Relevant Resources
- Quote Archive | Apostolic Succession
- Study Bank | Apostolic Succession in the Church History of Eusebius
Introduction
Reading the Church Fathers as a protestant was a shocking experience because I found that from the earliest times, all Christians believed things that were profoundly Catholic. Not only were they profoundly Catholic, but they often described the heresies and schisms they rejected in ways that were eerily similar to the protestantism I had been raised with.
One such example was the unanimity with which the ancient and earliest Christians affirmed apostolic succession, which is the teaching that the Apostles were succeeded in their government of the Church by bishops, who in turn were succeeded by other bishops from apostolic times forward. Every Church Father I read affirmed apostolic succession, and pointed to it as the visible guarantor of the one true Church by which the Catholic Faith would be preserved and taught until Christ’s return. To separate from this line of succession was to separate from the Church established by Christ.
But they also described something else: they said every heretic and schismatic separates themselves from these bishops, and this was one of the defining marks of both In short, they were describing me, many Christians I knew, and what we took for granted as normative “Christianity.”
One such Church Father who had a profound impact on me was St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who wrote on this topic in his great work, Against Heresies. His work affected me so much for three basic reasons:
- It was very clear in its articulation of the doctrine of apostolic succession;
- It was very clear in articulating how apostolic succession was the bulwark against heresy and schism; and
- It was very ancient (second century).
Indeed, St. Irenaeus is considered an “Apostolic Father” because he was discipled by St. Polycarp, who in turn was discipled by St. John the Apostle.
So it was not possible to dismiss St. Irenaeus of Lyon.
Roadmap
Our Roadmap is as follows:
- Our thesis is that St. Irenaeus of Lyon provides ample evidence of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, and its role in combatting heretics and schismatics, in his great and classic work, Against Heresies. We’ll show this by:
- Providing historical context; then
- Quoting portions of Against Heresies relevant to apostolic succession and its role in combatting heresy/schism; and
- Summarizing the conclusions we believe can be drawn from this great work.
Historical Context
St. Irenaeus of Lyon was a second century Church Father born around 130 who was martyred around 202. He is considered an “Apostolic Father” because he was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of St. John the Apostle. He wrote a number of very important works, primarily against Gnostic heretics. His magnum opus was Against Heresies, which he wrote around 180. around the same time he wrote a shorter work called On the Apostolic Preaching.
In his battles with heretics, St. Irenaeus often pointed out that the heretics lack apostolic succession, meaning, they were not governed by bishops who had succeeded the Apostles in their government. Instead, they were self-appointed men who could not trace their origins to apostolic times. In opposition to this, he consistently pointed out that the one true Church was governed by the successors of the Apostles who could trace their succession back to the Apostles themselves, and preeminently the successor of St. Peter in Rome (though this article is not primarily about the papacy). Indeed, it was this succession of bishops that St. Irenaeus of Lyon claimed preserved the genuine apostolic tradition, as opposed to the false traditions of the Gnostics and other heretics.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Preface, Book 1)
With that context in mind, we proceed to St. Irenaeus’s assertions about apostolic succession.
It must first be noted that in his Preface, St. Irenaeus is clear about the methods of the heretics he is refuting:
These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation.
In other words, the heretics were appealing to false scriptures, and falsely interpreting the genuine scriptures.
In the first book, he asserts that the Church received one tradition from the Apostles, and this tradition is the same throughout the whole world (Book 1, Ch. 10, §2):
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.
For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth.
As we’ll see, “tradition” for St. Irenaeus was not limited to Scripture alone, a fact that was very eye-opening to me when I first read these words as a protestant.
Having pointed to the unity of the Church and the tradition it had received from the Apostles, St. Irenaeus then alludes to the means by which this tradition has been faithfully preserved, namely, by the “rulers of the churches” (§2 continued):
Nor will any one of the rulers in the churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it make any addition to it, nor does one who can say but little diminish it.
As will become clearer as we proceed (particularly in Book 3), these “rulers in the churches” St. Irenaeus refers to are the successors of the Apostles, the bishops who now fill their places in the government of the Church through a direct line of succession. It is this apostolic succession, he says, that ultimately preserves the truth of the Apostolic Faith. In contrast with the innumerable heresies who have departed from this succession, St. Irenaeus observed that “the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said” (Book 1, Ch. 10, §3).
We see a glimmer of this reality toward the end of the first book of Against Heresies when he speaks of a heretic going to Rome during the reign of a particular Pope (Book 1, Ch. 27, §1):
Cerdo [a heretic] was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of [St. Pope] Hyginus [Pope from c. 136 to c. 142], who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards…
Note two key facts: St. Irenaeus traces the succession of St. Pope Hyginus back to the Apostles (as we will see later, to St. Peter in particular), and he was able to state his exact place in that succession. He does not contrast the heretic with a theological abstraction or principle, but with the visible and verifiable reality of the Church.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book 3)
What is hinted at in Book 1 is made crystal clear in Book 3, namely, that St. Irenaeus believes the tradition imparted to the Church by the Apostles is preserved by means of apostolic succession (Book 3, Ch. 2, §2):
But, again, when we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters [priests] in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
I recall reading these words as a protestant exploring the Catholic Faith, and feeling a disconcerting sense that St. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, was disturbingly close to describing me, and protestantism in general. We too, after all, had rejected the idea of binding apostolic tradition outside Scripture, just as many of these second century heretics had done as well (some of them rejected canonical Scripture as well, and sometimes even substituted their own “scriptures” in its place).
From this passage in which he distinguishes “Scripture” from “tradition,” as well as many others throughout Against Heresies and his other work, On the Apostolic Preaching, it was clear to me that St. Irenaeus believed “tradition” included things outside Scripture, such as a system of doctrine and practice that had been faithfully handed down by apostolic succession. In other words, it was a system by which the words of Scripture were properly understood and lived.
However, the heretics opposed their own system of “tradition” to the genuine Apostolic tradition pointed out by St. Irenaeus by claiming to possess a “private” tradition they called “wisdom,” and was not bound to apostolic succession, but could exist in any individual (Book 3, Ch. 2, §1):
And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, indeed, so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent [cf. 1 Cor. 2:6], who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
Once more, upon reading this passage, I felt St. Irenaeus of Lyon getting disturbingly close to describing protestantism, if not right on target. For a number of years, I had begun to recognize that at the end of the day, we protestants were preaching ourselves–meaning, our claim to possess true Christian doctrine ultimately depended on our opinion. We could not claim to have any authority. We could only claim that we were perceiving whatever truth was taught in Scripture better than others. So when I read this second century Church Father say each of these heretics not only rejected apostolic succession, but “is not ashamed to preach himself,” I knew that most, if not all of us protestants would fall under this condemnation.
St. Irenaeus next proceeds to provide more detail on how anyone can access this genuine Apostolic Tradition throughout the entire Church, and he points straight to apostolic succession (Book 3, Ch. 3, §1):
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
St. Irenaeus quite explicitly says that the Apostles left their government of the Church to their successors, the bishops. That was the form of government left to the Church by the Apostles, and thus by Christ Himself. Thus, if the bishops governed well, it “would be a great boon” to the Church; and if not, it would lead to “the direst calamity.” Observe that St. Irenaeus does not dismiss the idea that bishops can govern poorly, or even fall into heresy. But he does point to the reality of apostolic succession for the Church as a whole as the guarantor of truth. As we will see in Book 4, St. Irenaeus says that the episcopate has received the gift of truth from God.
He then proceeds to make things more concrete. Instead of listing all the bishops everywhere, he chooses one line of bishops in particular to focus on: the bishops of Rome. St. Irenaeus’s words speak for themselves (Book 3, Ch. 3, §2):
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
While our focus in this article is not on the papacy, it is worth noting several assertions from St. Irenaeus that provide stunning evidence that the Catholic doctrine of the papacy was known and believed in the second century:
- First, he says that the Roman Church is “universally known.” This would certainly not have been the case for every local church, which implies that all Christians are aware of something significant about the Roman Church.
- Second, he says that the Roman Church was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, “the two most glorious apostles.” This would certainly be among the reasons the Roman Church was “universally known,” and also affirms the hierarchical arrangement of the Apostles, with some holding a higher position of authority than others, with St. Peter presumably being the greater of the two.
- Third, St. Irenaeus is very explicit: “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [the Roman Church], on account of its pre-eminent authority…” This statement can only be affirmed in the Catholic Church to this day. But why would the Roman Church possess “pre-eminent authority” that must, as “a matter of necessity,” be obeyed? Presumably because of the greater authority of its founders, Sts. Peter and Paul. And if it is “a matter of necessity” that every Christian agree with the Roman Church, this implies that this is by the authority of Christ, and thus divinely revealed, since if Sts. Peter and Paul, and particularly St. Peter, had greater authority than the other Apostles, this would have resulted from Christ’s own decision.
We can say that St. Peter was the “senior party” with respect to St. Paul because St. Irenaeus then begins to list the successors of the Apostles, and mentions only one man at a time. Since only one man at a time is a successor to this office, that must mean the original office was itself held by only one man, who would have been St. Peter. In fact, St. Irenaeus lists the first 13 Popes up to St. Pope Eleutherus, whose papacy began around 174, and who died in 189 (Book 3, Ch. 3, §3):
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles…
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
St. Irenaeus then contrasts this one true Church governed by a visible set of bishops–preeminently the Roman bishop–who have succeeded to the government of the Apostles through apostolic succession, with the heretics who presume to draw people away from Her (Book 3, Ch. 4, §1):
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.
St. Irenaeus then addresses the question of how theological disputes among Christians should be resolved. He once more points to the authority of the Churches founded by the Apostles, exercised by their bishops, of which the Roman Church (per his previous comments) would have been chief. Indeed, he explicitly affirms that this Faith, and the resolutions of its disputes, can be known “in the absence of written documents” (Book 3, Ch. 4, §§1-2)
(§1) …For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
(§2) To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If anyone were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
Reading these words as a protestant, I was struck by St. Irenaeus’s insistence that the truth of the Faith could be known “in the absence of written documents.” As someone who believed in sola scriptura for most of my life, this would have been unthinkable to me. If Scripture was the sole infallible source of authority, how could I know the Faith “in the absence of written documents” (presumably including Scripture itself)? St. Irenaeus presented me with a possibility: the visible Church, founded on the Apostles and their successors.
It was in the midst of this visible Church that St. Irenaeus says various heretics arose. He even identifies the precise Bishop of Rome during which their sect grew in prominence (Book 3, Ch. 4, §3):
For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of [Pope] Hyginus [c. 136 to c. 142], flourished under [Pope] Pius [c. 140 to c. 154], and remained until [Pope] Anicetus [c. 157 to 168]. Cerdon, too, Marcion’s predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession. But at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under [Pope] Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon’s disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book 4)
In providing his readers an alternative to these heresies, St. Irenaeus in the next book points once more at the visible Church built on the successors of the Apostles, to whom obedience is owed (Book 4, Ch. 26, §2):
Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God—namely, strange doctrines—shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abihu [Lev. 10:1, 2]. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Korah, Dathan, and Abihu [Num. 16:33]. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did [1 Kings 14:10].
Two points on this passage. First, St. Irenaeus’s reference to “the certain gift of truth” the successors of the Apostles have received “according to the good pleasure of the Father” seems to indicate he believes God has bestowed a spiritual gift, grace, or “charism,” on the episcopacy that orders it toward maintaining the truth. This implies that he believed in some form of infallibility, or immunity from error, granted to the Church by God. While this topic is too vast to sufficiently explore here, I would simply point out that after nearly 8 years of studying the writings of the Church Fathers, I have found far more continuity between the ancient Faith and all the Churches that have maintained apostolic succession (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, etc.) than any of the multitude of protestant sects who reject it, often in the name of Scripture. And yet, I realized that if St. Irenaeus was correct, that is precisely what I should expect to see.
That gets to the second point, which is St. Irenaeus’s assertion that those who “depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever” (i.e. heretics and schismatics) should be avoided. In a nutshell, he was describing something very much like protestantism. Virtually all of us rejected apostolic succession (sidestepping debates with Anglicans for now), and assembled ourselves wherever we saw fit, with no necessary connection to a visible successor of the Apostles, and certainly no belief that it was “necessary” we agree with the Roman Church, both of which St. Irenaeus had asserted Christians must do. That is why reading Against Heresies as a protestant was so shocking: I saw that the Catholic assertion of apostolic succession and the leadership of the Roman Church was ancient–and so was disobeying both. The heretics of the second century looked fairly different than the protestant sects, but both were a confused and contradictory group of sects who rejected the very things St. Irenaeus was claiming were part of the foundations of the Catholic Church and Faith.
Next, after asserting “it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,” St. Irenaeus goes on to warn against heretics “who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat” (Book 4, Ch. 4, Ch. 26, §3). It struck me that he was essentially calling out those who called themselves pastors, but were neither true pastors (because not in the Church), and had been puffed up by “holding the chief seat” among their followers. In short, St. Irenaeus was once again describing a situation I had not only seen countless times as a protestant, but understood to be part of normative Christianity: a person starting their own “church” in the best and most biblical way they knew how, and gathering around themselves a group of followers.
He then goes on to once more warn against associating with such people, specifically stating they disobey the “priesthood,” something I believed we Christians did not have as a protestant (continuing to §4):
From all such persons, therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood, display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others. In this way, Moses, to whom such a leadership was entrusted, relying on a good conscience, cleared himself before God, saying, “I have not in covetousness taken anything belonging to one of these men, nor have I done evil to one of them” (Num. 16:15).
In addition to Moses, St. Irenaeus goes on to cite the examples of Samuel and St. Paul, both of whom were disobeyed, but declared their innocence before the people they led (§4 continued):
In this way, too, Samuel, who judged the people so many years, and bore rule over Israel without any pride, in the end cleared himself, saying: “’I have walked before you from my childhood even unto this day: answer me in the sight of God, and before His anointed: whose ox or whose ass of yours have I taken, or over whom have I tyrannized, or whom have I oppressed? Or if I have received from the hand of any a bribe or [so much as] a shoe, speak out against me, and I will restore it to you.’ And when the people had said to him, ‘You have not tyrannized, neither have you oppressed us, neither have you taken out of any man’s hand,’ he called the Lord to witness, saying, ‘The Lord is witness, and His Anointed is witness this day, that you have not found [anything] in my hand.’ And they said to him, ‘He is witness’” (1 Sam. 12:3-5).
In this strain also the Apostle Paul, inasmuch as he had a good conscience, said to the Corinthians: “For we are not as many, who corrupt the Word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17); “We have injured no man, corrupted no man, circumvented no man” (2 Cor. 7:2).
St. Irenaeus then goes on to assert that the Church will never lack such leaders among “those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles,” who will “expound the Scriptures to us without danger” (Book 4, Ch. 4, Ch. 26, §5)
Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom also the prophet says: “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness” (Isa. 60:17). Of whom also did the Lord declare, “Who then shall be a faithful steward (actor), good and wise, whom the Lord sets over His household, to give them their meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing” (Matt. 24:45, 46). Paul then, teaching us where one may find such, says, “God has placed in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28).
Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvelous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonoring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.
While St. Irenaeus does not expound on these assertions in great detail, it is worth noting that he is once more implicitly asserting some form of infallibility for the Church (as he did in Book 4, Ch. 26, §2 above when he referenced “the certain gift of truth”). He indicates where the rulers of this one true Church are–the bishops who succeed from the Apostles–and says that thanks to God’s gift–“the gifts of the Lord,” which he calls “marvelous dispensations for our sake”–they will always interpret Scripture “without danger.” Given his previous statements about it being “necessary” to agree with the Roman Church, it’s possible St. Irenaeus believed the infallibility of the Church perhaps applied not only to the episcopate as a whole, but in some special manner to the Roman Church itself. Since he does not say this explicitly, we cannot know for sure, but this is a reasonable inference based on what he affirms.
St. Irenaeus then goes on to assert that one can only understand the true Faith, and the teaching of Scripture, if you read it with the priesthood of the Church (Book 4, Ch. 32, §1):
And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
In the next chapter, St. Irenaeus once more asserts many of these same truths he has been asserting throughout Against Heresies. The statement that shocked me most was that “no reformation of so great importance can be effect by them [heretics and schismatics], as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.” Once more, this second century Apostolic Father was calling out precisely what we protestants had done and claimed, and had even elevated into an article of faith–bringing about a schism in the name of “reformation”–and in doing so were simply imitating the behavior of past heretics and schismatics (Book 4, Ch. 33, §§7-8):
(§7) He [the “spiritual disciple”] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel [Matt. 23:24]. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.
He [the “spiritual disciple”] shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one. For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men, according to the will of the Father.
(§8) True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book 5)
In the last book of Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus emphasizes another aspect about heretics in order to contrast them with the Church, namely, that they always come later than the succession of bishops they presume to contradict and separate from. Once more, he also describes the teaching of the Church as “true and steadfast” (perhaps implying some sort of belief in its infallibility), and criticizes those who question the teaching of the priesthood–all things I had done, and was taught a good Christian should do, as a protestant (Book 5, Ch. 20, §§1-2):
(§1) Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches, which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned heretics, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads, and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection.
But the path of those belonging to the Church [that] circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body. And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God, and therefore the “wisdom” of God, by means of which she saves all men, “is declared in [its] going forth; it utters [its voice] faithfully in the streets, is preached on the tops of the walls, and speaks continually in the gates of the city” (Prov. 1:20-21). For the Church preaches the truth everywhere, and she is the seven-branched candlestick which bears the light of Christ.
(§2) Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist.
Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth [2 Tim. 3:7].
It is worth once more observing this key assertion from St. Irenaeus, namely, that heretics and schismatics who depart from the succession of bishops from the Apostles invariably divide into multiple directions, “inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things.” This is a phenomena I not only experienced as a protestant on a day-to-day basis, but is plain and obvious to even outside observers. As atheists I evangelized in college would often ask me, “Why should I come to your church instead of this other one?” They were referring to two protestant sects who taught different things on multiple topics. I had no principled answer to give them other than my personal opinion based on my own study of Scripture. When I read St. Irenaeus, I realized I was in the position of the heretics and schismatics he was talking about. We were doing the exact same thing, ignoring and/or despising the exact same authority structure (which we protestants had separated from in the 16th century).
Toward the end of Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus contrasts the chaos of heresy and schism with the tranquility that is available in the Church. He compares the Church to a garden of paradise—something many other Church Fathers do as well—drawing from the imagery of the Garden of Eden to describe the Church as a haven for the truth, and the attempt to find truth outside of Her as inherently prideful and foolish (§2 continued):
It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden [paradise] in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, “You may freely eat from every tree of the garden” (Gen. 2:16), that is, “Eat you from every Scripture of the Lord; but you shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord.”
For these men do profess that they have themselves the knowledge of good and evil, and they set their own impious minds above the God who made them. They therefore form opinions on what is beyond the limits of the understanding. For this cause also the apostle says, “Be not wise beyond what it is fitting to be wise, but be wise prudently” (Rom. 12:3), that we be not cast forth by eating of the “knowledge” of these men (that knowledge which knows more than it should do) from the paradise of life. Into this paradise the Lord has introduced those who obey His call, “summing up in Himself all things which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Eph. 1:10).
We know from various ancient accounts that St. Irenaeus was involved in resolving multiple controversies within the Church. So when he describes the Church as a “paradise” akin to the Garden of Eden, he is not doing so out of ignorance or naivety. He knew full well that the Church could be wracked by controversy and discord.
But he also knew–as he so often and forcefully asserts throughout Against Heresies–that the Church has a permanent authority structure, an “ancient constitution” as he called it, given to it by Christ, and endowed by Him with some sort of gift of infallibility, by which such controversies could be brought to a definitive end. This was something completely lacking among heretics and schismatics, as he often pointed out.
Conclusion
Suffice it to say, St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies was completely shocking for me as a protestant. So much of what he said was a direct contradiction of what I had always been taught to believe, either explicitly or implicitly. In its place, he asserted a coherent Catholic alternative that consisted of the following points, which were all the more shocking because they were asserted in the 2nd century:
- The Church was ruled by the Apostles, and then by their successors, the bishops–a reality called “apostolic succession”;
- This line of apostolic succession can be traced from bishops in the present back to the Apostles themselves;
- While all true local churches possess apostolic succession, there is one Church that stands above them all, and must be agreed with by all others on account of its “preeminent authority,” namely, the Roman Church, which was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul;
- This one true Church, which St. Irenaeus of Lyon calls the Catholic Church, is endowed by God with the gift of infallibility in its teaching (or something very much like it);
- Heretics and schismatics fall into error about the Faith because they reject the authority of these bishops, and separate from them;
- These same heretics and schismatics do what they do in the name of some supposed “reformation” they claim to be bringing about;
- As a result of their separation from the Church, they not only fall into error, but disagree among themselves, dividing in many different directions.
