CHAPTER IX. ON THE NATURE AND USE OF PRIMITIVE TRADITION.

It was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument: from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures; for in the preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work, he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from Scripture, without mentioning tradition; but since they demurred to its authority, asserting(340) that it was imperfect and self‐contradictory, and, in short, that it was impossible for any to learn the truth from it but those who possessed the true _tradition_, (which they contended was preserved amongst themselves, having been communicated to them orally, and being, in fact, that hidden wisdom which had been imparted by the Apostles only to the perfect,) Irenæus likewise appeals to tradition.

I cannot take leave of this passage without noticing the extraordinary comments made upon it by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in the second of his prefatory dissertations, art. iii. § 14.

He says, “Ex quibus hæc liquido sequuntur; 1, ipsos omnium hæreticorum pessimos agnovisse et confessos fuisse, _Scripturas varie dictas esse_, id est, interdum obscuras esse, variosque iis subesse sensus: 2, obscurorum locorum sensum a traditione petendum esse, non ea, _quæ per literas tradita sit, sed per vivam vocem_: hæc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat, ut mox videbitur: 3, traditionem latius patere scripturis, et ab iis distingui, utpote quæ earum sit interpres; quod et hæc Irenæi conclusio demonstrat: _Evenit itaque, neque scripturis jam neque traditioni consentire eos_.”

I will take his conclusions in their order:—

1. So far is Irenæus from applauding the Gnostics for _admitting_ (not the variety of senses which the Scripture may afford, but) the inconsistency of different Scriptural statements, that it is evident that he is _blaming_ them for wishing to escape from the obvious meaning of Scripture under this pretence. I am not saying that he would have denied that various senses of particular passages may appear equally natural; but that is not the case as between Irenæus and the Gnostics. He is evidently asserting what he believes to be written throughout the Scriptures as with a sunbeam, and brings in tradition, not to explain the Scripture, but to confirm his view of it.

2. It is very true that Irenæus would evidently have gone to tradition to explain the obscurities of Scripture, if in any point it could be so explained; but that does not appear _from this passage_: on the contrary, it is the heretics who are _here_ for appealing to it, and not to such a tradition as he approved, but to one which was capable of no proof that it was apostolical. And with regard to the tradition he appealed to being an _unwritten_ tradition; in the first place, he does appeal to _written_ tradition when he can, viz. to the epistles of St. Clement and St. Polycarp; and in regard to the unwritten tradition which he adduces, the only tradition of that kind to which both he and the Romanist writers agree to appeal is the Baptismal Creed (as will be shown presently); for on two of the other points on which he adduces a different kind of unwritten tradition, viz. the millenium and the age of Christ at his crucifixion, his views are rejected by the Roman Church.

3. That primitive tradition must originally have been wider than Scripture (at least upon points _not of faith_), must be true from the very nature of the case. But this does not by any means follow from Irenæus’s distinguishing between Scripture and tradition, because what he means is simply this, that the Gnostic tenets were at variance with apostolical truth, whether gathered from Scripture or handed down by tradition. The traditional truth he brings forward against them is _identical_ with what he deduces from the written word.

Having shown, then, that really apostolical tradition unequivocally opposed the Gnostic tenets, he returns again to the Scriptures, and goes on in the large remaining portion of his work (which, contrary to his intention, spread itself into a fourth, and even a fifth book,) to show how inconsistent they were with the Scriptures, first of the Old, and afterwards of the New Testament, and how important to our salvation those verities were which they impugned.

It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the mind of Irenæus naturally went to Scripture, either to prove doctrine or to refute error; and that he regarded it as being, to all orthodox Christians, the natural standard of appeal. With regard to the Gnostics, he evidently thought that they were past conviction from either reason, tradition, or Scripture; because, whatever criterion was produced, they had something to say against it or to turn it aside(341): but to single‐minded Christians he felt that the written word must be the great authority, and arguments drawn from it the most perfectly conclusive. He speaks of some things in it as admitting no doubt; he points to an obvious aid to the interpretation of ambiguities, by calling in plainer things to explain the doubtful; he speaks of the New Testament as the ground and pillar of our faith; and he declares that the truth is preserved by the keeping, reading, and consistent exposition of the Scriptures.

In what way, then, does he appeal to tradition? In this part of his work he calls it in as establishing the same _general_ views, which he confirms more at length from Scripture; as preparing the mind to believe that the view he takes of Scripture is the true one; as a separate and independent witness to the selfsame truths which he is preparing to confirm by an adduction of multiplied passages of Holy Writ. He does not bring it forward to establish any thing not hinted at in the Bible; neither, on the other hand, does he bring it forward to show what others had gathered out of the Scriptures; but he adduces it as a separate testimony, emanating originally from the same source as the Scriptures(342), and therefore, so far as it went, a fitting criterion of their meaning.

I have chosen to adduce the opening of the _third_ book first of all, because Irenæus enters more professedly there into his motives for appealing to tradition; but he had made the appeal, as may have been seen, in an early part of the _first_ book(343). The manner of the appeal is somewhat different in the two places: in the first book he appeals to it to show the strong contrast between the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Gnostics and the unity and consistency of catholic teaching; in the latter, to confirm his own views of Scripture. It is true that in both these cases the appeal is in some sense of a negative character, i. e. it is for the purpose of proving that such and such doctrines are _not_ to be received; but in other cases he makes a directly positive use of it, viz. to prove particular doctrines which do not appear to have been explicitly disputed.

What, then, is the tradition to which Irenæus assigns this important function? It is that faith which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributes to her children(344); which may be seen in every Church(345); which is handed down by the bishops in all the several Churches(346); which is taught to every person when he is baptized(347); which was in his time preserved in the Church of Rome, in particular, by the confluence of the faithful from every side(348); in the Church of Smyrna by S. Polycarp and his successors; in the Church of Ephesus, founded by St. Paul, and watched over by St. John; and in the rest of the Asiatic Churches(349); which may likewise be learnt in the first epistle of S. Clement, and in the epistle of S. Polycarp to the Philippians(350); which was one and the same throughout the Churches, so that ability cannot increase its efficacy, nor weakness diminish it; so that knowledge may add to it the explanation of difficulties, but cannot change the faith(351); and so that wisdom interprets Scripture conformably to it(352).

It is obvious, from these quotations, that the particular tradition which Irenæus adduces _against the Gnostics_ is the substance of the baptismal creed; and thence, perhaps, it may be inferred that he would confine tradition altogether to the creed. But it must be remembered that, in declining to go to Gnostic tradition, and choosing in preference that which is truly apostolical, the principle of his appeal is this: that the Apostles delivered the doctrines of the Gospel by preaching, &c. to the different Churches, and by individual instruction to the particular persons whom they made bishops of the Churches; that the bishops had delivered down the same mass of truths to the Churches they presided over, and to their successors; and that the truth might be ascertained by discovering what was universally received in all the apostolical sees(353). But this truth was not confined to the creed, for there are other truths as certain as those in the creed, which are not specified in it; and the very creed itself was variable, or rather was variously stated at different times(354).

But we are not left to inference alone to learn the views of Irenæus; he instances the epistles of Clement and Polycarp as containing true traditions, and _they_ exhibit other truths beyond those of the creed. Again, the faith, which, if the Apostles had left no writings, he affirms must have been kept up by tradition, and which was, in fact, kept up in barbarous nations without the aid of writing(355), must have been something more extensive than the mere elementary points of belief. Nay, his assertion that when we are in doubt, even upon _trifling_ points, it is a duty to have recourse to the most ancient Churches(356), shows at once that the province of tradition, in his mind, was far wider than the transmission of simply fundamental points; it was a great system of doctrine, discipline, and practice, which such an observation looked at; and there can be but little doubt that, although his subject in his great Treatise leads him to adduce it formally, only on the subject of doctrine, that he found himself bound by it upon all points which appeared to be thus universally handed down in the Churches.

But then it must be confessed that Irenæus stood in a position with regard to this tradition very different from that in which we stand. It was a thing which lived about him in all the daily intercourse of life, and respecting which there was scarcely a possibility of a doubt; whereas to us it is a thing which has to be established by evidence, which does not come to our minds unsought. It was a thing _then_ which the most unlearned knew thoroughly; for it was the very atmosphere in which he breathed: to us learning is required, and actual application to the subject. The Church _then_ testified directly to the individual: now we have to ascertain the Church’s testimony by the further testimony of individuals. It is impossible, therefore, that apostolical tradition should have the same evidence to men’s minds now which it had then; although we may think it ought to be reverently followed, wherever and by whomsoever it can be ascertained.

Again, we have seen that the medium through which Irenæus believed pure tradition to be transmitted was the bishops of the Churches; but it does not follow that he thought every bishop, or the bishops of any particular Church, an unerring depository of such tradition. He supposed the case of a bishop who was in the succession, but yet did not hold fast the Apostles’ doctrine(357), and he evidently implies that such a person was not to be adhered to; it is, therefore, not any individual bishop, or the bishop of any particular see, that he would appeal to, but the aggregate of the bishops of the universal Church.

It is remarkable how strong is the resemblance between the positions occupied by the Gnostics and Irenæus respectively, and those taken up by Romanists and the Church of England. Both that ancient father and ourselves think Scripture perfectly clear upon the fundamental points to the singleminded, go first and last to Scripture upon all doctrinal points, and make tradition only auxiliary and subordinate to it. Both the Gnostics and the Romanists complain of the insuperable difficulties of the Scripture without tradition, and thus make tradition practically set aside Scripture; and the tradition they appeal to turns out, when examined, to be nothing more nor less than their own teaching.

But besides this _public_ tradition, extant throughout all the Churches, there is another kind of tradition he brings forward, viz. that kept up by a direct line from the Apostles by the testimony of individuals. This he brings forward under various forms of expression, as “I have heard from an elder, who had heard from those who had seen and been instructed by the Apostles;” “Wherefore the elders, who are disciples of the Apostles, say,” &c.; “As the elders, who saw John, the Lord’s disciple, remember that they heard of him;” “And all the elders, who associated with John, the Lord’s disciple, testify that John taught them this; for he remained with them down to the time of Trajan.” He appeals to it on the subject of Christ’s descent into hell(358), which did not enter into the earliest creeds; on the place of the saints departed(359); on the millennium(360); as well as on the fact that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of age(361).

It is evident that such testimony, carried down in one chain, unchecked by any other similar chain, must be liable to great deterioration. An instance of this may be seen in the last‐mentioned case in which he quotes this kind of evidence; viz. his idea that Jesus continued his teaching till past forty years of age(362). All other writers who speak on the subject are agreed that Irenæus, or some person through whom this assertion came, must have made some mistake; that our Lord, in fact, began his teaching shortly after his baptism, and continued it through three passovers, and no more. And yet we have apparently very strong evidence for the assertion of Irenæus; for he declares that all the elders who companied with John the Apostle affirmed it, and that some of them declared that they had it from other Apostles. The probability is, that Irenæus, who was quite a youth when acquainted with these persons, had misunderstood what he had heard in their conversations with each other, or remembered it incorrectly after a long lapse of years, being biassed by his own view of a passage of Scripture which he quotes in confirmation(363), and which may be the real foundation of the opinion in question.

It is likewise evident that this tradition in regard to mere facts not connected with any important doctrine, and depending upon the correctness of the _memory_ of an individual, is of very different character from that of important facts and doctrines, and points of discipline, kept up publicly in all Christian Churches and _witnessed_ to by him as actually subsisting in his own day or at the very time of his writing. At the same time they may be received, as we receive other historical facts, when not contradicted by other evidence.

And something of the same degree of uncertainty must in like manner hang about the transmission of doctrines or opinions by such a channel. And it is to be remembered that Irenæus, when he testifies of these, is not in the same position as when he speaks of public doctrine, discipline, or customs. There he is the witness of the combined teaching of many lines of apostolical succession; here, for all that appears, of only one: and that one requires to be checked or confirmed by other evidence before it can gain our full assent. If what is gained in this way fall in with Scripture, or explains or carries out more fully the meaning of Scripture in a manner not inconsistent with other Scripture, then we may feel that it is to be treasured up, as being in all probability a fragment of apostolical tradition. If, again, it is confirmed by other sufficient testimony, it may be looked upon in the same light, in proportion to the degree of evidence: for although Irenæus unquestionably quoted these latter traditions as undoubted truths, it is impossible that they should, upon his single testimony, appear so to our minds.

There is, however, one general remark which applies to all the various instances in which he appeals to tradition, and that is, that he does not appear to have known any thing of a transmitted comment on the text of Scripture. The only way in which he applies tradition to the interpretation of Scripture is, by laying down certain facts of our Lord’s history, which were universally acknowledged or handed down by sufficient testimony, or certain doctrines of religion or general principles which were universally received as of apostolical authority, and bringing them forward in confirmation of the views which he himself deduced from a comparison and accumulation of texts.