It was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views
as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different
doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the
incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine
dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument:
from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from
common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the
inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic
systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to
rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures; for in the
preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work,
he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from
Scripture, without mentioning tradition; but since they demurred to its
authority, asserting(340) that it was imperfect and self‐contradictory,
and, in short, that it was impossible for any to learn the truth from it
but those who possessed the true _tradition_, (which they contended was
preserved amongst themselves, having been communicated to them orally, and
being, in fact, that hidden wisdom which had been imparted by the Apostles
only to the perfect,) Irenæus likewise appeals to tradition.
I cannot take leave of this passage without noticing the extraordinary
comments made upon it by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in the second of
his prefatory dissertations, art. iii. § 14.
He says, “Ex quibus hæc liquido sequuntur; 1, ipsos omnium hæreticorum
pessimos agnovisse et confessos fuisse, _Scripturas varie dictas esse_, id
est, interdum obscuras esse, variosque iis subesse sensus: 2, obscurorum
locorum sensum a traditione petendum esse, non ea, _quæ per literas
tradita sit, sed per vivam vocem_: hæc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in
sequentibus probat, ut mox videbitur: 3, traditionem latius patere
scripturis, et ab iis distingui, utpote quæ earum sit interpres; quod et
hæc Irenæi conclusio demonstrat: _Evenit itaque, neque scripturis jam
neque traditioni consentire eos_.”
I will take his conclusions in their order:—
1. So far is Irenæus from applauding the Gnostics for _admitting_ (not the
variety of senses which the Scripture may afford, but) the inconsistency
of different Scriptural statements, that it is evident that he is
_blaming_ them for wishing to escape from the obvious meaning of Scripture
under this pretence. I am not saying that he would have denied that
various senses of particular passages may appear equally natural; but that
is not the case as between Irenæus and the Gnostics. He is evidently
asserting what he believes to be written throughout the Scriptures as with
a sunbeam, and brings in tradition, not to explain the Scripture, but to
confirm his view of it.
2. It is very true that Irenæus would evidently have gone to tradition to
explain the obscurities of Scripture, if in any point it could be so
explained; but that does not appear _from this passage_: on the contrary,
it is the heretics who are _here_ for appealing to it, and not to such a
tradition as he approved, but to one which was capable of no proof that it
was apostolical. And with regard to the tradition he appealed to being an
_unwritten_ tradition; in the first place, he does appeal to _written_
tradition when he can, viz. to the epistles of St. Clement and St.
Polycarp; and in regard to the unwritten tradition which he adduces, the
only tradition of that kind to which both he and the Romanist writers
agree to appeal is the Baptismal Creed (as will be shown presently); for
on two of the other points on which he adduces a different kind of
unwritten tradition, viz. the millenium and the age of Christ at his
crucifixion, his views are rejected by the Roman Church.
3. That primitive tradition must originally have been wider than Scripture
(at least upon points _not of faith_), must be true from the very nature
of the case. But this does not by any means follow from Irenæus’s
distinguishing between Scripture and tradition, because what he means is
simply this, that the Gnostic tenets were at variance with apostolical
truth, whether gathered from Scripture or handed down by tradition. The
traditional truth he brings forward against them is _identical_ with what
he deduces from the written word.
Having shown, then, that really apostolical tradition unequivocally
opposed the Gnostic tenets, he returns again to the Scriptures, and goes
on in the large remaining portion of his work (which, contrary to his
intention, spread itself into a fourth, and even a fifth book,) to show
how inconsistent they were with the Scriptures, first of the Old, and
afterwards of the New Testament, and how important to our salvation those
verities were which they impugned.
It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the mind of Irenæus naturally
went to Scripture, either to prove doctrine or to refute error; and that
he regarded it as being, to all orthodox Christians, the natural standard
of appeal. With regard to the Gnostics, he evidently thought that they
were past conviction from either reason, tradition, or Scripture; because,
whatever criterion was produced, they had something to say against it or
to turn it aside(341): but to single‐minded Christians he felt that the
written word must be the great authority, and arguments drawn from it the
most perfectly conclusive. He speaks of some things in it as admitting no
doubt; he points to an obvious aid to the interpretation of ambiguities,
by calling in plainer things to explain the doubtful; he speaks of the New
Testament as the ground and pillar of our faith; and he declares that the
truth is preserved by the keeping, reading, and consistent exposition of
the Scriptures.
In what way, then, does he appeal to tradition? In this part of his work
he calls it in as establishing the same _general_ views, which he confirms
more at length from Scripture; as preparing the mind to believe that the
view he takes of Scripture is the true one; as a separate and independent
witness to the selfsame truths which he is preparing to confirm by an
adduction of multiplied passages of Holy Writ. He does not bring it
forward to establish any thing not hinted at in the Bible; neither, on the
other hand, does he bring it forward to show what others had gathered out
of the Scriptures; but he adduces it as a separate testimony, emanating
originally from the same source as the Scriptures(342), and therefore, so
far as it went, a fitting criterion of their meaning.
I have chosen to adduce the opening of the _third_ book first of all,
because Irenæus enters more professedly there into his motives for
appealing to tradition; but he had made the appeal, as may have been seen,
in an early part of the _first_ book(343). The manner of the appeal is
somewhat different in the two places: in the first book he appeals to it
to show the strong contrast between the inconsistencies and contradictions
of the Gnostics and the unity and consistency of catholic teaching; in the
latter, to confirm his own views of Scripture. It is true that in both
these cases the appeal is in some sense of a negative character, i. e. it
is for the purpose of proving that such and such doctrines are _not_ to be
received; but in other cases he makes a directly positive use of it, viz.
to prove particular doctrines which do not appear to have been explicitly
disputed.
What, then, is the tradition to which Irenæus assigns this important
function? It is that faith which the Church received from the Apostles,
and distributes to her children(344); which may be seen in every
Church(345); which is handed down by the bishops in all the several
Churches(346); which is taught to every person when he is baptized(347);
which was in his time preserved in the Church of Rome, in particular, by
the confluence of the faithful from every side(348); in the Church of
Smyrna by S. Polycarp and his successors; in the Church of Ephesus,
founded by St. Paul, and watched over by St. John; and in the rest of the
Asiatic Churches(349); which may likewise be learnt in the first epistle
of S. Clement, and in the epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians(350);
which was one and the same throughout the Churches, so that ability cannot
increase its efficacy, nor weakness diminish it; so that knowledge may add
to it the explanation of difficulties, but cannot change the faith(351);
and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it(352).
It is obvious, from these quotations, that the particular tradition which
Irenæus adduces _against the Gnostics_ is the substance of the baptismal
creed; and thence, perhaps, it may be inferred that he would confine
tradition altogether to the creed. But it must be remembered that, in
declining to go to Gnostic tradition, and choosing in preference that
which is truly apostolical, the principle of his appeal is this: that the
Apostles delivered the doctrines of the Gospel by preaching, &c. to the
different Churches, and by individual instruction to the particular
persons whom they made bishops of the Churches; that the bishops had
delivered down the same mass of truths to the Churches they presided over,
and to their successors; and that the truth might be ascertained by
discovering what was universally received in all the apostolical
sees(353). But this truth was not confined to the creed, for there are
other truths as certain as those in the creed, which are not specified in
it; and the very creed itself was variable, or rather was variously stated
at different times(354).
But we are not left to inference alone to learn the views of Irenæus; he
instances the epistles of Clement and Polycarp as containing true
traditions, and _they_ exhibit other truths beyond those of the creed.
Again, the faith, which, if the Apostles had left no writings, he affirms
must have been kept up by tradition, and which was, in fact, kept up in
barbarous nations without the aid of writing(355), must have been
something more extensive than the mere elementary points of belief. Nay,
his assertion that when we are in doubt, even upon _trifling_ points, it
is a duty to have recourse to the most ancient Churches(356), shows at
once that the province of tradition, in his mind, was far wider than the
transmission of simply fundamental points; it was a great system of
doctrine, discipline, and practice, which such an observation looked at;
and there can be but little doubt that, although his subject in his great
Treatise leads him to adduce it formally, only on the subject of doctrine,
that he found himself bound by it upon all points which appeared to be
thus universally handed down in the Churches.
But then it must be confessed that Irenæus stood in a position with regard
to this tradition very different from that in which we stand. It was a
thing which lived about him in all the daily intercourse of life, and
respecting which there was scarcely a possibility of a doubt; whereas to
us it is a thing which has to be established by evidence, which does not
come to our minds unsought. It was a thing _then_ which the most unlearned
knew thoroughly; for it was the very atmosphere in which he breathed: to
us learning is required, and actual application to the subject. The Church
_then_ testified directly to the individual: now we have to ascertain the
Church’s testimony by the further testimony of individuals. It is
impossible, therefore, that apostolical tradition should have the same
evidence to men’s minds now which it had then; although we may think it
ought to be reverently followed, wherever and by whomsoever it can be
ascertained.
Again, we have seen that the medium through which Irenæus believed pure
tradition to be transmitted was the bishops of the Churches; but it does
not follow that he thought every bishop, or the bishops of any particular
Church, an unerring depository of such tradition. He supposed the case of
a bishop who was in the succession, but yet did not hold fast the
Apostles’ doctrine(357), and he evidently implies that such a person was
not to be adhered to; it is, therefore, not any individual bishop, or the
bishop of any particular see, that he would appeal to, but the aggregate
of the bishops of the universal Church.
It is remarkable how strong is the resemblance between the positions
occupied by the Gnostics and Irenæus respectively, and those taken up by
Romanists and the Church of England. Both that ancient father and
ourselves think Scripture perfectly clear upon the fundamental points to
the singleminded, go first and last to Scripture upon all doctrinal
points, and make tradition only auxiliary and subordinate to it. Both the
Gnostics and the Romanists complain of the insuperable difficulties of the
Scripture without tradition, and thus make tradition practically set aside
Scripture; and the tradition they appeal to turns out, when examined, to
be nothing more nor less than their own teaching.
But besides this _public_ tradition, extant throughout all the Churches,
there is another kind of tradition he brings forward, viz. that kept up by
a direct line from the Apostles by the testimony of individuals. This he
brings forward under various forms of expression, as “I have heard from an
elder, who had heard from those who had seen and been instructed by the
Apostles;” “Wherefore the elders, who are disciples of the Apostles, say,”
&c.; “As the elders, who saw John, the Lord’s disciple, remember that they
heard of him;” “And all the elders, who associated with John, the Lord’s
disciple, testify that John taught them this; for he remained with them
down to the time of Trajan.” He appeals to it on the subject of Christ’s
descent into hell(358), which did not enter into the earliest creeds; on
the place of the saints departed(359); on the millennium(360); as well as
on the fact that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of
age(361).
It is evident that such testimony, carried down in one chain, unchecked by
any other similar chain, must be liable to great deterioration. An
instance of this may be seen in the last‐mentioned case in which he quotes
this kind of evidence; viz. his idea that Jesus continued his teaching
till past forty years of age(362). All other writers who speak on the
subject are agreed that Irenæus, or some person through whom this
assertion came, must have made some mistake; that our Lord, in fact, began
his teaching shortly after his baptism, and continued it through three
passovers, and no more. And yet we have apparently very strong evidence
for the assertion of Irenæus; for he declares that all the elders who
companied with John the Apostle affirmed it, and that some of them
declared that they had it from other Apostles. The probability is, that
Irenæus, who was quite a youth when acquainted with these persons, had
misunderstood what he had heard in their conversations with each other, or
remembered it incorrectly after a long lapse of years, being biassed by
his own view of a passage of Scripture which he quotes in
confirmation(363), and which may be the real foundation of the opinion in
question.
It is likewise evident that this tradition in regard to mere facts not
connected with any important doctrine, and depending upon the correctness
of the _memory_ of an individual, is of very different character from that
of important facts and doctrines, and points of discipline, kept up
publicly in all Christian Churches and _witnessed_ to by him as actually
subsisting in his own day or at the very time of his writing. At the same
time they may be received, as we receive other historical facts, when not
contradicted by other evidence.
And something of the same degree of uncertainty must in like manner hang
about the transmission of doctrines or opinions by such a channel. And it
is to be remembered that Irenæus, when he testifies of these, is not in
the same position as when he speaks of public doctrine, discipline, or
customs. There he is the witness of the combined teaching of many lines of
apostolical succession; here, for all that appears, of only one: and that
one requires to be checked or confirmed by other evidence before it can
gain our full assent. If what is gained in this way fall in with
Scripture, or explains or carries out more fully the meaning of Scripture
in a manner not inconsistent with other Scripture, then we may feel that
it is to be treasured up, as being in all probability a fragment of
apostolical tradition. If, again, it is confirmed by other sufficient
testimony, it may be looked upon in the same light, in proportion to the
degree of evidence: for although Irenæus unquestionably quoted these
latter traditions as undoubted truths, it is impossible that they should,
upon his single testimony, appear so to our minds.
There is, however, one general remark which applies to all the various
instances in which he appeals to tradition, and that is, that he does not
appear to have known any thing of a transmitted comment on the text of
Scripture. The only way in which he applies tradition to the
interpretation of Scripture is, by laying down certain facts of our Lord’s
history, which were universally acknowledged or handed down by sufficient
testimony, or certain doctrines of religion or general principles which
were universally received as of apostolical authority, and bringing them
forward in confirmation of the views which he himself deduced from a
comparison and accumulation of texts.