Читать книгу An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr - James Beaven - Страница 9

Table of Contents

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 Jerusalem160, and thence spread to the limits of the habitable globe161; planted by the Apostles, and kept up by and in the elders or bishops their successors162. It is, however, divided into separate Churches, which are to regard that of Jerusalem as their mother [pg 075] Church163. The whole Church, moreover, is to its individual members as a mother to her children164: [pg 076] she is appointed for the quickening of creation165, and in her is the way of life166, which those who keep aloof from her do not possess167; in her is the Holy Spirit, which is not to be found out of her168. She possesses the adoption and inheritance of Abraham, and her members are consequently the seed of Abraham169. 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 children170. She is therefore the appointed preacher of the faith, or the truth, which is not variable and [pg 077] changeable, but one, and only one171; 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 her172. Her ancient system is therefore the guide to truth173, and those who wish to know it must have recourse to her, and be brought up in her bosom174. Her testimony, moreover, is confirmed by the Apostles and Prophets175, whose writings are kept in the custody of her elders176, with which, moreover, those must [pg 078] expect to be fed who come to her177. She has succeeded to the office of the ancient Jewish Church of being the great witness of the unity of the Godhead178.

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 Jesus179; she even raised the dead by means of fasting and prayer180; and she alone produced persons who sealed their own sincerity and the truth of their faith by their blood181.

Finally, although not exempt from weakness, and [pg 079] capable of losing whole members, she, as a body, remains imperishable182.

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 localities183, 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 [pg 080] 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.

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 Church184; and he taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, [pg 081] keep the Apostles' doctrine, and lead good lives185; 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.

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.

[pg 082]

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 Churches186, 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 focus187; but, as I have pointed out elsewhere188, 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 [pg 083] 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 martyrdom189. 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.

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.

[pg 084]

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 [pg 085] the office itself, were appointed by inspired apostles190. All these facts are irreconcileable with the hypothesis that all presbyters were equal in authority and function.

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 [pg 086] 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 office191. 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 [pg 087] was kept up in individuals down to his time; the evident implication being that it was so in all Churches.

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 Apostles192.

[pg 088]