tation of Irenæus, as a controversial writer, altogether rests. Το that I will now direct my attention.

The Gnostic theories had risen in the East, and from thence had early spread to Rome; whither came, in succession, most of their eminent teachers. It is not my purpose to give any detailed account of them. This has been sufficiently done by the late Dr. E. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, " On the heresies of the apostolical age," and the notes appended to them. The general principle of them all was to escape making God the author of evil, by making it to spring, by a species of charm, from some emanation indefinitely removed from the great First Cause. For this purpose, they imagined certain spiritual beings, more or less numerous, the first pair produced by the Supreme Being, in conjunction with an emanation from himself; the rest emanating, for the most part, successively from each preceding pair, and becoming more and more liable to infirmity as they were further distant from the One Original. From one of the most distant they imagined the author of evil to have sprung, whom they also made the creator of the world, and the god of the Jews. They professed to believe in Jesus, but regarded him either as not truly man or as not truly united with the Godhead; and Christ, as well as the Only Begotten, the Saviour, and the Life, they looked on as distinct from him. The great charm of these theories was, that they professed to unravel a great secret, which no previous philosophy had reached, and which Christianity itself had left untouched. We may wonder, indeed, that any Christian should have found anything to tempt him in hypotheses so subtle and intricate, and so palpably at variance with the known truths of the gospel. But we must bear in mind that when they first arose, no part of the New-Testament scripture was written; that consequently the poison had time to mix itself with the current of opinion everywhere, before an antidote of general application was provided; that the minds of all inquiring men in those times were peculiarly given to subtleties, and to the notion of inventing schemes selected from all prevailing opinions; and that, to recommend themselves to Christians, they professed to be the depositories of that "hidden wisdom" which St. Paul was known to have affirmed that he had imparted to those who were capable of receiving it. It is therefore not much to be wondered at, that they prevailed amongst the speculative for their very subtilty, and with the vain and weakminded by their affectation of superior wisdom.

There was another feature of the scheme, which served a further purpose. They pretended that the minds which inhabit human bodies are of two kinds, spiritual and carnal; that the carnal alone are the work of the Creator of this world, whilst the spiritual are emanations from the highest and purest order of spiritual beings; that the carnal are readily contaminated by the flesh and the world, and thence require restraint and law, whilst the spiritual are only placed in bodies for a time, that they may know everything, but incapable of contamination, and destined, after a period of exercise, to be taken up into the supernal fulness. By this theory the abstracted and mystical were flattered with the idea of spiritual superiority to their fellow men;

whilst the worldly and sensual might keep up the highest pretensions, and yet wallow in the most revolting profligacy. It was under this latter phase that Gnosticism first shewed itself amongst the half civilized, semi-Roman inhabitants of southern Gaul. In its more abstract and refined form it would have had no attractions for them; for the European mind is too plain and common-sense to follow subtilties. But its practical licentiousness found a fit nidus in the accompanying sensual disposition which marked the Romans of that age, and all who were tinged with their blood. It worked its way for some time in silence, till the attention of the bishop of Lyons was drawn to it by the seduction of Christian matrons, and by the influx of extraordinary impurity throughout that region. He was thus led to trace the mischief to its cause; and finding this to be his old enemy, under its then prevailing form of Valentinianism, which thus appeared to be rearing its head everywhere, and had now come to assail him on his own ground, he set himself to understand its system thoroughly, that, by refuting it both in its principle and in its details, he might completely disabuse the Christian world, do away with the divisions, and impurities, and calumnies, arising from it, and thus afford the freer scope for the power of truth upon the hearts and practice of men.

He was the more determined upon doing this by the solicitations of a friend, who appears to have lived more in the heart of the mischief than himself. Who he was we are not told. That he had some pastoral charge is most probable, from the concluding portion of the preface to the first book, in which Irenæus speaks to his friend as having spiritual care of others, and as able, both by his station and by his abilities, to turn to the best account the hints he was able to furnish him. That the native, or at least customary, language of his friend was Greek may be inferred from the work being in that language, and by the apology made for the imperfections of the style; and altogether, it seems most probable that he was a bishop of one of the Greek colonies of southern Gaul.

In the accomplishment of this work he no doubt made use of the treatise of Justin Martyr against the Marcionites, now lost to us, because superseded by the completer work of Irenæus. But he derived the greatest help from the writings of the Gnostics themselves, from which he learnt their scheme without any possibility of doubt or gainsaying, and thus was enabled, by the mere statement, in open light, of its fantastic puerilities, to unclothe it of the mystery which was one of its chief recommendations, to demonstrate more clearly its self-contradictions, and to contrast it in its naked folly with the simplicity of acknowledged truth.

To the ascertaining of the date of this composition we have but two guides. One is, the list of bishops of Rome given in the beginning of the third book. The catalogue closes with the name of Eleutherus, and thus shews that that book, at least, was begun, and most probably published, under his pontificate. The other is, that in the same book the author mentions the translation of the Old Testament by Theodotion. Now that translation was not made till about A. D. 184. (See

Massuet, Diss. II. ii. 47.) Irenæus would not become acquainted with it immediately; so that we are driven towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherus, who died A. D. 192, for the publication of the first three books. The work appears to have grown upon the hands of the writer, and to have become more than twice as voluminous as when it was first planned.* The books were written separately, as he found his matter arrange itself, and the two first apparently sent first,† followed by the three others at distinct intervals.‡

The general object of the first book is to give a full exposition of the Gnostic doctrines. The first seven chapters contain a detailed account of the system of Valentinus, who was at that time the most fashionable teacher of those doctrines. The eighth gives the Valentinian explanation of numerous passages of scripture, which they brought forward as corroborative of the truth of their system, although they did not pretend to rest it upon them; and the ninth refutes those explanations. The tenth points out the unity of catholic doctrine; and the remaining chapters are occupied in exhibiting the discrepancies of the various Gnostic sects and teachers.

The object of the second book is, to overthrow the system, both in its principle and in its details, by demonstrating its contradictoriness and impossibility. The first nineteen books are occupied in the destruction of the system; the next five are a fuller refutation of their arguments in support of it than he had given in chapter nine of the first book; and the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth lay down certain rules for the proper study of the scriptures. The rest of the book is taken up with a fuller consideration and refutation of particular opinions held by Gnostics.

Irenæus himself states it to be the object of the third book to confute the heretical system by scripture, as containing in writing the undoubted doctrine of those apostles through whose preaching the economy of salvation was originally revealed, and from whom the church received the doctrine she preached. But since the heretics appealed to tradition as interpreting scripture, he likewise appeals to it in the second, third, and fourth chapters; and having shewn that it is totally adverse to the heretical doctrine, he returns to the argument from scripture, and carries it on by quotations briefly from the Old Testament, and more fully from the words of the evangelists and apostles, shewing, to the end of the fifteenth chapter, that they knew but one God, and from thence to the end of the twenty-second chapter, that they taught but one Jesus Christ, truly God and truly man. The twenty-third is a refutation of Fabian's opinion, that Adam was not saved; and the two last contain sundry general reflections.

Our author had confined himself in the third book for the most part to the testimony of evangelists and apostles; he informs us, that his object in the fourth is to shew that our Lord himself testified of only one God, his Father, the maker and governor of the world, the author of the old and new covenants, and the judge of all mankind. He

Book I. xxxi 4.

† See the Preface of the Third Book. See Preface of Books IV. and V.

does not carry on his argument with much regularity, and it would be difficult to give any useful analysis of it. But he discusses, towards the end, in chapters thirty-seven, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine, the great question of the accountability of man, and the freedom of the will.

In the preface to the fifth book, he announces his intention of carrying on the argument by quotations from the writings of the apostle Paul, to shew that the same God who had spoken to Abraham and given the law had in the latter days sent his Son to give salvation to human flesh; which he pursues in the first eighteen chapters, dwelling particularly on the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh (chap. 7-14), and corroborating St. Paul's doctrine from other parts of scripture. He is thence led to the object and end of the scheme of salvation by Christ, and the opposition to it by Satan (chap. 19-24), especially the great opposition to it through the agency of antichrist (chap. 24-30), and passes from the notice of the middle state (chap. 31) to exhibit and confirm his opinion of the terrestrial reign of Christ and the righteous (chap. 32-35), concluding with the consummation of all things in the eternal felicity of the just.

It will be seen by this slight sketch that the former part of the treatise is by far the most regular; and for this sufficient reason, that it was more completely studied and digested before it was written. In the latter books, he adheres but imperfectly to the intention announced in the preface, and introduces much matter which was evidently suggested casually as he was writing, by some word or expression he found himself using.

The work, as I have said, was written in Greek; but the greater portion of the original has been lost. What remains has been preserved by various authors in the form of quotations. In this way two-thirds of the first book have come down to us; a few detached fragments in the latter half of the second; considerably larger and more numerous portions of the third; very little of the fourth, but copious extracts from the fifth, especially near the beginning. The whole, however, existed in the ninth century, as we learn from the testimony of Photius. But, although we have lost the greater part of the original, an ancient Latin translation of the whole work has been preserved to us. The precise antiquity of this version we are unable to ascertain; but the closeness with which Tertullian appears to follow it in many passages, and in particular his making the very same mistakes as the interpreter, (as for instance, in regard to the name of the heretic Epiphanes, which they have both rendered by the epithet, clarus, and others instanced by Massuet,) almost amounts to a demonstration that he had read that version. That it existed in the time of St. Augustin, is certain, as he quotes it several times, almost word for word.

The effect of this great work appears to have been decisive, for we hear no more of any eminent person who held the Gnostic opinions. They prevailed to a certain degree for the greater part of another century, but they did not make head again. The name, indeed, con

* Massuet. Diss. II. ii. s. 53.

tinued to have so great a charm that Clement of Alexandria took it from the heretics, and applied it to an intelligent Christian, whom he depicts as the only true Gnostic. But the system became so entirely extinct that scarce a trace of its influence remains, except in the writings of those who had to combat it.

In his opposition to the Gnostics, Irenæus had to combat a heresy; the next circumstance which brought him forward was, a schism which threatened to separate a portion of the Christian world from the communion of its most influential church. There had been a variation in very early times, and indeed from the beginning, between the churches of Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia on the one hand, and the rest of the Christian world on the other, in regard to the keeping of Easter,-other churches uniting in keeping Easter-day on a Sunday, whilst the Christians of those countries kept it at the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week it happened to fall.* The inconvenience had been felt in the time of Polycarp, who, sojourning in Rome in the time of its bishop Anicetus, they endeavoured each to persuade the other to embrace the practice he followed. But their conferences were without any other effect than to cause both parties to agree to differ in peace. But Victor, who succeeded Eleutherus in the see of Rome, viewed the matter in a different light. He had no doubt felt the inconvenience of this diversity of practice when Blastus endeavoured to raise a schism in Rome on this very point. He therefore conceived the idea of using his influence, as the bishop of the principal church in the world, to bring all Christians to one uniform rule. For this purpose he wrote to certaint leading bishops in Asia, requesting them to convene synods of the neighbouring bishops, in order to come to an agreement, which was done accordingly; and they all, with the exception of the churches above mentioned, wrote circular letters to the whole catholic church, affirming that with them the apostolical tradition was, not to break their paschal fast until the Sunday. Eusebius particularly mentions‡ the dioceses in Gaul under the superintendence of Irenæus as having agreed upon such a synodical letter, which he asserts was in existence in his time. So far, Victor was successful; and, probably upon the strength of the almost universal agreement of the churches, he appears to have held out some threat to those of Asia Minor,§ unless they thought proper to conform to the general practice. This, however, they absolutely refused to do, maintaining that their region abounded with relics of apostles and martyrs, and that they preserved a tradition purer than that of any other church, and more consonant with the scriptures. This reply so incensed Victor that he forthwith

Eusebius indeed says (V. xxiii. 1) that the churches of all Asia were united in differing from the rest of the world; but it is evident, from chap. xxv., that he means Asia Minor; for he mentions the bishops of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Tyre, and Ptolemais, as asserting that the church of Alexandria agreed with them in their present practice, which was the same as that of the West.

rest.

We know that he wrote to Polycrates of Ephesus, and therefore probably to the See Euseb. H. E. V. xxiv, 3.

H. E. V. xxiii. 2.

§ xxiv. 2.