received; but in other cases he makes a directly positive use of it, viz. to prove particular doctrines which do not appear to have been explicitly disputed.

What, then, is the tradition to which Irenæus assigns this important function? It is that faith which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributes to her children; which may be seen in every Church; which is handed down by the bishops in all the several Churches'; which is taught to every person when he is baptized; which was in his time preserved in the Church of Rome, in particular, by the confluence of the faithful from every side; in the Church of Smyrna by S. Polycarp and his successors; in the Church of Ephesus, founded by St. Paul, and watched over by St. John; and in the rest of the Asiatic Churches'; which may likewise be learnt in the first epistle of S. Clement, and in the epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians 2; which was one and the same throughout the Churches, so that ability cannot increase its efficacy, nor weakness diminish it; so that knowledge may add to it the explanation of difficulties, but cannot

NATURE OF PRIMITIVE CATHOLIC TRADITION. 149

change the faith; and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it.

It is obvious, from these quotations, that the particular tradition which Irenæus adduces against the Gnostics is the substance of the baptismal creed; and thence, perhaps, it may be inferred that he would confine tradition altogether to the creed. But it must be remembered that, in declining to go to Gnostic tradition, and choosing in preference that which is truly apostolical, the principle of his appeal is this: that the Apostles delivered the doctrines of the Gospel by preaching, &c. to the different Churches, and by individual instruction to the particular persons whom they made bishops of the Churches; that the bishops had delivered down the same mass of truths to the Churches they presided over, and to their successors; and that the truth might be ascertained by discovering what was universally received in all the apostolical sees 5. But

3 I. x. 2. Οὕτω καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας πανταχῆ φαίνει, καὶ φωτίζει πάντας ἀνθρώπους τοὺς βουλομένους εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων ἐρεῖ· (οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον·) οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης, οὔτε ὁ πόλυ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν, ἐπλεύνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἠλαττόνησε.

4 Ι. x. 3. Τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἢ ἔλαττον κατὰ σύνεσιν εἰδέναι τινὰς γίνεται ἐν τῷ τὰ, ὅσα ἐν παραβολαῖς εἴρηται, προσεπεργάζεσθαι καὶ οἰκειοῦν τῇ τῆς πίστεως ὑποθέσει κ. τ. λ.

5 III. iii. 1. p. 57, note 7; I. x. 1, 2. p. 91.

this truth was not confined to the creed, for there are other truths as certain as those in the creed, which are not specified in it; and the very creed itself was variable, or rather was variously stated at different times".

But we are not left to inference alone to learn the views of Irenæus; he instances the epistles of Clement and Polycarp as containing true traditions, and they exhibit other truths beyond those of the creed. Again, the faith, which, if the Apostles had left no writings, he affirms must have been kept up by tradition, and which was, in fact, kept up in barbarous nations without the aid of writing, must have been something more extensive than the mere elementary points of belief. Nay, his assertion that when we are in doubt, even upon trifling points, it is a duty to have recourse to the most ancient Churches, shows at once that the province of tradition, in his mind, was far wider than the transmission of simply fundamental points; it was a great system of doctrine, discipline, and practice, which such an observation looked at; and there can be but little doubt that, although his subject in his great

* Thus Irenæus gives two different versions of it (I. x. 1. et III. iv. 2); in one of which he mentions Christ's ascent into heaven in the flesh, and other matters, which are omitted in the other.

7 III. iv. 2.

See p. 159, note

8

III. iv. 1. ibid.

Treatise leads him to adduce it formally, only on the subject of doctrine, that he found himself bound by it upon all points which appeared to be thus universally handed down in the Churches.

But then it must be confessed that Irenæus stood in a position with regard to this tradition. very different from that in which we stand. It was a thing which lived about him in all the daily intercourse of life, and respecting which there was scarcely a possibility of a doubt; whereas to us it is a thing which has to be established by evidence, which does not come to our minds unsought. It was a thing then which the most unlearned knew thoroughly; for it was the very atmosphere in which he breathed: to us learning is required, and actual application to the subject. The Church then testified directly to the individual: now we have to ascertain the Church's testimony by the further testimony of individuals. It is impossible, therefore, that apostolical tradition should have the same evidence to men's minds now which it had then; although we may think it ought to be reverently followed, wherever and by whomsoever it can be ascertained.

Again, we have seen that the medium through which Irenæus believed pure tradition to be transmitted was the bishops of the Churches; but it does not follow that he thought every bishop, or the

bishops of any particular Church, an unerring depository of such tradition. He supposed the case of a bishop who was in the succession, but yet did not hold fast the Apostles' doctrine, and he evidently implies that such a person was not to be adhered to; it is, therefore, not any individual bishop, or the bishop of any particular see, that he would appeal to, but the aggregate of the bishops of the universal Church.

It is remarkable how strong is the resemblance between the positions occupied by the Gnostics and Irenæus respectively, and those taken up by Romanists and the Church of England. Both that ancient father and ourselves think Scripture perfectly clear upon the fundamental points to the singleminded, go first and last to Scripture upon all doctrinal points, and make tradition only auxiliary and subordinate to it. Both the Gnostics and the Romanists complain of the insuperable difficulties of the Scripture without tradition, and thus make tradition practically set aside Scripture; and the tradition they appeal to turns out, when examined, to be nothing more nor less than their own teaching.

But besides this public tradition, extant throughout all the Churches, there is another kind of tra

9 IV. xxvi. 4. p. 81, note ".