Those scholastical discussions on the nature of justification with which we have become familiar had not arisen when Irenæus wrote, and consequently we cannot expect him to speak with the precision to which we are accustomed. Still there are some principal points upon which, simply following the Scriptures, he is practically clear.
He teaches, for instance, that men are not justified in themselves, but by the coming of Christ[420], and [pg 195] more explicitly, by the obedience of Christ[421]; whence we may fairly conclude that he would place the meritorious cause of justification in Christ: and as he connects justification with remission of sins[422], and remission of sins with the cross and death of Christ[423], he would no doubt trace our justification to the death of Christ on the cross.
In the same general manner he teaches that faith justifies man[424], speaking particularly of Abraham, to [pg 196] whom he attributes faith in Christ. He appears likewise to express faith, in another passage, by attending to the light of Christ[425]; but as the passage does not exist in the Greek, we cannot be quite certain what is its real meaning. Now although he says here that faith justifies, and elsewhere that our faith is our own[426], because it springs from our own will and choice, yet it is plain, from the previous paragraph, that he simply means that faith is the qualification for justification.
Again, where Irenæus says that man is justified by the moral law, which those who were justified by faith before the giving of the Law observed[427]; and again, quoting the text: “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me;” declares that God rejected the sacrifices and ceremonies by which the Jews thought to obtain remission of sins, and taught them these things (contained [pg 197] in that text) by which man is justified, and draws nigh to God[428]: in these passages Irenæus no doubt intends to say nothing more or less than St. James does where he declares that man is justified by works. If any one regards Irenæus as contradicting the true doctrine of justification by faith, he must conceive that St. James equally contradicts it; and the same considerations which explain St. James will equally explain Irenæus.
I may remark, moreover, in a matter confessedly not admitting of absolute demonstration, that Irenæus appears to use justification in what is commonly called the forensic sense, and as taking its date from the act of the soul, by which it receives and embraces the divine light, and as being kept up and renewed by acts of thanksgiving and calling upon [pg 198] God and dependence upon him, and observance of the moral law. But I have no wish to insist controversially upon these conclusions.
Chapter XV. On Ceremonies, Usages, And Forms Of Words.
The object of the Great Treatise of Irenæus, which is almost the whole that remains to us of his writings, being to refute doctrinal error, things of a ceremonial and ritual nature can be introduced only incidentally. It is interesting however to trace those fragments of the external system of the Church which have dropped from the pen of the writer whilst thinking chiefly of other matters.
We find then that he alludes to the commandments of God as being ten in number, and as being divided into two tables[429]: but he asserts, conformably to the opinion of Josephus[430] and Philo[431], that [pg 200] each table contained five commandments. On the other hand Hesychius[432], Origen[433], Ambrose[434], and Procopius[435] reckon them as we do. The division into three and five, followed by the Roman Church, does not appear earlier than Augustine[436]. There is however sufficient diversity to prevent our insisting much on our division. It must be observed, however, that Josephus[437] and (I believe) Philo reckon the commandments individually exactly as we do, and not as the Romanists.