Evidence for Irenaeus’s Familiarity with the Stromata in the Preface to Adversus Haereses

In this blog post, we continue to explore the evidence that Irenaeus was familiar with Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata and critically engaged with it in his work, Adversus Haereses. We now turn our attention to a particularly revealing allusion in the preface of Adversus Haereses that concerns the treatment of secret and revealed knowledge.

The Dichotomy of Secret and Revealed Knowledge

In the preface to Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus writes:

"Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. 'For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known.'"

This passage sets the tone for Irenaeus’s work by emphasizing the need to bring hidden doctrines to light. Irenaeus positions himself as a revealer of truths that have been concealed, using the biblical phrase, "For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known," to underscore his mission.

Clement's Perspective on Secret Knowledge

In contrast, Clement of Alexandria, in Stromata 1.13.1-4, discusses the importance of maintaining the secrecy of divine mysteries:

"Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God (τὰ δὲ ἀπόρρητα, καθάπερ ὁ θεός, λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμματι). And if one say that it is written (καὶ ἐάν τις λέγῃ γεγράφθαι οὐδὲν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερωθήσεται), 'There is nothing secret which shall not be revealed, nor hidden which shall not be disclosed,' let him also hear from us, that to him who hears secretly, even what is secret shall be manifested. This is what was predicted by this oracle. And to him who is able secretly to observe what is delivered to him that which is veiled shall be disclosed as truth (τὰ παραδιδόμενα οἵῳ τε παραλαμβάνειν δηλωθήσεται τὸ κεκαλυμμένον ὡς ἡ ἀλήθεια); and what is hidden to the many, shall appear manifest to the few. For why do not all know the truth (ἐπεὶ διὰ τί μὴ πάντες ἴσασι τὴν ἀλήθειαν)? why is not righteousness loved, if righteousness belongs to all? But the mysteries are delivered mystically (ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται), that what is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker."

Clement argues that divine mysteries are holy lights communicated secretly to those capable of receiving them. He insists that secret things are entrusted to speech rather than writing, echoing a tradition that places value on oral transmission of esoteric knowledge.

Irenaeus’s Hostile Interpretation

Irenaeus, however, references the same saying of Jesus, "There is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be disclosed," but with a hostile interpretation. Where Clement advocates for the preservation of secrecy around religious mysteries, Irenaeus asserts a duty to expose them. This fundamental disagreement underscores the contrasting theological perspectives of the two Church Fathers.

The Analysis of Frederic Farrar and Migne’s Edition

Frederic Farrar articulates this dichotomy explicitly:

“Clement of Alexandria and Origen furnish the direct antithesis to Tertullian and Irenaeus. Clement appeals to a secret tradition, Tertullian denies its existence.”

The analysis accompanying Migne’s edition of Clement supports this assertion, noting:

“From the time of the apostles, therefore, there were certain decrees of our religion, which were delivered to the Hebrews and others professing the Christian faith without writing, but by viva voce.”

Conclusion

The third piece of evidence for Irenaeus’s familiarity with the Stromata in the preface to Adversus Haereses lies in their conflicting views on secret and revealed knowledge. Clement of Alexandria emphasizes the importance of maintaining the secrecy of divine mysteries, reserving them for those capable of receiving and understanding them. In contrast, Irenaeus argues for the exposure of these hidden doctrines, aligning with his broader mission to refute what he considers heretical teachings.

This stark contrast between Clement and Irenaeus on the issue of secret knowledge further supports the argument that Irenaeus was directly engaging with Clement’s Stromata. His deliberate reinterpretation of the same biblical saying that Clement uses reveals a polemical intent aimed at undermining Clement’s esoteric tradition. This evidence strengthens the case for Irenaeus’s familiarity with and opposition to the Alexandrian theological framework, as presented in the Stromata.