Response to Robin Phillips “Questions About St. Irenaeus and Apostolic Succession”

On April 1, 2011, there appeared on Robin’s Readings and Reflections an interesting and important posting: “Questions About St. Irenaeus and Apostolic Succession” by Robin Phillips.  I have reposted Phillips’ article as is followed by my response.

Robin Phillips writes:

Between now and June 24 I am finished up a book for Canon Press about different heroes of the faith. The publishers kindly gave me an extra year to allow me time to add some chapters about bad guys, so the good guys no longer have a monopoly on my time.

This last week I’ve been fine-tuning my chapter on Saint Irenaeus. When I wrote the first draft of the chapter I didn’t have enough time to read all the primary sources so I relied on the first volume N.R. Needham’s book 200 Years of Christ’s Power to help with research. Speaking about Irenaeus’ view of apostolic succession, Needham contrasted his formulation of this doctrine with later formulations, pointing out that “In Irenaeus, however, it was more a case of the bishop deriving his importance from belonging to an apostolic church, rather than a church being a true church because it had an apostolic bishop.” 

Since a colleague I used to teach with once discovered an error in Needham’s history, I thought that it might be a good idea to check to see if he was correct about Irenaeus before my manuscript goes to print. So this week I borrowed Irenaeus’ Against Heresies from my pastor with these two questions in mind: 

Question #1:    Is it correct that Irenaeus taught that a bishop derived his importance from belonging to an apostolic church? 

Question #2:    If the answer to question #1 is affirmative, then how did Irenaeus propose to distinguish a truly apostolic church from their heretical counterparts? 

As a good protestant, I had always assumed that the answer to question #2 is that the criteria for determining if a church is truly apostolic is to look at the doctrine.  

If my reading of Irenaeus this week is correct, the church is the custodian of the truth, but only those churches that have continuity to the teachings of the apostles qualify as being the true church. It thus turns out that my Protestant assumption was half correct, for Irenaeus does teach that to determine if a church was within the apostolic tradition one had to look to see if the church’s theology was in line with the rule of faith that the apostles had passed down in the sacred writings. Thus, Irenaeus used Biblical exposition to show that the teaching of the Gnostic churches were incompatible with the apostles’ doctrine revealed in scripture. 

But that is only one side of the coin. Equally important in determining whether a church is legitimacy apostolic is whether the church is under a bishop that is the recipients of a chain of ordination going back to the apostles. This is because it was to be assumed that the apostles and their successors would only have appointed leaders who agreed with their teaching and also because apostolic authority was transmitted by the laying on of hands in a transfer of real divine power and authority.

“we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches… Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?”

Thus, it would seem that Needham presents us with a false dilemma: it is true that the bishop derives his importance from belonging to an apostolic church, but it is also true that a church must have an apostolic bishop in order to be part of the true church. Remove either of these, and what you’re left with is a counterfeit church. 

Although Irenaeus did not have time “to enumerate the successions of all the churches”, he took the church at Rome as one example and traced the succession of ordinations back to Peter and Paul. This, he maintains, provides “a full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present, and is handed on in truth.” 

The doctrine of apostolic succession provided a hedge around the interpretation of scripture, according to Irenaeus. Any church which taught private innovations different to the public tradition of the other apostolic sees, was a church teaching heresy.

At the end of this blog post I’ll put a longer quotation from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. But right now, I’d like feedback on the following questions:

Question #3: One of the reasons that Irenaeus taught apostolic succession is because he believed that the apostles “certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit [to the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity.” If Irenaeus was correct, might it be possible that the purity of this chain of succession could expire after a time, as the link to the first apostles becomes more and more distant? Sort of like photocopying a copy of a copy, etc – eventually the resulting copy is no longer an adequate representation of the original. It may have been very well for Irenaeus to propose this golden chain of ordination in his day because the apostles hadn’t been dead that long, but would this have become unrealistic after a certain amount of time? 

Question #4: Is Irenaeus’ doctrine of apostolic succession a Biblical doctrine? If so, where can we find it implied or inferred in scripture? 

Question #5: If Irenaeus is correct in his doctrine of apostolic succession, which churches today satisfy the criteria for a ‘true church’? 

 

My Response to Robin Phillips

Question #1:    Is it correct that Irenaeus taught that a bishop derived his importance from  belonging to an apostolic church?

My Response:

Like a good Protestant Robin Phillips started out assuming that Irenaeus looked to see if the church’s theology was in line with the rule of faith the apostles had passed down in Scripture.  However, Phillips soon recognized that just as important for Irenaeus was the bishop being part of a chain of succession going back to the apostles.

In the passages below Irenaeus makes it clear that he considers the Church to be the custodian of the truth.

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith…. (AH 1.10; (ANF) Vol. 1 p. 330; italics added)

Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrine different from these (for no one is greater than the Master…. (AH 1.12; ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)

The early Church was apostolic because her bishops were able to trace their lineage back to the original apostles.  Irenaeus holds up two men as exemplars of apostolic succession: Clement of Rome and Polycarp.  Irenaeus writes of Clement:

…Clement received the lot of the episcopate; he had seen the apostles and met with them and still had the apostolic preaching in his ears and the tradition before his eyes.  He was not alone, for many were then still alive who had been taught by the apostles. (AH 3.3, Grant p. 125)

Note that Irenaeus does not make any reference to Clement receiving the keys to the Papacy.  The stress here is on his deep personal knowledge of the apostles and their teachings.  In the case of his predecessor Polycarp, Irenaeus also stressed the personal knowledge of the apostles and their teachings.

And there is Polycarp, who not only was taught by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but also was established by apostles in Asia in the church at Smyrna. ….  He always taught the doctrine he had learned from the apostles, which he delivered to the church, and it alone is true. (AH 3.4; Grant p. 126; italics added)

Irenaeus did not understand apostolic succession in terms of institutional authority but authority rooted in the apostolic Gospel.  Only if he taught the true Gospel could a bishop be in apostolic succession.  A bishop who altered the Gospel had abandoned the true faith and broken the chain of succession.

For Irenaeus evidential support for apostolic succession came in the form of succession lists.

Thus, the tradition of the apostles, manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth.  We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time…. (AH 3.3.1; Grant p. 124; italics added)

He enumerates in detail the apostolic succession for the Church of Rome as follows:

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus.  Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus.  Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate.  In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.  And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (AH 3.3.4; ANF Vol. I p. 416; italics added)

Unlike the Gnostics who invoked a secret spiritual genealogy, the Christian church in Irenaeus’ time were able to trace their lineage back to the apostles.  That this was a widely accepted practice can be seen in Eusebius’ Church History which contains succession lists for various dioceses.  Protestantism’s inability to provide a similar listing is something Irenaeus would view with suspicion.  The closest thing that Protestantism has to such a listing is the far fetched claim made by the Landmark Baptists who claim a secret lineage back to John the Baptist.

Central to Irenaeus’ apologia is an apostolic church that was also at the same time a catholic (universal) church.

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. (AH 1.10.2; Richardson 1970:360; cf. ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)

It was not enough for a bishop to claim apostolic succession, he also needed to be in communion with the church catholic.  In contrast, Gnosticism was comprised of teachings that varied according to schools and geographic locations.  In other words, the unity of the church catholic stood in sharp contrast to Gnosticism’s denominationalism.

Phillips was mistaken in his initial assumption that Irenaeus did theology like a Protestant. This evident from the fact that Irenaeus had no qualms about doing theology on the basis of oral tradition transmitted via the ordination process.

…if the apostles had not left us the scriptures, would it not be best to follow the sequence of the tradition which they transmitted to those whom they entrusted the churches?  (AH 3.4.1; Grant p. 127; italics added)

Yet it must be recognized that Irenaeus was one of the earliest biblical theologians.  Irenaeus did not simply invoke his episcopal authority like a hammer.  Instead, he exercised his episcopal authority through the exposition of Scripture.  His high view of Scripture can be seen in his carefully reasoned exegesis of Scripture.  He writes:

…and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us praising in hymns that God who created all things.  (AH 2.28.3; ANF Vol. 1 p. 400)

Irenaeus cited numerous scriptural references from Old and New Testaments to refute the Gnostics (cf. AH 2.2.5; AH 3.18.3).  He sounds much like an Evangelical when he wrote: “as Scripture tells us.” (AH 2.2.5; ANF Vol. 1, p. 362)  In one particular passage in Against the Heretics, Irenaeus invoked the authority of Scripture repeatedly: “We have shown from the scriptures….”; “The scriptures would not give this testimony to him if….”; “…the divine scriptures testify to him….”; and “The scriptures predicted all this of him.” (AH 3.19.2,  Grant p. 137)

Does this make Irenaeus a second century proto-Protestant?  I think not.  Irenaeus did not oppose Scripture against church and tradition.  He urged his readers:

It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their (Gnostics) doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. (AH 5.20.2, ANF p. 548)

Irenaeus described the church’s teaching authority in warm maternal terms and assumed the two to be mutually compatible.  This stands in contrast to later Protestant views which often saw the church in antagonistic tension with Scripture.  Unlike the Protestant principle of sola scriptura which makes Scripture the supreme norm for doing theology, Irenaeus saw the traditioning process as an interlocking matrix of which Scripture was one integral component.

The answer to Phillips’ Question #1 is that while the bishop derived his importance or authority from the traditioning process, Irenaeus also emphasized that apostolic succession is corroborated by the catholicity of the Faith.  The authority of the bishop is not autonomous but contingent on the faithful transmission of the Faith received from the apostles.  Because apostolicity is correlated with catholicity Eucharistic communion provides an essential confirmation of the bishop’s teaching and his pastoral authority.

Question #2:    If the answer to question #1 is affirmative, then how did Irenaeus propose to distinguish a truly apostolic church from their heretical counterparts?

My Response:

For Irenaeus two foremost criteria were: apostolic succession and doctrinal agreement with the church catholic.  A corollary of apostolic succession is antiquity.  This is evident in Irenaeus’ insistence that weight be given to the earliest — “most ancient” — Christian churches.

If some question of minor importance should arise, would it not be best to turn to the most ancient churches, those in which the apostles lived, to receive from them the exact teaching on the question involved?  And then, if the apostles had not left us the scriptures, would it not be best to follow the sequence of the tradition which they transmitted to those whom they entrusted the churches?  (AH 3.4.1: Grant p. 127; italics added)

By means of the criterion of antiquity, Irenaeus finds the Gnostics falling short.  This can be seen in the phrase: “much later” used to describe the Gnostic teachings.

All the others who are called Gnostics originated from Menander the disciple of Simon, as we have shown, and each of them appeared as the father and mystagogue of the opinion he adopted.  All these arose in their apostasy much later, in the middle of the times of the church.  (AH 3.4.3; Grant p. 128; italics added)

And in contrast to the unity and universality of the apostolic preaching, Gnosticism was divided among the various schools of thought which resulted in doctrinal diversity — another marker of deviant theology.

All these are much later than the bishops to whom the apostles entrusted the churches, and we have set this forth with all due diligence in the third book.  All the aforementioned heretics, since they are blind to the truth, have to go to one side or the other off the road and therefore the traces of their doctrine are scattered without agreement or logic (AH 5.20.1; Grant p. 171; ANF p. 547).

Apostolicity did not reside in any one particular church body but pervaded the entirety of the church catholic.  Using the second century church of Rome which was known for its doctrinal conservatism, he notes that the churches in other areas would be in agreement with it (AH 3.2).  He sums his case for the apostolicity of Rome thus:

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.  And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in that Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (AH 3.3; ANF Vol. 1 p. 416; see also Grant p. 125)

Thus, emphasis is on: (1) apostolic succession  — a chain of ordination going back to the apostles, (2) apostolic teaching — a body of teachings going back to the apostles, and (3) catholicity — being in agreement with the universal church.  Irenaeus’ commendation of the church of Rome would give rise to the respect accorded to other patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem by later Ecumenical Councils.

Question #3: One of the reasons that Irenaeus taught apostolic succession is because he believed that the apostles “certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit [to the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity.” If Irenaeus was correct, might it be possible that the purity of this chain of succession could expire after a time, as the link to the first apostles becomes more and more distant?

My Response:

I would answer that Irenaeus did not envision a diminishing chain of succession.  It would be like a banker entertaining the thought that one day his vault will be broken into and all his depositors’ money will be lost.  Irenaeus understood tradition as a sacred deposit.

Since these proofs are so strong, one need not look among others for the truth that it is easy to receive from the church, for like a rich man in a barn the apostles deposited everything belonging to the truth in it (the church) so that whoever might take the drink of life from it. (Rev. 22:17; AH 3.4.1; Grant p. 126)

If anything, Irenaeus, like the good banker, would have been horrified at the thought of the Depositor coming back to claim His deposit and finding it gone.

That he expected the Christian Faith to be preserved against heresy and innovation can be seen in the passage below.

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. (AH 1.10.2; Richardson 1970:360; cf. ANF Vol. 1 p. 331)

Here Irenaeus fully expects that the Church will “carefully preserve” the apostolic faith.  One empirical test of this claim is the fact that the early Church was able to maintain doctrinal uniformity as it spread throughout the vast Roman empire.  One could expect that as the church became dispersed across vast distances regional differences in doctrines would emerge.

The way of church members surrounds the whole world, contains the firm tradition from the apostles, lets us view one and these same faith with all, for all believe in one and the same God and in the “economy” of the Son of God and know the same gift of the Spirit and care for the same commandments and preserve the same organization in the church and await the same coming of the Lord. (AH 5.20.1; Grant p. 171-172; italics added)

In Irenaeus’ phrase “firm tradition” we get the sense that the Christian faith is stable and resistant to innovation and heretical distortion.  One can innovate only by “deserting the preaching of the Church.” (AH 5.20.2; ANF p. 548)

Orthodoxy has multiple safeguards to ensure the preservation of the Faith.  The most important is the fact that Tradition consists of an interlocking and mutually reinforcing matrix. One important component is the episcopacy.  Elevation to the episcopacy entails not just the conferring of ecclesiastical authority but also the obligation to keep the apostolic faith intact and to guard it against change.

Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrine different from these (for no one is greater than the Master…. (AH 1.12; ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)

This is a complete proof that the life-giving faith is one and the same, preserved and transmitted in truth in the church from the apostles up till now. (AH 3.3.2; Grant p. 125; italics added)

Next, there is the inscripturated word of God.  Irenaeus writes:

For we have known the “economy” for our salvation only through those whom the Gospel came to us; and what they then first preached they later, by God’s will, transmitted to us in the scriptures so that would be foundation and pillar of our faith. (I Timothy 3:15) (AH 3.3.1; in Grant pp. 123-124; italics added)

In addition to the episcopal office and inscripturated Tradition is the regula fide in the form of creed.  In Against the Heretics 1.10 Irenaeus writes:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit…. (AH 1.10; ANF Vol. 1 p. 330)

By the fourth century, the regula fide would be standardized in the Nicene Creed as a result of the decisions made by the first and second Ecumenical Councils.  The Eastern Orthodox churches fierce resistance to the Church of Rome’s unilateral insertion of the Filioque clause points to its taking seriously the task of preserving the apostolic deposit.

Another component is the Eucharist.  For Irenaeus there is a close link between Christian doctrine and Christian worship.

But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.  (AH 4.18.5; ANF Vol. 1, p. 486)

The above quote anticipates the theological principle: lex orans, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith).  Worship in the early church was liturgical.  The liturgy was part of the received apostolic tradition (I Corinthians 11:23 ff.).  It was not the result of creative expression but served to conserve the Christian faith.  An examination of the ancient liturgies used by the Eastern Orthodox churches — Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Liturgy of St. Basil, and Liturgy of St. Basil — shows how much the faith of the early church lives on the Eastern Orthodox churches today.  The ancient liturgies have pretty much disappeared from the Roman Catholic Church with the shift to the Novus Ordo Mass in the 1960s.

All these, however, are insufficient apart from divine grace.  That is why preservation of the apostolic teaching depends on: (1) the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), (2) Christ’s guarantee of the church against the powers of Hell (Matthew 16:18), and (3) Christ’s charge to teach the nations and the promise of his presence with the church until the Second Coming (Matthew 28:19-20).  The Great Commission probably has the most bearing on Phillips’ Question #3.  The traditioning process is implied in the Great Commission — “teaching them to observe everything I commanded you” — and is guaranteed by Christ’s promise to be with the Church “always even unto the end of the age.”

Question #4: Is Irenaeus’ doctrine of apostolic succession a Biblical doctrine? If so, where can we find it implied or inferred in scripture?

My Response:

That Irenaeus’ doctrine of apostolic succession is rooted in Scripture can be seen in the ample citations below.

Irenaeus in the Prologue to Book 3 explains how the Lord Jesus himself laid the foundation for apostolic succession:

The Lord of all gave his apostles the power of the Gospel, and by them we have known the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God.  To them the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me and Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)  (in Grant p. 123; italics added)

Another biblical support for apostolic succession can be found in II Timothy 2:2 in which Paul describes to Timothy how the traditioning process is key to the ordination to the ministry:

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.  (NIV)

Biblical support for apostolic succession can be inferred from Titus 1:5 in which Paul gave Titus instructions on the ordination of men to the priesthood:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.  (NIV)

The top-down approach described here is sharply different from the ordination practices of congregationalism.

Apostolic succession can also be found in Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to preserve the apostolic teaching against heretical innovations (I Timothy 6:3, 20; II Timothy 2:14, 24; Titus 1:9, 2:1).  In these verses Paul stresses the need to preserve the Faith against heresy; the very same point reiterated by Irenaeus.

Question #5: If Irenaeus is correct in his doctrine of apostolic succession, which churches today satisfy the criteria for a ‘true church’?

My Response:

If Irenaeus were to examine the churches today he would be looking for the “most ancient” churches and at the “sequence of the tradition” from the apostles for those churches.

…would it not be best to turn to the most ancient churches, those in which the apostles lived, to receive from them the exact teaching on the question involved?  And then, if the apostles had not left us the scriptures, would it not be best to follow the sequence of the tradition which they transmitted to those whom they entrusted the churches?  (AH 4.1; Grant p. 127; italics added)

The application of these two criteria rules out all of Protestantism.  That being the case, there remains two present day options: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Irenaeus had some knowledge of these two branches.  In Against the Heretics 3.3 Irenaeus showcased the Church of Rome.  Irenaeus’ predecessor, Polycarp, was bishop of the church in Smyrna, which would be closely linked to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

One would think in light of Irenaeus’ high praise for the church of Rome in AH 4.1 that he would automatically point us to the present day Roman Catholic Church.  But it should be kept in mind that he lived in the second century and that much has happened over the next two millennia, most notably the Schism of 1054.

Would Irenaeus identify himself with present day Roman Catholicism?  I think not for three reasons: (1) Roman Catholicism has adopted a strongly forensic approach to the doctrine of salvation  — something not found in his teachings, (2) it has superimposed Aristotelian categories on to the doctrine of the Eucharist — something not found in his teaching, and (3) it has promoted the supremacy of the Roman papacy — something not found in  his teachings.  Furthermore, Irenaeus would likely have regarded Rome’s later independence from the other patriarchates contrary to the catholicity of the second century church.

In Eastern Orthodoxy’s favor is the fact that it has retained Irenaeus’ understanding of salvation in terms of recapitulation, i.e., Christ through the Incarnation recapitulated the entirety of human existence (cf. AH 3.20.2; Grant p. 138; cf. ANF Vol. 1 p. 450).  Also, where the Roman Catholic Church has introduced the medieval emphasis on penal substitution as the basis for our salvation, Eastern Orthodoxy, like Irenaeus, has retained the emphasis on salvation as union with Christ and theosis (AH 3.4.2; Grant p. 127; AH 3.20.2, Grant p. 138-139).

Conclusion

A careful reading of Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics shows that one cannot view his theological system in terms of apostolic succession versus Scripture.  That kind of dichotomy oversimplifies the sophisticated traditioning process that enabled the early church to withstand the Gnostic heresy.  The dichotomy between apostolic succession and Scripture cannot be found in the early church and likely reflects the later Catholic-Protestant controversy.

In an earlier posting I described the various components of the Orthodox theological system: apostolic tradition in oral and written forms, the regula fidei, the liturgy, and the episcopacy.  Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics provides historical evidence to support Orthodoxy’s claim that the way it does theology has deep historic roots.  A close reading of Irenaeus will give pause to any thoughtful Protestant who base their theological method on sola scriptura.

In closing, Robin Phillips’ selection of Irenaeus of Lyons as a test case for historical theology is an excellent choice.  Irenaeus has been regarded as the leading Christian theologian of the second century.  He represents a transitional figure in the development of Christian theology, standing between the Apostolic Fathers who had personal knowledge of the original apostles and the later church fathers who worked solely from received apostolic tradition.  In view of present day Christianity’s considerable theological diversity, Irenaeus of Lyons stands as a valuable benchmark for determining what doctrines and practices are congruent with the historic Christian Faith.

Robert Arakaki

Return To Top.     Home

References

AH = Against the Heretics.

ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers Series

Grant, Robert M., trans. 1997.  Irenaeus of Lyons.  London and New York: Routledge.

Richardson, Cyril C., trans. 1970.   Early Christian Fathers.  Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.

Additional Resources

In Parchment & Pen Blog.  “Top Ten Theologians: #10 – Irenaeus” by Tim Kimberly

In Moving Towards Existence.  “Irenaeus of Lyons: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered” by Robert Arakaki