There are two circumstances which must prevent us from expecting that the writings of Irenæus should add largely to our stores of historical knowledge; one, that his remains are not very considerable in extent, and the other, that they are chiefly occupied in doctrinal controversy. What, however, he does tell us, is important. He asserts that the Church in his time was spread throughout the world106; and particularly specifies the Churches in Germany, Iberia, (i. e. Spain), amongst the Celts (i. e. in Gaul), in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia, and in the centre of the [pg 057] world, by which he no doubt means Palestine107. He likewise incidentally shows that the Gospel had been preached in Ethiopia108. He furnishes no evidence concerning the first missionaries, except in the case of Ethiopia, to which he informs us the eunuch baptized by Philip was sent; but he declares explicitly that all the Churches through the world, although differing in usage109, had but one faith110, which was delivered to them at baptism111.
He speaks of the Churches in general as having been settled by the Apostles112, and particularly specifies [pg 058] that the Church of Rome was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, who appointed its first bishop Linus113; that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by Apostles114, and that the succession from him had been kept up to the time of his writing115; and that S. John watched over the Church of Ephesus down to the time of Trajan116. He informs us that the successors [pg 059] of the first bishops might be reckoned up in many Churches down to his own time117, particularly specifies the Churches of Rome and Smyrna118, and gives a catalogue of the bishops of Rome as follows:—Linus, mentioned by S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy119; Anencletus120; Clement121, who had seen and conferred with the Apostles; Evarestus; Alexander; Xystus, or Sixtus; Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom; Hyginus; Pius; Anicetus; Soter; Eleutherius122: and we have a fragment of a letter of [pg 060] his own to Victor, the successor of Eleutherius123. He has preserved an anecdote of St. John, viz. that upon one occasion entering a bath, and seeing Cerinthus there, he withdrew precipitately, saying that he was afraid lest the building should fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, was in it124. This anecdote is indeed at variance with the notion of Christian charity current at the present day, but it rests upon the testimony of Polycarp, who knew St. John well; and it is strictly in accordance with the spirit of the directions he himself gave to “the elect lady,” not to receive heretical teachers into her house, or bid them God speed125.
We are likewise indebted to Irenæus for some particulars respecting Polycarp. He states that he had been favoured with familiar intercourse with St. [pg 061] John and the rest who had seen Jesus, and had heard from them particulars respecting him and his miracles and teaching126. He mentions his having spent some time in Rome in the days of Anicetus127. He does not, indeed, state the cause of his visit; but Eusebius128 and Jerome129 distinctly say that it was on account of the Paschal controversy. This subject, amongst others, our author states to have been discussed between them, and that Polycarp rested his adherence to the Jewish practice upon his having always kept Easter in that way with St. John and the other Apostles, and consequently declined to change it; whereupon, to show that this inflexibility had produced no breach of amity, Anicetus thought proper to request Polycarp to officiate for him, and to take his place at the holy communion130. During his stay there131 he met Marcion, who inquired if he [pg 062] recognised him. His reply was, “I recognise the first-born of Satan.” This severity (or bigotry, as it would now be called) does not appear to have operated in his disfavour; for he was instrumental in recovering to the Church many who had been led away by the Gnostic delusions132. Irenæus likewise mentions Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians133, and other epistles to other Churches and individuals134.
Respecting Clement, whom Eusebius135 identifies with the companion of S. Paul136, he states that he wrote a very effectual letter to the Corinthians, to allay the dissensions which had arisen amongst them, and to restore the integrity of their faith137. This is, of course, the first epistle of S. Clement, to the genuineness [pg 063] of which his mention of it is a powerful testimony.
He speaks of the Church of Rome not only as having been founded and settled under its first bishop by St. Peter and St. Paul, but as being one of the greatest and most ancient, well known to all men138, preserving the true doctrine by the resort of persons from all quarters, and possessing from this circumstance a more powerful pre-eminence; and states that all Churches must on that account resort to it139. It is well known that this is a passage upon which Romanists very much rely, as establishing the claim of their Church to be the mistress of controversies to all Christendom; and I have chosen to give it the utmost force of which it is fairly capable, in order to avoid the charge of slurring it over, and in order to show that even thus it states nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church of England respecting the present Church of Rome. I will therefore give a translation of the passage, which appears below, and make some remarks upon that translation:—“For every Church (that is, the faithful who are on all sides,) must on account of its more powerful [pg 064] pre-eminence resort to this Church, in which the apostolical tradition is preserved by those who are on all sides.”
There are several words in this passage which must influence the sense of it. The first I shall notice is the word potentiorem, the more especially as there is a various reading upon it. One MS. (the Clermont) of considerable value, reads potiorem; but Massuet, who examined it, says that it had been written pontiorem (but altered to potiorem,) which is almost certainly a contraction for the common reading. We must therefore, I conclude, sit down with the common reading; although Massuet, in the Benedictine edition, and J. J. Griesbach, in some remarks upon this passage140, prefer the other. But what Greek word potentiorem represents must be matter of conjecture; and no one who is acquainted with the manner in which the translator has rendered Greek words will be inclined to lay much stress upon it. It may have been put for ἱκανωτέραν, or κρείττονα; or, in short, the comparative of any adjective which admits of being rendered potens. We then come to the word principalitatem. This we know that the ancient translator of Irenæus uses to signify ἀρχή141. Putting these two together, Griesbach [pg 065] has rendered κρείττονα ἀρχὴν, potiorem initium, and thus got rid of the idea of authority altogether. But there is no need of this. Principalis is used by the translator as the rendering of ἡγεμονικός142; principaliter, of προηγουμένως143, and προηγητίκως144; principalitatem habeo, of πρωτεύω145. We know that all the apostolical sees had a kind of principality or pre-eminence above the surrounding Churches; a more powerful pre-eminence than other Churches equally ancient with themselves. Nay, we know that the Church of Rome had at that time, in point of fact, a more powerful pre-eminence than any other Church.
The next word to be considered is convenire, which may be rendered either resort or agree; and I confess I should have been disposed, with Massuet, to render it agree, were it not for a perfectly parallel passage in the 32d Oration of Gregory of Nazianzum, delivered at the first council of Constantinople. Speaking of Constantinople, he says, εἰς ἣν τὰ πανταχόθεν ἄκρα συντρέχει, καὶ ὅθεν ἄρχεται ὡς ἐμπορίου κοινοῦ τῆς πίστεως. Here Constantinople is spoken of then under the very same terms as Rome by Irenæus, as the common repository of the faith: other parts of the Christian world are said to [pg 066] be governed (ἄρχεται) by it; and distant Churches are said to resort from all quarters: συντρέχει πανταχόθεν. Are not these words an exact parallel to the convenire and undique of the translator of Irenæus? I therefore feel bound to give convenire the sense of resort. The next word to be noticed is undique, the application of which is disputed; some, as Barrow146 and Faber147, applying it only to the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, i. e. Italy and the adjacent parts of Gaul; others, and of course the Romanists, to the whole Christian Church. According to the former plan, the clause “hoc est ... fideles” is a limitation of the expression “omnem ecclesiam,” confining it to the Churches immediately surrounding Rome; and consequently the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome would be equally narrowed by this interpretation of undique. I am far from contending that this interpretation is not correct; and the very fact of the passage admitting it, without any force whatever, shows how little the papal cause can be made to rest upon it. But as Gregory, in the parallel [pg 067] passage I have quoted, uses the term πανταχόθεν, I am disposed to take undique as its representative; the more especially as we have seen that, whatever influence it gives to Rome, the selfsame influence had Constantinople in an after age.
There are one or two more words still to be mentioned. Necesse est is one of them. It may imply that it is the duty of every Church to resort to Rome; but its more natural and usual meaning is, that, as a matter of course, Christians from all parts, and not strictly the Churches themselves, were led to resort thither by the superior eminence of that Church.
I have hitherto taken this passage as though it must be applied definitely to the Church of Rome. But this is by no means necessary; for it may be a general observation applicable to all the most eminent Churches, as may be seen by the following translation and arrangement of it:—“For every Church, (that is, the faithful all around,) must necessarily resort to that Church in which the apostolical tradition has been preserved by those on all sides of it, on account of its more powerful pre-eminence;” that is, Christians must have recourse each to the most ancient and most eminent Church in his neighbourhood. And this agrees with a passage of [pg 068] Tertullian148, in which he refers southern Greeks to Corinth, northern to Philippi and Thessalonica, Asiatics to Ephesus, Italians and Africans to Rome. The only objection which occurs to me lies in the word hanc, which, if the passage is to be taken in this application, must be translated that; but as it was in all probability the representative of ταύτην, this word can scarcely present any difficulty.
I will close this whole discussion with two remarks; first, that unless we could recover the Greek text of this passage, it is plainly impossible to ascertain its true sense; and secondly, that the strongest sense we can attach to it, consistently with history, is, that Christians of that period from all parts of Christendom must, if they wish to ascertain traditions, have recourse to the Church of Rome, because, as the first Church in Christendom, the common traditions were preserved there by the resort of Christians from all quarters. This twofold reason for resorting thither has long ceased to exist, and consequently this passage of Irenæus can afford no support to the claims of modern Rome, until it can be proved that those portions of the Christian world which are not in communion with her are no part of the Catholic Church.
[pg 069]There is another subject which has caused much discussion, which is adverted to by Irenæus, viz. the miraculous powers of the Church. He declares that in his time powers of this kind were possessed by Christians, such as raising the dead149, and casting out devils, and healing the sick; that they likewise had the gift of prophecy150, and spoke with tongues, and [pg 070] revealed secret things of men and mysteries of God151. It is well known that Gibbon and Middleton have thrown doubt upon the miraculous powers of the primitive Church; and one of their chief arguments is that the early writers, such as Irenæus, content themselves with general statements, but bring no specific instance. The subject has been very fully entered into by the present highly learned and amiable bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Kaye, in his work on Tertullian152; and in the general I am disposed to acquiesce in the theory adopted by the bishop, that those powers were conferred only by apostolical hands, and that of course they would continue till all that generation was extinct who were contemporary with St. John, the last of the Apostles. That would admit of Irenæus having known instances; and not having any idea that the power was to be extinct, he would think that it still remained, even if he had not known any recent instances. It is necessary to remark, however, that he speaks of the gifts of tongues and the revealing of secrets and mysteries, not as a thing coming under his own knowledge, but heard of from others; and it does not appear that he intends to say that they continued to his own time. And I will venture to observe that it appears rather unfair to Irenæus to set [pg 071] aside his testimony by saying that he brings no specific instance of those things which he speaks of as still done. He might feel that the thing was so notorious, that those who were not convinced by the notoriety of such occurrences would cavil at any particular case he might select; and his mentioning that some of those who had been delivered from evil spirits had become converts, that some of those who had been raised from the dead, being poor, had been assisted with money153, and that some had lived many years after154, surely indicates that he was speaking from a knowledge of individual cases. One should indeed have expected that every one who owed his deliverance from Satanic possession to the miraculous power possessed by Christians would have embraced the faith of those who exercised it; and the circumstance that Irenæus affirms this of some only gives a greater air of probability to his whole statement. Besides this, we must distinguish between the cases of persons healed by the direct agency of an individual, and those in which it pleased God to hear the joint prayers of several; for it is observable that our author attributes the raising of the dead only to [pg 072] the united prayers and fasting of a whole Church, and confines it to cases of great urgency155.
The testimony which Irenæus bears to the relation between the Church and the empire is but slight. He mentions a Christian as having been in his own youth high in the imperial court, at the same time that he was a follower or admirer of Polycarp156; he speaks of Christians in the imperial palace deriving an income from the heathen, and able to assist their poorer brethren157; and he acknowledges the general advantages which Christians derived from the supremacy of the Romans, in common with their other subjects, in the prevalence of peace and the freedom from individual outrage158. But he mentions very distinctly the persecutions at another time Christians suffered (particularly alluding to those which took place at Lyons), and notices that slaves were compelled to inform against their masters; and that in this way the calumny that Christians fed upon human flesh arose, from a misunderstanding of the nature of the holy Eucharist159; the slaves having heard their [pg 073] masters speak of feeding on the body and blood of Christ, and taking it in a literal sense.
The proper aspect to view the Church in is a matter of so much practical importance at all times, that it can never be uninteresting to know the light in which it was regarded in the subapostolical age, of which Irenæus is a very unobjectionable evidence.
We shall find then that this writer considered the Church to be an ascertainable society, planted first at Jerusalem160, and thence spread to the limits of the habitable globe161; planted by the Apostles, and kept up by and in the elders or bishops their successors162. It is, however, divided into separate Churches, which are to regard that of Jerusalem as their mother [pg 075] Church163. The whole Church, moreover, is to its individual members as a mother to her children164: [pg 076] she is appointed for the quickening of creation165, and in her is the way of life166, which those who keep aloof from her do not possess167; in her is the Holy Spirit, which is not to be found out of her168. She possesses the adoption and inheritance of Abraham, and her members are consequently the seed of Abraham169. Being thus appointed for the quickening of the world, by being the way of life to its members, she has for that purpose received the faith from the Apostles, which it is her business to distribute to her children170. She is therefore the appointed preacher of the faith, or the truth, which is not variable and [pg 077] changeable, but one, and only one171; not merely a quality infused into the heart, but a form of truths embodied or summed up in words, and delivered to her members when they are initiated into her172. Her ancient system is therefore the guide to truth173, and those who wish to know it must have recourse to her, and be brought up in her bosom174. Her testimony, moreover, is confirmed by the Apostles and Prophets175, whose writings are kept in the custody of her elders176, with which, moreover, those must [pg 078] expect to be fed who come to her177. She has succeeded to the office of the ancient Jewish Church of being the great witness of the unity of the Godhead178.
To show that she is commissioned from above, she wrought continual miracles for the good of the world by prayer and invocation of the name of Jesus179; she even raised the dead by means of fasting and prayer180; and she alone produced persons who sealed their own sincerity and the truth of their faith by their blood181.
Finally, although not exempt from weakness, and [pg 079] capable of losing whole members, she, as a body, remains imperishable182.
It is remarkable how strictly this notion of an external, visible, ascertainable body, consisting of individuals, and under the government of individual officers, having a personal succession in distinct localities183, is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England; and how totally opposed it is to the notions held amongst dissenters, and by individuals within the Church in modern times. According to Irenæus, moreover, the different classes of sectaries would be regarded as having neither spiritual life nor the Holy Spirit, except so far as they might be supposed to be in communion with the body governed by elders or bishops descended from the Apostles. If in any way or to any degree they can be supposed to be in communion with them, to that extent they would be thought to have the Holy Ghost, and to be in the way of life, but no further. I am not now discussing whether he was right or wrong; I am merely pointing out the contrariety between his views of the Church and those which appear to be most popular at present. I doubt if most Protestants would not pronounce his doctrine to be gross [pg 080] bigotry; for very many of those who would go so far with him as to acknowledge the Church to be a visible society, would be very far from restricting the grace of the Holy Spirit to the communion of the bishops in succession from the Apostles.
I must, however, direct more particular attention to one part of his system which did not require to be brought out prominently. We have seen that he thought it possible for the Church to lose whole members. In fact, although he thought that the truth was kept up by the succession of bishops throughout the Church, and that it was a mark of truth to be so kept up, he still believed that presbyters or bishops might, through pride, or other evil motives, make schisms in the Church184; and he taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, [pg 081] keep the Apostles' doctrine, and lead good lives185; implying, of course, that some who were in the succession might depart from the Apostles' doctrine. The succession was not, therefore, in his opinion, an infallible test of truth in the individual Church. Any individual Church, or even a considerable number or collection of Churches, might fall into heresy, and thus become cut off from the Church; but it is evident that he did not think this possible to happen to the great body of the Church.
It is manifest from this that he thought the private Christian must sometimes pass judgment upon his bishop, and might be called upon to separate from him, and to adhere to those who were more orthodox. In what cases this was requisite, or what was to be the extent of the alienation, he does not give any hint; but this clearly establishes that he thought private judgment upon religious controversy to be sometimes a duty: for without the exercise of private judgment upon the part of the layman, it would be in some cases impossible for him to show his preference for those bishops who adhered to the Apostles' doctrine.
[pg 082]We find no trace in Irenæus of any authority in the Church of Rome to decide controversies for the rest of the Church. On the contrary, he taught Christians to have recourse to any ancient apostolical Church, or rather collection of Churches186, if they wished to ascertain the traditional system of the Church. He indeed quotes that Church as being in his time a more important witness to the truth than any other individual Church, because, through the continual concourse of Christians thither, in consequence of its more powerful pre-eminence, the traditions of the universal Church were there collected as it were into a focus187; but, as I have pointed out elsewhere188, he recognises no authority in that Church to claim to decide controversies. With him it is not any individual Church that is commissioned to preserve the truth, not even the Church of Jerusalem, which he calls the mother of all Churches (a title which has been since arrogated by the Roman Church), but the Catholic Church, truly so called, by the mouth of her pastors throughout the world; for although he mentions the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome in his day as a matter of fact, he does not [pg 083] state it to be a matter of right; nor does he ground any thing upon it but the further fact that it followed, of course, that Christians resorted to it from all quarters, as they did afterwards to Constantinople. He gives no hint as to the source of that pre-eminence, other than its having been settled by the two Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and honoured with being the scene of their martyrdom189. And his appeal to it he builds, not on any authority residing in it, but upon the fact that at that time the confluence from all parts of the Church caused the tradition of the whole Church to be best preserved there, as was afterwards the case at Constantinople, and has since been no where. So that his appeal to Rome is not in fact an appeal to that Church, but to the Church universal; and since Rome has ceased to be the place of resort to the universal Church, the ground for appealing to her has ceased likewise.
On the subject of the Bishops of the primitive Church several questions have arisen, and it is of course highly desirable to know whether Irenæus furnishes any evidence on either side of them. It is not to be expected that we can discuss any of them fully by the aid of any single writer; but such indications as we meet with may with propriety be drawn out.
[pg 084]That which first demands our notice is whether Bishops existed, as a distinct order from Presbyters, from the beginning.
Now Irenæus does undoubtedly call the same persons by the name of Bishops and Presbyters interchangeably. But it has been long ago pointed out that the circumstance of the same name being borne by persons holding two different offices, proves nothing. It is unsafe to infer from the circumstance that bishops are called presbyters, or presbyters bishops, that therefore there was not a permanent officer set over the other presbyters, and endued with functions which they could not exercise, although not at first distinguished by a specific name.
On the other hand, we learn from him that there were to be found in every part of the Christian world bishops or presbyters placed at the head of Churches, which from their importance, must have had other presbyters in them, and which we know from other sources to have had other presbyters in them; that there was only one of these at one and the same time; that they were intrusted with the government of the Churches, and called the Bishops of those Churches; that the authority of the office was handed down from individual to individual; and that the individuals who filled this office, and by consequence [pg 085] the office itself, were appointed by inspired apostles190. All these facts are irreconcileable with the hypothesis that all presbyters were equal in authority and function.
The question whether these bishops and presbyters might not have been simply pastors of independent congregations, is answered by finding that they had other presbyters under them, (as Irenæus under Pothinus, and Florinus and Blastus under the Bishops of Rome,) and that in places such as Rome, where there were probably more congregations than one.
There is nothing in Irenæus to favour the idea that the subject-presbyters were not properly clergymen; on the contrary, the letter of the martyrs to Eleutherius would appear to speak of Irenæus as a clergyman, when we at the same time know him to have been a presbyter: and it does appear in the highest degree improbable that the flourishing Church of Rome, which we know to have been the place of residence of two Apostles at once, should have been left, down to Irenæus's time, with only a single clergyman in it, which must have been the case upon this theory; to say nothing of Smyrna, which, according to the same scheme, must have [pg 086] been left destitute of spiritual superintendence during Polycarp's visit to Rome, which S. Irenæus has recorded.
But granting the existence of Bishops such as we have them now, and their appointment by Apostles, another question arises, first suggested, so far as we know, by S. Jerome, whether the powers now exclusively reserved to Bishops, such as ordination and government, were so exclusively delegated to them by the Apostles, as that those powers exercised by other presbyters are invalid. The question does not appear to have occurred to Irenæus: but we have no hint in him of other presbyters having the same authority as the bishops of the Churches; on the other hand, he expressly states that the Apostles committed the Churches to the government and teaching of individual bishops or presbyters in each, making them their successors, and giving them their own office191. And the very circumstance of their committing the Churches to those individuals did (by what appears to me inevitable consequence) exclude all others from the same place to which those individuals were appointed, and constitute them an order by themselves. And that the universal Church understood the appointment in that sense is proved by the fact, recorded by Irenæus, that the succession of authority [pg 087] was kept up in individuals down to his time; the evident implication being that it was so in all Churches.
The evidence, therefore, supplied by Irenæus, although not enabling us, by itself, to discuss the whole question fully, is in support of the discipline of the Church of England, which refuses to recognize the ordinations of any but bishops, properly so called, and having their authority in succession from the Apostles192.