18 und passim) calls the bread and wine, after consecra- tion, 'antitypes,' implying the continued distinction of their substance from tlie body and blood of Christ. Tliis expression in itself, indeed, might be understootl as mere- ly contrasting here the Supper, as the substance, with the Old-Testament Passover, its type; as Peter calls baptism the antitype of the saving water of the flood (1 Pet. iii, 20, 21). But the connection, and the iisus lo- quendi of the earlier Greek fathers, require us to take the term antitype in the sense of type, or, more precise- ly, as the antithesis of archetype. The bread and wine rejiresent and exhibit the body and blood of Christ as the archetype, and correspond to them as a copy to the original. In exactly the same sense it is said in Heb. ix, 24 (comp. viii, 5), that the earthly sanctuary is the antitype, that is, the copy of the heavenly" (i, 3.S7). We think Irenanis speaks uKirc dctiiiitcly of this ordi- nance in one of the Fragincnis ( xxxviii, iSlassuet), iVoni which it clearly follows that he by no means believed in the opus operatum of the Romanists. (Comp. Brit. and For. Evang. Review, Jan. 1869, p. 19, 20.)
7. The Church.— By the peculiar attitude in which Irenseus placed himself when combating the Gnostic heresies, he became unconsciously one of the most elab- orate writers on the early Church that now remains to us, and the utterances of no other of the early Church fathers have so frequently been misinterpreted to prop up the claims of Romanism as those of Irentieus. It is beyond question that the Romanists, as well as High- Church prelatists, however hesitatingly, misconstrued the statements of Irenajus in defence of the Church of Christ against Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, and other schismatics, who in his time threatened the verj' life of the early Christian Church, as statements favoring the doctrine of apostolic succession (q. v.). Irenieus, evident- ly in defence of his Church, and as an opponent of the heretics, presents a " historical chain of bishops." Says he (iii, 3, 1), " AVe are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and the successors of these bishops to our own timcj." But, in naming the bishops in their historical order, he " never dreams of ascribing to them any sort of spiritual influence or authority which was ])ropagated from one to another. To show that he could link his- toricall}'^ Eleutherius, who was then head of the Church of Rome, with the apostles, who were supposed to have founded that Church, was the sole and simple object contemplated by our author in reference to the succes- sion." In his arguments with the Yalentinians, IMarci- onites, and others, he endeavors to jjrove, by constant appeals to the Scriptures, that tlieir doctrines were not in harmonj' with the inspired writings. " Had he found ' the truth' among them, he would have had no occasion to treat of the succession at all, but would ac once have owned them as forming a part of the Catholic Church," which he defined, not as Romanists and High-Church- men, to be only where the pope's supremacy is acknowl- edged, or the Episcopal Church doctrines are adhered to, but, he says, " Ubi ecclesia" — putting the Church first, in the genuine catholic spirit (iii, 24) — " ibi et Spiritus Dei; et ubi Spiritus Dei, iUic ecclesia et omnis gratia," or, as Dr. Schaff says, I'rotestantism would put it con- versely: "Where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church ; and where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God and all grace."
8. The Millennium. — The peculiar millennial views of Irenaius, which stamp him, by his close adherence to Papias, as a Chiliast, we hardly care to touch ; thej' are certainly the weak spot in our author, and deserve to be passed not only without comment, but even unnoticed. They are brought out specially near the end of his great work (v, 32-36), declaring a future reign of the saints on earth ; arguing that such promises of Scripture as those in Gen. xiii, 14 ; Matt, xxvi, 27-29, etc., can have no other interpretation.
9. The Easter Conti-oversi/. — The personal character of Irenseus, of which we have as yet said but little, is
IREX^US
652
IREN^US
perhaps best illustrated by his conduct in the Easter controversy (q. v.). Determined to work for a union of all Christians (iv, 33, 7), he displayed an irenical dispo- sition in all disputes about unessential outward things, and more especially in his mediation between Victor, then bishop of Kome, and the Asiatic churches.