CHAPTER VIII. ON THE CANON, GENUINENESS, VERSIONS, USE, AND VALUE OF HOLY
SCRIPTURE.
Unnatural as it may appear, it is notwithstanding true that we find much less clear ideas in regard to the _canon_ of Holy Scripture in the earlier ages than in the later. The word scripture was used, as we shall see, in a latitude with which no church or party in later times has used it.
Irenæus quotes all the books which we of the Church of England esteem canonical, except Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. But the mere circumstance of his not citing them cannot, of course, imply any doubt as to their inspiration or canonicity. He had no occasion to do so for the purposes of his argument. It is only wonderful that he thought himself obliged to quote so largely upon such a subject.
But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which we reject from the canon. He not only repeats sentiments from them, as when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom(292), or the story of Susanna(293), without, however, mentioning the books themselves; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon(294) as truly relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch(295) as truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures; and he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books contained in that version. But if so, that does not _prove_ (as we shall see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical.
But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of the books of the Apocrypha; and that is, that he quotes, under the express name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious—I mean the _Shepherd_ of Hermas(296). It is true that he is not singular in so speaking; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to Hermas(297). And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement, affirms(298) that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared his book apocryphal.
I argue thus on the supposition that his single authority is appealed to. If he is adduced, with other writers of his age, to show that the Church acknowledged the apocryphal books as canonical, then one reply is, that even if this were true of the Church of that age, we are not bound by the decision of a single age. Massuet, indeed(299), reasons as though the canonicity of the books the Church of Rome receives were established by the authority of “all churches, or at least the greater part of them, and those of distinguished rank.” Now it so happens that we have quite a chain of evidence on the opposite side. Melito(300), contemporary with Irenæus, after diligent inquiry in Palestine, reckons up, as canonical, the same books of the Old Testament which we acknowledge, and no others: for the Σοφία(301), which (according to one reading) comes in after the Proverbs, is merely another name for that book; and Ezra, it is well known, included Nehemiah and Esther. Origen(302), in the middle of the third century, and Athanasius(303), Epiphanius(304), Gregory of Nazianzum(305), and Jerome(306), successively in the fourth—and what is more, the council of Laodicea(307), in the third century, whose acts were recognised by the sixth synod of Constantinople and Pope Adrian(308)—all agree in receiving a canon of the Old Testament much more like ours than like that of Rome. It is true that Origen adds the Maccabees, but he states that they are not in the canon. Athanasius, Epiphanius, and the Council of Laodicea reckon Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah; Athanasius and the Council add the epistle of Jeremiah; Athanasius alone reckons Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. On the other hand, they all, together with Gregory of Nazianzum, Jerome, and Ruffinus, who entirely agree with us, reject all the other books which the Church of Rome has since admitted into the canon. Epiphanius(309) says that Christians and Nazoræi agreed in receiving the Jewish books, so that he could not have been aware that the Jews did not admit Baruch. So that how many soever may agree in _quoting_ the apocryphal books, the weight of authority is clearly against their reception as _canonical_.
From all that has been said, it must be clear that we can make but little use of Irenæus in settling the _canon_ of Scripture. But from the number of books and of passages which he has quoted, he is of great value in establishing the _genuineness_ of our present copies; all the passages bearing as near a resemblance to the corresponding parts of our MSS. as can be expected from a writer who evidently quotes from memory.
He likewise bears direct testimony to the _authenticity_ of the four Gospels and the Revelation of St. John; affirming that St. Matthew wrote his in Hebrew for the use of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St. Paul conjointly were preaching and establishing the Church at Rome(310); that after their departure, St. Mark committed to writing what he had heard from St. Peter, and St. Luke what he had heard from St. Paul(311); that St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, to oppose the errors of Cerinthus(312), and that he was likewise the author of the Revelation which bears his name(313), the visions of which he saw towards the close of the reign of Domitian(314).
It is curious that Irenæus quotes a passage as written either by Isaiah or Jeremiah, which does not appear in our present copies(315). Justin Martyr had quoted it before him, and asserted that it had been wilfully erased by the Jews from the Hebrew copies(316). Now, however, it does not appear even in the Septuagint. He likewise records a saying or two as our Lord’s which do not appear in the New Testament(317): the latter of which indeed few persons will believe to have been spoken by our Lord.
He informs us that the Ebionites use only St. Matthew’s Gospel, and reject St. Paul(318); that Marcion curtailed St. Luke, and in effect the whole Gospel(319); that Cerinthus used St. Mark, and the Valentinians St. John(320), and invented a Gospel of their own; and that the Montanists reject St. John’s Gospel and St. Paul(321). It appears, however, that the Gnostics did in fact quote, at least when arguing with Christians, the self‐same books which we now have; for all the passages of Scripture which Irenæus brings forward as perverted by them correspond with our present copies.
Irenæus was of opinion that the whole of the sacred books of the Old Testament were lost during the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them by divine inspiration(322).
He likewise fully believed the fable of Aristeas concerning the translation of the Septuagint by the direction of one of the Ptolemies, whom he names _the son of Lagus_(323). He does not relate it with all the particularity of Josephus; but he relates the separation of the seventy interpreters from each other, and their miraculous agreement in the same words and phrases from beginning to end. It is clear, therefore, that he believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, so far as it is a translation of the Hebrew; and no wonder that he was unable to avoid extending the same feeling to the other books which commonly accompany the translated portion.
He likewise mentions Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes, as having wrongly translated Isaiah vii. 14(324). Theodotion was the contemporary of Irenæus, and must have published his version so recently, that it is wonderful that Irenæus should have seen it.
Lastly, he mentions and distinguishes between the genuine and ancient copies of the Scriptures and the incorrect ones(325).
Having noticed all the _external_ matter, let us come to the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the _use and value_ of the holy Scriptures, and the method of _understanding_ them. Although here his example is more forcible than his precepts, it is satisfactory that he speaks very definitely, and to the purpose.
For instance, he informs us that, after the Apostles had preached the Gospel orally, they took care that the substance of their preaching should be put in writing, to be the ground and pillar of our faith(326). It is very remarkable that he should use this very phrase in speaking of the Gospel, which St. Paul had used in speaking of the Church itself; showing apparently that it was by the custody of the Scriptures that the Church was to sustain its office. Indeed he expresses this in so many words in another passage, when he says that the truth is preserved by the keeping and reading of the Scripture, and preaching consistently with it(327).
His own practice is perfectly consistent with his principles. When he enters into controversy, his first appeal, indeed, in the particular case in hand, was to common sense, as showing the extreme absurdity and glaring contradiction of the Gnostic theories(328). But as they claimed revelation for their authority, he then goes to the Scripture, as the only authentic _record_ of revelation(329); and it is evident that, on his own account, he would never have appealed to any other authority in support of the _great and leading doctrines_ he has to deal with. When he does bring in tradition as an independent and collateral _witness_ of revelation, he does so because the Gnostics themselves appealed to tradition(330) as something more certain than Scripture. And having met them upon this ground, he goes on(331), in the large remaining portion of his treatise, to refute their systems by the induction of passages from the successive portions of the Old and New Testaments.
Clearly, therefore, his disposition, where the question was what God had revealed, would be to go, first of all, and entirely, if possible, to Scripture; for whereas the heretics held that the inspired volume was obscure and uncertain(332), he maintained that there were truths contained in it without any doubt or obscurity, and that those were the things in which the sound‐minded and pious would chiefly meditate(333). And with regard to those things which are obscure and doubtful, he taught that we should endeavour to explain them by those parts which are unambiguous(334).
There was, however, another aid which he looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted(335). It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, _to that extent_, as divine and infallible.
A third aid was to be found in the assistance of the elders of the Church, who preserve the doctrine of the Apostles(336), and, with the order of the priesthood, keep sound discourse and an inoffensive life(337), who have the succession from the Apostles, and, together with the episcopal succession, have received the sure gift of truth(338). He who in this way studies the Scriptures will judge (or condemn) all who are in error(339).
It is obvious that he means the bishops of the Churches, who were the chief preachers of those times. And it is observable that he does not think the succession a perfect guarantee of the truth being preserved, otherwise he would not have added the qualifications of sound discourse and a holy life. He does not therefore support the idea that the truth is necessarily preserved in any one Church by the succession, or that any one bishop of any particular Church (the Bishop of Rome, for instance,) is capable of deciding the sense of Scripture authoritatively. And, in point of fact, it is only upon _fundamentals_ that he recommends an appeal to the bishops, as sure to guide the inquirer into truth.
It is obvious, moreover, that, although no doubt God will aid and bless his ordinance of the ministry at all times to the faithful soul, yet that the aid of one’s own particular pastor or bishop must be much less capable of settling the mind now that Christ’s true pastors are opposed to each other, than in the time of Irenæus, when they held all together. In his time no such thing had occurred as a bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, or Constantinople, acknowledged by general consent to have fallen into great and important error.
In short, we have no approach in Irenæus to the idea of an interpreter so infallible as shall take away from the private Christian all responsibility but that of ascertaining him and following his decisions. He points out means of arriving at truth; but he does not speak of them as unfailing, except in the case of those foundation truths which are now acknowledged by the body of every ancient Church under heaven.