Steenberg—Tracing the Irenaean Legacy 205Influences Further Afield
Given that there existed copies of Irenaeus’s Refutation in Greek and in Latin in various
parts of the Empire within a few decades of his own lifetime, it will come as no surprise
that the text is incorporated into a number of works by other patristic writers. We have
already mentioned Tertullian, Clement, and Hippolytus, but these are hardly the extent
of his legacy in the patristic corpus.
Greek Irenaeus was known to both Eusebius (c. 263–c. 339) and Epiphanius (c.
310/20–403), both of whom quote him extensively, particularly from books I and III of
the Refutation. Both had their reasons for drawing Irenaeus into their repertoire, and
both are fairly predictable. Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History not only attempted a narra-
tive of the past but also dwelt on fostering the theme of unity and concord in the impe-
rial church under Constantine. Irenaeus as “peacemaker” was a clear voice of support.
The extensive quotations he provides are essential resources in our understanding of
the bishop—including the only surviving texts of various Irenaean letters^40 —but also
give us a helpful witness of how Irenaeus’s reputation would be assessed by a later gen-
eration. For Eusebius, it was his martyric witness, his dedication to concord and unity
in the face of division, that marked Irenaeus out as a voice of significance. Eusebius has
nothing to say of any theological expression in Irenaeus. For Epiphanius, Irenaeus’s
attractiveness lay in his polemical acumen. The Panarion lifts whole sections from Ire-
naeus, particularly such as bear witness to “Gnostic” groups with which Epiphanius
himself would have had no direct knowledge.
There is a possibility that Irenaeus was known to Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386),
based on a similarity of language in his Catechetical Oration 6.7, in which he refers
to the unity of God who is “always like unto Himself ”; but the supposed link to Ref.
2.13.3—one of Irenaeus’s important re-presentations of Xenophanes—leaves out the
heart of that passage. Cyril’s wording could easily have come from elsewhere. A direct
awareness of Irenaeus by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393—c. 457), posited by Grant and
based on his wording in his Commentary on Psalm 129:2, is even harder to maintain.^41
So, in the two centuries after his death, Irenaeus was remembered for that heresio-
logical focus that had gained him reputation in his lifetime, as well as his activities as
peacemaker and diplomat; but not, at least in the testimony of Eusebius and Epipha-
nius, for any specifically theological contributions.
Latin Irenaeus also found a wide readership. We have already had occasion to
mention the quotations made by Augustine (354–430) from the translation, which are
actually quite extensive.^42 What is more significant, however, is that in Augustine we
have Irenaeus assessed and appropriated on theological terms—the first instance of
such usage in our extant corpus.
So, for example, Augustine’s Against Julian (written c. 421/2), in seeking to articu-
late a doctrine of “original sin” (as he calls it in I.7.32) and of redemption from the
bondage of sin through Christ born of the Virgin, calls directly upon Irenaeus’s Refuta-
tion IV.2.7 and V.19.1. The employment Augustine makes of Irenaeus is best seen by
laying the two texts side by side: