SCRIPTURE.
Unnatural as it may appear, it is notwithstanding true that we find much
less clear ideas in regard to the _canon_ of Holy Scripture in the earlier
ages than in the later. The word scripture was used, as we shall see, in a
latitude with which no church or party in later times has used it.
Irenæus quotes all the books which we of the Church of England esteem
canonical, except Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. But the mere
circumstance of his not citing them cannot, of course, imply any doubt as
to their inspiration or canonicity. He had no occasion to do so for the
purposes of his argument. It is only wonderful that he thought himself
obliged to quote so largely upon such a subject.
But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which
we reject from the canon. He not only repeats sentiments from them, as
when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom(292), or
the story of Susanna(293), without, however, mentioning the books
themselves; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon(294) as truly
relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch(295) as
truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In
short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures; and
he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as
part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of
that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he
believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books
contained in that version. But if so, that does not _prove_ (as we shall
see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical.
But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome
from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of
the books of the Apocrypha; and that is, that he quotes, under the express
name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his
time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious—I
mean the _Shepherd_ of Hermas(296). It is true that he is not singular in
so speaking; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to
Hermas(297). And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement,
affirms(298) that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared
his book apocryphal.
I argue thus on the supposition that his single authority is appealed to.
If he is adduced, with other writers of his age, to show that the Church
acknowledged the apocryphal books as canonical, then one reply is, that
even if this were true of the Church of that age, we are not bound by the
decision of a single age. Massuet, indeed(299), reasons as though the
canonicity of the books the Church of Rome receives were established by
the authority of “all churches, or at least the greater part of them, and
those of distinguished rank.” Now it so happens that we have quite a chain
of evidence on the opposite side. Melito(300), contemporary with Irenæus,
after diligent inquiry in Palestine, reckons up, as canonical, the same
books of the Old Testament which we acknowledge, and no others: for the
Σοφία(301), which (according to one reading) comes in after the Proverbs,
is merely another name for that book; and Ezra, it is well known, included
Nehemiah and Esther. Origen(302), in the middle of the third century, and
Athanasius(303), Epiphanius(304), Gregory of Nazianzum(305), and
Jerome(306), successively in the fourth—and what is more, the council of
Laodicea(307), in the third century, whose acts were recognised by the
sixth synod of Constantinople and Pope Adrian(308)—all agree in receiving
a canon of the Old Testament much more like ours than like that of Rome.
It is true that Origen adds the Maccabees, but he states that they are not
in the canon. Athanasius, Epiphanius, and the Council of Laodicea reckon
Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah; Athanasius and the Council add the
epistle of Jeremiah; Athanasius alone reckons Susanna and Bel and the
Dragon. On the other hand, they all, together with Gregory of Nazianzum,
Jerome, and Ruffinus, who entirely agree with us, reject all the other
books which the Church of Rome has since admitted into the canon.
Epiphanius(309) says that Christians and Nazoræi agreed in receiving the
Jewish books, so that he could not have been aware that the Jews did not
admit Baruch. So that how many soever may agree in _quoting_ the
apocryphal books, the weight of authority is clearly against their
reception as _canonical_.
From all that has been said, it must be clear that we can make but little
use of Irenæus in settling the _canon_ of Scripture. But from the number
of books and of passages which he has quoted, he is of great value in
establishing the _genuineness_ of our present copies; all the passages
bearing as near a resemblance to the corresponding parts of our MSS. as
can be expected from a writer who evidently quotes from memory.
He likewise bears direct testimony to the _authenticity_ of the four
Gospels and the Revelation of St. John; affirming that St. Matthew wrote
his in Hebrew for the use of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St.
Paul conjointly were preaching and establishing the Church at Rome(310);
that after their departure, St. Mark committed to writing what he had
heard from St. Peter, and St. Luke what he had heard from St. Paul(311);
that St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, to oppose the errors of
Cerinthus(312), and that he was likewise the author of the Revelation
which bears his name(313), the visions of which he saw towards the close
of the reign of Domitian(314).
It is curious that Irenæus quotes a passage as written either by Isaiah or
Jeremiah, which does not appear in our present copies(315). Justin Martyr
had quoted it before him, and asserted that it had been wilfully erased by
the Jews from the Hebrew copies(316). Now, however, it does not appear
even in the Septuagint. He likewise records a saying or two as our Lord’s
which do not appear in the New Testament(317): the latter of which indeed
few persons will believe to have been spoken by our Lord.
He informs us that the Ebionites use only St. Matthew’s Gospel, and reject
St. Paul(318); that Marcion curtailed St. Luke, and in effect the whole
Gospel(319); that Cerinthus used St. Mark, and the Valentinians St.
John(320), and invented a Gospel of their own; and that the Montanists
reject St. John’s Gospel and St. Paul(321). It appears, however, that the
Gnostics did in fact quote, at least when arguing with Christians, the
self‐same books which we now have; for all the passages of Scripture which
Irenæus brings forward as perverted by them correspond with our present
copies.
Irenæus was of opinion that the whole of the sacred books of the Old
Testament were lost during the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra
restored them by divine inspiration(322).
He likewise fully believed the fable of Aristeas concerning the
translation of the Septuagint by the direction of one of the Ptolemies,
whom he names _the son of Lagus_(323). He does not relate it with all the
particularity of Josephus; but he relates the separation of the seventy
interpreters from each other, and their miraculous agreement in the same
words and phrases from beginning to end. It is clear, therefore, that he
believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, so far as it is a
translation of the Hebrew; and no wonder that he was unable to avoid
extending the same feeling to the other books which commonly accompany the
translated portion.
He likewise mentions Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus, both
Jewish proselytes, as having wrongly translated Isaiah vii. 14(324).
Theodotion was the contemporary of Irenæus, and must have published his
version so recently, that it is wonderful that Irenæus should have seen
it.
Lastly, he mentions and distinguishes between the genuine and ancient
copies of the Scriptures and the incorrect ones(325).
Having noticed all the _external_ matter, let us come to the opinions of
Irenæus in regard to the _use and value_ of the holy Scriptures, and the
method of _understanding_ them. Although here his example is more forcible
than his precepts, it is satisfactory that he speaks very definitely, and
to the purpose.
For instance, he informs us that, after the Apostles had preached the
Gospel orally, they took care that the substance of their preaching should
be put in writing, to be the ground and pillar of our faith(326). It is
very remarkable that he should use this very phrase in speaking of the
Gospel, which St. Paul had used in speaking of the Church itself; showing
apparently that it was by the custody of the Scriptures that the Church
was to sustain its office. Indeed he expresses this in so many words in
another passage, when he says that the truth is preserved by the keeping
and reading of the Scripture, and preaching consistently with it(327).
His own practice is perfectly consistent with his principles. When he
enters into controversy, his first appeal, indeed, in the particular case
in hand, was to common sense, as showing the extreme absurdity and glaring
contradiction of the Gnostic theories(328). But as they claimed revelation
for their authority, he then goes to the Scripture, as the only authentic
_record_ of revelation(329); and it is evident that, on his own account,
he would never have appealed to any other authority in support of the
_great and leading doctrines_ he has to deal with. When he does bring in
tradition as an independent and collateral _witness_ of revelation, he
does so because the Gnostics themselves appealed to tradition(330) as
something more certain than Scripture. And having met them upon this
ground, he goes on(331), in the large remaining portion of his treatise,
to refute their systems by the induction of passages from the successive
portions of the Old and New Testaments.
Clearly, therefore, his disposition, where the question was what God had
revealed, would be to go, first of all, and entirely, if possible, to
Scripture; for whereas the heretics held that the inspired volume was
obscure and uncertain(332), he maintained that there were truths contained
in it without any doubt or obscurity, and that those were the things in
which the sound‐minded and pious would chiefly meditate(333). And with
regard to those things which are obscure and doubtful, he taught that we
should endeavour to explain them by those parts which are
unambiguous(334).
There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most
certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was
the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the
right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which
he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted(335). It is evident,
therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, _to that extent_,
as divine and infallible.
A third aid was to be found in the assistance of the elders of the Church,
who preserve the doctrine of the Apostles(336), and, with the order of the
priesthood, keep sound discourse and an inoffensive life(337), who have
the succession from the Apostles, and, together with the episcopal
succession, have received the sure gift of truth(338). He who in this way
studies the Scriptures will judge (or condemn) all who are in error(339).
It is obvious that he means the bishops of the Churches, who were the
chief preachers of those times. And it is observable that he does not
think the succession a perfect guarantee of the truth being preserved,
otherwise he would not have added the qualifications of sound discourse
and a holy life. He does not therefore support the idea that the truth is
necessarily preserved in any one Church by the succession, or that any one
bishop of any particular Church (the Bishop of Rome, for instance,) is
capable of deciding the sense of Scripture authoritatively. And, in point
of fact, it is only upon _fundamentals_ that he recommends an appeal to
the bishops, as sure to guide the inquirer into truth.
It is obvious, moreover, that, although no doubt God will aid and bless
his ordinance of the ministry at all times to the faithful soul, yet that
the aid of one’s own particular pastor or bishop must be much less capable
of settling the mind now that Christ’s true pastors are opposed to each
other, than in the time of Irenæus, when they held all together. In his
time no such thing had occurred as a bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch,
Alexandria, Rome, or Constantinople, acknowledged by general consent to
have fallen into great and important error.
In short, we have no approach in Irenæus to the idea of an interpreter so
infallible as shall take away from the private Christian all
responsibility but that of ascertaining him and following his decisions.
He points out means of arriving at truth; but he does not speak of them as
unfailing, except in the case of those foundation truths which are now
acknowledged by the body of every ancient Church under heaven.