The object of the Great Treatise of Irenæus, which is almost the whole
that remains to us of his writings, being to refute _doctrinal_ error,
things of a ceremonial and ritual nature can be introduced only
incidentally. It is interesting however to trace those fragments of the
external system of the Church which have dropped from the pen of the
writer whilst thinking chiefly of other matters.
We find then that he alludes to the commandments of God as being ten in
number, and as being divided into two tables(429): but he asserts,
conformably to the opinion of Josephus(430) and Philo(431), that each
table contained _five_ commandments. On the other hand Hesychius(432),
Origen(433), Ambrose(434), and Procopius(435) reckon them as we do. The
division into _three_ and _five_, followed by the Roman Church, does not
appear earlier than Augustine(436). There is however sufficient diversity
to prevent our insisting _much_ on our division. It must be observed,
however, that Josephus(437) and (I believe) Philo reckon the commandments
individually exactly as we do, and not as the Romanists.
We have several allusions to the form observed at the Holy Communion. We
find that the cup contained water mixed with wine(438); that a form of
invocation was used, which the heretics imitated(439); that the term
εὐχαριστέω (_to give thanks_) had become technical, and signified _to
consecrate_(440); that the expression _for ever and ever_ occurred in the
Eucharistical form(441), which shows that a settled form had become
customary in his time; and that Christians sounded _Amen_ all
together(442). The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token
of communion and amity(443).
We find, too, that the same pharisaical spirit, which now keeps many from
communion, because others come to it in hypocrisy, had the selfsame effect
in his time(444).
There seems, in some of the practices of the Gnostics, to have been an
imitation of the _anointing_ at baptism or confirmation practised in the
Church(445).
There are several allusions to the practice of public _confession and
penance_, as a customary and established part of discipline. In some cases
it was voluntary(446).
It was the established custom not to kneel in prayer on the Lord’s day, or
during the whole season from Easter to Whitsuntide, which was called
Pentecost(447).
A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration,
according to the choice of those who observed it(448). The passage of
Irenæus has been introduced into the great controversy between those who
assert the apostolical antiquity of the forty days’ season of abstinence,
and those who deny it. In this country our great divines have taken
different sides; Beveridge(449), Patrick(450), and Hooper(451) upholding
it, and Morton(452), Taylor(453), and Bingham(454) denying it. This
passage might appear to be decisive, if we could be sure of the
punctuation, but unhappily Ruffinus pointed it differently from all the
MSS. of Eusebius and, I believe, Nicephorus: for he introduces a stop
after τεσσαράκοντα, which makes Irenæus distinctly affirm that in his time
some fasted forty _days_, whereas the common reading makes them fast only
forty successive _hours_(455).
It would be impossible to do _justice_ to the subject without entering
fully into the arguments on both sides; and therefore I will confine
myself to an observation or two on the text of Irenæus. Let us then look
at the passage according to the two methods of punctuation; and we shall
find Irenæus affirming according to _one_ that those who fasted any number
of days, from one to forty, reckoned the hours both of day and of night
into their day; or according to _the other_ that some fasted one day, some
two, some more; and that some reckoned forty hours of day and night into
their day. Now that any persons could fast forty successive days, both day
and night, abstaining from food all the time, cannot be imagined: and if
they did not abstain from food all the time of their fast, the mention of
its continuance day and night would be unmeaning.
To this argument the reply of Beveridge, as may be seen in note 3, is,
that no fast was kept strictly throughout the twenty‐four hours by _total_
abstinence from food: and he quotes the 50th Canon of Laodicea to show
that the Lent fast was nothing more than abstaining from flesh, &c. and
living upon dry food. But, with deference to so great a name, this is but
begging the question. The Canon of Laodicea only shows what _the Church
required_, not what individuals practised. And Grabe(456) (on this
passage) has proved that there were anciently two kinds of strict fasts
observed in the last week of Lent; one of abstinence from all food till
the evening, and then eating nothing but bread and salt accompanied with
pure water; the other, practised by the more zealous, of _holding over_
one, two, three, four, or six days, till the cock‐crowing on Easterday.
Both Grabe and Bingham(457) agree (what indeed appears self‐evident) that
there is no meaning in words, if these persons did not remain in total
abstinence during this whole time; for what extraordinary zeal could there
be in their practice, if they broke their fast in the evening, as others
did.
If, on the other hand, we suppose the fast to have been one of forty
_hours_, commencing from the hour in which Jesus gave up the ghost, and
terminating with that of his resurrection, there is then a sufficient
reason for mentioning that the fast continued day and night; it becomes a
thing within the reach of probability; and the period is a very natural
one for those persons to choose who felt themselves equal to it. At the
time in which the _Apostolical Constitutions_ were written, it was
enjoined on Christians(458) to fast the Friday and Saturday, if possible;
if not, at least on the Saturday: and in either case it appears that they
were not to break their fast till the first cock‐crowing; i. e. in all
probability, on Easter day.
Leaving, then, other sources of controversy on either side, the text
itself appears to supply the strongest evidence in favour of the
punctuation of the MSS. How that of Ruffinus arose, we are not absolutely
concerned to say: but when the practice of the more lengthened fast had
become established in the Church, it might easily lead to understanding
the words of Irenæus in such a manner as to give it primitive authority.
But even supposing the fast of forty _days_ to have been kept by _some_
persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to
have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority
for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that
would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is
that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that
Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it.
Chrysostom indeed expressly says(459), that the fast of forty days was not
ordained until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on
Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and
other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the
Communion on Easter day.
Very little more remains to be observed under this head.
Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term
παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a
bishop(460). And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use
to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely,
that of _Churchmen_(461). And that was perfectly natural, for the _Church_
had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of _Catholicism_ or
Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and
heresies, was not observed till afterwards; and therefore the name of
_Catholic_ was posterior to that of _Churchman_.