To show that she is commissioned from above, she wrought continual miracles for the good of the world by prayer and invocation of the name of Jesus(179); she even raised the dead by means of fasting and prayer(180); and she alone produced persons who sealed their own sincerity and the truth of their faith by their blood(181).
Finally, although not exempt from weakness, and capable of losing whole members, she, as a body, remains imperishable(182).
It is remarkable how strictly this notion of an external, visible, ascertainable body, consisting of individuals, and under the government of individual officers, having a personal succession in distinct localities(183), is in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England; and how totally opposed it is to the notions held amongst dissenters, and by individuals within the Church in modern times. According to Irenæus, moreover, the different classes of sectaries would be regarded as having neither spiritual life nor the Holy Spirit, _except_ so far as they might be supposed to be in communion with the body governed by elders or bishops descended from the Apostles. If in any way or to any degree they can be supposed to be in communion with them, to that extent they would be thought to have the Holy Ghost, and to be in the way of life, but no further. I am not now discussing whether he was right or wrong; I am merely pointing out the contrariety between his views of the Church and those which appear to be most popular at present. I doubt if most Protestants would not pronounce his doctrine to be gross bigotry; for very many of those who would go so far with him as to acknowledge the Church to be a visible society, would be very far from restricting the grace of the Holy Spirit to the communion of the bishops in succession from the Apostles.
I must, however, direct more particular attention to one part of his system which did not require to be brought out prominently. We have seen that he thought it possible for the Church to lose whole members. In fact, although he thought that the truth was kept up by the succession of bishops _throughout the Church_, and that it was a mark of truth to be so kept up, he still believed that presbyters or bishops might, through pride, or other evil motives, make schisms in the Church(184); and he taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, keep the Apostles' doctrine, and lead good lives(185); implying, of course, that some who were in the succession might depart from the Apostles' doctrine. The succession was not, therefore, in his opinion, an infallible test of truth in the individual Church. Any individual Church, or even a considerable number or collection of Churches, might fall into heresy, and thus become cut off from the Church; but it is evident that he did not think this possible to happen to the great body of the Church.