The doctrine of the church of anti-Gnostic writers

In the previous essay we outlined the teaching about the Church that was revealed in ancient Christian literature in contrast to Judaic nationalist tendencies. But Judaism was not the only environment into which Christianity entered at its beginning. Christianity very soon entered into relations with the pagan world. This pagan world met Christians with persecution. There were many contradictions between Christianity and paganism in the ideological sphere, and therefore a fierce struggle took place here too. The pagan world challenged Christianity to fight, but it gave the Church both the means and the tools for this fight. Educated people joined the Christian Church and began to fight paganism with its own weapons. These were the apologists. The apologists, retaining their previous knowledge and education, however, completely broke with their previous pagan worldview. But not everyone was capable of such a change in their worldview when meeting Christianity. Many, having become acquainted with Christian teaching, wanted to accept Christianity, [but] retaining their previous religious and philosophical views. Thus, there was a mixture of Christian and philosophical elements. Here is the beginning of Christian Gnosticism. It should be noted that when Christianity was mixed with philosophical elements, Christianity suffered. This is, of course, because Christianity can only be exclusive and does not allow eclecticism at all. The ideological atmosphere of the 2nd century is filled with all kinds of Gnostic systems. Ancient church polemicists say that Gnostic systems appeared like mushrooms from the ground, and they liken gnosis itself to a multi-headed monster, similar to the Lernaean Hydra 1. This multitude of diverse Gnostic systems poses even scientific specialists with great difficulty in the question of their classification 2 . No less controversial in science is the question of the origin of gnosis 3 . It is clear that this is the fruit of the syncretism of Hellenic philosophy with Oriental cults, and many are inclined to see in Gnosticism the dominance of Hellenistic elements, which gave a special color to all Oriental constructions 4 . Church writers also point to Greek philosophy as the source of Gnostic systems 5 . However, gnosis was not only philosophy: it was a religious philosophy that considered itself the most perfect religion and sought justification for itself in revelation 6 . The Gnostics cannot be opposed to believers as philosophers: and they wanted to be people of religion. Only they were looking for religion mainly in solving world issues: where is man from, how did he come from, where is evil from and why 7? It is also characteristic of the Gnostics that they wanted to enter into communication with the higher world through thinking, fantasy and feeling. In gnosis they saw the highest manifestation of religion, but gnosis is not rationalism. The vulgar rationalism of our time was completely alien to the Gnostics. “The Gnostics were too aristocrats to always be sympathetic to democratic rationalism.” They made gnosis dependent on “revelation,” but this revelation, according to their teaching, was not available to everyone, but only to the chosen ones. Only πνευματικὸς ἄνθρωπος could have γνῶσις 8. In this highest gnosis, Christianity can only be one of the constituent parts, together with Semitic and Hellenistic elements 9 . The Gnostics assimilated Christian revelation and wanted to justify their religious and philosophical constructions with it. “What are the garments of sheep if not the appearance of Christianity? What are ravenous wolves if not lying spirits hiding in order to destroy the flock of Christ?” - so says Tertullian 10. Not only that. Gnostics often declared themselves to be true Christians and protested when they were called heretics. False teachings were preached under the name of Christianity 11 . It is quite understandable what a huge danger posed by Gnosticism was for the Church, especially in those days when faith was exhausted and the Church, like a burning bush, was surrounded by a devouring flame 12 . Gnosticism was directly related to the Church, and it was destined to have a great influence on the Church's definition of its teachings 13 . Among the Gnostics there was a special phenomenon, namely Marcionism. Although Marcion is usually regarded as a Gnostic, his position is completely special, so that many find it difficult to classify him as a Gnostic 14. Marcion was not a man of speculation, but of practice. He did not want to found a special school or religious union, but wanted to reform the Church, which, in his opinion, misunderstood and distorted the teachings of Christ by introducing Jewish elements into it. When the Church did not accept his reforms, Marcion separated from it. Epiphanius says about him that he, the son of a bishop, was excommunicated from the Church by his father, came to Rome, and when he was not accepted here either, he said: “I will split your Church and introduce a schism into it forever.” And in fact, he caused a considerable split, but he did not split the Church, but he himself broke away from those who believed him 15. Tertullian also testifies to Marcion's open separation from the Church. Marcion founded his own church 17, which existed for a long time. Epiphanius writes: “Marcion, having deceived a great multitude, formed a school that continues to exist in many forms to this day. This heresy is still found today in Rome and Italy, in Egypt and Palestine, in Arabia and Syria, in Cyprus and the Thebaid, and even in Pereida and other places. For this evil one has gained great power in these countries through his deception.” 18 Marcion himself considered himself a church reformer 19. At the same time, Marcion's teaching was completely opposite to that of the Church. Ηό if Gnosis and especially Marcion 20 stood in such a definite hostile attitude towards the Christian Church, then it is quite understandable that the Church, aware of all the danger that threatened it from Gnosticism, should have expressed its own teaching more clearly and definitely. Divisions and heresies were still little known to the Church; Church teaching was not formulated in detail; there were differences of opinion that were reconciled with each other on the basis of a common life, common hopes. Gnosticism concerned the essence of the Christian faith, distorting it in its main, fundamental points. This was no longer an unimportant difference of opinion, but a heresy, and not even a heresy, but a phenomenon that threatened to dissolve in itself the entire content of Christianity, leaving only some minor features from it and reinterpreting its entire content in its own way. In this state of affairs, the Christian Church could either perish or firmly establish its own essence in certain formulas. As we saw from the previous one, the Church did not yet have a precisely defined teaching about the Church. “New people”, “new creation”, “ancient people” - all these definitions are too general. With the advent of Gnosticism, there was a need for norms that would determine what is true and what is false, what is ecclesiastical and what is heretical. And indeed, we see that the Church, in the fight against Gnosticism, establishes precisely such norms. Church writers conduct detailed polemics with the Gnostics and engage in detailed analysis of their systems, but they usually precede this polemic by establishing a fundamental concept of the Church. The doctrine of the Church, one might say, constitutes one of the most essential points of the anti-Gnostic polemic, and the works of anti-Gnostic writers are of exceptional importance in the history of the dogma of the Church. Outstanding anti-Gnostic writers - St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, devote a very large share of attention to the issue of the Church in their polemical writings. “Irenaeus, adorned throughout with the Holy Spirit, as a courageous ascetic raised up by the Lord προβεβλημένος), anointed with heavenly gifts (ἐπαλειφθεὶς τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις χαρίσμασι) of true faith and knowledge" 21 , may be called by Athanasius of the 2nd century 22. The fiery and legally educated Tertullian devoted most of his literary activity to polemics with gnosis 23, and in contrast to heretics, he puts forward the same points as Irenaeus, sometimes giving them some addition and peculiar illumination 24. The doctrine of the Church in the polemical works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, one might say, receives definite expression for the first time. In Gnostic systems one occasionally encounters speculative remarks about the Church 25 . But these remarks had no significance in the general system of Gnosticism and did not in any way influence the establishment of the true concept of the Church 26. To develop the doctrine of the Church, church writers were motivated precisely by the Gnostics’ attitude to Christian revelation. Gnosticism was not an enthusiastic movement like Montanism; he did not give a new revelation in the strict sense of the word 27. The Gnostics turned to the same revelation that was in the Church, to the same sources of doctrine that the Church had at its disposal. Every word is their own, and they wanted to test it by the teachings of the Savior 28. “They try to compile evidence in their favor not only from the words of the Gospel and the Apostles, but also from the law and the prophets” 29. “They themselves speak from Scripture and convince from Scripture. Of course, on what other basis can they speak about matters of faith, if not on the basis of the Scriptures of faith? But two completely different streams could not flow from one spring. Gnosis did not get its start from Christ and His Gospel, but only afterward it turned to the sources of Christian doctrine, which it read with preconceived theories 31 . It is quite clear that not everything in the Holy Scriptures could be favorable to Gnostic constructions, and therefore, in order to better adapt the Holy Scriptures to their religious and philosophical systems, the Gnostics were forced to change the holy books in one way or another. Distortion of the doctrine also implied damage to the sources of the doctrine 32 . And indeed, everyone who wrote against the Gnostics testifies that they first of all distorted the text of the Holy Scriptures 33. When the Holy Scriptures were cited to denounce the Gnostics, then, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, they began to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were incorrect, different in presentation (varie sint dictae) 34. The Gnostics rejected some books of the Holy Scriptures, and one sect rejected some, another others 35. They rejected the writings of the evangelist Luke 36. They did not accept the Gospel of John 37. The Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew. “Those who separate Jesus from Christ” give preference to the Gospel of Mark. The followers of Valentine use primarily (plenissime utentes) the Gospel of John 38. Heretics do not accept some Scriptures, and those that do accept are distorted by insertions and omissions, adapting them to their teaching. If they accept the Scriptures, they do not accept them in their entirety 39 . Apelles, according to the testimony of Hippolytus, took from the Gospels and from the writings of the apostles only what he liked (τὰ ἀρέσκοντα) 40 . In addition, some Gnostics had more sacred books. “The followers of Valentine, without any fear, offer their writings (conscriptiones) and boast that they have more Gospels than there are. They have reached such insolence that they title their recent work “The Gospel of Truth,” although it in no way agrees with the Gospel of the Apostles, so that they do not even have a Gospel without blasphemy.”41 Among the Gnostics there circulated an untold number of apocryphal and forged (νόθων) writings, which they themselves compiled 42 . Irenaeus also testifies that the Gnostics did not use the Scriptures in their authentic and complete form, but left aside the order and connection of the Scriptures, “tearing apart the members of truth.” They rearrange and distort the words of Scripture. “By collecting words and names scattered in places, they are transferred from a natural connection to an unnatural one” 43. “These people stitch together old women’s fables and then, tearing out words, expressions and parables from here and there, they want to adapt the sayings (τὰ λόγια) of God to their fables” 44. This reminds the Holy Father, as if someone, having dismantled the mosaic image of the king, rearranged the stones, made an image of a dog or a fox and said: “This is the most beautiful royal image” 45. Elsewhere, Irenaeus, to illustrate the arbitrary treatment of the Gnostics with the text of the Holy Scriptures, gives an example where Hercules is described in verses selected from the Iliad and Odyssey. “He who knows Homer’s songs recognizes these verses, but does not recognize the content; for he knows that one of them is said about Odysseus, another about Hercules himself, another about Priam, and another about Menelaus and Agamemnon” 46. Marcion developed a special relationship with the Holy Scriptures. He took a more decisive and frank path of tendentious criticism of the text of the Scriptures 47 . Based on the idea of ​​complete opposition between the Old and New Testaments 48, Marcion threw out from the text of the New Testament books everything that did not agree with his opinion 49. Church polemicists usually define Marcion’s attitude to the books of Holy Scripture with the words circumcidere 50, caedere 51, delere 52 and the like. Tertullian says about Marcion that he openly and directly used not style, but the sword, and committed murder over the Scriptures for the sake of his teaching, 53 and Irenaeus briefly expresses the result of Marcion’s work: Marcion and his followers turned to truncation (ad intercidendas) of the Scriptures, some of them not recognizing them at all, and abbreviating the Gospel of Luke and the epistles of Paul (decurtantes) and considering them only genuine (legitima) that they thus shortened (minoraverunt) 54. Marcion, having chosen from Scripture everything he liked, compiled his “Gospel” and the so-called “Apostolic Scripture” (ἀποστολικόν). Ten of [all] letters of the ap. are included here in parts. Paul and part of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This work of Marcion is analyzed in detail by Epiphanius in his “Panaria” 55. This is how the Gnostics treated the books of Holy Scripture 56. The Church, in the fight against gnosis, had to determine its attitude to the sources of its doctrine. There was no talk about this in early church literature. Writers cite the sayings of the apostles and evangelists, calling them “Scripture” (γραφή), but what the scope of this “Scripture” is, which writings are authoritative and which are not - this has not been determined. The canon of sacred books in different Churches was not the same. In many Churches, along with the writings of the evangelists and apostles, the works of later church writers were also considered “Scripture,” for example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Barnabas, the “Shepherd” of Hermas and others 57 . The fight against gnosis required the definition of the canon of the books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, especially since Marcion had already compiled his own “canon”, from which everything that did not correspond to his teaching was removed. The Church, therefore, needed to pinpoint those Scriptures that would justify its own teaching. The Church needed to count its apostolic inheritance 58 . Church writers call the books of the Holy Scriptures the pillar and affirmation (στῦλος καί στήριγμα) of the Church 59 , the foundation and pillar of the Christian faith (fundamentum et columnam fidei nostrae) 60 , and therefore they indignantly reject the unceremonious treatment of them that was customary among heretics. “All those who distort (οἱ ἀθετοῦντες) the idea of ​​the Gospel and introduce types of the Gospel more or less than what have been said are vain and ignorant and, moreover, impudent.” “Such one will certainly be subject to considerable punishment, which will be the one who adds or subtracts anything from Scripture” 62. The Scriptures originate from the apostles 63 . Irenaeus testifies that each of the Gospels was written by famous persons 64. Against the “Gospel of Truth,” the Valentinian Irenaeus says that only the apostles transmitted the true and reliable (vera et firma) Gospel. God created everything harmoniously and in accordance, and the Gospel therefore should have a well-ordered and orderly appearance (bene compositam et bene compaginatam esse) 65. St. Irenaeus proves that there are only four Gospels, no more, no less. These proofs, however, are not of a historical nature, but of a dogmatic-symbolic nature. Four cardinal points, four main winds, Cherubim have four faces, four-shaped animals, four main testaments - all this proves that there can only be four Gospels 66. Tertullian argues differently. First of all, he denies the heretics any right to Scripture. Before arguing about the Scriptures, it is necessary to consider who the Scriptures belong to, so as not to admit anyone to whom they in no way belong 67 . The Scriptures belong only to the Church, which received its beginning with them 68. Heretics should not be allowed to compete about Scripture. Heretics are not Christians and therefore have no right to the Christian Scriptures 69 . The Church can rightfully ask heretics: “Who are you? You are not mine, what are you doing with me? By what right do you, Marcion, cut down my forest? With whose permission, Valentin, do you transform (transvertis) my sources? By what authority, Apelles, are you changing my boundaries? Why are you others sowing and grazing here at will? This is my property, I have owned it for a long time. I have a firm foundation from the authors themselves, to whom the Scripture belongs (ab ipsis auctoribus quorum fait res). I am the heir of the apostles. Of course, they disinherited you forever and rejected you as strangers, as enemies.” 70 We find such reasoning in the treatise “De praescriptione”. Tertullian provides more detailed evidence of the authenticity of the sacred church books in his most extensive and detailed polemical work, Adversus Marcionem. But here, too, the fundamental considerations are directly related to the thoughts expressed already in “De praescriptione”. “Olim possideo” - these two words from “De praescriptione” in “Adv. Marc." Tertullian develops a detailed argument about prescription. Starting here to talk about the Gospels, Tertullian establishes the principle: what is ancient is truer; a lie is a distortion of the truth 71 . According to Tertullian, the argument from antiquity is the only way to resolve the question of the authenticity of the Gospels; otherwise the opponents will endlessly reproach each other for the falsification of the Scriptures. It is necessary to decide what is older: the church books or Marcion's 72. But it is clear that Marcion’s “Gospel” is of later origin. There were Gospels in the Church before Marcion, and Marcion himself, when he belonged to the Church, recognized the Church Gospels, and he composed his own only after he was expelled from the Church and fell into heresy 73 . Consequently, Marcion is a distorter of the Gospel, which circulated in the Church from the time of Tiberius to the time of Antoninus 74. So, in polemics with the Gnostics about the Holy Scriptures, church theologians of that time established that the books of the Holy Scriptures belong to the Church. The Church is the custodian of truth, which is based on the sacred books canonized by it. At the same time, the Church began to more accurately define the canon of New Testament books, although the process of approving the general church canon did not end for a long time. In the history of the dogma of the Church, the most important thing to note is that at the time in question the Church expressed the doctrine of itself as the custodian of the books of Holy Scripture. “We must resort to the Church and be educated in its bosom and feed on the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church is planted as a paradise in this world.” Therefore, you can eat from every tree of paradise, says the Spirit of God (Gen. 2:16), that is, eat from every Scripture of the Lord 75. In the Church there is genuine observance of the Scriptures, without adding or subtracting; here is the reading of the Scriptures without distortion 76 . But the controversy with gnosis could not end with the question of the authentic books of the Holy Scriptures. Tertullian and Irenaeus conducted their polemics based on the books of Holy Scripture, 77 but the Gnostics also constantly used Scripture, and used those Scriptures that were accepted by the Church. The source of the doctrine of both the Gnostics and the Church sometimes turned out to be the same, and it was necessary to determine how to draw the true doctrine from this source. It was necessary to establish standards for the use of the Holy Scriptures. Hence the question of interpretation and understanding of Holy Scripture. First of all, the most daring view of the composition of the books of Holy Scripture, which the Valentinians held, was rejected. According to the Valentinians, the Holy Scriptures have different merits in their different parts. The apostles mixed something from the law into the words of the Savior, and not only the apostles, but also the Lord Himself spoke sometimes from the Demiurge, sometimes from the middle, and sometimes from the heights (a medietate, interdum autem a summitate fecisse sermones) 78 . What guided the Valentinians in dividing Scripture according to its origin, nothing is known about this 79 . St. Irenaeus resolutely rejects such a view of Holy Scripture. He says that perfection and deficiency, knowledge and ignorance, truth and error, light and darkness could not be combined in one. The Lord never spoke either from height or from imperfection (nunquam modo quidem de principal, modo vero de subjecta deminoratione) and was not at the same time the Teacher of knowledge and ignorance 80. All Scripture is from one God; the prophets did not speak at the inspiration of various gods 81 . But the most common view among the Gnostics was the view of the Holy Scriptures from the point of view of the so-called accommodation theory. According to this theory, Jesus Christ and His apostles did not always speak clearly and definitely, but adapted to the state in which their listeners were 82. Christ himself taught the apostles in images and parables, and sometimes separately, clearly and openly only to those who could perceive the complete truth in its pure form 83 . Christ said: seek and you will find (Matthew 7:7); (Luke 11:9). In these words the Gnostics saw a commandment - to look for hidden meaning in the allegorical form of the Gospel narrative, 84 and from these words they took the basis for all their allegorical interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Not only parables, but everything in Holy Scripture was subject to allegorical interpretation by the Gnostics 85 . “Having taken, according to the proverb, to twist ropes out of sand, they try to attach (προσαρμόζειν) to their positions with an air of probability the Lord’s parables, or prophetic sayings, or apostolic words, so that their invention does not seem to have no evidence” 86. “Parables and allegories, which by mutuality can be attributed to many things through explanation (εἰς πολλὰ ἕλκειν), they sometimes with great violence and cunningly adapt (ἐφαρμόζοντες) to their fiction” 87 . Indeed, using this interpretation, the Gnostics found in the Holy Scriptures everything that they tended to look for there 88 . Mainly in the first book, “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus gives a whole series of Gnostic interpretations of certain passages of Holy Scripture. Let us cite some of these interpretations as examples. “Where,” says St. Irenaeus, - used: age or centuries (αἰών, ἢ αἰῶνες), everywhere they find an indication of these eons.” Thirty aeons are indicated by thirty years in which the Savior did nothing explicitly 89 . The work of the twelve aeons is indicated by the fact that the Lord, being 12 years old, talked with the scribes, and by the election of the apostles, for there are twelve apostles. The remaining eighteen aeons are indicated in the fact that the Lord, after the resurrection from the dead, remained with the disciples, according to them, for eighteen months. Moreover, by the two initial letters of His name, i.e. iota (ι) and ita (η), eighteen aeons are clearly indicated. In the same way, the first letter in the name of the Lord, iota (ι) means ten aeons, and because the Savior said: one iota or one line will not pass away until everything is fulfilled 90. The falling away of the twelfth aeon, according to the Gnostics, is indicated by the apostasy of Judas, the twelfth apostle, the suffering of the Lord in the twelfth month, and the healing of the bleeding woman after twelve years of suffering 91 . Such were the interpretive techniques of the Gnostics, as St. Irenaeus, and St. Irenaeus is not exaggerating at all: the few surviving fragments of Gnostic exegesis reveal to us a picture of complete and limitless arbitrariness in allegorical interpretation 92 . Sometimes different interpretations are given even of the same passage 93 . In general, the Gnostics’ interpretation of the Scriptures harmed the truth no less than their very corruption of the text 94 . It is quite clear that the doctrine of the Church as the custodian of truth in the sense of the owner of the authentic and intact Apostolic Scriptures was not enough; it was necessary to establish some standards for the interpretation of these Scriptures. At St. We encounter Irenaeus in places, so to speak, as an immanent criticism of the exegetical techniques of the Gnostics: he speaks of their inconsistency, arbitrariness, the application of interpretative principles to only some places of Holy Scripture, and not to all homogeneous places, etc. 95. Along with this, Irenaeus and Tertullian try to establish some principles of church exegesis. First of all, the teachers of the Church insist that not everything in Holy Scripture is a parable; not everything should be seen only as an allegory. The Scriptures of the prophets are not all images and parables; much of them is said more clearly than daylight, without any allegory; The prophets used allegories only sometimes and in certain cases 96. And every allegory must be understood first of all literally: it is necessary for a thing to exist for itself before it is taken as an image for another 97 . If we turn to the Gospel, then here we cannot agree that the Lord always spoke in parables 98 . Christ did not speak to everyone in parables, and if not to everyone, then not always and not to all people, but only to some. True, the Lord sometimes spoke to His disciples in parables, but Scripture always adds in such cases: He spoke to them in a parable. From this we can conclude that more often the Lord spoke without a parable. In addition, the Lord explained the parables 99. How should one be guided in the interpretation of dark and incomprehensible passages of Scripture? In the Holy Scriptures much is expressed clearly and definitely. It is this that is clearly and definitely expressed and one must be guided in understanding what is said unclearly. The short but expressive words of Tertullian: incerta de certis et obscura de manifestis praejudicari 100 - can be considered the main position of the established church exegesis. Truths, clear and definitely expressed, must lie at the basis. Parables can admit of many interpretations (absolutiones), but who would not agree that to assert anything in research about God [only on] them, leaving behind the known, undoubted and true, is the work of foolish people rushing into danger?! Doesn't this mean building your house not on a hard, strong and openly lying stone, but on crumbling sand 101? It is impossible to interpret parables on the basis of what is said itself is unclear and not obvious. In this case, how many interpreters of the parable there will be (qui absolvent parabolas), so many truths will turn out to be mutually contradictory and confirming teachings that are opposite to each other (contraria sibimet dogmata statuentes) 102. And whoever explains the incomprehensible to the understandable interprets the Holy Scriptures safely, and the parables then receive the same interpretation from everyone, and the truth (veritatis corpus) is preserved intact and without damage 103; parables in Holy Scripture are recognized, but their blasphemous application (τὴν βλάσφημον ἡπόθεσιν) is not accepted 104. St. Irenaeus also advises not to try to learn everything you want from Scripture. There is much we do not know and cannot know, and therefore we must leave it all to God 105. “If, in accordance with the method I mentioned, we leave some of the questions (ζητημάτων) to God, then we will keep our faith and remain safe, and every Scripture given to us by God will turn out to be agreeable to us, and the parables will agree with what is said directly (διαῤῥήδην), and what is said will clearly serve to explain the parables (ἐπιλύσει τὰς παραβολάς), and in the polyphony of expressions one will feel a single consonant melody, praising with songs the God who created everything” 106. So, the Church is the keeper of the truth, because it possesses the Holy Scripture, not only its text, but also the correct interpretation 107. The establishment of principles of interpretation therefore responded to a practical need: it answered the question: how to borrow truth from the books of Holy Scripture preserved in the Church? But, of course, these principles were far from sufficient. Scientific principles of interpretation are good, but their application can be bad. Principles are always too general, and it is difficult to be guided in life by principles alone. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the principles of interpretation could have had especially little meaning at the time when St. lived and acted. Irenaeus. That was the time of the dominance of the allegorical Philonian method, which was the only scientific method of interpreting not only the Holy Scriptures, but also Homer, 108 and we see how St. Irenaeus, having established the above principles of interpretation, himself pays tribute to the almighty time. It is enough to look at several examples of the interpretation of Irenaeus himself - for example, the interpretation of the marriage of Moses to the Ethiopian woman 109, the story of Lot 110, Christ washing the feet of the disciples 111, Balaam's donkey 112 and many others - to see how Irenaeus himself could not abandon the allegorical method of interpretation 113. In practice, St. Irenaeus very often deviated from his exegetical principles, established in polemics with the Gnostics, and in interpreting the Holy Scriptures used the method of his opponents, whom he so sharply condemned 114. It can even be argued that in the first centuries the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture was necessary for church writers 115. St. Irenaeus even made a significant step forward in the use of the allegorical method of interpretation compared to previous church writers: he extended this method of interpretation to the New Testament, whereas before him only the Old Testament was usually interpreted allegorically 116. Thus, the principle of interpretation was not consistently applied, and it was not the rules of hermeneutics that kept church writers from going astray 117. Already from this it can be seen that the Church, in defining itself as the custodian of the truth of Christ, could not stop at recognizing the Holy Scriptures as its property; the interpretation of these Scriptures required, in addition to general scientific methods, a special church principle. This second sign of the Church - the guardian of truth - was indicated in Tradition. But Gnosticism was not like some later heresies, which openly and deliberately break with Tradition 118. The Gnostics also make constant references to Tradition. But the Gnostics referred to a “secret tradition.” The secret tradition was in the spirit of that time. The Jewish scribe called the people who do not know the Scriptures ignorant (John 7:49). The Greek philosopher recognized only a sage as a complete person. In all the Mysteries there was a special secret tradition for each class of initiates. The Gnostic teaching about secret tradition is a phenomenon of the same order. The doctrine of secret tradition was so widespread among the Gnostics that some scholars of Gnosticism consider this doctrine to be the root of Gnosticism (Lipsius). Indeed, almost all individual Gnostic sects are known to have referred to a secret tradition. The Carpocratians argued that Christ spoke to His disciples in secret (ἐν μηστηρίῳ), separately from others (κατ’ ἰδίαν), and demanded from them that they also convey this to the worthy and established (τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ τοῖς πειθομένοις ταῦτα παραδιδόναι) 119 . The Valentinians and Ophites said that Christ, after His resurrection, remained (remoraturn) with the disciples for 18 months, and since knowledge descended on Him (sensibilitate in eum descendente), He taught what was clear, and taught a few of His disciples, whom He knew to be capable of such mysteries (mysteriorum). In the Gnostic work Πίστις Σοφία, Christ’s stay with the apostles extended for as long as 11 years 121. The Gnostics traced their tradition either to certain individuals from the circle of the apostles, or to the apostolic companions. The Naassenes said that the main tenets of their teaching (κεφάλαια) were conveyed by Jacob, the brother of the Lord, to the Mother of God Mary 122. They pointed to the Apostle Philip 123 and Matthias, who was chosen instead of Judas, whom Christ supposedly instructed separately 124. The Apostle Paul says (2 Cor. 12:2-4) that he was caught up to the third heaven... and heard... words that no man can tell. The Gnostics claimed that these words were transmitted to them 125. The Cainites even knew the work “Ἀναβατικὸν Παύλου” 126. Finally, Basilides considered Glaucius, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, as his mentor, and Valentinus, they said, listened to Theudas, who was close (γνώριμος) to the Apostle Paul 127. Among church writers we find, first of all, a denial of any secret tradition. The apostles all received from the Lord one most perfect knowledge. “It is indecent to say that they preached before they had received perfect knowledge (perfectam agnitionem), as some dare to say, boasting that they are the emendatores of the apostles.” The apostles were endued with power from above, received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, received perfect knowledge, and then went out preaching to all the ends of the earth 128. And while preaching, the apostles did not teach anything else, but only what they received from the Lord 129. Therefore, through the apostles we came to know the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God; to them the Lord said: “Whoever listens to you listens to Me, and whoever rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent Me” (Luke 10:16) 130. In De praescriptione haereticorum, Tertullian examines in detail the entire Gnostic theory of secret tradition. Tertullian proves in detail that Christ did not hide anything from any of the apostles; The Holy Spirit guided them into all truth 131. Knowing everything, they taught it all to everyone. The words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: keep the tradition (1 Tim. 6:20), refer to the entire teaching of the apostle, and not to some secret Gospel (occulti alicujus Evangelii) 132. Just as Christ Himself did not hide anything, so did the apostles; after all, they themselves begged in their messages that everyone would say the same thing 133. The result of such reasoning should be a denial of the Gnostic doctrine of secret tradition. It is impossible to separate Christ from the apostles; the apostles openly preached to the whole world everything that Christ taught them 134. Christ taught the one and true teaching, which the peoples must believe immutably, and therefore must look for it, so that they can believe when they find it. The search for a single and true teaching cannot be limitless: you must search for it until you find it, and you must believe in it when you find it. Let it be known that we have with us what Christ taught (quod institutum est). You must believe that you should not believe in anything else, and therefore you should not seek anything, when you have found and believed in what He taught, Who commands you not to seek anything else except what He taught 135. To refute the doctrine of secret tradition, Tertullian points out, so to speak, the practical harm of this doctrine. If you search for a secret tradition, you may never believe. There will be no end to this search. Where will the search limit be? Marcion? But Valentin also says loudly: “Seek and you will find.” At Valentin's? But Apelles, with the same words (pronuntiatione), sets me in motion (pulsavit), and Ebion, and Simon, and all of their family do not have anything else by which, creeping up on me, to attract me to themselves. If you follow this advice, then there will be no place where you can stop, and nowhere and will you never find what Christ taught, what you should look for, what you should believe in. Faith must put an end to quests (omnem prolationem quaerendi et inveniendi credendo fixisti) 136. We should not seek from others the truth, which is easy to obtain from the Church, for the apostles, like a rich man in a treasury, completely collected into it everything that relates to the truth (plenissime in eam contulerint omnia quae sint veritatis), so that everyone who wishes takes from it the drink of life. She is precisely the door of life, and all others are thieves and robbers 137. So, the apostles did not leave any special, secret tradition; They openly preached the whole truth and betrayed it to the Church. Therefore, only the Church can determine the truth. By establishing this position, church writers thereby eliminate from the realm of faith all arbitrariness and individualism in general. This individualism cannot yet be eliminated either by a more precise definition of the canon of New Testament books, or by the establishment of certain principles of interpretation, since the application of any principle is always more or less individual 138 . Tertullian even expresses, with his usual harshness, the idea that there can be no benefit from competing on the basis of the Scriptures alone 139 . One should not call on the Scriptures and should not compete only where there is either no victory at all, or victory is unreliable or unlikely 140. It is necessary to consider from whom, through whom, when and to whom the teaching was transmitted, thanks to which one becomes a Christian. For it is obvious that where the truth of Christian teaching and faith (veritas et disciplinae et fidei) is, there will be true Scripture, and true interpretation, and true Christian traditions 141. It is clear that the Scriptures themselves, according to Tertullian, in the absence of church norms can be reinterpreted as anyone wants, and cannot give the truth. Only the Church can accurately understand the Holy Scriptures, for only the Church, and not an individual, is the guardian of the truth. The most general expression of church self-consciousness and therefore the most general principle for the interpretation of Holy Scripture is the church “Rule of Faith” - “Regula fidei”, as Tertullian calls it 142, or “Rule of Truth” - “Κανὼν τῆς ἀλήθειας”, as St. Irenaeus 143. This “Rule” is nothing more than the Creed that was read at baptism 144 and which developed from the baptismal formula bequeathed by the Lord Himself 145. Tertullian often compares this rule with the oath or oath that soldiers take when joining the army, and calls it the special term “sacramentum”. A Christian enters into the army of Christ when he reads the “Rule of Faith” 146 at baptism. The contents of this ancient church confession are conveyed several times by St. Irenaeus 147 and three times Tertullian 148, and give this “Rule” an anti-Gnostic coloring in their presentation 149. There is only one “Rule of Faith”, and it is unchangeable 150, and therefore it is precisely this “Rule” that must be guided when seeking the truth. Only having the rule of truth intact (inulteratam) can one be saved 151. The greater or lesser knowledge of some, according to the understanding, does not consist in changing the very content of the “Rule of Faith,” but in carefully examining what is said in the parables and agreeing with the content of faith (οἰκειοῦν τῇ τῆς πίστεως ὑποθέσει) 152 . He who unswervingly contains within himself the rule of truth (ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθειας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἐαυτῷ κατέχων) will reject Gnostic fabrications 153. You can engage in research and reasoning as much as you like, you can satisfy your curiosity as much as you like, as long as you don’t contradict the “Rule of Faith” in any way. Faith lies in the rule... To know nothing against the “Rule of Faith” means to know everything 154. The “rule of faith” unites all members of the Church; Under the rule of a general rule, they can differ only in the depth and solidity of faith, and not in its content. “Neither one of the church leaders who is very strong in word (ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων) will say anything different in comparison with this “Rule” (for no one is higher than the Teacher), nor will one who is weak in word belittle Tradition. For since faith is one and the same, he who has much to say about it does not add, and he who has little to say about it does not detract.” 155 The “rule of faith” seems to bind the entire Church and is one of the main manifestations of its unity 156. The unity of individual Churches is expressed in the communion of the world, in the name of brotherhood, in hospitality, but at the heart of all this lies precisely the unity of the “Rule of Faith” 157. Therefore, the opportunity opens up for church writers to talk about the unity of faith in different Churches. The concept of “Rules of Faith” expands to the concept of faith in general, 158 and, of course, it does not mean the literal identity of the theological views of church writers in different Churches. There was no literal identity even in the “Rule of Faith,” which, however, did not prevent one from saying: regula fidei una omnino est. It was about the unity of the Christian faith in its basic tenets 159. But it was not enough to point to the teaching of the Church as κάνων τῆς ἀληθειας; it was also necessary to prove that the Church actually preserved the truth communicated to it by the apostles. And we see that church anti-Gnostic writers prove in detail the position that the Church really is the keeper of the truth, not only received the truth from the apostles, but also preserves it in purity and integrity. Church writers point to the unity of faith throughout the world. Having received faith from the apostles, the Church, although scattered throughout the world, carefully preserves itself, as if living in one house; believes equally (ὁμοίως) as if having one soul and one heart; she preaches, teaches and conveys accordingly (παραδίδωσιν), as if she had only one mouth. For although the languages ​​(διάλεκτοι) are different in the world, the power of Tradition is the same. The Churches founded in Germany, in Spain, in Gaul, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya and in the middle of the world 160 believe no differently and have the same Tradition. Just as the sun is the same throughout the world, so the preaching of the truth (κύρηγμα τῆς ἀλήθείας) shines everywhere and enlightens all people who want to come to the knowledge of the truth 161. In every Church one can see the Tradition of the Apostles (in omni Ecclesia adest respicere) 162. Many tribes of barbarians who believe in Christ have their own salvation, written in their hearts by the Spirit without charter or ink, and carefully preserve the ancient Tradition (veteram traditionem). Those who accepted this faith without writing are barbarians in relation to our language, but in relation to doctrine, character and way of life, according to their faith, they are very wise and please God, living in all truth, purity and wisdom. And if someone began to preach heretical fabrications (adinventa) to these people, speaking to them in their own language, [they] would immediately, covering their ears, run away as far as possible, not even tolerating hearing blasphemous conversation. Thus, as a result of that ancient Apostolic Tradition (per illam veterem apostolorum traditionem), they do not even allow the monstrous speech of heretics into their minds 163 . The preaching of the Church is constant everywhere and remains unchanged (constantem et aequaliter perseverantem) 164. The Church has the same faith throughout the world and points out the same path of salvation throughout the world 165. So, the teaching of the Church is uniform throughout the entire universe, and this universal character of the teaching of the Church proves its truth. An error could not have arisen in the same form at the same time in different parts of the universe. “Is it likely that so many and such Churches err in one faith” 166. That many have one thing is not an error, but Tradition 167. The universal unity of church truth of St. Irenaeus constantly contrasts the diversity and inconstancy of heretical teachings. Heretics, two or three, do not say the same thing about the same thing, but contradict each other both in the essence of the matter (τοῖς πράγμασι) and in names 168 . And they have many different opinions about the depth itself 169 . They have many disagreements (πολλὴ μάχη) about Soter 170. How many secret guides (μυσταγωγοί) their way of thinking, so many redemptions 171. St. Irenaeus characterizes heretics this way: they disagree among themselves in doctrine and tradition, and those who are considered the newest among them try every day to invent something new and produce something that no one has ever thought of 172 . Tertullian characterizes heresies in a similar way. The reasoning of heretics is different; They are united only by a common enmity against the one truth 173. They all start with a distortion of the “Rule of Faith” 174. Schism is their unity. They differ from each other even regarding their “Rules of Faith” (regulis suis), since each, according to his own arbitrariness, changes what he received, just as the one who handed it to him compiled it according to his own arbitrariness. The Valentinians are allowed the same as Valentinus, the Marcionites are allowed the same as Marcion, namely: to introduce new things into the faith at will (fidem innovare). Finally, if you carefully examine heresies, you will find that they all largely deviate from their founders. Many do not even have churches: without a mother, without a fatherland, without faith they wander like exiles 175. Such diversity and mutual contradiction of heretical teachings obviously testifies to their falsity and disagreement with the teaching of the apostles 176. Misconception leads to diversity 177 . The churches do not accept heretics because of the difference in their confession (ob diversitatem sacramenti), which cannot be apostolic 178. So, here is a sign of the apostolic dignity of church teaching: this teaching has a universal character, it is uniform throughout the world. Unity of the Church, according to the teaching of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, is expressed in the unity of faith received from the apostles. The truth of this faith is guaranteed by its universal character. What is the same everywhere is the truth taught to the Church by the apostles. Thus, in the teaching about the Church as the guardian of truth, catholicity presupposes apostolate 179. It should also be noted that for the unity of the Church, according to the teaching of St. Irenaeus, the unity of faith is enough. Disagreement in matters of faith destroys church unity; disagreements in church orders, in certain local customs, do not in the least hinder the unity of the Church. Such views of St. Irenaeus outlined it in a letter to the Roman Bishop Victor, who wanted to break ties with the Churches of Asia Minor, where there was a different practice compared to Rome regarding the time of celebrating Easter 180. Irenaeus wrote: “They disagree not only about this matter, but also about the very image of Easter: for some think that one should fast for one day, others two, and others more, while some consider forty day and night hours to be the measure of their day. Such a difference (ποικιλία) in observing fasting did not occur in our time, but much earlier - among our ancestors, who probably did not observe great precision in this (παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβές) and their simple, private custom (καθ’ ἁπλότητα καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήθειαν) were passed on to offspring. Nevertheless, however, they all maintained peace, and we live among ourselves in peace, and disagreement regarding fasting confirms the agreement of faith συνίστησιν)" 181. Irenaeus cites in support of his opinions the fact that Polycarp and the Roman bishop Anicetas maintained peace, although they could not convince each other of the need for one or another practice: “Neither Anicetas could convince Polycarp not to observe what he always observed while living with John, the disciple of our Lord, and dealing with the other apostles, nor Polycarp convinced Anicetas to observe, for Anicetas said that he was obliged to preserve the customs of those who preceded him. (πρὸ αὐτοῦ) for themselves elders" 182 . From this it can be seen that the idea that only unity of faith is necessary for the unity of the Church was not the personal opinion of St. Irenaeus, in general, was in the church consciousness of that time. The dispute about the time of celebrating Easter was a test of church unity, but, obviously, the idea of ​​​​the permissibility of various orders and customs in the Church was so firmly in the church consciousness that the proud Roman bishop did not dare to insist on his excommunication of the Churches of Asia Minor. And Tertullian, as we have already seen, especially insists on the unity of only the “Rule of Faith.” Only heretics argue against the “Rule of Faith”, which is why they are heretics 183, for falling away from the “Rule of Faith” is falling away from the truth 184. The proof of the position that we have outlined—the Church is the guardian of truth—can be called abstractly logical: from the unity of faith a conclusion is drawn to its integrity, to its apostolic dignity. But church anti-Gnostic writers have other evidence of the same truth - a more positively historical nature. This is, first of all, the already familiar argumentum praescriptionis, with which, as we have seen, Tertullian proved the integrity of the books of Holy Scripture accepted by the Church. The Church is older than all heretics - this is the main point of this argument. This argument has already been briefly stated by St. Irenaeus. “Before Valentine there were no Valentinians, and before Marcion there were no Marcionites, and there were no other evil-minded teachers (sensus maligni) before the founders and inventors of their perverse teaching appeared. All heretics are known when they lived. Valentine came to Rome under Gigen, grew (ἤκμασε, increvit) under Pius and stayed until the time of Anicetus. Cerdon, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived under Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop... His successor, Marcion, received power under Anicetus, who occupied tenth place in the rank of bishops. The other so-called Gnostics descended from Menander, a disciple of Simon, and each of them was the father and head (antistes) of the doctrine he accepted. All of them fell into their apostasy much later, already in the Middle Ages of the Church (mediatibus iam Ecclesiae temporibus)” 185. But Tertullian is especially persistent in his argumentum praescriptionis. Id verius quod prius is how Tertullian himself briefly formulates his argument 186 . Truth always necessarily precedes falsehood 187. The original always precedes the copy; imitation happens after a thing. Heresies could not exist before true teaching 188. The parable of the sower says that the good seed was sown first, and the tares came after. And in the matter of teaching, what belongs to the Lord and is true, what was transmitted before, and what is mixed in (immissum) after is extraneous and false 189. The Church has a more ancient teaching 190 of heresies, but those that appeared later, therefore, perverted the foundations of truth 191. Tertullian sets up praescriptio novitatis 192 against heretics; they can already be denounced de testimonio temporum 193, de aetate sola 194. Already the earliest origin (posteritas) exposes all heretics 195. Tertullian calls heresies later 196, new 197, heretics - yesterday (hesterni) 198. The origin of heretics 199 is well known. Marcion and Valentinus were not long ago, almost during the reign of Antoninus; at first [they] recognized church teaching, and then were excommunicated for spreading their teachings. If you investigate the family tree of Apelles, then he will not turn out to be older than his teacher Marcion. Nigidius and Hermogenes are still traveling 200 years ago. At the time when the heretics began their preaching, the Church had already filled the whole world 201. Heretics need to prove that they are the new apostles. Let them declare that Christ descended again, that again He taught, that again He was crucified, that again He died, that again He rose again 202. Tertullian himself attached very important importance to the above arguments, which is why he repeats them in almost all of his polemical works 203 . Tertullian calls all these arguments the term praescriptio. Praescriptio is an argument after which the process or the dispute in general makes no sense and must end 204. Tertullian expresses the idea that this argument alone is sufficient to expose heresies sine retractatu doctrinarum 205. But, of course, matters of faith are not like legal proceedings, and Tertullian was not limited to just praescriptio, but was forced to enter into a detailed analysis of heretical systems, etiam specialiter respondere, dare etiam, retractatibus locum 206. So, heresies are the latest work of their ancestors; they are not from the apostles. The Church has a different origin. The Church is older than all heresies and dates back to the apostles of Christ. The apostles, having received the promised power of the Holy Spirit, first preached faith in Jesus Christ in Judea, establishing churches, then went into the whole universe, and preached the same teaching of the same faith to the nations. And they also founded churches in every city. From these Churches the rest of the Churches received the branch (traducem) of faith and the seeds of doctrine and constantly receive them when they are founded (ut ecclesiae fiant). And therefore they themselves are considered apostolic, as descendants (soboles) of the apostolic Churches. Every genus is determined (censeatur) by its origin. And therefore, although there are so many Churches, however, that apostolic, original one, from which they all come, is one. Thus, [they] are all original and apostolic, since they all constitute one 207. Churches were not only founded by apostles; the apostolic succession is preserved in them. The Apostles gave the Church, as it were, a special organ for preserving intact the teachings devoted to it. This is a successive episcopate. The Church proves its apostolic origin and dignity precisely by the fact that the apostles placed their successors in them. Heretics cannot prove the apostolic origin of their Churches; they do not have apostolic succession. Let them show the series (ordinem) of their bishops, successively coming from the beginning (per successiones ab initio decurrentem), so that the first bishop had as his successor and predecessor (auctorem et antecessorem) one of the apostles or men of the apostles, but one who remained (perseveraverit) with the apostles. For in this way the apostolic churches prove their origin (census suos deferunt). Thus, the Smyrna Church indicates Polycarp, appointed by John, the Roman Church - Clement, dedicated (ordinatum) by Peter. In the same way, others indicate those who were appointed by the apostles to bishoprics and through whom they have the apostolic seed (apostolici seminis traduces) 208. The apostles providentially (providentius) established the bishopric 209. The apostolic establishment of the episcopate in the Christian Church was so undeniable for Tertullian that even in his Montanistic works he, who at that time stood in opposition to the church bishops, did not dare to object to it. In De pudicitia Tertullian makes a distinction between the apostolic gifts. There must be a distinction between doctrine and power (inter doctrinam apostolorum et potestatem). The bishops inherited from the apostles their right of teaching, and Tertullian does not deny this right from his opponent 210 . Thus, Tertullian primarily speaks only of the apostolic institution of the episcopate, although he hints at the succession of the episcopate in the Church. The idea of ​​succession of bishops, as proof of the truth of church teaching, has already been revealed in particular detail by St. Irenaeus. It can be said without exaggeration that this idea is dominant in the system of ecclesiological views of St. father. At every opportunity, St. Irenaeus briefly repeats his idea that the truth is preserved in the Church through the succession of bishops 211. The succession of bishops, to whom the apostles handed over the Church that exists everywhere, is a sign (character) of the Body of Christ 212. Irenaeus refers to the fact that the apostles appointed successors for themselves when refuting the Gnostic teaching about secret tradition. “We can list the bishops appointed (instituti) as apostles in the Churches who did not teach or know anything about what the heretics are raving about. If the apostles knew the hidden secrets (recondita mysteria), which they separately communicated completely secretly from others, then they would most likely pass them on to those to whom they entrusted the Church itself. For they wanted those whom they left as their successors and to whom they transferred their place of teaching (locum magisterii) to be perfect and impeccable in everything, since great benefit should come from their correct action (emendate agentibus), and the greatest misfortune from their failure" 213 . The church elders preserve the apostolic teaching 214. And then St. Irenaeus takes a purely historical approach and wants to show the succession of bishops. Just for the sake of brevity, St. the father limits himself to the Roman Church 215, which alone in the West was the apostolic Church, and lists the Roman bishops. “The blessed apostles, having founded and established the Church (Roman), entrusted the ministry of bishopric (τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν) to Linus. Paul mentions this line in his letters to Timothy. He is succeeded by (διαδέχεται) Anacletus; after him, in third place, the bishopric inherits from the apostles (τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται) Clement, who saw the blessed apostles and treated them, still had the preaching of the apostles in his ears and Tradition (τὴν παράδοσιν) them before your eyes... This Clement was succeeded by Evarest, Evarest by Alexander, then Sixtus was appointed sixth from the apostles; after him Telesphorus, who gloriously endured torment; then Hyginus, then Pius, after him Anicetus, after Sotira, who succeeded Anicetus, now in twelfth place from the apostles the lot of the bishopric (τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς κλῆρον) has Eleutherius” 216. Although St. Irenaeus promised to confine himself only to the Roman Church, but he could not help but remember his native Smyrna Church and therefore adds: “Polycarp was not only instructed by the apostles and treated many of those who saw the Lord, but was also made a bishop by the apostles (ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς ἐπίσκοπος) Smyrna Church in Asia. All the Churches of Asia testify to this, as well as those who have been successors (διαδεγμένοι) of Polycarp to the present time” 217. A short note from St. Irenaeus also adds about the Church of Ephesus. The Church of Ephesus, founded by Paul and having John among itself until the time of Trajan, is a true witness to the Apostolic Tradition 218. The continuous succession of bishops from the apostles, according to St. Irenaeus, is the most important proof of the truth of the apostleship and the Church. In this order, says St. Irenaeus, and through such succession the Tradition from the Apostles and the preaching of the truth have reached us. And this serves as the most complete proof (plenissima haec ostensio) that the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present day, is handed down in its true form (in veritate) 219. The succession of bishops, therefore, is the most important basis for the recognition of the truth that the Christian Church is the guardian of truth 220. Comparing the teaching of St. Irenaeus on the continuity in the Church of the Apostolic Tradition with the teaching on the same subject of Tertullian, one can find some difference between them. Irenaeus relies almost entirely on the succession of bishops in individual Churches. Bishops successively transmit the apostolic teaching intact, which is why the same faith is found in different Churches scattered throughout the universe. Succession of the episcopate of St. Irenaeus proves and explains how the truth transmitted by the apostles is preserved intact in the Church. Tertullian does not talk about the succession of the episcopate, does not list a number of bishops who succeeded each other, as St. Irenaeus 221. He focuses his attention primarily on the founding of churches by the apostles. The unity of teaching in different Churches of the present time proves its integrity, which is why all Churches can be called one apostolic Church. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian strongly emphasize different aspects in the same system of teaching about Church Tradition or about the apostolate of the Church. What is hinted at by one (the unity of faith throughout in Irenaeus), is developed in detail by another, and what is stated in detail by one (succession of bishops by Irenaeus), is only mentioned by another (successio of Tertullian). Irenaeus and Tertullian mutually complement each other 222. But it must be said that for church writers neither the founding of churches by the apostles nor the succession of bishops represents a completely sufficient and self-sufficient guarantee for the preservation of Christ’s truth in the Church. In the previous essay we outlined in detail the teachings of St. Irenaeus about the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. All church life for St. the father is the fruit of the Holy Spirit living in the Church. The preservation of truth is also not separated from this common church life; it is one of the manifestations of the grace-filled life of the Church. Through the Holy Spirit, Christians see, hear, and speak 223. The Holy Spirit gives knowledge of the truth 224. He who has the Holy Spirit can judge heretical errors 225. The Church is also protected from error by the Holy Spirit. “The preaching of the Church is constant everywhere and remains unchanged and has the testimony of the prophets and apostles and from all the disciples... in the entire dispensation of God and His firm action regarding the salvation of man (quae secundum salutem hominis est solidam operationem), which is contained in our faith: having received it from the Church, we observe it, and it always through the Spirit of God, like a precious treasure in a beautiful vessel, retains its freshness (juvenescens) and makes the very vessel in which it is contained fresh. For this gift of God is entrusted to the Church, like the breath of the creation for animation, so that all the members who receive it are quickened... For in the Church, it is said, God has ordained apostles, prophets, teachers and all the other activities of the Spirit (universam reliquam operationem Spiritus), of which all those who do not agree (concurrunt or currunt) with the Church, but deprive themselves of bad life, do not participate teaching and the worst way of acting. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace, and the Spirit is truth” 226. “Therefore, those who are in the Church should follow the elders, they who have succession from the apostles (qui successionem habent ab apostolis), who with the succession of the episcopacy, by the good pleasure of the Father, received a certain gift of truth (quicum episcopates successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt)” 227. “So, where the gifts of the Lord are (charismata Domini posita sunt), there we must learn the truth from those who have ecclesiastical succession from the apostles (quae est ab apostolis successio), a sound and blameless life and undistorted and undamaged teaching. For they preserve our faith in the One God, who created everything, and increase our love for the Son of God... and they safely present the Scriptures to us, without blaspheming God, without dishonoring the patriarchs, without disparaging the prophets” 228. The episcopate, therefore, is only an organ endowed with a special charisma (charisma veritatis) of the Holy Spirit living in the Church, which preserves the truth intact 229. St. Irenaeus does not at all separate truth from church life, and from this side the Church is like some kind of supernatural reality, which, however, is completely inseparable from its visible manifestation 230. With her grace-filled powers she nourishes (ἀνατρέφει) the elders 231, who, obviously, only by virtue of their ecclesiastical position possess the charisma of truth. Quite definitely, Tertullian expresses similar thoughts: and for him, the Holy Spirit also seems to be a permanently living Power in the Church, Which preserves church teaching intact. Tertullian expresses this truth, although not in a direct form. “Well, let’s assume that all the Churches were in error, that the Holy Spirit did not take care of any Church to guide it to the truth, the Holy Spirit, sent for this purpose by Christ (John 14:26), and asked from the Father to be a Teacher of the truth (doctor veritatis) (John 15:26), neglected His duty as the servant (villicus) of God, the vicar of Christ, allowing the Churches to think differently, to believe differently in what He Himself preached through the apostles” 232. Despite this form of expression, Tertullian’s thought, of course, is quite clear and understandable, and this is all the more so since Tertullian generally often speaks about the action and presence of the Holy Spirit in church society 233 . Even in his apology directed to the pagans, Tertullian speaks of the Spirit of holiness with which the Christian brotherhood is imbued 234. Tertullian's Rule of Faith itself states that the Holy Spirit replaces Christ and guides believers 235. The Holy Spirit strengthens the martyrs 236 and makes the hearts of Christians the church of God 237 . Christians have a common hope, a common joy, a common sorrow and suffering, because a common Spirit is from a common Lord and Father 238 . Therefore, we can say that the preservation of truth in the Church is also the action of the Holy Spirit 239. Tertullian does not develop this thought, perhaps because for the Gnostics it would be an empty phrase. Tertullian generally prefers to conduct polemics not on theological grounds, but on historical and philosophical ones 240 . In any case, one might think that the thought of St. Irenaeus about charisma veritatis is not entirely alien to Tertullian. However, at this point between St. Irenaeus and Tertullian notice a rather significant difference. St. Irenaeus connected the certum charisma veritatis with the episcopate, continuously leading the succession from the apostles, and thus the episcopate was placed in the ecclesiological system of St. Irenaeus in the closest relation to church teaching. Tertullian does not have this. As we have already seen, according to the teachings of Tertullian, the Holy Spirit guides the entire Church, and charisma veritatis does not belong only to the episcopate. Tertullian highly ranks bishops as shepherds of the Church, calls them praesides 241, pastores 242, antistites 243, praepositi 244, reproaches heretics for their disrespect for their bishops 245, ascribes jus docendi to bishops, which others do not have 246. But at the same time, in Tertullian we saw too high an assessment of the “Rule of Faith” itself. Tertullian’s symbol turns into a rule for faith, as if into a legal code, which he calls “law” 247 – Regula a Christo instituta 248. The Church received the “Rule of Faith” from the apostles, the apostles – from Christ, Christ – from God 249; it came from the very beginning of the Gospel 250. Therefore, there seems to be no room left for a more precise definition of dogmas. Regula fidei - like dead capital 251. Crede quod traditum est 252! But in this case, the teaching activity of the episcopate obviously comes down to only two separate types: teaching the “Rule of Faith” and preserving it. Tertullian has no place for dogmatic definitions of the Church through the episcopate, and his ecclesiological system is less favorable to this teaching than the system of St. Irenea 253. From all the stated teachings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian about the Church, one can see that the Church here, first of all, is presented as a society that contains in purity the truth transmitted by the apostles from God. The Church is apostolic because it only preserves the teaching of the apostles. The apostolate of the Church is justified by the universal character and unity of the Church - on the one hand, and on the other - by the continuous succession of bishops, whom the apostles made their deputies in the matter of teaching and preserving the truth in the Churches they founded. This general result of their entire teaching about the Church is definitely expressed by the church writers themselves. The Church is entrusted with the light of God, it preaches the truth, it is a seven-branched lamp bearing the light of Christ 254. The Church is the school of Christ Himself; His chosen disciples are teachers who can teach everything 255. A certain truth is clear in the Church 256. Truth must be sought only in the Church 257. The woman of the Gospel was looking for Drachmas inside her home, so the truth should be sought only in her Church 258. One must resort to the Church and be educated in its bosom 259. She received the truth from the apostles and, being the only one in the whole world who has preserved it well, passes it on to all her children 260. The truth is transmitted by the Church, and only what is transmitted by the Church is true 261. The Apostolic Tradition is alive in the Church, directly learned from the apostles by their disciples, who personally (κατ’ ὄψιν) saw them 262 . Irenaeus himself refers to the words of a certain presbyter who listened to those who saw the apostles and were taught by the apostles 263. Hence the rule of thumb. “If a dispute arose about some unimportant (modica) question, would it not be appropriate to turn (recurrere) to the most ancient Churches in which the apostles were converted, and from them to obtain what is certain and clear (certum et liquidum) regarding the present issue” 264. “What the apostles preached, that is, what Christ revealed to them, must be experienced (probari) in no other way than through those Churches that the apostles themselves founded, preaching to them both with a living voice and afterwards and through epistles. Every teaching which is in accordance (conspiret) with those apostolic Churches - the mothers and ancestors of the faith (matricibus et originalibus fidei) must be considered true, since it undoubtedly contains what the Churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God; every other teaching must be considered false - [that] which contradicts the truth of the Churches, and the Apostles, and Christ, and God” 265. “You, who wish to exercise your curiosity more in the matter of your salvation, go around the Apostolic Churches, in which the very pulpits of the Apostles still stand in their places (suis locis praesident - or praesidentur), in which the authentic works (ipsae autenticae litterae) of them are read, resounding with a voice and representing the appearance (facies) of each of them. Is Achaia closest to you? You have Corinth. If you are near Macedonia, you have Philippi (you have Thessalonica). If you can go (tendere) to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you have Italy next door (adjaces), you have Rome, from where comes the authority of teaching (auctoritas praesto est) for us as well. How happy this Church is! In it the apostles poured out all their teaching along with their blood; there Peter became like (adaequatur) the Lord in suffering; there Paul was crowned by the death of John (the Baptist); there, the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil, did not suffer, was exiled to the island” 266. St. Irenaeus also refers to the Tradition that the greatest and most ancient and well-known Church, founded and organized in Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, has from the apostles. “For to this Church, for the sake of [its] high dignity, every Church, that is, existing believers from everywhere, has a need to come (necesse est convenire), in which the Tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved by these existing believers from everywhere” 267. The last words we quoted from Tertullian and St. Irenaeus deserve special attention. Their correct understanding can even better highlight the general character of the teaching about the Church - the guardian of truth, while a tendentious interpretation of them can very significantly distort this character. Catholic theologians want to see in the above words the teaching of St. Irenaeus of Lyons on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Church, so that the Roman Church alone, in its isolation, is the keeper of the truth; however, the entire universal Church must agree with this latter. Let us first understand, as briefly as possible, the words of St. Irenea 268. The words we have quoted have been preserved only in the Latin translation and read as follows: “Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae ab apostolis Traditio.” Confessional interests force debate about the understanding of this place, and disputes are most concentrated around the word convenire 269. Strictly Catholic scholars usually supplement the word convenire so that they get “convenire et concordare in rebus fidei cum Ecclesia Romana” 270. Convenire is also translated by “to agree” by Orthodox authors 271 . But there is no reason to impose on the word convenire a meaning that it cannot have. Convenire means “to converge”, “to gather”. It has the same meaning here, especially since in the future there is the word undique - “from everywhere,” which points specifically to space. Undique means the place from which the faithful to the Roman Church gather - they gather from everywhere 272, thus the whole Church (omnis Ecclesia) 273 gathers. The reason or occasion for this meeting is indicated in the words propter potiorem principalitatem. By principalitas they sometimes mean antiquity, so the meaning is this: the Roman Church is addressed in matters of faith because it has greater antiquity (potiorem principalitatem) 274 . True, a little higher than the Roman Church of St. Irenaeus called antiquissima, but it is clear that here this is only an honorary epithet, since St. Irenaeus knew, of course, that it was not the Roman Church that was antiquissima in the literal sense of the word: in the same third book “Against Heresies” by St. Irenaeus says about the Jerusalem Church that the whole Church received its beginning from it, so that it is the metropolis of the citizens of the New Testament 275. If the antiquity of the Church were a sufficient and the only reason for believers from everywhere to gather to it, then such a gathering point, without a doubt, should be Jerusalem 276. Therefore, it should be recognized that although potior principalitas refers specifically to the Roman Church, and not to the city of Rome, 277 it nevertheless means the advantage that the Roman Church has precisely as the Church of the capital city. Rome was the center of the world at that time, and therefore the Roman Church, naturally, was, as it were, a gathering point for Christians of all places 278. Further words - in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae ab apostolis traditio - were usually attributed to the Roman Church, so this place received the following meaning: in the Roman Church, the Apostolic Tradition was preserved by believers from all over the world, who flocked to Rome as the capital city for their needs. The Roman Church was under the constant control of all other Churches, which themselves tested their teaching in Rome, where the entire Universal Church was, as it were, represented 279. But now the majority of Catholic scientists have become qua etc. refer to omnis ecclesia 280; Moreover, the secondary qui sunt undique, according to the assumption of some, is an error of the copyist, who with these words replaced other words denoting bishops, so that the true reading was as follows - ab his, qui (praesunt ecclesiis?) conservata est... traditio 281, or - ab his qui successionem habent ab apostolis 282. If we agree with this, then the meaning of the passage under discussion turns out to be this: the Apostolic Tradition is preserved in every Church (by bishops?) 283, but from every Church [Christians] constantly travel to the Roman Church, as to the capital. Let us now put the analyzed passage into context. The Holy Father has just said that everyone who wants to see the truth in every Church can find out (in omni Ecclesia adest respicere) the Tradition (II) of the apostles, revealed throughout the whole world, and we can list; bishops appointed by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors (successores) before us. But since it would be very long (valde longum) to list the succession of all the Churches, St. Irenaeus decides to dwell on the succession that the greatest, most ancient and well-known Church of Rome has from the apostles 284. As if justifying the choice of his example, St. Irenaeus says that believers from everywhere gather to this Church (ad hanc enim), as to the capital Church. It is absolutely clear that St. Irenaeus here names the Roman Church only as an example, especially since he also points to Smyrna and Ephesus 285. Of course, the example was taken involuntarily; The Roman Church should have been named 286, but not for dogmatic reasons, but for purely historical ones - at that time, as the metropolitan Church, it was the most famous (omnibus cognita), with which, by natural necessity, 287 all the Churches of the world known at that time had relations. Therefore, there is no reason to interpret the passage from St. Irenaeus in the sense that the Roman Church is recognized as dominant, the mother of Churches 288. About the Roman Church based on the words of St. Irenaeus can only be said that she is prima inter pares - no more 289, and prima in her position in the capital of the empire (and as long as Rome is the capital of the world). According to the instructions of St. Irenaeus, if a misunderstanding arises about any issue, then one must go not necessarily to Rome, but in general to the Apostolic Churches, so III. 3, 2 can hardly even be considered a parallel to III. 4, 1: in the first case, Convenire is due to historical reasons, and in the second, decurrere is due to dogmatic reasons 290. Without recognizing any special infallibility for the Roman Church, St. Irenaeus, after the list of Roman bishops, immediately says that the life-giving faith was preserved from the apostles in the Church (in Ecclesia), that is, in the entire universal Church. And it is quite understandable that the church historian Eusebius, for whom the succession of bishops was so important, 291 cites lists of bishops of different Churches and from Irenaeus takes only lists of Roman bishops, omitting those words where Irenaeus explains why he limits himself to lists of bishops of only one Roman Church. Funk proposes to understand the word Convenire and the entire passage under discussion in the light of church history and points out that immediately after the commented passage of St. Irenaeus recalls the journey to Rome of St. Polycarp of Smyrna 292. But one cannot help but see that the reference to Polycarp in this case is very unfortunate for the defenders of the Roman Catholic understanding of the teachings of St. Irenea. St. Polycarp of Smyrna Irenaeus portrays him as the most reliable witness of the apostolic Tradition. Here is St. Irenaeus writes about Polycarp: “Having arrived in Rome under Anicetus, he converted many of the heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he accepted from the apostles only the truth that was transmitted by the Church” 293. Polycarp was in Rome not an obedient disciple of the Roman bishop, but a person who, as if with his authority, sanctioned the teachings of the Roman Church; he taught and converted heretics. According to Eusebius, Polycarp came to Rome “to talk with Anicetas about Easter Day” 294. We learn the details of this conversation from a fragment of a letter from Irenaeus to the Roman Bishop Victor, which says: “Anicetas could not persuade Polycarp not to observe what he always observed while living with John, the disciple of our Lord, and in dealing with the other apostles” 295. Where is the basis for interpreting Convenire in the sense of agreeing or even testing one’s teaching? Finally, the whole history of disputes about the time of celebrating Easter, in which St. took part. Irenaeus clearly demonstrates that he did not consider the bishop of Rome alone to be the infallible guardian of the truth 296. Such a guardian, according to the teachings of St. Irenaeus, maybe only the entire Universal Church. Catholic theologians sometimes want to attribute the idea of ​​the primacy of the Roman Church to Tertullian on the basis of the words that we cited above. Listing the Apostolic Churches in which one can recognize the true Tradition, Tertullian points out, of course, the Roman Church, and calls it happy, because in it the apostles Peter, Paul and John preached the teachings and even testified to their teachings with their blood 297 . However, it is absolutely clear that the reason to talk about the primacy of the Roman Church on the basis of Tertullian’s words is too insignificant. Even Catholic scholars admit that Tertullian places the Roman Church not above the other apostolic Churches, but along with them. In the matter of teaching, the Corinthian, Philippian or Thessalonian Churches, according to Tertullian, are as independent as Ephesus or Rome 298. Tertullian says about the Roman Church: “if you are close (adjaces) to Italy, you have Rome” 299, or: “let’s see what the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel, also proclaim nearby” 300. It is clear that, according to Tertullian, the Roman Church can have some authority in the matter of teaching only for the non-apostolic Churches closest to it, for example, for the African Church. “The Roman Church is the same closest authority for an Italian or a resident of North Africa as Corinth or Philippi and Thessalonica or Ephesus are for the inhabitants of Achaia, or Macedonia, or Asia Minor” 301. There can be no talk of the primacy of the Roman Church 302. Rejecting all tendentious Catholic references to the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, as distorting the teaching of these ancient writers about the Church, we must repeat our conclusion from considering their ecclesiology. The continuous succession of the episcopate explains the preservation of the apostolic teaching intact in the Church, which is why all the individual Churches agree with each other. The universal consciousness of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the only expression of Christ's truth. So, the Church is the guardian of truth. Outside the Church - outside the truth 303. Heresy in St. Irenaeus, even in Tertullian, is presented and condemned primarily as a false teaching, as a defeat of the truth. Heresies desecrate with fornication the virgin teaching betrayed by Christ 304, corrupting the teaching, and bring harm to the Church 305. Heresy is a choice, which is what the Greek word αἵρεσις means. The work of heresy is precisely a perversion of faith (adulterae doctrinae), and St. By the corruption of the faith, Paul means precisely heresies 306. Heresy is a doctrine infected with poison 307. All heretics have fallen away from the truth; they bring alien fire to the altar of God, that is, alien teachings; they rebel (exsurgunt) against the truth and incite others against the Church of God 308, do not feed for life from their mother’s breasts, do not use the purest source emanating from the Body of Christ, but dig themselves broken wells from earthly ditches and drink rotten water from the mud, withdrawing from the faith of the Church, so as not to be converted, and rejecting the Spirit, so as not to come to their senses. Alienated from the truth, heretics are rightfully carried away by every error, excited by it, at times thinking differently about the same objects and never having a firm opinion (sententiam stabilitam), wanting to be more sophists of words than students of truth 309. Therefore, church writers strictly condemn heresies and heretics who cause schisms, do not have love for God (κεγοὺς ὄντας τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγάπης) and care about their own benefit, and not about the unity of the Church, for unimportant and random reasons, they cut and tear apart the great and the glorious Body of Christ, as much as it depends on them, destroys it; they speak of peace and make war, truly they strain out a gnat, and devour a camel (Matthew 23:24). They cannot achieve as much correction of the matter (κατόρθωσις - correctio) as great is the harm resulting from the schism 310. Heretics will be burned by heavenly fire, like Nadab and Abihu. Those who rebel against the truth and stir others up against the Church of God will remain in hell (apud inferos), swallowed up by the abyss of the earth, like the adherents of Korah, Dathan and Abiron. Those who dissect and tear apart the unity of the Church will receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam 311. Heretics are not Christians; They did not receive the teaching from Christ, which they followed by choice, which is why they received the name of heretics 312. Christians and heretics have more than one God, more than one Christ 313. Heretics are concerned not so much with converting pagans as with corrupting members of the Church; they destroy everything churchly in order to build their own 314. Therefore St. Irenaeus urges to avoid heretical teachings, to carefully observe so as not to suffer harm from them, 315 and gives an example of how John, the disciple of the Lord, ran out of the bathhouse in Ephesus when he saw Cerinthus in it, and how Polycarp called Marcion the firstborn of Satan. “The apostles and their disciples had such caution (εὐλάβειαν) that even in words they would not have communication with any of those who distorted (παραχαρασσόντων) the truth” 316. Tertullian imagines that at the Last Judgment the Lord will say to the faithful: I forbade you to listen to heretics 317. Without a doubt, the main thing in the teachings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian about the Church is their clearly and definitely expressed view of Tradition, successively preserved in the Church from the apostles, as a constant criterion of truth. In contrast to Gnostic individualism, the authority of the Church was persistently put forward. It is not an individual person who is the bearer of truth, but only the entire Church 318. But what is the relationship of this teaching to the early revelation of the idea of ​​the Church? The Church, of course, has always lived by Tradition, for every individual person lives by Tradition, and every society necessarily lives by Tradition. There is no need to speak of the early history of the Tradition; the question should be whether in early times the scientific-theological principle of Tradition, the very principle of Tradition, was created again by St. Irenaeus, in a polemic with gnosis, or according to the demands of the time, only expressed a principle that had been known for a long time and in more detail? And at the same time, the teaching about the Church as the guardian of truth is also news in church literature from the end of the 2nd century, or is it also the original and already conscious conviction of Christians? And the answer to these questions is all the more necessary because some are inclined to see in the principle of tradition precisely news that was introduced into church theology only as a counterweight to the Gnostic teaching about secret tradition, so that the Gnostics have primacy in establishing the principle of tradition. A. Ritschl considers it unfair to assume that the apostles themselves established the principle of tradition, with the help of which their own writings must be understood 320. Of course, the apostles could not give such instruction, because they did not separate oral from written teaching in their teaching. The Apostle Paul calls everything that Christians were taught by him traditions. Stand and hold to the traditions (τὰς παραδόσεις), which you were taught either by word or by our letter (2 Thess. 2:15), writes the Apostle Paul. Oral and written Tradition do not represent something completely special, different from each other. Only after the death of the apostles was it possible to distinguish between written and oral Tradition, but, undoubtedly, the authority of the Church as the custodian of Tradition in general was clearly defined by the apostles themselves 321. The importance of Tradition from a fundamental point of view is recognized, of course, when there is a distortion of this Tradition. We have seen that the doctrine of Church Tradition was expressed by church writers precisely in the fight against Gnosticism of the 2nd century, which perverted the Apostolic Tradition. But is Gnosticism the first error with which the Church entered into a struggle? The fight against heresies had already begun. Paul. In earlier times, some scholars did not recognize that there were Gnostics already in the apostolic age. A. Ritschl, for example, stated that the Gnosticism of the apostolic times is a hypothesis invented to explain the pastoral letters, contrary to all historical data 322. Gnosis, they say, could not have existed before the Gnostics, and the Gnostics, as is known, appeared in the 2nd century 323. But at present, the question of Gnosticism in apostolic times can be considered resolved in a positive sense 324. The historical data that A. Ritschl cites and which, in his opinion, is contradicted by the hypothesis of Gnosticism in apostolic times 325 relates to the appearance of famous Gnostic false teachers and entire schools of the 2nd century 326 , but gnosis, like any phenomenon, developed gradually, and already the flourishing state that it reaches in the 2nd century necessarily presupposes a preliminary stage of its development 327 . Indeed, indications of Gnosticism can be found in many of the letters of the Apostle Paul: Corinthians 328, Colossians 329, Ephesians 330 and especially in the pastoral letters 331. False teachers spread their teachings, distorted the teachings of Christ (καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ) 332 . Therefore, in the fight against the same Gnosticism, already in apostolic times 333 the principle of Tradition and the authority of the Church were established. How can believers protect themselves from errors? The Apostle Paul gives one answer: one must adhere to faithful teaching. This answer runs the same through all his messages. He convinces the Thessalonians to firmly adhere to the Traditions 334, to distance themselves from everyone... who acts disorderly (ἂτάκτως), and not according to the tradition that was received from him (μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβετε παρ’ ἡμῶν) (2 Thess. 3:6). [He] praises the Corinthians for keeping the Traditions as he handed them down (καθῶς παρέδωκα ἡμῖν τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε (1 Cor. 11:2). Philippians [he] urges them to do what they have learned, what they have received, what they have heard and seen (Phil. 4:9) 335. He begs the Romans to beware of those who cause divisions and temptations, contrary to the teaching (παρὰ τὴν διδαχήν) which they have been taught (Rom. 16:17) 336 And here is the most expressive passage. from the Epistle to the Galatians: even if we or an angel from heaven preached to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed. It is quite clear that the criterion of dissent here can be considered not the writings of the apostle, but only Tradition in the broad sense of the word. This, obviously, is the living self-consciousness of the Church, the owner and custodian of the apostolic truth. This Tradition is mandatory. Disagreement with him is a sign of deceit. Thus, the principle of Tradition was positively established already in the early letters of the Apostle Paul 338. But the most clear and detailed teaching about tradition was revealed by the Apostle Paul in the epistles of the last period of his life, in the pastoral epistles. The holy apostle knew that the time of his departure was approaching; he ended his course; the crown of righteousness was prepared for him (2 Tim. 4:7) 339. He preached the Gospel from one end to the other and founded many churches. And when, at the end of his life, he looked over his work, his thoughts involuntarily turned to the future, and anxiety crept into the heart of the Apostle of Languages. Already the events of the apostle’s life convinced him that after his death cruel times would come: many would depart from the faith, listening to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of false talkers, seared in their conscience (1 Tim. 4:1-2) 340. What Hegesippus 341 says about post-apostolic times—all this was foreseen by the holy apostle. And in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus one can see how the apostle is concerned about the future. He constantly repeats exhortations and convictions to adhere unfailingly to the truth 342 and to turn away from false teachings 343 . The apostle reminds Timothy how, when he departed for Macedonia... he asked him to remain in Ephesus... to exhort some so that they would not teach otherwise (μὴ ἐτεροδιδασκαλεῖν) and not engage in fables and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:3-4), convinces him to hold on to eternal life and confess good confession (καλὴν ὁμολογίαν) before many witnesses... to keep the commandment purely and without reproach even until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6-14) to continue in what he has been taught and what... has been entrusted to him (ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης) (2 Tim. 3:14). The apostle also commands Titus to say what is in accordance with sound teaching (ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ), to show purity and integrity in teaching (Titus 2:1:7) How concerned apostle and how he constantly had on his mind the preservation of the intact teaching, this is evident from the fact that at the end of the First Epistle to Timothy he exclaims: O Timothy! Keep what is faithful (παραθήκην) to you, turning away from worthless idle talk and the contradictions of false knowledge (1 Tim. 6:20) 344. The apostle writes to Timothy: what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust (παράθου) to faithful people who will be able to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). The apostle also calls the most reliable of believers to preserve the truth in its intact form. Men, if capable, can teach; the apostle forbids teaching only to women 345. The Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), that is, the truth is contained, as it were, by the self-consciousness of the entire Church, protected by the Holy Spirit 346. Thus, the principle of tradition and the authority of the Church have already been clearly and definitely established by the Apostle Paul 347. Regarding the subsequent time, it should be noted, first of all, that no psychology will force us to admit that the successors of the apostles could break ties with them. This assumption is strange, especially since for a long time the Church, in the absence of a canon of sacred books, lived exclusively by Tradition. The ancient Tradition 348 was preserved without charter or ink. There was no detailed theological scientific concept of Tradition, or, better said, we do not find it in church literature until the middle of the 2nd century, but as soon as the opportunity presented itself, church writers mentioned Tradition and the authority of the Church. And we meet this from the very beginning of Christian writing 349: the Church is the custodian of the truth, successively transmitted from generation to generation, starting from the apostles. Thus, already in Διδαχή there is an instruction: “Do not leave (μὴ ἐγκαταλίπης) the commandments of the Lord, but keep what you have received, without adding or subtracting (μὴτε ἀφαιρῶν)” 350. According to Διδαχή, the community should test traveling teachers. “If someone comes to you and begins to teach you everything that was said before (τὰ προειρημένα), accept him. If the teacher himself, having turned aside, begins to teach another teaching (ἄλλην διδαχήν), so that he destroys (what was said - εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι), then do not listen to him” 351. “Whoever comes in the name of the Lord must be accepted; but then, having experienced (δοκιμάσαντες), you will recognize it, for you must (σύνεσιν γὰρ ἕξετε) distinguish between right and wrong” 352. Therefore, there is constant talk about true and false prophets and teachers 353. It is clear that in Διδαχή, in addition to the moral criterion (does what he teaches), there is another, as can be seen from the following words: “Every prophet who teaches the truth (διδάσκων τὴν ἀλήθειαν), if he does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet” 354 . The moral criterion is applied here to the personality of the prophet, but a teaching can be true regardless of the moral character of the prophet. The prophet himself does not fulfill what he teaches - he is a false prophet and nothing more; nothing is said about his teaching. The community experiences truth and teachings 355 . Confirmation of this can be found in the Apocalypse, close to Διδαχή in time, where the Pergamon community is reproached for the fact that there are... there are those who adhere to the teachings of Balaam... and the teachings of the Nicolaitans, and the Thyatira community for allowing the wife of Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach (Rev. 2:14-20). On the contrary, the good thing about the Ephesian Church is that it hates the works of the Nicolaitans 356 . According to Διδαχή, a Christian can recognize the word of God in the preaching of an apostle, prophet or teacher (τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ) 357 and can recognize when they begin to teach him outside of God (ἐπεὶ παρεκτὸς Θεοῦ σε διδάσκει) 358 . All these instructions about testing teachers obviously speak of the existence of Tradition preserved in the Churches, and this Tradition is a certain authority and reliable criterion of truth or falsehood. From the end of the 1st century (95–97) we have a letter from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians regarding the unrest that took place there. Researchers of this message note that it is particularly noteworthy that it contains no opinions alien to Church Tradition 359 . His writer clearly refers to the principle of tradition, which protected him from deviations towards dissent. “Let us leave,” he writes, “empty and vain worries and turn to the glorious and venerable example (κανόνα) of our Tradition” 360. In these words the principle of tradition is clearly recognized, no matter in what extent this Tradition may be understood 361. Ignatius the God-Bearer praises the Ephesians because, having blocked their ears, they did not allow the evil teaching to be dispersed among them 362; he advises to counter error with firmness in faith 363. The lot of the Ephesian Christians, who by the power of Jesus Christ were always like-minded with the apostles 364, is considered desirable. Faith for St. Ignatius is something quite definite. Therefore, he strictly condemns those who corrupt the faith of God (ἐὰν πίστιν Θεοῦ ἐν κακῇ διδασκαλίᾳ φθείρῃ). Such a bad (ῥυπαρός) person, as well as those who listen to him, will go into the unquenchable fire 365. Christians must be united in one faith 366. Magnesian St. Ignatius urges the Lord and the apostles to be confirmed in the teaching (ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν) 367. He speaks to the Trallians about the need to eat only Christian food and turn away from alien plants, which is heresy 368: whoever tastes of heresy dies immediately 369. And they can refrain from heretical errors if they do not become arrogant and do not separate from God Jesus Christ and the bishop and the apostolic commandments (διαταγμάτων τῶν ἀποστόλων) 370 . In his letter to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius pleases their bishop because he agrees with the commandments, like a lyre with strings 371. Calling the Philadelphia Christians children not only of light, but also of truth, 372 he urges them to flee from evil teachings. Many wolves captivate those who follow the path of God 373. Whoever follows a schismatic (σχίζοντι), who adheres to alien teachings (ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ γνώμῃ περιπατεῖ) 374 will not inherit the Kingdom of God. “Let us resort to the Gospel as to the Flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church (ὡς πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας)” 375. In his letter to the Smyrneans, St. Ignatius, just as in his letter to the Trallians, sets out the Tradition in the form of a “Rule of Faith” 376 and also urges not only not to accept heretics, but, if possible, not to meet with them 377. In the life of St. Ignatius there were cases reminiscent of disputes between later writers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, with the Gnostics about the Holy Scriptures. “I,” he writes, “heard from some people the words: “If I don’t find it in the Scriptures (ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις), that is, in the Gospel, then I don’t believe,” and when I told them what was written, they answered me that I need to prove it (ὅι πρόκειται). But for me Scripture (ἀρχεῖα) is Jesus Christ, true Scripture (τὰ ἄθικτα ἀρχεῖα) - His Cross, His death, and resurrection, and His faith (ἡ πίστις ἡ δι’ αὐτοῦ); This is what I want to justify in your prayer” 378. St. Ignatius, like Tertullian, who refused to speak with heretics on the basis of Scripture, wants to end the dispute with heretics and refers to his personal faith in Christ 379. But this faith was precisely church faith. St. Ignatius did not separate himself from the Church, and therefore one can think that in the above passage the living self-consciousness of the Church or a church person is considered a sufficient measure of truth, regardless of the Holy Scripture, the words of which were already being interpreted in the time of St. Ignatius 380. In general, it is precisely all of Ignatius’s speeches about heretics and about the true faith that portray the Church as the guardian of truth in contrast to heresies 381. In the letter of Ignatius' disciple, Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, to the Philippians we find very clear indications of the principle of tradition. He says in his message that he does not want to teach them anything. Why? “For neither I nor anyone like me can achieve the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, while with you, in the presence of the people who lived at that time, zealously and firmly taught the word of truth (τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον) and after, having departed from you, wrote letters to you. By delving into them, you can receive edification in the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all” 382. In another place, Polycarp calls on the Philippians to serve God, as He commanded Himself and the apostles and prophets who preached the gospel to us, who foretold to us the coming of our Lord 383. Polycarp urges to adhere to Tradition: “Leaving behind the vain and false teachings (ψευδοδιδασκαλίας) of many, let us turn to the word that was faithful from the beginning” 384. [He] pleads to obey the word of truth 385, to be united in truth 386. Polycarp calls the firstborn of Satan the one who interprets the words of the Lord according to his own desire ἐπιθυμίας), so that they turn out to be contrary to church teaching 387. In the message of Polycarp, therefore, we find very important news. He is already talking about Tradition: in his eyes, the immediate founding of the Church by the Apostle Paul is important; this foundation places the Church at such a height that there is no need to teach it; Tradition is most alive in it; the antiquity of the Church is also a sign of its authority (“and we did not yet know Him” - Chapter 11). Here are almost all the elements of the later, detailed doctrine of Tradition 388. The doctrine of Tradition is expressed very clearly in the last two chapters of the Epistle to Diognetus, but, as is known, these two chapters, by their homiletical character, represent something completely alien to the entire epistle; and in the manuscripts these chapters stand separately 389, and therefore they should be considered a later addition and cannot be used to characterize the views of the first half of the 2nd century. However, in undoubtedly authentic chapters we read: “Christians live as strangers in a corruptible world, awaiting incorruption in Heaven... for it is not an earthly invention that is entrusted to them (παρεδόθη), not the invention (ἐπίνοιαν) of any mortal they so carefully try to preserve, and it is not human secrets that they are entrusted with the disposal of (οὐδέ ἀνθρωπίνων οἰκονομίαν μυστηρίων πεπίστευνται)" 390 . Eusebius of Caesarea says about Hegesippus that he wrote in five books a true tradition about the preaching of the apostles κηρύγματος) 391 . In these words one can again see evidence of Tradition. Similar evidence is found in fragments of the writings of Egesippus, preserved by Eusebius. “The Corinthian Church,” writes Hegesippus, “retained the correct teaching (ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος) until Primus, who was bishop in Corinth. Sailing to Rome, I spent many days with the Corinthians, talked with them, and we were mutually consoled by our Orthodoxy (τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ).” According to the same Egesippus, the Church possessed the truth, she was called a virgin, for she was not yet corrupted by vain teachings (ἀκοαῖς μαθαίοις). Each heresy leader brought his own and different teaching (ἰδίως καὶ ἑτέρως ἰδίαν δόξαν). The unity of the Church (τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας) was divided by false Christians by the corrupt teaching (φθοριμαίοις λόγοις) about God and His Christ 392 . The Church, therefore, according to Hegesippus, is the custodian of the truth, and heresy is an innovation of the leaders of the heresies. The Truth of the Church is transmitted; the content of the heresy belongs to the heresy leader. For Hegesippus, therefore, the antiquity and unity of faith in different Churches is proof of a single church truth 393. Traveling to different Churches, he saw that everywhere there is one faith, and therefore the faith of the Church is true. Separation from the Church is a distortion of true teaching. Egesippus points out the founders of heresies, as St. later did. Irenaeus and Tertullian. Polycrates of Ephesus, as we have already seen, in a dispute with the Roman Bishop Victor directly refers to the tradition of his relatives and to the tradition from the apostles Philip and John the Theologian. In his epistle, since it was preserved by Eusebius, not only the term Tradition is found, but also “Rule of Faith” (ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως) 394 . Justin the Philosopher and Hermas give brief confessions of faith 395. Justin says that the teaching was transmitted by Jesus Christ 396, through the apostles it was proclaimed to all nations 397. Justin places the teaching of the contemporary Church, uniform throughout the world, in close connection with the apostles. The Church proclaims what she was taught by the apostles 398. The Church, which preserves the teaching of the apostles, is therefore the owner of the truth. Heresies are the work of demons 399 . Christians are disciples of the true and pure teachings of Jesus Christ; heretics are known by the names of those from whom this or that teaching and opinion originally originated 400; they only bear the name Christians, and if they do not agree with Christian teaching (which Justin briefly sets out here), then do not consider them Christians 401. From a time close to the life and work of St. Irenaeus, one can find evidence of Tradition in all corners of the universe. About Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius reports that he generously extended his inspired activities not only to his subordinates, trying to be useful to everyone through the Catholic epistles that he wrote to the Churches. The Epistle to the Lacedaemonians contains instruction in the Orthodox faith and an exhortation to peace and unity. In his letter to the Nicomedia, Dionysius, refuting Marcion's heresy, firmly stands for the rule of truth (τῷ τῆς ἀλήθείας κανόνι). Dionysius also knows those who decided to distort the Scriptures of the Lord 402. Theophilus of Antioch compares the Churches to fruitful islands, abundant in water, having calm places and harbors in which one can find refuge from storms. “Thus God gave to the world, troubled and overwhelmed by sins, assemblies (τὰς συναγωγάς), called Holy Churches, in which, as in comfortable harbors, the teachings of truth are preserved (αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς ἀλήθειας), to which those who want to be saved resort, as soon as they become lovers of the truth and want to avoid the wrath and judgment of God.” On the contrary, the heresies of St. Theophilus likens the islands to rocky, waterless, barren, full of wild animals, on the shores of which ships are wrecked and people die. “Thus, there are false teachings (αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς πλάνης): these are heresies that destroy those who adhere to them. They are not guided by the word of truth" 403. Here the doctrine of Tradition living in the Churches is clearly expressed, and Harnack says that Theophilus’ concept of the Church is the same as that of St. Irenea 404. From the monuments of the Roman Church one can point to an anonymous person who wrote against the monarchians that they fearlessly distorted the Divine Scripture and rejected the “Rule of the Ancient Faith” (πίστεως ἀρχαίας κανόνα) 405 . Finally, we will give two illustrations of how the apostolic Tradition was preserved in the Church. Here Papias of Hierapolis, who wrote five books under the title “Explanation of the Lord’s Sayings,” says about himself: “I will not fail to explain to you what I learned well from the elders and remembered well, and to add explanations to confirm the truth, because I did not adhere to those who, like many, say a lot, but to those who teach the truth; I was not aligned with those who remember other people’s commandments, but with those who adhere to the commandments handed down from the Lord for faith and coming from the truth itself δεδομένος καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς ἀληθείας). If I happened to meet someone who treated the elders, then I carefully asked about the teaching of the elders (τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους), what Andrew said, what Peter, or what Philip, or that Thomas or James, or that John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, what Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciple of the Lord, say” 406. But here are memories from St.’s earliest childhood. Irenaeus in his own letter to Florinus. “This teaching (τὰ δόγματα), florin, is not a sound teaching: it is inconsistent with the Church (ἀσύμφωνα ἐστι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ)... It was not taught to you by the elders who preceded us, who listened to themselves apostles When I was still a boy, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp. I remember what happened then more clearly than what happened recently, because the knowledge (μαθήσεις) of childhood, strengthening along with the soul, takes root in it. So, I can even name the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked; I can indicate all his entrances and exits, outline the image of his life and appearance, outline his conversations with the people, describe his treatment of John, as he himself said, and with other self-videos of the Lord, depict how he recalled their words, how and what he heard from them about the Lord, how he recounted His miracles and teachings, about which he received Tradition (παρειληφώς) from people who themselves saw the Word of life - and all his stories agreed with Scripture" 407. Here we have two pictures. Papias goes around the seas and lands to collect the sayings of the Lord in order to learn the details of the Apostolic Tradition. Blessed Polycarp, at the end of his days, in a conversation with the people, recalls the Tradition of the apostles, with whom he personally spoke, and he listens, compiling all his words in his heart, the young man, the future Bishop of Lyons, a fighter against Gnosticism, who for the first time spoke clearly, definitely and persistently about Tradition. These two pictures seem to lift the veil that hides from us the life of the ancient Church, and we see how carefully and with what love the Apostolic Tradition was guarded in the Church. From all the data presented, we have the right to conclude that the Church has always thought of itself as the custodian of the truth handed down by the apostles, and the consciousness of its inextricable living connection with the apostolic teaching has always lived in the Church 408 . The Apostolic Tradition, formulated in one way or another, was the criterion of truth or falsehood. This principle of tradition has always been in the church consciousness from the very beginning. The struggle against gnosis, which intensified in the second half of the 2nd century, naturally prompted church writers to expound in more detail the principle of Church Tradition and substantiate it more precisely. This task was completed before other saints. Irenaeus and Tertullian, for whom the doctrine of Tradition is so important 409. After them, the thought of church writers, encountering the question of Tradition; could answer it in more detail and more monotonously. After all, everyone can observe in their life how a previously existing thought becomes more definite when it is expressed in words, and especially when it is written down. The church teaching about Tradition also definitely developed after the anti-Gnostic polemical literary activity of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, but the data we have given about the previous period of church history gives us the right to assert that this teaching was not created out of nothing in the second half of the 2nd century; The doctrine of Tradition, previously found in fragmentary remarks and often only expressed in hints, was only just developed into a more or less complete system 410. But, as we have seen, among anti-Gnostic writers the doctrine of the Church as the guardian of truth is inextricably linked with the idea of ​​​​the hierarchical structure of the Church itself. Churches were founded by the apostles, and bishops were installed in them by the apostles. In each individual Church, an unbroken line of successive bishops can be promoted to apostles. The bishop’s job is to protect the true teaching from distortion; bishops even have a special charisma of truth (charisma veritatis). All this taken together substantiates the truth of the apostolate of the Church, the truth that the Church undamagedly preserves the true teaching of Christ handed down to it by the apostles. Successive episcopate, therefore, is a sign of the true Church, and without hierarchy there is no Church. Was this point of the doctrine of the Church completely new in the history of the dogma of the Church? A scientific answer to the question posed is connected with the question of the origin of episcopacy and is therefore extremely difficult. This difficulty is due to the lack of accurate historical information. All historical information, despite its small quantity, is also characterized by uncertainty, so that it allows for the possibility of a wide variety of interpretations. It is hardly possible to point out in the history of the ancient Church a question more complicated for a scientific solution than the question of the origin of the episcopate. Scientists have expressed an infinite number of opinions on this issue. However, in Western Protestant scholarship over the past half century, a more or less generally accepted view of the origins of episcopate has developed; The basis for this view was laid by Albrecht Ritschl 411, which is followed by many scientists, ending with the famous Harnack 412. Briefly, these more or less general views can be stated as follows: 413. From the very beginning of the existence of the Christian Church, it had a dual form of organization. Teaching activities were the responsibility of special charismatic persons - evangelists, apostles, prophets, teachers. The activities of these individuals were not limited to any particular community; on the contrary, they were itinerant missionaries and teachers. Along with this church-wide charismatic organization there was the organization of individual communities. At first, the elders naturally became the leaders of the communities. From them a presbytery was formed (πρεσβυτέρων), from which selected persons soon emerged - bishops and deacons. These persons were not involved in teaching: their duties were of an administrative and economic nature. Celebrating the Eucharist and managing property is the entire activity of bishops and deacons. Already only in the 2nd century the episcopate received a special position in the church organization. A monarchical episcopate gradually emerged. There was a long struggle between the charismatics and the bishops, in which the episcopate won, and after this victory took over the teaching activities of the charismatics. The fight against gnosis in the second half of the 2nd century created the most favorable conditions for the victory of episcopacy everywhere. By the end of the 2nd century, the church system that we can see in the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. All of these are “provisions that have already entered scientific use and which can only be refuted with a certain degree of risk to one’s scientific reputation” 414. But if we accept all these provisions of Protestant science, then what consequence is obtained for our question? Theory usually comes behind practice. Historical destinies have elevated the episcopate; in fact, he became the head of the Church; to justify this kind of seizure, the theory of the apostolic establishment of the episcopate and its continuous succession is created. To justify this theory, the most decisive of the scholars add, the so-called pastoral epistles were compiled around the middle of the 2nd century, falsely inscribed with the name of the Apostle Paul, or, in any case, the genuine epistles of the apostle were interpolated in the interests of the hierarchy. What is the teaching of St. Irenaeus on the apostolic succession of the episcopate? It is an invention of Irenaeus himself, which was completely inconsistent with reality. St. Irenaeus speaks of the installation of the first bishops as apostles, but in fact the apostles did not ordain bishops. St. Irenaeus says that the succession of bishops continuously ascends to the apostles. But in reality, a number of successive bishops could ascend (and even then not everywhere) only 50–60 years from the time of the life and activity of Irenaeus himself. In general, the teaching about the importance of hierarchy for the Church is an innovation of the end of the 2nd century, unknown to the first century, in which they thought completely differently. In presenting all these consequences for our question, we are not exaggerating at all. We will find similar judgments among the representatives of Protestant science themselves. Here, for example, is what Ritschl writes. “The presented theory of episcopacy (of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian) is both dogmatic and historical. Dogmatically, it is an essential moment of Catholic Christianity; historically, it is the main authority of the historical views of the Church. We would abandon the entire development outlined so far if we accepted this position or only added something to refute this historical theory. It has been established from ancient or contemporaneous sources that the theory of episcopacy developed by Irenaeus and Tertullian could not have had any meaning from the beginning; the content of the “Rules of Faith” (Regula fidei) accepted as apostolic, which is precisely the antithesis of the heretical gnosis of the 2nd century, proves that the idea of ​​episcopate, which is closely connected with it, could spread and establish itself only as a reaction against gnosis” 415. In general, F. Bohringer, who literally repeats Ritschl, expresses the same idea even more sharply. “What,” says Bohringer, “on which (this theory) should rest, namely historical support, is a historical fiction. It is as if the apostles appointed bishops in the churches they founded as their successors with the authority to teach... - this is an assumption about which the history of that time, as we see from the most ancient writings of the apostolic men, knows nothing and which only retroactively in the last third of the 2nd century was attributed to early history in the struggle of the Church with gnosis, although not only by Irenaeus, in whom this (non-)historical idea is found for the first time” 416. It is quite understandable that an Orthodox researcher cannot agree in advance with such opinions. An Orthodox researcher can rather risk his scholarly reputation and admit positions that contradict the data of modern Western science, rather than compromise his confidence in the truth of the Tradition of the universal Orthodox Church. In addition to the fragmentary, open to many interpretations, evidence of ancient church literature, the Orthodox researcher also has a source of scientific knowledge, this is the Tradition of the Orthodox Catholic Church, and he can always prefer the second source to the first 417. The first task in our question must be fulfilled by the sciences of church history or church law, and we can relinquish our responsibility to “reveal the lack of evidence of negative superstition” on the issue of the origin of episcopate, especially since this task has been successfully completed in Russian science 420 . The second task is already of a historical and dogmatic nature, and therefore we must now see if there is evidence in ancient Christian literature that the idea of ​​the apostolic institution of the episcopate and its continuous succession as the basis and guarantee for the integrity of the Apostolic Tradition in the Church has not been alien to the church consciousness since ancient times. First of all, we can make the following remark. The doctrine of the continuous succession of the episcopate from the apostles, as a sign of the true apostolic Church, was expressed by St. Irenaeus in the fight against gnosis. This circumstance, as stated above, gives Western scientists reason to assert that this teaching was invented almost entirely by St. Irenaeus. It seems to us, on the contrary, this circumstance can only speak against such a statement. Is it possible that St. Irenaeus, in his fight against gnosis, referred to “historical fiction”? Not to mention the fact that such an assumption of deliberate dishonest lies on the part of St. Irenaeus is completely unacceptable in relation to this great father of the Church 421, a puzzling question arises: could such a reference to “historical fiction” have any significance for polemical success? Not even a century has passed since the death of the apostles; their Tradition still lived in all Christian communities; after all, there were still children of those people who had communication with the apostles themselves, heard their teaching and, of course, passed it on to their children 422. To refer to “historical fiction” in polemics and under such circumstances would mean not only not convincing opponents, but also sowing distrust among one’s own. If the argument of St. Irenaeus was “pseudo-historical,” as F. Lufs called it, then its inconsistency would have been obvious to everyone at that time, and it would have made no sense 423. In general, it is very difficult to understand how it could happen that St. Irenaeus was accused of falsifying facts and creating “historical fiction” by Gnostics not of the 2nd century, but only of the second half of the 19th century. Turning to the surviving literary data, first of all, in the Gospel we find the teaching that Christ Himself was sent by His Father 424. His food and drink are the fulfillment of the will of the Father who sent Him 425. Sent by God (ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεός) to speak the words of God 426. His teaching belongs to Him who sent Him 427 , so whoever receives Him receives Him who sent Him 428 . The miracles were aimed at making people believe in the message of the Son 429. Having Himself sent from the Father, Jesus Christ chooses and sends apostles, first only to the Jews 430, and then to the whole world 431. This message of the apostles is put, as it were, in connection with the message of Jesus Christ Himself: both messages form one, as it were, chain. Just as the Father sent His Son, so the Son sends His disciples 432. He who receives the apostles receives Christ, and those who receive Christ receive Him who sent Him 433. He who listens to you listens to Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me (Luke 10:16). The Apostle Paul also received a direct message from the Lord Jesus Christ 434, which is why he constantly calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ, called an apostle (κλητὸς ἀπόστολος) 435, and not appointed by people 436. The Apostle Paul 437 was taught directly by Christ, and he himself says that preaching 438 was entrusted to him. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian at the end of the 2nd century spoke about church truth: quod ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit. In the New Testament we already have the last two links of the chain through which the revealed truth is successively preserved and spread in the world. The first link has not yet been mentioned, because in reality it did not exist yet. But from apostolic history and from the apostolic epistles we learn about further succession, the succession of the episcopate from the apostles. The science of church history can provide a lot of evidence for the apostolic origin of the episcopate in the Christian Church, 439 but it is important for us to find out whether the bishop was conceived as the successor of the apostles in the matter of teaching and preserving the truth, as he appears in the teaching of St. Irenea. Several pieces of evidence can be pointed out about this already in the early letters of the Apostle Paul. In the Epistle to the Philippians the apostle writes: I beg Euodia, I beg Syntyche to think the same about the Lord (τὸ αὐτό φρονεῖν ἐν Κυρίῳ). Yes, I also ask you, sincere fellow worker (σύζυγε γνήσιε), help them (συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς), who labored in the gospel together with me and with Clement and with my other fellow workers (Phil. 4:2-3) 440. Here the apostle addresses the two women with an exhortation to be of one mind, 441 and wishes to eliminate any disagreement in the matter of faith. Along with this, he turns to his sincere collaborator, obviously with a request to help Euodia and Syntyche, to achieve unanimity. So, in Philippi there was a person who was supposed to take care of the unanimity of the believers and confirm those who waver. Many scientists try to recognize this person by name, but this, of course, is a futile task; the only important thing is that the Apostle Paul gives the primate of the Philippian Church the right and authority to affirm the members of this Church in unanimity. The Apostle first himself exhorts to be of the same mind, and then asks his good co-worker to exhort; The apostle transfers his teaching activity to the head of the community. We find even more important evidence in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the farewell conversation of the Apostle Paul with the Ephesian elders. By elders here there is no need to mean the college of elders of one Ephesian Church, because this is not mentioned anywhere in the text. From Miletus...sending to Ephesus, he called the elders of the church (τῆς ἐκκλησίας) (Acts 20:17). But it is known how long the Apostle Paul lived in Ephesus, and, of course, in the vicinity of Ephesus he founded many Churches 442. The apostle himself in his speech recalls that he went... preaching the Kingdom of God (ἐν οἷς διῆλθον κηρύσσων) (Acts 20:25). Such words will be more understandable if we assume that the apostle saw before him the primates of the various Churches that he founded. All the Asian Churches seemed to be united around Ephesus; To the Corinthians, the apostle conveys greetings from Ephesus on behalf of all the Asian Churches 443, and therefore it is quite understandable that, bypassing Ephesus and wanting to see the primates of the Churches, the apostle sends specifically to Ephesus 444. What does the Apostle say to the primates of the Asian Churches? The Apostle recalls his teaching activity: I did not fail to proclaim to you the whole value of God (Acts 20:27) 445, and then immediately continues: therefore (οὖν) pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock (ποιμνίῳ), in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops (ἐπισκόπους), shepherd (ποιμαίνειν) the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Further, the apostle’s gaze penetrates into the future: I know that after my departure, fierce wolves will come among you, not sparing the flock; and from among yourselves men will arise who will speak perverse things, so as to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore, stay awake, remembering that for three years I taught each of you day and night without ceasing with tears. And now I commend you, brethren, to God and to the word of His grace, which is more able to edify (ἐποικοδομῆσαι) you... and to give you an inheritance with all those who are sanctified (Acts 20:29–32). These words of the apostle say a lot. He calls on the primates of the Asian Churches, anticipating the bonds and sorrows predicted for him (Acts 20:23); he wants to give them instructions for the last time, to give his last testament. It is clear that the Apostle looks at the primates of the Churches precisely as the guardians of his work and the successors of his teaching. It is not in vain that the apostle in his speech twice recalls his incessant teaching activity. He also tells his listeners about fierce wolves who will not spare the herd. The shepherds of the Church must protect the Church from wolves, of course, through the word of preaching and teaching. The Holy Spirit appointed bishops, and the purpose of this appointment is to shepherd the Church. This passage obviously contradicts the distinction between administrative and pastoral-teaching positions in the early Christian Church, which is carried out by some representatives of science 446. On the contrary, Jewish and Christian writers are more likely to combine the concepts of shepherding and episcopacy (observation). The word ἐπίσκοπος in the Old Testament does not mean only an external observer or manager, but sometimes also means a spectator, for example, the human heart 447. In the New Testament it is enough to point to the words of the Apostle Peter: you were like sheep wandering... but have returned now to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls 448. The combination of episcopacy and pastorate, therefore, is quite conceivable for the New Testament writers, as can be seen from the Milesian speech of the Apostle Paul. Therefore, we have sufficient grounds to recognize that the bishops in the Church were appointed as continuers of the apostolic work of teaching and guardians of Christian teaching from damage 449. Finally, in the speech of the Apostle Paul it should be noted that he foresees the deviations of some of the primates, and therefore he commends them all together to the special protection of God and the word of God’s grace. Thus, the apostle clearly speaks of a special grace, which, even if it would allow individual leaders of the Churches to deviate, would protect them all together from general deviation. Then we can judge the views of the apostolic age on the issue of apostolic succession of bishops from the so-called pastoral letters of the Apostle Paul. These messages, as is known, are the subject of endless debate in Protestant scholarship. Some of the reputable scholars, such as Zahn and Weiss, consider them to be the authentic writings of the Apostle Paul and date them to approximately 65. Others, either, like Holtzmann and Jülicher, date their writing to the first half of the 2nd century, or, like Harnack, divide the messages into different parts and attribute these parts to different times from 90 to 145. Therefore, these messages are either completely neglected, or they are used to characterize the church system and church views of post-apostolic times. For an Orthodox researcher there is no question about the time of writing of the pastoral epistles; the last argument in the mouth of the Orthodox researcher is a reference to Church Tradition 450. The Orthodox Church can answer all questions of Protestant science with the words of Tertullian: “I am the heir of the apostles, I own as they handed over to the faith” 451. Without entering into a study of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles 452, we will only note that in [this] question the circulus vitiosus in demonstrando is striking. By the way, the authenticity of the pastoral epistles is denied on the grounds that they allegedly contain a theory that only appeared later. But it would be better to judge by the messages the views and theories of the era to which they belong. Considering the pastoral epistles to be the authentic works of the Apostle Paul, we can use them to quite clearly state his view on the significance of the bishop expressed in them. It must be admitted, however, that the pastoral epistles do not speak in detail about the bishop; they talk more about the moral qualities of the bishop; but some of the indicated qualities are very characteristic, and by them one can judge the dogmatic views of St. apostle on the meaning of the bishop in the Church 453. As can be seen from the pastoral letters, the Apostle Paul does not consider maintaining the faith pure and intact as a calling exclusively for individuals or for any one church office 454 . The whole Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). However, one cannot help but notice that the apostle puts the leaders of the communities at the head of this matter of protecting the teachings devoted to them 455. Among the qualities of a bishop, the apostle names and describes in more detail his teaching ability. The bishop must adhere to the true word, consistent with the teaching (ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου) so that he can be strong and instruct in sound doctrine and rebuke those who resist. There are many disobedient idle talkers and deceivers, whose lips must be stopped (ἐπιστομίζειν) (Titus 1:9-11) Preservation of the true Tradition and refutation of false teachers, according to the Apostle, primarily lies with the responsibility of the bishop 456. In the Epistle to Timothy, among other qualities of a bishop, teaching is again indicated - διδακτικόν 457. The apostle demands from the bishop that he should not be selfish and not a lover of money (1 Tim. 3:3). An indication of these qualities suggests that the management of church property was in the hands of the bishop. In addition, the bishop is called Θεοῦ οἰκονόμος. He must be blameless, as God's steward (ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον) (Titus 1:7). But it is therefore in vain to consider the bishop as the manager of property alone 458. It is necessary to pay attention to many other qualities, the requirement of which is little understood when applied to an economist or treasurer. What, for example, is the significance of the requirement of monogamy for the treasury position, this famous μίας γυναικὸς ἀνήρ 459? To the requirements we have indicated from the bishop for teaching, requirements that are completely incomprehensible when applied to the treasurer, we must also add peacefulness, quietness, humility, and non-anger 460 . The indication of all these qualities indicates precisely that the bishop was not the manager of property alone, that he had to deal with believers not only on economic issues. The title of the bishop as the steward (οἰκονόμος) of God, if taken in connection with the entire structure of the apostle’s thought, is very characteristic. Various passages from the epistles of the Apostle Paul himself perfectly explain to us this title of bishop. The apostle calls the Church of God Alive the house of God. All his instructions to Timothy have one goal, so that he knows how... to act (ἀναστρέφεσθαι) in the house of God (1 Tim. 3:15), that is, so that he knows his tasks and responsibilities as a steward of God, a steward of the Church 461. The apostle’s thought moves all the time in a sphere far from finance. He also in other places οἰκονόμος calls himself and others in the expression stewards of the mysteries of God, (οἰκονόμοι μυστηρίων Θεοῦ) 462, and the Apostle Peter calls all believers stewards of many different things grace (οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος) (1 Peter 4:10) 463. The Greek word οἰκονομία in the same epistle denotes edification in faith 464 . It is remarkable that the same words are used by the apostle to designate the bishop's government of his house and the Church. The apostle denotes to govern the house and govern the Church by the same term προΐστασθαι 465. And in general, the apostle talks in parallel about the management of a bishop in his own house and about the management of the Church. A bishop must be a good steward (προϊστάμενον) of his house, keeping his children in obedience with all honesty; for whoever does not know how to manage (προστῆναι)... a house, will he care about the Church of God? ( 1 Timothy 3:4-5 ). This connection between governing the Church and governing one’s home is especially visible in the Epistle to Titus. The apostle has just described the marital status of the bishop: he has faithful children, not reproached for debauchery or disobedience, and immediately the apostle’s thought turns to the Church: for the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward (οἰκονόμον) (Titus 1:6-7). It is clear that the apostle thinks of the bishop as the leader of the community. Just as in his own house everyone is subject to all parts, so the bishop is subject to all branches of church life. In his house, the bishop watches over the children so that they are good Christians - true believers (τέκνα ἔχων πιστά), good behavior; children must be submissive to their father. This is how the apostle represents the work of the bishop in the Church. He must consider everyone children, make sure that they adhere to the true teaching and are chaste. The Apostle places this activity of the bishop in first place; Yes, this was also due to the circumstances of the time. The life of Christians at that time was not so full of material interests. Christian communities should never be represented as some kind of economic societies. On the contrary, first of all, their religious and moral life needed guidance; the faith and morals of Christians, first of all, were in danger. It is not for nothing that the pastoral epistles are filled with the apostle’s speeches about the multitude of false teachers, these fierce wolves who do not spare the flock. Teaching activities, guiding believers in the area of ​​their faith, protecting the faithful teaching intact - these are the responsibilities assigned by the Apostle to bishops. This is the position of the bishop within the Christian community. But the apostle represents the bishop as a person standing at the head of the community and for those outside. The Ephesian Churches could have some kind of relations with pagan society. Obviously, the apostle considers these relations to be the business of the bishop, when he demands that the bishop be a respectable person and not only for some Christians, but also for outsiders. He must have a good testimony from outsiders (μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν) so as not to fall into reproach and the snare of the devil (1 Tim. 3:7). Thus, the position of the bishop in the Church, according to the apostle, is very high. This is how the apostle himself judges this when he considers the bishopric to be a subject of quest 466 and allows the possibility for the bishop to be tempted by lust for power and pride. Therefore, the bishop should not be one of the converts (μὴ νεόφυτον), so that, having become proud, he would fall into condemnation with the devil (1 Tim. 3:6) 467. For episcopacy, one is required to be tested in faith, tested in Christian humility, for whom the temptation of pride would not be dangerous. But the very possibility of becoming proud indicates precisely the primacy of the bishop in the Christian community. Although Timothy and Titus cannot be considered bishops in the proper sense, their position was essentially no different from that of a bishop. They were for a whole series of Churches what the bishop was in each separate 468 city, in each separate Christian community. But Timothy and Titus combined in themselves the management of all branches of church life, they taught 469, took care of the dissemination and preservation of the true teaching 470, exposed false teachers 471, excommunicated heretics from the Churches 472, appointed them to church positions 473 and so on 474. The Apostle Peter says similar things about hierarchical positions. “I implore your elders (πρεσβυτέρους ἐν ὑμῖν), co-presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ... feed (ποιμάνατε) the flock of God that is among you (τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν), (supervising him) 475 not forced, but willingly and godly, not for vile gain, but out of zeal, and not lording over the inheritance (τῶν κλήρων) ... but setting an example for the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-3)" 476. The relationship of the hierarchy to church communities is likened, as in the Milesian speech of St. Paul, the attitude of the shepherd to the flock. This comparison is understandable only when we assume that the presbyter or bishop appointed by the apostles had at his disposal all branches of church life. Here the apostle calls himself a co-presbyter. This again indicates that in the Churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, to which the First Epistle of Peter was addressed, there were at the head of the communities the same sovereign leaders as the apostles themselves. As can be seen from all of the above, it was the bishops who were the persons to whom the apostles entrusted the administration of the Churches in the full sense of the word: episcopacy, a position not limited only to administrative and economic activities, but including teaching and the preservation of the truth. It was precisely this comprehensive church position that the apostles established. The writer reports about the apostles Paul and Barnabas that at the very founding of the Churches they ordained elders in each Church πρεσβυτέρους) 477 . The writer notes this in passing. It is clear that for him and for his readers, the ordination of elders at the founding of the Church was the most understandable and common occurrence. The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus: For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you would complete what was unfinished and appoint elders in all the cities, as I ordered you. (διεταξάμην – more precisely – “established order”) (Titus 1:5). There is no such instruction in the epistles to Timothy, but those detailed enumerations of the qualities necessary for a bishop that we read in them receive their meaning only on the assumption that the Apostle Paul wants to give Timothy, as it were, some guidance in the appointment of bishops 478 . In the apostolic epistles we also find reference to a special act of laying on hands, which imparted a special gift to the person being placed in office 479. In the apostolic and post-apostolic age, we see in the Christian Church, in addition to hierarchical persons, also charismatics, free teachers and preachers - apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers 480. After the discovery of the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the importance of these charismatics was valued too highly in scholarly, predominantly Protestant, literature: all teaching in the Church was attributed exclusively to charismatics, and in this regard they were contrasted with hierarchical persons, to whom this teaching activity was supposedly completely alien. In the 1st century there were two church organizations: hierarchical, or local, and charismatic - church-wide. Representatives of the first were administrators and treasurers, representatives of the second were teachers and celebrants 481. From the point of view of this view, it was the charismatic teachers who were the successors of the apostles in the proper sense. The hierarchy declared itself the successor of the apostles only after it ousted the charismatics 482. Therefore, even those scholars who do not reject the apostolic institution of the episcopate do not recognize the apostolic succession of the later episcopate. So, for example, A. Ritschl, recognizing the historical fact of the establishment of the bishopric and hierarchy in general by the apostles, at the same time considers hierarchical positions to be the polar opposite of apostolate 483. But the data we have cited from the New Testament books of the Holy Scriptures does not allow us to agree, first of all, with the fact that teaching activity was completely alien to hierarchical persons. On the contrary, it is the hierarchical persons who are the only ones ordained and designated for church service; Nowhere is it said about charismatics that they are ordained in any way. Therefore, it must be recognized that the charismatics were precisely only free and voluntary teachers and preachers, along with a permanent hierarchical position, which included the right to teach. In itself, the gift of the Holy Spirit (χάρισμα) did not yet make its bearer an official, a representative of the organization, and we should not speak about a charismatic organization, but only about charismatics who acted under the dominance of a single hierarchical church organization. Moreover, it should be noted that in the New Testament books χάρισμα is a broad concept: all church ministries in general, even charity, fit under it 484. Thus, in the New Testament books we do not find any detailed theory about the apostolic succession of episcopacy, but we see this very succession at its beginning. The apostles, founding the Churches, transferred full leadership of them (including teaching) to the hierarchy they established (Titus 1:5): διεταξάμην, which sometimes they themselves, and sometimes through their deputies, such as Timothy and Titus, ordained. The theory of apostolic succession is recognized as “inaccurate and even incorrect,” but in saying this, by the theory of apostolic succession of bishops they mean the theory “according to which bishops are in the full sense the successors of the apostles, inheriting the full extent of their powers” ​​485. But such a theory was not expressed by any saint. Irenaeus, nor Tertullian. Ministry of the Apostles and St. Irenaeus and Tertullian recognize it as special. The Apostles founded Churches, and then entrusted the management of these Churches and the protection of Tradition to the bishops 486. This is perfectly expressed by A.V. Gorsky, when he says that “the ministry of the apostles was uninterrupted; in the proper sense, the apostles did not have and could not have successors. Peter and Paul, says Irenaeus, handed over to Linus not the apostleship, but the bishopric” 487. According to V.N. Myshtsyn, “the fact that the apostles established bishoprics and appointed bishops does not speak of the apostolic succession of bishops, just as the fact of the installation of deacons does not provide grounds for a similar conclusion” 488. But we absolutely cannot agree with this opinion. The apostles not only established the episcopate and appointed bishops, but, as the author himself repeatedly said, they also entrusted them with the teaching of the Church along with administration, which was not entrusted to the deacons. Therefore, in relation to the preservation of Christ's truth, deacons cannot be called successors of the apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, not in the sense of complete equality with them, but only, having first been appointed apostles, they, in succession from the apostles, preserve the true teaching in the Church. By the succession of its bishops, the Church proves its apostolate 489. The theory of apostolic succession of bishops, first revealed in detail by St. Irenaeus, there is one of the proofs of the position: the Church is the keeper of the truth, and briefly this theory can be expressed as follows: Christ conveyed the truth to the apostles, the apostles - to the Church, which, in the succession of its bishops, preserves this truth intact. Just as the apostles, having received the truth from Christ, did not become equal to Him, so bishops, being successors of the apostles, must not necessarily be the same apostles. Just as the apostles were chosen by the Lord to spread the Gospel “to the last of the earth,” so the bishopric was established by the holy apostles to preserve the truth in the Church until the end of the age 490. The teaching about the establishment of the bishopric in the Church, continuing the work of the apostles, is clearly expressed by the Apostle Paul. So, in the New Testament we find the following thoughts. The Lord Jesus Christ was sent into the world by God the Father. Jesus Christ sent the apostles. The Apostles established a bishopric, entrusting to it the complete leadership of the Churches which they themselves founded. From the end of the apostolic age we have another remarkable testimony, from which we can see what a bishop was like in each individual community. We mean the Third Epistle of the Apostle John. Despite its small size, this message contains a lot of data to characterize the meaning of the bishop and therefore attracts the attention of scientists 491. We will try to extract from this letter only that which relates directly to our question of the apostolic succession of bishops. It is clear from the message that Diotrephes, who was at the head of the community, did not accept missionaries traveling with preaching into his Church, and even forbade those who wished to receive them (3 John 1:10). Guy, to whom the letter was addressed, still received the missionaries, but, obviously, becoming disobedient to his primate, he felt restless, and therefore the Apostle John, with his highest authority, approves of his action (3 John 1:5-6). The Apostle wrote about accepting the preachers of the Church, but Diotrephes did not accept these messages (3 John 1:9). From this we can see that all the relations of the Church with people or communities outside took place again through Diotrephes. In the epistle Diotrephes is called one who loves to take precedence ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων, see: (3 John 1:9). Therefore, one cannot think that he arrogated to himself a primacy that he did not have 492. The Apostle does not reproach him at all for his primacy, but reproaches him only for his special love for primacy, for his jealous attitude towards his power 493. This love of power of Diotrephes is reflected in the fact that he rejects even the authority of the apostle himself and reviles him with evil words (5 John 1:10). The Apostle John, like the Apostle Paul, installed bishops in the Churches 494, but while he was alive, he considered himself the supreme leader of all Churches. Diotrephes, however, began to deny the authority of the apostle; This reflected his lust for power. But the position of Diotrephes, as it is depicted in the message, was very high - he was the first in the community, its complete leader and manager, even the boss, he even excommunicated from the Church ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει - see: (3 John 1:10). Therefore, the case of Diotrephes can be considered proof of the high position that bishops occupied in the Churches already at the end of the apostolic time - they were the full leaders of the Churches. If we pay attention to the reasons for Diotrephes’ act, then we must consider him, first of all, a guardian of the purity of teaching. Why didn't Diotrephes accept missionaries? There was a reason for this, one must think. In the Second Epistle, the Apostle John says that among itinerant teachers there are many deceivers (2 John 1:7). The Apostle gives a sign by which one could distinguish false teaching (2 John 1:7), and urges not to accept false teachers into the house and not to greet them (2 John 1:10), for he who welcomes a false teacher participates in his evil deeds (2 John 1:11). Perhaps such false teachers even emerged from former disciples of the Apostle John 495. This evidence can be supplemented with data from the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” - a monument chronologically very close. After all, even there it is constantly instilled to monitor the purity of the teachings and morals of itinerant preachers. Obviously, various abuses 496 appeared among missionary preachers. The community of Diotrephes, perhaps, had already had the opportunity to suffer in one way or another from these missionaries, and therefore did not resist the bishop when he forbade accepting them. But this portrays Diotrephes to us precisely as standing guard over the Church, protecting it from possible errors; he is in the full sense the successor of the apostles, perhaps appointed directly by the apostles. However, all this, of course, does not in any way justify Diotrephes’ unkind attitude towards the apostle 497. We learn about exactly the same position of a bishop in a separate community from the Apocalypse. The second and third chapters of the Apocalypse contain revelations about the seven Churches of Asia Minor - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardia, Philadelphia and Laodicea. Each revelation is preceded by the words: To the angel... of the church write 498. If by these Angels we mean bishops 499, then the data that we have in the Apocalypse characterizes the position of the bishop very definitely. The bishop stands at the head of the church community. He receives messages from the apostle and communicates them to the Church (as in the Third Epistle of the Apostle John). He is also the guardian of the purity of teaching. He tests those who call themselves apostles, that is, traveling missionary preachers 500. The Angel of the Church of Smyrna fights the Judaizing heretics (Rev. 2:9). The Angel of the Church of Pergamum is confronted with the fact that he has those who hold the teachings of Balaam (Rev. 2:14-15) 501, and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira with the fact that he allows the wife of Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and mislead (καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ) servants of God (Rev. 2:20). All others who are in Thyatira are commanded to keep what they have (Rev. 2:24–25). The apostle writes to the Angel of the Church of Sardis: Watch and affirm what is close to death... Remember what you received and heard, and keep and repent (Rev. 3: 2-3). The Apostle writes through the bishop not about economic or administrative matters, but specifically about the teaching and preservation of good morals. The apostle considers the bishop to be his full successor, whom he only watches while he himself is still alive. Here, however, there is no theory of apostolic succession, but we are faced with the very fact of succession, which, of course, is no less important. From the end of the 1st century, another very important evidence has been preserved about the position of the bishopric in the Christian Church - we mean the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. This monument must be valued very highly, as Harnack does in one of his last works, where he calls the epistle, in terms of time and origin, form and meaning, one of the most important, if not the most important, monument of writing in post-apostolic times 502. Indeed, this message, in addition to the Greek original, is available in Latin, Syriac and Coptic translations; one of the two Greek manuscripts in which the message is preserved is the famous Codex Alexandrinus; in the Syrian manuscript the epistle also stands in connection with the books of the New Testament, between the conciliar epistles and the epistles of the Apostle Paul, and is even divided into liturgical pericopes 503. Church antiquity also valued this message very highly. Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter to the Roman Bishop Soter (about 170), reports that Clement’s epistle was read in church: “Today,” writes Dionysius, “we spent a holy Sunday and read your epistle, which for our own edification we will always read, like the one written before by Clement” 504. And St. Irenaeus testifies as follows: “When there was considerable dissent (στάσεως γενομένης) between the brothers in Corinth, the Roman Church wrote a very important (ἱκανωτάτην) message to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, and restoring their faith, and proclaiming what had recently been received from apostles Tradition Thus, Irenaeus sees in this epistle the essential content of the apostolic Tradition 506. The message is written on behalf of the most important Church of the West to the famous Church of the East 507. And therefore we must look at it as an expression of genuine apostolic Tradition. But in this message we can even find some theory of the apostolic succession of the church hierarchy. The epistle was written regarding “an indecent and alien to the chosen ones of God, a criminal and wicked rebellion, which a few daring and arrogant people incited to such madness that the venerable, glorious and beloved name of the Corinthians was subjected to great reproach” 508. One might think that the rebellion consisted in the fact that the Corinthians stopped obeying their leaders (ἡγουμένοις) and giving due honor to the elders (πρεσβυτέροις) 509 and deprived the ministry of some blameless bishops 510. Several individuals were at the head of the indignation; from some remarks in the epistle it can be concluded that these were charismatic preachers: here they are described in the same way as in the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” 511. Consequently, under the leadership of these people, a kind of rebellion broke out against the former leaders of the community. In his message, Clement urges submission to the hierarchy. It should be noted that Clement has no reason to talk about different degrees of hierarchy: he convinces the laity in general to obey the hierarchy 512. Among the general discussions of obedience and humility that fill most of the letter, Clement refers to both the establishment of the hierarchy by the apostles and its succession. Here are his own words: “The apostles preached to us (ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν) from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent (ἐξεπέμφθη) from God. So, Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: both were in order (εὐτάκτως) according to the will of God. Having accepted the command, (the apostles), completely convinced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in faith by the word of God, with the fullness (μετὰ πληροφορίας) of the Holy Spirit, went out, preaching the coming Kingdom of God. Preaching in cities and villages, they appointed their firstborn (καθίστανον ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν), after testing them by the Spirit, as bishops and deacons for future believers. And this is not news (καὶ τοῦτο οὐ καινῶς); a lot of time has been written about bishops and deacons. For this is what the Scripture says: I will appoint them bishops in righteousness and deacons in faith (Isa. 60:17) 513. Our apostles knew through God that there would be contention about the episcopal dignity (ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς). For this very reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned (τοὺς προειρημένους) and then gave the law (ἐπινομήν), so that when they rest, other proven men would receive (διαδέξωνται) them service (λειτουργίαν). So, we consider it unjust to deprive the ministry of those who were appointed by them (that is, the apostles) or after other venerable men with the consent of the entire Church (συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης) and who served the flock of Christ impeccably, with humility, meekly and blamelessly, and, moreover, for a long time they received approval from everyone. It will be a considerable sin for us (ἀμαρτία οὐ μικρά) if we deprive those who bring gifts blamelessly and holyly from the episcopate (τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς)” 514. This is how Clement resolves the dispute that took place in Corinth over ἐπισκοπή. He points out the reason why it is impossible to deprive the ministry of those persons against whom indignation was raised by the charismatics. The reason for this lies in the fact that they were placed in the ministry by venerable men, who themselves were placed at the head of the Churches by the apostles. Any dispute over ἐπισκοπή must cease, because church offices were established by God 515, and their real bearers were legally appointed to these offices. Therefore, those who rebel against the hierarchy are deprived of hope, and Clement threatens them with punishment 516. The apostles themselves established a law (ἐπισκοπή) so that hierarchical service in the Church would not cease, but would be continuously passed on from generation to generation. It is this continuity that distinguishes real community leaders from all others. One can easily trace the succession of these leaders (ἡγοὺμενοι) back to the apostles. The holders of church positions in Corinth were appointed by venerable men or firstborn of the faith; these latter were appointed apostles. The apostles were sent by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ is from God. The hierarchical structure of the Church is based on such successive installation; personal charisma without installation does not give the right to be the legitimate leader of the Church 517. In Protestant scholarly literature, the Corinthian incident that gave rise to Clement’s message is usually seen as one of the special cases of the struggle that the episcopate allegedly waged with representatives of the ancient charismatic organization, when it began to appropriate exclusively to itself their primordial teaching rights 518. But there is more reason to present the matter in such a way that it was the charismatics who rebelled against the existing hierarchy from the very beginning. Due to their special gifts, they could sometimes gain greater respect in the communities, so that their bishops, deprived of [such] extraordinary gifts, lost their importance 519. On this basis, a misunderstanding arose in Corinth, and Clement does not write about anything new, unknown to the Corinthians; he only convinces them not to renounce the hierarchy established by the apostles for the sake of the charismatics 520. Clement justifies his conviction precisely by pointing to the establishment by the apostles of church positions, which must be continuously preserved in the Church. True, Clement’s doctrine of the succession of episcopate is not revealed in as much detail as it was later expounded by St. Irenaeus, but this is quite understandable. After all, the dispute in Corinth concerned not questions of faith, but church government; it was a dispute over ἐπισκοπή 521. Clement did not need to talk in detail about the succession of bishops as guardians of the truth. But even without a direct reason, Clement nevertheless expressed quite definitely the doctrine of the succession of bishops. Already in the epistle of Clement we see the same chain of succession as in St. Irenaeus and Tertullian: God, Christ, apostles, bishops 522. Therefore, the beginning and invention of the theory of apostolic succession of bishops should not be attributed to St. Irenaeus, but Clement, and attribute it not to the second half of the 2nd century, but to the end of the first. This is indeed what some people do in modern times, for example, Zom. As you know, this scientist constructed a hypothesis about the disenfranchised state of the Church at first, when there was some kind of incomprehensible charismatic government 523. The Epistle of Clement, in his opinion, elevates the legal structure of the Roman community with its episcopal structure to Divine determination. In the structure of the Roman community we have before us that form of organization that forms the only starting point for the entire subsequent history of the church system. Hence the great significance of Clement’s message for the history of the church system. Here we see before us the form of organization from which everything that came later 524. But in the application to Clement’s epistle it is absolutely impossible to allow it to introduce anything new, which had not previously existed 525, to become a new point in church teaching. Clement, perhaps, was himself a contemporary of the holy apostles 526; He wrote his message just 30 years after the death of the apostles Peter and Paul. The apostles were, as can be seen from the message itself 527, still memorable examples for everyone. In Corinth, as we saw from the words of the epistle itself, there were primates appointed by the apostles themselves. The apostolic tradition was still very vivid in the memory of Christians, after all, not even one generation had passed. How can one even think that Clement and the entire Roman community decided to present in an official letter something obviously new, their own, as the apostolic, as Christ’s? It is even more incomprehensible how a message with such a new and even contradictory content to the apostolic teaching, which was still well remembered, could have any meaning for the Corinthians and could even receive such a high authority from them, which is indicated by the letter of Dionysius to Soter 528? In addition, in the letter, Clement himself clearly says that even before the indignation, the Corinthians had a correct system, in agreement with the commandment of the apostles. Thus, the doctrine of the apostolic succession of episcopacy, expressed in the epistle of Clement 529, cannot be considered as the beginning of the church teaching on this subject in general, but only as a link in the Tradition 530 successively transmitted from the apostles. “The elevation of Clement to the founder of Catholicism is Som’s hypothesis, which has no historical basis.” “Yes, that Saint Clement, the apostolic man, was an exact zealot and even preserved the apostolic institutions in the records - this fact is attested by the general church Tradition” 531. So, in the letter of Clement of Rome we see how already in the 1st century, although the teaching of this century is little known, the Church in its self-consciousness, in the dogma of the Church, already in one way or another thought about the apostolic succession of the episcopate as a sign of the true Church 532. Only two decades are separated from Clement’s message a very important monument, where we constantly find speech about the Church. These are the messages of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. Epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer is in some respects very remarkable and even stands out from other works of church literature of the 2nd century. In the history of modern church historical science they were destined to have very great importance, namely in resolving the question of the initial structure of the Christian Church. The most radically negative authors who wrote about the origin of the church hierarchy, such as, for example, A. Ritschl or Bohringer, proceeded from the recognition of the inauthenticity of the messages of St. Ignatius, which they attributed to the end of the second century 533. Thus, Protestant scientists had a whole century (from the Holy Apostles to St. Irenaeus) in which they could place the process of the formation of a monarchical episcopate, which they had invented. In recent decades, in Protestant scholarship, the authenticity of the letters of St. Ignatius is generally recognized, and from here even the turn towards orthodoxy begins in Protestant scholarly works. With the recognition of the authenticity of the messages of St. Ignatius [arose] an hardly insurmountable difficulty to place the entire process of the alleged development of episcopal power in the Church in such a short period of time as half a century 534. Of necessity, it was necessary either to abandon the previous decisive hypotheses, or to create new ones, which, in any case, are much closer to the Orthodox teaching about the primordial nature of the divinely established hierarchy in the Church 535. In the history of the dogma of the Church of the Epistle of St. Ignatius, on the one hand, are very important; on the other hand, their significance is quite limited. Some thoughts in these messages are expressed very strongly and are very often repeated; but other thoughts are completely undeveloped. The messages are distinguished by some kind of reticence; This is the impression they make on the reader. Therefore, the researcher has the duty to avoid two possible extremes: not to abuse the argument e silentio, which Protestant authors are usually guilty of, and not to supplement the thoughts of the holy father with his own, which in the interests of his preconceived theory would like to see from him 536. Therefore, we will expound the teaching of St. Ignatius about the Church and the meaning of hierarchy in it as it is in his letters, and we will try, as far as possible, to explain the features of this teaching. Most often at St. Ignatius repeats the idea of ​​unanimity among the members of the Church. He says about himself that he did his job as a person destined for unity 537. This is the unity of people in the Church of St. Ignatius describes both in words and in apostolic comparisons. Pagans and Jews are united in the single Body of the Church of Christ (ἐν ἐνὶ σώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ) 538 . Church of St. Antioch Ignatius calls it a small Body (σωματεῖον) 539. The Church of Ephesus is likened to the building of God the Father 540. “All of you,” writes St. Ignatius to the Magnesians, “you constitute, as it were, one church of God, as if one altar, as if one Jesus Christ” 541. The church of St. Ignatius likens it to a choir unanimously singing a song 542. In the same way, St. Ignatius clearly expresses the general church thought: the whole Church is a society living the new life of Christ. This life of St. Ignatius calls true life, another life (ἄλλος βίος) 543, this life is placed in an inextricable connection with Christ. Without Christ there is no true life 544. The unity of the members of the Church is Christ Himself 545; He is the common life of Christians 546. Christian life shone forth through Christ and through His death 547. Those who do not believe in the reality of the Flesh of Christ carry death within themselves 548. Christ is the Head of the Church, believers are His members (μέλη αὐτοῦ) 549, the Church is God’s society (τὸ ἐν Θεῷ πλῆθος) 550. People are united into such a society by faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and love, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ 551. All perfection lies in faith and love, of which there is nothing higher 552. Christians are companions to each other 553, children of the Light of truth (τέκνα φωτὸς ἀληθείας) 554, they do everything in Jesus Christ 555. Unbelievers are the image of this world, and believers in love are the image of God the Father through Jesus Christ 556. Christians leave the old leaven and change into new leaven (εἰς νέαν ζύμην) 557. Unity of Christians - physical and spiritual 558; they have an undivided Spirit, which is Jesus Christ 559 . St. teaches Ignatius and about the Holy Spirit as the principle of new grace-filled life operating in the Church. Christians are raised to the height of moral perfection by the Holy Spirit 560. They are God-bearers and holy-bearers 561, successful in faith and love, in the Son, and the Father, and in the Spirit 562. The perfect Christian has God within him 563. Here we have collected random expressions of St. Ignatius, scattered throughout his various epistles. The main idea that permeates all the messages is the idea that the one Church is the guardian of the truth. We have already outlined this teaching above, but it needs to be supplemented with the teaching of St. Ignatius on the meaning of hierarchy in the Church. Church hierarchy in the epistles of St. Ignatius is closely connected precisely with the preservation of true teaching in the Church. After all, all the letters of St. Ignatius were caused by docetic false teaching that threatened the Christian Churches. It is precisely against false teachers that St. constantly warns. Ignatius of the Christians of Asia Minor 564. In view of this impending danger, Christians needed to be given some definite criterion for distinguishing between truth and falsehood. This criterion gives St. Ignatius in his Epistles. Briefly it can be expressed as follows: you need to be in complete agreement with the bishop and unconditionally obey him. The hierarchy in the person of the bishop is reliable and, according to St. Ignatius, the only guarantee of the truth of church teaching. This position, as we will see later, St. Ignatius doesn’t even want to prove anything; for him this is the truth, requiring no proof 565. Agreement with the bishop and obedience to him is the main thought of St. Ignatius, which he tirelessly repeats in all his epistles in various expressions. “You must agree with the thought of the bishop, which is what you do,” writes St. Ignatius Ephesians 566. “Let us try not to resist the bishop, so that we may be submissive to God” 567. It is a wonderful thing to know God and the bishop 568 . We must accept anyone whom a householder sends to rule his house in the same way as the one who sent him. Therefore, it is clear that the bishop should also be looked at as the Lord Himself 569. St. Ignatius praises Deacon Sotion for his obedience to the bishop as the grace of God, and to the presbytery as the law of Jesus Christ 570. Trallian St. Ignatius also writes: “Be obedient to the bishop as a commandment, as well as to the presbytery” 571. The age of the bishop cannot be neglected, but every respect must be shown to him. He who obeys the bishop obeys, in fact, not him, but the Father of Jesus Christ - the Bishop of all. One must obey the bishop without any hypocrisy, because the one who disobeys deceives not this visible bishop, but the Invisible One 572. “Listen to the bishop, so that God may also listen to you. I am a sacrifice for those who obey the bishop, elders and deacons" 573. Those who disobey the bishop are unconscionable (οὐκ εὐσυνείδητοι) 574. Whoever does anything without a bishop, presbyter and deacon has an unclean conscience 575. He who honors a bishop is honored by God; anyone who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the devil 576. “Do nothing without the bishop and elders. Don’t think that anything commendable will come of you if you do it on your own” 577. On the contrary, “when you obey the bishop as Jesus Christ, then, it seems to me, you are not living according to human custom, but according to the image of Jesus Christ” 578. Without hierarchy there is no Church 579. Where there is a bishop, there must also be people 580. “Where the shepherd is, there you, like sheep, go” 581. Christians can be protected from error only when they do not become arrogant and do not separate from God Jesus Christ and the bishop 582. Those who are God's and Jesus Christ's are with the bishop 583. If anyone becomes vain (we are talking about virgins), he is lost; and if he reveres himself more than the bishop, he is completely lost 584. One Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one Cup in the unity of His Blood, one altar, as well as one bishop with presbyters and deacons 585. Only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is celebrated by the bishop or by those to whom he himself has granted it. It is not permissible to baptize or celebrate a love supper without a bishop; on the contrary, whatever he approves is pleasing to God, so that every deed is firm and undoubted 586. “Those who marry should enter into a union with the consent of the bishop, so that the marriage is about the Lord, and not according to lust” 587. Thus, the bishop and the entire hierarchy in general are the guardian of the Church, according to the teaching of St. Ignatius 588. It is also absolutely clear that in the letters of Ignatius there is no reason to limit the activities of the hierarchy only to the economic side of church life. In his letter to Polycarp, St. Ignatius seems to be drawing the image of a bishop. The bishop here appears to be the complete leader of the community entrusted to his care. Falling away from the bishop is falling away from the Truth 589. Hierarchy, according to St. Ignatius, stands at the head of the entire life of church communities, and is not just a legal administration. She shepherds not only the bodies of believers, but mainly their souls 590. About other persons who would stand on a par with the hierarchy, St. There is no speech from Ignatius. True, the bishop and the entire hierarchy were installed by St. Ignatius in a special connection with the Eucharist 591, but this does not at all mean that the Eucharist is the only matter of the hierarchy. One might even say that in this case the Eucharistic activity of the hierarchy is in close connection with its teaching 592. The letters of Ignatius are directed against the Docetes; the hierarchy had to protect believers from docetic error not only by preaching the truth, but also by celebrating the Eucharist, which docetism denied. The bishop must entreat everyone to be saved 593 and preach on various subjects of faith and piety 594 . A pious bishop, even silently, is stronger than those (obviously in teaching) who speak empty things (μάταια) 595. At the same time, the bishop must convene meetings more often and call all members of the community to meetings 596. The Eucharist is therefore the measure of the right-mindedness of a member of the Church; deviation from the Eucharist already meant deviation into docetism 597. Therefore, we must emphatically state the position that, according to the teaching of St. Ignatius, the hierarchy is precisely the guardian of the purity and integrity of Christian teaching in the Church. An open-minded reading of the letters of Ignatius should lead to this conclusion 598 . At St. Ignatius does not allow even the thought that the bishop could sin; this thought is completely beyond his horizons. And therefore it is quite understandable that St. Ignatius does not say anything about any norms that a bishop should adhere to 599. St. Polycarp Ignatius writes that he should be guided only by the will of God 600. Local Church in the Epistles of St. Ignatius seems to be self-sufficient, taken as if without any connection with other Churches. The power of a bishop is limited to the boundaries of his Church. This feature of the letters of St. Ignatius is especially strongly emphasized by Protestant scholars who want to find in St. Ignatius' teaching about the unity of the invisible Church of Christ. Apparently there are only separate communities, not connected with each other in any way 601. Indeed, in his epistles, St. Ignatius sometimes, on the one hand, places the local Christian community headed by a bishop, on the other, the entire Church together headed by Jesus Christ Himself. Ephesians St. Ignatius writes: “You are united to the bishop, as the Church is with Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ is with the Father” 602. He writes to the Smirnians: “Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there will be the Catholic Church” 603. Here, for the first time in church writing, the term ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία appears, and this term, one must think, denotes precisely the entire totality of the Christian Church, as opposed to a separate self-closed community 604. One might think that St. Ignatius to the term καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία used here is given an explanation in the same letter to the Smyrneans - ἐν ἐνὶ σώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ 605. However, on this basis it is impossible to speak about the invisible Church. After all, from the same epistles of St. Ignatius, as already said at the beginning of our study, we learn about very lively relations between private Churches. There were no legal norms that would bind one Church to another, it is true; but the absence of external legal norms does not mean that Christianity actually existed and was understood by St. Ignatius only in the form of communities isolated from each other. Christianity was not presented to St. Ignatius, as only his visible Church of Antioch, Christianity in all Churches is one; to all Churches of St. Ignatius writes the same thing. In the letter to the Ephesians, St. Ignatius even speaks of bishops placed at the ends of the earth (οἱ κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες) 606. Here the entire visible Church, governed by bishops, clearly appears. Here one can even find an indication of a single episcopate of the entire Church 607. According to the teachings of St. Ignatius, the whole Church is united with Christ. Christ is its Head. This teaching completely coincides with the teaching of the Apostle Paul. But both from the teaching of the Apostle Paul and from the teaching of St. Ignatius does not at all follow that the one Church, headed by Christ, is thought of as only invisible. On the contrary, in the primacy of Christ, one for the one Church, the individual Churches can only find an incentive to visible unity 608. Church of St. Ignatius represents real unity. The One Church is scattered to all corners of the world. In this regard, the letters of St. Ignatius explains the martyrdom of Polycarp, close in the time of writing 609, where the holy Catholic Church appears to be scattered throughout the entire universe (κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην), so that local Churches are only, as it were, parishes (παροικίαι) of this one Church 610 . It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that St. Ignatius wrote to individual communities. He had no reason to talk about the unity of the entire Church. Therefore, in a strictly scientific sense, one can only assert that the hierarchical unity of the visible Church is not spoken of in his brief and more or less random messages. But to claim that St. Ignatius speaks positively about some invisible Church, this means supplementing the author’s thought with his own considerations, abusing the ex silentio argument 611. For such ex silentio arguments, the epistles of Ignatius provide great scope, since, despite their brevity, they do not always speak precisely and definitely about the same thing 612. Catholic scholars, based on the numerous epithets that Ignatius bestows on the Roman Church in his epistle, and on the expression: “Jesus Christ alone will be bishop in it (in the Syrian Church) and your love” 613 - claim that Saint Ignatius taught about the primacy of the Roman Church 614. But again it must be said that from the words of St. Ignatius reads much more than is given in them. Words of St. Ignatius in this case are very vague, and you can put any thoughts into them 615. In any case, about the legal dependence of the Syrian Church on the Roman St. Ignatius doesn't say. He writes: “Remember in your prayer the Church of Syria: instead of me, she now has God as a shepherd” 616. If the Roman Church had any legal rights, then Ignatius would have spoken about more than one prayer. But the Catholic point of view, obviously, in the letters of Ignatius already sees the episcopal organization of the entire Church under the leadership of Rome. At the same time, based on the same letter of Ignatius to the Romans, they claim that in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century there was not even a monarchical bishop at all 617. But even this can be answered in the words of F. Lufs: representatives of the historical method “often work with a bunch of completely dubious arguments ex silentio. Who can guarantee, for example, that the conclusion is correct that at the time of Ignatius’ epistle to the Romans there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome, since Ignatius does not mention any bishop? 618. In order not to put into the messages of St. Ignatius, what is actually not in them, we must recognize one main position established in them: in the community, the guardian of the purity of faith is the bishop, and around him everyone should unite in unanimity 619. Why does St. consider the bishop? Ignatius guardian of the purity of faith? Does he provide any basis for this? We have already said that this thought of St. Ignatius speaks almost categorically. From his epistles it is not clear that there were any disputes about episcopal power. Episcopate for St. Ignatius is a well-established institution, not just a fledgling one. Even if the bishop, as in the Magnesian Church, was young 620, there is not even a shadow of doubt about his legitimacy. And therefore St. Ignatius did not need to prove the need for obedience to the bishop; this obedience only needed to be exhorted and convinced; it was only necessary to remind about it without any special evidence 621. Then, St. Ignatius wrote to communities that he knew, where the bishops were persons well known to him, with some he was connected by close ties of friendship 622. These bishops, indeed, were guardians of the purity of teaching even before the writing of the epistles. Experienced persons, whose youth sometimes went back, perhaps, to the times of the apostles - these persons could not betray the truth and fall into such an error as docetism. The actual position of bishops and their most personal qualities made it unnecessary, at least for St. Ignatius, some detailed theory justifying their ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority. In addition, the messages of St. Ignatius is viewed from an absolute point of view; their significance, by their very purpose and character, was only relative. As private letters, they had a local and temporary meaning. Such works are only understandable in the setting in which they were written. The Bishop of Antioch goes under escort to Rome, where torture and death await him. Taking advantage of the opportunity, he sends short letters to the Churches that took a close part in his fate. There is therefore no reason to demand or expect from St. Ignatius of precise and detailed dogmatic treatises on any issue. All sorts of theories justifying the authority of the hierarchy, discussions about the church structure and the like - all this was already far from the mood of the saint. Ignatius. It is enough to read the Epistle to the Romans to judge how much the holy father has already renounced earthly life, from earthly relationships. However, Saint Ignatius contains brief remarks in which a certain theory seems to be expressed. These remarks are random and brief, and therefore it is impossible to create a complete theory on the basis of them, otherwise we risk replacing the thoughts of the holy father with our own. Therefore, we will just collect all these comments together. First of all, at St. Ignatius clearly speaks about the divinely established hierarchy. “Jesus Christ, our common life, is the thought of the Father, just as the bishops placed (οἱ ὁρισθέντες) at the ends of the earth are in the thought of Jesus Christ” 623. The bishop is the messenger of God. “Everyone whom a householder sends (πέμπει) to rule his house must be received by us in the same way as the one who sent it. Therefore, it is clear that the bishop should be looked at as the Lord Himself” 624. In the greeting message to the Philadelphia Church of St. Ignatius speaks of bishops, presbyters and deacons, established according to the thought of Jesus Christ, whom He, according to His will, confirmed in testimony by His Holy Spirit 625. Deacons St. Ignatius sometimes calls it the commandment of God 626. In these few true expressions of St. Ignatius can see the teaching about the divine establishment of the hierarchy, and, moreover, the divine establishment not only in the dogmatic sense, but also in the historical sense, as evidenced by the cited passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians 627. The bishop is said to be sent to govern the house of God, that is, the Church. In this regard, St. Ignatius stands very close to Clement of Rome: for both of them, hierarchical church positions are a Divine institution necessary for the true Church 628. The expression in the greeting of the letter to the Philadelphians already hints at the idea of ​​a special grace-filled power imparted to the hierarchy. And in his letter to Polycarp St. Ignatius puts the bishop in direct relationship with God and with Jesus Christ, who, as it were, guides the bishop 629. However, it would be too risky to attribute St. Ignatius thought similar to the teaching of St. Irenaeus of Lyons on charisma veritatis. The historical argument that later anti-Gnostic writers used in the fight against heretics, pointing to the succession from the apostles to the ministry of episcopacy in the true Church - this argument from St. We do not meet Ignatius 630. At St. Ignatius there is no talk about the succession of bishops from the apostles 631; in him, on the contrary, we find a parallel, which, constituting a feature of the ecclesiological views of St. Ignatius even seems to replace the theory of succession of bishops. Exactly, at St. Ignatius we find the following expressions: “The bishop stands in the place of God, the presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles, and the deacons, most sweet to me, are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” 632. “You obey the bishop as you obey Jesus Christ... Obey also the presbytery, as you obey the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope” 633. “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles” 634. “Honor the deacons as the commandment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the assembly of God and as the union of the apostles” 635. From the above expressions of St. Ignatius, however, one cannot draw the conclusion that he created a special theory according to which the bishop inherits the place of Jesus Christ, and the elders inherit the place of the apostles 636. Speech of St. Ignatius on succession in this case cannot be considered historical, it is typological. During the life of Jesus Christ, the Church could be divided exactly like this: Jesus Christ, the apostles and the believers. Christ is the Head and Center of the entire Church, the apostles are His closest disciples, through whom He spreads His teaching. This image, for obvious reasons, floated into the mind of St. Ignatius. Each Local Church was, as it were, a reflection of this early Christian community of believers: at the head of the Church stood a bishop 637, he was surrounded by a “beautifully woven spiritual crown of presbytery” 638 close to him, standing between the bishop and the laity. This analogy of St. Ignatius carries out this in his epistles. But it is necessary to admit that the analogy itself has a historical meaning, and not a typological one, which Protestants want to see, based on their thoughts about the invisible Church. According to the Protestant interpretation, the thought of St. Ignatius is this: the bishop is, as it were, a symbol (Typus) of Christ or God, and the elders are symbols of the apostles; from this it follows that an organized separate community is a reflection (Abbild) of the entire Church spiritually connected with Christ; each individual community should be a reflection of the heavenly Church 639. But Ignatius has no thought about a heavenly Church, in which there would be a semblance of earthly relations within a separate community. Harnack says that the idea of ​​the heavenly Church lies at the basis of the expressions of Ignatius 640, but this is only a guess; such an idea is not given by St. Ignatius. In addition, it will now be clear that the thought of St. Ignatius is too vague, and therefore there is no reason to overestimate it. Already in the places that we have cited, one involuntarily draws attention to the amazing inaccuracy of the expressions of St. father. Thus, the bishop is said to preside in the place of God, and in another place we find an exhortation to obey the bishop as to Jesus Christ, while it is said that the ministry of Jesus Christ is entrusted to the deacons. If we come across speech about presbyters as if about apostles, then a bishop can only be likened to Jesus Christ, but in St. Ignatius, he is likened to God the Father, and of course, God the Father cannot be called ἐπίσκοποη ἀόρατος, as Jesus Christ was once called. Moreover, the conviction to follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father obviously violates the usual comparisons: here the lay believers are likened to Jesus Christ. But this inaccuracy will increase even more in our eyes if we pay attention to other sayings of St. Ignatius. “Obey the bishop and one another, just as Jesus Christ obeyed the Father in the flesh, and the apostles obeyed Christ the Father and the Spirit” 641. The parallels and order of subordination already known to us are rejected here; only the idea of ​​obedience is taken from individual examples of obedience: Christ to God the Father and the apostles to Christ, and a moral instruction is made. In the first chapters of the epistle to the Trallians, as we have seen, the comparison of the bishop with Christ, and the elders with the apostles 642 is most clearly expressed, but at the end of the same epistle we encounter a phrase that completely disagrees with the previous comparison: “Each of you, especially the elders, should bury the bishop in honor of the Father, Jesus Christ and the apostles” 643. Here the bishop at the same time is likened to God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the apostles. The likening of the bishop to the apostles especially sharply violates the familiar comparison of only elders with the apostles. It is also impossible not to pay attention to the fact that St. Ignatius, on the one hand, compares the bishop with God the Father or with Jesus Christ, as if elevating him above the apostles, but on the other, he draws a strict distinction between himself, as a bishop, and between the apostles, refusing even to compare himself with them 644. If we always keep in mind the constant inaccuracy of St. Ignatius, while expressing the same thoughts, then one can speak only with great limitations about his original theory of justification of episcopal authority. If St. Ignatius had a clear and definite thought about the private Christian community as an image of the heavenly Church or an image of believers in Christ during His life; then he could not have had expressions so contrary to this thought. If in the epistles of St. We do not find Ignatius teaching about the succession of episcopacy, and he also does not have a theory that would replace this teaching. His comparison of the bishop with God or Jesus Christ and the elders with the apostles cannot be viewed as a fully developed, definite dogmatic theory. When St. Ignatius outlines the ideal image of the Church; before him is presented the historical image of the “little flock”, of which Jesus Christ was the Shepherd - no more. Sometimes, as we have seen, St. Ignatius takes only the idea of ​​obedience and like-mindedness, and gives an example to confirm his tireless exhortations to obey the bishop. It is clear and definite in the Epistles of St. Ignatius expresses only one thought: in order not to deviate from the truth and not to distort the Christian faith, for this it is necessary to follow your bishop in everything. The hierarchy is thus viewed as an organ for the preservation of church doctrine in purity and integrity. Detailed teaching about the Church of St. Ignatius has no idea. And this is quite understandable. Creeds and creeds always follow. In the first centuries, all members of the Church had a very vivid consciousness of themselves as living members of one living organism of the Church. The idea of ​​the Church “was, so to speak, a living key in the life of the Church, not yet enclosed in the granite of a symbol or rule, and was life itself, without a formula.” “There was no need for a special formulation of this particular aspect of Christianity, since it was experienced directly by believers and was given to them in the very essence of faith” 645. A brilliant and convincing example of this particular experience can be found in the epistles of St. Ignatius. A more detailed formulation of the member about the Church arose already when the vital implementation of the idea of ​​the Church began to weaken. In this regard, the teaching about the Church of St. Irenaeus of Lyon is already a further stage in the history of the dogma of the Church, although his main idea is the same as that of St. Ignatius. Like St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus equally expresses the idea that truth can only be preserved in living unity with the body of the Church. St. Ignatius does not substantiate this idea, but only convinces everyone to be like-minded and obey the bishop. St. Irenaeus already substantiates this general idea in detail, pointing in its justification to the succession of bishops in the Churches founded by the apostles and to the unity of faith in the Churches of the entire universe. St. Ignatius, in matters of faith, depicts the individual Christian community as self-enclosed; at St. Irenaeus already speaks about the universal Church, for for him the most ancient apostolic Churches are, as it were, the property of the entire Church - they must be turned to in doubtful cases. But also St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus also speaks of the doctrinal authority of the bishop. In a significant period of time from St. Ignatius to St. Irenaeus can be pointed to yet another evidence of the importance that the ancient Church attached to the succession of the episcopate. This testimony belongs to Egesippus, about whom Eusebius says that he wrote a true tradition (τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν) of the apostolic sermon 646, being one of the closest successors of the apostles 647. Egesippus first of all testifies that in the Jerusalem Church from the very beginning there was a successive government. First, the Lord's brother James 648 accepted the Church of Jerusalem along with the other apostles. When James the Righteous suffered martyrdom, then his cousin Simeon, the son of Cleopas, was installed as bishop. The same Egesippus writes about his stay in Rome: “While in Rome, I compiled a list and succession (of bishops) up to Anicetus, of which Eleutherius was a deacon. Anicetas was succeeded by Sotira, and after him by Eleutherius. In every succession and in every city everything went as the law, the prophets and the Lord preached” 650. From the words of Hegesippus himself, it is not clear the motives that guided him in compiling the list of Roman bishops 651, and why he speaks of the succession of bishops in the Church of Jerusalem. It would therefore be risky to see in the above words any developed, detailed theory of the succession of episcopate 652. However, if the above passages are taken in context, then some very plausible assumptions can be made. In the first case, having pointed out the succession of bishops in the Church of Jerusalem, Egesippus immediately begins to say that the Church was not corrupted by vain teachings, and then points out a whole series of false teachers, the founders of various heresies. In the second case, Egesippus just said: “The Corinthian Church retained the correct teaching (ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ) until Primus, who was bishop in Corinth,” and then, at the end of the words we have quoted, he points out that the truth was preserved in the Church everywhere (“in every city”) and always (“in every succession”). In both cases, it is impossible not to notice that the preservation of truth in the Church and the succession of bishops stand in some connection with Hegesippus. The succession of bishops in the Church is, as it were, opposed to the origin of heresies from their founders, without connection with the apostles 653. Therefore, without making any tendentious assumptions, one can still think that from Hegesippus we have something similar to Irenaeus’ theory of the apostolic succession of the episcopate 654. Twenty years before Irenaeus wrote his essay “Against Heresies,” we find a trace of his theory at the opposite end of the universe of that time. If we take a general look at the brief remarks scattered among the writers of the first two centuries relating to the teaching about the Church, then we will have to admit that the teaching about the Church of St. Irenaeus is the result and completion of all ecclesiological views, expressed piecemeal and fragmentarily in anti-Gnostic literature. The very teaching of St. Irenaeus has a solid foundation in the teachings of St. Apostle Paul about Tradition, and the teaching of the Apostle Paul has always lived in the church consciousness, as is clearly evidenced by the data that we have extracted from the remains of the most ancient church literature. When the need arose, this teaching was developed and substantiated in more or less detail at the end of the 2nd century 655. The question, of course, is entirely appropriate and legitimate: was there a teaching about the Church in the form in which it was revealed by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, the common church heritage of that time? To answer this question, we must turn to contemporary writers whose activities took place in other ends of the universe. Of these writers, Clement of Alexandria first of all attracts attention. Unfortunately, the works of Clement that have survived to this day contain too little data for any definite answer. The very fact that Clement nowhere has a special speech about the Church, about Tradition, about hierarchy, should keep us from a decisive answer, which, in any case, cannot be scientifically substantiated. We can judge Clement’s views on the issue that interests us only by random phrases that appear occasionally and as if in passing in works devoted to completely different subjects. It is quite understandable that one can differ greatly in the assessment of these scattered thoughts. Not embarrassed by the lack of clear and definite data, many Protestant scholars, however, judge Clement’s views very casually and decisively. In Clement they do not find any concept of Church Tradition with a definite content and its firmly established formulation in the Church Symbol. Hierarchy, according to Clement, also has no significance for the protection of church truth, and the concept of the continuous succession of episcopacy, as a guarantee for the integrity of Christ’s teaching in the Church, is not only absent from his writings, but is also completely alien to the entire structure of his views. In Clement, therefore, one does not find any basic concepts of the ecclesiological system of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. This is explained, of course, by the fact that Clement still stands from the point of view of the most ancient concept of the Church, when they knew neither a hierarchical system nor a monarchical episcopate 656. “In the silence of solitude, where Clement preached and wrote, not even the echo of the struggle that was waged in his time because of the triumph of the hierarchy penetrated. With calm fidelity he gives an image of the ancient times in which he himself was brought up. His heart is with the republic; he is the Samuel of the new monarchy" 657. All these and similar judgments about Clement's ecclesiology are too decisive to be agreed with. It must be admitted that in Clement’s fragmentary and scattered remarks about the Church one can find a lot of judgments that completely coincide with the basic tenets of the ecclesiology of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. First of all, for Clement, it is the Church that is the guardian of truth 658 in contrast to heresy 659, which does not have true knowledge of God 660. The sign of this true Church is its unity. She is the Catholic Church; does it unite people in the unity of faith? 661. The apostolic teaching was one, and their Tradition 662 was one. Throughout the entire Church there is unanimity and, as it were, one breath 663. On the contrary, the teachings of heretics are different and contradictory. The word of the Wise One refers specifically to heresies: “He who builds on a lie sows the wind and chases after winged birds. He left the paths of his vineyard and went to wander in the furrows of his field” (Proverbs 9:12). These are precisely the heresies that leave the Church 664. The heretics are dominated by the spirit of discord. They despise and ridicule each other. The same thought is respectable for some, but crazy for others 665. Then Clement seems to repeat Tertullian’s argumentum praescriptionis. Namely, he considers it a sign of the truth of the Church that it is older than the heretics. “It does not require much proof that heretics constitute their purely human societies (τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας συνηλώσεις) later than the Catholic Church. After all, the teaching of the Lord, having begun with His coming from the times of Augustus and Tiberius Caesar, ends in the middle of the time of Augustus; the teaching of the apostles, together with the ministry of Paul, ends under Nero. Then, already around the time of King Hadrian, there were heresies that were invented, and they extend to the time of Antoninus the Elder, such as Basilides, although he, as they boast, considers Glaucus, the translator of Peter, to be his teacher... Marcion was at the same time with them as the eldest with the younger ones; After him, only Simon listened to Peter's sermon for a little while. And if this is so, then it is clear that these later and even more recent false heresies (παραχαραχθείσας) by their innovation separated (κεκαινοτομῆσθαι) from the most ancient and true Church. From what has been said, I think it is obvious that the true Church is one, namely, truly ancient” 666. The True Church for Clement is precisely [the ancient Church] (ἡ ἀρχαία ἐκκλησία, τῷ ὄντι ἀρχαία) 667 . For Clement, therefore, the guardian of truth is the visible ancient Catholic Church, which began with the apostles 668. Being a treasury of truth, the Church has certain norms. Clement often uses the expressions κανὸν τῆς πίστεως, κανὸν τῆς ἀληθείας, κανὸν ἐκκλησιαστικός, κανὸν τῆς παραδόσεως and the like 669 . True, there are no sufficient grounds to assert that by these names Clement meant the “Rule of Faith” that the St. spoke about. Irenaeus and Tertullian, however, it cannot be denied that with these names Clement still designates some general church norms. Pointing out the deviations of heretics during the celebration of the Eucharist, Clement says that they act μὴ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἐκκλησίας 670. Heretics, distorting the truth, rob τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἐκκλησίας 671. Clement wishes to conduct his own work as a whole. All members of the Church in general should not violate τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα 673. Clement even speaks of the interpretation of Holy Scripture according to the Lord's teaching and pious Tradition, about interpretation according to church rule (τῶν γραφῶν ἐξήγησις κατὰ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα). Here Clement also gives some definition of this church exegetical principle, perhaps making an allusion to Marcion: “The church rule is the consonance and agreement of the law and the prophets with the covenant given at the coming of the Lord” 674. From the above expressions one can see that by κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός Clement means precisely a certain church teaching 675; otherwise his reasoning would be completely incomprehensible. Not alien, then, to Clement is the concept of Tradition, which he calls church, Christ's, Lord's, etc. 676 Church tradition has its origin from the Lord Himself, it was revealed by the Son of God Himself and transmitted to the apostles 677, who were true Gnostics 678. True knowledge came through succession, being transmitted by the apostles to a few without writing 679. In the preface to the Stromata, Clement outlines, as it were, the historical successions through which Tradition came from the apostles to him. He promises to set forth what he has heard from blessed and venerable men. “They, preserving the true Tradition of the blessed teaching from Peter and James, from John and Paul, the holy apostles, as a son receives from his father, came to us by the will of God, sowing (in us) those seeds of (our) ancestors and apostles” 680. But nowhere is it visible that Clement in any way connects the Tradition that is continuously preserved in the Church with the hierarchy 681. However, it should be noted that Clement definitely speaks of the apostolic institution of the episcopate. He calls James the Righteous the first bishop of Jerusalem 682. He, speaking about St. Apostle John, says that he went around the areas closest to Ephesus, installing bishops (ὅπου ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων) 683. Although Clement says very little about hierarchy, he nevertheless depicts the position of the bishop in the Church as very high. The bishop is the primate of the entire Church (τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀπάσης προΐστασθαι) 684, he is the leader of the Church (τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀφηγεῖσθαι) 685 . Thus, in Clement of Alexandria we find almost all the elements of the ecclesiology of Western fighters against Gnosticism; he only has a doctrine of hierarchy, which is generally poorly developed, and is not connected with the doctrine of Tradition. But from this, of course, one should not draw those broad conclusions that are common among Protestant historians 686; after all, the surviving works of Clement generally bear little resemblance to the works of Western writers. We have examined the results to which, through various previous stages, church thought came in the second half of the 2nd century on the issue of the Church as the custodian of truth. This doctrine had not yet been fully formulated at that time; among later writers this teaching received more complete expression. But the further dogmatic thought of the Church was stimulated by other conditions of church life, and the ground for further defining the concept of the Church was also different. The results we have outlined were achieved by church thought in the struggle against gnosis, mainly in the 2nd century. Gnosis, as we have already said, was not an exclusively Christian phenomenon; rather, it was an extra-Christian movement that invaded the system of Christian thought from outside, introducing alien elements and thereby damaging the original apostolic doctrine. The Church, in the fight against gnosis, more precisely formulated the confession of faith, introducing anti-Gnostic elements into it and establishing the principle of church tradition, continuously preserved in the Church from the apostles through the successive ministry of episcopacy. But differences of opinion were also possible for people who equally recognized both the “Rule of Faith” and the doctrinal authority of the bishopric. Perhaps there was disagreement within the depths of the Church itself. This or that concept of the Church has always in history been closely connected with church life itself. Certain forms of church life influenced the definition of the concept of the Church, and vice versa - this or that concept of the Church influenced church life, prompting in reality to carry out theoretical definitions of the qualities of the Church. The dogma of the Church in its history is closely connected with the history of church discipline, and a new period in the disclosure of the dogma of the Church began precisely from the very time when the issue was transferred to disciplinary soil. Chronologically, this period follows precisely what we have just considered: as soon as the intense struggle against Gnosticism ended in the second half of the 2nd century, the time of intensified and lengthy disciplinary disputes began. See: Iren. Contra haer. I, 29, 1; I, 30, 15. PG. T. 7. Col. 691B, 704A. Hippol. Philosopher. V, 11. PG. T. 16. Col. 3159B. Cfr.: Epiph. Haer. 31, 1. PG. T. 41. Col. 473B. Creations. 4, 1. M., 1863. P. 277. Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 77. Vgl. S. 83: “Wie Nebelgebilde, auf welche die Sonne einzelne Strahlen wirft, sehen wir diese mannigfaltigen gnostischen Systeme an.” Harnack Dogmengeschichte 4. I.S. 250 ff. Loofs F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 16, 3. S. 106–108. Nitzsch, op. cit. S. 54–55. “The heresies themselves receive their weapons (subornantur) from philosophy. Hence - eons and, I don’t know, some indefinite forms... Hence - Marcion’s best God thanks to his calmness (de tranquillitate); it came from the Stoics... The same matter is discussed (volutatur) by heretics and philosophers. Both of them have the same reasoning.” Tertull. De praescr. P. 7. PL. T. 2. Col. 22A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4.1. S. 251. “Unde malum, et quare? et unde homo, et quomodo?” Tertull. De praescr. C. 7.PL. T. 2. Col. 22B. This character of Gnosticism is especially strongly emphasized by lic. theol. Rudolf Liechtenhan. See Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. Göttingen, 1901. S. 84–85, 98–103, 162–164. See: V. IN . Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, II. pp. 174–175. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 253–254. Thomasius. Die Dogmengeschichte, 85; Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 336–337. De praescr. C. 4.PL. T. 2. Col. 18B. Various Gnostic sects wanted to remain in the Church by changing its teachings. About the Valentinians, Irenaeus reports that they did not want to separate from the Church (Contra haer. III, 15:2), and Valentin, according to Tertullian, was expelled from the Church (De praescr. P. 30). Hippolytus tried to prove that the Marcosians were not Christians, but Pythagoreans (Philos. VI, 52: “Οὐ Χριστοῦ μαθητάς, ἀλλά Πυθαγόρου.” PG. Τ. 16. Col. 3282Β.). The Naassenes considered themselves only true Christians. (Hipp. Philos. V, 9: "Καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐξ ἀπάντων ἁνθρώπων ἡμεῖς χριστιανοὶ μόνοι ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ πύλῃ ἀπαρτίζοντες τὸ μυστήριον καὶ χριόμενοι ἐκεῖ ἀλάλῳ χρίσματι, ἐκ κέρατος, ὡς Δαβίδ". 3159–3160). Marcionite Megephius, in a dispute with Adamant, insists that he is a Christian. Dial. I, 8. Dr. S. R. Caspari. Kirchenhistorische Anecdota nebst neuen Ausgaben patristischer und kirchlich-mittelalterlicher Schriften. I. Christiania, 1883. P. 12–13 (GrchSch. 4. S. 16. ff): “They appropriated to themselves the name Christians, and the pagan peoples are seduced by them,” says Epiphanius about the Carpocrats. Haer. 27, 3. PG. T. 41. Col. 368A. See also Irenaeus: Contra haer. III, 15, 2. PG. Τ. 7. Col. 918B. Tertull. Adv. Valentinianos. P. 27: plane et ipsi imaginarii Christiani. Tertull. Scorpiac. Cap. 1. CSEL 20, 1. P. 145, 6. sqq. See about this: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 359–360; Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 338–340; Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. 2-ter Teil. S. 282–283; Reinhold Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. Erlangen, 1885. S. 16; Nitzsch, op. cit. S. 55–56; Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte. §§ 16, 6; 19, 5. S. 110–111, 136; Knopf. Das nachap. Zeitalt. S. 339; Shternov. Tertullian. pp. 127–228; Archimandrite Sylvester. The doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries of Christianity. Kiev, 1872. pp. 167–169; The dogmatic system of St. Irenaeus of Lyons in connection with the Gnostic teachings of the 2nd century. Orthodox interlocutor. 1874. T. 2. pp. 191–193. Thomasius, op. cit. S. 81; Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 292 ff.; Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. 2 Th. S. 371; Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 17, 1. S. 111–112; Bolotov. Lectures, vol. 2. pp. 226–227; Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 34; Theodor Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1-er Bd. 2-te Halfte. Erlangen und Leipzig, 1889. S. 586 ff. Theodor Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1-er Bd. 2-te Halfte – Erlangen und Leipzig, 1889. S. 586 ff. CSEL 47, pp. 429,15–16; De came Christi. C.2.PL. T. 2. Col. 801A. Idem. 5: “habet plane et illud ecclesias, sed suas, tam posteras quam adulteras.” Haer. 42.1. PG. T. 41. Col. 696B. Creations. Part 2. pp. 127–128. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 305. Anm. 2. Vgl.; Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 17, 3. S. 113; Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme. P. 277, 281, 282; Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutest. Kanons. 1 Bd. S. 596. Clement of Alexandria calls Marcion a god-fighting giant - “ὁ θεομάχος οῦτος γίγας.” See: Strom. III, 4; 25, 2. – GrchSch. 15. S. 207, 10. Epiph. Haer. 31, 33. PG. T. 41. Col. 537C–D. Creations. 4. 1. P. 344. Orthodox interlocutor, 1874. T. 2. pp. 181–182. Dr. Karl Adam. Der Kirchebegriff Tertullians. Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte, herausgeg. von Dr. Ehrhard und Dr. I. P. Kirsch. VI. Band, 4 Heft. Paderborn, 1907. S. 23. Cfr.: Adhemar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 213, 60. P. Batiffol. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 317. These remarks cannot be combined into one system, because they are diverse and contradictory. First of all, the Church is one of the eons that is usually placed in syzygy with man. Iren. Contra haer. I. 1. 1, 2; 8, 5; 11, 1; 15, 3. PG. T. 7. Col. 448A, 449A, 537A, 561A, 620A, 621B. Essays. C. 22, 46, 52, 69, 70; Tertull. De praescr. C. 33.PL. T. 2. Col. 55A; Adv. Valentin. Cap. 39. CSEL, 47. P. 211, 20; Hippol. Philosopher. VI, 30, 43, 46, 51, 53; X, 13. PG. T. 16. Col. 3238C, 3263B, 3270B, 3279B, 3282B, 3287B, 3427B. On the other hand, the Church is the seed of the mother (Achamoth) and is the image of the Church on High - “ἀντίτυπον τῆς ἄνω ἐκκλησίας.” Iren. Contra haer. I, 5. 6. Cfr.: I, 8, 4. PG. T: 7; Col. 501B, 529A. Essays. C. 35. 43; Tertull. Adv. Valentin. Cap. 25: "Hoc semen ecclesiam dicunt, ecclesiae supemae speculum." CSEL, 47, pp. 202, 4–5. “The true and Holy Church is called the assembly and union (conventio et adunatio) of the Father of all things, the First Man, the Son, the Second Man, then Christ, Their Son and the said Woman.” Iren. Contra haer. 1, 30, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 695B. Essays. C. 101. Finally called “Τρεῖς ἐκκλησίαι, ἀγγελικὴ, ψυχικὴ, χοϊκή ὀνόματα δὲ αὐταῖς ἐκλεκτὴ, κλητὴ, αἰχμάλωτος.” Hippol. Philosopher. V, 6; X, 9. PG. Τ. 16. Coll. 3125V–3126V, 3419V. See further remarks in Excerpta ex Theodot 13, 1; 17, 1; 21, 3; 26, 1; 33, 2; 40, 2; 41; 42, 3; 58, 1. GrchSch. 17. S. 111, 4–6; 112, 8–9; 113, 26–27; 115, 15–16; 117, 22–24; 119, 13–15, 22–23; 120, 7; 126, 8 ff. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 16. This conclusion is reached by Liechtenhan (“Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus.” S. 42) after a careful study of the position of prophecy in the various Gnostic sects (S. 5–42). P tolom. Epist ad Flor. 10: “Μετὰ καὶ τοῦ κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ Σωτῆρος διδασκαλίᾳ.” Epiph. Haer. 33. 7. PG. Τ. 41. Col. 568С. Creations. Part 1. P. 374. Iren. Contra haer. I. 3, 6. PG. Τ. 7. Col. 477A. Essays. P. 29. “Sed ipsi de Scripturis agunt, et de Scripturis suadent. Aliunde scilicet suadere non possent de rebus fidei, nisi ex litteris fidei?” Tertull. De praescr. C. 15.PL. T. 2. Col. 33A. Cfr.: De resurrect, camis. C. 63: "Hae (haereses) sine aliquibus occasionibus scripturarum audere non poterant." Iren. Contra haer. I, 9, 3: “(With their system) they, as if in a false dream, invade the Scriptures, making up their own assumption (ἰδίαν ὑπόθεσιν ἀναπλασάμενοι).” PG. Τ. 7. Col. 544 A. Works. P. 48. Tertull. De praescr. P. 38: quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi, eos necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae. Alias ​​enim, non potuissent aliter docere, nisi aliter, haberent, per quae docerent. P.L. T. 2. Col. 62A. For details on the attitude of the Valentinians and Basilides to the New Testament writings, see: Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. 12. S. 718–763, 763–774. Idem. Col. 846A. Essays. C. 221. Idem. Col. 890A. Essays. C. 250. Idem. Col. 915–916. Essays. pp. 270–272. Idem. Col. 890B. Essays. C. 251. Idem. Col. 884B–C. Essays. C. 248. Tertull. De praescr. C. 17.PL. T. 2. Col. 35A. Philosopher. VII, 38. PG. T. 16. Col. 3346A. Iren. Contra haer. III, 11, 9. PG. T. 7. Col. 891A-B. Essays. C. 251. Contra haer. I. 20, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 653A. Essays. C. 80. For the pseudo-epigraphical literature of the Gnostics, see Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 43 ff.; Die Pseudepigraphen Literatur der Gnostiker. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1902. S. 222–237. 286–299. Contra haer. I. 9, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 544A–B. Essays. C. 48. Idem. Col. 521, 524. Works. C. 41. Idem. Col. 521A–B. Essays. C. 41. Contra haer. I, 9, 4: “Although he recognizes the stones, he will not take the fox for the image of the king.” PG. T. 7. Col. 545A, 548A. Essays. pp. 48, 49. All these words and examples are literally borrowed by Epiphanius of Cyprus. (Haer. XXXI 24, 29. PG. T. 41. Col. 520–521, 529–532. Creations. Part 1. P. 325–326, 336–338). To Tertullian, the Gnostics' treatment of the Holy Scriptures reminds how the poet Osidius Geta composed the poem "Medea" from the verses of Virgil and the Homerocentons, qui de carminibus Homeri propria opera more centonario ex multis hinc inde compositis in unum sarciunt corpus. De praescr. P. 39.PL. T. 2. Col. 64–65. On the use of Holy Scripture by the Gnostics, see Liechtenhan (S. 69–70. 79–81). Vgl.: Liechtenhan, op. cit. S. 81–83. Tertull. Adv. Marc. I, 19: “Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis.” CSEL, 47, 314, 22–23. Cfr.: De praescr. C. 30: Marcion Novum Testamentum a Vetere separavit. P.L. T. 2. Col. 50A. Also see: Adv. Marc. 1, 21; IV, 1. CSEL, 47. P. 318, 10–12; 423, 2–3. Adamant. II, 18: “Ὅσα οὗν μὴ νοήσαντες κατέλειψαν ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντισόμενα, ταῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπιφυλλίδας ἀναλεξάμενος ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν καὶ προφητικῶν φωνῶν.” CrchSch. 4. S. 96. 8–11. Iren. Contra haer. I, 27. 4: “Manifeste ansus est circumcidere Scriptures.” PG. T. 7. Col. 689B. Cfr.: I, 27, 2; III, 11, 7; III, 12, 12; 14, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 688B, 884B, 906A, 916C; Epiph. Haer. 42, 12: “Παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν.” PG. Τ. 41. Col. 813Α. Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV, 2. CSEL, 47. P. 426, 27. Tertull. De carne Christi. C.2.PL. T. 2. Col. 800–801. De praescr. P. 38: “Marcion exerte et palam machaera, non stylo usus est: quoniam ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confecit. P.L. T. 2. Col. 62–63. Cfr.: Adv. Marc. V, 18: De mania haeretici praecidendi non miror, si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducit.” CSEL, 47, 638, 5–6. Contra haeres. III, 12, 12. PG. T. 7. Col. 906A. Essays. P. 263. Cfr.: III, 11, 7, 9; I, 27, 2. Marcion convinced his disciples that he was more worthy of trust than the apostles who transmitted the Gospel; He himself gave them not the Gospel, but a particle of the Gospel (patriculam Evangelii). PG. Τ. 7. Col. 688V. Essays. P. 96. Tertullian speaks in detail about Marcion’s distortion of Holy Scripture. See: Adv. Marc. IV, 2–5. CSEL 47. R. 426 sqq. Haer. 42, 11–12. PG. T. 41. Col. 709–813. Creations. 4, 2. pp. 144–254. Epiphanius himself characterizes Marcion’s attitude towards Scripture in this way: “I will move on to what was written by Marcion, or better said, forged. For he accepts only the Gospel of Luke, truncated at the beginning, because it tells about the conception of the Savior and His coming in the flesh. But not only did he cut off the beginning, damaging himself more than the Gospel, but at the end and in the middle he cut off many words of truth, and added other things beyond what was written. And he uses this one outline (τῷ χαρακτῆρι) of the Gospel of Luke. He has ten epistles of the holy apostle; only these he uses, and not everything written in them, but he cuts off some chapters in them, and changes others.” Haer. 42, 9. PG. Τ. 41. Col. 708B. Creations. Part 2. P. 141. A full study of Marcion's attitude to the New Testament is given by Th. Zahn. See: Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. 1. S. 585–718. However, this attitude towards the text of Holy Scripture was common to all heretics of antiquity. Epiphanius reports similar things about the Ebionites (Haer XXX, 13–14. PG. T. 41. Col. 428–429. Creations. Part 1. pp. 235–237) and an unknown writer about the monarchians of the 2nd century. See: Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 28, 13, 15. CrchSch. 9, 1. S. 504. 11, 25–26. For more information about this, see: Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I. S. 326–368. Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I. S. 586. Iren. Contra haer. III, 11, 8. PG. T. 7. Col. 885A. Essays. C. 249. Iren. Contra haer. III, 1, 1: “We learned about the arrangement of our salvation through no one else, but through those through whom the Gospel came to us, which they then preached, and then, by the will of God, conveyed to us in the Scriptures.” PG. T. 7. Col. 844A. Essays. P. 220. Idem. III, 11, 9. PG. T. 7. Col. 890A. Essays. P. 250. Idem. V, 30, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 1204B–C. Essays. P. 510. Idem. III, 1, 1; III, 5, 1; IV, 34, 1; IV, 35, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 844A, 857B–C. 1083C. 1087C. Essays. C. 220, 226, 414, 418. Cfr.: Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV. 2. CSEL 47. P. 426. 6 sqq. Idem. III, 1, 1. Eusebius also cites the testimony of Irenaeus. See: N. E. V, 8, 2–7. GrchSch. 9, l. S. 442–446. Idem. III, 11, 9. PG. T. 7. Col. 891–892. Essays. C. 251. Idem. III, 11, 8. PG. T. 7. Col. 885–899. Essays. pp. 249–250. De praescr. C. 15.PL. T. 2. Col. 33B–34A. “We must first of all reason only about who the Scriptures belong to (cujus sint Scripturae).” Ibid. P. 19. PL. T. 2. Col. 36A. It should be noted that Tertullian attached little importance to research on Holy Scripture, as can be seen from his following expressions (“De praescr.” P. 14): “Fides, inquit, tua te salvurn fecit: non exercitatio Scripturarum... Exercitatio in curiositate consistit, habens gloriam solam de peritiae studio. Cedat curiositas fidei; cedat gloria saluti." P.L. T. 2. Col. 32A Cfr.: C. 7. PL. T. 2. Col. 24A. Idem. P. 37: “Non esse admittendos haereticos ad ineundam de Scripturis provocationem... Ita non Christiani nullum jus capiunt Christianarum litterarum.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 61B. Ctr. C. 45: "Certis et justis, et necessariis praescriptionibus repellendas a collatione Scripturarum." P.L. T. 2. Col. 74A. De praescr. C. 37.PL. T. 2. Col. 61B–C. Adv. Marc. IV, 5: "Id verius quod prius." CSEL, 47. P. 430. 11; IV, 5: "Veritas falsum praecedat necesse est." P. 432, 10–11; IV, 4: “In quantum enim, talsum corruptio est veri, in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. Prior erit res passione et materia aemulatione.” P. 428, 27–429, 2. Cfr.: De praeser. P. 31.PL. T. 2. Col. 51B. Idem. IV, 4: “Ego meum dico verum. Marcion suum; ego Marcionis adfirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum, quis inter nos determininabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod antiquius repperietur, et ei praejudicans vitiationem, quod posterius revincetur?” Idem. IV, 4: “Quod ergo pertinet ad evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio ejus inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcionis est quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse Uli Marcion aliquando crediderit, cum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae ecclesiae contulit, projectam mox cum ipso, posteaquam in haeresim suam a nostra veritate desciit.” Idem. IV, 4: “Emendator sane evangelii a Tiberianis usque ad Antoniniana tempora eversi Marcion solus et primus obvenit... non divinae auctoritatis negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat evangelia, dum vitiat.” CSEL 47, 429, 26–28, 30–31; 430, 1. Iren. Contra haer. V, 20, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1178A–B. Essays. C. 488. Idem. IV, 33, 8: “Sine fictione Scripturarum tractatio plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens, et lectio sine falsatione.” PG. T. 7. Col. 1077B. Essays. C. 409. See Thomasius'a about this. (“Dogmengeschichte”, I. S. 131–135). Iren. Contra haer. III, 2, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 847A. Essays. C. 221. Cfr.: I, 7, 3: “They dissect prophecies, believing that some were spoken by the Mother (ἀπὸ τῆς μητρός), others by the seed (ἀπὸ τῆς σπέρματος), and others Demiurge. And Jesus also, they say, spoke one thing from Soter, another from the Mother, and another from the Demiurge.” PG. T. 7. Col. 516B–517A. Essays. pp. 39–40. Hippolytus reports similar things about the Naassenes. See Philosopher. X, 9: “Καὶ ὁμοῦ δι’ αὐςτοῦ λελαληκέναι τὰς τρεῖς οὐσίας τοῖς τρισί γένεσι". PG. Τ. 16, col. 3419Β. Liechtenhan makes the assumption that what Jesus said from Soter was collected from the Valentinians in “Εὐαγγέλιον ἀληθείας”, so that the division of the words of Jesus into the indicated three classes was obviously related to the church canonical Gospels, and not to the “Gospel of Truth”, which by its very name could no longer contain anything imperfect, descended from the Demiurge. See: Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 69–70. But Irenaeus calls the “Gospel of truth” “in nihilo conveniens apostolorum Evangeliis” (Contra haer. III, 11, 9. PG. T. 7. Col. 891B), and therefore we can rather recognize, together with Zahn’om, this “Gospel” as a special, additional Gospel (“Geschichte des neutest. Kanons”, I. S. 750. Cfr.: S. 748–750). Contra haer. IV, 35, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1087–1088. Essays. C. 418. Idem. Col. 838A. Essays. C. 216. For an exposition and analysis of this theory, see St. Irenea (Contra haer. III, 5, 1–2; 12, 6, 13. PG. T. 7. Col. 858–859. 898C–899B, 907A–B. Works. pp. 227–228, 256–257. 263–264). Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti, 66. “Ὁ Σωτὴρ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐδίδασκεν, τὰ μὲν πρῶτα τυπικῶς καὶ μυστικῶς, τὰ δὲ ὕστερα παραβολικῶς καὶ ᾔνιγμένως, "" GrchSch. 17. S. 128, 24–26. Cfr.: Iren. Contra haer. II, 27, 2: et ipsi testantur dicentes in absconso haec eadem Salvatorem docuisse non omnes, sed aliquos discipulorum, qui possunt capere, et per argumenta, et aenigmata, et parabolas ab eo signiflcata intelligentibus. PG. T. 7. Col. 803C. Essays. P. 189. See also I, 3, 1. Col. 468. Essays. C. 26. Tertullian polemicizes against such an application of the words of Christ. See: De praescr. pp. 8–12. How the Gnostics argued for the need for an allegorical interpretation of Holy Scripture, see lic. Carola Barth. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments in der valentinianischen Gnosis. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Herausgegeben von Adolf Harnack und Carl Schmidt. Bd. 37, Heft. 3. Leipzig, 1911. S. 54–59. Contra haer. I, 8, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 520B–521A. Essays. P. 41. Wed. Liechtenhan's remark (“Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus.” S. 71. Anm. 1). Idem. I. 3, 6. PG. T. 7. Col. 477B. Essays. C. 29. Cfr.: Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 78; Th. Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I, 2. S. 720. Contra haer. I, 3, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 469A, 468A. Essays. C. 27. 26. Idem. Col. 469A–B. Essays. C. 27. Idem. Col. 469–473. Essays. pp. 27–28. See: Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 72–75; Barth C. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments. TU 37, 3. S. 46–52. See: Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 72–75; Barth C. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments. TU 37, 3. S. 46–52, 59–111. On the contrary, Marcion was a supporter of only a literal understanding of Holy Scripture, so Tertullian, in polemics with him, often justified the allegorical interpretation of certain passages of Holy Scripture. See: Adv. Marc. II, 19, 21, 22; III, 5, 6, 14, 19; IV, 15, 20; V, 1, etc. Cfr.: Adaman. I, 7: “Ὅπου παραβολὴ ἐπιγέγραπται, ἐκεῖνά ἐστι νοητά, τά δὲ ἄλλα ψιλά". GrchSch. 4. S. 14, 22–23. For Marcion's method of interpretation, see: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 293. Anm. 3; Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestam. Kanons. Bd. I. S. 587. Anm. 2. However, on occasion, other Gnostics sometimes insisted on a literal understanding of Holy Scripture, for example, the prologue of the Gospel of John. See: Iren. Contra haer. I. 8, 5. PG. T. 7. Col. 532 sqq. Essays. pp. 44–46. “They also maliciously said: if heaven is the Throne of God, and earth is His footstool, and heaven and earth, as it is said, will pass away, then as if with their passing, God who sits on them must also pass away, and therefore He is not the Most High God.” Here Irenaeus already reproaches the Gnostics for puttingant Deum more hominis sedere. Contra haer. IV, 3, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 979–980A. Essays. C. 323. So Matthew 10:38; Luke 14:27; Mark 10:21, according to the Gnostic explanation given by Irenaeus (Contra haer. I, 3, 5. PG. T. 7. Col. 476A. Works. P. 28), point to ὅρος (about him I, 2:4), namely, to its binding activity (τὴν ἐδραστικήν). But in Excerpta ex Theod. 42 (CrchSch. 17. S. 120. 1–7) (Matthew 10:38) a different, very vague explanation is given, where the Cross is already compared with the body of Jesus. VgL: Barth S. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments. TU 37, 3. S. 68–69, 86. Tertull. De praescr. P. 17: “Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus, quantum et corruptor stylus.” P.L. T. 2. Cot 35A. Cfr.: De resurr. cam. P. 63: “Ipsum sermonem dei vel stilo vel interpretatione corrumpens.” CSEL, 47, pp. 124, 25–26. Contra haer. II, 23, 1–2; 24, 1–6, etc. Tertull. De resurr. camis. C. 20. CSEL 47. P. 52, 13–17; 53, 13–15, 21–22. Tertull. De resurr. camis. P. 30: “Nam etsi figmentum veritatis in imagine est, imago ipsa in veritate est sui. Necesse est esse prius sibi, quo alii configuretur. De vacuo similitude non competit, de nullo parabola non convenit.” CSEL, 47, 68, 11–14. Cfr.: C. 20. P. 52, 11–15. The Gnostics referred to Matthew 13. 34: He spoke nothing to them without a parable. Tertull. De resurr. carnis. P. 33. CSEL 47. P. 72. For more details on Tertullian’s exegetical principles, see Adhémar d’Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 245 et suiv. De resurr. carnis. C. 21. CSEL, 47. P. 54. 2–3. Cfr.: Adv. Prax. C. 20: secundum plura intellegi pauciora. CSEL, 47, 263, 12–13. De pudic. C. 17: pauca multis, dubia certis, obscura manifestis adumbrantur. CSEL 20.1. P. 258. 22–23. Iren. Contra haer. II, 27, 3. PG. T. 7. Col. 803C–804A. Essays. C. 189. Heretics, in the words of St. Irenaeus, with their interpretations tie an insoluble knot (nodum insolubilem). Contra haeres. II, 10, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 735B. Essays. P. 132. Cfr.: Tertul. De pudic. C. 9: non ex parabolia materias commentamur, sed ex materiis parabolas interpretamur. CSEL, 20, 1. pp. 235, 25–26. Idem. Col. 802C–803A. Wed. II, 10. 1: “The question cannot receive a solution through such another, which itself still requires a solution; and among people who have sense, an ambiguity (ambiguitas) will not be explained by another, or a riddle by another, most difficult riddle; on the contrary, this kind of thing receives its explanation from what is clear, understandable and consistent with each other.” PG. T. 7. Col. 735A–B. Essays. P. 132. Idem. Col. 802C. Essays. P. 188. Idem. Col. 545B, 548A Essays. P. 49 Idem. Col. 804 sq. Essays. pp. 190–191. Idem. Col. 806B–C. Essays. pp. 191–192. Cfr.: II, 26, 1–3; V, 20, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 800–802. 1178B. Essays. pp. 186–188, 488–489. Cfr.: Tertull. De pudic. P. 9: “Malumus in scripturis minus, si forte, sapere quam contra.” CSEL, 20. 1. p. 238. 30–31. Tertullian argues that in parables one should not give an interpretation of every little thing. See: De pudic. P. 9: “Nec valde laboramus omnia in expositione torquere... hujusmodi enim curiositates et suspecta faciunt quaedam, et coactarum expositionum subtilitate plerumque deducunt a veritate.” CSEL 20, 1. P. 235, 26–27; 236, 4–6. Idem. Col. 1077B–1078A: “In the Church there is a correct (legitima) and careful, safe and non-blasphemous interpretation of the Scriptures and an excellent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge and more glorious than prophecy and more excellent than all other gifts.” Essays. P. 409. For this method, see the study by Dr. Paul Heinisch 'a: "Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese (Barnabas, Iustin und Clemens von Alexandrien)." Munster, W. 1908. S. 5–29, 52–125. Wed. C. Barth's remark (“Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments.” TU 37, 3. S. 59). Idem. Col. 1042B. Essays. pp. 377–378. Idem. Col. 1068–1070. Essays. pp. 402–403. Idem. Col. 1046–1047. Essays. pp. 380–381. Fragm. 23.PG. T. 7. Col. 1241B. Essays. P. 538. See also interpretations of Judgment 16:26 (Fragm. 27. PG. T. 7. Col. 1244B. Works. P. 539), 2 Kings 6:5–7 (Contra haeres. V, 17, 4. Fragm. 28. PG. T. 7. Col. 1171A, 1244C. Works. C. 483:539), Luke 13:19 (Fragm. 31. PG. T. 7. Col. 1245A. Works. p. 540), Judg. 15:11 (Fragm. 42. PG. T. 7. Col. 1260A. Works. p. 544), Matthew 5:5 (Contra haer. V, 9, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 1146–1147. Works. pp. 463–464), John 11:43, 44 (Contra haer. V, 13, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 1156B–C. Works. pp. 471), stories of Jacob (IV, 21, 3. PG. T. 7. Col. 1045–1046. Works. P. 379), history of Tamar (IV, 25, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1051A–B. Works. P. 385). One cannot agree with those who write that “St. Irenaeus, when interpreting various passages of Scripture, adheres mainly to the literal meaning and generally tries to avoid the so-called allegorical and allegorical method of interpretation.” Orthodox interlocutor, 1874. T. 2. P. 226. Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. 2-ter Tell. S. 411; Beuzart P. Essai sur la théologie d'Irenee. Paris, 1908. P. 25–26. See about this: Heinisch P. Der Einfluss Philos... S. 30–36. Heinisch P. Der Einflus Philos... S. 40. On Tertullian, see the remarks of Adhemar d' Ales. La theologie de Tertullien. P. 250–252, 254. Vgl.: Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I.S. 135. “Der Gnostizismus verhält sich in dieser Hinsicht ganz anders, als die modernen Formen der Heterodoxie, welche mit der Überlieferung absichtlich brechen. Ritschl Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche." S. 338–339. Iren. Contra haer. I, 25, 5. PG. T. 7. Col. 685A. Essays. C. 94. Cfr.: Excerp. ex Theod. 66. GrchSch. 17. S. 128, 24–26. Idem., Col. 703A. Essays. P. 107. Cfr.: I, 3, 2; II, 27, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 469A, 803C. Essays. pp. 27, 189. Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 46. Hippol. Philos. V, 7. PG. T. 16. Col. 3126C. Epiph. Haer. 26, 13. PG. T. 41. Col. 352D. Creations. 4.1. C. 168. “Βασιλείδης τοίνυν καὶ Ἰσίδωρος... φασὶν εἰρικέναι Ματθίαν αὐτοῖς λόγους ἀποκρύφους, οὓς ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος κατ’ ἰδίαν "διδαχθείς." Hippol. Philos. VII, 20. PG. Τ. 16. Col. 3302Β. Cfr.: Clem Alex Strom. II, 9, 45, 4. GrchSch. 15. S. 137, 2–3. VII, 13, 82, 1; VII, 17, 108, 1. GrchSch. 17. S. 58, 20–21, 76, 22 (PG. T. 8. Col. 981A; t. 9. Col. 513B, 552B). Hippol. Philos. V, 8: “Ταῦτα, φησίν, ἐστὶ τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἄῤῥητα μυστήρια, ἃ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν μόνοι.” PG. Τ. 16. Col. 3146C–3147Α. Gfr. Tertull. De praeser. C. 24. “Hos se aliqua haeresis sequi afflrmat.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 43A. Iren. Contra haer. II, 30, 7. PG. T. 7. Col. 819–820. Essays. pp. 202–203. The Armenian writer of the 5th century Eznik (Wardapet Eznik von Kolb) testifies to the same thing about the Marcionites. See his essay “Against Sects,” book. 4, ch. 3. The translation of this work was done by Ioh. Michael Schmid. (“Bibliothek der alten armenichen Literatur in deutschen Übersetzung”, herausgegeben von der Wiener Mechitharisten-Congregation. Bd. I. Wien, 1900. S. 180–181). Epiph. Haer. 38, 2. PG. T. 41. Col. 656D. Creations. 4, 2. P. 86. Clem Alex Strom. VII, 17, 10, 4. CrchSch. 17. S. 75, 15–18 (PG. T. 9. Col. 549A). For more details on the secret tradition of the Gnostics, see: Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnoticismus. S. 45–50; Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 339–340; Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 124–125. Iren. Cit. op. III, 1, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 844B. Essays. C. 220. Tertull. De praeser. C. 6: “Acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 21 A. Cfr.: Iren. Contra haer. III, 5, 1: “The apostles are alien to all lies, for lies are not united with truth, like darkness with light, but the presence of one excludes the other.” – PG. T. 7. Col. 858A. Essays. P. 227. Iren. Cit. op. III praef. PG. T. 7. Col. 834B–844A. Essays. C. 220. De praeser. C. 22, 23, 24. PL. T. 2. Col. 39–43. Ibid. C. 25.PL. T. 2. Col. 43–44. Cfr.: Scorpiac. C. 12. CSEL, 20, 1. P. 172, 5–12. Ibid. C. 26: “Quanquam, etsi quaedam inter domesticos, ut ita dixerim, disserebant, non tamen ea fuisst credendtun est, quae aliam regulam fidei superducerent, diversam et contrariam illi, quam catholice in medium proferebant.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 45B. Cfr.: Col. 44–46. For a more detailed presentation of Tertullian’s polemic against secret tradition, see Sternov (“Tertullian,” pp. 154–157). The expression of Serapion of Antioch, preserved by Eusebius, is very important. He writes: “We accept Peter and the other apostles as Christ.” N. E. VI, 12, 3. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 544, 15–16. Tertull. De praeser. P. 9. PL. Τ. 2. Col. 26–27. De praeser. C. 10. PL. T. 2. Col. 28–29. Iren. Cit. op. III, 4, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 855A–B. Essays. C. 225. Karl Adam says: “Tertullian’s classic work “De praescriptione haereticorum” boils down directly to this proposition: in matters of faith, it is not subjective research that matters, but only the decision of the Church, because only in it is the apostolic and generally ancient teaching preserved infallibly.” "Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians", S. 26–27. De praescr. haer. C. 17: "Nihil proficiat congressio Scriupturarum, nisi plane ut stomachi quis ineat eversionem, aut cerebri." P.L. T. 2. Col. 35A. In another place, Tertullian says that if you argue only on the basis of Scripture, then you will only lose your voice and go mad (bilem) from the blasphemy of heretics. – De praescr. P. 17. PL. T. 2. Col. 35V. Ibid. P. 19. PL. T. 2. Col. 36A–B. Ibid. P. 3, 13. PL. T. 2. Col. 17A, 30B. Adv. Prax. P. 2. CSEL 47. P. 229, 14. Virg. vel. C. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 937B. Iren. Contra haer. I, 9, 4; 22, 1; III, 2, 1; 15, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 545B, 669A, 847A, 918A. Wed. Essays. C. 49, 85, 221, 273. Cfr.; veritatis regula. Tertull. Adv. Hermog. C. 1. CSEL 47. P. 126, 4. Wed. in Irenaeus - “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”, ch. 6. Ibid. I, 9, 4: “Ὃν (κανόνα) διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἴληφε.” PG. Τ. 7. Col. 545V. Essays. P. 49; Tertull. Ad mart. C. 3.PL. T. 1. Col. 624A; De spect. C. 4; De idolol. C. 6. CSEL 20, 1. P. 6, 14; 35, 24–25. About this see: Th. Zahn. Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntnis in der alten Kirche. Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche. 2-te Aufl. Erlangen und Leipzig, 1898. S. 248 ff. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 354 ff.; Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4 . § 11, 6. S. 79. De praescr. C. 20: "Ejusden sacramenti una traditio." C. 32. De corona. C. 11 bis. 13.PL. T. 2. Col. 37B, 54A. Not. 48, 111 S. 113B, 117A. Ad martyr. C. 3: cum in sacramenti verba respondimus. P.L. T. 1. Col. 624A. De idolol. C. 6. Scorpiac. C. 4. De anima. C. 1. CSEL 20, 1. P. 35, 24; 153, 14; 299, 22. Adv. Marc. 1, 28; IV, 5: de societate sacramenti confoederantur. CSEL 47. P. 329, 28; 430, 23–24. A comparison of the baptismal Symbol with the military oath is often found among African writers. See: Zahn Th. Skizzen,.. S. 250, 380. See also the work of S.P. Znamensky. “From the life of words (Semasiological fate of the term sacramentum).” – Theological Bulletin. 1909. T. 1. pp. 565–570. Iren. sit. I, 10, 1; III, 4, 2. De praescr. C. 13. De virg. vel. C. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 31.937.Adv. Prax. C. 2. CSEL, 47. pp. 228–229. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 362–365; Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. 2-tes Th. S. 417–418; Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertuilien. P. 256–258; Batifol P. L'èglise naissante. P. 320. K. Adam is inclined in Tertullian in “De virg. vel." see the official symbol of the Carthaginian Church, in "De praescr." "regula fidei" is common among anti-Jewish and anti-Gnostic elements, and in "Adv. Prax." Montanist and anti-monarchist ideas penetrated. See: "Der Kirchen Begriff Tertullians". S. 28. 37–40. Tertull. De virg. vel. C. 1: “Una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 937B. Cfr.: De praescr. P. 14. Ibid. Col. 31B. Iren. Contra haer. III, 15, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 918A. Essays. C. 273. Idem. Col. 553B. 556A. Essays. pp. 50–51. Idem. Col. 545B, 348A. Essays. C. 49. Tertull. De praeser. P. 14: “Manente forma ejus in suo ordine, quantum libet quaeras et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis eflundas. Fides in regula posita est... Adversus regulam nihil scire, omnia scire est.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 31B. 32A. Idem. Col. 553A. Essays. C. 50. Cfr.: V, 20, 2: “Quanto pluris sit idiota religiosus a blasphemo et frnpudente sophista.” PG. T. 7. Col. 1177C–1178A. For more information, see Th. Zahn'a: “Skizzen...”, S. 243–245. Cfr.: R. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte de Begriffes der Kirche. S. 20–21. Anm. Tertull. De praescr. C. 20: “Quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditto.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 37B. Cfr.: not. 82; Rigaltii. et Albaspin. Col. 38D. See: Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 239, not 2. Cfr.: Z ahn Th . Skizzen,.. S. 380–381. Cfr.: Zahn Th. Skizzen,.. S. 250–253. “Aἰ κατὰ μέσα τοῦ κόσμου” – according to some, the Church in Palestine, according to others, the Church of Italy. See: PG. T. 7. Col. 553D, not 1. Essays. P. 50, approx. 105. R. Batiffol. L'église naissante et le catholicisme. P. 240, not. 1. Iren. Contra haer. 1. 10. 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 552A–553. Essays. C. 50. Idem. Col. 848A. Cfr.: not. 50–51. Col. 847D. Essays. C. 222. Idem. Col. 855C, 856A–B. Essays. pp. 225–226 Idem. Col. 966A. Essays. C. 312. Idem. Col. 560A, 1177B. Essays. pp. 52, 488. Tertull. De praescr. P. 28: “Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint?” P.L. T. 2. Col. 47A. Tertull. De praescr. C. 28: "Quod apud multos unum, non est erratum, sed tradinum." P.L. T. 2. Col. 47B. Contra haer. I, 11, 1. II praet. PG. T. 7. Col. 560A, 707A–708A. Essays. C. 52. Cfr.: V, 20, 2: “They do not walk firmly along many and different roads, (varie et multiformiter et imbecille) not always agreeing with each other regarding the same things, just as the blind are led by the blind and worthily fall into the pit of ignorance unnoticed by them, always seeking and never finding the truth.” PG. T. 7. Col. 1178A. Essays. P. 488 Idem. Col. 569A. Essays. P. 55. Idem. Col. 576A. Essays. P. 56. Idem. Col. 657B. Essays. P. 82. Idem. Col. 667B, 670A. Essays. P. 84. Cfr.: IV, 24, 2: “At times they think differently about the same objects and never have solid knowledge, wanting to be more sophists of words than students of truth. For they are not founded on one stone, but on sand.” Col. 967A. P. 313. Cfr.: V, 20, 1. Col. 1177A. P. 487. De praescr. P. 41. PL. T. 2. Col. 68V. De monog. P. 2: “Adversarius spiritus ex diversitate praedicationis appareret, primo regulam adulterans fldei.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 981A. Cfr.: Iren. Contra haer. III, 2, 1: unus quisque ipsorum... regulam veritatis depravans. PG. T. 7. Col. 847A. Essays. C. 221. De praescr. C. 42.PL. T. 2. Col. 70A-B. Cfr.: Adv. Hermog. 45. CSEL 47. 176, 7–10. Contra haer. I, 9, 5: “They themselves differ from each other, as if inspired by various flattering spirits. For already from this and before the proof one can clearly understand the firmness of the truth proclaimed by the Church and the falsity of the teaching they compiled (ψευδηγορίαν).” PG. T. 7. Col. 548–549. Essays. P. 49. Tertull. De praescr. P. 28: variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. P.L. T. 2. Col. 47A. De praescr. C. 32.PL. T. 2. Col. 54A. “Tertullien ne sépare pas la catholicité de l’apostolicité.” Michael E. L'ecclésiologie de Tertullien. See: Revue internationale de théologie. 1905. P. 270. In establishing the principle – catholic (quod apud multos unum invenitur) = apostolic (non est erratum, sed traditum) Adhémar d’Alès sees Tertullian’s important merit in the historical development of Christian dogma. See: La theologie de Tertullien. P. 261. Cfr.: Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme. P. 328–329. See prof. V.V. Bolotova. (“Lectures on the history of the ancient Church.” II. p. 428). Fragm. 3.PG. T. 7. Col. 1228С–1229А. Essays. pp. 530–531; Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 24. 12–13. CrchSch. 9, 1. S. 494. 15–25. Polycrates of Ephesus expressed the same thought on behalf of “the great multitude of bishops who were present with him.” While defending his practice, Polycrates at the same time says that all those who previously adhered to this practice did not deviate from the Rule of Faith, but adhered to it in everything. This is what he, Polycrates, does. Η. E. V, 24, 2–7. S. 490, 492. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 24, 14–17. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 494, 496. PG. T. 7. Col. 1229B, 1232A. Essays. C. 531. De praescr. 14: "Haec regula... nullas habet apud nos quaestiones, nisi quas haereses inferunt et quae haereticos faciunt." P.L. T. 2. Col. 31B. Idem. Col. 17A. E. Michaud sees in Tertullian the beginnings of the later famous formula: “In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. L'ecclésiologie de Tertullien." Revue internationale de theologie, 1905. P. 265. In the Montanist period, as can be seen from the reasoning in de corona (cfp. 3. PL. T. 2. Col. 98B–C, Tertullian thought somewhat differently. Cfr.: Adhe ́ mar d ’ Ale ̀ s . La théologie de Tertullien. P. 258–259. But even then he wrote: Una nobis et illis tides, unus Deus, idem Christus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri sacramenta. Semel dixerim, una Ecclesia sumus. De virg. vel. cap. 2.PL. T. 2. Col. 939A. Cfr.: R. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffes der Kirche. S. 22. Contra haer., III, 4, 3. PG. T. 7. Col. 856B–857B. Essays. C. 226. Adv. Marc. VI, 5. CSEL, 47. P. 430, 11. Cfr.: IV, 4: id verius existimetur, quod est serius. P. 429, 6–7. Adv. Marc. IV, 5. CSEL 47, 432, 10–11. Cfr.: De testim. animae. C.5.PL. T. 1. Col. 617. De praescr. P. 29.PL. T. 2. Col. 48A. Cfr.: C. 35. Col. 58A. De praescr. P. 31.PL. T. 2. Col. 51–52. Adv. Marc. V, 19. CSEL, 47. P. 642, 27–643. 1. Adv. Hermog. C. 1; Ibid. P. 126; De praescr. C. 34.PL. T. 2. Col. 57A. Adv. Marc. III, 1: “Illic scilicet pronuntiandam regulae interversionem, ubi posteritas invenitur.” CSEL 47, 377, 16–17. Cfr.: I, 1. P. 292, 4–6. Cfr.: Adv. Prax. C. 2: “Id esse verum, quodcumque primum; id esse adulterum, quodcumque posterius.” CSEL, 47, 229, 19–20. Adv. Marc. I. 1. CSEL 47. P. 292. 8. Cfr.: Adv. Hermog. C. 1: de posteritate praescribere. CSEL, 47, 126, 3–4. Adv. Marc. V, 19. CSEL, 47. P. 642, 26–27. De praescr. C. 34.PL. T. 2. Col. 57. Adv. Prax. C. 2. CSEL 47. P. 229, 16. De praescr. C. 35.PL. T. 2. Col. 57A. De praescr. C. 6.PL. T. 2. Col. 21A. Cfr.: Adv. Hermog. C. 1: novella est. CSEL 47. P. 126, 8. Adv. Prax C. 2: ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterm. CSEL 47. P. 229, 17. Adv. Prax. C. 2 CSEL, 47. P. 229, 16–17. Adv. Valentin. C. 4. CSEL, 47. P. 180, 22–23. De praescr. C. 13.PL. T. 2. Col. 48–50. Cfr.: Adv. Hermog. C. 1: denique ad hodiemum homo in saeculo. CSEL 47, 126, 8–9. Adv. Marc. V, 19. CSEL, 47. P. 643. Adv. Marc. V, 19.CSEL; 47. P. 643. 8–13. De praescr. C. 30.PL. T. 2. Col. 51A. Tertullian himself says: “Solemus praesribere.” Adv. Hermog. C. 1. Adv. Marc. V, 19. CSEL, 47. P. 126, 3–4; 642, 26–27. See Adhemar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertulien. P. 201; Batiffol P. L'église naissante. P. 326–330. Cfr.: Migne, PL. T. 2. Col. 1433. Adv. Marc. I, 1. CSEL, 47. P. 292, 7. De praescr. C. 45.PL. T. 2. Col. 74A. Cfr.: Adv. Prax. C. 2. Adv. Marc. I. 1. CSEL, 47, 229, 21–22. 292. 8–10. De praescr. C. 20. PL. T. 2. Col. 37A–B. Idem. Col. 52B–53A. “Configant tale aliquid haeretici!” - Tertullian exclaims. Cfr.: De virg. vel. C. 2: “Eas ego Ecclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel Apostolici viri condiderunt.” De fuga, c 13: “Hanc episcopatui formam apostoli providentius condiderunt.” De pudic. C. 21. CSEL, 20, 1. pp. 268–269. Cfr.: Schanz. Der Begriff der Kirche. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1893. S. 571–572; Tunnel I. Tertullien. P. 57; Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullianb. S. 41. See: Contra haer. III, 2, 2: “Traditio, quae per successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur” (PG. T. 7. Col. 847A. Works. P. 221). III, 3, 2: “Fidem per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos” (col. 848B. Works. p. 222) III, 3, 3; "Τῇ αὐτῇ διαδοχῇ (successione) ἥτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κύρηγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς”, (col. 851Β. P. 223) IV, 33. 8: “Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus ISH eam, quae in unoquoque loco est, Ecclesiam tradiderunt” (col. 1077B. P. 409). Cfr.: IV, 26, 2–5; V, 20, 1. Col. 1053C, 1056A–B, 1177 A–B. pp. 387, 389, 487–488. Contra haer., VI, 33, 8. PG. T. 7. Col. 1077B. Essays. C. 409. Idem. Col. 848A–B. Essays. C. 222. Contra haer., IV, 32, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 1071A. Essays. P. 405. Idem. Col. 848B. Essays. P. 222. Idem. Col. 849A–B, 851A. Essays. P. 223. Eusebius also cites this testimony of Irenaeus. See: Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 6, 1–4. CrchSch. 9. 1. S. 438. Idem. Col. 851 B–C, 852A–B. Essays. C. 224. Eusebius. Cit. op. IV, 14, 3–5. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 332. Idem. Col. 854B, 855A. Essays. C. 224. Idem. Col. 851B. Essays. pp. 223–224. Among writers close in time, the installation of apostles and the continuous succession of bishops is also considered proof of the truth of church teaching. Eusebius cites an excerpt from an Asia Minor writer of the end of the 2nd century: “If the Montanian women received the gift of prophecy, as they say, successively after Codratus and Ammia of Philadelphia, then let them show which of them themselves was the successor of Montanus and his women” (N. E. V, 17. 4. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 470, 19–21). Succession as a criterion of truth is here recognized by both the Montanists and the church writer. The church writer Caius, who lived under the Roman bishop Zephyrinus, wrote to Proclus, a Montanist: “I can show you the trophies of the apostles. Just come to the Vatican or to the Ostian road - you will immediately see the signs of victory (τὰ τρόπαια) of the founders of the Roman Church.” The Corinthian bishop Dionysius, in a letter to the Romans, testifies: “Both (Peter and Paul) planted us Corinthians.” Eusebius. Cit. op. II, 25, 6–8. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 176, 178. So, we find a reference to episcopal succession from the apostles from a writer eastern, western and who lived between East and West. Cfr.: remark by R. Batiffol (“L’église naissante et le catholicisme 3.” P. 322. Cfr.: Karl Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 33–34. But, in our opinion, Adam exaggerates the difference between Irenaeus and Tertullian when he sees in him proof of the apostleship of only a separate Church. Contra haer. V, 20, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1178С. Essays. P. 489. Idem. Col. 1077A. Essays. P. 409. Idem. Col. 1072–1077. Essays. pp. 405–409. Idem. Col. 966A–C. Essays. P. 312. Idem. Col. 1053С–1054А. Essays. P. 387. Cfr.: IV. 26, 4: "Adhaerere his qui et apostolorum sicut praediximus, doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum et conversationem sine offensa praestant." Ibid. Col. 1055 A. Works. C. 388. Idem. Col. 1056A–B. Essays. C. 389. Schanz argues that charisma veritatis does not mean the infallibility of an individual bishop, but [means] the infallibility of the entire episcopate (“Der Begrift der Kirche.” Theologische Quartalschrift. 1893. S. 567). Adam, on the contrary, sees the personal charisma of the bishop, which he sees as a flaw in the teaching of Irenaeus (“Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians.” S. 34). But, I think, one should not make such a distinction in the teaching of Irenaeus. The Church is catholic, and successio always concerns most closely the individual Church. But in the life of the Church, the individual Church coincides with the entire universal Church. Cfr.: R. Batiffol. L'église naissante. R. 244. Wed. also in Schanz’a, op. cit., S. 568–569. P. Beuzart sees at St. Irenaeus is the germ of that—not yet formulated—thought that the hierarchy in the Church is generally the organ of the Holy Spirit par excellence. (“Essai sur la théologie d’Irénée.” P. 161). Cfr.: Beuzart. Essai sur la théologie d'Irénée. P. 151–152, 153. Contra haer. IV, 26, 5. PG. T. 7. Col. 1055C. Essays. C. 389. De praescr. C. 28.PL. T. 2. Col. 47A. “Die Überzeugung von der erleuchtenden Tätigkeit des HI. Geistes in der Kirche durchdringt gerade ihn auf das tiefste.” Apol. 39: "Quanto dignius fratres et dicuntur et habentur, qui unum Pattern Deum agnoverunt, qui unum Spiritum biberunt sanctitatis." And it is remarkable that Tertullian says about truth: “Qui de uno utero ignorantiae, ejusdem ad unam lucem expaveruiint veritatis.” P.L. T. 1. Col. 471–472. De praescr. C. 13: misisse vicariam vim Spiritus sancti, qui credentes agat. P.L. T. 2. Col. 31A. Cfr.: C. 28: Christi vicarius. Col. 47. Ad mart. P. 3. PL. T. 1. Col. 624V. De cult. fern. lib. 2. C. 1. PL. T. 1. Col. 1316A. De paenit. C. 10: Communis spes, metus, gaudium, dolor, passio, quia communis Spiritus de communi Domino et Patri. P.L. T. 1. Col. 1245A. In the action of the Holy Spirit, according to Adam, Tertullian saw the last and highest guarantee of all church teaching: “Die letzte, höchste Garantie aller Kirchenlehre.” "Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians". S. 35. Cfr.: Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 36. De praescr. C. 42.PL. T. 2. Col. 70A. De cor. mil. S.I.PL. T. 2. Col. 97A. De monog. C. 12.PL. T. 2. Col. 997C–998A. De bapt. C. 1: “Cui nec integre quidem docendi jus erat.” CSEL, 20, 1. P. 201, 15. Cfr.: Zahn Th. Skizzen,.. S. 253 ff; Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 364. De praescr. C. 14.PL. T. 2. Col. 31B. Cfr.: C. 9: “Unum utique et certum aliquid institutum esse a Christo quod credere omni modo debeant nations”; col. 26B–27A; c. 44: semel Evangelium et ejusdem regulae doctrinam apostolis meis delegaveram; col. 73A. Idem. Col. 61A. Cfr.: Adv. Marc. I, 21: del regula. CSEL, 47. P. 317, 29; 318, 2. Adv. Prax. C. 2. CSEL, 47. P. 229. 14–15. All this is said about the Symbol in its specific form. Cfr.: Zahn Th. Skizzen... S. 251–252. Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 40. De came Chr. C.2.PL. T. 2. Col. 801A. Cfr.: De praescr. C. 9: nihil amplius, nisi custodiendum quod credidisti. P.L. T. 2. Col. 27A. Tertullian's teaching on the relationship of the episcopate to the magisterium of the Church is analyzed in detail by K. Adam (“Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians.” S. 36–45): “By the fact,” concludes Adam, “that Tertullian took away from the episcopal teaching as a whole all dogmatic content, every Divine guarantee of the truth of the teaching, thereby he buried, without noticing it, his own Rule of Faith, justified with such diligence and art, even in general the authority of church teaching” (S. 44–45). However, all of Adam’s arguments reveal, in the end, the Catholic tendencies of the author. Irenaeus. Contra haer. V, 20, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 1177B, S. Works. P. 488. Tertull. Scorpiac. 12: “Quis nunc medullas scripturarum magis nosset, quam ipsa Christi schola? Quos et sibi discipulos dominus adoptavit, omnia utique edocendos et nobis magistros adordinavit, omnia utique docturos.” CSEL, 20, 1. P. 172, 5–8. De praescr. C. 9.PL. T. 2. Col. 26B–27A. Irenaeus. Contra haer. III, 4, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 855A. Essays. C. 225. De praescr. C. 12. Quaeramus ergo in nostro, et a nostris, et de nostro. P.L. T. 2. Col. 30V. Irenaeus. Contra haer. V, 20, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1178A. Essays. C. 488. Contra haer. V praef. PG. T. 7. Col. 1119A. Essays. C. 445. Idem. Col. 852A, 853A (according to Greek text). Wed. Essays. P. 224. Idem. V, 5, 1; 30.1; 36, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1135A–B, 1203B, 1223B. Essays. pp. 454, 509, 527. Idem. IV, 27, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 1056B. Essays. P. 390. Idem III, 4, 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 855B. Essays. P. 225; "Modica quaestio", next, we are talking about tradition in the broadest sense of the word. Tertull. De praescr. P. 21. PL. T. 2. Col. 38A–B. Cfr.: Adv. Marc. I, 21: non alia agnoscenda erit traditio apostolorum quam quae hodie apud ipsorum ecclesias editur. CSEL, 47, 318, 2–3. Ibid. C. 36.PL. T. 2. Col. 58B–60. Cfr.: Adv. Marc. IV, 5: “Id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Videamus, quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint, ad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti, quid legant Philipenses Thesalonicenses Ephesii, quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt.” CSEL, 47, 430, 13–18. One might think that in the above excerpts (especially from De praescr.) Tertullian means Tradition in a broader sense than just regula fidei. Irenaeus. Contra haer. III, 3, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 848B, 849A. Wed. Essays. P. 222. A whole literature has been created around this issue. But this question has already been dealt with in almost sufficient detail in Russian scientific literature. See [work] archim. Sylvester "Doctrine of the Church". pp. 184–187, note; work of archim. (Archbishop) Nicanor “Analysis of the Roman teaching on visible (papal) primacy in the Church,” ed. 2. Kazan, 1871. pp. 171–188. Especially [important] is the brochure of Prof. F. Kurganov “Did St. Testify?” Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, about the primacy and infallible magisterium of the Roman Church, in particular its high priest?” (Kazan, 1893). All the literature on the issue is also listed here (of course, up to 1893). Compare: Funk F. X. Der Primat der römischen Kirche nach Ignatius und Irenäus. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I-er Band. Paderborn, 1897. S. 14, Anm. See also [work]: Boehmer H. Zu dem Zeugnisse des Irenäus von dem Ansehen der römischen Kirche. – Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, herausgeg. von E. Preuschen, 1906. S. 193–201. The latest foreign literature is listed in Dr. Otto Bardenhewer. See: Patrologie. 3-te Aufl. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1910. S. 99. Funk. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I.S. 15. See: De Irenaei doctrina III, 31. Migne, P.G. T. 7. Col. 278C. I. Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornicäischen Zeit. S. 468–469. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 487, Anm. Wed. at Prof. Kurganova, cit. brochure pp. 30–31 approx. Batiffol. L'église naissante 3. R. 250. Harnack also stands for the figurative meaning of the word convenire (“Dogmengeschichte 4”, I. S. 487 Anm. I). Bardenhewer O. Patrologie 3. § 32. 3. S. 98: convenire = ubereinstimmen. So [believes] the translator of the works of St. Irinea into Russian by Archpriest. P. Preobrazhensky (Works. P. 222) and Archimandrite. Nikanor (Cit. pp. 184–186). Convenire is translated as “to converge” by Prof. F. Kurganov, cit. brochure pp. 27–30; S. Sushkov (“Against the false teaching about the universal primacy of the Roman Church.” St. Petersburg, 1891. P. 207, 210, 215–216). At the beginning of the 18th century, Grabe wrote: intelegendum esse confluxum eorum, qui ab omni Ecclesia Romam mittebantur. Migne, P.G. T. 7. Col. 280C. Many Catholics also translate convenire through zusammenkommen, for example, Funk (“Kirchengesch. Abh. und Untersuch.”, I. S. 15–19). See also Kurganov. pp. 22–23, approx. 30. 1. N. Boehmer argues that the word convenire can mean “to agree” when applied to persons only when it is followed by the preposition “sit” and not “ad”, as in this place (Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1906. S. 196). However, Batiffol considers omnis ecclesia a synonym for unaquaeque ecclesia (“L’église naissante et le catholicisme.” P. 251, not. 2). Archim. Nikanor, op. op. P. 183; Ritsehl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 573–574: “Wegen des hervorragenden alters.” Also see: Wordsworth Chr. St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome in the earlier part of the third century. London, 1853. P. 200, not. 8. It is believed that the Latin translator used the word principalitas to convey the Greek words - πρωτεῖον, πρωτεία, ἀρχαιότης, αὐθεντία, and the word potiorem (or potentiorem) - τὸ ἐξαίρετον, τὸ ὑπέρτερον. See Funk'a, S. 14. Migne, PG. T. 7. Col. 278D. But, of course, this reverse translation cannot have any scientific significance, since it itself is nothing more than an interpretation (See: Kurganov F., cit. brochure pp. 24–26). Text of the works of St. Irenaeus does not give any reason for accepting one translation or another, because the Latin translator renders various Greek words by the word principalitas. Contra haer. III, 12, 5. PG. T. 7. Col. 897B. Essays. P. 256. See: Archim. Nikanor, op. op. P. 188. De Irenaei doctrina III, 34, 2. Migne, PG. T. 7. Col. 281B. F. Kurganov, op. brochure P. 28 approx. Funk. Kirchengesch. Abh. und Untersuch. I.S. 20–21. Compare: F. Kurganov, cit. brochure pp. 33 et seq. According to Harnack, necesse est = es kann nicht anders sein. Dogmengeschichte’, I. S. 487, Anm. I.H. Boehmer by principalitas means the apostolic foundation, and potentior indicates the foundation of the Roman Church by two apostles, in which Tertullian also sees its advantage (De praescr. P. 36; Adv. Marc. IV, 5. Zeitschr. für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1906. S. 198). P. Beuzart, not considering it possible to replace potentiorem principalitatem with the concept of primacy, notes, however, that with these words Irenaeus, in any case, wishes the Roman Church and its bishop assigner le premier rang (Essai sur la theologie d’Irénée. P. 156), une situation prééminence (P. 174) According to O. Bardenhewer, propter potiorem principalitatem = ihrer hoheren Autoritat wegen. Patrologie, § 32, 3. S. 28. See Kurganov F., op. brochure pp. 39. 43–44. Vgl.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 487, Arun. 1. Harnack A. Das Zeugnis des Irenäus über das Ansehen der römischen Kirche. – Sitzungsberichten der Königlich-preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1893. Vgl.: Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 487, Anm. I. Funk F . Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen. I.S. 12 ff. Cfr.: P. Batiffol. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 251. Dom Morin. Une erreur de copiste dans le texte d’Irénée sur l’église romaine. Revue bénédictine. T. 25.1908. P. 515–520. P. Batiffol. L'église naissante 3. P. 251. Boehmer H. (Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1906. S. 200–201.) However, Böehmer is inclined to attribute these words to ad hanc ecclesiam. Here, next, is an indication of the Roman bishops, the succession of which is listed in the immediately following paragraph. Thus, it turns out to be a complete parallel to Contra haer. IV, 26, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1053С–1054А. Essays. P. 387. Contra haer. III, 3, 1–2. PG. T. 7. Col. 848A, V. Works. P. 222. Vgl.: Seeberg R. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 17–18. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 487. Assuming that in the Latin text necesse est stands instead of the Greek ἀνάγκη, they argue that necesse est denotes a natural necessity, and not a dogmatic or moral one. Vgl.: Wordsworth Chr. St. Hippolytus and the church of Rome. P. 202–204. Vgl.: Harnack A. Sitzungsberichten,.. 1893. S. 948; Funk. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuch. I. S. 21. Together with Harnack and against Funk. See: Funk. Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I.S. 22–23. Because Batiffol is not right when he sees in the convenire ad l’idée d’une démarche active à 1a recherche de la vérité (“L’église naissante.” P. 250). One could agree with Batiffol’em if he did not put a dogmatic meaning into his words. Historically, in the 2nd century, démarche active à la recherche de la vérité could lead to Rome, where the self-consciousness of the universal Church was, as it were, more fully expressed - as in the world center. There was, as it were, a permanent general Council. See: F. Kurganov. Quote brochure P. 51. N.E. I, 1, 1, 4. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 6, 1; 8, 14–17. See Overbeck Franz on this. Die Bischofsliaten und die apostolische Nachfolge in der Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius. Basel, 1898. S. 8 ff. Kirchengeschichtliche Abh. und Untersuchungen. I.S. 18. Contra haer. III, 3, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 852B–853A. Essays. C. 224. Η. E. IV, 14, 1. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 332, 3–6. Fragm. 3.PG. T. 7. Col. 1229B, 1232A. Essays. C. 531. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 24, 16. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 496. 10–13. See: Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 23–24. The negative significance of these disputes for the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop is indicated by Friedrich Iaskowski (“Die Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius von Casarea und der Primat.” Revue internationale de theologie, 1909. P. 345–348). De praescr. C. 36.PL. T. 2. Col. 59A; Adv. Marc. IV, 5. CSEL, 47. P. 430. 16–18. For an analysis of Catholic references to Tertullian, see Archimandrite. Nikanora, op. op. pp. 189–201, 201–206; Michaud E. L'ecclesiologie de Tertullien. Revue Internationale de theologie. 1905. P. 268–272. Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Terlullians. S. 45–47. Adam sees in this a manifestation of a general flaw in Tertullian's entire system - a one-sided understanding of the bishop's teaching in the sense of preserving the faithful teaching with silence about the definition of religion. De praescr. P. 36. PL. T. 2. Col. 59A. Adv. Marc. IV, 5. CSEL 47. P. 430, 14, 16–18. Archim. Nikanor, op. op. pp. 202–203. Having admitted that Tertullian does not speak about the primacy of the Roman Church, Catholic authors still casually hint that the idea of ​​​​the infallibility of “happy Rome” is at least not alien to Tertullian. See Adam., op. cit., S. 46; Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 216. Catholic authors insist more that Tertullian is talking about the advantages of the Apostle Peter, the founder of the Roman Church. See special: Adhe ́ mar d ’ Ale ̀ s, op. cit. P. 216–218. Cfr.: P. Batiffol. L'église naissante. P. 333, not. 1; I. Tunnel. Tertullien. P. 281. However, Adam already admits that Tertullian substantiates the apostolic dignity of the Roman Church with the preaching and suffering of three apostles, and not just Peter (op. cit. S. 46). It is significant that Tertullian never speaks of the founding of the Roman Church by the Apostle Peter alone. This idea was generally alien to the ancient Church. See cit. article by F. Iaskowski. – Revue Internationale de theologie. 1909. P. 335–336. Wed. final conclusion of E. Michaud: la doctrine romaine sur le pape comme fondement infaillible de I'église et comme depositaire de 1' autorite divine et absolue du Christ est fausse et antichretienne. Revue internationale de theologie. 1905. P. 270. Iren. Contra haer. IV, 33. 7: “Qui sunt extra veritatem, id est extra Ecclesiam.” – PG. T. 7. Col. 1076B–C. Essays. C. 409. Tertull. De praescr., 44: “Quid ergo dicent, qui illam stupraverint adulterio haeretico, virginem traditam a Christo?” P.L. T. 2. Col. 72A. De praescr. C. 4: "Nunc sunt haereses, non minus doctrinarum perversitate Ecclesiam lacessantes." P.L. T. 2. Col. 18B. Cfr.: C. 42: de veritatis destructione (col. 69B). De praescr. P. 6: “Sed et in omni repe epistola de adulterinis doctrinis fügiendis inculcans, haereses taxat: quorum opera sunt adulterae doctrinae.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 20B. Cfr.: Contra haer. III, 3, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 854A. Essays. C. 224. Venenatissima doctrina – De baptismo. C. 1. CSEL, 20, 1. P. 201, 9. Irenaeus. Contra haer. IV, 26, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1054A. Essays. pp. 387–388. Contra haer. III, 24, 1–2. PG. T. 7. Col. 966C–967A. Essays. pp. 312–313. Regarding Tertullian, the translator of his works into German, K Kellner, claims that, according to his usage of words, heresy differs from the Church not in doctrine, but in organization. See: Tertullians samtliche Werke. Bd. 2. Koln, 1882. S. 9. But, of course, those who claim the opposite are fairer. See: K. Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 24. Contra haer. IV, 33, 7. PG. T. 7. Col. 1076A–B. Essays. pp. 408–409. Contra haer. IV, 26, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1054A. Essays. pp. 387–388. Tertull. De praescr. C. 37: “Si enim haeretici sunt, christiani esse non possunt, non a Christo habendo, quod, de sua electione sectati, haereticorum nomine admittunt.” Ita non Christiani. P.L. T. 2. Col. 61B. Cfr.: C. 16: non est christianus. Ibid. Col. 34B. De bapt. C. 15: “Non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem.” CSEL, 20, pp. 214, 2–3. De praescr. P. 42: “Hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi sed nostros evertendi. Nostra suffodiunt, ut sua aedificent.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 69A–B. Contra haer. V, 20, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 1178A. Essays. C. 488. Contra haer. III, 3, 4. PG. T. 7. Col. 853–854. Essays. C. 224. De praescr. P. 44: “Prohibueram vos aurem accommodate haereticis.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 73A. Wed. remark O. Bardenhewer'a (“Patrologie 3”, § 50. 4. S. 161). See the fair remark of A. Ritschl (“Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche.” S. 340). Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 339, 340. “In the very concept of the Church, authorities are given.” Harnack A. Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. S. 13 ff. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 342. All these opinions were collected by D. Bogdashevsky (“False teachers exposed in the First Epistle of the Apostle John.” Kyiv, 1890, pp. 113–114). Also see: Klitin Alexander. The authenticity of the letters of the Holy Apostle Paul to Timothy and Titus. Kiev, 1887. P. 152 ff. See the just cited studies by D.I. Bogdashevsky and A. Klitin. Wed. also work: Hieromonk (bishop) Evdokim. Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Sergiev Posad, 1898. pp. 249–253; also see: V.N. Myschtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. pp. 219–221; Sagard N. First conciliar letter of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Poltava, 1903. P. 142 ff. Wed. exegetical note by Prof. DI. Bogdashevsky (TKDA, 1904. T. 2. P. 310–314); A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1.262 ff.; Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums 2. 1. S. 23–30; Thomasius. Die Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 70 ff.; Knopf R. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 290 ff., 339; Batiffol. L'église naissante 3. P. 118, not. 2. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 342, Anm. 1. The testimony of Clement Alex cited by Ritschl. (Strom. VII, 17. 106. 4–107. 1. GrchSch. 17. S. 75–76) about the appearance of “those who invented heresies around the reign of Hadrian” refers to certain heresies of Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion. The testimony of Egesippus (Eusebius. History Ecclesias. III, 32, 7–8. GrchSch 9, 1. S. 270, 7–18) speaks precisely of the existence of Gnostic errors in apostolic times. “The Church remained a pure and immaculate virgin: if there were people who encroached on the common sense of saving teaching, they were still hiding in the darkness of the unknown (ἐν ἀδήλῳ τοῦ σκότυς). When the sacred face of the apostles ended their lives in various ways, and when the generation of people who were worthy to listen to Divine wisdom with their own ears passed away, then, under the influence of the deception of false teachers, the sedition of ungodly error began. Encouraged by the fact that not a single apostle was alive, the heretics began to openly oppose their false knowledge to the preaching of the truth.” See the analysis of these testimonies in Bogdashevsky (False teachers. pp. 116–119). Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 262: “Gnosticismus hat Vorstufen gehabt”; Bogdashevsky. pp. 115–116; Jerome. Evdokim, op. op. P. 252. See: 1 Cor. 1:18–31; 6:12; 8:1–13; 5:1–5. See: Col.2:8, 18, 21, 23. See: Eph.4:14; 1:8–9. 12–18; 3:2–3. See: 1 Timothy 1:4–16; 6:20; 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 1:10, 11. 14. 15; 3:9 etc. etc. Information about gnosis, denounced by the Apostle Paul, was collected from Bogdashevsky. pp. 144–150. Cfr.: Knopf R. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 395. Cp.: 2 Thess. 2:15: “κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις.” Wed. (1 Thessalonians 4:1). See: (Col.2:7): “βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει καθὼς ἐδιδάχθτε.” Wed. 1:7. See: Rom.6:17: “εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς.” At the end of the fifties, the Apostolic Tradition (παράδοσις) was recognized as authority. See: F. Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 11; 6. S. 78. Eusebius. Cit. op. III, 32, 8. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 270, 11–18. See: 1 Timothy 1:18–20; 3:15; 4:11–16; 6:12–20; 2 Timothy 1:6–13; 2:2. 15; 3:14; 4:2–5; Titus 1:9; 2:1–15. See: 1 Timothy 1:3–4; 4:7; 6:3–5; 6:20 ; 2 Timothy 2:14–16, 23–26; 3:5; Titus 1:10–11; 13–14; 3:10. “Don’t make it smaller; it is not yours; you have been entrusted with someone else’s, do not diminish it.” – John Chrysostom. Conversations, on the last. Timothy 18. Creations. T. 11. P. 752. See: 1 Timothy 2. 12–15 . In Titus 2:3: taught good (καλοδιδασκάλους) - of course, of course, teaching is only worldly; The subjects of this teaching are listed in the next two verses. See: 2 Timothy 1:14: “τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον διὰ πνεύματος ἀγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν.” “Although the Apostle Paul allocates in church life a wide field for the freedom and initiative of believers, for the manifestation of individual spiritual gifts, for revelation in the Spirit, he is far from recognizing unlimited freedom and individualism in the field of faith. He sets boundaries for them in the beginning of Church Tradition that is emerging in him. This concept, which is of great importance in the history of church organization, as can be seen already from the pastoral letters, is overlooked by many scholars, although it is already very clearly expressed in the first letters of the Apostle Paul. V.N. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. pp. 97–98, 99. Cfr.: Batiffol R. L'église naissante et le catholicisme. P. 118, 136–139. Irenaeus. Contra haer. III, 4. 2. PG. T. 7, col 855C. Essays. C. 225. Vgl.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 181. Vgl: S. 273 ff. Didach. 4, 13. Cfr.: 4, 3: “Οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσμα.” Didach. 12, 1. Compare: Rev. 2:2: I tested those who call themselves apostles, but they are not, and found that they were deceitful. Didach. 11, 5; 6; 8; 9; 10; 11; 13, 1–2. Didach. 11, 10. Further words 11, 11: “Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης δεδοκιμασμένος, ἀληθηνός, ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας μὴ διδάσκων δὲ ποιεῖν, ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, οὐ κριθήσεται ἐφ’ ὑμῶν” - are difficult to interpret. Metropolitan Philotheus Bryennios by “μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας” means the symbolic actions of the prophet. Harnack, recalling Eph.5:22–33, understood these words in the sense of the celibacy of the prophet, which he did not make obligatory for everyone. See: Harnack A. Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel. TU 2, 1. S. 44–47, Anm. Karashev A. About the newly discovered monument “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” M., 1896, applications. pp. XXXV–XXXVII. But it is important for us here to note the nearby words “δεδοκιμασμένος”, “αληθινός” (“Tested by the Church = true”). When it comes to a community, one cannot assume that it has any special charisma to test the prophets. Tested on the basis of a certain authority. Cfr.: Batiffol R. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 127, 128, 131. Harnack. Der erste Klemensbrief. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1909.III. S. 53. 7, 2: “Ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα". By “παραδόσεως” Harnack here means a general concept that embraces everything that is devoted and belongs to Christianity (“Der erste Klemensbrief.” S. 53, Anm. 4). Vgl.: Hoennicke G. Das Iudenchristentum... S. 350–351. Idem. 10, 2: “Πρὸς τὴν πλάνην αὐτῶν ὑμεῖς ἐδραῖοι τῆς πίστεως.” Cfr.: 12. Idem. 11, 2: “Οἱ καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πάντοτε συνήνεσαν ἐν δυνάμει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” Idem. 16, 2: Cfr.: 17, 2: “Λαβόντες θεοῦ γνῶσιν.” Idem. 11, 1. Cfr.: 6, 2: “Λαμβάνει ἐν ἡδονῇ κακῇ ἀποθανεῖν.” Idem. 7, 1. In ch. 9 St. Ignatius even presents, as it were, a short symbol of faith: “Whoever speaks in disagreement with this symbol does not need to be listened to.” Ad Philad. 1, 2: “Συνευρύθμισται γὰρ ταῖς ἐντολαῖς χορδαῖς κιθάρα.” This is how Th understands this place. Zahn (“Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons.” Bd. 1, 2. S. 846–847. Bd. II, 2. Erlangen und Leipzig, 1892. XIV, I d. S. 945–948); Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3, p. 163. But R [thinks] differently. Knopf (“Das nachapost. Zeitalter”. S. 309). On this see: Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. 1, 2. S. 842; Batiffol P. L'église naissante 3. P. 164: La foi qui fait foi est la foi dont temoigne l’église on tante que teile... la foi ecrite n’est pas toute la foi. There is no reason to think that Ignatius considers the community outside of connection with its historical past, as V.N. claims. Myshtsyn. See: Structure of the Christian Church. C. 311. Er. Polycarpi ad Philip. pp. 3, 2–3. Wed. Ch. 11: “In you, with whom blessed Paul labored and of whom he speaks with praise at the beginning of his epistle. He boasts of you in all the Churches that only knew God at that time, but we did not yet know God.” Ibidem, 6, 3. Here we can only mean the apostles - the direct disciples of the Lord; This is already indicated by the mention only of the Old Testament prophets. Ibidem, 7, 2: “Ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν.” Idem. 9, 1: “Πειθαρχεῖν τῷ λόγῳ της δικαιοσύνης.” Idem. 10, 1: “State... in veritate sociati.” Wed. about Polycarp in P. Batiffol’i (“L’église naissante et le catholicisme 3.” P. 191–198). Funk. Die apostolischen. Vater. S. XXXI; Prot. P. Preobrazhensky. Works of St. Justin the Philosopher. pp. 365–366. Funk, cit. ed. S. 138; Works of St. Justina. P. 377. N. E. IV, 8, 2. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 314, 8–10. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. IV, 22, 2. 4–6. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 370, 372. Cfr.: Henri Dannreuther. Du témoignage d'Hégésippe sur l'église chrétienne aux deux premiers siècles. Nancy, 1878. P. 59–60, 62, 67; Batiffol P. L'église naissante 3. P. 208–209; Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestam. Kanons. Bd. I, 2. S. 461; A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 367, Anm. 2; S. 407, Anm. 1. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 24, 6. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 492, 8. Iust. Apol. I, 6; Dial. C. tryph. 80. CAG, I, 1. P. 20, 22; 1, 2. P. 288 sqq. Essays. pp. 36, 265. Apol. I, 6, 23, 42, 66, 67, CAG, I, 1. P. 20. 118, 180, 182, 184, 186. Works. C. 36, 53, 54, 72, 97, 99. Apol. I, 42. Cp. Dial. 109, 119. CAG, I, 1. P. 118; 1, 2. P. 386. 428. Works. pp. 72, 307, 324. Idem. I, 13, 14, 67. CAG, I, 1. P. 40, 46, 188. Works. pp. 42, 43, 99. Idem. I, 26. Dial. 82. CAG, I, 2. P. 298. Works. pp. 56–57, 268. Dial, cum Tryph. C. 35: “They call themselves Christians, just as the pagans inscribe the name of God on idols.” CAG, I, 2. R. 118 sqq. Essays. pp. 187–189 passim. Dial. P. 80. “Sane people (ὀρθογνώμοντες) are Christians in everything” (ibid). CAG, I, 2. pp. 288–292. Essays. pp. 265, 266. For details about Justin, see: Batiffol. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 224–231. Eusebius. Cit. op. IV, 23. 1–2. 4. 12. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 374, 378. Ad Autol lib. II. C. 14. CAG, 8, P. 98. 100. Writings of apologists. pp. 150–151. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 367, Anm. 2. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 28. 13. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 504, 11–12. Idem. IV, 39, 3–4. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 286. Fragm. 2; Funk. Die apostolischen Vater. S. 126. Idem. V, 20, 4–6. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 482, 484. Fragm. 1.PG. T. 7. Col. 1225A, 1228A–B. Vgl.: R. Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 393. See: V. N. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church in the first two centuries. P. 358. See: Schanz. Der Begritf der Kirche. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1893. S. 565–566; Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 195, 235–236. Sohm calls his book “Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche” “a study that determined the now dominant views without exception.” See: “Church system in the first two centuries.” pp. 28–29, approx. Harnack himself says: “Wir, auf Ritschl’s Schultern stehend...” – “Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200.” Freiburg i. B., 1889. S. 23. Since the history of the origin of the episcopate is not directly related to our question, we will present the general views expressed in Western science briefly, without reference to individual works of scientists. Words from Prof. A.I. Pokrovsky in a review of the dissertation of V.N. Myshtsyna. See: Journals of meetings of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1909. P. 104. Wed. research by prof. N.A. Zaozersky “The hierarchical principle of church organization.” Theological Bulletin. 1911. T. 1. P. 63–66. Protestant theories are briefly presented and analyzed in Batiffol’a (“L’église naissante et le catholicisme 3.” P. 172–193. “Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche.” S. 444–445. Further, Ritschl, based on the writings of Clement of Alexandria, proves his position (S. 445–449). But at the same time, Ritschl draws attention to the Jerusalem Church, where the Apostle James is at the head of the community. Citing the testimony of Hegesippus τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος. (Eusebius. History Ecclesias. II, 23:4), Ritschl reasons: he (James) takes upon himself in place of Jesus the leadership of the entire community or Church, which, of course, at the time to which the news relates, was spatially limited to Jerusalem (S. 416). Hegesippus testifies that after the death of James, Simon, also a relative of the Lord, became bishop. This makes it possible for Ritschl to express the following opinion: James and his successors appear to be the successors not of the apostles, but of the Lord (S. 417). Thus, according to Ritschl, there was a kind of succession of bishops in the Church of Jerusalem, where they were successive substitutes for Christ, but this succession perished along with the Church of Jerusalem itself (S. 435–436). However, Ritschl sees some relic of the Jerusalem church order in later times in Alexandria (S. 434–435). This opinion of Ritschl did not meet with sympathy, “and rightfully so,” adds Zom (p. 29, note). "Die alte Kirche", 2-ter. Teil. S. 424–425. Vgl.: Nitzsch. Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, S. 255: the authority of the bishops is affirmed “auf Grund der Fiction, dass der Episcopal an die Stelle des Apostolats getreten sei.” In essence, Knopf says the same thing, although less harshly. See: “Das nachapostolische Zeitalter”, S. 396: “Die bischöflich monarchische Verfassung wurde als apostolische ausgegeben und den Bischöfen die Qualität von Nachfolgem der Apostel erteilt.” According to F. Loofc'a, the argumentation of Irenaeus is not historical, but pseudo-historical, because it points to fictitious people, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis (“Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4”, § 19. 3. S. 135. Vgl. 3-te Aufl. S. 88. Dr. Ioh. Leipoldt notes about Irenaeus’ theory of episcopacy: “Das ist gewiss keine Luge; Eusebius", I. S. 200). Let us allow ourselves to refer to the authoritative and convincing proof of the “high and truly scientific significance of the Tradition of the Orthodox Catholic Church”, developed by prof. M.D. Muretov in his work “Ernest Renan and his “Life of Jesus””. St. Petersburg, 1908, pp. 139–156. “There are too many uncertainties in this problem to allow us to hope for a complete explanation, even in the distant future.” (V.N. Myshtsyn. Structure of the Christian Church. S. V). “Every concept,” writes Prof. A.A. Spassky, “the original structure of the Church, no matter how solid it may seem, due to the paucity of data at the disposal of science and the possibility of reinterpreting them, in the history of the issue under study can only be significant as a more or less scientifically sound attempt to clarify this complex and difficult problem and in no way claim to be a final solution to it.” “Journals of meetings of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy” for 1909, p. 97. Cf. Prof.'s remark V.V. Bolotov (“Lectures on the history of the ancient Church,” II. p. 458); Bruders Heinrich. Die Verfassung der Kirche von den, ersten Jahrzehnten der apostolischen Wirksamkeit an bis zum Jahre 175 n. Vgl.: Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte, herausgeg. von Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. IV, 1–2. Mainz, 1904. S. 69, 128–129; Schanz. Der Begriff der Kirche. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1893. S. 550: “Die Frage, wie aus der kollegialen Gemeindeleitung eine monarchische geworden werde, wenn nicht neue Quellen gefunden werden sollten, ungelöst bleiben, und sich für alle nahere Einzelheiten mit einem „ignoramus et ignorabimus“ begnügen...” Prof. M. D. Muretov, cit. op. C. 155. We understand the work of V.H. Myshtsyn “The structure of the Christian Church in the first two centuries.” This work shows with sufficient completeness the important gaps and defects of the usual solution in Western science to the question of the origin of episcopate in the ancient Christian Church. Almost all of the author’s conservative conclusions can be accepted into the everyday life of Orthodox science, because they do not disagree in any way with the foundations of the Orthodox Church. On the significance of this work, see the remark of Prof. A.A. Spassky in the “Journals of meetings of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy” for 1909, p. 98. See: Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. 1, 2. S. 436. Vgl.: Harnack A. Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200. S. 18. Vgl.: Einige Bemerkungen zu Adolf Harnack’s Prüfung der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons von Theodor Zahn. Erlangen und Leipzig, 1889. S. 32–33. Zahn decisively – and quite rightly! – emphasizes such a thought and considers it especially important (S. 33). Cfr.: Contra haer. TV, 27. 1. PG. T. 7. Col. 1056B. Essays. C. 390. Vgl.: Dr. F. X. Funk. Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefe. Tübingen, 1883. S. 56. Vgl.: Zahn Th. Einige Bemerkungen... S. 30. See: Matthew 15:24, 21:37; Mark 12:6; Luke 4:18, 43; John 3:17, 5:29–36, 6:29, 44, 57; 11:42; 17:18:21); Acts 3:20; 1 John 4:9–14. See: Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48. Wed: Luke 10:16. See: John 5:36; 6:29; 11:42; 16:30. See: Matthew 10:5–16; Mark 3:14; 6:7; Luke 9:2; 10:1. See: Matthew 28:16–20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47–49. See: Matthew 10:40; John 13:20. See: Acts 9:3–6, 16–17). Compare: Acts 26:17. See: Rom.1:11–13; 1 Cor.1:1, 9:1–5, 15:9; 2 Cor.1:1, 8:23, 11:5, 12:11; Eph.1:1; Col.1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 Timothy 1:1, 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:1-11; Tit.1–1. The Apostle Peter also calls himself - 1 Peter 1:1; 2Pet.1:1. See: Gal.1:1. Apostolic dignity was recognized for Paul and the other apostles. See: Gal.2:7–9. See: Gal.1:12, 16–22; 1 Corinthians 11:23; Eph.3:3. About the Apostle Paul, see: Bruders. Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 181–183, 89–92. This is discussed in the dissertation of V.N. Myshtsyn “The Structure of the Christian Church”, esp. pp. 144–155, 229 ff. Phil.4:2–3. V.N. has a more detailed analysis of this place. Myshtsyna. pp. 144–146. There is some hint of differences of opinion in Philippi in the same letter above (2, 2–3). All the inhabitants of Asia heard the sermon about the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks (Acts 19:10). Demetrius Srebrokovach said: Not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul seduced a considerable number of people with his convictions (Acts 19:26). The opinion that to the ap. Bishops from more than one Ephesus came to Paul in Miletus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “When the bishops and elders who came from Ephesus and other nearby cities gathered in Miletus,” etc. (Contra haereses. III, 14, 2. PG. T. 7. Col. 914B. Works. P. 270. Compare Migne not. 1. Col. 914D). Wed. also Acts 20:20: I have not omitted anything useful that I did not preach to you and teach you publicly and privately. Harnack in Prolegomena to Διδαχή (TU 2. 1) makes this strict distinction (S. 103, 120. 144. 145. 149). Wed. notes to Διδαχή: S. 56–57. Vgl:. Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 358. Zom speaks of this distinction as follows: “Our modern understanding, which conceives of teaching and administration as opposites, has been transferred to antiquity.” "Church system". P. 139. Strongly against the distinction between charisma and office N. Bruders. See: Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 70–73. See: Prem. 1, 6. Compare: Isa.60:17. Ezek.34:11–12; Numbers 4:16; 31, 14, etc. An analysis of the concept of ἐπίσκοπος, although brief, [is] given by V.N. Myshtsyna. pp. 142–144. See also Zom. pp. 143–144, approx. 13. In secular language, ἐπίσκοπος is an extremely vague and ambiguous expression. Zom, pointing out this passage from the Epistle of the Apostle Peter, notes: “Christ the Lord Himself is designated as a Bishop (however, probably not a finance official!).” "Church system". P. 144. Note. 13. “The connection between teaching and government, undoubted for later times, will remain an unexplained mystery until this connection is recognized as already embedded in the ideas of the first Christians. And in this case, there is no doubt that the Catholic bishop, as the teacher of his community (the successor of the apostles), received the power of governance over the community.” Zom. Church system. pp. 64–65, approx. Also see p. 138–144. However, these judgments of Zom are colored by his characteristic tendencies. The opposition between teaching and governance is unthinkable in early Christianity, because governance in the ecclesia cannot be governance on behalf of any corporate organized society, but governance in the name of God, that is, governance through the word of God (p. 64 note). See: A. Klitin. Authenticity of the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul to Timothy and Titus. P. 298. See: Prof. M.D. Muretov. Ernest Renan. pp. 154–155. De praescr. P. 37. PL. T. 2. Col. 61C. Briefly see V.N. Myshtsyn (“The Structure of the Christian Church.” pp. 214–218). Also see cit. op. Klitin, devoted mainly to the analysis of Holtzman’s views. We will note here only the oldest evidence of the authenticity of the pastoral letters. First Epistle of Clement. S. 2, 7: εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν – (Titus 3:1); 7, 3: ἴδωμεν, τὶ καλὸν καὶ τὶ τερπνὸν καὶ τὶ προσδεκτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς ( 1 Tim. 5:4; 2:3 ) Wed. 1 more Clem. 29, 1 and 1 Timothy 2:8. Polycarp of Smyrna composed his letter to the Philippians under the direct influence of the pastoral letters. Just now, remembering in Chapter 3. Apostle Paul, at the beginning of the 4th Polycarp cites 1 Timothy 6:10, 7. He then gives some fairly clear quotations in ch. 4 and 5, namely - 1 Timothy 5:5, 3:8; 2 Timothy 2:12. In ch. 9 there is a literal quotation of 2 Timothy 4:10. Wed. also: Polyc. S. 12, 3 and 1 Timothy 2:1, 2, 4:15. (For a detailed analysis of Polycarp’s testimony, see V.N. Myshtsyn – pp. 215–218). Theophilus of Antioch says: “The Word of God commands us to obey the principalities and powers and to pray for them, so that we may lead a quiet and calm life” – Ad Autol. III, 14. CAG, 8. P. 222), that is, he literally quotes 1 Tim. 2:1–2, calling it Θεῖος λόγος. Compare: Ad Autol. II, 6. CAG, 8. P. 104: “remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration” - Tit.3:5. Irenaeus of Lyon quotes the epistles always with the name of the Apostle Paul: I praef. (1 Tim. 1:4), III, 3. 3; III, 3. 4 (Titus 3:10). The Muratorian fragment knows all three pastoral epistles (pp. 59–64). Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata calls the epistles Paul's (Strom. II, 11; 52, 5–7. GrchSch. 15. S. 141). According to Tertullian, Paul's epistles were also considered among heretics, who cited 1 Tim. 6:20 and 2 Tim. 2:2 to justify their teaching about secret tradition (De praescr., p. 25. PL. T. 2. Col. 43–44). Tertullian himself notes with surprise the absence of pastoral epistles in Marcion’s canon and sees in this only evidence of the heretic’s arbitrary treatment of Holy Scripture. Miror tarnen, cum ad unum hominem litteras factas receperit, quod ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas, recusaverit (Adv. Marc. V, 21. CSEL, R. 649, 19–22). Protestant scholarship admits some kind of incomprehensible miracle, suggesting that the Church in the middle of the 2nd century could have mistaken the later, newly appeared works of an unknown writer for the epistles of Paul. For proof from the pastoral letters of the apostolic institution of the episcopate, see V.N. Myshtsyna. pp. 229 ff. This is sometimes recognized by Protestant scholars (Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 352, 358, but compare: S. 350), especially if the pastoral epistles are attributed to the post-apostolic time. See: Weizsacker S. Das apostolishe Zeitalter. S. 621–622; Holzmann N. I. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 3-te Aufl. Freiburg i. B., 1892. S. 290–291; Harnack A. Die Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. S. 50–51. Harnack suggests that 1 Timothy 3:1–3 and Titus 1:7–9 are interpolations. Cfr.: Batiffol's remark (L'église naissante. P. 141–142, paragraph 2). “Whoever does not know how to fight enemies and overthrow wisdom, whoever does not know how to teach sound doctrine, let him be far from the teaching throne. Other qualities can be found in subordinates, but what the teacher especially notes is that he can announce his teaching to the people.” – John Chrysostom. On the last Titus has a demon. 2. Creations. T. 11. P. 849. “It would be a grave mistake not only to consider the management of the community’s property to be the exclusive, but also the main function of the bishop.” V.N. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. P. 231. See: 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6. See: 1 Timothy 3:3–6; Titus 1:7. The economy of the Greeks was not what we call an economy. This was the manager of the house in general, and not just the income and expenses. See: Myshtsyn. P. 232. Compare: Luke 12:42–46. For the meaning of "οἰκονόμος" see Cremer. Biblisch-theolog. Worterbuch 9. S. 746. Wed. also: Gal.4:2: “ὑπὸ οἰκονόμους” – it is said about education. Wed. meaning of "οἰκονομία" in 1 Corinthians 9:17: "οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι"; Eph.3:2: “τὴν οἰκονομίαι τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ”; 3. 9: “τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου.” 1 Timothy 1:4: “οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει.” However, here, instead of οἰκονομίαν, the reading “οἰκοδομίαν” and “οἰκοδομήν” is found. See: Tischendorf. Novum Testamentum grace. Ed. octava, vol. II. Lipsiae, 1872. P. 841. See: 1 Timothy 3:4. "τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον." 3, 5: “τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι.” 5. 17: “οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτερον.” See: 1 Timothy 3:1: “Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.” There is no such requirement in the Epistle to Titus. This is understandable. In the Cretan communities where Titus acted (1:5), there may not have been particularly long-term converts to the faith. On the contrary, in Ephesus one must assume the presence of believers who have long since joined the Church. See: 1 Timothy 4:13: “Πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ.” Compare: 4:11: “Παράγγελλε καὶ δίδασκε.” 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 2:1, 7, 3:8. 2 Timothy 2:2: What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful (παράδου πιστοῖς) people who will be able to teach others (διδάξαι). Wed: 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13–14. See: 1 Timothy 1:3–5, 4:6, 11–12; 2 Timothy 2:14, 16–17, 25–26, 4:2; Titus 2:15. See: 1 Timothy 3:15, 5:19–20, 22; Titus 1:5. One might even think that the author of the pastoral epistles had the direct intention of providing in the persons of Timothy and Titus a model for bishops: the position of both in the Church is so essentially similar. See: V.N. Myshtsyn. P. 238; Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 203–204. Wed. W. Hay, M. H. Aitken, M. A. Apostolical succession considered in the light of the facts of the history of the primitive church. London, 1903, pp. 182–184; Bruders N. Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 242–255, 96–97. But cf. Klitin, op. op. P. 239: “Timothy and Titus held no other position than that of bishop.” “Ἐπισκοπσῦντες” is not considered authentic by all critics of the text. See: Tischendorf. Novum testamentum graece 8. II. P. 297. For a detailed analysis of this place, see the article by Prof. N.A. Zaozersky "Hierarchical principle in church organization." Theological Bulletin, 1911. T. I. P. 70 et seq. If in 1 Timothy 5:22: “Χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει” speaks generally about ordination, I think there is no reason to see here an indication of the ordination of exclusively elders by the bishop, as Knopf thinks, for example (“Das nachapostolische Zeitalter.” S. 197. 204). See: 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6–7. Wed: Acts 13:2–3, 14, 23; 1 Timothy 5:22. In Russian literature about them, see the essay by Prof. A.P. Lebedev “Charismatic teachers of the primal Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries,” Collected church-historical works. T. 10. M., 1905. P. 3–26. These views are most fully developed by Harnack in his Prolegomena for the publication of The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. See esp. S. 103–106, 120, 137, 141, 144–146, 149, 153, 155–156. Wed. notes to the text Διδαχή (pp. 56–59) Harnack also distinguishes a patriarchal organization (Prolegomena. S. 148). Vgl. Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. S. 57–59. Charismatics deprived of church activity, according to Harnack, became ascetics. Here is the beginning of monasticism (Prolegomena. TU 2. 1. S. 156–157, Anm, 86). “Die Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche." S. 358–359. In Russian literature, a similar view is expressed by the priest. Mikhail Fiveysky. See: Spiritual gifts in the primitive Christian Church. M., 1907. P. 42: “Only missionaries who went around the earth preaching the Gospel could be considered the successors of the apostles... The apostles and bishops belonged to two classes of serving persons, significantly different from each other.” For more details see: Bruders. Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 63–64, 69–73; Prof. H. A. Z a Ozersky. Hierarchical principle in church organization. Theological Bulletin. 1911. T. 1, esp. With. 80 onwards. “The apostle does not systematically distinguish between the extraordinary and ordinary operations of the Spirit.” Prof. Π. P. Glubokovsky. Annunciation of St. Apostle Paul according to his origin and essence. Book 2. P. 673, note. 862. V.N. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. P. 206. Irenaeus. Contra haereses. III, 3, 3–4. Tertull. De praescr. C. 32.PL. T. 2. Col. 53A. Tertullian here traces the succession in Smyrna to Polycarp, in Rome to Clement, who were appointed by the apostles. "History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church." P. 120. It is completely in vain to refer to A.V. Gorsky V.N. Myshtsyn (p. 206). As we see, A.V. has his own opinion. Gorsky precisely confirms the words of Irinei Lyonsky, which Myshtsyn for some reason omitted when citing an excerpt from Gorsky. See Gorsky also p. 428–434. Wed. Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthaus. S. 547. V.H. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. pp. 206–207. The objections to the apostolic succession of bishops and the priest Michael of Thebes are completely unfounded. See his work “Spiritual Gifts in the Primitive Christian Church.” P. 42. 1) “The successors of the apostles should also be called apostles.” But apostolate was not episcopacy, and episcopacy is not apostolate. Having completed their work, the apostles handed over the founded communities to the leadership of bishops, and there is nothing special in the fact that these bishops received a different name. 2) “The bishopric in the person of James, the brother of the Lord, as can be concluded from the testimonies of Eusebius and Hegesippus, arose under the apostles themselves. If the apostolate and bishopric existed simultaneously, then, of course, the representatives of the latter could not be considered the successors of the former.” This objection has no force, if only because there are successors during the lifetime of the person whose place they take. Having founded the Church, the apostles handed it over to the bishop, and they themselves went further with the word of the gospel (Titus 1:5). “If Holtzman tries with special effort to prove that bishops cannot be seen as direct successors to the apostleship by gift, then here he can be quite confident of success. That the apostolate was an extraordinary, unique ministry, there can be no doubt about it, and only Catholic theologians, defending the idea of ​​papal supremacy, can stubbornly stand to the contrary. Nevertheless, this continuity of apostleship cannot speak against the Divine origin of the church hierarchy, just as the continuity of the ministry of Jesus Christ does not speak against the Divinity and extremeness of the apostleship” (A. Klitin, op. cit. p. 253). In general, it should be noted that in church literature the 12 apostles were very early identified from among all the other builders of the Church of Christ. The ministry of the 12 apostles is considered special and extraordinary. See: Harnack A. Prolegomena. TU 2, 1. S. 101. Vgl.: Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums 2. 1. S. 267–274. See: Harnack A. Über den dritten Johannesbrief. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, herausgeg. von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Harnack, XV 3b. Leipzig, 1897. A fairly detailed analysis was made by V.N. Myshtsyn (“The Structure of the Christian Church.” pp. 249–259). See: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 408: “Diese Gewalt als eine ordnungswidrige, usurpierte und nicht rechtlich gesicherte dargestellt wird.” Quite right Th. Zahn calls Diotrephes an ambitious hierarch who did not follow the words of Christ (Mark 10:44) and the example and admonitions of the apostles. (“Einleitung in das Neue Testament.” Bd. 2. 3-te Aufl. Leipzig, 1907. S. 589, 592–593, Anm. 6). Vgl.: Knopf R . Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 206: “Der Presbyter versucht nicht, die Stellung, die der Mann einnimmt, grundsätzlich anzugreifen, nur die Art, wie er sein Amt führt, tadelt er heftig.” Cfr.: Batiffol P. L'église naissante. P. 146: “II serai plus historique de se demander, non pas si la primaute de Diotrephes est une usurpation, mais si son cas est seulement celui d’ une maladroit.” Clement of Alexandria testifies that the Apostle John, upon returning from the island of Patmos, visited the regions closest to Ephesus, where he appointed bishops, where he established entire Churches, accepting into the clergy certain persons indicated by the Holy Spirit (ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἀρμόσων ὅπου δὲ κλῦρον ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων). Quis dives salv. P. 42, 2. GrchSch. 17. S. 188, 3–7. Eusebius also provides evidence of this. See: Η. E. III, 23. 6. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 238, 14–19. Wed. information about the relations of the Apostle John with the bishops of Asia Minor from Harnack’a (“Ober den dritten Iohannesbrief.” TU 15, 3 b. S. 23–24). See: 1 John 2:19: they went out from us, but they were not ours. See Harnack about this (“Prolegomena.” TU 2, 1. S. 144:122). Harnack gives a different interpretation to the third letter of John. According to Harnack, here we have before us the struggle of an ancient patriarchal and provincial missionary organization against the isolation of a separate community, which for this very purpose put forward a monarchical episcopate. Diotrephes is the first monarchist bishop whose name we know. But the “elder” seeks to prevent this newly created organization; he sees in it only the ambition of an individual. Diotrephes showed independence, which bishops had not yet had during the time of the Apostle Paul. (“Über den 3 Johannesbrief.” S. 21:24). Compare: Entstehung und Entwickelung d. Kirchenverf. und d. Kirchenrechts. S. 48–49. From this point of view, of course, one can see in the history of Diotrephes a negative authority for judging the apostolic succession of the episcopate, as Aitken does (“Apostolical succession,” pp. 185–186). The episcopate appears as if against the will of the apostle. The Apostle denies episcopacy and fights against it. But Harnack’s interpretation is not accepted by Knopf (“Das nachapostolische Zeitalter.” S. 206–207), Bruders (“Die Verfassung der Kirche.” S. 122, Anm. 1. 224), P. Batiffol (“L’église naissante 3.” P. 144–146), V. N. Myshtsyn (“Organization of the Christian Church.” P. 249 ff.), Th. Zahn (“Einleitung in das Neue Testament 3.” Bd. 2. S. 589). Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 16, 3:1, 7, 3. The question of who is meant here by the “Angels” of the Churches is very controversial. In the history of interpretation, three more typical understandings can be noted: 2) Angels are actual Guardian Angels of the Churches, as, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, there are Angels of individual people (Matthew 18:10; Acts 12:15) or individual nations (Deut. 32:8; Dan. 10:13:20); 3) Angels are the personification of the Church itself. For a detailed presentation and analysis of various opinions on this issue, see Alexander Zhdanov (“The Revelation of the Lord about the Seven Asian Churches (an experience in explaining the first three chapters of the Apocalypse).” M., 1891. pp. 100–112). Zhdanov himself accepts the third opinion: “The Angel of the Church is the personification of a real spiritual moral force that manifests its activity in the history of the Church, or this force itself, represented in a human form.” Wed. Weizsäcker S. Das apostolische Zeitalter. S. 612: “die Personifikation der Gemeinde”. A. Ritschl by Angels means the primates of the Churches, but not the bishops. (“Die Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche.” S. 408–409). Vgl.: Harnack A. Enstehung und Entwick, der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. S. 48. Knopf is inclined to recognize the bishops (“Das nachapostolische Zeitalter.” S. 207–209). Th Zahn (Einleitungin das Neue Testament 3. II. S. 613–616) decisively recognizes the bishops as Angels. Also see V.H. Myshtsyn “The structure of Christ. Church." pp. 260–262. Wed: Prof. V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, II. P. 458. [In favor of the fact that] the Angels mean bishops, the following reasons can be given. When it says “write,” then of course the addressee, who cannot be either an Angel (but cf.: Origen. In Luc. hom. 23. PG. T. 13. Col. 1863A–B), nor the abstract idea of ​​the Church, symbolically expressed. Although the content of the letters applies to the entire Church (Zhdanov also raises this objection, op. cit. pp. 102–103), the letter itself is written specifically to the bishop, because in 3 John. it says: I wrote to the Church, but, obviously, through Diotrephes, who did not communicate the messages of the apostle to his community. At the end of the letters it is said that the Spirit speaks to the churches (2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13:22), apparently through the bishop who will read this letter in the assembly of the Church. In addition, the codes of Alexandria, Vaticanus and others in 2, 20 after τὴν γυναῖκα add σοῦ (Tischendorf. Novum Testamentum graece 8, II, 919), so that the Angel of Thyatira appears to have a wife, which, of course, only applies to a bishop. See Zahn Th. Einleitung. 3, II. S. 620–621. But cf. Emil Schürer. Die Prophetin Isabel in Thyatira. Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizäckers zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage 11 December 1892 gewidmet. Freiburg i. B., 1892. S. 39–41. But, in any case, the speech of the Seer is very unclear, which is why even Catholic scientists sometimes pass over the testimony of the Apocalypse in silence. See: R. Batiffol. L'église naissante 3. R. 145–146, not. 2. Rev.2:2. Wed: 1 John 2:19; 2 John 9–11; 3John 5–8. Diotrephes did the same as the Angel of the Ephesian Church, but then forbade the reception of missionaries and strangers without a new test each time. 2:16: Repent; but if not so, I will soon come to you and fight with them with the sword of My mouth (ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός μου). Does this not contain the apostle’s promise to come to the aid of the Bishop of Pergamon if he does not eradicate errors? But usually this verse is interpreted in the sense of God’s punishment. See: Zhdanov, op. op. pp. 189–191. "Der erste Klemensbrief". Sitzungsberichte der Köigl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1909.III. S. 39. Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I, 1. S. 352; Funk. Die apostolischen Vater. S. XVII–XIX; Harnack. Der erste Klemensbrief. S. 39. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. IV, 23. 11. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 378. 7–10. Contra haer. III, 3, 3. PG. T. 7. Col. 850A–B. Essays. C. 223. In the Greek original this place is preserved by Eusebius. See: Η. E. V, 6, 3 GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 438. 15–19. Harnack considers this opinion of St. Irenaeus is completely fair (S. 40, Anm. 1). The fact of this message is sometimes interpreted in the sense of the primacy of the Roman Church, and its historical and dogmatic significance is seen, first of all, in the fact that it provides real proof of the primacy of the Roman Church (Bardenhewer O. Patrologie. § 8, 2. S. 25; Schwane. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 441; Batiffol P. L'église naissante 3. P. 141. Cfr.: Clement de Rome : L’ Eptre aux Corinthiens et l’ Homélie du II siècle, texte grec., trad, française, introduction et notes par H. Hemmer. Paris, 1909). Following M. Duchesne, the author repeats that if the Roman Church could, through its bishop, persuade the Corinthian Church to peace, then this is a recognition of its primacy. But, E.M. objects to him, this statement is pure fantasy; simple solidarity in spiritual brotherhood was quite enough to send this message. See: Revue internationale de theologie, 1910. P. 141. Idem. 38: “pure in the flesh,” i.e. ascetic. 48: “Clean in his deeds.” 54th: “I’m leaving, going wherever you please” (next, they were wandering); 57: “the impudence of the tongue”, maybe. an indication of eloquence. Compare: 21: “those who exalt themselves and boast in the splendor of their words.” See about this: Ritschl. Die Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche. S. 360–361. More details from V.H. Myshtsyn (“The Structure of the Christian Church.” pp. 194–201). Clem. 42. Cfr.: 43. 1: “and why should we marvel if those to whom this work was entrusted in Christ by God supplied the above-mentioned?” And then we talk about Aaron's wife. And in another place Clement calls the hierarchical system a Divine institution. See: 1 Clem. 40, 3: “Where and by whom this should be done, He Himself determined (ὥρισεν) by His highest will.” Clem. 57. 1–7. Clement quotes here Proverbs 1:23–33. See details in Bruders'a (“Die Verfassung der Kirche”. S. 74–81, 100–102). Weizsäcker C. Das apostolische Zeitalter. S. 621; Farquhar I.T.F. The visible church in the light of history. Revue Internationale de theologie. 1904. P. 474–475. Vgl.: Bruders. Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 121. In essence, the same thing occurs in Διδαχή. Λαλοῦντες ἐν πνεύματι (11:7) could sometimes, with their gift, outshine the representatives of the hierarchy who constantly lived in the community. Therefore, the author writes: “Appoint (χειροτονήσατε) for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, not lovers of money, and true and proven, for they also fulfill for you the ministry of prophets and teachers (ἡμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων). Therefore, do not despise them (τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν), for they too are honorable among you, along with the prophets and teachers (μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων)" (15, 1–2). The prophet may not have been in the community (13:4). But even if there is a prophet, bishops should not be despised, although their gift may be more modest in its manifestations. After all, they are permanent teachers of communities. There is no significant difference between their ministry and the ministry of charismatics. Bishops are honored in the same way as prophets and teachers (μετὰ τοὺς), and not less (not μετὰ τῶν). In Διδαχή, therefore, essentially the same defense of the hierarchy is given against the temporary infatuation of communities by wandering charismatics, as in the epistle of Clement. Compare: Bruders. Die Verfassung der Kirche, S. 120. Anm. 224. Compare: Zom P. Church system... P. 142–144. Th. Zahn does not want to take Didach literally. 15. 1 and without apparent reason weakens the value of 15,. 2, why he still has a distinction between the hierarchy and the charismatics. On the one hand, between them are kein förmlicher Rangunterschied, and on the other, the prophets and teachers “in erster Linie der Ehre werth sind” (but μετὰ τῶν!). Forschungen zur Geschichte de neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlicher Literatur. III. Th. Erlangen, 1884. S. 302–303. V.H. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. P. 194. Clement does not speak of succession specifically in relation to teaching. That is why the opinion is usually expressed that Clement is only talking about the continuation of the church hierarchy, deprived of teaching. See: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 358–363, 414–415; Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 167, 171; Weizsacker. Das apostolische Zeitalter. S. 619; Harnack A. Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. S. 54. But this opinion rests entirely on the opposition between office and charismatic teaching, which was so diligently imposed on the ancient Church by Protestant scholars. But, in our opinion, in Clement’s words one can see precisely the theory of apostolic succession of the episcopate, since he does not separate teaching from episcopacy. And Harnack himself admits that the epistle of Clement lays the root of the entire teaching of the later Church on the authority and offices of the church. If Christ received the authority of God, the apostles received the authority of Christ, then it is not far from the conclusion that the officials appointed by the apostles also have the authority of the apostles (“Der erste Klemensbrief”, S. 54–55). This is what Harnack rightly writes: “The strongest impression that comes from the message is that the new religion, first of all, was not a cult, not an enthusiastic, still less gnostic or speculative-mysterious, but a moral movement.” "Der erste Klemensbrief". S. 42. Vgl.: S. 55. Cp.: Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalteir. S. 164. See also the decisive arguments of Ernest Renan: “Our message resolves the issue in the spirit of pure Catholicism. Apostolic office is everything. It can be said that Catholicism began in Rome, since the Roman Church laid down rules for it. Primacy does not belong to spiritual gifts; it belongs to the hierarchy, the power transmitted through canonical initiation, linked to the apostles by an unbroken chain. They felt that the free Church, as Jesus conceived it, as Paul still imagined it, was an anarchic utopia from which nothing could come in the future.” History of the first centuries of Christianity. T. 5. Gospels and the second generation of Christianity. Transl. E.A. Serebryakova. Ed. N. Glagoleva. St. Petersburg P. 195. And according to Zom’s theory, it is even something completely contrary to the nature of Christianity itself, since law is in conflict with the essence of the Church. See p. 11, etc. About this, see Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. pp. 186–187. 1 Clem. 5, 1: “Let’s leave ancient examples, move on to the closest ascetics (ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς), take worthy examples of our generation (ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα),” and further about Peter and Paul. V.N. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. pp. 205–206. Could Clement write in this way to the Corinthians about their primates, when the Corinthians should still have clearly remembered the origin of their primates, when some of them, undoubtedly, themselves witnessed the installation of their presbyters? We find this implausible. “If the theory of Clement’s Epistle did not correspond to the views of the Corinthian Christians, then Clement’s Epistle would not have had any success, would have been considered an innovation, a lie, and, perhaps, would have perished forever; Meanwhile, reality says something completely opposite.” – Prof. N.A. Zaozersky. On the essence of church law. Theological Bulletin, 1909. T. 3. P. 336. This article also contains a detailed analysis of Zom’s theory of the “disenfranchised Church.” Harnack also gives a detailed criticism of Som’s theory in his book “Entstehung und Entwick. d. Kirchenverfas. und d. Kirchenrechts." V.H. For some reason, Myshtsyn, in the end, does not see this teaching in Clement when he writes: “A century later (?), under the influence of special historical circumstances, the theory of apostolic succession of bishops developed on this basis. But we repeat, it would be a mistake for Clement to assimilate it” (p. 207). But the author himself on the same page says that “the first signs of this theory are already noticeable in him,” that Clement “concentrated the entire ministry of the Church in the concept of church representation established by the apostles. Thus, he naturally arrived at a one-sided (?) and straightforward series: God, Christ, apostles and bishops.” “Who distorted the apostolic structure of the Church: Zom or Clement, Bishop of Rome of the 1st century? “The answer is not difficult.” – Prof. N.A. Zaozersky. Theological Bulletin, 1909. T. 3. P. 336. Prof. N.A. Zaozersky. Right there. P. 338. Vgl.: Knopf. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 172. Some divided the letters of Ignatius into two groups, one of which was recognized as genuine, the other as a later one. Some recognized as authentic the shortest edition of these messages - the Syrian one. At the same time, the authentic messages were seen as evidence of the early structure of the Church. On the contrary, clear traces of a later structure were seen in the inauthentic messages. This contrast is made in detail by Böhringer (“Die alte Kirche.” Bd. I. Th. 1. S. 33–46). In the later, in his opinion, the added four epistles reveal a clear goal - the elevation and glorification of the episcopate, which had separated from the presbytery, in a specifically hierarchical sense (S. 41). This period should also be shortened by another twenty years, because, as we have already seen, even Harnack and Zom, when analyzing the first letter of Clement of Rome, admit that it already contains all the elements of later Catholicism. The significance of Ignatius's letters in the history of the question of the structure of the Christian Church is also noted in the introduction to the work of Prof. V.N. Myshtsyna. pp. II–V. See, for example, archim. Sylvester (“Doctrine of the Church.” pp. 119–120). Ad Philad. 8. 1. “Ὡς ἄνθρωπος εἰς ἕνωσιν κατηρτισμένος.” On unity or like-mindedness, see also: Ad Ephes. 2, 2; 4, 1–2; 5, 1–2; 13, 1–2; 14, 1. Ad Magn. 1, 2; 6, 1–2; 7, 1–2; 13, 2; 15. Ad Trail. 12, 2; 13, 2. Ad Philad. prooem. 2. 1–2; 3. 1–2; 7, 2; 11. 2. Ad Smyrn. 12, 2. Ad Polyc. 1. 2; 8. 3. Prot. P. Preobrazhensky writes about St. Ignatius: “The idea of ​​the internal and external unity of the Church, exhortations to Christians to observe it are so often found in the epistles of St. Ignatius, so deeply occupied his soul, all his instructions penetrated, that one can rightly call St. Ignatius the teacher of unity." Scriptures of the Apostolic Men. St. Petersburg, 1895. P. 267. Ad Ephes. 9, 1: “Ὡς ὄντες λίθοι ναοῦ πατρός.” Wed. uch. Apostle Paul, for example: 1 Cor. 3:9; Eph.2:21. Ad Magn. 7, 2: “Ὡς εἰς ἕνα ναὸν συντρέχετε θεοῦ, ὡς ἐπὶ ἓν θυσιαστήριον, ἐπὶ ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.” Idem. 9, 2; 11, 1; Trall. 2, 1; Sm. 4, 1. Ad Trall. 9, 2. Cfr.: Ad Magn. 9, 2; Smyrn. 1, 1. Ad Trall 11, 2; Ad Ephes. 4, 2. Idem. 8, 1. Cfr.: Ad Rom. 7, 3. Ad Ephes. 9, 2. Cfr.: Ad Polycarp. 6, 1. Ad Ephes. 8, 2. Cfr.: Ad Magn. 6, 2; 7, 1. Idem. 15. Cfr.: Ad Philad. 6, 2. Ad Magn. 13, 1. See above, p. 94–95. Mention of false teachers, the Docetes, is found invariably in almost all the letters of St. Ignatius. See, for example: Ad Ephes. 7, 9. Ad Magn. 8, 10. 11; Ad Trall. 6, 8, 9, 10; Ad Philad. 6; Ad Smyrn. 2, 4, 7, etc. Details about the dominant mood of St. Ignatius’s feeling, under the influence of which he wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor, see V.N. Myshtsyn, op. op. pp. 295 ff. See: V.N. Myshtsyn. P. 299: “For him, the bishop, like church authority in general, in itself, as an obvious fact that does not need any justification, is completely reliable and even the only stronghold of the true faith, localizing in itself true Christianity that is not subject to any doubt.” Ephes. 4, 1; 20, 2; Ad Magn. 6, 2; Ad Smyrn. 8, 1. Idem. 5, 3; Ad Magn. 13, 2. Ad Smyrn. 9, 1. Cfr.: Ad Polyc. 8, 3: “Be in unity with God and the bishopric.” Ad Trall. 13, 2; Ad Smyrn. 8, 1. Ad Magn. 3, 1–2. Cfr.: Ad Troll. 12, 2: “Ἀναψύχειν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον.” Ad Smyrn 9, 1 · “Nothing should happen without your will.” Ad Polyc. 4. Ad Magn. 7, 1; Ad Smyrn. 8, 1. “All representatives of church authority, by virtue of their very position in the church hierarchy, constitute in the eyes of Ignatius one indivisible whole. As collaborators and assistants of the bishop, presbyters and deacons cannot violate the unity of ecclesiastical authority, exercised primarily by the bishop. This unity is achieved by their submission to the bishop." “The harmony of all representatives of church authority seems to him something completely natural.” See: V.N. Myshtsyn. The structure of the Christian Church. P. 303. Cfr.: Ad Philad. 3, 2-3: “Those who are God's and Jesus Christ's, those with the bishop... who follow the one who introduces a schism (σχίζοντι), will not inherit the Kingdom of God; whoever adheres to alien teachings (ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ γνώμῃ περιπατεῖ) does not sympathize with suffering (τῷ πάθει οὐ συγκατατίθεται)". See Knopf for more details (“Das nachapostolische Zeitalter”, S. 212–213). It only seems that Knopf gives the place from the Last. Ephesians (6:1) a meaning that it does not have. V.N. talks about this. Myshtsyn, op. op. pp. 307–308. This idea is excellently developed by Knopf (“Das nachapostolische Zeitalter.” S. 213–214). According to Knopf, the centralization of liturgical meetings and their subordination to the bishop for St. Ignatius is a panacea against all heresies, even if the bishop is incapable of teaching. Idem. 5. And Polycarp in his letter to Philip. (chapter 6) calls the conversion of the erring the duty of the elders. Ad Polyc. 4, 2: πυκνότερου συναγωγαί γινέσθωσαν ἐξ ονόματος πάντας ζήτει. “They withdraw from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins.” Ad Smyrn. 7, 1. In Protestant scholarly literature, this position raises strong objections. See: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 404–405, 409–410. But the judgment of Böhringer is especially harsh, who writes: “We do not find any trace that the preaching of the Gospel and teaching - this strictly apostolic duty - are usually and inevitably connected with the communal office by virtue of the office itself; rather, on the contrary, the community position and teaching of St. Ignatius are still separated; the latter is not formally associated with any position, but is still provided to every believer who is capable of it.” "Die alte Kirche". 1-er Bd. 1-er Teil. S. 36–37. However, Böhringer writes this only about those letters of St. Ignatius, which he recognizes as genuine, and he himself declares that “ganz anders dagegen ist Alles im falschen Ignatius” (S. 37). See V.N. for a few comments on this. Myshtsyn, op. op. pp. 313–314. Ad Polycarp. 4, 1. Wed. and preface to the letter to Polycarp. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 11–14; Harnarck. Domengeschichte 4. 1. S. 405 ff.; Vgl.: Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 101–102; Ritschl A. Die Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche. S. 407. Ad Smyrn. 8, 2: “Ὅπου ἀν ἧ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.” See Ignatius Harnack for the meaning of the words "Ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία". Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 406, Anm. 3; IN . N. Myshtsyn. C. 306 approx. 1. M. D. Muretov sees in the words of Ignatius an indication of the integrity of the Church or its conciliarity, the living and active unity of Christ, the hierarchy and the people. For the meaning of the term “καθολικός,” see the appendix to the study “Ancient Hebrew Prayers under the Name of the Apostle Peter.” Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1905. P. 30. Ad Smyrn. 1, 2. See: Muretov, op. op. P. 153. Ad Ephes. 3, 2. All conjectures of the word “πέρατα” proposed by scientists have no basis, especially since in the Epistle to Rom. (6:1) Ignatius has the expression τα πέρατα τοῦ κόσμου. Compare: “Apostolic Men” by Archpriest. Preobrazhensky. P. 293, approx. 2; V.N. Myshtsyn. pp. 316–317, approx. 2. The possibility of such an understanding does not exclude Knopf, but the thought of St. In this case, he defines Ignatius as “eine handgreifliche, dogmatisierende Übertreibung.” "Das nachapostolische Zeitalter". S. 221, Anm. Ho compare: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 407–408. Wed. at the archim. Sylvester (“Doctrine of the Church.” pp. 131–133). Seeberg pays particular attention to Magn. 3, 2, where Christ is called “ἐπίσκοπος ἀόρατος” in contrast to “ἐπίσκοπος βλεπόμενος” (op. cit. S. 13). But here, too, there is no teaching about the invisible Church, because Christ can only be called the invisible Head of the Church, even if the Church were visible. St. Ignatius speaks, for example, of the union of Christ with the individual (Ad Roman. 6:3). Is it really possible to conclude from this that this man is invisible? Funk. Die apostolischen Vater. S. XXVII–XXIII. See inscr.: “Τῆς ἀγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαις. 8, 1: κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας· also 19, 2, where Jesus Christ is called the shepherd τῆς κατὰ "" See also 5, 1; 16, 2. For an analysis of all these expressions, see prof. M.D. Muretova, op. op. pp. 30–31. Regarding inscr. the author writes: “Here are distinguished: private communities in Smyrna and Philomelia - all communities in every place (university or circumference), the Holy Church (truth, Orthodoxy, authenticity, canonicity), and finally, catholic, and the difference from all other definitions is obviously only the Catholic Church, existing in unity and integrity in all communities of all places” (p. 31). It is very remarkable that Böhringer, while recognizing the later origin of the complete edition of the letters of Ignatius, finds in them all the elements of the later doctrine of hierarchy. The bishop is not only a deputy of God and an organ of unity for a particular community, but an organ of the Church, a representative of church unity. In Smyrn. 8,. 2, where they want to see the doctrine of the invisible Church, Bohringer reads the implicit idea that episcopate is what separate communities are united into one Church. See: Die alte Kirche. T. 1. S. 43–44. For more information, see V.N. Myshtsyna. Quote op. P. 314. About this see: F. X. Funk. Der Primat der römischen Kirche nach Ignatius und Irenäus. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. 1-er Bd. S. 2–12; Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme. P. 167–170; Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 486. Vgl.: Funk. Kirchengesch. Abh. und Untersuch. S. 1. See some comments in cit. research Archimandrite Nikanor. pp. 96–98. For more information, see V.N. Myshtsyna. Quote op. pp. 318–321. An analysis of this assumption is also given there. Theolog. Studien und Kritikern 1890. S. 657; B. H. Myshtsyn. C. 320, approx. 1. One day St. Ignatius even expresses himself this way: “Obey yourselves to the bishop and to each other, just as Jesus Christ obeyed his Father in the flesh, and the apostles obeyed Christ, the Father and the Spirit.” Ad Ephes. 13, 2. Lack of trend in the epistles of St. Ignatius, according to Funk, is the best proof of their authenticity; it cannot be said of them that they were forged in the interests of the elevation of the episcopate. See: Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefe. S. 61. Cfr.: S. 62. 64. Cfr.: Bardenhewer O. Patrologie 3, § 9. 3. S. 32. Ad Philad. inscr.: “Σὺν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ πρεσβυτέροις καὶ διακὸνοις ἀποδἐδειγμένοις ἐν γνώμη Ἰησοῆ Χριστοῦ, οῦς κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον θέλημα ἐστήριξεν ἐν βεβαιωσύνῃ τῷ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ πνεύματι.” Ad Trall. 3, l;Smyrn.8, 1. “The Bishop of Antioch, the apostolic disciple, of course, knew what he was saying, he knew by whose institution he bears this great dignity.” Prot. A.V. Gorsky. Formation of the canon of sacred books of the New Testament. M., 1871. P. 17 (= Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers. 1871. Part 24. P. 313). Vgl: Bruders. Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 87. 102; Batiffol P. L'église naissante,.. P. 157–158. Ho compare: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung. der altkath. Kirche. S. 408. Ad Polyc. inscr. 1, 3; 2, 3; 4, 1. In the above words of Ephes. 3, 2 one can discern some continuity: Jesus Christ is the thought of the Father, just as the bishops are in the thought of Jesus Christ. But, I think, this weak hint is completely insufficient to attribute to St. Ignatius has a positive theory of apostolic succession, as does Bruders, who claims that, according to the thought of St. Ignatius, the first messengers and substitutes of God the Father, namely Christ and His apostles, are replaced by others: their message extends to the bishops and elders of the year 113. See: Die Verfassung der Kirche. S. 84–85. But, on the other hand, the opinion of A. Ritschl should be considered extreme, that Ignatius does not have any hint that episcopate is a continuation of the apostolate, and that the expression in the Last. Romans 4:2–3, where Ignatius compares himself with the apostles Peter and Paul, even proves that he could not consider himself the possessor of apostolic authority. See: Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche. S. 407. We have already said above that the ministry of the 12 apostles has always been considered special and extraordinary, but the theory of apostolic succession should not be separated from the establishment of a continuous hierarchy by the apostles. Vgl:Schanz. Der Begriff der Kirche. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1893. S. 554; Aitken. Apostolical succession. P. 195: “We observe too that these startingling documents yield no real support to the doctrine of Apostolical succession by the imposition of hands.” Ad Magn. 6, 1: “Προκαθημένου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τόπον Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν διακὸνων τῶν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων πεπιστευμένων διακονίαν Ἰησού Χρίστοῦ." Ad Trall. 3, 1: “Πάντες ἐντρεπέσθωσαν τοὺς διακόνους ὡς Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ὡς καὶ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ὄντα τύπον τοῦ πατρός, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ὡς συνέδρων θεοῦ καὶ ὡς σύνδεσμον ἀποστόλων.” Cfr.: Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. 1, 1. S. 42. Let us remember the previously cited instructions of St. Ignatius did not do anything without the will of the bishop. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 13; Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 406: “Jede einzelne Gemeinde soll ein Abbild der himmlischen Kirche sein.” Vgl.: S. 406, Anm. 2. Vgl.: Thomasius, op. cit., S. 100–101; Harnack A. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, I. S. 362 ff. Dogmengeschlchte 4, I.S. 406, Anm. 2. However, in Troll. 3:1 elders are called not only “σύνδεσμος ἀποστόλων”, but also “συνέδρων θεοῦ”. Ad Trall. 12, 2: “Ἀναψύχειν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον εἰς τιμὴν πατρὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων.” See Ad Rom. 4, 3; Trall. 3, 3; cf.: Ephes. 3, 1. Compare: Muretov M.D. About the meaning of the term καθολικός. pp. 116–117. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. IV, 8. 2. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 314, 8–10. Idem. II, 23, 3.” διαδοχῆς ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος.” GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 166, 6–7. Idem. II, 23, 4: “Διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος.” GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 166, 9–10: “Μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων” Jerome translates post apostolos (De vir. III. 2. PL. T. 23. Col. 609B), but Rufinus – cum apostolis (GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 167:1). Idem. IV, 22, 4. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 370, 9–11. Idem. IV, 22, 3: “Γενόμενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις Ἀνικήτου οὗ διάκονος ἧν Ἐλεύθεριος, καὶ παρὰ Ἀνικήτου διαδέχεται Σωτήρ, μεθ’ ὃν Ἐλεύθεριος, ἐν ἐκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῆ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστη πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος.” GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 370, 2–6. Conjecture of some who want to read instead of διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην διατριβήν ἐποιησάμην (Dannreuter Η. Du temoignage d’ Hégésippe. P. 24, no. 2; Duchesne L. History of the Ancient Church. T. 1. M., 1912. P. 160, approx. 2), must be decisively rejected; only the translation of Rufinus speaks in favor of it (GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 371, 2: permansi inibi), which, according to Duchenne (ibid.), is often interpreted at random and crookedly, but it completely contradicts the context, which Duchenne also admits. In addition, as Tillemont pointed out, Eusebius (N. E. IV, 11. 8. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 324, 8–10) and Jerome (De vir. III, 22, PL. T. 23. Col. 641A. Creations. Part 5. P. 305) unanimously report that Egesippus arrived in Rome, where he lived until the episcopacy of Eleutherius. See: Memoires pour servir a l’histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles. t. 3. Paris, 1695. P. 610. See also: Migne. PG. T. 5. Col. 1322B; Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 5 . P. 208, not. 1. However, Tillemont does not want to mean by διαδοχήν a list of bishops and the expression διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην gives the following completely artificial interpretation: il mit par ecrit la doctrine que suivoit alors l’Église Romaine, et qu'elle avoit toujours tenue par une succession continuelle depuis les Apôstres. Memoires. T. 3. P. 611. Cfr.: P. 48. Hégésippe n'est pas un théoricien de la catholicité et de l'apostolicité: il en est un témoin, parce que la catholicité et l'apostolicité ont été dans les faits avant de devenir des arguments. Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catliolicisme 3 . P. 208. Cfr.: Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme. P. 209. Funk is inclined to admit that Hegesippus attributes the same importance to the episcopate in the preservation of the apostolic tradition and that, in citing the catalog of bishops, he was guided by similar motives as St. Irenaeus. See: Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefe. S. 55. Cfr.: Dannreuther H. Du temoignage d’Hégésippe... P. 59–60, 62, 67. Harnack rightly notes: “The position that the bishops per successionem received from the apostles the truth of the Gospel as charism, that therefore they, as teachers, in their totality represent the apostles, and that only in this way veritas in ecclesiis custoditur, this position would have been established without a struggle with gnosis, but in fact it developed as a result of this struggle.” Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. S. 89. We have presented the views of A. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 367–371, 404–405, Anm. 412–413), which are usually repeated in Protestant scholarly literature. Compare: Loofs F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 23, 1. S. 167. Bigg. The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Oxford, 1886. P. 100. Quote from P. Batiffol 'i: L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 315. Strom. VII, 15; 92, 3: “Ἐν μὸνῃτῇ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀρχαίᾳέκκλησίᾳ ἤ τε ἀκριβεστάτη γνῶσις.” GrchSch. 17. S. 65, 20–21 (PG. T. 9. Col. 528B). VII, 16; 100, 7: “ὃ ἐν τῇ ἐπιστήμηή ἐκκλησία ἡ ἀληθής.” S. 71, 4–5. (T. 9. Col. 540Α). Idem. VII, 15; 92, 7. GrchSch. 17. S. 65, 31–35 (PG. T. 9. Col. 528C). Idem. VII, 16; 93, 4. GrchSch. 17. S. 66, 13–14 (PG. T. 9. Col. 529B). Idem. VII, 17; 107, 5: “Κατὰ τε οὗν ὑπόστασιν κατὰ τε ἐπίνοιαν κατὰ τε ἀρχὴν κατὰ τε ἐξοχὴν μόνην εἶναί φαμεν τὴν ἀρχαίαν καὶ καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, εἰς ἑνότητα πίστεως μιᾶς, τῆς κατὰ τὰς οἰκείας διαθήκας, μᾶλλον δὲ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην τὴν μίαν διαφόροις τοῖς χρόνοις, ἐνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ βουλήματι δι’ ἐνὸς τοῦ κυρίου συνάγσυσαν τοὺς ἤδη κατατεταγμένους οὕς προώρισεν ὁ θεός δικαίους ἐσομένους πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἐγνωκώς.” GrchSch. 17. S. 76, 10–16 (PG. T. 9. Col. 552Α–Β). Idem. VII, 17; 108, 1: “Μία γὰρ ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία, οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις.” GrchSch. 17. S. 76, 22–24 (PG. T. 9. Col. 552C). Idem. VII, 6; 32. 1–4. GrchSch. 17. S. 24 (PG. T. 9. Col. 444B–C). Idem. I, 19; 95, 5–7. GrchSch. 15. S. 61 (PG. T. 8. Col. 812B–C). Idem. VII, 16; 101, 1–2. GrchSch. 15. S. 71 (PG. T. 9. Col. 540A–B). Idem. VII, 17; 106, 3–107. 3. GrchSch. 17. S. 75–76 (PG. T. 9. Col. 548–549, 552.). Idem. VII, 15; 92, 3. GrchSch. 17. S. 65, 20. VII, 17; 107, 3. S. 76, 6 (PG. T. 9. Col. 528B, 529B). The empirical idea of ​​the Church, by virtue of which it is an institution of true teaching, is noted by Clement and Harnack, but wants to weaken this recognition by pointing out that this idea was expressed by Clement only in polemics. See: Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 413. But this remark, of course, does not change matters at all, since in St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, their teaching about the Church is expressed in polemics with the Gnostics. The relevant material was collected from Harnack. See: Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 369, Anm. Strom. I. 19; 96. 1. GrchSch. 15. S. 61, 30 (PG. T. 8. Col. 813A). Idem. VII, 16; 105, 5. GrchSch. 17. S. 74, 22–23 (PG. T. 9. Col. 545B). Idem. I, 1; 15, 2. GrchSch. 15. S. 11, 14–15 (PG. T. 8. Col. 704С). Idem. VII, 15; 90, 2. GrchSch. 17. S. 64, 5–6 (PG. T. 9. Col. 525A). Strom. VI, 15; 125, 2–3. GrchSch. 15. S. 495, 3–7 (PG. T. 9. Col. 349A). Ibidem. P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 300: c’est une doctrine ferme et exclusive. Vgl.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 369, Anm.: “Jedenfalls aber zeigt die Stelle, welch’ einen weiten Gebrauch Clemens von dem Ausdruck “kirchlicher Kanon” gemacht hat.” See: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4. 1. S. 369, Anm. Strom. VI, 7; 61, 1: “Τὴν γνωστικὴν παράδοσιν,.. ὡς αὐτὸς κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν τοὺς ἀγίους ἐδίδαξεν ἀποστόλους... ἡ γνῶσις,.. παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ παραδοθεῖσα.” GrchSch. 15. S. 462 (PG. T. 9. Col. 284Α). Idem. VI, 8; 68, 2. GrchSch. 15. S. 466, 8–9 (PG. T. 9. Col. 289C). Idem. VI, 7; 61, 3: “Ἡ γνῶσις αὕτη, ἡ κατὰ διαδοχὰς εἰς ὀλίγους ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγράφως παραδοθεῖσα κατελήλυθεν.” GrchSch. 15. S. 462, 28–30 (PG. T. 9. Col. 284Α). Idem. I, 1; 11, 1–3. GrchSch. 15. S. 8–9 (PG. T. 8. Col. 697:700). Wed. fragment from Eusebius: “After His resurrection, the Lord communicated the knowledge to James, John and Peter, and they passed it on to the other apostles, and the rest to the seventy disciples, of whom one was Barnabas” (H. E. II, 1.4). GrchSch. 17. S. 199. 21–24. Harnack especially insists on this. See: Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 370, Anm. 404, Anm. But in vain in Strom. VII, 19; 104, 1: “Ὁ γνωστικὸς... τὴν ἀποστολικὴν καὶ ἐκκλησιἀστικὴν σῷζων "Harnack reads the idea that the truth is preserved by the Gnostics; the preservation of apostolic and church teaching is precisely the sign of a true Gnostic. Fragm. 10. GrchSch. 17. S. 198, 23–24 (= Euseb. Η. E. II, 1:3). Ouis dives salv. 42. 2. GrchSch. 17. S. 188. 4–5. Strom. III, 12; 79, 6. GrchSch. 15. S. 232, 1–2 (PG. T. 8. Col. 1180A). Idem. III, 18; 108. 2. GrchSch. 15. S. 246, 19 (PG. T. 8. Col. 1212B). For some more details about Clement, see R. Batitol 'ya ("L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3". P. 298–316).