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
Preface.
Subscribers’ Names.
Chapter I. Life of S. Irenæus, and General Account Of His Writings.
Chapter II. Testimony of Irenæus to Certain Facts of Church History.
Chapter III. On The Nature, Office, Powers, and Privileges Of The Church.
Chapter IV. On The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Chapter V. The Origin of Evil.
Chapter VI. The Evil Spirits.
Chapter VII. The Divine Dispensations.
Chapter VIII. On The Canon, Genuineness, Versions, Use, And Value Of Holy
Scripture.
Chapter IX. On The Nature And Use of Primitive Tradition.
Chapter X. On The Creed.
Chapter XI. Freewill, Predestination, And Election.
Chapter XII. On Baptism.
Chapter XIII. The Eucharist.
Chapter XIV. On Justification.
Chapter XV. On Ceremonies, Usages, And Forms Of Words.
Chapter XVI. On The Sabbath.
Chapter XVII. On The Typical Interpretation Of Scripture.
Chapter XVIII. On The Intermediate State.
Chapter XIX. On Unfulfilled Prophecy.
Chapter XX. The Virgin Mary.
Chapter XXI. Account of the Gnostic Teachers and Their Tenets.
Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.
Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.
Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.
Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.
Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.
Section VI. Valentinus.
Section VII. Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, And Marcus.
Section VIII. Gnostic Redemption.
Section IX. Reflections Upon Gnosticism.
Footnotes
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.