Persons sometimes ask, What is the advantage of studying the Fathers? why cannot we be contented with the light of Scripture? Those who study them reply, that one use at least is, that by their help the obscure parts of Scripture, where some truths are but hinted at or supposed, are brought forth into light and clear outline.
An instance of this, and a very unobjectionable one, is to be found in the doctrine of Irenæus, and not of him alone, as to the intermediate state. We know from Scripture that there is an unseen state to which Christ descended492; and that the just after death go to paradise493, and are with Christ494. If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is taken literally, it seems to be implied that the good and bad are [pg 234] separated in that state, and yet that they are capable of holding intercourse with each other; and there seems to be a hint that the state of the dead is, in some sense, a state of confinement495. Beyond this we have little, if any thing.
Our views, however, such as they are, become confirmed and acquire definiteness, as we find the same subjects treated of or alluded to by Irenæus.
He treats the parable I have spoken of, as not strictly a parable, but a relation of real occurrences496; and asserts that it shows us that the soul, in a state of separation from the body, retains its individuality, so that disembodied souls may know each other, and hold mutual intercourse; and that each class of persons has its appropriate habitation even before the day of judgment497. Accordingly he affirms that [pg 235] Christ observed the law of the dead, and departed into the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were. And conformably he teaches us that the souls of his disciples will at death depart into the invisible place destined for them by God, and there remain, waiting for the resurrection498. [pg 236] And this invisible place he declares to be paradise, to which Enoch and Elias are already translated with their bodies, anticipating immortality499. But to those who have died he declares that this state is a state of condemnation, even to those who are found in life500. For he believed that the souls of the just, although in death and consequent condemnation, would retain the Spirit of God, and consequently the seed and pledge of a new life501; and [pg 237] that by means of this same Spirit they would rise again at the last day, being quickened by the Spirit, even as their Lord was502.
There is another branch of this subject; viz. the employment of our Saviour while in the intermediate state. Irenæus thought, as did other Fathers, that our Lord went and preached the Gospel to those who were dead, there being forgiveness to whosoever would believe in him, so preaching to them; and that those who in old times had hoped in him, and foretold his coming, did then believe in him and obtain remission503.
[pg 238]Here again we have a definite meaning given to passages of Holy Writ, respecting which we may discuss and have discussed endlessly, resting in the mere light of Scripture. And that being the case, it appears more rational to accept the interpretation furnished by early writers, who are in all probability in this and other cases giving us views which had come down from the Apostles themselves.
It was the opinion of the Gnostics that the Tempter was either the same as the God of the Old Testament, acting in opposition to the Supreme Being, or a creature and agent of this God. In contradiction to this notion, Irenæus lays down, and confirms from various portions of Scripture, that he was one of the angels, attendants upon the Supreme Being, who rebelled against him, who consummated his rebellion by seducing man from his allegiance, and who is always setting himself up as a rebel against his Maker504.
Having proved this from the past history of the world, he continues the proof by adducing the prophecies concerning Antichrist, the Millennium, and the consummation of all things505. In this way he is [pg 240] led to develope his own views upon those subjects: and as his opinions on the Millennium are different from those which have prevailed subsequently, with almost universal consent in the Western Church, that portion of his Treatise is rarely found complete in our present MSS., the copyists not thinking it proper or worth their while to copy what was generally disapproved by the Church506.
Irenæus, then, regards Antichrist as a direct agent of Satan, in and by means of whom he will fulfil the great object of his rebellion, of procuring himself to be owned by mankind as their king, and worshipped as their God; by whom he will abolish all idols, and set himself up as the one idol, uniting in himself all the delusion of all the false gods who have ever existed. In him, therefore, will be literally fulfilled the prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4507; [pg 241] for he will literally enthrone himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and by oppressive methods will endeavour to exhibit himself as God, and Christ508. [pg 242] Irenæus applies to this event the prophecy of Daniel concerning the abomination of desolation, quoted by our Lord, Matt. xxiv. 15, 16509.
He likewise applies to him what is said by Daniel of the little horn, in Dan. vii. 8. 20-26; conceiving the ten horns to be ten kings of different portions of the Roman Empire510, and consequently believing [pg 243] that Antichrist will be a power, who will overthrow and kill three of the kings of those divisions, and reign for a space of three years and a half; during [pg 244] which time he will trample under foot the saints of the Most High511.
He affirms that he is the other, mentioned by our Lord, (John v. 43,) who will come in his own name; and the unjust judge, who feared not God nor regarded men, to whom the widowed Jerusalem will come for redress against her enemy; in consequence of which he will transfer the seat of his dominion thither.
He declares him to be the wicked king of Daniel, (viii. 23-25,) who for three years and a half will put down the pure offering which the saints offer to God, i. e. the Holy Eucharist512.
He finds him under the Beast of the Revelation of [pg 245] St. John, (xvii. 11-14,) who will drive the Church into the wilderness, and finally be vanquished by our Lord. He identifies the ten kings who will give their kingdom to the beast with the ten divisions of Daniel's fourth kingdom, (Dan. ii. 33,) of whom three will be killed by Antichrist; and the rest, submitting to him, will assist him in conquering Babylon, and burning it with fire: and he makes the stone cut out without hands to be Christ, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and set up an eternal one, (Dan. ii. 44, 45513).
[pg 246]Irenæus again sees Antichrist in the beast (Rev. xiii. 2-18) whose head was wounded, who has a mouth given to him speaking great things, and receives power for forty and two months; who has an armour-bearer, called the false prophet, who will work great miracles by magical power, through the aid of evil spirits; the number of whose name is 666514.
[pg 247]Respecting this number he enters into a special discussion, in which he first reproves those who hastily endeavoured to interpret it515, and then endeavours to lay down correct principles of interpretation for it. He suggests that we must wait till the other signs of Antichrist begin to be fulfilled, such as the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts, and the sudden coming of another power to their discomfiture. We must also remark, he tells us, that Jeremiah (viii. 16) has foretold that he will be of the tribe of Dan516. We must not be rash in applying [pg 248] the number to any particular individual or power, for many names will correspond with it, such as Εὐάνθας, Λατεῖνος, (which he thinks very probable, as being the name of the last of the four empires,) and Τειτὰν, for which he suggests many, to his apprehension, plausible recommendations517.
[pg 249]This is the sum of what he tells us on the subject of Antichrist; and he declares that when he has reigned, sitting in the temple of Jerusalem, for three years and a half, then the Lord will come to judgment, and to introduce the times of the kingdom of heaven, and the true Sabbath, in which many shall come from the east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob518.
[pg 250]It is foreign to my purpose to enter into the probability or improbability of these interpretations: but two things strike me as remarkable: first, the decided identification of the ten horns of the beast with the Roman Empire in a state of division; and secondly, the admission of the mystical meaning of days in the prophecy of Daniel (viii. 27) as signifying years, coupled with the literal interpretation of time in other passages; as, for instance, Dan. vii. 25, and Rev. xiii. 5.
When the short reign of Antichrist ceases, the undisputed reign of Christ (according to Irenæus) will begin, and will continue a thousand years. For as the days of creation were six, and the day of rest one; as moreover one day is with the Lord a thousand years; this world is destined to endure six thousand years in this state of turmoil and perplexity519, and then will succeed a thousand of rest and enjoyment520. When that time arrives, the world will be restored to its pristine state; the very animals will all associate together in peace; the just [pg 251] will rise with their bodies, and upon this very earth, upon which they suffered, will receive the reward of their endurance521. Then shall Abraham receive, [pg 252] fully and literally, the promise made to him and to his seed, i. e. the Church, and shall really enjoy his inheritance from the river of Egypt to the great Euphrates522. Then shall Jesus drink the fruit of the vine new with his disciples523; for there shall be no more labour, but there shall be a continual table prepared by a creative hand, by the incredible productiveness [pg 253] of the fruits of the earth524. Then shall the righteous hold intercourse and communion with Angels525 in Jerusalem, which shall be then rebuilt526.
This state of things he believed, as I have said, would last a thousand years; and he adopted this view, not for want of knowing that there was an allegorical interpretation, but because he thought it forced and unnatural, and labouring under irremediable difficulties527.
[pg 254]And when the thousand years were ended, he believed that the great day of judgment would come, and the general resurrection, when the New Jerusalem would descend from heaven, of which the former Jerusalem, in which the just were prepared for immortality, would have been but an image528. Then will there be new heavens and a new earth, in which man will for ever converse with God. But there will not be only one abode of the righteous: some will ascend into heaven above the angels; others will enjoy the delights of a paradise529; but all [pg 255] will have the continual manifestation of the presence of God, and be changed into his likeness530.
This, I believe, is a correct view of the opinions of Irenæus as to certain departments of unfulfilled prophecy. I offer upon them no opinion of my own; but it is right to say that he was by no means singular in his own age531, and that there is no writer [pg 256] of any importance, down to the time of Origen, who impugned the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth. After that time, that doctrine became more and more unpopular in the Church at large; although many, from time to time, have advocated views more or less in accordance with those of the primitive millenarians.
There are two passages of Irenæus, in which the name of the Blessed Virgin is introduced, which would not have called for any particular remark, were it not for the manner in which they are perverted by Romanist writers, and especially by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in support of the blasphemous honour they bestow on her. When, however, we have examined them, we shall perceive that, although they may, no doubt, to those whose minds are imbued with superstitious prejudice, at first sight appear to countenance that prejudice, they do not really favour it.
The first of these passages affirms that “as Eve, having Adam for her husband, but being still a virgin ... being disobedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of death; so also Mary, having her destined husband and yet [pg 258] a virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation532.” There seems no difficulty in granting all this, and yet the conclusion by no means follows that the Blessed Virgin is to be regarded as a mediatrix and intercessor with God, next after her Son533. Eve was certainly the cause of death to the whole human race, because through her transgression Adam was made to transgress; and in him all mankind are made sinners. But it does not appear that original sin came to all mankind directly from Eve, or that she was any otherwise the cause of death to our race, except by bringing Adam into the transgression: otherwise we must suppose that our Lord, being born of a woman, must have inherited a sinful nature; for even Massuet does not make the Virgin sinless. As the transgression of Eve therefore, although [pg 259] no doubt her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our condemnation, so the obedience of the Virgin Mary, although her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our salvation, that is, by leading to the incarnation and birth of our Lord534. And if so, there is no foundation whatever for making her a mediatrix and intercessor with God.
But still stronger reliance appears to be placed upon the next passage, in which the Virgin Mary is called “the advocate of the Virgin Eve535.” And yet that very passage supplies a proof that this term cannot be taken otherwise than in a figurative and [pg 260] improper sense: for Irenæus therein asserts that “as the human race was condemned to death through a virgin, so it is saved through a virgin;” i. e. as he himself explains it, through her submission to the angelic announcement of the will of God, that his Son should be born of her. Now it would be clear blasphemy to ascribe our salvation to the Virgin otherwise than in a figurative sense, as being an instrument in the divine hand for its accomplishment by becoming the mother of the real Saviour; and so, in the same figurative sense she was the advocate of Eve, by becoming the mother of him who was really her advocate. The figure is, no doubt, rather bold, but still it is evidently but a figure.
This interpretation indeed is so obvious, that to us, who have no such prejudices as the members of the Roman Church, it would have been unnecessary to insist upon it, were it not for the violent perversion of the passage by their writers. It is, perhaps, worthy of more distinct indication, that Irenæus, by declaring that the Blessed Virgin was the cause of salvation to herself, as well as to others536, directly contradicts the idea held by some in the Roman Church, (and I believe in the Greek likewise,) that she was entirely sinless. On the other [pg 261] hand, he undoubtedly countenances (although he does not use) the appellation given to her by many, of the mother of God537.