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

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

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

There is one other allusion to the opening words of the creed[367].

---

Chapter XI. Freewill, Predestination, And Election.

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

Both these notions Irenæus combatted. He taught that man is endued with freewill[368], having good [pg 163] and evil set before him, and having the power to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act [pg 164] accordingly[369]; that God has always treated men as having the power to act for themselves[370], rewarding [pg 165] or punishing them[371], praising or blaming[372] them according to the nature of their choice; and that this proves that we have freewill[373]: that in fact the circumstance that our faith is called our own, and is rewarded[374], proves that we are free agents[375]. In conformity with this opinion, he teaches that men are redeemed, not by compulsion, but by persuasion[376]; that each person has a portion of divine light given him, and will be recompensed according as he keeps or rejects it[377]; and that as each man's salvation thus depends upon his own exertion, and cannot be attained without it, so our reward will be the more valued for having been gained by exertion[378].

We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the salvation of the elect was [pg 166] accomplished by the mere will of God concerning the individuals, either in opposition to their own will or by constraining their wills; although he asserted very fully the necessity of divine grace to cause our freewill to take a right direction[379].

And yet he was a believer in divine predestination. He believed that some were predestined to have the gift of incorruptibility imparted to them, (which we have seen to mean the Divine Spirit, by which we become the adopted children of God,) and thus to have life in the sight of God, whereas they were originally in a state of death[380]. But he no where implies that they could not lose this gift, but the contrary[381]. So again he teaches that God intentionally [pg 167] delivers some men over to unbelief without a trial. But who are they? Those who, he foresees, will not believe[382]. He was of opinion that there is a predestined number of those who shall be saved eternally, and that when that number is completed, the end of the world will come[383]: the very [pg 168] idea embodied in our burial service[384]. But he no where hints that the individuals were predestined, as well as the number, or that those who were predestined to have the gift of immortality, were all in the number of those who should be saved eternally: so that the more we examine, the more clear does it become that he would have been opposed to Calvinistic predestination.