Часть первая. Жизнь св. Иринея Лионского

Chapter I. Origin of St. Irenaeus of Lyons 1. Nationality and place of birth of St. Irenea Who were the parents of St. Irenea, unknown. Neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor the works of St. father and other ancient teachers of the Church do not provide direct historical evidence determining its origin. This explains the fact that Irenaeus was and, in part, is classified among different nationalities. Icumenius calls him a Celt, that is, he classifies him by origin as a Gaul (E ὶρηναί ῳ τῷ Κελτῷ ... in Latin Irenaeo gallo). 12 But this opinion is based on a misunderstanding. Speaking like this about St. father, Icumenius had in mind 13 the latter’s own words in the preface to the 1st book of Contra haereses: “I live among the Celts (ήμῶν τῶν ἐν Κελτοῖς, διατριβ ó ντων).”14 He does not provide other evidence in favor of his hypothesis. - However, judging by the entire course of his speech, Irenaeus in this case is not talking about his life at all, but only about the time he wrote his great anti-Gnostic work (185-189), when, as Bishop of Lyon, he, of necessity, lived and moved constantly among the indigenous population of Gaul, the Celts. But to move among the Celts does not mean to be a Celt from birth. And the true meaning of the words of St. taken in connection with what follows, is completely opposite to the opinion of Ikumenius. Irenaeus in this paragraph speaks about the language of his work, characterizes it as unartificial and indicates the reason for this shortcoming, from his point of view, is precisely that he “lives among the Celts and for the most part deals with a barbarian language (β á ρβαρον δι á λεκον)”; Thus, his natural language seemed to have deteriorated from the influence of the barbarian. This idea of ​​“corruption” 15 of the natural and the opposition to it of “barbarian,” with which the Greeks usually defined all non-Greek languages, proves precisely, contrary to the opinion of Ikumenius, that the natural dialect of Irenaeus in no case could be “barbarian” - Celtic and that, therefore, he himself was not a Celt by origin. The analysis of a passage from Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus leads us to the same conclusion. 16 From it it is clear that St. the father spent his early years in Asia Minor, and nowhere is there any indication that he moved here from any other country. In view of such obvious inconsistency, the assumption of Ikumenius was - even without detailed criticism - rejected by Feyardentius, 17 as obviously false, and after him it was never put forward or defended by anyone. In contrast to the Abbot, Feyardentius resolutely called St. Irenaeus by the Greek. And this opinion was established in historical science and dominated it undividedly until the 60s. last century [XIX century]. But in 1857, the Englishman Harvey, in the preface to his edition of the works of Irenaeus (London, 1857), made a completely new assumption about the nationality of St. father, calling him a Syrian. 18 The name of the author, his publishing 19 and scientific works, 20 as well as the fact that the latter opinion was accepted by some other scientists (Eb-beth, 21 Farrar 22), forces us to treat his statement with due attention, despite its exceptional extraordinaryness. In support of his hypothesis, Harvey refers to: a) the name Irenaeus, which, in his opinion, is not common in Greek nomenclature and was probably translated from the corresponding Syriac word; b) for a good acquaintance with St. father with Hebrew and generally eastern languages; c) to the roughness, unevenness (roughness) of the style of his writings and, finally, d) to the fact that Irenaeus allegedly uses the Syriac translation of the Holy Scriptures and quotes it in his writings, and Harvey, in the footnotes to his edition, indicates, according to Roops, 105 places where this use of the Syriac translation is especially clear (as if). 23 All these grounds are analyzed in great detail and thoroughly by the American scientist Roops, who devoted a large article to this issue in The Bibliotheca sacra. 24 Regarding the first point, he quite thoroughly notes that the Greek name Εὶρηναῖος cannot be considered unusual in Greek nomenclature. It was worn before and during the time of St. Irenaeus is a poet of the anthology, for example, one grammarian, the Bishop of Tire, etc. 25 Then, historically, it is not known and is not visible from anywhere that St. father had any real motives for changing his name. 26 And in general, no conclusions can be drawn on this basis, since at present, due to the lack of historical evidence, we are unable to definitively state which words and names were used in a certain country and locality, especially since Greek colonization and culture introduced a lot of confusion in this regard. And if we are to draw any conclusions, then rather in the opposite direction compared to Harvey. This is what most researchers do, proving the Greek origin of St. Irenea; 27 and although this basis in itself is not convincing in determining nationality, 28 nevertheless, we think, it is much more natural and correct to conclude from a Greek name 29 a Greek origin than a Syrian one, 30 especially since under Harvey’s hypothesis there is no positive historical data. Syriac and Hebrew languages ​​are related to each other; therefore, with excellent knowledge of the latter, it is possible to become acquainted with the former. And hence Harvey’s reference to good knowledge of St. Irenaeus of the Hebrew language would have some meaning if it were true. However, St. himself the father considers himself inexperienced in the Hebrew language and refers to “periti eorum” (Jewish scholars) to confirm his interpretation of the meaning of the Hebrew name “Jesus”. 31 And this “inexperience” is a real fact. It is enough to read at least chapter 24 of the second book “Against Heresies,” where the meaning of the name “Jesus” is explained, or chapter 35 of the same book, where the meaning of the various names attached by the Jews to the Deity is interpreted, 32 to understand that St. the father knew the Hebrew language very poorly 33 and all his interpretations “probably also owed him to a not very knowledgeable Jew”: they were so “not clear and of dubious merit.” 34 In addition, in many places in his writings, Irenaeus himself expressively emphasizes that neither Hebrew nor any other language similar to it is his natural language, which he would have spoken since childhood. This, according to him, is the Greek dialect. Thus, in the second book “Against Heresies”, ch. 24:2, he notes about the Jews: “They sometimes write in order, like us (sicuti et nos) - and above St. the father compares precisely the Greek and Hebrew languages, - and sometimes in the opposite direction,” etc. 35 Or even more clearly in the book “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching,” § 53: “He (Christ) bears a double name: in Hebrew - Messiah Christ and in ours - Jesus the Savior.” 36 But even if Harvey had managed to substantiate the fact of good knowledge of St. Irenaeus of the Hebrew language, then from this one could only conclude that he was familiar with Syriac. However, the learned author needs to prove not only familiarity, but knowledge, and, moreover, one that would say that the Syriac language is the language of Irenaeus’s mother and himself from birth. But it is obvious that such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the first premise of Harvey's syllogism - about knowledge of the Hebrew language; one could rather conclude that St. was of Jewish origin. father, which Harvey does not assume. That is why, taken in its entirety, the scientist’s reference to the knowledge of the Hebrew language of St. Irenaeus can in no way prove the Syrian origin of the latter. As for the roughness of the style of St. father, then, pointing to her, Harvey had in mind Irenaeus’s own words (already partly quoted above) 37 in the preface to the 1st book of Contra haereses. The English scientist understands them in such a way that St. the father, writing his work in Greek, was forced to introduce into it some Celtic words and expressions (idioms). But the influence of the Celtic dialect would undoubtedly have been less pronounced if Greek had been Irenaeus’ natural language. Obviously, St. his father only learned it when he was brought from Syria to Smyrna as a child; and as an acquired rather than a natural language, this language was more likely to succumb to foreign influence. 38 However, first of all we must say that Harvey arbitrarily interprets the words of Irenaeus. In its entirety, the passage that the English scientist has in mind reads like this: “You will not,” says St. father to a friend, - to demand from me, who lives among the Celts and mostly deals with a barbarian language (βάρβαρον διάλεκτον), neither the art of speech (λόγων τέχνην), which I have not studied, nor the ability to write (ο ὔ τε δύναμιν συγγραφέως), which I did not try to acquire, nor the beauty of expressions and fascination (ο ὔ τε καλλωπισμὸν λέξε ων, ο ὔ τε πιθανότητα), which are alien to me. What I will write to you is simple, true and in ordinary language (ἀπλῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ ὶδιωτικῶς ... 39 γραφέντα ...)". 40 As we see, Irenaeus does not even have a hint of introducing Celtic words and phrases into his work. He notes only the simplicity and artlessness of his style. Probably St. Father adhered to the usual view, apparently in his time, that a writer is required to express himself in a special manner in an elaborate, florid, beautiful manner. He admitted that he did not have such an ability: He notes this “shortcoming” in the passage under discussion. To understand his words differently means to impose your opinions on him, to attribute to Irenaeus something that he did not think or say. The Greek text of the 1st book “Against Heresies,” which has survived to this day, does not confirm Harvey’s opinion. A careful analysis of it by Freppel, 41 Roops 42 and other scholars did not find any specifically Celtic expressions in it. Harvey himself does not indicate them. And according to the general opinion of most researchers, 43 the language of Irenaeus, although simple, is quite literary; so, as Roops rightly noted, the above words of St. Father speak more about the modesty of their author, 44 than about the actual lack of his style. But even if it were possible to prove the presence of Celtic idioms in the Greek language of Irenaeus, one can draw a conclusion from this to the Syrian origin of St. father is hardly possible. It seems to us that Celtic expressions could equally have been adopted by the Syrian and the Greek; and the point, in fact, is not so much in the origin of Irenaeus, but in his constant contact with the barbaric dialect of the Celts. In addition, Harvey himself admits that Irenaeus spent his early years (the years of boyhood) in Smyrna, where he learned the Greek language. 45 And it is known that children are very capable of mastering languages, learn to speak foreign dialects much earlier than their elders and remember them longer. A foreign language, if you have to explain yourself in it all the time in childhood, often even replaces and displaces your native dialect, which was noticed, for example, among the Russian aristocratic society, whose representatives, while explaining themselves well in French and English, often could not correctly compose a simple Russian phrase. 46 Therefore, even from the point of view of the English scientist St. Irenaeus must have known Greek well; and another question is what dialect he could remember better, living and moving among the Celts; especially since Greek was the international language at that time. Therefore, in general, Harvey’s disassembled foundation cannot be considered to be of great significance. Roops 47 examines in detail all 105 quotations that, according to Harvey, are taken from St. Irenaeus from Peshito [the Syriac translation of the Holy Scriptures], and finds that 30 examples given by the English scientist are not demonstrative; in 5 cases the Irenaean and Syriac texts diverge; in 36 – the influence of the Latin translation is visible; in the 16th - the Beza Code (D); in 3 – other manuscripts; 8 can be attributed to poor translation; 2 are taken from heretical writings, and Irenaeus is not responsible for them. Only 5 cannot be attributed to existing texts. But if all the codices had been preserved, it would probably be possible to explain this in addition to Pescito. Thus, the opinion of the English scientist is undoubtedly erroneous. Explaining the difference in citations, Roops comes to interesting conclusions. In his opinion, the translators of Irenaeus (as well as copyists), in order to give their translation greater value and make their work easier, cited Irenaeus’ quotations as they appeared in the codes widespread in their time, by the 9th-13th centuries, when the Latin manuscripts of the works of St. who have survived to this day appeared. father, enough such complications have accumulated, and now we are dealing in many cases not so much with Irenaeus’s reading of texts, but with later layers and influences; so to decide which code St. himself used. Father, it's not easy at the moment. In view of this and in general, the basis put forward in this case by Harvey cannot have any special significance. 48, When determining the code of Holy Scripture, which was in Irenaeus, one has to make only more or less probable assumptions based on which edition the largest number of texts are cited. Taking this principle as the basis for his research, Roops, contrary to Harvey, argues that Irenaeus, in all likelihood, used the LXX translation when quoting the Old Testament. 49 As for New Testament quotations, the same scientist counts up to 76 from the book alone. Acts from which it is clear that Irenaeus had at hand the Greek codex that underlies the current Beza. 50 Thus Harvey's opinion that St. Irenaeus is Syrian by origin, but has no sufficient grounds. This explains the fact that, despite the scientific fame of the author, the majority of researchers did not agree with his theory and rejected it (some even without detailed criticism) as clearly untenable, considering St. father is undoubtedly Greek. 51 This completely natural assumption has quite good reasons behind it. Some of them have already been revealed by us when criticizing Harvey's hypothesis. This includes, for example, the Greek language of the author of the books “Against Heresies” and “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” True, T. Tsang 52 and some other researchers belittle the power of this argument almost to zero and rightly note that in the time of St. Irenaeus Greek was the common literary language of all nationalities living in Europe and Asia Minor. But as we have seen, St. the father recognizes it not just as the language of his writings, but, 111 contrasting the Jewish and himself with the Jews and their scientists, makes it clear that this is his natural language, the language of his nationality. And in this case, the significance of this argument is important. As we have already seen again from Roops’s article, Irenaeus quotes the Old Testament mostly from the LXX translation, while the New Testament quotes from a code related to Beza. 53 And this also assumes by itself that he read the Holy Scriptures in Greek from childhood. The Holy Father, as we will see below, knew Greek philosophy and poetry well, he knew and studied with Polycarp, Papias and other “presbyters” - directly and from their writings. In a word, all education that was exclusively Greek. 54 All these data, with the failure of the first two assumptions and the absence of others, force us to recognize as the most correct the opinion of the majority of researchers that St. Irenaeus was Greek by nationality. In connection with the question of the nationality of St. father, there is also the question of his place of birth. There is no direct historical evidence that would make it possible to decide it in one direction or another. Therefore, we have to turn to indirect reasons. And in this regard, first of all, the instruction of St. Irenaeus to his place of residence in his early years. This, according to him, was Lower Asia. “I saw you,” he writes to Florinus, 55, “while still a boy (παῖς ἔτι ὢ ν), in Lower Asia (έν τ ᾐ κάτω ’ Ασί ᾳ) with Polycarp.” On the other hand, St. his father's connection between his early years and Polycarp (παρἀ Πολυκάρπῳ). He speaks very definitely about his acquaintance with the Bishop of Smyrna at this time in Contra haereses (III, 3, 4): “Polycarp... whom we also saw in our first age... ᾐ ήμῶν ἡλικί ᾳ)". 56 Eusebius also confirms it in his “Church History,” calling Irenaeus a “listener” (ἀκουστής) of Polycarp, 57 and the holy father himself, when he refers to Polycarp, wanting to reinforce one or another of his views. 58 But Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and spent his entire life here. This means that Irenaeus in his early years lived precisely in Smyrna or in its environs. 59 And in this case, we must admit that it is quite probable that this city or its environs was also the birthplace of the future bishop of Lyons. In Smyrna, even today, most of the inhabitants are Greeks. And in ancient times it was a purely Greek city, which even claimed to be recognized as the fatherland of the Greek poet Homer. 60 Thus, we receive 61 new confirmations of our conclusion about the Greek nationality of St. Irenea. 2. Time of birth of St. Irenea No other issue concerning the biography or literary activity of Irenaeus has been and is not given as much attention by various authors as the time of birth of St. father; but in no other point is there such a diversity of opinions as in this one. The date of birth of Irenaeus ranges between 80 and 150 AD. Christian era. Paradinus and Severtius believed it around 80 A.D.; 62 Dodvel – around 97; 63 Grabe - in 108; 64 Gal-lois - between 112 and 117; 65 Tilmon, 66 Lumper, 67 Lightfoot 68 – about 120; Farrar - between 120 and 125; 69 Leimbach - in 126; 70 Harvey 71 and Lipsius 72 – around 130; Massuet 73 and in agreement with him Deilingius, 74 Du-Pin, 75 Kling, 76 Böhringer, 77 Möhler, 78 Stiern 79 and others - about 140; Ziegler 80 - in 147; Tusk – about 150 g. 81 A particularly heated debate on this issue erupted between two first-class Western scientists - Theodor Zahn and Adolf Harnack. The first of them puts the time of birth of St. Irenaeus approximately around 115; 82 the second - around 142 or between 135 and 142 and not earlier than 130. 83 12 The dispute between these luminaries could not, of course, pass without a trace; and all the researchers who wrote after them, one way or another, took part in this struggle of opinions. Some, like Bardengever, 84 Ergard, 85 Keen, 86 are more closely related to Harnack. The majority, however, has not joined either one or the other, but takes a middle position; although there is no agreement here either. Thus, Dufourc puts the date of birth around 125; 87 Manucci – between 125 and 135; 88 Roops - about 126; 89 Korssen - no later than 130; 90 Wieten also around 130 91 This issue has not been studied at all in Russian literature. A few authors are either completely silent about the date (Ivantsov-Platonov, Archbishop Filaret, etc.), or establish it dogmatically, without giving any reasons. But even in this situation, there is no complete agreement among writers either. Yes, ep. Eugene, author of 92 articles about Irenaeus in the “Additions to the Works of St. Fathers”, 93 puts the time of his birth around 130; I agree with him and prot. Preobrazhensky; 94 and an unknown author in “Sunday Reading” refers the date to 120. 95 This diversity of opinions depends on the fact that none of the primary sources for the biography of St. Irenea: neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor the works of St. father and other ancient teachers of the Church - they do not determine not only exactly, but even approximately the year of his birth. Therefore, researchers have to rely on data that is only indirectly related to the issue under consideration. Here, however, it is very remarkable that with all the diversity of judgments, the grounds on which researchers build their hypotheses are essentially the same - of course, with some variations - for almost all authors. One of these grounds, on which many scientists who wrote about Irenaeus rely when determining the year of birth, 96 is a reference to Book V. "Against Heresies", ch. 30.3, where St. father talks about the Apocalypse. Above, he discusses the name of the Antichrist, examines several assumptions about this, and expresses his opinion (attaching the name “Titan” to the Antichrist); but, in the end, he declares, however, that he does not dare “to affirmatively declare this in the name of the Antichrist, knowing that if it were necessary at the present time (τῷ νῦν καιρῶ) to be openly proclaimed by his name, it would be declared by the very one who saw the revelation.” 97 And then he just adds those words 98 on which researchers base their opinion about the date of birth of Irenaeus: “For it (the Apocalypse) appeared not long ago, but almost during our generation, towards the end of the reign of Domitian (ούδὲ 99 γἀρ πρὸ πολλοῦ ?? τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιάνου άρχῆς )" As can be seen from the above, St. the father wishes, in the entire section (§ 3), from which these words are taken, to indicate the proximity of the time in which he writes (τῷ νῦν καιρῷ) to the moment of the appearance of the Apocalypse. The distance is especially shortened and the proximity takes on more specific forms in the phrase given in Greek. 100 Here, first of all, attention is drawn to the words οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου, which define the verb έωράθη. What do they refer to? It goes without saying that they cannot stand on their own; expressions such as “shortly before”, “shortly before” certainly require a certain addition after themselves. He is not there with them. But connected by the conjunction ἀλλὰ with one verb, οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου, obviously enters, as part, into the same sentence with the subsequent words ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν, etc.; therefore, for it it is impossible to recognize any other addition than ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς, which, of course, in accordance with the laws of language, is not repeated twice. As for the expression itself οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου, it contains two main points, in accordance with its two parts (πρὸ and οὐ πολλοῦ χρόνου). First of all, it is emphasized here that the Apocalypse appeared (ἑωράθη) πρὸ “before”, before that which is designated τῆς ήμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς, when the latter had not yet begun, before its beginning. Thus this whole phrase undoubtedly defines the period of time between what is contained in the word ἑωράθη and the beginning of τῆς ήμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς. Therefore, Harnack is wrong when he sees in this sentence an indication of the interval from the Apocalypse to the time when Irenaeus wrote. 101 This understanding contradicts the root meaning of the preposition πρὸ with a genitive, 102 which is quite consistent with the Russian “pred”. And we completely agree with Tsang that St. the father shades the beginning, not the end point of the period. 103 If so, then - contrary to Harnack's statement 104 - the entire phrase we are analyzing can be important in determining the chronology of Irenaeus. Ού πολλοῦ χρόνου, highlighting a new moment of expression, denotes the length of time between the Apocalypse and τῆς ἡμετέρας ... νεάς. As can be seen from the construction (ού and πολλοῦ, and not μικροῦ, for example), it has, first of all, a negative meaning, it says that this period is not long. But at the same time, it goes without saying, a positive thought is also given here about the proximity, although not precisely defined, of the time of the Apocalypse and the beginning of τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς With further words of the second part of the sentence “σχεδόν ἐπὶ”, etc. the gap is further shortened, and the Apocalypse finds itself in the position of ἑωράθη “almost at” 105 the beginning of τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς although, of course, in this case an exact definition, of course, cannot be established. 106 What does τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς mean now? The term γενεά, as Ziegler rightly noted, 107 has several meanings. In this case, its temporal meaning is undeniable: this is not birth, not class, and not family. However, here too there may be differences in interpretation. The most widespread and basic meaning of this word must be recognized, by which it is defined as a set of people born and living at the same time. In this sense, for example, the Savior uses it when, speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem, he adds: “This generation will not pass away until all these things will be” (Matthew 24:34); 108 or in Luke (7.31): “To whom will I liken the people of this generation ( τούς ἀνθρώπους τῆς γενε ᾶ ς ταύτης )?” 109 Taken in a temporal sense, this term naturally came to designate the period during which the replacement of one generation by another, of “fathers” by “children,” occurs. Hence we read from Plutarch: “ἔτη τριάκοντα ποιοῦσι τὴν γενεὰς καθ ’ Ἡράκλειτον, ἐν ῷ χρόν ῳ γεννῶντα παρέχει τὸν ἐξαὑτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννήσας " 110, or in Herodotus: " τρεῖς γενεαὶ ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν ἕ τη εἰσίν ". 111 Judging by these places, especially by the expression of the “father of history,” one can think that already in his time γενεά was used as a technical, formal term for calculating time, equal to 1/3 of a century (30 years). In the same formal sense of the measure of time, constituting a part (maybe also 1/3 of a century), it is probably taken in those rather numerous places of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, where there is a Hebraized expression “generations of generations” (sometimes together with another: “ages of ages”) or “generations and generations” (εὶς γενεὰς γενεῶν ; εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς ). 112 It goes without saying, however, that this measure was not a strictly defined mathematical quantity. After all, it is difficult, of course, to find a lot of people who would be born not only on the same day, but at the same hour or - even more precisely - minute. Therefore, only those born more or less simultaneously were counted as a known generation, as they still are today. It is possible that six months, a year, even two or three elapsed between the birth of a particular person in comparison with another member of the same generation. This explains some of the difference in the definitions of Plutarch and Herodotus. Obviously, γενεά was sometimes 30, sometimes 32–33 years. And this difference of 1, 2, 3 years has to be attributed to the beginning of calculating the years of a particular generation. 113 But much more diversity was found in the literature when determining the end of a generation's life. After all, 30–33 years determines only the period during which “children” gradually displace “fathers”, take their place and give the guiding direction to all life. 114 “Fathers” leave the arena of life and give way to “children.” However, the old generation does not disappear completely. Its representatives remain alive and often live for a very long time. And if at least one representative is alive, then that means the generation still exists. But people live, of course, longer than 30–33 years; therefore, the life expectancy of a generation, in fact, as applied to its individual representatives, should be determined by a much larger figure. From here γενεά received a slightly different meaning. Together and along with the formal definition of the period of replacement of one generation by another, it also began to mean the actual life expectancy of a certain generation. In this sense, this term is used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus when he quotes the words of Tullus Hostilius regarding the birth of the Horatii and Curiatii. They were born much later than Tullus. However, he claims that their birth happened during his generation (ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶϛ). 115 In the same way, Hegisippus in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History,” characterizing the times of Trajan (the end of the first century A.D.), says: “When the generation of people passed away (παρεληλύθει ἡ γενεὰ ἑκείνη), worthy to listen to the Divine with their own hearing Wisdom (Christ), then the sedition of ungodly error began” (Gnosticism appeared). 116 Clement of Rome, an apostolic man, in his Epistle to the Corinthians refers to his generation as the time of the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul. 117 As we see, γενεά used here does not have a precisely defined digital content. And if for Hegisippus its duration is no less than 80–90 years, then for Clement its calculation can be expressed in 40 years, while for Dionysius of Halicarnassus it is even less. And Plutarch, based on a now lost poem by Hesiod, determines the lifespan of the generation of nymphs at 108 years. 118 Thus, used in an informal sense, equal to the actual life expectancy of each generation, γευεά is expressed differently in numbers each time. And since in fact the life of a generation lasts as long as at least one of its representatives is alive, the general definition that can be given to this term based on the examples given is that it is equal to the life of a person. 119 This conclusion is also confirmed by Herodotus when, along with the formal definition of γενεά (30–33 years), although in another place of his work, he uses the expression “ἠ ἀνθρωπηῖν λεγομένη γενεή". 120 Another conclusion that can be drawn from these examples is that γενεά, taken in the sense of a person’s life expectancy or in an informal meaning, has a personal, subjective connotation. In the Old Latin translation, γενε ᾶ ς is rendered by the term saeculo. 121 Tsang apparently understands this to mean that the translator equated γενεά with a century (100). 122 Then, of course, the Latin translation would establish a new meaning for the word. But in fact, saeculum does not only mean 100 years, but can also be used to determine the life expectancy of a person and even its 30-year period. 123 In a word, it is equal to γενεά and in this case does not introduce a new meaning into the latter. In addition, if Irenaeus’s γενεά really equaled 100 years, then, as Harnack rightly notes, in the Greek original there should have been not “ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς”, but “ἐν τ ῇ ἡμετέρα γενε ᾷ". 124 Thus, only two understandings of this word remain: a) formal for 30–33 years and b) having a personal, subjective connotation, when γενεά is equated, generally speaking, to human life. In what sense exactly does Irenaeus use it? With γενε ᾶ ς it has the pronoun ἡμετέρας as a definition. The latter means, generally speaking, “our”, but in some cases it can also replace ἐμός “my”. The Holy Father also gives us examples of both kinds. 125 But what is this “our generation” that he talks about in the passage under discussion? Harnack, 126 and after him Corssen 127 understand ἡμετέρας in the first meaning (“ours”); and the entire expression ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς is equated to the higher one τ ῳ νῦν καιρῷ, thus translating it as “the present generation.” St. Irenaeus, in their opinion, meant by the expression ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς to indicate only the time at which he wrote Contra haereses. With this interpretation, it is more natural, of course, to understand γενε ᾶ ς in the first, formal sense (30–33 years); But the very agreement of the words ἡμετέρας and γενε ᾶ ς involuntarily tilts the thought in the other direction. No matter how one interprets ἡμετέρας, whether it is equal to the Russian “our” or “mine”, there is no doubt that with this term St. Irenaeus gives the whole expression a personal, subjective coloring; 128 in other words, it is more natural to put his phrase in analogy with the use of γενεά in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Clement of Rome and others. 129 The entire course of speech in the passage under discussion speaks for such an understanding. The Holy Father only wants to bring his time closer to the time of the Apocalypse. He had no intention of keeping a formal account of contemporary generations. In addition, if we take γενεά in the formal meaning of the generation contemporary with the writing of Contra haereses, then the time of the appearance of the Apocalypse will have to be attributed to 150–160. In view of all this, it is more natural, together with Tsang 130, to understand the entire expression being analyzed in the sense of indicating the life of the generation to which Irenaeus belonged. And in accordance with this, ἡμετέρας can be translated without prejudice to the matter by the word “mine”. 131 But the beginning of the life of the generation of St. father and himself must certainly more or less coincide. And in this case, we have a second confirmation 133 that the place under consideration may, contrary to Harnack, be important in determining the time of birth of Irenaeus; and we have the right to paraphrase all of it like this: “Apocalypse,” says St. father, “appeared shortly before the beginning of my life, almost with her, towards the end of the reign of Domitian.” The end of the reign of this emperor and, consequently, the time of writing the Apocalypse, generally accepted, falls on 96. 134 This means that St. Irenaeus asserts with this phrase that the year of his birth is close to the time of the last days of the Apostle John and, in particular, to the year 96 of the first century. Only such a general positive conclusion can we draw from consideration of this basis; a more specific, private definition of the time of birth of St. We don’t have the right to do this to our father. 135 This general judgment, however, gives us the opportunity to determine the comparative significance of different opinions on the issue under consideration. – The date of birth of Irenaeus is close to 96 of the first century. This means that those who push it back very far from the beginning of the second century are wrong; Harnack, in particular, is wrong, since a gap of 46 years (142–96) in no case can fit the concept of proximity, and even with intensification (“almost in my generation”). 136 If we keep in mind only this basis, then Tsan, Grabe, and especially, of course, Dodvel turn out to be more right. 137 But when analyzing this basis, the reason for the mistake of Dodvel and the researchers close to him becomes obvious to us. Obviously, when determining the date of birth of Irenaeus, they paid exclusive attention to it, without attaching much importance to others that significantly complemented it. Among the latter is, first of all, the passage from Book III “Against Heresies”, analyzed by almost all researchers, ch. 3–4, where St. Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp of Smyrna: “And Polycarp... whom we also saw in our first age, - for he lived a long time and in extreme old age ended this life with the most glorious and noble martyrdom [Καὶ Πολύκαρπος ... ὅ ν καὶ ἡμεῖς 138 ἐν τ ῇ πρώτ ῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικί ᾳ ?? ἐξηλθεν τοῦ βιοῦ )]—he always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church also transmits, and which alone is true. All the Asian Churches testify to this, as well as those who have been the successors of Polycarp up to the present time (καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον)...” 139 In the entire section (covers chapters 3–5), from which the above passage is taken, St. Irenaeus proves, in denunciation of the Gnostics, that truly Christian teaching is preserved only in the Catholic Church, transmitted from the apostles through a succession of bishops in purity until the present time, when St. father. He repeats this idea often.' “Everyone who wants to see the truth can learn in every Church the tradition of the apostles, revealed throughout the whole world; and we can list the bishops installed as apostles in the Churches, and their successors before us (ad nos), who taught nothing and did not know anything that these (heretics) are raving about.” 140 “In this order and in such succession (the Holy Father speaks of the Roman Church) church tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have reached us (ad nos). And this serves as the most complete proof that the same life-giving faith has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present day (usque nunc) and has been handed down in its true form.” 141 “All the Asian Churches testify to this (the truth of Polycarp’s preaching), as well as those who have been successors to Polycarp until the present time (οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι).” 142 – Concluding this entire section, the holy father also notes: “When the apostolic tradition thus exists in the Church and is preserved among us, I will return to the evidence from the writings of the apostles... (Traditione igitur, quae est ab apostolis, sic se habente in Ecclesia et permanente apud nos, rever-tamur ad eam.:.).” As we see, in all these places St. Irenaeus persistently emphasizes the connection of his time with the apostolic. Now (νῦν, nunc) or, as St. puts it. father, “with us” (apud nos) the truth is preserved inviolably. – This is the main idea of the entire section of chapters 3–5 of book III Contra haereses. Anyone who wants to find the truth must turn, therefore, to the Church, and not to a heretical community. But how can one practically find the true teaching at the present time? Irenaeus explains this too. You need to turn to the bishop, the primate of any Church that traces its origins to the apostles, and he will give sufficient information about the truth. As an example, St. the father refers to the churches: Rome (3.2–3), Smyrna (3.4) and Ephesus (Ibid.). Speaking about the Roman Church, he lists all its bishops, ending with his contemporary Pope Elevther, the last keeper of the apostolic tradition (3, 3). The passage we have cited is taken from the section where Irenaeus concerns the Church of Smyrna. She is also the keeper of the apostolic tradition in the person of her primates - Polycarp and his successors. Among such successors of St. the father obviously includes himself as well. The whole connection of speech speaks for this. Indeed, why else would he mention himself, especially next to Polycarp? – This assumption is confirmed by the conjunction καὶ (καὶ ἡμεῖς), which in this case is equal to the Russian “too” and puts St. father on the same line with the successors of Polycarp in the Smyrna See. 144 And then, all these expressions: “ad nos” (before us), “apud nos” (with us), “νῦν”, “usque nunc” - what can they testify to, if not that St. Irenaeus, by the way, wants to present himself as the custodian of the apostolic tradition at the present time? This is understandable and goes without saying. At the beginning of chapter 3 of St. the father declares that those who wish to see the truth can learn it “in every Church” (in omni Ecclesia) from the bishop. 145 And he was a bishop, therefore, he knew it and could confess it as the keeper of all tradition. Yes, and it would be strange to see if the one who says so confidently: “We have the truth handed down from the apostles,” was not himself its custodian, having the rank of bishop. It was all the more necessary for St. father as the author of an anti-heretical work. Otherwise, the Gnostics would have told him that he himself does not know and does not have the truth, having not received it from the apostles. The idea of ​​oneself as the keeper of the apostolic Tradition, in our opinion, is expressed by Irenaeus in the words he examines. This conclusion seems undeniable to us. No less certain, however, is the fact that Polycarp was the mediator between Comrade Father and the apostles. Through him, it was Irenaeus who received the Christian Church Tradition, which he now contrasts with the false interpretations of heretics. But in order to consider yourself and truly be the custodian of the apostolic tradition and a mediator in transmitting it to other generations, you need to study for a long time from the one through whom you receive the tradition. Therefore, it must be admitted that the verb ἑοράκαμεν used by St. Irenaeus, indicates not a single fact of his meeting with Polycarp, but a longer acquaintance. However, the verb form itself requires such an understanding. Placed in the past perfect tense, ἑοράκαμεν says that the action described in it not only took place in the past, but also has a consequence in the present. In other words, St. the father not only knew 146 Polycarp in his youth, but traces of this acquaintance are reflected even now, at least in Contra haereses, where Church Tradition is recorded. On the other hand, it is clear that for such an assimilation of Christian truths, which is required of the keeper of Tradition, a conscious age is also needed. 147 And in this case, we receive new confirmation of the conclusion we drew when analyzing the first reason. If Irenaeus was the keeper of the apostolic tradition, then Harnack, who moves the date of his birth too close to the year of Polycarp’s death and leaves almost no time for assimilation of the apostolic tradition (by the day of Polycarp’s death, according to him, Irenaeus was 12–15 years old), is certainly mistaken. His opponent Tsang is more right. However, having put forward the position of himself as the custodian of the apostolic tradition, Irenaeus considers it necessary to substantiate it, to show its possibility. “For,” he says, “(Polycarp) lived a long time and ended his life in extreme old age...”, etc. But if justification is required, it means that someone may have had doubts about St. father, as an intermediary in the transmission of Tradition, or rather, his age; 148 and this possibility was clearly presented to Irenaeus himself; That’s why he talks about his teacher’s longevity. The meaning of his words can therefore be paraphrased as follows: “I could learn the apostolic tradition from Polycarp, because he lived a long time.” 149 But why was this reference to the years of the teacher needed and why is the explanatory γάρ used here? It goes without saying that if Irenaeus had been born in 96 or 108, then neither one nor the other would have been necessary. A sixty- or fifty-year-old man, at least in terms of time (and this is precisely what is emphasized here), could be a conscious listener and student of anyone. If the specified reference is necessary, it means that the listener was not of such an age at the time of the hearing that would not raise any doubts. In other words, pointing to the years of the teacher, St. Irenaeus thereby significantly advances the date of his birth to the year of death of St. Polycarp and at the same time dates back to the beginning of the 2nd century. This is the second conclusion that necessarily follows from the analysis of the place in question. 150 From his point of view, it is already possible to make amendments and additions to the conclusion we made during the analysis of Book V “Against Heresies”, 30.3. It is obvious that the date of birth of St. father cannot be particularly distant either from 96 to the middle of the 2nd century, or from 155 (the death of St. Polycarp) to the beginning of the same century, but must be somewhere in the middle. To define it somewhat more precisely, let us turn to the analysis of the words that are the most controversial in the entire section we have cited: “ἐν τ ῇ πρώτ ῇ ἡμῶν ἡλικί ᾳ.” Most researchers (Grabe, Ziegler, Harnack, Bardengever, Bivn, Wiethen, etc.) consider them in connection with the passage from the letter to Florinus, where Irenaeus conveys his memories of Polycarp, and, in particular, with the expression “παῖς ἔτι ὤ ν.” 151 As a basis for this they cite the fact that both here and there the Holy Father speaks of Polycarpe and their relationship to him. This, of course, is so. But such a method of consideration led to a completely undesirable confusion of the concepts of παῖς and πρώτ ῇ ἡλικία, such a confusion when the authors put an equal sign between them 152 as a result of which it turned out that the volume of παῖς alone is expanded to 25–30; years of a person’s life, 153 others, on the contrary, narrow the meaning of πρώτ ῇ ἡλικία, defining it as equal to the 5–6 year old age of a child. 154 This confusion determines the diversity of opinions that we notice in this case, when it is impossible to find two researchers who would completely agree with each other. To avoid mistakes and draw a more correct conclusion, in our opinion, it is necessary to consider both of these expressions separately from each other. The word ἡλικία, used in a temporary meaning, does not have a precisely defined digital content. This term generally refers to the ages of human life. 155 It is applied to childhood, 156 youth 157 and very often even to old age; 158 so that no chronological calculations can be made on the basis of this word alone. But the definite term (τῇ) and the numeral πρώτῇ placed with him in the singular make us think that St. Irenaeus had in mind, first of all, one, and not two or several ages, and, moreover, quite strictly defined - the first. But what is meant by “first age”? In answering this question, chapters 22 and 24 of Contra haereses may be of some help. 159 Here St. the father lists all the ages of human life in this order: infants, parvulus, puer, 160 juvenis, senior. The fourth and fifth of them also have a more precise chronological definition: youth, according to him, begins in a person from the age of 30 and continues until approximately the mid-forties (44–45); 161 nevertheless, the subsequent time is occupied by old age. – Unfortunately, however, neither here nor anywhere else Irenaeus gives instructions as to the duration of the first three periods. Meanwhile, knowing about this is much more interesting for us. Not finding any data on this matter from St. father, we have to turn to other sources. Among the latter may be the manuscript from the Moscow Synodal Library that we have already mentioned above. 162 It contains the usual, apparently for the Greeks, calculation of human ages, 163 and the duration of each of them is determined exactly, in years. 1) Βρέφος, according to it, lasts from 1 to 4 years of the child; 2) παῖς – from 4 to 14; 3) μειράκιον – from 14 to 22; 4) νεανίσκος – from 22 to 44; 5) ἀνήρ – from 44 to 57; 6) γηραιός – from 57 to 68; 7) πρεσβύτης – from 68 until the death of a person. If we compare the data contained here with what we know from Contra haereses, it turns out that both sources have something similar to each other. Here and there the ages are listed in the same order; The chronological definitions of the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth period also coincide in general. This similarity gives us the right to think that Irenaeus, counting them in Contra haereses, followed the usual Greek practice 164 and, in particular, in relation to the first three ages, he kept, in general, the same account as reflected in the mentioned manuscript. Now it will be easier for us to decide what St. meant. father under the expression πρώτηἡλικία. It is most natural, of course, to assume a connection between this term and the first age of human physical life. In Contra haereses it is defined by the word infants. In the manuscript it corresponds to βρέφος. According to the latter, it includes the first four years of a child’s life. Irenaeus probably calculated it in the same way, which, in addition to everything stated above, can be confirmed by the very composition of the word infans: resulting from in - negation and the participle of the verb for to speak, it means, in fact, “mute”, “non-speaking”, which characteristic, naturally, can only be applied to very early childhood. But can the expression πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία be attributed to this period? As we have already shown, St. Father with this term defines the age at which he received from St. Polycarp and thoroughly assimilated the apostolic tradition, in other words, when he was already a conscious person. It goes without saying that βρέφος in no way approaches such an understanding. This means that by πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία we do not mean the first age at which a person’s physical life begins; and therefore the term cannot be taken in its literal sense. We must say the same thing and for the same reasons, however, about the second natural age of human life (παῖς - in Greek and parvulus - in Latin). 165 According to the Greek manuscript and the literal meaning of the word (parvulus “small”, actually “small” 166), in no case can it last beyond 14–15 years. And such years cannot be considered conscious; in any case, it is strange to talk about parvulus as a mediator in the transmission of apostolic tradition: these concepts are incompatible. But on the other hand, we have no reason to believe that St. Irenaeus attributed the beginning of a person’s conscious life to 30 years and identified πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία with that age, which in his calculation ranks fourth (juvenis) and lasts from 30 to 44 (approximately) years. And in this case, it remains to admit that St. the father understands by this expression the third, according to him and the Moscow manuscript, the age of a person’s life (puer in St. Irenaeus and μειράκιον in the manuscript), lasting from 14 (approximately) to 30 years. 167 At such an age a person already lives a conscious life; but this age is at the same time the first in this conscious life. 168 This assumption is also consistent with the usual usage of words at that time. The expression πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία appears in chapter 1 of the first homily of Pseudo-Clement. 169 In the following (1–3) 170 this age is defined as one when Clement was diligently engaged in resolving various philosophical and theological issues, for example, about the immortality of the soul, studying logic, philosophy, etc. A from the Notes. XII, 10 171 we know that his education began at the age of twelve; therefore, the solution to philosophical questions could not have happened before the 13th year of his life. On the other hand, πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία, according to the use of homilies, is something completely different from the fourth age (νεανίας), 172 in which Clement, who lived for a long time and experienced a lot, visited many foreign countries, converted to Christianity, is himself already a Christian teacher and is arguing with such an outstanding a heretic, as Appion, a follower of Simon Magus, was at that time. 173 In a word, πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία for Pseudo-Clement means the same third age as for St. Irenea. Confirmation of this understanding of πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία can be seen partly in Epictetus, when he characterizes the third age (for him νεανίσκος) as one during which a person enters life and can even occupy responsible positions: lawyer, etc. 174 Based on the conclusion obtained, we can somewhat more accurately determine the time of birth of St. father. Of course, the expression itself does not indicate whether Irenaeus studied with Polycarp during all 16 years (the duration of the third age) or only part of them. It is also not entirely clear from the text whether their acquaintance ended after this or lasted a little longer. But, in any case, the figures we received and the consideration of this basis in general give us the right to attribute the time of this acquaintance to the last 15–20 years of the life of St. Polycarp; and the date of birth of Irenaeus is determined approximately 30 years earlier than the death of the Bishop of Smyrna. But Polycarp died, as is now recognized by most researchers, 175 around 155. In accordance with this, the time of birth of Irenaeus can be assumed to be approximately in the mid-20s (between 120 and 130). II century. We have come to a similar conclusion based on the analysis of the excerpt from the letter of St. preserved by Eusebius. Irenaeus to Florinus 176, which is also referred to by almost all researchers when deciding the question of the date of birth of St. father. “This teaching, Florinus, to put it more condescendingly, is not the teaching of sound thought, this teaching is not in accordance with the Church and plunges those who believe in it into the greatest impiety. Even heretics outside the Church never dared to preach this teaching. This teaching was not taught to you by the elders who came before us, who treated the apostles themselves. I was still a boy when I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp: then you were famous at the king’s court and tried to gain his (Polycarp’s) favor. – I remember the things of that time (that tots) more clearly than the recent ones; for what we learned in childhood is strengthened along with the soul and takes root in it. Thus, I could even describe the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked; I can depict his gait, his way of life and appearance, his conversations to the people, how he talked about his communication with John and other self-videos of the Lord, how he recalled their words and retold what he heard about them about the Lord, His miracles and teachings. Since he heard everything from witnesses of the life of the Word, he told it in accordance with Scripture. By God's mercy to me, even then I listened carefully to Polycarp and wrote down his words not on paper, but in my heart - and by the grace of God I always keep them in fresh memory. I can testify before God that if this blessed and apostolic elder had heard something similar (to your error), he would have exclaimed and, blocking his hearing, out of habit would have said: “Good God, until what time have you preserved me that I must endure this!” Then he would leave the place where he heard such speeches, sitting or standing.” In this passage, two points are actually important for us: the mention of the meeting with Florinus and Irenaeus’ memories of Polycarp. To correctly resolve the question of the meaning of the new basis for chronology, we must pay equal attention to both and consider them in connection with each other. Otherwise, we risk coming to one-sided conclusions. The mention of the meeting with Florinus is in the following words: “I was still a youth when I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp: then you were famous at the king’s court and tried to gain the favor of him (Polycarp) [ε ἶ δον γ ἁ ρ σέ, παῖς ἒ τι ὢ ν ἐν τ ῇ κάτω ᾿ Ασί ᾳ παρὰ Πολυκάρπ ῳ λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα ἐν τ ῇ βασιλικ ῇ αὐλ ῇ καὶ πειρώμενον εὐ δοκιμεῖν παρ᾿ αὐτῷ ]". 177 From this it is clear that Irenaeus “personally saw Florinus at St. Polycarp in Lower Asia, apparently in Smyrna. But when was this? The passage itself does not give an exact answer to this question. According to it, one can only think that the meeting took place when St. the father was still in the position defined by the word παῖς. From the Moscow manuscript we have already seen that this age ranges from 4 to 14 years. Irenaeus here decisively contrasts it with his present situation and time (τῶν ἒ ναγχος γινομένων) and remarks about it: “αἱ γἀρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις συναύξου σαι τ ῇ ψυχ ῇ, ἑνοῦνται αὐτ ῇ” (according to the Russian translation by Preobrazhensky: “What we learned in childhood is strengthened along with the soul and takes root in it”). 178 Thus he understands it, apparently, in general agreement with the manuscript. But it goes without saying that in this case it is not taken in its entirety, but only in that part when a person becomes more conscious, that is, from approximately 10 to 15 years. This is quite similar to ordinary word usage. Most researchers here understand it the same way. 179 But in what year, according to the usual reckoning of time, does the meeting of St. father and Florin? If we knew this for sure, then we could almost exactly determine the year of birth of Irenaeus. Dodvel, 180 Grabe 181 and after them in modern times, especially Tsang 182, pay exceptional attention to the words “ἐν τ ῇ βασιλικ ῇ αὐλ ῇ)”, thinking in them to find the key to solving the chronological question. They all understand this expression to mean that St. the father speaks here of the personal presence of the Roman emperor in Smyrna; they then recall historical indications about the visit of the Roman emperors to Lower Asia and, based on the combinations obtained, form one opinion or another. By αὐλή we do not mean the building, of course, but what is now called the Tsar’s Court, when they say: “The court moved to Tsarskoe Selo,” etc., that is, the Sovereign himself, his entourage and the entire retinue (on this we completely agree with Tsang). 183 Thus, when βασιλική αὐλή is mentioned, the presence of the emperor himself is certainly assumed. And about the Roman emperors of this time it is known that only two of them traveled to Lower Asia: Adrian twice (in 122 and 129) 184 and once (about 154) Antoninus Pius. 185 If we accept that the passage under discussion really speaks of the presence of the Royal Court in Smyrna, then it remains to accept only one of these years as the moment of the meeting of St. Irenaeus with Florinus and, counting 10–15 years from it (the childhood of Irenaeus), we get the year of birth of St. father. But does the text indicate the presence of the Royal Court in Smyrna? If we analyze it carefully, we will have to give a negative answer to this question. The verb ε ἶ δον assumes, of course, the personal presence of what or who is seen. But with it, only σέ is used as a direct object, and then παρά Πολυκάρπ ῳ is added. And we have the right; in accordance with the idea of ​​the main sentence, talk only about the personal presence of Florinus with Polycarp. ε ἶ δον has nothing to do with the Royal Court (in this case there should be παρὰ τ ῇ βασιλικ ῇ αὐλ ῇ). As for further words (λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα), they, representing an abbreviated subordinate clause of time (when... etc.), serve only as a definition for σέ (only) and indicate that at the time when the meeting took place, Florin occupied a brilliant position in the emperor’s retinue and at the same time sought the favor of Polycarp, But this again is not means that the emperor himself was in Smyrna. Florin could have come here alone from another place. At the same time, λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα does not give reason to believe that his brilliant career began only during his stay in this city. On the contrary, the present participle of the verbs (πράσσοντα and πειρώμενος) indicates that his life at court and attempts to gain the favor of Polycarp lasted much longer than the time to which the aorist form ε ἶ δον refers. These two moments cannot be identified: they relate to each other as the general to the particular. In accordance with all that has been said, the meaning of the above passage can be conveyed as follows: Florin occupied a (generally) brilliant position at court, but at the same time sought the favor of Polycarp. All this could continue for a considerable time and take different forms, one of which was a personal visit to Smyrna. It was at this time that Irenaeus met him. Thus, in the text we do not see the need to necessarily assume the personal presence of the Roman emperor in Smyrna at the time of the meeting of St. father with Florin. 186 Such an assumption would be legitimate and even necessary only if the main clause contained παρὰ τ ῇ βασιλικ ῇ αὐλ ῇ. But if so, then the historical news about the three-time visit of the Roman emperors to Lower Asia turns out to be unnecessary for us; and this place can no longer have a positive meaning in determining the year of birth of Irenaeus. However, without having a positive meaning, it gives us the right to make a negative judgment in relation to some researchers and, thus, although indirectly, helps resolve the chronological issue. The Holy Father at the time of the meeting was, as we have already calculated, from 10 to 15 years old; 187 and Florin, in accordance with λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα, is no less than 25–30. Irenaeus writes a letter to Pope Victor about this same heretic (admittedly, not earlier than 190). 188 Reporting the harm that his writings bring, St. the father invites the pope to take measures to confiscate them and against the author himself; as it is said in the preface to the Syriac fragment (according to Zahn’s German translation): “Und Irenäus, Bischof von Lugdunum, welcher am Victor, Bischof von Rom, in betreff des Florinus, eines Presbyter, de rein Anhänger...”, etc. From this it is clear that Florin was still alive at this time. 189 If we now agree with Dodvel that Irenaeus’ meeting with him took place in 122, during Hadrian’s first journey to Asia Minor, 190 or with Grabe 191 and Tsan, 192 attributing it to the autumn of 129, then we will have to admit that Florin lived about 90-98 years. However, neither Irenaeus nor anyone else tells us about such longevity of the heretic. It is also doubtful on the other hand. In the Contra haereses, written at least around 185, St. Irenaeus, speaking about various heretics, never mentions Florinus. Consequently, he was not yet a decisive heretic and only became one later. But it is very difficult to imagine that an 80-90 year old man would come up with a new teaching. 193 And Tsang himself does not allow such longevity of Florin, which is why he tries to explain the Syrian fragment in his own way. If it did not exist, and with the point of view of Tsan, Grabe and Dodwell it is necessary, then we must conclude that the opinion of these scientists about Irenaeus’ meeting with him in 122 or 129 is unfounded, contradicts historical data and, as such, should be rejected. And at the same time, their hypotheses about the 115 (Tsan), 108 (Grabe) and 97 (Dodvel) year of birth of St. fall down as untenable. father, since they rely heavily on the specified assumption about the time of the meeting. From the point of view of this conclusion, Harnack is quite right when he objects to Zahn’s interpretation of this passage. He himself, generally rejecting the serious significance behind the reference to βασιλική αὐλή, dates Florin’s visit to Smyrna to 154, when Emperor Antoninus Pius was here. 194 To judge the justice of his opinion, we must consider that part of the passage from the letter to Florinus where St. the father sets out his memories of Polycarp. It immediately follows the story of the meeting. And it goes without saying that the words “τὰ τότε ...” in the entire expression with which this part begins 195 refer, first of all, to that childhood age, more precisely to the end of it, when it was Irenaeus who personally saw Florinus. This is evidenced by the direct connection of the proposals. But if we pay attention to the nature of the memories themselves, we will understand that St. the father does not limit their period only to childhood, but extends much further. Such are his reviews of Polycarp, such as: “He recounted what he heard from self-witnesses about the Lord, His miracles and (what is important) teaching (περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας)”; or: “Polycarp told everything in accordance with Scripture (ἀπήγγελλεν πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς ...)” 196 and others, indicate necessarily his conscious and even critical assimilation of the teacher’s words when he could to judge what is in accordance with the teachings of Polycarp and what is not. On the other hand, the purpose of this entire passage is Florin’s conversion from heresy to Orthodoxy, which Irenaeus himself adhered to; the constant interweaving of memories, in fact, of the teacher with his name and participation and, especially, the words: “By the grace of God I always preserve them (the speeches of Polycarp - apostolic tradition) in fresh memory 197 (in fact, “truly”, “consciously” – καὶ ἀεὶ διὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ γνησίως ἀναμαρυκῶμαι )" 198 – all this indicates that St. the father considers himself the keeper of the apostolic tradition, which he received from Polycarp. And this again presupposes not only his conscious assimilation of the teacher’s speeches, but also a long-term acquaintance with him, as we have already proven above. The latter is also confirmed by the verbal form in which Irenaeus conveys his memories (imperfectum - ἀπήγγελλεν, ἤ κουον - which Harnack also recognizes), 199 - indicates the multiple occasions when he listened to or saw Polycarp. Thus, St. the father speaks in this passage not only about the end of his childhood years, but, carried away by memories, moves on to a more conscious age, that is, the same third, which - as we have established - he meant by πρώτ ῃ ήικία in Contra haereses, III, 3, 4; in other words, here he only expands, in comparison with III, 3, 4, the period of his acquaintance with Polycarp due to childhood. In any case, the conclusion from this is that Harnack’s opinion about the meeting of St. father with Florin in 154 and his birth in 142 does not correspond to the truth, because it leaves absolutely no room for the conscious assimilation of Tradition and his long apprenticeship with Polycarp. And summing up everything that has been said about the passage under analysis, we again come to the negative conclusion that the year of Irenaeus’s birth cannot be too close to the beginning of the 2nd century. - as Tsan, Grabe, Dodvel do, - nor move too far from it - like Harnack, Bivn, Ziegler, etc. Therefore, you need to take the tertium necessary here, i.e. recognize as more correct the opinion that occupies the middle between extreme points of view. This is already a positive conclusion. But in this case, we again arrive at the mid-20s. II century, what exactly is the average date (between 97 and 150) to determine the time of birth of St. father. And if a more accurate determination of the year of his meeting with Florin is needed, then, in any case, Lightfoot’s hypothesis, supported by Roops, can be considered quite acceptable. 200 Around 136, T. Aurelius Fulvius was proconsul of Asia. 201 Two or three years later he was elevated to the imperial throne and known under the name of Antoninus Pius. Florin probably belonged to his retinue while he was still living in Asia. Then - quite possibly - the meeting took place. And since by the time the letter was written, the emperorship of Antoninus Pius was already an accomplished fact, Irenaeus could call the court of the proconsul of Asia “βασιλική” by anticipation. 202 With this assumption, Florinus’s acquaintance with Polycarp, and, in particular, his visit to Smyrna, is quite naturally explained; whereas, admitting the presence of the Roman court here, one cannot do without some stretches to explain this visit. Since the time of Tsan 203, a new basis has been put forward for determining the time of birth of St. Irenea - epilogue to the “Martyrdom of Polycarp” (Martyrium Polycarpi) based on the Moscow manuscript stored in the Synodal Library. 204 It begins with the message that Martyrium (ταῦτα) was rewritten from the works (συγγραμμάτων) of Irenaeus by Guy, who accompanied (συνεπολιτεύσατο) Irenaeus, a disciple of St. Polycarp. Further we talk only about Irenaeus. It is said that St. father, being in Rome during the martyrdom of Bishop Polycarp, taught many the Christian law μαρτυρίου τοῦ ἐτασκόπου Πολυκάρπου γενόμενος ἐν ᾿Ρώμ ῃ, πολλούς ἐδίδαξεν ). It is further noted that he wrote many excellent and Orthodox (κάλλιστα καὶ ὀρθότατα) works, where Polycarp is mentioned, in whom St. father studied; all heresies are refuted (precisely - πάσαν α ἵ ρεση) and church and Orthodox teaching is transmitted, as it was received by Irenaeus from St. Polycarp τοῦ ἀγίου, καὶ παρέδωκεν). It is also said (in the writings) that when one day with St. Marcion met Polycarp and said to him: “Recognize us, Polycarp (ἐπιγίνωσκε ἡμ ᾶ ς Πολύκαρπε)”, this answered Marcion: “I will recognize, I will recognize the firstborn of Satan ( ἐπιγινώσκω, ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ.” death of Polycarp in Smyrna, Irenaeus, being in Rome, heard a voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying: “Polycarp died a martyr (Πολύκαρπος ἐμαρτύρησεν).” - After this information about Irenaeus, notes about the copyists of Martyrium follow. the works of Irenaeus; Isocrates from Corinth copied from the manuscript of Gaius; Pionius, who, by order of Polycarp, who appeared to him, found the copy of Isocrates and restored it, which had almost perished from time to time (Ἐγώ δε πάλιν, Πιόνιος ἐκ). ? Πολυκάρπου ζητήσας αὐτά, συναγαγών αὐτά, ἤ δη σχεδὸν ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου κεκμηκότα ...). An interesting message for us lies in the words of the epilogue that in the year of the death of St. Polycarp Irenaeus lived in Rome and taught many people the Christian law. There is no doubt, of course, that the epilogue (both according to the Moscow manuscript and other manuscripts) appeared later than the “Martyrdom” itself 206 in the original story about the suffering and death of St. Polycarp was not there. 207 Can it, however, be of any historical value (we are mainly referring to the Moscow epilogue)? The opinions of Western European scientists on this matter differ. Some (Harnack, 208 Bardengever, 209 Lightfoot 210) consider it a spurious work and deny any meaning behind it; others (Gebhardt, 211 Tsan, 212 Lipsy, 213 Roops, 214 Manucci 215) allow the possibility of its use in church historical research. Harnack 216 and Bardengever, who repeats his arguments, present several reasons why the historical significance of the evidence of the epilogue should be rejected. The most significant of them is that the epilogue speaks of close communication between Irenaeus and Polycarp, but in reality he (as if) did not exist. 218 But, as we proved above and will show further, this communication is an irrefutable fact, and if the epilogue speaks about it, then this can be seen, on the contrary, as proof of its authenticity. Harnack further notes that in general the whole story conveyed here is incredible. 219 Bardengever explains exactly what this improbability consists of. It turns out that the reason for it is: the legendary setting of the event, and on the other hand, the fact that 15-year-old Irenaeus (as both of these scientists imagine him) could not, of course, teach others. 220 The legendary nature of the situation lies, as is easy to understand, in the miracle through which St. the father received news of the death of Polycarp (the sound of a trumpet). But if you refute the authenticity of the epilogue on this basis, then you will have to reject the authenticity of the entire Martyrium, since in the XV and XVI, for example, its chapters (in all editions) much greater miracles are narrated. 221 As for the reference to the 15-year-old age of Irenaeus in this case, this proof fits the type that is called petitio principii in logic. Harnack and Bardengever need to prove that St. my father was no more than 15 years old in 154–155. They are given an objection from Martyrium that he was much older. They refute it by what they need to prove, that is, they revolve in a logical circle. Harnack's bewilderment at the fact that the author of the epilogue does not accurately indicate the works of Irenaeus, from which he obtained information about the miracle with the sound of a trumpet, only then could it be evidence against the authenticity of this document, when all the works of St. father would be known. And since this is not the case, it cannot be considered incorrect to assume that the author takes them from some now lost treatise of Irenaeus, as we see in the line above (cf.: Contra haereses. III, 3,4), perhaps from the work Περὶ ὀγδοάδος. 222 We do not consider it necessary to examine other objections of Harnack and Bardengever (the name of the author of the epilogue 223 is unknown or that he probably confused the narrative of Contra haereses, III, 3, 4 about Polycarp, attributing it to Irenaeus 224). The indication that Irenaeus was not known to Pope Eleuther when the Lyon martyrs had to recommend him in 177 will be explained further. Lightfoot, wanting to diminish the significance of the epilogue, points out its dependence on the Life of Polycarp. In support of his opinion, he refers to: a) the fact that here and there there is a lot of supernatural, fabulous elements and b) that in the epilogue the expression Vita Polycarpï “καθ ὼ ς ε ὗ ρον ἐν ἀρχαίοις” is repeated almost literally (and even out of place) ἀναγράφοις, ποιήσομαι καθεξῆς τὸν λόγον (I will present further the story as I found it in ancient lists).” 225 We have already spoken about the supernatural element in the epilogue. As for Lightfoot’s second foundation, leaving aside the legality of the rapprochement of the 226 beginning of the “Life of Polycarp” with the expressions of the epilogue of Martyrium in other manuscripts, we consider it necessary to note that in the Moscow manuscript of the expression “καθ ὼ ς δηλώσω” especially incriminated by Lightfoot ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς " no (he himself notes this in another place in his work, 227 and the expression " συν αγαγ ὼ ν αὐτά ἤ δη σχεδὸν ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου κεκμηκότα" (“gathering them, already lost from time to time”) refers, judging by the connection of speech (see the line above “ἐκ ἀντιγράφων ἔγραψα” - “I copied from a copy”), to nothing other than ἀντίγραφα – copies from Martyrium'a Policarpi, but not to the original work of Pseudo-Pionius or anyone else 228. Thus, we find neither Harnack and Bardengever, nor Leightfoot serious grounds for denying the significance of the epilogue of the Moscow manuscript and the possibility of using it in church historical research. For our part, we consider it necessary to point out that most of the information reported in the epilogue about Irenaeus finds full confirmation in other, undoubtedly reliable, historical documents. Such, for example, is the remark that St. the father was a student (μαθητῇ γεγονότι) of Polycarp; perfectly learned from him the apostolic and ecclesiastical Tradition and passed it on to others ( παρέλαβεν παρὰ τοῦ ἁ γίου καὶ παρέδωκεν ); that he, further, in his books mentions Polycarp (ἐν ο ἷ ς μέμνηται Πολυ κάρπου). 229 The characterization of the works of Irenaeus as “κάλλιστα καὶ ὀρθότατα” is also quite suitable for them; in them, indeed, heresies are refuted (ἱκανῶς π ᾶ σαν αἴρεσιν ἤ λεγξεν). 230 The story about Polycarp’s meeting with the heretic Marcion, when he, in response to the latter’s words: “Recognize us, Polycarp,” replied: “I recognize you, I recognize you, the firstborn of Satan,” finds full confirmation in Contra haereses, III, 3,4. 231 It should also be noted that, according to the unanimous opinion of the publishers, including Lightfoot, the manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library containing the Martyrium Polycarpi represents, in comparison with others, the best text of this monument, standing close to the passages given in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. 232 But if there are no serious grounds for denying the meaning behind the epilogue and if, on the contrary, most of the information contained in it is confirmed in other historical documents, then we have the right to recognize as authentic, in particular, his message, according to which, in the year of the death of Polycarp, St. Irenaeus lived in Rome and taught the Christian law (πολλούς ἐδίδαξεν) to many. 233 The first fact is admitted by Harnack himself. It becomes even more probable if we pay attention to Contra haereses, III, 3,4 234 and an excerpt from the letter of St. father to Victor. 235 Here and there Irenaeus talks about Polycarp’s visit to Rome in 154-155 under Pope Anicetus regarding the Easter dispute and speaks with such detail and knowledge of the matter, as if he himself was present at the conversations of Polycarp with Anicetus and the meeting of Marcion with Polycarp. 236 But participation in such an issue as Easter, and memories of this in themselves already testify to the consciousness of their author. Thus, the reliability of the second fact, which the epilogue speaks of (and which is important for us), is confirmed, that St. Irenaeus at this time πολλούς έδίδαξεν. In order, however, to teach others, you need to be a scientist yourself and be of sufficient age. And in any case, a 15-year-old cannot be recognized as such, as Harnack thinks. 237 This means that the statement of him, Ziegler, Tusk and others close to them in spirit, when they put the year of birth of Irenaeus later than 140, must be rejected as inconsistent with the actual state of affairs. This is the negative conclusion that we have the right to draw from the analysis of the epilogue before us. Towards a more precise positive determination of the year of birth of St. Irenaeus on its basis we cannot come. But taking into account that in 177 the Lyon martyrs had to recommend Irenaeus to Pope Elevther 238 (and Elevther in 154 was already a deacon of the Roman Church), 239 one can think that when he was in Rome in 154-155, St. the father was not famous and was not a recognized teacher. 240 And this circumstance is more in harmony with 25-30 than with 40 years old, as Tsang thinks, 241 the age of St. father. But in this case, we again arrive at the mid-20s. II century, as the time of the birth of St. Irenea. Tsang put forward and energetically supports another, different from all others, basis for determining the date of birth of St. Irenea. “If Irenaeus,” he says, “became a bishop in 177 after a previous presbytery, then, according to the then prevailing rule, he should have been at that time at least 40 years old; therefore, it is more likely that he was born before 137 than after it,” 242 or even earlier than 130. 243 As can be seen from the wording, this reason, however, even by Tsang himself is given only to refute the opinion of Harnack. It does not and cannot have a positive meaning. The fact is that in the time of Irenaeus and long after him, it was not canonically determined how old a newly ordained bishop should be. 244 Tsang, however, refers to the Apostolic Decrees (II, 1), where it is forbidden to place in this degree before the age of 50. 245 But this source, as we know, does not have canonical dignity, 246 and on the basis of it it is impossible to talk about the “prevailing rule” for the entire Church. For the first time, the age of persons ordained bishops is precisely defined in the 123rd novel of Justinian, which requires that the ordained person be at least 35 years old and only in exceptional cases be at least 25 years old. Only this decree, adopted in Photius’ “Nomocanon” (Titus 1:23), received the force of church law. 247 But it, of course, cannot be significant for determining the date of birth of Irenaeus. In addition, it already allows exceptions when the candidate is distinguished by special spiritual gifts, or due to the needs of the time. In view of this, a reference to the rules cannot be taken as a basis in general, since it is necessary to first prove that in this case there was no exception. 248 If we pay attention to church practice around the time of Irenaeus, we will see that relatively very young people were often appointed bishops. The Apostle Paul appointed Timothy bishop of Ephesus in his youth (νεότητος - 1 Tim. 4:12). St. Ignatius also speaks of Damasus, bishop of Magnesia, as still young. 249 Tsang himself notes about Polycarp that he was already the bishop of Smyrna at the age of 30. 250 St. Athanasius of Alexandria received this degree when he was only 33 years old. 251 His enemies, objecting and slandering his election, did not blame him for his youth; 252 and this indicates very clearly that then, in view of the special needs of the time, they did not strictly monitor the age of the initiates. And we can say with confidence that even if a restrictive rule existed, it would not serve as an obstacle to dedicating St. Irenaeus as a bishop, even if he had not reached a certain age. He was a man of high spiritual gifts; he had already testified to his zeal for the covenant of Christ and the Church; 253 and the times of persecution were not such as to cope with the years of a candidate for the episcopal throne. Of even less significance is Tsang’s reference to the “dominant rule” regarding the age of the person being ordained as a presbyter. 254 The Neo-Caesarean Council (in the 2nd canon) and the Fifth-Sixth Trullo (14th canon) indeed establish 30 years of age as the minimum in this case. But in this form, this rule in no way refutes the opinion of Harnack. We do not know how long St. was presbyter. Irenaeus, and therefore we have the right to subtract from 177 only 30 canonically defined years. It turns out 147, which, of course, is not at all desirable for Tsang. Therefore, he again turns to practice and claims that in the time of Irenaeus and those close to him, very elderly people, almost old people, were appointed presbyters. 255 But this is not a rule (Regel), but only a practice, as he himself admits; Moreover, he does not prove that it existed everywhere in this form and was obligatory for all Churches. And when defining the practice itself, he ends up with a contradiction. On the one hand, it turns out that the elders were almost old men; bishops (Ignatius, Polycarp) are 30-year-olds and even younger youths, 256 whereas according to canonical rules it is impossible to appoint a bishop before the candidate has not served as a presbyter. In view of all this, we cannot recognize the basis put forward by Tsang as having not only a positive, but also a negative meaning in determining the date of birth of St. Irenea. Corssen gives it a slightly different form. In contrast to Tsang’s practical-legal understanding, he takes a psychological approach. In Contra haereses, II, 22, 5 St. Irenaeus (based on the Gospel and the tradition of the elders) establishes the age of Christ when He acted as a teacher at approximately 50 years. His defense of this position would, however, be psychologically incomprehensible if he himself had been ordained bishop at the age of 35. From this Corssen concludes that it is more correct to attribute the date of birth of Irenaeus to a time earlier than 130 rather than later than this date. 257 As we see, in Corssen, as well as in Zahn, this basis has a more negative than positive meaning, aiming to refute Harnack’s point of view. But even in this form we cannot recognize its value, although Corssen’s conclusion coincides, in general, with our opinion about the time of Irenaeus’s birth. A few words, first of all, about psychological penetration into someone else's soul. It seems to us that in scientific works such techniques should be resorted to very rarely, since no researcher is immune here from excessive subjectivism. 258 As for the factual side of the matter, we must make a small amendment to the reasoning of the German scientist. In Contra haereses, II, 22.5, the beginning of the teacher’s age (the fifth according to Irenaeus and the Greek manuscript) is determined not at 50, but at 44–45 years. 259 And we have the right to subtract this figure from 185–189 (the time of the appearance of Contra haereses and, in particular, that means note II, 22.5). 260 But the resulting number 141-144 is equally in harmony with the opinion of both Zahn and Harnack. Thus, the Corsen amendment does not increase the value of the base being analyzed. Tsang put forward another new consideration to resolve the issue of the year of birth of Irenaeus. The Holy Father in several places of his large work (see, for example: Contra haereses, IV, 27-32; V, 33.3-4, etc.) says that he listened to other apostolic men, besides Polycarp, who saw John and several other disciples of the Lord. And from history it is known that among the apostolic men only Polycarp was distinguished for his special longevity. We don't know this about others. Consequently, they died much earlier than 155 (the death of Polycarp); according to Tsang, probably even before 145. But Irenaeus could learn from them already at a more or less conscious age; therefore, his date of birth cannot be assumed later than 120 261 The first parcel from which Tsang is sent is that St. the father listened to other apostolic disciples besides Polycarp, which is quite true (contrary to Harnack), 262 as we will show below. 263 His thoughts about the longevity of Polycarp in comparison with other representatives of the second generation of believers and that Irenaeus could not have been a complete child during his studies with the latter are also correct. 264 But from all these premises we have the legal right to draw only a negative conclusion. Namely, for all reasons, the date of birth of St. the father cannot be attributed to either 142, 147 or 150, 265 since then there is no time left for him to listen to the “presbyters”. This is the first. Further, since a more or less conscious time in a person’s life begins, as both Harnack, 266 and Tsang, 267 admit, and as we showed when analyzing the letter to Florinus, no earlier than 10 years, then, on the basis of this reference, we should generally recognize 130 as the most extreme date, below which it is hardly possible to push back the birth of Irenaeus. It would be most natural to install it again in the mid-20s. II century Then Irenaeus, around 134–135, turns out to be already a 10–15 year old boy, which is why he could also listen to the apostolic men for 10–15 years. However, from the point of view of this basis, all other dates above 120 are also acceptable, but not included in the age of the apostles themselves, since Irenaeus says nothing about acquaintance with the latter. Dodvel, wanting to prove the truth of his opinion about the year of birth of Irenaeus (97), refers to the fact that the heretics, against whom the main work of St. father and whose contemporary he was, lived in the time of Hadrian. 268 But historically incorrect, 269 this basis can only serve to determine the time of the publication of Irenaeus’s work. As for the year of his birth, even in Dodvel himself it serves not so much to prove the truth of his date as to justify the possibility of (only) attributing it to the beginning of the 2nd century. But in this form, this basis is compatible, of course, with all other early dates (Grabe, Tsana, etc.). Summarizing everything that has been said about the year of birth of St. Irenea, we consider ourselves entitled to put forward the following provisions: 1. Given the current state of the sources, it is impossible to accurately determine this date. 2. Harnack, Tsang and authors close to them are wrong in their definition of it. 3. Based on the analysis of most of the data related to this, it should be recognized that the most probable opinion is that St. father was born in the 20s. (between 120 and 130) II centuries. Chapter II. The early years of St. Irenea The nature of the activity of every person, which is most fully revealed in adulthood, in addition to natural abilities, is largely determined by the conditions in which his early years take place. “What we learn at a young age, strengthens along with the soul, takes root in it,” says St. Irenaeus. 270 The influence of the environment, educators and teachers is very great. The impressions of childhood, youth, the first years of conscious life leave such a mark that no matter what direction a person’s life takes later, no matter what field he works in, no matter what blows and vicissitudes of fate he is exposed to, they cannot be destroyed; and sooner or later, one way or another they will come out. – That is why in all scientific biographies a sufficient place is given to the description of the environment and conditions in which the early years of a famous person took place. The same should be applied to the biography of St. Irenea. His activities developed most fully and the characteristic features of his personality emerged in Lyon. But, undoubtedly, the roots that fed this activity must be sought in Asia Minor. What emerged in adulthood depended to a large extent on the influences of youth. But the Asia Minor stay of St. the father is important not only for clarifying and characterizing his personality. Here we come to the point where his life acquires general church interest. The early years of St. Irenaeus serves as a link between him, as a pan-church figure, and Christian antiquity before him. The Holy Father left the Church a rich heritage in the form of works that have survived to this day, which present Christian teaching on almost all the main issues of theological knowledge. They are based, however, not on the personal views of Irenaeus, but on the Church Tradition that existed before him. He is one of the main links in the chain in the history of this Tradition. Hence, the teaching he expounded is significant insofar as it correctly conveys information about Christ and Christianity previously preserved in oral stories. But he received this information from Polycarp, Papias and other “presbyters” precisely during the Asia Minor period of his life. To cross out this period means to present the views of Irenaeus as completely independent and to break the chain of apostolic tradition. Therefore, the history of the early years of St. father has long attracted the attention of representatives of church historical science. Protestant scientists and, in particular, the most prominent of them at the present time, A., were and are especially interested in this issue. Harnak. Guided by his evolutionary view of the history of the origin of the Christian religion as a natural gradual process of transformation of the original teachings of Christ in the minds of the best representatives of the Church, the German professor resolutely denies the genetic connection of Irenaeus’ theology with early Church Tradition. According to Harnack, St. his father was not a student of Polycarp and the elders, and all the views expressed in his writings are the product of his independent, personal processing of general Christian views and sentiments in accordance with the conditions of the time. Thus, the history of Church Tradition in Harnack is interrupted at Irenaeus, without reaching directly to Christ. The German scientist directs the strength of his evidence mainly to the chronology of the birth of St. father. By asserting 142 as the date of birth of Irenaeus, Harnack thereby wants to show that St. the father could not even be a student of Polycarp, much less the last deceased “presbyter.” He also analyzes the very nature of Irenaeus’s relationship with his teachers. Most of the reasons for it have already been considered by us when analyzing the question of the year of birth of St. Irenea. Having established this date between 120 and 130, we have already shown that St. the father could have been a student of Polycarp and the elders. Thus, we have already completed a significant part of the work concerning Irenaeus’ stay in Asia Minor. We partly substantiated the idea that he was in fact a student of Polycarp. In the future, we will try to reveal the conditions of life and influence that surrounded the “perfect man” Irenaeus, touch on his secular education and analyze in more detail the nature of his relationship with Polycarp and the elders. 1. Place of residence and environment where Irenaeus moved in his early years Irenaeus's place of residence in his early years was Asia Minor, most likely Smyrna or its environs. He himself makes this clear in an excerpt from a letter to Florin. “I was still a boy (παῖς ἔτι ὤ ν) when I saw you in Lower Asia (ἐν τῆ κάτω A σί ᾳ) with Polycarp,” he reminds his addressee. “Then you were famous at the king’s court and tried to gain the favor of him (Polycarp).” 271 Apparently, the meeting of St. father's relationship with Florin occurred at the former's place of permanent residence. It is difficult to imagine, in fact, that Irenaeus, a boy, was looking for her and deliberately showed up in Smyrna for this. This assumption is confirmed by the further story of St. father about his relationship with Polycarp, when he mentions the place where the Bishop of Smyrna usually sat and talked, his gait, lifestyle, appearance, conversations with the people, habits. 272 All this says that Irenaeus lived for a long time and constantly moved in the company of St. Polycarp. He also mentions his close acquaintance with the latter in Contra haereses, III, 3,4, as we have already noted: “Polycarp, whom I also saw in my first age ῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικί ᾳ)...". 273 But Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, lived here permanently 274 and died a martyr. 275 Close to it, obviously, was the place of residence of Irenaeus in his early years. 276 That part of the Asia Minor coast, where in the first centuries of Christianity the famous cities in the history of the Church flourished - Ephesus, Smyrna, Mi-let, etc., in ancient times was occupied by two wild peoples, the Carians and the Leleges. 277 During the period of greatest development of Greek colonization (between 1400 and 1000), 278 most likely around 1044, 279 the Ionian Greeks appeared here. First, they captured coastal areas, starting from Ephesus and further to the south and southwest, as well as nearby islands - Chios, Samos, etc. The Carians and Leleges were driven out from their nests. At their place of residence, a union of twelve Ionian cities was founded. At the head was Ephesus, where the king of Ionia stayed. 280 Having gained a foothold here, the Ionians began to spread further north. First of all, they occupied the area where Smyrna is now located. 281 Its ancient inhabitants, the Leleges, were also expelled and went inland or to the remote northern coast. 282 A little further than present-day Smyrna, a city was founded, which received its name (Σμύρνα), according to one legend, on behalf of the Amazon Smyrna, who lived in Ephesus; 283 according to another, more probable, named after the ancient name of Ephesus or its part, also Smyrna. 284 The new city was 320 stadia (about 60 versts) from Ephesus. 285 600 years BC Smyrna was destroyed by the Lydians and for a long time remained an insignificant village; but 400 years later it was rebuilt again by Antigonus, one of the successors of Alexander the Great, and even later by Lysimachus. 286 The new city was built at a distance of 20 stadia from the previous one. 287 One part of it was on the mountain, the other was located on the plain. Rising above the bay of the same name, Smyrna occupied a beautiful and advantageous position. It was a most beautiful city, as Strabo said, and very famous in terms of trade. In terms of wealth, population and splendor, it was second only to Ephesus. 288 Even in the time of Strabo (beginning of the 1st century AD) 289 in Smyrna there were good stone pavements, beautiful streets, beautiful houses, a comfortable harbor; there was a church in honor of Homer with his statue (the Smyrna people considered their city the birthplace of the poet), 290 a gymnasium for the education of children, and a library. 291 And several decades earlier 292 there was even a medical school here. Around 133 BC, Smyrna, together with other Ionian cities, came into the power of the Romans according to the will of the Pergamon king Atallus. 293 When Augustus divided the Roman provinces into imperial and senatorial, all of Ionia, including Smyrna, became part of the Asiatic province or simply Asia. 294 The Roman proconsul was at the head of the administration and court here, which is why the new province was also called proconsular Asia. 295 The seat of the ruler was the city of Ephesus, the former residence of the Ionian kings. 296 The population of Smyrna and its surroundings in the first centuries of Christianity consisted mainly of Greeks. 297 The pagan Smyrnans worshiped Bacchus, Bacchus; were famous for their luxury and delicacy. Smyrna morals (mores smyrnaei) have even become a proverb. 298 During the era of John the Theologian’s life in Asia Minor, there was a Jewish colony here, which received the name “synagogue of Satan” in the Apocalypse for its slander and slander against Christians (Rev. 2:9). However, the Jews did not have much influence on the character of the city, living an isolated life 299 and apparently not enjoying the sympathies of the native residents. There is no exact positive information about the first apostle of Smyrna and the time of its enlightenment with the light of the truth of Christ. Based on the Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians can only affirm positively that the latter took place later than the beginning of Christianity in Philippi (the second evangelistic journey of the Apostle Paul). 300 On the other hand, in the Apocalypse of John the Theologian, the Smyrna Church appears among the seven of Asia Minor with a completely defined character (2, 8–11); and since this required sufficient time, it means that its foundation dates back to a period earlier than the last quarter of the 1st century. Some consider the first enlightener of Smyrna to be John the Theologian. 301 In reality this was hardly the case. This assumption is based, apparently, mainly on the fact of the enormous influence that the apostle acquired on all the churches of Asia Minor during his 30-year stay in Ephesus. It is more likely that St. Paul during his almost three years (Acts 20:31) preaching activity (54–57) in the capital of Asia. It is, in fact, difficult to admit that this missionary by vocation, the recognized founder of numerous Churches, who worked more than others in this field (1 Cor. 15:10), living for such a long time in Ephesus, refrained from visiting and enlightening Smyrna, the second largest and most populous city in the Asian province: especially since it was located from the place of permanent residence of St. Pavel is only 60 miles away. Confirmation of this opinion can be seen partly in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Regarding the results of the activities of Ap. Paul in Ephesus, the Writer notes: “All the inhabitants of Asia heard the sermon about the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” 302 that he probably founded all seven Asia Minor Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse (Ch. 2-3). However, if St. Paul was the first preacher of Christianity in the Asian province, then the honor of deepening Christian principles among the inhabitants of this region and, in general, the final establishment of the Church among them, undoubtedly belongs to John the Theologian. His activity here is already evidenced by the Apocalypse, addressed to the seven Churches located in Asia (Rev. 1:4,11; Ch. 2–3), and his First Council Epistle, probably primarily distributed in the same province. 303 St. John reveals a good knowledge of the characteristic features of the life of the local Christians (Rev. Ch. 2-3) and writes to them with authority and authority (Rev. Ch. 2-3; 1,4,9 and the entire First Epistle). When reading his books, it is clear that he had the right to address the believers in such a way that they were subordinate to him, and he was their leader in spiritual life. 304 Subsequent church writers also have news of the apostle’s stay in Asia. Yes, St. Irenaeus says: “All the elders who contacted John, the disciple of the Lord, in Asia, claim that this (information about the age of the Savior) was conveyed by John.” 305 “John, the disciple of the Lord, who reclined on His chest, also published his Gospel at the time when he was in Asia, in Ephesus.” 306 Polycrates of Ephesus fully confirms this in his letter to Pope Victor (about 190) regarding the Easter disputes, when, wanting to prove the truth of the Asia Minor practice he defended in the celebration of Easter, he refers to “John, who reclined on the Lord’s breasts, was a priest, confessor and teacher and was buried in Ephesus.” 307 The influence and authority of St. the apostle in the churches of Asia Minor were so great that the grateful memory of his thirty years of activity here is still preserved in the legends and apocrypha widespread on the coast and islands of Asia Minor. 308 In his honor, a lot of churches were built, which have survived to this day or are now lying in ruins: in Ephesus, Pergamum, Sardis, Philadelphia, Patmos, etc. 309 But if the activity of St. John in the Asian province, 310 there can be no doubt that the second most important city here, Smyrna, also experienced his influence. There are also direct indications of this. The environment of the seven Churches to which the Apocalypse was addressed is mentioned in Smyrna (Rev. 1; 11; 2.11). Its first bishop (Polycarp) was installed by John. 311 St. speaks very confidently about the close connection between Polycarp and the Apostle. Irenaeus. “Anicetas (the Pope) could not,” in his words, “convince Polycarp not to observe what he always observed (we are talking about the celebration of Easter. - S.F.), living with John, the disciple of our Lord, and treating the other apostles.” 312 Transmitted by the bishop. Lyonsky and how he repeatedly “spoke (Polycarp) about his treatment with John and other witnesses of the Lord, how he recalled their words and retold what he heard from them about the Lord, His miracles and teaching.” 313 During the time of Irenaeus in Smyrna, there was a widespread legend about the meeting of John with the heretic Cyrinthos. 314 Those elders with whom Irenaeus studied in Smyrna were also in close communication with this apostle. 315 Thus, St. John influenced the Smyrneans both directly (probably through oral preaching, as well as the Apocalypse and Epistle) and through his disciples. John the Theologian settled in Asia Minor after the death of Peter and Paul, believed to be around 70, and remained here until the end of his life (he probably died at the beginning of the 2nd century), only being removed from Ephesus for 3-4 years into exile on the island of Patmos (93-96) during the persecution of the Emperor Domitian. 316 Thus, his activity in the Asian province lasted about 30 years. Christianity appeared here before him. However, having lived in Ephesus for only about three years (Acts 20:31), the Apostle of Languages ​​was hardly able to enlighten all corners of this vast country. One might think that his preaching was limited, as was generally done at that time, only to large cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Miletus. Residents of small towns and villages, in all likelihood, could become acquainted with the teachings of Christ only in these centers. And here, undoubtedly, not everyone was still confessing in the 60s and 70s. the name of the Crucified One. St. John was thus faced with the work of spreading Christianity in the places of Asia that had not yet heard the preaching of Christ. He had no less work to do inside the Churches. Hardly St. Within three years, Paul managed to give full organization to all communities, install bishops and elders everywhere, establish mutual relations between members, etc. A three-year period is too short for Christianity to enter the life of the people and become a regulating force for everything. The task here was further complicated by the heterogeneous composition of John's flock. As is known, there were Jewish colonies in Ephesus, Smyrna and, probably, other cities and towns; therefore, Christian communities consisted of former Jews and pagan Greeks. And they had difficulty getting along in peace with each other, especially in view of the intrigues and slanderous activities of the Jewish communities. The question of the attitude of Christians to Jewish law required special consideration at the Apostolic Council (Acts Chapter 15). But even after his decision, which abolished the need for Christians to fulfill the requirements of the ritual, disputes did not cease to worry members of Christian societies; Particular caution was required from the primates of the Churches when analyzing all the doubts and disputes that arose on this basis. In the era of the Asia Minor activity of John the Theologian, another new question arose: about Gnosticism and the attitude of the Church towards it. The first preachers of this teaching, radically opposed to Judaism, apparently appeared precisely here, in Asia Minor. 317 These Gnostics, based on the dualistic principle, preached docetism in relation to the person of Jesus Christ. Their views have not yet reached full development and definiteness. 318 However, it was already possible to see in the new movement the main tenets of Gnosticism of the 2nd century. 319 The heretics seem to have had success at first, which is why the apostle considered it necessary to denounce them in his first epistle. In any case, he, as the supreme leader of the Church of Christ, was required, one way or another, to reveal his attitude towards this movement. And then, in general, as the shepherd of the verbal flock, he was faced with, perhaps imperceptibly, but this is not an easy task of leading the salvation of individual souls, restoring the fallen, helping the weak, convicting and correcting sinners, etc. The tasks presented were great. But all their St. John complied. He was an exceptional, richly gifted person. He “amazingly combined completely opposite qualities: calmness and depth of contemplation with hot jealousy; tender and sinless love with ardor, even some harshness.” 320 “The peculiarities of his personality elude precise definition; they are felt by every attentive reader of his writings, but great effort is required to draw a conclusion from them.” 321 One of the main distinguishing features of ap. John is his idealism or integrity. 322 By nature, he belonged more to the type of people of a theoretical-contemplative bent. People like him usually make philosophers, poets, and scientists. They are not attracted to practical activities. They live a more internal, self-focused life. They are interested not so much in the earth as in the sky; not so much reality as ideals; not so much external manifestations as the fundamentals, the principles that lie at the root of things and phenomena. Everything that “happens” is assessed by them from the point of view of what “should be.” This is how St. remained. John and after accepting Christianity. His ideal has now become the teaching of Christ, his principles - its foundations; heaven, “should”, ceased to be a dream, embodied in reality, in the image of the Savior. However, his very idealism did not disappear. And in Christianity he is interested mainly in the fundamental principles. In contrast to the practical figure - ap. Peter, the missionary founder of the Churches - St. Paul, we hear little about the external activities of John, although he was one of the recognized “pillars” of the Church (Gal. 2:5.9). His integrity was especially clearly manifested in the Gospel, epistles and Apocalypse. In the Lord’s speeches, he notes their sublime, deepest meaning, and in his reasoning he presents examples of high theology. No wonder St. The Church gave him primarily the name “Theologian.” Epistles of St. Paul contain a lot of dogmatic material, but the apostle of tongues did not receive such an honorable title. St. John expounds the teaching: about God in Himself, the Son of God (Logos), the Holy Spirit, Their relationships (love), about the world, light and darkness, good and evil, Christ and Antichrist; faith and unbelief, revival, redemption and salvation of humanity, its final destinies. He is little concerned with the subjective assimilation of salvation, that is, how each person realizes the ideals of Christ. He does not use terms that denote transitional moments from a life of sin to life in Christ: calling, justification, conversion, sanctification. Even human sin is considered from a metaphysical point of view, as an external manifestation of the evil existing in the world. 323 He indicates only the norms of life, but not the external ways to their implementation. He is interested in the more eternal, permanent, but not transitory reality. The questions that occupy him concern what was, is and will be. That is why, probably, the future destinies of humanity and the world were revealed to him, so vividly captured in the Apocalypse, where the past, present and future merged together, which for the apostle was, apparently, only the present. No wonder the Church depicts St. John with an eagle, a symbol of higher knowledge, immediately contemplating from its height all the distances inaccessible to a person living on earth. In connection with the first characteristic feature of the apostle’s personality there is another. He was a preacher of love. This is understandable. Considering everything from a principled point of view, St. John had to establish a certain “norm” for human life and relationships. But speaking idealistically, such a norm could only be good. 324 And its highest manifestation is love. This is what Christ teaches, claiming that on the commandments of love for God and neighbor “the whole law and the prophets hang” (Matthew 22:37–40). This love became the main point of the sermon of St. John. No wonder he received the title “apostle of love.” The word “love” runs like a red thread through all his writings. She, according to his teaching, turns out to be the main feature of Divine life. “God is love” (1 John 4:8.16). It permeates the mutual relations of the persons of the Holy Trinity; it also determines God’s attitude towards people. It was especially fully manifested in the fact of Christ’s descent to earth, His suffering and death for the sinful human race. “The love of God was revealed to us in this, that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that we might have life in him” (1 John 4:9). According to the teachings of John the Theologian, relationships between people should be determined by love. The meaning of life is communion with God. But God, the embodiment of love, cannot be approached except through love. That’s why “he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:16). But “whoever says that he loves God and hates his brother is a lie” (1 John 4:20). Hence, people should love each other. The apostle diligently notes this commandment in the speeches of the Lord (John 13:34; 15:12.17) and he himself constantly repeats (1 John 3:11.23.18; 4, 7. 9–11. 21, etc.), calling on everyone to implement it, including the sacrifice of their lives for their brothers (1 John 3:16). Love was also the main tone of the St.’s personal relationships. John. 325 Seeing the embodiment of his ideals in Christ, he clung to the Lord with all the strength of a feeling that knew no division. With love he accompanied Him everywhere, followed and subsequently wrote down His words and miracles. For the sake of love for the Teacher, he is ready to bring down fire on the Samaritans who did not recognize Christ (Luke 9:54). Here, in general, there is an explanation for that amazing ardor that earned the apostle the name from the Lord “Son of Thunder” (Mark 3:17). When all the apostles fled from the cross, John was left alone. For the name of Christ, he was persecuted by the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: he was exiled to Patmos and, according to legend, ended his life as a martyr. But he also enjoyed affection from Christ. This was “the disciple whom Jesus loved most” (John 21:7). The Savior entrusted His Mother to none other than John while hanging on the cross. The apostle's love for people manifested itself with particular strength during his stay in Asia Minor. His First Epistle is completely imbued with it; it undoubtedly dictated his other creations. It was for love that he came to Ephesus. “Children, love one another” was, according to legend, his constant instruction to the people. From love for Christ in connection with idealism flowed another feature of the ap. John - his exceptional devotion to the teaching preached by the Lord. Concluding the Gospel, he diligently emphasizes “the faithfulness of his testimony” (John 21:24) with what he heard from the Lord. The First Council Epistle begins with an indication of this (1, 1.3). Researchers of his Gospel note that in reality, conveying the teachings of the Lord, St. John the Theologian displays almost photographic accuracy, 326 even extending to such trifles as the place and time of the Lord’s delivery of this or that sermon. This complete devotion to the teachings of Christ probably explains the fact that there is very little personal element in the works of the apostle. He carefully avoids expressing his opinions. In his case, unlike the ap. Paul, there is almost no apologetics. Truth, according to him, is strong in itself. Therefore, Christian teaching is presented more apodictically, as a law and norm. Hence, on the other hand, he is so strict towards heretics who reject or distort the teachings of Christ. Such features distinguished the activities of St. John and in Asia Minor. Evidence of it is, first of all, the writings of the apostle himself, relating specifically to this period of his life. In themselves, they already represented the best sermon that was required to spread Christianity among the inhabitants of the Asian province who did not yet know Christ, and the best reminder to those who were already familiar with him before. In them, the apostle expounds the teaching of the Lord (Gospel), makes his instructions (epistles), speaks about the future destinies of the world (Apocalypse) and at the same time conveys his spirit to all believers. One might think, however, that the evangelistic activity of St. was not limited to this. John. He himself probably walked around the cities of Asia preaching Christ. His connection with the Christians of this province is already evidenced by the fact of his appeal to the seven Asian Churches (Rev. Ch. 1) and the authoritative instructions that he gives to them on behalf of God (Ch. 2-3). It is possible that his assistants were his disciples, like Polycarp of Smyrna and the elders mentioned by St. Irenaeus. St. paid no less attention. John and inner work among his flock. There are few direct indications of his activities in this area. But a tree is known by its fruit; and the fruits of the work of St. the apostles were not insignificant. He himself notes the faithfulness of the Asia Minor Christians to the covenant of Christ (Rev. 2:10.13.19; 3.10), their patience in sorrows (Rev. 2.2–3.19), labor in the work of Christ (Rev. 2.2–3; 2.9. 19, etc.), faith in the Lord (Rev. 2.13.19; 3.4). According to the legend recorded by Jerome, he constantly talked with his flock, especially often repeating the words: “Chadda, love one another.” 327 Judging by Rev. 2.9–10; 3:9, which speaks of the malice, lies and slander of the Jews against the Smyrna and Philadelphia Christians, one might think that the latter, under the leadership of the Apostle, had a negative attitude towards the attempts to make the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law obligatory for everyone. However, it is not clear from anywhere that this issue affected Christian society, so that disputes and disagreements occurred among Christians themselves because of it. Obviously, St. John not only stopped all attempts of this kind with his authority, but, an idealist in his views, raised believers from Jews and pagans to the one, reconciling truth of Christ; and with his love he brought peace into all relationships among the members of the Church. This was not his attitude towards the Gnostics, who distorted the foundations of the teachings of Christ. He was mercilessly strict with them. He denounced them in his epistles (1st and 2nd), threatened them and their listeners with the judgment of God (Rev. 2:14–16; 2:6), exhorted believers to turn away from them (ibid. in the epistles). Once, having met Cyrinthus in the Ephesian bathhouse, he ran out of it, not wanting to stay in the same place with the heretic. 328 The Apostle John was also concerned about the external structure of the Churches. From the letters of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Christians of Asia Minor 329 it is clear that in his time they already had all three degrees of the church hierarchy - bishops, presbyters and deacons with a certain range of rights and responsibilities. It is likely that many of the members of the hierarchy were appointed by John himself. It is even quite possible that candidates for hierarchical positions were trained personally under his leadership. The testimony of Irenaeus about the elders who gathered in Asia around John, 330 apparently suggests that the apostle had something like a school, where Polycarp, Papias and others were educated. Tradition numbers up to nine such disciples of John, many of whom later occupied episcopal sees in the cities of Asia Minor. 331 Among the Smyrna Christians, Polycarp lived and acted for a very long time, and he himself appointed him bishop. 332 This apostolic man in many ways resembles his teacher. And first of all, the fact that relatively scanty information has been preserved about him. Apparently, like John the Theologian, he showed little of himself in external activities, paying main attention to the internal growth of his flock. Perhaps Polycarp belonged to the same type of people of a theoretical-contemplative bent, who are more likely to be shepherds than public figures. A hint of this is given in the message to the Smyrna church on the occasion of the martyrdom of this husband. The Smyrnae note that he was a great man of prayer, constantly asking the Lord for the peace needed by the Churches throughout the universe, 333 that he was respected in every possible way for his good life, 334 and they never mention his any public appearances (except, of course, for his martyrdom). However, such an activity, modest in appearance, was very important in essence and brought very large results. When St. As they led Polycarp to execution, all the surrounding people shouted: “He is the teacher of Asia, the father of Christians, the destroyer of our gods.” 335 Obviously, St. the father acquired enormous authority among believers and, probably, after the death of the ap. John replaced the main leader of church life, at least in the vicinity of Smyrna, and perhaps in the entire Asian province. 336 The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna mentions that the faithful always vied with each other to touch this holy man: 337 so great were his charm and glory. The most important characteristic feature of the personality of the Bishop of Smyrna was, like John, complete devotion to the teaching and Church Tradition brought by Christ. This was noted by Polycarp’s contemporary St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in a letter to him, saying that “his pious disposition is established as if on an immovable stone,” 338 and calling him himself an anvil against which all the wrong fabrications of heretics are broken. 339 This characterization of St. confirms this characterization even more and more clearly. Irenaeus. Polycarp, he says, “always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church also transmits, and that only one thing is true... Such a person is the most reliable and reliable witness of the truth.” 340 In his conversations with the people about the Lord and His teaching, he, according to the elephants of Irenaeus in another place, “told everything in accordance with the Scriptures.” 341 And Polycarp himself, in his Epistle to the Philippians, exhorts Christians: “Be firm and unshakable in the faith, maintain brotherhood in mutual love and unity of truth...”. 342 This trait of St. was especially pronounced. father in his relations with heretics (probably also Gnostics). He resolutely and sternly arms against them in defense of the truth of Christ. In his Epistle to the Philippians, repeating the words of St. John, calls everyone who does not recognize that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as antichrist: 343 “Whoever does not recognize the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whoever interprets the words of the Lord according to his own lusts and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, he is the firstborn of Satan.” 344 Polycarp calls on the faithful to “leave the vain and false teachings of many, and turn to the word that was faithful from the beginning.” 345 One might think that the Bishop of Smyrna followed such tactics of denouncing heretics and warning them against being carried away by false teaching on the part of believers within the boundaries of his bishopric. He also had personal meetings with Gnostics. Thus, in Rome, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, he debated and converted many of these heretics to the Church of God. 346 There he met, in particular, with Marcion and sharply denounced him, calling him the firstborn of Satan. 347 At St. Irenaeus still has information about Polycarp’s speech on the Easter issue. And here he turned out to be an imitator of his great teacher, revealing, along with devotion to church customs, breadth of views and integrity. Churches of Asia Minor following the example of St. John celebrated Passover on the 14th of Nisan, no matter what day of the week this number fell on. In Rome, the great holiday was celebrated on Sunday. In 154–155 Polycarp arrived in Rome 348 under Pope Anicetus. In a conversation between two bishops, a difference in views on the timing of Easter was revealed. However, as Irenaeus notes, they did not even argue about this, maintained communication with each other and parted in peace, each remaining with his own views and practices. Obviously, St. Polycarp believed that ritual differences cannot and should not shake the unity of faith. 349 The Bishop of Smyrna ended his fruitful life with a worthy martyrdom for the name of Christ. 350 Such great teachers as John the Theologian and Polycarp were, of course, to have an enormous influence on the life, morals and spirit of the Smyrna Christians. And we actually see traces of it. Imitating their mentors, the Smirnians were distinguished by the richness of their inner life. John the Theologian himself notes this on behalf of God when, without reproaching any shortcoming, he says to the angel of the Smyrna church: “I know your deeds... and sorrow and poverty; however, you are rich” (Rev. 2:9). St. states even more fully. Ignatius the God-Bearer, calling the Smyrna Church “blessed with every gift, full of faith and love, not lacking a single gift, most divine and holy.” 351 A little further on, he notes the power of the prayers of the Smyrna Christians 352 and their patience in sorrow for the sake of the Lord. 353 From the message of the Smyrna church itself on the occasion of the martyrdom of Polycarp, it is clear that its members treated their bishop 354 with the greatest reverence and love and revered the martyrs. 355 Many of them themselves sealed their love for the heavenly Bridegroom with blood, led by Polycarp and Germanicus. 356 A characteristic feature of the Christians of this city was also, in imitation of the leaders, complete devotion to church teaching. An indication of it can be found already in the speech of St. John, when he instructs them to be faithful until death (Rev. 2:10). St. also directly notes it. Ignatius. “I learned,” he writes, “that you are unshakably firm in the faith, as if nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ both in flesh and spirit; confirmed in love by the blood of Christ; and full of faith in our Lord." 357 Such loyalty was also evident in their attitude towards the Gnostics and Docetes who were based in Asia Minor. The Smyrna people did not succumb to their influence, firmly maintaining their Orthodoxy. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, after proving the truth of church teaching and the falsity of heretical wisdom about the flesh of God Christ, declares that the Smirnians think the same way as him. 358 And the Apostle John, noting the fascination with Gnosticism of some Christians of Pergamon (Rev. 2:14-16) and the false prophecies of Jezebel of the members of the Thyatira community (Rev. 2:20-24), does not mention a word about the existence of anything similar among the Smyrni. Who were the parents of St. father by faith, Christians or pagans, is unknown. Neither Irenaeus himself, nor Eusebius, nor other contemporary fathers provide precise positive data for solving this, as well as other issues we have already considered. Therefore, the answer to this can only be tentative. In Book IV “Against Heresies” St. the father says: “We are in the faith through which we separated ourselves from among the pagans (de numero gentilium exempti sumus).” 359 This “we” he decisively contrasts with the Jews, and not as a nation, but by faith; and then, touching on the question of property, he notes: “Being pagans, we acquired it out of our greed or received it from pagan parents, relatives or friends.” 360 In the same way, in his essay “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” he states: “Our hearts are plucked out and freed from stone service (to idols), we contemplate God by faith and become children of Abraham, who is justified by faith.” 361 Such expressions, 362 the decisive opposition of “we” to the Jews by faith and the general tone of speech in such places are more favorable to the recognition of the parents of St. Irenaeus, and, consequently, himself by birth for the pagans, although they do not necessarily demand this. But on the other hand, taking into account that, by St. father, the early years of his life passed under the Christian guidance of St. Polycarp and other elders, 363 and also the fact that neither in history nor in his writings are there any traces of a struggle between two worldviews - pagan and Christian - we must come to the conclusion that if Irenaeus’s parents were pagans, then, in any case, they were not fanatics, but were rather inclined towards Christianity. Otherwise, of course, they could not have allowed the dangerous, from the point of view of an ardent pagan, acquaintance of St. father with Polycarp and other elders. Pagan origin, therefore, did not have a serious influence on his life and character, except perhaps that thanks to it, he received a fairly good secular education. On the contrary, all the roots of his later mood and activity were laid among the Smyrna Christians. Here he first became acquainted with the basics of Christian faith and moral teaching in the form of the Gospel, messages and Apocalypse. I listened to living witnesses of the truth in the person of the direct disciples of St. the apostles who kept the Church Tradition intact. Among the Smyrna Christians, he saw high examples of the richness of inner life in Christ - faith, prayer, constant work, reverence for the hierarchy. In Smyrna, there was probably St. Father had the opportunity to get acquainted with the Gnostics, their teaching, and together he witnessed the negative attitude of Orthodox Christians towards them. He probably also saw the techniques that Polycarp and other shepherds used in the fight against false teaching, which was very important for the future fighter against gnosis. Before his eyes, the relationship between pagan and Jewish Christians was being developed, and a true view of the obligatory nature of the Law of Moses for believers was established. In Smyrna he already saw a complete church organization in the form of all three degrees of hierarchy: bishop, presbyter and deacon. 364 The church system, against which the Montanists subsequently protested, for him was already, therefore, an undoubted fact, established on the authority of St. John and his disciple Polycarp. But - the main thing - here is St. Irenaeus acquired for himself that complete devotion to church teaching, breadth of thought, love for Christ and his neighbors, which were characteristic both of him and of the Apostle John, Polycarp and the Smyrna Christians. 2. Secular education of St. Irenea In one of his writings, Tertullian calls Irenaeus “the most diligent researcher of all sciences (omnium doctrinarum curio-sissimus explorator).” 365 One might think that this review contains, among other things, an indication of the acquaintance of St. father with secular sciences. Unfortunately, neither Tertullian, nor Irenaeus himself, nor Eusebius and other fathers report the names of his teachers in secular subjects and, in general, do not talk about this in more detail. Therefore, in this case it is necessary to draw conclusions only from the analysis of his works. And here, first of all, the acquaintance of St. father with Greek philosophy. He knows Plato, quotes some passages from his works; I am familiar with his teaching about God as the absolute Good, 366 dividing everything that exists into three principles: God, ideas and matter. 367 He gives his judgments, in particular, about matter, as pre-existing the existence of the visible world, 368 and about the transmigration of souls. 369 He also knows and mentions in the writings of Thales of Miletus with his doctrine of water as the beginning of everything that exists, 370 Democritus - with the doctrine of atoms and the ideal world, 371 Empedocles with his theory of the pre-existence of matter and a fatalistic worldview; 372 atheists Anaxagoras; 373 Anaximander, who taught about ἄπειρον ᾿e (infinite). 374 He also knew Epicurus with his teaching about atoms 375 2 and God as a self-closed principle that does not take any part in world life; 376 Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans with their ideas about numbers and combinations of them; 377 the Stoics with their fatalism and pantheism; 378 Cynics 379 and Aristotle with his logic. 380 Most often and most often quoted by St. Plato's father. He quotes some passages from his works literally. 381 Irenaeus considers him more pious than the Gnostic heretics. 382 And sometimes he even uses the works of this philosopher to refute the opinions of the latter; for example, when it concerns their doctrine of God, the Ruler of the Old Testament, distinct from the Father. 383 Familiarity with philosophy and, in particular, with the works of Plato also affects Irenaeus’ terminology. He constantly, especially where he refutes the Gnostics on the basis of rational data, encounters such words as “substance” (substantia), “images” (typos - in the sense of Plato’s “ideas”) 384, etc. This is partly noticeable in the method of evidence. It is not without reason that Stiren 385 points out in Contra haereses the types: “ex concessis” (“by assumption”), 386 “progressus in infinitum” 387, etc. Perhaps this was influenced by Aristotelian logic. Irenaeus is critical of the teachings of philosophers. Some points in their views are revealed, according to St. father, ignorance in religious matters and turn out to be downright godless. 388 He could not help but see that these incorrect philosophical judgments often lay at the basis of Gnostic false teachings. 389 All these facts apparently indicate that Irenaeus read at least some philosophers - especially Plato - in the original and even studied them quite diligently. St. also knows. father and Greek poets. Thus, he several times literally quotes Homer, 390 Hesiod, 391 Pindar, 392 Menander the comedian, 393 the poet Stesiphorus, 394 Aesop. 395 Homer and Hesiod are especially often mentioned by him. The method of quotation, as well as the fact that Irenaeus makes a distinction between what Homer himself wrote and counterfeits of him, 396 make it clear that he, Hesiod, and perhaps other authors, he also read in the originals. In Contra haereses, II, 14, 6–7 St. the father reveals familiarity with geometric terms: circle, sphere, quadrangle, square 397, etc. And in II, 32.2 he mentions music, arithmetic, geometry; astronomy, “everything that has to do with verbal revelation” (literature), medicine, natural history, gymnastics and even the arts: painting, work on copper, marble, etc. 398 Unfortunately, for most of these sciences we cannot establish how familiar Irenaeus was with them. But about geometry, partly geography 399 and especially arithmetic 400 and philosophy 401 it can be positively stated that he knew them quite enough for an educated person and, very likely, went through a secondary school where these sciences were taught. It is also impossible not to mention his acquaintance with the Hebrew language. The Holy Father knows his alphabet, 402 cites Hebrew words 403 in his writings and even analyzes them. 404 True, this acquaintance cannot be called widespread, as we have already noted; 405 and he himself refers in such cases to periti eorum (Jewish scientists), as he is more experienced. 406 However, it cannot be completely denied. When and where did Irenaeus receive his secular education? The first question is not so difficult to answer. Undoubtedly, during the same Asia Minor period when he studied Christian sciences with Polycarp and the “presbyters,” i.e., from 7–8 to 30 years of age, in other words, until 155. This assumption is quite natural, since childhood and adolescence are, in general, the most convenient for learning. It is confirmed by the practice of that time. Typically, children's education in lower school began at the age of 7–8 and continued until they were 15–16; After that, he attended high school and then higher school. All education ended around the age of 30. 407 The latter, in any case, is true in relation to Irenaeus. After 154–155, the Holy Father no longer had time to engage in secular sciences. Life urgently demanded from him other activities, more responsible ones, such as enlightening the pagans, fighting heretics, fulfilling the duties of a shepherd of the Church, etc. In the second question, we can distinguish two more particular ones, although closely related to each other: a) about the schools in which Irenaeus studied, and b) about the teachers under whose guidance he studied. To answer them it is necessary, at least briefly, to characterize modern St. father's school education. In his time there were three types of secular schools: lower, middle and higher, as now, although with not entirely precisely defined courses. The first taught: reading, writing, arithmetic, music, singing and gymnastics. 408 To teach reading, the works of Homer, Hesiod, Pindar and Aesop were mainly used. However, as one might expect, getting to know them was elementary; Their works were not read in the originals and were limited to only short textbooks and oral explanations from the teacher. 409 Arithmetic classes consisted exclusively of the ability to count and perform the most simple operations. 410 At the age of 15–16, secondary education began in gymnasiums and other educational institutions. Here again the poets walked through, but in more detail and detail; Moreover, not only the listed classics, but also others, less famous. 411 Arithmetic also received a broader formulation. 412 Then new sciences were added: grammar, philology, geometry, astronomy, history, natural science, geography and the arts (painting, etc.). 413 Higher education focused almost exclusively on the study of philosophy, and in Greece there were already universities for this purpose (for example, in Athens and Alexandria); but this “science of sciences” was often taught in private homes and even in public squares by special teachers—philosophers. 414 This was Greek education. The Roman is generally similar to it and contained (especially at the beginning) many purely Greek elements. But, of course, the Roman spirit still prevailed (at least in the era of the 1st-2nd centuries we are considering). Along with Greek, the language of the school was Latin. 415 Together with Homer and Hesiod, the works of Virgil, Cicero and other Latin authors were read. 416 Higher education was predominantly focused on the study of law and the exercise of eloquence. 417 Philosophy was almost completely eliminated; whoever wanted to meet her went to Athens, Alexandria and other Greek centers for this. 418 The spirit of Roman education was generally more practical, in contrast to the idealistic Greek. If we now compare the education received by St. Irenaeus, with what we know about secular schools of that time, we must first of all admit that he probably studied not only in lower school, but also in secondary school. This is evident from the fact that his writings reveal an undoubted familiarity with the academic subjects of the final year - geometry, geography, etc. sciences that were not taught at all in primary school. In the same way, his knowledge of poets and arithmetic cannot be compared with the elementary information of the lower school. Quotes and reviews about philosophers and their teachings indicate the acquaintance of St. father with subjects taught in higher educational institutions. And a private examination of all the subjects he studied indicates that his education was Greek. Under the guidance of which teachers was it carried out? Tertullian, in his essay De idolatria, analyzing various forms of public service, resolutely takes up arms against the profession of school teachers (grammaticus teacher of a lower school, rhetor - teacher of a secondary school). In his opinion, they must, willy-nilly, preach idolatry (idolatry) in lessons. 419 This judgment is partly correct. Indeed, as modern didactic research shows, the teaching of poets in ancient schools was of a religious nature. They learned not only to read, but to believe and live. Moral rules were drawn from them. 420 Moreover, according to history, grammarians and rhetoricians in the first centuries were the most ardent enemies of the Church. 421 Therefore, one can think that not only Tertullian, but also other Christians of that time were unkind to this profession and did not become teachers of lower and secondary schools. And, probably, educational institutions of these two types, where Christians taught, did not exist in the first two centuries. This assumption is shared by the majority of modern Western and Russian didactologists. 422 In any case, there is no reason to assert the contrary: not a single St. father or even a contemporary of that era does not tell us about such schools. In particular, this should be said about secondary educational institutions, the organization of which requires a lot of work, and for Christians, due to persecution, it was unsafe. 423 Thus, Irenaeus received his lower and secondary education, in all likelihood, in pagan schools. And this is very possible. We have already seen that in the 1st century. There was a gymnasium in Smyrna. 424 It is more difficult to resolve the issue of studying St. father of philosophy. Christians of the 2nd century looked at this science differently. Some, like Tatian and Theophilus, take up arms against her; 425 others (Justin Martyr), on the contrary, not only defend, 426 but also teach themselves, setting up something like a philosophical school in their house. The fact of the existence of the latter in the 2nd century. under the leadership of Christians, in any case, is certain (Justin 427 and Athenagoras 428). St. Irenaeus could, therefore, learn philosophy both in secular higher educational institutions, or from private secular teachers, and from Christian philosophers. It is impossible to decide with certainty where exactly he learned it. But taking into account that neither Polycarp in his epistle, nor the other Christian teachers of Irenaeus - “presbyters”, anywhere reveal knowledge of philosophy and that St. The father also does not say anything about this in his works; one can almost decisively assert that he owes his acquaintance with her to someone else. And then it remains, as the most probable, to assume that Irenaeus learned this science from secular teachers, most likely in a private philosophical school, which perhaps existed in Smyrna or Ephesus. As for the Hebrew language, the little information about it from St. the father probably owed it to some member of the Smyrna Jewish colony, maybe even a Jewish Christian. Irenaeus’s acquaintance with secular sciences, especially philosophy, was of undeniable importance for him and the work ahead of him. Any knowledge develops a person. Acquiring it accustoms one to systematic and independent thinking, which was not indifferent, of course, to the future compiler of Contra haereses, Ἐπίδεξις ’ α and other works. The works of Greek poets and philosophers introduced St. father into a world of other thoughts, different from Christian teaching, and through this communicated the breadth of his horizons, which so distinguished Irenaeus in the era of Easter disputes, the fight against Montanism, etc. This should be especially said about the idealistic philosophy of Plato. From his knowledge, St. the father could also derive practical benefits. The entire educated society of that time was brought up on Homer, Hesiod, Plato, and Aristotle; their religious and moral principles guided the life of the entire educated society of that time. Greek poets and philosophers could introduce Irenaeus into the circle of sentiments of those persons with whom, perhaps, he subsequently had to deal, first of all, as a spreader of Christianity and a shepherd of the Church. But knowledge of philosophy was especially important for the fight against gnosis. The new movement was based on certain philosophical premises, 429 and itself sought to become a philosophy of life. Its representatives used secular writers in their writings. In turn, the leaders of the Church had to fight false teaching with the same weapons: study the philosophical foundations of heresy and defeat the judgments of its representatives with references to authorities recognized by them. St. Irenaeus found himself prepared for this struggle even in his early years. 3. Meeting St. Irenaeus with Polycarp and the “presbyters” Undoubtedly, it was of greater importance, however, for St. Irenaeus Christian education, which he received under the leadership of Polycarp of Smyrna and the “presbyters.” Eusebius says that St. his father was a listener of Polycarp in his youth (Πολυκάρπου ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι). 430 Jerome directly calls him a disciple (discipulum) of the latter. 431 This name is also applied to it in the epilogue of Martyrium'a Polycarpi (in all manuscripts). 432 Irenaeus himself mentions Polycarp, calling him by name, four times in all surviving works: twice in Contra haereses (III, 3-4 and V, 33.4) and in the letters to Florinus and to the Roman Bishop Victor. In a letter to Florinus, he states that his (Florinus’s) teachings were never “transmitted by the presbyters who were before us, who treated the apostles themselves.” 433 And then, developing his thought, he begins to speak directly about Polycarp, without mentioning the name of any other presbyter, or this name in general. In this case, Polycarp acts, therefore, as a sufficient substitute for all elders. And it goes without saying that he is one of them, that is, in the word “presbyters” Polycarp must also be thought of. This is undoubtedly also true of Contra haereses, II, 22, 5, where St. Irenaeus, in support of his chronology of the life of the Savior, refers to “all the elders” who gathered in Asia around John, “the disciple of the Lord,” 434 further noting: “Some of them saw not only John, but also the other apostles.” 435 If all (πάντες) are meant, then Polycarp, the disciple of John the Theologian and the other apostles, is included. 436 Irenaeus obviously looks the same way in the excerpt from the letter to Victor. Discussing here about fasting, he says that “presbyters from other countries who did not observe it sent the Eucharist to those who observed it,” and then directly continues: “When blessed Polycarp” 437, etc. (follows the story of Polycarp’s meeting with Anicetus). It is clear that the Bishop of Smyrna is again the deputy and representative of the “presbyters” and must necessarily be thought of under this title. But if in the three excerpts cited this turns out to be beyond doubt, then we have the legal right to assume that St. Polycarp is implied in all other places from the writings of Irenaeus, where the word “presbyters” (in the plural) is used without any definition, that is, in Contra haereses, V, 5,1; V, 30.1; V, 33, 1; V, 36, 1-2 and in the work “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”, §3 and §61. 438 To resolve the question of the nature of the relationship between Irenaeus and Polycarp, III, 3–4 Contra haereses and excerpts from the letters of St. are most important. father to Florin and Victor. In Contra haereses, III, 3-4, which we have already discussed, Irenaeus says: “Polycarp, who was not only instructed by the apostles and treated many of those who saw our Lord, but was also made bishop of the Smyrna church in Asia by the apostles, whom we also saw in our first age (ὃ ν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑοράκαμεν ἐν τ ῇ πρώτή ἡμῶν ἡλικί ᾳ), - for he lived a long time and in extreme old age ended this life with the most glorious and noble martyrdom - he always taught what he learned from the apostles, what the Church also transmits and what only one thing is true. All the Asian Churches testify to this, as well as those that have been the successors of Polycarp to this day. Such a person is a much more reliable and reliable witness of the truth than Valentinus, Marcion and other heretics.” 439 As we have already shown above, 440 St. the father in the entire section (chapters 3-5 of book III “Against Heresies”), from which this excerpt is taken, proves, in contrast to the Gnostics, that truly Christian teaching is preserved only in the Church, transmitted from the apostles through a successive series of bishops. And it reached his time (ad nos) in purity and is now observed (νῦν, usque nunc, apud nos) 441 in all its integrity. If anyone wishes to receive information about him, it is enough for him to contact the primate of any Church. As an example, Irenaeus refers to Rome, Smyrna and Ephesus. The words we have quoted are taken from his speech about the Smyrna Church. The mediating member in the succession of the apostolic tradition here is Polycarp, who “not only was instructed by the apostles and treated many of those who saw our Lord, but was also made a bishop by the apostles.” This is “the most reliable and trustworthy witness.” He conveyed the teachings of Christ and Church Tradition to “all the Asian Churches, as well as those that have been the successors of Polycarp to this day.” 442 However, not only the Asian Churches accepted church teaching from Polycarp. Among his guardians and successors in the transmission of the apostolic tradition, St. Irenaeus also includes himself. This is evidenced by the closest connection of speech. Indeed, why else would he mention himself, and even together with the name of Polycarp, when speaking about the Smyrna Church as the custodian of Church Tradition? Our thought is also confirmed by the conjunction καὶ (καὶ ἡμεῖς), which, being equal to the Russian “too”, puts St. father on one line, and, perhaps, includes among the successors of Polycarp (“who were the successors of Polycarp until the present time”). The content of the entire section (chapters 3–5), from which the above excerpt is taken, also indicates the same. St. Irenaeus, as we have already noted, wants to bring the chain of Tradition to himself and his time (ad nos), diligently emphasizes that now (vov, usque nunc) “with us” (apud nos) the truth received from the apostles is kept pure. It is likely that these ad nos, apud nos applied not only to his time, but also to himself along with his Gallic flock. This was natural to expect from St. father. In Contra haereses and, in particular, in Book III, he refutes the Gnostics. Heretics preached their views. In contrast to them, Irenaeus offers true Christian teaching. It goes without saying that he could have any authority among them and speak with confidence only if the points of doctrine he set forth were an accurate expression of the general church belief, that is, in other words, if the heretics and he himself saw in him the keeper of the apostolic tradition. This view is no less clearly expressed by St. Irenaeus in an excerpt from his letter to Florinus. 443 Wanting to refute the false views of the heretic, St. the father refers to the fact that “such teaching was not conveyed to (Florin) by the presbyters who came before us, who treated the apostles themselves,” by the way, Polycarp. However, Irenaeus does not stop there. After all, Florinus, like him, was a listener of Polycarp and could therefore refer to the Bishop of Smyrna in confirmation of his views. Who is right, he or Irenaeus, who proves that neither Polycarp nor the elders ever transmitted such a teaching? Irenaeus, of course, considered himself right, and in order to convince Florinus of this, he further began to talk in detail about his relationship with Polycarp. They were so close that there can be no doubt that it is he, Irenaeus, who is now the true witness and guardian of the apostolic teaching preached by Polycarp and the elders. Therefore, if he claims that the teaching of Florinus does not agree with the tradition of the elders, then this means that this is the case in reality. Thus, the general connection between the speech of St. father speaks of him as the guardian and successor of the apostolic tradition. This is fully confirmed by individual phrases in the passage. Irenaeus diligently emphasizes that “he remembers that time (the time of his acquaintance with Polycarp) more firmly than the recent one,” gives details “about the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked,” his gait, way of life, even appearance, his conversations with the people, etc. And what do the expressions “by the grace of God I always keep them (the words of Polycarp) in fresh memory” or “I can testify before God” mean? a desire to further strengthen in the recipient’s mind the idea of oneself as a most reliable witness, faithfully conveying the words and thoughts of Polycarp and the elders? Irenaeus also turns out to be the actual keeper of Church Tradition in an excerpt from his letter to Pope Victor regarding the Easter dispute. “When blessed Polycarp,” he says, “came to Rome under Anicetus, both of them argued a little among themselves regarding other subjects, but immediately agreed, but did not want to argue about this issue (Easter) because neither Anicetus 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 Anicetus to observe, for Anicetus He said that he, too, was obliged to preserve the customs of the presbyters who preceded him. Despite all this, they were, however, in mutual communication; so Anicetus, out of respect for Polycarp, allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in (his) Church, and both of them parted in peace, just as those who observed that custom and those who did not were in peace with the entire Church.” 444 This story is given by St. father in confirmation of the idea that the predecessors of Victor and Irenaeus - the bishops - maintained peace among themselves, despite the difference in rituals, and that, therefore, in general, all Christians in the world need to live, since “disagreement regarding fasting only confirms the unanimity of faith.” 445 Judging by the details given by St. father (“they argued a little,” “Anicetus spoke,” “Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in the Church”), one might think that Irenaeus himself was present at this meeting and is conveying here what he saw and heard personally; Thus, he again refers to his memories and talks about his connection with Polycarp. 446 But only one who has received instruction from his predecessor for a long time can consider himself and actually be the custodian of the apostolic tradition. Therefore, expressing such a thought about himself, St. Irenaeus thereby fully confirms the report about him by Eusebius, Jerome and Martyrium Polycarpi. He, indeed, was a student of the Bishop of Smyrna, and for as long as it took to master the Tradition. This conclusion can only be denied if we assume that St. the father admits a deliberate lie when speaking about his relationship with Polycarp. Objective confirmation of it is given by the content of the teaching in which the last saint was instructed. Irenaeus. It is already defined in the main idea of ​​all the passages we have analyzed. This is the “apostolic tradition” (traditio apostolorum), 447 i.e.; everything that the apostles taught and that is transmitted and preserved in the Church of Christ, 448 in a word, Christian teaching and Church Tradition. The Holy Father does not limit himself, however, to such a general definition, but reveals it in more specific terms. This can especially be said about an excerpt from a letter to Florin. Polycarp, according to him, conveyed what he heard from John about the Lord, His miracles (δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ) and teaching (Περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας). 449 In these few words, in essence, there are many thoughts. The whole life of the Savior on earth was one miracle. To talk about His miracles means, therefore, to talk, in fact, about His entire life. 450 A further topic of Polycarp’s conversations was memories of the apostles. Here he, according to Irenaeus, expounded “their words” (τούς λόγους αὐτῶν), in fact, their teaching. 451 And since he had to listen not only to John, but also to other apostles, it is likely that there were many of these “words” and they concerned at least all the main aspects of Christianity. Polycarp also conveyed “about his conversion (τὴν συναστροφήν) with John and other witnesses of the Lord.” 452 But over the course of 20–25 years 453 of acquaintance with the “apostle of love,” he undoubtedly accumulated enough material to instruct his students. If we pay attention to those places where there are references, in general, to “presbyters, disciples of the apostles,” then the volume of content of the speeches of the Bishop of Smyrna will increase even more. Here we will have to introduce the teaching about the future kingdom of the Antichrist, 454 about paradise, 455 about the new heaven and earth and the subjugation of everything under the feet of the Savior, 456 about faith, 457 moral instructions about the need to conform one’s life to the teachings of Christ, 458 etc. St. Polycarp did not limit himself, however, only to the New Testament, but probably placed it in close connection with the Old, and clarified the meaning of the latter and the persons who labored in it. This is clear, judging, for example, from Contra haereses, V, 5.1, where Irenaeus, speaking about the righteous of the Old Testament, refers to the teaching of the elders. 459 It is also very likely that Stiren’s guess is that Polycarp introduced Irenaeus to the negative opinions of heretics and their refutation. This is indicated by the note of St. father about how the bishop of Smyrna usually acted when he heard any heretical false teaching, 461 as well as the story of his meeting with Marcion in Rome. 462 Irenaeus learned from him in practice how to relate to ritual issues, for example, about the time of celebrating Easter (letter to Victor). As we see, the content of the teaching taught by St. father Polycarp, was extensive. Irenaeus could hardly have absorbed all this, being only a casual listener to the public conversations of the Bishop of Smyrna. 463 Communication of St. The relationship between the father and his teacher was, however, not only long-lasting, but also permanent. In a letter to Florinus, he says about himself: “I could even describe the place (τὸν τόπον) where blessed Polycarp sat and talked; I can depict his gait (literally - τὰς προόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς εἰσόδους), his lifestyle and appearance (καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν), his conversations to the people (τὰς διαλέξεις, ἅ ς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος )" 464, etc. And at the end of the passage he notes: “I can testify before God that if this blessed and apostolic elder had heard anything like (your error), he would have exclaimed and, blocking his hearing, according to his habit (κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες αὐτῷ) would say: “Good God, until what time have You preserved me that I must endure this!” Then he would leave the place where he listened to such speeches, sitting or standing.” 465 In order to know such details of the life of Polycarp, to study his habits, to figure out how he would act in this or that case, it is not enough just to listen to him several times in official meetings, where he taught the people, as Harnack thinks, 466 but it is necessary to constantly live with him, be near him, accompany him everywhere. Constancy is also indicated by the very form of the verbs used by Irenaeus in his story about Polycarp (imperfectum: διελέγετο ἢ κουον, etc.), indicating, as Harnack himself admits, 467 the repetition of actions. This will also be clear if we pay attention to where, in what place, St. could study. Polycarp's father. In the same letter to Florin, he mentions the conversations (τὰς διαλέξεις) that his teacher held with the people (ἃ ς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος). 468 The term διαλέξεις, and even in combination with πλῆθος, means 469 what we call “sermons,” i.e., speeches that were delivered before a large assembly on special days and in special places designated for this: catacombs, churches, - in a word, at liturgical meetings of Christians. In the churches, therefore, he listened to Polycarp and Irenaeus. But not only here. The place from which the first one spoke, St. the father also defines it as one on which Polycarp “sat” (καθεζόμενος), or – below – where one could stand and sit (ἐν ῷ καθεζόμενος ἢ εστώς) and even leave it ( πεφεύγει ). Heretical speeches that disagreed with Christian truth could also be pronounced on it. 470 All this can in no way be attributed to the liturgical meetings of Christians, but rather suggests home conversations and conversations. Irenaeus, therefore, listened to them too. Obviously, Polycarp had something like a school at his house. Of course, this word cannot be understood in a literal, narrow sense, as it is now. But, in any case, it is very likely that it was something similar to the school of, for example, Socrates. A circle of his close admirers grouped around Polycarp. He told them about Christ, Christianity, the apostles, etc. He conveyed various information, and at the same time his spirit. The existence of such a school is also indicated by Irenaeus’ expression in Contra haereses, IV, 31.1 “presbyter reficiebat nos.” 471 If “nos”, then not one, that means Irenaeus, but several persons were instructed by that presbyter. Teaching in this school was conducted primarily orally, as evidenced by the very terms used by St. Irenaeus: διελέγετο, ἢ κουον, ἀνακράζας, εἰπῶν, etc. 472 But acquaintance with written sources was not excluded. Thus, in his letter to Florinus, St. the father mentions the scriptures (γραφαῖ), 473 contrasting them with oral speech and comparing the latter with them. In the same way, in Contra haereses, III, 3, 4 474, he characterizes the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, thereby revealing a good acquaintance with it. Against the idea of ​​discipleship of St. Irenaeus in Polycarp objects to A. Harnack. His reasons are as follows: a) the Holy Father says in a letter to Florinus that he saw and heard Polycarp; but “does not say that Polycarp saw him, spoke to him, taught him.” 475 b) Irenaeus only twice (V, 33, 4 and III, 3, 4) mentions the name of Polycarp in his main work. And if he were a student, he would say much more often: “Polycarp told me such and such.” 476 c) The holy father was no more than 15 years old at the time of his acquaintance with the Bishop of Smyrna; and at that age conscious apprenticeship is hardly possible. 477 – In view of this, Harnack concludes that Irenaeus was not a student of Polycarp and did not have close communication with him. His entire acquaintance with the Bishop of Smyrna was limited to the fact that he several times listened to his sermons to the people in official meetings. 478 Of course, the last one must be recognized as the most significant of the German scientist’s objections. He pays a lot of attention to reinforcing it when he examines in detail the question of the year of birth of Irenaeus. In our place, we examined his chronological calculations and came to the conclusion that he was wrong. 479 In fact, there is evidence to think that St. the father was born much earlier than 142 (Harnack thinks so). But along with this, the fact that it is based on a biased chronological calculation of the date of birth of St. father's third objection from a German professor to his apprenticeship with Polycarp. As we have seen, Irenaeus himself speaks against Harnack, presenting himself as the guardian of the apostolic tradition, for the assimilation of which, of course, a suitable age was required. The second reason is also not valid, since there is no need for Irenaeus to constantly quote Polycarp. He learned well the entire Tradition from the Bishop of Smyrna and declares this several times (see above). Is it really necessary to repeat this statement on every page? Moreover, in essence, Harnack’s objection is incorrect, since - we saw this too - St. the father means Polycarp wherever he mentions and refers to “presbyters” in general. And in general, there are enough such quotes, along with references to Polycarp himself. As for the first foundation of the German scientist, the dispute between him and his opponents seems to be about words. After the presented analysis of passages from the works of St. father, depicting the nature of his relationship with Polycarp, at least it seems to us beyond doubt that Irenaeus was a student of the Bishop of Smyrna for a long time, 480 thoroughly learned church tradition from him, through him he came into contact with the Apostle John and at the same time accepted the spirit and direction that distinguished his great teachers. On the “presbyters in Asia” St. the father refers in the form of quotation 13 times in Contra haereses, 2 times in the essay “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”, and also mentions them in letters to Florinus and Victor. For us, the most important links are in the form of citations. And in this regard, the first place in terms of the breadth of quotations and the number of times the name “presbyter” is mentioned is occupied by the section from Book IV of Contra haereses from chapters 27 to 32. The subject of speech here is the justification of the Old Testament righteous people and, in general, the Old Testament from the criticisms that the Gnostics raised against them. First of all, Irenaeus concerns the heretics pointing out the sins of the Old Testament righteous. The Holy Father admits that these sins occurred and cannot be denied. But Scripture is not silent about them, but on behalf of God strongly denounces the guilty. (No. 1) “As I heard from a certain presbyter, who heard from those who saw the apostles and were their disciples (Quemadmodum audivi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his, qui apostolos viderant et ab his, qui didicerant, sufficere veteribus...), the punishment (declared) in the Scriptures is sufficient for the ancient people for what they did without the guidance of the Spirit. For, since God is no respecter of persons, He imposed punishment in accordance with those deeds that were displeasing to Him.” 481 To prove this idea, St. the father cites King David and Solomon as examples. The latter enjoyed favor with God as long as he served Him blamelessly; When he took many wives for himself and erected idols in Israel, then the Lord convicted him too. Citing the literal words of this reproof from 1 Kings. 11:1, Irenaeus concludes (No. 2): “The Scripture reproached him greatly (in fact, sufficiently), as the presbyter says, so that no flesh should boast before God (sufficienter increpavit eum Scriptura, sicut dixit presbyter, ut non glorietur universa caro in conspectu Domini).” 482 The fact of strict reproof and punishment of the Old Testament righteous who fell into sin should be very instructive for the people of the New Testament. He makes you abstain from everything bad. For if ancient people, having given themselves over to carnal passions, were subjected to such dishonor, then those who despised the coming of the Lord and indulged in their own pleasures will be subjected to even greater punishment. (No. 3) “Therefore,” concludes St. father, - we should not, says that old man (inquit ille senior), be proud, nor reproach the ancients; but we ourselves must be afraid that, by doing what is displeasing to God, we may no longer receive remission of sins and will be excluded from His kingdom.” 483 Referring to the fall of the Old Testament righteous, the Gnostics argued that the strict God of the Old Testament was completely different from the merciful Lord of the New Testament. In contrast to them, Irenaeus writes (No. 4): “Since in both Testaments the same truth of God is manifested in the punishment of those who offend God (in the New Testament even stronger) ... then the elders exposed the nonsense (valde insensatos ostendebant presbyteri) of those who, on the basis of what happened to those who previously disobeyed God, are trying to introduce another Father, contrasting this with how much in their own way The Lord showed mercy... but kept silent about His judgment.” 484 - St. sorts it out. the father, in particular, and the reproach that the heretics made against the Jews, who, upon leaving Egypt, at the command of God, took vessels, clothes and precious things, from which even the tabernacle was subsequently made. People who look at this act as almost theft, according to Irenaeus (No. 5), “prove themselves ignorant of God’s justifications and His orders, as the presbyter said (sicut et presbyter dicebat).” 485 (No. 6) “Explaining this kind of legend (for example, about things taken by the Jews from Egypt) about ancient people, the presbyter admonished us and said (presbyter reficiebat nos et dicebat): “For those offenses of which the Scriptures themselves accuse the patriarchs and prophets, we should not reproach them and become like Ham...; but we must thank God for them, because their sins are forgiven them with the coming of the Lord, for,” he said (dicebat), “they too give thanks and are glorified for our salvation.” 486 (No. 7) “In the same way, the presbyter, the apostolic disciple, spoke regarding the two Testaments, proving that they are both from the same God (Hujusmodi quoque de duobus testamentis senior, aposto-lorum discipulus, disputabat, ab uno quidem et eodem deo utraque osten-dens). For there is no other God except the One who created and created us, and the teaching of those who say that this world was created either by angels, or by some other power, or by another God is unfounded.” 487 (In the following we will refer to these quotes as Nos. 1, 2, 3...). The entire section (IV, 27–32), from which the passages cited are taken, is one whole in content. This already indicates the unity of the source from which Irenaeus received this information. In the same way, the very form of the quotation in Nos. 1–3, 5–7 confirms that the same person is meant everywhere, a certain “presbyter.” Only No. 4 raises doubts and disputes. Above and below this place, the subject and predicate in quotations are in the singular (senior, ille senior, presbyter... dixit, inquit, reficiebat et dicebat... etc.). And here it’s unexpectedly plural: ostendebant presbyteri. The difference is difficult to explain. It was already noticed by the first publishers of the Latin text of the works of St. Irenea: Erasmus and Feyardentius. Considering ostendebant presbyteri, obviously, to be a copyist's error, they replaced this form in their editions with a singular number (ostendebat presbyter). 488 Their amendment in modern times is supported by Harnack. 489 However, it was made, apparently, without correspondence with the existing Latin manuscripts of Contra haereses. Therefore, Tsang recognized it as unfounded. 490 According to him, the reading ostendebant presbyteri can be considered to belong to Irenaeus himself. The German scientist gives the following explanation for the difference between No. 4 and others. The Holy Father listened many times to several apostolic men. It is possible that those thoughts about the righteous of the Old Testament, which he quotes in IV, 27-32, were conveyed to him, in addition to the presbyter mentioned in No. 1-3,5-7, by other disciples of the apostles. He noted this agreement in views in this place (No. 4). 491 Currently, with the discovery in 1905 (together with the “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”) by Karapet Ter-Mkrtchyan in Erivan 492 and the publication (in 1910) of the Armenian translation of Books IV and V of Contra haereses, 493 new data are being introduced to resolve this puzzling question. In the Armenian text No. 4 is clearly singular. 494 The Armenian translation of Contra haereses was probably made from the same Greek original as the Latin. 495 Therefore, both of them must be considered equivalent. And if the Latin text raises doubts, then the evidence of the Armenian translation can be considered decisive in this case. It is obvious that Irenaeus and IV, 28.1 refer to the same presbyter, as in other places throughout the entire section. But who is he and in what relationship did St. stand to him? father? In No. 7 Irenaeus calls him apostolorum discipulus. He usually uses this expression in the generally accepted sense. By him he defines, indeed, the disciples of St. apostles This can be seen, for example, from Contra haereses, III, 3,4, where, having told about the meetings of the Apostle John with the heretic Cyrinthos and Polycarp with Marcion, St. the father concludes: “The apostles and their disciples had such caution (tantum apostoli et horum discipuli habuerunt timorem)”; 496 and also partly from V, 36, 2, where Irenaeus also refers to presbyteros, apostolorum discipulos, when he expounds the Church Tradition, complementing the teaching of John the Theologian about the future kingdom of Glory. 497 One might think, therefore, that in the entire section IV, 27–32 he means the apostolic disciple. In Latin text No. 1, however, this presbyter is said to have heard the thoughts quoted below from those who saw the apostles and learned from them. Apparently, this expression contradicts the name of presbyter in No. 7 and no longer means a disciple of St. the apostles, and the listener was the apostolic men, that is, the person of the third generation of Christians. - That's what Harnak thinks. Wanting to fully carry out his tendentious idea about the independence of the teachings and views of Irenaeus from the second generation of Christians, the direct disciples of the apostles, and thus snatch him from the chain of guardians of Church Tradition, he asserts on the basis of this passage (No. 1) that the term apostolorum discipulus (No. 7) was used by St. father in a broad, improper sense, and that in this entire section Irenaeus quotes the words of some of his contemporary, 498 although the German scholar himself admits that Latin text No. 1 “apparently is not in order.” 499 Tsang objected to him in a timely manner. Hearing something from someone, receiving information, he argues, does not yet mean being a student. Messages No. 7 and No. 1 are quite compatible with each other. And we have clear examples of such a combination in history. Thus, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who, according to Irenaeus, was a disciple of John, 500 despite this, collects information about the apostles and their speeches from other “presbyters” - his comrades and contemporaries, listeners of the apostolic men. 501 We see a similar example in Irenaeus himself. In Contra haereses, III, 3, 4, he talks about two meetings: ap. John with the heretic Cyrinthos and St. Polycarp with Marcion. The last case was obviously known to him personally, as can be seen from the form of speech. And regarding the first, he notes: “And there are those who heard from him (Polycarp - καὶ εἰσὶν ἀκηκοότες αύτοῦ)" 502, etc. He, the closest student of Polycarp, refers to others who heard the latter. The same thing, obviously, according to Tsana, it happened in the present case. The presbyter was truly an apostolic disciple; but he learned these thoughts (No. 1) as apostolic ones from his contemporaries, also apostolic men. And there is nothing unnatural, and at the same time, humiliating for the “presbyter” in this. Currently, with the discovery of the Armenian translation of books IV and V of Contra haereses, it is possible to bring new data to the resolution of this dispute. In the Armenian text IV, 27.1 (No. 1) the following is written (according to the Russian literal translation): “As I heard from a certain presbyter, who heard from the apostles, who also saw them, and from those who were their disciples.” 503 True, the Armenian text itself presents some difficulties, 504 and it seems difficult to explain how such a difference could occur here between two translations of the same Greek text. However, there is no reason not to trust the Armenian transmission in that the presbyter himself turns out to have heard and seen the apostles, which is quite consistent with the name of his apostolorum discipulus in No. 7. One can, therefore, think that in this entire section of St. the father actually quotes the apostolic disciple. Tsan classifies him as a narrower class of listeners of only the Evangelist John (cf.: Contra haereses. II, 22, 5). 505 However, in the text of all quotes there is no evidence for such a statement. According to the literal meaning of the word apostolorum, a presbyter was probably a disciple of several apostles. The terms by which he is defined (senior, presbyter), and his connection with the Lord’s personal disciples indicate that at the time Irenaeus met him, he was already an old man. However, this did not prevent him from having his own students and apparently teaching a whole group. An indication of this is given by expression No. 6: refici-ebat nos. Perhaps the presbyter was a teacher of the same school of Polycarp, which we mentioned above. Judging by the form of the verbs used by St. Irenaeus [imperfec-tum – ostendebat (No. 4), reficiebat et dicebat (No. 5), dicebat (No. 6), dispu-tabat (No. 7)], one might think that St. my father listened to the presbyter many times and studied with him for quite a long time. 506 The term reficiebat (No. 6) also indicates apprenticeship. The form of instructions was obviously oral, as evidenced by the verbs audivi (No. 1), dixit (No. 2), reficiebat (No. 6), disputabat (No. 7). 507 The subject was again the apostolic tradition. In particular, that presbyter told Irenaeus many thoughts about the Old Testament, the righteous who labored before the Nativity of Christ. He probably understood the heretics’ view of these holy men and the Old Testament itself. As a species, these data fit Polycarp of Smyrna. However, it is unlikely that St. quotes him here. father. Irenaeus expresses himself somewhat differently about that teacher. "Blessed Polycarp (ὁ μακάριος Πο λύκαρπος)", 508 "blessed and apostolic elder (ὁ μακάριος καὶ ἀπο στολικὸς πρεσβύτερος )" 509 - he calls him in letters to Florin and Victor. And here it is simply: presbyter (No. 2,4,6), senior (No. 7) and even ille senior (“that old man”) (No. 3) or: a quodam presbytero (“from some elder” - No. 1). – In the second (large) edition of the Patrum apostolicorum opera of Gebhardt-Harnack-Tzahn 510, this presbyter is identified with the author of the poetic work against the Marcians, whom Irenaeus quotes in the first book of Contra haereses in the form “ὁ κρείσ σων ἔφη the best one said me.” However, this is hardly true, since it probably means a representative of the third generation of Christians. 511 The name of the presbyter IV, 27–32 Contra haereses, given the current state of the sources, cannot be disclosed. To a similar conclusion about the personal acquaintance of St. We come to the father with the elders and on the basis of the analysis of Contra haereses, V, 33, 3–4. Here Irenaeus refers to them as proof of the truth of his teaching about the future 1000-year peaceful kingdom of the Messiah. “So the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, report that they heard from him (quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Ioannem, discipulum Domini viderunt, audiise se ab eo), how the Lord taught about those times and said: “The days will come when vine trees will grow and on each there will be 10 thousand vines, on each vine 10 thousand branches; on each branch there are 10 thousand twigs, on each twig there are 10 thousand brushes and on each brush there are 10 thousand berries, and each squeezed berry will produce 25 meters of wine... And other fruit trees, seeds and herbs will produce in the corresponding measure; and all animals, using the food received from the earth, will be peaceful and in harmony with each other and in perfect submission to people.” Papias, the disciple of John and the companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies in writing in his fourth book ( ? ἐν τ ῇ τετάρτη τῶν αὐτοῦ βιβλίων), for he compiled five books. He added (adjecit) the following: “This is worthy of faith for believers. When Judas the traitor did not believe this and asked how the Lord would create such an abundance of growth, the Lord said: “Those who reach those (times) will see this.” 512 In the 4th section it is called by name Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. As can be seen from the text, he was a disciple of John and a comrade of Polycarp. Thus, according to the terminology of Irenaeus, he belonged to the same “presbyters” about whom St. the father says a few lines above. However, Irenaeus singles him out and puts him in an exceptional position: this is evident from the very mention of his name while keeping silent about others, as well as from the formulation of the conjunction ksh,, which (“also and”) has a divisive meaning in this case (as indicated by δὲ). What explains this exclusivity? – To answer this question, just take a closer look at the beginning of section 4. And then it will be clear that the solution lies in Papias’s written, and not oral, testimony. This feature is further emphasized by Irenaeus when he says that he wrote 5 books. About the rest of the presbyters of St. the father simply remarks: “meminerunt,” without adding that their memories received literary form. In addition, Papias also reports something new in content and complements (adjecit) the memoirs of other presbyters. In view of all this, he should under no circumstances be confused with the rest of the apostolic men. And therefore, one cannot draw the conclusion by analogy with him that the memories of all the “presbyters” were set out in writing, as Harnack thinks. 513 On the contrary, the very exclusivity of Papias’s position says that others did not have what he possessed. Consequently, they conveyed their information to Irenaeus orally. 514 And the acquaintance of St. We have no right to limit Father and Papias to just reading the latter’s works. It is quite possible that they also met each other in person. 515 Recognition of Irenaeus’s personal acquaintance with the presbyters, in general, is also required by those passages from his writings where, along with the latter, Polycarp is mentioned or necessarily thought of - especially Contra haereses, II, 22.5 and the letter to Florinus. In the first of them, St. the father, wanting to confirm his chronology of the Savior’s life and, in particular, that He began to teach the people at an advanced age, says: “All the elders who gathered in Asia around John, the disciple of the Lord, testify that John himself conveyed this to them (Πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρ - τυροῦσιν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν Ί ωάνν ῃ τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητ ῇ συμβεβληκότες , παραδεδωκέναι ταῦτα τὸν Ἰ ωάννην ). Some of them saw not only John, but also the other apostles and heard the same thing from them.” 516 – In the second, regarding the heresy of Florinus, Irenaeus notes that “his teachings were not transmitted to him by the presbyters who were before us, who treated the apostles themselves (οἱ πρὀ ἡμῶν πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ κατὰ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις συμφοιτήσαντες , οὐ παρέδωκαν σοί )". 517 We know about Polycarp that he “transmitted” and “testified” orally. If, in relation to him, μαρτυροῦσιν and παρέδωκαν mean oral speech, then, obviously, they have the same meaning when applied to other elders. Consequently, Irenaeus personally saw and heard them. The conclusion, which is correct in relation to these excerpts, can be applied to all other passages from the works of St. father, where “presbyters, disciples of the apostles” are mentioned and quoted, i.e. Contra haereses, V, 5, 1; V, 36, 1 2 and "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching", §§ 3, 61. In V, 5, 1 st. Irenaeus proves the idea that God can restore the bodies of people for eternal life after the resurrection. For this purpose, he refers to the examples of Enoch and Elijah, who were taken alive into heaven, and Adam, who lived in paradise with real flesh. And then he concludes: “Therefore say the elders, the disciples of the apostles μαθηταί), that those who were transfigured (alive) were transferred there (to paradise), - for paradise was prepared for righteous and spirit-bearing people, and the Apostle Paul was caught up there when he heard verbs that were unspeakable for us in the present state - and that those who were transfigured will remain there until the end (of the world), beginning incorruption.” 518 In V, 36, 1–2 St. the father quotes the words of the elders about the future kingdom in the new heaven and new earth. “As the elders say (ὡ ς οἱ πρεσ βύτεροι λέγουσιν), then those worthy of heavenly stay will go there, that is, to heaven, others will enjoy the pleasures of paradise, others will own the beauty of the city; but God will be seen everywhere, just as those who see Him will be worthy... This, according to the elders, the disciples of the apostles, is the distribution and order of those who are saved (those living in heaven, in paradise and in the city), and through such gradualness they are perfected.” 519 In § 3 “Proofs” St. Irenaeus speaks of faith that it gives us knowledge of all things. “It is faith that does this in us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, handed down to us (wie die Aeltesten, die Schüler der Apostel uns überliefert haben).” 520 At the beginning of § 61 of the same work, we again talk about the future kingdom of the Messiah, the beginning of which was already laid by the coming of the Savior to earth. “As for unity, harmony and peace between heterogeneous and by nature opposite and hostile animals, the elders say (so sagen darüber die Aeltesten) that this will indeed happen at the second coming of Christ, when He will rule over all.” 521 The same elders are probably meant in V, 30, 1 Contra haereses, where Irenaeus concerns the number of the name of the Antichrist. “When this number (666) is in all the best ancient lists (of Revelation), and those who personally saw John testify to this (καὶ μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων, τῶν κατ ᾽ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰ ωάννην ἑορακότων ), and when reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, in accordance with the Greek number, according to the letters contained in it, concludes 666... then I do not know how some, through their ignorance, fell into error, distorting the middle number of the name...” 522 The only thing that can be confusing in all the links given is the real (except for § 3 “Proofs”) form of the verbs. But as Tsang rightly said, 523 it does not necessarily mean quotations from works, is compatible with oral speech spoken in the past tense, and can be fully explained by the vividness of the story. We see an example of this kind in the Gospel when St. John remarks about the Baptist: ὁ Ἰ ωάννης μαρτυρεῖ Περὶ αὐτοῦ (about Christ) καὶ ἐφώναζε λέγων (John 1:15). Μαρτυρεί here undoubtedly refers to an oral sermon delivered in the past in relation to a given moment. However, the form of the present stands. And in Contra haereses, 1,22,2 there is also μαρτυρεῖ, and this refers to a speech that was spoken a long time ago. In the writings of Irenaeus there are four more references to a certain person who St. my father calls me “the best” (ὁ κρείσσων ἡμων), and once even a presbyter. a) Contra haererses. Lib. I, praefatio § 2: “About such people (Gnostics) someone better than me said (καθ ὼ ς ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ἡμῶν εἴρηται) that they have a skillfully forged emerald glass is preferred to emerald itself, an expensive and highly valued stone by others, when there is no one to test and in any way detect a fake: Or when copper is mixed with silver, who among the simple can easily recognize it? 524 b) Lib. I, 13, 3. Here we are talking about a woman who prophesied under the influence of the Gnostic Mark. She “dares to speak and speaks nonsense and everything that happens is empty and impudent, like one heated by an empty wind; as the best of us said about such (καθ ὼ ς ὁ κρείσσων ἡμῶν ἔφη περὶ τῶν τοιούτων), that the soul is impudent and shameless when heated by empty air." 525 Lib. I, 15, 5 6. Touching again the Valentinian Mark, Irenaeus says that he plunged into extreme blasphemy and the greatest impiety all those who trusted him. “Therefore,” concludes St. father, - justly and fittingly for such your insolence, the divine elder and preacher of truth appealed to you in the following verses ( ἐμμέτρως ἐπεβεβόηκέ σοι, εἰπών ο ὕ τως): Creator of idols and diviner Mark, Skillful astrologer and cunning sorcerer, To confirm his teachings full of lies, Whom you deceive, you show signs, By retreating power that is granted to you; - In deceit against God to your forerunner, your father Satan always gives you to create them with the angelic power of Azazila. Thus spoke the God-loving elder (ὁ θεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης)." 526 Lib. III, 17.4. The Gnostics, according to Irenaeus, “while speaking similar to (the teachings of) believers, contain opinions not only different, but also completely opposite and full of blasphemy, with which they kill those who, thanks to the similarity of words, internalize a poison unrelated to their location, as if someone, giving an alabaster cup filled with water instead of milk, deceived by the similarity of color - as someone better said to me (sicut quidam dixit superior) about everyone who perverts (the works of) God and distorts the truth: “Alabaster is mixed badly with the milk of God.” 527 Quotes a, b, d, as we see, are very similar in form (“as the best of me says”); a and d pursue the same “counterfeit” of Christianity by Gnostic heretics; c and d are also equally directed against the Valentinians and, moreover, bear clear traces of a poetic form of expression. It can, therefore, be positively stated that all these excerpts are taken from the poetic work of the same author. 528 This work was written, as can be seen from quotations b and c, against the Valentinian Mark. And he came out with his teaching around 150. 529 This means that the poem appeared no earlier than this time. In this case, it can hardly be attributed to Polycarp († c. 155; traveled to Rome in 154–155). This assumption is also contradicted by the form of expression about the real elder (see quote c) in comparison with the names usually attached to St. Irenaeus to his teacher. It is unlikely that the author of this work was even an apostolic man (by the way, the “presbyter” quoted in the above places is nowhere called a disciple of the apostles). History knows about the exceptional longevity of only one of the apostolic men, namely Polycarp. One might think that the others died before him; according to Tsang, even before 145 530 It remains, therefore, to admit that the poem against Mark was composed by a contemporary of Irenaeus, a man already of the third generation of Christians; although there is no doubt that he was older than St. father and enjoyed great respect from him (“the best of me,” “the divine elder and preacher of the truth”). Who exactly, however, cannot be decided. Perhaps Miltiar, Claudius Apollinaris, Melito, as Tsan thinks, 531 or even Irenaeus’ predecessor in the department, Bishop Pofinus of Lyons. Given this state of affairs, the above quotations cannot, in any case, introduce anything new into the study of the question of the Christian education of Irenaeus. 532 Now we can summarize the data obtained by analyzing quotations and references of St. father to "presbyters". In Contra haereses, IV, 26.4, he defines by this name those people who “both keep the teaching of the apostles, and, together with the rite of the presbytery, lead sound speech and a temptation-free life to the affirmation and correction of others” (qui et apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii ordine ser-monem sanum et conversationem sine offensa praestant). 533 The most important property, which constitutes their, so to speak, specific feature, is precisely the storage (custodiunt) of the teachings of the apostles, or, as St. father in another place, apostolic tradition. 534 They are intermediaries in its transmission. They themselves received from the apostles and pass on to their disciples: St. Irenaeus speaks, as we have seen, about the order of presbytery (cum presbyterii ordine). In the same way, in Contra haereses, III, 3, 1-3 and the letter to Victor, the Roman bishops are called by the name “presbyters”. Thus, apparently, there is reason to identify the former with the latter, or, in any case, to believe that the presbytery was connected with some kind of hierarchical position. 535 – But from the letters of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Smyrna (Ch. VIII-IX) and Polycarp (Ch. VII) shows that by the time of Irenaeus in Smyrna there were already three forms of hierarchical service with a division of duties and titles. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that St. my father mixed up names. On the other hand, judging by Contra haereses, II, 22, 5, there were many elders in Asia around John the Theologian (at least no less than three, as indicated by the term πάντες). 536 And if they were all in the rank of bishop, then there would be too many bishops in Ephesus, which is completely incredible. The conclusion remains, therefore, that St. Irenaeus understood the presbytery not as a hierarchical degree, but precisely “as a class of people who keep the apostolic tradition. It goes without saying that such guardians could be both bishops and presbyters in the narrow hierarchical sense of the word. 537 According to the time of life of St. father, the elders in his writings are the direct disciples of the apostles, as we have already seen. In Contra haereses, II, 22, 5, he divides them, according to the fair remark of T. Tsan, 538 into two groups: those who saw only the Apostle John, and those who, in addition to him, also listened to other apostles. 539 Their exact number is unknown. But, taking into account this division into groups (with the second denoted by the word quidam - in the plural), as well as the words “πάντες (all) οἱ πρεσβύτεροι”, 540 we can say that, in any case, there were at least three of them, and maybe four (in each group at least two). “They gathered together in Asia near John, the disciple of the Lord.” 541 Among them were Polycarp and Papias. The names of the others, unfortunately, are unknown. The elders had something like a school, which they instructed (reficiebat). Among their disciples was St. Irenaeus. He was personally acquainted, besides Polycarp and, perhaps, Papias, with several other apostolic men; listened to their conversations and learned from them for quite a long time. These elders gave their instructions orally. Judging by the indications that are available in Contra haereses and 'Ἐπίδει ξις᾿ e, St. the father received from them information that supplemented the data of Holy Scripture: about the Old Testament, the righteous who lived then, the attitude of New Testament people to the Old Testament (Contra haereses. IV, 27-32), about the life and chronology of the Savior (II, 22, 5), the work of salvation accomplished by Him (“Proof.” § 61), about the Antichrist (V, 30, 1), the future resurrection of the dead (V, 5, 1), about paradise (Ibid.), the kingdom of Glory in the new heaven and new earth (V, 33, 3–4; 36, 1 2; “Proof.” § 61), about faith (“Proof.” § 3). The elders also gave him instructions regarding the treatment of heretics (IV, 27–32; V, 51, etc.). But, of course, one cannot limit the teaching of St. to these points only. father to the apostolic men. One might think that the subject of their instructions was the entire Church Tradition they received from the apostles, of which they were the custodians. Thus, through them, Irenaeus again enters into an intense connection with all Christian antiquity before him. Here we again find confirmation of his view of himself as the custodian of the entire apostolic tradition, and at the same time objective proof that it is transmitted to him in the same form as it existed among the Lord’s disciples themselves and their immediate successors. In the writings of St. father there are indications of his acquaintance with the written works of the apostolic men: Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians), 542 Papias of Hierapolis, 543 Clement of Rome, 544 Ignatius the God-Bearer, 545 Justin Martyr, 546 Tatian 547 and Hermas. 548 As we see, he knew most of the patristic literature that existed before him and during his time. However (excluding the message of Polycarp and, perhaps, the writings of Papias), we do not have the right to necessarily identify the time of Irenaeus’s acquaintance with these creations with his stay in Asia Minor. It is possible that some of them became known to him after 155. Therefore, for us in this case, indications of them cannot have significance. 549 4. Trip of St. Irenaeus to Rome in 154–155 Irenaeus’s communication with Polycarp ended with both of them traveling to Rome in 154–155. The epilogue of Martyrium’s Polycarpi according to the Moscow manuscript directly speaks about Irenaeus’ stay here: “This Irenaeus, being in Rome during the martyrdom of Bishop Polycarp, taught many (πολλούς εδίδαξεν )". 550 (The death of the Bishop of Smyrna, as is now recognized by most researchers, falls around the year 155) 551 This message is indirectly confirmed by St. father in Contra haereses, III, 3,4 and in a letter to Pope Victor. In the first place, he tells how Polycarp, when meeting with the heretic Marcion, who said to him: “Do you recognize me?”, answered: “I recognize the firstborn of Satan”; 552 A. A few lines above, he cites a similar incident that happened to the Apostle John, when he, seeing the heretic Corinth in the Ephesian bathhouse, ran out of it without washing himself and said: “Let us run away so that the bathhouse does not fall, because in it is the enemy of the truth, Cyrinthus.” Recounting the last event, Irenaeus refers to those who “heard” about this from Polycarp himself [» καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅ τι Ἰ ωάννης ... and there is those who heard from him (Polycarp) that John...”, etc.]. 553 In the first case there is no such reference. This difference can be explained, in our opinion, by the fact that, probably, at the meeting of Polycarp with Marcion, St. the father himself was present. And the mentioned event, according to his own statement, happened in Rome under Pope Anicetus, i.e., according to general calculation, in 154-155, when a dispute about Easter took place between Polycarp and Anicetus. 554 The details and vividness with which Irenaeus talks about this latter in a letter to Victor also indicate, apparently, his personal presence and, perhaps, participation in the dispute itself. 555 Apparently, the elderly Bishop of Smyrna, going to Rome, took with him (in 154) his beloved student. Irenaeus was with him the entire time he was there. Then Polycarp left and in 155 died as a martyr in Smyrna. Irenaeus, judging by the epilogue, remained in Rome, was not present at his death and learned about it miraculously - namely, as the epilogue conveys, from the words of an unknown work of St. father: “On that day and hour when Polycarp suffered in Smyrna, Irenaeus, who was in Rome, heard a voice like the sound of a trumpet, proclaiming: “Polycarp died a martyr.” 556 Thus, Irenaeus lived in Rome longer than his teacher. What reasons forced him to do this is difficult to decide. Perhaps the length of his stay here was required by the activities that he had already shown himself here. First of all, the same epilogue speaks about her: St. father in Rome πολλούς ἐδίδαξεν (taught many). What could this ἐδίδαξεν consist of and what did it concern? According to its original meaning, this word actually means training, initial instruction in something unknown and is applied primarily to school-age children. In relation to this case, it, naturally, could determine only Christian instruction, and not teaching secular sciences - but not instruction in general, but its first stage, catechesis; in a word, means the activity of St. Irenaeus on the spread of Christianity among the pagans of Rome. But keeping in mind the general connection of thoughts in the epilogue, we cannot limit ἐδίδαξεν only to the initial instruction of the pagans in the truth of Christ. Its author speaks further about the meeting of Polycarp with Marcion, and then returns again to Irenaeus. This constant interweaving of the story of Irenaeus with the story of Polycarp can be explained by the fact that, in the opinion of the compiler of the epilogue, the activities of both fathers in Rome were identified. But Polycarp further acts as an accuser of Marcion (“I recognize, I recognize the firstborn of Satan”). 557 This means that St. Irenaeus also denounced the Gnostic heretics. Ἐδίδαξεν fully allows for such an understanding. The analysis of Contra haereses, III, 3, 4 leads to the same conclusion. There St. the father himself notes about Polycarp that he “converted many from the above-named heretics to the Church of God.” 558 But, as we indicated, the form of speech suggests not only the personal presence of Irenaeus at these events, but also close participation in them. One cannot, of course, exaggerate the breadth of St.’s activities. father in Rome. It had its own bishop and presbyters, whose duties were teaching. And Irenaeus himself did not live there for so long. It is also impossible to imagine this activity of his as exclusive and independent. He, as we have already shown, was about thirty years old at this time - not old enough to become famous in Rome. Moreover, Irenaeus was not alone, but with Polycarp. Therefore, he could hardly act independently, and probably only carried out the instructions of his teacher. In addition, in a letter from the Lyon martyrs (in 177) to Elevther, they recommend St. father to dad. Obviously, he was unknown, or at least little known to the latter (Elevther in 154–155 was already a deacon of the Roman Church). 559 But this could not have happened if Irenaeus had acted independently and achieved popularity in Rome. However, on the other hand, the importance of this activity cannot be diminished. Πολλούς testifies that catechesis and denunciation of heretics were not random facts affecting one or two people, but extended to a sufficient number of them. And this is completely acceptable. Rome was such a large city that there was enough work for not only the bishop and the Roman presbyters. Quite a lot, of course, by the middle of the 2nd century. There were also pagans there. Therefore, Irenaeus could well have spread Christianity here. But especially much effort was required from the Christians of the Roman Church to fight heretics. Rome, due to its importance as a world capital and its large population, has always been a place where representatives of a wide variety of movements flocked and successfully operated. On the other hand, as the story of Florinus shows, for example, the clergy of the Roman Church, perhaps again due to the large population, did not always rise to the occasion: sometimes they not only did not denounce, but did not even know about the existence of one or another heresy among Christians. That is why every visiting Christian who was familiar with heretics and had the means to expose them was welcome in Rome and could always find a large field of activity. This was obviously the case in this case. Polycarp knew the Gnostics from Smyrna. Arriving in the capital and meeting them here, he did not fail to take advantage of the opportunity and began to denounce them, so that “he converted many from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God,” as St. himself testifies. Irenaeus. 560 The latter obviously helped him in this matter. Apparently, this is also indicated by an excerpt from a letter to Pope Victor. Here comes a new side to the activity of St. father. Unfortunately, however, we do not have detailed information about what position he occupied and what exactly his participation in the Easter dispute was. One can only think that a student of Polycarp, in 154-155 he followed the same practice as the latter in celebrating Easter. 561 The given data is, in fact, limited to all information relating to the Asia Minor period of Irenaeus’ life. 154–155 marks the end of St.’s student years. father. But at the same time, the beginning of his activity is supposed to be in Rome. The beginning, as we see, is very significant. Irenaeus takes his first steps under the guidance of St. Polycarp, as if showing by this that he in general will always conform to the principles of this great man and protect the Church Tradition received from him. On the other hand, a program for the entire independent future life of St. is already outlined here. father as a Christian teacher, a fighter against heresies and an all-church leader (Easter disputes). Chapter III. The Gallic Church in the era of St. Irenea 1. Brief geographical and historical information about Gaul Activities of St. In her mature years, Irenaeus belonged entirely to the Gallic Church, having as its center the city of Lyon. Ancient Gaul was a vast country. It embraced all the areas between the Pyrenees and the Rhine, the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. It included: present-day France, northern Italy (Duchy of Savoy), Swiss cantons, Luxembourg, Belgium and southwestern Germany. 562 During the time of the Caesars, it was all divided into two unequal parts: a) the smaller one - Cisalpine Gaul (cisalpina), which included northern Italy (hence its name - “on this side of the Alps” - from the point of view of Rome, of course), and b) the larger one - Transalpine Gaul (transalpina), which embraced all other areas on the other side of the Alps. 563 By the era of Augustus, the first had almost completely assimilated with Italy (hence its other name “Gallia togata” “in a toga”: its inhabitants had already received the rights of Roman citizenship). 564 Therefore, the name Gaul began to be used primarily in application to the countries lying on the other side of the Alps (Gallia braccata, 565 comata 566). Transalpine Gaul was richly irrigated by rivers (Rhone, Seine, Loire, Garonne); during Strabo's time it had several canals. 567 The soil here was very fertile, producing abundant harvests of fruit (olives, figs, grapes), bread, millet, and together providing good food for livestock. 568 The people who lived there were handsome and tall; He was engaged in a little farming, mostly in cattle breeding. 569 But he especially loved to wage war. 570 “For a free Celt,” says Cicero, “it was as if it were a disgrace to till the soil with one’s own hands.” 571 The distinctive qualities of the Celtic race, according to its historiographer Thierry, were: “Personal courage, in which they surpassed all peoples, a free, impetuous spirit, accessible to any influence, a lot of intelligence and inquisitiveness; but next to this is extreme mobility, inconstancy and intolerance, a contradiction to all regulations and order, boastfulness and eternal enthusiasm, a consequence of vanity that knows no bounds.” 572 In short, the ancient Cato says almost the same thing: “The Celts value two things very highly - fencing and wit.” 573 “Such qualities,” Mommsen concludes, “characteristic of the good soldier and the bad citizen, explain the historical fact that the Celts shook all states and created none.” 574 They loved very much and were always ready to travel, that is, to go on a hike; They preferred movable property to real estate, and gold to everything else. 575 But this love of wandering also had its good sides. The Celts had highly developed river and, especially, sea navigation. 576 According to Mommsen, they were "not only, in all probability, the nation which first regularly circumnavigated the Atlantic Ocean, but we find even here (in ancient times) the art of shipbuilding and ship-handling in a remarkable degree of perfection." 577 Unlike the oared galleys of the Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, which they used for war, the Gauls already had large sailing ships (leather sails) with anchor chains, both for trade relations and for sea battles. 578 With their shipping, the Celts contributed to the development of international relations, entering into close trade and cultural ties with many countries. This should especially be said about Asia Minor, Britain and Italy. 579 They often founded colonies. So, in the IV-III centuries. BC, immigrants from Gaul settled in Asia Minor, occupying an entire region, later called Galatia. 580 Religiously, the Celts were under the leadership of their priests - the Vats and Druids, especially the latter. 581 The religion of Druidism had a huge influence on all of Gaul. The Druids had their own head, elected by the priests themselves, their own schools, where very extensive traditions were passed on, special privileges in exemption from taxes and military service, which were respected by every clan, annual councils that took place in Chartres, “the center of the Celtic land.” 582 Representatives of this corporation were considered experts in the natural sciences and moral philosophy. 583 According to Strabo, they “taught that the soul and the world are imperishable, but that one day fire and water will prevail.” 584 – Their followers were distinguished by exceptional piety and blind obedience to the leaders, not inferior in this, according to Mommsen, to the modern Irish. 585 Before the conquest of Gaul by the Romans, they had human sacrifices combined with fortune telling. Usually they stabbed the doomed victim in the back with a knife and told fortunes by his convulsions. There were other forms of ritual murder: for example, archery, crucifixion in churches; or they made a huge figure out of hay and wood, threw livestock, various other animals and people onto it, and burned it all. 586 Druids often interfered in the secular life of their followers. They sorted out litigation, especially criminal offenses, and reconciled the warring parties; sometimes led the elections of kings. 587 – Such religious-national activity, according to Mommsen, was, before the struggle of the Gauls with the Romans, one of the most important factors that contributed to the unification of all the peoples of Gaul into one whole. 588 Politically, this country was extremely fragmented. It included more than 100 tribes; 589 according to Plutarch and Appian, even up to three or four hundred. 590 The most important of them were: the Aquitani, Belgians, Celts and, shortly before the Roman conquest, in the north - the Germans. 591 The Celts were distinguished by the greatest influence and culture. In ancient times, this name was actually used to refer to the inhabitants of Narbonitis, which occupied a fairly wide strip along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and the lower reaches of the Rhone River; where the cities are now located: Marseille, Narbonne, etc. 592 By their name, perhaps due to the influence of this tribe, or simply from the words of the Massaliote Greeks, who had the greatest connections with them, all of Gaul, even before the time of Strabo, received the name Celtic. 593 From the 2nd century BC the Gauls gradually began to fall under the rule of the Romans. Their first conquests in Celtica date back to 154. 594 In 121, after two decisive victories over the Allobroges and Arverni, a Roman province was founded here, later called Narbonensis, on behalf of its main city Narbonne. 595 – The entire country finally fell under the rule of the world monarchy under Caesar after an eight-year war with him (58–51 BC). 596 Augustus divided it into 4 provinces: Narbonne, Aquitaine, Lyons and Belgium (Narbonensis, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica); counting southwestern Germany, only 6 (I and II Germania). 597 They were led by the imperial legates. 598 The Romans imposed taxes on the Gauls in their favor (up to 40 million sesterces gathered here annually). 599 Seized the right to mint large coins for the country. 600 They placed their military garrisons in all the main cities of the provinces. 601 The imperial legates carried out trials in more important cases. 602 However, this almost limited their sphere of influence, not extending to the culture, religion, morals and way of life of the people. 603 The language remained Celtic even in the Antonine era. True, Latin was used for official relations and court, and some of the highest representatives of Gallic society even learned to speak it; but it was such rude Latin that it involuntarily caused the laughter of the natural Romans and further strengthened the nickname “sharemongers” for the inhabitants of Transalpine Gaul. 604 Greek culture had a much greater influence on the Celts, both before and after the Roman conquest. Long before the birth of Christ (in the 6th century), the Phocian Greeks founded the colony of Massalia (or Massilia), present-day Marseille, in the south of Gaul in a seaside town. 605 Subsequently, thanks to the wars, they managed to increase their possessions by annexing some of the surrounding plains, taken from the Iberians and Celts who lived along the Rhone. 606 The Massaliotes had their own aristocratic government in the form of a Senate of 600 people, 607 remaining free even after the Roman conquest of Gaul. 608 Natives of Asia Minor, they adhered to Ionian laws in their new homeland. 609 In their acropolis, even in the time of Strabo, there were sanctuaries in honor of Artemis of Ephesus and Apollo of Delphi, to whom divine honors were given. 610 The first priestess was Aristarcha, a native of Ephesus. 611 Greek education was also transferred to Gaul by the Massaliotes. Their schools, where eloquence and philosophy were studied, were so famous that the most noble Romans in the era of Strabo went to study here, preferably even before Athens. 612 Looking at the Romans, the Celts began to devote themselves to similar activities. 613 Sophists and doctors from Massalia were invited to various cities of Gaul, both by private individuals and by public administrations. 614 As a result, Strabo notes, “this city became a school for barbarians and turned the Gauls into friends of Hellenism to such an extent that they even write their treaties in Greek.” 615 During the time of the Antonines, thanks to the Massaliotes, the Greek language became common literature for the entire educated society in Gaul. 616 The main occupation of the inhabitants of Massalia was navigation. Their shipping reached a high degree of prosperity. They had their own shipyards and arsenals. 617 Thanks to the ships, they entered into direct contacts with all coastal peoples, trading in various goods and maintaining cultural interaction. This should especially be said about their fatherland, Asia Minor, with which the Massaliots had intensive relations, especially since immigrants from Gaul in the person of the Galatians also lived there. 618 They also developed trade with their neighbors – the Celts. 619 In addition to Massalia, there were many more cities in Transalpine Gaul. Some of them at that time, according to Gibbon, were not in a worse position, and perhaps even in a better position, than now. These are: Arles, Niches, Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Autun, Vienna, Lyon, Langres, Trier. 620 Particularly outstanding were: Narbonne, the main city of the province of the same name and the first Roman colony in Gaul, 621 Lyon and partly Vienna. Lyon, now the administrative center of the Rhone department in France, lay at the confluence of the Rhone and Seine rivers. 622 Its ancient name is Lugdunum. 623 The city was located at the foot of the hill. 624 In terms of population, it was second only to Narbonne. 625 From the time of Caesar, it fell under the rule of the Romans, becoming one of the centers of their dominion in Gaul. Under Augustus it was made the administrative center for the administration of the province that bore his name (Lugdunensis). 626 The Romans used it as a market and minted silver and gold coins here. 627 Opposite the holy fool, at the junction of the rivers, in the time of Strabo there was a church built in honor of Augustus by all the Celts. It contained a beautiful statue of the emperor and an altar with the names of the 60 Celtic tribes and images of each of them. 628 Vienna, the ancient capital of the Allobroges tribe, lay somewhat lower than Lyon on the Rhone. 629 Both of the latter cities acquired particular fame in the Christian era. An ancient French legend attributes the enlightenment of Gaul with Christianity to Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary, or the three disciples of St. Paul: Criscent, Trophimus and Sergius Paulus, attributing the sermon here, therefore, to the 1st century. 630 However, this was hardly the case in reality. More or less positive evidence in favor of this could be the passage from 2 Epistle to Timothy (4:10), where St. Paul names Criscentus, his disciple, and indicates the point of his missionary journey: “Demas went to Thessalonica, Criscentus to Galatia (Δημ ᾶ ς ἐπορεύθη εἰς Θεσσαλονίκην, Κρήσκης εἰς Γαλατίαν)". In the edition of Tischendorf, Trijels and in the codes X, C, minuscule No. 5, Amiatinus, in the Ethiopic translation, in Eusebius (NE. III, 4) instead of εἰς Γαλατίαν there is εἰς Γαλλίαν. With such a reading, it would naturally be necessary to recognize the 1st century. the time of the spread of Christianity in Gaul. – But this transcription cannot be called correct. In the codes A., D., G., in most translations, in Chrysostom and others there is εἰς Γαλατίαν. 631 And - which is very important - Irenaeus himself is cited by Tim. 4.10 in its latest form. 632 There is no doubt that he, as Bishop of Gaul, should have known whether Crescent traveled to Gaul or not. And if he reads in Galatiam, it means that Crescent preached not in Gaul, but in Galatia in Asia Minor. And in this state of affairs, the above-mentioned French tradition turns out to be doubtful, and it is impossible to speak with confidence about the existence of Christianity in Gaul in the 1st century. 633 But this is undoubtedly relative to the 2nd century. In 177–178 we see a complete church structure in Lyon. There is a bishop there - and he is already elderly, ninety years old. 634 Presbyter Irenaeus probably lived here for a long time even before 177. The Church suffers persecution and produces a sufficient number of martyrs; 635 writes letters to the Asian Churches regarding the persecution 636 and to the Roman Church on the issue of the Montanists. 637 And that means a lot. Obviously, she could count on her voice being heard and having weight in such an important matter. Consequently, it arose much earlier than 177. Somewhat later, its leader took an active part in the pan-church dispute about Easter. 638 Along with and alongside it, the Vienna Church also stands. Her name appears in the title of the message to Asia Minor. 639 She put the martyr Deacon Saint into persecution in 177. 640 There were other Christian communities in Gaul during the time of Irenaeus. He mentions them in Contra haereses, I, 10, 2: “The Churches founded in Germany and Spain do not believe differently and have no different Tradition; in Gaul (ἐν Κελτοῖς)" 641 (and we have already indicated that ancient Germany was also part of Transalpine Gaul). In the same way, Irenaeus says about the heretic Mark that he and his like-minded people “in the Rhone countries seduced many women”; 642 means, as Harnack rightly notes, “not only in one or two cities of the Rhone region, but in many there were Christians.” 643 But if in 1.77 or a little later there were properly organized church societies in many places, then we have every right to assume that Christianity appeared in Gaul in the first half of the 2nd century, since it is impossible to imagine that they suddenly arose everywhere in this form. This is especially true in relation to southern Gaul, in particular, the region where the cities of Lyon and Vienna were located. 644 It is not known exactly where Christianity was brought here from. But we know about the intensity of connections between the Celts and the inhabitants of Asia Minor. Some of the first had long since moved to Galatia in Asia Minor. Gaul, in turn, received the Phocians. The Greek Massaliotes maintained constant trade and cultural relations with their homeland. In the 1st century Asia Minor was enlightened by Christianity. One could already assume a priori that it would be transferred from here to Gaul. There is no positive historical evidence of such a mission. But there is indirect evidence. In 177, the churches of Lyons and Vienna addressed a message of persecution not to any others, but to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia (in Asia Minor). 645 And this is very significant. Among the martyrs are persons of Asia Minor origin, like Alexander, a Phrygian by birth (Φρύξτό γένος), 646 Attalus from Pergamum (Περγαμηνὸν τῷ γένει). 647 Most of them bear Greek names: Ἐπάγαθος, Ποθεινός, Ποντικός, Βιβλίς, already mentioned by Alexander and Attalus and others. The bishop is also the undoubted Greek Pofin. Lyon Christians write a letter to “the brothers in Asia and Phrygia” and about the Montanist schism. 648 St. Irenaeus was an Asia Minor Greek by origin. All this undoubtedly speaks of the intensity of ties between the Churches – Gallic and Asia Minor. Otherwise it is difficult to understand how it is that Gaul was enlightened by Christianity precisely from Asia Minor. 649 It is likely that the preachers first appeared in Massalia. From here we went to the mouths of the Rhone and climbed up it. We stopped, one might think, in Vienne and finally settled in Lyon, making it the center of our activities. The choice was successful. Here lived, as we have already said, the imperial legate who ruled the province. The city was actually the capital for all of central Gaul (the province of Lyon embraced the lands lying between the Loire and the Seine). 650 Thanks to its position at the confluence of two rivers and the well-developed navigation here, its communication with the areas above and below was very convenient. The names of the first apostles of Gaul cannot be determined. But, apparently, there are no serious objections to recognizing Pofin as one of these. He was probably the first bishop of Lyon. He was replaced by St. Irenaeus. As for other cities of Gaul, the question of the existence of episcopal sees here causes great controversy. Most of the old French scientists, jealous of the glory of the Russian Church, calculated them in huge numbers (for the beginning of the 4th century, for example, up to several hundred). 651 Others, on the contrary, bring their number to the 2nd century. to one (in Lyon). 652 Still others (Harnack) stand in the middle, not considering it possible to join these extreme points of view. The second opinion since the publication of L. Duchesne’s work – Fastes episcopaux de l’ancienne Gaule. T. I-II. Paris, 1894–1900 653 acquired special power and significance. In the ancient Church there was a custom, which, in fact, has been preserved to this day: persons remembered at services for health and repose are recorded in special synodics (diptychs, our “memories”, etc.); Moreover, on one side (usually the left) the names of the living were written, and on the other - the dead. In particular, in the main churches there were memorial diptychs specifically with the names of the bishops of that area. It was these episcopal lists, preserved in different places in Gaul, that Duchesne collected and developed in the named work: he determined the degree of reliability and preservation of each of them, compared 654 with other historical data, etc. As a result, he came to the conclusion that earlier than the second half of the 3rd century. there were no bishops in Gaul except that of Lyon. His arguments and conclusion were repeated by V.V. Bolotov in his lectures, 655 and also by N.V. Malitsky, who was influenced by V.V. Bolotov. 656 Harnack, however, was subjected to thorough criticism in the work Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Bd. I-II.) published in the second edition in 1906. Leipzig), 657 putting forward a completely opposite position in comparison with Duchenne and Bolotov, that even in the middle of the 2nd century, there were probably a sufficient number of episcopal sees in Gaul. “And we think he’s more right.” Episcopal catalogs have a long history: they have passed through a number of centuries. At present, it is difficult to determine which of them are completely reliable and preserved in their original form. Various judgments are possible here. So Duchesne, for example, considers the Vienna list to be a good list; 658, meanwhile, Harnack claims that it is poorly preserved and of later origin. 659 But even if it were possible to reach an agreement on this, not all difficulties will still be overcome. Diptychs currently have some analogy to themselves in our synodics used in worship. But who can claim that the latter are insured against all accidents? The purpose of their existence is, first of all, religious, moral and cultic. Therefore, they cannot be said to be particularly accurate. It often happens that this or that name, at least, for example, in the synodics of academic or seminary churches, turns out to be omitted either due to the laziness of the writer, or due to forgetfulness. In our parish churches, sometimes these synodics are lost, or even not conducted at all, although from memory the clergy remember who is needed. Such cases could have taken place in the ancient Church: people always and everywhere remain people. But, undoubtedly, then the situation in this regard was much worse. Now synodics are preserved in churches, and their integrity can be threatened almost exclusively only by the will of the clergy and clergy. In the very first centuries, when there were few churches, storing lists was not so convenient. The persecutions that often happened forced, very likely, even to destroy them, since they could serve as evidence against the bishops recorded in them. This, by the way, one might think, explains the fact that not all Churches have catalogs. In addition, we do not even know at what time this recording of the living and the dead began and whether it was simultaneously in all areas. After all, you can remember simply from memory, without any diptychs. In view of this, it seems to us that special value cannot be attached to the above lists. In any case, these are not first-class sources. Of course, they can be useful, but as secondary documents, supplementing and clarifying the data of other historical evidence. It is impossible to rely mainly on them alone when solving various issues, especially where there are other sources. Therefore, in the present case, we must, first of all, turn to more reliable historical data. What are they saying? St. Athanasius the Great names the names of 34 Gallic bishops who were present at the Council of Serdica. 660 There are, however, reasons to believe that this list is incomplete even when counting the fathers of the council. 661 In addition, as Duchenne’s own research shows, in addition to those listed by Athanasius, at this time there were other departments not only in the coastal and important cities of Gaul, but also in relatively insignificant ones, for example, in Aachen, Poitiers, Angers, Nantes. 662 So we may think that the total number of bishops of Gaul in 343 was much greater; no less, at least probably 40. Representatives of the old French school, in support of their views, refer 663 especially to the First Council of Arles (314), which is considered predominantly Gallic in composition. 664 In ancient manuscripts the number of bishops present is determined to be 600 (coetus episcoporum sexcentorum). 665 We (in agreement with V.V. Bolotov 666 and N.V. Malitsky 667) think that there has been a significant exaggeration here. It could hardly have gathered in Arles at the beginning of the 4th century. such a number of primates of churches. But on the other hand, one cannot underestimate it too much. In the letter of invitation to this council, Emperor Constantine speaks of “very many (πλείστους) bishops from different and countless places” who were to appear in Arles. 668 At the beginning of the conciliar letter to Pope Sylvester there are 33 names. 669 There are somewhat more of them in another surviving list, where, along with the names of the persons present at the council, the names of cities and provinces are given. Gaul accounts for 16 names here. 670 But one cannot think that this number was equal to the total number of bishops in the country. Among the 16 there are no representatives of the departments that existed then, even, according to Duchenne: Toulouse, Narbonne, Paris, Bourges. 671 In the title of the conciliar letter there are three names that are not in the list: Theodore, Hibernius, Gregory. 672 From here N.V. Malitsky concludes that “this list is incomplete” and that, in general, the number 16 “does not fully correspond to reality and requires some, perhaps significant, increase.” 673 Likewise, V.V. Bolotov, noting the lack of reference here to the cities of northwestern Gaul, considers it illogical to assert (on this basis) that there were no bishops there. 674 One cannot help but pay attention to the 20th rule of the same Aral Council (314). It commands that a bishop be appointed by seven or at least three other bishops. 675 Undoubtedly, such a requirement could be fulfilled only if there were, in general, quite a lot of them. And it seems to us that it would not be an exaggeration, leaving aside the extreme opinions of both old French scholars and Duchenne, to recognize, on the basis of historical information about the Councils of Serdak and the First Council of Arles, 35–40 as the minimum numbers for determining the total number of Gallic bishops in the first quarter of the 4th century. But it is difficult to admit that such a mass of departments appeared immediately and shortly before. History does not indicate any exceptional measures to rapidly increase their number at this time. Obviously, they opened gradually, in accordance with the need and the spread of Christianity. And a period of almost only 60 years (if we take Duchenne’s point of view) is hardly enough for such a complex process. For the history of church life in Gaul in the 3rd century. The letter (68th) 676 of Cyprian of Carthage to Pope Stephen (about 250–254) is of great importance. 677 Marcian, Bishop of Arles, went over to the side of the Novatians. The Gallic bishops sent letters on this matter to Rome and Carthage. There was no answer. Then Faustin of Lyons writes to Cyprian a second time, asking for his assistance in this matter. He sends a message to the Bishop of Rome Stephen, in which he sets out the circumstances of the case and talks about measures to restore normal order and the need to depose Marcian. - The letter begins like this: “Our comrade Faustin, who is in Lyon (Faustinus collega nos-ter, Lugduni consistens), 678 wrote to me twice, dear brother, about a subject that, as I know, is known to you, both from him and from our other co-bishops located in the same province. (ab eo, quam a caeteris coepiscopis nostris in eadem provincia constitutis), namely, that Marcian of Arles pestered Novatian.” 679 Having further spoken about the essence of the Novatian schism, Cyprian continues: “Therefore, you must write a most detailed letter to our co-bishops located in Gaul (ad coepiscopos nostras, in Galliis constitutions), so that they will not allow the stubborn and proud Marcian to intrude into our assembly in the future.” 680 “Send a letter from yourself to this province and to the Aral people (dirigantur in pravinciam et ad plebem Arelate con-sistentem a te litterae) with the excommunication of Marcian and the appointment of another in his place.” 681 Here, as we see, the province (eadem provincia) is mentioned, in which Bishop Faustin of Lyon lived. The author of the letter decisively distinguishes it from other areas of Gaul (dividing et in the last phrase: dirigantur in pravinciam et ad plebem Arelate). Thus, by eadem provincia he does not mean the entire country of the Celts, but in the proper sense of Lugdunensis provincia. Faustin and other bishops who lived in it, according to St. Cyprian, informed him and the pope about what had happened. Apparently there were several of them here. And the form of expression of Cyprian (a caeteris coepiscopis nostris in eadem provincial constitutis) and the very fact of the collective appeal to Rome and Carthage indicate, as Harnack rightly notes, 682 that perhaps in Lyon (probably chaired by Faustinus) there was even a council on the Marcian case, consisting of bishops of the same province. But in this case, we have the right to think that there were a sufficient number of them in the other five. 683 Let us assume that each province had 4–5 bishops, 684 and then as a result there are up to 25–30 of them in all of Gaul. In any case, Cyprian's message does not reconcile with Duchenne's assertion that until the middle of the 3rd century, except for Lyon, there was not a single bishop in this country. 685 There is no historical information determining the number of departments in the 2nd century. But, taking into account the data relating to the beginning of the 4th and the middle of the 3rd centuries, one can already think that in the time of Irenaeus, there were other bishops here, besides Lyons. In addition, we must not forget that the Gallic Church of this period was in intensive contact with those of Asia Minor and, probably, even from there received the first preachers of Christianity. But in Asia Minor, all more or less significant cities had their own bishops (Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Laodicea, Hierapolis, etc.), 686 actually confirming with this, especially, it seems, the saying of Ignatius the God-Bearer, widespread here, that “without a bishop there is no Church.” 687 It is natural to assume that the same practice of installing bishops in all outstanding centers was followed by preachers of Christianity - immigrants from Asia Minor - in Gaul. We have already pointed to the testimony of St. Irenaeus in Contra haereses, I, 10, 2: “The Churches (ἐκκλησίαι) founded in Germany, in Spain, in Celtic Gaul (ἐν Κελτοῖς), in the East, in Egypt, in Libya and in the middle of the world do not believe differently and have no different Tradition (Jerusalem)." 688 In the writings of St. father, one cannot find a direct expression that the Church cannot exist without a bishop. But some passages of his great work 689 and the connection between the doctrine of the bishop and the doctrine of the Church in general give reason to assert that he was not far from the views of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, thinking the Church inseparably from the bishop. 690 Therefore, if he talks about the Churches (plural: ἐκκλησίαι) in southern (Celtic) and northern Gaul (Germany), then we can think that he meant here a complete church structure led by bishops. This is also indicated by the connection in which he mentions the Gallic communities: “Churches in the East, in Egypt, in Jerusalem.” We have already said that there were many bishops in the Eastern Churches. This means it’s probably the same in Gaul. 691 How many such departments existed here, of course, cannot be decided. Irenaeus speaks generally about Churches; that means, just at least two. Some information about the Gallic dioceses in the era of St. Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” also informs his father. The letter of the Lyons and Vienna Christians to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia says that during the persecution that broke out around 177, “the martyrs were taken into custody every day, so that from the two Churches they gathered all the zealous men (συλλεγῆναι ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐκκλησιῶν πάντας τούς σπουδαίους )". 692 One might think that the Gallic Christians, enlightened by preachers from Asia Minor, understood ἐκκλησία in the sense of a community led by a bishop; especially since St. Irenaeus probably also took part in the composition of the letter. And if it speaks of two Churches, then, in all likelihood, two bishops are meant. Confirmation of this is apparently given in the preface that Eusebius accompanies this letter, citing excerpts from it in his “History.” “of these cities the most famous Churches - αἱ τ ῇ δε διαφανέστατοι ἐκκλησίαι - sent the composition 693 to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia.” Our conclusion does not in the least contradict that among the Lyons martyrs was Saint, a deacon from Vienna (τὸν διάκονον ἀπό Βιέννης). 694 Duchesne, 695 V.V. Bolotov 696 and N.V. Malitsky 697 see in him the manager, on behalf of the Bishop of Lyon, of the Vienna Church. 698 In V, 23, 3 of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” it is said that on the issue of Easter, among other things, the letters of “the bishops of Pontus, among whom the oldest of them, Palma, presided, and the dioceses of Gaul, over which Irenaeus was bishop, were preserved (τῶν τε κατὰ Πόντον ἐπισκόπων, ᾧ ν Πάλμας ὡ ν ἀρχαιότατος προυτέτακτο, καὶ τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν δὲ παροικιῶν , ἃ ς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπισκόπει )". Malitsky 702 turn this expression in favor of the opinion they defend. They direct the strength of their evidence to the difference between the verbs προυτέτακτο and ἐπεσκόπει. The first indicates the metropolitan rank (speaking, of course, in a broad sense) of Palma and others (see above in Eusebius; the second simply means episcopal); the dignity of Irenaeus, who ruled several small Christian communities that did not have their own bishops. But if we pay attention to the connection in which this phrase stands, we will come to a completely opposite conclusion. Above, the historian says that on the question of Easter “councils and meetings of bishops took place (σύνοδοι καὶ συνκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων), which were all unanimous through their epistles (δι’ ἐπκπολῶν) made it a general rule to celebrate the sacrament of resurrection on Sunday.” 703 And then there is a direct listing of the conciliar messages of the Churches: Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul and Osroina. The Gallic appears, therefore, in the form of a particular example, confirming the general position about the councils of bishops and their messages. It is obvious that it, like others, was sent on behalf of the bishops of Gaul. 704 The terminology of Eusebius does not contradict this conclusion. Already V.V. Bolotov admits that παροικία in ancient times, in general, meant “a diocese, that is, a church society headed by a bishop.” 705 This means that “παροικιῶν, ἃ ς ἐπισκόπει Εἰρηναῖος” may also indicate the metropolitan dignity of the holy father. - Eusebius himself fully confirms this. Thus, in VII, 26, 2 of his “History” he speaks of the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to “Basilides, bishop of Pentapolis wigs (τῶν κατὰ τὴν Πεντάπολιν παροικιῶν ἐπισκόπ ῳ)”; 706 and in VII, 32, 6 mentions “Meletius, bishop of the Churches in Pontus (τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπίσκοπον).” 707 But, according to Harnack, “it is well known - and this is confirmed by Eusebius himself - that there were then many bishops in Pentapolis and Pontus.” 708 Obviously, St. Irenaeus, like Palm, presided over the Lyon (maybe even two) episcopal council and for this reason sent messages to other Churches 709. But if the bishops of Gaul could form a whole cathedral, then we have the right (taking into account also other examined evidence) to think that in the 2nd century. there were several here, at least at least three (in Lyon, Vienna, probably in Germany), and perhaps significantly more. At the head of all the dioceses, as can be seen from what has already been presented, was Lyons, in which St. Irenaeus. The era in which St. lived and acted. father in Gaul, is one of the most outstanding in the history of the Church. At this time, Gnosticism reached its peak and greatest spread. The Montanists came out and caused a church-wide split. The Gallic bishops also took a great part in resolving the Easter disputes that flared up at that time. According to 710 most recent researchers, Gnosticism is of Eastern origin. 711 Its homeland is usually considered to be Syria or Samaria. 712 From the Mesopotamian lowland it was transferred to Palestine and Egypt, and from here to Rome, the center of all world life at that time, and other vast parts of the Empire. 713 In the same way, its beginning is attributed to the times before the coming of the Savior. 714 The beginnings of Gnosticism can already be seen in pagan cosmogonic passages dating back to the pre-Christian period; these are: the creation myth in the Leiden papyrus, 715 cosmogony in the Strasbourg 716 or the myth of the creation of man among the Naassenes. 717 The so-called Hermesian literature 718 and the writings of the Mandaeans should also be included here. 719 Gnosticism arose from a syncretic religious movement that swept the East after the campaigns of Alexander the Great. In Egypt (Alexandria) he was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Platonic, and in Palestine he united with Jewish elements. It is not without reason that traces of it are also found in the Essenes, among the therapists and Philo of Alexandria. 720 However, Gnosticism reached its peak on Christian soil. Therefore, when people talk about it nowadays, they actually mean Christian Gnosticism. Its ancestor is most St. He considers the heresiological fathers to be Simon the Magus, a heretic known from the book of Acts, who amazed the people with his magic and tried to acquire the gift of miracles from the apostles for money (Acts Chapter 8). From the 1st century Menander and Cyrinthus are also known. The Gnostics, in all likelihood, are denounced in the epistles: 1st ap. John, 2 Peter (Ch. 2–3), Jude, ap. Paul to the Colossians (Chapter 2) and, perhaps, in Pastorals. 721 Judging, however, from surviving sources, complete, exhaustive Gnostic systems apparently have not been created at the present time. These appeared already in the 2nd century, which is why it is rightly considered the “golden age” of Gnosticism. It was then that such “pillars” emerged as Valentin, Basilides, Marcion, Mark and their students, who gave their names to entire movements, or schools. But the Church did not remain inactive. On its side, strong fighters also spoke out in defense of Orthodox teaching and morality and in refuting heretics. Already the apostles, as we pointed out, denounced the Gnostics in their epistles. In the II century. The anti-Gnostic mission was undertaken by Justin the Philosopher, Hegisippus and, especially, St. Irenaeus, refuting heretics in writings written specifically against them and, probably, in oral sermons and conversations with the people. The essence of the new movement is defined differently by modern researchers. A. Neander sees in it “the reaction of the aristocracy of the old world that dominated (before Christ) in life, religion and philosophy against the Christian principle that was destroying it.” “Gnosis,” according to him, “opposed the faith of the masses (as Christianity seemed to him) with the opposite religion of knowledge.” “Christianity rejected speculation, a purely human philosophical solution to world issues; Gnosis wanted to restore it.” 723 – Baur considers the religious and religious-philosophical elements in it to be significant. 724 According to Harnack, the absolute religion of the Gnostics was also identical in content with the conclusions of religious philosophy. Gnostics are Christians who tried to quickly raise Christianity to Hellenic culture and this to Christianity, while in the Church such “Hellenization of Christianity” proceeded more slowly. 725 Lipsy recognizes gnosis as “the first experience of Christian philosophy” 726 and sees an analogy to it in Hegel’s teaching about ideas. 727 – These authors, despite the difference in definitions, in essence, however, agree with each other. All of them place the center of gravity of Gnosticism in the theoretical concepts of heretics. Other researchers see it differently. Thus, Coffman argues that gnosis pursued mainly practical-religious interests, and is ready to see its essential features in the mysteries and cult. 728 Yes, and Neander, who posits the essence of gnosis in speculation, at the same time, says that his own, animating principle was the salvation of people and the world from evil. 729 There is certainly truth in both directions. However, in their extreme conclusions, both of them are somewhat mistaken. It is quite true that Gnosticism paid a lot of attention to theoretical speculation - which is why it bears its very name (from γιγνώσκω I know) - and has some kinship with philosophical systems. But the matter does not stop there. Its representatives wanted to put their knowledge into practice; they wanted to arrange the salvation of people and the world from evil on earth. Hence the mysteries, the cult and, in general, external organization. Gnosis was and wanted to be a religion, a religious phenomenon, and in organization - a Church instead of the Catholic one. Therefore, among Western scientists, it seems to us that Zeberg’s definition is the most correct. The Gnostics, according to him, did not want to create a philosophical system or a theological school. “They wanted to elevate Christianity to the level of a frank religious worldview and through this achieve a consciously pious life and absolute confidence in the possession of salvation and truly “spiritual” Christians to unite in a union.” Their goal was to save people. 730 V.V. Bolotov also considers religious and practical interests essential for gnosis. “Calling themselves Gnostics, representatives of knowledge, the Gnostics understood,” he says, “by this knowledge it is not abstract thinking itself, or scientific thinking. They thought to achieve this knowledge through religious means.” “It is not the thinking itself, not the personal effort of a person that makes him a Gnostic, but his entry into. a well-known Gnostic society, entry into which is open only through various religious rites.” 731 In the same way, M. E. Posnov 732 considers it proven that “Gnosticism, both in its origin and in its essence, is a religious phenomenon.” In the middle of the 2nd century, the Gnostics probably appeared in Gaul. 733 In the era of St. Irenaeus 734 two outstanding representatives of Valentinianism, Ptolemy and Mark, acted here. 735 The essential content of their teaching in St. father is presented in this form. 736 It is divided into two parts. One is the history of the pleroma, the other sets out the history of the canoma. History of the pleroma. – In the beginning, say the Gnostics, in the invisible and nameless heights there existed a perfect Aeon, the Origin (Προαρχή) and the First Father (Προπάτωρ) of all things, bearing the special name Βυθός Depth. He was in a marriage union (syzygy) with Thought (Ἔ ννοια), also called Grace (Χάρις) and Silence (Σιγή) by the Gnostics. From this original pair came the fullness (Πλήρωμα) of spiritual existence, all the other eons were born, and through the latter the visible world received its beginning. Βυθός - immense, invisible, eternal and beginningless, existed for countless centuries in the greatest silence and silence. But once upon a time this Depth, uniting with Silence, produced from itself a second pair of eons - Mind (which among the Gnostics also bears the names “Only Begotten”, “Father” and “Beginning of Everything” - Νοῦς, Μονογενής, Πατήρ, Ἀρχή) and Truth (the last one is female). Together with the first two new eons, they formed the Pythagorean quaternary (τετράς), which is considered by the Valentinians to be the root of all things. The Only Begotten, uniting with the Truth, in turn turned out to be the culprits of the appearance of the third pair: Word (Λόγος) and Life (Ζωή); and from the latter, through a combination (συζυγία), came Man (Ἄ νθρωπος) and the Church (Ἐκκλησία). Thus, eight eons have already been formed. This is the highest, dominant part of the pleroma. Every subsequent pair is represented here as a direct product of the previous one. Next follow eons of a somewhat lower order; and their origin differs among Ptolemy from the first eight. In this case, only two of the first couples are producing. The Word and Life, in addition to Man and the Church, gave existence to another 10 (δεκάς) aeons, each of which bears a special name. Man and the Church, in turn, were responsible for the origin of 12 (δωδεκάς) new ones, male and female. Thus, it turned out to be only 30 eons. They, taken together, constitute the fullness (Πλήρωμα) of spiritual existence. 737 In their relations with each other and especially with the first couple, at first there was no equality. More distant from Βυθός; they knew less and were less involved in his life. According to the Gnostics, only one Mind had complete knowledge, enjoyed contemplation and rejoiced, thinking about its immeasurable greatness. One day he decided to communicate some information about the First Father to other eons. But Silence kept him from doing this. However, this situation could not last long. In the zones, the desire to cognize the Depth (Βυθός) was kindled. Especially strongly, to the point of passion, it embraced the very last of the number 12 - Wisdom (Σοφία). She, having broken the connection with her husband, the Longed One (Θελητός), rushed to the First Father in order to comprehend his greatness. Her passion was not satisfied. Her path was blocked by the Limit (Ὅ ρος) - a zone that has no couple, wifeless, - guarding the pleroma. Restrained by him, Wisdom renounced her desire to know the Incomprehensible and returned to herself. But this attempt was not without consequences. Her passion was resolved by the fact that, without union with her husband, she gave birth to a special creature, ugly, female, which among the Gnostics bears the name “Thought” (Ἐνθύμησις). The birth was unpleasant, however, for her as well. She was even afraid that she would lose the independence of her being. As a result, her appeal to the First Father appeared. By the will of the latter, the Limit comes to her aid. He separated the Thought from her, cleansed her of passion, strengthened her and reunited her with her husband and the entire pleroma. The thought, along with passion, was thrown into the canoma. Wisdom's attempt had consequences for all other eons. The First Father realized that it was impossible to keep them in the dark about him any longer. True knowledge must be communicated to everyone. In view of this, according to his definition, the Only Begotten produces a new couple: Christ and the Holy Spirit (the latter is feminine among the Gnostics). Christ informed the zones about the Father; proved to them that he is incomprehensible, he cannot be seen or heard, that he can be known only through him, the Only Begotten. At the same time, he explained that in this unknowability of the Father lies the true reason for the very existence of the pleroma; and what can be known is revealed in the Son. The Holy Spirit equalized them among themselves, taught them to thank the First Father for everything and led them to true peace. The difference between the zones was destroyed. All of them have now become equal to each other, both in image and in mood: all the male ones have become Minds, Words, People, Christs, and the female ones have become Truths, Lives, Spirits, Churches. When this was settled and firmly established, then in gratitude for the harmony the aeons sang a song of praise to their First Father. Moreover, in honor of him, they produced an even more perfect being, which contained within itself everything that was best in each of them, “the star of the pleroma and its perfect fruit.” This being is called by the Gnostics "Jesus", "Savior", "Christ", "Word" and "All" (Π â ν). In honor of themselves, the eons gave birth to angels who are the companions of Jesus. 738 The teaching now set forth belongs to Ptolemy and his followers. Mark and his disciples essentially agree with Ptolemy. The difference lies only in the form they gave to their system, and in the nature of the origin of the eons one from the other. The Ptolemaic teaching presents the latter in a more formal, external way. Mark, on the contrary, highlights his inner side. The work of the First Father of the eons is, according to him, an act of self-consciousness and at the same time an external expression of his hidden essence. As a form for naming the eons and for determining their relationships, the Marcians use letters and sounds. According to the teaching of Mark, “when the beginningless Father wanted his ineffable to become expressible and the invisible to take an image, he opened his mouth and issued a word like himself, which, when it appeared, showed him that he was, because he appeared in the image of the invisible.” 739 His name consists of 30 letters and four syllables. First, the First Father pronounced the first syllable, consisting of 4 letters. This is the beginning and root of all the others, the first quaternary. Then the second syllable sounded - also of four letters - the second quaternary, and together with the first - the octal. Then the third is made of 10 letters and the fourth is made of 12. These are ten and twelve. Each of these letters, in turn, pronounces its name (produces a sound), and through this, as in the first case, new letters are born: These, pronouncing their sound, produce other letters for eons and so on, into infinity. Each of them, thus, comes, in essence, from the First Father and is a part of him, and at the same time is related to other letters. Taken all together, they have complete knowledge of Βυθός ᾿e and constitute the fullness of being; but individually each possesses only a particle of being and knowledge. However, each considers her knowledge and being complete and, pronouncing her sound, honors it as a whole name. – When all the letters merge into one and one sound is obtained, then, according to Mark, there will be a “ἀποκατάστασις” restoration of everything. 740 This is, in brief, the theological part of the Valentinian systems presented and refuted by Irenaeus, in accordance with the church teaching about God Himself, His inner life and the relationship of God the Father to other persons of the Divinity. – Here the story of the pleroma ends. The history of kenoma is closely connected with the Gnostics and begins directly behind the theological teaching. The foundation of the world was laid by Thought (Ἐνθύμησις), which the Gnostics also call Achamoth (from the Hebrew “chokmah” Wisdom). Thrown out by the Limit, she wandered for a long time near the pleroma, having neither sight nor knowledge. Christ took pity on her. Stretching across the Cross (Limit), which protected the pleroma, he gave it an image, at first, however, “only in essence” (μόρθωσις ἡ καὶ οὐσίαν μόνον). 741 Achamoth has not yet received true knowledge about the pleroma and in general about everything that exists. Seeing Christ, she rushed after him with the goal of penetrating the pleroma. But the Limit blocked her path, uttering the terrible, mysterious name “Ἰαώ”. Left alone again and outside the pleroma, she experiences various kinds of suffering. She is saddened by the inability to get into the pleroma; and on the other hand, she is afraid that she might lose the existence that she has. Only occasionally does she laugh in sadness, remembering Christ who appeared to her in the light. Having overcome her suffering with difficulty, she turns to Him with a prayer: to help and come to her again. However, Christ himself did not come to her, but sent the Paraclete of the Savior with his angels. This one granted Achamoth an education in knowledge (μόρθωσις ἡ κατὰ γνῶσιν). 742 She could now have a clear idea of both herself and her emotions. The Paraclete freed her from the latter. It was from them that parts of the world were formed. The lower affects turned into material entities; from its “turning” (to the pleroma) spiritual, psychic ones emerged. In addition, she also produced from herself a spiritual nature in the image of the Savior and his angels who appeared to her. Thus, there were three kinds of being. 743 The latter did not yet have a definite look and form. Achamoth was forced to take up his education. But since the spiritual was of the same nature as her, she could not form it. Therefore, her attention turned to the lower types of being. However, in this regard, its activity was limited only to the formation of the Demiurge and the devil with his angels. The Demiurge, in the view of the Gnostics, is the peacemaker and God-Governor of the Old Testament. It came from the “conversion” of Achamoth. By his nature, being spiritual, he cannot cognize the spiritual. But he considers himself to be the true and one God, as he declared through the prophets. His habitat is heaven. 744 The devil and his angels appeared from the sorrow of Achamoth. The Gnostics call Satan the Ruler of the World, and believe that his habitat is in our visible world. 745. After the formation of the Demiurge and the devil, Wisdom retired to the middle place (τόπος τῆς μεσότητος) between the pleroma and kenoma, located above the seven heavens and also called paradise among the Gnostics. 746 The Demiurge continued the formation of the world. He created the seven heavens, revered by the Gnostics at the same time as angels, 747 our visible heaven, the earth and the mountains on it, water, air, animals, man and everything that exists. 748 The ideas of creatures were given to him by his mother, Achamoth; although he did not know about it and believed that he did it according to his own will and reason. 749 And the creation of man, according to the teachings of the Gnostics, was special, extraordinary. The Demiurge combined material and mental elements in him. He took a particle from the “spilled and flowing substance,” breathed a soulful man into it and covered him with a leather robe, that is, sensual flesh. And Achamoth, unnoticed by the Demiurge, also invested a spiritual principle in a person. 750 Due to this tripartite composition, three types of people subsequently appeared: iliks, or khoiki (χοϊκοί), in whom the material principle predominated; psychics (ψυχικοί), who acted mainly under the influence of the “spiritual” person, and pneumatics (πνευματικοί), in whom the spiritual element prevailed. 751 The Gnostics included pagans in the first class; to the second - the Old Testament Jews and New Testament Christians who belonged to the Church; to the third - in the Old Testament the prophets, and in the New - exclusively themselves. 752 Iliki were under the influence and power of the devil. Material in their direction, they could not receive salvation; the necessary end of their life was death in decay. 753 The Demiurge controlled and controls psychics and pneumatics. In the Old Testament, “spiritual” people who best embodied true knowledge enjoyed greater love on his part. From among them he appointed high priests, kings and prophets. 754 However, the main attention in the activity of God of the Old Testament was paid to psychics. Pneumaticians, in the minds of the Gnostics, were people who had already determined themselves in the direction of good. For them, therefore, all that remained was to improve and supplement their knowledge about the world and God. Meanwhile, psychics always seem to be at a crossroads: they can go to the left - towards the silts, and to the right - towards the pneumatics. 755 The latter direction corresponded to the general goal of human existence (which, according to the teachings of the Gnostics, was complete and perfect knowledge of God and the world). 756 All psychics had to eventually turn into pneumatics. This is what the efforts of the Demiurge in the Old Testament amounted to. According to the teachings of the Gnostics, the world was created precisely for psychics. 757 For their sake, prophets were also sent, proclaiming to them the information they needed. But this goal was not achieved. Psychics have not received complete knowledge. The Demiurge himself remained “ignorant” until the coming of the Savior. He often did not even understand the speeches of the prophets sent by him, although he treated them with respect. 758 To save psychics 759 there was a need for the descent of the Lord. The Gnostics presented the latter docetically. The historically known Messiah was fourfold in nature. Achamoth gave him a spiritual beginning, Demiurge a spiritual one. According to the economy (κατ ’ οἰκονομίαν) he was clothed with a body, which with unspeakable skill was arranged so as to be visible, tangible, and involved in suffering; in a word, similar to all human bodies. But in reality it is of a spiritual nature (σῶμα ψυχικὴν ἐχον οὐσίαν); its materiality is only visible, illusory. 760 Thus formed, Christ, according to the teachings of the Gnostics, passed through Mary like water through a pipe; 761 in this way, and his birth was illusory. At baptism, the Savior, belonging to the pleroma and descended from all eons, descended on him in the form of a dove. 762 The activity of the Messiah on earth consisted of communicating true knowledge: in his nature, life and teaching, he discovered the mysterious structure of the pleroma. Its four-part composition pointed to the first Quaternary; 763 30 years of age at baptism - by 30 aeons; 764 healing of the 12-year-old daughter of the ruler of the synagogue - for the formation of the 12th eon of the dodecad, Achamoth. 765 The Savior depicted her Passion mysteriously on the cross 766, etc. The Gnostics also understood the crucifixion and death of Christ docetically. The Savior from above, according to their teaching, remained uninvolved in suffering. As invisible and a member of the pleroma, He could not suffer. Therefore, when the historical Messiah was brought to Pilate, the Savior departed from Christ. Even the spiritual principle invested in the Messiah Achamoth did not suffer. Only his mental elements were subjected to suffering: those that were bestowed by the Demiurge, and the ghostly body. And these sufferings were intended only to show the image of the heavenly Christ, Who in ancient times, stretching across the Limit, gave Achamoth an education in essence. 767 The Gnostics imagine the end of world life like this. When the spiritual principle reaches its perfection, Achamoth, together with the pneumatics, will enter the pleroma. Here she will enter into a marriage union with a member of the pleroma - the Savior; and the pneumatics, having freed themselves from psychic elements and turned into intelligent spirits, will unite in syzygy with the angels of the Savior. The Demiurge will move along with the righteous souls (psychic principle) to the place of Achamoth, to paradise, or the middle place. And the world and matter itself will be destroyed by the fire hidden in them, and will turn with it into nothingness. 768 As we see, in the teachings of the Gnostics of the Valentinian school about God and the world, dualism in a weak form dominates. Along with the pleroma of the aeons, there is a kenoma, although the latter here, like Plato’s teaching, is presented as almost μὴ ὄν (non-existent). The Supreme Deity, the First Father, does not enter into direct communication with the world. For this, in contrast to general Christian teaching, the Gnostics dedicate a whole chain of aeons: Ptolemy has 30, and Mark has infinitely many. Creation, or more precisely, the formation of the world, is attributed to the created Demiurge, who does not belong to the pleroma and is psychic in nature. He is also the God of the Old Testament. – In anthropology, Gnostics distinguish between pneumatics, psychics and iliks, and for the latter group they even consider salvation impossible, and they represent the former as some kind of spiritual aristocrats. Their Christology is based on docetism. The Body of Christ, as well as His suffering and death, seem illusory to them. The essence of His work lies in communicating to people and the Demiurge the true concepts of the pleroma and the world. In the end, matter will be completely destroyed. The Gnostics denied the resurrection of the dead. 769 Presenting such a teaching, undoubtedly the opposite of the general church, the heretics, however, did not cease to consider themselves Christians and even, apparently, with the addition of the epithet “true.” To prove their correctness, they referred, as was natural to expect, to the main source of Christian doctrine and moral teaching - Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament. Their attitude towards the latter is very curious. Their teaching was, of course, the fruit of their own invention, and it is impossible to find literal confirmation for it in Scripture. The Gnostics, however, got around this difficulty quite quickly, using, first of all, on a very wide scale, the allegorical method of interpretation. St. Irenaeus speaks about this this way: “Having taken, according to the proverb, to twist ropes out of sand, they try to fit (προσαρμόζειν) into their positions with the appearance of probability the Lord’s parables or prophetic sayings, or apostolic words, so that their invention does not seem to have no evidence.” 770 They understood even historical events in a mysterious sense. The principle that they set in this case was exclusively one to justify, at all costs, the Gnostic false teaching and to adapt Holy Scripture to it, no matter how contrary the latter may be to their opinion. Therefore, they were not shy with Scripture. The arbitrariness of the Gnostic interpretation is evidenced by the examples that we gave a little higher when we expounded the teaching of the heretics about the essence of the work of Christ. Let's add some more. The twelve aeons are indicated, in their opinion, by the fact that “the Lord, being twelve years old, talked with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for there are twelve apostles. The remaining 18 aeons are indicated in the fact that the Lord, after resurrecting from the dead, stayed with the disciples, according to them (the Gnostics), for 18 months. In addition, the two initial letters of His name, i.e. ι and η, clearly indicate 18 aeons. Likewise, they say that the first letter (ι) in the name of the Lord means 10 aeons; and that is why the Savior allegedly said: “One jot or one line will not pass away until everything is fulfilled” (Mark 5:31). 771 The great luminary - the sun, according to the Marcians, was created on the fourth day, also indicating the number of the quaternary, etc. 772 In addition, very often the Valentinians resorted to a special technique to confirm their teachings. They took individual words and expressions from Holy Scripture, breaking their order and connection; 773 and then again combined according to their own invention, however, passing off what they received as the teaching of Holy Scripture. “They transferred (words and names) from a natural connection to an unnatural one.” 774 Such tactics, according to St. Irenaeus was similar to when someone, taking a precious and artistically composed mosaic image of a king, breaks it into pieces and, then gluing together a figure of a dog or a fox, will talk about the new work as a genuine image of the king. 775 When this turned out to be insufficient, especially when the Gnostics were exposed on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, then they turned “to the accusation of the Scriptures themselves, that they are incorrect, have no authority, and differ in presentation (variae sint dictae).” 776 The difference, in their opinion, appeared already in the Old Testament and depended on the fact that some prophecies “were spoken by the Mother (ἀπό τῆς Μητρός), and others by the seed (ἀπό τοῦ σπέρματος), others by the Demiurge." 777 Yes, and in the New Testament the Lord Himself “spoken some things from the Savior, others from the Mother, and others from the Demiurge.” 778 The apostles acted in the same way. 779. Of course, with such a point of view one could handle the Scriptures very conveniently. What was not suitable could always be eliminated, and suitable places and books could be invested with the highest authority. This was indeed the case. According to Irenaeus, the Gnostics of the Valentinian school held the Gospels in special esteem: John 780 and, apparently, Mark; 781 other books were placed in second place. But this is not enough. Along with the original books of the Holy Scriptures, the Gnostics also used extensive apocryphal literature. St. speaks directly about this. Irenaeus: they “bring an untold multitude of apocryphal and forged writings, which they themselves compiled in order to amaze people who are foolish and ignorant of the true Scriptures.” 782 In particular, according to his own testimony, the Valentinians had an apocryphal Gospel, called the “Gospel of Truth” (Εὐαγγέλιον ἀληθείας), 783 and many other apocrypha, unknown now, excerpts from which, however, are given by St. father. 784 The Gnostics, refuted by Irenaeus, also had their own special cult, different from the church one. He apparently achieved his greatest development among the Markians. They even had certain times for this, which, like the church Christians of the 1st century, were called “suppers” (ἐπὶ τοῖς δείπνοις). 785 An integral part of these suppers were, first of all, prophecies. They were pronounced either on the orders of the head of the community - in this case Mark, or at the own request of one of those present. 786 By the way, not only men, but also women prophesied among the Marcians, the latter, judging by the story of St. Irenea, even predominantly often. 787 The sacraments were also performed at these suppers. This is, for example, the Eucharist. The head of the community was again the celebrant; but other persons, even women, also took some part. The latter performed sacred acts on small bowls of wine; then the contents were poured into a large bowl, which was administered and consecrated by the primate. 788 – The Marcians had another special sacrament, called “redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσις). Sometimes it was performed in the likeness of church baptism, 789 sometimes it was like a marriage, with the utterance of special words, 790 and sometimes, especially before the death of someone, like our blessing of oil, and the person over whom it was performed was anointed with a mixture of oil and water 791 or with balm (τῷ βαλσάμ ῳ). 792 Among the Marcians, this sacrament played an important role in the matter of salvation. All who received it were made not responsible for their sins 793 and were no longer subject to judgment. 794 Apparently, this was something like the baptism that is performed among our Baptists, granting “full salvation.” The doctrine of this “redemption”, which makes a person insane, had a rather strong impact on the morality of the Gnostic Valentinians. True, they did not make it a principle to fight the body through carnal licentiousness. However, the latter dominated among them in quite strong proportions, judging by Irenaeus; especially their leaders. And this stood, according to St. father, depending precisely on the heretics’ idea of ​​the power of “redemption.” If you are redeemed, saved, then you are not subject to judgment, and from here you can do whatever you want. 795 And, indeed, they did. The followers of Ptolemy did not hesitate to eat food sacrificed to idols, go to pagan entertainment, theater and circus shows. 796 But the vice of fornication was most widespread among the Gnostics. What distinguished them most in this was their leaders, who, due to their privileged position, had influence over women. 797 He especially abused his position, according to the story of St. Irenea, Mark. Indulging in fornication, he did not hesitate to convince women that there was something almost sacred in this; and even forced those who fornicated with him to prophesy and perform the sacrament of the Eucharist. 798 St. Irenaeus says that he even used special means to arouse in the women he desired a feeling of love for him. 799 Many of the preachers of Gnostic teaching took large amounts of money from initiates for training, so that the latter often went completely bankrupt. 800 If we add to this the fact that the heretics for the most part tried to dissociate themselves from the Church, setting up independent communities under the leadership of their leaders, 801 then it will be easy to understand what a danger this movement posed for the Gallic Christians. Montanism 802 is also one of the most outstanding phenomena in the internal life of the Christian Church in the second half of the 2nd and first half of the 3rd century. Its founder is usually considered to be a certain Montanus, born in the town of Ardabau, on the border between Phrygia and Mysia, from among the new believers (τῶν νεοπίστων); 803 may have been a former priest of Cybele. 804 He preached his sermon openly around 156–157, 805 making the center of the “new prophecy” a small town in Phrygia, Pepuzu. However, we must admit that it is more probable that the Montanist trend, or current, existed in the Christian Church somewhat earlier. Researchers give different definitions of the essence of Montanism. Recently, among Protestant scholars in the West, it has become dominant that the new movement, in contrast to Gnosticism, is recognized as a reaction against the “worldliness” (Ver-weltlichung) of Christianity and giving the Church a universal character. 806 This not entirely correct formula, however, expresses the correct thought. Montanism was actually a protest against church organization in the 2nd century. and, generally speaking, the direction of Christian life of that time, in which the followers of this movement saw the worldliness of the Church. Christianity came into the world and is a universal religion, a religion for the salvation of all mankind. But since the latter lives in certain earthly conditions of place and time, then in order to fulfill its world mission, Christianity, like any other religion, needed an external organization. He was to have church government in the form of a successive hierarchy, which would preserve his property at all times and guide the Christian communities. He needed clergy and preachers to spread the truth of Christ throughout the world, to join new members of the Church through baptism and to communicate the gifts of grace to everyone. He should have had his own canon of St. books that would contain the norms of doctrine, moral teaching and church government for all times and peoples. It had to develop its own discipline and cult. He had to become in one way or another in relation to the world factors that already existed before: state power, culture, religions, etc. In the apostolic age, all this was carried out by the extraordinary bearers of spiritual power and grace-filled gifts, the apostles. They represented the highest hierarchy that governed the Church. They appointed and installed bishops (Timothy), deacons (seven in Jerusalem); addressed with instructions to one or another community (messages). They themselves and those appointed by them performed the sacraments: communion (Acts 2:42, etc.), baptism (Acts 8:38), etc.; were in the “service of the word” (Acts 6:4), preaching Christ throughout almost the entire then known world. Through their epistles and the writing of the Gospels, they created a canon of sacred books, taking care at the same time that along with them there were no counterfeits (Evangelist Luke); They also observed discipline in the communities (Apostle Paul and the Corinthians) and established a cult (Acts 1:14; 2:42, etc.). They also showed the norm of relations to state power (Rom. Ch. 13), the Jewish religion (Rom. Ch. 2–3; Epistle to the Hebrews), pagan philosophy (Col. Ch. 2), etc. By the middle of the 2nd century. This church organization, apostolic in origin, was almost completely formed, although, of course, it developed somewhat. The hierarchy already existed firmly in the form of a monarchical successive episcopate (epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp); there was a “rule of faith” obligatory for everyone, which set out the basic truths of Christianity (Διδαχή, St. Irenaeus). The canon of New Testament books began to be almost completely determined not only by representatives of church consciousness (St. Irenaeus), but also by heretics (Marcion). The liturgical cult (Διδαχή, Ignatius, Justin) established itself and developed. The same can be said about the relationship of Christianity to world culture. This entire organization was managed by a hierarchy. The pastors of the Church, successors and deputies of the apostles, received from the latter, through ordination, the power over the flock given directly by Christ and the grace-filled power to perform the sacraments and preach the Gospel; so that their powers were almost completely equal to those of the apostles. Essentially the state of affairs in the 2nd century. therefore it remained the same as it was in the 1st century. However, in appearance it could seem different, radically different from that. The time of the apostles' life was a century of extraordinary powers and spiritual gifts. Direct disciples of the Lord Himself, taught by Him and assigned to the work of service, receiving extraordinary gifts - tongues, prophecy, they enjoyed in the eyes of believers the authority of teachers and supernatural, almost Divine power. Their actions in organizing the Church were sealed with the same authority. With the death of the apostles, circumstances changed somewhat. What was previously supernatural and extraordinary now takes on the appearance of something universal in appearance. It is no longer extraordinary messengers, but ordinary ones, people who have not seen or studied with the Lord, occupy places in the hierarchy, perform the sacraments and preach the word. It is no longer the immediate disciples who determine the regula fidei of Christ and the canon of books about Him and Christianity. The extraordinary gifts in the Church - languages, prophecies - are already beginning to become scarce. All this and the like could and did seem to people with a narrow horizon, who did not understand the universal mission of the Christian religion, as a betrayal of early Christianity, 807 the “worldliness” of the Church, its loss of the supernatural element 808 and its transformation into a purely human institution. In addition, a fundamental question came to the fore: is there any need for an external organization of the Church at all? In the 1st century there was a very widespread expectation of the imminent end of the world. Expression ap. Paul: “The time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29) was understood in the sense that the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy contained in Chapter 24 is about to follow very soon. The Gospel of Matthew - and then the “demise” of everything. In the II century. this expectation was no longer so intense and was not shared by everyone. However, it did not disappear completely, as we will see below. There were many other people who held this view (the Montanists were among them). 809 But from his point of view, any church organization is not only unnecessary, but can even be harmful, because by its existence it instills a false idea about the duration of this world and distracts Christians from preparing for a worthy meeting of the end of personal and world life. 810 One more circumstance must be added here. Christianity became sufficiently strengthened and spread by the middle of the 2nd century. People of different classes, positions, views joined it, as naturally, in large numbers. Then, Christians began not only to become such, but also to be born. This, of course, could not help but have a somewhat negative impact on the moral side of the life of Christian societies. It has decreased in comparison with the 1st century, which is what Hermas depicts in his “Shepherd”. Cases of falling away from the faith have already become frequent due to persecutions that did not stop here and there. And such a situation could further humiliate the Church in the eyes of zealots of the supernatural and give it even more the character of a purely human institution with all its shortcomings. Moral failures and weaknesses could be presented as consequences of the very existence of an external organization: if it were not there, people would prepare for the end of the world, listen to the “prophets” and not sin. This quite naturally explains the protest that, existing at first secretly, resulted under Montana in the form of Montanism, as an open split-sectarian movement in the Church. The representatives of this movement themselves, 811 as well as their church polemicists 812 called it a “new prophecy” (νέα προφητεία). And this, indeed, is the essential point of difference between Montanism and the ancient Christian Church. The gift of prophecy and, in general, spiritual gifts in themselves do not constitute the exclusive property of the Montanists and their prophets. They were very often observed in the Catholic Church in the 1st century, under the apostles (1 Cor. Chapter 12; Διδαχή). There were cases of their manifestation in the 2nd century, as can be seen in the life of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, 813 Meliton, 814 Attalus from Pergamum, 815 and also from direct evidence of this by Eusebius 816 and Irenaeus. 817 However, already from the form of expression of the latest evidence it is clear that in the 2nd century. they were discovered much less frequently than in the 1st century. 818 In place of these unusual ways of revealing the will of God in one case or another, an organized successive hierarchy comes to the fore with its becoming exclusive right to interpret Holy Scripture and regulate church life. On the other hand, the canon of the books of Holy Scripture is firmly established, to which, in the opinion of church leaders, there should be no more additions, since essentially all Christian teaching is given there. Declaring their protest against such a “worldliness” of the Church, the Montanists put forward a “new prophecy”, which was uttered by Montanus and his collaborators – Priscilla and Maximilla. The schismatics, in their opinion, advocated, first of all, for the freedom of prophecy in the form as it manifested itself in the 1st century, when all believers could “prophesy,” even if they did not have a hierarchical degree. To prove their rightness, the Montanists usually referred to 1 Cor. Ch. 12,819 and reproached the Orthodox for not following the teachings of the apostles. However, the matter was not limited to protest and reaction. As usually happens in split-sectarian movements, the Montanists went further. They gave their prophecy such a meaning that it never had even in the 1st century. There the “prophets” either interpreted the Holy Scriptures or predicted the future destinies of the Church and the world. In any case, their speeches did not diverge from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. 820 Among the Montanists, prophecy became a new revelation, significantly supplementing the content of the inspired New Testament books, new legislation. They revered the sayings of their prophets - Montana, Priscilla, Maximilla and others - not only on an equal basis with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, but often ranked them higher and gave preference to the former. Their prophets claimed that only on them was the prophecy of Joel fulfilled in its entirety: “In the last days I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (2:28); and these primarily include the Savior’s promise to send the Comforter Spirit (John Chapter 16). This Paraclete has now appeared and only through them reveals His will in all purity, clarity and perfection, which did not exist before, even in the time of Christ and the apostles. From here the very name of Montanism “new prophecy” (νέα προφητεία) got its origin. It is especially clear that this view of prophecy as new revelation and legislation is manifested in the teaching of the Montanists on fasting, penitential discipline, etc., when they, referring to the sayings of their teachers, demanded from Christians much more than what the apostles prescribed and recommended by general church practice. 821 In this regard, it is worth preaching about the advent of a new period in the religious life of mankind. Initially, from the creation of the world to Moses, it, in their opinion, lived as if in a state of childhood (in rudimentis). The time under the Law and the Prophets was a period of adolescence (infantia). Christ introduced humanity into a new, more, but not quite perfect period of youth (in juventutem). And only with Montanus comes the completely perfect, final era - adulthood, the time of the Paraclete's action (“nun per Paracletum componitur in maturitatem”). 822 With the end of this period the world ends. This explains the Montanists’ view of themselves as perfect Christians, along with their contemptuous attitude towards people of the church movement. 823 They alone belong to the last, perfect period - the “pneumatics” (spirituals); 824 the rest of the Christians are only “psychics” (psichici). 825 The form of the “new prophecy” of the Montanists was also different. This is necessarily and exclusively a state of ecstasy, when a person loses his consciousness and will and becomes a mechanical instrument for the Divine. 826 This explains the fact that the Montanist prophets utter their prophecies not only on behalf of God, but directly, as it were, identify themselves with Him; 827 and Maximilla speaks of herself even in the masculine gender. 828 In connection with the teaching about the advent of a new, perfect period in the history of mankind from Montana, they had an expectation of the imminent end of the world, supported and strengthened by the sayings of the “prophets.” This view, as we have already said, was very common among Christians of the 1st century; it also held out in the 2nd century. But, apparently, it has never been realized as strongly as among the Montanists. Their anticipation reached the highest degree of intensity. The Montanistic period is not only perfect, but also the last in the history of mankind. After him - the end of the world. And this end is very close. Maximilla even directly defined it: “After me there will be no more prophet, but the end (of the world - συντέλεια )". 829 Hence the current expressions of the Montanists: “time is short,” 830 “the last times.” 831 From here, as we will see below, flowed their rigoristic, non-relaxing, severity in their views and requirements in relation to marriage, fasting, penitential discipline, etc. 832 After the end of this world will come the thousand-year reign of God on earth: the Montanists were consistent chiliasts. The natural conclusion and completion of these views was the attitude of Montanus' followers towards the monarchical episcopate, by the middle of the 2nd century. already fully formed. It restricts the freedom of the Christian community: it curtails the rights of its members to interpret Holy Scripture, and partly to prophecy; gives a secular character to the Church and confirms its existence in the world for a long time. Meanwhile, “the time is near.” Therefore, bishops are not needed and should not exist. These are precisely the grounds, in essence, that Tertullian puts forward when defending the freedom of communities against episcopacy. 833 These fundamental views, in fact, limit the essential difference between Montanism and church Christianity. In dogmatic terms, its representatives did not profess a single historically known heresy. Their teaching was Orthodox in both triadology and Christology. 834 In eschatology they adhered to chiliasm. But the latter was also shared by some Church Fathers (Justin, Papias, Irenaeus). Most of the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, as well as the writings of their followers, especially Tertullian, concern not theoretical, but practical issues, issues of Christian life and behavior. Here we have much more data than in the first case. The Montanists showed rigoristic severity in this regard, without making concessions to the “weaknesses of the flesh”; They demanded from everyone the obligatory, unconditional fulfillment of not only the prescriptions of the Christian law, but significantly increased and supplemented these requirements with new commandments of the Paraclete. In family life they allowed monogamy. 835 The second marriage, in contrast to the Church, which permitted it, was categorically prohibited. Living in a second marriage, in their opinion, meant the same as living with two wives or husbands at the same time. 836 The main reason for such a prohibition (besides the fact that a second marriage contradicts the norm of family relations, as it was established by God during the creation of one couple 837 and was manifested in the Old and New Testaments) 838 among the Montanists was the consideration that now, with the opening of a new, perfect period in the history of mankind and with the advent of the Paraclete, there should be no place for “weaknesses of the flesh,” especially among "pneumatics"; 839 and on the other hand, “time is short” - the end of the world is near: there is no time to indulge in the pleasures of marriage. 840 This motivation, however, seems to be directed not so much against the second marriage, but much more against marriage in general. In essence, this is a defense and demand for virginity. Therefore, it is not surprising when, while allowing the first marriage, the Montanists still considered it an evil, although permitted; 841 and only virginity was recognized as the only standard of life for a Christian. 842 They were just as rigoristic in their views on fasting. In the ancient Christian Church at that time there were: a) a general Christian fast before Easter, b) days of standing (dies stationum), on Wednesday and Friday, when they fasted until the ninth hour (3 pm), and c) emergency fasts, for example, on days of public disaster. 843 But the Church did not make the observance of these fasts, as well as the duration of fasting before Easter, strictly obligatory. 844 The Montanists, on the contrary, based on the idea of ​​“last times” and the proximity of the Judgment, affirmed the binding force of all fasting regulations: they equated them with commandments. 845 In addition, they observed special fasts not established by the Church (jejunia propria). 846 So, in addition to the usual dies stationum, they also had stationes when they fasted ad vesperam - until the evening. 847 Then every year two weeks were dedicated to God, ξηροφαγίαι καὶ ραψανοφαγίαι, in which - with the exception of Saturday and Sunday 848 - only a special type of food was allowed. 849 The severity of the views of the Montanists was manifested even in small things, for example, on the issues of: a) covering the head during worship and b) putting on wreaths on holidays, during marriage, etc. In the first case, schismatics, at least in the Carthaginian Church, extended to unmarried girls the commandment of the Apostle (in 1 Cor. 9.5), relating to women. 850 In the second, any decoration with wreaths was categorically prohibited, for this is service to idols, 851 pompa diaboli, aversion from Christ. 852 But the Montanists' penitential discipline was especially strict. Tertullian divides sins into light (leviora delicta), 853 and grave, mortal (mortalia, mortifera). The first includes daily, minor falls of a person. The second group includes: idolatry, murder, adultery and fornication (moechiae et fornificationes), 854 falling away from the faith (negatio), blasphemy (blasphemia) and, in general, apostasy from Christ and the faith (et omne apostatarum genus). 855 The first sins can be forgiven, which is why they are called remissibilia; 856 the latter, no one on earth has the right to forgive (irremissibilia), 857 even martyrs-confessors, for they are also people. 858 Only their own martyrdom, baptism of blood, made the salvation of such sinners possible. 859 Otherwise they must be excommunicated from the Church. 860 In practice, these views were manifested mainly in relation to those who had fallen from the faith during frequent periods in the 2nd century. persecution. The Montanists considered it impossible to accept them back into communion; they did not allow the martyrs to forgive their sin and intercede for them before the Church, 861 recommending only one thing for restoration to their previous state - baptism of blood. 862 This attitude was highly dependent on the schismatics’ view of martyrdom itself—baptism in blood. This is the highest level of Christian perfection. 863 Here the final victory over the world and the flesh is achieved. 864 God Himself allows persecution; Therefore, to evade them, and even more so to refuse to confess faith in Christ during them, means to resist the will of God, to renounce God and Christ, from one’s salvation and perfection. 865 – From here it becomes quite understandable the historical fact that, despite all the persecutions, the Montanists themselves strove for martyrdom and considered any means of salvation to be illicit and inadmissible. Among them there were many martyrs (Femison, 866 Alexander 867 and many others, according to the Montanists), which was not denied - in fact, even by their opponents. 868 Starting in Phrygia, the Montanist movement soon spread throughout Asia Minor. Many Christians, carried away by the apparent strictness of the Montanists' morals and their preaching, joined them. However, the majority of the people 869 and especially the church hierarchy openly spoke out against the “new prophecy.” In refutation of Montanism, the following works were written: Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, 870 Miltiades, 871 Apollonius, 872 Serapion of Antioch, 873 some unknown bishop or presbyter 874 (Anonymous, as he is usually called in modern literature) and others. The new teaching was also thoroughly discussed at Hierapolis (in the 70s of the 2nd century) 875 and several other local councils 876 that took place in Asia Minor. It was decided: to recognize him as wicked and heretical (Eusebius’s expression), and to excommunicate those devoted to him from the Church and deprive them of communion with it. 877 From that time on, Montanism was completely defined as an open split-sectarian movement. The Lyon Church, as we have already said, was in close connection with those of Asia Minor. Therefore, the Montanists probably soon became known here. One might think that some of them even appeared in Gaul itself. The martyrs of Lyons (177) sent letters regarding this movement to Asia Minor and Rome. 878 What consequence these messages had, however, is not known. 879 Sources 880 for determining the nature and essence of the Easter disputes of the 2nd century. Serve mainly as messages and excerpts from Eusebius in the “Church History”, 881 as well as fragments from Hippolytus, Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria in the “Easter Chronicle”. 882 Eusebius says this about the disputes of 190–192. “At that time, an important controversial issue arose (ζητήσεως οὐ σμικρ ᾶ ς ἀνακινηθείσης). All Asian dioceses, based on ancient tradition (ὡ ς ἐκ παραδό σεως ἀρχαιότέρος)” believed that the feast of the saving Easter should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the lunar month (σελήνης τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην ᾢ οντο δεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς παραφυλάττειν), when the Jews were commanded to slaughter a lamb, and on that very day (κατὰ ταύτην), whatever day of the week it was, to break the fast. But the other Churches of the whole universe did not adhere to this custom (οὐκ ἔθους ὄντος), but another, passed down, according to tradition, from the apostles (ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως) and preserved to this day, that is, that fasting must be stopped (τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι) not on any other day, but on the day of the resurrection of our Savior (παρὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέραν ). On this occasion, councils and conferences took place (σύνοδοι καὶ συγκροτήσεις) of bishops, who unanimously, through their messages, laid down a general rule (δόγμα τοῖς πανταχόσε ): to celebrate the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead only on Sunday and on this very day to break the Easter fast ἡμέρ ᾳ τὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἐτατελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου μυστήριον καὶ ὅ πως ἐν ταύτη μόνη τῶν κατὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστειῶν φυλαττοίμεθα τὰς ἐπιλύσεις )". 883 In chapter 24 of the same book V of the Church History, Eusebius cites a rather large excerpt from the letter of the Bishop of Ephesus Polycrates to Victor and the Roman Church. In it, a representative of the Asian dioceses, defending the practice that existed there, writes: “We (the people of Asia Minor) celebrate this day (Nisan 14, as the day of Easter) infallibly (ἀραδιούργητον, more precisely, “not frivolously”), without adding or subtracting anything (μήτε προστιθέντες, μήτε ἀφαιρούμενοι)". Then, mentioning the Apostle Philip, his two daughters, the Evangelist John, Polycarp of Smyrna, the martyrs Thraseus and Sagaris, Papirius and Melito of Sardis, he concludes: “All of them observed the 14th day (in the celebration of) Easter according to the Gospel, not retreating in anything, but following the rule of faith (οὑτοι πάντες ἐτήρησαν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης τοῦ πάσχα κατὰ τὸ ? τεως ἀκολουθοῦντες ). So do I, Polycrates, the least of you all, and I do so according to the tradition of my relatives, of whom I was the heir... And they always celebrated Easter on the day when the people left leavened bread (ὅ ταν ὀ λαὸς ἤ ρνυεν τὴν ζύμην)." 884 The above excerpts, first of all, clearly show that the subject of the Easter dispute was not the teaching of the faith, not δόγμα, but simply a custom that differed in different Churches. This is evidenced by the very use of words by Eusebius, who speaks of both Asia Minor and Roman practice exclusively as ἔθος, without indicating any difference between the parties in the “rule of faith.” The latter, obviously, according to him, was quite the same here and there; which Polycrates also makes clear when, stating the difference in celebration, he decisively declares that the people of Asia Minor have not deviated from the rule of faith in anything, but adhere to it in everything. The tacit agreement of his opponents confirms the present statement. The whole dispute, therefore, was not dogmatic, but exclusively ritual in nature. This is evidenced by the behavior of Polycarp and Anicetus, as described in Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, as well as the attitude of Irenaeus himself to the dispute. The first, according to St. father, they didn’t even want to argue about the Easter issue, because they couldn’t convince one another. “However, they were in mutual communion (ἐκοινώνησαν ἑαυτοῖς), so that Anicetus, out of respect (κατ ᾿ ἐντροπήν) for Polycarp, allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in his Church; and they both parted in peace (μετ ᾿ εἰρήνης)". 885 All this, undoubtedly, would not have happened if the dispute had been dogmatic. For a decisive difference in matters of faith necessarily presupposes the presence of heresy (there cannot be two truths) in one of the disputants. If Polycarp and Anicetus parted in peace and communication, and even mutually respecting each other, then, obviously, neither one nor the other assumed heresy in the decisions of the issue that separated them. In the same way, Irenaeus could not have written his letter to Pope Victor with censure for the excommunication of the Christians of Asia Minor 886 If the latter were heretics, from his point of view, i.e. if the question really concerned dogmatic teaching, then, on the contrary, he himself would demand their excommunication. He also calls the subject of disagreement between the Churches custom (συνή θεια) 887 only, like Eusebius, and, confirming the words of Polycrates, directly says that disagreement on the Easter issue only confirms the agreement of faith (ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας , - but, according to the entire letter, and in general on this issue, - τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησιν )". 888 From here, however, another conclusion seems no less undoubted: that the custom in question was purely Christian in essence not only in the Roman Church, but also in Asia Minor. Any other coloring of it would certainly have caused a decisive protest on the part of these figures. This is true, in particular, in relation to the Judaistic character of the celebration of Easter, which some authors suggest in relation to the Christians of Asia Minor. 889 Jewish customs and faith, already from the time of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, in the eyes of Christians began to take on the appearance of a non-Christian, even anti-Christian trend. In the second century, as can be seen from the writings of Irenaeus, the Ebionites, the most prominent representatives of Judeo-Christianity, were already looked upon decisively in the Church as heretics; 890 and Judaism was considered not only contrary to Christianity, but directly a denial of it, for the existence of Judaism on the basis of the Law rejected the need for the word of freedom and the very coming of Christ to earth to save people. 891 With such a view, Irenaeus not only would not have defended the people of Asia Minor before Pope Victor, but would have himself demanded their excommunication if they celebrated not the Christian, but the Jewish Easter, or at least celebrated both Easters together. 892 “Unity of faith” could no longer exist given such a radical difference. And other opponents of the Asia Minor people, like Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome, would also certainly have accused them of opposing the decree of the Apostolic Council (Acts Chapter 15), which denied the need for Christians to observe the Law of Moses. However, we don’t see anything like that. And this is very significant, especially in Clement. He, one of the first founders and leaders of the Alexandrian school, could not sympathize with Judaism. His silence, as well as Hippolytus’s, about the Judaistic character of Easter in Asia Minor can therefore serve as a guarantee that it did not have such a coloring in essence. The same is said, as we will see below, and the grounds that Asia Minor referred to in defending their practice. After these preliminary remarks, it will be much easier to understand both the essence of the controversial issue and the difference between Asia Minor and Roman customs. The essential moments of the holiday were, according to Eusebius’ description, the same both here and there. Both in Rome and in Asia Minor on the day of Easter, first of all: a) fasting was stopped; 893 and then followed b) the celebration itself. 894 The latter in the cathedral decrees is defined as “the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead” ( μυστήριον ). 895 There is no reason to believe with Preyshen that by μυστήριον here we mean some special type of worship, like the mysteries. 896 This word in the church literature of that time, in application to the liturgical cult, is usually used to designate the sacrament of the Eucharist, 897 which is quite natural here too. Eusebius, using, obviously, the expression adopted there, defines the same moment in the Asia Minor Easter simply as “the feast of the saving Easter” (τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς), undoubtedly, however, understanding by it a separate part of the entire celebration. But since every celebration among Christians was expressed, first of all, in the celebration of the Eucharist, one can think that the second moment here was the same as it was expressed in the Roman Church. This is the most natural assumption. The difference in customs consisted, as can be seen from the description of Eusebius and the words of Polycrates, only in the time of Easter. In the Asia Minor Churches, both moments coincided with the 14th of Nisan, when the Jews celebrated their Passover; 898 in Roman - to the next resurrection after the 14th of Nisan, or the spring equinox. In the first case, therefore, the time of Easter was determined by the number of the lunar month, on whatever day of the week it fell; and in the second, in addition, attention was paid to the day of the week. Easter could not be celebrated on any other day other than Sunday. Only on Sunday did the fast break and the Eucharist was celebrated. 899 In support of their practice, both the Roman and other like-minded Churches, as well as the Asia Minor 900, referred to the apostolic tradition. Polycrates, as we have seen, even lists all the outstanding representatives of his custom, starting with the apostles Philip and John. 901 In addition, he has another basis no less strong, namely, that the people of Asia Minor celebrate Easter “according to the Gospel” (κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). 902 What this expression means more precisely, the Bishop of Ephesus does not explain, obviously considering it understandable in itself. Therefore, we have to turn to other documents. From the fragment of Apollinaris we see that the Asia Minors in the Laodicean dispute referred to the Gospel of Matthew. 903 Obviously, Polycrates also has this in mind. Apollinaris also explains what this link actually consisted of. According to him, the Asia Minors claimed that the Lord ate the Passover lamb with his disciples on the 14th and established the Eucharist, 904 and the next day, the 15th, suffered, in confirmation of which they pointed to the Gospel of Matthew. 905 Hippolytus, in his essay “Against All Heresies,” also cites the course of their logical proof in this regard. “He (the defender of Asia Minor practice) says this: Christ celebrated Easter on that day (the 14th) and (then) suffered; therefore, I need to do the same as the Lord did ( ἡμέρ ᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν διὸ κάμέ δεῖ ὃ ν τρόπον ὀ Κύριος ἐποίησεν, ο ὕ τω ποιεῖν )". 906 The last conclusion and especially the verb ποιεῖν undoubtedly indicate that when celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the people of Asia Minor wanted to imitate Christ. But they could not imitate His suffering in celebration. Therefore, it remains to understand His celebration of Easter and the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is also supported by the fact that on the 14th of Nisan, according to Apollinaris, the people of Asia Minor attributed precisely the eating of the Passover lamb by Christ, and they timed His suffering to coincide with the 15th. Their opponents - Clement, Hippolytus and Apollinaris, referring to the Gospel of John, objected to them that the Lord celebrated the Last Supper not on the 14th, but on the 13th; On the 14th, He Himself, being the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world, suffered for people. 907 This controversy provides a new feature to characterize the controversial issue. It shows that the people of Asia Minor celebrated Passover on the 14th of Nisan in remembrance of the Last Supper of the Savior and His eating of the Jewish Passover lamb. From this we can assume that their celebration of Passover was somewhat similar to that of the Jews. But this analogy, taking into account the purely Christian character of Easter in Asia Minor, which we have already proven, cannot, of course, be brought to the point of similarity. The thoughts and memories of Christians were undoubtedly purely Christian. Among the Jews, the Easter celebration contained two moments: a) the slaughter of the Passover lamb as a sacrifice to the Lord (Exodus 12:6; cf. 27) and b) consumption of it as the Lord's Supper (Exodus 12:8; cf. also: Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; Matt. 26:19, etc.). This holiday was established in remembrance of their salvation from Egyptian captivity (Ex. Ch. 12). By analogy with the Jews, the Asia Minor people obviously remembered salvation in Christ, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and made it possible to partake of His body in the Eucharist into eternal life. 908 An indication of this can be seen in the very expression of Eusebius, that they celebrated the “feast of the saving Passover”, more precisely, the “feast of the Easter of salvation” (τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς), i.e. a holiday in remembrance of salvation, or the deliverance of people from sin. Thus, they did not share the death of Christ from His resurrection and celebrated not only the first (more precisely, its fruits), 909 but remembered the entire work of redemption and salvation of mankind in Christ, taken together 910. The Roman and other Churches that agreed with it, celebrating Easter on Sunday, obviously shared in the celebration the resurrection of Christ from His suffering and dedicated a special day, perhaps Friday, to the memory of the latter. The Romans therefore highlighted historical moments from the life of the Savior - successively: His suffering, death and resurrection; Asia Minor, on the contrary, gave their celebration a somewhat dogmatic character, since, without dividing the death of the Lord from His resurrection, they celebrated in the aggregate all salvation in Christ. The former had a more subjective point of view, the latter – an objective one. 911 But from this follows a new point of difference in the Easter practice of both parties. The Roman celebration apparently lasted several days (Friday - Sunday); Easter of Asia Minor was probably one day long. 912 Some confirmation of this can be seen in the expression of Polycrates that he and his supporters celebrate “this day (Nisan 14) without adding anything (μήτε προστιθέν – τες) and without subtracting anything.” 913 Epiphanius speaks about this when he claims about the Quartodetsi-mani that they celebrated Easter, “fasting only this day and performing (then) the sacraments (τὴν αὐτὴν μίαν ἡμέραν νηστεύοντες καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐπιτελοῦντες )". 914 Here, however, he gives another important message, in which it is possible to determine the duration of fasting among the people of Asia Minor. On this occasion, Eusebius only says that both the Romans and Asia Minor stopped fasting on the very day of Easter, 915 but he does not specify exactly when and how many days it lasted. Irenaeus, in an excerpt from a letter to Victor, reports that there was great diversity in this regard: some fasted for a day, others for two, and others for more. 916 With such vague testimony from contemporaries, the completely clear and accurate testimony of Epiphanius, who lived, however, later, however, acquires the full force of reliability. Comparing it with the message of Irenaeus, we can think that the latter, by people who fasted for one day, also meant the people of Asia Minor. 917 The entire celebration of Easter in Asia Minor can therefore be presented in this form. The fast, which began in the morning of Nisan 14, lasted probably until 3 o’clock in the afternoon, that is, until the evening. Then it ended, and the celebration of the solemn Eucharist began. 918 In the Roman Church, fasting lasted at least 2 days (from Good Friday morning to Saturday). And Sunday, completely free from it, was dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Of all the indicated points of difference in the Easter practices of both sides, the one that concerned the day of Easter celebration was especially striking and obvious, so to speak, glaring. The 14th of Nisan could rarely coincide with the Romans' Easter Sunday (the first resurrection after the spring full moon). Usually, between the day of Easter among the Asia Minor people and the same among the Romans and other like-minded Churches, there was a gap from one (when the 14th of Nisan fell on Saturday) to 6 days (when it fell on Monday). But since Easter was celebrated cheerfully and solemnly, and among the Romans and, perhaps, in other places it was preceded by a more or less long fast, it often turned out that while the followers of one practice - for example, Asia Minor - were already celebrating Easter, Roman Christians, on the contrary, still kept a strict fast, etc. Such a phenomenon among Christians could not, of course, help but be tempting for strangers, and perhaps also for their own, especially where representatives of both practices met, for example, in Rome, where, as the capital, a wide variety of people from all over the Empire flocked. The difference between the Churches of individual countries could be much greater. The starting point for calculating the time of Easter (for all Christians) was the first spring full moon, that is, the full moon of the first spring month. To determine it, it was necessary, first of all: a) to determine the beginning of the first spring month, depending on the vernal equinox of the solar year; then b) the day of the full moon and, finally, c) compare the obtained dates with each other to get one, close to the Jewish 14th of Nisan. Thus, it was necessary to coordinate the solar and lunar years. The Asia Minors, adhering to the Jewish account, had to accept the Jewish calendar. The latter based their calendar on the lunar year. In comparison with the solar one, it is less by almost 11 days (10 days 21 hours 12 seconds). Thus, every three years there was an extra month in the Jewish lunar calendar. Therefore, one of their three years certainly had 13 months, of which one was inserted, usually with the name of one of the twelve. But with such insertions, a difference was noticed even among supporters of the lunar calendar, for example, Jews and Syrians, depending on what year and what month with a repeated name was inserted. It could happen that different months in different countries were named after Nisan; so that according to one calculation it turned out, for example, that Christians in another place celebrated Easter in some Iar, and not in Nisan, as the Bible required. 919 However, there was no less difference in those countries where they adhered to solar chronology. As you know, even before the Nativity of Christ, four different methods of coordinating the lunar year with the solar year were developed. One, the ancient one, was based on the eight-year lunisolar cycle. The later Meton (5th century BC) is based on a nineteen-year circle. Callippus came up with a seventy-six year old (19 took 4 times), in which the solar year is equal to 365 1/4 days. Hipparchus (2nd century BC), in turn, changed Callippus, taking four of his circles as a basis and shortening the last one by a day. Not all areas, however, adhered to one, at least the last, method of reckoning. Julius Caesar, for example, accepted the Callippian circle; it was exactly the same in the 3rd century. on P. X. and in Alexandria. But Hippolytus of Rome (Easter tables for 112 years are carved on his statue) and Epiphanius of Cyprus adhered to the ancient eight-year cycle. Thanks to this state of affairs, especially when comparing the Jewish lunar calendar with solar chronology, such phenomena were obtained that in 180, for example, according to the calculations of V.V. Bolotov, Easter in Alexandria was celebrated on April 20, while in Rome it fell (according to Hippolytus), probably on March 30; and the 14th of Nisan among the Jews and, consequently, among the people of Asia Minor fell on March 19th. 920 There is no historical data to assert that this difference in the chronology of individual countries was the subject of general church discussion already in the 2nd century. The question of it was raised, apparently, for the first time only at the First Ecumenical Council. 921 But, undoubtedly, this phenomenon cannot be denied as a factor or reason for the initiation of disputes in the described time, in particular, in 189–192. Actually, in the 2nd century. It was not this that was subject to discussion, but the difference in the day of Easter with the same chronology - the discrepancy between the days of the week, which we have already clarified. The first time representatives of both practices collided was in 154–155, when Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome and had a conversation with Pope Anicetus. A split has not occurred at the moment, however; Both primates of the Churches parted in peace with each other. Passionate disputes flared up in Asia Minor in the 60s. between Meligton of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis. But they reached their peak in the 90s. II century. Councils were convened on the issue of Easter: in Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Bishops of many Churches entered into correspondence with each other. The majority followed the Roman practice. But the Council of Ephesus, led by Polycrates, defended the practice of Asia Minor. One might think that the Asian Churches adhered to it for some time and in the 3rd century. 922 Such was the era of St. Irenea. The outlined movements and disputes, however, did not simply pass before his eyes. In most of the events relating to them, he took an outstanding part. What was the nature of this participation, and what exactly was the activity of St. father in Gaul, we will try to find out in the next chapter. Chapter IV. Life and work of St. Irenaeus in Gaul The first direct historical information about the life of St. Irenaeus in Gaul dates back to the Lyon persecution of 177 and is associated with the name of the martyrs who suffered then. Eusebius cites excerpts from their letter to Pope Elevther. “The same martyrs,” says the historian, “recommended to the aforementioned Bishop of Rome Irenaeus, who was then already a presbyter of the Lyons Church ( Λουγδούν ῳ παροικίας), citing a lot of evidence in favor of this husband, as can be seen from their following words: “We wish you well-being from God in everything and always, Father Elevther. We convinced our brother and accomplice Irenaeus to take this letter to you. We ask you to have affection for him, as for a zealot of the covenant of Christ (ζηλωτὴν ὄντα τῆς διαθήκης Χρισ τού). If we knew that a place brings righteousness to someone, then, first of all, we would introduce Irenaeus to you as a presbyter of the Church, which he is ?? αὐτω , ἐν πρώτοις ἂ ν παρεθέμεθα )”". 923 Where did St. live? father from 154–155 (first visit to Rome) until the persecution? There are no exact indications of this. Therefore, only more or less probable assumptions based on indirect data are possible. The question may, however, concern only three cities with which the name of Irenaeus is associated: Rome, Smyrna and Lyon. No other in the historical accounts of St. his father is not even mentioned. In 154–155 Irenaeus traveled to the capital of the world. However, the Lyons martyrs, as we have seen, consider it necessary in 177 to recommend him to Eleuther. Apparently he was unknown or little known to the pope. But Eleuther in 154–155 was already a deacon of the Roman Church; 924 probably remained there afterwards. In this case, it is hardly possible to assume that Irenaeus would stay in Rome for many years. Obviously, he lived there for a short time and, perhaps, in the year 155 (the death of Polycarp) left there. But where? Remaining: Smyrna and Lyon. The most natural thing, of course, would be to return to Smyrna, to his homeland, where St. the father spent his youth and received an education. He could also have been prompted to do this by the desire to acquire information locally about the last days of Polycarp’s life. As is known from the epilogue (in all manuscripts) of Martyrium'a Polycarpi, 925 its original copy was Irineevsky; the rest represent only copies of that one. Obviously, St. my father was interested in the details recorded in Martyrium; and maybe he even took part in compiling it (according to others). Be that as it may, the original journey of Irenaeus in 155 from Rome to Smyrna is very likely. But there is no doubt that he did not spend all the time before 177 here. The martyrs call him a “zealot of the covenant of Christ,” their “accomplice,” and speak of his righteous life (δικαιοσύνην). 926 It goes without saying that for such a characteristic one or two years of marriage is not enough, but a much longer period is required. The same is evidenced by the very fact of the responsible embassy to Rome on the Montanist cause and, even more, by the choice of Irenaeus to replace Pofinus as Bishop of Lyons. 927 Obviously, confessors over the course of a number of years had the opportunity to learn the way of thinking of St. father, and his zeal for the covenant of Christ, and an unsullied, holy life. In a word, everything suggests that he settled and lived permanently in Gaul long before 177. How and why Irenaeus was resettled from his homeland to Lyon, there is no indication of this in historical data. Perhaps the Church of Smyrna sent him to help Pofin. Perhaps he himself, by personal desire, went to Gaul, about which, in view of its connections with Asia Minor, he undoubtedly heard a lot while still living in Smyrna. In 177 the martyrs recommended St. father to the pope as presbyter of the Church (πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας). They call this presbytery a “place” distinguished from the lifestyle that Irenaeus led. 928 Obviously, by presbytery they did not understand the dignity of the guardians of Church Tradition, which we spoke about when we discussed the teaching of St. the father of Polycarp and other apostolic men, and the presbytery is hierarchical, that is, the second degree of the priesthood. This is also clear from the fact that, together with Irenaeus, the ninety-year-old pious Bishop Pofinus, who, of course, could well be called a “presbyter” in the honorary sense of the word, is mentioned in the epistle of the Gallic Churches. However, no such name is attached to it. Irenaeus is also called presbyter under Pofinus by Eusebius, 929 as we have seen, and by Jerome, who repeats the latter. 930 When and by whom was St. elevated to this rank? father, unknown. Massuet attributes its dedication to Pofin. 931 However, in making such an assumption, he is based entirely on the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome. But to be a presbyter under someone does not mean to have been appointed by him to this particular rank. And given the data of Eusebius and Jerome, the question of the presbytery of Irenaeus remains open. Perhaps, indeed, Pofin staged it; but the possibility of dedication to St. father to this rank by Polycarp of Smyrna or some other bishop in his homeland. The latter, in our opinion, is even more likely. After all, Irenaeus went to Gaul mainly as a missionary and spreader of Christianity among the Celts. And, of course, in the priesthood it was more convenient for him to fulfill his purpose: he could immediately consolidate the fruits of his preaching by baptizing converts, imparting grace to them in the sacrament of communion, etc. As for the activities of St. father during this period, then brief and, in essence, very little indication of it can be found only in the excerpt we cited from the letter of the Lyon martyrs. The latter state that the life of Irenaeus fully corresponded to the duties and ideals that were required of the presbyter of the Church. 932 What exactly this correspondence was manifested in is not stated here, however. In the works of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, the presbyters act as performers of the sacraments, helping the bishop. 933 And Polycarp of Smyrna in his Epistle to the Philippians writes: “Elders must be compassionate, merciful to everyone, convert the erring, visit everyone who is weak, not neglect widows or the poor, always strive for what is good before God and people (Rom. 12:17), refrain from all anger and hypocrisy, injustice in court, avoid all love of money, not be gullible to anyone’s slander, cruel in court.” 934 Judging by this excerpt, the duties of presbyters in the 2nd century. There was also the administration of judgment over Christians and, apparently, visiting their homes and the work of charity. 935 It is possible that the same functions were performed by St. Irenaeus in Lyon; especially since the church structure in Gaul was probably similar to that of Asia Minor, from where Christianity was brought here. Especially useful for St. father, one might think, was visiting the houses of his flock. Here he became acquainted with the situation of Christians, their moods; personal connections were made, which, of course, was not indifferent to the future leader of the Lyon Church. It is possible that these visits were reflected, among other things, in the election of Irenaeus by the Lyonites who knew him as bishop to replace Pofinus. The martyrs call St. father also "zealous for the covenant of Christ (ζηλωτὴν ὄντα τῆς διαθήκης Χριστοῦ)". 936 What this expression means is difficult to decide with certainty. Perhaps it is connected with the persecution of Christians in 177; or he simply speaks of Irenaeus’s intensified labors in preaching and spreading Christianity. It is possible, however, to see here an indication of his conversations with “misguided” 937 members of the Church, at least the Gnostics. Probably St. father was Pofin's assistant in the latter's performance of other complex duties as the leader of church life in the province of Lyons, and perhaps in all of Galia 2. Lyons persecution of 177 The beginning of Irenaeus’ independent activity, as we have already noted, is associated with the brutal persecution of Christians in Gaul. Eusebius dates the time of the latter to the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. 938 And this falls on the year 177 of the Christian era (Marcus Aurelius reigned from 160–161 to 180). This dating was generally accepted until recently. 939 But in the July 1912 issue of The American Journal of Theology, an article by James Westfall Thompson from Chicago appeared under the title “The alleged persecution of the Christians at Lyons in 177.” 940 The author proves in it that the said persecution could not have taken place in Lyon in 177, but should be attributed to the second half of the 3rd century, most likely to the reign of Emperor Aurelian, almost the same name as Marcus Aurelius (270–275). 941 The main reasons that he gives equally in support of both the first, negative half of his judgment and the second, positive, 942 are as follows: a) Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor of Christians (cf. Tertullian. Apologeticus. Cap. V). 943 b) The persecution in Gaul in 177 is not mentioned, except by Eusebius, neither by secular and ecclesiastical writers of the East, nor by Latin authors (with the exception of Sulpicius Severus) of the West until Gregory of Tours. 944 c) Referring to the studies of Le Blanc (Inscriptions chretienne de la Gaule) and Duchenne (Fastes episcopaux de l'ancienne Gaule), Thompson completely denies the structure and existence of Christian communities and the episcopate in Gaul until the middle of the 3rd century. 945 d) The Epistle of the Gallic Churches, as set out by Eusebius, presupposes such an administrative and judicial-legal structure of Gaul (the relationship between the Lyons and Vienna provinces, legal proceedings, etc.), which, according to Thompson, should be attributed not to the 2nd, but to the 3rd century. 946 f) This is also required: the literary form of the message, the miraculous element in it, the reference to the cult of the Virgin Mary 947 and even some expressions that (supposedly) testify to furor'e passionis martyrum, 948 more characteristic, according to Thompson, for the history of the persecution of the 3rd century. 949 Thompson's article was responded to in 1913 by the French scientist Paul Allard 950 and A. Harnack. 951 Both give negative feedback to his theory and defend the generally accepted dating. The evidence put forward by Thompson is indeed not strong enough to convince the impartial reader. Against his first position 952 is already evidenced, first of all, by the undoubted fact of the martyrdom precisely under Marcus Aurelius of Justin the Philosopher with six disciples; Moreover, the judge was no less than the emperor, the humane philosopher Junius Rusticus, the teacher of Aurelius. Meliton of Sardis speaks directly about the persecutions during the reign of the latter, even more cruel than before, in an apology submitted about them to the emperor himself. 953 As for Tertullian, who characterizes Aurelius in “Apologetics” as supposedly favoring Christians, 954 his testimony cannot be given special value, since such reviews of predecessors were a common technique for apologists to win over reigning emperors in favor of Christians (cf. the passages already quoted from Melito’s apology - in Eusebius). The second proof - argumentum e silentio - has, in general, little meaning in such cases. The silence of several with the testimony of at least one can never refute the truth of this testimony. Analyzing this basis on its merits, we must say that secular writers of that time were not inclined to convey news favorable to Christians (and martyrdom for an idea involuntarily bribes). It is known that Aurelius Victor and Eutropius are silent even about such an outstanding event of a time close to them as the adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine. Fronto and Celsus also did the same. 955 As for church writers, besides Eusebius and Jerome, Sulpicius Severus (at the beginning of the 5th century) also speaks about the persecution of 177, as Thompson also admits. 957 And completely unfoundedly, the author belittles the significance of the last evidence through the assertion of its imaginary and, in any case, unproven dependence on Eusebius (through Rufinus). 958 Finally, taken in its entirety, this argumentum e silentio is directed against Thompson himself, or more precisely, against the second part of his new theory. After all, the silence of the writers is not resolved into loud evidence even with his assumption that the persecution took place not in 177, but in the second half of the 3rd century. On the contrary, it is more deadly for Thompson’s hypothesis. Church chroniclers in the West, according to him, appeared at the beginning of the 5th century. (North was the first). 959 If they do not know about an event relatively close to them (275–400), even if, as Thompson suggests about the North, they borrow information about it from eastern authors, then this event did not happen. In any case, their silence is more natural if we assume that we are dealing with a more distant event, that is, in other words, if we adhere to the traditional point of view. In presenting the third proof, Thompson, as we have already said, refers to the truly learned and noteworthy works of Le Blanc on the inscriptions in Gaul and Duchenne on the episcopal catalogues. However, it is currently not yet possible to draw strictly defined and categorical conclusions based on these works. To understand this, it is enough to point, for example, to Hirschfeld’s article in Sitzungsberichte d. k. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 960 where the author, analyzing the Gallic inscriptions, considers it quite possible to recognize not only the existence of Christianity in Lyon under Marcus Aurelius, 961 but also its spread from here to other areas of Gaul; 962 and also to the objections made by A. Harnac to Duchesne regarding the episcopal catalogues. 963 Additionally, Thompson goes further than his sources. As is known, Duchesne, for example, did not deny the bishopric of either Pofinus or Irenaeus in Lyon. The author of the new theory seemed to have completely forgotten about them. Such a gross historical mistake gave Harnack reason to even express surprise at how the editors of an American magazine could accept Thompson’s article, which, according to the German scientist, discredited church historical research. 964 As for the group of the author’s reasons, united under the letter d, we will not go into a detailed analysis of them. Historical evidence relating to this time does not provide such complete and categorically defined information about the administrative and especially judicial-legal structure of Gaul, so that on the basis of them one could say: “This could have taken place in the 2nd century, and that only in the 3rd century.” In view of this uncertainty, the evidence put forward by Thompson can equally well be turned against his theory. Some of them are completely wrong. Such, for example, is the assertion that torture and burning by fire were introduced only from the time of Septimius Severus for state criminals, and began to be used in relation to Christians from Decius. 965 Thompson forgot the cruelties of Nero; for some reason he considers the burning of Polycarp of Smyrna (see Martyrium Polycarpi) an exceptional case (“lynching” by a crowd). The testimony of Minucius Felix (Octavius. Ch. XXXVII) also speaks against him, where the same tortures and forms of death of Christians are indicated, which are reported in the message of the Lyons and Vienne churches. 967 Other reasons of the author are downright naive and should be attributed solely to his biased one-sidedness and suspicion, in his zeal to prove a new theory and refute the old one, not distinguishing serious grounds from frivolous ones. Such, for example, is his reference to the “absence of a name” of the legate in the epistle of the Gallic Churches, which he discusses for more than a page. 968 This same exceptional suspicion (suspicion-suspicious) 969 only justifies the evidence that we have given under the letter e. Thompson refers 970 to the expressions of the epistle: “The first martyrs did not hide and were ready, even with all zeal (μετά πάσης προθυμίας) pronounced a confession martyrdom,” 971 or: the suffering of “those (who did not fall away) was eased by the joy of martyrdom” 972, etc. Here, according to Thompson, furor passionis martyrum is manifested, just as in general he considers the Lyon Christians to be ardent Montanists. 973 But, firstly, as we will show below, the Lyon Christians and martyrs can in no way be called Montanists: they had a negative attitude towards this movement. Therefore, in the above expressions one cannot necessarily see furor'a passionis. Secondly, even if it were present, there is no need on this basis to attribute the message and persecution to the 3rd century. As can be seen from excerpts from the works of Anonymous and Apollonius, this furor was no less intense in the 2nd century than in the 3rd. 974 The miraculous element in the epistle is also no less characteristic of the 2nd than of the 3rd century. It is enough to refer at least to what undoubtedly belongs to the 2nd century. Martyrium Polycarpi, which tells about many miracles (see, for example, chapters XVI and XVII). 975 Thompson sees 976 an indication of the cult of Our Lady in the Gallic Christians' designation of the Church as "Virgin Mother" (τῇ παρθέν ῳ μητρί). 977 Leaving aside the legality of such a rapprochement, one cannot help but admit that, contrary to Thompson, the veneration of the Mother of God began not from the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431, as he thinks, but much earlier, right from the first centuries of the existence of the Church. This is already evident from the images of the Mother of God preserved from the Catacomb period (until the 4th century), 978, as well as from the direct evidence of Julian the Apostate 979 and Ambrose of Milan († 397). 980 If we accept this basis as reliable, then it is equally unfavorable for Thompson’s theory. After all, 431, in any case, refers to the 5th century, and not the 3rd century, as it should be. All the evidence put forward by him cannot, therefore, shake and refute the traditional point of view. The current state of archaeological and especially church-historical data, on the contrary, not only allows for the possibility, but strongly forces us to adhere to the hitherto generally accepted view that the persecution of Christians described by Eusebius in V, 1-3 took place in Lyon, and it was in 177. Thompson’s own theory, unforced by anything, is a fantastic product of the author’s overly suspicious, skeptical mind and is often refuted by the same reasons that he gives in support of it. The persecution was actually started by the urban mob in Lyon. 981 Christians were denied access to private houses, baths, and public markets; It was forbidden to even appear on the streets. Wherever they appeared, they were subjected to “screams, beatings, dragging, robbery, throwing stones, imprisonment, and in general everything that a bitter people likes to do to their enemies.” 982 There was no imperial legate in Lyon at that time. Before his arrival, however, at the request of the people, the captured Christians were imprisoned without trial. When the legate appeared, the trial began. But it was carried out so harshly and with such partiality that it caused an indignant protest from one of the noble Christians, Vettius Epagathos, who demanded that they be given the right to defend themselves. The legate, however, having learned that he was a Christian, ordered him to be thrown into prison. This cruelty made some impression on the others captured. While most of them stood firm in their confession, there were about ten who, under pain of punishment, fell away from the faith. And then a new disaster befell Christians. Some of their servants, pagans, out of fear of punishment, at the instigation of the soldiers, accused them of Thyestine suppers, Oedipal incest and other crimes against morality. The fury of the crowd and the legate doubled. Various kinds of torture began in order to make them themselves conscious of these crimes. The young slave Blandina and Sanct, the deacon of Vienna, were especially tormented. The first, despite her physical weakness, showed a marvelous example of perseverance. Her whole body was torn and punctured; however, she courageously repeated all the time: “I am a Christian, there is nothing bad about us.” 983 The tormentors themselves, who replaced each other and tortured her in every possible way from morning to evening, finally became tired, exhausted and admitted themselves defeated, because they no longer knew what to do with her. The saint, under torture, answered all the questions tormented about the city where he lives, his origin, his social status, and answered in Latin: “I am a Christian.” Enraged by this, the torturers, not knowing what else to do with him, lit copper boards and applied them to the most tender parts of his body. His body was burning, but he himself remained adamant. Finally, it was all covered with continuous wounds and ulcers, contracted and lost its human image. A few days later, the lawless people again began to torment the martyr and thought that now that his wounds were swollen and so inflamed that any touch to them caused him incredible pain, they would be able to defeat his stubbornness. However, contrary to their expectations, his body recovered during subsequent torture, straightened up, became completely healthy and regained its previous appearance. Other Christians were tortured in the same way. They were imprisoned in the darkest and most murderous dungeons, where they suffocated from lack of air; they stretched their legs on wooden stocks, etc. Among those who died in prison after torture was the ninety-year-old Bishop of Lyons, Pofin. Finally, the martyrs were condemned to shameful executions in the amphitheater. Here they were subjected to lashes, handed over to animals, and placed on lit iron benches. By the end of the day, many had been stabbed to death with swords. Blandina was hanged from a tree, and animals were released on her. But not one of them even approached the martyr. Therefore, the torturers were forced to remove her from the tree and postpone the execution for another time. Among the martyrs in the amphitheater was Attalus, a Roman by birth. This circumstance forced the legate to seek clarification from the emperor. The torture stopped for a while. A decree was sent from the emperor: to cut off the heads of confessors, and to release those who renounce. The legate again began to interrogate the martyrs in the amphitheater with theatrical pomp. But, contrary to his expectations and persuasion, no one renounced; even those who had previously done so now professed themselves Christians again. The legate ordered those who turned out to be Roman citizens to be beheaded, and the rest to be given to beasts. Blandina, again subjected to torture, was finally thrown onto the horns of an angry bull and there she ended her life. Even the bodies of dead martyrs were mocked. Those who suffocated in prison were thrown to the dogs; parts of others - heads, hands, corpses - tortured and charred, were exposed to the display and mockery of the mob under the protection of guards. They remained unburied for six days. Finally, they were burned and the ashes were thrown into the Rhone River. With this act, the torturers wanted to prove the obvious inconsistency of Christians’ faith in the future resurrection of the dead. In total, according to legend, 48 martyrs suffered and died during this persecution. 984 St. Irenaeus was at that time a presbyter under Pofinus, as evidenced by a letter from the Lyons confessors to Eleuther. 985 In the middle of the persecution, he was probably sent to Rome, so that he still captured a significant part of it in Lyon. In the epistle of the Lyons and Vienne churches his name is not mentioned among the martyrs. However, it is difficult to imagine that persecution did not affect him at all: he was an outstanding person. In addition, the martyrs call him their accomplice (κοινωνόν). 986 In their mouths, this expression could probably mean not only unity in views, but also fellowship in persecution, at least those that were erected against all Christians. As an eyewitness to these events, he, perhaps, described them later in that message, which is known with the name of the Gallic and Viennese churches. 987 3. Trip of St. Irenaeus to Rome regarding the Montanist schism Despite, however, the severity of the persecution, the martyrs, even those imprisoned, did not interrupt communication either with Lyon Christians or with believers from other localities. They wrote letters to both Asia Minor and Rome. Eusebius talks about it as follows. “Since at that time (of persecution) in Phrygia Montanus, Alcibiades and Theodotus began to be considered among the people as prophets and because of them a disagreement arose (διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης), then the brothers living in Gaul (οἱ κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοί ), presented (in their letter on persecution) a careful and most Orthodox judgment about these people, setting forth various letters of martyrs who died among them (ἐκθέμενοι καὶ τῶν παρ (letters) they (the martyrs) wrote while they were still in prison, not only to the brothers in Asia and Phrygia, but also to the then Roman Bishop Elevther, caring for the peace of the Churches.” 988 As can be seen from these words, the church historian very clearly distinguishes the letter of the Gallic and Viennese churches to the Asian and Phrygian Churches about the persecution of 177 from the letters of the Lyons martyrs to Asia Minor and Rome. While the first was written on behalf of the Christians living in Gaul in general (οἱ κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοί) 989 and, judging by the fact that it describes the entire history of the persecution, at the end of it, 990, i.e., a little after 177. or in its second half, the authors of the latter are martyrs, and the time of writing is the very height of the persecution, when they were still in prison (ἐν δεσμοῖς ἔτι ὑπάρχοντες). However, there is no reason to extend this difference to the content of the message and letters. In the latter, taking into account the form of Eusebius’s speech, something similar was obviously stated with the “judgment” (κρίσιν) that the Lyon Christians expressed in their message about the Asia Minor Montanists; although the definition at ἐπιστολάς - (διαφόρους) allows for the assumption that, while paying main attention to Montanism, the martyrs may have touched on other issues. It is impossible to determine with certainty the number of letters they wrote from prison. What is certain is that there were at least two of them (to Asia and to Rome). Taking into account διαφόρους, we can assume a larger number, at least regarding letters to Asia Minor. Perhaps there was even more or less regular correspondence between the Asian Christians and the Lyon martyrs, similar to that which was conducted between the confessors sitting in prison and the believers living in freedom in Lyon. 991 Be that as it may, there is no reason to separate the time of writing these letters and sending them to their destination. The circumstances under which and under which the messages were composed speak against this. The reason for them and the subject of their content was the Montanist movement in Asia Minor, a phenomenon in itself very important and outstanding in the history of the Church. Because of him, there was discord (διαφωνίας ὑπαρχόυσης) among Christians. The martyrs obviously attached great importance to all this: in such a situation they would not have bothered with unimportant things. And if they wrote letters from prison, then, undoubtedly, they tried to send them immediately or as soon as possible. Thus, one can think that all the letters were sent at the height of the persecution, i.e. in the same year 177 (maybe in the middle). At the end of the persecution, the Lyon Christians, setting out its history in the form of a letter to the Asian and Phrygian Churches, added to the latter, either in an extract or in full, 992 these letters of the martyrs, in order to prove the correctness of their judgment about the Montanists also expressed in the letter. 993 It was in this form that Eusebius probably became acquainted with the letters. Even during the persecution, confessors ordered one of the letters addressed to Pope Elevther to be taken to St. Irenaeus, sending him to Rome for this purpose. This is directly evidenced by a passage from the epistle preserved by Eusebius. Here the martyrs, as we have already seen, say: “We convinced our accomplice and brother Irenaeus to take this letter to you (Elevther). 994 From everything that has been said, we can now draw the following conclusions in relation to the biography of St. father. 1) The time of his second trip to Rome (the first - in 154-155) falls on 177, when the martyrs who sent him were still in prison (ἐν δεσμοῖς ἔτι ὐπάρχοντες) 995 and when he was probably alive, in particular, Bishop Pofin, 996 perhaps, himself gave Irenaeus such an assignment. 2) The main, and perhaps the only purpose of the trip was precisely the delivery of the letter. 997 The passage we have just cited speaks directly about this; while other reasons for the journey of St. the father is not indicated anywhere. 998 3) The contents of the letter undoubtedly related to the Montanist movement that was exciting everyone at that time; moreover, Irenaeus was probably sent personally as a representative of the Lyons Church; maybe even with an order to give oral explanations to Eleuther about Montanism. How did he feel about the new movement? This question, which is interesting to us, has been little developed in modern research. The answers to this are, however, different. Some Western European scientists claim that in 177 St. the father “sympathized” with the Montanists, 999 just as the martyrs “sympathized” with the new movement, 1000 which is why they “interceded” for its leaders before Pope Elevther. 1001 And Hilgenfeld says that Irenaeus “took the Montanists under his protection” even while writing Contra haereses. 1002 Recently, one of the Russians, A. I. Pokrovsky, spoke out in agreement with them. In his opinion, “from the contents of the first seven chapters of Book V of Eusebius’s Church History, it is not difficult to be convinced that... the Gallic confessors, in their general mood and spirit, stood quite close to the Montanist prophets, although, of course, they did not share all their extremes.” 1003 In the same way, the Council of Gallia, which was convened (as the author thinks) on the occasion of the new movement in 178, “spoke out in a tone of sympathy for Montanism” and, in contrast to the eastern Council of Hierapolis (in the 70s), “takes even the Montanists under its protection.” 1004 St. Irenaeus is considered in all (also Protestant) manuals on the history of the Church and dogma (Dogmengeschichte) 1005 and in fact is the representative and exponent of church views and self-awareness of his time. When they talk about the Christian Church of the second half of the 2nd century, they usually refer specifically to his writings. Therefore, already, a priori reasoning, it is difficult to assume that he sympathizes with Montanism, which is anti-church in nature. In the teaching of St. Father's view of the Church is very important. He constantly insists on the need to belong to her, to be guided by her reason when interpreting Holy Scripture, to adhere to the tradition and faith she preserves. 1006 Outside the Church, in his opinion, there is neither truth nor salvation. 1007 All who separate from it for one reason or another are subject to the strict judgment of God. 1008. "Church" of St. the father represents, on the one hand, as the body of Christ (“corpus Christi”), 1009 and on the other, as a society of people who adhere to the same faith. This is where he distinguishes the Ecumenical Church, 1010 united throughout the world, from the local Churches - Roman, Smyrna, Gallic and others. 1011 Thus, unlike the Montanists, he clearly defines it from the external, legal, so to speak, side, which is also manifested in its very opposition to heretical and schismatic communities. 1012 Inseparable from this is the teaching of St. father on a successive monarchical episcopate. In contrast to the Montanists, Irenaeus very decisively defends him and clarifies the meaning of his existence. For the first time, his ecclesiastical view of bishops was so fully revealed. Their succession, according to the teachings of St. father, is the most faithful and most important sign of the Church. 1013 Without bishops it cannot exist. They are the guardians of the true faith, 1014 of the apostolic teaching in all its purity and Church Tradition. 1015 Without them, the latter would cease to exist in its present form. This is how the Church differs from heretical societies, that they do not have a correct succession of bishops. 1016 The episcopate, it turns out, according to St. Irenaeus, the bearer of all grace-filled gifts (charismatum). In his time, as we already had to say, the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit had not yet dried up in the Church. And he himself vigorously defends them in Contra haereses, III, 11.9. 1017 But already in many other places of this work he says that only bishops can fully and rightfully possess spiritual gifts. “Those who are in the Church should follow the elders who have succession from the apostles (qui successionem habent ab apostolis), who with the succession of the episcopate, by the good pleasure of the Father, received a certain gift of truth (charisma veritatis).” 1018 “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, a sound and blameless life and an undistorted and undamaged teaching. For they preserve our faith in the One God... increase our love for the Son of God... and safely set forth the Scriptures to us...". 1019 The episcopate, therefore, appears at St. father as the organ of the Holy Spirit. Undoubtedly, with such a teaching, the freedom of talents, for which the Montanists so advocated, is significantly narrowed, becoming the property not of all Christians, but only of the hierarchy. And in IV, 33, 8 Contra haereses, Irenaeus even expresses the idea that prophecy and other gifts are inferior to the excellent gift of love kept in the Church, 1020 which, of course, the Montanists also could not accommodate. The view of St. was opposite to them. father on the canon of sacred books. Irenaeus says that there should be four Gospels - no more and no less. 1021 He considered any addition to the existing books of Holy Scripture as insolence 1022 and threatens severe punishment from God for such actions. 1023 All these points in the teaching of Irenaeus are aimed at protecting and justifying precisely that “structure” of the Church, which the Montanists considered “worldliness” and which they so energetically opposed. Their views on the new prophecy as a new revelation complementing St. the books of the New Testament, their defense of the freedom of spiritual gifts for ordinary, uninitiated people, their protests against the monarchical episcopate, separation from the Church - all this, of course, stood in complete opposition to the teachings and views of St. father, as they are expressed in Contra haereses. Therefore, there is no need to talk about “sympathy” for the new movement on his part at this time. Monte, however, sees a point of similarity between the teachings of Irenaeus and the Montanists in the fact that he and the others adhered to chiliasm and expected the imminent end of the world and the coming of the Antichrist. 1024 But, as Ziegler rightly noted, 1025 Irenaeus’s expectation differed significantly from the expectation of the Montanists. It wasn't that intense. The Holy Father, as we know, cared a lot about the structure of the Churches and took an active part in all church issues of that time, often relating specifically to the external system (Easter disputes, the schism of Vlast, etc.), which, from the point of view of the Montanists, was hardly necessary. In addition, in V, 28,3 Contra haereses he says: “In as many days as the world was created, so many thousands of years will it last... And since creation was completed in six days, it is obvious that it will end in the six thousandth year (φανερόν, ὅ τι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτ ὧ ν τὸ Σ ´ ἔτος ἐστίν )". 1026 Thus, according to his account, the end of the world should have followed more than three hundred years after him. And this is not at all like the expression of Maximilla: "μετ ᾿ ἐμὲ συντέλεια after me is the end (of the world).” As for Irenaeus’s inclination towards chiliasm, many church leaders of that time suffered from it, for example, Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr and other saints. fathers not involved in Montanism; so in itself it cannot serve as a sign of Montanistic tendencies. In Contra haereses there are, however, places where St. the father apparently speaks directly about the Montanists, although he does not name them. These are sections 6 and 7 of chapter 30 of book IV. – “He (the spiritual man) will judge (judicabit) also the false prophets (pseudoprophetas), who, having not received the prophetic gift from God and not having the fear of God, out of vanity or for the sake of self-interest, or something else, through the action of an evil spirit (operationem mali spiritus), take on the appearance of prophets (fingunt se prophetare), speaking lies against God (6). He will also judge those who cause schisms (τὰ σχίσματα), who do not have love for God and care more about their own benefit than about the unity of the Church, for unimportant and random reasons (διὰ μικρὰς καὶ τὰς ὑψούσας αἰτίας) cutting and tearing apart the great and glorious body of Christ and, as much as depends on them, destroying it; talking about peace and making curses, truly “straining out a gnat and swallowing up a camel.” For they cannot achieve as much correction of the matter (κατόρθωσις) as great is the harm resulting from the schism (τοῦ σχίσματος)." 1028 Above this passage, Irenaeus speaks of the judgment of the spiritual man over the Gnostics, Ebionites and Docetes. However, the above words cannot be attributed to them. The Holy Father quite definitely considers them heretics, as is often expressed (haeretici). 1029 Here we are talking about schismatics (σχίσματα). Nor could he say about the first that they “for unimportant and accidental reasons” produced heresies, for their errors concerned the basic tenets of Christianity. In addition, the very name “false prophets” (pseudoprophetas) can hardly be attributed to them. It is most natural to understand the above excerpt as applied to the Montanists. 1030 In this regard, it is very remarkable that almost all the expressions used here by Irenaeus are literally repeated in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History”, when he gives excerpts from the antimontanistic works of Apollonius, Anonymous, Miltiades and himself characterizes the schismatics. So, Anonymous, like St. father, calls the Montanist prophets false prophets (ψευδοπροφητῶν), 1031 and their sayings - false prophecies (ψευδοπροφητείας). 1032 Montana denounces “an excessive desire for primacy.” 1033 And Apollonius says about the latter that, under the guise of offerings, he allowed extortion. 1034 About the Montanist Themison in the work of Apollonius it is noted that he “plausibly covered up his greed (πλεονεξίαν), for a rich ransom he freed himself from his shackles.” 1035 The influence of the evil spirit on the Montanists during the prophecy is also stated by Anonymous in the appendix to Montanus and other leaders of the new movement. 1036 Apollonius, in relation to Themison, quotes almost literally the same expression that St. uses. father when he observes that false prophets “spread lies against God (men-tientes adversus Deum).” 1037 Anonymous says that the Montanists “reject the doctrine of truth (ἀντιδιατιθεμένων τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγφ).” 1038 All these coincidences are very striking. To explain them, the conclusion suggests itself that St. my father read in the original most of the anti-montanist works, excerpts from which are given in Eusebius, and in the sections under review, Contra haereses, he only grouped together and expressed in a brief form everything that was contained there. In any case, based on these analogies, one can think that the above passage is probably directly directed against the Montanists, their teaching and practice. 1039 The following expressions of St. father, as: the false prophets wanted “correction” (κατόρθωσις) of affairs (the Montanists advocated a return to the era of early Christianity and the correction of morals); or, that they “strained out a mosquito and swallowed a camel”, “for unimportant and random reasons” they separated from the Church; that they divided it into parts (cutting τέμνοντες), etc. But at the same time, there is no doubt that Irenaeus’ negative view of them is expressed here. He puts the Montanists on a par with the Gnostics, Ebionites, and Docetes and speaks of the “judgment” of spiritual man over them. Argues that they bring great harm to the Church, tearing away members from it and dividing it into parts; directly calls them schismatics. He says that their prophets do not have the true prophetic gift, but have usurped it, taking upon themselves only the appearance of prophets. Accuses them of lack of fear of God, vanity, greed, and blasphemy of the Lord. As we see, his judgment is strict and quite definite, leaving no room for any doubts. In connection with the previous ones, one can think that the next, 8th section of the same 33rd chapter IV of the book Contra haereses has an indirect relation to the Montanists. “True knowledge is the teaching of the apostles and the original structure of the Church throughout the world κόσμου) and the sign (character) of the body of Christ, consisting in the succession of bishops (successiones episcoporum), to whom those (apostles) handed over the Church existing everywhere; and it has come down to us in its entirety with a genuine observance of the Scriptures, without accepting either addition or subtraction (custodione sine fictione scripturarum tractatio plenissima neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens): here is a reading (of the Scriptures) without distortion and a correct and careful, safe and non-blasphemous interpretation of the Scriptures and an excellent gift of love, which is more precious knowledge is both more glorious than prophecy and superior to all other gifts (gloriosus autem, quam prophetia, omnibus autem reliquis charismatibus superminentius).” 1040 The Holy Father expounds in this place, in fact, positive Orthodox teaching. But a comparison of the gift of love kept in the Church with prophecy and other gifts and the expression about Holy Scripture that it is observed in the Church without additions or subtractions 1041 indicates that the author pursues a polemical goal along with a positive one. And the connection of the given section with the previous ones very naturally indicates that the Montanists can also be counted among the supposed opponents. The very content of the section speaks for the same thing, relating precisely to the points that were touched upon last. The Holy Father expounds the church teaching on the succession of bishops, claiming that this is an ancient institution; about Holy Scripture, which is preserved in the Church, despite the Montanists, who add a “new prophecy” to it, without any additions or subtractions, and - unlike them and the Gnostics - is interpreted and understood correctly, without distorting the meaning. The last words of the department are especially remarkable. With them, Irenaeus, apparently, directly reproaches the Montanists, who, while advocating prophecy and other spiritual gifts, created a schism in the Church and thereby violated the unity of love that existed until now. Teaching the Montanists, St. the father says that “the excellent gift of love (procipuum dilectionis munus) is more precious than knowledge 1042 and more glorious than prophecy, and more excellent than all other gifts.” Thus, here again Irenaeus’ negative attitude towards schismatics is manifested. But at the same time, a new feature is given to characterize St. father. He did not limit himself to just denouncing them, but in contrast and to correct them, he also revealed the positive teaching of the Church on the issues they raised, although due to the conditions of the place (Contra haereses is directed against the Gnostics, in fact) very briefly. It is quite possible that he followed similar tactics in oral conversations with them, for which, of course, many convenient opportunities could present themselves. The similarity with the analyzed sections not only in content, but also in expressions gives reason to attribute most of section 2 of Chapter 26 of the same book to the Montanists: “We must follow the presbyters in the Church, those who, as I have shown, have succession from the apostles, 1043 and together with the succession of the episcopacy, by the good will of the Father, received a certain gift of truth; 1044 others who deviate from the original succession and anywhere are going to be suspected either as heretics and false teachers, or as schismatics, proud and self-indulgent, 1045 or as hypocrites who act so for the sake of self-interest and vanity. 1046 All these have fallen away from the truth. Heretics who bring alien fire to the altar of God, that is, alien teachings, will be burned by heavenly fire, like Nadab and Abihu. Those who rebel against the truth 1047 and stir up others against the Church of God will remain in hell, swallowed up by the earth, like the adherents of Korah, Dathan and Abiron. But those who dissect and divide the unity of the Church 1048 will receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam.” 1049 This entire section talks about three, in fact, types of apostates: a) heretics who distort the teaching, b) schismatics and c) hypocrites who divide the Church into parts. One might think, however, that St. by the last two, the father understands the Montanists, distinguishing the sincere among them (schismatics, proud and self-indulgent) from the hypocrites (third type). Irenaeus, as we see, denounces them for pride, greed, hypocrisy, threatens them with the judgment of God and the fate of King Jeroboam, and recommends that believers be suspicious of them, in other words, carefully beware of them. Massuet, 1050 and after him Ziegler 1051 and Harvey 1052 see direct polemics against the Montanists in section 9 of chapter 11 of book III Contra haereses. Here Irenaeus says: “Vainous and ignorant and, moreover, impudent are all those who distort the idea of ​​​​the Gospel and introduce more or less types of the Gospel than have been said (four) - some in order to seem as if they have found more than the truth, others in order to reproach the orders of God. For Marcion, while rejecting the whole Gospel and even cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part of the Gospel. Others (alii), rejecting the gift of the Spirit (donum Spiritus), in recent times, by the will of the Father, poured out on the human race, do not accept the form presented by the Gospel of John, in which the Lord promised to send the Comforter (Paracletum); but at the same time they reject both the Gospel and the prophetic gift (propheticum repellunt Spiritum). The truly unfortunate who wish to be false prophets, of course (qui pseudoprophetae quidem esse volunt), 1053 but reject the Church's gift of prophecy (propheticam vero gratiam repellunt ab Ecclesia); they act like those who, because of those who come hypocritically, withdraw even from fellowship with their brothers. It is clear that such people do not accept the ap. Pavel. For in the Epistle to the Corinthians he spoke deliberately about prophetic gifts (de propheticus charismatibus diligenter locutus est) and knows men and women who prophesy to the Church (1 Cor. 11:4-5). Because of all this, when they sin against the Spirit of God, they fall into the unforgivable sin.” 1054 However, even a cursory reading of the passage cited casts doubt on the correctness of the assumptions of Massuet, Ziegler and Harvey. Those denounced here reject the Gospel of John and the epistles of St. Paul, and precisely on the basis that they contain the doctrine of prophetic gifts. These latter ones also reject it. Meanwhile, the Montanists, on the contrary, advocated for them, referring precisely to the Gospel of John and the Epistles of St. Pavel. Apparently, these authors made a mistake. And this is true. According to most modern scientists, 1055 St. In the above section, Irenaeus refutes and denounces not the Montanists, but, on the contrary, their opponents, the Alogians, who, according to the testimony of Epiphanius 1056 and Philastrius, 1057, held rationalistic views, denied prophetic gifts and rejected the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, attributing the compilation of the latter to the heretic Cyrinthus. If we combine into one everything that relates to the Montanists in Contra haereses and add that we talked about the fundamental views of St. father on the Church, episcopate, canon of St. books, etc., then we will have every right to say that at the time of writing his great work (around 185), Irenaeus was an opponent of Montanism and, perhaps, even denounced it (albeit briefly) in his writings. 1058 But how did he feel about this movement in 177, when he went to Rome? The gap of 7–8 years is not so long that one can assume a radical change in Irenaeus, and especially in his fundamental, opposite to Montanism, views on the Church, episcopate, canon, etc. It is natural, therefore, to think that at this time St. my father had a negative attitude towards the new movement. And this assumption is all the more acceptable since there is no direct historical evidence that would speak about his views during his trip to Rome or, what is even more important, that would indicate a change in them in the period between 177 and 185. However, some newer researchers, as we have already noted, definitely claim that in 177 Irenaeus sympathized with Montanism. 1059 To prove their opinion, they refer to indirect, although the only data remaining to this day on this issue, which is contained in an excerpt from the letter of the Lyon martyrs to Pope Elevther and in the letter of the Gallic Churches to the Asian and Phrygian Churches. Here, according to researchers, there are supposedly clear hints of the Montanistic tendencies of the martyrs and Irenaeus, who was like-minded with them. And a remarkable thing is that while some of these scholars are inclined to see traces of Montanism more in the passage from the letter to Elevther, 1060 others, on the contrary, in the letter to the Asian and Phrygian Christians. 1061 The martyrs sent Irenaeus to Rome with a letter. One can therefore think that he was their like-minded person. This, apparently, is indicated by the term by which they define it in the letter: “our accomplice (κοινωνὸν ... ἡμῶν).” 1062 As for the message of the Lyons and Vienne churches about persecution, then, as we already had to say, it is very possible that the Holy Father was either the author, or at least the editor of it. In view of this, if we find traces of Montanism in the indicated passages or establish that the martyrs sympathized with the new movement, then we will have to say the same about Irenaeus. Eusebius, citing excerpts, says that in these letters “the brothers living in Gaul set forth their own God-fearing (more precisely, cautious) and most Orthodox judgment about these people (the Montanists οἱ κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοὶ τὴν ἰδίαν κρίσιν καὶ περὶ τούτων εὐλαβῆ καὶ ὀρθοδοξοτάτην ὑποτάττουσιν)". 1063 He undoubtedly had the fuller text of both messages at hand. 1064 There is also no doubt that he was a decisive antimontanist, considered the representatives of this movement schismatics and even called their teaching the “Cataphrygian heresy.” 1065 In his mouth, the expression ὀρθοδοξοτάτην, taken in the superlative degree, therefore had a certain meaning, completely identical with the general church view. But it follows from this that the messages from which he cites excerpts did not contain any Montanistic tendencies; on the contrary, they were directed against the Montanists, in defense of the Church, its structure and practice. And this review of him is so clear that, in fact, it alone is enough to determine the real sympathies of the Lyons Church and Irenaeus. But maybe Eusebius was mistaken, not understanding the messages properly? Some authors actually think so. 1066 However, it is enough to turn to the original text of the passage from the letter of the Gallic Christians, which alone can refute or confirm the words of the church historian, and compare the data contained in it with what we know about the Montanists to be convinced of the opposite. The Montanists, as is known, usually themselves strove for the crown of martyrdom as soon as persecution began, and considered any means of avoiding danger as prohibited. The Lyon martyrs did not avoid the crown, but they did not strive for it themselves. This can be seen in the example of Irenaeus. He, as we have already noted, probably spent part of the persecution in Lyon. However, his name is not mentioned among the victims. The Holy Father survived, which was hardly possible; if he had a tendency toward Montanism. Obviously, he held the opposite opinion on this matter. In the same way, about Vettius Epagaphas in the very letter of the Gallic Churches it is said that he “could not bear the judgment so unjustly carried out on the martyrs (during the persecution of 177), but was indignant and demanded that he be allowed to speak in defense of the brethren.” 1067 It is also noted there that the martyrs did not like it when this honorary title was attached to them, for “they themselves did not call themselves martyrs, and we (Christians) were not allowed to call ourselves by this name; on the contrary, they were indignant (ἐπέπλησσον πικρῶς) if any of us called them martyrs in a letter or conversation.” 1068 They - in contrast to the Montanists - asked for their own lives when they saw that some of the Christians had wavered in their faith and needed to be strengthened αὐτοῖς; ἣ ν καὶ συνεμερίσαντο τοῖς πλησίον, κατὰ πάντα νικηφόροι πρὸς Θεὸν ἀπελθόντες ". 1069 The Montanists, further, were extremely strict in their moral demands, especially in relation to those who fell during persecution. The latter, in their opinion, commit a mortal sin, which no one on earth can forgive and which can only be atoned for by martyrdom. The Lyons confessors, on the contrary, as the passage says, “did not exalt themselves over the fallen, but what they themselves were rich in (faith), they communicated to those in need, because they had maternal mercy for them and abundantly shed tears for them before the Father.” 1070 For the conversion of the fallen, it was they who asked for their lives. 1071 The Montanists loved to denounce, especially members of the Church, for failure to fulfill the commandments of Christ and, in general, for the weakness of the moral principles of life. The martyrs, on the contrary, “defended everyone (ἀπελογοῦντο) and did not blame anyone, allowed everyone (ἔλυον) and did not bind anyone, but prayed even for those from whom they were tormented.” 1072 The Montanists caused a split in the Church, divided it into parties and thereby caused enmity and discord among Christians. The martyrs, “always loving peace and always offering peace, went to the Father in peace; They did not cause sorrow in the heart of the Mother (Church), nor disorder and enmity between the brothers, but left joy, peace, unanimity and love.” 1073 The last words are so expressive that, apparently, by using them, the Christians of the Lyon Church directly meant to reproach the Montanists, who acted completely differently. 1074 Monte, 1075 wanting to prove the sympathy of the martyrs for the new movement, refers to the vision that Attalus had in prison. 1076 However, as we have already had to say, revelations in this form were not rare among church Christians of the 2nd century, which can be seen in the example of Polycarp of Smyrna, 1077 Meliton 1078 and from the direct evidence of Eusebius 1079 and St. Irenea. 1080 Therefore, a vision in itself does not prove anything. It is necessary to find out first its character: whether it is Montanistic or not. The main signs in this regard are generally: a) its origin (is it from God?) and b) the content of the revelation received. In this case, the first cannot be decisive, because the Montanists always attributed their prophecies to God. What remains is the content of the “vision.” And this is described in an excerpt from the message of the Lyon and Vienne churches as follows. “One of the martyrs, a certain Alcibiades, led a very strict life and ate nothing but bread and water,” even while in prison. Attalus had a vision about this. 1081 As we see, it concerned the issue of jejunia propria (special fasts), and Alcibiades undoubtedly adhered to the same practice as the Montanists, who even established special weeks, ξηροφαγίαι καὶ ραψανοφαγίαι, during which only dry eating was allowed. 1082 But what was revealed to Attalus? Read on. “When he (Alcibiades) tried to continue such a life in prison, it was revealed to Attalus, after his first feat in the amphitheater, that Alcibiades was acting badly (ὅ τι μὴ καλῶς ποιοίη), not eating God’s creations and thereby giving rise to temptation to others.” 1083 Thus, Attalus, on behalf of God, severely condemned Alcibiades. And since he adhered to the Montanist practice, then, consequently, the condemnation extended to her. Alcibiades, as the message further conveys, obeyed the instructions of Attalus and began to eat all kinds of food indiscriminately. 1084 The latter, of course, could not have happened if he really was a Montanist. In any case, apparently, the sympathies of the martyrs were on the side of Attalus. Thus, Monte’s reference not only does not prove the validity of his opinion, but says something completely different. And since this is the only serious reason that is put forward to prove the “sympathy” of the martyrs for Montanism (the rest of the authors for the most part refer to the “general tone” of the passage, which is of little significance in general and completely vague here, in particular), 1085 then, in the presence of positive examples where the contrast of views of the martyrs and Montanists is revealed, we have the right to say that Eusebius’s review of the epistle of the Gallic Christians as “most Orthodox” in content is true. Judging by the message, there can be no talk of any Montanistic tendencies of the confessors. On the contrary, everything speaks of their negative attitude towards the new movement. As for the excerpt from the letter of the martyrs to Rome, 1086, no matter how hard one tries, one cannot find either Montanistic or anti-montanistic tendencies in it. But in this case, it means that Irenaeus, who was like-minded with the martyrs, also held negative views on Montanism at that time. There was, therefore, no change in his attitude towards the latter between 177 and 185. And then, consequently, neither he himself nor those who sent him to Rome could “intercede” 1087 for the Montanists before the pope, or even more so express in a letter their “sympathy” 1088 and identity of views with the representatives of the new movement. Their “judgment” about the latter was completely Orthodox, that is, negative. 1089 Now it will be easier to understand the meaning of Eusebius’s dark expression that the martyrs wrote letters to Phrygia and Rome, “caring for the peace of the Churches ( πρεσβεύ τες )". 1090 Undoubtedly, on the basis of it one cannot speak about the Montanistic tendencies of the authors of the letter. But in this case, it is obvious that it did not relate to their fundamental views, but concerned the practical measures that they recommended to the pope. 1091 Unfortunately, there is no data to decide exactly what the latter consisted of and what they concerned. We can only make more or less probable assumptions, although, of course, in general terms. And here two possibilities present themselves: the martyrs could recommend to the pope to apply either a) strict measures to the Asia Minor Montanists, or b) mild ones. It is impossible to accept the first of them without contradicting the very concept of “peace”. For never and nowhere did drastic measures contribute to the consolation of passions, but, on the contrary, provoked an equally sharp rebuff from the victims. On the other hand, with them, schismatics and sectarians are always surrounded by an aura of heroes, sufferers for the faith, which, of course, further strengthens such movements. The Lyon martyrs probably knew this, or, in any case, could have assumed it. And therefore one could hardly expect them to recommend strict measures in relation to the Montanists. But then the second possibility remains: that they indicated the need for soft measures, or at least warned against harsh ones. This assumption is confirmed from the other side. The Montanist schism affected mainly the Churches of Asia Minor. And from the history of at least the Easter disputes of 1092, we know that the popes, one of whom was the addressee of the letter, always treated the Asia Minor people with suspicious jealousy and took every opportunity to subjugate them to their power. In addition, as can be seen from the example of Victor, they tended to exaggerate the significance of movements such as the present one, and used extremely harsh measures in relation to persons who thought differently from them, which often caused strong rebuff. The martyrs, together with Irenaeus, who had been to Rome and knew the popes, probably knew this as well as anyone else. And therefore, “caring for the peace of the Churches” (the harsh measures of the Bishop of Rome could cause widespread sympathy for the Montanists), they write a letter to Elevther, warning him against harsh tactics in relation to schismatics. The situation, therefore, in our opinion, was similar to that in 191–192, when, regarding the Easter disputes, Victor excommunicated the Asia Minor Churches; with the only difference that there Irenaeus, agreeing, as in this case, with Roman practice, protested against the drastic measures of the pope after they were implemented, but here, apparently, he wanted to prevent events and prevent them from breaking out into a church-wide schism. Be that as it may, the situation was serious. Montanism spread greatly and recruited new members. Unsuccessful measures on the part of the church hierarchy could have further strengthened it. Fearing this, the martyrs sent Irenaeus to Rome with a letter in which they informed the pope of the true, Orthodox view of things and recommended appropriate measures in relation to schismatics. This seriousness of the situation also explains the fact that they write the message while in prison, perhaps a few days before their death. Therefore, they send it specifically to Rome, and not to other Churches (except for the Asian and Phrygian ones, where there was a nest of schism). That is why they send with him Irenaeus, a man needed in Lyon, so that he can personally explain to the pope the matter of the Montanists and convince him not to take steps dangerous for the common peace. This same seriousness of the situation also serves as proof that the delivery of the letter could be (and was) the main, if not the only purpose of St.’s trip. father. What effect did the message have on the pope? There is no historical evidence of this. Tertullian, however, reports about some Roman bishop that he wanted to recognize the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla and even sent letters granting peace to the Asian and Phrygian Churches. But Praxeus appeared to him and, having reported “false,” according to Tertullian, “information about those prophets and their Churches,” convinced the pope to cancel the decision. The certificates were returned, and the recognition of charismatic talents did not take place. 1093 The bishop of Rome is not named here. Some scholars suggest that this was the same Eleuther to whom St. Irenaeus carried the letter of the martyrs. 1094 In addition, according to Tertullian, the Asiatic and Phrygian Churches were granted, in the Pope's letter, the communion of “peace” (pacem), which was also taken care of by the Lyons confessors. All of this apparently gives an indication of the connection between the events described by Tertullian and Irenaeus’ trip to Rome. Perhaps, under the influence of St. Dad wanted to treat the Montanists so mercifully? 1095 However, it must be noted, first of all, that Tertullian cannot be completely trusted in this case. The essay “Against Praxeus” was written by him already in the Montanist period, and the polemic with the enemy is conducted here in such a harsh tone that there is no need to talk about the author’s impartiality. 1097 And in this case it is hardly possible to recognize the accuracy in the transfer of facts to them. And his message itself raises doubts. Tertullian attributes Montanistic tendencies not only, apparently, to the pope, but also to the Asian and Phrygian Churches. 1098 Meanwhile, it is known that it was the Phrygian bishops who composed (probably) the first and largest council against the Montanists (Hierapolis, around 172–173). 1099 This movement was also condemned at other Asia Minor councils. 1100 Therefore, in no case can the Asiatic and Phrygian Churches be identified with the Montanists. Perhaps, however, the letters were intended to be sent at a time when there were no conciliar decrees against the schism yet? But if so, then it is hardly possible to mean Eleuther (174–189) by pope (in Tertullian), since anti-montanist councils took place already at the very beginning of the 70s. II century. 1101 Moreover, it is impossible to connect the message of the Bishop of Rome with the trip of Irenaeus to Rome in 177–178. Some scholars admit the possibility of attributing Tertullian’s message to Pope Victor. 1102 In view of such uncertainty, we do not consider ourselves entitled to draw any conclusions based on it. As for Irenaeus, in particular, it seems that after the analysis we presented above of his relationship to Montanism, it cannot be said that he could instill in the pope the idea of ​​recognizing the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla. If we assume the existence of a connection between the trip of St. father to Rome and the event described by Tertullian, then this is possible exclusively in this sense. Perhaps, under the influence of Irenaeus and the letters of the Lyon martyrs, the Bishop of Rome wanted to send (or sent) “peaceful” letters to Asia Minor, in which he probably recommended that the local Churches treat the followers of the new movement gently and not strengthen the latter by using drastic measures. In any case, it is not known from history that the popes themselves applied any kind of repression to the Montanists or the Asia Minor Churches over this schism, like what Victor did during the Easter disputes of the 90s. And perhaps this is somewhat dependent on the letter of the martyrs and the trip of Irenaeus to Rome in 177. 4. Dedication to St. Irenaeus to the rank of bishop Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” writes this way about the beginning of the bishopric of St. Irenaeus: “When Pofinus also died along with the Gallic martyrs in the ninetieth year of his life, then Irenaeus accepted the bishopric over the Lyons Church, ruled by Pofinus ἔτεσιν ἐνενήκοντα σύν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασιν τε λειωθέντος , Εἰρηναῖος τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον ἧ ς ὁ Ποθεινὸς 1103 From this it is clear that Irenaeus was appointed bishop instead of Pofinus after the death of the latter, almost directly. But since Pofinus died at the same time (σύν) with all the martyrs, and with their death - judging by the message of the Lyon and Vienna churches - the persecution ceased, then we have the right to think that the dedication of St. father's elevation to bishop took place a little later after the persecution. It is somewhat more difficult to answer the question of where and by whom it was committed. 1104 Massuet, 1105 and after him Harvey, 1106 and Tusk 1107 solve it in the sense that Irenaeus was dedicated in Rome by Pope Eleuther, for which purpose he undertook a trip there in 177. Massuet’s reasoning is as follows. Ninety-year-old Pofin was old, and besides, he was in prison, so Lyon was soon to be left without a bishop. And the latter was especially needed in such difficult times. Meanwhile, it was not possible to consecrate him on the spot, since there were no other bishops in Gaul. In view of all this, the martyrs, together with Pofinus himself, even during the latter’s life, sent Irenaeus to Eleutherus so that he would appoint him as Pofinus’ successor. This assumption is supported by the very recommendation they give to St. father in a letter to dad. 1108 But recommending a person does not mean nominating him as a candidate for the episcopal see. Ap. Paul often recommends things to his disciples in his letters. But this does not mean that he sent, for example, Fivudeaconess to the Romans (16:1) or Onesimus to Philemon (10-20) for the purpose of initiation. In addition, Eusebius, as can be seen from his story, gives a characterization of Irenaeus, by the way, doing here, in fact; as a historian for whom St. the father was interesting as the main character. And there is no evidence to think that it was the main subject or, even more so, that it predominantly exhausted the content of the martyrs’ letter. The latter, as we have already argued, concerned, perhaps, exclusively the schism of the Montanists and, in connection with this, the “world of the Churches.” In any case (as Harvey rightly noted), 1109 the passage quoted from Eusebius says nothing about the purpose of the trip as indicated by Massuet, and without this, the latter’s opinion turns out to be, perhaps, a plausible hypothesis, but still hangs in the air, without any factual basis, and cannot claim universal recognition. Then, it seems strange and impossible how a successor is dedicated to him while the bishop is still alive. The practice of the ancient Church did not know such examples. 1110 The only semblance of solidity behind it is Massuet’s consideration that there were no bishops in Gaul who could consecrate Irenaeus. That is why the martyrs sent him to Rome. 1111 But, firstly, as we showed in Chapter III, one cannot speak with such confidence about the absence of bishops in Gaul in the last quarter of the 2nd century. Secondly, even if this were the case, it is still not clear why Massuet needed to send Irenaeus to Rome for initiation. After all, as we know, Asia Minor was the spiritual mother of Gaul. She did not have close communication with Rome. The most natural thing, therefore, would be St. father to go for initiation to Smyrna, and not to any other city. Harvey, having a negative attitude towards Massuet's hypothesis, puts forward his own new one in its place, which is a correction to that one. In his opinion, the martyrs, when sending Irenaeus to Rome, did not initially have his dedication in mind. But after leaving St. Pofinus's father died. It was then that they decided to use Irenaeus’ trip for these purposes. A second ambassador was sent, who notified St. father that he has been elected Bishop of Lyons and needs to receive consecration to this degree from the Pope. 1112 This theory is perhaps more ingenious than Massuet’s. However, introducing a new person (the second ambassador) and new events (the latter’s trip in pursuit of Irenaeus and informing him of the decision of the martyrs), not yet mentioned anywhere, Harvey finds himself in a position no better, since he has even less factual basis than Massuet. But in essence, the same objections can be made against him that are presented to the latter (especially on the issue of bishops in Gaul in general). In all likelihood, this was the case. Returning from a trip to Rome (the holy father went there as a presbyter), in 1113 Irenaeus, back in 177 or, rather, in 178, was consecrated in Lyon by the Gallic bishops, with the participation, perhaps, of bishops who came for this occasion from other countries. The most intense period of his struggle with the Gnostics dates back to the time of Irenaeus’ bishopric. 1114 The Holy Father was familiar with their teaching through Polycarp, perhaps. In Rome (first trip) he probably had personal encounters with heretics. And in the second half of the 2nd century, the Gnostics appeared in the Rhone region, that is, within the Lyon province. 1115 Irenaeus had to speak out against them: his position, his acquaintance with heresy, and zeal for the covenant of Christ obliged him to do this. He, indeed, turned out to be an active fighter against Gnosticism, writing in refutation of it five books “Against Heresies”, where he thoroughly outlined and analyzed the most widespread systems of Ptolemy and Mark in Gaul. Some chapters of another work of St. are also directed against the Gnostics. Father: “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” (Ch. 98–100). 1116 But there is no doubt that the struggle was not limited to the publication of literary works. The Holy Father says that in the five books “Against Heresies” he gave both his friend and himself only a guide to confrontation with all heretics. 1117 Obviously, the controversy was also conducted orally. Irenaeus directly points to this, noting that he had to personally talk with the Gnostics. 1118 In the work (in Armenian) “The Seal of Faith” 1119, opened (in November 1911) by Bishop Karapet Ter-Mkrtchyan, there are two fragments from the works of Irenaeus (in the Jordan edition Nos. 10 and 11). One of them is marked: “From the word against Satornil”, the other: “From the word against Kolorvas”. 1120 Neither Eusebius nor any other ancient writer knows, however, about the writings of Irenaeus, aimed specifically at refuting these Gnostics. On the other hand, the content of the fragments cannot be entirely attributed to Contra haereses. 1121 One might think that they were borrowed from the “Collected Sermons” 1122 of Irenaeus (Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων – from Eusebius): 1123 Obviously, St. my father spoke out against heretics from the church pulpit. The nature and content of the fragments are very reminiscent of the great anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus: the presentation and denunciation of heretical views goes here in parallel with the transmission and defense of Orthodox teaching. At the beginning of the first fragment, it is noted that Marcion and the Nicolaitans divide the Lord in two and explain His personality in their own way, and Cerdon (?) says that the God proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets is not the Father of Jesus Christ. The attitude of the Gnostics to Holy Scripture is also characterized. In contrast to them, St. the father expounds the Orthodox teaching: about Holy Scripture, about God in Himself, the Persons of the Holy Trinity; about man, his composition and fall; about Christ, who came to restore man to a primitive normal state, and the fruits of His redemptive feat. 1124 In the second fragment, the heretics' idea of ​​the fear of Christ is first refuted; and then their docetic views on the image of the Savior’s incarnation and His suffering are examined. As a result, Irenaeus quite confidently says that, according to the testimony of all the apostles, Christ is the Son of God, the Word made man by the blessed Virgin. There are not two faces in Him, as the Gnostics say, but one. 1125 Judging by this, one can think that St. father's words are the same as those he used in writing and which he recommended to his friend. First of all, St. the father studied the Gnostic systems through personal conversations, reading works and observations of heretics. 1126 Then he expounded their teachings along with their analysis before the Orthodox and denounced the Gnostics themselves. In dealing with the latter, he noticed a difference in attitude towards the strict, consistent ones and the hesitant ones. He recommends this course of action to his friend: “You will reject and shame the more moderate and reasonable among them (heretics), so that they do not blaspheme against their Creator, Creator and Nourisher, and Lord; and keep the more wild, terrible and unreasonable ones away from you, so that you no longer tolerate their chatter.” 1127 He himself apparently used the same measures. He convinced the moderates, alienated the “wild” ones, that is, cut them off from church fellowship. But the basis of all his relationships was his love for heretics, as erring people. He, as he himself testifies, constantly prayed for their conversion and was ready to lovingly accept each of them who repented. “We pray,” he says, “that they will not remain in the hole that they themselves have dug, but will separate from such a Mother and come out of the Depth (Gnostics), withdraw from the void and leave the darkness, and that they will be legitimately born, turning to the Church of God, and that Christ will be formed in them, and that they will know the Creator and Creator of this universe, the one true God and Lord of all. We pray this for them, loving them much better than they think they can love themselves. For our love, as true, is saving for them, if only they accept it. For it is like powerful medicine, taking away the unusable and unnecessary flesh of the wound: for it destroys their pride and arrogance. Therefore, we are not tired of trying with all our might to extend a hand to them.” 1128 The Catholic Libellus synodicus conveys news of a council held in Lyons under the chairmanship of Irenaeus on the issue of Gnosticism. 1129 However, this collection appeared and was compiled no earlier than the end of the 9th century; 1130 and, due to the nature of the messages, cannot claim universal recognition. 1131 Confirmation of this note in other, more modern St. There are no historical documents for my father. Therefore, it can hardly be recognized as corresponding to reality. 1132 6. Participation of St. Irenaeus in the Easter controversy The first news regarding the Easter issue dates back, as we have already said, to 1133 in 154–155. 1134 It was raised by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, Pope of Rome, during Polycarp’s visit to Rome. St. Irenaeus, the only witness from whom we only know about this event, speaks of it like this. “They disagree not only about this day (Easter), but also about the very image of fasting; for some think that one should fast for one day, others two, others more; Some consider forty day and night hours to be the measure of their day. 1135 This difference in observance (ἐπιτηρούντων) did not occur in our time, but much earlier, among our ancestors, who probably did not observe great precision in this and passed on their simple, private custom (συνήθεια) to their offspring. Nevertheless, however, they all maintained peace, and we live in peace among ourselves, and the unity of faith is affirmed by disagreement regarding fasting τῆς πίστεως συνίστησιν ). The presbyters who before Sotira ruled the Church that you (Victor) now rule, namely: Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus and Xystus, neither observed this custom themselves, nor did they allow their own (to observe it). And, despite this non-observance, they, nevertheless, maintained peace with those who came to them from those Churches in which (that custom) was observed, although its observance for those who did not observe it was very striking; and no one was ever rejected for this custom. On the contrary, those same presbyters from other parishes who did not observe it before you sent the Eucharist to those who observed it. When blessed Polycarp came to Rome under Anicetus, both of them did not argue much with each other regarding other subjects, but immediately agreed; and they did not want to argue about this issue (about Easter), because neither Anicetus could convince Polycarp not to observe (μὴ τηρε ἶ ν) what he always observed, living with John, the disciple of our Lord, and dealing with the other apostles, nor Polycarp convinced Anicetus to observe (τηρεῖν); for Anicetus said that he was obliged to preserve (κατέχεῖν) the customs of the presbyters who preceded him. Despite all this, they, however, were in mutual communication (ἐκοινώνησαν ἑαοτοῖς); so Anicetus, out of respect (κατ᾿ ἐντροπήν) for Polycarp, allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in (his) Church, and both of them parted in peace; just as those who observed this custom and those who did not were at peace with the entire Church.” 1136 The reason and circumstances under which Irenaeus wrote a letter to Victor, from which we have now given an excerpt, the context of the speech and the fact that Polycrates of Ephesus saw in Polycarp the defender of Asia Minor practice, 1137 undoubtedly say that Irenaeus had in mind here the same Easter dispute, which continued in the 90s. II century. When determining the subject of the disagreement between Polycarp and Anicetus, St. the father uses the words τηρεῖν and μὴ τηρεῖν, which, however, distinguishes them from the usual κατέχειν to preserve. Obviously, this τηρεῖν “observe,” repeated with such insistence, is taken from him as the terminus technicus known to his contemporaries. However, there are no additions to it in this place. This forces us to turn to other documents. And we find the same word in the letter of Polycrates. There with him stands τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτμς τοῦ πάσχα 1138 From here it is clear that the question, first of all, concerned the day of Easter celebration: the Asia Minor “observed” 1139 14 Nisan, the time established by the Law for the Jewish Passover; The Romans “did not observe” this injunction. At the same time, Irenaeus states that not only at the time of writing the letter to Victor (90s), but also much earlier, under Pope Anicetus, and, consequently, under Polycarp, there was a difference in the duration of the Easter fast. This evidence, raised in connection with the question of Easter Day, gives reason to think that in the discussions of Polycarp and Anicetus they also touched on this point. Thus, obviously, already in 154–155 the Easter question contained the same main points as in the disputes of the 90s. As for the duration of fasting in the Asia Minor and Roman churches, the Irenaeus passage does not provide data for a precise definition of one or another practice. As we have already said, by persons who fast for one day we can understand the people of Asia Minor; Roman Christians apparently fasted longer. 1140 However, this is only a possible assumption. This time there was no disagreement among the Churches. Polycarp and Anicetus only discussed the issue of Easter and did not even directly argue, finding it useless. They parted in peace, mutual communication and respect for each other. Anicetus even allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his Church. Obviously, both fathers looked at the Easter issue as exclusively ritual, and did not think that the unity of faith was violated through the difference in views on it. They understood that the Easter celebration is external, a cult, and not eternal, internal to the Church, not a dogma. St. Irenaeus, as we have already proven above, accompanied Polycarp to Rome in 154–155. It is very possible that he was not only an eyewitness, but perhaps even a participant in the discussion of the Easter issue. As an eyewitness, he probably described it in his letter to Victor. In any case, this visit to Rome did not pass without leaving a mark on his subsequent views and activities regarding the Easter issue. From the example, and perhaps from the reasoning of Polycarp and Anicetus, he acquired the correct view of this issue (as a ritual), which he developed in the 90s. It was then that he realized that the difference in fasting and the day of Easter celebration not only does not destroy, but “affirms the unity of faith.” Here he saw with his own eyes the difference between dogma and ritual, the eternal in religion from the temporary; it was indicated that the first must be held firmly, while in the second freedom can be given to individual communities. He realized that in order to act better in the world there must be unity in faith, mutual communication between Christians, church peace and love for brothers. In a word, here is the grain of everything that he did and expressed in the 90s. It is historically unknown which side he himself stood on in 154–155. But the more probable assumption must be considered that Polycarp’s favorite student, whom he took with him, perhaps as an assistant, was brought up in Asia Minor and lived there until then, he also adhered to the prevailing practice there, that is, he celebrated Passover with the Jews. In the 90s We see him as a defender of Roman practice. Obviously, he changed his custom, perhaps adopting one that already existed before him in Gaul. And in this again one cannot help but see the influence of his visit to Rome in 154–155. It was here that he adopted those views that gave him the opportunity to change the practice of his fathers without reproach. But this same change could partly contribute to the fact that he spoke in the 90s. not a flamboyant champion of any one practice, but a mediator between Rome and Asia Minor. For he knew from himself that the Christians of the latter do not profess any heresy. To rebel against them, moreover, for him meant to rebel against his past, against himself. In Rome, he became convinced that the practice there was also completely Christian and, perhaps, even better than that of Asia Minor. Therefore St. my father so decisively joined her in the 90s, without fear of making a mistake. Here, perhaps, as in the center of the universe, where people from different localities flocked, he learned that the difference in the Easter issue existed not only between the Asia Minor and Roman churches, but also in others. And this, too, was not useless for his future activities. In the 60s II century 1141 Easter question was again discussed. This time, passionate disputes broke out (“the great dispute - ζήτησις πολλή”, as Meliton puts it) 1142 in Asia Minor itself, namely in Laodicea. 1143 Meliton of Sardis argued on one side, and Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, on the other. 1144 Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome subsequently spoke out on the same issue, taking the side of Apollinaris. Judging by the fragments remaining from the writings of these fathers in the “Easter Chronicle”, 1145 at this time the question concerned, in fact, when Christ celebrated the Last Supper and on what day he suffered. As we have already seen, the people of Asia Minor, celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, referred to the example of the Savior, who, according to them, celebrated the legal Passover on this very day. “Therefore, we need to do it in the same way,” they concluded (in Hippolytus). 1146 To prove the correctness of their account, they referred to the Gospel of Matthew (Apollinaris). 1147 - Their opponents, on the contrary, based mainly on the Gospel of John (Clement), 1148 argued that Christ did not celebrate the legal Passover on the 14th, but on the 13th he showed his disciples an image of the celebration of the Eucharist, and on the 14th He suffered, Himself, being the mystical Passover and the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (Clement, Apollinaris, Hippolytus). 1149 Apparently, the dispute was limited only to this interpretation of the Gospels and the establishment of the exact date of the Easter supper and the death of Christ. How it ended is difficult to decide. But, taking into account that in the 90s. Polycrates, in proof of his practice, refers to the Gospel (κατὰ τὸ Εὐαγνέλιον - probably from Matthew), one might think that each party remained with its own. 1150 Whether Irenaeus participated in this dispute is unknown. But in Contra haere-ses there are two passages that have a direct bearing on the question then being debated. The first is in Book II, Ch. 22, 3. Here St. the father proves that Christ, according to the Gospels, visited Jerusalem for three years in a row on Easter, that is, he spent three Easters here. On the third Passover - as Irenaeus tells, expounding the Gospel - the Lord, having raised Lazarus, went to the city of Ephraim “and from here, as it is written, six days before the feast of Passover he came to Bethany (John 11, 54; 12, 1), and from Bethany he came to Jerusalem, tasted the Passover and suffered the next day (et de Bethania ascendens in Hierosolymam, et manducans pascha, et sequienti die passus)". 1151 The second place is in IV, 10.1 and reads like this: “It is impossible to enumerate the cases in which Moses represents the Son of God (a Moyse ostenditur Filius Dei). He also knew the day of His suffering (diem passionis) and figuratively predicted Him under the name of Easter (sed figuratim praenuntiavit eum, pascha nominans); and on this very holiday (in eadem ipsa), predicted by Moses so long ago, the Lord suffered while celebrating the Passover (passus est Dominus, adimplens pascha). And not only did Moses indicate the day, but also the place, the limit of time, and the meaning of sunset, saying: “You cannot slay the Passover lamb in any other of your cities that the Lord God gives you, except the place that the Lord your God chooses to call on His name; you must slay the lamb in the evening at sunset" (Gen. 49:10-12)." 1152 The expression of the last section that Christ suffered “on this very feast” (in eadem ipsa), as well as the reference and quotation from the book of Genesis, undoubtedly say that St. the father understands the day of the suffering and death of Christ as the 14th of Nisan, when it was in the evening, at sunset, that the Jews slaughtered the Passover lamb. In this case, Irenaeus is an opponent of Melito and his associates and joins the point of view of Apollinaris, Clement and Hippolytus. The basis of his calculation here, like those of those, undoubtedly lay, first of all, in the Gospel of John, from the point of view of which he considered all the events of the last days of the Lord’s life, for only there it is directly stated that the suffering of Christ took place on the day of the Jewish Passover (John 18:28). In agreement with Apollinaris and others, Irenaeus also determines the reason for such a coincidence of the day of the Lord’s suffering and the lawful Easter. The Passover Lamb, according to him, was a type, a prototype of Christ, slain for the sins of the world. The Lord is the antitype, the fulfillment of this prophetic type. That's why St. says. father, that Moses “figuratively (figuratim) predicted Him (Christ) under the name of Passover” and, fulfilling this prediction, “the Lord suffered, fulfilling the Passover (passus est Dominus, adimplens pascha).” Christ suffered, therefore, on Nisan 14 precisely because He Himself became “the living Sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” instead of the lawful Passover lamb. This day of the Lord's passion, the 14th of Nisan, however, judging from the first passage, was, according to Irenaeus, “the next day” (sequienti die passus) in relation to the time when Christ celebrated the Passover supper. Thus, in agreement with Apollinaris and others, St. Father attributed the time of the latter, in contrast to the Asia Minor, not to the 14th, but to the 13th of Nisan, the eve of the Jewish Passover. But unlike Hippolytus, who believed that Christ did not eat the legal Passover at all, 1153 Irenaeus apparently claims that the Savior ate the legal Jewish Passover on the 13th of Nisan, and not only celebrated the Eucharist. This is clear from the fact that the word “Easter” appears without any additional or explanatory definitions. This means that he understood it in its usual meaning. 1154 And since the Gospel of John does not know about the legal Easter, then, obviously, St. the father, accepting it, had in mind mainly the narrative of the weather forecasters, especially Matthew (26:17–30), i.e., in other words, in this regard, he aligned himself in this regard with the argumentation and views of the Asia Minor people, who claimed that Christ celebrated the legal Passover, and based their practice on imitation of precisely this action of Him. The significant difference between Irenaeus and them, while agreeing on a particular point, which made him generally an opponent of the Asia Minor people, was that the celebration of the legal Passover by Christ, according to him, fell not on the 14th, but on the 13th of Nisan only. Thus, St. the father, recognizing with Matthew that the Lord celebrated the legal Jewish Passover and at the same time asserting with John that He suffered on the 14th of Nisan, showed the experience of combining and harmonizing the narratives of these two evangelists, which often seemed impossible in the era of disputes of the 60s. Obviously, Irenaeus believed that Christ celebrated the legal Jewish Passover not at the appointed time, but a day earlier. 1155 Reasonings of St. father in IV, 10.1 Contra haereses, completely consistent in thought with the fragments of Apollinaris, Clement and Hippolytus, indicate that he was probably well acquainted with the literature on the Easter issue in the 60s. While speaking out for Roman practice, Irenaeus, however, does not show slavish consistency with the named fathers. He does not treat the Asia Minor point of view as harshly as is seen among them when they (Hippolytus) do not want, contrary to the Asia Minor people, to even admit the thought of Christ celebrating the legal Passover. By accepting it, he thus becomes in a middle position between both parties, although, of course, his final conclusions are not on the side of the Asia Minor people. But at the same time it is clear that his point of view could be more murderous in relation to the latter. For with it a strong argument was taken away from them that their opponents were allegedly not on the basis of the Gospel, in any case, they contradict the Gospel of Matthew, for the latter clearly speaks of the legal Easter, which the defenders of Roman practice denied; They, the Asia Minor people, on the contrary, completely agree with the Gospel (κατὰ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον - in Polycrates). 1156 With the Irenaean point of view, they could no longer say about themselves: “We should obey God more than people,” 1157 - for the gospel narratives were not entirely on their side. From what has been said, it is clear that if we accept as a fact that in 154–155 St. Irenaeus adhered to the practice of Asia Minor, then regarding 185 and subsequent years (the time of writing Contra haereses) we will have to note a change in his views. He resolutely and undoubtedly adheres to Roman custom. All reasoning on this matter makes it clear, however, that such a change occurred not only because he moved from Asia Minor, but quite deliberately. Giving reasons in favor of his views, which also differ from those of his like-minded people, he testifies that his views are the fruit of independent thinking; that he only changed the old custom when he was convinced that Roman practice and point of view were more consistent with the Gospel and generally more correct than the Asia Minor one. Perhaps, however, the fruits of his visit to Rome were already revealed here, where he became acquainted with the local custom and could compare it with others. The Easter disputes reached particular strength, however, in 190–192. 1158 Currently, the Easter issue has affected almost all the main Churches. V.V. Bolotov points out as the reason for their emergence the fact that in 189 there was a particularly great difference in determining the day of Easter celebration in different countries. Precisely, according to his calculations, it was celebrated in Alexandria on April 20, in Rome on March 30, and in Asia Minor on the night of March 19-20. 1159 Such a difference could be discovered through the Easter messages common at that time between the Churches; or maybe through a notification letter about his installation as the new bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius. 1160 But it is also very likely that in Rome there was a special reason for initiating these disputes. It may very well be that at this very time Vlast came there, 1161 adhering to the practice of Asia Minor. It is possible that he advocated for it in Rome; maybe he even celebrated Easter not on March 30, like all local Christians, but on the night of 19 to 20. Maybe he also had accomplices. The result is a situation that is quite tempting for non-believers: everyone is Christian, but the main holiday is celebrated at different times. It is even possible that while Vlast and his supporters joyfully celebrated the solemn holiday on March 19–20, Roman Christians were still fasting. This could have prompted Victor to finally resolve the Easter issue and eliminate the difference. 1162 A significant role in this was probably played by the papist tendency of Victor, who wanted to subjugate the Churches of Asia Minor (and perhaps others) to his power. The following facts already speak about it: he, as we will see below, “demands” the bishops to convene councils and threatens Polycrates; without the knowledge of others, he excommunicates the Asian Churches that are not subordinate to him, etc. In addition, the bishops “censure” Victor, although they agreed with him on the Easter issue. Obviously, they also saw in his actions something outstanding from the ordinary. 1163 The Pope sent threatening 1164 letters to all Churches, demanding that they convene councils 1165 and join the Roman practice of celebrating Easter on Sunday and ending fasting at the same time. 1166 Concerning these letters, indeed, councils were convened in many Churches. Most of them (Palestinian Churches, Roman, Pontic, Osroine) agreed on Roman practice, 1167 recognizing it as more correct, which they expressed in their epistles. They were also joined by a council of bishops of the Gallic dioceses chaired by Irenaeus in 1168 (they also expressed agreement with Roman practice). 1169 Only representatives of the Asia Minor Churches did not accept it. Having gathered at the council in Ephesus in 1170, they decided to celebrate Easter and end the fast as before on Nisan 14, and assigned a response to Victor’s letter to the chairman of the council in 1171, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus. 1172 The latter wrote and sent a reply letter to the pope, where, referring to the apostles Philip and John, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, Sagaris, Meliton and other persons, defends the practice of Asia Minor. 1173 In response to this message, Victor declared the brethren of the Asia Minor Churches to be “completely deprived of communion” and “wanted to cut off the dioceses of all Asia from unity with the neighboring Churches as having different views.” 1174 But some bishops strongly disapproved of him for this and advised him to better “take care of peace, unity and love with his neighbors.” 1175 Irenaeus stood out most of all among these. He wrote on behalf of the “Gallic brethren subordinate to him” that remarkable message to Victor in many respects, an excerpt from which we have already given in full when presenting the history of the dispute in 154–155. 1176 Here, first of all, speaking out on the Easter issue, he declares himself a complete supporter of Roman practice and considers it more correct to “celebrate the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord on Sunday.” He then states that the difference between the Churches concerns not only the day of Easter itself and the time of termination of the pre-holiday fast, but also the beginning, or more precisely, the duration of this fast. 1177 However, this difference in both, according to Irenaeus, is not dogmatic; celebrating Easter and fasting before it is only a matter of custom (συνήθεια – ἔθος), but not “rules of faith” (κανών τῆς πίστεως). Through it (the difference), not only is the unity of faith not destroyed, but even affirmed. This is how the previous presbyters, the guardians of the apostolic tradition, looked at this question: the Roman popes and Polycarp of Smyrna, who reasoned with Anicetus on this matter. But if this is just a custom, then there is no reason to excommunicate entire Churches from communion just for the sake of it. Therefore, Irenaeus condemns 1178 Victor for his behavior towards the Churches of Asia Minor and advises him to “take better care of peace, unity and love with his neighbors.” 1179 On the occasion of the Easter dispute, St. the father, as Eusebius reports, “had correspondence not only with Victor, but also with various, very many primates of the Churches.” 1180 None of these messages, unfortunately, have survived in their entirety. With high probability, one can only assume that fragments from Harvey refer to this particular correspondence: a) Syriac - from a letter of Irenaeus to a certain Alexandrian, very possibly - to the Alexandrian bishop himself, “about the Feast of the Resurrection, to celebrate it on the first day of the week” 1181 and b) Armenian - with the inscription: “from Saint Irenaeus the Bishop - about the Resurrection of the Lord.” 1182 The Responsiones ad quaestiones ad orthodoxos sets out Irenaeus’s view of kneeling on the Lord’s Day and Pentecost, and it is said that this idea was taken from his work “On Easter.” 1183 But since we do not know anything about such a work from other sources, it is quite possible to assume that the author of the Responsiones also dealt with one of the indicated letters of St. father. Perhaps excerpts from them are also fragments placed in Min’s works under the numbers: X, XII, XXXVI. 1184 The content of all of them, with the exception of the inscription of an excerpt from a letter to the Alexandrian, does not, however, reveal anything interesting in relation to the Easter question itself. Only from the Responsiones can one think that St. Irenaeus, in one of his letters, said that on Easter, as well as on Pentecost and generally on Sundays, one should not bend the knee for the sake of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. 1185 But this has little to do with the essence of the Easter question. Judging by the inscription of the letter to the Alexandrian, there is reason to assume that in all his letters on this matter, St. the father defended the generally accepted practice, the same as the Roman one. It is possible that at the same time, as in his letter to Victor, he also expressed a true view of the Easter issue as purely a ritual one, and convinced his fellow bishops not to make schisms because of it, but to care about the peace of the Churches, unity and love for neighbors. It is very likely that Irenaeus touches on the same issue in his letter to Vlast “On the Schism” (Περὶ σχίσματος). 1186 Judging by the inscription and the course of speech of Eusebius when mentioning this work, 1187 it can be assumed that St. the father, having learned about Vlast’s attempts to introduce Asia Minor practices in Rome in the celebration of Easter, convinces him to stop activities harmful to the peace of the Churches and not to sow discord. 1188 Irenaeus' participation in the Easter issue was thus quite large. It was expressed, on the one hand, in the convening and chairmanship of the Lyon Council, and on the other, in literary correspondence with Victor, the primates of other Churches, and also, probably, with Vlast. Consideration of this participation outlines his personality and activities in quite vivid terms. The Holy Father stands before us as an ecumenical, pan-church figure. Obviously, he held the view that the bishop is responsible not only for his flock, but also for the entire Church, that he must take care of all Christians, no matter where they live. That is why Irenaeus convenes a council, despite the harsh, commanding tone of Victor’s letter, and carries out a resolution at it that is completely consistent with Roman practice. He knows what types of fasting exist in which Church, he knows the past history of the Churches (of the Roman popes, for example). He also had his own views on the needs and relationships of individual parts of the universal Church. He was an ardent supporter of peace and unity of all Churches. The basis of this unity, according to him, should be the unity of faith (ἡ ὁμόνοια τῆς πίστεως) and dogmas. This one is a must. Otherwise, freedom of self-development can be provided. Rituals, customs, and governance can be different and independent. That's why St. the father resolutely opposes the primate of that Church, which wanted to forcibly impose its custom on others, as if it were a dogma of faith, and for his sake destroyed the general church connection and peace, excommunicating the Christians of the Asia Minor dioceses from communion. In the name of the freedom of individual Churches, he so decisively protested against Victor when he decided to bring about their unity in the sense of subordination to the supremacy of the pope and began to show papist tendencies, threatening his opponents, depriving them of communication and demanding the convening of councils, as if he had the right to demand and authoritatively dispose. As an all-church, ecumenical leader, Irenaeus understood the consequences of such a policy. Therefore, by the very tone of the letter, he makes it clear to Victor that he (Irenaeus) does not obey him, considers his orders disastrous and does not recognize his right to such orders. Recommends that he care about the peace of the Churches and love for his neighbors, and not about subordinating them to his will. He even blames dad for such an attempt to rule. It is not known exactly how the disputes of 190–192 ended. Until the last quarter of the last century, there was a common view that they found resolution only at the First Ecumenical Council. But in 1880, Duchesne proved 1189 that this council was dealing not with the Quartodecimanes, but with the Protopaschites, who celebrated Easter on Sunday in the same way as the Romans, only they kept the same month as the Jews - which is why it sometimes turned out that their Easter fell before the vernal equinox. The quartodecimani in the proper sense, as they manifested themselves in the 2nd century, were apparently not discussed at all at the council. Obviously, by the beginning of the 4th century. the Quartodeciman practice had already been completely abandoned. One might think that the reproachful and conciliatory letters of Irenaeus and other bishops influenced Victor. He left the Asia Minor Churches alone. Left to their own devices and seeing themselves in the minority, the latter probably continued to adhere to their custom for some time. And then they gradually switched to the Roman side. In any case, probably already in the 3rd century. 1190 and, undoubtedly, in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Quartodecimans existed in the Church only as a separate party. 1191 After the Council of Ephesus in 431, when there was talk of the Lydian Pentecostals, history knows nothing about them at all. 1192 7. The fight against the heresy of Florinus By the time of the Easter disputes 190–192. The last, decisive speech of St. Irenea versus Florinus. Until 1912, the sources of information about this heretic were almost exclusively: a) messages from Eusebius, who speaks about him twice, naming Vlast along with him; 1193 b) two passages from the lost works of Irenaeus “Περὶ μοναρχίας” and “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος”, also preserved in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History”, 1194 and c) a Syriac fragment from a letter to St. father to Pope Victor, found and published by Harvey. 1195 Judging by them, Florin in his youth lived at the royal court and occupied a high position. 1196 Having met Polycarp in Smyrna, he listened to him together with Irenaeus. 1197 * Then he entered the Roman clergy and was ordained to the rank of presbyter. 1198 It is impossible to accurately determine the time of his falling away from the Church. But taking into account that Irenaeus does not mention him in his large work against the Gnostics, one can think that in the 80s. II century (Contra haereses written around 185) the heresy of Florinus was not yet firmly established. In this case, its emergence can hardly be taken beyond the earlier beginning of the bishopric of St. Irenea (177–178). It is much more difficult to restore the essence of Florinus’ teaching from the above-mentioned sources. However, its general character is already clear here. St. Irenaeus defines the error of Florinus as one that concerns the teachings (τὰ δόγματα) of the church, 1199 and directly equates him with heretics. 1200 The names of the epistles of St. father against him - "Περὶ μοναρχίας ἤ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἰναι τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν" and “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος” – indicate that he – more particularly – belonged to the Gnostics, for among the latter the doctrine of the “eight” was constantly encountered; in the same way, it was they who, most likely, could deny the divine autocracy, replacing the one God with the pleroma of the eons. However, it is impossible to identify Florinus’s views (especially at the beginning of his fall from the Church) with the early Gnostic systems. His teaching was unique, new compared to those. Irenaeus says that the heretics who lived before him did not dare to express his views (and the holy father knew the Gnostics very well). 1201 In the same way, Eusebius assimilates a touch of novelty to them. 1202 Speaking about “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος”, the church historian notes that this work was written by Irenaeus, when Florinus had already fallen into the heresy of Valentinus. 1203 His inclination towards Valentinianism at this time (“Περὶ ὀγδοάδος” and the letter to Victor about Florinus were probably written simultaneously, in the 90s of the 2nd century) is also evidenced by the inscription of the Syriac fragment. 1204 Brief data from Eusebius and Irenaeus have recently found confirmation and are significantly supplemented by a message about Florin in the “General History” of the Arab writer Agapius (Mahbub), Bishop of Hierapolis - Menbij. 1205 This message is completely independent of Eusebius, and there is no reason to suspect its authenticity. 1206 Like Eusebius, Agapius first briefly speaks of Florinus as a Roman presbyter, who was later deposed, fell into heresy and acquired disciples. 1207 His teaching is presented much more fully. Florinus, according to Agapius, taught that there are three gods closely related to each other. One of them, the Father, is not subject to anyone; the second - His Son - is subordinate and honors the first; the third is subordinate to the second and is His son. All of them created the world, first the spiritual world (eine feine Substanz), and then man. For the latter they also created paradise, a special place located in the middle between heaven and earth; decorated it with luminaries and grew various fruit trees. A man lived here. But one of the angels was jealous of him and, together with others, without the permission of the gods, descended into heaven, began to attack the man and expelled him from here. After this, people multiplied greatly. However, they could not return paradise back. When the gods noticed this, they began to send special messengers to induce the angel (ihn) to return to his place, and to return people to paradise. But the angel did not want to do this. Then the gods became angry with the angel and his comrades, and the third god took upon himself the task of saving people. He took the outer form of a man, fought with the angels, defeated them, expelled them from paradise and returned the first man there. To this Agapius adds that Florin also denied the resurrection of the dead and said other “godless things.” 1208 His teaching is presented by the Arab historian, undoubtedly in an abbreviated form and presented in paraphrase. And since Agapius lived in the 10th century, 1209, when Gnosticism was no longer a living phenomenon, it is quite possible that not all shades of the material he had were conveyed to him exactly. However, the Gnostic character and essence of Florinus’s views are sufficiently evident. The doctrine of the three gods with their mutual relationship of fatherhood-sonship and the gradual, gradational subordination of one to the other cannot in any case be recognized as ecclesiastical and has a parallel in the system of the Gnostic Valentinus, 1210 where the self-existent, perfect First Father (Προ πάῖωρ), then born from him, the “Mind”, who bears also the names "Μονογενής", "Πατήρ", and the third aeon, "Λόγος", born from the second. 1211 Of each of the last two gods, Florinus says that he “knows” the one above him (anerkennt). This also finds a complete analogy to itself in the Gnostic teaching about knowledge as the main moment of the inner life of the Divine and the salvation of people. 1212 As in Valentine, so here, the second god, as the closer one, obviously knows the first most fully, perhaps to a degree adequate to his essence. 1213 After presenting the doctrine of the gods, Agapius speaks about creation. However, the divine pleroma, apparently, in Florinus, as we will see below, was not limited to these three. It is very likely that angels and humans also belonged to it. The heretic's idea of ​​the world is quite original. Between heaven and earth there is a “middle place” - a paradise decorated with luminaries and planted with fruit trees. A corresponding analogy for it can be found in Valentinus’s teaching about τόπος τῆς μεσότητος the heavenly habitat of Achamoth and the souls of righteous people, lying above the seven heavens. 1214 In accordance with this, by the “heaven” of Florin, undoubtedly, one cannot understand our astral, visible vault. Extended above the “middle place” with its planets, is it not the sphere of habitation of the higher eons, and perhaps the pleroma itself? In the same way, the “earth”, uninhabited before the expulsion of man from paradise and, apparently, even devoid of any vegetation (fruit trees of various varieties were - perhaps only? - in paradise), located below the “middle place”, is not Florinus what Valentinus calls canoma, emptiness? Isn't this the general name for passive matter? 1215 Among Florin's creations, the first place is occupied by “subtle beings” (eine feine Substanz). This is probably the same as angels. In the future, the active ones are Satan and his comrades. Judging by the terminology of Agapius, they live above the “middle place,” for in order to get to it they have to descend (stieg herab). In addition, in order to expel them from paradise, the third god himself was forced to fight with them (bekämpfen). It is obvious, therefore, that they were beings of the highest order and lived, perhaps, where the three gods lived. Are they not also members of the pleroma, fallen zones, even if they are created? This is probable; since in general the zones in Gnostic systems are very similar to the angels of church teaching. 1216 It is here, in the pleroma, that is why evil arose. His guide in relation to man until the coming of the third god is Satan in Florinus, apparently similar to the God of the Old Testament in Marcion 1217 and belonging to the highest members of the pleroma. The anthropological teaching of the heretic distinguishes between the “first man” (Erst Mensch) and the human race (Geschlecht), people in the usual sense of the word. The “first man” occupies an exceptional position with him. True, it was created by God. But at the same time, a particularly elevated “middle place,” interplanetary space, is intended for its habitat—and even then only temporarily (zeitweilig). Obviously, by his essence and origin he should have occupied the highest place. Satan, in order to expel him from paradise, was also forced to wage a long and stubborn struggle with him. The first man remains alive, apparently, until the very coming of the third god, for it is the latter who returns him to the paradise that was taken from him. It is quite possible that in Florinus’s view man, like Satan, originally belonged to the first ranks of the divine pleroma and was one of the highest eons. In this case, his anthropological teaching in this part is similar to that of Valentinus, since the latter distinguishes man, a member of the first eight, the male element of the fourth syzygy of the aeons, 1218 from people in the ordinary sense, created by the Demiurge. 1219 The first man was, according to Florin, expelled from paradise. His habitat, obviously, was now the earth. But if the latter, perhaps, is equal to the kenoma of Valentina, then the very removal of man is not something similar to what happened to the Ἐνθύμησις of Valentine, thrown by the Limit from the pleroma into the kenoma? 1220 The incarnation of the third god, just like that of Valentinus 1221 and other Gnostics, is presented docetically by Florinus. But, unlike Valentin, “salvation,” according to him, does not consist in the communication of true knowledge (this is kept silent), but, apparently, only in returning to paradise. As can be seen from what is presented, Florinus’s teaching has much in common, or more precisely, it is similar to the early system of Valentinus. However, there is a very significant difference between them. Thus, Florinus lacks the feminine eons characteristic of Valentinus; no, therefore, and sygisius; the view on the essence of saving people is different. There is also no complete eight of the higher aeons, which is a very noticeable feature of the Valentinian gnosis. At the same time, some things were taken from the teachings of Marcion, Saturninus and others. Florin's system is much simpler than Valentin's and closer to church teaching. In view of this, we must recognize it as Gnostic in its basis and essence, Valentinian in part in its generic characteristics, but somewhat new, different and independent 1222 in comparison with the early systems of the Gnostics in general and Valentinus himself in particular. 1223 Unfortunately, however, it is still impossible to find out all its details even now, with the message of Agapius, and the question of Florinus cannot be considered finally and in all parts resolved. 1224 Of the representatives of church self-consciousness, apparently one of the saints objected and refuted this heretic. Irenaeus. According to Eusebius, in 1225 he wrote two works against him. The first of them is entitled “Περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ε ἶ ναι τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν". It was probably written in the 80s. II century. 1226 Having mentioned him, the church historian notes that “Florinus seems (ἐδόκει) to defend this opinion (that God is the author of evil).” 1227 The complete form of this message, as we have already said, has not been preserved. Therefore, to determine the content and nature of Florinus’ teaching at this time, only the messages of Eusebius remain. His standing ἐδόκει 1228, however, shows that he himself does not know for sure whether Florin defended or did not defend the opinion attributed to him; He has not read the heretic’s own words and judges him only by the work of Irenaeus. This means that in relation to the true teaching of Florinus, we find ourselves in the same position with him. But he was better off than us in that he had before him the complete epistle of Irenaeus, while only a fragment from it, of little significance in this case, has survived to us. 1229 This fact is quite important. Taking this into account, the following observations can be made on the basis of Eusebius' message. Judging by the words of the historian, as well as by the very title of the work, it is obvious that the question of whether God is the author of evil was the main subject of speech in Περὶ μοναρχίας. And the member (τὸν) standing next to θεὸν (in the title) shows that this word defines and by it means God in the proper sense, as His church teaching represented Him, or the first God somewhat corresponding to it, Προπάτωρ in the Florinus system, but not any other lower member of the pleroma. 1230 On the other hand, the indecisive Eusebius ἐδόκει says that Irenaeus in his work did not directly object and did not accuse Florinus of the opinion attributed to him by Eusebius. As a result of these two provisions, we come to this conclusion. If, constantly speaking on the issue of God as the author of evil, St. the father still does not directly denounce Florin, which means he could not denounce him. They were obviously in complete agreement on this point; and Florinus probably firmly held, contrary to the guess of Eusebius, the Orthodox teaching that God in the proper sense (ὁ Θεός) is not and cannot be the author of evil. But there is no doubt that the work Περὶ μοναρχίας was written against this heretic (ἐξ ἐναντίας). 1231 What then did St. accuse him of? father? Judging by the title, Irenaeus’s reasoning about God as the author of evil was in connection with the doctrine of the unity of command of the Divine, the divine monarchy. One might think that while he agreed with Irenaeus and the general church teaching that God cannot be considered the author of evil, Florinus distorted the teaching about God in His essence, and Irenaeus directly objected and denounced him precisely at this point. Florinus's views were undoubtedly Gnostic even now. This is indicated by the comparison of him with heretics, which is used by St. father. 1232 On the other hand, the expression of the same passage that a doctrine similar to it had not yet been professed by the Gnostics who lived before it, 1233 says that it was new, original, different from similar systems. But these same features, as we have seen, characterize the resolution of essentially the same questions about God in His being, and the origin of evil in the world is almost exclusively devoted to the data reported by Agapius. One might therefore think that in Περὶ μοναρχίας St. Irenaeus refutes the teaching of Florinus in the form in which it is presented by the Arab historian. According to the conclusions obtained, the train of thought of the new heretic around the time of writing Περὶ μοναρχίας can be presented approximately in this form. His starting point, like that of most Gnostics, was obviously the question of the origin of evil in the world. He was convinced that God is in the proper sense (ὁ Θεός) good. To consider Him evil or to call Him the author of evil means to deny His main property, without which He cannot even be God. Obviously, evil happened and exists apart from Him. But how? Church teaching presented the matter in such a way that the culprit of evil on earth was a fallen angel, initially a good, perfect creation of God, that is, a being of an incomparably lower order. However, this idea apparently did not satisfy Florin. Evil is too strong in the world, and its culprit must therefore be a higher being, more or less equal to God (ὁ Θεός). In addition, in church teaching, it might seem to him that the primary culprit of evil is still God, who created an angel capable of falling. To replace the church, Florinus creates his own teaching, according to which Satan, a member of the divine pleroma, God (θεός - without a member) in the improper sense, appears to be the culprit of evil; a being, although a created one, is, in its strength and belonging to the pleroma, almost equal to God (ὁ Θεός) in the proper sense. And in order to further smooth out the difference between Satan and God, he changes the church teaching about God, putting three gods instead of one, with a gradual decrease in the intensity of divine life in the lowest of them. It turns out a descending gradation, at the end of which stands Satan, bound and almost equal in size to the other members of the pleroma. Instead of one God, Florin thus has three deities; and instead of unity of command in the management of the good God of the world, there is a plurality of gods, good and evil, Satan. 1234 Judging by the passage preserved by Eusebius, 1235 Irenaeus in his letter directly accuses Florinus of heresy; and comparing his teaching with earlier systems, he comes to the conclusion that he surpassed all heretics. His teaching is completely different from that of the Church and plunges his followers into the greatest wickedness; Nothing like this was ever conveyed by the elders, the apostolic disciples. His views, even from a universal human point of view, cannot be considered sound and correct. As the title suggests, St. The father also criticized particular points in Florinus’s teaching. He refutes his teaching about three gods and the government of the world (gods † Satan), contrasting the Orthodox teaching about the unity of command of the Divine in this matter. He also probably examines the course of the heretic’s evidence and explains to what conclusions, following the correct logical path, the idea that God is not the author of evil leads. Considering Florin a heretic, Irenaeus, however, does not yet despair of the possibility of returning him to the bosom of the Church. The latter was, apparently, even the purpose of the letter. His tone is soft; St. the father - in his own expression - speaks “condescendingly” πεφεισμένως. He tries to influence Florin by referring to the youth they spent together, and especially to Polycarp, their common teacher. “I can testify before the face of God,” says Irenaeus, “that if this blessed and apostolic elder (Polycarp) had heard something like this (Florinus’s heresy), he would have exclaimed and, blocking his ears, as usual said: “Good God, until what time have You preserved me, that I must endure this too.” Then he would leave the place where, sitting or standing, he listened to such speeches.” 1236 However, the hopes of St. father's efforts turned out to be futile. Florin not only did not return to the Church and did not cease to be a Gnostic, but, on the contrary, there was even a significant change for the worse in his views. Previously, his teaching still contained some traces of the church and was distinguished by simplicity and originality. Now he changed it towards even greater agreement with the views of Valentin, almost completely joining the latter’s system. 1237 So, judging by the title of the second work against him, St. Irenaeus, instead of four (three gods † Satan) or five (including the first man) highest members of the divine pleroma, as he previously taught, now all eight appear in his system, just like Valentinus himself. 1238 It is very possible that at the same time he had female eons and syzygies. Florin outlined his new views in several books. 1239 His works found considerable distribution. By the way, they also appeared in Gaul. 1240 Now the matter concerned not only the heretic, but also Irenaeus’ own flock, which was in danger of being carried away by a new form of Gnosticism. Therefore St. the father opposes Florin a second time and more decisively. Irenaeus writes to him the message “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος”, in which he obviously refutes his new views and, in particular, the doctrine of the eight divine eons. Not content with this, St. Father probably also sends a letter to Father Victor at the same time. In it, reproaching the pope, he demands that he take action against Florinus himself and the distribution of his books harmful to the Church. 1241 Irenaeus' message obviously again did not have the desired effect on Florinus. Therefore, the pope, according to the wishes of St. father, deprived the heretic of his holy dignity. 1242 This probably happened in 190–19 There is no further information about Florin. However, taking into account his advanced age, it can be assumed that he did not live long after his defrocking and died in the 90s of the 2nd century. Philastrius knows the followers of Florin (Floriani), characterizing them as immoral people. 1243 They are also mentioned by Augustine, 1244 Predestinate 1245 and Theodoret, 1246 without, however, reporting positive and accurate information about this heresy. Together with Florinus, in both places of the “Ecclesiastical History” we cited, Eusebius mentions Blastus as a Roman heretic contemporary with the first (V, 15; V, 20). Who this Vlast was and what exactly his teaching was, the historian does not say. In V, 15 he only notes that it was similar to the error of Florinus (παραπλησί ῳ πτώματι κατεσχημένος) 1247 But judging by the analogy with the latter, Eusebius was, in all likelihood, not directly familiar with either the views or writings of Vlast and received information about him only from the message of Irenaeus directed against him. And we have already seen in the example of Florinus that Eusebius in this case cannot be completely trusted. Therefore, his above judgment cannot have serious significance. And then we only have at our disposal to characterize Vlast the title of the work written by Irenaeus against him: Περὶ σχίσματος On the schism. It is completely inapplicable to the heresy of Florinus, since the Christian teaching (τὰ δόγματα) was distorted there. This title can best be explained in the sense that Vlast’s views were not so much heretical (like Florinus’s) as schismatic in nature and were directed against the prevailing church custom in Rome. But exactly what points did this split concern? Eusebius mentions, as we have already said, Florinus and Vlasta inseparably in both places. From this we can draw only one conclusion: that the last two were contemporaries. But Florin finally made up his mind and provoked a decisive polemic against himself from Irenaeus in 190–191. This means that Vlast also acted at the same time. Then, obviously, St. his father wrote his Περὶ σχίσματος against him. And in 190–192. There was a well-known Easter dispute, which also caused a split in the Church. One can therefore think that Vlast’s views, one way or another, related to this particular issue, or more precisely, to the established practice in Rome regarding the celebration of Easter. And if Irenaeus speaks of schism, then it is obvious that Vlast was an opponent of Roman custom, perhaps joining the Asia Minor point of view. 1248 These conclusions, in general, are confirmed by the message about the Authority of Pseudo-Tertullian’s book “Against Heresies,” which is earlier, undoubtedly independent of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” and no less authoritative in this case. 1249 Its author, having spoken about the heresy of the Catafrigians, immediately then says that Vlast also joined them, who secretly wanted to introduce Judaism; for he said that Passover should be celebrated no other way than on the 14th day of the month (Nisan), according to the Deuteronomy of Moses. 1250 From here, first of all, it is clear that Vlast, indeed, adhered to the so-called Quartodeciman practice in the celebration of Easter, timing the latter to the 14th of Nisan. This “Judaism,” 1251 judging by how much space it occupies in such a brief message, was obviously most characteristic of Vlast’s views. He obviously wanted to introduce the Asia Minor practice in the celebration of Easter (vult introducere) in Rome. However, his disagreement with the Roman Church was not limited to this point. According to Pseudo-Tertullian, he also adhered (accedens... to his Catathrygians) to the Montanistic views common in Phrygia. The latter is also confirmed by a writer of the 4th century. Patian of Barcelona, ​​directly classifying Vlast among the Asia Minor schismatics. 1252 From here, in turn, it is clear that Vlast was Greek by origin; and judging by the points of his divergence from the Church - Quartodecimanism and Montanism, the cradle of which was Asia Minor - he is very likely even an Asia Minor. This fully explains how Irenaeus met him and why he sent his letter to him. Obviously, St. Even when he was in Asia Minor, my father knew Vlast and, perhaps, was even on good terms with him. When and for what purpose Vlast arrived in Rome is unknown. Perhaps he was driven by an exceptional desire to spread his views among the Christians of the capital city, where, given the diverse composition of the population, it was always possible for any intelligent and convinced figure to find followers. One way or another, the matter was, but he really found supporters and even, according to Eusebius, quite numerous. 1253 His disciples, apparently adhering to the Quartodeciman practice in the celebration of Easter and, probably, also to Montanism, formed under his leadership, apparently, a whole society with a schismatic undertone, perhaps even formally separating from the Roman Church. 1254 Judging by the fact that news of this had already reached Gaul, which is relatively distant from the capital, and the Bishop of Lyons, a stranger to Rome, wrote a letter there, one can think that this schism was a rather important phenomenon, at least for the Roman Church. The first person to notice him was, apparently, Father Victor. It is quite possible that it was the Quartodeciman practice of Vlast and his followers that prompted the Bishop of Rome to once again raise the Easter issue. Thanks to her, perhaps, he sent out threatening letters to all the Churches demanding to join the Roman practice in celebrating Easter and applied extremely strict measures towards Vlast’s like-minded people, the Asia Minor people, excommunicating them from communion with other Churches. 1255 St. Irenaeus, who took an active part in the Easter issue and wrote messages about it to many primates of the Churches, also decided to speak out against Vlast, sending him the already mentioned letter. Unfortunately, its contents are unknown to us, since only one title has survived from it to us, as we have already mentioned. But one might think that a zealous supporter of peace and unity of Churches and Christians, St. Irenaeus convinced Vlast and his followers not to cause a schism in the Roman Church over the issue of the time of celebrating Easter, and perhaps also touched upon Montanism, to which Vlast had an affinity. Whether sending this letter led to any positive results, we do not know for sure. But judging by the fact that Epiphanius and Philastrius, who wrote under the influence of Hippolytus’ “Syntagma,” as well as Pseudo-Tertullian, do not mention Authority, and Patian of Barcelona knows only him (without followers), we can conclude that this schism was not widespread and did not have longevity. And perhaps the present letter of St. played a significant role in this. Irenea. 9. Pastoral and preaching activities of St. Irenea Eusebius, listing the works of Irenaeus, calls, among other things, “The Book of Various Sermons (Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων)”, in which St. the father, according to him, mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called book of the Wisdom of Solomon, also citing some sayings from them. 1256 The word διαλέξεις in the language of a historian means what we call church sermons, that is, conversations or speeches delivered before a meeting of the people in special places and times designated for this purpose. 1257 Thus, in the message of Eusebius one can see an indication of the preaching activity of St. Irenea. The plural (διαλέξεων) and the title itself - “The Book of Various Sermons” - say that we are dealing with a collection that contains several such words. A διαφόρων probably highlights their diversity in content. What they concerned in particular, Eusebius does not determine. But one might think that, living in a city where the majority of the inhabitants were still pagans, Irenaeus, first of all, addressed them with missionary conversations. Confirmation of this can also be seen in 1258 in the preface to the first book of Contra haereses, where St. the father talks about his knowledge of the Celtic language. 1259 Obviously, he had to talk a lot and often explain himself in the local dialect, if his natural language, by his own remark, seemed to have deteriorated somewhat. Gregory of Tours in his “History of the Franks” also testifies to his activity in the missionary field. According to the latter, St. Father converted the entire city to Christianity within a short time. 1260 Of course, there is an exaggeration here. However, there is obviously a healthy grain at the root of this message. It is quite possible that Irenaeus’s preaching activity among the pagans was intense and brought quite rich fruits. As for the nature and content of his conversations with them, some idea of ​​this can be formed on the basis of the newly discovered “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” The present work of St. father is independent, was addressed to a specific person (Marcian) and, undoubtedly, was not included in the “Book of Miscellaneous Sermons.” 1261 But there is evidence to think that it was a type of catechumen word with which Irenaeus addressed the newly enlightened. 1262 If this is so, then, probably, other missionary teachings of St. were approximately compiled according to the same model. father. It can be assumed that he always started from some generally accepted truths that were acceptable even to a pagan. For example, at least from this position: every person consists of soul and body; for him it is necessary to preserve both in a good, normal state, characteristic of them by nature (Proof. Chapter 2). Then St. my father was already converting to Christianity. The pure life that is required of a person is possible only with faith in God. The true preaching about Him is given only by Christians. Having further mentioned the need for baptism, through which new members join the Church (Chapter 3), Irenaeus began to set out the main points of the “rule of faith” of the Christian faith. He spoke about God Himself, the Persons of the Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and Their relationships (Ch. 4-7). Then he conveyed briefly but clearly the story of the economy of our salvation. First - the Old Testament. God is the Creator, Manager and Provider of the world. He created angels, the material world and people, giving everyone certain laws of existence (Ch. 8–10). His primary attention was paid to man. The entire Old Testament is an indicator of the providential action of the Lord on people. This is especially evident in the history of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the kings of the Jews (the Holy Father briefly outlined the Old Testament history - Chapters 11-30). But God’s love was fully manifested in the descent of the Son of God to earth. Without conveying all the details of the Savior’s life, Irenaeus notes in the “Proof” only the general significance of His work, as the restoration of humanity to a primitive, sinless state. He talks about the incarnation of Christ, His suffering, the resurrection from the dead as a victory over death, and the granting of life and immortality to those who believe in Him (Ch. 31–42). Further, perhaps St. the father argued on the basis of the evidence of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament that this is how everything should be accomplished, as it was in reality in Christ (Ch. 42-97). To adhere to “the preaching of the truth and the way of life, which the prophets predicted, Christ fulfilled and the apostles passed on, and the Church entrusted to her children throughout the world” (Ch. 97), and Irenaeus urged, warning, however, against heretics who distort the teaching about God and Christ (Ch. 99–100). Thus, as was natural to be expected, Irenaeus’s sermons to unbelievers and converts were probably of a positive nature and represented a summary of the basic truths of Christianity adapted to the understanding of the listeners. Direct polemic with the Gnostics of St. the father hardly guided them, content with only general indications of the harm of heresy. One might think, however, that Irenaeus’ preaching activity was not limited to missionary conversations with pagans, but was also expressed in his teachings to Christians, whom St. the father probably affirmed the truths of faith and instructed to live according to the precepts of the Savior. The title of the collection we have already mentioned and especially the definition of Siocpopcov fully allows for such an assumption. But we are unable to judge the nature of such sermons due to the lack of data. In the catenas and in some Church Fathers there are preserved passages with the name Irenaeus, taken from unknown sources, but in content representing interpretations of one place or another of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings, Wisdom of Solomon, Gospels of Matthew, Luke, etc. 1263. Internal grounds do not give the right to deny their authenticity and belonging to St. to my father. 1264 However, neither Eusebius nor anyone else says that Irenaeus wrote special commentaries on all the named books. In all likelihood, there were none. And all fragments of this kind, one might think, were borrowed from the mentioned collection of sermons. This assumption is somewhat confirmed by Eusebius when he says that this collection mentions, among other things, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon. 1265 Obviously, Irenaeus explained the Holy Scriptures in his sermons to the people. However, it is hardly possible to go further than simply stating a fact. It is impossible to decide whether St. father entire chapters or just individual texts, along with the general flow of speech. The latter is more likely. It would also be risky to draw conclusions on the basis of the surviving fragments about the method that Irenaeus used: whether it was literal-historical or allegorical. St. spoke the father also probably preached sermons of a polemical nature, aimed, as we have already noted, 1266 at refuting the Gnostics and defending the points of Christian teaching that they distorted. 1267 Irenaeus's great work provides some information about the internal life of the Christian Church of his time. Thus, in II, 32, 4 Contra haereses he says: “His (Christ’s) true disciples, receiving grace from Him, perform (miracles) in His name for the benefit of other people, in accordance with how each of them received a gift from Him. For some truly and undoubtedly cast out demons, so that those who are freed from evil spirits often become believers (in Christ) and turn to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of the future, visions and prophetic speeches. Others heal the sick through the laying on of hands and restore them to health. Even, as I have already said, the dead also rose and stayed with us (οὐν ἡμῖν) for quite a few years.” 1268 Likewise in V, 6.1 St. the father notes: “In the same way, we heard many brothers in the Church who had prophetic gifts and through the Spirit spoke in different languages, and for the common benefit brought out the hidden (secrets) of people, and explained the mysteries of God.” 1269 The present form of the verbs in application to the bearers of grace-filled gifts (“perform miracles,” “cast out demons,” “heal the sick” - II, 32, 4) and the expressions: “we heard” (V, 6, 1), the resurrected “stayed with us for quite a few years” (II, 32, 4) - apparently indicate that these phenomena were observed, among other things, in Lyon and, it seems, precisely in the era of episcopacy St. Irenaeus (Contra haereses appeared around 185–189). Part II, 31, 3 of this work probably also applies to Lyon Christians: “In the Church, compassion, mercy, firmness and truth are shown to help people not only freely and freely; but we ourselves use our property for the benefit of people, and very often the healed poor receive from us what they need.” 1270 The wealth of spiritual gifts testifies to the high spirit and purity of life of the members of the Church; II, 31 3 Contra haereses says that the Christians of Lyon fulfilled the Lord’s commandment to love their neighbors. One cannot, of course, attribute all this solely to the preaching of Irenaeus. Before him, Pofinus was a bishop here, and there were probably other preachers. But there is no doubt that the influence of St. father had a significant impact on the life and behavior of Lyon Christians. The last excerpt we cited makes it clear that he himself, obviously, was involved in charity work. Thus, his shepherding in Lyon was not limited to one sermon, but manifested itself, one might think, in different forms and brought good fruit. The Bollandists published the acts of martyrdom of: a) Ferreolis, a presbyter, and Ferucionis, a deacon; b) Felix (Felicis) presbyter and deacons Fortunati (Fortunati) and Achilles (Achillei). According to them, all the named persons were disciples of St. Irenaeus and were sent by him: the first two to Vesuntia (Vesuntionem) - present-day Besançon, the last three - to Valence, with a missionary purpose and, indeed, worked fruitfully there, sealing the sermon with martyrdom. 1271 Historical evidence confirming or supplementing this information has not been preserved either by Eusebius, or by Irenaeus, or by other modern Fathers of the Church. But Theodoret already says about Irenaeus that he enlightened the Celtic tribes. 1272 Of course, this expression exaggerates the reality; however, there is undoubtedly some truth in it. Hirschfeld, examining inscriptions preserved in Gaul, in 1273 found in Besançon a tombstone from the beginning of the 3rd century, placed over a woman, which reads: “[vi]rginiae Marius Vitalis conjunx centurio ( Δ ) leg(ionis) et Marius Nigidianus fil(ius) q(uestor) matri e longinquo adportatae et hic conditae, sex et triginta ann(os) vixit inculpata marito, obsequio raro, solo contenta marito.” 1274 According to Hirschfeld, the form of expressions: “hic condita”, “inculpata marito”, “solo contenta marito”, etc. shows that this woman was a Christian (although it is not known where she adopted Christianity). 1275 On this basis, the German scientist concludes that a Christian mission in Besançon during the time of Irenaeus and, in particular, an embassy there of Irenaeus’ students Ferreolus and Ferucius are very possible. In Besançon, before the time of Tilmont, there was a street called “Streets of Martyrs” (la rue des Martyrs). 1276 A mission to Valence is no less possible. The latter, according to the same Hirschfeld, was in constant relations with Lyon, as evidenced by the inscriptions that have been preserved there to this day over the coffins of the dead Lyons. There was obviously something like a Lyons colony here. 1277 In this case, it appears that Irenaeus spread and supported Christianity not only in Lyons and its environs, but also in other parts of Gaul where it did not yet exist; in a word, he cared, as they say now, about the external mission. 1278 It remains for us to mention that St. my father was not alone in his life and activities. Around him, strong in mind, knowledge of Holy Scripture and Church Tradition, a zealot for the covenant of Christ, an energetic fighter against heresies, was apparently grouped a circle of disciples, people who sympathized with him, were instructed by him and sometimes carried out his instructions. Among them were, first of all, the already mentioned presbyter Ferreol and deacon Ferucius, presbyter Felix and deacons Fortunatus and Achilles, 1279 who labored with honor in the missionary field and sealed their preaching with their martyrdom. Patriarch Photius in the “Library” calls Irenaeus (μαθητὴς Εἰρηναίου) a student as well as Hippolytus of Rome, noting at the same time that the latter wrote “Refutation of all heresies” based on the writings of St. father (ὁμιλοῦντος Εἰρηναίου). 1280 It is unknown where Photius borrowed this message from: no earlier evidence similar to it has survived. It is also impossible to positively resolve the question of how he himself understood his news, or more precisely, whether he recognized Hippolytus as a personal disciple of St. father or implied only his dependence in spirit. The first assumption seems more likely to us. 1281 Where did Hippolytus “learn” from Irenaeus? Modern researchers argue about the birthplace of Hippolytus. Some consider him an Asia Minor, others a Roman. 1282 There is no solid historical data representing the possibility of quite definitely leaning towards one of these opinions. 1283 But, apparently, the second is more fundamental. In this case, Hippolytus could have met Irenaeus in Rome, probably in 1284, during one of the latter’s visits to the capital of the world: either in 154–155, or, most likely, in 177–178 1285 Hippolytus was an educated man of his time and a very prolific church writer, everywhere defending Orthodox teaching against the excesses of representatives of various sects and successfully refuting heretics. His works, in general, are, of course, independent. 1286 But, undoubtedly, the influence of Irenaeus also greatly affected him. 1287 He even cites some passages from Contra haereses in their entirety (especially from Book I of the great work of the Holy Father). 1288 The epilogue of Martyrium's Polycarpi apparently counts one more among the disciples of Irenaeus. It was a certain Kai or Guy (Γάῖος), who accompanied (ουνεπολιτεύσατο) St. father, rewrote “Martyrdom” from the Irenaeus copy of 1289 and made selections from the books of Irenaeus, among other things, to compile the epilogue itself. 1290 As far as we know, the history of this time knows only one Caius, the one who in Rome under Pope Zephyrinus (199–217) had a dispute with the Montanist Proclus and wrote an essay in the form of a conversation to refute the latter. 1291 Eusebius calls him a church (ἐκκλησιαστικοί) man, characterizes him as a most learned man (λογιωτάτου ἀνδρός) 1292 and cites an excerpt from his “Conversation” that talks about the heretic Cyrinthus, and the latter is credited with compiling the Apocalypse with the name of the “great apostle” (probably John). 1293 In his “Conversation”, regarding the canonical books of the New Testament, Caius, according to Eusebius, recognizes as such from the epistles of St. Paul is only 13, excluding what is addressed to the Jews. 1294 Perhaps the composition “Chapter against Caius”, where Hippolytus of Rome defends the church Apocalypse, was also directed against this antimontanist. 1295 Whether the Kai of the epilogue is identical to the Kai of Eusebius is definitely not possible to decide. However, the identification of both does not bring much light. The circumstances of Kai's acquaintance with Irenaeus are completely unknown. We can only make assumptions. Judging by συνεπολιτεύσατο used in the epilogue, Kai accompanied St. somewhere. father. We know of only two trips by Irenaeus, both times to Rome (in 154–155 and 177–178). According to Eusebius, Kai subsequently lived, apparently, also in the capital (there his dispute with Proclus took place). It can therefore be assumed that he came here with Irenaeus; more likely, of course, on the latter’s second visit to Rome (177–178): for the first time St. the father himself was a student - a companion of Polycarp. Perhaps Kai's homeland was Gaul or Asia Minor, from where he moved to Lyon. 11. Martyrdom of St. Irenea About the life and work of St. Irenaeus after 192 no news was preserved either by Eusebius, or by Jerome, or by other more modern Fathers of the Church. They also do not have a story about the last days and death of St. father. The Greek-Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches honor him as a martyr. It is known from history that during the reigns of Commodus (180–193) and Septimius Severus (193–211) there were persecutions of Christians. True, the emperors themselves, especially the last one, were not hostile towards them, 1296 and the persecution was carried out, in fact, as can be seen from the writings of Tertullian, by the provincial authorities and the mob. 1297 However, this not only did not improve the situation of Christians, but, on the contrary, significantly worsened it. Their lives were often dependent on the arbitrariness of some official or the whim of the circus crowd, who often shouted: “Christianos ad leones!” Sometimes the sovereigns themselves, for one reason or another, issued prohibitive laws that could be directed against the confessors of Christ. Thus, around 200, a decree of the North appeared, which prohibited, under pain of severe punishment, the adoption of both the Jewish and Christian religions. 1298 At the same time, perhaps, an order was issued that charges against persons belonging to the “illegal colleges” should be examined by the prefect of Rome. 1299 Christians, if they wished, could always be brought under these prohibitive regulations; especially since the first was directed against the further spread of the teachings of the Lord, which the representatives of the Church could not, of course, refuse. The situation of Christians in the provinces was especially difficult. Apparently, persecutions in Europe, Asia and Africa around this time were directly dependent on these laws. Thus, in Alexandria in 202, among others, Leonidas, the father of Origen, the maiden Potamiena and others suffered. 1300 In Africa, around 203, there were also several martyrs - among them Perpetua, Felicity - whose acts have been preserved to this day. 1301 The persecution under the North was so severe that the writer of that time, Judas, speaking in his work about the 70 weeks of Daniel, quite confidently declared that the coming of the Antichrist was already close. 1302 The persecution probably also affected Gaul. In 1839, a tombstone stone slab with a Greek inscription on it was found in Autun (France, ancient Gaul). 1303 John Franz, in a pamphlet he published in 1841 (Christliches Denkmal von Autun), subjected the latter to a thorough analysis and came to the conclusion that it dates back to the time of Irenaeus of Lyons, no later. 1304 Its contents no less clearly indicate that the slab was not simply a tombstone over the grave of a Christian, but lay over the ashes of the Christian martyr Lectorius, whose memory was celebrated as a saint. 1305 From this we can conclude that in Autun during the time of Irenaeus there was persecution of Christians. But from the letter of the Lyon and Vienne churches it is not clear that the persecution of 177 extended to areas of Gaul other than Lyon and, perhaps, Vienna. Likewise, there is no evidence that Christians were persecuted in this country between 177 and 192. (date of Easter disputes). It remains to be assumed that the persecution into which Lectorius suffered martyrdom broke out after 192, that is, during the last years of Irenaeus’ life, already during the reign of Severus. But if it was in Autun, then an insignificant town, then it undoubtedly affected the metropolis of Christianity in Gaul - Lyon. Irenaeus was revered in Lyon, and indeed in Gaul in general, and was the most outstanding Christian. Therefore, his martyrdom is quite possible, and it was precisely in the years following 192. But was he a martyr? Jerome gives a positive answer to this question when, in his interpretation of Isaiah 64:4, he calls Irenaeus “vir apostolicus, episcopus Lugdunensis et Martyr.” 1306 This evidence is so clear that it would seem that no confirmation is required. But some researchers (Harnack, 1307 Bardengever, 1308 Dodvel 1309) deny any significance behind it. The basis for them is that in his “Catalogue of Church Writers” 1310 Jerome, giving a short biography of Irenaeus, is silent about his martyrdom. This means, as Dodvel concludes, 1311 in his interpretation of Isaiah, the original text is corrupted. However, the manuscripts and all editions convey the text as we wrote it. Therefore, there is no historical evidence for Dodwell’s conclusion; both works of Jerome have the same value, and if we deny the meaning behind the first evidence (in the interpretation of Isaiah) with Dodwell, then we will have to reject the meaning of the second, since they are contained in the same corrupted (from Dodwell’s point of view) manuscript. The testimony of one source with the silence of another, on the contrary, as Massuet rightly notes, 1312 can only speak for the reliability of the reported fact, since silence is not yet denial. And the fact that Jerome does not mention the martyrdom of Irenaeus in his catalog is completely understandable. If we analyze the biography of St. reported by him here. father, it turns out that he repeats in it what was said by Eusebius. The latter does not speak about the death of Irenaeus. On the other hand, Jerome had no need to mention the death of Irenaeus in the catalog, since his goal was to present here the biographies of St. fathers specifically as church writers (scriptorum ecclesiasticorum), and not just give a general description of their lives. The form of its expression when interpreted on Isaiah indicates that the title Martyr was common in application to Irenaeus in the time of Jerome (IV and first quarter of the 5th century). In view of this, the latter’s message has sufficient force. Gregory of Tours, a historian of the 6th century, fully confirms this when he speaks about St. father that he “reg martyrium finitus” (De gloria martyrum) 1313 or that (tyrannus) “beatum Irenäum diversis in sua carni-fex praesentia poenis affectum, Christo Domini per martyrium dedicavit” (Historia Francorum). 1314 The researchers mentioned above deny the significance of this evidence. They draw attention to the fact that in the Historia Francorum after Irenaeus, Vettius Epagathos and other 48 people are mentioned among the martyrs, who actually died in 177. Gregory’s message thus allowed a confusion of both chronological dates and the facts themselves. Both say that data of this kind cannot be reliable. 1315 However, as the author of the life of Irenaeus notes in the Acta Sanctorum, in the manuscript after the words about Irenaeus (before the expression Post hunc, etc.) there is an “*” symbol, which makes it clear that a rearrangement of sentences is allowed here. Obviously, the words placed in brackets should not appear at the end of the quotation, but before the speech about Irenaeus (Beatissimus Irenaus, etc.). 1316 Moreover, Gregory of Tours himself says that the descriptions of the sufferings of the martyrs were carefully preserved (fideliter) until his time; but on the other hand, he declares that he cannot indicate the names and number of confessors. The last expression would hardly have been used by him if he were dealing with non-authentic documents; it is enough to remember that according to a later legend the number of martyrs reaches 19,000. Obviously, the author of the “History of the Franks” had at hand, on the one hand, the message of the Lyon and Vienna churches about the persecution of 177, and on the other, a description of the martyrdom when Irenaeus died. And then, even if they allowed confusion, then, again, it was a confusion of dates and facts, and not a distortion of them. In any case, it is impossible to prove the latter. If we pay attention to the repetition in general form of the testimony about the martyrdom of Irenaeus in the work De gloria martyrum, which had a special purpose and content, then it will appear to us, at least in its essence (about the very fact of the martyrdom of Irenaeus) completely reliable. In addition, about the martyrdom of St. Father Tradition unanimously speaks: both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; and he must be taken into account. Tradition always lives in the Church. It may change somewhat in shape and become layered; but it cannot be assumed that the most essential fact was distorted in it, or - what is even stronger - that this fact never happened. 1317 All this taken together gives us the right to conclude that the martyrdom of Irenaeus is more than reliable. And we just have to decide what year it falls on. Four prefaces are attached to the publication of the lists of Lyons saints, which present information about four persecutions of Christians in Gaul in the age of Irenaeus. 1318 The first concerns 177, so it cannot be applied to this case. The second reports information about the persecution that took place in the 6th year of the reign of Septimius Severus, generally in 198. According to this news, the emperor, having arrived in Gaul, was supposed to enter into battle with the troops of a certain Albinus, a contender for the Roman throne. This Albinus gained universal respect in Gaul, especially among Christians. The North defeated him completely, took the city and ordered the extermination of its inhabitants, especially the adherents of Albin - Christians. However, in Tertullian, in his Apologetics of 1319 and a letter to the proconsul Scapula of 1320, we read that Albinus was the worst enemy of Christians; there could be nothing in common between him and the Christians. And this is said with such decisiveness (and, moreover, is repeated) that there is no doubt about the truth of Tertullian’s characterization. But if he is right, then, obviously, the news representing Albin as a friend of Christians, almost a Christian, is unreliable. And then the date 198 cannot be significant as a possible date for determining the time of Irenaeus’s death. Two others remain: 202 and 208, when Septimius Severus visited Gaul (twice). 1321 Both of them are acceptable when determining the year of death of St. father. But taking into account his old age (born in the 20s of the 2nd century, therefore, in 202 he was already 75–80 years old), and most importantly, that given his exceptional position among Christians in Gaul, he could hardly have survived during the persecution of 202, we must recognize this latter as the most likely date of his martyrdom. The persecution, as Gregory of Tours narrates and as legend says, was cruel. 1322 A lot of Christians died (although the definition of the number of martyrs in one legend as 19,000, 1323 is undoubtedly many times exaggerated). Gallois cites an excerpt from the book “On the Six Ages of the World” (Librum de sex aetatibus mundi), which tells that the North placed before Irenaeus and his flock a cross on one side and an idol on the other, so that they would choose either death on the cross or life through the worship of the idol (ut mortem per crucem, vel vitam per idolum eligeret). Irenaeus and his flock preferred the former. 1324 The Orthodox Church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, in ancient times already ranked Irenaeus among the saints of God. His memory in the Greek-Eastern Church is celebrated on August 23 (old style); in the Roman Catholic Church - June 28. Under Gregory of Tours, the remains of St. father were kept in a cave under the altar of the Basilica of the Blessed. Joanna (Beati Ioannis). 1325 But already in the 15th century. a dispute arose between the clergy of this church and the church of St. Justa (sancti Justi) about where the real body of Irenaeus is located, in one church or another. 1326 The Acta Sanctorum also conveys the news that in 1562 the Calvinists, attacking Lyon, plundered its churches and threw away the relics of saints, including Irenaeus. Only his head was found intact. 1327 Some researchers recognize this news as reliable. 1328 But the scientist John Rainold, in his book De romanae ecclesiae idolatria in culto sanctorum, proved the complete groundlessness of such an accusation against the Calvinists. 1329. Oecumenii Commentaria in Epist. II s. Petri. Cap. III//Migne. Patrologiae cursus completus; series graeca. T. CXIX. Col. 599–600. See pages cited; Wed also Feuardentius in his publication of the works of Irenaeus (in Vita Irenaei) and Stieren in Ersch's Encyclopedia (S. 357–358). Lib. I, praefatio § 3 (in Migne. Col. 443–444; Russian translation, p. 21). We use these words in an improper sense, since in reality the language of Irenaeus is completely literary. See: Eusebius. Church history. V, 20.4–8 (in Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Migné, during the works of Irenaeus. Col. 1225–1228; Russian translation, Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). For our analysis of this passage, see below (in the section on the time of birth of the Holy Father, in Chapter 2 and in Part II of the work). Vita Irenaei at its publication; cf.: Stieren // Encyclopaedic Ersch. S. 357–358. T. I. Prolegomena. P.CLIII-CLIV. See review of its edition in The Bibliotheca sacra. Vol. XVI. P. 250. See Ropes' list of them in The Bibliotheca sacra. 1877. April. P. 288. Abbot. Notes on some passages in Lightfoot Biblical essays // The classical Review. 1895. June. P. 254. Life and works of St. fathers and teachers of the Church. Per. A. Lopukhina. St. Petersburg; 1891. pp. 51–52. Harvey. T. I. Prolegomena. R. CLIII-CLIV; cf.: R. 183–184,334, etc. Ropes S. J. N. Irenaeus of Lyon / / The Bibliothecasacrä 1877. April. P. 284–334; Wed Harnack’s brilliant review of her in “Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte”. Bd.II.S. 90. R. 298–299; cf.: Rare. Worterbuchd. griech. Eigennamen; See also: Dictionary of Christ. Biogr. Vol. III and Stieren. Irenaus // Encyclopädie Ersch, See: Feuardentius (Vita Irenaei), Böhringer (S. 206); Freppel (P. 172); Massuet (Migne. Col. 173), Ziegler (S. 14–15). Wed. also: Zahn (RE. S. 407). The name Irenaeus (Greek Εὶρηναῖος; Latin Irenaeus) comes from the Greek word εὶρήνη world and means “peaceful.” Compare: Eusebius. Church history. V, 24, 18: “ὁ μεν Εὶρηναῖος, φερώνυμός τις ὥ ν τ ᾐ προσηγορί ᾳ αύτῷ τε καὶ τρόπ ῳ εὶρηνόποιος ” (“Irenaeus lived up to his name in behavior, being a peacemaker in the Easter dispute” - in Schwartz S. 213; Russian translation, S. 285). It is worthy of note that only a few lines above Harvey himself proves the Greek nationality of Bishop Pofinus of Lyons on the basis of his name (The Greek names of his first Bischops indicate the origin. P. CLIII). Lib. II. Sar. 24.2 (Migne. Col. 787–788; Russian translation. C 178). Compare: Massuet (during his publication of the works of Irenaeus - in Migné Col. 840, note 24; also Col. 787–791, note 10,17); Ropes (Op. cit. P. 303–305), etc. Preobrazhensky under Russian publication of the works of Irenaeus: P. 217, approx. 166. Migne. Col. 790–791; Russian translation pp. 178–179. Wed: Lib. II. Sar. 35.3; Lib. III, 1.1; 8.1; 21.1. German translation. S. 30; Dutch (from Wieten). Biz. 56; Russian translation prof. N.I. Sagardy. P. 45; cf: § 92–93.95. When analyzing the look of Ikumenia. See: Harvey. Op.dci.P. CUV. This word should in no way be understood as indicating idioms of Celtic origin. In connection with the general course of speech, it highlights only the artlessness of Irenaeus’s expressions (as Massuet explains it - see: Migne. Col. 443–444). Lib. I praef. § 3 (Migne. Col. 443–444). Saint Irenee et Teloquense chretienne dans la Gaule. Paris, 1861. P. 179, etc. See, for example, the same authors (pages cited). See at least N.M. Karamzin about this in his discussion “On Love for the Fatherland.” Ropes. Op. cit. P. 308–327. Roops' point of view is also confirmed by a special study of the Latin text of the works of St. Irenea Jordan (Das Alter und die Herkunft der lateinischen Uebersetzung des Hauptwerkes des Irenaeus // Theologische Studien. 1908. S. 182–192). A thorough analysis of biblical quotations from Contra haereses led him to the conclusion that already the first translator of the anti-Gnostic work of Irenaeus cited a lot of texts from the then existing Latin pre-Jerome church Bible. Roops counts up to 60 such quotations (Op. cit. R. 306–307, note 6). Op. cit. R. 328–333. And this is quite probable: the specified codex was found, as is known, in one Lyon monastery (see: Garike. Introduction to the New Testament books. Translated by Archim. Michael. M., 1869. P. 249). Zahn. RE. S. 407; Mannucci. P. 8–9; Lipsius // Diet, of Chr. Biogr. P. 255; Harnack // Gesch. d. altchr. Litt. 11.1. S. 324. Cf. also old: Erasmus // in Stieren's Irenaei opera. T. II. P. 2; Feuardentius, Kling//RE. 1857. Bd. VI; Freppel. P. 172; Böhringer. S. 206; Ziegler. S. 14–15; Tillemont. P. 79. Beza's Codex offers the Greek-Latin text of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (see: Garike. Russian translation, p. 249). See more details about this later in Chapter 2. An excerpt from this letter was preserved by Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 20.4–8) (Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; Migne’s Col. 1225–1228; in Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). For a more detailed analysis of this place, see below: in the section on the time of birth of St. Irenea. At Migne's Col. 851–852; Russian translation P. 224; see also: Eusebius. Church history. IV, 14.3–5 (in Schwartz S. 139–140; Russian translation pp. 187–188). For our detailed analysis of this place, see also the section on the time of birth of Irenaeus. NOT. V, 5.8 (Schwartz S. 187; Russian translation P. 250). E.g. Contra haereses. V, 33.4, in a letter to Pope Victor regarding the dispute about Easter and other places. Here, see more about Irenaeus’s acquaintance with Polycarp in the section on the time of the birth of St. father and in the 2nd chapter. This is recognized, as we have already seen, by Harvey (T. I. P. CLIV). About the enlightenment of Smyrna with the light of Christianity and in general about the significance of this city in the history of the Christian Church, see also in Chapter 2. Harvey (T.I.P. CLIII-CLIV), and after him Abbott (Abbot/ / The Classical Rewiew. 1895. June. P. 254) and Farrar (Life of the Holy Fathers... P. 51–52) point to Syria as the birthplace of Irenaeus. However, this opinion is a simple conclusion from their hypothesis about the Syrian nationality of St. father. They do not provide any new data to support this. Therefore, it is impossible to recognize its meaning. Sebeos, an Armenian historian of the 7th century, in his work “The History of Heraclius” also has the following phrase (translated into French by F. Macler when it was published: Sebêos. Histoire d'Heraclius. 1904): “Erenios de Galilée, disciple de Polikarpos, dans l’église des Laodicéens” (cf.: Iordan. Armenäeus-Fragmente / / Texte und Untersuchungen. XXXVI. 3. S. 4). Tsan (RE. 2 Aufl. Bd. IX. S. 406) and Harnack (Geschichte d. altchr. Litteratur. Bd. II, I. S. 324) understand this expression in the sense of indicating that Irenaeus lived for some time in Laodicea (cf. also: Patrum apostolicorum opera. 2nd ed. Gebgardt - Harnack-Zahn'a. Bd. 1,2. S. 103). However, it seems to us that the matter can be explained more simply. Probably Sebeos distorted only the name of Lyon, replacing the Greek. τῶν Λουδούνων Armenian inscription similar to gender. plural "Laodiceans". This can be confirmed by the transcription of this name, in general, among Armenian writers of the Middle Ages. It is transmitted in different ways and almost always in a distorted form; eg: Lokhdon (fragment 5 - at Jordan), Logdon (fragment 6), Lodon (fragment 9), Logton (fragment 15), etc. (see: Iordan. Armenische Irenäus-Fragmente. S. 207 and other places of this work). And Sebeos is not without sin in this regard, which is already evident from his reading of the word “Gaul”, instead of which he has Galilee (Erenios de Calilée). Paradinus et Severtius (y Stieren in Encycl. von Ersch. S. 358). Dodwell. Dissertation. III. P. 252. Grabe. Prolegomena for the publication of the works of St. Irenea. P. X-XIII. Halloix (by Stieren in Encycl. von Ersch. S. 358). Tillemont. Memoires. T. III. P. 79. Lumper. Historia theologico-critica. 1784. Pars III. P. 189–190. Lightfoot. TheChurches of Gaul // Contemporary Review. 1876. Aug. P. 415. Leimbach. Wann ist Irenaeus geboren? // Zeitschrift für Lutherische lluwlotf und Kirche. Bd. 34.1873. Harvey, Prolegomena. Vol. I.P.CLV. Lipsius//A Dictionary of Christian Biography. Vol. III. P. 253–255. Migne. Dissert. II. Col. 173–176. Deylingius Sal. Irenaeus evangelicae veritatis confessor. P.2 Du-Pin L. E. Nouvelle bibliotheque des Autheurs ecclesiastiques. Autrecht. 1731.T.I.P.70. Kling. Irenaeus von Lyon//Real-Encyclopädie von Herzog. 1857 (1st ed.). Böhringer Fr. Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen. Bd. I. Abthl. I. Zürich, 1842. S.206. Möhler. Patrologie oder christliche Literaergeschichte, herausgegeben von. Reithmayr. Regensburg, 1840. S. 330. Stieren//Encyclop. von Ersch. S. 358. Ziegler. Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon. Berlin, 1871. S. 15–16. Beaven. An account of the life and writings of Irenaeus. London, 1841. P. 2–6. Real-Encyclopädie v. Herzog-Hauck. 3rd ed. Bd. IX. 1901. S. 407–409; also: Forschungen zur Geschichte d. netestamentlichen Kanons. Thl. IV. S. 275–281 ;Thl. VI. S. 27–40. Geschichte d. altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Bd. II, 1. S. 325–356; cf.: S. 479–381, etc. Bardenhewer. Geschichte d. altchristlichen Litteratur. Bd. I. S. 496–497 (ed. 1902). 14 Erhard. Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung von 1884–1900. Bd. II. S. 262–264 (puts the date of birth of Irenaeus no earlier than 135). 1Kihn. Patrologie. Paderbom, 1904. Bd. I. S. 191 (Irenaeus, according to him, was born around 137). Dufourcq A. Saint Irénée; ed. Lecofre. 1904. P. 56–57 and approx. Mannucci. Prolegomena for the publication of the works of St. Irenea. R. 9–10. Ropes. Irenaeus of Lyon // The Bibliotheca sacra. 1877. Vol. 34. P. 288–292. Corssen P. Zur Chronologie des Irenaeus // Zeitschrift für neutestament-liche Wissenschaft. 1903. S. 166. Wieten L. T. Irenaeus' Geschrift "Ten Bewijze der apostolische Prediking". Utrecht, 1909. Biz. 94; Wed: 107–109. According to Preobrazhensky in his preface to the Russian edition of the works of St. Irenea. P. 5, approx. 2. Preface to the publication. S. 5. 1855. T. XIII. January. P. 428. See: Dodwell. R. 225–229; Leimbach. S. 622, 625; Ziegler. S. 16; Lipsius//Diction. of Christ. Biogr. P. 253–254; Zahn//RE. S. 408; Forschungen z. G.IV. S. 281–282; VI. S. 28–30; Ropes//The Bibliotheca sacra. P. 288–292; Dufourcq (ed. Lecofre). P. 56–57 and approx., etc. V, 30.3 (in Migne’s Col. 1205–1207; Russian translation, p. 512). The Greek text of this passage was preserved by Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 8,6) (Schwartz S. 190; Russian translation P. 254; Migne Ibid.). In this form (οὐδὲ instead of simple οὐ) this phrase is given in the Dionysii Areopag. Epist. X. P. 181 (in Grabe. P. 449, note 7). All publishers of the works of St. read it in the same way. Irenea and most researchers. Only Harnack writes οὐ without δὲ (Gesch. 11.1. S. 330–331). The meaning of such reading does not change, but in the first case a more expressive phrase is obtained. As we will show below, “τῷ νῦν καιρῷ” cannot be confused with “ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμε – τέρας γενε ᾶ ς”. These terms define different periods of time. Geschichte der altchrist. Litterat. II, I..S. 330–331. See: Grimm. Lexicon graeco-latinus in Libros Novi Testamenti.Lipsiae, 1888.. Forschungen zur Geschichte d. neutest. Kanons. Thl. VI. S. 28–29, Anm. 2. About ἐπί see: Grimm. Lexicon graeco-latin.; cf.: Mk. 2.26; Acts 2.28; Matt. 1.11; Rome. 1.10; 1 Peter 1.20; 2 Peter 3.2 and many more etc. In any case, however, it is clear that σχεδόν does not necessarily require agreeing with the opinions of Dodvel and Grabe, who assign the date of birth of Irenaeus to 97 (Dodvel) or 108 (Grabe). Ziegler. Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon. S. 16. Wed: Mk. 13.30; OK. 1.48; 21.32; Phil. 2.15 and many more etc. Wed. also: 11.31 (ἄνδρες τῆς γενε ᾶ ς); Acts 8.33; Life 15,16, etc. De defectu oraculorum. Cap. XI (in Grimm's Lexicon. P. 175). 2, 142 (see: Cremer. Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch. 5 Aufl. Gotha, 1888. S.212). OK. 1, 50 (for discrepancies in the editions of Scrivener, Westcott-Horf, Tischendorf, see Scrivener and R. 136); Wed also 1 Col. 1.26: “The secret hidden from centuries and from generations (ἀπο τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν)”; Eph. 3, 5; Acts 14.16; 15.21 and in Clement of Rome in 1 Epistle to the Corinthians (61, 3): τοὑς αἰῶνας τῶν αίώνων "(Patrum apostolicorum opera. Editio V minor. 1906. S. 33). The same thing, and for the same reasons, should be said regarding the informal definition of γενεά, according to which it is equal to human life (see below). – Bearing in mind the expressions of Herodotus and Plutarch, one cannot, however, assume that this difference in count from the beginning of the life of one generation or another exceeds 2-3 or, at most, 5 years. In this respect, γενεά resembles the Russian expressions “generation of the sixties”, “seventies”, etc. Dionysius. 3, 15 (in Cremer's Biblisch-theolog. Wörterbuch. 5 Aufl. 1888. S. 212). Tsang especially assiduously refers to this place, finding a complete analogy between it and the expression of Irenaeus (see: Forsch. Thl. IV. S. 282, Anm.; Thl.. VI. S.30, Anm.). Euseb. NOT. III, 32.8 (Schwartz S. 113; Russian translation S. 154). 5.1 (Patrum apostol. opera. Ed. 5 minor. S. 3). See: Corsen. Zur Cronologie Irenaeus // Zeitschr. für neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1903. S. 158. In the same sense, it is defined by Zahn (Forsch. Thl. VI. S. 28–30, etc.), Corssen (Op. cit. S. 157–159), Harnack (Chronologie. S. 330). 3,121.1 (in Cremer's Op. cit. S. 212). You can read about this in any school dictionary; see, for example: Schultz. Latin-Russian dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1898. P. 497, etc. Harnack.Geschichte der altchv.Litteratur.Bd.II 1. S. 330–33 l, Anm. 1. See, for example: Lib. I, praefatio §2: “παρὰ τἡν ἡμετέραν αὶτίαν συναρπάξονταί τινες”; and on the other hand: “ἀπαγγελοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν μετριότητα” (in Migné Col. 440–445); Wed also: Lib. II, praefatio (in Mignéa Col. 707–709), etc. Geschichte der altchr. Litteratur. Bd. II, l. S. 330–331. Zeitschrift für neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 157–159. This is also recognized by Harnack: (Op.cit.5.330–331) with Corsin (Op.cit.5. 159). It is worthy of note that both here and there with γενε ᾶ ς there is the same personal pronoun (ἡμετέρας and ἡμῶν - see above); and Dionysius’s expression is even literally similar to Irineev’s. Forsh.Thl.S.28–30, Anm.2, etc. However, from our point of view, the understanding of ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς, which Lipsia adheres to (Dictionary of Christ. Biograph. Vol. III. P. 253–254) and others, when they equate this expression with the first 30–33, cannot be considered completely excluded. years of life of St. Irenea. When we say “more or less,” we mean the difference in the number of years from the beginning of a generation’s life, which we pointed out above. The first indication of this, it seems to us, was given by Irenaeus in the preposition πρὸ (see above). Cp.: Harnak (Op.cit.S.330–331), Tsang (RE.S.408; Forchungen.Theil IV. S. 281–282; VI. S. 28–30), Lipsius (Dict, of Christ. Biog. Vol. III. P. 253–254), etc. This is hampered by the vague expressions “οὀ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου”, “σχεδόν”, as well as inaccuracy and diversity in the definitions of the beginning of life of a particular generation (see above). Also, of course, wrong: Bivn, Ziegler, Massuet, Boehringer, Kling, Stiren and other researchers who place the date of birth of St. too far. Irenea. Determining the date of birth of St. father in 97 (Dissertatio. III. P. 252). This reading is found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, ed. Schwartz1 g (see quote below). At Mignéy's. Col. 851–852; Russian translation P. 224. The Greek text was preserved by Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History” (IV, 14.3–5) (in Schwartz’s ed. S. 139–140; Russian translation, pp. 187–188). III,3,1 (in Migné Col. 843–844; Russian translation. C 222). III, 3.3 (in Migné. Col. 849–852; Russian translation, pp. 223–224); Wed also: III, 3.2: (faith) “through the succession of bishops it came to us.” III, 3,4 (in Migné. Col. 851–852; Russian translation. C 224). A hint of this, it seems to us, is given in the last words of the excerpt that the witnesses of the truth of Polycarp’s teaching are his successors to the present day (καὶ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι Πολύκαρπον)... Probably St. my father counted himself among these successors. At Migne's. Col. 843–844; Russian translation P. 222. The verb ἑόρακα, coming from ὁράω “I see”, “I know”, allows such a translation. This should be noted for a better understanding of πρώτῇἡλικία. That these doubts could relate specifically to the age of St. father, this is already indicated by the fact that he has to talk about the years of his teacher. Corssen thinks that with the analyzed words of St. Irenaeus only wants to prove the possibility for St. Polycarp to be a disciple of John the Theologian (“He could have been a disciple of the apostle, for he was distinguished by his longevity”), and on this basis denies any significance behind this place in determining the chronology of St. father (Zeitschr. für neut. Wissensch. 1903. S. 161). However, this interpretation is arbitrary. If St. the father understood the above phrase in this exact sense, he should have put the expression “for he lived long...” before ὅ ν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑοράκαμεν, and not after, as it now stands in the Greek (in Eusebius) and Latin text. We, therefore, recognize the indirect meaning, in determining the date of birth, of the expression St. Irenaeus about Polycarp, as πάνυ γηραλέος; although, of course, we are far from putting it between the entire time in which Irenaeus listened to Polycarp and πάνυ γηραλέος; the latter is an equals sign, as Ziegler does (S. 15–16). This is violence against the text. But at the same time, we do not agree with Leimbach when, in the heat of polemics with the above-mentioned scientist, he denies even the indirect meaning for πάνυ γηραλέος (S. 616–625). Preserved by Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 20.4–8) (Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277). We have an analysis of this place, see below. See: Grabe. Prolegomena. P. XII-XIII; Ziegler. S. 15–16; Massuet // Migne. Col. 173–175; Beaven. P. 2–3, etc. Compare: Dodwell. Diss. III. P. 221–236. See: Manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library No. 101; also manuscript No. 287 of the library of the Petrograd Theological Academy (Rodossky A.S. In memory of the 75th anniversary of the Academy. St. Petersburg. 1884. II. P. 113): “ἑπτ ἁ ἡλικίας ἕ χει ό ἄνθρωπος "(and these ages are listed and chronologically defined above). -In the Latin translation of the works of St. Irenaeus transferred it to aetas (Migne. Col. 852). Aetas uses St. father, when he himself lists all the ages of human life (Lib. II, 24, 2/'/Migne. Col. 795). It is obvious that he, in general, understood the word ἡλικία as equal to the Latin aetas and Russian “age” (child, youth, etc.) Wed: Clem. XIII, 7; also I,3 // Migne. PG. T. II. Col. 333. Compare: Ignatii Epistula ad Magnesios. III, 1: “νεωτερικήν τάξιν” (in edition 5 minor – Patrum apostolicorum opera. Lipsiae, 1906. S. 93); Martyrium Polycarpi. III, 1 (Ibid. S. 121); Clem. XII, 17/ /Migne. Col. 316; Wed also 9, 21,23. Compare: Martyrium Polycarpi. VII, 2 and IX, 2 (in appendix to Polycarp during his martyrdom): “πρεσβύτην ἄνδρα” (Patrum opera. S. 122–123); see also: Heb. 2.11. Lib. II, 22.4: “Omnes enim venit (Jesus) per semetipsum salvare... infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem" (Migne. Col. 734); also Lib. II, 24.4: “Quinque aetates transit humanum genus: primum infants, deinde puer, deinde parvulus, et post hoc juvenis, sic deinde senior” (Migne. Col. 795). This is how it stands in Contra haereses. II, 22.4; in II, 24.4, the second and third ages, probably due to a copyist's mistake, are rearranged one in place of the other. We consider the first reading to be more correct (see below for more information). Lib. II, 22.5: “quia autem triginta annorum aetas prima indolis est juvenis, et exlenditur usque ad quadragesimum annum, omnis quilibet confitebitur; a quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem seniorem” (so Massuety Mignée Col. 784–785). In some editions, the last words are read a little differently: “a quardagesimo aut quinquagesimo anno” (see Migne’s Col. 785, note 91). We recognize the latter reading as more correct, although the meaning does not change if we follow Massuet’s. In any case, this phrase can only be understood in such a way that in the middle between the 40th and 10th years old age begins. And since the middle is 44–45 years, it is obvious that the end of the age of a young man (juvenis), according to Irenaeus, coincides with the same νεανίσκος᾿ a according to the Greek manuscript (see below). The difference, then, is only in the definition of the beginning: St. his father takes him a little further back from his childhood. But it is not so great, and for us it does not have any special significance; The first part of the phrase is somewhat more difficult to understand. We cited it (as we usually do) according to Massuet’s reading. It also appears in the codices Claromontanus, Vossianus, Arundelianus (cf.: Migne. Col. 784–785, note 90) and in most other publications. It can be translated into Russian as follows: “Thirty years is the first age of youth and extends...”. – Feyardentius, however, proposes a slightly different form in his edition, replacing prima with the word primae (triginta annorum aetas primae indolis est juvenis - see his edition. P. 192; in Migne’s Col. 784–785, note 90). There is no Greek text for this passage. It is therefore difficult to decide with certainty which reading is correct. Massuet considers this his own (Ibid, in Migne’s); Harvey joins him (T. I. R. 331) and others. - To us, however, the reading of Feyardentius seems more correct and natural. St. Irenaeus, in the entire 22nd chapter of Book II of Contra haereses, polemicizes with the Gnostics, who affirm the number of aeons in the amount of 30 on the basis that Christ, being precisely 30 years old, was baptized, and 12 months after that he suffered. Despite them, St. the father, on the basis of the Gospel and the tradition of the elders, proves that Christ was baptized at about 30 years old, but acted as a teacher in his mature years (more than 44-45 years old) and only after several years of preaching suffered, being already an old man. Accordingly, in the above phrase, Irenaeus needs to prove that 30 years is still youth, and not another more mature age. The word juvenis therefore has a logical stress and is therefore not in the indirect case, as Massuet thinks, but in the nominative case. The expression primae indolis obviously serves as a definition for it. – Indoles means, in fact, an innate “property”, “character” and, as Harvey rightly thinks, in our opinion (R. 331), it is not an entirely accurate translation of the Greek διαθέσεως “disposition”, “order”. Thus, the meaning of primae indolis can be conveyed by the Russian expression “first order,” “at the beginning.” The general meaning of the entire phrase is as follows: “The age of thirty is still youth of the first order” or “youth at its beginning.” In this form, it is completely consistent with the further expression “et extenditur...”, etc. If we follow Massuet’s reading, then the connection with the second half of the sentence turns out to be very artificial (“30 years is the first age and extends – the same 30 years – until the 1st 40th year”) and the result is a difficult to understand and hardly grammatically correct phrase, like Harvey’s translation into Greek: “ὅ " (T.I.P. 333.). In our opinion, it is much more natural to read in translation into Greek: “ὅ τι δέ ἡ τῶν τριάκοντα ἐτῶν τῆς πρώτης διαθέσεώς ἐστι νέας (or νεανίας)". - However, in both readings it seems to us that the statement that St. Irenaeus in this phrase defines the beginning (contrary to Zahn, see: Forsch. Thl. IV. S. 280, Anm.) of the fourth age (extending to 44–45 years), since primae indolis juvenis, as we have shown, can be translated “youth at its beginning.” – On the other hand, there is no doubt that Massuet’s reading does not in the least refute our understanding of πρώτ ῇ ἡλικία as equal to the third period; since with it prima aetas does not refer to human life in general, but only to youth (“there is the first age of youth,” and not life). For No. 101. This codex (in Greek) is a collection of mixed type, similar to those that were widespread in Greece and here, in Russia, in the Middle Ages. It contains: a) Chrysostom's homilies - 36 for the Epistle to the Hebrews and 12 for the Epistle to the Colossians; b) Ulpia the Roman (Ούλπίου τοῦ ῥ ωμαίου) description of the appearance of the eleven saints. Church Fathers; c) variants on the word of Chrysostom about the appearance of Christ to the 11 apostles after the resurrection, d) an extract about the seven ages, e) six verses of a mystical nature and f) three homilies of Damascus (cf. the description of this codex by Prof. Matthaei. Accurata codicum graecorum mss. bibliothecarum Mosquensium sanctissimae Synodi. Lipsiae, 1805. T. I. P. 65). The manuscript dates back, according to Mattei, to 993 (Ibid.). Part of this code was rewritten personally by the professor (an extract on the seven ages, by the way) and acquired by the Commission of Theological Schools along with his other manuscripts for the library of the Petrograd Theological Academy (currently manuscript No. 287, an extract on the seven ages - fol. 9 volume. On the Greek code and, in particular, on the extract, see also: Bolotov V.V. Review of the work of prof. Glubokovsky "Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus." Addendis superaddenda // Christian Reading. 1892. No. 7–8. pp. 64–65,126; His own. Review of the essay by Prof. A. I. Sadova “Ancient Christian church writer Lactantius” in the minutes of the Academy Council for the 1895–1896 school year. g. P. 165, and a separate reprint. P. 69; also Rodossky A.S. In memory of the 75th anniversary of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy. II. P. 113; His own. Description of 432 manuscripts from St. Petersburg. Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1893). An interesting extract for us in the original reads like this: ἐτῶν δ᾿ ἕ ως ἐτῶν ιδ᾿ . μειράκιον ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ιδ᾿ ἕ ως κβ᾿. νεανίσκος ἀπὸ ἐτῶν κβ᾿ μέχρι ἐτῶν μδ᾿. άνἡρ ἀπὸ ἐτῶν μδ᾿ μέχρι ἐτῶν νζ ’. γηραιός ἀπὸ ἐτῶν νζ᾿ ἕ ως ξη᾿ . πρεσβύτης ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ξη᾿ μέχρι τέλους ζωῆς αύτοῦ. ἑπτ ἁ γ ἁ ρ ἡλικίας ἔχει ὁ ἄνυρωπος ". Judging by the nature of this collection (mixed - spiritual and secular content - a common type in the Middle Ages), as well as the fact that it appeared here in Russia, one can think that it had a fairly wide distribution, and the extract on the seven ages expressed the views and calculations common to the Greeks. In ancient Slavic collections, the calculation of 7 ages was somewhat different. See, for example, the manuscript of the Sofia Library (XVI century) No. 1418, l. 430 rpm and manuscript No. 409 of the Petrograd Theological Academy (XVII century), l. 235 vol.: “baby, child, youth, lad, youth, youth, old man: in human nature there are seven visions. The baby is already breastfeeding"; children up to seven years old; delay until two weeks; the boy until three weeks; youth up to four weeks; sterbl (according to the 17th century manuscript “medium events” - No. 409, fol. 235 vol.) to eight weeks (according to the same manuscript of the 17th century - “fifth week and sixth”); i from tole elder” (cf.: Rodossky A.S. Description of 432 manuscripts. P. 286,356). This extract in Slavic collections is entitled as follows: “Extract from Philo by the physician Hippocrates.” And indeed, this account was undoubtedly carried out under the great influence of Hippocrates, if not a directly corrupted copy of that. Hippocrates differs: I) παιδίον (1–7 years); 2) παῖς (7–14); 3) μειράκιον (14–21); 4) νεανίσκος (21–28); 5) ἀνήρ (28–35), etc. (Pollux onom. II, 4, ed. Bekker. P. 57; cf. also: Tsan. Forsch. Thl. VL S. 36, Anm. 2). As we can see, there are no points of agreement with Irenaeus. This is how Prof. looks at this document. V.V. Bolotov (op. cit.) and, apparently, prof. Mattei. True, St. the father lists only five ages instead of seven. But this circumstance cannot yet speak against our convergence of his account with the Moscow manuscript. This phenomenon cannot be called exceptional. A similar account can be seen in Plutarch, who also reduced the usual 7 to 5 ages, denoting the latter with the general expression “γενό – μενος ἐν ἡλικί ᾳ” (Amator. P. 754; cf.: Tsan. Forsch. Thl. VI. S. 36. Anm. 2). Irenaeus had no particular need to keep an accurate and detailed count of all ages. For him, in terms of the connection of speech, only the first five were interesting (compare in general the contents of Chapter 22 of Book II of Contra haereses). At St. Irenaeus, when listing the ages twice, some difference is noticeable: in Lib. II, 22, 4 in second place is parvulos (in Migné Col. 784), and in Lib. II, 24.4 (in Migne’ I Col. 765) – pueros. In accordance with the usual usage of words and the exact meaning of words (see further on this), the first reading should be considered more correct; and in the second, obviously, an error crept in from the rearrangement of words, perhaps during correspondence. Parvulus comes from parvus (small) and the ending lus, further reducing the scope of the concept. The word puer is generally “child,” and it was even applied to such people regarding whom the question was raised whether they were married or not (Ovid, in Ananyev, p. 861); and in Hieronymus this term directly refers to a person aged 23 (Zöckler O. Hieronimus. Gotha, 1865. S. 21–22; Bolotov V.V. Review of the work of A.I. Sadov. P. 69 (separate reprint) or P. 156 (in the minutes of the Council for the 1895/96 academic year). We are not required here to establish the precise beginning of this period; it is important to know its end, and it is more or less clear, taking into account II, 22.5. In this understanding of πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία in Irenaeus, Tsang generally agrees with us. In his opinion, this period lasted from 18 to 30 years approximately (Forsch. Thl. VI. S. 37). However, it seems to us that he takes this definition arbitrarily. Having cited below the line the calculation of ages by Hippocrates, Plutarch, Epictetus (Ibid. S. 36, Anm. 2), he prefers to completely ignore them in his reasoning. Πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία for him generally means the age of a young man who has just entered life and becomes independent (Thl. VI. S. 37; Thl. IV. S. 280, Anm.), in accordance with which this expression fits, in fact, more to the fourth age according to Hippocrates (see above). To prove his opinion, he refers to John. 9.21.23 and the 1st homily of Pseudo-Clement. But in John it is not πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία, but simply ἡλικία [“to know the age itself (ἡλικίαν), ask yourself,” say the parents of the man born blind]; and the same term in Luke 2:52 is applied to the twelve-year-old Jesus (“he prospered wisdom and age ἡλικί ᾳ"; cf. Lk. 2.42). Thus, the use of this term in the Gospel is completely consistent with our understanding of πρώτ ῃ ἡλικία. Tsang also somewhat arbitrarily understands the evidence of the 1st homily of Pseudo-Clement, which we will show below. At Migne's. PG. T. II. Col. 57. Langen dates the appearance of homilies to the end of the 2nd century; Bardengever (final processing) - by the 3rd century. (see: Patrologie. 3 Aufl. 1910. S. 67–68). In Migne’ I Col 57: “’ ἐκ παιδὁς οὐν ἡλικίας ὤ ν ἐν τοιούτοις λογισμοῖς , ????? διατριβάς καὶ οὐδἑν ἕ τερον ἑώρων ἤ δογμάτων ἀνασκευ ἁ ς καὶ κατασκευάς , καὶ ἕ ρεις , καὶ φιλονεικίας , καὶ συλ λογισμῶν τέχνας , καὶ λημμάτων ἐπινοίας᾿ καὶ ὁτέ μεν ἐπεκράτει , φέρε λέγειν , ὅ τι ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή , ὅ τέ δε ὅ τι θνητή At Mignée Col. 309: "ε ἶ ς Ῥῶμην καταλείψας δωδεκαετῆ." Clem. Note. XII, 20–21 (in Migné Col. 316–317). Clem. Note. IV-VI; Wed generally I-XII. Diss. III, 9.8; cf.: Tsang. Forsch. Thl. VI. S. 36, Anm. 2. See: Harnack. Geschichte d. altchr. Litteratur. II, I. S. 334–356; Zahn. Forschungen. VI. S. 94–95, Anm.; RE. S. 409; Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. I (Date of martyrdom. P. 646–677; esp. P. 672); Dufourcq (ed. Lecofre. P. 56); Mannucci (P. 9, note 1); Corssen (S. 160–161) et al. Hist. eccl. V, 20, 4–8 (Schwartz’s S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; Migné’s Col. 1225–1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). Schwartz S. 207; at Mignée Col. 1228. Massuet (in Migne I Col. 173–175), Leimbach (S. 626; cf. S. 619), Lipsius (in Dict, of Christ. Biog. Vol. III. P. 254), Harnack (Gesch. II, 1. S. 325), Bardenhewer (Geschichte. 1 Aufl. S. 496). Zahn himself thinks the same (RE. S. 408; Forsch. IV. S. 280; VI. S. 31), although, generally speaking, he extends the scope of the concept of παῖς to 20 and even 21 years (RE. S. 408 and Forsch. VI. S. 31). The only exceptions are Dodwell (25–30 years old – R. 229–236) and Grabe (10–20 years old – Prolegomena. P. XII). RE. S. 408; Forsch. IV. S. 276–278; VI. S. 30–31. Forsch. Thl. VI. S. 30–31; compare: Herod. II, VIII, 6; Contra haereses. IV, 30.1, etc. Zahn. RE. S. 408; Forsch. IV. S. 30; VI. S. 278, Anm. 4 (cf.: Dürr. Reisen Hadrians. 1881); Wed also: Grabe. Prolegomena. P. XII; Harnack. Geschichte. II, 1.S.329, etc. Harnack (Geschichte. II, 1. S. 329–330, Anm. 2); compare: Zahn. Forsch. IV. S. 277; VI. S. 30–31, Anm. 1; Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. I.P. 423. The following agree with us: Harnack (in general - see: Geschichte. II, 1. S. 329–330, Anm. 2), Massuet (in Migné Col. 173–175), Leimbach (S. 619,626), Tusk (R. 4), Lipsius (in Dictionary of Christ. Biogr. Vol. III. P. 254), Corssen (S. 166) etc. Almost all researchers think so, for example. Zahn (Forsch. Thl. IV. S. 308), Corssen (S. 162), etc. Wed: Harnack. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 325; Zahn. T.VI. S. 32; see also our work below. – The Syriac fragment from this letter, which we are examining, was first published by Harvey along with its English translation (No. XXVIII. T. II. R. 457); the best translation is given by Zahn in German in Forsch. Thl. IV. S. 289–290 (Fr. 3) and Thl. VI. S. 32–33 (see review by Harnack - Geschichte. I. S. 263). For the Russian translation from English by Harvey, see Preobrazhensky (2nd ed. P. 547. No. XLVIII). Zahn (Forsch. IV. S. 303–308; VI. S. 31–35) resolutely rebels against this opinion, arguing that “it is clear to everyone that here (in the Syriac fragment) we are not talking about the person, but about the writings of Florinus” (Forsch. VI. S. 33). But in our opinion, the opposite should be clear to an unprejudiced person, i.e., that what is being said here is not only about the writings, but also about Florin’s personality itself. This is already clear from the preface that we have given (it does not say: “about the works”, but directly: “about Florin”; Tsang also translates this). And further in the text, after a speech about the works, Irenaeus writes (based on Zahn’s translation): “Scheltet aber den, der dies geschrieben hat, welcher dadurch... an-leitet... schadet, indem er durch eine Schriften falsche Meinungen hervorbringb (Forsch. VI. S. 33). It does not say: “Scheltet Schriften”, but stands: “den, der, wel-cher” (but not welche, as above about essays). The verb is in the singular, but about the writings it is said that Florin through them (and not they) brings harm. In the same way, aber, standing after scheltet, shows that we are talking about something different than above - and above we are talking about the works - therefore, it is not they that are meant here, but Florin himself. Tsang himself feels the instability of his judgments and claims that the words we have cited refer to Florinus as a writer (“to the one who wrote this” - Forsch. VI. S. 34). Thus, he is condemned not as a person, but as the author of his works. However, such a division is too artificial and is hardly possible in practice. Drawing attention to the term scheltet, which renders the corresponding Syriac word, Tsang explains that it is equal to ἐπιτιμ ᾶ ν in Jude, v. 9 or ἐπιπλήσσειν in 1 Tim. 5.1 (Forsch. T. IV. S. 290, Anm. 2). Irenaeus, in accordance with the crime of Florin, in the opinion of the scientist, should have demanded the eruption and excommunication of the heretic, since ἐπιτιμ ᾶ ν was not enough for him (Forsch. VI. S. 34). But, firstly, ἐπιτιμ ᾶ ν, just like ἐπιπλήσσειν, according to the original usage, generally speaks of court (with a hint of condemnation), without predetermining the form of punishment (Thucid., Xenoph., Plat., Demosph.-yGrimm'a 1888.P. 171; cp.:P. 168); when used in the Gospel, it means such an action, the consequence of which is the complete destruction or cessation of another (Matthew 8:26; 17, 18; Mark 4:39; Luke 4:39 and many others - see Grimm R. 171). Likewise here, St. Irenaeus speaks, in general, about the need, one way or another, to stop Florin’s harmful activities, without predetermining the form of punishment, but leaving it to Victor himself. And secondly, even if we understand ἐπιτιμ ᾶ ν in the sense of light punishment, it will be understandable in the mouth of the saint. father as the first measure, which according to the canons should be relatively mild (cf. Matthew 18:15). Besides; it must be taken into account that Irenaeus writes not to a subordinate bishop, but to Pope Victor, who is known for his love of power (on the issue of Easter, see the same letter). Therefore from St. the father cannot even be expected to accurately determine the punishment, since this would be an invasion of someone else’s competence. Zahn further explains that Irenaeus writes in this fragment about the writings of (only) Florinus because they were not known to Victor and his presbyters. Florin himself, as a Roman presbyter, they should have known and, without a doubt, would have punished him if he had been alive, even before the letter (Forsch. VI. S. 34). Thus, mentioning him would be superfluous even here. However, the author himself notes that Victor and his presbyters were not learned people (which is precisely why they did not know about Florinus’ heretical writings - Ibid.). And in that case, how could they decide whether he was a heretic or not, and on what grounds would they excommunicate him? Obviously (from Tsang’s point of view), they could not even understand his heresy. And if they understood during his lifetime, then why didn’t they excommunicate him then? Tsang does not answer this question. Dessertatio. III. P. 221, etc. Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 277–278; VI. S. 30–31; RE. S. 408. For more details about Florinus and his teaching, see later in our essay. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 329–330, Anm. 2. In Schwartz's S. 207 ( μένων ... etc.); Wed at Mignée Col. 1228. Based on the translation by Preobrazhensky (2nd edition, p. 530). Schwartz S. 208; at Mignée Col. 1228. Irenaeus of Lyon // The Bibliotheca sacra. 1877. Vol. XXXIV. P. 288–290. Baddington. Fastes des provinces Asiatiques. P. 724 (cf.: Ligthfoot / / Contemporary Review. 1875. May. P. 833, note 3). Contemporary Review. 1875. May. P. 833, approx. 3 (Polycarp of Smyrna); ditto in Essays on Supernatural Religion. P. 98, approx. 1 and in The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. I. P. 448–449, approx. 2. RE von Hauck. 2 Aufl. Bd. VII. S. 188; RE. 3 Aufl. Bd. IX. S. 409; Forsch. Thl. IV. S. 281 ;Thl. VI. S. 38–40. this manuscript (No. 160 according to the description of Mammeu; now No. 159 - see: Light foot. Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. III. P. 355) dates back to the 12th or 13th century. (in Mammeu, R. 89); brought to Russia from the Iveron Monastery on Mount Athos (Ibid.). It contains descriptions of the lives of many saints. The martyrdom of Polycarp is described on fol. 96–99 (in Mammeu. R. 89–90). The first news about this manuscript was given by Prof. Mammeu in Accurata codicum graecorum mss. Bibliothecarumv Mosquensium s. Synodi. T. I. Lipsiae, 1805. P. 89–90. She became known to the general public through O. Gebhardt, who published an article about her in Zeitschr. fur historische Theologie. 1875 (XLV). S. 355 ff. And the entire epilogue of Martyrium was first published in Zahn’s large publication – Patrum apostolicorum opera. Fascil. II. Lipsiae, 1876. S. 167–168 (together with the text of the complete Martyrium). In 1877, this edition (with an epilogue) was repeated in a new minor (editio minor; the epilogue is placed there on page 128). Now we already have the 5th editio minor from 1906. In 1889, the epilogue of the Moscow manuscript was again published by Lightfoot (together with Martyrium) in The Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. III. 2nd edition. P. 402–403 (Greek text) and P. 486–486 (English translation). The last edition known to us is Fr. Ks. Funck in Patres apostolici. Vol. I. Tubingae, 1891 (P. 342–345 - with Latin translation). See: Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. III. P. 402–403,486–487; Patrum apostolicorum opera. Ed. 5 minor. 1906. S. 128. “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (Greek Μαρτύριον Πολυκάρπου; Latin, common among Western European scholars, Martyrium Polycarpi) is the abbreviated title of the letter of the Smyrna Church to the Philomelic Church about the suffering and death of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna († c. 155). It has survived to this day in fairly large excerpts from Eusebius in “Church History” (IV, 15), and in full form in several Greek and Latin manuscripts (see about them in Lightfoot - Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. III. P. 355-361, Tsana (large) and Funk in their editions). The full text has been published several times; by the way, in modern times Tsanom (large and small editions); Lightfoot, Funk (see the titles of these publications above, where we talked about the epilogue on the Moscow manuscript). The Russian translation (from the Klerkov edition) was first published in Christian Reading in 1821. 4.1. pp. 125–141. The letter ends with a doxology to God the Father and Jesus Christ, a greeting from the copyist Evarest and a note about the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp (cf.: Lightfoot. Pars P. Vol. III. P. 399–400; Editio minor (5). 1906. S. 127, etc.). And then we are talking about the scribes (Gaius, Socrates - or, according to the Moscow manuscript, Isocrates - and Peony), who copied “Martyrdom” for subsequent generations. This addition (epilogue) has its own ending - so, judging even by its appearance, it is independent. The epilogue on the Moscow manuscript is more complete and concerns St. Irenaeus (see its contents above); other manuscripts speak only of the copyists of the message. In addition to "Martyrdom", St. Another work that has survived to our time is dedicated to Polycarp - “The Life of Polycarp” (Βιὸς Πολυ κάρπου; the Latin title common for Western European scholars is Vita Polycarpi), attributed to the martyr Pionius (see about him below). Published for the first time by Duchesne - see: Duchesne L. Vita s. Polycarpi auctore Pionio. Paris, 1881 (see the bibliographic note on this edition by Zahn in Göt-tingische gelehrte Anzeigen. 1882. März. S. 289–305) and by Lightfoot in Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. III. P. 433–465 (Greek text) and P. 488–506 (English translation). This work tells not only about the suffering and death of Polycarp (his “Martyrdom” is used), but also conveys many details concerning the life of St. father. Gallois, and after him the Bollandists attributed it to Pionius (see Lightfoot. Vol. III. P. 426). This martyr died around 250 during the persecution of Decius (see about him in Lightfoot. Vol. III. P. 427; Vol. I. P. 556–557, 715–717, etc.). Meanwhile, most authors date the appearance of the “Life of Polycarp” to the 4th century. (see for example: Lightfoot. Pars II. Vol. III. P. 426–428, etc.; Tsan. Forsch. Thl. VI. S. 38–39, etc.). Therefore, this work hardly belongs to Pionius (cf.: Lightfoot. Vol. III. P. 426–431; Vol. I. P. 638–645; Duchesne. Vita Polycarpi. P. 9, etc.). The time of its appearance, however, is unknown. Lightfoot considers its author to be the compiler of the “Life of Polycarp” (Vol. I. R. 642–645, etc.); Thus, it also dates back to the 4th century. But this assumption cannot be called unconditionally reliable (see our analysis of Lightfoot’s foundations below). Geschichte. Bd. II, 1. S. 331–333. Geschichte d. altkirchlichen Litteratur. Freiburg, 1902. Bd. I. S. 497. Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. I.P. 642–645; Vol. III. P. 402 etc. Zeitschrift für historische Theologie. 1875. S. 356 and others. Forschungen.Thl.VI.S.38–40;Thl.IV.S.281;RE.2Aufl.Bd.VII.S. 188; RE. 3 Aufl. Bd.IX.S.409. Dictionary of Christ. Biography. P. 254. The Bibliotheca sacra. P. 288–292. Prolegomena for the publication of the works of St. Irenea. R. 10–11. Geschichte.Bd. II, I.S.331–333. Geschichte d. altkirchl. Litteratur. Bd. I. S. 497. It tells about the last minutes of St. Polycarp, burned at the stake. “The flame rose strongly, and those of us who were given to see saw the miracle and retold it to others, being saved for this ourselves. The fire took the form of a tent and, like a ship's sail blown by the wind, surrounded the body of the martyr, so that, being in the middle, it seemed not like flesh being burned, but like gold and silver being kindled in a furnace. At the same time, we felt such a fragrance, as if incense or some precious aroma was smoking. When the sword was thrust into the body, blood flowed out of it in such great quantities that it extinguished the fire" (See: Patrum opera editio 5 minor. S. 125; cf. also the large edition of Zahn'a. S. 156–158; Light-foot' a. P. 389–393; Funk'a. P. 332–334; also Eusebius “Church history "IV, 15.36–39 (in Schwartz S. 147; Russian translation p. 197)). Harnack. Op. cit. S. 332. Ibid. S. 332; Bardenhewer. Op. cit. S. 497. Vol. I.P. 642–645; Vol. III. P. 402. Lightfoot gives the corresponding words of the epilogue as follows: “ἐκ τῶν Γαῖου ἀντιγράφων, ἀναζητἡσας αὐτά ... καθ ὼ ς δηλώσω ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς ... ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου κεκμηκότα "(see his Vol. I. P. 644). He composed this phrase from expressions taken in two adjacent paragraphs; the first part of it (about Gaius), according to the epilogue, is Socrates’s own words; the second is the expression of Pionius (see Ul. Futa for the full text of the epilogue - Vol. III. P. 401; edition 5 minor Tsana. S. 127 and other editions). We find this treatment of the text not entirely convenient. But, leaving this aside, we consider it necessary to emphasize that all the expressions given were borrowed by Lightfoot from the epilogue of other manuscripts. In Moscow there is no expression “καθ ὼ ς δηλώσω ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς (as I will show later)” (see the same publications). It does not seem to us that the dependence in this regard of the epilogue (according to other manuscripts) on the Vita Polycarpi is undoubted (cf. the full text of the beginning of this work and the message of the epilogue). Vol. III. P. 426. Moreover, Lightfoot attributes the absence of this phrase to the merits of the epilogue of the Moscow manuscript (Ibid.). Lightfoot himself understands ἀντίγραφα in the sense of copies from Martyrium (see: Vol. III. P. 428; also translation of the epilogue - Ibid. P. 487). See us about this above (when analyzing the second and third bases) and further (in the 2nd chapter). About the works of St. see our father in Part II. At Mignen's Col. 851–853; Russian translation P. 224. See: Lightfoot. Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. 1. P. 356, etc.; Funk in the preface to his publication Patres apostolici. Vol. I. P. CVÏ "Codex m (Mosquensis), ut textus Eusebii testatur, haud esigua auctoritate eoque pluris aestimandus est, cum solus familiam repraesentet." It is possible that this information was gleaned by the compiler of the epilogue from the works of St. father, have not survived to our time, or have reached him according to legend. As for the author himself, after analyzing the foundations of Harnack, Bardengever and Lightfoot, we no longer see any serious and ineradicable obstacles to recognizing as such the true martyr Pionius, who suffered in the persecution of Decius around 250 (see about him above), whose name is in the epilogue in 3rd place when listing the scribes; although we cannot present this assumption as an absolutely reliable fact. At Mignée Col. 851 –853; Russian translation P. 224. Eusebius, V, 24,14–17 (in Schwartz S. 213; in Migné Col. 1229–1232; in the Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. pp. 530–531). See us about this visit to Rome in more detail further: in the 2nd chapter and the section on Easter disputes. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 332–333; cf.: Bardenhewer. S. 497. Eusebius. NOT. V, 4.2 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation, pp. 247–248). Hegisippus in Eusebius. IV, 22,3 (in Schwartz S. 156; Russian translation P. 209). St. Irenaeus considers the age of a teacher to be already mature, starting from 44–45 years (Contra haereses. Lib. II, 22.4 - in Migné Col. 783; Russian translation p. 174). RE. S. 409; Forschungen zur Geschichte d. netestamentlichen Kanons. Thl. IV. S. 281; VI. S. 38–40. RE.Bd.IX.3Aufl.l901.S.408. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 28. Pavlov A.S. Course of Church Law. Trinity Lavra, 1902. P. 196. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 28, Anm. 1. 2nd rule of the Fifth-Sixth Council of Trullo; cf.: 85th rule of the Apostle. and the rules of St. Athanasius of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Cyprus. Pavlov A.S. Decree. Op. P. 196. Epistula ad Magnesios. III//Patrum apostolicorum opera. Gebhardt-Harnack-Zahn'a Editio 5 minor. Lipsiae, 1906. S. 93; Tsang also considers him the same, see his Ignatius von Antiochien. S. 304–306, 326–328, etc.; also Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 256, Anm. 1. Ignatius von Antiochien. S. 328. Theophilus of Alexandria // Coptic word of praise. Creations of St. Afanasia. T. I (Russian translation 1902). Apology against Arians. Ch. 6. pp. 294–295. Eusebius. NOT. V, 4.2 (in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation pp. 247–248). RE. S. 408; Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 28 and Anm. 1. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 28 and Anm.; Ignatius von Antiochien. S. 302–306, 325–332.. See passages quoted from Ignatius von Antiochien See his article: Zur Chronologie Irenaeus//Zeitschrift für neutest. Wissenschaft. 1903. S. 166,– It is all the more strange to see that Corssen’s given basis, in essence, is the only one on which he builds his conclusion. For all others (in particular, for those standing under our numbers 1–3) he does not recognize significance in determining the birth of St. father (see generally his article. S. 155–166). This is how you need to understand the expression “quadragesimo autem et quinquaqesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat” (y bAignen Col.784–785; Russian translation p. 175). See us about the meaning of this entire passage above (when analyzing the second foundation). For the time of the appearance of Contra haereses, see our part II. RE. S. 409; Forschun. IV. S. 281; VI. S. 38. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 333, Anm. 2, to S. 340. Wed. our analysis of Contra haereses. III, 3,4 and excerpt from the letter to Florinus above; see also below (in Chapter 2). How Harnack, Ziegler and Tusk think. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 328–329. RE. S. 408–409; Forschun. IV. S. 279–280; VI. S. 37. Dissertation III. P. 238–257. The Gnostics Ptolemy and Mark, for example, denounced in Contra haereses, were active in the second half of the 2nd century. (see about them below). An excerpt from the letter to Florinus in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 20, 6) (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Migné Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529). Eusebius. Church history. V, 20.6 (in Schwartz’ and S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Migne’s Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529). See in general this passage in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 20.4–8) (in Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Migné Col, 1225–1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). At Mignée Col. 851–852; Russian translation P. 224; the Greek text is preserved in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (IV, 14.3–8) (Schwartz S. 139–140; Russian translation, pp. 187–188). For more details on Irenaeus’s acquaintance with Polycarp, see below. See: Contra haereses. III, 3,4. For the martyrdom of Polycarp, see Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, ch. XV and in editions of the works of the apostolic men. Asia Minor and, in all likelihood, Smyrna are recognized as the place of residence of Irenaeus in his early years, as far as we know, all researchers, even such as Harvey (T.I.P. CLIV), who considers St. father Syrian by birth. Strabo. geography. B XVII books. Translation by F.G.Mishchenko.M., 1879. Book. XIV. Chapter: 1.3–4. pp. 647–648. Sheffer D., prof. History of the Colonies. Translation by M.V. Publication of the “Library of Knowledge”. St. Petersburg, 1913. pp. 12–13. Gregory, priest. The third evangelistic journey of St. ap. Pavel, Sergiev Posad, 1892. P. 308. Strabo. Geography. XIV, 1,3. P. 647. Right there. P. 647; XII, 4.21. P. 560. Wed. also the testimony of Pliny, see: Ternovsky S., prof. Essays on church-historical geography. Kazan. Vol. I. S. 289; Solyarsky P. Experience of a biblical dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1884. T. IV. P. 35. See: Ternovsky, Solyarsky (op. cit.); Wed See also: Strabo. XIV, 1, 4. pp. 647–648. Strabo. XIV, 1,2. P. 646; Wed: Ternovsky S. Decree. Op. P. 289. Strabo. XIV, 1.37. P. 660. Right there. XIV, 1.4. P. 648; Wed: Solyarsky P. T. IV. P. 35. Strabo. XIV, 1.37. P. 660; Wed: Solyarsky P. Ibid. F. G. Mishchenko in the preface to the translation of Strabo’s “Geography”. P. XVII. Strabo. XIV, 1.37. P. 660; XII, 3.27. P. 565; Wed also the testimony of the martyr Pionius: Ternovsky S. Decree. Op. P. 290. Strabo. XIV, 1.37. P. 660; XIV, 1.4. P. 648. According to Strabo, “in the time of our fathers” (XII, 8.20, pp. 590–591). Ternovsky S. Decree. Op. P. 279; see also: Gregory, Hierom. Third evangelistic journey of St. Pavel. P. 309. The Asian province consisted of: Ionia, Mysia, Lydia, Caria and Phrygia (Ternovsky S. Decree op. pp. 279–280; Gidulyanov P. Metropolitans in the first three centuries. pp. 54–57). Ternovsky S.S. 300; Gregory, priest. Decree. Op. Strabo. Geography: XIV, 1.3. P. 647. See: Strabo. XIV, 1,2–4. pp. 647–648; Wed also: Ternovsky S. Decree. Op. P. 276, etc. Ternovsky S. Decree. Op. P. 290; Wed See also: Evdokim, priest. (now archbishop). Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Sergiev Posad, 1898. P. 235. The Smyrnae, apparently, considered them only temporary inhabitants, strangers. An indication of this can be partly seen in the dying speech of the martyr Pionius, who suffered in Smyrna in 250 (See about him: Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers. Pars II. Vol. I. P. 556–557; 715–717; Vol. III. P. 427). “Inhabitants of Smyrna,” he said, addressing the crowd, “proud of the beauty of your city and Homer, who was born here, and you, the Jews who are here! You all joyfully seek our destruction. But you, Hellenes, should have listened to your teacher Homer, who said: “It is not good to have fun about human destruction.” To you, Jews, Moses commands: “If you see the donkey of your enemy, fallen under his burden, let him not pass by, but let him stand up with him” (Ternovsky S. Op. cit. pp. 290–291). – As we see, Pionius distinguishes Hellenes from Jews. The first, according to him, are “inhabitants”; the second ones only. temporarily “located” in the city. There's St. father talks about ap. Paul: “He (Paul) boasts of you (the Philippians) in all the Churches that at that time knew God, but we did not yet know Him” (XI, 3; in Patrum apostolicorum opera, editio minor. S. 118; in the Russian translation of Preobrazhensky. Writings of the Apostolic Men. P. 326). Archbishop Evdokim (St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. P. 308) and, apparently, prof. S. Ternovsky (Op. op. p. 290) understands these words of Polycarp in the sense that Smyrna was not yet enlightened by the light of the Gospel in the year the apostle was written. Paul (63-64) Epistles to the Philippians. However, the text cited does not give the right to such a conclusion, as is clear from simply reading it; and the conclusion presented to us is, in our opinion, the only legitimate one. See, for example: Evdokim, archim. Decree. Op. P. 308; Ternovsky S. Decree. Op. P. 290; Solyarsky P. Dictionary. T. IV. P. 35. Acts 19.10). Paul’s enemy Demetrius Srebrokovach says exactly the same thing in his inflammatory speech to the artists and artisans of Ephesus: “You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul seduced a considerable number of people with his convictions” 1 See about this in detail: Sagarda N.I., prof. The First Council Epistle of St. John the Theologian. Poltava, 1903. pp. 159–165. See more about this: Sagarda N.I., prof. Decree. Op. pp. 45–47, etc. Contra haereses. II, 22.5 (in Migné Col. 785–786; Russian translation from 175). Ibid. III, 1,1 (y Mignéa Col. 845; Russian translation, p. 220). Wed. also: III, 3,4 (in Migné Col. 854–856; Russian translation, p. 224). Eusebius. Church history. V, 24, 3 (Schwartz S. 211; Russian translation, pp. 281–282). It is curious that Polycrates does not even mention here the name of the founder of the Ephesian Church - St. Pavel. See about this in detail: Evdokim, Archimandrite. Decree. Op. pp. 427–429, 432, etc. Read more about whether St. Apostle John in Asia Minor, and about the so-called “Presbyter John” see: Sagarda N.I., prof. Decree. Op. pp. 44–96; Tsang. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 175–217 (Apostel und lünger Iesu in Asien, § 2); Evdokim, archim. Decree. Op. Ch. V-VIII, especially V. Jerome writes: Polycarpus, Iohannis discipulus et ab eo Smyrnae episcopus ordinatus (De viris illustribus. Cap. XVII, see Bernoulli. S. 19); the same: Tertullian. Description. adv. haer. Cap. XXXII (y Mignéa PL. T. II. Col. 45). Wed. also: Irenaeus. Contra haereses. III, 3, 4 (y Mignéa Col. 854–856; Russian translation, p. 224). An excerpt from the letter to Pope Victor in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 24, 16) (in Schwartz S. 213; Russian translation pp. 284–285; in Migné Col. 1227–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. pp. 531). Letter to Florinus in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 20, 6) (in Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation, p. 277; in Migné Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, p. 530). Contra haereses. III, 3,4 (in Migné Col. 854–856; Russian translation, p. 224). “All the elders who gathered in Asia around John testify that John conveyed this very thing to them” (Contra haereses. II, 22, 5 - in Migné Col. 785–786; Russian translation p. 224). See below about elders. Chronology of the Asia Minor stay of St. John, see for more details: Sagarda N.I., prof. The First Council Epistle of St. John the Theologian. pp. 98–101. About the heretics who spread their false teachings in Asia Minor under the ap. John, for more details see: Sagarda N.I., prof. First Council Epistle... P. 127–149; BogdashevskyD. I., prof. False teachers, exposed in the first letter of St. John. Kyiv, 1890. Prof. D.I. Bogdashevsky, as a result of his research on “False teachers exposed in the first letter of St. John" comes to the conclusion that "the epistle exposes only one kind of Gnostics, who in their Christology were lax Docetians, and in their moral teaching they were antinomians; between them was Cyrinth” (p. 143, etc.). Prof., who reconsidered this question. N.I. Sagarda asserts, however, that “there is no possibility of combining into one, even a whole genus, all the types of anti-Christianity exposed in the message” (Op. cit. p. 146, etc.). Sagarda N.I., prof. Decree. Op. pp. 145–146. Sagarda N.I., prof. Decree. Op. Preface. S. III. Right there. With X. In general, for a more detailed description of John the Theologian, see him and Archimandrite. Evdokima (works cited). Sagarda N. //., prof. Decree. Op. Preface. From X-XL That is why philosophers called evil “non-existent.” Compare: Schaff Ph. Geschichte der alten Kirche. Leipzig, 1867. S. 80. See: Evdokim, archim. Decree. op. S. 147–158, etc.; also: Sagarda N.I., prof. Decree. Op. Preface. From V-VI In Galat. VI, 10; cf.: Evdokim, archim. Decree. Op. P. 398. Contra haereses. III, 3,4. See quotes below: P. 103, approx. 1. Contra haereses. II, 22, 5. See below for more details about the elders in Asia. Here are their names: Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, Prochorus, Bishop of Nicomedia, Square, Vukol, Andronicus, Eutychos, Timothy (Eudokim, Archimandrite St. Apostle John the Theologian. P. 399). For the fact that Polycarp was a disciple of John and was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by him, see above. Eusebius. Church history. IV, 15.9 (Schwartz S. 142; Russian translation S. 191). Right there. IV, 15.30 (in Schwartz S. 146; Russian translation S. 195). Right there. IV, 15.26 (Schwartz S. 145; Russian translation S. 195). St. Polycarp was probably born around 69 A.D. This is indicated by his words to the proconsul before his death: “I have served Christ for 86 years” (Eusebius. Church History. IV, 15, 20 (in Schwartz S. 144; Russian translation, p. 193). His death followed, according to most scholars, around 155 (quotes see above: P. 55, note 5). Eusebius. Church history. IV, 15, 39 (Schwartz S. 149; Russian translation S. 195). Epistula ad Polycarpum. 1.2 (Patrum apostolicorum opera; editio minor. S. III; Russian translation by Archpriest Preobrazhensky. Writings of the Apostolic Men. M., 1862. P. 425). Right there. III, 1 (S. 112; Russian translation, S. 426). Contra haereses. III, 3,4 (in Migné Col. 851–852; Russian translation, p. 224). For an excerpt from a letter to Florinus, see: Eusebius. Church history. V, 20, 6 (in Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation, p. 276; in Migne, Col. 1225–1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, p. 530). Epistula ad Polycarpum. X, 1 (Patrum apost. opera. S. 118; Russian translation. S. 447). Ibid. VII, 1 (Patrum apost. opera. S. 116; Russian translation, S. 446). Wed: 1 John 4.3. Ibid.; Wed also II, 1 (Patrum apost. opera. S. 114; Russian translation, S. 442). Contra haereses. III, 3.4 (yMignéa Col. 851–852; Russian translation, p. 224). See more about Polycarp's visit to Rome below. See an excerpt from Irenaeus' letter to Pope Victor on the Easter question in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. V, 24.12–17 (in Schwartz, S. 212–213; Russian translation, pp. 283–285; in Migne, Col. 1227–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 530–531). See more about this in Eusebius in ch. 15 books IV "Ecclesiastical History" and in separate editions of Maptyrium'a Polycarpi. “Greeting” at the beginning of the Epistle to the Smirnians (Patrum apost. opera. S. 107; Russian translation, S. 107). See also 1.1 (Ibid.). Ibid.XI, 1 (S. 110; Russian translation, pp. 422–423). Ibid. IX, 2 (S. 110; Russian translation, S. 422). Eusebius. Church history. IV, 15, 30 (Schwartz S. 146; Russian translation S. 195). Ibid. IV, 15.42 (Schwartz S. 148; Russian translation S. 198). See more about this in Chapter. 15 books IV "Ecclesiastical History" of Eusebius and in all other editions of Martyrium'a Polycarpi. Epistula ad Smyrnaeos. I, 1 (Patrum apost. opera. S. 107; Russian translation, S. 417). Ibid. IV, 1 (Patrum apost. opera. S. 108; Russian translation, S. 419); Wed Ch. II-III (Patrum apost. opera. S. 107–108; Russian translation. S. 418). IV, 30.1 (in Migne I Col. 1064–1065; Russian translation, p. 398). Ibid. (y Mignéa Col. 1065; Russian translation, p. 399). § 93 (S. 48; Russian translation, S. 62). See the Epistle of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Smyrneans: “All of you, follow the bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles. Honor the deacons as the commandment of God” (Chapter VIII, 1. Patrum apost. opera. S. 109; Russian translation, S. 421). Wed. also XII, 2: “I greet your God-worthy bishop and the most magnificent presbytery, and my fellow deacons” (Patrum apost. opera. S. 110; Russian translation, S. 423). Adversus Valentinianos. Cap. V (in Mignéy PL. T. II. Col. 558). Contra haereses. III, 25.5. See, for example: Contra haereses. III, 25.4 (in Plato. De Leg. IV, and the dialogue “Timaeus”; cf.: Harvey. T. II. P. 135–136). Ibid. IV, 20.1; IV,19,1etc. De adversus haereses fontibus. P. 40–43. See: Contra haereses. II, 2.2; V, 3, etc. The Gnostics, according to St. father, compiled their books from “what is said by people who do not believe in God, who are called philosophers... They put forward as if a new teaching... But this teaching, in fact, is old and useless, since it is made up of old teachings that echo ignorance and atheism (veterem autem et inutilem, quoniam quidem de veteribus dogmatibus, ignorantiam et irreligiositatem olentibus, haec eadem subsuta sunt)". And then follows a list of philosophers from whom the heretics borrowed their teachings. See: Contra haereses. II, 14.2 (yMignéa Col. 750; Russian translation, p. 145). 5 Ibid. I,13,6; 9.4–5; II, 14.2; 22.6 (excerpts from the Iliad and Odyssey). Ibid. II, 21.2; 14.2–4 (quotes from Pandora and other works). At Mignée Col. 745–746; Russian translation pp. 141–142. At Mignée Col. 827; Russian wood pp. 208–209. See for example: II, 28.2, etc. Wed: II, 24.1–6; II, 22.11; II, 21 and in general all those places where St. the father concerns the opinions of heretics about numbers and their meaning. Wed. also: V, 29; V, 20, etc. Compare: Contra haereses. II, 24.2; III, 8.1, etc. Ibid. II, 24.2 (y Mignéa Col 787–788; Russian translation, pp. 178–179), etc. Ibid; cf.: III, 8.1, etc. See above in the section on the nationality of St. father. Contra haereses. II, 24.2 (y Mignéa Col. 787; Russian translation, p. 178). Wed: Preobrazhensky V. Eastern and Western schools during the time of Charlemagne, their relationship with each other, with classical and ancient Christian schools and the formulation of theology in them. St. Petersburg, 1881. S. 198,204,245, etc. Wed: Preobrazhensky V. Decree. Op. pp. 198–204; Willman O., prof. Didactics as a theory of education in its relationship to sociology and history of education. Translation by priest, prof. A. Druzhinina. M., 1904–1908. T.I.S. 173–176,199–200, etc. Preobrazhensky V.S. 201 –202; Willman. T.I.S. 172–174, etc. Preobrazhensky S. 212; Willman. T.I.S. 178–179. Preobrazhensky V.S. 210–211. Preobrazhensky B. S. 212; Willman. T.I.S. 178–180. Preobrazhensky V.S. 209–214; Willman. T.I.S. 175–181; T. II. pp. 94–95, etc. Preobrazhensky V.S.214–220 and others; Willman. T.I.S. 181; T. II. pp. 94–95, etc. Cf. also: Dyakonov A.P., prof. Types of higher theological school in the ancient Church of the 3rd-4th centuries // Christian Reading. 1913. April. pp. 497–498. Preobrazhensky V.S. 229.232; cf.: Willman. T.I.S. 209–210. Willman. T.I.S. 210–218, etc.; Preobrazhensky V. S. 228–233. Willman. T.I.S. 218,220,231,256; Preobrazhensky V.S. 247.258, 263–265, etc. Willman. T.I.S. 218,231–232; Preobrazhensky V. S. 227. Compare: Dyakonov A. P., prof. Types of higher theological school//Christian Reading. 1913. May. P. 618. Cap. X; cf.: Plotnikov V. (Bishop Boris). The history of Christian enlightenment in its relation to ancient Greco-Roman education. Period 1. From the beginning of Christianity to Constantine the Great. Kazan, 1885. pp. 139–141. Willman. T.I.S. 170–172; 207–208. Arnobius. Adversus gentes. Lib. I. Cap. XXXIX; Wed: Plotnikov V.S. 144–145. Willman. T.I.S. 263–265; Schmidt K. History of pedagogy. Ed. 3rd, supplemented by V. Lange. Translation by E. Zimmerman. M., 1879. S. 25–26; Preobrazhensky V.S. 287–288; Plotnikov V. S. 139. Compare: Willman. J. I. pp. 263–265. Strabo. Geography XIV, 1.4. P. 648; XIV, 1.37. P. 660. See: Tatian. Speech against the Hellenes. §§ 1 –3.25–26, etc.; Theophilus. To Auto-lik. Book 2. §§ 8–12, etc. Justin. 1 Apology. §§ 20–22; 2 Apologist. §§ 8,13,20, etc. Compare: Plotnikov §. pp. 150–160. See: Contra haereses. II, 14.2. De viris illustribus. Cap. XXXV (in Bernoulli S. 27). "Μαθητοῦ τοῦ Πολυκάρπου " (Patrum apostolicorum opera, editio minor. S. 127–128). Eusebius. HE. V, 20.4 (Schwartz’s S. 207; Russian translation, p. 276; Migpe’s Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, p. 529). At Mignée Col. 785; Russian translation P. 175. See letters to Florin and Victor. Euseb. NOT. V, 24, 15–16 (in Schwartz S. 213; Russian translation p. 284; in Migné Col. 1229–1230; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 531). For the full texts of all these places, see below. At Migne's Col. 851–852; Russian translation P. 224. The Greek text of this passage was preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. See: IV, 14, 3–5 (in Schwartz S. 139–140; Russian translation pp. 187–188). pp. 42–45 of our essay. For quotes, see here and below. See note. 1 on the same page. For the full text of this passage and quote, see above: pp. 56–57. This passage is preserved (in Greek) in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. V, 24.12–17 (in Schwartz S. 212–213; Russian translation, pp. 283–285; in Migné Col. 1227–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 530–531). Same passage; a few lines above. The same can be said about the story of the meeting of St. Polycarp in Rome with Marcion and the first to convert many heretics to Orthodoxy (Contra haereses. III, 3,4). Probably here too St. the father was present in person and relates the story as an eyewitness. Contra haereses. III 3.1 (in Mignen’s Col. 848; Russian translation, pp. 222–224). Ibid. III, 3,4. “He (Polycarp) always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church also transmits” (y Mignéa Col. 852; Russian translation, p. 224); Wed in general III, 3 (the entire chapter). Eusebius. NOT. V, 20, 6 (in Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation p. 277; in Migné Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 530). Wed. more Contra haereses. II, 22.5, where St. Irenaeus also speaks of Christ and sets out His chronology, referring to “all the elders” (y Mignen'ya Col. 785; Russian translation, p. 175). Eusebius. NOT. V, 20.6 (pages indicated). Polycarp was probably born around 69 (see below). Contra haereses. V, 30, 1 (in Migné Col. 1203–1205; Russian translation, pp. 509–510). Ibid. V, 5.1 (in Migné Col 1221–1223; Russian translation p. 454). Ibid. V, 36, 1–2 (in Migne’s Col 1221–1223; Russian translation pp. 526–527); Wed: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. § 61 (S. 35; Russian translation, S. 49). Right there. § 3 (S. 3; Russian translation, S. 19). At Mignen Col. 1154–1155; Russian translation P. 454. De adversus haereses fontibus. P. 3–5. Letter to Florin (end). Contra haereses. III, 3,4 (in Mignen’s Col. 853; Russian translation, p. 224). This is what Harnack suggests (Gesch. der altchr. Litt. II, 1. S. 327–329,338–339, Anm.). Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation P. 288; at Mignée Col. 1228; Russian translation works of St. Irenea. P. 530. Gesch. der altchr. Litt. II, 1. S. 326–329,338–339, Anm. As Harnack rightly notes in this case (Gesch. der altchr. Lilt. II, 1. S. 338–339, Anm). Irenaeus himself also left, according to the testimony of Eusebius, Βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων (in Schwartz S. 214), i.e., admittedly, a collection of sermons (see about this in our Part II). “Letter to Florinus (in Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation p. 277; y Mignéa Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 530). At Mignen's. Col. 1068; Russian translation P. 402. Letter to Florin (in Schwartz S. 208; in Mignen Col. 1228). "Ὁ Πολύκαρπος ἀπήγγελλεν πἀντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γρφαῖς" (in Schwartz'g S. 208; in Migné Col. 1228) At Mignée Col. 854; Russian translation P. 224. Geschichte der altchr. Litteratur. II, 1: S. 327. See our analysis of his opinion on this issue in Chapter. I, dept. 2. The vast majority of researchers agree with this conclusion: Feyardentius (Prolegomena to the edition of Irenaeus. R. 1–2); Dodvel (Dissert. I. R. 4–14); Tilmon (R. 79–80); Ziegler (S. 19); Dufourcq (ed. Lecofre. R. 57–61); Boehringer (S. 206); Freppel (R. 172); Massuet (y Mignée. Col. 173); Stiern (Encyclopaedie v. Ersch. S. 358–359); Lightfoot (Contemporary Review. 1875. May. P. 837–838; 1876. Aug. P. 415–417); Poonc (The Bibliotheca sacra. 1877. April. P. 292–293); Zahn (Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 72–78; Thl. VI. S. 27–40); prof. N. I. Sagarda (1st Cathedral Epistle of St. John the Theologian. P. 14, etc.); Ep. Filaret (Historical teaching. P. 94); author of an article in “Sunday Reading” (1850, p. 428), etc. IV, 27, 1. We have given this text here in Massuet’s reading (in Mignen’s Col. 1056; Russian translation, p. 390). In the Armenian translation it is given a different meaning (see below). IV, 27.1 (end of section) (in Mignen’s Col.1058). In the Russian translation, Rev. Preobrazhensky does not have this phrase (in both editions). IV, 27.2 (in Migne’s Col. 1059; Russian translation, p. 392). IV, 28.1 (in Mignen’s Col. 1061; Russian translation, p. 395). ' IV, 30.1 (in Mignen’s Col. 1064; Russian translation, p. 398). IV, 31, 1 (in Mignen’s Col. 1068; Russian translation, p. 402). IV, 32.1 (y Mignen'ya Col. 1070; Russian translation p. 404). See these publications; Wed also in Massuet's edition (y Mignen'ya Col. 1061, note 39). Geschichte altchr. Litteratur. Bd. II, 1. S. 338, Anm. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 95, Anm.' See about this in our second part of the essay. Printed in Armenian in Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXV, 2. Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXV, 2. S. 96. We owe the Russian translation of this, as well as other places we need, of the Armenian text to prof. L.I. Brilliantov. See about this in our part II (where we talk about the work of Irenaeus “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”, contained in the same Armenian codex as IV-V books of Contra haereses). At Mignen's Col. 853; Russian translation P. 224. At Mignen's Col. 1223; Russian translation P. 454. Geschichte der altchr. Litter. Bd. II, 1. S. 338–339, Anm. Contra haereses. V, 33.4 (y Mignen'ya Col. 1214; Russian translation p. 518). Zahn. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 67. Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXV, 2. S. 89; Russian translation by Prof. A. I. Brilliantova. According to the same professor. Zahn. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 69. About the meaning of II, 22.5, see below. Wed: Zahn. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 68–69; Harnack also agrees with this (Geschichte der altchr. Litt. Bd. II, 1. S. 338–339, Anm.). Harnack thinks the same (Ibid.). See an excerpt from a letter to Florinus in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. V, 20.6 (Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation S. 277); also a letter to Victor in Eusebius. V, 24.16 (in Schwartz S. 213; Russian translation p. 284). Excerpt from a letter to Florinus in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. V, 20, 7 (in Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation p. 277). Lipsiae, 1878; F1: R. 2. S. 106–107, Anm. VI. At Mignen's Col. 1213–1214; Russian translation pp. 518–519. Geschichte der altchr. Utter. Bd. II, 1. S. 335–336. In any case, it cannot be argued on the basis of this passage that Irenaeus read the “memoirs” of the elders exclusively in the books of Papias (Harnack. Geschichte. Ibid.); compare: Zahn. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 88–90. Wed: Zahn. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 88–89. Eusebius. Church history. V, 20.4 (in Schwartz S. 208; Russian translation p. 276; in Migné Col. 1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 529). At Mignée Col. 1135; Russian translation P. 454. At Mignée Col. 1222–1223; Russian translation pp. 526–527. Ἐπίδειξις – German translation. S. 3; Russian translation P. 19. Ibid. German translation S. 35; Russian translation P. 49. At Mignée Col. 1203; Russian translation P. 509. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 93–510. At Migué Col. 440; Russian translation P. 20. At Migué Col. 584; Russian translation P. 58. At Migué Col. 628; Russian translation P. 71. At Mignée Col. 931–932; Russian translation P. 286. For more details on this, see Zahn (Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 53–58), as well as in the Patrum apostolicorum opera of Gebhardt-Harnack-Tzahn (Lipsiae, 1878. Bd. I, 2. S. 105–106) and Harnack, who in this case agrees with Zahn (Geschichte der altchr. Litter. Bd. II, 1. S. 334). Tsang. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 57. RE. S. 409; Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 381; Thl. VI. S. 38. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 58, Anm. 1. In general, see his analysis of all these quotes: Ibid. S. 53–58. There are also a number of excerpts from St. father (eg: Contra haereses. III, 23,3; IV, praef., § 2; IV, 4, 2; IV, 41, 2; V, 17, 4) from unknown sources. But, as Zahn rightly notes (in Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 58–59 he gives a detailed overview of these quotations), it is impossible to accurately determine whether they belong to a Christian writer or a pagan. Therefore, in this case they cannot have any significance for us (cf. also: Harnack. Geschichte. Bd. II, 1. S. 334). At Mignée Col. 1055; Russian translation C, 388; Wed IV, 26.5: “Who have ecclesiastical succession (succession Ecdesiae) from the apostles, a sound and blameless life and uncorrupted (inadulteratum) and uncorruptible (incorruptible) teaching” (y Mignée Col. 1056; Russian translation p. 389). Contra haereses. III, 3, 1–2; cf: letters to Florin and Victor, as well as Contra haereses. IV, 26.1–5, etc. Patrum apostolicorum opera, editio minor. S. 109 and 112; Russian translation pp. 305 and 310. Mignéy has Col 785; Russian translation P. 175. In the places indicated above (Contra haereses. III, 3.1-3 and letter to Victor), Irenaeus looks at the Roman bishops in this way, calling them presbyters, as guardians of the apostolic tradition. – This is how Clement of Alexandria understood presbytery, applying this name to Panten, who did not have episcopal dignity, and his other teachers (Tsan. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 79–80, Anm. 1–5). Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 62. “All the elders (Πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι) who gathered in Asia around John, the disciple of the Lord, testify that John himself conveyed this to them. Some of them (quidam eorum) saw not only John, but also the other apostles and heard the same thing from them” (in Migné Col. 785; Russian translation p. 175). Ibid.; cf: letters to Florin and Victor. In any case, on their basis it is impossible to say (like Harnack: Geschichte. Bd. II, 1. S. 335–336) that Irenaeus was acquainted with the presbyters not personally, but through their written “memoirs.” In Patrum apostolicorum opera, editio minor. Lipsiae, 1906. S. 128.0 See above for the authenticity of the quoted epilogue. pp. 67–72. See: Harnack (Gesch. der altchr. Litteratur. Bd. II, 1. S. 334–356, etc.), Vol. I. R. 646–677); Dufourcq (ed. Lecofre. P. 56), Mannucci (P. 9, note D), prof. N. I. Sagarda (1st Council Epistle of John the Theologian. Poltava, 1903. P. 49). See: Harnack. Gesch. der altchr. Litteratur. II, 1. S. 380, etc.; Lightfoot. The Apost. Fathers. Vol. I.P. 451; Bardenhewer. Geschichte. S. 497; Bolotov V.V. Course of lectures. Vol. II. P. 429. See Schwartz S.2l2–2l3; Mignen'ya 1227–1232; Russian translation. pp. 530–53.1. Patrum apostolicorum opera, editio minor. S. 128. At Mignée Col. 853; Russian translation P. 224. Hegisippus in Eusebius in “Church History” (IV, 22, 3) (in Schwartz S. 156; Russian translation S. 209). Contra hareses. III, 3,4 (in Migné Col. 853–854; Russian translation, p. 224). About the Easter disputes and the participation of St. Irenaeus, see us for more details below. Gibbon E. History of the decline and destruction of the Roman Empire. Transl. V. N. Nevedomsky. M., 1883. Part I. P. 26; Mommsen T. Roman history. Transl. A. Veselovsky. M., 1880. Book. V (T. III). pp. 184,187. Strabo. Geography. In XVII books. Transl. F. Mishchenko. M., 1879. Book. V, 1, l.C.212–213; IV, 1.1.S. 177; Mommsen. Decree. pp. 469–471.; cf.: Malitsky N. V. The struggle of the Gallic Church against the popes for independence. M., 1903. P. 33. Mommsen, Decree, op. Book V. S. 185; Malitsky N.V. Ibid. This name, which later turned into a somewhat abusive nickname, actually means “shavarnaya”. They pointed out that, unlike their relatives in northern Italy, the inhabitants of Celtica did not have the rights of Roman citizenship and, due to their authority, could not wear togas. Compare: Mommsen. Decree. Op. Book V. P. 186. Comati “long-haired” - this is what the Romans called the inhabitants of northern Gaul, remote from the capital and therefore devoid of culture. Compare: Mommsen. Right there. Geography. IV, 1,2. P. 178. Ibid; cf: Mommsen. Decree. Op. pp. 188–189. Strabo. Geography. IV, 1,2. pp. 178–179; Mommsen. Decree. Op. pp. 187–189. Right there. P. 179; IV, 4, 2. P. 197, etc.; Mommsen. Decree. Op. pp. 193–194; 197–198 see also: Book. 1. P. 215 (translated by Shestakova. M., 1861). Ibid; cf.: Strabo. IV, 4.2. P. 197. Strabo. IV, 1,2. P. 178; IV, 1.5. pp. 180–181; Mommsen. Book 5. pp. 189–190. Mommsen. Book 1. P. 215; Book 5. P. 190; Strabo. IV, 1,2. P. 178; IV, 1.5. pp. 180–181. Strabo. II, 5, 28. P. 126; IV, 1, 13. pp. 186–187; XII, 8, 1. P. 582; Wed also: Glubokovsky N.N., prof. The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians. St. Petersburg, 1902. pp. 5–8. – The Apostle of Languages ​​subsequently wrote to the inhabitants of this region. Strabo. IV, 4.4. P. 198; Mommsen. Book 5. pp. 194–196. Strabo. IV, 4.4. pp. 198–199; Mommsen. Right there. Strabo. IV, 4.5. P. 199; Mommsen. Book 5. P. 199. Strabo. IV, 4.4. pp. 198–199; Mommsen. Book 5. P. 195. Gibbon. History of the decline of the Roman Empire. P. 26. Strabo. IV, 1.1. P. 177; Gibbon. Decree op. P. 26. Strabo. IV, 1.1. P. 178; IV, 1.14. P. 188; cf.: Gibbon. Right there. Strabo. Geography. IV, 1.14. P. 188. Malitsky N.V. The struggle of the Gallic Church. P. 33. Mommsen. Book 5. P. 184; Wed: Malitsky N.V. Ibid. For more information about this war, see Caesar's notes: De bello Gallico; also by Mommsen. Book 5. pp. 205–245, etc. Gibbon. Decree. Op. P. 26; Harnak. Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums. Bd. II, maps; Malitsky N. V. Decree. Op. P. 33. Gibbon. Decree. Op. pp. 87–88. Right there. P. 245; cf.: Strabo. IV, 3.2. P. 192. Strabo. IV, 1.4. pp. 179–180. Right there. pp. 180–181; cf: Mommsen. Book 5. P. 186.469. Ibid; cf: Mommsen. Book 5. P. 186. Strabo. IV, 1.5. P. 181. Ibid; Mommsen. Book 5. P. 186, 192; Tsang. Geschichte der neutesta-mentlichen Kanons. Bd. I. H. I. Erlangen, 1888. S. 44–47. Ibid; cf: Mommsen. Book 5. P. 186; also: Book. 1. P. 215. Strabo. IV, 1.5. pp. 180–181. History of the decline of the Roman Empire. P. 68. Strabo. IV, 1,2. pp. 185–186; Mommsen. Book 5. P. 184,470. Right there. In ancient times, it was the capital of the Segosian tribe (Ibid. p. 193). During the time of Strabo, there was another Lugdunum in Gaul, a city in the land of the Conveni, near the Pyrenees in Aquitaine (See: IV, 2.1. P. 190). Ibid; cf.: Gibbon. P. 26. See about this: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 283–286; Η καινή Δια – θήκη, ed. Scrivener's; Harnack. Mission. Bd. II. S. 74, Anm. 4; S. 223, Anm. 4. Contra haereses. III, 14.1 (y Mignée Col. 914). V.V. Bolotov, Harnack (Ibid.) and N.V. Malitsky think the same. pp. 1–10. Euseb. NOT. V, 1.28 (in Schwartz S. 176; Russian translation P. 234) and V, 5.8 (in Schwartz S. 187; Russian translation P. 250). The Pofin years matter here. He did not, of course, arrive in Lyon as a ninety-year-old man. 48 (see legend and their names: Montét. R. 48, etc.). Euseb. NOT. V, 1.1–3 (Schwartz S. 171; Russian translation P. 226). Ibid. V, 1.17 (in Schwartz S. 173; Russian translation p. 230) At Mignée Col. 553–554 (ἐν Κελτοῖς "in Gaul", admittedly); Russian translation P. 50. Contra haereses. 1,13,6–7 (Migné Col. 588,592; Russian translation, pp. 59–60). Mission.Bd.II.S.223,Anm. 1. Wed: Harnack. Mission. Bd. II. S. 226. – H. V. Malitsky, under the influence of Duchenne, unfoundedly attributes the beginning of Christianity in Gaul to a later time (S. 10). Euseb. NOT. V, 1, 1 – 13; especially see: V, 1.3. Ibid. V, 1.49 (Schwartz S. 180; Russian translation P. 240). See also Hirschfeld on this. S. 392–393; Lightfoot // Contemp. Rew. 1876. Aug; P. 406–407; Beaven. P. 8–9; Harnack. Mission. Bd. II. S. 224–226; Malitsky H.V.C. 12 and others - Irenaeus, being the Bishop of Lyons, wrote a letter to Pope Victor about Easter; in the same way, the martyrs of Lyon sent a letter to Eleuther regarding the schism of the Montanists. But on the basis of these facts, in no case can one draw a conclusion about the spread of Christianity in Gaul from Rome or, in general, about any dependence of the former on the latter (see our explanation below). According to I.V. Malitsky, “even the extreme defenders of papist views usually pass them in silence. They not only do not favor their main provisions, but rather say the opposite” (pp. 16–17). Gibbon. History of the decline of the Roman Empire. P. 26; Strabo. Geography. IV, 1.1. P. 178. Their views are well summarized and detailed in Chamard. Les Eglises du Monde Romain notament cells des Gaules, pendant les trois premiers siècles. Paris; Bruxelles, 1877. For the arguments of supporters of this opinion before Duchenne, see: - Chamard. Op. cit. P. 294 ff; also from Duchenne himself. T. 1. R. 46, etc. See especially: T. 1. R. 31–59. He counted 24 completely preserved ones (T. 1. R. 3–4). The struggle of the Gallic Church against the popes for independence. pp. 11–12, approx. 1; 16–32, etc. See especially: Bd. I. S. 373–397; Bd. II. S. 225–227. Mission. Bd. I.S. 378,382. Apologia contra Arianos. Mignen is PG. T. XXV. Col. 337–338. See: Malitsky N.V.S. 24. See: T. II. R. 63,82,352,361. See: Chamard. Op. cit. P. 221–226. In the 18th rule of the Second Council of Arles (451) the first is said: “Ad quam urbem (Arelatensium) ex omnibus mundi partibus, praecipue Gal-licanis, sub Marini tempore legimus celebratum fuisse concilium” (Mansi. Sac-rorum conciliorum nova collectio. Florentiae, 1759. T. VII. Col. 880; Op. cit. 221; see also: Malitsky, op. 2). Compare: Eusebius. Church history. X, 5, 21–23 (in Schwartz S. 393; Russian translation pp. 531–532). Mansi. T. II. Col. 469.473; Chamard. P. 228–229; Malitsky N.V.S. 3. Lectures. Vol. P.S. 286–288. “I wanted,” he writes, “to stop this hostility (on the issue of Donatism) and gave orders to summon some bishops from Gaul (ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλλίας τινῶν ἐπισκόπων)... Therefore, I considered it my duty to see to it that this matter, at least now in the presence of many (πολλῶν παρόντων), has come to an end. So, by the calends of Augustus, he commanded that very many bishops from different and countless places should gather in the city of Arelat (Arles) ἐπισκόπους ), I considered it necessary to write to you too" (Eusebius. Church history. X, 5, 21, 21 - in Schwartz S. 393; Russian translation pp. 531–532; see also the Latin text of the above quote in Chamard'a. Op. cit. R. 221 and Malitsky N. S. 2, note 3). Mansi. T. II. Col. 469; cf.: Malitsky N.V. (their names). pp. 5–6, approx. 5. See: Mansi. T. II. Col. 476; Wed also: Malitsky N.V.S. 6–7 and Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 288. Op. cit T.I.R. 30.40; T. II. R. 9–10; cf.: Malitsky N.V.S. 22–23, approx. 2. Compare: Malitsky I.V.S. 7, note. 1. Malitsky N.V.S. 7, approx. 1; see also text page 7. In Mignen's publication No. 67 (PL. T. III. Col. 989–998); in the Russian translation of the works of Cyprian No. 55 (2nd ed. Kiev Theological Academy. Part 1.1891. P. 309–313). About Marcian’s case, see in a little more detail: Molchanov A., priest. St. Cyprian of Carthage and his teaching about the Church. Kazan, 1888. pp. 131–134; Pokrovsky A.I. Cathedrals of the Ancient Church. pp. 559–560. In the Russian translation of the Kyiv Theological Academy, when transferring this place, a gross typo was made (probably), but it was not corrected in the second edition: Lugduni was transferred “in London” (“Faustinus, located in London”). – See: 1st ed. 1.879. P. 259; 2nd ed. C 309. At Mignéy's. P.L. T. III Col. 990–991; Russian translation works of St. Cyprian. 2nd ed. Kyiv, 1891.4. 1.S. 309. At Mignée Col. 993; Russian translation pp. 309–310. At Mignée Col. 994; Russian translation P. 310. Mission. Bd. I. S. 381; Bd. II. S. 226. In total, in Gaul until 297 there were 6 provinces, including German ones (see about this above, in the 1st section of the present chapter). Old French scholars, based on the 20th rule of the First Council of Arles, argued that in each of the 17 (after 297) civil provinces of Gaul there were more than seven bishops (see: Chamard. Op. cit. P. 225–226). V.V. Bolotov does not analyze Cyprian’s testimony at all. N.V. Malitsky is forced, however, to admit that “the incident told in the letter of St. father, speaks of the existence in Gaul in the middle of the 3rd century. several bishops"; although “he still (according to the author) does not give any grounds for the assumption that these bishoprics were grouped around one or more metropolitan centers” (p. 18). About the fact that there were many bishops in Asia Minor and in the East in general, see: Bolotov V.V., prof. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 295; Lebedev A.P., prof. Clergy of the Ancient Church. M., 1905 (X volume of complete works). pp. 159–160: “There were as many bishops as there were Christian cities”; Gidulyanov P., prof. Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity. M., 1905. P. 100, etc. Message to the Trallians. III, 1 (Patrum apostolicorum opera, ed. minor. S. 97; Russian translation: Preobrazhensky, Archpriest of the Scriptures of the Apostolic Men. S. 397); Epistle to the Smyrnae. VIII, 2 (S. 109; Russian translation, S. 421). At Mignée Col. 552–553; Russian translation P. 50. For example, IV, 33, 8: “True knowledge is the teaching of the apostles and the original structure of the Church throughout the world and the sign of the body of Christ, consisting in the succession of bishops, to whom they handed over the Church existing everywhere (character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum; quibus illi earn quae in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt)” - in Migné Col. 1077; Russian translation P. 409; see also: Contra haereses. III, 2.2; III, 3, etc. See also about this: Gidulyanov P., prof. Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity. pp. 119–120; Troitsky V. (archim. Hilarion). Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. P. 148–152, etc.; Harnak.Mission.Bd.II.S. 225, Anm.4. Compare: Harnak. Mission. Bd. II. S. 225; Bd. I. S. 382–383. Duchenne, analyzing the above phrase, constructs the following syllogism. Irenaeus speaks of Churches in Germany, Gaul, etc. But in Germany, as is known, there were no organized Churches. This means that they were not in Gaul either (Fastes episcopaux. T.I.R. 40–41). – The French scientist falls here, however, according to the fair remark of Harnack (Mission. Bd. I. S. 382-383), into the logical error petitio principiï he just needs to prove that in Germany, as well as in Gaul in general, there were no properly organized Churches, but he considers this already a fact and refers to it. Eusebius. Church history. V, 1, 13 (Schwartz S. 173; Russian translation S. 229). After the above words follows the expression: καὶ δι ᾿ ᾧ ν μάλιστα συνεστήκει τὰ ἐνθάδε (Ibid.). In the Russian translation of the Petrograd Theological Academy it is conveyed: “who primarily managed the affairs there” (Indicative page). However, such a transfer cannot be called correct. Συνεστήκει does not necessarily mean managing something. It can also be conveyed in the form that the mentioned Churches “rested” in the moral sense on the martyrs. The μάλιστα standing next to it indicates that in the present case the latter translation should be given undoubted preference. However, as far as we know, none of the authors who consider Saint the ruler of the Vienna Church refers to this expression. Eusebius. Church history. V, 1, 2 (Schwartz S. 171; Russian translation S. 226). Duchesne (Fastes episcopaux. T. I. R. 40), V. V. Bolotov (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 293) and N. V. Malitsky refer to the beginning of this letter: “Servants of Christ, inhabitants of Vienna and Lyon in Gaul” (οἱ ἐν Βιέννη καὶ Λουγδούν ῳ τῆς Γαλλίας παροικοῦντες δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ: Euseb HE V. Schwartz'a S. 171; Russian transl. S. 226)) and based on it they assert that the Christian communities of Lyon and Vienna constituted one Church under the leadership of the Bishop of Lyons. – But if so, then why does Vienna come before Lyon? V.V. Bolotov explains: “Perhaps this is due to the then methods of authors to take the reader’s point of view; and from the point of view of Asian Christians, Vienna was more important and closer to them. Or maybe this was done because the initiative for the letter belonged to the Christians of Vienna” (Lectures. Vol. II. p. 293). This explanation seems to us, however, not entirely sufficient. Why is Vienna “more important” than Lyon? And why does the branch office of the community dominate and take the initiative in this case? The reason for the unification of the “servants of Christ” in both Churches when writing the epistle was not the unity of government, but the commonality of suffering during persecution; so it is impossible to object on the basis of the above words to the existence of two separate bishops in Lyons and Vienna. Eusebius. NOT. V, 1.17 (Schwartz S. 173; Russian translation P. 230). Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 293–294. The struggle of the Gallic Church against the popes. pp. 11–12, approx. 1. In support of their views, Duchesne (T. I. R. 40), V. V. Bolotov (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 294) and N. V. Malitsky (P. 11–12, note 1) also refer to the 72nd rule of the Council of Elvira (in Spain) and the testimony of Gregory of Tours, according to which in ancient times there were communities in which deacons ruled on behalf of bishop. Maybe it was in Vienna too Schwartz has S. 210; Russian translation P. 281. Fastes episcopaux. T.I.R. 41. Eusebius. NOT. V, 23.2 (Schwartz S. 210; Russian translation P. 280). That the Easter councils, which Eusebius speaks of in this case, consisted of bishops, this is definitely stated by Bickel (Geschichte des Kirchenrechts. Bd. I. Giessen, 1843. S. 37–38, etc.); also recognized by R. Som (Kirchenrecht Bd. I. Leipzig. S. 280) and A. I. Pokrovsky (Councils of the Ancient Church. pp. 213–215 et seq.). According to the latter, one can even see in them “the birth of the metropolitan-regional system” (Op. cit. p. 217). Lectures. Vol. II. P. 293; although the professor apparently recognizes this case as an exception: here παροικία, according to him, means something like a parish (Ibid.). Schwartz S. 299; Russian translation pp. 406–407. Schwartz S. 331; Russian translation P. 424. That the Lyon Council, in particular, the Council (or Councils) on the issue of Easter consisted of bishops and St. Irenaeus presided over it, that is, he turns out to be the metropolitan of the Gallic Churches, Prof. also speaks about this quite confidently. A. P. Lebedev (The Clergy of the Ancient Church. M., 1905. P. 179,189,194); A. I. Pokrovsky also admits this (Councils of the Ancient Church. P. 249). The Gnostics, both pre-Christian and especially Christian, were distinguished by great literary productivity. They owned a significant number of works. Almost every individual direction had its own literature. – To this day, however, the heretics’ own works have either not been preserved at all, or have survived only in insignificant fragments from St. fathers From the Christian era, only the epistle to Flora of Ptolemy the Gnostic (by Epiphanius) is now entirely in Greek, and several Gnostic works are in Coptic. (Under the general title “Pistis Sophia” and “Jeû” they were recently published in a German translation by S. Schmidt in the Berlin series “Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhundertë Koptisch-gnostische Schriften.” Bd. I. Leipzig, 1905. Excerpts from Gnostic writers of the Christian era also collected from Hilgenfeld in Ketzergeschichte. S. 453–630 and from Mignen in the works of Irenaeus, T. VII. Col. 1262–1322.) Therefore, when studying Christian Gnosticism, one has to deal mainly with the works of the heresiological fathers. But the teachers of the Church did not set out to fully expound the views of the Gnostics; It was important for them only to refute the heretics. Therefore, it is impossible to find such comprehensive data from them that the history of Gnosticism and its various systems can be presented clearly and completely enough. And the works of St. Not all of the antignostic fathers have survived. Lost, for example, are “Syntagma against heresies” by Justin Martyr and the polemical work (Ὑ πονμήματα) by Hegisippus. More detailed information about heretics is given: St. Irenaeus (Contra haereses), Hippolytus of Rome (Φιλοσοφούμενα), Tertullian (“Adversus Marcionem”, “Adversus Hermogenem”, “Adversus Pracheat”, “Adversus Valentinianos”, “Adversus Gnosticos Scorpiace”, “De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos” and etc.), Epiphany (Πανάριον), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή), Philastrius (De haeresibus), Blessed Augustine (Liber de haeresibus) and. excerpts from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius. As for modern studies, when writing this work we had: Massuet R. Dissertatio de gnosticorum rebus; Harvey W. Preliminary observations on the Gnostic system (with their publications of the works of Irenaeus); courses on church history (Kirchengeschichte) by A. Neander (Gotha, 1864; Bd. 2. S. 39–217), F. Schaff (Leipzig, 1867. S. 200–219), Gieseler (Bonn, 1844. S. 179–194); Die christliche Gnosis. Tubingen, 1835; Koffmane G. Die Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und Organisation. Breslau, 1881; Hilgengeld A. Die Ketzergeschichte des Ur-christentums. Leipzig, 1884; Lipsius A. Gnosticismus // Encyclopädie v. Ersch. 1Section. Theil XI. Leipzig, 1860. S. 223–305; His own. Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. Wien, 1865; His own. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. Leipzig, 1875; Harnack A. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I. Tübingen; His own. Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus. Leipzig, 1873 (separate dissertation) and a continuation of this work under the same title in the Zeitschrift für historische Theologie. 1874. Theil. II; Kunze J. De historiae gnosticismi fontibus. Lipsiae, 1894; De-Faye E. Introduction ά l'Etude du gnosticisme. Paris, 1903; Seeberg R. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I. Leipzig, 1908. S. 215–253, etc. From Russian: Gusev D.V. Dogmatic system of St. Irenaeus of Lyons in connection with the Gnostic teachings of the 2nd century. // Orthodox Interlocutor. 1874. T. II; Nikolsky A.I. St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the fight against Gnosticism // Christian Reading. 1880. T. I. P. 254–310; 1881. T. I. P. 53–102; 232–253; 509–538; Trubetskoy S.N. The doctrine of Logos in its history. 1900. T. I. P. 316–318; Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 169–235; Melioransky B. M. Lectures. T.I.S. 91 –117; Posnov M.E. A number of articles on the history of Gnosticism in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy: “The origin of Gnosticism and its development” (1912. July-August, November), “Gnosticism and the struggle of the Church with it in the 2nd century.” (1912. December), “Gnosticism of the 2nd century.” (1913. September), “Ophite sects” (1914. November), “Gnostics Satornil and Basilides” (1915. February), “Gnostics Kerdon and Marcion” (1915. May); His own. Samarian magicians are Christian heresiarchs // Missionary Review. 1915. April, May-June and a separate issue. St. Petersburg, 1915; Troitsky V. (archim. Hilarion). Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. pp. 106–253; Pisarev L.I. Essays on the history of Christian doctrine of the patristic period. T. I. Kazan, 1915. P. 22–30 (esp., notes), 163–288; Rybinsky V. P. Samaritans. Kyiv, 1913. P. 464–500; His own. Samaritanism and Gnosticism // Wanderer. 1914. March; 1916. January; Nikolaev Yu. In search of the Divine. Essays on the history of Gnosticism. St. Petersburg, 1913. So they think: Lipsius. Gnosticismus/ / Allgemeine Encyklopädie v. Ersch und Gruber. Section I. Thl. XI. S. 270; Hilgenfeld. Zeitschrift für Wissensch. Theolog. 1862. IV. S. 420; Seeberg R. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 1908. S. 220; Ivantsov-Platonov. Heresies and schisms. pp. 5.223; Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 171–172; Melioransky B. M. From lectures on the history and doctrine of the ancient Christian Church. T.I.S. 96–97; PosnovM. E. / /Proceedings of the Kyiv Spirit. academy. 1912. December. pp. 531–534; 1913. September. pp. 59–64. See also the views of other researchers on this issue. A. Harnack in his Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte speaks of Gnosticism as arising from Hellenism, that is, under the influence of Greek philosophy (Bd. I. 1909. S. 251–254). But here he also recognizes its existence in Syria and Palestine before the birth of Christ (Ibid. S. 268–269). And in the essay Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christenthums, he considers the syncretic movement of the ancient world to be the basis for the emergence of Gnosticism, in which, as he admitted, Orientalism was of primary importance (Bd. I. 1906. S. 20,24–30). Lipsium. Op. cit. S. 270; Posnov M. // Works of the Kyiv Spirit. academy. 1912. December. pp. 533–534; 1913. September. P. 56; Missionary Review. 1915. April, May-June. Wed: Posnov M. Ibid.; Lipsius. Ibid; See also: Seeberg R. Dogmengeschichte. S. 220, etc. M. Posnov even by the 4th century. BC (Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1912. December. P. 531–532); Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 171–173, etc. These and other monuments of pre-Christian Gnosticism were published by Al. dieterich in an essay entitled “Abraxas-Studien zur Religions-geschichte des spätern Altertums”. Leipzig, 1891. S. 3 et seq. In R. Reitzenstein's work “Poimandres. Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und früchristlichen Literature Leipzig, 1904. S. 114. Ibid. S. 82–102. See also the contents of these monuments in M.E. Posnova // Tinder of the Kyiv Spirit. academy. 1912. July-August. pp. 450–456. This literature, also known under the name "Poimandres", Hermesian or Hermetic, is so called on behalf of Hermes, who is the prophet or representative of Νους᾿ a, the god of revelation. It was published by Dieterich and Reitzenstein under the above titles. For more detailed information about it in Russian, see M. Posnov. Decree. Op. pp. 456–465. See W. Brandt's later German edition. Mandäische Schriften aus der grossen Sammlung heiliger Bücher genannt Genza oder Sidra Rabba. Göttingen, 1893. In Russian about the Mandaeans, see M. E. Posnov. Decree. Op. P. 465–478 and V.V. Bolotova. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 230–235. – The Mandaeans exist to this day (see Bolotov). See: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 172–173; Posnov M. // Works of the Kyiv Spirit. Academy. 1912. December. pp. 479–500; See also: Harnack Ad. Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I.1909. S. 268–269, etc. See: PosnovM. // Works of the Kyiv Spirit. Academy. 1912. November. pp. 407–450; Sagarda N.I., prof. The first conciliar letter of St. John the Theologian. pp. 127–149; BoyedashevskyD. I., prof. False teachers exposed in the 1st Epistle of St. John. Kyiv, 1890. There is also no unity in the classification of various systems of gnosis. Gieseler, taking into account his origin, divides the Gnostics into Alexandrian and Syrian. The first, according to him, start from Plato’s idea of ​​matter as non-existent; characteristic of them is the doctrine of emanation. The latter, under the influence of Parsism, tend more towards dualism (Lehrbuch Kirchengeschichte. 1844.Bd.I. Abt.I.S. 184,185–192). – Neander pays main attention to the Gnostic teaching about the Demiurge. But since the latter, according to their views, acted in the Old Testament, the Gnostic movements, in essence, differ from each other according to their attitude towards Judaism: some adhere to and sympathize with it, others are hostile (Kirchengeschichte. Bd. II. S. 75-77). – Baur, in general, joining Neander, introduces, however, a new point of comparison between Gnostic systems – their attitude to paganism; which is why he divides them all into three groups: a) a form of gnosis that places Christianity and Judaism close to paganism; b) a form that separates Christianity from Judaism and paganism and c) a form that unites Christianity and Judaism and contrasts them with paganism (Die christliche Gnosis. S. 108–121, etc.). All these classifications have their drawbacks (for their presentation and criticism, see Lipsy in more detail in Encyclopädie v. Ersch. Sect. I. Theil. XI. S. 284–286; as well as V. V. Bolotov. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 185–187 and M. E. Posnova / / Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1913. September. P. 83–89. Schaff therefore proposes a new system that connects and complements the previous ones. He thinks that the Gnostic systems can be divided: a) from an ethnographic point of view, b) from a religious-dogmatic point of view, and c) from an ethical one (Geschichte der alten Kirche. S. 210–211). – Lipsy, on the contrary, stating that all existing classifications do not stand up to criticism, considers it better, instead of classes, to present the course of the historical development of gnosis (Encyclopädie v. Ersch. S. 284–286; cf. in general S. 284–305). And Harnack even admits the uselessness of classification (Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I. S. 262,267–268). The Gieseler division has fewer disadvantages. In addition, as we have seen, it found recognition among Schaff and partly even in the views of Lipsius. Therefore, for lack of a better one, rejecting it, although theoretically, in practice most researchers, especially Russians, currently adhere to it. See, for example: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. WITH. 197, 209, 224, 226 (although he immediately states the difficulty of making such a classification in practice - pp. 225–226); Melioransky B. M. Lectures. T.I.S. 101–103; Posnov M. E. / / Proceedings of the Kyiv Spirit. academy. 1913. September. pp. 89–91, etc. Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. Bd. II. 1864. S. 39–40,42. Die christliche Gnosis. Tübingen, 1835. S. 36, etc. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 1909. Bd. I. S. 250–254. Encyclopedia v. Ersch u. Gruber. Sect. I. Theil. XI. S. 248. Die Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und Organisation. Breslau, 1881. S. 2,3–6, etc. Geschichte. Bd. II. S. 45–46. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Leipzig, 1908, pp. 217–218. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 174, etc. Works of the Kyiv Spirit. academy. 1912. December. P. 552. See also the opinions of other German scientists on this matter (P. 543–546). See: Tsang. Forschungen. Thl. VI. S. 57. About the followers of Ptolemy St. Irenaeus himself speaks of those who “at the present time (νῦν παραδιδασκόντων) are spreading perverse teaching” (Contra haereses. Lib. I. Praef. § 2 – y Mignen’ya Col. 441–442; Russian translation. P. 20). This is also clear from §§ 3–4 of the sixth chapter of the same book, when St. the father characterizes the behavior of heretics, using a verb in the present tense (πράττουσιν, ἐσθίουσιν, etc. - see Mignen Col. 507–512; Russian translation pp. 37–38). In the same way, in the present tense, he speaks about Mark and his followers (τιοιεῖ, δοκοῦσιν – 13.1–7: in Migue’s Col. 577–592; Russian translation pp. 57–60; see also 21.4, etc.). Mark and his disciples, in the words of Irenaeus himself (I, 13, 7), “already in our Rhone countries they seduced many women” (in Mignen Col. 591–592; Russian translation, p. 60). This is confirmed by references from St. father against the women, who confessed, apparently to himself, what Mark and the Marcians had done to them (Ibid.; cf. also 13:5). He speaks about similar confessions in relation to women seduced by the followers of Ptolemy (1,6,3). One can therefore think that these Gnostics also acted within Gaul. The latter is confirmed by the fact that St. Irenaeus devotes so much attention to them, as well as by determining the time of their activity in the second paragraph of the preface to the first book (see above in the previous note). We do not consider it obligatory for ourselves to expound the teachings of other heretics: this is part of the task of the historian of Gnosticism in general. Our goal in this case is narrower - to introduce the systems of those Gnostics with whom St. Irenaeus most of all had to deal with and against which, in fact, his work was directed. He presents them most fully; therefore, as is usually done, we do not currently use other sources other than Contra haereses. All of the above is taken from Chapter 1 of Book I of Contra haereses (§§ 1–2, in Migné Col. 445–450; Russian translation, pp. 21–22). This part of the Ptolemaic system is presented by Irenaeus in chapter 2 of the first book of CContra haereses (§§ 1–6, in Migné Col. 451–466; Russian translation, pp. 23–26). Lib. I. Sar. 14.1 (y Mignéa Col. 593–596; Russian translation, p. 61). See: 14.1–2 (y Migne'ya Col. 593–602; Russian translation pp. 61–63); also, in general, ch. 14–15 of the first book of Contra haereses. 1,4,1 (in Migné Col. 479–480; Russian translation, p. 29). 1,4,5 (in Migné Col. 487–488; Russian translation, p. 5). I,5,1–2 (in Migné Col. 491–496; Russian translation S.ZZ); also 5,4 (in Migné Col. 497–500; Russian translation P. 34), etc. I,5,4 (y Mignéa Col. 497–500; Russian translation, p. 34). I, 5.2–3 (in Migné Col. 493–496; Russian translation, pp. 33–34). I,5,4–5 (in Migné Col. 497–502; Russian translation, pp. 34–35). I,5,3 (in Migné Col. 495–496; Russian translation, p. 34). I,5,5–6 (in Migné Col. 499–504; Russian translation, p. 35). I,6,1–2 (in Migné Col. 505–508; Russian translation, p. 36); I,7,5 (y Mignéa Col. 517–520; Russian translation, p. 40). I,7,3.5 (in Mignée Col. 515–520; Russian translation, pp. 39–40); 1,6,1–4 and many more. etc. I,6,1 (y Mignéa Col. 503–506; Russian translation, p. 36). I,7,3 (in Migné Col. 515–516; Russian translation, p. 39). I,7,3 (y Mignéa Col. 519–520; Russian translation, p. 40); also I,6,1 (in Migné Col. 503–504; Russian translation p. 36). I,6,1: “The completion of everything will follow then (τ ή ν δε συντέλειαν ἔσεσθαι), when everything spiritual is formed and perfected in knowledge, that is, spiritual people who have perfect knowledge of God (οί ?? Θεοῦ)" (y Mignéa Col. 505–506; Russian translation, p. 36); Wed also: 1,5,6 (in Migné Col. 501–502; Russian translation p. 35), etc. I,8,4 (y Mignéa Col. 517–518; Russian translation, p. 40); Wed also: I,5,3–4 (y Mignéa Col. 495–500; Russian translation, p. 34). I,6,1 (in Migné Col. 503–504; Russian translation, p. 36). Ibid.; Wed also I,7,2 (y Mignéa Col. 513–516; Russian translation p. 39). I,1,3 (in Migné Col. 449–450; Russian translation, p. 23). I,8,2 (in Migné Col. 523–524; Russian translation, p. 42). I,7,2 (in Migné Col. 515–516; Russian translation, p. 39). I, 7.2 (in Migné Col. 511–514; Russian translation, pp. 38–39). I,22,1 (in Migné Col. 669–670; Russian translation, p. 85). I,8,1 (y Mignéa Col. 519–522; Russian translation, p. 41); almost the same see: I, 3, 6 (y Mignéa Col. 477–478; Russian translation, p. 29). I,3,2 (in Migné Col. 469–470; Russian translation, p. 27). I, 18, 2 (in Migné Col. 645–646; Russian translation, p. 77); see many more similar examples in I,1,3; 3.1–6; 8.1–5; 16.1–2; 18.1–4, etc. I,8,1: “These people stitch together old women’s fables (their teaching) and then, tearing out words, expressions and parables from here and there, they want to adapt the sayings of God to their fables” (in Migné Col. 521–524; Russian translation p. 41). I,9,4 (in Migné Col. 543–544; Russian translation, p. 48). I,8,1 (Indicative page); Wed also: I,9,4 (Indicative page). III, 2.1 (in Migné Col. 846; Russian translation p. 221). I, 7.3 (y Mignéa Col. 515–518; Russian translation, p. 40). I,7,3 (in Migné Col. 515–518; Russian translation, p. 40). III, 2,2 (y Mignéa Col. 847; Russian translation, p. 221). III, 11.7 (in Migné Col. 884–885; Russian translation, p. 48). St. Irenaeus notes that the Gospel of Mark was given preference by those who “separate Jesus from Christ and say that Christ remained uninvolved in suffering, but Jesus suffered” (III, 11.7 - in Migné Col. 884; Russian translation p. 248). But this is exactly what the Valentinians taught about the Savior (see above). I,20,1 (in Migné CoL 653–654; Russian translation, p. 80). III, 11.9 (in Migné Col.891; Russian translation, p. 251). I,20,1–3 (y Mignéa Col. 653–659; Russian translation, pp. 80–81). I, 13,4 (in Migné Col. 585–586; Russian translation, p. 59). I,13,3–4 (y Mignéa Col. 581–588; Russian translation, pp. 58–59). I,13,2 (y Mignéa Col. 579–582; Russian translation, pp. 57–58). I,21,1–2 (in Migné Col. 657–660; Russian translation, p. 82). I,21,3 (in Migné Col. 661–664; Russian translation, pp. 82–83). I, 21,4–5 (in Migné Col. 663–670; Russian translation, pp. 83–84). I, 21,4 (in Migné Col. 665–666; Russian translation, p. 83). “The above invocations were used so that they (the redeemed) would become inaccessible and invisible to the beginnings and authorities ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις) and so that their inner man ascends the mountain to the invisible” (I, 21,5 - in Migné Col. 667–668; Russian translation, p. 84). “By the power of redemption, they are made inaccessible and invisible to the judge (τῷ κριτῇ)” (I, 13, 6 – y Mignéa Col. 587–590; Russian translation, p. 60). “They say that in their height they are above any power, and therefore they do everything freely, without any fear in anything, for by the power of redemption they become inaccessible and invisible to the judge” (I, 13, 6 - in Migné Col. 587–590; Russian translation p. 60). Wed. also I, 6, 2: “They firmly believe about themselves that, in any case, they will certainly be saved not through works, but because they are spiritual by nature (πνευματικούς). For just as it is impossible for the earthly to become a partaker of salvation, so the spiritual, as they consider themselves, cannot undergo corruption, no matter what deeds they condescend to” (in Migné Col. 504–508; Russian translation, pp. 36–37). I,6,3 (In Mignée Col. 507–510; Russian translation, p. 37). Ibid.; see also: I, 13,1–7 (y Mignéa Col. 577–592; Russian translation, pp. 57–60). I, 13,2–5 (in Migné Col. 579–588; Russian translation, pp. 57–59). I, 13, 5 (in Migné Col. 587–588; Russian translation, p. 59). I,4,3 (in Migné Col. 483–484; Russian translation, p. 31). This is clear from the entire course of speech in Irenaeus, at least, for example, about the cult of the Gnostics. Of course, they could hold their meetings and perform the sacraments not in churches, but in special places; which speaks, of course, about their special organization. The sources for the history of Montanism are mainly the works of Tertullian (De corona militis, De fuga in persecutione, De velandis virginibus, De exhortatione castitatis, De monogamia, De jejuniis, De pudicitia); Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History. V, 14–19); then excerpts from Epiphanius, Hippolytus, Origen, Didymus, Theodoret and others (collected in part by L. Hilgen-leld in Ketzergeschichte. S. 572–579; 591–595; see also: Bonwetsch N. Zur Geschichte des Montanismus. S. (16–56). From new works when writing this section in our were: Bonwetsch N. Zur Geschichte des Montanismus; Hilgenfeld A. Die Ketzergeschichte. 1884. S. 560–601; BaurF. Das Wesen des Montanismus // Theologische Jahrbücher. 1851.4 Heft. S. 538–594; Harnack A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur. II, 1. S. 363–381; His own. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I. S. 425–442; His own. Mönchtum. S. 13–17; His own. Montanism // The Encyclopädia Britanica. Vol. XVI; Jullcher // Theolog. Literaturzeitung. 1889. No. 7. S. 163–171; Neander A. Allgemeine Geschichte. Bd. II. S. 225–247; Seeberg R. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. S. 253–260; Möller W. Montanismus // RE v. Herzog. Bd. IX. 2 Aufl. 1858. S. 758–765; Tixeront. Histoire des Dogmes. P. 210–217; Völter D. Das Ursprungsjahrd. Montanismus // Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie. 1883. H. 1; Zahn Th. Forschungen zuj Geschichte. Th. V. S. 3; Yeez. Geschichte d. neutest. Kanons. Bd. I. Hälfte I. S. 4–22,223–228,237–246; Bd. II. S. 964–973; Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 348–367; Duchesne. Church history. T.I.S. 180–190; Kasitsyn D.F., prot. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. M., 1889. P. 15–110; Troitsky V. (Archimandrite Hilarion). Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. pp. 255–360; Pokrovsky A.I. Cathedrals of the Ancient Church. pp. 97–166. Euseb. NOT. V, 16.7 (in Schwartz S. 198; Russian translation p. 265). Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 361. This was proven by Th. Zahn (Forschungen. Thl. V. S. 3, etc.); agreed with him: A. Harnack (Geschichte. II, 1. S. 363–381), Seeberg (Dogmengeschichte. S. 255); Bonwetsch (RE. S. 410), A. I. Pokrovsky (Chronology of early Montanism // Councils of the ancient Church. pp. 156–166; see also: Christian Reading. 1913. December. pp. 1435–1445). Völter dates the emergence of Montanism to 171–172. (S. 27–31). A. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte. S. 425–427; Mönchtum. S. 13–17); Bonwetsch (S. 15); Hallgenfeld (S. 598); Möller (S. 764); Seeberg (S. 254). In this regard, Baur’s definition that Montanism is “an attempt to restore early Christianity” is very characteristic (see the mentioned article). Wed. definition of the essence of Montanism in Neander; this is “supernaturalism, which denies the mediation between the supernatural and the natural, recognizing the importance in the life of Christians only of the former” (S. 227–228). About “parousian” expectations in early Christianity, see more in the article by Prof., Priest. V. N. Strakhova “Belief in the nearness of the parousia or the second coming of the Lord in early Christianity and among St. ap. Paul" // Collection of articles in memory of the centenary of the Moscow Theological Academy. Part I. pp. 329–380. For information on how parousian expectations affected life, in particular, the relationship of Christians (and Montanists) to the church system, see the above-mentioned article by V. N. Strakhov (pp. 342–343, etc.). Tertullian. De monogamy. Cap. XIV (nova prophetia - in Migné. PL. T. II. Col. 950); De jejuniis. Cap. I (Col. 954); De resurrectione carnis. Cap. LXIII (Col. 886), etc. Euseb. HE. V, 16, 4 (Schwartz’s S. 197; Russian translation S. 264); 19, 2 (Schwartz S. 206; Russian translation S. 275). Martyrium Polycarpi. V, 2 (in editio minor. S. 121; cf.: Euseb. HE.TV, 15, 10 – in Schwartz S. 142; Russian translation S. 191). Hieronymus. De viris illustribus. Cap. XXIV (y Bernoulli S. 23). Euseb. HE. V, 3.2 (Schwartz’s S. 184; Russian translation P. 246). Ibid. V, 3,4 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 247). . , Contra haereses. III, 11, 9 (in Migné Col. 991; Russian translation p. 251); II, 32.4 (in Migné Col. 829–830; Russian translation, p. 110). On charismatic gifts in the ancient Church, see Διδαχή; from the works of Russian scientists, see prof. A. P. Lebedeva (Collected Works. T. X. Clergy of the Ancient Church. M., 1905. P. 3–26); Kasitsyna D.F. (Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. pp. 25–42). Didymus.DeTrinitate.III,41,2. Epiphanius. Haereses. 48, 1: “Καὶ ἡ ἁ γία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, ὁμοίως τά χαρίσματα δέχεται, ἀλλὰ τὰ ὄντως χαρίσματα, καὶ τῇ ἁ γία Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία διὰ Πνεύ ματος ἁ γίου δεδοκιμασμένα παρά τε προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων , καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου "(Migne. PG. T. XLJ. Col. 856); compare: 48.2 (y Mignée Col. 857). See also Kasitsyn about this. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. P. 41, etc. and Vl. Troitsky. Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. pp. 304–307 et seq. See about this in Tertullian: Adversus Praxeam. Cap. VIII (in Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 163), Cap. XXX (Col. 196); De pudicitia. Cap. XXI (Col. 1024–1026); De fuga in persecutione. Cap. IX (Col. 112), Cap. XI (Col. 114). Wed. also, in general, his works: De jejuniis, De pudicitia, etc. In our work on fasting, penitential discipline, etc., see a little lower. , Tertullian. De virginibus velandis. Cap. I (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 890). Euseb. HE. V, 16.9 (Schwartz’s S. 199; Russian translation P. 266). Tertullian. De monogamy. Cap. I (y Mignéa T. II. Col. 931); De jejuniis. Cap. XI (T.II. Col. 968). Ibid.; Wed also: De monogamia. Cap. XI (Col. 944); De pidicitia. Cap. VI (Col. 930). Euseb. NOT. V, 16, 7,9 (in Schwartz S. 198–199; Russian translation pp. 265–266). Miltiades wrote a special essay against the Montanists: “Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτην ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖς” (Ibid. V, 17, 1 – in Schwartz S. 202; Russian translation. Tertullian, on the contrary, devoted a special book to the defense of this form: “De exstasi” (Hieronymus. De viris illustribus. Cap. LIII - in Bernoulli S. 34; Cap. XL-S. 30) and in other works of the Montanist period deals with this issue. “In spiritu homo constitutus... cum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu” (Adversus Marcionem. IV, 22-Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 413; cf.: IV, 18; V, 8). He defines ecstasy as “excessum sensus et amentiae instar” (De anima. Cap. XLV - in Migne T. II. Col. 725; cf. Cap. XXI). About the state of genuine prophets (not Montanists) during the pronouncement of “prophecies,” see Kasitsyn for more details. Decree. Op. pp. 33–40; prof. A. P. Lebedeva. Decree. Op. pp. 12–22. Montanus’s saying: “Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Ύ ιός, καὶ ὁ Παράκλητος” (Didymus. De Trinitate. III, 41) we understand precisely as evidence about the ecstatic state of the prophet during prophecy, when he identified himself with God (see also: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 358–359). Wed. Maximilla's saying: “Ἐμοῦ μὴ ἀκούσητε, ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκούετε” (Epiphanius. Haereses. XLVIII, 12). "" ἐπαγγελίας αἱρεστικήν, μηνυτήν, ἑρμηνευτήν, ἠ ναγκασμένον "(Epiphanius. Haereses. XLVIII, 13). Epiphanius. Haereses. XLVIII, 2. See, for example, Tertullian. De exhortatione castitatis. Cap. VI (in Mignéy T. II. Col. 921); De monogamy. Cap. VII (Ibid. Col. 938) and many more. etc. Ibid. Cap. XVI (Col. 952); De jejuniis. Cap. XVII (Col. 970), etc. Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem. Lib. III. Cap. 24 (y Mignéa T. II. Col. 355–358). De pudicitia. Cap. XXI (y Mignén T. II. Col. 1023–1026). See Bonwetsch S. 76–81 for more details. Tertullian devoted an entire essay to this issue in 17 chapters - De monogamia (in Migne. PG. T.P); Wed also: AdversusMarcionem. Lib. I. Cap. 29 (in Migne T. II. Col. 281); De exhortatione castitatis. Cap. VII (y Migne T. II. Col. 922–923), etc. De monogamy. Cap. IV (in Migne's Col. 934–935); see in general this work, also De exhortatione castitatis. Cap. VII (Col. 923), etc. Ibid. Cap. III-IV (y Migne Col. 932–935), Ibid. Cap. IV-V, VII (Col. 934–939). Ibid. Cap. XIV (Col. 949–950). “Non mere bonum esse, quod permittitur” (De monogamia. Cap. III. Col. 932). Compare: Ad uxorem. Lib. I. Cap. III (y Migne. T. I Col. 1278–1279), etc. De exhortatione castitatis. Cap. III-IV (y Migne T. II. Col. 917–920); De monogamy. Cap. III (Ibid. Col. 932–934). See generally the work De jejuniis. Compare: Irenaeus - an excerpt from a letter to Victor (Euseb. HE. V, 24.11 - 17 - in Schwartz S. 212-213; Russian translation. pp. 283-285; Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 1227-1232; Russian translation. works of St. Irenaeus. S. 530–531). See: Tertullian. De jejuniis. Sar. II (Col. 955–957); Sar. XIV and in general this entire work; Wed also the expression of Apollonius about Montana: “ό νηστείας νομοθετήσας” (Euseb. HE. V, 18.2 - in Schwartz S. 203; Russian translation S. 271). De jejuniis. Sar. I (Col. 954). Ibid. Sar. XIV-XV (Col. 973–975). Ibid. Sar. XII (Col. 970–971), XV (Col. 974–975), etc. Tertullian. De virginibus velandis. Cap. IV, VII, XVI-XVII; cf.: De oratione. Cap. XXI-XXII (T. I. Col. 1184–1190). De corona militis. Cap. XI, XII (T. I. Col. 94); XIII (Col. 96). Ibid. Cap. XIII (Col. 95–97). Tertullian. De pudicitia. Cap. II (y Mignée Col. 985), Cap. III (Col. 986) and in general this entire work. Ibid. Cap. II (Col. 985); Cap. V (Col. 988); Cap. IX (Col. 996), etc. Ibid. Cap. IX (Col. 996); Cap. XXII (Col. 1028–1029); Cap. VII (Col. 993). Ibid. Cap. II (Col. 985); Cap. VII (Col. 991–994). Ibid. Cap. II (Col. 985); Wed in general this whole work. Ibid. Cap. XXII (Col. 1026–1030). Ibid. Cap. IX (Col. 997–998); Cap. XXII (Col. 1027–1028). Ibid.Cap. XIV (Col. 1007–1009). Ibid. Cap. IX (Col. 997–998); Cap. XXII (Col. 1027–1030). Tertullian. De fuga in persecutione. Cap. I-III (Vol. II. Col. 103–106). Ibid. Cap. VII-VIII (Col. 110–111). Ibid. Cap. IV (Col. 107); cf.: Cap. V-VI and the entire work in general. Euseb. NOT. V, 18.5 (in Schwartz S. 205; Russian translation pp. 272–273). Ibid. V, 18.9 (in Schwartz S. 205; Russian translation pp. 272–273). Ibid. V, 16,20 et seq. (in Schwartz S. 201; Russian translation, pp. 268–269). Perpetua and her comrades can most likely be classified as Montanist martyrs (cf. Bonwetsch. S. 106, Anm. 1). From Anonymous in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 16, 9): “ὀλίγοι ἦ σαν ο ὗ τοι τῶν Φρυγῶν ἐξηπατημένοι” (in Schwartz'a S. 199; Russian trans. S. 266). See: Eusebius. Church history. V, 16.1 (in Schwart S. 197; Russian translation S. 263); also V, 19.1 (in Schwart S. 197; Russian translation p. 274). Anonymous in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. V, 17, 1 (in Schwart S. 202; Russian translation p. 269). In Eusebius in ch. 18 books V presents excerpts from the anti-montanist work of this writer (in Schwart S. 203–206; Russian translation, pp. 271–274). In ch. 9 of the same book by Eusebius contains excerpts from Serapion’s work against the Montanists (in Schwartz S.206; Russian translation pp. 274–275). Excerpts from it are given in chap. 16 and 17 of book V of Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” (in Schwartz S. 197–203; Russian translation pp. 263–270). See about it in detail in Pokrovsky A.I. Cathedrals of the Ancient Church. pp. 111–134; he also talks about the anti-Montanist councils in Asia Minor in general (C 95–134, 156–166). " Τῶν κατὰ τὴν A σίαν πιστῶν πολλάκις καὶ πολλακῆ τῆς Ἀσίας εἰς τοῦτο συν ελ θόντων “(Euseb. HE. V, 15.10 - in Schwartz S. 199; Russian translation P. 266). Eusebius. Church history. V, 3,4 (in Schwartz S. 485; Russian translation S. 247). See more details about this in Chapter IV. From modern research on this issue we had: NeanderA. Allgemeine Geschichte d. christlichen Religion und Kirche. 4 Aufl. Bd. I.S. 380–384; Weitzel K. Die christliche Paschafeier; Steitz G. E. – articles in Theologische Studien und Kritiken: “Die Differenz der Occidentalen und der Kleinasïaten in der Paschafeier” (1856. Heft 4); “Einige weitere Bemerkungen über den Paschastreit des 2 Jahrhunderts” (1856. Heft 3); "Der ästetische Character der Eucharistie und des Fastens in der alten Kirche" (1859); Rettberg Fr. W. Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche; Hilgenfeld A. Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche; His own. Die Quarta-decimaner // Ketzergeschichte; Schürer Aem. De controversis paschalibus (we quote the pages of this work with the letter R in front). The same almost with some additions in German processing: Die Paschastreitigkeiten des 2 Jahrhun-derts (we quote with the letter S.); Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons; His own. Forschungen. IV Theil; Preuschen E. Passah altkirchlicher und Passachstreitigkeiten//RE Herzog-Hauck'a. 3 Aufl. Bd. XTV; DreoysJPassach altkirchlicher liturgich (Ibid. S. 734–750); Bolotov V.V. Disputes about the time of celebrating Easter // Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 428–451; His own. From the history of the Syro-Persian Church, Πάρεργον - From the era of disputes about Easter at the end of the 2nd century. // Christian Reading. 1900. Part I. pp. 439–454; separate reprint: pp. 111–126); Pokrovsky A.I. Cathedrals of the Ancient Church. pp. 169–252. See in general: V, 23–25 (in Schwartz S. 209–214; Russian translation pp. 280–286); Wed also: IV, 26.1–4 (in Schwartz S. 161–162; Russian translation pp. 215–216). Euseb. NOT. V, 23.1–3 (in Schwartz S. 209–210; Russian translation p. 280). Ibid. V, 24.2–6 (in Schwartz S. 211; Russian translation pp. 281–282). Euseb. HE.V, 24,15–17 (in Schwartz S. 213; Russian translation pp. 284–285; y Mignéa Col. 1229–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. pp. 531). Ibid. V, 24.10–11 (Schwartz S. 212; Russian translation P. 283). Epistle to Victor, see: Euseb. NOT. V, 24,13,16 (in Schwartz' a S. 212–213; Russian translation, pp. 284–285; in Migné Col. 1229–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 530–531). See: Preuschen (RE. S. 727); Wed also Ziegler (S. 49–50); Hilgenfeld (Der Paschastreit. S. 315–316,286, etc.; Ketzergeschichte. S. 609), etc. Contra haereses. I, 26.2 (y Mignéa Col. 686–687; Russian translation, p. 95); IV, 33.4 (y Mignéa Col. 1074–1075; Russian translation, pp. 407–408), etc. For more information about evionites, see: Pisarev L.I., prof. Essays from the history of Christian doctrine. T.I.S. 96–126 et seq. Ibid.IV, 33,1 (y Mignéya Col. 1072–1073; Russian translation, pp. 405–406). As some researchers believe (see: Preuschen // RE. S. 727). “Τὰς τῶν ἀσιτίων ἐπιλύσεις ποιεῖσθαι,” says Eusebius about Asia Minor practice; “τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι “, - about the Roman and conciliar definitions (Euseb. HE. V, 23.1–2 - in Schwartz1 a S. 210; Russian translation. P. 280). In describing both practices, Eusebius strongly separates these two points. Euseb. NOT. V, 23.2 (Ibid.). See, for example: Epiphanius Haereses. XXX, 16; XL, 2; XLII, 3.11; Eusebius in the work Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάσχα ἐορτής. Cap. VII, 1X (Msh NovaPatrum Bibliotheca. IV. 1847. P. 209–216), etc. Compare: Schurer. R. 9.13 (S. 196–197); WeitzeL S. 97; Hilgenfeld. Paschastreit. S. 288, Anm. 1. This was the coincidence of the Jewish Passover with the Asia Minor Passover. Only the time of their celebration was the same. So it is exclusively necessary to understand the expressions of Eusebius, clear, however, in themselves, that the Christians of Asia Minor celebrated Passover on Nisan 14, “when the Jews were commanded to slaughter a lamb” (ἐν ᾗ θύειν τὸ πρόβατον Ἰ ουδαίοις προηγορεύετο - according to the words of Polycrates below, this is a subordinate clause of time, as translated in Russian), and the words of Polycrates that his relatives celebrated Passover on the day “when the (Jewish) people left leavened bread” (ὅ ταν - time conjunction - ὁ λαὸς ἤ ρνυεν τὴν ζύμην ). See generally: Eusebius. HE.V, 23,1–2 (in Schwartz’s S.210–211; Russian and transl. P. 280). This is how most researchers understand this passage (cf.: Schürer, Hilgenfeld, Weitzel - op. p.). Easter Chronicle. 1.12–15: "Καὶ λέγουσιν, ὅ τι τῇ ιδ ´ τὸ πρόβατὸν μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν ἔφαγεν ὁ κύριος; ? "" Compare: Clement of Alexandria. Fragment from the essay "Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα": "Τοῖς μεν ο ὖ ν παρεληλυθόσιν ἔτεσι τὸ ἤ σθιεν ἑορτάζων ὁ Κύριος πάσχα ; ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐκήρυξεν, αὐτὸς ὤ ν τὸ πάσχα, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡ ς ???? "(Easter chronicle. 1.12–15). Easter Chronicle. Ibid. (see above quote). Wed: Schirer R. 7–10; S. 189–193. As Weitzel (S. 76–80,131 and others) and Steitz think (Studien u. Kritiken. 1856. H. 4. S. 673; 1857. S. 755 and others). See, on the contrary: Schürer. Ibid. Apparently, part of what can speak against our statement is the consideration that fasting, which was also observed by the people of Asia Minor, generally meant mourning for something (cf. Weitzel. S. 78–83; Steitz. Stud. u. Krit. 1856. S. 773–774; for more details: 1857. S. 728–736). Why did they need to wear mourning if Easter was not the holiday of the death and suffering of Christ? However, as Schürer proved, fasting in both the Jewish and ancient Christian Churches served not only as a sign of mourning and repentance, but was used simply as preparation for any celebration, even the Eucharist (cf. Acts 13:3; 14:23; Jewish book Pesachim. X, 1; also in Eusebius in the work “On Easter.” Chapter IV, XI – in Mai. IV, 209; in the fifth Easter letter of Athanasius - in Mai. IV, 71; etc.). In Schürer P. 47–53; S..238–245, etc. Compare: Weitzel.S. 130–133; Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 431. They think the same: Weitzel (S. 130–133,78–80, etc.); Steitz (Stud. u. Krit. 1856. S. 770–771; 797–799); Schürer (P. 15, 19; S. 207; P. 59–60; S. 253–254). Euseb.HE.V, 24,2 (Schwartz’s S.211; Russian translation C.281); cp.: Schürer (P. 15; S. 199–200). Euseb. NOT. V, 23.1–2: “κατὰ ταύτην (ἡμέραν)” – about Asia Minor practice; “ἐν ταύτ ῃ μόνη (ἡμέρα” – about conciliar definitions (in Schwartz S. 210; Russian translation p. 280). Ibid. V, 24, 12 (in Schwartz S. 212; Russian translation, p. 283; in Migne, Col. 1229–1230; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, p. 530). Compare: Schürer. R. 19; S. 206–207. Cp.(Studien und Kritiken. 1856.S.772–773, etc.); Schürer (P. 19; S. 207; P. 60, etc.). Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 438–439. From the history of the Syro-Persian Church (Separate issue, pp. 122–123; in “Christian Reading” for 1900, 4.1, pp. 450–451). Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 435–444. Read more about the history of Easter disputes in the 2nd century. in connection with the participation of St. For Irenaeus, see our chapter IV. Church history. V, 4.1–2 (in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation pp. 247–248). Hegisippus in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. IV, 22.3 (ed. Schwartz S. 156; Russian translation P. 209). Patrum apostolicorum opera. Editio minor. S. 127–128. Eusebius. Church history. V, 4, 2 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 248). For the full text of this specification, see also above. Eusebius. Church history. V, 4, 2 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation P. 248) Right there. V, 4, 1: “Εἰρηναῖον πρεσβύτερον τότ ’ ὅ ντα” (in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 247). De viris illustribus. Sar. XXXV: “Hireneus Pothini episcopi presbyter” (y Bernoulli S. 26). “If we knew that a place brings righteousness to someone, then, first of all, we would introduce Irenaeus to you as a presbyter of the Church, which he is” (Eusebius. V, 4,2 - in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation p. 248). See, for example: Epistula ad Philadelphenos. Cap. IV: “One flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of His blood, one altar, as well as one bishop with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow servants...” (Editio minor. S. 104; Russian translation of the works of the apostolic men. P. 297). Wed. in general the messages of St. Ignatius. Sar. VI (Patrum apostolicorum opera. Editio minor. S. 116; Russian translation of the works of the apostolic men. S. 324). See also about this: Lebedev A.P., prof. Clergy of the Ancient Church. pp. 61–66, etc. Eusebius. Church history. V, 4.2 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 248). Wed. definition of duties and instructions for elders by Polycarp of Smyrna. In Eusebius he is mistakenly called Antoninus Verus (see the preface to the V book of his “Church History” - in Schwartz S. 170; Russian translation, p. 225). See: Tillmon (T. III. R. 596–598); 596–598); Neander (Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 141–143); Neumann (S. 28, Anm. 2); Harnack (Geschichte. Bd. II, 1.S.381, etc.); P. Allyar (see below); Zahn (RE. Bd. IX. 1901. S. 407); V.V. Bolotov (Lectures. Issue I.S. 99), etc. Vol. XVI. No. 3. R. 358–384. Passionate desire, intoxication of martyrdom. Une nouvelle theorie sur le martyre des Chretiens de Lyon en 177 // Revue des Quessions historiques. Janvier. P. 53–67. Theologische Literaturzeitung. February. No. 3. S. 74–77. True, shared in part by some other scientists (see: in his book, pp. 360–361). Eusebius. Church history. IV, 26, 4–11 (in Schwartz S. 162–164; Russian translation pp. 216–219). See: Apologeticus. Cap. V (Migne. PL. T. I. Col. 295–296; Russian translation by Karneeva. Edition 2.1849. Part I. P. 15). Compare: Harnak. Or. cit. S. 75. 1895. April: Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Lugdunum vor Konstantin. In Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in der ersten drei Jahrhun-derten. Bd. I-II. Leipzig, 1906.2 Aufl. Decree. article in Theologische Literaturzeitung. S. 76. “How many of our Christians have endured, without the slightest groan, the burning of not only their hands, but their entire bodies... I compare my men with Mucius or Aquilius, or Regulus; but among us, not only men, even our youths and women, armed with patience in suffering, despise your crosses, torture, animals and all the horrors of executions" (Migne. PL. T. III. Col. 353; Russian translation (Works of ancient Christian apologists. M., 1867). P. 366). Compare: Eusebius. Church history. V, 1.20–24.37–40.41 –42.52.53–56. Eusebius. Church history. V, 1.11 (in Schwartz S. 172–173; Russian translation p. 229). Right there. V, 1.34 (Schwartz S. 177; Russian translation P. 235). Eusebius. Church history. V, 16.20, etc.; V, 18,5,9, etc. Editio minor. S; 125; Wed also an epilogue on the Moscow manuscript (Ibid. S. 128), etc. Eusebius. Church history. V, 1.45 (Schwartz S. 179; Russian translation S. 239). Wed: Pokrovsky N.V., prof. Monuments of Christian iconography and art. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 61–66. “Pulchra in figura ecclesiae de Maria prophetata sunt” (De institutione virginis. Cap. XIV - in Migné PL. T. XVI. Col. 526–527). We outline its history according to the first chapter of the V book of Eusebius; Wed also chapters 2–3 of the same book. V, 1.7 (Schwartz S. 172; Russian translation S. 227). Right there. V, 1.18 (Schwartz S. 174; Russian translation C 231). Euseb. NOT. V, 4.2 (in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation pp. 247–248). This is considered almost certain by many researchers; see, for example: Ziegler (S. 26–27), Freppel (P. 172), etc. The latter even finds similarities in the style of the epistle with the language of the original works of Irenaeus (Ibid.). Euseb. NOT. V, 3,4 (in Schwartz S. 184–185; Russian translation p. 247). Confirmation of this can be found on almost every page of the epistle itself, where Christians decisively distinguish themselves from the “martyrs” (see, for example: V, 1,4 (in Schwartz S. 171; Russian translation P.227); also V, 1,6; V, 1,11, etc.). A.I. Pokrovsky sees in the message of Eusebius “quite clear traces of a special Gallic Council on Montanism” around 178. This Council, in the author’s opinion, was “caused by the eastern Council of Hierapolis, which issued a sharp and categorical condemnation of Montanism. In contrast, Lyonsky speaks out in a softer, conciliatory spirit and, in general, is more likely to take even the Montanists under his protection” (Councils of the Ancient Church, pp. 164–165). – However, it is unlikely that A.I. Pokrovsky’s assumption about convening a council in Gaul regarding the Montanist schism corresponds to reality. The time of persecution must be considered especially unfortunate for this. As for the attitude of the Lyon martyrs to the new movement, we will talk about this a little further. The martyrs, according to the Lyon Christians, were indignant if any of them (Christians) called them that (martyrs) in a letter (δἰ ἐπιστολῆς) or in conversation. See: Euseb. NOT. V, 2, 2 (Schwartz S. 183; Russian translation S. 244). The participle ἐκθέμενοι (ἐκτίθημι in the general voice means “to set forth” and “to publish”) allows for both. This special purpose quite sufficiently explains the fact that Christians sent a letter (or letters) from the martyrs to the Asian and Phrygian brothers, perhaps for the second time (during the persecution and at the end of it). Euseb. NOT. V, 4.2 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 248). There is no reason to believe that the persecution lasted more than a year. This is clear from the fact that, according to the epistle of the Gallic Churches, Pofinus was brought to trial and died at the end of the persecution, when the legate took over his leadership (cf.: Euseb. HE. V, 1.29-30 in Schwartz S. 176; Russian translation S. 234). The content of the letter, which concerned a very important issue in church life, fully allows for such an idea. This goal is recognized by all modern authors. Some only belittle, as we will see below, its importance, considering it to be secondary, and not main (Massuet, Harvey, etc.). Harnack. Dogmengeschichte. 1909.Bd.I.S.428;Ziegler.S.61; Duchesne. Histoire de l'Eglise. P. 277–278; Russian translation P. 185. Harnack. The Encyclopaedia Britanica. Vol. XVI. 1883. P. 776. Hilgenfeld. Ketzergeschichte. S. 563. Ibid. S. 565; Wed in general: S. 563–565. Cathedrals of the ancient Church. P. 163. See the relevant sections, eg Meander in Allgemeine Geschichte, Harnack and Seeberg in their Dogmengeschichte, T. Zahn in Geschichte d. netestamentlichen Kanons and many others. etc. Contra haereses. III 24.1; IV, 33.6–8; III, 2.2; Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Ch. 2–6, etc. “Qui sunt extra veritatem, id est... extra Ecclesiam” (Ibid. IV, 33.7-y Mignée Col. 1075; Russian translation p. 409); cf.: IV, 26.2 (in Migné Col. 1054; Russian translation pp. 387–388); also: III, 24, 1–2 (y Mignéa Col. 966–967; Russian translation pp. 312–313) and V, 20.2. “Heretics who bring alien fire to the altar of God, that is, alien teachings, will be burned by heavenly fire, like Nadab and Abihu. Those who rebel against the truth and stir up others against the Church of God will remain in hell, swallowed up by the earth, like the adherents of Korah, Dathan and Abiron. But those who dissect and tear apart the unity of the Church will receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam” (Contra haereses. IV, 26, 2 - in Migne’s Col. 1054; Russian translation, pp. 387–388); compare: IV, 33.7; V, 20.2; III, 3,4, etc. Contra haereses. IV, 33.8 (in Migne’s Col. 1077; Russian translation, p. 409). Ibid. III, 3.2–4; 1,11,2, etc. Ibid. IV, 26.5 (in Migne’s Col. 1056; Russian translation, p. 389); also I, 11, 1; II, praefatio; IV, 33.8, etc. “Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus illi earn, quae in unoquoque loco est, Ecclesiam tradiderunt” (Contra haereses. IV, 33.8 - in Migne Col. 1077; Russian translation p. 409). “Fidem per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos” (Ibid. III, 3,2 – in Migné Col. 848; Russian translation, p. 222). Ibid. III, 2, 2: “Traditio, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur” (y Mignéa Col. 847; Russian translation, p. 221); cf.: III, 3.3, etc. Ibid. III, 3.1 (in Migné Col. 848; Russian translation p. 222), etc. At Mignée Col. 890–891; Russian translation pp. 250–251. See also below about this. Contra-haereses. IV, 26, 2 () Ibid. IV, 26.5 (in Migné Col. 1056; Russian translation p. 389); Wed also: III, 24.1; IV, 26.4, etc. “The excellent gift of love is more precious than knowledge and more glorious than prophecy and more excellent than all other gifts” (in Migné Col. 1077; Russian translation p. 409). Ibid. III, 11.8 (in Migné Col. 885–889; Russian translation, pp. 249–250). “All those who distort the idea of ​​the Gospel and introduce types of the Gospel more or less than those said (four) are vain and ignorant and, moreover, impudent” (Ibid. III, 11.9 - in Migné Col. 890; Russian translation p. 250). “Such one will certainly be subject to considerable punishment, which will be the one who adds or subtracts anything from Scripture” (Ibid. V, 30, 1 - in Migné Col. 1204; Russian translation p. 510). At Mignée Col. 1200; Russian translation pp. 507–508. At Mignen's Col. 1076; Russian translation pp. 408–409. In relation to the Gnostics, this does not need confirmation: the proof is all five books of Contra haereses; about Ebionites, see I, 26, 2 and other places. It seems to us that there are 6 St. in the department. Irenaeus means "prophets", leaders; and at 7 - simply Montanists. In Eusebius. NOT. V, 16.8 (in Schwartz S. 198; Russian translation p. 265). Ibid.V, 16.4 (in Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation P. 264); cf. also: Apollonius in V, 18.1 (in Schwartz S. 203; Russian translation P. 271), etc. "Ἐν ἐπιθυμί ᾳ ἀμέτρ ῳ φιλοπρωτείας " (Eusebius. V, 16, 7 – in Schwartz S. 198; Russian translation p. 265), etc. Cf. “vanity” (vanam gloriam) in Irenaeus in section 6. Eusebius. V, 18, 2: “δωροληψίαν ἐπιτεχνώμενος” (in Schwartz S. 203; Russian translation p. 271). Ibid. V, 18.5 (in Schwartz S. 204; Russian translation pp. 271–272); cf. in Irenaeus: “quaestum aliquem” in the 6th section. Eusebius.V, 16.7: “Δόντα πάροδον εἰς ἑαυτὸν τῷ ἀντικειμέν ῳ” (in Schwartz S. 198; Russian translation by S. 265); also V, 16.8–9: " ?? κωλύεσθαι σιωπ ᾶ ν . Τέχνη δέ τινι ... ὁ διάβολος ...", etc. (in Schwartz S. 198–199; Russian translation p. 265). Euseb. NOT. V, 18.5: “Βλασφημῆσαι εἰς τὸν κύριον καὶ τούς ἀποστόλους, καὶ τὴν ἀγίαν ἐκκλησίαν "(in Schwartz S. 204; Russian translation S. 272). Ibid. V, 16.5 (in Schwartz S. 198; Russian translation p. 264). Wed. in Irenaeus in section 7: “He will also judge all those who are outside the truth (extra veritatem), i.e. outside the Church” (in Mignen Col. 1074; Russian translation p. 409). The Montanists include IV, 33, 6–7 quite decisively by Grabe (during his publication and in Migne’s T. VII. Col. 1076, note 36) and Bonwech (Zur Geschichte des Montanismus. S. 25). Massuet (in Migne T. VII. Col. 1076, note 36) says that St. Irenaeus could have been referring here to both the Gnostics and the Catathrygians. At Mignen's Col. 1077–1078; Russian translation P. 409. Compare: Eusebius. Church history. V, 16.3 (Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation P. 264). The last expression and what is said about Holy Scripture can also be attributed to the Gnostics. Compare: IV, 33, 7: “He will also judge all those who are outside the truth, that is, outside the Church...” (in Migné Col. 1076; Russian translation p. 409). Wed: IV, 33, 7 (words quoted above). y Mignéa Col. 1053–1054; Russian translation pp. 387–388. In Mignéy T. VII. Col. 890–891, approx. 48. S. 59–61. The priest thinks the same. Preobrazhensky (in the Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 250). When he published the works of St. Irenea. This is how it stands in Massuet and in all other editions of the works of St. Irenea. This reading, however, raises some doubts. In this section, in general, we mean alogues. And they, as we know (see further on this), were opponents of the Montanists and precisely rejected the prophetic gift and prophecies. Therefore, to assume on their part a desire to become false prophets themselves seems somewhat strange at first glance. With this in mind, Tsang (Geschichte d. neutestamentl. Kanons. Bd. I. H. I. S. 237–246) suggests that here, obviously, the scribes made an involuntary distortion of the original Irenaean text. In fact, there probably was, and should be, a slightly different reading, namely: “qui pseudoprophetas quidem esse nolunt” “who, of course, wish that there were no false prophets, but in fact...”. This phrase is in complete harmony with the entire content of the department and the information that is available about the alogs. Here the opposition is more precisely maintained: quidem – vero. It is also natural and easy to assume that the scribes changed two letters: s into e (pseudoprophetae phetas), n into v (nolunt volunt). And Tsang’s reform itself is apparently very insignificant. However, we must not forget that a reading similar to Massuet’s is found in all the manuscripts of the works of St. Irenea. In addition, the lightness and naturalness of the new form is achieved, despite, apparently, the external insignificance, by radically changing the word volunt into its exact opposite nolunt; in syntactic terms, instead of nominativus duplex - accusativus cum infinitive. And in this situation, it is necessary to create a new reading carefully, as in general it is always necessary to first try all measures to interpret the existing text and only if a satisfactory explanation is completely impossible to declare it corrupted. This time, in our opinion, the situation is not so hopeless. We need to understand what St. understood. Irenaeus under the word pseudoprophetae. If we turn to Contra haereses, we will see that he understands the term “prophet” in accordance with the Old Testament. This is, first of all, a) a predictor of the future (Contra haereses. IV, 26.1; 25.3 and many others); then b) an interpreter of the will of God and a teacher of life and morals (Ibid. IV, 23.1; IV, 16, etc.) and c) finally, a legislator, like Moses (Ibid. IV, 2.3–4, etc.). The increase in ψευδο indicates either a false direction in the prophet’s activity, or, most likely, a false source of it; so that the original content of the word propheta itself remains the same. It is also very likely that Irenaeus’ terminology was influenced by the usual usage when pseudoprophetae was applied to the Montanist prophets. But the activity of the latter was again similar in appearance to the activity of the prophets of the Old Testament. They were also teachers and leaders of life in their communities, they predicted the future (Montan, Maximilla); passing off their prophecies as new revelation and adding them to Holy Scripture as additional rules (see about this above, in Chapter III, when we talk about the essence of Montanism), thereby turning out to be, like Moses, legislators in their midst. In the same sense, Irenaeus could have used the term pseudoprophetae in the application to alogs. The latter, while differing from the Montanists in their fundamental views, in fact, in practice, however, turned out to be similar to them. They apparently separated from the Church, formed their own society and had their own teachers and leaders. And by rejecting some books of Holy Scripture, they also arrogated legislative rights to themselves. In this respect, the Alogians surpassed even the Montanists, since the latter, apparently, only “supplemented” the Holy Scriptures, without, however, rejecting (at least formally) any books. Perhaps the Alogs also predicted the future, at least in the sense that the Church would perish if it took the path of the Montanists and did not accept their (the Alogs’) point of view. This actual similarity with the Montanists, perhaps not even recognized by the Alogians, was probably what Irenaeus wanted to emphasize with the phrase under discussion. This assumption is contradicted only, apparently, by the meaning of the word volunt. Tsang (op. p.) argues that it has an active meaning and indicates a conscious act of will. In this case, our explanation largely loses its force, since we cannot attribute to the alogs a conscious desire for false prophecy. However, as Jülicher has sufficiently proven, the verb volo does not always have an active meaning, but is used in general and in particular by St. Irenaeus often has the impersonal meaning of “to like” (German Belieben – y Julicher’a in Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1889. No. 7. S. 169). And then nothing prevents us from translating the passage under discussion as follows: “They (alogs), of course, like (themselves) to be false prophets, but in reality they reject,” etc. But with this understanding, there is no longer an urgent need for Tsang’s reform. Be that as it may, in any case, in one reading or another, the expression being analyzed does not prevent one from attributing the entire department specifically to the Alogians, and not to the Montanists (as Massuet, Ziegler, Harvey and Preobrazhensky think). At Migne's Col. 890–891; Russian translation pp. 250–251. Compare: Zahn (Geschichte d. neutest. Kanons. Bd. I. H. I. S. 237–246); Bonwetsch (Zur Geschichte des Montahismus. S. 24); Julicher (Theologische Lite-raturzeitung. 1889. No. 7. S. 169), etc. De haeresibus. LX. For more details on alogs, see Harnack in Geschichte d. altchristl. Litter. (Bd. II, 1. S. 376 et seq.; 670 et seq.), Dogmengeschichte (S. 707 et seq.); Zahn'a (Geschichte d. neutest. Kanons. Bd. I. H. I. S. 223–246; Bd. II. S. 967–973); Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 599–601); Bonwetsch'a (Zur Geschichte des Montanismus. S. 24); Julicher'a (Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1889. No. 7. S. 166–169); Ivantsov-Platonov (“Heresies and Schisms.” pp. 156–162). The following generally agree with this: Bonwetsch (Op. cit. S. 24–25), Neander (Allgemeine Geschichte. Bd. II. S. 442–444), Tixeront (Histoire des Dogmes. P. 214–215). Ziegler(S. 61); Duchesne (Op. cit. P. 277–278; Russian translation, p. 185); Harnack (Montanism // The Encyclopaedia Britanica. Vol. XVI. 1883. P. 776; cf. also: Dogmengeschichte. S. 428); Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 563). Duchesne. Op. cit. P. 277–278; Russian translation P. 185. See: Eusebius. V, 4.2 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 248). Ibid. V, 3,4 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 247). Ibid. V, 4.3 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 248). Actually, “τὴν λεγομένην κατὰ Φρύγας α ἵ ρεσιν” (HE. V, 16, 1 – in Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation P. 263); Wed in general: V, 14–19. Compare: Duchesne (Op. cit. P. 278; Russian translation, p. 185), etc. NOT. V, 1.9 (Schwartz S. 172; Russian translation S. 228). Ibid. V, 2.2–3 (Schwartz S. 183; Russian translation P. 244). Ibid. V, 2.7 (Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation S. 245). Ζωήν here can be understood, judging by the connection, only in the usual sense of earthly “life”. Ibid. U, 2.6 (Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation P. 245). Ibid. V, 2.7 (index page). Ibid. V, 2.5 (Schwartz S. 183; Russian translation S. 245). Ibid. V, 2.7 (Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation pp. 245–246). Compare: Eusebius. V, 2.8 (Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation S. 246). See: Eusebius V, 3,2–3 (in Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation pp. 246–247). Martyrium Polycarpi. V, 2 (Editio minor. S. 121; cf.: Eusebius. HE. IV, 5, 10 – in Schwartz S. 142; Russian translation, S. 191). Eusebius. V, 3,4 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 247). Contra haereses. III, 2.9 (y Mignéa Col. 891; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 251); II, 32.4 (y Mignéa Col. 829–830; Russian translation, p. 110). Euseb. NOT. V, 3.2 (in Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation S. 246). See about this in more detail above, where we talk in general about Montanism and its teaching (Chapter III). Ibid. V, 3.3 (Schwartz S. 184; Russian translation S. 246). Thompson, wanting to prove the presence of furor'a passionis among the martyrs, refers to such expressions of the message as: “the first martyrs did not hide and were ready, even with all zeal, pronounced the confession of martyrdom” (καὶ μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας ἀνεπλήρουν ομολογίαν τῆς μαρτυρίας – see: Eusebius V, 1.11 – in Schwartz S. 172–173; 229); or: the suffering of “those (who did not fall away) was eased by the joy of martyrdom” (Eusebius, V, 1,34 - in Schwartz S. 177; Russian translation P. 235; in Thompson see The American Journal of Theology. 1912. Vol. XVI. No. 3. P. 378). The first phrase characterizes the attitude of the martyrs to the interrogation, when they boldly pronounced a confession of faith in Christ, for which they paid with their lives. The second is their mood in comparison with those who, fearing torment, renounced their Savior. Considering the above expressions in the general connection of speech, it is impossible not to admit, however, that the statement based on them about furor passionis is explained exclusively by the bias and suspicion of Thompson himself. In fact, what true Christian will not make his confession, even if it threatens him with death (cf. 1 Peter 3:14-15)? And what martyr, who suffered for Christ, went to the cross in sorrow? Of course, in our time such “jealousy” very rarely manifests itself. But in the first centuries it was a distinctive property of almost all Christians, ready to suffer for the love of Christ even to death, like their Chief Shepherd (Phil. 2:8). Euseb. NOT. V, 4.1–2 (in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation pp. 247–248). As Hilgenfeld puts it (Ketzergeschichte. S. 563). As Harnack thinks (Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I. S. 428). The following agree with us: Bonwetsch (Zur Geschichte des Montanismus. S. 25–26; Montanism // RE. Bd. XIII. 1903. S. 424); Tixeront (Histoire des Dogmes. P. 214–215); Möller (Montanismus//RE Herzog. Bd. IX. 1858. S. 759–760). Euseb.HE. V, 3,4 (Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation S. 247). If we relate this expression to the fundamental negative views of the martyrs on Montanism, then it will turn out to be little understandable. “Idem (Praxeas) episcopum Romanum, agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae et ex ea agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum asseverando, praedeces-sorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et litteras pacis revocare jam emissas et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare" (Adversus Praxeam. Cap. 1 / / Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 155–156). Harnack (Geschichte. Bd. II, 1. S. 375–376; cf.: 1.1. S. 261–262); Duchesne (Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise. P. 278, note 1; Russian translation, p. 185); Möller (RE. Bd. IX. 1858. S. 759–760); Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 355. Such a connection is suggested by Massuet (in Migne T. VII. Col. 180). To characterize it, it is enough to read at least one first chapter. V.V. Bolotov looks the same way (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 355). “Raset ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum asseverando” (op. p.). See in more detail the chronology of Montanism in Pokrovsky A.I. Councils of the Ancient Church. pp. 156–166; in particular, about the Council of Hierapolis: P. 165, etc. Eusebius. Church history. V, 16, 10 (in Schwartz 199; Russian translation p. 266). For example, the already mentioned Hierapolis in 172–173. See, for example: Bolotov B.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 355. V, 5.8 (Schwartz S. 187; Russian translation P. 250). In essence, “where” and “by whom” represent one question: if in Rome, then it means by the Pope and his co-bishops. In Mignen's works of St. Irenea. T. VII. Col. 182–190. When publishing the works of St. Irenea. T. I, prolegomena. P. CLVI-CLVIII. T. I, prolegomena. P. CLVI-CLVIII. With this in mind, by the way, Harvey disagrees with Massuet and argues that consecration as a bishop could not have been the goal in sending Irenaeus from Lyon (T. I. P. CLVI-CLVIII). At Mignée Col. 189–190. Apparently, Massuet himself attached exceptional importance to this negative basis. This can already be seen from the recommendation given to him by the martyrs (Eusebius. V, 4,2 - in Schwartz S. 185; Russian translation p. 248. See our full text at the beginning of this chapter). See general information about Gnosticism and its spread in Gaul above, in Chapter III. Contra haereses. I,13.7; also preface to Book I, § 2; 1,6,3–4. Here, see about these works of St. father in part II. Contra haereses. IV, 41.4 (in Mignen’s Col. 1118; Russian translation, p. 443). Ibid. Lib. I, praefatio, § 2 (y Mignen’ya Col. 441–442; Russian translation, p. 20), etc. Fragments of Irenaeus from this work were published and examined by prof. G. Jordan (Armenische Irenäusfragmente / / Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. XXXVI. H. 3). See also our article on Armenian fragments from the works of St. father in “Christian Reading” for 1915 (April. pp. 562–582 and a separate reprint). In our article Nos. 6 and 7 (Christian Reading. P. 570–575; separate reprint. P. 9–14). In Jordan (German translation) – S. 134–141,150–154. See here: Christian Reading. pp. 572.575; dept. imprint pp. 11.13–14. Wed. See also: Jordan. Op. cit. S. 149,154–159. See our decree. article. P. 575 (14). Church history. V, 26 (Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 286). See Jordan's German translation of this passage. Or. cit. S. 134–141; We also have a transfer of its contents in “Christian Reading” for 1915 April. pp. 571–572; dept. imprint pp. 10–11. See in more detail the contents of the fragment in Jordan - S. 154–155; unas - S. 573–574 (“Christian Reading”) and S. 12–13 (separate reprint). Contra haereses. II, 31.3 (in Migne’s Col. 825–826; Russian translation, p. 207). Ibid. II, 31.3 (in Migne’s Col. 824; Russian translation, p. 206). Ibid. III, 25, 7 (in Migné Col. 970–972; Russian translation, p. 316). Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 192 (Massueti Dissert.). This was thoroughly proven by Hefele (Conciliengeschichte.2Aufl.Bd.I.S. 84). See also Harnack about this collection (Geschichte. Bd, I, 1. S. 801); from Russian scientists - A.I. Pokrovsky (Councils of the Ancient Church. pp. 113–117). This is how Gefele, Harnack (op. p.), prof. look at him. P. Gidulyanov (Metropolitans of the first three centuries of Christianity. P. 150). A. I. Pokrovsky, agreeing, in general, with the named scientists, recognized, however, that it was possible for himself to use it as “a good commentary on the news of Eusebius about the councils of the ancient Church” (see op. p., especially: P. 116). As Massuet already looks at it: “There can be no faith in a book published in the 9th century. (Libellus synodicus),” he says about her (in Migné. T. VII. Col. 192). This time is determined as follows. Pope Anicetus ascended the throne of Rome around 154–155 (see: Lipsius. Die Papstverzeichnisse des Eusebius und der von ihm abhängigen Chronisten kritisch untersucht. Kiel, 1868. S. 19, 12, 28, etc.; cp.: Schürer.P. 11;S. 194). But Polycarp also died in 155, as we have already said. Consequently, the meeting of these fathers cannot be placed beyond the limits of 154–155. " ἡμέρας ἐστίν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις , ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται μίαν ο ἳ δὲ δύο, ο ἳ δε καὶ πλείονας ο ἳ δε τεσσαράκοντα ὥ ρας , ἡμερινάς τέ καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσιν τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν “In this case we follow the reading of Grabe, Zahr (Forsch. Th. IV. S. 287), Schwartz (S. 212) and others. Massuet (y Migne). Col. 1229), Stieren (T. I. S. 824), Harvey (T. II. P. 474) read differently, namely, in accordance with the translation of Rufinus (nonnulli autem quadraginta ita horas diumas nocturnasque computantes diem statuant), they put a period after τεσσαράκοντα. such a meaning: “Some fast for one day, others for two, and some for more than 40 days; moreover, they consider the hours of the day and night to be the measure of their day (So in the Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 530; in the translation of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” there is a reading that we also accept.) But if you follow Massuet, then the phrase seems unclear: “moreover, the measure.” they honor the hours of the day and night.” The word ἡμέρα, generally speaking, has a certain meaning of our day; it cannot be assumed that any Christians fasted during the day and all ate at night. So in this case, the above expression would mean nothing more than a confirmation of the well-known truth that a day consists of day and night, and therefore would be superfluous. But it will be completely understandable if we assume that St. Irenaeus here has in mind a special, “their” day of some Christians who fasted only 40 hours before Easter, that is, the time that the Savior spent in the tomb; for example, from 6 o'clock in the evening of Good Friday until sunrise on Sunday (cf.: Zahn. Op. cit. S. 290–294; Harvey. T. II. P. 474, note 6). It is difficult to decide who these Christians were. But probably not Asia Minor. Euseb. NOT. V, 24.12–16 (in Schwartz S. 212–213; Russian translation, pp. 283–285; in Migné Col. 1227–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 530–531). Ibid. V, 24.4 (Schwartz S. 211; Russian translation P. 282). Euseb. NOT. V, 24.6 (Schwartz S. 211; Russian translation P. 282). Τηρεῖν, therefore, refers to a prescription of the Jewish Law, just as the word is used in Acts. 15, 5. 24 about the performance of Old Testament rituals (cf.: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Issue II. P. 434). But, as N.I. Sagarda rightly says (1st Council Epistle of St. John the Theologian. Poltava, 1903. P. 359), in contrast to φυλάσσειν, preserving a firmly defined, unchanging (cf.: 1 Tim. 6:20) - τηρεῖν means serving something not according to the letter, but in spirit. When applied to this case, as we have already proven, it therefore means that the people of Asia Minor observed only the time of the Jewish Passover, but celebrated their own Passover and remembered their Lamb, the slain Son of God for peace; Thus, they gave the Old Testament Passover a spiritual interpretation. Tsang thinks that Roman Christians did not fast at all before Easter. He sees an indication of this in the expression μὴ τηρεῖν, applied by Irenaeus to the Romans (Forsch. Th. IV. S. 290–303; especially: S. 298–300). However, as we have seen, τηρεῖν refers to the day of Easter (Tsang himself admits this, see S. 298), and it is not clear from anywhere that it concerns the duration of the fast or its existence. Ἐτπτρούντων, standing above, also does not have an addition; therefore it cannot be based on it either. In addition, according to Tsan, it turns out that Roman Christians began to fast relatively late, at least after 155 (Ibid.). But with such a decisively unfounded statement, Victor’s zeal in defending Roman practice is completely incomprehensible. It is obvious that the Easter fast existed equally in both the Roman and Asia Minor churches. Only the duration and time of its end were different in them. A more precise determination of this date is impossible given the current state of historical sources. The key in this case can only serve as the testimony of Melito from Eusebius: ?? ᾳ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα , ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρὸν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις, καὶ ἐγράφη ταῦτα" (essay "Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα"). See: Euseb. NOT. IV, 26, 3 – in Schwartz S. 162; Russian translation P. 216. Here Meliton determines the time of publication of his essay “On Easter,” which relates to the present period of controversy. If we could accurately establish the last date, then, of course, it would be possible to determine the time of the entire Laodicean dispute, at least in general terms. But what data is provided for this? On the one hand, the proconsulate in Asia of some Servillius Paulus, and on the other, the martyrdom of Sagaris. The latter is known; that he was a bishop in Laodicea and died not only much earlier than the disputes of 190-192. ( κεκοίμηται – past perfect tense, see: Euseb. NOT. V, 24.5, excerpt from a letter from Polycrates to Schwartz S. 211; Russian translation P. 282), but, judging by the place he occupies in the list of supporters of Asia Minor practice in Polycrates (Ibid.), also before the death of Melito; although he probably survived Polycarp of Smyrna (Ibid.). But all this is such vague data that it is hardly possible to establish anything from it. It is difficult to assume, however, that Meliton lived after 180: history no longer knows anything about him during this time, and Polycrates, apparently, in 190–192. assumes him to be long dead (Ibid.). Therefore, one can think that the death of Sagaris, earlier in comparison with him, occurs in the 60s. . As for Servillius Paulus, history also knows nothing about such a person. Harnack (Geschichte. Bd. II, 1. S. 359–360) and some other scholars (cf.: Hilgenfeld. Paschastreit. S. 252, Anm. 1) read Sergius Paulus instead of Servillius Paulus, together with Rufinus. The latter was appointed proconsul for the second time around 168. But, taking into account that Melito speaks simply of proconsulship, one can think that the death of Sagaris occurred during the first administration of Asia by this Sergius Paulus; that means, in any case, until 168, maybe in 167, which Harnack considers to be the extreme lowest (Ibid.). There was, however, another proconsul at this time, Servillius Pudens, who held the seat in 166 (Hilgenfeld. Ibid.). Maybe Meliton means him here? With both assumptions, almost identical years are obtained: 166–167, as the extreme ones. But there is no reason to rise above 160 g. In view of all this, the expression “sixties” (160–170), vague in particulars, in our opinion, is best used when discussing the Laodicean dispute; especially since almost all authors dealing with the Easter issue do not go beyond these years in their definitions. Wed: Harnack – 166/7 or 167/8; maybe earlier 162 (Ibid.); Zahn – about 165 (Geschichte. S. 180); Weitzel (S. 16–18), Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S.604), Schiirer (P. 11) – around 170; V.V. Bolotov - in 167 (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 429); Neumann - between 164 and 166 (Der Römische Staat. S. 62), etc. Euseb. NOT. IV, 26.3 (Schwartz S. 162; Russian translation S. 216). That Apollinaris was an opponent of Melito is proved by the following considerations. In his work “Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα” he expresses almost exactly the same judgments about “certain lovers of debate” and characterizes them in the same way as Clement characterizes his opponents in the work of the same name to Apollinarius. But, as Clement himself says, his study “Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα” was written “because of” Melito’s essay on Easter (ἐξ αἰτίας τῆς τοῦ Μελίτωνος γραφῆς φησίν ἑαυτὸν συντά ξαι, see: Euseb. IV, 26, 4, same pages). This ἐξ αἰτίας is so strong and definite that it cannot be understood otherwise than in the sense of Clement’s refutation of Melito’s work (cf.: Schiirer. R. 37–38; S. 229; Rettberg. S. 116; Hilgenfeld. Paschastreit. S. 253, etc.). – The opposite assumption of Weitzel (S. 26.74) and Steitz (St. und Kg. 1856. S. 778), that Clement wrote “in connection with” Melitonov’s work and in addition to it, completely arbitrarily detracts from the power and significance of αἰτίας. This term does not mean a reason, but a reason, a basis that gives the first strong impulse to any action. But this, according to the assumptions of the latest authors, Melito’s work could not have been for Clement if both fathers had agreed in essence. Then, Polycrates, listing in a letter to Victor the defenders of Asia Minor practice, does not mention Apollinaris at all; and at the same time he speaks about such little-known persons as Thraseus, Papirius, etc. (Euseb. V, 24.4–5 - in Schwartz S. 211; Russian translation P. 282). Apollinaris was a famous man and a respected figure in Asia Minor, and Polycrates would undoubtedly have spoken of him if he had considered him a supporter. And if he did not do this, then, obviously, because he was, on the contrary, an opponent of him, Meliton and their like-minded people. Ibid. See Chapter III of our work. Ibid. "Ὄ θεν ὁ Ἰ ωάννης ἐν τεύτη τ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ εἰκότως, ὡ ς ἄν ? "" Ibid. See a more detailed study of these fragments and the essence of the disputes of the 60s in general. in Schiirefa (R. 21–59; S. 210–238) and Hilgenfeld (Paschastreit. S. 250–287; Ketzergeschichte. S. 604–609, etc.). Weitzel, and after him Steitz, prove that the culprits of the disputes of the 60s. there was a special group of Quartodecimans with a heretical, Ebionite tendency, different in their views from the Asia Minor people in general. It was against this party that Meliton (whom these authors consider to be like-minded with Apollinaris, Clement and Hippolytus) and the last fathers (Weitzel. S. 16–76; Steitz. Studien und Kritiken. 1856. S. 777 et seq.; and also: 1857. S. 764–772, etc.) allegedly wrote their works against this party. But, as we have already seen, Melito was an opponent of the named fathers; They directed their works against him. He and his like-minded people are being refuted. This means that he belonged to the same party of Quartodecimans. But Weitzel and Steitz do not dare to call Meliton a heretic Ebionite. It is completely in vain that they also see in the persons refuted by Apollinaris, Clement and Hippolytus, some special group of Ebionite heretics. The latter had nothing heretical. At least, the named fathers do not accuse them of anything like that and attribute their errors only to ignorance (δι ἄγνοιαν - in Apollinaris). Compare: Schirer, Hilgenfeld (op. p.); also V.V. Bolotov (Lectures. Issue P.S. 430–431, approx. 1). Mignéy has Col 783; Russian translation P. 173. At Mignée Col. 1000; Russian translation P. 340. "Οὐκ ἔφαγε τὸ κατὰ νόμον πάσχα " (Easter Chronicle. 1.12–15). Wed: Zahn (Geschichte. Bd. I. S. 190–191, Anm. 1); Hilgenfeld (Paschastreit. S. 316–320); Steitz (Stud, und Kritiken. 1856. S. 746–748; 1857. S. 756–758). This understanding seems most natural to us when explaining the meaning and comparing both apparently contradictory passages. In any case, however, one cannot assume a real contradiction between parts of the same work of Irenaeus. Moreover, such recognition of Christ’s celebration of the legal Jewish Passover, together with the assignment of the day of His suffering to the 14th of Nisan, was not the only one in the ancient Church. Compare, for example: Eusebius. Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάσχα ἑορτῆς. Cap. VIII, IX, XII (Mai Nova Patrum Bibliotheca. T. IV. P. 209–216); also Tertullian. De anima. Cap. XVI (Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 675); Adversus Marcionem. Lib. IV. Cap. XL (T. II. Col. 460–462); De baptismo (T. I. Col. 1222), etc. See also Zahn, Hilgenfeld, Steitz (indicated above page). Ibid. V, 24.7 (Schwartz S. 212; Russian translation S. 282). This date is determined as follows. At this point in the dispute, the main character was Victor, the Pope. And he ascended the throne a little later after 189 (Neumann. S. 62). On the other hand, as can be seen from Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (V, 22 – in Schwartz’s S. 209; Russian translation, p. 279; cf.: V, 23,24), the beginning of Victor’s bishopric and, in general, the entire dispute of this time was still under the emperor. Commode. The latter died on December 31, 192 (Harnack. Geschichte. Bd. II, 1. S. 322). This chronology is also confirmed as follows. In the Coptic Synaxarion and in Eutyches (see Harnack. Op. cit. Bd. II, 1. S. 208-211) it is said about Maximin, Bishop of Antioch, that he spoke at the beginning of the dispute, addressing a letter to Victor (S. 211). But Maximin died in 190–191 (Harnack. Op. cit. S. 323). From the history of the Syro-Persian Church (Christian Reading. 1900. Part I. pp. 450–454; separate reprint. pp. 122–126). About Vlast, see below. Wed. also: Schürer (R. 72–73; S. 272), Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 607), Bolotov V.V. (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 429), etc. This tendency is also seen in Victor’s actions by Neander (Geschichte. Bd. I. 1863. S. 383–384), Steitz (Stud, und Kritiken. 1856. S. 775–776) and others. Euseb. HE. V, 24.7 (Letter of Polycrates: “I am not afraid of threats” - in Schwartz S. 212; Russian. transl. p. 282). Ibid. V, 24.8:" "Obviously, the same was the case in other Churches. This is undoubtedly the case, judging generally by Polycrates’ answer. Euseb. V, 23.2–4 (in Schwartz S. 210; Russian translation pp. 280–281). That this was probably a council of bishops, we said in Chapter III (Section 2). Euseb. NOT. V, 23.4 (index page). Euseb. NOT. V, 24.8. Polycrates says: " ὕ ς μετεκαλεσάμην “(in Schwartz S. 212; Russian translation pp. 282–283). Ibid.: "μετεκαλεσάμην". Ibid.: "ἐπίσκοποι συνηυδόκησαν τ ῇ ἐπιστολ ῇ". Ibid. V, 24, 1–8 (Schwartz’s S. 210–212; Russian translation pp. 281–283). We presented a detailed analysis of this passage above, in Chapter III, when we outlined the essence of the Easter disputes. Euseb. V, 24.9 (index page). Ibid. V, 24.10 (index page). See: Euseb. NOT. V, 24, 11–17 (in Schwartz S. 212–213; Russian translation, pp. 283–285; in Migné Col. 1227–1232; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 530–531). In our essay: pp. 270–272. We have already talked about this in detail above, when analyzing the passage. Euseb. NOT. V, 24.10: “( φέρονται καὶ αἱ τούτων ( ἐπισκόπων ) φωναὶ πληκτικώ τερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίκτορος” (y Schwartz’s S. 212; Russian translation, p. 283). even bright, in any case, one of these bishops (ἐν ο ἶ ς καὶ ὁ Εἰρηνα ἶ ος - Ibid.), then we have the right to apply everything relating to them in general to the Holy Father. Ibid. V, 24.17 (Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 282). Harvey. T. II. R. 456 (No. XXVII); Russian translation works of St. Irenea. P.546(No.XLVII). Ibid. P. 462–463 (No. XXXI); Russian translation P. 548 (No. L); at Jordan's. Arrnenische Irenäeusfragmente. No. 2 (S. 3–5,56–60). Migné has fragment VII (Col. 1213–1214); Russian translation works of St. Irenea. P. 532 (same number). Russian translation of the works of St. Irenea. Fragments under Nos. X, XII and XXXIII. See about all of them (Harvey's, Responsiones and the last three) also in Part II of our work. See this passage (pages indicated). Euseb. NOT. V, 20.1 (Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation P. 275). Ibid. Wed. also: V, 15 (in Schwartz’ and S. 197; Russian translation, p. 263). About Vlast, see below for more details. La question de la pâque an concile de Nicée // Revue des questions historiques. T. XXVIII. 1880. P. 5–42. He was joined by: I. Schmid (Die Osterfestfrage auf dem ersten allgemeinen Konzil von Nicäa. Wien, 1905); E. Schwartz (Christliche und Judische Ostertafeln. Berlin, 1905), V.V. Bolotov (Lectures. Vol. II. P. 435), etc. Hippolytus in Φιλοσοφούμενα. VIII, 18. Compare: Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή . III, 4. See: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 435. NOT. V, 15 (in Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation p. 263) and V, 20, 1–2 (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation pp. 275–276). Eusebius, as we will see below, was not directly familiar with the writings of Florinus and knew about his heresy, apparently, only on the basis of Irenaeus’ letters against him, which the church historian had, probably in full. In some places his messages are also somewhat confusing (for example, when he speaks of the error of Vlast as almost the same as Florinus - V, 15). However, one cannot deny their reliability in their entirety (cf.: Kastner. Irenäus von Lyon und der römische Presbyter Plorinus / / Katholik. 1910. Bd. VI, II. S. 48–50). V, 20.2–8 (in Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Migne’s Col. 1225–1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). T. II. R. 457 (No. XXVIII). Printed with an English translation. The best translation is given by Zahn in German in Forschungen. Thl. IV. S. 289–290 and Thl. VI. S. 32–33. The fragment was translated into Russian by Archpriest. Preobrazhensky (with the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 547. No. XLVIII). "Λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα" in an excerpt from "Περὶ μοναρχίας" in Eusebius. V, 20.5 (op. p.). See also pp. 56–65 of our work about this period of Florinus’ life. Eusebius. V, 15 (Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation P. 263). Excerpt from Περὶ μοναρχίας by Eusebius. V, 20, 4 (in Schwartz's S. 207; Russian translation, p. 276; in Migne's Col. 1225–1226; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, p. 529). Wed. also the end of the Syriac fragment. Ταῦτα τὰ δόγματα ( Φλωρίνου ) οὐδέ οἱ ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας αἱρετικοὶ ἐτόλμησαν ἀποφήνασθαί πότε (Ibid, in Eusebius). Excerpt from Περὶ μοναρχίας (see previous note). V, 15: “νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος” (in Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation P. 263). NOT. V, 20.1: "Δι ’ ὂ ν α ὖ θις ὑποσυρόμενον τ ῇ κατὰ Ούαλεντῖνον πλάν ῇ καὶ τὸ Περὶ ὀγδοάδος συντάττεται τῷ Εἰρηναί ῳ σπούδασμα " (y Schwartz'a S. 207; Russian translation, p. 275). Here, as we will show below, there is an indication of a certain change, a shift in Florin’s views. At first, at the time of writing “Περὶ μοναρχίας”, they were more independent and original by the time of writing “Περὶ”. ὀγδοάδος “Florinus deviated more towards Valentinianism. See: Harvey. T. II. R. 457; Russian translation works of St. Irenea. P. 547. Most researchers came to similar conclusions about Florinus as a Gnostic heretic based only on the sources indicated by us. Until very recently, this opinion was generally accepted (cf.: Hilgenfeld. Ketzergeschichte. S. 446–449; Zahn. Forschungen. Th. IV. S. 289 et seq.; Koch H. Tertullian und der römiche Presbyter Florinus / / Zeitschr. für neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1912. Heft 1. S. 69–83 and many others). Some doubt can only be raised by the position taken by Eusebius’s messages about this heretic. Both times the church historian speaks about him directly after the Montanists. However, to conclude on this basis that Florin was a Montanist, as Kastner does (Irenäus von Lyon und der römische Presbyter Florinus / / Katholik. 1910. Bd. VI, II. S. 100. Cf.: His. Zur Kontroverse über den angeblichen Ketzer Florinus / / Zeitschr. für neutest. Wissensch. 1912. Heft 2. S. 134), impossible. Eusebius, as we have already said, quite definitely classifies Florinus as a Valentinian (V, 20, 1): And it is impossible to assume that he contradicted himself in the same work. In addition, Florin and Vlast, even in his text, if you carefully analyze it, not only do not mix with the Montanists standing above and below, but are directly opposed to them through the particle δέ (“οἱ δ ` ἐπὶ Ρώμης ἤ κμαζον”, see: V, 15 – y Schwartz’a S. 197; Russian translation P. 263); This story in 2 parts, entitled Kitab-al-'Unvan, was translated into French by Al. Vasiliev and published in volumes V, VII and VIII of Patrologiae Orientalis. An interesting message for us is placed in Part II (Patrologia Orientalis. T. VII. S. 516, etc.); In 1912, the passage concerning Florin was translated into German (from Arabic) and published by Baumstark: Die Lehre des römischen Presbyter Florinus // Zeitschr. für neutestam. Wissensch. Heft. 4. S. 306–319. Baumstark believes that Agapius borrowed his information about Florinus, perhaps from the same letter of Irenaeus to Victor, the Syriac fragment of which was found and published by Harvey even earlier (Baumstark. Op. cit. S. 318). However, this is hardly true. As we prove below, the message of the Arab historian is much closer in content to the passage from “Περὶ μοναρχίας” and, apparently, sets out the early system of Florinus, before his passion for Valentinianism. Therefore, it is more natural to assume that Agapius conveys his teaching on the basis of either the last work of Irenaeus, which he may have had in full, or the heretic’s own writings dating back to this time. Baumstark. Op. cit. S. 307. We present the views of Valentinus (as is usually done) according to the system of his student Ptolemy (Contra haereses. I, 1-9). Contra haereses. I,1,1 (y Mignen'ya Col. 445–448; Russian translation, pp. 21–22). Ibid. I,2,1 –6; 1,7,5 and many more. etc. Ibid. I,2,1 (in Migné Col. 451–454; Russian translation, p. 23). Contra haereses. I,5,2 and 4 (in Migné Col. 493–500; Russian translation pp. 33–35); I, 7.5 (in Migné Col. 517–520; Russian translation, p. 40). Compare: Ibid. I,5,2 (in Migné Col. 493–496; Russian translation. C 33–34); and also: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 212. Contra haereses. I,27,2–4 (in Migné Col. 688–689; Russian translation, pp. 95–97), etc. Ibid. I, l, 1–2 (in Migné Col.445–450; Russian translation. С21–22). Ibid. I,5,2 (in Migné Col. 493–496; Russian translation. C 34), etc. Compare: Ibid. I,2,4 (in Migné Col. 457–460; Russian translation. From 24–25). Ibid. I, 7.2 (in Migné Col. 513–516; Russian translation from 39). Baumstark calls Florin's teaching a peculiar modification of Valentina's system (Zeitschr. für neutest. Wissenschaft. 1912. H. 4. S. 316). K. Kastner in 1910 in the magazine Katholik published an article in which he proves, contrary to the traditional view, that Florinus was not a Gnostic, but a Montanist, and that under this name hides none other than the famous church writer Tertullian (Irenäus von Lyon und der römiche Presbyter Florinus / / Der Katholik. 1910. Bd. VI, II. S. 40–54,88–105). Kastner repeated his thoughts expressed here almost unchanged (regarding Koch’s objections) in the article “Zur Kontroverse über den angeblichen Ketzer Florinus” // Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1912.Heft2.S. 133–156. a) For Kastner, the first basis and impetus for the creation of a hypothesis (this is exactly how the author views his theory - cf.: Katholik. S. 105) was, apparently, the consonance of the names of Florinus and Tertullian. The full name of the latter is written as follows: Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Kastner believes that “Florens”, which, in his opinion, was Tertullian’s proper name, is nothing more than Florinus. Therefore, Florinus and Tertullian are not two different persons, but one (Katholik. S. 97; Zeitschrift. S. 134). In the future, the course of evidence of the German scientist is as follows. b) Eusebius’s direct reports about Florinus are not very reliable (for he did not read his works) and are confusing (Katholik. S. 48–50; Zeitschrift. S. 137). Quite remarkable, however, is their location. Both times the church historian speaks about Florinus immediately after his speech about the Montanists and in connection with them. Obviously, Florin shared their delusions (Katholik. S. 100; Zeitschrift. S. 134). c) In their youth, both Florinus and Tertullian moved at the royal court. The latter, apparently, studied at the royal school and, perhaps, was a page (Katholik. S. 98). d) Subsequently, Florinus, according to Eusebius, became a Roman presbyter; in the same way, Tertullian occupied the place of presbyter of the Roman Church that existed in Africa (Katholik. S. 100; Zeitschrift. S. 134). e) Both of them had disciples (Zeitschrift. S. 135). f) The years of life and activity of both also coincide: Florin was born around 140, and died around 225 (Katholik. S. 98-100; Zeitschrift. S: 138,149-150). g) Florinus of Eusebius apparently was not a formal heretic. According to Kastner, he even denounced the Marcionites, who professed dualism in the doctrine of God on the basis that God cannot be the author of evil. In objecting to them, Florinus apparently expressed thoughts that could give rise to classifying himself as a heretic, although in reality he was not one. In the same way, Tertullian has expressions that can serve as a basis for a similar incorrect view of him. Thus, in the work De fuga (Cap. I), he attributes the persecution of Christians to God, that is, he also exposes Him as the culprit of evil. True, Eusebius calls Florinus a Valentinian. But Tertullian was also accused of the same thing (Adversus Praxeam. Cap. VIII; see: Katholik. S. 101–102; Zeitschrift. S. 135–138). To prevent possible objections, Kastner also explains in his own way the message of Eusebius about the works of Irenaeus “Περὶ μοναρχίας” and “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος”, directed against Florinus. According to Kastner, St. my father wrote them not to refute this heretic, but only at his request. Florinus was a friend of Irenaeus and the addressee of the letters. Both of them had the same negative attitude towards Gnosticism. The work “Περὶ μοναρχίας” was written first of all, in refutation of the Gnostics in general. Then "Περὶ ὀγδοάδος". The latter is obviously nothing other than the first three books of Contra haereses. Subsequently, “Περὶ μοναρχίας” was revised by Irenaeus and constituted Book IV of Contra haereses. The fifth book of this work is the work “Περὶ ἀναστάσεως”, which was common at that time (Katholik. S. 89–97; Zeitschrift. S. 139–143). N. Koch (Tertullian und der romiche Presbyter Florinus//Zeitschrift fur neutest. Wissensch. 1912. Heft 1 L S. 59–83) objected to Kastner quite successfully, already on the basis of early historical information about Florinus, not yet knowing about Agapius’ message (Tertullian und der romiche Presbyter Florinus//Zeitschrift fur neutest. Wissensch. 1912. Heft 1 L S. 59–83), proving the correctness of the traditional view of this heretic. The inconsistency of Kastner's hypothesis is indeed obvious, even if we only take into account the messages of Eusebius, Irenaeus, the Syrian fragment and other sources before Agapius. a) The coincidence of names cannot serve as a basis for identifying individuals. In this case, there is not even a coincidence, but only one consonance; for the Greek name Φλωρῖνος in Latin is written Florinus, and the Latin Florens corresponds to the Greek Φλώρηρ (cf.: Clemens Κλήμης; Crescens Κρίσ κης, etc., see: Koch. S. 81). b) It is impossible to completely deny the reliability of Eusebius’s messages and consider Florinus a Montanist based on the location of information about him in the “Ecclesiastical History,” which we have already found out above. c) We know about Florin from the passage “Περὶ μοναρχίας” that he occupied a brilliant position at court, but already at a relatively mature age (λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα). And this is not the same as the position of a page or co-educator of the royal children, if Tertullian was such (which is not entirely certain). d) The latter's presbytery is also not an immutable fact. Many scientists, for example, Rauschen (Gründriss der Patrologie. 3 Aufl. 1910. S. 72), Adam (Kirchenbegriff Tertullian. 1907. S. 59) doubt this (cf. also: Bardenhewer. Patrologie. 3 Aufl. S. 157), and H. Koch directly denies it on the basis of a careful analysis of the works of himself Tertullian (Historische Jahrbuch. 1907. S. 95–103 and the cited article in Zeitsch. für neutest. Wissensch. S. 59–68). In the same way, it is hardly possible to recognize the existence of the Roman Church in Africa during the latter’s time (cf.: Koch. Op. cit. S. 67).. e) Not only Florinus and Tertullian had disciples, but almost all prominent church leaders. It is somewhat strange to identify on this basis. f) Kastner's chronology of Florin is not correct. According to the passage “Περὶ μοναρχίας”, he already occupied a brilliant position at the royal court (λαμπρῶς πράσσοντα) at ​​the time when Irenaeus was still a boy (παῖς) 12–15 years old. This means that he was 15 years older than the last one. Therefore, if we accept even Harnack’s extreme date in determining the year of birth of St. Irenaeus (142), then even in this case it turns out that Florinus was born at least around 125–127. In reality, this date must be placed another 15 years higher. In accordance with this, the time of death of the heretic cannot in any case be placed beyond the confines of the 2nd century. Florin probably died in the mid-90s. (for more details on his chronology, see our essay, section on the year of birth of Irenaeus). g) As for the teachings of the heretic, then, contrary to Kastner, its Gnostic character is obvious already on the basis of the data of Eusebius, Irenaeus and the Syrian fragment (see about this above). Now, with the message of Agapius, it seems undoubted. Florinus not only cannot be identified with Tertullian, but one has to state the complete opposite of their views. The first is a gnostic rationalist, the second is a Montanist, rather a mystic; Florinus denies the resurrection of the flesh and professes docetism, Tertullian strongly defends both in special writings (“De carne Christi” and “De resurrectione carnis”, etc.). After Agapius’ message, there is therefore no room left for Kastner’s hypothesis (about the works of Irenaeus “Περὶ μοναρχίας” and “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος”, see us in Part II). Wed: Baumstark. Op. cit. S. 318–319. HE. V, 20.1 (Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation S. 275). St. Irenaeus does not mention Florinus in his great work against the Gnostics (written about 185). This silence can have two explanations: a) either Florinus was not yet a heretic at all, b) or St. his father, despite the Gnostic nature of his teaching, did not consider him so firmly established as to deny any possibility of changing his views, but, on the contrary, even allowed Florinus to return to the bosom of the Church and remained silent in this case so as not to irritate him and thus strengthen him in heresy. The first explanation can hardly be accepted, bearing in mind that already in 190–191. Florin was defrocked as a worst heretic. It is difficult to imagine that he became such within 5-6 years. Therefore, there remains a second possibility, more probable. But, as we will show below, St. Even during the composition of “Περὶ μοναρχίας,” Irenaeus looked at Florinus as a Gnostic heretic, although he still hoped for his return to the Church. This means that the time of writing both of his works – both Contra haereses and “Περὶ μοναρχίας” – generally coincides. However, more specifically, the latter could have been sent a little earlier, and a little later than 185. Therefore, we take a more general date for it - the 80s. II century. HE.V,20,1 (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation P. 275). Contrary to Koch (who translates it as Russian “appears”, “appears” - Zeitschr. für neutest. Wissensch. 1912. H 1. S. 70), we understand ἐδόκει as it is usually translated “seems”, and we think that it is impossible to convey it here otherwise. Euseb. NOT. V, 20.4–8 (in Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Mignen’s Col. 1225–1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). Accordingly, it is impossible to recognize as correct Baumstark’s assumption (Zeitschr. für neutest. Wissenschaft. 1912. H 4. S. 314) that Irenaeus in Περὶ μοναρχίας refutes Florinus’s teaching about Satan, whom the latter, recognizing as God, considered the culprit of evil in the world. Satan, perhaps, is defined by the word θεός, but without a member, as God in the improper sense, the lowest member of the pleroma. Ibid. V, 20, 4 (in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation p. 276; in Migné Col. 1225–1226; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 529). His train of thought, therefore, in our opinion, was somewhat similar to the reasoning of Marcion, who, starting from the same position that God is not the author of evil, came to the conclusion that there must be two Gods: one good, the other evil (Contra haereses. I, 27, 2 - in Mignen Col. 688; Russian translation pp. 95-96; cf. also: III, 12,12 – in Migné Col. 906; Russian translation. Euseb. NOT. V, 20.4–8 (in Schwartz S. 207–208; Russian translation, pp. 276–277; in Migné Col. 1225–1228; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus, pp. 529–530). Eusebius testifies to such a change in Florinus’s views. Having mentioned the work “Περὶ μοναρχίας”, he immediately then speaks about Florinus: “When the latter fell into the error of Valentinus, Irenaeus composed a book against him “On the Eight” (δι ᾿ ὃ ν ὑποσυρόμενον a συντάττεται τῷ Εἰρηναίω σπούδασμα)". See: Euseb. NOT. V, 20.1 (Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation P. 275). The first part of this phrase, missing when mentioning “Περὶ μο ναρ χίας,” shows that at the time of writing the last work, Florinus, according to Eusebius, was not yet a decisive Valentinian, but became one only by the 90s. II century. This is also evidenced by the inscription of the Syriac fragment. On the other hand, as can be seen from the words of Eusebius we have cited, the work “Περὶ ὀγδοάδος” was written by Irenaeus “due to” the error of Florinus (δι ᾿ὅ ν), i.e. against him, in refutation of his teaching about the “eight”. This is quite certain. Eusebius speaks directly about this a few lines above: “Ἐξ ἐναντίας. Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπισ τολάς συντάττει "by the way and "Περὶ ὀγδοάδος ". Baumstark apparently overlooked the last expression of the church historian and the possibility of such an explanation of the matter as we offer when, contrary to the indisputable meaning of the preposition διά with the accusative, equal to the Russian expression “for the reason”, with a hint of the opposite, he translates it with the word wegen “about”, rejecting the direct polemic of Irenaeus against Florinus. See: Zeitschr. für neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1912. H. 4. S. 316–317. And Kastner completely arbitrarily replaces it with the expression “at request.” See: Catholic. 1910. S. 92–97; Zeitschr. für neutestam. Wissensch. 1912. H. 2. S. 140–145). But neither in Agapius, nor in the passage from “Περὶ μοναρχίας” do we see any indication of the existence in the Florinus system of a complete eight of the highest members of the divine pleroma. Obviously, this point, characteristic of Valentinus, was introduced by Florinus into his teaching later. However, even in the latter case, his views cannot be completely identified with the teachings of Valentinus. Both Eusebius and the inscription of the Syriac fragment speak only of Florinus’s inclination towards this heresy, and not of the identity of both systems. Compare: “ὑποσυρόμενον τ ῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον (instead of the genitive case) πλάν ῃ” (Euseb. HE. V, 20.1 - in Schwartz S. 207; Russian translation, pp. 275–276). Contra haereses. I,1,1 (in Mignen’s Col. 445–448; Russian translation, pp. 21–22). St. Irenaeus demands that Pope Victor take measures against the distribution of the books (plural) of Florinus (Harvey. T. II. R. 457; Russian translation of the works of St. Irenaeus. P. 547). That Florinus was alive at that time and Irenaeus demanded that the pope take measures specifically against him, and not just against his writings, we proved in detail on p. 60–62 of our essay. Eusebius (V, 15) calls him “πρεσβυτέρίον τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσών” (in Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation p. 263; cf. also message Agapia). It doesn't say when he was defrocked. But from the fact that Irenaeus reproaches Victor (Syrian fragment) for not taking measures against Florinus as a person, it is clear that at the time of composing the letter the latter was still a presbyter. This means that the defrocking occurred already in connection with the letter of St. father. then we accept 190–191. as the most probable date in this case. It is also hardly possible to move it further: Florin was very old. De Haeresibus. Cap. LXVI (Floriani a Florino). Cap. LXVI (Floriani a Floriano). Haereticarum fabularum compendium. Lib. I. Cap. 23. In Schwartz S. 197; Russian translation P. 263. Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 429; Harnack. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 321–322; Dodwell. P. 420–427. The work of Pseudo-Tertullian is an adaptation or, in any case, compiled on the basis of the messages of “Syntagma against all heresies” by Hippolytus (cf.: Ivantsov-Platonov. Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. M., 1877. pp. 178–186, 244–248; also Hilgenfeld A. Ketzergeschichte. Hilgenfeld on the basis of Pseudo-Tertullian, Philastrius and Epiphanius, he even restores the contents and the order of arrangement of the material of the “Syntagma”). But Hippolytus lived in Rome and was probably a contemporary of Vlast; therefore, obviously, he knew his error well. “Est praeterea his omnibus (to the Catafrygians) Blastus accedens, qui latenter Judaismum vult introducere. Pacha enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse, nisi secundum legem Moysi XIV mensis" (Cap. LIII - in Migne. PL. T. II. Col. 72). Judging by the entire course of speech (enim - explanatory and further), the “Judaism” that Pseudo-Tertullian attributes to Vlast consisted only in the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter. The message says nothing about Jewish errors in the proper sense, which are now usually designated by this term; and there is no reason to assert that Vlast adhered to them. Roman Christians generally exaggerated the importance of the Quartodeciman views of Asia Minor (and Vlast, very likely, came from Asia Minor), which is already evident from the behavior of Pope Victor; and, in particular, they often reproached the latter without reason for Judaism (cf.: Schürer. De controversis paschalibus. P. 72, note 4). Perhaps Hippolytus, a contemporary of Vlast and Victor, also followed this trend, on the basis of whose messages Pseudo-Tertullian writes. However, the opposite assumption is also acceptable (that Vlast, in addition to Quartodecimanism, was also guilty of Jewish errors proper). In general, he was a kind of schismatic. Unfortunately, history knows very little about him. But, in any case, based on the message of Pseudo-Tertullian, one cannot attribute Jewish views in general to the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor. The authorities cannot be their pure representative. That is why in Pseudo-Tertullian, and, probably, also in Hippolytus’ “Syntagma”, he stands in a special place from the Montanists and the Pentecostals. A. Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte. S. 60–62, etc.) believes on the basis of Pseudo-Tertullian, Philastrius and Epiphanius that Blastus in Hippolytus’ “Syntagma” occupied 28th place between the Montanists (No. 27) and the Quartodecimans (No. 29). In view of this special position of his, we have isolated a paragraph about him from the general study of the Easter disputes. “Puto et graecus Blastus ipsorum est” (Epist. 1 ad Sympron. // Galland. Biblioth. VII, 257). Theodoret, probably having in mind the confused account of Authority in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, where he is mentioned along with the Gnostic Florinus, classifies him among the Marcionites (Haer. fab. Lib. 1.23). Euseb. NOT. V, 15: Florinus and Vlast... “infecting many (πλείους) with their opinions, they drew them away from the Church” (in Schwartz’a S. 197; Russian translation p. 263). This alone, in our opinion, was the similarity between Florin and Vlast. In any case, there is no reason to attribute this expression only to one of them. Ibid.: “they lured (many) away from the Church.” See above our section on the participation of Irenaeus in the Easter disputes. Compare: Harnak. Geschichte. Bd. 1.1. S. 263; also Bardengever. Geschichte Litteratur. 1902. S. 510. This was already noted by Hirschfeld in Sitzungsberichte d. Preuss. Akademie d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 1895. April. S. 393. “You will not demand from me, who lives among the Celts and mostly deals with the barbarian (Celtic) language, neither the art of speech, which I have not studied, nor the ability to write...” (§ 3 - in Migné Col. 444; Russian translation p. 21). Irenaeus “in modici temporis spatio praedicatione sua maxime in integro civitatem reddidit christianam” (Lib. 1,27 – in Migné. PL. T. LXXI. Col. 174). See us for more details about him in Part II of the essay. See us in Part II; Wed also: Wieten. Biz. 191–203. For their texts, see the publications of Ming, Harvey, Jordan; in Russian - by Rev. Transfiguration (with the works of St. Irenaeus). We also talk about these fragments in Part II of the essay. See Part II of our essay; Wed See also: Harnak. Geschichte. I, 1. S. 283–288. NOT. V, 26 (Schwartz S. 214; Russian translation P. 286). See about this above, in the section “The Fight against the Gnostics” (Chapter IV). We are referring mainly to the 10th and 11th fragments of the Jordan (Armenische Irenäusfragmente. S. 134–141, 150–154. See also the presentation of their contents in our article “Armenian fragments of the works of St. Irenaeus” // Christian Reading: 1915. April. pp. 570–575; separate reprint. pp. 9–14). At Mignée Col. 829; Russian translation P. 210. At Mignée Col. 1137; Russian translation P. 456. At Mignée Col. 825; Russian translation P. 207. See Massuet (Migne. PG. T. VII. Col. 191). "" ἔθνη « (Haereticarum fabularum compendium, praefatio). See his article: Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Lugdunum vor Constants // Sitzungsberichte d. Königl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin. 1895. pp. 381–409. Sitzungsberichte. S. 395–396. This mission is recognized by most researchers: Tillemont (R. 97–99); Stieren (in Encycl. von Ersch. S. 362); Lipsius (in Dictionary. P. 255); Dufourcq (ed. Lecofre. P. 51–53); Beaven (P. 21–23); Harnack (Mission. Bd. II. S. 225); Farrar (p. 56); Bardenhewer (Geschichte. 1902. S. 498); Mannucci (P. 12) et al. The disciples were St. Irenaeus is represented by their acts of martyrdom, preserved by the Bollandists (see: Massuet in Migne’s PG. T. VII. Col. 191). Wed: Bardenhewer. Patrologie. S. 183; Duchesne. History of the Ancient Church (in Russian translation). P. 198; Ivantsov-Platonov (who devoted a lot of space to Hippolytus in his work “Heresies and Schisms of the First Centuries of Christianity”). pp. 79–80. See: Harnack. Zur Quellenkritik d. Gnosticismus. § 3 // Zeitschrift für hist. Theologie. 1874; Lipsius. Die Quellen d. ältesten Ketzergeschichte. VI; Wed See also: Ivantsov-Platonov. Right there. Compare: Ivantsov-Platonov. Right there. It is hardly possible that Hippolytus studied with Irenaeus while still in Asia Minor. This could have been before 154–155, after which St. the father probably soon moved to Gaul (see above in our work). But at that time St. was still alive. Polycarp. Therefore, Hippolytus would most likely turn to the latter for instructions. In addition, Hippolytus was apparently very young at that time, for we know about his activities not only in the 30s. III century (cf.: Bardenhewer. Patrologie. S. 185), and much later. It is possible that Hippolytus studied with Irenaeus already in Gaul; but there is absolutely no historical evidence for this, either direct or indirect. We make this preference for the last date before 154–155, taking into account the years of Hippolytus (see previous note). For the writings of Hippolytus, see: Döllinger. Hyppolytus und Kallistus. Regensburg, 1853; decree. Op. Ivantsova-Platonov; also: Bardenhewer. Patrologie. S. 186–188; Duchesne. Decree. Op. Russian translation P. 209, etc.; Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 368–369. See: Ivantsov-Platonov. Decree. Op. pp. 134–175; Most foreign hereseologists think the same way. See Harvey's edition; compare: Harnack. Geschichte. I,1. S. 266–267, etc. Patrum apostolicorum opera, editio minor. S. 127–128. (This message is the same in all manuscripts.) Epilogue on the Moscow manuscript (S. 128). Eusebius. Church history. III, 28, 1–2 (in Schwartz S. 106–107); II, 25.6–7 (Schwartz S. 73; Russian translation P. 100); VI, 20.1 3 (in Schwartz S. 242; Russian translation pp. 325–326). Eusebius. Church history. VI, 20,1,3 (op. p.). Ibid. III, 28, 1–2 (op. p.). This place causes disagreement among scientists. Some, like, for example, Tsan (Geschichte d. neutest. Kanons. I, 1. S. 230–233), from Russian prot. Ivantsov-Platonov (Heresies and Schisms, pp. 153–166) see here an indication of the canonical Apocalypse and are therefore inclined to classify Kaya among the alogs (about the latter, see above, in our speech on Irenaeus’s attitude to Montanism). Others, however, like Harnack, for example (Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1888. S. 644), do not consider it possible to identify the Apocalypse in Caius with the Revelation of John the Theologian. The first opinion seems to us more correct. Eusebius. Church history. VI, 20.3 (Schwartz S. 242; Russian translation S. 326). Wed: Bardenhewer. Patrologie. 1910. S. 188; See also: Ivantsov-Platonov. P. 153 et seq. Fragments from this work are published (in Syriac and English) in I. Gwynn: Hyppolytus and his “Heads against Caius” / / Hermathena. 6.1888. P. 397–418; Hippolitus on St. Math. 24.15–22 // Hermathena. 7.1890. P. 137–150; Wed also: Zahn. Geschichte des neutest. Kanons. Bd. II, 2. S. 973–991. Compare, for example: Tertullian. Epistle to Scapula. Ch. IV. Ibid.; Wed his “Apologetics” and the work Ad nations; and also: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 105–111; Duchesne. Decree. Op. Russian translation pp. 241–244. “Iudeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit, idem etiam de christianis sanxit” (Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. P. 107). See more about this: Bolotov V.V. Lectures. Vol. II. pp. 105–111; Duchesne. Decree. Op. pp. 241–244 and in other courses on ancient church history. For more details on persecution in Alexandria during the era of the North, see: Eusebius. Church history. Book VI. Ch. 1–7. See V.V. Bolotov and Duchenne (op. p.). Eusebius. Church history. VI, 7 (Schwartz S. 228; Russian translation P. 304). Stieren // Encyclopädie Ersch. S. 364, Anm. 37. Ibid. Wed. also: Dufourcq (ed. Lecofre). P. 49–51. Ibid. (Encycl.). Wed. Stieren's own opinion. Geschichte. Bd. II, l. S. 322. Geschichte Litterat. 1902. S. 498. Cap. XXXV (y Bernoulli S. 27). At Mignéa T. VII. Col. 209–210. This passage reads in full as follows: “Igitur martyrio consummatus gloriosus Photinus (Pothinus), qui Lugdunensi praefuit urbisacerdos, per certaminis nobilis meritum invectus est coelo. Cui et merito et sanctitate condignus Irenäus successit episcopus, per martyrium et ipse finitus" (Cap. 50. - In Migné. PL. T.LXXI.Col.752). We consider it necessary to cite this passage in full (almost) in view of the contradictions in its understanding. The original says: “In Galliis multi pro Christi nomine sunt per martyrium gemmis coelestibus coronati, quorum passionum historiae apud nos fideliter usque hodie retinetur. Ex quibus et ille primus Lugdunensis Ecclesiae Photinus episcopus fuit, qui plenus dierum diversis affectus suppliciis, pro Christi nomine passus est. Beatissimus vera Irenäus hujus successor martyris, qui a beato Polycarpo ad hanc urbem directus est, admirabili virtute enituit... Sed veniente persecutionen, talia ibidem diabolus bella per tyrannum exercuit et tanta ibi multitudo christianorum ob confessionem Dominici nominis est jugulata, ut per plateas flumina current de sanguine christiano; quorum nec numerum, nec nomina colligere potuimus... Beatum Irenäum diversis in sua carnifex praesentia poenis affectum, Christo Domino per martyrium dedicavit [Post hunc et quadraginta octo martyres passi sunt, ex quibus primum fuisse legimus Vettium Epagatum]" (Lib. 1. Cap. 26–27 – in Migne. T. LXXI. cf.: De gloria martyrum. Cap. 49–50 (T. LXXI. Col. 751–752). See esp: Dodwell. P. 265–267; Harnack. Geschichte. II, 1. S. 322. P. 336; cf.: Massuet - in Migne’s Col. 214–215. Wed: Klebba Em. Die Anthropologie d. hi. Irenäus (S. 7–9, Anm.) and Beaven (P. 54–55): on the significance of Church Tradition in the judgment of the martyrdom of Irenaeus. Acta Sanctorum (Junius). P. 335–336. Ch. 35; Russian translation (SPb., 1847). P. 75. Ch. 2; Russian translation P. 108. De gloria martyrum. Cap. 50 (in Migne. PL. T. LXXI. Col. 752). Acta Sanctorum. P. 341–349. Massuet (y Mignée T. VII. Col. 216); author of the life in Acta Sanctorum (P 341–342); Mannucci (P. 12–13). Oxoniae, 1596; see: Stieren. Encyclop. Ersch'a. S. 365. Cf. See also: Encyclopaedia Britanica. Vol. XIII. P. 273, etc.