What did Irenaeus teach with regards to the rule of faith?
In one sense, Irenaeus was as vigorous an advocate for sola scriptura as Luther, but this needs to be qualified.
Why does this need to be qualified?
Because there was no canon as of yet. The church was still in the process of sifting through the various books and trying to decide which books were inspired and which were not. Thus, to say that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura is impossible since there was, as yet, no canon of Scripture. It is better to say that Irenaeus held to solis apostolis or the apostolic teaching alone.
Explain this.
Irenaeus had a single focus in all his theologizing; he wanted to know and preserve the teaching of the apostles. He vigorously rejected the teaching of the Gnostics because they based their teaching on secret sources of tradition to which only they had access. He writes (p259):
1. When, however, they [the Gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce [by word of mouth]: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Savior; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
According to Irenaeus, discussing theology with the Gnostics was a frustrating endeavor. If Irenaeus quoted the apostolic writings, the Gnostics would reply that these writings were too vague and ambiguous to be of any use much as Roman Catholics do to this day. Furthermore, the apostolic teaching was not only contained in their writings but also in those teachings which were passed down by word of mouth. These oral teachings, the Gnostics claimed to have in their possession, and they justified their doctrines on the basis of these oral teachings. Finally, the Gnostics said that even the apostles themselves strayed from the truth and did not always speak the pure truth. Only the Gnostics, with their secret traditions and hidden mysteries, could be relied on to have the pure, undoubted truth.
How did Irenaeus respond to this?
Since the debate now turned on the question of what exactly the apostles had taught and since Irenaeus lived so close to the apostolic age, he immediately appealed to those persons who had received their teaching from the apostles. These men, e.g. Polycarp, had received their teaching directly from the apostles and were the best way to know what the apostles really taught. Furthermore, the apostles themselves had appointed bishops in the churches of some of the cities of the empire. Again, these bishops were reliable witnesses to what the apostolic teaching really was, and it was to these men that Irenaeus appealed. He writes (p260):
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Here Irenaeus argues that if the apostles had secretly given some of their teachings to certain men by word of mouth, then surely they would have shared those teachings with the men whom they had setup as bishops in these cities. Again, the thought is that these bishops, appointed by the apostles themselves, are reliable witnesses to what the apostles actually taught. Mosheim (p92):
If it were true that the apostles had orally transmitted a doctrine different from that which they committed to writing, there can be no doubt but that such doctrine would have been communicated to those churches which they themselves founded, ordained, and instructed. But it is notoriously the fact, that of all the churches which owe their foundation and institution to the apostles, and in which we know that it has been an object of main concern with their bishops, most religiously to preserve and adhere to that form of discipline which they received from their founders, there is not a single one that gives the least countenance to the fables and idle dreams of the Gnostics. We maintain, therefore, that these latter are altogether unworthy of belief when they assert, that their tenets are of an apostolic origin, being derived from the apostles through oral communication.
Irenaeus continues:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the [bishops in all the] Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Here Irenaeus turns to the most reliable witness of all, the church at Rome. The reason this church is most reliable is because it was founded and organized by Peter and Paul. Therefore, every church which desires to know the truth of what the apostles taught should conform their teaching to this church. The church at Rome was the most reliable guide to what was truly apostolic. Irenaeus continues:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Now in Irenaeus’ day, the apostles were long dead, but the bishops they appointed still continued. Irenaeus is at pains then, to show how the current bishop of Rome, though not directly appointed by an apostle, was still in the tradition of those who were appointed by the apostle, and this was the best guarantee of the real teaching of the apostles.
From this, it is clear that Irenaeus held to the truth of apostolic succession.
He certainly did, and this makes good sense in light of the fact that the apostles had died less than a hundred years earlier. The real point of apostolic succession was not so much who ordained you, but were you a reliable guide to what the apostles taught and one’s ordination was one way to guarantee this. Lightfoot writes (p239):
Irenaeus followed Ignatius after an interval of about two generations. With the altered circumstances of the Church, the aspect of the episcopal office has also undergone a change. The religious atmosphere is now charged with heretical speculations of all kinds. Amidst the competition of rival teachers, all eagerly bidding for support, the perplexed believer asks for some decisive test by which he may try the claims of the disputants. To this question Irenæus supplies an answer. ‘If you wish,’ he argues, ‘to ascertain the doctrine of the Apostles, apply to the Church of the Apostles. In the succession of bishops tracing their descent from the primitive age and appointed by the Apostles themselves, you have a guarantee for the transmission of the pure faith, which no isolated, upstart, self-constituted teacher can furnish. There is the Church of Rome for instance, whose episcopal pedigree is perfect in all its links, and whose earliest bishops, Linus and Clement, associated with the Apostles themselves: there is the Church of Smyrna again, whose bishop Polycarp, the disciple of St John, died only the other day.’ Thus the episcopate is regarded now not so much as the center of ecclesiastical unity but rather as the depositary of apostolic tradition.
This view is not peculiar to Irenæus. It seems to have been advanced earlier by Hegesippus, for in a detached fragment he lays stress on the succession of the bishops at Rome and at Corinth, adding that in each church and in each succession the pure faith was preserved; so that he seems here to be controverting that ‘gnosis falsely so called’ which elsewhere he denounces. It is distinctly maintained by Tertullian, the younger contemporary of Irenæus, who refers, if not with the same frequency, at least with equal emphasis, to the tradition of the apostolic churches as preserved by the succession of the episcopate.
Before, you mentioned Polycarp. Why is he important for this discussion?
Because he was taught directly by the apostle John; and therefore could speak directly of what the apostles taught. Irenaeus speaks of this (bottom of p262):
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
So for Irenaeus, the church and her bishops were the most reliable way of accessing the apostolic teaching. How is this consistent with sola scriptura?
Because the the goal is the same. In our day, we confess the truth of sola scriptura because the canon of Scripture is the only reliable witness we have to what the apostles taught. In Irenaeus day, being so close to the apostolic age, the apostolic writings were not the only reliable witnesses. Appeal could also be made to those who sat at the apostles’ feet. These men could speak very directly of what the apostles taught. As time progressed, however, and the apostolic age receded farther and farther, this witness grew less and less reliable until it ceased altogether. Again, Irenaeus writes:
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others [the Gnostic teachers] which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them [the Gnostics], but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Here Irenaeus poses the hypothetical; what if the apostles had written nothing? In this case, it would be necessary to learn the apostolic teaching from those who had learned from the apostles. That would be the only reliable way to know what they taught. Now Irenaeus and the church of his time did have the apostolic writings, but they also had the bishops who were in the apostolic succession. Litton writes (p30):
The men [the bishops appointed by the apostles] were to drop off in the course of nature and in succession, and an Apostolate of the written Word was to take their place, the men surviving in their writings. This work commenced in due time, and continued through a series of years; one Apostolical writing proving itself on and by another, until the Canon was complete.
It seems that Irenaeus had great respect for the church and bishop of Rome.
Yes, he surely did. This respect, however, was not absolute.
Why do you say so?
Because of the quarrel he had with Victor who was bishop of Rome at the time.
What was the disagreement between Irenaeus and Victor?
This was a disagreement over the proper date for celebrating Easter; see the details in Schaff §62.
- The Christians in Turkey (or Asia Minor) followed the practice of Polycarp, who claimed to have received this teaching from the apostle John. They celebrated Easter on the 14th day of the month Nisan regardless on what day of the week it fell. These people were called Quartodeciman or “the fourteeners.”
- Other Christians rejected this idea believing that Easter should only be celebrated on a Sunday. Victor, who was the bishop of Rome, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for refusing to conform to the Sunday-celebration-only practice.
Irenaeus agreed with Victor’s position on this point but still rebuked him for his rash and harsh excommunication of these Christians.
What is meant, at this stage of church history, by excommunication?
Mosheim says that Victor excommunicated the Quartodecimans from communion with the church of Rome, not from the universal church. He writes (p536):
In the age in which Victor lived, the power of the bishop of Rome had not attained to such an height as to enable him to cut off from communion with the church at large all those of whose opinions or practices he might see reason to disapprove. The very history of the Paschal controversy now before us, places this out of all dispute. For, had the bishop of Rome possessed the right and power of cutting off whom he pleased from all communion with the church at large, neither Irenæus nor the rest of the bishops would have dared to oppose his will, but must have bowed with submission to whatever he might have thought proper to determine. Every bishop, however, possessed the power of excluding all such as he might consider to be the advocates of grievous errors, or as the corrupters of religion, from all communion with himself and the church over which he presided, or, in other words, he might declare them unworthy of being considered any longer as brethren. This power, indeed, is possessed by the teachers of the church even at this day.
Victor, then, exercised this common right with which every bishop was invested, and by letters made known to the other churches that he had excluded the Christians of Asia Minor, on account of their pertinacity in defending their ancient practice, from all communion with himself and the church of Rome, expecting, in all probability, that the other bishops might be induced to follow his example, and, in like manner, renounce all connection with these Asiatics. But in this he was deceived: ἀλλʼ ο̆̓ πᾶσι γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτʼ ηʼρέσκετο, says Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 192, Verum non omnibus hæc placebant Episcopis.
The rest of the bishops declined following the example of the Roman prelate in a line of conduct so very dangerous and imprudent. There can be no doubt, however, but that they would have followed his example, indeed, whether willing or not, they must have followed it, if in this age the doors of the church might have been closed against men by the mere will of the Roman bishop. The conduct of Victor, therefore, on this occasion, although distinguished by temerity and imprudence, does yet not wear so dark an aspect as is commonly imagined, neither could it have been attended with consequences of such extensive importance as those would have us believe who iiold it up as the first abuse of excommunication. The fact is, that they who treat the matter in this way are guilty of an abuse with regard to the term excommimication. Victor did not (according to the sense in which the term is at present understood) excommuaicate the Asiatics, but merely declared that he, and the members of the church over which he presided, must cease to consider them in the light of brethren until they should consent to renounce their objectionable practices.