sign in sign up
<<
Home , Gnosticism, Irenaeus, Pope Eleutherius

Association of Hebrew Catholics Lecture Series The Mystery of Israel and the

Fall 2009 – Series 5 Themes From the Early

Talk #4 St. and the Battle Against

© Dr. Lawrence Feingold STD Associate Professor of and Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri

Note: This document contains the unedited text of Dr. Feingold’s talk. It will eventually undergo final editing for inclusion in the series of books being published by The Press under the series title: “The Mystery of Israel and the Church”. If you find errors of any type, please send your observations [email protected] This document may be copied and given to others. It may not be modified, sold, or placed on any web site. The actual recording of this talk, as well as the talks from all series, may be found on the AHC website at: http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/studies/mystery-of-israel-church/

Association of Hebrew Catholics • 4120 W Pine Blvd • Louis 63108 www.hebrewcatholic.net • [email protected] St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism

In this talk we shall look at the Gnostic and of intellectual elitism, a fashionable collection of esoteric the defense of the against Gnosticism by for the initiated. St. Irenaeus, who was of at the end of the There were many sects of Gnosticism, each one putting second century. forth its own particular “” or “,” and not all Gnosticism and of them were Christian. Nevertheless, they all had in com- mon certain fundamental elements: (a) teaching Gnosticism is the name of a broad current of heretical through an esoteric philosophical doctrine; (b) seeing the sects active in the first centuries of the Christian era. It was body and material creation as and the source of evil; (c) the first great internal threat to the faith and unity of the a kind of dualism, in which the highest is opposed to Church. St. Paul warns against it in various places in his the Creator of this world, which is the source of evil; (d) a writing and preaching. Before going to Jerusalem where kind of , according to which there is a he would be imprisoned, he said to the elders of Asia of semi-divine beings, each of which emanates from the (Acts 20:29-30): “I know that after my departure fierce one above it; and (e) a kind of according to wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; which there are sparks of the divine in every human . and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” It can be seen that the Gnostic doctrines have some In 1 Tim 4:1-4, St. Paul is more explicit in characterizing neo-Platonic features. The highest God, who is completely Gnosticism: transcendent, is distinguished from the Creator of the world, who is seen to be a much lower . At the Now the expressly says that in later times some same time, Gnosticism has a clearly anti-Jewish polemic. will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits The God of the is seen to be an inferior and doctrines of , through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and en- god, harsh and vindictive. The Law of and the Ten join abstinence from foods which God created to be received Commandments thus are the work of this lower god as with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. well, and should not be regarded as inspired Scripture nor For everything created by God is , and nothing is to be as a law that binds Gnostics. rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. Of particular importance is the Gnostic teacher Marcion The chief tenets of Gnosticism include a rejection of (b. 110 AD), who separated the God of the Old Testa- the goodness of the physical creation, a rejection of the ment—the Creator and Author of the Mosaic Law—from goodness of human procreation in marriage, and a com- the Father of Christ in the . Only plex pantheon of lower produced by successive the latter would be the good God, whereas the former emanations from the highest God. The material creation was demoted to the rank of an inferior divine power, like is not considered by them to be the creation of the high- to the (artisan of the world) in ’s . est God, but rather is the accidental work of the lowest of Since the material creation is seen by Gnosticism to be the divine emanations, sometimes called the “Demiurge” evil, it follows that the Creator of the material world can- (Artisan), and comes forth as a product of some cosmic not be the Most High God, but would be a lower divinity. . Evil is associated with material , and salvation Thus the Creator God of the Old Testament could not be would be liberation from the prison of the body. In other the true God whom Jesus proclaimed to be His Father. words, the according to Gnosticism was not However, it is obvious that this classification of the that of and but that of the creation of the world God of the New Testament as good, and the Creator of itself by the Creator (Demiurge). the Old Testament as rigidly just and vindictive, is utterly The Gnostics did not claim divine as the incompatible with the writings of the New Testament source of their doctrine, but rather claimed to possess a themselves, as well as the . Therefore, higher —which is the meaning of the Greek Marcion logically amputated the New Testament to silence word “gnosis”—of a philosophical type, strongly influ- all of its references to God as Creator of and earth. enced by currents of Neo-Platonic philosophy. Thus they His New Testament included only the mutilated of scorned the common faith of the Church, which they Luke and ten mutilated epistles of St. Paul. derided as being for the simple-minded, by claiming to In seeing the God of the Old Testament as other than the be above the common faith. Gnosticism was thus a kind good God of the New, putting a god of justice and creation in opposition to the God of Love, Marcion’s heresy was

2 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism a kind of anti-, radically rejecting the role of the the period after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.2 Old Testament in . He saw all the orthodox Paradoxically, Gnosticism turned Judaism upside-down in Catholics as , and he imagined himself to be the almost every way—positing a multiplicity of lower divini- new St. Paul, called to continue St. Paul’s battle against ties, denying that God is the Creator of the world, holding that heresy. the material creation and matrimony to be evil, contrary It is evident that the of was a false to God’s command in Genesis: “be fruitful and multiply.” conception of the relationship between Judaism and Chris- It follows that a Christian defense against Gnosticism tianity, conceived as radical opposition. had to be simultaneously a defense of the fundamental Manichaeism is a later development of Gnosticism, revealed truths that lie at the heart of Judaism: oneness of founded by a Persian named Manes in the third century God, Creator of heaven and earth, and of the goodness of AD. It was this later form of Gnosticism into which St. the natural order and especially of man, created in God’s Augustine was indoctrinated in his youth and in which he image and likeness. remained for nine years. Manichaeism blended Gnosticism St. Irenaeus with the Persian Zoroastrian , to produce a dualist religion in which a good God of light is in eternal combat Many of the Fathers and patristic writers of the third cen- with an evil god of darkness, the creator of matter. tury are specifically writing against Gnosticism, which was a scourge of the Church in the second and third centuries. One of the key elements of Gnosticism and Manichaeism Among these, the most important is St. Irenaeus. Benedict is their denial of free will and moral responsibility. The XVI gives a brief biographical sketch in his Wednesday cause of moral evil is declared to be our material nature, Audience on St. Irenaeus on 28 March 2007: and not our freedom of choice. Irenaeus was in all probability born in (today, It should be noticed that some important elements of Izmir in ) in about 135-140, where in his youth, he Gnosticism later found their way into Luther’s doctrines attended the school of Bishop , a in his and some currents of . For example: the de- turn of the John. We do not know when he moved nial of free will, the tendency to speak negatively about the from Asia Minor to , but his move must have coincided Law of the Old Testament and to disregard the importance with the first development of the Christian community in of human acts, and a pessimistic tendency to deny the Lyons: here, in 177, we find Irenaeus listed in the college of goodness of the created material order. presbyters. In that very year, he was sent to bearing a letter from the community in Lyons to Eleutherius. Because of its denial of the goodness of the body, His mission to Rome saved Irenaeus from the persecution Gnostics tended to deny the true humanity of Jesus Christ, of Aurelius which took a toll of at least 48 , thus falling into . This led to their denial of the including the 90-year old Bishop Pontinus of Lyons, who Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. died from ill-treatment in prison. Thus, on his return Irenaeus For the same reason Gnosticism rejected the goodness was appointed Bishop of the city. The new Pastor devoted of procreation and marital intercourse, because it brings himself without reserve to his episcopal ministry which ended babies—and thus new bodies—into the world! Gnostics in about 202-203, perhaps with martyrdom. thus rejected the goodness of matrimony, which by its During his episcopal ministry he had to battle against very nature is ordered to the procreation and education of the Gnostic heresy that was causing confusion and dev- children! Clement of reports that one of the astation in the vineyard of the Lord, and to combat it he Gnostic writings, the so-called “Gospel according to the wrote a five-volume work, Against (Refutation Egyptians,” quoted Christ as saying: “I came to destroy and Overthrow of What Is Wrongly Called “Knowledge” the works of the female,”1 as if Christ came to put an end [Gnosis]). to human reproduction! In the first book he simply reported what the various Gnosticism can be seen therefore as the forerunner of our Gnostic sects believed, and in the remaining books he current culture of death, which sees birth control as moral refutes them using reason (book 2) and Revelation (books good, abortion and euthanasia as acceptable, homosexual- 3-5). Even the work of simply reporting the Gnostic be- ity as a legitimate lifestyle, and regards marriage simply liefs is itself a kind of refutation, for the absurdity of their as a social convention! views becomes immediately apparent when it is all laid What was the origin of Gnosticism? There are various out as a system. theories. It used to be thought that it was a hellenization In his direct refutation of the Gnostics, St. Irenaeus of Christianity, deriving principally from neo-Platonic focuses on various fundamental themes: apostolic suc- thought. However, many scholars today think that it cession, the witness of the canonical , the unity was born in a Jewish context, in the despair that marked of God, the unity of the Old and New Testaments, the true 2 See Carl B. Smith II, No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic 1 , 3.9.63. Origins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004).

3 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism humanity and divinity of Christ who restores mankind by At the beginning of his Against the Heresies, assuming a true and complete humanity in the unity of after opening with a brief profession of faith, St. Irenaeus His Person. writes: He gives his intention in the following words: “For, Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influ- said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, ence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart is brought alongside it.”3 This ought to be a principal goal and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. For the of every theologian. languages of the world are different, but the meaning of the a. Apostolic Tradition and Succession tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches that read again in the third book of Adversus Haere- have been established in Germany believe otherwise, or hand ses, “which, having been received from the Church, we do down any other tradition, nor those among the Iberians, nor preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing those among the Celts, nor in , nor in Libya, nor those its youth as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent established in the middle parts of the world. But as God’s vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth creature, the sun, is one and the same in the whole world, also.... For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every illumines all men who wish to come to the knowledge of kind of grace” (3, 24, 1). truth….For since the faith is one and the same, he who can say much about it does not add to it, nor does he who can As can be seen, Irenaeus did not stop at defining the say little diminish it [1.10.2]. concept of Tradition. His tradition, uninterrupted Tradi- Pope Benedict comments: “Already at that time—we are tion, is not traditionalism, because this Tradition is always in the year 200—it was possible to perceive the Church’s enlivened from within by the , who makes it universality, her catholicity and the unifying power of the live anew, causes it to be interpreted and understood in truth that unites these very different , from Ger- the vitality of the Church. Adhering to her teaching, the many, to , to Italy, to Egypt, to Libya, in the common Church should transmit the faith in such a way that it must truth revealed to us by Christ.”6 be what it appears, that is, “public”, “one”, “ The Gnostics professed a host of esoteric doctrines, each one contrary to In book 3, chapter 2, Irenaeus returns to the subject of the others, which they claimed were passed down secretly Apostolic Tradition and Succession. He begins by describ- from Christ and the within their . To counter ing how the Gnostics have no regard for it, for they hold this absurd claim, St. Irenaeus stresses the public teaching themselves above even the Apostles: of the Church through the who have succeeded But when we appeal again to that tradition which has the Apostles. Hence the great importance of the Apostolic come down from the Apostles and is guarded by the succes- succession, and the unity of the faith. The true faith is sions of elders [presbyters] in the Churches, they object to that which comes from the Apostles, and has been taught tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely always and everywhere in the .4 than the presbyters, but even than the Apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth…. The Gnostic heresiarchs, on the contrary, can show no continuity for their doctrine, either in time or geographi- In order to ascertain the truth faith, and preserve oneself cally. They lack the notes of unity, Catholicity, and Apos- from the heresies of the Gnostics, it is necessary to remain tolic origin. St. Irenaeus reproaches them: “For there were with the Apostolic Tradition that has been preserved in the no Valentinians before , or Marcionites before Church through the . Thus the true Marcion; nor were there any of these perverse thinkers faith can be found in what the successors of the Apostles whom I have listed above before the founders and inven- teach in common. tors of their perversity.”5 This principle stated by Irenaeus is of great importance. The true faith is not something secret known only by the 3 Against Heresies 3.2.3, trans. Roberts and James wise and initiated. Christianity is not an esoteric religion, Donaldson, in vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (reprint: Peabody: but one in which every member of the faithful, if he knows MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) p. 415. 4 See Vincent of Lerins, who gave the classical expression of this his catechism, is given a wisdom far exceeding anything doctrine: “In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, known by the greatest of the philosophers of antiquity. that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, The faith of the Church is the faith of the simple no less and by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘Catholic’ which, than of the wise. And the simple faithful receive it from as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends the public preaching of the Church which proclaims the all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, same , week after week, year after year. antiquity, consent” (Commonitory, ch. 2, ML 50, 639; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 11:132). 5 Against Heresies 3.4.3 (Early Christian Fathers, p. 375). 6 Audience of 28 March 2007.

4 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism Through the preaching of the Apostles and their publicly the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and recognized successors, the faith of the Church is something their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for public, and thus we speak of “public Revelation”—the there were many still remaining who had received instruc- Revelation preached in public by her legitimate repre- tions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small sentatives—the successors of the Apostles—throughout dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the the centuries. Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, The true faith is not to be ascertained by the secret te- and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from nets of this or that new-fangled sect, but by the common the apostles….From this document, whosoever chooses to do preaching of the bishops in the Catholic world. so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, However, among all the churches in the world, St. Ire- was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of naeus singles out the Church in Rome as being pre-eminent older date than these men who are now propagating false- in the preservation of the faith, to which every other Church hood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the must agree. In other words, the Apostolic succession has Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement a principle of unity that keeps it united, and this is found there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; in the successor of Peter who occupies the see of Rome: then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hygi- who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the nus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episco- by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to pate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would handed down in truth. have delivered them especially to those to whom they were But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, also committing the Churches themselves. For they were and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless also, by Apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tar- successors, delivering up their own place of government to ried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, these men; which men, if they discharged their functions gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they life, having always taught the things which he had learned should fall away, the direst calamity. from the Apostles, and which the Church has handed down, 7 Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a vol- and which alone are true. ume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, The transmission of the Apostolic tradition to the end of we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, the second century is beautifully shown in St. Polycarp and whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blind- St. Irenaeus. The latter told of how in his early youth he ness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meet- had heard many things—and remembered them with great ings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived clarity—from the holy St. Polycarp, his master, who from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome died in 169 AD after having been a bishop for perhaps sixty by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by or seventy years. This passing on of the Apostolic tradition pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down can be seen in St. Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus: to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For When I was still a boy I saw you in Lower Asia in Poly- it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree carp’s company. . . . I have a clearer recollection of events with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, at that time than of recent happenings—what we learn in that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic childhood develops along with the mind and becomes a tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful part of it—so that I can describe the place where blessed men] who exist everywhere. Polycarp sat and talked, his goings out and comings in, the The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built character of his life, his personal appearance, his addresses up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office to crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and His teaching, things that he had heard direct and had been conversant with them, might be said to have from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed 7 Against Heresies 3.3.1-4.

5 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture. To these concerned to describe the genuine concept of the Apostolic things I listened eagerly at that time, by the mercy of God Tradition which we can sum up here in three points. shown to me, not committing them to writing but learning Apostolic Tradition is “public”, not private or secret. them by heart. By God’s grace, I constantly and conscien- 8 . . . Apostolic Tradition is “one”. . . . Lastly, the Apostolic tiously ruminate on them. Tradition, as he says in the in which he Another text of St. Irenaeus on the Apostolic Tradition wrote his book, is “”, in other words, spiritual, comes from book 4, chapter 33: guided by the Holy Spirit: in Greek, the word for “spirit” is “pneuma”. Indeed, it is not a question of a transmission True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine entrusted to the ability of more or less learned people, but to of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church God’s Spirit who guarantees fidelity to the transmission of the throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of faith. This is the “life” of the Church, what makes the Church the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, ever young and fresh, fruitful with multiple charisms. For by which they have handed down that Church which exists Irenaeus, Church and Spirit were inseparable: “This faith”, in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded we pneumatic”, “spiritual.”9 and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition b. The Four Gospels nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; The Gnostics spread their doctrine by writing works and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsifi- cation, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with which they claimed to be from the Apostles themselves, the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; although they were much later in origin, written in the and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, second century. Some of these Gnostic works were called which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than “Gospels,” such as the . In order to dis- , and which excels all the other gifts [of God]. credit these false “gospels,” St. Irenaeus speaks about the Pope Benedict summarizes St. Irenaeus’s doctrine on four canonical Gospels as the only true Gospels accepted Apostolic succession as follows: by the Church. In fact, the Gospel preached by Irenaeus is the one he At the beginning of book 3, he described the circum- was taught by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and Polycarp’s stances of the writing of each Gospel, emphasizing their Gospel dates back to the Apostle John, whose disciple Poly- apostolic origin: carp was. The true teaching, therefore, is not that invented by We have learned from none others the plan of our salva- intellectuals which goes beyond the Church’s simple faith. tion, than from those through whom the Gospel has come The true Gospel is the one imparted by the Bishops who down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, received it in an uninterrupted line from the Apostles. They and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us taught nothing except this simple faith, which is also the true in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith…. depth of God’s revelation. Thus, Irenaeus tells us, there is no For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were secret doctrine concealed in the Church’s common Creed. invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came There is no superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had publicly confessed by the Church is the common faith of perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, all. This faith alone is apostolic, it is handed down from the preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from Apostles, that is, from Jesus and from God. In adhering to God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who this faith, publicly transmitted by the Apostles to their suc- indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of cessors, Christians must observe what their Bishops say and God. Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the must give special consideration to the teaching of the Church Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were of Rome, pre-eminent and very ancient. It is because of her preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. antiquity that this Church has the greatest apostolicity; in But after their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of fact, she originated in Peter and Paul, pillars of the Apostolic Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to College. All Churches must agree with the Church of Rome, preach. And Luke, Paul’s associate, also down in a book recognizing in her the measure of the true Apostolic Tradi- the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord’s tion, the Church’s one common faith. With these arguments, disciple—the one who lay on his lap—also set out the gospel summed up very briefly here, Irenaeus refuted the claims of while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor.10 these Gnostics, these intellectuals, from the start. First of all, they possessed no truth superior to that of the ordinary This testimony is extremely important, for it comes faith, because what they said was not of apostolic origin, it from a disciple of a disciple of St. John, and a bishop fa- was invented by them. Secondly, truth and salvation are not the privilege or monopoly of the few, but are available to 9 Audience of 28 March 2007. 10 It appears that St. Irenaeus is mistaken by a few years in his as- all through the preaching of the Successors of the Apostles, sertion that the was written after the death of Peter and especially of the Bishop of Rome. In particular - once again Paul. Other authors tell us that St. Peter knew of Mark’s Gospel and disputing the “secret” character of the Gnostic tradition and tacitly approved it. St. tells us that St. Mark died in the eighth noting its multiple and contradictory results - Irenaeus was year of Nero, which would be 62 AD. However, it is not clear where 8 Quoted by , History of the Church 5.20.6. Irenaeus draws this information.

6 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism miliar with the traditions both of the Eastern and Western However, the Catholic doctrine is much more unified still. churches, for he was a native of Asia Minor and a bishop The one God is the Creator, who created everything out of . of nothing according to His eternal plan and will, for the According to St. Irenaeus, the first and the last Gospels sake of His own goodness, and restores and consummates 12 were written by Apostles— Matthew and John—whereas His work through the of His Son. the second and the third Gospels were written by disciples Gilson comments: On this point again, the radical of St. Peter and Paul, the princes of the Apostles, whose Christian optimism of Irenaeus opposes Gnosticism under oral preaching they record. Therefore, all four Gospels all its forms. The created world is not the outcome of an have Apostolic authority, and are based on the eyewit- , nor of a defection, nor of an ignorance or of a nesses designated by Jesus Christ as Apostles, the most mistake; rather, it has sprung forth from the generosity of authentic witnesses of all that He did and taught. its creator.”13 In book 3, chap. 11, no. 8, St. Irenaeus stresses that there With regard to , St. Irenaeus stresses the are only four canonical Gospels: substantial unity of body and soul against the Gnostic It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or dualism, and he stresses the existence of free will against fewer in number than they are. . . . It is fitting that she (the a Gnostic . Church) should have four pillars, breathing out d. On the True Humanity of Christ on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word . . . has given us the Gospel under The Gnostics whom St. Irenaeus is combating, like the four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. earlier heretics in the time of St. , were The four Gospels that St. Irenaeus is referring to, of Docetists, which means that they denied the true humanity course, are our four canonical Gospels. He emphasizes of Christ and His true suffering in the Passion. St. Irenaeus the precise number four, because already in his time the characterizes the Gnostic views of Christ as follows: Gnostic heretics were fabricating additional “gospels” to But there are some who say that Jesus was merely a inculcate their particular views. For example, the heretic receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, de- Valentinus added a pseudo-gospel called the “Gospel of scended from above…and that Jesus was the Son, but that Truth.” St. Irenaeus comments: “Indeed, they have arrived Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively being naturally impassible. The Valentinians, again, maintain recent writing “the ,” though it agrees in 11 that the incarnate Jesus was the same who passed through nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles. Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [re- 14 c. On the Unity of God gion] descended. Since the Gnostics split up the identity of God, denying Against the Gnostics, St. Irenaeus has to reaffirm the that the Creator of the world is the true God, St. Irenaeus true humanity of Christ, His true suffering in the Passion, firmly maintains the unity of His identity as presented in and the oneness of His Person. In other words, St. Irenaeus Scripture. God is both Creator and yet absolutely transcen- had to defend the truth of the Incarnation. He does this in dent; He is God of both the Old and the New Testaments. a profound way, for example, in book 3, chapter 18: The Creator manifested in Gen 1-3 is the same who is the As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who Father of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son. He writes: existed in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also always present with mankind, was in Now the Lord would not have recapitulated in himself these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, that ancient and primary enmity against the , fulfill- united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became ing the promise of the creator, if he had come from another a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection Father. But as he is one and the same who formed us at the is set aside of those who say, “If our Lord was born at that beginning and sent His Son at the end, the Lord did perform time, Christ had therefore no previous existence.” For I have his command, being made of a woman, by both destroying shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being our adversary and perfecting man after the image and like- with the Father from the beginning; but when He became ness of God. [5.21.2] incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long Irenaeus thus portrays Christ as the restoring through line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, compre- Redemption the work begun by His Father in creation. Creation and Redemption are part of one plan of the one 12 In Plato, there were apparently three distinct elements in the Ti- maeus: God the Creator, the exemplar (the Ideas), and the pre-existing Triune God, brought to fulfillment through the Incarnation. matter out of which the world was made, and there is no mention of In this respect, Irenaeus says that Plato is clearly superior redemption. See Etienne Gilson, History of in the to the Gnostics, for Plato conceives of God as the Good, (New York: Random House, 1955), 23; and St. Ireneaus, and thus his system avoids the Gnostic dualism of . Against Heresies 3.25.5. 13 Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, 23. 11 Ibid., no. 9. 14 Against Heresies 3.16.1.

7 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism hensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus [ no. 1]. between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring If, however, He was Himself not to suffer, but should both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, fly away from Jesus, why did He exhort His disciples to while He revealed God to man. For, in what way could we take up the cross and follow Him,—that cross which these partake of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from men represent Him as not having taken up, but as having Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, relinquished the of suffering?... For if He did unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into not truly suffer…then when we shall actually begin to suffer, communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through He will seem as leading us astray, exhorting us to endure every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. buffeting, and to turn the other cheek, if He did not Himself Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, before us in suffer the same. And as He misled them and was neither born in the flesh nor truly made man, are as by seeming to them what He was not, so does He also mis- yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to lead us, by exhorting us to endure what He did not endure sin; for, by their showing, death has not been vanquished. . Himself. [In that case] we shall be even above the Master, . . For it behooved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem because we suffer and sustain what our Master never bore man under the power of death, that He should Himself be or endured [ nos. 5-6]. made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, e. On the Divinity of Christ so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go After establishing the true humanity of Christ, St. Ire- forth from death. For as by the disobedience of the one man naeus proceeds to show His true divinity in chapter 19.2: who was originally molded from soil, the many were made sinners, [Rom 5:19] and forfeited life; so was it neces- But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all sary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the , the salvation. Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as Apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who also Moses says: “God, true are His works.” [Dt 32:4] But have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent and vivify man; and therefore His works are true. [3.18.7] generation which is from the Virgin. St. Irenaeus continues this argument in chapter 19, no. 1: St. Irenaeus here develops the theme that Christ had two generations, just as He has two . From all To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: “I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; He was begotten from the Father in the generation of the but you shall die like men.” He speaks undoubtedly these Word. In the fullness of time, He received a human genera- words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, tion through the Virgin Mary. but who despise the Incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God [like the Gnostics!], defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to f. On the Redemption Worked by the Word of God, who became flesh for them.For it was for Christ’s Incarnation this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who St. Irenaeus goes on to show how the true humanity and was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, hav- true divinity of Christ are necessary to work our salvation. ing been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, If Christ were not perfect God, He could not redeem us, might become the son of God. For by no other means could for salvation must come from God. However, justice also we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But demands the reparation be made by the one who has trans- how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, gressed. Christ could do this only insofar as He became unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that truly man, the new Adam, the new head of the human which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed race who “recapitulates” humanity (and creation itself). up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we A Gnostic Christ, who would be neither perfect man nor might receive the adoption of sons? perfect God, could never redeem man. He writes: In this text, St. Irenaeus anticipates certain fundamental Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (- themes that will be developed by later theologians in the man nature) to cleave to and to become, one with God. For Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth cen- unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy turies, and by the entire Catholic Tradition. First of all, would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: Christ redeemed mankind by assuming a complete human unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had nature. God did not choose to redeem mankind simply by teaching mankind through philosophical doctrines or Rev-

8 AHC Lecture Series 5: Themes From the Early Church Fathers ––­ Lecture 4: St. Irenaeus and the Battle Against Gnosticism elation, as the Gnostics supposed. Rather, the divine plan g. On the Eucharist of salvation decreed that mankind, which lost the status As mentioned with regard to St. Ignatius, the Gnostics of adoption as through Adam’s sin, should logically rejected the Eucharistic conversion of bread regain the adoption as sons of God through the Incarnation and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, for of the Son of God, who truly assumed a complete human they rejected the true humanity of Christ. The Eucharist nature: both body and rational soul. According to the makes no sense if one rejects the humanity of Christ, as divine plan, Christ redeemed only what He Himself truly the Gnostics did. assumed in the Incarnation. It was not fitting for Him to redeem human nature except through assuming a complete In book 5, chap. 2, nos. 2-3, St. Irenaeus develops the and perfect human nature. He could most fittingly redeem theme of the Eucharist as nourishing us with the true Body birth, death, and suffering (and our human soul) only if and Blood of Christ, which is the medicine of immortality. He Himself assumed them into union with His Person. As in St. Ignatius, the Eucharistic conversion is clearly taken in a completely realist sense, and the doctrine of Secondly, by becoming man, Christ became the new clearly implied: head of humanity now created anew in the image and But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire likeness of God (on the level), made adop- dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, tive sons, and re-admitted into friendship with God. St. and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it Irenaeus expresses this event with the term, “recapitula- is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed does not tion,” signifying a new (supernatural) creation. attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with Third, by uniting human nature with His divine Person, His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion Christ enabled mankind to share in His divine nature, of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion including its incorruptibility. Thus there was a divine in- of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, terchange: the natural (only begotten) Son of God became and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he Son of Man, in order that the sons of men might become 15 redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have raised up to be adopted sons of God. redemption through His blood, even the remission of .” St. Irenaeus continues: And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means For as He became man in order to undergo tempta- of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for tion, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified.... He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) below, and in the height above [see Is 7:13], which man did as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should 3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufac- be “God with us,” and descend to those things which are of tured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the earth beneath, seeking the sheep which had perished, the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things which was indeed His own peculiar handiwork, and ascend the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can to the height above, offering and commending to His Father they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of that human nature which had been found, making in His own God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the person the first-fruits of the of man; that, as the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining part of the as the blessed Paul declares in his , body—[namely, the body] of every man who is found in that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His life—when the time is fulfilled of that condemnation which bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and existed by reason of disobedience, may arise. [3.19.3]. invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he Christ became man to be the new Head of mankind, a refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that Head who is both man and God, so that all the members of [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and His body in the Church may be brought into the life of God. receives increase from the bread which is His body. In summary, St. Irenaeus gives us the first systematic exposition of , and we find in it the same 15 See, for example, St. Augustine, Sermon 194.3: “He who being faith and the same fundamental theological principles that equal to the Father in the form of God, and made similar to us in the characterize the Catholic faith in our own day. form of a servant, reformed us to the likeness of God. The unique Son of God being made son of man, made many sons of men to be sons of God.” Likewise, see St. Leo the Great, Sermon 6 on the Nativity: “He therefore became the Son of Man so that we might be able to be sons of God. For unless He descended to us in this humility, no one could have arrived to Him by any merit.”

9