The Baptismal Creed having been mentioned in the two previous chapters, in the one as a guide in the interpretation of Scripture, in the other as embodying (to a certain extent) Primitive Tradition, it appears natural to bring forward in the next place such notices of it as Irenæus furnishes.
We find, then, that it was customary at baptism to rehearse to every person the rule of faith held throughout the Catholic Church; in other words, the Creed364. This, indeed, was not uniform in language, but the same points appear to have been adhered to, and to have been stated in much the same order. Irenæus, indeed, does not distinctly copy any creed: but he rehearses all the chief points of it in two different passages, which I will give at [pg 158] length; these being the first clear traces we have of the primitive creed.
The first is as follows365:—
“For the Church, although spread throughout the world, even to the utmost bounds of the earth, and having received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the seas, and all that in them is: and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation: and in one Holy Ghost, who through the prophets preached the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth of a Virgin, and the Passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to gather together all things in one, and to raise from the dead all flesh of all mankind; that according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee may bow to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and every tongue may confess to him; and that he may execute just judgment upon them all, and send into eternal fire the spirits [pg 159] of wickedness, and the angels that sinned and were in rebellion, and the ungodly and unjust and lawless and blasphemous amongst men; and bestowing life upon the just and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and remained in his love, some from the beginning and some after repentance, might give them incorruption and clothe them with eternal glory: having received this preaching and this faith, as we said before, the Church, though dispersed throughout the world, keeps it diligently,” &c.
This passage strikes us at once as containing fragments of a creed the same as that of Nice, repeated in portions in the same order, although the general arrangement of the creeds is departed from.
The other passage is this366:—
“But what if the Apostles had not left us any writings? must we not have followed the order of [pg 160] that tradition which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? Which order is assented to by those many barbarous tribes who believe in Christ, who have salvation written by the Spirit in their hearts without paper and ink, and diligently keep the old tradition; believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that in them is, by Christ Jesus the Son of God: who for his most exceeding love toward his own handywork, submitted to be born of the Virgin, himself by himself uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius [pg 161] Pilate, and rose again, and was received up in glory, and will come again to be the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are judged, and sendeth into eternal fire those who pervert the truth, and despise his Father and his coming.”
The order of the creed is better preserved in this than in the other, but it is not so full in its statements.
There is one other allusion to the opening words of the creed367.
No controversy had arisen amongst Christians in the time of Irenæus on the subject of predestination, but heathen Stoics believed in an irresistible fate, and the Gnostics taught a natural and essential difference between the soul of one man and that of another, by virtue of which the former was of course raised at death to an intimate union with the Supreme Essence, whilst the latter could never hope for such an elevation, although he might be raised to a higher state than that of earthly existence.
Both these notions Irenæus combatted. He taught that man is endued with freewill368, having good [pg 163] and evil set before him, and having the power to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act [pg 164] accordingly369; that God has always treated men as having the power to act for themselves370, rewarding [pg 165] or punishing them371, praising or blaming372 them according to the nature of their choice; and that this proves that we have freewill373: that in fact the circumstance that our faith is called our own, and is rewarded374, proves that we are free agents375. In conformity with this opinion, he teaches that men are redeemed, not by compulsion, but by persuasion376; that each person has a portion of divine light given him, and will be recompensed according as he keeps or rejects it377; and that as each man's salvation thus depends upon his own exertion, and cannot be attained without it, so our reward will be the more valued for having been gained by exertion378.
We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the salvation of the elect was [pg 166] accomplished by the mere will of God concerning the individuals, either in opposition to their own will or by constraining their wills; although he asserted very fully the necessity of divine grace to cause our freewill to take a right direction379.
And yet he was a believer in divine predestination. He believed that some were predestined to have the gift of incorruptibility imparted to them, (which we have seen to mean the Divine Spirit, by which we become the adopted children of God,) and thus to have life in the sight of God, whereas they were originally in a state of death380. But he no where implies that they could not lose this gift, but the contrary381. So again he teaches that God intentionally [pg 167] delivers some men over to unbelief without a trial. But who are they? Those who, he foresees, will not believe382. He was of opinion that there is a predestined number of those who shall be saved eternally, and that when that number is completed, the end of the world will come383: the very [pg 168] idea embodied in our burial service384. But he no where hints that the individuals were predestined, as well as the number, or that those who were predestined to have the gift of immortality, were all in the number of those who should be saved eternally: so that the more we examine, the more clear does it become that he would have been opposed to Calvinistic predestination.
Who, then, are those who are predestined to the gift of immortality? The manner in which he speaks of election will enable us to answer this question. In explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says,385 that, after the first set of husbandmen had been cast out, the vineyard was “no longer fenced in, but opened to all the world, and [pg 169] the tower of the election exalted every where, beautiful to look on; for,” said he, “the Church is every where distinctly visible, and every where is there a winepress dug, and every where are those who receive the Spirit.” Here we find election commensurate with the visible Church (indeed he knows no other): and so he proceeds further on386 to speak of “the Word of God, who elected the patriarchs and us;” just as in the passage before cited387 he had said, “We who were not as yet were predestined to be;” that is, spiritually, through redemption. And so in another place he speaks of the Church as “the congregation of God; which God, that is the Son, has himself collected by himself388;” and in another passage, [pg 170] “the wages of Christ are men collected out of various and differing nations into one company of faith389.”
All these passages reflect light upon each other, and exhibit the all-wise God as planning from eternity the last dispensation, by which He chooses, through the Divine Word, to gather out of the world men of all nations, and to restore to them the lost gift of immortality, by adopting them for his own children, and bestowing on them his Spirit, and thus uniting them in the one body of his Church; so that those who believe, and continue in obedience to Him, and hold fast his teaching, continue his children; whilst those who do not obey Him are cut off from Him, and cease to be his children. And as baptism is the sign and means of our union with God and the reception of the Holy Spirit390, so baptism is the sign and pledge of this predestination and election.
There is another question as to this election, upon which Irenæus throws but little light; that is, whether God has elected into his Church upon foreseen faith or not. He expressly declares391 that God leaves [pg 171] in darkness and unbelief those who, He foresees, will not believe; but what is the precise application of that declaration, whether to those to whom God vouchsafes no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Gospel, or to those who, living in the hearing of the Gospel, do not receive his grace, is by no means clear. And it would be unsafe, therefore, to argue that Irenæus believed that God predestines men to grace from foreseen faith. The two things may appear to us correlative; but we must remember that there had been no controversy on the subject, and therefore he cannot be supposed to have weighed his language as we should perhaps do at present.
The doctrine of the Church in regard to baptism has afforded less dispute than almost any other down to the very times in which we live. It was fully recognized by Irenæus, and appears scattered up and down in various parts of his writings.
He asserts in direct terms that baptism is our new birth to God392, and ascribes to infants a share in that new birth equally with grown persons393. There is no room for any equivocal meaning in these passages. It is not merely that he speaks, as a thing of course, of infants being baptized, (which, by the plain force of words, he manifestly does,) but he directly ascribes to them also the new birth, which he asserts to be baptism. This testimony in favour of infant [pg 173] baptism and infant regeneration is very valuable from one who lived so near the apostolical times.
The necessity of the laver of regeneration he states to arise from the original corruption of man394, whom he asserts to be and to remain carnal, until he receives the Spirit of God395. The water of baptism is therefore a type of the Holy Spirit396; and in baptism our bodies receive the union with God to eternal life, which our souls at the same time receive by the Spirit397. In receiving the Holy Spirit, therefore, the soul of man receives that which it had not by nature since the fall; it becomes a living soul; for the Spirit of God is the life of the soul398. This Spirit [pg 174] he elsewhere calls the Spirit of remission of sins399, and declares that we are quickened by it. In connexion with what he says of our flesh being united to God in baptism, we may take what he elsewhere says, that our flesh is a member of Christ400.
If we inquire for his opinion of the actual spiritual state of the Christian body, we shall find him declaring that those only are the children of God who do the will of God401; that some remain thus in the [pg 175] love of God, even from the time of their baptism; others fall away, and cease to be his children; and of those who fall, some by repentance recover their relation to Him, and remain thenceforward in his love402.
There is one passage403 in which he appears at first sight to deny forgiveness to those who sin since the coming of Christ, and thence to give some countenance to the idea that wilful sin of Christians cannot be forgiven. What he really does say is simply this; that whereas the ancients who sinned before the coming of Christ did, when they had the Gospel preached to them in the regions below, and believed, receive remission of sins, there is no such hope awaiting those who now commit sin. If they die in sin, there is no further sacrifice remaining for them to be preached to them in the regions of the dead.
We can scarcely avoid remarking the strict correspondence between the doctrine of Irenæus upon this subject and that contained in the formularies of the Church of England, particularly in the Baptismal [pg 176] Service and the 16th and 27th Articles. And it is the more valuable, because it does not appear directly in the form of a precise statement, but indirectly, as in the Scriptures themselves; showing that it pervaded the whole practical system with which his mind was imbued. The difficulty in the Scriptures unquestionably is, that regeneration is no where in so many words affirmed respecting infants, and that there is language, as in St. John's first epistle, appearing to restrict it to persons capable of actual obedience. Now in Irenæus we find that omission supplied, and yet he uses without scruple the same kind of language as St. John; showing that in the system he inherited, and that by an interval of only one descent from St. John himself, the two things which, with our prejudices, are apt to appear inconsistent, were parts of one and the same doctrine.
Irenæus has expressed himself so much more fully on the subject of the holy Eucharist than any other writer near his time, that it is not wonderful that his opinions should be appealed to by those who have entered into the various discussions on the subject. And his language has just so much of ambiguity about it as to allow of hanging upon it a more exact and positive meaning than he ever thought of. Every sentence, and almost every word therefore, requires to be well weighed, that we may come at his real meaning. And we must bear in mind that he wrote hundreds of years before any controversy had arisen on the subject, and consequently is not to be judged of as though he had written since.
There are two or three important passages which bear directly on the subject, and I do not know how to do justice to it without giving them at length.
[pg 178]The first I shall take is that in the fifth book404, where he is combating the Gnostic notion that the flesh is incapable of salvation. His words are as follows:—
“And altogether absurd are they who despise the whole of the divine arrangement, and deny the salvation of the flesh, and reject its regeneration, saying that it is not capable of immortality. But if it is not saved, then the Lord did not redeem us by his blood; nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of his body. For there is no blood, except from veins and flesh, and the rest of man's substance, in which the Word of God was truly made. With his blood he redeemed us; as also his apostle saith: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins. And since we are his members, and are nourished by the creature, and he [pg 179] himself gives us the creature, making his sun to rise and sending rain as it pleaseth him, he has recognised the cup of the creature for his own blood, with which he tinges (δεύει) our blood, and the bread of the creature he has ordained to be his own body, by which he strengthens our body.
“Since, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and body of Christ, and by these the substance of our flesh gains strength and subsists, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, when it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is his member? As St. Paul saith: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: not saying these things of some spiritual and invisible man (for the spirit has neither flesh nor [pg 180] bones); but concerning the divine work in the real man, consisting of flesh and veins and bones; which is also nourished from his cup, which is his blood, and is strengthened by the bread, which is his body. And as the wood of the vine, bent down into the earth, in its proper season bears fruit, and the grain of wheat, falling into the earth and becoming dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, which takes in all things; and then, through the wisdom of God, having come to the use of men, and having received the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and being deposited in the earth and dissolved in it, will rise again in due season, the word of God granting to them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father.”
In the beginning of this passage we have an explicit [pg 181] acknowledgment that it is in some way or another in the real body and blood of Christ that we communicate in the Eucharist; and I am willing to grant that the whole passage, on a cursory reading, might be taken to imply that the bread and wine was changed into the literal body and blood of Christ; for he appears to speak of our corporeal frames being literally sustained by the body and blood of our Lord. But when we find him speaking of the necessity of our bodily frames being sustained by himself, arising out of the fact that we, even our bodies, are his members, we see immediately that, as we cannot be literally and corporeally his members, so the change of the bread into his body, and that of the wine into his blood, in order to nourish our bodies with himself, cannot be a literal and corporeal change. And so he does not say that Jesus effected any such change, but simply that he recognized the cup for his blood, and ordained the bread to be his body405.
[pg 182]Before I attempt to draw out any other of the opinions implied in this passage, I will go to another contained in the fourth book406. It is this:—
“Since, therefore, the Church offers with singleness of heart, its sacrifice is rightly accounted pure with God. As also Paul saith to the Philippians: For I am filled with those things which I have received from Epaphroditus, which were sent by you, a sweet savour, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. For it is our duty to make an offering to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, offering to him the first fruits of his creatures with a pure mind and unfeigned faith, in hope unshaken, in fervent charity. And this oblation the Church alone offers pure to the Creator, offering to him of his own work with giving of thanks. But the Jews [pg 183] do not offer it; for their hands are full of blood; for they did not receive the Word, who is offered to God [or through whom the offering is made to God], neither indeed do all the assemblies of the heretics.... How, indeed, can they feel assured that the bread over which thanksgiving is made, is the body of their Lord, and the cup that of his blood, if they do not call himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the wood bears fruit, and the springs gush forth, and the earth affords first the blade, after that the ear, then the full corn in the ear?
“And how, again, can they say that the flesh, which is sustained by the body of the Lord and by his blood, turns to corruption, and partakes not of life? Either let them alter their view, or let them [pg 184] decline to offer the before-mentioned gifts. But our view harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist again confirms our view: and we offer to him his own, making a corresponding profession of communion and union, and acknowledging the resurrection of flesh and spirit. For as the bread which comes from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. For we offer to him, not as though he needed, but giving thanks to his Divine Majesty, and sanctifying the work of his hands.”
To understand this passage more completely, it will be necessary to go back a little. Irenæus is showing, contrary to the Gnostic doctrine, that the [pg 185] Old and New Covenants emanate from one and the same God, adopting different methods at different periods of the world. He points out, therefore, that the offerings of the law of Moses were not intended to be permanent, and that, even under the law, God undervalued sacrifice as compared with obedience. He then goes on to affirm407 that the prophecy of Malachi that sacrifices should cease, and that notwithstanding a pure offering should throughout the world be offered to the name of God, was fulfilled in the Eucharist; for he informs us that Jesus, “instructing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures (not as though he needed, but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful), took the created thing, bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body;’ and likewise the cup of the earthly creature he acknowledged as his blood, and taught them the new offering of the New Testament; which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God,—to him [pg 186] who affords us our sustenance, the first fruits of his gifts.”
Here we see very distinctly what is the offering which the Church offers in the Lord's Supper, viz. the creatures or elements of bread and wine, presented as the first fruits of his gifts, and as a thank-offering to him for the rest408.
The same idea appears again in a fragment edited by Pfaff409:—
“For we offer to God the bread and the cup of [pg 187] blessing, giving thanks to him, because he hath commanded the earth to bring forth fruits for our use; and then having performed the offering, we invoke the Holy Spirit that he would render this sacrifice, even the bread, the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ; so that those who partake of these figures may obtain remission of sins and eternal life. Those, therefore, who bring these offerings with remembrance of the Lord, make no approach to the opinions of the Jews, but, performing a spiritual service, shall be called children of wisdom.”
There is something more definite in this passage than in the allusions in the Treatise against the Heresies, but the spirit is precisely similar; and it is remarkable,—more remarkable than where he is not professing to give details, that there is no mention of more than one offering, namely, that of the elements, which, and which alone, are called by the name of θυσία.
[pg 188]When, however, we come back to the second passage I have translated, we find one clause410 in which there is a various reading, where those which are acknowledged to be the best MSS. speak of the Word (i. e. the personal Word, Jesus Christ regarded especially in his divine nature,) as offered to God in the Eucharist, and the Jews are affirmed to be incapable of offering the oblation in it because they did not receive him. Now it is no doubt possible that Irenæus may have intended to speak of a spiritual offering up of our Lord with the oblation, i. e. of an offering of it in and through him; but that is all that can be implied, for there is no hint whatever of the repetition of the sacrifice of atonement for the remission of sins. The only offering is before the invocation of the Holy Ghost; and it is only after that invocation that the elements are to be regarded as the body and blood of Christ, capable of communicating remission of sins. If, therefore, according to him, there is any offering up of our Lord, it must be with the oblation of the material elements, to render that thank-offering acceptable.
But there is another reading411 which is more consonant with other passages, and therefore probably to be preferred; viz. that which represents “the [pg 189] Word” as the Mediator or Propitiation through whom the oblation is made. We have that idea distinctly expressed in a former passage412, in which he speaks, in reference to this very text of Malachi, of the Church as offering through Jesus Christ; and it is implied in the Fragment, in which he speaks of our offering these things “with remembrance (ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει) of the Lord413.”
But whichever reading we take, there is no foundation for the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ under the figure and appearance of the consecrated elements.
Both this latter quotation from the “Heresies” and the Fragment are opposed to the notion of any substantial change in the elements. The former speaks of the bread after consecration as “not common bread,” implying that it is still bread, although [pg 190] adapted to a sacred and mysterious use; and as “consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly414” (meaning probably the elements themselves and the body and blood of Christ), whereas the notion of transubstantiation requires that there should be nothing of the earthly really left after the consecration. The fragment still more explicitly calls them figures at the very time that we partake of them. It is true that the view of Irenæus differs equally from ordinary Protestant notions, and indeed is more positive than that of the English Church; but we are to bear in mind that the Fathers did not always speak with logical accuracy. Their language has been brought forward in support of the theory of transubstantiation, and therefore it has become necessary to show that they did not write on that theory. It is not equally requisite that we should be able to construct a theory which shall explain all the figurative and imaginative language in which they expressed their faith in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Irenæus certainly taught this doctrine, and that is enough for us of the Church of England, who do not concern ourselves to explain the manner of his presence. Some of us may agree with his manner of expressing it, but we do not require of others that they should agree with him.
[pg 191]We cannot complete our view of the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the Eucharist without adverting to his ideas on the consecration of the elements. This he describes in various ways, sometimes attributing it to the word of God415, sometimes to the invocation of God416, sometimes to the invocation of the Holy Ghost417. But all these may be reconciled, if we consider them to be allusions to various portions of the consecration prayer. There is such a form left in the Apostolical Constitutions, with which all the four ancient liturgies exhibited by Brett and Palmer coincide, viz. the Roman, the Oriental, the Egyptian, and the Gallican. Now all these forms contain a recital of the words of institution, which may not unfitly be called the word of God, and an invocation of God to send down his Holy Spirit upon the gifts, to consecrate them to be the body and blood of Christ, which may be called either an invocation of God or an invocation of the Holy Ghost. Is it not therefore most probable that Irenæus alludes to this prayer, which must have been used in very early ages, for its leading features to be found thus spread throughout the world? The expressions, therefore, which he uses, though various and distinct, are not contrary or contradictory: they allude to various portions of the same form.
[pg 192]It is worthy of observation, however, that this attributing of the consecration to these different things is contrary to the modern doctrine of transubstantiation, which attributes it to one and one only, viz. the recital of the words of institution: This is my body, This is my blood.
There is another passage which proves that no transubstantiation was then thought of; viz. the fragment418, which appears likely to have been a part of the account of the persecutions at Lyons. We there read that the heathen tortured the slaves of some Christians, in order to extort from them something which might serve as a colour for the severities they exercised upon them; and that the slaves, “not knowing what to say to please their tormentors, except what they had heard from their masters, that the Holy Communion was the blood and body of Christ, and thinking that it was really flesh and blood, told this to those who were questioning them.” Now it appears very clear that language such as this could scarcely have been used by a person who thought that the sacred elements had become really flesh and blood, which is the doctrine of transubstantiation; although it might be employed with perfect consistency by those who believed in a real mysterious presence of them in the Holy Communion, [pg 193] without any change in the nature of the elements.
Massuet419 brings forward, in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the fact that the Marcosians pretended, by magical rites, to effect a change of the wine into blood. As they professed to produce a substantial change, he infers that the Church must have really produced such a change. But the inference is far from being a sound one; for as magical rites are invented to pander to the appetite of the ignorant for something supernatural, so it is most probable that a pretender of this description, who wished to set up for something superior to the clergy, should profess to do something more wonderful than they; that whereas they effected none but a mystical change, he should pretend to a literal one. And this no doubt is the history of transubstantiation. It is the attempt of unspiritual minds to raise the wonder of the sacred mysteries to the highest pitch, forgetful meanwhile of the spiritual objects of them. The doctrine is eminently a carnal doctrine.