hand, we learn from him that there were to be found in every part of the Christian world bishops or presbyters placed at the head of Churches, which from their importance, must have had other presbyters in them, and which we know from other sources to have had other presbyters in them; that there was only one of these at one and the same time; that they were intrusted with the government of the Churches, and called the Bishops of those Churches; that the authority of the office was handed down from individual to individual; and that the individuals who filled this office, and by consequence [pg 085] the office itself, were appointed by inspired apostles[190]. All these facts are irreconcileable with the hypothesis that all presbyters were equal in authority and function.

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

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

But granting the existence of Bishops such as we have them now, and their appointment by Apostles, another question arises, first suggested, so far as we know, by S. Jerome, whether the powers now exclusively reserved to Bishops, such as ordination and government, were so exclusively delegated to them by the Apostles, as that those powers exercised by other presbyters are invalid. The question does not appear to have occurred to Irenæus: but we have no hint in him of other presbyters having the same authority as the bishops of the Churches; on the other hand, he expressly states that the Apostles committed the Churches to the government and teaching of individual bishops or presbyters in each, making them their successors, and giving them their own office[191]. And the very circumstance of their committing the Churches to those individuals did (by what appears to me inevitable consequence) exclude all others from the same place to which those individuals were appointed, and constitute them an order by themselves. And that the universal Church understood the appointment in that sense is proved by the fact, recorded by Irenæus, that the succession of authority [pg 087] was kept up in individuals down to his time; the evident implication being that it was so in all Churches.

The evidence, therefore, supplied by Irenæus, although not enabling us, by itself, to discuss the whole question fully, is in support of the discipline of the Church of England, which refuses to recognize the ordinations of any but bishops, properly so called, and having their authority in succession from the Apostles[192].

---

Chapter IV. On The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

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

In direct reference to the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, he describes the agency of the three Persons in the creation of man; the Father willing and commanding, the Son ministering and forming, the Spirit sustaining and nourishing him[193]. So again he declares that God made all things by his Word [pg 089] or Son, and Wisdom or Spirit, using the terms personally; and that this was the same thing as making them by himself[194], because they are his hands[195]. And again, in explaining God's dispensations in regard to man, he affirms[196] that God was seen under the Old Testament by the Spirit of prophecy, that he was seen subsequently by means of the Son, adoptively, [pg 090] i. e. adopting human nature into the divine[197], and that he will be seen in his character of Father in the kingdom of heaven; and that in this way the Spirit in the Son prepares man, and the Son brings him to the Father, and the Father grants to him immortality: and so again in the work of man's redemption[198], the Spirit operates, the Son supplies, the Father approves, and man is perfected to salvation. He likewise gives two statements of the substance of the Creed, in which the three Persons of the Trinity are spoken of in the same manner as in the Nicene Creed, both of which will be given in a subsequent chapter.

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

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

Very near the beginning of his treatise, in rehearsing the faith of the Church, he speaks of “Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King[199];” further on he quotes many passages of Scripture to show that he was spoken of absolutely and definitely as God and Lord[200], and asks the question, [pg 092] How would men be saved, if He who wrought out their salvation upon earth was not God[201]?

He asserts that the Word was with God from everlasting[202], and that Jesus was the Son of God before the creation[203], that no man knows the mode of his [pg 093] generation[204], and that God made all things by his indefatigable Word, who is the Artificer of all things, and sitteth upon the cherubim, and preserves all things[205]. He declares that the Lord who spake to Abraham was the Son[206], and that it was the Word that appeared to Moses[207].

This Divine Word, then, was united with his creature[208], (which union is expressed by the name Emmanuel[209],) and humbled himself to take upon him [pg 094] the infant state of man[210], and thus having become Son of man[211], went through all the ages of man[212], and finally hung upon the cross[213]. He asserts, moreover, that although the angels knew the Father solely by the revelation of the Son[214], and indeed all [pg 095] from the beginning have known God by the Son[215], so that the Father is the Son invisible, and the Son the Father visible[216], yet that the Son knew not the day of judgment[217]; and that this was so ordered, that we may learn that the Father is above all[218], and that the Son ministers to the Father[219]: finally, that when Jesus was tempted and suffered, the Word in him restrained his energy[220]. But he declares likewise that Christ remained in the bosom of the Father, even when upon earth[221].

These mysteries in the nature of Christ Irenæus does not attempt to explain, fully holding the eternal and unchangeable Divinity of the Son, even when made flesh, and his strict personal union with that flesh, and at the same time asserting his subordination to the Father, even in his divine nature; feeling that when we cannot discover the reason of every thing, we should consider the immeasureable difference between us and God[222]; that if we cannot explain earthly things, we cannot expect to explain heavenly things, and that what we cannot explain we must leave to God[223]; and in short that it [pg 097] is much better to know nothing but Christ crucified, than by subtil inquiries to fall into impiety[224].

This Jesus, then, who has been testified of by all things that he was truly God and truly man[225], being related to both God and man, and thus having the indispensable qualification for his office, became the Mediator between them[226]; he came in every dispensation, [pg 098] and summed up all things in himself[227]. He was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus[228]; when not full thirty he was baptized, but he did not begin to teach till past forty[229]. His ministry extended through three passovers[230], and [pg 099] he suffered on the day of the passover[231]. He is our High Priest[232]; he gave his soul for our souls, and his flesh for ours [233]; his righteous flesh has reconciled to God our sinful flesh [234]; and he brings us into union and communion with God[235]. He rose again in the flesh[236], and in the flesh he ascended into heaven, and [pg 100] will come again to judgment[237]; and he introduces his Church into the kingdom of heaven[238].

Respecting the Holy Ghost, Irenæus declares that he was with God before all created things[239], and (as we have seen) that he was the Wisdom of God, whose operation was the operation of God[240]; that he is rightly called Lord[241]; and he affirms that the bread of eternal life, which is the Word, is also the Spirit of the Father[242]. He speaks of him as coming with power to give entrance unto life to all nations, and to open to them the new Covenant, and as offering to the Father on the day of Pentecost the first fruits of all nations[243].

He affirms that man, at his creation, had the image of God in the flesh, the likeness in the soul by the communication of the Divine Spirit[244]. He implies that, since the fall, man has lost the Spirit, and consequently the life of his soul; he asserts that he remains carnal until he recovers the Spirit of God[245], and then he becomes again a living soul, and has in him the seed of eternal life[246]; that the Spirit [pg 102] we receive here is a pledge of a fuller portion[247]; and that at the resurrection the souls and bodies of the just will be quickened by the Spirit in union with them, and their bodies become spiritual bodies[248], and capable of immortality.

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

---

Chapter V. The Origin of Evil.

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

He grants, indeed, that there is sufficient ground for inquiring why God has allowed evil and imperfection to exist; but he declares that all things were intended by the Almighty to be created in the very state and with the very qualities with which they were created[249]. He will not allow that subsequent [pg 104] dispensations were really intended to remedy the imperfections of prior ones, because that would be to accuse God himself of not understanding at first the effects of his works[250].

He asserts, moreover, that supposing angels and men to have a proper voluntary agency, to be endued with reason and the power of examining and deciding upon examination, they must, in the very nature of things, be capable of transgressing; and that, indeed, otherwise excellence would not have been either pleasant or an object of desire, because they would not have known its value, neither would it have been capable of reward, or of being enjoyed when attained; nor would intercourse with God have been valued, because it would have come without any impulse, choice, care, or endeavour of their own[251]. This is the only approach to a solution of [pg 105] the difficulty which all the study of philosophers and divines has ever discovered.

But when we come to inquire why some of God's creatures transgressed, and some continued in obedience, this, he says, is a mystery which God has reserved to himself, and which it is presumption for us to inquire into; and that we ought to consider what it has pleased him to reveal as a favour, and leave to him that which he has not thought proper to make known[252].

He notwithstanding suggests this practical good arising out of the existence of evil, that the love of God will be more earnestly cherished for ever by those who have known by experience the evil of sin, and have obtained their deliverance from it not without their own exertion; and therefore that this may be regarded as a reason why God permitted evil[253].

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

---

Chapter VI. The Evil Spirits.

Although Irenæus does not think proper to discuss the subject of the origin of evil, properly so called, he speaks agreeably to the Scriptures as to its introduction into this lower world, and in some degree fills up their outline. Thus he describes Satan as having been originally one of the angels who had power over the air[254]. He attributes the beginning of his overt acts of rebellion to his envy towards man[255], because he had been made in the image of [pg 108] God, i. e. immortal[256]; whom through envy he stirred up to rebellion likewise[257], and that by falsehood[258], [pg 109] putting on the form of the serpent, that he might escape the eye of God[259]: wherefore, although God had pity upon man, as having fallen through weakness[260], and because otherwise Satan would have frustrated the Divine purpose[261], he totally cut off from himself the apostate angels[262], and doomed them and their Prince to the eternal fire[263], which he had from the beginning prepared for obstinate transgressors[264], [pg 110] although he did not make known to them at that time that their lot was irremediable[265].

The next act of the apostate spirits was to mingle themselves with human nature by carnal copulation with women, and thus to cause the total corruption of the old world and its inhabitants (notwithstanding the preaching of Enoch to these fallen spirits), and consequently their destruction[266].

Irenæus makes none but very general allusions to the agency of the fallen spirits from the fall of man till the coming of Christ. He declares that, up to that time[267], they had not ventured upon blaspheming God; but that then, becoming aware that everlasting fire was the appointed recompense of those who continued [pg 112] in rebellion without repentance, they felt themselves already condemned, and waxing desperate, charged all the sin of their rebellion on their Maker, by inspiring the Gnostics with their impious tenets[268]. It seems to be implied that sentence is not yet pronounced upon the fallen angels[269].

---

Chapter VII. The Divine Dispensations.

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

We have already[270] seen him stating that the whole of these dispensations were planned from the beginning; and he states them to have been carried into execution by God the Son exhibiting himself to mankind under four different aspects, figured by the [pg 114] four faces of the cherubim; first to the Patriarchs, in a kingly and divine character; secondly, under the law, in a priestly and sacrificial aspect; thirdly, at his nativity, as a man; fourthly, after his ascension, by his Spirit[271].

Again, he represents God as having made four covenants with mankind; one with Noah, of which the rainbow was the sanction; a second with Abraham, by circumcision; a third of the law, by Moses; a fourth of the Gospel, by Christ[272]. At least this is [pg 115] the enumeration made in the Questions and Answers of Anastasius, and in the Theoria Rerum Ecclesiasticarum of Germanus, where the Greek of Irenæus is transcribed, and from which it was first published by Grabe. But the old Latin version makes a different enumeration, reckoning the first covenant before the deluge with Adam, and the second after that event with Noah[273].

He thinks that the knowledge of God was kept up amongst the patriarchs by tradition from Adam, and amongst the Jews by the prophets; whilst in heathen nations the tradition has been lost, and men are left to find it out by reason[274]: that human governments were providentially ordained to restrain the ferocity and rapacity of mankind after they had given up the fear of God[275]; that the law of Moses was given [pg 116] by way of discipline, to recover the Israelites back to that sense of justice, and responsibility, and feeling of love to God and man which they had lost[276]; that [pg 117] the prophets were inspired in order to accustom man by degrees to bear God's Spirit and to have communion with him[277]: and thus in various ways God prepared mankind for salvation, providing for them laws suited to their various states of preparation.

In opposing the notions of the Gnostics, Irenæus had to defend the position that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New; that they both emanated from the same God acting differently under different circumstances. The abolition of the law, he contended, was no proof of a change of mind, but only of a change of circumstances; the law being in its nature symbolical and preparatory, when the Gospel, the reality and the end, was revealed, the office of the law ceased[278].

He distinguishes, however, between what he calls the natural portions of the law and the rest. As they were kept by good men before the law[279], so he conceives them to be binding on us ever since[280]. It [pg 119] is not at first sight clear what he means by that term, but he expressly informs us that he comprises in it the whole decalogue[281]. And yet there is every appearance that he would exclude the fourth commandment, which he expressly asserts not to have been observed before the giving of the law[282].

But although the precepts of the moral law are equally binding at all times, he thought that they were not formally given to the just men of old, because they observed them voluntarily, being a law unto themselves[283]. But when God's people forgot [pg 120] them in the land of Egypt, then it became necessary distinctly to enact them, to prepare man for the fuller duties of love to God and goodwill to man[284]. And when they did not obey the moral law, he added to it the ceremonial[285], that, by types, their servile and childish natures might be trained up to the apprehension of realities; by temporal things, of eternal; by carnal, of spiritual; by earthly, of heavenly[286]. Some of their ordinances had a twofold use; as circumcision was intended, equally with their rites and ceremonies, to keep them distinct from the heathen, and also to signify the circumcision of the soul[287].

To show that the moral law was preparatory to the Gospel, he alleges the fact that Jesus taught its precepts as the way of life to the young lawyer who came to inquire of him; not supposing that these were sufficient in themselves, but that they were steps to the knowledge of Christ[288].

He, however, thought that our Lord wished that the whole ceremonial law should be observed as long as Jerusalem stood[289].

But although he appears to think that the law, as a whole and in the letter, is no longer binding to Christians, he does not think that this leaves us at liberty to do as we like. If we are not tied down [pg 122] to the letter, like slaves, that is because it was intended that the law of liberty should be of wider range, and our obedience extend itself beyond the letter, and that our subjection to our Heavenly King should be more hearty and thoroughgoing than ever; and therefore, if we wish to remain in the way of salvation through Christ, we must voluntarily adopt the precepts of the decalogue, and, giving them a completer meaning, endeavour to realize in our conduct all the fulness of their enlarged application[290].

It is almost unnecessary to point out the exact agreement of these sentiments with the seventh and fourteenth articles of the Church of England, and how impossible it must be for a person holding them to think that we can do any thing whatever beyond what Christ has a right to expect from us. It is manifest that he would not have thought that any degrees of Christian holiness are really at our option, whether we shall seek them or not; but that every person who, having any degree of perfection, or any means of advancement placed before him, knowingly neglects it, becomes thereby unworthy of him who has given him liberty[291], and hazards his salvation: in short, that “to whom much is given, of him will much be required.”

---

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

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

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

But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which we reject from the [pg 125] canon. He not only repeats sentiments from them, as when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom[292], or the story of Susanna[293], without, however, mentioning the books themselves; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon[294] as truly relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch[295] as truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures; and he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books contained in that version. But if so, that does not prove (as we shall see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical.

But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of the books of the Apocrypha; and that is, that he quotes, under the express name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious—I mean the Shepherd of Hermas[296]. It is true that he is not singular in so speaking; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to Hermas[297]. And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement, affirms[298] that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared his book apocryphal.

I argue thus on the supposition that his single authority is appealed to. If he is adduced, with other writers of his age, to show that the Church acknowledged the apocryphal books as canonical, then one reply is, that even if this were true of the [pg 127] Church of that age, we are not bound by the decision of a single age. Massuet, indeed[299], reasons as though the canonicity of the books the Church of Rome receives were established by the authority of “all churches, or at least the greater part of them, and those of distinguished rank.” Now it so happens that we have quite a chain of evidence on the opposite side. Melito[300], contemporary with Irenæus, after diligent inquiry in Palestine, reckons up, as canonical, the same books of the Old Testament which we acknowledge, and no others: for the Σοφία[301], which (according to one reading) comes in after the Proverbs, is merely another name for that book; and Ezra, it is well known, included Nehemiah and Esther. Origen[302], in the middle of the third century, [pg 128] and Athanasius[303], Epiphanius[304], Gregory of Nazianzum[305], and Jerome[306], successively in the fourth—and what is more, the council of Laodicea[307], in the third century, whose acts were recognised by the sixth synod of Constantinople and Pope Adrian[308]—all agree in receiving a canon of the Old Testament much more like ours than like that of Rome. It is true that Origen adds the Maccabees, but he states that they are not in the canon. Athanasius, Epiphanius, and the Council of Laodicea reckon Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah; Athanasius and the Council add the epistle of Jeremiah; Athanasius alone reckons Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. On the other hand, they all, together with Gregory of Nazianzum, Jerome, and Ruffinus, who entirely [pg 129] agree with us, reject all the other books which the Church of Rome has since admitted into the canon. Epiphanius[309] says that Christians and Nazoræi agreed in receiving the Jewish books, so that he could not have been aware that the Jews did not admit Baruch. So that how many soever may agree in quoting the apocryphal books, the weight of authority is clearly against their reception as canonical.

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

He likewise bears direct testimony to the authenticity of the four Gospels and the Revelation of St. John; affirming that St. Matthew wrote his in Hebrew for the use of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St. Paul conjointly were preaching and establishing the Church at Rome[310]; that after their [pg 130] departure, St. Mark committed to writing what he had heard from St. Peter, and St. Luke what he had heard from St. Paul[311]; that St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, to oppose the errors of Cerinthus[312], and that he was likewise the author of the Revelation which bears his name[313], the visions of which he saw towards the close of the reign of Domitian[314].

It is curious that Irenæus quotes a passage as written either by Isaiah or Jeremiah, which does not appear in our present copies[315]. Justin Martyr had quoted it before him, and asserted that it had been wilfully erased by the Jews from the Hebrew copies[316]. Now, however, it does not appear even in the Septuagint. He likewise records a saying or two as our Lord's which do not appear in the New Testament[317]: [pg 132] the latter of which indeed few persons will believe to have been spoken by our Lord.

He informs us that the Ebionites use only St. Matthew's Gospel, and reject St. Paul[318]; that Marcion curtailed St. Luke, and in effect the whole Gospel[319]; that Cerinthus used St. Mark, and the Valentinians [pg 133] St. John[320], and invented a Gospel of their own; and that the Montanists reject St. John's Gospel and St. Paul[321]. It appears, however, that the Gnostics did in fact quote, at least when arguing with Christians, the self-same books which we now have; for all the passages of Scripture which Irenæus brings forward as perverted by them correspond with our present copies.

Irenæus was of opinion that the whole of the sacred books of the Old Testament were lost during the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them by divine inspiration[322].

He likewise fully believed the fable of Aristeas concerning the translation of the Septuagint by the direction of one of the Ptolemies, whom he names the son of Lagus[323]. He does not relate it with all the particularity of Josephus; but he relates the separation of the seventy interpreters from each other, and their miraculous agreement in the same words and phrases from beginning to end. It is [pg 135] clear, therefore, that he believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, so far as it is a translation of the Hebrew; and no wonder that he was unable to avoid extending the same feeling to the other books which commonly accompany the translated portion.

He likewise mentions Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes, as having wrongly translated Isaiah vii. 14[324]. Theodotion was the contemporary of Irenæus, and must have published his version so recently, that it is wonderful that Irenæus should have seen it.

Lastly, he mentions and distinguishes between the genuine and ancient copies of the Scriptures and the incorrect ones[325].

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

For instance, he informs us that, after the Apostles had preached the Gospel orally, they took care that the substance of their preaching should be put in writing, to be the ground and pillar of our faith[326]. It is very remarkable that he should use this very phrase in speaking of the Gospel, which St. Paul had used in speaking of the Church itself; showing apparently that it was by the custody of the Scriptures that the Church was to sustain its office. Indeed he expresses this in so many words in another passage, when he says that the truth is preserved by the keeping and reading of the Scripture, and preaching consistently with it[327].

His own practice is perfectly consistent with his principles. When he enters into controversy, his first appeal, indeed, in the particular case in hand, was to common sense, as showing the extreme absurdity and glaring contradiction of the Gnostic [pg 137] theories[328]. But as they claimed revelation for their authority, he then goes to the Scripture, as the only authentic record of revelation[329]; and it is evident that, on his own account, he would never have appealed to any other authority in support of the great and leading doctrines he has to deal with. When he does bring in tradition as an independent and collateral witness of revelation, he does so because the Gnostics themselves appealed to tradition[330] as something more certain than Scripture. And having met them upon this ground, he goes on[331], in the large remaining portion of his treatise, to refute their systems by the induction of passages from the successive portions of the Old and New Testaments.

Clearly, therefore, his disposition, where the question was what God had revealed, would be to go, first of all, and entirely, if possible, to Scripture; for whereas the heretics held that the inspired volume was obscure and uncertain[332], he maintained that there were truths contained in it without any doubt or obscurity, and that those were the things in which the sound-minded and pious would chiefly meditate[333]. [pg 139] And with regard to those things which are obscure and doubtful, he taught that we should endeavour to explain them by those parts which are unambiguous[334].

There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted[335]. It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible.

A third aid was to be found in the assistance of the elders of the Church, who preserve the doctrine of the Apostles[336], and, with the order of the priesthood, keep sound discourse and an inoffensive life[337], who have the succession from the Apostles, and, together with the episcopal succession, have received the sure gift of truth[338]. He who in this way studies the Scriptures will judge (or condemn) all who are in error[339].

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

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

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

---

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

It was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument: from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures; for in the preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work, he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from Scripture, without mentioning tradition; but since they demurred to its authority, asserting[340] that it was imperfect and [pg 143] self-contradictory, and, in short, that it was impossible for any to learn the truth from it but those who possessed the true tradition, (which they contended was preserved amongst themselves, having been communicated to them orally, and being, in fact, that hidden wisdom which had been imparted by the Apostles only to the perfect,) Irenæus likewise appeals to tradition.

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

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

I will take his conclusions in their order:—

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

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

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

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

It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the mind of [pg 146] Irenæus naturally went to Scripture, either to prove doctrine or to refute error; and that he regarded it as being, to all orthodox Christians, the natural standard of appeal. With regard to the Gnostics, he evidently thought that they were past conviction from either reason, tradition, or Scripture; because, whatever criterion was produced, they had something to say against it or to turn it aside[341]: but to single-minded Christians he felt that the written word must be the great authority, and arguments drawn from it the most perfectly conclusive. He speaks of some things in it as admitting no doubt; he points to an obvious aid to the interpretation of ambiguities, by calling in plainer things to explain the doubtful; he speaks of the New Testament as the ground and pillar of our faith; and he declares that the truth is preserved by the keeping, reading, and consistent exposition of the Scriptures.

In what way, then, does he appeal to tradition? In this part of his work he calls it in as establishing the same general views, which he confirms more at length from Scripture; as preparing the mind to [pg 147] believe that the view he takes of Scripture is the true one; as a separate and independent witness to the selfsame truths which he is preparing to confirm by an adduction of multiplied passages of Holy Writ. He does not bring it forward to establish any thing not hinted at in the Bible; neither, on the other hand, does he bring it forward to show what others had gathered out of the Scriptures; but he adduces it as a separate testimony, emanating originally from the same source as the Scriptures[342], and therefore, so far as it went, a fitting criterion of their meaning.

I have chosen to adduce the opening of the third book first of all, because Irenæus enters more professedly there into his motives for appealing to tradition; but he had made the appeal, as may have been seen, in an early part of the first book[343]. The manner of the appeal is somewhat different in the two places: in the first book he appeals to it to show the strong contrast between the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Gnostics and the unity and consistency of catholic teaching; in the latter, to confirm his own views of Scripture. It is true that in both these cases the appeal is in some sense of a negative character, i. e. it is for the purpose of proving that such and such doctrines are not to be [pg 148] received; but in other cases he makes a directly positive use of it, viz. to prove particular doctrines which do not appear to have been explicitly disputed.

What, then, is the tradition to which Irenæus assigns this important function? It is that faith which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributes to her children[344]; which may be seen in every Church[345]; which is handed down by the bishops in all the several Churches[346]; which is taught to every person when he is baptized[347]; which was in his time preserved in the Church of Rome, in particular, by the confluence of the faithful from every side[348]; in the Church of Smyrna by S. Polycarp and his successors; in the Church of Ephesus, founded by St. Paul, and watched over by St. John; and in the rest of the Asiatic Churches[349]; which may likewise be learnt in the first epistle of S. Clement, and in the epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians[350]; which was one and the same throughout the Churches, so that ability cannot increase its efficacy, nor weakness diminish it; so that knowledge may add to it the explanation of difficulties, but cannot [pg 149] change the faith[351]; and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it[352].

It is obvious, from these quotations, that the particular tradition which Irenæus adduces against the Gnostics is the substance of the baptismal creed; and thence, perhaps, it may be inferred that he would confine tradition altogether to the creed. But it must be remembered that, in declining to go to Gnostic tradition, and choosing in preference that which is truly apostolical, the principle of his appeal is this: that the Apostles delivered the doctrines of the Gospel by preaching, &c. to the different Churches, and by individual instruction to the particular persons whom they made bishops of the Churches; that the bishops had delivered down the same mass of truths to the Churches they presided over, and to their successors; and that the truth might be ascertained by discovering what was universally received in all the apostolical sees[353]. But [pg 150] this truth was not confined to the creed, for there are other truths as certain as those in the creed, which are not specified in it; and the very creed itself was variable, or rather was variously stated at different times[354].

But we are not left to inference alone to learn the views of Irenæus; he instances the epistles of Clement and Polycarp as containing true traditions, and they exhibit other truths beyond those of the creed. Again, the faith, which, if the Apostles had left no writings, he affirms must have been kept up by tradition, and which was, in fact, kept up in barbarous nations without the aid of writing[355], must have been something more extensive than the mere elementary points of belief. Nay, his assertion that when we are in doubt, even upon trifling points, it is a duty to have recourse to the most ancient Churches[356], shows at once that the province of tradition, in his mind, was far wider than the transmission of simply fundamental points; it was a great system of doctrine, discipline, and practice, which such an observation looked at; and there can be but little doubt that, although his subject in his great [pg 151] Treatise leads him to adduce it formally, only on the subject of doctrine, that he found himself bound by it upon all points which appeared to be thus universally handed down in the Churches.

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

Again, we have seen that the medium through which Irenæus believed pure tradition to be transmitted was the bishops of the Churches; but it does not follow that he thought every bishop, or the [pg 152] bishops of any particular Church, an unerring depository of such tradition. He supposed the case of a bishop who was in the succession, but yet did not hold fast the Apostles' doctrine[357], and he evidently implies that such a person was not to be adhered to; it is, therefore, not any individual bishop, or the bishop of any particular see, that he would appeal to, but the aggregate of the bishops of the universal Church.

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

But besides this public tradition, extant throughout all the Churches, there is another kind of tradition [pg 153] he brings forward, viz. that kept up by a direct line from the Apostles by the testimony of individuals. This he brings forward under various forms of expression, as “I have heard from an elder, who had heard from those who had seen and been instructed by the Apostles;” “Wherefore the elders, who are disciples of the Apostles, say,” &c.; “As the elders, who saw John, the Lord's disciple, remember that they heard of him;” “And all the elders, who associated with John, the Lord's disciple, testify that John taught them this; for he remained with them down to the time of Trajan.” He appeals to it on the subject of Christ's descent into hell[358], which did not enter into the earliest creeds; on the place of the saints departed[359]; on the millennium[360]; as well as on the fact that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of age[361].

It is evident that such testimony, carried down in one chain, unchecked by any other similar chain, must be liable to great deterioration. An instance of this may be seen in the last-mentioned case in which he quotes this kind of evidence; viz. his idea that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of age[362]. All other writers who speak on the subject are agreed that Irenæus, or some person through whom this assertion came, must have made some mistake; that our Lord, in fact, began his teaching shortly after his baptism, and continued it through three passovers, and no more. And yet we have apparently very strong evidence for the assertion of Irenæus; for he declares that all the elders who companied with John the Apostle affirmed it, and that some of them declared that they had it from other Apostles. The probability is, that Irenæus, who was quite a youth when acquainted with these persons, had misunderstood what he had heard in their conversations with each other, or remembered it incorrectly after a long lapse of years, being biassed by his own view of a passage of Scripture which he quotes in confirmation[363], and which may be the real foundation of the opinion in question.

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

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

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

---