Besides Adversus llcereses, Irenoeus also wrote, ac- cording to Eusebius, "several letters against those who at Rome corrupted the doctrine of the Church : one to Blastus, concerning schism ; another to Florinus (al- ready alluded to), concerning the monarchy, or to prove that God is not the author of evil ; and concerning the number eight;" but these are all lost to us with the exception of a few fragments. Eusebius also mentions "a discourse of Irenaeus against the Gentiles, entitled TTtpi tTri(Tn']i.iT]C (Concerning Knowledge) ; another in- scribed to a brother named IMarcianus, being a demon- stration of the apostolical preaching ; and a little book of sundry disputations;" but these, also, are mainly lost to us. Pfaff, in 1715, discovered at Tin-in four m.t>re Greek fragments, which he attributed to Irenaeus as their author. The genuineness of these has been called in question by some Roman divines, " though," says Dr. Schaff, " without sufficient reason." These four frag- ments treat (1) of Irue hwviedge (TrioaiQ ((\t]&ivi]), " which consists, not in the true solution of subtle ques- tions, but in divine wisdom and the imitation of Christ;" (2) on the Eucharist; (3) on the duty of toleration in subordinate, points of difference with reference to the Easter difficulties ; (4) on the ohject of the incarnation, "which is stated to be the purging away of sin, and the final annihilation of all evil." An edition containing the Prolegomena to the earlier editions, and also the disputations of Maffei and Pfaff on the fragments of Ireuicus just mentioned, was jniblished by H. Stiereii luider the title 5'. Irenai Episcopi Lugdun. qua super' sunt omnia (Lips. 1853, 2 vols.).
IREN^US
649
IREN^US
III. Doctrines. — We have already said that the wTit- ings of IreuiBus are invaluable to us as an index of the views whicli the primitive Church of Christ lield on many very important points that have become mat- ters of controversy between the different branches of the Christian Church up to our own day. In this, of course, we shall be mainly dependent upon his exten- sive work against Heretics, or the Gnostics ; and though some of his views, especially on the millennium, may not have our approval, we must none the less commend the whole work for the fervent piety which constantly impresses us in the perusal of it.
1. God and Creation. — The doctrine of the unitj' of God as the eternal, almighty, omnipresent, just, and holy creator and upholder of all things, which the Christian Churcli inherited from Judaism, was one which the ear- ly Christian writers were especially called upon to vin- dicate against the absurd polytheism of the pagans, and particularly against the dualism of tlie Gnostics. Accordingly we find most of the creeds of the first cen- turies, especially the Apostles' and the Nicene, begin with the confession of faith in (Jod, the Father al- mighty, maker of heaven and earth, of the visible and the invisible. In like manner, "with the defense of this fundamental doctrine laid down in the very first chapters of the Bible, Irenteus opens his refutation of the Gnostic heresies, saying, in the language of Justin Martyr, that he would not liave believed the Lord liim- self if he liad announced any other God than the Cre- ator. He repudiates everything like an a priori con- struction of the idea of God, and bases his knowledge wholly on revelation and Christian experience." So also on the doctrine of creation, Irenteus, and with him Tertullian, " most firmly rejected the hylozoic and demi- urgic views of paganism and Gnosticism, and taught, according to the book of Genesis (comp. Psa. xxxiii, 9 ; cxlviii, 5 ; John i, 3), that God made the world, includ- ing matter, not, of course, out of any material, but out of notliing, or, to express it positively, out of his free, almighty will by his word. This free will of God, a will of love, is the supreme, absolutely unconditioned, and all-conditioning cause and final reason of aO exist- ence, precluding every idea of physical force or of ema- nation. Every creature, since it proceeds from the good and holy God, is in itself, as to its essence, good (comp. Gen. i, 31). Evil, therefore, is not an original and sub- stantial entity, but a corruption of natiu-e, and hence can Ijc destroyed by the power of redemption. Without a correct doctrine of creation there can be no true doc- trine of redemption, as all the Gnostic systems show."
2. Person of Christ. — On the relation which Christ sustained to the Father also, the views of Irenaaus are important, because he is, after Polycarp, "the most faithful representative of the Johannean school." He certainly " keeps more within the limits of the simple Biblical statements," and in the simpler way of the Western fathers, among whom he may be counted, not- withstanding his early Greek training. " He ventures no such bold speculations as the Alexandrians, but is more sound, and much nearer the Nicene standard. He like- wise uses the terras \6yoQ and Son of God interchangea- bly, and concedes the distinction, made also by the Val- entinians, between the inward and the uttered word, in reference to man, but contests the application of it to God, who is above aU antitheses, absolutely simple and uncliangeal)le, and in whom before and after, thinking and speaking, coincide. He repudiates also every spec- ulative or a priori attempt to explain the derivation of the Son from the Father ; this he holds to be an incom"- prelu'nsible mystery. He is content to define the actual distinction between Father and Son by saying that the former is God revealing himself; the latter, (iod reveal- ed; the one is the ground of revelation, the other is the actual, appearing revelation itself. Hence he calls the Father the invisible of the Son, and the Son the visible of the Father. He discriminates most rigidly the con- ceptions of generation and of creation. The Son, though