equals. The third was a deputation from the churches of an adjacent country, (civilly subject to Rome, and therefore in the habit of visiting the city,) to expostulate with the then bishop upon an injudicious step he had taken. They were evidently led to it by their sympathy with the Asiatic churches, from whence they drew their own origin, whose divisions and errors they deplored. And they were afraid of the mischief likely to accrue to the Christian world from the sanction given to the Montanist errors by the head of a church so important as that of Rome, to which, from its being the common resort of Christians from all quarters, they had been in the habit of looking as the depository of their common traditions, and whose example therefore must be tenfold more hurtful than that of any other church, if given on the side of error. It was, moreover, in all probability, an expostulation with him for having committed the actual error of countenancing what the whole catholic church, from first to last, has declared to be delusion and heresy; and the object of it was, to entreat him to recant his error. How contrary is this whole matter to the notion of these churches being subject to that of Rome, or to their looking up to the bishop of it as an authorized director in cases of doubt and difficulty! And even if we do not admit that Eleutherus was the actual bishop who gave his letters of peace to the Montanists, yet it has always been acknowledged that the letters of the martyrs, thus sent by the public authority of the Gaulish churches, were intended to caution him against entertaining them, and that either he or Victor did countenance them. And how inconsistent is such a state of things with the idea of a church privileged to be free from error or delusion, watching over others, instead of being watched over by them! * One other point about this visit remains to be noticed. It has been supposed that Irenæus went to Rome to be consecrated to the church of Lyons, or that he was consecrated there. That he went there for any such purpose is contrary to all the evidence we have, which specifies another cause for his journey, and does not hint at this. Massuet, indeed, argues, from Jerome's relating his visit to Rome immediately before his ordination, as successor to Pothinus, that the two must have an explicit connexion with each other; but the very connecting term postea, and the reason given with it, that Pothinus had suffered martyrdom, would rather appear to separate the journey with its circumstances, from the ordination with its reason. He likewise relies upon the request of the martyrs to Eleutherus, exɛɩ σɛ avròV Év Taρaléσε which he chooses to translate, ut ipsum cæteris anteponat. So very much to be drawn from one word, reminds one of Dodwell's Theories. The expression might, indeed, possibly have a force, which it is rather surprising that Massuet has overlooked. It might mean "place him by thy side," which, if it had occurred to the French divine, he would probably have translated, "Elatum eum By Quesnel (see Tillemont, tom. iii., just at the end of his account of Irenæus); and by Massuet, Dissert. in Irenæum, ii, 12. fac in eundem quam ipse tenes ordinem." "Make him a bishop like thyself." But when we consider that presbyters in the early church sat by the side of their bishop on either hand, the phrase would appear to signify nothing more than, "Receive him with all the respect due to a presbyter of the church: he is so with us; let him be treated as such at Rome." That he may have been consecrated when there, if Pothinus died in the interim, is not impossible; for it has not been unusual, in all ages of the church, for a bishop elect to be consecrated in the place where he happened to be at the time of his election. But there is no evidence for this; nothing, in short, but the presumption, that there was no other bishop in Gaul but the bishop of Lyons. And if there were, as is not improbable, bishops of Autun, of Arles, and of Vienne, at this time, then there was no motive whatever for having recourse to the bishop of Rome, at a period when, as is well known, the neighbouring bishops always filled up a vacancy, with the consent of the clergy and people, without having recourse to any higher or ulterior authority. But supposing that he was consecrated at Rome, it makes nothing whatever for the supremacy of that see. I am willing to grant to it a much higher rank and authority than such a circumstance would vindicate for it. Ignatius, when going to martyrdom, besought Polycarp to appoint a bishop in his place; and yet no one has thought fit, on that ground, to claim for Polycarp the title even of primate of the East; whilst I readily admit that the bishop of Rome was long looked up to, not only as primate of the West, but as the first bishop in rank, and governing the first church in authority, in the whole Christian world. But whatever may be doubtful, one thing is certain, that Irenæus did succeed Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. Of his conduct in his own particular church we have no means of judging, for no record has survived to tell us of anything he did there. It appears probable, from the expression of Eusebius,* ἐπισκοπει τῶν κατα Γαλλίαν πα poikir, that he was primate, or, at least, had influence over several dioceses in Gaul, as apoukia in the early writers commonly signifies a diocese. This probability is almost reduced to certainty by the use of a parallel expression, to describe the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. It is well known that, in the time of Athanasius, the number of dioceses under him was near a hundred; § of these, between seventy and eighty were in Egypt, and sixteen within seventy miles of Alexandria, and in the same civil province of Ægyptus Prima. Over all these, the bishop of Alexandria exercised a control more complete than that of any other patriarch of those times. I mention these circumstances to shew that, at the time to which Eusebius refers, his archiepiscopal province must have been considerable. And as the ecclesiastical station of Irenæus is described in the same terms, it almost amounts to demonstration, that he held a similar preeminence. The only difference is, that Irenæus V. xxiii. 2. † Τῶν κατ' ̓Αλεξάνδρειαν παροικιῶν. + Bingham, ix. ii. 1. is said to have ruled the παροικιῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν, and the bishop of Alexandria those κατ' ̓Αλεξάνδρειαν. But this expression only shews that the churches in Egypt emanated from Alexandria, and were permanently dependent upon it; whilst those in Gaul emanated from no point within the country, nor were permanently dependent upon any one church. If any one should suppose that the term Tapouía is used with regard to Alexandria in its modern sense, I will only say, that the whole diocese of Alexandria contained only fourteen pastors, that the city contained sixteen churches;* and that Socrates, who wrote more than one hundred years after Eusebius, when describing the distinction of the pastoral charges in the diocese of Alexandria, merely says, that they were like napoikiai. Massuet, indeed, argues at great length against the idea, that there was any other bishop in Gaul than the bishop of Lyons; but all his arguments resolve themselves into the one, that there is no mention made in any early writer of any other. On this ground one might, with equal reason, conclude that there were no bishops in Britain before the council of Arles, when they are first mentioned. But until it can be shewn that there is an instance in any writer anterior to Eusebius, or of his time, of the use of the term apoia to signify a parochial church or parish, the simple use of this word by him is sufficient evidence against all negative arguments whatever. What the author of the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Saturninus says of the fewness of churches in Gaul in his time is really no contradiction to this opinion; for if there were at that time as many as twenty or thirty, it would be extremely few, considering the extent of the country. I have said that we have no record of the operations of Irenæus as bishop of Lyons. I mean, that we know of nothing which he did in that particular church. He bore, in a general way, the character of "the light of the western § Gauls," and is said to have "cultivated and enlightened the Celtic nations."|| And in consonance with this there is a tradition, though of comparatively recent date, that he sent a priest and deacon as missionaries to Besançon, and a priest and two deacons to Valence, in Dauphiné. The circumstance is very probable in itself, and is in agreement with the traditions of those churches. We now come to a more remarkable period of his life. We have seen that the Christians of that age looked with peculiar anxiety to Rome, as the church where, from the constant meeting together of Christians from the provinces, the traditions of the catholic church were most accurately preserved. Any departure of that church from purity of doctrine would be of more serious consequence than the deflexion of one of less influence. Irenæus had been taught to exer * Bingham, ix. ii. 6. † Hist. i. 27, εἰσιν ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ πόλιν ὡς παροικίαι. Dissert. ii. 13-16. § Theodoret. Dial. i. So called to distinguish them from the inhabitants of Galatia. Id. Haer. Fab. Tillemont, S. Irenée, art. 911. cise this feeling by his mission from the martyrs, and had no doubt learnt to feel it more deeply on the spot, when he trode the ground consecrated by the martyrdom of the two great apostles with whose joint superintendence and instruction that church was so long favoured, and when he observed how every heretic, likewise, resorted to Rome, as a more important theatre than any other. Nor can we suppose that he had left that church without forming some bond of union with individual members of it. His heart, therefore, returned no doubt to it, and caused him to indite those several epistles Eusebius mentions, occasioned by the dissensions he heard of as prevailing there. The first mentioned by the historian is that addressed to Blastus, on the subject of schism. What it was which led him into schism is variously related by ancient writers. Eusebius (H. E. V. 15) simply says, that he indulged in speculations of his own at variance with truth. Theodoret + stated, that he was entangled in the errors of Marcion and Valentinus; but if he had been so at that time, it appears most probable that Irenæus would have noticed the errors themselves even more prominently than the schism which accompanied them. A more probable account is that given by the ancient author whose addition to one of Tertullian's works is commonly printed with it, that "he wished covertly to introduce Judaism;" and in particular, that "he insisted on the observance of the paschal season on the fourteenth day of the moon, according to the law of Moses;" with which agrees what Pacian says:§ "that he was a Greek, and that he adhered to the Montanists; for the Montanists, having arisen in Asia Minor, celebrated that season at the same time as the other Christians of that country-i.e., with the Jews. So that his schism probably consisted in this, that having come from Asia, he wished to raise a party favourable to the Asiatic practice, or, at least, declined to conform to that of Rome. And we can imagine how earnestly Irenæus would press him to conform to the usages of the church in which he sojourned; a thing he could do with so much greater authority, inasmuch as, being himself of Asiatic birth, and brought up in the very church of Polycarp, he had conformed to the Western usage. Whether it was before or after this time that Blastus left the communion of the church we know not. Eusebius, however, relates,|| (at least, so Massuet, with great probability, apprehends his meaning,) that he was deposed from the priesthood, and that he detached many from the church to follow speculations of his own, at variance with the truth. Theodoret's statement may therefore be substantially correct, although at a period subsequent to that at which Irenæus wrote the letter Περὶ Σχίσματος. H. E. V. 20. + i. 23. Tertull. de Præscript. 53. Quære, what sufficient reason is there for doubting whether this appendix was written by Tertullian? The internal evidence is all in its favour. It was evidently known to St. Jerome. (See the first note upon it, in the (Paris edition, 1641.) || H. E. V. 15. Ep. 1. ¶ Diss. II. iii. 59. C The next letter Eusebius mentions is that to Florinus. This person was likewise a priest of the church at Rome, and had been known to Irenæus in early life, when they were both pupils of Polycarp, and Florinus was high in the court of the reigning emperor. But he had forsaken civil life, and entered holy orders, from which he was now ejected, as being the head of a party holding novel and peculiar opinions. His peculiarity is distinctly specified-viz., that he taught that God was the author of evil. To avoid this conclusion, Marcion had taught two first principles-the one of good, the other of evil. It was probably in combating this error that Florinus had insisted on the unity of God, and of his providential government, which he had expressed by the term μovapxía-and from opposing one heresy with zeal too ardent for his judgment, had fallen into the opposite one. Irenæus, upon hearing of the fall of his former acquaintance, felt an earnest desire to restore him, and accordingly wrote to him, endeavouring, as it would appear, to explain the true notion of the μovapxía of God, and especially to combat his peculiar error. A fragment of this letter is preserved by Eusebius (V. 20), and printed (Fragm. ii) at the end of the best editions of the works of Irenæus. In it Irenæus represents to him how much at variance his opinions were with those of the church; how impious in their tendency; how far beyond what any excommunicated heretic had ever taught; how much opposed to apostolical tradition. And he appeals to him from his own remembrance of the teaching of Polycarp, (whom they had. mutually reverenced,) and from his published epistles, how shocked that blessed martyr would have been if he had heard such blasphemies. But Irenæus, as it would appear, succeeded only so far with the unstable Florinus as to drive him from his position, that God was the author of evil. From this he went into the Valentinian speculations, by which they endeavour to escape the great difficulty of the origin of evil. From them he learnt to believe in an ogdoad of emanations from the Supreme Being, from one of the later of whom, by a species of accident, evil sprung. Irenæus could not give up his ancient friend, but composed for his use a treatise upon this portion of the Gnostic theory. Of this, however, we have not a fragment left which can throw any light upon its structure. There is only the concluding sentence preserved, in which he adjures the transcriber of it to compare it most carefully with the original, and to append the adjuration itself to his transcript. We might wonder, perhaps, at the solemnity of the adjuration, did we not consider how important it was that Irenæus himself should not be represented, by any error of the copyist, as holding opinions at variance with the truth he was so anxious to maintain. But although we have no distinct remains of this particular treatise, it is highly probable that it formed the germ of that great work, which has, in some sort, remained entire, and upon which the repu * Ad. Florinum, Fragm. ii. + Euseb. V. 15. † Περὶ Ογδοάδος. |