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

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.