Those scholastical discussions on the nature of justification with which we have become familiar had not arisen when Irenæus wrote, and consequently we cannot expect him to speak with the precision to which we are accustomed. Still there are some principal points upon which, simply following the Scriptures, he is practically clear.
He teaches, for instance, that men are not justified in themselves, but by the coming of Christ420, and [pg 195] more explicitly, by the obedience of Christ421; whence we may fairly conclude that he would place the meritorious cause of justification in Christ: and as he connects justification with remission of sins422, and remission of sins with the cross and death of Christ423, he would no doubt trace our justification to the death of Christ on the cross.
In the same general manner he teaches that faith justifies man424, speaking particularly of Abraham, to [pg 196] whom he attributes faith in Christ. He appears likewise to express faith, in another passage, by attending to the light of Christ425; but as the passage does not exist in the Greek, we cannot be quite certain what is its real meaning. Now although he says here that faith justifies, and elsewhere that our faith is our own426, because it springs from our own will and choice, yet it is plain, from the previous paragraph, that he simply means that faith is the qualification for justification.
Again, where Irenæus says that man is justified by the moral law, which those who were justified by faith before the giving of the Law observed427; and again, quoting the text: “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me;” declares that God rejected the sacrifices and ceremonies by which the Jews thought to obtain remission of sins, and taught them these things (contained [pg 197] in that text) by which man is justified, and draws nigh to God428: in these passages Irenæus no doubt intends to say nothing more or less than St. James does where he declares that man is justified by works. If any one regards Irenæus as contradicting the true doctrine of justification by faith, he must conceive that St. James equally contradicts it; and the same considerations which explain St. James will equally explain Irenæus.
I may remark, moreover, in a matter confessedly not admitting of absolute demonstration, that Irenæus appears to use justification in what is commonly called the forensic sense, and as taking its date from the act of the soul, by which it receives and embraces the divine light, and as being kept up and renewed by acts of thanksgiving and calling upon [pg 198] God and dependence upon him, and observance of the moral law. But I have no wish to insist controversially upon these conclusions.
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 tables429: but he asserts, conformably to the opinion of Josephus430 and Philo431, that [pg 200] each table contained five commandments. On the other hand Hesychius432, Origen433, Ambrose434, and Procopius435 reckon them as we do. The division into three and five, followed by the Roman Church, does not appear earlier than Augustine436. There is however sufficient diversity to prevent our insisting much on our division. It must be observed, however, that Josephus437 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 wine438; that a form of invocation was used, which the heretics imitated439; that the term εὐχαριστέω (to give thanks) had become [pg 201] technical, and signified to consecrate440; that the expression for ever and ever occurred in the Eucharistical form441, which shows that a settled form had become customary in his time; and that Christians sounded Amen all together442. The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token of communion and amity443.
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 time444.
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 Church445.
There are several allusions to the practice of public [pg 202] confession and penance, as a customary and established part of discipline. In some cases it was voluntary446.
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 Pentecost447.
[pg 203]A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration, according to the choice of those who observed it448. 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; Beveridge449, Patrick450, and Hooper451 upholding [pg 204] it, and Morton452, Taylor453, and Bingham454 denying it. This passage might appear to be decisive, [pg 205] 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 hours455.
[pg 206]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 [pg 207] 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 Grabe456 (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. [pg 208] Both Grabe and Bingham457 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 Christians458 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 [pg 209] 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 says459, that the fast of forty days was not ordained [pg 210] 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 bishop460. 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 Churchmen461. 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.
One of the greatest difficulties to modern readers in the history of the primitive Church is the state of feeling and opinion on the subject of the Sabbath. We have been in the habit of arguing from the primitive institution of a holy day (which we have called a sabbath), and of viewing the Lord's day as answering to it; and if we may judge by the language of the earliest writers, they did not consider the Lord's day as intended to be a sabbath in itself, although some of them regarded it as being appointed instead of the Sabbath462. Irenæus certainly [pg 212] viewed the institution of the Sabbath as entirely Mosaical, and thought that Abraham and the patriarchs before the Law did not keep it463.
It must not, however, be thence hastily concluded that he believed that Abraham and the patriarchs knew nothing of the seventh day as a day of divine worship. The primary and leading idea of a sabbath, properly so called, is (not holiness but) rest; that is, abstinence from any employment that can be construed into labour. Now Irenæus might very well deny that the Patriarchs kept a day of rest from all employment, without in any degree intending to deny that they devoted the seventh day especially to religious worship.
An illustration of my meaning will be found in the admission of Justin Martyr, that Christians did not keep the Sabbath464, coupled with the well-ascertained fact465, that a very large proportion of them [pg 213] indeed were in the habit of attending divine service on the seventh day. Perhaps a still closer illustration is seen in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, which expressly forbid Christians to keep the Sabbath like Jews466, and at the same time direct the Eucharistic offering to be made on that day as well as on the Lord's day467. If then many of the early Christians devoted a portion of the Saturday statedly to public religious exercises, and yet did not consider themselves as keeping a sabbath, it would be very unsafe to infer from the assertion that the Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath, that therefore they had no day of religious worship. In fact it seems scarcely possible that the division and numbering of the days by sevens could have been kept up, as we know it was468, before the giving of the Law, without some religious observance connected with it.
Although, then, Irenæus did not regard the Mosaical Sabbath as being observed before the giving of the Law, and consequently regarded it as abolished with the Law, yet as he has asserted that the moral [pg 214] law or decalogue was observed before Moses, and implies that we are not at liberty to reject it469, it is very certain that he must have conceived the fourth commandment to be in some sense or other a directory to Christians: and it may therefore be inquired what he conceived ought to be learnt from it. This may in some degree be gathered from his saying that the Sabbath, like the whole Jewish Law, was symbolical, and that it was intended to teach men to serve God every day, and to typify the kingdom of God, when whosoever has persevered in godliness shall partake of his table470. For he believed that the world was destined to endure in [pg 215] its present state as many thousands of years as the days of creation, and that then God's kingdom would be set up on earth471, which will be the true sabbath of the just472. But he regarded our Lord's apparent relaxation of the stringency of the sabbath, not as a direct instruction to Christians, but as an explanation of the proper meaning of the fourth commandment as addressed to the Jews473.
[pg 216]I think it would appear from these passages that Irenæus was not in the habit of regarding the Christian practice of hallowing the Lord's day as the explicit fulfilment of the fourth commandment. He lived so near the apostolical times that he no doubt observed it in obedience to Christ's institution, without considering whether it was contemplated by the [pg 217] original institution of a holy day or not. But in common with other Christian writers, he did not think that the fulfilment of the fourth commandment lay in devoting any particular portion of time to the service of God; but in serving him continually as much as possible; and therefore, as a matter of course, in observing those times of sacred repose and divine worship which either the institution of Christ, or the common custom of Christians, or the rules of the Church, might have appointed474. [pg 218] According to such a feeling, therefore, whilst no particular portion of time would be kept with Jewish superstition, as though it were an end of itself, whatever time was kept would be so kept as to ensure the ends proposed by its observance.
And, if we revert to what has been before observed as to Irenæus's view of the law of liberty, we shall see that he would be so far from supposing that this Christian freedom authorized us to dispense with devoting one day in seven to God's service, that he would feel that it ought to lead those who had it in their power to devote even a larger portion. And such in fact was the practice of the Christians of those times. They assembled together not only on the morning and evening of the Sunday, but also throughout the east on the morning and evening of Saturday, and on the morning of Wednesday and Friday. When, therefore, there was so much zeal for the service of God, and the commandment was kept so amply in its spirit without thinking of the letter of it,—the warm feeling of Christians making them a law to themselves,—there was nothing to lead them to inquire critically how much the commandment actually required of them; and to have [pg 219] instituted such an inquiry would have appeared like putting a restriction upon the ardour of Christian love, and returning to the spirit of the Law of Moses.
The true question, then, to ask is, not why the first Christians did not put the Lord's day upon the footing of the paradisiacal sabbath, but why we are called upon to do so in these latter days? And the true answer will be found in the fact that the great body of us have abused the law of liberty, as the Israelites of old had done, and therefore, like them, have need, in the providential dealings of God, to be put back under rules and restrictions again, until we are become fitted to act as children of God: and when we are so, we have no wish to shake off such restrictions, but of our own accord go beyond them.
In connection with this subject it is very remarkable that the Church of England in her catechism has not thought proper to connect the Lord's day in particular with the fourth commandment; although most of our writers for the last three hundred years have found it necessary so to do. It is true that we have done no more than our duty by pointing out to our people that God from the beginning has hallowed one day in seven, in order to prevent them from relapsing into absolute heathenism;—the error has been that we have too much omitted to show [pg 220] that this was the least he would be satisfied with. We have too much written as though those who fully observed one day in seven had done their duty, instead of leading them to feel that they cannot be possessed of the spirit of true Christian obedience so long as they confine themselves to the letter of the law, and do not of their own accord embrace every means of grace and spiritual improvement.
The writers of the primitive Church, taking the lead from the inspired writers, and probably preserving in many cases the traditional interpretations of the Apostles, were in the habit of seeing types in many things which to us appear to have none but a literal meaning. It is, however, certain that there was a great tendency amongst the Hellenistic Jews to make the whole of the Old Testament typical; and no doubt some Christians early followed them, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (which were early writings, whether spurious or not) abundantly show: and this tendency continued to increase until the time of Origen, by whom it was pushed to such extremes, that, from that time, it became less popular.
Irenæus, however, is far from being a fanciful writer, and was more directly connected with the Apostles than most of the Fathers, and therefore the [pg 222] types which he recognises are worthy of much more attention than those of Origen.
With him, then, Abel was a type of Christ, as having suffered innocently475; Joseph476 was a type of Christ, though in what way we are not told, probably in the same sense as Abel; Moses was a type of him when he spread forth his hands, and by that sign conquered Amalek477. That the brazen serpent was a type of healing man from the bite of the old serpent by faith, the words of Christ himself led him to see478.
There were other points in which Moses was a type of Christ. “He took an Ethiopian woman to wife, whom he thereby made an Israelitess; foreshowing that the wild olive is grafted into the olive, [pg 223] and partakes of its fatness. For since that Christ, who was born according to the flesh, was to be sought out for destruction, and to be delivered in Egypt, that is, amongst the Gentiles, to sanctify the infants there, whence also he made a Church there; (for Egypt was from the beginning a gentile nation, as was also Æthiopia;) for this reason by the marriage of Moses was shown the marriage of the Word, and by the Æthiopian wife the Gentile Church is pointed out: and those who speak against it, and inveigh against and deride it, shall not be clean; for they shall be leprous and cast out of the camp479.”
He declares that the re-appearance of justification by faith, after it had been for some time cast out of sight by the Law of Moses, was typified by the circumstances of the birth of the sons of Thamar. For as Zarah put forth his hand first, and had the [pg 224] scarlet thread bound upon it, and then retiring gave way to his brother Pharez, and thus was born after him; by this the Scripture declared “that people which has the scarlet sign, viz. faith in uncircumcision, which was shown first in the patriarchs, and afterwards withdrawn when its brother was born; and that in consequence that which was first was born second, being known by the scarlet mark upon it, which is the suffering of the Just One, foreshown in Abel, written by the Prophets, and accomplished in the last times in the Son of God480.”
Irenæus was of opinion that some of the apparent misdeeds of the old Patriarchs were not really sins, but circumstances brought upon them by divine Providence, with some mystical and typical end. Thus the cohabitation of Lot and his daughters is with [pg 225] him providential and typical, signifying that from one Father the Word, by means of the life-giving Spirit, the two sister synagogues, the Jewish and the Christian, have brought forth a spiritual seed481.
[pg 226]St. Paul has taught us that Jacob and Esau were types of the elder and younger Churches; but Irenæus has much amplified the figure, and brought in other parallelisms. “And if any one would study the acts of Jacob, he will find them not empty, but full of providential arrangements482: and first in his birth, as he caught hold of the heel of his brother, and was called Jacob, that is, the supplanter; holding and not holden; fettering but not fettered; struggling and conquering; holding in his hand the heel of his adversary, i. e. the victory: to this end was the Lord born, whose birth he typified, concerning whom John saith in the Revelation, He went forth conquering, to conquer. Moreover, in taking the birthright when his brother disdained it; as also the younger people accepted Christ the first-born, when the elder people rejected him, saying, We have no [pg 227]king but Cæsar. And in Christ was the whole blessing; and for this reason the latter people stole from the Father the blessing of the former people, as Jacob took away the blessing from Esau. For which cause his brother suffered from the lying in wait and persecutions of a brother, as also the Church suffers from the Jews483. The twelve tribes, the children of Israel, were born in a foreign country, as Christ began at a distance from his home to lay the twelve-pillared foundation of the Church. The spotted sheep were the wages of Jacob; and Christ's reward is the assemblage of men from differing nations into the one bond of the faith484, as the Father promised him: ‘Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.’ And as to Jacob, the Lord's prophet, it consisted of a multitude of children, it was necessary that he should have children from two sisters; as also Christ from two laws of one and the same Father485; and likewise of two maid-servants, [pg 228] signifying that Christ should make sons of God out both of those who in the flesh were free and of slaves, granting to all alike the gift of the life-giving Spirit486. And he did all for the sake of the younger, Rachel, who typified the Church, for whose sake Christ endured487.”
[pg 229]Rahab the harlot, again, who was a heathen and a great sinner, and received the three spies, and by reliance upon the scarlet thread, (which meant the same thing as the passover,) was saved, whilst the city in which she lived was destroyed, is a type of sinners in all future ages, who, revering the Trinity, and by faith in Christ our passover, are saved, whilst the world of those who rejected him are lost488.
[pg 230]Joshua, again, he makes a type of Christ, bringing his people into their eternal inheritance, as Moses brought them out of captivity; and he further declares that as Moses, representing the law, rested, in prefiguration of the cessation of the law, so Joshua, as representing the Gospel, and a perfect type of the personal Word, discoursed to the people; and that as Moses gave the manna, so Joshua gave the new bread, the first-fruits of life, a figure of the body of Christ489.
He finds a very humble parallel to our Lord in [pg 231] the ass of Balaam: for as all men rest from toil by mounting on a beast of burden, so Christ gives us repose from the toil of our souls by bearing the burden of our sins490.
The last specimens of types which I shall bring forward are to be found in the history of Samson. The temple in which he found his death, filled with Philistines, St. Irenæus supposes to represent the world of the ungodly; Samson himself is God's true people; the two pillars are the two covenants; and the lad who conducted Samson to the pillars is John the Baptist, leading God's people to know the mystery of Christ491.
These types will, of course, bring with them to the mind various degrees of probability. The Scripture itself teaches us the principle of typical application; and no person who considers the manner in which [pg 232] the various books of the New Testament were written, their occasional nature, so to speak, will suppose that the whole of the types are developed in it. We must therefore be left to ourselves, in some degree, to discover the other types; and yet it cannot be supposed that all the resemblances our mind can strike out were absolutely intended. But it must be some recommendation of any typical application, to say the least, to find it struck out in that early age, when those who had conversed with apostolical men were living: and where we find a number of writers agreeing to adopt any one type, (as, for instance, Clement of Rome, Justin and Irenæus, make Rahab's scarlet line typical,) it will, I suppose, appear to most minds to have a very high probability. And it is only by noticing the types in each early writer, that we can arrive at this species of authority for any one particular type.