An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr
author: James Beaven
edition published: May 8, 2018
language: en; la; he
availability: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

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, M.A.

Of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford

And Curate of Leigh, in the County of Stafford.

London:

J. G. F. & J. Rivington

1841

Contents

[Cover Art]

[Transcriber's Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

Dedication.

To the Memory

Of

Edward Burton, D.D.

Late Regius Professor Of Divinity In The University Of Oxford,

By Whose Advice And Encouragement

The Author Of This Work

Was First Led To Study, With Care And Attention,

The Writings Of

This Father and Martyr.

It Is Now Dedicated And Inscribed;

As A Humble Acknowledgement Of His Extensive Learning,

His Remarkable Singleness Of Mind,

And The Cordial Assistance He Ever Rendered

To Younger Travellers

In The Same Path Which He Himself Pursued.

Preface.

It was, perhaps, somewhat presumptuous in a person occupying so humble a station in the sacred ministry to offer to the Church a work which would necessarily induce comparisons between itself and the similar productions of a Prelate of the Church—a Divine of the highest rank and character. The author can, however, at least say, that it was no foolish ambition which led to his employing himself on such a work. Having been led by circumstances to a repeated perusal and study of the writings of S. Irenæus, he saw the great value of his testimony to the leading principles and doctrines of the Church of England. He had himself derived much benefit from the works of Bishop Kaye on others of the Fathers; he thought that if he could do nothing more than to draw out the substance of the doctrine and opinions of Irenæus for the use of the student in theology, in a more accessible form than that in which he himself had to look for it, accompanied by the text of the portions from which he had formed his statements, and with a little illustration of the meaning in passages liable to misunderstanding,—he should have rendered a service to his younger brethren: and if it should so happen that that distinguished Prelate or any other writer did anticipate him, it would be so much clear gain to himself to have been so employed. When he had completed his first preparations, and had learnt by proper inquiry that the Illustrator of Justin, Clement, and Tertullian was not engaged on Irenæus, he endeavoured to put the work somewhat into form: and being afterwards encouraged by one upon whose judgment and acquirements public opinion had set its stamp, and who had seen portions of the work, to believe that it possessed a certain degree of value,—he ventured to bring it into public notice in the only way which appeared open to him.

He desires here to record his sense of the most kind and most hearty encouragement he has met with from persons of all ranks and classes, capable of appreciating a work of this description, or of aiding in its publication: more especially of that afforded him by her Majesty The Queen Dowager, by the Most Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates who have honoured him with their support, by the many persons distinguished either for station or for literary eminence, whose names will be found in the subjoined list, and by the warm-hearted friends, both of the clergy and of the laity, with whom he is either locally or personally connected.

His work, such as it is, he now sends forth, trusting that, through the blessing of the Divine Head of the Church, it may be available to the great ends of the ministry to which he has been called, and may tend to the unity, the strength, and the stability of the Church.

Before, however, he takes his leave of his readers, he wishes to add a few words on the Right Use of the Writings of the Fathers.

1. We use them as we do the writings of secular authors, to ascertain the facts of the history of their own or of preceding times; principally as concerning the Church, and secondarily as concerning the world. To this use of them no objection in principle can be raised; and in so doing, we treat them exactly as we do ordinary writers.

2. We use them, as evidence of the state of the Church, in their own and preceding ages, as regards either discipline or morals. In regard to the former, as it is a thing not in its nature liable to hasty alteration,—discipline established in one age continuing on, for the most part, into the next,—their testimony will avail for the immediately preceding generation, as well as for their own. In regard to the latter, it can scarcely be received for any thing anterior to their own age, unless where they record the observations of some older person. In both, moreover, it requires to be noted whether they are writing controversially or historically: because we all know that through the imperfection of our nature we are apt to overstate our own case, and to understate that of our opponents. And if that is the case now, when a more extended and more accurate education has disciplined the minds of writers to impartiality, how much more must it have been so in an earlier stage of controversial writing, when there had been no opportunity for any such discipline. It is necessary, therefore, in the perusal of their controversial writings to be on our guard, and to notice, in any particular case, whether the mind of the writer is likely to have been influenced in his statements by any such bias. It must be remembered, moreover, that no individual author can be considered as evidence for the state of the universal Church, unless we have sufficient proof that he had means of knowing the condition of the whole Church, and unless we can gather that, being so qualified, he intends to speak thus largely.

Again, when not writing controversially, if we are aware that they laboured under any particular prejudice or bias, either towards any particular opinion or state of feeling, or against any particular class or individual, which is liable to affect their statements,—then likewise we must view them with caution.

On the other hand, when we have no evidence of any circumstance likely to pervert their perceptions, or to exaggerate their statements, it is obvious that they must be taken at their full value.

3. We use the Fathers as evidence of the doctrine which was taught by the Church, in their own and preceding ages. And here some of the remarks just made will apply again. The Fathers, like all other writers, sometimes state their own individual opinions, or the views of doctrine which prevailed in the sect or party to which they were attached, or in the particular part of the Church in which they were placed, or in the age in which they lived: at other times, and more frequently, the doctrines of the whole Church, in their own and all preceding ages. Now, where a writer states that what he is saying is held by the whole Church, unless we know any thing to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that it was the case; because we know that the tradition of doctrine was, for the most part, jealously kept up by the perpetual intercourse and communication between the bishops of the several churches. And so again, where a writer affirms that any particular doctrine has been handed down from the beginning, unless we have opposing evidence, it is reasonable to take his word; because we know that it was the custom and practice of the whole Church to require every new bishop to confess the doctrine already received, and to teach its doctrines to new converts as already received. And, at all events, such a statement is conclusive evidence, that such doctrine had come down from a generation or two preceding that of the writer; unless (as was said before) we have proof to the contrary.

But, as has been already stated, it is possible for an individual to be led away by controversy, or prejudice, or party bias; and therefore, when he is manifestly under any such influence, it is well to be on our guard. For that and other reasons, in any matter of serious doubt, it is impossible to rest upon the word of any single writer; but we use him as a link in the chain of evidence as to the doctrine taught from the beginning by the united universal Church.

4. We use them to aid us in interpreting the text of Scripture. For many of them quote very largely from the Sacred Volume; and as some lived near apostolical times, and many wrote in the language in which the New Testament was written, whilst others were persons of great inquiry and learning, and lived nearer to the localities of the sacred events than we do,—they had advantages which we do not possess. When, therefore, several or many of them concur in giving one uniform meaning to particular passages of Scripture, the evidence becomes very strong that they had the right interpretation: and even where only one writer gives any assistance upon any particular text, we shall frequently see reason for accepting his acceptation of it in preference to more modern suggestions. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind, that most of them knew nothing of the original language of the Old Testament; and that they are often only applying passages according to the prevalent habit (countenanced indeed by our Lord and his Apostles, but carried to various degrees of excess by most of the early writers) of seeking for mystical accommodations: and we must distinguish between application and interpretation.

Now these methods of employing the writings of the Fathers are à priori so obvious and so unobjectionable, that few writers of any credit object to the principle: but as the results of the application of the principle are highly inconvenient to those who have rejected the doctrine or discipline universally upheld in the primitive ages of the Church, two lines of argument have been taken to nullify this application. And as they have been lately revived in various ways, and particularly by the re-publication of the work from which most of them have been derived, viz. Daillé's Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers, I have thought proper to notice them in that brief manner which the limits of a preface permit. Some, indeed, of the objections brought forward ought to be considered as simply cautions to the inquirer, and as such I have already treated them; the chief remaining ones I now proceed to mention.

(1.) Some contend that, however reasonable in the abstract this sort of appeal to the Fathers may appear, it is beset with such difficulties, that it is useless in practice: that we have so few early writings, that those we have are so adulterated, that we have so many forgeries in the names of early writers, that the writings of the Fathers are so difficult to understand, that they so often give the opinions of others without any intimation that they are not their own, that they so constantly altered their views as they grew older, and that it so frequently happened that the men who are now of most note were in a minority of their contemporaries,—that it is practically useless to attempt to apply the Fathers to modern use.

Now I do not deny that there is something in these difficulties; otherwise they would not have been brought forward at all. No doubt we have but few writings of sub-apostolical times: but then we must use such as we have, and illustrate their sense by such methods as are in our power; and we shall find that they give a clear and consistent testimony to several important matters, both of doctrine and of discipline. It might be true, when Daillé first wrote, that the very important epistles of S. Ignatius were much adulterated: but it is not so now; the genuine copies having become known to the world in his time: neither is it true to any considerable extent of subsequent writers; and when it is, it simply presents a difficulty, which must be surmounted as we best can, or must cast a doubt over any particular writing. Sermons and popular treatises of writers of note were often altered in transcribing; just as we, in these days, re-publish popular books with omissions and alterations suited to the change of times, or to the shade of difference between our own views and those of the writer: and for that reason works of that description, however useful for devotional reading and instruction, must be brought forward in controversy with more caution than others, and sometimes set aside altogether. In short there is need of judgment and discrimination in the use of the Fathers; and that is the whole amount of this difficulty. With regard to the difficulty of understanding them, that is of course a matter of degree, dependent upon the acquaintance of the student with the original languages, as used in the age and country of the writers, upon his acquaintance with Church history and the state of controversy, upon the degree of prejudice or false doctrine with which his own mind is imbued: but I do not think that they present nearly so much difficulty as the Platonical writers, which many persons study with great interest. As to the Fathers giving the opinions of others without intimating that they are so, that is no more than St. Paul himself does; and it very seldom occurs. So no doubt, like all other persons, they modify their views and occasionally change them, as they grow older: but that is, for the most part, only in subordinate matters, and it is very rarely that the circumstance presents any practical difficulty. Finally, that men whose name has become great amongst posterity were in a minority in their own age, is no doubt true in some instances: but when it is so, it can be ascertained, and must be allowed for; and when it cannot be ascertained it must not be surmised. And even where they were so, as in the case of Athanasius, they may be connected with a majority in preceding and subsequent ages.

So that these objections are partly such difficulties as occur in every study, (but stated with much exaggeration,) and partly flimsy unpractical cavils, not worth dwelling upon.

(2.) But supposing that the writings of the Fathers are intelligible upon many points, another class of objections arises. It is asserted that they were themselves often mistaken, that they even contradict one another, and in short that no class or party is really willing to abide by their decision.

Here again, if they were mistaken, let it be shown by undoubted testimony (of Holy Writ or otherwise) that they were mistaken: but let no one take for granted that because they differ from the received notions of our own age, they were therefore in error. It should never be forgotten that every age has its errors: and it may be, possibly, that wherein we differ from them the error is our own. No doubt each eminent writer then, as each eminent writer now, was in some respects mistaken. It is the simple condition of humanity to be liable to error. But as that does not cause us to refuse the testimony of our contemporaries, or their aid in the pursuit of truth, so it need not cause us to turn a deaf ear to the earlier writers. The circumstance that in some respects each was in error only renders their combined testimony to truth more weighty. It has indeed been asserted that they were all in error upon certain points: but that assertion the Author has elsewhere[^1] shown to be totally destitute of truth. Again, with regard to their contradictions of each other, where they do occur they should of course be noted; but the cases will be found to be of little practical importance; and their differences upon some points only place in a clearer light their agreement where they do agree. Lastly, as to the alleged fact that no class or party heartily accepts even the combined evidence of the Fathers, it is certainly true of two opposite parties; viz. the Roman Church and those Protestants who have rejected the Apostolical succession,—both setting up modern opinions to oppose or to explain away primitive doctrine: but it is not true of the Church of England, which (as has been frequently shown) both formally recognizes the consent of Catholic Doctors, and does in point of fact, in her public acts and documents, agree substantially in doctrine and discipline with that consent, so far as it has yet been ascertained; whatever instances have been brought forward to the contrary being mistakes in matter of fact.

[^1: In his “Doctrine of Scripture and of the Primitive Church upon Religious Celibacy,” in reply to the author of “Antient Christianity.”]

5. But besides this use of the Fathers as evidence, many persons attribute to them a certain degree of authority; and greater objection is felt to appealing to them as authority, than to using them as testimony. There are, however, very different ways of treating them as authority.

Now to quote sentences of the Fathers, as we do texts of Holy Writ, as being infallibly conclusive, (which has been done by writers of the Roman Church, especially before Daillé's time,) can only be done in ignorance or in bad faith; because every person acquainted with them knows that, like all uninspired writers, they differ from each other and from themselves. But if we simply quote them as persons whose opinion or testimony ought to have with us very great weight, either for what they were in themselves, or for the age in which they lived, this is a quite different matter; it is constantly done in the Homilies of the Church; and there surely can be no valid objection to it. We do not hesitate to appeal to the judgment of the great lights of our own Church, and to regard their dicta as not to be lightly questioned, partly for their own learning, judgment, and piety, (as Hooker, Sanderson, Wilson, Waterland,) partly for the era in which they flourished, (as Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel:) we give them authority over our own minds, and in deciding controversies between ourselves; and what valid objection can be raised to our giving corresponding weight to the worthies of more ancient times? And as the earliest writers conversed either with Apostles, or with those who had heard the Apostles, it is natural to attribute greater weight to their words than to those of subsequent writers. And what if they do show whilst writing, that they had no anticipation of being guides to posterity? what if they caution us against trusting them implicitly, and recommend us to search the Scriptures for ourselves? what if they were sometimes in error? Do not all these circumstances apply to those more modern authors whom we do not hesitate to recognize as, in themselves, authorities? and why then should we be reluctant to yield to the more ancient that authority, as individuals, which all subsequent time has accorded to them? Authority may be great without being infallible. Authority may have weighty influence upon the judgment without directly binding the conscience.

These remarks and arguments are capable of being stated much more fully, and of being illustrated by instances throughout; but to do so would require a separate treatise; and it has been thought better to produce them thus nakedly than to omit them altogether.

It is proper to state that the editions of Irenæus and of other Fathers referred to are chiefly the Benedictine: Clement of Alexandria is quoted in the edition of Klotz, and Eusebius in that of Zimmermann.

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 greater justness of reasoning, and a more unexceptionable use of scripture, than is to be found in the writers of the Alexandrian school.

[^2: Tertullian (adv. Valent. 5.) calls him omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator.]

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 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.

[^3: Epist. ad Florinum. Εῖδον γάρ σε, παῖς ὢν ἔτι ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ παρὰ τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ, καὶ πειρώμενον εὐδοκιμεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Μᾶλλον γὰρ τὰ τότε διαμνημονεύω τῶν ἔναγχος γινομένων· αἱ γὰρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις, συναύξουσαι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἐνοῦνται αὑτῇ· ὥστε με δύνασθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾦ καθεζόμενος διελέγετο ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος, καὶ τὰς προόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς εἰσόδους, καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ βίου, καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν, καὶ τὰς διαλέξεις ἃς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν μετὰ Ἰωάννου συναναστροφὴν ὡς ἀπήγγελλε, καὶ τὴν μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἑωρακότων τὸν Κύριον· καὶ ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευε τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου τίνα ἧν ἂ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ἠκηκόει· καὶ περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζώης τοῦ Λόγου παρειληφὼς ὁ Πολύκαρπος ἀπήγγελλε, πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς. Ταῦτα καὶ τότε διὰ τὸ ἕλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ γεγονὸς σπουδαίως ἤκουον, ὑπομνηματιζόμενος αὐτὰ οὐκ ἐν χάρτῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ καρδίᾳ· καὶ ἀεὶ διὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνήσιως αὐτὰ ἀναμαρυκῶμαι.]

[^4: Adv. Hær. III. iii. 4. Καὶ Πολύκαρπος δὲ οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων μαθητευθεὶς, καὶ δυναναστραφεὶς πολλοῖς τοῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἑωρακόσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ· (ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γηραλέος, ἐνδόξως καὶ ἐπιφανέστατα μαρτυρήσας, ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου)· κ. τ. λ.]

[^5: Ep. ad Flor.]

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 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.

[^6: Diss. in Irenæum, III. § 10, 11.]

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, 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 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.

[^7: Auteurs Ecclésiastiques, tom. i. S. Irenée.]

[^8: The Benedictine Editor: Dissert. Præv. II. § 2.]

[^9: Mémoires, tom. iii. S. Irenée, art. ii.]

[^10: Ep. ad Flor. supra.]

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 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].

[^11: Epist. 53. al. 29. ad Theodoram viduam. Refert Irenæus, vir Apostolicorum temporum, et Papiæ, auditoris Evangelistæ Joannis, discipulus, Episcopus Ecclesiæ Lugdunensis, quod Marcus quidam, de Basilidis Gnostici stirpe descendens, primum ad Gallias venerit, et eas partes, per quas Rhodanus et Garumna fluunt, suâ doctrinâ maculaverit, maximeque nobiles fœminas, quædam in occulto mysteria repromittens, hoc errore seduxerit, magicis artibus et secretâ corporum voluptate amorem sui concilians: inde Pyrenæum transiens, Hispanias occuparit; et hoc studii habuerit, ut divitum domos, et in ipsis fœminas maxime appeteret, quæ ducuntur variis desideriis, semper discentes, et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes. Hoc ille scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos; et scripsit in iis libris, quos adversus omnes hæreses doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone composuit.]

[^12: Adv. Hær. I. Præf. 2. xv. 6. III. xvii. 4. xxiii. 3. IV. xxvii. 1.]

[^13: See Massuet, Diss. Præv. II. § 3.]

[^14: Diss. in Iren. IV. 3.]

[^15: Irenæus (IV. xxvii. 1.) calls him quendam presbyterum qui audierat ab his qui apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant.]

How long Irenæus continued to reside in Asia Minor we know not; but we find him next at Lyons[^16], 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 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.

[^16: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. iii. 2. Καὶ δὴ διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ τῶν δεδηλωμένων [sc. Montanus and his disciples] αὖθις οἱ κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοὶ τὴν ἰδίαν κρίσιν καὶ περὶ τούτων εὐλαβῆ καὶ ὀρθοδοξοτάτην ὑποτάττουσιν· ἐκθέμενοι καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τελειωθέντων μαρτύρων διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς, ἃς ἐν δεσμοῖς ἔτι ὑπάρχοντες τοῖς ἐπ᾽ Ἀσίας καὶ Φρυγίας ἀδελφοῖς διεχάραξαν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἐλευθέρῳ τῷ τότε Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπῳ, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

iv. 1. Οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ μάρτυρες καὶ τὸν Εἰρηναῖον, πρεσβύτερον τότ᾽ ὅντα τῆς ἐν Λουγδούνῳ παροικίας, τῷ δηλωθέντι κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐπισκόπῳ συνίστων, πλεῖστα τῷ ἀνδρὶ μαρτυροῦντες, ὡς αἱ τοῦτον ἔχουσαι τὸν τρόπον δηλοῦσι φωναί.]

[^17: Jerome, Catalog. Irenæus Pothini Episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in Gallia regebat ecclesiam, Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob quasdam Ecclesiæ quæstiones legatus Romam missus, honorificas super nomine suo ad Eleutherium Episcopum perfert literas. Postea jam Pothino prope nonagenario ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum ejus substituitur. Constat autem Polycarpi, cujus supra fecimus mentionem, sacerdotis et martyris, hunc fuisse discipulum. Scripsit quinque adversus Hæreses libros, et contra Gentes volumen breve, et de Disciplina aliud, et ad Marcianum fratrem de Apostolica prædicatione, et librum Variorum tractatuum, et ad Blastum de Schismate, et ad Florinum de Monarchia, sive, quod Deus non sit conditor malorum, et de Octava egregium commentarium, in cujus fine significans se Apostolicorum temporum vicinum fuisse, sic subscripsit:

“Adjuro te qui transcribis librum istum, per Dominum Jesum Christum, et per gloriosum ejus adventum, quo judicaturus est vivos et mortuos, ut conferas postquam transcripseris, et emendes illum ad exemplar, unde scripsisti, diligentissime: hanc quoque obtestationem similiter transferas, ut invenisti in exemplari.” Feruntur ejus et aliæ ad Victorem Episcopum Romæ de quæstione Paschæ epistolæ, in quibus commonet eum, non facile debere unitatem collegii scindere: siquidem Victor multos Asiæ et Orientis Episcopos, qui decimaquarta luna cum Judæis pascha celebrabant, damnandos crediderat; in qua sententia hi qui discrepabant ab illis, Victori non dederunt manus. Floruit maxime sub Commodo principe, qui Marco Antonino Vero in imperium successerat.]

[^18: Athen. Deipnosoph. xiii. 5. Justin, xliii. 3.]

[^19: Pothinus, the bishop, Attalus, (Περγαμηνὸς τῷ γένει· Euseb. V. i. 7.) Alcibiades, Biblias, Alexander, (Φρὺξ τὸ γένος· ibid. 21.) all mentioned by Eusebius, besides others recorded in the martyrologies.]

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 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.

[^20: See note 7, p. 8.]

[^21: Hist. Eccl. V. v. 3. Ποθεινοῦ δὴ ἐφ᾽ ὅλοις τῆς ζωῆς ἔτεσιν ἐνενήκοντα σὺν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασι τελειωθέντος, Εἰρηναῖος τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον, ἧς ὁ Ποθεινὸς ἡγεῖτο παροικίας, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν διαδέχεται. Πολυκάρπου δὲ τοῦτον ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν νέαν ἐμανθάνομεν ἡλικίαν.]

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 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 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 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.

[^22: Tillemont, Mémoires, Note 1. Sur les Martyrs de Lion.]

[^23: See the Epistle of the Martyrs to Eleutherus; Euseb. V. iv. 1. Χαίρειν ἐν Θεῷ σε ἐν πᾶσιν εὐχόμεθα καὶ ἀεὶ, πάτερ Ἐλεύθερε. Ταῦτά σοι τὰ γράμματα προτρεψάμεθα τόν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ κοινωνὸν Εἰρηναῖον διακόμισαι· καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει, ζηλωτὴν ὄντα τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 2. Εἰ γὰρ ᾕδειμεν τόπον τινὶ δικαιοσύνην περιποιεῖσθαι, ὡς πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, ἐν πρώτοις ἃν παρεθέμεθα.]

[^24: Hist. Eccl. V. iii. 2. See note 6, p. 7.]

[^25: Tertull. adv. Praxean, i. Nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romæ.... Nam idem tunc Episcopum Romanum, agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscæ, Maximillæ, et ex ea agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiæ et Phrygiæ inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando, et præcessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coëgit et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Ita duo negotia diabolo Praxeas Romæ procuravit: prophetiam expulit (we must remember that Tertullian was a Montanist), et hæresin intulit: Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit. Fructicaverant avenæ Praxeanæ, hic quoque superseminatæ, dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinæ; traductæ dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam evulsæ videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua; et manet chirographum apud Psychicos (the orthodox), apud quos res tunc gesta est. Exinde silentium.... Ita aliquamdiu per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit.]

[^26: In his account of Tertullian's Treatise against Praxeas.]

[^27: Tom. ii. Note 4. Sur les Montanistes.]

[^28: Dissertationes Præv. II. § 8, 9.]

[^29: See Tertullian in loco.]

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 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].

[^30: Hist. Eccl. V. i. 1.]

[^31: Euseb. V. i. 7.]

[^32: Euseb. V. xx. 1. Ἐξεναντίας τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας θεσμὸν παραχαραττόντων, Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει· τὴν μὲν ἐπιγράψας πρὸς Βλάστον περὶ σχίσματος· τὴν δὲ πρὸς Φλωρῖνον περὶ μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἑἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν· ταύτης γάρ τοι τῆς γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν· δι᾽ ὂν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ, καὶ τὸ περὶ ὀγδοάδος συντάττεται τῷ Εἰρηναίῳ σπούδασμα· ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐπισημαίνεται τὴν πρώτην τῶν ἀποστόλων κατειληφέναι ἑαυτὸν διαδοχήν.——ἐν ᾗ γε μὴν προειρήκαμεν πρὸς τὸν Φλωρῖνον ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐπιστολῇ αὗθις τῆς ἅμα Πολυκάρπῳ συνουσίας αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει λέγων· Τὰ δόγματα, κ. τ. λ.]

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, 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.

[^33: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. i. 14.]

[^34: Ibid. V. v. 3, supra.]

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 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 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 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.”

[^35: By Quesnel (see Tillemont, tom. iii. just at the end of his account of Irenæus); and by Massuet, Dissert. Præv. II. § 12.]

[^36: See note 7, p. 8.]

[^37: See note 4, p. 10.]

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 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 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.

[^38: V. xxiii. 2.]

[^39: Bingham, IX. ii. 1.]

[^40: Euseb. V. 22. Τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν παροικῶν.]

[^41: Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 788. Paris, 1527.]

[^42: Bingham, IX. ii. 6.]

[^43: Hist. I. 27. Εἰσὶν ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ πόλιν ὡς παροικίαι.]

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.

[^44: Dissert. II. § 13-16.]

[^45: Ruinart. Act. Mart. p. 110. cited by Massuet, Diss. II. § 15.]

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 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 is in agreement with the traditions of those Churches.

[^46: So called to distinguish them from the inhabitants of Galatia. Theodoret. Dial. i. p. 33. ed. Sirmond:—Εἰρηναῖος τῆς Πολυκάρπου διδασκαλίας ἀπήλαυσεν· ἐγεγόνει δὲ φωστὴρ Γαλατῶν τῶν ἐσπερίων.]

[^47: Id. Hær. Fab. p. 189. Τοὺς μέντοι τῶν παλαιῶν αἱρέσεων μύθους ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων συνέλεξα, Ἰουστίνου τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος, καὶ Εἰρηναίου τοῦ τὰ Κέλτικα καὶ γεωργήσαντος καὶ φωτίσαντος ἔθνη.]

[^48: Anonymus auctor martyrii S. Ferreoli presbyteri, et Ferruccionis diaconi, ac sociorum ejus, apud Surium, tom. viii. ad diem 16. Junii. Eodem tempore quo summus Sacerdos et Martyr Ecclesiæ Lugdunensis, S. Irenæus Episcopus Christi, lumen æternum et splendor justitiæ, publice suam prædicationem in Galliis dederat, et assidue verbum Domini nostri Jesu Christi gentibus declarârat, Sanctum Ferreolum Presbyterum, et Ferruccionem Diaconum ad Vesunsensem civitatem vere ut fundamentum fortissimum ad fundandam supra petram Christi Ecclesiam misit: et sicut angularis lapis sponsi cœlestis, et ut margaritæ resplendentes fulgebant, per quos nomen æternum et splendor gloriæ gentibus, quæ in tenebris jacebant, coruscaret; ut eorum prædicatione ad Baptismatis gratiam convolarent in quibus erat mira virtus Christi. In verbo enim et sapientia strenui, vultum angelicum et Domini servitutibus aptum manifeste populis demonstrabant. Augebatur Catholica fides, lætabantur de confuso et victo diabolo quotidie Christiani; qui derelinquentes idola, sequebantur Christi vestigia. Similiter Sanctus Irenæus Felicem Presbyterum, Fortunatum, et Achilleum Diaconos, ex suo latere ante gloriosum martyrium suum Valentiam dirigit in urbem: quibus ingressis, talem Dominus athletis suis contulit gratiam, ut illa Paganorum multitudo, quæ in tenebris jacebat, eos plenissimo affectu diligeret.]

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 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 as, being himself of Asiatic birth, and brought up in the very church of Polycarp, he had conformed to the Western usage.

[^49: Hist. Eccl. V. xx. 1.]

[^50: Ibid. 15.]

[^51: Hær. Fab. I. 23.]

[^52: Tertull. de Præscript. 53.]

[^53: Epist. 1.]

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.

[^54: Hist. Eccl. V. 15. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκμαζον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Φλωρῖνος, πρεσβυτερίου τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσὼν, Βλάστος τε σὺν τούτῳ παραπλησίῳ, πτώματι κατεσχημένος· οἳ καὶ πλείους τῆς ἐκκλησίας περιέλκοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ σφῶν ὑπῆγον Βούλημα· θάτερος ἰδίως περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος.]

[^55: Diss. II. § 59.]

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 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.

[^56: Epist. ad Florinum, supra, p. 2.]

[^57: Euseb. V. 15.]

[^58: Hist. Eccl. V. xx. 2-4.]

[^59: Fragm. ii.]

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. 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.

[^60: Euseb. V. xx. 1.]

[^61: Περὶ Ὀγδοάδος.]

[^62: Euseb. V. xx. 2, and Fragm. i. of the Benedictine edition. Ὀρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἦς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὄθεν μετεγράψω, ἐπιμελῶς· καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφω.]

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 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 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.

[^63: Adv. Hær. I. v. 3. οἱ δὲ καὶ ταῖς τῆς σαρκός ἡδοναῖς κατακόρωσ δουλεύοντες, τὰ σαρκικὰ τοῖς σαρκικοῖς, καὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς ἀποδίδοσθαι λέγουσι. Καὶ οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν λάθρα τὰς διδασκομένας ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην γυναῖκας διαφθείρουσιν, ὡς πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ ἐνίων αὐτῶν ἐξαπατηθεῖσαι, ἔπειπα ἐπιστρέψασαι γυναῖκες εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺν τῇ λοιπῇ πλάνῃ καὶ τοῦτο ἐξωμολογήσαντο. οἱ δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸ φανερὸν ἀπερυθριάσαντες, ὧν ἂν ἐρασθῶσι γυναικῶν, ταύτας ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἀποσπάσαντες, ἰδίας γαμετὰς ἡγήσαντο. ἄλλοι δὲ αὖ πάλιν σεμνῶς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς, ὡς μετὰ ἀδελφῶν προσποιούμενοι συνοικεῖν, προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου ηλέγχθησαν, ἐγκύμονος τῆς ἀδελφῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γενηθείσης.

Ib. xiii. 7. Τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγοντες καὶ πράττοντες, καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς κλίμασι τῆς Ῥοδανουσίας, πολλὰς ἐξηπατήκασι γυναῖκας, αἵτινες κεκαυτηριασμέναι τὴν συνείδησιν, αἱ μὲν καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἐξομολογοῦνται, αἱ δὲ δυσωπούμεναι τοῦτο, ἡσυχῆ δέ πως ἑαυτὰς, ἀπηλπικυῖαι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔνιαι μὲν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἀπέστησαν, ἔνιαι δὲ ἐπαμφοτερίζουσι, καὶ τὸ τῆς παροιμίας πεπόνθασι, μήτε ἔξω, μήτε ἔσω οὖσαι, ταύτην ἔχουσαι τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν τέκνων τῆς γνώσεως.]

He was the more determined upon doing this by 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.

[^64: Adv. Hær. I. Præf. 3. Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐκ Κελτοῖς διατριβόντων, καὶ περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων, λόγων τέχνην, ἣν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν, οὔτε δύναμιν συγγράφεως, ἣν οὐκ ἠσκήσαμεν, οὔτε καλλωπισμὸν λέξεων, οὔτε πιθανότητα, ἧν οὐκ οἴδαμεν· ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς, καὶ ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα, μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺ προσδέξῃ· καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ, ἅτε ἰκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις τὰ δι᾽ ὀλίγων ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰρημένα, καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα. καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐφιλοτιμήθημεν, πάλαι ζητοῦντός σου μαθεῖν τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μὴ μόνον σοι ποιῆσαι φανερὰν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφόδια δοῦναι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ· οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὺ φιλοτίμως τοῖς λοιποῖς διακονήσεις, κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου σοὶ δεδομένην, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι παρασύρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνων πιθανολογίας, οὔσης τοιαύτης.]

In the accomplishment of this work he no doubt 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].

[^65: I. Præf. 2. Ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἰτίαν συναρπάζωνταί τινες, ὡς πρόβατα ὑπὸ λύκων, ἀγνοοῦντες αὐτοὺς, διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν τῆς προβατείου δορᾶς ἐπιβουλὴν, οὓς φυλάσσειν παρήγγελκεν ἡμῖν Κύριος, ὅμοια μὲν λαλοῦντας, ἀνόμοια δὲ φρονοῦντας· ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν, ἐνίοις δ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μήνυσαί σοι, ἀγαπητὲ, τὰ τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα μυστήρια, ἃ οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν· ὅπως καὶ σὺ μαθὼν αὐτὰ, πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ φανερὰ ποιήσῃς, καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας, καὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν βλασφημίας.]

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, 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], followed by the three others at distinct intervals[^71].

[^66: III. iii. 1. given at length in ch. II. of this work.]

[^67: III. xxi. 1. given at length in the chapter on the Canon, &c. of Holy Scripture.]

[^68: See Epiphan. de Pond. et Mens. § 17. and the Alexandrian Chronicle, quoted by Massuet, Diss. II. § 47.]

[^69: Book I. xxxi. 4. Cum igitur hæc sic se habeant, quatenus promisi, secundum nostram virtutem inferemus eversionem ipsorum, omnibus eis contradicentes in sequenti libro: (enarratio enim in longum pergit, ut vides:) et viatica quoque dabimus ad eversionem ipsorum, occurrentes omnibus sententiis secundum narrationis ordinem: ut simus non tantum ostendentes, sed et vulnerantes undique bestiam.]

[^70: III. Præf. Misimus tibi libros, ex quibus primus quidem omnium illorum sententias continet, et consuetudines, et characteres ostendit conversationis eorum. In secundo vero destructa et eversa sunt quæ ab ipsis male docentur, et nudata, et ostensa sunt talia qualia et sunt. In hoc autem tertio ex Scripturis inferemus ostensiones, ut nihil tibi ex his, quæ præceperas, desit a nobis; sed et, præterquam opinabaris, ad arguendum et evertendum eos, qui quolibet modo male docent, occasiones a nobis accipias. Quæ enim est in Deo charitas, dives et sine invidia exsistens, plura donat quam postulet quis ab ea. Memento igitur eorum quæ diximus in prioribus duobus libris; et hæc illis adjungens, plenissimam habebis a nobis adversus omnes hæreticos contradictionem, et fiducialiter ac instantissime resistes eis pro sola vera ac vivifica fide, quam ab Apostolis Ecclesia percepit, et distribuit filiis suis. Etenim Dominus omnium dedit Apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii, per quos et veritatem, hoc est, Dei Filii doctrinam cognovimus; quibus et dixit Dominus: Qui vos audit, me audit: et qui vos contemnit, me contemnit, et eum qui me misit.]

[^71: Ib. & IV. Præf. 1. Hunc quartum librum, dilectissime, transmittens tibi, operis quod est de detectione et eversione falsæ cognitionis, quemadmodum promisimus, per Domini sermones ea, quæ prædiximus, confirmabimus.——V. Præf. Traductis, dilectissime, omnibus hæreticis in quatuor libris, qui sunt tibi ante hunc a nobis editi, et doctrinis ipsorum manifestatis; eversis quoque his, qui irreligiosas adinvenerunt sententias, aliquid quidem ex propria uniuscujusque illorum doctrina, quam in suis conscriptis reliquerunt; aliquid autem ex ratione, universis ostensionibus procedente; et veritate ostensa, et manifestato præconio Ecclesiæ, quod Prophetæ quidem præconaverunt, quemadmodum demonstravimus, perfecit autem Christus, Apostoli vero tradiderunt, a quibus Ecclesia accipiens, per universum mundum sola bene custodiens, tradidit filiis suis; quæstionibusque omnibus solutis, quæ ab hæreticis nobis proponuntur; et Apostolorum doctrina explanata, et manifestatis pluribus, quæ a Domino per parabolas et dicta sunt et facta: in hoc libro quinto, operis universi, quod est de traductione et eversione falso cognominatæ agnitionis, ex reliquis doctrinæ Domini nostri, et ex Apostolicis epistolis, conabimur ostensiones facere.]

The general object of the first book is to give a full exposition of the Gnostic doctrines[^72]. The first 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.

[^72: I. Præf. 2. Καὶ, καθὼς δύναμις ἡμῖν, τήν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν παραδιδασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, ἀπάνθισμα οὖσαν τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, συντόμως καὶ σαφῶς ἀπαγγελοῦμεν.]

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 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.

[^73: II. Præf. 2. In hoc autem libro instruemus quæ nobis apta sunt, et quæ permittit tempus, et evertemus per magna capitula omnem ipsorum regulam: quapropter, quod sit detectio et eversio sententiæ ipsorum, operis hujus conscriptionem ita titulavimus. Oportet enim absconditas ipsorum conjugationes, per manifestarum conjugationum indicium et eversionem, Bythum dissolvere; et quoniam neque fuerit aliquando, neque sit, accipere ostensionem.]

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.

[^74: See note 10 above, p. 34.]

[^75: See III. ii. 1. quoted in the chapter on Tradition.]

[^76: III. v. 1.]

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.

[^77: See IV. Præf. 1. quoted above, p. 35. and i. 1. Cum sit igitur hoc firmum et constans, neminem alterum Deum et Dominum a Spiritu prædicatum, nisi eum qui dominatur omnium Deus, cum Verbo suo, et eos qui adoptionis Spiritum accipiunt, hoc est, eos qui credunt in unum et verum Deum, et Christum Jesum Filium Dei; similiter et Apostolos neminem alium a semetipsis Deum appellasse, aut Dominum cognominasse; multo autem magis Dominum nostrum, qui et nobis præcepit neminem Patrem confiteri, nisi eum qui est in cœlis, qui est unus Deus, et unus Pater.]

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 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.

[^78: See V. Præf. quoted above, p. 35.]

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 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 mistakes as the interpreter, (as for instance, in regard to the name of the heretic Epiphanes, which they have both rendered by an epithet, and others instanced by Massuet,) almost amounts to a demonstration 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].

[^79: In Bibliotheca, cod. 120.]

[^80: Massuet, Diss. II. §. 53. Quisquis Irenæum Latinum cum Tertulliano contulerit, e vestigio deprehendet adeo hunc vestigia illius premere, adeo verbis ipsis, verborumque figuris et ordini adhærere, ut id unum sibi proposuisse videatur, paucioribus contrahere, iisdem sæpe servatis verbis, immixtis tamen pro more dicteriis, quæ ille fusioribus exsequutus est. Sic Irenæus, lib. I. cap. xi. n. 3. Epiphanis sententiam referens, scribit: “Est quidem ante omnes Proarche, proanennoëtos, et inenarrabilis, et innominabilis, quam ego monotetem voco. Cum hac monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco henotetem. Hæc henotes et monotes, cum sint unum, emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint, principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoraton, quam archem sermo monada vocat. Cum hac monade est virtus ejusdem substantiæ ei, quam et eam voco hen. Hæ autem virtutes, id est, monotes et henotes, et monas, et hen, emiserunt reliquas emissiones Æonum.” Tertullianus vero cap. 37. “Est,” inquit, “ante omnia Proarche, inexcogitabile et inenarrabile, quod ego nomino monoteta. Cum hac erat alia virtus, quam et ipsam appello henoteta. Monotes et henotes, id est, solitas et unitas, cum unum essent, protulerunt, non proferentes, initium omnium intellectuale, innascibile, invisibile, quod sermo monada vocavit. Huic adest consubstantiva virtus, quam appellat unio. Hæ igitur virtutes, solitas, singularitas, unitas, unio, cæteras prolationes Æonum propagarunt.” Ubi eadem verba, (nisi quod Græca quædam Latine vertuntur,) eadem styli barbaries, atque apud Irenæi interpretem occurrunt. Hic n. 5. “Alii rursus ipsorum primam et archegonon octonationem his nominibus nominaverunt: primum Proarchen, deinde Anennoëton, tertiam autem Arrheton, et quartam Aoraton. Et de prima quidem Proarche emissum esse primo et quinto loco Archen; ex Anennoëto secundo et sexto loco Acatalepton; et de Arrheto tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston; de Aorato autem quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Tertullianus, cap. 25. totidem verbis: “Primo enim constituunt Proarchen, secundo Anennoëton, tertio Arrheton, quarto Aoraton. Ex Proarche itaque processisse primo et quinto loco Archen; ex Anennoëto, secundo et sexto loco Acatalepton; ex Arrheto, tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston; ex Invisibili, quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Certe si e Græco immediate exscripsisset omnia hæc Tertullianus, tot nomina Græca Latine vertisset; nec fortuito et casu fieri potuit ut hoc illi cum Irenæi interprete convenerit. Hic cap. xii. n. 3. Colorbaseorum hypothesim sic exponit. “Quando cogitavit aliquid emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est; at ubi quæ emisit, vera fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. Quos autem præcogitaverat posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Loquutus est Anthropos Logon, hic est primogenitus Filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoe, et sic prima octonatio completa est.” Ille cap. 36. “Quum, inquiunt, cogitavit proferre, hoc Pater dictus est; quum protulit, quia vera protulit, hic Veritas appellata est. Quum semetipsum voluit probari, hoc Homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem præcogitavit, cum protulit, tunc Ecclesia nuncupata est. Sonuit Homo Sermonem, et hic est primogenitus Filius: et Sermoni accessit Vita, et ogdoas prima conclusa est.” Plura alia similia passim occurrunt apud Tertullianum. Sed quod demum ostendit hunc non e Græco, sed ex interprete Irenæi sumpsisse quæ refert, illud est, quod ubi lapsus est interpres Græca perperam reddens, lapsus est et Tertullianus. Ille, ut jam dixi, nomen Ἐπιφανὴς appellativum esse putans, male omnino vertit “clarus.” Tertullianus similiter errantem sequutus scripsit, “insignior.” Irenæus, cap. ii. n. 3. Sophiæ perturbationem enarrans, scribit eam, fœtum informem cum peperisset, “primo quidem contristatam propter inconsummationem generationis, post deinde, φοβηθῆναι μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τέλος ἔχῃ.” Sic saltem legit interpres; vertit enim, “timuisse ne hoc ipsum finem habeat;” ubi τέλος “perfectionem,” non “finem” vertendum erat, ut in notis ad hunc locum diximus. Nec melius Tertullianus, cap. 10. “primo quidem contristari propter inconsummationem generationis, et metuere postremo, ne finis quoque insisteret.” Ubi similiter τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς γεννήσεως vertit “inconsummationem generationis;” et relicto Irenæo Græco, Latinum interpretem sequutus scripsit, “ne quoque finis insisteret.” Eodem cap. n. 4. refert Irenæus, quod Pater per Monogenem emiserit Horon in imagine sua, ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον: ubi interpres perperam legens ἀσυζύγῳ, ἀθηλύντῳ, vel, ut alii volunt, ἀῥῥενοθήλει, perperam et vertit, “sine conjuge masculo-fœmina.” Eadem culpa tenetur et Tertullianus, cap. cit. “Pater per Monogenem Nun, quem supra diximus Horon, in hæc promit in imagine sua fœmina-mare.” Nempe uterque id ad imaginem refert, quod Horo soli convenire posse recta ratio demonstrat. Culpam hanc non sustineret Tertullianus, si textum Græcum hic potius quam interpretem consuluisset. Paulo post, Sophian ab Horo mundatam et confirmatam, ac suæ restitutam conjugationi cum dixisset Irenæus, addit: Χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει, αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς Πληρώματος μεῖναι· τὴν δὲ ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι. Quæ sic reddidit interpres: “Separata enim intentione ab ea, cum appendice passione, ipsam quidem infra Pleroma perseverasse: concupiscentiam vero ejus cum passione ab Horo separatam, et crucifixam, et extra cum factam esse, &c.” ubi duo peccat, primum quod, σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει, vertit, “cum appendice passione;” vertendum erat, “cum passione quæ supervenerat.” Secundum, quod ἀποσταυρωθῆναι vertit, “crucifixam;” hic significat, quasi “vallo cinctam et disjunctam” a Pleromate. Eadem omnino peccat et Tertullianus, scribens: “Enthymesin ejus et illam appendicem passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifixam.” Hæc et plura alia, quæ identidem in notis observavi, invicte, ni fallor, probant, Tertullianum, ut Græcum Irenæum legerit, (quod non nego) ab eo tamen sæpe defecisse, ut Latini interpretis, et quidem interdum errantis, vestigia sectaretur.]

[^81: Contra Julianum Pelagianum, I. c. 3. he has quoted the last clause of IV. ii. 7; and c. 7. the last paragraph of V. xvii. 1.]

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 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 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 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 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.

[^82: Eusebius indeed says (V. xxiii. 1) that the Churches of all Asia were united in differing from the rest of the world; but it is evident, from chap. xxv. that he means Asia Minor; for he mentions the bishops of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Tyre, and Ptolemais, as asserting that the Church of Alexandria agreed with them in their present practice, which was the same as that of the West.

Τῆς Ἀσίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας, σελήνης τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην ᾥοντο δεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς παραφυλάττειν, ἐν ᾗ θύειν τὸ πρόβατον Ἰουδαίοις προηγόρευτο· ὡς δέον ἐκπαντὸς κατὰ ταύτην, ὁποίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἑβδομάδος περιτυγχάνοι, τὰς τῶν ἀσιτιῶν ἐπιλύσεις ποιεῖσθαι· οὐκ ἔθους ὄντος τοῦτον ἐπιτελεῖν τὸν τρόπον ταῖς ἀνὰ τήν λοιπὴν ἄπασαν οἰκουμένην ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως τὸ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο κρατῆσαν ἔθος φυλαττούσαις· ὡς μηδ᾽ ἑτέρᾳ προσήκειν παρὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέραν τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι.]

[^83: As appears by the following Fragment of Irenæus's Epistle to Victor, quoted by Euseb. V. xxiv. 5. Καὶ οἱ πρὸ Σωτῆρος πρεσβύτεροι οἱ προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἧς νῦν ἀφηγῇ, Ἀνίκητον λέγομεν καὶ Πίον, Ὕγῖνόν τε καὶ Τελεσφόρον, καὶ Ξύστον, οὔτε αὐτοὶ ἐτήρησαν, οὔτε τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐπέτρεπον. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον αὐτοὶ μὴ τηροῦντες, εἰρήνευον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν, ἐν αἷς ἐτηρεῖτο, ἐρχομένοις πρὸς αὐτοὺς, καίτοι μᾶλλον ἐνάντιον ἦν τὸ τηρεῖν τοῖς μὴ τηροῦσι· καὶ οὐδέποτε διὰ τὸ εἶδος τοῦτο ἀπεβλήθησάν τινες. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ μὴ τηροῦντες, οἱ πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι, τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν τηροῦσιν ἔπεμπον εὐχαριστίαν. Καὶ τοῦ μακαρίου Πολυκάρπου ἐπιδημήσαντος τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων τινῶν μικρὰ σχόντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους, εὐθὺς εἰρήνευσαν, περὶ τούτου τοῦ κεφαλαίου μὴ φιλεριστήσαντες ἑαυτούς. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ Ἀνίκητος τὸν Πολύκαρπον πεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ τηρεῖν, ἅτε μετὰ Ἰωάννου τοῦ μαθητοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ λοιπῶν ἀποστόλων οἷς συνδιέτριψεν, ἀεὶ τετηρηκότα· οὔτε μὴν ὁ Πολύκαρπος τὸν Ἀνίκητον ἔπεισε τηρεῖν, λέγοντα τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν πρὸ αὑτοῦ πρεσβυτέρων ὀφείλειν κατέχειν. καὶ τούτων οὔτως ἐχόντων, ἐκοινὼνησαν ἑαυτοῖς· καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παρεχώρησεν ὁ Ἀνίκητος τὴν εὐχαριστίαν τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, κατ᾽ ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι, καὶ μετ᾽ εἰρήνης απ` ἀλλήλων ἀπηλλάγησαν, πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰρήνην ἐχόντων, καὶ τῶν τηρούντων καὶ τῶν μὴ τηρούντων.]

[^84: See p. 23. above.]

[^85: We know that he wrote to Polycrates of Ephesus, and therefore probably to the rest. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. xxiv. 3.—Ἐδυνάμην δὲ τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῶν συμπαρόντων μνημονεῦσαι, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἠξιώσατε μετακληθῆναι ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ μετεκαλεσάμην.]

[^86: Hist. Eccl. V. xxiii. 2. Σύνοδοι δὴ καὶ συγκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν ἐγίνοντο. πάντες τε μιᾷ γνώμῃ δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν δόγμα τοῖς πανταχόσε διετυποῦντο, ὡς ἂν μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῃ ποτε τῆς Κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου μυστήριον, καὶ ὄπως ἐν ταύτῃ μόνῃ τῶν κατὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστειῶν φυλαττοίμεθα τας ἐπιλύσεις. Φέρεται δ᾽ εἰσέτι νῶν τῶν κατὰ Παλαιστίνην τηνικάδε συγκεκροτημένων γραφὴ, ὧν προὐτέτακτο Θεέφιλος τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ παροικίας ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ Νάρκισσος τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις· καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης δὲ ὁμοίως ἄλλη περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ζητήματος, ἐπίσκοπον Βίκτορα δηλοῦσα· τῶν τε κατὰ Πόντον ἐπισκόπων, ὧν Πάλμας ὡς ἀρχαιότατος προὐτέτακτο· καὶ τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν δὲ παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει· ἔτι δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ὀσροηνὴν καὶ τὰς ἐκεῖσε πόλεις· καὶ ἰδίως Βακχύλλου τῆς Κορινθίων ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκόπου, καὶ πλείστων ὅσων ἄλλων, οἱ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτην δόξαν τε καὶ κρίσιν ἐξενεγκόμενοι, τὴν αὐτὴν τέθεινται ψῆφον.... 24. Τῶν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπισκόπων τὸ πάλαι πρότερον αὐτοῖς παραδοθὲν διαφυλάττειν ἔθος χρῆναι διϊσχυριζομένων ἡγεῖτο Πολυκράτης.]

[^87: Hist. Eccl. V. xxiv. 2. Ἐγὼ οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἑξήκοντα καὶ πέντε ἔτη ἔχων ἐν Κυρίῳ, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀδελφοῖς, καὶ πᾶσαν ἁγίαν γραφὴν διεληλυθὼς, οὐ πτύρομαι ἐπὶ τοῖς καταπλησσομένοις.]

[^88: Euseb. V. xxiv. 3. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ, ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσας ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτέμνειν, ὡς ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται· καὶ στηλιτεύει γε διὰ γραμμάτων, ἀκοινωνήτους ἄρδην πάντας τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀκακηρύττων ἀδελφούς.]

[^89: Ibid. Ἀλλ᾽ οὺ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτ᾽ ἠρέσκετο· ἀντιπαρακελεύονται δῦτα αὐτῷ, τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πλησίον ἑνώσεως καὶ ἀγάπης φρονεῖν. Φέρονται δὲ καὶ αἱ τούτων φωναὶ, πληκτικώτερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίκτορος· ἐν οἷς καὶ ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, παρίσταται μὲν τῷ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι μυστήριον· τῷ γε μὴν Βίκτορι προσηκόντως, ὡς μὴ ἀποκόπτοι ὅλας ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἀρχαίου ἔθους παράδοσιν ἐπιτηρούσας, πλεῖστα ἕτερα παραινεῖ, καὶ αὐτοῖς δὲ ῥήμασι τάδε ἐπιλέγων· Then follows the fragment Οὐ γὰρ μόνον ... συνίστησι, extracted in the chapter on the Forms and Ceremonies of the Church, and that quoted above, p. 45, note 4.—Ibid. xxiv. 6. Ὁ δ᾽ αύτὸς οὐ μόνον τῷ Βίκτορι, ἀλλὰ και διαφόροις πλείστοις ἄρχουσιν ἐκκλησιῶν, τὰ κατάλληλα δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν περὶ τοῦ κεκινημένου ζητήματος ὡμίλει.]

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] 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.

[^90: Anatolius, apud Bucher. de Cycl. Vict. p. 444. ed. Antwerp, 1633.]

[^91: Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, in a letter addressed to Cyprian, preserved amongst those of Cyprian (Epist. 75. ed. Potter. p. 220.), says, in reference to the diversity of customs “circa celebrandos dies paschæ, et circa multa alia divinæ rei sacramenta,” “Nec tamen propter hoc ab ecclesiæ Catholicæ pace atque unitate aliquando discessum est.”

Athanasius, (de Synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ, § 5.), says, that before the Council of Nice, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας καὶ Κιλικίας καὶ Μεσοποταμίας ἐχώλευον περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐποιοῦντο πάσχα.

Chrysostom, in his Discourses against the Jews, in that one in which he dissuades the Christians of Antioch from joining in their observances, (tom. v. Hom. 55. p. 608. ed. Benedict.) reminds them that the Church of Antioch once universally kept the ante-paschal fast with the Jews, although they had, since the Council of Nice, given up that practice: Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἐνηστεύομεν πρότερον, ἀλλ᾽ ὄμως προετιμήσαμεν τὴν συμφωνίαν τῆς τῶν χρόνων παρατηρήσεως.]

[^92: Theodoret. Hist. I. 9. Euseb. de Vit. Const. 19.]

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 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 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.

[^93: See Massuet, Diss. Præv. II. § 21.]

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 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.

[^94: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. xxiv. 3. quoted p. 47, note 9.]

[^95: Jerome in Catal. quoted p. 8, note 7.]

[^96: Euseb. as quoted p. 47, note 1.]

[^97: See note 3, p. 48.]

Here, then, we have the most satisfactory evidence 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.

[^98: Hist. Eccl. v. 26. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ πρὸς τοῖς ἀποδοθεῖσιν Εἰρηναίου συγγράμμασι καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, φέρεταί τις αὐτοῦ πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος συντομώτατος καὶ ταμάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατος, Περὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐπιγεγραμμένος· καὶ ἄλλος, ὃν ἀνατέθεικεν ἀδελφῷ Μαρκιανῷ τοὔνομα, εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος· καὶ βιβλίον τι Διαλέξεων διαφόρων, ἐν ᾧ τῆς πρὸς Ἐβραίους ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας Σολωμῶντος μνημονεύει, ῥητά τινα ἐξ αὐτῶν παραθέμενος.]

[^99: See p. 2, note 7.]

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.

[^100: In the Answer to Question 115. Ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυρ καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ κ. τ. λ.]

[^101: Tom. II. p. 152, ed. Combefis.]

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 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.

[^102: On Isaiah, lxiv. 4, 5. in vol. iv. p. 761 of his Works.]

[^103: Hist. Franc. x. 27. Veniente persecutione, talia ibidem diabolus bella per tyrannum exercuit, et tanta ibi multitudo Christianorum ob confessionem divini nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina currerent de sanguine Christiano; quorum nec numerum nec nomina colligere potuimus: Dominus enim eos in libro vitæ conscripsit. Beatum Irenæum, diversis in sua carnifex præsentia pœnis affectum, Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit.]

[^104: Tillemont, Mémoires, tom. iii. part. 1. S. Irenée, Art. x.]

[^105: Gregor. Turon. de Gloria Martyrum, I. 5. Hic in crypta Basilicæ B. Joannis sub altari est sepultus.]

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 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].

[^106: I. x. 1. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως περάτων τῆς γῆς διεσπαρμένη.—2. Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα παρειληφυῖα, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλω τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει, ὡς ἕνα οἶκον οἰκοῦσα· καὶ ὀμοίως πιστεύει τούτοις, ὡς μίαν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσα καρδίαν· καὶ συμφώνως ταῦτα κηρύσσει, καὶ διδάσκει, καὶ παραδίδωσιν, ὡς ἓν στόμα κεκτημένη.]

[^107: I. x. 2. Καὶ γὰρ αἱ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον διάλεκτοι ἀνόμοιαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ δύναμις τῆς παραδόσεως μία καὶ ἡ αὐτή· καὶ οὔτε αἱ ἐν Γερμανίαις ἰδρυμέναι Ἐκκλησίαι ἄλλως πεπιστεύκασιν, ἢ ἄλλως παραδιδόασιν, οὔτε ἐν ταῖς Ἰβηρίαις, οὔτε ἐν Κελτοῖς, οὔτε κατὰ τὰς ἀνατολὰς, οὔτε ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, οὔτε ἐν Λιβύῃ, οὔτε αἱ κατὰ μέσα τοῦ κόσμου ἰδρυμέναι.]

[^108: III. xii. 8. Ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς, καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν Βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε· Πιστεύω τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. ὃς καὶ ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὰ κλίματα Αἰθιοπίας, κηρύξων τοῦτο, ὅπερ ἐπίστευσε, Θεὸν μὲν ἕνα, τὸν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυγμένον.—IV. xxiii. 2. Nihil enim aliud deerat ei, qui a Prophetis fuerat præcatechizatus: non Deum Patrem, non conversationis dispositionem, sed solum adventum ignorabat Filii Dei; quem cum breviter cognovisset, agebat iter gaudens, præco futurus in Æthiopia Christi adventus.]

[^109: Frag. iii. p. 45, note 4.]

[^110: I. x. 2, 3. Τῆς οὔσης Ἐκκλησίας πάσης μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν ἐχούσης εἰς πάντα τὸν κόσμον, καθὼς προέφαμεν, κ. τ. λ.]

[^111: I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, κ. τ. λ.]

He speaks of the Churches in general as having been settled by the Apostles[^112], and particularly specifies 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 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 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].

[^112: III. iii. 1. Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre: et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli, quæ seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes; quibus emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa calamitas.]

[^113: III. iii. 2. Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ, et antiquissimæ, et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet colligunt.]

[^114: See p. 2, note 3.]

[^115: III. iii. 4. Μαρτυροῦσιν τούτοις αἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι, καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον, πολλῷ ἀξιοπιστότερον καὶ βεβαιότερον ἀληθείας μάρτυρα ὄντα Οὐαλεντίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κακογνωμόνων.]

[^116: III. iii. 4. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ Παύλου μὲν τεθεμελιωμένη, Ἰωάννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων, μάρτυς ἀληθής ἐστι τῆς Ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως.]

[^117: III. iii. 1. supra.]

[^118: III. iii. 1. 4.]

[^119: 2 Tim. iv. 21.]

[^120: Anencletus is called Anacletus by the ancient translator of Irenæus, and Cletus by Epiphanius (Hær. I. § 27.) and the Canon of the Mass. Later writers than Epiphanius make him two persons, but their accounts are contradictory. See Pearson's Posthumous Works, Dissert. de Serie et Successione Episcoporum Romanorum, II. 1; and Nourry, Apparatus ad Biblioth. Patrum, VI. v. 5.]

[^121: Clement is mentioned by Tertullian (De Præscrip. Hær. 32.) as ordained by Peter. It is probable that this might have taken place in the slight interval which elapsed between the death of St. Paul and that of St. Peter, both of which took place in the same persecution.]

[^122: III. iii. 3. Θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται· διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὸν Ἀνέγκλητος. μετὰ τοῦτον καὶ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης, ὁ καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ἀποστόλους, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔτι ἔναυλον τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων, οὐ μόνος· ἔτι γὰρ πολλοὶ ὑπελείποντο τότε ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων δεδιδαγμένοι.—Τὸν δὲ Κλήμεντα τοῦτον διαδέχεται Εὐάρεστος· καὶ τὸν Εὐάρεστον Ἀλέξανδρος· εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἔκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καθίσταται Ξύστος· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Τελεσφόρος, ὃς καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησεν· ἔπειτα Ὕγῖνος, εἶτα Πῖος· μεθ᾽ ὃν Ἀνίκητος. διαδεξαμένου τὸν Ἀνίκητον Σωτῆρος, νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κετέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος. τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει, καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἤτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς.]

[^123: Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.]

[^124: III. iii. 4. Καὶ εἴσιν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅτι Ἰωάννης, ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητὴς, ἐν τῇ Ἐφέσῳ πορευθεὶς λούσασθαι, καὶ ἰδὼν ἔσω Κήρινθον, ἐξήλατο τοῦ βαλανείου μὴ λουσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειπών· Φύγωμεν, μὴ καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ, ἔνδον ὄντος Κηρίνθου, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροῦ.]

[^125: 3 John 10.]

We are likewise indebted to Irenæus for some particulars respecting Polycarp. He states that he had been favoured with familiar intercourse with St. 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 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].

[^126: Frag. ii. See p. 2, note 2.]

[^127: III. iii. 4. Ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῇ Ῥώμῃ, πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μίαν καὶ μόνην ταύτην ἀλήθειαν κηρύξας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παρειληφέναι, τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παραδεδομένην.]

[^128: Hist. Eccl. IV. 14.]

[^129: De Viris Illustribus, 27.]

[^130: Frag. iii. See p. 45, note 4.]

[^131: III. iii. 4. Καὶ αὐτὸς δε ὁ Πολύκαρπος Μαρκίωνί ποτε εἰς ὄψιν αὐτῷ ἐλθόντι, καὶ φήσαντι, Ἐπιγίνώσκεις ἡμᾶς; ἀπεκρίθη· Ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Τοσαύτην οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτῶν ἔσχον εὐλάβειαν, πρὸς τὸ μηδὲ μέχρι λόγου κοινωνεῖν τινὶ τῶν παραχαρασσόντων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς καὶ Παῦλος ἔφησεν· Ἁἰρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος, καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος.—That it was at Rome rests upon the testimony of Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 17.]

[^132: III. iii. 4.]

[^133: III. iii. 4. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὴ Πολυκάρπου πρὸς Φιλιππησίους γεγραμμένη ἱκανωτάτη, ἐξ ἧς καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας, οἱ Βουλόμενοι, καὶ φροντίζοντες τῆς ἐαυτῶν σωτηρίας, δύνανται μαθεῖν.]

[^134: Frag. ii. Καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν δὲ αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἐπέστειλεν ἤτοι ταῖς γειτνιώσαις ἐκκληίαις, ἐπιστηρίζων αὐτὰς, ἢ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τισι, νουθετῶν αὐτοὺς, καὶ προτρεπόμενος, δύναται φανερωθῆναι.]

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 of which his mention of it is a powerful testimony.

[^135: Hist. III. 15.]

[^136: Phil. iv. 3.]

[^137: III. iii. 3. Ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος στάσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθω γενομένης ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ρώμη ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοις, εἰς εἰρήνην συμβιβάζουσα αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀνανεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει.]

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 pre-eminence resort to this Church, in which the apostolical tradition is preserved by those who are on all sides.”

[^138: See p. 5, note 9.]

[^139: III. iii. 2. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab Apostolis Traditio.]

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 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.

[^140: Prog. de potentiore Eccl. Rom. principalitate. Jenæ, 1780. 4to.]

[^141: II. xxx. 9. In translating Eph. i. 21.]

[^142: III. xi. 8.]

[^143: I. ix. 3.]

[^144: V. xxvii. 2.]

[^145: IV. xxxviii. 3.]

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 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 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.

[^146: Pope's Supremacy, V. ix. p. 234, edit. 1680. “The faithful who are all about.”]

[^147: Difficulties of Romanism, B. I. chap. iii. sect. iv. 2. (4.) “To this Church, on account of the more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church should resort; that is to say, those faithful individuals who are on every side of it. In which Church, by those who are on every side of it, the tradition, which is from the Apostles, has always been preserved.”]

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 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.

[^148: De Præscr. Hær. 36.]

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 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 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 the united prayers and fasting of a whole Church, and confines it to cases of great urgency[^155].

[^149: II. xxxi. 2. Καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀδελφότητι πολλάκις διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, τῆς κατὰ τόπον ἐκκλησίας πάσης αἰτησαμένης μετὰ νηστείας πολλῆς καὶ λιτανείας, ἐπέστρεψε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ τετελευτηκότος, καὶ ἐχαρίσθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ταῖς εὐχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων.—xxxii. 4. Quapropter et in illius nomine, qui vere illius sunt discipuli ab ipso accipientes gratiam, perficiunt ad beneficia reliquorum hominum, quemadmodum unusquisque accepit donum ab eo. Alii enim dæmones excludunt firmissime et vere, ut etiam sæpissime credant ipsi, qui emundati sunt a nequissimis spiritibus, et sint in Ecclesia. Alii autem et præscientiam habent futurorum, et visiones, et dictiones propheticas. Alii autem laborantes aliqua infirmitate per manus impositionem curant, et sanos restituunt. Jam etiam, quemadmodum diximus, et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multis. Et quid autem? Non est numerum dicere gratiarum, quas per universum mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens, in nomine Christi Jesu, crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato, per singulos dies in opitulationem gentium perficit, neque seducens aliquem, nec pecuniam ei auferens. Quemadmodum enim gratis accepit a Deo, gratis et ministrat. 5. ——munde et pure et manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans, virtutes ad utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem, perficit.]

[^150: II. xxxii. 4, supra. V. vi. 1. Καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούομεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, προφητικὰ χαρίσματα ἐχόντων, καὶ παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος γλώσσαις, καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φανερὸν ἀγόντων ἐπὶ τῷ συμφέροντι, καὶ τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκδιηγουμένων.]

[^151: V. vi. 1.]

[^152: Pp. 98-102.]

[^153: II. xxxi. 3. ——in Ecclesia autem miseratio, et misericordia, et firmitas, et veritas ad opitulationem hominum, non solum sine mercede et gratis perficiatur; sed et nobis ipsis quæ sunt nostra erogantibus pro salute hominum, et ea quibus hi, qui curantur, indigent, sæpissime non habentes, a nobis accipiunt.]

[^154: II. xxxii. 4. See p. 69, note 8.]

[^155: II. xxxi. 2. διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. See p. 69, note 8.]

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 masters speak of feeding on the body and blood of Christ, and taking it in a literal sense.

[^156: Frag. ii. See p. 2. note 2.]

[^157: IV. xxx. 1. Quid autem et hi, qui in Regali aula sunt, fideles, nonne ex eis, quæ Cæsaris sunt, habent utensilia, et his qui non habent, unusquisque eorum secundum virtutem præstat.]

[^158: IV. xxx. 3. Sed et mundus pacem habet per eos, et nos sine timore in viis ambulamus et navigamus quocumque voluerimus.]

[^159: Frag. xiii. Χριστιανῶν γὰρ κατηχουμένων δούλους Ἕλληνες συλλαβόντες, εἶτα μαθεῖν τι παρὰ τούτων δῆθεν ἀπόρῥητον περὶ Χριστιανῶν ἀναγκάζοντες, οἱ δοῦλοι οὗτοι, μὴ ἔχοντες πῶς τὸ τοῖς ἀναγκάζουσι καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἐρεῖν, παρ᾽ ὅσον ἤκουον τῶν δεσποτῶν, τὴν θείαν μετάληψιν αἷμα καὶ σῶμα εἶναι Χριστοῦ, αὐτοὶ νομίσαντες τῷ ὄντι αἷμα καὶ σάρκα εἶναι, τοῦτο ἐξεῖπον τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσι. οἱ δὲ λαβόντες ὡς αὐτόχρημα τοῦτο τελεῖσθαι Χριστιανοῖς, κ.τ.λ.]

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 Church[^163]. The whole Church, moreover, is to its individual members as a mother to her children[^164]: 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 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 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].

[^160: III. xii. 5. After quoting Acts iv. 24, &c. he proceeds thus:—Αὑται φωναὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴν ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς Μητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν.]

[^161: I. x. 1. See p. 55, note.]

[^162: III. iii. 1. See p. 56, note 7.]

[^163: III. xii. 5. supra.]

[^164: III. xxiv. 1. Prædicationem vero Ecclesiæ undique constantem, et æqualiter perseverantem, et testimonium habentem a Prophetis et ab Apostolis, et ab omnibus discipulis, quemadmodum ostendimus per initia, et medietates, et finem, et per universam Dei dispositionem, et eam quæ secundum salutem hominis est solitam operationem, quæ est in fide nostra; quam perceptam ab Ecclesia custodimus, et quæ semper a Spiritu Dei, quasi in vase bono eximium quoddam depositum juvenescens, et juvenescere faciens ipsum vas in quo est. Hoc enim Ecclesiæ creditum est Dei munus, quemadmodum ad inspirationem plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur: et in eo disposita est communicatio Christi, id est, Spiritus sanctus, arrha incorruptelæ, et confirmatio fidei nostræ, et scala ascensionis ad Deum. “In Ecclesia enim,” inquit, “posuit Deus Apostolos, Prophetas, doctores,” et universam reliquam operationem Spiritus: cujus non sunt participes omnes, qui non currunt ad Ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita, per sententiam malam, et operationem pessimam. Ubi enim Ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei; et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia, et omnis gratia: Spiritus autem veritas. Quapropter qui non participant eum, neque a mammillis Matris nutriuntur in vitam, neque percipiunt de corpore Christi procedentem nitidissimum fontem; sed effodiunt sibi lacus detritos de fossis terrenis, et de cœno putidam bibunt aquam, effugientes fidem Ecclesiæ, ne traducantur; rejicientes vero Spiritum, ut non erudiantur.——2. Alienati vero a veritate, digne in omni volutantur errore, fluctuati ab eo, aliter atque aliter per tempora de eisdem sentientes, et nunquam sententiam stabilitam habentes, sophistæ verborum magis volentes esse quam discipuli veritatis: non enim sunt fundati super unam petram, sed super arenam.——V. xx. 2. Fugere igitur oportet sententias ipsorum (of the Gnostics), et intentius observare necubi vexemur ab ipsis; confugere autem ad Ecclesiam, et in ejus sinu educari, et Dominicis scripturis enutriri. Plantata enim est Ecclesia, paradisus in hoc mundo: “ab omni” ergo “ligno paradisi escas manducabitis,” ait Spiritus Dei; id est, ab omni scriptura Dominica manducate.]

[^165: III. xxiv. 1. supra.]

[^166: III. iv. 1. Tantæ igitur ostensiones cum sint, non oportet adhuc quærere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere; cum Apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia quæ sint veritatis: uti omnis quicumque velit, sumat ex ea potum vitæ. Hæc est enim vitæ introitus; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et latrones. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos; quæ autem sunt Ecclesiæ, cum summa diligentia diligere, et apprehendere veritatis Traditionem.]

[^167: III. xxiv. 1. supra.]

[^168: Ibid.]

[^169: IV. viii. 1. Deum, qui in regnum cœlorum introducit Abraham, et semen ejus quod est Ecclesia, per Christum Jesum, cui et adoptio redditur, et hæreditas quæ Abrahæ promissa est.]

[^170: III. Præf. quoted p. 34, note 10.——V. xx. 1. Et Ecclesiæ quidem prædicatio vera et firma, apud quam una et eadem salutis via in universo mundo ostenditur. Huic enim creditum est lumen Dei.... Ubique enim Ecclesia prædicat veritatem; et hæc est ἑπτάμυξος lucerna, Christi bajulans lumen.]

[^171: I. ix. 5. Καὶ ἐκ τούτου γὰρ (the exhibition of the inconsistency of error) ἀκριβῶς συνιδεῖν ἔσται, καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἀποδείξεως, βεβαίαν τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσομένην ἀλήθειαν.—x. 3. cited p. 56, note 5.——III. xii. 7. Ecclesia vero per universum mundum ab Apostolis firmum habens initium, in una et eadem de Deo et de Filio ejus perseverat sententia.]

[^172: I. ix. 4. See p. 56, note 6.]

[^173: IV. xxxiii. 8. Γνῶσις ἀληθὴς, ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων διδαχὴ, καὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἐκκλησίας σύστημα κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου, et character corporis Christi secundum successiones Episcoporum, quibus illi eam, quæ in unoquoque loco est Ecclesiam tradiderunt: quæ pervenit usque ad nos custoditione sine fictione Scripturarum tractatio plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens; et lectio sine falsatione, et secundum Scripturas expositio legitima, et diligens, et sine periculo, et sine blasphemia.]

[^174: V. xx. 2. See p. 75, note 5.]

[^175: III. xxiv. 1. cited ibid.]

[^176: IV. xxxii. 1. Post deinde et omnis sermo ei constabit, si et Scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina.]

[^177: V. xx. 2. See p. 75, note 5.]

[^178: II. ix. 1. Veteribus quidem et in primis a protoplasti traditione hanc suadelam custodientibus, et unum Deum, fabricatorem cœli et terræ hymnizantibus; reliquis autem post eos a prophetis Dei hujus rei commemorationem accipientibus.... Ecclesia autem omnis per universum orbem hanc accepit ab apostolis traditionem.]

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].

[^179: II. xxxii. 4, 5. See p. 69, note 8.]

[^180: II. xxxi. 2. cited ibid.]

[^181: IV. xxxiii. 9. Quapropter Ecclesia omni in loco ob eam quam habet erga Deum dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum in omni tempore præmittit ad Patrem; reliquis autem omnibus non tantum non habentibus hanc rem ostendere apud se, sed nec quidem necessarium esse dicentibus tale martyrium; esse enim martyrium verum sententiam eorum: nisi si unus, aut duo aliquando, per omne tempus ex quo Dominus apparuit in terris, cum martyribus nostris, quasi et ipse misericordiam consequutus, opprobrium simul bajulavit nominis, et cum eis ductus est, velut adjectio quædam donata eis.]

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

[^182: IV. xxxi. 3. Ecclesia, quæ est sal terræ, subrelicta est in confinio terræ, patiens quæ sunt humana; et, dum sæpe auferuntur ab ea membra integra, perseverat statua salis.]

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 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.

[^183: See pp. 57, 58.]

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, 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.

[^184: IV. xxvi. 2. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt, Presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus; qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt: reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principali successione, et quocumque loco colligunt, suspectos habere; vel quasi hæreticos, et malæ sententiæ; vel quasi scindentes, et elatos, et sibi placentes; aut rursus ut hypocritas, quæstus gratia et vanæ gloriæ hoc operantes. Omnes autem hi deciderunt a veritate.——3. Qui vero crediti quidem sunt a multis esse presbyteri, serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non præponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, et principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt, et in absconsis agunt mala, et dicunt, “Nemo nos videt,” redarguentur a Verbo.]

[^185: IV. xxvi. 4. Ab omnibus igitur talibus absistere oportet, adhærere vero his qui et apostolorum, sicut prædiximus, doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum et conversationem sine offensa præstant, ad confirmationem et correptionem reliquorum.——5. Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab Apostolis Ecclesiæ successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis constat.]

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 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.

[^186: See III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7; ibid. 2. p. 58, note 9; ibid. 4. p. 58, notes 2 and 3.]

[^187: III. iii. 2. See pp. 52 and 63.]

[^188: See p. 68.]

[^189: See p. 58, note 9, and p. 63, note 8.]

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 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.

[^190: See pp. 57-59, and the passages there adduced.]

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 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 was kept up in individuals down to his time; the evident implication being that it was so in all Churches.

[^191: —quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes. See p. 58, note 7.]

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].

[^192: See the Preface to the Ordination Services.]

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 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, 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.

[^193: IV. xxxviii. 3. Ὁ γεννητὸς καὶ πεπλασμένος ἄνθρωπος κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γίνεται Θεοῦ· τοῦ μὲν Πατρὸς εὐδοκοῦντος καὶ κελεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ Υἱοῦ πράσσοντος καὶ δημιουργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ Πνεύματος τρέφοντος καὺ αὔξοντος.]

[^194: I. xxii. 1. Omnia per ipsum fecit Pater ... non per angelos, neque per virtutes aliquas abscissas ab ejus sententia (nihil enim indiget omnium Deus), sed et per Verbum et Spiritum suum omnia faciens et disponens et gubernans, et omnibus esse præstans.——II. xxx. 9. Hic Pater, hic Deus, hic Conditor, hic Factor, hic Fabricator, qui fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est, per Verbum et per Sapientiam suam, cœlum et terram et maria et omnia quæ in eis sunt.——IV. vii. 4. Hæc enim Filius, qui est Verbum Dei, ab initio præstruebat; non indigente Patre angelis, uti faceret conditionem et formaret hominem ... sed habente copiosum et inenarrabile ministerium: ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, id est Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, Verbum et Sapientia; quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli.]

[^195: V. i. 3. Sic in fine Verbum Patris et Spiritus Dei, adunitus antiquæ substantiæ plasmationis Adæ, viventem et perfectum effecit hominem, capientem perfectum Patrem ... non enim effugit aliquando Adam manus Dei, ad quas Pater loquens, dicit: “Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostrum.”—xxviii. 4. Plasmatus initio homo per manus Dei, id est, Filii et Spiritus, fit secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei.]

[^196: IV. xx. 5. Potens est enim in omnibus Deus; visus quidem tunc per Spiritum prophetiæ, visus autem et per Filium adoptive, videbitur autem et in regno cœlorum paternaliter: Spiritu quidem præparante hominem in Filio Dei, Filio autem adducente ad Patrem, Patre autem incorruptelam donante in æternam vitam, quæ unicuique evenit ex eo quod videat Deum.]

[^197: III. xix. 1. Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ Λόγος ἄνθρωπος, et qui Filius Dei est Filius hominis factus est, commixtus Verbo Dei, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος (i. e. human nature) τὸν Λόγον χωρήσας, καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν, υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ.]

[^198: IV. xx. 6. Per omnia enim hæc Deus Pater ostenditur, Spiritu quidem operante, Filio vero ministrante, Patre vero comprobante, homine vero consummato ad salutem.]

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, How would men be saved, if He who wrought out their salvation upon earth was not God[^201]?

[^199: I. x. 1. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως περάτων τῆς γῆς διεσπαρμένη, παρὰ δὲ τῶν Ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἐκείνων μαθητῶν παραλαβοῦσα τὴν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὸ τὰς θαλάσσας καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, πίστιν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν σαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας· καὶ εἰς Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας καὶ τὰς ἐλεύσεις, καὶ τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γέννησιν, καὶ τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὶς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐν τῇ δοξῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἀναστῆσαι πᾶσαν σάρκα πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος, ἵνα Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν καὶ Θεῷ καὶ σωτήρι καὶ βασιλεῖ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ ἀοράτου, πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, καὶ πᾶσα γλώσσα ἐξομολογήσηται αὐτῷ, καὶ κρίσιν δικαίαν ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι ποιήσηται, τὰ μὲν πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, καὶ ἀγγέλους παραβεβηκότας καὶ ἐν ἀποστασίᾳ γεγονότας, καὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἀδίκους καὶ ἀνόμους καὶ βλασφήμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ πέμψῃ· τοῖς δὲ δικαίοις καὶ ὁσίοις καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τετηρηκόσι, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ αὐτοῦ διαμεμενηκόσι, τοῖς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, τοῖς δὲ ἐκ μετανοίας, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος, ἀφθαρσίαν δωρήσηται, καὶ δόξαν αἰωνίαν περιποιήση.—2. Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα παρειληφυῖα, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει.—A translation of this passage will be found in the chapter on Creeds.]

[^200: III. vi. 1. Vere igitur cum Pater sit Dominus, et Filius vere sit Dominus, merito Spiritus Sanctus Domini appellatione signavit eos. Et iterum in eversione Sodomitarum Scriptura ait: “Et pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulfur a Domino de cœlo.” Filium enim hic significat, qui et Abrahæ colloquutus sit, a Patre accepisse potestatem ad judicandum Sodomitas, propter iniquitatem eorum. Similiter habet illud: “Sedes tua, Deus, in æternum; virga directionis, virga regni tui. Dilexisti justitiam, et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus.” Utrosque enim Dei appellatione signavit Spiritus, et eum qui ungitur, Filium, et eum qui ungit, id est, Patrem.—2. Nemo igitur alius, quemadmodum prædixi, Deus nominatur aut Dominus appellatur, nisi qui est omnium Deus et Dominus, qui et Moysi dixit: “Ego sum qui sum: et sic dices filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad vos:” et hujus Filius Jesus Christus Dominus noster, qui filios Dei facit credentes in nomen suum.]

[^201: IV. xxxiii. 4. Πῶς δύνανται σωθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ τὴν σωτηρίαν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐργασάμενος; ἢ πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρωπον?]

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 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].

[^202: II. xxv. 3. Non enim infectus es, O homo, neque semper coëxsistebas Deo, sicut proprium ejus Verbum.——xxx. 9. Semper autem coëxsistens Filius Patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem, et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus, et omnibus quibus vult revelare Deus.——III. xviii. 1. Ostenso manifeste, quod in principio Verbum exsistens apud Deum, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper aderat generi humano, hunc in novissimis temporibus secundum præfinitum tempus a Patre, unitum suo plasmati, passibilem hominem factum; exclusa est omnis contradictio dicentium: “Si ergo tunc natus est, non erat ergo ante Christus.” Ostendimus enim, quia non tunc cœpit Filius Dei, exsistens semper apud Patrem.]

[^203: Frag. xxxvii. Χριστὸς, ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων κληθεὶς Θεοῦ Υἱός.]

[^204: II. xxviii. 6. Si quis itaque nobis dixerit “Quomodo ergo Filius prolatus a Patre est?” dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam sive generationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus, inerrabilem exsistentem nemo novit.]

[^205: II. ii. 4. Nullius indigens omnium Deus Verbo condidit omnia et fecit; neque angelis indigens adjutoribus ad ea quæ fiunt ... omnia autem quæ facta sunt infatigabili Verbo fecit.——III. xi. 8. Ὁ τῶν ἁπάντων τεχνίτης Λόγος, ὁ καθημένος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβίμ καὶ συνέχων τὰ πάντα.]

[^206: III. vi. 1. p. 91, note 8.]

[^207: IV. xx. 9. Et Verbum quidem loquebatur Moysi, apparens in conspectu.]

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 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 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].

[^208: III. xvi. 6. Hujus Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum Patris et caro factus, ipse est Jesus Christus Dominus noster; qui passus est pro nobis, et surrexit propter nos, et rursus venturus in gloria Patris ad resuscitandum universam carnem, et ad ostensionem salutis, et regulam justi judicii ostendere omnibus, qui sub ipso facti sunt.——IV. xxxiii. 11. Οἱ τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου Ἐμμανουὴλ κηρύττοντες, τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ ἐδήλουν.]

[^209: IV. xxxiii. 11. supra.—III. xxi. 4. Diligenter igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus, per ea quæ dicta sunt (Isai. vii. 10, &c.) generationem ejus quæ est ex Virgine, et substantiam, quoniam Deus: Emmanuel enim nomen hoc significat.]

[^210: IV. xxxviii. 2. Συνενηπίαζεν Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τέλειος ὢν, τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, οὐ δι᾽ ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου νήπιον.]

[^211: III. x. 2. Christus Jesus Dominus noster, Filius Dei altissimi, qui per legem et prophetas promisit salutarem suum facturum se omni carni visibilem, ut fieret Filius hominis, ad hoc ut et homo fieret filius Dei.——xvi. 6. supra.]

[^212: II. xxii. 4. Non reprobans, nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens legem in se humani generis, sed omnem ætatem sanctificans per illam, quæ ad ipsum erat, similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit ætatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes: in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes ætatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et justitiæ et subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum ætatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens. Deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit “primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus,” princeps vitæ, prior omnium, et præcedens omnes.]

[^213: III. xvi. 6. supra.—V. xviii. 1. Ipsum Verbum Dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.]

[^214: II. xxx. 9. Hic Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per Verbum suum, qui est Filius ejus, per eum revelatur et manifestatur omnibus quibus revelatur. See also p. 92, note 1.]

[^215: IV. vii. 2. Omnes, qui ab initio cognitum habuerunt Deum et adventum Christi prophetaverunt, revelationem acceperunt ab ipso Filio.]

[^216: IV. vi. 6. Et per ipsum Verbum visibilem et palpabilem factum Pater ostendebatur, etiamsi non omnes similiter credebant ei; sed omnes viderunt in Filio Patrem: invisibile etenim Filii Pater, visibile autem Patris Filius.]

[^217: II. xxviii. 6. Ipse Filius Dei ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem.]

[^218: Ibid 8. Etenim si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est; neque aptabilem magis neque decentiorem, nec sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in præsenti ... ut discamus per ipsum, super omnia esse Patrem.]

[^219: IV. vi. 7. Omnia autem Filius administrans Patri, perfecit ab initio usque ad finem.]

[^220: III. xix. 3. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ Λόγος, ἵνα δοξασθῇ· ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ Λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι et inhonorari καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι.]

[^221: III. xi. 5. Hic (Deus) et benedictionem escæ et gratiam potus in novissimis temporibus per Filium suum donat humano generi, incomprehensibilis per comprehensibilem, et invisibilis per visibilem; cum extra eum non sit, sed in sinu Patris exsistat.]

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 is much better to know nothing but Christ crucified, than by subtil inquiries to fall into impiety[^224].

[^222: II. xxv. 3. Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet quia homo est in infinitum minor Deo, et qui ex parte acceperit gratiam, et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit Factori, et qui omnium experientiam et cogitationem habere non possit, ut Deus: sed in quantum minor est ab eo, qui factus non est et qui semper idem est, ille qui hodie factus est et initium facturæ accepit; in tantum secundum scientiam, et ad investigandum causas omnium, minorem esse eo qui fecit.]

[^223: II. xxviii. 2. Et non est mirum, si in spiritalibus et cœlestibus, et in his quæ habent revelari, hoc patimur nos; quandoquidem etiam eorum quæ ante pedes sunt (dico autem quæ sunt in hac creatura, quæ et contrectantur a nobis et videntur et sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hæc ipsa committimus.—3. Εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς κτίσεως ἔνια μὲν ἀνάκειται τῷ Θεῷ, ἔνια δὲ καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλήλυθε τὴν ἡμετέραν, τί χαλεπὸν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ζητουμένων, ὅλων τῶν γραφῶν πνευματικῶν οὐσῶν, ἔνια μὲν ἐπιλύομεν κατὰ χάριν Θεοῦ, ἔνια δὲ ἀνακείσεται τῷ Θεῷ?]

[^224: II. xxvi. 1. Ἄμεινον καὶ συμφερώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγομαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῖ, ἢ πολυμαθεῖς καὶ ἐμπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήμους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην.... Melius itaque est, sicuti prædixi, nihil omnino scientem quempiam, ne quidem unam causam cujuslibet eorum quæ facta sunt, cur factum sit, credere Deo, et perseverare eos in dilectione, aut (ἢ—rather quam) per hujusmodi scientiam inflatos excidere a dilectione, quæ hominem vivificat: nec aliud inquirere ad scientiam, nisi Jesum Christum Filium Dei, qui pro nobis crucifixus est, aut (ἢ) per quæstionum subtilitates et minutiloquium in impietatem cadere.]

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, 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 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 will come again to judgment[^237]; and he introduces his Church into the kingdom of heaven[^238].

[^225: IV. vi. 7. Ab omnibus accipiens testimonium quoniam vere homo et quoniam vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, ab ipsa conditione, ab hominibus, et ab apostaticis spiritibus et dæmoniis et ab inimico et novissime ab ipsa morte.]

[^226: III. xviii. 7. Ἥνωσεν οὖν, καθὼς προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ μή ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὐκ ἂν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων, διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειότητος, εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν.]

[^227: III. xvi. 6. Unus Christus Jesus Dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem, et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans.]

[^228: III. xxi. 3. Natus est enim Dominus noster circa primum et quadragesimum annum Augusti imperii.]

[^229: II. xxii. 6. Responderunt ei: “Quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?” Hoc autem consequenter dicitur ei, qui jam xl annos excessit, quinquagesimum autem annum nondum attigit, non tamen multum a quinquagesimo anno absistat. Ei autem, qui sit xxx annorum, diceretur utique: “Quadraginta annorum nondum es.” Qui enim volebant eum mendacem ostendere, non utique in multum extenderent annos ultra ætatem, quam eum habere conspiciebant: sed proxima ætatis dicebant, sive vere scientes ex conscriptione census, sive conjicientes secundum ætatem, quam videbant habere eum super quadraginta; sed ut non quæ esset triginta annorum. Irrationabile est enim omnino, viginti annos mentiri eos, volentes eum juniorem ostendere temporibus Abrahæ. Quod autem videbant, hoc et loquebantur: qui autem videbatur, non erat putativus, sed veritas. Non ergo multum aberat a quinquaginta annis.]

[^230: II. xxii. 3. Et primum quidem ut fecit vinum ex aqua in Cana Galilææ, ascendit in diem festum paschæ ... et post hæc iterum secunda vice ascendit in diem festum paschæ in Hierusalem, quando paralyticum, qui juxta natatoriam jacebat xxxviii annos, curavit.... Deinde, cum Lazarum suscitasset ex mortuis, et insidiæ fierent a Pharisæis, secedit in Ephrem civitatem; et inde “ante sex dies paschæ veniens in Bethaniam” scribitur, et de Bethania ascendens in Hierosolymam, et manducans pascha, et sequenti die passus.]

[^231: IV. x. 1. Et non est numerum dicere in quibus a Moyse ostenditur Filius Dei; cujus et diem passionis non ignoravit, sed figuratim prænuntiavit eum, Pascha nominans: et in eadem ipsa, quæ ante tantum temporis a Moyse prædicata est, passus est Dominus adimplens Pascha.]

[^232: IV. viii. 2. Non enim solvebat sed adimplebat legem, summi sacerdotis operam perficiens, propitians pro hominibus Deum, et emundans leprosos, infirmos curans, et ipse moriens, uti exsiliatus homo exiret de condemnatione, et reverteretur intrepide ad suam hæreditatem.—The allusion is to that provision of the Mosaic law by which those who had been living in the cities of refuge, on the death of the High Priest returned to their inheritance.]

[^233: V. i. 1. Τῷ ἰδίῳ οὖν αἵματι λυτρωσαμένου ἡμᾶς τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων σαρκῶν, κ.τ.λ.]

[^234: V. xiv. 2. “In corpore,” ait, “reconciliati carnis ejus:” hoc, quoniam justa caro, reconciliavit eam carnem quæ in peccato detinebatur, et in amicitiam adduxit Deo.]

[^235: V. i. 1. Et effundente Spiritum Patris in adunitionem et communionem Dei et hominis; ad homines quidem deponente Deum per Spiritum, ad Deum autem rursus imponente hominem per suam incarnationem, et firme et vere in adventu suo donante nobis incorruptelam per communionem quæ est ad eum.]

[^236: V. vii. 1. Christus in carnis substantia surrexit.]

[^237: I. x. 1. supra, p. 91.—III. xvi. 8. Ἕνα καὶ αὐτὸν εἰδὼς Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, ᾧ ἠνοίχθησαν αἱ πύλαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διὰ τὴν ἔνσαρκον ἀνάληψιν αὐτοῦ· ὃς καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ σαρκὶ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἔπαθεν, ἐλεύσεται, τὴν δόξαν ἀποκαλύπτων τοῦ Πατρός.]

[^238: IV. viii. 1.——Deum, qui in regnum cœlorum introducit Abraham et semen ejus, quod est Ecclesia, per Jesum Christum; cui et adoptio redditur et hæreditas quæ Abrahæ promissa est.]

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].

[^239: IV. xx. 3. Et Sapientia, quæ est Spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem constitutionem.]

[^240: See p. 89, note 2.]

[^241: See p. 91, note 8.]

[^242: IV. xxxviii. 1. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὡς νηπίοις ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ Πατρὸς γάλα ἡμῖν ἑαυτὸν παρέσχεν, ὅπερ ἦν ἡ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρουσία· ἵνα ὡς ὑπὸ μασθοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ τραφέντες, καὶ διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης γαλακτουργίας ἐθισθέντες τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κατασχεῖν δυνηθῶμεν.]

[^243: III. xvii. 2. Quem et descendisse Lucas ait post ascensum Domini super discipulos in Pentecoste, habentem potestatem omnium gentium ad introitum vitæ et adapertionem novi testamenti: unde et omnibus linguis conspirantes hymnum dicebant Deo; Spiritu ad unitatem redigente distantes tribus, et primitias omnium gentium offerente Patri.]

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 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.

[^244: V. vi. 1. Cum autem Spiritus hic commixtus animæ unitur plasmati, propter effusionem Spiritus spiritualis et perfectus homo factus est: et hic est qui secundum imaginem et similitudinem factus est Dei. Si autem defuerit animæ spiritus, animalis vere est, qui est talis, et carnalis derelictus imperfectus est; imaginem quidem habens in plasmate, similitudinem vero non assumens per Spiritum.]

[^245: V. vi. 1. supra.—viii. 2. Qui ergo pignus Spiritus habent, et non concupiscentiis carnis serviunt, sed subjiciunt semetipsos Spiritui, ac rationabiliter conversantur in omnibus, juste Apostolus spirituales vocat, quoniam Spiritus Dei habitat in ipsis. Incorporales autem spiritus non erunt homines spirituales; sed substantia nostra, id est, animæ et carnis adunatio, assumens Spiritum Dei, spiritualem hominem perficit. Eos autem qui abjiciunt quidem Spiritus consilium, carnis autem voluntatibus serviunt, ... hos δικαίως ὁ Ἀπόστολος σαρκικοὺς καλεῖ.]

[^246: V. ix. 2. Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei, hi tales juste homines dicentur et mundi et spirituales et viventes Deo; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in vitam Dei ... et ex utrisque factus est vivens homo; vivens quidem propter participationem Spiritus, homo autem propter substantiam carnis.]

[^247: V. viii. 1. Nunc autem partem aliquam a spiritu ejus sumimus, ad perfectionem et præparationem incorruptelæ; paulatim assuescens capere et portare Deum: quod et pignus dixit Apostolus, hoc est pars ejus honoris qui a Deo nobis promissus est.... Si igitur nunc pignus habentes, clamamus, “Abba, Pater;” quid fiet quando resurgentes facie ad faciem videbimus eum? ... Si enim pignus complectens hominem in semetipsum, jam facit dicere, “Abba, Pater;” quid faciet universa Spiritus gratia, quæ hominibus dabitur a Deo?]

[^248: V. vii. 2. Per Spiritum surgentia, fiunt corpora spiritualia, uti per Spiritum semper permanentem habeant vitam.]

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 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].

[^249: II. iv. 1. Causa igitur quærenda est hujusmodi dispositionis Dei, sed non fabricatio mundi alteri adscribenda: et ante præparata omnia dicenda sunt a Deo, ut fierent, quemadmodum et facta sunt.——2. Qui enim postea emendat labem, et velut maculam emundat labem, multo prius poterat observare, ne initio in suis fieri talem maculam.——Et si ideo quod benignus sit, in novissimis temporibus misertus est hominum, et perfectum eis dat; illorum primo misereri debuit, qui fuerunt hominum factores (he alludes to the Gnostic notion that man was made by inferior beings) et dare eis perfectum. Sic utique et homines miserationem percepissent, de perfectis perfecti facti.]

[^250: Ibid. 2.]

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 the difficulty which all the study of philosophers and divines has ever discovered.

[^251: IV. xxxvii. 6. Sed oportebat, inquit, eum neque Angelos tales fecisse, ut possent transgredi, neque homines qui statim ingrati exsisterent in eum; quoniam rationabiles, et examinatores, et judiciales facti sunt, et non (quemadmodum irrationabilia, sive inanimalia, quæ sua voluntate nihil possunt facere, sed cum necessitate et vi ad bonum trahuntur, in quibus unus sensus, et unus mos,) inflexibiles, et sine judicio, qui nihil aliud esse possunt, præterquam quod facti sunt. Sic autem nec suave esset eis quod est bonum, neque pretiosa communicatio Dei, neque magnopere appetendum bonum, quod sine suo proprio motu et cura et studio provenisset, sed ultro et otiose insitum: ita ut essent nullius momenti boni, eo quod natura magis quam voluntate tales exsisterent, et ultroneum haberent bonum, sed non secundum electionem; et propter hoc nec hoc ipsum intelligentes, quoniam pulchrum sit quod bonum, neque fruentes eo. Quæ enim fruitio boni apud eos qui ignorant? Quæ autem gloria his qui non studuerunt illud? Quæ autem corona his qui non eam, ut victores in certamine, consequuti sunt?]

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].

[^252: II. xxviii. 7. Similiter autem et causam propter quam, cum omnia a Deo facta sint, quædam quidem transgressa sunt, et abscesserunt a Dei subjectione, quædam autem, immo plurima, perseveraverunt et perseverant in subjectione ejus qui fecit; et cujus naturæ sunt quæ transgressa sunt, cujus autem naturæ quæ perseverant; cedere oportet Deo et Verbo ejus.—Ipsam autem causam naturæ transgredientium neque Scriptura aliqua retulit, nec apostolus dixit, nec Dominus docuit. Dimittere itaque oportet agnitionem hanc Deo, quemadmodum et Dominus horæ et diei: nec in tantum periclitari, uti Deo quidem concedamus nihil, et hæc ex parte accipientes gratiam.]

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].

[^253: IV. xxxvii. 7. Bonus igitur agonista ad incorruptelæ agonem adhortatur nos; uti coronemur, et pretiosam arbitremur coronam; videlicet quæ per agonem nobis acquiritur, sed non ultro coalitam. Et quanto per agonem nobis advenit, tanto est pretiosior: quanto autem pretiosior, tanto eam semper diligamus. Sed οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀγαπᾶται τὰ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου προσγινόμενα τοῖς μετὰ ... σπουδῆς εὐρισκομένοις. Quoniam igitur pro nobis erat plus diligere Deum, cum labore hoc nobis adinvenire Dominus docuit et apostolus tradidit.——Pro nobis igitur omnia hæc sustinuit Dominus (i. e. he endured the existence of evil) uti per omnia eruditi, in omnibus in futurum simus cauti et perseveremus in omni ejus dilectione, rationabiliter edocti diligere Deum.]

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 God, i. e. immortal[^256]; whom through envy he stirred up to rebellion likewise[^257], and that by falsehood[^258], 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], although he did not make known to them at that time that their lot was irremediable[^265].

[^254: V. xxiv. 4. Sic etiam diabolus, cum sit unus ex angelis his, qui super spiritum aëris præpositi sunt, quemadmodum Paulus apostolus in ea quæ est ad Ephesios manifestavit, invidens homini, apostata a divina factus est lege; invidia enim aliena est a Deo. Et quoniam per hominem traducta est apostasia ejus, et examinatio sententiæ ejus homo factus est, ad hoc magis magisque semetipsum contrarium constituit homini, invidens vitæ ejus, et in sua potestate apostatica volens concludere eum.]

[^255: IV. xl. 3. Ἐκ τότε γὰρ ἀποστάτης ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐχθρὸς, ἀφ᾽ ὅτε ἐζήλωσε τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχθροποιῆσαι αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐπεχείρησε.—V. xxiv. 4. supra.

Tertullian, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem, were of the same opinion. I subjoin the passages.—Tertullian de Patientia, 5. Natales impatientiæ in ipso diabolo deprehendo, jam tunc cum Dominum Deum universa opera quæ fecisset, imagini suæ, id est, homini subjecisse impatienter tulit. Nec enim doluisset, si sustinuisset; nec invidisset homini, si non doluisset. Adeo decepit eum, quia inviderat.——Cyprian, de Zelo et Livore, p. 223, ed. Potter. Hinc diabolus inter initia statim mundi et petit primus et perdidit. Ille dudum angelica majestate subnixus, ille Deo acceptus et carus, postquam hominem ad imaginem Dei factum conspexit, in zelum malevolo livore prorupit ... stimulante livore homini gratiam datæ immortalitatis eripit.——Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. xii. 5. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέγιστον τῶν δημουργημάτων, ἐν παραδείσῳ χορεῦον, φθόνος ἐξέβαλε διαβολικός.]

[^256: III. xxiii. 1. Si enim qui factus fuerat a Deo homo, ut viveret, hic amittens vitam, læsus serpente qui depravaverat eum, jam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum projectus esset morti; victus esset Deus, et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem Dei. Sed quoniam Deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit ad correptionem hominis, et probationem omnium, quemadmodum prædiximus; per secundum autem hominem alligavit fortem, et deripuit ejus vasa, et evacuavit mortem, vivificans eum hominem, qui fuerat mortificatus. Primum enim possessionis ejus vas Adam factus est, quem et tenebat sub sua potestate, hoc est, prævaricationem inique inferens ei, et per occasionem immortalitatis, mortificationem faciens in eum.——8. Et serpens nihil profecit, dissuadens homini, nisi illud quod eum (i. e. se) transgressorem ostendit, initium et materiam apostasiæ suæ habens hominem; Deum enim non vicit.]

[^257: V. xxiv. 4. supra.]

[^258: V. xxiii. 1. Assuetus enim erat jam ad seductionem hominum mentiri adversus Deum.... Ille mentiens adversus Dominum tentavit hominem.]

[^259: IV. Præf. 4. Et tunc quidem apostata angelus per serpentem inobedientiam hominum operatus, existimavit latere se Dominum.——V. xxvi. 2. infra.]

[^260: IV. xl. 3. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν μὲν παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἐπισπείραντα τὸ ζιζάνιον, τουτέστι, τὴν παράβασιν εἰσενεγκόντα, ἀφώρισε τῆς ἰδίας μετουσίας· τὸν δὲ ἀμελῶς μὲν ἀλλὰ κακῶς παραδεξάμενον τὴν παρακοὴν ἄνθρωπον ἐλέησε. καὶ ἀντέστρεψε τὴν ἔχθραν, ἣν ἐχθροποίησε, πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν inimicitiarum auctorem.]

[^261: III. xxiii. 1. supra.]

[^262: IV. xl. 3.]

[^263: III. xxiii. 3. Non homini principaliter præparatus est æternus ignis, sed ei qui seduxit et offendere fecit hominem, et, inquam, qui princeps apostasiæ est, et his angelis qui apostatæ factæ sunt cum eo: quem quidem juste percipient etiam hi, qui, similiter ut illi, sine pœnitentia et sine regressu in malitiæ perseverant operibus.]

[^264: II. xxviii. 7. Quoniam præsciit Deus hoc futurum ... ignem æternum his qui transgressuri sunt præparavit ab initio.—V. xxvi. 2. Omnes qui falso dicuntur esse Gnostici organa Satanæ ab omnibus Deum colentibus cognoscantur esse, per quos Satanas nunc, et non ante, visus est maledicere Deo, qui ignem æternum præparavit omni apostasiæ. Nam ipse per semetipsum nude non audet blasphemare suum Dominum; quemadmodum et initio per serpentem seduxit hominem, quasi latens Deum. Καλῶς ὁ Ἰουστίνος ἔφη, ὅτι πρὸ μὲν τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάκρισιν· quoniam et in parabolis, et allegoriis, a Prophetis de eo sic dictum est. Post autem adventum Domini ex sermonibus Christi et Apostolorum ejus discens manifeste, quoniam ignis æternus ei præparatus est ex sua voluntate abscedenti a Deo, et omnibus qui sine pœnitentia perseverant in apostasia; per hujusmodi homines blasphemat eum Deum, qui judicium importat, quasi jam condemnatus, et peccatum suæ apostasiæ Conditori suo imputat, et non suæ voluntati et sententiæ: quemadmodum et qui supergrediuntur leges, et pœnas dant, queruntur de legislatoribus, sed non de semetipsis. Sic autem et hi diabolico spiritu pleni, innumeras accusationes inferunt Factori nostro, qui et Spiritum vitæ nobis donaverit, et legem omnibus aptam posuerit; et nolunt justum esse judicium Dei.]

[^265: V. xxvi. 2.]

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].

[^266: IV. xxxvi. 4. Et temporibus Noë diluvium inducens, uti extingueret pessimum genus eorum, qui tunc erant homines, qui jam fructificare Deo non poterant, cum angeli transgressores commixti fuissent eis.——xvi. 2. Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo, cum esset homo, legatione ad angelos fungebatur, et conservatur usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei: quoniam angeli quidem transgressi deciderunt in terram in judicium, homo autem placens translatus est in salutem.

The nature of the intercourse or commixture is not indeed stated by Irenæus; but, as Feuardent and Grabe have pointed out in commenting on these passages, he is evidently alluding to the tradition spoken of more fully by Josephus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria, whose words I subjoin.

Joseph. Antiq. I. ii. 1. Πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ, γυναιξὶ συμμιγέντες, ὑβριστὰς ἐγέννησαν παῖδας, καὶ παντὸς ὑπερόπτας καλοῦ, διὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ δυνάμει πεποίθησιν· ὅμοια γὰρ τοῖς ὑπο γιγάντων τετολμῆσθαι λεγομένοις ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων καὶ οὗτοι δράσαι παραδίδονται.

Justin M. Apol. II. 5. Ὁ Θεός ... τὴν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρόνοιαν ἀγγέλοις, οὓς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔταξε, παρέδωκεν. Οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι, παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν τάξιν, γυναικῶν μίξεσιν ἡττήθησαν, καὶ παῖδας ἐτέκνωσαν, οἱ εἰσιν οἱ λεγόμενοι δαίμονες.

Athenag. Legat. 22. Οἱ δὲ (the fallen angels) ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῆς τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καῖ τῇ ἀρχῇ, οὗτός τε (Satan) ὁ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰδῶν ἄρχων καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν περὶ τὸ πρῶτον τοῦτο στερέωμα· ἐκεῖνοι μὲν εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν πεσόντες παρθένων, καὶ ἥττους σαρκὸς εὑρεθέντες, οὗτος δὲ ἀμελήσας καὶ πονηρὸς περὶ τὴν τῶν πεπιστευμένων γενόμενος διοίκησιν. Ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν περὶ τὰς παρθένους ἐχόντων οἱ καλούμενοι ἐγεννήθησαν γίγαντες.

Clem. Alex. Pædag. III. 2. § 14. Οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ κάλλος καταλελοιπότες διὰ κάλλος μαραινόμενον.——Strom. III. 7. § 59. Ἄγγελοί τινες ἀκρατεῖς γενόμενοι ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἁλόντες οὐρανόθεν δεῦρο καταπεπτώκασιν.

The opinion contained in these quotations has been discountenanced since the time of Cyril of Alexandria; but is it therefore necessarily unfounded?]

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 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].

[^267: V. xxvi. 2. supra.]

[^268: IV. Præf. 4. Nunc autem, quoniam novissima sunt tempora, extenditur malum in homines, non solum apostatas eos faciens, sed et blasphemos in Plasmatorem instituit multis machinationibus, id est, per omnes hæreticos.]

[^269: See V. xxvi. 2. p. 109, note 2.]

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 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].

[^270: See p. 103.]

[^271: III. xi. 8. Καὶ γὰρ τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα· καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ζῶον, φησὶ, ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ ἔμπρακτον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν χαρακτηρίζον· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν τάξιν ἐμφαῖνον· τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἔχον πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου, τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν φανερώτατα διαγράφον· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετωμένῳ, τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐφιπταμένου δόσιν σαφηνίζον.—Καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς μὲν πρὸ Μωϋσέως πατριάρχαις, κατὰ τὸ θεïκὸν καὶ ἔνδοξον ὡμίλει· τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ἱερατικὴν et ministerialem τάξιν ἀπένεμεν· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος εἰς πᾶσαν ἐξέπεμψε τὴν γῆν, σκεπάζων ἡμᾶς ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ πτέρυξιν. Ὁποία οὖν ἡ πραγματεία τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοιαύτη καὶ τῶν ζώων ἡ μορφή· καὶ ὁποία ἡ τῶν ζώων μορφὴ, τοιοῦτος καὶ ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Τετράμορφα γὰρ τὰ ζῶα, τετράμορφον καὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ ἡ πραγματεία τοῦ Κυρίου. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες ἐδόθησαν καθολικαὶ διαθῆκαι τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι· μία μὲν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τοῦ Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόξου· δευτέρα δὲ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ, ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείου τῆς περιτομῆς· τρίτη δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωüσέως· τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.]

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 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].

[^272: Ibid.]

[^273: Et propter hoc quatuor data sunt testamenta humano generi; unum quidem ante cataclysmum sub Adam; secundum vero, post cataclysmum sub Noë; tertium vero, legislatio sub Moyse; quartum vero, quod renovat hominem, et recapitulat in se omnia, quod est per Evangelium, elevans et pennigerans homines in cœleste regnum.]

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 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 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.

[^274: I. ix. 1. See p. 78, note 1.]

[^275: V. xxiv. 2. Quoniam enim absistens a Deo homo in tantum efferavit, ut etiam consanguineum hostem sibi putaret, et in omni inquietudine et homicidio et avaritia sine timore versaretur, imposuit illi Deus humanum timorem, (non enim cognoscebant timorem Dei,) ut potestati hominum subjecti, et lege eorum adstricti, ad aliquid assequantur justitiæ, et moderentur ad invicem, in manifesto propositum gladium timentes.]

[^276: IV. xiv. 2. Sic et Deus ab initio hominem quidem plasmavit propter suam munificentiam; Patriarchas vero elegit propter illorum salutem; populum vero præformabat, docens indocibilem, sequi Deum; Prophetas vero præstruebat in terra, assuescens hominem portare ejus Spiritum, et communionem habere cum Deo: ipse quidem nullius indigens; his vero qui indigent ejus, suam præbens communionem; et his qui ei complacebant, fabricationem salutis, ut architectus, delineans, et non videntibus in Ægypto a semetipso dans ducationem; et his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem, et his qui in bonam terram introierunt, dignam præbens hæreditatem; et his qui convertuntur ad Patrem, saginatum occidens vitulum, et primam stolam donans; multis modis componens humanum genus ad consonantiam salutis. Et propter hoc Joannes in Apocalypsi ait: “Et vox ejus quasi vox aquarum multarum.” Vere enim aquæ multæ Spiritus, quoniam dives, et quoniam magnus est Pater. Et per omnes illos transiens Verbum, sine invidia utilitatem præstabat eis qui subjecti sibi erant, omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens.——xvi. 3. Cum autem hæc justitia et dilectio, quæ erat erga Deum, cessit in oblivionem, et extincta esset in Ægypto, necessario Deus propter multam suam erga homines benevolentiam semetipsum ostendebat per vocem, et eduxit de Ægypto populum in virtute, uti rursus fieret homo discipulus et sectator Dei; et affligebat indictoaudientes, [dicto non audientes, contumaces] ut non contemnerent eum qui se fecit; et manna cibavit eum, uti rationalem acciperent escam, quemadmodum et Moyses in Deuteronomio ait: “Et cibavit te manna, quod non sciebant patres tui, uti cognoscas, quoniam non in pane solo vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei, quod procedit de ore ejus, vivit homo.” Et erga Deum dilectionem præcipiebat, et eam quæ ad proximum est justitiam insinuabat, ut nec injustus, nec indignus sit Deo; præstruens hominem per Decalogum in suam amicitiam, et eam quæ circa proximum est concordiam; (quæ quidem ipsi proderant homini;) nihil tamen indigente Deo ab homine.]

[^277: IV. xiv. 2.]

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].

[^278: This is the argument of the first twenty chapters of the fourth book, and the quotations are too copious and diffuse to be given at length. A few, therefore, must suffice.

IV. ii. 7. Non enim Lex prohibebat eos credere in Filium Dei, sed et adhortabatur, dicens non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua serpentis plaga, nisi credant in eum qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exaltatur a terra, et omnia trahit ad se, et vivificat mortuos.—He alludes to the brazen serpent exhibited on a pole in the wilderness.

v. 4. In Abraham enim prædidicerat et assuetus fuerat homo sequi Verbum Dei. Etenim Abraham secundum fidem suam secutus præceptum Verbi Dei, προθύμως τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ πάντως τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν Υἱὸν θυσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡμετέραν.—5. Propheta ergo cum esset Abraham, et videret in Spiritu diem adventus Domini, et passionis dispositionem, per quem ipse quoque, et omnes qui, similiter ut ipse credidit, credunt Deo, salvari inciperent, exsultavit vehementer.

ix. 1. Pater familias enim Dominus est, qui universæ domui paternæ dominatur: et servis quidem et adhuc indisciplinatis condignam tradens legem, liberis autem et fide justificatis congruentia dans præcepta, et filiis adaperiens suam hæreditatem.—3. Novo enim testamento cognito et prædicato per prophetas, et ille qui illud dispositurus erat secundum placitum Patris prædicabatur; manifestatus hominibus, quemadmodum voluit Deus, ut possint semper proficere credentes in eum, et per testamenta maturescere perfectum salutis. Una enim salus, et unus Deus; quæ autem formant hominem præcepta multa, et non pauci gradus qui ducunt hominem ad Deum.

xiii. 1. Et quia Dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo justificatur, quæ etiam ante legislationem custodiebant, qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo, non dissolvit, sed extendit et implevit; ex sermonibus ejus ostenditur.... Hæc autem non quasi contraria Legi docebat; sed adimplens Legem, et infigens justificationes Legis in nobis. Illud autem fuisset Legi contrarium, si quodcumque Lex vetasset fieri, idipsum discipulis suis jussisset facere. Et hoc autem quod præcepit, non solum vetitis a Lege, sed etiam a concupiscentiis eorum abstinere, non contrarium est, quemadmodum diximus; neque solventis Legem, sed adimplentis et extendentis et dilatantis.]

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 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].

[^279: IV. xiii. 1.]

[^280: IV. xiii. 4. Quia igitur naturalia omnia præcepta communia sunt nobis et illis, in illis quidem initium et ortum habuerunt, in nobis autem augmentum et adimpletionem perceperunt.]

[^281: IV. xv. 1. Nam Deus primo quidem per naturalia præcepta, quæ ab initio infixa dedit hominibus, admonens eos, id est, per Decalogum (quæ si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem), nihil plus ab eis exquisivit.]

[^282: IV. xvi. 2. Et quia non per hæc justificabatur homo, sed in signo data sunt populo, ostendit, quod ipse Abraham sine circumcisione, et sine observatione sabbatorum, “credidit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est.” Sed et Lot sine circumcisione eductus est de Sodomis, percipiens salutem a Deo. Item Deo placens Noë cum esset incircumcisus, accepit mensuras mundi secundæ generationis. Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo, cum esset homo, legatione ad Angelos fungebatur, et translatus est, et conservatur usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei: quoniam Angeli quidem transgressi deciderunt in terram in judicium; homo autem placens, translatus est in salutem. Sed et reliqua autem omnis multitudo eorum, qui ante Abraham fuerunt justi, et eorum Patriarcharum, qui ante Moysem fuerunt, et sine his quæ prædicta sunt, et sine lege Moysi justificabantur.]

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 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].

[^283: IV. xiii. 1. supra.—xvi. 3. Quare igitur patribus non disposuit Dominus testamentum? Quia lex non est posita justis; justi autem patres, virtutem decalogi conscriptam habentes in cordibus et animabus suis, diligentes scilicet Deum qui fecit eos, et abstinentes erga proximum ab injustitia: propter quod non fuit necesse admoneri eos correptoriis literis, quia habebant in semetipsis justitiam legis.]

[^284: IV. xvi. 3.]

[^285: IV. xv. 1. At ubi conversi sunt in vituli factionem, et reversi sunt animis suis in Ægyptum, servi pro liberis concupiscentes esse, aptam concupiscentiæ suæ acceperunt reliquam servitutem, a Deo quidem non abscindentem, in servitutis autem jugo dominantem eis.]

[^286: IV. xiv. 3. Sic autem et populo Tabernaculi factionem, et ædificationem Templi, et Levitarum electionem, sacrificia quoque et oblationes, et monitiones, et reliquam omnem Lege statuebat deservitionem. Ipse quidem nullius horum est indigens; est enim semper plenus omnibus bonis, omnemque odorem suavitatis, et omnes suaveolentium vaporationes habens in se, etiam antequam Moyses esset: facile autem ad idola revertentem populum erudiebat, per multas vocationes præstruens eos perseverare, et servire Deo: per ea quæ erant secunda, ad prima vocans, hoc est, per typica, ad vera; et per temporalia, ad æterna; et per carnalia, ad spiritalia; et per terrena, ad cœlestia.]

[^287: IV. xvi. 1. Quoniam autem et circumcisionem non quasi consummatricem justitiæ, sed in signo eam dedit Deus, ut cognoscibile perseveret genus Abrahæ, ex ipsa Scriptura discimus.... In signo ergo data sunt hæc: non autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque otiosa, tanquam quæ a sapiente Artifice darentur; sed secundum carnem circumcisio circumcisionem significabat spiritalem.]

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].

[^288: IV. xii. 5. Quoniam autem Lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum, ipse facit manifestum, ei qui interrogavit eum, quid faciens vitam æternam hæreditaret, sic respondens: “Si vis in vitam introire, custodi præcepta.” Illo autem interrogante, “Quæ?” rursus Dominus: “Non mœchaberis, non occides, non furaberis, non falsum testimonium reddes, honora patrem et matrem, et diliges proximum tanquam teipsum;” velut gradus proponens præcepta Legis introitus in vitam, volentibus sequi eum: quæ uni tum dicens, omnibus dicebat.]

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

[^289: IV. xii. 4. Non ergo eam Legem, quæ est per Moysem data, incusabat, quam adhuc salvis Hierosolymis suadebat fieri.]

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 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].

[^290: IV. xiii. 2. Etenim Lex, quippe servis posita, per ea quæ foris erant corporalia, animam erudiebat, velut per vinculum attrahens eam ad obedientiam præceptorum, uti disceret homo servire Deo: Verbum autem liberans animam, et per ipsam corpus voluntarie emundari docuit. Quo facto, necesse fuit auferri quidem vincula servitutis, quibus jam homo assueverat, et sine vinculis sequi Deum; superextendi vero decreta libertatis, et augeri subjectionem quæ est ad regem, ut non retrorsus quis revertens, indignus appareat ei qui se liberavit: eam vero pietatem et obedientiam, quæ est erga patremfamilias, esse quidem eandem et servis et liberis; majorem autem fiduciam habere liberos, quoniam sit major et gloriosior operatio libertatis, quam ea quæ est in servitute obsequentia.—3. Hæc autem, quemadmodum prædiximus, non dissolventis erant Legem, sed adimplentis, et extendentis in nobis: tamquam si aliquis dicat, majorem libertatis operationem, et pleniorem erga Liberatorem nostrum infixam nobis subjectionem et affectionem. Non enim propter hoc liberavit nos, ut ab eo abscedamus; nec enim potest quisquam extra dominica constitutus bona, sibimetipsi acquirere salutis alimenta: sed ut plus gratiam ejus adepti, plus eum diligamus. Quanto autem plus eum dilexerimus, hoc majorem ab eo gloriam accipiemus, cum simus semper in conspectu Patris.]

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.”

[^291: IV. xiii. 2.]

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 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.

[^292: IV. xxxviii. 3. Ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. Quoted from Wisdom vi. 19, 20.]

[^293: IV. xxi. 2. Deus——qui est absconsorum cognitor. Quoted from Daniel xiii. 42. in the Septuagint version.]

[^294: IV. v. 2. Quem et Daniel propheta, cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum, “Quare non adoras Bel?” annunciavit, dicens, “Quoniam non colo idola manufacta, sed vivum Deum, qui constituit cœlum et terram, et habet omnis carnis dominationem.”]

[^295: V. xxxv. 1. Et quotquot ex credentibus ad hoc præparavit Deus ad derelictos multiplicandos in terra, et sub regno sanctorum fieri, et ministrare huic Hierusalem, et regnum in ea, significavit Jeremias propheta; “Circumspice,” dicens, &c.: and then he quotes a passage from the book of Baruch, extending from ch. iv. 36. to the end of ch. v.]

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.

[^296: IV. xx. 2. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ, ἡ λέγουσα· Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. This is quoted from the first commandment in the abovementioned work.]

[^297: Strom. I. xxix. § 181. Θείως τοίνυν ἡ δύναμις ἡ τῷ Ἑρμᾷ κατ᾽ ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα.]

[^298: De Pudicitia, 10. Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola mœchos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi; si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum (he is addressing the Bishop of Rome) inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur.]

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 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, 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 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.

[^299: Dissert. III. § 4.]

[^300: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. xxvi. 6. “Ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι. ὧν ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα· Μωüσέως πέντε· Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευïτικὸν, Ἀριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον· Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, Κριταὶ, Ῥούθ· Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο· Ψαλμῶν Δαβὶδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι (ἣ καὶ Σοφία), Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, Ἆσμα ᾀσμάτων, Ἰώβ· προφητῶν, Ἡσαΐου, Ἱερεμίου· τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλω· Δανιὴλ, Ἰεζεκιὴλ, Ἔσδρας.”]

[^301: Some copies, instead of ἣ καὶ Σοφία, read ἡ Σοφία.]

[^302: Euseb. Hist. VI. xxv. 1. Τὸν μέντοιγε πρῶτον ἐξηγούμενοσ ψαλμὸν, ἔκθεσιν πεποίηται τοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης καταλόγου, ὦδέ πως γραφῶν κατὰ λέξιν· Οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ᾽ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, δύο καὶ εἴκοσι· ... ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν Γένεσις ἐπιγεγραμμένη, ... Ἔξοδος, Λευïτικὸν, ... Ἀριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον ... Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυῆ, ... Κριταὶ, Ῥοὺθ, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Βασιλειῶν πρώτη, δευτέρα, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἓν, Σαμουὴλ, ... 2. Βασιλειῶν τρίτη, τετάρτη, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Παραλειπομένων πρώτη, δευτέρα, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Ἔσδρας πρῶτος καὶ δευτέρος, ἐν ἑνὶ Ἐζρᾶ, ... βίβλος Ψαλμῶν, ... Σολομῶντος παροιμίαι, ... Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, ... Ἆσμα ᾀσμάτων, ... ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῶν ιβʹ προφητῶν ἕν ἐστιν.... Ἡσαïας, ... Ἱερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, ἐν ἑνὶ, ... Δανιὴλ, ... Ἱεζεκιὴλ, ... Ἰὼβ, ... Ἐσθὴρ, ... Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαïκά.

Here we have Origen distinctly recognizing the Hebrew canon as the true one, only making a mistake in the matter of fact, that the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah belonged to the Hebrew book.]

[^303: Opera, tom. ii. pp. 126-204.]

[^304: De Pond. et Mens. tom. ii. ed. Colon. p. 162. § 4, 5. Hær. xxix. § 7.]

[^305: Quoted in Beveridge on the Sixth Article of the Church of England, in his Exposition of the Articles.]

[^306: Prolog. Galeat. and Epist. ad Paulinum.]

[^307: Can. 60.]

[^308: See Beveridge, as above cited.]

[^309: Hær. 29.]

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 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].

[^310: III. i. 1. Ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαιος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμη εὐαγγελιζομένων, καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε. καὶ Λουκᾶς δὲ ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέθετο. ἔπειτα Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσὼν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων.——Frag. 29. Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ἐγάαφη· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐπεθύμουν πάνυ σφόδρα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ Χριστὸν. ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιθυμίαν, παντοίως ἔσπευδε πληροφορίαν παρέχειν αὐτοῖς, ὡς εἴη ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ ὁ Χριστός· διὸ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἤρξατο.]

[^311: III. i. 1. supra.]

[^312: Ibid.—xi. 1. Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre cum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaïtæ, qui sunt vulsio ejus quæ falso cognominatur scientiæ, ... omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini, et regulam veritatis constituere in ecclesia, ... sic inchoavit in ea quæ est secundum evangelium doctrina: “In principio erat Verbum,” &c.]

[^313: V. xxvi. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de novissimo tempore ... significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi.]

[^314: V. xxx. 3. Ἡμεῖς οὖν οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου, ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς. Εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρῥ'eθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς.]

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]: the latter of which indeed few persons will believe to have been spoken by our Lord.

[^315: III. xx. 4. Et quoniam non solum homo erat, qui moriebatur pro nobis, Esaias ait: “Et commemoratus est Dominus sanctus Israël mortuorum suorum, qui dormierant in terra sepultionis; et descendit ad eos evangelizare salutem quæ est ab eo, ut salvaret eos.” At IV. xxxiii. 1. he ascribes it to Jeremiah, as does Justin Martyr, (Dial. cum Tryph. 72.) who gives it in Greek. In IV. xxxiii. 12. and V. xxxi. 1. he quotes it without mentioning the author.]

[^316: Tryph. 72.]

[^317: II. xxxiv. 3. Et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis exsistentibus in eum: “Si in modico fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit vobis?” The same passage is quoted by S. Clement of Rome, Epist. II. 8. Λέγει γὰρ Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ· Εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει;——V. xxxiii. 3. Quemadmodum Presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat Dominus, et dicebat: “Venient dies, in quibus vinæ nascentur, singulæ decem millia palmitum habentes, et in una palmite dena millia brachiorum, et in uno vero palmite dena millia flagellorum, et in unoquoque flagello dena millia botruum, et in unoquoque botro dena millia acinorum, et unumquodque acinum expressum dabit vigintiquinque metretas vini. Et cum eorum apprehenderit aliquis sanctorum botrum, alius clamabit: Botrus ego melior sum; me sume; per me Dominum benedic.” Similiter et granum tritici decem millia spicarum generaturum, et unamquamque spicam habituram decem millia granorum, et unumquodque granum quinque bilibres similæ claræ mundæ: et reliqua autem poma, et semina, et herbam secundum congruentiam iis consequentem: et omnia animalia iis cibis utentia, quæ a terra accipiuntur, pacifica et consentanea invicem fieri, subjecta hominibus cum omni subjectione.—4. Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Παπίας Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ, ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ ἐν τῇ τετάρτη τῶν αὐτοῦ βιβλίων. ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλὶα συντεταγμένα. Et adjecit, dicens: “Hæc autem credibilia sunt credentibus.” Et “Juda,” inquit, “proditore non credente, et interrogante: Quomodo ergo tales genituræ a Domino perficientur?” dixisse Dominum: “Videbunt qui venient in illa.”]

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 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.

[^318: III. xi. 7. Ebionei etenim eo Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthæum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte præsumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quæ adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum exsistentem Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est præferentes Evangelium, cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes, ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum.——xv. 1. Eadem etiam dicimus iterum et his qui Paulum apostolum non cognoscunt.... Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse apostolum.]

[^319: III. xi. 7.-9. Etenim Marcion totum rejiciens Evangelium, immo vere seipsum abscindens ab Evangelio, pariter gloriatur se habere Evangelium. Alii vero ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quæ est secundum Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit; sed simul et Evangelium, et propheticum repellunt Spiritum. Infelices vere, qui pseudo-prophetæ quidem esse volunt, propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab Ecclesia: similia patientes his, qui propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communicatione se abstinent.]

[^320: III. xi. 7.]

[^321: III. xi. 9.]

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].

[^322: III. xxi. 2. Πρὸ γὰρ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους κρατύναι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, ἔτι τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν Ἀσίαν κατεχόντων, Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου, φιλοτιμούμενος τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένην βιβλιοθήκην ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ κοσμῆσαι τοῖς πάντων ἀνθρώπων συγγράμμασιν, ὅσα γε σπουδαῖα ὑπῆρχεν, ᾐτήσατο παρὰ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν εἰς τὴν Ἐλληνικὴν διάλεκτον σχεῖν αὐτῶν μεταβεβλημένας τὰς γραφάς. οἱ δὲ (ὑπήκουον γὰρ ἔτι τοῖς Μακεδόσι τότε) τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐμπειροτάτους τῶν γραφῶν, καὶ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν διαλέκτων, ἑβδομήκοντα πρεσβυτέρους ἔπεμψαν Πτολεμαίῳ, ποιήσαντος τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅπερ ἐβούλετο. Ὁ δὲ ἰδίᾳ πεῖραν αὐτῶν λαβεῖν θελήσας, εὐλαβηθείς τε μήτι ἄρα συνθέμενοι, ἀποκρύψωσι τὴν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς διὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἀλήθειαν, χωρίσας αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἐκέλευσε τοὺς πάντας τὴν αὐτὴν ἑρμηνείαν γράφειν· καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν βιβλίων ἐποίησε. Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ, καὶ συναντιβαλόντων ἑκάστου τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἑρμηνείαν, ὁ μὲν Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη, αἱ δὲ γραφαὶ ὄντως θεῖαι ἐγνώσθησαν, τῶν πάντων τὰ αὐτὰ ταῖς αὐταῖς λέξεσι, καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀναγορευσάντων ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τέλους· ὤστε καὶ τὰ παρόντα ἔθνη γνῶναι, ὅτι κατ᾽ ἐπίπνοιαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσιν ἡρμηνευμέναι αἱ γραφαί. καὶ οὐδέν γε θαυμαστὸν, τὸν Θεὸν τοῦτο ἐνηργηκέναι, ὅς γε καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ Ναβουχοδονόσορ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ διαφθαρεισῶν τῶν γραφῶν, καὶ μετὰ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνελθόντων εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν, ἔπειτα ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Ἀρταξέρξου τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως, ἐνέπνευσεν Ἔσδρᾳ τῷ ἱερεῖ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευï, τοὺς τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ἀνατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωσέως νομοθεσίαν.—3. Cum tanta igitur veritate et gratia Dei interpretatæ sint Scripturæ, ex quibus præparavit et reformavit Deus fidem nostram, quæ in Filium ejus est, et servavit nobis simplices Scripturas in Ægypto, in qua adolevit et domus Jacob, effugiens famem quæ fuit in Chanaan; in qua et Dominus noster servatus est, effugiens eam persequutionem quæ erat ab Herode; et hæc earum Scripturarum interpretatio priusquam Dominus noster descenderet, facta sit, et antequam Christiani ostenderentur, interpretata sit.]

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 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.

[^323: III. xxi. 2, 3.]

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.

[^324: III. xxi. 1. Ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν γραφήν· Ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν· ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος, καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι· οἷς κατακολουθήσαντες οἱ Ἐβιωναῖοι, ἑξ Ἰωσὴφ αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι.]

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

[^325: V. xxx. 1. Τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, καὶ ἐν πὰσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου κ. τ. λ.]

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].

[^326: III. i. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostræ cognovimus, quam per eos, per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod quidem tunc præconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostræ futurum.——xi. 8. Neque autem plura numero quam hæc sunt, neque rursus pauciora capit esse Evangelia. Ἐπειδὴ enim τέσσαρα κλίματα τοῦ κόσμου, ἐν ᾧ ἐσμὲν, εἰσὶ, καὶ τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα, κατέσπαρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς, στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ Πνεῦμα ζωῆς· εἰκότως τέσσαρας ἔχειν αὐτὴν στύλους, πανταχόθεν πνέοντας τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ ἀναζωπυροῦντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.]

[^327: IV. xxxiii. 8. See p. 77, note 5.]

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 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.

[^328: Lib. I. II.]

[^329: III. Præf. See p. 34, note 10.]

[^330: III. ii. 1. Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictæ, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant Traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse: “Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos; sapientiam autem non mundi hujus.” Et hanc sapientiam unusquisque eorum esse dicit, quam a semetipso adinvenerit, fictionem videlicet; ut digne secundum eos sit veritas, aliquando quidem in Valentino, aliquando autem in Marcione, aliquando in Cerintho; postea deinde in Basilide fuit, aut et in illo qui contra disputat, qui nihil salutare loqui potuit. Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo perversus, semetipsum, regulam veritatis depravans, prædicare non confunditur.]

[^331: III. v. 1. Traditione igitur, quæ est ab apostolis, sic se habente in ecclesia et permanente apud nos, revertamur ad eam quæ est ex Scripturis ostensionem eorum qui Evangelium conscripserunt Apostolorum, &c.]

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]. 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].

[^332: III. ii. 1. Massuet (Diss. I. § 24) says, “Hanc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat.” Now, to my apprehension, he does tacitly disapprove the sentiment in the very passage; and however he may acknowledge that there are many parts of Scripture obscure and ambiguous, yet the whole method of his arguing shows incontestably that he thought its voice, on such points as he was discussing with the Gnostics, perfectly unambiguous.]

[^333: II. xxvii. 1. Ὁ ὑγιὴς νοῦς καὶ ἀκίνδυνος καὶ εὐλαβὴς καὶ φιλαληθὴς, ὅσα ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξουσίᾳ δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ὑποτέταχε τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γνώσει, ταῦτα προθύμως ἐκμελετήσει, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς προκόψει, διὰ τῆς καθημερινῆς ἀσκήσεως ῥᾳδίαν τὴν μάθησιν ἑαυτῷ ποιούμενος. Ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα, τά τε ὑπ᾽ ὄψιν πίπτοντα τὴν ἡμετέραν, καὶ ὅσα φανερῶς καὶ ἀναμφιβόλως αὐτολεξεὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς λέλεκται. Et ideo parabolæ debent non ambiguis adaptari: sic enim et qui absolvit, sine periculo absolvit, et parabolæ ab omnibus similiter absolutionem accipient; et a veritate [i. e. per veritatem] corpus integrum, et simili aptatione membrorum, et sine concussione perseverat.—2. Cum itaque universæ Scripturæ et Prophetiæ et Evangelia in aperto et sine ambiguitate et similiter ab omnibus audiri possint, etsi non omnes credunt.——xxviii. 1. Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem, et in aperto positum de Deo testimonium, non debemus per quæstionum declinantes [in] alias atque alias absolutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam: magis autem absolutionem quæstionum in hunc characterem dirigentes, exerceri quidem convenit per inquisitionem mysterii et dispositionis exsistentis Dei; augeri autem in charitate ejus, qui tanta propter nos fecit et facit.

Grabe argues from the first of these passages as though every thing which God would have us know or believe were contained in express words in Scripture, and thus incurs the reprehension of Massuet. (Diss. III. § 11.) All that can be gathered from it legitimately is, that the things clearly revealed are expressed in Scripture without ambiguity, and that these are the most important.]

[^334: II. x. 1. Omnis autem quæstio non per aliud quod quæritur habebit resolutionem, nec ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solvetur apud eos qui sensum habent, aut ænigmata per aliud majus ænigma; sed ea quæ sunt talia ex manifestis et consonantibus et claris accipiunt absolutiones.]

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.

[^335: I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰς παραβολὰς ἐπιγνώσεται.—x. 1. See p. 91, note 7.]

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].

[^336: IV. xxxii. 1. See p. 77, note 8.]

[^337: IV. xxvi. 4. See p. 80, note 7.]

[^338: IV. xxvi. 2. See p. 80, note 7.]

[^339: IV. xxxiii. 1. Talis discipulus vere spiritalis recipiens Spiritum Dei, qui ab initio in universis dispositionibus Dei adfuit hominibus, et futura annuntiavit et præsentia ostendit et præterita enarrat, judicat quidem omnes, ipse autem a nemine judicatur. Nam judicat gentes.... Examinabit autem doctrinam Marcionis, &c.]

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. 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 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.

[^340: III. ii. 1. See p. 136, note 9.]

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 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 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.

[^341: III. ii. 1. See supra, p. 136, note 9.—2. Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab Apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos; adversantur traditioni, dicentes se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam Apostolis exsistentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veritatem.... Evenit itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos.]

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 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.

[^342: Conf. III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7, et i. 1. p. 135, note 5.]

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 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.

[^343: I. x. 1. See p. 91.]

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 change the faith[^351]; and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it[^352].

[^344: III. Præf. p. 34, note 10.]

[^345: III. iii. 1. See p. 57, note 7.]

[^346: Ibid.]

[^347: I. ix. 4. p. 57, note 6.]

[^348: III. iii. 2. p. 63, note 8.]

[^349: III. iii. 4. p. 58, notes 2 & 3.]

[^350: III. iii. 3, 4. p. 62, notes 2 & 6.]

[^351: I. x. 2. Οὓτω καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας πανταχῆ φαίνει, καὶ φωτίζει πάντας ἀνθρώπους τοὺς βουλομένους εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων ἐρεῖ· (οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον·) οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν· μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης, οὔτε ὁ πόλυ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν, ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἠλαττόνησε.]

[^352: I. x. 3. Τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἢ ἔλαττον κατὰ σύνεσιν εἰδέναι τινάς ... γίνεται ... ἐν τῷ τὰ, ὅσα ἐν παραβολαῖς εἴρηται, προσεπεργάζεσθαι καὶ οἰκειοῦν τῇ τῆς πίστεως ὑποθέσει κ. τ. λ.]

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 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].

[^353: III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7; I. x. 1, 2. p. 91.]

[^354: Thus Irenæus gives two different versions of it (I. x. 1. et III. iv. 2); in one of which he mentions Christ's ascent into heaven in the flesh, and other matters, which are omitted in the other.]

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 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.

[^355: III. iv. 2. See p. 159, note 3.]

[^356: III. iv. 1. ibid.]

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 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.

[^357: IV. xxvi. 4. p. 81, note 8.]

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 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].

[^358: IV. xxvii. 1. Quemadmodum audivi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his qui Apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant, sufficere veteribus, de his quæ sine consilio Spiritus egerunt, eam quæ ex Scripturis esset correptionem.... 2. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea, quæ sunt sub terra, descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum suum.]

[^359: V. v. 1. Διὸ καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ, τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἐκεῖσε μετατεθῆναι· i. e. to Paradise.]

[^360: V. xxxiii. 3. Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis (i. e. those of the new heavens and new earth) docebat Dominus.]

[^361: II. xxii. 6. p. 98, note 1.]

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.

[^362: II. xxii. 6.]

[^363: II. xxii. 6.]

It is likewise evident that this tradition in regard to mere facts not connected with any important doctrine, 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 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.

Chapter X. On The Creed.

The Baptismal Creed having been mentioned in the two previous chapters, in the one as a guide in the interpretation of Scripture, in the other as embodying (to a certain extent) Primitive Tradition, it appears natural to bring forward in the next place such notices of it as Irenæus furnishes.

We find, then, that it was customary at baptism to rehearse to every person the rule of faith held throughout the Catholic Church; in other words, the Creed[^364]. This, indeed, was not uniform in language, but the same points appear to have been adhered to, and to have been stated in much the same order. Irenæus, indeed, does not distinctly copy any creed: but he rehearses all the chief points of it in two different passages, which I will give at length; these being the first clear traces we have of the primitive creed.

[^364: I. ix. 4. p. 57, note 6.]

The first is as follows[^365]:—

[^365: I. x. 1. The Greek of this passage is to be found at p. 91.]

“For the Church, although spread throughout the world, even to the utmost bounds of the earth, and having received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the seas, and all that in them is: and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation: and in one Holy Ghost, who through the prophets preached the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth of a Virgin, and the Passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to gather together all things in one, and to raise from the dead all flesh of all mankind; that according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee may bow to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and every tongue may confess to him; and that he may execute just judgment upon them all, and send into eternal fire the spirits of wickedness, and the angels that sinned and were in rebellion, and the ungodly and unjust and lawless and blasphemous amongst men; and bestowing life upon the just and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and remained in his love, some from the beginning and some after repentance, might give them incorruption and clothe them with eternal glory: having received this preaching and this faith, as we said before, the Church, though dispersed throughout the world, keeps it diligently,” &c.

This passage strikes us at once as containing fragments of a creed the same as that of Nice, repeated in portions in the same order, although the general arrangement of the creeds is departed from.

The other passage is this[^366]:—

[^366: III. iv. 1. Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de præsenti quæstione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias?—2. Cui ordinationi assentiunt multæ gentes barbarorum, eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes; in unum Deum credentes Fabricatorem cœli et terræ, et omnium quæ in eis sunt, per Christum Jesum Dei Filium: qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem, eam quæ esset ex Virgine generationem sustinuit, ipse per se hominem adunans Deo, et passus sub Pontio Pilato, et resurgens, et in claritate receptus, in gloria venturus Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et Judex eorum qui judicantur, et mittens in ignem æternum transfiguratores veritatis, et contemptores Patris sui et adventus ejus. Hanc fidem qui sine literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt: quantum autem ad sententiam et consuetudinem et conversationem, propter fidem perquam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conversantes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia. Quibus si aliquis annuntiaverit ea, quæ ab hæreticis adinventa sunt, proprio sermone eorum colloquens, statim concludentes aures, longo longius fugient, ne audire quidem sustinentes blasphemum colloquium. Sic per illam veterem Apostolorum Traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt, quodcumque eorum portentiloquium est: nequedum enim congregatio fuit apud eos, neque doctrina instituta.]

“But what if the Apostles had not left us any writings? must we not have followed the order of 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 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].

[^367: I. iii. 6. Τὴν πίστιν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ.]

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 and evil set before him, and having the power to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act accordingly[^369]; that God has always treated men as having the power to act for themselves[^370], rewarding 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].

[^368: IV. xxxvii. 1. Illud autem, quod ait: “Quoties volui colligere filios tuos, et noluisti?” veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit: quia liberum eum Deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem, sicut et suam animam, ad utendum sententia Dei voluntarie, et non coactum a Deo. Βία enim Θεῷ οὐ πρόσεστιν· ἀγαθὴ δὲ γνώμη πάντοτε συμπάρεστιν αὐτῷ. Et propter hoc consilium quidem bonum dat omnibus. Posuit autem in homine potestatem electionis, quemadmodum et in angelis (etenim angeli rationabiles); uti hi quidem qui obedissent, juste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a Deo, servatum vero ab ipsis. Qui autem non obedierunt, juste non invenientur cum bono, et meritam pœnam percipient: quoniam Deus quidem dedit benigne bonum, ipsi vero non custodierunt diligenter illud, neque pretiosum arbitrati sunt, sed supereminentiam bonitatis contempserunt. Abjicientes igitur bonum, et quasi respuentes, merito omnes justum judicium incident Dei.... Dedit ergo Deus bonum, ... et qui operantur quidem illud, gloriam et honorem percipient, quoniam operati sunt bonum, cum possint non operari illud; hi autem qui illud non operantur, judicium justum excipient Dei, quoniam non sunt operati bonum, cum possint operari illud.—2. Εἰ φύσει οἱ μὲν φαῦλοι, οἱ δὲ ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασιν, οὐθ᾽ οὗτοι ἐπαινετοὶ, ὄντες ἀγαθοὶ, τοιοῦτοι γὰρ κατεσκευάσθησαν· οὐτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι μεμπτοὶ, οὕτως γεγονότες. Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ οἱ πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσι φύσεως, δυνάμενοί τε κατασχεῖν κὶι πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ δυνάμενοι πάλιν ἀποβαλεῖν αὐτὸ, καὶ μὴ ποιῆσαι· δικαίως καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς εὐνομουμένοις, καὶ πολὺ πρότερον παρὰ Θεῷ, οἱ μὲν ἐπαινοῦνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι μαρτυρίας, τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καθόλου ἐκλογῆς καὶ ἐπιμονῆς· οἱ δὲ καταιτιῶνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι ζημίας, τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀποβολῆς. καὶ διὰ τούτου οἱ προφῆται παρήνουν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δικαιοπραγεῖν, καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐξεργάζεσθαι· ... ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ὄντος τοῦ τοιούτου, καὶ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀμέλειαν εἰς λήθην ἐκπεπτωκότων, καὶ γνώμης δεομένων ἀγαθῆς, ἣν ὁ ἀγαθὸς Θεὸς παρέσχε γινώσκειν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.—3. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἐπιδείκνυσι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τὸ συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ... ἀποτρέποντος μὲν τοῦ ἀπειθεῖν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ μὴ βιαζομένου.—5. Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit Dominus, dicens: “Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi;” propriam fidem hominis ostendens, quoniam propriam suam habet sententiam. Et iterum: “Omnia possibilia sunt credenti;” et, “Vade, sicut credidisti, fiat tibi.” Et omnia talia suæ potestatis secundum fidem ostendunt hominem. Et propter hoc is “qui credit ei, habet vitam æternam; qui autem non credit Filio, non habet vitam æternam, sed ira Dei manebit super ipsum.”——V. xxvii. 1. Si ergo adventus Filii super omnes quidem similiter advenit, judicialis est autem, et discretor credentium et non credentium, quoniam ex sua sententia credentes faciunt ejus voluntatem, et ex sua sententia credentes faciunt ejus voluntatem, et ex sua sententia indictoaudientes non accedunt ad ejus doctrinam: manifestum, quoniam et Pater ejus omnes quidem similiter fecit, propriam sententiam unumquemque habentem, et sensum liberum; respicit autem omnia, et providet omnibus, “solem suum oriri faciens super malos et bonos, et pluens super justos et injustos.”—2. Et ὅσα τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν τηρεῖ φιλίαν, τούτοις τὴν ἰδίαν παρέχει κοινωνίαν. κοινωνία δὲ Θεοῦ, ζωὴ καὶ φῶς, καὶ ἀπόλαυσις τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῶν. ὅσοι autem ἀφίστανται κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτοις τὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χωρισμὸν ἐπάγει.——xxviii. 1. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, οἱ μὲν προστρέχουσι τῷ φωτὶ, καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἑνοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, οἱ δὲ ἀφίστανται τοῦ φωτὸς, καὶ ἀφορίζουσιν ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐκδέχεται ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῖς πᾶσιν ἁρμόζουσαν οἴκησιν ἐπάγων· τοῖς μὲν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ, πρὸς τὸ ἀπολαύειν αὐτοὺς τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀγαθῶν, τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ σκότει, πρὸς τὸ μετέχειν αὐτοὺς τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ μοχθηρίας. Διὰ τοῦτό φησι, τοὺς μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ἀνακαλέσασθαι εἰς τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν, τοὺς δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ πέμψειν· ἑαυτοὺς γὰρ πάντων ἐστέρησαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν.]

[^369: IV. xxxvii. 1, 2. V. xxvii. 1. xxviii. 1.]

[^370: IV. xv. 2. Si autem quidam, propter inobedientes Israëlitas et perditos, infirmum dicunt legis doctorem, invenient in ea vocatione quæ est secundum nos multos quidem vocatos, paucos vero electos; et intrinsecus lupos, a foris vero indutos pelles ovium; et id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servasse Deum et suam exhortationem.——xxxvii. 1.]

[^371: IV. xxxvii. 1, 5. V. xxvii. 2. xxviii. 1.]

[^372: IV. xxxvii. 2.]

[^373: IV. xxxvii. 3.]

[^374: IV. xxxvii. 5. V. xxvii. 1. xxviii. 1.]

[^375: IV. xxxvii. 5.]

[^376: IV. xxxvii. 3.—V. i. 1. Et quoniam injuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam, suos proprios faciens discipulos; potens in omnibus Dei Verbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea: non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens; sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet: ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.]

[^377: IV. xxxvii. 1.]

[^378: IV. xxxvii. 7. See p. 106, note 5.]

We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the salvation of the elect was 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].

[^379: III. xvii. 2. Sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat, sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia.—3. Quapropter necessarius nobis est ros Dei, ut non comburamur, neque infructuosi efficiamur.]

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 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 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.

[^380: V. i. 1. Qui nunc nuper facti sumus, a Solo Optimo et bono, et ab eo qui habet donationem incorruptibilitatis, in eam, quæ est ad eum, similitudinem facti, (prædestinati quidem ut essemus, qui nondum eramus, secundum præscientiam Patris, facti autem initium facturæ,) accepimus in præcognitis temporibus secundum ministrationem Verbi, qui est perfectus in omnibus: quoniam Verbum potens, et homo verus, sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt.]

[^381: IV. xli. 3. Quemadmodum enim in hominibus indictoaudientes patribus filii abdicati, natura quidem filii eorum sunt, lege vero alienati sent (non enim hæredes fiunt naturalium parentum), eodem modo apud Deum, qui non obediunt ei, abdicati ab eo, desierunt filii ejus esse.... Cum enim converterentur et pœnitentiam agerent et quiescerent a malitia, filii poterant esse Dei, et hæreditatem consequi incorruptelæ quæ ab eo præstatur.... Verum quando credunt et subjecti esse Deo perseverant et doctrinam ejus custodiunt, filii sunt Dei: cum autem abscesserint et transgressi fuerint, diabolo adscribuntur principi, ei qui primo sibi, tunc et reliquis, causa abscessionis sit factus.]

[^382: IV. xxix. 2. Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credituros Deus, cum sit omnium præcognitor, tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quæ ipsi sibi elegerunt; quid mirum si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaonem, cum his qui cum eo erant, tradidit eos suæ infidelitate?——V. xxvii. 2. Ὅσοι autem ἀφίστανται κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτοις τὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χωρισμὸν [eam quæ electa est ab ipsis, separationem—Old Latin Version] ἐπάγει. Χωρισμὸς δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ θάνατος· καὶ χωρισμὸς φωτὸς σκότος· καὶ χωρισμὸς Θεοῦ ἀποβολὴ πάντων τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῶν.]

[^383: II. xxxiii. 5. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πληρωθέντος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, οὗ αὐτὸς παρ᾽ αὐτῷ προώρισε, πάντες οἱ ἐγγραφέντες εἰς ζωὴν ἀναστήσονται, ἴδια ἔχοντες σώματα, καὶ ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχὰς, καὶ ἴδια πνεύματα, ἐν οἷς ἐυηρέστησαν τῷ Θεῷ· οἱ δὲ τῆς κολάσεως ἄξιοι ἀπελεύσονται εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἰδίας ἔχοντες ψυχὰς καὶ ἴδια σώματα, ἐν οἷς ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος. Καὶ παύσονται ἑκάτεροι τοῦ γεννᾷν ἔτι καὶ γεννᾶσθαι, καὶ γαμεῖν καὶ γαμεῖσθαι· ἵνα τὸ σύμμετρον φῦλον τῆς προορίσεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπότητος ἀποτελεσθεὶς τὴν ἁρμονίαν τηρήση τοῦ Πατρός.

The same idea is expressed by Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr.

Clem. R. ad Corr. I. 2. Ἀγὼν ἦν ὑμῖν ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτὸς ὑπὲρ πάσης τῆς ἀδελφότητος, εἰς τὸ σώζεσθαι μετ᾽ ἐλέους καὶ συνειδήσεως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ.

Justin M. Apol. I. 45. Ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁ Πατὴρ τῶν πάντων Θεὸς ... ἔμελλε, καὶ κατέχειν ἕως ἂν πατάξῃ τοὺς ἐχθραίνοντας αὐτῷ δαίμονας, καὶ συντελεσθῇ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν προεγνωσμένων αὐτῷ, ἀγαθῶν γινομένων καὶ ἐναρέτων, δι᾽ οὓς καὶ μηδέπω τὴν ἐπικύρωσιν πεποίηται.]

[^384: “Beseeching thee that it may please thee of thy gracious goodness shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom.”]

Who, then, are those who are predestined to the gift of immortality? The manner in which he speaks of election will enable us to answer this question. In explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says,[^385] that, after the first set of husbandmen had been cast out, the vineyard was “no longer fenced in, but opened to all the world, and the tower of the election exalted every where, beautiful to look on; for,” said he, “the Church is every where distinctly visible, and every where is there a winepress dug, and every where are those who receive the Spirit.” Here we find election commensurate with the visible Church (indeed he knows no other): and so he proceeds further on[^386] to speak of “the Word of God, who elected the patriarchs and us;” just as in the passage before cited[^387] he had said, “We who were not as yet were predestined to be;” that is, spiritually, through redemption. And so in another place he speaks of the Church as “the congregation of God; which God, that is the Son, has himself collected by himself[^388];” and in another passage, “the wages of Christ are men collected out of various and differing nations into one company of faith[^389].”

[^385: IV. xxxvi. 2. Qui priores, sive primum, per servilem legisdationem vocaverat Deus, hic posteriores, sive postea, per adoptionem assumpsit. Plantavit enim Deus vineam humani generis, primo quidem per plasmationem Adæ et electionem patrum; tradidit autem colonis per eam legisdationem quæ est per Moysem; sepem autem circumdedit, id est, circumterminavit eorum culturam; et turrim ædificavit, Hierusalem elegit; et torcular fodit, receptaculum prophetici Spiritus præparavit.... Non credentibus autem illis, novissime misit Filium suum, (misit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum) quem cum occidissent mali coloni, projecerant extra vineam. Quapropter tradidit eam Dominus Deus non jam circumvallatam, sed expansam in universum mundum aliis colonis, reddentibus fructus temporibus suis, turre electionis exaltata ubique et speciosa: ubique enim præclara est ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum torcular; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt Spiritum.]

[^386: IV. xxxvi. 8. Sed quoniam et patriarchas qui elegit et nos, idem est Verbum Dei, &c.]

[^387: V. i. 1. supra.]

[^388: III. vi. 1. Hæc (Ecclesia) enim est synagoga Dei, quam Deus, hoc est Filius, ipse per semetipsum collegit.]

[^389: IV. xxi. 3. Variæ oves, quæ fiebant huic Jacob merces; et Christi merces, qui ex variis et differentibus gentibus in unam cohortem fidei convenientes fiunt homines.]

All these passages reflect light upon each other, and exhibit the all-wise God as planning from eternity the last dispensation, by which He chooses, through the Divine Word, to gather out of the world men of all nations, and to restore to them the lost gift of immortality, by adopting them for his own children, and bestowing on them his Spirit, and thus uniting them in the one body of his Church; so that those who believe, and continue in obedience to Him, and hold fast his teaching, continue his children; whilst those who do not obey Him are cut off from Him, and cease to be his children. And as baptism is the sign and means of our union with God and the reception of the Holy Spirit[^390], so baptism is the sign and pledge of this predestination and election.

[^390: See p. 173.]

There is another question as to this election, upon which Irenæus throws but little light; that is, whether God has elected into his Church upon foreseen faith or not. He expressly declares[^391] that God leaves in darkness and unbelief those who, He foresees, will not believe; but what is the precise application of that declaration, whether to those to whom God vouchsafes no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Gospel, or to those who, living in the hearing of the Gospel, do not receive his grace, is by no means clear. And it would be unsafe, therefore, to argue that Irenæus believed that God predestines men to grace from foreseen faith. The two things may appear to us correlative; but we must remember that there had been no controversy on the subject, and therefore he cannot be supposed to have weighed his language as we should perhaps do at present.

[^391: See p. 167, note 1.]

Chapter XII. On Baptism.

The doctrine of the Church in regard to baptism has afforded less dispute than almost any other down to the very times in which we live. It was fully recognized by Irenæus, and appears scattered up and down in various parts of his writings.

He asserts in direct terms that baptism is our new birth to God[^392], and ascribes to infants a share in that new birth equally with grown persons[^393]. There is no room for any equivocal meaning in these passages. It is not merely that he speaks, as a thing of course, of infants being baptized, (which, by the plain force of words, he manifestly does,) but he directly ascribes to them also the new birth, which he asserts to be baptism. This testimony in favour of infant baptism and infant regeneration is very valuable from one who lived so near the apostolical times.

[^392: I. xxi. 1. Καὶ ὅτι μὲν εἰς ἐξάρνησιν τοῦ βαπτίσματος, τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ἀναγεννήσεως, καὶ πάσης τῆς πίστεως ἀπόθεσιν, ὑποβέβληται τὸ εἶδος τοῦτο ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, κ. τ. λ.]

[^393: II. xxii. 4. See p. 94, note 2.]

The necessity of the laver of regeneration he states to arise from the original corruption of man[^394], whom he asserts to be and to remain carnal, until he receives the Spirit of God[^395]. The water of baptism is therefore a type of the Holy Spirit[^396]; and in baptism our bodies receive the union with God to eternal life, which our souls at the same time receive by the Spirit[^397]. In receiving the Holy Spirit, therefore, the soul of man receives that which it had not by nature since the fall; it becomes a living soul; for the Spirit of God is the life of the soul[^398]. This Spirit he elsewhere calls the Spirit of remission of sins[^399], and declares that we are quickened by it. In connexion with what he says of our flesh being united to God in baptism, we may take what he elsewhere says, that our flesh is a member of Christ[^400].

[^394: V. xv. 3. Et quoniam in illa plasmatione, quæ secundum Adam fuit, in transgressione factus homo indigebat lavacro regenerationis.]

[^395: V. vi. 1. viii. 2. See p. 101, note 8.]

[^396: III. xvii. 2. Unde et Dominus pollicitus est mittere se Paracletum, qui nos aptaret Deo. Sicut enim de arido tritico massa una fieri non potest sine humore, neque unus panis; ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Jesu poteramus, sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat; sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora enim nostra per lavacrum illam, quæ est ad incorruptionem, unitatem acceperunt; animæ autem per Spiritum.]

[^397: III. xvii. 2.]

[^398: V. vi. 1.—vii. 1. Incompositus est enim et simplex Spiritus, et ipse vita est eorum qui percipiunt illum.——ix. 2. Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem, et sublevat in vitam.——xii. 2. Ἕτερόν ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς, ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον· καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν.... διὸ καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς Ἠσαΐας διαστέλλων τὰ προειρημένα φησί· Πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ ἐποίησα· τὸ πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας τοῦ ἐκχέοντος αὐτὸ in novissimis temporibus διὰ τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, τὴν δὲ πνοὴν κοινῶς ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως· καὶ ποίημα ἀναγορεύσας αὐτὴν. ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν τοῦ ποιήσαντος. Ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον. καὶ ἡ μὲν πνοὴ ἀκμάσασα πρὸς βραχὺ, καὶ, καιρῷ τινι παραμείνασα, μετὰ τοῦτο πορεύεται, ἄπνουν καταλιποῦσα ἐκεῖνο, περὶ ὃ ἦν τὸ πρότερον· τὸ δὲ περιλαβὸν ἔνδοθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἅτε ἀεὶ παραμόνιμον, οὐδέποτε καταλείπει αὐτὸν.]

[^399: IV. xxxi. 2. Quando igitur hic vitale semen, id est, Spiritum remissionis peccatorum per quem vivificamur, effudit in humanum genus?]

[^400: V. ii. 3. Πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν;]

If we inquire for his opinion of the actual spiritual state of the Christian body, we shall find him declaring that those only are the children of God who do the will of God[^401]; that some remain thus in the love of God, even from the time of their baptism; others fall away, and cease to be his children; and of those who fall, some by repentance recover their relation to Him, and remain thenceforward in his love[^402].

[^401: IV. xli. 2. Secundum igitur naturam quæ est secundum conditionem, ut ita dicam, omnes filii Dei sumus, propter quod a Deo omnes facti sumus: secundum autem dictoaudientiam [obedientiam] et doctrinam non omnes filii Dei sunt, sed qui credunt ei et faciunt ejus voluntatem: qui autem non credunt et non faciunt ejus voluntatem filii et angeli sunt diaboli.]

[^402: I. x. 1. ad finem. See p. 91, note 7.——IV. xli. 3. See p. 166, note 5.]

There is one passage[^403] in which he appears at first sight to deny forgiveness to those who sin since the coming of Christ, and thence to give some countenance to the idea that wilful sin of Christians cannot be forgiven. What he really does say is simply this; that whereas the ancients who sinned before the coming of Christ did, when they had the Gospel preached to them in the regions below, and believed, receive remission of sins, there is no such hope awaiting those who now commit sin. If they die in sin, there is no further sacrifice remaining for them to be preached to them in the regions of the dead.

[^403: IV. xxvii. 2. Si enim hi qui præcesserunt nos in charismatibus veteres, propter quos nondum Filius Dei passus erat, delinquentes in aliquo, et concupiscentiæ carnis servientes, tali affecti sunt ignominia (viz. to have their transgressions recorded in the Scripture), quid passuri sunt qui nunc sunt, qui contempserunt adventum Domini, et deservierunt voluptatibus suis? Et illis quidem curatio et remissio peccatorum mors Domini fuit: propter eos vero qui nunc peccant Christus non jam morietur, jam enim mors non dominabitur ejus: sed veniet Filius in gloria Patris, exquirens ab actoribus et dispensatoribus suis pecuniam quam eis credidit cum usuris; et quibus plurimum dedit, plurimum ab eis exiget.]

We can scarcely avoid remarking the strict correspondence between the doctrine of Irenæus upon this subject and that contained in the formularies of the Church of England, particularly in the Baptismal Service and the 16th and 27th Articles. And it is the more valuable, because it does not appear directly in the form of a precise statement, but indirectly, as in the Scriptures themselves; showing that it pervaded the whole practical system with which his mind was imbued. The difficulty in the Scriptures unquestionably is, that regeneration is no where in so many words affirmed respecting infants, and that there is language, as in St. John's first epistle, appearing to restrict it to persons capable of actual obedience. Now in Irenæus we find that omission supplied, and yet he uses without scruple the same kind of language as St. John; showing that in the system he inherited, and that by an interval of only one descent from St. John himself, the two things which, with our prejudices, are apt to appear inconsistent, were parts of one and the same doctrine.

Chapter XIII. The Eucharist.

Irenæus has expressed himself so much more fully on the subject of the holy Eucharist than any other writer near his time, that it is not wonderful that his opinions should be appealed to by those who have entered into the various discussions on the subject. And his language has just so much of ambiguity about it as to allow of hanging upon it a more exact and positive meaning than he ever thought of. Every sentence, and almost every word therefore, requires to be well weighed, that we may come at his real meaning. And we must bear in mind that he wrote hundreds of years before any controversy had arisen on the subject, and consequently is not to be judged of as though he had written since.

There are two or three important passages which bear directly on the subject, and I do not know how to do justice to it without giving them at length.

The first I shall take is that in the fifth book[^404], where he is combating the Gnostic notion that the flesh is incapable of salvation. His words are as follows:—

[^404: V. ii. 2. Vani autem omnimodo, qui universam dispositionem Dei contemnunt, et carnis salutem negant, et regenerationem ejus spernunt, dicentes non eam capacem esse incorruptibilitatis. Si autem non salvetur hæc, videlicet nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos; neque calix Eucharistiæ communicatio sanguinis ejus est, neque panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis ejus est. Sanguis enim non est, nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua quæ est secundum hominem substantia, qua vere factum est Verbum Dei. Sanguine suo redemit nos, quemadmodum et Apostolus ejus ait: “In quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum.” Et ἐπειδὴ μέλη αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ διὰ τῆς κτίσεως τρεφόμεθα, τὴν δὲ κτίσιν ἡμῖν αὐτος παρέχει, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλων καὶ βρέχων καθὼς βούλεται· τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἡμέτερον δεύει αἷμα, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὰ ἡμέτερα αὔξει σώματα.—3. Ὁπότε οὖν καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λύγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ, ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις· πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν; καθὼς ὁ μακάριος Παῦλός φησιν, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ· ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ· οὐ περὶ πνευματικοῦ τινος καὶ ἀοράτου ἀνθρώπου λέγων ταῦτα, (τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα οὔτε ὀστέα, οὔτε σάρκα ἔχει) ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας, τῆς ἐκ σαρκὸς καὶ νεύρων καὶ ὀστέων συνεστώσης· ἥτις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστι τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, τρέφεται, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου, ὁ ἐστι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, αὔξεται. καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ ξύλον τῆς ἀμπέλου κλιθὲν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ἐκαρποφόρησε, καὶ ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθεὶς, πολλοστὸς ἐγέρθη διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ συνέχοντος τὰ πάντα· ἔπειτα δὲ διὰ τῆς σοφίας τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς χρῆσιν ἐλθόντα ἀνθρώπων, καὶ προσλαμβανόμενα τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, εὐχαριστία γίνεται, ὅπερ ἐστὶ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα ἐξ αὐτῆς τρεφόμενα, καὶ τεθέντα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθέντα ἐν αὐτῇ, ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῖς χαριζομένου εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός.]

“And altogether absurd are they who despise the whole of the divine arrangement, and deny the salvation of the flesh, and reject its regeneration, saying that it is not capable of immortality. But if it is not saved, then the Lord did not redeem us by his blood; nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of his body. For there is no blood, except from veins and flesh, and the rest of man's substance, in which the Word of God was truly made. With his blood he redeemed us; as also his apostle saith: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins. And since we are his members, and are nourished by the creature, and he himself gives us the creature, making his sun to rise and sending rain as it pleaseth him, he has recognised the cup of the creature for his own blood, with which he tinges (δεύει) our blood, and the bread of the creature he has ordained to be his own body, by which he strengthens our body.”

“Since, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and body of Christ, and by these the substance of our flesh gains strength and subsists, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, when it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is his member? As St. Paul saith: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: not saying these things of some spiritual and invisible man (for the spirit has neither flesh nor bones); but concerning the divine work in the real man, consisting of flesh and veins and bones; which is also nourished from his cup, which is his blood, and is strengthened by the bread, which is his body. And as the wood of the vine, bent down into the earth, in its proper season bears fruit, and the grain of wheat, falling into the earth and becoming dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, which takes in all things; and then, through the wisdom of God, having come to the use of men, and having received the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and being deposited in the earth and dissolved in it, will rise again in due season, the word of God granting to them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father.”

In the beginning of this passage we have an explicit acknowledgment that it is in some way or another in the real body and blood of Christ that we communicate in the Eucharist; and I am willing to grant that the whole passage, on a cursory reading, might be taken to imply that the bread and wine was changed into the literal body and blood of Christ; for he appears to speak of our corporeal frames being literally sustained by the body and blood of our Lord. But when we find him speaking of the necessity of our bodily frames being sustained by himself, arising out of the fact that we, even our bodies, are his members, we see immediately that, as we cannot be literally and corporeally his members, so the change of the bread into his body, and that of the wine into his blood, in order to nourish our bodies with himself, cannot be a literal and corporeal change. And so he does not say that Jesus effected any such change, but simply that he recognized the cup for his blood, and ordained the bread to be his body[^405].

[^405: Tertullian, who uses this selfsame argument against the Gnostics, expressly calls the bread the representation of Christ's body; arguing that if Christ had no real body, there could have been no representation or figure of it.—Contra Marcionem, IV. 40. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, “Hoc est corpus meum” dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei: figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.... Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit: nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi carnis.—See likewise Bishop Kaye's Tertullian (p. 454, note 137, of the second edition) for other passages.]

Before I attempt to draw out any other of the opinions implied in this passage, I will go to another contained in the fourth book[^406]. It is this:—

[^406: IV. xviii. 4. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, juste munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum est. Quemadmodum et Paulus Philippensibus ait: “Repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito, quæ a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis, hostiam acceptabilem, placentem Deo.” Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, et in omnibus gratos inveniri Fabricatori Deo, in sententia pura et fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilectione ferventi, primitias earum, quæ sunt ejus, creaturarum offerentes. Et hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola puram offert Fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. Judæi autem non offerunt: manus enim eorum sanguine plenæ sunt; non enim receperunt Verbum, quod [or per quod] offertur Deo. Sed neque omnes hæreticorum synagogæ. Alii enim alterum præter fabricatorem dicentes Patrem, ea quæ secundum nos creata sunt, offerentes ei, cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, et aliena concupiscentem. Qui vero ex defectione et ignorantia et passione dicunt facta ea, quæ sunt secundum nos; ignorantiæ, passionis, et defectionis fructus offerentes, peccant in Patrem suum, contumeliam facientes magis ei, quam gratias agentes. Quomodo autem constabit eis, eum panem in quo gratiæ actæ sint corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi Filium dicant, id est, Verbum ejus, per quod lignum fructificat, et defluunt fontes, et terra dat primum quidem fœnum, post deinde spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica?—5. Πῶς autem τὴν σάρκα λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὸν χωρεῖν, καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην; ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλαξάτωσαν, ἢ τὸ προφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν. Ἡμῶν δὲ σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία rursus βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην nostram: προσφέρομεν δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ ἴδια, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν καὶ ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες, καὶ ὀμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν. Ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου· οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα.—6. Offerimus enim ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes dominationi ejus, et sanctificantes creaturam.]

“Since, therefore, the Church offers with singleness of heart, its sacrifice is rightly accounted pure with God. As also Paul saith to the Philippians: For I am filled with those things which I have received from Epaphroditus, which were sent by you, a sweet savour, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. For it is our duty to make an offering to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, offering to him the first fruits of his creatures with a pure mind and unfeigned faith, in hope unshaken, in fervent charity. And this oblation the Church alone offers pure to the Creator, offering to him of his own work with giving of thanks. But the Jews do not offer it; for their hands are full of blood; for they did not receive the Word, who is offered to God [or through whom the offering is made to God], neither indeed do all the assemblies of the heretics.... How, indeed, can they feel assured that the bread over which thanksgiving is made, is the body of their Lord, and the cup that of his blood, if they do not call himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the wood bears fruit, and the springs gush forth, and the earth affords first the blade, after that the ear, then the full corn in the ear?”

“And how, again, can they say that the flesh, which is sustained by the body of the Lord and by his blood, turns to corruption, and partakes not of life? Either let them alter their view, or let them decline to offer the before-mentioned gifts. But our view harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist again confirms our view: and we offer to him his own, making a corresponding profession of communion and union, and acknowledging the resurrection of flesh and spirit. For as the bread which comes from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. For we offer to him, not as though he needed, but giving thanks to his Divine Majesty, and sanctifying the work of his hands.”

To understand this passage more completely, it will be necessary to go back a little. Irenæus is showing, contrary to the Gnostic doctrine, that the Old and New Covenants emanate from one and the same God, adopting different methods at different periods of the world. He points out, therefore, that the offerings of the law of Moses were not intended to be permanent, and that, even under the law, God undervalued sacrifice as compared with obedience. He then goes on to affirm[^407] that the prophecy of Malachi that sacrifices should cease, and that notwithstanding a pure offering should throughout the world be offered to the name of God, was fulfilled in the Eucharist; for he informs us that Jesus, “instructing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures (not as though he needed, but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful), took the created thing, bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body;’ and likewise the cup of the earthly creature he acknowledged as his blood, and taught them the new offering of the New Testament; which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God,—to him who affords us our sustenance, the first fruits of his gifts.”

[^407: IV. xvii. 5. Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis (non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint), eum, qui ex creatura panis est, accepit, et gratias egit, dicens: “Hoc est corpus meum;” et calicem similiter qui est ex ea creatura quæ est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, et novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem; quam ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo,—ei, qui alimenta nobis præstat, primitias suorum munerum.]

Here we see very distinctly what is the offering which the Church offers in the Lord's Supper, viz. the creatures or elements of bread and wine, presented as the first fruits of his gifts, and as a thank-offering to him for the rest[^408].

[^408: Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr exhibit the same view. Clem. R. ad Corr. I. 40. Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅσα ὁ Δεσπότης ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν· κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι.—And to show what kind of offering is spoken of in connection with the λειτουργία, take the following passage from § 44. Ἁμαρτία γὰρ οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν.

Justin is more express: Dial. cum Tryph. 41. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν προσφερομένων αὐτῷ θυσιῶν, τουτέστι τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς εὐχαριστίας. And again § 117. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι τέλειαι μόναι καὶ εὐάρεστοι εἰσὶ τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός φημι· ταῦτα γὰρ μόνα καὶ Χριστιανοὶ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν, καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀναμνήσει δὲ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν ξηρᾶς τε καὶ ὑγρᾶς, ἐν ᾖ καὶ τοῦ πάθους ὃ πέπονθε δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ μέμνηται.]

The same idea appears again in a fragment edited by Pfaff[^409]:—

[^409: Irenæi Scripta Anecdota, Frag. 2. p. 29. Διότι καὶ ἑ προσφορὰ τῆς εὐχαριστίας οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὴ ἀλλὰ πνευματικὴ, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ καθαρά. Προσφέρομεν γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ τὸν ἄρτον καὶ τό ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, εὐχαριστοῦντες αὐτῷ, ὅτι τῇ γῇ ἐκέλευσεν ἐκφύσαι τοὺς καρποὺς τούτους εἰς τροφὴν ἡμετέραν. καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν προσφορὰν τελέσαντες ἐκκαλοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅπως ἀποφῄνη τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην καὶ τὸν ἄρτον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τό ποτήριον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἵνα οἱ μεταλάβοντες τούτων τῶν ἀντιτύπων τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου τύχωσιν. Οἱ οὖν ταύτας τὰς προσφορὰς ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἄγοντες οὐ τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων δόγμασι προσέρχονται, ἀλλὰ πνευματικῶς λειτουργοῦντες τῆς σοφίας υἱοὶ κληθήσονται.]

“For we offer to God the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks to him, because he hath commanded the earth to bring forth fruits for our use; and then having performed the offering, we invoke the Holy Spirit that he would render this sacrifice, even the bread, the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ; so that those who partake of these figures may obtain remission of sins and eternal life. Those, therefore, who bring these offerings with remembrance of the Lord, make no approach to the opinions of the Jews, but, performing a spiritual service, shall be called children of wisdom.”

There is something more definite in this passage than in the allusions in the Treatise against the Heresies, but the spirit is precisely similar; and it is remarkable,—more remarkable than where he is not professing to give details, that there is no mention of more than one offering, namely, that of the elements, which, and which alone, are called by the name of θυσία.

When, however, we come back to the second passage I have translated, we find one clause[^410] in which there is a various reading, where those which are acknowledged to be the best MSS. speak of the Word (i. e. the personal Word, Jesus Christ regarded especially in his divine nature,) as offered to God in the Eucharist, and the Jews are affirmed to be incapable of offering the oblation in it because they did not receive him. Now it is no doubt possible that Irenæus may have intended to speak of a spiritual offering up of our Lord with the oblation, i. e. of an offering of it in and through him; but that is all that can be implied, for there is no hint whatever of the repetition of the sacrifice of atonement for the remission of sins. The only offering is before the invocation of the Holy Ghost; and it is only after that invocation that the elements are to be regarded as the body and blood of Christ, capable of communicating remission of sins. If, therefore, according to him, there is any offering up of our Lord, it must be with the oblation of the material elements, to render that thank-offering acceptable.

[^410: Judæi autem non offerunt: ... non enim receperunt Verbum quod offertur Deo. See p. 182.]

But there is another reading[^411] which is more consonant with other passages, and therefore probably to be preferred; viz. that which represents “the Word” as the Mediator or Propitiation through whom the oblation is made. We have that idea distinctly expressed in a former passage[^412], in which he speaks, in reference to this very text of Malachi, of the Church as offering through Jesus Christ; and it is implied in the Fragment, in which he speaks of our offering these things “with remembrance (ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει) of the Lord[^413].”

[^411: ——Verbum, per quod offertur Deo.]

[^412: IV. xvii. 6. Quoniam ergo nomen Filii proprium Patris est, et in Deo omnipotente per Jesum Christum offert Ecclesia, bene ait secundum utraque: “Et in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo et sacrificum purum.” Incensa autem Joannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum.]

[^413: Justin Martyr again: (Dial. 117.) Πάντας οὖν οἳ διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου θυσίας ἅς παρέδωκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς γίνεσθαι [προσφέρουσιν must be introduced either here or further on], τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, τὰς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς γῆς γινόμενας ὑπὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, προσλαβῶν ὁ Θεὸς μαρτυρεῖ εὐαρέστους ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ.]

But whichever reading we take, there is no foundation for the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ under the figure and appearance of the consecrated elements.

Both this latter quotation from the “Heresies” and the Fragment are opposed to the notion of any substantial change in the elements. The former speaks of the bread after consecration as “not common bread,” implying that it is still bread, although adapted to a sacred and mysterious use; and as “consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly[^414]” (meaning probably the elements themselves and the body and blood of Christ), whereas the notion of transubstantiation requires that there should be nothing of the earthly really left after the consecration. The fragment still more explicitly calls them figures at the very time that we partake of them. It is true that the view of Irenæus differs equally from ordinary Protestant notions, and indeed is more positive than that of the English Church; but we are to bear in mind that the Fathers did not always speak with logical accuracy. Their language has been brought forward in support of the theory of transubstantiation, and therefore it has become necessary to show that they did not write on that theory. It is not equally requisite that we should be able to construct a theory which shall explain all the figurative and imaginative language in which they expressed their faith in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Irenæus certainly taught this doctrine, and that is enough for us of the Church of England, who do not concern ourselves to explain the manner of his presence. Some of us may agree with his manner of expressing it, but we do not require of others that they should agree with him.

[^414: IV. xviii. 5. See p. 184, note.]

We cannot complete our view of the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the Eucharist without adverting to his ideas on the consecration of the elements. This he describes in various ways, sometimes attributing it to the word of God[^415], sometimes to the invocation of God[^416], sometimes to the invocation of the Holy Ghost[^417]. But all these may be reconciled, if we consider them to be allusions to various portions of the consecration prayer. There is such a form left in the Apostolical Constitutions, with which all the four ancient liturgies exhibited by Brett and Palmer coincide, viz. the Roman, the Oriental, the Egyptian, and the Gallican. Now all these forms contain a recital of the words of institution, which may not unfitly be called the word of God, and an invocation of God to send down his Holy Spirit upon the gifts, to consecrate them to be the body and blood of Christ, which may be called either an invocation of God or an invocation of the Holy Ghost. Is it not therefore most probable that Irenæus alludes to this prayer, which must have been used in very early ages, for its leading features to be found thus spread throughout the world? The expressions, therefore, which he uses, though various and distinct, are not contrary or contradictory: they allude to various portions of the same form.

[^415: V. ii. 3.]

[^416: IV. xviii. 5.]

[^417: See the Fragment, p. 186, note 6.]

It is worthy of observation, however, that this attributing of the consecration to these different things is contrary to the modern doctrine of transubstantiation, which attributes it to one and one only, viz. the recital of the words of institution: This is my body, This is my blood.

There is another passage which proves that no transubstantiation was then thought of; viz. the fragment[^418], which appears likely to have been a part of the account of the persecutions at Lyons. We there read that the heathen tortured the slaves of some Christians, in order to extort from them something which might serve as a colour for the severities they exercised upon them; and that the slaves, “not knowing what to say to please their tormentors, except what they had heard from their masters, that the Holy Communion was the blood and body of Christ, and thinking that it was really flesh and blood, told this to those who were questioning them.” Now it appears very clear that language such as this could scarcely have been used by a person who thought that the sacred elements had become really flesh and blood, which is the doctrine of transubstantiation; although it might be employed with perfect consistency by those who believed in a real mysterious presence of them in the Holy Communion, without any change in the nature of the elements.

[^418: See p. 72, note 9.]

Massuet[^419] brings forward, in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the fact that the Marcosians pretended, by magical rites, to effect a change of the wine into blood. As they professed to produce a substantial change, he infers that the Church must have really produced such a change. But the inference is far from being a sound one; for as magical rites are invented to pander to the appetite of the ignorant for something supernatural, so it is most probable that a pretender of this description, who wished to set up for something superior to the clergy, should profess to do something more wonderful than they; that whereas they effected none but a mystical change, he should pretend to a literal one. And this no doubt is the history of transubstantiation. It is the attempt of unspiritual minds to raise the wonder of the sacred mysteries to the highest pitch, forgetful meanwhile of the spiritual objects of them. The doctrine is eminently a carnal doctrine.

[^419: Diss. III. § 76. See the passage quoted below, p. 200, note 2.]

Chapter XIV. On Justification.

Those scholastical discussions on the nature of justification with which we have become familiar had not arisen when Irenæus wrote, and consequently we cannot expect him to speak with the precision to which we are accustomed. Still there are some principal points upon which, simply following the Scriptures, he is practically clear.

He teaches, for instance, that men are not justified in themselves, but by the coming of Christ[^420], and 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.

[^420: IV. xxvii. 2. Quemadmodum enim illi (the Patriarchs and just men of old) non imputabant nobis incontinentias nostras, quas operati sumus, priusquam Christus in nobis manifestaretur; sic et nos non est justum imputare ante adventum Christi his qui peccaverunt. Omnes enim homines egent gloria Dei; justificantur autem non a semetipsis, sed a Domini adventu, qui intendunt (probably οἱ κατανοούμενοι; see I. ii. 3, where the Old Translator renders κατανοήσασαν by cum intendisset) lumen ejus. Et illis quidem curatio et remissio peccatorum mors Domini fuit.—In IV. vi. 5. the opposite to intendunt lumen is fugiunt lumen.]

[^421: III. xviii. 7. Oportebat enim eum qui inciperet occidere (ἀποκτανεῖν μέλλῃ—occisurus esset) peccatum, et mortis reum redimere hominem, id ipsum fieri quod erat ille, id est, hominem: qui a peccato quidem in servitium tractus fuerat, a morte vero tenebatur, ut peccatum ab homine interficeretur, et homo exiret a morte. Ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ γῆς ἀνεργάστου πεπλασμένου, ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ, καὶ ἀπέβαλον τὴν ζωήν· οὕτως ἔδει καὶ δι᾽ ὑπακοῆςς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ παρθένου γεγενημένου, δικαιωθῆναι πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπολαβεῖν τὴν σωτηρίαν. Sic igitur Verbum Dei homo factus est.]

[^422: IV. xxvii. 2.]

[^423: Ibid. et V. xvii. 3. Uti quemadmodum per lignum facti sumus debitores Deo, per lignum accipiamus nostri debiti remissionem.]

In the same general manner he teaches that faith justifies man[^424], speaking particularly of Abraham, to 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.

[^424: IV. v. 5. Propheta ergo cum esset Abraham, et videret in Spiritu diem adventus Domini et passionis dispositionem, per quem ipse quoque et omnes qui, similiter ut ipse credidit, credunt Deo salvari inciperent (σώζεσθαι μέλλωσι—salvandi essent), exsultavit vehementer. Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus Abrahæ, cujus diem concupivit videre: sed neque Pater Domini; didicerat enim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei: quapropter et deputatum est ei ad justitiam a Domino. Fides enim, quæ est ad Deum altissimum, justificat hominem; et propter hoc dicebat: “Extendam manum meam ad Deum altissimum, qui constituit cœlum et terram.”]

[^425: IV. xxvii. 2, supra.]

[^426: IV. xxxvii. 5. Et non tantum in operibus sed etiam in fide liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit Dominus, dicens: “Secundum fidem tuam fiet tibi;” propriam fidem hominis ostendens, quoniam propriam habet sententiam.]

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 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.

[^427: IV. xiii. 1. See p. 117, note 9.]

[^428: IV. xvii. 1. Deinde ne quis putet, propterea quod irasceretur, eum recusare hæc (i. e. the sacrifices of the Law), infert, consilium ei dans: “Immola Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo vota tua; et invoca me in die tribulationis tuæ, et eripiam te, et glorificabis me:” illa quidem, per quæ putabant peccantes propitiari Deum, abnuens; hæc autem, per quæ justificatur homo et appropinquat Deo, hortatur et admonet.——He elsewhere (IV. vi. 5.) affirms that “to believe in Christ is to do his will.” Et ad hoc Filium revelavit Pater, ut per eum omnibus manifestetur, et eos quidem qui credunt ei justi [justos illos qui ei credunt] in incorruptionem et in æternum refrigerium recipiat (credere autem ei est facere ejus voluntatem); eos autem, qui non credunt, et propter hoc fugiunt lumen ejus, in tenebras quas ipsi sibi elegerint juste recludet.]

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 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 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.

[^429: II. xxiv. 4. Unaquæque tabula, quam accepit a Deo, præcepta habebat quinque.]

[^430: Antiq. III. vi. 5. Τὰς δύο πλάκας, ἐν αἷς τοὺς δέκα λόγους συγγεγράφθαι συμβεβήκει, ἀνὰ πέντε μὲν εἰς ἑκατέραν.]

[^431: De Decalogo, cited by Feuardent in loco.]

[^432: Cited by Feuardent.]

[^433: Hom. 8. in cap. xx. Exodi, cited by Massuet in loco.]

[^434: Cited by Feuardent.]

[^435: Cited ibid.]

[^436: Quæst. 71. in Exodum, cited ibid.]

[^437: Antiq. III. v. 5.]

We have several allusions to the form observed at the Holy Communion. We find that the cup contained water mixed with wine[^438]; that a form of invocation was used, which the heretics imitated[^439]; that the term εὐχαριστέω (to give thanks) had become technical, and signified to consecrate[^440]; that the expression for ever and ever occurred in the Eucharistical form[^441], which shows that a settled form had become customary in his time; and that Christians sounded Amen all together[^442]. The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token of communion and amity[^443].

[^438: IV. xxxiii. 2. Dominus ... accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit.

V. ii. 3. Καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ· ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις.]

[^439: I. xiii. 2. Ποτήρια οἴνῳ κεκραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχαριστεῖν, καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπικλήσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ ἐρυθρὰ ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ· (He is speaking of Marcus, the Gnostic) ὡς δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα Χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν τῷ ἐκείνῳ ποτηρίῳ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ.]

[^440: Ibid.]

[^441: I. iii. 1. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας λέγοντας· Εἰς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων κ. τ. λ.]

[^442: I. xiv. 1.——τὸ Ἀμην ὁμοῦ λεγόντων ἡμῶν κ. τ. λ.]

[^443: Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.]

We find, too, that the same pharisaical spirit, which now keeps many from communion, because others come to it in hypocrisy, had the selfsame effect in his time[^444].

[^444: III. xi. 9. Infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetæ quidem esse volunt, propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab ecclesia; similia patientes his qui, propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communicatione se abstinent.]

There seems, in some of the practices of the Gnostics, to have been an imitation of the anointing at baptism or confirmation practised in the Church[^445].

[^445: I. xxi. 3. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπιλέγουσιν οἱ αὐτοὶ τελοῦντες· ὁ δὲ τετελεσμένος ἀποκρίνεται· Ἐστήριγμαι καὶ λελύτρωμαι κ. τ. λ.—Ἔπειτα μυρίζουσι τὸν τετελεσμένον τῷ ὀπῷ τῷ ἀπὸ βαλσάμου· τὸ γὰρ μῦρον τοῦτο τύπον τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα εὐωδίας εἶναι λέγουσιν.]

There are several allusions to the practice of public confession and penance, as a customary and established part of discipline. In some cases it was voluntary[^446].

[^446: I. xiii. 5. Ὅτι δὲ φίλτρα καὶ ἀγώγιμα, πρὸς τὸ καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν αὐτῶν ἐνυβρέζειν, ἐμποιεῖ οὗτος ὁ Μάρκος ἐνίαις τῶν γυναικῶν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πάσαις, αὗται πολλάκις ἐπιστρέψασαι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξωμολογήσαντο, καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἠχρειῶσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐρωτικῶς πάνυ αὐτὸν πεφιληκέναι· ὥστε καὶ διακονόν τινα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ τῶν ἡμετέρων, ὑποδεξάμενον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, περιπεσεῖν ταῦτῃ τῇ συμφορᾷ, τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ εὐειδοῦς ὑπαρχούσης, καὶ τὴν γνώμην καὶ τὸ σῶμα διαφθαρείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ μάγου τούτου, καὶ ἐξακολουθησάσης αὐτῷ πολλῷ τῷ χρίνῳ. ἔπειτα, μετὰ πολλοῦ κόπου τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστρεψάντων, αὐτὴ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἐξομολογουμένη διετέλεσε, πενθοῦσα καὶ θρηνοῦσα ἐφ᾽ ἡ ἔπαθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ μάγου διαφθορᾷ.——III. iv. 3. Κέρδων δὲ ὁ πρὸ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ Ὕγίνου, ὃς ἦν ἔνατος ἐπίσκοπος, εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐλθὼν, καὶ ἐξομολογούμενος, οὕτως διετέλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν λαθροδιδασκαλῶν, ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἐξομολογούμενος, ποτὲ δὲ ἐλενχόμενος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐδίδασκε κακῶς, καὶ ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας.]

It was the established custom not to kneel in prayer on the Lord's day, or during the whole season from Easter to Whitsuntide, which was called Pentecost[^447].

[^447: Fragm. vii. Τὸ δὲ ἐν Κυριακῇ μὴ κλίνειν γόνυ, σύμβολόν ἐστι τῆς ἀναστάσεως, δι᾽ ἧς τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χάριτι, τῶν τε ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ τοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τεθανατωμένου θανάτου ἠλευθερώθημεν. Ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν δὲ χρόνων ἡ τοιαύτη συνήθεια ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν· καθώς φήσιν ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυρ καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ· ἐν ᾦ μέμνηται καὶ περὶ τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς, ἐν ᾗ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ, ἐπειδὴ ἰσοδυναμεῖ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς Κυριακῆς, κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν περὶ αὐτῆς αἰτίαν. This is a quotation from the Quæstiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, formerly attributed to Justin Martyr, § 115. We learn from Basil the great, (de Spiritu Sancto, 27.) that the whole space from Easter to Whitsunday was called Pentecost.]

A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration, according to the choice of those who observed it[^448]. The passage of Irenæus has been introduced into the great controversy between those who assert the apostolical antiquity of the forty days' season of abstinence, and those who deny it. In this country our great divines have taken different sides; Beveridge[^449], Patrick[^450], and Hooper[^451] upholding it, and Morton[^452], Taylor[^453], and Bingham[^454] denying it. This passage might appear to be decisive, if we could be sure of the punctuation, but unhappily Ruffinus pointed it differently from all the MSS. of Eusebius and, I believe, Nicephorus: for he introduces a stop after τεσσαράκοντα, which makes Irenæus distinctly affirm that in his time some fasted forty days, whereas the common reading makes them fast only forty successive hours[^455].

[^448: Frag. iii. Οὐ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστιν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας· οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν· οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ καὶ πλείονας· οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμάραν αὐτῶν. Καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων, οὐ νῦν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν γεγονυῖα, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, τῶν παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς, ὡς εἰκὸς, κρατούντων, τὴν καθ᾽ ἀπλότητα καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετάπειτα πεποιηκότων. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε, καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καὶ ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὀμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι.]

[^449: Beverigii Annotationes in Canones Apostolicos. In Can. lxix.

Τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστήν.

Codices quibus usus est Valesius, eodem modo, quo nos jam transcripsimus, legunt atque interpungunt.... Et huic quidem lectioni favit Σύνοψις τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς ἱστορίας, in quam Beatus Rhenanus in præf. ad Ruffinum se incidisse refert, ubi hæc Irenæi verba sic citantur, seu potius explicantur: Οἱ μὲν γὰρ μίαν μόνον ἡμέραν ἐνήστευον, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ πλείονας· οἱ δὲ μʹ ὥρας μόνας ἡμερινὰς καὶ νυκτερινὰς, ὥραν ἀντὶ ἡμέρας, νηστεύοντες. Quod etiam observatum est a doctissimo nostro Petro Gunning jam episcopo Cicestriensi in appendice ad tractatum de paschali jejunio. Verum multa sunt quæ huic lectioni refragantur. Ut alia omittam, quis miri hujus jejunii quadraginta horis commensurati, e veteribus præsertim, meminit? Quadraginta dierum jejunio nihil in antiquis scriptoribus frequentius occurrit; at de quadraginta horarum jejunio altum iis silentium. Porro aliud quoque in his verbis, sic interpunctis, æque si non magis inauditum observare licet, diem viz. quadraginta horis diurnis ac nocturnis commensuratum. Quo nihil absurdius excogitari potest: ac proinde Valesius pro ἡμέραν substituendum putat νηστείαν, ut non dies, sed jejunium quadraginta horis commensuretur. Hanc autem violenter introductam verborum commutationem contra unanimem omnium codicum consensum docti nunquam admittent; præcipue cum e verbis ipsis, ut in omnibus codicibus leguntur, et in nonnullis distinguuntur, verior et ecclesiæ primitivæ ritibus magis consonus sensus elucescat: nimirum Johannes Christophorsonus et Henricus Savilius hunc Irenæi locum sic distinxerunt; ... τεσσαράκοντα. ὥρας τε ἡμερινὰς καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. Sic etiam legit et distinxit olim Ruffinus, qui sic vertit: “Quidam enim putant uno tantum die observari debere jejunium, alii duobus, alii vero pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta; ita ut horas diurnas nocturnasque computantes diem statuant.” Quibus verbis nihil aliud indigitatur, quam quod hi uno, illi duobus, alii pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta diebus jejunarunt; omnes autem unamquamque diem, quam jejunii peregerunt, per nocturnas æque ac diurnas horas emensi sunt; ut nulla hora vel diei vel noctis, usque ad numeri dierum, quos sibi constituerant, exitum, jejunium solverent. Contra hanc expositionem H. Valesius duo objicit: primo, quod hinc necessario consequetur, eos qui xl dies jejunabant, toto illo tempore nihil prorsus comedisse, quando quidem horas tam diurnas quam nocturnas jejunio deputabant. Respondeo, nihil minus quam hoc ex dicta expositione consequi: in jejuniis enim celebrandis, præsertim hoc paschali, non ab omni prorsus alimento, ut cuique notum est, sed a carnibus tantum vel aliis fortasse nonnullis ciborum generibus abstinebant; at reliquis vesci licebat. Hoc egregie confirmatur ex concil. Laod. can. 50, quo dicitur δεῖ πᾶσαν τὴν τεσσαρακοστὴν νηστεύειν ξηροφαγοῦντας. Hic enim per totam quadragesimam, ac proinde nocturnas æque ac diurnas horas, jejunare præcipitur; et tamen aridis vesci permittitur; vel potius per istius modi ξηροφαγίαν, sive aridorum esum, totum hoc quadragesimale jejunium celebrari constituitur. Alterum, quod objicit, est, quod cum Irenæus dixerit, alios uno die, alios biduo, alios vero pluribus diebus jejunare, quid necesse est addere alios 40 dies jejunare, cum in eo quod plures dies dixit, quadraginta satis comprehendantur. Respondeo, quod etiamsi nonnullos plures quam duos dies jejunare dixerat, non tamen superfluum erat, eorum etiam, qui xl dies jejunabant, mentionem facere. Cum enim a minimo jejunio, viz. unius diei, inceperit, quidni in maximum quoque expresse desineret, ut maximus viz. dierum numerus, quem quispiam in jejuniis observabat, æque ac minimus innotesceret?]

[^450: Of Fasting in Lent, ch. xvi. p. 143.]

[^451: Discourse of Lent, Part I. ch. 3.]

[^452: Catholick Appeal, II. 24. p. 304.]

[^453: Ductor Dubitantium, III. 4. p. 631.]

[^454: Antiquities, XXI. i. 2.]

[^455: Post τεσσαράκοντα interpungunt Christophorsonus, Savilius, Strothius, præeunte Ruffino, nulla codicum auctoritate. Totum locum οἱ δὲ ... αὐτῶν uno tenore sine interpunctura legunt C. F. Virgulam post οἱ δὲ, item post νυκτερινὰς, ponunt Steph. A: eandem post ὥρας ponunt B. D. Nicephorus μʹ pro τεσσαράκοντα legit, quod alterutri interpretationi favere posset:—τε post ἡμερινὰς om. Steph. Stroth. A. E:—αἷς post νυκτερινὰς add. M. Grut. Cast.—ὥρας τε legit c.—Burton in loco, in the last Oxford edition of Eusebius.——C. and E. are of the tenth century.]

It would be impossible to do justice to the subject without entering fully into the arguments on both sides; and therefore I will confine myself to an observation or two on the text of Irenæus. Let us then look at the passage according to the two methods of punctuation; and we shall find Irenæus affirming according to one that those who fasted any number of days, from one to forty, reckoned the hours both of day and of night into their day; or according to the other that some fasted one day, some two, some more; and that some reckoned forty hours of day and night into their day. Now that any persons could fast forty successive days, both day and night, abstaining from food all the time, cannot be imagined: and if they did not abstain from food all the time of their fast, the mention of its continuance day and night would be unmeaning.

To this argument the reply of Beveridge, as may be seen in note 3, is, that no fast was kept strictly throughout the twenty-four hours by total abstinence from food: and he quotes the 50th Canon of Laodicea to show that the Lent fast was nothing more than abstaining from flesh, &c. and living upon dry food. But, with deference to so great a name, this is but begging the question. The Canon of Laodicea only shows what the Church required, not what individuals practised. And Grabe[^456] (on this passage) has proved that there were anciently two kinds of strict fasts observed in the last week of Lent; one of abstinence from all food till the evening, and then eating nothing but bread and salt accompanied with pure water; the other, practised by the more zealous, of holding over one, two, three, four, or six days, till the cock-crowing on Easterday. Both Grabe and Bingham[^457] agree (what indeed appears self-evident) that there is no meaning in words, if these persons did not remain in total abstinence during this whole time; for what extraordinary zeal could there be in their practice, if they broke their fast in the evening, as others did.

[^456: Οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται, &c. Similiter Sæc. III. Dionysius Alexandrinus de jejunii Ante-Paschalis differentia scripsit in Epistola ad Basilidem. Μηδὲ τὰς ἒξ τῶν νηστείων ἡμέρας ἴσως, μηδὲ ὁμοίως πάντες διαμένουσιν· ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν καὶ πάσας ὑπερτιθέασιν, ἄσιτοι διατελοῦντες, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς, οἱ δὲ τέσσαρας, οἱ δὲ οὐδεμίαν. Et Epiphanius in Expositione fidei Catholicæ, libris contra Hæreses subnexa, postquam de jejunio quartæ et sextæ feriæ, et Quadragesimali dixerat, ad jejunium Ante-Paschale, quod in Canonibus Timothei Alexandrini vocatur, ἡ νηστεία τοῦ πάσχα, progreditur, aitque fideles per hebdomadam Pascha præcedentem solo pane et aqua vesci ad vesperam, et addit: Ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ σπουδαῖοι διπλᾶς καὶ τριπλᾶς καὶ τετραπλᾶς ὑπερτιθέασι, καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα τινὲς ἄχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κλανγῆς τῆς Κυριακῆς ἐπιφωσκούσης. In quibus ὑπέρθεσις et νηστεία distinguuntur: et jejunare quidem dicuntur, qui post abstinentiam totius diei vespere tenui fruuntur cibo; ὑπερτιθέναι vero, qui nec vespera ullam sumunt refectionem, sed omnino abstinent, sive una, sive pluribus diebus, usque ad terminum jejunii, Paschale scilicet mane, quod a galli cantu incipit.]

[^457: Antiquities, XXI. i. 25.]

If, on the other hand, we suppose the fast to have been one of forty hours, commencing from the hour in which Jesus gave up the ghost, and terminating with that of his resurrection, there is then a sufficient reason for mentioning that the fast continued day and night; it becomes a thing within the reach of probability; and the period is a very natural one for those persons to choose who felt themselves equal to it. At the time in which the Apostolical Constitutions were written, it was enjoined on Christians[^458] to fast the Friday and Saturday, if possible; if not, at least on the Saturday: and in either case it appears that they were not to break their fast till the first cock-crowing; i. e. in all probability, on Easter day.

[^458: Constit. Apost. V. 18. Τὴν παρασκευὴν καὶ τὸ σάββατον ὀλόκληρον νηστεύσατε, οἷς δύναμις πρόσεστι τοιαύτη, μηδενὸς γευόμενοι μέχρις ἀλεκτοροφωνίας νυκτός· εἰ δὲ τις ἀδυνατεῖ τὰς δύο συνάπτειν ὁμοῦ, φυλασσέσθω κᾂν τὸ σάββατον.]

Leaving, then, other sources of controversy on either side, the text itself appears to supply the strongest evidence in favour of the punctuation of the MSS. How that of Ruffinus arose, we are not absolutely concerned to say: but when the practice of the more lengthened fast had become established in the Church, it might easily lead to understanding the words of Irenæus in such a manner as to give it primitive authority.

But even supposing the fast of forty days to have been kept by some persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it. Chrysostom indeed expressly says[^459], that the fast of forty days was not ordained until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the Communion on Easter day.

[^459: Chrysost. Contra Judæos, III. § 4. p. 611. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν νηστεύομέν, φησι, τὰς τεσσαράκοντα ταύτας ἡμέρας; Πολλοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν τοῖς μυστηρίοις προσῄεσαν ἁπλῶς καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, καθ᾽ ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτὰ παρέδωκε. Συνειδότες οὖν οἱ πατέρες τὴν βλάβην τὴν γινομένην ἐκ τῆς ἠμελημένης προσόδου, συνελθόντες ἐτύπωσαν ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα νηστείαις, εὐχῶν, ἀκροάσεως, συνόδων· ἵν᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις καθαρθέντες μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας ἅπαντες καὶ δι᾽ εὐχῶν, καὶ δι᾽ ἐλεημοσύνης, καὶ διὰ νηστείας, καὶ διὰ παννυχίδων, καὶ διὰ δακρύων, καὶ δι᾽ ἐξομολογήσεως, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων, οὕτω κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἡμετέραν μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος προσίωμεν.]

Very little more remains to be observed under this head.

Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a bishop[^460]. And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely, that of Churchmen[^461]. And that was perfectly natural, for the Church had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of Catholicism or Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and heresies, was not observed till afterwards; and therefore the name of Catholic was posterior to that of Churchman.

[^460: Fragm. iii. See p. 45, note 4.]

[^461: III. xv. 2. Hi enim ad multitudinem, propter eos qui sunt ab ecclesia, quos communes ecclesiasticos ipsi dicunt, inferunt sermones per quos capiunt simpliciores.]

Chapter XVI. On The Sabbath.

One of the greatest difficulties to modern readers in the history of the primitive Church is the state of feeling and opinion on the subject of the Sabbath. We have been in the habit of arguing from the primitive institution of a holy day (which we have called a sabbath), and of viewing the Lord's day as answering to it; and if we may judge by the language of the earliest writers, they did not consider the Lord's day as intended to be a sabbath in itself, although some of them regarded it as being appointed instead of the Sabbath[^462]. Irenæus certainly viewed the institution of the Sabbath as entirely Mosaical, and thought that Abraham and the patriarchs before the Law did not keep it[^463].

[^462: Bingham, Antiquities, XX. ii. 3. “St. Austin, or whoever was the author of the Sermons de Tempore, (Hom. 251, de Tempore, T. 10, p. 307.) says, ‘The Apostles transferred the observation of the Sabbath to the Lord's day.’”——Clement of Alexandria gives indications of the same idea, where he says that “to all appearance the eighth day is likely to become the proper seventh day, and the seventh the sixth; so that the former will be the proper sabbath, and the seventh a working day.”—Κινδυνεύει γὰρ ἡ μὲν ὀγδοὰς ἑβδομάς εἶναι κυρίως, ἑξὰς δὲ ἡ ἑβδομὰς κατά γε τὸ ἐμφανές· καὶ ἡ μὲν κυρίως εἶναι σάββατον, ἐργάτις δὲ ἡ ἑβδομάς.]

[^463: IV. xvi. 2. See p. 119, note 4. See also Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. 19. 27. 43.]

It must not, however, be thence hastily concluded that he believed that Abraham and the patriarchs knew nothing of the seventh day as a day of divine worship. The primary and leading idea of a sabbath, properly so called, is (not holiness but) rest; that is, abstinence from any employment that can be construed into labour. Now Irenæus might very well deny that the Patriarchs kept a day of rest from all employment, without in any degree intending to deny that they devoted the seventh day especially to religious worship.

An illustration of my meaning will be found in the admission of Justin Martyr, that Christians did not keep the Sabbath[^464], coupled with the well-ascertained fact[^465], that a very large proportion of them indeed were in the habit of attending divine service on the seventh day. Perhaps a still closer illustration is seen in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, which expressly forbid Christians to keep the Sabbath like Jews[^466], and at the same time direct the Eucharistic offering to be made on that day as well as on the Lord's day[^467]. If then many of the early Christians devoted a portion of the Saturday statedly to public religious exercises, and yet did not consider themselves as keeping a sabbath, it would be very unsafe to infer from the assertion that the Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath, that therefore they had no day of religious worship. In fact it seems scarcely possible that the division and numbering of the days by sevens could have been kept up, as we know it was[^468], before the giving of the Law, without some religious observance connected with it.

[^464: Dial. cum Tryph. 10. He represents Tryphon charging the Christians with neglecting circumcision, the feasts, and the sabbath; which charge he admits, and argues against the necessity of them.]

[^465: Bingham's Antiquities, XX. iii. 1.]

[^466: Can. 29. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς Ἰουδαΐζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ σχολάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ· τὴν δὲ Κυριακὴν προτιμῶντες, εἴγε δύναιντο, σχολάζειν ὡς Χριστιανοί. εἰ δὲ εὑρεθεῖεν Ἰουδαïσταὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα παρὰ Χριστῷ.]

[^467: Can. 49. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἄρτον προσφέρειν, εἰ μὴ ἐν Σαββάτῳ καὶ Κυριακῇ μόνον.]

[^468: Gen. viii. 10. 12. xxix. 27.]

Although, then, Irenæus did not regard the Mosaical Sabbath as being observed before the giving of the Law, and consequently regarded it as abolished with the Law, yet as he has asserted that the moral law or decalogue was observed before Moses, and implies that we are not at liberty to reject it[^469], it is very certain that he must have conceived the fourth commandment to be in some sense or other a directory to Christians: and it may therefore be inquired what he conceived ought to be learnt from it. This may in some degree be gathered from his saying that the Sabbath, like the whole Jewish Law, was symbolical, and that it was intended to teach men to serve God every day, and to typify the kingdom of God, when whosoever has persevered in godliness shall partake of his table[^470]. For he believed that the world was destined to endure in its present state as many thousands of years as the days of creation, and that then God's kingdom would be set up on earth[^471], which will be the true sabbath of the just[^472]. But he regarded our Lord's apparent relaxation of the stringency of the sabbath, not as a direct instruction to Christians, but as an explanation of the proper meaning of the fourth commandment as addressed to the Jews[^473].

[^469: See pp. 118, 119.]

[^470: IV. xvi. 1. Hoc idem de sabbatis Ezechiel Propheta ait: “Et sabbata mea dedi eis, ut sint in signo inter me et ipsos, ut sciant quoniam ego Dominus, qui sanctifico eos.” Et in Exodo Deus ait ad Moysem: “Et sabbata mea observabitis: erit enim signum apud me vobis in generationes vestras.” In signo ergo data sunt hæc: non autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque otiosa, tanquam quæ a sapiente Artifice darentur; sed secundum carnem circumcisio circumcisionem significabat spiritalem. Etenim “nos,” ait Apostolus, “circumcisi sumus circumcisione non manufacta.” Et Propheta ait: “Circumcidite duritiam cordis vestri.” Sabbata autem perseverantiam totius diei [i. e. omni tempore. See below] erga Deum deservitionis edocebant. “Æstimati enim sumus,” ait Apostolus Paulus, “tota die ut oves occisionis;” scilicet consecrati, et ministrantes omni tempore fidei nostræ, et perseverantes ei, et abstinentes ab omni avaritia, non acquirentes, nec possidentes thesauros in terra. Manifestabatur autem et tanquam de [post] ea quæ facta sunt requietio Dei; hoc est, Regnum, in quo requiescens homo ille qui perseveraverit Deo adsistere, participabit de mensa Dei.]

[^471: V. xxviii. 3. Ὅσαις enim ἡμέραις ἐγένετο ὁ κόσμος, τοσαύταις χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται. καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἡ γραφή· Καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν. καὶ συνετέλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ εʹ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἅ ἐποίησε, καὶ κατάπαυσεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ζʹ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις, καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων προφητεία. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς α͵ ἔτη· ἐν ἓξ οὖν ἡμέραις συντετελέσται τὰ γεγονότα· φανερὸν οὖν, ὅτι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτῶν τὸ δ͵ ἔτος ἐστίν. See the Epistle of Barnabas, § 11. quoted p. 250.]

[^472: V. xxviii. 2. Referring to Luke xiv. 12, 13, and Matt. xix. 29, he says, “Hæc sunt in Regni temporibus, hoc est, in septima die quæ est sanctificata, in qua requievit Deus ab omnibus operibus quæ fecit; quæ est verum justorum sabbatum; in qua non facient omne terrenum opus, sed adjacentem habebunt paratam mensam a Deo, pascentem eos epulis omnibus.”]

[^473: IV. viii. 2. Manifestum est igitur, quoniam eos qui similiter ut Abraham credebant ei, solvit et vivificavit, nihil extra Legem faciens, curans in die sabbatorum. Non enim prohibebat Lex curari homines sabbatis, quæ et circumcidebat eos in hac die, et pro populo jubebat ministeria Sacerdotibus perficere; sed et mutorum animalium curationem non prohibebat. Et Siloa etiam sæpe sabbatis curavit: et propter hoc assidebant ei multi die sabbatorum. Continere enim jubebat eos Lex ab omni opere servili, id est, ab omni avaritia, quæ per negotiationem, et reliquo terreno actu agitur: animæ autem opera, quæ fiunt per sententiam et sermones bonos, in auxilium eorum qui proximi sunt, adhortabatur fieri. Et propter hoc Dominus arguebat eos, qui injuste exprobrabant ei, quia sabbatis curabat. Non enim solvebat, sed adimplebat Legem, summi Sacerdotis operam perficiens, propitians pro hominibus Deum, et emundans leprosos, infirmos curans, et ipse moriens, uti exsiliatus homo exiret de condemnatione, et reverteretur intrepide ad suam hæreditatem.—3. Sed et esurientes accipere sabbatis escam ex his quæ adjacebant, non vetabat Lex: metere autem et colligere in horreum vetabat. Et ideo Dominus his, qui incusabant discipulos ejus, quoniam vellentes spicas manducabant, dixit: “Nec hoc legistis, quod fecit David, cum esurisset, quemadmodum introivit in domum Dei, et panes propositionis manducavit, et dedit eis qui cum eo erant, quos non licebat manducare, nisi solis Sacerdotibus?” per Legis verba suos discipulos excusans, et significans licere Sacerdotibus libere agere. Sacerdos autem scitus fuerat David apud Deum, quamvis Saul persequutionem faceret ei. Πᾶς enim βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει τάξιν. Sacerdotes autem sunt omnes Domini Apostoli, qui neque agros, neque domos hæreditant hic, sed semper altari et Deo serviunt.... Et Sacerdotes in Templo sabbatum prophanabant, et rei non erant. Quare ergo rei non erant? Quia cum essent in Templo, non sæcularia sed Dominica perficiebant ministeria, Legem adimplentes, non autem prætereuntes Legem, quemadmodum is qui a semetipso arida ligna attulit in castra Domini; qui et juste lapidatus est.]

I think it would appear from these passages that Irenæus was not in the habit of regarding the Christian practice of hallowing the Lord's day as the explicit fulfilment of the fourth commandment. He lived so near the apostolical times that he no doubt observed it in obedience to Christ's institution, without considering whether it was contemplated by the original institution of a holy day or not. But in common with other Christian writers, he did not think that the fulfilment of the fourth commandment lay in devoting any particular portion of time to the service of God; but in serving him continually as much as possible; and therefore, as a matter of course, in observing those times of sacred repose and divine worship which either the institution of Christ, or the common custom of Christians, or the rules of the Church, might have appointed[^474]. According to such a feeling, therefore, whilst no particular portion of time would be kept with Jewish superstition, as though it were an end of itself, whatever time was kept would be so kept as to ensure the ends proposed by its observance.

[^474: We have various indications of the observance of the Lord's day in early writers. Thus Ignatius (Ad Magnes. 9.) speaks of “the ancient prophets leading lives in harmony with the Lord's day.” Μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. Here there is an evident allusion to some way in which that day was spent, in contradistinction to the Jewish Sabbath.—The Epistle of Barnabas, written not far from Apostolical times, speaks of it as a festival: Ἀγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν.—Justin Martyr, again, (Apol. II. 67.) describes the practice of assembling for instruction, worship, and communion on that day, and affirms that our Lord, when he appeared to his disciples on Easter day, taught them to observe the day in this manner. Καὶ τῇ μετὰ τὴν Κρονικὴν, ἥτις ἐστιν Ἡλίου ἡμέρα, φανεὶς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ μαθηταῖς, ἐδίδαξε ταῦτα.—A little later Dionysius of Corinth speaks of “celebrating the Lord's holy day.” Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν.—So Clement, as I showed above (p. 211, note 1), informs us that in his time the Lord's day appeared likely to be regarded as the proper sabbath.—Further on we find the Council of Laodicea (see p. 213, note 5) directing Christians to rest by preference on the Lord's day, and not on the Sabbath.—Finally, we may see in Bingham (Antiq. XX. ii. 2, 3, 4.) how, as Christianity became established, business, labour, and public sports were forbidden by public authority; which proves of course what had been the practice of Christians themselves before their religion obtained the sanction of the civil power.]

And, if we revert to what has been before observed as to Irenæus's view of the law of liberty, we shall see that he would be so far from supposing that this Christian freedom authorized us to dispense with devoting one day in seven to God's service, that he would feel that it ought to lead those who had it in their power to devote even a larger portion. And such in fact was the practice of the Christians of those times. They assembled together not only on the morning and evening of the Sunday, but also throughout the east on the morning and evening of Saturday, and on the morning of Wednesday and Friday. When, therefore, there was so much zeal for the service of God, and the commandment was kept so amply in its spirit without thinking of the letter of it,—the warm feeling of Christians making them a law to themselves,—there was nothing to lead them to inquire critically how much the commandment actually required of them; and to have instituted such an inquiry would have appeared like putting a restriction upon the ardour of Christian love, and returning to the spirit of the Law of Moses.

The true question, then, to ask is, not why the first Christians did not put the Lord's day upon the footing of the paradisiacal sabbath, but why we are called upon to do so in these latter days? And the true answer will be found in the fact that the great body of us have abused the law of liberty, as the Israelites of old had done, and therefore, like them, have need, in the providential dealings of God, to be put back under rules and restrictions again, until we are become fitted to act as children of God: and when we are so, we have no wish to shake off such restrictions, but of our own accord go beyond them.

In connection with this subject it is very remarkable that the Church of England in her catechism has not thought proper to connect the Lord's day in particular with the fourth commandment; although most of our writers for the last three hundred years have found it necessary so to do. It is true that we have done no more than our duty by pointing out to our people that God from the beginning has hallowed one day in seven, in order to prevent them from relapsing into absolute heathenism;—the error has been that we have too much omitted to show that this was the least he would be satisfied with. We have too much written as though those who fully observed one day in seven had done their duty, instead of leading them to feel that they cannot be possessed of the spirit of true Christian obedience so long as they confine themselves to the letter of the law, and do not of their own accord embrace every means of grace and spiritual improvement.

Chapter XVII. On The Typical Interpretation Of Scripture.

The writers of the primitive Church, taking the lead from the inspired writers, and probably preserving in many cases the traditional interpretations of the Apostles, were in the habit of seeing types in many things which to us appear to have none but a literal meaning. It is, however, certain that there was a great tendency amongst the Hellenistic Jews to make the whole of the Old Testament typical; and no doubt some Christians early followed them, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (which were early writings, whether spurious or not) abundantly show: and this tendency continued to increase until the time of Origen, by whom it was pushed to such extremes, that, from that time, it became less popular.

Irenæus, however, is far from being a fanciful writer, and was more directly connected with the Apostles than most of the Fathers, and therefore the types which he recognises are worthy of much more attention than those of Origen.

With him, then, Abel was a type of Christ, as having suffered innocently[^475]; Joseph[^476] was a type of Christ, though in what way we are not told, probably in the same sense as Abel; Moses was a type of him when he spread forth his hands, and by that sign conquered Amalek[^477]. That the brazen serpent was a type of healing man from the bite of the old serpent by faith, the words of Christ himself led him to see[^478].

[^475: IV. xxxiv. 4. “Vide enim,” inquit, “quomodo justus perit, et nemo intuetur; et viri justi tolluntur, et nemo excipit corde.” Hæc autem in Abel quidem præmeditabantur, a prophetis vero præconabantur, in Domino autem perficiebantur.]

[^476: Frag. xvii. Ἐν μὲν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ προετυπώθη.]

[^477: IV. xxiv. 1. Primogenitum mortuorum, et principem vitæ Dei, eum qui per extensionem manuum dissolvebat Amalech, et vivificabat hominem de serpentis plaga per fidem, quæ erat in eum.——Justin Martyr (Tryph. 90.) expresses the same idea more fully; and remarks as confirmatory of the typical signification of the posture of Moses, that it was altogether unusual as a posture of prayer, and indeed adopted by him on no other occasion, nor by any one since his time.]

[^478: Ibid.]

There were other points in which Moses was a type of Christ. “He took an Ethiopian woman to wife, whom he thereby made an Israelitess; foreshowing that the wild olive is grafted into the olive, and partakes of its fatness. For since that Christ, who was born according to the flesh, was to be sought out for destruction, and to be delivered in Egypt, that is, amongst the Gentiles, to sanctify the infants there, whence also he made a Church there; (for Egypt was from the beginning a gentile nation, as was also Æthiopia;) for this reason by the marriage of Moses was shown the marriage of the Word, and by the Æthiopian wife the Gentile Church is pointed out: and those who speak against it, and inveigh against and deride it, shall not be clean; for they shall be leprous and cast out of the camp[^479].”

[^479: IV. xx. 12. Sic autem et Moyses Æthiopissam accipiebat uxorem, quam ipse Israelitidem fecit; præsignificans, quoniam oleaster inseritur in olivam, et participans pinguedinis ejus erit. Quoniam enim is qui secundum carnem natus est Christus, a populo quidem habebat inquiri ut occideretur, liberari vero in Ægypto, id est, in Gentibus, sanctificare eos qui ibi essent infantes, unde et Ecclesiam ibi perfecit; (Ægyptus enim ab initio gentilis, quemadmodum et Æthiopia) propter hoc διὰ τοῦ γάμου Μωüσέως ὁ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ νοητὸς γάμος ἐδείκνυτο, καὶ διὰ τῆς Αἰθιοπικῆς νύμφης, ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐκκλησία ἐδηλοῦτο· ἣν οἱ καταλαλοῦντες, καὶ ἐνδιαβάλλοντες, καὶ διαμωκώμενοι, οὐκ ἔσονται καθαροί. λεπρήσουσι γὰρ, καὰ ἐξαφορισθήσονται τῆς τῶν δικαίων παρεμβολῆς.]

He declares that the re-appearance of justification by faith, after it had been for some time cast out of sight by the Law of Moses, was typified by the circumstances of the birth of the sons of Thamar. For as Zarah put forth his hand first, and had the scarlet thread bound upon it, and then retiring gave way to his brother Pharez, and thus was born after him; by this the Scripture declared “that people which has the scarlet sign, viz. faith in uncircumcision, which was shown first in the patriarchs, and afterwards withdrawn when its brother was born; and that in consequence that which was first was born second, being known by the scarlet mark upon it, which is the suffering of the Just One, foreshown in Abel, written by the Prophets, and accomplished in the last times in the Son of God[^480].”

[^480: IV. xxv. 2. Hoc et per alia quidem multa, jam vero et per Thamar Judæ nurum typice ostenditur. Cum enim concepisset geminos, alter eorum prior protulit manum suam: et cum obstetrix putaret eum primogenitum esse, coccinum alligavit signum in manu ejus. Cum hoc autem factum esset, et abstraxisset manum suam, prior exivit frater ejus Phares; sic deinde secundus ille, in quo erat coccinum, Zara: clare manifestante Scriptura eum quidem populum qui habet coccinum signum, id est, eam fidem quæ est in præputio, præostensam quidem primum in Patriarchis, post deinde subtractam, uti nasceretur frater ejus; deinde sic eum, qui prior esset, secundo loco natum, qui est cognitus per signum coccinum, quod erat in eo; quod est passio Justi, ab initio præfigurata in Abel, et descripta a Prophetis, perfecta vero in novissimis temporibus in Filio Dei.]

Irenæus was of opinion that some of the apparent misdeeds of the old Patriarchs were not really sins, but circumstances brought upon them by divine Providence, with some mystical and typical end. Thus the cohabitation of Lot and his daughters is with him providential and typical, signifying that from one Father the Word, by means of the life-giving Spirit, the two sister synagogues, the Jewish and the Christian, have brought forth a spiritual seed[^481].

[^481: IV. xxxi. 1. Quemadmodum et Lot, qui eduxit de Sodomis filias suas, quæ conceperunt de patre suo, et qui reliquit in circumfinio uxorem suam statuam salis usque in hodiernum diem. Etenim Lot non ex sua voluntate, neque ex sua concupiscentia carnali, neque sensum neque cogitationem hujusmodi accipiens, consummavit typum. Quemadmodum Scriptura dicit: “Et intravit major natu, et dormivit cum patre suo illa; et non scivit Lot cum dormiret illa, et cum surgeret:” et in minore hoc idem: “Et non scivit,” inquit, “cum dormisset secum, nec cum surrexisset:” μὴ εἰδότος τοῦ Λὼτ, μηδὲ ἡδονῇ δουλεύσαντος, οἰκονομία ἐπετελεῖτο, δι᾽ ἧς αἱ δύο filiæ, id est, duæ συναγωγαὶ ἀπὸ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς τεκνοποιησάμεναι ἐμηνύοντο ἄνευ σαρκὸς ἠδονῆς. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄλλος οὐδεὶς σπέρμα ζωτικὸν καὶ τέκνων ἐπικαρπίαν δυνάμενος δοῦναι αὐταῖς, καθὼς γέγραπται· “Dixit autem major ad minorem; Pater noster senior est, et nemo est super terram qui intret ad nos, ut oportet omni terræ: veni, potionemus patrem nostrum vino, et dormiamus cum eo, ut suscitemus de patre nostro semen.”—2. Illæ quidem filiæ secundum simplicitatem et innocentiam putantes universos homines perisse, quemadmodum Sodomitas, et in universam terram iracundiam Dei supervenisse, dicebant hæc. Quapropter et ipsæ excusabiles sunt, arbitrantes se solas relictas cum patre suo ad conservationem generis humani, et propter hoc circumveniebant patrem. Per verba autem earum significabatur, neminem esse alterum qui possit filiorum generationem majori et minori synagogæ præstare, quam Patrem nostrum. Pater autem generis humani Verbum Dei; quemadmodum Moyses ostendit dicens: “Nonne hic ipse Pater tuus possedit te, et fecit te, et creavit te?” Quando igitur hic vitale semen, id est, Spiritum remissionis peccatorum per quem vivificamur, effudit in humanum genus? Nonne tunc cum convescebatur cum hominibus, et bibebat vinum in terra? “Venit” enim, inquit, “filius hominis manducans et bibens:” et cum recubuisset, obdormivit, et somnum cepit. Quemadmodum ipse in David dicit: “Ego dormivi et somnum cepi.” Et quoniam in nostra communicatione et vita hoc agebat, iterum ait: “Et somnus meus suavis mihi factus est.” Totum autem significabatur per Lot, quoniam semen patris omnium, id est, Spiritus Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, commixtus et unitus est carni, hoc est, plasmati suo: per quam commixtionem et unitatem duæ synagogæ, id est, duæ congregationes fructificantes ex patre suo filios vivos vivo Deo.]

St. Paul has taught us that Jacob and Esau were types of the elder and younger Churches; but Irenæus has much amplified the figure, and brought in other parallelisms. “And if any one would study the acts of Jacob, he will find them not empty, but full of providential arrangements[^482]: and first in his birth, as he caught hold of the heel of his brother, and was called Jacob, that is, the supplanter; holding and not holden; fettering but not fettered; struggling and conquering; holding in his hand the heel of his adversary, i. e. the victory: to this end was the Lord born, whose birth he typified, concerning whom John saith in the Revelation, He went forth conquering, to conquer. Moreover, in taking the birthright when his brother disdained it; as also the younger people accepted Christ the first-born, when the elder people rejected him, saying, We have no king but Cæsar. And in Christ was the whole blessing; and for this reason the latter people stole from the Father the blessing of the former people, as Jacob took away the blessing from Esau. For which cause his brother suffered from the lying in wait and persecutions of a brother, as also the Church suffers from the Jews[^483]. The twelve tribes, the children of Israel, were born in a foreign country, as Christ began at a distance from his home to lay the twelve-pillared foundation of the Church. The spotted sheep were the wages of Jacob; and Christ's reward is the assemblage of men from differing nations into the one bond of the faith[^484], as the Father promised him: ‘Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.’ And as to Jacob, the Lord's prophet, it consisted of a multitude of children, it was necessary that he should have children from two sisters; as also Christ from two laws of one and the same Father[^485]; and likewise of two maid-servants, signifying that Christ should make sons of God out both of those who in the flesh were free and of slaves, granting to all alike the gift of the life-giving Spirit[^486]. And he did all for the sake of the younger, Rachel, who typified the Church, for whose sake Christ endured[^487].”

[^482: Justin Martyr expresses the same sentiment: Tryph. 134. Οἰκονομίαι τινὲς μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἐν ἑκάστῃ τινὶ τοιαύτῃ πράξει ἀπετελοῦντο.]

[^483: Justin M. Tryph. 134, ad finem, draws the same parallel. Τὸν χρόνον πάντα ἐμισεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ὁ Ἰακώβ· καὶ ἡμεῖς νῦν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν μισεῖται ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπλῶς ἀνθρώπων, ὄντων πάντων τῇ φύσει ἀδελφῶν.]

[^484: Justin, ibid. Ἐδούλευσεν Ἰακὼβ τῷ Λάβαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ῥαντῶν καὶ πολυμόρφων θρεμμάτων· ἐδούλευσε καὶ τὴν μέχρι σταυροῦ δουλείαν ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐκ παντὸς γένους ποικίλων καὶ πολυειδῶν ἀνθρώπων, δι᾽ αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ κτησάμενος αὐτούς.]

[^485: Justin, ibid. Ἀλλὰ Λεία μὲν ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ συναγωγή· Ῥαχὴλ δὲ ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν.]

[^486: Justin, ibid. Εἰς ἀποκατάστασιν ἀμφοτέρων τε τῶν ἐλευθέρων τέκνων καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς δούλων Χριστὸς ἐλήλυθε, τῶν αὐτῶν πάντας καταξιῶν τοὺς φυλάσσοντας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ· ὃν τρόπον καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐλευθέρων καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν δούλων γενόμενοι τῷ Ἰακὼβ πάντες υἱοὶ καὶ ὁμότιμοι γεγόνασι.]

[^487: IV. xxi. 3. Si quis autem et actus qui sunt Jacob addiscat, inveniet eos non inanes, sed plenos dispositionum. Et imprimis in nativitate ejus, quemadmodum apprehendit calcaneum fratris, et Jacob vocatus est, id est, supplantator; tenens, et qui non tenetur; ligans pedes, sed qui non ligatur; luctans, et vincens; tenens in manu calcaneum adversarii, id est, victoriam. Ad hoc enim nascebatur Dominus, cujus typum generationis præstabat, de quo et Joannes in Apocalypsi ait: ‘Exivit vincens, ut vinceret.’ Deinde autem primogenita accipiens, quando vituperavit ea frater ejus: quemadmodum et junior populus eum primogenitum Christum accepit, cum eum repulit populus ætate provectior, dicens: ‘Non habemus Regem, nisi Cæsarem.’ In Christo autem universa benedictio: et propter hoc benedictiones prioris populi a Patre subripuit posterior populus, quemadmodum Jacob abstulit benedictionem hujus Esaü; ob quam causam fratris patiebatur insidias et persecutiones frater suus, sicut et Ecclesia hoc idem a Judæis patitur. Peregre nascebantur xii tribus, genus Israel, quoniam et Christus peregre incipiebat duodecastylum firmamentum Ecclesiæ generare. Variæ oves, quæ fiebant, huic Jacob merces: et Christi merces, qui ex variis et differentibus gentibus in unam cohortem fidei convenientes fiunt homines, quemadmodum Pater promisit ei: ‘Postula,’ dicens, ‘a me, et dabo tibi Gentes hæreditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terræ.’ Et quoniam multitudinis filiorum Domini Prophetæ fiebat Jacob, necessitas omnis fuit ex duabus sororibus eum filios facere; quemadmodum Christus ex duabus Legibus unius et ejusdem Patris: similiter autem et ex ancillis; significans quoniam secundum carnem ex liberis et ex servis Christus statueret filios Dei, similiter omnibus dans munus Spiritus vivificantis nos. Omnia autem ille faciebat propter illam juniorem, bonos oculos habentem, Rachel, quæ præfigurabat Ecclesiam, propter quam sustinuit Christus: qui tunc quidem per Patriarchas suos et Prophetas præfigurans et prænuntians futura, præexercens suam partem dispositionibus Dei, et assuescens hæreditatem suam obedire Deo, et peregrinari in sæculo, et sequi verbum ejus, et præsignificare futura. Nihil enim vacuum, neque sine signo apud Deum.]

Rahab the harlot, again, who was a heathen and a great sinner, and received the three spies, and by reliance upon the scarlet thread, (which meant the same thing as the passover,) was saved, whilst the city in which she lived was destroyed, is a type of sinners in all future ages, who, revering the Trinity, and by faith in Christ our passover, are saved, whilst the world of those who rejected him are lost[^488].

[^488: IV. xx. 12. Sic autem et Raab fornicaria semetipsam quidem condemnans, quoniam esset gentilis, omnium peccatorum rea, suscepit autem tres speculatores, qui speculabantur universam terram, et apud se abscondit, Patrem scilicet et Filium cum Spiritu sancto. Et cum universa civitas, in qua habitabat, concidisset in ruinam, canentibus septem tubicinis, in ultimis Raab fornicaria conservata est cum universa domo sua, fide signi coccini: sicut et Dominus dicebat his, qui adventum ejus non excipiebant, Pharisæis scilicet, et coccini signum nullificant, quod erat pascha, redemptio et exodus populi ex Ægypto, dicens: “Publicani et meretrices præcedunt vos in Regno cœlorum.”

The same type is acknowledged by Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, § 12. Καὶ προσέθεντο αὐτῇ δοῦναι σημεῖον, ὅπως κρεμάσῃ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῆς κόκκινον, πρόδηλον ποιοῦντες ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν.——Likewise by Justin, Tryph. 111. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ κοκκίνου σπαρτίου, οὗ ἔδωκαν ... οἱ κατάσκοποι Ῥαὰβ τῇ πόρνῃ, ... ὁμοίως τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδήλου, δι᾽ οὗ οἱ πάλαι πόρνοι καὶ ἄδικοι ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν σώζονται, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν λαβόντες.]

Joshua, again, he makes a type of Christ, bringing his people into their eternal inheritance, as Moses brought them out of captivity; and he further declares that as Moses, representing the law, rested, in prefiguration of the cessation of the law, so Joshua, as representing the Gospel, and a perfect type of the personal Word, discoursed to the people; and that as Moses gave the manna, so Joshua gave the new bread, the first-fruits of life, a figure of the body of Christ[^489].

[^489: Frag. xix. Λάβε πρὸς σεαυτὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν Ναυῆ. Ἔδει γὰρ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου Μωüσῆν τὸν λαὸν ἐξαγαγεῖν, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῶν εἰς τὴν κληροδοσίαν εἰσαγαγεῖν· καὶ τὸν μὲν Μωüσῆν, ὡς νόμον, ἀνάπαυλαν λαμβάνειν, Ἰησοῦν δὲ, ὡς Λόγον, καὶ τοῦ ἐνυποστάτου Λόγου τύπον ἀψευδῆ, τῷ λαῷ δημηγορεῖν· καὶ τὸν μὲν Μωüσῆν τὸ μάννα τοῖς πατράσι τροφὴν διδόναι, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν τὸν νέον ἄρτι [rather ἄρτον], τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τῆς ζωῆς, τύπον τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ· καθά φησι καὶ ἡ γραφὴ, ὅτι τότε ἐπαύσατο τὸ μάννα Κυρίου μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν τὸν σῖτον λαὸν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

Clement of Alexandria, Protrept. 9. § 85. & Pædag. I. 7. § 60, makes Joshua a type of Christ, but draws other parallels than those of Irenæus.]

He finds a very humble parallel to our Lord in the ass of Balaam: for as all men rest from toil by mounting on a beast of burden, so Christ gives us repose from the toil of our souls by bearing the burden of our sins[^490].

[^490: Frag. xxiii. Καὶ οὗτος ἐπεβεβήκει ἐπὶ τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ. Ἡ μὲν ὄνος τύπον εἶχε σώματος Χριστοῦ· ἐφ᾽ ὃν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκ καυμάτων ἀναπαυόμενοι, ὡς ὑπὸ ὀχήματος βαστάζονται. τὸ γὰρ φορτίον τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνεδέξατο.]

The last specimens of types which I shall bring forward are to be found in the history of Samson. The temple in which he found his death, filled with Philistines, St. Irenæus supposes to represent the world of the ungodly; Samson himself is God's true people; the two pillars are the two covenants; and the lad who conducted Samson to the pillars is John the Baptist, leading God's people to know the mystery of Christ[^491].

[^491: Frag. xxvii. Τὸ μὲν οὖν παιδάριον χειραγωγοῦν τὸν Σαμψὼν προτυπωθήσεται εἶς Ἰωάννην τὸν Βαπτιστὴν, ἐπιδεικνύντα τῷ λαῷ τὴν εἰς Χριστὸν πίστιν. ὁ δὲ οἶκος, εἰς ὃν ἦσαν συνηγμένοι, σημαίνεται εἶναι ὁ κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ κατῴκει τὰ ἀλλόφυλα ἔθνη καὶ ἄπιστα, θυσιάζοντα τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὑτῶν· οἱ δὲ δύο στύλοι, αἱ δύο διαθῆκαι. τὸ οὖν ἐπαναπαυθῆναι τὸν Σαμψὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς στύλους, τὸν διδαχθένται λαὸν ἐπιγνῶναι τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστήριον.]

These types will, of course, bring with them to the mind various degrees of probability. The Scripture itself teaches us the principle of typical application; and no person who considers the manner in which the various books of the New Testament were written, their occasional nature, so to speak, will suppose that the whole of the types are developed in it. We must therefore be left to ourselves, in some degree, to discover the other types; and yet it cannot be supposed that all the resemblances our mind can strike out were absolutely intended. But it must be some recommendation of any typical application, to say the least, to find it struck out in that early age, when those who had conversed with apostolical men were living: and where we find a number of writers agreeing to adopt any one type, (as, for instance, Clement of Rome, Justin and Irenæus, make Rahab's scarlet line typical,) it will, I suppose, appear to most minds to have a very high probability. And it is only by noticing the types in each early writer, that we can arrive at this species of authority for any one particular type.

Chapter XVIII. On The Intermediate State.

Persons sometimes ask, What is the advantage of studying the Fathers? why cannot we be contented with the light of Scripture? Those who study them reply, that one use at least is, that by their help the obscure parts of Scripture, where some truths are but hinted at or supposed, are brought forth into light and clear outline.

An instance of this, and a very unobjectionable one, is to be found in the doctrine of Irenæus, and not of him alone, as to the intermediate state. We know from Scripture that there is an unseen state to which Christ descended[^492]; and that the just after death go to paradise[^493], and are with Christ[^494]. If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is taken literally, it seems to be implied that the good and bad are separated in that state, and yet that they are capable of holding intercourse with each other; and there seems to be a hint that the state of the dead is, in some sense, a state of confinement[^495]. Beyond this we have little, if any thing.

[^492: Acts ii. 31.]

[^493: Luke xvi. 22. xxiii. 43.]

[^494: Phil. i. 23.]

[^495: 1 Pet. iii. 19. iv. 6.]

Our views, however, such as they are, become confirmed and acquire definiteness, as we find the same subjects treated of or alluded to by Irenæus.

He treats the parable I have spoken of, as not strictly a parable, but a relation of real occurrences[^496]; and asserts that it shows us that the soul, in a state of separation from the body, retains its individuality, so that disembodied souls may know each other, and hold mutual intercourse; and that each class of persons has its appropriate habitation even before the day of judgment[^497]. Accordingly he affirms that Christ observed the law of the dead, and departed into the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were. And conformably he teaches us that the souls of his disciples will at death depart into the invisible place destined for them by God, and there remain, waiting for the resurrection[^498]. And this invisible place he declares to be paradise, to which Enoch and Elias are already translated with their bodies, anticipating immortality[^499]. But to those who have died he declares that this state is a state of condemnation, even to those who are found in life[^500]. For he believed that the souls of the just, although in death and consequent condemnation, would retain the Spirit of God, and consequently the seed and pledge of a new life[^501]; and that by means of this same Spirit they would rise again at the last day, being quickened by the Spirit, even as their Lord was[^502].

[^496: IV. ii. 4. Non autem fabulam retulit nobis pauperis et divitis.]

[^497: II. xxxiv. 1. Plenissime autem Dominus docuit, non solum perseverare, non de corpore in corpus transgredientes, animas; sed et characterem corporis, in quo etiam adaptantur, custodire eundem, et meminisse eas operum, quæ egerunt hic, et a quibus cessaverunt, in ea relatione, quæ scribitur de divite et de Lazaro eo, qui refrigerabat in sinu Abrahæ: in qua ait, divitem cognoscere Lazarum post mortem, et Abraham autem similiter, et manere in suo ordine unumquemque ipsorum, et postulare mitti ei ad opem ferendam Lazarum, cui ne quidem de mensæ suæ amicis communicabat: et de Abrahæ responso, qui non tantum ea, quæ secundum se, sed et quæ secundum divitem essent, sciebat; et præcipiebat Moysi assentire et Prophetis eos, qui non mallent pervenire in illum locum pœnæ, et recipientes præconium ejus, qui resurrexerit a mortuis. Per hæc enim manifeste declaratum est, et perseverare animas, et non de corpore in corpus transire, et habere hominis figuram, ut etiam cognoscantur, et meminerint eorum, quæ sint hic; et propheticum quoque adesse Abrahæ, et dignam habitationem unamquamque gentem percipere, etiam ante judicium.]

[^498: V. xxxi. 2. Si ergo Dominus legem mortuorum servavit, ut fieret primogenitus a mortuis, et commoratus usque in tertiam diem in inferioribus terræ; post deinde surgens in carne, ut etiam fixuras clavorum ostenderet discipulis, sic ascendit ad Patrem; quomodo non confundantur, qui dicunt inferos quidem esse hunc mundum, qui sit secundum nos; interiorem autem hominem ipsorum derelinquentem hic corpus, in supercœlestem ascendere locum? Cum enim Dominus “in medio umbræ mortis abierit,” ubi animæ mortuorum erant, post deinde corporaliter resurrexit, et post resurrectionem assumptus est; manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et hæc operatus est Dominus, Αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὸν τόπον invisibilem τὸν ὡρισμένον αὐταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἀκεῖ μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως φοιτῶσι, περιμένουσαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν· ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι τὰ σώματα, καὶ ὀλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτέστι σωματικῶς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέστη, οὕτως ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴς ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. “Nemo enim est discipulus super magistrum: perfectus autem omnis erit sicut magister ejus.” Quomodo ergo Magister noster non statim evolans abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre resurrectionis suæ tempus, (quod et per Jonam manifestatum est,) post triduum resurgens assumptus est; sic et nos sustinere debemus definitum a Deo resurrectionis nostræ tempus, prænuntiatum a Prophetis, et sic resurgentes assumi, quotquot Dominus ad hoc dignos habuerit.——So Clement of Rome (Ad Corr. I. 50) affirms that “they who have departed, fully established in love, enjoy the place of the just”—χώραν εὐσεβῶν.]

[^499: V. v. 1. Ὅπουγε Ἐνὼχ εὐαρεστήσας τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν σώματι μετετέθη, τὴν μετάθεσιν τῶν δικαίων προμηνύων· καὶ Ἡλίας, ὡς ἦν, ἐν τῇ τοῦ πλάσματος ὑποστάσει ἀνελήφθη, τὴν ἀνάληψιν τῶν πνευματικῶν προφητεύων, κ.τ.λ. ... Διὸ καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταὶ, τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἐκεῖσε [that is, to paradise] μετατεθῆναι· (δικαίοις γὰρ ἀνθρώποις καὶ πνευματοφόροις ἠτοιμάσθη ὁ παράδεισος, ἐν ᾧ καὶ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος εἰσκομισθεὶς ἤκουσεν ἄρῥητα ῥήματα, ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ παρόντι·) κἀκεῖ μένειν τοὺς μετατεθέντας ἕως συντελείας, προοιμιαζομένους τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν.]

[^500: III. xix. 3. Ut quemadmodum caput resurrexit a mortuis, sic et reliquum corpus omnis hominis, qui invenitur in vita, impleto tempore condemnationis ejus, quæ erat propter inobedientiam, resurgat.]

[^501: V. ix. 2. Quotquot autem timent Deum, et credunt in adventum Filii ejus, et per fidem constituunt in cordibus suis Spiritum Dei, hi tales juste homines dicentur, et mundi et spiritales et viventes Deo; quia habent Spiritum Patris, qui emundat hominem et sublevat in vitam Dei.... Infirmitas enim carnis absorpta potentem ostendit spiritum; spiritus autem rursus absorbens infirmitatem, hæreditate possidet carnem in se: et ex utrisque factus est vivens homo; vivens quidem propter participationem Spiritus, homo autem propter substantiam carnis.——3. Ubi autem Spiritus Patris ibi homo vivens, sanguis rationalis ad ultionem a Deo custoditus, caro a Spiritu possessa, oblita quidem sui, qualitatem autem spiritus assumens, conformis facta Verbo Dei.]

[^502: V. vii. 1. Et iterum ad Romanos ait: “Si autem Spiritus ejus qui suscitavit Jesum a mortuis habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Christum a mortuis vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra.”——2. Hæc sunt enim corpora mortalia, id est, participantia animæ, quam cum amiserint, mortificantur; deinde per Spiritum surgentia fiunt corpora spiritualia, uti per Spiritum semper permanentem habeant vitam.]

There is another branch of this subject; viz. the employment of our Saviour while in the intermediate state. Irenæus thought, as did other Fathers, that our Lord went and preached the Gospel to those who were dead, there being forgiveness to whosoever would believe in him, so preaching to them; and that those who in old times had hoped in him, and foretold his coming, did then believe in him and obtain remission[^503].

[^503: IV. xxvii. 2. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea, quæ sunt sub terra, descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum suum; remissione peccatorum exsistente his qui credunt in eum. Crediderunt autem in eum omnes qui sperabant in eum, id est, qui adventum ejus prænuntiaverunt, et dispositionibus ejus servierunt, justi et prophetæ et patriarchæ; quibus similiter ut nobis remisit peccata.

Clem. Alex. Strom. VI. 6. § 44. Διόπερ ὁ Κύριος εὐηγγελίσατο καὶ τοῖς ἐν Ἅιδου.——45. Φησὶ γοῦν ἡ γραφή· Λέγει ὁ Ἅιδης τῇ ἀπολείᾳ· Εἶδος μὲν αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἴδομεν, φωνὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ ἠκούσαμεν.... Τί δ᾽ οὐχὶ δηλοῦσιν εὐηγγελίσθαι τὸν Κύριον τοῖς τε ἀπολωλόσιν ἐν τῷ κατακλυσμῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ πεπεδημένοις καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ τε καὶ φρουρᾷ συνεχομένοις.——Tertullian de Anima, 55. Christus Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secus easdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanæ mortis apud inferos functus; nec ante ascendit in sublimiora cœlorum, quam descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic patriarchas et prophetas compotes sui faceret.—See also Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. xiv. 18, 19.]

Here again we have a definite meaning given to passages of Holy Writ, respecting which we may discuss and have discussed endlessly, resting in the mere light of Scripture. And that being the case, it appears more rational to accept the interpretation furnished by early writers, who are in all probability in this and other cases giving us views which had come down from the Apostles themselves.

Chapter XIX. On Unfulfilled Prophecy.

It was the opinion of the Gnostics that the Tempter was either the same as the God of the Old Testament, acting in opposition to the Supreme Being, or a creature and agent of this God. In contradiction to this notion, Irenæus lays down, and confirms from various portions of Scripture, that he was one of the angels, attendants upon the Supreme Being, who rebelled against him, who consummated his rebellion by seducing man from his allegiance, and who is always setting himself up as a rebel against his Maker[^504].

[^504: V. xxiv. 4. See p. 107, note 1.]

Having proved this from the past history of the world, he continues the proof by adducing the prophecies concerning Antichrist, the Millennium, and the consummation of all things[^505]. In this way he is led to develope his own views upon those subjects: and as his opinions on the Millennium are different from those which have prevailed subsequently, with almost universal consent in the Western Church, that portion of his Treatise is rarely found complete in our present MSS., the copyists not thinking it proper or worth their while to copy what was generally disapproved by the Church[^506].

[^505: Book V. chapter xxv. to the end.]

[^506: The five last chapters of the Fifth Book are wanting in all but two MSS.]

Irenæus, then, regards Antichrist as a direct agent of Satan, in and by means of whom he will fulfil the great object of his rebellion, of procuring himself to be owned by mankind as their king, and worshipped as their God; by whom he will abolish all idols, and set himself up as the one idol, uniting in himself all the delusion of all the false gods who have ever existed. In him, therefore, will be literally fulfilled the prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4[^507]; for he will literally enthrone himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and by oppressive methods will endeavour to exhibit himself as God, and Christ[^508]. Irenæus applies to this event the prophecy of Daniel concerning the abomination of desolation, quoted by our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 15, 16[^509].

[^507: V. xxv. 1. Et non tantum autem per ea quæ dicta sunt, sed et per ea quæ erunt sub Antichristo, ostenditur, quoniam existens apostata et latro, quasi Deus vult adorari; et cum sit servus, Regem se vult præconari. Ille enim omnem suscipiens diaboli virtutem, veniet non quasi Rex justus, nec quasi in subjectione Dei legitimus; sed impius et injustus et sine lege, quasi apostata et iniquus et homicida, quasi latro, diabolicam apostasiam in se recapitulans: et idola quidem seponens, ad suadendum quod ipse sit Deus; se autem extollens unum idolum, habens in semetipso reliquorum idolorum varium errorem: ut hi qui per multas abominationes adorant diabolum, hi per hoc unum idolum serviant ipsi, de quo Apostolus in epistola, quæ est ad Thessalonicenses secunda, sic ait: “Quoniam nisi venerit abscessio primum, et revelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius perditionis, qui adversatur et extollit se super omne quod dicitur Deus, aut colitur; ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, ostendens semetipsum tanquam sit Deus.” Manifeste igitur Apostolus ostendit apostasiam ejus, et quoniam extollitur super omne quod dicitur Deus, vel quod colitur, hoc est, super omne idolum, (hi enim sunt qui dicuntur quidem ab hominibus, non sunt autem, Dii,) et quoniam ipse se tyrannico more conabitur ostendere Deum.]

[^508: V. xxv. 2. Super hæc autem manifestavit et illud, quod a nobis per multa ostensum est, quoniam in Hierosolymis templum dispositione veri Dei factum est. Ipse enim Apostolus ex sua persona diffinitive templum illud dixit Dei. Ostendimus autem in tertio libro, nullum ab Apostolis ex sua persona Deum appellari, nisi eum qui vere sit Deus, Patrem Domini nostri: cujus jussu hoc, quod est in Hierosolymis, factum est templum, ob eas causas quæ a nobis dictæ sunt: in quo adversarius sedebit, tentans semetipsum Christum ostendere, sicut et Dominus ait: “Cum autem videritis abominationem desolationis, quod dictum est per Danielem Prophetam, stantem in loco sancto, (qui legit, intelligat,) tunc qui in Judæa sunt, fugiant in montes: et qui in tecto est, non descendat tollere quidquam de domo. Erit enim tunc pressura magna, qualis non est facta ab initio sæculi usque nunc, sed neque fiet.”—4. Et Dominus autem hoc item non credentibus sibi dicebat: “Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non recepistis me; cum alius venerit in nomine suo, illum recipietis:” alium dicens Antichristum, qui alienus est a Domino. Et ipse est “iniquus judex,” qui a Domino dictus est, quoniam “Deum non timebat, neque hominem reverebatur,” ad quem fugit vidua oblita Dei, id est, terrena Hierusalem, ad ulciscendum de inimico. Quod et faciet in tempore regni sui: transferet regnum in eam, et in templo Dei sedet [sedebit], seducens eos qui adorant eum, quasi ipse sit Christus. Quapropter ait Daniel iterum: “Et sanctum desolabitur: et datum est in sacrificium peccatum, et projecta est in terra justitia, et fecit, et prospere cessit.”——xxviii. 2. Et propter hoc Apostolus ait: “Pro eo quod dilectionem Dei non receperunt, ut salvi fierent, et ideo mittet eos Deus in operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio, ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.” Illo enim veniente, et sua sententia apostasiam recapitulante in semetipsum, et sua voluntate et arbitrio operante quæcumque operabitur, et in templo Dei sedente, ut sicut Christum adorent illum qui seducentur ab illo; quapropter et juste “in stagnum projicietur ignis:” Deo autem secundum suam providentiam præsciente omnia, et apto tempore eum, qui talis futurus erat, immittente, “ut credant falso, et judicentur omnes, qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati.”]

[^509: V. xxv. 4.]

He likewise applies to him what is said by Daniel of the little horn, in Dan. vii. 8. 20-26; conceiving the ten horns to be ten kings of different portions of the Roman Empire[^510], and consequently believing that Antichrist will be a power, who will overthrow and kill three of the kings of those divisions, and reign for a space of three years and a half; during which time he will trample under foot the saints of the Most High[^511].

[^510: V. xxv. 3. Daniel autem novissimi regni finem respiciens, (id est, novissimos decem Reges, in quos dividitur regnum illorum, super quos filius perditionis veniet,) cornua dicit decem nasci bestiæ; et alterum cornu pusillum nasci in medio ipsorum, et tria cornua de prioribus eradicari a facie ejus. “Et ecce,” inquit, “oculi quasi oculi hominis in cornu hoc, et os loquens magna, et aspectus ejus major reliquis. Videbam, et cornu illud faciebat bellum adversus sanctos, et valebat adversus eos; quoadusque venit vetustas dierum, et judicium dedit sanctis altissimi Dei, et tempus pervenit, et regnum obtinuerunt sancti.” Postea in exsolutione visionum dictum est ei: “Bestia quarta regnum quartum erit in terra, quod eminebit super reliqua regna, et manducabit omnem terram, et conculcabit eam, et concidet. Et decem cornua ejus, decem Reges exsurgent: et post eos surget alius, qui superabit malis omnes qui ante eum fuerunt, et Reges tres deminorabit, et verba adversus altissimum Deum loquetur, et sanctos altissimi Dei conteret, et cogitabit demutare tempora et Legem: et dabitur in manu ejus, usque ad tempus temporum et dimidium tempus,” hoc est, per triennium et sex menses, in quibus veniens regnabit super terram.——xxvi. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de novissimo tempore, et de his qui sunt in eo decem Regibus, in quos dividetur quod nunc regnat imperium, significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi, edisserens quæ fuerint decem cornua, quæ a Daniele visa sunt, dicens sic dictum esse sibi: “Et decem cornua quæ vidisti decem Reges sunt, qui regnum nondum acceperunt, sed potestatem quasi reges una hora accipient cum bestia. Hi unam sententiam habent, et virtutem et potestatem suam bestiæ dant. Hi cum Agno pugnabunt, et Agnus vincet eos, quoniam Dominus Dominorum est, et Rex Regum.” Manifestum est itaque, quoniam ex his tres interficiet ille qui venturus est, et reliqui subjicientur ei, et ipse octavus in eis; et vastabunt Babylonem, et comburent eam igni, et dabunt regnum suum bestiæ, et effugabunt Ecclesiam: post deinde ab adventu Domini nostri destruentur. Quoniam enim oportet dividi regnum, et sic deperire, Dominus ait: “Omne regnum divisum in se, desolabitur: et omnis civitas vel domus divisa in se, non stabit.” Dividi igitur et regnum, et civitatem, et domum oportet in decem: et propterea jam partitionem et divisionem præfiguravit.]

[^511: V. xxv. 3.]

He affirms that he is the other, mentioned by our Lord, (John v. 43,) who will come in his own name; and the unjust judge, who feared not God nor regarded men, to whom the widowed Jerusalem will come for redress against her enemy; in consequence of which he will transfer the seat of his dominion thither.

He declares him to be the wicked king of Daniel, (viii. 23-25,) who for three years and a half will put down the pure offering which the saints offer to God, i. e. the Holy Eucharist[^512].

[^512: V. xxv. 4. Et Gabriel Angelus exsolvens ejus visionem, de hoc ipso dicebat: “Et in novissimo regni ipsorum exsurget Rex improbus facie valde, et intelligens quæstiones; et valida virtus ejus et admirabilis; et corrumpet, et diriget, et faciet, et exterminabit fortes et populum sanctum, et jugum torquis ejus dirigetur: dolus in manu ejus, et in corde suo exaltabitur, et dolo disperdet multos, et ad perditionem multorum stabit, et quomodo ova manu conteret.” Deinde et tempus tyrannidis ejus significat, in quo tempore fugabuntur Sancti, qui purum sacrificium offerunt Domino: “Et in dimidio hebdomadis,” ait, “tolletur sacrificium et libatio, et in Templum abominatio desolationis, et usque ad consummationem temporis consummatio dabitur super desolationem;” dimidium autem hebdomadis tres sunt anni et menses sex.]

He finds him under the Beast of the Revelation of St. John, (xvii. 11-14,) who will drive the Church into the wilderness, and finally be vanquished by our Lord. He identifies the ten kings who will give their kingdom to the beast with the ten divisions of Daniel's fourth kingdom, (Dan. ii. 33,) of whom three will be killed by Antichrist; and the rest, submitting to him, will assist him in conquering Babylon, and burning it with fire: and he makes the stone cut out without hands to be Christ, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and set up an eternal one, (Dan. ii. 44, 45[^513]).

[^513: V. xxvi. 1. Et diligenter Daniel finem quarti Regni digitos ait pedum esse ejus imaginis, quæ a Nabuchodonosor visa est, in quos venit lapis sine manibus præcisus; et quemadmodum ipse ait: “Pedes, pars quidem aliqua ferrea, et pars aliqua fictilis; quoadusque abscissus est lapis sine manibus, et percussit imaginem in pedes ferreos et fictiles, et comminuit eos usque ad finem.” Post deinde in exsolutione ait: “Et quoniam vidisti pedes et digitos, partem quidem fictilem, partem autem ferream, regnum divisum erit, et a radice ferrea erit in eo, quemadmodum vidisti ferrum commixtum testæ. Et digiti pedum, pars quidem aliqua ferrea, pars autem aliqua fictilis.” Ergo decem digiti pedum, hi sunt decem Reges, in quibus dividetur regnum: ex quibus quidam quidem fortes et agiles, sive efficaces; alii autem pigri et inutiles erunt, et non consentient: quemadmodum et Daniel ait: “Pars aliqua regni erit fortis, et ab ipsa pars erit minuta. Quoniam vidisti ferrum commixtum testæ, commixtiones erunt in semine hominum, et non erunt adjuncti invicem, quemadmodum ferrum non commiscetur cum testa.” Et quoniam finis fiet, inquit: “Et in diebus Regum illorum excitabit Deus cœli Regnum, quod in æternum non corrumpetur, et Regnum ejus alteri populo non relinquetur. Comminuet et ventilabit omnia regna, et ipsum exaltabitur in æternum. Quemadmodum vidisti, quoniam de monte præcisus est lapis sine manibus, et comminuit testam, ferrum, et æramentum, et argentum, et aurum. Deus magnus significavit Regi, quæ futura sunt post hæc: et verum est somnium, et fidelis interpretatio ejus.”—2. Si ergo Deus magnus significavit per Danielem futura, et per Filium confirmavit; et Christus est lapis, qui præcisus est sine manibus, qui destruet temporalia Regna, et æternum inducet, quæ est justorum resurrectio: “Resuscitabit,” ait, “Deus cœli Regnum, quod in æternum nunquam corrumpetur.” See also xxvi. 1. p. 243, note.]

Irenæus again sees Antichrist in the beast (Rev. xiii. 2-18) whose head was wounded, who has a mouth given to him speaking great things, and receives power for forty and two months; who has an armour-bearer, called the false prophet, who will work great miracles by magical power, through the aid of evil spirits; the number of whose name is 666[^514].

[^514: V. xxviii. 2. Cujus adventum Joannes in Apocalypsi significavit ita: “Et bestia quam videram, similis erat pardo.... Si quis gladio occiderit, oportet eum in gladio occidi. Hic est sustinentia et fides sanctorum.” Post deinde et de armigero ejus, quem et pseudoprophetam vocat: “Loquebatur,” inquit, “quasi draco, et potestatem primæ bestiæ omnem faciebat in conspectu ejus: et facit terram, et qui habitant in ea, ut adorarent bestiam primam, cujus curata est plaga mortis ejus. Et faciet signa magna, ut et ignem faciat de cœlo descendere in terram in conspectu hominum, et seducet inhabitantes super terram.” Hæc ne quis eum divina virtute putet signa facere, sed magica operatione. Et non est mirandum, si dæmoniis et apostaticis spiritibus ministrantibus ei, per eos faciat signa, in quibus seducat habitantes super terram. “Et imaginem,” ait, “jubebit fieri bestiæ, et spiritum dabit imagini, uti et loquatur imago, et eos qui non adoraverint eam, faciet occidi. Et characterem autem,” ait, “in fronte, et in manu dextra faciet dari, ut non possit aliquis emere vel vendere, nisi qui habet characterem nominis bestiæ, vel numerum nominis ejus; et esse numerum sexcentos sexaginta sex, quod est, sexies centeni, et deni sexies, et singulares sex;” in recapitulationem universæ apostasiæ ejus, quæ facta est in sex millibus annorum.]

Respecting this number he enters into a special discussion, in which he first reproves those who hastily endeavoured to interpret it[^515], and then endeavours to lay down correct principles of interpretation for it. He suggests that we must wait till the other signs of Antichrist begin to be fulfilled, such as the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts, and the sudden coming of another power to their discomfiture. We must also remark, he tells us, that Jeremiah (viii. 16) has foretold that he will be of the tribe of Dan[^516]. We must not be rash in applying the number to any particular individual or power, for many names will correspond with it, such as Εὐάνθας, Λατεῖνος, (which he thinks very probable, as being the name of the last of the four empires,) and Τειτὰν, for which he suggests many, to his apprehension, plausible recommendations[^517].

[^515: V. xxx. 1. Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ζημία ἐν τῷ ἀποτυχεῖν τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὡς ὂν ὑπολαβεῖν· ἔπειτα δὲ τοῦ προσθέντος ἢ ἀφελόντος τι τῆς γραφῆς, ἐπιτιμίαν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἔχοντος, εἰς αὐτὴν ἐμπεσεῖν ἀνάγκη τὸν τοιοῦτον. ἐπακολουθήσει δὲ καὶ ἕτερος οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν κίνδυνος τοῖς ψευδῶς προειληφόσιν εἰδέναι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ὄνομα· εἰ γὰρ ἄλλο μὲν οὗτοι δοκοῦσιν, ἄλλο δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔχων ἐλεύσεται, ῥᾳδίως ἐξαπατηθήσονται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ· ὡς μηδέπου παρόντος ἐκείνου, ὃν φυλάσσεσθαι προσήκει.]

[^516: V. xxx. 2. Oportet itaque tales discere, et ad verum recurrere nominis numerum; ut non in pseudoprophetarum loco deputentur. Sed scientes firmum numerum qui a Scriptura annuntiatus est, id est, sexcentorum sexaginta sex, sustineant primum quidem divisionem Regni in decem: post deinde, illis regnantibus, et incipientibus corrigere sua negotia et augere suum regnum; qui de improviso advenerit regnum sibi vindicans, et terrebit prædictos, habens nomen continens prædictum numerum, hunc vere cognoscere esse abominationem desolationis. Hoc et Apostolus ait: “Cum dixerint, Pax et munitio, tunc subitaneus illis superveniet interitus.” Hieremias autem non solum subitaneum ejus adventum, sed et tribum, ex qua veniet, manifestavit dicens: “Ex Dan audiemus vocem velocitatis equorum ejus: a voce hinnitus decursionis equorum ejus commovebitur tota terra: et veniet, et manducabit terram, et plenitudinem ejus, et civitatem, et qui habitant in ea.” Et propter hoc non annumeratur tribus hæc in Apocalypsi cum his quæ salvantur.]

[^517: V. xxx. 3. Ἀσφαλέστερον οὖν καὶ ἀκινδυνέτερον, τὸ περιμένειν τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς προφητείας, ἢ τὸ καταστοχάζεσθαι, καὶ καταμαντεύεσθαι ὀνόματος· τυχὸν δὲ ἐπὶ πολλῶν ὀνομάτων εὑρεθῆναι δυναμένου τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, et nihilominus quidem erit hæc eadem quæstio. Εἰ γὰρ πολλά ἐστι τὰ εὑρισκόμενα ὀνόματα, ἔχοντα τὸν αὐτὸν ἀριθμὸν, ποῖον ἐξ αὐτῶν φορέσει ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ζητηθήσεται. Quoniam autem non propter inopiam nominum habentium numerum nominis ejus dicimus hæc, sed propter timorem erga Deum et zelum veritatis: ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ enim nomen habet numerum de quo quæritur: sed nihil de eo affirmamus. Sed et ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ nomen habet sexcentorum sexaginta sex numerum: et valde verisimile est, quoniam novissimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum. Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant: sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur. Sed et ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, prima syllaba per duas Græcas vocales ε et ι scripta, omnium nominum quæ apud nos inveniuntur, magis fide dignum est. Etenim prædictum numerum habet in se, et literarum est sex, singulis syllabis ex ternis literis constantibus, et vetus, et semotum; neque enim eorum Regum, qui secundum nos sunt, aliquis vocatus est Titan; neque eorum, quæ publice adorantur, idolorum apud Græcos et barbaros habet vocabulum hoc: et divinum putatur apud multos esse hoc nomen, ut etiam sol Titan vocetur ab his qui nunc tenent: et ostentationem quandam continet ultionis, et vindictam inferentis, quod ille simulat se male tractatos vindicare. Et alias autem et antiquum, et fide dignum et regale, magis autem et tyrannicum nomen. Cum igitur tantum suasionum habeat hoc nomen Titan, tamen habet verisimilitudinem, ut ex multis colligamus ne forte Titan vocetur, qui veniet. Nos tamen non periclitabimur in eo, nec asseverantes pronuntiabimus, hoc eum nomen habiturum: scientes, quoniam si oporteret manifeste præsenti tempore præconari nomen ejus, per ipsum utique editum fuisset, qui et Apocalypsim viderat.]

This is the sum of what he tells us on the subject of Antichrist; and he declares that when he has reigned, sitting in the temple of Jerusalem, for three years and a half, then the Lord will come to judgment, and to introduce the times of the kingdom of heaven, and the true Sabbath, in which many shall come from the east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob[^518].

[^518: V. xxx. 4. Cum autem vastaverit Antichristus hic omnia in hoc mundo, regnans annis tribus et mensibus sex, et sederit in templo Hierosolymis; tunc veniet Dominus de cœlis in nubibus in gloria Patris, illum quidem et obedientes ei in stagnum ignis mittens; adducens autem justis Regni tempora, hoc est, requietionem, septimam diem sanctificatam; et restituens Abrahæ promissionem hæreditatis: in quo Regno ait Dominus, multos ab Oriente et Occidente venientes, recumbere cum Abraham, Isaac, et Jacob.——Ibid. xxxiii. 2. See p. 215, note 2.]

It is foreign to my purpose to enter into the probability or improbability of these interpretations: but two things strike me as remarkable: first, the decided identification of the ten horns of the beast with the Roman Empire in a state of division; and secondly, the admission of the mystical meaning of days in the prophecy of Daniel (viii. 27) as signifying years, coupled with the literal interpretation of time in other passages; as, for instance, Dan. vii. 25, and Rev. xiii. 5.

When the short reign of Antichrist ceases, the undisputed reign of Christ (according to Irenæus) will begin, and will continue a thousand years. For as the days of creation were six, and the day of rest one; as moreover one day is with the Lord a thousand years; this world is destined to endure six thousand years in this state of turmoil and perplexity[^519], and then will succeed a thousand of rest and enjoyment[^520]. When that time arrives, the world will be restored to its pristine state; the very animals will all associate together in peace; the just will rise with their bodies, and upon this very earth, upon which they suffered, will receive the reward of their endurance[^521]. Then shall Abraham receive, fully and literally, the promise made to him and to his seed, i. e. the Church, and shall really enjoy his inheritance from the river of Egypt to the great Euphrates[^522]. Then shall Jesus drink the fruit of the vine new with his disciples[^523]; for there shall be no more labour, but there shall be a continual table prepared by a creative hand, by the incredible productiveness of the fruits of the earth[^524]. Then shall the righteous hold intercourse and communion with Angels[^525] in Jerusalem, which shall be then rebuilt[^526].

[^519: V. xxviii. 3. See p. 215, note 1.

The very ancient writer under the name of Barnabas, contemporary at least with Justin Martyr, says, (Epist. § 11.) Προσέχετε, τέκνα, τί λέγει τό· Συνετέλεσεν ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις. Τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι συντελεῖ Κύριος ἐν ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσι τὰ πάντα.]

[^520: V. xxx. 4. xxxiii. 2.]

[^521: V. xxxii. 1. Quoniam igitur transferuntur quorundam sententiæ ab hæreticis sermonibus, et sunt ignorantes dispositiones Dei et mysterium justorum resurrectionis et Regni quod est principium incorruptelæ, per quod regnum qui digni fuerint paulatim assuescunt capere Deum; necessarium est autem dicere de illis quoniam oportet justos primos in conditione hac quæ renovatur, ad apparitionem Dei resurgentes, recipere promissionem hæreditatis quam Deus promisit patribus, et regnare in ea; post deinde fieri judicium. In qua enim conditione laboraverunt sive afflicti sunt, omnibus modis probati per sufferentiam, justum est in ipsa recipere eos fructus sufferentiæ.... Oportet ergo et ipsam conditionem, reintegratam ad pristinum, sine prohibitione servire justis.——xxxiii. 4. Hæc ergo tempora prophetans Esaias ait: “Et compascetur lupus cum agno, et pardus conquiescet cum hædo, et vitulus et taurus et leo simul pascentur, et puer pusillus ducet eos. Et bos et ursus simul pascentur, et simul infantes eorum erunt: et leo et bos manducabunt paleas. Et puer infans in cavernam aspidum, et in cubile filiorum aspidum manum mittet; et non male facient, nec poterunt perdere aliquem in monte sancto meo.” Et iterum recapitulans ait: “Tunc lupi et agni pascentur simul, et leo quasi bos vescetur paleis, serpens autem terram quasi panem: et non nocebunt neque vexabunt in monte sancto meo, dicit Dominus.” Non ignoro autem, quoniam quidam hæc in feros, et ex diversis gentibus et variis operibus credentes, et cum crediderint consentientes justis, tentent transferre. Sed etsi nunc hoc sit in quibusdam hominibus, ex variis gentibus in unam sententiam fidei venientibus, nihilominus in resurrectione justorum super iis animalibus, quemadmodum dictum est: dives enim in omnibus Deus. Et oportet conditione revocata, obedire et subjecta esse omnia animalia homini, et ad primam a Deo datam reverti escam, (quemadmodum autem in obedientia subjecta erant Adæ,) fructum terræ. Alias autem et non est nunc ostendere leonem paleis vesci. Hoc autem significabat magnitudinem et pinguedinem fructuum. Si enim leo animal paleis vescitur; quale ipsum triticum erit, cujus palea ad escam congrua erit leonum?

Theophilus ad Autolycum, II. 25. Ὁπόταν οὖν πάλιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀναδράμῃ εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν, μηκέτι κακοποιῶν; κακεῖνα (i. e. τὰ θηρία) ἀποκατασταθήσεται εἰς τὴν ἀρχῆθεν ἡμερέτητα.]

[^522: V. xxxii. 2. “Semini tuo dabo terram hanc, a flumine Ægypti usque ad flumen magnum Euphratem.” Si ergo huic [Abraham] promisit Deus hæreditatem terræ non accepit autem in omni suo incolatu; oportet eum accipere cum semine suo, hoc est, qui timent Deum et credunt in eum, in resurrectione justorum. Semen autem ejus Ecclesia, per Dominum adoptionem quæ est ad Deum accipiens.... Neque Abraham neque semen ejus, hoc est, qui ex fide justificantur, nunc sumunt in ea hæreditatem; accipient autem eam in resurrectione justorum.]

[^523: V. xxxiii. 1. Promisit bibere de generatione vitis cum suis discipulis; utrumque ostendens, et hæreditatem terræ in qua bibitur nova generatio vitis, et carnalem resurrectionem discipulorum ejus: quæ enim nova resurgit caro, ipsa est quæ et novum percipit poculum. Neque autem sursum in supercœlesti loco constitutus cum suis potest intelligi bibens vitis generationem; neque rursus sine carne sunt, qui bibant illud: carnis enim proprium est, et non spiritus, qui ex vite accipitur potus.——2. See p. 215, note 2.]

[^524: V. xxxiii. 2. supra.—3. Prædicta itaque benedictio ad tempora Regni sine contradictione pertinet, quando regnabunt justi surgentes a mortuis: quando et creatura renovata, et liberata, multitudinem fructificabit universæ escæ, ex rore cœli, et ex fertilitate terræ.—See p. 131, note 5.]

[^525: V. xxxv. 1. Regnabunt justi in terra, crescentes ex visione Domini, et per ipsum assuescent capere gloriam Dei Patris, et cum sanctis Angelis conversationem et communionem, et unitatem spiritalium in Regno capient: et illos quos Dominus in carne inveniet, exspectantes eum de cœlis, et perpessos tribulationem, qui et effugerint iniqui manus.]

[^526: V. xxxv. 2. In Regni temporibus, revocata terra a Christo, et reædificata Hierusalem, secundum characterem quæ sursum est Hierusalem.]

This state of things he believed, as I have said, would last a thousand years; and he adopted this view, not for want of knowing that there was an allegorical interpretation, but because he thought it forced and unnatural, and labouring under irremediable difficulties[^527].

[^527: V. xxxiii. 4. supra.—xxxv. 1. Si autem quidam tentaverint allegorizare hæc, quæ ejusmodi sunt; neque de omnibus poterunt consonantes sibimetipsis inveniri, et convincentur ab ipsis dictionibus.—2. Et nihil allegorizari potest, sed omnia firma, et vera, et substantiam habentia, ad fruitionem hominum justorum a Deo facta. Quomodo enim vere Deus est, qui resuscitat hominem; sic et vere resurgit homo a mortuis, et non allegorice, quemadmodum per tanta ostendimus. Et sicut vere resurgit, sic et vere præmeditabitur [μελετήσεται—sese exercebit in] incorruptelam, et augebitur, et vigebit in Regni temporibus, ut fiat capax gloriæ Patris. Deinde omnibus renovatis, vere in civitate habitabit Dei.]

And when the thousand years were ended, he believed that the great day of judgment would come, and the general resurrection, when the New Jerusalem would descend from heaven, of which the former Jerusalem, in which the just were prepared for immortality, would have been but an image[^528]. Then will there be new heavens and a new earth, in which man will for ever converse with God. But there will not be only one abode of the righteous: some will ascend into heaven above the angels; others will enjoy the delights of a paradise[^529]; but all will have the continual manifestation of the presence of God, and be changed into his likeness[^530].

[^528: V. xxxv. 2. His itaque prætereuntibus super terram, novam superiorem Hierusalem ait Domini discipulus Joannes descendere, quemadmodum sponsam ornatam viro suo; et hoc esse tabernaculum Dei, in quo inhabitabit Deus cum hominibus. Hujus Hierusalem imago illa, quæ in priori terra, Hierusalem, in qua justi præmeditantur incorruptelam, et parantur in salutem. Et hujus tabernaculi typum accepit Moyses in monte.]

[^529: V. xxxvi 1. Παρελθόντος δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τούτου, καὶ ἀνανεωθέντος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἀκμάσαντος πρὸς τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν, ὥστε μηκέτι δύνασθαι πέρα παλαιωθῆναι, ἔσται ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς, καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή· ἐν τοῖς καινοῖς ἀναμενεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀεὶ καινὸς, καὶ προσομιλῶν τῷ Θεῷ· ... φησὶν γὰρ Ησαΐας· Ὅν τρόπον γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινῆ, ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μένει ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, λέγει Κύριος, οὔτω στήσεται τὸ σπέρμα ὑμῶν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ... ὡς οἱ πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε καὶ οἱ μὲν καταξιωθέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς, ἐκεῖσε χωρήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ τῆς τοῦ παραδείσου τρυφῆς ἀπολαύσουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς πόλεως καθέξουσιν· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁραθήσεται, καθὼς ἄξιοι ἔσονται οἱ ὁρῶντες αὐτόν.]

[^530: V. xxxvi. 3. Ut progenies ejus, primogenitus Verbum, descendat in facturam, hoc est, in plasma, et capiatur ab eo; et factura iterum capiat Verbum, et ascendat ad eum, supergrediens Angelos, et fiet secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei.]

This, I believe, is a correct view of the opinions of Irenæus as to certain departments of unfulfilled prophecy. I offer upon them no opinion of my own; but it is right to say that he was by no means singular in his own age[^531], and that there is no writer of any importance, down to the time of Origen, who impugned the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth. After that time, that doctrine became more and more unpopular in the Church at large; although many, from time to time, have advocated views more or less in accordance with those of the primitive millenarians.

[^531: Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. 80, makes Tryphon ask the question: Εἰπὲ δὲ μοι ἀληθῶς, ὑμεῖς ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι τὸν τόπον Ἰερουσαλὴμ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖτε, καὶ συναχθήσεσθαι τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐφρανθῆναι σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἅμα τοῖς πατριάρχαις καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους ἢ καὶ τῶν προσηλύτων, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ὑμῶν τὸν Χριστὸν, προσδοκᾶτε; And to this Justin replies, Ὡμολόγησα οὖν σοι καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ταῦτα φρονοῦμεν, ὡς καὶ πάντως ἐπίστασθε, τοῦτο γενησόμενον· πολλοὺς δ᾽ αὖ καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης τοῦτο μὴ γνωρίζειν ἐσήμανά σοι. And further on: Ἐγὼ δὲ, καὶ εἰ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοὶ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι ἐπιστάμεθα· καὶ χίλια ἔτη ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἰκοδομηθείσῃ καὶ κοσμηθείσῃ καὶ πλατυνθείσῃ οἱ προφῆται Ἰεζεκιὴλ καὶ Ησαΐας καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ὁμολογοῦσιν.—Perhaps I ought to notice, that some persons have supposed Justin in this last passage to assert, that orthodox Christians in general taught the doctrine of the personal reign, and thence have imagined a discrepancy between the latter statement and that immediately preceding: but a little attention will show, that all he asserts concerning orthodox Christians in general is, that they believe the resurrection of the flesh; and he further adds, that the prophets taught that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, and to remain a thousand years inhabited by the just.

Tertullian. advers. Marcion. III. 24. Nam et confitemur in terra nobis regnum repromissum; sed ante cœlum, sed alio statu; utpote post resurrectionem in mille annos, in civitate divini operis Hierusalem cœlo delata.—See also Barnabas and Theophilus, quoted pp. 250 & 252.]

Chapter XX. The Virgin Mary.

There are two passages of Irenæus, in which the name of the Blessed Virgin is introduced, which would not have called for any particular remark, were it not for the manner in which they are perverted by Romanist writers, and especially by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in support of the blasphemous honour they bestow on her. When, however, we have examined them, we shall perceive that, although they may, no doubt, to those whose minds are imbued with superstitious prejudice, at first sight appear to countenance that prejudice, they do not really favour it.

The first of these passages affirms that “as Eve, having Adam for her husband, but being still a virgin ... being disobedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of death; so also Mary, having her destined husband and yet a virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation[^532].” There seems no difficulty in granting all this, and yet the conclusion by no means follows that the Blessed Virgin is to be regarded as a mediatrix and intercessor with God, next after her Son[^533]. Eve was certainly the cause of death to the whole human race, because through her transgression Adam was made to transgress; and in him all mankind are made sinners. But it does not appear that original sin came to all mankind directly from Eve, or that she was any otherwise the cause of death to our race, except by bringing Adam into the transgression: otherwise we must suppose that our Lord, being born of a woman, must have inherited a sinful nature; for even Massuet does not make the Virgin sinless. As the transgression of Eve therefore, although no doubt her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our condemnation, so the obedience of the Virgin Mary, although her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our salvation, that is, by leading to the incarnation and birth of our Lord[^534]. And if so, there is no foundation whatever for making her a mediatrix and intercessor with God.

[^532: III. xxii. 4. Maria virgo obediens invenitur, dicens: ‘Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum:’ Eva vero inobediens; non obedivit enim, adhuc cum esset virgo. Quemadmodum illa, virum quidem habens Adam, virgo tamen adhuc existens ... inobediens facta, et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est mortis; sic et Maria habens prædestinatum virum, et tamen virgo, obediens, et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis.... Sic autem et Evæ inobedientiæ nodus solutionem accepit per obedientiam Mariæ: quod enim alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem.]

[^533: Massuet, Diss. Præv. III. § 65. Nostræ salutis prima post Filium mediatrix ... mediatricis conciliatricisque cum Deo.]

[^534: And so Justin Martyr puts it in a parallel passage to this of Irenæus: Tryph. 100. Παρθένος οὖσα Εὔα, τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε· πίστιν δὲ καὶ χαρὰν λαβοῦσα Μαρία ἡ παρθένος, εὐαγγελιζομένου αὐτῇ Γαβριὴλ ἀγγέλου, ... ἀπεκρίνατο· Γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. Καὶ διὰ ταύτης γεγένηται οὗτος ... δι᾽ οὗ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ὄφιν ... καταλύει, ἀπαλλαγὴν δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ... ἐργάζεται.]

But still stronger reliance appears to be placed upon the next passage, in which the Virgin Mary is called “the advocate of the Virgin Eve[^535].” And yet that very passage supplies a proof that this term cannot be taken otherwise than in a figurative and improper sense: for Irenæus therein asserts that “as the human race was condemned to death through a virgin, so it is saved through a virgin;” i. e. as he himself explains it, through her submission to the angelic announcement of the will of God, that his Son should be born of her. Now it would be clear blasphemy to ascribe our salvation to the Virgin otherwise than in a figurative sense, as being an instrument in the divine hand for its accomplishment by becoming the mother of the real Saviour; and so, in the same figurative sense she was the advocate of Eve, by becoming the mother of him who was really her advocate. The figure is, no doubt, rather bold, but still it is evidently but a figure.

[^535: V. xix. 1. Quemadmodum enim illa per angeli sermonem seducta est, ut effugeret Deum, prævaricata verbum ejus; ita et hæc per angelicum sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum, obediens ejus verbo. Et si ea inobedierat Deo, sed hæc suasa est obedire Deo, uti virginis Evæ virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem; æqua lance disposita, virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam.]

This interpretation indeed is so obvious, that to us, who have no such prejudices as the members of the Roman Church, it would have been unnecessary to insist upon it, were it not for the violent perversion of the passage by their writers. It is, perhaps, worthy of more distinct indication, that Irenæus, by declaring that the Blessed Virgin was the cause of salvation to herself, as well as to others[^536], directly contradicts the idea held by some in the Roman Church, (and I believe in the Greek likewise,) that she was entirely sinless. On the other hand, he undoubtedly countenances (although he does not use) the appellation given to her by many, of the mother of God[^537].

[^536: III. xxii. 4.]

[^537: V. xix. 1. ... ut portaret Deum.]

Chapter XXI. Account of the Gnostic Teachers and Their Tenets.

Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.

Several writers have speculated upon the sources of the Gnostic errors; but, I believe that the assertion of Irenæus remains uncontradicted, that Simon Magus was the first to give them a definite form[^538]. We learn from Theodoret[^539], Elias Cretensis[^540], and Nicetas[^541], that he imagined an ogdoad of superior beings, all the rest of whom emanated from the first. He imagined one First Cause, the source of all existence, with whom he joined his Thought (Ἔννοια). Irenæus mentions no more than these[^542]. Simon taught that this Thought, issuing forth from the Supreme Father, and knowing his intentions, descended from above, and produced the Angels and Powers by whom the world was made, and who were ignorant of the Father: that they, not wishing to acknowledge any author of their existence, detained her, and subjected her to every kind of contumely, to prevent her return to the Father, and caused her to exist in this world in perpetual transmigration from one female form to another.

[^538: I. xxiii. 2. xxvii. 4. II. Præf. 1. III. Præf.]

[^539: Hær. I. 1. He calls the Great Original a twofold Fire, hidden and apparent, and he gives the names of the Pairs who proceeded from this Fire, as Νοῦς καὶ Ἐπίνοια, Φωνὴ καὶ Ἔννοια, Λογισμὸς καὶ Ἐνθύμησις.]

[^540: Ad Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxiii. The names he gives are Βυθὸς καὶ Σιγὴ, Νοῦς καὶ Ἀλήθεια, Λόγος καὶ Ζωὴ, Ἄνθρωπος καὶ Ἐκκλησία.]

[^541: Ad ejusdem Orat. xliv.]

[^542: I. xxiii. 2.]

He taught that he himself was this Supreme Father[^543], and a prostitute, named Helena, whom he had purchased at Tyre, and with whom he cohabited, was his Thought, who had been formerly the Trojan Helen: that she was the lost sheep[^544], and that he was come down upon earth to rescue her from the bondage in which she was held; and to rescue man by the knowledge of himself from the tyranny they were under to the angels who created the world. This tyranny was obedience to the moral law, which was imposed upon man by the agency of the inspired persons of the old dispensation solely to keep him in subjection: and the deliverance he accomplished for his followers was to bring them to believe that all actions were indifferent in their own nature, and that the will of the Creative Powers was the only thing which made one action more just than another. To do away with this tyranny, he declared that he had transformed himself first into a resemblance to the angels, then into that of man; in which latter form he had appeared in Judæa as the Son, and there apparently suffered; but only apparently[^545]; that he had afterwards manifested himself to the Samaritans as the Father, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost[^546].

[^543: I. xxiii. 1. II. ix. 2.]

[^544: I. xxiii. 2.]

[^545: I. xxiii. 1. 3.]

[^546: I. xxiii. 1.]

Irenæus gives it as his own opinion that the conversion of Simon was only pretended; that he regarded the Apostles as nothing more than impostors or sorcerers of a somewhat deeper skill and subtler knowledge than himself, which he hoped to be initiated into: and that his mortification at the rebuff he met with caused him to set himself in opposition to them, and to dive deeper into magic arts for that purpose; on account of his proficiency in which he was honoured by Claudius Cæsar with a statue[^547].

[^547: I. xxiii. 1.]

The natural fruits followed from such doctrines and such an example. The priests of his heresy were sorcerers of various degrees of ability, and their lives were very impure. They taught their followers to worship Simon under the form of Jupiter, and Helena under that of Minerva[^548].

[^548: 1. xxiii. 4.]

It is obvious that such a scheme was adapted only to the gross and ignorant, with just enough of mysticism about it to enable its founder to keep up the character of a philosopher with the more refined, and enable him to pass off his lewdness as the result of a philosophical system, rather than the dominion of low propensities. The Emperor Claudius, notorious as a man of weak intellect, was an extremely likely person to be both amused and duped by his magical performances.

We have here the germ of all the Antinomian heresies from that time to the present. However they may have been espoused by refined and virtuous minds, they all originate with persons of impure and unbridled propensities, who are unwilling to avow the real grossness of their characters, and therefore set up for some deeper knowledge or more subtle system than ordinary men.

It will be observed, too, that Irenæus confirms the statement of Justin Martyr respecting the statue erected in honour of Simon[^549]. The subject is so well taken up by the late Dr. E. Burton, in the 42nd note to his Bampton Lectures, that I do not purpose to enter into it here, further than to remark that Irenæus ought not to be regarded as merely following Justin: for he himself had visited Rome, and was therefore likely to have informed himself personally upon a subject which he thought sufficiently important to bring forward in controversy.

[^549: I. xxiii. 1.]

It is likewise a fact deserving notice, that the first instance we have of the worship of images amongst persons recognizing in any degree the gospel, is to be found amongst the followers of Simon Magus. Something of this kind probably suggested St. John's caution: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

Concerning Nicolas, the author, whether intentionally or not, of the sect which bears his name[^550], he informs us that he was one of the seven deacons, which some have doubted. He gives us no additional information concerning the sect, beyond that furnished by St. John[^551]. This, however, connects them with the Gnostics in their licentious doctrines, and no further.

[^550: Clem. Alex. Strom. II. 20. § 118. III. 4. § 25.]

[^551: I. xxvi. 3.]

The Ebionites are mentioned by Irenæus, as though he meant to class them with the Gnostics: but all the information he gives respecting them leads to the conclusion that they had nothing in common with them, except their schism. He expressly states that they believed differently from the Gnostics, and agreed with Christians as to the creation of the world; and that they differed from Cerinthus and Carpocrates on the subject of the miraculous conception[^552]. Tertullian[^553] indeed implies that Ebion denied this latter fact; and Eusebius distinctly asserts of the great body of his followers, that they thought, as Carpocrates and Cerinthus did, that Jesus was a mere man, and exalted for his excellence like other men[^554]: but he states, and Theodoret[^555] confirms his statement, that there were Ebionites who believed the miraculous conception.

[^552: I. xxvi. 2.]

[^553: De Virg. Vel. 6. De Carne Christi, 13.]

[^554: Hist. Eccl. III. 27.]

[^555: Hær. II. 1. Τὸν δὲ Σωτῆρα καὶ Κύριον ἐκ παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι φησίν.]

Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.

The succession of heresy, unlike that of the Church, had not for its object the keeping up of one uniform system of doctrine, but the exhibition of something sufficiently attractive or striking to prevent the minds of men from dwelling upon the truth. It required leaders, and therefore persons remarkable for ability of some kind or another. A successor was therefore provided to Simon in the person of Menander, a Samaritan like himself[^556], and, as Justin informs us, his pupil[^557]; but whose great qualification was, that he equalled or excelled his master in the knowledge of magic[^558]. Heresy, likewise, not requiring to be uniform, permitted its successive teachers to improve upon the system of their predecessors; and by this means both satisfied the natural love of mankind for novelty, and kept up the appetite. So Menander differed a little from Simon, at least in expression, in saying that the Supreme Essence was unknown to all men. He likewise introduced another name from the Gospel, representing himself, not as the Supreme Being, either personally or by direct emanation and operation, (as Simon did,) but as the Saviour, sent by the unseen Powers for the salvation of man. He likewise taught his followers, that by the magical practices in which he instructed them, they might even vanquish the Angelic Creators of this lower world, which was somewhat more than Simon promised.

[^556: I. xxiii. 5.]

[^557: Apol. I. 26.]

[^558: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. III. xxvi. 1.]

It appears likewise that he initiated his followers by baptism, which he represented as the true and only resurrection, and taught them to believe that after receiving it they could neither grow old nor die[^559]. How he got over the fact that they did both, we are not informed: but this making baptism the same thing as the resurrection, explains St. Paul's words[^560], where he represents some as teaching that “the resurrection is already past.” Hymenæus and Philetus, who spread this error in all probability in Asia Minor, might easily have been disciples of Menander, who made Antioch his head quarters[^561].

[^559: I. xxiii. 5.]

[^560: 1 Tim. ii, 17, 18.]

[^561: Justin. Apol. I. 26.]

Menander was succeeded by two of his pupils[^562], Saturninus and Basilides, who, though taking up the same general system, were very different men, and therefore modified it in different ways, and were employed by their invisible master in different parts of his vineyard.

[^562: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. vii. 2. Tertullian, de Anima, 23, mentions Saturninus as the pupil of Menander.]

Saturninus remained at Antioch, teaching the same general doctrine as his preceptor Menander. He defined the number of the angels by whom the world was made to be seven[^563], one of whom was the God of the Jews; and he introduced one of the remaining angels, who had not been concerned in the creation, under the name of Satan, as the opponent of the Creators, and more especially of the God of the Jews[^564]. He represented the creation of man as having taken place at the suggestion of the Supreme Power, who exhibited to the angels a bright image of himself; which, as he immediately drew it up again to himself, they endeavoured to copy, and thus made man after its image and likeness: but not having the power to make him erect, he would have grovelled on the earth like a worm, had not the Supreme Power, taking compassion on this poor copy of himself, sent forth into it a spark of life, which gave it limbs and an erect posture[^565]. By an unaccountable inconsistency, however, (for having a system to make or improve at pleasure, he might as well have made its parts consistent with each other,) he likewise taught that there were at first created two sorts of men, one of which was not enkindled with the celestial spark: that those alone would be saved who possessed it[^566]; and that when they died, this heavenly portion of them would ascend to the Powers above, and the other portions of their nature would be dissolved[^567].

[^563: I. xxiv. 1.]

[^564: Ibid. 2.]

[^565: Ibid. 1.]

[^566: I. xxiv. 2.]

[^567: Ibid. 1.]

The cause of the coming of the Saviour, or Christ, as they also called him, (who was unborn, incorporeal, and man only in appearance,) he declared to be the conspiracy of all the Angelic Princes, headed by the Jewish God, against the Supreme Father; which obliged him to come down to destroy the God of the Jews, together with demons and wicked men, and to save those who believed in him, that is, those who had received the spark of life. Who these demons were, or whether the whole of the angels were to be destroyed, we are not told[^568].

[^568: Ibid. 2.]

The prophecies of the Old Testament he attributed partly to the Creators and partly to Satan[^569].

[^569: Ibid.]

It is evident that this is merely a modification of the scheme of Simon Magus, with the addition of Satan, and the Jewish God, and the spark of life: but there is another feature of his system which is remarkable, as differing widely from that of his predecessors. Instead of opening the door to unbridled lust, he affected an extraordinary repugnance to every thing carnal, declaring marriage and its natural consequences to be works of Satan; and some of his followers entirely abstain from animal food[^570].

[^570: I. xxiv. 2.]

Basilides[^571], the other successor of Menander, settled at Alexandria in Egypt. He was, as I have said, a man of very different character from Saturninus, and followed his master in his addiction to magical practices, and in his licentious doctrines; teaching likewise that meats offered to idols were to be eaten indifferently with others[^572].

[^571: Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII. 17. § 106, 107.) speaks of Basilides as being a good deal younger than Marcion, and about the same age as Valentinus.]

[^572: I. xxiv. 5.]

But that he might have something of his own, he greatly modified and added to the speculative system of his predecessors. He taught that from the Unborn Father was born his Mind, and from him the Word, from him Understanding (Φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power, and from them Excellences, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven. He then introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set derived from the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the author of their own peculiar heaven[^573]. To all these angels and heavens he gave names[^574], and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first of them is called Abraxas, a mystical name containing in it the number 365[^575]; the last and lowest is the one which we see; the Creators of which made this world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this division the Jewish nation came to the share of the Prince of the Angels; and as he wished to bring all other nations into subjection to his favourite nation, the other angelic Princes and their nations resisted him and his nation[^576]. The Supreme Father, seeing this state of things, sent his first-begotten Mind, who is also called Christ, to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the Creators. He accordingly appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds. He did not, however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of Cyrene, and stood by laughing whilst Simon suffered; and afterwards, being himself incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this transformation, Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all times deny him that was crucified, and that they alone who did so understood the providential dealings of the Most High, and by that knowledge were freed from the power of the angels, whilst those who confessed him remained under their power[^577]. Like Saturninus, however, but in other words, he asserted that the soul alone was capable of salvation, but the body necessarily perishable[^578].

[^573: I. xxiv. 3.]

[^574: Ibid. 5.]

[^575: Ibid. 7.]

[^576: The Prophecies, like Simon, he attributed to the Angels in general, but the Law to their Chief. § 5.]

[^577: I. xxiv. 4.]

[^578: Ibid. 5.]

He taught, moreover, that they who knew his whole system, and could recount the names of the angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and could pass through and see them, without being seen in return: that they ought likewise to keep themselves individually and personally unknown to common men, and even to deny that they are what they are; that they should assert themselves to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means reveal their mysteries[^579]. This, of course, and their unscrupulousness as to actions of any kind whatever, would entirely exempt them from persecution.

[^579: Ibid. 6.]

It appears likewise, from a fragment preserved in Origen's Commentary on the Romans[^580], that he taught the transmigration of souls. He affirmed that the martyrs suffered for offences committed at some other time: for he thought it contrary to the divine justice that any innocent person should suffer[^581].

[^580: Lib. V. cap. 5. See the Appendix to the Benedictine edition of Irenæus.]

[^581: Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 12. § 83.]

In this scheme we find a feature, which was afterwards taken up and amplified, viz., the connection of mystical numbers with Gnosticism.

It is likewise curious to observe how much of the Gospel history and phraseology was interwoven with it, without one single atom of its purity and regenerating influence.

Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.

Carpocrates is placed by Irenæus next to Basilides[^582]: but as there is a general agreement amongst the early writers that Carpocrates was prior to Cerinthus[^583], and that the latter flourished in the last years of St. John, it appears most probable that Carpocrates was, if any thing, earlier than Basilides, and more properly coeval with Menander. In favour of this idea there is this internal argument, that his system does not appear to be in any degree an amplification or alteration of that of Basilides, but rather to have been an independent modification of the original scheme of Simon.

[^582: I. xxv. 1.]

[^583: The writer of the Appendix to Tertull. de Præscrip. Hær. 48. Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 2. See also Lampe, Proleg. in Joan. II. 3. 2. p. 184, quoted in Burton's Bampton Lectures, note 75.]

He agreed with him, and Menander, and Basilides, in professing magic[^584], and in preaching licentious doctrines. He agreed with Simon likewise in teaching the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and adapted it to the support of profligacy, by asserting that every soul is destined to become acquainted with every kind of action, and that it passes from body to body until it has accomplished every thing to which it is predestined[^585].

[^584: I. xxv. 3.]

[^585: Ibid. 4.]

Like all other Gnostics, he asserted that the world and human bodies were made by Angels[^586]; he agreed with some in teaching that all souls were originally in the same sphere (περιφορὰ) as the Supreme Being[^587], but that when once placed in bodies, they continued under the power of the Angels, until they had fulfilled their destined task; that when a person died, his soul was brought before the Prince of the Angels, by the Devil, and if it had not accomplished every thing, was handed over to another Angel, to be inclosed again in a body; but that when it has fulfilled its destiny they have no longer any power over it, but it returns to the Father, from whom it originally came[^588].

[^586: At least this is implied in § 4.]

[^587: He said (§ 2) that they were in the same sphere as Jesus, who (§ 1) was from the same as the Father.]

[^588: I. xxv. 4.]

Unlike Simon, however, or any whom I have yet mentioned, (except, perhaps, Ebion) he taught that Jesus was a mere man, the son of Joseph; that being brought up in the Jews' religion, remembering what he had been when in the same sphere with the Father, and being of an unusually firm and resolute mind, he looked down upon the Angels, and set at nought bodily suffering[^589]. But his followers thought that there was no reason why any individual man might not surpass Jesus, and that, in point of fact, many of their sect were superior to the Apostles. Others went so far as to affirm, that the Apostles were not at all inferior to Jesus, and that if any man whatever could attain to a greater degree of contempt for the Creators than Jesus arrived at, he would become superior to him[^590].

[^589: Ibid. 1.]

[^590: Ibid. 2.]

They affirmed that we are to be saved by faith and love; all actions being good or bad only according to human opinion; and that Jesus taught their system as an esoteric doctrine to the Apostles, who delivered it to those who were worthy[^591].

[^591: Ibid. 5.]

Some branded their followers upon the right ear[^592].

[^592: I. xxv. 6.]

I mentioned before that the first worship of images arose amongst heretics: and it is remarkable that heretics again, viz. the Carpocratians, were the first to pay honour to the image of Christ, whom they worshipped equally with Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, with the same kind of honour as that which was customary amongst the heathen[^593].

[^593: Ibid.]

One of the female followers of Carpocrates, by name Marcellina, is said to have visited Rome in the time of Anicetus, and to have seduced many[^594].

[^594: Ibid.]

Respecting Cerinthus, whom we know from Irenæus to have been a contemporary of St. John[^595], the information he furnishes is very slight. He did not attribute the Creation to the Angels in a body, but to some one Power far removed from the Supreme Power. He made Jesus a mere man, but more excellent than other men: he affirmed that the Christ had descended upon him at baptism, and made known to him the unknown Father, and empowered him to work miracles, but that he departed from him before the crucifixion, and left him to suffer alone[^596].

[^595: III. iii. 4. See p. 60.]

[^596: I. xxvi. 1.]

Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.

Cerdon would seem to be another independent offset from the stock of Simon. He likewise taught a Supreme God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and another inferior deity, who inspired the prophets[^597]. He joined the church at Rome under Hyginus, its bishop, i. e. about a.d. 141, and appears to have wished by all means to remain in its communion; and accordingly he recanted his error. He could not, however, refrain from spreading it covertly, and being detected, he again recanted; still he kept his heresy, and being at length judged incorrigible, he was withheld from the communion of the Church[^598].

[^597: I. xxvii. 1. The Author of the Appendix to Tertullian's Treatise de Præs. (§ 51.) makes these two Primary Beings; but Irenæus declares that the former was unknown, the latter known; the former good, the latter merely just.]

[^598: III. iv. 3.]

Marcion succeeded Cerdon[^599], and took up and amplified his doctrine. He likewise made the Creator inferior to the Supreme God, and the author of evil, fond of war, inconsistent, and self-contradictory; and taught that Jesus was sent by the Supreme God to do away all the operations of the Creator, and especially the Law and the Prophets[^600]. He agreed with other Gnostics in declaring that the soul alone was capable of salvation, and of souls only those which received his doctrine; but the peculiarity of his system was, that Cain, and the Sodomites, and Egyptians, &c. were saved by believing in Jesus, when he descended into hell; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the good men and prophets of the Old Covenant, having often been deceived by their God, were afraid to trust in Jesus, and consequently remain still in the state of death[^601].

[^599: Clement of Alexandria mentions Marcion as being in time the successor of Simon Magus, (Strom. VII. 17. § 107,) and predecessor of Basilides and Valentinus; contemporary, but older.]

[^600: I. xxvii. 2.]

[^601: Ibid. 3. His opinions concerning Cain became the nucleus of another sect, the Cainites.]

Another peculiarity was that, whilst professing to receive portions of the New Testament, such as the Gospel of St. Luke and the Epistles of St. Paul, he rejected every portion of them which he imagined to militate against his hypothesis[^602].

[^602: Ibid. 2. The writer in the name of Tertullian, as quoted above, note 5, asserts that he received only some of St. Paul's Epistles.]

Marcion, who, having been originally a Christian, and the son of a Bishop, had been excommunicated for seduction[^603], appears to have harmonized with Saturninus in professing extraordinary strictness of habits[^604]. Hence some of the followers of both formed themselves into a separate sect, called by a name (Ἐγκρατεῖς) of which perhaps Puritans is the best English Translation. Tatian, who had been a sincere Christian, was formerly a disciple of Justin, and had written a treatise to set forth the folly of the heathen religion[^605], became a leading man amongst them: for they adopted an opinion of his that Adam was not saved. Their most distinguishing characteristics however were, their abstinence from marriage, and from animal food[^606].

[^603: Tertull. l. c.]

[^604: I. xxviii. 1.]

[^605: From this treatise, which is still extant, we learn that he was an Assyrian by birth, had been a heathen, and had been initiated into most of the heathen mysteries, but had been converted (a rare instance) by the reading of the Scriptures (§§ 64 & 46). In this treatise he opposes the idea that matter had no beginning, and declares that it was created by the (personal) Word of God (§ 8). Perhaps he may be thought to lean to Gnosticism where he says that the soul is naturally mortal, and that the unenlightened soul perishes with the body. § 21, 22.]

[^606: I. xxviii. 1.]

Marcion taught that Cain and the Sodomites, &c. were saved by believing in Jesus[^607]. Others went further, and declared that they were agents of the Supreme Power, to oppose the God of this world. They likewise took Judas under their patronage, and declare that he betrayed Jesus, not from treachery or a love of gain, but because, being better instructed than the rest, he was aware that the death of Jesus would be the means of dissolving and breaking up the whole work of the Creator, whom they regarded as in rebellion against the Great Original[^608].

[^607: See above, note 9.]

[^608: I. xxxi. 1.]

Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.

Those of whom I have hitherto spoken have been acknowledged disciples, more or less directly, of Simon Magus. But there were others, who owned no connexion with him, and yet taught a system more or less like his. The Barbeliots, for instance, imagined one Supreme Being, and with him another Being of the female sex, but remaining always a virgin, and never growing old, whom they call Barbelo, Ennœa (Thought), &c.

They say that he willed to manifest himself to her, and that she, coming into his presence, called for Foreknowledge, and she came forth. At their request again Incorruption was produced, and then Life Eternal. After this Barbelo herself produced a light like to herself, which the Father saw and anointed with his goodness, and thus made it the Christ. At his request Understanding was sent him as a helpmate, and afterwards the Father added the Word: upon which there were made Pairs, by the union of Thought and the Word, Incorruption and the Christ, Life Eternal and the Will of the Father, Understanding and Foreknowledge; all of whom magnified the Great Light and Barbelo[^609].

[^609: I. xxix. 1.]

From Thought and the Word was then sent forth the Self-existent and the Truth; from the Christ and Incorruption, four Lights to attend upon the Self-existent; and from Will and Life Eternal, four Beings to wait upon these Lights, namely, Grace, Will, Comprehension (Σύνεσις), and Prudence. These were joined respectively to the four Lights, and made other four Pairs[^610].

[^610: Ibid. 2.]

These two quaternions being settled, the Self-existent creates a man, in a state of perfection, named the Unconquered, and in union with him Knowledge, likewise perfect. From these were manifested the Mother, the Father, and the Son, and they jointly produced the tree of knowledge, and their enjoyment consists in celebrating the praises of the Great Being[^611].

[^611: I. xxix. 3.]

Lastly, Charis, the attendant upon Harmogenes[^612], produces the Holy Spirit, called likewise Wisdom and Prunicus. She, seeing herself unmated, stretched herself forth in every direction, and even towards the nether parts, seeking her mate; and in the effort brought forth a production in which appeared presumption and ignorance; which production became the Prime Governor, and Maker of this world, and Creator of Powers and Angels, and being paired with Presumption, he begot malice, and emulation, and jealousy, and fury, and desire: upon which his mother, being grieved, departed and left him alone; whence he imagines that there is none but he, and utters that sentiment by the mouths of the prophets[^613].

[^612: I read Harmogenes for Monogenes, because the latter name has not occurred as the name of any of these supposed Beings, and because Harmogenes is the first of them who is said to have an attendant, which is the idea implied in Angelos, the word used by Irenæus. Massuet suggests Autogenes, but gives no reason.]

[^613: I. xxix. 4.]

There was another more intricate and complete hypothesis, which owned no master, but took its denomination variously from two different marked portions of it, which will be noticed in their place[^614].

[^614: See pp. 286, 288.]

It supposed, like most of its predecessors, an Original, called the First Light, the Father of all, and the First Man; and his Thought, issuing from him, and thence called the Son of Man. Next to them came the Holy Spirit, the first woman, which hovered over the elements, water, darkness, the abyss and chaos. From the Father and Son, impregnating the Spirit, came the Christ, the third man[^615]. By this impregnation, however, she was filled so superabundantly, that she produced not only the Christ on the right hand, but also another Being, imbued likewise with light, called Wisdom and Prunicus, a hermaphrodite. Upon this the Christ was united with the first Three, and with them formed the true holy Church[^616]; whilst Wisdom descended upon the waters, and moved them to their lowest depths, and took from them a material body, which had nearly overpowered her; but making a great effort, by the aid of the supernal light within her, she rose aloft, and from her body, by a voluntary expansion, created the heavens[^617].

[^615: I. xxx. 1.]

[^616: Ibid. 2.]

[^617: Ibid. 3.]

She, moreover, had a son, who knew not his mother, but sent forth from the waters a son of his own, and he another, and so on to the seventh, who, with their mother formed an ogdoad[^618]; the first of whom was named Jaldabaoth, the second Jao, the third Great Sabaoth, the fourth Adonai, the fifth Eloeus (or Elohei), the sixth Horeus, the seventh Astaphæus. All these for some space of time sat harmoniously in heaven, in due subordination one to the other: but Jaldabaoth, confident in having been the author of the others, took upon him to create angels and archangels, and excellencies, and powers and dominions; envious at which, his posterity rebelled against him: upon which he fixed his desires upon the unformed matter, and from it produced a son in the form of a serpent, called Understanding, (from whom these people derived their name of Ophites[^619],) and subsequently Spirit, Soul, and all earthly things, from which sprang forgetfulness, malice, emulation, jealousy, and death[^620].

[^618: I. xxx. 4.]

[^619: Some of them said that Wisdom herself took the form of a serpent. § 15.]

[^620: I. xxx. 5.]

Jaldabaoth, blindly exulting in his success, exclaimed, I am Father and God, and besides me there is no other; but his mother astonished him and his posterity, by exclaiming, Lie not, Jaldabaoth, for there is above thee the First Man, the Father of all, and Man the Son of Man. To call off their attention from this intelligence, he invited them to make man in their own image. This idea their mother secretly encouraged, that they might empty themselves of their celestial virtue. Their production, however, although immense in size and length, lay sprawling on the ground, until they brought it to their father, who, to the great satisfaction of Wisdom, breathed into it the breath of life, and thereby emptied himself of his virtue[^621]. This newly-created being, therefore, was possessed of understanding and desire, and deserting his Creators, gave thanks to the First Man[^622].

[^621: In some degree; for he was totally emptied of it by a different process. See below, p. 291.]

[^622: I. xxx. 6.]

Jaldabaoth upon this being jealous of him, endeavoured to re-extract the celestial virtue from him, by creating woman from his desire; but Prunicus, having invisibly taken charge of her, extracted the virtue from her, and the posterity of Jaldabaoth, admiring her beauty, called her Eve, and begot from her angels. The machinations of Prunicus did not end here, for she employed Understanding, the son of Jaldabaoth, who was in the form of a serpent, to seduce the man and woman into disobedience to the commands of Jaldabaoth, by eating the forbidden fruit[^623], by which means they became acquainted with the Supreme Virtue, and forsook their Creators[^624]. Upon this they were ejected from paradise, and being deprived by Prunicus of the divine light they had, that nothing divine might be subjected to curse, they were cast out into this world, together with the serpent, who from the earthly angels begat seven sons, in imitation of Jaldabaoth and his six descendants. These with their parent are always opposing the welfare of the human race[^625].

[^623: Those who called Wisdom the serpent, say that she inspired them with knowledge.]

[^624: I. xxx. 7.]

[^625: Ibid. 8.]

Before Adam and Eve fell they had bright and spiritual bodies; but afterwards their bodies became opaque and heavy, and their souls relaxed and weak; until Prunicus having pity on them, restored to them the savour of the heavenly light, by which means they became aware of their degraded condition. Knowing, however, that the debasement was only temporary, they complied with their condition, ate and drank, and begat Cain and Abel, of whom Cain, being seized on by the serpent, fell into folly and presumption, envy and murder. After this, by the interposition of Prunicus, they begat Seth and Norea, from whom mankind sprung[^626], and were seduced by the serpent and his children into every evil; although Prunicus constantly opposed them, and saved the celestial light[^627]. So likewise when Jaldabaoth, enraged at not being worshipped by mankind, sent the flood upon them, Wisdom saved Noah and his family, for the sake of the tincture of light which was in them. Abraham, however, and the Jews were the chosen people of Jaldabaoth, who with his six descendants chose agents from among them, each for himself, to glorify him as God[^628]. Moses, therefore, Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk, were the prophets of Jaldabaoth; Samuel, Nathan, Jonah, and Micah of Jao; Elijah, Joel, and Zachariah of Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel of Adonai; Tobias and Haggai of Elohei; Micah and Nahum of Horeus; Ezra and Zephaniah of Astaphæus[^629].

[^626: From leaving out Cain as joint progenitor of mankind, and deriving all the human race from Seth, they seem to have been called Sethites.]

[^627: I. xxx. 9.]

[^628: Ibid. 10.]

[^629: Ibid. 11.]

But here again Wisdom, or Prunicus, interfered, and turned these prophets into her own instruments, causing them to speak of the Supreme Being, and of the Christ above, who was to descend upon earth. These announcements from the mouth of their own prophets so alarmed the Princes, the posterity of Jaldabaoth, that they left her at liberty to cause him, not knowing what he did, to send forth two men, one, John the Baptist, the other, Jesus[^630]. For having found no rest below, she had returned in penitence to her mother, the Holy Spirit, the first woman, and called upon her for help. Whereupon the Holy Spirit petitioned the Supreme Father that the Christ might descend to her aid: of which, when she was aware, she inspired the prophets to speak; and likewise prepared John to announce his coming, and Jesus by means of her son Jaldabaoth, the God of this world, to be his receptacle upon earth[^631].

[^630: Ibid.]

[^631: These were, no doubt, Jaldabaoth and his six descendants, who (§ 5) are called heavens, and are likewise spoken of as per ordinem sedentes in cœlo, secundum generationem ipsorum.]

The Christ therefore descended through the seven heavens[^632], taking upon him the likeness of their children, and drew out from them their virtue, so that all the supernal light with which they were imbued returned to him; and having arrived in this world united himself to Wisdom, his sister, and in union with her descended upon Jesus, who thenceforward begun to work miracles. Upon this Jaldabaoth and his posterity united to kill him; whereupon the Christ and Wisdom left him, and returned to the upper sphere; not however deserting him altogether; for the Christ sent down upon him a power by which he rose again, clothed with a spiritual body[^633]. But after this, although he remained on earth eighteen months, he wrought no miracle, (as neither did he before his baptism,) being forsaken by the Christ and Wisdom. Yet he was in a certain degree inspired, and taught these things to a few of his disciples[^634].

[^632: I. xxx. 12.]

[^633: Ibid. 12, 13.]

[^634: I. xxx. 14.]

At the end of eighteen months he was taken up into heaven, where the Christ placed him[^635] on the right hand of his father Jaldabaoth, though without his knowledge, where his business is to receive the souls of those who know these doctrines, viz. those who are imbued with the heavenly light. By this means Jaldabaoth will by degrees lose the whole of that which he originally possessed, and be left entirely earthly and material; whilst the whole of the light will be withdrawn from the world and its creators; and then will be the consummation of all things[^636].

[^635: I imagine this to be the meaning of Christo sedente; sedeo being taken in a transitive sense. Ἰδρύομαι was probably the original word.]

[^636: I. xxx. 14.]

Section VI. Valentinus.

But none of the Gnostic leaders, excepting perhaps Marcion, obtained so high a pre-eminence as Valentinus, who drew out a kind of eclectic system, and thus became the founder of a new school: at least Irenæus represents the matter so completely in this light, that he classes all the others together by the general name of Gnostics[^637], in contradistinction to Valentinus and his school.

[^637: I. xi. 1. bis.]

Report[^638] makes him an Ægyptian by birth, and Tertullian expressly informs us[^639] that he was originally a Christian; and indeed a person of such eminence in the Church that he aspired to the office of Bishop. But his mind was tinged with the Platonism[^640] which was so prevalent in Alexandria, the place of his education: and it did not happen to him as to Justin and Clement, in whom the truth moulded their philosophical notions, and clad them in a Christian garb; for being disappointed in the object of his ambition, he showed how wisely the Church had acted in rejecting him, by giving himself thenceforth, like Arius, to the propagation of error. As he could not be a bishop, he would be a father of heresy.

[^638: Epiphan. Hær. xxxi. 2.]

[^639: Adv. Valent. 4.]

[^640: Tertull. de Præscr. 7. 30. Epiphan. Πεπαιδεῦσθαι τὴν τῶν Ἐλλήνων παιδείαν.]

He took for his foundation, as it would seem[^641], the difficulty of explaining the origin of evil consistently with holding the perfection of God. He was thence led to make matter co-eval with the Creator, and to declare that all the defects of created things arise from that portion of matter which he left untouched in the work of creation, as unfit for his use. This idea he doubtless borrowed from the Platonic philosophy: but how from this he passed into the absurdities of Gnosticism we are not informed. We only learn from Irenæus that he fashioned them into a new system. It is curious, however, that he is said by his followers to have derived his notions from a disciple of St. Paul[^642], and that he endeavoured to represent them as perfectly consistent with the Scriptures[^643]. He had attained such a degree of notoriety before the year 142, in which Justin Martyr offered his First Apology to Antoninus Pius, that Justin therein speaks of having written that book against all the heresies[^644], to which Tertullian is believed to refer when he mentions Justin amongst those who had written against Valentinus[^645]. And this agrees with what Irenæus says[^646], that he came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and continued to the time of Anicetus. For whether we take the Chronology of Eusebius[^647], who places his coming to Rome in the year 141, or third of Antoninus, or that of Eutychius, favoured by Bishop Pearson[^648] who makes Hyginus contemporary with Adrian, this would equally agree with Justin having already written against him in 142: for he made himself known in his own country as an opposer of the truth before he came to Rome[^649]. Whatever may be thought of the precise year at which he came to that city, he remained there fifteen or twenty years, for he continued to the episcopate of Anicetus, and retained some character for piety and correctness of faith up to that period[^650]. Thenceforward, however, he cast off all such pretensions, and retiring to Cyprus, taught without disguise all the impieties his system naturally led to[^651].

[^641: This appears from a fragment of his, preserved in a Dialogue against the Marcionites, erroneously ascribed to Origen, (see Dupin upon Origen,) in which it is quoted at length by one of the speakers. See the fragment, in the Appendix to the Benedictine edition of Irenæus, or in Grabe's Spicilegium, II. p. 55.]

[^642: Called Theodas, by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 17. § 106.]

[^643: Tertull. de Præscr. 38.]

[^644: Apol. I. 26. See Grabe's Spicilegium, II. 44, 45.]

[^645: Adv. Valent. 5.]

[^646: III. iv. 3.]

[^647: In his Canon Chronicus.]

[^648: Dissert. 2. de annis primorum Romæ Episcoporum, cap. 12.]

[^649: Tertull. adv. Valent. 4.]

[^650: Epiphan. Hær. xxxi. 7.]

[^651: Ibid.]

It has so happened that Irenæus did not write directly against him, but against his followers: and as every disciple held himself capable of improving upon the system of his instructor, that which the Bishop of Lyons gives in full detail differs in some particulars from that taught by Valentinus himself. It was in fact more nearly that of Ptolemy, his most noted follower[^652]: but still Ptolemy had some peculiarities of his own[^653]. Yet Irenæus has preserved to us the leading features of the scheme as taught by Valentinus, and by their help, and that of a fragment preserved by Epiphanius[^654], which corresponds with what Irenæus has told us, (although Bishop Pearson rightly contends that it is not the work of the heretical leader himself). I will endeavour to place it before my readers.

[^652: I. Præf. 2.]

[^653: I. xii. 1.]

[^654: Hær. xxxi. 5. It is printed in the Appendix to the best editions of Irenæus.]

Valentinus then taught, according to Irenæus, that all things sprung from one primeval pair, the Ineffable and Silence[^655]: the latter being according to the fragment the Thought of the former or his Grace, but called Silence more correctly, because she accomplished every thing by simple desire without utterance. From these, according to Valentinus, sprung another pair, the Father[^656] and the Truth: the former of whom the fragment makes to emanate from the Unbegotten Original and Silence, by her desire; the latter from herself and the Father, by some mysterious union of the lights from each; so that their offspring was a true image of herself and thence derived her name. Truth, therefore, by a like mysterious union with her Father, produces a tetrad of two pairs, the Word and the Life, Man and the Church. Subsequently the Holy Spirit was sent forth either by the Truth or by the Church, (for upon that point the Old Translator of Irenæus and Epiphanius differ,) to examine the Æons, and to make them fruitful in the produce of truth[^657].

[^655: I. xi. 1. The Valentinians against whom Irenæus wrote made the first pair the First Cause, First Father, or Depth, and Thought, Grace or Silence. See I. i. 1.—Ptolemy placed the Depth first, but gave him two consorts, Thought and Will. See I. xii. 1.]

[^656: Called by his followers Mind, Only-begotten, Father or Beginning of all things.]

[^657: I. xi. 1.]

So far Irenæus and the fragment correspond, excepting that the latter places Man and the Church first[^658]: but from this point there appears nothing more in common, and as henceforth there is a general coincidence between Valentinus and his followers, I shall give the scheme as it appears in the first book of Irenæus, mentioning the variations where they occur.

[^658: As Irenæus tells us some of the Valentinians did.]

It may be however proper to notice this radical difference between the heresiarch and his disciples, that he considered all these Æons, as they were called, or Eternal Essences, as merely feelings, affections, and motions of the one unseen, infinite First Cause, whereas they regarded them as so many personal beings[^659].

[^659: At least this is the account of Tertullian, adv. Valent. 4.]

The last mentioned tetrad then, knowing themselves to have been sent forth to the glory of the unbegotten Father, desired to glorify him by their own act. Wherefore the Word and the Truth sent forth ten Æons, called the Profound and Mixture, the Ever-youthful and Union, the Self-existent and Pleasure, the Immoveable and Commixture, the Only-begotten and the Blessed: whilst Man and the Church sent forth twelve, called the Paraclete and Faith, the Paternal and Hope, the Maternal and Charity, Aïnus (the Eternal Mind, or as it is in the Latin Æons, or Praise) and Comprehension, the Ecclesiastical and Blessedness, the Desired and Wisdom[^660].

[^660: I. i. 2. The names are Βύθιος, Μίξις, Ἀγήρατος, Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφυὴς, Ἡδονὴ, Ἀκίνητος, Σύνκρασις, Μονογενὴς, Μακαρία· Παράκλητος, Πίστις, Πατρικὸς, Ἐλπὶς, Μητρικὸς, Ἀγάπη, Ἀείνους, Σύνεσις, Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς, Μακαριότης, Θελητὸς, Σοφία.]

These thirty Æons, consisting of twelve, and ten, and eight, composed what they called the Fulness[^661]: and Valentinus differed from his followers in placing a barrier between the First Cause and the others[^662]; which probably is to be explained by his saying that they were not, like him, real beings, but merely qualities or emanations. Irenæus was probably the first person who published their names: for the Valentinians prided themselves on their being a secret, hidden from all but the initiated. The names, however, were differently stated by later Valentinians[^663], and were in all probability altered on set purpose whenever they became known.

[^661: Πλήρωμα, I. i. 3.]

[^662: I. xi. 1.]

[^663: See the fragment above quoted.]

Of these thirty, the Only-begotten or Father alone knew the nature of the Great Father of all: the rest desired to know their origin, but knew him not: and although the Only-begotten was desirous of revealing him to them, Silence restrained him[^664]. A new state of things, however, arose from the restlessness of the last of the Æons, namely Wisdom; who, under the pretext of affection for the unknown First Parent, but in reality through venturesome curiosity, reached forth into the fathomless height and depth, in a state of extreme excitement and anxiety, and would have been reabsorbed into the original substance, but for the interposition of a power called the Barrier, which prevented her farther progress, and brought her back to herself; but at the same time kept up a perpetual separation between her and the Father, to which she originally belonged[^665].

[^664: I. ii. 1.]

[^665: I. ii. 2.]

Valentinus then taught that Wisdom, being thus separated from Theletos, became the mother of the Christ, producing him from the remembrance of the better things or superior beings she had left, but with a kind of shadow attached to him, derived from her fallen condition; and by that means emptied herself of her spiritual substance. Whereupon he, having become possessed of it, cut off from him the shadow, and returned aloft into the Fulness, leaving his mother under the shadow he rejected. In this still more degraded condition, Valentinus makes her to have produced a son, who became the Creator, and whom he regards as complete ruler of all things subordinate to him[^666].

[^666: I. xi. 1.]

His followers, however, improved, as they thought, upon this part of his scheme. They personified the longing of Wisdom, making it her offspring, comprising in it all the feelings of admiration and wonder, of sorrow, and fear, and perplexity, under which she had laboured[^667]. They represent the Barrier personally, as sent down at the intercession of the Word or Only-begotten, and give him the appellations of the Stake or Cross, the Redeemer, the Limiter, the Reconciler[^668]. They affirm that by his agency Wisdom was freed from the consequences of her vain search after her original, and restored to her spouse and to the Fulness, whilst her longing was separated from the Fulness[^669].

[^667: I. ii. 3.]

[^668: I. ii. 4. Σταυρὸς, Λυτρωτὴς, Καρπιστὴς, Ὁροθέτης, Μεταγωγεύς.]

[^669: I. ii. 4.]

At this crisis, to prevent another commotion amongst the Æons, by the will of the Supreme Father, the Mind or Only-begotten produced another pair, the Christ and the Holy Spirit; the former of whom gave them fully to understand that it was impossible to comprehend the First Cause, but that what could be comprehended of him was revealed in the Only-begotten, whom he taught them to contemplate[^670]; whilst the latter put them all upon an equality with each other, and made them all, according to their sex, Minds, Words, Men, and Christs, or Truths, Lives, Churches, and Spirits. By this means they were reduced to a state of repose, and betook themselves to magnify the Great First Father. In token whereof they all united to produce one perfect being, Jesus, called also the Saviour, the Christ, the Word, and the All, together with angels his attendants[^671].

[^670: Ibid. 5.]

[^671: Ibid. 6. It appears that he was likewise called the Paraclete or Comforter (I. iv. 5), and Christ (I. iii. 1).]

But we must return to the personified Longing of Wisdom, whom we shall have to know henceforth under the name of Achamoth[^672], which is merely a corruption of the Hebrew word for wisdom, חכמות, Chokmoth, or the same word in some kindred dialect, omitting the aspirate ח. She, it must be remembered, was separated from the Celestial Fulness by Ὅρος, the personal Barrier, the Σταυρὸς or Stake. But the Christ took pity on her, and reaching forth over the Barrier, (διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ ἐπεκταθεὶς, a strange perversion and accommodation of evangelical expressions to their system,) gave her a natural life, and left with her a savour of immortality, but did not communicate to her that knowledge, which in their system is the principle of spiritual life. What he did leave, however, worked its effect. It led her to seek after him who had deposited it in her, and being restrained by the Barrier, she sustained various feelings, sorrow, and fear, and consternation, all accompanied by ignorance of all above her, and a perpetual turning towards him who had given her life, and pleasure in thinking of the glimpse of light which had been permitted to her[^673]. From the tumult within her sprung various productions; being however in the whole, the Creator of the world and all created things, of which we shall see more hereafter[^674].

[^672: I. iv. 1.]

[^673: I. iv. 1.]

[^674: Ibid. 2.]

She had scarcely recovered from this state of perturbation, when the Christ sent down to her the Paraclete; not the offspring of Man and the Church, but that perfect being produced by the Æons conjointly, called likewise the Saviour[^675], having power given him over all things below, and accompanied by his angels. He separated her from all the products of her perturbation, and endued her with that knowledge which before she possessed not. He likewise separated her productions definitely into two species of substance, one radically bad, the other capable of being either good or evil; the one material, the other animate; to which she speedily added another, spiritual in its nature, conceived from joyful contemplation of the angel-attendants of the Saviour[^676].

[^675: See p. 300, note 5.]

[^676: I. iv. 5. v. 1.]

From this period she begins to be herself an active fashioner of her productions. With the spiritual seed she could not meddle, because it was equal to herself: but from the animate[^677] substance she first formed the actual Creator of all earthly things, called likewise God the Father, the Saviour, the King of all, the Mother's Father, the Fatherless[^678]. By him she, or rather the Saviour through her, fashioned all things here below, from the two substances, animate and material: first the seven heavens, who are also seven angels[^679], then the earth and man[^680], and all the elements and creatures, and lastly the spirits of wickedness, of whom the prince of this world was the chief[^681]. Of these man was a compound of the animate and the material[^682]. All these the Creator made, not knowing what he did; and so his mother Achamoth, without his knowledge, infused into the man which he had made, that spiritual seed of which I have before spoken[^683], which is the Church, (or rather the Calling, ἐκκλησία,) an image of the Ecclesia above[^684].

[^677: The term Irenæus uses (I. v. 1.) is ψυχικός. Its meaning is not easy to express by another word. Valentinus, like the Platonists and several of the early Christian writers, believed in three kinds of substance, πνευματικὴ, ψυχικὴ, σωματικὴ, analogous to the three parts of man, spirit, soul, and body; the first of which he conceived to be naturally and necessarily immortal, the third necessarily perishable, the second capable of either immortality or destruction, but having a kind of life, as long as it existed, which the third had not.]

[^678: I. v. 1.]

[^679: Ibid. 2.]

[^680: Valentinus himself appears to have made man the joint work of the Creator and the other Angels. See a fragment of one of his letters, preserved by Clem. Alex. Strom. II. 8. § 36.]

[^681: I. v. 3, 4.]

[^682: Ibid. 5.]

[^683: This was recognised by Valentinus in the fragment above cited.]

[^684: I. v. 6.]

It is not however to be supposed that all men have a share of this seed of election. It is only partially possessed. Those who have it not may be saved by faith and good works, those who have it are necessarily saved, and are incapable of being corrupted by any action or course of life. To the former class belong Churchmen, (Christians) to the latter Gnostics[^685]. The natural consequences followed, such as I have detailed before, with more or less of disguise, according to the character or circumstances of the professors of such doctrines. Some did openly whatever they felt inclined to, others went more warily to work: but the result every where was the same, the free indulgence of the sensual passions, with all their lamentable consequences; and those so much the more fatal, as they were accompanied by a profession of superior knowledge and purity[^686].

[^685: I. vi. 1, 2.]

[^686: Ibid. 3.]

We have mentioned one Jesus already: but they likewise professed to believe in the Jesus of the Gospel. They taught that the Creator produced a son, unspiritual like himself, and that he was sent into the world by the Virgin Mary, as a mere vehicle, such as a water-pipe is to water; that he was[^687] clad in a body different from that of others; that when he was baptized, the Jesus before mentioned descended upon him in the form of a dove; and that he was likewise impregnated by Achamoth with the spiritual seed. Of these four portions of his nature only the two former suffered; the Saviour having quitted him when he was delivered up to Pilate[^688].

[^687: Tertull. de Resur. Carnis, 2, states this as the opinion of Valentinus, and de Carne Christi, 15. In the fragment, (Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 7. § 59,) Valentinus says that Jesus attained to divinity by his purity; which was such that his food did not corrupt within him.]

[^688: I. vii. 2.]

The winding up of this state of things is to take place when all the spiritual seed has become perfect in knowledge. Then Achamoth and the spiritual portion of every Gnostic will be elevated into the Fulness: the Creator, the animal souls of the Gnostics, with the souls of those who have been saved by faith and good works, will be raised to the intermediate heaven; and then the hidden fire will burst forth from this lower world and consume those souls which have not attained to salvation together with all material things, and with them will be reduced to nothing[^689].

[^689: Ibid. 1.]

The most remarkable feature in the scheme of Valentinus was his treatment of the Scriptures. He did not, like some of his predecessors, speak with contempt of them, as having proceeded from an imperfect Being. He did not like others reject the whole New Testament, as a figment of the “natural men,” as they called the orthodox, and substitute apocryphal writings in their place: nor did he again, like others, reject such portions of the Scriptures as militated strongly against their views. He professed to receive the whole of the Gospels and Apostolical writings, but he accommodated the Scripture to his views. Tertullian indeed[^690] uses very different terms; viz. that he did not accommodate the Scripture to his views, but his views to the Scripture. It was certainly his endeavour to appear so to do; and accordingly he adopted Scripture language to a very great extent, and no doubt professed, like all modern teachers of false doctrine, to find all his doctrine in the Scripture: so that I believe we have only one instance of his reading a passage differently from the Church[^691]. Indeed he reproached the orthodox for not having preserved the true meaning: or rather looked down upon them as being naturally incapable of receiving it; being not spiritual, but natural and carnal.

[^690: De Præscr. 38.]

[^691: Matt. xi. 27. See IV. vi. 1. But his followers preferred the Gospel of St. John (III. xi. 7), and some of them forged what they called the Gospel of the Truth. Ibid. 9.]

It was, no doubt, in this way that he kept up that character for faith and piety, of which Epiphanius speaks, and to which Tertullian alludes[^692]. Irenæus has given us numerous instances in which he and his followers quoted the Scriptures as supporting their own doctrine[^693]: but they will be found to be either forced accommodations of numbers and names, or violent perversions of the letter of Scripture, or mystical interpretations put upon it in such a way as that it may almost be made to mean anything. The success of such interpretations was of course aided by the equally unnatural accommodations of Scripture customary with the orthodox, at least those of the Alexandrian school. There are, likewise, some fragments of his preserved by Clement of Alexandria[^694], which have the same tone as the system generally; but one of these[^695], in which he compares the heart occupied by divers evil passions to an inn or caravanserai defiled by travellers, appears at first sight so unobjectionable, that, out of the connection in which it stands, one should hardly suspect any evil meaning. It is however intended to teach the Gnostic tenet, that the heart of the spiritual man is no more a partaker of the evil wrought in it by evil spirits, than a caravanserai in the nuisances committed by every wanton traveller. This is evidently another, and a less offensive way of stating that to the spiritual mind no passion can communicate any permanent pollution, and that the elect are not to be called to account for what they fall into in this world: and its inoffensiveness at first sight is no bad illustration of the habit Irenæus charges them with of teaching their heresies by stealth[^696].

[^692: De Præscr. 30.]

[^693: I. i. 3. iii. viii.]

[^694: Strom. II. 8. § 36. 20. § 114. III. 7. § 59. IV. 13. § 91. VI. 6. § 52.]

[^695: Ibid. II. 20. § 114.]

[^696: I. Præf. 2.]

Section VII. Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, And Marcus.

Irenæus mentions several successors of Valentinus, some more at length than others.

Respecting Secundus, who was the contemporary and disciple of Valentinus[^697], he is very brief, merely informing us that he divided the first ogdoad into two tetrads, the right and the left, which he denominated light and darkness: and that he asserted that the Being which erred and was forsaken by the upper powers was not one of the thirty, but one of their productions[^698]. The latter idea would appear to have for its object to remove the origin of evil further from the First Cause: but the former seems to be a contradiction to it, as it brings darkness into the Pleroma.

[^697: Epiphan. Hær. xxxi. 1.]

[^698: I. xi. 2.]

Epiphanes, whose name the old translator has chosen to render by Clarus, (probably not understanding it to be a proper name,) was the son of Carpocrates[^699], but attached himself to the followers of Secundus[^700]. He died very young, being according to Clem. Alex. only seventeen at the time of his death, and was honoured as a god by the people of Cephalonia, the birth-place of his mother and his own place of residence. He is identified with the Clarus of the old translator of Irenæus; 1. because he is commonly reckoned next to Secundus[^701]; 2. because Clarus is a literal rendering of Ἐπιφανής; 3. because the doctrines ascribed to Epiphanes are the same as those which are attributed in Irenæus to Clarus[^702]. He differed from his predecessors in not giving any name (properly speaking) to the First Cause, but in calling him Μονότης, and his companion Ἐνότης, which may perhaps be rendered Soleness and Unity. These, he said, constituted only one being. This duopersonal Being produced, without separation from himself, a beginning of all things, comprehensible, but unbegotten and invisible, called the Monad, and with him another power denominated the One. This was his first tetrad; but in the rest he does not appear to have differed from the other Valentinians[^703].

[^699: Clem. Alex. Strom. III. ii. § 5.]

[^700: See Massuet, Diss. Præv. I. § 80.]

[^701: Epiphan. xxxi. 1. xxxii. 3. Theodoret. Hær. Fab. I. 5.]

[^702: Ibid.]

[^703: I. xi. 3.]

Ptolemy was a Valentinian, and is said to have been a disciple of Secundus and Epiphanes. It would appear from Irenæus that the system which he states at length, and which I have detailed above, was his actual system[^704]. Epiphanius indeed, quoting Irenæus[^705], makes him say that this heretic and his disciples ascribed two wives to Bythus, Thought and Will, from whom he made the rest of the Æons to proceed. But it is evident from the version of the Ancient Interpreter that the actual words of Irenæus were Οἱ περὶ Πτολεμαῦον, which may mean either Ptolemy or his followers, and as Tertullian ascribes this tenet to his disciples, desirous of improving upon their master, we may safely conclude that Epiphanius does not intend to attribute it distinctly to Ptolemy, but either to him or to his followers.

[^704: I. Præf. 2. viii. 5.]

[^705: Hær. xxxiii. 1. Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ. The passage he quotes is I. xii. 1.]

Of the followers of Ptolemy, Irenæus mentions the tenets of Colorbasus particularly. He does not indeed name him, but Epiphanes[^706] and Theodoret[^707] have supplied that defect, nor is there any contradictory statement on the subject. He taught that the first ogdoad of Æons did not spring successively one pair from another, but that the first four after the First Cause and his Thought were created at once when the Forefather determined upon giving forth some being, that became the Father; as what he emitted was true, it was called the Truth: when he wished to manifest himself, then came Man; and those whom he then foresaw were the Church. Then Man spoke the Word, and from Man and the Church came Life[^708].

[^706: Hær. xxxv. 1.]

[^707: Hær. Fab. I. 12.]

[^708: I. xii. 3.]

Marcus is mentioned by Irenæus apparently as a disciple of Ptolemy, or at least as having made his system after him[^709]: and as Tertullian[^710] speaks of him in the same terms, we may safely take that as the sense of Irenæus. We find him first in Asia Minor, recompensing the hospitality of a deacon with whom he lodged by corrupting his wife, who for a good while followed him, but was at length brought back to the Church by the perseverance of the Christians[^711]. Where his subsequent residence was we do not learn. The circumstance which brought him more particularly under the notice of Irenæus was that his opinions and the consequent depravity of morals had spread to the neighbourhood of Lyons[^712]. The practical mischief appears first to have attracted his attention, and he was thence led to inquire into the speculative system which produced such fruits. Both the one and the other shall be noticed in their order.

[^709: I. xiii. 1. Magistri emendatorem se esse glorians.]

[^710: Adv. Valent. 4.]

[^711: I. xiii. 5. See p. 202, note 9.]

[^712: Ibid.]

The scheme differed in reality very little in its frame-work from that of Valentinus, Ptolemy, and Colorbasus; the latter of whom Irenæus represents him as more particularly agreeing with[^713]; but it was differently dressed up. Instead of making the Fulness a system of personal beings or emanations, he made it the name of the Great First Cause, consisting of thirty letters, instead of as many Æons, divided into four syllables, of which the two first consisted of four letters each, the third of ten, and the fourth of twelve. This name originated in the wish of the Great Father to reveal himself. He therefore opened his mouth, and spoke a Word like himself, which was Ἀρχὴ, the Beginning; (this was the first syllable;) then a second, a third, and a fourth. What the three latter are we are not told: but they have continued to sound on from that day to the present, and will continue so to do, until they all unite in sounding forth together the same letter, when the consummation of all things will take place. About this matter, however, there is some obscurity, the passage not being very intelligible[^714].

[^713: I. xiv. 1.]

[^714: Ibid.]

It would be tedious beyond measure to enter into the application of this particular notion to the general Gnostic scheme: but he held a particular doctrine in regard to Jesus, which it will be proper to mention. He thought that he was the joint production of Man and the Church, the Word and Life; but that in producing him the angel Gabriel took the place of the Word, the Holy Spirit of Life, the Power of the Most High of Man, and the Virgin Mary of the Church: that the Supreme Father chose him in the womb to manifest himself in him by means of the Word, who therefore descended upon him at his baptism in the form of a dove[^715].

[^715: I. xv. 3.]

I come now to the practice of Marcus. He openly pretended supernatural powers, communicated to him by a familiar spirit, which he flattered his followers, chiefly women, by professing to communicate to them[^716]. The Eucharist he found especially suited to his purpose, and was the first apparently who taught any thing like transubstantiation. He used, like the Church, wine mingled with water, but pretended to bring down into it by his prayers, the blood of the supernal Grace; and accordingly, lengthening out his devotion, that the chemical agents, which he doubtless employed, might have time to act, he at length produced the liquid, of a much deeper colour than when he began his incantations. In another of his tricks he gave his female friends a part. He requested one of them to take the mingled cup, and to offer the prayer of benediction; whereupon he poured the contents of it into a much larger cup, which he himself held, which, as he pronounced the mystical blessing upon the woman he employed, gradually became full with the contents of the smaller, and at length overflowed[^717]. This again was, in all probability, effected by some chemical agent, deposited in the bottom of the larger cup, and producing a gradual effervescence: but in those days of ignorance it stamped the worker of such wonders as something more than ordinary man.

[^716: I. xiii. 3.]

[^717: I. xiii. 2.]

In communicating, as he pretended, to his devotees a portion of the grace he possessed, he purposely contrived, in the most subtle manner, to inflame their sensual desires, and to direct them towards himself, without using a single word or act to which he could not immediately give a mystical meaning; so that, if his wishes did not succeed, there was nothing with which he could be charged, without subjecting the person who so charged him to the imputation of having put an unholy meaning upon holy things. And if they did succeed, the victim, if not conscience-seared, would feel self-corrupted and self-betrayed. In this way he became master, not only of the persons, but also of the substance of many women of wealth and station[^718]. To make his arts, however, the more successful, he administered to them inflammatory drugs[^719]: and still more to guard himself from their defection, under the terror of conscience, and the dread of future judgment, he taught them a form of words, to be addressed to their mother Achamoth, whom he represents as seated with God on his throne, by means of which they would be rendered invisible to the Judge, and pass unhurt to their heavenly spouses the angels[^720].

[^718: Ibid. 3.]

[^719: I. xiii. 5. See p. 202, note 9.]

[^720: Ibid. 6.]

Such a scheme as this was too palatable to human nature not to have many followers; and accordingly it found its way to Lyons, where Irenæus was bishop. The exact nature of it was first learnt by the confessions of his victims and those of his followers, when, recovering from their delusion, they wished to be readmitted to the Church. One particular instance I have already mentioned, of his having seduced the wife of a deacon in Asia Minor, with whom he had lodged. This person remained with him for a long time; but, being at length restored by the unwearied efforts of the Christians, spent the rest of her life bewailing the pollution she had sustained. This was not the only instance of repentance; but most appear to have dreaded the public acknowledgment which was then required in the case of gross transgression, and thus never to have returned[^721].

[^721: Ibid. 5. 7.]

Section VIII. Gnostic Redemption.

There is one feature of the Gnostic scheme common to almost every variety of the Gnostics, which was reserved for a separate detail; and which Irenæus introduces immediately after the account of the Marcosian heresy, having probably been able to obtain a more perfect account of their views on that subject, than of those of any other sect. That feature is their ordinance of Redemption[^722]; which was in fact the initiating rite of their perfect adepts[^723], and without denying baptism, threw it into the back ground, and thus virtually annulled it[^724]. The professed object of this rite was the regeneration of those who underwent it, preparatory to their entering into the Fulness[^725]. The outward form of it was various, according to the fancy of the mystagogue[^726]. Some celebrated it as a marriage; others made it a baptism in water, with varying forms of words[^727]; others again poured a mixture of oil and water upon the head of the person who received it; whilst some declared, that the blessing being purely spiritual, all outward signs were unavailing and impertinent; that knowledge was in fact redemption, and that those, and those alone, who were perfect in knowledge were partakers of it[^728].

[^722: I. xxi. 1.]

[^723: Ibid. 2.]

[^724: Ibid. 1.]

[^725: Ibid. 2.]

[^726: Ibid. 1.]

[^727: Ibid. 3.]

[^728: I. xxi. 4.]

In most cases the Redemption was effected during the lifetime of those who were made partakers of it; but the dead were not excluded. The rite was administered immediately after death.

In all cases the effect of it was to enable the initiated to escape the power of the Creator and his angels, and, leaving their souls behind them, to enter into the Fulness[^729].

[^729: Ibid. 5.]

Section IX. Reflections Upon Gnosticism.

Gnosticism is now well-nigh forgotten, or noticed only by those who are led to an acquaintance with it either by its connexion with certain passages in the New Testament, or by a systematic study of the early Fathers of the Church. And yet it existed in the world, and spread over the civilized portions of it as a system of philosophy at a time when heathen speculation had attained its highest refinement, and Christianity had introduced certainty to take the place of speculation. But that it should have taken hold on the minds of men to such an extent and at such a time, is surely one of the most unaccountable facts in the history of the human mind. To us, even the Platonic system would appear so much more rational and intelligible, and the Christian doctrine so much more simple and natural, and, if I may so say, manly, that in their presence one wonders what there could have been to recommend Gnosticism. The Grecian schemes were so many efforts of unassisted reason to find out truth by simple speculation. They could therefore never be propounded as certainties, but only as probabilities. They accordingly rested on their probability, and struck out many truths. They bear about them the air of the conclusions of men searching after truth, and having in some degree attained it. Christianity, on the other hand, professed to be a revelation from above. It did not pretend to speculate or to reason; it taught its doctrines as infallible truths, and supported its teaching by miracles, and an appeal to fulfilled prophecy. Gnosticism was like neither. It was in fact gratuitous speculation, founded upon nothing but the fact of a great difficulty, which human reason had never yet solved, the causation of evil; but it claimed no support from reason; it propounded no proofs; but put itself forward as the revealed solution of this difficulty. It wrought miracles, indeed, which might have served where the Christian miracles were unknown, but poor and weak indeed to put in competition with them, for they were mere juggles. They answered no beneficial end; they were over in a few minutes; they submitted themselves to no daily and hourly proof; and although professing to support a higher and purer God than was ever before thought of, they were of the same nature as those practised by heathen sorcerers. But to have solved this great difficulty, the system ought at least to have been uniform, or at most progressive. No teacher should have contradicted another, however much he might improve upon him. And yet this was far from being the case. The various successive teachers not only pulled down what their predecessors had set up, but even contemporary leaders contradicted each other. This would have been perfectly consistent if they had set up as mere speculators; but they claimed a sort of inspiration; nay, whilst setting aside the Gospel, they claimed support from the Gospel; whilst making higher pretensions than they allowed the Apostles, they professed to have a tradition received from the Apostles; whilst utterly overthrowing the religion of Christ, they appealed to his words and teaching as supporting them.

But although borrowing support from Christianity, it was not itself in any sense a religion. It taught no present devotion towards any superior being. It had no offerings, no prayers, still less any expiations. Although some of its teachers practised rites borrowed from the eucharist, they had no religious object. They were mere juggles. Although the idea of glorifying the beings above entered into the system, yet it affected only the beings above man, or man after he quitted this state. It had no place on earth. This was a place of discipline, or training, for a state in which he was to glorify the great First Cause; but he had nothing to do with glorifying him here. The great object of man here was knowledge. In this respect it was analogous to the Grecian philosophies; for they had no connection with religion, but were rather antagonists to it. They tended to overthrow the heathen superstitions, but they furnished nothing to replace them. They taught, it may be, moral duties; but it was not upon any principles of religion, but rather of social benefit. They attained to better notions on the unity and nature of God than were entertained by their compatriots, but they led not to a purer worship of him. At best they refined and mysticized the mythology and religious observances of the old religions. In this respect, then, of being unconnected with religion, it was like the philosophical systems of its own and former times; but it went further than they in being essentially irreligious, by placing the perfection of man in knowledge, and that only. By this means the necessity of religion of any kind was totally done away. Curiosity was substituted for devotion, and unbounded liberty for duty, whether to God or to man.

Curiosity being thus canonized, it is remarkable that the Gnostic system had baits for almost every description of it. It is curiosity, the desire of knowing what others know, fully as much as passion and appetite, which leads men into the various descriptions of vice; and this species of curiosity was not only allowed, but even sanctioned and stimulated. Men were told that it was the express destiny of every one who was to be perfect, to know everything that could be known in this world; and not only that, but that if a person failed of acquiring the requisite knowledge in one lifetime, his soul must pass into another and another body, until it had arrived at the necessary degree of information. It is true that this implied, in its literal meaning, the knowledge of good as well as of evil. But it requires little acquaintance with human nature to tell us in what sense it would be most commonly taken. And if any scruples still remained, they were removed by the doctrine that all actions were naturally indifferent, and that nothing but human opinion, or the arbitrary will of a tyrannical being, the Jewish God, had ever made any such thing as moral distinctions. Thus a vicious curiosity became a duty, if such a term had been allowable in Gnosticism; or, at all events, that man who did not foster and indulge it to the utmost, was fighting against his own interest.

There is another kind of curiosity, which has governed many in all ages, and which is not even yet extinct, and that is, a desire to be acquainted with future or unknown circumstances, or to possess a power beyond the reach of ordinary men. There have been always those who have professed themselves possessors of this supernatural knowledge, and of course others who have desired either to possess it or to witness and profit by its exercise. From this desire has arisen the whole of magic from the beginning, and the science of astrology in particular. Accordingly, this was a marked feature in many of the Gnostic teachers, that they laid claim to magical powers; and herein they differed from the heathen philosophers, and became the antagonists of the Christian apostles. Simon Magus, for instance, who is generally reckoned the first Gnostic leader, was a magician, and there is great reason to suspect that his faith was more a reliance on the Apostles, on the supposition of their having some deeper art than his own, than the faith of the heart in the principles of the Gospel.

But there is another class of persons who could neither be imposed on by the pretensions to supernatural power, nor the seductions of evil appetites, whose cast of character is altogether intellectual, and whose temptations must therefore be intellectual. The attention of such persons had in all ages been directed to the unseen things of creation, the invisible springs of all earthly motions and actions, the secret agencies of nature, the nature of the Great Original of all things, the methods of his providential government, the time and manner of the creation, the origin of evil, the future state of mankind after their departure from this earthly scene. Questions of this kind had engaged the curiosity of minds of the higher order ever since civilization began, and no system could find acceptance with them which offered no solution of such questions. Gnosticism accordingly furnished food for the curiosity of these, and that in greater abundance than any other system yet invented.

Besides the Gentile speculatists, there was also the philosophical Jew, who had become acquainted with the Grecian learning, and had thus come to endeavour to account, upon new principles, for the economy of the divine government under the law; partly for his own satisfaction, partly to render it palatable to his heathen friends. Two points in his law would present difficulty: first, the endless forms and ceremonies considered with reference to God, who, being a spirit, would require a spiritual worship, (for this is a truth which this class of Jews were fully sensible of,) together with the prohibitions of various animals; and secondly, the severities which God himself exercised and taught their forefathers to exercise against idolaters. And no doubt many Jews of this class were become practically unbelievers by speculating upon points which their forefathers implicitly received and devoutly practised.

There was again another class; viz. Christians by birth and education, brought up in leisure, and given to study, who, never having received the Gospel humbly and practically, became infected with the unsettled spirit of speculative inquiry. These would see the apparent incongruities between the law and the Gospel, especially in the spirit in which each was administered; and instead of being contented to be ignorant of that which had not been revealed, would endeavour to form some system independent of revelation, by which to account for these incongruities. To these two classes we shall see that Gnosticism also adapted itself; and indeed to the latter it would be specially adapted in the licentiousness of its morals. For being brought up without their own choice in a system of great strictness, at which their nature perhaps rebelled, and which they had themselves never heartily embraced; and yet not liking to renounce it on the distinct avowal of a love of vice, they would gladly close with a scheme which gave unbounded license the character of superior wisdom, and even of duty itself.

We see then what there was in the character of the times to prepare men for such a system as Gnosticism. But it did not grow up at once into all its completeness. It developed itself by degrees, as men were prepared for it; and when we have considered it in its leading features, we can scarcely fail to acquiesce in the view of it taken by the Christian writers contemporary with it; viz. that it was a scheme specially concocted by the author of evil, as antagonist to Christianity.

Simon Magus, as all agree, was the first teacher of Gnosticism; and when he first appeared in that character in Samaria, it is obvious that he could have known but little of the Gospel, and this may account for the little notice taken of it in his system. He came as the great power of God, that is, as God manifested on earth; and he wrought pretended miracles in confirmation of his pretensions. It is remarkable that none of his successors made any such pretension as this, although they too, at least some of them, professed miraculous power. He was therefore the antagonist of Christ; strictly Antichrist, in a higher sense than any other. He taught that the God of the Jews was not truly God, but only, like the Jupiter of heathenism, one of a set of angelic powers; that the Supreme God had nothing to do with the origination of evil further than that he had created those angelic powers from whom it had sprung; nay, that he had not created them directly, but by his thought, which, taking a personal character, was the actual Creator of these; that therefore the Supreme Being had nothing to do with anything in this world, excepting in so far as he had interfered to remedy the mischief occasioned by the angels. It was in this way that he endeavoured to reconcile the imperfections of this world with the perfection of God. But he went further than this; for by making the Creator of this world and the God of the Old Testament an imperfect being, he in reality denied God, whilst professing to know more of him than other men.

This part of the system only accounted for physical evil, and such moral evils as oppression and violence: but moral evil, as we commonly understand it, he treated in quite a different way; i. e. by denying that it was evil at all; for he asserted that it was so only through the tyrannical imposition of the angels. Nay, he even went so far as to assert that he himself was God, come down from above to rescue men from their thraldom by teaching them the truth of things; and thus to restore them to their rightful liberty, by showing them that they might do whatever they listed, and indeed ought to do so to vindicate his authority, which had been usurped by the angels. A more plausible scheme of blasphemy and licentiousness could scarcely have been concocted for the philosophizing Jew, or the heathen who had looked into Judaism merely as a rival system of barbarian philosophy. It recognised all the facts of the Old Testament; but it totally neutralized them, and destroyed altogether the religion with which they would have appeared to be inseparably blended.

When Christianity began to spread, and Jesus was believed on by multitudes, and reverenced by many who did not receive him, it became politic to recognise the Gospel in the same manner in which the Law had been recognised. Accordingly, the external facts of the life of Jesus were not disputed, but a new spirit was given to them. Jesus was a manifestation of the Supreme God, as Simon was; come upon the same errand, to destroy the Jewish law; and thence an object of hatred to the Jews, who triumphed so far as to crucify the external body in which he appeared, but had no power over him who had inhabited it. Here there was just enough of truth to impose upon a person brought up to believe the Gospel without really loving it, and falsehood enough altogether to prevent its reception.

The sketch which I have now traced is the nucleus of Gnosticism. Simon's dignifying his paramour with the title of the Thought of the First Cause, and his figment of her having been in a perpetual state of transmigration, was no doubt an after thought to cover the grossness which prying minds might fancy in the great empiric; an end which might not be sufficiently accomplished by his doctrine that all actions were indifferent.

Whether Simon really invented the first ogdoad of pure emanations from the Great Father may be doubted; for the testimony to that fact does not appear sufficiently early, and those who assert it contradict each other in the names of them. But that he taught that there were Excellences and Powers, as well as angels, appears from Irenæus. Yet as that author undertakes to tell the share which Simon had in forming the system, and certainly attributes the regularity of it to his successors, it appears most probable that he defined nothing as to the number or functions of those celestial beings.

The sketch, however, of Simon, to whatever extent he went, was sufficiently filled up by his successors. In his system of angelic beings they defined their number, and to a certain extent fixed their functions. There was at last a body of these formed between the Supreme Being and the authors of this world, perfect in holiness and obedience. The defection of one of these was made as much as possible the work of accident. She was made, according to various schemes, sometimes to be totally excluded from this perfect society, sometimes to be restored to it again, leaving an imperfect offspring behind her. From her or her offspring, sprang the Creator, who is sometimes represented as the chief of seven angels, sometimes as a peculiar being having the angels under him. The creation of man is represented as the work of this imperfect being, but the spark of heavenly life in him as an emanation, more or less direct, from the First Cause. In this way the scheme became more definite; but from the same cause it became a set of schemes more or less inconsistent with each other, but all aiming at having a succession of mysteries to be communicated by degrees. In this way the minds of men were amused and tantalized, and prevented from a serious search after truth; whilst if one scheme was searched to the bottom, and its stock of mysteries exhausted, there was still another and another refinement to lure him away from the real truth. There was, however, the uniform tendency to remove the government of this world from the cognizance of the Supreme Being, and to represent the author of the law and the prophets as an imperfect, self-contradictory, cruel being. There was the same mode of rendering null the distinction between moral good and evil, by attributing it to opinion, or custom, or the ordinance of the God of this world. There was the same attempt to nullify the Gospel, by doing away with the Christian idea of the incarnate Son of God, and representing the advent of Jesus as a portion of the Gnostic scheme. For whether Jesus was considered as only apparently a man, or as merely a man; whether the Saviour dwelt in him or made use of him; whether it were the Saviour, or the Christ, or the Only-begotten, or the Jesus above, who interested himself for the redemption of the spiritual seed, it all amounted to the same thing in the end. It abolished the real salvation of the soul; it took away the incarnation and atonement; it made the Gospel of no effect.

The nature of the redemption it preached was likewise everywhere the same. It was not a redemption from the dominion of sin, but by denying that there was any such thing as sin. Whether it taught that the simple practical knowledge of this fact was all the redemption necessary, or that some initiatory rite was requisite to give that knowledge, or that a full knowledge of the Gnostic theory was to be superadded to qualify for eternal redemption,—whether it led its votaries to defy the God of the Old Testament, or taught them mystic forms by which to elude him when sitting in judgment, it all amounted to the same thing. Lewdness of the grossest kind was denied to be any sin. There were, indeed, some who embraced the general theory, and with it believed that the flesh, as being the work of the Creator, was to be denied and mortified in every way, and who therefore decried marriage[^730] itself, and forbad to eat flesh; but they were the few. The opposite use of the undervaluing of the flesh was the more popular and the more prevalent.

[^730: Irenæus (I. xxviii. 1) expressly says that they thought marriage to be pollution and whoredom, and (xxiv. 2) that it and its natural consequences were from Satan.]

Hitherto, perhaps, there has appeared but little in common with our own times; but there were other features of Gnosticism, in which it will appear to have been the parent of Antinomianism, even that of the most recent days. If any one is at all familiar with the high Calvinism of Toplady and his school, he will have found that it strongly resembled the Gnosticism of the age of Irenæus. It is of the essence of strict Calvinism to teach that individuals are inevitably destined to salvation; and so it was in Gnosticism. The spiritual seed must all be brought back again from earthly degradation; none can fail of being so, first or last. It may be destined to numerous transmigrations; but the spirit must finally be wafted upward to the eternal Fulness[^731]. Again, the spiritual pride and presumption of the genuine Antinomian is a very observable trait: his speaking of all as carnal who do not adopt his scheme; his placing religion not in holiness, but in knowing the truth; his assumption of superior illumination; his declarations that none but those specially favoured are capable of knowing the truth; all this is merely a repetition of Gnosticism. The Gnostic called himself spiritual, and the Churchman carnal[^732]; he was the elect and perfect, and the orthodox the ignorant and simple[^733]; he derived his very name from his making knowledge paramount to all other things[^734]; he declared that none were capable of receiving his scheme but the spiritual seed[^735]; that to others good works were necessary and useful[^736], but that their lot, however praiseworthy, could never be the same as that of the elect[^737]. So, again, the abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith is as early as those times. They declared that faith and love was the sum of their religion[^738]; that the law might be a restraint suited to inferior natures, but that to them it would be a degradation to submit their minds to its yoke; and that, in fact, whatever acts they might commit, it was impossible for them either to be polluted by those acts or to fail of salvation[^739]. Who would not suppose that the modern ultra-Calvinist was the speaker? So again, at that time, as in these days these tenets were not always taken up as a cloak for licentiousness. Saturninus and Tatian were extremely correct in their lives; and Valentinus was not accused of any peculiar immorality: indeed, he long continued nominally a member of the Church, which, if his conduct had been flagitious, he could not have done. If they despised the restraints of the moral law, they probably supposed, like Toplady and others, that they had higher principles, which would lead them to greater heights of purity: or they were men of a speculative turn, who took up Gnosticism as a theory, without any disposition to make that practical use of it which others did, merely because they were not persons of warm passions. Indeed, if we may judge from a fragment preserved by Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus was rather a mystic in his religion[^740].

[^731: I. vi. 1, 2.]

[^732: I. v. 2.]

[^733: I. vi. 4. III. xv. 2.]

[^734: I. vi. 1.]

[^735: I. vi. 1.]

[^736: I. vi. 2, 4.]

[^737: I. vii. 1.]

[^738: I. xxv. 5.]

[^739: I. vi. 2.]

[^740: Strom. II. 20. § 114.]

There are two or three features in which the Gnostics were the forerunners of a very different class of errors. Transubstantiation no doubt arose in time by a natural depravation of the true doctrine of the Eucharist, through the desire of defining that which Scripture and primitive tradition had left undefined. But it is curious that a hint of it should have been struck out by Marcus, one of the magical Gnostics, who, amongst other arts of legerdemain, hit upon the idea of bringing down into the wine and water the blood of the supernal grace, by means of an invocation[^741]. It is equally curious to read in the account of Carpocrates and his disciples, that they asserted that Pilate had procured a likeness of Jesus Christ to be taken, and that they set his image amongst those of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle and the rest, and decked it with chaplets, and paid to it the selfsame honours which the heathen paid to their idols[^742]. Nor is it less remarkable that the Gnostics in general, when refuted by the Scriptures, should have spoken in disparagement of them (as I have already pointed out) in terms singularly corresponding with those sometimes made use of by Roman controversialists: “They turn to accuse the Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor of authority; and say that they are at variance with themselves, neither can the truth be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of their tradition[^743].” Coincidences of this kind are at least curious; and the further we search the more clearly will it appear that the germs of all subsequent errors appeared in very early times.

[^741: I. xiii. 2.]

[^742: I. xxv. 6.]

[^743: III. ii. 1.]

[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected.]

Footnotes