Mathison Cont. (Irenaeus)

In The Shape of Sola Scriptura (see my prefatory piece here), Mathison sets out to prove that “Tradition I”, to which the Reformers sought to return us, was universally held by the unified early church. He believes this tradition consists of the doctrine committed to the Church by Jesus and the Apostles, and it is "coinherent" with Scripture (p. 21).

I would like to walk through the evidence and analysis he uses to reach the conclusion that the early church held to Tradition I. The entirety of his work is built around this premise, so his use of early church evidence deserves careful scrutiny. I will not scrutinize the overall theological and exegetical cogency of Mathison's argument (it has been well scrutinized and discussed here, ht: Chad).

In this post, I will discuss only his claim that Irenaeus held to the 'Tradition I' framework.

Mathison says. Irenaeus developed the concept of Regula Fidei (Rule of Faith), which was recited by catechumens as a summary of the faith handed down from the Apostles (p. 23). We are told that Irenaeus insists that the Regula Fidei, which was "inscripturated" into written form, as such is the foundation and cornerstone of the faith. We are told exegesis was probably the only theological method of the early church, and that the authority of the scriptures was "sovereign and supreme," with the Regula Fedei as the necessary interpretive norm. We are told that the Regula Fidei was distinguishable from Scripture only when in reference to its use in interpreting the same (p.24). We are given the conclusory statement that "plainly" what was written and what was handed down orally are one and the same body of teaching (think of two co-extensive circles in a Venn Diagram).

My analysis.

In this section about what Irenaeus taught, which sets the table for the entire book, not a single word from Irenaeus' pen is given. We are given one lengthy quotation from the venerable Bruce, one from Oberman, and a brief quotation of the (very Protestant sounding) Orthodox theologian Florovsky. I find this to be unpersuasive, and have no idea from the reading what Irenaeus truly held. A book of this breadth and length should offer factual statements and not merely resort to the conclusions of fellow Protestants (reputable as they may be).

Bearing in mind that I spend minutes and not weeks doing my research, I came across some germane Irenaeus passages, courtesy of the wonderful Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The first is from Book 1 of Against Heresies, Chapter III: "Texts Of The Holy Scripture Used By These Heretics To Support Their Opinions".

"And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: 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. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

From Book III, Chapter IV: "The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles."

"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. 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 splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour 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 any one 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.

"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 Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. 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 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."

[Continue to read the next Chapter if you're interested, which does lay some marvelous groundwork for the infallibility of Scripture. But I do not get the sense from this Chapter that Irenaeus saw Scripture as the exclusive source of teaching, co-extensive with the Tradition that he praises above.]

Conclusion. This does not support the unsubstantiated conclusion made by Mathison that Irenaeus insists on a Regula Fidei "inscripturated" into written form to be the cornerstone of faith. It would appear, rather, that Irenaeus saw the church as being that cornerstone (a very Scriptural view, I might add). Nowhere do I get the sense that Irenaeus saw Scriptural exegesis as the only theological source, nor a notion of co-extensive Scripture/Tradition that is "sovereign and supreme". It is not so plain, at least from the proofs provided, that what was written and what was handed down orally are one and the same body of teaching.