It was controversy which elicited from Irenæus a declaration of his views as to the nature and use of tradition. The Gnostics taught a different doctrine from the Catholics on the nature and attributes of God, the incarnation and life of Christ, and the whole scheme of the divine dispensations. Against them he takes up three different lines of argument: from common sense, from tradition, and from Scripture. The argument from common sense he carries on through the first and second books, showing the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities of the various Gnostic systems. It is evident, from his own words, that it was his intention to rest his remaining argument principally on the Scriptures; for in the preface to the third book, in announcing the plan of the rest of his work, he says that in that book he shall bring forward his proofs from Scripture, without mentioning tradition; but since they demurred to its authority, asserting(340) that it was imperfect and self‐contradictory, and, in short, that it was impossible for any to learn the truth from it but those who possessed the true _tradition_, (which they contended was preserved amongst themselves, having been communicated to them orally, and being, in fact, that hidden wisdom which had been imparted by the Apostles only to the perfect,) Irenæus likewise appeals to tradition. I cannot take leave of this passage without noticing the extraordinary comments made upon it by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in the second of his prefatory dissertations, art. iii. § 14. He says, “Ex quibus hæc liquido sequuntur; 1, ipsos omnium hæreticorum pessimos agnovisse et confessos fuisse, _Scripturas varie dictas esse_, id est, interdum obscuras esse, variosque iis subesse sensus: 2, obscurorum locorum sensum a traditione petendum esse, non ea, _quæ per literas tradita sit, sed per vivam vocem_: hæc non reprehendit Irenæus, immo in sequentibus probat, ut mox videbitur: 3, traditionem latius patere scripturis, et ab iis distingui, utpote quæ earum sit interpres; quod et hæc Irenæi conclusio demonstrat: _Evenit itaque, neque scripturis jam neque traditioni consentire eos_.” I will take his conclusions in their order:— 1. So far is Irenæus from applauding the Gnostics for _admitting_ (not the variety of senses which the Scripture may afford, but) the inconsistency of different Scriptural statements, that it is evident that he is _blaming_ them for wishing to escape from the obvious meaning of Scripture under this pretence. I am not saying that he would have denied that various senses of particular passages may appear equally natural; but that is not the case as between Irenæus and the Gnostics. He is evidently asserting what he believes to be written throughout the Scriptures as with a sunbeam, and brings in tradition, not to explain the Scripture, but to confirm his view of it.