Читать книгу An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr - James Beaven - Страница 7

Table of Contents

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 Alexandria2. To these circumstances we are no doubt to attribute it, that there appear in his writings a [pg 002] greater justness of reasoning, and a more unexceptionable use of scripture, than is to be found in the writers of the Alexandrian school.

With regard to the time of his birth we know nothing certain. We find him still a lad, παῖς ὢν ἔτι3, listening to the Christian instruction of Polycarp, not long, as it would appear, before the death of that martyr. For, after saying4 that he had seen Polycarp [pg 003] in the early part of his life, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡλικίᾳ,—in order to account for what might appear improbable, viz., his being the contemporary of that martyr at all,—he says, that Polycarp lived to a very advanced age; ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γεραλέος ... ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου. This makes it evident that it must have taken place towards the very close of Polycarp's life; and yet not so near to it but that he had had time to mark5 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.

Dodwell6, indeed, has endeavoured to arrive at greater accuracy, and thinks that, by another casual expression of Irenæus, in his letter to Florinus, he is enabled to fix the date absolutely. Irenæus remarks [pg 004] that he had seen Florinus, when himself still a lad, in the company of Polycarp, in Lower Asia; when at the same time Florinus was getting on very prosperously at the court of the emperor: λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ. Taking it for granted that Irenæus intends to say that he was an actual witness of the prosperity of his friend, and consequently that the imperial court must have been at that very time sojourning in Lower Asia, and having ascertained that Adrian is the only emperor who appears to have remained any time there, he fixes upon the year 122 as the probable year in which Adrian might have been there, and thus imagines that he has established at least one date with certainty. Now the stress of the observation of Irenæus does not lie upon the success of Florinus at court, but upon his having associated with Polycarp, and having endeavoured to gain his good opinion; that, so far as appears, is the only thing which Irenæus witnessed. The imperial court may therefore have been at some other place, and Florinus may have been only on a visit at Smyrna, at the time when Irenæus saw him there.

There is another objection to this hypothesis of Dodwell, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp, which took place a.d. 166-7. We have seen above that Irenæus could not have known him for many years before his death, [pg 005] whereas Dodwell's notion would require him to have been acquainted with him forty years before, when it is impossible Polycarp could have been very old, to say nothing of Irenæus' implication as to its having been towards the close of his life. If we suppose, then, that he was acquainted with him for six or eight years, and that he was about eighteen at the time of his martyrdom, it will make the birth of Irenæus to have taken place about the year 150. This, at all events, is the latest date we can assign to it. Dupin7 and Massuet8 place it a.d. 140; Tillemont9 twenty years earlier; and Dodwell is desirous of carrying it up ten or twenty years earlier still. Perhaps Massuet's date may be nearest the truth. But exactness in these particulars is of the less moment, as we have, established by his own mouth, the main circumstance on account of which it is of importance to ascertain it: for the chief, if not the only, reason for desiring to fix the date of his birth is, that we may judge what kind of witness he is likely to have been of apostolical tradition. Now we have seen him expressly affirming that he had heard Polycarp recount the narratives and doctrines of St. John and other contemporaries of Christ; and he likewise informs us he paid diligent attention to him, and that he remembered him so minutely that he [pg 006] could10 point out the place where he sat, and trace the walks he was accustomed to take; and moreover, that he not only heard his words, but treasured them up in his memory, and was continually refreshing his remembrance of them by meditation upon them. The testimony of such a witness must be more than ordinarily valuable.

Upon the death of Polycarp, it is probable that he put himself under the guidance of Papias, as he is called by Jerome11 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 mentions12, from whom he appears to [pg 007] have learnt much, and who was a contemporary of the apostolical generation. Some have conjectured him to have been the same as Papias13. Dodwell thinks him to have been Pothinus14, 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 Lord15.

How long Irenæus continued to reside in Asia Minor we know not; but we find him next at Lyons16, [pg 008] a priest of the church there, under Pothinus17, 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 Minor18, with which commercial intercourse had been kept up ever since b.c. 600. Business or relationship might have taken [pg 009] him thither, or even to Lyons itself. For although this latter was a Roman colony, and its name, Lugdunum, sufficiently evinces that it was not of Greek foundation, yet the number of Greek names19 amongst the Christians there shows that there must have been many of that race residing there. Indeed, the circumstance that the Montanist heresy, which arose in Phrygia, spread in no long time to Lyons, and that the Lyonnese wrote to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, both to give an account of the persecution, and to discountenance the opinions of Montanus, clearly prove that there was some reason for frequent intercourse and sympathy between Lyons and Asia Minor.

There is no reason, therefore, to conjecture any extraordinary mission or other conjuncture to bring him into that part of the world. He may have been ordained priest after he arrived there; but we cannot argue that with any certainty from his being called by Jerome20 a priest of Pothinus; for even when church discipline attained its greatest strictness, and every bishop regarded an ecclesiastic ordained by himself as his subject, there was nothing to prevent a bishop from transferring one of his clergy to the jurisdiction [pg 010] of another bishop, whose subject he thenceforward became. So that the epithet made use of by Jerome only proves—what we know from Eusebius21—that Irenæus was a priest of the diocese of Lyons when Pothinus was bishop.

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

But wheresoever Irenæus first entered into the priesthood, he had abode so long at Lyons in the year 17722, that he had gained the character of a person zealous for the gospel of Christ23, and recommended [pg 011] more by his intrinsic excellence than by his sacred office; and was so relied upon as to be chosen by the martyrs of Lyons, then in prison, as a fit person to send to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, with their testimony against the Montanists. It is, indeed, barely said by Eusebius24, 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 Tertullian25, that [pg 012] a bishop of Rome had admitted the Montanists to communion by giving them letters of amity. Who the bishop was he gives no hint; and as he connects the matter with the account of the dissemination of the heresy of Praxeas, some, as Dupin26 and Tillemont27, 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 argues28, 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 writing29, to allow of his becoming tinged with the Patripassian heresy, of his disseminating it secretly, of his avowing it openly, of his being convinced of his error, and being reconciled to the church; finally, of his relapsing, and ultimately quitting the church. All this would take up many [pg 013] years, and allow ample time for the supposition that Eleutherus was the bishop alluded to; not to say that a bishop of Rome was little likely to have listened to him when an avowed heretic. And then the letter of the martyrs has a well-defined object, viz., to dissuade him from contributing to rend the church in pieces by countenancing a set of men who had been excommunicated by the churches by whom they were surrounded, and by those in Gaul with which they were in some degree connected; and thoroughly explains the expression of Eusebius, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

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

As we know that the Church of Lyons sent these letters to Eleutherus, with one of their own, preserved in part by Eusebius30, giving an account of the martyrdoms, it has been supposed by some that Irenæus actually wrote this letter; and the idea is confirmed [pg 014] by the circumstance, that Œcumenius, in his Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter, (cap. 3. p. 498.) has preserved a fragment of a writing of Irenæus, concerning Sanctus and Blandina. Now, these two persons are mentioned particularly in the letter of the Church of Lyons31; 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 Blastus32.

Pothinus died in this persecution, as really a martyr as others who have been regarded as more truly such. Being upwards of ninety years old, suffering under infirmity both of age and sickness, dragged to the tribunal, and back again to prison, without any regard to his weakness and age, beaten, [pg 015] kicked, and assailed with every missile that came to hand, it is more wonderful that he did not breathe his last under their hands, than that he lingered out two days in the prison33. Irenæus succeeded him34; and if we may judge of him by the ability, learning, zeal, and sound judgment displayed in his writings, and by the Christian temper he evinced on the occasion of the paschal controversy, we may safely conclude that he was a more than worthy successor.

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

One other point about this visit remains to be noticed. It has been supposed35 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 Pothinus36, 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 παραθέσει37; which he chooses to translate, ut ipsum cæteris anteponas. So very much to be drawn from one word, reminds one of Dodwell's theories. The expression might, indeed, possibly have a force, which it is rather surprising that Massuet has overlooked. It might mean “place [pg 018] him by thy side,” which, if it had occurred to the French divine, he would probably have translated, “Elatum eum fac in eundem quem ipse tenes ordinem:” “Make him a bishop like thyself.” But when we take it in connexion with the concluding clause, ἐν πρώτοις ἂν παρεθέμεθα, the phrase would appear to signify nothing more than, “Treat him with all respect.”

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

But whatever may be doubtful, one thing is certain, that Irenæus did succeed Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. Of his conduct in his own particular Church we have no means of judging, for no record has survived to tell us of anything he did there. It appears certain, from the expression of Eusebius38, 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 diocese39. This idea is farther confirmed by the use of a parallel expression40, 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 hundred41; of these, between seventy and eighty were in Egypt, and sixteen within seventy miles of Alexandria, and in the same civil province of Ægyptus Prima. Over all these, the bishop of Alexandria exercised a control more complete [pg 020] than that of any other patriarch of those times. I mention these circumstances to show that, at the time to which Eusebius refers, his archiepiscopal province must have been considerable. And as the ecclesiastical station of Irenæus is described in the same terms, it almost amounts to demonstration, that he held a similar pre-eminence. The only difference is, that Irenæus is said to have ruled the παροικιῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν, and the bishop of Alexandria those κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν. But this expression only shows that the Churches in Egypt emanated from Alexandria, and were permanently dependent upon it; whilst those in Gaul emanated from no point within the country, nor were permanently dependent upon any one church. If any one should suppose that the term παροικία is used with regard to Alexandria in its modern sense of parish, and that Eusebius is speaking of the extent of the single diocese of Alexandria, I will only say, that that whole diocese contained only fourteen pastors, that the city contained sixteen churches42; 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 says43, that they were like παροικίαι: so that this word had retained its meaning of diocese even to that period.

[pg 021]

Massuet, indeed, argues at great length44 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 says45 of the fewness of churches in Gaul in his time is really no contradiction to this opinion; for if there were at that time as many as twenty or thirty, it would be extremely few, considering the extent of the country.

I have said that we have no record of the operations of Irenæus as bishop of Lyons. I mean, that we know of nothing which he did in that particular church. He bore, in a general way, the character of “the light of the western46 Gauls,” and is said to [pg 022] have “cultivated and enlightened the Celtic nations47.” And in consonance with this there is a tradition48, though of comparatively recent date, that he sent a priest and deacon as missionaries to Besançon, and a priest and two deacons to Valence, in Dauphiné. The circumstance is very probable in itself, and [pg 023] is in agreement with the traditions of those Churches.

We now come to a more remarkable period of his life. We have seen that the Christians of that age looked with peculiar anxiety to Rome, as the Church where, from the constant meeting together of Christians from the provinces, the traditions of the catholic Church were most accurately preserved. Any departure of that Church from purity of doctrine would be of more serious consequence than the deflexion of one of less influence. Irenæus had been taught to exercise this feeling by his mission from the martyrs; and had no doubt learnt to feel it more deeply on the spot, when he trode the ground consecrated by the martyrdom of the two great apostles with whose joint superintendence and instruction that Church was so long favoured, and when he observed how every heretic likewise resorted to Rome, as a more important theatre than any other. Nor can we suppose that he had left that Church without forming some bond of union with individual members of it. His heart, therefore, returned no doubt to it, and caused him to indite those several epistles Eusebius mentions49, occasioned by the dissensions he heard of as prevailing there. The first mentioned by the historian is that addressed to Blastus on the subject of schism. What it was which led [pg 024] him into schism is variously related by ancient writers. Eusebius simply says50 that he indulged in speculations of his own at variance with truth. Theodoret51 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 it52, 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 says53, “that he was a Greek, and that he adhered to the Montanists;” for the Montanists, having arisen in Asia Minor, celebrated that season at the same time as the other Christians of that country, i. e. with the Jews. So that his schism probably consisted in this, that having come from Asia, he wished to raise a party favourable to the Asiatic practice, or, at least, declined to conform to that of Rome. And we can imagine how earnestly Irenæus would press him to conform to the usages of the Church in which he sojourned; a thing he could do with so much greater authority, inasmuch [pg 025] as, being himself of Asiatic birth, and brought up in the very church of Polycarp, he had conformed to the Western usage.

Whether it was before or after this time that Blastus left the communion of the Church we know not. Eusebius, however, relates54, (at least so Massuet55, with great probability, apprehends his meaning,) that he was deposed from the priesthood, and that he detached many from the Church to follow speculations of his own, at variance with the truth. Theodoret's statement may therefore be substantially correct, although at a period subsequent to that at which Irenæus wrote the letter Περὶ Σχίσματος.

The next letter Eusebius mentions is that to Florinus. This person was likewise a priest of the Church at Rome, and had been known to Irenæus in early life56, when they were both pupils of Polycarp, and Florinus was high in the court of the reigning emperor. But he had forsaken civil life, and entered holy orders, from which he was now ejected, as being the head of a party holding novel and peculiar [pg 026] opinions57. 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 Eusebius58, and printed59 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.

[pg 027]

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 evil60. 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 treatise61 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 preserved62, in which he adjures the transcriber of it to compare it most carefully with the original, and to append the adjuration itself to his transcript. We might wonder, perhaps, at the solemnity of the adjuration, did we not consider how important it was that Irenæus himself should not be represented, by any error of the copyist, as holding opinions at variance with the truth he was so anxious to maintain. [pg 028] But although we have no distinct remains of this particular treatise, it is highly probable that it formed the germ of that great work which has, in some sort, remained entire, and upon which the reputation of Irenæus, as a controversial writer, altogether rests. To that I will now direct my attention.

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

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

[pg 030]

There was another feature of the scheme, which served a further purpose. They pretended that the minds which inhabit human bodies are of two kinds, spiritual and carnal; that the carnal alone are the work of the Creator of this world, whilst the spiritual are emanations from the highest and purest order of spiritual beings: that the carnal are readily contaminated by the flesh and the world, and thence require restraint and law; whilst the spiritual are only placed in bodies for a time, that they may know everything, but incapable of contamination, and destined, after a period of exercise, to be taken up into the Supernal Fulness. By this theory the abstracted and mystical were flattered with the idea of spiritual superiority to their fellow-men; whilst the worldly and sensual might keep up the highest pretensions, and yet wallow in the most revolting profligacy. It was under this latter phase that Gnosticism first showed itself amongst the half-civilized, semi-Roman inhabitants of southern Gaul. In its more abstract and refined form it would have had no attraction for them; for the European mind is too plain and common-sense to follow subtilties. But its practical licentiousness found a fit nidus in the accompanying sensual disposition which marked the Romans of that age, and all who were tinged with their blood. It worked its way for some time in silence, till the attention of the bishop of Lyons was drawn to it by the seduction of Christian matrons, and by the influx of extraordinary impurity throughout [pg 031] that region63. He was thus led to trace the mischief to its cause; and finding this to be his old enemy, under its then prevailing form of Valentinianism, which thus appeared to be rearing its head everywhere, and had now come to assail him on his own ground, he set himself to understand its system thoroughly, that, by refuting it both in its principle and in its details, he might completely disabuse the Christian world, do away with the divisions, and impurities, and calumnies, arising from it, and thus afford the freer scope for the power of truth upon the hearts and practice of men.

He was the more determined upon doing this by [pg 032] the solicitations of a friend, who appears to have lived more in the heart of the mischief than himself64. Who he was we are not told. That he had some pastoral charge is most probable, from the concluding portion of the preface to the first book, in which Irenæus speaks to his friend as having spiritual care of others, and as able, both by his station and by his abilities, to turn to the best account the hints he was able to furnish him. That the native, or at least customary, language of his friend was Greek, may be inferred from the work being in that language, and by the apology made for the imperfections of the style; and altogether, it seems most probable that he was a bishop of one of the Greek colonies of southern Gaul.

In the accomplishment of this work he no doubt [pg 033] made use of the treatise of Justin Martyr against the Marcionites, now lost to us, because superseded by the completer work of Irenæus. But he derived the greatest help from the writings of the Gnostics themselves, from which he learnt their scheme without any possibility of doubt or gainsaying, and thus was enabled, by the mere statement, in open light, of its fantastic puerilities, to unclothe it of the mystery which was one of its chief recommendations, to demonstrate more clearly its self-contradictions, and to contrast it in its naked folly with the simplicity of acknowledged truth65.

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 book66. The catalogue closes with the name of Eleutherus, and thus shows that that book, at least, was begun, and most probably published, under his pontificate, [pg 034] which began about a.d. 177. The other is, that in the same book the author mentions the translation of the Old Testament by Theodotion67. Now that translation was not made till about a.d. 18468. 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 planned69. The books were written separately, as he found his matter arrange itself, and the two first apparently sent first70, [pg 035] followed by the three others at distinct intervals71.

The general object of the first book is to give a full exposition of the Gnostic doctrines72. The first [pg 036] seven chapters contain a detailed account of the system of Valentinus, who was at that time the most fashionable teacher of those doctrines. The eighth gives the Valentinian explanation of numerous passages of Scripture, which they brought forward as corroborative of the truth of their system, although they did not pretend to rest it upon them; and the ninth refutes those explanations. The tenth points out the unity of Catholic doctrine, and the remaining chapters are occupied in exhibiting the discrepancies of the various Gnostic sects and teachers.

The object of the second book is to overthrow the system, both in its principle and in its details, by demonstrating its contradictoriness and impossibility73. The first nineteen chapters are occupied in the destruction of the system; the next five are a fuller refutation of their arguments in support of it than he had given in chapter nine of the first book; and the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth [pg 037] lay down certain rules for the proper study of the Scriptures. The rest of the book is taken up with a fuller consideration and refutation of particular opinions held by Gnostics.

Irenæus himself states it to be the object of the third book to confute the heretical system by Scripture, as containing in writing the undoubted doctrine of those apostles through whose preaching the economy of salvation was originally revealed, and from whom the Church received the doctrine she preached74. But since the heretics appealed to tradition as interpreting Scripture, he likewise appeals to it in the second, third, and fourth chapters75; and having shown that it is totally adverse to the heretical doctrine, he returns to the argument from Scripture76, 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.

[pg 038]

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 mankind77. He does not carry on his argument with much regularity, and it would be difficult to give any useful analysis of it. But he discusses, towards the end, in chapters thirty-seven, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine, the great question of the accountability of man, and the freedom of the will.

In the preface to the fifth book78, he announces his intention of carrying on the argument by quotations from the writings of the apostle Paul, to show that the same God who had spoken to Abraham and given the law had in the latter days sent his Son to give salvation to human flesh; which he pursues in [pg 039] the first eighteen chapters, dwelling particularly on the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh (chap. 7-14), and corroborating S. Paul's doctrine from other parts of Scripture. He is thence led to the object and end of the scheme of salvation by Christ, and the opposition to it by Satan (chap. 19-24), especially the great opposition to it through the agency of antichrist (chap. 24-30), and passes from the notice of the state of departed souls (chap. 31) to exhibit and confirm his opinion of the terrestrial reign of Christ and the righteous (chap. 32-35), concluding with the consummation of all things in the eternal felicity of the just.

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

The work, as I have said, was written in Greek; but the greater portion of the original has been lost. What remains has been preserved by various authors in the form of quotations. In this way two-thirds of [pg 040] the first book have come down to us; a few detached fragments in the latter half of the second; considerably larger and more numerous portions of the third; very little of the fourth, but copious extracts from the fifth, especially near the beginning. The whole, however, existed in the ninth century, as we learn from the testimony of Photius79. 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 passages80, and in particular his making the very same [pg 041] mistakes as the interpreter, (as for instance, in regard to the name of the heretic Epiphanes, which they [pg 042] have both rendered by an epithet, and others instanced by Massuet,) almost amounts to a demonstration [pg 043] that he had read that version. That it existed in the time of S. Augustin, is certain, as he quotes it at least twice, almost word for word81.

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.

[pg 044]

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 fall82. The inconvenience had been felt in the time of S. Polycarp, who sojourning in Rome in the time of its bishop Anicetus, they endeavoured [pg 045] each to persuade the other to embrace the practice he followed. But their conferences were without any other effect than to cause both parties to agree to differ in peace83. 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 point84. He therefore conceived the idea of using his influence, as the bishop of the principal Church [pg 046] in the world, to bring all Christians to one uniform rule. For this purpose he wrote to certain85 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 mentions86 the dioceses in Gaul under the superintendence of [pg 047] Irenæus as having agreed upon such a synodical letter, which he asserts was in existence in his time. So far, Victor was successful; and, probably upon the strength of the almost universal agreement of the Churches, he appears to have held out some threat to those of Asia Minor87, 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 Christians88. 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 bishops89, strongly [pg 048] pressing milder measures, and reminding the Roman prelate of the example of Anicetus, one of his predecessors, who paid Polycarp the highest honour, even when assured that he would not conform to the Western custom, and regarded his own as more apostolical.

What the immediate result of these letters was we are not informed by any contemporary writer. Anatolius, indeed, (if the Latin version of his Treatise on the Paschal Cycle, published by Bucherius, is to be relied on,) asserts that Victor did not persist in his excommunication90; and we know subsequently91 [pg 049] that many Churches in Asia adhered to the Jewish reckoning, and yet were not on that account regarded with any aversion by their brethren; and it was not until the council of Nice that their bishops there assembled agreed to follow the general custom92,—to which, however, many persons did not conform in the time of Chrysostom.

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

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

Now so far we have no claim set up inconsistent [pg 051] with the station of influence and dignity which we readily concede to have appertained to the Roman bishops from very early times; and which, if not most grossly abused, would never have been denied to them. Some93 have supposed that he, with his letters, issued a threat of excommunicating those Churches which refused to comply with the western custom; but that is opposed to the sequel of the history, from which we learn that such a threat would have called forth remonstrances, of which in this stage of the business we hear nothing.

Having received letters from every quarter except from Asia Minor, stating that the traditional custom was the same as that of Rome, he then, instead of proceeding by persuasion, immediately conceived the idea of compelling the dissentient Churches to comply with his wishes, by threatening to cut them off from communion if they declined. His threat had no effect, and he proceeded to put it into execution, nothing doubting that the Churches who had been with him hitherto would still stand by him. And this is the point at which we encounter something like the modern papal claims; for he declared the Churches of Asia Minor cut off, not only from his communion, but from the common unity94. Some might argue that he must have had some foundation [pg 052] for this claim; but till something of the kind can be shown, we have no need to suppose any ground but a strong desire of a rash and determined mind to carry the point he had undertaken. Be the ground what it may, the Catholic Church negatived his claim; those who agreed with him in the desire of bringing about unity of practice95 would not unite with him in excommunicating their brethren, but rebuked him sharply96; 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 Cyprian97, expressly asserted that the peace and unity of the Catholic Church had never been broken by differences about the observance of Easter or other religious rites: and that, in alluding to the conduct of Stephen, bishop of Rome, who had quarrelled with the African bishops because their custom differed from the Roman on the subject of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics; which would necessarily have brought to mind any schism produced by Victor, a previous bishop of Rome, if any such had been produced.

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

We have now brought to a close all the circumstantial part of the public life of Irenæus. Eusebius98 (who is followed by Jerome99) 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.

[pg 054]

The Discourse concerning Easter, quoted by the author of the Questions to the Orthodox100, formerly ascribed to Justin Martyr, may have been his letter to Victor on that subject. Maximus101 cites some Discourses on Faith, addressed to Demetrius, a deacon of Vienne, of which we have two fragments, whether genuine or not, (numbered IV. and V.) in the best editions of his Remains. Although forty-two fragments, attributed to Irenæus, have been collected, chiefly from Catenas, we have no clue for appropriating the greater part of them to the writings of which they formed a portion. One of them (the last in the Benedictine edition) is said to pertain to a discussion on the Eternity of Matter; but whether belonging to a separate treatise, or a remnant of his Discourse to the Gentiles, we have no means of judging.

We have no account of the death of Irenæus upon which we can absolutely depend. Jerome in one passage102 calls him a martyr, and so does the author of the Questions and Answers above cited; but no other early writer gives him that appellation; neither have we any notice of his death by any [pg 055] earlier author than Gregory of Tours103, 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 Ado104 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 said105 to rest in the crypt under the altar of the Church of St. John at Lyons.

[pg 056]