The controversy which Irenæus carried on with the Gnostics being directly and explicitly on the subject of the Divine Nature, led him to treat distinctly of the divinity and humanity of Christ and his incarnation, of the providential government of God, and his various manifestations. He is thus led, almost of necessity, to enunciate the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity in various aspects, but most especially in regard to the twofold nature of Christ.
In direct reference to the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, he describes the agency of the three Persons in the creation of man; the Father willing and commanding, the Son ministering and forming, the Spirit sustaining and nourishing him193. So again he declares that God made all things by his Word [pg 089] or Son, and Wisdom or Spirit, using the terms personally; and that this was the same thing as making them by himself194, because they are his hands195. And again, in explaining God's dispensations in regard to man, he affirms196 that God was seen under the Old Testament by the Spirit of prophecy, that he was seen subsequently by means of the Son, adoptively, [pg 090] i. e. adopting human nature into the divine197, and that he will be seen in his character of Father in the kingdom of heaven; and that in this way the Spirit in the Son prepares man, and the Son brings him to the Father, and the Father grants to him immortality: and so again in the work of man's redemption198, the Spirit operates, the Son supplies, the Father approves, and man is perfected to salvation. He likewise gives two statements of the substance of the Creed, in which the three Persons of the Trinity are spoken of in the same manner as in the Nicene Creed, both of which will be given in a subsequent chapter.
These are all the passages, so far as I have been able to discover, which speak of the three Persons of the most Holy Trinity together; but the doctrine is implied throughout.
On the twofold nature of Christ, and especially on his divinity, he is more full. Indeed it would take more space than I can spare to introduce all the passages which bear upon the subject.
[pg 091]Very near the beginning of his treatise, in rehearsing the faith of the Church, he speaks of “Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King199;” further on he quotes many passages of Scripture to show that he was spoken of absolutely and definitely as God and Lord200, and asks the question, [pg 092] How would men be saved, if He who wrought out their salvation upon earth was not God201?
He asserts that the Word was with God from everlasting202, and that Jesus was the Son of God before the creation203, that no man knows the mode of his [pg 093] generation204, and that God made all things by his indefatigable Word, who is the Artificer of all things, and sitteth upon the cherubim, and preserves all things205. He declares that the Lord who spake to Abraham was the Son206, and that it was the Word that appeared to Moses207.
This Divine Word, then, was united with his creature208, (which union is expressed by the name Emmanuel209,) and humbled himself to take upon him [pg 094] the infant state of man210, and thus having become Son of man211, went through all the ages of man212, and finally hung upon the cross213. He asserts, moreover, that although the angels knew the Father solely by the revelation of the Son214, and indeed all [pg 095] from the beginning have known God by the Son215, so that the Father is the Son invisible, and the Son the Father visible216, yet that the Son knew not the day of judgment217; and that this was so ordered, that we may learn that the Father is above all218, and that the Son ministers to the Father219: finally, that when Jesus was tempted and suffered, the Word in him restrained his energy220. But he declares likewise that Christ remained in the bosom of the Father, even when upon earth221.
[pg 096]These mysteries in the nature of Christ Irenæus does not attempt to explain, fully holding the eternal and unchangeable Divinity of the Son, even when made flesh, and his strict personal union with that flesh, and at the same time asserting his subordination to the Father, even in his divine nature; feeling that when we cannot discover the reason of every thing, we should consider the immeasureable difference between us and God222; that if we cannot explain earthly things, we cannot expect to explain heavenly things, and that what we cannot explain we must leave to God223; and in short that it [pg 097] is much better to know nothing but Christ crucified, than by subtil inquiries to fall into impiety224.
This Jesus, then, who has been testified of by all things that he was truly God and truly man225, being related to both God and man, and thus having the indispensable qualification for his office, became the Mediator between them226; he came in every dispensation, [pg 098] and summed up all things in himself227. He was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus228; when not full thirty he was baptized, but he did not begin to teach till past forty229. His ministry extended through three passovers230, and [pg 099] he suffered on the day of the passover231. He is our High Priest232; he gave his soul for our souls, and his flesh for ours 233; his righteous flesh has reconciled to God our sinful flesh 234; and he brings us into union and communion with God235. He rose again in the flesh236, and in the flesh he ascended into heaven, and [pg 100] will come again to judgment237; and he introduces his Church into the kingdom of heaven238.
Respecting the Holy Ghost, Irenæus declares that he was with God before all created things239, and (as we have seen) that he was the Wisdom of God, whose operation was the operation of God240; that he is rightly called Lord241; and he affirms that the bread of eternal life, which is the Word, is also the Spirit of the Father242. He speaks of him as coming with power to give entrance unto life to all nations, and to open to them the new Covenant, and as offering to the Father on the day of Pentecost the first fruits of all nations243.
[pg 101]He affirms that man, at his creation, had the image of God in the flesh, the likeness in the soul by the communication of the Divine Spirit244. He implies that, since the fall, man has lost the Spirit, and consequently the life of his soul; he asserts that he remains carnal until he recovers the Spirit of God245, and then he becomes again a living soul, and has in him the seed of eternal life246; that the Spirit [pg 102] we receive here is a pledge of a fuller portion247; and that at the resurrection the souls and bodies of the just will be quickened by the Spirit in union with them, and their bodies become spiritual bodies248, and capable of immortality.
This is the substance of the doctrine of Irenæus on the Trinity, and it will be seen that it is identical with that of the Church of England, and that his way of carrying it out throws light on important passages of Holy Writ; and if there had been nothing of interest to us in this Treatise beyond these clear and direct testimonies to the belief of the Church of that age on the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, we might well be glad that it was written and handed down to our times.
This being the subject out of which the Gnostic theories appear to have arisen (there being so many attempts to account for it, without in any wise bringing it into connexion with the Supreme Being), it might, perhaps, have been expected that Irenæus should have endeavoured to throw some light upon it. He has, however, taken a much wiser course. He has altogether declined making it clear, and thereby escaped the danger of inventing another heresy.
He grants, indeed, that there is sufficient ground for inquiring why God has allowed evil and imperfection to exist; but he declares that all things were intended by the Almighty to be created in the very state and with the very qualities with which they were created249. He will not allow that subsequent [pg 104] dispensations were really intended to remedy the imperfections of prior ones, because that would be to accuse God himself of not understanding at first the effects of his works250.
He asserts, moreover, that supposing angels and men to have a proper voluntary agency, to be endued with reason and the power of examining and deciding upon examination, they must, in the very nature of things, be capable of transgressing; and that, indeed, otherwise excellence would not have been either pleasant or an object of desire, because they would not have known its value, neither would it have been capable of reward, or of being enjoyed when attained; nor would intercourse with God have been valued, because it would have come without any impulse, choice, care, or endeavour of their own251. This is the only approach to a solution of [pg 105] the difficulty which all the study of philosophers and divines has ever discovered.
But when we come to inquire why some of God's creatures transgressed, and some continued in obedience, this, he says, is a mystery which God has reserved to himself, and which it is presumption for us to inquire into; and that we ought to consider what it has pleased him to reveal as a favour, and leave to him that which he has not thought proper to make known252.
[pg 106]He notwithstanding suggests this practical good arising out of the existence of evil, that the love of God will be more earnestly cherished for ever by those who have known by experience the evil of sin, and have obtained their deliverance from it not without their own exertion; and therefore that this may be regarded as a reason why God permitted evil253.
The sobriety of these views is so obvious, that it appears unnecessary to dwell further upon them.
Although Irenæus does not think proper to discuss the subject of the origin of evil, properly so called, he speaks agreeably to the Scriptures as to its introduction into this lower world, and in some degree fills up their outline. Thus he describes Satan as having been originally one of the angels who had power over the air254. He attributes the beginning of his overt acts of rebellion to his envy towards man255, because he had been made in the image of [pg 108] God, i. e. immortal256; whom through envy he stirred up to rebellion likewise257, and that by falsehood258, [pg 109] putting on the form of the serpent, that he might escape the eye of God259: wherefore, although God had pity upon man, as having fallen through weakness260, and because otherwise Satan would have frustrated the Divine purpose261, he totally cut off from himself the apostate angels262, and doomed them and their Prince to the eternal fire263, which he had from the beginning prepared for obstinate transgressors264, [pg 110] although he did not make known to them at that time that their lot was irremediable265.
The next act of the apostate spirits was to mingle themselves with human nature by carnal copulation with women, and thus to cause the total corruption of the old world and its inhabitants (notwithstanding the preaching of Enoch to these fallen spirits), and consequently their destruction266.
[pg 111]Irenæus makes none but very general allusions to the agency of the fallen spirits from the fall of man till the coming of Christ. He declares that, up to that time267, they had not ventured upon blaspheming God; but that then, becoming aware that everlasting fire was the appointed recompense of those who continued [pg 112] in rebellion without repentance, they felt themselves already condemned, and waxing desperate, charged all the sin of their rebellion on their Maker, by inspiring the Gnostics with their impious tenets268. It seems to be implied that sentence is not yet pronounced upon the fallen angels269.
After the introduction of evil into creation, and the agency by which it is propagated in the world, we have next to notice the Divine plans for its counteraction and removal; and as Irenæus was opposing the Gnostic notion that the whole government of the world, prior to the Gospel, was in the hands of beings adverse to the Supreme Being, he was naturally led to show that, on the contrary, the whole history of mankind has been a series of dispensations emanating from one and the same Supreme and only God.
We have already270 seen him stating that the whole of these dispensations were planned from the beginning; and he states them to have been carried into execution by God the Son exhibiting himself to mankind under four different aspects, figured by the [pg 114] four faces of the cherubim; first to the Patriarchs, in a kingly and divine character; secondly, under the law, in a priestly and sacrificial aspect; thirdly, at his nativity, as a man; fourthly, after his ascension, by his Spirit271.
Again, he represents God as having made four covenants with mankind; one with Noah, of which the rainbow was the sanction; a second with Abraham, by circumcision; a third of the law, by Moses; a fourth of the Gospel, by Christ272. At least this is [pg 115] the enumeration made in the Questions and Answers of Anastasius, and in the Theoria Rerum Ecclesiasticarum of Germanus, where the Greek of Irenæus is transcribed, and from which it was first published by Grabe. But the old Latin version makes a different enumeration, reckoning the first covenant before the deluge with Adam, and the second after that event with Noah273.
He thinks that the knowledge of God was kept up amongst the patriarchs by tradition from Adam, and amongst the Jews by the prophets; whilst in heathen nations the tradition has been lost, and men are left to find it out by reason274: that human governments were providentially ordained to restrain the ferocity and rapacity of mankind after they had given up the fear of God275; that the law of Moses was given [pg 116] by way of discipline, to recover the Israelites back to that sense of justice, and responsibility, and feeling of love to God and man which they had lost276; that [pg 117] the prophets were inspired in order to accustom man by degrees to bear God's Spirit and to have communion with him277: and thus in various ways God prepared mankind for salvation, providing for them laws suited to their various states of preparation.
In opposing the notions of the Gnostics, Irenæus had to defend the position that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New; that they both emanated from the same God acting differently under different circumstances. The abolition of the law, he contended, was no proof of a change of mind, but only of a change of circumstances; the law being in its nature symbolical and preparatory, when the Gospel, the reality and the end, was revealed, the office of the law ceased278.
[pg 118]He distinguishes, however, between what he calls the natural portions of the law and the rest. As they were kept by good men before the law279, so he conceives them to be binding on us ever since280. It [pg 119] is not at first sight clear what he means by that term, but he expressly informs us that he comprises in it the whole decalogue281. And yet there is every appearance that he would exclude the fourth commandment, which he expressly asserts not to have been observed before the giving of the law282.
But although the precepts of the moral law are equally binding at all times, he thought that they were not formally given to the just men of old, because they observed them voluntarily, being a law unto themselves283. But when God's people forgot [pg 120] them in the land of Egypt, then it became necessary distinctly to enact them, to prepare man for the fuller duties of love to God and goodwill to man284. And when they did not obey the moral law, he added to it the ceremonial285, that, by types, their servile and childish natures might be trained up to the apprehension of realities; by temporal things, of eternal; by carnal, of spiritual; by earthly, of heavenly286. Some of their ordinances had a twofold use; as circumcision was intended, equally with their rites and ceremonies, to keep them distinct from the heathen, and also to signify the circumcision of the soul287.
[pg 121]To show that the moral law was preparatory to the Gospel, he alleges the fact that Jesus taught its precepts as the way of life to the young lawyer who came to inquire of him; not supposing that these were sufficient in themselves, but that they were steps to the knowledge of Christ288.
He, however, thought that our Lord wished that the whole ceremonial law should be observed as long as Jerusalem stood289.
But although he appears to think that the law, as a whole and in the letter, is no longer binding to Christians, he does not think that this leaves us at liberty to do as we like. If we are not tied down [pg 122] to the letter, like slaves, that is because it was intended that the law of liberty should be of wider range, and our obedience extend itself beyond the letter, and that our subjection to our Heavenly King should be more hearty and thoroughgoing than ever; and therefore, if we wish to remain in the way of salvation through Christ, we must voluntarily adopt the precepts of the decalogue, and, giving them a completer meaning, endeavour to realize in our conduct all the fulness of their enlarged application290.
[pg 123]It is almost unnecessary to point out the exact agreement of these sentiments with the seventh and fourteenth articles of the Church of England, and how impossible it must be for a person holding them to think that we can do any thing whatever beyond what Christ has a right to expect from us. It is manifest that he would not have thought that any degrees of Christian holiness are really at our option, whether we shall seek them or not; but that every person who, having any degree of perfection, or any means of advancement placed before him, knowingly neglects it, becomes thereby unworthy of him who has given him liberty291, and hazards his salvation: in short, that “to whom much is given, of him will much be required.”