Five Books of St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons: Against Heresies with the Fragments that Remain of His Other Works

by Irenaeus of Lyons

This Translation of S. Irenæus’ work against Heresies was finished by the Translator though not begun to be printed in his lifetime. One very remarkable feature in the work, the depth of S. Irenæus’ fervent and loyal Love for his Master, as of one who all but remembered His earthly Life, amid the drearier exposure of the wild Gnostic Heresies, ever glowing forth;—the firm gentle lowly loyal mind of the Author of the Christian Year could best render into English.

For correcting the Press, except the two first sheets, for the few notes signed E, as also for the Translation of the earlier Fragments, the son of the last surviving Editor of the Library of the Fathers is responsible. The Very Rev. Dr. Smith, Dean of Canterbury, kindly vouches for the accuracy of the fragments translated from the Syriac, and these last have been collated afresh with the Mss. from which they were printed.

With regard to the genuineness of the fragments, Massuet the Benedictine Editor who had bestowed much pains in verifying those which his predecessors had collected from Catenae, &c., points out (i. 338) that they were of two kinds, those given by Eusebius and other ancient writers being undoubtedly genuine, those given by later writers or again by Catenae (whose compilers constantly condensed very considerably, whose transcribers sometimes put by mistake the wrong name) are of more doubtful authority. Massuet sums up, We give here all the fragments which have been collected by Feuardent, Halloix, Sirmond, Combefis, Grabe and others and those which ourselves have collected, yet not attaching to them more credit than they deserve.

The first 13 fragments and the 6 Syriac ones, and again those marked 35 to 38 will probably be genuine, the 14th and again the last fragment from the Armenian almost certainly spurious; of the Catenae-fragments some rest on the authority of several Mss., (and for these the probability of the wrong name having been appended is very considerably diminished,) some again at present on that of one Ms. only, while fragment xxxix attributed to S. Irenæus by the Vatican Ms. 331 and one of the Mss. used by the editor of the Leipzig Catena, is by his other Ms. attributed to Diodorus, and probably also (since Muenter was the first to publish it) the 3 Paris Catenae consulted by Massuet attribute this fragment to Diodorus or some other writer.

P. E. PUSEY.

Oxford,

Oct. 1. 1872.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Christian, Religion, History, Church History, Catholic

209 pages, Paperback

Published October 26, 2018

About the author

St. Irenaeus (2nd cenutry C.E. – c. 202) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyon, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. Irenaeus' best-known book, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies (c. 180) is a detailed attack on Gnosticism, which was then a serious threat to the Church, and especially on the system of the Gnostic Valentinus.

Reviews

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a difficult book to rate. Irenaeus is a genius, and this is close to the first work of systematic Christian theology. Many passages are beautiful, and ideas in Christian theology which are now standard appear here for the first time. However, it is also tedious to read because its purpose is to refute the various schools of gnostic heresy by showing in exhaustive detail that the Scriptures do not support it. As a result, practically every book of the Bible is quoted at length to show that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, propose that there is one God who created the world, that that God and the world He created are both by nature good, and that Jesus Christ is related to that God in the various complicated ways that the Nicene Fathers will codify into formal Trinitarian dogma. This is all well and good, but we are currently in a climate where the main objections to Christianity are (sadly) not to its formal doctrines about the relations of man to the Deity, but rather to various corollated anthropological and moral issues and/or the very existence of the Deity.

As a result, although this book is historically important with many individually inspiring passages, as a complete work it is tedious and was so successful at its goal as to make itself irrelevant by showing how ridiculous the gnostic ideas were.

[Genni]

This is a difficult book to rate (this problem is becoming frequent). It severely tempted my "never quit a book" rule. On the other hand, Irenaeus is an important historical witness.

So yes, there are things to appreciate. Firstly, his incredibly detailed presentation of Gnosticism. Secondly, his interesting, and sometimes really odd, interpretations of Scripture. And thirdly, in the beginning, he wrote with humor. I guess by Book 3 he was worn out (there are five books).

But the other hand: he is highly, HIGHLY, repetitive. He is repetitive. He is repetitive. For five books.

He worked so hard on this. I really appreciate that. But I cannot say I enjoyed it.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus opens to us the struggle against the early heresies and divisions in the Church, especially Gnosticism.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus is the most Aristotelian non-Aristotelian writer I've ever read. He helpfully refutes the Gnostic heresy scripturally, not philosophically, but he both describes and refutes in such a totalizing way that it's actually exhausting. Sometimes he's a little tongue in cheek and throws a little shade ("the 'so-called' gnostics"), but most of it is quite dry (thus the four stars instead of five). I read the first two books of this work because they contained the most new information (to me) and I could tell the last three were going to be largely scriptural references to things I already agree with, so it wouldn't be a responsible use of my time to read the 16+ hours left in the audiobook (thanks Librivox!).

As I mentioned above, this book isn't about all heresies, just the Gnostics. Irenaeus gives in-depth descriptions of the absolutely absurd gnostic systems floating about in the second century, and the more he describes them, the more some trends stand out:

1) Each gnostic group has its own secret "knowledge" (gnosis) which is basically just a bunch of unnecessary complication of the creation myth and names for various secret things/gods. Basically, it's a paywall (whether literal or otherwise) to hide a very shaky "knowledge" that is supposed to be groundbreaking but ends up just making you roll your eyes at it. This felt remarkably like Scientology, as well as Mormonism and its Masonic roots.

2) As a result of (1), gnostics generally see themselves saved by "gnosis", not by morality or any changed life; as such, they don't care about eating food sacrificed to idols, watching gladitorial combat, taking part in orgies, breaking up families (stealing wives and husbands), and generally trying to "experience everything" that's possible. In fact, that also becomes one of the strange requirements: they are to know everything secret, including all the secret depravities humans have invented. Thankfully, Irenaeus spares us the details.

3) As a result of 1 & 2, all of these gnostic sects are contradictory, since they all claim secret knowledge but all say different things. Thus, it kinda bodes badly for them when they all claim to have THE truth while they're all just cults invented for free sex. Ironic how much this sounds like progressive Christianity. More on that later.

4) As if all of that wasn't bad enough, Gnosticism is the forefather of all the most insufferable numerology/conspiracy thinking imaginable. Most all of it makes your eyes glaze over, so don't you dare actually read this book, just listen to the audiobook and let your mind wander when you get to these parts, otherwise you might actually lose it and start smashing things. How Irenaeus had the patience to memorize all of this and then patiently write it all down is beyond me. The only remotely interesting numerology they did was that each letter contains letters within itself (D = D E L T A), and those letters are spelled by more letters (each with varying lengths, i.e. delta being 5 letters, etc.). To demonstrate the folly of such tedious numerology, Irenaeus humorously picks the number 5 at random and lists an equally tedious list of every time he finds 5 in the scriptures. Clever guy.

5) Every version of Gnosticism suffers from a "Turtles all the way down" problem of "well, who created that God/heaven/pleuroma/etc.?" This is so easily overthrown by simple reference to every old testament writer who proclaimed one God.


Some other random but notable things should also be enumerated:

1) Irenaeus is thoroughly Trinitarian and even includes a sort of proto-nicene creed which sounds really good.

2) Irenaeus, as stated above, argues from the Scriptures primarily, then by the Apostles, then the Church Fathers, in descending importance. Extremely importantly, he outlines the implicit haughtiness and folly of progressive christianity below:
Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; 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, 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.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters 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. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour;
This is the exact impicit reasoning which takes place when progressive "christians" call Paul a bigot or cherry pick their favorite sins to excuse. Irenaeus forcefully and correctly pushes back against this blasphemy and heresy, and thank God for him.

3) Today, in a world of "tolerance," we might find it odd how forceful, precise, and excessively determined Irenaeus is to wipe out gnosticism, but it's really quite reasonable and loving what he's doing. Gnostics are, like the aforementioned Mormons, distorting the message of Christ into a pay-to-win model, whereas the Catholic faith is just that: catholic, i.e. universal, i.e. public domain, i.e. not keeping secrets, not manipulating innocent bystanders, and not merely a front to Epicurean licentiousness. There was so much physical and spiritual harm being done by these Gnostics that it's a good thing they were stomped out. Not only were families being destroyed, but souls were being told "mysteries" that were little more than word puzzles, diluting people and telling them what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear. As Irenaeus said: "These men, while they boast of Jesus as being their Master, do in fact emulate the philosophy of Epicurus and the indifference of the Cynics"

4) Irenaeus is the earliest church Father I've heard of who made the claim to Rome's pre-eminence, so that's neat.

5) Origen had previously been the earliest to make a certain symbolic reading of the gold/frankincense/myrrh, but Irenaeus beat him by a little bit:
...having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human race; gold, because He was a King, “of whose kingdom is no end;” and frankincense, because He was God, who also “was made known in Judea,” and was “declared to those who sought Him not.

6) Irenaeus calls Anaxamander an “atheist” and points out how he was among the first to posit the irresponsibly stupid “seed” theory promulgated by dogmatically materialistic scientists. Alas, there is nothing new under the sun.

7) Also Irenaeus made fun of the gnostics for saying that there are 365 universes (just like the scientists claiming multiverses nowadays). Once again, sigh, there is nothing, sigh, under the sun. Sigh.

In the end, I'm glad I read the first two books, they were enlightening but too bulky for what they were worth. It would be much better to read an in-depth summary or even one like mine, instead of the thing in itself. If you must, the Librivox reading is competently done. Toodles.

[Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus died in 202AD and was one of the great early Christian writers. He touches upon many topics but helps build the basic foundation of an Orthodox understanding of salvation. Some modern historians think Irenaeus' frequent use of the letters of St. Paul rescued them from being used and interpreted by the heretics of his day.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Long and complicated, but contains essential information for understanding ancient Christianity.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus is the early Church's head of the correlation department.

He wrote Against Heresies as an attempt to checkmate an early Christian heresy, Gnosticism, that put God as one of a long chain of gods (sound familiar?) and considered material existence evil.

I next chose to pick up Irenaeus's *Against Heresies*. It sounded like a positive note to ring off the new year, right? I chose *Against Heresies*, because I the very title made me feel like I wouldn't get along with Irenaeus very well. Does he not seem like a religious hardliner trying to sniff out people with whom he disagrees? A Saul of Christianity? I immediately thought of the quote from Nikolai Berdyaev, who didn't think much of the word heresy:

*A fanatic of orthodoxy who denounces heresies and exterminates heretics has lost the vital fullness and harmony of truth, he is possessed by one emotion only and sees nothing but heresy and heretics everywhere. He becomes hard, forgets about the freedom of the spirit and has but little attention to bestow upon men and the complexity of individual destinies. Heaven preserve us from being obsessed by the idea of heresy! That obsession plays an enormous part in the history of Christianity and it is very difficult to get rid of it. A conviction has been bred for centuries that a religious fanatic, who mercilessly denounces heresies and heretics, is more religious than other men, and those who think that their own faith is weak respect him. In truth, however, a religious fanatic is a man who is obsessed by his idea and completely believes it, but is not in communion with the living God. On the contrary he is cut off from the living God. And for the sake of the fulness of divine truth, for the sake of freedom and love and communion with God, it is essential to uproot in oneself the evil will to denounce heresies and heretics. A heresy should be opposed by the fullness of truth and not by malice and denunciations. Fanatical denunciations of heresies sometimes assume the guise of love and are supposed to be inspired by love and pity for heretics. But this is hypocrisy and self-deception. Heresy hunters simply flatter themselves and admire their own orthodoxy.*

But perhaps I was going a little too hard on Irenaeus, as I wasn't familiar with what kinds of heresies he was dealing with. Irenaeus wrote *Against Heresies?* in the 2nd century. Christianity was still new, it wasn't firmly established, the apostles were gone, and I'm sure it was no easy task to maintain a unified Church in such conditions. Could the early Church survive both external and internal threats? Wasn't a rigorous attempt at *correlation* to use a Latter-Day Saint equivalent, necessary to maintaining the unity of the faith?

What I didn't anticipate was *Against Heresies* quite narrow in scope: it addresses a specific family of heresies that was a large threat to the early Church: Gnosticism. I mentioned this briefly in my review of Justin's *Apologies*. This wasn't just a difference of opinion in the administration of the sacrament or baptism, how the Atonement or resurrection works, or whether grace or works was more important. It was quite extensive. The introduction summarizes Gnosticism so:

*The fundamental object of the Gnostic speculations was doubtless to solve the two grand problems of all religious philosophy, viz., How to account for the existence of evil; and How to reconcile the finite with the infinite.*

Irenaeus spends his first two books clearly defining the heresies of Gnosticism and point by point refuting them. The next three books are dedicated to establishing true Christian doctrine as a means of confounding Gnostic heretics. I wasn't familiar with Gnosticism before reading *Against Heresies*, and as far as I'm aware, it's long been relegated to the dust bin of history. To give you a summary built around the points from the introduction:

* *the infinite*: God the Father is a created being. He had a father and mother, and that father had a father, and-- well, God's great grandfather (named Bythus) is the actual uncreated and incomprehensible being. Gnosticism comes with a complex geneology of gods (called Aeons) very similar to (and as Irenaeus accuses, plagiarized from) the scheme of the Greek and Roman Gods.

* *existence of evil*: the material Creation is a mistake in universal history. God the Father is a either a dupe or outright evil. There are three types of substance: material, animal, and spiritual. Material will ultimately be destroyed. Animal will be relegated to a middle kingdom (terrestrial kingdom?!) if they choose to keep the commandments (a lower law). Spiritual beings (which you are if you are in on Gnostic secrets) don't have to keep commandments and will be saved just by virtue of being spiritual.

Gnosticism isn't only distinguished by its doctrines, but also by its methods. Gnostic teachings were all secret to which you had to be initiated. The teachings in the Bible are only superficial, and it's only by being initiated that you truly can find what's below the surface. They have a real preoccupation with numbers e.g. the Twelve apostles, the twelve years the woman with an issue of blood suffered, all point to the existence of the duodecad, a group of twelve Aeons. And if you knew about the twelve Aeons, this would be totally obvious.

When you read some of these ideas, you aren't surprised that Irenaeus probably was right to be concerned: it sounds like a bunch of B.S, and a lot of it is so specific, it couldn't have survived 2nd century perceptions. It doesn't feel universal in scope. Irenaeus does an extremely thorough job at doing battle with Gnosticism, going through each and every variety. He must have immersed himself in it do be so familiar with their teachings. And sometimes, Irenaeus got a little snarkly, like when he accused Valentinus of being an airhead:

*But if, in truth, vacuity was produced, then its producer Valentinus is also a vacuum, as are likewise his followers. If, again, it was not produced, but was generated by itself, then that which is really a vacuum is similar to, and the brother of, and of the same honour with, that Father who has been proclaimed by Valentinus*

There are a few responses of my own I had to Irenaeus's work. They are my way of interacting with the text from my Latter-Day Saint background.

## Heresies as an attempt to narrow doctrine

First, I was reminded of Chesterton's remarks on heresy in his biography of St. Francis:

*St. Francis was so great and original a man that he had something in him of what makes the founder of a religion. Many of his followers were more or less ready, in their hearts, to treat him as the founder of a religion. They were willing to let the Franciscan spirit escape from Christendom as the Christian spirit had eclipsed Israel. Francis, the fire that ran through the roads of Italy, was to be the beginning of a conflagration in which the old Christian civilization was to be consumed. That was the point the Pope had to settle; whether Christendom should absorb Francis or Francis Christendom. And he decided rightly, apart from the duties of his place; for the Church could include all that was good in the Franciscans and the Franciscans could not include all that was good in the Church...*

*Every heresy has been an effort to narrow the Church. If the Franciscan movement had turned into a new religion, it would after all have been a narrow religion. In so far as it did turn here and there into a heresy, it was a narrow heresy. It did what heresy always does; it set the mood against the mind.*

Heresies try to fill in the blanks of what the Church had labelled mystery. In this case, they tried to solve the problems of eternity and pain and suffering all in one go. By so doing and separating themselves from the Church, they overcommitted themselves. I like this idea of narrowing, because it means that ideally, the Church should the opposite: all-encompassing. I don't remember who said it anymore, but I remember someone using the metaphor of an umbrella to describe the Church: it actually covers a variety of beliefs, backgrounds, and cultures. It is big enough. It's not the exact quote, but President Uchtdorf expressed a similar sentiment in response to a question:

*Some might say, "I just don't fit in with you people in the Church."*

*If you could see into our hearts, you would probably find that you fit in better than you suppose. You might be surprised to find that we have yearnings and struggles and hopes similar to yours. Your background or upbringing might seem different from what you perceive in many Latter-Day Saints, but that could be a blessing. Brothers and sisters, dear friends, we need your unique talents and perspectives. The diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength of this Church.*

I was just talking to my dad about our different perspectives on faith. My dad was concerned I was *being blown about by every wind of doctrine* because I didn't concede to a literal worldwide flood. But for my dad, that was vital: Joseph Smith taught that the earth was literally baptized-- and in Latter-Day Saint practice, even if your toe comes up out of the water, that means you have to do it again. Therefore, the entire earth-- Everest and all-- had to be covered. The Church is still big enough for both of us to be here, even if we have different beliefs. The essentials are still there.

I like the idea built into the Catholic church: the name itself means universal, because it is big enough to contain differences of opinion in doctrine. You can have a different balance of grace and works, and we can still be in the same Church (Martin Luther may disagree, but that's how it was at one point).

Sorry for the long remarks here. What does that have to do with *Against Heresies* and Gnosticism? While reading Irenaeus, I feared that perhaps the heresy of Gnosticism had succeeded in narrowing the Church: not by embracing their narrow doctrines, but by taking a hard stance in the opposite direction. Here are a few examples:

Because the Gnostics claimed that God wasn't the first Creator, Irenaeus counters very strongly that God is the end-all be-all: he created absolutely everything. He is the first cause. Here's is response to Gnosticism's proposed doctrine of gods existing before God the Father:

*And then, again, if creation be an image of those things above, why should we not affirm that those are, in turn, images of others above them, and those above these again, of others, and thus go on supposing innumerable images of images?... How much safer and more accurate a course is it, to confess at once that which is true: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him-- He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made.*

While I don't believe in the convoluted scheme of the Gnostics, I felt like this was indeed a narrowing of potential beliefs within the Church. While Mormons don't fill in the details like the Gnostics do, we leave it open-ended with Joseph F. Smith's epithet: "As man is, God once was. As God is, so can man become." And, well, I suppose we are considered heretics. But I felt that by taking a hard stance on this point and drawing such a hard line, Irenaeus was effectively narrowing the Church.

Another point Irenaeus hits: God created the rules. If he didn't, then he would be a "slave of necessity":

*For it would have been better, more consistent, and more God-like, to cut off at the beginning the principle of this kind of necessity, than afterwards, as if moved by repentance, to endeavour to extirpate the results of necessity when they had reached such a development. And if the Father of all be a slave to necessity, and must yield to fate, while He unwillingly tolerates the things which are done, but is at the same time powerless to do anything in opposition to necessity and fate, then according to this reason, the Bythus of whom they speak will be found to be the slave of necessity and fate.*

Mormons that God became God by adhering to the laws and ordinances associated with that blessing. There are eternal laws that cannot be violated. To the Catholic mind, that makes God a slave: can He be all-powerful if he can't create the rules? Again, a narrowing.

Finally, Irenaeus insists on creation *ex nihilo*:

*This opinion, too, that they hold the Creator formed the world out of previously existing matter, both Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Plato expressed before them... Then again, as to the opinion that everything of necessity passes away to those things out of which they maintain it was also formed, and that God is the slave of this necessity, so that He cannot impart immortality to what is mortal, or bestow incorruption on that what is corruptible, but every one passes into a substance similar in nature to itself... And they assert that God Himself can do no otherwise, but that every one of the different kinds of substance mentioned passes away to those things which are of the same nature with itself... They thus have dressed up anew, and referred to Bythus and their Aeons. Anaxagoras, again, who has been surnamed "Atheist," [had similar opinions].*

This ultimately sets Christianity in conflict with, you know, the first law of thermodynamics, and he accuses other theologies of incorporating such an idea of atheism.


## Arguments that refute your own doctrine

I was also surprised to find that Irenaeus doesn't shy away from using arguments that could easily be turned against Christian doctrine. Perhaps he seems confident they don't apply when it comes to the Christian god? I was thinking, for instance, of his accusing Bythus, the first cause of Gnosticism, of not really being omnipotent because he allowed evil in the form of the actions of others to exist:

*What sort of being must that Bythus be, who allows a stain to have place in His own bosom, and permits another one to create or produce within His territory, contrary to His own will? Such a mode of acting would truly entail [the charge of] degeneracy upon the entire Pleroma, since it might from the first have cut off that defect, and those emanations which derived their origin from it, and not have agreed to permit the formation of creation either in ignorance, or passion, or in defect.*

In terms of Christian doctrine, What kind of God would permit such evil persons to exist? Or permit the existence of a devil? In fact, he includes a strong argument for free will, without fully accounting for the inconsistencies with this previous line of thought. It seems a little hypocritical.

Similarly, he makes an argument for why would God create things that need perfecting when he could create them in their perfected state in the first place?:

*For how is it possible that those things which cannot at first obtain rectification, should subsequently receive it?*

This seems to be in direct contradiction to the whole Christian idea of redemption.


## Writing things down

Similar to Latter-Day Saint ecclesiology, Irenaeus seems intent on establishing the rightful origins of their authority. In one section, he elaborates how the current bishop of Rome obtained his priesthood from a line directly back to Paul:

Paul --> Linus --> Anacletus --> Clement --> Evaristus --> Alexander --> Sixtus --> Telephorus --> Hyginus --> Pius --> Anicetus --> Eleutherius (contemporary)

When Mormons are ordained, they obtain a similar line of authority tracing back their priesthood ultimately back to Peter, James, and John and Jesus Christ. It is interesting though that Irenaeus doesn't seem to explain why authority went from the apostles to the bishops: why were the apostles temporary? Mormons use this point as a sign of when the apostasy occured, and I was hoping to perhaps find some explanation here.

This is one of many strong similarities between Catholicism and Mormonism: this insistence on authority, or perhaps insecurity? After all, Christ said you will know them by their works as opposed to their lines of authority. Irenaeus goes on to explain how important their written traditions are:

*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 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 tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?*

*If any 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 of anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.*

Irenaeus falls firmly into the camp of the priestly, as defined by Max Weber and Lowell Bennion:

*Weber described prophets as men who spoke "as one having authority" out of their own calling. They broke with the existing order; they were critics of the immoralities and religious formalities of their people, such as I've illustrated with Isaiah and Micah. Like Jesus, they were revolutionary in their day: "It is written . . . but I say unto you." Jesus didn't reject the old, but he gave a new thrust and a different emphasis to that which had gone before: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23.)*

*Prophets try to get people to put religion in perspective, to see it in terms of great fundamentals and in terms of ethics as well as theology. Prophets have never been bound by the past. They speak for God afresh in the interest of man, in the light of the great ideals of religion, and in the light of God's purpose and character. The other type of religious leader, Weber calls a priest. By this he means a man in any faith whose primary concern is to conserve the religion of the founder—of a Moses or Christ, for example. The priest canonizes scripture, refines doctrine, establishes tradition, records history, performs sacred rites and sacraments. In this way he builds and maintains the church, welding the believers into a meaningful fellowship.*

Both are necessary, of course, but can a Church really be considered *true and living* if it relies entirely on the documents of the past?

I reiterate that my intent was not to critique a fellow believer, and I hope that was made clear by aligning the critiques with weaknesses in my own faith tradition. If anything is to be critiqued, it is the conservative tendencies of religion without leaving a balanced place for the prophetic element. Perhaps that is because it is difficult if not impossible to incorporate the prophetic into a hierarchy with clearly defined boundaries and structures: the Hebrew prophets always came from outside.

I do appreciate Irenaeus's efforts at keeping the unity of the Church: something that is praiseworthy in itself. I just fear at the other extreme of overcorrection that does result in the heresy hunters that Berdyaev described above. It seems to be a hard line to walk.

[Kevin Higginbotham · Rating 4 out of 5]

The good: Irenaeus doesn’t pull any punches. He starts by defining in excruciating detail the exact heresies he is refuting, he comes out strong and bold, and his refutation is LOADED with scripture. Every paragraph contains at least two or three scriptural quotations. There is some really good scriptural exposition that directly refutes the heresies being spoken of. His rhetoric/debate style is good.

The not-so-good: it’s very wordy, some (ok, a lot) of the scripture quotations are out of context or extremely allegorized, which is odd considering his own opinion of those who over allegorize scripture. About one in five of his scriptural arguments left me saying, “eh that’s not it.”

Overall, an invaluable resource for anyone interested in church history and in learning the heritage of those who’ve fought against heresy from the early post-apostolic days (Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John the apostle). But not an easy read nor can I recommend it as an example of how to faithfully exposit scripture in context to refute heresy.

[Jackson Ford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being a 2nd Century church father, St. Irenaeus is a remarkably influential figure in the history of theology, not just for his moment, but in forming all subsequent theology of the church that comes after him. Books I-III can be very tedious as he articulates the contours of Gnosticism and their falsity, but as he gets into books IV & V, his theologizing takes a distinct key of the school John the Theologian. Creation, Flesh, Incarnation, Resurrection, and Light are all prominent themes in this work. If anyone is looking to dive into early patristic writings, Against Heresies will inevitably be a great choice. It is no ‘quick read’ because of its length, but it also always leaves you with plenty to metabolize.

[Noah Richards]

I wont mark this as Read because I only read about a 30 page selection out of over 500 pages lol but I do want to write a little about it.
His doctrine of Recapitulation is fascinating and his symbolic/sacramental exegesis of Gospel passages and Genesis to back up the doctrine was brilliant. There were a lot really cool connections with St Ephrem hymns on paradise and similar ideas. it is just crazy to me that this guy was doing this less then a hundred years after the new testament was written. He was a disciple of polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John and it shows. At some point I'll have to come back to this and work my way through.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Irenaeus was a Greek bishop who had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles. Irenaeus argued against the teachings of the gnostics in a series of five books. Irenaeus wasn’t against knowledge, but against false knowledge (1 Tim 6:20).

Book I.

In the first book Irenaeus details the teachings of the gnostics. They derive them by deceitful interpretations and expositions by which they introduce their own ideas.

“...they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected.” loc 334

They also collect a set of expressions and names scattered here and there in Scripture and twist them to a non-natural sense, as well as producing theories respecting letters and syllables, such as equating 888 to the name of Jesus.

The true understanding of these things belongs to the early church and was based on the teaching tradition of the apostles.

Book II.

In the second book Irenaeus seeks to destroy the complete system of the Gnostics and assures readers that there is but one God. He explains the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution.

“For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.” loc 2958

Obviously, Irenaeus didn’t use consistent literalism. The Lord sanctified every human age, but apparently Irenaeus declared that Jesus lived to nearly 50 years old.

“…how can we believe them regarding things spiritual, and super-celestial,* and those which, with a vain confidence, they assert to be above God?” loc 3414

Some of the Gnostics claimed to have ascended above the super-celestial. In ancient European cosmologies inspired by Aristotle, the Empyrean Heaven, Empyreal or simply the Empyrean, was the place in the highest heaven, which was supposed to be occupied by the element of fire (or aether in Aristotle's natural philosophy).

Book III.

“Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons.” Loc 3852

We are continually reminded to keep in mind those things previously explained. The teachings of heretics, like Cerinthus, cannot be traced back to the apostles.

The four covenants or dispensations are explained.

“For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race:* one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.” loc 4396

Irenaeus was also a believer in what some premillennialists call replacement theology.

“They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.” loc 5264

Book IV.

“For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of men, and showing forth the wisdom of God and declaring His dispensations with regard to man, and forming the kingdom of Christ beforehand, and preaching by anticipation the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall arrive at such excellency as even to see God, and hear His word, and from the hearing of His discourse be glorified to such an extent, that others cannot behold the glory of his countenance, as was said by Daniel: “Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous* as the stars for ever and ever.””* loc 6980

Here is a lesson in prophecy and interpretation since Irenaeus says these things pertain to the advent of Christ and took place in human nature, and are brought to light by the cross. The prophets referred in all their predictions to Christ. Solomon built the temple as the type of truth. We erect in ourselves the tabernacle of God: for God dwells in those who act uprightly.

Book V.

“It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending.” loc 8113

Again, we are warned to take into account those things that are taught in the previous books. That is, Book V is a continuing argument against the Gnostics. The Gnostics excluded the flesh from salvation, which is unscriptural. (2 Cor 5:17, Heb 12:22-24) Our bodies are termed the temples. He didn’t speak of the temple as a literal building because he was not a consistent literalist, as is obvious from his understanding of the Old Testament dietary laws.

“Now the law has figuratively predicted all these, delineating man by the [various] animals:* whatsoever of these, says [the Scripture], have a double hoof and ruminate, it proclaims as clean; but whatsoever of them do not possess one or other of these [properties], it sets aside by themselves as unclean. Who then are the clean? Those who make their way by faith steadily towards the Father and the Son; for this is denoted by the steadiness of those which divide the hoof; and they meditate day and night upon the words of God,* that they may be adorned with good works: for this is the meaning of the ruminants.” loc 8403

Understanding is done by meditating on the word of God, which infers a philosophical understanding, and not crass literalism. Again, a lesson on interpreting scripture in the early church.

“For God said, “In that day on which ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death.” The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death. And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,”* he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation); whether [we regard this point], that, with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day of the preparation, which is termed “the pure supper,” that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit,—it follows that, in regard to all these significations, God is indeed true.” loc 9085

This is sometimes called the Adamic millennium. Disobedience to God is spiritual death, and was taught by Justin Martyr, Philo of Alexandria, the book of Jubilees and others. He also explains the meaning of 666.

“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies* [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end)” loc 9347

“...the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere Deum*);” loc 9439
The kingdom and resurrection of the just is our beginning to partake of the divine nature and incorruption of Christ (Luke 17:21). This is the kind of salvation the Gnostics denied.
“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question].” loc 9602

He argues that these things can’t be understood allegorically by the celestial blessings of the Gnostics. As seen earlier, Irenaeus didn’t oppose allegorical interpretation based on the tradition of the apostles. However he did believe certain prophecies referred to literal animals in the renewal of the earth.

Fragment XII
“…not before it has died and suffered decomposition, and become mingled with the earth; so [it is seen from this, that] we have not entertained a vain belief in the resurrection of the body. But although it is dissolved at the appointed time, because of the primeval disobedience, it is placed, as it were, in the crucible of the earth, to be recast again; not then as this corruptible [body], but pure, and no longer subject to decay:” loc 9777

The resurrection at the end of time is confirmed. Heb 9:27

[Derek DeMars · Rating 5 out of 5]

How do you review a work like St. Irenaeus' massive opus Against Heresies? It was one of the most challenging books to finish but simultaneously one of the most rewarding.

Challenging for multiple reasons: It's ancient (composed around 182 AD, making it one of the earliest extended works of Christian theology in history). It's written in a very florid rhetorical style (long, complex sentences abound). And it is THOROUGH. Possibly too thorough. The Bishop of Lyons goes to great lengths in setting out the viewpoints of his Gnostic opponents -- views which, he successfully shows, were ridiculously obscure, self-evidently absurd, and overly complicated (thus making it difficult to wade through the first three parts of this five-part work, which are primarily given to summarizing the Gnostic teachings before systematically dismantling them).

And yet, there were so many portions of this work that I found incredibly enriching, and the overall read was deeply informative when it comes to understanding early Christian history, theology, and even everyday practice. Irenaeus was a monumental thinker for his time (and apparently quite the overachiever -- he was asked by another minister for help in rebutting Gnostic teachings, and decided to not only read their commentaries but to even infiltrate their secret meetings to try and get their teaching from the horse's mouth and then wrote this FIVE-VOLUME work in response!). But because of this thoroughness we have what I think is the single most important Christian writing of the second century, a work which not only snuffed out Gnosticism almost singlehandedly for the next millennium and a half but also left a lasting influence on pretty much all subsequent Christian orthodoxy.

It ain't for the faint of heart, nor is it perfect (many of the arguments become repetitive, and some of them are less than convincing). But anyone serious about understanding the development of Christian theology needs to be acquainted with this book firsthand. The hills may be steep, but there's gold in them.

Among the most useful nuggets are:

(1) Irenaeus's reflections on Christ as the second Adam who recapitulates (or sums up) humanity's destiny to undo the curse of death. This is a massive focus in Eastern Christian theology, but it also serves as an important precedent for later explanations of "original sin" in the West. Let no one repeat the erroneous notion that St. Augustine was the first to teach that humanity inherited a cursed nature from Adam! St. Irenaeus clearly presupposes this as a natural implication of Romans 5 (see his statements in 3.18.7; 5.16.3).

(2) His use of the concept of the "rule of faith," or what was basically a precursor to the later Christian creeds -- short summaries of belief to which all members of the church swore assent at their baptisms. One of Irenaeus's chief arguments against the Gnostics (who loved to hide their true teachings from the uninitiated or those who hadn't paid their fee) was that the whole church throughout the world publicly professed a common faith based clearly on the Scriptures and on what had been handed down by the apostles to their successors. This "rule of faith," as Irenaeus gives it (see the opening chapters of Book 3), contains basically all of the elements of doctrine that would later form the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, showing the massive continuity in orthodox Christian doctrine even from these early centuries.

(3) Irenaeus's views on the problem of evil and theodicy, which I'll be chewing on for a while. In trying to answer why evil exists, he essentially proposes that God wanted humankind to learn moral virtue by exercising their free will in the pursuit of God, overcoming suffering, and undergoing a long process of development as a race. When Adam failed and set us on the wrong trajectory, Christ later stepped in at an appropriate moment to set us back on track (he had "become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself"; preface to Book 5). It's such a creative thought experiment for his time, and one that I think could resonate a lot with modern evolutionary theories. It's definitely something I want to read more about, as I know some contemporary thinkers have been revisiting these aspects of Irenaeus's theodicy.

Those are just three of the things that most stood out to me as I read. There's plenty more I could talk about -- like his affirmation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and of baptismal regeneration, as well as his premillennial views on eschatology. But suffice it to say this was a read that will stick with me.

[Tim]

Against Heresies: The Old Wound of the Serpent
Irenaeus of Lyons, Bishop of Lugdunum, 180 AD

Against Heresies (On the Identification and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis / Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως) is a chronologically ordered polemic detailing the development of the Pythagorean and Platonic cosmology into their Syncretic Gnostic de-evolutions with an emphasis on Valentinianism and Marcionism. Out of the hundreds of varieties of Greek Gnosticism, these two were the most developed and ‘Christian-like’, so the first and second generation of disciples of the original 12 spent significant effort in delineating the Apostolic teachings of Christ from those of the Syncreticist Valentinus, which the moderns of the day could not easily see a difference between. The bulk of the word count is detailed apophatic descriptions of these dozens of pseudo-Christian religions that emerged in the early to mid-second century. St. Irenaeus' cataphatic descriptions of sound doctrine radiate from Trinitarian and Thanthropic theology and do not stray very far from these core distinctives. Here in Against Heresies, Irenaeus navigates the cacophony of the Greek Pagan religions (Neopythagoreanism, Platonic and nascent Middle Platonism) meeting the Esoteric Gnosticism of the Near East (Manicheanism, Valentinianism, Marcionism, Marcosianism, Sethianism etc) and details how these ideologies interacted with the 1st-century Orthodox church.

From my perspective there are four major reasons that this is an indispensable read. First, while Book I and II in particularly are tedious to follow, but to understand the logic of these Ancient Greek Religions, even their Gnostic de-evolutions, is to better understand the language of the NT and those who wrote it. To understand the intricacies and origin of that calamitous error, Marcionism, is to better understand “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). Why do we spend so much time listening to modern thinkers, when we have at our fingertips extensive theological dialogues by individuals who gleaned their Theology from the Theanthropos Himself, his original 12 disciples or those directly discipled by them? Here we have a first-hand account of what the Apostles taught in expansive detail. We know how the Apostles interpreted the scriptures and what they did and did not teach from a wide range of primary source documents, which should put to rest modern debates on Biblical interpretation. Irenaeus mentions the beginnings of the canonization of the NT scriptures, the understanding of the institution of the church among 1st century Christians, and the necessity of Apostolic Succession. If we are to take Hebrews 12:2 seriously, this form of Christianity should be the authoritative and complete version.

Secondly, there is no other primary-source description of these 1-century forms of Neo-Pythagoeanism and Platonic religions in existence, from which Augustinian Theology would emerge parallel to. Note here that Augustine was a dedicated member of the Neo-Platonic and later the Manichean hybrid gnostic religions in his early years and inadvertently integrated Platonic ideals into nascent Western Christianity. To fully understand the snake handling in Appalachia, the synods of the RCC, the trendy Americanized Neo-Calvinism of hipster churches, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses at your door, start here.

The third reason Against Heresies is important is that modern secular society has an obsession with the half-baked idea that there was "no orthodoxy" in the early church, but rather Trinitarian theology was simply the variety that won out. Bart Ehrman is popular these days, but the idea has been present in post-Christian European Progressivism for a long time. The French semi-Nihilist Camus puts it this way in The Myth of Sisyphus: "The Church has been so harsh with heretics only because she deemed that there is no worse enemy than a child who has gone astray. But the record of Gnostic effronteries and the persistence of Manichean currents have contributed more to the construction of orthodox dogma than all the prayers." This idea that Orthodoxy is simply the triggered reactionism to Gnosticism is a presuppositionalist over-simplification of the development of Christian theology in the first few centuries that is dismantled by the reading of primary source historical sources. While secular society will continue to reverse-engineer their beliefs regardless of historical truth, it's at least helpful to understand the specific misperceptions they are utilizing (which, ironically, are not that different than Marcionism).

The Fourth reason is that you still see strands of Marcionism and related ideologies today. Even though Valentinianism no longer exists, variations of the Gnostic religions mentioned by Irenaeus still exist in parts of Iran, such as Mandaeism, which to this day display the same hybridization with Platonism that Irenaeus witnessed the development. Also, various bits and pieces of both Marcionism and Valentinianism are still found in modern Protestantism, particularly the "non-traditional" schisms, but also in historic High-Church Calvinism. A type of Marcionism is still taught by a Protestant offshoot that calls themselves the 'World Mission Society'; the Jehovah's Witness religion teaches a variant of the Valentinianism heresy (uses the exact same tactics as the Gnostics), and Calvinism/ Reformed Theology specifically teaches the Patriological heresies found within Marcionism which St. Ireneaus condemns as heretical ad nauseam here in Against Heresies.

Defining Orthodoxy from Paganism

In Book I, Irenaeus diatribes extensively about Valentinianism and Marcionism, detailing their Soteriology, Cosmology, and Anthropology. At this point in history, few common people could distinguish between the teachings of the Apostles and these hybrid teachings. Irenaeus' task is both to show these teachers have no apostolic authority, to begin with, and are teachings heresies that go against the teachings of Jesus' 12 original disciples. He spends an enormous amount of time detailing exactly what they do and do not believe, and drawing distinctions between the varieties. When talking Cataphatically about the teachings of the Apostles, he keeps the focus primarily on Cosmology, Trinitarian dogmas (Paterology, Christology, Pneumatology) and occasionally strays into Soteriology.

In Book II Irenaeus digs deep into these heresies and describes exactly what each teaches and distinguishes between their various sects. Like Paul, Irenaeus does not use any type of apologetics resembling Presuppositionalism, but uses deductive and inductive logic to show the internal inconsistencies within the different varieties of Valentinianism and cites pagan philosophers in defense of Orthodox Christianity. At one point, he even explains how the followers of Plato are in violation of the original teachings of Plato, noting that Plato taught a number of correct ideas about God, but that "Plato proves himself more pious" than his followers. He delineates the timelines which place these heresies not at the time of the apostles, but that they "broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the church".

Simeon Magus of Samaria, or Simeon the Magician, is mentioned by Luke, but Irenaeus further documents the spread of his gnostic mysticism, claiming that all mystic Gnosticism was created by him. In Rome, Cerdo spread the teachings of Simeon and Marcion of Pontus (Sinope) after him. Ptolemaeus and Marcus the Magician were another follower of Valentinus; Marcus created his own version called Marcosianism. Irenaeus speaks of him as a contemporary and details his popular religion. Marcius claimed to be a follower of Paul, however, no evidence exists that he was even present in the same city as Paul, let alone a disciple or ordained as a priest by him. There has been debate over whether Marcionism is Gnosticism in modern academic circles, but Irenaeus clearly describes the textbook Gnostic elements of Marcionism: "Salvation will be the attainment only of those souls which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation."

Scripture as Apostolic Tradition

Irenaeus argued that Marcion only loves scripture only so far as he could bend it to his pre-conceived theology. He notes a similar tactic that Jehovah's Witnesses and other heretical Protestants use when faced with the weight of the history of the teachings of the ancient church; they accuse the Orthodox of using tradition to interpret the Scriptures instead of letting it interpret itself in a self-evident manner. Valentinus and Marcion used this tactic to try to prove their interpretation. He writes that Marcion "Besides all this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father."

While Irenaeus focuses on refuting the heretics, he also spends time detailing the vast network of faithful Christians who teach the undefiled Gospel directly from Jesus. He mentions Papias (Papias of Hierapolis), who was a disciple of the Apostle John son of Alpaeus and Polycarp and wrote "five books", none of which survived the ages except as quoted in other works. According to Irenaeus, he was a prominent teacher of Apostolic Christianity, faithfully imparting the teachings he learned from the Apostles themselves. Eusebias quotes Papias:

"Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself.... For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

Polycarp is also relied heavily upon by Irenaeus, and modern scholarship has much more data on him:

"There is a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which [one]… can learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth." This Epistle is still existent, and further reinforces Irenaeus' account of Marcionism. Irenaeus's reliability was further verified by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi horde which contained "the gospel of truth" presumably written from Valentinus, which teaches the exact gnostic variation of the Gospel Irenaeus details.

In Book II, Chapter II Irenaeus cites Apostolic Tradition and Scripture as the two pillars upon which sound doctrine is founded. The original Christians universally taught that Scripture is the product of Apostolic Tradition, and it was never intended to belong outside of the church that bears the four marks (Matthew 9:6-8, 12:25, 16:18-19, John 10:16, 17:20-23, 20:21-23, Acts 4:32,5:5, Ephesians 2:19–20). He writes:

"We refer to them to that tradition which originates from the apostles which are preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the Apostles... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition... 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 hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds or as schismatics arrogant and self-justified."

Book IV Chapter XXVI, he writes "For Christ is the treasure which was hidden in the field, that is, in this world (for "the field is the world"); but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ, since He was pointed out by many means and parables." and later "the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches, and 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 has known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have also delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves… the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession 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"

Irenaeus' understanding of scripture is interesting. He spends time defending the Septuagint as the only true source of OT scriptures in Book II, Chapter XXI-A. He also quotes 1 Clement and The Shepherd Hermas, which would later be removed by the Council of Laodicea and later Bishops, although they remained very important texts throughout church history. He also clearly treats the Pauline Epistles and the four Gospels as Scripture and attacks the Gnostics for shortening them for their own purposes.

Christ the Victor

Irenaeus strongly emphasizes the victory of Christ over the tomb; salvation is found in sharing in this victory through living faith. Not one time does Ireneaus use any kind of legalistic or Penal Atonement as Augustine would a few hundred years later. In Book IV he writes that the Mosaic Law "exhorted them [to believe in Christ as true God], saying that mankind can be saved in no other way from the Old Wound of the Serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead."

Irenaeus emphasizes that the salvation of Christ is of both the body and soul, which are in close union with each other, writing "He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was laid hold of, and underwent suffering, and His Blood for us, was both Christ and the Son of God". The West has neglected the doctrine of the Bodily resurrection, especially low-church Evangelicalism, even to the point where their Eschatology only contains "heaven" and no New Earth and no bodily resurrection of the dead. Irenaeus mentions throughout the text the necessity to not think salvation in terms of only the soul but also the body, and so it is the duty of the Christian to neglect neither. The Sacraments are particularly important in this area of thought because they, particularly the Eucharist, are simultaneously kinetic and spiritual and concern both the Body and Soul. To deny that Christ is the 'great physician' of both the soul and body is a form of Nestorianism that does not recognize that through the Incarnation and subsequent Theopascitism, God is the God of both Heaven and Earth; both the soul and body. Greater concern for the soul should drive greater concern for the body.

Book V chapter XIX, Irenaeus talks about how the Virgin Mary is the "new eve" in a similar way to how Christ is the "Second Adam". Already in the second generation of Christians, he expresses a robust Mariology.

Apostolic Proto-Orthodoxy and Calvinism

It may seem much of Irenaeus' apologetics are irrelevant today, but they are still in existence in new and interesting ways. Manicheanism, Valentinianism, Marcionism, Neopythagoreanism, Platonism Marcosianism, and Sethianism do not exist in their pure form anymore. But several versions of Calvinism/ Reformed Theology specifically teach the Patriological heresies found within Marcionism which St. Ireneaus condemns as heretical ad nauseam here in Against Heresies.

In book II, Irenaeus writes that Simeon the Magician taught the heresies that God is "the author of evils, takes delight in war, is of infirm purpose, and even to be contrary to himself". These are all heresies that Calvin perpetrated 1600 years later. To Irenaeus, belief in these ideas is to be an enemy of the Church and of the historic Christian doctrines.

He also specifically denies the Marcosian heresy that Jesus only died for the Elect, affirming that Christ died for all people even though only those who live in Holiness are saved through Him, stating that the passion was "for all mankind together, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, who justice and piety towards their neighbors, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice."

In book III he writes on the total inherent Goodness of God through Divine Simplicity: "Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to the deity... nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice."

From what Irenaeus describes of Simeon the Magician's logic (via Marcion), they used very similar linguistical gymnastics to try to explain how God desires evil, predestines evil and yet is not evil in his inherent nature. Calvin's disciples called this extra-Biblical proposed theological mechanism "Secondary causes" so that only Hyper-Calvinism states that God is both Evil and Good. Both Marcionism and Calvinism are bifurcated internally between those who believe God is Evil (hyper-Calvinism) and those who use complex language to maintain the contradiction that God desires and is the source of all evil, yet somehow isn't by His nature Evil (Secondary causes). Marcion and Calvin both assert that God is "of infirm purpose, and even contrary to himself" as Irenaeus puts it. Calvin expressed this blasphemy this way: "he loved us even when he hated us". And both the ancient heretics and the modern ones believe that God "delights in war".

Irenaeus also denies the opposite of Determinism in relation to Salvation; what would be known later in history as Semi-Pelagianism in book IV: "For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from him (no one, indeed, while placed out of the reach of the Lord's benefits, has the power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him."

Book IV Chapter XXXVII and XXXIX are lengthy exhibitions of the Sovereignty of God and Human Agency. In them, he sees no conflict between the two ideas. He writes in book IV "But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect...

[Truncated for goodreads]

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Against Heresies is divided into 5 books. The first book is about gnostic beliefs, and is actually pretty fascinating for a while. Gnostics had some crazy beliefs! Like, they believed Jesus essentially had an evil twin sister? For me, after a while, Iraneas seemed to go on and on. He's very thorough. And I'm thankful he is, because this is a historical document. But it's dull for someone today who'll never meet a gnostic and isn't a theologian or historian.

The second book was really hard for me to get through, because I was already fatigued from going through Book 1. This book's about refuting the Gnostic beliefs, and Iraneas, once again, is very thorough. I took several long breaks while reading Book 2, and eventually ended up skimming. In today's context, it just feels like useless information overload, even though I respect what this document meant at the time and I'm thankful for Iraneas for correcting the Church's trajectory.

I'll pause here to say, there really are some nuggets of wisdom in Books 1 and 2, so I did, actually, get a lot from these first two books. There's a place in Book 1 where Iraneas recites a creed of some kind, and there's a few chapters in Book 2 where he refutes Bible codes and idolizing knowledge. It's also fun to Google gnosticism while reading. I knew nothing about it, and these books strengthened my faith, even though they got pretty dull by the end. Anyways...

Books 3, 4, and 5 are why most folks read Against Heresies. They're essentially an ancient catechism of the Christian faith. Or so I was told. There were chapters in these books where I was on the edge of my seat, like when Iraneas lays out apostolic succession. Or sacred tradition. Or Biblical canon. At the end of Book 3, he writes about Mary being the new Eve, and loosely implies immaculate conception. As a non-catholic, that took my breath away. I did lots of googling while reading these books – they made my faith feel more epic, and they challenged some of my ahistorical beliefs.

That said, Against Heresies is still looooooooong. And even those last three books get pretty dull at times. This is the kind of book you read on Saturdays with a cup of coffee, not the kind of book you read at night while on the verge of sleep. I often read through several chapters while daydreaming because I just couldn't grab onto something relevant. But, there were other times where I just couldn't believe what I was reading. Truly, Saint Irenaeus is a gift from God. He has forever changed the way I think about the church, church history, the apostles, and Mary. I just wish I didn't have to work so hard for it.

If I were rating Against Heresies in terms of impact or importance, it'd be five stars. But I'm rating it in terms of, "would I recommend it to a friend." So, 3 stars.

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This re-reading was more profitable than previous readings. Rediscovered the rule of revealed theology in Book 1, chap 10, sec 3. What, why and how far it is true are proper questions to ask of the God who is revelation. This is different from the god of natural theology, in which the questions Who? and That? can be asked. Theology is not about How and When. Practical questions are left to God’s discretion. The doctrines of recapitulation makes sense under these restrictions. Recapitulation is anticipatory, not retrospective. The economy of God limited the Son to humanity so that it could be re-united with God. Based on Eph 1:10 where the Greek εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ.

There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. Ephesians 1:10 But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time. (AH, Book III, Chap 16, sec 6)

Irenaeus had no canon to refute gnostic books, and he shared the assumption of monotheism. Irenaeus contrasted the monotheism of gnostics to the monotheism of Christianity. Gnostics start from Unknown God of metaphysical theism and break his unity into multiple sub-deities with descending levels of composition from pure spirit to material beings, from simple to composite, from impassible to passible. Irenaeus showed the unity of God by tracing the history of God in salvation, from Creation to Revelation. Early example of proto-creed in Book 1, Chapter 10, sec 1. Biblical canon in Book 1, Chapter 1. Continuity of the Roman episcopate demonstrates the orthodox claim to universality as opposed to schismatics.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is by far the most difficult-to-understand patristic writing I have read. Most of this book is written refuting gnosticism at great length. Irenaeus even spends large chunks of the book revealing gnostic theology in explicit detail. This is partially because the "secretness" of gnostic theology was part of the appeal. His exposure of their actual beliefs by itself could have been seen as scandalous even apart from the refutation. The original audience would have been much more familiar with gnostics and would have been more interested in these portions of the book. Being more removed from the original context makes reading through much of this book feel like a slog.

I would not recommend this except for the more advanced readers of patristic writings. If you want to read Irenaeus, I would recommend reading demonstrations instead because it is far more accessible. That being said, plenty of meat remains to be gained in this book. But it will take more digging than normal.

[E.R. Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus of Lyons, who knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle was a Church Father best known for taking on the Gnostic heresy in the second century AD. In this book he gives a thorough examination of the heretical teaching of Valentinus, Marcus, Secundas and others. He lays out what they say in detail and uses the scripture and the teachings of the Apostles and other church leaders to show the absurdity of their claims. He then establishes the credibility of the Church “established in Rome by St. Peter and Paul.” His writing is concise and easy to understand and he is remembered as one of the earliest defenders of the faith. Any Christian with an interest in the early church should read what this great Catholic Bishop had to say.

[Ronnie Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I certainly do not agree with all his views I found this work to be insightful and informative. The first section of the book was very difficult to read and because of the subject matter (Gnosticism) and the "mystical" jargon of 2nd century heresies with the added obstacles of translation difficulties it was all I could do to plow through it. Once the author began his theological and expositional contributions his work began to round into a wonderful and informative narrative. The same errors that the Church is battling today have their roots in the early Church and as you read this book you become very aware that their truly is nothing new under the sun. The truth of God's word will always cast light on the works of darkness and heresy. There is much to learn here!

[Ricky · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great book from Saint Irrenaus! I could maybe only comprehend 10% of it, but that little bit was so useful especially discerning with the early church fathers and early Christians thought about the Church. Many modern Christians today have no idea about the practices of the early Christians and how they fit into line with the Catholic Church. definitely worth the read Seeing how this was written in the second century.

[Kolter Sands · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent argument against Valentinian Hersey and other gnostic Heresies. Irenaeus not only argues from scripture that the gnostics try to use he argues from logic against the illogical views of God the gnostics developed.

It is worth the read.

[Christopher Hall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great work although long. Interesting to see how the early church understood how it kept the Truth.

[Gary Brumagin]

Feb 28, 2022 Man! This is a real slug fest. This guy is tough reading. More to come.

[Tim Sandell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is astonishing. It was a hard read for an MTh assignment, but completely worth it.

[Elliot Lake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slog but very interesting in places.

[Cam Erskine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did not read this in its entirety — only sections that were recommended.

[Joe Mohler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brutal. If you want a book that covers the teachings of the early Church, this book is scattered with gold nuggets, but the pages between those treasures are tortuous.

[Walter · Rating 4 out of 5]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons was a member of the third generations of Christians at the very beginning of the life of the Church. St. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna and studied under St. Polycarp, the bishop of that city who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, the author of the Gospel of John. So this work is very old. Throughout the work, it is evident that St. Irenaeus was a very learned figure. He can speak eloquently about Greek and Roman literature and philosophy as well as being a tremendous scholar of scripture. In this work, St. Irenaeus addresses all of the main heresies of the era around 150 AD when he wrote this work. Although he addresses the Judaizers and their related heresies a bit, by the mid second century the major heresies confronting the Church were the gnostic heresies along with the heresy of Marcion. These Irenaeus addresses at length.

Although there are some priceless passages in this work, especially in books 4 and 5, the majority of books 1 to 3 deal with the heresies themselves, and Irenaeus addresses them in agonizing detail. The modern reader will be lost in the rambling descriptions of heresies that have passed away centuries ago. Unless you are a scholar of gnostic heresies, I would recommend highly that you skim over the first three books of "Against the Heresies", or simply skip these books all together. Granted that heresies come and go, and many of the modern belief systems have their roots in the ancient heresies, the unsophisticated reader will get truly lost in these books and could quite possibly become confused about his own faith by reading them.

Despite this, "Against the Heresies" is a treasure trove of teachings about what the Church taught near the very beginning of its existence, as well as what was taught by those who wished to cull the flock. For Catholic theologians, this is a must read. For others, it is highly recommended, especially books 4 and 5.

[Matthew Stanley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Irenaeus is truly incredible. I feel so honored to be able to read this text. Irenaues was a man who loved Christ's Church and was passionate to see Christ's flock protected from dangerous heresy. He was also a truly learned bishop who has left the Church a wonderful treasure in this book. Irenaeus studied under Polycarp and also studied the work of Papias. Polycarp and Papias both personally knew John the Apostle. When one reads Irenaeus, one is reading the theological reflection and work of one who is only one step removed from the Apostles themselves. This sort of perspective is indispensable. Watching Irenaeus handle the biblical text, as well as speak so strongly about Church tradition, was life giving and has refreshed me. On top of that, his theology of the body, the eucharist, and the restoration of all things cannot be overstated in its importance. His comprehensive, biblical, and illuminating understanding of the relationship between flesh and spirit helped make many things in the biblical text click. In short, I cannot recommend Irenaeus' work highly enough. If you're one of those people, and want to skip to the goodies, book 5 is where you want to go. But if you've got the will power, muster through books 1 and 2, then enjoy 3, 4, and 5.

[Noah Calcagno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus' work, Against Heresies, was hugely influential to shaping and defending the Christology of the early church. While it is taken for granted as orthodoxy today, Irenaeus needed to fight tooth and nail against various heretical sects to uphold the humanity and divinity of Christ, as well as his salvific work.

The problem however with this book is that it deals mostly with Irenaeus combatting specific if not obscure groups and figures from the second century, and for that reason, the book can seem dense and confusing. If I were to read it again, I would do so with some kind of companion or commentary.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this volume of four books, Iranaeus lays out an apologetics of Christianity against Gnosticism. The first two books are a challenge to read because the degree in which he covers the Gnostic heresy is quite detailed. Since the teachings of the gnostics is quite arcane, not much is relevant today. However, in the other books, Iranaeus lays out a solid defense of the faith, of scripture, and especially of Jesus, His divinity and His work.