Clearly, therefore, his disposition, where the question was what God had revealed, would be to go, first of all, and entirely, if possible, to Scripture; for whereas the heretics held that the inspired volume was obscure and uncertain, he maintained that there were truths contained in it without any doubt or obscurity, and that those were the things in which the sound-minded and pious would chiefly meditate 3. "Hanc non repre 2 III. ii. 1. Massuet (Diss. I. § 24) says, hendit Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat." Now, to my apprehension, he does tacitly disapprove the sentiment in the very passage; and however he may acknowledge that there are many parts of Scripture obscure and ambiguous, yet the whole method of his arguing shows incontestably that he thought its voice, on such points as he was discussing with the Gnostics, perfectly unambiguous. 3 * II. xxvii. 1. Ὁ ὑγιὴς νοῦς καὶ ἀκίνδυνος καὶ εὐλαβὴς καὶ φιλαληθὴς, ὅσα ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξουσίᾳ δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ὑποτέταχε τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γνώσει, ταῦτα προθύμως ἐκμελετήσει, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς προκόψει, διὰ τῆς καθημερινῆς ἀσκήσεως ῥᾳδίαν τὴν μάθησιν ἑαυτῷ ποιούμενος. Ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα, τάτε ὑπ' ὄψιν πίπτοντα τὴν ἡμετέραν, καὶ ὅσα φανερῶς καὶ ἀναμφιβόλως αὐτολεξεὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς λέλεκται. Et ideo parabolæ debent non ambiguis adaptari: sic enim et qui absolvit, sine periculo absolvit, et parabolæ ab omnibus similiter absolutionem accipient; et a veritate [i. e. per veritatem] corpus integrum, et simili aptatione membrorum, et sine concussione perseverat.-2. Cum itaque universæ Scripturæ et Prophetiæ et Evangelia in aperto et sine ambiguitate et similiter ab omnibus audiri possint, etsi non omnes credunt.-xxviii. 1. Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem, et in aperto positum de Deo testimonium, non debemus per quæstionum declinantes [in] alias atque alias absolutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam: magis autem absolutionem quæstionum in hunc characterem dirigentes, exerceri quidem convenit per And with regard to those things which are obscure and doubtful, he taught that we should endeavour to explain them by those parts which are unambiguous*. There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted. It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible. inquisitionem mysterii et dispositionis exsistentis Dei; augeri autem in charitate ejus, qui tanta propter nos fecit et facit. Grabe argues from the first of these passages as though every thing which God would have us know or believe were contained in express words in Scripture, and thus incurs the reprehension of Massuet. (Diss. III. § 11.) All that can be gathered from it legitimately is, that the things clearly revealed are expressed in Scripture without ambiguity, and that these are the most important. II. x. 1. Omnis autem quæstio non per aliud quod quæritur habebit resolutionem, nec ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solvetur apud eos qui sensum habent, aut ænigmata per aliud majus ænigma; sed ea quæ sunt talia ex manifestis et consonantibus et claris accipiunt absolutiones. 5 I. ix. 4. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ακλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἴληφε, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰς παραβολὰς ἐπιγνώσεται.—x. 1. See p. 91, note". A third aid was to be found in the assistance of the elders of the Church, who preserve the doctrine of the Apostles o, and, with the order of the priesthood, keep sound discourse and an inoffensive life', who have the succession from the Apostles, and, together with the episcopal succession, have received the sure gift of truth. He who in this way studies the Scriptures will judge (or condemn) all who are in error 9. It is obvious that he means the bishops of the Churches, who were the chief preachers of those times. And it is observable that he does not think the succession a perfect guarantee of the truth being preserved, otherwise he would not have added the qualifications of sound discourse and a holy life. He does not therefore support the idea that the truth is necessarily preserved in any one Church by the succession, or that any one bishop of any particular Church (the Bishop of Rome, for instance,) is capable of deciding the sense of Scripture authoritatively. 6 IV. xxxii. 1. 7 IV. xxvi. 4. 8 IV. xxvi. 2. 9 9 IV. xxxiii. 1. See p. 77, note 8. See p. 80, note". See p. 80, note 7. Talis discipulus vere spiritalis recipiens Spiritum Dei, qui ab initio in universis dispositionibus Dei adfuit hominibus, et futura annuntiavit et præsentia ostendit et præterita enarrat, judicat quidem omnes, ipse autem a nemine judicatur. Nam judicat gentes. Examinabit autem doctri nam Marcionis, &c. And, in point of fact, it is only upon fundamentals that he recommends an appeal to the bishops, as sure to guide the inquirer into truth. It is obvious, moreover, that, although no doubt God will aid and bless his ordinance of the ministry at all times to the faithful soul, yet that the aid of one's own particular pastor or bishop must be much less capable of settling the mind now that Christ's true pastors are opposed to each other, than in the time of Irenæus, when they held all together. In his time no such thing had occurred as a bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, or Constantinople, acknowledged by general consent to have fallen into great and important error. In short, we have no approach in Irenæus to the idea of an interpreter so infallible as shall take away from the private Christian all responsibility but that of ascertaining him and following his decisions. He points out means of arriving at truth; but he does not speak of them as unfailing, except in the case of those foundation truths which are now acknowledged by the body of every ancient Church under heaven. CHAPTER IX. ON THE NATURE AND USE OF PRIMITIVE TRADITION. Ir was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument: from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures; for in the preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work, he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from Scripture, without mentioning tradition; but since they demurred to its authority, asserting that it was imperfect and III. ii. 1. See p. 136, note |